# ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking & Discussion Thread



## nick name

Ooooh I can't wait until I have something useful to contribute to this thread.


----------



## Hale59

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO (Wi-Fi) Review

*http://www.theoverclocker.com/rog-crosshair-viii-hero-wi-fi-review/*


----------



## pantsoftime

So far so good with the formula and 3900X. The 0702 BIOS version is stable and boost clocks seem to be working correctly (based on HWINFO64). I've had luck running B-Die at tight timings with lower voltage (3400CL14 1.375V) or higher frequencies (up to 3600/CL16 so far). Far more stable of a first day than the C6H was.

The chipset fan is inaudible, though I do wish they had found a way to tie it into the VRM water loop. The integrated M.2 heatsink is a nice touch. 

There is no utility for the Livedash yet but the default functionality is useful - POST codes at boot and CPU temp after boot. There is also no mention of it in the manual.

It took some trial and error to identify which USB ports were functional at POST. 

I wish there were a few more extras in the box for such a premium price point. The antenna is not magnetic like older Asus boards. The included documentation, stickers, etc were all warped like they were in a high moisture environment and the protective plastic seemed dirty. 

I played with the automatic overclocking in the Asus utility and it didn't really seem to work. It picked 4.15GHz for all cores as well as 1 core. I don't think the single core modes are functional yet (the manual interface didn't give any control either).


----------



## MacG32

nick name said:


> Ooooh I can't wait until I have something useful to contribute to this thread.



I'm looking forward to it. It'll be nice when the thread picks up and owners have a place to share overclocks, thoughts, and ideas.



Hale59 said:


> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO (Wi-Fi) Review
> 
> http://www.theoverclocker.com/rog-crosshair-viii-hero-wi-fi-review/



Thank you. First post updated. +Rep



pantsoftime said:


> So far so good with the formula and 3900X. The 0702 BIOS version is stable and boost clocks seem to be working correctly (based on HWINFO64). I've had luck running B-Die at tight timings with lower voltage (3400CL14 1.375V) or higher frequencies (up to 3600/CL16 so far). Far more stable of a first day than the C6H was.
> 
> The chipset fan is inaudible, though I do wish they had found a way to tie it into the VRM water loop. The integrated M.2 heatsink is a nice touch.
> 
> There is no utility for the Livedash yet but the default functionality is useful - POST codes at boot and CPU temp after boot. There is also no mention of it in the manual.
> 
> It took some trial and error to identify which USB ports were functional at POST.
> 
> I wish there were a few more extras in the box for such a premium price point. The antenna is not magnetic like older Asus boards. The included documentation, stickers, etc were all warped like they were in a high moisture environment and the protective plastic seemed dirty.
> 
> I played with the automatic overclocking in the Asus utility and it didn't really seem to work. It picked 4.15GHz for all cores as well as 1 core. I don't think the single core modes are functional yet (the manual interface didn't give any control either).



I appreciate your input. It'll be nice to see what you can get out of it. Are you watercooling? How are the VRM temps under full load?


----------



## mito1172

pantsoftime said:


> So far so good with the formula and 3900X. The 0702 BIOS version is stable and boost clocks seem to be working correctly (based on HWINFO64). I've had luck running B-Die at tight timings with lower voltage (3400CL14 1.375V) or higher frequencies (up to 3600/CL16 so far). Far more stable of a first day than the C6H was.
> 
> The chipset fan is inaudible, though I do wish they had found a way to tie it into the VRM water loop. The integrated M.2 heatsink is a nice touch.
> 
> There is no utility for the Livedash yet but the default functionality is useful - POST codes at boot and CPU temp after boot. There is also no mention of it in the manual.
> 
> It took some trial and error to identify which USB ports were functional at POST.
> 
> I wish there were a few more extras in the box for such a premium price point. The antenna is not magnetic like older Asus boards. The included documentation, stickers, etc were all warped like they were in a high moisture environment and the protective plastic seemed dirty.
> 
> I played with the automatic overclocking in the Asus utility and it didn't really seem to work. It picked 4.15GHz for all cores as well as 1 core. I don't think the single core modes are functional yet (the manual interface didn't give any control either).


Please a picture when the system is running


----------



## pantsoftime

MacG32 said:


> I appreciate your input. It'll be nice to see what you can get out of it. Are you watercooling? How are the VRM temps under full load?


Currently I'm on a benchtop setup with the stock cooler and an old video card (GTX780) just to try out the platform. I wanted to make sure it was stable before I rip apart my main rig and tie in the water loop. Given these cooling limitations I can't really provide useful comments on VRM temps. 

I have some fresh tubing, fittings, and a new AM4 waterblock ready to go once I'm ready to install into my main rig which I probably won't get to for a couple more days.


----------



## Kernel-Debugger

I was able to secure a Non-Wifi Hero from Amazon before they went out of stock. Ready for Round 3!


----------



## chowbaby

pantsoftime said:


> So far so good with the formula and 3900X. The 0702 BIOS version is stable and boost clocks seem to be working correctly (based on HWINFO64). I've had luck running B-Die at tight timings with lower voltage (3400CL14 1.375V) or higher frequencies (up to 3600/CL16 so far). Far more stable of a first day than the C6H was.
> 
> *The chipset fan is inaudible, though I do wish they had found a way to tie it into the VRM water loop. The integrated M.2 heatsink is a nice touch. *
> 
> There is no utility for the Livedash yet but the default functionality is useful - POST codes at boot and CPU temp after boot. There is also no mention of it in the manual.
> 
> It took some trial and error to identify which USB ports were functional at POST.
> 
> I wish there were a few more extras in the box for such a premium price point. The antenna is not magnetic like older Asus boards. The included documentation, stickers, etc were all warped like they were in a high moisture environment and the protective plastic seemed dirty.
> 
> I played with the automatic overclocking in the Asus utility and it didn't really seem to work. It picked 4.15GHz for all cores as well as 1 core. I don't think the single core modes are functional yet (the manual interface didn't give any control either).


Are you able to adjust the chipset fan speed in the bios or any of the utilities? What RPM is it running at?


----------



## MacG32

pantsoftime said:


> Currently I'm on a benchtop setup with the stock cooler and an old video card (GTX780) just to try out the platform. I wanted to make sure it was stable before I rip apart my main rig and tie in the water loop. Given these cooling limitations I can't really provide useful comments on VRM temps.
> 
> I have some fresh tubing, fittings, and a new AM4 waterblock ready to go once I'm ready to install into my main rig which I probably won't get to for a couple more days.



It would be nice to see some pictures after it's all set up. Sounds like a total beast.



Kernel-Debugger said:


> I was able to secure a Non-Wifi Hero from Amazon before they went out of stock. Ready for Round 3!



Welcome! It'll be good to hear your input once you get it all set up and running.


----------



## FlanK3r

Extreme overlcocking Guide (LN2): *https://community.hwbot.org/topic/190114-rog-crosshair-viii-ln2-oc-guide/?_fromLogout=1&fbclid=IwAR16LfchiNvQwY6Znds021RTEONuZepQtZ9EdO4mAZQqHqXsIHSIkwoqdu*A


----------



## Reous

Does someone already have an CH8 Hero (Wifi)? Can they please check if you can adjust the Chipset Fan speed with the newest bios?


----------



## phillyman36

Is there a new bios version for the CH8 Hero Wifi? What version is it? All i see on the Asus website is ver 0702. Isnt that the version the board come with?


----------



## Reous

Yeah sorry i was not clear enough. The reviews i have seen have used an older/another bios and there wasn't a setting to change the chipset fan speed. But when i check the 0702 with amibcp i can seen a setting now to change the speed. Would be nice if someone confirm now this option is available.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Just ordered my Crosshair VIII Formula and 3900x today, should be here Thursday.
First AMD build in over a decade, last was a 939 build...lol


----------



## Nighthog

No one interested in the ASUS Pro WS X570-ACE?

It basically has the same VRM as the Crosshair's but at much less cost. It felt much more interesting than the consumer stuff without the bling. I hope it's not completely neutered in BIOS department. (made a purchase and waiting for delivery)


----------



## FlanK3r

I have newer BIOS for C8H Wifi - 7702 BIOS: *https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PlaBx5stqD5hZy0jTmtY9NtCooMGSpyj/view?usp=sharing*


----------



## Haelous

Nighthog said:


> No one interested in the ASUS Pro WS X570-ACE?
> 
> It basically has the same VRM as the Crosshair's but at much less cost. It felt much more interesting than the consumer stuff without the bling. I hope it's not completely neutered in BIOS department. (made a purchase and waiting for delivery)


In the US this board is $380, the same price as the Crosshair VIII Wi-Fi. Maybe it will be more popular in the EU if pricing is different, but it will probably go ignored in NA.


----------



## Nighthog

Haelous said:


> In the US this board is $380, the same price as the Crosshair VIII Wi-Fi. Maybe it will be more popular in the EU if pricing is different, but it will probably go ignored in NA.


It was the same price as the "Gigabyte X570 Pro/ROG Strix X570-F Gaming" with a daily discount price. though prices here are quite a bit higher than US. The Crosshair is like 100-120$+ more than this board.

I was considering the Aorus Pro but something felt like the ACE was the better board in direct comparison.


----------



## MacG32

FlanK3r said:


> Extreme overlcocking Guide (LN2): https://community.hwbot.org/topic/1...6Znds021RTEONuZepQtZ9EdO4mAZQqHqXsIHSIkwoqduA



Thank you! I hope someone will get use out of this guide. +Rep



schoolofmonkey said:


> Just ordered my Crosshair VIII Formula and 3900x today, should be here Thursday.
> First AMD build in over a decade, last was a 939 build...lol



Welcome! We'll be looking forward to your contributions.



Nighthog said:


> No one interested in the ASUS Pro WS X570-ACE?
> 
> It basically has the same VRM as the Crosshair's but at much less cost. It felt much more interesting than the consumer stuff without the bling. I hope it's not completely neutered in BIOS department. (made a purchase and waiting for delivery)



This would be the wrong thread for the ACE, but your welcome to share your experiences here. 



FlanK3r said:


> I have newer BIOS for C8H Wifi - 7702 BIOS: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PlaBx5stqD5hZy0jTmtY9NtCooMGSpyj/view?usp=sharing



0702 has been available since the 5th. Is this a newer or modded version?


----------



## Hale59

ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Formula
*https://www.anandtech.com/show/14161/the-amd-x570-motherboard-overview/12*

ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Hero WIFI
*https://www.anandtech.com/show/14161/the-amd-x570-motherboard-overview/13*

ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Impact
*https://www.anandtech.com/show/14161/the-amd-x570-motherboard-overview/14*


----------



## MacG32

Hale59 said:


> ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Formula
> https://www.anandtech.com/show/14161/the-amd-x570-motherboard-overview/12
> 
> ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Hero WIFI
> https://www.anandtech.com/show/14161/the-amd-x570-motherboard-overview/13
> 
> ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Impact
> https://www.anandtech.com/show/14161/the-amd-x570-motherboard-overview/14



Thank you! First post updated. +Rep


----------



## chowbaby

Reous said:


> Yeah sorry i was not clear enough. The reviews i have seen have used an older/another bios and there wasn't a setting to change the chipset fan speed. But when i check the 0702 with amibcp i can seen a setting now to change the speed. *Would be nice if someone confirm now this option is available.*


I'd also like to know if there is a zero fan RPM mode.


----------



## pantsoftime

chowbaby said:


> I'd also like to know if there is a zero fan RPM mode.


From what I can tell the PCH fan runs at 2500rpm - 2700rpm most of the time. There is no zero fan RPM mode in the current 0702 BIOS. The chipset seems to run about 60 degrees with 25 ambient. The PCH fan noise is not noticeable unless i put my ear about 3 inches away from it.


----------



## wisepds

Hi guys, another with Crosshair VIII Wifi and 3900x. I come from Crosshair VII and 2700X. This week i'll build my new PC.. Reading all post!


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

On opening day I grabbed a 3900x and ASUS C8H. Glad to be joining you guys.


----------



## rdr09

pantsoftime said:


> From what I can tell the PCH fan runs at 2500rpm - 2700rpm most of the time. There is no zero fan RPM mode in the current 0702 BIOS. The chipset seems to run about 60 degrees with 25 ambient. The PCH fan noise is not noticeable unless i put my ear about 3 inches away from it.


I read that the MSI X570 Creation has a setting in BIOS to set the fan curve for the chipset fan.


----------



## Jackalito

Waiting for my new CH8 and 3700X to arrive; it may take a few weeks unfortunately due to very limited stock here in Spain.


For those of you still waiting or with the new hardware already, just remember to keep HWInfo up to date. Latest beta as of time of writing this is v6.09.3850 with the following changelog:



*Enhanced sensor monitoring on ASUS CROSSHAIR VIII series.*
*Added monitoring of AMD X570 chipset temperature.*
Enhanced sensor monitoring on ASUS PRIME X570 and TUF X570 series.
Enhanced sensor monitoring on ASUS Pro WS X570-ACE.
Added NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER, 2070 SUPER and 2080 SUPER.
Added monitoring of Infineon XDPE10281 on GPU (Galax RTX 2080 Ti HOF).
Cheers, guys!


----------



## MacG32

wisepds said:


> Hi guys, another with Crosshair VIII Wifi and 3900x. I come from Crosshair VII and 2700X. This week i'll build my new PC.. Reading all post!



Welcome aboard! I'm looking forward to some build pictures. 



SlimJ87D said:


> On opening day I grabbed a 3900x and ASUS C8H. Glad to be joining you guys.



Thank you very much for the awesome pictures! It'll be nice to hear your experiences.



Jackalito said:


> Waiting for my new CH8 and 3700X to arrive; it may take a few weeks unfortunately due to very limited stock here in Spain.
> 
> 
> For those of you still waiting or with the new hardware already, just remember to keep HWInfo up to date. Latest beta as of time of writing this is v6.09.3850 with the following changelog:
> 
> 
> 
> *Enhanced sensor monitoring on ASUS CROSSHAIR VIII series.*
> *Added monitoring of AMD X570 chipset temperature.*
> Enhanced sensor monitoring on ASUS PRIME X570 and TUF X570 series.
> Enhanced sensor monitoring on ASUS Pro WS X570-ACE.
> Added NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER, 2070 SUPER and 2080 SUPER.
> Added monitoring of Infineon XDPE10281 on GPU (Galax RTX 2080 Ti HOF).
> Cheers, guys!



Thank you for updating us! Welcome and +Rep. :thumb:


----------



## Hale59

Don't know if this info should be shared here:

Memory FCLK/MCLK on a Crosshair VIII Formula
*https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-amd-general/1728878-ryzen-3000-memory-fabric-x370-x470-x570-5.html#post28034834*


----------



## MacG32

Hale59 said:


> Don't know if this info should be shared here:
> 
> Memory FCLK/MCLK on a Crosshair VIII Formula
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...ory-fabric-x370-x470-x570-5.html#post28034834



Updated the first post. Thank you! +Rep


Also added "VRM on the new AM4 motherboards" for your viewing pleasure. :thumb:


----------



## bigblueshock

What's the deal with Ryzen 9 not officially being supported on Asus X570 boards? That blows my mind. 

I mean, it's most likely a typo, but I saw someone post on a reddit trying to get support from Asus on a Ryzen 9, and support was denied due to compatibility.

*https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/ROG-Crosshair-VIII-Hero/HelpDesk_CPU/*


----------



## MacG32

bigblueshock said:


> What's the deal with Ryzen 9 not officially being supported on Asus X570 boards? That blows my mind.
> 
> I mean, it's most likely a typo, but I saw someone post on a reddit trying to get support from Asus on a Ryzen 9, and support was denied due to compatibility.
> 
> https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/ROG-Crosshair-VIII-Hero/HelpDesk_CPU/



We're not here for shock and awe or Reddit garbage. Ryzen 9 is supported. Depending on the level of support and which channel the user tried determines the actual support. When you politely ask to be directed to a supervisor or manager, normally they are tech savvy enough to understand what processors the BIOS actually supports. Since these are newly released boards, the website links don't fully list anything correctly yet. You can see that from the direct links in the first post. Some information and links are even missing. They'll be updated, eventually...


----------



## LancerVI

3900x back in stock at *Newegg.com* Just snagged one.






Are you a human?







www.newegg.com





*https://www.nowinstock.net/computers/processors/amd/*

Getting my ROG CFVIII today and should have the proc by Friday.


----------



## MacG32

LancerVI said:


> 3900x back in stock at Newegg.com Just snagged one.
> 
> https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-9-3...82E16819113103
> 
> https://www.nowinstock.net/computers/processors/amd/



Thank you very much! I just got mine ordered as well. Tracker added to the first post. +Rep Welcome!


----------



## bigblueshock

MacG32 said:


> We're not here for shock and awe or Reddit garbage. Ryzen 9 is supported. Depending on the level of support and which channel the user tried determines the actual support. When you politely ask to be directed to a supervisor or manager, normally they are tech savvy enough to understand what processors the BIOS actually supports. Since these are newly released boards, the website links don't fully list anything correctly yet. You can see that from the direct links in the first post. Some information and links are even missing. They'll be updated, eventually...


That's what I figured. I'm sure the furthest they've gotten was some sort of Level 1 tech who only goes by the manual.

I'm anxiously waiting to get my hands on the VIII Hero. Right now I'm running an i7 4930k + Sabertooth X79. Considering I've never had an issue with my Asus board in the 8 years I've owned it and still going strong, I'd like to stick with Asus. My local Microcenter doesn't have the Crosshair in stock, but they do have the Gigabyte Master. Figure I'd just wait for Crosshair rather than kicking myself later.

I'm also interested in the OptiMem III and looking forward to future reviews on any and all benefits that will give.


----------



## MacG32

bigblueshock said:


> That's what I figured. I'm sure the furthest they've gotten was some sort of Level 1 tech who only goes by the manual.
> 
> I'm anxiously waiting to get my hands on the VIII Hero. Right now I'm running an i7 4930k + Sabertooth X79. Considering I've never had an issue with my Asus board in the 8 years I've owned it and still going strong, I'd like to stick with Asus. My local Microcenter doesn't have the Crosshair in stock, but they do have the Gigabyte Master. Figure I'd just wait for Crosshair rather than kicking myself later.
> 
> I'm also interested in the OptiMem III and looking forward to future reviews on any and all benefits that will give.



Hopefully you'll be able to get your hands on one very soon. Newegg has a short backorder on those. Good luck and welcome!


----------



## Jackalito

Just come across a post on Reddit by Robert Hallock speaking about safe voltages and AMD Power Plan for Windows making a comeback exclusively for Ryzen 3000 series. I think it will be useful:




> No, the 3900X is not being overvolted. The onboard firmware in the CPU controls that, *not* the power plan. What the power plans _do_ change, however, is whether or not the CPU downclocks at idle or jumps straight to power-gated sleep (cc6 power state).
> The out-of-box plans set a min CPU clock of 10%, so the CPU will downclock before going to sleep. Voltage will follow.
> Our plans set a min CPU clock of 90%, and then instruct the core to go straight to sleep if not in use. Windows is unable to probe the behavior of the core when it's sleeping, so voltage will not appear to follow.
> I highly recommend watching the real behavior of the core(s) in Ryzen Master. It presents sleep and voltage information that no other tool on the planet can show you.
> *//EDIT:* For example, here's a Ryzen 5 3600 with cores running into the 300MHz range. Voltage is sub-1V. And here's a Ryzen 9 3950X (hue hue hue) with all but 2 cores totally asleep. No other tool would be able to show you this level of detail.
> *//EDIT #2:* Because I have not seen it anywhere, the Ryzen Balanced plans have made a comeback specifically and only for 3rd Gen Ryzen CPUs as of chipset driver 1.07.07. These plans optimize the behavior of CPPC2 to get the 1-2ms clock selection we discussed with the media. Any other Ryzen user doesn't need a plan anymore.
> *//EDIT #3 (7/10/2019 @ 13:49 UTC):* One other point I forget to mention about idle cores (as I know people will be checking on this comment for months to come) is the reporting role our onboard firmware plays in what tools read out. Presently, the behavior of the firmware is to report the voltage the cores are _prepared_ to jump to if the processor exits idle and goes to boost. A boost voltage of 1.4-1.5V is consistent with what we've previously discussed for other Ryzen parts, so that aligns with what y'all are seeing with the idle chip. Behind the scenes, the processor is self-modulating to much lower voltages as you would expect an idle CPU to do. The firmware is not reporting the current voltage of the core until the core is *awake and loaded*, which is why the voltage appears to go _down_ under load. This further extends the commentary that what you're seeing from Windows and tools is not always what's really going on.



Link to source: *https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cbbfce/3900x_being_overvolted_on_amd_ryzen_power_plans/etefuer/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x*


----------



## MacG32

Jackalito said:


> Just come across a post on Reddit by Robert Hallock speaking about safe voltages and AMD Power Plan for Windows making a comeback exclusively for Ryzen 3000 series. I think it will be useful:
> 
> Link to source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/commen...ns/etefuer/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x



That information is very similar to what was being said around the time of previous Ryzen launches. Not all utilities are created equally. Since Ryzen Master is from AMD, it will report a little bit differently than say HWiNFO. This is my guess. Previous Ryzen users seem to already understand what's been explained in this post, but it's very good for the new users. Thank you for posting it! +Rep


----------



## MacG32

Looky what came in today! :drool:


----------



## superpapu

I want to understand something, why is necessary this mother when is not possible to make any oc? 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## MacG32

superpapu said:


> I want to understand something, why is necessary this mother when is not possible to make any oc?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



There's not a lot of headroom to overclock, but it is possible. Once reviews start showing up, you'll be able to see what kind of overclocks people are getting. Why buy a sports car when the speed limit is 65? 🤔 The Hero is labeled as a Gaming Motherboard, but you can also overclock the processor and memory. *Silicon Lottery* will have processors up for sale with specific overclocks. You can check there on or after the 17th to see what kind of overclocks the 3000 series has. :thumb:


----------



## superpapu

MacG32 said:


> There's not a lot of headroom to overclock, but it is possible. Once reviews start showing up, you'll be able to see what kind of overclocks people are getting. Why buy a sports car when the speed limit is 65? :thinking: The Hero is labeled as a Gaming Motherboard, but you can also overclock the processor and memory. Silicon Lottery will have processors up for sale with specific overclocks. You can check there on or after the 17th to see what kind of overclocks the 3000 series has. :thumb:




I understand your point. I just ask because all reviews shows that the oc is almost 0. And the benefits to have a 4.3 all cores for the 3900x is not much.

Pd: I live in Germany i can drive at 300km/h [emoji16]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Are you guys finding this with the voltages?

*https://youtu.be/Ssuqhyqah2k?t=240*


----------



## bigblueshock

MacG32 said:


> Looky what came in today! :drool:


Congrats!! I'm jealous, haha. I've taken a screenshot of part of manual FYI. This is the optimal config for dual channel memory. 

Memory Configuration for Optimal Performance in Dual Channel Mode: DIMM Slots A2 and B2. Not A1 and B1.


----------



## LancerVI

MacG32 said:


> Looky what came in today! 🤤


Awesome! I got mine yesterday as well. Now if only my 3900x shows up. Should be here on Friday!!! As a bonus, I also picked up Creative SoundBlaster Ae-9 flagship *https://us.creative.com/p/sound-blaster/sound-blaster-ae-9*. Can't wait!!!


----------



## kot0005

got a 3900x in my Crosshair 8

I turned on precision overboost

CPU is running at 4400+ Mhz and pulling 1.480v. while on desktop and no workloads is this normal ? using 0702 bios


----------



## schoolofmonkey

kot0005 said:


> got a 3900x in my Crosshair 8
> 
> I turned on precision overboost
> 
> CPU is running at 4400+ Mhz and pulling 1.480v. while on desktop and no workloads is this normal ? using 0702 bios


What are you using to monitor voltages etc?

This was posted over on reddit by u/AMD_Robert.
*https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cbls9g/the_final_word_on_idle_voltages_for_3rd_gen_ryzen/*


----------



## Synoxia

Did anyone try the BCLK oc yet like we did on x370 and x470 motherboard? Why reviewers even bother with manual OC? It's since gen 2 zen that it's not worth anymore


----------



## Silent Scone

schoolofmonkey said:


> Are you guys finding this with the voltages?
> 
> https://youtu.be/Ssuqhyqah2k?t=240


Looks like he may have enabled the LN2 switch by accident.


----------



## kot0005

schoolofmonkey said:


> What are you using to monitor voltages etc?
> 
> This was posted over on reddit by u/AMD_Robert.
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cbls9g/the_final_word_on_idle_voltages_for_3rd_gen_ryzen/


HWInfo , the BIOS and CPUZ all of em had 1.480 v. I turned down my voltages after watching Jay's video. thank god. Asus, that's f'd up..


----------



## kot0005

Silent Scone said:


> Looks like he may have enabled the LN2 switch by accident.



Nop, my BIOS on Crosshair 8 have similar voltages


----------



## MacG32

superpapu said:


> I understand your point. I just ask because all reviews shows that the oc is almost 0. And the benefits to have a 4.3 all cores for the 3900x is not much.
> 
> Pd: I live in Germany i can drive at 300km/h [emoji16]
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I understand it's not much, but 4.35 would bring it up to what it's actually programmed to boost to. There was/is a mistake in the latest BIOS pertaining to the 3900X and it's been fixed, but may not be released yet. Reviewers were updated with this BIOS recently, so it will be a little bit before the reviews start coming in. I lived in Germany for 12 years and quite liked the unlimited speed limits outside of towns. 



schoolofmonkey said:


> Are you guys finding this with the voltages?



Read the first paragraph of *this post by The Stilt*. It explains a lot about the current states of the BIOS for this board. :cheers:



bigblueshock said:


> Congrats!! I'm jealous, haha. I've taken a screenshot of part of manual FYI. This is the optimal config for dual channel memory.
> 
> Memory Configuration for Optimal Performance in Dual Channel Mode: DIMM Slots A2 and B2. Not A1 and B1.



Thank you very much! Didn't you order one or are ordering one soon? Thank you for clarifying that. :thumb:



LancerVI said:


> Awesome! I got mine yesterday as well. Now if only my 3900x shows up. Should be here on Friday!!! As a bonus, I also picked up Creative SoundBlaster Ae-9 flagship Sound Blaster AE-9. Can't wait!!!



I'm excited for you! Sounds like you're going to have some serious sounds coming from yours. 



kot0005 said:


> got a 3900x in my Crosshair 8
> 
> I turned on precision overboost
> 
> CPU is running at 4400+ Mhz and pulling 1.480v. while on desktop and no workloads is this normal ? using 0702 bios



You may need to look at the settings after turning on Precision Boost Overdrive and adjusting them slightly to lower your core voltage a bit. I think 1.45V is the max for the 3900X. A new BIOS should be out soon to fix a few problems seen in this initial release version. In the meantime, you'll have to manually dial in some settings. :typer:



Synoxia said:


> Did anyone try the BCLK oc yet like we did on x370 and x470 motherboard? Why reviewers even bother with manual OC? It's since gen 2 zen that it's not worth anymore



Here's a post from The Stilt about BCLK overclocking. I'm not saying don't try it, but the outcome may not be optimal. I'm sure we'll eventually see something posted here about it.


----------



## usoldier

Can i use a 2700X on CH8 while i wait for the 3950X ?


----------



## MacG32

usoldier said:


> Can i use a 2700X on CH8 while i wait for the 3950X ?



You sure can. :yessir: Welcome!


----------



## MacG32

My processor came in today! :drool:


----------



## dlbsyst

MacG32 said:


> My processor came in today! :drool:


:thumb:


----------



## LancerVI

MacG32 said:


> My processor came in today! :drool:


Awesome!!! Get to building!!!


----------



## LancerVI

*duplicate*


----------



## MacG32

dlbsyst said:


> :thumb:





LancerVI said:


> Awesome!!! Get to building!!!



The computer, she is built! :wheee:


----------



## Synoxia

usoldier said:


> Can i use a 2700X on CH8 while i wait for the 3950X ?


No, you can't. 3000 series is compatbile with all am4 motherboards but 1000 and 2000 are not compatible with 570 boatds


----------



## MacG32

Synoxia said:


> No, you can't. 3000 series is compatbile with all am4 motherboards but 1000 and 2000 are not compatible with 570 boatds



You sure can. See the attached CPU Support List for the C8H. :thumb:


----------



## LancerVI

Synoxia said:


> No, you can't. 3000 series is compatbile with all am4 motherboards but 1000 and 2000 are not compatible with 570 boatds


Did you miss all the coverage for this launch?


----------



## Jackalito

MacG32 said:


> The computer, she is built! :wheee:


Congrats! Isn't she a beauty? 
By the way, what's the model of that fan kit you got over the RAM sticks?


----------



## gupsterg

schoolofmonkey said:


> Are you guys finding this with the voltages?
> 
> https://youtu.be/Ssuqhyqah2k?t=240
> 
> 
> 
> Silent Scone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like he may have enabled the LN2 switch by accident.
Click to expand...

My take.

I have seen similar on C6H/C7H/ZE/ZEA. What Jay is not aware of is the UEFI is like a mini OS, Ryzen will boost and as the UEFI has limited monitoring capabilities (ie you can't see that some cores are low clock and single is boosting), end user thinks "OMG it's gone nuts!".

You can see with say a wall plug meter that watts whilst sat in UEFI is not the same as idle in OS, I can see circa ~120W sat in UEFI vs ~70W at idle in OS. You can also see the voltages as high as you see in the UEFI monitoring on digital multimeter when sat in UEFI.



MacG32 said:


> The computer, she is built! :wheee:


I see your back on team Ryzen  . Nice, enjoy :thumb: . New boards are for sure nerds wet dreams IMO  ...


----------



## FlanK3r

kot0005 said:


> Nop, my BIOS on Crosshair 8 have similar voltages


check if u have not "LN2 mode enable" in BIOS, it is visible in Extreme Tweaker menu in yellow color...Jayz had LN2 mode enabled, it was clearly see in one moment in video....


----------



## MacG32

Jackalito said:


> Congrats! Isn't she a beauty?
> By the way, what's the model of that fan kit you got over the RAM sticks?



Thank you! The motherboard is stunning. It's a G.Skill FTB-3500C5-D Turbulence II. 



gupsterg said:


> I see your back on team Ryzen  . Nice, enjoy :thumb: . New boards are for sure nerds wet dreams IMO  ...



I just couldn't stay away.  Thank you! I think I had to change my shorts...


----------



## dlbsyst

MacG32 said:


> The computer, she is built! :wheee:


Great job and nice build you have there MacG32.


----------



## MacG32

dlbsyst said:


> Great job and nice build you have there MacG32.



Thank you very much!


----------



## Jackalito

MacG32 said:


> Thank you! The motherboard is stunning. It's a G.Skill FTB-3500C5-D Turbulence II.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just couldn't stay away.  Thank you! I think I had to change my shorts...


Thank you, I got another fan kit from G.Skill (can't recall its name off the top of my head), but I never managed to install it properly - somehow it wouldn't stay clipped strongly enough.


----------



## MacG32

Jackalito said:


> Thank you, I got another fan kit from G.Skill (can't recall its name off the top of my head), but I never managed to install it properly - somehow it wouldn't stay clipped strongly enough.



You're welcome. That one hugs the lock in retainers for a tight fit. :cheers:


----------



## Jackalito

MacG32 said:


> You're welcome. That one hugs the lock in retainers for a tight fit. :cheers:


I see; I'll try and see if Amazon has stock in my country. Thanks again! :specool:


----------



## Reikoji

schoolofmonkey said:


> Are you guys finding this with the voltages?
> 
> https://youtu.be/Ssuqhyqah2k?t=240


I got quite different initial bios results than he.

Idle temp was 27c, Soc voltage was 1.080v. I had the same CPU voltage, but thats been normal to see on stock ryzens since... Gen 1 in bios. Can easily see 1.5v spikes at stock with zen 1.


BTW. I am owner of 3900x and Crosshair VIII Formula.


----------



## dlbsyst

Looks like Newegg has these in stock right now but sadly no processors available. I'm debating if I should go ahead and get the board now or wait.


----------



## MacG32

Reikoji said:


> I got quite different initial bios results than he.
> 
> Idle temp was 27c, Soc voltage was 1.080v. I had the same CPU voltage, but thats been normal to see on stock ryzens since... Gen 1 in bios. Can easily see 1.5v spikes at stock with zen 1.
> 
> 
> BTW. I am owner of 3900x and Crosshair VIII Formula.



Once I updated the BIOS, everything seems quite normal too. Welcome! 



dlbsyst said:


> Looks like Newegg has these in stock right now but sadly no processors available. I'm debating if I should go ahead and get the board now or wait.



I bought my motherboard first and then the processor a few days later. There's a stock tracker in the OP for processors. Welcome aboard! :thumb:


----------



## bigblueshock

MacG32 said:


> Thank you! The motherboard is stunning. It's a G.Skill FTB-3500C5-D Turbulence II.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just couldn't stay away.  Thank you! I think I had to change my shorts...



Mac,

Is this just a newer version of what you have? Gskill FTB-3500C5-DR Memory Fan Turbulence III 3500RPM, 8.60CFM https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00NAENYEM/

You got me wanting a fan now. And I didnt get my system yet. Im waiting for microcenter due to bundle discount, plus i opened a store card for an additional 5% off. I already got a set of g.skill 3600 cas 15 a few months back in anticipation for launch. They’re sitting lonely in a bag right now. Lol.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Reikoji said:


> I got quite different initial bios results than he.
> 
> Idle temp was 27c, Soc voltage was 1.080v. I had the same CPU voltage, but thats been normal to see on stock ryzens since... Gen 1 in bios. Can easily see 1.5v spikes at stock with zen 1.
> 
> 
> BTW. I am owner of 3900x and Crosshair VIII Formula.



I got my 3900x/x570 Formula setup yesterday, like you I got all the correct lower voltages other than the CPU, that was 1.425v, I set a -0.125 offset to bring the cpu voltage down a bit (1.356v in BIOS), systems seems to be running fine, on par with reviews, reading more 1.4v is about normal.
Coming from Intel it's quiet a shock to see CPU voltages that high.


----------



## usoldier

Hey guys i need to order 32gb ram kit for this motherboard whats Speed / Brand / specs, do you guys recomend ?


----------



## bigblueshock

usoldier said:


> Hey guys i need to order 32gb ram kit for this motherboard whats Speed / Brand / specs, do you guys recomend ?


Depending on your budget, for 32GB, I'd go with a set of 3200 Cas14 or 3600 cas 16. G.skill

You can search for some here https://benzhaomin.github.io/bdiefinder/


----------



## MacG32

bigblueshock said:


> Mac,
> 
> Is this just a newer version of what you have? Gskill FTB-3500C5-DR Memory Fan Turbulence III 3500RPM, 8.60CFM https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00NAENYEM/
> 
> You got me wanting a fan now. And I didnt get my system yet. Im waiting for microcenter due to bundle discount, plus i opened a store card for an additional 5% off. I already got a set of g.skill 3600 cas 15 a few months back in anticipation for launch. They’re sitting lonely in a bag right now. Lol.



That's the next iteration, but it has the same fans on it as the II model. Seems like you have some very good RAM there. :thumb:



usoldier said:


> Hey guys i need to order 32gb ram kit for this motherboard whats Speed / Brand / specs, do you guys recomend ?



I would recommend the new G.Skill Trident Z Neo 3600MHz 14-15-15-35 coming out soon. If I can't get my RAM to overclock to that, I will be getting those as well.


----------



## Gigabytes

At this point in time is there really a point in the expensive X570 motherboards? 

Seems after testing there is virtually no difference in performance between a Crosshair VII and Crosshair VIII with Ryzen 3000. Currently there are no GPU (even the new Radeon Gen4 PCIe) that can even max out a Gen3 PCIe. Seems the new Gen4 NVMe perform exactly the same on X470 and X570. Might explain why many retailers are not selling many Ryzen 3000 cpu by themselves and instead pushing bundles with X570, because at this point in time X570 gives virtually no benefit other then maybe USB 3.2.


----------



## MacG32

Gigabytes said:


> At this point in time is there really a point in the expensive X570 motherboards?
> 
> Seems after testing there is virtually no difference in performance between a Crosshair VII and Crosshair VIII with Ryzen 3000. Currently there are no GPU (even the new Radeon Gen4 PCIe) that can even max out a Gen3 PCIe. Seems the new Gen4 NVMe perform exactly the same on X470 and X570. Might explain why many retailers are not selling many Ryzen 3000 cpu by themselves and instead pushing bundles with X570, because at this point in time X570 gives virtually no benefit other then maybe USB 3.2.



So far, most people are buying 3900Xs and they're all sold out within minutes. There are only a hand full of devices capable of utilizing PCI-E 4.0. They are much faster, as tests have shown. Once graphics cards are beefed up to take advantage of this increased speed, the benefits will be there to have the next generation of motherboards. I'm sure you're not seeing the whole picture just yet and that's alright. People always want to keep their motherboards if they're still useful, so there may be no need to upgrade just yet. I'd rather try the cutting edge of technology to see how it unfolds right before my eyes. The benefits may be slow coming, but they're in the works right now, as the 3900X is set to dethrone anything Intel has to offer. PCI-E 4.0 devices are slowly coming out to take advantage of the doubled speed increase. To each their own and only time will tell. I'd much rather be where I'm at now then where I was at before upgrading. :cheers:


----------



## Gigabytes

MacG32 said:


> So far, most people are buying 3900Xs and they're all sold out within minutes. There are only a hand full of devices capable of using utilizing PCI-E 4.0. They are much faster, as tests have shown. Once graphics cards are beefed up to take advantage of this increased speed, the benefits will be there to have the next generation of motherboards. I'm sure you're not seeing the whole picture just yet and that's alright. People always want to keep their motherboards if they're still useful, so there may be no need to upgrade just yet. I'd rather try the cutting edge of technology to see how it unfolds right before my eyes. The benefits may be slow coming, but they're in the works right now, as the 3900X is set to dethrone anything Intel has to offer. PCI-E 4.0 devices are slowly coming out to take advantage of the doubled speed increase. To each their own and only time will tell. I'd much rather be where I'm at now then where I was at before upgrading. :cheers:


I am hoping AMD will start creating GPU using the infinity fabric, then we may start seeing GPU that can use pcie gen 4. OC3D tested the new Gen 4 NVMe on X470 and X570 Crosshair boards and they performed exactly the same, seems X570 is not needed for the Gen4 nvme.


----------



## MacG32

Gigabytes said:


> I am hoping AMD will start creating GPU using the infinity fabric, then we may start seeing GPU that can use pcie gen 4. OC3D tested the new Gen 4 NVMe on X470 and X570 Crosshair boards and they performed exactly the same, seems X570 is not needed for the Gen4 nvme.



I think you missed something there. Almost every single test they did shows the X570 is faster and better than it's X470 counterpart. You seem to be focused on or trying to prove a point that's not even there. Even with X570 being new, it's primarily built to be faster and better than anything that came before it. You seem to be losing me on what point(s) you're trying to make. Here's some testing on NVMe PCI-E 4.0. Like I've said, time will tell and I'm 100% sure the future holds PCI-E 4.0 devices a plenty. I'd rather already have a motherboard that's capable of the increased speeds, then wait around for things to happen and wait and see. The future is now. :thumb:


----------



## Kernel-Debugger

@MacG32: Are you going to be using the FlareX for the CH8 build?

Gskill has the Neo series up now: https://gskill.com/products/1/165/326/Trident-Z-Neo

I moved from the 3200Mhz FlareX to: https://gskill.com/product/165/167/1536719292/F4-3200C14Q-32GTZRXTrident-Z-RGB-(For-AMD)DDR4-3200MHz-CL14-14-14-34-1.35V32GB-(4x8GB)

I'll be working with the Non-Wifi model with thew 3800X, and then going to the 3950X once available. Very curious to find if there are tighter timings with Neo over Flare-X and RGB Trident series. All 3200 sets have the same stock timings with the 3600 Neo sets starting at: DDR4-3600MHz CL14-15-15-35 1.40V: https://gskill.com/product/165/326/1562839114/F4-3600C14Q-32GTZNTrident-Z-NeoDDR4-3600MHz-CL14-15-15-35-1.40V32GB-(4x8GB)

...hoping to see another bios export that you've been able to get stable like the CH7. I'm just waiting on my CPU to arrive.


----------



## MacG32

Kernel-Debugger said:


> @MacG32: Are you going to be using the FlareX for the CH8 build?
> 
> Gskill has the Neo series up now: https://gskill.com/products/1/165/326/Trident-Z-Neo
> 
> I moved from the 3200Mhz FlareX to: https://gskill.com/product/165/167/1536719292/F4-3200C14Q-32GTZRXTrident-Z-RGB-(For-AMD)DDR4-3200MHz-CL14-14-14-34-1.35V32GB-(4x8GB)
> 
> I'll be working with the Non-Wifi model with thew 3800X, and then going to the 3950X once available. Very curious to find if there are tighter timings with Neo over Flare-X and RGB Trident series. All 3200 sets have the same stock timings with the 3600 Neo sets starting at: DDR4-3600MHz CL14-15-15-35 1.40V: https://gskill.com/product/165/326/1562839114/F4-3600C14Q-32GTZNTrident-Z-NeoDDR4-3600MHz-CL14-15-15-35-1.40V32GB-(4x8GB)
> 
> ...hoping to see another bios export that you've been able to get stable like the CH7. I'm just waiting on my CPU to arrive.



Thank you for the link! +Rep I'm currently using the FlareX CL14 32GB kit right now. I haven't had the chance to overclock anything yet. I'm kind of waiting for the next BIOS release, as there are some needed fixes. It's in testing right now for public release. I think reviewers got a hold of it a few days ago. I've been looking for those reviews as well. The Neo kit you linked is the one I have my eye on, but I haven't seen a stateside release yet. I wish I could get a hold of all of the timings that Neo kit uses, so I can plug them in to this FlareX kit. Looks like you're almost set to rock 'n' roll.


----------



## OneCosmic

Does anybody know why is PBO overclocking not working? You can set whatever limits in Ryzen Master or BIOS you want but the CPU doesn't obey them. This sucks completely in my opinion if i want to tweak the CPU for higher than stock all core frequency and still retain higher clock for the best core. It's the first time i see such bull**** in the CPU world.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Ok so I've run into a oddity.
System is stable, not crashes, BSOD's and is on par with reviewers.
FPS is where it should be.

But I'm noticing in Even Viewer some WHEA warning, 1 was for the Samsung 970 Evo Pro when I had the Samsung driver install, roll back to the standard controller it stops, the other is for the RTX 2080ti, yet it's working perfectly, other one was for the onboard (yes onboard) Intel Nic and Bluetooth, turn them off in the BIOS it stops.
The other on I can't track down what it actually is.

Yet the system is working perfectly, could it be the AMD chipset drivers cause the WHEA Event viewer errors, like I said the system is working perfectly, I would never of knew if I didn't scroll down to the bottom of HwInfo..

I'm running a x570 ROG Crosshair VIII Formula.


----------



## chowbaby

MacG32 said:


> The computer, she is built! :wheee:


I asked this in the X570 Master vs Crosshair Hero VIII thread, but I'll ask here again since you have the 3900x and this, how are the VRM temperatures with the 3900x? Are they still under 50 degrees C?


----------



## Jackalito

schoolofmonkey said:


> Ok so I've run into a oddity.
> System is stable, not crashes, BSOD's and is on par with reviewers.
> FPS is where it should be.
> 
> But I'm noticing in Even Viewer some WHEA warning, 1 was for the Samsung 970 Evo Pro when I had the Samsung driver install, roll back to the standard controller it stops, the other is for the RTX 2080ti, yet it's working perfectly, other one was for the onboard (yes onboard) Intel Nic and Bluetooth, turn them off in the BIOS it stops.
> The other on I can't track down what it actually is.
> 
> Yet the system is working perfectly, could it be the AMD chipset drivers cause the WHEA Event viewer errors, like I said the system is working perfectly, I would never of knew if I didn't scroll down to the bottom of HwInfo..
> 
> I'm running a x570 ROG Crosshair VIII Formula.


I've seen this reported all over the Internet. It seems newer AGESA-based BIOS updates should fix those issues.


----------



## 00Asgaroth00

I have the 3900x and Crosshair VIII Formula on order, should hopefully arrive this week.
I have also ordered parts for a custom water cooling kit so that I can cool the VRM's on the Formula too (this is my first attempt at h2o cooling, wish me luck)


I am upgrading from a Threadripper 1920X on the Zenith Extreme board and will be bringing my Corsair Vengeance LPX 64GB kit (CMK64GX4M4B3333C16) over to this new board. I'm just wondering if I would have any chance of getting that memory up to the 3600MHz sweet spot mentioned in reviews. This memory is also dual rank memory.


I've not overclocked memory before, but willing to give it a shot.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Jackalito said:


> I've seen this reported all over the Internet. It seems newer AGESA-based BIOS updates should fix those issues.


Anyone see this before, I uninstall all the AURA software, now I have no motherboard RGB's at all.
I've done a BIOS flashback, clear CMOS nothing, they do turn on when the machine is powered off, just nothing when it starts up, all I did was uninstall software.
Reinstalling AURA it doesn't even see the motherboard anymore, only the Video card and G-Skill ram..

Now the AURA service won't start either.


----------



## MacG32

OneCosmic said:


> Does anybody know why is PBO overclocking not working? You can set whatever limits in Ryzen Master or BIOS you want but the CPU doesn't obey them. This sucks completely in my opinion if i want to tweak the CPU for higher than stock all core frequency and still retain higher clock for the best core. It's the first time i see such bull**** in the CPU world.



Is your BIOS up to date? Have you tried resetting to defaults and removing the battery for a little bit? Do you have all of the latest drivers installed? Try reinstalling them, especially the AMD Chipset Drivers. Reflash your BIOS? There could be countless problems involved. You could even have a bad BIOS. Who knows? You could also wait for the next BIOS to release soon.



schoolofmonkey said:


> Ok so I've run into a oddity.
> System is stable, not crashes, BSOD's and is on par with reviewers.
> FPS is where it should be.
> 
> But I'm noticing in Even Viewer some WHEA warning, 1 was for the Samsung 970 Evo Pro when I had the Samsung driver install, roll back to the standard controller it stops, the other is for the RTX 2080ti, yet it's working perfectly, other one was for the onboard (yes onboard) Intel Nic and Bluetooth, turn them off in the BIOS it stops.
> The other on I can't track down what it actually is.
> 
> Yet the system is working perfectly, could it be the AMD chipset drivers cause the WHEA Event viewer errors, like I said the system is working perfectly, I would never of knew if I didn't scroll down to the bottom of HwInfo..
> 
> I'm running a x570 ROG Crosshair VIII Formula.



I had the same problem and needed to update my BIOS. After the update, no more Windows Hardware Errors (WHEA).



chowbaby said:


> I asked this in the X570 Master vs Crosshair Hero VIII thread, but I'll ask here again since you have the 3900x and this, how are the VRM temperatures with the 3900x? Are they still under 50 degrees C?



I stress tested everything for a few hours and my VRM never went above 42 degrees.



00Asgaroth00 said:


> I have the 3900x and Crosshair VIII Formula on order, should hopefully arrive this week.
> I have also ordered parts for a custom water cooling kit so that I can cool the VRM's on the Formula too (this is my first attempt at h2o cooling, wish me luck)
> 
> I am upgrading from a Threadripper 1920X on the Zenith Extreme board and will be bringing my Corsair Vengeance LPX 64GB kit (CMK64GX4M4B3333C16) over to this new board. I'm just wondering if I would have any chance of getting that memory up to the 3600MHz sweet spot mentioned in reviews. This memory is also dual rank memory.
> 
> 
> I've not overclocked memory before, but willing to give it a shot.



Good luck and welcome aboard!

I was looking around, but couldn't find what chips your memory uses. The Samsung B-Die Chips overclock extremely well, but it's still possible to overclock your RAM. Here's the B-Die Finder. You may need to purchase different RAM. I would highly suggest G.Skill from the B-Die Finder. There's also new Neo RAM coming out soon that's listed in the 1st post.

There's a utility to input your RAM specifics in to and it will give you settings to plug in to your BIOS. It's the DRAM Calculator for Ryzen.



schoolofmonkey said:


> Anyone see this before, I uninstall all the AURA software, now I have no motherboard RGB's at all.
> I've done a BIOS flashback, clear CMOS nothing, they do turn on when the machine is powered off, just nothing when it starts up, all I did was uninstall software.
> Reinstalling AURA it doesn't even see the motherboard anymore, only the Video card and G-Skill ram..
> 
> Now the AURA service won't start either.



Did you update your BIOS? Are you running the latest AMD Chipset Drivers? When I first got my board, I stress tested it and got many WHEA. I realized the BIOS was out of date. I updated it, but also had to reinstall the AMD Chipset Drivers. Seems something was not picked up with the older BIOS. I also reinstalled the rest of the drivers, just to make sure everything was picked up correctly. I haven't had any problems since.


----------



## 00Asgaroth00

MacG32 said:


> Good luck and welcome aboard!
> 
> I was looking around, but couldn't find what chips your memory uses. The Samsung B-Die Chips overclock extremely well, but it's still possible to overclock your RAM. Here's the B-Die Finder. You may need to purchase different RAM. I would highly suggest G.Skill from the B-Die Finder. There's also new Neo RAM coming out soon that's listed in the 1st post.
> 
> There's a utility to input your RAM specifics in to and it will give you settings to plug in to your BIOS. It's the DRAM Calculator for Ryzen.



As far as I am aware, that kit is Samsung B-Die chips, I asked in the Corsair forums a while back (see here) while trying to get them working on the Zenith Extreme board.


When I have the system setup, I'll take a look at the links you provided and give it a go, thanks for the pointers.


----------



## phillyman36

So what is the most recent bios and chipset drivers? When your not use to Amd this is confusing lol. What I see is
Amd website has a revision # of 1.07.07.0725 released 7/7/2019
Asus website says AMD Chipset Driver V5.12.0.38(V19.10.16) for Windows 10 64


Im seeing other boards with new bios updates but not the Hero.

Also is anyone getting a connect/ disconnect sound when pc is on? Every once in a while i get a beep(same sound as when you connect a new device to a usb port) Device manager looks ok


----------



## MacG32

phillyman36 said:


> So what is the most recent bios and chipset drivers? When your not use to Amd this is confusing lol. What I see is
> Amd website has a revision # of 1.07.07.0725 released 7/7/2019
> Asus website says AMD Chipset Driver V5.12.0.38(V19.10.16) for Windows 10 64
> 
> 
> Im seeing other boards with new bios updates but not the Hero.
> 
> Also is anyone getting a connect/ disconnect sound when pc is on? Every once in a while i get a beep(same sound as when you connect a new device to a usb port) Device manager looks ok



The latest AMD Chipset Drivers are from AMD's website. The latest BIOS was released 9 days ago, 0702. You may need the updated or reinstall the latest drivers. You can find them on https://www.station-drivers.com/index.php or just use what's posted on Asus' website. :thumb:


----------



## schoolofmonkey

MacG32 said:


> Did you update your BIOS? Are you running the latest AMD Chipset Drivers? When I first got my board, I stress tested it and got many WHEA. I realized the BIOS was out of date. I updated it, but also had to reinstall the AMD Chipset Drivers. Seems something was not picked up with the older BIOS. I also reinstalled the rest of the drivers, just to make sure everything was picked up correctly. I haven't had any problems since.


BIOS is updated, WHEA errors are gone but RGB still isn't working when the machine starts up, when it's off I have the changing RGB but once I hit the power button they go out and nothing, Clr CMOS, BIOS Flashback with latest BIOS does nothing, can't even start AURA software, Event Viewer shows "The LightingService service terminated unexpectedly. It has done this 1 time(s)." and it just crashes everytime I open the app.

So I don't know if the Formula's RGB controller died, or what...


----------



## rv8000

schoolofmonkey said:


> Ok so I've run into a oddity.
> System is stable, not crashes, BSOD's and is on par with reviewers.
> FPS is where it should be.
> 
> But I'm noticing in Even Viewer some WHEA warning, 1 was for the Samsung 970 Evo Pro when I had the Samsung driver install, roll back to the standard controller it stops, the other is for the RTX 2080ti, yet it's working perfectly, other one was for the onboard (yes onboard) Intel Nic and Bluetooth, turn them off in the BIOS it stops.
> The other on I can't track down what it actually is.
> 
> Yet the system is working perfectly, could it be the AMD chipset drivers cause the WHEA Event viewer errors, like I said the system is working perfectly, I would never of knew if I didn't scroll down to the bottom of HwInfo..
> 
> I'm running a x570 ROG Crosshair VIII Formula.


I've seen countless errors like this on numerous stock and stable PC's, none of them actually show up as WHEA errors in HWinfo soo not sure what to say about that. I also wouldn't be too worried unless there are actually performance issues.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

rv8000 said:


> I've seen countless errors like this on numerous stock and stable PC's, none of them actually show up as WHEA errors in HWinfo soo not sure what to say about that. I also wouldn't be too worried unless there are actually performance issues.


I'm worried because my RGB seriously just died, I can't get the BIOS to controll what happens when the system is powered on, it only works for the settings when the system is powered orr or asleep.
Armory Crate doesn't even act like there is RGB, Aura just crashes and the Lighting Control service just doesn't start like in the screenshot I posted before.

I have done a BIOS Flashback, Clr CMOS, fresh Windows install, and nothing has changed.

I'm guessing it's a RMA, because there's nothing else left.


----------



## MacG32

schoolofmonkey said:


> I'm worried because my RGB seriously just died, I can't get the BIOS to controll what happens when the system is powered on, it only works for the settings when the system is powered orr or asleep.
> Armory Crate doesn't even act like there is RGB, Aura just crashes and the Lighting Control service just doesn't start like in the screenshot I posted before.
> 
> I have done a BIOS Flashback, Clr CMOS, fresh Windows install, and nothing has changed.
> 
> I'm guessing it's a RMA, because there's nothing else left.



Have you tried uninstalling all Asus software, running a registry cleaner, and reinstalling it again? Have you checked the power supply to make sure everything's plugged in and supplying adequate voltage? You could also try reflashing your BIOS, loading default settings, and then see what happens. Sorry you're having so many problems. I hope something fixes it, before you have to RMA it. Good luck.


----------



## The Sandman

schoolofmonkey said:


> I'm worried because my RGB seriously just died, I can't get the BIOS to controll what happens when the system is powered on, it only works for the settings when the system is powered orr or asleep.
> Armory Crate doesn't even act like there is RGB, Aura just crashes and the Lighting Control service just doesn't start like in the screenshot I posted before.
> 
> I have done a BIOS Flashback, Clr CMOS, fresh Windows install, and nothing has changed.
> 
> I'm guessing it's a RMA, because there's nothing else left.



By chance have you checked for bios setting being toggled off? My C6H looks like this, not sure what x570 has. Just a thought.


----------



## Kernel-Debugger

Other than having the XMP 3600 profile - I really don't see anything special on the Neo series; over the AMD specific Trident-Z RGB 3200 spec.
...that tRC is crazy high


----------



## MacG32

Kernel-Debugger said:


> Other than having the XMP 3600 profile - I really don't see anything special on the Neo series; over the AMD specific Trident-Z RGB 3200 spec.
> ...that tRC is crazy high



Looks like there are a few things wrong with that picture. The BIOS is not updated and the timings are wrong for the sticks. Once manufactures include the timings in their profiles, then we may see correct reviews on the memory. Reviewers should know the trick of getting the RAM timings by opening up AIDA64 and clicking on Motherboard | SPD. It lists the XMP Profile right there. Too easy to plug in the correct timings.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

The Sandman said:


> By chance have you checked for bios setting being toggled off? My C6H looks like this, not sure what x570 has. Just a thought.


I got it working again, it's the AMD Chipset Driver causing problems.

What I did was a clean Windows 10 install, but I disconnected the network so there's no auto driver install.
Then I installed the Nvidia display driver and the Aura software no other driver, rebooted motherboard RGB started working straight away.

Not to mention I'm getting no WHEA PCI errors in Event Viewer, so I selectively installed certain parts of the AMD chipset driver (Missing hardware drivers only), all seems to be working well.

Prior to that the clean Windows 10 install I did I installed the AMD Chipset first then the Aura software, that's where it would error out and the Lighting service refused to start.
Dead set even the BIOS couldn't control the motherboard's RGB.

Strange issue, but I'm glad it's working again.


----------



## phillyman36

schoolofmonkey said:


> I got it working again, it's the AMD Chipset Driver causing problems.
> 
> What I did was a clean Windows 10 install, but I disconnected the network so there's no auto driver install.
> Then I installed the Nvidia display driver and the Aura software no other driver, rebooted motherboard RGB started working straight away.
> 
> Not to mention I'm getting no WHEA PCI errors in Event Viewer, so I selectively installed certain parts of the AMD chipset driver (Missing hardware drivers only), all seems to be working well.
> 
> Prior to that the clean Windows 10 install I did I installed the AMD Chipset first then the Aura software, that's where it would error out and the Lighting service refused to start.
> Dead set even the BIOS couldn't control the motherboard's RGB.
> 
> Strange issue, but I'm glad it's working again.


I have the same problem as well. I don't want to do another clean install again so i'll wait and see if some kind of software update fixes it. Strange that when I use the chipset drivers from the AMD website every so often i hear a beep(like im plugging in something new and the pc recognizes it). When I use the chipset drivers from the Asus site i dont get the beep.


----------



## phillyman36

Ok weird I left my computer on and it went into sleep mode after about 45 minutes. Came back hit the keyboard to turn it on and the Aura light came on. Then went into the software and the lights cut off.


----------



## 1usmus

*I'm with you guys, there will be a lot of very interesting things *


----------



## schoolofmonkey

phillyman36 said:


> Ok weird I left my computer on and it went into sleep mode after about 45 minutes. Came back hit the keyboard to turn it on and the Aura light came on. Then went into the software and the lights cut off.


Yep, it has some quirk with the AMD Chipset drivers.
I'm sure things will get sorted in the end, but since I got it working, I haven't done anything else, I was glad when I saw the motherboards RGB turn back on after hours of mucking around.

I keep checking to see if it's all still working, I've open Aura about 10 times since I fixed it today..


----------



## wisepds

Today I received my 3900X and Crosshair VIII and I have everything ready to mount. I will do tests to see how everything goes.

Party hard!!!


----------



## Jackalito

schoolofmonkey said:


> I got it working again, it's the AMD Chipset Driver causing problems.
> 
> What I did was a clean Windows 10 install, but I disconnected the network so there's no auto driver install.
> Then I installed the Nvidia display driver and the Aura software no other driver, rebooted motherboard RGB started working straight away.
> 
> Not to mention I'm getting no WHEA PCI errors in Event Viewer, so I selectively installed certain parts of the AMD chipset driver (Missing hardware drivers only), all seems to be working well.
> 
> Prior to that the clean Windows 10 install I did I installed the AMD Chipset first then the Aura software, that's where it would error out and the Lighting service refused to start.
> Dead set even the BIOS couldn't control the motherboard's RGB.
> 
> Strange issue, but I'm glad it's working again.


Do you remember which drivers did you exactly install and which ones did you rule out? 

Thanks for sharing, as this is great information to keep in mind. 
+Rep


----------



## MacG32

schoolofmonkey said:


> I got it working again, it's the AMD Chipset Driver causing problems.
> 
> What I did was a clean Windows 10 install, but I disconnected the network so there's no auto driver install.
> Then I installed the Nvidia display driver and the Aura software no other driver, rebooted motherboard RGB started working straight away.
> 
> Not to mention I'm getting no WHEA PCI errors in Event Viewer, so I selectively installed certain parts of the AMD chipset driver (Missing hardware drivers only), all seems to be working well.
> 
> Prior to that the clean Windows 10 install I did I installed the AMD Chipset first then the Aura software, that's where it would error out and the Lighting service refused to start.
> Dead set even the BIOS couldn't control the motherboard's RGB.
> 
> Strange issue, but I'm glad it's working again.



I'm glad you've got it worked out. 



phillyman36 said:


> I have the same problem as well. I don't want to do another clean install again so i'll wait and see if some kind of software update fixes it. Strange that when I use the chipset drivers from the AMD website every so often i hear a beep(like im plugging in something new and the pc recognizes it). When I use the chipset drivers from the Asus site i dont get the beep.





phillyman36 said:


> Ok weird I left my computer on and it went into sleep mode after about 45 minutes. Came back hit the keyboard to turn it on and the Aura light came on. Then went into the software and the lights cut off.



Check your power profile. You seem to have USB selective suspend setting Enabled. It's listed under Right Click Start | Power Options | Additional power settings | Change plan settings | Change advanced power settings | USB settings | USB selective suspend setting | You want to select Disabled.



1usmus said:


> *I'm with you guys, there will be a lot of very interesting things *



Welcome aboard! :thumb:



wisepds said:


> Today I received my 3900X and Crosshair VIII and I have everything ready to mount. I will do tests to see how everything goes.
> 
> Party hard!!!



Rock on!!!


----------



## wisepds

Here are my new toys!!!
All inside a Corsair 1000D case!







[/url]


----------



## phillyman36

@MacG32 Thanks will try it out.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

What RAM are you guys all rocking?


----------



## Keith Myers

Nighthog said:


> No one interested in the ASUS Pro WS X570-ACE?
> 
> It basically has the same VRM as the Crosshair's but at much less cost. It felt much more interesting than the consumer stuff without the bling. I hope it's not completely neutered in BIOS department. (made a purchase and waiting for delivery)


I am. As I find that board more appealing since it has a workstation design without all the bling which I find offensive. It does allow you to run the bottom PCIe slot at X8 also when you don't populate every M.2 position. Good mobo for distributed computing with 3 gpus.


----------



## wisepds

SlimJ87D said:


> What RAM are you guys all rocking?


Gskill Trident Z, 32 Gb, 8gb x4 CL 15 3600Mhz


----------



## schoolofmonkey

SlimJ87D said:


> What RAM are you guys all rocking?


G-Skill Trident Z 32GB 2x16Gb 3200 16-18-18-38
Haven't done any ram overclocking yet.


----------



## Nighthog

Keith Myers said:


> I am. As I find that board more appealing since it has a workstation design without all the bling which I find offensive. It does allow you to run the bottom PCIe slot at X8 also when you don't populate every M.2 position. Good mobo for distributed computing with 3 gpus.


Sadly I have to report I had to make another choice as the place I ordered from were never going to deliver on any reasonable time it seems. 1-3weeks at least on the board and no word at all on the cpu when they would be getting it. 
I had a great price on the board but will be cancelling and have already made a new purchase from in-stock parts from a another vendor. 

I will be getting Gigabyte board in the end after all.(going with my first choice even with that exorbitant pricing till this delivery issue on the ASUS) 
I don't want to wait my whole summer vacation for parts never arriving.


----------



## MacG32

wisepds said:


> Here are my new toys!!!
> All inside a Corsair 1000D case!



Looks like you have your work cut out for you. I'm excited for you! :wheee:



phillyman36 said:


> @MacG32 Thanks will try it out.



You're welcome. 



SlimJ87D said:


> What RAM are you guys all rocking?



G.Skill - Flare X 32GB (4x8GB) 3200MHz F4-3200C14D-32GFX 14-14-14-34 :thumb:



Nighthog said:


> Sadly I have to report I had to make another choice as the place I ordered from were never going to deliver on any reasonable time it seems. 1-3weeks at least on the board and no word at all on the cpu when they would be getting it.
> I had a great price on the board but will be cancelling and have already made a new purchase from in-stock parts from a another vendor.
> 
> I will be getting Gigabyte board in the end after all.(going with my first choice even with that exorbitant pricing till this delivery issue on the ASUS)
> I don't want to wait my whole summer vacation for parts never arriving.



Sorry to hear that. Good luck!


----------



## pantsoftime

SlimJ87D said:


> What RAM are you guys all rocking?


TridentZ RGB 3200 14-14-14-34. Not even breaking a sweat at 3600.


----------



## wisepds

*wisepds*



MacG32 said:


> Looks like you have your work cut out for you. I'm excited for you! :wheee:


Yes, a lot of work, but i like it 
Thanks mate!
Wisepds


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

THIS IS EXTREMELY URGENT AND SHOULD BE STICKIED IN POST #1 FOR A LITTLE WHILE

If you installed Windows with the BIOS that came with your system, chances are a bunch of your windows files are corrupt due to a WHEA issue. Make sure to update your BIOS ASAP! If you did not run the following in CMD:

C:\Windows\system32>sfc /scannow

If you aren't able to fix the corruption, run the following command

C:\Windows\system32>dism.exe /online /Cleanup-Image /RestoreHealth

Then rerun the scannow command

For you new guys, make sure your BIOS is up to date before you install Windows.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

SlimJ87D said:


> THIS IS EXTREMELY URGENT AND SHOULD BE STICKIED IN POST #1 FOR A LITTLE WHILE
> 
> If you installed Windows with the BIOS that came with your system, chances are a bunch of your windows files are corrupt due to a WHEA issue. Make sure to update your BIOS ASAP! If you did not run the following in CMD:
> 
> C:\Windows\system32>sfc /scannow
> 
> If you aren't able to fix the corruption, run the following command
> 
> C:\Windows\system32>dism.exe /online /Cleanup-Image /RestoreHealth
> 
> Then rerun the scannow command
> 
> For you new guys, make sure your BIOS is up to date before you install Windows.


I get a lot of this:

The application-specific permission settings do not grant Local Activation permission for the COM Server application with CLSID 
{2593F8B9-4EAF-457C-B68A-50F6B8EA6B54}
and APPID 
{15C20B67-12E7-4BB6-92BB-7AFF07997402}
to the user SCHOOLOFMONKEY\schoo SID (S-1-5-21-106334917-2377409382-4098807267-1001) from address LocalHost (Using LRPC) running in the application container Unavailable SID (Unavailable). This security permission can be modified using the Component Services administrative tool.

Tried the usual regedit/component services fix, but it doesn't work so I've just left it..
This is after a clean install on the NEW Bios update.


----------



## phillyman36

I changed the USB setting like Macg32 suggested but know every once in a while my keyboard disconnects for a second. Also se a lot of these errors

The server {95775DC4-77AA-4E94-8CF6-68267EEF1856} did not register with DCOM within the required timeout.


----------



## Jackalito

SlimJ87D said:


> THIS IS EXTREMELY URGENT AND SHOULD BE STICKIED IN POST #1 FOR A LITTLE WHILE
> 
> If you installed Windows with the BIOS that came with your system, chances are a bunch of your windows files are corrupt due to a WHEA issue. Make sure to update your BIOS ASAP! If you did not run the following in CMD:
> 
> C:\Windows\system32>sfc /scannow
> 
> If you aren't able to fix the corruption, run the following command
> 
> C:\Windows\system32>dism.exe /online /Cleanup-Image /RestoreHealth
> 
> Then rerun the scannow command
> 
> For you new guys, make sure your BIOS is up to date before you install Windows.


As far as I know that's a reported issue with the latest Cumulative Update of Windows 10 1903. I had to repair those system files after such update on my current rig as well. 

Cheers!



wisepds said:


> Here are my new toys!!!
> All inside a Corsair 1000D case!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/url]


That is simply lovely, mate. I also saw your post on N3D forums 

Enjoy assembling such a powerful beast


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Here's the 3900x/x570 Crosshair VIII Formula's new home.
Notice the ROG red theme..


----------



## Reikoji

Ryzen master can OC it best. Crashes are handled well by auto PC restart instead of a locked PC :3


----------



## Lupo91

I'm here too


----------



## MacG32

wisepds said:


> Yes, a lot of work, but i like it
> Thanks mate!
> Wisepds



You're welcome! 



SlimJ87D said:


> THIS IS EXTREMELY URGENT AND SHOULD BE STICKIED IN POST #1 FOR A LITTLE WHILE
> 
> If you installed Windows with the BIOS that came with your system, chances are a bunch of your windows files are corrupt due to a WHEA issue. Make sure to update your BIOS ASAP! If you did not run the following in CMD:
> 
> C:\Windows\system32>sfc /scannow
> 
> If you aren't able to fix the corruption, run the following command
> 
> C:\Windows\system32>dism.exe /online /Cleanup-Image /RestoreHealth
> 
> Then rerun the scannow command
> 
> For you new guys, make sure your BIOS is up to date before you install Windows.



You have to run the commands in a command prompt you run as an administrator. I had Windows Hardware Errors (WHEA) before I updated the BIOS and no corruption. I'll add a spoiler tag to the 1st post just in case though. Thank you! +Rep



schoolofmonkey said:


> I get a lot of this:
> 
> The application-specific permission settings do not grant Local Activation permission for the COM Server application with CLSID
> {2593F8B9-4EAF-457C-B68A-50F6B8EA6B54}
> and APPID
> {15C20B67-12E7-4BB6-92BB-7AFF07997402}
> to the user SCHOOLOFMONKEY\schoo SID (S-1-5-21-106334917-2377409382-4098807267-1001) from address LocalHost (Using LRPC) running in the application container Unavailable SID (Unavailable). This security permission can be modified using the Component Services administrative tool.
> 
> Tried the usual regedit/component services fix, but it doesn't work so I've just left it..
> This is after a clean install on the NEW Bios update.



Try running the commands in a command prompt you run as an administrator. That should help.



schoolofmonkey said:


> Here's the 3900x/x570 Crosshair VIII Formula's new home.
> Notice the ROG red theme..



Looks great! 



Lupo91 said:


> I'm here too



Welcome aboard! :thumb:


----------



## OneCosmic

Reikoji said:


> Ryzen master can OC it best. Crashes are handled well by auto PC restart instead of a locked PC :3


Is this an all core 4.6GHz OC? Did you try to OC via PBO? When i tried to adjust all PBO limits no change in frequencies or heat output happened both via BIOS or Ryzen Master. Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi+R5 3600 BIOS 7702, had 0702 before same issue.


----------



## Reikoji

OneCosmic said:


> Is this an all core 4.6GHz OC? Did you try to OC via PBO? When i tried to adjust all PBO limits no change in frequencies or heat output happened both via BIOS or Ryzen Master. Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi+R5 3600 BIOS 7702, had 0702 before same issue.


CCX0 4.6ghz( Core 1, 2, 3), all others 4.4. CCX0 seems what is prioritized for single core stuff from running Cenebench a few times. 

PBO is wonky and wont boost to advertised boost on the latest bios, which I believe is 0702 for Formula. Tried everything. I say gonna need some bios maturity. Also can say its not mature because I dont see a way to Manually clock each core like you can in ryzen master. Think its better to do it from there just for that. I'm actually suprised ASUS bios isn't boosting properly from the start. I did expect better from it :|


----------



## OneCosmic

Reikoji said:


> CCX0 4.6ghz( Core 1, 2, 3), all others 4.4. CCX0 seems what is prioritized for single core stuff from running Cenebench a few times.
> 
> PBO is wonky and wont boost to advertised boost on the latest bios, which I believe is 0702 for Formula. Tried everything. I say gonna need some bios maturity. Also can say its not mature because I dont see a way to Manually clock each core like you can in ryzen master. Think its better to do it from there just for that. I'm actually suprised ASUS bios isn't boosting properly from the start. I did expect better from it :|


Have you been able to set different clocks per core? When i tried to set it like this in Ryzen Master via Manual OC, for example setting core 1 to 4.3GHz then core 2 and 3 downclocked to about 3.4GHz by itself and ignored setting them back higher in Ryzen Master.


----------



## Reikoji

OneCosmic said:


> Have you been able to set different clocks per core? When i tried to set it like this in Ryzen Master via Manual OC, for example setting core 1 to 4.3GHz then core 2 and 3 downclocked to about 3.4GHz by itself and ignored setting them back higher in Ryzen Master.


Yea the same happens to me. Doesnt appear to do that when clocking an entire CCX to the same frequency however.


----------



## MacG32

Updated the 1st post with a Hero Wi-Fi review: Guru3D - 16JUL19 :thumb:


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Looks like there's a new bios that came out today. Anyone play around with it?

https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/ROG-Crosshair-VIII-Hero-WI-FI/HelpDesk_BIOS/


----------



## phillyman36

SlimJ87D said:


> Looks like there's a new bios that came out today. Anyone play around with it?
> 
> https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/ROG-Crosshair-VIII-Hero-WI-FI/HelpDesk_BIOS/


I don't see anything new. Still says 0702 for me.


----------



## Admixues

This is probably the same BIOS with some defaults adjusted (most likely).

Or this BIOS has the Linux and destiny 2 fix (highly unlikely).


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Check this article out guys and get your B-Dies RAM kits ready!

https://lab501.ro/procesoare-chipseturi/amd-ryzen-3000-part-iv-ddr4-latenta-vs-frecventa

Ryzen 3000 series gets pretty nice performance boost with adjusting clocks and timings.


----------



## BulletSponge

I got my 3700X today, my CHVIII will be here in a week but it will be another week and a half before I get to swap out my 1600X and CHVI for them. It's going to feel like an eternity.


----------



## phillyman36

Question for the CH8 there are 2 sata drivers available to download. Amd Raidexpert and Amd raid drivers. Do I need to install those if I'm not doing any sort of raid set up? Still not familiar with Amd drivers and what to install and what not to install. I believe I installed the Raidexpert thinking they were you typical Sata drivers.

Also still getting the beep once in a while(sound you here when you plug a new device in). Is anyone else getting this?


----------



## Jackalito

phillyman36 said:


> Question for the CH8 there are 2 sata drivers available to download. Amd Raidexpert and Amd raid drivers. Do I need to install those if I'm not doing any sort of raid set up? Still not familiar with Amd drivers and what to install and what not to install. I believe I installed the Raidexpert thinking they were you typical Sata drivers.
> 
> Also still getting the beep once in a while(sound you here when you plug a new device in). Is anyone else getting this?


No, you don't need to install those drivers if you're not doing RAID configurations. I recommend you to uninstall them, as they could cause some issues. 

As per the beep, I cannot tell you, as I haven't got the board yet.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

phillyman36 said:


> Also still getting the beep once in a while(sound you here when you plug a new device in). Is anyone else getting this?


Do you have any USB Bluetooth adapters connected or onboard bluetooth, I had the same problem when I paired my Xbox One controller to the PC, I had to turn off "Allow the computer to turn off this device to save power" that fixed the problem completely.


----------



## phillyman36

Switched which port my keyboard is attached to. My keyboard light goes out for a second then come back on. Why me lol


----------



## phillyman36

schoolofmonkey said:


> Do you have any USB Bluetooth adapters connected or onboard bluetooth, I had the same problem when I paired my Xbox One controller to the PC, I had to turn off "Allow the computer to turn off this device to save power" that fixed the problem completely.


I have bluetooth disabled. Strictly wired connection.


----------



## phillyman36

Does anyone know what this error means?
Event Viewer.

The application-specific permission settings do not grant Local Launch permission for the COM Server application with CLSID 
Windows.SecurityCenter.SecurityAppBroker
and APPID 
Unavailable
to the user NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM SID (S-1-5-18) from address LocalHost (Using LRPC) running in the application container Unavailable SID (Unavailable). This security permission can be modified using the Component Services administrative tool.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

phillyman36 said:


> Does anyone know what this error means?
> Event Viewer.
> 
> The application-specific permission settings do not grant Local Launch permission for the COM Server application with CLSID
> Windows.SecurityCenter.SecurityAppBroker
> and APPID
> Unavailable
> to the user NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM SID (S-1-5-18) from address LocalHost (Using LRPC) running in the application container Unavailable SID (Unavailable). This security permission can be modified using the Component Services administrative tool.


I get it all the time, I've tried all the usual fixes, none work, you can set permissions with regedit, but you can't do anything in Component services, usually you can, so I don't know what it is.
I do know it starts after you install the AMD Chipset driver.


----------



## BulletSponge

I ordered a kit of 4000MHz Hyper X (Samsung) to use in my Crosshair VIII thinking that it would be easy to get close to 3733 with them. But after more thought I am wondering if I should have just tried my B-die Trident Z 3200 (in my CHVI) first and see how close it will overclock to 3600. Has anyone tried running 3200MHz B-die at 3600 on these boards and if so how well did it perform?


----------



## MacG32

SlimJ87D said:


> Check this article out guys and get your B-Dies RAM kits ready!
> 
> https://lab501.ro/procesoare-chipseturi/amd-ryzen-3000-part-iv-ddr4-latenta-vs-frecventa
> 
> Ryzen 3000 series gets pretty nice performance boost with adjusting clocks and timings.



There's an English version of this article posted here. 3733MHz seems to be the sweet spot, as it's in tune with the Infinity Fabric on the 3900X. Thank you for the article. +Rep 



BulletSponge said:


> I got my 3700X today, my CHVIII will be here in a week but it will be another week and a half before I get to swap out my 1600X and CHVI for them. It's going to feel like an eternity.



I hope time flies for you. Welcome! :thumb:



phillyman36 said:


> Question for the CH8 there are 2 sata drivers available to download. Amd Raidexpert and Amd raid drivers. Do I need to install those if I'm not doing any sort of raid set up? Still not familiar with Amd drivers and what to install and what not to install. I believe I installed the Raidexpert thinking they were you typical Sata drivers.
> 
> Also still getting the beep once in a while(sound you here when you plug a new device in). Is anyone else getting this?



You don't need RAID drivers at all, unless you're doing RAID. Go in to the Device Manager. Look at each device's Power Management tab. Uncheck every box that says Allow the computer to turn off this device to save power. By the time you work your way through each device, you should no longer have connection sounds or disconnecting devices. 



BulletSponge said:


> I ordered a kit of 4000MHz Hyper X (Samsung) to use in my Crosshair VIII thinking that it would be easy to get close to 3733 with them. But after more thought I am wondering if I should have just tried my B-die Trident Z 3200 (in my CHVI) first and see how close it will overclock to 3600. Has anyone tried running 3200MHz B-die at 3600 on these boards and if so how well did it perform?



I haven't got that far yet. I want to try to get to 3733MHz to see if I can get there and what kind of timings I can get. The article listed in my replies here uses 3400MHz B-Die (GSkill SniperX 16GB DDR4-3400 CL16) to clock to 4400MHz.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

What's the go if I want to use 2 NVMe drives (PCIe 3) on my x570 Formula/3900x, are both drives running from the CPU's pci lanes or is one running from the PCH?
Couldn't find the answer anywhere.


----------



## pantsoftime

BulletSponge said:


> I ordered a kit of 4000MHz Hyper X (Samsung) to use in my Crosshair VIII thinking that it would be easy to get close to 3733 with them. But after more thought I am wondering if I should have just tried my B-die Trident Z 3200 (in my CHVI) first and see how close it will overclock to 3600. Has anyone tried running 3200MHz B-die at 3600 on these boards and if so how well did it perform?


No problems at all doing just that. I've seen several folks using 3200CL14 kits at 3600 with CL14,15, or 16 depending on what voltages you're comfortable with. Optimem III (or maybe just the new memory controller) seems to do the trick.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Are you all experiencing the high idle power draw eith ram 3600mhz above 1:1 fabric ratios?

Apparently it's a thing.


----------



## MacG32

schoolofmonkey said:


> What's the go if I want to use 2 NVMe drives (PCIe 3) on my x570 Formula/3900x, are both drives running from the CPU's pci lanes or is one running from the PCH?
> Couldn't find the answer anywhere.



One's from the PCH and the other's from the CPU. See the attached picture. 



pantsoftime said:


> No problems at all doing just that. I've seen several folks using 3200CL14 kits at 3600 with CL14,15, or 16 depending on what voltages you're comfortable with. Optimem III (or maybe just the new memory controller) seems to do the trick.



I tried overclocking my 3200 CL14 RAM to 3733, but it wouldn't boot. I attempted 3600 quickly, but it was a tad unstable. If there was a tightly timed kit that was 3733, I'd be all over it. 4000 or 3600 clocked to 3733 and very tight timings would be perfect. 



SlimJ87D said:


> Are you all experiencing the high idle power draw eith ram 3600mhz above 1:1 fabric ratios?
> 
> Apparently it's a thing.



Do you have a link to an article about that? Early adopters are experiencing quite a few different problems that only AMD and motherboard partners can fix. I just locked my BIOS with a blank screen and nothing further just by inputting my 3466MHz overclock with tight timings. I had to Clear the CMOS just to get in to the BIOS. When I run Prime95, it errors out right away on up to 6 threads while trying to load on every thread. Neither of these happened with my X470 and 2700X, so this BIOS and the microcode definitely need to mature. I hope this will happen quite rapidly, as I'm stuck with stock settings. Just running Prime95 brings my CPU to temps above 90C. There's quite a lot of work that needs to be done before everything works together seamlessly. In the meantime I'll just stay at stock and not try to destroy anything just yet. :devil:


----------



## Spongeboy5040

Joined the club today with a 3900X


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

3600mhz+ issue

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/commen..._3600mhz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app

I don'pt seem to have the issue. Running the latest everything and on a AMD Power Balance Plan


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

BulletSponge said:


> I ordered a kit of 4000MHz Hyper X (Samsung) to use in my Crosshair VIII thinking that it would be easy to get close to 3733 with them. But after more thought I am wondering if I should have just tried my B-die Trident Z 3200 (in my CHVI) first and see how close it will overclock to 3600. Has anyone tried running 3200MHz B-die at 3600 on these boards and if so how well did it perform?


Triden 3600 MHz CL16 running at CL14 which is on par or slightly better than 3733 CL16.


----------



## WaXmAn

Anyone get the Aura Sync with RGB working on this mobo? The mobo is sweet, but this ASUS software is lacking  Armoury Crate App is a JOKE!

This is my first ASUS AMD rig, jumped ship from Intel EVGA mobos for 10+ years.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

So hows the PCH temps for you guys.
My Formula hit 72.5c while running Heaven benchmark for 20 minutes.
Everything is in a Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic case, 3x 120mm bottom intakes, 360mm RAD side intake and 2 140mm Top exhaust.

Brian from Tech Yes City did a look at the "overheating problem"








WaXmAn said:


> Anyone get the Aura Sync with RGB working on this mobo? The mobo is sweet, but this ASUS software is lacking  Armoury Crate App is a JOKE!
> 
> This is my first ASUS AMD rig, jumped ship from Intel EVGA mobos for 10+ years.


When you said it's not working in what way, I went through a big saga myself when it came to the Aura and RGB..


----------



## phillyman36

Not sure why but the rbg lights on the mobo are working.


----------



## phillyman36

Installed the lighting app and lights turned off. Uninstalled the app and lights still don't work. ***


----------



## schoolofmonkey

phillyman36 said:


> Installed the lighting app and lights turned off. Uninstalled the app and lights still don't work. ***


Sounds similar to what happen to me, I went through 2 Window 10 reinstalls, I worked out the AMD Chipset driver was interfering with the Aura driver.
Aura has to be installed prior to the AMD chipset driver.


----------



## Jackalito

schoolofmonkey said:


> So hows the PCH temps for you guys.
> My Formula hit 72.5c while running Heaven benchmark for 20 minutes.
> Everything is in a Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic case, 3x 120mm bottom intakes, 360mm RAD side intake and 2 140mm Top exhaust.
> 
> Brian from Tech Yes City did a look at the "overheating problem"
> 
> https://youtu.be/D5l1MUMHXt0
> 
> 
> 
> When you said it's not working in what way, I went through a big saga myself when it came to the Aura and RGB..


Have you tried using the second PCI-E slot to clear the chipset fan? Would that be a suitable workaround to help lower the temperatures?


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Jackalito said:


> Have you tried using the second PCI-E slot to clear the chipset fan? Would that be a suitable workaround to help lower the temperatures?


I could try, but man that RTX 2080ti Strix Advanced is a big card... 2 1/2 slots...lol
It'll still run at 16x I'm guessing..


----------



## Jackalito

schoolofmonkey said:


> I could try, but man that RTX 2080ti Strix Advanced is a big card... 2 1/2 slots...lol
> It'll still run at 16x I'm guessing..


That's my guess, and that's why I'm asking. I don't have my board yet, so I cannot try it myself. Hopefully, I'll get it by next week.


----------



## OneCosmic

schoolofmonkey said:


> So hows the PCH temps for you guys.
> My Formula hit 72.5c while running Heaven benchmark for 20 minutes.
> Everything is in a Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic case, 3x 120mm bottom intakes, 360mm RAD side intake and 2 140mm Top exhaust.
> 
> Brian from Tech Yes City did a look at the "overheating problem"
> 
> https://youtu.be/D5l1MUMHXt0
> 
> 
> 
> When you said it's not working in what way, I went through a big saga myself when it came to the Aura and RGB..


So basically your very power hungry GPU was blowing hot air on the chipset?


----------



## Spongeboy5040

@MacG32 Maybe try 2x16GB 3200C14. I'm doing 3600C14 right now at 1.45v.


----------



## MacG32

Spongeboy5040 said:


> Joined the club today with a 3900X



Welcome aboard! 



SlimJ87D said:


> 3600mhz+ issue
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/commen..._3600mhz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
> 
> I don'pt seem to have the issue. Running the latest everything and on a AMD Power Balance Plan



Thank you for the link! +Rep I'm glad AMD has seen the problem and will be taking the appropriate steps to fix it. The hour I had my RAM overclocked to 3600MHz, I was stress testing and didn't have the chance to see if this was a problem.



WaXmAn said:


> Anyone get the Aura Sync with RGB working on this mobo? The mobo is sweet, but this ASUS software is lacking  Armoury Crate App is a JOKE!
> 
> This is my first ASUS AMD rig, jumped ship from Intel EVGA mobos for 10+ years.



I sure got it working and it seems to sync up everything quite well. I never installed Armoury Crate. Welcome! 



schoolofmonkey said:


> So hows the PCH temps for you guys.
> My Formula hit 72.5c while running Heaven benchmark for 20 minutes.
> Everything is in a Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic case, 3x 120mm bottom intakes, 360mm RAD side intake and 2 140mm Top exhaust.
> 
> Brian from Tech Yes City did a look at the "overheating problem"
> 
> https://youtu.be/D5l1MUMHXt0
> 
> 
> 
> When you said it's not working in what way, I went through a big saga myself when it came to the Aura and RGB..



My temps have been close to that as well. I have a 1080Ti sitting directly over mine. I thought about taking the cover off of it to see what difference it would make, but I doubt any. I might have to replace the thermal material myself.



Spongeboy5040 said:


> @MacG32 Maybe try 2x16GB 3200C14. I'm doing 3600C14 right now at 1.45v.



I ended up buying a G.Skill TridentZ RGB 32GB (4 x 8GB) 4000MHz F4-4000C17Q-32GTZR 17-17-17-37 1.35V kit. It'll be here Friday. I'm hopeful that I'll be able to get 3733MHz 16-16-16-36 1.35V out of it, since that is the performance and latency sweet spot at 1:1. Once the BIOS and microcode mature, I may revisit it later and try for tighter timings.


Added PCGamesN - 18JUL19 review of the Hero Wi-Fi. :thumb:


----------



## bigblueshock

Not to sidetrack the thread but... you guys with 1080 Ti / 2080 Ti should consider a NZXT Kraken G12 paired with a 120mm AIO cooler and stick it on the back of your case as an exhaust. There's a huge Kraken G10 thread on this forum you can take a look at (G12 is just a newer bracket). I did this and I'll never look back. The hottest my 1080 Ti gets in the summer time is 50c @ load at 2050 MHz core, that's if my fan is set to minimum. In the Winter my card runs 45c at full load.


Two reasons I went the AIO route: More silent operation, higher OC. I suppose in the end you also get cooler temps.

I've attached a pic. Don't mind the ghetto VRM fan. This is my Asus X79 Sabertooth and it warms up nicely 

On a side note, still waiting to buy a 3900x and CH7. Freakin limited supply at the moment!


----------



## MacG32

bigblueshock said:


> Not to sidetrack the thread but... you guys with 1080 Ti / 2080 Ti should consider a NZXT Kraken G12 paired with a 120mm AIO cooler and stick it on the back of your case as an exhaust. There's a huge Kraken G10 thread on this forum you can take a look at (G12 is just a newer bracket). I did this and I'll never look back. The hottest my 1080 Ti gets in the summer time is 50c @ load at 2050 MHz core, that's if my fan is set to minimum. In the Winter my card runs 45c at full load.
> 
> 
> Two reasons I went the AIO route: More silent operation, higher OC. I suppose in the end you also get cooler temps.
> 
> I've attached a pic. Don't mind the ghetto VRM fan. This is my Asus X79 Sabertooth and it warms up nicely
> 
> On a side note, still waiting to buy a 3900x and CH7. Freakin limited supply at the moment!



I understand your enthusiasm for your solution to your problem and all, but you're being "that guy." This is a X570 Crosshair VIII (8) thread. Waiting to buy a 3900X and a C7H doesn't quite make you fit in to this thread, let alone a 1080Ti. Please refrain from off-topic posting on OCN, as it's very unprofessional and uncalled for. I see that you don't post much here, so you may want to go over the forum rules and guidelines. Good luck. :cheers:


----------



## Section31

I am in process of installing an cpu water block. Once i was removed the plates that are covering the mounting holes, the motherboard cpu backplate fell off. Is this common thing.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

I got my first BSOD last night, just sitting there browsing the new (Chrome) touched the volume control on my Corsair keyboard BSOD.
Clams it was ntoskrnl.exe (NT Kernel), usually that turns out to be a driver.
Funny thing is my machine had been on for 3 days straight, so who knows why just out of the blue it happened.
Ran a bunch of stress tests, all passed fine, rules out hardware.

Funny enough I got my highest Cinebench 15 and 20 scores too....

Defiantly need more mature drivers.

When setting up the machine for the first time the AMD chipset driver didn't install the AMD AHCI driver for the SATA ports automatically, I had to do it manually, but from what I'm reading those drivers can cause random BSOD too.


----------



## MacG32

Section31 said:


> I am in process of installing an cpu water block. Once i was removed the plates that are covering the mounting holes, the motherboard cpu backplate fell off. Is this common thing.



That's normal, as the screws holding the mounting brackets on are the same screws holding the backplate on.



schoolofmonkey said:


> I got my first BSOD last night, just sitting there browsing the new (Chrome) touched the volume control on my Corsair keyboard BSOD.
> Clams it was ntoskrnl.exe (NT Kernel), usually that turns out to be a driver.
> Funny thing is my machine had been on for 3 days straight, so who knows why just out of the blue it happened.
> Ran a bunch of stress tests, all passed fine, rules out hardware.
> 
> Funny enough I got my highest Cinebench 15 and 20 scores too....
> 
> Defiantly need more mature drivers.
> 
> When setting up the machine for the first time the AMD chipset driver didn't install the AMD AHCI driver for the SATA ports automatically, I had to do it manually, but from what I'm reading those drivers can cause random BSOD too.



Do you have a Corsair driver for your keyboard installed? That's a very strange BSOD to get from a key touch. I figured this launch would go extremely smooth, as lessons should have been learned from the first few Ryzen launches. Seems this one is just the same. Lots of waiting and hoping things get ironed out quickly.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

MacG32 said:


> Do you have a Corsair driver for your keyboard installed? That's a very strange BSOD to get from a key touch. I figured this launch would go extremely smooth, as lessons should have been learned from the first few Ryzen launches. Seems this one is just the same. Lots of waiting and hoping things get ironed out quickly.


Nah, I do the same as I always do with the Corsair stuff, install the software save the color profiles to the devices and uninstall the drivers.
I've done that with all my previous rigs, it's no problems, Windows 10 heck even 7 pickup the volume control fine.

I'd say it's like the Aura RGB problem I had with the AMD Chipset drivers install.

Funny after the BSOD and stress tests I played a few hours of World War Z, so it can't be the hardware....


----------



## pantsoftime

schoolofmonkey said:


> I could try, but man that RTX 2080ti Strix Advanced is a big card... 2 1/2 slots...lol
> It'll still run at 16x I'm guessing..


The second x16 slot is actually only wired as a x8. The bottom x16 slot is wired for x4. You can see it by looking in the slots and noticing that there are a lot of pins missing and I'm sure it's also in the manual. I'd look for another answer with a 2080Ti.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Seems there's been a BIOS update on the VIII Formula support page, but it has the same version number just a different date than yesterday, so I don't know.


----------



## MacG32

schoolofmonkey said:


> Seems there's been a BIOS update on the VIII Formula support page, but it has the same version number just a different date than yesterday, so I don't know.



They did the same with the Hero. The date is different, but the BIOS is identical. I'm looking forward to a new BIOS. Hopefully it'll be out very soon. They just added the 3900X as being supported very recently.


----------



## phillyman36

@MacG32 what order did you install everything as far as Asus drivers Amd drivers etc etc? Did you install all the drivers from the Amd chipset drivers?

@schoolofmonkey when you did your clean install did you install all of the AMD chipset driver package?

AMD GPIO Driver
AMD SMbus Driver
AMD PSP driver
AMD PCI device driver


----------



## 1usmus

*3733C14 1:1 mode *(DRAM - Trident Z Royal 3600C16)










:thumb:


----------



## wisepds

1usmus said:


> *3733C14 1:1 mode *(DRAM - Trident Z Royal 3600C16)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :thumb:


I have trident z 32GB 4x8GB 3600, CL 15 RAM, can i do the same like you? Have you a Dram calculator for ryzen 3000? What's the best speed for ryzen?


----------



## Jackalito

pantsoftime said:


> The second x16 slot is actually only wired as a x8. The bottom x16 slot is wired for x4. You can see it by looking in the slots and noticing that there are a lot of pins missing and I'm sure it's also in the manual. I'd look for another answer with a 2080Ti.


Actually, according to the manual, the two top PCI-E slots are labeled as x16, so my question still stands. Has anyone tried it yet?


----------



## schoolofmonkey

phillyman36 said:


> @MacG32 what order did you install everything as far as Asus drivers Amd drivers etc etc? Did you install all the drivers from the Amd chipset drivers?
> 
> @schoolofmonkey when you did your clean install did you download all of the AMD chipset driver package?
> 
> AMD GPIO Driver
> AMD SMbus Driver
> AMD PSP driver
> AMD PCI device driver


I downloaded the AMD Chipset driver from AMD's website, it contains all the drivers, but it doesn't install the AHCI (Sata) driver at all, you have to manually point the "update driver" to the AMD Chipset folder.

I installed my GPU driver and Aura BEFORE installing the Chipset driver.

There's defiantly something wrong with the drivers and Aura, I had the "In-Game effects" turned on, fired up GTA V then got a bunch of "Lighting Service stop responding" errors, turned off "In-Game effect" in Aura it all stopped.

I also got "The description for Event ID 14 from source nvlddmkm cannot be found. Either the component that raises this event is not installed on your local computer or the installation is corrupted. You can install or repair the component on the local computer." when firing up Total War for the first time, cleared log and it didn't happen again.

Also when you turn off the Xbox One controller (bluetooth) you get a warning "Bluetooth HID device either went out of range or became unresponsive.", which never happened on my Intel rig.

The Chipset drivers really need to mature a bit, it's the first x570 compatible release, so I'm sure they'll get it eventually like that did with x370...


----------



## kot0005

1usmus said:


> *3733C14 1:1 mode *(DRAM - Trident Z Royal 3600C16)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :thumb:



I ordered 4 sticks of 3200CL 14 Trident Z royal. You reckon I will be able to get 3733 and CL16 ?


----------



## phillyman36

schoolofmonkey said:


> I downloaded the AMD Chipset driver from AMD's website, it contains all the drivers, but it doesn't install the AHCI (Sata) driver at all, you have to manually point the "update driver" to the AMD Chipset folder.
> 
> I installed my GPU driver and Aura BEFORE installing the Chipset driver.
> 
> There's defiantly something wrong with the drivers and Aura, I had the "In-Game effects" turned on, fired up GTA V then got a bunch of "Lighting Service stop responding" errors, turned off "In-Game effect" in Aura it all stopped.
> 
> I also got "The description for Event ID 14 from source nvlddmkm cannot be found. Either the component that raises this event is not installed on your local computer or the installation is corrupted. You can install or repair the component on the local computer." when firing up Total War for the first time, cleared log and it didn't happen again.
> 
> Also when you turn off the Xbox One controller (bluetooth) you get a warning "Bluetooth HID device either went out of range or became unresponsive.", which never happened on my Intel rig.
> 
> The Chipset drivers really need to mature a bit, it's the first x570 compatible release, so I'm sure they'll get it eventually like that did with x370...


Thanks. Going to do a clean install later and see how it goes. Like you said probably just needs more time. I did switch my power plan from Ryzen Balanced to Ryzen performance. Are you all running the Ryzen Balanced as well?


----------



## kot0005

Buy this before stock runs out and the recent Japan/korea raw ingredient supply block.

https://www.newegg.com/global/au-en/g-skill-32gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232828


----------



## schoolofmonkey

phillyman36 said:


> Thanks. Going to do a clean install later and see how it goes. Like you said probably just needs more time. I did switch my power plan from Ryzen Balanced to Ryzen performance. Are you all running the Ryzen Balanced as well?


There is talk about using the Chipset driver from Asus's site over the AMD version, so it might be worth trying them first.


----------



## phillyman36

Does your Asus Ez update start up with Windows? I keep closing it when Windows loads. I tried to disable it from the start menu in the task manager but its not listed.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

phillyman36 said:


> Does your Asus Ez update start up with Windows? I keep closing it when Windows loads. I tried to disable it from the start menu in the task manager but its not listed.


I didn't install EZ Update, I also turned off "install Armory Create on startup" in the BIOS.


----------



## phillyman36

The 970 Evo plus I have is brand new. There shouldn't be a need to secure erase it first right? Just when I install windows delete/reformat the Os drive before install correct?


----------



## Jackalito

phillyman36 said:


> The 970 Evo plus I have is brand new. There shouldn't be a need to secure erase it first right? Just when I install windows delete/reformat the Os drive before install correct?



You're right - no need to secure erase a brand new one you've just got.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

phillyman36 said:


> The 970 Evo plus I have is brand new. There shouldn't be a need to secure erase it first right? Just when I install windows delete/reformat the Os drive before install correct?


There's a firmware update for that drive too, I just flashed mine about an hour ago.
Secure erase is really only needed if you're going to sell the drive, and standard Windows 10 format during install is fine.


----------



## phillyman36

Cool. Thanks for the help guys much appreciated. Will let you all know how it goes later today when I get home from work.


----------



## MacG32

phillyman36 said:


> @MacG32 what order did you install everything as far as Asus drivers Amd drivers etc etc? Did you install all the drivers from the Amd chipset drivers?



I didn't do a clean install, so most of the drivers were already installed. I installed all of the AMD Chipset Drivers. I would install in this order: Network, Bluetooth, Wireless, Audio, Graphics, Misc, Chipset, & Aura. :thinking:



1usmus said:


> *3733C14 1:1 mode *(DRAM - Trident Z Royal 3600C16)
> 
> :thumb:



Looks great! +Rep :thumb: Did it take very long to get? Are those the tightest timings?



Jackalito said:


> Actually, according to the manual, the two top PCI-E slots are labeled as x16, so my question still stands. Has anyone tried it yet?



The attached pictures show the Formula has x16, x8, & x8 and the Hero has x16, x8, & x4. You can see by the amount of pins each slot has. 



kot0005 said:


> I ordered 4 sticks of 3200CL 14 Trident Z royal. You reckon I will be able to get 3733 and CL16 ?



I couldn't get my 3200MHz CL14 to boot in to 3733 at all. They did 3600 nicely though. I think I needed just a tad bit more voltage to get them stable, but I didn't have time. 



phillyman36 said:


> Thanks. Going to do a clean install later and see how it goes. Like you said probably just needs more time. I did switch my power plan from Ryzen Balanced to Ryzen performance. Are you all running the Ryzen Balanced as well?



I'm running the Ryzen Balanced plan with the minimum processor state set to 0%. Mine downclocks to 2874.7MHz at 0.981V. Still seems a bit high for minimum usage. My 2700X downclocked a lot further than that. Still waiting on AMD to fix their high clock issues with minimal loads. :wave2:


----------



## MacG32

AMD AGESA 1.0.0.3ABA Buggy, Company Pulls it from Motherboard Vendors


----------



## Section31

Thanks for the images. I knew I did something wrong with my setup. I will have to move the GPU, fix the cpu backplate and redo the tubing planning. That's always the most time consuming stuff to do.


----------



## OneCosmic

1usmus said:


> *3733C14 1:1 mode *(DRAM - Trident Z Royal 3600C16)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :thumb:


How did you get 3733MHz to work? What voltages did you change from auto? I can run 3600MHz CL14 1.45V Vdimm with similar timings to yours but 3733MHz with 1:1 fClock gives me just F9 post code. I have 4x8GB Trident Z 4266MHz CL19-19-19 1.4V kit.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

OneCosmic said:


> How did you get 3733MHz to work? What voltages did you change from auto? I can run 3600MHz CL14 1.45V Vdimm with similar timings to yours but 3733MHz with 1:1 fClock gives me just F9 post code. I have 4x8GB Trident Z 4266MHz CL19-19-19 1.4V kit.


You can see his DRAM voltage at the bottom right. 1.455v.


----------



## wisepds

Hi, i have finished my build...

How do you see that values? Are voltage normal? For me, that to much Vcore for only 4,1Ghz... (Ryzen 3900X,)


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

wisepds said:


> Hi, i have finished my build...
> 
> How do you see that values? Are voltage normal? For me, that to much Vcore for only 4,1Ghz... (Ryzen 3900X,)


Yes, that's PBO and PB being activated. You can turn PBO and PB and manual OC.

I'm almost cracking 8,000 cinebench R20. Might try tonight.


----------



## wisepds

SlimJ87D said:


> Yes, that's PBO and PB being activated. You can turn PBO and PB and manual OC.
> 
> I'm almost cracking 8,000 cinebench R20. Might try tonight.


Thank! I'll check it!


----------



## MacG32

Section31 said:


> Thanks for the images. I knew I did something wrong with my setup. I will have to move the GPU, fix the cpu backplate and redo the tubing planning. That's always the most time consuming stuff to do.



Looks like it coming along very well. You've got a nice layout there. :thumb:



wisepds said:


> Hi, i have finished my build...
> 
> How do you see that values? Are voltage normal? For me, that to much Vcore for only 4,1Ghz... (Ryzen 3900X,)



The 3900X ramps up to full clocks and voltages from just running HWiNFO, so it looks like it's a bit too high, but it's working as intended. Hopefully AMD fixes this soon. Some folks go in and manually underclock. I didn't do that to mine as it may cause stability issues. 


My new RAM was suppose to be here today, but it didn't make the plane in time, so it will be delivered tomorrow. I can't wait to see what it can do. I need that 3733MHz 1:1 sweet spot.


----------



## kot0005

Man my Maximus VIII Formula chipset is getting toasty. 68c idle and 75c load with ambient temps of 20c


----------



## schoolofmonkey

kot0005 said:


> Man my Maximus VIII Formula chipset is getting toasty. 68c idle and 75c load with ambient temps of 20c


Same here, I have 3 bottom intake fans about 15cm away from the chipset fan and it hits a good 75c.
I also have a RTX 2080ti Strix Advanced so it's kinda covered, there's about a 5mm gap but the card is dumping hot air straight into the PCH cooler.


----------



## BulletSponge

Well the board got here, but still waiting on the second of 2 1TB nvme drives. 2 weeks and counting.......


----------



## MacG32

kot0005 said:


> Man my Maximus VIII Formula chipset is getting toasty. 68c idle and 75c load with ambient temps of 20c



My Hero's Chipset idles at around 56C. Seems the thermal material needs to be replaced with something much better. :thinking:



BulletSponge said:


> Well the board got here, but still waiting on the second of 2 1TB nvme drives. 2 weeks and counting.......



What's keeping you from assembling it now and adding the last drive in later? I know I couldn't wait.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

MacG32 said:


> My Hero's Chipset idles at around 56C. Seems the thermal material needs to be replaced with something much better. :thinking:


Comparing the 2 board Hero and Formula there's no real reason for it to run warmer, surely it couldn't be the rear "armor".

It doesn't make sense really..


----------



## chowbaby

MacG32 said:


> Looks like it coming along very well. You've got a nice layout there. :thumb:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 3900X ramps up to full clocks and voltages from just running HWiNFO, so it looks like it's a bit too high, but it's working as intended. Hopefully AMD fixes this soon. *Some folks go in and manually underclock. I didn't do that to mine as it may cause stability issues.
> *
> 
> My new RAM was suppose to be here today, but it didn't make the plane in time, so it will be delivered tomorrow. I can't wait to see what it can do. I need that 3733MHz 1:1 sweet spot.


Is that reducing the PPT? I thought that was supposed to the safe way to do it?


----------



## MacG32

schoolofmonkey said:


> Comparing the 2 board Hero and Formula there's no real reason for it to run warmer, surely it couldn't be the rear "armor".
> 
> It doesn't make sense really..



I did tighten the screws on the back of my motherboard a little bit, but I wouldn't think there would be almost a 10+C difference.



chowbaby said:


> Is that reducing the PPT? I thought that was supposed to the safe way to do it?



There's a video of a reviewer downvolting his board a bit. It's on the first few pages. I didn't want to do the same as it may be needed during full loads. I know the BIOS needs adjusted. I'm just waiting for a new release. I feel now that the new AGESA has been pulled by AMD, we'll be waiting even longer for another BIOS update.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

How does we make sure performance boost and performance boost overdrive are off?

Although I disable PBO, the cpu voltages still go up. I see other motherboards give a way to shut both off.


----------



## BulletSponge

MacG32 said:


> My Hero's Chipset idles at around 56C. Seems the thermal material needs to be replaced with something much better. :thinking:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's keeping you from assembling it now and adding the last drive in later? I know I couldn't wait.


The drive I am waiting on still is the PCIe 4.0 1TB, the one I already have is 1TB but not PCIe 4.0. I want my OS on the 4.0 drive and will split my game libraries between the other and the SATA SSD's I already have on hand.


----------



## Nighthog

schoolofmonkey said:


> Comparing the 2 board Hero and Formula there's no real reason for it to run warmer, surely it couldn't be the rear "armor".
> 
> It doesn't make sense really..


Did you take note of the smaller fan intake holes on the Formula compared to the HERO. The HERO is considerably more generous with providing air to the fan without restrictions.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Need some help here guys. 

If I set voltage in Ryzen Master to 1.325v, my core voltage VID do not go past that. That's good.

If I don't use Ryzen Master, the VID will go up to 1.38-1.48. What in the BIOs is causing this to happen? I'm new to OC CPUs.


----------



## pantsoftime

Jackalito said:


> Actually, according to the manual, the two top PCI-E slots are labeled as x16, so my question still stands. Has anyone tried it yet?


The pins just aren't there. You need to find the table in the manual called "PCIe operating mode" and you'll see that in no case is PCIe x16_2 ever more than x8 and in no case is PCIe x16_3 ever more than x4.


----------



## CJMitsuki

MacG32 said:


> I tried overclocking my 3200 CL14 RAM to 3733, but it wouldn't boot. I attempted 3600 quickly, but it was a tad unstable. If there was a tightly timed kit that was 3733, I'd be all over it. 4000 or 3600 clocked to 3733 and very tight timings would be perfect.


I have 3800 cl14 stable on my C7H, you dont need high binned frequency kits. This kit was bought right before the launch of Ryzen first gen and is a G.Skill F4-3200c14d-8GTZR model. You can see the timings its running in the screenshots posted below. Maybe they will help you get higher overclocks. If you have good Samsung Bdie then they are perfectly fine at 1.45v-1.5v but on Ryzen 2nd Gen the SoC and VDDG voltages are more of a player in higher frequencies it seems. If you arent used to Ryzen memory overclocking then you may have some work ahead of you. Goodluck.

Aida64


Spoiler














Ramtest


Spoiler














Geekbench 3


Spoiler














Geekbench 4


Spoiler


----------



## OneCosmic

CJMitsuki said:


> I have 3800 cl14 stable on my C7H, you dont need high binned frequency kits. This kit was bought right before the launch of Ryzen first gen and is a G.Skill F4-3200c14d-8GTZR model. You can see the timings its running in the screenshots posted below. Maybe they will help you get higher overclocks. If you have good Samsung Bdie then they are perfectly fine at 1.45v-1.5v but on Ryzen 2nd Gen the SoC and VDDG voltages are more of a player in higher frequencies it seems. If you arent used to Ryzen memory overclocking then you may have some work ahead of you. Goodluck.
> 
> Aida64
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 281900
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ramtest
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 281898
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geekbench 3
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 281894
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geekbench 4
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 281896


Hi, what settings from their auto values did you adjust to get to 3800MHz?


----------



## schoolofmonkey

I got a couple of questions.

1: People with Samsung NVME drives, are you using the standard Windows Driver or the Samsung driver?
2: Are you using the AMD Chipset driver from the boards support page or direct from AMD's site?
3: People with x570 boards did you have to manually install the AMD sata AHCI driver for each port, or are they left as Windows "Standard SATA Port" using the Windows drivers?

Just trying to work out what everyone has done in the way of driver installs.


----------



## MacG32

CJMitsuki said:


> I have 3800 cl14 stable on my C7H, you dont need high binned frequency kits. This kit was bought right before the launch of Ryzen first gen and is a G.Skill F4-3200c14d-8GTZR model. You can see the timings its running in the screenshots posted below. Maybe they will help you get higher overclocks. If you have good Samsung Bdie then they are perfectly fine at 1.45v-1.5v but on Ryzen 2nd Gen the SoC and VDDG voltages are more of a player in higher frequencies it seems. If you arent used to Ryzen memory overclocking then you may have some work ahead of you. Goodluck.



Thank you for posting those. I appreciate that. I spent a total of 15 minutes playing with my kit's settings. I didn't actually try very hard at all or take it seriously. I'm no memory expert or overclocking guru. I bought a 4000MHz kit to minimize the amount of time it will take me to get to 3733MHz without trying to guess what timings do what. I relied heavily on other's settings and the DRAM Calculator for Ryzen when I overclocked my 3200MHz kit to 3466MHz (pictured below). Those same setting lock up my BIOS now and make it not load at all. It'll be a lot easier for me to downclock that 4000MHz kit than overclock my 3200MHz kit. If there was a super tightly timed 3733MHz kit available, I would have just bought that and not even worried about messing with timings at all. Thanks again. +Rep


----------



## CJMitsuki

OneCosmic said:


> Hi, what settings from their auto values did you adjust to get to 3800MHz?


I dont run anything memory related on auto as far as timings and voltages are concerned except for Trdwr timing, it has some odd bug that will cause a boot loop if it is adjusted in any manner from Auto. In the screenshots you can see the timings in Ryzen master as well as other settings such as ProcOdt, Cad_Bus, etc. If anyone wants to learn how to OC their memory on Ryzen then participate in the DRAM calculator thread and read through the hundreds of posts. We also have tons of information on the C7H thread. Pretty much all we do is test and discuss. Ryzen isnt going to be as easy as input some general timings and settings and youre all set on higher frequencies. That will inevitably depend on your memory IC and cpu silicon and thorough testing of those capabilities. Some cpus will want more Soc and VDDG and some memory will want a certain voltage and going above or below that can and often will result in errors. This goes for all the timings and resistance settings as well. You'll rarely find general settings that work across many Ryzen setups for memory. They may get you close but from there it will be a matter of changing a setting and testing the memory then repeat and through all of that sometimes rather infuriating process youll begin to understand the behaviors and personality of your memory and the way it interacts with the Zen architecture.


----------



## MacG32

schoolofmonkey said:


> I got a couple of questions.
> 
> 1: People with Samsung NVME drives, are you using the standard Windows Driver or the Samsung driver?
> 2: Are you using the AMD Chipset driver from the boards support page or direct from AMD's site?
> 3: People with x570 boards did you have to manually install the AMD sata AHCI driver for each port, or are they left as Windows "Standard SATA Port" using the Windows drivers?
> 
> Just trying to work out what everyone has done in the way of driver installs.



I use the latest Samsung NVMe Driver. I'm using the AMD Chipset Driver from AMD's website. I left mine as Windows Standard SATA Ports using Windows Drivers.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

MacG32 said:


> I use the latest Samsung NVMe Driver. I'm using the AMD Chipset Driver from AMD's website. I left mine as Windows Standard SATA Ports using Windows Drivers.


I think that's what causing some of my issues, I manually installed the AMD SATA Drivers, Windows picked them up in the AMD chipset driver folder when pointed to it, but the AMD Chipset driver installer doesn't install them automatically, guess for a reason.

I've removed the AMD Sata Driver, I suspect that's what cause the random BSOD the other night, haven't had one since.


----------



## phillyman36

schoolofmonkey said:


> I got a couple of questions.
> 
> 1: People with Samsung NVME drives, are you using the standard Windows Driver or the Samsung driver?
> 2: Are you using the AMD Chipset driver from the boards support page or direct from AMD's site?
> 3: People with x570 boards did you have to manually install the AMD sata AHCI driver for each port, or are they left as Windows "Standard SATA Port" using the Windows drivers?
> 
> Just trying to work out what everyone has done in the way of driver installs.


1) Samsung Nvme drivers.
2) I used the Chipset drivers from AMD's site. When I do a reinstall I'm going to use the board support page.
3) Windows drivers.

One side note every once in a while my mobo hangs on boot. post code 8d. I hit the reset and it eventually boots. Memory is Gskill Trident Z 3200(2x8GB) Model F4-3200C16D-16GTZKW
https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-16gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232391?Item=N82E16820232391

set to 3200. If I keep it at 2133 I don't get that error.


----------



## chowbaby

MacG32 said:


> *My Hero's Chipset idles at around 56C.* Seems the thermal material needs to be replaced with something much better. :thinking:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's keeping you from assembling it now and adding the last drive in later? I know I couldn't wait.


Can you let us know the results if you swap in some kryonaut or NT-H2?


----------



## 1usmus

MacG32 said:


> Thank you for posting those. I appreciate that. I spent a total of 15 minutes playing with my kit's settings. I didn't actually try very hard at all or take it seriously. I'm no memory expert or overclocking guru. I bought a 4000MHz kit to minimize the amount of time it will take me to get to 3733MHz without trying to guess what timings do what. I relied heavily on other's settings and the DRAM Calculator for Ryzen when I overclocked my 3200MHz kit to 3466MHz (pictured below). Those same setting lock up my BIOS now and make it not load at all. It'll be a lot easier for me to downclock that 4000MHz kit than overclock my 3200MHz kit. If there was a super tightly timed 3733MHz kit available, I would have just bought that and not even worried about messing with timings at all. Thanks again. +Rep


Now the optimum range is 34-36.9 ohms for procODT.
VDDG 1.05-1.1 is sufficient even for unsuccessful instances. SOC 1.025, 1.05 and 1.1 volts. Also pay attention to tRDWR and tWRRD, 8 1 or 9 1 are optimal for high frequencies.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Has anyone started CCX overclocking? I need help trying to figure out these BIOs settings. I'm trying to replicate what Ryzen Master is doing in the bios, setting VID voltages. I'm real close to cracking 8000 on Cinebench R20.


----------



## crakej

1usmus said:


> *3733C14 1:1 mode *(DRAM - Trident Z Royal 3600C16)
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :thumb:


Nice! - how come your AISuite is showing a value for VTTDDR? Mine doesn't show that or other stuff yours shows. I downloaded the version from CH8 page....


----------



## Jackalito

pantsoftime said:


> The pins just aren't there. You need to find the table in the manual called "PCIe operating mode" and you'll see that in no case is PCIe x16_2 ever more than x8 and in no case is PCIe x16_3 ever more than x4.


You mean this right?









Well, I see your point, though the manual seems to suggest that it's not possible to use the second port for a single card setup. And, in any case, PCIe 4.0 x8 should technically offer about the same bandwidth as a PCIe 3.0 x16 port, isn't that right?

I'm so persistent on this matter simply because that would be an easy workaround for the high temperatures of the X570 chipset on our boards, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## phillyman36

crakej said:


> Nice! - how come your AISuite is showing a value for VTTDDR? Mine doesn't show that or other stuff yours shows. I downloaded the version from CH8 page....


Did you clip the tab on the left and select TPU?


----------



## crakej

phillyman36 said:


> Did you clip the tab on the left and select TPU?


Yes.

I'm guessing it's because of the different chipset. On CH7, VTTDDR just show 0.6v, and also it doesn't show the new voltages like VDDG. This (your) version now shows me SoC which also wasn't showing before.


----------



## MacG32

schoolofmonkey said:


> I think that's what causing some of my issues, I manually installed the AMD SATA Drivers, Windows picked them up in the AMD chipset driver folder when pointed to it, but the AMD Chipset driver installer doesn't install them automatically, guess for a reason.
> 
> I've removed the AMD Sata Driver, I suspect that's what cause the random BSOD the other night, haven't had one since.



I'm glad to see you've got it figured out. 



chowbaby said:


> Can you let us know the results if you swap in some kryonaut or NT-H2?



I sure will, but I'm not sure if or when I may do it. 



1usmus said:


> Now the optimum range is 34-36.9 ohms for procODT.
> VDDG 1.05-1.1 is sufficient even for unsuccessful instances. SOC 1.025, 1.05 and 1.1 volts. Also pay attention to tRDWR and tWRRD, 8 1 or 9 1 are optimal for high frequencies.



Thank you very much 1usmus! I appreciate your help and the work you do. :thumb:



crakej said:


> Nice! - how come your AISuite is showing a value for VTTDDR? Mine doesn't show that or other stuff yours shows. I downloaded the version from CH8 page....



Nice to see another familiar poster. 



Jackalito said:


> You mean this right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I see your point, though the manual seems to suggest that it's not possible to use the second port for a single card setup. And, in any case, PCIe 4.0 x8 should technically offer about the same bandwidth as a PCIe 3.0 x16 port, isn't that right?
> 
> I'm so persistent on this matter simply because that would be an easy workaround for the high temperatures of the X570 chipset on our boards, wouldn't you agree?



There is enough space between a graphics card and the chipset fan to get enough air flow in there. I think the problem lies in the thermal compound/material quality. Moving a graphics card to another slot would probably only gain a degree or two in cooling, if any. :cheers:


----------



## phillyman36

So far so good. Lights are staying on. Aura light app loads and works. 
1) clear cmos, updated bios again, updated the 0702 from the 7/17 and fresh install
2) Made sure Armoury crate was disabled
3) Installed light app first
4) let windows do all its updates(including 1903)
5) Then installed rest of drivers. i used the Amd chipset driver from the Asus webite not Amd.com


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

phillyman36 said:


> So far so good. Lights are staying on. Aura light app loads and works.
> 1) clear cmos, updated bios again, updated the 0702 from the 7/17 and fresh install
> 2) Made sure Armoury crate was disabled
> 3) Installed light app first
> 4) let windows do all its updates(including 1903)
> 5) Then installed rest of drivers. i used the Amd chipset driver from the Asus webite not Amd.com


Why disable armour crate? Why not just have it closed until you need it.


----------



## phillyman36

SlimJ87D said:


> Why disable armour crate? Why not just have it closed until you need it.


Manually did everything as some others have done. So far so good.


----------



## peteone43

Hello, new here 

Running hero VIII wifi + 3700x + 4x BLE8G4D36BEEAK + on AIO Water 3.0 upgraded fans to SW3 PWM + 3 additional SW3 PWM in the case.

haven't upgraded since FX-9590 black so I'm totally green with OC but would like to have the system run nicely - some gaming and video editing (premiere) 
I don't need max OC just a daily rider. Can someone point me to a decent guide?

Also, I installed Asus AI Suite 3 and Ryzen Master should I just keep 1?
What bios version should I be running?


----------



## MacG32

peteone43 said:


> Hello, new here
> 
> Running hero VIII wifi + 3700x + 4x BLE8G4D36BEEAK + on AIO Water 3.0 upgraded fans to SW3 PWM + 3 additional SW3 PWM in the case.
> 
> haven't upgraded since FX-9590 black so I'm totally green with OC but would like to have the system run nicely - some gaming and video editing (premiere)
> I don't need max OC just a daily rider. Can someone point me to a decent guide?
> 
> Also, I installed Asus AI Suite 3 and Ryzen Master should I just keep 1?
> What bios version should I be running?



I just watched this video and it seemed to explain a lot about overclocking and Precision Boost Overdrive for the 3700X. I know it's a different board, but the settings are the same. Seems like everyone's using Ryzen Master. 0702 is the latest BIOS. Welcome!


----------



## peteone43

thanks


----------



## wisepds

Guys, what Vcore for 4,3ghz on 3900x? I mean on load, not on idle with for example LLC2?

I can't push to 4,3 and 1,35v (1,287 under load)


----------



## pantsoftime

Jackalito said:


> You mean this right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I see your point, though the manual seems to suggest that it's not possible to use the second port for a single card setup. And, in any case, PCIe 4.0 x8 should technically offer about the same bandwidth as a PCIe 3.0 x16 port, isn't that right?
> 
> I'm so persistent on this matter simply because that would be an easy workaround for the high temperatures of the X570 chipset on our boards, wouldn't you agree?


Oh of course I agree with your desired approach, it only makes sense. If you have a PCIe 4.0 GPU then yes PCIe 4.0 x8 will be equivalent bandwidth to PCIe 3.0 x16. If you have a PCIe 3.0 GPU then it will only run at PCIe 3.0 x8 in that slot. 

These are the downsides of mainstream CPUs... they just don't have enough lanes. Coming from an HEDT platform it's a bit of a disappointment.


----------



## Jackalito

pantsoftime said:


> Oh of course I agree with your desired approach, it only makes sense. If you have a PCIe 4.0 GPU then yes PCIe 4.0 x8 will be equivalent bandwidth to PCIe 3.0 x16. If you have a PCIe 3.0 GPU then it will only run at PCIe 3.0 x8 in that slot.
> 
> These are the downsides of mainstream CPUs... they just don't have enough lanes. Coming from an HEDT platform it's a bit of a disappointment.


I'm planning on getting a Radeon RX 5700XT next month, once custom cards are available, so I'll probably end up doing that, at least as far as it's feasible. 

Cheers!


----------



## schoolofmonkey

SlimJ87D said:


> Why disable armour crate? Why not just have it closed until you need it.


https://www.techpowerup.com/248827/...-push-software-into-your-windows-installation

Basically if you want to do some benchmarking all the background services can throw the numbers out resulting in lower scores...


----------



## flyinion

Hey guys this is one of the boards I'm considering vs the Gigabyte Master due to the number of USB port support on the rear since it loses a front panel USB 3.x (I have 4 ports on my case plus a type C), but also am interested since all of its ports are 3.x where the Gigabyte has 4 2.0's on the I/O panel. 

The big thing I was wondering is how the chipset fan noise is on this? Can you hear it over "standard" case fans that are running at say 1/2 speed or so via fan profiles? I know the Gigabyte board has 3 profiles the chipset fan can be set to but I can't find any info like that on the Asus boards. If it helps at all, my build will be using an H500M from Coolermaster with the stock 140 x 1, 200 x 2, and 3x120 (unsure of model yet) on a 360 radiator for water cooling.


----------



## Keith Myers

wisepds said:


> Guys, what Vcore for 4,3ghz on 3900x? I mean on load, not on idle with for example LLC2?
> 
> I can't push to 4,3 and 1,35v (1,287 under load)


I ended up with a 43X multiplier for all-core OC at 1.29V which is achieved with a +0.2V offset. Using LLC3 for cpu and soc. The base voltage for the 43X ends up at 1.09V on my 3900X plus my offset nets 1.29V. End up at 1.25-1.26V under load with the LLC3. Stable and running 24/7 BOINC Seti load since I put it back to crunching. Memory is at my previous stable clock of 3466CL14 Fast timings. Couldn't get the memory to go faster but the news today that the Calculator is wrong for Zen 2 was probably the reason I could not achieve 3533 or 3600.


----------



## MacG32

wisepds said:


> Guys, what Vcore for 4,3ghz on 3900x? I mean on load, not on idle with for example LLC2?
> 
> I can't push to 4,3 and 1,35v (1,287 under load)



The reviewer in the video I posted used maxed LLC and 1.4V for 4.35GHz on a 3700X, so I think you're on the right track. I would try to increase LLC and go from there. 



flyinion said:


> Hey guys this is one of the boards I'm considering vs the Gigabyte Master due to the number of USB port support on the rear since it loses a front panel USB 3.x (I have 4 ports on my case plus a type C), but also am interested since all of its ports are 3.x where the Gigabyte has 4 2.0's on the I/O panel.
> 
> The big thing I was wondering is how the chipset fan noise is on this? Can you hear it over "standard" case fans that are running at say 1/2 speed or so via fan profiles? I know the Gigabyte board has 3 profiles the chipset fan can be set to but I can't find any info like that on the Asus boards. If it helps at all, my build will be using an H500M from Coolermaster with the stock 140 x 1, 200 x 2, and 3x120 (unsure of model yet) on a 360 radiator for water cooling.



I can't hear it at all, even under full load. There are no manual adjustments available on the chipset fan from Asus. Good luck in your decision.


----------



## chowbaby

MacG32 said:


> The reviewer in the video I posted used maxed LLC and 1.4V for 4.35GHz on a 3700X, so I think you're on the right track. I would try to increase LLC and go from there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I can't hear it at all, even under full load. There are no manual adjustments available on the chipset fan from Asus. Good luck in your decision. *




Hopefully they add that in, they usually have really good fan control.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

wisepds said:


> Guys, what Vcore for 4,3ghz on 3900x? I mean on load, not on idle with for example LLC2?
> 
> I can't push to 4,3 and 1,35v (1,287 under load)


Are you using BIOs or Ryzen Master? I've been trying to figure out how to control the voltages with BIOs, it doesn't work. 

But anyways, use this method for now: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cefwjg/ty_der8auer_for_per_ccx_oc_recommend_massive/

I'm waiting for others to start OC so we can discuss controlling VID voltages. Haven't seen anyone talk much about CCX OC here yet.

With this method, I have accomplished the following:

Ryzen Master - All VID voltages controlled to be below 1.325, no thermal warnings happen. 
CCX0 4425
CCX1 4425
CCX2 4475
CCX3 4475

der8auer's OC tool - VID voltages spike to 1.38v-1.48v, thermal warnings happen and PC shuts off
CCX0 4425
CCX1 4425
CCX2 4450
CCX3 4450

My scores with der8auer's OC tool is actually higher because Ryzen Master sucks up resources. But Ryzen Master lets me run 4475 because it controls the VID voltages!

I CAN'T GET THE BIOS TO CONTROL THE VID VOLTAGES LIKE RYZEN MASTER DOES!

Hopefully someone here can figure it out. We'll get really nice OCs soon. We need to Overclock and Undervolt the best that we can to maximize boost because if we don't, thermal throttling occurs and these chips heat up quite rapidly due to the way they are designed.


----------



## wisepds

SlimJ87D said:


> Are you using BIOs or Ryzen Master? I've been trying to figure out how to control the voltages with BIOs, it doesn't work.
> 
> But anyways, use this method for now: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cefwjg/ty_der8auer_for_per_ccx_oc_recommend_massive/
> 
> I'm waiting for others to start OC so we can discuss controlling VID voltages. Haven't seen anyone talk much about CCX OC here yet.
> 
> With this method, I have accomplished the following:
> 
> Ryzen Master - All VID voltages controlled to be below 1.325, no thermal warnings happen.
> CCX0 4425
> CCX1 4425
> CCX2 4475
> CCX3 4475
> 
> der8auer's OC tool - VID voltages spike to 1.38v-1.48v, thermal warnings happen and PC shuts off
> CCX0 4425
> CCX1 4425
> CCX2 4450
> CCX3 4450
> 
> My scores with der8auer's OC tool is actually higher because Ryzen Master sucks up resources. But Ryzen Master lets me run 4475 because it controls the VID voltages!
> 
> I CAN'T GET THE BIOS TO CONTROL THE VID VOLTAGES LIKE RYZEN MASTER DOES!
> 
> Hopefully someone here can figure it out. We'll get really nice OCs soon. We need to Overclock and Undervolt the best that we can to maximize boost because if we don't, thermal throttling occurs and these chips heat up quite rapidly due to the way they are designed.


Thanks! But i want to do Overclock from the bios, not on windows. What temps have you under load? I think tha 4,6 values that Amd claims is a real fake, my ryzen 3900X doesn't get that speed...i feel cheated..


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Ok so any ideas, currently I'm getting random reboots/BSOD when idle, it's happened twice now.
I'll locked the computer just then to cook dinner, Chrome was running, when I came back the machine had reboot, checked bluescreens and there was no dump logged other than the first BSOD.
The first BSOD I was just browsing the web (Chrome), and I actually saw the BSOD, the log on that was with the ntoskrnl.exe.

I've run Prime95, Realbench, Cinebench, Memtest all fine, heck I've played hours of GTA V, AC:O, Metro Last Light, so it's not load or memory related.

I have a 3900x (no oc) with a negative -0.100v offset, maybe I need to lower that to -0.05v, it's all I can think of that would be causing a idle crash.

I've notice even with Chrome open my idle voltages when not touching anything drop to about 0.496v occasionally.

System:
3900x
ROG Crosshair VIII Formula
32GB (2x16GB) Gskill Trident 3200Mhz 16-18-18 38 (1.36v)
Samsing Evo 970 Pro 250GB NVMe


----------



## phillyman36

Just looked in my Bios and noticed that my precision Boost overdrive is set to auto by default. Under that section
PBO
PBO scalar
Max CPU Boost clock Override
Platform Thermal throttle Limit
Everything is set to Auto by default.

Since im not really familiar with voltages should I disable some or all 4 of those?


----------



## schoolofmonkey

phillyman36 said:


> Just looked in my Bios and noticed that my precision Boost overdrive is set to auto. Under that section
> PBO
> PBO scalar
> Max CPU Boost clock Override
> Platform Thermal throttle Limit
> Everything is set to Auto by default.
> 
> Since im not really familiar with voltages should I disable some or all 4 of those?


Steve from GN basically pointed out that Auto technically means off...


----------



## phillyman36

schoolofmonkey said:


> Steve from GN basically pointed out that Auto technically means off...


Thanks lol for a second im like did my mobo just void my warranty lol

So far so good. My first install my bios was updated to the 0702 with the 7/5/2019 date. After I reinstalled the same 0702 bios with the 7/19/2019 date and installed the Aura lights first, let windows do all its updates and installed the chipset drivers from the Asus website last its running smooth. Before when I set my m,em freq to 3200 I would sometimes get a 8d post error. Haven't seen that yet.
Side note God how i sooo want to get transfer this from my white Corsair 780t to a Corsair black 680x lol


----------



## 1usmus

In the interval between breakfast and writing a special review Zen 2 I want to share one more profile with you

*4200C16
*
https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=282456&stc=1&d=1563710817


__________________________________


*I checked the VDDG voltage requirements for the entire frequency spectrum when using a processor with a poor memory controller. 0.9 volts is enough for any scenario.*


----------



## wisepds

1usmus said:


> In the interval between breakfast and writing a special review Zen 2 I want to share one more profile with you
> 
> *4200C16
> *
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=282456&stc=1&d=1563710817
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> 
> 
> *I checked the VDDG voltage requirements for the entire frequency spectrum when using a processor with a poor memory controller. 0.9 volts is enough for any scenario.*


 @1usmus ¿What values would you use for Trident Z 3600 CL15,15,15,15,35 @1,35v Samsung B-die 4x8GB on Crosshair VIII wifi? Maybe 1,38v? 1T? My rams doesn't pass the memtest... at 1,35v 15,15,15,15,35,and geardown disabled (For cl15, you know)  when will you Calculator be ready? Please, help!!!


----------



## MacG32

chowbaby said:


> Hopefully they add that in, they usually have really good fan control.



I doubt a fan control feature for the chipset fan will happen. :thinking:



SlimJ87D said:


> Are you using BIOs or Ryzen Master? I've been trying to figure out how to control the voltages with BIOs, it doesn't work.
> 
> But anyways, use this method for now: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cefwjg/ty_der8auer_for_per_ccx_oc_recommend_massive/
> 
> I'm waiting for others to start OC so we can discuss controlling VID voltages. Haven't seen anyone talk much about CCX OC here yet.
> 
> With this method, I have accomplished the following:
> 
> Ryzen Master - All VID voltages controlled to be below 1.325, no thermal warnings happen.
> CCX0 4425
> CCX1 4425
> CCX2 4475
> CCX3 4475
> 
> der8auer's OC tool - VID voltages spike to 1.38v-1.48v, thermal warnings happen and PC shuts off
> CCX0 4425
> CCX1 4425
> CCX2 4450
> CCX3 4450
> 
> My scores with der8auer's OC tool is actually higher because Ryzen Master sucks up resources. But Ryzen Master lets me run 4475 because it controls the VID voltages!
> 
> I CAN'T GET THE BIOS TO CONTROL THE VID VOLTAGES LIKE RYZEN MASTER DOES!
> 
> Hopefully someone here can figure it out. We'll get really nice OCs soon. We need to Overclock and Undervolt the best that we can to maximize boost because if we don't, thermal throttling occurs and these chips heat up quite rapidly due to the way they are designed.



Thank you for sharing the link and info. +Rep 



wisepds said:


> Thanks! But i want to do Overclock from the bios, not on windows. What temps have you under load? I think tha 4,6 values that Amd claims is a real fake, my ryzen 3900X doesn't get that speed...i feel cheated..



I'm sure as the BIOS and microcode matures you'll be able to overclock better with less volts and lower temps. Maybe the ROG Team can put together an overclock guide to maximize overclocks with minimal temperatures. 



schoolofmonkey said:


> Ok so any ideas, currently I'm getting random reboots/BSOD when idle, it's happened twice now.
> I'll locked the computer just then to cook dinner, Chrome was running, when I came back the machine had reboot, checked bluescreens and there was no dump logged other than the first BSOD.
> The first BSOD I was just browsing the web (Chrome), and I actually saw the BSOD, the log on that was with the ntoskrnl.exe.
> 
> I've run Prime95, Realbench, Cinebench, Memtest all fine, heck I've played hours of GTA V, AC:O, Metro Last Light, so it's not load or memory related.
> 
> I have a 3900x (no oc) with a negative -0.100v offset, maybe I need to lower that to -0.05v, it's all I can think of that would be causing a idle crash.
> 
> I've notice even with Chrome open my idle voltages when not touching anything drop to about 0.496v occasionally.
> 
> System:
> 3900x
> ROG Crosshair VIII Formula
> 32GB (2x16GB) Gskill Trident 3200Mhz 16-18-18 38 (1.36v)
> Samsing Evo 970 Pro 250GB NVMe



I wouldn't use an offset at all. Seems there's not enough volts at idle to maintain your stability. 



1usmus said:


> In the interval between breakfast and writing a special review Zen 2 I want to share one more profile with you
> 
> *4200C16
> *
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=282456&stc=1&d=1563710817
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> 
> 
> *I checked the VDDG voltage requirements for the entire frequency spectrum when using a processor with a poor memory controller. 0.9 volts is enough for any scenario.*



Thank you again for sharing your settings and configuration with us. I really appreciate that. +Rep :thumb:


----------



## leetier

phillyman36 said:


> Thanks lol for a second im like did my mobo just void my warranty lol
> 
> So far so good. My first install my bios was updated to the 0702 with the 7/5/2019 date. After I reinstalled the same 0702 bios with the 7/19/2019 date and installed the Aura lights first, let windows do all its updates and installed the chipset drivers from the Asus website last its running smooth. Before when I set my m,em freq to 3200 I would sometimes get a 8d post error. Haven't seen that yet.
> Side note God how i sooo want to get transfer this from my white Corsair 780t to a Corsair black 680x lol


I have the 0702 with a date 7/4/2019 when I look in the BIOS. Only way that was working for me in terms of BIOS updating was the EZ Flash via Internet and it got this version. I tried installing the newest (same version number with newer date?) but I am unable. I have a FAT32 USB stick (tried two different ones) and tried by flashback function as well as EZ flash via USB stick and also the Internet EZ Flash again. Flashback doesn't go anywhere, EZ Flash with stick keeps saying the file isnt a proper BIOS file, and internet EZ Flash says I have the latest version but clearly I don't. 

Now also tried using the C8H BIOS file from Asus website in AI Suite 3 which says "The model of the BIOS image doesn't match the BIOS ROM currently present"

How is this update supposed to be done?


----------



## MacG32

leetier said:


> I have the 0702 with a date 7/4/2019 when I look in the BIOS. Only way that was working for me in terms of BIOS updating was the EZ Flash via Internet and it got this version. I tried installing the newest (same version number with newer date?) but I am unable. I have a FAT32 USB stick (tried two different ones) and tried by flashback function as well as EZ flash via USB stick and also the Internet EZ Flash again. Flashback doesn't go anywhere, EZ Flash with stick keeps saying the file isnt a proper BIOS file, and internet EZ Flash says I have the latest version but clearly I don't.
> 
> Now also tried using the C8H BIOS file from Asus website in AI Suite 3 which says "The model of the BIOS image doesn't match the BIOS ROM currently present"
> 
> How is this update supposed to be done?



You have the latest BIOS installed. 0702 is still 0702, just someone at Asus changed the posting date. The files are identical. It will not let you flash the same BIOS, unless you use the file renamer and follow the instructions in the manual on page 2-15 using the Flashback feature.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

MacG32 said:


> I wouldn't use an offset at all. Seems there's not enough volts at idle to maintain your stability.


Ditched the big offset, basically I'm using -0.00625v with LLC 1, drops the voltage under load but keeps the voltages higher during idle. Brought the temps up a bit, but it also brought the Cinebench scores up.

The machine passes EVERY stress test and benchmark out there including memory tests.

So I'll see what happens now when I lock the machine.


----------



## The Sandman

Question for the Hero owners, and obviously all others as well.

Has anyone tried, or have an idea if there's any chance the C6H/C7H EK Monoblock will fit the C8H?
Just waiting for the dust to settle a bit before purchase and haven't seen this topic come up here yet.

I've contacted EK and their reply on a Monoblock for the C8H was "probably the special monoblocks for the X570 motherboards would be coming out in September 2019".


----------



## OneCosmic

1usmus said:


> In the interval between breakfast and writing a special review Zen 2 I want to share one more profile with you
> 
> *4200C16
> *
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=282456&stc=1&d=1563710817
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> 
> 
> *I checked the VDDG voltage requirements for the entire frequency spectrum when using a processor with a poor memory controller. 0.9 volts is enough for any scenario.*


Is 4200MHz CL16/1800 fClock better than 3600MHz CL14/1800fClock with optimised subtimings?


----------



## schoolofmonkey

So far so good with the idle clock BSOD, temps suck though, maxing out at 80c.
I ended up with a offset of -0.00625, it wouldn't let me use -0.0001

CPU Power is hitting 147w on full load during a x264 encode.

Someone mentioned about limiting power and not messing with negative offsets to lower temps, I'm just not sure how to go about that..


----------



## phillyman36

leetier said:


> I have the 0702 with a date 7/4/2019 when I look in the BIOS. Only way that was working for me in terms of BIOS updating was the EZ Flash via Internet and it got this version. I tried installing the newest (same version number with newer date?) but I am unable. I have a FAT32 USB stick (tried two different ones) and tried by flashback function as well as EZ flash via USB stick and also the Internet EZ Flash again. Flashback doesn't go anywhere, EZ Flash with stick keeps saying the file isnt a proper BIOS file, and internet EZ Flash says I have the latest version but clearly I don't.
> 
> Now also tried using the C8H BIOS file from Asus website in AI Suite 3 which says "The model of the BIOS image doesn't match the BIOS ROM currently present"
> 
> How is this update supposed to be done?


What MagG32 said. Used the file renamer and updated via the bios update tool. The files are supposed to be the same but i updated again just in case something went wrong with my first update.


----------



## wisepds

why my CPU FSB is not 100?


----------



## Section31

SlimJ87D said:


> Are you using BIOs or Ryzen Master? I've been trying to figure out how to control the voltages with BIOs, it doesn't work.
> 
> But anyways, use this method for now: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cefwjg/ty_der8auer_for_per_ccx_oc_recommend_massive/
> 
> I'm waiting for others to start OC so we can discuss controlling VID voltages. Haven't seen anyone talk much about CCX OC here yet.
> 
> With this method, I have accomplished the following:
> 
> Ryzen Master - All VID voltages controlled to be below 1.325, no thermal warnings happen.
> CCX0 4425
> CCX1 4425
> CCX2 4475
> CCX3 4475
> 
> der8auer's OC tool - VID voltages spike to 1.38v-1.48v, thermal warnings happen and PC shuts off
> CCX0 4425
> CCX1 4425
> CCX2 4450
> CCX3 4450
> 
> My scores with der8auer's OC tool is actually higher because Ryzen Master sucks up resources. But Ryzen Master lets me run 4475 because it controls the VID voltages!
> 
> I CAN'T GET THE BIOS TO CONTROL THE VID VOLTAGES LIKE RYZEN MASTER DOES!
> 
> Hopefully someone here can figure it out. We'll get really nice OCs soon. We need to Overclock and Undervolt the best that we can to maximize boost because if we don't, thermal throttling occurs and these chips heat up quite rapidly due to the way they are designed.


Thanks for the link. This really helped me out. I am still working on fine tuning the overclock. The bios PBO have issues with using too much voltage.


----------



## Section31

The Sandman said:


> Question for the Hero owners, and obviously all others as well.
> 
> Has anyone tried, or have an idea if there's any chance the C6H/C7H EK Monoblock will fit the C8H?
> Just waiting for the dust to settle a bit before purchase and haven't seen this topic come up here yet.
> 
> I've contacted EK and their reply on a Monoblock for the C8H was "probably the special monoblocks for the X570 motherboards would be coming out in September 2019".


I would seriously wait for user reviews on EKWB monoblocks. I had one for the X299 Apex and it was so bad I ended up getting the heatkiller X299 VRM waterblock and reused my heatkiller CPU IV block. I really try to avoid EKWB products at all costs.


----------



## 1usmus

*3533C14 Dual Rank*
vDRAM 1.46
1:1 MODE


----------



## 1usmus

wisepds said:


> @1usmus ¿What values would you use for Trident Z 3600 CL15,15,15,15,35 @1,35v Samsung B-die 4x8GB on Crosshair VIII wifi? Maybe 1,38v? 1T? My rams doesn't pass the memtest... at 1,35v 15,15,15,15,35,and geardown disabled (For cl15, you know)  when will you Calculator be ready? Please, help!!!



in the new calculator there are no changes for timings, they are similar 
the only difference is procODT, use 36.9 in your case (take the timings from my post that I posted above)
and one more thing, forget about the existence of XMP, it is not stable


----------



## MacG32

schoolofmonkey said:


> Ditched the big offset, basically I'm using -0.00625v with LLC 1, drops the voltage under load but keeps the voltages higher during idle. Brought the temps up a bit, but it also brought the Cinebench scores up.
> 
> The machine passes EVERY stress test and benchmark out there including memory tests.
> 
> So I'll see what happens now when I lock the machine.



Sounds like you've got it under control now. Are stock results that much different than you have now?



The Sandman said:


> Question for the Hero owners, and obviously all others as well.
> 
> Has anyone tried, or have an idea if there's any chance the C6H/C7H EK Monoblock will fit the C8H?
> Just waiting for the dust to settle a bit before purchase and haven't seen this topic come up here yet.
> 
> I've contacted EK and their reply on a Monoblock for the C8H was "probably the special monoblocks for the X570 motherboards would be coming out in September 2019".



Since the Formula has a custom block, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on anything for the Hero. I seriously doubt that the older blocks would fit the C8H. Since you've already got word back from EK, seems like it'll be a while then.



schoolofmonkey said:


> So far so good with the idle clock BSOD, temps suck though, maxing out at 80c.
> I ended up with a offset of -0.00625, it wouldn't let me use -0.0001
> 
> CPU Power is hitting 147w on full load during a x264 encode.
> 
> Someone mentioned about limiting power and not messing with negative offsets to lower temps, I'm just not sure how to go about that..



This post from SlimJ87D seems to explain how to keep voltages lower, but you need Ryzen Master running for that. 80c seems a bit out of control. Do you have an air cooler? You may want to consider an all in one water cooler.



wisepds said:


> why my CPU FSB is not 100?



I noticed that in all apps that show it too. My memory never quite hits the mark either. I wonder if it's a problem with the BIOS?



1usmus said:


> *3533C14 Dual Rank*
> vDRAM 1.46
> 1:1 MODE



Thank you again for sharing your testing/settings with us! It's very much appreciated. :thumb:


----------



## Jackalito

1usmus said:


> in the new calculator there are no changes for timings, they are similar
> the only difference is procODT, use 36.9 in your case (take the timings from my post that I posted above)
> and one more thing, forget about the existence of XMP, it is not stable



Thanks as always for sharing this valuable information with us, 1usmus! :thumb:

So, how's the new Calculator for Zen 2 coming along? Any ETA you can share with us at this moment?


----------



## wisepds

1usmus said:


> in the new calculator there are no changes for timings, they are similar
> the only difference is procODT, use 36.9 in your case (take the timings from my post that I posted above)
> and one more thing, forget about the existence of XMP, it is not stable


Thanks, I'll try!


----------



## shamino1978

SlimJ87D said:


> Are you using BIOs or Ryzen Master? I've been trying to figure out how to control the voltages with BIOs, it doesn't work.
> 
> But anyways, use this method for now: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cefwjg/ty_der8auer_for_per_ccx_oc_recommend_massive/
> 
> I'm waiting for others to start OC so we can discuss controlling VID voltages. Haven't seen anyone talk much about CCX OC here yet.
> 
> With this method, I have accomplished the following:
> 
> Ryzen Master - All VID vol
> 
> tages controlled to be below 1.325, no thermal warnings happen.
> CCX0 4425
> CCX1 4425
> CCX2 4475
> CCX3 4475
> 
> der8auer's OC tool - VID voltages spike to 1.38v-1.48v, thermal warnings happen and PC shuts off
> CCX0 4425
> CCX1 4425
> CCX2 4450
> CCX3 4450
> 
> My scores with der8auer's OC tool is actually higher because Ryzen Master sucks up resources. But Ryzen Master lets me run 4475 because it controls the VID voltages!
> 
> I CAN'T GET THE BIOS TO CONTROL THE VID VOLTAGES LIKE RYZEN MASTER DOES!
> 
> Hopefully someone here can figure it out. We'll get really nice OCs soon. We need to Overclock and Undervolt the best that we can to maximize boost because if we don't, thermal throttling occurs and these chips heat up quite rapidly due to the way they are designed.



the tool was a quick one for extreme oc testing so it sets high vid straightaway as a failsafe, not detecting if its in oc mode or not 

ok you can use this version and it can specify the vid you want
https://www.dropbox.com/s/eh69lsrtxxp5gum/PCCX.rar?dl=0

or smaller version, run perccx.exe as admin
https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6hx5sipepiace5/perccx0723.rar?dl=0

- Edit : ok tested these versions, (made sure vid converted)


----------



## MacG32

shamino1978 said:


> the tool was a quick one for extreme oc testing so it sets high vid straightaway as a failsafe, not detecting if its in oc mode or not
> 
> you can use this version and it can specify the vid you want
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/9kgau8jadrxmtvu/PCCX.rar?dl=0
> 
> 
> 
> or smaller version, run perccx.exe as admin
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/0y32xiqjzo6gwdl/perccx0723.rar?dl=0



Thank you for posting these tools! I'm sure they'll come in handy for overclocking. +Rep Added to the 1st post.


----------



## chakku

1usmus said:


> *3533C14 Dual Rank*
> vDRAM 1.46
> 1:1 MODE


Can't wait to see you manage 3733C14 on DR  Have stabilized my DR at 3733C16 1.4V maybe some tweaks will allow tighter timings.


----------



## 1usmus

Jackalito said:


> Thanks as always for sharing this valuable information with us, 1usmus! :thumb:
> 
> So, how's the new Calculator for Zen 2 coming along? Any ETA you can share with us at this moment?


28 July  
I'll make an announcement the other day



chakku said:


> Can't wait to see you manage 3733C14 on DR  Have stabilized my DR at 3733C16 1.4V maybe some tweaks will allow tighter timings.


there is no increase in productivity after 3533c14, that is, there is no point in doing even 3733с14 ... I will deal with records a little later, now I have a task - a community, a calculator and an overview


----------



## Jackalito

1usmus said:


> 28 July
> I'll make an announcement the other day


Awesome! Thanks for the heads up, mate


----------



## wisepds

1usmus said:


> 28 July
> I'll make an announcement the other day
> 
> 
> 
> there is no increase in productivity after 3533c14, that is, there is no point in doing even 3733с14 ... I will deal with records a little later, now I have a task - a community, a calculator and an overview


Thanks, Thanks, Thaaaaaanks 1Usmus!!! You are a great man!!!


----------



## Jackalito

1usmus said:


> 28 July
> I'll make an announcement the other day
> 
> 
> 
> there is no increase in productivity after 3533c14, that is, there is no point in doing even 3733с14 ... I will deal with records a little later, now I have a task - a community, a calculator and an overview


Awesome, looking forward to all that!


----------



## schoolofmonkey

MacG32 said:


> Sounds like you've got it under control now. Are stock results that much different than you have now?
> 
> 
> This post from SlimJ87D seems to explain how to keep voltages lower, but you need Ryzen Master running for that. 80c seems a bit out of control. Do you have an air cooler? You may want to consider an all in one water cooler.


The benchmark results are a little higher, idle voltages don't dip under 0.5, where with the offsets I saw it dip to 0.35v.

I am running a AIO, Corsair H150i Pro 360mm in push/pull, it's side mounted in the Lian Li Dynamic.
Though I am considering top mounting the AIO and just having the side as an intake as well.
Hardware Canucks tested it in different configurations and found that as the best for the CPU by a few degrees.

CPU-Z results, the HWinfo screenshot was taken while Cinebench was doing a run, values were reset during the run to get a look at what was happening under load.
The other is AIDA64 stress test..


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

shamino1978 said:


> the tool was a quick one for extreme oc testing so it sets high vid straightaway as a failsafe, not detecting if its in oc mode or not
> 
> you can use this version and it can specify the vid you want
> 
> or smaller version, run perccx.exe as admin
> 
> - Edit : remove the links till i test it tomorow. might have forgotten the vid needs conversion.


That would be fantastic of you! Thank you!


----------



## shamino1978

KingEngineRevUp said:


> That would be fantastic of you! Thank you!


ok you can use this version and it can specify the vid you want
https://www.dropbox.com/s/eh69lsrtxxp5gum/PCCX.rar?dl=0

or smaller version, run perccx.exe as admin
https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6hx5sipepiace5/perccx0723.rar?dl=0

- Edit : ok tested these versions, (made sure vid converted)


----------



## David Sardinha

Hmm, can alone help me out ? My X570 doesn't pick up my M.2 Drive, it's a 960 m.2 drive, o tried both m.2.1 slot and m.2.2 slot.


----------



## rv8000

So either I have a terrible 3700x, or I’m not setting some properly in the bios, but my system refuses to boot with an fclk of 1600 (when I set it to 1:1 with DDR4 3600). No issues posting with fclk ratio set to 2:1 at DDR4 3600 c14.

Is vSoC still the main voltage for IF/fclk stability or should I be adjusting vdggo (not at home to check which voltage it was again)? I’ve tried vSOC up to 1.15v so far. Haven’t adjusted Vcore or that other new voltage.

This is very frustrating coming from my z390 dark when I know this kit is capable of 4400 c17 at 1.45v. Ideas?


----------



## MacG32

schoolofmonkey said:


> The benchmark results are a little higher, idle voltages don't dip under 0.5, where with the offsets I saw it dip to 0.35v.
> 
> I am running a AIO, Corsair H150i Pro 360mm in push/pull, it's side mounted in the Lian Li Dynamic.
> Though I am considering top mounting the AIO and just having the side as an intake as well.
> Hardware Canucks tested it in different configurations and found that as the best for the CPU by a few degrees.
> 
> CPU-Z results, the HWinfo screenshot was taken while Cinebench was doing a run, values were reset during the run to get a look at what was happening under load.
> The other is AIDA64 stress test..



Seems to be running pretty cool. Mine gets up to 90c when running Prime95's Torture Test. If I had space for that cooler, I'd have one too. Looking good! :thumb:



shamino1978 said:


> ok you can use this version and it can specify the vid you want
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/eh69lsrtxxp5gum/PCCX.rar?dl=0
> 
> or smaller version, run perccx.exe as admin
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6hx5sipepiace5/perccx0723.rar?dl=0
> 
> - Edit : ok tested these versions, (made sure vid converted)



Thank you for testing these out! I've added these links to the 1st post. 



David Sardinha said:


> Hmm, can alone help me out ? My X570 doesn't pick up my M.2 Drive, it's a 960 m.2 drive, o tried both m.2.1 slot and m.2.2 slot.



Do you have an operating system installed or are you starting from scratch? OS installed: Computer Management | Disk Management and look for it in the list. Right click it and create a simple volume. I think that's what it is. Starting from scratch: Download Windows to a USB drive | Boot from it | Install Windows on the m.2 drive. 



rv8000 said:


> So either I have a terrible 3700x, or I’m not setting some properly in the bios, but my system refuses to boot with an fclk of 1600 (when I set it to 1:1 with DDR4 3600). No issues posting with fclk ratio set to 2:1 at DDR4 3600 c14.
> 
> Is vSoC still the main voltage for IF/fclk stability or should I be adjusting vdggo (not at home to check which voltage it was again)? I’ve tried vSOC up to 1.15v so far. Haven’t adjusted Vcore or that other new voltage.
> 
> This is very frustrating coming from my z390 dark when I know this kit is capable of 4400 c17 at 1.45v. Ideas?



3600MHz defaults to 1:1 with a FCLK of 1800MHz. You're making it too complicated.


----------



## centvalny

shamino1978 said:


> ok you can use this version and it can specify the vid you want
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/eh69lsrtxxp5gum/PCCX.rar?dl=0
> 
> or smaller version, run perccx.exe as admin
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6hx5sipepiace5/perccx0723.rar?dl=0
> 
> - Edit : ok tested these versions, (made sure vid converted)


Awesome! Thank you Sham

Testing with C8F, 3800X and ram @4800 1.5V


----------



## David Sardinha

MacG32 said:


> schoolofmonkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The benchmark results are a little higher, idle voltages don't dip under 0.5, where with the offsets I saw it dip to 0.35v.
> 
> I am running a AIO, Corsair H150i Pro 360mm in push/pull, it's side mounted in the Lian Li Dynamic.
> Though I am considering top mounting the AIO and just having the side as an intake as well.
> Hardware Canucks tested it in different configurations and found that as the best for the CPU by a few degrees.
> 
> CPU-Z results, the HWinfo screenshot was taken while Cinebench was doing a run, values were reset during the run to get a look at what was happening under load.
> The other is AIDA64 stress test..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to be running pretty cool. Mine gets up to 90c when running Prime95's Torture Test. If I had space for that cooler, I'd have one too. Looking good! /forum/images/smilies/thumb.gif
> 
> 
> 
> shamino1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok you can use this version and it can specify the vid you want
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/eh69lsrtxxp5gum/PCCX.rar?dl=0
> 
> or smaller version, run perccx.exe as admin
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6hx5sipepiace5/perccx0723.rar?dl=0
> 
> - Edit : ok tested these versions, (made sure vid converted)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for testing these out! I've added these links to the 1st post. /forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
> 
> 
> 
> David Sardinha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, can alone help me out ? My X570 doesn't pick up my M.2 Drive, it's a 960 m.2 drive, o tried both m.2.1 slot and m.2.2 slot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have an operating system installed or are you starting from scratch? OS installed: Computer Management | Disk Management and look for it in the list. Right click it and create a simple volume. I think that's what it is. Starting from scratch: Download Windows to a USB drive | Boot from it | Install Windows on the m.2 drive. /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif
> 
> 
> 
> rv8000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So either I have a terrible 3700x, or Iâ€™️m not setting some properly in the bios, but my system refuses to boot with an fclk of 1600 (when I set it to 1:1 with DDR4 3600). No issues posting with fclk ratio set to 2:1 at DDR4 3600 c14.
> 
> Is vSoC still the main voltage for IF/fclk stability or should I be adjusting vdggo (not at home to check which voltage it was again)? Iâ€™️ve tried vSOC up to 1.15v so far. Havenâ€™️t adjusted Vcore or that other new voltage.
> 
> This is very frustrating coming from my z390 dark when I know this kit is capable of 4400 c17 at 1.45v. Ideas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3600MHz defaults to 1:1 with a FCLK of 1800MHz. You're making it too complicated. /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif[/QUOTE
> 
> Sorry, I should ve mention that the drive isn't picked up by the pc at all .. it doesn't show up in the bios.
Click to expand...


----------



## MacG32

David Sardinha said:


> Sorry, I should ve mention that the drive isn't picked up by the pc at all .. it doesn't show up in the bios.



The drive is faulty then, if you can't even see it in the BIOS. Good luck on returning it.


----------



## David Sardinha

MacG32 said:


> David Sardinha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I should ve mention that the drive isn't picked up by the pc at all .. it doesn't show up in the bios.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The drive is faulty then, if you can't even see it in the BIOS. Good luck on returning it. /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Click to expand...

But here's the issue, the m.2 shows up in my X370 board (which is a VI hero on the lastest bio). Perhaps it's because I haven't updated the board yet ? 
(Because I haven't got a drive to install Windows and download the lasted bio)


----------



## bamu

1usmus said:


> 28 July
> I'll make an announcement the other day
> 
> 
> 
> there is no increase in productivity after 3533c14, that is, there is no point in doing even 3733с14 ... I will deal with records a little later, now I have a task - a community, a calculator and an overview


Great news! I have 3733MHz CL16bworking on my AsRock X470 using the JZ 3.46 BIOS. Being able to dial in TRFC would be a welcome improvement. Thanks for the hard work!


----------



## rv8000

MacG32 said:


> 3600MHz defaults to 1:1 with a FCLK of 1800MHz. You're making it too complicated.


Eh... nothing will post when FCLK is set to auto outside of setting DOCP. If I manually try to do anything with ram whether it be timings, misc settings, or adjusting frequency it won't post.

The Dark would actually train memory well and at least let you post to check stability if your timings weren't. I forgot how picking the ryzen platform was with having to adjust everything under the sun to even post, let alone check for stability.

Either way, the problem is probably a bios setting, guess ill just have to work backwards from DOCP timings and looking at Ryzen Master.


----------



## MacG32

David Sardinha said:


> But here's the issue, the m.2 shows up in my X370 board (which is a VI hero on the lastest bio). Perhaps it's because I haven't updated the board yet ?
> (Because I haven't got a drive to install Windows and download the lasted bio)



You should be able to put the latest BIOS on a Fat32 USB stick, boot in to the BIOS, and update the BIOS from there. 



rv8000 said:


> Eh... nothing will post when FCLK is set to auto outside of setting DOCP. If I manually try to do anything with ram whether it be timings, misc settings, or adjusting frequency it won't post.
> 
> The Dark would actually train memory well and at least let you post to check stability if your timings weren't. I forgot how picking the ryzen platform was with having to adjust everything under the sun to even post, let alone check for stability.
> 
> Either way, the problem is probably a bios setting, guess ill just have to work backwards from DOCP timings and looking at Ryzen Master.



I just bought a 4000MHz 32GB (4x8GB) kit and DOCP didn't pick up anything from the XMP profile. I loaded in at default, opened AIDA64, got the XMP settings, restarted, and plugged them in to the BIOS manually. Since I wanted 3733MHz at 1:1, I found the settings I needed to change and bingo, I'm good to go. I just need to work on my timings. They are not optimal for this set at 3733MHz. Good luck with your timings. :thumb:


----------



## rv8000

MacG32 said:


> You should be able to put the latest BIOS on a Fat32 USB stick, boot in to the BIOS, and update the BIOS from there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just bought a 4000MHz 32GB (4x8GB) kit and DOCP didn't pick up anything from the XMP profile. I loaded in at default, opened AIDA64, got the XMP settings, restarted, and plugged them in to the BIOS manually. Since I wanted 3733MHz at 1:1, I found the settings I needed to change and bingo, I'm good to go. I just need to work on my timings. They are not optimal for this set at 3733MHz. Good luck with your timings. :thumb:


I may as well just toss this entire rig in the garbage. Nothing posts unless it's default or DOCP with regards to memory settings.

Set memory to auto, target clock to 2933-3600, memory voltage from 1.2-1.45v, no timings touched, no post. I put in DOCP settings at 3600 no post. I manually enter DOCP and loosen primaries, no post. I let motherboard try to train timings, no post. Joke of an enthusiast tier board experience so far. Same exact memory kit posts and benches @ 4400 c17 1.45v, 12hr stable tested @ 4200 c17 1.43v. Can't do a damn thing with it on this platform.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

David Sardinha said:


> MacG32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to be running pretty cool. Mine gets up to 90c when running Prime95's Torture Test. If I had space for that cooler, I'd have one too. Looking good! /forum/images/smilies/thumb.gif
> 
> 
> 
> Oh ok, I'm not used to seeing those sort of temps, been running a delidded 8700k for a while now.
> When the brain logic kicks in you'd expect 12 cores at those boost rates to run that warm.
> 
> Undervotling is seriously a waste of time, it doesn't help performance at all, and in my case introduced issues with idle voltages.
> I have set a small offset of -0.00625v, with LLC 1, multicore performance is where it should be, same single core boost speeds.
> 
> Of course temps play a part, due to PB2, but either way both temps and undervolting causes performance loss, just theat undervolting can introduce other problems.
Click to expand...


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

shamino1978 said:


> ok you can use this version and it can specify the vid you want
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/eh69lsrtxxp5gum/PCCX.rar?dl=0
> 
> or smaller version, run perccx.exe as admin
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6hx5sipepiace5/perccx0723.rar?dl=0
> 
> - Edit : ok tested these versions, (made sure vid converted)


I really appreciate the tool. Some feedback, when I use the tool, it will immediately set all the VID voltages to the specified number. I set it to 1.325v. When I run a benchmark, all the VID drop to around 1.213v. Is that supposed to happen? In Ryzen Master, if I set the voltage to 1.325v they all stay and remain at 1.325v.


----------



## shamino1978

@;


KingEngineRevUp said:


> I really appreciate the tool. Some feedback, when I use the tool, it will immediately set all the VID voltages to the specified number. I set it to 1.325v. When I run a benchmark, all the VID drop to around 1.213v. Is that supposed to happen? In Ryzen Master, if I set the voltage to 1.325v they all stay and remain at 1.325v.


oh i guess you're right, not sure why, but if you want to pin it to a fixed voltage you can go into bios set to manual ("override") mode and get it to stay at what you want, then the VID is always ignored. obviously with turbovcore you can change the manual mode voltage on the fly.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

shamino1978 said:


> @;
> 
> oh i guess you're right, not sure why, but if you want to pin it to a fixed voltage you can go into bios set to manual ("override") mode and get it to stay at what you want, then the VID is always ignored. obviously with turbovcore you can change the manual mode voltage on the fly.


Which bios setting exactly? I set vcore but that only does the vcore.


----------



## Fr3ak

delete this


----------



## shamino1978

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Which bios setting exactly? I set vcore but that only does the vcore.


i meant vcore and isn't that what you wanted to stay fixed at 1.325v?


----------



## FlanK3r

Thank you Shammy for this tool. Now Im coming for second chip - 3800X (3900X I have now)


----------



## wisepds

@1usmus One question...why my Cpu FSB in cpuz or hwinfo is alwais 99,80? it never gets 100 mhz 

For example...42 x 99,80 = Not 4200 mhz Arrrrg!!!


----------



## David Sardinha

Hey, sorry to bother but I still cant get my m.2 drive to show up.

There is power in the m.2 slots, because the drive does get hot. Also, when I was updating the bios, I saw that the m.2 was recognized by the EZ Flashback but once I restarted the pc it disappear (?) Is there any setting that I need to disable/enable in the bios?

Thanks.

EDIT: Okay, so this happened: I unplugged my pc and cleared CMOS, unplugged my 250GB SSD from the SATA port, after I got into the bios it did recognized the NVMe M.2 Drive but then I plugged my SATA SSD and it stopped recognizing it


----------



## jimmyz

David Sardinha said:


> Hey, sorry to bother but I still cant get my m.2 drive to show up.
> 
> There is power in the m.2 slots, because the drive does get hot. Also, when I was updating the bios, I saw that the m.2 was recognized by the EZ Flashback but once I restarted the pc it disappear (?) Is there any setting that I need to disable/enable in the bios?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> EDIT: Okay, so this happened: I unplugged my pc and cleared CMOS, unplugged my 250GB SSD from the SATA port, after I got into the bios it did recognized the NVMe M.2 Drive but then I plugged my SATA SSD and it stopped recognizing it


Use a different sata port?


----------



## David Sardinha

jimmyz said:


> Use a different sata port?


No, I mean once I plug my SSD into a SATA port, the m.2 will stop working, I also found something rather strange, I managed to get both of the drives to get recognized by the BIOS, but it said : AMD - RAID M.2 500GB and AMD - RAID SATA 250GB, what is that ? 

EDIT: It stopped recognizing the m.2 again


----------



## chowbaby

David Sardinha said:


> No, I mean once I plug my SSD into a SATA port, the m.2 will stop working, I also found something rather strange, I managed to get both of the drives to get recognized by the BIOS, but it said : AMD - RAID M.2 500GB and AMD - RAID SATA 250GB, what is that ?
> 
> EDIT: It stopped recognizing the m.2 again


Don't some SATA ports usually overlap with the m.2? So that's probably why he's saying try a different SATA port.


----------



## MacG32

rv8000 said:


> I may as well just toss this entire rig in the garbage. Nothing posts unless it's default or DOCP with regards to memory settings.
> 
> Set memory to auto, target clock to 2933-3600, memory voltage from 1.2-1.45v, no timings touched, no post. I put in DOCP settings at 3600 no post. I manually enter DOCP and loosen primaries, no post. I let motherboard try to train timings, no post. Joke of an enthusiast tier board experience so far. Same exact memory kit posts and benches @ 4400 c17 1.45v, 12hr stable tested @ 4200 c17 1.43v. Can't do a damn thing with it on this platform.



Do you own AIDA64? It will give you the XMP timings you need to manually input. (See attached pic) I noticed that DOCP doesn't pick up memory not listed in the QVL or a different amount. My memory is listed there as 16GB (2x8GB), but not 4 DIMM/32GB. It didn't pick up the timings for my kit. Setting the memory to Auto will not pick up the correct timings either. I don't know why. Each memory controller for each processor is different, so keep that in mind. Whatever you got on another board with another processor doesn't matter with a new board and processor. They're all different. Try to be patient. You'll get it eventually. :thumb:



David Sardinha said:


> No, I mean once I plug my SSD into a SATA port, the m.2 will stop working, I also found something rather strange, I managed to get both of the drives to get recognized by the BIOS, but it said : AMD - RAID M.2 500GB and AMD - RAID SATA 250GB, what is that ?
> 
> EDIT: It stopped recognizing the m.2 again



You need a lot of help, so I'm highly suggesting that you give these people a call and set up a time to have someone come to your home and help you out. Without someone being at your home to see what's going on first hand, I'm pretty sure that nobody is going to be able to help you here. Your M.2 drive might not even be on the device QVL. It might even be a good idea to start your own thread.


----------



## unaha-closp

MacG32 said:


> You have the latest BIOS installed. 0702 is still 0702, just someone at Asus changed the posting date. The files are identical. It will not let you flash the same BIOS, unless you use the file renamer and follow the instructions in the manual on page 2-15 using the Flashback feature.



Where is the BIOS Renamer for the VIII? I don't see it under the BIOS & FIRMWARE tab on the downloads page as usual. Also, is using it only necessary when updating the BIOS _not_ through the UEFI's net interface?

Also, how long do you reckon before the AGESA with the Linux boot fix hits ASUS, o wise one?


----------



## MacG32

unaha-closp said:


> Where is the BIOS Renamer for the VIII? I don't see it under the BIOS & FIRMWARE tab on the downloads page as usual. Also, is using it only necessary when updating the BIOS _not_ through the UEFI's net interface?
> 
> Also, how long do you reckon before the AGESA with the Linux boot fix hits ASUS, o wise one?



It's in the download for the BIOS. It's normally only necessary when flashing the same BIOS or reverting back to an older BIOS.

ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO BIOS 0702
1.AM4 Combo PI 1.0.0.3AB. First release.
2. Before running the USB BIOS Flashback tool, please rename the BIOS file (C8H.CAP) using *BIOSRenamer*.

Your guess is as good as mine for any new BIOS release...


----------



## David Sardinha

MacG32 said:


> Do you own AIDA64? It will give you the XMP timings you need to manually input. (See attached pic) I noticed that DOCP doesn't pick up memory not listed in the QVL or a different amount. My memory is listed there as 16GB (2x8GB), but not 4 DIMM/32GB. It didn't pick up the timings for my kit. Setting the memory to Auto will not pick up the correct timings either. I don't know why. Each memory controller for each processor is different, so keep that in mind. Whatever you got on another board with another processor doesn't matter with a new board and processor. They're all different. Try to be patient. You'll get it eventually. :thumb:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need a lot of help, so I'm highly suggesting that you give these people a call and set up a time to have someone come to your home and help you out. Without someone being at your home to see what's going on first hand, I'm pretty sure that nobody is going to be able to help you here. Your M.2 drive might not even be on the device QVL. It might even be a good idea to start your own thread.



Hey  I highly doubt bestbuy works in Portugal haha but either way, i think i managed to get it working, its a bit quirky but it works. So I unplug my SATA SSD from the board and let it boot into the m.2 drive, after that, I plug back my SSD and let it assume its a amd-raid-config and change the boot order so I boot into the SSD first and voila.


----------



## Notanymore

"I am currently running an Asus ROG Crosshair VIII Hero (WI-FI)"

What's your chipset temps look like? Reports are X570 runs hotter. Be curious to know if you shouldn't just stay with X370/X470 if you've already got the board if there are heat issues?


----------



## MacG32

David Sardinha said:


> Hey  I highly doubt bestbuy works in Portugal haha but either way, i think i managed to get it working, its a bit quirky but it works. So I unplug my SATA SSD from the board and let it boot into the m.2 drive, after that, I plug back my SSD and let it assume its a amd-raid-config and change the boot order so I boot into the SSD first and voila.



I'm glad you got it figured out.  I did remember what could have helped you. Turn on CSM mode in the BIOS under Boot and it would have shown all of your attached drives.



Notanymore said:


> "I am currently running an Asus ROG Crosshair VIII Hero (WI-FI)"
> 
> What's your chipset temps look like? Reports are X570 runs hotter. Be curious to know if you shouldn't just stay with X370/X470 if you've already got the board if there are heat issues?



Welcome! My chipset idles at 52c. It does run hotter, but it stays within it's temperature range under full load. It's up to the individual whether they want to keep their older boards or upgrade. Sooner or later PCI-E 4.0 will become useful as speeds will only increase with time. If you're looking to save a buck or wait until X570 matures, the older boards are compatible with the newer processors. To each their own.


----------



## Section31

I still think PCIE4 will be short cycle. Not worth the investment and Intel probably going straight to PCIE 5 for its 7nm chipset in 2-3years. That and windows/games show no noticable difference between an SSD and NVME drive outside of Optane. Software side needs to catch up to hardware.


----------



## Section31

shamino1978 said:


> @;
> 
> oh i guess you're right, not sure why, but if you want to pin it to a fixed voltage you can go into bios set to manual ("override") mode and get it to stay at what you want, then the VID is always ignored. obviously with turbovcore you can change the manual mode voltage on the fly.


I have mine set at 4.2ghz with CPU voltage at 1.25, CPU soc cache at 1.08. In my testing its hovers between 1.21 and 1.24 and its stable. Idle temps are 30-40degrees and load are 40-50ish. My take is maybe you won the lottery. Turned off PBO also. Still got to tinker to get my DDR4-4000 Ram kit running at that speed (have it manual at 3733mhz).


----------



## flyinion

Hey guys I have decided to go with the Hero over my original intent of a Gigabyte Master. Are there any important issues I need to know about on this (breaking bugs/etc.) before I push the buy button? I'll be getting the non-WiFi version since that's all I can find anywhere, and I don't have a need for WiFi 6 right now anyway. I'd have to upgrade my entire network to utilize it and I don't do much local network traffic anyway so my AC network is more than enough to handle my ISP connection. I also run hardwired into a Google WiFi mesh point anyway. Planning to put a 3700X in it for now and hopefully a higher core count 4xxx next year. I got tired of waiting for the 3900X to come back in stock anywhere.


----------



## Keith Myers

unaha-closp said:


> Where is the BIOS Renamer for the VIII? I don't see it under the BIOS & FIRMWARE tab on the downloads page as usual. Also, is using it only necessary when updating the BIOS _not_ through the UEFI's net interface?
> 
> Also, how long do you reckon before the AGESA with the Linux boot fix hits ASUS, o wise one?


I can run my 3900X on the 5.0.0.21 kernel in Ubuntu 18.04.2 LTS with no issues. It's only the systemd package in newer versions that causes issues.


----------



## kot0005

dont bother with changing PCH/chipset TIM. Asus boards dont use tim, they use a 1.5/2mm thermal pad. The pad breaks easily once u remove it. I was lucky to have some EK pads left overs., I used some thermal grizzly on top of the thermal pads but the temps are same. Still idle's at 68-70c..


----------



## MacG32

flyinion said:


> Hey guys I have decided to go with the Hero over my original intent of a Gigabyte Master. Are there any important issues I need to know about on this (breaking bugs/etc.) before I push the buy button? I'll be getting the non-WiFi version since that's all I can find anywhere, and I don't have a need for WiFi 6 right now anyway. I'd have to upgrade my entire network to utilize it and I don't do much local network traffic anyway so my AC network is more than enough to handle my ISP connection. I also run hardwired into a Google WiFi mesh point anyway. Planning to put a 3700X in it for now and hopefully a higher core count 4xxx next year. I got tired of waiting for the 3900X to come back in stock anywhere.



I'd say just make sure to update your BIOS right away, before doing anything else. Other than that, welcome! 



kot0005 said:


> dont bother with changing PCH/chipset TIM. Asus boards dont use tim, they use a 1.5/2mm thermal pad. The pad breaks easily once u remove it. I was lucky to have some EK pads left overs., I used some thermal grizzly on top of the thermal pads but the temps are same. Still idle's at 68-70c..



Thank you for trying that out. You have a Formula, right? :thinking:


----------



## OneCosmic

Did anybody notice RAM instability/errors with about 1.35-1.45V when RAM gets too hot during running some mem test tool? I started to use 1usmus's TestMem5 tool to check the stability of my RAM overclocks and overall there were no stability issues with normal usage at all, but TestMem5 has usually started to throw errors after about 10 minutes of testing, so i started to tweak the timings and still got errors. Then after touching RAM heatsinks i thought that they are maybe a little too hot, so i put some FAN to blow air on them and cool them down during TestMem5 and now test passes all the time with the most aggressive timings. 4x8GB Trident Z 4266 C19-19-19 RAM ICs are B-DIEs, didn't know that B-DIEs can be so much temperature sensitive?


----------



## flyinion

MacG32 said:


> I'd say just make sure to update your BIOS right away, before doing anything else. Other than that, welcome!


Thanks! I'll be sure to do that. Looking forward to this. Will be my first AMD system since I went Intel in 2007.


----------



## Section31

I got my hands on the MSI X570 Creator (we want the 10gbe port for the new office server) and its also really nice. It really fit the R6 Silent Case well and those angled 24pin help on cabling. Still waiting for CPU but makes me kind of wish had gotten that though I still am quite satisfied with the asus just needs tweaking (and its easy to tweak compared to other company bios).


----------



## kot0005

Yeah formula.


----------



## kot0005

am running my 3200 cl14 at 3466 cl16 and 1.3v..its getting toasty. 45c during gaming. How ru guys running 1.45v on memory ? what temps do u get ?


----------



## Kernel-Debugger

Finally got my 3800x installed. A few things to note:

1. Going from my CH7 to the CH8 on an M.2: Everything was fine except entering BIOS. Due to the default Fast Boot settings It was completely impossible to access Bios (even with windows advanced startup) on a U3219Q monitor from Dell on a DisplayPort. *This is with a drive that already has windows installed. After 2 Hrs of grief I got it sorted; worked fine on the HDMI. 

2. Why has the Aida64 write speeds dropped 50% for memory? Read-Write-Copy on CH7 was always high 40's to Low 50's for Read-Write-Copy, and with CH8 using a 970 Pro 1tb NvME the write section is 25-27,000 with Write and Copy having the same figures.

3. 4 sticks of cl14 3200 (AMD specific) has little room to overclock beyond 3466. Hope this improves, as I would prefer to have 32GB or more, Trident-X Neo needs to be put on the shelves.

3. Level 1 cache numbers are now doubled!

Build preview: This case has used the CH6 - CH7 - and now the CH8. Temps are slightly lower with the increased IPC.


----------



## Notanymore

Welcome! My chipset idles at 52c. It does run hotter said:


> Thanks for that update. I just saw where the AsRock X570 Taichi chipset was running at 51C under load with VRM 57C. That is very acceptable.


----------



## Disassociative

Kernel-Debugger said:


> 2. Why has the Aida64 write speeds dropped 50% for memory? Read-Write-Copy on CH7 was always high 40's to Low 50's for Read-Write-Copy, and with CH8 using a 970 Pro 1tb NvME the write section is 25-27,000 with Write and Copy having the same figures.


Single CCD/chiplet models have half the memory write bandwidth or something like that. 

https://www.techspot.com/article/1876-4ghz-ryzen-3rd-gen-vs-core-i9/ - go to the "Memory and More" section near the bottom of the article


----------



## David Sardinha

Section31 said:


> I got my hands on the MSI X570 Creator (we want the 10gbe port for the new office server) and its also really nice. It really fit the R6 Silent Case well and those angled 24pin help on cabling. Still waiting for CPU but makes me kind of wish had gotten that though I still am quite satisfied with the asus just needs tweaking (and its easy to tweak compared to other company bios).


Is it any good ? the MSI Creator ? Because im having a really bad time with this board (X570 Hero) it stops reading the m.2 drive all of the sudden and usb disconnects all the time.


----------



## Jackalito

David Sardinha said:


> Is it any good ? the MSI Creator ? Because im having a really bad time with this board (X570 Hero) it stops reading the m.2 drive all of the sudden and usb disconnects all the time.


Have you considered the possibility of a faulty mobo? I'm asking since you seem to be the only one with these issues around here. 

I've just got mine, but I won't assemble it until next week.


----------



## David Sardinha

Jackalito said:


> Have you considered the possibility of a faulty mobo? I'm asking since you seem to be the only one with these issues around here.
> 
> I've just got mine, but I won't assemble it until next week.


Yes, you're probably right, im going to disassemble my rig and trade in the board. Ill report in a few hours.


----------



## Jackalito

David Sardinha said:


> Yes, you're probably right, im going to disassemble my rig and trade in the board. Ill report in a few hours.



Let us know how it goes and good luck! :thumb:


----------



## Section31

David Sardinha said:


> Yes, you're probably right, im going to disassemble my rig and trade in the board. Ill report in a few hours.


Wish you the best. Best to get new one from your retailer. It could be faulty motherboards. Happens to all of us.


----------



## Kernel-Debugger

This is the link for the "Good" Neo set from Newegg. Just bookmark/click the auto-Notify to get on the list. https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-16gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232856?Description=Trident%20Z%20Neo&cm_re=Trident_Z_Neo-_-20-232-856-_-Product
DDR4 3600 (PC4 28800)

Trident Z Neo 2x8GB 3600Mhz:
Timing 14-15-15-35
CAS Latency 14
Voltage 1.4V

No listing for the 4x8GB kit; yet


----------



## Section31

Thanks for the manual voltage oc suggestion.


----------



## MacG32

OneCosmic said:


> Did anybody notice RAM instability/errors with about 1.35-1.45V when RAM gets too hot during running some mem test tool? I started to use 1usmus's TestMem5 tool to check the stability of my RAM overclocks and overall there were no stability issues with normal usage at all, but TestMem5 has usually started to throw errors after about 10 minutes of testing, so i started to tweak the timings and still got errors. Then after touching RAM heatsinks i thought that they are maybe a little too hot, so i put some FAN to blow air on them and cool them down during TestMem5 and now test passes all the time with the most aggressive timings. 4x8GB Trident Z 4266 C19-19-19 RAM ICs are B-DIEs, didn't know that B-DIEs can be so much temperature sensitive?



I bought a memory fan back for my X370 memory. People were claiming instability at higher temps, so I didn't want to run in to that problem. Here's a link to the fan I use: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0041G211U 



Section31 said:


> I got my hands on the MSI X570 Creator (we want the 10gbe port for the new office server) and its also really nice. It really fit the R6 Silent Case well and those angled 24pin help on cabling. Still waiting for CPU but makes me kind of wish had gotten that though I still am quite satisfied with the asus just needs tweaking (and its easy to tweak compared to other company bios).



This would be the wrong thread to discuss that motherboard in. Let's keep it on topic. 



kot0005 said:


> Yeah formula.



Looks great! Thank you for sharing your pictures. :thumb:



kot0005 said:


> am running my 3200 cl14 at 3466 cl16 and 1.3v..its getting toasty. 45c during gaming. How ru guys running 1.45v on memory ? what temps do u get ?



I use a fan to keep mine cool and stable, as heat will cause instability. I get a little over 36c while gaming. 



Kernel-Debugger said:


> This is the link for the "Good" Neo set from Newegg. Just bookmark/click the auto-Notify to get on the list. https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16820232856



Thank you for posting the link! I appreciate it.


----------



## David Sardinha

Section31 said:


> Wish you the best. Best to get new one from your retailer. It could be faulty motherboards. Happens to all of us.


Ye .. So I went and got a Hero WI-FI, they didn't had the non-WiFi in stock. Never the less, it still cant pick up the m.2 drive at all, even if I got all the drives disconnected, it still cant pick up the drive .. Seriously what the hell. 

Atleast the USB disconnects stopped so I got that going for me :/.

Now I've dug into the BIOS and even with the CSM enable it doesn't appear. 

Also for **** and giggles, I used my X370 Hero with the 3700x and it picked up both drives … so im guessing this is a bios issue


----------



## Section31

Odd bug indeed. Contact Asus support and tell them. Out of curiousity what brand m.2 drive and model are you using. That could narrow down the issue a bit, fi. For reference, I am using an 960 Pro and SN750 in mine.

The main reason i'm still using Asus is because of its bios and port selection. My other choice was the gigabyte master but couple thing i did not like about it despite it having the best VRM of all motherboards. I don't really like Gigabyte bios as not easy to use and apparently gigabyte bios bricks easily (even with dual bios). Also, I did not like gigabyte boards having so many USB 2.0 ports and lacking extra high speed usb ports on the Hero. 

At work, I am using an Gigabyte Z390 Master because asus Z390 boards VRM's using doublers were getting lot of flack online.I am afraid of upgrading this Z390 master bios because it might brick.


----------



## flyinion

Kernel-Debugger said:


> This is the link for the "Good" Neo set from Newegg. Just bookmark/click the auto-Notify to get on the list. https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-16gb...eo&cm_re=Trident_Z_Neo-_-20-232-856-_-Product
> 
> DDR4 3600 (PC4 28800)
> 
> 
> 
> Trident Z Neo 2x8GB 3600Mhz:
> 
> Timing 14-15-15-35
> 
> CAS Latency 14
> 
> Voltage 1.4V
> 
> 
> 
> No listing for the 4x8GB kit; yet




Any thoughts on the 2x16 cl16 3600 kit? I really want 32gb. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## David Sardinha

Section31 said:


> Odd bug indeed. Contact Asus support and tell them. Out of curiousity what brand m.2 drive and model are you using. That could narrow down the issue a bit, fi. For reference, I am using an 960 Pro and SN750 in mine.
> 
> The main reason i'm still using Asus is because of its bios and port selection. My other choice was the gigabyte master but couple thing i did not like about it despite it having the best VRM of all motherboards. I don't really like Gigabyte bios as not easy to use and apparently gigabyte bios bricks easily (even with dual bios). Also, I did not like gigabyte boards having so many USB 2.0 ports and lacking extra high speed usb ports on the Hero. With Asus, I only go f
> 
> At work, I am using an Gigabyte Z390 Master because asus Z390 boards VRM's using doublers were getting lot of flack online.I am afraid of upgrading this Z390 master bios because it might brick.


Im using a Samsung 960 EVO 500GB and a Samsung 850 250GB.

Ye.. That's why I picked this board in the first place, lots of ports, somewhat of a nice BIOS and its a really aesthetic board. Although if I cant get this up and running in 15 days (which is the no questions asked return policy) im probably gonna go Gigabyte or MSI, heard that they actually listen to feedback and update their BIOS in a timely manner. Not dissin' ASUS but lately they have shown no support.


----------



## Jackalito

David Sardinha said:


> Im using a Samsung 960 EVO 500GB and a Samsung 850 250GB.
> 
> Ye.. That's why I picked this board in the first place, lots of ports, somewhat of a nice BIOS and its a really aesthetic board. Although if I cant get this up and running in 15 days (which is the no questions asked return policy) im probably gonna go Gigabyte or MSI, heard that they actually listen to feedback and update their BIOS in a timely manner. Not dissin' ASUS but lately they have shown no support.


Well, I've also got a Samsung 960 EVO 500GB, and a Samsung 850, but a 1TB model. So it'll be interesting to see if I come across the same issues you've seen once I put it all together in one week or two.


----------



## Kernel-Debugger

*Kernel-Debugger*

(Memory on Ryzen 3000) Everyone trying to get memory improvements should read this from Elmorlabs: https://elmorlabs.com/index.php/2019-07-10/amd-ryzen-3000-investigated/

Trident-Z Neo through Newegg: Sold out within the hour.
@flyinion


> Any thoughts on the 2x16 cl16 3600 kit? I really want 32gb.


 X370 and X470 have had a bad track record with dual sided dimms, but X570 may have better results. I'd have to see the current charts, but dual rank speeds have always been limited. Best case scenario is "single rank 2 dimm" I'm hoping "single rank 4 dimm" to achieve 32GB can achieve the same sppeds. I think that dual rank 2 dimm will behave the same as single rank 4 dimm, as it is calculated by the soc. <unfortunately. But this older post sheds some light on prior behaviors on 16GB dimms: https://community.amd.com/thread/212963 So it works but with a slight penalty in higher attainable speeds.

What makes me wonder is why Gskill does not have the 4x8GB kits out in the first batch, but hell; still waiting on 36000 FlareX, so it doesn't surprise me.


----------



## flyinion

Kernel-Debugger said:


> (Memory on Ryzen 3000) Everyone trying to get memory improvements should read this from Elmorlabs: https://elmorlabs.com/index.php/2019-07-10/amd-ryzen-3000-investigated/
> 
> Trident-Z Neo through Newegg: Sold out within the hour.
> 
> @flyinion
> 
> X370 and X470 have had a bad track record with dual sided dimms, but X570 may have better results. I'd have to see the current charts, but dual rank speeds have always been limited. Best case scenario is "single rank 2 dimm" I'm hoping "single rank 4 dimm" to achieve 32GB can achieve the same sppeds. I think that dual rank 2 dimm will behave the same as single rank 4 dimm, as it is calculated by the soc. <unfortunately. But this older post sheds some light on prior behaviors on 16GB dimms: https://community.amd.com/thread/212963 So it works but with a slight penalty in higher attainable speeds.
> 
> What makes me wonder is why Gskill does not have the 4x8GB kits out in the first batch, but hell; still waiting on 36000 FlareX, so it doesn't surprise me.


Thanks. So, outside of trying to push timings/speeds the kits themselves should be fine at the advertised speeds and timings though on an X570 board you think? Also, a bunch more kits literally just showed up on Newegg. The 2x16 kit is out of stock still but I'm seriously considering the 4x8 CL16 kit that just showed up for $40 more so I can finish getting the parts for my build.

edit: Well, I "cheaped out" and went with the $189 3600Mhz 2x16 kit that is CL18. It still gotta be better than the CL16 3200 Royal kit I was going to buy a couple days ago, and it's on the QVL which makes me happier. I didn't want to wait for the CL16 2x16 to come back and risk other stuff in my $$$ range going out of stock since that's happening a lot right now. The 4x8 kit would leave me with no future expansion. May not break any speed records but hey at least it was in stock lol.


----------



## Zeroatlas

*ddr4 3600 8x4 wont run over 3400*

i have the crosshair viii hero (wifi) and a 3900x and i tried corsair 3600 dominator platinum c18 8x4 32gb ram and i now have G.skill 3600 c16 8x4 36gb ram BOTH ram will not work above 3400 (on 3400 warframe crashes) and running at 3200 still doesn't seem stable (Zbrush crashed alot). im currently testing the g.skill on 3200 c15-15-15-36. i tried the docp standered and some other settings and just setting to 3400 then the heros auto oc's mode that does +11% cpu +3% ram and they all do not work it just turns my pc on but doesn't get to the boot logo or bios or windows ive tried waiting like 5 minutes sometimes to see if anything happens all i know is i get the 07 motherboard error. im at a lost on this when ever i look anything online everyone is like i pressed docp and works great. i cant find anyone that post custom settings for this ram or even 3600 ram on this motherboard. i will greatly appreciate any help!
ram Model F4-3600C16Q-32GTZR ( https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-32gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232492?Item=N82E16820232492 )


----------



## Section31

Asus support is not the greatest i will agree. Your issue seems pretty common though and for each its different solution. Really hard to know unless you know someone local who can look at the issue.


----------



## rv8000

So has anyone here done any experimentation with VDDG and VSoC and how it relates to FCLK stability? My ram is posting and benching @ 4200 with loose timings but no matter what ram settings used I cannot get 3600 to boot at 1:1 for MCLK:FCLK. Convinced my 3700x is pretty bad in regards to the IF. Does anyone know safe voltages for VDDG?

SS reference: vcore auto, vdimm @ 1.48, vSoC @ 1.0625, VDDG @ auto, 2:1 ratio


----------



## Kernel-Debugger

Newegg added a few more kits of Trident Z Neo. The 14cl 2x8 Kit is 297US, and for 600US expected on a yet to be listed 4x8 kit; I'll settle for the 16cl 4a8 kit selling for 249US, and that is available now.

I'm currently using F4-3200C14Q-32GTZRZ, and this will boot at stock timings running 3600, however not stable for games or heavy workloads. I can have 1t selected but GDM must be enabled. I can also replace timings to 16 with GDM enabled and be fully stable @ 3600/1800. I can get the current memory kit down to 65ns but not stable until around 70ns. If that's the case I'd prefer to run the Neo set @16 with GDM disabled at DOCP settings, but I'm not paying 600US for a 14cl kit. I thought the thread ripper set was expensive enough at 400US. I did an overnight ship from Newegg on this kit:

https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-32gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232863?Description=trident%20z%20neo&cm_re=trident_z_neo-_-20-232-863-_-Product

I should have a full Bios settings guide using this kit, just give me a few days to test.

@rv8000 >

As for settings, what I have noticed is a few things. Like prior generations: Asus tends to overvolt and lower SOC voltages can produce better results. I am running an all core 4.25 manual overclock on a 3800X with 1.38v (which could be lower, but haven't finished memory settings). You need to manually set SOC volt to 1.2 and CLDO VDDR to 1.0 manual! Just doing a CLDO VDDR bump to 1.1 to test tighter timings and it failed to boot. The input voltage (CLDO VTTR) should be half of SOC voltage.


----------



## zorn

Anyone getting a error code 'd1' when changing any BIOS settings? If I go in and change anything at all, such as the option to turn off RGB lighting at system sleep, or try to set a XMP profile, my system will no longer post and stops with error code d1 on the little screen. I have to pull the CMOS battery and not change one single option at all, then the system boots. Have absolutely no clue where to begin on this, have tried Google and this problem appears not to be unheard of.


----------



## Section31

Depending on the ram kit, you may have to do a manual setup in bios. I had that error when I was doing XMP and just did manual. Even with my X299 Apex, XMP would have issues booting so I just inputted the RAM timing manually.


----------



## Section31

Jackalito said:


> Well, I've also got a Samsung 960 EVO 500GB, and a Samsung 850, but a 1TB model. So it'll be interesting to see if I come across the same issues you've seen once I put it all together in one week or two.


I may able to test it for you since I do have an 960Evo 500GB (bought to use as external nvme but those third party enclosure draw too much power and to get them working means all other usb ports just shut off) and 850Pro 1Tb (The SN750 1TB replaces this drive) around. Easier for me since I hold spare PSU around.

Also the other thing to consider is the mounting, what I don't like about the motherboard included heatsinks are that you are relying on the thermal tape to keep the nvme drives in place. I had that issue with my Gigabyte Z390 and I ended up just using the extra nvme screw set (from another motherboard in the office that uses 2.5inch ssds) to mount it in and then mount on the heatsink.


----------



## gupsterg

rv8000 said:


> So has anyone here done any experimentation with VDDG and VSoC and how it relates to FCLK stability? My ram is posting and benching @ 4200 with loose timings but no matter what ram settings used I cannot get 3600 to boot at 1:1 for MCLK:FCLK. Convinced my 3700x is pretty bad in regards to the IF. Does anyone know safe voltages for VDDG?
> 
> SS reference: vcore auto, vdimm @ 1.48, vSoC @ 1.0625, VDDG @ auto, 2:1 ratio


The pearls of wisdom you maybe seeking, link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6, link 7.

When ref link 6 see spoiler below, note how each channel can train differently, this quirk been on 1xxx/2xxx/Threadripper even.



Spoiler


----------



## MacG32

Kernel-Debugger said:


> (Memory on Ryzen 3000) Everyone trying to get memory improvements should read this from Elmorlabs: https://elmorlabs.com/index.php/2019-07-10/amd-ryzen-3000-investigated/
> 
> Trident-Z Neo through Newegg: Sold out within the hour.
> 
> @flyinion
> 
> X370 and X470 have had a bad track record with dual sided dimms, but X570 may have better results. I'd have to see the current charts, but dual rank speeds have always been limited. Best case scenario is "single rank 2 dimm" I'm hoping "single rank 4 dimm" to achieve 32GB can achieve the same sppeds. I think that dual rank 2 dimm will behave the same as single rank 4 dimm, as it is calculated by the soc. <unfortunately. But this older post sheds some light on prior behaviors on 16GB dimms: https://community.amd.com/thread/212963 So it works but with a slight penalty in higher attainable speeds.
> 
> What makes me wonder is why Gskill does not have the 4x8GB kits out in the first batch, but hell; still waiting on 36000 FlareX, so it doesn't surprise me.



Thanks for the 1st link! +Rep Added to the 1st post. 



gupsterg said:


> The pearls of wisdom you maybe seeking, link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6, link 7.
> 
> When ref link 6 see spoiler below, note how each channel can train differently, this quirk been on 1xxx/2xxx/Threadripper even.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 283574



Thank you very much for pointing out all of those posts! I put a link to the thread in the 1st post a while ago, but it seems not a lot have taken the time to read. 


Something GIGABYTE, MSI and AMD do not want you to see :thumb:


----------



## zorn

Section31 said:


> Depending on the ram kit, you may have to do a manual setup in bios. I had that error when I was doing XMP and just did manual. Even with my X299 Apex, XMP would have issues booting so I just inputted the RAM timing manually.


There are about half a billion numbers to put in, how do I know what to enter for each of those?


----------



## Jackalito

Section31 said:


> I may able to test it for you since I do have an 960Evo 500GB (bought to use as external nvme but those third party enclosure draw too much power and to get them working means all other usb ports just shut off) and 850Pro 1Tb (The SN750 1TB replaces this drive) around. Easier for me since I hold spare PSU around.
> 
> Also the other thing to consider is the mounting, what I don't like about the motherboard included heatsinks are that you are relying on the thermal tape to keep the nvme drives in place. I had that issue with my Gigabyte Z390 and I ended up just using the extra nvme screw set (from another motherboard in the office that uses 2.5inch ssds) to mount it in and then mount on the heatsink.


Thanks, man! I would truly appreciate it if you could share your experience with those drives


----------



## BulletSponge

Will a 3600MHz kit give me any appreciable benefit over using my current 3200 Trident Z b-die? I am trying to justify a 32GB 3600MHz kit when I can find one but if it won't matter I'll stick with what I have.


----------



## Section31

zorn said:


> There are about half a billion numbers to put in, how do I know what to enter for each of those?


There are guides to do it somewhere in this thread. People here fine tune it , I just copied and pasted the setting per GSkill 3733 Kit but i suspect I could go lower timing.


----------



## Kernel-Debugger

Here is a quick start for those with Samsung B-Die 3200Mhz (14-14-14-34) kits. Example Being AMD Specific Gskill RGB & Flare-X. The settings here is with the 4x8 single kit, and started with Ryzen Dram Calc 1.51 -But keep in mind that I'm running a single CCX 3800X

-At the very least this could get most running 3200Mhz kits up to the sweetspot @ 3600Mhz

Please note that populating all (4) Dimms "Gear Down Mode" must be set to: Auto/Enabled for stability, especially when overclocking the RAM.


BIOS:

.zip archived attached. (see bottom of post) These are Bios screenshots


Disclaimer: I have been able to get the settings listed here to boot, pass all memtests, and game in 4k ultra settings with no issues or errors. Keep in mind this is also in a heavily modded system with an extensive loop running dual pumps and extreme ekwb radiators. Your mileage may vary. With that being said: Aida latency is within 3ns of the X470 board running @3200MHz

Tomorrow I will receive the Neo kit, so edit: this will not be updated.


----------



## MacG32

BulletSponge said:


> Will a 3600MHz kit give me any appreciable benefit over using my current 3200 Trident Z b-die? I am trying to justify a 32GB 3600MHz kit when I can find one but if it won't matter I'll stick with what I have.



You should have no problems overclocking your RAM to a tightly timed 3600MHz. See below. 



Kernel-Debugger said:


> Here is a quick start for those with Samsung B-Die 3200Mhz (14-14-14-34) kits. Example Being AMD Specific Gskill RGB & Flare-X. The settings here is with the 4x8 single kit, and started with Ryzen Dram Calc 1.51 -But keep in mind that I'm running a single CCX 3800X
> 
> -At the very least this could get most running 3200Mhz kits up to the sweetspot @ 3600Mhz
> 
> Please note that populating all (4) Dimms "Gear Down Mode" must be set to: Auto/Enabled for stability, especially when overclocking the RAM.
> 
> 
> BIOS:
> 
> .zip archived attached. (see bottom of post) These are Bios screenshots
> 
> 
> Disclaimer: I have been able to get the settings listed here to boot, pass all memtests, and game in 4k ultra settings with no issues or errors. Keep in mind this is also in a heavily modded system with an extensive loop running dual pumps and extreme ekwb radiators. Your mileage may vary. With that being said: Aida latency is within 3ns of the X470 board running @3200MHz
> 
> Tomorrow I will receive the Neo kit, so it's up to MacG32 to get the timings a bit tighter on these kits, as he is running the Flare-X kit which should be identical in chip design-latency-speed (Insert bus here, lol)



Thank you very much for sharing your settings. +Rep I'm using a different set now (4000MHz CL17 1.35V) to get a tightly timed 3733MHz 1:1. I still have to work on the timings. :thumb:


----------



## rv8000

gupsterg said:


> The pearls of wisdom you maybe seeking, link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6, link 7.
> 
> When ref link 6 see spoiler below, note how each channel can train differently, this quirk been on 1xxx/2xxx/Threadripper even.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 283574


Thanks for those links.

The posts are kind of scattered so I'm having a hard time understanding the differences between VDDG and cLDO_VDDG, likewise for VDDP. I've tried a couple of varying settings for either but still not posting with mclk, uclk, fclk @ 1:1:1. Mostly what I'm taking away is that cLDO_VDDG/VDDP != the non cLDO variants and they cannot exceed -50mV of vsoc.

Your bios TXT file for the 3800 configuration doesn't have manual voltages entered for all of these values only one of the two variants, and yes I understand your setting may not necessarily work for me. Just a bit frustrating I can get the ram to post and test up to 4200, but only in 2:1 ratio. Even 3533 crashes when in 1:1 while testing/benching.

Are you manually setting cLDO VDDG/VDDP and VDDG/VDDP, if so just for reference sake I would appreciate it if you could list those, simply as a jumping off point.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Need some assistance... I tried fooling around with memory settings using Ryzen Master... And now it is overriding my BIOs settings. It keeps setting my memory to 3800 Mhz with wrong fabric ratio. I tried setting the RAM values back to auto and I tried uninstalling Ryzen Master.

EDIT: Uninstalled RM and reflashed BIOs to get it back to normal.


----------



## Jackalito

Kernel-Debugger said:


> Here is a quick start for those with Samsung B-Die 3200Mhz (14-14-14-34) kits. Example Being AMD Specific Gskill RGB & Flare-X. The settings here is with the 4x8 single kit, and started with Ryzen Dram Calc 1.51 -But keep in mind that I'm running a single CCX 3800X
> 
> -At the very least this could get most running 3200Mhz kits up to the sweetspot @ 3600Mhz
> 
> Please note that populating all (4) Dimms "Gear Down Mode" must be set to: Auto/Enabled for stability, especially when overclocking the RAM.
> 
> 
> BIOS:
> 
> .zip archived attached. (see bottom of post) These are Bios screenshots
> 
> 
> Disclaimer: I have been able to get the settings listed here to boot, pass all memtests, and game in 4k ultra settings with no issues or errors. Keep in mind this is also in a heavily modded system with an extensive loop running dual pumps and extreme ekwb radiators. Your mileage may vary. With that being said: Aida latency is within 3ns of the X470 board running @3200MHz
> 
> Tomorrow I will receive the Neo kit, so edit: this will not be updated.


Thank you so much for sharing this with us all! 
+Rep


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Can someone explain to me how this could have happened?

1. I set memory clocks in Ryzen Master to 3800 Mhz just to test it out
2. Computer booted, memory fabrics weren't 1:1 so I decided to set everything to Auto and go back to my original settings
3. My memory in my BIOs reported 3800 Mhz... This was weird, why is Ryzen Master affecting what my BIOs is reporting. I clear the CMOS.
4. My memory defaults to DOCP settings. I decide to manually set my clocks and timings back to what they originally were. Rebooted.
5. Memory clocks are back to what Ryzen Master had set them too! 3800 Mhz, CL 16!
6. Rebooted, tried to uninstall Ryzen Master, reinstall it, set things to default, nothing was working. 3800 Mhz remained in my bios!
6. A user on reddit recommended I reflash my BIOs to fix the issue. I reflashed my bios I was finally able to set my RAM timings again without them going back to what Ryzen Master reported.

How was Ryzen Master able to set my ram timings inside my BIOs? How did it continue to override what I applied in my BIOs manually?


----------



## gupsterg

MacG32 said:


> Thank you very much for pointing out all of those posts! I put a link to the thread in the 1st post a while ago, but it seems not a lot have taken the time to read.


NP  .



BulletSponge said:


> Will a 3600MHz kit give me any appreciable benefit over using my current 3200 Trident Z b-die? I am trying to justify a 32GB 3600MHz kit when I can find one but if it won't matter I'll stick with what I have.


F4-3200C14D-16GVK I have at 3800MHz C16 1.4V on R5 3600 on C7HWIFI. It's under gone just over 3 days back to back 24/7 testing and had one nights break and then another full day  .



rv8000 said:


> Thanks for those links.
> 
> The posts are kind of scattered so I'm having a hard time understanding the differences between VDDG and cLDO_VDDG, likewise for VDDP. I've tried a couple of varying settings for either but still not posting with mclk, uclk, fclk @ 1:1:1. Mostly what I'm taking away is that cLDO_VDDG/VDDP != the non cLDO variants and they cannot exceed -50mV of vsoc.
> 
> Your bios TXT file for the 3800 configuration doesn't have manual voltages entered for all of these values only one of the two variants, and yes I understand your setting may not necessarily work for me. Just a bit frustrating I can get the ram to post and test up to 4200, but only in 2:1 ratio. Even 3533 crashes when in 1:1 while testing/benching.
> 
> Are you manually setting cLDO VDDG/VDDP and VDDG/VDDP, if so just for reference sake I would appreciate it if you could list those, simply as a jumping off point.


NP  .

In this post I highlighted some quirks I've noted on C7H UEFIs. As I don't have the C8H/F dunno what quirks they have, so I would go manual with voltages for sure.

The reason why the profile txt I shared has some voltages on [Auto] is that I set them by the AMD Overclocking menu in UEFI (see the included JPEGs in the ZIP).

As stated in the linked post current UEFIs have quirks. For example if I set SOC of 1.068V on Extreme Tweaker it will bounce to ~1.1V right at beginning of POST process, then it will lower to what I set. If I use the AMD menu I get what I set all through POST process.

If the C8H/F use same menus (which is likely IMO).

On Extreme Tweaker page where you see SOC voltage, that is same as SOC voltage in AMD Overclocking Menu. Difference is in AMD menu you enter value as mV. On Matissie with C7H I see it default to 1.025V in Ryzen Master.

On Extreme Tweaker page where you see CLDO VDDG, that is same as VDDG in AMD Overclocking Menu. Difference is in AMD menu you enter value as mV. On Matissie with C7H I see it default to 0.95V in Ryzen Master.

Tweakers Paradise menu on Extreme Tweaker page has VDDP & CLDO VDDP.

VDDP is supply voltage to Phy of PCI-E, on Matissie with C7H I see it default to 1.05V in ASUS TurboV Core. This is not in AMD Overclocking menu.

CLDO VDDP is supply voltage to Phy of DDR, on Matissie with C7H I see it default to 0.9V in Ryzen Master. This is called VDDP in AMD Overclocking Menu. Both locations use mV value as input, so 0.9V = 900.



Spoiler
















Spoiler














Currently I use Ryzen Master and ASUS TurboV Core v1.02.02 to capture settings in screenies and to know what UEFI defaults default to, v1.02.02, v1.05.03 beta (Not used this yet).

For 3533MHz on Single rank/side B die 2x8GB on my CPU I need SOC: 1.025V VDDG: 0.95V CLDO_VDDP: 0.901V is ample, VBOOT & VDIMM 1.35V, VTTDDR: 0.675V.

For 3600MHz on Single rank/side B die 2x8GB on my CPU I need SOC: 1.031V VDDG: 0.956V CLDO_VDDP: 0.901V is ample, VBOOT & VDIMM 1.355V, VTTDDR: 0.675V.

Both cases above use The Stilt 3466MHz timings and 1T Gear Down Mode: [Disabled].

For 3800MHz on Single rank/side B die 2x8GB on my CPU I need SOC: 1.068V VDDG: 1.013V CLDO_VDDP: 0.901V is ample, VBOOT & VDIMM 1.4V, VTTDDR: 0.7V, ProcODT: 60, timing I leave most on [Auto].



Spoiler



DRAM CAS# Latency [16]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [16]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [16]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [16]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [38]
Trc [54]
TrrdS [6]
TrrdL [9]
Tfaw [36]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [12]
Twr [10]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [4]
TwrwrScl [4]
Trfc [304]
Trfc2 [Auto]
Trfc4 [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [6]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [Auto]
RttWr [Auto]
RttPark [Auto]
MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
MemCkeSetup [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [Auto]


----------



## zorn

Section31 said:


> There are guides to do it somewhere in this thread. People here fine tune it , I just copied and pasted the setting per GSkill 3733 Kit but i suspect I could go lower timing.


Any idea where I might find the right settings for mine? I have the 3600 CL 18 Trident Z Royal sticks. Thanks!


----------



## rv8000

gupsterg said:


> snip


Thanks again!

After a lot of testing, I simply cannot get my 3700x stable above 3200 in 1:1. I've tested 3333, 3400, and 3533 with a range of voltages and they will blackscreen shortly after starting RAM Test when set to 1:1:1. I can then use the same voltages/timings/memory speeds up to 4000 mhz in 2:1 and I have no issue clearing 4000% in ram test. I'm fairly positive this 3700X is an absolute dud, I've seen one or two other reports of people with 3900X's where they simply cannot get higher than the min spec for DDR4 timings in 1:1:1 (in some cases 3200 isn't even stable).

I may just pick up another 3700X at this point.


----------



## MacG32

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Can someone explain to me how this could have happened?
> 
> 1. I set memory clocks in Ryzen Master to 3800 Mhz just to test it out
> 2. Computer booted, memory fabrics weren't 1:1 so I decided to set everything to Auto and go back to my original settings
> 3. My memory in my BIOs reported 3800 Mhz... This was weird, why is Ryzen Master affecting what my BIOs is reporting. I clear the CMOS.
> 4. My memory defaults to DOCP settings. I decide to manually set my clocks and timings back to what they originally were. Rebooted.
> 5. Memory clocks are back to what Ryzen Master had set them too! 3800 Mhz, CL 16!
> 6. Rebooted, tried to uninstall Ryzen Master, reinstall it, set things to default, nothing was working. 3800 Mhz remained in my bios!
> 6. A user on reddit recommended I reflash my BIOs to fix the issue. I reflashed my bios I was finally able to set my RAM timings again without them going back to what Ryzen Master reported.
> 
> How was Ryzen Master able to set my ram timings inside my BIOs? How did it continue to override what I applied in my BIOs manually?



If Ryzen Master had any settings in it, it will override your BIOS every time you ran it. As long as one of the profiles is filled in, it gets set automatically when you run Ryzen Master. Reset profile and apply. 



gupsterg said:


> NP  .
> 
> 
> 
> F4-3200C14D-16GVK I have at 3800MHz C16 1.4V on R5 3600 on C7HWIFI. It's under gone just over 3 days back to back 24/7 testing and had one nights break and then another full day  .
> 
> 
> 
> NP  .
> 
> In this post I highlighted some quirks I've noted on C7H UEFIs. As I don't have the C8H/F dunno what quirks they have, so I would go manual with voltages for sure.
> 
> The reason why the profile txt I shared has some voltages on [Auto] is that I set them by the AMD Overclocking menu in UEFI (see the included JPEGs in the ZIP).
> 
> As stated in the linked post current UEFIs have quirks. For example if I set SOC of 1.068V on Extreme Tweaker it will bounce to ~1.1V right at beginning of POST process, then it will lower to what I set. If I use the AMD menu I get what I set all through POST process.
> 
> If the C8H/F use same menus (which is likely IMO).
> 
> On Extreme Tweaker page where you see SOC voltage, that is same as SOC voltage in AMD Overclocking Menu. Difference is in AMD menu you enter value as mV. On Matissie with C7H I see it default to 1.025V in Ryzen Master.
> 
> On Extreme Tweaker page where you see CLDO VDDG, that is same as VDDG in AMD Overclocking Menu. Difference is in AMD menu you enter value as mV. On Matissie with C7H I see it default to 0.95V in Ryzen Master.
> 
> Tweakers Paradise menu on Extreme Tweaker page has VDDP & CLDO VDDP.
> 
> VDDP is supply voltage to Phy of PCI-E, on Matissie with C7H I see it default to 1.05V in ASUS TurboV Core. This is not in AMD Overclocking menu.
> 
> CLDO VDDP is supply voltage to Phy of DDR, on Matissie with C7H I see it default to 0.9V in Ryzen Master. This is called VDDP in AMD Overclocking Menu. Both locations use mV value as input, so 0.9V = 900.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 283712
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 283714
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Currently I use Ryzen Master and ASUS TurboV Core v1.02.02 to capture settings in screenies and to know what UEFI defaults default to, v1.02.02, v1.05.03 beta (Not used this yet).
> 
> For 3533MHz on Single rank/side B die 2x8GB on my CPU I need SOC: 1.025V VDDG: 0.95V CLDO_VDDP: 0.901V is ample, VBOOT & VDIMM 1.35V, VTTDDR: 0.675V.
> 
> For 3600MHz on Single rank/side B die 2x8GB on my CPU I need SOC: 1.031V VDDG: 0.956V CLDO_VDDP: 0.901V is ample, VBOOT & VDIMM 1.355V, VTTDDR: 0.675V.
> 
> Both cases above use The Stilt 3466MHz timings and 1T Gear Down Mode: [Disabled].
> 
> For 3800MHz on Single rank/side B die 2x8GB on my CPU I need SOC: 1.068V VDDG: 1.013V CLDO_VDDP: 0.901V is ample, VBOOT & VDIMM 1.4V, VTTDDR: 0.7V, ProcODT: 60, timing I leave most on [Auto].
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> DRAM CAS# Latency [16]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [16]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [16]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [16]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [38]
> Trc [54]
> TrrdS [6]
> TrrdL [9]
> Tfaw [36]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [12]
> Twr [10]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [4]
> TwrwrScl [4]
> Trfc [304]
> Trfc2 [Auto]
> Trfc4 [Auto]
> Tcwl [Auto]
> Trtp [6]
> Trdwr [Auto]
> Twrrd [Auto]
> TwrwrSc [Auto]
> TwrwrSd [Auto]
> TwrwrDd [Auto]
> TrdrdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSd [Auto]
> TrdrdDd [Auto]
> Tcke [Auto]
> ProcODT [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [Auto]
> RttWr [Auto]
> RttPark [Auto]
> MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren [Auto]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [Auto]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [Auto]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [Auto]



Thank you again for your help. It's much appreciated. :thumb:



zorn said:


> Any idea where I might find the right settings for mine? I have the 3600 CL 18 Trident Z Royal sticks. Thanks!



Try downloading this utility and trying it out: DRAM Calculator for Ryzen. It should get you close to the settings you need.


----------



## MacG32

Still have to work on my timings a bit, but here's a preview of what I've slowly been working on and with. I have G.Skill - TridentZ RGB 32GB (4x8GB) 4000MHz F4-4000C17Q-32GTZR Memory. I've downclocked them to 3733Mhz and went 1:1. I overclocked the Infinity Fabric (fClk) and the memory controller (uClk) to 1866MHz so everything's working at a 1 to 1 ratio. That's the kind of stuff you'll be able to do by reading the articles posted in the 1st post. Y'all have fun now, ya hear? :cheers:


----------



## centvalny

Testing @ FCLK 1900 with Micron E-die ram @ 4800C16 and Samsung A2 B-die ram @ 4667C14


----------



## Kernel-Debugger

I got the Trident-Z Neo 4x8GB 3600 kit in. It's HYNIX SK, ...not impressed.


----------



## MacG32

centvalny said:


> Testing @ FCLK 1900 with Micron E-die ram @ 4800C16 and Samsung A2 B-die ram @ 4667C14



Can I borrow your RAM?  Looking great! I tried to get my memory controller (uClk) to 1900MHz, but it wouldn't boot on Auto. I haven't messed with voltages too much yet.



Kernel-Debugger said:


> I got the Trident-Z Neo 4x8GB 3600 kit in. It's HYNIX SK, ...not impressed.



I would send them back and get two of the 3600MHz 2x8GB kits with the tighter timings. Might have to play with the voltage a little.


----------



## Section31

I think we are just beta testers for RAM and overclocking. Honestly. We can only play with sittings to see what works and we really can't trust AMD when they talk about overclocking.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

MacG32 said:


> If Ryzen Master had any settings in it, it will override your BIOS every time you ran it. As long as one of the profiles is filled in, it gets set automatically when you run Ryzen Master. Reset profile and apply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you again for your help. It's much appreciated. :thumb:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try downloading this utility and trying it out: DRAM Calculator for Ryzen. It should get you close to the settings you need.


I actually tried everything I could to try and get my memory back. That included setting things to default in Ryzen and in the BIOs. 

The thing is, I would clear defaults, clear cmos and check in my BIOs BEFORE Windows would even load and I still had the issue. 

Somehow it wrote a instruction? Possibly in the AGESA? 

Just be careful, I still don't understand WTH it did to my PC. Only a BIOs reflash was able to rid me of the Ryzen Settings inside of the BIOs. 

Note, Ryzen settings were present inside of my BIOs no matter what I did.


----------



## kot0005

Kernel-Debugger said:


> Here is a quick start for those with Samsung B-Die 3200Mhz (14-14-14-34) kits. Example Being AMD Specific Gskill RGB & Flare-X. The settings here is with the 4x8 single kit, and started with Ryzen Dram Calc 1.51 -But keep in mind that I'm running a single CCX 3800X
> 
> -At the very least this could get most running 3200Mhz kits up to the sweetspot @ 3600Mhz
> 
> Please note that populating all (4) Dimms "Gear Down Mode" must be set to: Auto/Enabled for stability, especially when overclocking the RAM.
> 
> 
> BIOS:
> 
> .zip archived attached. (see bottom of post) These are Bios screenshots
> 
> 
> Disclaimer: I have been able to get the settings listed here to boot, pass all memtests, and game in 4k ultra settings with no issues or errors. Keep in mind this is also in a heavily modded system with an extensive loop running dual pumps and extreme ekwb radiators. Your mileage may vary. With that being said: Aida latency is within 3ns of the X470 board running @3200MHz
> 
> Tomorrow I will receive the Neo kit, so edit: this will not be updated.


Hey thanks for the detailed settings images, but I am not comfy with pumping 1.45v LOL is this safe ? My ram already hits 40-45c during gaming with 1.28v and 3466 CL16.


----------



## 1usmus

* July 29, I will introduce to the world new DRAM Calculator for Ryzen 1.6.0 *

You will receive full support for Zen 2, X570, updated presets, new features, training tips for x399, and of course the new version of MEMbench (Custom and Random latency tests).
Stay in touch


----------



## Jackalito

1usmus said:


> * July 29, I will introduce to the world new DRAM Calculator for Ryzen 1.6.0 *
> 
> You will receive full support for Zen 2, X570, updated presets, new features, training tips for x399, and of course the new version of MEMbench (Custom and Random latency tests).
> Stay in touch



Awesome! Looking forward to it! Thanks so much for all your hard work, passion and dedication towards this amazing community! :thumb:


----------



## MoridinTX

1usmus said:


> * July 29, I will introduce to the world new DRAM Calculator for Ryzen 1.6.0 *
> 
> You will receive full support for Zen 2, X570, updated presets, new features, training tips for x399, and of course the new version of MEMbench (Custom and Random latency tests).
> Stay in touch


 @1usmus, Excellent. Thank you for all your hard work!


On my Asus C8H, my bios shows tRFC, tRFC2, & tRFC4. The DRAM calculator only shows tRFC and tRFC(alt).


How do I convert tRFC and tRFC(alt) to the values (tRFC, tRFC2, & tRFC4) the C8H bios is looking for?


Thanks!


----------



## Kernel-Debugger

MacG32 said:


> I would send them back and get two of the 3600MHz 2x8GB kits with the tighter timings. Might have to play with the voltage a little.


Just did a return through Newegg, I'll keep my 3200Mhz Threadripper kit, at least until a good CL14 kit is available.



kot0005 said:


> Hey thanks for the detailed settings images, but I am not comfy with pumping 1.45v LOL is this safe ? My ram already hits 40-45c during gaming with 1.28v and 3466 CL16.


It depends on your DOCP voltage/settings. My kit is 1.4v so doing 1.45 is not an issue for me. If your kit is 1.2-1.35v and you don't have good airflow, and add in Hynix chips; you may be pushing limits. AMD has stated that 1.5v is the upper limit. Intel has also stated 1.5v as the limit for XMP, dependent on cooling of course. It has been said that Samsung-B die is better than Hynix beyond 1.35v.


----------



## gupsterg

rv8000 said:


> Thanks again!
> 
> After a lot of testing, I simply cannot get my 3700x stable above 3200 in 1:1. I've tested 3333, 3400, and 3533 with a range of voltages and they will blackscreen shortly after starting RAM Test when set to 1:1:1. I can then use the same voltages/timings/memory speeds up to 4000 mhz in 2:1 and I have no issue clearing 4000% in ram test. I'm fairly positive this 3700X is an absolute dud, I've seen one or two other reports of people with 3900X's where they simply cannot get higher than the min spec for DDR4 timings in 1:1:1 (in some cases 3200 isn't even stable).
> 
> I may just pick up another 3700X at this point.


NP, sorry to read about issues persist.



MacG32 said:


> Thank you again for your help. It's much appreciated. :thumb:


Data ZIP (organise files by time) which has 3666MHz/3733MHz 4x8GB tested upto ~1000% in Kahru RAM Test, then some preliminary testing of 3800MHz.

UEFI 2406/2501 on C7H defaults ProcODT as 60, where as UEFI 0068 is 40, like the C8H/F. ProcODT 60 was fine for 3666MHz, but 3733MHz would get stuck at POST in Q-CODE: C5, once I set manually 40 I gained POST. 3800MHz would do the same, until I set 34.6.

ZIP below has settings txt, screenies of menu which may not be in txt, plus it shows 6 timings which I think best to leave on [Auto] as I believe MC may prefer these as is.

View attachment R532GPBO1503800.zip


Currently system been rebooted and rerunning further testing of PBO+150MHz 3800MHz 4x8GB.



Spoiler














Currently using SOC: 1.081 VDDG: 1.018 vs 1.068 & 1.013 when on 2x8GB same MEMCLK.

Some AIDA64 compares of differing MEMCLK on 4x8GB.



Spoiler
















MoridinTX said:


> On my Asus C8H, my bios shows tRFC, tRFC2, & tRFC4. The DRAM calculator only shows tRFC and tRFC(alt).
> 
> 
> How do I convert tRFC and tRFC(alt) to the values (tRFC, tRFC2, & tRFC4) the C8H bios is looking for?
> 
> 
> Thanks!


tRFC 2/4 not used on 1xxx/2xxx/3xxx CPUs. The (alt) is alternative value to use for tRFC.


----------



## MoridinTX

@gupsterg thanks for that information. It is confusing, as I see those entries in the bios and in Ryzen Master.


----------



## MacG32

KingEngineRevUp said:


> I actually tried everything I could to try and get my memory back. That included setting things to default in Ryzen and in the BIOs.
> 
> The thing is, I would clear defaults, clear cmos and check in my BIOs BEFORE Windows would even load and I still had the issue.
> 
> Somehow it wrote a instruction? Possibly in the AGESA?
> 
> Just be careful, I still don't understand WTH it did to my PC. Only a BIOs reflash was able to rid me of the Ryzen Settings inside of the BIOs.
> 
> Note, Ryzen settings were present inside of my BIOs no matter what I did.



I understand now. I'm glad you got it figured out. 



1usmus said:


> * July 29, I will introduce to the world new DRAM Calculator for Ryzen 1.6.0 *
> 
> You will receive full support for Zen 2, X570, updated presets, new features, training tips for x399, and of course the new version of MEMbench (Custom and Random latency tests).
> Stay in touch



Thank you for the update, hard work, and dedication! :thumb: Will there be settings for higher XMP clocked RAM as well, like in the 4000MHz+ range?



Kernel-Debugger said:


> Just did a return through Newegg, I'll keep my 3200Mhz Threadripper kit, at least until a good CL14 kit is available.



From the looks of it, you should be able to overclock your 3200MHz kit to about the same timings or even tighter. 



gupsterg said:


> Data ZIP (organise files by time) which has 3666MHz/3733MHz 4x8GB tested upto ~1000% in Kahru RAM Test, then some preliminary testing of 3800MHz.
> 
> UEFI 2406/2501 on C7H defaults ProcODT as 60, where as UEFI 0068 is 40, like the C8H/F. ProcODT 60 was fine for 3666MHz, but 3733MHz would get stuck at POST in Q-CODE: C5, once I set manually 40 I gained POST. 3800MHz would do the same, until I set 34.6.
> 
> ZIP below has settings txt, screenies of menu which may not be in txt, plus it shows 6 timings which I think best to leave on [Auto] as I believe MC may prefer these as is.
> 
> View attachment 283948
> 
> 
> Currently system been rebooted and rerunning further testing of PBO+150MHz 3800MHz 4x8GB.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 283966
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Currently using SOC: 1.081 VDDG: 1.018 vs 1.068 & 1.013 when on 2x8GB same MEMCLK.
> 
> Some AIDA64 compares of differing MEMCLK on 4x8GB.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 283964



Thank you very much for this valuable information. I'm sure it will help many. 


I've seem to run in to a snag in the BIOS/AGESA for the 3900X. It won't take any settings for getting any higher than 3733MHz. I've noticed quite a lot of others having similar issues. 32GB seems to be the standard for multitasking anymore. I'm so waiting for an updated BIOS and AGESA. There are a lot of other issues with the 3900X that need taken care of as well. I don't like regretting my expensive purchases. Hopefully things will be fixed soon. :thinking:


----------



## lklem

Kernel-Debugger said:


> Here is a quick start for those with Samsung B-Die 3200Mhz (14-14-14-34) kits. Example Being AMD Specific Gskill RGB & Flare-X. The settings here is with the 4x8 single kit, and started with Ryzen Dram Calc 1.51 -But keep in mind that I'm running a single CCX 3800X
> 
> -At the very least this could get most running 3200Mhz kits up to the sweetspot @ 3600Mhz
> 
> Please note that populating all (4) Dimms "Gear Down Mode" must be set to: Auto/Enabled for stability, especially when overclocking the RAM.
> 
> 
> BIOS:
> 
> .zip archived attached. (see bottom of post) These are Bios screenshots
> 
> 
> Disclaimer: I have been able to get the settings listed here to boot, pass all memtests, and game in 4k ultra settings with no issues or errors. Keep in mind this is also in a heavily modded system with an extensive loop running dual pumps and extreme ekwb radiators. Your mileage may vary. With that being said: Aida latency is within 3ns of the X470 board running @3200MHz
> 
> Tomorrow I will receive the Neo kit, so edit: this will not be updated.



Thank you so much for sharing the setting, i follow exactly your ram setting for my 4x8GB GSkill Trident Z RGB (F4-3200C14D-16GTZR), it works like a charm!


----------



## 1usmus

MacG32 said:


> Thank you for the update, hard work, and dedication! :thumb: Will there be settings for higher XMP clocked RAM as well, like in the 4000MHz+ range?


At the moment I focused on 1:1 mode, more than 90% of 3200С14 or 3400С16 sets can be successfully overclocked to 3800С14 at a safe voltage
2:1 mode does not carry any user benefit, and I still ponder its release


----------



## PapitaHD

Hi all! I'll be joining the club once I get my 3900X, I already have the CH8.
Atm I have a 2x8GB G.Skill F4-3600C15D-16GTZ kit but I'm planning to upgrade to 32GB. What would overclock better: 2 kits of F4-3600C15D-16GTZ (so 4x8GB) or the new TridentZ Neo 2x16GB F4-3600C16D-32GTZN?


----------



## gupsterg

MoridinTX said:


> @gupsterg thanks for that information. It is confusing, as I see those entries in the bios and in Ryzen Master.


Ryzen only seems to use one of the refresh modes, link.

Some general DDR4 info on page 38/39 in this PDF.



MacG32 said:


> Thank you very much for this valuable information. I'm sure it will help many.
> 
> 
> I've seem to run in to a snag in the BIOS/AGESA for the 3900X. It won't take any settings for getting any higher than 3733MHz. I've noticed quite a lot of others having similar issues. 32GB seems to be the standard for multitasking anymore. I'm so waiting for an updated BIOS and AGESA. There are a lot of other issues with the 3900X that need taken care of as well. I don't like regretting my expensive purchases. Hopefully things will be fixed soon. :thinking:


NP. Yeah looking forward to maturity on Matisse for sure  .


----------



## Jiv

Hey guys, I got the C8H and everything was working fine until I installed my old harddisc. Now the system keeps entering the bios and refuses to boot into windows.


I've tried remove all drives and clearing cmos etc. Any advice?


----------



## MoridinTX

gupsterg said:


> Ryzen only seems to use one of the refresh modes, link.
> 
> Some general DDR4 info on page 38/39 in this PDF.


Thanks for the link to that thread, I just finished reading it all. Lots of great information in there and I learned a lot.:thumb:


----------



## Section31

Tried putting in my 960Evo into second m.2 slot with 960pro remaining in first slot and tested out the 850pro. No issues whatsoever. Only issue I had was my mouse not working if I tried plugging in an external SSD enclosure. That is power draw issue though.


----------



## knightriot

Guy can someone please tell me where is vrm sensor??? :


----------



## MacG32

1usmus said:


> At the moment I focused on 1:1 mode, more than 90% of 3200С14 or 3400С16 sets can be successfully overclocked to 3800С14 at a safe voltage
> 2:1 mode does not carry any user benefit, and I still ponder its release



I'm still looking forward to your release.  I just thought you might be able to shed some light on the 4000MHz+ kits as well.



PapitaHD said:


> Hi all! I'll be joining the club once I get my 3900X, I already have the CH8.
> Atm I have a 2x8GB G.Skill F4-3600C15D-16GTZ kit but I'm planning to upgrade to 32GB. What would overclock better: 2 kits of F4-3600C15D-16GTZ (so 4x8GB) or the new TridentZ Neo 2x16GB F4-3600C16D-32GTZN?



Welcome! Another kit of what you already have would be better, since the timings are tighter. 



Jiv said:


> Hey guys, I got the C8H and everything was working fine until I installed my old harddisc. Now the system keeps entering the bios and refuses to boot into windows.
> 
> 
> I've tried remove all drives and clearing cmos etc. Any advice?



You're using an older BIOS. Try updating your BIOS to 0702. Are you using a static bracelet? Try a different SATA cable. Try a different power plug. It could be a multitude of things. I'm sure you'll get it figured out. 



knightriot said:


> Guy can someone please tell me where is vrm sensor??? :



It's listed under ASUS EC. Scroll down.


----------



## knightriot

MacG32 said:


> It's listed under ASUS EC. Scroll down.


thank you, but ....


----------



## MacG32

knightriot said:


> thank you, but ....



Are you using the latest beta version of HWiNFO64 6.09-3860? Click the Cog, click Layout, and click Restore Original Order. Are you on the latest BIOS 0702? Other than that, I'm not sure why it's not showing.


----------



## knightriot

MacG32 said:


> Are you using the latest beta version of HWiNFO64 6.09-3860? Click the Cog, click Layout, and click Restore Original Order. Are you on the latest BIOS 0702? Other than that, I'm not sure why it's not showing.


thank you, i'm using normal version not beta, bios 0702, i try beta version now. 
Working perfect, thank you very much


----------



## Section31

The other way to test out the SSD is simply put it in enclosure. We are all bound to buy new faster SSD eventually and the old SSD best purpose to become external SSD. I have 2.5inch SSD enclosure, M.2 Nvme/Non-Nvme enlosure around.


----------



## FlanK3r

guys, anyone tested more BIOSes on C8H or C8F? Which BIOS seems best now?


----------



## TMatzelle60

Question about RAM for friend the Asus VIII Hero on the QVL ask for this RAM

CMK32GX4M2A2666C16(Ver4.31)(XMP)

The ram he purchased is CMK32GX4M2A2666C16(Ver5.30)(XMP)

will this mean it will not work


----------



## pantsoftime

An interesting tidbit that might be useful for a few folks... the DVD included with the C8F includes the TurboV Core in the "Software" folder even though it doesn't appear in the installer or on the MB support page.


----------



## MacG32

knightriot said:


> thank you, i'm using normal version not beta, bios 0702, i try beta version now.
> Working perfect, thank you very much



You're welcome very much 



FlanK3r said:


> guys, anyone tested more BIOSes on C8H or C8F? Which BIOS seems best now?



Still waiting on new BIOS releases. 0702 is the latest. 



TMatzelle60 said:


> Question about RAM for friend the Asus VIII Hero on the QVL ask for this RAM
> 
> CMK32GX4M2A2666C16(Ver4.31)(XMP)
> 
> The ram he purchased is CMK32GX4M2A2666C16(Ver5.30)(XMP)
> 
> will this mean it will not work



I'm sure the RAM will work just fine, but why 2666MHz when 3200MHz is the standard speed? 



pantsoftime said:


> An interesting tidbit that might be useful for a few folks... the DVD included with the C8F includes the TurboV Core in the "Software" folder even though it doesn't appear in the installer or on the MB support page.



Thank you for sharing that. +Rep :thumb: I was looking for that software and couldn't find it.


----------



## Jackalito

MacG32 said:


> You're welcome very much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting on new BIOS releases. 0702 is the latest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the RAM will work just fine, but why 2666MHz when 3200MHz is the standard speed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for sharing that. +Rep :thumb: I was looking for that software and couldn't find it.


Could you or anyone else upload the installer for TurboV Core? I don't have an optical drive anymore.

Thanks!


----------



## MacG32

Jackalito said:


> Could you or anyone else upload the installer for TurboV Core? I don't have an optical drive anymore.
> 
> Thanks!



If you join OCN's Discord Server, I can post it there for you. It's too large to post here in a zip file. 

Edit: I put it on my Google Drive. Here's the link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zoaD6z1BjpScC2B_q6buY8b8jPwMMKhD/view?usp=sharing


----------



## TMatzelle60

Another question or 2 if I run a amd setup like the hero and run a 2080ti will I have problems since it’s a amd cpu and motherboard but will be a Nvidia gpu?

Also how is the hero is it a reliable well built motherboard


----------



## MacG32

TMatzelle60 said:


> Another question or 2 if I run a amd setup like the hero and run a 2080ti will I have problems since it’s a amd cpu and motherboard but will be a Nvidia gpu?
> 
> Also how is the hero is it a reliable well built motherboard



You'll have no problems at all with your 2080Ti. It's a very reliable and well built motherboard. The X570 BIOSes and AGESA need to mature a bit, but that's what happens with the latest and greatest. I think you wouldn't be disappointed.


----------



## Section31

I'm just curious what is causing select m.2 drives to not be detected. Seems kinds of interesting. I haven't been able to replicate the issue. I do notice that only one of my M.2 shows up in bios (the 960Pro) but once I post into windows, its working fine.


----------



## chakku

1usmus said:


> At the moment I focused on 1:1 mode, more than 90% of 3200С14 or 3400С16 sets can be successfully overclocked to 3800С14 at a safe voltage
> 2:1 mode does not carry any user benefit, and I still ponder its release


Assume this is only for 2x8 SR Samsung B-Die/Hynix C-Die?


----------



## knightriot

it beat my old 2950x .... only with [email protected] , my god  
can't wait 3950x


----------



## 519408

Hi guys. I am looking at comparisons between MSI ACE and Asus Hero. Any difference to go one way or another?


----------



## Jackalito

MacG32 said:


> If you join OCN's Discord Server, I can post it there for you. It's too large to post here in a zip file.
> 
> Edit: I put it on my Google Drive. Here's the link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zoaD6z1BjpScC2B_q6buY8b8jPwMMKhD/view?usp=sharing


Thanks so much, mate! +Rep. 

New chipset beta drivers shared by Robert Hallock on Reddit that fix Destiny 2 not launching with Ryzen 3000.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1mojPNWcOuuhxvdBkYJlkLbsDXwGLImGp

Guys, let us know if with these new drivers you notice any other improvements


----------



## GuMossad

Hi Guys! 

I got a C8H Wifi with a setup like this:

Ryzen 3700X + Noctua D15
2x F4-3200C14-16GTZSW (G.Skill Trident Z SS B-Die)
Strix 980 Ti
Seasonic Prime Titanium 750W

I'm trying to use the values Ryzen DRAM Calculator for FAST Profile 3200, 3533, 3600 and even 3600 SAFE, and no success.. PC Never boots, tries to boot like 3 times, then asks you to press F1 to re-setup UEFI Bios because of instability or long power press. 

As anyone successfully manage to tweak DRAM Timings and clocks with the C8H on 0702? This is super strange and I don't get it why. If I leave everthing AUTO and just put DRAM a 3600 and FCLK at 1800, it boots well, no problems, everything working fine!


----------



## MacG32

knightriot said:


> it beat my old 2950x .... only with [email protected] , my god
> can't wait 3950x



Looking great! 



Jackalito said:


> Thanks so much, mate! +Rep.
> 
> New chipset beta drivers shared by Robert Hallock on Reddit that fix Destiny 2 not launching with Ryzen 3000.
> 
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1mojPNWcOuuhxvdBkYJlkLbsDXwGLImGp
> 
> Guys, let us know if with these new drivers you notice any other improvements



Thank you for posting the beta chipset driver link! +Rep :thumb:



GuMossad said:


> Hi Guys!
> 
> I got a C8H Wifi with a setup like this:
> 
> Ryzen 3700X + Noctua D15
> 2x F4-3200C14-16GTZSW (G.Skill Trident Z SS B-Die)
> Strix 980 Ti
> Seasonic Prime Titanium 750W
> 
> I'm trying to use the values Ryzen DRAM Calculator for FAST Profile 3200, 3533, 3600 and even 3600 SAFE, and no success.. PC Never boots, tries to boot like 3 times, then asks you to press F1 to re-setup UEFI Bios because of instability or long power press.
> 
> As anyone successfully manage to tweak DRAM Timings and clocks with the C8H on 0702? This is super strange and I don't get it why. If I leave everthing AUTO and just put DRAM a 3600 and FCLK at 1800, it boots well, no problems, everything working fine!



Welcome! There are a lot of memory kits missing from the QVL, but memory training seems to be working for you. Like mine are listed, but only 16GB (2x8GB). I'm having quite a hard time getting anything over 3733 to boot. I'm sure future BIOS releases will expand our abilities to overclock our specific kits. I'm just waiting for the next BIOS release to test things out.


----------



## GuMossad

MacG32 said:


> Looking great!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for posting the beta chipset driver link! +Rep :thumb:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome! There are a lot of memory kits missing from the QVL, but memory training seems to be working for you. Like mine are listed, but only 16GB (2x8GB). I'm having quite a hard time getting anything over 3733 to boot. I'm sure future BIOS releases will expand our abilities to overclock our specific kits. I'm just waiting for the next BIOS release to test things out.


This is frustrating! Nothing at all goes.. I am going to try V2 settings from DRAM Calculator... but honestly seems crap :|


----------



## IntelHouseFire

Any word on whether a fan stop feature for the fan is coming in future bios updates? That's one of the only things holding me back from asus boards right now.


----------



## MacG32

GuMossad said:


> This is frustrating! Nothing at all goes.. I am going to try V2 settings from DRAM Calculator... but honestly seems crap :|



I understand. It's also very hard to include every kit on the QVL. Relax and give it some time. We're in the same boat. 



IntelHouseFire said:


> Any word on whether a fan stop feature for the fan is coming in future bios updates? That's one of the only things holding me back from asus boards right now.



If you really want control over your fan and that's the only thing holding you back, then extend the plug on the fan and plug it in to a controllable plug. I seriously doubt this will be added to the BIOS at all, as "some people" will disable the fan and fry their chipsets... You can't even hear the fan.
_______


I'm not sure what those drivers have done for my system, but everything is snappier. I had lag when switching tabs with multimedia streaming in Chrome. That's all gone now. They are the new beta chipset drivers that were shared by Robert Hallock and posted by @Jackalito here. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1mojPNWcOuuhxvdBkYJlkLbsDXwGLImGp If you have a 3000 series processor, I highly suggest that you install these.


----------



## IntelHouseFire

MacG32 said:


> If you really want control over your fan and that's the only thing holding you back, then extend the plug on the fan and plug it in to a controllable plug. I seriously doubt this will be added to the BIOS at all, as "some people" will disable the fan and fry their chipsets... You can't even hear the fan.


Every other board maker has already implemented it. By fan stop I obviously don't mean the user can permanently turn the fan off, just that it has a semi-passive mode so it doesn't have to run during idle, degrading the fan for no reason.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

I could not POST for 3733 CL14, so I left SOC and VDDP voltages on Auto. Posted fine. Ran RAM Test for 4000% coverage no errors.

If you guys can't post, then try leaving your voltages on auto except FRAM voltages.


3733 CL14: https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/14096942

3600 CL14: https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13869604


----------



## chowbaby

IntelHouseFire said:


> Every other board maker has already implemented it. By fan stop I obviously don't mean the user can permanently turn the fan off, just that it has a semi-passive mode so it doesn't have to run during idle, degrading the fan for no reason.


You'd figure it would make the fan last longer too since it will have down time where it isn't running.


----------



## noko59

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Need some assistance... I tried fooling around with memory settings using Ryzen Master... And now it is overriding my BIOs settings. It keeps setting my memory to 3800 Mhz with wrong fabric ratio. I tried setting the RAM values back to auto and I tried uninstalling Ryzen Master.
> 
> EDIT: Uninstalled RM and reflashed BIOs to get it back to normal.


I had this same issue on C6H, seems rare and maybe an ASUS issue with Ryzen Master setting memory states.


----------



## Jackalito

ASUS has updated its Qualified Vendor List for the Crosshair VIII lineup (Date: July 29).


ROG Crosshair VIII:
https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...O/Device_QVL_ROG_Crosshair_VIII_Hero_0729.pdf


ROG Crosshair VIII Wi-Fi:
https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...ce_QVL_ROG_Crosshair_VIII_Hero_WI-FI_0729.pdf


ROG Crosshair VIII Formula:
https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_FORMULA/C8F_Devices.pdf


Cheers!


EDIT: Shamino says he's already got a new BIOS with AGESA v1.0.0.3ABB, but he hasn't shared any more details as of yet:
https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?112279-X370-X470-AGESA-1003AB-Bioses/page13#post778896


And we may see an update from 1usmus with a new version of the RAM Calculator v1.6.0.3 today with some tweaks and bug fixes:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/28065166-post4961.html


----------



## Jackalito

> *Community Update #5: Let’s Talk Clocks, Voltages, and Destiny 2*
> 
> Blog Post created by rhallock
> 
> 
> Hello! Thank you for all of the interest and excitement around 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen™ Processors. We have some important updates today on our voltages, clockspeeds, and Destiny 2!
> We diagnosed and resolved the issue causing software monitoring tools to report high voltages and clockspeeds at the desktop with 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen Processors and the Windows® 10 May 2019 Update. Our analysis indicates that certain pieces of popular software, which are widely considered to be “low CPU load” applications, frequently make indirect requests for the highest performance and power state from the processor.Third Gen Ryzen is designed to be extremely responsive to requests for higher performance, and this has led to some of the anomalous behavior observed with high voltages and clockspeeds in monitoring utilities. Our solution is to adjust the AMD Ryzen Balanced power plan to address these cases under light loads, without changing the processor’s ability to respond to sustained workloads like games and content creation.
> 
> The solution is immediately available for download in a new chipset driver (*version 1.07.29*), including an updated AMD Ryzen Balanced power plan that delivers the fix. Users of previous generation AMD Ryzen™ Products do not need this plan, and the chipset driver installer will not provide it.
> 
> So you can see these changes in action, AMD Ryzen Master is also updated with new voltage and temperature reporting methodologies that more realistically demonstrate CPU behavior. *Version 2.0.1.1233* (or later) reflects these changes and is now available for download as well.
> 
> Chipset Driver 1.07.29 also contains a beta workaround that resolves Destiny 2 application launch issues. This will ensure Destiny 2 players can immediately get back into the game.
> 
> A more comprehensive solution in the upcoming AGESA 1003ABB is still required for other affected software affected by the same underlying issue. AGESA 1003ABB will appear in production BIOSes when your manufacturer has completed QA testing to ensure stability and reliability. This process typically takes a few weeks.
> 
> Finally, AGESA 1003ABB-based BIOSes will also resolve the “Event 17, WHEA-Logger” warnings appearing in the Windows Event Log.
> 
> We genuinely appreciate the time, reports, and collaboration from the enthusiast community on the topics in this blog. If you are interested in further details, please see the Detailed Brief that can be downloaded from the link below. We love the feedback and look forward to providing more updates in this format as the Ryzen community continues to grow.


*

Download new chipset drivers v1.07.29.115:*
https://download.amd.com/drivers/amd_chipset_drivers.exe

* Download AMD Ryzen Master v2.0.1.1233:*
https://download.amd.com/Desktop/AMD-Ryzen-Master.exe

*Download Community Update #5 Detailed Brief:*
https://community.amd.com/servlet/J...2-124770/Community_Update5_Detailed_Brief.pdf


Source: https://community.amd.com/community...te-5-let-s-talk-clocks-voltages-and-destiny-2

Reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cjs5ax/community_update_5_lets_talk_clocks_voltages_and/


----------



## GuMossad

MacG32 said:


> I understand. It's also very hard to include every kit on the QVL. Relax and give it some time. We're in the same boat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you really want control over your fan and that's the only thing holding you back, then extend the plug on the fan and plug it in to a controllable plug. I seriously doubt this will be added to the BIOS at all, as "some people" will disable the fan and fry their chipsets... You can't even hear the fan.
> _______
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what those drivers have done for my system, but everything is snappier. I had lag when switching tabs with multimedia streaming in Chrome. That's all gone now. They are the new beta chipset drivers that were shared by Robert Hallock and posted by @Jackalito here. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1mojPNWcOuuhxvdBkYJlkLbsDXwGLImGp If you have a 3000 series processor, I highly suggest that you install these.


Mac, 

I was able to find some sucess  Whatever you do on C8H don't change anything related to RTT settings. I'm on a C8H Wifi, 3700x, 32GB DDR4 3200 Trident Z SS B-Die 16GBx2. 

Leave SoC in Auto, cldo_VDDP (Tweakers paradise) in auto, my Memory is at 1.485V (1.48 real), and VDGG 1.045 with 3600 Fast Settings for DRAM Timings. Whatever you do... just don't change the RTT Settings. The rest you can put as DRAM Calculator tells you (Timings, CAD Bus, procODT only, C2DT (command Rate)).

I'm currently sitting at 3733, VDRAM 1.485, SoC Auto, VDDP Auto, VDDG 1.065, 3733 Fast Settings, Gear Down Auto, RTT Auto, CADBUS all Auto, and the rest same as what DRAM Tells you to put for 3733 Fast. 

Try this.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

GuMossad said:


> Mac,
> 
> I was able to find some sucess  Whatever you do on C8H don't change anything related to RTT settings. I'm on a C8H Wifi, 3700x, 32GB DDR4 3200 Trident Z SS B-Die 16GBx2.
> 
> Leave SoC in Auto, cldo_VDDP (Tweakers paradise) in auto, my Memory is at 1.485V (1.48 real), and VDGG 1.045 with 3600 Fast Settings for DRAM Timings. Whatever you do... just don't change the RTT Settings. The rest you can put as DRAM Calculator tells you (Timings, CAD Bus, procODT only, C2DT (command Rate)).
> 
> I'm currently sitting at 3733, VDRAM 1.485, SoC Auto, VDDP Auto, VDDG 1.065, 3733 Fast Settings, Gear Down Auto, RTT Auto, CADBUS all Auto, and the rest same as what DRAM Tells you to put for 3733 Fast.
> 
> Try this.



I have the complete opposite experience as you do. 

3733 Mhz CL14 from DRAM 1.5 was unstable

3733 Mhz CL14 from DRAM 1.6 with new RTT recommendations is stable

Lastly, what is BGS in our motherboards BIOs?


----------



## noko59

MacG32 said:


> Still have to work on my timings a bit, but here's a preview of what I've slowly been working on and with. I have G.Skill - TridentZ RGB 32GB (4x8GB) 4000MHz F4-4000C17Q-32GTZR Memory. I've downclocked them to 3733Mhz and went 1:1. I overclocked the Infinity Fabric (fClk) and the memory controller (uClk) to 1866MHz so everything's working at a 1 to 1 ratio. That's the kind of stuff you'll be able to do by reading the articles posted in the 1st post. Y'all have fun now, ya hear? :cheers:


AWESOME! Nice seeing 4 sticks hitting the hotspot for Ryzen 3 at 3733mhz. First I've seen any X570 board doing this. I am doing this with the C6H passing MemTestPro. https://www.overclock.net/forum/28066148-post42304.html

I am looking at either getting a new motherboard, using the 4 good sticks of GSkill 3200 Cas 14, 3900x and then the C6H going back to the Ryzen 2700 for another machine that has a FX 9590 which I have some FlarX 3200 Cas 14 I can use for it. Or go all out with a 3950x and new motherboard. Anyways nice seeing the good progression with the C8H, not seeing ASUS rep here is a big disappointment. It's maybe a race between the Master and Hero Viii.


----------



## MacG32

Jackalito said:


> ASUS has updated its Qualified Vendor List for the Crosshair VIII lineup (Date: July 29).
> 
> 
> ROG Crosshair VIII:
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...O/Device_QVL_ROG_Crosshair_VIII_Hero_0729.pdf
> 
> 
> ROG Crosshair VIII Wi-Fi:
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...ce_QVL_ROG_Crosshair_VIII_Hero_WI-FI_0729.pdf
> 
> 
> ROG Crosshair VIII Formula:
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_FORMULA/C8F_Devices.pdf
> 
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> 
> EDIT: Shamino says he's already got a new BIOS with AGESA v1.0.0.3ABB, but he hasn't shared any more details as of yet:
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?112279-X370-X470-AGESA-1003AB-Bioses/page13#post778896
> 
> 
> And we may see an update from 1usmus with a new version of the RAM Calculator v1.6.0.3 today with some tweaks and bug fixes:
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/28065166-post4961.html





Jackalito said:


> *
> 
> Download new chipset drivers v1.07.29.115:*
> https://download.amd.com/drivers/amd_chipset_drivers.exe
> 
> * Download AMD Ryzen Master v2.0.1.1233:*
> https://download.amd.com/Desktop/AMD-Ryzen-Master.exe
> 
> *Download Community Update #5 Detailed Brief:*
> https://community.amd.com/servlet/J...2-124770/Community_Update5_Detailed_Brief.pdf
> 
> 
> Source: https://community.amd.com/community...te-5-let-s-talk-clocks-voltages-and-destiny-2
> 
> Reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cjs5ax/community_update_5_lets_talk_clocks_voltages_and/



Thank you for posting these! :thumb: +Rep x2 Looks like things are starting to look up for all of us now.



GuMossad said:


> Mac,
> 
> I was able to find some sucess  Whatever you do on C8H don't change anything related to RTT settings. I'm on a C8H Wifi, 3700x, 32GB DDR4 3200 Trident Z SS B-Die 16GBx2.
> 
> Leave SoC in Auto, cldo_VDDP (Tweakers paradise) in auto, my Memory is at 1.485V (1.48 real), and VDGG 1.045 with 3600 Fast Settings for DRAM Timings. Whatever you do... just don't change the RTT Settings. The rest you can put as DRAM Calculator tells you (Timings, CAD Bus, procODT only, C2DT (command Rate)).
> 
> I'm currently sitting at 3733, VDRAM 1.485, SoC Auto, VDDP Auto, VDDG 1.065, 3733 Fast Settings, Gear Down Auto, RTT Auto, CADBUS all Auto, and the rest same as what DRAM Tells you to put for 3733 Fast.
> 
> Try this.



I bought another kit of memory. G.Skill - TridentZ RGB 32GB (4x8GB) 4000MHz F4-4000C17Q-32GTZR. I still have my old 3200MHz kit sitting here, but my son's computer needs more RAM. I may switch it out to see what I can overclock it to, once the AGESA gets updated and a new BIOS or 2 have been out.



noko59 said:


> AWESOME! Nice seeing 4 sticks hitting the hotspot for Ryzen 3 at 3733mhz. First I've seen any X570 board doing this. I am doing this with the C6H passing MemTestPro. https://www.overclock.net/forum/28066148-post42304.html
> 
> I am looking at either getting a new motherboard, using the 4 good sticks of GSkill 3200 Cas 14, 3900x and then the C6H going back to the Ryzen 2700 for another machine that has a FX 9590 which I have some FlarX 3200 Cas 14 I can use for it. Or go all out with a 3950x and new motherboard. Anyways nice seeing the good progression with the C8H, not seeing ASUS rep here is a big disappointment. It's maybe a race between the Master and Hero Viii.



It's nice to see good overclocks on the older boards. I gave my 1800X and VI to a buddy of mine and my wife will be using my 2700X and VII. I wanted to do 3800MHz at 1:1 (1900MHz), but I can't get past 3733MHz. The reps pass through here on occasion. They're just not actively posting much. Good luck in your choice of motherboards. I haven't had any technical issues whatsoever with this motherboard. Everything works as it's suppose to. I think we're all just waiting for a little more maturity, just like previous motherboards.


----------



## GuMossad

KingEngineRevUp said:


> I have the complete opposite experience as you do.
> 
> 3733 Mhz CL14 from DRAM 1.5 was unstable
> 
> 3733 Mhz CL14 from DRAM 1.6 with new RTT recommendations is stable
> 
> Lastly, what is BGS in our motherboards BIOs?


Ignored that one as well ahah! Have 0 clue what is BSG in Asus BIOS


----------



## flyinion

Hi guys, quick question on the two versions (WiFi and non-WiFi models). Do you guys expect one or the other to get more/less support from Asus as far as BIOS and driver updates? I ask because my current board for instance a Maximus VII Formula had two versions. The regular one and one packaged with Watchdogs that had a total separate support page. Many times the driver/BIOS listings would not be in sync and one version would sometimes have updated items the other didn't. It wasn't a huge issue in that case since the only difference was one came with a game but the hardware was identical. 

In this case I ordered the non-WiFi version because Amazon had it in stock (and I could get 5% rewards via Amazon card) and neither Amazon or Newegg had the WiFi version in stock. Now I see Newegg has the WiFi version back in stock finally and I'm wondering if I should return the Amazon board and get the WiFi model from Newegg. I don't have anything right now that can even use WiFi 6, so it's more of a making sure there won't be any lack of support regarding drivers/etc. for one model vs the other. As far as I can tell there's no other difference between the boards


----------



## noko59

MacG32 said:


> . . . .
> 
> It's nice to see good overclocks on the older boards. I gave my 1800X and VI to a buddy of mine and my wife will be using my 2700X and VII. I wanted to do 3800MHz at 1:1 (1900MHz), but I can't get past 3733MHz. The reps pass through here on occasion. They're just not actively posting much. Good luck in your choice of motherboards. I haven't had any technical issues whatsoever with this motherboard. Everything works as it's suppose to. I think we're all just waiting for a little more maturity, just like previous motherboards.


Which shows how well ASUS supports their older products giving confidence in buying a C8H. I am looking at which X570 over time pulls ahead, also C8H being 8 layers does give the potential for better signalling to the ram slots as well as the PCIe slots. Seeing if any of the other boards can duplicate 3733 with all four slots will be telling. This also would go into 64gb configurations with 4 x 16gb sticks for some serious ram usage if needed (long term prospects). Anyways your results are definitely hinting at very good signalling to those ram slots! Also pretty awesome thread! Common ASUS come and play .


----------



## zekikosif

*asus crosshair 8 hero pch(chipset) temp*

Hello ım using ryzen 9 3900x and asus crosshair 8 hero. I have a problem my pch temp idle 65-70c this is normal ? Im using hwinfo.(last bios and chipset version)


----------



## MacG32

flyinion said:


> Hi guys, quick question on the two versions (WiFi and non-WiFi models). Do you guys expect one or the other to get more/less support from Asus as far as BIOS and driver updates? I ask because my current board for instance a Maximus VII Formula had two versions. The regular one and one packaged with Watchdogs that had a total separate support page. Many times the driver/BIOS listings would not be in sync and one version would sometimes have updated items the other didn't. It wasn't a huge issue in that case since the only difference was one came with a game but the hardware was identical.
> 
> In this case I ordered the non-WiFi version because Amazon had it in stock (and I could get 5% rewards via Amazon card) and neither Amazon or Newegg had the WiFi version in stock. Now I see Newegg has the WiFi version back in stock finally and I'm wondering if I should return the Amazon board and get the WiFi model from Newegg. I don't have anything right now that can even use WiFi 6, so it's more of a making sure there won't be any lack of support regarding drivers/etc. for one model vs the other. As far as I can tell there's no other difference between the boards



If you want Wi-Fi then I would get the Wi-Fi version. Both boards are identical. Amazon has a much better return policy if something happens. All the drivers are the same, except Wi-Fi. Both get identical support. You're good either way you choose. 



noko59 said:


> Which shows how well ASUS supports their older products giving confidence in buying a C8H. I am looking at which X570 over time pulls ahead, also C8H being 8 layers does give the potential for better signalling to the ram slots as well as the PCIe slots. Seeing if any of the other boards can duplicate 3733 with all four slots will be telling. This also would go into 64gb configurations with 4 x 16gb sticks for some serious ram usage if needed (long term prospects). Anyways your results are definitely hinting at very good signalling to those ram slots! Also pretty awesome thread! Common ASUS come and play .



You can get 4000MHz with 32GB (4GBx4), but it's only 1 kit on the QVL. The poster's make the thread, but thanks. :thumb:



zekikosif said:


> Hello ım using ryzen 9 3900x and asus crosshair 8 hero. I have a problem my pch temp idle 65-70c this is normal ? Im using hwinfo.(last bios and chipset version)



Are you using the lastest beta of HWiNFO? Mine idles at 54-57c. You may have something running that's controlled by the chipset, but those temps aren't bad at all. 
_______


AMD Readies AGESA ComboAM4 1.0.0.3ABB, Addresses Several Issues Affecting 3rd Gen Ryzen

AMD Releases New Chipset Drivers For Ryzen 3000: More Relaxed CPPC2 Upscaling


----------



## flyinion

MacG32 said:


> If you want Wi-Fi then I would get the Wi-Fi version. Both boards are identical. Amazon has a much better return policy if something happens. All the drivers are the same, except Wi-Fi. Both get identical support. You're good either way you choose.



Yeah I already have the non WiFi and I'm cool with that. Just wanted to make sure Asus wasn't going to decide it was inferior to the WiFi model and not have as quick or many updates for critical stuff like BIOS. 



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## webwilli

1003ABB Bios for X570:

https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?112279-X370-X470-AGESA-1003AB-Bioses/page5#post779048



> right now i only have the links for x570 for 1003ABB
> - dont be looking for boost changes, the higher booster is only due to the 1002 smu f/w, 1003's smu f/w is not the 'high booster', why the newer smu is a 'weaker' booster one can only guess.


----------



## Jackalito

webwilli said:


> 1003ABB Bios for X570:
> 
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?112279-X370-X470-AGESA-1003AB-Bioses/page5#post779048



Thank you so much for the heads up!
+Rep :thumb:


----------



## wisepds

Guys, new bios FROM shamino wit AGESA v1.0.0.3ABB:

(I don`t know if has been posted yet) 



ROG Crosshair VIII Formula:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ss3lpziwf1nsvm7/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-0802.rar?dl=0
ROG Crosshair VIII Hero Wi-Fi:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cjzwzkde6wbjyor/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-0802.rar?dl=0
ROG Crosshair VIII Hero:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2mfhuvjevqttu4j/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-0802.rar?dl=0

Edit: Oh ****... it has been posted... sorry.


----------



## GuMossad

wisepds said:


> Guys, new bios FROM shamino wit AGESA v1.0.0.3ABB:
> 
> (I don`t know if has been posted yet)
> 
> 
> 
> ROG Crosshair VIII Formula:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/ss3lpziwf1nsvm7/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-0802.rar?dl=0
> ROG Crosshair VIII Hero Wi-Fi:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/cjzwzkde6wbjyor/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-0802.rar?dl=0
> ROG Crosshair VIII Hero:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/2mfhuvjevqttu4j/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-0802.rar?dl=0
> 
> Edit: Oh ****... it has been posted... sorry.


Anyone tried them already? I'm curious about the changes and effects of it! (normally i'm a bit reluctant for BIOS beta versions... the rest all good but BIOS damn)


----------



## FlanK3r

great news about new bIOSes


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Are these beta bios?


----------



## GuMossad

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Are these beta bios?


Yes  and something troubles me from Shamino in Asus forum:



> Quote Originally Posted by Shamino View Post
> right now i only have the links for x570 for 1003ABB
> - dont be looking for boost changes, the higher booster is only due to the 1002 smu f/w, 1003's smu f/w is not the 'high booster', why the newer smu is a 'weaker' booster one can only guess.


----------



## Jackalito

GuMossad said:


> Yes  and something troubles me from Shamino in Asus forum:



But we already knew that, didn't we? AGESA v1.0.0.2 has exhibited better boost frequencies. I'm sure AMD will work on that for next AGESA update. I wouldn't be that concerned, to be honest.


----------



## MacG32

webwilli said:


> 1003ABB Bios for X570:
> 
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?112279-X370-X470-AGESA-1003AB-Bioses/page5#post779048



Thank you for posting that!  +Rep



wisepds said:


> Guys, new bios FROM shamino wit AGESA v1.0.0.3ABB:
> 
> (I don`t know if has been posted yet)
> 
> 
> 
> ROG Crosshair VIII Formula:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/ss3lpziwf1nsvm7/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-0802.rar?dl=0
> ROG Crosshair VIII Hero Wi-Fi:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/cjzwzkde6wbjyor/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-0802.rar?dl=0
> ROG Crosshair VIII Hero:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/2mfhuvjevqttu4j/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-0802.rar?dl=0
> 
> Edit: Oh ****... it has been posted... sorry.



Thank you for posting the direct links to the BIOSes! :thumb: +Rep



GuMossad said:


> Anyone tried them already? I'm curious about the changes and effects of it! (normally i'm a bit reluctant for BIOS beta versions... the rest all good but BIOS damn)



I'm about 1 minute from updating my BIOS to 0802. I'm pretty sure these will be the release versions. They wouldn't release them if they were in any bad shape.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

GuMossad said:


> Yes  and something troubles me from Shamino in Asus forum:


I appreciated those of us that are beta testing the BIOs. I've spent too much time tinkering already. I don't think I have time to test the BIOs. Hoping for a better production version, 0902.


----------



## jedi95

BIOS 0802 + the new chipset driver is working well for me. I'm not seeing any measurable performance regression from 0702 with the launch chipset driver. Destiny 2 starts and runs normally, and HWInfo indicates that RDRAND is supported.

Test system:
3700X
Crosshair VIII Hero
RX 5700 XT
2x16GB DDR4 3733 C14


----------



## anr11

Hey fellas,

I've done some googling but wasn't able to find a definitive answer to this: Is NVMe RAID possible on this board?


----------



## Jackalito

MacG32 said:


> I'm about 1 minute from updating my BIOS to 0802. I'm pretty sure these will be the release versions. They wouldn't release them if they were in any bad shape.



I'm sure you'll have no problems at all! :thumb:




jedi95 said:


> BIOS 0802 + the new chipset driver is working well for me. I'm not seeing any measurable performance regression from 0702 with the launch chipset driver. Destiny 2 starts and runs normally, and HWInfo indicates that RDRAND is supported.
> 
> Test system:
> 3700X
> Crosshair VIII Hero
> RX 5700 XT
> 2x16GB DDR4 3733 C14



Awesome!
I'm curious about your RAM. Could you please share what sticks you have and what settings you are using?
Thanks!


----------



## jedi95

Jackalito said:


> Awesome!
> I'm curious about your RAM. Could you please share what sticks you have and what settings you are using?
> Thanks!


G.Skill Trident Z Royal F4-4000C19D-32GTRS (Dual rank B-die)

SOC Voltage: 1.09v
VDDG: 0.950v
DRAM: 1.48v

See timings in the attached screenshot. I was running prime95 at the time, so that's why the temp is high. It also shows my old values for some of the voltages.


----------



## Jackalito

jedi95 said:


> G.Skill Trident Z Royal F4-4000C19D-32GTRS (Dual rank B-die)
> 
> SOC Voltage: 1.09v
> VDDG: 0.950v
> DRAM: 1.48v
> 
> See timings in the attached screenshot. I was running prime95 at the time, so that's why the temp is high. It also shows my old values for some of the voltages.



Thank you so much! +Rep for sharing! :thumb:
I'm debating myself wether I'll end up using my current sticks (the ones in my signature), or a kit I got recently, 2x8GB G.Skill 3600CL15.


Hopefully, I'll finally have everything I need to put it together by next week (living where I do sucks the big hairy meatball :lachen


EDIT: New official (non-beta) HWiNFO v6.10 build 3880 now available to download:
https://www.fosshub.com/HWiNFO.html


Changelog:


> *HWiNFO v6.10* available.
> 
> Changes:
> 
> 
> Enhanced sensor monitoring on ASUS CROSSHAIR VIII series.
> Added monitoring of AMD X570 chipset temperature.
> Enhanced sensor monitoring on ASUS PRIME X570 and TUF X570 series.
> Enhanced sensor monitoring on ASUS Pro WS X570-ACE.
> Added NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER, 2070 SUPER and 2080 SUPER.
> Added monitoring of Infineon XDPE10281 on GPU (Galax RTX 2080 Ti HOF).
> Enhanced sensor monitoring on ASRock X570 series.
> Enhanced sensor monitoring on ASUS ROG STRIX B365-F and STRIX B365-G.
> Added reporting of Favored Cores List for Intel CPUs.
> Several minor improvements and bugfixes.
> Preliminary sensor monitoring enhancements for ASUS ROG ZENITH II and *X590 series*.
> Added ability to show custom sensors.



I've read that those new X590 mobos will be available in September along with the new Ryzen 9 3950X. I wonder what they will bring to the table that our board doesn't have :headscrat


----------



## MacG32

KingEngineRevUp said:


> I appreciated those of us that are beta testing the BIOs. I've spent too much time tinkering already. I don't think I have time to test the BIOs. Hoping for a better production version, 0902.



I'm almost certain this 0802 will be the production version. It runs like a champ. 



jedi95 said:


> BIOS 0802 + the new chipset driver is working well for me. I'm not seeing any measurable performance regression from 0702 with the launch chipset driver. Destiny 2 starts and runs normally, and HWInfo indicates that RDRAND is supported.
> 
> Test system:
> 3700X
> Crosshair VIII Hero
> RX 5700 XT
> 2x16GB DDR4 3733 C14



I'm in the same boat as you. Everything's working perfectly and without any degrading.  



anr11 said:


> Hey fellas,
> 
> I've done some googling but wasn't able to find a definitive answer to this: Is NVMe RAID possible on this board?



You can RAID any drives attached to the motherboard, so yes. :cheers:



Jackalito said:


> I'm sure you'll have no problems at all! :thumb:



Running nice and smooth! :thumb:



jedi95 said:


> G.Skill Trident Z Royal F4-4000C19D-32GTRS (Dual rank B-die)
> 
> SOC Voltage: 1.09v
> VDDG: 0.950v
> DRAM: 1.48v
> 
> See timings in the attached screenshot. I was running prime95 at the time, so that's why the temp is high. It also shows my old values for some of the voltages.



Thank you for sharing your RAM settings. +Rep :wheee:



Jackalito said:


> Thank you so much! +Rep for sharing! :thumb:
> I'm debating myself wether I'll end up using my current sticks (the ones in my signature), or a kit I got recently, 2x8GB G.Skill 3600CL15.
> 
> 
> Hopefully, I'll finally have everything I need to put it together by next week (living where I do sucks the big hairy meatball :lachen
> 
> 
> EDIT: New official (non-beta) HWiNFO v6.10 build 3880 now available to download:
> https://www.fosshub.com/HWiNFO.html
> 
> 
> Changelog:
> 
> 
> 
> I've read that those new X590 mobos will be available in September along with the new Ryzen 9 3950X. I wonder what they will bring to the table that our board doesn't have :headscrat



Thank you for posting HWiNFO's update. +Rep Those 3200MHz sticks overclock nicely or you could buy the 3600MHz with lower voltage settings. Either way, you'll be at the timings you'd like. I hope you can get your system built soon. I'd like to see what you're able to do with it. 
_______


G.SKILL Releases Optimized DDR4-3800 CL14 Memory Kit for AMD Ryzen 3000 & X570 Platform


----------



## 1usmus

I see a lot of changes in the new bios

Undervolt is not working...same story
Сlock stretching is still enabled in aggressive mode


----------



## wisepds

1usmus said:


> I see a lot of changes in the new bios
> 
> Undervolt is not working...same story
> Сlock stretching is still enabled in aggressive mode


That's good or bad? Ein?


----------



## zorn

Very pleased with 0802, seems to have fixed several bugs. I'm now able to turn RGB lights off during sleep without getting a 'd1' error code and having to reset CMOS. Have not tried enabling XMP profile, as I'm still worried this will cause the D1 and require me to take things apart, but good progress.


----------



## lklem

MacG32 said:


> I'm almost certain this 0802 will be the production version. It runs like a champ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm in the same boat as you. Everything's working perfectly and without any degrading.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can RAID any drives attached to the motherboard, so yes. :cheers:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Running nice and smooth! :thumb:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for sharing your RAM settings. +Rep :wheee:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for posting HWiNFO's update. +Rep Those 3200MHz sticks overclock nicely or you could buy the 3600MHz with lower voltage settings. Either way, you'll be at the timings you'd like. I hope you can get your system built soon. I'd like to see what you're able to do with it.
> _______
> 
> 
> G.SKILL Releases Optimized DDR4-3800 CL14 Memory Kit for AMD Ryzen 3000 & X570 Platform


I have bad luck with the new beta bios, previous 0702 version i could get my 3200mhc CL14 kits ran at 3600mhz CL14 with this new bios not a single chance.


----------



## phillyman36

Anyone try the new chipset drivers from the Amd website? After the problems I had I'm a little hesitant on installing them from the Amd site versus waiting for Asus to post the drivers themselves.


----------



## OneCosmic

No problem with chipset drivers, never had any on X399 or X570 now.


----------



## MacG32

lklem said:


> I have bad luck with the new beta bios, previous 0702 version i could get my 3200mhc CL14 kits ran at 3600mhz CL14 with this new bios not a single chance.



Sorry to hear that. I haven't seen anyone else having these problems. Are you sure your prior overclock was even stable, like passing 24 hours of Prime95's Torture Test? 



phillyman36 said:


> Anyone try the new chipset drivers from the Amd website? After the problems I had I'm a little hesitant on installing them from the Amd site versus waiting for Asus to post the drivers themselves.



I would say that most are using the new drivers, as they've helped fix problems with the 3000 series processors. If you experience any problems, you can always uninstall them and reinstall the drivers ASUS posted. 
_______


New AMD Chipset Drivers Tested on Ryzen 9 3900X


----------



## flyinion

Hey guys installing my board on Saturday, just trying to make sure I have everything ready. Is there any reason to install anything off the included CD? I've never used them in the past but figured I'd check. New system will not have an optical drive until I get around to buying an external (for eventual blu-ray ripping of my collection) but I will still have access to a drive to pull off installers or make a mountable ISO with my current system as for the first time I'll actually have two fully functional systems vs just replacing mobo/cpu/ram and keeping drives/etc. Usually I just download what looks relevant and install that, but I thought I read there was something on the disc that wasn't on the site. I can't find that info now.


----------



## zorn

flyinion said:


> Hey guys installing my board on Saturday, just trying to make sure I have everything ready. Is there any reason to install anything off the included CD? I've never used them in the past but figured I'd check. New system will not have an optical drive until I get around to buying an external (for eventual blu-ray ripping of my collection) but I will still have access to a drive to pull off installers or make a mountable ISO with my current system as for the first time I'll actually have two fully functional systems vs just replacing mobo/cpu/ram and keeping drives/etc. Usually I just download what looks relevant and install that, but I thought I read there was something on the disc that wasn't on the site. I can't find that info now.


Absolutely no reason at all to use that CD. Anything on it will be available in probably newer version on the ASUS support site for your board.


----------



## MacG32

This is the best I can do with my kit: G.Skill - TridentZ RGB 32GB (4x8GB) 4000MHz F4-4000C17Q-32GTZR. Hopefully an AGESA and BIOS update or 2 and maybe I'll be able to hit 3800MHz or possibly even 4000MHz. Hopefully my kit will make the QVL some day.


----------



## flyinion

zorn said:


> Absolutely no reason at all to use that CD. Anything on it will be available in probably newer version on the ASUS support site for your board.


Thanks. That's what I figured. I just seem to remember someone mentioned a utility or something that was currently only on the CD, but I can't remember what it was or where I read it. Possibly it was one of the other two mobo brands/models I was debating but I don't think so.


----------



## MacG32

flyinion said:


> Thanks. That's what I figured. I just seem to remember someone mentioned a utility or something that was currently only on the CD, but I can't remember what it was or where I read it. Possibly it was one of the other two mobo brands/models I was debating but I don't think so.



TurboV Core and MemTweakIt are on the CD. Neither has as much info in them as Ryzen Master, so it's not a big loss. I did post a link for TurboV Core on my Google Drive a few pages back or so.


----------



## flyinion

MacG32 said:


> TurboV Core and MemTweakIt are on the CD. Neither has as much info in them as Ryzen Master, so it's not a big loss. I did post a link for TurboV Core on my Google Drive a few pages back or so.


Thanks. I think I have one final question, though I don't need the info for the weekend build. Within a few weeks I'll be swapping the cooling over to a custom loop. I was thinking of going with a PWM controllable D5 pump and I'm trying to figure out from the manual if the W_FLOW header is usable for monitoring and controlling pump speed or if that's only for monitoring a flow sensor and I would need to use another header? It almost seems like I could use the AIO header up top though since the Alphacool VP655 has a 12V Molex for the power and then a separate 4 pin fan header type connector for the PWM feed so I wouldn't need the 3A connectors on the board. 

Anyone have any insight on this? It will be my first loop and while I've figured out pretty much which parts I"m going with I'm just trying to figure out now the best way to integrate stuff like the pump in the system for monitoring so hopefully if there is a pump failure the board can shut the system down.


----------



## MacG32

flyinion said:


> Thanks. I think I have one final question, though I don't need the info for the weekend build. Within a few weeks I'll be swapping the cooling over to a custom loop. I was thinking of going with a PWM controllable D5 pump and I'm trying to figure out from the manual if the W_FLOW header is usable for monitoring and controlling pump speed or if that's only for monitoring a flow sensor and I would need to use another header? It almost seems like I could use the AIO header up top though since the Alphacool VP655 has a 12V Molex for the power and then a separate 4 pin fan header type connector for the PWM feed so I wouldn't need the 3A connectors on the board.
> 
> Anyone have any insight on this? It will be my first loop and while I've figured out pretty much which parts I"m going with I'm just trying to figure out now the best way to integrate stuff like the pump in the system for monitoring so hopefully if there is a pump failure the board can shut the system down.



Page 1-21 of the manual shows a controllable pump header called H_AMP for a PWM pump. If your CPU trips it max temp, it will shut down. If your pump dies, it will go in to passively cooling mode and shut down if temps get too high. Your system will be fine. :thumb:


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

flyinion said:


> Hey guys installing my board on Saturday, just trying to make sure I have everything ready. Is there any reason to install anything off the included CD? I've never used them in the past but figured I'd check. New system will not have an optical drive until I get around to buying an external (for eventual blu-ray ripping of my collection) but I will still have access to a drive to pull off installers or make a mountable ISO with my current system as for the first time I'll actually have two fully functional systems vs just replacing mobo/cpu/ram and keeping drives/etc. Usually I just download what looks relevant and install that, but I thought I read there was something on the disc that wasn't on the site. I can't find that info now.


Connect your PC to a Ethernet, go into bios and update bios via internet. It will grab the latest and greatist.


----------



## flyinion

MacG32 said:


> Page 1-21 of the manual shows a controllable pump header called H_AMP for a PWM pump. If your CPU trips it max temp, it will shut down. If your pump dies, it will go in to passively cooling mode and shut down if temps get too high. Your system will be fine. :thumb:




Yeah I saw that but it was talking about putting fans not pumps on it so I wasn't sure other than both headers having a 3A rating. Manual's aren't always clear lol. 


Edit: At this point I don't actually understand why Asus put a high power non-PWM "pump" header on the board unless they or one of their partners are planning to put a new pump out. I can't actually find a PWM D5 or DDC that has both power and PWM going to a 4 pin connector in the first place. Seems like you'd have to modify a pump yourself by chopping the molex and 4 pin off and rewiring both sets of wires into a single connector.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

flyinion said:


> Yeah I saw that but it was talking about putting fans not pumps on it so I wasn't sure other than both headers having a 3A rating. Manual's aren't always clear lol.
> 
> 
> Edit: At this point I don't actually understand why Asus put a high power non-PWM "pump" header on the board unless they or one of their partners are planning to put a new pump out. I can't actually find a PWM D5 or DDC that has both power and PWM going to a 4 pin connector in the first place. Seems like you'd have to modify a pump yourself by chopping the molex and 4 pin off and rewiring both sets of wires into a single connector.


You're thinking about it too much. Just know you got 

3 Chassis fans, 1 CPU fan, 1 CPU opt fan, 2 Pump fans that run at 100% (AIO, etc) and 1 High Amp fan. 

The Pumps and AIOs are usually controlled via software or a separate controller on the pump itself. But no one wants a pump to run under 100%, damage a component and blame it on a bios right?

A lot of AIOs recommend that you run it at 100% and control the speed via software. I believe it's bad to control it otherwise via current draw, etc.


----------



## lklem

MacG32 said:


> Sorry to hear that. I haven't seen anyone else having these problems. Are you sure your prior overclock was even stable, like passing 24 hours of Prime95's Torture Test?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that most are using the new drivers, as they've helped fix problems with the 3000 series processors. If you experience any problems, you can always uninstall them and reinstall the drivers ASUS posted.
> _______
> 
> 
> New AMD Chipset Drivers Tested on Ryzen 9 3900X



Yes, previous bios don't have any single issue, rock stable, but with this new bios i can't even boot into Windows, it keep bootlooping 2-3 times after setting then stuck at bios page.


----------



## MacClipper

Sham just did a mega BIOS release at ROG forums before his break
https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?112279-X370-X470-AGESA-1003AB-Bioses/page23#post779329


----------



## Jackalito

MacClipper said:


> Sham just did a mega BIOS release at ROG forums before his break
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?112279-X370-X470-AGESA-1003AB-Bioses/page23#post779329


Thanks, mate! +Rep


----------



## raydenex

Shamino's direct links;



> not gonna be around for a week so this is my parting gift
> 
> same 1003 ABB, improved mem compatibility + nvme compatibility
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/2duk0imuc6k8ab8/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-0803.rar?dl=0
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/mpru15tt729lhpg/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-0803.rar?dl=0
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/degybq4gukge9y1/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-0803.rar?dl=0


----------



## phillyman36

Who is Shamino?


----------



## lklem

Jackalito said:


> Thanks, mate! +Rep


Fantastic! Just flashed the new released bios, my 3200mhz cl14 kits now able to run 3600mhz cl14 again, with the ****ty beta 0802 it just can't boot into Windows.


----------



## 1usmus

I do not like *0803*, there is a bug with a black screen (perhapse rebooting the memory controller)


----------



## gupsterg

phillyman36 said:


> Who is Shamino?


Old article.


----------



## zorn

gupsterg said:


> Old article.


That says he left ASUS, does the fact that he is releasing otherwise non-public beta BIOS' mean that he works for them again?




1usmus said:


> I do not like *0803*, there is a bug with a black screen (perhapse rebooting the memory controller)



Can you elaborate? When does that happen?


----------



## gupsterg

zorn said:


> That says he left ASUS, does the fact that he is releasing otherwise non-public beta BIOS' mean that he works for them again?


The old article had more info on Peter so I linked that, below is from THG.



> Peter Tan a.k.a. Shamino, legendary overclocker and employee at Asus, and Matthew Hurwitz, Product Marketing Manager at Gigabyte, said that AMD had given the order to pull the AGESA 1.0.0.3ABA microcode due to a technical bug.


----------



## 1usmus

zorn said:


> That says he left ASUS, does the fact that he is releasing otherwise non-public beta BIOS' mean that he works for them again?
> 
> Can you elaborate? When does that happen?


the feeling that the video driver crashes, but the image returns much faster
at the moment I caught this effect on 3533С14DR when I used google


----------



## MacG32

MacClipper said:


> Sham just did a mega BIOS release at ROG forums before his break
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?112279-X370-X470-AGESA-1003AB-Bioses/page23#post779329



Thank you for the heads up! +Rep 



raydenex said:


> Shamino's direct links;



Appreciate the direct links. +Rep :thumb:



lklem said:


> Fantastic! Just flashed the new released bios, my 3200mhz cl14 kits now able to run 3600mhz cl14 again, with the ****ty beta 0802 it just can't boot into Windows.



I'm glad this BIOS fixed your overclock problem. 



1usmus said:


> I do not like *0803*, there is a bug with a black screen (perhapse rebooting the memory controller)





1usmus said:


> the feeling that the video driver crashes, but the image returns much faster
> at the moment I caught this effect on 3533С14DR when I used google



Thank you for reporting this. I hope they can get it ironed out.


----------



## flyinion

Hi guys, for flashing the BIOS via USB stick does the BIOS have to be the only thing on there? Or can I put it on a USB stick that has the Win10 installer stuff on it as well? Debating whether to just connect it to ethernet and let it pull down the latest official or if I should try one of those beta BIOS's. Will be building tomorrow afternoon.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

flyinion said:


> Hi guys, for flashing the BIOS via USB stick does the BIOS have to be the only thing on there? Or can I put it on a USB stick that has the Win10 installer stuff on it as well? Debating whether to just connect it to ethernet and let it pull down the latest official or if I should try one of those beta BIOS's. Will be building tomorrow afternoon.


I had a bunch of crap on my flashstick and was able to select the BIOS file.


----------



## eyecrave

Anyone know where to find DTS® Sound Unbound? I found the folder in the realtek audio but no way to install it.


----------



## MacG32

flyinion said:


> Hi guys, for flashing the BIOS via USB stick does the BIOS have to be the only thing on there? Or can I put it on a USB stick that has the Win10 installer stuff on it as well? Debating whether to just connect it to ethernet and let it pull down the latest official or if I should try one of those beta BIOS's. Will be building tomorrow afternoon.



You need a USB stick that's formatted to Fat32 and you can have other files on it. I would suggest the latest Beta as it has the new AGESA and the latest fixes in it. Good luck. 



eyecrave said:


> Anyone know where to find DTS® Sound Unbound? I found the folder in the realtek audio but no way to install it.



It gets installed when you install the Realtek Driver from ASUS. There's a separate installation for it too. Check out the FAQ.


----------



## flyinion

KingEngineRevUp said:


> I had a bunch of crap on my flashstick and was able to select the BIOS file.





MacG32 said:


> You need a USB stick that's formatted to Fat32 and you can have other files on it. I would suggest the latest Beta as it has the new AGESA and the latest fixes in it. Good luck.


Thanks! I've always just done them from the Windows installer in the past (yeah I know, bad potentially) or in the really old days booted off a floppy.


----------



## LordVarian

0803 is up on ASUS site

https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/ROG-Crosshair-VIII-Hero-WI-FI/HelpDesk_BIOS/


----------



## Spongeboy5040

Seems to have gotten pulled


----------



## MacG32

LordVarian said:


> 0803 is up on ASUS site
> 
> https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/ROG-Crosshair-VIII-Hero-WI-FI/HelpDesk_BIOS/



Thank you for heads up! +Rep  It's the same BIOS that Shimano posted, but now official.


----------



## GuMossad

MacG32 said:


> Thank you for heads up! +Rep  It's the same BIOS that Shimano posted, but now official.


Got pulled from the website... 0702 still there!


----------



## MacClipper

Now that Sham is on a week long break, let's see how many BIOS versions get updated and released... if any. I am really hoping for some more BIOS relief esp. C6E updates.


----------



## MacG32

Spongeboy5040 said:


> Seems to have gotten pulled





GuMossad said:


> Got pulled from the website... 0702 still there!



Works just fine here... You may need to clean out your browser's cache. :typer:
_______


Added another review of the Hero Wi-Fi to the 1st post: Hexus - 26JUL19


----------



## flyinion

*ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII overclocking &amp; discussion thread*

Guess I should have returned my hero and got the WiFi model after all lol. The 0803 is up for the WiFi but not the non WiFi. Guess I'll just use the beta download link tomorrow


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## GuMossad

MacG32 said:


> Works just fine here... You may need to clean out your browser's cache. :typer:
> _______
> 
> 
> Added another review of the Hero Wi-Fi to the 1st post: Hexus - 26JUL19


Mac anything about the error 1usmus was talking about? 

How's that release  ?


----------



## MacG32

flyinion said:


> Guess I should have returned my hero and got the WiFi model after all lol. The 0803 is up for the WiFi but not the non WiFi. Guess I'll just use the beta download link tomorrow
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



The ones Shimano posted are the same, so you'll be good using that link. I'm sure the rest of the models will be updated shortly. 



GuMossad said:


> Mac anything about the error 1usmus was talking about?
> 
> How's that release  ?



I think his error may be overclocking related to the PCI-E bus. I do notice a pause and then delay in my typing every once in a very long while. That's not normal and wasn't present in 0702. I need to run a few latency checkers and see what's happening. 


Edit: There are latency issues with BIOS 0803. I recommend using 0702 until another stable BIOS is released.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

MacG32 said:


> The ones Shimano posted are the same, so you'll be good using that link. I'm sure the rest of the models will be updated shortly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think his error may be overclocking related to the PCI-E bus. I do notice a pause and then delay in my typing every once in a very long while. That's not normal and wasn't present in 0702. I need to run a few latency checkers and see what's happening.
> 
> 
> Edit: There are latency issues with BIOS 0803. I recommend using 0702 until another stable BIOS is released.


What kind of latency issues? Can you elaborate more?


----------



## Disassociative

(ignore pls posted in wrong thread)


----------



## GuMossad

MacG32 said:


> The ones Shimano posted are the same, so you'll be good using that link. I'm sure the rest of the models will be updated shortly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think his error may be overclocking related to the PCI-E bus. I do notice a pause and then delay in my typing every once in a very long while. That's not normal and wasn't present in 0702. I need to run a few latency checkers and see what's happening.
> 
> 
> Edit: There are latency issues with BIOS 0803. I recommend using 0702 until another stable BIOS is released.


I am going back to 0702, this BIOS is all bugged! 

Cannot maintain my 3733Mhz config, even 3600Mhz which was more than stable in 0702 now gives me errors in MemBench! And I also feel some latency issues. 

*** is Asus doing? They don't test their BIOS before making them Oficial? :|


----------



## Jackalito

MacG32 said:


> The ones Shimano posted are the same, so you'll be good using that link. I'm sure the rest of the models will be updated shortly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think his error may be overclocking related to the PCI-E bus. I do notice a pause and then delay in my typing every once in a very long while. That's not normal and wasn't present in 0702. I need to run a few latency checkers and see what's happening.
> 
> 
> Edit: There are latency issues with BIOS 0803. I recommend using 0702 until another stable BIOS is released.



And what about 0802? Would you go for 0702 over 0802?
I'm asking because I'll probably assemble my system next week and I would like to know what version try first.
Thanks!


----------



## GuMossad

Jackalito said:


> And what about 0802? Would you go for 0702 over 0802?
> I'm asking because I'll probably assemble my system next week and I would like to know what version try first.
> Thanks!


802 haven't even touched it... 

0702 seems the way to go for now, I don't get it honestly... 

I really feel like making this 0803 work... but doesn't seem it's going to happen. Also I felt latency problems with video, playing CSGO, fps didn't dropped from 299... but i could visually see it was like stuttering and mouse sometimes didnt' respond correctly.


----------



## MacG32

KingEngineRevUp said:


> What kind of latency issues? Can you elaborate more?



I ran latency monitoring software and processes go through the roof with latency while I have everything running on my PC. I was typing and my words weren't showing up, then all of the sudden they showed up. It's like my system was pausing for a second or two, then resuming. :thinking:



GuMossad said:


> I am going back to 0702, this BIOS is all bugged!
> 
> Cannot maintain my 3733Mhz config, even 3600Mhz which was more than stable in 0702 now gives me errors in MemBench! And I also feel some latency issues.
> 
> *** is Asus doing? They don't test their BIOS before making them Oficial? :|





Jackalito said:


> And what about 0802? Would you go for 0702 over 0802?
> I'm asking because I'll probably assemble my system next week and I would like to know what version try first.
> Thanks!





GuMossad said:


> 802 haven't even touched it...
> 
> 0702 seems the way to go for now, I don't get it honestly...
> 
> I really feel like making this 0803 work... but doesn't seem it's going to happen. Also I felt latency problems with video, playing CSGO, fps didn't dropped from 299... but i could visually see it was like stuttering and mouse sometimes didnt' respond correctly.



I'm going to test out 0802 for a few hours or so to see if this latency issue exists there. :headscrat


----------



## Jackalito

MacG32 said:


> I ran latency monitoring software and processes go through the roof with latency while I have everything running on my PC. I was typing and my words weren't showing up, then all of the sudden they showed up. It's like my system was pausing for a second or two, then resuming. :thinking:
> 
> *I'm going to test out 0802 for a few hours or so to see if this latency issue exists there.* :headscrat



Thanks, man - really appreciate it! :thumb:


By the way, the support pages have been updated for our boards with the latest chipset drivers and a new Memory QVL:


AMD Chipset v1.7.29.0115 (August 2, 2019) [49.87 MB]

*- Update AMD chipset driver 19.10.xx first before update this driver
**- Fixed Destiny 2 application launch issues.*
*- Updated AMD Ryzen Balanced power plan*

Download link: https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/03CHIPSET/AMD_chipset_drivers_nonVGA_1.7.29.0115.zip


Memory Qualified Vendor List (August 2, 2019) [1.14 MB]

Download link: https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...G_Crosshair_VIII_Series_Memory_QVL_190801.pdf


----------



## MacG32

Jackalito said:


> Thanks, man - really appreciate it! :thumb:
> 
> 
> By the way, the support pages have been updated for our boards with the latest chipset drivers and a new Memory QVL:
> 
> 
> AMD Chipset v1.7.29.0115 (August 2, 2019) [49.87 MB]
> 
> *- Update AMD chipset driver 19.10.xx first before update this driver
> **- Fixed Destiny 2 application launch issues.*
> *- Updated AMD Ryzen Balanced power plan*
> 
> Download link: https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/03CHIPSET/AMD_chipset_drivers_nonVGA_1.7.29.0115.zip
> 
> 
> Memory Qualified Vendor List (August 2, 2019) [1.14 MB]
> 
> Download link: https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...G_Crosshair_VIII_Series_Memory_QVL_190801.pdf



Thank you for posting these! +Rep :thumb:

Seem the latency issue and pausing are present in 0802 as well, but the latency is not as bad. A lot of people's overclocks went bad with the 080x series BIOSes, so I'm going to recommend 0702 until the latency and pausing issues get fixed.


----------



## Jackalito

MacG32 said:


> Thank you for posting these! +Rep :thumb:
> 
> Seem the latency issue and pausing are present in 0802 as well, but the latency is not as bad. A lot of people's overclocks went bad with the 080x series BIOSes, so I'm going to recommend 0702 until the latency and pausing issues get fixed.



Thank you so much for testing this! +Rep back to you :thumb:


----------



## Section31

Did Asus introduce variable fan speed for the PCH with bios 0803. Noticing my PCH went up from 52degrees to 58degrees. Other than the normal performance drop from AMD chipset driver, everything functions normally.


----------



## Jackalito

Section31 said:


> Did Asus introduce variable fan speed for the PCH with bios 0803. Noticing my PCH went up from 52degrees to 58degrees. Other than the normal performance drop from AMD chipset driver, everything functions normally.



No latency issues on your rig?


About the PCH fan, check this post in ROG forums:
https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthre...rosshair-Hero-High-Pch-Temperature#post779260


----------



## Section31

Not i notice. It probably there but i dont do that anything that would trigger issues. I'm not on my computer too long these last couple of months.

Thanks for that link. Very informative. I am not concerned about the pch temp as thats still within norm. It doesnt jump either above that when i do benchmarking and gaming. I have four fans lian li bora fans blowing air on top of motherboard (2 on gpu/pch and 2 on vrm). Lot of airflow in that area.

The lowest x570 pch temp i have seen is 40ish and thats from msi design where the pch heatstink is connected to the vrm heatsink. So 50ish is fine.


----------



## flyinion

Ok guys need some basic Ryzen help here. My new 3700X is not going past the base 3.6Ghz clock no matter what I try. I did disabled PBO as it was running 1.46v when I booted up initially but my understanding is that PBO is different from the base core boosting functions of PB2. Supposedly that is controlled by "core performance boost" which I also initially disabled thinking it was like Asus auto OC stuff. I turned it back on (Auto setting) but still nothing over 3.6. This is on 0702 BIOS. Can someone point me in the right direction to getting PB2 working out of the box before I go tweaking with manual OC's or anything?


----------



## flyinion

Just a quick note to my post above. Looks like Auto didn't take at first as a reboot and setting to enabled and even back to Auto seemed to make it boost up to 4.3. However, the ridiculous vcore was back and it was causing the CPU fan to ramp up and down like a vacuum cleaner. So I disabled "core performance boost" again for now. Do I need to set the vcore manually to something? Am I in the wrong spot to get the PB2 scaling to work? Or is it this 0702 BIOS?


----------



## GuMossad

MacG32 said:


> Thank you for posting these! +Rep :thumb:
> 
> Seem the latency issue and pausing are present in 0802 as well, but the latency is not as bad. A lot of people's overclocks went bad with the 080x series BIOSes, so I'm going to recommend 0702 until the latency and pausing issues get fixed.


Hey Mac!

My latest report... After reflashing 3x times with 0803, had to go back to Memory Training to be able to boot 3600 CL14 Memory, new Chipset Drivers, I am not noticing any Latency... 
I'm with a Nvidia 980 Ti on the latest drivers. 

Stress tested the machine with Prime95 and Aida, all good max temps hit was 76... Now the boost... is a crap  barely seen go past 4.1 in 2 or 3 cores... And surprisingly not the best Cores  

So I'd say it's "safe" for now, but as Shamino said, weak boost one...


----------



## gupsterg

wisepds said:


> why my CPU FSB is not 100?
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MacG32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed that in all apps that show it too. My memory never quite hits the mark either. I wonder if it's a problem with the BIOS?
Click to expand...

Today by interacting with an owner on reddit it seems C8H/F UEFI has CPU Spread Spectrum toggle, disable it and you should see 100MHz BCLK, link to reddit comments.


----------



## Jackalito

gupsterg said:


> Today by interacting with an owner on reddit it seems C8H/F UEFI has CPU Spread Spectrum toggle, disable it and you should see 100MHz BCLK, link to reddit comments.



Thanks for sharing, gups! +Rep! :thumb:


PS. Would you consider joining us on the C8H journey?  Come on, come to the dark side - we got cookies! :h34r-smi


----------



## Gábor Kiss

Hi Guys!

My next PC will Crosshair VIII Formula, Ryzen 3950X and 32GB [email protected]
The question is the RAM.
Is there any relevant difference in the load of the memory controller, temperatures, frequency or voltage limits between 4x8GB SS modul or 2x16GB DS modules?

So the question is that, in a dual memory system what is the better solution:
4x8GB SS modules vs. 2x16GB DS modules, and why? Or maybe it doesn't matter?

Thanks


----------



## MacG32

flyinion said:


> Ok guys need some basic Ryzen help here. My new 3700X is not going past the base 3.6Ghz clock no matter what I try. I did disabled PBO as it was running 1.46v when I booted up initially but my understanding is that PBO is different from the base core boosting functions of PB2. Supposedly that is controlled by "core performance boost" which I also initially disabled thinking it was like Asus auto OC stuff. I turned it back on (Auto setting) but still nothing over 3.6. This is on 0702 BIOS. Can someone point me in the right direction to getting PB2 working out of the box before I go tweaking with manual OC's or anything?





flyinion said:


> Just a quick note to my post above. Looks like Auto didn't take at first as a reboot and setting to enabled and even back to Auto seemed to make it boost up to 4.3. However, the ridiculous vcore was back and it was causing the CPU fan to ramp up and down like a vacuum cleaner. So I disabled "core performance boost" again for now. Do I need to set the vcore manually to something? Am I in the wrong spot to get the PB2 scaling to work? Or is it this 0702 BIOS?



I've been testing out BIOS 0803 again. I uninstalled all AMD Chipset Drivers then installed an older AMD Chipset Drivers v19.10.0429 and lastly v1.07.07.0725. I also reinstalled all of the motherboard drivers again. So far, it seems to have been a driver issue with latency. I'm still testing, but everything seems fine now. That was very odd. It seems if there's a drastic chipset driver or AGESA change, those cause problems with other drivers. That's why I reinstalled everything again. :typer:

The new BIOS should help, as long as you choose AMD Ryzen Balanced power plan. You could always adjust the CPU fan in the BIOS as well. I know Silicone Lottery has all core overclocks for their 3700Xs at 40.5 1.237v, 41 1.250v, and 41.5 1.262v possibly with raised LLC to maintain those voltages. One of those could possibly lower temps and fan ramp up times. 



GuMossad said:


> Hey Mac!
> 
> My latest report... After reflashing 3x times with 0803, had to go back to Memory Training to be able to boot 3600 CL14 Memory, new Chipset Drivers, I am not noticing any Latency...
> I'm with a Nvidia 980 Ti on the latest drivers.
> 
> Stress tested the machine with Prime95 and Aida, all good max temps hit was 76... Now the boost... is a crap  barely seen go past 4.1 in 2 or 3 cores... And surprisingly not the best Cores
> 
> So I'd say it's "safe" for now, but as Shamino said, weak boost one...



See above about further testing and reinstallations.  I'm seeing 45.5 boost on mine, but am wondering where 46 comes in to play? Must be totally single threaded, I'd say. :thinking:



gupsterg said:


> Today by interacting with an owner on reddit it seems C8H/F UEFI has CPU Spread Spectrum toggle, disable it and you should see 100MHz BCLK, link to reddit comments.



Thank you very much for this! +Rep :thumb: I found the setting: SB Clock Spread Spectrum. In the screenshot below.



Gábor Kiss said:


> Hi Guys!
> 
> My next PC will Crosshair VIII Formula, Ryzen 3950X and 32GB [email protected]
> The question is the RAM.
> Is there any relevant difference in the load of the memory controller, temperatures, frequency or voltage limits between 4x8GB SS modul or 2x16GB DS modules?
> 
> So the question is that, in a dual memory system what is the better solution:
> 4x8GB SS modules vs. 2x16GB DS modules, and why? Or maybe it doesn't matter?
> 
> Thanks



There are a lot of higher clocked 2x16GB kits missing from the QVL. I bought a 4x8GB 4000MHz kit and downclocked it to 3733MHz. The highest 2x16GB on the QVL is 3600MHz and 4x8GB is 4000MHz. That may change in the future. Good luck! :cheers:
_______


I've been testing latency for an hour now and 0803 seems to pass, after having to reinstall everything again. :yessir:


----------



## flyinion

*ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII overclocking &amp; discussion thread*



MacG32 said:


> I've been testing out BIOS 0803 again. I uninstalled all AMD Chipset Drivers then installed an older AMD Chipset Drivers v19.10.0429 and lastly v1.07.07.0725. I also reinstalled all of the motherboard drivers again. So far, it seems to have been a driver issue with latency. I'm still testing, but everything seems fine now. That was very odd. It seems if there's a drastic chipset driver or AGESA change, those cause problems with other drivers. That's why I reinstalled everything again. :typer:
> 
> 
> 
> The new BIOS should help, as long as you choose AMD Ryzen Balanced power plan. You could always adjust the CPU fan in the BIOS as well. I know Silicone Lottery has all core overclocks for their 3700Xs at 40.5 1.237v, 41 1.250v, and 41.5 1.262v possibly with raised LLC to maintain those voltages. One of those could possibly lower temps and fan ramp up times.




Thanks. So if I'm understanding right I should turn core performance boost back on to enable precision boost 2, install the 0803 BIOS, then uninstall the AMD drivers (only installed the two packages from Asus) and go find an older version somewhere? I do have Q fan auto tune in all the fans. I guess in a couple weeks I'll be on water and the CPU fan won't be an issue but the vcore will be still. I know 1.45 is too high. Just don't know if it's a BIOS issue or what. 

Edit: I'm using that balanced plan but it had the minimum CPU state as 99% vs 5% on the windows one so I changed it and also disabled standby like I usually do. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Lupo91

Hi everyone, I temporarily mounted my 2700X, waiting for the 3900X, on my X570 Crosshair VIII Formula, except that my G Skill TridentZ 4x8Gb 3200Cl14, can't get over 3000Mhz




The same ram with the C7H went quietly to 3466Cl14


it's a rather strange thing, there is someone who has this card with the 2700X, just to get an opinion


----------



## MacG32

flyinion said:


> Thanks. So if I'm understanding right I should turn core performance boost back on to enable precision boost 2, install the 0803 BIOS, then uninstall the AMD drivers (only installed the two packages from Asus) and go find an older version somewhere? I do have Q fan auto tune in all the fans. I guess in a couple weeks I'll be on water and the CPU fan won't be an issue but the vcore will be still. I know 1.45 is too high. Just don't know if it's a BIOS issue or what.
> 
> Edit: I'm using that balanced plan but it had the minimum CPU state as 99% vs 5% on the windows one so I changed it and also disabled standby like I usually do.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



Update to BIOS 0803. Leave all the boosts alone. Uninstall AMD Drivers. Install v19.10.0429. Install v1.07.07.0725. Check to see if there are any pauses or hesitations in your programs. If not, you're good to go. If so, reinstall the other motherboard and graphics drivers. If you're going water cooling soon, then the fan noise should motivate you to get your water cooling sooner. The high VCore is normal and within specs, as the CPU controls it's voltage. 



Lupo91 said:


> Hi everyone, I temporarily mounted my 2700X, waiting for the 3900X, on my X570 Crosshair VIII Formula, except that my G Skill TridentZ 4x8Gb 3200Cl14, can't get over 3000Mhz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same ram with the C7H went quietly to 3466Cl14
> 
> 
> it's a rather strange thing, there is someone who has this card with the 2700X, just to get an opinion



What BIOS are you using?


----------



## flyinion

MacG32 said:


> Update to BIOS 0803. Leave all the boosts alone. Uninstall AMD Drivers. Install v19.10.0429. Install v1.07.07.0725. Check to see if there are any pauses or hesitations in your programs. If not, you're good to go. If so, reinstall the other motherboard and graphics drivers. If you're going water cooling soon, then the fan noise should motivate you to get your water cooling sooner. The high VCore is normal and within specs, as the CPU controls it's voltage.



Thanks I'll give that a try. I was concerned about the voltage because all the reviewers were commenting that much above 1.35 was too high. Yeah I wanted to do the water all together with the build but the h500m is kinda tight on specs up top so I decided to wait till I had the motherboard so I could check clearance. Looks like I'm good to get a 360x30mm rad with fans in push up top even though official clearance is only 43mm. 



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## usoldier

Hey guys just ordered a CH8 and 3800x , iam hoping it works with my old ddr4 kit F4-3200C14D-16GTZR its a B-die so iam gessing its ok ? 



Also want to ask opinion on the cooling setup, going to use a EK 360x60 copper Rad with a EK XRES 100 SPC-60 MX PWM pump, and for the block a EK-Supermacy MX . I think the rad and pump are ok iam just not shure if the block will hold up good enough. 



Thanks


----------



## flyinion

MacG32 said:


> Update to BIOS 0803. Leave all the boosts alone. Uninstall AMD Drivers. Install v19.10.0429. Install v1.07.07.0725. Check to see if there are any pauses or hesitations in your programs. If not, you're good to go. If so, reinstall the other motherboard and graphics drivers. If you're going water cooling soon, then the fan noise should motivate you to get your water cooling sooner. The high VCore is normal and within specs, as the CPU controls it's voltage.


So, I can't seem to find the 19.10.0429 driver or even a newer version of it? When I follow the link the website doesn't like a direct link and I have to search and the only thing that comes up is the 1.07.07.xxx and the newer version of that and the 2 RAID drivers. There's no second chipset driver?


----------



## MacG32

usoldier said:


> Hey guys just ordered a CH8 and 3800x , iam hoping it works with my old ddr4 kit F4-3200C14D-16GTZR its a B-die so iam gessing its ok ?
> 
> 
> 
> Also want to ask opinion on the cooling setup, going to use a EK 360x60 copper Rad with a EK XRES 100 SPC-60 MX PWM pump, and for the block a EK-Supermacy MX . I think the rad and pump are ok iam just not shure if the block will hold up good enough.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks



Welcome! Your RAM will be good. If the block if for AM4, then it will be fine. 



flyinion said:


> So, I can't seem to find the 19.10.0429 driver or even a newer version of it? When I follow the link the website doesn't like a direct link and I have to search and the only thing that comes up is the 1.07.07.xxx and the newer version of that and the 2 RAID drivers. There's no second chipset driver?



Look here: https://www.amd.com/en/support/previous-drivers/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x470


----------



## flyinion

MacG32 said:


> Look here: https://www.amd.com/en/support/previous-drivers/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x470


X470 works with X570? Thanks though  Also I just found a bunch of stuff from someone from AMD on Reddit about voltages so I guess I'm more relaxed about that issue now. I might need to just re-run QFan or something after flashing/etc.


----------



## Lupo91

MacG32 said:


> What BIOS are you using?



The last the 0702


----------



## MacG32

flyinion said:


> X470 works with X570? Thanks though  Also I just found a bunch of stuff from someone from AMD on Reddit about voltages so I guess I'm more relaxed about that issue now. I might need to just re-run QFan or something after flashing/etc.



Just following ASUS installation advice to install v19.10.0429 before installing v1.7.29.0115. 



Lupo91 said:


> The last the 0702



Try 0803 from ASUS: https://www.dropbox.com/s/2duk0imuc6k8ab8/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-0803.rar?dl=0


----------



## Lupo91

Try 0803 from ASUS: https://www.dropbox.com/s/2duk0imuc6k8ab8/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-0803.rar?dl=0 [/QUOTE]




Why is it not available on the Asus website?

is it a beta ??


----------



## Lupo91

Lupo91 said:


> Try 0803 from ASUS: https://www.dropbox.com/s/2duk0imuc6k8ab8/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-0803.rar?dl=0





Why is it not available on the Asus website?


is it a beta ??



Thanks anyway


Sorry for the double post



[/QUOTE]


----------



## MacG32

Lupo91 said:


> Why is it not available on the Asus website?
> 
> is it a beta ??



It was posted in the ROG Forum by Shimano from ASUS. The Hero is already at 0803 on the website. Try it out and see if your overclock is any better. It has the latest AGESA in it as well. :thumb:


----------



## flyinion

MacG32 said:


> Just following ASUS installation advice to install v19.10.0429 before installing v1.7.29.0115.


Thanks will do, starting to make sense why they gave those instructions. I'm surprised the AMD direct version is like 1/3rd the size of the newer one on Asus' website.


----------



## lklem

usoldier said:


> Hey guys just ordered a CH8 and 3800x , iam hoping it works with my old ddr4 kit F4-3200C14D-16GTZR its a B-die so iam gessing its ok ?
> 
> 
> 
> Also want to ask opinion on the cooling setup, going to use a EK 360x60 copper Rad with a EK XRES 100 SPC-60 MX PWM pump, and for the block a EK-Supermacy MX . I think the rad and pump are ok iam just not shure if the block will hold up good enough.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks


I'm using same kits, no problem at all, 3600mhz CL14 is not an issue.


----------



## gupsterg

gupsterg said:


> Today by interacting with an owner on reddit it seems C8H/F UEFI has CPU Spread Spectrum toggle, disable it and you should see 100MHz BCLK, link to reddit comments.
> 
> 
> 
> MacG32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you very much for this! +Rep :thumb: I found the setting: SB Clock Spread Spectrum. In the screenshot below.
Click to expand...

Nice  .

So it has SB Spread Spectrum in Tweakers Paradise, ie south bridge. On the Zenith Extreme/Zenith Extreme Alpha I had Spread Spectrum on Extreme Tweaker menu which did the same.

I'm curious to see a settings txt dump from ASUS C8H/F, any chance you can share one chap?


----------



## Lupo91

MacG32 said:


> It was posted in the ROG Forum by Shimano from ASUS. The Hero is already at 0803 on the website. Try it out and see if your overclock is any better. It has the latest AGESA in it as well. :thumb:



Thanks for the bios

Now I am stable at 3200CL14 with 4x8Gb, it was a bios problem, now I see if I can rise further

Surely things will improve with the next bios


----------



## AStaUK

I upgraded from a 3770K to a 3900X a week or so ago and am reasonable happy with the upgrade so far. Had a few teething issues such as Asus Aura Sync causing a few of my games to stutter which I've now solved. I've had a little play with some of the BIOS settings, mostly just setting XMP, disabling Armoury and boot settings, but I'm now wondering what else I can tweak to get a little better performance out of my computer.

Core Performance Boost (think I read here this is XFR2/PB2) is currently set to Auto, should this be enabled? I'm sure I saw another option that related to core performance and there was an option to set it to Optimised, which was a Asus optimised boost setting, but not in front of my PC now to be able to check what is was or where it is.

And something else I've noticed, I have 32GB of G.Skill loaded, but Windows 10 shows this as 31.9. Is anyone else getting this on Windows 10 1903?


----------



## rv8000

So I had posted a couple pages back now about some issues getting my 3700x to post with 1:1 ram speeds higher that 3200, turns out it was the CPU afterall. New 3700X instantly posts with my saved profile for 3733 @ 1:1 c16. I'm surprised there are that bad of 3rd Gen Ryzen parts in circulation though, even my 1700 could get higher speeds on the IF on launch.

I'll be sharing some settings/results at some point. Looks like it should be really easy to get into the low 60s for latency after I get a chance to mess with timings. Thanks again to anyone who tried to help with the initial 3700X I had.


----------



## usoldier

lklem said:


> I'm using same kits, no problem at all, 3600mhz CL14 is not an issue.



WOW awsome hope mine does the same thanks for the reply Iklem


----------



## OneCosmic

rv8000 said:


> So I had posted a couple pages back now about some issues getting my 3700x to post with 1:1 ram speeds higher that 3200, turns out it was the CPU afterall. New 3700X instantly posts with my saved profile for 3733 @ 1:1 c16. I'm surprised there are that bad of 3rd Gen Ryzen parts in circulation though, even my 1700 could get higher speeds on the IF on launch.
> 
> I'll be sharing some settings/results at some point. Looks like it should be really easy to get into the low 60s for latency after I get a chance to mess with timings. Thanks again to anyone who tried to help with the initial 3700X I had.


Before my current 3900X become available i had a 3600 and with that one i had random post issues. It seemed like IF related because any setting instead of default RAM speed resulted in some random post code - not even documented ones, at that time 0702 was latest BIOS and it didn't have any impact on those issues. After swaping it for 3900X suddenly no issues anymore and that 3600 was stable at 4200MHz maybe at like 1.45 Vcore, at 1.4 it wasn't stable. I had similarly bad overclocker Ryzen 1600 years ago which could not even do 3.9GHz stable, so i think the low Ryzens are garbage in terms of binning. If you get a 3600 4.4GHz stable that is a golden chip.


----------



## flyinion

Flashed the 0803 BIOS and rolled back to the earlier chipset drivers as recommended. Just curious what the exact issue was with the newest drivers? (I don't play Destiny 2 at the moment so not a huge loss) I think I read something about weird mouse latency etc. but it wasn't clear if there were other issues and/or if it was widespread or just random. Otherwise, system seems to be running great. No issues with my CL18 3600 GSkill Neo out of the box running at 3600 speed. I haven't had a chance to run a memtest yet just to verify the RAM has no issues though.


----------



## OneCosmic

Lupo91 said:


> Thanks for the bios
> 
> Now I am stable at 3200CL14 with 4x8Gb, it was a bios problem, now I see if I can rise further
> 
> Surely things will improve with the next bios


Hi, i am stable at 3733MHz with 4x8GB TridentZ 4266MHz C19 see pic for timings except that at the current moment MB posts for 3 times until it trains the RAM properly and posts but that may be due to pretty tight subtimings which i am using. 3600MHz 14-15-14-14 with same subtimings 1.45V posts without issues. I use 1usmus Testmem5 for testing.


----------



## Lupo91

OneCosmic said:


> Hi, i am stable at 3733MHz with 4x8GB TridentZ 4266MHz C19 see pic for timings except that at the current moment MB posts for 3 times until it trains the RAM properly and posts but that may be due to pretty tight subtimings which i am using. 3600MHz 14-15-14-14 with same subtimings 1.45V posts without issues. I use 1usmus Testmem5 for testing.



Thanks, but I still have the 2700X, I ordered the 3900X but it has yet to arrive


----------



## MacG32

gupsterg said:


> Nice  .
> 
> So it has SB Spread Spectrum in Tweakers Paradise, ie south bridge. On the Zenith Extreme/Zenith Extreme Alpha I had Spread Spectrum on Extreme Tweaker menu which did the same.
> 
> I'm curious to see a settings txt dump from ASUS C8H/F, any chance you can share one chap?



I've attached it. There are quite a few more settings opened up from 0702. 



Lupo91 said:


> Thanks for the bios
> 
> Now I am stable at 3200CL14 with 4x8Gb, it was a bios problem, now I see if I can rise further
> 
> Surely things will improve with the next bios



You're welcome. I'm glad it helped. Hopefully you'll be able to overclock further. 



AStaUK said:


> I upgraded from a 3770K to a 3900X a week or so ago and am reasonable happy with the upgrade so far. Had a few teething issues such as Asus Aura Sync causing a few of my games to stutter which I've now solved. I've had a little play with some of the BIOS settings, mostly just setting XMP, disabling Armoury and boot settings, but I'm now wondering what else I can tweak to get a little better performance out of my computer.
> 
> Core Performance Boost (think I read here this is XFR2/PB2) is currently set to Auto, should this be enabled? I'm sure I saw another option that related to core performance and there was an option to set it to Optimised, which was a Asus optimised boost setting, but not in front of my PC now to be able to check what is was or where it is.
> 
> And something else I've noticed, I have 32GB of G.Skill loaded, but Windows 10 shows this as 31.9. Is anyone else getting this on Windows 10 1903?



Those settings are there for you to experiment with to see what kind of boost you'd like. The Auto settings are normally set to Default. Windows shows 31.9GB for me as well. :thumb:



rv8000 said:


> So I had posted a couple pages back now about some issues getting my 3700x to post with 1:1 ram speeds higher that 3200, turns out it was the CPU afterall. New 3700X instantly posts with my saved profile for 3733 @ 1:1 c16. I'm surprised there are that bad of 3rd Gen Ryzen parts in circulation though, even my 1700 could get higher speeds on the IF on launch.
> 
> I'll be sharing some settings/results at some point. Looks like it should be really easy to get into the low 60s for latency after I get a chance to mess with timings. Thanks again to anyone who tried to help with the initial 3700X I had.



Glad you've got it figured out.  Too bad it was your old processor.


----------



## OneCosmic

Hi MacG32, no CL 14 or 15 on your 4x8GB kit at 3733MHz?


----------



## MacG32

OneCosmic said:


> Hi MacG32, no CL 14 or 15 on your 4x8GB kit at 3733MHz?



I haven't taken the time to experiment/overclock that much. I did try quite a few different setting from the DRAM Calculator, but they were for different kits. Mine's not listed there correctly. I do like the voltage I'm using now. I'm moving to upstate New York in a little over a week and have been too busy for much else. I won't be settled in there until the middle of next month.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Can we get a edit to the first post just for now explaining the 0803 latency issue and what to do to mitigate it?


----------



## MacG32

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Can we get a edit to the first post just for now explaining the 0803 latency issue and what to do to mitigate it?



Good idea. +Rep I tried to keep it as simple and to the point as possible and added the links to the latest BIOSes as well. :thumb:


----------



## flyinion

Was it the new 0803 BIOS that fixed the WHEA errors or did 0702 do that? I installed on 0702 after it was initially mentioned on Friday the 0803 had issues, have since updated to 0803 but with the previous drivers as per Mac's instructions and I just saw the spoiler section in the first post about running sfc /scannow and when I ran it I indeed had errors (nothing obvious in Event Logs though). DISM fixed it and and SFC scan is now clear, just want to make sure I'm clear on what the fix is such as 0803 or is it actually the latest drivers (which as noted I rolled back from). Don't want to have stuff get corrupted again.


----------



## flyinion

MacG32 said:


> Good idea. +Rep I tried to keep it as simple and to the point as possible and added the links to the latest BIOSes as well. :thumb:


Thanks for that update. After looking at it I have questions now lol. Yesterday you mentioned running the 0429 X470 drivers with the 1.07.07.0725 driver package for X570. In that info in the first post you're suggesting to go ahead and run the newer 1.07.29.0115 instead? So is it just the newer X470 driver 19.10.16 (from the Asus website) that's causing the latency issue?


----------



## MacG32

flyinion said:


> Was it the new 0803 BIOS that fixed the WHEA errors or did 0702 do that? I installed on 0702 after it was initially mentioned on Friday the 0803 had issues, have since updated to 0803 but with the previous drivers as per Mac's instructions and I just saw the spoiler section in the first post about running sfc /scannow and when I ran it I indeed had errors (nothing obvious in Event Logs though). DISM fixed it and and SFC scan is now clear, just want to make sure I'm clear on what the fix is such as 0803 or is it actually the latest drivers (which as noted I rolled back from). Don't want to have stuff get corrupted again.



The BIOS previous to 0702, the one that ships with the motherboards, caused corruption problems. I remember reading someone getting errors in their system logs with 0702, so it may also have problems. I know it randomly didn't detect attached drives, so that may have been a point of corruption. 



flyinion said:


> Thanks for that update. After looking at it I have questions now lol. Yesterday you mentioned running the 0429 X470 drivers with the 1.07.07.0725 driver package for X570. In that info in the first post you're suggesting to go ahead and run the newer 1.07.29.0115 instead? So is it just the newer X470 driver 19.10.16 (from the Asus website) that's causing the latency issue?



v1.07.07.0725 and v1.07.29.0115 are the same driver. Somewhere there was a mix up of the version number. I downloaded v1.07.07.0725 when it first came out and v1.07.29.0115 once AMD had it up and they're identical. The latency is caused from a driver or drivers issue. Installing v19.10.x before the latest driver was a direct recommendation from ASUS, as it's posted on their latest chipset driver. The rest of the motherboard and graphics card drivers being reinstalled is what I did to eliminate the latency problems I encountered. Is it all clear now?


----------



## flyinion

MacG32 said:


> The BIOS previous to 0702, the one that ships with the motherboards, caused corruption problems. I remember reading someone getting errors in their system logs with 0702, so it may also have problems. I know it randomly didn't detect attached drives, so that may have been a point of corruption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> v1.07.07.0725 and v1.07.29.0115 are the same driver. Somewhere there was a mix up of the version number. I downloaded v1.07.07.0725 when it first came out and v1.07.29.0115 once AMD had it up and they're identical. The latency is caused from a driver or drivers issue. Installing v19.10.x before the latest driver was a direct recommendation from ASUS, as it's posted on their latest chipset driver. The rest of the motherboard and graphics card drivers being reinstalled is what I did to eliminate the latency problems I encountered. Is it all clear now?


LOL I think so. But you're recommending to run the 19.10.0429 driver instead of the newer one listed on the Asus website as....

AMD Chipset Driver
V5.12.0.38(V19.10.16) for Windows 10 64-bit

Or is that driver also identical and just suffering from a version number issue like the 0725 vs 0115 one as well?


----------



## MacG32

flyinion said:


> LOL I think so. But you're recommending to run the 19.10.0429 driver instead of the newer one listed on the Asus website as....
> 
> AMD Chipset Driver
> V5.12.0.38(V19.10.16) for Windows 10 64-bit
> 
> Or is that driver also identical and just suffering from a version number issue like the 0725 vs 0115 one as well?



I don't use ASUS drivers at all and on AMD's website there are no v19.10.16 drivers. I get all of my drivers from Station Drivers, since they have the latest and greatest. Motherboard makers are *extremely* slow to update their drivers and I require the new security patches involved in the latest drivers.


----------



## flyinion

Hmm I just noticed that. I wonder if Asus modified it then. That version doesn't exist at all in the X470 section on AMD's site. Only the 0429 and it's in the "previous driver" section. Also, I just tried to find the drivers on that Station site. Wow that site is horrible. I couldn't find anything except a sidebar reference to a post about them in the forums. The driver and "categories" sections seem impossible to find anything with.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

MacG32 said:


> Good idea. +Rep I tried to keep it as simple and to the point as possible and added the links to the latest BIOSes as well. :thumb:


What would we do without you? Thanks for keeping this thread organized and watching after it.

What are the symptoms of the latency issues?


----------



## MacG32

flyinion said:


> Hmm I just noticed that. I wonder if Asus modified it then. That version doesn't exist at all in the X470 section on AMD's site. Only the 0429 and it's in the "previous driver" section. Also, I just tried to find the drivers on that Station site. Wow that site is horrible. I couldn't find anything except a sidebar reference to a post about them in the forums. The driver and "categories" sections seem impossible to find anything with.



I think it's easy to maneuver. Click Drivers, the company name of the driver you're looking for, the device, then possibly the version series. 



KingEngineRevUp said:


> What would we do without you? Thanks for keeping this thread organized and watching after it.
> 
> What are the symptoms of the latency issues?



You'd find someone else to take over...lol You're welcome.  I'd run LatencyMon and random drivers would report extremely high routine execution times. My system would pause during typing and then the letters I typed would show up afterwards. There were hesitations when switching tabs of live streams on Twitch. Even page refreshes took much longer than normal. My system just seemed very hesitant and latency ridden. :headscrat


----------



## flyinion

MacG32 said:


> I think it's easy to maneuver. Click Drivers, the company name of the driver you're looking for, the device, then possibly the version series.




I think it's cause I was looking for AMD drivers not Asus. Couldn't find an AMD section and the chipset category didn't help either. I'll have to spend more time looking around though. Looking forward to actually using the system now. I think I finally finished sorting through the stuff on the old system and getting it transferred. Not looking forward to the big project of getting Flightsim X and over 100GB of scenery and aircraft add-ons reinstalled. That's a weekend project lol. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## flyinion

I’m assuming this is a bug since in bios monitoring is correct but nearly had a heart attack earlier when I noticed OCCT and CPUID HWMonitor both reporting the 12v line as having 20V! Guessing they both need to update their software. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lupo91

Hi guys

Is the voltage of the CPU offset broken ?? Because it does not accept any value

To turn off the LiveDash when the PC is off, is there a way ??

I also saw that for the C8HF there is still no software to be able to customize it, is that correct ??

Thank's


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Lupo91 said:


> Hi guys
> 
> Is the voltage of the CPU offset broken ?? Because it does not accept any value
> 
> To turn off the LiveDash when the PC is off, is there a way ??
> 
> I also saw that for the C8HF there is still no software to be able to customize it, is that correct ??
> 
> Thank's


AMD_Robert doesn't recommend doing an offset voltage. 

Also, I think a lot of redditors have done testing on offset voltages. It's not recommended.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cc19mm/how_voltage_affects_performance_on_a_3700x/

The only time I recommend fooling with voltages is if you're undervolting + OC.


----------



## Lupo91

KingEngineRevUp said:


> AMD_Robert doesn't recommend doing an offset voltage.
> 
> Also, I think a lot of redditors have done testing on offset voltages. It's not recommended.
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cc19mm/how_voltage_affects_performance_on_a_3700x/
> 
> The only time I recommend fooling with voltages is if you're undervolting + OC.



Besides that I still have the 2700X, but then it is not a valid reason, the function is broken, it must work beyond whether it is recommended or not



For the Oled Dash Display, is there a way to configure it?


----------



## MacG32

Lupo91 said:


> For the Oled Dash Display, is there a way to configure it?



I think it's in the BIOS. Advanced Menu | Onboard Devices Configuration | RGB LED Lighting. Page 3-16 of the manual explains what each setting does.


----------



## Lupo91

MacG32 said:


> I think it's in the BIOS. Advanced Menu | Onboard Devices Configuration | RGB LED Lighting. Page 3-16 of the manual explains what each setting does.



Sorry, but I didn't mean that

I want to configure the display Oled on the motherboard and turn it off if so, as you can do with the Z390 Formula

However I have already put "Stealth Mode" as an option when the PC is off, but the OLED display remains on


----------



## usoldier

So i gess i have a ram/latency issue right? Literaly just finish the build , gess ill have to reinstall windows ? whats up with the write speed ?


----------



## zsoltmol

Hi Guys,

Can you please give me a pointer why my Ryzen 3900X says its limited under full test (built in Ryzen Master test or Prime95 or whatever) by EDC? I'm new to this world. 

Config:
AMD Ryzen 3900X
G.Skill 2x8GB 3600CL16
NZXT Krake X62 Cooling
Asus C8H - BIOS 702
Fresh W10 - 1903
Latest AMD Drivers
PBO Off
PSU is 650W
GTX 970


----------



## MacG32

Lupo91 said:


> Sorry, but I didn't mean that
> 
> I want to configure the display Oled on the motherboard and turn it off if so, as you can do with the Z390 Formula
> 
> However I have already put "Stealth Mode" as an option when the PC is off, but the OLED display remains on



Try this: LiveDash Utility 



usoldier said:


> So i gess i have a ram/latency issue right? Literaly just finish the build , gess ill have to reinstall windows ? whats up with the write speed ?



Not sure what's going on there. It could be a multitude of problems. You may want to follow the instructions in the first post about BIOS 0803. 



zsoltmol said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> Can you please give me a pointer why my Ryzen 3900X says its limited under full test (built in Ryzen Master test or Prime95 or whatever) by EDC? I'm new to this world.
> 
> Config:
> AMD Ryzen 3900X
> G.Skill 2x8GB 3600CL16
> NZXT Krake X62 Cooling
> Asus C8H - BIOS 702
> Fresh W10 - 1903
> Latest AMD Drivers
> PBO Off
> PSU is 650W
> GTX 970



Your overclock has the EDC pegged out at max amps. You're voltage looks too high. Try 1.25+volts. You may have to adjust your LLC to maintain that voltage under load. I can get 42.7 on all cores without an overclock. It's automatic. Try updating your BIOS to 0803 as well. Happy overclocking!


----------



## Lupo91

MacG32 said:


> Try this: LiveDash Utility





It doesn't work, I had already tried to get that utility from the Formula Z390, but it doesn't work with the X570


----------



## rv8000

usoldier said:


> So i gess i have a ram/latency issue right? Literaly just finish the build , gess ill have to reinstall windows ? whats up with the write speed ?


What speed/cl was your memory at?

Also if you're running a 3600, 3600x, 3700x, or 3800x, they only have 1 CCD and thus have a 16bit width for writes unlike the 3900x with two CCD's and full write bandwidth


----------



## flyinion

Quick question. Is there any reason to install the raid driver packages if I'm not running raid? Like do they have basic drivers for the drive controllers? Or is the standard generic ahci driver that Windows installed fine?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## flyinion

Also, just saw the non-WiFi model got the 0803 BIOS officially on its page. The writeup mentions the chipset fan is now allowed to stop at low temp/idle periods. Anyone know if this official 0803 is any different than the one that was posted as a beta? When I look in AISuite's monitor it always says the PCH fan is at like 2800rpm. So either the software is wrong, or the 0803 from the forums was missing some stuff, or the writeup is wrong?

edit: Looks like they're the same. I loaded them into the EZ Flash utility and both have a date of 8/1/19.


----------



## Takla

usoldier said:


> So i gess i have a ram/latency issue right? Literaly just finish the build , gess ill have to reinstall windows ? whats up with the write speed ?


Other than the fact that some parts are blank, your memory performance looks as expected. With tweaked timings you can get to 65ish ns on ryzen 3000

Here is my best run for reference


----------



## usoldier

Hequaqua said:


> I believe that AMD say's that is half of the actual rate due to the I/O config on the CPU's.
> 
> 
> 
> Source https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/9051/amd-ryzen-3900x-3700x-zen2-review/index3.html





> "In memory bandwidth, we see something odd, the write speed of AMD's 3700X, and that's because of the CDD to IOD connection, where the writes are 16B/cycle on the 3700X, but it's double that on the 3900X. AMD said this let them conserve power, which accounts for part of the lower TDP AMD aimed for. AMD says applications rarely do pure writes, but it did hurt the 3700X's performance in one of our benchmarks on the next page. Memory latency is a bit high at stock, but you can overclock the memory quite easily".
> 
> “This is an expected result. Client workloads do very little pure writing, so the CCD/IOD link is 32B/cycle while reading and 16B/cycle for writing. This allowed us to save power and area inside the package to spend on other, more beneficial areas for tangible performance benefits”.



Yeah so only the 3900X has the ryzen+ series write speeds aparently.


----------



## Reikoji

The 0803 Bios memory updates has allowed my 4x8gb 4000mhz 17-17-17-37 Trident-Z Royals to boot at just that now. Couldnt get passed 3866 before and even that failed sometimes.

Tho, it changes the CAS to 18 automaticially . I guess Zen still hates odd CAS values?


----------



## unaha-closp

MacG32 said:


> Not sure what's going on there. It could be a multitude of problems.



H-how about this, senpai?! I can't disable secure boot! It's grayed out:









I'm on BIOS 0803 and it's grayed out both with CSM disabled and enabled.
I'm new to UEFIs, so I'm not familiar with all this key bsns.


From my research, I've gathered that CSM *enabled* implies that Secure Boot _is _disabled (even if it shows as "Enabled") because Secure Boot and CSM are mutually exclusive. As proof of this, booting from M.2 PCIe drives works with CSM *enabled* _but not_ with CSM *disabled* -- unless the drives have Microsoft's UEFI driver in them (i.e., have Windows on them?) -- because Secure Boot (when CSM is *disabled*) does not trust the generic UEFI driver they use otherwise.



Pls correct any wrongness; and, nevertheless, I'd like to explicitly disable Secure Boot if useful or possible.



Also, bonus question: 

- if with GPU A disabling CSM results in a mobo self-reset with CSM enabled again and you always get to an American Megatrends screen that says "The VGA card is not supported by UEFI driver"

- but with GPU B disabling CSM works and you see no such screen ever


does this imply that GPU A is fscked?


----------



## MacG32

flyinion said:


> Quick question. Is there any reason to install the raid driver packages if I'm not running raid? Like do they have basic drivers for the drive controllers? Or is the standard generic ahci driver that Windows installed fine?



There's no need for any RAID Driver being installed. Everything's fine just the way it is with Windows Drivers. 



flyinion said:


> Also, just saw the non-WiFi model got the 0803 BIOS officially on its page. The writeup mentions the chipset fan is now allowed to stop at low temp/idle periods. Anyone know if this official 0803 is any different than the one that was posted as a beta? When I look in AISuite's monitor it always says the PCH fan is at like 2800rpm. So either the software is wrong, or the 0803 from the forums was missing some stuff, or the writeup is wrong?
> 
> edit: Looks like they're the same. I loaded them into the EZ Flash utility and both have a date of 8/1/19.



Install this and you'll be able to compare files by their CRC. You just right click the file, select Properties, and click File Hashes. You can see from there if they are the same, if the values match up. 



Reikoji said:


> The 0803 Bios memory updates has allowed my 4x8gb 4000mhz 17-17-17-37 Trident-Z Royals to boot at just that now. Couldnt get passed 3866 before and even that failed sometimes.
> 
> Tho, it changes the CAS to 18 automaticially . I guess Zen still hates odd CAS values?



You have to enable or disable Gear Down, the opposite of what it is for you now, and the timings will stay as they are entered. :thumb:



unaha-closp said:


> H-how about this, senpai?! I can't disable secure boot! It's grayed out:
> 
> I'm on BIOS 0803 and it's grayed out both with CSM disabled and enabled.
> I'm new to UEFIs, so I'm not familiar with all this key bsns.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, bonus question:
> 
> - if with GPU A disabling CSM results in a mobo self-reset with CSM enabled again and you always get to an American Megatrends screen that says "The VGA card is not supported by UEFI driver"
> 
> - but with GPU B disabling CSM works and you see no such screen
> 
> 
> does this imply that GPU A is fscked?



If you're using Windows, you should have Secure Boot enabled. I think you need to uninstall the keys to disable it. CSM mode is for loading legacy/old drivers to get your computer too boot. GPU A must be very old for this to happen. You need CSM mode enabled to boot from GPU A. GPU B is newer and has a UEFI Driver for it, so no need for CSM mode. Good luck.


----------



## unaha-closp

MacG32 said:


> If you're using Windows, you should have Secure Boot enabled. I think you need to uninstall the keys to disable it. CSM mode is for loading legacy/old drivers to get your computer too boot. GPU A must be very old for this to happen. You need CSM mode enabled to boot from GPU A. GPU B is newer and has a UEFI Driver for it, so no need for CSM mode. Good luck.



I'm sorry! I edited my post right before your post came through! ;3; (I added some extra details about the nature of CSM as I understand it. Is it true that CSM enabled implies that Secure Boot is disabled? If so, I wouldn't have to try and delete the keys because that sounds scary!)


I plan to use both Windows and Linux (but no OSes installed now).


As for the GPU, it's the opposite! _GPU A is_ _newer_ (an AMD VII) than GPU B (an Nvidia 1080 Ti). But I suspect GPU A is fscked, hence the problems. It also wouldn't work on my older chipset, so this acts as a kind of confirmation.


----------



## MacG32

unaha-closp said:


> I'm sorry! I edited my post right before your post came through! ;3; (I added some extra details about the nature of CSM as I understand it. Is it true that CSM enabled implies that Secure Boot is disabled? If so, I wouldn't have to try and delete the keys because that sounds scary!)
> 
> 
> I plan to use both Windows and Linux (but no OSes installed now).
> 
> 
> As for the GPU, it's the opposite! _GPU A is_ _newer_ (an AMD VII) than GPU B (an Nvidia 1080 Ti). But I suspect GPU A is fscked, hence the problems. It also wouldn't work on my older chipset, so this acts as a kind of confirmation.



When CSM mode is enabled Secure Boot is normally disabled, but I've seen them both work on some other motherboards. Key removal is simple. Go to key management and remove them. GPU A must be a bookend now. Sorry to hear that.


----------



## unaha-closp

MacG32 said:


> When CSM mode is enabled Secure Boot is normally disabled, but I've seen them both work on some other motherboards. Key removal is simple. Go to key management and remove them.



Yay! I cleared my keys in Key Management, and now Secure Boot shows as Disabled. 



There's also an option to Install Default Secure Boot Keys, so, for others out there, I suppose you can do this without fear.


Thank you!


Alas, even with Secure Boot disabled, it still doesn't seem possible to boot from M.2 PCIe drives; you have to have CSM enabled. My understanding of these arcana must be faulty.





MacG32 said:


> GPU A must be a bookend now. Sorry to hear that.



uwu


----------



## MacG32

unaha-closp said:


> Yay! I cleared my keys in Key Management, and now Secure Boot shows as Disabled.
> 
> 
> 
> There's also an option to Install Default Secure Boot Keys, so, for others out there, I suppose you can do this without fear.
> 
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> 
> Alas, even with Secure Boot disabled, it still doesn't seem possible to boot from M.2 PCIe drives; you have to have CSM enabled. My understanding of these arcana must be faulty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uwu



When Windows is installed on an M.2 drive, it becomes a UEFI device and can be seen in the BIOS without CSM enabled. Any other devices need CSM enabled to be seen by the BIOS.


----------



## zsoltmol

zsoltmol said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> Can you please give me a pointer why my Ryzen 3900X says its limited under full test (built in Ryzen Master test or Prime95 or whatever) by EDC? I'm new to this world.
> 
> Config:
> AMD Ryzen 3900X
> G.Skill 2x8GB 3600CL16
> NZXT Krake X62 Cooling
> Asus C8H - BIOS 702
> Fresh W10 - 1903
> Latest AMD Drivers
> PBO Off
> PSU is 650W
> GTX 970





MacG32 said:


> Your overclock has the EDC pegged out at max amps. You're voltage looks too high. Try 1.25+volts. You may have to adjust your LLC to maintain that voltage under load. I can get 42.7 on all cores without an overclock. It's automatic. Try updating your BIOS to 0803 as well. Happy overclocking!


Actually I do NOT overclock at all, everything is default in the bios. Even PBO is off. What is your max EDC headroom, mine is 140A


----------



## Krisztias

Hi Guys,

is here anybody who use the C8H with Ryzen+ gen CPU (2700x)?
Are there any problems?

Thank you


----------



## Lupo91

Krisztias said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> is here anybody who use the C8H with Ryzen+ gen CPU (2700x)?
> Are there any problems?
> 
> Thank you





I'm currently using my C8H Formula with the 2700x without problems, waiting for the 3900X to arrive


----------



## MacG32

zsoltmol said:


> Actually I do NOT overclock at all, everything is default in the bios. Even PBO is off. What is your max EDC headroom, mine is 140A



Your Ryzen Master picture shows Profile 1 having settings changed in it and active. Select it, Reset Profile, Discard, then restart. It should be normal then.


----------



## flyinion

MacG32 said:


> There's no need for any RAID Driver being installed. Everything's fine just the way it is with Windows Drivers.


Thanks that's what I figured and is why I didn't even try it originally. On my old Z97 board I originally had installed Intel's drivers and actually rolled them back out after reading that the default MS drivers actually worked better in non-RAID setups. It sounds like, from the info on the driver packages, that the AMD drivers are purely for RAID only anyway so probably a good thing I didn't do it. If I do end up with a RAID array it will not be for a while until SSD prices fall some more for the large capacity ones.


----------



## Section31

I have this dilemma.I know an reformat will fix the issue but its not major issue to make me want to do it. What's your guys thoughts

I've been running this windows install on a 960Pro from I7-6700K to I9-7900X to I9-7920X to 3900X. I don't have no issues except I forgot to uninstall all the Intel stuff that was previously on it (when I was upgrading to Ryzen 3900X). I managed to uninstall all the apps except Intel Boast App. I was able to disable it so it doesn't run and such.


----------



## flyinion

Anyone having problems with Ryzen Master crashing? I have the latest version from AMD and after I open it, the thing just goes into "not responding" after a couple minutes or less. I'm not actually doing anything with it, just have it open. Everything I can find in Google is talking about crashing issues from bad OC's with it and such, but not the app itself just crashing like this. I just came from Intel so I have no experience with it to know if this is a "normal" problem with AMD software.


----------



## usoldier

flyinion said:


> Anyone having problems with Ryzen Master crashing? I have the latest version from AMD and after I open it, the thing just goes into "not responding" after a couple minutes or less. I'm not actually doing anything with it, just have it open. Everything I can find in Google is talking about crashing issues from bad OC's with it and such, but not the app itself just crashing like this. I just came from Intel so I have no experience with it to know if this is a "normal" problem with AMD software.


I have the same problem preaty anoying even tried a windows clean install and same deal ryzen master randomly freezes and stops responding.


----------



## magnusavr

Have you guys noticed that after upgrading from bios 0702 to 0803 that the DRAM voltages is lower than what you type in. F example 1.38 shows as 1.368. In 0702 it wasn't like this.


----------



## danoz0r

*Any SLI problems with this board?*

Im currently on the X570 Godlike. Running 2 x 2080 TI Strix in SLI. However, if Im plugged in to lower GPU. I get VGA Error from Oled. Basically a blank screen until im in windows. 
The only way I can get into BIOS is being plugged into top GPU. Which I guess is prioritised during post.

Just wondering if the same problem is with this board if it's actually a chipset problem or an MSI problem.

I formerly had an Asus z390 Formula. with no issues. 

Question is do I get this board?


----------



## eyecrave

flyinion said:


> Anyone having problems with Ryzen Master crashing? I have the latest version from AMD and after I open it, the thing just goes into "not responding" after a couple minutes or less. I'm not actually doing anything with it, just have it open. Everything I can find in Google is talking about crashing issues from bad OC's with it and such, but not the app itself just crashing like this. I just came from Intel so I have no experience with it to know if this is a "normal" problem with AMD software.


I run 2 monitors and i can reproduce the crashing if i move ryzen master to my other monitor it will crash just by hovering on an option. The only way i got it to stop crashing is leave it running on original monitor and move the other programs and it hasn't crashed since.


----------



## usoldier

eyecrave said:


> I run 2 monitors and i can reproduce the crashing if i move ryzen master to my other monitor it will crash just by hovering on an option. The only way i got it to stop crashing is leave it running on original monitor and move the other programs and it hasn't crashed since.


Oh i gess your on to something i also have 2 monitors and also crashes if i move it to the other one.


----------



## flyinion

eyecrave said:


> I run 2 monitors and i can reproduce the crashing if i move ryzen master to my other monitor it will crash just by hovering on an option. The only way i got it to stop crashing is leave it running on original monitor and move the other programs and it hasn't crashed since.





usoldier said:


> Oh i gess your on to something i also have 2 monitors and also crashes if i move it to the other one.


Hmmm, I as well am using multiple monitors. Seems like we've found a common thread. That's definitely a weird one.


----------



## Jackalito

magnusavr said:


> *Have you guys noticed that after upgrading from bios 0702 to 0803 that the DRAM voltages is lower than what you type in*. F example 1.38 shows as 1.368. In 0702 it wasn't like this.



I just finished putting my system together yesterday, but I flashed 0803 through USB BIOS Flashback straight away. I also noticed that, I've currently entered 1.38 VDRAM on BIOS to have around 1.376V measured by HWiNFO.
Speaking of which, there's a new beta, *v6.11 build 3890*.




> Changelog:
> 
> 
> *Fixed reporting of ES/Production stage for some Zen2 CPUs.*
> Fixed measuring of BCLK for some Intel CPUs under Windows 7.
> *Added reporting of CPU High Temperature Clock Limit for AMD Zen2 family.*
> *Added reporting of CPU Automatic Overclocking Offset for AMD Matisse family.*
> *Added a new (more reliable) method for measuring BCLK on AMD Matisse systems.*


Download link:
https://www.fosshub.com/HWiNFO.html?dwl=hwi_611_3890.zip


Now, questions: is it normal that Ryzen Master won't show up any RAM related voltages, and returning just a 0. Check this screenshot out:


Spoiler














 


As you can see what I get from MEM VDDIO and MEM VTT is simply zero. Is this a bug with Ryzen Master and/or a conflict between AMD's software and the current BIOS 0803? Am I the only one getting this?


Also, I'm currently testing those RAM OC settings that you can see in Ryzen Master, and when I stress my computer, QCode LED changes from AA to F8. Any one else seeing this? Does anyone know what it means? Aside from the change of code, the system seems perfectly stable and functional.


More things: I went ahead and changed my Vega 56 Pulse from the first to the second PCIe slot. I haven't noticed any degradation in performance. GPU-Z v2.23.0 still reports it as PCIe 3.0 x16, and I've managed to significantly reduce PCH temperatures and PCH fan RPM by doing so.


*Huge shout-out to @MacG32* for keeping the OP constantly updated, and to all the rest of you for sharing knowledge and experiences.


See you around, fellas!


----------



## Jackalito

Kinda offotpic: Guys, I've changed my system specs using the RIG Builder, but even if I refresh by pressing Ctrl+F5 on Firefox, I'm still seeing my previous components. Is there anything else I need to do? I'm sure I saved the changes, and if you click on my system name "Ryzen 7 Rig", it shows the correct ones. I'm puzzled...


----------



## flyinion

Jackalito said:


> Kinda offotpic: Guys, I've changed my system specs using the RIG Builder, but even if I refresh by pressing Ctrl+F5 on Firefox, I'm still seeing my previous components. Is there anything else I need to do? I'm sure I saved the changes, and if you click on my system name "Ryzen 7 Rig", it shows the correct ones. I'm puzzled...


No idea, I just used the rig builder to build a new one. However, I also edited my old one to remove some stuff and it was acting weird. I went to the signature settings and removed it from the list, and then re-added and that fixed the showing wrong stuff so maybe that will help you out too.


----------



## Jackalito

flyinion said:


> No idea, I just used the rig builder to build a new one. However, I also edited my old one to remove some stuff and it was acting weird. *I went to the signature settings and removed it from the list, and then re-added and that fixed the showing wrong stuff so maybe that will help you out too*.



Thanks, that's actually what I was about to try.
*EDIT:* Yeah, that just made it work. Thanks a bunch! :thumb:


----------



## MacG32

Section31 said:


> I have this dilemma.I know an reformat will fix the issue but its not major issue to make me want to do it. What's your guys thoughts
> 
> I've been running this windows install on a 960Pro from I7-6700K to I9-7900X to I9-7920X to 3900X. I don't have no issues except I forgot to uninstall all the Intel stuff that was previously on it (when I was upgrading to Ryzen 3900X). I managed to uninstall all the apps except Intel Boast App. I was able to disable it so it doesn't run and such.



I've been running Windows 10 on the same SSD since it came out. I've switch to multiple motherboards. Everything runs perfectly. All I did is uninstall unused drivers. 



danoz0r said:


> Im currently on the X570 Godlike. Running 2 x 2080 TI Strix in SLI. However, if Im plugged in to lower GPU. I get VGA Error from Oled. Basically a blank screen until im in windows.
> The only way I can get into BIOS is being plugged into top GPU. Which I guess is prioritised during post.
> 
> Just wondering if the same problem is with this board if it's actually a chipset problem or an MSI problem.
> 
> I formerly had an Asus z390 Formula. with no issues.
> 
> Question is do I get this board?



I haven't seen anyone report this issue, but that's not to say it doesn't exist. Since you seem to have disposable income, buy the motherboard and test it out for all of us. 



Jackalito said:


> I just finished putting my system together yesterday, but I flashed 0803 through USB BIOS Flashback straight away. I also noticed that, I've currently entered 1.38 VDRAM on BIOS to have around 1.376V measured by HWiNFO.
> Speaking of which, there's a new beta, *v6.11 build 3890*.
> 
> 
> Download link:
> https://www.fosshub.com/HWiNFO.html?dwl=hwi_611_3890.zip
> 
> 
> Now, questions: is it normal that Ryzen Master won't show up any RAM related voltages, and returning just a 0. Check this screenshot out:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see what I get from MEM VDDIO and MEM VTT is simply zero. Is this a bug with Ryzen Master and/or a conflict between AMD's software and the current BIOS 0803? Am I the only one getting this?
> 
> 
> Also, I'm currently testing those RAM OC settings that you can see in Ryzen Master, and when I stress my computer, QCode LED changes from AA to F8. Any one else seeing this? Does anyone know what it means? Aside from the change of code, the system seems perfectly stable and functional.
> 
> 
> More things: I went ahead and changed my Vega 56 Pulse from the first to the second PCIe slot. I haven't noticed any degradation in performance. GPU-Z v2.23.0 still reports it as PCIe 3.0 x16, and I've managed to significantly reduce PCH temperatures and PCH fan RPM by doing so.
> 
> 
> *Huge shout-out to @MacG32* for keeping the OP constantly updated, and to all the rest of you for sharing knowledge and experiences.
> 
> 
> See you around, fellas!



Thank you for the updated link. +Rep MEM VDDIO and MEM VTT are 0 for me as well. F8 = Recovery PPI (PEIM-to-PEIM (Pre-EFI Initialization Module) Interface) is not available. A PEIM is a file of the firmware. Why it would change to that during a stress test doesn't make sense. Does it change back to AA after the stress test? GPU-Z may state x16 but that slot is only a x8 by the pin count on the back of the motherboard. Reinstalling your graphics driver should fix the problem.


----------



## eyecrave

Anyone know what the max temp is for the x570 chipset? Max i've hit according to hwinfo while gaming is 70.3. This is probably the only issue i have with this board. Either they should've added a heatpipe from the vrms or move it so when you install any video card in first slot it doesn't block the fan. i think only msi ace and up (gigabyte ultra but yikes at the price) run a heatpipe from the vrm and also moved it so installing a video card in first slot does not block the fan. Also does anyone know what the equivalent of cool n' quiet is for this board?


----------



## Kernel-Debugger

While waiting for Agesa improvements and more importantly the 3950X... More additions to the Ryzen build. I've had the active LED readout for water temp since the CH6, and decided to further modify my case with a voltage meter. Pictured is the water pump voltage, and is constantly varying from 5.9 to 6 volt and extremely accurate and displays quick readouts (Wish I had a video of this to post). This meter is intended for the CH8 CPU voltage pin-out. I need to do further testing to ensure 100% stability for this, as I would prefer to have the reading without volt drop and or surge. The meters that I use are made by DROK and are widely available though Amazon. This is a Corsair Air 540 with a Bulgin Switch replacing the black plastic power switch, the white LED HD activity has been replaced with a red LED. And the OEM USB/Audio block has been removed to fit the Volt Meter. I have the Asus USB 3.1 optional cable (next to the 24pin) with panel mount for a front USB connection, as I'm only using Type-C these days. Also my Dell U3219Q uses the rear 3.1 port to feed the dual usb ports on the side of the monitor, so really don't need any USB ports on the case.

A note about the volt meters: If you decide to try this (There are two types: A 3-wire and a 4-wire. The 4 wire has one set to power the meter and one set to provide the reading.) not sure yet; which would be ideal.


----------



## Lupo91

However the bios 0803 was released on the Asus website


https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/ROG-Crosshair-VIII-Formula/HelpDesk_Download/


Are there differences with the beta a few days ago ??


----------



## Jackalito

MacG32 said:


> Thank you for the updated link. +Rep MEM VDDIO and MEM VTT are 0 for me as well. F8 = Recovery PPI (PEIM-to-PEIM (Pre-EFI Initialization Module) Interface) is not available. A PEIM is a file of the firmware. Why it would change to that during a stress test doesn't make sense. Does it change back to AA after the stress test? GPU-Z may state x16 but that slot is only a x8 by the pin count on the back of the motherboard. Reinstalling your graphics driver should fix the problem.



I've just discovered that the F8 code doesn't show up during stress testing, but every time I run Ryzen Master - it changes from AA to d3 for a brief moment and then F8; and the only way to make it go away is by rebooting the system. Other than that, it seems stable.
Can you guys share whether that's also what you're seeing with BIOS 0803 and Ryzen Master?


And thank you for the GPU-Z and graphics drivers heads up. I'll reinstall them later today :thumb:




Lupo91 said:


> However the bios 0803 was released on the Asus website
> 
> https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/ROG-Crosshair-VIII-Formula/HelpDesk_Download/
> 
> Are there differences with the beta a few days ago ??



They're exactly the same one.


I'm hearing the mumble that AGESA v1.0.0.4 with lots of fixes and improvements, including erratic boost behaviors, should start doing the rounds between late August and early September. Fingers crossed for a smoother deployment! 


And finally, if you guys end up in a situation with a failed RAM training and after clearing CMOS, you get no image on your screen, don't panic and do the following, even though you won't see anything on your screen: just wait until you see Qcode 02, then press F1 to enter the BIOS (you'll then see Qcode A9), then press F10 and Enter to save settings and restart. Wait until you get to Windows Lockscreen (that's when you'll recover image). Then simply restart and now you'll be able to get image at the boot sequence so that you can enter BIOS again and make the appropriate changes.


I have no idea if this was a problem with previous BIOS versions, as I've only used 0803 from the beginning. I tested this with my video card in both, first and second PCIe slots to rule out that the problem was coming on my end by using the second slot.



That's all for now


----------



## MacG32

eyecrave said:


> Anyone know what the max temp is for the x570 chipset? Max i've hit according to hwinfo while gaming is 70.3. This is probably the only issue i have with this board. Either they should've added a heatpipe from the vrms or move it so when you install any video card in first slot it doesn't block the fan. i think only msi ace and up (gigabyte ultra but yikes at the price) run a heatpipe from the vrm and also moved it so installing a video card in first slot does not block the fan. Also does anyone know what the equivalent of cool n' quiet is for this board?



Mine doesn't go above 60c while gaming, now that I have my case fans sped up a bit. 



Kernel-Debugger said:


> While waiting for Agesa improvements and more importantly the 3950X... More additions to the Ryzen build. I've had the active LED readout for water temp since the CH6, and decided to further modify my case with a voltage meter. Pictured is the water pump voltage, and is constantly varying from 5.9 to 6 volt and extremely accurate and displays quick readouts (Wish I had a video of this to post). This meter is intended for the CH8 CPU voltage pin-out. I need to do further testing to ensure 100% stability for this, as I would prefer to have the reading without volt drop and or surge. The meters that I use are made by DROK and are widely available though Amazon. This is a Corsair Air 540 with a Bulgin Switch replacing the black plastic power switch, the white LED HD activity has been replaced with a red LED. And the OEM USB/Audio block has been removed to fit the Volt Meter. I have the Asus USB 3.1 optional cable (next to the 24pin) with panel mount for a front USB connection, as I'm only using Type-C these days. Also my Dell U3219Q uses the rear 3.1 port to feed the dual usb ports on the side of the monitor, so really don't need any USB ports on the case.
> 
> A note about the volt meters: If you decide to try this (There are two types: A 3-wire and a 4-wire. The 4 wire has one set to power the meter and one set to provide the reading.) not sure yet; which would be ideal.



Looking good. Is that the only readout that you'll have or will you be adding more? 



Jackalito said:


> I've just discovered that the F8 code doesn't show up during stress testing, but every time I run Ryzen Master - it changes from AA to d3 for a brief moment and then F8; and the only way to make it go away is by rebooting the system. Other than that, it seems stable.
> Can you guys share whether that's also what you're seeing with BIOS 0803 and Ryzen Master?
> 
> 
> And thank you for the GPU-Z and graphics drivers heads up. I'll reinstall them later today :thumb:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're exactly the same one.
> 
> 
> I'm hearing the mumble that AGESA v1.0.0.4 with lots of fixes and improvements, including erratic boost behaviors, should start doing the rounds between late August and early September. Fingers crossed for a smoother deployment!
> 
> 
> And finally, if you guys end up in a situation with a failed RAM training and after clearing CMOS, you get no image on your screen, don't panic and do the following, even though you won't see anything on your screen: just wait until you see Qcode 02, then press F1 to enter the BIOS (you'll then see Qcode A9), then press F10 and Enter to save settings and restart. Wait until you get to Windows Lockscreen (that's when you'll recover image). Then simply restart and now you'll be able to get image at the boot sequence so that you can enter BIOS again and make the appropriate changes.
> 
> 
> I have no idea if this was a problem with previous BIOS versions, as I've only used 0803 from the beginning. I tested this with my video card in both, first and second PCIe slots to rule out that the problem was coming on my end by using the second slot.
> 
> 
> 
> That's all for now



I'm not going to be running Ryzen Master anymore, until it doesn't change the QCodes. I did have to reboot to get back to AA. I'm seriously looking forward to the next AGESA. The 3900X does a lot of odd things. Here's hoping they get it perfected soon. I really enjoy all of what it can do. I'm also looking forward to more higher clocked 32GB kits being added to the QVL. It would be nice to be able to run my kit at full speed or at least 3800MHz and still have 1:1:1. I've never had a blank screen, but I've had the BIOS lock up and not reboot into safe settings. I've always had to press the Clear CMOS button and power up again.


----------



## gupsterg

Jackalito said:


> I've just discovered that the F8 code doesn't show up during stress testing, but every time I run Ryzen Master - it changes from AA to d3 for a brief moment and then F8; and the only way to make it go away is by rebooting the system. Other than that, it seems stable.
> Can you guys share whether that's also what you're seeing with BIOS 0803 and Ryzen Master?
> 
> 
> 
> MacG32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to be running Ryzen Master anymore, until it doesn't change the QCodes. I did have to reboot to get back to AA. I'm seriously looking forward to the next AGESA. The 3900X does a lot of odd things. Here's hoping they get it perfected soon. I really enjoy all of what it can do. I'm also looking forward to more higher clocked 32GB kits being added to the QVL. It would be nice to be able to run my kit at full speed or at least 3800MHz and still have 1:1:1. I've never had a blank screen, but I've had the BIOS lock up and not reboot into safe settings. I've always had to press the Clear CMOS button and power up again.
Click to expand...

Q-Code display besides being fault/status code displays at POST can display status codes for "runtime". For example using Elmor's Zen States I can have CPU temperature displayed on it.

On the C7H when RM is run I get Q-Code display change from AA to d3, again will go after reboot.

I have done say a run of a stress test over say 8hrs, periodically taking screen capture video where I open things like CPU-Z, RM, TurboV Core to record settings, RM causing the display to change code has no effect on stability in my experience.

Again AA can not be deemed the only true Q-Code for POST on fresh kernel. When I did a manual OC I saw OC on Q-Code display.


----------



## Jackalito

I've been looking for some spare time in order to be able to share some more info about my new setup.

So, after 3 days of work (I had a problem with my hard disk drive and it needed replacing), my rig is up and running smoothly - or at least, as smooth as it can get given the immature nature of AGESA and BIOS.



Spoiler































As most of you already know, I'm currently using my graphics card (Vega 56) in the second PCIe slot, but you will also notice I removed the grille so that air can get to the chipset fan without any restrictions. I realized that once I removed the NVMe SSD cover in order to install my 960 EVO drive. I haven't tried gaming on it yet, but I've been running some stress tests, including some render software such as Blender and Terragen, and my current RAM OC seems stable so far.

I haven't performed a clean install of Windows 10 because it's been working great so far. One thing I've noticed, though, is that after installing the latest AMD chipset drivers, the dedicated Ryzen power plans did not get installed, but alas, I'm just using the default Windows ones with some minor tweaks.

I enabled Core Performance Boost but it's on auto (No Performance Enhancer or anything); and the thing is I'd like to get more familiar with EDC and PPT settings (I never tinkered with it on my previous C7H/2700X combo), and even wait for more mature AGESA/BIOS and less hot temperatures before going down that street.

So, about my current RAM settings:











*RAM: 3733MHz / IF: 1866MHz (1:1 ratio)*




*UEFI SETTINGS (BIOS 0803)
*
*Voltages:*
CPU Core: Offset -0.05000
DRAM: 1.375 [1.38 typed in with 0803 BIOS]
SOC: 1.07500 [1.08125 typed in with 0803 BIOS] (I gotta try and lower this one a bit further)
VDDSOC Load-Line Calibration: Level 3 

CLDO VDDG: 0.950 [0.951 typed in with 0803 BIOS]

*RAM Timings:*

*DRAM CAS# Latency **16*
*Trcdrd **15*
*Trcdwr **15*
*DRAM RAS# PRE Time **15*
*DRAM RAS# ACT Time **28*
*Trc **42*
*TrrdS **4*
*TrrdL **6*
*Tfaw **16*
*TwtrS **4*
*TwtrL **12*
*Twr **12*
*Trcpage **Auto (0)*
*TrdrdScl **4*
*TwrwrScl **4*
*Trfc **282*
*Trfc2 **282*
*Trfc4 **282*
*Tcwl **16*
*Trtp **8*
*Trdwr **8*
*Twrrd **3*
*TwrwrSc **1*
*TwrwrSd **7*
*TwrwrDd **7*
*TrdrdSc **1*
*TrdrdSd **5*
*TrdrdDd **5*
*Tcke **1*

*More RAM Settings:*

ProcODT: 34.3 ohm
Cmd2T: 1T
Gear Down Mode: Enabled
Power Down Mode: Disabled
RttNom: Disabled
RttWr: Off
RttPark: RZQ/5



Spoiler















I've also tested this RAM OC with Ram Test, TPU Mem Test and y-cruncher. I still gotta give HCI Memtest a go.

*More Relevant OC BIOS Settings:*

Extreme Tweaker\External Digi+ Power Control:
VRM Spread Spectrum: Disabled

Extreme Tweaker\Tweaker's Paradise:
SB Clock Spread Spectrum: Disabled
CLDO VDDP Voltage: 900 [901 typed in with 0803 BIOS]



Spoiler















As previously reported, with current 0803 BIOS MEM VDDIO and MEM VTT are wrongly reported as zero on Ryzen Master. Also, when you launch Ryzen Master, you briefly get Qcode d3 and then F8. Speaking of Qcodes, it also changes from AA to 44 while testing with Real Bench (something that already used to happen on my previous system with C6H and 2700X).

Regarding temperatues, I've seen them ranging from 60º to 80º while stress testing my system with render software and stability suites such as AIDA or Realbench.

I have also tested CB15 with different CPU voltage offset settings. Here are my results:

CB15: (Offset -0.05000):



Spoiler















CB15: (Offset -0.07500):



Spoiler















 CB15: (Offset -0.01000):



Spoiler















As you can see from the results, single core performance takes a nosedive with an aggresive negative offset, which is why I've chosen to go with -0.05000 for the time being.

So, some more testing.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider Retail Benchmark: (*Note that the demo benchmark results are way lower when compared to the retail version of the game*)

I've used the following settings to reduce GPU bottlenecks.



























My Vega 56 has not been tweaked (regardless of using a Vega 64 vBIOS) so that I can rule out potential instability from overclocking/undervolting my card.










And that's all for now. Hope this information can be useful for others who come here looking for some sort of guideline.

Cheers!


----------



## Reikoji

Have a curiosity. When doing manual Overclocks, the 1.8v PLL voltage changes from 1.8v to 2.1v if you leave it on auto. Past experience with Zen 1 and X370 with the Crosshair VI Hero showed that increasing or decreasing PLL voltage caused CPU temperatures to read differently, even if they weren't actually higher or lower. Lowering it could cause temperatures to start entering negative degrees and that was obviously false.

Question is, is that behavior the same with X570? Should I just leave that voltage at the 2.1v it changed to or is the forcing of 1.8v that I did the correct course of action?


----------



## BulletSponge

I am gonna do my MB/CPU swap today or tomorrow once I get this room straightened out and organized. Is there any issue with installing NVMe drives in both slots prior to installing Windows or should I install one drive, install Windows and then install the other drive? I had an issue with this when I built my daughters rig on an MSI X470 M7AC.


----------



## AStaUK

BulletSponge said:


> I am gonna do my MB/CPU swap today or tomorrow once I get this room straightened out and organized. Is there any issue with installing NVMe drives in both slots prior to installing Windows or should I install one drive, install Windows and then install the other drive? I had an issue with this when I built my daughters rig on an MSI X470 M7AC.


No, I had both NVMe slots populated when I installed Windows and everything went fine. Once Win10 is installed I then install any chipset drivers and install GFX drivers last.


----------



## MacG32

gupsterg said:


> Q-Code display besides being fault/status code displays at POST can display status codes for "runtime". For example using Elmor's Zen States I can have CPU temperature displayed on it.
> 
> On the C7H when RM is run I get Q-Code display change from AA to d3, again will go after reboot.
> 
> I have done say a run of a stress test over say 8hrs, periodically taking screen capture video where I open things like CPU-Z, RM, TurboV Core to record settings, RM causing the display to change code has no effect on stability in my experience.
> 
> Again AA can not be deemed the only true Q-Code for POST on fresh kernel. When I did a manual OC I saw OC on Q-Code display.



Thank you very much for the information. I appreciate it. :thumb:



Jackalito said:


> I've been looking for some spare time in order to be able to share some more info about my new setup.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> So, after 3 days of work (I had a problem with my hard disk drive and it needed replacing), my rig is up and running smoothly - or at least, as smooth as it can get given the immature nature of AGESA and BIOS.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As most of you already know, I'm currently using my graphics card (Vega 56) in the second PCIe slot, but you will also notice I removed the grille so that air can get to the chipset fan without any restrictions. I realized that once I removed the NVMe SSD cover in order to install my 960 EVO drive. I haven't tried gaming on it yet, but I've been running some stress tests, including some render software such as Blender and Terragen, and my current RAM OC seems stable so far.
> 
> I haven't performed a clean install of Windows 10 because it's been working great so far. One thing I've noticed, though, is that after installing the latest AMD chipset drivers, the dedicated Ryzen power plans did not get installed, but alas, I'm just using the default Windows ones with some minor tweaks.
> 
> I enabled Core Performance Boost but it's on auto (No Performance Enhancer or anything); and the thing is I'd like to get more familiar with EDC and PPT settings (I never tinkered with it on my previous C7H/2700X combo), and even wait for more mature AGESA/BIOS and less hot temperatures before going down that street.
> 
> So, about my current RAM settings:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *RAM: 3733MHz / IF: 1866MHz (1:1 ratio)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *UEFI SETTINGS (BIOS 0803)
> *
> *Voltages:*
> CPU Core: Offset -0.05000
> DRAM: 1.375 [1.38 typed in with 0803 BIOS]
> SOC: 1.07500 [1.08125 typed in with 0803 BIOS] (I gotta try and lower this one a bit further)
> VDDSOC Load-Line Calibration: Level 3
> 
> CLDO VDDG: 0.950 [0.951 typed in with 0803 BIOS]
> 
> *RAM Timings:*
> 
> *DRAM CAS# Latency **16*
> *Trcdrd **15*
> *Trcdwr **15*
> *DRAM RAS# PRE Time **15*
> *DRAM RAS# ACT Time **28*
> *Trc **42*
> *TrrdS **4*
> *TrrdL **6*
> *Tfaw **16*
> *TwtrS **4*
> *TwtrL **12*
> *Twr **12*
> *Trcpage **Auto (0)*
> *TrdrdScl **4*
> *TwrwrScl **4*
> *Trfc **282*
> *Trfc2 **282*
> *Trfc4 **282*
> *Tcwl **16*
> *Trtp **8*
> *Trdwr **8*
> *Twrrd **3*
> *TwrwrSc **1*
> *TwrwrSd **7*
> *TwrwrDd **7*
> *TrdrdSc **1*
> *TrdrdSd **5*
> *TrdrdDd **5*
> *Tcke **1*
> 
> *More RAM Settings:*
> 
> ProcODT: 34.3 ohm
> Cmd2T: 1T
> Gear Down Mode: Enabled
> Power Down Mode: Disabled
> RttNom: Disabled
> RttWr: Off
> RttPark: RZQ/5
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've also tested this RAM OC with Ram Test, TPU Mem Test and y-cruncher. I still gotta give HCI Memtest a go.
> 
> *More Relevant OC BIOS Settings:*
> 
> Extreme Tweaker\External Digi+ Power Control:
> VRM Spread Spectrum: Disabled
> 
> Extreme Tweaker\Tweaker's Paradise:
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum: Disabled
> CLDO VDDP Voltage: 900 [901 typed in with 0803 BIOS]
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As previously reported, with current 0803 BIOS MEM VDDIO and MEM VTT are wrongly reported as zero on Ryzen Master. Also, when you launch Ryzen Master, you briefly get Qcode d3 and then F8. Speaking of Qcodes, it also changes from AA to 44 while testing with Real Bench (something that already used to happen on my previous system with C6H and 2700X).
> 
> Regarding temperatues, I've seen them ranging from 60º to 80º while stress testing my system with render software and stability suites such as AIDA or Realbench.
> 
> I have also tested CB15 with different CPU voltage offset settings. Here are my results:
> 
> CB15: (Offset -0.05000):
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CB15: (Offset -0.07500):
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CB15: (Offset -0.01000):
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see from the results, single core performance takes a nosedive with an aggresive negative offset, which is why I've chosen to go with -0.05000 for the time being.
> 
> So, some more testing.
> 
> Shadow of the Tomb Raider Retail Benchmark: (*Note that the demo benchmark results are way lower when compared to the retail version of the game*)
> 
> I've used the following settings to reduce GPU bottlenecks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My Vega 56 has not been twaked (regardless of using a Vega 64 vBIOS) so that I can rule out potential instability from overclocking/undervolting my card.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's all for now. Hope this information can be useful for others who come here looking for some sort of guideline.
> 
> Cheers!



Thank you for sharing your setup, settings, and testing. Looking great! +Rep


----------



## HalongPort

Jackalito said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I've been looking for some spare time in order to be able to share some more info about my new setup.
> 
> So, after 3 days of work (I had a problem with my hard disk drive and it needed replacing), my rig is up and running smoothly - or at least, as smooth as it can get given the immature nature of AGESA and BIOS.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As most of you already know, I'm currently using my graphics card (Vega 56) in the second PCIe slot, but you will also notice I removed the grille so that air can get to the chipset fan without any restrictions. I realized that once I removed the NVMe SSD cover in order to install my 960 EVO drive. I haven't tried gaming on it yet, but I've been running some stress tests, including some render software such as Blender and Terragen, and my current RAM OC seems stable so far.
> 
> I haven't performed a clean install of Windows 10 because it's been working great so far. One thing I've noticed, though, is that after installing the latest AMD chipset drivers, the dedicated Ryzen power plans did not get installed, but alas, I'm just using the default Windows ones with some minor tweaks.
> 
> I enabled Core Performance Boost but it's on auto (No Performance Enhancer or anything); and the thing is I'd like to get more familiar with EDC and PPT settings (I never tinkered with it on my previous C7H/2700X combo), and even wait for more mature AGESA/BIOS and less hot temperatures before going down that street.
> 
> So, about my current RAM settings:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *RAM: 3733MHz / IF: 1866MHz (1:1 ratio)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *UEFI SETTINGS (BIOS 0803)
> *
> *Voltages:*
> CPU Core: Offset -0.05000
> DRAM: 1.375 [1.38 typed in with 0803 BIOS]
> SOC: 1.07500 [1.08125 typed in with 0803 BIOS] (I gotta try and lower this one a bit further)
> VDDSOC Load-Line Calibration: Level 3
> 
> CLDO VDDG: 0.950 [0.951 typed in with 0803 BIOS]
> 
> *RAM Timings:*
> 
> *DRAM CAS# Latency **16*
> *Trcdrd **15*
> *Trcdwr **15*
> *DRAM RAS# PRE Time **15*
> *DRAM RAS# ACT Time **28*
> *Trc **42*
> *TrrdS **4*
> *TrrdL **6*
> *Tfaw **16*
> *TwtrS **4*
> *TwtrL **12*
> *Twr **12*
> *Trcpage **Auto (0)*
> *TrdrdScl **4*
> *TwrwrScl **4*
> *Trfc **282*
> *Trfc2 **282*
> *Trfc4 **282*
> *Tcwl **16*
> *Trtp **8*
> *Trdwr **8*
> *Twrrd **3*
> *TwrwrSc **1*
> *TwrwrSd **7*
> *TwrwrDd **7*
> *TrdrdSc **1*
> *TrdrdSd **5*
> *TrdrdDd **5*
> *Tcke **1*
> 
> *More RAM Settings:*
> 
> ProcODT: 34.3 ohm
> Cmd2T: 1T
> Gear Down Mode: Enabled
> Power Down Mode: Disabled
> RttNom: Disabled
> RttWr: Off
> RttPark: RZQ/5
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've also tested this RAM OC with Ram Test, TPU Mem Test and y-cruncher. I still gotta give HCI Memtest a go.
> 
> *More Relevant OC BIOS Settings:*
> 
> Extreme Tweaker\External Digi+ Power Control:
> VRM Spread Spectrum: Disabled
> 
> Extreme Tweaker\Tweaker's Paradise:
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum: Disabled
> CLDO VDDP Voltage: 900 [901 typed in with 0803 BIOS]
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As previously reported, with current 0803 BIOS MEM VDDIO and MEM VTT are wrongly reported as zero on Ryzen Master. Also, when you launch Ryzen Master, you briefly get Qcode d3 and then F8. Speaking of Qcodes, it also changes from AA to 44 while testing with Real Bench (something that already used to happen on my previous system with C6H and 2700X).
> 
> Regarding temperatues, I've seen them ranging from 60º to 80º while stress testing my system with render software and stability suites such as AIDA or Realbench.
> 
> I have also tested CB15 with different CPU voltage offset settings. Here are my results:
> 
> CB15: (Offset -0.05000):
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CB15: (Offset -0.07500):
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CB15: (Offset -0.01000):
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see from the results, single core performance takes a nosedive with an aggresive negative offset, which is why I've chosen to go with -0.05000 for the time being.
> 
> So, some more testing.
> 
> Shadow of the Tomb Raider Retail Benchmark: (*Note that the demo benchmark results are way lower when compared to the retail version of the game*)
> 
> I've used the following settings to reduce GPU bottlenecks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My Vega 56 has not been twaked (regardless of using a Vega 64 vBIOS) so that I can rule out potential instability from overclocking/undervolting my card.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's all for now. Hope this information can be useful for others who come here looking for some sort of guideline.
> 
> Cheers!


Thank you very much for sharing your system.
How high is your 3700X boosting?
How are your temperatures?
Is this a Noctua NH-D15?


----------



## nick name

Reikoji said:


> Have a curiosity. When doing manual Overclocks, the 1.8v PLL voltage changes from 1.8v to 2.1v if you leave it on auto. Past experience with Zen 1 and X370 with the Crosshair VI Hero showed that increasing or decreasing PLL voltage caused CPU temperatures to read differently, even if they weren't actually higher or lower. Lowering it could cause temperatures to start entering negative degrees and that was obviously false.
> 
> Question is, is that behavior the same with X570? Should I just leave that voltage at the 2.1v it changed to or is the forcing of 1.8v that I did the correct course of action?


That PLL behavior is something you would see when Enabling LN2 Mode on the CH7. It would automatically bump PLL up to around 2.13V when PLL was left to Auto with LN2 Mode enabled.


----------



## usoldier

Hey guys iam running a 16gb Gskill F4-3200C14-8GTZR , i would like to get 32 gb can i just buy another kit or just go for a 32gb 2x stick kit ?


----------



## centvalny

Testing Samsung B-die A2 @ 5000 C18


----------



## gupsterg

MacG32 said:


> I've attached it. There are quite a few more settings opened up from 0702.


I appreciate the settings txt +rep :thumb:



Jackalito said:


> Now, questions: is it normal that Ryzen Master won't show up any RAM related voltages, and returning just a 0. Check this screenshot out:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see what I get from MEM VDDIO and MEM VTT is simply zero. Is this a bug with Ryzen Master and/or a conflict between AMD's software and the current BIOS 0803? Am I the only one getting this?


These are quirks of how AGESA & motherboard maker FW unify together plus which settings Ryzen Master will pull... 

For example if I use SOC voltage in AMD CBS / AMD Overclocking it will be displayed correctly in RM but not in ASUS TurboV Core. If I change it on Extreme Tweaker page Ryzen Master will show 1.1V but ASUS TurboV Core will show correctly.

Last time I changed MEM VDDIO and MEM VTT in AMD overclocking on C7H it had no effect, as if the options did not work. I was checking via DMM once I changed settings. I also see 0 0 for these if use the Extreme Tweaker page settings for VBOOT/VDIMM/VTTDDR on C7H.



MacG32 said:


> Thank you for the updated link. +Rep MEM VDDIO and MEM VTT are 0 for me as well. F8 = Recovery PPI (PEIM-to-PEIM (Pre-EFI Initialization Module) Interface) is not available. A PEIM is a file of the firmware. Why it would change to that during a stress test doesn't make sense. Does it change back to AA after the stress test? GPU-Z may state x16 but that slot is only a x8 by the pin count on the back of the motherboard. Reinstalling your graphics driver should fix the problem.


Q-Codes in manual could well be incorrect. When C6H launched a lot of people used to ref the Q-Codes in manual and say I got this Q-Code it means xyz, Elmor posted no, it means xyz and he stated most of the Q-Codes where incorrect in manual. He had stated he'd try to get them updated but it didn't happen. If IIRC even the C7H manual shared same Q-Codes as C6H, so I always  at it.

Then these Q-Codes changed with UEFI. For example we used to see 24 once board completed post on fresh kernel of WinOS, after UEFI 2xxx it became AA.

We defo need ASUS to put out more accurate info on Q-Codes. Also the thing is at POST the Q-Code display could be stuck on a "Status" code rather than "Fault" code, again more accurate info in manuals would be so good... 



MacG32 said:


> Thank you very much for the information. I appreciate it. :thumb:


NP, likewise appreciate your shares as well :thumb: .


----------



## lklem

usoldier said:


> Hey guys iam running a 16gb Gskill F4-3200C14-8GTZR , i would like to get 32 gb can i just buy another kit or just go for a 32gb 2x stick kit ?


Should be ok for another kit, i myself also using 2 separate 16gb (2x8gb) kits.


----------



## Jackalito

MacG32 said:


> Thank you very much for the information. I appreciate it. :thumb:
> Thank you for sharing your setup, settings, and testing. Looking great! +Rep


It's working great so far despite its issues, so now looking forward to AGESA 1.0.0.4 



HalongPort said:


> Thank you very much for sharing your system.
> How high is your 3700X boosting?
> How are your temperatures?
> Is this a Noctua NH-D15?


My 3700X is not boosting that high, but to be honest I'm not paying a lot of attention to it right now as I know its behavior is flawed in current AGESA 1.0.0.3ABB; so I'd rather wait for the next iteration before making a fair assessment 



centvalny said:


> Testing Samsung B-die A2 @ 5000 C18


That's impressive, mate! :specool:



gupsterg said:


> These are quirks of how AGESA & motherboard maker FW unify together plus which settings Ryzen Master will pull...
> 
> For example if I use SOC voltage in AMD CBS / AMD Overclocking it will be displayed correctly in RM but not in ASUS TurboV Core. If I change it on Extreme Tweaker page Ryzen Master will show 1.1V but ASUS TurboV Core will show correctly.
> 
> Last time I changed MEM VDDIO and MEM VTT in AMD overclocking on C7H it had no effect, as if the options did not work. I was checking via DMM once I changed settings. I also see 0 0 for these if use the Extreme Tweaker page settings for VBOOT/VDIMM/VTTDDR on C7H.
> 
> Q-Codes in manual could well be incorrect. When C6H launched a lot of people used to ref the Q-Codes in manual and say I got this Q-Code it means xyz, Elmor posted no, it means xyz and he stated most of the Q-Codes where incorrect in manual. He had stated he'd try to get them updated but it didn't happen. If IIRC even the C7H manual shared same Q-Codes as C6H, so I always  at it.
> 
> Then these Q-Codes changed with UEFI. For example we used to see 24 once board completed post on fresh kernel of WinOS, after UEFI 2xxx it became AA.
> 
> We defo need ASUS to put out more accurate info on Q-Codes. Also the thing is at POST the Q-Code display could be stuck on a "Status" code rather than "Fault" code, again more accurate info in manuals would be so good...
> 
> NP, likewise appreciate your shares as well :thumb: .


Thanks for all that valuable insight, @*gupsterg* ! +Rep for you :thumb:


----------



## DDMM1517

bdie 3800c16


----------



## usoldier

lklem said:


> Should be ok for another kit, i myself also using 2 separate 16gb (2x8gb) kits.


Can you run them at 3600 ?


----------



## Jackalito

DDMM1517 said:


> bdie 3800c16



Can you share your settings?


----------



## Reikoji

nick name said:


> That PLL behavior is something you would see when Enabling LN2 Mode on the CH7. It would automatically bump PLL up to around 2.13V when PLL was left to Auto with LN2 Mode enabled.


i checked and its certainly not in ln2/slow mode.


----------



## lklem

usoldier said:


> Can you run them at 3600 ?


Yes, now running at 3600mhz CL14 with 1.45v.


----------



## usoldier

lklem said:


> Yes, now running at 3600mhz CL14 with 1.45v.


 Thanks for the reply


----------



## Reikoji

What i'm getting with 3600 safe timings with my mem kit.


----------



## Reikoji

3733 'Safe' timings using ryzen memory calculator


----------



## flyinion

Anyone using a PCIE 3.x riser cable successfully with a GPU with this board? Specifically the Coolermaster one (not sure if it matters) that would work with their H500M case? I don't have any PCIE4 devices yet, though I'm sure that will change in the next year or so, but I'm about to buy a new GPU and am thinking of vertical mounting for looks since it since it will have a waterblock and I won't have to worry about airflow being blocked off. I've read various reports of them not working or working if the slot is set manually to PCIE 3 first, etc. I don't know how having or not having any PCIE 4 devices in the system as well affects that however.


----------



## Krisztias

Hi Guys,

am I the only one, who has problems with HWiNFO64? I can see the clocks for CPU and memory (the left panel), but nothing more, the complete right panel is empty. I get the error message about the WMI by the start, and cant see any of the parts: not only CPU thermals and Volt, but RAM, VGA, Drives...


----------



## Reikoji

3800 safe, FCLK 1900.


----------



## jgpasa

*HELP with RAM settings. Thank you!*

Very new at this 

I am running a Crosshair VII Hero (wifi) latest BIOS (0803). Running G.SKILL Trident Z Neo 64GB (4 x 16GB) 3600 (PC4 28800) Model F4-3600C18Q-64GTZN. Ryzen 9 3900x.

If I run "stock" RAM speed (2333) i have no problems. If I use the DOAC profile it finds the correct ram speed and timings but i get an 8d error on motherboard. Only thing I have been able to do to get it to work is to change the RAM speed to lower than 3600 or/and the FCLK to 1600 or lower. Then I can boot .. .yet I am not getting the full benefit of the ran.

What am I doing wrong and what settings can I change to make it work better? Please keep in mind I am very new at this 

Thanks a lot!


----------



## phillyman36

jgpasa said:


> Very new at this
> 
> I am running a Crosshair VII Hero (wifi) latest BIOS (0803). Running G.SKILL Trident Z Neo 64GB (4 x 16GB) 3600 (PC4 28800) Model F4-3600C18Q-64GTZN. Ryzen 9 3900x.
> 
> If I run "stock" RAM speed (2333) i have no problems. If I use the DOAC profile it finds the correct ram speed and timings but i get an 8d error on motherboard. Only thing I have been able to do to get it to work is to change the RAM speed to lower than 3600 or/and the FCLK to 1600 or lower. Then I can boot .. .yet I am not getting the full benefit of the ran.
> 
> What am I doing wrong and what settings can I change to make it work better? Please keep in mind I am very new at this
> 
> Thanks a lot!


Same problem every once in a while. I have gskill trident Z 3200. If i set it to 3200 everyone so often i get the 8d during boot up and have to hit the reset button. No problems if i let it run at the lower speed.


----------



## flyinion

jgpasa said:


> Very new at this
> 
> I am running a Crosshair VII Hero (wifi) latest BIOS (0803). Running G.SKILL Trident Z Neo 64GB (4 x 16GB) 3600 (PC4 28800) Model F4-3600C18Q-64GTZN. Ryzen 9 3900x.
> 
> If I run "stock" RAM speed (2333) i have no problems. If I use the DOAC profile it finds the correct ram speed and timings but i get an 8d error on motherboard. Only thing I have been able to do to get it to work is to change the RAM speed to lower than 3600 or/and the FCLK to 1600 or lower. Then I can boot .. .yet I am not getting the full benefit of the ran.
> 
> What am I doing wrong and what settings can I change to make it work better? Please keep in mind I am very new at this
> 
> Thanks a lot!


Have you verified it's setting the RAM voltage correctly with the profile? I remember reading that was an issue early on using the profiles to set timings. I ask because I'm using the 2x16GB version of that kit so the only difference is the 2 extra sticks and quad vs dual channel certification. Otherwise it could just be the I/O controller on your CPU is not a great version. I'm also running on a 3700X but not sure that really matters though the 3900X does have extra write bandwidth that I don't have.


----------



## Axon14

Hi all - is there any way to control the speed of the chipset fan in the bios yet? My fan ramps up to and stays at around 3000-3500 RPM, which is a bit irritating. Theres a control in the bios but I can't do anything to change the speed or set a profile. What am I missing?


----------



## flyinion

Axon14 said:


> Hi all - is there any way to control the speed of the chipset fan in the bios yet? My fan ramps up to and stays at around 3000-3500 RPM, which is a bit irritating. Theres a control in the bios but I can't do anything to change the speed or set a profile. What am I missing?


Not yet, though Asus is currently like the only mfr. to not have that ability yet as well I think. I don't think I've ever heard mine, though it could be getting drowned out by the silly stock HSF from the 3700X. Can't wait to get rid of that thing. I might notice it then.


----------



## Reikoji

flyinion said:


> Not yet, though Asus is currently like the only mfr. to not have that ability yet as well I think. I don't think I've ever heard mine, though it could be getting drowned out by the silly stock HSF from the 3700X. Can't wait to get rid of that thing. I might notice it then.


Which slightly disappointed me. I thought they'd be the first, if not the only, mfr that had a customization PCH fan speed curve. They had this feature with the VRM fans for Zenith Extreme/Alpha so it boggles me why it didn't make its way to x570 boards.


----------



## Reikoji

3600 Semi-Fast


----------



## usoldier

So iam getting 2 nvme drives tomorow a super fast one for System and a slightly slower for Games, is there a preference on where the fastest one should go on the board ?


----------



## centvalny

ROG MemTweakit 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8jjzqgdxc...y7HmODj32rla8BOSsptORlPIzCpsRBv8phIoLtExuGzBc


----------



## flyinion

usoldier said:


> So iam getting 2 nvme drives tomorow a super fast one for System and a slightly slower for Games, is there a preference on where the fastest one should go on the board ?


The slot closest to the CPU socket. It's the one directly linked to the CPU. Both are PCIE 4 but the top one has the direct connection the other goes through the chipset first.


----------



## DDMM1517

centvalny said:


> ROG MemTweakit
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/8jjzqgdxc...y7HmODj32rla8BOSsptORlPIzCpsRBv8phIoLtExuGzBc


PHOTOSHOP？


----------



## Atlan1980

Nice latency! Can you share a Aida result with 24/7h setiings in CL18 (<1.45V)? Would be interesting.



centvalny said:


> ROG MemTweakit
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/8jjzqgdxc...y7HmODj32rla8BOSsptORlPIzCpsRBv8phIoLtExuGzBc


----------



## usoldier

flyinion said:


> The slot closest to the CPU socket. It's the one directly linked to the CPU. Both are PCIE 4 but the top one has the direct connection the other goes through the chipset first.


Thanks for the info flyinion


----------



## 00Asgaroth00

flyinion said:


> The slot closest to the CPU socket. It's the one directly linked to the CPU. Both are PCIE 4 but the top one has the direct connection the other goes through the chipset first.





usoldier said:


> Thanks for the info flyinion



I'd check the motherboard manual to verify which one is directly connected to the CPU, on the CH8 Formula the M.2_1 is connected to the CPU and the M.2_2 is connected via the chipset.


----------



## 00Asgaroth00

My kit finally arrived and I was just wondering on the CH8 Formula, we have 1 x 24-pin, 1 x 8-pin and 1 x 4-pin power connectors. 24-pin power is mandatory, obviously. 



The motherboard manual says to connect the 8-pin connector or the 8-pin + 4-pin connector only. At what point would you need to connect both the 8-pin and 4-pin power connectors?


I just noticed that I don't have an extra 4-pin connector, so I'm wondering if I would actually need it if I only have the 24-pin and 8-pin connected.


How are you lot running your power connections?


----------



## eyecrave

00Asgaroth00 said:


> My kit finally arrived and I was just wondering on the CH8 Formula, we have 1 x 24-pin, 1 x 8-pin and 1 x 4-pin power connectors. 24-pin power is mandatory, obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> The motherboard manual says to connect the 8-pin connector or the 8-pin + 4-pin connector only. At what point would you need to connect both the 8-pin and 4-pin power connectors?
> 
> 
> I just noticed that I don't have an extra 4-pin connector, so I'm wondering if I would actually need it if I only have the 24-pin and 8-pin connected.
> 
> 
> How are you lot running your power connections?


You just need the 8 pin unless you are extreme overclocking with ln2.


----------



## 00Asgaroth00

eyecrave said:


> You just need the 8 pin unless you are extreme overclocking with ln2.



Excellent, thanks for the info!


----------



## Krisztias

Hi Guys,

this is what I managed over the past few days:

C8HW
3800X @4350MHz 1,34V LLC auto, Y-cruncher benchmark and stress test stable (I can't run IBT or LinX)
FlareX 3200C14 @3800C16 @1,465V


----------



## Jackalito

Krisztias said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> this is what I managed over the past few days:
> 
> C8HW
> 3800X @4350MHz 1,34V Y-cruncher benchmark and stress test stable (I can't run IBT or LinX)
> FlareX 3200C14 @3800C16 @1,465V



Thanks for sharing, mate. +Rep! :thumb:

I may give your RAM OC a try over the weekend if temperatures stop skyrocketing around here  What temps do your sticks reach while testing your RAM stability?


Cheers!


----------



## Krisztias

Jackalito said:


> Thanks for sharing, mate. +Rep! :thumb:
> 
> I may give your RAM OC a try over the weekend if temperatures stop skyrocketing around here  What temps do your sticks reach while testing your RAM stability?
> 
> 
> Cheers!


Hi!

My sticks are under water, they reach at this voltage water temp +3,5-4°C, today this was 36,5°C, by 25°C ambient.


----------



## zsoltmol

Hi Guys,

Currently I use 16GB 3600MHz G.Skill Trident Z RGB CL16 (2X8GB) ( F4-3600C16D-16GTZR) with my 3900X at 3600MHz CL16-16-16 at 1T command rate.
If I buy the same kit and use 4x8GB can I still reliably run these at same 3600 clock with 1:1 infinity fabric clock and also at 1T command rate? Or I need to go back to 3200MHz for stability and 2T command rate?

Thanks


----------



## Jubijub

Hello everyone,

My "Fastlearner" apparently just died, so I guess I'm in market for a replacement.

I am interested in this motherboard, and I have questions about the RAM and the M.2 : 
- Assuming my 4x 16Go G.Skill Trident Z DDR4-3200 CAS 14 is not what died, would it work well with this mobo ? I wonder about XMP, and also if the dual channel will work properly if I fill all slots.
- when using the 2 M.2 slots, what are the tradeoffs ? I don't care about losing SATA ports, but I'd be annoyed to lose USB. I also plan to go only with 1 graphic card, so 1x16 is all I would need from the PCI slots.


----------



## 00Asgaroth00

Jubijub said:


> - when using the 2 M.2 slots, what are the tradeoffs ? I don't care about losing SATA ports, but I'd be annoyed to lose USB. I also plan to go only with 1 graphic card, so 1x16 is all I would need from the PCI slots.



I have the CH8F and I have both M.2 and all SATA ports filled, It doesn't look like you lose any SATA ports on this board, and, I don't see any of the USB ports being disabled either.


I'm not sure about the RAM, I don't see why it wouldn't work with this board if your sticks are okay. My previous board the ASUS ROG Zenith Extreme had a lot of issues running the memory at it's rated speed. I used the same memory in the CH8F and DOCP detected it at its rated 3333MHz and its been fine so far. I'll be trying to get it up to 3600 in a couple days time (if I can; need to research how to do it, I've not overclocked memory before)


----------



## Spedoral

anyone tried sticking win7 on it? I was about to hit "buy now" then saw it has no PS2


----------



## criznit

Is there a way to get my ram to not be stuck @ 2133? I have the 2nd and 4th slot populated if that matters.

-Edit: I have the trident z rgb 3600 kit


----------



## flyinion

So I still have my 5 year old 4790K system up and running and I've noticed something odd between it and my 3700X on this Hero board. Just want to see if it's my setup or maybe I'm missing a config thing somewhere, or maybe it's an Intel vs. AMD thing. 

Chrome

It opens in like 1/2 a second on my 4790K system (16GB RAM, same Windows version, same plugins/homepage/etc.). On the new system it takes about 2 seconds to open if there's not already a browser window open (i.e. right click open a new window is instant). I'm assuming it's some Chrome issue but just in case I'm missing something I figured I'd ask.

edit: Oh and yes I know it's not a huge delay, but apparently the behavior is different enough from what I've been used to forever that I've instantly noticed it. More surprising is the old system it's installed on an EVO 850, this one an EVO 970 Plus NVME drive.


----------



## criznit

criznit said:


> Is there a way to get my ram to not be stuck @ 2133? I have the 2nd and 4th slot populated if that matters.
> 
> -Edit: I have the trident z rgb 3600 kit


Disregard, being new to the ryzen platform (Upgraded from a 5820k to 3900x) I didn't know that you have to manually select the memory speed during overclock.


----------



## CTV

Hi Guys

My new system intermittently turns on, though does not POST. Q-Code: 8d, Q-LED: DRAM (yellow) - according to manual. Occurs every 1-2 out of 5 boot attempts. Issue is usually overcome by turning system off and on again.

Changed Corsair Vengeance RGB PRO DDR4 3200 CL16 memory for equivalent Kingston HyperX Predator RGB (HX432C16PB3A/8), the latter which is listed as officially supported memory according to QVL online.

I have seen several reports online from other affected users with the same issue > https://www.reddit.com/r/ASUS/comments/cgmlmw/qcode_8d/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/ASUS/commen.../?ref=readnext and https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthre...0-won-t-POST-Q-Code-quot-8d-quot-intermittent.

Does anyone know if there is an underlying issue (perhaps BIOS)? Thank you in advance.

Regards,
CTV


----------



## eyecrave

CTV said:


> Hi Guys
> 
> My new system intermittently turns on, though does not POST. Q-Code: 8d, Q-LED: DRAM (yellow) - according to manual. Occurs every 1-2 out of 5 boot attempts. Issue is usually overcome by turning system off and on again.
> 
> Changed Corsair Vengeance RGB PRO DDR4 3200 CL16 memory for equivalent Kingston HyperX Predator RGB (HX432C16PB3A/8), the latter which is listed as officially supported memory according to QVL online.
> 
> I have seen several reports online from other affected users with the same issue > https://www.reddit.com/r/ASUS/comments/cgmlmw/qcode_8d/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/ASUS/commen.../?ref=readnext and https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthre...0-won-t-POST-Q-Code-quot-8d-quot-intermittent.
> 
> Does anyone know if there is an underlying issue (perhaps BIOS)? Thank you in advance.
> 
> Regards,
> CTV


Are you on bios 0803? I only got this q code when i was trying to overclock my ram. Couldn't get it to work so i just stuck with docp settings. While messing around in bios trying to overclock my ram i found that i always had to load optimized defaults before anything would work. I had memory settings with lower cas same speed that i was using for a few days then i decided to go back to docp settings and docp did not work until i loaded optimized defaults first. If you have profiles saved loading optimized defaults then loading profile works.


----------



## jgpasa

eyecrave said:


> Are you on bios 0803? I only got this q code when i was trying to overclock my ram. Couldn't get it to work so i just stuck with docp settings. While messing around in bios trying to overclock my ram i found that i always had to load optimized defaults before anything would work. I had memory settings with lower cas same speed that i was using for a few days then i decided to go back to docp settings and docp did not work until i loaded optimized defaults first. If you have profiles saved loading optimized defaults then loading profile works.


I am having the same problem even with 0803. running 3600 ram if I use XMP it finds the correct frequency and timings, yet I get the 8d error. Calling Asus was no help as they told me to RMA the RAM (I tried 3 different kits and different brands, though all 16x4 sticks).


----------



## eyecrave

jgpasa said:


> I am having the same problem even with 0803. running 3600 ram if I use XMP it finds the correct frequency and timings, yet I get the 8d error. Calling Asus was no help as they told me to RMA the RAM (I tried 3 different kits and different brands, though all 16x4 sticks).


Are you loading optimized defaults before you put in your settings? Also did you ever get it to boot into windows or it never worked? Mine did work initially then i decided to oc my ram and found that i could lower timings but couldn't go higher. When i decided to go back to docp setting i would get the error and the only way i got it to work was to load optimized defaults then set docp then it would boot into windows. If however your system never got to boot then not much i can help with that.


----------



## TMatzelle60

Any Diagram with the PCIE layout?

Looking at Running a 5700 XT, Creative labs AE-7 and the Elgato capture card so I'm wondering about the lane usage.


----------



## pantsoftime

TMatzelle60 said:


> Any Diagram with the PCIE layout?
> 
> Looking at Running a 5700 XT, Creative labs AE-7 and the Elgato capture card so I'm wondering about the lane usage.


I haven't found a diagram but here's some words...

PCIex16_1 gets 16 lanes, PCIex16_2 gets 8 lanes, and PCIex16_3 gets 4 lanes. If you put a card into PCIex16_2 then PCIEx16_1 becomes 8 lanes such that both _1 and _2 are at x8. PCIex16_1 and 2 come from the CPU while _3 comes from the x570. 

Both M.2 slots get 4 lanes such that M.2_1 gets x4 from the CPU and M.2_2 gets x4 from the x570.


----------



## TMatzelle60

Deleted problem with edit button


----------



## TMatzelle60

I am currently looking into starting my new build and purchasing new stuff. I am currently worried that the Asus AURA Sync and Live dash for my Ryuo CPU Cooler will not work and I won't be able to change my color scheme to red on my Motherboard, AIO, GPU and other stuff.  

 Am I over worrying  


also

Since the HD60Pro is a x1 card that goes to the chipset if I use the x1 slot correct then my card will run at 16x?


How is the onboard audio will it be good enough for Audioengine A2+ speakers and subwoofer for gaming?

Sorry edit button not working


----------



## jgpasa

eyecrave said:


> Are you loading optimized defaults before you put in your settings? Also did you ever get it to boot into windows or it never worked? Mine did work initially then i decided to oc my ram and found that i could lower timings but couldn't go higher. When i decided to go back to docp setting i would get the error and the only way i got it to work was to load optimized defaults then set docp then it would boot into windows. If however your system never got to boot then not much i can help with that.


Yes I got windows installed and running ... I will try the optimized defaults and then xmp/docp. thanks


----------



## zekikosif

Hello my motherboard chipset (pch) temperature idle 60-62 max 72 this is normal temp ? And sometimes i get an 8d error in q code 

Bios 0803

My System:

Ryzen 3900x

Asus Crosshair VIII Hero

Cooler Master H500M

Asus Strix Rtx 2080 (Vertical Install)

Gskill TridentZ 3200 C14


----------



## CTV

eyecrave said:


> Are you on bios 0803? I only got this q code when i was trying to overclock my ram. Couldn't get it to work so i just stuck with docp settings. While messing around in bios trying to overclock my ram i found that i always had to load optimized defaults before anything would work. I had memory settings with lower cas same speed that i was using for a few days then i decided to go back to docp settings and docp did not work until i loaded optimized defaults first. If you have profiles saved loading optimized defaults then loading profile works.


Hi eyecrave. I cannot believe I never mentioned the BIOS version (facepalm). To your question, yes I am using 0803. I have not tried to overclock either the Corsair or Kingston kits - I only applied DCOP.


----------



## usoldier

zekikosif said:


> Hello my motherboard chipset (pch) temperature idle 60-62 max 72 this is normal temp ? And sometimes i get an 8d error in q code
> 
> Bios 0803
> 
> My System:
> 
> Ryzen 3900x
> 
> Asus Crosshair VIII Hero
> 
> Cooler Master H500M
> 
> Asus Strix Rtx 2080 (Vertical Install)
> 
> Gskill TridentZ 3200 C14


PCH temp are normal i do not know about 8d error.


----------



## Jackalito

New beta BIOS for our boards from Shamino in ROG forums.




> x570 still ABB for playing with per ccx oc from bios,
> (cpu core vid input in same page as per ccx)
> (performance bias slightly update - main use is for benching scores only)



*ROG Crosshair VIII Formula:*
https://www.dropbox.com/s/15sqq6sctbqp1he/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-0017.rar?dl=0


*ROG Crosshair VIII Hero WiFi:*
https://www.dropbox.com/s/icc0hph1m4xa5kl/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-0017.rar?dl=0


*ROG Crosshair VIII Hero:*
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kn275182xixv830/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-0017.rar?dl=0


I haven't tried it myself yet.


----------



## 00Asgaroth00

Hi All,


What software are you using to control your fan curves? Are you using Fan Expert and/or BIOS QFan control, or some other software?


I'm looking to control my fan curves but thought I'd check in with you lot to confirm which to use.


----------



## eyecrave

zekikosif said:


> Hello my motherboard chipset (pch) temperature idle 60-62 max 72 this is normal temp ? And sometimes i get an 8d error in q code
> 
> Bios 0803
> 
> My System:
> 
> Ryzen 3900x
> 
> Asus Crosshair VIII Hero
> 
> Cooler Master H500M
> 
> Asus Strix Rtx 2080 (Vertical Install)
> 
> Gskill TridentZ 3200 C14



I have looked for this information and the only thing i found is an msi rep said 95c is max temp for the x570 chipset. For me with AC on it stays around 70c and with AC off i've seen max 75c. If you are only running one gpu you can try to put it on second slot if you are that worried about temps.



CTV said:


> Hi eyecrave. I cannot believe I never mentioned the BIOS version (facepalm). To your question, yes I am using 0803. I have not tried to overclock either the Corsair or Kingston kits - I only applied DCOP.



Well technically applying docp/xmp is overclocking ram. What i found with this bios is if you have a working profile already and decide to change the ram speed it will not boot and the only way i got it to work was to load optimized defaults then change the docp settings.




00Asgaroth00 said:


> Hi All,
> 
> 
> What software are you using to control your fan curves? Are you using Fan Expert and/or BIOS QFan control, or some other software?
> 
> 
> I'm looking to control my fan curves but thought I'd check in with you lot to confirm which to use.



Personally i'm using qfan but the only thing is for case fans i tried to tie it to cpu but it just goes up and down too much so i set it to motherboard temp.


----------



## flyinion

zekikosif said:


> Hello my motherboard chipset (pch) temperature idle 60-62 max 72 this is normal temp ? And sometimes i get an 8d error in q code
> 
> Bios 0803
> 
> My System:
> 
> Ryzen 3900x
> 
> Asus Crosshair VIII Hero
> 
> Cooler Master H500M
> 
> Asus Strix Rtx 2080 (Vertical Install)
> 
> Gskill TridentZ 3200 C14


Not sure about the 8D error. Is your RAM on the QVL since that's a RAM error? Might be a buggy BIOS since it's early and many people have had that code. Temps are normal though. I have the same case and ran the Q-Fan profiler in the BIOS. I have the H500's fan's attached to the mobo. Top front panel to the header by the USB C header, bottom one to the high amp fan (just because it reached and I didn't have a 3 pin splitter that kept the RPM signal), and the rear to the header near the rear IO. I'm going on water in couple weeks and putting a water cooled GPU in the vertical mount though so it will be interesting to see if the chipset temp improves without a GPU sitting on top of it.


----------



## wisepds

Hello everybody!

I have a question... what is the best way to test an OC configuration to be sure that is stable... i mean... if i do a prime 95 L1,L2 and L3 test, pc reboot because the temp > 95ºC... is a not real test, i guess...

1 hour of Realbench?
1 hour of Prime 95 small ftts, 1344 custom mode?
1 hora AIDA stability test?

What is the best way to test the REAL stability?

Thanks!


----------



## CTV

jgpasa said:


> I am having the same problem even with 0803. running 3600 ram if I use XMP it finds the correct frequency and timings, yet I get the 8d error. Calling Asus was no help as they told me to RMA the RAM (I tried 3 different kits and different brands, though all 16x4 sticks).





zekikosif said:


> Hello my motherboard chipset (pch) temperature idle 60-62 max 72 this is normal temp ? And sometimes i get an 8d error in q code
> 
> Bios 0803
> 
> My System:
> 
> Ryzen 3900x
> 
> Asus Crosshair VIII Hero
> 
> Cooler Master H500M
> 
> Asus Strix Rtx 2080 (Vertical Install)
> 
> Gskill TridentZ 3200 C14





usoldier said:


> PCH temp are normal i do not know about 8d error.





eyecrave said:


> Are you on bios 0803? I only got this q code when i was trying to overclock my ram. Couldn't get it to work so i just stuck with docp settings. While messing around in bios trying to overclock my ram i found that i always had to load optimized defaults before anything would work. I had memory settings with lower cas same speed that i was using for a few days then i decided to go back to docp settings and docp did not work until i loaded optimized defaults first. If you have profiles saved loading optimized defaults then loading profile works.


Without going into too much details, I was given this advice to try out:

"8d can be related to Fabric AKA FCLK instability. Can manually try to set VDDG voltage to 1.0v to see and SOC voltage to 1.15v to see if this helps"


----------



## Jackalito

*New chipset drivers from AMD (v1.8.19.0915):*


https://www.amd.com/en/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570


No idea about its changelog.


----------



## wisepds

Jackalito said:


> *New chipset drivers from AMD (v1.8.19.0915):*
> 
> 
> https://www.amd.com/en/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570
> 
> 
> No idea about its changelog.


Thanks for your advise... (Gracias por el aviso compi jejeje)


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

00Asgaroth00 said:


> Hi All,
> 
> 
> What software are you using to control your fan curves? Are you using Fan Expert and/or BIOS QFan control, or some other software?
> 
> 
> I'm looking to control my fan curves but thought I'd check in with you lot to confirm which to use.


Argus Monitoring. I ended up paying for it because it works very well. It's my replacement for Speedfan when I was with Intel.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Jackalito said:


> *New chipset drivers from AMD (v1.8.19.0915):*
> 
> 
> https://www.amd.com/en/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570
> 
> 
> No idea about its changelog.


Users are reporting higher boost clocks. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/csl67f/chipset_drivers_version_18190915/


----------



## wisepds

what about new 0017 bios? any improvement?


----------



## Jackalito

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Users are reporting higher boost clocks.
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/csl67f/chipset_drivers_version_18190915/


Good stuff, +Rep!
I installed the drivers last night before going to bed. I'll check out my system today to see if there's any improvement for me as well.


----------



## wisepds

Jackalito said:


> Good stuff, +Rep!
> I installed the drivers last night before going to bed. I'll check out my system today to see if there's any improvement for me as well.


For me on Apex legends, all is the same...4200 mhz gaming with fluctuation to 4250-75 (A few seconds)


----------



## Reikoji

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Users are reporting higher boost clocks.
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/csl67f/chipset_drivers_version_18190915/


Nice. Maybe can finally be able to just leave it on PBO if it finally does its job with this (for me)


----------



## Krisztias

About BIOS 0017:

CCX OC on Extreme Tweaker page


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Jackalito said:


> Good stuff, +Rep!
> I installed the drivers last night before going to bed. I'll check out my system today to see if there's any improvement for me as well.


I did some testing and I believe it's just a placebo affect. We probably won't get anything unless if we get a new AGESA.


----------



## usoldier

Can i use my gfx card on 2º pcie slot and leave 1º slot empty so it doesnt block my chipset fan ?


----------



## Reikoji

KingEngineRevUp said:


> I did some testing and I believe it's just a placebo affect. We probably won't get anything unless if we get a new AGESA.


Just did too and can also say it did nothing for me by way of boost clocks. Still better off with my manual setup, which I made a slight alteration to. Went back to LLC auto in favor of just higher voltage. 1.4315 with LLC4 before, 1.46315 with LLC Auto now. Runs 1.369v under the Cinebench load, below 76c according to Ryzen Master with slightly better single and multi core score than before.

Maybe the new drivers helped my manual OC instead  definitely didnt help with stock settings.


----------



## flyinion

My 3700x might be getting about an extra 45Mhz in Cinebench single thread. I don't remember 100% but I thought it was capping at 4325 about 75 short of the advertised boost. Last night it was doing 4367. I could be remembering wrong though, and I probably won't have any chance of seeing higher under PB2 until I get my water loop in. I was hitting around 63 single core on the Wraith cooler, and around 70-73 on the multithreaded test.


----------



## Jackalito

Reikoji said:


> Nice. Maybe can finally be able to just leave it on PBO if it finally does its job with this (for me)



I've gained between 25 and 50 MHz in some of my cores with the latest chipset drivers, so definitely not placebo on my rig 




usoldier said:


> Can i use my gfx card on 2º pcie slot and leave 1º slot empty so it doesnt block my chipset fan ?



Yes, that's how I had my previous Vega 56 card, and also how I installed my new RX 5700 XT today. Set Navi to PCIe4.0, and since it operates at 8x, it has about the same bandwidth as PCIe 3.0 16x:


----------



## criznit

I need to do some more testing, but my clocks went from 4400~ down to ~4000, but I'm only playing destiny 2. I will try with another game later.


----------



## 519408

I play BFV

All Cores 4275-4325mhz. 58ºC.


----------



## Reikoji

Jackalito said:


> I've gained between 25 and 50 MHz in some of my cores with the latest chipset drivers, so definitely not placebo on my rig


Yea it didnt do anything for me. Still get 205 points in R15 when i could be getting 214-216 if it would just boost to 4.6 like it should. I guess its a waiting game for the time ASUS gets the bios sorted out. Have everything where its comfortably doing rated speed and then some. They are for sure working on it, tho.


----------



## criznit

criznit said:


> I need to do some more testing, but my clocks went from 4400~ down to ~4000, but I'm only playing destiny 2. I will try with another game later.


Playing FFXIV I'm getting 4237-4450. so all is good!


----------



## knightriot

mine 3900X passed prime95 smallffts with [email protected] ~80*c ~75xx cb20 , and [email protected] ~89*c ~76xx , may be i got a golden chip  ?
I am confused ,should I let [email protected] daily or just [email protected]  ?


----------



## FlanK3r

Anyone tested changes of performance bias in new beta?


----------



## wisepds

knightriot said:


> mine 3900X passed prime95 smallffts with [email protected] ~80*c ~75xx cb20 , and [email protected] ~89*c ~76xx , may be i got a golden chip  ?
> I am confused ,should I let [email protected] daily or just [email protected]  ?


Do a Prime 95 L1&L2&L3 test and post temp and speed 
Or do a Custom test: Small Ftts with 256-256 uncheck all AVX instrucctions.

If your PC doesn't reboot (Only all Auto survives), you are a lucky guy.

Post a screenshot here please, i want to see temps and voltages.
Thanks.


----------



## wisepds

FlanK3r said:


> Anyone tested changes of performance bias in new beta?


I'm interested on that question too.


----------



## Lupo91

Are there some options, which manage to better stabilize 4 banks of ram ??

Because it is difficult for me to simply keep them at 3200CL14


I use the last bios beta 0017


----------



## knightriot

wisepds said:


> Do a Prime 95 L1&L2&L3 test and post temp and speed
> Or do a Custom test: Small Ftts with 256-256 uncheck all AVX instrucctions.
> 
> If your PC doesn't reboot (Only all Auto survives), you are a lucky guy.
> 
> Post a screenshot here please, i want to see temps and voltages.
> Thanks.


just buy new 4 stick corsair b-die , and it up to 92*c with ambient temp~33*c (touchaqua water sensor)


----------



## flyinion

Where are you guys getting the beta bios at? I can't seem to find anything at the Asus site or their forums. They still don't even have a CH8 forum and I didn't see an X570 thread under the CH6/7 forum or the "other" motherboards forum.


----------



## MoroKiel

Hi,
Is voltage ok? I read it is a little bit high. 
How can I get a lower voltage?

Thanks


----------



## Jackalito

flyinion said:


> Where are you guys getting the beta bios at? I can't seem to find anything at the Asus site or their forums. They still don't even have a CH8 forum and I didn't see an X570 thread under the CH6/7 forum or the "other" motherboards forum.



Shamino from ASUS has been sharing direct download links to them in this thread over ASUS ROG forums:
https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?112279-X370-X470-AGESA-1003AB-Bioses


----------



## flyinion

Jackalito said:


> Shamino from ASUS has been sharing direct download links to them in this thread over ASUS ROG forums:
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?112279-X370-X470-AGESA-1003AB-Bioses


Thanks, wow that's weird. Wouldn't expect to get an X570 BIOS in an X370/470 thread.


----------



## MoroKiel

MoroKiel said:


> Hi,
> Is voltage ok? I read it is a little bit high.
> How can I get a lower voltage?
> 
> Thanks


I lowered following this video https://youtu.be/Ssuqhyqah2k?t=320

Now I get 1.16v on Ryzen Master


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

MoroKiel said:


> I lowered following this video https://youtu.be/Ssuqhyqah2k?t=320
> 
> Now I get 1.16v on Ryzen Master


I wouldn't follow this video. AMD_Robert on reddit came out and said that this will lower your performance. 

I'd only control voltages if you plan on CCX overclocking.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

MoroKiel said:


> Hi,
> Is voltage ok? I read it is a little bit high.
> How can I get a lower voltage?
> 
> Thanks


Those voltages are fine. The CPU will do high voltage low current, and low voltage, high current. What you should be worried about is power draw. 

The final word on idle voltages for 3rd Gen ryzen: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cbls9g/the_final_word_on_idle_voltages_for_3rd_gen_ryzen/


----------



## wisepds

*wisepds*



knightriot said:


> just buy new 4 stick corsair b-die , and it up to 92*c with ambient temp~33*c (touchaqua water sensor)


BUAFFF IMPRESIVE... what system have you for dissipation that amount of heat! I have a custom cooler with 420 push/pull radiator and system reboot because overtemperature.....


----------



## MoroKiel

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Those voltages are fine. The CPU will do high voltage low current, and low voltage, high current. What you should be worried about is power draw.
> 
> The final word on idle voltages for 3rd Gen ryzen: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cbls9g/the_final_word_on_idle_voltages_for_3rd_gen_ryzen/


Oh ok, I will restore the default BIOS. 
Could you please tell me more about power draw? What should I be looking at? And how can I improve it?
Sorry for my noob questions!
Thanks!


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

MoroKiel said:


> Oh ok, I will restore the default BIOS.
> Could you please tell me more about power draw? What should I be looking at? And how can I improve it?
> Sorry for my noob questions!
> Thanks!


I don't think you should really worry about it. Read AMD_Robert's post, he says it all best. We shouldn't be messing with the voltages because we're screwing up the boost algorithms AMD wrote. 

I recommend you download the latest AMD chipset drivers, install them, set your PC on an AMD Power Plan and just let it be.


----------



## dlbsyst

KingEngineRevUp said:


> I don't think you should really worry about it. Read AMD_Robert's post, he says it all best. We shouldn't be messing with the voltages because we're screwing up the boost algorithms AMD wrote.
> 
> I recommend you download the latest AMD chipset drivers, install them, set your PC on an AMD Power Plan and just let it be.


I agree with you KingEngineRevUp but then again what's the name of this website.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

dlbsyst said:


> I agree with you KingEngineRevUp but then again what's the name of this website.


Of course, but messing with voltages will underclock your cores lol.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

I would encourage new users to focus on overclocking their ram. 

3900X RAM Scaling vs 9900K https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uHdEavdBVH0c0LnWnwbUWDxC306YgnKir_W3ticgdYQ/edit#gid=0

Lab501 1080P results https://imgur.com/a/Tyv8v7N

Lab 501 1440P and 4K results https://imgur.com/a/91zCGfS

Linus Tech Videos https://imgur.com/a/Z78JYHg

Hardware Unboxed https://imgur.com/a/MB6TFBc


----------



## 00Asgaroth00

KingEngineRevUp said:


> I would encourage new users to focus on overclocking their ram.



This is exactly what I would like to do, although I have no clue how to  I guess a bit of google-fu is in order.


----------



## 519408

ROG Crosshair VIII Hero (WI-FI)

AUDIO
Version 6.0.8751.1 Beta Version 
Realtek Audio driver v6.0.8751.1
Support OS: WIN10-64 bit
Fixes an issue that sometimes prevents MP3 playback.

https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/..._SS3_VAC_DTSS_W10_64_VER6018751_20190821R.zip


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

00Asgaroth00 said:


> This is exactly what I would like to do, although I have no clue how to  I guess a bit of google-fu is in order.


I wrote this guide here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/clbvod/guide_overclocking_your_ram_from_one_noobie_to/


----------



## knightriot

wisepds said:


> BUAFFF IMPRESIVE... what system have you for dissipation that amount of heat! I have a custom cooler with 420 push/pull radiator and system reboot because overtemperature.....


i use dual 480 rad , you can see it at my sign


----------



## neurotix

Woohoo count me in.

Specs in my sig rig Big Red.

Epeen expand


----------



## pfinch

i have a really long bootup time. is there anything to tune regarding ram? on z390 there is MCH fullchecks etc to tune bootup/RAM learning time.


----------



## 00Asgaroth00

KingEngineRevUp said:


> I wrote this guide here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/clbvod/guide_overclocking_your_ram_from_one_noobie_to/



Thanks, +Rep for you!


----------



## Lupo91

I've just started doing Oc to the ram, I'm at 3600Cl16 for now


----------



## kevin300z

CPU:AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 8-Core
Motherboard:ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Hero X570 ATX Motherboard
Memory:32GB CORSAIR VENGEANCE RGB PRO 16GB (4x8GB) DDR4 3200MHz C16 LED Desktop Memory 
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D1XCKWW/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Issue:Can't get above 3000MHz. Tried OCP profile, will not post. Using latest Version 0803 bios. Had same issue with stock and Version 0702 bios. Memory defaults to 2133 when flashing CMOS. Any OCP combination results in not posting. Tried many clock speeds and voltages including 1.4v. Can get max speed of 3000MHz by exclusively selecting ram speed. Bought the QVL ram on Newegg which looks exactly the same as the Amazon Corsair ram and had same results no post above 3000MHz: 
https://www.newegg.com/corsair-32gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820236408?Item=N82E16820236408

CORSAIR CMW32GX4M4C3200C16(Ver5.32)(XMP) 4x 8GB SS Hynix - 16-18-18-36 1.35 as listed on the ASUS page: https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...G_Crosshair_VIII_Series_Memory_QVL_190801.pdf

Any suggestions?


----------



## pantsoftime

Big fan of this new 0017 BIOS. The per-CCX overclock feature is working perfectly.


----------



## knightriot

kevin300z said:


> CPU:AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 8-Core
> Motherboard:ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Hero X570 ATX Motherboard
> Memory:32GB CORSAIR VENGEANCE RGB PRO 16GB (4x8GB) DDR4 3200MHz C16 LED Desktop Memory
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D1XCKWW/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
> 
> Issue:Can't get above 3000MHz. Tried OCP profile, will not post. Using latest Version 0803 bios. Had same issue with stock and Version 0702 bios. Memory defaults to 2133 when flashing CMOS. Any OCP combination results in not posting. Tried many clock speeds and voltages including 1.4v. Can get max speed of 3000MHz by exclusively selecting ram speed. Bought the QVL ram on Newegg which looks exactly the same as the Amazon Corsair ram and had same results no post above 3000MHz:
> https://www.newegg.com/corsair-32gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820236408?Item=N82E16820236408
> 
> CORSAIR CMW32GX4M4C3200C16(Ver5.32)(XMP) 4x 8GB SS Hynix - 16-18-18-36 1.35 as listed on the ASUS page: https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...G_Crosshair_VIII_Series_Memory_QVL_190801.pdf
> 
> Any suggestions?


may be you should try set vram voltage to 1.45


----------



## Jackalito

pantsoftime said:


> Big fan of this new 0017 BIOS. The per-CCX overclock feature is working perfectly.



Haven't tried it yet, and I confess I'm kinda scared to test it as I do not fully understand how it is supposed to be done. It is my understanding that one must tweak VIDs as well and that that can be dangerous for the CPU. Any online guide that you may recommend me to check out?


Also, have you found any other improvements with the newer beta UEFI version?


Thanks in advance.


----------



## pantsoftime

Jackalito said:


> Haven't tried it yet, and I confess I'm kinda scared to test it as I do not fully understand how it is supposed to be done. It is my understanding that one must tweak VIDs as well and that that can be dangerous for the CPU. Any online guide that you may recommend me to check out?
> 
> 
> Also, have you found any other improvements with the newer beta UEFI version?
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance.


There's only one VID setting in the Per-CCX menu. Just set it to the voltage you want to run at. I set mine at 1.330. It will run at this voltage under load. I do see in HWiNFO that the voltage dips from time to time at idle (likely when it goes into CC6 - which the menu says is still functional). Set your CPU voltage to Auto and this VID will take effect. If you set your CPU voltage to manual that will take precedence over the VID.

The menu gives you the ability to set each CCX clock ratio. I use 44.75, 44.50, 44.50, 44.25 (3900x).

I didn't notice any other major improvements, but no regressions either. 

Just a word of caution - if you use Asus User Profile on this BIOS and try to load old settings (I came from 0702), it will load incorrect settings. I did, however, have a CMO file on a USB stick which loaded perfectly. I recommend clearing out existing user profiles after upgrading.


----------



## neurotix

https://www.overclock.net/forum/28094038-post642.html

Direct link to the posts with links to the beta bios referenced.

I will try this BIOS myself later. rep+ to multiple posters for mentioning the BIOS. I really need to be able to overclock per-CCX in UEFI, not just Ryzen Master, because I will be running Linux the majority of the time and I want my OC to work there.

Is the CCX menu in BIOS under Advanced-> AMD Overclocking? Or in AMD PBS or CBS or one of those in the Advanced subsection? Thanks.

Mind you I am coming from a 4790k + Maximus Hero VI from 2013 and never used a Ryzen rig. Extremely happy so far.


----------



## Jackalito

pantsoftime said:


> There's only one VID setting in the Per-CCX menu. Just set it to the voltage you want to run at. I set mine at 1.330. It will run at this voltage under load. I do see in HWiNFO that the voltage dips from time to time at idle (likely when it goes into CC6 - which the menu says is still functional). Set your CPU voltage to Auto and this VID will take effect. If you set your CPU voltage to manual that will take precedence over the VID.
> 
> The menu gives you the ability to set each CCX clock ratio. I use 44.75, 44.50, 44.50, 44.25 (3900x).
> 
> I didn't notice any other major improvements, but no regressions either.
> 
> Just a word of caution - if you use Asus User Profile on this BIOS and try to load old settings (I came from 0702), it will load incorrect settings. I did, however, have a CMO file on a USB stick which loaded perfectly. I recommend clearing out existing user profiles after upgrading.



Thanks so much for a clear explanation! +REP! :thumb:


----------



## kevin300z

knightriot said:


> may be you should try set vram voltage to 1.45


To run ram at stock speed?


----------



## pantsoftime

neurotix said:


> https://www.overclock.net/forum/28094038-post642.html
> 
> Is the CCX menu in BIOS under Advanced-> AMD Overclocking? Or in AMD PBS or CBS or one of those in the Advanced subsection? Thanks.


It's right in the Extreme Tweaker menu. You should have no trouble finding it.


----------



## Lupo91

Ram 3733Mhz FCLK 1866Mhz













I will optimize the profile and use it as daily


----------



## neurotix

pantsoftime said:


> It's right in the Extreme Tweaker menu. You should have no trouble finding it.


Thanks buddy. Yeah, with how long I've been doing this lol...

I didn't know about where it would show up, as I haven't actually flashed it yet, and need to take care of other things too.

What about VID control? I think your previous post said not to touch manual voltage, and I suspect VID might be in one of those other menus under "Advanced" that I mentioned previously. Thanks in advance, rep+


----------



## flyinion

Hey guys have a question about using PBO on this board. This is my first AMD build in like 15 years so I have no previous experience with anything like PBO. Just want to play with it a bit before I jump into trying all core clocks for multi-thread stuff and pushing my memory clocks/timings. So I know by default the current limits/etc. are set to factory and they can be raised after PBO is enabled. Just wonder is there a recommendation for what to set them to? Is it board specific and if so what would be recommended settings for this board? I guess what I'm saying is I want to try it out but make sure I'm not going to nuke anything in the process by setting a limit too high. I won't be trying it anyway until I get my loop put in next weekend, temps are too wacky on the stock cooler right now and I'd probably still be limited by thermals right now.


----------



## neurotix

Nvm updated BIOS and saw how the per CCX OC works, with VID right at the top. Pretty great. Thanks anyway.


----------



## zekikosif

I get an 8d error when the computer starts , has anyone been experiencing this problem? Is there a solution ?

Ram: Gskill Trident Z Rgb 3200 C14
Motherboard: Asus Crosshair VIII Hero


----------



## Jackalito

zekikosif said:


> I get an 8d error when the computer starts , has anyone been experiencing this problem? Is there a solution ?
> 
> Ram: Gskill Trident Z Rgb 3200 C14
> Motherboard: Asus Crosshair VIII Hero



What vBIOS version are you using?


----------



## zekikosif

0017 and 0803 i tried both problem persists


----------



## dlbsyst

Hi guys, I am currently running my R9 3900x on my 2 year old Crosshair VI Hero. I am trying to decide to order the Crosshair VIII Hero but haven't been able to pull the trigger. Someone please convince me why I need the Crosshair VIII Hero vs my VI.


----------



## dlbsyst

No-one?


----------



## knightriot

dlbsyst said:


> Hi guys, I am currently running my R9 3900x on my 2 year old Crosshair VI Hero. I am trying to decide to order the Crosshair VIII Hero but haven't been able to pull the trigger. Someone please convince me why I need the Crosshair VIII Hero vs my VI.


your VI is good, go VIII if you need pciex4


----------



## Krisztias

dlbsyst said:


> Hi guys, I am currently running my R9 3900x on my 2 year old Crosshair VI Hero. I am trying to decide to order the Crosshair VIII Hero but haven't been able to pull the trigger. Someone please convince me why I need the Crosshair VIII Hero vs my VI.


Better memory OC capability, more future proof, WiFi is awesome, if you have b-die RAM than 3600C14 is p'n'p, for me with my 3800x was 3800C16 almost p'n'p.


----------



## Takla

Krisztias said:


> Better memory OC capability


False. Your memory clock speed mostly depends on your CPUs memory controller, while the timings depend on the ram itself. It dosen't matter if the mainboard is t-topology or daisy chain (for ryzen 3000 anyway).



Krisztias said:


> more future proof


In what aspect? If talking about vrms, both are capable of maxing the oc capabilities of what ever 16 core cpu amd releases in the future.



Krisztias said:


> WiFi is awesome


thats your opinion. and if you really wanted wifi you could just get a wifi card instead



knightriot said:


> your VI is good, go VIII if you need pciex4


c6h supports pcie4 just fine. I know they removed support for that in the newest bios, but you can always use the older bios. it works perfectly fine.


----------



## knightriot

Takla said:


> False. Your memory clock speed mostly depends on your CPUs memory controller, while the timings depend on the ram itself. It dosen't matter if the mainboard is t-topology or daisy chain (for ryzen 3000 anyway).
> 
> 
> In what aspect? If talking about vrms, both are capable of maxing the oc capabilities of what ever 16 core cpu amd releases in the future.
> 
> 
> thats your opinion. and if you really wanted wifi you could just get a wifi card instead
> 
> 
> c6h supports pcie4 just fine. I know they removed support for that in the newest bios, but you can always use the older bios. it works perfectly fine.


I remember c6h only support 1 pciex4 slot only , right? X570 support pciex4 on sb,m.2 slot too.


----------



## Krisztias

Takla said:


> False. Your memory clock speed mostly depends on your CPUs memory controller, while the timings depend on the ram itself. It dosen't matter if the mainboard is t-topology or daisy chain (for ryzen 3000 anyway).


False. I you want to run memory higher than 3666MHz you need some uniqe C6H. See first post: https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-amd-general/1728878-ryzen-3000-memory-fabric-x370-x470-x570.html



Takla said:


> In what aspect? If talking about vrms, both are capable of maxing the oc capabilities of what ever 16 core cpu amd releases in the future.


I'm not talked about VRM's. Actually, I'm not talked about any specific feature. In general, it's more future proof, because it's a refined, 3rd Gen product with PCI-E Gen4 (even, if it's not needed in terms of VGA momentary)



Takla said:


> thats your opinion. and if you really wanted wifi you could just get a wifi card instead


Getting tired...



Takla said:


> c6h supports pcie4 just fine. I know they removed support for that in the newest bios, but you can always use the older bios. it works perfectly fine.


Can support Gen 4 just fine? Maybe. Will it suport? Never again.

And... He needed only few words to go to the shop to be happy...

Why you defend the C6H? This is a first gen board with a lot of fails in it: cold boot issues again, you can't set DRAM Vboot voltage because of the double booting, the erratic IT sensor (C8H has Nuvoton and is very accurate), you can't get EC updates because of bricking it, fan issues again, sensor reading issues again....
I wasn't able to OC my RAM on this junk over 3333MHz with the FlareX kit (that I'm running @3800C16 on the C8H now) with 4 CPU's, 2 of 4 was mine: 1700X and 2700X. If I will remember something will edit this post later... C6H isn't a good board!
If you like this board keep it and troubleshoot it further in the future... I couldn't be happyer at the moment without that junk. And no, I didn't bought C7H because of the same IT chip.


----------



## dlbsyst

Krisztias said:


> False. I you want to run memory higher than 3666MHz you need some uniqe C6H. See first post: https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-amd-general/1728878-ryzen-3000-memory-fabric-x370-x470-x570.html
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talked about VRM's. Actually, I'm not talked about any specific feature. In general, it's more future proof, because it's a refined, 3rd Gen product with PCI-E Gen4 (even, if it's not needed in terms of VGA momentary)
> 
> 
> 
> Getting tired...
> 
> 
> 
> Can support Gen 4 just fine? Maybe. Will it suport? Never again.
> 
> *And... He needed only few words to go to the shop to be happy...*
> 
> Why you defend the C6H? This is a first gen board with a lot of fails in it: cold boot issues again, you can't set DRAM Vboot voltage because of the double booting, the erratic IT sensor (C8H has Nuvoton and is very accurate), you can't get EC updates because of bricking it, fan issues again, sensor reading issues again....
> I wasn't able to OC my RAM on this junk over 3333MHz with the FlareX kit )that I'm running @3800C16 on the C8H with 4 CPU's, 2 of 4 was mine: 1700X and 2700X) If I will remember something will edit this post later... C6H isn't a good board!
> If you like this board keep it and troubleshoot it further in the future... I couldn't be happyer at the moment without that junk. And no, I didn't bought C7H because of the same IT chip.


So right and I was so close to ordering but Takla is ruining it.lol

...Just kidding. Krisztias, I think your post just pushed me over the edge and I ordered the Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi. Thanks for the feedback guys.


----------



## Takla

Krisztias said:


> False. I you want to run memory higher than 3666MHz you need some uniqe C6H. See first post: https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-amd-general/1728878-ryzen-3000-memory-fabric-x370-x470-x570.html


Do you mean this?


Elmor said:


> 7106: DRAM Voltage at the beginning of POST is always 1.200V which limits the max memory frequency. It's possible to work around by first booting with lower DRAM Frequency and higher voltage, then only increasing DRAM Frequency in steps without the board shutting down.


Because if so, that bug either was fixed very early or it is, like I said, entirely depending on the CPUs memory controller and the RAM since I never encountered any errors when booting and I can run 3800MHz on ram just fine. (and I know I'm not the only one on C6H who can)


Krisztias said:


> I'm not talked about VRM's. Actually, I'm not talked about any specific feature. In general, it's more future proof, because it's a refined, 3rd Gen product with PCI-E Gen4 (even, if it's not needed in terms of VGA momentary)


The C8H has better sensors and voltage/fan regulators than the C6H. That is true. But it is not like the C6H ones are so bad that it would limit your overclock-ability in any significant way. And the fan sensor bug only ever happens when a software "calls" it. And even than only very rarely.


Krisztias said:


> Getting tired...


Getting tired of what? Another opinion?


Krisztias said:


> And... He needed only few words to go to the shop to be happy...


So you are a salesman here? If he wanted to be a happy little consumer drone and just "buy buy buy" all the new things, he wouldn't have asked first. Edit: Well apparently the urge to buy something new and shiny was indeed too strong, so he had to pull the trigger regardless.


Krisztias said:


> Why you defend the C6H? This is a first gen board with a lot of fails in it


The only "flaws" are, aside from the fan controller chip, mostly subjective and vastly different from user to user. Personally, I always seek the best cost-to-performance ratio in all my hardware purchases so I can't recommend to just buy something new just for the sake of it.


----------



## Krisztias

Takla said:


> Do you mean this?
> 
> Because if so, that bug either was fixed very early or it is, like I said, entirely depending on the CPUs memory controller and the RAM since I never encountered any errors when booting and I can run 3800MHz on ram just fine. (and I know I'm not the only one on C6H who can)
> 
> The C8H has better sensors and voltage/fan regulators than the C6H. That is true. But it is not like the C6H ones are so bad that it would limit your overclock-ability in any significant way. And the fan sensor bug only ever happens when a software "calls" it. And even than only very rarely.
> 
> Getting tired of what? Another opinion?
> 
> So you are a salesman here? If he wanted to be a happy little consumer drone and just "buy buy buy" all the new things, he wouldn't have asked first.
> 
> The only "flaws" are, aside from the fan controller chip, mostly subjective and vastly different from user to user. Personally, I always seek the best cost-to-performance ratio in all my hardware purchases so I can't recommend to just buy something new just for the sake of it.


Whatever Takla, whatever.


----------



## centvalny

Asus ROG Crosshair VIII Impact

B-die 5K DOCP with 4800C18 @ XMP


----------



## noko59

Briefly, C6H, I have 4 sticks of B-Die running at 3733mhz, memtest stable with a 3900x - do concur that memory OCing is more affected by IMC and good motherboard memory lane layout which ASUS usually has on all boards. Running PCIe4 on 5700 XT flawlessly as well. Was going to get a PCIe 4 SSD but with the newer bios taking that out makes it mute. C8H has some big benefits which is the PCIe4 to the chipset which also is PCIe4 for the chipset slots vice PCIe2 of the X370 and X470 boards. So sticking more SSD's on the PCIe 4x slots you can get full capability of the devices with X570 - that for me that is a pretty good incentive since I do use a PCIe X4 slot for a SSD which is being limited by the X370 chipset PCIe2 bandwidth.


----------



## Reikoji

I posted this on AMD community forums too, but here is just how stupid PBO is being with these Agesa revisions:

1st one: Manual with CCX0 clocked to 4.6ghz, voltage set to 1.4625v LLC Auto. Easily holds 4600mhz nearly entire test in the 1st core, 42c average

2nd and 3rd: PBO with limits removed. Bounces between 1st and 3rd core constantly, averaging 46c with voltage set typically around 1.48v. HWiNFO shows a higher peak than Ryzen Master shows, but I'm going to say Ryzen master is in the right here. Peaks at slightly above 4400mhz which is in line with the scores I get with PBO on.

thread on community forums: https://community.amd.com/thread/242812


----------



## Jackalito

Reikoji said:


> I posted this on AMD community forums too, but here is just how stupid PBO is being with these Agesa revisions:
> 
> 1st one: Manual with CCX0 clocked to 4.6ghz, voltage set to 1.4625v LLC Auto. Easily holds 4600mhz nearly entire test in the 1st core, 42c average
> 
> 2nd and 3rd: PBO with limits removed. Bounces between 1st and 3rd core constantly, averaging 46c with voltage set typically around 1.48v. HWiNFO shows a higher peak than Ryzen Master shows, but I'm going to say Ryzen master is in the right here. Peaks at slightly above 4400mhz which is in line with the scores I get with PBO on.
> 
> thread on community forums: https://community.amd.com/thread/242812


+Rep for sharing! :thumb:


*EDIT:* *@1usmus* has just released the new version of *Ryzen DRAM Calculator*, *v1.6.1*:




> *Changelog:*
> 
> * NEW. Graph of random access to caches and DRAM. Please note , that the testing process may take several minutes.
> * NEW. FreezKiller - software that will make your frame rate as smooth as possible without sacrificing performance. New iteration of cleaning Standby caches without jerking. Just click the "Start" button, minimize the application and launch your game.
> * NEW. Samsung b-die , Hynix CJR and Micron E-die presets. Particular attention was paid to memory, which is based on Micron E-die chips.
> * Updated Memtest mode, the application will automatically configure all the parameters individually for your system in 1 click (just select MEMbench mode -> Memtest).
> * Improved support for 4 DIMM's.
> * Overclocking potential DRAM received an update (tab "Advanced").
> * Correction MEMbench algorithms. In some cases, you will get better results.
> * Included libraries for improved compatibility with some versions of Windows.
> * Bug fixes.



*Download:*
Techpowerup link
Guru3d link
Сomputerbase.de link
Techspot link


Cheers!


----------



## OneCosmic

Which one is a better config in terms of max overclock/throughput/latency for 32GB RAM on Crosshair VIII Hero/3900X? - 4x8GB SR B-DIE or 2x16GB DR B-DIE/Hynix? I am thinking of buying the Trident Z Neo 2x16GB 16-19-19-39 just for the RGB and looks but i am also curious if it is going to clock better than my current Trident Z 4266 C19 kit which can't do 3733MHz stable just 3600MHz with 4x8GB.


----------



## OneCosmic

Does anybody already know why is PBO overclocking not working? There are those PBO limits in BIOS which you can adjust but CPU will not boost better in single or multi-threaded workloads even not by a slight bit. Clean latest Windows 1903 install with all patches, latest chipset drivers, already tried several BIOS-es actually using the latest beta BIOS from Shamino version 0017 on Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi. You can see those limits being raised in Ryzen Master but CPU will not utilize them no matter what. CCX overclocking is kinda useless if you can't overclock a whole CCX higher than what the CPU is clocking it by itself - my CPU tends to use Core #7 the most with up to 4425MHz but that CCX1 can be only clocked up to 4.3GHz with up to 1.35V.


----------



## tsamolotoff

shamino1978 said:


> ok you can use this version and it can specify the vid you want
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/eh69lsrtxxp5gum/PCCX.rar?dl=0
> 
> or smaller version, run perccx.exe as admin
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6hx5sipepiace5/perccx0723.rar?dl=0
> 
> - Edit : ok tested these versions, (made sure vid converted)


Can you re-upload this, dropbox links got disabled, not possible to download anymore


----------



## janice1234

dlbsyst said:


> Hi guys, I am currently running my R9 3900x on my 2 year old Crosshair VI Hero. I am trying to decide to order the Crosshair VIII Hero but haven't been able to pull the trigger. Someone please convince me why I need the Crosshair VIII Hero vs my VI.





Krisztias said:


> Better memory OC capability, more future proof, WiFi is awesome, if you have b-die RAM than 3600C14 is p'n'p, for me with my 3800x was 3800C16 almost p'n'p.


I am not going to buy another Asus again, their support suck, not to mention the bios is a joke with issues like cold boot n etc.

Better get Gigabyte/MSI, they do better this time.


----------



## Krisztias

janice1234 said:


> I am not going to buy another Asus again, their support suck, not to mention the bios is a joke with issues like cold boot n etc.
> 
> Better get Gigabyte/MSI, they do better this time.


Yes, but not on the C8H.


----------



## pfinch

anyone got Wake on LAN to work?


----------



## zsoltmol

OneCosmic said:


> Which one is a better config in terms of max overclock/throughput/latency for 32GB RAM on Crosshair VIII Hero/3900X? - 4x8GB SR B-DIE or 2x16GB DR B-DIE/Hynix? I am thinking of buying the Trident Z Neo 2x16GB 16-19-19-39 just for the RGB and looks but i am also curious if it is going to clock better than my current Trident Z 4266 C19 kit which can't do 3733MHz stable just 3600MHz with 4x8GB.


Here is my setup: 2pcs of G.Skill Trident Z RGB CL16 (2X8GB) F4-3600C16D-16GTZR kit, its a SR Samsung B-die
First picture: 2x8GB
Second picture: 4x8GB
Third picture memory timings, no change required when upgrading from 2x8 to 4x8. Read+copy speed increase and write speed decrease+higher latency is reproducable.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

I know this might have been asked already, but can we set a VBOOT for DRAM or now? I haven't seen this setting.


----------



## criznit

Is anyone able to get FCLK to 1900? No matter what I try, I can't get my system to even post with it set to that value.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

criznit said:


> Is anyone able to get FCLK to 1900? No matter what I try, I can't get my system to even post with it set to that value.


I cannot. Fans just spin and that's it.


----------



## criznit

KingEngineRevUp said:


> I cannot. Fans just spin and that's it.


Ok, just checking if I was just unlucky  Thanks.


----------



## ComansoRowlett

criznit said:


> Ok, just checking if I was just unlucky  Thanks.


Yeah 1900 IF isn't as common as you'd think, I don't think I've seen a chip which couldn't do 1866 yet though so I like to think we could of been unluckier if it makes you feel better  I'm also stuck at 3733mt/s - 1866IF


----------



## Jackalito

KingEngineRevUp said:


> I know this might have been asked already, but can we set a VBOOT for DRAM or now? I haven't seen this setting.


I haven't seen it yet. I guess they will add it in a future BIOS release.



criznit said:


> Is anyone able to get FCLK to 1900? No matter what I try, I can't get my system to even post with it set to that value.


I can with my chip and RAM sticks, but I'm currently running them at 3733 anyway as it allows me for tighter timings and lower voltages.

*New beta version of HWiNFO*, *v6.11.3900*:



> Changes:
> 
> 
> *Fixed reporting of ES/Production stage for some Zen2 CPUs*.
> Fixed measuring of BCLK for some Intel CPUs under Windows 7.
> *Added reporting of CPU High Temperature Clock Limit for AMD Zen2 family*.
> *Added reporting of CPU Automatic Overclocking Offset for AMD Matisse family*.
> *Added a new (more reliable) method for measuring BCLK on AMD Matisse systems*.
> *Added monitoring of Memory Controller Clock (UCLK) for AMD Zen family*.
> Added preliminary support of Intel Elkhart Lake.
> Fixed reporting of NVMe capacity when LBA data size > 512B.
> *Added reporting of CPU Thermal Trip Limit and HTC Temperature Limit for AMD Zen*.
> Updated reporting of CPU VDD and SoC SVI2 current/power on some MSI mainboards.
> *Added monitoring of per-CCD Tdie temperatures for AMD Zen2*.


Download link:
https://www.fosshub.com/HWiNFO.html?dwl=hwi_611_3900.zip

Cheers!


----------



## knightriot

Jackalito said:


> I haven't seen it yet. I guess they will add it in a future BIOS release.
> 
> 
> 
> I can with my chip and RAM sticks, but I'm currently running them at 3733 anyway as it allows me for tighter timings and lower voltages.
> 
> *New beta version of HWiNFO*, *v6.11.3900*:
> 
> 
> Download link:
> https://www.fosshub.com/HWiNFO.html?dwl=hwi_611_3900.zip
> 
> Cheers!


Thanks, now i don't know what should i believe lol


----------



## Krisztias

criznit said:


> Is anyone able to get FCLK to 1900? No matter what I try, I can't get my system to even post with it set to that value.


Yes, my 3800x is stable with it.


----------



## centvalny

C8I with Crucial [email protected] up to 4400XMP


----------



## Gábor Kiss

Hi!

What are the options for reducing chipset temperature? My idle temps is: 64-70C
Is it possible to reduce chipset voltage in CH8 bios? The current value: 1.184V. 

CH8 Formula, 3900X, 4x8GB [email protected]


----------



## flyinion

Well, I'm excited to start learning about memory overclocking and start playing with it this weekend on this board along with maybe some comparisons of CCX vs PB2 in some of my stuff this weekend. The biggest contributor was someone's post in the DRAM calculator thread that the new GSkill Neo with Hynix modules was being incorrectly reported as MFR type by Taiphoon and a new build reports them as being CJR type which is actually supported by the calculator (noobs like me need all the tools they can get to try this lol). The MFR type wouldn't work in the calculator past 3466. I've been holding back on any manual OC of my 3700X since I was still running the stock cooler and it gets really toasty under loads. Putting a custom loop in this weekend which will fix that  I know I'm gonna see the biggest boost off the memory timing tightening so I'm looking forward to seeing if that fixes marginal FPS in an old flight sim that is severely CPU bound even on modern CPU's.


----------



## criznit

Gábor Kiss said:


> Hi!
> 
> What are the options for reducing chipset temperature? My idle temps is: 64-70C
> Is it possible to reduce chipset voltage in CH8 bios? The current value: 1.184V.
> 
> CH8 Formula, 3900X, 4x8GB [email protected]


First, I would recheck your thermal paste and hsf seating. My idles are hovering around 30-35C with my cooler and max is 73C. After that, change your power plan to ryzen balanced and let us know.


----------



## dlbsyst

Gábor Kiss said:


> Hi!
> 
> What are the options for reducing chipset temperature? My idle temps is: 64-70C
> Is it possible to reduce chipset voltage in CH8 bios? The current value: 1.184V.
> 
> CH8 Formula, 3900X, 4x8GB [email protected]


My Crosshair VIII Hero will be here tomorrow. To help with mine I plan on changing out all of the stock thermal pads and replacing with Arctic thermal pads. I'm not sure how much it will help but it certainly won't hurt.


----------



## dlbsyst

criznit said:


> First, I would recheck your thermal paste and hsf seating. My idles are hovering around 30-35C with my cooler and max is 73C. After that, change your power plan to ryzen balanced and let us know.


He's talking about the chipset on his board criznit. It is nice to know how well your Deepcool cooler is working though as I will be installing one in my new build.


----------



## Reikoji

This Just In. Maybe. IDK if already known.

If you leave the CPU Multiplier and CPU Voltage on auto in extreme tweaker, and use the AMD Overclocking section of bios, Manual Overclocking, to enter the CPU speed and core voltage (in mV) you keep the down-clocking power saving c6 states with your overclock.


----------



## criznit

dlbsyst said:


> He's talking about the chipset on his board criznit. It is nice to know how well your Deepcool cooler is working though as I will be installing one in my new build.


***** I am sorry. Working with 4 hours of sleep will cause reading comprehension issues.


----------



## Reikoji

Question to others on bootup. during post, does it often take varying times to detect VGA, sometimes displaying "load VGA bios" momentarily before continuing?


----------



## Reikoji

Good enuf I suppose.


----------



## flyinion

Has anyone removed the plastic junk around the soundcard area on this board? Is it easy to do? I was test fitting my new EVGA 2080 hydro copper card and have a problem. All of EVGA's 2080's (the Super's at least) have this ridiculous ridge in each PCIE slot bracket section near the bottom and it's just long enough to rest on the stupid soundcard shroud and not sit in the socket all the way. I had planned to vertical mount it but realized it wouldn't have any support other than the rear bracket when in  my case's vertical mount slots. While I have a potential solution showing on Sunday, I might need to put it in the traditional motherboard position and right now that won't work.


----------



## dlbsyst

flyinion said:


> Has anyone removed the plastic junk around the soundcard area on this board? Is it easy to do? I was test fitting my new EVGA 2080 hydro copper card and have a problem. All of EVGA's 2080's (the Super's at least) have this ridiculous ridge in each PCIE slot bracket section near the bottom and it's just long enough to rest on the stupid soundcard shroud and not sit in the socket all the way. I had planned to vertical mount it but realized it wouldn't have any support other than the rear bracket when in my case's vertical mount slots. While I have a potential solution showing on Sunday, I might need to put it in the traditional motherboard position and right now that won't work.


I think you just need to remove a few screws from the back and it comes off. I got my new Crosshair VIII yesterday but wont be able to do my new build until Monday but you have me concerned because I have the EVGA RTX 2080 FTW3. It fit fine in my Crosshair VI and it has plastic covers just like the VIII. Are the covers taller on the VIII?


----------



## flyinion

Thanks. Well I'm not sure about your VI. I just looked it up and it looked the same but mine definitely hits. Maybe it is taller on the vii though. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## centvalny

C8I + Micron E-die @ 5K 18-23-23


----------



## flyinion

dlbsyst said:


> I think you just need to remove a few screws from the back and it comes off. I got my new Crosshair VIII yesterday but wont be able to do my new build until Monday but you have me concerned because I have the EVGA RTX 2080 FTW3. It fit fine in my Crosshair VI and it has plastic covers just like the VIII. Are the covers taller on the VIII?




Well the covers must be taller. I took it off and the card seated properly. Good thing to as I've abandoned my plan to vertical mount it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## OneCosmic

criznit said:


> Is anyone able to get FCLK to 1900? No matter what I try, I can't get my system to even post with it set to that value.


I think some CPUs can't do it. Especially it looks like 3900X are getting lower max FCLK because of having two CCDs one of which is always of a much lower quality - shady AMD deliberately made it like this and their ****ty boost algorytm is not even able to assign a single thread load to the core that is able to boost the highest.

Before on pretty high binned 4x8GB SR TridentZ 4266 19-19-19-39 B-DIE i was able to get a maximum of 3733MHz/1866MHz to post but sometimes it didn't post no matter what timings or voltages i used. 3800/1900 never posted at all.

Now with 2x16GB DR TridentZ SK Hynix CJR i was able to have 3733MHz always post and pass shorter runs of memtest(didn't bother with few hour long memtests) but i noticed that CB score was always a little bit lower at 3733/1866 than 3600/1800 and latency was higher too on the same timings.
So i tried 3800/1900 and it posts but memory latency went through the roof with about 500ms of latency in AIDA64 6.00 mem latency test and the whole system was very slow in BIOS too so i think the same started to happen at 3733/1866 - simply my piece of 3900X is not FCLCK stable at 1866MHz and IF was getting error corrected and thus having lower performance.


----------



## OneCosmic

centvalny said:


> C8I + Micron E-die @ 5K 18-23-23


Are you getting better performance with this than with 1:1 mem:fclk ratio?


----------



## dlbsyst

Just in case someone missed it. I just discovered something cool in our BIOS. You can set the post code to show the CPU temperature while in Windows. That is an awesome feature and should come in handy.


----------



## Jackalito

dlbsyst said:


> Just in case someone missed it. I just discovered something cool in our BIOS. You can set the post code to show the CPU temperature while in Windows. That is an awesome feature and should come in handy.


I definitely didn't know about that. Care to share where to tweak it in the BIOS?


----------



## Hale59

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=43&v=5xUyExXsr8A


----------



## Reikoji

OneCosmic said:


> I think some CPUs can't do it. Especially it looks like 3900X are getting lower max FCLK because of having two CCDs one of which is always of a much lower quality - shady AMD deliberately made it like this and their ****ty boost algorytm is not even able to assign a single thread load to the core that is able to boost the highest.
> 
> Before on pretty high binned 4x8GB SR TridentZ 4266 19-19-19-39 B-DIE i was able to get a maximum of 3733MHz/1866MHz to post but sometimes it didn't post no matter what timings or voltages i used. 3800/1900 never posted at all.
> 
> Now with 2x16GB DR TridentZ SK Hynix CJR i was able to have 3733MHz always post and pass shorter runs of memtest(didn't bother with few hour long memtests) but i noticed that CB score was always a little bit lower at 3733/1866 than 3600/1800 and latency was higher too on the same timings.
> So i tried 3800/1900 and it posts but memory latency went through the roof with about 500ms of latency in AIDA64 6.00 mem latency test and the whole system was very slow in BIOS too so i think the same started to happen at 3733/1866 - simply my piece of 3900X is not FCLCK stable at 1866MHz and IF was getting error corrected and thus having lower performance.


I can do 1900 fclk on m 3900x...


----------



## 1usmus

*DRAM Calculator for Ryzen 1.6.2*


*Changelog:*

* NEW. Memory status. Information about the available memory.
* NEW. CAD_BUS received very flexible settings. Thanks to these flexible settings, it is possible to disable GDM (1T mode) without losing stability for Zen 2. DR also got the opportunity to disable GDM at low frequencies (up to 3200 MHz inclusive). Compatibility with previous generations is required to be tested.
* Updated function to determine the maximum available memory for testing (Memtest mode). At the moment, the test should not go into drives or a swap file.
* tRDWR has been changed in most profiles, this is a bonus to the chance to get a stable system.
* Most presets received small changes, in particular Micron e-die .
* Improved support for 4 modules.
* Bug fixes.

*Download:*

Techpowerup link
Guru3d link
Сomputerbase.de link

I sent an archive for all resources, it will take some time.


----------



## criznit

OneCosmic said:


> I think some CPUs can't do it. Especially it looks like 3900X are getting lower max FCLK because of having two CCDs one of which is always of a much lower quality - shady AMD deliberately made it like this and their ****ty boost algorytm is not even able to assign a single thread load to the core that is able to boost the highest.
> 
> Before on pretty high binned 4x8GB SR TridentZ 4266 19-19-19-39 B-DIE i was able to get a maximum of 3733MHz/1866MHz to post but sometimes it didn't post no matter what timings or voltages i used. 3800/1900 never posted at all.
> 
> Now with 2x16GB DR TridentZ SK Hynix CJR i was able to have 3733MHz always post and pass shorter runs of memtest(didn't bother with few hour long memtests) but i noticed that CB score was always a little bit lower at 3733/1866 than 3600/1800 and latency was higher too on the same timings.
> So i tried 3800/1900 and it posts but memory latency went through the roof with about 500ms of latency in AIDA64 6.00 mem latency test and the whole system was very slow in BIOS too so i think the same started to happen at 3733/1866 - simply my piece of 3900X is not FCLCK stable at 1866MHz and IF was getting error corrected and thus having lower performance.


Yeah that was one of my thoughts that 3900x just couldn't reach 1900. I'm currently at 3733/1866 and my system is loving it, so I will leave it there for now.


----------



## criznit

Reikoji said:


> I can do 1900 fclk on m 3900x...


Hmm. What are your aida64 results?


----------



## superpapu

There is any guide to overclock the hero viii with the bios? 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## dlbsyst

Jackalito said:


> I definitely didn't know about that. Care to share where to tweak it in the BIOS?


Absolutely. Go to Advanced - Onboard Devices Configuration - Q-Code LED Function and change it from the default Post Code Only to Auto and your all set.


----------



## Jackalito

dlbsyst said:


> Absolutely. Go to Advanced - Onboard Devices Configuration - Q-Code LED Function and change it from the default Post Code Only to Auto and your all set.


Thanks, pal! +REP! :thumb:

There's a new beta of HWiNFO available to download, *v6.11.3910*:



> Changelog:
> *Fixed reporting of ES/Production stage for some Zen2 CPUs*.
> Fixed measuring of BCLK for some Intel CPUs under Windows 7.
> *Added reporting of CPU High Temperature Clock Limit for AMD Zen2 family*.
> *Added reporting of CPU Automatic Overclocking Offset for AMD Matisse family*.
> *Added a new (more reliable) method for measuring BCLK on AMD Matisse systems*.
> *Added monitoring of Memory Controller Clock (UCLK) for AMD Zen family*.
> Added preliminary support of Intel Elkhart Lake.
> Fixed reporting of NVMe capacity when LBA data size > 512B.
> Added reporting of CPU Thermal Trip Limit and HTC Temperature Limit for AMD Zen.
> Updated reporting of CPU VDD and SoC SVI2 current/power on some MSI mainboards.
> *Added monitoring of per-CCD Tdie temperatures for AMD Zen2*.
> Improved support of several legacy (ISA, VLB) (S)VGA adapters.
> Fixed reporting of GPU fan RPM on AMD Navi.



Download link:
https://www.fosshub.com/HWiNFO.html?dwl=hwi_611_3910.zip

Cheers!


----------



## dlbsyst

I got my new Crosshair VIII Hero WiFi set up a few days ago and pretty happy with it accept for one thing. On my previous Crosshair VI Hero I could achieve much higher clocks on my RAM. I have 4 sticks GSkill B-die CL 14 and could easily run it at 3533 and up using fast timings. With my VIII Hero it won't even boot at that speed no matter what I do. I get a 07 or 05 post code. I'm currently running at 3333 fast timings with gear down disabled. That said even with slower timing the VIII is substantially faster that the VI with my 3900X.

Anyone know what might be keeping me from higher RAM speeds. I am not able to find the RAM boot setting and assume there isn't one?


----------



## dlbsyst

Jackalito said:


> Thanks, pal! +REP! :thumb:
> 
> There's a new beta of HWiNFO available to download, *v6.11.3910*:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Download link:
> https://www.fosshub.com/HWiNFO.html?dwl=hwi_611_3910.zip
> 
> Cheers!


You're welcome Jackalito.


----------



## Hale59

CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT https://www.chiphell.com/thread-2050589-1-1.html


----------



## flyinion

Hey guys got a quick question about fan headers with my watercooling that I just installed. I just finished the loop so it's currently just running the pump with all power to the board disconnected. What I'm wondering is do I need to have something connected to the CPU fan or AIO header to prevent BIOS freaking out there is no CPU fan? It's a custom loop and I will have the PWM feed to the pump connected to the W_pump header and had planned to connect the rad fans to the H_amp connector (it's the 3x120 in one corsair kit with one PWM and one ARGB connector). Or should I connect the rad fans to the CPU header? I assume I shouldn't use the AIO header since that seems intended for an AIO pump and having something on the W_pump header might confuse the system?


----------



## neurotix

dlbsyst said:


> I got my new Crosshair VIII Hero WiFi set up a few days ago and pretty happy with it accept for one thing. On my previous Crosshair VI Hero I could achieve much higher clocks on my RAM. I have 4 sticks GSkill B-die CL 14 and could easily run it at 3533 and up using fast timings. With my VIII Hero it won't even boot at that speed no matter what I do. I get a 07 or 05 post code. I'm currently running at 3333 fast timings with gear down disabled. That said even with slower timing the VIII is substantially faster that the VI with my 3900X.
> 
> Anyone know what might be keeping me from higher RAM speeds. I am not able to find the RAM boot setting and assume there isn't one?


I've been working on manually overclocking my cores using Shamino Bios 0017 and settled on a speed (seen in 'Big Red' in my signature), anything higher gives a very small performance improvement and a lot more heat, causing my system to crash, and its so little difference between 4400/4200 and 4500/4300 that it isn't worth the extra heat and possible instability. 

That's irrelevant to you, but in the process I have also OCed my RAM and tightened timings and learned a lot. I have G.skill Flare X B-Die, with plain black heatspreaders, that was made specifically for Ryzen 2xxx afaik. It was pretty cheap and I liked the speed and timings (3200 CAS14). Currently I have settled at 3600 C14-14-15-14-28-42 1T 1.496v. This is actually better than its stock timings @ 3200.

Anyway, I tried to push it further using the subtimings and voltages recommended by Ryzen DRAM calculator, because I wanted it at 3800MHz (any main timings to start). I tried to keep it at a 1:1 ratio with fclk, that is, 1900MHz fclk and didn't have much success and also ended up getting stuck on 07 post codes. Also got it to boot to Win10 but it crashed instantly on CPU-Z bench (I like this bench because its quick and consistent and also shows single core speed). After it did, I got one long beep and three short beeps during POST with code F9.

Anyone manually ocing with this board and especially if you are trying to OC and tighten RAM timings, I'd make a few suggestions before you start: set "Flexkey" to 'Safe Boot'. This changes the 'reset' surface mount microswitch on your board, right below the white led lit 'Start' button. When you press it (when you can't post) it will attempt to boot your BIOS in safe mode instead of just resetting the board normally.

Also, I'd advise saving a 'known good' OC profile in that section of the bios too, to multiple slots, and then backing it up to a usb thumb drive (I used an old 1GB usb 2.0 drive, in the 'bios flashback' port, the one outlines in white near the bottom of the boards I/O)

The reason I say this is, when I was trying for 3800/1900fclk last night and crashed my rig under the CPU-Z bench, I was getting stuck on '07' on boot. Even after numerous presses of the 'flexkey' set to safe boot the board. As well as power cycling the board by switching off the psu and waiting for it to discharge fully. What finally worked and got me booted to bios was clear cmos switch on the back i/o of the board in the top right. I then loaded my known-good 3600mhz oc profile (and I change a LOT of settings on these boards, having used ROG boards exclusively since 2011). It restored all of my settings *BUT* Secure Boot was reenabled with keys and I dual-boot Debian Linux! So I had to turn that off and clear the keys. Fair warning! After that, when I booted into Win10 1903 through grub it said "Please Wait" and then took me to the recovery menu and said I could either 'repair windows' (uh no... I'm not going to let bcdedit delete grub from the EFI partition) or restart and try again. I picked restart and try again and Win10 booted right up normally, and of course Linux booted up totally fine too (of course) as it is not Windows 10. 

Anyway, on to your specific issue, dlbsyst...

You have 4 sticks so asking the memory controller to push all 4 at CAS 14 is a bit much. Acquire the program 'Ryzen DRAM Calculator' and run that. Set it to 'Ryzen 2' for processor, 'B-Die' for memory type, sticks to 4, and X570 for the platform type. Then click 'Calculate Fast' in the bottom right. Now go through your bios (take a picture on your phone of what the Ryzen Calc spits out under both its main page and advanced before you reboot), and go through and set literally every subtiming, voltage, etc. that it tells you to. Some of the stuff under Advanced like channel interleaving and size is only found in this bios under Advanced - AMD Overclocking at the very bottom of the advanced section.

If the fast settings from Ryzen Calc don't work then try 'Calculate Safe'. Also, having older RAM (like me) I would suggest just setting all the sticks to 1.5v assuming thats safe (I'm unsure since I only use 2 sticks). Ryzen Calc will tell you to use less.

And if this is how you've been doing it already and have tried all that already, my apologies for my long winded, unhelpful post lol. If that's the case the only thing I can suggest is loosening main timings (try 15-15-16-15-34-45 and also try 2T instead of 1T- you don't generally lose any performance at 2T but gain stability.)

Finally, if you try all of this and none of it works but you really want < 3500MHz I would suggest taking two sticks out (I would think you probably have 8GB DIMMs anyway but if for some reason they are only 4GB DIMMs, well... 8GB is probably still perfectly usable under W10, just set a larger page file for your SSD/boot drive). With two sticks you should get to 3600MHz no problem but maybe not at CAS14, 15 may be necessary. 

Otherwise, if you refuse to run on only two sticks and none of this works, then try using Ryzen Calc 'Calculate Fast' for something under 3500MHz and remember to set the correct fclk manually. (exactly half ram speed).

This is based on my experience- I only got 3600MHz CAS14 on my sticks via manually setting primary, secondary and tertiary timings (e.g. "subtimings") as well as termination impedance, drive strength impedance, VDDP voltage, etc. using Ryzen DRAM Calculator. When I set Cas14-16-18-16-35-55 3600MHz manually (which is close to, but looser than, my sticks stock primary timings) my board wouldn't post. Even with 1.52v on the sticks. Just setting primary timings, voltage, frequency, and fclk and leaving everything else on Auto (so the board picks when it is training the DRAM) will not work.... you need to use the dram calc and set literally everything manually. This worked for me and got me the speed and timings listed in my rig (Big Red 2019) now, with my manual CPU OC listed there too. It does 7700+ in Cinebench R20 with this OC and settings, I'll post a picture later if anyone wants to see.

Hope this helps ya.


----------



## criznit

I just had a random hard lock today and don't know if it was due to memory overclock or something else. I lowered my clocks from 3733CL16 to 3600CL16 for now until my new memory kit arrives. The new kit should allow me to get 3733CL15 or 3800CL16 if Lord's willing.
16


----------



## flyinion

flyinion said:


> Hey guys got a quick question about fan headers with my watercooling that I just installed. I just finished the loop so it's currently just running the pump with all power to the board disconnected. What I'm wondering is do I need to have something connected to the CPU fan or AIO header to prevent BIOS freaking out there is no CPU fan? It's a custom loop and I will have the PWM feed to the pump connected to the W_pump header and had planned to connect the rad fans to the H_amp connector (it's the 3x120 in one corsair kit with one PWM and one ARGB connector). Or should I connect the rad fans to the CPU header? I assume I shouldn't use the AIO header since that seems intended for an AIO pump and having something on the W_pump header might confuse the system?


Well, apparently that was a dumb question. Went and looked at the manual again and found this............

"For water cooling kits, connect the pump to the W_PUMP+ connector, and connect the fans to the CPU_FAN and CPU_OPT connectors"

Also, thanks Asus for making a non copy/paste capable PDF for the manual. I had to type that.

So anyway, guess I'll be moving the fans to the CPU_FAN connector and re-doing a bit of wire management. Should be fine, the "safety" current is listed by CM as .6A which is only 60% of what the header is rated for.


----------



## Reikoji

criznit said:


> Hmm. What are your aida64 results?


Need to play with timings more.

FCLK btw i dont think will amount to much for AIDA, except maybe cache latencies. Doesnt so FCLK either so have Ryzen Master shot to go with it.


----------



## criznit

Reikoji said:


> Need to play with timings more.
> 
> FCLK btw i dont think will amount to much for AIDA, except maybe cache latencies.


Very nice! The results are really close to my 3733 CL16 settings


----------



## lklem

dlbsyst said:


> I got my new Crosshair VIII Hero WiFi set up a few days ago and pretty happy with it accept for one thing. On my previous Crosshair VI Hero I could achieve much higher clocks on my RAM. I have 4 sticks GSkill B-die CL 14 and could easily run it at 3533 and up using fast timings. With my VIII Hero it won't even boot at that speed no matter what I do. I get a 07 or 05 post code. I'm currently running at 3333 fast timings with gear down disabled. That said even with slower timing the VIII is substantially faster that the VI with my 3900X.
> 
> Anyone know what might be keeping me from higher RAM speeds. I am not able to find the RAM boot setting and assume there isn't one?


Attached is the bios setting, somebody from this group shared it before, i managed to get my 4sticks GSkill Trident Z RGB 8GB 3200mhz C14 at 3600mhz C14 followed exactly the same setting


----------



## lklem

flyinion said:


> Hey guys got a quick question about fan headers with my watercooling that I just installed. I just finished the loop so it's currently just running the pump with all power to the board disconnected. What I'm wondering is do I need to have something connected to the CPU fan or AIO header to prevent BIOS freaking out there is no CPU fan? It's a custom loop and I will have the PWM feed to the pump connected to the W_pump header and had planned to connect the rad fans to the H_amp connector (it's the 3x120 in one corsair kit with one PWM and one ARGB connector). Or should I connect the rad fans to the CPU header? I assume I shouldn't use the AIO header since that seems intended for an AIO pump and having something on the W_pump header might confuse the system?


Based on my experience, W_pump header will not control PWM, i connected my DDC pump before, the pump keep running at full speed although i adjusted fan curve in bios, then i connected to H_amp header, issue solved.


----------



## kenshabby

hi, im new, and not really an overclocker. ive built a 3800x + crosshair viii impact (mini-dtx)
the only thing i did in bios except turning off aura and things like that was to up the ram speed to 3200mhz - my memory is 2x16gb CMK32GX4M2B3200C16
pbo and the other stuff is on auto pretty much all of it.

im a linux user, and use win10 only for gaming. i dont think ive even had a browser open in windows for 10-12 years

i updated to the latest bios 0402 a couple of days ago,its still the newest

im a bit worried about the chipset temp though. it idles around 60-65C and goes up to 75ish during gaming. is that too high? room temp is 23.

im also confused about the cpu temps. all the tests ive seen indicates that the 3800x should be a bit hotter than my old 2700x, but it seems to be the other way around. the old 2700x would go up to almost 70C when gaming, but the 3800x seems to peak around 55C, playing the same game, thats according to both hwinfo and ryzen master (which i had to download). cpu voltages peak at 1.5v. also the q-led thing on the motherboard seems to show even lower temps, dont think its gone above 45. further to this my cpu fans barely spin up and are running much slower than on the old cpu/mobo although ive taken great care to set the q-fan settings identical to what it was on the old one - ive got a fractal celcius s24 with pwm controlled fans(which i also used on the old setup, same case, same everything except cpu and mobo).
theres reasonable airflow inside the case


the 3800x peaks at 4.49 ghz when stressing one core, and when all cores are stressed they all run at 4.25-4.3 ghz



does this all look normal?


----------



## flyinion

lklem said:


> Based on my experience, W_pump header will not control PWM, i connected my DDC pump before, the pump keep running at full speed although i adjusted fan curve in bios, then i connected to H_amp header, issue solved.


From what I could tell when I was looking at pumps it seems like a lot of them don't support the proper PWM spec? The Aquacomputer D5 I got specifically mentions it fully supports the Intel PWM spec used in mobo headers/etc. The header does seem to be controlling it, though the speed doesn't seem right. Max speed is like 4800rpm but if I set it to say 50% in QFan it runs at 3800. I might need to see if I can just specify a static RPM or something. 

I also noticed strange temp spikes last night just in Windows that I would not have expected with liquid. Just doing stuff in Windows I would get quick spikes to the low-mid 60's. This is with PBO etc all enabled though as well. I know things are mounted properly and working right because I can run 30+ minutes of OCCT Medium and only get to the mid-60's vs mid-upper 70's. The biggest tell was handbrake. (I also might be remembering past OCCT wrong handbrake is more recent) H.265 encode on the CPU I was like upper 60's low 70's vs 83 and climbing on stock heatsink. I've only had the system up since late last night so I still have more fan and pump speed tuning to do though. I think the max temp I saw in OCCT last night was 70, but that was right after I finished a Heaven benchmark run on my new 2080 Super which really warmed the loop up. The temp actually started dropping as OCCT continued to run lol.


----------



## eyecrave

neurotix said:


> I've been working on manually overclocking my cores using Shamino Bios 0017 and settled on a speed (seen in 'Big Red' in my signature), anything higher gives a very small performance improvement and a lot more heat, causing my system to crash, and its so little difference between 4400/4200 and 4500/4300 that it isn't worth the extra heat and possible instability.
> 
> That's irrelevant to you, but in the process I have also OCed my RAM and tightened timings and learned a lot. I have G.skill Flare X B-Die, with plain black heatspreaders, that was made specifically for Ryzen 2xxx afaik. It was pretty cheap and I liked the speed and timings (3200 CAS14). Currently I have settled at 3600 C14-14-15-14-28-42 1T 1.496v. This is actually better than its stock timings @ 3200.
> 
> Anyway, I tried to push it further using the subtimings and voltages recommended by Ryzen DRAM calculator, because I wanted it at 3800MHz (any main timings to start). I tried to keep it at a 1:1 ratio with fclk, that is, 1900MHz fclk and didn't have much success and also ended up getting stuck on 07 post codes. Also got it to boot to Win10 but it crashed instantly on CPU-Z bench (I like this bench because its quick and consistent and also shows single core speed). After it did, I got one long beep and three short beeps during POST with code F9.
> 
> Anyone manually ocing with this board and especially if you are trying to OC and tighten RAM timings, I'd make a few suggestions before you start: set "Flexkey" to 'Safe Boot'. This changes the 'reset' surface mount microswitch on your board, right below the white led lit 'Start' button. When you press it (when you can't post) it will attempt to boot your BIOS in safe mode instead of just resetting the board normally.
> 
> Also, I'd advise saving a 'known good' OC profile in that section of the bios too, to multiple slots, and then backing it up to a usb thumb drive (I used an old 1GB usb 2.0 drive, in the 'bios flashback' port, the one outlines in white near the bottom of the boards I/O)
> 
> The reason I say this is, when I was trying for 3800/1900fclk last night and crashed my rig under the CPU-Z bench, I was getting stuck on '07' on boot. Even after numerous presses of the 'flexkey' set to safe boot the board. As well as power cycling the board by switching off the psu and waiting for it to discharge fully. What finally worked and got me booted to bios was clear cmos switch on the back i/o of the board in the top right. I then loaded my known-good 3600mhz oc profile (and I change a LOT of settings on these boards, having used ROG boards exclusively since 2011). It restored all of my settings *BUT* Secure Boot was reenabled with keys and I dual-boot Debian Linux! So I had to turn that off and clear the keys. Fair warning! After that, when I booted into Win10 1903 through grub it said "Please Wait" and then took me to the recovery menu and said I could either 'repair windows' (uh no... I'm not going to let bcdedit delete grub from the EFI partition) or restart and try again. I picked restart and try again and Win10 booted right up normally, and of course Linux booted up totally fine too (of course) as it is not Windows 10.
> 
> Anyway, on to your specific issue, dlbsyst...
> 
> You have 4 sticks so asking the memory controller to push all 4 at CAS 14 is a bit much. Acquire the program 'Ryzen DRAM Calculator' and run that. Set it to 'Ryzen 2' for processor, 'B-Die' for memory type, sticks to 4, and X570 for the platform type. Then click 'Calculate Fast' in the bottom right. Now go through your bios (take a picture on your phone of what the Ryzen Calc spits out under both its main page and advanced before you reboot), and go through and set literally every subtiming, voltage, etc. that it tells you to. Some of the stuff under Advanced like channel interleaving and size is only found in this bios under Advanced - AMD Overclocking at the very bottom of the advanced section.
> 
> If the fast settings from Ryzen Calc don't work then try 'Calculate Safe'. Also, having older RAM (like me) I would suggest just setting all the sticks to 1.5v assuming thats safe (I'm unsure since I only use 2 sticks). Ryzen Calc will tell you to use less.
> 
> And if this is how you've been doing it already and have tried all that already, my apologies for my long winded, unhelpful post lol. If that's the case the only thing I can suggest is loosening main timings (try 15-15-16-15-34-45 and also try 2T instead of 1T- you don't generally lose any performance at 2T but gain stability.)
> 
> Finally, if you try all of this and none of it works but you really want < 3500MHz I would suggest taking two sticks out (I would think you probably have 8GB DIMMs anyway but if for some reason they are only 4GB DIMMs, well... 8GB is probably still perfectly usable under W10, just set a larger page file for your SSD/boot drive). With two sticks you should get to 3600MHz no problem but maybe not at CAS14, 15 may be necessary.
> 
> Otherwise, if you refuse to run on only two sticks and none of this works, then try using Ryzen Calc 'Calculate Fast' for something under 3500MHz and remember to set the correct fclk manually. (exactly half ram speed).
> 
> This is based on my experience- I only got 3600MHz CAS14 on my sticks via manually setting primary, secondary and tertiary timings (e.g. "subtimings") as well as termination impedance, drive strength impedance, VDDP voltage, etc. using Ryzen DRAM Calculator. When I set Cas14-16-18-16-35-55 3600MHz manually (which is close to, but looser than, my sticks stock primary timings) my board wouldn't post. Even with 1.52v on the sticks. Just setting primary timings, voltage, frequency, and fclk and leaving everything else on Auto (so the board picks when it is training the DRAM) will not work.... you need to use the dram calc and set literally everything manually. This worked for me and got me the speed and timings listed in my rig (Big Red 2019) now, with my manual CPU OC listed there too. It does 7700+ in Cinebench R20 with this OC and settings, I'll post a picture later if anyone wants to see.
> 
> Hope this helps ya.


Thanks alot for this info. I am really new to overclocking ram and i have been struggling to get anything above 3200 on my b die kit and with your info about also plugging in the numbers from advanced tab i got to 3733 cl16. Still need to test for longer but i did do about 1 hour so far on karhu ram test and no errors. Also i'm using dual rank so i thought i was sol and just had to stick to xmp settings. Tried 3800 as well to see if i can get to 1900 on the memory controller. No stress test on the 3800 oc though just did a few benchmarks.


----------



## centvalny

Testing C8I bios 0045 with B-Die @ 4866 C14 fclk 1900 air


----------



## Hale59

*ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Formula review*

https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/asus-rog-crosshair-viii-formula-review,1.html


----------



## kevin300z

Still have this issue, am I still waiting on bios update?




kevin300z said:


> CPU:AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 8-Core
> Motherboard:ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Hero X570 ATX Motherboard
> Memory:32GB CORSAIR VENGEANCE RGB PRO 16GB (4x8GB) DDR4 3200MHz C16 LED Desktop Memory
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D1XCKWW/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
> 
> Issue:Can't get above 3000MHz. Tried OCP profile, will not post. Using latest Version 0803 bios. Had same issue with stock and Version 0702 bios. Memory defaults to 2133 when flashing CMOS. Any OCP combination results in not posting. Tried many clock speeds and voltages including 1.4v. Can get max speed of 3000MHz by exclusively selecting ram speed. Bought the QVL ram on Newegg which looks exactly the same as the Amazon Corsair ram and had same results no post above 3000MHz:
> https://www.newegg.com/corsair-32gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820236408?Item=N82E16820236408
> 
> CORSAIR CMW32GX4M4C3200C16(Ver5.32)(XMP) 4x 8GB SS Hynix - 16-18-18-36 1.35 as listed on the ASUS page: https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...G_Crosshair_VIII_Series_Memory_QVL_190801.pdf
> 
> Any suggestions?


----------



## eyecrave

kenshabby said:


> hi, im new, and not really an overclocker. ive built a 3800x + crosshair viii impact (mini-dtx)
> the only thing i did in bios except turning off aura and things like that was to up the ram speed to 3200mhz - my memory is 2x16gb CMK32GX4M2B3200C16
> pbo and the other stuff is on auto pretty much all of it.
> 
> im a linux user, and use win10 only for gaming. i dont think ive even had a browser open in windows for 10-12 years
> 
> i updated to the latest bios 0402 a couple of days ago,its still the newest
> 
> im a bit worried about the chipset temp though. it idles around 60-65C and goes up to 75ish during gaming. is that too high? room temp is 23.
> 
> im also confused about the cpu temps. all the tests ive seen indicates that the 3800x should be a bit hotter than my old 2700x, but it seems to be the other way around. the old 2700x would go up to almost 70C when gaming, but the 3800x seems to peak around 55C, playing the same game, thats according to both hwinfo and ryzen master (which i had to download). cpu voltages peak at 1.5v. also the q-led thing on the motherboard seems to show even lower temps, dont think its gone above 45. further to this my cpu fans barely spin up and are running much slower than on the old cpu/mobo although ive taken great care to set the q-fan settings identical to what it was on the old one - ive got a fractal celcius s24 with pwm controlled fans(which i also used on the old setup, same case, same everything except cpu and mobo).
> theres reasonable airflow inside the case
> 
> 
> the 3800x peaks at 4.49 ghz when stressing one core, and when all cores are stressed they all run at 4.25-4.3 ghz
> 
> 
> 
> does this all look normal?


I've read from reddit and on here that x570 chipset is 95c max so you are good. With AC on mine will hit 70c and with it off it can get to 75c. Not sure on the 2700x but my cpu 3800x same as yours with nhd15s and define r6 is around 60c or so when playing games. Also not sure how the motherboard and qled read the cpu temps but it is always 10c below what you will see in hwinfo.


----------



## eyecrave

kevin300z said:


> Still have this issue, am I still waiting on bios update?


Have you tried with 1 or 2 sticks. 2 sticks in A2 and B2 to see if it's the ram?


----------



## kevin300z

Will try, thanks.


----------



## kenshabby

eyecrave said:


> I've read from reddit and on here that x570 chipset is 95c max so you are good. With AC on mine will hit 70c and with it off it can get to 75c. Not sure on the 2700x but my cpu 3800x same as yours with nhd15s and define r6 is around 60c or so when playing games. Also not sure how the motherboard and qled read the cpu temps but it is always 10c below what you will see in hwinfo.



thanks for the reply!
i discovered something, i had under monitor - q-fan - cha-fan the temperature source set to motherboard, and the q-led on the back actually showed motherboard temps! no wonder i was confused re the temps it showed. i changed the source to cpu and now it actually shows cpu temp. i guess this way you can get the q-led to show pretty much any temp you want


----------



## kenshabby

btw is anyone else having problems with the asus website? i cant get to the bios page anymore, wherever i go it just redirects to asus.com/country


----------



## eyecrave

kenshabby said:


> btw is anyone else having problems with the asus website? i cant get to the bios page anymore, wherever i go it just redirects to asus.com/country


I've had this issue recently and the only way i got the asus site to show me downloads was to open an incognito tab on chrome.


----------



## neurotix

*No problem*



eyecrave said:


> Thanks alot for this info. I am really new to overclocking ram and i have been struggling to get anything above 3200 on my b die kit and with your info about also plugging in the numbers from advanced tab i got to 3733 cl16. Still need to test for longer but i did do about 1 hour so far on karhu ram test and no errors. Also i'm using dual rank so i thought i was sol and just had to stick to xmp settings. Tried 3800 as well to see if i can get to 1900 on the memory controller. No stress test on the 3800 oc though just did a few benchmarks.


Glad I could help!

Remember though, that higher frequency doesn't always equate to better performance. In particular, your read bandwidth @ 3733 or 3800MHz on the memory should be closer to 60GB/sec, and your latency (in ns) should be lower as well. This is probably because you loosened timings (3733MHz cas16 will probably perform worse than 3600MHz cas14, for example). But, if you are happy with it and finally got it there, that's great.

I've been doing this for quite a long time now (next Feb will be my 10 year anniversary on this site), and I used to bench for hwbot a lot. I would recommend that if you want to test the real-world performance gain (or decrease?) to try running one of the Unigine benches, or bench a game (Far Cry 5 has a pretty great built in benchmark that shows average and more importantly, *minimum* framerates). Just seeing an increase in bandwidth and a decrease in latency in something like AIDA64 doesn't always reflect the real-world reprecussions of your tweaks. For example, on my old platform I upgraded from (Haswell i7 4790k, DDR3 2600MHz 10-12-12-31, and a ROG Maximus VI Hero Z87 board), running the memory at anything past 2400MHz would show a drastic drop in performance in AIDA64 across the board. It claimed my read and write bandwidth had fallen from 38GB/sec or so to around 20GB/sec at 2400MHz cas 10 vs 2600MHz cas10. However, at 2600MHz cas10, even though it said I was only getting 20GB/sec bandwidth, the latency was a whole 2ns lower. I tested this a lot and found out that in Unigine Valley, as well as game benchmarks (ROTTR) I was getting slightly higher average and minimum fps at 2600MHz, despite AIDA64's inaccurate reading. It amount to like... 0.3 fps more or something in Valley, but still. My point is, try and find a balance between frequency and timings where you are getting the highest memory bandwidth values and the lowest latency in ns. You might actually be hurting your performance at 3733 cl16 vs 3600 cl14- and AIDA isn't the only test to rely on, I would suggest running 3D benches as well as games and note the average fps but especially the minimum fps which is more important. If you see a higher minimum fps in a game at a certain frequency and timing, stick with that, as it's highly likely that will translate to the system overall and not just that game or benchmark. I need to do more testing on this aspect myself with my settings.

--------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, for anyone else overclocking their memory and using Ryzen DRAM Calculator, some of the advanced settings (such as memory interleave size, etc) are a little difficult to find in this BIOS currently. So, I went through and took pictures of my phone of every individual setting and where to find it. (I was wrong, previously; none of the relevant settings are in the 'AMD Overclocking' section. They are all mostly in 'AMD CBS'.) Do note, however, that some of them are renamed in our BIOS from what they are called under the Advanced page of Ryzen DRAM Calculator. I am posting from Linux atm and thus can't fire up Ryzen DRAM calc to cross-correlate what the settings are called in that versus what they are called in the pictures below, however the majority are named exactly the same except for "Channel Interleaving Hash" being called "Address Hash Bank", "Address Hash CS", and "Address Hash Rm" in Advanced -> AMD CBS -> UMC Common Options -> DRAM Memory Mapping as shown in a photo below. (If anyone can confirm this, that would be great. I left them alone personally but changed every other setting I could find.)

Also, afaik I haven't seen anyone suggest this in this thread or elsewhere basically ever, though maybe it's common knowledge to Ryzen overclockers anyway: on our board, under Advanced -> AMD CBS -> CPU Common Options, set DRAM ECC to disabled. By default, it is enabled, and having ECC on will limit your memory overclock. I have overclocked CPU and RAM on the following platforms: Socket 939 (Athlon 64), socket AM3 (Phenom II 555 and 1090T), socket AM3+ (Bulldozer/Piledriver), as well as Z87 (Ivy/Haswell), Z170 (Skylake in my brother's rig), and Z270 (Kaby Lake, in my wife's rig)- I have never, ever seen a consumer gaming focused platform that even supported ECC, let alone came with it enabled by default, as generally we are not running scientific or timing critical operations that require error/parity checking on our DRAM. I am pretty confident it is safe to turn it off, though am welcome to correction if I'm wrong- and I think doing so will help you overclock your memory further.

Pictures below though I had to sneak one in of my rig  Hope this helps...


----------



## dlbsyst

neurotix said:


> Glad I could help!
> 
> Remember though, that higher frequency doesn't always equate to better performance. In particular, your read bandwidth @ 3733 or 3800MHz on the memory should be closer to 60GB/sec, and your latency (in ns) should be lower as well. This is probably because you loosened timings (3733MHz cas16 will probably perform worse than 3600MHz cas14, for example). But, if you are happy with it and finally got it there, that's great.
> 
> I've been doing this for quite a long time now (next Feb will be my 10 year anniversary on this site), and I used to bench for hwbot a lot. I would recommend that if you want to test the real-world performance gain (or decrease?) to try running one of the Unigine benches, or bench a game (Far Cry 5 has a pretty great built in benchmark that shows average and more importantly, *minimum* framerates). Just seeing an increase in bandwidth and a decrease in latency in something like AIDA64 doesn't always reflect the real-world reprecussions of your tweaks. For example, on my old platform I upgraded from (Haswell i7 4790k, DDR3 2600MHz 10-12-12-31, and a ROG Maximus VI Hero Z87 board), running the memory at anything past 2400MHz would show a drastic drop in performance in AIDA64 across the board. It claimed my read and write bandwidth had fallen from 38GB/sec or so to around 20GB/sec at 2400MHz cas 10 vs 2600MHz cas10. However, at 2600MHz cas10, even though it said I was only getting 20GB/sec bandwidth, the latency was a whole 2ns lower. I tested this a lot and found out that in Unigine Valley, as well as game benchmarks (ROTTR) I was getting slightly higher average and minimum fps at 2600MHz, despite AIDA64's inaccurate reading. It amount to like... 0.3 fps more or something in Valley, but still. My point is, try and find a balance between frequency and timings where you are getting the highest memory bandwidth values and the lowest latency in ns. You might actually be hurting your performance at 3733 cl16 vs 3600 cl14- and AIDA isn't the only test to rely on, I would suggest running 3D benches as well as games and note the average fps but especially the minimum fps which is more important. If you see a higher minimum fps in a game at a certain frequency and timing, stick with that, as it's highly likely that will translate to the system overall and not just that game or benchmark. I need to do more testing on this aspect myself with my settings.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Anyway, for anyone else overclocking their memory and using Ryzen DRAM Calculator, some of the advanced settings (such as memory interleave size, etc) are a little difficult to find in this BIOS currently. So, I went through and took pictures of my phone of every individual setting and where to find it. (I was wrong, previously; none of the relevant settings are in the 'AMD Overclocking' section. They are all mostly in 'AMD CBS'.) Do note, however, that some of them are renamed in our BIOS from what they are called under the Advanced page of Ryzen DRAM Calculator. I am posting from Linux atm and thus can't fire up Ryzen DRAM calc to cross-correlate what the settings are called in that versus what they are called in the pictures below, however the majority are named exactly the same except for "Channel Interleaving Hash" being called "Address Hash Bank", "Address Hash CS", and "Address Hash Rm" in Advanced -> AMD CBS -> UMC Common Options -> DRAM Memory Mapping as shown in a photo below. (If anyone can confirm this, that would be great. I left them alone personally but changed every other setting I could find.)
> 
> Also, afaik I haven't seen anyone suggest this in this thread or elsewhere basically ever, though maybe it's common knowledge to Ryzen overclockers anyway: on our board, under Advanced -> AMD CBS -> CPU Common Options, set DRAM ECC to disabled. By default, it is enabled, and having ECC on will limit your memory overclock. I have overclocked CPU and RAM on the following platforms: Socket 939 (Athlon 64), socket AM3 (Phenom II 555 and 1090T), socket AM3+ (Bulldozer/Piledriver), as well as Z87 (Ivy/Haswell), Z170 (Skylake in my brother's rig), and Z270 (Kaby Lake, in my wife's rig)- I have never, ever seen a consumer gaming focused platform that even supported ECC, let alone came with it enabled by default, as generally we are not running scientific or timing critical operations that require error/parity checking on our DRAM. I am pretty confident it is safe to turn it off, though am welcome to correction if I'm wrong- and I think doing so will help you overclock your memory further.
> 
> Pictures below though I had to sneak one in of my rig  Hope this helps...


Your a genius neurotix and sorry for not responding to your earlier post. Disabling Dram ECC Enable in the BIOS has definitely helped with my RAM overclock. I also disabled vrm spread spectrum and can't believe the overlock I am getting. I am running my RAM at 3600 using 1usmus fast timings and gear down disabled!! I can't believe it. I never thought in a million years that I would be able to run my 4 sticks at that speed. It seems stable so far but I have more testing to do. Earlier I posted that my RAM absolutely refuses to run at 3533 and still does. Must be a bug in the BIOS. Thanks again for the excellent write up and your insight. Also gorgeous PC you have there.


----------



## Jackalito

neurotix said:


> Glad I could help!
> 
> Remember though, that higher frequency doesn't always equate to better performance. In particular, your read bandwidth @ 3733 or 3800MHz on the memory should be closer to 60GB/sec, and your latency (in ns) should be lower as well. This is probably because you loosened timings (3733MHz cas16 will probably perform worse than 3600MHz cas14, for example). But, if you are happy with it and finally got it there, that's great.
> 
> I've been doing this for quite a long time now (next Feb will be my 10 year anniversary on this site), and I used to bench for hwbot a lot. I would recommend that if you want to test the real-world performance gain (or decrease?) to try running one of the Unigine benches, or bench a game (Far Cry 5 has a pretty great built in benchmark that shows average and more importantly, *minimum* framerates). Just seeing an increase in bandwidth and a decrease in latency in something like AIDA64 doesn't always reflect the real-world reprecussions of your tweaks. For example, on my old platform I upgraded from (Haswell i7 4790k, DDR3 2600MHz 10-12-12-31, and a ROG Maximus VI Hero Z87 board), running the memory at anything past 2400MHz would show a drastic drop in performance in AIDA64 across the board. It claimed my read and write bandwidth had fallen from 38GB/sec or so to around 20GB/sec at 2400MHz cas 10 vs 2600MHz cas10. However, at 2600MHz cas10, even though it said I was only getting 20GB/sec bandwidth, the latency was a whole 2ns lower. I tested this a lot and found out that in Unigine Valley, as well as game benchmarks (ROTTR) I was getting slightly higher average and minimum fps at 2600MHz, despite AIDA64's inaccurate reading. It amount to like... 0.3 fps more or something in Valley, but still. My point is, try and find a balance between frequency and timings where you are getting the highest memory bandwidth values and the lowest latency in ns. You might actually be hurting your performance at 3733 cl16 vs 3600 cl14- and AIDA isn't the only test to rely on, I would suggest running 3D benches as well as games and note the average fps but especially the minimum fps which is more important. If you see a higher minimum fps in a game at a certain frequency and timing, stick with that, as it's highly likely that will translate to the system overall and not just that game or benchmark. I need to do more testing on this aspect myself with my settings.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Anyway, for anyone else overclocking their memory and using Ryzen DRAM Calculator, some of the advanced settings (such as memory interleave size, etc) are a little difficult to find in this BIOS currently. So, I went through and took pictures of my phone of every individual setting and where to find it. (I was wrong, previously; none of the relevant settings are in the 'AMD Overclocking' section. They are all mostly in 'AMD CBS'.) Do note, however, that some of them are renamed in our BIOS from what they are called under the Advanced page of Ryzen DRAM Calculator. I am posting from Linux atm and thus can't fire up Ryzen DRAM calc to cross-correlate what the settings are called in that versus what they are called in the pictures below, however the majority are named exactly the same except for "Channel Interleaving Hash" being called "Address Hash Bank", "Address Hash CS", and "Address Hash Rm" in Advanced -> AMD CBS -> UMC Common Options -> DRAM Memory Mapping as shown in a photo below. (If anyone can confirm this, that would be great. I left them alone personally but changed every other setting I could find.)
> 
> Also, afaik I haven't seen anyone suggest this in this thread or elsewhere basically ever, though maybe it's common knowledge to Ryzen overclockers anyway: on our board, under Advanced -> AMD CBS -> CPU Common Options, set DRAM ECC to disabled. By default, it is enabled, and having ECC on will limit your memory overclock. I have overclocked CPU and RAM on the following platforms: Socket 939 (Athlon 64), socket AM3 (Phenom II 555 and 1090T), socket AM3+ (Bulldozer/Piledriver), as well as Z87 (Ivy/Haswell), Z170 (Skylake in my brother's rig), and Z270 (Kaby Lake, in my wife's rig)- I have never, ever seen a consumer gaming focused platform that even supported ECC, let alone came with it enabled by default, as generally we are not running scientific or timing critical operations that require error/parity checking on our DRAM. I am pretty confident it is safe to turn it off, though am welcome to correction if I'm wrong- and I think doing so will help you overclock your memory further.
> 
> Pictures below though I had to sneak one in of my rig  Hope this helps...



Thanks for all your valuable insight, mate. +REP! :thumb:
Great system you've put together there, by the way!


----------



## eyecrave

neurotix said:


> Glad I could help!
> 
> Remember though, that higher frequency doesn't always equate to better performance. In particular, your read bandwidth @ 3733 or 3800MHz on the memory should be closer to 60GB/sec, and your latency (in ns) should be lower as well. This is probably because you loosened timings (3733MHz cas16 will probably perform worse than 3600MHz cas14, for example). But, if you are happy with it and finally got it there, that's great.
> 
> I've been doing this for quite a long time now (next Feb will be my 10 year anniversary on this site), and I used to bench for hwbot a lot. I would recommend that if you want to test the real-world performance gain (or decrease?) to try running one of the Unigine benches, or bench a game (Far Cry 5 has a pretty great built in benchmark that shows average and more importantly, *minimum* framerates). Just seeing an increase in bandwidth and a decrease in latency in something like AIDA64 doesn't always reflect the real-world reprecussions of your tweaks. For example, on my old platform I upgraded from (Haswell i7 4790k, DDR3 2600MHz 10-12-12-31, and a ROG Maximus VI Hero Z87 board), running the memory at anything past 2400MHz would show a drastic drop in performance in AIDA64 across the board. It claimed my read and write bandwidth had fallen from 38GB/sec or so to around 20GB/sec at 2400MHz cas 10 vs 2600MHz cas10. However, at 2600MHz cas10, even though it said I was only getting 20GB/sec bandwidth, the latency was a whole 2ns lower. I tested this a lot and found out that in Unigine Valley, as well as game benchmarks (ROTTR) I was getting slightly higher average and minimum fps at 2600MHz, despite AIDA64's inaccurate reading. It amount to like... 0.3 fps more or something in Valley, but still. My point is, try and find a balance between frequency and timings where you are getting the highest memory bandwidth values and the lowest latency in ns. You might actually be hurting your performance at 3733 cl16 vs 3600 cl14- and AIDA isn't the only test to rely on, I would suggest running 3D benches as well as games and note the average fps but especially the minimum fps which is more important. If you see a higher minimum fps in a game at a certain frequency and timing, stick with that, as it's highly likely that will translate to the system overall and not just that game or benchmark. I need to do more testing on this aspect myself with my settings.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Anyway, for anyone else overclocking their memory and using Ryzen DRAM Calculator, some of the advanced settings (such as memory interleave size, etc) are a little difficult to find in this BIOS currently. So, I went through and took pictures of my phone of every individual setting and where to find it. (I was wrong, previously; none of the relevant settings are in the 'AMD Overclocking' section. They are all mostly in 'AMD CBS'.) Do note, however, that some of them are renamed in our BIOS from what they are called under the Advanced page of Ryzen DRAM Calculator. I am posting from Linux atm and thus can't fire up Ryzen DRAM calc to cross-correlate what the settings are called in that versus what they are called in the pictures below, however the majority are named exactly the same except for "Channel Interleaving Hash" being called "Address Hash Bank", "Address Hash CS", and "Address Hash Rm" in Advanced -> AMD CBS -> UMC Common Options -> DRAM Memory Mapping as shown in a photo below. (If anyone can confirm this, that would be great. I left them alone personally but changed every other setting I could find.)
> 
> Also, afaik I haven't seen anyone suggest this in this thread or elsewhere basically ever, though maybe it's common knowledge to Ryzen overclockers anyway: on our board, under Advanced -> AMD CBS -> CPU Common Options, set DRAM ECC to disabled. By default, it is enabled, and having ECC on will limit your memory overclock. I have overclocked CPU and RAM on the following platforms: Socket 939 (Athlon 64), socket AM3 (Phenom II 555 and 1090T), socket AM3+ (Bulldozer/Piledriver), as well as Z87 (Ivy/Haswell), Z170 (Skylake in my brother's rig), and Z270 (Kaby Lake, in my wife's rig)- I have never, ever seen a consumer gaming focused platform that even supported ECC, let alone came with it enabled by default, as generally we are not running scientific or timing critical operations that require error/parity checking on our DRAM. I am pretty confident it is safe to turn it off, though am welcome to correction if I'm wrong- and I think doing so will help you overclock your memory further.
> 
> Pictures below though I had to sneak one in of my rig  Hope this helps...



I did some research last night and landed on this page https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4 OC Guide.md. Tried to get my read and copy up to 60k MB/s but couldn't do it. I managed to get my latency down but still max i could get is like 55-56k MB/s. Also i never got 3600mhz cl14 and i didn't spend much time with the 3600 settings max i could do with that was cl16. The great thing about this otherboard is the search function which is what i used to find all the settings from dram calculator. Although the search function doesn't tell you where the setting are located so i guess it's good you showed us. One question i do have though is my ram is dual rank so 16gb sticks would that be the reason why i can't reach the 60k MB/s read and copy? Most seem to use single rank 8gb sticks. These are the timings i ended up with from the site i linked and i'm not going for high benchmarks just want stable with some oc. Hopefully ram test is reliable enough for stability.


----------



## Jackalito

eyecrave said:


> I did some research last night and landed on this page https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4 OC Guide.md. Tried to get my read and copy up to 60k MB/s but couldn't do it. I managed to get my latency down but still max i could get is like 55-56k MB/s. Also i never got 3600mhz cl14 and i didn't spend much time with the 3600 settings max i could do with that was cl16. The great thing about this otherboard is the search function which is what i used to find all the settings from dram calculator. Although the search function doesn't tell you where the setting are located so i guess it's good you showed us. One question i do have though is my ram is dual rank so 16gb sticks would that be the reason why i can't reach the 60k MB/s read and copy? Most seem to use single rank 8gb sticks. These are the timings i ended up with from the site i linked and i'm not going for high benchmarks just want stable with some oc. Hopefully ram test is reliable enough for stability.



+REP for sharing such a complete and comprehensive guide on RAM OC! :thumb:
Thanks, pal!


----------



## luggles

Are you able to set the chipset fan to off yet in the bios? I remember seeing a post a while back about it possibly coming in the future.


----------



## eyecrave

Jackalito said:


> +REP for sharing such a complete and comprehensive guide on RAM OC! :thumb:
> Thanks, pal!


Thanks and no problem. It helped me understand more about ram oc that's for sure.


----------



## neurotix

Glad I could help out here. I can't really reply in full right now due to ongoing irl issues, but I can say that tbh I have not really even had a chance to really sit down with my own system fully myself and optimize it.

My cores are definitely limited to about 4400/4400/4200/4200, unfortunately, but a lot of performance can be gained by OCing RAM and especially IFclk. (Overclocking the Infinity Fabric clock with the DRAM will not only give you lower latency and more bandwidth on the RAM- it will also give you more throughput and lower latency on the cache- which will result in more performance at the same CPU clocks.)

Anyway, I have had trouble going past 3600MHz MemClk/1800MHz IFclk at CAS14 myself, and at the timings in my sig (and all subtimings/other settings in AMD CBS set manually to the settings Ryzen DRAM Calculator gives for 2 sticks B-Die 3600MHz "Calculate Fast") I noticed extremely similar performance in AIDA64 even with 2 sticks to what you stated in your last post, eyecrave. (Around 56GB/sec bandwidth @ around 67ns).

To answer your question: I am honestly still putting a lot of this together myself, and again, haven't really overclocked RAM or a new platform since 2014, and its my first experience with Ryzen. In short, I think the speeds and latency you are seeing (especially with dual rank DIMMs and four of them) are pretty much excellent and the limit of your kit- anything higher requires an increase in Infinity Fabric clock (IFclk), which is difficult to raise above 1800MHz. But anyone overclocking higher and getting the bandwidth and latency I mentioned is definitely running higher Fclk and at a 1:1 ratio with the RAM (3600MHz RAM/1800MHz Fclk. To gain performance past that, you must raise Fclk.) This requires loosening timings and tweaking voltages to allow for higher Fclk and IMC clk and is not only dependent on your memory but how good of a clocker your CPU is. Remember, I'm seeing about the same bandwidth and latency as you with only 2 sticks of Single Rank B-Die memory *and I am running CAS14*. Tbh I'd be happy with what you've gotten to already- performance with dual rank memory at the same speed, even with higher timings, is often faster than with single rank DIMMs, or so I've heard...

Anyway, when I have the time I will be trying to get my system and memory above 1800MHz Fclk with similar timings now that I understand better how to achieve this, by tweaking ProcODT and various voltages related to the memory controller and Infinity Fabric. Realistically, if my memory kit and CPU will allow for it, I have pretty much hit the limit at 3600MHz RAM/1800fclk/Tweaked CAS14 otherwise. Unless I raise ram speed and especially fclk I won't see any further improvement in bandwidth or less latency. (I want dat 63ns holy grail latency.)

Thanks for the rep and the compliments on my rig, it means a lot. Its literally the result of a 10 year project. If you check out my build log, you can see every case/gpu/cpu I've ever had in it. Its not like I just threw it all together at once- and I usually sold my current but older stuff for more than I paid for it, to finance new parts. (Like selling my R9 Fury Nitros for more than I paid because of mining, to get my current 1080tis for less money outright.) Also people might not like the outdated 'gamer aesthetic' (e.g. red/black) of my build but when I first put together Big Red in 2009 everyone was building black rigs with blue led fans e.g. Antec 900 case. I wanted something unique so I went with red and stuck with it! (mind you afaik RGB LEDs didn't exist then! If they even did they were really expensive! People were still using cold cathode tube lighting!) But again thanks for the compliments!

Finally, I've sourced a bunch of links (I'm on my phone) that may be helpful...

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ccfw74/some_ddr4_3800_11_performance_numbers_on_zen_2/

https://forums.thefpsreview.com/threads/zen-2-quest-3733-cl14-15-15-28-1-47v-get.642/

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-memory-tweaking-overclocking-guide/

^ that last one especially, wish me luck in getting my B-Dies and fclk up higher using that write up by 1usmus when I get the time...


----------



## eyecrave

neurotix said:


> Glad I could help out here. I can't really reply in full right now due to ongoing irl issues, but I can say that tbh I have not really even had a chance to really sit down with my own system fully myself and optimize it.
> 
> My cores are definitely limited to about 4400/4400/4200/4200, unfortunately, but a lot of performance can be gained by OCing RAM and especially IFclk. (Overclocking the Infinity Fabric clock with the DRAM will not only give you lower latency and more bandwidth on the RAM- it will also give you more throughput and lower latency on the cache- which will result in more performance at the same CPU clocks.)
> 
> Anyway, I have had trouble going past 3600MHz MemClk/1800MHz IFclk at CAS14 myself, and at the timings in my sig (and all subtimings/other settings in AMD CBS set manually to the settings Ryzen DRAM Calculator gives for 2 sticks B-Die 3600MHz "Calculate Fast") I noticed extremely similar performance in AIDA64 even with 2 sticks to what you stated in your last post, eyecrave. (Around 56GB/sec bandwidth @ around 67ns).
> 
> To answer your question: I am honestly still putting a lot of this together myself, and again, haven't really overclocked RAM or a new platform since 2014, and its my first experience with Ryzen. In short, I think the speeds and latency you are seeing (especially with dual rank DIMMs and four of them) are pretty much excellent and the limit of your kit- anything higher requires an increase in Infinity Fabric clock (IFclk), which is difficult to raise above 1800MHz. But anyone overclocking higher and getting the bandwidth and latency I mentioned is definitely running higher Fclk and at a 1:1 ratio with the RAM (3600MHz RAM/1800MHz Fclk. To gain performance past that, you must raise Fclk.) This requires loosening timings and tweaking voltages to allow for higher Fclk and IMC clk and is not only dependent on your memory but how good of a clocker your CPU is. Remember, I'm seeing about the same bandwidth and latency as you with only 2 sticks of Single Rank B-Die memory *and I am running CAS14*. Tbh I'd be happy with what you've gotten to already- performance with dual rank memory at the same speed, even with higher timings, is often faster than with single rank DIMMs, or so I've heard...
> 
> Anyway, when I have the time I will be trying to get my system and memory above 1800MHz Fclk with similar timings now that I understand better how to achieve this, by tweaking ProcODT and various voltages related to the memory controller and Infinity Fabric. Realistically, if my memory kit and CPU will allow for it, I have pretty much hit the limit at 3600MHz RAM/1800fclk/Tweaked CAS14 otherwise. Unless I raise ram speed and especially fclk I won't see any further improvement in bandwidth or less latency. (I want dat 63ns holy grail latency.)
> 
> Thanks for the rep and the compliments on my rig, it means a lot. Its literally the result of a 10 year project. If you check out my build log, you can see every case/gpu/cpu I've ever had in it. Its not like I just threw it all together at once- and I usually sold my current but older stuff for more than I paid for it, to finance new parts. (Like selling my R9 Fury Nitros for more than I paid because of mining, to get my current 1080tis for less money outright.) Also people might not like the outdated 'gamer aesthetic' (e.g. red/black) of my build but when I first put together Big Red in 2009 everyone was building black rigs with blue led fans e.g. Antec 900 case. I wanted something unique so I went with red and stuck with it! (mind you afaik RGB LEDs didn't exist then! If they even did they were really expensive! People were still using cold cathode tube lighting!) But again thanks for the compliments!
> 
> Finally, I've sourced a bunch of links (I'm on my phone) that may be helpful...
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ccfw74/some_ddr4_3800_11_performance_numbers_on_zen_2/
> 
> https://forums.thefpsreview.com/threads/zen-2-quest-3733-cl14-15-15-28-1-47v-get.642/
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-memory-tweaking-overclocking-guide/
> 
> ^ that last one especially, wish me luck in getting my B-Dies and fclk up higher using that write up by 1usmus when I get the time...


Actually im using 2 x 16gb sticks specifically these ones https://www.gskill.com/product/165/...BDDR4-3200MHz-CL14-14-14-34-1.35V32GB-(2x16GB) as they recently went on sale at newegg. I was actually really debating getting the trident z neo 3600 c16 64gb kit but that would cost me almost as much as my cpu mobo so decided against it. Like i said before i'm really new to overclocking ram. I will try some timings with 3600 and 3733 to see where i could get them but i'm pretty happy where i am now. I honestly was going to stick with 3733 cl16 but knowing i could push the IFclk to 1900 mhz i wanted to stick to 3800 and tune them as much as i can and i posted the results. My temps on ram can get pretty hot though specially when testing i got up to 48c but no errors so i was thinking of maybe adding another fan to blow over the ram. How are your temps with the corsair aio? I have a h1151 pro still in shrink wrap from an rma but decided to install the nhd15s instead thinking that i will get better airflow on my motherboard. Your rig looks pretty good and would be a bad look if you went blue for an amd rig.


----------



## kot0005

Finally seem to have found my stable Memory timings. 3773 CL16(custom timings) at 1.456v


----------



## kenshabby

anyone able to access https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/ROG-Crosshair-VIII-Impact ?
its like the c8i has been removed from the asus site, i havent been able to check for new bios for several days now


----------



## zorn

kenshabby said:


> anyone able to access https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/ROG-Crosshair-VIII-Impact ?
> its like the c8i has been removed from the asus site, i havent been able to check for new bios for several days now


Possibly setting up the page for the actual launch? From what I understand it only got released in very limited fashion in a couple European countries, and might have been accidental street date breaking there as no mention has been made of this board actually launching officially.


----------



## eyecrave

Anyone with a 3600x, 3700x or 3800x able to hit 60 GB/s read and copy in aida64? Only ones i've seen hit those numbers seem to be 3900x so was just curious.


----------



## neurotix

eyecrave said:


> Actually im using 2 x 16gb sticks specifically these ones https://www.gskill.com/product/165/...BDDR4-3200MHz-CL14-14-14-34-1.35V32GB-(2x16GB) as they recently went on sale at newegg. I was actually really debating getting the trident z neo 3600 c16 64gb kit but that would cost me almost as much as my cpu mobo so decided against it. Like i said before i'm really new to overclocking ram. I will try some timings with 3600 and 3733 to see where i could get them but i'm pretty happy where i am now. I honestly was going to stick with 3733 cl16 but knowing i could push the IFclk to 1900 mhz i wanted to stick to 3800 and tune them as much as i can and i posted the results. My temps on ram can get pretty hot though specially when testing i got up to 48c but no errors so i was thinking of maybe adding another fan to blow over the ram. How are your temps with the corsair aio? I have a h1151 pro still in shrink wrap from an rma but decided to install the nhd15s instead thinking that i will get better airflow on my motherboard. Your rig looks pretty good and would be a bad look if you went blue for an amd rig.


I just wanted to point out to you first, that in the last post you made showing your AIDA64 memory bandwidth along with HWINFO64, when you were at 3800MHz CAS16 - https://www.overclock.net/forum/28119718-post791.html

I missed this last night as I was posting on my phone, but, you may want to check on that if you haven't already and run MemTest or something. Your memory write is horrible and close to half what it should be (says 30GB/sec). It should be much closer to 55GB/sec. If you guys didn't know, memory write is actually more important than any RAM statistic on that test aside from latency- the CPU will read a lot of stuff from RAM once it's been written in, and it will also copy it around, and these are almost always faster. However, writing to memory usually takes more time and slows the whole process down. It sounds like you said you backed off since (to 3733 CAS16), but I'd urge you to take a look at your memory write speeds, because even if the rest of your RAM bandwidth is high or higher, and the latency is lower, the system will be slow as a dog and possibly corrupt data if there is something wrong with your memory write speeds or it's throwing errors. 

The Trident Z Neo isn't anything special aside from the RGB LEDs as far as I can tell, so it's good you didn't waste your money on it. Those stats (3600 C16) aren't that great, even for 64GB (why do you need this much memory?) This is the kit I got, color or RGB doesn't matter to me, speed and timings do. And they do 3600 CAS14 no sweat with some tweaking and voltage. I also only paid $119 for them I believe. Tbh you'd be best off buying a different kit that is single rank and 2x8GB (like 20nm Samsung B-die or 18nm Hynix) and really researching it first at some of the links I posted, if you want to get stable at very high RAM and IF clocks. As for me, I did more messing around with the system last night and my 3900X absolutely refuses to POST at anything over Fclk 1800MHz. Even 1833 is a no go and I've tried both Safe and Fast presets from Ryzen DRAM calc, I've tried various combinations of SoC voltage (not exceeding 1.125v), VDDP, VPP, PLL, VTT, CLDO VDDP, CLDO VDDG and at a bunch of higher frequencies and timings.









That seems to be the best score I've pulled so far but given that it seems competitive or better than many other screenshots I've seen of AIDA64 (with Memclk above 3666 and Fclk above 1833) I'll take it. It might be because I have the R9 3900X, or it might be something I'm missing but I can't get past 1800MHz Fclk...

Anyway, as far as the H115i goes, Corsair/Asetek makes SO many different coolers that it's sort of ludicrious to even try and keep up. I was actually going to purchase a new one (the H100i Pro...) until I read and saw that my older H100i V2 is pretty much one of the best they've ever made and has a really high powered (but failure prone) pump. Well mine has been running for years on end and is fine and apparently cools better than the more recent ones. Though, I have some pretty unheard-of (and cheap!) fans on it, the Arctic Bionix F120 that go to 2000rpm and push above 90CFM. I also have similar 140mm fans in the front of my case, and the rear. I would definitely suggest not using the stock fans if you decide to use the H115. Invest in some quality, high CFM/static pressure fans and use a fairly aggressive fan profile on your board (I would set it manually in the bios, and connect the headers directly to your motherboard, and run them at 40% minimum always). Also I'm not sure what thermal paste you use but my recommendation would be Prolimatech PK-3 Nano Aluminum, a thermal paste no one's ever heard of, but is very similar performing to Arctic MX-4, Gelid GC Extreme, IC-7 Diamond or Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut for a lot less money. See: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/thermal-paste-comparison,5108-8.html (PK-3 is up there with the best and actually quite a bit better than Arctic MX-4. It's also $30 for a giant *30 gram tube* whereas a single 1 gram tube of Kryonaut is $10....) I just bought a fresh tube of PK-3 as the previous one I had lasted like 6 years and did 100+ applications on various things and still hadn't run out, but it had dried out a bit. I got the 30 gram tube from Amazon...


The reason I'm talking about fans and TIM is just that yeah, I had heat issues causing thermal shutoff originally when I put my 3900X + board + RAM in and started overclocking it. I was trying for a manual 4450/4425/4275/4250 overclock with 1.375v though using Shamino's beta bios that allows for per-CCX overclocking through the BIOS. Doing it this way, the cores are basically locked at that specific speed and you get vastly improved performance compared to letting the chip boost and jump all over the place on it's own. Depending on ambient temps, my rig was shutting off under these tests but they are fairly extreme. I settled on a stable 4400/4400/4200/4200 OC w/ 1.36v and it wasn't overheating and shutting off and completed Cinebench at only slightly less of a score, and CPU-Z bench showed my single core speed was 545 instead of 555... fine. Anyway, it was still running around 77-80C under load on the cores (as per the temp readout on the 7-segment POST code display), and I'm guessing the cores were around 90C. No good. Well, when I mounted the block I had used the old (6 or 7 year old, partially dried out) tube of PK-3 Nano TIM I've had forever. I remounted the block and realized I had used too much- so I used less, and used it from a brand new tube. With all the settings exactly the same, my temps were much better- the delta between my core temps and socket temp was more like 5C difference instead of 15C, and it ran cooler overall. So now, with 72F ambient (22.2C) temperatures I'm seeing temperatures around 73C core and 82C socket with the same workload (Cinebench R20) at the same OC on the CPU and RAM. This is also after turning the machine on and letting it idle in Windows for around 20 minutes to warm up, allow the coolant in the CLC to heat up, and let the idle temperatures stabilize.

I would say that unless your temperatures are causing issues like mine (e.g. thermal shutdown/exceeding 95C) that it probably isn't worth switching your current cooler for it- unless you already have some pretty great fans laying around and a solid TIM (Arctic MX-4 or any of the others I listed, see the Tom's Hardware link). You might only really gain 3C better temps or something and it also depends on what chip you have.

I use an AIO/CLC because I have two 1080tis that can pull up to 350W each overclocked (depending on workload- tested with a Kill-a-Watt meter), get above 70C on 100% fan, and exhaust all of that hot air up onto the CPU socket area. Heat rises. With the rad in the top and the fans on it pulling hot air up and out of the case, while also cooling the CPU, it's a much better setup than having a giant hunk of metal (that will absorb that 700W of heat from the 1080ti's) in the way. Also, I set up my front and rear fans to form basically a wind tunnel going over the socket and the top card- the front fan goes to 3k RPM and the rear goes to 2k- it works well for me. (I am yet to test something like Fire Strike Ultra combined test looped with this CPU overclocked and my 1080tis overclocked and see if it's adequate, but realistically, no game I play is going to hammer my CPU or my GPUs like that. I'd honestly be surprised if my cooling is good enough to handle that specific test without the CPU overheating, unless I take my side panel and top and front fan filters off.)


----------



## The Stilt

Here are modified bioses for Crosshair VIII boards, which include the new SMU 46.49.0 release that improves boost behavior / margin on 3000-series CPUs.

Do note that these are totally untested, rebuilt bioses. Despite I fully expect them to work, there is no guarantee what so ever that they actually do.

Also since the bioses have been rebuilt, their original signatures allowing them to be flashed using official software (e.g. EzFlash) tools are invalid. Because of that, *they can be only flashed in using the Flashback feature*.

In case they do not work or introduce some kind of an issue, you can revert to original bios by using Flashback function.

Also note that these bioses ARE NOT based AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA code revision, as the whole code base has not been upgraded (only the SMU firmwares).
Therefore the behavior might not be identical to true 1.0.0.3ABBA bios builds.

Naming: Official bios build, M = Modification, FI = 4649 (ASCII)

Crosshair VIII Formula 0803M-FI

Crosshair VIII Hero 0803M-FI

Crosshair VIII Hero Wi-Fi 0803M-FI



Please let me know if they work or not, so that I can take them down if they're not working.


----------



## eyecrave

Actually the ram i have is b die and i don't think i will be buying anymore ram as 32gb is more than enough for me. The reason why i was looking at the trident z neo kits was i initially just wanted to set xmp and use my pc and newegg canada only sold the 64gb kit not the 32gb one. I will stick with the settings i have for now since all i've been doing so far is benchmarking and trying to get my system stable and not playing enough games. Also i have a 3800x and as far as i know anything under the 3900x/3950x will have only have half the write bandwith. Not sure if that also effects the read and copy but most of the aida screenshots i've seen that are not 3900x don't hit 60gb/s read and copy.

I've hit lik 84c with cinebench r20 multicore with my nhd15s but for gaming max is around 60c so for now im content with it. I will probably wait to swap out the noctua for the corsair once i get a new m2 drive as it's a pain to install anything else with that big cooler in the way since i have to take out my 1080 ti just to remove the fan then the cooler so i want to do it all in one go. I also want to try the 3 dot method to see if i can get lower temps and as far as thermal pastes go i have some ic diamond but it's pretty old so i'm just using the noctua paste that came with my cooler.


----------



## OneCosmic

The Stilt said:


> Here are modified bioses for Crosshair VIII boards, which include the new SMU 46.49.0 release that improves boost behavior / margin on 3000-series CPUs.
> 
> Do note that these are totally untested, rebuilt bioses. Despite I fully expect them to work, there is no guarantee what so ever that they actually do.
> 
> Also since the bioses have been rebuilt, their original signatures allowing them to be flashed using official software (e.g. EzFlash) tools are invalid. Because of that, *they can be only flashed in using the Flashback feature*.
> 
> In case they do not work or introduce some kind of an issue, you can revert to original bios by using Flashback function.
> 
> Also note that these bioses ARE NOT based AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA code revision, as the whole code base has not been upgraded (only the SMU firmwares).
> Therefore the behavior might not be identical to true 1.0.0.3ABBA bios builds.
> 
> Naming: Official bios build, M = Modification, FI = 4649 (ASCII)
> 
> Crosshair VIII Formula 0803M-FI
> 
> Crosshair VIII Hero 0803M-FI
> 
> Crosshair VIII Hero Wi-Fi 0803M-FI
> 
> 
> 
> Please let me know if they work or not, so that I can take them down if they're not working.


I tried the C8H WIfi BIOS from you and so far it seems its working properly. It finally for the 1st time started to prefer 1st CCD for single thread load - before it always run on the worse core/CCD. It also boosts single core as far as 4575MHz easily in HW Info. It's possible that after longer testing it would hit 4.6GHz or even higher. Will try to enable PBO and try the +100MHz/+200MHz Core OC.


----------



## neurotix

The Stilt said:


> Here are modified bioses for Crosshair VIII boards, which include the new SMU 46.49.0 release that improves boost behavior / margin on 3000-series CPUs.
> 
> Do note that these are totally untested, rebuilt bioses. Despite I fully expect them to work, there is no guarantee what so ever that they actually do.
> 
> Also since the bioses have been rebuilt, their original signatures allowing them to be flashed using official software (e.g. EzFlash) tools are invalid. Because of that, *they can be only flashed in using the Flashback feature*.
> 
> In case they do not work or introduce some kind of an issue, you can revert to original bios by using Flashback function.
> 
> Also note that these bioses ARE NOT based AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA code revision, as the whole code base has not been upgraded (only the SMU firmwares).
> Therefore the behavior might not be identical to true 1.0.0.3ABBA bios builds.
> 
> Naming: Official bios build, M = Modification, FI = 4649 (ASCII)
> 
> Crosshair VIII Formula 0803M-FI
> 
> Crosshair VIII Hero 0803M-FI
> 
> Crosshair VIII Hero Wi-Fi 0803M-FI
> 
> 
> 
> Please let me know if they work or not, so that I can take them down if they're not working.


Repped good sir.

I will definitely give this a shot soon and report back.


----------



## knightriot

The Stilt said:


> Here are modified bioses for Crosshair VIII boards, which include the new SMU 46.49.0 release that improves boost behavior / margin on 3000-series CPUs.
> 
> Do note that these are totally untested, rebuilt bioses. Despite I fully expect them to work, there is no guarantee what so ever that they actually do.
> 
> Also since the bioses have been rebuilt, their original signatures allowing them to be flashed using official software (e.g. EzFlash) tools are invalid. Because of that, *they can be only flashed in using the Flashback feature*.
> 
> In case they do not work or introduce some kind of an issue, you can revert to original bios by using Flashback function.
> 
> Also note that these bioses ARE NOT based AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA code revision, as the whole code base has not been upgraded (only the SMU firmwares).
> Therefore the behavior might not be identical to true 1.0.0.3ABBA bios builds.
> 
> Naming: Official bios build, M = Modification, FI = 4649 (ASCII)
> 
> Crosshair VIII Formula 0803M-FI
> 
> Crosshair VIII Hero 0803M-FI
> 
> Crosshair VIII Hero Wi-Fi 0803M-FI
> 
> 
> 
> Please let me know if they work or not, so that I can take them down if they're not working.


you're best bro, mine 3900x booted to 4.55 in your bios  , original just 4.35~4.4


----------



## 1usmus

The Stilt said:


> Here are modified bioses for Crosshair VIII boards, which include the new SMU 46.49.0 release that improves boost behavior / margin on 3000-series CPUs.
> 
> Do note that these are totally untested, rebuilt bioses. Despite I fully expect them to work, there is no guarantee what so ever that they actually do.
> 
> Also since the bioses have been rebuilt, their original signatures allowing them to be flashed using official software (e.g. EzFlash) tools are invalid. Because of that, *they can be only flashed in using the Flashback feature*.
> 
> In case they do not work or introduce some kind of an issue, you can revert to original bios by using Flashback function.
> 
> Also note that these bioses ARE NOT based AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA code revision, as the whole code base has not been upgraded (only the SMU firmwares).
> Therefore the behavior might not be identical to true 1.0.0.3ABBA bios builds.
> 
> Naming: Official bios build, M = Modification, FI = 4649 (ASCII)
> 
> Crosshair VIII Formula 0803M-FI
> 
> Crosshair VIII Hero 0803M-FI
> 
> Crosshair VIII Hero Wi-Fi 0803M-FI
> 
> 
> 
> Please let me know if they work or not, so that I can take them down if they're not working.


thanks!
:thumb:


----------



## Jackalito

The Stilt said:


> Here are modified bioses for Crosshair VIII boards, which include the new SMU 46.49.0 release that improves boost behavior / margin on 3000-series CPUs.
> 
> Do note that these are totally untested, rebuilt bioses. Despite I fully expect them to work, there is no guarantee what so ever that they actually do.
> 
> Also since the bioses have been rebuilt, their original signatures allowing them to be flashed using official software (e.g. EzFlash) tools are invalid. Because of that, *they can be only flashed in using the Flashback feature*.
> 
> In case they do not work or introduce some kind of an issue, you can revert to original bios by using Flashback function.
> 
> Also note that these bioses ARE NOT based AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA code revision, as the whole code base has not been upgraded (only the SMU firmwares).
> Therefore the behavior might not be identical to true 1.0.0.3ABBA bios builds.
> 
> Naming: Official bios build, M = Modification, FI = 4649 (ASCII)
> 
> Crosshair VIII Formula 0803M-FI
> 
> Crosshair VIII Hero 0803M-FI
> 
> Crosshair VIII Hero Wi-Fi 0803M-FI
> 
> 
> 
> Please let me know if they work or not, so that I can take them down if they're not working.



Thank you so much for these!!!! +REP :thumb:

I'd give you REP more than once if I could. I would definitely be testing this soon enough!


----------



## DDMM1517

This BIOS of C8F has a bug.
Memory cannot be overclocked, otherwise it will restart indefinitely


----------



## DDMM1517

The Stilt said:


> Here are modified bioses for Crosshair VIII boards, which include the new SMU 46.49.0 release that improves boost behavior / margin on 3000-series CPUs.
> 
> Do note that these are totally untested, rebuilt bioses. Despite I fully expect them to work, there is no guarantee what so ever that they actually do.
> 
> Also since the bioses have been rebuilt, their original signatures allowing them to be flashed using official software (e.g. EzFlash) tools are invalid. Because of that, *they can be only flashed in using the Flashback feature*.
> 
> In case they do not work or introduce some kind of an issue, you can revert to original bios by using Flashback function.
> 
> Also note that these bioses ARE NOT based AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA code revision, as the whole code base has not been upgraded (only the SMU firmwares).
> Therefore the behavior might not be identical to true 1.0.0.3ABBA bios builds.
> 
> Naming: Official bios build, M = Modification, FI = 4649 (ASCII)
> 
> Crosshair VIII Formula 0803M-FI
> 
> Crosshair VIII Hero 0803M-FI
> 
> Crosshair VIII Hero Wi-Fi 0803M-FI
> 
> 
> 
> Please let me know if they work or not, so that I can take them down if they're not working.


This BIOS of C8F has a bug.
Memory cannot be overclocked, otherwise it will restart indefinitely


----------



## LtMatt

Has anyone managed to get the VIII Wifi version working with the updated BIOS posted by the Stilt? The USB Flashback does not complete for me. The light blinks three times then goes solid and does not update. 

I renamed the file to CH8 as specified (.cap was already included in the downloaded file) in the motherboard documentation.


----------



## centvalny

C8I and B-Die 1:1 test


----------



## Krisztias

LtMatt said:


> Has anyone managed to get the VIII Wifi version working with the updated BIOS posted by the Stilt? The USB Flashback does not complete for me. The light blinks three times then goes solid and does not update.
> 
> I renamed the file to CH8 as specified (.cap was already included in the downloaded file) in the motherboard documentation.


For the Wi-Fi version it's C8HW.CAP and not CH8 or C8H.


----------



## LtMatt

Krisztias said:


> For the Wi-Fi version it's C8HW.CAP and not CH8 or C8H.


Thanks, silly me for trusting the motherboards own documentation.


----------



## dlbsyst

LtMatt said:


> Has anyone managed to get the VIII Wifi version working with the updated BIOS posted by the Stilt? The USB Flashback does not complete for me. The light blinks three times then goes solid and does not update.
> 
> I renamed the file to CH8 as specified (.cap was already included in the downloaded file) in the motherboard documentation.


I haven't updated yet but I extracted the file and it looks like its already named and ready to go.


----------



## LtMatt

dlbsyst said:


> I haven't updated yet but I extracted the file and it looks like its already named and ready to go.


I have not tried it since, but my first attempt i didn't rename anything and it didn't work. Hopefully someone else with the Wifi version can validate it works.


----------



## The Stilt

DDMM1517 said:


> This BIOS of C8F has a bug.
> Memory cannot be overclocked, otherwise it will restart indefinitely


You mean the modified version, or version 0803 in general?


----------



## knightriot

DDMM1517 said:


> This BIOS of C8F has a bug.
> Memory cannot be overclocked, otherwise it will restart indefinitely


what's your kit? Mine corsair 3466c16 run good 3600c14 on modified , but lost "channel" in cpuz


----------



## Modaeus

The Stilt said:


> Here are modified bioses for Crosshair VIII boards, which include the new SMU 46.49.0 release that improves boost behavior / margin on 3000-series CPUs.
> 
> Do note that these are totally untested, rebuilt bioses. Despite I fully expect them to work, there is no guarantee what so ever that they actually do.
> 
> Also since the bioses have been rebuilt, their original signatures allowing them to be flashed using official software (e.g. EzFlash) tools are invalid. Because of that, *they can be only flashed in using the Flashback feature*.
> 
> In case they do not work or introduce some kind of an issue, you can revert to original bios by using Flashback function.
> 
> Also note that these bioses ARE NOT based AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA code revision, as the whole code base has not been upgraded (only the SMU firmwares).
> Therefore the behavior might not be identical to true 1.0.0.3ABBA bios builds.
> 
> Naming: Official bios build, M = Modification, FI = 4649 (ASCII)
> 
> Crosshair VIII Formula 0803M-FI
> 
> Crosshair VIII Hero 0803M-FI
> 
> Crosshair VIII Hero Wi-Fi 0803M-FI
> 
> 
> 
> Please let me know if they work or not, so that I can take them down if they're not working.


First of all, thank you for the BIOS files!
Tested the Crosshair VIII Hero, with an 3900X.

Maximum boost increased by 50 Mhz, now 2 cores are hitting 4625 Mhz. Before it topped out at 4575 Mhz.
Even noticed that max VID dropped by 0.012V, might just be a fluke though

BIOS flash was painless, did a backup of all BIOS settings to USB and loaded them in afterwards. No issues what so ever 

For those interested I am running Permance enhancer "Level 2", with no other alterations through the BIOS except fan curves.


----------



## dlbsyst

Your custom 0803 BIOS is a keeper The Stilt. It looks just like the original 0803 BIOS in the settings and I have no problem getting my same overclock RAM settings of 3600Mhz Fast timing of 14, 15, 14, 14, 28, 42 and GDM disabled. Runs like a champ. All of my single and multi core scores went up. For example my CB R20 single went from 517 to 524 and my multi went from 7401 to 7409. Thank you so much The Stilt for all the hard work and sharing it with us mere mortals.


----------



## FlanK3r

centvalny said:


> C8I and B-Die 1:1 test


with Maxmem size? Or without it?

btw, big thanks to The Stilt, u are true AMD fan


----------



## dlbsyst

LtMatt said:


> I have not tried it since, but my first attempt i didn't rename anything and it didn't work. Hopefully someone else with the Wifi version can validate it works.


I can confirm it works fine LtMatt with my Wifi Hero. I'm sorry you are having issues. This is what I do. Format a thumb drive Fat32. Use Biosrenamer to rename the BIOS file C8HW. Copy file to root of the thumb drive. Turn off PC. Plug in to back USB port marked BIOS Flashback. Push the top left button and hold for a second until it starts flashing. Let it do its thing for about 2 minutes. Unplug, boot and enter BIOS settings and done.


----------



## eyecrave

The Stilt said:


> Here are modified bioses for Crosshair VIII boards, which include the new SMU 46.49.0 release that improves boost behavior / margin on 3000-series CPUs.
> 
> Do note that these are totally untested, rebuilt bioses. Despite I fully expect them to work, there is no guarantee what so ever that they actually do.
> 
> Also since the bioses have been rebuilt, their original signatures allowing them to be flashed using official software (e.g. EzFlash) tools are invalid. Because of that, *they can be only flashed in using the Flashback feature*.
> 
> In case they do not work or introduce some kind of an issue, you can revert to original bios by using Flashback function.
> 
> Also note that these bioses ARE NOT based AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA code revision, as the whole code base has not been upgraded (only the SMU firmwares).
> Therefore the behavior might not be identical to true 1.0.0.3ABBA bios builds.
> 
> Naming: Official bios build, M = Modification, FI = 4649 (ASCII)
> 
> Crosshair VIII Formula 0803M-FI
> 
> Crosshair VIII Hero 0803M-FI
> 
> Crosshair VIII Hero Wi-Fi 0803M-FI
> 
> 
> 
> Please let me know if they work or not, so that I can take them down if they're not working.



Working so far on crosshair 8 wifi and 3800x. Boosts seem to be more consistent and stays above 4400-4475 most of the time but can boost to 4550 and seeing 4500 more often instead of just a second on idle. On previous 0803 bios it would be 4300-4375 with the odd time hitting 4400-4425 but mostly 4300-4375. Just did one run of cb20 and multi core seems to have dropped for me but single core went up. Only thing not working for me seems to be the mouse in the bios but easy enough to navigate with the keyboard. Will do more testing but so far so good and thanks for your work.


----------



## LtMatt

dlbsyst said:


> I can confirm it works fine LtMatt with my Wifi Hero. I'm sorry you are having issues. This is what I do. Format a thumb drive Fat32. Use Biosrenamer to rename the BIOS file C8HW. Copy file to root of the thumb drive. Turn off PC. Plug in to back USB port marked BIOS Flashback. Push the top left button and hold for a second until it starts flashing. Let it do its thing for about 2 minutes. Unplug, boot and enter BIOS settings and done.


Thanks mate, i will give it another go and copy your exact steps.


----------



## LtMatt

dlbsyst said:


> I can confirm it works fine LtMatt with my Wifi Hero. I'm sorry you are having issues. This is what I do. Format a thumb drive Fat32. Use Biosrenamer to rename the BIOS file C8HW. Copy file to root of the thumb drive. Turn off PC. Plug in to back USB port marked BIOS Flashback. Push the top left button and hold for a second until it starts flashing. Let it do its thing for about 2 minutes. Unplug, boot and enter BIOS settings and done.





LtMatt said:


> Thanks mate, i will give it another go and copy your exact steps.


Unfortunately this does not work for me, i am not sure why as I've never had issues using Flashback before.

I'll have to wait for the official Asus BIOS.


----------



## knightriot

LtMatt said:


> Thanks mate, i will give it another go and copy your exact steps.


i have a method for you , 100% working and i using it 
Step 1: Put your usb to flashback port 
Step 2: Download Rufus https://rufus.ie/
Step 3: Select USB and config like image att
Step 3.5: Copy C8F.rom or C8H c8HW c8I.... to usb
Step 4: Shutdown pc, press clean cmos button
Step 5: Hold biosflashback button for 3 blink time, after few second you will see that light blink faster , wait until it off.
Step 6: Turn on pc


----------



## LtMatt

knightriot said:


> i have a method for you , 100% working and i using it
> Step 1: Put your usb to flashback port
> Step 2: Download Rufus https://rufus.ie/
> Step 3: Select USB and config like image att
> Step 3.5: Copy C8F.rom or C8H c8HW c8I.... to usb
> Step 4: Shutdown pc, press clean cmos button
> Step 5: Hold biosflashback button for 3 blink time, after few second you will see that light blink faster , wait until it off.
> Step 6: Turn on pc


Thank you that man, this actually worked!

I will assume that Rufus was the missing ingredient. 

I am now seeing my 3700X boosting two cores up to 4.4Ghz, which is approximately 25-50Mhz higher than before.


----------



## dlbsyst

LtMatt said:


> Unfortunately this does not work for me, i am not sure why as I've never had issues using Flashback before.
> 
> I'll have to wait for the official Asus BIOS.


Well, I'm not sure why my method didn't work out for you. 

It does look like knightriot got you all set up though.:thumb:


----------



## knightriot

LtMatt said:


> Thank you that man, this actually worked!
> 
> I will assume that Rufus was the missing ingredient.
> 
> I am now seeing my 3700X boosting two cores up to 4.4Ghz, which is approximately 25-50Mhz higher than before.





dlbsyst said:


> Well, I'm not sure why my method didn't work out for you.
> 
> It does look like knightriot got you all set up though.:thumb:


If your windows in UEFI, your usb will be fat32+ GPT , asus biosflashback function need fat32 + MBR


----------



## LtMatt

knightriot said:


> If your windows in UEFI, your usb will be fat32+ GPT , asus biosflashback function need fat32 + MBR


That would explain it then.


----------



## Jackalito

Does anyone know anything about, *MacG32*, the creator of the thread?
I haven't heard from him around here for weeks now.


----------



## }SkOrPn--'

Anyone know if the Crosshair VIII Hero will possibly support all of the rest of the AM4 generations without 3rd party bios mods? I want to get this board for my 2600X and then replace the 2600X with a 4900X, or what ever next Gen 4000 series has to offer. I'm just not liking the crap immature silicon of the 3000 series and want to bypass it all together. My current B350 board has a shattered pcie slot, so I want to replace it this year sometime, but with something really really nice and 16 core future ready. I really like how cool this boards vrm performs too.

So you reckon it should support both 4000 and 5000 AM4 series? I'm guessing it most definitely will.


----------



## MacG32

Jackalito said:


> Does anyone know anything about, *MacG32*, the creator of the thread?
> I haven't heard from him around here for weeks now.



I moved from Washington to New York and have been getting settled in. I've been lurking and reading up on what's been posted since my move. Thank you for your concern. :thumb: I should be more active again starting next week some time.


----------



## criznit

I haven't upgraded to the new bios yet, but I found out something very important. McAfee (I know) causes the processor to run @100% when at the desktop. This caused my temps to be 40-55 during desktop usage. I went and uninstalled the program and now my processor idles properly @28C. Just FYI for anyone else with antivirus/mcafee installed.

Edit: False alarm... It seems that the restart capped my clocks to 3.8


----------



## OzzyRuleZ

eyecrave said:


> Working so far on crosshair 8 wifi and 3800x. Boosts seem to be more consistent and stays above 4400-4475 most of the time but can boost to 4550 and seeing 4500 more often instead of just a second on idle. On previous 0803 bios it would be 4300-4375 with the odd time hitting 4400-4425 but mostly 4300-4375. Just did one run of cb20 and multi core seems to have dropped for me but single core went up. Only thing not working for me seems to be the mouse in the bios but easy enough to navigate with the keyboard. Will do more testing but so far so good and thanks for your work.


Pretty much exactly the results I'm seeing with my CH8 Wifi and 3800x. Down to the increase in single core and small loss in multi. Though I rarely stress all the cores at once most of my games see around 100mhz more than before so I call it a win.


----------



## Rollergold

I recently upgrade to the 3900x (From X58) and CH8-HW and since this is my first AMD CPU since Socket 939 (and my first time ever overclocking an AMD CPU) I looked up some overclocking guides to get my Ram dialed in but when it comes to the CPU my temps seem to be way out of line even at idle. 

Running at 4.1-4.2ghz @ 1.35v on the cpu (Bios and AMD Ryzen Master) and start the "Classroom" blender render I hit 93-95c in about 5 seconds after about 10 seconds the system resets and the Bios gives me the CPU Overtemp Error. Setting Ryzen Master's OC mode to Default and no change to any of the core multipliers and running the same blender render it finishes but I still hit over 80C and 50-51C at idle. 

I run a Custom Loop with an EK Supermacy EVO and 2 360mm EK PE rads and while I expected more heat then my X58 Xeons I should never be seeing temps this high with this cooling. I'm running the latest available BIOS from Asus (803) as of this port. I also checked the block before install and did not remember seeing any build up or gunk in the block. 

Please see my settings (from windows) (and Tim application) below and maybe let me know what I'm missing here/doing wrong. I can post settings from the Bios if needed.


----------



## Modaeus

*Modaeus*



Rollergold said:


> I recently upgrade to the 3900x (From X58) and CH8-HW and since this is my first AMD CPU since Socket 939 (and my first time ever overclocking an AMD CPU) I looked up some overclocking guides to get my Ram dialed in but when it comes to the CPU my temps seem to be way out of line even at idle.
> 
> Running at 4.1-4.2ghz @ 1.35v on the cpu (Bios and AMD Ryzen Master) and start the "Classroom" blender render I hit 93-95c in about 5 seconds after about 10 seconds the system resets and the Bios gives me the CPU Overtemp Error. Setting Ryzen Master's OC mode to Default and no change to any of the core multipliers and running the same blender render it finishes but I still hit over 80C and 50-51C at idle.
> 
> I run a Custom Loop with an EK Supermacy EVO and 2 360mm EK PE rads and while I expected more heat then my X58 Xeons I should never be seeing temps this high with this cooling. I'm running the latest available BIOS from Asus (803) as of this port. I also checked the block before install and did not remember seeing any build up or gunk in the block.
> 
> Please see my settings (from windows) (and Tim application) below and maybe let me know what I'm missing here/doing wrong. I can post settings from the Bios if needed.


Your results are no that far from my own. Running an EK Velocity block with 2 480 PE rads
HWinfo reports roughly 180W used by the CPU on 4.1 Ghz @ 1.25V for me, which yields a max temp of 85C.


----------



## LtMatt

Heads up guys, looks like the updated BIOS for the CH VIII series can be found here: https://www.hardwareluxx.de/communi...s-agesa-ubersicht-12-09-19-a-1228903.html#2.7

About to try the Wifi version myself.


----------



## dlbsyst

LtMatt said:


> Heads up guys, looks like the updated BIOS for the CH VIII series can be found here: https://www.hardwareluxx.de/communi...s-agesa-ubersicht-12-09-19-a-1228903.html#2.7
> 
> About to try the Wifi version myself.


Very cool! Thanks for the heads up. Let us know if it's a keeper and what kind of results you get.

I'll install it later, after work if you give it the :thumb:


----------



## dlbsyst

MacG32 said:


> I moved from Washington to New York and have been getting settled in. I've been lurking and reading up on what's been posted since my move. Thank you for your concern. :thumb: I should be more active again starting next week some time.


Nice to see you back MacG32.:thumb: I hope your move wasn't too stressful and went smoothly for ya.


----------



## LtMatt

dlbsyst said:


> Very cool! Thanks for the heads up. Let us know if it's a keeper and what kind of results you get.
> 
> I'll install it later, after work if you give it the :thumb:


I have updated, no issues so far.

New CCX section in the BIOS, other than that, don't see much change.

I have not checked performance, but clock speeds are higher than the 0803 BIOS. 

I run with performance enhancer at level 3, 3700X with 3800Mhz CL16 and FCLK at 1900Mhz. HCI memtest 1000% stable.


----------



## PainKiller89

What is the difference between 803M and 1001? Should we update it to the 1001?


----------



## dlbsyst

PainKiller89 said:


> What is the difference between 803M and 1001? Should we update it to the 1001?


803m is the custom BIOS created by The Stilt. 1001 is the new beta BIOS from Asus. I only had a few minutes to test the new 1001 but it seems to offer very similar performance to The Stilts version although the single core was ever so slightly inferior to his. Multi core seemed the same. The 1001 Beta is supposed to be using the ABBA MCU but I'm not convinced it's the final one from AMD. The BIOS is dated 9-9-19 which means Asus had to have been working on it for a while. I don't think AMD had it ready until the 10th according to there documentation posted on the web. I'm curious what others think of this new beta.


----------



## Reikoji

dlbsyst said:


> 803m is the custom BIOS created by The Stilt. 1001 is the new beta BIOS from Asus. I only had a few minutes to test the new 1001 but it seems to offer very similar performance to The Stilts version although the single core was ever so slightly interior to his. Multi core seemed the same. The 1001 Beta is supposed to be using the ABBA MCU but I'm not convinced it's the final one from AMD. The BIOS is dated 9-9-19 which means Asus had to have been working on it for a while. I don't think AMD had it ready until the 10th according to there documentation posted on the web.


The boost duration is certainly wanting... wish we could just override whatever conservative setting they have. 1001 does give me higher single score scores in both R15 and R20, but still not as high as a manually set 4.6ghz. its close tho.

no new issues so far. can still oc my ram and fclk to the same as before.


----------



## Reikoji

Ah ive been meaning to ask. For memory tuning, our boards have a tRFC2 and tRFC4 along with the one tRFC setting ryzen memory calculator provides. what are good settings for these?


----------



## dlbsyst

Reikoji said:


> Ah ive been meaning to ask. For memory tuning, our boards have a tRFC2 and tRFC4 along with the one tRFC setting ryzen memory calculator provides. what are good settings for these?


His Ryzen calculator gives you a value under trfc alt. Plug that number into trfc2 and trfc4. That's what I do.


----------



## Reikoji

dlbsyst said:


> His Ryzen calculator gives you a value under trfc alt. Plug that number into trfc2 and trfc4. That's what I do.


Even if AUTO gives a lower value than the alt? tRFC4 on auto is even lower than the tRFC value given by ryzen calculator. I did set the tRFC2 to the tRFC alt value given, but wondering if these should be different or even lower than that.


----------



## neurotix

*bios*

Well, I got my older Samsung B-Die up to 3800MHz and 1900fclk...only took a week or so to figure out..

It needs more stability testing, but I am not sure exactly how to do this or what to set in Ryzen DRAM Calculator Membench section. The "Scope" was 360% and on my 3900X, I saw the max load top out at around 10% per thread. However, it seems that all of the options on the left side in this section are grayed out/unchangeable. Do I need to click the "max RAM" button before running it? I highly doubt it was stressing the memory/CPU enough if each thread only went up to 10%.

I actually tried using MemTestHelper as well and it isn't ideal though it works, when I told it to test 2GB of RAM it eventually popped up a bunch of errors complaining that the Windows scheduler couldn't assign any more RAM or something. I also had to sit and manually click "ok" twice for every single instance of MemTest it spawned (24 in all) before it worked, but I was forced to use less memory (each thread had like 80mb...). Do I need to take the total I want tested and divide it by 24 to get the correct value to enter in MemTestHelper? If so I'll try again but that program was a little wonky.

Is there any reason/anything preventing me from running the old-school 'MemTest86' off of a flash drive? Should I use Ryzen DRAM Calc and click 'Max Ram'? What about running max threads on something like x264 benchmark that was used to test Intels for stability a few years ago (it runs in a cmd prompt and tests both cpu + ram stability)? I could try something like HWBOT x265 but only as long as it doesn't use AVX. I've heard AIDA64 memory test isn't great at finding memory errors anymore either.

The last screen is Cinebench R20 before I worked on getting my memory higher. I am using Shamino's 0017 bios from the ROG forums that adds per-CCX overclocking. I got that score with the CPU at 4400/4400/4200/4200 w/ 1.36v. Max temps were around 75C and sitting totally idle in Windows, but especially in Linux, even though it claims it's at max clock all the time it actually idles as low as 29C. Spikes up to 35C but generally sits around 32, with lows being 29C- this is great because the rig sits idle often in Linux as a file server... the majority of the access is actually I/O access only, with no reencoding or usage of the CPU really. For that purpose, my previous i7-4790k was still perfectly fine. 

My question is, with things set up the way they are now, is there really any benefit to me using The_Stilt's BIOS? Does it also have per-CCX overclocking? It seems like you actually get significantly improved performance, both single and multithread (I use CPU-Z to test single thread and compared to letting the CPU OC itself, I get 30 points higher with the CCX overclock) when you overclock a little lower instead of aiming for max boost clocks, probably because it is maintained for the entire load, instead of CCD0 CCX0 hitting 4625mhz for a second or two but immediately downclocking because of heat to ~4300 or under, probably millions of times per second (or more). I'd rather have locked sustained performance than inconsistent, jumpy performance thats potentially higher, but in very short durations.

Thanks.


----------



## dlbsyst

Reikoji said:


> Even if AUTO gives a lower value than the alt? tRFC4 on auto is even lower than the tRFC value given by ryzen calculator. I did set the tRFC2 to the tRFC alt value given, but wondering if these should be different or even lower than that.


Well, I would try both and see which one offers the better performance as far as latency. The lower the latency the better. You'll also want to run some stability tests to make sure your RAM overclock is stable. Unstable RAM will corrupt Windows over time. I have never even tried the Auto setting myself. Thanks for suggesting that. I will test it out myself after work.


----------



## dlbsyst

neurotix said:


> Well, I got my older Samsung B-Die up to 3800MHz and 1900fclk...only took a week or so to figure out..
> 
> It needs more stability testing, but I am not sure exactly how to do this or what to set in Ryzen DRAM Calculator Membench section. The "Scope" was 360% and on my 3900X, I saw the max load top out at around 10% per thread. However, it seems that all of the options on the left side in this section are grayed out/unchangeable. Do I need to click the "max RAM" button before running it? I highly doubt it was stressing the memory/CPU enough if each thread only went up to 10%.
> 
> I actually tried using MemTestHelper as well and it isn't ideal though it works, when I told it to test 2GB of RAM it eventually popped up a bunch of errors complaining that the Windows scheduler couldn't assign any more RAM or something. I also had to sit and manually click "ok" twice for every single instance of MemTest it spawned (24 in all) before it worked, but I was forced to use less memory (each thread had like 80mb...). Do I need to take the total I want tested and divide it by 24 to get the correct value to enter in MemTestHelper? If so I'll try again but that program was a little wonky.
> 
> Is there any reason/anything preventing me from running the old-school 'MemTest86' off of a flash drive? Should I use Ryzen DRAM Calc and click 'Max Ram'? What about running max threads on something like x264 benchmark that was used to test Intels for stability a few years ago (it runs in a cmd prompt and tests both cpu + ram stability)? I could try something like HWBOT x265 but only as long as it doesn't use AVX. I've heard AIDA64 memory test isn't great at finding memory errors anymore either.
> 
> The last screen is Cinebench R20 before I worked on getting my memory higher. I am using Shamino's 0017 bios from the ROG forums that adds per-CCX overclocking. I got that score with the CPU at 4400/4400/4200/4200 w/ 1.36v. Max temps were around 75C and sitting totally idle in Windows, but especially in Linux, even though it claims it's at max clock all the time it actually idles as low as 29C. Spikes up to 35C but generally sits around 32, with lows being 29C- this is great because the rig sits idle often in Linux as a file server... the majority of the access is actually I/O access only, with no reencoding or usage of the CPU really. For that purpose, my previous i7-4790k was still perfectly fine.
> 
> My question is, with things set up the way they are now, is there really any benefit to me using The_Stilt's BIOS? Does it also have per-CCX overclocking? It seems like you actually get significantly improved performance, both single and multithread (I use CPU-Z to test single thread and compared to letting the CPU OC itself, I get 30 points higher with the CCX overclock) when you overclock a little lower instead of aiming for max boost clocks, probably because it is maintained for the entire load, instead of CCD0 CCX0 hitting 4625mhz for a second or two but immediately downclocking because of heat to ~4300 or under, probably millions of times per second (or more). I'd rather have locked sustained performance than inconsistent, jumpy performance thats potentially higher, but in very short durations.
> 
> Thanks.


Great job on your RAM overclock. Your latency is better than mine. I'm running my 4 B-die Flair-X sticks using 1usmus fast timings at 3600Mhz GDM disabled. My latency is 65.6 ns. I am definitely going to try for better.


----------



## zsoltmol

Rollergold said:


> I recently upgrade to the 3900x (From X58) and CH8-HW and since this is my first AMD CPU since Socket 939 (and my first time ever overclocking an AMD CPU) I looked up some overclocking guides to get my Ram dialed in but when it comes to the CPU my temps seem to be way out of line even at idle.
> 
> Running at 4.1-4.2ghz @ 1.35v on the cpu (Bios and AMD Ryzen Master) and start the "Classroom" blender render I hit 93-95c in about 5 seconds after about 10 seconds the system resets and the Bios gives me the CPU Overtemp Error. Setting Ryzen Master's OC mode to Default and no change to any of the core multipliers and running the same blender render it finishes but I still hit over 80C and 50-51C at idle.
> 
> I run a Custom Loop with an EK Supermacy EVO and 2 360mm EK PE rads and while I expected more heat then my X58 Xeons I should never be seeing temps this high with this cooling. I'm running the latest available BIOS from Asus (803) as of this port. I also checked the block before install and did not remember seeing any build up or gunk in the block.
> 
> Please see my settings (from windows) (and Tim application) below and maybe let me know what I'm missing here/doing wrong. I can post settings from the Bios if needed.


Interesting, what is your idle voltage? Do you use AMD Ryzen Balanced power plan in Windows? My idle voltage is 0.35-0.45v. Once in a while Ryzen Master starts to show higher voltage and temp for idle. Uninstall it and reinstall it without changing anything, this was needed 2 times in 2 months for me (start with this step immediately).

My setup:
EK Velocity Block - regular orientation
EK D5 PWM pump with 10/16mm tubes, RPM at full load is 4000-4600
1x BlackIce Nemesis GTS280 slim radiator - inside PC housing
1x BlackIce Nemesis GTX280 54mm radiator - outside PC housing
Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut paste

Room temp: 26 celsius
Idle: 28 celsius
Full load (Aida64 Stress Test): max 87 celsius
Cinebench R20 all core: max 74 celsius
Prime95 Torture Test small FFT 24 thread: max 83 celsius
Prime95 Torture Test Insmall-place large FFT 24 thread: max 73 celsius

PBO enabled, default settings:
Voltage at Cinebench R20 all core test is 1.300V
Voltage at Prime95 all core tests is 1.380V


----------



## Rollergold

zsoltmol said:


> Interesting, what is your idle voltage? Do you use AMD Ryzen Balanced power plan in Windows? My idle voltage is 0.35-0.45v. Once in a while Ryzen Master starts to show higher voltage and temp for idle. Uninstall it and reinstall it without changing anything, this was needed 2 times in 2 months for me (start with this step immediately).
> 
> My setup:
> EK Velocity Block - regular orientation
> EK D5 PWM pump with 10/16mm tubes, RPM at full load is 4000-4600
> 1x BlackIce Nemesis GTS280 slim radiator - inside PC housing
> 1x BlackIce Nemesis GTX280 54mm radiator - outside PC housing
> Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut paste
> 
> Room temp: 26 celsius
> Idle: 28 celsius
> Full load (Aida64 Stress Test): max 87 celsius
> Cinebench R20 all core: max 74 celsius
> Prime95 Torture Test small FFT 24 thread: max 83 celsius
> Prime95 Torture Test Insmall-place large FFT 24 thread: max 73 celsius
> 
> PBO enabled, default settings:
> Voltage at Cinebench R20 all core test is 1.300V
> Voltage at Prime95 all core tests is 1.380V


The power plan was set to High Performance. I set it to Ryzen Balanced and then uninstalled and re downloaded/installed Ryzen Master and this is what I get at idle


----------



## zsoltmol

Rollergold said:


> The power plan was set to High Performance. I set it to Ryzen Balanced and then uninstalled and re downloaded/installed Ryzen Master and this is what I get at idle


Try to uninstall AMD Drivers and reinstall the newest one. Do you use Windows 10 with the May update? Like version: 1903 OS build: 18362.295 or higher?


----------



## MacG32

dlbsyst said:


> Nice to see you back MacG32.:thumb: I hope your move wasn't too stressful and went smoothly for ya.



Thank you very much.  Everything seems to be going fairly smooth, surprisingly. :thumb:


----------



## dlbsyst

MacG32 said:


> Thank you very much.  Everything seems to be going fairly smooth, surprisingly. :thumb:


Well that's good news.


----------



## Reikoji

Rollergold said:


> The power plan was set to High Performance. I set it to Ryzen Balanced and then uninstalled and re downloaded/installed Ryzen Master and this is what I get at idle


Very active idle.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

You know guys, as nice as 3800 Mhz CL16 sounds from DRAM calculator, it doesn't really do too much over low timings of 3733 and 3600. 

Of course if you can manually tune 3800 Mhz it will be very beastly. All I'm saying is that the DRAM calculator is just a start. It's not the final tune of what 3800 Mhz can be. 

Custom tuned 3800 Mhz results: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uHdEavdBVH0c0LnWnwbUWDxC306YgnKir_W3ticgdYQ/edit#gid=0

These timings come from this article. Steven shows you the manual timings he uses. https://www.techspot.com/review/1891-ryzen-memory-performance-scaling/


----------



## Reikoji

105w limit Prime95 non-AVX


----------



## dlbsyst

KingEngineRevUp said:


> You know guys, as nice as 3800 Mhz CL16 sounds from DRAM calculator, it doesn't really do too much over low timings of 3733 and 3600.
> 
> Of course if you can manually tune 3800 Mhz it will be very beastly. All I'm saying is that the DRAM calculator is just a start. It's not the final tune of what 3800 Mhz can be.
> 
> Custom tuned 3800 Mhz results: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uHdEavdBVH0c0LnWnwbUWDxC306YgnKir_W3ticgdYQ/edit#gid=0
> 
> These timings come from this article. Steven shows you the manual timings he uses. https://www.techspot.com/review/1891-ryzen-memory-performance-scaling/


I definitely do but how does one adjust timings. I am only getting 65.6ns latency on my RAM and I know it can do better. I'm starting from 1usmus fast timings at 3600Mhz GDM disabled. What are the steps to find my best timings at that speed. I'm all ears.


----------



## eyecrave

OzzyRuleZ said:


> Pretty much exactly the results I'm seeing with my CH8 Wifi and 3800x. Down to the increase in single core and small loss in multi. Though I rarely stress all the cores at once most of my games see around 100mhz more than before so I call it a win.


Yeah it's a good start and hopefully we will see better results once the bios becomes more mature and PBO actually works.



LtMatt said:


> Heads up guys, looks like the updated BIOS for the CH VIII series can be found here: https://www.hardwareluxx.de/communi...s-agesa-ubersicht-12-09-19-a-1228903.html#2.7
> 
> About to try the Wifi version myself.


You can actually download this through the bios using EZ Flash.



MacG32 said:


> I moved from Washington to New York and have been getting settled in. I've been lurking and reading up on what's been posted since my move. Thank you for your concern. :thumb: I should be more active again starting next week some time.


Good to see you back ...you have lots of updates. 



neurotix said:


> Well, I got my older Samsung B-Die up to 3800MHz and 1900fclk...only took a week or so to figure out..
> 
> It needs more stability testing, but I am not sure exactly how to do this or what to set in Ryzen DRAM Calculator Membench section. The "Scope" was 360% and on my 3900X, I saw the max load top out at around 10% per thread. However, it seems that all of the options on the left side in this section are grayed out/unchangeable. Do I need to click the "max RAM" button before running it? I highly doubt it was stressing the memory/CPU enough if each thread only went up to 10%.
> 
> I actually tried using MemTestHelper as well and it isn't ideal though it works, when I told it to test 2GB of RAM it eventually popped up a bunch of errors complaining that the Windows scheduler couldn't assign any more RAM or something. I also had to sit and manually click "ok" twice for every single instance of MemTest it spawned (24 in all) before it worked, but I was forced to use less memory (each thread had like 80mb...). Do I need to take the total I want tested and divide it by 24 to get the correct value to enter in MemTestHelper? If so I'll try again but that program was a little wonky.
> 
> Is there any reason/anything preventing me from running the old-school 'MemTest86' off of a flash drive? Should I use Ryzen DRAM Calc and click 'Max Ram'? What about running max threads on something like x264 benchmark that was used to test Intels for stability a few years ago (it runs in a cmd prompt and tests both cpu + ram stability)? I could try something like HWBOT x265 but only as long as it doesn't use AVX. I've heard AIDA64 memory test isn't great at finding memory errors anymore either.
> 
> The last screen is Cinebench R20 before I worked on getting my memory higher. I am using Shamino's 0017 bios from the ROG forums that adds per-CCX overclocking. I got that score with the CPU at 4400/4400/4200/4200 w/ 1.36v. Max temps were around 75C and sitting totally idle in Windows, but especially in Linux, even though it claims it's at max clock all the time it actually idles as low as 29C. Spikes up to 35C but generally sits around 32, with lows being 29C- this is great because the rig sits idle often in Linux as a file server... the majority of the access is actually I/O access only, with no reencoding or usage of the CPU really. For that purpose, my previous i7-4790k was still perfectly fine.
> 
> My question is, with things set up the way they are now, is there really any benefit to me using The_Stilt's BIOS? Does it also have per-CCX overclocking? It seems like you actually get significantly improved performance, both single and multithread (I use CPU-Z to test single thread and compared to letting the CPU OC itself, I get 30 points higher with the CCX overclock) when you overclock a little lower instead of aiming for max boost clocks, probably because it is maintained for the entire load, instead of CCD0 CCX0 hitting 4625mhz for a second or two but immediately downclocking because of heat to ~4300 or under, probably millions of times per second (or more). I'd rather have locked sustained performance than inconsistent, jumpy performance thats potentially higher, but in very short durations.
> 
> Thanks.


Not sure if you had a look at https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...-ryzen-ddr4-24-7-memory-stability-thread.html but most seem to use HCI Gstat or ramtest. Initially used memtest as well but the free version only lets you do 4 passes. I went and paid for the license for ramtest myself and after 8h 37 min test with 20559% coverage i have not had any bsod or crashes so far so it seems pretty legit.



dlbsyst said:


> I definitely do but how does one adjust timings. I am only getting 65.6ns latency on my RAM and I know it can do better. I'm starting from 1usmus fast timings at 3600Mhz GDM disabled. What are the steps to find my best timings at that speed. I'm all ears.


I'm new to overclocking ram myself but if you don't mind reading to understand some of the timings this is a pretty good guide https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4 OC Guide.md. Got my ram 32gb dual rank to 63.5 ns.

So upgraded from bios to ABBA version using ez flash. Only difference between what stilt posted is that it seems to switch cores more often and faster. Played a little bit with PBO and didn't see much OC going higher than 75 mhz but very little and you won't see the difference except hwinfo will pick it up. Showed 4625mhz on one core while doing some benches but to me it's not worth it since i lose my idle voltages as well with PBO on. Went from 0.200v idle to 1.01v with PBO on so hopefully it will get fixed eventually.


----------



## Reikoji

hum, just got 214 single core in R15 with 1001 after enabling core performance boost and level 3 performance enhancer. Sameish as i scored with my manual which was doing 216 on a good day.

The power of ABBA!


----------



## Reikoji

Still need to do more fine tuning, but is basically 3800 fast from Ryzen calculator. I think some timings can be dialed down even tighter.


----------



## MacG32

eyecrave said:


> Good to see you back ...you have lots of updates.



Thank you very much.  I'll probably get started on them this weekend. Seems I have some free time. :thumb:

_______________________________________________


The ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Impact has launched. :specool:


----------



## neurotix

Reikoji said:


> Still need to do more fine tuning, but is basically 3800 fast from Ryzen calculator. I think some timings can be dialed down even tighter.


Do you (or anyone else) know what timing, or additionally what advanced setting (the stuff from the advanced panel of Ryzen DRAM Calc, termination impedance, drive strength etc.) influences memory copy bandwidth?

I'm stable and pretty happy with my 3800MHz 1:1 16-16-16-32-50 OC but I have to use really loose timings and subtimings from DRAM Calc or I can't POST above 3600MHz (cas14). This is fine as the bandwidth and latency are both significantly improved over 3600MHz CAS14. I noticed in my testing of various profiles and settings (particularly when messing with stuff in AMD CBS like BankSwapAlt, training options, interleaving size, etc) that at one point some setting caused my Memory Copy Bandwidth to be ~3000-4000MB higher than Read Bandwidth. Similar to your screenshot. This was like a week ago though, and in my quest to hit 3800MHz it is no longer higher but more in line with Read and Write.









Thats mine currently. What setting or timing affects Memory Copy so heavily?


----------



## AvengedRobix

I've a c7h and i'm looking for upgrade.. anyone can test mynram Setting and post result? Tnx









Inviato dal mio ONEPLUS A6013 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## usoldier

So the latest 1001 Bios is on for the Hero 8 website : https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/ROG-Crosshair-VIII-Hero/HelpDesk_Download/ 

How long we usualy have to wait for the Hero 8 wifi version ?


----------



## MacG32

usoldier said:


> So the latest 1001 Bios is on for the Hero 8 website : https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/ROG-Crosshair-VIII-Hero/HelpDesk_Download/
> 
> How long we usualy have to wait for the Hero 8 wifi version ?



It's up for the WiFi version too under Drivers & Tools, but not under BIOS... +Rep Good find. :thumb:



criznit said:


> Very nice! The results are really close to my 3733 CL16 settings



If you disable this setting, your FSB will go to 100MHz. :thumb:


----------



## kenshabby

new c8i bios


ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BIOS 1001
Update AM4 combo PI 1.0.0.3 patch ABBA to improve system performance 
Before running the USB BIOS Flashback tool, please rename the BIOS file (*.CAP) using BIOSRenamer.
https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/ROG-Crosshair-VIII-Impact/HelpDesk_BIOS/


----------



## lklem

My 4 sticks 8GB 3200mhz CL14 bdie kit was able to run at 3600mhz CL14 on previous bios, but not on the latest 1001 ABBA version, PC keep restarting.


----------



## usoldier

MacG32 said:


> It's up for the WiFi version too under Drivers & Tools, but not under BIOS... +Rep Good find. :thumb:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you disable this setting, your FSB will go to 100MHz. :thumb:



Found it thanks alot MacG32


----------



## Reikoji

neurotix said:


> Do you (or anyone else) know what timing, or additionally what advanced setting (the stuff from the advanced panel of Ryzen DRAM Calc, termination impedance, drive strength etc.) influences memory copy bandwidth?
> 
> I'm stable and pretty happy with my 3800MHz 1:1 16-16-16-32-50 OC but I have to use really loose timings and subtimings from DRAM Calc or I can't POST above 3600MHz (cas14). This is fine as the bandwidth and latency are both significantly improved over 3600MHz CAS14. I noticed in my testing of various profiles and settings (particularly when messing with stuff in AMD CBS like BankSwapAlt, training options, interleaving size, etc) that at one point some setting caused my Memory Copy Bandwidth to be ~3000-4000MB higher than Read Bandwidth. Similar to your screenshot. This was like a week ago though, and in my quest to hit 3800MHz it is no longer higher but more in line with Read and Write.
> 
> View attachment 295280
> 
> 
> Thats mine currently. What setting or timing affects Memory Copy so heavily?


The read, write, and copy should be based on the memory speed i believe, but i could be wrong since i dont really even know what sub timings affect memory latency the most.


----------



## dlbsyst

MacG32 said:


> It's up for the WiFi version too under Drivers & Tools, but not under BIOS... +Rep Good find. :thumb:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you disable this setting, your FSB will go to 100MHz. :thumb:


I was wondering how some of you guys were getting 100Mhz while mine was at 99.80Mhz. Thanks for the heads up MacG32.:thumb:


----------



## dlbsyst

Does anyone know if the official 1001 BIOS is identical to the Beta one we just got? In the BIOS does it show 9-9-19? I'd check myself but stuck at work right now.


----------



## Reikoji

dlbsyst said:


> Does anyone know if the official 1001 BIOS is identical to the Beta one we just got? In the BIOS does it show 9-9-19? I'd check myself but stuck at work right now.


Pretty sure they are the same thing. We just got it on unofficial channels before ASUS put it on the site first. How it usually goes. Its still 1001 so its still the same thing. They'd change the number if it were different.


----------



## dlbsyst

Reikoji said:


> Pretty sure they are the same thing. We just got it on unofficial channels before ASUS put it on the site first. How it usually goes. Its still 1001 so its still the same thing. They'd change the number if it were different.


Yeah, that does make sense. I'll be honest though. I was kind of hoping this official one was somehow even better.


----------



## Reikoji

dlbsyst said:


> Yeah, that does make sense. I'll be honest though. I was kind of hoping this official one was somehow even better.


They'll likely take that one down once theres a non-beta version of it, but It was good for them to just get that on the official site if it works. And it works :3


----------



## MacG32

dlbsyst said:


> Does anyone know if the official 1001 BIOS is identical to the Beta one we just got? In the BIOS does it show 9-9-19? I'd check myself but stuck at work right now.


They are identical. I'm just waiting for the BIOS release that turns my CD writer in to a toaster. 
______________________________________________________________________________


There are ever so slight differences in my AIDA64 Cache & Memory Benchmarks between BIOSes.


----------



## dlbsyst

I was playing around with my RAM settings earlier before heading to work. I dialed in 3800Mhz with 1usmus fast timings and it seems to offer improved read, write, copy and latency compared to my 3600Mhz speed. For some reason though it doesn't translate to a higher 3dmark Firestrike score. I'm actually getting a lower score. Anyone know why that might be happening? My GPU is an EVGA RTX 2080 ftw3.


----------



## MoroKiel

Is anyone having issues with a nvme pcie 4? I have a corsair mp600 and I can't get promised speed. I am in the corsair support forum and there are a lot of people with this motherboard and this issue.
I don't know if the problem is from motherboard or the nvme


----------



## dlbsyst

MoroKiel said:


> Is anyone having issues with a nvme pcie 4? I have a corsair mp600 and I can't get promised speed. I am in the corsair support forum and there are a lot of people with this motherboard and this issue.
> I don't know if the problem is from motherboard or the nvme


Are you talking about the low write speed? I read that it drops way down when the drive starts filling up. I'm pretty sure it's the mp600 and not the motherboard. I'm however not 100% certain. I was going to buy one of these drives because I want to take advantage of the improved speeds the Pcie 4 offers but when I read about this I decided to avoid the mp600. I like Samsung's NVME drives and will wait until they come out with theirs. It's not like my 970 Evo plus isn't already insanely fast.

I recommend you return the drive if you can because Corsair doesn't seem to be doing anything to correct this problem if the info on the support forums are any indication.


----------



## jedi95

The Stilt said:


> Here are modified bioses for Crosshair VIII boards, which include the new SMU 46.49.0 release that improves boost behavior / margin on 3000-series CPUs.
> 
> Do note that these are totally untested, rebuilt bioses. Despite I fully expect them to work, there is no guarantee what so ever that they actually do.
> 
> Also since the bioses have been rebuilt, their original signatures allowing them to be flashed using official software (e.g. EzFlash) tools are invalid. Because of that, *they can be only flashed in using the Flashback feature*.
> 
> In case they do not work or introduce some kind of an issue, you can revert to original bios by using Flashback function.
> 
> Also note that these bioses ARE NOT based AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA code revision, as the whole code base has not been upgraded (only the SMU firmwares).
> Therefore the behavior might not be identical to true 1.0.0.3ABBA bios builds.
> 
> Naming: Official bios build, M = Modification, FI = 4649 (ASCII)
> 
> Crosshair VIII Formula 0803M-FI
> 
> Crosshair VIII Hero 0803M-FI
> 
> Crosshair VIII Hero Wi-Fi 0803M-FI
> 
> 
> 
> Please let me know if they work or not, so that I can take them down if they're not working.


Thanks for the BIOS! It's working perfectly for me on the Crosshair VIII Hero Wi-Fi. I'm getting the full 4400MHz boost on a 3700X now.

I can't use the 1001 beta BIOS because it breaks using the W_IN/W_OUT temp sensors for fan control on the AIO_PUMP header for me.


----------



## Reikoji

jedi95 said:


> Thanks for the BIOS! It's working perfectly for me on the Crosshair VIII Hero Wi-Fi. I'm getting the full 4400MHz boost on a 3700X now.
> 
> I can't use the 1001 beta BIOS because it breaks using the W_IN/W_OUT temp sensors for fan control on the AIO_PUMP header for me.


The W_IN/W_OUT headers stop working or the AIO_PUMP header stops working?


----------



## flyinion

So I just learned a big lesson. You can't re-apply your saved profiles in the BIOS after flashing a new BIOS. Apparently a bunch of stuff changed and no matter what I changed, could not get Precision Boost 2 to work when applying my profile. I was stuck at 3.6Ghz. I was even going back and forth between "load defaults" and loading my profile to see the differences when you go to "save and exit" and there is apparently stuff that just doesn't show up in there. I had to start over which sucked because I had custom fan profiles for all the fan and the water pump header. That's annoying.


----------



## Reikoji

flyinion said:


> So I just learned a big lesson. You can't re-apply your saved profiles in the BIOS after flashing a new BIOS. Apparently a bunch of stuff changed and no matter what I changed, could not get Precision Boost 2 to work when applying my profile. I was stuck at 3.6Ghz. I was even going back and forth between "load defaults" and loading my profile to see the differences when you go to "save and exit" and there is apparently stuff that just doesn't show up in there. I had to start over which sucked because I had custom fan profiles for all the fan and the water pump header. That's annoying.


For me, flashing 1001 erased all the profiles I made anyway. I did find that out as well when I flashed 0803, which didn't erase all the profiles, for the first time and tried to set a profile. Safest thing to do after flashing a bios is to check and make sure nothing got set to anything deadly, which saved me from some crazy voltage setting after applying a 0702 profile.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

BIOs if officially out now.


----------



## Section31

Tried it out still didnt really work. Got 4175mhz on cinebench r20. Voltage and temps were hitting 83degrees. I went back to manual oc with lower temps (70s) for now. Play with it some more later.


----------



## BulletSponge

I downloaded the new bios onto a thumb drive, renamed it accordingly and every time I try EZFlash it tells me it isn't an appropriate bios file even though it shows up as C8H.cap. Any idea where I screwed up?


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

BulletSponge said:


> I downloaded the new bios onto a thumb drive, renamed it accordingly and every time I try EZFlash it tells me it isn't an appropriate bios file even though it shows up as C8H.cap. Any idea where I screwed up?


Renaming is for usb flash in the back of your mobo. 

You don't have to rename if you're using ez flash.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Section31 said:


> Tried it out still didnt really work. Got 4175mhz on cinebench r20. Voltage and temps were hitting 83degrees. I went back to manual oc with lower temps (70s) for now. Play with it some more later.


Are you doing anything to your voltages?

I have everything stock. Hitting 4.6-4.625 Ghz now. 

4.58 in cinebench and geekbench 

4.6-4.625 in CPU-Z and other random task.


----------



## flyinion

This BIOS is close but not quite for single thread boost for me. Capping at 4392 vs 4400. Guess we can round that up. It's still more than 4365 I guess. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Reikoji

BulletSponge said:


> I downloaded the new bios onto a thumb drive, renamed it accordingly and every time I try EZFlash it tells me it isn't an appropriate bios file even though it shows up as C8H.cap. Any idea where I screwed up?


Use USB flashback to update to this bios.



flyinion said:


> This BIOS is close but not quite for single thread boost for me. Capping at 4392 vs 4400. Guess we can round that up. It's still more than 4365 I guess.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


4392 is 4400. You must have 99.8 BCLK.


----------



## Reikoji

Section31 said:


> Tried it out still didnt really work. Got 4175mhz on cinebench r20. Voltage and temps were hitting 83degrees. I went back to manual oc with lower temps (70s) for now. Play with it some more later.



1001 works for me.

When testing boost speed with either Cenebench version, you need to close down all unneeded background apps that can potentially use CPU as it is a heavier single or multi core test. With heavier loads, even the slightest activity in other threads will kill the boost speed. Many times my R20 runs got interrupted by something dumb like windows notification or background downloading, so i even turned off the internet for the run. It would be nice to see SS's of this behavior as well.


----------



## flyinion

Reikoji said:


> 4392 is 4400. You must have 99.8 BCLK.




Yeah I should go disable spread spectrum and try again. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

flyinion said:


> This BIOS is close but not quite for single thread boost for me. Capping at 4392 vs 4400. Guess we can round that up. It's still more than 4365 I guess.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That's because you have spread spectrum on probably. Turn it off or divide you clock by 0.998 and that's 4.40 Ghz.


----------



## neurotix

*best*











Best Cinebench score I've done yet. At 4400/4400/4200/4200 to boot. Still on Shamino's beta 0017 bios with per CCX overclocking. Does ASUS new bios, or The_Stilt's include the per CCX overclocking ratio section, with VID control? If not, I will probably stay with things as they are for now.

Tips for Cinebench:

- Close all, and I mean all, running programs and background processes. Including AV/firewall, disconnect from Wifi or pull your Ethernet cable out and reboot when finished.
- Optimize Windows for speed. I use a combination of programs and methods to achieve this. Including registry hacks, and since I'm an old man and didn't even want to move from Win7 SP1 to begin with, I used Ccleaner and uninstalled/removed nearly every Modern/Metro app I could since I'll never use them anyway. I also have updates blocked/disabled and a ton of Windows services blacklisted in my firewall. Hopefully you have Win10 Pro, if you don't you're pretty much screwed when it comes to a lot of this. (I use Linux as a daily driver OS and Windows gets used solely for benching and gaming, and I am very confident in my firewall (Comodo CIS Free/Asuswrt-Merlin Router) and network security to protect me. As well as using Linux 95% of the time anyway.)
- Disable unnecessary services. A good guide for this is here: http://www.blackviper.com/service-configurations/black-vipers-windows-10-service-configurations/
- Disable unnecessary startup tasks/background tasks through Task Scheduler and Group Policy. You can also try using autoruns from Microsoft themselves to disable a lot of this. Be careful though and I'd suggest making restore points/a backup of your OS drive before trying to strip it down incase you mess something up. (I went to school for Systems Administration and we mostly used Windows 7 at the time and learned a lot about Group Policy, Scheduled Tasks etc). Autoruns from Microsoft: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/downloads/autoruns
- I do use Ccleaner but I would agree that registry cleaners are worthless. However, another program I've always used for tweaking Windows is Auslogics Boostspeed, which has a Tweak Manager that easily exposes and allows you to disable Cortana, telemetry, and apply around 100 other different tweaks easily without needing to edit the registry, find them in the horribly organized Group Policy manager, etc. This program seems like it might even be able to disable a lot of the Windows 10 resource and bandwidth hog nonsense on Win10 Home (like p2p Windows Updates being sent to people on your connection)
- Disable all extraneous visual effects like Aero Peek, animated menus, etc. from System in the old control panel (where System Restore is), Performance tab.
- Run Cinebench off your boot drive. If it's a NVMe SSD this can improve scores somewhat, and I use the Ramcache program that comes with our motherboard (this is pretty much the same thing as Samsung "Rapid Mode" on SATA SSDs.)
- *The biggest one*: _People have said it before but it's an old benchmarkers' trick for Cinebench and it still works now. Once the program is loaded, open Task Manager, go to the Details tab, find Cinebench_R20.exe, right click it, and change your process priority to "Realtime". When you run the benchmark, you will hear your system go under load (fans at 100% etc) but not see Cinebench update at all, it will appear like a black box until it finishes completely, and the system will be unusable while it's rendering. Don't touch your keyboard or move your mouse at all. This alone can add 200-300 points to your score_
- I do this but am unsure how much it helps, I figure it can't hurt. I unplug every device that is unnecessary from USB, audio jacks, etc. so that really nothing is connected except keyboard, mouse, power, and monitor(s).


- It is probably arguable how much of this is necessary, I'm just giving my tips. And again, Linux is my daily driver OS so if you don't want to make such drastic modifications to optimize Windows- that I admit, may not be totally necessary or affect the score much at all nowadays like they did 10 years ago, it would make sense. Then again, my score is a few hundred points higher than any I've seen so far, and my chip doesn't overclock well and is running at much lower clocks for the benchmark in comparison  so maybe my tips will work for you too.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Section31

Thanks. I do notice that temps have improved at manual oc. Not sure what they did.


----------



## rv8000

Anyone experiencing display loss and AA post code on some cold boots? PC seems to boot completely but I can't get any display signal until I restart.


----------



## crocea

My CPU has been behaving strangely ever since updating to 1001. Previously, my 3900X was running a manual CCD OC of CCD0:4450/CCD1:4300 @1.325v, and my RAM at 3800Mhz [email protected] stable under IntelBurnTest. This was on 0803

After updating to the 1001 my PC refused to post if my RAM was overclocked and even when I got it to post, I couldn't achieve the same clockspeeds I had before and temps were 10-20 degrees higher so I reverted back to 0803. However the problems carried over to the old bios. Temps were still abnormally high and I couldn't reach my previous CPU overclock even though I checked for stability before updating to 1001 merely an hour ago.

I am assuming that the new microcode in 1.0.0.3 ABBA, which is supposed to have more aggressive boost behaviour, is causing this problem. But I have no idea how it carried over to the old 0803 BIOS which is supposed to have 1.0.0.3 ABB. Does anyone have similar experiences? Is it possible to rollback AMDs microcode to check if it's the culprit?


----------



## Reikoji

crocea said:


> My CPU has been behaving strangely ever since updating to 1001. Previously, my 3900X was running a manual CCD OC of CCD0:4450/CCD1:4300 @1.325v, and my RAM at 3800Mhz [email protected] stable under IntelBurnTest. This was on 0803
> 
> After updating to the 1001 my PC refused to post if my RAM was overclocked and even when I got it to post, I couldn't achieve the same clockspeeds I had before and temps were 10-20 degrees higher so I reverted back to 0803. However the problems carried over to the old bios. Temps were still abnormally high and I couldn't reach my previous CPU overclock even though I checked for stability before updating to 1001 merely an hour ago.
> 
> I am assuming that the new microcode in 1.0.0.3 ABBA, which is supposed to have more aggressive boost behaviour, is causing this problem. But I have no idea how it carried over to the old 0803 BIOS which is supposed to have 1.0.0.3 ABB. Does anyone have similar experiences? Is it possible to rollback AMDs microcode to check if it's the culprit?


I was able to run the same OC on CPU and ram after flashing 1001. Try increasing ram voltage?


----------



## crocea

Reikoji said:


> I was able to run the same OC on CPU and ram after flashing 1001. Try increasing ram voltage?


I tried increasing RAM Voltage to 1.45v but no dice. Reverting to 0803 with the exact same settings could not boot as well even though it worked on 0803 before I updated to 1001.


----------



## Reikoji

crocea said:


> I tried increasing RAM Voltage to 1.45v but no dice. Reverting to 0803 with the exact same settings could not boot as well even though it worked on 0803 before I updated to 1001.


Reset cmos and try re-imputting your settings, without using profile? Also load optimized defaults for good measure.


----------



## zsoltmol

Hi Guys,

Is the 1001 bios uploaded with sept 12 file date on Asus website still a beta version or not anymore? Previously it was mentioned AIO_PUMP header is not working properly, is it ok now?


----------



## Reikoji

zsoltmol said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> Is the 1001 bios uploaded with sept 12 file date on Asus website still a beta version or not anymore? Previously it was mentioned AIO_PUMP header is not working properly, is it ok now?


Its still beta, and I use the AIO_Pump header with 1001 installed. Nothing is wrong with it on my end.

i suppose my use of the header may be a bit different, as i have a ekwb pump plugged into it that is powered seperately by molex.


----------



## Reikoji

My ABBA videos.

Cenebench R20:






Geekbench 5:






passmark 10:

too damn long :3


----------



## Reikoji

Finally figured out how to make Process Lasso work for me with Cenebench. Gotta just change affinity mid-run. At stock, here is what Windows boosts each core to. It is, however, possible that boosts are higher when HWinfo is closed, but not much of a way to check that :3 Imma do this with per CCX OC and see if they blow up at 4.6 now !

Lol nope. Quickest BSOD i ever done seent. Bad guy AMD, binning CCD1 like that :3 Its basically a 3700x die. Wwell, it doesn't matter anyway imo. The slower cores of CCD0 can get 4.6 with a good manual at least. Should probably see if anything changed with per-core OC.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

neurotix said:


> View attachment 295496
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best Cinebench score I've done yet. At 4400/4400/4200/4200 to boot. Still on Shamino's beta 0017 bios with per CCX overclocking. Does ASUS new bios, or The_Stilt's include the per CCX overclocking ratio section, with VID control? If not, I will probably stay with things as they are for now.
> 
> Tips for Cinebench:
> 
> - Close all, and I mean all, running programs and background processes. Including AV/firewall, disconnect from Wifi or pull your Ethernet cable out and reboot when finished.
> - Optimize Windows for speed. I use a combination of programs and methods to achieve this. Including registry hacks, and since I'm an old man and didn't even want to move from Win7 SP1 to begin with, I used Ccleaner and uninstalled/removed nearly every Modern/Metro app I could since I'll never use them anyway. I also have updates blocked/disabled and a ton of Windows services blacklisted in my firewall. Hopefully you have Win10 Pro, if you don't you're pretty much screwed when it comes to a lot of this. (I use Linux as a daily driver OS and Windows gets used solely for benching and gaming, and I am very confident in my firewall (Comodo CIS Free/Asuswrt-Merlin Router) and network security to protect me. As well as using Linux 95% of the time anyway.)
> - Disable unnecessary services. A good guide for this is here: http://www.blackviper.com/service-configurations/black-vipers-windows-10-service-configurations/
> - Disable unnecessary startup tasks/background tasks through Task Scheduler and Group Policy. You can also try using autoruns from Microsoft themselves to disable a lot of this. Be careful though and I'd suggest making restore points/a backup of your OS drive before trying to strip it down incase you mess something up. (I went to school for Systems Administration and we mostly used Windows 7 at the time and learned a lot about Group Policy, Scheduled Tasks etc). Autoruns from Microsoft: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/downloads/autoruns
> - I do use Ccleaner but I would agree that registry cleaners are worthless. However, another program I've always used for tweaking Windows is Auslogics Boostspeed, which has a Tweak Manager that easily exposes and allows you to disable Cortana, telemetry, and apply around 100 other different tweaks easily without needing to edit the registry, find them in the horribly organized Group Policy manager, etc. This program seems like it might even be able to disable a lot of the Windows 10 resource and bandwidth hog nonsense on Win10 Home (like p2p Windows Updates being sent to people on your connection)
> - Disable all extraneous visual effects like Aero Peek, animated menus, etc. from System in the old control panel (where System Restore is), Performance tab.
> - Run Cinebench off your boot drive. If it's a NVMe SSD this can improve scores somewhat, and I use the Ramcache program that comes with our motherboard (this is pretty much the same thing as Samsung "Rapid Mode" on SATA SSDs.)
> - *The biggest one*: _People have said it before but it's an old benchmarkers' trick for Cinebench and it still works now. Once the program is loaded, open Task Manager, go to the Details tab, find Cinebench_R20.exe, right click it, and change your process priority to "Realtime". When you run the benchmark, you will hear your system go under load (fans at 100% etc) but not see Cinebench update at all, it will appear like a black box until it finishes completely, and the system will be unusable while it's rendering. Don't touch your keyboard or move your mouse at all. This alone can add 200-300 points to your score_
> - I do this but am unsure how much it helps, I figure it can't hurt. I unplug every device that is unnecessary from USB, audio jacks, etc. so that really nothing is connected except keyboard, mouse, power, and monitor(s).
> 
> 
> - It is probably arguable how much of this is necessary, I'm just giving my tips. And again, Linux is my daily driver OS so if you don't want to make such drastic modifications to optimize Windows- that I admit, may not be totally necessary or affect the score much at all nowadays like they did 10 years ago, it would make sense. Then again, my score is a few hundred points higher than any I've seen so far, and my chip doesn't overclock well and is running at much lower clocks for the benchmark in comparison /forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif so maybe my tips will work for you too.
> 
> Hope this helps.


I didn't even do half the stuff you've mentioned in your post. This was done awhile back.


----------



## neurotix

KingEngineRevUp said:


> I didn't even do half the stuff you've mentioned in your post. This was done awhile back.


*"- It is probably arguable how much of this is necessary, I'm just giving my tips...."* ~quoting myself

You have a great score there and a really nice clocking chip! I imagine if I could run my 2nd CCD higher than 4.2GHz I could get close to it.

All of those tweaks will only give you a few tens of points, if that, except for running with realtime process priority, which will and always has given a substantial boost to the score. (50ish to a few hundred points higher depending on thread count, but that specific tweak is reproducible across even operating systems and Cinebench versions).

I made that post simply to help members, especially newer/younger ones, get better Cinebench scores to post. No more, no less. I even stated it may or may not be a waste of time (though obviously optimizing the system that way affects more than just Cinebench and can improve gaming performance, etc.) If you want to use my tweaks/advice fine, if not then don't. Obviously, a bunch of Windows tweaks will not get as good a score as running 6 of your cores ~250MHz faster, which is the real comparison here. So I'm not really sure what the point is in your response and your score being higher doesn't relate to the tweaks inasmuch as it proves clock speed is always king and you can run your chip faster than I can.

https://hwbot.org/user/neurotix
https://hwbot.org/submission/2441594_neurotix_cinebench___r11.5_a10_4600m_2.07_points
https://hwbot.org/submission/2497008_neurotix_cpu_frequency_fx_8350_5217_mhz

I almost broke top 100 Enthusiast league on hwbot at the end of 2017 and have been competitively benching Cinebench on HWBOT since 2011. I had over 40 gold cups at one point. Before they merged the leagues, I was #14 US in the Enthusiast league at one point (Enthusiast = air/water cooled benching only). I have been benching Cinebench since R11.5 and all these tweaks, as well as the Realtime priority one, worked back then. I have a lot of experience with this and what I suggested isn't bunk or a waste of time... Ultimately, its up to the individual to decide whether to apply my tweaks or not, but I gave solid advice and have the links I just posted to back them up..

So I'm not sure why you're even replying that way if you didn't use the tweaks, other than to put me on the spot (when I was giving solid advice)... I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time with this reply.


----------



## knightriot

newest bios with ccd oc


----------



## zsoltmol

Reikoji said:


> Its still beta, and I use the AIO_Pump header with 1001 installed. Nothing is wrong with it on my end.
> 
> i suppose my use of the header may be a bit different, as i have a ekwb pump plugged into it that is powered seperately by molex.


Thanks, using same way, EKWB pump PWM based RPM control via AIO_PUMP, EKWB power supply via Molex.

How do we know 1001 is a beta BIOS? It is not mentioned anywhere (now, before was) on Asus website. Or just the numbering tells that and 1001 will turn to 09xx where xx=upload day number in september?


----------



## flyinion

Anyone know where or if there is a setting in this BIOS for "cLDO VDDP voltage"? I was trying to set that after running the DRAM calculator and either I was trying to change the wrong setting or it's very unclear how to set a voltage for it. I found the VDDG version on the main tweaking page (where you set DOCP vs manual vs auto etc and vcore type stuff) and there was a VDDP option there too. When I tried to change it from "Auto" to 0.95 though it would change it to a weird 700 number. As in just "700". Is this the right setting parameter? If so how do you set the voltage for it? I ended up leaving it on auto and the DRAM calc settings are working anyway but I'd kinda like to know what's up in case I decided to try the faster settings from it or something.


----------



## Reikoji

zsoltmol said:


> Thanks, using same way, EKWB pump PWM based RPM control via AIO_PUMP, EKWB power supply via Molex.
> 
> How do we know 1001 is a beta BIOS? It is not mentioned anywhere (now, before was) on Asus website. Or just the numbering tells that and 1001 will turn to 09xx where xx=upload day number in september?


Primary indicator is you cant flash 1001 with ezflash. you get error that it is not a UFEI bios. need to rename it and use flashback.



flyinion said:


> Anyone know where or if there is a setting in this BIOS for "cLDO VDDP voltage"? I was trying to set that after running the DRAM calculator and either I was trying to change the wrong setting or it's very unclear how to set a voltage for it. I found the VDDG version on the main tweaking page (where you set DOCP vs manual vs auto etc and vcore type stuff) and there was a VDDP option there too. When I tried to change it from "Auto" to 0.95 though it would change it to a weird 700 number. As in just "700". Is this the right setting parameter? If so how do you set the voltage for it? I ended up leaving it on auto and the DRAM calc settings are working anyway but I'd kinda like to know what's up in case I decided to try the faster settings from it or something.


i think its in the digi+ power section. theres also vddp and vddg settings in AMD Overclocking section. the values there are in mV.


----------



## MacG32

Reikoji said:


> Primary indicator is you cant flash 1001 with ezflash. you get error that it is not a UFEI bios. need to rename it and use flashback.



I copied 1001 to a FAT32 flash drive, booted in to the BIOS, and flashed it with no problems. I didn't need to rename it or anything. It was released as a BETA to test and released later as a normal version. The files are identical. :thumb:


----------



## Reikoji

MacG32 said:


> I copied 1001 to a FAT32 flash drive, booted in to the BIOS, and flashed it with no problems. I didn't need to rename it or anything. It was released as a BETA to test and released later as a normal version. The files are identical. :thumb:


wouldnt let me ezflash, also on a usb drive. maybe mine is an imposter?!

a few other people mentioned needing to flashback as well. maybe they made a slight change after all before putting it up on the website after all.


----------



## eyecrave

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Argus Monitoring. I ended up paying for it because it works very well. It's my replacement for Speedfan when I was with Intel.



Hey i recently bought a license for this software as it was annoying having to go back to bios all the time if i wanted to change fan settings. I found that there is Temp 7 reading and it's reading 100c+. However i can't find this temp in hwinfo or the bios anything close to that temp. Would you happen to know what it is if you do see it?



flyinion said:


> Anyone know where or if there is a setting in this BIOS for "cLDO VDDP voltage"? I was trying to set that after running the DRAM calculator and either I was trying to change the wrong setting or it's very unclear how to set a voltage for it. I found the VDDG version on the main tweaking page (where you set DOCP vs manual vs auto etc and vcore type stuff) and there was a VDDP option there too. When I tried to change it from "Auto" to 0.95 though it would change it to a weird 700 number. As in just "700". Is this the right setting parameter? If so how do you set the voltage for it? I ended up leaving it on auto and the DRAM calc settings are working anyway but I'd kinda like to know what's up in case I decided to try the faster settings from it or something.



If i remember correctly while going through my ram oc adventure that this sets it in mv not v so the number it defaults to is 700(0.700) so if you put anything like 0.900 it will default to 700. Also press f9 and search for settings that are hard to find in the bios. This was also the only way i found BGS settings but had to type full name bankgroupswap or just bank will find it. If you want a copy of your settings in bios you can save them onto a usb in the profiles tab if you scroll all the way to the bottom. Ctrl + F2 will save your bios settings in text file and F2 will save the current bios you saved. I initially thought it would save all the profiles but it only saves the current saved one so you have to load all of them and save manually if you have more than one. With all the stuff i changed in bios i wanted a copy because upgrading from 0803 to 1001 left my profiles but they didn't work properly so i had to do a usb flashback which wiped all my profiles. Had to redo all my settings which took awhile and i think i'm done messing with my ram until a new bios comes out.


----------



## flyinion

Reikoji said:


> i think its in the digi+ power section. theres also vddp and vddg settings in AMD Overclocking section. the values there are in mV.



Thanks I'll try again in a bit. I thought I tried 950 and it didn't like that either but maybe I didn't try that after all. 




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## dlbsyst

Reikoji said:


> wouldnt let me ezflash, also on a usb drive. maybe mine is an imposter?!
> 
> a few other people mentioned needing to flashback as well. maybe they made a slight change after all before putting it up on the website after all.


I used to flash BIOS using ezFlash until I discovered Flashback. Now I use BIOS Flashback exclusively. It's easily my preferred method.


----------



## superpapu

has anyone problems with the Bluetooth? The bt is not detecting any device. 

The drivers are install.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## neurotix

flyinion said:


> Anyone know where or if there is a setting in this BIOS for "cLDO VDDP voltage"? I was trying to set that after running the DRAM calculator and either I was trying to change the wrong setting or it's very unclear how to set a voltage for it. I found the VDDG version on the main tweaking page (where you set DOCP vs manual vs auto etc and vcore type stuff) and there was a VDDP option there too. When I tried to change it from "Auto" to 0.95 though it would change it to a weird 700 number. As in just "700". Is this the right setting parameter? If so how do you set the voltage for it? I ended up leaving it on auto and the DRAM calc settings are working anyway but I'd kinda like to know what's up in case I decided to try the faster settings from it or something.





Reikoji said:


> Primary indicator is you cant flash 1001 with ezflash. you get error that it is not a UFEI bios. need to rename it and use flashback.
> 
> 
> 
> i think its in the digi+ power section. theres also vddp and vddg settings in AMD Overclocking section. the values there are in mV.





flyinion said:


> Thanks I'll try again in a bit. I thought I tried 950 and it didn't like that either but maybe I didn't try that after all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk





Close, but Reikoji was wrong. It's in the "Tweaker's Paradise" section, all the way at the bottom:




















This section also contains other relevant settings from the Advanced section of Ryzen Dram Calc, such as DRAM R1-R4 tune, VTT_DDR, VPP_MEM, and VDDP voltage:












I hope you are grateful for this! I had to reboot into the bios, save these images to a flash drive (as .BMP  ) and then convert them to PNG using The GIMP.  (I also had to wrestle with the horrible assed image uploading on the site now versus the old forum engine...)

Good luck with the RAM oc.


----------



## Reikoji

Close, but no cigar.


----------



## dlbsyst

superpapu said:


> has anyone problems with the Bluetooth? The bt is not detecting any device.
> 
> The drivers are install.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


My Bluetooth is installed but I haven't even tried it out and don't have the antenna installed. I can try it out and report back, if you like.


----------



## superpapu

dlbsyst said:


> My Bluetooth is installed but I haven't even tried it out and don't have the antenna installed. I can try it out and report back, if you like.




That would be awesome [emoji106]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## dlbsyst

superpapu said:


> That would be awesome [emoji106]
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


No problem with Bluetooth superpapu. I hooked up the antenna, clicked on "Add a Bluetooth Device and it searched and found all my Bluetooth devices in my house, which are many. I told it to connect to my Sony TV. It did. I didn't do much from there but it seems to be working fine for me.


----------



## lklem

superpapu said:


> has anyone problems with the Bluetooth? The bt is not detecting any device.
> 
> The drivers are install.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Mine is good, i can connect my Audio Technica ATH-M50xBT bluetooth headphones flawlessly, did you need install the antenna?


----------



## flyinion

neurotix said:


> Close, but Reikoji was wrong. It's in the "Tweaker's Paradise" section, all the way at the bottom:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you are grateful for this! I had to reboot into the bios, save these images to a flash drive (as .BMP  ) and then convert them to PNG using The GIMP.  (I also had to wrestle with the horrible assed image uploading on the site now versus the old forum engine...)
> 
> Good luck with the RAM oc.


Hey thanks! Yeah not sure how I missed that, but it was late, I was tired, etc. I swear I looked through every tab/page/etc.


----------



## superpapu

dlbsyst said:


> No problem with Bluetooth superpapu. I hooked up the antenna, clicked on "Add a Bluetooth Device and it searched and found all my Bluetooth devices in my house, which are many. I told it to connect to my Sony TV. It did. I didn't do much from there but it seems to be working fine for me.




Now is working. One of the cables was un plug.

Thanks!




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## neurotix

flyinion said:


> Hey thanks! Yeah not sure how I missed that, but it was late, I was tired, etc. I swear I looked through every tab/page/etc.



No problem.

When I first got into overclocking my setup 3 weeks ago, I looked and looked and couldn't find this either, as they put it all the way at the bottom of that section.

To say the bios is disorganized currently is an understatement.

Also, p.s. some of the other settings you need are going to be in the AMD CBS section under the Advanced section of the bios (The Advanced section has CPU, SATA, PCI-E, NVMe sections among others...) In AMD CBS under CPU options and IMC options is where you find the other stuff from the Ryzen DRAM Calc like Memory Interleaving size, BankGroupSwap (called bgs and bgs alt), and a bunch of other stuff it may tell you to change. Also, under the CPU settings in there you might want to disable ECC as it might give you more chance of reaching high memory clocks. You will definitely need all of this if you are trying for 3600MHz ram and especially above that, where you'll also be raising fclk.

Also, timings and BankGroupSwapAlt were the biggest issues in getting my factory 3200MHz c14 kit to 3800MHz c16. I was able to run at 3600MHz totally fine at better than my kits stock timings, i.e. 14-14-14-28-42 but couldn't post period at anything above that at 1:1 fclk until I loosened the primary timings and redid secondary and tertiary timings to match.

Good luck.


----------



## flyinion

neurotix said:


> No problem.
> 
> When I first got into overclocking my setup 3 weeks ago, I looked and looked and couldn't find this either, as they put it all the way at the bottom of that section.
> 
> To say the bios is disorganized currently is an understatement.
> 
> Also, p.s. some of the other settings you need are going to be in the AMD CBS section under the Advanced section of the bios (The Advanced section has CPU, SATA, PCI-E, NVMe sections among others...) In AMD CBS under CPU options and IMC options is where you find the other stuff from the Ryzen DRAM Calc like Memory Interleaving size, BankGroupSwap (called bgs and bgs alt), and a bunch of other stuff it may tell you to change. Also, under the CPU settings in there you might want to disable ECC as it might give you more chance of reaching high memory clocks. You will definitely need all of this if you are trying for 3600MHz ram and especially above that, where you'll also be raising fclk.
> 
> Also, timings and BankGroupSwapAlt were the biggest issues in getting my factory 3200MHz c14 kit to 3800MHz c16. I was able to run at 3600MHz totally fine at better than my kits stock timings, i.e. 14-14-14-28-42 but couldn't post period at anything above that at 1:1 fclk until I loosened the primary timings and redid secondary and tertiary timings to match.
> 
> Good luck.


Thanks, well I currently have a 3600 kit so should I disable ECC right now? I was trying the Safe timings the Calculator gave me and they seemed to work through the calculator's memory test, benchmark, and some other stuff like 3DMark stuff then like 12 hours later the system apparently blue-screened and couldn't even save the memory dump. So I reverted back to XMP for now until I learn how to figure out what settings I might need to tweak. I've done CPU overclocking before but never tried memory. Was always scared of all the timings etc. but now with the way Ryzen 3000 works with Precision Boost 2 I guess RAM OC's are the way to go vs CPU so time to learn.


----------



## eyecrave

Latest ryzen master seems to have a few readings that are wrong compared to bios settings namely soc voltage, trfc2 and trfc4. Hwinfo has the correct soc voltage reading but can't see the trfc readings. Anyway i wanted to do another ram test run since i dropped my voltage from 1.41 to 1.4 and trfc from 294 to 288 which got me to 63.4 ns in aida64. What would be the best way to test fclock stability if there is such a thing?


----------



## Reikoji

eyecrave said:


> Latest ryzen master seems to have a few readings that are wrong compared to bios settings namely soc voltage, trfc2 and trfc4. Hwinfo has the correct soc voltage reading but can't see the trfc readings. Anyway i wanted to do another ram test run since i dropped my voltage from 1.41 to 1.4 and trfc from 294 to 288 which got me to 63.4 ns in aida64. What would be the best way to test fclock stability if there is such a thing?


I believe thats just because of the Bios. Other board vendors have Ryzen Master reading their Mem VDDIO, MEM VTT, And VDDR Soc properly. Though, the VDDR SOC reading I know will change if you set SOC voltage in the AMD Overclocking settings rather than the extreme tweaker page. Possibly the same for memory voltage as well. My TRFC2 and TRFC4 are matching what I put in the normal DRAM timings area.


----------



## eyecrave

Reikoji said:


> I believe thats just because of the Bios. Other board vendors have Ryzen Master reading their Mem VDDIO, MEM VTT, And VDDR Soc properly. Though, the VDDR SOC reading I know will change if you set SOC voltage in the AMD Overclocking settings rather than the extreme tweaker page. Possibly the same for memory voltage as well. My TRFC2 and TRFC4 are matching what I put in the normal DRAM timings area.



Yeah that's the only thing i don't like with the bios is having a few things that are the same in different places. I left my trfc2 and trfc4 on auto as i don't know the calculations for them. I used 6 * trc to get my current trfc. Seems to be working good for now so i guess i'll just leave it. Now i just have to figure out which program i can use to test fclock stability.


----------



## PainKiller89

I have a 3700x with ROG Hero VIII non wifi version. Only thing i have done in the bios is i am using DOCP profile. Is there anything else i should do? Please Advise.


----------



## criznit

PainKiller89 said:


> I have a 3700x with ROG Hero VIII non wifi version. Only thing i have done in the bios is i am using DOCP profile. Is there anything else i should do? Please Advise.


If you're overclocking your memory, I would check out the DRAM calculator thread on how to tighten up your timings. Memory OC is better than CPU OC for ryzen, so give it a go!

https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...locking-dram-am4-membench-0-8-dram-bench.html


----------



## Adventurer_

Hello everyone!!

I am still waiting for the right moment to take the leap of faith and buy Asus Crosshair VIII Hero (WI-FI). Can you please tell me if the system is completely stable with the latest BIOS (I think it is version 1001)? I will us it with:
Ryzen 3700x
G.Skill Trident Z RGB 32GB DDR4 Kit 32GTZR (F4-3200C16D-32GTZR)
Samsung SSD 970 Evo Plus M.2 NVMe 1 TB
ASUS GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER DUAL

Can I expect any problems with AMD build?

Thanks a lot!


----------



## MacG32

Adventurer_ said:


> Hello everyone!!
> 
> I am still waiting for the right moment to take the leap of faith and buy Asus Crosshair VIII Hero (WI-FI). Can you please tell me if the system is completely stable with the latest BIOS (I think it is version 1001)? I will us it with:
> Ryzen 3700x
> G.Skill Trident Z RGB 32GB DDR4 Kit 32GTZR (F4-3200C16D-32GTZR)
> Samsung SSD 970 Evo Plus M.2 NVMe 1 TB
> ASUS GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER DUAL
> 
> Can I expect any problems with AMD build?
> 
> Thanks a lot!



We'll be here when you're ready. BIOS 1001 is stable. If you took a little time to read the thread, you'd know that already. Most problems people experienced were self caused, so I think you'll be just fine going AMD. Make sure to get an anti-static wristband. You're welcome.


----------



## Adventurer_

MacG32 said:


> We'll be here when you're ready. BIOS 1001 is stable. If you took a little time to read the thread, you'd know that already. Most problems people experienced were self caused, so I think you'll be just fine going AMD. Make sure to get an anti-static wristband. You're welcome.



Thanks.

I have read multiple threads in multiple forums but there are always some people with weird problems that I am not sure if they are self caused or BIOS caused. Because I am prepairing to build a system worth a lot of money it is just better to ask than to "suspect". 


I already have a question..... somewhere I have heard that Asus x570 VIII Hero still has problems with fan control (which does supposedly not work). Do you know any more about that?
I am planning to have an air cooled system which must be completely silent at IDLE. On my ancient Intel system I was able to achieve that at IDLE all fans are turned off.

Of course later on I will try to overclock if possible but system must be completely stable at default (100% working fan control is also included in the "stability" of the motherboard). 


Thanks for help!


----------



## kot0005

any one update their C8F bios to 1001 abba ? does it have bios level ccx overclocking ?


----------



## kot0005

Jackalito said:


> New beta BIOS for our boards from Shamino in ROG forums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ROG Crosshair VIII Formula:*
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/15sqq6sctbqp1he/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-0017.rar?dl=0
> 
> 
> *ROG Crosshair VIII Hero WiFi:*
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/icc0hph1m4xa5kl/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-0017.rar?dl=0
> 
> 
> *ROG Crosshair VIII Hero:*
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/kn275182xixv830/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-0017.rar?dl=0
> 
> 
> I haven't tried it myself yet.



Hey is there a ABBA 1001 bios for C8Formula with BIOS CCX overclocking ?


----------



## dlbsyst

kot0005 said:


> Hey is there a ABBA 1001 bios for C8Formula with BIOS CCX overclocking ?


I don't own that board but my Crosshair VIII Hero WIFI has it so I would assume the Formula has it. The 1001 BIOS is on Asus's web site.


----------



## Reikoji

kot0005 said:


> any one update their C8F bios to 1001 abba ? does it have bios level ccx overclocking ?


Yea it has the CCX overclocking in it.


----------



## kot0005

Nice, 1001 BIOS improved my latency by 1ns haha


----------



## neurotix

Adventurer_ said:


> Thanks.
> 
> I have read multiple threads in multiple forums but there are always some people with weird problems that I am not sure if they are self caused or BIOS caused. Because I am prepairing to build a system worth a lot of money it is just better to ask than to "suspect".
> 
> 
> I already have a question..... somewhere I have heard that Asus x570 VIII Hero still has problems with fan control (which does supposedly not work). Do you know any more about that?
> I am planning to have an air cooled system which must be completely silent at IDLE. On my ancient Intel system I was able to achieve that at IDLE all fans are turned off.
> 
> Of course later on I will try to overclock if possible but system must be completely stable at default (100% working fan control is also included in the "stability" of the motherboard).
> 
> 
> Thanks for help!



I use Arctic Bionix PWM fans and let the board control them all. I also had an Intel system (i7 4790k + ROG Maximus VI Hero) and this system allows for much better fan control through the bios- for example, on my Intel setup before I upgraded, I had to use fancontrol service under Linux or my fans would be at 100% at all times. This was pretty much a nightmare to initially figure out and configure (done through a txt file essentially).

On this board, though, the BIOS fan control handles all of that if you have a distro with Ryzen 3000 firmware support compiled into the kernel. So, my fans will ramp up under load and otherwise follow my manual fan profile from the bios that decreases or increases speed depending on temperature (which seems to be based on socket temp).

Under Windows it should be no problem but you WILL have to use AI Suite (ASUS software) to program the fan controller. Once you do this initially and set your fan profile (using a graph), which does have an "auto stop" feature checkbox that turns the fans off below a certain temperature, and you save your profile, it is retained within Windows and you basically don't need to leave the AI Suite software running or ever load it again as it saves the profile to a file (I assume) and then runs a background service to control your fan speed and apply the profile, including the auto fan off.

There doesn't appear to be an option for this in the bios for PWM or normal fans- it just adjusts the current to the fan (it's pretty fine control between 1-100%), I have never actually tested if you can set it to 0 or 1 and have the fans not run.

Auto fan stop is probably not the best idea with Ryzen 3000 chips, any of them, because they idle quite hot and without any case fans or heatsink/rad fans running your chip will probably be idling close to 60C. You can still use some quality fans and set them to a low speed at idle, and once you adjust your voltage and oc the chip will idle around 40C or so with the fans at a speed that is essentially inaudible or barely so, but you will probably want to keep them running and have a large case with great airflow, even for the 3700x. If you use a large tower heatsink you may be able to just run the rear heatsink fan at a low speed. (e.g. pull) If you use really really good quiet fans like Scythe Gentle Typhoon, Servo's or Kaze Jyu's this might be inaudible (sorry haven't air cooled on tower heatsinks for a very long time, lol, and never bought or used quiet fans, I always go with HP fans, so my knowledge on current quality quiet fans is nonexistent but these were great and very popular around 2011/2012)

EDIT: If you don't overclock and disable boost, or give it a mild OC (4GHz all cores might be reasonable and doable at 1.2v, stock with boost off is 1100mV or 1.1v as I tested that, the 8 core chips probably use less but I dunno), you may not need to worry about idle temperatures but I can't test this because my chip is a 12 core. The cache and RAM controller is quite different too, or at least, more capable. 

Make of this what you will but if temps and inaudible fans are your concern, the experience may be better on Intel chipsets, at least right now, as they are still very much working the kinks out with the x570 platform through BIOS updates atm. However, if performance and especially price/performance is your concern, well the 3700x overclocked correctly and with DDR4 3600MHz+ compares pretty favorably to an i9-9900k for over $150 less. It will likely gain performance over time and I would be unsurprised if because of vulnerabilities and the chip still being 14nm, that a i9-9900k a few years down the line will be worse in everything compared to a 3700x even if it is running at 5.2GHz with DDR4-4000+. Architecture and feature size on the Ryzen 3000 chips makes it superior although right now you could of course argue against this and provide a reasonable argument as to why. Only time will tell but I'm pretty confident that AMD and the board vendors will squeeze substantially more performance out of these chips and particularly my 3900x.

Hope this helps your purchase decision. I'm thrilled with my rig and it is a significant and worthwhile upgrade from my i7-4790k- which lasted me 6 years- I fully expect this new setup to last just as long if not longer.


----------



## Adventurer_

Hey Neurotix, thank you very much for you detailed answer!!! You really helped me a lot. I was not sure what to do but now I have quite a good picture.
I will probably make the leap and order my first AMD system after 10 years.


----------



## Sam64

Hi @all,


first of all I like to thank all of you. That's a great and very informative thread and you got some nice folks here. 

Neurotix, very nice details indeed. Since you mentioned the AI-Suite, i have a question: Is it already running on the CH8? I read about Fan Xpert 3, but didn't try it by now.


----------



## MacG32

Adventurer_ said:


> Thanks.
> 
> I have read multiple threads in multiple forums but there are always some people with weird problems that I am not sure if they are self caused or BIOS caused. Because I am prepairing to build a system worth a lot of money it is just better to ask than to "suspect".
> 
> 
> I already have a question..... somewhere I have heard that Asus x570 VIII Hero still has problems with fan control (which does supposedly not work). Do you know any more about that?
> I am planning to have an air cooled system which must be completely silent at IDLE. On my ancient Intel system I was able to achieve that at IDLE all fans are turned off.
> 
> Of course later on I will try to overclock if possible but system must be completely stable at default (100% working fan control is also included in the "stability" of the motherboard).
> 
> 
> Thanks for help!



There's no problem with fan control. You can adjust each fan to your liking. I would suggest an all-in-one water cooler for a more silent operation. The H100i Pro is about as silent as you'll get. Good luck on your build. :thumb:


----------



## neurotix

Adventurer_ said:


> Hey Neurotix, thank you very much for you detailed answer!!! You really helped me a lot. I was not sure what to do but now I have quite a good picture.
> I will probably make the leap and order my first AMD system after 10 years.





Sam64 said:


> Hi @all,
> 
> 
> first of all I like to thank all of you. That's a great and very informative thread and you got some nice folks here.
> 
> Neurotix, very nice details indeed. Since you mentioned the AI-Suite, i have a question: Is it already running on the CH8? I read about Fan Xpert 3, but didn't try it by now.


You're welcome. And welcome to OCN.

I would say you're making a very good choice price/performance wise, also with bios updates should you need the performance in the future I think a 3700x with great cooling will do 4.5GHz+. Otherwise, and especially with this board (which gives the chip 1.45v on auto, not sure if they fixed that in the latest bios but AMD claims it's normal), you will most probably want to disable Turbo outright and set the chip down to 1.1v or something. You'll definitely want a very serious $100+ tower heatsink if going air- Dark Rock Pro, Noctua D15 or something along those lines. Also probably want a serious case with great airflow. The socket and VRMs get pretty hot and I've seen my 3900x pulling 135 amps (insane) max during testing but I'm like, *really* hard on my chips. Being a hwbot bencher... I'm using a special bios and that was in Cinebench R20 with power saving features essentially off so the cores don't jump around or throttle at all to maintain lower power draw and temps. (Be aware that this is a wholly new architecture as I understand it, derived from Zen 1 and TR but altogether different- you WILL see your core speed fluctuating like crazy and it actually changes billions of times a second in all likelihood under load with stock/auto boost settings. No monitoring software can actually show it but yeah, if you think your CCD0 CCX0 is at 4625 because HWINfo64 says so, think again. Its decreasing it's speed constantly to maintain thermals from my understanding and from AMD's explanation themselves on reddit. Feel free to shoot this down if you disagree or know better but this is my understanding of how these chips work).

Also in a few years you'll have a great upgrade path to a used 3900x or even 3950x (32 thread!) if you like, or you can move to whatever comes next with Zen 3 assuming it will work on x570. 

If you're coming from an Intel quad or Extreme Edition 6 core it's well worth it, but anything like Ryzen 2000 or i7-8700k or newer, the improvement is probably not worth it. Worth it for me though but I gotta peddle my old kit on ebay because wife. Wish me luck, my 4790k was a SiliconLottery delid binned at 4.8GHz 1.3v, with DDR3-2600 C10. No buyers so far... 

As far as a CLC, mine is probably limiting my OC if I had to guess because my temps get quite high and I think I may actually have a great chip as I can do 1900 fclk no sweat and everything I've read indicates the majority of chips can't. I might have to get a 360mm AIO and new fans for it- in a few months once my old stuff is sold and I can convince the wife  I might actually do one of those EK starter kits, the ones with a combo res/pump that sits in your 5 1/4" bay. And add a premium block. Afaik it wouldn't be much more than a 360 AIO. I'd not be surprised in the least if a Noctua D15 would cool this thing a bit better than my H100i V2. And in the GamersNexus comparison of AIOs, the V2 cools stuff much better than the newer H100i Pro..

As far as the Fan Xpert 3, yeah, AI Suite installs it. Works fine for me on Win10 Pro 1903. However, I don't have it installed (I reformatted a few times when I broke W10- I held out on Win7 x64 w/ patches for years >.>). As I said, it basically also installs a Windows service that is always running and after you set a a fan profile you're happy with, you can disable AI Suite even starting up or running as the 'Asus Fancontrol Service' (was called that on my Win7/Maximus VI Hero anyway) will just apply your profile on startup. In this case, you don't want to bother with fan control through the bios. It's pretty much set it up and forget about AI Suite unless you need to open it to make a change. I do believe it launches on it's own as a scheduled task so hopefully you use W10 Pro and have access to Task Scheduler administrative tool so you can disable AI Suite running when you log in. I don't think it shows as a startup entry in Task Manager or elsewhere but I might be wrong.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Jackalito

Guys, does anyone know if it's possible to do P-States OC with Ryzen 3000 using our mobo?

I've been trying to find information about it without any luck.


----------



## kot0005

Getting some good clocks with 1001 BIOS on my C8F, CPu is on auto, oc lv3 and PBO on.this was after 3 hrs of playing Borderlands 3


----------



## MacG32

The first post is completely up to date now. Take a look over it in your free time. You may find something(s) very interesting there. Enjoy! :thumb:


----------



## centvalny

Testing C8I b-die 1:1


----------



## neurotix

MacG32 said:


> The first post is completely up to date now. Take a look over it in your free time. You may find something(s) very interesting there. Enjoy! :thumb:


Is it the bolded part at the bottom? Thanks for this.

I've had it off for a quite a while now and did various benches with it on or off, but couldn't ever figure out what the heck was causing it. Now I know 100% and knowing is is half the battle, lol. Great info. Repped. Thanks for running this thread too.



centvalny said:


> Testing C8I b-die 1:1


That's seriously impressive. Looking your kit up but I'm sure it's out of my price range.

Can you get latency that low while above 3800MHz memclk, or is it impossible because of the 10ms penalty running out of ratio? Thanks.


----------



## Jackalito

MacG32 said:


> The first post is completely up to date now. Take a look over it in your free time. You may find something(s) very interesting there. Enjoy! :thumb:


 Thanks, mate! +REP :thumb:

Hope the moving process is going smoothly by the way


----------



## criznit

I have a question that I just wanted clarification on. When I try to update the VDDP setting in bios, it's only displayed in whole number format. Is this value in mV?


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Yes if you entered 1100 it would be 1.100 or 900 it would be 0.900




criznit said:


> I have a question that I just wanted clarification on. When I try to update the VDDP setting in bios, it's only displayed in whole number format. Is this value in mV?


----------



## centvalny

neurotix said:


> That's seriously impressive. Looking your kit up but I'm sure it's out of my price range.
> 
> Can you get latency that low while above 3800MHz memclk, or is it impossible because of the 10ms penalty running out of ratio? Thanks.


Thank you.

4866C14 tight subs and fclk 1900 with same cpu speed 4.425Ghz should be comparable.


----------



## Jackalito

centvalny said:


> Thank you.
> 
> 4866C14 tight subs and fclk 1900 with same cpu speed 4.425Ghz should be comparable.


I'd be careful about such high voltage for the CPU if I were you.


----------



## Nighthog

centvalny said:


> Thank you.
> 
> 4866C14 tight subs and fclk 1900 with same cpu speed 4.425Ghz should be comparable.


Nice, great results.

And nice to see confirmation that 4800+ can get the latency back to 60-65ns range. 
What latencies did you get with some more reasonable or relaxed timings if you have any such results?


----------



## MacG32

neurotix said:


> Is it the bolded part at the bottom? Thanks for this.
> 
> I've had it off for a quite a while now and did various benches with it on or off, but couldn't ever figure out what the heck was causing it. Now I know 100% and knowing is is half the battle, lol. Great info. Repped. Thanks for running this thread too.



Testing 3rd-Gen Ryzen DDR4 Memory Performance and Scaling, AMD Ryzen Memory Tweaking & Overclocking Guide, and the first 3 things under Miscellaneous. I'm glad I could help. Thank you. 



Jackalito said:


> Thanks, mate! +REP :thumb:
> 
> Hope the moving process is going smoothly by the way



You're more than welcome. :thumb: Everything is almost completely set up and going smoothly.


----------



## kot0005

Does anyone know how to Fix the annoying 99.98 BCLK ? On previous Intel platform I just turned up the BCLK to 100.15 but I dont wana mess with it on AMD because its new tech.


----------



## MacG32

kot0005 said:


> Does anyone know how to Fix the annoying 99.98 BCLK ? On previous Intel platform I just turned up the BCLK to 100.15 but I dont wana mess with it on AMD because its new tech.



From the first post:

Miscellaneous

Is you Bus Clock/Speed/FSB ~99.8 MHz? Disable SB Clock Spread Spectrum under Extreme Tweaker\Tweaker's Paradise.


----------



## lklem

MacG32 said:


> From the first post:
> 
> Miscellaneous
> 
> Is you Bus Clock/Speed/FSB ~99.8 MHz? Disable SB Clock Spread Spectrum under Extreme Tweaker\Tweaker's Paradise.


Usually before disable spread spectrum =99.8mhz, after disable = 99.98mhz, will never will up to 100mhz


----------



## Reikoji

lklem said:


> Usually before disable spread spectrum =99.8mhz, after disable = 99.98mhz, will never will up to 100mhz


I personally dont know how people came to the spread spectrum conclusion, but for me the easy fix was, if using D.O.C.P, change BCLK from 100 back to auto. I have just been leaving the mode on manual and manually entering timings, so Bclk doent change to 100, and stays auto. Grantred my spread spectrum is also disabled, for manual switching frequency, If i go back to 100 bclk I'll be right back at 99.8. Might be a combination of the two.

EDIT: just read the original and its specifically 'SB Clock Spread Spectrum'. Some words have been being lost in translation .

For me at least, since there is a VRM spread spectrum as well.



centvalny said:


> Thank you.
> 
> 4866C14 tight subs and fclk 1900 with same cpu speed 4.425Ghz should be comparable.


1.43v is perfectly fine. Keep up the good work. Impact is proving to be the memory speed champ.


----------



## PolRoger

MacG32 said:


> From the first post:
> 
> Miscellaneous
> 
> Is you Bus Clock/Speed/FSB ~99.8 MHz? Disable SB Clock Spread Spectrum under Extreme Tweaker\Tweaker's Paradise.


I thought it was related to spread spectrum... Thanks for the pointer.

I have also noticed that the most recent version of CPUz (v1.90) will still show 99.98MHz bus even with it disabled while the previous version of CPUz (v1.89) shows correctly at 100MHz. AIDA64 CPUID also shows correctly at 100Mhz but vcore is reporting some other value? HWiNFO64 looks correct...

4.125GHz 3600C16 all core "cruncher" overclock:


----------



## kot0005

MacG32 said:


> From the first post:
> 
> Miscellaneous
> 
> Is you Bus Clock/Speed/FSB ~99.8 MHz? Disable SB Clock Spread Spectrum under Extreme Tweaker\Tweaker's Paradise.


Well that's awkward , thanks. It still shows 99.98 in CPU-Z tho even after turning it off.

How ever my CPu seems to boost to 4625Mhz instead of 4616. I have both CPU and SB Spread spectrums disabled.

I use Manual memory overclocking which is better than DCOP as am on 3200 B- Die.


----------



## neurotix

This behavior really is damn annoying given that non-whole numbers trigger damn near everyone's OCD. lol

Especially when you're an overclocker. I've been doing this for a long time now (since 1998 in fact- overclocked an AMD K6-2 350mhz to 450mhz using jumper banks next to the cpu socket) and now it would only bother me a lot if I were under 4000mhz or 5000mhz depending on what I've oced previous (phenom ii 1090t and fx-8350 vishera, Haswell, Kaby)

Anyway, I do have it disabled and yes its 'Southbridge (SB) Clock Spread Spectrum' and in our BIOS its the option at the top under Tweaker's Paradise (Tweaker's Paradise = meth house??? lol)

Anyway my build exhibits the exact same issue and with Spread Spectrum on its 99.8 bus and with it off its 99.98.

I'd advise anyone not to OC their bus as this can really make your system unstable, and in days past could even fry GPUs or SATA devices (isn't the PCI-E bus decoupled from the front side/system bus (100mhz) now? So maybe only memory and SATA could be affected?) I'm sure people will tell me I'm wrong but I don't overclock Bclk/bus as a rule.

If only we could set bus speed to 100.1 which doesn't have to capacity to damage anything over time. My 2013 z87 Maximus VI Hero had this fine grained control. This board only allows steps of 1 not 0.1.

Oh well. No way this thing is ever doing 5 so it won't be a problem for me.


----------



## Reikoji

neurotix said:


> This behavior really is damn annoying given that non-whole numbers trigger damn near everyone's OCD. lol
> 
> Especially when you're an overclocker. I've been doing this for a long time now (since 1998 in fact- overclocked an AMD K6-2 350mhz to 450mhz using jumper banks next to the cpu socket) and now it would only bother me a lot if I were under 4000mhz or 5000mhz depending on what I've oced previous (phenom ii 1090t and fx-8350 vishera, Haswell, Kaby)
> 
> Anyway, I do have it disabled and yes its 'Southbridge (SB) Clock Spread Spectrum' and in our BIOS its the option at the top under Tweaker's Paradise (Tweaker's Paradise = meth house??? lol)
> 
> Anyway my build exhibits the exact same issue and with Spread Spectrum on its 99.8 bus and with it off its 99.98.
> 
> I'd advise anyone not to OC their bus as this can really make your system unstable, and in days past could even fry GPUs or SATA devices (isn't the PCI-E bus decoupled from the front side/system bus (100mhz) now? So maybe only memory and SATA could be affected?) I'm sure people will tell me I'm wrong but I don't overclock Bclk/bus as a rule.
> 
> If only we could set bus speed to 100.1 which doesn't have to capacity to damage anything over time. My 2013 z87 Maximus VI Hero had this fine grained control. This board only allows steps of 1 not 0.1.
> 
> Oh well. No way this thing is ever doing 5 so it won't be a problem for me.


Did you try also setting Bclk from 100 to AUTO? irs what works for me.



Jackalito said:


> Guys, does anyone know if it's possible to do P-States OC with Ryzen 3000 using our mobo?
> 
> I've been trying to find information about it without any luck.


Theres only 1 Pstate to customize. Theres not much point to using it tho. If you use AMD Overclocking>Manual CPU Overclocking or Extreme Tweaker>CCX Overclocking you accomplish the same thing and keep power saving features.


----------



## Jackalito

Reikoji said:


> Theres only 1 Pstate to customize. Theres not much point to using it tho. If you use AMD Overclocking>Manual CPU Overclocking or Extreme Tweaker>CCX Overclocking you accomplish the same thing and keep power saving features.



Yeah, but I noticed that if I manually OC my chip, Ryzen Master is the only software capable of showing downclocking/downvolting and even cores going into sleep. HWiNFO shows as though all cores were at the maximum frequency all the time. I wonder if we'll see a diferent behavior once the new SDK from AMD becomes available come September 30.


Cheers!


----------



## rv8000

centvalny said:


> Thank you.
> 
> 4866C14 tight subs and fclk 1900 with same cpu speed 4.425Ghz should be comparable.


What kind of vdimm you running with such tight primaries for 4800? 1.6+?


----------



## centvalny

rv8000 said:


> What kind of vdimm you running with such tight primaries for 4800? 1.6+?


Only for benching ram with ambient air only. 1.97V for 4800 14-13-13 and 1.99V~2.01V for 4866~4933, also with windows maxmem 1K~2.4K


----------



## rv8000

centvalny said:


> Only for benching ram with ambient air only. 1.97V for 4800 14-13-13 and 1.99V~2.01V for 4866~4933, also with windows maxmem 1K~2.4K


I think the lack of vdimm in your posts was getting some peoples hopes up


----------



## Adventurer_

Hey guys,

How is the Wi-FI reception on the Asus Crosshair Viii Hero (Wi-Fi)?
Is it a good idea to buy the wifi version of the motherboard or would it be better to buy the ordinary version (which is a little cheaper) and buy a good PCI-E WI-FI card?


ps.: yeah, sorry  I know this debate is about overclocking these motherboards, CPUs and memory but I have no idea where else to ask these questions.


----------



## Sam64

Thanks also from me for the warm welcome. Here is my new rack, just built up last week (still needs some cable-management work to be done) I like your clean setup KingEngineRevUp, well done. My Lian Li case is nice, but doesn't have that much space...


----------



## Sam64

In Germany the price difference is only 5,- Euro, Adventurer_ . That's why i didn't hesitate and took the wifi-version. And it's working as specified, but I only made a short test, since I'm using wifi only as backup, which can be handsome in case my cable-provider is down, which happens rarely, but it happens...


----------



## Adventurer_

Sam64 said:


> In Germany the price difference is only 5,- Euro, Adventurer_ . That's why i didn't hesitate and took the wifi-version.


Nice, thanks! Next week I will rock the new AMD system  Ordering it today.


----------



## rv8000

Adventurer_ said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> How is the Wi-FI reception on the Asus Crosshair Viii Hero (Wi-Fi)?
> Is it a good idea to buy the wifi version of the motherboard or would it be better to buy the ordinary version (which is a little cheaper) and buy a good PCI-E WI-FI card?
> 
> 
> ps.: yeah, sorry  I know this debate is about overclocking these motherboards, CPUs and memory but I have no idea where else to ask these questions.


20' away and through two plaster walls I get anywhere from 250-500 mpbs download and my upload always hits 500 mpbs (currently have 500/500 fiber). It generally depends on what server you're downloading from but the specific antenna that comes packaged seems a little bit better than most of the off brand AX200 cards you can buy on the market atm. For instance downloading from steam I peak at 64 MB/s dl and hover around 54 MB/s over wifi.


----------



## dlbsyst

Duplicate post.


----------



## dlbsyst

Adventurer_ said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> How is the Wi-FI reception on the Asus Crosshair Viii Hero (Wi-Fi)?
> Is it a good idea to buy the wifi version of the motherboard or would it be better to buy the ordinary version (which is a little cheaper) and buy a good PCI-E WI-FI card?
> 
> 
> ps.: yeah, sorry  I know this debate is about overclocking these motherboards, CPUs and memory but I have no idea where else to ask these questions.


Here in the U.S. the price difference is only $20 so IMO the WIFI version is definitely worth it. You also get Bluetooth 5.0.:thumb:


----------



## kot0005

Getting Sweet latency with CCX OC, currently using 4500/4500/4325/4325 and 1.325v


----------



## dlbsyst

kot0005 said:


> Getting Sweet latency with CCX OC, currently using 4500/4500/4325/4325 and 1.325v


Very Nice! I see that your running at 3733Mhz on your Formula. I can't get my 4 sticks of Flair-X RAM to run at that speed on my Hero, just reboots and takes me back to BIOS. The funny thing is it will run at 3800Mhz but it doesn't seem to offer any benefit over my current 3600Mhz settings. Probably because I have Gear Down Mode disabled at 3600Mhz and have to enable it a 3800.


----------



## kevin300z

eyecrave said:


> Have you tried with 1 or 2 sticks. 2 sticks in A2 and B2 to see if it's the ram?


Using Bios Version 0901 2019/09/20 used Easy Update tool from Asus.

Using 1st two sticks of ram in A2/B2 and OCP at 3200mhz ram boots to desktop and runs fine.
Using 2nd two sticks of ram in A2/B2 and OCP at 3200mhz ram boots to desktop and runs fine.
Using both sets does not post.
Are there issues with using 4 sticks of ram? Are there issues with 32 gigs of memory?

My build:


----------



## zsoltmol

Hi!

Do you know what is the difference between 1001 and 0901 (released on sept 20) bios? Description is quite generic on Asus site.


----------



## Jackalito

zsoltmol said:


> Hi!
> 
> Do you know what is the difference between 1001 and 0901 (released on sept 20) bios? Description is quite generic on Asus site.


BIOS 1001 includes AGESA 1.0.0.3 ABBA to fix boost clocks.


----------



## eyecrave

kevin300z said:


> Using Bios Version 0901 2019/09/20 used Easy Update tool from Asus.
> 
> Using 1st two sticks of ram in A2/B2 and OCP at 3200mhz ram boots to desktop and runs fine.
> Using 2nd two sticks of ram in A2/B2 and OCP at 3200mhz ram boots to desktop and runs fine.
> Using both sets does not post.
> Are there issues with using 4 sticks of ram? Are there issues with 32 gigs of memory?
> 
> My build:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-jhoxfc-jI



There are quite a few people running 4 sticks on the crosshair 8 in this thread including the OP. Did you run any kind of memory test on your ram when you were checking if they booted? Also next thing would probably be to check if you can boot with both sets one at a time in slots A1 and B1 to see if all your motherboard dimms are working. Make sure to run a memory test on them to see if the ram is faulty as well. Try this one which is link from 1usmus sig https://www.overclock.net/forum/27937684-post4314.html.

So i was having this issue this week where my cpu would not downclock to 0.200V while idle and reinstalled the chipset drivers many times and also reflashed bios and nothing worked. Turns out it was aura sync in rainbow mode which for some reason uses more cpu than just color cycle. So anyone else experiencing this can check as it was driving me nuts that i almost formatted my pc to see if it would fix my issue.


----------



## zsoltmol

Jackalito said:


> BIOS 1001 includes AGESA 1.0.0.3 ABBA to fix boost clocks.


I know. But 0901 is a later released bios than 1001.

Interesting:
1001: released on september 12, built on september 9, AGESA 1.0.0.3 ABBA
0901: released on september 20, built on august 27, AGESA 1.0.0.3 ??? - uncertain this is an upgrade to 1001 so I did not flash it.


----------



## kevin300z

eyecrave said:


> There are quite a few people running 4 sticks on the crosshair 8 in this thread including the OP. Did you run any kind of memory test on your ram when you were checking if they booted? Also next thing would probably be to check if you can boot with both sets one at a time in slots A1 and B1 to see if all your motherboard dimms are working. Make sure to run a memory test on them to see if the ram is faulty as well. Try this one which is link from 1usmus sig https://www.overclock.net/forum/27937684-post4314.html.
> 
> This was my original post:
> 
> 
> 
> kevin300z said:
> 
> 
> 
> CPU:AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 8-Core
> Motherboard:ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Hero X570 ATX Motherboard
> Memory:32GB CORSAIR VENGEANCE RGB PRO 16GB (4x8GB) DDR4 3200MHz C16 LED Desktop Memory
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D1XCKWW/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
> 
> Issue:Can't get above 3000MHz. Tried OCP profile, will not post. Using latest Version 0803 bios. Had same issue with stock and Version 0702 bios. Memory defaults to 2133 when flashing CMOS. Any OCP combination results in not posting. Tried many clock speeds and voltages including 1.4v. Can get max speed of 3000MHz by exclusively selecting ram speed. Bought the QVL ram on Newegg which looks exactly the same as the Amazon Corsair ram and had same results no post above 3000MHz:
> https://www.newegg.com/corsair-32gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820236408?Item=N82E16820236408
> 
> CORSAIR CMW32GX4M4C3200C16(Ver5.32)(XMP) 4x 8GB SS Hynix - 16-18-18-36 1.35 as listed on the ASUS page: https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...G_Crosshair_VIII_Series_Memory_QVL_190801.pdf
> 
> Any suggestions?
> 
> 
> 
> So i was having this issue this week where my cpu would not downclock to 0.200V while idle and reinstalled the chipset drivers many times and also reflashed bios and nothing worked. Turns out it was aura sync in rainbow mode which for some reason uses more cpu than just color cycle. So anyone else experiencing this can check as it was driving me nuts that i almost formatted my pc to see if it would fix my issue.
Click to expand...

Sorry forgot to say with 4 sticks I can't get the stock speed to run, 3200 with OCP or selecting 3200mhz. I can only max out at 3000mhz by manual selection of just ram mhz.


----------



## Jackalito

zsoltmol said:


> I know. But 0901 is a later released bios than 1001.
> 
> Interesting:
> 1001: released on september 12, built on september 9, AGESA 1.0.0.3 ABBA
> 0901: released on september 20, built on august 27, AGESA 1.0.0.3 ??? - uncertain this is an upgrade to 1001 so I did not flash it.


Sorry about that - didn't realize 0901 had been published later, but according to your findings I doubt it's worth the trouble unless you're having unsolved issues.


----------



## eyecrave

kevin300z said:


> Sorry forgot to say with 4 sticks I can't get the stock speed to run, 3200 with OCP or selecting 3200mhz. I can only max out at 3000mhz by manual selection of just ram mhz.



If your ram is working fine but you can't get the rated speed out of them then the only suggestion i can make is use the dram calculator https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...locking-dram-am4-membench-0-8-dram-bench.html. I would suggest starting out with safe settings then if you feel comfortable try fast settings. Also make sure to input everything including the settings in the advanced tab of the calculator. Take a pic with your phone or tablet and if you can't find a setting press F9 while in bios to search for the settings.


----------



## PolRoger

With BIOS 1001... Under the advanced AMD overclocking section... The "vcore millivolt" input block doesn't seem to apply higher voltages? It always seems to be stuck at a ~1.1v p-state? If you input a zero the board defaults auto voltage ~1.48v+...

I can change multi and vcore in the "Extreme Tweaker" section but I thought I could modify all core overclocks and voltage(s) here in the advanced AMD overclocking section with earlier BIOS?


----------



## kot0005

dlbsyst said:


> Very Nice! I see that your running at 3733Mhz on your Formula. I can't get my 4 sticks of Flair-X RAM to run at that speed on my Hero, just reboots and takes me back to BIOS. The funny thing is it will run at 3800Mhz but it doesn't seem to offer any benefit over my current 3600Mhz settings. Probably because I have Gear Down Mode disabled at 3600Mhz and have to enable it a 3800.



Hi, I have 3200 Cl14 B-die. am running 3733 with custom timings from Actually hardcore overclocking's video. using 1.425v I can do 3800 but my latency had little to no improvement and I had to use higher voltages.. so 3733 is better for me.


----------



## kot0005

zsoltmol said:


> I know. But 0901 is a later released bios than 1001.
> 
> Interesting:
> 1001: released on september 12, built on september 9, AGESA 1.0.0.3 ABBA
> 0901: released on september 20, built on august 27, AGESA 1.0.0.3 ??? - uncertain this is an upgrade to 1001 so I did not flash it.


1001 has BIOS level CCX overclocking. I highly recommend it and tun off bullcrap PBO , set overclock to Auto and check what frequencies your cpu is stable on each CCX in Ryzen master. PBO temps are way too high at both idle and load for me.


----------



## kot0005

PolRoger said:


> With BIOS 1001... Under the advanced AMD overclocking section... The "vcore millivolt" input block doesn't seem to apply higher voltages? It always seems to be stuck at a ~1.1v p-state? If you input a zero the board defaults auto voltage ~1.48v+...
> 
> I can change multi and vcore in the "Extreme Tweaker" section but I thought I could modify all core overclocks and voltage(s) here in the advanced AMD overclocking section with earlier BIOS?


Why dont you just use CCX overclocking ?


----------



## PolRoger

kot0005 said:


> Why dont you just use CCX overclocking ?



I'm also interested in CCX overclocking! I haven't tested that feature yet. I see that you like it... Do you have any tips or preferred methods for dialing that method in?

The advanced overclock voltage section retains the "powerstate/sleep" functions (core speed and voltages drop) at idle when running efficient lower power all core overclocks. 

I don't really care for PBO overclock too much... I do keep one saved in BIOS with good memory speed and timings but I prefer various "dialed in" all core overclocks.


----------



## kot0005

PolRoger said:


> I'm also interested in CCX overclocking! I haven't tested that feature yet. I see that you like it... Do you have any tips or preferred methods for dialing that method in?
> 
> The advanced overclock voltage section retains the "powerstate/sleep" functions (core speed and voltages drop) at idle when running efficient lower power all core overclocks.
> 
> I don't really care for PBO overclock too much... I do keep one saved in BIOS with good memory speed and timings but I prefer various "dialed in" all core overclocks.


Test your CCX stability with ryzen master first then apply it in the BIOS.

There is 1 voltage option called Vore VID , in CCX overclocking section, it mentions sleep/power save state. I am not sure if that works but you can test it and let us know.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

eyecrave said:


> KingEngineRevUp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Argus Monitoring. I ended up paying for it because it works very well. It's my replacement for Speedfan when I was with Intel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey i recently bought a license for this software as it was annoying having to go back to bios all the time if i wanted to change fan settings. I found that there is Temp 7 reading and it's reading 100c+. However i can't find this temp in hwinfo or the bios anything close to that temp. Would you happen to know what it is if you do see it?
> 
> 
> 
> flyinion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone know where or if there is a setting in this BIOS for "cLDO VDDP voltage"? I was trying to set that after running the DRAM calculator and either I was trying to change the wrong setting or it's very unclear how to set a voltage for it. I found the VDDG version on the main tweaking page (where you set DOCP vs manual vs auto etc and vcore type stuff) and there was a VDDP option there too. When I tried to change it from "Auto" to 0.95 though it would change it to a weird 700 number. As in just "700". Is this the right setting parameter? If so how do you set the voltage for it? I ended up leaving it on auto and the DRAM calc settings are working anyway but I'd kinda like to know what's up in case I decided to try the faster settings from it or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If i remember correctly while going through my ram oc adventure that this sets it in mv not v so the number it defaults to is 700(0.700) so if you put anything like 0.900 it will default to 700. Also press f9 and search for settings that are hard to find in the bios. This was also the only way i found BGS settings but had to type full name bankgroupswap or just bank will find it. If you want a copy of your settings in bios you can save them onto a usb in the profiles tab if you scroll all the way to the bottom. Ctrl + F2 will save your bios settings in text file and F2 will save the current bios you saved. I initially thought it would save all the profiles but it only saves the current saved one so you have to load all of them and save manually if you have more than one. With all the stuff i changed in bios i wanted a copy because upgrading from 0803 to 1001 left my profiles but they didn't work properly so i had to do a usb flashback which wiped all my profiles. Had to redo all my settings which took awhile and i think i'm done messing with my ram until a new bios comes out.
Click to expand...

You're awesome! A lot of good tips I wasn't aware of.

What is BGS anyways?


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

So 0901 is out... I'm guessing this doesn't have ABBA and it's meant for people without a Zen 2?

https://i.redd.it/gx1oj14qi4o31.png


----------



## satyrn

*satyrn*



kot0005 said:


> 1001 has BIOS level CCX overclocking. I highly recommend it and tun off bullcrap PBO , set overclock to Auto and check what frequencies your cpu is stable on each CCX in Ryzen master. PBO temps are way too high at both idle and load for me.


Yep, except the ABBA brought specifically fixes to auto boost, so basically you miss the single or few core boosts in games etc which is the point.

Another thing, I was wondering this 901 thing and found this thread, its weird because inside the zip file isnt bios renamer tool which is usually in asus bioses AND required to install the bios. I renamed it both manually and using bios renamer from 1001 zip, and mobo (hero VIII) said not valid bios file or something like that. Also tried with original name. 

So Im using 1001 which works well but upped the boot time and bios load time to even worse.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

I do not see any guides for all core overclocking. Is there any that I am missing? Whenever I manually set 43x the vcore drops to 1.1v. Cant seem to fix this problem.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Since we can't seem to set dram boot voltage, what is the bios booting at then? 




ZealotKi11er said:


> I do not see any guides for all core overclocking. Is there any that I am missing? Whenever I manually set 43x the vcore drops to 1.1v. Cant seem to fix this problem.


CCX is the way to OC these CPUs. There's a guide somewhere here I believe.


----------



## Hale59




----------



## PolRoger

kot0005 said:


> Test your CCX stability with ryzen master first then apply it in the BIOS.
> 
> There is 1 voltage option called Vore VID , in CCX overclocking section, it mentions sleep/power save state. I am not sure if that works but you can test it and let us know.


The Vcore VID section here does function with a working sleep/power save state during idle (1001 BIOS)

I'm looking into individual CCX stability on my cpu now... 

I was trying to use Ryzen Master to assign 3 different speeds to the binned/marked cores but I'm not sure it is possible to assign multiple different core speeds? (See first screenshot below)




ZealotKi11er said:


> I do not see any guides for all core overclocking. Is there any that I am missing? Whenever I manually set 43x the vcore drops to 1.1v. Cant seem to fix this problem.


What board/bios are you running? 

With my CH8H wifi (1001 BIOS) I'm able to get multi and vcore to function under the primary Extreme Tweaker Section as well as in the CCX overclocking menu. Under the advanced AMD overclocking section... The cpu speed block works but the voltage block seems to default to ~1100mv (~1.1v P-State). See following screenshots below...


----------



## ZealotKi11er

PolRoger said:


> The Vcore VID section here does function with a working sleep/power save state during idle (1001 BIOS)
> 
> I'm looking into individual CCX stability on my cpu now...
> 
> I was trying to use Ryzen Master to assign 3 different speeds to the binned/marked cores but I'm not sure it is possible to assign multiple different core speeds? (See first screenshot below)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What board/bios are you running?
> 
> With my CH8H wifi (1001 BIOS) I'm able to get multi and vcore to function under the primary Extreme Tweaker Section as well as in the CCX overclocking menu. Under the advanced AMD overclocking section... The cpu speed block works but the voltage block seems to default to ~1100mv (~1.1v P-State). See following screenshots below...


I have 3700X and ASUS TUF X570. 

I will give your settings a try.


----------



## eyecrave

KingEngineRevUp said:


> You're awesome! A lot of good tips I wasn't aware of.
> 
> What is BGS anyways?



TLDR for BGS is off good for games on good for synthetic benchmarks like aida64. If you want to read up on it and find out more info it is referenced in the following links. The second link gives a pretty good breakdown on what each setting does for ram oc not just bgs but most of what the data you are getting from dram calculator.

https://community.amd.com/community...emory-oc-showdown-frequency-vs-memory-timings
https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/ahs5a2/demystifying_memory_overclocking_on_ryzen_oc/


----------



## PolRoger

Okay... After searching some online I found out that you can't just assign custom core speeds to individual cores but rather you need to keep all the cores per CCX assigned with the same speed/multi. 

I guess I'll need to test/bin each CCX to find out how well each can run...

A quick R20 test run with varied CCX speeds based off a previous all core 4.175GHz @1.225v:


----------



## kot0005

PolRoger said:


> The Vcore VID section here does function with a working sleep/power save state during idle (1001 BIOS)
> 
> I'm looking into individual CCX stability on my cpu now...
> 
> I was trying to use Ryzen Master to assign 3 different speeds to the binned/marked cores but I'm not sure it is possible to assign multiple different core speeds? (See first screenshot below)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What board/bios are you running?
> 
> With my CH8H wifi (1001 BIOS) I'm able to get multi and vcore to function under the primary Extreme Tweaker Section as well as in the CCX overclocking menu. Under the advanced AMD overclocking section... The cpu speed block works but the voltage block seems to default to ~1100mv (~1.1v P-State). See following screenshots below...



The stars and binned cores in ryzen dont matter. CCD0 cores will always be the best cores, you should be able to get them to run at 4400mhz minimum and CCD1 is always trial and error because its low binned. I can only get 4325Mhz on ccd1 with 1.32v

did you figure out how the CORE VID value works in the CCX overclocking section ? do you just use your Cpu core voltage value in it ?


----------



## flyinion

*ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp; Discussion Thread*



PolRoger said:


> Okay... After searching some online I found out that you can't just assign custom core speeds to individual cores but rather you need to keep all the cores per CCX assigned with the same speed/multi.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I'll need to test/bin each CCX to find out how well each can run...
> 
> 
> 
> A quick R20 test run with varied CCX speeds based off a previous all core 4.175GHz @1.225v:



I might be remembering wrong but I thought Der8auer had a tool that would allow individual core clocking but it's highly unsupported etc if you break something. I could be wrong and it was for CCX overclock before it was a BIOS option though. 



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Jackalito

flyinion said:


> I might be remembering wrong but I thought Der8auer had a tool that would allow individual core clocking but it's highly unsupported etc if you break something. I could be wrong and it was for CCX overclock before it was a BIOS option though.


The tool was made by Shamino, which is why it's now been included in the UEFI firmware. Please guys, remember to only use Auto CPU VCore if you're gonna fiddle with per-CCX OC.


----------



## flyinion

Jackalito said:


> The tool was made by Shamino, which is why it's now been included in the UEFI firmware. Please guys, remember to only use Auto CPU VCore if you're gonna fiddle with per-CCX OC.




Ah ok thanks. Like I said I couldn't remember for sure it's been a few weeks since he did the video with it. That does sound right that it's CCX and not per core the more I think about it. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## PolRoger

kot0005 said:


> The stars and binned cores in ryzen dont matter. CCD0 cores will always be the best cores, you should be able to get them to run at 4400mhz minimum and CCD1 is always trial and error because its low binned. I can only get 4325Mhz on ccd1 with 1.32v
> 
> did you figure out how the CORE VID value works in the CCX overclocking section ? do you just use your Cpu core voltage value in it ?


You just enter the value in the CCX/VID field as 1.225 or 1.275... I also left the vcore under the main CPU Tweaker Tab on "auto".

Testing CCX overclock @4375/4350/4275/4250 with 1.2625v BIOS LLC level 3 drooping under load @ ~1.225v:


----------



## kot0005

Jackalito said:


> The tool was made by Shamino, which is why it's now been included in the UEFI firmware. Please guys, remember to only use Auto CPU VCore if you're gonna fiddle with per-CCX OC.


Ohh, why ?? In ryzen master you can manually set the voltage with CCX overclocking. Why not in the BIOS ?



PolRoger said:


> You just enter the value in the CCX/VID field as 1.225 or 1.275... I also left the vcore under the main CPU Tweaker Tab on "auto".
> 
> Testing CCX overclock @4375/4350/4275/4250 with 1.2625v BIOS LLC level 3 drooping under load @ ~1.225v:


I dont understand! so the VID voltage in the CCX OC section is basically Core voltage ? why did you leave core voltage as auto ? is 1.275 like the max for VID or can I go upto 1.35v ?


I set my VID to 1.32v and left the main cpu voltage to auto, Would be nice to know why you need to leave the main voltage on auto .


----------



## PolRoger

kot0005 said:


> Ohh, why ?? In ryzen master you can manually set the voltage with CCX overclocking. Why not in the BIOS ?
> 
> 
> I dont understand! so the VID voltage in the CCX OC section is basically Core voltage ? why did you leave core voltage as auto ? is 1.275 like the max for VID or can I go upto 1.35v ?
> 
> 
> I set my VID to 1.32v and left the main cpu voltage to auto, Would be nice to know why you need to leave the main voltage on auto .


I'm guessing that the CCX overclocking section piggybacks or interfaces through the Advanced Tab... Ryzen Overclocking section which I think is basically the "Ryzen Master and PBO Module" of the BIOS.

When I overclock using that section... Entering a cpu speed and voltage in millivolts then I leave the front Extreme Tweaker Tab multi and vcore both on auto. Kind of like how when you leave everything in the BIOS on default settings (all auto) PBO is still active and running most likely via this Advanced AMD BIOS section. 

On my CH6E which is running on early BIOS (still waiting on ABBA update) the only way to overclock Ryzen 3000 series is to use the advanced tab/AMD overclocking section as the front Extreme Tweaker Tab doesn't work properly with Ryzen 2.

I thought PiLsY's guide from the XS Forum for overclocking Ryzen 2 had some good info...

Link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tDnJv6robi_wS0uKu0MgAQ2jywbjXKmN/view


----------



## kot0005

PolRoger said:


> kot0005 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohh, why ?? In ryzen master you can manually set the voltage with CCX overclocking. Why not in the BIOS ?
> 
> 
> I dont understand! so the VID voltage in the CCX OC section is basically Core voltage ? why did you leave core voltage as auto ? is 1.275 like the max for VID or can I go upto 1.35v ?
> 
> 
> I set my VID to 1.32v and left the main cpu voltage to auto, Would be nice to know why you need to leave the main voltage on auto .
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing that the CCX overclocking section piggybacks or interfaces through the Advanced Tab... Ryzen Overclocking section which I think is basically the "Ryzen Master and PBO Module" of the BIOS.
> 
> When I overclock using that section... Entering a cpu speed and voltage in millivolts then I leave the front Extreme Tweaker Tab multi and vcore both on auto. Kind of like how when you leave everything in the BIOS on default settings (all auto) PBO is still active and running most likely via this Advanced AMD BIOS section.
> 
> On my CH6E which is running on early BIOS (still waiting on ABBA update) the only way to overclock Ryzen 3000 series is to use the advanced tab/AMD overclocking section as the front Extreme Tweaker Tab doesn't work properly with Ryzen 2.
> 
> I thought PiLsY's guide from the XS Forum for overclocking Ryzen 2 had some good info...
> 
> Link:
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tDnJv6robi_wS0uKu0MgAQ2jywbjXKmN/view
Click to expand...

That article has a lot of stuff I already know, its also using gigabyte bios which is different to Asus bios settings. I am on a 3900x and C8F. That document still doesnt explain why leave core on auto and use VID instead during ccx overclock. Here are the settings I am using. Let me know if these are dangerous or am doing it wrong. My system is stable and i have done 2 days of gaming with them. Memory is manual and everything else is auto.


----------



## neurotix

kot0005 said:


> That article has a lot of stuff I already know, its also using gigabyte bios which is different to Asus bios settings. I am on a 3900x and C8F. That document still doesnt explain why leave core on auto and use VID instead during ccx overclock. Here are the settings I am using. Let me know if these are dangerous or am doing it wrong. My system is stable and i have done 2 days of gaming with them. Memory is manual and everything else is auto.



Buddy, help me out. Is that the ASUS 1001 BIOS?

Thanks.

(I'm still using Shaminos' beta with CCX overclocking but haven't upgraded to ASUS 1001 because I don't want to lose the CCX overclock ability with lowered VID...)


----------



## eyecrave

neurotix said:


> Buddy, help me out. Is that the ASUS 1001 BIOS?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> (I'm still using Shaminos' beta with CCX overclocking but haven't upgraded to ASUS 1001 because I don't want to lose the CCX overclock ability with lowered VID...)



I'm not sure if this is what you mean but it is something i have never seen before in bios.


----------



## PolRoger

kot0005 said:


> That article has a lot of stuff I already know, its also using gigabyte bios which is different to Asus bios settings. I am on a 3900x and C8F. That document still doesnt explain why leave core on auto and use VID instead during ccx overclock. Here are the settings I am using. Let me know if these are dangerous or am doing it wrong. My system is stable and i have done 2 days of gaming with them. Memory is manual and everything else is auto.


Your BIOS settings look okay to me...

I tried your CCX 45x/43.25x @1.32v but I couldn't seem to get my combo stress stable. It seems that you have better quality chiplets in your cpu sample than mine. 

I also tested CCX with vcore entered/applied from the front Extreme Tweaker Tab leaving the CCX VID section on "auto" and it seemed to function okay. You lose some of the sleep/power save features and I also noticed that 
the HWiNFO VID reporting shows up differently between the two methods...

If Shamino created this CCX overclocking feature for the BIOS I don't know why he did it the way that he did but it seems to work well. I think I prefer having the sleep/power save features active.



neurotix said:


> Buddy, help me out. Is that the ASUS 1001 BIOS?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> (I'm still using Shaminos' beta with CCX overclocking but haven't upgraded to ASUS 1001 because I don't want to lose the CCX overclock ability with lowered VID...)


I believe he is running 1001... I'm using it now and it does have a CCX section.



eyecrave said:


> I'm not sure if this is what you mean but it is something i have never seen before in bios.


That is it.


----------



## criznit

I was doing some CCX overclocking and now I'm getting a "0C" code on my motherboard. What does this mean?


----------



## PolRoger

criznit said:


> I was doing some CCX overclocking and now I'm getting a "0C" code on my motherboard. What does this mean?


I'm not sure what all the different post codes mean on ASUS boards but I've seen "AA", "A0", and "0C" on different platforms while running normally... Right now on my CH8 it is showing "0C".


----------



## dlbsyst

PolRoger said:


> I'm not sure what all the different post codes mean on ASUS boards but I've seen "AA", "A0", and "0C" on different platforms while running normally... Right now on my CH8 it is showing "0C".


Why are you guys staring at that when you could have your CPU's temperature shown while in Windows real time?

Go to Advanced - Onboard Devices Configuration - Q-Code LED Function and change it from the default Post Code Only to Auto and your all set.


----------



## kot0005

neurotix said:


> Buddy, help me out. Is that the ASUS 1001 BIOS?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> (I'm still using Shaminos' beta with CCX overclocking but haven't upgraded to ASUS 1001 because I don't want to lose the CCX overclock ability with lowered VID...)


Yes its the 1001 BIOS from Asus's website.


----------



## criznit

Thanks both of you!


----------



## kot0005

PolRoger said:


> Your BIOS settings look okay to me...
> 
> I tried your CCX 45x/43.25x @1.32v but I couldn't seem to get my combo stress stable. It seems that you have better quality chiplets in your cpu sample than mine.
> 
> I also tested CCX with vcore entered/applied from the front Extreme Tweaker Tab leaving the CCX VID section on "auto" and it seemed to function okay. You lose some of the sleep/power save features and I also noticed that
> the HWiNFO VID reporting shows up differently between the two methods...
> 
> If Shamino created this CCX overclocking feature for the BIOS I don't know why he did it the way that he did but it seems to work well. I think I prefer having the sleep/power save features active.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe he is running 1001... I'm using it now and it does have a CCX section.
> 
> 
> 
> That is it.


On that sucks, I thought all 3900x 's could do atleast 4400 on CCD0, what does your voltage drop to during desktop idling/no load ? also do you use Ryzen balanced power option ?


----------



## Reikoji

PolRoger said:


> Your BIOS settings look okay to me...
> 
> I tried your CCX 45x/43.25x @1.32v but I couldn't seem to get my combo stress stable. It seems that you have better quality chiplets in your cpu sample than mine.
> 
> I also tested CCX with vcore entered/applied from the front Extreme Tweaker Tab leaving the CCX VID section on "auto" and it seemed to function okay. You lose some of the sleep/power save features and I also noticed that
> the HWiNFO VID reporting shows up differently between the two methods...


Maybe your Load line Calibration isnt matched? Level 3.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Dam my 3700X is bad. I could not get 4.3GHz to run with R20 even with 1.45v.


----------



## Jackalito

ZealotKi11er said:


> Dam my 3700X is bad. I could not get 4.3GHz to run with R20 even with 1.45v.


My 3700X can only make 4.25 GHz with 1.325V. Haven't tried higher clocks than that as I don't feel comfortable with more voltage.


----------



## PolRoger

kot0005 said:


> On that sucks, I thought all 3900x 's could do atleast 4400 on CCD0, what does your voltage drop to during desktop idling/no load ? also do you use Ryzen balanced power option ?


I think this sample is rather piggish... And it runs kind of hot once the volts start to rise. This chip is huffing it to run 44x on CCD0 and 43x on CCD1. There might be a little margin left but I'm not so sure? Load temps in the mid ~70's with ambient at ~24/25C under custom water with a thick 420 rad.

My idle voltages drop down to ~.500v and bounce around from there the lowest recorded in the screenshot is .328v and I'm running Ryzen Balanced power plan.




Reikoji said:


> Maybe your Load line Calibration isnt matched? Level 3.


I was running LLC 1 but when I started pushing/testing the CCX binning I bumped it up to Level 3...


Current ~44x/~43x CCX all core overclock:


----------



## kot0005

ZealotKi11er said:


> Dam my 3700X is bad. I could not get 4.3GHz to run with R20 even with 1.45v.


 or may be you killed it with 1.45v manual voltage lol. That is so high.


----------



## kot0005

PolRoger said:


> kot0005 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On that sucks, I thought all 3900x 's could do atleast 4400 on CCD0, what does your voltage drop to during desktop idling/no load ? also do you use Ryzen balanced power option ?
> 
> 
> 
> I think this sample is rather piggish... And it runs kind of hot once the volts start to rise. This chip is huffing it to run 44x on CCD0 and 43x on CCD1. There might be a little margin left but I'm not so sure? Load temps in the mid ~70's with ambient at ~24/25C under custom water with a thick 420 rad.
> 
> My idle voltages drop down to ~.500v and bounce around from there the lowest recorded in the screenshot is .328v and I'm running Ryzen Balanced power plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reikoji said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe your Load line Calibration isnt matched? Level 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was running LLC 1 but when I started pushing/testing the CCX binning I bumped it up to Level 3...
> 
> 
> Current ~44x/~43x CCX all core overclock:
Click to expand...

Not sure what I am doing differently but my cpu voltage doesnt reach idle so it never goes below 1.25v and mostly stays locked at 1.32v unless llc kicks in. Am using performance plan but it was the same with balanced plan. Do you use the AMD overclocking section in the bios ?


----------



## PolRoger

kot0005 said:


> Not sure what I am doing differently but my cpu voltage doesnt reach idle so it never goes below 1.25v and mostly stays locked at 1.32v unless llc kicks in. Am using performance plan but it was the same with balanced plan. Do you use the AMD overclocking section in the bios ?


Try using the Windows Ryzen Balanced Power Plan and then go to Windows Advanced Power Settings click on Processor power management and set Minimum power state to 5%.

You will also have to use either the BIOS... CCX VID tab/section or the Advanced AMD Overclocking Voltage block/box (millivolts) currently not working in ver. 1001 as voltage always stays/defaults to ~1100mv.


----------



## kot0005

PolRoger said:


> Try using the Windows Ryzen Balanced Power Plan and then go to Windows Advanced Power Settings click on Processor power management and set Minimum power state to 5%.
> 
> You will also have to use either the BIOS... CCX VID tab/section or the Advanced AMD Overclocking Voltage block/box (millivolts) currently not working in ver. 1001 as voltage always stays/defaults to ~1100mv.


Would you please mind posting some photos of these BIOS settings that you are using ? (only bios settings, Not windows power plan)

Cheers.


----------



## neurotix

kot0005 said:


> Would you please mind posting some photos of these BIOS settings that you are using ? (only bios settings, Not windows power plan)
> 
> Cheers.


I think hes talking about the section I asked you about, as I wanted to know if its present in the ASUS 1001 bios. The per core/CCD OC section in Extreme Tweaker section right above PBO and stuff like DRAM timing.

It lets you set individual ratios for each CCX as well as allows for lowering VID from the stock 1.45v. (Even if you do a manual overclock and set much lower vcore/core voltage, it still seems to give the chip 1.45v overall, making it run hotter/ idle hotter. At least, I've observed much lower idle temps on my setup with VID in that section at 1.360v and stock is higher).

So ASUS 1001 bios DOES have the per CCX oc function but VID control doesn't work  I was hoping to upgrade to it because I heard you can get 1ms lower memory latency at the same speed and timings with 1001. But if I will lose VID control, I guess I'm staying on Shaminos bios for now. +rep to the person who mentioned the VID part.


----------



## PolRoger

neurotix said:


> So ASUS 1001 bios DOES have the per CCX oc function but VID control doesn't work  I was hoping to upgrade to it because I heard you can get 1ms lower memory latency at the same speed and timings with 1001. But if I will lose VID control, I guess I'm staying on Shaminos bios for now. +rep to the person who mentioned the VID part.


I believe the VID control function does work with 1001? 

What I was saying didn't work was the custom vcore box (in millivolts) back in the advanced tab under AMD Overclocking section. When you attempt to change cpu speed and voltage in that section the voltage always stays at ~1100mv (1.1v) even if you save a higher value 1250mv (1.25v). This section also allows for some low idle/sleep functions enabled but it is currently stuck at ~1.1v P-state. Which might net ~4000/4050MHz overclock.


**Edit** @neurotix... See my next post with desktop screenshots... Both idle and load.


----------



## PolRoger

kot0005 said:


> Would you please mind posting some photos of these BIOS settings that you are using ? (only bios settings, Not windows power plan)
> 
> Cheers.


From the desktop... Current CCX ~44x/~43x overclock with both idle and load screenshots...

From BIOS... Current settings screenshots...


----------



## GSJ

*Ethernet issues with CH VIII wifi*

Hi guys, sorry if this is not the best place to post it but since there's a lot of Crosshair Hero VIII users here, maybe someone could point me in the right direction. 

I'm using a CH VIII (WiFi) @1001 bios. Both my Ethernet ports (intel and realtek) are presenting a strange behavior, windows 10 says the network unidentified. When i built the PC was using the realtek port without problems, that lasted for 3 hours... I'm not certain but maybe the problems started after a bios update. Since then i had changed bios to all versions available, reinstalled W10, reinstalled drivers... No success. Tried the cable in others equipments, it's working. TBH i installed a pci- ethernet and it's working with the same cable. I'm just worried about the reason for this behavior in both motherboard ethernet ports. Can it be something to a bios rupture or something like that? 

Apart from the ethernet adapters, everything working fine. 

Any of you guys experienced something similar? If so, please help me. 

Thanks in advance!


----------



## MacG32

GSJ said:


> Hi guys, sorry if this is not the best place to post it but since there's a lot of Crosshair Hero VIII users here, maybe someone could point me in the right direction.
> 
> I'm using a CH VIII (WiFi) @1001 bios. Both my Ethernet ports (intel and realtek) are presenting a strange behavior, windows 10 says the network unidentified. When i built the PC was using the realtek port without problems, that lasted for 3 hours... I'm not certain but maybe the problems started after a bios update. Since then i had changed bios to all versions available, reinstalled W10, reinstalled drivers... No success. Tried the cable in others equipments, it's working. TBH i installed a pci- ethernet and it's working with the same cable. I'm just worried about the reason for this behavior in both motherboard ethernet ports. Can it be something to a bios rupture or something like that?
> 
> Apart from the ethernet adapters, everything working fine.
> 
> Any of you guys experienced something similar? If so, please help me.
> 
> Thanks in advance!



It's not the BIOS, it's the latest Windows Update messing with ethernet speeds and sound drivers. I was having problems with the Intel 1Gbps and switched to the Realtek 2.5Gbps just to maintain 1Gbps speeds. Also, I installed the latest sound driver and my sound would stop working when other programs that used sound were started. Microsoft recommended uninstalling the latest Patch Tuesday updates until they get it fixed.


----------



## dlbsyst

MacG32 said:


> It's not the BIOS, it's the latest Windows Update messing with ethernet speeds and sound drivers. I was having problems with the Intel 1Gbps and switched to the Realtek 2.5Gbps just to maintain 1Gbps speeds. Also, I installed the latest sound driver and my sound would stop working when other programs that used sound were started. Microsoft recommended uninstalling the latest Patch Tuesday updates until they get it fixed.


It's weird guys because I haven't had any problems with either my Intel GB internet connection or my sound. I've got the latest Windows updates and all the latest driver's. I guess I've been lucky. The one thing I do to keep all my driver's on the latest is a software program called Snappy Driver installer. It detects what you have and let's you know if a newer driver is available. I love it.


----------



## kot0005

Is there a way to turn off Live dash on Crosshair 8 Formula ? The setting keeps resetting to CPu temp instead of animation every time I restart. I just wana turn it so it doesnt burn in.


----------



## neurotix

PolRoger said:


> From the desktop... Current CCX ~44x/~43x overclock with both idle and load screenshots...
> 
> From BIOS... Current settings screenshots...



Big thank you for this and the previous post, I've been asking here since this bios came out if the per-CCX/CCD oc with voltage control works, but I don't know how many people use it. This is great, I can probably flash to it and possibly oc higher or at least get lower ram latency (if my kit/chip will still cooperate).

I'm unsurprised that the VID control in AMD overclocking doesn't work. Your previous post was just unclear (at least to me) about whether or not the VID control in CCX overclocking was broken.

It would make sense to disable it working even if the option is present in the AMD overclocking section, even for advanced/proficient users, as it is buried like everything in that section and you could easily set it, forget, then set an offset or set the VID in the CCX oc section and fry a chip. Most of the settings in the AMD CBS section are also within numerous hierarchical menus and difficult to find, but work fine when overclocking memory.

Anyway, thanks again.


----------



## AStaUK

kot0005 said:


> Is there a way to turn off Live dash on Crosshair 8 Formula ? The setting keeps resetting to CPu temp instead of animation every time I restart. I just wana turn it so it doesnt burn in.


I don’t have that board, assuming you can’t do it from the BIOS I imagine that you can use the Armoury software to change the settings. My Ryujin cooler had a firmware update not so long okay, that every minute would switch off the screen to prevent burn in, take it that doesn’t occur with the Formula?

And just a warning, when I was using the Armoury/Aura software it would cause a micro stutter in Anthem, stopping the LightingService resolved it. Didn’t seem to affect any other games, but I only play a small handful. I’ve since reloaded my PC and don’t use any of the Asus software.


----------



## neurotix

Can someone (MacG32, PolRoger) help me out with a source of confusion?

I went ahead and flashed my bios off of the Shamino 0017 beta bios that initially added per CCD/CCX/VID overclocking. However, I went to Asus driver site and just flashed the latest one posted for the Hero (non-Wifi). 

As per here: https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/ROG-Crosshair-VIII-Hero/HelpDesk_BIOS/

I flashed the 0901 bios that appears to be the latest but has a lower version number. In the bios itself, while flashing, it gave a date of 8/27/2019. I haven't seen any regressions in performance, but I haven't seen all that much gain either, though my rig still posts/runs fine at 1900fclk/3800MHz RAM and a manual CCX OC of 4.4/4.4/4.2/4.2GHz with 1.36v.

I'm definitely not seeing the 1ms less RAM latency with this bios, its more like 0.5ns less, and more consistent if I keep rerunning the AIDA64 RAM/cache bandwidth test. Have yet to beat my lowest on Shaminos with a highly tweaked Win10 + nothing open. 63.8 ms. The lowest I've seen is 64.2 but I haven't seen higher than about 64.5, whereas with Shaminos bios I saw a few that were low 65ms, but occasionally Id get a run that was under 64ms if I kept running it.

Why would a newer bios have a lower version number? Should I be using the 1001 bios instead? (I assume the reason the version is lower is so people can flash back to 1001 which is older, if they have issues?) Is bios 0901 still 1.0.0.3abba microcode?

I'm just all sorts of confused on this, I've only used Asus motherboards since I started building pcs in 2009 and never seen a regression in version number like this, on any board I've owned or worked with from them, including non-ROG boards. I usually updated as soon as I realized a later bios was available, on my Crosshair V + 1090t and later FX-8350, Maximus VI Hero + 4790k, my wife's ROG Strix Z270 + i5-7600k, and a few others, and never seen anything like this.

What is the Asus bios development team/AMD (? not sure if they're the problem here) doing with these products?

Thanks for any explanation/advice.

Also, MacG32, perhaps you might want to add a section showing the latest bios for each board and note if an earlier version is recommended or not, as well as include links to non-official bios like Shaminos' and The_Stilts' until Asus figures out this monkey business with these motherboards. Just a suggestion.


----------



## eyecrave

neurotix said:


> Can someone (MacG32, PolRoger) help me out with a source of confusion?
> 
> I went ahead and flashed my bios off of the Shamino 0017 beta bios that initially added per CCD/CCX/VID overclocking. However, I went to Asus driver site and just flashed the latest one posted for the Hero (non-Wifi).
> 
> As per here: https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/ROG-Crosshair-VIII-Hero/HelpDesk_BIOS/
> 
> I flashed the 0901 bios that appears to be the latest but has a lower version number. In the bios itself, while flashing, it gave a date of 8/27/2019. I haven't seen any regressions in performance, but I haven't seen all that much gain either, though my rig still posts/runs fine at 1900fclk/3800MHz RAM and a manual CCX OC of 4.4/4.4/4.2/4.2GHz with 1.36v.
> 
> I'm definitely not seeing the 1ms less RAM latency with this bios, its more like 0.5ns less, and more consistent if I keep rerunning the AIDA64 RAM/cache bandwidth test. Have yet to beat my lowest on Shaminos with a highly tweaked Win10 + nothing open. 63.8 ms. The lowest I've seen is 64.2 but I haven't seen higher than about 64.5, whereas with Shaminos bios I saw a few that were low 65ms, but occasionally Id get a run that was under 64ms if I kept running it.
> 
> Why would a newer bios have a lower version number? Should I be using the 1001 bios instead? (I assume the reason the version is lower is so people can flash back to 1001 which is older, if they have issues?) Is bios 0901 still 1.0.0.3abba microcode?
> 
> I'm just all sorts of confused on this, I've only used Asus motherboards since I started building pcs in 2009 and never seen a regression in version number like this, on any board I've owned or worked with from them, including non-ROG boards. I usually updated as soon as I realized a later bios was available, on my Crosshair V + 1090t and later FX-8350, Maximus VI Hero + 4790k, my wife's ROG Strix Z270 + i5-7600k, and a few others, and never seen anything like this.
> 
> What is the Asus bios development team/AMD (? not sure if they're the problem here) doing with these products?
> 
> Thanks for any explanation/advice.
> 
> Also, MacG32, perhaps you might want to add a section showing the latest bios for each board and note if an earlier version is recommended or not, as well as include links to non-official bios like Shaminos' and The_Stilts' until Asus figures out this monkey business with these motherboards. Just a suggestion.





zsoltmol said:


> I know. But 0901 is a later released bios than 1001.
> 
> Interesting:
> 1001: released on september 12, built on september 9, AGESA 1.0.0.3 ABBA
> 0901: released on september 20, built on august 27, AGESA 1.0.0.3 ??? - uncertain this is an upgrade to 1001 so I did not flash it.



It was already discussed earlier that the newly posted bios is actually older and most likely does not have the ABBA fix so i would use 1001 instead of the 0901.


----------



## neurotix

eyecrave said:


> It was already discussed earlier that the newly posted bios is actually older and most likely does not have the ABBA fix so i would use 1001 instead of the 0901.



I didn't see that and haven't been following the thread on a daily basis.

Thanks, eyecrave! I will flash to 1001. Rep+


----------



## PolRoger

neurotix said:


> Can someone (MacG32, PolRoger) help me out with a source of confusion?





eyecrave said:


> It was already discussed earlier that the newly posted bios is actually older and most likely does not have the ABBA fix so i would use 1001 instead of the 0901.


Yes... 901 BIOS is showing up on hardwareluxx (link below) as being ABB. 

I believe 1001 was first released by Shamino as a beta bios and then later made official. If there are some changes/difference between the two 901/1001 I'm guessing the next BIOS will update all...

https://www.hardwareluxx.de/communi...s-agesa-ubersicht-25-09-19-a-1228903.html#2.0


----------



## kot0005

AStaUK said:


> I don’t have that board, assuming you can’t do it from the BIOS I imagine that you can use the Armoury software to change the settings. My Ryujin cooler had a firmware update not so long okay, that every minute would switch off the screen to prevent burn in, take it that doesn’t occur with the Formula?
> 
> And just a warning, when I was using the Armoury/Aura software it would cause a micro stutter in Anthem, stopping the LightingService resolved it. Didn’t seem to affect any other games, but I only play a small handful. I’ve since reloaded my PC and don’t use any of the Asus software.


I tried the armory software, it doesnt install Ausr sync or live dash apps, its just tells me to down stupid chipset drivers/ai suite and asus bloatware. Nop it doesnt really turn off, it just shows the temperature on desktop. My maximus X Formula had an option to turn off livedash in BIOS.

BTW how does the Ryujin cooler connect to the mobo for the live dash ? is it internal USB ? I am thinking of buying one, ripping out the lcd and 3d print a case for it.


----------



## AStaUK

kot0005 said:


> I tried the armory software, it doesnt install Ausr sync or live dash apps, its just tells me to down stupid chipset drivers/ai suite and asus bloatware. Nop it doesnt really turn off, it just shows the temperature on desktop. My maximus X Formula had an option to turn off livedash in BIOS.
> 
> BTW how does the Ryujin cooler connect to the mobo for the live dash ? is it internal USB ? I am thinking of buying one, ripping out the lcd and 3d print a case for it.


When you installed Armoury did you check for updates, for the Hero/Ryujin it wanted me to install some updated SDK's before I could control anything, I could then control the devices within Armoury. LiveDash/Aura aren't needed as Armoury replaced them. Although don't disagree with you, Asus software is trash, I found it to be very buggy.

The Ryujin connects to the USB2 header on the motherboard, this gives you an additional drive (4MB I think...) that you can store custom GIF's on etc, although I disabled this. Also the LCD display is built into the CPU mount, the cover just has a clear window on it and some vents around the edge. To avoid the need for loading the Asus software I also ended up connecting the fans to the CPU fan header on the board so I could control them via the BIOS.


----------



## Section31

Apparently we are getting water block for our PCH chipset. Again Not 100% sure its an necessity.


----------



## Reikoji

Its not so bad.


----------



## MacG32

neurotix said:


> Can someone (MacG32, PolRoger) help me out with a source of confusion?
> 
> I went ahead and flashed my bios off of the Shamino 0017 beta bios that initially added per CCD/CCX/VID overclocking. However, I went to Asus driver site and just flashed the latest one posted for the Hero (non-Wifi).
> 
> As per here: https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/ROG-Crosshair-VIII-Hero/HelpDesk_BIOS/
> 
> I flashed the 0901 bios that appears to be the latest but has a lower version number. In the bios itself, while flashing, it gave a date of 8/27/2019. I haven't seen any regressions in performance, but I haven't seen all that much gain either, though my rig still posts/runs fine at 1900fclk/3800MHz RAM and a manual CCX OC of 4.4/4.4/4.2/4.2GHz with 1.36v.
> 
> I'm definitely not seeing the 1ms less RAM latency with this bios, its more like 0.5ns less, and more consistent if I keep rerunning the AIDA64 RAM/cache bandwidth test. Have yet to beat my lowest on Shaminos with a highly tweaked Win10 + nothing open. 63.8 ms. The lowest I've seen is 64.2 but I haven't seen higher than about 64.5, whereas with Shaminos bios I saw a few that were low 65ms, but occasionally Id get a run that was under 64ms if I kept running it.
> 
> Why would a newer bios have a lower version number? Should I be using the 1001 bios instead? (I assume the reason the version is lower is so people can flash back to 1001 which is older, if they have issues?) Is bios 0901 still 1.0.0.3abba microcode?
> 
> I'm just all sorts of confused on this, I've only used Asus motherboards since I started building pcs in 2009 and never seen a regression in version number like this, on any board I've owned or worked with from them, including non-ROG boards. I usually updated as soon as I realized a later bios was available, on my Crosshair V + 1090t and later FX-8350, Maximus VI Hero + 4790k, my wife's ROG Strix Z270 + i5-7600k, and a few others, and never seen anything like this.
> 
> What is the Asus bios development team/AMD (? not sure if they're the problem here) doing with these products?
> 
> Thanks for any explanation/advice.
> 
> Also, MacG32, perhaps you might want to add a section showing the latest bios for each board and note if an earlier version is recommended or not, as well as include links to non-official bios like Shaminos' and The_Stilts' until Asus figures out this monkey business with these motherboards. Just a suggestion.



I do not add unofficial BIOSes to the OP, as that will cause problems and support issues. I understand that some folks feel the need to release new "features" for testing and are reliable sources, but unofficial BIOSes can void your motherboard's warranty and are completely unsupported. I suggest using the latest released BIOS from Asus' Official Website.


----------



## dlbsyst

It looks like Asus fixed the Bios listing order on their site. The BIOS 1001 is now dated 9-25-19 and 0901 is dated 9-20-19.


----------



## Reikoji

MacG32 said:


> I do not add unofficial BIOSes to the OP, as that will cause problems and support issues. I understand that some folks feel the need to release new "features" for testing and are reliable sources, but unofficial BIOSes can void your motherboard's warranty and are completely unsupported. I suggest using the latest released BIOS from Asus' Official Website.


Now now... no one here cares about warranties, since we're all manually overclocking :3


----------



## neurotix

Reikoji said:


> Now now... no one here cares about warranties, since we're all manually overclocking :3


Yeah this is sort of a good point, since under the 'AMD Overclocking' Advanced section of our bios, AMD themselves says ocing voids your warranty and you have to click an 'I agree' button to continue.

Curiously, in ASUS bios for this board (or any I've used), I have never been presented with an 'I agree' button on the Extreme Tweaker page before being allowed to overclock.

Also, many products are/were advertised/sold as being overclocking friendly and AMD, Intel and the board vendors regularly release slides boasting of a product overclocking higher than a rival company or board allowing a series of chips to overclock higher.

However, I'm going to stand with MacG32 on this one, as I certainly do understand the rhetoric behind what he said. For one, few users here are even flashing/discussing any of the modded bioses (which I now know to have all been superceded by 1001 which includes memory optimization and boost fixes by The_Stilt and CCD overclocking from Shamino). Few people were using them and only for a short time, now they are irrelevant.

Further, Mac is saying it to protect us. I highly doubt anyone here or anyone who has overclocked anything previously, has adequate cooling, and monitors temperatures will kill a chip, period, (ask my lapped FX-8350 I put 1.6V through for over a year @ 5GHz that is now in my moms office computer, stock, and still works  )and it would be difficult to kill a board due to heat as well, though it happens. (With the quality of modern motherboards I'd imagine a short or a failed psu would be a more common reason for a dead board. Even a bios flashing failure due to power loss/outage might be more common and is more relevant here.) Still, if you send in an RMA, a modded bios will invalidate it, yep.

It was just a suggestion (mostly for any custom bios in the future). One way or another, I am using the 1001 bios now and yep, the CCD OC/VID section is present and works fine. I haven't had much chance to see if I can go past 4400CCD0/4200CCD1 @1.360V, however my system is running stable with Fclk 1900MHz/Mclk 3800MHz, C16-16-16-16-32-50 CR1 1.42v as before on my (golden?) Ryzen 2000 era G.skill Flare X. The latency is slightly decreased in bench runs of AIDA64 memory bandwidth test but nothing close to 1ms less latency like I read some other users claiming. At least my system still does it.

Anyway, yes I understand why MacG32 doesn't want to add them.


----------



## AvengedRobix

What Is 07 error cose on post?

Inviato dal mio ONEPLUS A6013 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## zsoltmol

Just to make sure:
original 1001 BIOS (released early september) and the "new" 1001 BIOS (released late september) are 100% identical by binary comparison. The 0901 BIOS released mid september is an older variant than 1001, case closed I think.


----------



## neurotix

AvengedRobix said:


> What Is 07 error cose on post?
> 
> Inviato dal mio ONEPLUS A6013 utilizzando Tapatalk


Memory or Fclk instability, generally RAM though. Loosen timings or add voltage if possible (not beyond 1.5v).

I can't provide a citation (I either read it here or on reddit) but both 07 and 15 post codes are very early boot process RAM training failure related. 

After this and a reset or two the system will usually proceed to F9 error code, in my experience, even if you press the "DirectKey" and changed it in bios to boot into the ASUS bios 'Safe Mode'. The DirectKey is what ASUS calls the surface mount microswitch labelled 'RESET' directly underneath the big glowing white 'Start' button on the board itself.

Well, if you are seeing F9 on the post code 7-segment LEDs and press Reset (and changed the DirectKey option to boot into asus' safe mode...), it will not work. The user manual post code chart at the back of the booklet says F9 means "Recovery Module Not Found". Essentially the system's memory is highly unstable and the processor probably cannot even execute boot routines to allow it to get into the safe boot mode. Making the DirectKey safe boot feature worthless.

After 5 times of seeing 'F9' the next boot will go to an AMD recovery menu but I have never seen this myself as I used the reset CMOS button in the top right of the rear i/o to reset and get into the bios every time I experienced this while figuring out my memory OC. Before doing so, I had already saved a known good user profile using that section that I reloaded to try again. I would suggest saving a profile you know works (so you don't need to redo boot settings, secure boot stuff, fan profiles, CPU oc, VRM settings, AMD CBS ram training options etc). It would be a good idea to have this profile saved on an external usb stick as well. Put whatever bios you are using currently on it too and use the usb bios renamer to rename it (or manually rename to C8H.CAP I believe- someone correct this if I am wrong) that way if you are permanently unable to boot you can use USB BIOS Flashback.

Hope this helps.


----------



## AvengedRobix

neurotix said:


> Memory or Fclk instability, generally RAM though. Loosen timings or add voltage if possible (not beyond 1.5v).
> 
> 
> 
> I can't provide a citation (I either read it here or on reddit) but both 07 and 15 post codes are very early boot process RAM training failure related.
> 
> 
> 
> After this and a reset or two the system will usually proceed to F9 error code, in my experience, even if you press the "DirectKey" and changed it in bios to boot into the ASUS bios 'Safe Mode'. The DirectKey is what ASUS calls the surface mount microswitch labelled 'RESET' directly underneath the big glowing white 'Start' button on the board itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you are seeing F9 on the post code 7-segment LEDs and press Reset (and changed the DirectKey option to boot into asus' safe mode...), it will not work. The user manual post code chart at the back of the booklet says F9 means "Recovery Module Not Found". Essentially the system's memory is highly unstable and the processor probably cannot even execute boot routines to allow it to get into the safe boot mode. Making the DirectKey safe boot feature worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> After 5 times of seeing 'F9' the next boot will go to an AMD recovery menu but I have never seen this myself as I used the reset CMOS button in the top right of the rear i/o to reset and get into the bios every time I experienced this while figuring out my memory OC. Before doing so, I had already saved a known good user profile using that section that I reloaded to try again. I would suggest saving a profile you know works (so you don't need to redo boot settings, secure boot stuff, fan profiles, CPU oc, VRM settings, AMD CBS ram training options etc). It would be a good idea to have this profile saved on an external usb stick as well. Put whatever bios you are using currently on it too and use the usb bios renamer to rename it (or manually rename to C8H.CAP I believe- someone correct this if I am wrong) that way if you are permanently unable to boot you can use USB BIOS Flashback.
> 
> 
> 
> Hope this helps.


Thanck you man! [emoji7]

Inviato dal mio ONEPLUS A6013 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## kevin300z

eyecrave said:


> There are quite a few people running 4 sticks on the crosshair 8 in this thread including the OP. Did you run any kind of memory test on your ram when you were checking if they booted? Also next thing would probably be to check if you can boot with both sets one at a time in slots A1 and B1 to see if all your motherboard dimms are working. Make sure to run a memory test on them to see if the ram is faulty as well. Try this one which is link from 1usmus sig https://www.overclock.net/forum/27937684-post4314.html.
> 
> So i was having this issue this week where my cpu would not downclock to 0.200V while idle and reinstalled the chipset drivers many times and also reflashed bios and nothing worked. Turns out it was aura sync in rainbow mode which for some reason uses more cpu than just color cycle. So anyone else experiencing this can check as it was driving me nuts that i almost formatted my pc to see if it would fix my issue.


I tried 1usmus settings without luck. Tried running DRAM Calculator without any luck. Sad face.


----------



## eyecrave

kevin300z said:


> I tried 1usmus settings without luck. Tried running DRAM Calculator without any luck. Sad face.



You can try https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...-ryzen-ddr4-24-7-memory-stability-thread.html and might have some luck there. Have you done any memory testing to rule out that all your ram is working?


----------



## wisepds

I'm doing CCX OC, and i have 4400 (x3 core) 4300 (x3 Core) 4200 (6 Core) @ 1.355v LLC3: 1,28v under heavy load like CBR20 or Aida 64 Stress Test. is that vcore a safe value ? My temps are: Idle 36ºC, under Full heavy load 80ºC, playing Apex: 45-50ºC....
I'm new on CCX overclocking.
Thanks!


----------



## Reikoji

Far as it will go with 1.45v (for me).


----------



## wisepds

Reikoji said:


> Far as it will go with 1.45v (for me).


You mean... it's safe... isn't it?


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Is anyone else getting cpu overheat error? Im running a 280 and a 420 radiator and keep getting this error while running realbench. What’s the max temp of the package before shutdown? It’s shutting down around 85 degrees package temp. I’m using the bios ccx with 44.00 43.50 43.00 42.75 @1.32v. It worked perfectly with the last bios.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Also noticed I’m getting post code 44 when starting real bench does anyone else get this?


----------



## zorn

kot0005 said:


> I tried the armory software, it doesnt install Ausr sync or live dash apps, its just tells me to down stupid chipset drivers/ai suite and asus bloatware. Nop it doesnt really turn off, it just shows the temperature on desktop. My maximus X Formula had an option to turn off livedash in BIOS.
> 
> BTW how does the Ryujin cooler connect to the mobo for the live dash ? is it internal USB ? I am thinking of buying one, ripping out the lcd and 3d print a case for it.


I'm able to control Ryujin screen from Armory Crate, but the options are a bit different from LiveDash. With LiveDash I could just have it display the general CPU speed, but Armory Crate forces you to choose which core you want to see the speed of, which seems strange.


----------



## criznit

wisepds said:


> I'm doing CCX OC, and i have 4400 (x3 core) 4300 (x3 Core) 4200 (6 Core) @ 1.355v LLC3: 1,28v under heavy load like CBR20 or Aida 64 Stress Test. is that vcore a safe value ? My temps are: Idle 36ºC, under Full heavy load 80ºC, playing Apex: 45-50ºC....
> I'm new on CCX overclocking.
> Thanks!


For 24/7 safe voltage, 1.35 is max and 1.325 is the sweet spot. I was able to get [email protected], [email protected], CCX2 and [email protected] with 1.325 volts.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

criznit said:


> For 24/7 safe voltage, 1.35 is max and 1.325 is the sweet spot. I was able to get [email protected], [email protected], CCX2 and [email protected] with 1.325 volts.


What program did you use to test the stability? Real bench is giving me issues. Thanks


----------



## criznit

Badgerslayer7 said:


> What program did you use to test the stability? Real bench is giving me issues. Thanks


I ran CB20 5 times in a row and then just played games/did daily task on it for the other half.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

criznit said:


> I ran CB20 5 times in a row and then just played games/did daily task on it for the other half.


Ok thanks I’ll give that a go.


----------



## Jackalito

Badgerslayer7 said:


> Also noticed I’m getting post code 44 when starting real bench does anyone else get this?


That also happens to me, for example using Realbench, and the same behavior was observed with the Crosshair VII Hero. As far as I know, it's completely normal, so don't worry about it.


----------



## eyecrave

New x570 chipset drivers up Revision Number 1.9.27.1033. Not sure what's new though as usual vague description.

https://www.amd.com/en/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570


----------



## Reikoji

wisepds said:


> You mean... it's safe... isn't it?


Whatever you have the cooling for is safe. My temperatures are exposed there.



Badgerslayer7 said:


> What program did you use to test the stability? Real bench is giving me issues. Thanks


Just about everyone neglects to mention that LLC is also at max level. 1.325 is relatively fake 1.325 if you deviate from LLC Auto.

But thats just IMO  You can find [email protected] and ask him all about LLC and the effects of it at higher levels, and he will tell you he suggests you go for higher voltages instead of higher LLC with lower voltages because of voltage spiking. Can find the posts all about it somewhere in the Crosshair VI overclocking thread.



eyecrave said:


> New x570 chipset drivers up Revision Number 1.9.27.1033. Not sure what's new though as usual vague description.
> 
> https://www.amd.com/en/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570


Its a bigger number. Must be better !


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Reikoji said:


> Just about everyone neglects to mention that LLC is also at max level. 1.325 is relatively fake 1.325 if you deviate from LLC Auto.


So would you recommend leaving LLC on auto? At the minute I have it set to LLC level 3. I thought the highest max voltage 24/7 for Ryzen 3000 was 1.35v and max LLC level 3.


----------



## Reikoji

Badgerslayer7 said:


> So would you recommend leaving LLC on auto? At the minute I have it set to LLC level 3. I thought the highest max voltage 24/7 for Ryzen 3000 was 1.35v and max LLC level 3.


I wont tell other people how to run their systems, but the max is whatever your cooling system can handle IMO.

1st is 1.35v LLC3, 2nd is 1.4v LLC auto. Both result in the same load voltage of ~1.325 and both result in the same temperatures. What you chose to roll with is up to you, I'm not really one to tell other people how they should run their systems. It all comes down to what your cooling can handle. The LLC route will just make you feel better about not setting a "scary" voltage but the outcome is not much different than the "scary" voltage. Increased LLC also comes with voltage spikes that monitoring software is not going to pick up, but [email protected] was kind enough to show us the outcomes using an oscilloscope. The spikes are greater with LLC, thus the need to stay at lower voltage and certainly not set any LLC other than auto when not manually overclocking.

Anyone who is running PBO without limits, and they will be doing so with LLC auto or possibly find their chip as dead as HWU's first 3900x, will find that the max load voltage is 1.4v. Turn on performance enhancer and that bumps up to 1.45. Both of these will throttle to what your system can handle in the end. IMO you can use PBO with no limits and Performance Enhancer level 3, LLC auto, to find the max of whatever cooling system you're using, and it will stop at 1.45v even if you have overkill. it will also auto-adjust for AVX loads so you can figure out your max AVX voltage the same way as it will just throttle based on what AMD has it set to throttle at.

Everyone's situation is going to be different, be it cooling system or typical ambient temperatures, and I say that is a good method of finding out how far you can push voltage without really trying. The Frequencies will be another matter, at especially for the 3900x. Find the max voltage, then find the max frequency at that voltage.


----------



## Reikoji

Badgerslayer7 said:


> So would you recommend leaving LLC on auto? At the minute I have it set to LLC level 3. I thought the highest max voltage 24/7 for Ryzen 3000 was 1.35v and max LLC level 3.


1.4 LLC3 vs 1.45 LLC auto. Again just about identical. 1.40625 LLC3 is spot on identical to 1.45 LLC auto.


----------



## jfrob75

*Latest AMD Chipset drivers experience*

Thought I would pass along what I have noticed with the latest chipset drivers from AMD. When I initially installed the drivers I noticed that they appeared to improve the clock boost on my 3900X. I also had some random resets of the computer a long with other strange random behavior. This all caused me reinstall windows. An aside note, I had recently changed out my MB from my GB Aorus Master to the ASUS CHVIII Hero so there was that additional variable in the picture. In any case since reinstalling windows and installing all the latest drivers I am still seeing an improvement in the clock boost for the cpu. I now have 6 of 12 cores that will boost to at least 4.5GHz with 2 of them that will boost to at least 4.6GHz. Also noticed an improvement in single thread boost under CB20 of about 50MHz.

Some other info, not related to chipset drivers. I was having an issue with computer behavior after exiting World of Warcraft. I could eliminate the odd behavior by disabling and then enabling the AMD video driver. I experienced this odd behavior even after the fresh windows install. This is under AMD graphic driver 19.9.2. I have since reverted back to 19.9.1, using DDU to uninstall 19.9.2.. This appears to have solved the odd behavior, i.e. sluggish mouse movement and poor video playback.


----------



## criznit

FYI for all needing a source for the 1.325v max for manual OC talk

https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocki...the_ryzen_3000_max_voltage_under_load_really/


----------



## Reikoji

criznit said:


> FYI for all needing a source for the 1.325v max for manual OC talk
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocki...the_ryzen_3000_max_voltage_under_load_really/


https://www.overclock.net/forum/28063494-post466.html


----------



## Reikoji

jfrob75 said:


> Thought I would pass along what I have noticed with the latest chipset drivers from AMD. When I initially installed the drivers I noticed that they appeared to improve the clock boost on my 3900X. I also had some random resets of the computer a long with other strange random behavior. This all caused me reinstall windows. An aside note, I had recently changed out my MB from my GB Aorus Master to the ASUS CHVIII Hero so there was that additional variable in the picture. In any case since reinstalling windows and installing all the latest drivers I am still seeing an improvement in the clock boost for the cpu. I now have 6 of 12 cores that will boost to at least 4.5GHz with 2 of them that will boost to at least 4.6GHz. Also noticed an improvement in single thread boost under CB20 of about 50MHz.
> 
> Some other info, not related to chipset drivers. I was having an issue with computer behavior after exiting World of Warcraft. I could eliminate the odd behavior by disabling and then enabling the AMD video driver. I experienced this odd behavior even after the fresh windows install. This is under AMD graphic driver 19.9.2. I have since reverted back to 19.9.1, using DDU to uninstall 19.9.2.. This appears to have solved the odd behavior, i.e. sluggish mouse movement and poor video playback.


Reminded me to chech out stock operation after installing the new chipset drivers. Went back to pbo with auto performance enhancer and raised limites to 230/140/180. Also want to show a few details of voltage operation when AMDs algorithms are in control of things. EDIT: Actually it does show VID 1.5 every now and then, but not nearly as often now.

first thing i noticed upon opening HWinfo is that the max vid isnt showing 1.5v now, for me at least, and neither is either of the max vcore. close tho, but falling short. Nothing i cared about before but maybe it will make paranoid people like Jays2Cents happy. 2nd thing is the CPU current is idling all the way down to 1A now. I believe it went as low as 6A before.

Im getting relatively the same boist behavior as before. CBR20 shows 4.6 on core 0 and 4.575 on core 2 in bursts throughout the test. Scored 525.

i havent gotten any random restarts yet.

Good change to the Hero btw. Gigabyte is booboo :3


----------



## Reikoji

*How I determined whats safe for me. You can too.*

Ryzen master, in voltage control, shows the highest curret 'set' voltage under Peak Core(s) Voltage. So with this open you can see what the processor is actually setting for the load it is. With HWinfo, we can see the what the voltage drop under load is.

Using Prime95, small FFT option.

First image is Non-AVX. The voltage set is 1.4v, the voltage under load fluctuates between 1.312v and 1.325v. Temperatures maxing out so far at 70/71/69c (Package, CCD0, CCD1)

Second image is AVX. the Voltage set wavers more, because with this test the CPU will throttle based on the limits I set (I should have set higher TBO). Voltage set is between 1.36v and 1.38v. Temperatures maxing out at 78/82/81c. the processor adjusts as it needs to to keep it safe. Voltage under load fluxuates between 1.238 and 1.313v

Third image is AVX again. Went back and rose the limits so that they wont be hit so easily. The voltage set rose to 1.4v, same as non-AVX. The temperatures struggle to break get too far past 80c, maxing out at 82/83/82c, load voltage 1.287 to 1.312.

Fourth image is non-AVX again, but with Performance enhancer Level 3(OC) re-enabled. The Voltage set now exceeds 1.4, set at 1.43625. Temperature now maxing at 74/75/73. Load voltage between 1.344 and 1.356.

Fifth image is return to AVX. Even with Performance enhancer level 3(OC), the voltage set still does not exceed 1.4v. The temperatures however are slightly higher due to i believe the frequencies being increased a slight bit, maxing at 83/85/82c. Load voltage us up slightly on the max to 1.319v.

And Sixth is just an R20 run. Voltage set is 1.45v, max temperature is 69/72/71c, load voltage 1.362 to 1.381v. 

Surprize 7th. Large FFT is a lighter load, and all-core voltage set is now around 1.4625v. Load Voltage 1.386 to 1.412. Max Temps 64/66/66.

I've done these little tests before, and they helped me determine what is safe for *My* cooling setup with relatively no effort. Sometimes I like to be on the actual crazy end and go higher tho  The Stilts prime95 runs that killed his chip were in that same realm of going higher and going above 95c, according to him. The moral of that story is: dont be dumb when manually overclocking. Its not simply the voltage set that will do your CPU in, its the temperature. Even if you take off all limits whatsoever, non-manual operation will keep your chip safe, and you can use the outcomes to determine how far you can go manually. Tis how I did it. Setting 1.45v *LLC Auto* for an R20 run isn't unsafe unless your cooler cant handle it. When manual you'll just need to adjust for what you're actually doing. If I wanted an AVX safe voltage at all times, then as PBO operation suggests in my systems case I wouldn't exceed 1.4v, But as I give 2 ****s about AVX i go for 1.45 for normal people PC usage.

I will also stick to preferring LLC Auto, because that is what you *will* use when running the processor on non-manual operation. It also will prevent accidents like with Steve from Hardware Unboxed, where he went back to Auto operation from manually overclocking and forgot he had LLC on max, which killed his first chip. One less thing to forget to do. But by all means, do what you feel you must, and what you feel is safe for you. But dont let scare stories like what happened with The Stilt, Steve from HWU, or some crazy LN2 OC'er deter you. Find your own path.


----------



## criznit

Reikoji said:


> https://www.overclock.net/forum/28063494-post466.html


Thanks!


----------



## neurotix

There are so many different, better ways to test OCs now.

Any version of Prime95 under v28, I believe v27.9 (quite old), does not use AVX instructions at all. Which means running a custom test like blend with FFTs manually set to a size of 1344k, produces far less heat, tests the memory AND the cpu simultaneously (default in-place small FFTs really only tests the processor), and this has been known for a long time.

6 years ago when I was overclocking Haswell, which runs extremely hot even when delidded, it was suggested to run a custom x264 16-thread encoding test for a few hours instead of Prime95. Check Darkwizzie's Haswell overclocking guide for an explanation of why Prime95 isn't used anymore/is dangerous. And alternatives to it.

This is why post-Haswell, Intel added AVX offsets, so you would have a seperate ratio for AVX instructions- e.g. 48x for regular CPU and floating point tasks that run way cooler, and 43x set separately from it that would only kick in under AVX loads to reduce heat and not kill the chip. Why AMD has not done something similar yet, I don't know.

I respect The_Stilt but unfortunately, I think it's just dumbassery to run Prime95 versions with an AVX load on every thread, regardless of voltage, without adequate cooling. How can I respect him yet call this dumbassery? Well, from my understanding he is a very experienced extreme overclocker (e.g. LN2) and I would assume he knows full well everything I have said and am about to say about AVX, heat and cooling vs voltage, etc. So I don't really understand what appears to me to be irrational misinformation being spread by him and also der8bauer in his videos, to misrepresent the issues with these processors. (Especially concerning the clock speed advertising thing- even with BIOS 1001 on this board, I get about 30 points higher single thread with my forced manual CCX OC @ 4.4 on chiplet 1, compared to auto settings and PBO boosting to 4625MHz under single thread loads.... but I rarely hear it mentioned that manual CCX ocs give more performance in both single and multithread at 200MHz less...) Of course, if you run a piece of silicon above 95C for hours on end, it will be damaged because of thermodynamics and so much concentration of heat in such a small area, with many nanoscale level components that may essentially melt. Sure, solder melts at a MUCH higher temperature, my soldering iron needs to be roughly 380C to melt my lead-free rosin core solder when I repair old stereos, game systems, etc. However, I am generally working with much larger components when desoldering or soldering them, such as old SMD components and radial through-hole capacitors. 

The components on the board or the chips themselves are packed so densely (half-pitch of 7nm on the chiplets?) that they are damaged with far less heat than 380C, which is why the tjmax is what it is. Intel's push for frequency in the Pentium 4 era using longer pipelines with lower IPC demonstrated this, and they did not expect to be unable to scale the Pentium 4 beyond 3.3GHz or so (they wanted to push it even higher than 5GHz, even back then, but were unaware of the heat constraints caused by high frequenices- and they had some of the brightest engineers in the world at the time).

Of course without adequate cooling, running a manual OC, with throttling and voltage and clock reduction off using PBO, and VRM settings that prevent thermal shutoff when components exceed 95C (on our board if you set a cpu power setting from T.Probe to Extreme in the Digi+VRM panel it disables it), and running these heavy loads on the chip for hours above 90C, you can damage or fry it.

This has been known for many years regarding Prime95. *It is not voltage that kills chips, it is heat.* I pushed 1.6V daily through my FX-8350 to run at 5GHz, mostly under gaming tasks that don't use AVX instructions. I even put 1.62v through it for 5.2GHz benching runs in mostly single threaded benchmarks like SuperPi for HWBOT. The chip was cooled with high grade thermal paste, an original H100i unit, had been lapped to a mirror finish, in an air conditioned room (72f/22C ambient aka 'room temperature' and sometimes colder in the harsh winters here). The majority of games then didn't use many more than 2-3 threads and the chip was an 8-core. Uts tjmax was much lower (62C) and AMD advised not going higher than 1.55v. However, since it was cooled very well and in games never really exceeded 45C, putting 1.6v through it and running it at 5GHz w/ 2800MHz CPU/NB (memory controller) with high volts, 2600MHz HyperTransport w/ high volts, and 2.8v CPU VDDA (total voltage to chip, helps stability and prevented win7 bsods), was possible.

I mostly used that chip like that for all of 2012 and part of 2013, and guess what? It still works perfectly and is retired along with the Crosshair V AM3+ and some TridentX DDR3 2400, on a small $20 CM cooler, and runs at its stock 4ghz clocks in my moms office computer. It works perfectly fine. Because it was cooled well and never exposed to 24 hour runs of "IntelBurnTest AVX" like everyone else in the Vishera thread was doing. If everyone else jumps off a bridge, would you? I refused.

Also, note that that exact chip holds the world record for LN2 clock speed at something like 2.2V+ and 8900MHz and benchers probably weren't killing their Vishera chips in those runs if they knew what they were doing and kept the processors cool. The bigger threat to the components was probably moisture/condensation and electrical shorts. Which were prevented with adequate precautions.

Testing my memory and fclk stability using Ryzen DRAM Calculator memtest to 105% all threads, and cpu/memory stability using Cinebench R20 with realtime process priority (which will crash basically as soon as all 24 threads are loaded if I am unstable), works for me. My chips cores are a total phail and my CCD1 (slower chiplet) refuses to do above 4.2GHz. I use 1.360v manual OC, recently added a memory fan and a Corsair SP140 HP 140mm fan blowing directly on the backside of the socket (that fits under the side panel on the backside of the case no problem), my core temps are 67C and socket around 75C @ 22C ambient (72f) under Cinebench R20 realtime runs at CCX VID of 1.360 with no downclocking and ratios of 44/44/42/42. And of course a gaming load brings the processor nowhere near that. I know based on experience that this is totally safe.

If you can keep the heat under control then you can basically use whatever voltage you want, though exceeding AMDs suggested 1.475v or whatever that our boards give the chip at stock while disabling the ability of the processors clock speeds and voltage to run much lower 95% of the time while in an OS/Windows using power plans, on ambient cooling would be unwise.

If voltage killed chips, not heat, it would be impossible to overclock binned chips under LN2 with extreme voltages and extremely high frequencies without instantly killing them, yet many extreme and pro league overclockers on HWBOT do this safely without killing the processors, all the time, and often use the same chips again and again this way for HWBOT submissions, once they have a golden ln2 sample, and then go on to win competitions using those very same chips.

I am sure many people will be inclined to disagree with me and this post, because who the hell am I? Certainly not der8bauer, The_Stilt, or 1usmus. That is fine. But I'd urge you to consider it and understand heat is the issue here.

If you must run some sort of 24 hour stability test, which isn't really necessary to determine "good enough gaming" stability, then I would suggest something like HWBOT x264 on all threads, or possibly the newer HWBOT x265 bench (but I am unsure if that encoding uses AVX or not, I am not a video editor, but I know 100% that x264 does not.) https://hwbot.org/benchmarks/processor

^ HWBOT x265 can be downloaded there, though I do not see the older x264, it can probably be dug up. Alternatively, I still have it in my benching folder and can possibly upload it somewhere after I verify it supports 24-thread encoding... (I know it does 16 thread for anything less than a Ryzen 9 3900x. I have not tried it yet because I have confirmed my memory stability 100% and my CPU OC has not crashed at all its current settings yet- it even idles at 27C~35C and is often below 30C, with acceptable noise levels, while being used as a Linux file server. As per the 7-segment POST code temperature readout.)

A lot of peeps here were killing GTX 280s, 480s, 580s and Radeon 4870/5870 etc back in the day by running Furmark fuzzy donut for hours until the cards VRMs caught fire, which many people suggested doing to test stability, under high voltage, but it was the heat killing them, and mostly because of the crappy coolers, even the custom, premium ones. My Sapphire 6870 had a small cheap aluminum heatsink with a dumb plastic shroud and a single fan in the middle. Terrible...

Guess what? Practically no one runs Furmark Fuzzy Donut tests anymore and people never recommend it because the community consensus on many different OC discussion forums finally figured it out and decided to stop recommending it to test GPU stability. Probably because a 2080ti costs $1200 vs say a GTX 480 in 2010 costing about $400, and the superior Radeon HD 5870 costing even less while performing better... lol.

In the same vein, I will state: *stop using Prime95 and you'll have nothing to worry about*

This was quite long but as always, hope it helps.


----------



## Reikoji

neurotix said:


> There are so many different, better ways to test OCs now.
> 
> Any version of Prime95 under v28, I believe v27.9 (quite old), does not use AVX instructions at all. Which means running a custom test like blend with FFTs manually set to a size of 1344k, produces far less heat, tests the memory AND the cpu simultaneously (default in-place small FFTs really only tests the processor), and this has been known for a long time.
> 
> 6 years ago when I was overclocking Haswell, which runs extremely hot even delidded, it was suggested to run a custom x264 16-thread encoding test for a few hours instead of Prime95. Check Darkwizzies Haswell overclocking for an explanation of why Prime95 isn't used anymore/is dangerous. And alternatives to it.
> 
> This is why post-Haswell, Intel added AVX offsets, so you would have a seperate ratio for AVX instructions- e.g. 48x for regular CPU and floating point tasks that run way cooler, and 43x set separately from it that would only kick in under AVX loads to reduce heat and not kill the chip. Why AMD has not done something similar yet, I don't know.
> 
> I respect The_Stilt but unfortunately, I think its just dumbassery to run Prime95 versions with an AVX load on every thread, regardless of voltage, without adequate cooling. How can I respect him yet call this dumbassery? Well, from my understanding he is a very experienced extreme overclocker (e.g. LN2) and I would assume he knows full well everything I have said and am about to say about AVX, heat and cooling vs voltage, etc. So I don't really understand what appears to me to be irrational misinformation being spread by him and also der8bauer in his videos, to misrepresent the issues with these processors. (Especially concerning the clock speed advertising thing- even with BIOS 1001 on this board, I get about 30 points higher single thread with my forced manual CCX OC @ 4.4 on chiplet 1, compared to auto settings and PBO boosting to 4625MHz under single thread loads.... but I rarely hear it mentioned that manual CCX ocs give more performance in both single and multithread at 200MHz less...) Of course, if you run a piece of silicon above 95C for hours on end, it will be damaged because of thermodynamics and so much concentration of heat in such a small area, with many nanoscale level components that may essentially melt. Sure, solder melts at a MUCH higher temperature, my soldering iron needs to be roughly 380C to melt my lead-free rosin core solder when I repair old stereos, game systems, etc. However, I am generally working with much larger components when desoldering or soldering them, such as old SMD components and radial through-hole capacitors.
> 
> The components on the board or the chips themselves are packed so densely (half-pitch of 7nm on the chiplets?) that they are damaged with far less heat, which is why the tjmax is what it is.
> 
> Of course without adequate cooling, running a manual OC, with throttling and voltage and clock reduction off using PBO, and VRM settings that prevent thermal shutoff when components exceed 95C (on our board if you set a cpu power setting from T.Probe to Extreme in the Digi+VRM panel it disables it), and running these heavy loads on the chip for hours above 90C, you can damage or fry it.
> 
> This has been known for many years regarding Prime95. *It is not voltage that kills chips, it is heat.* I pushed 1.6V daily through my FX-8350 to run at 5GHz, mostly under gaming tasks that don't use AVX instructions. I even put 1.62v through it for 5.2GHz benching runs in mostly single threaded benchmarks like SuperPi for HWBOT. The chip was cooled with high grade thermal paste, an original H100i unit, had been lapped to a mirror finish, in an air conditioned room (72f/22C ambient aka 'room temperature' and sometimes colder in the harsh winters here). The majority of games then didn't use many more than 2-3 threads and the chip was an 8-core. Uts tjmax was much lower (62C) and AMD advised not going higher than 1.55v. However, since it was cooled very well and in games never really exceeded 45C, putting 1.6v through it and running it at 5GHz w/ 2800MHz CPU/NB (memory controller) with high volts, 2600MHz HyperTransport w/ high volts, and 2.8v CPU VDDA (total voltage to chip, helps stability and prevented win7 bsods), was possible.
> 
> I mostly used that chip like that for all of 2012 and part of 2013, and guess what? It still works perfectly and is retired along with the Crosshair V AM3+ and some TridentX DDR3 2400, on a small $20 CM cooler, and runs at its stock 4ghz clocks in my moms office computer. It works perfectly fine. Because it was cooled well and never exposed to 24 hour runs of "IntelBurnTest AVX" like everyone else in the Vishera thread was doing. If everyone else jumps off a bridge, would you? I refused.
> 
> Also, note that that exact chip holds the world record for LN2 clock speed at something like 2.2V+ and 8900MHz and benchers probably weren't killing their Vishera chips in those runs if they knew what they were doing and kept the processors cool. The bigger threat to the components was probably moisture/condensation and electrical shorts. Which were prevented with adequate precautions.
> 
> Testing my memory and fclk stability using Ryzen DRAM Calculator memtest to 105% all threads, and cpu/memory stability using Cinebench R20 with realtime process priority (which will crash basically as soon as all 24 threads are loaded if I am unstable), works for me. My chips cores are a total phail and my CCD1 (slower chiplet) refuses to do above 4.2GHz. I use 1.360v manual OC, recently added a memory fan and a Corsair SP140 HP 140mm fan blowing directly on the backside of the socket (that fits under the side panel no problem), my core temps are 67C and socket around 75C @ 22C ambient (72f) under Cinebench R20 realtime runs at CCX VID of 1.360 with no downclocking and ratios of 44/44/42/42. And of course a gaming load brings the processor nowhere near that. I know based on experience that this is totally safe.
> 
> If you can keep the heat under control then you can basically use whatever voltage you want, though exceeding AMDs suggested 1.475v or whatever that our boards give the chip at stock while disabling the ability of the processors clock speeds and voltage to run much lower 95% of the time while in an OS/Windows using power plans, on ambient cooling would be unwise.
> 
> If voltage killed chips, not heat, it would be impossible to overclock binned chips under LN2 with extreme voltages and extremely high frequencies without instantly killing them, yet many extreme and pro league overclockers do this safely without killing the processors and often use the same chips again and again this way for HWBOT submissions, once they have a golden ln2 sample, and then go on to win competitions using those very same chips.
> 
> I am sure many people will be inclined to disagree with me and this post, because who the hell am I? Certainly not der8bauer, The_Stilt, or 1usmus. That is fine. But I'd urge you to consider it and understand heat is the issue here.
> 
> If you must run some sort of 24 hour stability test, which isn't really necessary to determine "good enough gaming" stability, then I would suggest something like HWBOT x264 on all threads, or possibly the newer HWBOT x265 bench (but I am unsure if that encoding uses AVX or not, I am not a video editor, but I know 100% that x264 does not.) https://hwbot.org/benchmarks/processor
> 
> ^ HWBOT x265 can be downloaded there, though I do not see the older x264, it can probably be dug up. Alternatively, I still have it in my benching folder and can possibly upload it somewhere after I verify it supports 24-thread encoding... (I know it does 16 thread for anything less than a Ryzen 9 3900x. I have not tried it yet because I have confirmed my memory stability 100% and my CPU OC has not crashed at its current settings yet.)
> 
> A lot of peeps here were killing GTX 280s, 480s, 580s and Radeon 4870/5870 etc back in the day by running Furmark fuzzy donut for hours until the cards VRMs caught fire, which many people suggested doing to test stability, under high voltage, but it was the heat killing them, and mostly because of the crappy coolers, even the custom ones. My Sapphire 6870 had a small cheap aluminum heatsink with a dumb plastic shroud and a single fan in the middle.
> 
> Guess what? Practically no one runs Furmark Fuzzy Donut tests anymore and people never recommend it because the community consensus on many different OC discussion forums finally figured it out and decided to stop recommending it to test GPU stability. Probably because a 2080ti costs $1200 vs say a 480 in 2010 costing about $400... lol
> 
> In the same vein, I will state: *stop using Prime95 and you'll have nothing to worry about*
> 
> This was quite long but as always, hope it helps.


The latest build of Prime95, V29.8 build 5, has check boxes at the bottom of the torture test screen to disable AVX instructions. I like this addition, but IMO they SHOULD change that to check boxes to enable AVX instructions instead, and have them disabled by default. Zen 2 when running auto mode does adjust voltage and frequency based if its an AVX load. It would be nice if we can get an offset for when we are running manual tho.

The Stilt did admit he was running the chip to stupid temperatures beyond the 95c limit, but its unfortunately that about everyone and their dog didn't go the distance to find out what cooling he was using or what crazy custom settings he was using for the torture test, and instead just jumped to the conclusion that the voltage he was using was "the max". It is indeed dumb to do that without making very clear to everyone all the info regarding what he was doing. There are a few that like to run custom Prime95 settings that are IMO just arbitrary ways to make your CPU run way too hot for literally no reason at all. The presets should be fine enough.

Its probably going to be an eternal debate on what stress test is best to determine system stability. IMO AVX loads really arent it because they are uncommon, and if Prime95 didn't have this new non-avx mode I wouldn't bother with it at all. Realbench is enough for normal system operation IMO.


----------



## neurotix

Reikoji said:


> The latest build of Prime95, V29.8 build 5, has check boxes at the bottom of the torture test screen to disable AVX instructions. I like this addition, but IMO they SHOULD change that to check boxes to enable AVX instructions instead, and have them disabled by default. Zen 2 when running auto mode does adjust voltage and frequency based if its an AVX load. It would be nice if we can get an offset for when we are running manual tho.
> 
> The Stilt did admit he was running the chip to stupid temperatures beyond the 95c limit, but its unfortunately that about everyone and their dog didn't go the distance to find out what cooling he was using or what crazy custom settings he was using for the torture test, and instead just jumped to the conclusion that the voltage he was using was "the max". It is indeed dumb to do that without making very clear to everyone all the info regarding what he was doing. There are a few that like to run custom Prime95 settings that are IMO just arbitrary ways to make your CPU run way too hot for literally no reason at all. The presets should be fine enough.
> 
> Its probably going to be an eternal debate on what stress test is best to determine system stability. IMO AVX loads really arent it because they are uncommon, and if Prime95 didn't have this new non-avx mode I wouldn't bother with it at all. Realbench is enough for normal system operation IMO.



Realbench is a fantastic test and benchmark. Just keep an eye on temperatures.

Indeed, SiliconLottery uses it to bin chips and considers them stable after 1 hour of passing Realbench at a given clock and voltage. I know this because my previous 4790k @ 4.8GHz was from them and the paperwork I received with my chip says as much. I do not know if they still bin their chips using only this method, and I will add that my sample actually did require slightly higher vcore, as well as Input voltage, than what the paper claimed was stable in Realbench for 1 hour, at 4.8GHz. They said it did this speed at 1.328V with 1.900v input voltage on the paperwork, without changing any other settings. In reality, it actually took about 1.34v and input voltage of around 2v for 100% stability every in single load, and with the settings they claimed were stable in Realbench, it would eventually crash in Intel x264.

So Realbench should be fairly adequate to test gaming stability and general workload stability, as SiliconLottery used it, and the chip WAS stable for gaming at the voltage and speed they said it was.

You are correct, if you are not running any kind of scientific calculations, as far as I am aware, AVX, AVX2 or AVX-512 instructions are very rarely used in most software and never used in games because the type of calculations they accelerate are generally going to be run on the GPU in any game engine, or professional software. I do not know if even something like [email protected] run on a CPU, BOINC, and the like will even make use of them, and generally nowadays you get VASTLY more points from a GPU in those loads, making even 4P server folding rigs basically an irrelevant waste of money. (A single 2080ti can do about 2.5 million points per day in [email protected], so getting two of those will probably outperform a 256 thread 2P EPYC 7742 rig, as far as I am aware).

I will be the first to say that I am not a physicist, scientist, electrical engineer, or extreme (sub-ambient) overclocker. But my understanding is still that AVX is basically never used in games or consumer software. If someone says otherwise and that it's needed for certain encoding loads or 3D rendering apps, well.... I'll guess I'll record a video of me eating my Overclock.net hat? (lol... no I'll just admit I was proven wrong...)

I do not use Prime95 anymore and have not used it since I was running a Phenom II 555BE @ 4GHz, and later a x6 1090T. So I was unaware of more recent versions being able to disable the AVX instructions. Good to know.

If anyone must still insist on using Prime95 I would suggest using a custom test- I may have to look up the settings but on Haswell (which runs stupid hot), we did a custom blend test with an FFT size of 1344k to test both memory, cache and CPU at the same time, and it generated less heat. The FFT size may be specific to Haswell's architecture (and I am guessing cache?). Temps were about 20C cooler this way. And we had no AVX offset or ability to disable AVX in Prime back then. If anyone wants to experiment with current versions, AVX off, and knows more than me about what exactly FFT size does, how it works, and what setting would be optimal for Ryzen 2 architecture, well.... perhaps we can figure out a safer way to use it.

Regards.


----------



## Reikoji

neurotix said:


> Realbench is a fantastic test and benchmark. Just keep an eye on temperatures.
> 
> Indeed, SiliconLottery uses it to bin chips and considers them stable after 1 hour of passing Realbench at a given clock and voltage. I know this because my previous 4790k @ 4.8GHz was from them and the paperwork I received with my chip says as much. I do not know if they still bin their chips using only this method, and I will add that my sample actually did require slightly higher vcore, as well as Input voltage, than what the paper claimed was stable in Realbench for 1 hour, at 4.8GHz. They said it did this speed at 1.31V with 1.950v input voltage on the paperwork, without changing any other settings. In reality, it actually took about 1.33v and input voltage of around 2v for 100% stability every in single load, and with the settings they claimed were stable in Realbench, it would eventually crash in Intel x264.
> 
> So Realbench should be fairly adequate to test gaming stability and general workload stability, as SiliconLottery used it, and the chip WAS stable for gaming at the voltage and speed they said it was.
> 
> You are correct, if you are not running any kind of scientific calculations, as far as I am aware, AVX, AVX2 or AVX-512 instructions are very rarely used in most software and never used in games because the type of calculations they accelerate are generally going to be run on the GPU in any game engine, or professional software. I do not know if even something like [email protected] run on a CPU, BOINC, and the like will even make use of them, and generally nowadays you get VASTLY more points from a GPU in those loads, making even 4P server folding rigs basically an irrelevant waste of money. (A single 2080ti can do about 2.5 million points per day in [email protected], so getting two of those will probably outperform a 256 thread EPYC rig, as far as I am aware).
> 
> I will be the first to say that I am not a physicist, scientist, electrical engineer, or extreme (sub-ambient) overclocker. But my understanding is still that AVX is basically never used in games or consumer software. If someone says otherwise and that it's needed for certain encoding loads or 3D rendering apps, well.... I'll guess I'll record a video of me eating my Overclock.net hat? (lol... no I'll just admit I was proven wrong...)
> 
> I do not use Prime95 anymore and have not used it since I was running a Phenom II 555BE @ 4GHz, and later a x6 1090T. So I was unaware of more recent versions being able to disable the AVX instructions. Good to know.
> 
> If anyone must use I would suggest using a custom test- I may have to look up the settings but on Haswell (which runs stupid hot), we did a custom blend test with an FFT size of 1344k to test both memory, cache and CPU at the same time, and it generated less heat. The FFT size may be specific to Haswell's architecture (and I am guessing cache?). Temps were about 20C cooler this way. And we had no AVX offset or ability to disable AVX in Prime back then. If anyone wants to experiment with current versions, AVX off, and knows more than me about what exactly FFT size does, how it works, and what setting would be optimal for Ryzen 2 architecture, well.... perhaps we can figure out a safer way to use it.
> 
> Regards.


Silicon lottery took to binning Zen 2 processors based on AVX load this time :| Ridiculous.


----------



## neurotix

Reikoji said:


> Silicon lottery took to binning Zen 2 processors based on AVX load this time :| Ridiculous.


That's absolutely ludicrious and makes no rational or logical sense. EDIT: Reikoji, what is the upcharge/prices on these like and at what max stable clocks, particularly on the 3900X? I'm curious but see literally no Ryzen chips of any sort for sale on their site... a brief description from memory is good enough, if you know- *thanks*

EDIT 2: I will also shut up now for a while and stop posting my stupid doge wall of texts, lol, but if anyone needs any help with finding board settings, memory OC, or CCX overclocking I'll keep an eye on this thread... sorry for derailing it so often with my long posts few probably read all the way. Please continue relevant discussion of the motherboard and I'll leave the thread alone for a while, but I hope I've helped some people out...


----------



## Reikoji

neurotix said:


> That's absolutely ludicrious and makes no rational or logical sense. EDIT: Reikoji, what is the upcharge/prices on these like and at what max stable clocks, particularly on the 3900X? I'm curious but see literally no Ryzen chips of any sort for sale on their site... a brief description from memory is good enough, if you know- *thanks*
> 
> EDIT 2: I will also shut up now for a while and stop posting my stupid doge wall of texts, lol, but if anyone needs any help with finding board settings, memory OC, or CCX overclocking I'll keep an eye on this thread... sorry for derailing it so often with my long posts few probably read all the way. Please continue relevant discussion of the motherboard and I'll leave the thread alone for a while, but I hope I've helped some people out...


I dont think they have any prices listed, or have even started selling any. But here are their binning statistics:

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-3000-cpus-silicon-lottery-binning,40157.html

Personally I think they were just out to make these processors look weak, as the less informed will take these stats as loads for general PC usage rather than uncommon AVX loads.


----------



## neurotix

Reikoji said:


> I dont think they have any prices listed, or have even started selling any. But here are their binning statistics:
> 
> https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-3000-cpus-silicon-lottery-binning,40157.html
> 
> Personally I think they were just out to make these processors look weak, as the less informed will take these stats as loads for general PC * gaming* usage rather than uncommon AVX loads.


Awesome. Thanks for the link. +Repped again.

Also fixed an error in your post I quoted, lol 

(I really wonder with all the hoopla and so forth with Zen 2 and especially the 3900x if some of these people/sites with heavy industry ties have some sort of...incentive to be doing such?)


----------



## Sam64

"hope, I've helped some people out..."


As for me, of course you did! Pls keep an eye here, would love to read more of your


> stupid dodge wall of texts


----------



## Reikoji

neurotix said:


> You are correct, if you are not running any kind of scientific calculations, as far as I am aware, AVX, AVX2 or AVX-512 instructions are very rarely used in most software and never used in games because the type of calculations they accelerate are generally going to be run on the GPU in any game engine, or professional software. I do not know if even something like [email protected] run on a CPU, BOINC, and the like will even make use of them, and generally nowadays you get VASTLY more points from a GPU in those loads, making even 4P server folding rigs basically an irrelevant waste of money. (A single 2080ti can do about 2.5 million points per day in [email protected], so getting two of those will probably outperform a 256 thread 2P EPYC 7742 rig, as far as I am aware).


Also, this reminded me about [email protected] The first generation of PS3 introduced me to it, if it isnt older than even that. I use to leave my PS3 on to do that stuff when I wasnt using it. I didn't know they had a PC version. If it uses AVX, this can be the one real thing that is AVX i use my PC for :3 But, I think it would be pushing further than this if it were, maybe its light AVX.


----------



## AStaUK

Is there any way to overide the upper CPU temprature within the fan profiles, it seems to have a maximum setting of 75c and I'd like to increase it to 80c if possible.


----------



## Reikoji

AStaUK said:


> Is there any way to overide the upper CPU temprature within the fan profiles, it seems to have a maximum setting of 75c and I'd like to increase it to 80c if possible.


Unless you can change the upper limit to above 75c in the fan speed section of bios, i dont think so. I think I tried myself and it just auto-changes it back to 75c. Asus would have to up the max on their end with a bios update.


----------



## neurotix

Reikoji said:


> Also, this reminded me about [email protected] The first generation of PS3 introduced me to it, if it isnt older than even that. I use to leave my PS3 on to do that stuff when I wasnt using it. I didn't know they had a PC version. If it uses AVX, this can be the one real thing that is AVX i use my PC for :3 But, I think it would be pushing further than this if it were, maybe its light AVX.



Yep, it isn't really mentioned much anymore, but it's actually one of the best stress tests you can run, though it runs quite hot.

It was actually a PC program first and has been around since 2001 or so.

Bear in mind that if you want to do it seriously and make a lot of points, running it on your CPU isn't very viable anymore, and you will definitely want to run it on your GPU as well. Its very highly parallel. Its been some time since I even bothered running it on my CPU, but I remember my highly clocked 4790k getting about 30k PPD tops whereas the R9 Fury cards I had at the time did 400k each. They really started optimizing it better for running it on a GPU around 2012. I really don't know if maybe CPU improvements have been made over the last few years to keep CPU folding in line with GPU folding production or not. One way or another, if so inclined (and having great cooling) you can run on both CPU + GPU at the same time. This is an excellent way to stress test basically your entire system for stability- processor, memory, cache, and graphics card- and by extension the PSU- but it can run extremely hot (I saw temperatures 10-15C above any game on my 1080tis. They also drew significantly more wattage from the wall, around 375w each, according to my testing with my Kill-a-watt meter) I don't run it anymore- I could potentially do so on my GPUs but definitely not my CPU at the same time, having SLI, and not having a really beefy custom water setup. This wad true even with my 4790k. My 3900x would most likely be idling above 60c with 750w of heat being blown onto the socket and H100i v2 from below... The 4790k idled around 50c while folding, and I was using Plex at the time for streaming. Upon playing a video and hearing my fans spin up to encode the stream, while folding on both GPUs, my system would instantly shut off because I'm guessing it exceeded tjmax (105C on Haswell afaik)

Go for it but be prepared for heat. I saw your temps and OC a few pages back in all of the different OC/voltage tests you did, and they looked great, so I'm sure you could fold on both CPU and graphics no problem.

EDIT: Reikoji, please contact me privately via pm if you need assistance setting up combo CPU/GPU [email protected] and I will help you get started there if you need the help. Dont ask about it in this thread which I have already done a fantastic job derailing with excessively lengthy posts far too often lately, and probably scaring off 90% of the posters that were here when I first started posting in it a month and a half ago. Thanks.



AStaUK said:


> Is there any way to overide the upper CPU temprature within the fan profiles, it seems to have a maximum setting of 75c and I'd like to increase it to 80c if possible.


Does this board control fans based on die/core or socket temps? I assume die (which is lower) based on the 7 segment post code display, as that is definitely always lower than socket temps in HWINFO64. There is something in the Digi+VRM section at the top about LLC being based on 'die sense' or 'socket sense' and I wonder about that affecting the temperature read out on the post code display, and maybe fan control (it is set to die sense by default); it probably won't, and I haven't tested it, but sense is pretty close to sensor and it may control more than LLC but I haven't tried. (This is more for Reikoji and others, not about your specific fan control issue.)

Have you tried lowering the minimums instead? It can go all the way down to 20C, and this increases the temperature range at least, but I'm guessing you are having heat issues and your fans are too loud even at idle; in which case that would actually make the problem worse.

If you want them to run slower, it should be possible to achieve this if you modify the cable on each fan so they always get less voltage by default (though I don't know if DC or PWM fans get 3v, 5v or 12v from the fan header spec.) If you look up a pinout, you could rewire the pins so the fans get 7v instead of 12v, for example, but I've never done this and don't know if it would damage the headers on the board, fan controller chip etc (probably not because you'd be lowering, not raising current).

I did the same thing quite some years back to a Delta 5k RPM 120mm fan that got its power via molex. Using my fingers and needle nose pliers to pull the molex pin (and wire) out, and a molex pinout. I believe it connected via at least 3 pins. Molex fans and connectors can actually be voltage-selectable, which will reduce speed, and using a pinout and guide I modified the connector by pulling all the pins out and then putting them back in in different places. This caused 7v to go to the fan, instead of 12v, and made it significantly quieter- but it was still unacceptably loud  

Since DC (3 pin) and PWM (4 pins) are pretty much just a tiny molex connector that draws less amperage (afaik), a similar method might work to reduce fan speeds where the board cannot... or you can simply purchase new fans. (Scythe Gentle Typhoons are pretty good and near silent from what I've heard, but difficult to find.)

EDIT: If they are running too loud because of high temperatures, then set Maximum Temp to 75C, middle temp to 65C, and minimum temp to 55C, and then put speeds to 50%, 35% and 20%. If they aren't doing a good enough job cooling, then set Maximum Temp to 55C, Middle to 35C and minimum to 20C, and speed to 100%, 85% and 60%. Just an example. 

If you tell us why you want/require raising it above 75C instead of just asking if its possible, I'm sure someone here can help you accomplish what you want to do, but just asking without providing context (stating why you need this) makes it impossible to help because we don't know what problem you are trying to solve other than you cannot raise it above 75C maximum temperature...

Tbh if you lack a rear fan, a front one, and two fans on your cooler, or have a small case (ATX mid tower or below) it will be very difficult to cool these processors on this board, especially the 3900x. Since this mobo has an 8-pin CPU power connector and a 4-pin CPU power connector for the 14-phase power delivery (My Crosshair VIII Hero does anyway, unsure about Impact), the chips will probably run hotter with both connected. The user booklet says you can actually power the board and the chip with a single 8-pin cpu power connector, or an 8-pin and a 4-pin, and doesn't mention anything about needing the 4-pin for the 3900x. It just says you cannot power the board with a 4 pin connector alone... The 24-pin should be powering the chipset and everything connected to the board including drives, m.2 sticks, 75w to the PCI-E slots as per spec, etc.

So I wonder if people running a very mild manual OC with under 1.3v manual VID or stock settings with like 1.250v manual vcore on a 3800x or under, could get reduced heat with just the 8pin cpu power connected instead of both 8pin and 4pin? But would have to compromise on OC. Doesn't the 3900x work on x470 and under with a bios update and those boards had less power stages than this one? (8 phase power used to be totally fine for 95w i7s that could pull quite a bit more OCed highly)

Hope this helps..

p.s. Glad you enjoy my wall of texts, Der Deutsche Mann.  Hope you find this one useful as well. :/ I just try to provide as much potentially relevant information as possible, and be helpful not just to a single person and the specific problem, but also include knowledge about the platform, electronics, overclocking etc in general in hopes of including enough information that I will answer someones else's question before they even ask it. And I always base my answers off objective truth to the best of my current knowledge and study of the platform, and my own experience overclocking.

Anyway I just feel/think I have ruined or commandeered the thread because far less users are posting compared to a few weeks ago, which is why I said I would lay off it for a time... easier said than done as I can't even use my rig atm, sitting upright is causing me severe lower back pain, (numerous untreated pain conditions) so I cant even use or test what I've built. I don't work either, so I have plenty of time to read and post on here on my phone and can't even use my rig

As promised, please discuss the board (with much shorter replies than mine, I'm sure), gentleman. I don't want to be so off topic often or feel like a thread killer and I respect MacG32s effort on the original post and his continued effort running the thread abd dont want to ruin it for him or any other users who can't ask valid questions, might not want to share opinions because they dont want me to flame them or try and prove my often unpopular opinions (e.g. the previous voltage and boost clock issue, I am quite aware my independent thinking about it is a popularly dissenting point of view), don't like reading posts this long or longer than 2-3 paragraphs, etc.

In the interest of that I will work on getting new photos of my rig uploaded to my build log- and browse/post in my other subs for the meantime- my apologies to anyone I actually have ruined this thread for, if I have- I'll do my utmost to keep my replies much more concise and to the point in the future, and take a break for now.

Regards


----------



## AStaUK

@neurotix



Spoiler






neurotix said:


> Yep, it isn't really mentioned much anymore, but it's actually one of the best stress tests you can run, though it runs quite hot.
> 
> It was actually a PC program first and has been around since 2001 or so.
> 
> Bear in mind that if you want to do it seriously and make a lot of points, running it on your CPU isn't very viable anymore, and you will definitely want to run it on your GPU as well. Its very highly parallel. Its been some time since I even bothered running it on my CPU, but I remember my highly clocked 4790k getting about 30k PPD tops whereas the R9 Fury cards I had at the time did 400k each. They really started optimizing it better for running it on a GPU around 2012. I really don't know if maybe CPU improvements have been made over the last few years to keep CPU folding in line with GPU folding production or not. One way or another, if so inclined (and having great cooling) you can run on both CPU + GPU at the same time. This is an excellent way to stress test basically your entire system for stability- processor, memory, cache, and graphics card- and by extension the PSU- but it can run extremely hot (I saw temperatures 10-15C above any game on my 1080tis. They also drew significantly more wattage from the wall, around 375w each, according to my testing with my Kill-a-watt meter) I don't run it anymore- I could potentially do so on my GPUs but definitely not my CPU at the same time, having SLI, and not having a really beefy custom water setup. This wad true even with my 4790k. My 3900x would most likely be idling above 60c with 750w of heat being blown onto the socket and H100i v2 from below... The 4790k idled around 50c while folding, and I was using Plex at the time for streaming. Upon playing a video and hearing my fans spin up to encode the stream, while folding on both GPUs, my system would instantly shut off because I'm guessing it exceeded tjmax (105C on Haswell afaik)
> 
> Go for it but be prepared for heat. I saw your temps and OC a few pages back in all of the different OC/voltage tests you did, and they looked great, so I'm sure you could fold on both CPU and graphics no problem.
> 
> EDIT: Reikoji, please contact me privately via pm if you need assistance setting up combo CPU/GPU [email protected] and I will help you get started there if you need the help. Dont ask about it in this thread which I have already done a fantastic job derailing with excessively lengthy posts far too often lately, and probably scaring off 90% of the posters that were here when I first started posting in it a month and a half ago. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> Does this board control fans based on die/core or socket temps? I assume die (which is lower) based on the 7 segment post code display, as that is definitely always lower than socket temps in HWINFO64. There is something in the Digi+VRM section at the top about LLC being based on 'die sense' or 'socket sense' and I wonder about that affecting the temperature read out on the post code display, and maybe fan control (it is set to die sense by default); it probably won't, and I haven't tested it, but sense is pretty close to sensor and it may control more than LLC but I haven't tried. (This is more for Reikoji and others, not about your specific fan control issue.)
> 
> Have you tried lowering the minimums instead? It can go all the way down to 20C, and this increases the temperature range at least, but I'm guessing you are having heat issues and your fans are too loud even at idle; in which case that would actually make the problem worse.
> 
> If you want them to run slower, it should be possible to achieve this if you modify the cable on each fan so they always get less voltage by default (though I don't know if DC or PWM fans get 3v, 5v or 12v from the fan header spec.) If you look up a pinout, you could rewire the pins so the fans get 7v instead of 12v, for example, but I've never done this and don't know if it would damage the headers on the board, fan controller chip etc (probably not because you'd be lowering, not raising current).
> 
> I did the same thing quite some years back to a Delta 5k RPM 120mm fan that got its power via molex. Using my fingers and needle nose pliers to pull the molex pin (and wire) out, and a molex pinout. I believe it connected via at least 3 pins. Molex fans and connectors can actually be voltage-selectable, which will reduce speed, and using a pinout and guide I modified the connector by pulling all the pins out and then putting them back in in different places. This caused 7v to go to the fan, instead of 12v, and made it significantly quieter- but it was still unacceptably loud
> 
> Since DC (3 pin) and PWM (4 pins) are pretty much just a tiny molex connector that draws less amperage (afaik), a similar method might work to reduce fan speeds where the board cannot... or you can simply purchase new fans. (Scythe Gentle Typhoons are pretty good and near silent from what I've heard, but difficult to find.)
> 
> EDIT: If they are running too loud because of high temperatures, then set Maximum Temp to 75C, middle temp to 65C, and minimum temp to 55C, and then put speeds to 50%, 35% and 20%. If they aren't doing a good enough job cooling, then set Maximum Temp to 55C, Middle to 35C and minimum to 20C, and speed to 100%, 85% and 60%. Just an example.
> 
> If you tell us why you want/require raising it above 75C instead of just asking if its possible, I'm sure someone here can help you accomplish what you want to do, but just asking without providing context (stating why you need this) makes it impossible to help because we don't know what problem you are trying to solve other than you cannot raise it above 75C maximum temperature...
> 
> Tbh if you lack a rear fan, a front one, and two fans on your cooler, or have a small case (ATX mid tower or below) it will be very difficult to cool these processors on this board, especially the 3900x. Since this mobo has an 8-pin CPU power connector and a 4-pin CPU power connector for the 14-phase power delivery (My Crosshair VIII Hero does anyway, unsure about Impact), the chips will probably run hotter with both connected. The user booklet says you can actually power the board and the chip with a single 8-pin cpu power connector, or an 8-pin and a 4-pin, and doesn't mention anything about needing the 4-pin for the 3900x. It just says you cannot power the board with a 4 pin connector alone... The 24-pin should be powering the chipset and everything connected to the board including drives, m.2 sticks, 75w to the PCI-E slots as per spec, etc.
> 
> So I wonder if people running a very mild manual OC with under 1.3v manual VID or stock settings with like 1.250v manual vcore on a 3800x or under, could get reduced heat with just the 8pin cpu power connected instead of both 8pin and 4pin? But would have to compromise on OC. Doesn't the 3900x work on x470 and under with a bios update and those boards had less power stages than this one? (8 phase power used to be totally fine for 95w i7s that could pull quite a bit more OCed highly)
> 
> Hope this helps..
> 
> p.s. Glad you enjoy my wall of texts, Der Deutsche Mann.  Hope you find this one useful as well. :/ I just try to provide as much potentially relevant information as possible, and be helpful not just to a single person and the specific problem, but also include knowledge about the platform, electronics, overclocking etc in general in hopes of including enough information that I will answer someones else's question before they even ask it. And I always base my answers off objective truth to the best of my current knowledge and study of the platform, and my own experience overclocking.
> 
> Anyway I just feel/think I have ruined or commandeered the thread because far less users are posting compared to a few weeks ago, which is why I said I would lay off it for a time... easier said than done as I can't even use my rig atm, sitting upright is causing me severe lower back pain, (numerous untreated pain conditions) so I cant even use or test what I've built. I don't work either, so I have plenty of time to read and post on here on my phone and can't even use my rig
> 
> As promised, please discuss the board (with much shorter replies than mine, I'm sure), gentleman. I don't want to be so off topic often or feel like a thread killer and I respect MacG32s effort on the original post and his continued effort running the thread abd dont want to ruin it for him or any other users who can't ask valid questions, might not want to share opinions because they dont want me to flame them or try and prove my often unpopular opinions (e.g. the previous voltage and boost clock issue, I am quite aware my independent thinking about it is a popularly dissenting point of view), don't like reading posts this long or longer than 2-3 paragraphs, etc.
> 
> In the interest of that I will work on getting new photos of my rig uploaded to my build log- and browse/post in my other subs for the meantime- my apologies to anyone I actually have ruined this thread for, if I have- I'll do my utmost to keep my replies much more concise and to the point in the future, and take a break for now.
> 
> Regards






Thanks for taking the time to respond, plenty of useful information.

My issue isn't so much heat as it is noise, for some reason my Strix Helios case has an annoying low pitched hum that I can't get rid of. It seems to imenate from the front fan casing which houses 3x 140mm fans connected to its own fan controler that runs them around 50%, I've tried using rubber fan mounts/pads/screws and as a last resort replaced the fans with some Noctua's but can't get rid of the hum. In the end I hooked the fans upto one of the fan headers on the board and set a fan curve, keeping them low RPM for desktop use and increaseing RPM based on CPU temp. If I'm gaming then I can't hear the hum over my speakers, so seems to be a good solution. Annoying that a premium case has this issue.


----------



## neurotix

I had similar issues with my front fan- or just all my fans and vibration in general- my Corsair 780T front dust cover is basically a toolless, click both top corners to put in or remove, design. Unfortunately, it also vibrates sometimes though I mostly resolved the issue. It drove me crazy too until I isolated the problem and fixed it. (Its basically a plastic frame, with plastic mesh filter, and carbon-fiber-esque aluminum put over it with tabs on the aluminum (pardon me, aluminium...  ) that bend around behind the plastic frame, securing the whole thing together. Well anyway I stopped the rattle eventually when I realized the aluminum was vibrating against the plastic around it where it fits on the front of the case. (When you want to really clean the filters you basically have to disassemble the whole filter as just described to get to the plastic mesh part on the side facing out.) There is also a longer, 360mm cover that is basically the same on the top, above my H100i V2, that can rattle sometimes too.









Talking about whats on the front- it's red on mine but by default, it was black. I spraypainted it red with automotive paint on the visible side, so the ability to take it apart is useful. Anyway, if anyone is in the market for a case, I'd suggest a 900D instead of the 780T but tbh Corsair has superior options now themselves and I'd probably be looking at other manufacturers now. Thermaltake's newer tempered glass boxes with the rear, behind the motherboard tray, psu mounting or something similar to that would be my choice now.

Anyway- I took a cursory look at your case, and how it goes together, or rather just ASUS' 9 product images on newegg for your exact case. I couldn't tell much and will try to find other, better quality images elsewhere, being able to see what's behind the front panel, as well as how the fans are mounted and where, would help.

Still, one thing immediately stood out after hearing what you described: I saw the top removable roughly 280mm(?) plastic mesh fan filter:









Yeah, that bastard between what I think is the front tempered glass and your three front 140mm fans. Get rid of him. I'm almost certain the length of it and the way the plastic on those things is (my case has them too but only on the bottom, a front and rear covering the whole thing, but they are each < 240mm), as well as how flimsy/bendable they are due to structural integrity and being essentially full of large holes with the mesh just glued in place on the back... that was my first thought.

I'd suggest you hook back up the discrete fan controller you have to the three 140mm Noctuas (jeez those must have been $90 or so and didn't even fix the issue, I'd be angry) and set them to run full blast. Then pull out that bastard filter in the front from the top. See if thats what was rattling. If its too much effort to put your fan controller in or w/e, run them off the board at 100% and try removing that filter. I am guessing it slides in between the front panel tempered glass (which also has a posh display in behind it or something? Or just an RGB ROG logo?can't quite tell) and the rear of the fans. There is probably just some aluminum tabs (basically they always slide between two pieces of metal that grip the plastic frame, but not very tightly at all) in the case holding the filter in place. It looks too long from what I can tell and could be the hum source/vibration because the force of the premium fans even at 50%, and the small enclosed area behind the filter, would cause the air the fans are moving to pull the filter forward- bending it usually in an unsecured corner, and rapidly, causing a really intrusive, distinct hum from the plastic vibrating against the alumin(i)um. (Sorry lol couldn't resist...)

If just removing the top filter doesn't do it, try the others one by one and see if it helps. Bottom one is the next most likely culprit.

If you remove them all and it still doesnt help, and especially since you've already tried rubber grommets, I would suggest looking into acoustic foam (cheap for a lot of it on Amazon) or something else to insulate/pack in metal seams of the case, or possibly behind the fans inside the front panel (hopefully not visibly)... to dampen the vibration and noise. 3x 140mm fans and however many other case fans you have, as well as GPU fans, can also simply cause vibration due to any plastic molding pieces on the case vibrating against the aluminum chassis. Again, I would have to see better quality images of the case construction to really tell or come up with any other ideas. (Also- not to offend or patronise but you do know most 140mm fans make more of a humming sound, even at high rpm, compared to 120mms which are much louder and sound quite different... the hum could just be the additive sound of having three so close together? Can you remove the middle one?)

Try those ideas- I despise any rattling/vibration coming from my rig! If I am not gaming, listening to music on my cans or z2300, and my system is basically idling- it's insufferable. Let me know if it works and I'm right about the cheap plastic frame fan filters- often times they aren't held in very securely at all on many case chassis and will vibrate, the penalty for being toolless! 

(I thought I just said.... ah nvm...hope this helps...)


----------



## stone1978

PolRoger said:


> With BIOS 1001... Under the advanced AMD overclocking section... The "vcore millivolt" input block doesn't seem to apply higher voltages? It always seems to be stuck at a ~1.1v p-state? If you input a zero the board defaults auto voltage ~1.48v+...
> 
> I can change multi and vcore in the "Extreme Tweaker" section but I thought I could modify all core overclocks and voltage(s) here in the advanced AMD overclocking section with earlier BIOS?



I Have a similar Problem

Look here the Screenshots
https://www.computerbase.de/forum/t...cpu-vcore-laesst-sich-nicht-erhoehen.1896356/


ASUS ROG X570 GAMING F and AMD RYZEN 3700x CPU


Latest BIOS 1201



If i leave the RATIO to AUTO = 1.4 VOLT
If i define a manuel Ratio (for ex 38) the Voltage will drop to 1.09 VOLT
So i have no Chance to boot with a Ratio from 43 an 1.38 VOLTS


Regards Gerd


----------



## Reikoji

stone1978 said:


> I Have a similar Problem
> 
> Look here the Screenshots
> https://www.computerbase.de/forum/t...cpu-vcore-laesst-sich-nicht-erhoehen.1896356/
> 
> 
> ASUS ROG X570 GAMING F and AMD RYZEN 3700x CPU
> 
> 
> Latest BIOS 1201
> 
> 
> 
> If i leave the RATIO to AUTO = 1.4 VOLT
> If i define a manuel Ratio (for ex 38) the Voltage will drop to 1.09 VOLT
> So i have no Chance to boot with a Ratio from 43 an 1.38 VOLTS
> 
> 
> Regards Gerd


to be fair, i would say the ccx overclocking section superceeds those options. i havent tried the AMD overclocking portion since installing 1001.

i will try it later today tho, but id say just use the ccx overclocking from the extreme tweaker tab.


----------



## neurotix

Try for something like 43.25/43/42.50/42.00 under manual CCX OC panel. It's right under the normal Core Overclocking ratio you are trying. Give it something like 1.32 VID at the top.

Make sure you set vcore/cpu voltage to Auto if you change the VID under CCX OC- or it won't work.

Regards.

(Reikoji, do the 8 cores have 4 CCX with 2 cores each = 4 CCX OC ratios? I never had a Ryzen before this, and don't know about the single chiplet CPUs core complex designs.)


----------



## Sam64

> ... do the 8 cores have 4 CCX with 2 cores each = 4 CCX OC ratios?


 Not sure, but Ryzen 9/3900X should be 3of4/3of4 plus 3of4/3of4 chiplet pairs. Only 3950X has the full 4 cores per CCX.


https://wccftech.com/ryzen-3000-series-ccx-and-core-layout-quick-guide/


----------



## Reikoji

Sam64 said:


> Not sure, but Ryzen 9/3900X should be 3of4/3of4 plus 3of4/3of4 chiplet pairs. Only 3950X has the full 4 cores per CCX.
> 
> 
> https://wccftech.com/ryzen-3000-series-ccx-and-core-layout-quick-guide/


3700x and 3800x are both 4 core CCX chips.


----------



## Reikoji

Echo mode @65w luls. Normal is 87w so I fixed it.


----------



## Reikoji

Platform Throttle limit 55c lulz.

Also entire PC is sluggish :3


----------



## CYoung234

Hello all. I am new to this forum, but just finished building a new rig, 3900X and this motherboard. I ordered my RAM prior to the launch, and bought G.Skill Trident Z Royal 16GB modules, 4 in all. These do not have tight timings at all, but they are up and running on their XMP profile at 3600MHz, probably 20-20-20-40. The infinity fabric is 1:1 at 1800MHz.

This system is strictly for content creation, AutoCAD and DiaLUX Photometrics calculations and modelling. So, the graphics card is an Asus 1060 with 6Mb DDR5, I think.

My question is, is it even worth trying to tighten up the memory timings? If so, is anyone else using this memory, and how to do it? I am new to overclocking in the AMD world. Oh, I am using the stock cooler and live in a hot country! So, take that into account.


----------



## PolRoger

stone1978 said:


> I Have a similar Problem... Look here the Screenshots
> https://www.computerbase.de/forum/t...cpu-vcore-laesst-sich-nicht-erhoehen.1896356/
> ASUS ROG X570 GAMING F and AMD RYZEN 3700x CPU
> Latest BIOS 1201
> If i leave the RATIO to AUTO = 1.4 VOLT
> If i define a manuel Ratio (for ex 38) the Voltage will drop to 1.09 VOLT
> So i have no Chance to boot with a Ratio from 43 an 1.38 VOLTS
> Regards Gerd


I'm not sure that the ASUS Strix X570-F motherboard has the BIOS per "CCX with VID control" feature yet?

I looked at your posted BIOS pictures... Did you disable Precision Boost Overdrive in BIOS with your manually set multi and vcore overclock?




CYoung234 said:


> Hello all. I am new to this forum, but just finished building a new rig, 3900X and this motherboard. I ordered my RAM prior to the launch, and bought G.Skill Trident Z Royal 16GB modules, 4 in all. These do not have tight timings at all, but they are up and running on their XMP profile at 3600MHz, probably 20-20-20-40. The infinity fabric is 1:1 at 1800MHz.
> 
> This system is strictly for content creation, AutoCAD and DiaLUX Photometrics calculations and modelling. So, the graphics card is an Asus 1060 with 6Mb DDR5, I think.
> 
> My question is, is it even worth trying to tighten up the memory timings? If so, is anyone else using this memory, and how to do it? I am new to overclocking in the AMD world. Oh, I am using the stock cooler and live in a hot country! So, take that into account.


So do you have have two of these kits? https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-32gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232822

I'm not sure what kind of ic? are being used on those kits but you may be able to tighten up the timings some depending on how tightly GSkill binned them.

I'd try something like 18-20-20-20-40 or 18-19-19-19-39 or maybe even a little tighter... Like 16-18-18-18-38.

You would do this by going into the timings section of the BIOS after enabling DOCP and just changing those first 5 settings and then save and exit BIOS. See if BIOS memory training is successful and that you can still boot to windows. Test new memory settings stability in windows with AIDA64 stress test by just ticking memory and cache not CPU/FPU. You are just wanting to stress test the memory.

There is a software program called Thaiphoon Burner that can help identify the IC used on your kits. Knowing which kind of ic is helpful in determining how best to set timings as well as how much overhead you might expect from your kits. http://softnology.biz/files.html


----------



## zsoltmol

Supported memory with 4x16GB setup from G.Skill on Crosshair VIII Hero / Wifi from Asus website Memory QVL: see attached picture.

G.Skill website of supported 3600MHz 4x16GB rams for Crosshair VIII Hero / Wifi: LINK

We need exact part number of the ram modules to help.


----------



## neurotix

Sam64 said:


> Not sure, but Ryzen 9/3900X should be 3of4/3of4 plus 3of4/3of4 chiplet pairs. Only 3950X has the full 4 cores per CCX.
> 
> 
> https://wccftech.com/ryzen-3000-series-ccx-and-core-layout-quick-guide/



Yep, I know the core layout for the 3900x (which I own) and 3950x but thanks @Sam64

Two chiplets, CCD0 and CCD1, each with two Core Complexes (CCX0 and CCX1), with four cores per CCX (for 16 cores total: chiplet 1 CCD0 has 8 cores in CCX0 and CCX1 that are binned faster, chiplet 2 CCD1 has 8 cores in its CCX0 and CCX1 that are binned slower. Which sucks because they hold back your OCs.)

The 3950x has 16 cores across all 4 CCX on the two dies (CCDs). The 3900x does too, but one core per CCX is laser cut (?) So there are 3 functional cores per all four CCX, giving 12 total across the two CCDs (chiplets) on the processor silicon.

:thumb:

It'd be awesome if you could unlock a 3900x to 3950x. Back in 2009 I had an AMD Phenom II x2 550 BE when I first built Big Red, and an ASUS AM3 board. It had something called ACC (Advanced Clock Calibration), when you turned it on it unlocked the other 2 cores, which were not laser cut. So my Phenom II x2 555 became a Phenom II x4 975 for free  I was able to run it at 4GHz as well. It was great back then to pay $80 and end up with a $200+ quad core if you had luck- for a budget build it was great and actually performed very close to an i5 760 which was $250. The Intels also did not easily overclock past 4GHz.

Also I know you are German but please post your full machine/'rig' specifications. I would like to see. How are prices for this high end stuff in German Deutschmarks? Do you pay the same we do or more?






stone1978 said:


> I Have a similar Problem
> 
> Look here the Screenshots
> https://www.computerbase.de/forum/t...cpu-vcore-laesst-sich-nicht-erhoehen.1896356/
> 
> 
> ASUS ROG X570 GAMING F and AMD RYZEN 3700x CPU
> 
> 
> Latest BIOS 1201
> 
> 
> 
> If i leave the RATIO to AUTO = 1.4 VOLT
> If i define a manuel Ratio (for ex 38) the Voltage will drop to 1.09 VOLT
> So i have no Chance to boot with a Ratio from 43 an 1.38 VOLTS
> 
> 
> Regards Gerd


Hello- you cannot POST at 43x because of the 1.09 voltage?

I looked at your pictures and understood

In the 'Tweakers Paradise' or possibly the Advanced -> AMD Overclocking or AMD CBS section there is a 'Boot Voltage' setting. Have you tried it?

What is your CPU loadline calibration under 'Digi+VRM' set to? Maybe Auto LLC is the problem? Try setting CPU Loadline Calibration to level 3 and then set manual cpu voltage.

You can also try rebooting more than once even if you do not pass POST the first time- I had an issue with my motherboard while trying manual ratio all core oc on a lower bios version.

I would suggest leaving cpu ratio to Auto and set a manual cpu voltage of 1.3v to 1.35v and let the chip boost on its own- even if cpu voltage worked for you, the 3700x is binned low and asking for 4300mhz all cores is asking a lot. I think some of your cores cannot do more than 4100mhz

It also seems you do not have access to manual ccx OC yet on your board  If you did it would be right below Manual CPU Ratio you are trying to set

Regards.



Reikoji said:


> to be fair, i would say the ccx overclocking section superceeds those options. i havent tried the AMD overclocking portion since installing 1001.
> 
> i will try it later today tho, but id say just use the ccx overclocking from the extreme tweaker tab.


Look at the screenshots in his link- I don't speak German being American but I can tell it is not there.



Reikoji said:


> 3700x and 3800x are both 4 core CCX chips.


Is it one chiplet with two CCX of four cores each then?



CYoung234 said:


> Hello all. I am new to this forum, but just finished building a new rig, 3900X and this motherboard. I ordered my RAM prior to the launch, and bought G.Skill Trident Z Royal 16GB modules, 4 in all. These do not have tight timings at all, but they are up and running on their XMP profile at 3600MHz, probably 20-20-20-40. The infinity fabric is 1:1 at 1800MHz.
> 
> This system is strictly for content creation, AutoCAD and DiaLUX Photometrics calculations and modelling. So, the graphics card is an Asus 1060 with 6Mb DDR5, I think.
> 
> My question is, is it even worth trying to tighten up the memory timings? If so, is anyone else using this memory, and how to do it? I am new to overclocking in the AMD world. Oh, I am using the stock cooler and live in a hot country! So, take that into account.



Please buy a good quality tower cooler if you have a 3900x and plan to stress the cpu heavily under those tasks.

If ambient temp in your hot country is above 80F (26C) often and you have no air conditioning, your build will overheat immediately at stock settings with the Wraith cooler. 

I had to order an AM4 mounting bracket for my H100i V2 before I could use it, and so originally ran the Wraith on my 3900x. I had to disable Boost/Turbo and manually set cpu core voltage to 1.1v and it still idled at 45c with 100% fan in a 22c room. (You can disable Boost by setting 'Core Performance Enhancer' (I think) to disabled. It is found at the top of the extreme tweaker section, I think right above manual cpu ratio.)

Good air coolers:

Noctua NH-D15
Be Quiet! Dark Rock Pro 4
Coolermaster V8 GTS (older but handles 125w tdp cpus with ease)
Any high end Coolermaster heatsink with a vapor plate is good. Can my friend @damric advise? (The CM MasterAir Maker 8 looks great to me but includes a lot of extraneous unneccesary features.

Also, please use Taiphoon Burner to check the timings of your ram. Or post the SKU from G.skill (number written on the label on the side of the DIMM), it should be easy to look in your side window with a flashlight or take the side panel off, then write it down.

Example: my memory sticks are 

Flare X model: F4-3200C14D-16GFX

All g.skill memory made (including my dead 4GB DDR3 1333 sticks from 2009, the first DIMMs I used in Big Red) follow this model name format.

Mine is F4-frequencycas-capacitymodelname

So you can clearly see my model name is just the speed, cas latency, capacity, and Flare X (16GFX= 16 gigabyte Flare X)

Have you tried setting your motherboard D.O.C.P. option?

It should be the very top option in this BIOS- bus speed I think- settings are auto, manual (100.0), and D.O.C.P.

Make sure your RAM voltage, timings and frequency are all on [Auto] then change it to D.O.C.P. and reboot. Voila, it will automagically set (most) of your timings, speed and voltage on its own.

Otherwise we can look up your primary timings for you but everything else needs to be done manually using Ryzen DRAM Calculator and Taiphoon Burner after you export the full html settings from it then import it into Ryzen Calc

----------------------------------------

I have something quite big in store for all the people I've been trying to help overclock their memory on these boards that will hopefully be VERY useful, especially if you are trying to get past 1800fclk. I've helped no less than 4 people now (?) in getting memory higher than 3600MHz. It will take some time on my part though.

I have an MRI of my lower back and hip on Thurs and a pain procedure on Fri and may have to recover/not be able to help. Wish me luck/pray for me if you believe in that, or send positive thoughts/energy my way. Once I recover (next week?) I will begin working on my idea. Currently, I am stuck on a couch or in bed laying flat and can barely walk from my lower back pain condition. Sitting makes it much worse which didnt used to be the case, it may be a new injury caused when I was lifting/carrying and then working on Big Red last week. So I cannot even sit and use it as sitting worsens the injury and prevents healing. (I have dealt with this and seen many incompetent doctors in the last 4 years who have just made things worse. They refuse to do surgery for me here.)

I'd really like to play 'Ion Fury' on my machine too- it looks awesome from the little I tried. Works on the 3 screens correctly too. I did play Duke Nukem 3D a ton in the late 90s, on the Pentium 75MHz/16MB RAM tower my Uncle (RIP) gifted me. Ion Fury is extremely authentic to that era of games. I don't really play modern FPS but I loved Doom, Blood, Hexen, Duke 3D, Quake, and especially Quake 3 Arena and UT99 and Ut2004 back then.











Too bad I cannot let any of you guys have a game in my stead. :/

Hope I have been helpful!


----------



## Jackalito

neurotix said:


> Yep, I know the core layout for the 3900x (which I own) and 3950x but thanks @Sam64
> 
> Two chiplets, CCD0 and CCD1, each with two Core Complexes (CCX0 and CCX1), with four cores per CCX (for 16 cores total: chiplet 1 CCD0 has 8 cores in CCX0 and CCX1 that are binned faster, chiplet 2 CCD1 has 8 cores in its CCX0 and CCX1 that are binned slower. Which sucks because they hold back your OCs.)
> 
> The 3950x has 16 cores across all 4 CCX on the two dies (CCDs). The 3900x does too, but one core per CCX is laser cut (?) So there are 3 functional cores per all four CCX, giving 12 total across the two CCDs (chiplets) on the processor silicon.
> 
> :thumb:
> 
> It'd be awesome if you could unlock a 3900x to 3950x. Back in 2009 I had an AMD Phenom II x2 550 BE when I first built Big Red, and an ASUS AM3 board. It had something called ACC (Advanced Clock Calibration), when you turned it on it unlocked the other 2 cores, which were not laser cut. So my Phenom II x2 555 became a Phenom II x4 975 for free  I was able to run it at 4GHz as well. It was great back then to pay $80 and end up with a $200+ quad core if you had luck- for a budget build it was great and actually performed very close to an i5 760 which was $250. The Intels also did not easily overclock past 4GHz.
> 
> Also I know you are German but please post your full machine/'rig' specifications. I would like to see. How are prices for this high end stuff in German Deutschmarks? Do you pay the same we do or more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello- you cannot POST at 43x because of the 1.09 voltage?
> 
> I looked at your pictures and understood
> 
> In the 'Tweakers Paradise' or possibly the Advanced -> AMD Overclocking or AMD CBS section there is a 'Boot Voltage' setting. Have you tried it?
> 
> What is your CPU loadline calibration under 'Digi+VRM' set to? Maybe Auto LLC is the problem? Try setting CPU Loadline Calibration to level 3 and then set manual cpu voltage.
> 
> You can also try rebooting more than once even if you do not pass POST the first time- I had an issue with my motherboard while trying manual ratio all core oc on a lower bios version.
> 
> I would suggest leaving cpu ratio to Auto and set a manual cpu voltage of 1.3v to 1.35v and let the chip boost on its own- even if cpu voltage worked for you, the 3700x is binned low and asking for 4300mhz all cores is asking a lot. I think some of your cores cannot do more than 4100mhz
> 
> It also seems you do not have access to manual ccx OC yet on your board  If you did it would be right below Manual CPU Ratio you are trying to set
> 
> Regards.
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the screenshots in his link- I don't speak German being American but I can tell it is not there.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it one chiplet with two CCX of four cores each then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please buy a good quality tower cooler if you have a 3900x and plan to stress the cpu heavily under those tasks.
> 
> If ambient temp in your hot country is above 80F (26C) often and you have no air conditioning, your build will overheat immediately at stock settings with the Wraith cooler.
> 
> I had to order an AM4 mounting bracket for my H100i V2 before I could use it, and so originally ran the Wraith on my 3900x. I had to disable Boost/Turbo and manually set cpu core voltage to 1.1v and it still idled at 45c with 100% fan in a 22c room. (You can disable Boost by setting 'Core Performance Enhancer' (I think) to disabled. It is found at the top of the extreme tweaker section, I think right above manual cpu ratio.)
> 
> Good air coolers:
> 
> Noctua NH-D15
> Be Quiet! Dark Rock Pro 4
> Coolermaster V8 GTS (older but handles 125w tdp cpus with ease)
> Any high end Coolermaster heatsink with a vapor plate is good. Can my friend @damric advise? (The CM MasterAir Maker 8 looks great to me but includes a lot of extraneous unneccesary features.
> 
> Also, please use Taiphoon Burner to check the timings of your ram. Or post the SKU from G.skill (number written on the label on the side of the DIMM), it should be easy to look in your side window with a flashlight or take the side panel off, then write it down.
> 
> Example: my memory sticks are
> 
> Flare X model: F4-3200C14D-16GFX
> 
> All g.skill memory made (including my dead 4GB DDR3 1333 sticks from 2009, the first DIMMs I used in Big Red) follow this model name format.
> 
> Mine is F4-frequencycas-capacitymodelname
> 
> So you can clearly see my model name is just the speed, cas latency, capacity, and Flare X (16GFX= 16 gigabyte Flare X)
> 
> Have you tried setting your motherboard D.O.C.P. option?
> 
> It should be the very top option in this BIOS- bus speed I think- settings are auto, manual (100.0), and D.O.C.P.
> 
> Make sure your RAM voltage, timings and frequency are all on [Auto] then change it to D.O.C.P. and reboot. Voila, it will automagically set (most) of your timings, speed and voltage on its own.
> 
> Otherwise we can look up your primary timings for you but everything else needs to be done manually using Ryzen DRAM Calculator and Taiphoon Burner after you export the full html settings from it then import it into Ryzen Calc
> 
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> I have something quite big in store for all the people I've been trying to help overclock their memory on these boards that will hopefully be VERY useful, especially if you are trying to get past 1800fclk. I've helped no less than 4 people now (?) in getting memory higher than 3600MHz. It will take some time on my part though.
> 
> I have an MRI of my lower back and hip on Thurs and a pain procedure on Fri and may have to recover/not be able to help. Wish me luck/pray for me if you believe in that, or send positive thoughts/energy my way. Once I recover (next week?) I will begin working on my idea. Currently, I am stuck on a couch or in bed laying flat and can barely walk from my lower back pain condition. Sitting makes it much worse which didnt used to be the case, it may be a new injury caused when I was lifting/carrying and then working on Big Red last week. So I cannot even sit and use it as sitting worsens the injury and prevents healing. (I have dealt with this and seen many incompetent doctors in the last 4 years who have just made things worse. They refuse to do surgery for me here.)
> 
> I'd really like to play 'Ion Fury' on my machine too- it looks awesome from the little I tried. Works on the 3 screens correctly too. I did play Duke Nukem 3D a ton in the late 90s, on the Pentium 75MHz/16MB RAM tower my Uncle (RIP) gifted me. Ion Fury is extremely authentic to that era of games. I don't really play modern FPS but I loved Doom, Blood, Hexen, Duke 3D, Quake, and especially Quake 3 Arena and UT99 and Ut2004 back then.
> 
> 
> View attachment 299010
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad I cannot let any of you guys have a game in my stead. :/
> 
> Hope I have been helpful!


Mate, as someone who has been enduring chronic pain over the past decade, I think I'm able to kind of understand what you're going through. And yeah, coming across incompetent practitioners who, because of their lack of grasp on the subject, only make matters worse is both, infuriating and it makes you feel utterly powerless.

Please, get some rest and I sincerely hope all the scheduled tests are a success, and you can get some relief sooner rather than later. 
Personally, I'm a fuc**** mess right now as I soldier on my own issues, but I would like to send you lots of positive vibes your way nonetheless.

Take care, and I hope you can feel better soon.

Hugs from Spain.


----------



## neurotix

Jackalito said:


> Mate, as someone who has been enduring chronic pain over the past decade, I think I'm able to kind of understand what you're going through. And yeah, coming across incompetence *snip*



Sometimes it is better, sometimes it is worse, but I really messed something up working on my rig last week. The back pain has never been this bad for this long, so I am afraid I may end up in the ER/hospitalized soon especially if my MRI Thurs shows it.

I hope you get some improvement soon too. Your message made my day and showed real compassion. Few on here (my friends from before who are all gone now from OCN), have said what you did. Aunts in town and cousins and other relatives never say it. You have no idea just how much your words mean to me & how much more motivation it gives me, to go on and continue living. Thank you.


Its a life dream to visit Europe. I was mostly interested in England, Wales, Sweden, Germany, Ireland and Denmark because I am all of those- from great grandparents and such who imigrated here. I will have to add Spain to that list!

Besides you guys make the finest dry cured ham in the world, the deep red one, similar to Italian prosciutto. (dont remember the Spanish name) I had it here but it is locally made and poor quality- I think food like that is reason enough lol, but if you also show strangers such compassion, that is a better reason to visit sometime in my life if I get better.

Since I cant use my rig- instead I will read OCN on my phone and post as much as I can to help people OC on this new platform as memory and Infinity Fabric OC is difficult on this motherboard/bios. Especially the less experienced OCers. Finding settings like BankGroupSwap_Alt, Memory Clear, Dram Address hash, Channel Interleaving Size, etc. can be difficult. So I can help others, at least. 

Anyway, be well and thank you! I hope you get some relief soon. I will pray for you. God bless.

*TL: DR: not related to board or cpu, personal message. Skip.*

I'll still definitely be around to answer any questions regarding cpu overclocking, RAM and Infinity Fabric OC, parts suggestions, cooling advice (air cooling principles/heatsinks/AIO), case problems, etc.


----------



## Sam64

Get well soon, Neurotix!


Since you asked about this stuff in Germany, here is my rig and the prices i paid for the new Red-Team components:


CPU: Ryzen 9 3900X (529,- Euro)
MB: Crosshair VIII Hero BIOS 1001 (417,- Euro)
RAM: Corsair Dominator Platinum RGB 2x16GB, 3466CL16 @ 3733 16-16-32-48 1T 1.40v (289,- Eur)
Cooling: Alphacool Eisbär 240 AIO
GPU: Zotac GTX 1070 Mini 8GB
HD: 970 EVO 1TB NVMe + 2 SATA SSDs
PS: Seasonic Focus PLus Gold 550W

Prices are higher here in Germany, I guess. Availability of the 3900X is still very bad, but it seems to get better now. 4 weeks ago I startet this rig with 3800X, since last friday i'm happy, i could catch a 3900X.

I'm preparing some benchmark these days and can post the results, when they are ready. I came from Blue-Team (old [email protected] VII Hero 370) and I'm really happy with my new rig by now. I'm thinking about upgrading my AIO to a custom loop, since the Ryzen get's even hotter than my old [email protected]

Again, get well soon!


For me, it was a life-dream to visit US  But since I'm working for a german airline, i could use the benefits of cheaper tickets and visited already your great country several times now. And i got some family connection to Canada/Toronto as well, thanks to my beloving wife. 



When you ever manage to visit us here in old Europe, do it as long as you can get the nice food, it's still here... ;-) But you got some very nice food as well. In my short-time memory i can still, e.g., taste a bit of that fantastic soup from Soupman in Manhattan.


----------



## damric

What was the question? Sorry.


----------



## neurotix

damric said:


> What was the question? Sorry.


Hey bro.

"Good air coolers:

Noctua NH-D15
Be Quiet! Dark Rock Pro 4
Coolermaster V8 GTS (older but handles 125w tdp cpus with ease)
Any high end Coolermaster heatsink with a vapor plate is good. Can my friend @damric advise? (The CM MasterAir Maker 8 looks great to me but includes a lot of extraneous unneccesary features."

Some people here (not many) but also elsewhere online, are running the 3900x or 3700x on the AMD Wraith cooler 

I only know about/could recommend those air coolers as I have not used a tower cooler since 2011 or so. I can also only really recommend older fans that were popular to put on a tower cooler or rad, like Scythe Ultra Kazes...

I'm also not sure what is capable of cooling a 3900x that is under $80 or so. Just thought you could give some suggestions as I know you follow this stuff, or used to, and tested a cheaper CM tower with a vapor chamber...

3900x has a 125w TDP but highly overclocked I've seen mine pulling 135A. My idle wattage draw is around 200w, but thats with all my drives and my GPUs, this shot up above 300w under a heavy all core load. 

Is there even a sub $80 cooler capable of dissipating heat like that?

Thanks man


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

What does CPU and DRAM current capability do and how does that assist with RAM overclocking? 

All I can find about these settings from ASUS is the following page, which doesn't help. https://www.asus.com/us/support/FAQ/1036400


----------



## Reikoji

neurotix said:


> Is it one chiplet with two CCX of four cores each then?


Late answer, but yes, just one chiplet.


----------



## neurotix

KingEngineRevUp said:


> What does CPU and DRAM current capability do and how does that assist with RAM overclocking?
> 
> All I can find about these settings from ASUS is the following page, which doesn't help. https://www.asus.com/us/support/FAQ/1036400



It allows for the CPU and memory to increase current draw when necessary, while overclocking, to allow for higher CPU/memory overclocks.

It controls a chip that sends these signals to the VRMs(voltage regulator modules), power circuitry, and MOSFETs on the motherboard. 

Basically, your power supply is a step down converter, that converts from 120v 60Hz AC power from the wall outlet to whatever specs your power supply has (12v, 5v, and 3v power @ a certain amount of amps = wattage rating I believe if multiplied), and turns it into DC power, that then goes the the components in your build. The 8-pin and 4-pin power cables that plug into the top of the Hero board, and possibly the 24-pin, supply power to these MOSFETs/VRMs, they are under two heatsinks to the top and the left of the CPU socket. (If you took it off you'd see little chips with 3 legs usually (MOSFETs) and a bunch of larger gray boxes, the VRMs- I think they are small transformers and inside have a thin copper wire wrapped around a magnetic core, like most other transformers that step current and voltage down, but I might be wrong).

Anyway, these ROG boards have power delivery circuitry that is best in class because there are more of the VRMs and MOSFETs and they are controlled by a chip, letting the user define power delivered to the processor. (I don't know if 8pin and 4pin CPU power leads supply 5v or 3v but, if unclear, the VRMs convert this to a much lower voltage that the CPU requires). They have more power phases and better quality ones than other companies.

Essentially, by raising the current limit, changing the phase profile to Optimized, etc. you are allowing the CPU, the memory controller, the Infinity Fabric and so on that's on the processor package to draw as much power as it needs (mostly under load) and this extends the overclocking range compared to other boards, or leaving them at stock. The tradeoff is usually heat, but if you have plenty of fans, a good cooler etc. you don't really have to worry, and the VRMs themselves are generally rated at 150C nowadays and in practice, never run that hot. They are also heatsinked.

Also, if you are concerned about changing them because I told you to privately to try and help you figure out your memory oc, and whether or not it will damage or fry your motherboard or CPU, it won't. As long as you don't try to run Prime95 with the current capacity set up like that while you are OCed to 4.6GHz all cores with 1.5v or something, you'll be fine. I've used ASUS ROG boards since 2011, including a still-working Crosshair V + FX-8350 that was run at 5GHz 1.6v for a year (max safe was 1.55v) and it still works. I benched on it, sure, and gamed a lot, but it was mostly at 50C or below gaming, and totally fine. It still works now. I've set the same options to overclock higher on my wife's rig (Big Blue in my sig) as well as my previous 4790k + Maximus VI Hero.

If the CPU was overheating the system would shut off, or lock up (because the processor would detect its above 95C and shut off), and if there were some kind of power delivery failure (there wont be) it would probably be due to other things besides the Digi+ settings, and your PSU would cut off in this instance, because it also has digital protection chips and sensors that detect extreme over-current conditions and shut the unit off to prevent damaging the motherboard or CPU. 

EDIT: The ASUS board would also likely shut down or shut the system down if something like this went wrong as it is designed in- the exception is, it probably wouldn't if you toggle the LN2 mode switch, since those guys max out the VRM settings and put 2v through the CPU while its being benched at -180C. Really, changing those is totally fine, and you haven't toggled that switch... additionally, I didn't tell you to change one key setting (don't remember but the stock value is "T.Probe" and it's under the CPU options), and if your system overheats or goes over 95C overclocking it will shut off instantly. If you change that value to Extreme, then it won't. And I don't think I advised you to change it, just the DRAM and SoC Power Phase Profile (to ASUS Optimized) and current limit, as it may help you stabilize above 1800MHz fclk and high memory frequency.

Anyway, there's your explanation- check your pm's as well as I sent you my DRAM Calc settings. Good luck.


----------



## damric

I guess it depends on what you can fit in your case, as well as budget, but here's some ideas for some big fatty coolers that are available now:

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/8GBrxr/scythe-mugen-5-rev-b-512-cfm-cpu-cooler-scmg-5100

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/dZ3H99/scythe-ninja-5-430-cfm-cpu-cooler-scnj-5000

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/B8rcCJ/thermalright-cpu-cooler-legrandmachort

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/jd...erarrow-t8-9096-cfm-cpu-cooler-silverarrow-t8

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/xFw323/cryorig-cpu-cooler-crr1a

You mentioned some of the older CM coolers with the vapor chambers. Yes they are very good. They do have AM4 upgrade kits for most of them too, so if you can find like a TPC-800 or 812 for a good price on ebay then it might be worth the trouble since they can cool well over 300w.


----------



## neurotix

Thanks, I'll look into those later. So I can make more current recommendations if I need to tell someone not to use the Wraith cooler with a 3900x again.

Also thanks for confirming Reikoji, regarding core config on a 3800x and below. I knew they had one die attached to the SoC in the packaging so I figured it was probably 2 four core CCX.


----------



## davidenko7

Guys I'm trying to dynamically overclock my 3800x working with voltage offset. I enabled PBO and set max performance increase up to 200MHz. I noticed I have best single/multi core performance decreasing voltage by -0.1v. If I go over -0.1 I have performance decrease on cinebench. Am I working well? I have always made manual all cores OC. Furthermore I read activating PBO automatically increase CPU parameters but it just raised PPT and TDC to 4096A but EDC is always limited to 140A. Why? I have an Asus X570 Crosshair VIII Hero and CPU is under custom loop. Thanks


----------



## CYoung234

So do you have have two of these kits? https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-32gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232822

I'm not sure what kind of ic? are being used on those kits but you may be able to tighten up the timings some depending on how tightly GSkill binned them.

I'd try something like 18-20-20-20-40 or 18-19-19-19-39 or maybe even a little tighter... Like 16-18-18-18-38.

You would do this by going into the timings section of the BIOS after enabling DOCP and just changing those first 5 settings and then save and exit BIOS. See if BIOS memory training is successful and that you can still boot to windows. Test new memory settings stability in windows with AIDA64 stress test by just ticking memory and cache not CPU/FPU. You are just wanting to stress test the memory.

There is a software program called Thaiphoon Burner that can help identify the IC used on your kits. Knowing which kind of ic is helpful in determining how best to set timings as well as how much overhead you might expect from your kits. http://softnology.biz/files.html[/QUOTE]

Hi, and thanks for the reply. Yes, these are the kits. I am having a lot of trouble getting Thaiphoon burner to run, but it did start one time. Probably BitDefender is preventing it from writing to protected storage. From what I could see, these DDR sticks use Hynix 8Gb C-die modules.


----------



## CYoung234

zsoltmol said:


> Supported memory with 4x16GB setup from G.Skill on Crosshair VIII Hero / Wifi from Asus website Memory QVL: see attached picture.
> 
> G.Skill website of supported 3600MHz 4x16GB rams for Crosshair VIII Hero / Wifi: LINK
> 
> We need exact part number of the ram modules to help.



As another poster correctly identified, the memory is G.Skill F4-3600C19D-32GTRS.

These appear to be Hynix C-die kits. I will look at the Ryzen Ram calculator to see what it suggests, although I have never used that calculator before. Thanks for your input.


----------



## CYoung234

neurotix said:


> Please buy a good quality tower cooler if you have a 3900x and plan to stress the cpu heavily under those tasks.
> 
> If ambient temp in your hot country is above 80F (26C) often and you have no air conditioning, your build will overheat immediately at stock settings with the Wraith cooler.
> 
> I had to order an AM4 mounting bracket for my H100i V2 before I could use it, and so originally ran the Wraith on my 3900x. I had to disable Boost/Turbo and manually set cpu core voltage to 1.1v and it still idled at 45c with 100% fan in a 22c room. (You can disable Boost by setting 'Core Performance Enhancer' (I think) to disabled. It is found at the top of the extreme tweaker section, I think right above manual cpu ratio.)
> 
> Good air coolers:
> 
> Noctua NH-D15
> Be Quiet! Dark Rock Pro 4
> Coolermaster V8 GTS (older but handles 125w tdp cpus with ease)
> Any high end Coolermaster heatsink with a vapor plate is good. Can my friend @damric advise? (The CM MasterAir Maker 8 looks great to me but includes a lot of extraneous unneccesary features.
> 
> Also, please use Taiphoon Burner to check the timings of your ram. Or post the SKU from G.skill (number written on the label on the side of the DIMM), it should be easy to look in your side window with a flashlight or take the side panel off, then write it down.
> 
> Example: my memory sticks are
> 
> Flare X model: F4-3200C14D-16GFX
> 
> All g.skill memory made (including my dead 4GB DDR3 1333 sticks from 2009, the first DIMMs I used in Big Red) follow this model name format.
> 
> Mine is F4-frequencycas-capacitymodelname
> 
> So you can clearly see my model name is just the speed, cas latency, capacity, and Flare X (16GFX= 16 gigabyte Flare X)
> 
> Have you tried setting your motherboard D.O.C.P. option?
> 
> It should be the very top option in this BIOS- bus speed I think- settings are auto, manual (100.0), and D.O.C.P.
> 
> Make sure your RAM voltage, timings and frequency are all on [Auto] then change it to D.O.C.P. and reboot. Voila, it will automagically set (most) of your timings, speed and voltage on its own.
> 
> Otherwise we can look up your primary timings for you but everything else needs to be done manually using Ryzen DRAM Calculator and Taiphoon Burner after you export the full html settings from it then import it into Ryzen Calc


Thanks for the input. As I said, I m doing content creation. I will not be doing much to overclock the CPU, probably just PBO. The DDR sticks are G.Skill F4-3600C19D-32GTRS.

So far, my setup is running pretty cool on the stock cooler. Outside ambient temps have hit 105F in the past week, and my rig has not gone above 50C, I dont think. The normal idle temps are in the 35C range. I am using an NZXT S340 case with the two stock fans and the wraith cooler. However, I have not stressed this rig much yet, just trying to get everything stable. Some of the CAD programs I use are a bit touchy in this regard, and I am still working through some permissions issues, as I moved three hdds from my old rig into this one.


----------



## mendesic

Hi guys.
I have a X570 Crosshair Hero with the 3700x and a 3200mhz memory.
How long does the post spend to show any image on the screen?
My kit spend about 13 seconds. Is it normal?
My 4790k spend 15s to post and load the windows10.
Thanks.


----------



## mendesic

And it takes 30 sec to load windows.


----------



## Sam64

CH8 and 3900X with 3733mhz memory here (BIOS 1001), nearly same boot time:
- about 14 sec to bios
- about 30 sec to win10 load


Didn't check the times in detail on my 4790K before, but that was the first thing i recognized after setting up my rig: It takes longer to boot up to BIOS. Someone mentioned to disable CSM-support in BIOS (if UEFI only is used) to speed up the load time, but that was default on my CH8. Fast-Boot is enabled, 2 SATA-HDs are connected to SATA6G_1 and SATA6G_2, main HD is a NVMe on M.2_1 Socket.


Maybe it will get better with newer BIOS versions...


----------



## mendesic

I'm upset my old system startup be faster than my 3700x on post.
Some advice to hurry up the post?
I don't have the "csm support" (or I didn't find it).
I'm looking forward to some improvement on it.


----------



## jfrob75

From power on to post is about 12 sec.
From power on to windows is about 40 sec.
You can probably speed this up by enabling fast startup in windows. I have this disabled.


----------



## neurotix

Same here with Win10 Pro, Ramcache on, 970 Evo boot drive, and 3800MHz c16 memory.

It was much faster using the 'Fast Startup' option that's hidden in the old control panel under power options. I'm installed with Secure Boot off, CSM off, legacy oprom off, and all drives/partitions GPT formatted. I cant do this/use this as I dual boot Linux and Win10 updates will erase grub

Also under the post screen timeout option under Boot Options, default is 3 seconds, I changed mine to 0 seconds (in hope the ROG logo would only display for a split second), it ignores this totally and still pauses on that screen for 3 seconds roughly, lengthening the boot time. My other systems actually skip it entirely but this option is broken for us.

Post for me is 8 secs or so and Win10 startup is roughly 30 secs. The desktop loads up instantly though because I only have 4 startup apps or so.

My wifes 7600k build with an 850 Evo Sata posts in like 1 sec and Windows 10 loads instantly, as well as shuts down instantly.

Great minds think alike as I was also trying various tweak tools, Windows settings, bios options etc earlier today to make Windows load faster.

Asus please release NVMe drivers or a work around to allow Windows 7 x64 to run on this platform.  Windows 10 is hot steaming garbage trash even after 5 years of work. If I could switch back to 7 I would format my (complex) system and even Debian (which loads like instantly btw) partition to reinstall Win7.

My old parts from 2011 in my moms office pc (FX-8350, Crosshair V Hero, 2400mhz cas 10 DDR3, Samsung 850 Evo Sata) post in 2 seconds, load Windows in like 4 seconds and login programs appear instantly. Despite that SSD having a throughput of 500mb/sec read whereas CrystalDiskMark gives my m.2 970 Evo like 2200mb/sec read bandwidth. Oh yeah, did I mention its Bulldozer? How is something that is 8 years newer and 4 times faster actually 4 times slower? That rig gets to desktop in like 10 seconds and mine is 40 seconds. I think the culprit is Windows 10 but wth? How is this even possible? It makes no sense.


----------



## Reikoji

got the latest windows insider fast build 18995.1 and it appears to have improved single thread performance. it looks like the load is staying on core 0 now, not bouncing between core 0 and core 2. Single core Cenebench score now matches my manual 4.6ghz CCD0 setting at 533, up from 529.




this build still says 1903 tho.


----------



## TK421

Can you guys control cpu_fan, cpu_opt, and aio_pump independently from each other?


Also what happens if you plug in a fan to the w_pump header?

The high amp fan header should be fine to use with regular case fans right?


----------



## Reikoji

So, how does one override the middle temperature limit of 80c, outside of manually overclocking :3? Platform throttle limit in the Precision Boost Overdrive window doesnt seem to change that one. Set 90c, trottles at 80c, set 75c, throttles at 75c.


----------



## Penicilyn

TK421 said:


> Can you guys control cpu_fan, cpu_opt, and aio_pump independently from each other?
> 
> 
> Also what happens if you plug in a fan to the w_pump header?
> 
> The high amp fan header should be fine to use with regular case fans right?




Yes you can use the High amp header for any fan, it simply means that it's able to supply more amperage if required by the fan.

If you plug into the W_Pump header it'll just run at 100% all the time.


----------



## Rollergold

Does anyone know how the "CPU" temp value in HWinfo64/post code display temp value temp is being calculated and why around 10C lower then "CPU Package" temp


----------



## jaimbo

Hoping someone here can advise, my PC has stopped now stopped posting with Q-Code 07 showing. I have tried a CMOS reset via the clear CMOS button on the back, and also tried BIOS flashback button with various different BIOS's but it always fails (LED flashes 3 times, then remains solid on the next flash, some googling seems to indicate this could be an issue with the USB stick or the file, but I have tried multiple USB sticks, and multiple files, both of which I have used before successfully).


I have Ballistix Sport LT Gray 32GB Kit (2 x 16GB) DDR4-3000, I have tried both of these sticks in each slot but no success.

Everything has been working for months, I did get a random reboot the last day I successfully used the PC. Just a random reboot, no blue screen, everything was fine after the reboot. Shut the PC down and then the next time I used it a couple days later, dead.

I really feel like the BIOS is bricked, but thought the BIOS flashback feature is supposed to be able to save the board in situations like this?


----------



## mendesic

But, if the issue is the "USB Stick", why are you working with memory?
Did you try without any usb device to test? No keyboard, no mouse, no pendrives, etc?


----------



## jaimbo

mendesic said:


> But, if the issue is the "USB Stick", why are you working with memory?
> Did you try without any usb device to test? No keyboard, no mouse, no pendrives, etc?


I was trying different USB sticks specifically to resolve the issue of not being able to flash the BIOS which is a secondary issue to the fact that the PC doesn't even post. The Q-Code error the motherboard was giving was 07, which from a cursory Google seemed to indicate a memory issue, but I've since found out that it is actually "AP initialisation before microcode loading". I've since started the process to RMA the board as I am pretty sure the board is dead.

I also tried booting the PC with nothing but the essentials connected and got the same issue, Q-Code 07.


----------



## BUFUMAN

Hi i have the Crosshair VI with many unresolved bugs.

I would like to know which bugs Asus provide with this Mainboard, my faith in Asus is broken.

Can someone just provide me the information?

Is the sensor still bad?
Fan Issues like the CH6?
Unresolved Bugs in Uefi?

Thanks!



Gesendet von meinem LYA-L29 mit Tapatalk


----------



## chowbaby

BUFUMAN said:


> Hi i have the Crosshair VI with many unresolved bugs.
> 
> I would like to know which bugs Asus provide with this Mainboard, my faith in Asus is broken.
> 
> Can someone just provide me the information?
> 
> Is the sensor still bad?
> Fan Issues like the CH6?
> Unresolved Bugs in Uefi?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> Gesendet von meinem LYA-L29 mit Tapatalk


which sensor is bad on the CH6?


----------



## Krisztias

chowbaby said:


> which sensor is bad on the CH6?


The IT sensor


----------



## Krisztias

BUFUMAN said:


> Hi i have the Crosshair VI with many unresolved bugs.
> 
> I would like to know which bugs Asus provide with this Mainboard, my faith in Asus is broken.
> 
> Can someone just provide me the information?
> 
> Is the sensor still bad?
> Fan Issues like the CH6?
> Unresolved Bugs in Uefi?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> Gesendet von meinem LYA-L29 mit Tapatalk


Hi!

I upgraded from C6H to C8HW and besides of PBO not working properly (I think is AMD fault, not ASUS) can't say any negatives from this board. If you want to upgrade, than do it, it's a fantastic board with CCx OC from bios, very accurate sensor and very good RAM OC capability.


----------



## BUFUMAN

Thanks for your Feedbacks.

Gesendet von meinem LYA-L29 mit Tapatalk


----------



## rv8000

So I know a lot of people here are saying the CCX OC tool in the bios is great, but so far I've found PBO to achieve more well rounded clocks overall, at least with my 3700x.

Lightly threaded apps and a couple of games will hit 4425, and multithread/heavy apps will hit 4300-4200. If I try to force 43x multipliers on both CCX up to 1.38 VID its an instant black screen in any stability tester (x264, p95, aida). Hitting 209 in CB R15 on single core and 2283 on multicore for reference.


----------



## TK421

TK421 said:


> Can you guys control cpu_fan, cpu_opt, and aio_pump independently from each other?
> 
> 
> Also what happens if you plug in a fan to the w_pump header?
> 
> The high amp fan header should be fine to use with regular case fans right?





Penicilyn said:


> Yes you can use the High amp header for any fan, it simply means that it's able to supply more amperage if required by the fan.
> 
> If you plug into the W_Pump header it'll just run at 100% all the time.


Ah ok thanks.


How about the CPU and CPU _OPT, can those be controlled independently of each other or is the OPT slaved?


----------



## davidenko7

guys why enabling PBO doesn't increase EDC limit ? Just PPT and TDC now are 4096W and 4096A, but EDC is still 145A


----------



## AStaUK

TK421 said:


> Ah ok thanks.
> 
> 
> How about the CPU and CPU _OPT, can those be controlled independently of each other or is the OPT slaved?


Slaved I belive.


----------



## mendesic

jaimbo said:


> I was trying different USB sticks specifically to resolve the issue of not being able to flash the BIOS which is a secondary issue to the fact that the PC doesn't even post. The Q-Code error the motherboard was giving was 07, which from a cursory Google seemed to indicate a memory issue, but I've since found out that it is actually "AP initialisation before microcode loading". I've since started the process to RMA the board as I am pretty sure the board is dead.
> 
> I also tried booting the PC with nothing but the essentials connected and got the same issue, Q-Code 07.




Realy seems like a board issue.


----------



## SeeGee

dlbsyst said:


> Are you talking about the low write speed? I read that it drops way down when the drive starts filling up. I'm pretty sure it's the mp600 and not the motherboard. I'm however not 100% certain. I was going to buy one of these drives because I want to take advantage of the improved speeds the Pcie 4 offers but when I read about this I decided to avoid the mp600. I like Samsung's NVME drives and will wait until they come out with theirs. It's not like my 970 Evo plus isn't already insanely fast.
> 
> 
> 
> I recommend you return the drive if you can because Corsair doesn't seem to be doing anything to correct this problem if the info on the support forums are any indication.


I know this post is a month old, I can say that the newest chipset drivers from AMD fixed my write speed issues. Now my MP600 is running fine...


Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk


----------



## dlbsyst

SeeGee said:


> I know this post is a month old, I can say that the newest chipset drivers from AMD fixed my write speed issues. Now my MP600 is running fine...
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk


That's good to hear.:thumb:


----------



## grayhex

Hi all. I cant start my Crosshair VIII Hero with good memory frequency. 

My CPU - Ryzen 3600, (GPU - EVGA 2080ti, PSU - bequite dark power pro 1200, fan - dark rock pro 4, ssd - samsung 960 evo m2)
Memory memory that I checked:
- 2*8 KFA2 HOF 3600 xmp (b-die). This kit perfect worked on my old x370 Asrock Taichi at 3733 cl16. On C8H I cat start at 3200 mhz only with cl20 timings
- 2*8 G.Skill Trident Z RGB 16GB DDR4 Kit C17 4000Mhz (F4-4000C17D-16GTZR) from VQL!. Can start only 3000 mhz!
XMP (DOCP) profiles doesn't work on both kit.
I have 3 start attempts, then safe mode with 2133 mhz(

I tryed 1.34, 1.4, 1.5 V on DDR4, 1.1 on DDR4 SOC, all timings and secondary options from Ryzen DRAM Calculator. Fixed manually IB at 1800 and 1866 mhz.
SCM, spread spectrum, LN2 mode is disabled 

Checked on all BIOS - latest 1001, then 0901, first 0702. 

what else can I do? whait new BIOS\AGESA 1.0.0.4? Return MB to shop? I'm very dissapoint.


----------



## mendesic

Have you cleaned the memories? My 2x16gb (non b-die) works fine on DOCP at 3200mhz and above. I can reach 3466mhz. I am using the 1001 bios. Have you tried test the memories with memtest before loading the windows? Or the computer doesn't start when you choose 3200mhz+?


----------



## grayhex

mendesic said:


> Have you cleaned the memories? My 2x16gb (non b-die) works fine on DOCP at 3200mhz and above. I can reach 3466mhz. I am using the 1001 bios. Have you tried test the memories with memtest before loading the windows? Or the computer doesn't start when you choose 3200mhz+?


Its new kit, already cleaned
PC don't start, POST is not successful, windows not loading.


----------



## jfrob75

grayhex said:


> Hi all. I cant start my Crosshair VIII Hero with good memory frequency.
> 
> My CPU - Ryzen 3600, (GPU - EVGA 2080ti, PSU - bequite dark power pro 1200, fan - dark rock pro 4, ssd - samsung 960 evo m2)
> Memory memory that I checked:
> - 2*8 KFA2 HOF 3600 xmp (b-die). This kit perfect worked on my old x370 Asrock Taichi at 3733 cl16. On C8H I cat start at 3200 mhz only with cl20 timings
> - 2*8 G.Skill Trident Z RGB 16GB DDR4 Kit C17 4000Mhz (F4-4000C17D-16GTZR) from VQL!. Can start only 3000 mhz!
> XMP (DOCP) profiles doesn't work on both kit.
> I have 3 start attempts, then safe mode with 2133 mhz(
> 
> I tryed 1.34, 1.4, 1.5 V on DDR4, 1.1 on DDR4 SOC, all timings and secondary options from Ryzen DRAM Calculator. Fixed manually IB at 1800 and 1866 mhz.
> SCM, spread spectrum, LN2 mode is disabled
> 
> Checked on all BIOS - latest 1001, then 0901, first 0702.
> 
> what else can I do? whait new BIOS\AGESA 1.0.0.4? Return MB to shop? I'm very dissapoint.


Are the memory sticks in the correct slots A2/B2?


----------



## centvalny

C8I 0050 BIOS agesa 1.0.0.4

Fix Incorrect MemClkFreq above DDR-5000.
Add micron/spectek DDR4-5000 auto tuning rule.
Add SK Hynix DJR DDR4-5000 memory preset.
Add memory OC fail count, 0 is disabled will not recovery setting and enter safe mode, max 10-times retry.
Add BCLK fraction function.

No cb

https://www.dropbox.com/s/uq3l4dsy5xqfljd/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-0050.CAP?dl=0

https://community.hwbot.org/topic/1...act-ln2-oc-guide/?tab=comments#comment-541697


----------



## Jackalito

centvalny said:


> C8I 0050 BIOS agesa 1.0.0.4
> 
> Fix Incorrect MemClkFreq above DDR-5000.
> Add micron/spectek DDR4-5000 auto tuning rule.
> Add SK Hynix DJR DDR4-5000 memory preset.
> Add memory OC fail count, 0 is disabled will not recovery setting and enter safe mode, max 10-times retry.
> Add BCLK fraction function.
> 
> No cb
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/uq3l4dsy5xqfljd/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-0050.CAP?dl=0
> 
> https://community.hwbot.org/topic/1...act-ln2-oc-guide/?tab=comments#comment-541697


Thanks, mate. Only for the Impact? Do you have any info about the rest of the boards?


----------



## The Stilt

Reikoji said:


> So, how does one override the middle temperature limit of 80c, outside of manually overclocking :3? Platform throttle limit in the Precision Boost Overdrive window doesnt seem to change that one. Set 90c, trottles at 80c, set 75c, throttles at 75c.


Its not user adjustable.


----------



## Reikoji

centvalny said:


> C8I 0050 BIOS agesa 1.0.0.4
> 
> Fix Incorrect MemClkFreq above DDR-5000.
> Add micron/spectek DDR4-5000 auto tuning rule.
> Add SK Hynix DJR DDR4-5000 memory preset.
> Add memory OC fail count, 0 is disabled will not recovery setting and enter safe mode, max 10-times retry.
> Add BCLK fraction function.
> 
> No cb
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/uq3l4dsy5xqfljd/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-0050.CAP?dl=0
> 
> https://community.hwbot.org/topic/1...act-ln2-oc-guide/?tab=comments#comment-541697


All other board manufacturers still haven't even gotten ABBA out for all their boards :3


----------



## SeeGee

Just gotta say I spent two days reading this entire thread. I wish I found it earlier. Several roadblocks are solved here which I struggled with on my own, and had I known about this thread, it would have saved me a lot of time! BUT as a byproduct of my efforts, I have learned much about the board (CH8W). I ended up here because I was looking into an issue with my corsair mp600 underperforming on write speeds. Funny enough, there was only a single mention of issues like this here, yet it is the two major threads on the Corsair SSD forum. As stated above, the latest chipset driver from AMD seems to have fixed that problem. 

Either way, what I've learned on my own has been validated by many of you, and many of you have provided lots of information that I didn't know as well. The last amd chip I had was a K6-2 450, so I'm learning to navigate these waters all over again. Lol. You have my respect and appreciation! Thank you! 

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk


----------



## neurotix

SeeGee said:


> Either way, what I've learned on my own has been validated by many of you, and many of you have provided lots of information that I didn't know as well. The last amd chip I had was a K6-2 450, so I'm learning to navigate these waters all over again. Lol. You have my respect and appreciation! Thank you!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk


K6-2 350Mhz was the first processor I ever overclocked. I was in high school. 98.

Socket 7 I think. It was in a HP Prebuilt. I looked up the model number, and found out what motherboard it had, then found the manual for that motherboard on Foxconns website. Printed it off.

You overclocked that one by capping rows of jumpers to the right of the socket to change the cpu multiplier, lol. It was 3 horizontal rows by 4 vertical rows of 3 pin jumpers (similar to modern cmos jumpers and 12 total). Depending on how you capped them, it would set the multiplier you wanted. The manual I printed had a chart.

I got it from 350MHz to 450MHz which is a 77% overclock. (Mannnnn I wish we could get that on a 3900x!) I kept the stock (tiny) heatsink and added a slightly larger fan that was attached by a single screw and hung over the sink. lol I think the stock fan was like 40mm and I swapped a 60mm fan onto it. That oc made a big difference for what I was doing then, Snes and Neo Geo emulators, and made the difference between 45 fps and a solid 60.

Anyhow thought you might appreciate this- good luck on your build and OC, memory OC, etc. Heres hoping you get that 77% OC on air (Lol). If you need help or advice I'll be around.


----------



## SeeGee

neurotix said:


> K6-2 350Mhz was the first processor I ever overclocked. I was in high school. 98.
> 
> 
> 
> Socket 7 I think. It was in a HP Prebuilt. I looked up the model number, and found out what motherboard it had, then found the manual for that motherboard on Foxconns website. Printed it off.
> 
> 
> 
> You overclocked that one by capping rows of jumpers to the right of the socket to change the cpu multiplier, lol. It was 3 horizontal rows by 4 vertical rows of 3 pin jumpers (similar to modern cmos jumpers and 12 total). Depending on how you capped them, it would set the multiplier you wanted. The manual I printed had a chart.
> 
> 
> 
> I got it from 350MHz to 450MHz which is a 77% overclock. (Mannnnn I wish we could get that on a 3900x!) I kept the stock (tiny) heatsink and added a slightly larger fan that was attached by a single screw and hung over the sink. lol I think the stock fan was like 40mm and I swapped a 60mm fan onto it. That oc made a big difference for what I was doing then, Snes and Neo Geo emulators, and made the difference between 45 fps and a solid 60.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyhow thought you might appreciate this- good luck on your build and OC, memory OC, etc. Heres hoping you get that 77% OC on air (Lol). If you need help or advice I'll be around.


Oh for sure! I ran mine @550mhz. I've been building systems since the days of XT'S. My first PC had 640k ram, 5mb RLL hard drive, and a whopping 4.77mhz. Needless to say that I recognize how *bleeping* awesome modern hardware is. It's just been a looong time since I've had an AMD. Funny enough, AMD caused the same level of disruption to intel with those K6-2 chips as it is with the 3000s today.

Remember Cyrix? (Shudder...)
I digress. 

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk


----------



## Kokin

Hey all,

My parts are almost all in, but I will be updating my rig and my fiancee's rig from our 3570Ks and Z77 boards: 

1) 3900X + ROG Crosshair VIII Impact + 32GB TridentZ 3200CL14 B-die RAM + 2x 2TB Inland PCIe NVMe in RAID 0 (custom loop)
2) 3600X + Strix X570-I Gaming + 32GB Ripjaws V B-die RAM + 1x 2TB Inland PCIe NVMe (air cooled) 

-What version of Windows 1903 would you all recommend downloading or is there a newer version that's better for stability/core scheduling/idle power? 
-I've never done any RAID setups before and someone in Discord told me that I need to download all 4 RAID drivers and install them during Windows installation in order to get RAID 0 working for the Impact. Has anyone else done RAID 0 on the C8I and can confirm that process? 

Excited to finally upgrade our platforms after 7 years!


----------



## jaimbo

mendesic said:


> Realy seems like a board issue.


Yeah that was the end thought I came to, tested my memory in another PC since on other boards Q-Code 07 is RAM related, RAM works fine in another system so have RMA'd the board. In the middle of buying a house/moving right now so not the best time but meh, what can you do?


----------



## TJGun

I just replaced my Trident Z RGB 3200CL14 with a 3600CL16 Neo kit. 
The system was stable at 3733CL16 with the RGB kit but since installing the Neo kit the system occasionally freezes and reboots. I've run Karhu RAM test to 6000% with no errors. 

I thought the Neo kit should be higher binned?

Any suggestions?


----------



## Badgerslayer7

TJGun said:


> I just replaced my Trident Z RGB 3200CL14 with a 3600CL16 Neo kit.
> The system was stable at 3733CL16 with the RGB kit but since installing the Neo kit the system occasionally freezes and reboots. I've run Karhu RAM test to 6000% with no errors.
> 
> I thought the Neo kit should be higher binned?
> 
> Any suggestions?


Did you run the test with the stress fpu option ticked in advanced options? If not try that as that stresses the IF as well. If you get an error try increasing soc voltage.


----------



## TJGun

Did not run with the fpu option ticked, I'll try that now. 
The SOC is already at 1.1.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

TJGun said:


> Did not run with the fpu option ticked, I'll try that now.
> The SOC is already at 1.1.


Mine passed the normal test at 1.1v soc but failed with fpu selected. I increased mine to 1.125 and it passed.


----------



## TJGun

Ticked fpu, ran it to 3200% with 0 errors.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Kokin said:


> Hey all,
> 
> My parts are almost all in, but I will be updating my rig and my fiancee's rig from our 3570Ks and Z77 boards:
> 
> 1) 3900X + ROG Crosshair VIII Impact + 32GB TridentZ 3200CL14 B-die RAM + 2x 2TB Inland PCIe NVMe in RAID 0 (custom loop)
> 2) 3600X + Strix X570-I Gaming + 32GB Ripjaws V B-die RAM + 1x 2TB Inland PCIe NVMe (air cooled)
> 
> -What version of Windows 1903 would you all recommend downloading or is there a newer version that's better for stability/core scheduling/idle power?
> -I've never done any RAID setups before and someone in Discord told me that I need to download all 4 RAID drivers and install them during Windows installation in order to get RAID 0 working for the Impact. Has anyone else done RAID 0 on the C8I and can confirm that process?
> 
> Excited to finally upgrade our platforms after 7 years!


Hello. I have 2 nvme Samsung evos in a raid 0 set up. I think I installed 3 and drivers in the windows set up menu . I’ll try and find the guide I used when I get a chance. 

Edit:- I followed this guide. https://youtu.be/qQLyEUk8Pjk


----------



## neurotix

SeeGee said:


> Oh for sure! I ran mine @550mhz. I've been building systems since the days of XT'S. My first PC had 640k ram, 5mb RLL hard drive, and a whopping 4.77mhz. Needless to say that I recognize how *bleeping* awesome modern hardware is. It's just been a looong time since I've had an AMD. Funny enough, AMD caused the same level of disruption to intel with those K6-2 chips as it is with the 3000s today.
> 
> Remember Cyrix? (Shudder...)
> I digress.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk


That original PC @ 4.77 and 640k w/ a 5 MB HDD must have set you back $25k XD I'd love to hear the price you paid. I'm a little too young to have ever really seen or used something like that, but have seen and used 286-class machines and up. I'm also a big fan of LGR on Youtube. Computer history is pretty interesting.

AMD was even giving them trouble then... as well as a slew of other companies (NEC V30 hehe).

I didn't think the K6-2 hurt them too much, as the Pentium II and Pentium Pro (modern core series is derived from this, right?) were still much better for high end gaming rigs, and in the server space, due to faster fpus. I might be wrong though.

I thought the only times AMD was actually as fast or faster, and better overall, were:

1 Now with Ryzen 3000: more cores and smaller process, similar or equivalent performance in games (especially with fast memory) Certain gaming setups/games are still much faster on Intel (240hz gaming for example)

2 Athlon 64 debut vs Pentium 4 aka Intel's Bulldozer

3 Original Athlon/Athlon XP around 2001 (?) Not sure on this but I know they were recommended over Pentium IIIs, I believe for giving around the same performance for less money, while being overclockable (buying a lower tiered/frequency part for less than Intel equivalent then OCing it to exceed performance of more expensive Pentium IIIs)

4 Am286 and whatever they made before it (fill me in if you know), the reverse engineered 8088 and 8086 (?) that got them into a legal case with Intel that didn't resolve until... the late 90s? AMD won and became a second source by the end of the 80s, and since Intel also reverse engineered the AMD parts and added what they learned to its chips (such as new instructions, etc), the two exchanged IP/patents as part of the arrangement. Also allowing them to continue making x86 chips

Anyway, I am also quite impressed now that we have appeared to make a large, generational leap (though it happened quite slow and you could argue that these are just cost reduced server parts that have existed for some time from both companies... wasn't Magny-Cours from like 2009?) I may be a little less impressed than you.

In 20 years or especially 30 years, when we have 100-core plus chips (or possibly a new optical computing paradigm), GPUs with Exaflops of computing/rendering power, and Petabyte or Exabyte scale storage (probably SSDs) to power phones or something else- and possibly full dive VR- we'll look at this stuff as quaint, just as now we look back at a K6-2 550MHz, Voodoo2, 64MB SDRAM, and 8GB HDD from 20 years ago and say "wow".

Imo looking back I am actually impressed at how we did so much with so little, and how hardware constraints forced the engineers to be conservative in their designs. I recently saved/restored a little Mac SE I got for cheap and its still usable and fun, if antiquated, and tbh the OS is more usable and functional because it doesn't run Windows 10. (90% of the time my rig is booted into Linux, given it boots and runs twice as fast as Win10, and I stripped down my Win10 Pro significantly! I even removed/uninstalled every Modern app I could using Ccleaner. It takes 30 secs or so to load, on a supposedly faster NVMe drive- my optimized Win7 Ultimate on a SATA 840 Evo on my 4790k rig I came from booted in like 5 seconds!)


----------



## TJGun

Tested my new Neo kit some more and no problems in Karhu RAM test, but they fail Memtest86 even when running at DOCP. Will RMA them and hope the next kit will be better.

Edit. Tried with only one DIMM and it's fine the other fails within 30 seconds. 
Strange how the Karhu test does not detect it.


----------



## SeeGee

Ok, I spoke too soon. My problem with the Corsair MP600 ssd has returned. I have attempted to reinstall the chipset drivers and no love... Sigh. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.


----------



## Kokin

Badgerslayer7 said:


> Hello. I have 2 nvme Samsung evos in a raid 0 set up. I think I installed 3 and drivers in the windows set up menu . I’ll try and find the guide I used when I get a chance.
> 
> Edit:- I followed this guide. https://youtu.be/qQLyEUk8Pjk


+rep Thanks!


----------



## Reikoji

Wheres them juicy 1.0.0.4 guinea pig bios at


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Reikoji said:


> Wheres them juicy 1.0.0.4 guinea pig bios at /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif


I know I keep checking the site every hour to see if someone’s posted a link to them. Surely they’ll be out sometime this week. Fingers crossed.


----------



## kenshabby

anyone know if a big cooler such as the noctua D15 will fit the impact, or will the so-dimm get in the way?


----------



## AStaUK

Badgerslayer7 said:


> I know I keep checking the site every hour to see if someone’s posted a link to them. Surely they’ll be out sometime this week. Fingers crossed.


Didn't think the code was being released to the board makers until the end of the month, so wouldn't expect to see anything until the start of November?


----------



## Badgerslayer7

AStaUK said:


> Badgerslayer7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know I keep checking the site every hour to see if someoneâ€™️s posted a link to them. Surely theyâ€™️ll be out sometime this week. Fingers crossed.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't think the code was being released to the board makers until the end of the month, so wouldn't expect to see anything until the start of November?
Click to expand...

The impact has already had 1.0.0.4 beta bios last week. I also read msi have released there beta bios for there X570 boards.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

centvalny said:


> C8I 0050 BIOS agesa 1.0.0.4
> 
> Fix Incorrect MemClkFreq above DDR-5000.
> Add micron/spectek DDR4-5000 auto tuning rule.
> Add SK Hynix DJR DDR4-5000 memory preset.
> Add memory OC fail count, 0 is disabled will not recovery setting and enter safe mode, max 10-times retry.
> Add BCLK fraction function.
> 
> No cb
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/uq3l4dsy5xqfljd/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-0050.CAP?dl=0
> 
> https://community.hwbot.org/topic/1...act-ln2-oc-guide/?tab=comments#comment-541697


Here are the beta bios for the impact


----------



## TK421

Does C8H have dual blck like c7h and c6h? Can we get a bios screen of that option?


----------



## The Stilt

TK421 said:


> Does C8H have dual blck like c7h and c6h? Can we get a bios screen of that option?


No, C8H doesn't have an external Pll.


----------



## immortal3000

The Stilt said:


> No, C8H doesn't have an external Pll.


Why not?
Physically, there is a generator on the board.
Another thing is that it does not work with 3xxx zen, and judging by the changelog, it will be included in 1.0.0.4

This is one of the reasons why I bought this particular board.


----------



## The Stilt

immortal3000 said:


> Why not?
> Physically, there is a generator on the board.
> Another thing is that it does not work with 3xxx zen, and judging by the changelog, it will be included in 1.0.0.4
> 
> This is one of the reasons why I bought this particular board.


Hmm...
I though only C8F had it.

Thou, I cannot see it one the pictures either on C8H.


----------



## jaimbo

jaimbo said:


> Hoping someone here can advise, my PC has stopped now stopped posting with Q-Code 07 showing. I have tried a CMOS reset via the clear CMOS button on the back, and also tried BIOS flashback button with various different BIOS's but it always fails (LED flashes 3 times, then remains solid on the next flash, some googling seems to indicate this could be an issue with the USB stick or the file, but I have tried multiple USB sticks, and multiple files, both of which I have used before successfully).
> 
> 
> I have Ballistix Sport LT Gray 32GB Kit (2 x 16GB) DDR4-3000, I have tried both of these sticks in each slot but no success.
> 
> Everything has been working for months, I did get a random reboot the last day I successfully used the PC. Just a random reboot, no blue screen, everything was fine after the reboot. Shut the PC down and then the next time I used it a couple days later, dead.
> 
> I really feel like the BIOS is bricked, but thought the BIOS flashback feature is supposed to be able to save the board in situations like this?


So just got an update on the RMA, it has been rejected because they tested the board and found no issues. I tested my RAM in another machine and it worked fine, I am not sure of anything else that would be stopping the PC from booting with Q-Code 07 "AP initialization after microcode loading" after months of working fine?

EDIT: Could it possibly be a dead CPU, how would I best go about testing this?


----------



## zsoltmol

Anybody had success on C8H non wifi to increase BCLK from 100 to 101? My system instantly freezes if I increase it and do a reboot.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

jaimbo said:


> jaimbo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping someone here can advise, my PC has stopped now stopped posting with Q-Code 07 showing. I have tried a CMOS reset via the clear CMOS button on the back, and also tried BIOS flashback button with various different BIOS's but it always fails (LED flashes 3 times, then remains solid on the next flash, some googling seems to indicate this could be an issue with the USB stick or the file, but I have tried multiple USB sticks, and multiple files, both of which I have used before successfully).
> 
> 
> I have Ballistix Sport LT Gray 32GB Kit (2 x 16GB) DDR4-3000, I have tried both of these sticks in each slot but no success.
> 
> Everything has been working for months, I did get a random reboot the last day I successfully used the PC. Just a random reboot, no blue screen, everything was fine after the reboot. Shut the PC down and then the next time I used it a couple days later, dead.
> 
> I really feel like the BIOS is bricked, but thought the BIOS flashback feature is supposed to be able to save the board in situations like this?
> 
> 
> 
> So just got an update on the RMA, it has been rejected because they tested the board and found no issues. I tested my RAM in another machine and it worked fine, I am not sure of anything else that would be stopping the PC from booting with Q-Code 07 "AP initialization after microcode loading" after months of working fine?
> 
> EDIT: Could it possibly be a dead CPU, how would I best go about testing this?
Click to expand...

I had that error code when I tried over clocking my ram. Not sure how you’d go about testing your cpu unless you have a local pc component store willing to test it for you.


----------



## jaimbo

Badgerslayer7 said:


> I had that error code when I tried over clocking my ram. Not sure how you’d go about testing your cpu unless you have a local pc component store willing to test it for you.


The error persisted through CMOS resets and even flashing new BIOS (which should reset BIOS settings too) and I was never able to even POST so couldn't even check RAM settings etc.

I have some 1st and 2nd gen Ryzens at work that I could use for testing, but ideally wanted to test like for like with a 3rd gen Ryzen


----------



## immortal3000

The Stilt said:


> Hmm...
> I though only C8F had it.
> 
> Thou, I cannot see it one the pictures either on C8H.


Really(
It turns out that I made a mistake in choosing a board ..

at all previous crosshair he was, and I was sure that there is here

Why did the asus do this?


----------



## AStaUK

TK421 said:


> Does C8H have dual blck like c7h and c6h? Can we get a bios screen of that option?





The Stilt said:


> No, C8H doesn't have an external Pll.


I'm curious, what is a dual BCLK and what is the advantage, does one just check the other is running at the same frequency?


----------



## Lupo91

None of you have an ssd m2 pciex 4.0?

In case you can post a CrystalDiskMark ??

Thanks


----------



## TK421

The Stilt said:


> No, C8H doesn't have an external Pll.





immortal3000 said:


> Why not?
> Physically, there is a generator on the board.
> Another thing is that it does not work with 3xxx zen, and judging by the changelog, it will be included in 1.0.0.4
> 
> This is one of the reasons why I bought this particular board.





The Stilt said:


> Hmm...
> I though only C8F had it.
> 
> Thou, I cannot see it one the pictures either on C8H.





immortal3000 said:


> Really(
> It turns out that I made a mistake in choosing a board ..
> 
> at all previous crosshair he was, and I was sure that there is here
> 
> Why did the asus do this?





AStaUK said:


> I'm curious, what is a dual BCLK and what is the advantage, does one just check the other is running at the same frequency?




Any of you guys 100% sure there's no dual BLCK on C8H/C8F at all?


Is the "feature going to be added with planned update" real info or speculation?


----------



## SeeGee

I am using a Corsair MP600 pcie 4.0 ssd, but I am having trouble with its write speeds fluctuating considerably and am in progress on diagnosing the issue. I will keep you posted with any information I have.


----------



## FlanK3r

zsoltmol said:


> Anybody had success on C8H non wifi to increase BCLK from 100 to 101? My system instantly freezes if I increase it and do a reboot.


101 MHz OK, but 102 MHz BLCK freezes


----------



## Lupo91

SeeGee said:


> I am using a Corsair MP600 pcie 4.0 ssd, but I am having trouble with its write speeds fluctuating considerably and am in progress on diagnosing the issue. I will keep you posted with any information I have.




I also have the Corsair MP-600 1Tb, performance is poor in 4K, and I don't understand why.


I also tried the Aorus Gen4 1Tb, but more or less the same

Here is the CrystalMark of Corsair MP-600 1 TB













Here is the CrystalMark of Aorus Gen 4 1TB













Both have poor performance in 4K


----------



## rv8000

centvalny said:


> C8I 0050 BIOS agesa 1.0.0.4
> 
> Fix Incorrect MemClkFreq above DDR-5000.
> Add micron/spectek DDR4-5000 auto tuning rule.
> Add SK Hynix DJR DDR4-5000 memory preset.
> Add memory OC fail count, 0 is disabled will not recovery setting and enter safe mode, max 10-times retry.
> Add BCLK fraction function.
> 
> No cb
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/uq3l4dsy5xqfljd/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-0050.CAP?dl=0
> 
> https://community.hwbot.org/topic/1...act-ln2-oc-guide/?tab=comments#comment-541697


If you can comment on the 1.0.0.4 bios, have you noticed any changes in PBO behavior? Most notably will PBO try to boost closer to the added frequency range set in bios (limit is up to +200mhz?)

PBO changes was one of the things Hallock posted/talked about in the reddit post afaik, and it would be nice to see my pbo boost higher than 25mhz when my power/temp are well within limits (boosting to 4425 on 3700x @ 49c avg in single core tasks @ ~1.43v).


----------



## The Stilt

rv8000 said:


> If you can comment on the 1.0.0.4 bios, have you noticed any changes in PBO behavior? Most notably will PBO try to boost closer to the added frequency range set in bios (limit is up to +200mhz?)
> 
> PBO changes was one of the things Hallock posted/talked about in the reddit post afaik, and it would be nice to see my pbo boost higher than 25mhz when my power/temp are well within limits (boosting to 4425 on 3700x @ 49c avg in single core tasks @ ~1.43v).


There is no way to improve hardware limits through software.

1.0.0.4 implements more features & control.


----------



## rv8000

The Stilt said:


> There is no way to improve hardware limits through software.
> 
> 1.0.0.4 implements more features & control.


Obviously it's not as simple as this but:

Depending on the binning process you may get a 3800X that boosts to 4.5ghz @ 1.45v for single core loads.

Someone has a 3700X that boosts to 4.4ghz @ 1.4v for single core loads.

If PBO+Auto OC is based on microcode/software limitations at X value for TDP, amperage, temperature, voltage, etc... wouldn't an improved PBO algorithm theoretically let the 3700X boost higher when all of those criteria have not been exceeded? And in this specific situation AMD theoretically (and also in practice 65w vs 105w TDP) allowed the 3800X to hit a much higher PPT, TDC, and EDC, (enabling PBO and auto OC "should" allow for a higher PPT, TDC, and EDC than a stock 3800X). 

I thought this was everyone's initial take away from Hallocks infamous video about PBO and Ryzen 3000, and why everyone was ticked off that it essentially did nothing. Seriously though, what's the point of having a +200mhz auto OC option for PBO and only getting 25mhz when I'm not hitting any of the 3 PBO limitations. Sure not every processor is the same but this sounds more like microcode/software limitation than hardware.



> “this feature will not guarantee the higher boost clock on any number of cores. The frequency/cores/boost duration will still depend on the *firmware-managed limits*, even though those limits are higher than OEM when PBO has been enabled.”


A direct quote from AMD stating it's a firmware limitation


----------



## SeeGee

Your results are better than mine to be honest. Can you run Atto Disk Benchmark and post your results? It has better granularity than CDM. I'll post my results when I get home and you'll see what I mean.


----------



## The Stilt

rv8000 said:


> Obviously it's not as simple as this but:
> 
> Depending on the binning process you may get a 3800X that boosts to 4.5ghz @ 1.45v for single core loads.
> 
> Someone has a 3700X that boosts to 4.4ghz @ 1.4v for single core loads.
> 
> If PBO+Auto OC is based on microcode/software limitations at X value for TDP, amperage, temperature, voltage, etc... wouldn't an improved PBO algorithm theoretically let the 3700X boost higher when all of those criteria have not been exceeded? And in this specific situation AMD theoretically (and also in practice 65w vs 105w TDP) allowed the 3800X to hit a much higher PPT, TDC, and EDC, (enabling PBO and auto OC "should" allow for a higher PPT, TDC, and EDC than a stock 3800X).
> 
> I thought this was everyone's initial take away from Hallocks infamous video about PBO and Ryzen 3000, and why everyone was ticked off that it essentially did nothing. Seriously though, what's the point of having a +200mhz auto OC option for PBO and only getting 25mhz when I'm not hitting any of the 3 PBO limitations. Sure not every processor is the same but this sounds more like microcode/software limitation than hardware.
> 
> 
> 
> A direct quote from AMD stating it's a firmware limitation


No, it is simple as that.

Outside of PPT, TDC, EDC and the temperature (which generally are not an issue in ST workloads anyway), there are three different things which determine the maximum boost: Fmax (adjustable), FIT (adjustable) and Vmax (fixed ceil, floor provided in 1.0.0.4).

If Fmax (advertised max frequency + OC offset) is greater than your currently achieavable frequency, you are either limited by FIT or Vmax. If in this case increasing the PBO Scalar (aka FIT limit, aka reliability reduction) won't work, you are limited by Vmax (core specific V/F) and you are out of luck. A significant reduction in temperature is probably the only thing which would help at this point.

The Vmax limit is 1.5000V for all SKUs (at least for the current consumer line-up) and it is not adjustable. For some invidual cores or workloads it can be lower than that, but NEVER higher.
AGESA 1.0.0.4 will provide a control to lower the Vmax, but not to increase it (for obvious reasons). Lowering the Vmax will limit the maximum voltage requested by the cores to the set value during the peak boost, but obviously it will lower the achievable frequencies as well.


----------



## rv8000

The Stilt said:


> No, it is simple as that.
> 
> Outside of PPT, TDC, EDC and the temperature (which generally are not an issue in ST workloads anyway), there are three different things which determine the maximum boost: Fmax (adjustable), FIT (adjustable) and Vmax (fixed ceil, floor provided in 1.0.0.4).
> 
> If Fmax (advertised max frequency + OC offset) is greater than your currently achieavable frequency, you are either limited by FIT or Vmax. If in this case increasing the PBO Scalar (aka FIT limit, aka reliability reduction) won't work, you are limited by Vmax (core specific V/F) and you are out of luck. A significant reduction in temperature is probably the only thing which would help at this point.
> 
> The Vmax limit is 1.5000V for all SKUs (at least for the current consumer line-up) and it is not adjustable. For some invidual cores or workloads it can be lower than that, but NEVER higher.
> AGESA 1.0.0.4 will provide a control to lower the Vmax, but not to increase it (for obvious reasons). Lowering the Vmax will limit the maximum voltage requested by the cores to the set value during the peak boost, but obviously it will lower the achievable frequencies as well.


If Fmax, Vmax, PPT, TDC, and EDC are not being hit, and I'm sitting at 49-50c in single core bench's workloads why would a 3700X not boost higher or at least try to boost higher and crash?

With PBO Enabled and +200mhz set for Auto OC, PPT is set to 395w max, TDC and EDC are set 255a max, yet I peak at 4425mhz at 1.438v, ~65mV away from the Vmax limit AMD set for PBO while being miles away from the PPT, TDC and EDC limits. Sounds like something isn't working properly.

You mention Vmax can be lower for certain cores? What controls or dictates the limit? On-die hardware limitations? CPU side microcode limitations? Or is it a general thing within the AGESA code?


----------



## zsoltmol

The Stilt said:


> rv8000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it's not as simple as this but:
> 
> Depending on the binning process you may get a 3800X that boosts to 4.5ghz @ 1.45v for single core loads.
> 
> Someone has a 3700X that boosts to 4.4ghz @ 1.4v for single core loads.
> 
> If PBO+Auto OC is based on microcode/software limitations at X value for TDP, amperage, temperature, voltage, etc... wouldn't an improved PBO algorithm theoretically let the 3700X boost higher when all of those criteria have not been exceeded? And in this specific situation AMD theoretically (and also in practice 65w vs 105w TDP) allowed the 3800X to hit a much higher PPT, TDC, and EDC, (enabling PBO and auto OC "should" allow for a higher PPT, TDC, and EDC than a stock 3800X).
> 
> I thought this was everyone's initial take away from Hallocks infamous video about PBO and Ryzen 3000, and why everyone was ticked off that it essentially did nothing. Seriously though, what's the point of having a +200mhz auto OC option for PBO and only getting 25mhz when I'm not hitting any of the 3 PBO limitations. Sure not every processor is the same but this sounds more like microcode/software limitation than hardware.
> 
> 
> 
> A direct quote from AMD stating it's a firmware limitation
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is simple as that.
> 
> Outside of PPT, TDC, EDC and the temperature (which generally are not an issue in ST workloads anyway), there are three different things which determine the maximum boost: Fmax (adjustable), FIT (adjustable) and Vmax (fixed ceil, floor provided in 1.0.0.4).
> 
> If Fmax (advertised max frequency + OC offset) is greater than your currently achieavable frequency, you are either limited by FIT or Vmax. If in this case increasing the PBO Scalar (aka FIT limit, aka reliability reduction) won't work, you are limited by Vmax (core specific V/F) and you are out of luck. A significant reduction in temperature is probably the only thing which would help at this point.
> 
> The Vmax limit is 1.5000V for all SKUs (at least for the current consumer line-up) and it is not adjustable. For some invidual cores or workloads it can be lower than that, but NEVER higher.
> AGESA 1.0.0.4 will provide a control to lower the Vmax, but not to increase it (for obvious reasons). Lowering the Vmax will limit the maximum voltage requested by the cores to the set value during the peak boost, but obviously it will lower the achievable frequencies as well.
Click to expand...

Really useful info!

What is the suggested SOC and Vmax voltage for 3900X? I use negativ offset for both now (-0.03750 for Vmax -0.02500 for SOC) and my CPU seems to boost higher in all situations. I let it to auto adjust Vmax with the negative offset so I dont use fixed voltages.

voltage ragnges according to HWinfo during various loads:
CPU 0.296-1.464
CPU during Cinebench R20 all core test: 1.288v

SOC 1.056-1.080v
SOC during Cinebench R20 all core test: 1.056v

PBO enabled with motherboard limits, scalar 1x, Auto OC MHz is +0 resulting 4600MHz max freq. Performance ENhancer is on Auto.

Cooling is not an issue in my case its well managed by a potent custom loop with 2 large radiators.


----------



## Jack007

Hi,

I didn't came across how to disassemble the PCH fan of a CH8H. I attached some photos to document this.

First (no picture) remove the 2 screws which hold the metal triangular shroud on top of the fan/plastic shroud.
Flip the board around. Then remove the 4 screws on the grey background (in the first picture these screws are already removed). The plastic shroud should come lose and can be removed. The fan/heat-sink is now exposed. The impeller/rotor can be removed (it is only held in place by the magnets of the stator). It seems the impeller axis is not lubricated. Also, the stator can be unscrewed removing the fan completely.


Unscrew the 4 black screws which hold in place the heat-sink. The heat-sink can now be removed from the X570 chip. This is a bit sticky because of the TIM.

AMD/Asus used a gray TIM which is between 1 and 1.5 mm thick (i measured around 1.2 mm which seems a bit odd measure). The turrets of the heat-sink are about 3 mm high, i estimate the X570 to be 2 mm, this leaves a clearance of about 1 mm.
Just to be sure i used a new 1.5 mm TIM (Arctic, 6 W/m.K). This resulted in the same PCH temps as before the disassembly, so i guess i'm good.
In order to improve temps i ordered some copper shims at AliExpress which i plan to use once they arrive (i will document this).

My goal is to lower the PCH temps. Currently it idles around 58 to 59 deg. C. At 58 deg. C the fan is not audible (for me at least; ~1720 rpm), at 59 deg. C (~2180 rpm) it is. The constant on/off oscillation is annoying.
A good aftermarket cooling solution would be the preferred option (passive cooling, accounts for a 2.5 slot GPU) but to date didn't find one. Advice is welcome.


----------



## The Stilt

rv8000 said:


> If Fmax, Vmax, PPT, TDC, and EDC are not being hit, and I'm sitting at 49-50c in single core bench's workloads why would a 3700X not boost higher or at least try to boost higher and crash?
> 
> With PBO Enabled and +200mhz set for Auto OC, PPT is set to 395w max, TDC and EDC are set 255a max, yet I peak at 4425mhz at 1.438v, ~65mV away from the Vmax limit AMD set for PBO while being miles away from the PPT, TDC and EDC limits. Sounds like something isn't working properly.
> 
> You mention Vmax can be lower for certain cores? What controls or dictates the limit? On-die hardware limitations? CPU side microcode limitations? Or is it a general thing within the AGESA code?


The thing is that you cannot tell if Vmax is being hit or not, since there is no "flag" to indicate that.
Same goes for FIT, but with FIT you can at least ensure that its not the limit (by using PBO Scalar).

Frankly I do not know what exactly causes the Vmax to be lower on certain cores, or in certain workloads, but I'd assume it has something to do with SIDD (leakage).

I'll see if I can find a way to provide more data on this and the general behavior.


----------



## SpeedyIV

Lupo91 said:


> I also have the Corsair MP-600 1Tb, performance is poor in 4K, and I don't understand why.
> 
> I also tried the Aorus Gen4 1Tb, but more or less the same
> 
> Both have poor performance in 4K


You might find this interesting to read.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/d3blv9/the_reason_behind_corsair_mp600_pcie_gen_4_slow/


----------



## rv8000

The Stilt said:


> The thing is that you cannot tell if Vmax is being hit or not, since there is no "flag" to indicate that.
> Same goes for FIT, but with FIT you can at least ensure that its not the limit (by using PBO Scalar).
> 
> Frankly I do not know what exactly causes the Vmax to be lower on certain cores, or in certain workloads, but I'd assume it has something to do with SIDD (leakage).
> 
> I'll see if I can find a way to provide more data on this and the general behavior.


Thanks for the explanations.

Concerning the Scalar, at least by ASUS's definition, the only description they really offer within the bios is that altering the scalar level only allows the vcore/VID to sustain longer durations at it's defined level. They don't really mention anything about frequency, though in turn higher/longer sustained voltage does result in longer periods at a higher frequency. Would one have to increase the VID from auto to +10mV, in theory, to start to see higher frequency jumps even though the Auto OC is set to +200mhz? For instance: if I increased the VID value in the bios/PBO would I see larger than a 25mhz increase when to the best of my knowledge I'm not hitting any of the PBO limits?


----------



## The Stilt

rv8000 said:


> Thanks for the explanations.
> 
> Concerning the Scalar, at least by ASUS's definition, the only description they really offer within the bios is that altering the scalar level only allows the vcore/VID to sustain longer durations at it's defined level. They don't really mention anything about frequency, though in turn higher/longer sustained voltage does result in longer periods at a higher frequency. Would one have to increase the VID from auto to +10mV, in theory, to start to see higher frequency jumps even though the Auto OC is set to +200mhz? For instance: if I increased the VID value in the bios/PBO would I see larger than a 25mhz increase when to the best of my knowledge I'm not hitting any of the PBO limits?


Increasing the scalar only helps, if FIT causes a voltage limit that is below the "global Vmax" (LUVL), which is 1.5000V (unless manually set to a lower value, through the control introduced in AGESA 1.0.0.4).

This is rarely the case in ST workloads, but very common in MT scenarios, especially on 3700X and 3800X SKUs. That being said, I've seen it happening in ST scenarios as well.
For example, if you increase the PPT to say 128W, TDC to 100A and EDC to 140A you should see somewhat higher clocks and significantly higher voltages during e.g. Cinebench R20 MT test when you raise PBO scalar from 1x to e.g. 3x.
Thats because in MT scenario the voltage is limited by the stock reliability (FIT) and increasing the scalar (hence reducing the reliability) will allow the use of higher voltages.

Offsetting the voltages won't technically make any difference, since the CPU will follow its AVFS decisions when it operates in non-OC (i.e. manual) mode. Offsetting can get you around the PPT/TDC/EDC limits, but obviously it won't change what the CPU
expects and wants to receive, in terms of the voltage.

Let's say that you have a 3700X CPU with following V/F for Core 1: 4100MHz = 1.3250V, 4200MHz = 1.36250V, 4300MHz = 1.4125V, 4400MHz = 1.4625V.
When you increase the Fmax through Auto OC, the CPU will calculate the V/F for this range as well (most likely through extrapolation, similar to Intel). If it determines that the Core 1 will require
1.4750V for 4425MHz, 1.49375V for 4450MHz and 1.51250V for 4475MHz, then =< 4450MHz is the maximum you will see no matter what you do (due to 1.5000V hard LUVL / Vmax limit). You can offset the effective voltage, but not what the CPU needs and wants to see.

There is room for improvement in the way the AVFS currently behaves however, these improvements will not result in higher peak frequencies (only avg) even if they all would materialize.
There are two ways for the frequencies to improve on 3000-series CPUs: Either the Vmax (LUVL) is allowed to be increased (not going to happen frankly) or the manufacturing process improves from its current state.
AMD has themselves stated in their slides that the Fmax on 3000-series CPUs is being limited by the maximum voltage they can feed to the silicon.


----------



## Lupo91

SeeGee said:


> Your results are better than mine to be honest. Can you run Atto Disk Benchmark and post your results? It has better granularity than CDM. I'll post my results when I get home and you'll see what I mean.













In my opinion the problem is in the bios of the motherboard, because it is not possible that both Nvme (Corsair MP 600/Aorus Gen 4) have poor performance in 4K


----------



## rv8000

The Stilt said:


> rv8000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the explanations.
> 
> Concerning the Scalar, at least by ASUS's definition, the only description they really offer within the bios is that altering the scalar level only allows the vcore/VID to sustain longer durations at it's defined level. They don't really mention anything about frequency, though in turn higher/longer sustained voltage does result in longer periods at a higher frequency. Would one have to increase the VID from auto to +10mV, in theory, to start to see higher frequency jumps even though the Auto OC is set to +200mhz? For instance: if I increased the VID value in the bios/PBO would I see larger than a 25mhz increase when to the best of my knowledge I'm not hitting any of the PBO limits?
> 
> 
> 
> Increasing the scalar only helps, if FIT causes a voltage limit that is below the "global Vmax" (LUVL), which is 1.5000V (unless manually set to a lower value, through the control introduced in AGESA 1.0.0.4).
> 
> This is rarely the case in ST workloads, but very common in MT scenarios, especially on 3700X and 3800X SKUs. That being said, I've seen it happening in ST scenarios as well.
> For example, if you increase the PPT to say 128W, TDC to 100A and EDC to 140A you should see somewhat higher clocks and significantly higher voltages during e.g. Cinebench R20 MT test when you raise PBO scalar from 1x to e.g. 3x.
> Thats because in MT scenario the voltage is limited by the stock reliability (FIT) and increasing the scalar (hence reducing the reliability) will allow the use of higher voltages.
> 
> Offsetting the voltages won't technically make any difference, since the CPU will follow its AVFS decisions when it operates in non-OC (i.e. manual) mode. Offsetting can get you around the PPT/TDC/EDC limits, but obviously it won't change what the CPU
> expects and wants to receive, in terms of the voltage.
> 
> Let's say that you have a 3700X CPU with following V/F for Core 1: 4100MHz = 1.3250V, 4200MHz = 1.36250V, 4300MHz = 1.4125V, 4400MHz = 1.4625V.
> When you increase the Fmax through Auto OC, the CPU will calculate the V/F for this range as well (most likely through extrapolation, similar to Intel). If it determines that the Core 1 will require
> 1.4750V for 4425MHz, 1.49375V for 4450MHz and 1.51250V for 4475MHz, then =< 4450MHz is the maximum you will see no matter what you do (due to 1.5000V hard LUVL / Vmax limit). You can offset the effective voltage, but not what the CPU needs and wants to see.
> 
> There is room for improvement in the way the AVFS currently behaves however, these improvements will not result in higher peak frequencies (only avg) even if they all would materialize.
> There are two ways for the frequencies to improve on 3000-series CPUs: Either the Vmax (LUVL) is allowed to be increased (not going to happen frankly) or the manufacturing process improves from its current state.
> AMD has themselves stated in their slides that the Fmax on 3000-series CPUs is being limited by the maximum voltage they can feed to the silicon.
Click to expand...

Makes sense, though it’s rather hard to see why certain bios settings don’t work in practice when there is no concrete way to see all limitations.

I ran several cinebench tests with 2x, 4x, 6x, 8x, and 10x, and all resulted in the same peak VID reading of 1.438, and same peak vcore of 1.425v read in hwinfo. (Peak clock of 4425)

So while I understand what you’re saying, either something is being misreported, I’m being limited by something I can’t tangibly record, or something isn’t working properly.


----------



## Bold Eagle

subbed for the content.............


----------



## The Stilt

rv8000 said:


> Makes sense, though it’s rather hard to see why certain bios settings don’t work in practice when there is no concrete way to see all limitations.
> 
> I ran several cinebench tests with 2x, 4x, 6x, 8x, and 10x, and all resulted in the same peak VID reading of 1.438, and same peak vcore of 1.425v read in hwinfo. (Peak clock of 4425)
> 
> So while I understand what you’re saying, either something is being misreported, I’m being limited by something I can’t tangibly record, or something isn’t working properly.


Did you test in multithreading workloads?
You should see significant increases from PBO scalar, when not limited by PPT/TDC/EDC.

Also, you are looking at HWInfo to determine the maximum voltage?


----------



## The Stilt

Here is the upper part of the V/F on the best core (2) of the 3700X I used.

I recorded the *peak *voltage command driven by the CPU during single threaded test, run with manual affinity.
The command was read from the VRM controller (ASP1405I) side, so there is no question if the software reported values are correct or not.
No offsets (controller side) were used and the CPU operated at the stock parameters (88W PPT, 60A TDC, 90A EDC, 95°C TjMax, 100% PBO scalar).

While all of the cores within this CPUs are able to hit the advertised 4.400GHz frequency, none of them are able to sustain it.
The average frequency for the best core (2) is 4385.965MHz in the workload I used.

At stock, three of the cores (1, 5, 6) hit the Vmax limit (LUVL) of 1.50000V in an effort trying to hit the default boost frequency.
The best core (2) requires 1.48125V to do that, leaving just 18.75mV to be "spent" for Auto OC purposes, which considering the V/F curve you can now extrapolate won't be sufficient even for 4425MHz.
In fact, if you look at the 4350 - 4400MHz point, you can already see that the V/F doesn't look right since it deviates from the trend. Coincidentally, 4375MHz is the highest *set* frequency (due to 25MHz granularity) that the core can sustain.

When the Fmax is increased through the Auto OC offset (doesn't matter if its set to 25 or to 200MHz), the core will hit 4425MHz and 1.50000V VID request, which happens to be the Vmax (LUVL) limit as well.
Extrapolating based on the last two datapoints (4350 & 4400) the voltage required for 4425MHz would be 1.496875V, which due to the 6.25mV VID granularity is 1.50000V. And since the two last datapoints are lower than they should be (due to 4.4GHz not being sustained), and because the V/F keeps deteriorating even further with the increasing frequency, the actual requirement to sustain 4425MHz would be even higher than 1.50000V, hence out of reach.

Regarding the FIT:

Here's the behavior in Cinebench R20 NT, with 128W PPT, 100A TDC and 140A EDC limits:

100% = 5012 (score) - 1.381V Vmax (LUVL), 110.516W package power, limit reason: silicon fitness (reliability)
200% = 5034 (score) - 1.401V Vmax (LUVL), 115.825W package power, limit reason: silicon fitness (reliability)
300% = 5051 (score) - 1.413V Vmax (LUVL), 119.166W package power, limit reason: silicon fitness (reliability)

Despite I used custom tools for this, you can record the peak requested voltages with HWInfo as well, nothing wrong with that.
But if you want to see the accurate peaks the CPU is commanding, you need to use =< 250ms sample rate. 
At the stock sample rate (2000ms) I saw up to 75mV lower peaks compared to the readings recorded from the VRM controller itself, at high speeds.

This is obviously just the behavior of a single CPU core of a single CPU specimen however, the theory applies to each and every Ryzen 3000-series CPU.


----------



## pantsoftime

Has anyone heard when we might see a C8F beta BIOS for 1.0.0.4? Shamino went dark over on the Asus forums and he was the one providing the beta 1.0.0.3ABBA BIOSes previously.


----------



## The Stilt

pantsoftime said:


> Has anyone heard when we might see a C8F beta BIOS for 1.0.0.4? Shamino went dark over on the Asus forums and he was the one providing the beta 1.0.0.3ABBA BIOSes previously.


Here is a manually updated 1001 bios with AGESA 1.0.0.4RC stack.
Again, its not complete build since the new control is not available in the existing CBS.
The CBS itself can be updated, but that would result in issues with recovery and Hii database in general, and because of that it is not done.

I've used it couple weeks now without any issues, but then again at least in my case there is no difference in behavior compared to 1.0.0.3ABBA builds either.

Note that this is an unofficial, modified bios.
It can be updated with either Flashback or Flashrom (with header stripped).

Crosshair VIII Formula - 1001MFS


----------



## neurotix

The Stilt said:


> Here is a manually updated 1001 bios with AGESA 1.0.0.4RC stack.
> Again, its not complete build since the new control is not available in the existing CBS.
> The CBS itself can be updated, but that would result in issues with recovery and Hii database in general, and because of that it is not done.
> 
> I've used it couple weeks now without any issues, but then again at least in my case there is no difference in behavior compared to 1.0.0.3ABBA builds either.
> 
> Note that this is an unofficial, modified bios.
> It can be updated with either Flashback or Flashrom (with header stripped).
> 
> Crosshair VIII Formula - 1001MFS





Do you have this for the Hero (Non-Wifi)?



I'm still working on memory OC (and lowering latency) and it might be helpful. Thank you. I will flash it, test and report my results if you have it.


Also, if you don't mind, a question. I changed some setting while OCing my memory, and observed a large increase in DRAM copy bandwidth at 3800MHz/1900 Fclk- something like 64GB/sec copy, with Read and write being 60GB/sec and 58GB/sec respectively (Copy is usually around 62GB/sec now). I cannot reproduce this, and I'm on BIOS 1001, but it was an option in AMD CBS. I'm wondering if you (or anyone else) knows of what setting this might have been, I think I might have had BankGroupSwap disabled, or possibly BankGroupSwap instead of BankGroupSwap_alt


Thanks.


----------



## pantsoftime

The Stilt said:


> Here is a manually updated 1001 bios with AGESA 1.0.0.4RC stack.


Thank you kindly sir. I'll give this a shot.


----------



## MacG32

EK-Quantum Momentum ROG Crosshair VIII Hero D-RGB Monoblock

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/ek-quantum-momentum-rog-crosshair-viii-hero-d-rgb-monoblock.html


----------



## Reikoji

MacG32 said:


> EK-Quantum Momentum ROG Crosshair VIII Hero D-RGB Monoblock
> 
> https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/ek-quantum-momentum-rog-crosshair-viii-hero-d-rgb-monoblock.html


The Formula Upgrade.


----------



## The Stilt

neurotix said:


> Do you have this for the Hero (Non-Wifi)?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still working on memory OC (and lowering latency) and it might be helpful. Thank you. I will flash it, test and report my results if you have it.
> 
> 
> Also, if you don't mind, a question. I changed some setting while OCing my memory, and observed a large increase in DRAM copy bandwidth at 3800MHz/1900 Fclk- something like 64GB/sec copy, with Read and write being 60GB/sec and 58GB/sec respectively (Copy is usually around 62GB/sec now). I cannot reproduce this, and I'm on BIOS 1001, but it was an option in AMD CBS. I'm wondering if you (or anyone else) knows of what setting this might have been, I think I might have had BankGroupSwap disabled, or possibly BankGroupSwap instead of BankGroupSwap_alt
> 
> 
> Thanks.


Nothing I can share at the moment, as they're internal builds.
And making a custom 1001 based build would be a huge amount of work


----------



## neurotix

The Stilt said:


> Nothing I can share at the moment, as they're internal builds.
> And making a custom 1001 based build would be a huge amount of work


Thanks for answering, understood


----------



## jfrob75

*All core clock boost*

After reading some interesting posts about all core clock boost I thought I would check out my system behavior in more detail. Previously when running CBR20 multi-thread benchmark my 3900X would all core clock boost at most to 4050MHz but on average around 4000 - 4025MHz. I had not monitor it's behavior using RM for some time. This time, using RM, I noticed that when CBR20 was running that it was maxing out PPT, which by default is set to 142 watts. So, I went into the bios and changed PBO to use manual settings for PPT, TDC and EDC. It turns out for PPT it has to be set into 2 locations in the bios for it to take affect. I first set PPT to 160 watts, under this setting CBR20 would still max out PPT but the core clock had increased. Next I increased PPT to 180 watts, under this setting CBR20 would have PPT running at about 97% and the CPU core clock increased to around 4100MHz. I ultimately set the PPT to 200 watts. Depending on what my ambient temperature is, my all core clock now seems to be being limited by temperature. Under CBR20 my max temperature, as reported by RM, is around 80 C. The core voltage is running around 1.4 -1.41. The best all core clock I have seen since setting the PPT 200 watts is around 4125MHz with an ambient temp of around 67 F. I also have my multiplier at x10 and frequency at +200MHz, not sure if these 2 settings have any influence on the all core clock boost. At least I was finally able to figure out to get an increase in my all core clock boost.


My best CBR20 multi core benchmark score went from 7162 to 7439 under auto cpu setting plus the changes to PBO. If I manually do an OC on a per CCX basis I can achieve an even higher score but I do not prefer to run that way exclusively.


edit: Since doing the above I have added a core voltage offset of -75mv. So long as my ambient temp is around 20 C my all core frequency remains the same as before the offset was applied but my max temps drops by about 4-5 deg C and PPT drops from around 86% of 200 watts to around 77% of 200 watts. So, from what I can tell I suffered no performance degradation with the negative core voltage adjustment but reduced PPT power. I think in some previous posts some had applied a negative voltage offset and noticed a little improvement in performance. As can be seen from what I have done this slight performance improvement is probably caused by a reduction in PPT power thus allowing it to run a higher clock before you run into the max PPT, unless you increase the max PPT thru PBO. Also based on what can be monitored, i.e. voltage, temp, power, it sure seems that there is still some room for higher all core clocks on my 3900X. Maybe another 50 to 100mhz.



Hope this makes sense to everyone.


----------



## LaBestiaHumana

Hello Folks. I have a 960 Pro m.2 ssd, but can’t seem to boot from it. It’s not recognized as a bootable device, but it is detected by the motherboard. Using the latest BIOS, but can’t quite figure out why I am unable to boot. 

Running 2 980ti SLI
Asus Essence STX 2
3900x 
512 960pro 

TIA


----------



## dlbsyst

LaBestiaHumana said:


> Hello Folks. I have a 960 Pro m.2 ssd, but can’t seem to boot from it. It’s not recognized as a bootable device, but it is detected by the motherboard. Using the latest BIOS, but can’t quite figure out why I am unable to boot.
> 
> Running 2 980ti SLI
> Asus Essence STX 2
> 3900x
> 512 960pro
> 
> TIA


Hello,

What are you seeing in your BIOS that makes you believe its not bootable? Have you installed Windows on the drive?

My Windows 10 is installed on a 500GB Samsung 970 Evo+ drive and this is what I see in my BIOS. Under Boot configuration I don't see the 970 Evo listed as bootable. Boot option #1 shows my 960 Evo drive and Boot option #2 shows my 850 Evo. No 970 Evo+ shown. As long as you see under Advanced NVME configuration your 960 Pro listed you should be good to install your Windows on it.

Also when you install your Windows I recommend you disconnect all other drives accept your 960 Pro.


----------



## flyinion

Sort of overclocking related since it might affect it, anyone using a PCIE riser cable with this board for your GPU? What brand/model? I'm debating the Phanteks premium 220mm, or the Linkup PCIE 4 300mm cable to use in a case swap where I'm going to vertical mount my Hydro Copper 2080 Super.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

flyinion said:


> Sort of overclocking related since it might affect it, anyone using a PCIE riser cable with this board for your GPU? What brand/model? I'm debating the Phanteks premium 220mm, or the Linkup PCIE 4 300mm cable to use in a case swap where I'm going to vertical mount my Hydro Copper 2080 Super.


Yeah I have the phanteks premium 220mm in my phanteks evolve x. Not had any overclocking issues with mine with a ek water block on it too. It does whine a little though. It’s a FE Rtx 2080ti


----------



## flyinion

Badgerslayer7 said:


> Yeah I have the phanteks premium 220mm in my phanteks evolve x. Not had any overclocking issues with mine with a ek water block on it too. It does whine a little though. It’s a FE Rtx 2080ti


Thanks, and that's with an X570 hero? Did you have to change the PCIE speed on it from gen 4 to 3?


----------



## Badgerslayer7

flyinion said:


> Badgerslayer7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I have the phanteks premium 220mm in my phanteks evolve x. Not had any overclocking issues with mine with a ek water block on it too. It does whine a little though. Itâ€™️s a FE Rtx 2080ti
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, and that's with an X570 hero? Did you have to change the PCIE speed on it from gen 4 to 3?
Click to expand...

Yes it’s X570 hero WiFi. I haven’t touched anything bios related. It works perfectly. Just be sure to plug in into the top pcie slot as that’s the only true x16 pcie slot


----------



## flyinion

Badgerslayer7 said:


> Yes it’s X570 hero WiFi. I haven’t touched anything bios related. It works perfectly. Just be sure to plug in into the top pcie slot as that’s the only true x16 pcie slot


Ok thanks. Apparently I have some thinking to do. I was wrong, after unboxing it the Enthoo Luxe 2 only has the plastic vertical mount (like the Evolve and P600) to mount the second ITX system in the bottom vertical. If I want vertical for the main I either have to hang a 3lb waterblocked card off the triple slot mount built into the case with no support on the bottom or front end (EVGA told me not a good idea due to only 5 small screws holding the bracket on) or I have to pay extra for the metal mount that goes in the PCIE slots.


----------



## Krisztias

flyinion said:


> Ok thanks. Apparently I have some thinking to do. I was wrong, after unboxing it the Enthoo Luxe 2 only has the plastic vertical mount (like the Evolve and P600) to mount the second ITX system in the bottom vertical. If I want vertical for the main I either have to hang a 3lb waterblocked card off the triple slot mount built into the case with no support on the bottom or front end (EVGA told me not a good idea due to only 5 small screws holding the bracket on) or I have to pay extra for the metal mount that goes in the PCIE slots.


Hi!

I have the Luxe 2 with the Phanteks Vertical Mount kit, and its fine 

https://www.overclock.net/forum/161...ase-club-lovers-owners-2053.html#post28153508


----------



## flyinion

Krisztias said:


> Hi!
> 
> I have the Luxe 2 with the Phanteks Vertical Mount kit, and its fine
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/161...ase-club-lovers-owners-2053.html#post28153508


Thanks for the pics. Is that GPU an extra tall non-reference version similar to the EVGA FTW models? Just trying to visualize positioning of my FTW card with the EVGA hydro copper block and how to get from the gpu block to the cpu block without hose issues.


----------



## Krisztias

flyinion said:


> Thanks for the pics. Is that GPU an extra tall non-reference version similar to the EVGA FTW models? Just trying to visualize positioning of my FTW card with the EVGA hydro copper block and how to get from the gpu block to the cpu block without hose issues.


This is the ROG-STRIX-RTX2080-O8G-GAMING. I'm looking for the Hydro Copper too, because here in Europe I can't mount the waterblock on this card without loosing guarantee  I was such a fool...


----------



## flyinion

Krisztias said:


> This is the ROG-STRIX-RTX2080-O8G-GAMING. I'm looking for the Hydro Copper too, because here in Europe I can't mount the waterblock on this card without loosing guarantee  I was such a fool...


Thanks, yep looks like it's the same size as the EVGA FTW cards so about an extra inch in height then for the ports on the hydro copper block.

edit: Nearly forgot, are you guys using the default "flatline" cable that came with the bracket? I was thinking of doing the 220mm premium for the extra shielding.


----------



## Krisztias

flyinion said:


> Thanks, yep looks like it's the same size as the EVGA FTW cards so about an extra inch in height then for the ports on the hydro copper block.
> 
> edit: Nearly forgot, are you guys using the default "flatline" cable that came with the bracket? I was thinking of doing the 220mm premium for the extra shielding.


Momentary using the one that came with the bracket. I don't think it's bad quality. When PCI-E 4 will be common, I would buy another one with Gen4 support.



flyinion said:


> Hi guys, joining the club with an Enthoo Luxe 2 in Anthracite. Just showed up yesterday and will be moving my stuff into it in the next few days. Trying to figure out the best way to vertical mount my 2080 Super FTW3 hydro copper. Would really like to use that 3 slot mount built into the case so I don't tie up all the PCIE slots with the bracket, but can't think of a way to support the card on the bottom that won't interfere potentially putting fans and/or radiators in the bottom of the case later on. The card weighs like 3lb's and EVGA told it me it was highly not recommended to mount it just via the PCIE bracket which is connected with 5 small screws and leaving it hanging in mid-air like that. I found some anti-sag stands on Amazon, one is about 11" tall and should work, just not sure how it will look or if there's gonna be an issue down the road if I want to put something in the bottom. What do you guys think? Really wanting to vertical mount this card since it has the nice illuminated water block on it from the factory.


If you look at my second and third picture, you can see that with the Phanteks kit the card isn't in mid air, it's sitting on the Luxe 2's PSU Cover. 3 Pads are coming with the kit, and you can set up the hight with it. I used one of the smaller ones and it's perfect in height.


----------



## usoldier

Guys i need an input on cooling iam Running a 3800X with a Noctua NH-U12A temps while gaming are usualy 65cº to 71cº depending on the game my boost clock are alright i gess.

For example while running WoT or WoW the most used cores are always at betwen 4375 and 4400 constant and the Single core boost goes up to 4550 with the prefered core hiting 4600 very rarely. Iam using latest beta of Hwinfo64 for all my readings.

Sound level is preaty good , the thing is i have a Full EKWB watercooling kit stored away from my previous build do you guys think it worth to mount it besides looking beter in the case?


----------



## Sam64

Just as an info to everyone, who is trying to run an external monitor using the CH8 USB-C slot: Tried it and it doesn't work due to missing DP Alt Mode Support. I had to add a seperate PCIe Card with 2x USB-C ports with DP Alt Mode to get e.g. a Lenovo Thinkvision M14 to run.


It's 2019 and you still don't get any support to run a video-signal through USB-C, not even on a premium board like the CH8. Not that you really depend on it, but still, it's a pity, if you ask me.


----------



## Sam64

usoldier: If you plan to go for AllCore OC, the EKWB definitely can help to get better temps. For normal daily PBO your NH-U12A should be ok. I got a 3800X as well (before i could catch a 3900X) and the clocks and temps on PBO where the same as yours (with an AIO).


----------



## flyinion

Krisztias said:


> If you look at my second and third picture, you can see that with the Phanteks kit the card isn't in mid air, it's sitting on the Luxe 2's PSU Cover. 3 Pads are coming with the kit, and you can set up the hight with it. I used one of the smaller ones and it's perfect in height.



Yeah I was talking about using the built in vertical mount in that instance instead of the bracket so the pcie slots wouldn't be blocked. The triple slot opening that sits above the second system area. 



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## usoldier

Where can i get info on the PE setting on the bios, and how it relates to PBO menu ?


----------



## The Stilt

usoldier said:


> Where can i get info on the PE setting on the bios, and how it relates to PBO menu ?


PE1 = 1000W PPT, 1000A TDC, +66.6% EDC, 10x scalar
PE2 = 1000W PPT, 1000A TDC, 1000A EDC, 10x scalar

Personally, I don't recommend increasing scalar over 2x since it directly scales the reliability (FIT) limit.
Higher the scalar, higher the voltage allowed by FIT (at the expense of reliability).

It won't usually affect ST at all, since ST voltages are not FIT limited in most cases.


----------



## usoldier

The Stilt said:


> PE1 = 1000W PPT, 1000W TDC, +66.6% EDC, 10x scalar
> PE2 = 1000W PPT, 1000W TDC, 1000W EDC, 10x scalar
> 
> Personally, I don't recommend increasing scalar over 2x since it directly scales the reliability (FIT) limit.
> Higher the scalar, higher the voltage allowed by FIT (at the expense of reliability).
> 
> It won't usually affect ST at all, since ST voltages are not FIT limited in most cases.


Thanks for the reply Stilt, so basicly not worth it to use the PE menu and go with PBO Enabled +200mhz and scalar 2x right ?


----------



## The Stilt

usoldier said:


> Thanks for the reply Stilt, so basicly not worth it to use the PE menu and go with PBO Enabled +200mhz and scalar 2x right ?


Yeah, manual PBO settings will achieve the same.

I don't recommend maxing out the OC offset directly, unless you are certain that your CPU can achieve it.
Using a too high value seems to produce worse results than the value closer to the actually achievable frequency.
Increase it until your performance stops increasing and leave it there.


----------



## usoldier

The Stilt said:


> Yeah, manual PBO settings will achieve the same.
> 
> I don't recommend maxing out the OC offset directly, unless you are certain that your CPU can achieve it.
> Using a too high value seems to produce worse results than the value closer to the actually achievable frequency.
> Increase it until your performance stops increasing and leave it there.


Thanks alot for the info Stilt /hug


----------



## kot0005

Sorry if its been asked already but when are Asus X570 boards getting the new 1.0.0.4B bios ? Msi seems to have rolled it out already.


----------



## Reikoji

kot0005 said:


> Sorry if its been asked already but when are Asus X570 boards getting the new 1.0.0.4B bios ? Msi seems to have rolled it out already.


https://www.hardwareluxx.de/communi...-bios-agesa-ubersicht-25-10-19-a-1228903.html

Soon(TM)


----------



## Badgerslayer7

kot0005 said:


> Sorry if its been asked already but when are Asus X570 boards getting the new 1.0.0.4B bios ? Msi seems to have rolled it out already.


Here they are beta bios for Ln2 overclocking

https://community.hwbot.org/topic/190114-rog-crosshair-viii-hero-formula-impact-ln2-oc-guide/


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Hopefully the normal ones are out soon.


----------



## pantsoftime

Badgerslayer7 said:


> Here they are beta bios for Ln2 overclocking
> 
> https://community.hwbot.org/topic/190114-rog-crosshair-viii-hero-formula-impact-ln2-oc-guide/


Do we know that these aren't compatible for regular use? I would imagine that the LN2 features are only enabled when the LN2 switch is enabled?


----------



## Reikoji

pantsoftime said:


> Do we know that these aren't compatible for regular use? I would imagine that the LN2 features are only enabled when the LN2 switch is enabled?


Just flashed the formula one. Doesnt appear to be LN2 onry, as LN2 mode is still disabled according to bios. setting all my stuff back up now and retesting memory


----------



## chowbaby

Reikoji said:


> Just flashed the formula one. Doesnt appear to be LN2 onry, as LN2 mode is still disabled according to bios. setting all my stuff back up now and retesting memory


I flashed it onto my C8H Wifi, seems to work except all my aura sync lights stopped working...


----------



## Jackalito

According to the source, they've been tweaked to enable LN2 mode by default.
You can disable it at Advanced\AMD Overclocking, though.

Also, they've tweaked the default values for CLDO_VDGG CCD voltages, so I'd recommend adjusting them manually. 

After flashing, two firmwares were updated, so be patient if you guys wanna give it a go. 

And finally, I cannot go beyond -0.0450V CPU offset with this beta. Either as a result of having been tweaked or as a bug from AGESA/ASUS.


----------



## Reikoji

chowbaby said:


> I flashed it onto my C8H Wifi, seems to work except all my aura sync lights stopped working...


Yea.. seems someone decided to fix what aint broken


----------



## centvalny

C8I 0017 Test BIOS 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cmzu3dnvjvk0wak/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-0017_1028.CAP?dl=0

Agesa 1.0.0.4 PATCH B.
CLDO VDDG now separated, VDDG CCD and IOD, can set different voltage and huge help under LN2 OC.
CLDO_VDDP now show in main BIOS page, no need to switch into tweaker's paradise page.
Minor changes in bios.

Heres With Samsung B-die @ 5K C18-22-22-42


----------



## centvalny

The first Impact board and the latest C8I

All time favs M5G, M6I and C8I


----------



## Krisztias

What are the thougts about the new test BIOS?


----------



## Oversemper

People are very upset about the "final" MSI 1004b bios here:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...ial-msi-x570-meg-ace-motherboard-club-23.html


I guess it is good that ASUS does not rush things.


Anyway, people, I need advice. I've bought ASUS ROG STRIX X570-F GAMING +ryzen 3800x (and the ekwb block already arrived). I'm writing here, in Crosshair VIII thread, because it is the only truly alive amd x570 thread. I want to change the insides of my rig, however, I'm thinking that I should postpone it till a stable ASUS 1004b bios is out, coz, from what I've read, a bios upgrade may require a windows clean reinstall afterwards. Is it so? Or this is only the case with beta bios releases and I will be able to safely update to a final 1004b bios even if I install windows with the current stable bios (AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA)?


----------



## Jackalito

Oversemper said:


> People are very upset about the "final" MSI 1004b bios here:
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...ial-msi-x570-meg-ace-motherboard-club-23.html
> 
> 
> I guess it is good that ASUS does not rush things.
> 
> 
> Anyway, people, I need advice. I've bought ASUS ROG STRIX X570-F GAMING +ryzen 3800x (and the ekwb block already arrived). I'm writing here, in Crosshair VIII thread, because it is the only truly alive amd x570 thread. I want to change the insides of my rig, however, I'm thinking that I should postpone it till a stable ASUS 1004b bios is out, coz, from what I've read, a bios upgrade may require a windows clean reinstall afterwards. Is it so? Or this is only the case with beta bios releases and I will be able to safely update to a final 1004b bios even if I install windows with the current stable bios (AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA)?


I've been using a beta AGESA 1.0.0.4 BIOS without issues. The only gripe I have found so far is that I cannot decrease CPU offset voltage beyond -0.04500V.

Let's see what the new week will bring


----------



## rv8000

To those of you running ~1900 on the IF/memory. What sort of latencies are you all getting with what timings (primary and secondary).

Just looking to tighten up my memory timings before I reformat, and for the life of me I can find the SS I took of when I was getting mid to high 63ns


----------



## Reikoji

rv8000 said:


> To those of you running ~1900 on the IF/memory. What sort of latencies are you all getting with what timings (primary and secondary).
> 
> Just looking to tighten up my memory timings before I reformat, and for the life of me I can find the SS I took of when I was getting mid to high 63ns


These har


----------



## rv8000

Reikoji said:


> These har


Thanks :thumb:

What's your approximate vdimm? Last time I checked the kit I have refused to do c14 @ less than 1.5v


----------



## Krisztias

rv8000 said:


> To those of you running ~1900 on the IF/memory. What sort of latencies are you all getting with what timings (primary and secondary).
> 
> Just looking to tighten up my memory timings before I reformat, and for the life of me I can find the SS I took of when I was getting mid to high 63ns


These


----------



## neurotix

rv8000 said:


> To those of you running ~1900 on the IF/memory. What sort of latencies are you all getting with what timings (primary and secondary).
> 
> Just looking to tighten up my memory timings before I reformat, and for the life of me I can find the SS I took of when I was getting mid to high 63ns



Having the same problem tbh











That's the lowest I ever got but it was difficult, I had to rerun the bench over and over, and I had all background/tray programs closed/Ethernet disconnected/etc.

Now, after messing about with timings more and testing DDR4-4066, I am getting around the same bandwidth but cannot get latency below 64.3ns or so. I am fairly certain it has to do with certain DRAM settings like HW Stream Prefetcher, Interleaving, Channel Interleave Size, BGS, etc. It might also have to do with debug voltages as well, which I also tweaked (like cLDO_VDDP,cLDO_VDDG, VTT_DDR, VPP_MEM, SoC Voltage, etc.)

I really doubt it makes much difference because it's probably either margin of error level or so small it is going to give less than 0.1fps in games at my high resolution but meh


----------



## zsoltmol

This is where I could get with 4x8GB Gskill Trident RGB ram originally targeted for [email protected]


----------



## chowbaby

Jackalito said:


> I've been using a beta AGESA 1.0.0.4 BIOS without issues. The only gripe I have found so far is that I cannot decrease CPU offset voltage beyond -0.04500V.
> 
> Let's see what the new week will bring


Which beta bios did you find issue free?


----------



## knightriot

1.0.0.4 with -0.1 offset  ,boot faster


----------



## Jackalito

chowbaby said:


> Which beta bios did you find issue free?


It was posted just a few pages ago


----------



## rask

Hi - Had started a new thread but no replies till now. I am kind of in a hurry to buy a motherboard to test things due to return window closing in, and this thread seems to be active. Have a few questions regarding C8H (*I would be running Linux with Windows probably in a VM*). I would greatly appreciate if someone can answer these queries:

1) Are the high ideal voltages and temperatures issue resolved ? Was/Is this a hardware or software issue ? If software, what would be the appropriate BIOS settings to fix this issue ?

2) Is there a rdrand (random number generator) issue or has it been patched through BIOS update including the microcode fixes ? Here is the issue I am referencing: 

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019...ed-my-weekend/


As per this article, here is the link for the test tool and attached are the screenshot on how to test for this bug:
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/rdrand-test.zip


3) Can someone please share the IOMMU groups along with the BIOS version ?

4) Is there audio through the rear jack in Linux ?


----------



## leetier

Are your chipsets running quite hot? 70C+ when gaming even when my GPU is in the second slot. 65c in idle also.


----------



## shilka

Just found this thread and i have a huge problem with my brand new Crosshair VIII Hero
Picked the board up a few days ago and everything was working fine untill i plugged in one of the USB 3 cables from the case into the USB 3 header above the SATA ports

That apparently has bricked the board as now i get an error saying USB over current status detected and it even does it with nothing plugged in
I have looked over every single port and header and cant see anything wrong


----------



## Krisztias

shilka said:


> Just found this thread and i have a huge problem with my brand new Crosshair VIII Hero
> Picked the board up a few days ago and everything was working fine untill i plugged in one of the USB 3 cables from the case into the USB 3 header above the SATA ports
> 
> That apparently has bricked the board as now i get an error saying USB over current status detected and it even does it with nothing plugged in
> I have looked over every single port and header and cant see anything wrong


Read this, hopefully helps:

https://appuals.com/fix-usb-device-over-current-status-detected/

and

https://www.drivereasy.com/knowledge/solved-usb-device-over-current-status-detected/

Hopefully you didn't damaged the USB 3 port on the MB (some pins are in contact and make a short circuit), when you connected the front panel cable.


----------



## pantsoftime

shilka said:


> Just found this thread and i have a huge problem with my brand new Crosshair VIII Hero
> Picked the board up a few days ago and everything was working fine untill i plugged in one of the USB 3 cables from the case into the USB 3 header above the SATA ports
> 
> That apparently has bricked the board as now i get an error saying USB over current status detected and it even does it with nothing plugged in
> I have looked over every single port and header and cant see anything wrong


Take out the connector and look at the pins. Make sure none of the pins are bent/crushed. They could be shorting to neighboring pins if they got bent.


----------



## pantsoftime

Just as an FYI for C8F owners... The latest Armoury Crate tool lets you configure the OLED display. It lets you pick from "Hardware Monitor", "Image or Animation", or "Music EQ". The Hardware Monitor function lets you pick between temperatures, voltages, fan speeds, and frequency - and you can rotate through 5 different readings.


----------



## neurotix

rask said:


> Hi - Had started a new thread but no replies till now. I am kind of in a hurry to buy a motherboard to test things due to return window closing in, and this thread seems to be active. Have a few questions regarding C8H (*I would be running Linux with Windows probably in a VM*). I would greatly appreciate if someone can answer these queries:


I can answer these one by one, well, at least two of them. I am far from a *nix guru but have used it since 2003, and it is my main OS

> 1) Are the high ideal voltages and temperatures issue resolved ? Was/Is this a hardware or software issue ? If software, what would be the appropriate BIOS settings to fix this issue ?

No, it is not resolved- however, this board has per-CCX OC and I notice in Linux I get far more stable/lower idle temps using CCX manual OC and lowered voltage. Linux actually runs and idles much cooler than Win10 1903 this way for some reason. My fans are all controlled by the board so there's no difference that way. You could go into the CCX OC panel and set manual clocks of say, 42.00, 42.00, 40.00, 40.00 and VID 1.250v and get a really stable system with much lower voltages and temperatures, especially if using the Wraith cooler (which I did have to use for a while at first, initially, because I needed mounting hardware for my H100i V2 which I got before Ryzen 1000 even launched). If you do not care about overclocking, and value stability and less heat more than performance/OC, this would be the ideal way. You can also simply set the voltage manually and set it to a similar value but it will run much hotter as this is VCORE and not VID, which can only be changed in the CCX panel. It looks/sounds like you are probably a software dev/admin or something and not interested in overclocking because you need stability and are concerned about heat. This board runs great if you lower the VID as I mentioned. The stock non-boost parameters as given by the bios are 3800MHz @ 1.10000mV. So, if you set a CCX "oc" of 38.00 for all CCX, and 1.100v, it will run very stable and cool.

The high voltage (1.450~1.5v) is what the chip needs to boost to 4500MHz+ on the first CCD (faster chiplet). However, a lot of users (myself included) have found increased performance and less heat by setting a manual CCX ratio OC and lowering the VID. For example, with my processor ratio and voltage on Auto and my first CCD boosting to 4500MHz+ and second to 4300MHz, in Cinebench R20 I get around 7300 for a multithreaded score. The load voltage ends up around 1.480v. If I manually do a CCX ratio OC of 44/44/42/42 at a 1.35v VID, that score is near 7800. The chip runs 10C cooler under load, and idles much cooler as well. I would imagine this increased performance would translate to Linux well but I don't have any programs I run there that really stress it to the brink. I'd run Linpack or something as a comparison between Auto and CCX OC but tbh I have no clue how and the Linux benchmark suites really don't make it easy to run a simple benchmark test like that and require learning a really complicated terminal program (I believe it was OpenBenchmark...)

So no, if you expect to throw it in and leave everything on Auto, yes it will run unacceptably hot on really any coolers under $75 or so. However, it is trivial to go into the CCX OC panel and set a much lower manual VID and individual CCX ratios.

2) Is there a rdrand (random number generator) issue or has it been patched through BIOS update including the microcode fixes ? Here is the issue I am referencing: 

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019...ed-my-weekend/

? I have no clue. Check Phoronix or something.


As per this article, here is the link for the test tool and attached are the screenshot on how to test for this bug:
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/rdrand-test.zip

Can I get that on my Linux install and run it? I'll try later if you want me to.


3) Can someone please share the IOMMU groups along with the BIOS version ?

? Again no clue.

4) Is there audio through the rear jack in Linux ?

Yes. It sounds great. This might depend on distro, but I have absolutely no issues this way.

Hope this helps.


----------



## shilka

Krisztias said:


> Read this, hopefully helps:
> 
> https://appuals.com/fix-usb-device-over-current-status-detected/
> 
> and
> 
> https://www.drivereasy.com/knowledge/solved-usb-device-over-current-status-detected/
> 
> Hopefully you didn't damaged the USB 3 port on the MB (some pins are in contact and make a short circuit), when you connected the front panel cable.


 I have read and gone over that those sites and nothing helped
Like i said in my build thread i have a wrench monkey friend who is great at fixing things and if he cant fix it i will return the board and let him do everything next time

I am fed up but at least i never took anything out of the old PC so that still works and i have a working PC instead of the old crappy laptop i have




pantsoftime said:


> Take out the connector and look at the pins. Make sure none of the pins are bent/crushed. They could be shorting to neighboring pins if they got bent.


The board gets the error even with no USB of any kind installed

I have looked at the header at least 6 times now and i cant see any damage unless i take the board out and like i said above got a friend thats doing that


----------



## pantsoftime

rask said:


> Hi - Had started a new thread but no replies till now. I am kind of in a hurry to buy a motherboard to test things due to return window closing in, and this thread seems to be active. Have a few questions regarding C8H (*I would be running Linux with Windows probably in a VM*). I would greatly appreciate if someone can answer these queries:
> 
> 2) Is there a rdrand (random number generator) issue or has it been patched through BIOS update including the microcode fixes ? Here is the issue I am referencing:
> 
> 3) Can someone please share the IOMMU groups along with the BIOS version ?


2) The RDRAND is fixed on this board (running 1103 BIOS). I ran the tool you pointed out and it works properly. I get proper random numbers from "test-rdrand" and the "amd-rdrand-bug" tool reports "Your RDRAND() does not have the AMD bug.".

3) See below:


Code:


for d in /sys/kernel/iommu_groups/*/devices/*; do n=${d#*/iommu_groups/*}; n=${n%%/*}; printf 'IOMMU Group %s ' "$n"; lspci -nns "${d##*/}"; done;
IOMMU Group 0 00:01.0 Host bridge [0600]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Starship/Matisse PCIe Dummy Host Bridge [1022:1482]
IOMMU Group 10 00:08.0 Host bridge [0600]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Starship/Matisse PCIe Dummy Host Bridge [1022:1482]
IOMMU Group 11 00:08.1 PCI bridge [0604]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Starship/Matisse Internal PCIe GPP Bridge 0 to bus[E:B] [1022:1484]
IOMMU Group 12 00:08.2 PCI bridge [0604]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Starship/Matisse Internal PCIe GPP Bridge 0 to bus[E:B] [1022:1484]
IOMMU Group 13 00:08.3 PCI bridge [0604]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Starship/Matisse Internal PCIe GPP Bridge 0 to bus[E:B] [1022:1484]
IOMMU Group 14 00:14.0 SMBus [0c05]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] FCH SMBus Controller [1022:790b] (rev 61)
IOMMU Group 14 00:14.3 ISA bridge [0601]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] FCH LPC Bridge [1022:790e] (rev 51)
IOMMU Group 15 00:18.0 Host bridge [0600]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Matisse Device 24: Function 0 [1022:1440]
IOMMU Group 15 00:18.1 Host bridge [0600]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Matisse Device 24: Function 1 [1022:1441]
IOMMU Group 15 00:18.2 Host bridge [0600]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Matisse Device 24: Function 2 [1022:1442]
IOMMU Group 15 00:18.3 Host bridge [0600]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Matisse Device 24: Function 3 [1022:1443]
IOMMU Group 15 00:18.4 Host bridge [0600]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Matisse Device 24: Function 4 [1022:1444]
IOMMU Group 15 00:18.5 Host bridge [0600]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Matisse Device 24: Function 5 [1022:1445]
IOMMU Group 15 00:18.6 Host bridge [0600]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Matisse Device 24: Function 6 [1022:1446]
IOMMU Group 15 00:18.7 Host bridge [0600]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Matisse Device 24: Function 7 [1022:1447]
IOMMU Group 16 01:00.0 Non-Volatile memory controller [0108]: Samsung Electronics Co Ltd NVMe SSD Controller SM981/PM981/PM983 [144d:a808]
IOMMU Group 17 02:00.0 PCI bridge [0604]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Device [1022:57ad]
IOMMU Group 18 03:01.0 PCI bridge [0604]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Device [1022:57a3]
IOMMU Group 19 03:02.0 PCI bridge [0604]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Device [1022:57a3]
IOMMU Group 1 00:01.1 PCI bridge [0604]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Starship/Matisse GPP Bridge [1022:1483]
IOMMU Group 20 03:03.0 PCI bridge [0604]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Device [1022:57a3]
IOMMU Group 21 03:04.0 PCI bridge [0604]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Device [1022:57a3]
IOMMU Group 22 03:05.0 PCI bridge [0604]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Device [1022:57a3]
IOMMU Group 23 03:06.0 PCI bridge [0604]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Device [1022:57a3]
IOMMU Group 24 03:08.0 PCI bridge [0604]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Device [1022:57a4]
IOMMU Group 24 0a:00.0 Non-Essential Instrumentation [1300]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Starship/Matisse Reserved SPP [1022:1485]
IOMMU Group 24 0a:00.1 USB controller [0c03]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Matisse USB 3.0 Host Controller [1022:149c]
IOMMU Group 24 0a:00.3 USB controller [0c03]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Matisse USB 3.0 Host Controller [1022:149c]
IOMMU Group 25 03:09.0 PCI bridge [0604]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Device [1022:57a4]
IOMMU Group 25 0b:00.0 SATA controller [0106]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] FCH SATA Controller [AHCI mode] [1022:7901] (rev 51)
IOMMU Group 26 03:0a.0 PCI bridge [0604]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Device [1022:57a4]
IOMMU Group 26 0c:00.0 SATA controller [0106]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] FCH SATA Controller [AHCI mode] [1022:7901] (rev 51)
IOMMU Group 27 04:00.0 Non-Volatile memory controller [0108]: Phison Electronics Corporation E12 NVMe Controller [1987:5012] (rev 01)
IOMMU Group 28 05:00.0 USB controller [0c03]: Fresco Logic FL1100 USB 3.0 Host Controller [1b73:1100] (rev 10)
IOMMU Group 29 06:00.0 Ethernet controller [0200]: Aquantia Corp. AQC111 NBase-T/IEEE 802.3bz Ethernet Controller [AQtion] [1d6a:11b1] (rev 02)
IOMMU Group 2 00:01.2 PCI bridge [0604]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Starship/Matisse GPP Bridge [1022:1483]
IOMMU Group 30 07:00.0 Network controller [0280]: Intel Corporation Device [8086:093c] (rev 3a)
IOMMU Group 31 08:00.0 Ethernet controller [0200]: Intel Corporation I211 Gigabit Network Connection [8086:1539] (rev 03)
IOMMU Group 32 09:00.0 Network controller [0280]: Intel Corporation Device [8086:2723] (rev 1a)
IOMMU Group 33 0d:00.0 VGA compatible controller [0300]: NVIDIA Corporation TU102 [GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Rev. A] [10de:1e07] (rev a1)
IOMMU Group 33 0d:00.1 Audio device [0403]: NVIDIA Corporation TU102 High Definition Audio Controller [10de:10f7] (rev a1)
IOMMU Group 33 0d:00.2 USB controller [0c03]: NVIDIA Corporation TU102 USB 3.1 Controller [10de:1ad6] (rev a1)
IOMMU Group 33 0d:00.3 Serial bus controller [0c80]: NVIDIA Corporation TU102 UCSI Controller [10de:1ad7] (rev a1)
IOMMU Group 34 0e:00.0 Non-Essential Instrumentation [1300]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Starship/Matisse PCIe Dummy Function [1022:148a]
IOMMU Group 35 0f:00.0 Non-Essential Instrumentation [1300]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Starship/Matisse Reserved SPP [1022:1485]
IOMMU Group 36 0f:00.1 Encryption controller [1080]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Starship/Matisse Cryptographic Coprocessor PSPCPP [1022:1486]
IOMMU Group 37 0f:00.3 USB controller [0c03]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Matisse USB 3.0 Host Controller [1022:149c]
IOMMU Group 38 0f:00.4 Audio device [0403]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Starship/Matisse HD Audio Controller [1022:1487]
IOMMU Group 39 10:00.0 SATA controller [0106]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] FCH SATA Controller [AHCI mode] [1022:7901] (rev 51)
IOMMU Group 3 00:02.0 Host bridge [0600]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Starship/Matisse PCIe Dummy Host Bridge [1022:1482]
IOMMU Group 40 11:00.0 SATA controller [0106]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] FCH SATA Controller [AHCI mode] [1022:7901] (rev 51)
IOMMU Group 4 00:03.0 Host bridge [0600]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Starship/Matisse PCIe Dummy Host Bridge [1022:1482]
IOMMU Group 5 00:03.1 PCI bridge [0604]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Starship/Matisse GPP Bridge [1022:1483]
IOMMU Group 6 00:04.0 Host bridge [0600]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Starship/Matisse PCIe Dummy Host Bridge [1022:1482]
IOMMU Group 7 00:05.0 Host bridge [0600]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Starship/Matisse PCIe Dummy Host Bridge [1022:1482]
IOMMU Group 8 00:07.0 Host bridge [0600]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Starship/Matisse PCIe Dummy Host Bridge [1022:1482]
IOMMU Group 9 00:07.1 PCI bridge [0604]: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] Starship/Matisse Internal PCIe GPP Bridge 0 to bus[E:B] [1022:1484]


----------



## Badgerslayer7

leetier said:


> Are your chipsets running quite hot? 70C+ when gaming even when my GPU is in the second slot. 65c in idle also.


I wouldn’t run your graphics card in slot 2 as only slot one is a full PCIE x16. Slot 2 is x8. Unless of course your running SLI.


----------



## usoldier

Badgerslayer7 said:


> I wouldn’t run your graphics card in slot 2 as only slot one is a full PCIE x16. Slot 2 is x8. Unless of course your running SLI.


I solved my chipset temperature by grabing a Vertical Mount for the GFX card no more extra heat directly inside the chipset fan.


----------



## chowbaby

usoldier said:


> I solved my chipset temperature by grabing a Vertical Mount for the GFX card no more extra heat directly inside the chipset fan.


Did that make the GPU heat up a lot though?


----------



## rask

Hi @*neurotix* - Thanks a ton for taking time out to write such a detailed reply and suggesting starting settings (42/42/40/40 @ VID 1.25 or 44/44/42/42 @ VID 1.35) for UEFI. I am going to keep it as a reference. 

Also, regarding my original question - I have seen screenshots of Gigabyte boards running at 26-32 deg C/ ~0.9 - 1.0V. Any idea why ASUS has these aggressive voltages from the get-go (hardware related?) that users need to do the required tuning in software ?




neurotix said:


> Can I get that on my Linux install and run it? I'll try later if you want me to.



Yes, you can. Just follow the screenshots/code in the article I linked above - Shouldn't take more than a minute. Running "./amd-rdrand-bug" should tell you in plain English whether you have this bug or not. "./test-rdrand" should give 20 instances of proper random numbers if things are alright, else it will produce a bunch of "FF".


----------



## rask

Hi @*pantsoftime* : Thanks a lot for clearing up the *rdrand* issue and sharing your *IOMMU* groupings - they look good. 

Have a few questions regarding those groupings: 

*1.* You mentioned that you are using 1103 BIOS. Where did you find it? Can only find these versions on support page: 0702/0803/0901/1001.

*2.* This is a C8Formula right (as that's the only board that uses 5GbE controller like AQC111) ? C8Hero comes with a 1GbE Intel and a 2.5GbE controllers.*
*
*If so, can someone please share the IOMMU groups of C8Hero along with the BIOS version? *(They should be similar if BIOS versions are same, but this can't be said with certainty).


Code:


IOMMU Group 29 06:00.0 Ethernet controller [0200]: Aquantia Corp. AQC111 NBase-T/IEEE 802.3bz Ethernet Controller [AQtion] [1d6a:11b1] (rev 02)

*3.* Is this for VFIO? If so, which USB PCI-E card are you using? Any links ?


Code:


IOMMU Group 28 05:00.0 USB controller [0c03]: Fresco Logic FL1100 USB 3.0 Host Controller [1b73:1100] (rev 10)

*4.* Is this a gen 3 or a gen 4.0 NVMe drive? If gen 4, is NVMe trim working in Linux ?


Code:


IOMMU Group 27 04:00.0 Non-Volatile memory controller [0108]: Phison Electronics Corporation E12 NVMe Controller [1987:5012] (rev 01)

*5.* Does the C8H allow you to POST with the (host) GPU plugged into other PCI-E slot (say 2nd slot for e.g.) than PCI-E 16x ? (Should be a matter of BIOS feature availability)

Can you also share your machine specifications in your signature like @*neurotix* ?

*PS:* Is your username inspired from PoP: Sands of Time? The series was of one of my favorites.


----------



## usoldier

chowbaby said:


> Did that make the GPU heat up a lot though?


GPU stayed at same temperatures, Ram and chipset both got alot lower temps, the 2080S Pumps out alot of heat.


----------



## pantsoftime

rask said:


> Hi @*pantsoftime* : Thanks a lot for clearing up the *rdrand* issue and sharing your *IOMMU* groupings - they look good.
> 
> Have a few questions regarding those groupings:
> 
> *1.* You mentioned that you are using 1103 BIOS. Where did you find it? Can only find these versions on support page: 0702/0803/0901/1001.
> 
> *2.* This is a C8Formula right (as that's the only board that uses 5GbE controller like AQC111) ? C8Hero comes with a 1GbE Intel and a 2.5GbE controllers.*
> *
> *If so, can someone please share the IOMMU groups of C8Hero along with the BIOS version? *(They should be similar if BIOS versions are same, but this can't be said with certainty).
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> IOMMU Group 29 06:00.0 Ethernet controller [0200]: Aquantia Corp. AQC111 NBase-T/IEEE 802.3bz Ethernet Controller [AQtion] [1d6a:11b1] (rev 02)
> 
> *3.* Is this for VFIO? If so, which USB PCI-E card are you using? Any links ?
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> IOMMU Group 28 05:00.0 USB controller [0c03]: Fresco Logic FL1100 USB 3.0 Host Controller [1b73:1100] (rev 10)
> 
> *4.* Is this a gen 3 or a gen 4.0 NVMe drive? If gen 4, is NVMe trim working in Linux ?
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> IOMMU Group 27 04:00.0 Non-Volatile memory controller [0108]: Phison Electronics Corporation E12 NVMe Controller [1987:5012] (rev 01)
> 
> *5.* Does the C8H allow you to POST with the (host) GPU plugged into other PCI-E slot (say 2nd slot for e.g.) than PCI-E 16x ? (Should be a matter of BIOS feature availability)
> 
> Can you also share your machine specifications in your signature like @*neurotix* ?
> 
> *PS:* Is your username inspired from PoP: Sands of Time? The series was of one of my favorites.


Hi Rask,
Sorry yes, I'm using a C8F rather than C8H but I hoped the info would help. 

The 1103 BIOS has been posted in this thread a couple of times but I retrieved it from here: https://community.hwbot.org/topic/190114-rog-crosshair-viii-hero-formula-impact-ln2-oc-guide/

The USB card is just a cheap card I had in my previous rig. I still use it to provide a little bit of flexibility with connections for my particular setup because it provides internal USB3 ports. I have not tried it with VFIO. 

In terms of POST for GPUs in other slots... are you looking for force which GPU is used for POST? (i.e. if you have multiple GPUs installed). There is a "GPU Post" option described in the manual but I haven't tried it. 

The SSDs you're asking about are both Gen3 PCIe. I haven't tried any Gen4 drives. I will try to work on rigbuilder later if time allows.


----------



## usoldier

Whats the recomended Audio Driver ATM ? Cant put a finger on it but my sound seams worse then using windows default driver.


----------



## rask

pantsoftime said:


> Hi Rask,
> Sorry yes, I'm using a C8F rather than C8H but I hoped the info would help.
> 
> The 1103 BIOS has been posted in this thread a couple of times but I retrieved it from here: https://community.hwbot.org/topic/190114-rog-crosshair-viii-hero-formula-impact-ln2-oc-guide/


No worries, much appreciated - yes, the info along with the links you shared definitely helps(shows 1103.CAP for both motherboards) . Its currently the best data-set I have to go by and the probability of overlap for IOMMU groups is quite high. Its just that in some cases, differences occur.




> In terms of POST for GPUs in other slots... are you looking for force which GPU is used for POST? (i.e. if you have multiple GPUs installed). There is a "GPU Post" option described in the manual but I haven't tried it.


What I meant was does the motherboard allow you to choose the primary GPU or simply assume that the GPU in the first slot (PCI-E 16x) is the primary one. If it does, there should be a BIOS feature available and the MB should allow one to POST with GPU in the 2nd PCI-E slot.


----------



## neurotix

delete


----------



## MacG32

usoldier said:


> Whats the recomended Audio Driver ATM ? Cant put a finger on it but my sound seams worse then using windows default driver.



I've been using this one without any problems: https://www.station-drivers.com/ind...tory&Itemid=353&func=fileinfo&id=4153&lang=en It doesn't have anything Sonic related in it. If you want that stuff, try the default driver from Asus' website. I've tried a few later drivers and have had nothing but problems.


https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/n...g-in-an-extra-250-mhz-on-clock-frequency.html <--- Good news here.


----------



## shilka

Returned my broken C8H to the shop and hopefully they can repair it or find the flaw and give me a replacement board 
No idea how long that will take

Next time i wont hook up the case USB 3 cables to the motherboard that header at a 90 degree makess it almost impossible
The C8H has a ton of ports on the back more than i need so i can live without the front ones


----------



## 1usmus

*1usmus Custom Power Plan for Ryzen 3000 Zen 2 Processors*

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/1usmus-custom-power-plan-for-ryzen-3000-zen-2-processors/


----------



## MacG32

1usmus said:


> *1usmus Custom Power Plan for Ryzen 3000 Zen 2 Processors*
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/review/1usmus-custom-power-plan-for-ryzen-3000-zen-2-processors/



Thank you for making this! I truly appreciate it. +Rep :thumb:


----------



## usoldier

1usmus said:


> *1usmus Custom Power Plan for Ryzen 3000 Zen 2 Processors*
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/review/1usmus-custom-power-plan-for-ryzen-3000-zen-2-processors/


Thanks 1usmus +Rep


----------



## usoldier

Cant Find CH8 Wifi Drivers Download page. 

https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/ROG-Crosshair-VIII-Hero-WI-FI/HelpDesk/

Is it just me ?


----------



## MacG32

usoldier said:


> Cant Find CH8 Wifi Drivers Download page.
> 
> https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/ROG-Crosshair-VIII-Hero-WI-FI/HelpDesk/
> 
> Is it just me ?



Try https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/ROG-Crosshair-VIII-Hero-WI-FI/HelpDesk_Download/


----------



## usoldier

MacG32 said:


> Try https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/ROG-Crosshair-VIII-Hero-WI-FI/HelpDesk_Download/


Thanks alot


----------



## criznit

I tried the new power plan and ended up losing performance. I ran a few instances of cb20 and got 7091, 7144 and 7035 for MT under the plan while getting 7190, 7162 and 7200 under balanced. The ST score was 512 with the new plan vs 519 without. I will wait for the new bios before trying again, but thanks for the hard work and keep the apps coming!


----------



## OzzyRuleZ

criznit said:


> I tried the new power plan and ended up losing performance. I ran a few instances of cb20 and got 7091, 7144 and 7035 for MT under the plan while getting 7190, 7162 and 7200 under balanced. The ST score was 512 with the new plan vs 519 without. I will wait for the new bios before trying again, but thanks for the hard work and keep the apps coming!


Same, I see a performance regression with it on my 3800X.


----------



## rask

pantsoftime said:


> Hi Rask,
> In terms of POST for GPUs in other slots... are you looking for force which GPU is used for POST? (i.e. if you have multiple GPUs installed). There is a "GPU Post" option described in the manual but I haven't tried it.





rask said:


> What I meant was does the motherboard allow you to choose the primary GPU or simply assume that the GPU in the first slot (PCI-E 16x) is the primary one. If it does, there should be a BIOS feature available and the MB should allow one to POST with GPU in the 2nd PCI-E slot.



Did anyone try this? Does the C8H allow you to post with GPU installed in any other slot other than the first, say 2nd or 3rd (using the GPU post option in the 'Boot' section of the BIOS, I guess) ?


----------



## Reous

Agesa 1004B is out for all Crosshair VIII Boards. It usually need some days until they add it on the hompage.

Direct download links are available here:
https://www.hardwareluxx.de/communi...-bios-agesa-ubersicht-04-11-19-a-1228903.html


----------



## usoldier

Reous said:


> Agesa 1004B is out for all Crosshair VIII Boards. It usually need some days until they add it on the hompage.
> 
> Direct download links are available here:
> https://www.hardwareluxx.de/communi...-bios-agesa-ubersicht-04-11-19-a-1228903.html


Nice, thanks for the Info i will install later today and report here.


----------



## Lupo91

Hi



None of you have an NVME PciE 4.0 ??

You can post a Crystaldiskmark, possibly with the latest version


Thanks


----------



## dlbsyst

Reous said:


> Agesa 1004B is out for all Crosshair VIII Boards. It usually need some days until they add it on the hompage.
> 
> Direct download links are available here:
> https://www.hardwareluxx.de/communi...-bios-agesa-ubersicht-04-11-19-a-1228903.html


Nice! Thanks for the heads up. I have installed the new 1105 BIOS. It seems good so far. I did notice a new setting in the BIOS though. It now has 2 values for VDDG voltage. VDDG CCD Voltage and VDDG IOD Voltage. Does anyone know what the difference is between them and should they be set to the same voltage? I have them both manually set to 0.950 volts and all seems well but just want to be sure.


----------



## Sam64

Lupo91 said:


> Hi
> 
> None of you have an NVME PciE 4.0 ??
> You can post a Crystaldiskmark, possibly with the latest version
> 
> Thanks



Don't have it yet, but der8auer did some CDM Tests...







CDM results start at 2m58s


----------



## Reikoji

New bios for all the X570 boards now.


----------



## Reikoji

dlbsyst said:


> Nice! Thanks for the heads up. I have installed the new 1105 BIOS. It seems good so far. I did notice a new setting in the BIOS though. It now has 2 values for VDDG voltage. VDDG CCD Voltage and VDDG IOD Voltage. Does anyone know what the difference is between them and should they be set to the same voltage? I have them both manually set to 0.950 volts and all seems well but just want to be sure.


I believe one is for the chiplet data fabric and one is for the I/O die data fabric.


----------



## dlbsyst

Reikoji said:


> I believe one is for the chiplet data fabric and one is for the I/O die data fabric.


Thanks. Do you think they should both be set manually to 0.950 volts?


----------



## Lupo91

Sam64 said:


> Don't have it yet, but der8auer did some CDM Tests...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47dGG8ZnN2g&t=2m58s
> 
> 
> CDM results start at 2m58s



Hi

I am interested in a user who has it with the Crosshair VIII Formula, because I find disappointing results in 4K, compared to a friend of mine who uses it on an ASrock X570 Phantom Gaming


----------



## SeeGee

Lupo91 said:


> Hi
> 
> I am interested in a user who has it with the Crosshair VIII Formula, because I find disappointing results in 4K, compared to a friend of mine who uses it on an ASrock X570 Phantom Gaming


What results are you getting? I have a Corsair MP600 that i have tested extensively.


----------



## Lupo91

SeeGee said:


> What results are you getting? I have a Corsair MP600 that i have tested extensively.



This












The results in 4K are poor


----------



## SeeGee

Are you using m.2_1 or m.2_2?


----------



## Lupo91

SeeGee said:


> Are you using m.2_1 or m.2_2?



The slot on the left, I don't remember which one it is


----------



## flyinion

Lupo91 said:


> The slot on the left, I don't remember which one it is


 Which one is the "slot on the left"? It should be in the one closest to the CPU socket. If it's not, you're in the wrong one.


----------



## Lupo91

flyinion said:


> Which one is the "slot on the left"? It should be in the one closest to the CPU socket. If it's not, you're in the wrong one.



The Formula has NVME sockets placed differently from the Hero.

They are under the cover and are one on the left and one on the right


----------



## Jackalito

Reous said:


> Agesa 1004B is out for all Crosshair VIII Boards. It usually need some days until they add it on the hompage.
> 
> Direct download links are available here:
> https://www.hardwareluxx.de/communi...-bios-agesa-ubersicht-04-11-19-a-1228903.html



Thanks, mate! +REP :thumb:
Flashed earlier today and so far so good. It does boot up slightly faster 

Just be aware, guys, that when you increase the voltage for DRAM the font gets yellow despite using more than safe values, 1.3650V in my case. At first I thought something was amiss, but after checking with HWiNFO and Ryzen Master, I confirmed that it was alright.



Cheers!


----------



## flyinion

Lupo91 said:


> The Formula has NVME sockets placed differently from the Hero.
> 
> They are under the cover and are one on the left and one on the right




Woops sorry I forgot for a minute this wasn't a hero specific thread. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## OzzyRuleZ

I flashed the new BIOS on my CH8W and using the new powerplan am seeing a small bump in performance over ABBA. Nothing to get excited about but a small increase.


----------



## dlbsyst

OzzyRuleZ said:


> I flashed the new BIOS on my CH8W and using the new powerplan am seeing a small bump in performance over ABBA. Nothing to get excited about but a small increase.


I am blown away by these new additions. I installed the new BIOS and dialed in my usual settings. I did make one change though with performance enhancer set to Level 3 (OC), PBO is enabled as usual. In Windows I am using 1usmus power plan and I am getting my best performance ever, especially in gaming.


----------



## criznit

dlbsyst said:


> I am blown away by these new additions. I installed the new BIOS and dialed in my usual settings. I did make one change though with performance enhancer set to Level 3 (OC), PBO is enabled as usual. In Windows I am using 1usmus power plan and I am getting my best performance ever, especially in gaming.


I don't know what I've done wrong, but all of my scores are lower  I will keep messing with settings to see what's going on.


----------



## dlbsyst

criznit said:


> dlbsyst said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am blown away by these new additions. I installed the new BIOS and dialed in my usual settings. I did make one change though with performance enhancer set to Level 3 (OC), PBO is enabled as usual. In Windows I am using 1usmus power plan and I am getting my best performance ever, especially in gaming./forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what I've done wrong, but all of my scores are lower /forum/images/smilies/frown.gif I will keep messing with settings to see what's going on.
Click to expand...

I was actually getting lower performance too, at first criznit. Setting Performance enhancer to level 3 (OC) combined with 1usmus power plan seemed to do it for me. All my other settings in BIOS were my usual.


----------



## criznit

dlbsyst said:


> I was actually getting lower performance too, at first criznit. Setting Performance enhancer to level 3 (OC) combined with 1usmus power plan seemed to do it for me. All my other settings in BIOS were my usual.


I will try this out, thanks!


----------



## flyinion

dlbsyst said:


> I was actually getting lower performance too, at first criznit. Setting Performance enhancer to level 3 (OC) combined with 1usmus power plan seemed to do it for me. All my other settings in BIOS were my usual.


What does performance enhancer do? I moved all my stuff into a case with better airflow/performance for my cooling loop this weekend so I want to see about re-enabling PBO etc now and get that little extra boost over stock finally. Some of those BIOS settings are really unintuitive though.


----------



## Reikoji

1usmus said:


> *1usmus Custom Power Plan for Ryzen 3000 Zen 2 Processors*
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/review/1usmus-custom-power-plan-for-ryzen-3000-zen-2-processors/


I think there might be a slight problem with the plan. Upon starting the PC up from shutdown, Windows and a game I tried to open was very sluggish. Opened up the HW info to find the entire CCD0 was locked at 560mhz. After switching to a different plan it ramped back up.


----------



## Kokin

Tested out official 1.0.0.4B Bios vs the beta version and using the 1usmus power plan. 3900X was peaking at 4500-4550 previously, but now will peak at 4625-4650. Scores on Cinebench R20 and FPS on Apex Legends look about the same.

Haven't encountered any issues yet and 3200CL14 DOCP boots up no problem.


----------



## Lupo91

flyinion said:


> Woops sorry I forgot for a minute this wasn't a hero specific thread.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



However you could do me a CrystalDiskMark anyway, please


----------



## Kiwa

Kokin said:


> Tested out official 1.0.0.4B Bios vs the beta version and using the 1usmus power plan. 3900X was peaking at 4500-4550 previously, but now will peak at 4625-4650. Scores on Cinebench R20 and FPS on Apex Legends look about the same.
> 
> Haven't encountered any issues yet and 3200CL14 DOCP boots up no problem.


 Hi, a quick question. Where can you download the official BIOS 1004? The bios is on the support page of asus ROG Crosshair VIII Hero wifi.


Thanks!


----------



## Kokin

Kiwa said:


> Hi, a quick question. Where can you download the official BIOS 1004? The bios is on the support page of asus ROG Crosshair VIII Hero wifi.
> 
> 
> Thanks!


https://www.hardwareluxx.de/communi...s-agesa-ubersicht-05-11-19-a-1228903.html#2.7

Second from the bottom of the Asus X570 list.



Lupo91 said:


> However you could do me a CrystalDiskMark anyway, please


In case you were curious about PCI-E 3.0 in Raid 0, there was a slight improvement between 1.0.0.4 Beta and Official.


----------



## Lupo91

Kokin said:


> https://www.hardwareluxx.de/communi...s-agesa-ubersicht-05-11-19-a-1228903.html#2.7
> 
> Second from the bottom of the Asus X570 list.
> 
> 
> 
> In case you were curious about PCI-E 3.0 in Raid 0, there was a slight improvement between 1.0.0.4 Beta and Official.



Thanks, but I needed a CrystalDiskMark on Pcie 4.0, on a single nvme


I have bios 1105(Agesa 1.0.0.4) the latest


----------



## dlbsyst

criznit said:


> dlbsyst said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was actually getting lower performance too, at first criznit. Setting Performance enhancer to level 3 (OC) combined with 1usmus power plan seemed to do it for me. All my other settings in BIOS were my usual.
> 
> 
> 
> I will try this out, thanks!
Click to expand...

 You're welcome. I did want to mention something though. Be careful. Yes I am getting substantially better performance but my CPU does run somewhat hotter so be sure you have sufficient cooling.


----------



## rask

rask said:


> Did anyone try this? Does the C8H allow you to post with GPU installed in any other slot other than the first, say 2nd or 3rd (using the GPU post option in the 'Boot' section of the BIOS, I guess) ?


Guys...did anyone try this ? Only a day left to order to avoid return window issues with other components. Its a make or break thing.


----------



## dlbsyst

rask said:


> rask said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did anyone try this? Does the C8H allow you to post with GPU installed in any other slot other than the first, say 2nd or 3rd (using the GPU post option in the 'Boot' section of the BIOS, I guess) ?
> 
> 
> 
> Guys...did anyone try this ? Only a day left to order to avoid return window issues with other components. Its a make or break thing.
Click to expand...

I thought about trying it because having my hot 2080 ftw3 sitting in the top slot dumps it's heat into my chipset and heats it up. It should work but your GPU will run at 8x though instead of 16x. That was a deal breaker for me so I didn't do it.


----------



## Kernel-Debugger

*Crosshair VIII Hero Raid 0*

For indexing purposes; Wendel has done the CH7 Raid 0 video but not much out there for the CH8

No need for thread ripper Raid drivers, just download the X570 drivers, delete and create array, and then install drivers during win10 setup. Here is what is the outcome: pre 1.0.0.4, but Bios was just updated w/o issues (just need to run benchmark again)

A Benchmark: This is a single 970 Pro 1TB and performance in Samsung Magician (after 17TB written)

https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=304794&thumb=1

Now with (2) New 970 Pro's in Raid 0

B Benchmark: Just after windows installed, prior to being trimmed and default settings

C Benchmark: Trimmed and set to Gen4 on both Nvme in UEFI

D Benchmark: last run with Auto in UEFI and Sata OFF

https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=304792&thumb=1

This should give you a better idea on what to do with this board, and you do lose temp. and other optimizations when using an array within Samsung Magician software.


----------



## rask

dlbsyst said:


> I thought about trying it because having my hot 2080 ftw3 sitting in the top slot dumps it's heat into my chipset and heats it up. It should work but your GPU will run at 8x though instead of 16x. That was a deal breaker for me so I didn't do it.



Hi - Thanks for your reply. Speed is not an issue as host GPU will be in a slot other than PCI-E 1 (16x). Need a confirmation that it works on Crosshair VIII Hero.


----------



## GSJ

Hi guys, looking for a little help to achieve higher boost speeds in my 3900X... its boosting like 4400mhz max. Using the latest bios (1005) and 1usmus power plan. 

When i run Cinebench R20 i'm at 67xx points and all the cores at 3950mhz.

What's the most important options to enable in bios? Any tips are very much appreciated, i'm using a Cryorig A40 ultimate to cool the cpu, so the temperatures are ok. 

Thanks in advance!


----------



## criznit

criznit said:


> I will try this out, thanks!





dlbsyst said:


> I was actually getting lower performance too, at first criznit. Setting Performance enhancer to level 3 (OC) combined with 1usmus power plan seemed to do it for me. All my other settings in BIOS were my usual.



I found the best thing to do was to use a negative offset of .1 and now everything is good. Thank you for the suggestions tho.


----------



## 1usmus

*Ryzen Balanced vs my profile on 1105*

difference 75-100mhz


----------



## usoldier

1usmus said:


> *Ryzen Balanced vs my profile on 1105*
> 
> difference 75-100mhz


Hi 1usmus do you happen to know what setting do we need to change on the CH8 Bios i cant seam to find : 

Power Supply Idle Control

AMD Cool'n'Quiet

PPC Adjustment

Thanks for all the nice stuff you do for us


----------



## Badgerslayer7

usoldier said:


> 1usmus said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Ryzen Balanced vs my profile on 1105*
> 
> difference 75-100mhz /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> 
> 
> Hi 1usmus do you happen to know what setting do we need to change on the CH8 Bios i cant seam to find :
> 
> Power Supply Idle Control
> 
> AMD Cool'n'Quiet
> 
> PPC Adjustment
> 
> Thanks for all the nice stuff you do for us /forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
Click to expand...

Ditto. It would be much appreciated if you could. Can not find these settings or anything similar within the bios. Thanks for your hard work. I have seen a significant boost in overall clocks with your power plan.


----------



## jfrob75

Installed bios 1105 using the bios USB port on the back panel. That was successful and booted into the bios and made the appropriate changes to reflect my previous configuration for my memory freq of 3733 and using a CPU voltage negative offset of .1 volts. Also enable PBO in the 2 places so that my all core auto OC'ing is not limited by the default PPT limit. I set PPT to 220 watts, TDC to 255 and EDC to 255. Saved settings an rebooted into windows. Launched RM and noticed that CLDO VDDG was not at the voltage I had set in the bios. This was resolved by setting it under the extreme tweaking section, so there are 3 places in the bios where this voltage can be set. Previous bios I only had to set it under the AMD overclocking section for it to take affect.


Also installed the 1usmus Ryzen Power Plan to see if it affected what cores were used for SC CB15. Unfortunately single thread CB15 or CB20 would still run on the wrong core.


As far as any performance improvement in this BIOS over the previous, the jury is still out.


----------



## neurotix

jfrob75 said:


> Installed bios 1105 using the bios USB port on the back panel. That was successful and booted into the bios and made the appropriate changes to reflect my previous configuration for my memory freq of 3733 and using a CPU voltage negative offset of .1 volts. Also enable PBO in the 2 places so that my all core auto OC'ing is not limited by the default PPT limit. I set PPT to 220 watts, TDC to 255 and EDC to 255. Saved settings an rebooted into windows. Launched RM and noticed that CLDO VDDG was not at the voltage I had set in the bios. This was resolved by setting it under the extreme tweaking section, so there are 3 places in the bios where this voltage can be set. Previous bios I only had to set it under the AMD overclocking section for it to take affect.
> 
> 
> Also installed the 1usmus Ryzen Power Plan to see if it affected what cores were used for SC CB15. Unfortunately single thread CB15 or CB20 would still run on the wrong core.
> 
> 
> As far as any performance improvement in this BIOS over the previous, the jury is still out.


YOU HAVE A GIGABYTE AORUS BOARD...

2nd time 

:notontopi


----------



## dlbsyst

neurotix said:


> jfrob75 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Installed bios 1105 using the bios USB port on the back panel. That was successful and booted into the bios and made the appropriate changes to reflect my previous configuration for my memory freq of 3733 and using a CPU voltage negative offset of .1 volts. Also enable PBO in the 2 places so that my all core auto OC'ing is not limited by the default PPT limit. I set PPT to 220 watts, TDC to 255 and EDC to 255. Saved settings an rebooted into windows. Launched RM and noticed that CLDO VDDG was not at the voltage I had set in the bios. This was resolved by setting it under the extreme tweaking section, so there are 3 places in the bios where this voltage can be set. Previous bios I only had to set it under the AMD overclocking section for it to take affect.
> 
> 
> Also installed the 1usmus Ryzen Power Plan to see if it affected what cores were used for SC CB15. Unfortunately single thread CB15 or CB20 would still run on the wrong core.
> 
> 
> As far as any performance improvement in this BIOS over the previous, the jury is still out.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU HAVE A GIGABYTE AORUS BOARD...
> 
> 2nd time
> 
> /forum/images/smilies/offtopic.gif
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's not cool dude.


----------



## jfrob75

neurotix said:


> YOU HAVE A GIGABYTE AORUS BOARD...
> 
> 2nd time
> 
> :notontopi


 I updated my rig builder to indicate I was using a C8H mother board. I have no idea why it is not showing it as such. So, my post is accurate for my C8H MB. The AORUS Master is installed in another computer build.


There are other updates to my rig builder that I have made that are not showing up as well, so seems there is some kind of problem the rig builder part of this forum.


Figured out I had to go into my CP and reapply my rig build to my signature in order for it show correctly.


----------



## neurotix

dlbsyst said:


> Yeah, that's not cool dude.


He did it already once and people gave him a heads up, and he edited his two posts and removed them.

You probably missed it as I haven't seen you post in like over a month, lol?  

I was just trying to get his attention since the thread is moving fast and hes in the wrong one and needs to copy/paste to the Aorus thread


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

All the reddit post about ASUS new bios for all their x570 don't seem too positive. Mostly due to broken RAM OC settings.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ds7h4k/asus_x570_boards_agesa_1004b_released/


----------



## flyinion

KingEngineRevUp said:


> All the reddit post about ASUS new bios for all their x570 don't seem too positive. Mostly due to broken RAM OC settings.
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ds7h4k/asus_x570_boards_agesa_1004b_released/


Wow that's some nasty stuff. I don't know if I tried a cold boot yet. Not sure I want to now. Currently running with no issues at 3600 on DOCP profile.


----------



## dlbsyst

KingEngineRevUp said:


> All the reddit post about ASUS new bios for all their x570 don't seem too positive. Mostly due to broken RAM OC settings.
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ds7h4k/asus_x570_boards_agesa_1004b_released/


Yeah, I read the problems people are having with there RAM over-clocks. The new BIOS works well with my preferred overclock of 3600Mhz geardown disabled and tight timings. I'm happy with it.


----------



## dlbsyst

neurotix said:


> dlbsyst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's not cool dude./forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> 
> 
> He did it already once and people gave him a heads up, and he edited his two posts and removed them.
> 
> You probably missed it as I haven't seen you post in like over a month, lol? /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif
> 
> I was just trying to get his attention since the thread is moving fast and hes in the wrong one and needs to copy/paste to the Aorus thread
Click to expand...

I understand. I don't post all the time just when it gets exciting around here like when a new major BIOS gets released and 1usmus releases his custom Windows power plan.


----------



## flyinion

I learned one thing about that fancy new power plan. Don't turn it on at least with the 1105 BIOS if you don't have the BIOS settings changed first. You'll hang on reboot at I think B0 (covered by my rad now was hard to see) and have to do a reset to get it to boot. Works fine after the BIOS settings are changed. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## rv8000

So going from 1001 to 1105...

HUGE reduction in boot time, averaging around 8 seconds less total time. Also nice that updating the bios from 1001 this time around actually saved my profiles (I laughed at myself having taken 30 photos on my phone of all my settings only to find out all my profiles carried over and were actually load-able)

Aside from that, there's virtually no performance difference. Slightly higher peak single core clock on my 3700X; went from 4425 to 4450 (4x pbo scalar +150mhz auto oc). No memory latency improvements to be seen on my end. Might end up spending some time to see if I can get my 3700 to boost a bit higher or at least bring down the voltages a bit as I'm seeing much higher peak voltage on 1105 with PBO enabled (1.44v on 1001 to 1.469v on 1105).

No issues with cold boots either.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

rv8000 said:


> So going from 1001 to 1105...
> 
> HUGE reduction in boot time, averaging around 8 seconds less total time. Also nice that updating the bios from 1001 this time around actually saved my profiles (I laughed at myself having taken 30 photos on my phone of all my settings only to find out all my profiles carried over and were actually load-able)
> 
> Aside from that, there's virtually no performance difference. Slightly higher peak single core clock on my 3700X; went from 4425 to 4450 (4x pbo scalar +150mhz auto oc). No memory latency improvements to be seen on my end. Might end up spending some time to see if I can get my 3700 to boost a bit higher or at least bring down the voltages a bit as I'm seeing much higher peak voltage on 1105 with PBO enabled (1.44v on 1001 to 1.469v on 1105).
> 
> No issues with cold boots either.


You know... I had just saved my BIOs settings to a CMO file and just loaded my settings and it worked. I'm not sure if we could have done that going from 900s to 1000s to 1100s, but it worked going from 1001 to 1105. No need to take pictures with the phone.


----------



## Reikoji

KingEngineRevUp said:


> All the reddit post about ASUS new bios for all their x570 don't seem too positive. Mostly due to broken RAM OC settings.
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ds7h4k/asus_x570_boards_agesa_1004b_released/





flyinion said:


> Wow that's some nasty stuff. I don't know if I tried a cold boot yet. Not sure I want to now. Currently running with no issues at 3600 on DOCP profile.





dlbsyst said:


> Yeah, I read the problems people are having with there RAM over-clocks. The new BIOS works well with my preferred overclock of 3600Mhz geardown disabled and tight timings. I'm happy with it.


Operator error or disgruntled redditors. Just tried for fun, booted just fine with my 3800mhz setup, yet the first complaint is anything over 3400mhz wont cold boot.

Cold booted in 20 seconds too, btw. Boot time from shutdown or restart is super fast now.


Theres also other issues reported there such as multiple PCI-E cards being attatched causing no boot or 5-10 minute post times.... I am using a PCI-E wi-fi adapter and Post time is still super fast for me.


----------



## flyinion

flyinion said:


> I learned one thing about that fancy new power plan. Don't turn it on at least with the 1105 BIOS if you don't have the BIOS settings changed first. You'll hang on reboot at I think B0 (covered by my rad now was hard to see) and have to do a reset to get it to boot. Works fine after the BIOS settings are changed.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



Well, looks like I was wrong. Doesn't seem to be the power plan, seems to just be 1105, and it's code 8d.


----------



## Sam64

My experience by now with 1105 (3900X without using 1usmus plan):

>> Boot time from shutdown or restart is super fast now.
Confirmed

>> ... broken RAM OC settings.
No issues here. My Corsair Dominator 3466CL16 are still running fine with exactly same timings as before at 3733CL16. Just one thing: Not sure about setting VDDG voltage, since it's now VDDG CCD Voltage and VDDG IOD Voltage. I left it on Auto for now...

>> ... virtually no performance difference.
Mainly confirmed. Max core boost behaviour is slighty different, though. Looks like the cores on my better CCD are boosting 25-50Mhz less, whereas the cores on the other CCD are boosting about 25-50Mhz higher using PB1 (not normal PBO)


----------



## Geoff01

*BIOS Update issue V1001 to V1105*

Hi Guys, 
I need a bit of help, I Just came across a problem installing the latest BIOS for my CH8 Hero, from version 1001 to 1105.
I used the USB BIOS Flashback method to update the BIOS. Unfortunately, after the BIOS update, I can’t enter the BIOS setup by pressing “Delete” or “F2”. (I.e. can’t enter UEFI BIOS setting). Has anyone he had this problem and Is there a solution to get into the BIOS setup. Otherwise the computer won’t POST.
Any suggestion to solve the problem would be most appreciated.
My computer system:
ROG CH8 Hero WiFi
AMD Ryzen 3800
AMD Radeon RX5700XT 8G
GSKILL DDR4 3600 – CL17-18-18-38 1.35V
Samsung 970 EVO Plus NVMe M.2 
NZXT Kraken X72
Seasonic PRIME Ultra 850 Platinum
Logitech Ultra-Flat Keyboard


----------



## shilka

I had the same problem with the first C8H i had no matter what keyboard i used and no matter what USB port i used the keyboards in pressing F2 and/or delete did not work
Is there a fix for this?

My replacement board has been shipped and should be ready for pickup next week


----------



## Geoff01

I didn't have this issue with my previous 2 BIOS updates.
Prior to the update my USB ports and keyboards worked perfectly. Hopefully i don't need a new board as i have a work deadline next week.


----------



## dlbsyst

Geoff01 said:


> Hi Guys,
> I need a bit of help, I Just came across a problem installing the latest BIOS for my CH8 Hero, from version 1001 to 1105.
> I used the USB BIOS Flashback method to update the BIOS. Unfortunately, after the BIOS update, I can’t enter the BIOS setup by pressing “Delete” or “F2”. (I.e. can’t enter UEFI BIOS setting). Has anyone he had this problem and Is there a solution to get into the BIOS setup. Otherwise the computer won’t POST.
> Any suggestion to solve the problem would be most appreciated.
> My computer system:
> ROG CH8 Hero WiFi
> AMD Ryzen 3800
> AMD Radeon RX5700XT 8G
> GSKILL DDR4 3600 – CL17-18-18-38 1.35V
> Samsung 970 EVO Plus NVMe M.2
> NZXT Kraken X72
> Seasonic PRIME Ultra 850 Platinum
> Logitech Ultra-Flat Keyboard


Wow, I'm at a loss as to what that could be accept to suggest that you are plugged into the two far left top USB ports on the back. That's were I have my Corsair Strafe MK.2 and M65 Pro mouse plugged in and have never had a problem. Good luck.


----------



## Geoff01

Thanks for the suggestion dlbsyst, unfortunately it didn't work..
Interestingly the Q-Code on the MB is A0. 
I've also tried to clear the CMOS button and also removed the CMOS battery. Still doesn't work..


----------



## dlbsyst

Geoff01 said:


> I didn't have this issue with my previous 2 BIOS updates.
> Prior to the update my USB ports and keyboards worked perfectly. Hopefully i don't need a new board as i have a work deadline next week.


Does it look like power is getting to your keyboard and mouse or are the USB ports totally disabled?


----------



## dlbsyst

Do you have anything plugged into the lower PCI-E slots on your board like a sound card, etc.? Guys on reedit were saying that the new BIOS was causing a super slow bootup of 5-10 minutes.

One more thing is you could always roll back to the 1001 BIOS using BIOS flashback. Hopefully you have it saved to a USB thumb drive and ready to go.


----------



## zoffster1

I have the same A0 issue if I wait about 5 minutes it does eventually boot to windows. Once it does the whole system is super laggy for about 2 minutes and after that it's fine. All my bios settings are default.

No idea how they have broken this update so badly.

CH8Wifi
3800x CPU


----------



## Geoff01

yes power is getting to the keyboard. the LED light(s) is on.


----------



## dlbsyst

zoffster1 said:


> I have the same A0 issue if I wait about 5 minutes it does eventually boot to windows. Once it does the whole system is super laggy for about 2 minutes and after that it's fine. All my bios settings are default.
> 
> No idea how they have broken this update so badly.
> 
> CH8Wifi
> 3800x CPU


I don't know zoffster1? If I was having that problem I would probably roll back to the 1001 BIOS and wait for a fix from Asus.


----------



## Geoff01

to dlbsyst: yes i have a sound card plugged into the lower PCI-E slots..


----------



## shilka

dlbsyst said:


> Wow, I'm at a loss as to what that could be accept to suggest that you are plugged into the two far left top USB ports on the back. That's were I have my Corsair Strafe MK.2 and M65 Pro mouse plugged in and have never had a problem. Good luck.


 I have the same keyboard and i tried all the USB ports and none of them worked
I had to return and RMA the motherboard for a damaged USB 3 header but the board was acting strange from the get go 

At first it would not boot with RAM in slot 2 and 4 only in 1 and 3 then the USB keyboards would not work and then i damaged the USB 3 header
Maybe the board was total FUBAR before i even damaged it?


----------



## Geoff01

not sure if you can roll back to the previous BIOS ver 1001.
From the ASUS website "* You will not be able to downgrade your BIOS after updating to this BIOS version"


----------



## dlbsyst

Geoff01 said:


> not sure if you can roll back to the previous BIOS ver 1001.
> From the ASUS website "* You will not be able to downgrade your BIOS after updating to this BIOS version"


You can Geoff01. That only applies to boards that have no BIOS flash back feature. Sounds like you definitely need to go back to 1001 if you can.


----------



## Geoff01

I'll give it a try and let you know, fingers crossed..


----------



## Adrift98

dlbsyst said:


> I was actually getting lower performance too, at first criznit. Setting Performance enhancer to level 3 (OC) combined with 1usmus power plan seemed to do it for me. All my other settings in BIOS were my usual.


If I set my board to anything higher than level 1 Windows won't start. at level 2 it appears to sit on the Windows flag loading screen, and at level 3 (OC) it doesn't even get that far, I just get a black screen and have to hard boot back into the BIOS in order to change it back to level 1. Anyone experience that yet?


----------



## dlbsyst

Geoff01 said:


> I'll give it a try and let you know, fingers crossed..


Okay.


----------



## dlbsyst

Adrift98 said:


> If I set my board to anything higher than level 1 Windows won't start. at level 2 it appears to sit on the Windows flag loading screen, and at level 3 (OC) it doesn't even get that far, I just get a black screen and have to hard boot back into the BIOS in order to change it back to level 1. Anyone experience that yet?


I would probably just leave that setting on Auto if I was you. Do you also have PBO Enabled? Level 3 (OC) works well for me but it does make my CPU run a little hotter and my fans ramp up more. I'm willing to live with it though for the added performance.


----------



## Geoff01

Thanks dlbsyst, I've got my MB to POST. 
BIOS is now back to V1001.

Thanks for all you help.


----------



## dlbsyst

Geoff01 said:


> Thanks dlbsyst, I've got my MB to POST.
> BIOS is now back to V1001.
> 
> Thanks for all you help.


Your very welcome.:thumb: Love it when I can help fellow enthusiasts. 1001 is a good BIOS so you should be okay until Asus comes out with a fix.


----------



## AStaUK

Seeing a few people saying that the 1.0.0.4 AGESA isn't making any difference in performance, is anyone running this with the Win10 1909 update which is supposed to have improvements so it uses the fastest core?


----------



## Adrift98

dlbsyst said:


> I would probably just leave that setting on Auto if I was you. Do you also have PBO Enabled? Level 3 (OC) works well for me but it does make my CPU run a little hotter and my fans ramp up more. I'm willing to live with it though for the added performance.


Darn. I wanted to join the cool kid club.  Yep, I have PBO enabled. You think it's probably an overheating issue then?


----------



## dlbsyst

Adrift98 said:


> Darn. *I wanted to join the cool kid club*.  Yep, I have PBO enabled. You think it's probably an overheating issue then?


I understand. Yup, it could be that your air cooler can't handle the heat. I have a Deepcool Castle 360EX, which is one of the better AIO's and it still manages to get to about 83C under full load according to HWinfo64. The readout on my motherboard shows 72C though.


----------



## dlbsyst

AStaUK said:


> Seeing a few people saying that the 1.0.0.4 AGESA isn't making any difference in performance, is anyone running this with the Win10 1909 update which is supposed to have improvements so it uses the fastest core?


I'm running Windows 10 1909 and didn't really see any performance improvement with AGESA 1.0.0.4 until I changed PE to level 3 (OC), had on Auto before and plugged in 1usmus power plan.:thumb:


----------



## zoffster1

dlbsyst said:


> I don't know zoffster1? If I was having that problem I would probably roll back to the 1001 BIOS and wait for a fix from Asus.



I will have to do that. This is horrible >_<


----------



## zsoltmol

Let me share my experience as I simply do not understand it...

1001 BIOS, C8H, 3900X, PBO manual, scalar 1x, Auto OC: 0Mhz, Motherboard limits. 4x8GB G.Skill ram at 3733MHz. AMD Ryzen Balanced power plan. Manual CPU and SOC voltage offset -0.01250v, most of the settings are on auto. Everything is rock solid.

1001 with 1.0.0.3 AGESA ABBA:
Cinebench R20 single core: 530-532
Cinebench R20 all core: 7432-7466
AIDA64 latency: 64.0ns
AIDA64 read: 59000 MB/s
AIDA64 write: 56500 MB/s
AIDA64 copy: 62200 MB/s
Idle temp 27-34 celsius
Idle voltage 0.3-0.6v
Idle frequency 3.75Ghz all core

I have created photos from all bios settings, upgraded to 1105, loaded setup defaults after the upgrade, rebooted and manually set up the exact same settings in 1105 as I have used in 1001.

1105 with 1.0.0.4 AGESA Patch B:
Cinebench R20 single core: 515 (3.3% decrease)
Cinebench R20 all core: 6994 (6.6% decrease)
AIDA64 latency: 65.6ns (2.5% increase – eg slower)
AIDA64 read: 56000 MB/s (5.3% decrease)
AIDA64 write: 53500 MB/s (5.6% decrease)
AIDA64 copy: 59000 MB/s (5.4% decrease)
Idle temp 33-41 celsius (22-33% increase)
Idle voltage 0.4-1.1v
Idle frequency 3.75Ghz, but 2 cores are very often boost to 4.3GHz

There was no visible boost behaviour difference in any test for single or all core load.

Then I did a clear CMOS, set up everything again – no improvement
Then reflashed 1105, set up everything again – no improvement
Ram settings are exactly same.

Decided to go back to 1001 (had to use flashback otherwise it says invalid file), manually set up same settings based on my photos.

And everything is back to normal like is was before flashing to 1105. Scores, speed, temps, etc.


----------



## zsoltmol

During load, benchmarks with 1105 there was NO increase on CPU temp at all, even it was lower by 2-3degrees than with 1001 so it is not a thermal issue.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Reikoji said:


> Operator error or disgruntled redditors. Just tried for fun, booted just fine with my 3800mhz setup, yet the first complaint is anything over 3400mhz wont cold boot.
> 
> Cold booted in 20 seconds too, btw. Boot time from shutdown or restart is super fast now.
> 
> 
> Theres also other issues reported there such as multiple PCI-E cards being attatched causing no boot or 5-10 minute post times.... I am using a PCI-E wi-fi adapter and Post time is still super fast for me.


I believe people with sound cards are having issues with the PCI-E.


----------



## criznit

zsoltmol said:


> Let me share my experience as I simply do not understand it...
> 
> 1001 BIOS, C8H, 3900X, PBO manual, scalar 1x, Auto OC: 0Mhz, Motherboard limits. 4x8GB G.Skill ram at 3733MHz. AMD Ryzen Balanced power plan. Manual CPU and SOC voltage offset -0.01250v, most of the settings are on auto. Everything is rock solid.
> 
> 1001 with 1.0.0.3 AGESA ABBA:
> Cinebench R20 single core: 530-532
> Cinebench R20 all core: 7432-7466
> AIDA64 latency: 64.0ns
> AIDA64 read: 59000 MB/s
> AIDA64 write: 56500 MB/s
> AIDA64 copy: 62200 MB/s
> Idle temp 27-34 celsius
> Idle voltage 0.3-0.6v
> Idle frequency 3.75Ghz all core
> 
> I have created photos from all bios settings, upgraded to 1105, loaded setup defaults after the upgrade, rebooted and manually set up the exact same settings in 1105 as I have used in 1001.
> 
> 1105 with 1.0.0.4 AGESA Patch B:
> Cinebench R20 single core: 515 (3.3% decrease)
> Cinebench R20 all core: 6994 (6.6% decrease)
> AIDA64 latency: 65.6ns (2.5% increase – eg slower)
> AIDA64 read: 56000 MB/s (5.3% decrease)
> AIDA64 write: 53500 MB/s (5.6% decrease)
> AIDA64 copy: 59000 MB/s (5.4% decrease)
> Idle temp 33-41 celsius (22-33% increase)
> Idle voltage 0.4-1.1v
> Idle frequency 3.75Ghz, but 2 cores are very often boost to 4.3GHz
> 
> There was no visible boost behaviour difference in any test for single or all core load.
> 
> Then I did a clear CMOS, set up everything again – no improvement
> Then reflashed 1105, set up everything again – no improvement
> Ram settings are exactly same.
> 
> Decided to go back to 1001 (had to use flashback otherwise it says invalid file), manually set up same settings based on my photos.
> 
> And everything is back to normal like is was before flashing to 1105. Scores, speed, temps, etc.


I had this same issue kind of and narrowed it down to the cpu throttling sooner than before. I went in and did a negative offset of .075 and everything is much better now. My CB20 went from 6974-7107 prior to 7300+ for MT.


----------



## rv8000

criznit said:


> I had this same issue kind of and narrowed it down to the cpu throttling sooner than before. I went in and did a negative offset of .075 and everything is much better now. My CB20 went from 6974-7107 prior to 7300+ for MT.


I'm noticing somewhat similar behavior/conclusion. I had my vcore set to auto on both 1001 and 1105, and I noticed with 1105 my cpu is being fed around 20mV more on average at the same exact settings. Aside from the vcore difference all of my performance is within less than a 0.5% difference/margin of error. So basically a vcore adjustment is probably going to be the solution for him as I haven't found any performance differences between the two bios.

1105 is worth everything with the boot time reduction IMO, 8-9 second shorter boot time is a godsend.


----------



## neurotix

Not having the best time with this bios either.

My RAM @ 3800MHz refuses to post, at the same 16-16-16-32-50 timings. I'm fairly certain that I'm setting everything correctly, yet it won't do it. I am possibly missing something but I've changed every Advanced setting, debug voltage, etc. and it hasn't worked yet. Granted, I have only tried a few times, as I had things to do yesterday after I flashed it.

The odd thing is that when it fails, the board immediately hangs on POST code F9 (recovery module routine) as opposed to hanging on 07 (early dram initialization error), 15, or 22, then shutting off and coming back on and hanging on one of those before showing F9. Must have something to do with the faster boot routines.

I'm sure I'll figure it out- I *really* wanted this bios for the faster boot times as I run two OSes, bench (which can crash a lot requiring reboots), etc. I reboot a lot during certain activities. So taking a minor (hopefully temporary to this version) performance hit, but having faster boot times, and shut down time in Win10, is something I'm ok with, but not if I can't run my fantastic dram kit at high speeds.

It doesn't matter if my new/first m.2 drive is demonstrably 4 times faster, if my moms office machine (with my FX-8350, C5H and a 850 Evo SATA) @ stock boots and logs in/finishes loading Win7 in under 10 seconds. The slow post time and shut down time on this setup was just embarrassing.


----------



## flyinion

I think I might use the flashback option if I can figure it out and roll back and see if ASUS puts out a revision. Did some poking around cause that post code I was hanging on during a restart (cold start is fine always). The 8d code isn't in the manual but Google turned up some stuff here from a couple month ago that it's usually an IF issue. I haven't changed the fabric clock at all since I'm not actively overclocking my RAM. It's still just on the DOCP profile like it was on 1001 and FCLK is set to Auto still. Was debating manually setting it to 1800 to match up with my 3600 speed RAM and see if that elminated the 8d POST hang.


----------



## rv8000

neurotix said:


> Not having the best time with this bios either.
> 
> My RAM @ 3800MHz refuses to post, at the same 16-16-16-32-50 timings. I'm fairly certain that I'm setting everything correctly, yet it won't do it. I am possibly missing something but I've changed every Advanced setting, debug voltage, etc. and it hasn't worked yet. Granted, I have only tried a few times, as I had things to do yesterday after I flashed it.
> 
> The odd thing is that when it fails, the board immediately hangs on POST code F9 (recovery module routine) as opposed to hanging on 07 (early dram initialization error), 15, or 22, then shutting off and coming back on and hanging on one of those before showing F9. Must have something to do with the faster boot routines.
> 
> I'm sure I'll figure it out- I *really* wanted this bios for the faster boot times as I run two OSes, bench (which can crash a lot requiring reboots), etc. I reboot a lot during certain activities. So taking a minor (hopefully temporary to this version) performance hit, but having faster boot times, and shut down time in Win10, is something I'm ok with, but not if I can't run my fantastic dram kit at high speeds.
> 
> It doesn't matter if my new/first m.2 drive is demonstrably 4 times faster, if my moms office machine (with my FX-8350, C5H and a 850 Evo SATA) @ stock boots and logs in/finishes loading Win7 in under 10 seconds. The slow post time and shut down time on this setup was just embarrassing.


Are you going from default DDR4 speed to 3800 in one bios change? I noticed this with 1001, no matter what I set 1900 fclk/3800 ddr4, my system would not post no matter what I set when I went from bios defaults straight to my tested stable settings at 3800. I then quickly made a profile with all of the same timings/bios settings but set flclk to 1800 and 3600 ddr4, it posts without issue. Then I restart and simply change the fclk and ddr4 speed back to 1900/3800. I never have any issues after cold boots there after (on both 1001 and 1105 the behavior is identical). Probably some kind of training issue.



flyinion said:


> I think I might use the flashback option if I can figure it out and roll back and see if ASUS puts out a revision. Did some poking around cause that post code I was hanging on during a restart (cold start is fine always). The 8d code isn't in the manual but Google turned up some stuff here from a couple month ago that it's usually an IF issue. I haven't changed the fabric clock at all since I'm not actively overclocking my RAM. It's still just on the DOCP profile like it was on 1001 and FCLK is set to Auto still. Was debating manually setting it to 1800 to match up with my 3600 speed RAM and see if that elminated the 8d POST hang.


You may be having this issue due to bios 1001 changing the voltages for VDDP and VDDG when left at auto and altering PBO settings. I noticed that after changing PBO and leaving VDDG/VDDP at auto the board was automatically setting them as high as 1.1v. There have been changes to the location of these settings in 1105 and consequently ASUS may have changed what the board sets these voltages at if left to auto, and one/both of them can effect IF stability.


----------



## flyinion

rv8000 said:


> You may be having this issue due to bios 1001 changing the voltages for VDDP and VDDG when left at auto and altering PBO settings. I noticed that after changing PBO and leaving VDDG/VDDP at auto the board was automatically setting them as high as 1.1v. There have been changes to the location of these settings in 1105 and consequently ASUS may have changed what the board sets these voltages at if left to auto, and one/both of them can effect IF stability.


HMM I could try setting them manually but I don't know what to set them to or where. There seems to be a ton of settings with 4 letter names in them like that and it gets really confusing since you can hit the search feature and find the same setting in 3 places sometimes.


----------



## rv8000

flyinion said:


> HMM I could try setting them manually but I don't know what to set them to or where. There seems to be a ton of settings with 4 letter names in them like that and it gets really confusing since you can hit the search feature and find the same setting in 3 places sometimes.


They're in the main tweaking menu underneath vcore and vsoc on bios 1105 (not entirely sure if theyre still split into a secondary CLDO_VDDP/VDDG in the bios somewhere else). I currently have my VDDG set to 1.00v and my VDDP set to 0.950v. Do not exceed 1.05v on either of these.

You may want to adjust your vSOC voltage as well, afaik too much voltage can be detrimental to IF stability. I currently have my set to 1.06875 in bios @ 1900 FCLK


----------



## flyinion

rv8000 said:


> They're in the main tweaking menu underneath vcore and vsoc on bios 1105 (not entirely sure if theyre still split into a secondary CLDO_VDDP/VDDG in the bios somewhere else). I currently have my VDDG set to 1.00v and my VDDP set to 0.950v. Do not exceed 1.05v on either of these.
> 
> You may want to adjust your vSOC voltage as well, afaik too much voltage can be detrimental to IF stability. I currently have my set to 1.06875 in bios @ 1900 FCLK


Thanks!! I'll give that a try this evening before trying to flash back to 1001 and see if it fixed the warm boot issue. I remember now people having 8d issues in the beginning and I never did so I figured I was good. So it's unfortunate that I'm getting them now.


----------



## zsoltmol

I still think it is unacceptable that 1105 behaves in my case it did (see above), this is not a beta bios AFAIK, manually setting those few basic parameters and leaving all the rest on auto should not have such performance decrease compared to a non overclocked settings status with 1001 bios.

One more thing I recall with 1105 when I was manually setting up my PWM fan profile and wanted to set 92% PWM for the top temperature point instead of default 100% it only accepted for the third attempt. First two attempts via keyboard input automatically changed 92% (or any other below 100) in half a second to the default 100%.


----------



## Reikoji

KingEngineRevUp said:


> I believe people with sound cards are having issues with the PCI-E.


I guess I should see if I still have an old sound blaster lying around  or get one. Sound cards in my experience have always been a bit weird with their assignments in the system. If they haven't disabled on-board sound while using them, they might want to try that.


----------



## schnebdreleg

So.. where did the cldo_vddg setting go ?  I can't find it in the new version of the bios. There are some other vddg settings, but I do not know, which one is the old cldo one


----------



## neurotix

flyinion said:


> I think I might use the flashback option if I can figure it out and roll back and see if ASUS puts out a revision. Did some poking around cause that post code I was hanging on during a restart (cold start is fine always). The 8d code isn't in the manual but Google turned up some stuff here from a couple month ago that it's usually an IF issue. I haven't changed the fabric clock at all since I'm not actively overclocking my RAM. It's still just on the DOCP profile like it was on 1001 and FCLK is set to Auto still. Was debating manually setting it to 1800 to match up with my 3600 speed RAM and see if that elminated the 8d POST hang.





rv8000 said:


> Are you going from default DDR4 speed to 3800 in one bios change? I noticed this with 1001, no matter what I set 1900 fclk/3800 ddr4, my system would not post no matter what I set when I went from bios defaults straight to my tested stable settings at 3800. I then quickly made a profile with all of the same timings/bios settings but set flclk to 1800 and 3600 ddr4, it posts without issue. Then I restart and simply change the fclk and ddr4 speed back to 1900/3800. I never have any issues after cold boots there after (on both 1001 and 1105 the behavior is identical). Probably some kind of training issue..


1st guy: Yes, 8d is Fclk related. I saw this a lot when originally getting this setup, trying to overclock to 3800/1900, and not using Thaiphoon Burner properly (and trying to do a V1 profile in Ryzen DRAM Calc with the built-in profile). This resulted in way too aggressive timings for my kit, which is only a 3200c14 kit. Consequently, I would fail to post and usually see 07, 15, 22, and eventually a hang on an 8d code no beeps. Rebooting would give me 8d~F9 and beeps and then the board would reboot and proceed with F9 recovery procedures, resulting in the board posting in safe mode @ stock settings.

I have also given up and gone back to 1001 via usb flashback. Maybe I'll rma this board and get an MSI. This bos and whole experience has been a dumpster fire, hot trash. I've used nothing but ASUS boards since 2008 and ROG since 2011 and never had such a horrible, buggy experience, the bios layout is bad (put all the relevant AMD CBS settings from Ryzen DRAM Calculator in Tweakers Paradise!, still can't find Boot DRAM Voltage anywhere, DRAM VRef Channel A/B is broken in Tweakers Paradise and wont increase above 0.600v, many more issues). I paid for a premium product that is $50-100 above competitors boards yet the bios and support and being behind other vendors bios releases makes me feel like I purchased a $50 Biostar Micro ATX board or something. Even my still running Crosshair V Hero from 2011 has and always had a functional bios with a much better layout- and that was FX, when no one cared about AMD and the boards and bios had about 1/8th the effort put in as Intel boards got. This reminds me of that. The other vendors are doing it right from what I can tell...

My rig will. not. post. at the exact same settings for 3800/1900 c16 and just the other day I was running 3800 cas14 and I've also done 4066/1866 @ cas16. With this new bios, when rebooting with all settings identical I get an instant F9 post code (starting recovery module), I don't see 00-09 even, it doesn't freeze on 07, 15 or 22 codes before showing F9, the board is literally going to recovery options right away. I tried the normal manual oc fast profile and the slow junk "safe" profile and both immediately show F9. I think it might have something to do with 1) cLDO_VDDG being seperated into 2 settings, 2) PCI-E 4.0 nvme drives (Is the 970 Evo compatible even? Dont think so) and VDD_SoC above 1.1v (which I set, and noticed if you turn on D.O.C.P. it warns you about increasing SoC voltage above that corrupting 4.0 NVMe drives but again, I dont think mine supports 4.0 anyway) or 3) Overvolting DRAM (at 1.4+ my memory requires, the voltage control turns purple.) Ive used ROG boards for a long time and generally safe voltage is white, high but safe is yellow, possibly dangerous over time or on air is purple, and LN2/you could destroy your hardware is red. That color highlighting for voltage controls makes its appearance in this new bios, yet every other ROG board I ever bought had it when I got the board, even on low bios versions. Just goes to prove quality control is slipping and the C8H series was rushed!

Either way, yes, any redditors or people saying the memory overclocking is broken are most likely correct- my board isn't even going through normal dram training at all, even for just 3-4 seconds before failing- it is literally instantly spitting out F9 and not even trying on boot. This bios is broken. Take it from someone who had 40 gold cups on hwbot at one point despite never using LN2

2nd guy: thanks for your advice. No, I went from 3200/1600 directly to 3800/1900 and did not try 3600/1800 first. Because of my aggressive activities/benching this is not an acceptable solution to me, as I have to reset cmos often while testing different memory speeds. I am not willing to gradually increase fclk every time, through 3 steps. It is still good information though, rep+


----------



## Reikoji

neurotix said:


> 1st guy: Yes, 8d is Fclk related. I saw this a lot when originally getting this setup, trying to overclock to 3800/1900, and not using Thaiphoon Burner properly (and trying to do a V1 profile in Ryzen DRAM Calc with the built-in profile). This resulted in way too aggressive timings for my kit, which is only a 3200c14 kit. Consequently, I would fail to post and usually see 07, 15, 22, and eventually a hang on an 8d code no beeps. Rebooting would give me 8d~F9 and beeps and then the board would reboot and proceed with F9 recovery procedures, resulting in the board posting in safe mode @ stock settings.
> 
> I have also given up and gone back to 1001 via usb flashback. Maybe I'll rma this board and get an MSI. This bos and whole experience has been a dumpster fire, hot trash. I've used nothing but ASUS boards since 2008 and ROG since 2011 and never had such a horrible, buggy experience, the bios layout is bad (put all the relevant AMD CBS settings from Ryzen DRAM Calculator in Tweakers Paradise!, still can't find Boot DRAM Voltage anywhere, DRAM VRef Channel A/B is broken in Tweakers Paradise and wont increase above 0.600v, many more issues). I paid for a premium product that is $50-100 above competitors boards yet the bios and support and being behind other vendors bios releases makes me feel like I purchased a $50 Biostar Micro ATX board or something. Even my still running Crosshair V Hero from 2011 has and always had a functional bios with a much better layout- and that was FX, when no one cared about AMD and the boards and bios had about 1/8th the effort put in as Intel boards got. This reminds me of that. The other vendors are doing it right from what I can tell...
> 
> My rig will. not. post. at the exact same settings for 3800/1900 c16 and just the other day I was running 3800 cas14 and I've also done 4066/1866 @ cas16. With this new bios, when rebooting with all settings identical I get an instant F9 post code (starting recovery module), I don't see 00-09 even, it doesn't freeze on 07, 15 or 22 codes before showing F9, the board is literally going to recovery options right away. I tried the normal manual oc fast profile and the slow junk "safe" profile and both immediately show F9. I think it might have something to do with 1) cLDO_VDDG being seperated into 2 settings, 2) PCI-E 4.0 nvme drives (Is the 970 Evo compatible even? Dont think so) and VDD_SoC above 1.1v (which I set, and noticed if you turn on D.O.C.P. it warns you about increasing SoC voltage above that corrupting 4.0 NVMe drives but again, I dont think mine supports 4.0 anyway) or 3) Overvolting DRAM (at 1.4+ my memory requires, the voltage control turns purple.) Ive used ROG boards for a long time and generally safe voltage is white, high but safe is yellow, possibly dangerous over time or on air is purple, and LN2/you could destroy your hardware is red. That color highlighting for voltage controls makes its appearance in this new bios, yet every other ROG board I ever bought had it when I got the board, even on low bios versions. Just goes to prove quality control is slipping and the C8H series was rushed!
> 
> Either way, yes, any redditors or people saying the memory overclocking is broken are most likely correct- my board isn't even going through normal dram training at all, even for just 3-4 seconds before failing- it is literally instantly spitting out F9 and not even trying on boot. This bios is broken. Take it from someone who had 40 gold cups on hwbot at one point despite never using LN2
> 
> 2nd guy: thanks for your advice. No, I went from 3200/1600 directly to 3800/1900 and did not try 3600/1800 first. Because of my aggressive activities/benching this is not an acceptable solution to me, as I have to reset cmos often while testing different memory speeds. I am not willing to gradually increase fclk every time, through 3 steps. It is still good information though, rep+


You didn't get scared of the purple color and back off did you? I left my vdimm at the 1.49v it was before, purple or not. CCD VDDG and IOD VDDG turn yellow at 1v, but thats what I use (they are both at 0.950 right now, to test). Not too much has changed for me. Maybe .4ns lower ram latency and .3ns lower L3 cache latency (corrected after looking at a before picture!)


----------



## rv8000

neurotix said:


> 1st guy: Yes, 8d is Fclk related. I saw this a lot when originally getting this setup, trying to overclock to 3800/1900, and not using Thaiphoon Burner properly (and trying to do a V1 profile in Ryzen DRAM Calc with the built-in profile). This resulted in way too aggressive timings for my kit, which is only a 3200c14 kit. Consequently, I would fail to post and usually see 07, 15, 22, and eventually a hang on an 8d code no beeps. Rebooting would give me 8d~F9 and beeps and then the board would reboot and proceed with F9 recovery procedures, resulting in the board posting in safe mode @ stock settings.
> 
> I have also given up and gone back to 1001 via usb flashback. Maybe I'll rma this board and get an MSI. This bos and whole experience has been a dumpster fire, hot trash. I've used nothing but ASUS boards since 2008 and ROG since 2011 and never had such a horrible, buggy experience, the bios layout is bad (put all the relevant AMD CBS settings from Ryzen DRAM Calculator in Tweakers Paradise!, still can't find Boot DRAM Voltage anywhere, DRAM VRef Channel A/B is broken in Tweakers Paradise and wont increase above 0.600v, many more issues). I paid for a premium product that is $50-100 above competitors boards yet the bios and support and being behind other vendors bios releases makes me feel like I purchased a $50 Biostar Micro ATX board or something. Even my still running Crosshair V Hero from 2011 has and always had a functional bios with a much better layout- and that was FX, when no one cared about AMD and the boards and bios had about 1/8th the effort put in as Intel boards got. This reminds me of that. The other vendors are doing it right from what I can tell...
> 
> My rig will. not. post. at the exact same settings for 3800/1900 c16 and just the other day I was running 3800 cas14 and I've also done 4066/1866 @ cas16. With this new bios, when rebooting with all settings identical I get an instant F9 post code (starting recovery module), I don't see 00-09 even, it doesn't freeze on 07, 15 or 22 codes before showing F9, the board is literally going to recovery options right away. I tried the normal manual oc fast profile and the slow junk "safe" profile and both immediately show F9. I think it might have something to do with 1) cLDO_VDDG being seperated into 2 settings, 2) PCI-E 4.0 nvme drives (Is the 970 Evo compatible even? Dont think so) and VDD_SoC above 1.1v (which I set, and noticed if you turn on D.O.C.P. it warns you about increasing SoC voltage above that corrupting 4.0 NVMe drives but again, I dont think mine supports 4.0 anyway) or 3) Overvolting DRAM (at 1.4+ my memory requires, the voltage control turns purple.) Ive used ROG boards for a long time and generally safe voltage is white, high but safe is yellow, possibly dangerous over time or on air is purple, and LN2/you could destroy your hardware is red. That color highlighting for voltage controls makes its appearance in this new bios, yet every other ROG board I ever bought had it when I got the board, even on low bios versions. Just goes to prove quality control is slipping and the C8H series was rushed!
> 
> Either way, yes, any redditors or people saying the memory overclocking is broken are most likely correct- my board isn't even going through normal dram training at all, even for just 3-4 seconds before failing- it is literally instantly spitting out F9 and not even trying on boot. This bios is broken. Take it from someone who had 40 gold cups on hwbot at one point despite never using LN2
> 
> 2nd guy: thanks for your advice. No, I went from 3200/1600 directly to 3800/1900 and did not try 3600/1800 first. Because of my aggressive activities/benching this is not an acceptable solution to me, as I have to reset cmos often while testing different memory speeds. I am not willing to gradually increase fclk every time, through 3 steps. It is still good information though, rep+


You do not have to gradually increase FCLK/DDR4 Frequency every time, it's just the first boot setting it to 1800/3600, and then the second boot back up to 1900/3800 and then there after I have no issues with cold boots.

It may be worth looking at boot voltages for vdimm and vtt, but for now this seems to be a simple work around as there definitely seems to be some sort of issue.


----------



## kot0005

Uhh 2 months of wait for a ****e BIOS... gj Asus, AMD..


----------



## neurotix

Reikoji said:


> You didn't get scared of the purple color and back off did you? I left my vdimm at the 1.49v it was before, purple or not. CCD VDDG and IOD VDDG turn yellow at 1v, but thats what I use (they are both at 0.950 right now, to test). Not too much has changed for me. Maybe .4ns lower ram latency and .3ns lower L3 cache latency (corrected after looking at a before picture!)


https://hwbot.org/submission/2497008_neurotix_cpu_frequency_fx_8350_5217_mhz

No I didn't get scared because of purple voltage, that there was red voltage, lol. 1.6+ vcore for that. I ran it at similar voltage for 5GHz for over a year

Also, Ill try what was stated by rv8000 about hitting 3600/1800 first. Thanks.


----------



## polyh3dron

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one with issues after installing this latest BIOS. I too feel like I spent a TON of money on a motherboard that feels like a cheapo (the Crosshair VIII Formula). Since I don't have the box for it anymore, I'm guessing I can't really get my money back for it. I'd really like to rip up my whole build and put in an ASRock Aqua at this point.


----------



## flyinion

rv8000 said:


> They're in the main tweaking menu underneath vcore and vsoc on bios 1105 (not entirely sure if theyre still split into a secondary CLDO_VDDP/VDDG in the bios somewhere else). I currently have my VDDG set to 1.00v and my VDDP set to 0.950v. Do not exceed 1.05v on either of these.
> 
> You may want to adjust your vSOC voltage as well, afaik too much voltage can be detrimental to IF stability. I currently have my set to 1.06875 in bios @ 1900 FCLK


Hey so I just gave this a try. Haven't tried a restart yet since booting into windows. Just want to make sure I changed the right stuff. There were two VDDG settings one for the CCD and one for the IOD and I set them both from Auto to .95 and then the VDDP entry below it to 950 (doesn't take a period mark). I did not change the SoC voltage (the one right under CPU core voltage right?) but I noticed on auto it runs around 1.088V vs your 1.06875. Is that too high on auto? FCLK is on Auto still but should be at 1800 to match my DDR4-3600 (and is when verified in Windows).

Edit: Two restarts in a row with no issues, so just want to verify if my SoC voltage seems ok or not before I decide whether to leave 1105 in place for a bit or roll back to 1001.


----------



## rv8000

flyinion said:


> Hey so I just gave this a try. Haven't tried a restart yet since booting into windows. Just want to make sure I changed the right stuff. There were two VDDG settings one for the CCD and one for the IOD and I set them both from Auto to .95 and then the VDDP entry below it to 950 (doesn't take a period mark). I did not change the SoC voltage (the one right under CPU core voltage right?) but I noticed on auto it runs around 1.088V vs your 1.06875. Is that too high on auto? FCLK is on Auto still but should be at 1800 to match my DDR4-3600 (and is when verified in Windows).
> 
> Edit: Two restarts in a row with no issues, so just want to verify if my SoC voltage seems ok or not before I decide whether to leave 1105 in place for a bit or roll back to 1001.


Your vSOC voltage is fine. Pretty sure AMD stated max is 1.2v


----------



## Adrift98

dlbsyst said:


> I understand. Yup, it could be that your air cooler can't handle the heat. I have a Deepcool Castle 360EX, which is one of the better AIO's and it still manages to get to about 83C under full load according to HWinfo64. The readout on my motherboard shows 72C though.


Well, I did a bit more testing, and I had previously turned off my Global C-state Control based on advice elsewhere. Turning that back on apparently got Windows to boot under the other Performance profiles, so I'm back in the club it looks like.


----------



## flyinion

rv8000 said:


> Your vSOC voltage is fine. Pretty sure AMD stated max is 1.2v


Great, so it sounds like I'm good then. Did it look like I got the right items for the VDDG and VDDP voltages? Thanks again for the tips. Really didn't want to roll back unless I had to since this was the only issue I was having and things were fine once booted up.


----------



## neurotix

rv8000 said:


> You do not have to gradually increase FCLK/DDR4 Frequency every time, it's just the first boot setting it to 1800/3600, and then the second boot back up to 1900/3800 and then there after I have no issues with cold boots.
> 
> It may be worth looking at boot voltages for vdimm and vtt, but for now this seems to be a simple work around as there definitely seems to be some sort of issue.



I'm back on bios 1001 and back at 3800/1900 c16.

I might try again later today, because the boot times were a huge improvement for me. Where is Boot DRAM Voltage (boot vdimm??) I've never been able to find it, either in Tweakers Paradise or Advanced -> AMD Overclocking or AMD CBS.

I don't see a boot VTT_DDR either. Only VDIMM seems to be right at the bottom of Extreme Tweaker and VTT_DDR in Tweakers Paradise

Thanks.


----------



## rv8000

neurotix said:


> I'm back on bios 1001 and back at 3800/1900 c16.
> 
> I might try again later today, because the boot times were a huge improvement for me. Where is Boot DRAM Voltage (boot vdimm??) I've never been able to find it, either in Tweakers Paradise or Advanced -> AMD Overclocking or AMD CBS.
> 
> I don't see a boot VTT_DDR either. Only VDIMM seems to be right at the bottom of Extreme Tweaker and VTT_DDR in Tweakers Paradise
> 
> Thanks.


I could've sworn they had a boot voltage for vdimm, but I may be going crazy as I cannot find it. Might be thinking of my Z390 Dark bios


----------



## neurotix

Yep I've looked and looked and theres no Boot DRAM Voltage anywhere.

I had no trouble finding every setting (BGS_Alt, Interleave Size, OpCache, L1/L2 HW Stream Prefetcher, etc.) from Ryzen DRAM Calculator, but Boot DRAM Voltage is nowhere to be found. Unless regular DRAM Voltage from Extreme Tweaker applies that voltage on boot, making it redundant.


----------



## zsoltmol

There was an article today on Anandtech regarding 3950x and it was mentioned in it some motherboard manufacturers released 1.0.0.4 Patch based on a beta variant and not based on final 1.0.0.4 B. Often this small tidbit is not mentioned in the bios files. No manufacturers were named or hinted on.

I wonder our version is beta or not.
I still do not know what was my issue and how I can get around it.


----------



## shilka

So i got a new motherboard and i think this board is broken too if we put RAM in slot 1 or 2 the board gives 0d error but slot 3 and 4 are fine

Is this another broken motherboard or is there a way to fix this?
It seems like the first two RAM slots are broken


----------



## Krisztias

rv8000 said:


> I could've sworn they had a boot voltage for vdimm, but I may be going crazy as I cannot find it. Might be thinking of my Z390 Dark bios


On the last 3 BIOS versions wasn't option for that. It's better this way, vdimm is your vboot voltage for memory.


----------



## Krisztias

shilka said:


> So i got a new motherboard and i think this board is broken too if we put RAM in slot 1 or 2 the board gives 0d error but slot 3 and 4 are fine
> 
> Is this another broken motherboard or is there a way to fix this?
> It seems like the first two RAM slots are broken


What happens, when you put only one memory stick in the 2nd slot? You can't be so unlucky, that you get a faulty replacement board... maybe one of your RAM stick is dead? Dont forget: A2-B2 for two modules.


----------



## shilka

Its the slots A1 and A2 works B1 and B2 are FUBAR and we tried with my old RAM same thing the board is FUBAR and i am fed up i am returning this POS board and i will be asking for a X570 Stix F instead its good enough and way cheaper

Same with the CPU i will be getting a 3600x instead its good enough and same with the RAM 3000 Mhz is good enugh 

Overpriced crap motherboard!


----------



## OneCosmic

How can i improve multicore clocks/boost without using manual multipler or CCX overclocking? 

I want to retain high single core boost which gives me about 213cb single core in CB R15 but with PBO enabled or disabled my clocks are only about 4100-4150MHz during CB R15 multicore run and Tdie temps are only about ~70C and all power limits are far from 100% in Ryzen Master - cooled by EK Velocity and 20C coolant temperature, kryonaut thermal paste.

Lates AGESA 1.0.0.4 ASUS Crosshair VIII Hero BIOS from ASUS website, behavior was the same with all the BIOSes since release, latest AMD Chipset drivers, 1smus power profile, Windows 1909 build but 1903 was the same with all latest updates.


----------



## neurotix

shilka said:


> Its the slots A1 and A2 works B1 and B2 are FUBAR and we tried with my old RAM same thing the board is FUBAR and i am fed up i am returning this POS board and i will be asking for a X570 Stix F instead its good enough and way cheaper
> 
> Same with the CPU i will be getting a 3600x instead its good enough and same with the RAM 3000 Mhz is good enugh
> 
> Overpriced crap motherboard!



shilka, hey buddy. I posted in the anime club..

Asus uses a Daisy Chain layout for this board, instead of T-Topology. You have to put the DIMMs in A2 and B2- check the manual. I believe they are silk-screened with a * on the board. Its pretty odd but with two sticks they don't go in slot 1 and 3, I think its 2 and 4, but I'd have to check.

Try that and see if it helps.

Regards

edit: yeah just checked its slot 2 and 4, going from the cpu on the left


----------



## shilka

neurotix said:


> shilka, hey buddy. I posted in the anime club..
> 
> Asus uses a Daisy Chain layout for this board, instead of T-Topology. You have to put the DIMMs in A2 and B2- check the manual. I believe they are silk-screened with a * on the board. Its pretty odd but with two sticks they don't go in slot 1 and 3, I think its 2 and 4, but I'd have to check.
> 
> Try that and see if it helps.
> 
> Regards
> 
> edit: yeah just checked its slot 2 and 4, going from the cpu on the left


 The first two slots dont work no matter what we tried 6 RAM sticks both single and dual none of them worked only the last two slots worked and you cant run dual channel with the last two slots
The board is just FUBAR and we spent hours trying to get it working before rage quiting


----------



## flyinion

shilka said:


> The first two slots dont work no matter what we tried 6 RAM sticks both single and dual none of them worked only the last two slots worked and you cant run dual channel with the last two slots
> The board is just FUBAR and we spent hours trying to get it working before rage quiting


I might have missed it, have you tried the CPU in a different brand/model of board to see if it works there? Just wondering if maybe the memory controller in the CPU has an issue since it's persisting through multiple Hero boards and RAM modules.


----------



## shilka

flyinion said:


> I might have missed it, have you tried the CPU in a different brand/model of board to see if it works there? Just wondering if maybe the memory controller in the CPU has an issue since it's persisting through multiple Hero boards and RAM modules.


 Its not the CPU it works fine i think the first board had a broken USB header it had no RAM problems
I am not getting a third board i will be asking for something else and no sory i dont have any other AMD board to test the CPU with but i think the CPU is fine


----------



## centvalny

https://issuu.com/theoverclocker/do...MMZ2GrPxOsfd-ksvCMpAY_p0p3n4ExCor5hiWbMJbyGek


----------



## flyinion

shilka said:


> Its not the CPU it works fine i think the first board had a broken USB header it had no RAM problems
> I am not getting a third board i will be asking for something else and no sory i dont have any other AMD board to test the CPU with but i think the CPU is fine


Ah ok I misunderstood, I thought previous boards had memory issues as well.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

AMD's official post about AGESA 1.0.0.4

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/dtgutp/an_update_on_the_am4_platform_agesa_1004

Not really much in there. AMD Robert was checking in periodically and was helping with some Q&A. 

Apparently there is no chipset driver and power plan to come with this AGESA release. 

So sounds like 1usmus power plan it is.

Did anyone have any luck finding all the recommended 1usmus bios settings for our boards?


----------



## owcraftsman

shilka said:


> The first two slots dont work no matter what we tried 6 RAM sticks both single and dual none of them worked only the last two slots worked and you cant run dual channel with the last two slots
> The board is just FUBAR and we spent hours trying to get it working before rage quiting


It appears you are quite familiar with all this however let me take a poke at the situation and if I bore you please ignore.
You may need to clear the RTC RAM on the board.
Step 1 clear UEFI remove pwr to PSU take board battery out press and hold the reset button followed by pressing and holding the start button on the motherboard at the same time for 30 seconds.

Step 2 Now press and hold for 15 sec the bios button on the rear I/O panel this will clear the RTC RAM

Note this may be a good time to reflash the bios from the rear I/O. I have no idea which one you have currently flashed, so you should decide which one to use. Either way, move on to step 3 I also have no idea which board you have but if it's the HERO refer to 2.2 of your manual if not familiar with the process. 

Step 3 Load A2 with one of your sticks put the battery back and add power to PSU then boot to Bios to Load Optimized Defaults and save and exit.

If you are not able to boot to bios try another stick if all sticks don't work RMA or return the mobo

Step 4 now repeat step 3 with each remaining sticks you intend to use each time booting to bios loading defaults is optional at this point we just want to ensure all modules are functional and not corrupting the RTC.

If all sticks pass it's time to move on to step 5 otherwise RMA the bad sticks. 

Step 5 Assuming you are able to do the above shut down and add 2nd stick to B2 and boot to bios load optimized defaults and save and exit to windows check to see if running in dual-channel.

If not running dual-channel return the mobo. otherwise, move to step 6 

Step 6 Assuming all sticks are exactly the same and step 5 went well populate all slots and boot to bios and load Opt Defaults again 

Boot to windows and check Dual channel again if all is well now you can try XMP if the sticks are on the QVL list or whatever if not. I like Dram Calculator 

In any case, I hope this helps and I did not offend your sensibilities. IMHO it's worth a shot. GL


----------



## Reikoji

KingEngineRevUp said:


> AMD's official post about AGESA 1.0.0.4
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/dtgutp/an_update_on_the_am4_platform_agesa_1004
> 
> Not really much in there. AMD Robert was checking in periodically and was helping with some Q&A.
> 
> Apparently there is no chipset driver and power plan to come with this AGESA release.
> 
> So sounds like 1usmus power plan it is.
> 
> Did anyone have any luck finding all the recommended 1usmus bios settings for our boards?


IDK if I trust that name...

Cool 'n Quiet, and the two others are pretty hidden.


----------



## usoldier

Reikoji said:


> IDK if I trust that name...
> 
> Cool 'n Quiet, and the two others are pretty hidden.


Where are they i cant seam to find it, i wanted to check out this power plan thing


----------



## knightriot

Reikoji said:


> IDK if I trust that name...
> 
> Cool 'n Quiet, and the two others are pretty hidden.


in c8f , i think cnq = Dfcstate


----------



## dlbsyst

I played around with the 1105 BIOS but ultimately went back to 1001. The 1105 just seems buggy and made my Windows 10 version 1909 unstable. I actually got a blu-screen and reboot watching a video. Also seems to run hotter with no real performance improvement and my fans would ramp up practically in idle. For now 1001 is the better BIOS IMO.


----------



## kazablanka

OneCosmic said:


> How can i improve multicore clocks/boost without using manual multipler or CCX overclocking?
> 
> I want to retain high single core boost which gives me about 213cb single core in CB R15 but with PBO enabled or disabled my clocks are only about 4100-4150MHz during CB R15 multicore run and Tdie temps are only about ~70C and all power limits are far from 100% in Ryzen Master - cooled by EK Velocity and 20C coolant temperature, kryonaut thermal paste.
> 
> Lates AGESA 1.0.0.4 ASUS Crosshair VIII Hero BIOS from ASUS website, behavior was the same with all the BIOSes since release, latest AMD Chipset drivers, 1smus power profile, Windows 1909 build but 1903 was the same with all latest updates.



try set load line calibration to llc1 
pbo advanced
limits manual 
ppt 1000
tdc 255
edc140
scalar x10


----------



## AStaUK

I know for optimal performance the memory frequency and FSB ratio should be 1:1, I’ve manually set my FSB to 1800 and DRAM frequency to 3600 but CPUz shows it as 3:54, should I be worried or is this just a result of the frequencies not quite being 1800/3600?


----------



## kazablanka

AStaUK said:


> I know for optimal performance the memory frequency and FSB ratio should be 1:1, I’ve manually set my FSB to 1800 and DRAM frequency to 3600 but CPUz shows it as 3:54, should I be worried or is this just a result of the frequencies not quite being 1800/3600?


Dont bother you this reading the only thing that you have to have in mind is FCLK that you have set 1800mhz in bios to have the same frequency with Ram (memclk) and imc speed (uclk)


----------



## AStaUK

kazablanka said:


> Dont bother you this reading the only thing that you have to have in mind is FCLK that you have set 1800mhz in bios to have the same frequency with Ram (memclk) and imc speed (uclk)


Thanks for the reply. And my bad, I’m saying FSB when I had meant FCLK.


----------



## SeeGee

I had my 3200 ram running like a dream @3600 and now it won't boot anything faster than 3200... Really not happy with the 1105 bios. That makes an overall decrease in performance.


----------



## neurotix

So I switched back to the latest 1105 bios after making profiles on 1004. I really need the faster boot times. Win10 still loads slow because its Windows 10 (/insert camera). Bios post is very quick and GNU GRUB loads immediately. Linux is ready to log into in gee, under 10 seconds after a reboot.

Anyway, @rv8000 I owe you some rep. The method you told me worked for me as well- loaded a 3600c14 profile I made on the old bios, it booted at 1800 fclk, then I fixed a few things wrong with it that weren't in the old bios profile I saved (like CSM being on wth).

Then I manually set timings for 3800/1900, all the AMD CBS stuff was already set. Tweakers Paradise debug voltages like VPP_MEM, VTT_DDR were set from the old bios profile, as was DRAM ratio tuning. All the timings and termination impedances were remembered as well. cLDO_VDDG IOP needed to be set.

It posted and is running fine but I need to run memtest in DRAM Calc to check stability, timings in sig.

So, yeah, it had to post successfully at 3600/1800 before going to 3800/1900. Worked for me, I'm happy now. A bug in the IF training? DRAM/fabric negotiation? No idea

So, rv8000 (was that the HD 4870 iirc?) I owe you more than one rep, I think. Thanks.


----------



## rv8000

neurotix said:


> So I switched back to the latest 1105 bios after making profiles on 1004. I really need the faster boot times. Win10 still loads slow because its Windows 10 (/insert camera). Bios post is very quick and GNU GRUB loads immediately. Linux is ready to log into in gee, under 10 seconds after a reboot.
> 
> Anyway, @rv8000 I owe you some rep. The method you told me worked for me as well- loaded a 3600c14 profile I made on the old bios, it booted at 1800 fclk, then I fixed a few things wrong with it that weren't in the old bios profile I saved (like CSM being on wth).
> 
> Then I manually set timings for 3800/1900, all the AMD CBS stuff was already set. Tweakers Paradise debug voltages like VPP_MEM, VTT_DDR were set from the old bios profile, as was DRAM ratio tuning. All the timings and termination impedances were remembered as well. cLDO_VDDG IOP needed to be set.
> 
> It posted and is running fine but I need to run memtest in DRAM Calc to check stability, timings in sig.
> 
> So, yeah, it had to post successfully at 3600/1800 before going to 3800/1900. Worked for me, I'm happy now. A bug in the IF training? DRAM/fabric negotiation? No idea
> 
> So, rv8000 (was that the HD 4870 iirc?) I owe you more than one rep, I think. Thanks.


Glad you got it working :thumb:

My best guess would be something to do with memory training, hopefully it'll be ironed out in later bios.


----------



## neurotix

Probably.

I've observed decreased multithread in Cinebench R20 but tbh the boot and shutdown time is so much better, I can live with it. But I really wouldn't question anyone claiming that they cannot oc their memory on this new bios.


----------



## SeeGee

Yeah, after extensive attempts, my micron ram won't boot with anything other than docp profile. Can't even tighten the timings at stock 3200mhz. I need the speed more than I care about boot times. I want to run it, not reboot it. Sigh.


----------



## flyinion

Hey guys question about tuning RAM. I've started on this now that a weird random reboot instability that seemed to have been a bad Windows update or something has resolved itself (started around the first time I tried to do RAM timings so I rolled back thinking it was that and never tried again). I used the Calculator and put stuff in the main memory timings pages under extreme tweaker, and also searched and found the two bankgroup swap options which were elsewhere. I also noticed there is another page of timing under "memory overclocking" or something like that in the AMD menus "AMD CBS" etc. don't remember which of the two it was offhand CBS or PBS. Anyway, just wondering should I be changing them there as well? I've never had a BIOS have the same settings in 2-3 places before so I really don't know what to do about that.

HWINFO seems to confirm my timings have taken and the Safe timings seem stable so far. So now it's time for the "Fast" timings and beyond, just want to make sure I'm changing things in the right spots first.


----------



## Sam64

SeeGee said:


> Yeah, after extensive attempts, my micron ram won't boot with anything other than docp profile. Can't even tighten the timings at stock 3200mhz. I need the speed more than I care about boot times. I want to run it, not reboot it. Sigh.



You got a Corsair Dominator 3200 RGB kit? Shouldn't these be Samsung B-Die? My Dominator Platinum RGB 3466 kit is definitely Samsung B-Die, running fine on 1105 with 3733CL16 1.40v (Fast Timings from 1usmus DRAM-Calc) Wish i could go to CL14 though.


----------



## rv8000

SeeGee said:


> Yeah, after extensive attempts, my micron ram won't boot with anything other than docp profile. Can't even tighten the timings at stock 3200mhz. I need the speed more than I care about boot times. I want to run it, not reboot it. Sigh.


There are certain secondary/tertiary timings that will cause my system to not post. I don't have my logs in front of me but, if left on auto there is a timing that sets each channel to a different number, if I do anything but leave the timing value at auto my system won't post. (I'll update the post when I get back home with the specific timing).

Best practice I've found when overclocking memory/tightening timings on this board is to manually adjust your primary timings, trc, tras, CR, and trfc. Leave everything else at auto and leave the board to do the memory training. If it posts test for stability, then go back for secondary and tertiary timings while keeping track of everything. Randomly changing timings and voltages while memory overclocking is going to end up being a bad day, especially on Ryzen platforms.

Also don't leave vsoc, vddg, vddp voltages at auto while memory overclocking; if the board defaults the values too high it can also create instability.


----------



## Sam64

flyinion said:


> Hey guys question about tuning RAM. I've started on this now that a weird random reboot instability that seemed to have been a bad Windows update or something has resolved itself (started around the first time I tried to do RAM timings so I rolled back thinking it was that and never tried again). I used the Calculator and put stuff in the main memory timings pages under extreme tweaker, and also searched and found the two bankgroup swap options which were elsewhere....



Not quite sure, but i read this from a german guy, who has some experience with Zen plattform.

You can try activating "Memory Training" in Bios:
- Advanced\AMD CBS\UMC Common Options\Memory MBIST: Enable MBIST and set Test Mode to Both
- Advanced\AMD CBS\DDR4 Common Options\Phy Configuration\PMU Training: Enable "DFE Read Training" and "FFE Read Training"

RAM will be checked for errors before system starts. There is some kind of balancing between voltage and timings and if it fails, it will be trained to start more stable. Not easy to translate this guy, hope it's understandable 

I do RAM Timings only in Tweaker Menu, not in any other place. And yes, it's a bit confusing for me as well. Bios seems to be layered and you kind of overwrite settings depending on which layer you are working. At least, that's my understanding...


----------



## SeeGee

rv8000 said:


> There are certain secondary/tertiary timings that will cause my system to not post. I don't have my logs in front of me but, if left on auto there is a timing that sets each channel to a different number, if I do anything but leave the timing value at auto my system won't post. (I'll update the post when I get back home with the specific timing).
> 
> 
> 
> Best practice I've found when overclocking memory/tightening timings on this board is to manually adjust your primary timings, trc, tras, CR, and trfc. Leave everything else at auto and leave the board to do the memory training. If it posts test for stability, then go back for secondary and tertiary timings while keeping track of everything. Randomly changing timings and voltages while memory overclocking is going to end up being a bad day, especially on Ryzen platforms.
> 
> 
> 
> Also don't leave vsoc, vddg, vddp voltages at auto while memory overclocking; if the board defaults the values too high it can also create instability.


Oh I know this. I had it dialed in at 3600c16 working perfectly on ALL previous bios revisions. This bios, I can't boot at anything better than docp. It's a major step backwards. I'm going to flashback to the previous ver. No agesa 1.0.0.4 benefits for me it seems. :sad:


----------



## SeeGee

Sam64 said:


> You got a Corsair Dominator 3200 RGB kit? Shouldn't these be Samsung B-Die? My Dominator Platinum RGB 3466 kit is definitely Samsung B-Die, running fine on 1105 with 3733CL16 1.40v (Fast Timings from 1usmus DRAM-Calc) Wish i could go to CL14 though.


I was told they were samsung b-die when I bought them (rgb model), but I wasnt able to get b-die timings to work, so I looked into it, and found out that "some" models of corsair ram is micron... Namely mine.


----------



## Sam64

SeeGee said:


> I was told they were samsung b-die when I bought them (rgb model), but I wasnt able to get b-die timings to work, so I looked into it, and found out that "some" models of corsair ram is micron... Namely mine.



Ah, ok, good to know, thanks! I checked my RAM here:

https://www.hardwareluxx.de/communi...lle-hersteller-12-11-19-a-1161530.html#lstH.B


----------



## dupontluke

So I just bought this kit. I am concerned if I will be able to post or not with it, and be able stable with at least stated xmp. Got a deal on it because open box. (Purchased 2, 2x8 kits)

https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/7...6gb-dual-channel-memory-kit-review/index.html

Looks like it was "intended" for Intel boards. Hence my concern.

I am about to pick up an x570 CROSSHAIR hero viii

Thoughts? Comments?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## rv8000

Anyone test 1909 yet for single threaded loads?

Seems whatever "favored core" updating Microsoft did, did a steaming load of nothing.

516 on r20 for both 1903 and 1909; high performance power profile with processor min state set to 10%, max 100%


----------



## Oversemper

rv8000 said:


> Anyone test 1909 yet for single threaded loads?
> 
> Seems whatever "favored core" updating Microsoft did, did a steaming load of nothing.
> 
> 516 on r20 for both 1903 and 1909; high performance power profile with processor min state set to 10%, max 100%


 Favored core for AMD was implemented in 1903 in combination with amd chipset drivers. In 1909 favored core relates only to intel cpus.
Proof: https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/c...erformance_via_favored_cpu/f23u3vz/?context=3
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/dglnck/tested_does_win10_november_update_1909


----------



## PainKiller89

Please assist with the below settings:

Global C-state Control = Enabled
Power Supply Idle Control = Low Current Idle (Cannot find it)
CPPC = Enabled
CPPC Preferred Cores = Enabled
AMD Cool'n'Quiet = Enabled (Cannot find it)
PPC Adjustment = PState 0 (Cannot find it)
PBO = Disabled

I did install the power plan.

I have a 3700x with GSkill RAM 32GB F4-3200C14D-16GFX


----------



## 1usmus

PainKiller89 said:


> Please assist with the below settings:
> 
> Global C-state Control = Enabled
> Power Supply Idle Control = Low Current Idle (Cannot find it)
> CPPC = Enabled
> CPPC Preferred Cores = Enabled
> AMD Cool'n'Quiet = Enabled (Cannot find it)
> PPC Adjustment = PState 0 (Cannot find it)
> PBO = Disabled
> 
> I did install the power plan.
> 
> I have a 3700x with GSkill RAM 32GB F4-3200C14D-16GFX


November 11th, quiet release of KB4524570, cumulative pack, that contains CPPC fixes and Windows scheduler, which I spoke about in my article. 
https://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Search.aspx?q=4524570


----------



## PainKiller89

1usmus said:


> November 11th, quiet release of KB4524570, cumulative pack, that contains CPPC fixes and Windows scheduler, which I spoke about in my article.
> https://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Search.aspx?q=4524570


So we no longer need do those tweaks? Please Advise.


----------



## The Stilt

If not sure if this is due to some default settings, which have been changed in the newer AGESA versions or something that ASUS has done, but the newer bioses are significantly better for dual rank modules than the older ones.

Previously this CPU couldn't breach 1700MHz UCLK (memory controller clock) barrier on dual rank modules, eventhou 2 DPC single rank configuration did 1866MHz without any issues.
The FCLK or the MEMCLK itself was never the issue, but the UCLK was. And running UCLK out of sync of course is utterly useless, since even 3200MHz with everything in sync will easily beat 3600MHz de-synced configuration.

There is no reason why UCLK would be limited to a lower frequency on 1 DPC DR configuration, compared to 2 DPC SR configuration, so I have to assume there has been some sort of an issue in AGESA configuration.


----------



## iDShaDoW

SeeGee said:


> No agesa 1.0.0.4 benefits for me it seems. :sad:


I'm having the long POST/Boot time issue due to PCIe Sound Card issue myself.

Wish ASUS would actually put out a statement of some sort saying they know of the issues and are working to fix it. Some sort of communication would be nice.


----------



## Jackalito

iDShaDoW said:


> I'm having the long POST/Boot time issue due to PCIe Sound Card issue myself.
> 
> Wish ASUS would actually put out a statement of some sort saying they know of the issues and are working to fix it. Some sort of communication would be nice.


Yeah, the lack of any kind of communication is quite appalling :thumbsdow


----------



## zsoltmol

The Stilt said:


> If not sure if this is due to some default settings, which have been changed in the newer AGESA versions or something that ASUS has done, but the newer bioses are significantly better for dual rank modules than the older ones.
> 
> Previously this CPU couldn't breach 1700MHz UCLK (memory controller clock) barrier on dual rank modules, eventhou 2 DPC single rank configuration did 1866MHz without any issues.
> The FCLK or the MEMCLK itself was never the issue, but the UCLK was. And running UCLK out of sync of course is utterly useless, since even 3200MHz with everything in sync will easily beat 3600MHz de-synced configuration.
> 
> There is no reason why UCLK would be limited to a lower frequency on 1 DPC DR configuration, compared to 2 DPC SR configuration, so I have to assume there has been some sort of an issue in AGESA configuration.


Is the 1105 bios based on 1.0.0.4 or 1.0.0.4B ?


----------



## The Stilt

zsoltmol said:


> Is the 1105 bios based on 1.0.0.4 or 1.0.0.4B ?


1.0.0.4B.
1.0.0.4 RC versions had 46.53 SMU firmwares, 1.0.0.4B release has 46.54 SMUs.


----------



## zsoltmol

The Stilt said:


> 1.0.0.4B.
> 1.0.0.4 RC versions had 46.53 SMU firmwares, 1.0.0.4B release has 46.54 SMUs.


Thanks, do you have any clue why I have had these issues? I'm clueless TBH...

My Post HERE


----------



## zsoltmol

This is what I get with:
1.0.0.3ABBA / Asus C8H 1001 bios + Ryzen Balanced power plan + AMD chipset driver 1.8.19.0915 (2019 august) in CPU-Z, while 1.0.0.4 / 1105 bios is significantly worse with same settings.

Picture + link: https://valid.x86.fr/jcnqd1


----------



## folklore11

New to AMD. Asus ROG Crosshair VIII x570. Is there a similar function in BIOS for Intel XMP? If so where is it located? If not, how do you set memory profiles: G-Skills 2x8 3200 cl14 Thanks


----------



## SeeGee

Yes, it's called DOCP


----------



## criznit

Does anyone know what df cstate is within the bios? Is this Cool n Quiet or something else?


----------



## The Stilt

criznit said:


> Does anyone know what df cstate is within the bios? Is this Cool n Quiet or something else?



DF CStates control FCLK power management.
When disabled, FCLK runs at full speed (set frequency) whole time, which is unnecessary at idle.


----------



## criznit

The Stilt said:


> DF CStates control FCLK power management.
> When disabled, FCLK runs at full speed (set frequency) whole time, which is unnecessary at idle.


Thank you very much!!!


----------



## The Stilt

zsoltmol said:


> Thanks, do you have any clue why I have had these issues? I'm clueless TBH...
> 
> My Post HERE


"Performance Enhancer" = Default and "Performance Bias" = None, in both cases?

If yes, then try both bioses with PBO @ manual PPT, TDC and EDC se to identical values (I'd suggest the stock values, 142W PPT, 95A TDC, 140A EDC).
Also make sure that PBO Scalar is set to 1x in both cases. And please disable the negative voltage offset for the CPU too, since it can cause all sorts of anomalies.

Your CB20 NT score is pretty close what it should be at stock PPT / TDC / EDC limits on 1105 bios however, your score with the 1001 bios is significantly higher than it should be.
There is no way you can hit those scores without increasing the limits significantly from the stock. A truly stock 3900X hits around 7100 points in CB20 NT, given its well cooled.
Based on the CB20 NT score alone, the 1001 wasn't running at stock limits for whatever reason.


----------



## folklore11

SeeGee said:


> Yes, it's called DOCP



location in BIOS?


----------



## folklore11

folklore11 said:


> location in BIOS?





DUH! If it had been a snake it would have bit me!!! see it now. Strange I can only find it in the EZ menus.... Thanks for your help


----------



## flyinion

folklore11 said:


> location in BIOS?


Near the top of the Extreme Tweaker section. Change the dropdown labeled "AI Overclock Tuner".


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Is anyone having random reboots with the latest bios ? I never had this problem with the previous one.


----------



## boredgunner

Do any of these Crosshair VIII's have PPT limitation issues (unable to increase it further)? I haven't seen anything conclusive yet.


----------



## zsoltmol

The Stilt said:


> "Performance Enhancer" = Default and "Performance Bias" = None, in both cases?
> 
> If yes, then try both bioses with PBO @ manual PPT, TDC and EDC se to identical values (I'd suggest the stock values, 142W PPT, 95A TDC, 140A EDC).
> Also make sure that PBO Scalar is set to 1x in both cases. And please disable the negative voltage offset for the CPU too, since it can cause all sorts of anomalies.
> 
> Your CB20 NT score is pretty close what it should be at stock PPT / TDC / EDC limits on 1105 bios however, your score with the 1001 bios is significantly higher than it should be.
> There is no way you can hit those scores without increasing the limits significantly from the stock. A truly stock 3900X hits around 7100 points in CB20 NT, given its well cooled.
> Based on the CB20 NT score alone, the 1001 wasn't running at stock limits for whatever reason.


"Performance Enhancer" = Default and "Performance Bias" = None, in both cases? 
YES both set the same, I'm not after benchmarks ;-)

PBO is set at motherboard limits in both cases, scalar is at 1x, PBO Auto OC: 0Mhz

Did 2 runs in CB20 pics attached, all core 4.15Ghz @ 1.312V what the CPU gets during the test automatically via PBO. Cooling is quite good, 71c tdie MAX during the test.

Will do a run soon without negative offset for CPU and SOC.


----------



## zsoltmol

Everything same, CPU and SOC negative voltage switched off based on your suggestion (was -0.01250v in my case)

Same CB20 multicore range, but 2c more temp, and higher voltages on CPU and SOC. 1.0.0.3ABBA, I dont need those high CPU and SOC voltages, my system is solid in every workload since July.

Next test will be default to manual PBO instead of Asus default Motherboard limits with PPT, TDC and EDC @ stock values: 142W PPT, 95A TDC, 140A EDC


----------



## zsoltmol

manual PBO instead of Asus default Motherboard limits with PPT, TDC and EDC @ stock values: 142W PPT, 95A TDC, 140A EDC set in bios


----------



## superpapu

If I have a manual oc and works perfect, memory and cpu. Do I need or recommend to upgrade the bios? I have the 0803.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## zsoltmol

The Stilt said:


> "Performance Enhancer" = Default and "Performance Bias" = None, in both cases?
> 
> If yes, then try both bioses with PBO @ manual PPT, TDC and EDC se to identical values (I'd suggest the stock values, 142W PPT, 95A TDC, 140A EDC).
> Also make sure that PBO Scalar is set to 1x in both cases. And please disable the negative voltage offset for the CPU too, since it can cause all sorts of anomalies.
> 
> Your CB20 NT score is pretty close what it should be at stock PPT / TDC / EDC limits on 1105 bios however, your score with the 1001 bios is significantly higher than it should be.
> There is no way you can hit those scores without increasing the limits significantly from the stock. A truly stock 3900X hits around 7100 points in CB20 NT, given its well cooled.
> Based on the CB20 NT score alone, the 1001 wasn't running at stock limits for whatever reason.


As you might have seen, I have went thru all of your suggestions, screenshots included in 3-4 post from me.

Latest is:
Set manual PBO instead of Asus default Motherboard limits with PPT, TDC and EDC @ stock values: 142W PPT, 95A TDC, 140A EDC set in bios in the second area where you can do this.
CB20 score down to 7322 from 7444, CPU temp down from 71 to 65. CPU down from 4.15Ghz to 4.075Ghz, CPU Vcore down from 1.312/1.320 to 1.248 during all core test. Still 1.0.0.3ABBA

But it is miles better than same setting with 1.0.0.4B (1105 bios), a few days ago I have seen a guys having exact same problems with 1105 on reddit. But I still don't know what is the route couse or is it a bug in 1.0.0.4 / 1105 bios?


----------



## Oversemper

There is a new chipset driver released: 1.11.22.0454
Supports not only the new TRX40, but all previous chipsets too.


----------



## The Stilt

zsoltmol said:


> As you might have seen, I have went thru all of your suggestions, screenshots included in 3-4 post from me.
> 
> Latest is:
> Set manual PBO instead of Asus default Motherboard limits with PPT, TDC and EDC @ stock values: 142W PPT, 95A TDC, 140A EDC set in bios in the second area where you can do this.
> CB20 score down to 7322 from 7444, CPU temp down from 71 to 65. CPU down from 4.15Ghz to 4.075Ghz, CPU Vcore down from 1.312/1.320 to 1.248 during all core test. Still 1.0.0.3ABBA
> 
> But it is miles better than same setting with 1.0.0.4B (1105 bios), a few days ago I have seen a guys having exact same problems with 1105 on reddit. But I still don't know what is the route couse or is it a bug in 1.0.0.4 / 1105 bios?


I'll have a look at this tomorrow, now that I have had some test time on Threadripper.

I'll be using C8F instead of C8H, but it should make no difference as the bioses are more or less identical, outside the hardware differences.
Even the version numbering is identical.


----------



## The Stilt

zsoltmol said:


> As you might have seen, I have went thru all of your suggestions, screenshots included in 3-4 post from me.
> 
> Latest is:
> Set manual PBO instead of Asus default Motherboard limits with PPT, TDC and EDC @ stock values: 142W PPT, 95A TDC, 140A EDC set in bios in the second area where you can do this.
> CB20 score down to 7322 from 7444, CPU temp down from 71 to 65. CPU down from 4.15Ghz to 4.075Ghz, CPU Vcore down from 1.312/1.320 to 1.248 during all core test. Still 1.0.0.3ABBA
> 
> But it is miles better than same setting with 1.0.0.4B (1105 bios), a few days ago I have seen a guys having exact same problems with 1105 on reddit. But I still don't know what is the route couse or is it a bug in 1.0.0.4 / 1105 bios?


Ok, so.
I did the tests using six different multithreaded workloads.

Ryzen 9 3950X
ASUS Crosshair VIII Formula
Kingston HyperX Predator 3600C17 2x8GB, running at 3200MHz 14-14-14-32
Deepcool Assassin II heatsink, with fans fixed at 60.0% PWM

*1001 bios (AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA, SMU 46.49):*

3DPM: 4241.808 MOPS
Blender 2.81 (Ryzen27 400s): 27.330s
CB20 NT: 8932
Rodinia Euler3D CFD: 222.636 iterations per second
MCRT: 27128.820 kRay/s
Particle Force (NBody): 47.3014 BIPS

*1105 bios (AGESA 1.0.0.4B, SMU 46.54):

*3DPM: 4206.029 MOPS
Blender 2.81 (Ryzen27 400s): 26.973s
CB20 NT: 8986
Rodinia Euler3D CFD: 223.730 iterations per second
MCRT: 27151.102 kRay/s
Particle Force: 47.2764 BIPS

All of these workloads are obviously bound by the power or (and) current limits of the CPU.
Therefore increasing the performance is impossible without increasing those limits.

All of the differences fall within the margin of error, as expected.
Certainly no regression, but slight progression overall if anything. Not surprising, since the later SMU versions include some optimisations for 3950X specifically.

You can see the settings I used from the attached bios text profile settings.

As said before, I am aware that there are hardware differences between the C8F and C8H boards.
That being said, there is no reason to believe that there would be any differences at the bios level, which could explain the observations you've made.

*EDIT*: I suggest you clear the CMOS, load the optimised defaults and use the same settings as I did, before doing any additional tests. Loading the optimised defaults sounds like a standard tech-support answer, but with 3rd gen. Ryzen it is in many cases actually needed, especially if Ryzen Master has been used. Ryzen Master makes changes to the system hive, and sometimes those changes cannot be reverted through any other means than either erasing and flashing the bios entirely, or loading the optimised defaults.


----------



## zsoltmol

Thanks! Will try tonight what you suggest.

Yesterday I have tried 1105 again. Flashed via USB Flashback feature, cleared cmos, then loaded defaults. Then set up everything manually in multiple steps with reboots. 

Result is same, 3-10% regression despite boost clocks are almost the same. Will investigate further.


----------



## Dawidowski

Heya!

Is anyone able to help me with my settings on my X570 hero? None wifi version. 

After updating to 1105 bios everything seems to go downhill.
From having 7.200-7.300 in CR20 I'm now down to 6.800-6.900.

Full default settings after a clear CMOS, with everything auto and no D.O.C.P - I managed to hit 7.100
Now after turning it on I'm back down to 6.856

With PBO on I bumped back up a little but not much at all. 
Still new to this, and its getting confusing since my asus board has not been consistent at all since the release. 

System specs:
3900x
Be quiet Dark Rock Pro 4 cooler
X570 Crosshair Hero 8 
16gb 3000mhz cl 16 - Upgrade incoming. But that's what I have now.
2x nvme 970 pro 512gb - No Raid
1080TI

Would appreciate some tips!


----------



## zsoltmol

Dawidowski said:


> Heya!
> 
> Is anyone able to help me with my settings on my X570 hero? None wifi version.
> 
> After updating to 1105 bios everything seems to go downhill.
> From having 7.200-7.300 in CR20 I'm now down to 6.800-6.900.
> 
> Full default settings after a clear CMOS, with everything auto and no D.O.C.P - I managed to hit 7.100
> Now after turning it on I'm back down to 6.856
> 
> With PBO on I bumped back up a little but not much at all.
> Still new to this, and its getting confusing since my asus board has not been consistent at all since the release.
> 
> System specs:
> 3900x
> Be quiet Dark Rock Pro 4 cooler
> X570 Crosshair Hero 8
> 16gb 3000mhz cl 16 - Upgrade incoming. But that's what I have now.
> 2x nvme 970 pro 512gb - No Raid
> 1080TI
> 
> Would appreciate some tips!


I have exactly the same effect, and I have found 1 guy on reddit with the same issue. So we are now 3 people. 

Here are my two attempts to use 1105, one in early november and the second was yesterday. Same issue. All the cores boost to almost the same clock with 1105 during test, but score is bad. My memory performance is degraded badly albeit same settings in BIOS line by line.


----------



## Dawidowski

zsoltmol said:


> I have exactly the same effect, and I have found 1 guy on reddit with the same issue. So we are now 3 people.
> 
> Here are my two attempts to use 1105, one in early november and the second was yesterday. Same issue. All the cores boost to almost the same clock with 1105 during test, but score is bad. My memory performance is degraded badly albeit same settings in BIOS line by line.


Sorry to hear that mate, its really frustrating!

Atleast you seem to boost way higher then I am. 
Currently I hit like 4025-4050 at best while at the lowest I've seen down to 3950 mhz. 
No matter how I change my settings I get absolutely no effect during my tests, and if there is any its just worse then I already is. 
I think I speak for both of us, I highly ask for some advice from the more understanding people on the forums!


----------



## Dawidowski

Dear lawd Jezus!

Folks, we have USB Flash back. 
It saved me, I'm back to 1001 again running as I used to with 7327 in score. 200 points + from how my absolute best was with 1105.

Worst was down to 6858. 
Thats 500 points plus with the same settings. Not trusting Asus anymore. 
I'm out! thanks ;D


----------



## MacG32

If you go back a few pages or so, you'd see that a lot more people are having problems with BIOS 1105. Memory problems, single core boosting, instability, etc.. I'm also back to BIOS 1001. My 3900X would not hit 4600MHz, even with PBO enabled. Now it's back to normal and hits 4625MHz. Seem ASUS/AMD made quite a few mistakes with this latest BIOS effort. Every 3rd boot, I'd also get 3 beeps and a restart. My memory UNDERCLOCK is stable with 1001 and slightly unstable with 1105. How can that even be? It's an underclock. Anyway, hopefully the next BIOS will prove a solid upgrade or I'll be stuck at 1001.


----------



## zsoltmol

Also observed that 1st-2nd-3rd-4th reboot behaves differently same benchmark but different all core PBO overclock MHz, try yourself. Ventillator start up noise is different in duration and every 4th-5th restart gives me a non-boot loop with ventillators at max, until i press reset, then everything is back to normal.

Unfortunatelly this is valid with 100x and 110x bios.


----------



## zsoltmol

The Stilt said:


> Ok, so.
> I did the tests using six different multithreaded workloads.
> 
> Ryzen 9 3950X
> ASUS Crosshair VIII Formula
> Kingston HyperX Predator 3600C17 2x8GB, running at 3200MHz 14-14-14-32
> Deepcool Assassin II heatsink, with fans fixed at 60.0% PWM
> 
> *1001 bios (AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA, SMU 46.49):*
> 
> 3DPM: 4241.808 MOPS
> Blender 2.81 (Ryzen27 400s): 27.330s
> CB20 NT: 8932
> Rodinia Euler3D CFD: 222.636 iterations per second
> MCRT: 27128.820 kRay/s
> Particle Force (NBody): 47.3014 BIPS
> 
> *1105 bios (AGESA 1.0.0.4B, SMU 46.54):
> 
> *3DPM: 4206.029 MOPS
> Blender 2.81 (Ryzen27 400s): 26.973s
> CB20 NT: 8986
> Rodinia Euler3D CFD: 223.730 iterations per second
> MCRT: 27151.102 kRay/s
> Particle Force: 47.2764 BIPS
> 
> All of these workloads are obviously bound by the power or (and) current limits of the CPU.
> Therefore increasing the performance is impossible without increasing those limits.
> 
> All of the differences fall within the margin of error, as expected.
> Certainly no regression, but slight progression overall if anything. Not surprising, since the later SMU versions include some optimisations for 3950X specifically.
> 
> You can see the settings I used from the attached bios text profile settings.
> 
> As said before, I am aware that there are hardware differences between the C8F and C8H boards.
> That being said, there is no reason to believe that there would be any differences at the bios level, which could explain the observations you've made.
> 
> *EDIT*: I suggest you clear the CMOS, load the optimised defaults and use the same settings as I did, before doing any additional tests. Loading the optimised defaults sounds like a standard tech-support answer, but with 3rd gen. Ryzen it is in many cases actually needed, especially if Ryzen Master has been used. Ryzen Master makes changes to the system hive, and sometimes those changes cannot be reverted through any other means than either erasing and flashing the bios entirely, or loading the optimised defaults.


Hi, tried to follow your path.

USB Flashback based BIOS upgrade, then clean CMOS button (during both the PC is switched off), then load setup defaults in BIOS and then exactly match your settings from the attached txt file.

My CB20 multi score is at 7184
My CB20 single score is at 520

If I let the motherboard to manage these:
VDDG CCD Voltage Control [0.950] -> auto
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [0.950] -> auto
CLDO VDDP voltage [900] ->auto

My CB20 multi score is at 7291
My CB20 single score is at 528

If I let the motherboard to manage ram via D.O.C.P and set memory timing myself to match my 1001 bios profile:

My CB20 multi score is down at 67xx-69xx range, despite CPU cores are running at 4.1-4.15GHz during the test.

To be honest, it doesn't make sense for me to use 1105, tried once. Then tried second time with the community help here. Still same crap results. Some folks recently confirmed same issues, here and there. We DO Not have the solution, but its obvious the 1105 based bios is not "golden".


----------



## newls1

I need some serious help or guidance. New to AMD side of OC'ing and have my 3950x begging for more performance. I built this setup yesterday, and using this CH8 Hero,, 3950x, cooled with highend watercooling, im ready to push this cpu but in my attempts last night were not very good. I was hoping for a static OC and looking for 4.4-4.5 but in my attempts proved not very successful, but can understand 1/2 the "AMD terminology" in the bios. Would it be cheating if someone here with a 3950x and on 1105 bios that has a OC, could send me there bios file?? Is that cheating?? Please!


----------



## owcraftsman

Got my C8H a week ago been on the bench testing ever since. I've read 4 pages (long form) of this forum so far.
Just a heads up, the AMD Driver page has posted a new X570 chipset driver.
For those in USA Latest x570 Chipset drivers
released 11/25/2019


----------



## Hale59

My CH7 just became faulty and thinking of joining this club. However, don't like chipset fan.
I have a Custom Loop and I like this guy's idea...


----------



## Gadfly

Looking for a little help getting my FCLK to 1900

C8H latest bios from Asus website
3950X
G.skill 3200C14 2x16GB memory at 3800 C16 (running timings from the timing calc; tests 2000% and TM5 stable at 1.41v FCLK 1866)

I have my tried SOC upto 1.2, memory upto 1.46v, VDDG at 0.950v and VDDP at 800/900

Any one have any pointers on how to go about stabilizing FCLK? 

Thanks in advance


----------



## enzu4l

Gadfly said:


> Any one have any pointers on how to go about stabilizing FCLK?



Hard to say.
For me it worked moving from a further Bios Version to the last one. Might not be an option for you, cause you got the 3950x and need to stay there for the moment.
Maybe wait for a new Bios update and run the System at 3766.


----------



## MacG32

New AMD Ryzen Master Utility released v2.1.0.1424: https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/ryzen-master


----------



## newls1

my ram is DJR, and ryzen dram calculator doesnt have that option to choose from, what do I choose?


----------



## flyinion

What power plan are you guys using if you've updated to the newest chipset drivers? I thought I read somewhere that it was noticed the new Balanced plan had most/all of 1usmus's custom plan optimizations in it. I'm trying to figure out if I should keep running his plan or swap BIOS settings back and run the new AMD balanced instead. Unfortunately I can't find now where I read that it might be including a lot of his optimizations.


----------



## zsoltmol

The Stilt said:


> Ok, so.
> I did the tests using six different multithreaded workloads.
> 
> Ryzen 9 3950X
> ASUS Crosshair VIII Formula
> Kingston HyperX Predator 3600C17 2x8GB, running at 3200MHz 14-14-14-32
> Deepcool Assassin II heatsink, with fans fixed at 60.0% PWM
> 
> *1001 bios (AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA, SMU 46.49):*
> 
> 3DPM: 4241.808 MOPS
> Blender 2.81 (Ryzen27 400s): 27.330s
> CB20 NT: 8932
> Rodinia Euler3D CFD: 222.636 iterations per second
> MCRT: 27128.820 kRay/s
> Particle Force (NBody): 47.3014 BIPS
> 
> *1105 bios (AGESA 1.0.0.4B, SMU 46.54):
> 
> *3DPM: 4206.029 MOPS
> Blender 2.81 (Ryzen27 400s): 26.973s
> CB20 NT: 8986
> Rodinia Euler3D CFD: 223.730 iterations per second
> MCRT: 27151.102 kRay/s
> Particle Force: 47.2764 BIPS
> 
> All of these workloads are obviously bound by the power or (and) current limits of the CPU.
> Therefore increasing the performance is impossible without increasing those limits.
> 
> All of the differences fall within the margin of error, as expected.
> Certainly no regression, but slight progression overall if anything. Not surprising, since the later SMU versions include some optimisations for 3950X specifically.
> 
> You can see the settings I used from the attached bios text profile settings.
> 
> As said before, I am aware that there are hardware differences between the C8F and C8H boards.
> That being said, there is no reason to believe that there would be any differences at the bios level, which could explain the observations you've made.
> 
> *EDIT*: I suggest you clear the CMOS, load the optimised defaults and use the same settings as I did, before doing any additional tests. Loading the optimised defaults sounds like a standard tech-support answer, but with 3rd gen. Ryzen it is in many cases actually needed, especially if Ryzen Master has been used. Ryzen Master makes changes to the system hive, and sometimes those changes cannot be reverted through any other means than either erasing and flashing the bios entirely, or loading the optimised defaults.


Managed to crack the code!!! At the expense of my time which is $$$ or £££ 

So 1105 bios behaves similar to 1001 until you decide to use D.O.C.P with 3733MHz ram and FCLK @ 1866MHz or above? At least this is my case. My ram is capable to handle exact same timings at 3600 or at 3733 thankfully.

All bios setting in 1105 provide great and comparable results to 1001, until I switch D.O.C.P with 3600MHz and FCLK @ 1800MHz to anything above. With 1001 bios my system was fine and stable at 3733/1866, now it is also stable with 1105, but performance is lost. Big time.

For me it seems above 3600MHz ram speed 1105 bios starts to use the previously mentioned 1/2 FCLK divider. 1001 did not forced this and I could go with 1:1 ratio for FCLK above 1800MHz, like 1866MHz.

Any workaround of this? Or any similar experience?


----------



## newls1

I need opinions please.... Just trying to dial in a "All Core OC" on my 3950x using this CH8 Hero. So far using 1.3125v / 1.1SOC and a 43.25Multi, she is stable in Aida64 and both Cinbenches BACK TO BACK. Ram I got to 3733 using Dram Calculator 16/19/19/36 1.4v and this is 64GB (4 16gb dimms) of DJR Mem. I would consider my watercooling loop for this CPU very highend (60mm EK 420mm rad in push pull, D5 pump, all copper heatkiller IV Pro Waterblock, etc..) and temps in a 22c room are 91c. I cant go any lower on vcore, or shes becomes unstable. I have done multi remounts and temps are all the same. she idles in the high 20c's. 

So how does a 3950x @ 4.35ghz and 64gb's of 3733Ram Sound?? Or should I scrap this OC and just use PBO? Kinda at a crossroads here and cant make up my mind.


----------



## Gadfly

zsoltmol said:


> Managed to crack the code!!! At the expense of my time which is $$$ or £££
> 
> So 1105 bios behaves similar to 1001 until you decide to use D.O.C.P with 3733MHz ram and FCLK @ 1866MHz or above? At least this is my case. My ram is capable to handle exact same timings at 3600 or at 3733 thankfully.
> 
> All bios setting in 1105 provide great and comparable results to 1001, until I switch D.O.C.P with 3600MHz and FCLK @ 1800MHz to anything above. With 1001 bios my system was fine and stable at 3733/1866, now it is also stable with 1105, but performance is lost. Big time.
> 
> For me it seems above 3600MHz ram speed 1105 bios starts to use the previously mentioned 1/2 FCLK divider. 1001 did not forced this and I could go with 1:1 ratio for FCLK above 1800MHz, like 1866MHz.
> 
> Any workaround of this? Or any similar experience?


Did you set Fclk manually? If yes, does Ryzen master show Fclk as running at your set speed?


----------



## zsoltmol

Gadfly said:


> zsoltmol said:
> 
> 
> 
> Managed to crack the code!!! At the expense of my time which is $$$ or Â£Â£Â£ 🙂
> 
> So 1105 bios behaves similar to 1001 until you decide to use D.O.C.P with 3733MHz ram and FCLK @ 1866MHz or above? At least this is my case. My ram is capable to handle exact same timings at 3600 or at 3733 thankfully.
> 
> All bios setting in 1105 provide great and comparable results to 1001, until I switch D.O.C.P with 3600MHz and FCLK @ 1800MHz to anything above. With 1001 bios my system was fine and stable at 3733/1866, now it is also stable with 1105, but performance is lost. Big time.
> 
> For me it seems above 3600MHz ram speed 1105 bios starts to use the previously mentioned 1/2 FCLK divider. 1001 did not forced this and I could go with 1:1 ratio for FCLK above 1800MHz, like 1866MHz.
> 
> Any workaround of this? Or any similar experience?
> 
> 
> 
> Did you set Fclk manually? If yes, does Ryzen master show Fclk as running at your set speed?
Click to expand...

I always set ddr and fclk manually, but with 1105 it does NOT run at 1:1 despite it is set like that.


----------



## dlbsyst

zsoltmol said:


> Managed to crack the code!!! At the expense of my time which is $$$ or £££
> 
> So 1105 bios behaves similar to 1001 until you decide to use D.O.C.P with 3733MHz ram and FCLK @ 1866MHz or above? At least this is my case. My ram is capable to handle exact same timings at 3600 or at 3733 thankfully.
> 
> All bios setting in 1105 provide great and comparable results to 1001, until I switch D.O.C.P with 3600MHz and FCLK @ 1800MHz to anything above. With 1001 bios my system was fine and stable at 3733/1866, now it is also stable with 1105, but performance is lost. Big time.
> 
> For me it seems above 3600MHz ram speed 1105 bios starts to use the previously mentioned 1/2 FCLK divider. 1001 did not forced this and I could go with 1:1 ratio for FCLK above 1800MHz, like 1866MHz.
> 
> Any workaround of this? Or any similar experience?


Great job zsoltmol.:thumb: That would explain why I get my best performance with my 32GB of RAM running at 3600Mhz with tight timing and geardown disabled.


----------



## Gadfly

zsoltmol said:


> I always set ddr and fclk manually, but with 1105 it does NOT run at 1:1 despite it is set like that.



I can not duplicate this. If set 1866/3733 Ryzen master shows 1:1; do you have another tool that displays fclk?


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

@MacG32, Do you think we can update the OP about 1usmus power plan and where to find the recommended bios settings? I believe others have found the settings in previous post here. Thank you if you received this.


----------



## usoldier

Anyone ever had the issue where the cpu fan just stops or runs very slow it happens randomly, ive had same issue on CH6 any tip on how to fix it ?


----------



## shamino1978

for the 1001->1105 perf diff im guessing its due to two timings which were loosened after 3200 for compatibility between certain DRam/IMCs, you can set this to the image attached to see if this is it.


----------



## AStaUK

usoldier said:


> Anyone ever had the issue where the cpu fan just stops or runs very slow it happens randomly, ive had same issue on CH6 any tip on how to fix it ?


I've not had any issues with mine, have you looked at the fan curve or tried setting a fixed speed?


----------



## criznit

Gadfly said:


> Looking for a little help getting my FCLK to 1900
> 
> C8H latest bios from Asus website
> 3950X
> G.skill 3200C14 2x16GB memory at 3800 C16 (running timings from the timing calc; tests 2000% and TM5 stable at 1.41v FCLK 1866)
> 
> I have my tried SOC upto 1.2, memory upto 1.46v, VDDG at 0.950v and VDDP at 800/900
> 
> Any one have any pointers on how to go about stabilizing FCLK?
> 
> Thanks in advance


Unfortunately not all chips reach 1900. Mine only gets to 1866 with DRAM calculator settings.


----------



## Takla

usoldier said:


> Anyone ever had the issue where the cpu fan just stops or runs very slow it happens randomly, ive had same issue on CH6 any tip on how to fix it ?


set polling rate of secondary sensors in hwinfo to 10 instead of 1. or disable polling for the asus wmi.


----------



## zsoltmol

shamino1978 said:


> for the 1001->1105 perf diff im guessing its due to two timings which were loosened after 3200 for compatibility between certain DRam/IMCs, you can set this to the image attached to see if this is it.


Hi Shamino,

Did test your suggestion and you are right, these two parameters might be eased off with 1105. So manually setting it up give some extra, but not much.

However in my case:
Ram timings and all other settings except ram clock and FCLK are exactly same.

1105 bios gives with 3600MHz / 1800FCLK:
7190-7280 Cinebench R20 multi score

1105 bios gives with 3733MHz / 1866FCLK:
6710-6840 Cinebench R20 multi score

1001 bios gives with 3733MHz / 1866FCLK:
7320-7460 Cinebench R20 multi score

1105 @ 3733/1866MHz *with exact same settings is not stable*, last two days I had 2 random reboots. 
1001 @ 3733/1866MHz same manually entered ram and PBO settings is *rock solid since it was released! *Tested a lot 

I have did an AIDA64 memory comparison and it seems there is some slowdown with 1105, despite all settings are same and manually entered. 
See picture.

Also observed:
Boost clock is similar between 1001 and 1105, however:
1001 boosts all cores at exact same clock in Cinebench R20, typically at 4.100-4.150 MHz, no up or down difference per core.
1105 boosts similar amount, but second by second per core boost bounces up-down between 4.075-4.225 MHz.
See picture.

Also did a latest relase Ryzen Master readout @ 3733MHz and I see *CLDO_VDDG at 1.14V* + CLDO_VDDP at 0.99V, while VDDR_SOC is at 1.1V. 

Is this normal? Never seen any like that and everything is on auto in the bios. 

At 3600MHz CLDO_VDDG is at 1.09V, CLDO_VDDP at 0.90V, while VDDR_SOC is at 1.1V. 

Will go back to 1001 to re-run these test again for comparison tomorrow.


----------



## BulletSponge

I am looking to up my RAM from 16GB to 32GB. Should I either just buy a 32GB 3600C16 kit of TridentZ Neo or just get another 16GB of 3200C14 B-die? The 16GB of B-die costs about $30 more than the 32GB kit of 3600C16 but the B-die should do 3600C14 with no issues.


----------



## os2wiz

newls1 said:


> I need opinions please.... Just trying to dial in a "All Core OC" on my 3950x using this CH8 Hero. So far using 1.3125v / 1.1SOC and a 43.25Multi, she is stable in Aida64 and both Cinbenches BACK TO BACK. Ram I got to 3733 using Dram Calculator 16/19/19/36 1.4v and this is 64GB (4 16gb dimms) of DJR Mem. I would consider my watercooling loop for this CPU very highend (60mm EK 420mm rad in push pull, D5 pump, all copper heatkiller IV Pro Waterblock, etc..) and temps in a 22c room are 91c. I cant go any lower on vcore, or shes becomes unstable. I have done multi remounts and temps are all the same. she idles in the high 20c's.
> 
> So how does a 3950x @ 4.35ghz and 64gb's of 3733Ram Sound?? Or should I scrap this OC and just use PBO? Kinda at a crossroads here and cant make up my mind.


Your overclock is too high to sustain on a 24/7 basis. That is why your temps are so ridiculously high. Drop the overclock to 4.275 GHZ and you will be much better off.That is unless you don't mind degrading your cpu and motherboard prematurely.


----------



## newls1

os2wiz said:


> Your overclock is too high to sustain on a 24/7 basis. That is why your temps are so ridiculously high. Drop the overclock to 4.275 GHZ and you will be much better off.That is unless you don't mind degrading your cpu and motherboard prematurely.


how is this to high of an OC, seems to be on average what these cpus achieve. 1.3125v isnt even alot of vcore.


----------



## Gadfly

Anyone else have the boards rgb lights blinking under heavy loads? I just kicked off a memtest and all the rgb lights on the motherboard are blinking....


----------



## zsoltmol

Here is a comparison of 1001 bios vs 1105 with all the same manually entered settings, but still looking for tips-tricks on 1105 bios:
EK based dual loop water cooling
G.Skill 4x8GB Samsung B-die originally 3600MHz-16-16-16-36 ram @1.35V
AMD 3900X
Asus C8H - non wifi version

1105 vs 1001 @ 3733MHz memory benchmark









1105 BIOS - difference between 3733/1866 and 3600/1800 scenario (all settings are the same in bios - except ram clk and fclk):









1001 BIOS - difference between 3733/1866 and 3600/1800 scenario (all settings are the same in bios - except ram clk and fclk):









Different boost strategy between 1105 and 1001 in Cinebech R20 test:
1001 boosts all cores at exact same clock in Cinebench R20, typically at 4.100-4.150 MHz, no up or down difference per core.
1105 boosts similar amount, but second by second per core boost bounces up-down between 4.075-4.225 MHz.
1001 bios Cinebench R20 multi CPU vcore: 1.30-1.32v
1105 bios Cinebench R20 multi CPU vcore: 1.28-1.31v

















Putting back 1001 with same ram and PBO setting give me the exact same result as it did early november with same bios (Windows 1909 and new AMD driver released since and I have installed them):









With 1105 bios I have crackling Youtube audio issue many times at 3733MHz and occaisonaly at 3600MHz, this was not existing at any speed with 1001 bios.


----------



## Takla

newls1 said:


> how is this to high of an OC, seems to be on average what these cpus achieve. 1.3125v isnt even alot of vcore.



He is wrong. Your voltages are fine. And temps, well, clock speed _*and*_ voltages both increase the cpu temperature. You can't really cool 12 cores on 7nm all too well.


----------



## zsoltmol

My ram settings via latest Ryzen Master:

1.0.0.3 ABBA - 1001 bios 3600MHz









1.0.0.4 B - 1105 bios 3600MHz









1.0.0.3 ABBA - 1001 bios 3733MHz









1.0.0.4 B - 1105 bios 3733MHz









Attached also my BIOS settings in TXT format


----------



## newls1

Takla said:


> He is wrong. Your voltages are fine. And temps, well, clock speed _*and*_ voltages both increase the cpu temperature. You can't really cool 12 cores on 7nm all too well.


im cooling 16cores! so an all core OC of 4.325ghz @ 1.3125v is safe right? I went to microcenter and bought a EK Velocity block for this chip today to see if it provided the same temps as my new heatkiller pro IV block, and it was very similiar in temps...


----------



## MacMus

Hi guys is this a good board to pair with 3950X ?

I have bad experience with Asus so far, how does this board look like in regards to OC, Support, RGB support etc


----------



## MacMus

iDShaDoW said:


> I'm having the long POST/Boot time issue due to PCIe Sound Card issue myself.
> 
> Wish ASUS would actually put out a statement of some sort saying they know of the issues and are working to fix it. Some sort of communication would be nice.


I ordered this mobo, but i have very nice sound card i want to keep. Is this still an issue ?
If not I would need to search somewhere else ;-(


----------



## Gadfly

Hey all,

Hate to be a bother, my return window for this board closes tomorrow, does anyone have any feedback about rgb blinking when running memtest? It blinks the onboard rgb, and the rgb fans plugged into the rgb header.

Is this a setting or something that I can adjust, or is it defective. I don't want to return a good board if I am being a dumb ass.


----------



## TK421

Any baseline overclocking guide? Curious regarding LLC, PBO settings on motherboard, etc.


----------



## dlbsyst

zsoltmol said:


> My ram settings via latest Ryzen Master:
> 
> 1.0.0.3 ABBA - 1001 bios 3600MHz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.0.0.4 B - 1105 bios 3600MHz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.0.0.3 ABBA - 1001 bios 3733MHz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.0.0.4 B - 1105 bios 3733MHz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Attached also my BIOS settings in TXT format


I would try these values manually entered to the following.

VDDG CCD Voltage Control [Manual]0.950
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [Manual]0.950


----------



## newls1

changed my OC a bit and now OCing based per CCD/CCX. 1st CCD im using a 45x multi (so cores 0-7 are 4.5GHz and Cores 8-15 are 4.3GHz) all using 1.3125vcore and got a Cinebench r20 score of 10450. Is this decent?


----------



## dlbsyst

Gadfly said:


> Hey all,
> 
> Hate to be a bother, my return window for this board closes tomorrow, does anyone have any feedback about rgb blinking when running memtest? It blinks the onboard rgb, and the rgb fans plugged into the rgb header.
> 
> Is this a setting or something that I can adjust, or is it defective. I don't want to return a good board if I am being a dumb ass.


Well, you're not being a dumb ass. as far I know there are no settings in BIOS that can cause this assuming your board is running stable. Also, I have personally never seen blinking RGBs on my board. Can you tell me which Memtest you are running and I can test it out for you? It wont be until tonight though as I have to go to work.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Gadfly said:


> Hey all,
> 
> Hate to be a bother, my return window for this board closes tomorrow, does anyone have any feedback about rgb blinking when running memtest? It blinks the onboard rgb, and the rgb fans plugged into the rgb header.
> 
> Is this a setting or something that I can adjust, or is it defective. I don't want to return a good board if I am being a dumb ass.


I normally use membench in Ryzen calculator which is based on memtest and i’ve never seen anything like that either. I can try too. Might be able to it later today


----------



## usoldier

Takla said:


> set polling rate of secondary sensors in hwinfo to 10 instead of 1. or disable polling for the asus wmi.


I actualy have no idea where to find that on hwinfo64 , also Is it realy Hwinfo64 causing the Fan problems i realy have no idea it could even cause problems to fan crontrol.


----------



## Gadfly

dlbsyst said:


> Well, you're not being a dumb ass. as far I know there are no settings in BIOS that can cause this assuming your board is running stable. Also, I have personally never seen blinking RGBs on my board. Can you tell me which Memtest you are running and I can test it out for you? It wont be until tonight though as I have to go to work.


HCI Memtest 31x 900mb or testMem5 , it does it on both, it is like a flickering or random strobe effect


----------



## Krisztias

Gadfly said:


> HCI Memtest 31x 900mb or testMem5 , it does it on both, it is like a flickering or random strobe effect


Hi!

I use TM5 and RAM Test, didn't get any anomalies with the RGB.


----------



## polynomialc

I have this board and 3800x on its way.. im curious im going from intel z370 using gskill Ripjaw V, 16gb 3200 1.35v kit.. Will this Ram work with this motherboard? Also would it be worth upgrading to a cl14 kit ?


----------



## newls1

newls1 said:


> changed my OC a bit and now OCing based per CCD/CCX. 1st CCD im using a 45x multi (so cores 0-7 are 4.5GHz and Cores 8-15 are 4.3GHz) all using 1.3125vcore and got a Cinebench r20 score of 10450. Is this decent?


anyone?


----------



## dlbsyst

Duplicate


----------



## dlbsyst

newls1 said:


> changed my OC a bit and now OCing based per CCD/CCX. 1st CCD im using a 45x multi (so cores 0-7 are 4.5GHz and Cores 8-15 are 4.3GHz) all using 1.3125vcore and got a Cinebench r20 score of 10450. Is this decent?


Sounds really good to me and a much better score than what I'm getting with my 3900x. I pretty much just let my Crosshair VIII handle the overclocking at this point and really happy with it. I do really want to get a 3950x and probably won't be able to resist ordering one when Amazon gets a restock.


----------



## newls1

Quick question regarding my newly changed OC based on "Per CCD/CCX" .... Before when my OC was "all core" based (43.25 multi set all core) pc would POST and say 4325mhz... and cinebench would show same speed upon launch. Now with the per ccd/ccx overclock, pc posts saying 3500mhz cpu, but EVERYTHING in windows shows 4.5ghz (cpuz, etc..) but cinebench reads 3500mhz cpu. I just find this strange. My r20 score is 10450 so i think the OC is sticking. anyone else notice when you OC per ccd the system will POST with default cpu speed where as when OCing all core, system will post with given cpu oc'd speed.


----------



## Gadfly

PSA, If you are having trouble with FCLK instability bump your South Bridge to 1.05 - 1.09v 

I was stuck at 1866 FCLK, I could post, but not boot. 
Since I was making it past DRAM training, and posting, but had random reboots once the OS started to load I suspected that the South bridge was the culprit. Sure enough a small bump to the Southbridge (x570 chip itself) voltage to 1.05v it booted right up and is stable at 1900mhz Fclk.

So for those in the same boat, that can post at a higher fclk but you are not stable, try a bump to your chipset voltage. Upto 1.1v should be more than safe


----------



## MacMus

Gadfly said:


> Anyone else have the boards rgb lights blinking under heavy loads? I just kicked off a memtest and all the rgb lights on the motherboard are blinking....


Looks like faulty chipse, or some lines to Aura Chipset issues. Check you chipset temperature under the load.


----------



## MacMus

It this Hero a good choice or it better to go with Gigabyte ?


----------



## Gadfly

MacMus said:


> Looks like faulty chipse, or some lines to Aura Chipset issues. Check you chipset temperature under the load.


Yeah I am returning it.


----------



## newls1

MacMus said:


> It this Hero a good choice or it better to go with Gigabyte ?


being that you are in the ASUS thread for its motherboards, I will say go with the HERO. Its what I have and it is amazing. Im sure the gigabyte is a fine choice to if you go with a upper tier choice. I love this Hero, bios is simple, OC's great and stays damn cool


----------



## dlbsyst

MacMus said:


> It this Hero a good choice or it better to go with Gigabyte ?


My last motherboard was the Hero VI and I loved it. Now I'm running the VIII Hero and love it too. I've pretty much always owned Asus motherboards going back to the late 90's. I guess I am officially an Asus fanboy.


----------



## seansplayin

Crosshair VIII Hero with 3800x (bios 1105)
Question on the boosting algorithm.
If I raise the baseclock the cpu is locked to a 39 multiplier, this wasn't the case on my Crosshair VII/2700x where I ran 102 with POB enabled and it would still increase the multiplier up to 43.


----------



## zsoltmol

zsoltmol said:


> My ram settings via latest Ryzen Master:
> 
> 1.0.0.3 ABBA - 1001 bios 3733MHz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.0.0.4 B - 1105 bios 3733MHz


CLDO_VDDG is automatically set at 1.14v by the bios when running 1866MHz FCLK. Should I decrease this manually to 1.0v to be safe?


----------



## newls1

I wish there was a thread somewhere that explained all these voltage settings (I.E. CLd0-vddg, vddp, etc settings) cause im absolutely confused as to what they are, what they do and how to set them. If ryzen calculator didnt tell me to adjust a given setting, then i leave it on auto.. Does a thread like this exist?


----------



## zsoltmol

newls1 said:


> I wish there was a thread somewhere that explained all these voltage settings (I.E. CLd0-vddg, vddp, etc settings) cause im absolutely confused as to what they are, what they do and how to set them. If ryzen calculator didnt tell me to adjust a given setting, then i leave it on auto.. Does a thread like this exist?


Quite good material here:

https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4 OC Guide.md

My concern is why Asus bios automatically sets vddg @ 1.14volt, is it a bug?


----------



## Gadfly

zsoltmol said:


> Quite good material here:
> 
> https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4 OC Guide.md
> 
> My concern is why Asus bios automatically sets vddg @ 1.14volt, is it a bug?


No, looks like they just set it to max by default. Thing is you will get hangs and boot failures as you start to turn up FCLK. VDDG is not like CPU core voltage where more volts = higher clock. For example, my 3950X will boot fine with a VDDG @ 1.1v with an FCLK of 1800mhz and 1833mhz, but at 1866mhz it will boot loop and hang at 0.980v, for 1900mhz I landed on VDDG of 0.935v with a VDDP of 0.800v, Southbridge at 1.06v and SOC at 1.08v. This runs the memory and FCLK at 1900mhz 1:1.


----------



## zsoltmol

Thanks.

Unfortunately i did not realize this was at 1.14v for months now. Hope no damage is done. I falsely assumed auto means proper setting and if I would like to overclock (dont) then I manually increase/decrease it if needed.


----------



## Gadfly

newls1 said:


> I wish there was a thread somewhere that explained all these voltage settings (I.E. CLd0-vddg, vddp, etc settings) cause im absolutely confused as to what they are, what they do and how to set them. If ryzen calculator didnt tell me to adjust a given setting, then i leave it on auto.. Does a thread like this exist?



Well you can google exactly what they do, But here are some of the Key voltages that you will worry about when overclocking:


- Gear down mode: Gear down mode sets the command pins of your memory to run at 1/2 MCLK. So if your memory is running 1600mhz (3200 MT/s), and you enable gear down mode, the command pins will run at 800mhz, because it is running on a divider of 2, while gear down mode is enabled CAS latency must be even. Gear down mode introduces a small latency and memory performance penalty, but greatly increases stability. Generally speaking 1T > 1T GDM > 2T

- DRAM Voltage: Voltage that runs your memory. 

- SOC: This is the voltage that runs the SoC (System on Chip), for Zen 2 this is the I/O die; the Memory controller is part of the SoC. for Zen 2, 1.0 - 1.25v should be the safe range, you likely will not need to go over 1.125v unless you are really pushing high memory clocks with lots of ranks / really tight timings. If you are having trouble getting your memory to train at boot (before post) you can try to slowly increase SoC to see if it helps get you over the hump. 

- VDDP: This is the voltage used to set memory contents, you really won't need to play with this, but a very small bump might help resolve random isolated memory errors while stress testing. Pay attention to the test that generates an error if it is a write or a copy operation, a little additional VDDP might help. 

- CLDO VDDP: Voltage for the DDR4 PHY on the SoC. The DDR4 PHY or physical-layer interface converts information from the memory controllers to a format the DDR4 memory modules can understand. You can move this up and down to find what give you the best results. 0.700 - 1.00v

- CLDO VDDG: This is the voltage used to run the IF fabric in the CPU between the CPU chiplets and the I/O die. .900-1.15v are safe ranges, the default value should be 0.950v Start there and move up and down in 0.005v increments to try to help stabilize higher FCLK's 

- SB v1.0: This is the voltage that drives the x570 chip itself (called the southbridge). When you run higher FCLK's the southbridge will run at the same speed, so you may have to bump the southbridge voltage a little at higher FCLK. IF you can post but get reboots when the OS loads, random reboots in the OS, slower M.2 performance, etc. Try bumping this to 1.05v and work your way up slowly. I'd guess that 1.2v is safe (Phyisically the x570 is the same as the I/O die in the Zen2 package), but you shouldn't need more than 1.1v. Start at 1.01v and bump it up 0.01v at a time, I am running mine at 1.06v

- ProcODT: Proc ODT is a resistance value represented in ohms that affects how the memory signals are terminated, for Zen2 these values appear to have moved down a little from the Zen/Zen+ values. Start with what you get out of the DRAM calc. then move it down until DRAM training fails, and then move it back up one notch. How low you can go will give you a good idea of how much headroom you have left in your memory OC. As you start moving MCLK up you will likely have to move ProcODT up as well. Every time you start getting DRAM training failures, before you bump the DRAM voltage, try increasing the ProcODT one notch first, if it still fails to train, then move it back to where it was and increase DRAM voltage. Repeat. 



I am sure I am forgetting something, but that is a good starting point.


----------



## Gadfly

zsoltmol said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Unfortunately i did not realize this was at 1.14v for months now. Hope no damage is done. I falsely assumed auto means proper setting and if I would like to overclock (dont) then I manually increase/decrease it if needed.


This has never been the case, Auto is a default value, sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. Nothing is really "automatic". 

that said, I don't think 1.14v will be an issue, or cause any damage. Just set it down to 0.950v and try to run that FCLK up at 1900mhz.


----------



## newls1

Gadfly said:


> Well you can google exactly what they do, But here are some of the Key voltages that you will worry about when overclocking:
> 
> 
> - Gear down mode: Gear down mode sets the command pins of your memory to run at 1/2 MCLK. So if your memory is running 1600mhz (3200 MT/s), and you enable gear down mode, the command pins will run at 800mhz, because it is running on a divider of 2, while gear down mode is enabled CAS latency must be even. Gear down mode introduces a small latency and memory performance penalty, but greatly increases stability. Generally speaking 1T > 1T GDM > 2T
> 
> - DRAM Voltage: Voltage that runs your memory.
> 
> - SOC: This is the voltage that runs the SoC (System on Chip), for Zen 2 this is the I/O die; the Memory controller is part of the SoC. for Zen 2, 1.0 - 1.25v should be the safe range, you likely will not need to go over 1.125v unless you are really pushing high memory clocks with lots of ranks / really tight timings. If you are having trouble getting your memory to train at boot (before post) you can try to slowly increase SoC to see if it helps get you over the hump.
> 
> - VDDP: This is the voltage used to set memory contents, you really won't need to play with this, but a very small bump might help resolve random isolated memory errors while stress testing. Pay attention to the test that generates an error if it is a write or a copy operation, a little additional VDDP might help.
> 
> - CLDO VDDP: Voltage for the DDR4 PHY on the SoC. The DDR4 PHY or physical-layer interface converts information from the memory controllers to a format the DDR4 memory modules can understand. You can move this up and down to find what give you the best results. 0.700 - 1.00v
> 
> - CLDO VDDG: This is the voltage used to run the IF fabric in the CPU between the CPU chiplets and the I/O die. .900-1.15v are safe ranges, the default value should be 0.950v Start there and move up and down in 0.005v increments to try to help stabilize higher FCLK's
> 
> - SB v1.0: This is the voltage that drives the x570 chip itself (called the southbridge). When you run higher FCLK's the southbridge will run at the same speed, so you may have to bump the southbridge voltage a little at higher FCLK. IF you can post but get reboots when the OS loads, random reboots in the OS, slower M.2 performance, etc. Try bumping this to 1.05v and work your way up slowly. I'd guess that 1.2v is safe (Phyisically the x570 is the same as the I/O die in the Zen2 package), but you shouldn't need more than 1.1v. Start at 1.01v and bump it up 0.01v at a time, I am running mine at 1.06v
> 
> - ProcODT: Proc ODT is a resistance value represented in ohms that affects how the memory signals are terminated, for Zen2 these values appear to have moved down a little from the Zen/Zen+ values. Start with what you get out of the DRAM calc. then move it down until DRAM training fails, and then move it back up one notch. How low you can go will give you a good idea of how much headroom you have left in your memory OC. As you start moving MCLK up you will likely have to move ProcODT up as well. Every time you start getting DRAM training failures, before you bump the DRAM voltage, try increasing the ProcODT one notch first, if it still fails to train, then move it back to where it was and increase DRAM voltage. Repeat.
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure I am forgetting something, but that is a good starting point.



Thank you for your time in writting that.


----------



## zsoltmol

Gadfly said:


> zsoltmol said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Unfortunately i did not realize this was at 1.14v for months now. Hope no damage is done. I falsely assumed auto means proper setting and if I would like to overclock (dont) then I manually increase/decrease it if needed.
> 
> 
> 
> This has never been the case, Auto is a default value, sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. Nothing is really "automatic".
> 
> that said, I don't think 1.14v will be an issue, or cause any damage. Just set it down to 0.950v and try to run that FCLK up at 1900mhz.
Click to expand...

What other “auto settings“ should I set manually with my 3900x running at 3733/1866 with 4x8GB single rank B-die?

SOC is at 1.088-1.062 range per HWinfo. Cldo_vddg corrected now.


----------



## neurotix

Gadfly said:


> Well you can google exactly what they do, But here are some of the Key voltages that you will worry about when overclocking:
> 
> 
> - Gear down mode: Gear down mode sets the command pins of your memory to run at 1/2 MCLK. So if your memory is running 1600mhz (3200 MT/s), and you enable gear down mode, the command pins will run at 800mhz, because it is running on a divider of 2, while gear down mode is enabled CAS latency must be even. Gear down mode introduces a small latency and memory performance penalty, but greatly increases stability. Generally speaking 1T > 1T GDM > 2T
> 
> - DRAM Voltage: Voltage that runs your memory.
> 
> - SOC: This is the voltage that runs the SoC (System on Chip), for Zen 2 this is the I/O die; the Memory controller is part of the SoC. for Zen 2, 1.0 - 1.25v should be the safe range, you likely will not need to go over 1.125v unless you are really pushing high memory clocks with lots of ranks / really tight timings. If you are having trouble getting your memory to train at boot (before post) you can try to slowly increase SoC to see if it helps get you over the hump.
> 
> - VDDP: This is the voltage used to set memory contents, you really won't need to play with this, but a very small bump might help resolve random isolated memory errors while stress testing. Pay attention to the test that generates an error if it is a write or a copy operation, a little additional VDDP might help.
> 
> - CLDO VDDP: Voltage for the DDR4 PHY on the SoC. The DDR4 PHY or physical-layer interface converts information from the memory controllers to a format the DDR4 memory modules can understand. You can move this up and down to find what give you the best results. 0.700 - 1.00v
> 
> - CLDO VDDG: This is the voltage used to run the IF fabric in the CPU between the CPU chiplets and the I/O die. .900-1.15v are safe ranges, the default value should be 0.950v Start there and move up and down in 0.005v increments to try to help stabilize higher FCLK's
> 
> - SB v1.0: This is the voltage that drives the x570 chip itself (
> 
> snip
> .



Great explanations and advice here, we need more new posters like you. rep+

I knew what some of these values were for, and set everything from DRAM Calc (including termination impedance, VTT_DDR, BGS_Alt, Memory Interleave Size, etc.) Now I understand what a lot of these debug voltages really do. 

The M.2 speed thing, any advice here? I pretty much have a golden bdie kit, and can run it stable and pass memtest in DRAM Calc to 105% all threads at 3800/1900 16-16-16-16-32-50 1T GDM Off. Also run it Asynchronous up to 4066 cas14/1866 fclk and it passed at that too (latency was ~70ns range! 62gbps read/61 write/65 copy!) However, recently in the last few weeks my Windows 10 startup times have been atrocious, on the order of 50 secs after Windows starts loading to get to a login screen. Debian boots to a login screen in like 3 secs. I even reinstalled W10 today and it did nothing for boot times. 

I am starting to wish I got a 9900k- this is insane and totally unacceptable for a $1100~ upgrade- my moms office machine with a C5F + FX-8350 stock + Samsung 850 Evo SATA and Win7 boots in like 2 secs and loads up everything at login instantly and that was my kit in 2011! A nvme drive with 5x faster bench performance should not be taking 10x faster to load Windows! Get it together ASUS and AMD or I will sell my kit, go Intel and warn all users here and recommend the competition! (I reboot a lot to switch between Windows and Linux, this performance is unacceptable!)

I will try your advice about increasing SB 1.0v voltage and lowering other debug voltages but I'm pretty goddamn angry over this as the boot times randomly tripled 3 weeks ago for no reason, and Ive spent a week and a half trying to diagnose the problem, uninstall programs, mess with regedit, tweak various services in Win10, and following guides to fix slow crappy win10 boot times, instead of gaming! Nothing has worked and even an os reinstall hasnt helped! I still have to mess with reinstalling grub too. If this isa problem (that many many other users on reddit hace) then release drivers for x570 for Windows 7! Because beta dumpster bin trash garbage stinking spyware fire Win10 is the problem.

Thanks!


----------



## Snoopy69

I cant find a overclocking-guide especially for the  ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII  
Preferably step-by-step (for OC-Noobs)... 

Is the IF-clock depending on the motherboard or from the CPU?


----------



## Reous

Bios 1201 is out. Direct links:
https://www.hardwareluxx.de/communi...s-agesa-ubersicht-28-11-19-a-1228903.html#2.7


----------



## newls1

so quick question.. Can I save my bios options to usb drive and simply load them back in with new bios, or no? Ive spent SOME TIME with these settings and ill be damned if I have to re enter them again!


----------



## usoldier

newls1 said:


> so quick question.. Can I save my bios options to usb drive and simply load them back in with new bios, or no? Ive spent SOME TIME with these settings and ill be damned if I have to re enter them again!


Well sometimes some things change and it doesnt load previous settings, i would print the setting and re input them by hand to be shure.


----------



## Sam64

usoldier said:


> Well sometimes some things change and it doesnt load previous settings, i would print the setting and re input them by hand to be shure.



I recommend that as well. Tried it before and it failed.


----------



## Snoopy69

Reous said:


> Bios 1201 is out. Direct links:
> https://www.hardwareluxx.de/communi...s-agesa-ubersicht-28-11-19-a-1228903.html#2.7


Hey Reous, bin auch bei HWluxx


----------



## usoldier

Snoopy69 said:


> Hey Reous, bin auch bei HWluxx


Any place we can check "Bios patch / changes "?


----------



## Sam64

usoldier said:


> Any place we can check "Bios patch / changes "?



Looks like it's a bit to early to ask. 1201 is not officially published yet. I guess, there will be some release notes, when it's officially linked for download. 



https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/ROG-Crosshair-VIII-Hero-WI-FI/HelpDesk_Download/
...still has 1105 as latest Bios.


----------



## dlbsyst

usoldier said:


> Any place we can check "Bios patch / changes "?





Sam64 said:


> Looks like it's a bit to early to ask. 1201 is not officially published yet. I guess, there will be some release notes, when it's officially linked for download.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/ROG-Crosshair-VIII-Hero-WI-FI/HelpDesk_Download/
> ...still has 1105 as latest Bios.


I installed the new BIOS. It is dated 11-18-2019. So far so good.:thumb: I did read on the ROG forum that it fixes the slow boot for those with a soundcard plugged into his PCI-E port.


----------



## gupsterg

Snoopy69 said:


> Is the IF-clock depending on the motherboard or from the CPU?


CPU.


----------



## dlbsyst

This new BIOS seems more stable than the last 1105 BIOS. I bet when Asus posts it to the official page it says "Improve system performance."


----------



## newls1

damn it, just got this system running well, and now a new bios. Hmmmm, wondering if its better to wait till its actually posted on asus' website, maybe they might add a thing or 2 before making it official???


----------



## zsoltmol

In hope of getting better than 1105 I just flashed 1201. Same process: USB Flashback, then CMOS clear, then load setup defaults, then manually set everything up.

Boost behaviour has changed in my case with 1201 in Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark:
1001 - boosting all cores at same amount, typically @ 4.150-4.175 GHz, CPU Vcore 1.304-1.312v, max core temp 71 celsius









1105 - boosting cores individually, constantly switcing some cores at 4.225GHz, some at 4.075GHz, CPU Vcore 1.278-1.312v, , max core temp 68 celsius









1201 - boosting all cores at same amount, typically @ 4.150-4.175 GHz, CPU Vcore 1.304-1.312v, max core temp 69-70 celsius









So from this aspect 1201 looks better. However I cannot set CLDO_VDDG. I have set this to be at 0.980v, Ryzen Master reposrts 1.14v









BIG-BIG headache -> *despite simalar boost behaviour and exact same ram timings, my Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark is again down to 68xx points from 74xx points*. Ram speed and ram latency also down, although same settings dialled in and confirmed via Ryzen Master. *This is again a cca 10% loss compared to 1001*. 

I know I did set up something incorrectly, but pls tell me where I do this mistake.


----------



## dlbsyst

zsoltmol said:


> In hope of getting better than 1105 I just flashed 1201. Same process: USB Flashback, then CMOS clear, then load setup defaults, then manually set everything up.
> 
> Boost behaviour has changed in my case with 1201 in Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark:
> 1001 - boosting all cores at same amount, typically @ 4.150-4.175 GHz, CPU Vcore 1.304-1.312v, max core temp 71 celsius
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1105 - boosting cores individually, constantly switcing some cores at 4.225GHz, some at 4.075GHz, CPU Vcore 1.278-1.312v, , max core temp 68 celsius
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1201 - boosting all cores at same amount, typically @ 4.150-4.175 GHz, CPU Vcore 1.304-1.312v, max core temp 69-70 celsius
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So from this aspect 1201 looks better. However I cannot set CLDO_VDDG. I have set this to be at 0.980v, Ryzen Master reposrts 1.14v
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BIG-BIG headache -> *despite simalar boost behaviour and exact same ram timings, my Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark is again down to 68xx points from 74xx points*. Ram speed and ram latency also down, although same settings dialled in and confirmed via Ryzen Master. *This is again a cca 10% loss compared to 1001*.
> 
> I know I did set up something incorrectly, but pls tell me where I do this mistake.


On the main Extreme Tweaker page in BIOS set your 0.980v value in two places, under VDDG CCD Voltage Control and VDDG IOD Voltage Control. That will solve your incorrect value showing in Ryzen Master. I normally set mine to 0.950 but set your value in my BIOS to see what shows up in Ryzen Master and it shows 0.9799. I get 7331 CPU and 521 single core in CB R20 using the 1201 BIOS. I have PBO Enabled. My RAM is running at 3600MHz, FCLK at 1800MHz and Gear down disabled with fast timings. Performance Enhancer is on Auto as is Performance Bias.


----------



## seansplayin

Question on Ryzen 3000 series boosting algorithm. Is boosting completely dictated by the cpu or does the chipset have some control over it?
on my Crosshair VII/2700x I ran 102.4mh base clock with POB enabled and a scalar value of 10 and performance enhancer set 4, this would result in higher boost clocks up to 4403mhz all core.
unfortunately on my new Crosshair VIII Hero/3800x (bios 1105) if I raise the base clock above 100mhz the multiplier is locked to 39. Does anyone know how to get around this? 
I just bought a second 3800x and I was thinking about experimenting with the C7H to see if I can get it to boost like the 2700x with a raised base clock.


----------



## blue.dot

Hey guys. I'm building a computer with the Crosshair VIII WiFi in Meshify S2, and I'd like to mount Celsius S36 at the top. Will there be enough clearance?


----------



## Sam64

Found some release notes on hwluxxx forum:
https://www.hardwareluxx.de/communi...sicht-03-12-19-a-1228903-34.html#post27252400


_Version 1201 2019/12/03 14.93 MBytes
_ _
ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BIOS 1201
01. Fix a compatibility issue with the ASUS-ESTX II-0074 sound card
02. Update TCGStorageSecurity Module to support TCG Pyrite 2.0 Devices.
03. Fix some boot issues with NVME devices.
04. Update auto-rules for CPU and Memory overclocking
Before running the USB BIOS Flashback tool, please rename the BIOS file (C8H.CAP) using BIOSRenamer. _


----------



## TK421

what's the recommended Load Line Calibration setting for this motherboard?


I'm on latest bios


----------



## zsoltmol

dlbsyst said:


> [
> On the main Extreme Tweaker page in BIOS set your 0.980v value in two places, under VDDG CCD Voltage Control and VDDG IOD Voltage Control. That will solve your incorrect value showing in Ryzen Master. I normally set mine to 0.950 but set your value in my BIOS to see what shows up in Ryzen Master and it shows 0.9799. I get 7331 CPU and 521 single core in CB R20 using the 1201 BIOS. I have PBO Enabled. My RAM is running at 3600MHz, FCLK at 1800MHz and Gear down disabled with fast timings. Performance Enhancer is on Auto as is Performance Bias.


Thanks! May I ask you to attach your current bios setting dumped in a txt file from the bios? Would be great.


----------



## dlbsyst

zsoltmol said:


> Thanks! May I ask you to attach your current bios setting dumped in a txt file from the bios? Would be great.


Sure./forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Removed to make adjustments to my RAM settings.


----------



## newls1

Can someone please tell me if these voltages all seem inline with this per ccd OC? CCD1 @ 4.5 and CCD2 @ 4.325. If im missing any voltages that are import ant for you to see, please let me know, ill snap a pic of more if needed. Thank you


----------



## flyinion

The new BIOS is up officially with release notes for the non-WiFi Hero at least as of late last night.


----------



## kenshabby

going from 1001 to 1201 (i skipped 1105) on the c8i it seems the chipset temps have dropped quite a lot, about 7 degrees C lower idle, and about 4 degrees lower under load. i guess they must have tweaked the fan speeds. ive never paid attention to chipset fans, just left it on default so cant really compare. theres no audible difference though. my settings otherwise are identical


----------



## neurotix

Upgraded to the latest bios, did nothing for my boot times- I dont have a pci-e sound card  Apparently it's a 3900x problem. Many other users with the 3900x have reported this problem on reddit. Win10 fresh install is taking a minute to load after bios screen. I don't think it's the drive itself. Tbh I have to think its something with Windows 10. Good thing I also use *nix :thumb: 

Anyway, it hasn't really done anything for performance or temps or memory bandwidth/latency vs the old one. I suppose it requires more testing though and I use manual CCX OC so my chip doesn't jump around in frequency. I'm pretty familiar with how this setup performs in Unigine Heaven 4.0 @ 1080p (which is CPU-bound), so I'll have to test to see if there's a difference for gaming or something.


----------



## Krisztias

zsoltmol said:


> In hope of getting better than 1105 I just flashed 1201. Same process: USB Flashback, then CMOS clear, then load setup defaults, then manually set everything up.
> 
> Boost behaviour has changed in my case with 1201 in Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark:
> 1001 - boosting all cores at same amount, typically @ 4.150-4.175 GHz, CPU Vcore 1.304-1.312v, max core temp 71 celsius
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1105 - boosting cores individually, constantly switcing some cores at 4.225GHz, some at 4.075GHz, CPU Vcore 1.278-1.312v, , max core temp 68 celsius
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1201 - boosting all cores at same amount, typically @ 4.150-4.175 GHz, CPU Vcore 1.304-1.312v, max core temp 69-70 celsius
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So from this aspect 1201 looks better. However I cannot set CLDO_VDDG. I have set this to be at 0.980v, Ryzen Master reposrts 1.14v
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BIG-BIG headache -> *despite simalar boost behaviour and exact same ram timings, my Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark is again down to 68xx points from 74xx points*. Ram speed and ram latency also down, although same settings dialled in and confirmed via Ryzen Master. *This is again a cca 10% loss compared to 1001*.
> 
> I know I did set up something incorrectly, but pls tell me where I do this mistake.


Hi!

You can try to check the two BankGroupSwap options. BGS should be disabled and BGS alt should be enabled.


----------



## datspike

Gadfly said:


> PSA, If you are having trouble with FCLK instability bump your South Bridge to 1.05 - 1.09v
> 
> I was stuck at 1866 FCLK, I could post, but not boot.
> Since I was making it past DRAM training, and posting, but had random reboots once the OS started to load I suspected that the South bridge was the culprit. Sure enough a small bump to the Southbridge (x570 chip itself) voltage to 1.05v it booted right up and is stable at 1900mhz Fclk.
> 
> So for those in the same boat, that can post at a higher fclk but you are not stable, try a bump to your chipset voltage. Upto 1.1v should be more than safe


That helped me fix my microfreezes problem at any memory clock higher than 3600 on C6H. Huge thanks
That's insane that a little stupid chipset voltage can infuence cpu/if stability that much


----------



## dlbsyst

Krisztias said:


> Hi!
> 
> You can try to check the two BankGroupSwap options. BGS should be disabled and BGS alt should be enabled.


Don't you have those reversed? BGS Enabled and BGS Alt Disabled. If not please explain.


----------



## neurotix

dlbsyst said:


> Don't you have those reversed? BGS Enabled and BGS Alt Disabled. If not please explain.


Wrong.

DRAM Calc says to turn off BGS and turn on BGS_Alt in 99% of cases, especially with Bdie. You have it backwards.

BGS = BankGroupSwap.

In most screenshots you'll see it says the opposite- disable BGS and enable BGS_Alt, underneath it on our boards it should say 3F8 as well

This isnt exactly a necessary setting and with everything else set correctly, you will likely be fine, but you will be missing out on a free 2-4GBps Memory Copy bandwidth.

I can take two screenshots with and without if you want, at 3800mhz

With BGS_Alt enabled, my memory copy goes from 58GB to 62-ish


----------



## dlbsyst

neurotix said:


> Wrong.
> 
> DRAM Calc says to turn off BGS and turn on BGS_Alt in 99% of cases, especially with Bdie. You have it backwards.
> 
> BGS = BankGroupSwap.
> 
> In most screenshots you'll see it says the opposite- disable BGS and enable BGS_Alt, underneath it on our boards it should say 3F8 as well
> 
> This isnt exactly a necessary setting and with everything else set correctly, you will likely be fine, but you will be missing out on a free 2-4GBps Memory Copy bandwidth.
> 
> I can take two screenshots with and without if you want, at 3800mhz
> 
> With BGS_Alt enabled, my memory copy goes from 58GB to 62-ish


I'm never wrong. To be fair I never mess with those two settings. I have 4 sticks of G Skill Flair-X 3200MHz CL-14 RAM for a total of 32GB. It's B-Die that I'm running at 3600MHz and really tight timings of 14 15 14 14 28 42 etc. with GD disabled. The Ryzen calculator says to enable BGS and disable BGSA in my case. In my BIOS these settings are both on Auto so I'm not really sure how the BIOS is setting these up. Do you know of some software that I can use that will show if these two settings are enabled or disabled? I guess I can try manually dialing them in both ways and see if there is a performance difference and check for stability. Thanks for the help.


----------



## usoldier

dlbsyst said:


> I'm never wrong. To be fair I never mess with those two settings. I have 4 sticks of G Skill Flair-X 3200MHz CL-14 RAM for a total of 32GB. It's B-Die that I'm running at 3600MHz and really tight timings of 14 15 14 14 28 42 etc. with GD disabled. The Ryzen calculator says to enable BGS and disable BGSA in my case. In my BIOS these settings are both on Auto so I'm not really sure how the BIOS is setting these up. Do you know of some software that I can use that will show if these two settings are enabled or disabled? I guess I can try manually dialing them in both ways and see if there is a performance difference and check for stability. Thanks for the help.


Would love to have your bios Settings i have same amount and type of Ram.


----------



## zsoltmol

usoldier said:


> dlbsyst said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm never wrong./forum/images/smilies/wink.gif To be fair I never mess with those two settings. I have 4 sticks of G Skill Flair-X 3200MHz CL-14 RAM for a total of 32GB. It's B-Die that I'm running at 3600MHz and really tight timings of 14 15 14 14 28 42 etc. with GD disabled. The Ryzen calculator says to enable BGS and disable BGSA in my case. In my BIOS these settings are both on Auto so I'm not really sure how the BIOS is setting these up. Do you know of some software that I can use that will show if these two settings are enabled or disabled? I guess I can try manually dialing them in both ways and see if there is a performance difference and check for stability. Thanks for the help./forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> 
> 
> Would love to have your bios Settings i have same amount and type of Ram.
Click to expand...

He has attached the bios settings here yesterday


----------



## newls1

where in the bios are PPT, TDC, and EDC located at to adjust them to 1000?


----------



## Sam64

newls1 said:


> where in the bios are PPT, TDC, and EDC located at to adjust them to 1000?



No idea, what you mean with "1000" ...

PB2 settings in Bios under AMD Overclocking/Precision Boost Overdrive. You can adjust to 105W/95W/65W/45W.


----------



## newls1

nope, somewhere in the bios are these settings... i need to find them!


----------



## TK421

Sam64 said:


> No idea, what you mean with "1000" ...
> 
> PBO2 settings in Bios under AMD Overclocking/Precision Boost Overdrive. You can adjust to 105W/95W/65W/45W.





newls1 said:


> nope, somewhere in the bios are these settings... i need to find them!





How does the PBO setting under "advanced -> amd overclocking" differ from "extreme tweaker -> precision boost overdrive"?














Also, using performance enhancer doesn't really do anything for me. Scores are either the same or sometimes worse due to thermal limits.


----------



## Sam64

Pls take your time and read. Coming from an Intel system i was a bit confused as well... 

Explaining AMD Ryzen Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO), AutoOC, & Benchmarks 
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3491-explaining-precision-boost-overdrive-benchmarks-auto-oc

Rules of thumb: 

- Never ever activate both
- Tweaker PBO is simply only activating PBO without any specific limits
- PB2 aka Auto-OC (under AMD Overclocking) is activating CPU Boost with specific limits (e.g. TPD Limits)

Check my screendump. Multicore performance drops a bit(~4%), but I get some nice gaming/singlecore performance limiting my 3900X to 95W (PPT 128W, TDC 80A, EDC 125A) and the temps are better (max temps went down from 85° to 78°). I even tried to play around with TPD Limit set to 65W and got 2 more cores to boost to 4650 but Vcore is going crazy without minus offset...


And never forget, that you loose your waranty, when you go for PB2/Auto-OC (to whom it may concern ;-)


----------



## newls1

i think what im looking for is under AMD NBIO sub menu.... when i get home ill look.


----------



## TK421

Sam64 said:


> Pls take your time and read. Coming from an Intel system i was a bit confused as well...
> 
> Explaining AMD Ryzen Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO), AutoOC, & Benchmarks
> https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3491-explaining-precision-boost-overdrive-benchmarks-auto-oc
> 
> Rules of thumb:
> 
> - Never ever activate both
> - Tweaker PBO is simply only activating PBO without any specific limits
> - PB2 aka Auto-OC (under AMD Overclocking) is activating CPU Boost with specific limits (e.g. TPD Limits)
> 
> Check my screendump. Multicore performance drops a bit(~4%), but I get some nice gaming/singlecore performance limiting my 3900X to 95W (PPT 128W, TDC 80A, EDC 125A) and the temps are better (max temps went down from 85° to 78°). I even tried to play around with TPD Limit set to 65W and got 2 more cores to boost to 4650 but Vcore is going crazy without minus offset...
> 
> 
> And never forget, that you loose your waranty, when you go for PB2/Auto-OC (to whom it may concern ;-)


Is there something that gets triggered in the CPU when PBO/PBO2 gets activated?

Does AMD know if we activated PBO?


Also, how about "performance enhancer"?


----------



## dlbsyst

usoldier said:


> Would love to have your bios Settings i have same amount and type of Ram.





zsoltmol said:


> He has attached the bios settings here yesterday


Guys, I just removed my BIOS settings file and I ask that you not use those settings. I just ran the latest memtest pro and it seems my current settings are unstable. I set the test up to test all of my available RAM and I was getting write errors at around 15%. I'm going to be doing some testing to find my best speed and timings that doesn't give errors. Then I'll repost my BIOS settings.


----------



## Krisztias

dlbsyst said:


> Don't you have those reversed? BGS Enabled and BGS Alt Disabled. If not please explain.


In the last 2 years the suggestion of the Calculator was to disable BGS, because it's better for gaming. On my C6H I never had the ability to disable BGSalt, but on my C8H yes. I tried, what the calculator suggested (both off -version 07-08.2019 maybe), but I loosed bandwith with it, like neurotix says here in his post:



neurotix said:


> Wrong.
> 
> DRAM Calc says to turn off BGS and turn on BGS_Alt in 99% of cases, especially with Bdie. You have it backwards.
> 
> BGS = BankGroupSwap.
> 
> In most screenshots you'll see it says the opposite- disable BGS and enable BGS_Alt, underneath it on our boards it should say 3F8 as well
> 
> This isnt exactly a necessary setting and with everything else set correctly, you will likely be fine, but you will be missing out on a free 2-4GBps Memory Copy bandwidth.
> 
> I can take two screenshots with and without if you want, at 3800mhz
> 
> With BGS_Alt enabled, my memory copy goes from 58GB to 62-ish


So, I must check, what the latest version of the Calculator suggests, but I use it like I mentioned (BGS off, BGSalt on)


----------



## dlbsyst

I just read neurotix excellent write up in the memory stability thread and have to admit something. I've been one of the lazy one's and didn't dial in all the settings in the DRAM Calculator. Maybe that's why my settings aren't entirely 100% stable. I'm going to do that tonight after work.


----------



## newls1

any update on the new posted bios? any performance uplift compared to 1105?


----------



## zsoltmol

dlbsyst said:


> I just read neurotix excellent write up in the memory stability thread and have to admit something. I've been one of the lazy one's and didn't dial in all the settings in the DRAM Calculator./forum/images/smilies/frown.gif Maybe that's why my settings aren't entirely 100% stable. I'm going to do that tonight after work./forum/images/smilies/smile.gif


Memory related issues can be find easily and quickly with y-cruncher according to my experience.

http://www.numberworld.org/y-cruncher/faq.html


----------



## Sam64

> Is there something that gets triggered in the CPU when PBO/PBO2 gets activated?
> Does AMD know if we activated PBO?


I don't think so. As long as you can reset possible wrong settings after a crash, you're fine, i guess.



> Also, how about "performance enhancer"?


I would recommend Auto or Level 2. Since our CH8 has a good VRM you can try higher values. Higher values can lead to higher Vcore on high loads though.


----------



## Gadfly

Has anyone re-pasted the X570 chipset on a C8F (Formula)?


----------



## MoroKiel

I updated from 1001 to 1201
Now cores never sleep


----------



## neurotix

dlbsyst said:


> Guys, I just removed my BIOS settings file and I ask that you not use those settings. I just ran the latest memtest pro and it seems my current settings are unstable. I set the test up to test all of my available RAM and I was getting write errors at around 15%. I'm going to be doing some testing to find my best speed and timings that doesn't give errors. Then I'll repost my BIOS settings.



I will make a youtube video and post it for you here then; given that we have the same board.

Admittedly, yes I can understand why people have trouble setting these options; its because some of them are buried in multiple submenus, or aren't named exactly what they are in DRAM Calculator. But all the settings from the middle of the 'Advanced' tab in Ryzen Calc are in Advanced -> AMD CBS in our bios. I've been OCing since 1999, and OCing memory since 2005. Also used nothing but ASUS ROG boards since 2009 when I did my first custom build. So I'm pretty familiar with how they lay out their bios, and I have experience. Also admittedly, this is the sloppiest bios and launch I've ever seen ROG do.

The rest (primarily the first/timings tab) are in the DRAM Timings submenu, a few are in Tweakers Paradise (still think this is a dumb name for that section- name sounds like a good name for a meth den  ) and in the main OC panel.

I'll make a quick video later. I attempted this before but it ended up being far too long.


----------



## newls1

so question..... I found every single memory option as per dram calculator to change in the dram sub menu, do i also have to go to the random 56 other places and change the same option again in those other areas, or changing the given option in the dram sub menu count for everything else? My ram OC is perfectly stable so im assuming i just had to change these options in the dram sub menu....?


----------



## dlbsyst

neurotix said:


> I will make a youtube video and post it for you here then; given that we have the same board.
> 
> Admittedly, yes I can understand why people have trouble setting these options; its because some of them are buried in multiple submenus, or aren't named exactly what they are in DRAM Calculator. But all the settings from the middle of the 'Advanced' tab in Ryzen Calc are in Advanced -> AMD CBS in our bios. I've been OCing since 1999, and OCing memory since 2005. Also used nothing but ASUS ROG boards since 2009 when I did my first custom build. So I'm pretty familiar with how they lay out their bios, and I have experience. Also admittedly, this is the sloppiest bios and launch I've ever seen ROG do.
> 
> The rest (primarily the first/timings tab) are in the DRAM Timings submenu, a few are in Tweakers Paradise (still think this is a dumb name for that section- name sounds like a good name for a meth den  ) and in the main OC panel.
> 
> I'll make a quick video later. I attempted this before but it ended up being far too long.


That would be fantastic neurotix.:thumb: I'll admit that my attempts to find all of the settings in the calculator failed. I dialed as many as I could find but, your right some are not named the same and I didn't feel comfortable changing them and left on Auto. The ones I did change didn't seem to do the trick though. I had a write error at around 10% running all of my available RAM according to Memtest Pro. This is at 3600MHz fast timings. Oh, don't be afraid to post a long video. Some of us enjoy detailed videos.


----------



## TK421

My CPU SOC is stable at 1867/1.055v.


I am testing memory to be stable at 3733 14-16-16-36 1T GDM 1.44v. Originally 3600C16 b-die.






I am getting lower single core and multi core compared to just running stock memory 3600C16, why is this? Can anyone suggest or let me know where I might possibly go wrong with this overclocking endeavor?


----------



## neurotix

TK421 said:


> My CPU SOC is stable at 1867/1.055v.
> 
> 
> I am testing memory to be stable at 3733 14-16-16-36 1T GDM 1.44v. Originally 3600C16 b-die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am getting lower single core and multi core compared to just running stock memory 3600C16, why is this? Can anyone suggest or let me know where I might possibly go wrong with this overclocking endeavor?



What tFAW and tRFC are you attempting, and what is it running?

Too low tRFC (under 300) can cause problems like this but a lot of other parameters can too.

You can try raising ProcODT and the CAD bus impedances notch by notch, this might help. If you are doing 34.3 ProcODT and 24/20/20/24 try bumping it up to 36.9 and 24/24/24/24, then retest, then try moving all up one notch and see if it helps

Generally though, I'd say if you are trying tFAW 16 and tRFC 288 or something, raise those up to 24 and 304 or possibly higher- this would be the first culprit, if true. (too low of a complete DRAM refresh in cycles with that low tRFC)


----------



## neurotix

Teach me senpai neuro-san ^_^: episode 1 (jk.. So I heard you kids liek memes)

... sorry if I come off sounding like an ass, an arrogant jerk or whatever else, I can be that way sometimes (having Forza Horizon 4 withdrawls lol)

Anyway hopefully this helps clear some things up, just rewind or pause as you set settings you missed, watch on your phone and go through your bios and I'll help you find every setting in Ryzen Calc.

I'm just a normal person that lives in reality based on objective fact, so, I promise a bare minimum of effort was put in to set, video editing, post production, and so forth. I am not Linus, der8auer or any other YouTube personality/social media influencer/company shill/vlogger/insert your decrepit postmodern internet descriptive pronoun of choice here. Meaning, its very basic. I apologize for my incompetence and sense of uncool. I was still wearing baggy clothing in 2015 =3

Also at the end: the PPT, EDT, and other PBO threshold/limit removers appear when setting Precision Boost Overdrive (top setting) to Manual instead of Enabled. I figured this out after ending the recording. Sam64 posted a screenshot of this earlier when someone asked: rep+


----------



## Gadfly

TK421 said:


> My CPU SOC is stable at 1867/1.055v.
> 
> 
> I am testing memory to be stable at 3733 14-16-16-36 1T GDM 1.44v. Originally 3600C16 b-die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am getting lower single core and multi core compared to just running stock memory 3600C16, why is this? Can anyone suggest or let me know where I might possibly go wrong with this overclocking endeavor?


If you are not getting any memory errors when you load test (HCI 2000%+, TM5 v3 2 back to back runs, Google memory test 10 runs), then you lower scores are more likely to be issues with your Infinity fabric than your memory settings / timings. Make sure that Back Ground Swap and Back Ground swap alt are set. I personally keep both enabled. DRAM calc will tell you turn one off and leave one on, which gives better AIDA memory test results, but lower real world app/game performance. 

What are your VDDG and VDDP values set to?

Try setting VDDG to 960 (both of them) and VDDP to 900, and SB 1.0v to 1.05v (that might also help you get your FCLK to 1900mhz)


----------



## neurotix

Gadfly said:


> If you are not getting any memory errors when you load test (HCI 2000%+, TM5 v3 2 back to back runs, Google memory test 10 runs), then you lower scores are more likely to be issues with your Infinity fabric than your memory settings / timings. Make sure that Back Ground Swap and Back Ground swap alt are set. I personally keep both enabled. DRAM calc will tell you turn one off and leave one on, which gives better AIDA memory test results, but lower real world app/game performance.
> 
> What are your VDDG and VDDP values set to?
> 
> Try setting VDDG to 960 (both of them) and VDDP to 900, and SB 1.0v to 1.05v (that might also help you get your FCLK to 1900mhz)



Wrong dude

BankGroupSwap and BankGroupSwap_Alt are the names of the settings, not "Back Ground Swap"

Setting them both to enabled does nothing and the board will treat it as just having BankGroupSwap on (default behavior). The tooltip for both options says this: BGS must be disabled for BGS_Alt to function.

If BGS Enabled = 1 then; BGS_Alt != Enabled else If BGS Enabled = 0 && BGS_Alt = 1 return 0 

Is (close to) what the tooltip says, or used to say, and its basically the C code used by the UEFI routine ("!=" equates to "is not" where = equates to is)

You can only have one at a time on, that code block basically says with both enabled or just BGS set to enabled and BGS_Alt set to disabled, only BankGroupSwap will be on, and to have BGS_Alt active, BGS MUST be changed to disabled and BGS_Alt MUST be changed to enabled.

I suggest you adjust your settings accordingly: this is an inarguable binary logic truth... Right now with both Enabled, the BGS_Alt is being ignored, meaning you are running with BGS. With BGS_Alt enabled and BGS set to disabled you will see a hefty 5GB/sec increase in Memory Copy bandwidth. So I suggest you change that setting for a free performance boost in games.


----------



## newls1

neurotix said:


> Wrong dude
> 
> BankGroupSwap and BankGroupSwap_Alt are the names of the settings, not "Back Ground Swap"
> 
> Setting them both to enabled does nothing and the board will treat it as just having BankGroupSwap on (default behavior). The tooltip for both options says this: BGS must be disabled for BGS_Alt to function.
> 
> If BGS Enabled = 1 then; BGS_Alt != Enabled else If BGS Enabled = 0 && BGS_Alt = 1 return 0
> 
> Is (close to) what the tooltip says, or used to say, and its basically the C code used by the UEFI routine ("!=" equates to "is not" where = equates to is)
> 
> You can only have one at a time on, that code block basically says with both enabled or just BGS set to enabled and BGS_Alt set to disabled, only BankGroupSwap will be on, and to have BGS_Alt active, BGS MUST be changed to disabled and BGS_Alt MUST be changed to enabled.
> 
> I suggest you adjust your settings accordingly: this is an inarguable binary logic truth... Right now with both Enabled, the BGS_Alt is being ignored, meaning you are running with BGS. With BGS_Alt enabled and BGS set to disabled you will see a hefty 5GB/sec increase in Memory Copy bandwidth. So I suggest you change that setting for a free performance boost in games.


sir, thank you for all your input in this thread, im sure a bunch of us appreciate it. do you happen to have an input on the latest bios out for our board (1201)... is it worthwhile to flash to it?


----------



## neurotix

For best performance and memory overclocking, I'd definitely recommending flashing back to 1001 (I think its 1001...) if you're on 1105 and not going to 1201

1001 should be 1.0.0.3abba AGESA and fixes the poor auto OC function, that is, the boost clock controversy fix for those who OC uses PBO and not manual CCX OC. However, since 1105 and now with 1201 we have AGESA 1.0.0.4 and memory overclocks poorly and is less stable. The board post time is faster and apparently boot time is faster too but it didnt fix my turtle speed 970 Evo boot time (a minute...) into Win10. It did speed up Linux but Linux already booted in 3 seconds.

I have a working Macintosh SE from 1986 that I bought and repaired over the summer (first computers I used) and it boots faster off a 400k single sided floppy disk, the OS was made in 1983 too. It does have four 1MB 80ns 9-chip SIMMs though (stock were four 256k 150ns so upgrading the ram capacity also cut latency by more than half  )Unacceptable. My prior 4790k + M6H + 840 Evo SATA booted Win7 in 5 seconds, I expected an M.2 to be on instantly

Anyway, since going to 1105 my boot times became even longer and my system bsods or randomly fails to post with my memory at XMP, 3200mhz 14-14-14-34-55 1.35v and it previously did 3600mhz at those timings. Ive done 3733mhz 14-15-16-15-32-47 1T gdm off tFAW 16 tRFC 288 as well as 3800 14-15-16-15 before. Now it seems the rig will randomly fail to POST on reboot at any timings, any speed CAS14 including XMP. But its stable currently at 16-16-16-16-32-50 1t gdm off tFAW 20 tRFC 302 3800/1900 on bios 1201

When bios 1105 with AGESA 1.0.0.4 (with the full boost clock fix) dropped many users here and especially on ROG forums and reddit complained that previously stable ram overclocks from 1001 werent booting. Most were using Bdies @ CAS 14 and aiming for 3733/1866. If your processors fabric will do 1900 and 3733mhz has problems doing 3733 cas 14 Id recommend trying for 3800/1900 cas 16 because the higher memory bandwidth and cache bandwidth nullifies the slightly higher latency from not running cas at 14.

Tbh if you want my opinion on the best bios for memory overclocking it is, by far, the Shamino beta 0017 bios (based on 0901 but released before it) from ROG forums. Shamino may have removed it now if he got in trouble with management or if he chose to remove it since later versions that fix boost behavior are out. I have it if you want it and cant find it, I'll attach it, IF you know how to safely downgrade using USB BIOS Flashback button correctly (not explained in the manual; I can explain the correct downgrade process but theres a small chance of bricking basically if you guys dont listen to my explanation and remove the thumbdrive before you're supposed to...) If Shamino sees and doesnt want me to post it, i know he lurks here, i wont though because i respect him a lot. hes a legend The_Stilts custom patched bios to improve memory overclocking are good too, I think he did them for all Crosshair boards for BIOS 0803 but for 1001 he just did one for the Crosshair VIII Formula and said ASUS wasnt going to allow him to release his tweaked version of the unfinished 1001 bios for the Hero or Impact boards.

Anyway that one (Shamino 0017 based on 0901) overclocks memory the easiest and best, I got my lowest latency scores at 3800 with that. Id recommend downgrading to 1001 though if you know how. Longer post times but has boost fix and clocks memory better. Shaminos bios doesnt have the boost fix + core parking/thread allocation to first CCX fixes

However, on the contrary maybe ASUS will come through for us, their premium board buyers, and surprise us with new features, figure out the slow boot times issues with M.2 and the 3900x, etc. If you look closely, all bios releases (named after the date) are being released at the beginning of the month: 1201 for Dec 1st, 1105 was Nov 5th, 1001 was Oct 1st, 0901 was Sept 1st, and 0803 waa Aug 3rd. There were some before that but dont ever use them: they have a bug that silently corrupts your Windows install. Anyway, clearly their development cycle and schedule is a month long and they aim to release on the 1st but have missed that target a few times. So if you wait- we might get a release on Jan 3rd given that Christmas is the 25th and the 1st is New Year's. I wouldn't hold my breath though as most people (including their code grunts programming the UEFI) get a full week off at the end of the month. Then its Chinese new year and ASUS is Taiwanese, I dont know if the uefi is developed here or in Taiwan, but yeah they wont get a full ~22-23 days (weekends subtracted) to develop it this month. I would not be surprised if we dont see the next bios until the middle of January but if Im wrong then in 3 weeks we'll get a new one on the 3rd so some might rather wait.

EDIT: And I totally replied thinking you were asking about downgrading and memory clocking. Oops. Either way, no I have not noticed any difference in performance (at manual CCX 4.4ghz chiplet 1, 4.2ghz chiplet 2) with 1201 vs 1105. My advice still stands: because of the memory instability issues past 1001, worse clocking memory, no fix for slow boot times on 3900x with 1201, and so on.. 1001 was the last bios that OCed memory well and does have the PBO boost behavior fix and single thread allocation to CCX0 (First chiplet/core complex die, first core complex) that runs your first complex faster and assigns preference to it for single threaded tasks (e.g. gaming) in the Windows Scheduler.

Downgrading is your choice but my boot time is still bad and I noticed no performance gain or decrease with 1201, though 1105 and 1201 both OC memory far worse as I described (Running cas at 14 is bugged. This is a 3200 cas 14 kit that passed memtest at 4066 c16 w 1866 fclk). I've seen quite a few users in other threads posting Cinebench scores and they use PBO, two claimed the chip was boosting worse and performing less and one showed that yes, 1201 is worse vs 1105, they decided to stick with 1105. (200 points less in Cinebench). Your call.

...and dont call me sir, all my amd friends from 2011-2012 fx-8350 club on here all called me neuro, most are gone now besides damric and @Alastair who I think was getting Ryzen 3k?


----------



## newls1

neurotix said:


> For best performance and memory overclocking, I'd definitely recommending flashing back to 1001 (I think its 1001...) if you're on 1105 and not going to 1201
> 
> 1001 should be 1.0.0.3abba AGESA and fixes the poor auto OC function, that is, the boost clock controversy fix for those who OC uses PBO and not manual CCX OC. However, since 1105 and now with 1201 we have AGESA 1.0.0.4 and memory overclocks poorly and is less stable. The board post time is faster and apparently boot time is faster too but it didnt fix my turtle speed 970 Evo boot time (a minute...) into Win10. It did speed up Linux but Linux already booted in 3 seconds.
> 
> I have a working Macintosh SE from 1986 that I bought and repaired over the summer (first computers I used) and it boots faster off a 400k single sided floppy disk, the OS was made in 1983 too. It does have four 1MB 80ns 9-chip SIMMs though (stock were four 256k 150ns so upgrading the ram capacity also cut latency by more than half  )Unacceptable. My prior 4790k + M6H + 840 Evo SATA booted Win7 in 5 seconds, I expected an M.2 to be on instantly
> 
> Anyway, since going to 1105 my boot times became even longer and my system bsods or randomly fails to post with my memory at XMP, 3200mhz 14-14-14-34-55 1.35v and it previously did 3600mhz at those timings. Ive done 3733mhz 14-15-16-15-32-47 1T gdm off tFAW 16 tRFC 288 as well as 3800 14-15-16-15 before. Now it seems the rig will randomly fail to POST on reboot at any timings, any speed CAS14 including XMP. But its stable currently at 16-16-16-16-32-50 1t gdm off tFAW 20 tRFC 302 3800/1900 on bios 1201
> 
> When bios 1105 with AGESA 1.0.0.4 (with the full boost clock fix) dropped many users here and especially on ROG forums and reddit complained that previously stable ram overclocks from 1001 werent booting. Most were using Bdies @ CAS 14 and aiming for 3733/1866. If your processors fabric will do 1900 and 3733mhz has problems doing 3733 cas 14 Id recommend trying for 3800/1900 cas 16 because the higher memory bandwidth and cache bandwidth nullifies the slightly higher latency from not running cas at 14.
> 
> Tbh if you want my opinion on the best bios for memory overclocking it is, by far, the Shamino beta 0017 bios (based on 0901 but released before it) from ROG forums. Shamino may have removed it now if he got in trouble with management or if he chose to remove it since later versions that fix boost behavior are out. I have it if you want it and cant find it, I'll attach it, IF you know how to safely downgrade using USB BIOS Flashback button correctly (not explained in the manual; I can explain the correct downgrade process but theres a small chance of bricking basically if you guys dont listen to my explanation and remove the thumbdrive before you're supposed to...) If Shamino sees and doesnt want me to post it, i know he lurks here, i wont though because i respect him a lot. hes a legend The_Stilts custom patched bios are good too, I think he did them for all Crosshair boards for BIOS 0803 but for 1001 he just did one for the Crosshair VIII Formula and said ASUS wasnt going to allow him to release his tweaked version of the unfinished 1001 bios for the Hero or Impact boards.
> 
> Anyway that one (Shamino 0017 based on 0901) overclocks memory the easiest and best, I got my lowest latency scores at 3800 with that. Id recommend downgrading to 1001 though if you know how. Longer post times but has boost fix and clocks memory better. Shaminos bios doesnt have the boost fix + core parking/thread allocation to first CCX fixes
> 
> ...and dont call me sir, all my amd friends from 2011-2012 fx-8350 club on here all called me neuro, most are gone now besides damric and @Alastair who I think was getting Ryzen 3k?


TBH with you, im not having any memory issues presently. My 64GB of DJR are humming along just fine, and once i get home today i will apply some of your tweaks mentioned in your video to see if i gain further performance. Im having only "1" real pain in the ass issue, and that is my "INSTA-REBOOT" and upon post, i get an error saying CPU OVER HEAT ALARM, and i know that is a BS error. im OC'ing per CCD (CCD0 = 4.5 CCD1= 4.3) and as soon as I increase each CCD .25mhz, i get this insta-reboot saying the above warning. i added more vcore (at 1.38v up from 1.3125) and error went away and can bench all day long and game for days. (BTW this 3950x is highend watercooled) checking thermals in hwinfo64 confirmed ccd0/ccd1 die temps in the 80's while 100% loaded. I was told to increase "PPT, TDC and EDC to 1000." what is your thought on this matter? If i can fix this issue, ill be golden


----------



## Sam64

> I was told to increase "PPT, TDC and EDC to 1000."


May I ask, who told you that? Your 3950X has TDP Limit 105W. You can play around these limits:


----------



## neurotix

newls1 said:


> TBH with you, im not having any memory issues presently. My 64GB of DJR are humming along just fine, and once i get home today i will apply some of your tweaks mentioned in your video to see if i gain further performance. Im having only "1" real pain in the ass issue, and that is my "INSTA-REBOOT" and upon post, i get an error saying CPU OVER HEAT ALARM, and i know that is a BS error. im OC'ing per CCD (CCD0 = 4.5 CCD1= 4.3) and as soon as I increase each CCD .25mhz, i get this insta-reboot saying the above warning. i added more vcore (at 1.38v up from 1.3125) and error went away and can bench all day long and game for days. (BTW this 3950x is highend watercooled) checking thermals in hwinfo64 confirmed ccd0/ccd1 die temps in the 80's while 100% loaded. I was told to increase "PPT, TDC and EDC to 1000." what is your thought on this matter? If i can fix this issue, ill be golden



Yes I can tell you how to fix it. What are your max temps? As long as you don't exceed 95c package temp regularly (at those clocks with full custom water with that voltage I wouldn't imagine you would), as that can damage the chip, and this disables the boards thermal protection on the chokes, VRMs and MOSFETs

You must be running something pushing the cores to 80c range or possibly higher (which may cause < 95c socket temp, the VRM sensor goes off socket/package temp, not core temp), then you crash when it spikes above 95c socket causing the board to think its overheating, which triggers this protection, reboots and throws that error. So you are at risk of killing your chip.

You need to go into the Digi+ VRM settings (right below PBO near Tweakers Paradise and Dram Timings, the one with Loadline) and set one of the settings for CPU power delivery from T.Probe to Extreme. HThis will eliminate the overtemp protection. I advise not using higher than Auto LLC (Higher than Level 3 CPU LLC, Auto = Level 3) and you should never, ever use Loadline on the System on a Chip (VDDSOC Loadline) as Auto should be Level 1 and anything higher overvolts it under load. Dont exceed 1.125v on VDDSOC volts either. You can kill these processors with high (1.175v) VDDSOC volts and Loadline enabled on it.

My 3900x is temp limited because I just have a H100i v2 with a fan blowing on the back of my socket, and an old g.skill RAM fan kit blowing on the front. I stay under 80c now under full load and probably around 85c package.

I suggest trying CPU LLC 1, same voltage, and adding a fan to the back of your socket (if it fits under your side panel), then run whatever load or test you are throwing at it, and if it doesnt randomly reboot and give that error, then it is safe to set that VRM setting from T.Probe to Extreme. Fair warning: I would not want to kill a $750 chip nor a $500 one so I leave mine on T.Probe. You are exceeding 95c package- if you get your temps down then you won't need to change it to Extreme, but if you are confident temps are ok then make this change to fix the problem. (Please check whatever load is doing this, probably an all core one, and monitor package temp with hwinfo64- you'll reboot right when this value hits 95)

As I said I am temp limited, I also do a manual CCX OC which performs better either way at lesser clocks than PBO (When it says its hitting 4600mhz its not; the frequency changes roughly 100 times a second and hwinfo only reports the highest value attained during that 1000ms interval as that is what the microcode is programmed to write into the register that hwinfo reads; lower clocks that dont fluctuate 100 times in 1000ms and more often than not are under 4400mhz definitely are better performing in games- that is, 4400mhz all the time rather than "4625mhz" on CCX0 CCD0 for what, 3 out of 100ms??? and much lower for 97/100ms as it will have to immediately have to drop to 4100mhz to cool after everytime it does make it that high. I'll take locked clocks thanks).. anyway I can only do 4400/4200 because of heat. My chip needs more than 1.38v; more like 1.425v for full stability at 4500/4300. In testing this I had those same reboots, then I changed that VRM setting from T.Probe to Extreme and it no longer happened but I was probably exceeding 95c by a degree or two; I didn't reboot or crash and was stable, the cores were around 85c but, yeah. When I changed the setting back to T.Probe the reboots and CPU Overheat Error came back. That is how I figured this out.

Since you have a 3950x and are overheating I highly suggest handling the temps first- the post code display shows Core 0 temperature if you are wondering, it goes off that sensor, not socket/package temp. Use hwinfo64 and monitor Package Temp while running loops of Cinebench or any other load and you will see as soon as you hit 95c that that is when the random reboot will happen; so it is not random, you are overheating ;p

Changing from T.Probe to Extreme will stop this happening but, test for yourself. * neurotix is not liable if you do this and fry a 3950x.


----------



## newls1

Sam64 said:


> May I ask, who told you that? Your 3950X has TDP Limit 105W. You can play around these limits:


read my other thread in AMD CPU section....



neurotix said:


> Yes I can tell you how to fix it. What are your max temps? As long as you don't exceed 95c package temp regularly (at those clocks with full custom water with that voltage I wouldn't imagine you would), as that can damage the chip, and this disables the boards thermal protection on the chokes, VRMs and MOSFETs
> 
> You must be running something pushing the cores to 80c range or possibly higher (which may cause < 95c socket temp, the VRM sensor goes off socket/package temp, not core temp), then you crash when it spikes above 95c socket causing the board to think its overheating, which triggers this protection, reboots and throws that error. So you are at risk of killing your chip.
> 
> You need to go into the Digi+ VRM settings (right below PBO near Tweakers Paradise and Dram Timings, the one with Loadline) and set one of the settings for CPU power delivery from T.Probe to Extreme. HThis will eliminate the overtemp protection. I advise not using higher than Auto LLC (Higher than Level 3 CPU LLC, Auto = Level 3) and you should never, ever use Loadline on the System on a Chip (VDDSOC Loadline) as Auto should be Level 1 and anything higher overvolts it under load. Dont exceed 1.125v on VDDSOC volts either. You can kill these processors with high (1.175v) VDDSOC volts and Loadline enabled on it.
> 
> My 3900x is temp limited because I just have a H100i v2 with a fan blowing on the back of my socket, and an old g.skill RAM fan kit blowing on the front. I stay under 80c now under full load and probably around 85c package.
> 
> I suggest trying CPU LLC 1, same voltage, and adding a fan to the back of your socket (if it fits under your side panel), then run whatever load or test you are throwing at it, and if it doesnt randomly reboot and give that error, then it is safe to set that VRM setting from T.Probe to Extreme. Fair warning: I would not want to kill a $750 chip nor a $500 one so I leave mine on T.Probe. You are exceeding 95c package- if you get your temps down then you won't need to change it to Extreme, but if you are confident temps are ok then make this change to fix the problem. (Please check whatever load is doing this, probably an all core one, and monitor package temp with hwinfo64- you'll reboot right when this value hits 95)
> 
> As I said I am temp limited, I also do a manual CCX OC which performs better either way at lesser clocks than PBO (When it says its hitting 4600mhz its not; the frequency changes roughly 100 times a second and hwinfo only reports the highest value attained during that 1000ms interval as that is what the microcode is programmed to write into the register that hwinfo reads; lower clocks that dont fluctuate 100 times in 1000ms and more often than not are under 4400mhz definitely are better performing in games).. anyway I can only do 4400/4200 because of heat. My chip needs more than 1.38v; more like 1.425v for full stability at 4500/4300. In testing this I had those same reboots, then I changed that VRM setting from T.Probe to Extreme and it no longer happened but I was probably exceeding 95c by a degree or two; I didn't reboot or crash and was stable, the cores were around 85c but, yeah. When I changed the setting back to T.Probe the reboots and CPU Overheat Error came back. That is how I figured this out.
> 
> Since you have a 3950x and are overheating I highly suggest handling the temps first- the post code display shows Core 0 temperature if you are wondering, it goes off that sensor, not socket/package temp. Use hwinfo64 and monitor Package Temp while running loops of Cinebench or any other load and you will see as soon as you hit 95c that that is when the random reboit will happen; so it is not random, you are overheating ;p
> 
> Changing from T.Probe to Extreme will stop this happening but, test for yourself. * neurotix is not liable if you do this and fry a 3950x.


thank you SO MUCH again for your reply.. just got home and will try everything you are telling me.


----------



## neurotix

newls1 said:


> read my other thread in AMD CPU section....
> 
> 
> thank you SO MUCH again for your reply.. just got home and will try everything you are telling me.



Edit: Just checked- setting is under External Digi+ Power Control -> CPU Power Duty Control -> change from T.Probe (Thermal Probe) to Extreme.

Also Sam64 your advice is correct and appreciated and indeed those are the PBO power limits, in watts and amps allowed at the socket, (PPT, EDT, etc.)

However both of us use manual CCX OC and those settings are irrelevant for us, personally I adjust all power settings under the Digi+ menu and raise CPU Current Capability to 140% as well as many other options which pretty much sets allowed wattage and amperage to 4096w and 4096a; at least this is what Intel XTU reported on my ROG M6H + 4790k. Basically all the VRM settings make those particular power options of PBO not apply. (The Digi+ settings have been identical forever; it is ROGs custom VRM controller onboard) And since he doesnt use PBO and neither do I, those values are not relevant to us, but thanks for your chart. Digi+ supercedes all those and allows me to remove all power limits for my manual CCX OC

Yeah you can change that to Extreme- the reboots will stop... but test first with an all core load and Cinebench


----------



## Sam64

> May I ask, who told you that? Your 3950X has TDP Limit 105W. You can play around these limits:
> 
> 
> read my other thread in AMD CPU section....



Ok, go ahead and try whatever you like, sounds a bit crazy for me. Anyhow your "issue" has nothing todo with setting TDP Limits.


----------



## newls1

neurotix said:


> Edit: Just checked- setting is under External Digi+ Power Control -> CPU Power Duty Control -> change from T.Probe (Thermal Probe) to Extreme.
> 
> Also Sam64 your advice is correct and appreciated and indeed those are the PBO power limits, in watts and amps allowed at the socket, (PPT, EDT, etc.)
> 
> However both of us use manual CCX OC and those settings are irrelevant for us, personally I adjust all power settings under the Digi+ menu and raise CPU Current Capability to 140% as well as many other options which pretty much sets allowed wattage and amperage to 4096w and 4096a; at least this is what Intel XTU reported on my ROG M6H + 4790k. Basically all the VRM settings make those particular power options of PBO not apply. (The Digi+ settings have been identical forever; it is ROGs custom VRM controller onboard) And since he doesnt use PBO and neither do I, those values are not relevant to us, but thanks for your chart. Digi+ supercedes all those and allows me to remove all power limits for my manual CCX OC
> 
> Yeah you can change that to Extreme- the reboots will stop... but test first with an all core load and Cinebench


you have fixed every single issue of mine. also, i was able to lower my vcore from 1.3875v down to 1.350 with CCD0 @ 4.525ghz and CCD1 @ 4.325ghz. For whatever reason, i kept adding vcore to stop these insta-reboots and i guess when i was adding 1.3875v my room temp must have been colder then normal which kept my package temp just on the edge of 95c... so now with 1.350v and "T-Probe" set to "Extreme" i ran cb r20 and aida64 multi times and no reboots, and max package temp was 88/89c while CCD's were in high 70s and low 80s. You even pointed out where some of my hidden ass ram settings were so I adjusted them and gained everywhere in copy/read/write with my DJR 64GB's @ 3733.. You are the MAN BROTHER, thank you so much. I rep'd you in 2 posts, anything else I can do?


----------



## zsoltmol

Wow lots of useful insights recently here. Please keep going guys!


----------



## Takla

zsoltmol said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Unfortunately i did not realize this was at 1.14v for months now. Hope no damage is done. I falsely assumed auto means proper setting and if I would like to overclock (dont) then I manually increase/decrease it if needed.



It dosen't matter what it is set to by default. CLDO VDDG will never exceed your SoC voltage.


----------



## neurotix

newls1 said:


> you have fixed every single issue of mine. also, i was able to lower my vcore from 1.3875v down to 1.350 with CCD0 @ 4.525ghz and CCD1 @ 4.325ghz. For whatever reason, i kept adding vcore to stop these insta-reboots and i guess when i was adding 1.3875v my room temp must have been colder then normal which kept my package temp just on the edge of 95c... so now with 1.350v and "T-Probe" set to "Extreme" i ran cb r20 and aida64 multi times and no reboots, and max package temp was 88/89c while CCD's were in high 70s and low 80s. You even pointed out where some of my hidden ass ram settings were so I adjusted them and gained everywhere in copy/read/write with my DJR 64GB's @ 3733.. You are the MAN BROTHER, thank you so much. I rep'd you in 2 posts, anything else I can do?




Yeah, no problem. Other settings in Digi+ might help too. I'll make a video showing how to set the rest of them correctly tomorrow; I went to sleep after my last post, and its 9pm here, just woke up, ugh. I gotta go sleep more or I'll miss the whole weekend with my wife.

To clarify; yes I set current capability on the chip to 140%, etc. and yes it removes all power limits and XTU shows bugged values on Intel boards, however, the processor still won't (and pretty much cant because of physics, its design, etc) ever actually DRAW those values. A 3900x has a 95w TDP and overclocked I'd estimate power draw to probably not even be hitting 200w under all core load on my build. I've tested this and on High Performance power plan on in Windows, the rig idles at around 200w (I have two 1080tis and a lot of other stuff), even with my chip overclocked per settings in my signature rig, it only drew right around 300w under load on a Kill-a-Watt meter at the wall. And the cores were at 70c and 82c package or so. Games, I pull around 800w (whole system)

Anyway, newls1, I'd recommend changing that setting back to T.Probe for the safety of your chip and try changing some of the other VRM settings, if you can (and still use lower voltage + not reboot), as you pretty much will start exceeding 95c socket once its not winter anymore from your description, especially if you're hitting close to 90c now. Or put it back to 4500/4300. Again, right now the over temp protection wont shut your rig off when the processor is literally getting hot enough to melt itself... or very close to.

Some of the Digi+ VRM settings basically change the frequency and the quality of the power delivered to the cores, SOC and DRAM, and this can allow for higher clocks, make you stable with less volts, etc.

Anyway, try to aim to get your package temp down to at least 85c and cores to mid 70s. If you can do that, then when ambient is higher you wont burn your chip up. As I said the protection is there for a reason- Id hate to see a 3950x destroyed

In my case I really do need 1.36v for 4400/4200, though the board has vdroop so it gets around 1.34~1.35 under load, but it crashes running Cinebench at anything less. I want 4500/4300 but, too much heat. Some of this is due to having two 300w gpus blowing heat up onto the socket but I seriously doubt even with a full loop that Id be able to do more

EDIT: Oh, I thought of a way to get heat down and not lose (gaming) performance: keeping voltage the same, and all other settings the same, leave your CCD1 at 4525 and lower CCD2 to 4200 or even lower. Test temps before you make this change, and remember if you run a multithreaded load to let the machine sit at idle for a while after you do, or turn it off, until your idle package temp is the same as before you started, so any leftover heat wont skew the results after you lower CCD2 frequency.

Basically, since core temps are decent but package/socket is the problem, its a heat density issue. 4525/4325 is obviously ok core temperature wise, but heating the substrate and IHS too much. Reducing CCD2 frequency to say, 4250mhz and then 4200 and possibly as low as 4100 (if needed) will lower core temps of chiplet 2 and in turn, the thermal buildup on the package overall, but obviously wont lower temperatures of chiplet 1. This will potentially lower package temp to my suggested target threshold of 85c; while allowing for 4525mhz (or higher? Id be interested in results) on chiplet 1 without overwhelming your cooling. However, it will be trading multicore performance for single, of course. Depends on your primary use case.

It seems that even with your super high tier ambient cooling, that the package heat density just overwhelms the thermal transfer at the waterblock coldplate and this is the issue; did you add a fan blowing on the backside of your socket + vrms? ( I use a spare Corsair SP140 HP) Just ziptie it on some cables










(Lowered my socket temp to 85c fron 95c but I also have a memory cooler... also I really wish phase change units werent so expensive.)

I basically dealt with the same issue trying to do 4500/4300, and even at 4500/4200 it was overwhelming my cooling.

Most of what Im saying doesnt apply to 3800x or 3700x, as those only have 1 chiplet, so if you are running hot the thermal density will not be split between 2 chips. If you have temperature issues you can try adjusting CCX clocks similarly (Say 4400 CCX1 4100 CCX2) as well as adding a fan to the back of your board; I have to wonder if this would allow for a 24/7 OC of 4500mhz on the first CCX on say, the 3800x as it is binned better. This section about temperatures obviously is for those who use manual CCX ratio overclocking NOT PBO.

(Another small edit, hours later: I'm well aware AMDs terminology and the board terminology uses CCD0, CCD1 for the two core complex dies/chiplets, and CCX0 and CCX1 for the core complexes inside the dies, but in this post I used "CCD1 and CCD2" to make it a little easier for others to follow along who maybe don't know this... just wanted to point that out. That is all. Anyway, other posters, by all means, please continue to converse about other subjects/issues with each other, the last thing I want is for my often very long posts to derail/kill the thread/demotivate others from posting. thanks for your understanding.)


----------



## newls1

neurotix said:


> Yeah, no problem. Other settings in Digi+ might help too. I'll make a video showing how to set the rest of them correctly tomorrow; I went to sleep after my last post, and its 9pm here, just woke up, ugh. I gotta go sleep more or I'll miss the whole weekend with my wife.
> 
> To clarify; yes I set current capability on the chip to 140%, etc. and yes it removes all power limits and XTU shows bugged values on Intel boards, however, the processor still won't (and pretty much cant because of physics, its design, etc) ever actually DRAW those values. A 3900x has a 95w TDP and overclocked I'd estimate power draw to probably not even be hitting 200w under all core load on my build. I've tested this and on High Performance power plan on in Windows, the rig idles at around 200w (I have two 1080tis and a lot of other stuff), even with my chip overclocked per settings in my signature rig, it only drew right around 300w under load on a Kill-a-Watt meter at the wall. And the cores were at 70c and 82c package or so. Games, I pull around 800w (whole system)
> 
> Anyway, newls1, I'd recommend changing that setting back to T.Probe for the safety of your chip and try changing some of the other VRM settings, if you can (and still use lower voltage + not reboot), as you pretty much will start exceeding 95c socket once its not winter anymore from your description, especially if you're hitting close to 90c now. Or put it back to 4500/4300. Again, right now the over temp protection wont shut your rig off when the processor is literally getting hot enough to melt itself... or very close to.
> 
> Some of the Digi+ VRM settings basically change the frequency and the quality of the power delivered to the cores, SOC and DRAM, and this can allow for higher clocks, make you stable with less volts, etc.
> 
> Anyway, try to aim to get your package temp down to at least 85c and cores to mid 70s. If you can do that, then when ambient is higher you wont burn your chip up. As I said the protection is there for a reason- Id hate to see a 3950x destroyed
> 
> In my case I really do need 1.36v for 4400/4200, though the board has vdroop so it gets around 1.34~1.35 under load, but it crashes running Cinebench at anything less. I want 4500/4300 but, too much heat. Some of this is due to having two 300w gpus blowing heat up onto the socket but I seriously doubt even with a full loop that Id be able to do more
> 
> EDIT: Oh, I thought of a way to get heat down and not lose (gaming) performance: keeping voltage the same, and all other settings the same, leave your CCD1 at 4525 and lower CCD2 to 4200 or even lower. Test temps before you make this change, and remember if you run a multithreaded load to let the machine sit at idle for a while after you do, or turn it off, until your idle package temp is the same as before you started, so any leftover heat wont skew the results after you lower CCD2 frequency.
> 
> Basically, since core temps are decent but package/socket is the problem, its a heat density issue. 4525/4325 is obviously ok core temperature wise, but heating the substrate and IHS too much. Reducing CCD2 frequency to say, 4250mhz and then 4200 and possibly as low as 4100 (if needed) will lower core temps of chiplet 2 and in turn, the thermal buildup on the package overall, but obviously wont lower temperatures of chiplet 1. This will potentially lower package temp to my suggested target threshold of 85c; while allowing for 4525mhz (or higher? Id be interested in results) on chiplet 1 without overwhelming your cooling. However, it will be trading multicore performance for single, of course. Depends on your primary use case.
> 
> It seems that even with your super high tier ambient cooling, that the package heat density just overwhelms the thermal transfer at the waterblock coldplate and this is the issue; did you add a fan blowing on the backside of your socket + vrms? ( I use a spare Corsair SP140 HP) Just ziptie it on some cables
> 
> 
> View attachment 310612
> 
> 
> (Lowered my socket temp to 85c fron 95c but I also have a memory cooler... also I really wish phase change units werent so expensive.)
> 
> I basically dealt with the same issue trying to do 4500/4300, and even at 4500/4200 it was overwhelming my cooling.
> 
> Most of what Im saying doesnt apply to 3800x or 3700x, as those only have 1 chiplet, so if you are running hot the thermal density will not be split between 2 chips. If you have temperature issues you can try adjusting CCX clocks similarly (Say 4400 CCX1 4100 CCX2) as well as adding a fan to the back of your board; I have to wonder if this would allow for a 24/7 OC of 4500mhz on the first CCX on say, the 3800x as it is binned better. This section about temperatures obviously is for those who use manual CCX ratio overclocking NOT PBO.
> 
> (Another small edit, hours later: I'm well aware AMDs terminology and the board terminology uses CCD0, CCD1 for the two core complex dies/chiplets, and CCX0 and CCX1 for the core complexes inside the dies, but in this post I used "CCD1 and CCD2" to make it a little easier for others to follow along who maybe don't know this... just wanted to point that out. That is all. Anyway, other posters, by all means, please continue to converse about other subjects/issues with each other, the last thing I want is for my often very long posts to derail/kill the thread/demotivate others from posting. thanks for your understanding.)


another outstanding reply, thank you. Where do i begin......? lets see..... ambient temps yesterday when I ran my benches to check (at least) partial stability were pretty close to a normal room temp. it wasnt cold here (Atlanta ga) but rather a muggy 65f outside during that time, and room was prob 22/23c. SO while yes, you are correct that a 100f+ summer heat soaked day my package temps will be higher, but with with my newly found voltage of 1.350 (1.344 after droop) my package while getting hammered all 16cores, is 85/88c. ill never hammer all 16cores other then to test for stability. while gaming, package temp goes into 55/60c while ccd's go from 45/50c atleast while i was playing borderlands 3 is what i observed. I do have another waterblock coming (heatkiller Pro IV all copper) that I will try and see if that helps at all. Currently using an EK Velocity AMD block. 

as far as your suggestion for adding a rear fan behind motherboard socket, i wish i could. This pc is built inside a thermaltake core x9 case, and the motherboard lays flat, and the removable tray the board mounts to, on otherside is a built in ssd tray. I have to completely dismantle everything to remove board but next time i do, i will dremal off the ssd tray, and add a fan for sure. appreciate that tip. If you can make more youtube vids for this board and cpu combo, you'll be making millions of dollhairs in youtube adsense revenue!

*EDIT** think you asked me if i have any fans blowing on vrm area... answer is absolutely. My 2 420mm EK rads are directly above motherboard and 12fans (each rad is push/pull) blows tons and tons of air all over the motherboard. So much airflow, dont think the vrm could ever ever ever even get "Warm" this pic ill upload will show the single 420mm ran for the cpu only loop, the other rad lives up top right next to this one and is for gpu only loop


----------



## TK421

Why is DRAM Vboot voltage removed? This was a feature on C6H and C7H and ASUS decide to remove it with their newest motherboard?

Along with removing eCLK / dual-BLCK feature, the C8 feels less like a downgrade compared to C6/C7.









Gadfly said:


> If you are not getting any memory errors when you load test (HCI 2000%+, TM5 v3 2 back to back runs, Google memory test 10 runs), then you lower scores are more likely to be issues with your Infinity fabric than your memory settings / timings. Make sure that Back Ground Swap and Back Ground swap alt are set. I personally keep both enabled. DRAM calc will tell you turn one off and leave one on, which gives better AIDA memory test results, but lower real world app/game performance.
> 
> What are your VDDG and VDDP values set to?
> 
> Try setting VDDG to 960 (both of them) and VDDP to 900, and SB 1.0v to 1.05v (that might also help you get your FCLK to 1900mhz)


I actually set it on auto and my CPU undervolt might be too much, which might explain that the CPU is erroring internally.

Currently I think VDDG is at 1.07 and VDDP 1050. I will tune them down when finishing the RAM timing tuning.




"Back Ground Swap and Back Ground swap" where is this setting located? I don't think I've seen the exact setting in DRAM timing section. Might have to look harder later.







I will try to raise SB to 1.05V. I haven't been able to go past 1900 FCLK even with 1.2v VDDSOC voltage 



Then there are some 3600s that can do 1900FCLK. And I know one person with 3900X that can do 1900/3800C14 with a lower bin RAM kit compared to mine (3200C14, 2x16).


Kinda sucks when you pay premium for the top end CPU but got a crappy IO die.


----------



## newls1

TK421 said:


> Why is DRAM Vboot voltage removed? This was a feature on C6H and C7H and ASUS decide to remove it with their newest motherboard?
> 
> Along with removing eCLK / dual-BLCK feature, the C8 feels less like a downgrade compared to C6/C7.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually set it on auto and my CPU undervolt might be too much, which might explain that the CPU is erroring internally.
> 
> Currently I think VDDG is at 1.07 and VDDP 1050. I will tune them down when finishing the RAM timing tuning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Back Ground Swap and Back Ground swap" where is this setting located? I don't think I've seen the exact setting in DRAM timing section. Might have to look harder later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will try to raise SB to 1.05V. I haven't been able to go past 1900 FCLK even with 1.2v VDDSOC voltage
> 
> 
> 
> Then there are some 3600s that can do 1900FCLK. And I know one person with 3900X that can do 1900/3800C14 with a lower bin RAM kit compared to mine (3200C14, 2x16).
> 
> 
> Kinda sucks when you pay premium for the top end CPU but got a crappy IO die.


background swap and background swap alt and all other hard to find settings and how to set them for performance all all in this video our forum member made. watch it from beginning to end!


----------



## TK421

newls1 said:


> background swap and background swap alt and all other hard to find settings and how to set them for performance all all in this video our forum member made. watch it from beginning to end!
> https://youtu.be/WF7Bnn8YleE


Damn, that explains a lot. 

Seems like I have some tuning to do later.



I wasn't able to spot DRAM VBOOT or Memory Eventual Voltage settings, were this actually removed with C8 series?


----------



## Gadfly

@neurotix , @gupsterg Love your input on this. 

I am still building up my 3950X machine and have had some strange behavior with these boards. 

Currently, I have 3 C8H boards, and 1 C8F sitting on my table. All three of the C8H on bios 1105/1201 have RGB lights that flicker with I run HCI memtest or similar application. No idea why (maybe a LED firmware thing?) On 2 of the C8H boards I can run 3800C14 @ 1.43 volts, with FCLK of 1900mhz, vddg @ .950v, vddp @900 and SB @ 1.0v; on one of the C8H it will run the same but the SB requires 1.05v to run 1900mhz FCLK. 

But, the C8F... well it won't even boot at 3800C16 & 1900mhz FCLK; it will post, but it is unstable. It will lock up and reboot in the bios setup menu's, it will reboot whenever the OS starts to load, etc. Keep in mind this is the same CPU, same memory, etc. The board just won't do it. I tried all the normal stuff, pushed VDDG up to 1.0v, SB up to 1.09v, SOC to 1.125v, increased DRAM voltage to 1.48v, and everything in between. Nothing would make that Formula board run 1900mhz FCLK. I was pretty shocked that the top of the line overclocking board is so terrible. 

So it appears the Motherboards themselves are just as much as lottery as the CPU's; I just wish the lights didn't flicker on the hero's


----------



## newls1

Gadfly said:


> @neurotix , @gupsterg Love your input on this.
> 
> I am still building up my 3950X machine and have had some strange behavior with these boards.
> 
> Currently, I have 3 C8H boards, and 1 C8F sitting on my table. All three of the C8H on bios 1105/1201 have RGB lights that flicker with I run HCI memtest or similar application. No idea why (maybe a LED firmware thing?) On 2 of the C8H boards I can run 3800C14 @ 1.43 volts, with FCLK of 1900mhz, vddg @ .950v, vddp @900 and SB @ 1.0v; on one of the C8H it will run the same but the SB requires 1.05v to run 1900mhz FCLK.
> 
> But, the C8F... well it won't even boot at 3800C16 & 1900mhz FCLK; it will post, but it is unstable. It will lock up and reboot in the bios setup menu's, it will reboot whenever the OS starts to load, etc. Keep in mind this is the same CPU, same memory, etc. The board just won't do it. I tried all the normal stuff, pushed VDDG up to 1.0v, SB up to 1.09v, SOC to 1.125v, increased DRAM voltage to 1.48v, and everything in between. Nothing would make that Formula board run 1900mhz FCLK. I was pretty shocked that the top of the line overclocking board is so terrible.
> 
> So it appears the Motherboards themselves are just as much as lottery as the CPU's; I just wish the lights didn't flicker on the hero's


that is understandable and disturbing all at the same time. Personally, **** the rgb lights.. disable them ****s and move on with that issue. they may share the same power path as something else getting hammered on that rail and well, dim some. cant stand RGB crap, and wish the pc industry never went that direction.


----------



## dlbsyst

Gadfly said:


> @neurotix , @gupsterg Love your input on this.
> 
> I am still building up my 3950X machine and have had some strange behavior with these boards.
> 
> Currently, I have 3 C8H boards, and 1 C8F sitting on my table. All three of the C8H on bios 1105/1201 have RGB lights that flicker with I run HCI memtest or similar application. No idea why (maybe a LED firmware thing?) On 2 of the C8H boards I can run 3800C14 @ 1.43 volts, with FCLK of 1900mhz, vddg @ .950v, vddp @900 and SB @ 1.0v; on one of the C8H it will run the same but the SB requires 1.05v to run 1900mhz FCLK.
> 
> But, the C8F... well it won't even boot at 3800C16 & 1900mhz FCLK; it will post, but it is unstable. It will lock up and reboot in the bios setup menu's, it will reboot whenever the OS starts to load, etc. Keep in mind this is the same CPU, same memory, etc. The board just won't do it. I tried all the normal stuff, pushed VDDG up to 1.0v, SB up to 1.09v, SOC to 1.125v, increased DRAM voltage to 1.48v, and everything in between. Nothing would make that Formula board run 1900mhz FCLK. I was pretty shocked that the top of the line overclocking board is so terrible.
> 
> So it appears the Motherboards themselves are just as much as lottery as the CPU's; I just wish the lights didn't flicker on the hero's





newls1 said:


> that is understandable and disturbing all at the same time. Personally, **** the rgb lights.. disable them ****s and move on with that issue. they may share the same power path as something else getting hammered on that rail and well, dim some. cant stand RGB crap, and wish the pc industry never went that direction.


Gadfly, I'm pretty sure I'm getting no flicker running Memtest on my Hero VIII WiFi. Maybe it's software related. Do you have Aura Sync installed? I have no RGB software installed on my PC because I got tired of it constantly getting broken by Windows 10 updates and or using CPU resources and slowing my system down.

newls1, I personally love RGB but what I don't like is the poor software that the manufacturers like Asus and Corsair provide to drive it. It's just too buggy and uses way to much resources. What I want is a little box that I can plug all my RGB in that doesn't require any software and gives me all the RGB for my devices that I can control with a remote. Also would be nice if Asus could implement Aura Sync at the BIOS level so I could control the boards RGB that way.


----------



## neurotix

Ok then, a lot to reply to this morning. 




newls1 said:


> another outstanding reply, thank you. Where do i begin......? lets see..... ambient temps yesterday when I ran my benches to check (at least) partial stability were pretty close to a normal room temp. it wasnt cold here (Atlanta ga) but rather a muggy 65f outside during that time, and room was prob 22/23c. SO while yes, you are correct that a 100f+ summer heat soaked day my package temps will be higher, but with with my newly found voltage of 1.350 (1.344 after droop) my package while getting hammered all 16cores, is 85/88c. ill never hammer all 16cores other then to test for stability. while gaming, package temp goes into 55/60c while ccd's go from 45/50c atleast while i was playing borderlands 3 is what i observed. I do have another waterblock coming (heatkiller Pro IV all copper) that I will try and see if that helps at all. Currently using an EK Velocity AMD block.
> 
> as far as your suggestion for adding a rear fan behind motherboard socket, i wish i could. This pc is built inside a thermaltake core x9 case, and the motherboard lays flat, and the removable tray the board mounts to, on otherside is a built in ssd tray. I have to completely dismantle everything to remove board but next time i do, i will dremal off the ssd tray, and add a fan for sure. appreciate that tip. If you can make more youtube vids for this board and cpu combo, you'll be making millions of dollhairs in youtube adsense revenue!
> 
> *EDIT** think you asked me if i have any fans blowing on vrm area... answer is absolutely. My 2 420mm EK rads are directly above motherboard and 12fans (each rad is push/pull) blows tons and tons of air all over the motherboard. So much airflow, dont think the vrm could ever ever ever even get "Warm" this pic ill upload will show the single 420mm ran for the cpu only loop, the other rad lives up top right next to this one and is for gpu only loop



Yes, the reason I suggesting backing off a little/adding a fan/etc has to due with the fact you live in Atlanta. I'd definitely advise you pay closer attention to temperatures when it starts getting hot next year, and possibly lower clocks if your ambient is higher. (I have a small digital thermometer/humidity sensor from Amazon on my desk, so I can track ambient temperatures during benchmarking/testing, and not have the results skewed. Right now, it's fairly cold out so I can just shut my rig off/open a window and wait a few minutes to get the ambient temperature down, if it gets too hot in here. That way, the hotter room temperature, usually on a second run of a benchmark when I plan to change settings in my bios, does not affect the results)

If your load is mostly gaming, then yes, I'd still suggest backing off your CCD1 clocks and lowering them down to 4.1GHz, which will reduce heat overall and may allow for higher clocks on CCD0.

Don't dremel off your SSD holder and ruin that case  I doubt it will even make a difference if it is open air. My case (Corsair 780T) has cableless, removable side panels and fan filter panels on the sides, front and top. I can pull these right off and get 10c lower temps, but it is not a true open air case or test bench.

Anyway, have you ever had those reboots while a game is loading? I would be curious to know this- 99% of games will not use all 32 threads on your chip, but sometimes will use them all, or a majority, while loading a map. 

One way or another- having an open air case, that high end cooling, but especially now knowing your load is mostly gaming and the temperatures are way lower, I feel a lot better about it. I would still highly recommend putting that VRM setting back to T.Probe starting in May/June for a few months, just to be safe.



TK421 said:


> Why is DRAM Vboot voltage removed? This was a feature on C6H and C7H and ASUS decide to remove it with their newest motherboard?
> 
> Along with removing eCLK / dual-BLCK feature, the C8 feels less like a downgrade compared to C6/C7.
> 
> 
> I actually set it on auto and my CPU undervolt might be too much, which might explain that the CPU is erroring internally.
> 
> Currently I think VDDG is at 1.07 and VDDP 1050. I will tune them down when finishing the RAM timing tuning.
> 
> "Back Ground Swap and Back Ground swap" where is this setting located? I don't think I've seen the exact setting in DRAM timing section. Might have to look harder later.
> 
> 
> I will try to raise SB to 1.05V. I haven't been able to go past 1900 FCLK even with 1.2v VDDSOC voltage
> 
> Then there are some 3600s that can do 1900FCLK. And I know one person with 3900X that can do 1900/3800C14 with a lower bin RAM kit compared to mine (3200C14, 2x16).
> 
> Kinda sucks when you pay premium for the top end CPU but got a crappy IO die.



I'm the one who made that video.

As I explained in it, BankGroupSwap_Alt will only be active when changing BankGroupSwap to Disabled and BankGroupSwap_Alt to Enabled. Setting them both to Enabled only results in BankGroupSwap being active, you cannot have both active at once. 

I just wanted to make sure you caught that as the part from Gadfly you quoted, he mentioned having them both on (in which case BankGroupSwap is Enabled and BankGroupSwap is off, and there is no point doing this, as the default values are BankGroupSwap = Enabled and BankGroupSwap_Alt = Disabled...)

I can and have done 3800/1900 cas14 but it is not wholly stable and I really saw no increase in Read bandwidth (which would be the expected result), nor lower latency, so I have not attempted to stabilize it. It was also much easier to do on earlier BIOS ( >= 1001)

I can guaranteed I have searched high and low through AMD CBS and the AMD Overclocking sections under Advanced, as well as Tweaker's Paradise, and I have never found Boot DRAM Voltage. It doesn't exist on our boards. As I stated in the video, it may be due to the engineering, or Daisy Chain RAM topology on our boards, or it could just be that that voltage is inbuilt to the vDIMM (i.e. DRAM Voltage control) in the bios, so it is redundant. That is, the board will already give the modules whatever you set for vDIMM on boot, so there would be no reason to have that separate setting.

DRAM Ctrl Ref Voltage on Cha A/B is broken, however, and in the video I *was* using the latest 1201 BIOS- you cannot increase it on either channel past 0.63000, but Ryzen Calc will always recommend somewhere in the 0.71000+ level. So we can't use that setting with this board.




Gadfly said:


> @neurotix , @gupsterg Love your input on this.
> 
> I am still building up my 3950X machine and have had some strange behavior with these boards.
> 
> Currently, I have 3 C8H boards, and 1 C8F sitting on my table. All three of the C8H on bios 1105/1201 have RGB lights that flicker with I run HCI memtest or similar application. No idea why (maybe a LED firmware thing?) On 2 of the C8H boards I can run 3800C14 @ 1.43 volts, with FCLK of 1900mhz, vddg @ .950v, vddp @900 and SB @ 1.0v; on one of the C8H it will run the same but the SB requires 1.05v to run 1900mhz FCLK.
> 
> But, the C8F... well it won't even boot at 3800C16 & 1900mhz FCLK; it will post, but it is unstable. It will lock up and reboot in the bios setup menu's, it will reboot whenever the OS starts to load, etc. Keep in mind this is the same CPU, same memory, etc. The board just won't do it. I tried all the normal stuff, pushed VDDG up to 1.0v, SB up to 1.09v, SOC to 1.125v, increased DRAM voltage to 1.48v, and everything in between. Nothing would make that Formula board run 1900mhz FCLK. I was pretty shocked that the top of the line overclocking board is so terrible.
> 
> So it appears the Motherboards themselves are just as much as lottery as the CPU's; I just wish the lights didn't flicker on the hero's





newls1 said:


> that is understandable and disturbing all at the same time. Personally, - the rgb lights.. disable them - and move on with that issue. they may share the same power path as something else getting hammered on that rail and well, dim some. cant stand RGB crap, and wish the pc industry never went that direction.



I can't speak to the C8F, and jeebus, why do you need 3 C8H? lol

What I can say is that I assume you are talking about the lit up 'HERO' logo on the I/O block cover. No, I have not observed this behavior. 

By chance, have you ever downgraded the BIOS using USB BIOS Flashback button? If you remove the USB when it's finished flashing the firmware chip, this may be why. You are supposed to power the board on without removing the USB at the end, and you will see a DOS-esque screen that says it is flashing the LED controller firmware, and not to remove the thumb drive.

If you flash in the normal way using a drive and that button, the button will blink blue at roughly 1Hz (e.g. on and off once in a second), when it is done it will blink slightly faster/more rapidly. If you pulled the drive out without powering on, I would imagine that the UEFI would still work (you wouldn't have a partially flashed CMOS chip), but the LED controller would not have been flashed. The correct way is to power the system back on when the BIOS Flashback button is blinking blue more quickly, and as stated, it will update the LED controller's firmware. Then it will reboot automatically, you can enter UEFI setup and then remove the thumb drive.

If this is not the case, then I am not sure, I don't have any issues with any kind of blinking or flickering under load. I would suspect the power supply.

You can, however, disable the LEDs on that shield completely if you go to Advanced -> Onboard Devices: there are three settings relating to LEDs. By default they are set as "All On", "POST Code Only" and "All On". Change both that say "All On" to "All Off" and you will totally disable that Hero logo, but also all other debug LEDs (like the small surface mount ones under the 7-segment POST code display that show different colors durimng the boot process- these are very handy to diagnose exactly what step of the boot process is failing.) Otherwise, you would need to install ASUS Aura software (don't) to turn it off. Oh, and a small tip: in that section, change the "POST Code Only" option from that to "Auto", and the 7-segment POST display will show your current temperature while the OS is booted. (The sensor it reads is Core 0). This is still the only way I can see temperatures in Linux, as there are no kernel modules for x570 yet, so lm-sensors, hddtemp, and a few other packages don't work. I basically have no access to hardware sensors under Linux (which is par for the course lol).

And jeez, newls1, harsh much? I happen to like my blinkenlichten. I got a Phanteks Digital RGB 5050 kit (two light strips) and these are insanely bright and pretty fun to mess with. Its actually a lot better than the lighting I had before, which was just some RED LEDs in a tube, but of course they had to be hooked up to an inverter box connected to Molex that had to be hidden, added unnecessary wires, etc. They also had to be turned off and on via a small switch on a plate that went on one of the rear-bottom PCI-E cutouts. Which is now, thankfully, gone.

These lights are insanely bright, and the purple/violet spectrum LEDs are actually partially UV, as they cause certain posters I have up in here to behave that way (yellows look orange, etc.) The advertising and packaging said nothing about this, and it just means they are actually legitimately whatever color they claim to be, and a relatively pure wavelength. Anyway, it is very nice to just have to connect the strips to the board directly, have the board power them, control them through software, etc. It's a much, much better solution for people who want it. And no, the strips don't flicker under any load for me.

I do hate the AURA software though- mostly because it installs a service (check services.msc) called AsusUpdateCheck, that when you disable, automatically reenables itself. I looked through Group Policy as well as Task Scheduler and I cannot find where or how it does this. It is not very transparent. I went back to school in 2012 for Computer Systems Admin Associates, but dropped out, however I had a 4.0, got a Cisco certification to repair computers, and learned a lot about using those administrative tools, and I'm stumped. I would love to disable that stupid service or be informed that when I install AURA, it will install an "Update Service" with network capability. Good thing I know how to set advanced firewall rules in Comodo CIS, and block it.

On that note, anyone who let Armory Crate app install, you are probably a target of data collection or spying, the EULA basically says this. And the only way to get rid of it is to reinstall Windows, as I found out. It buries itself throughout the system pretty heavily.

Despite those issues, I do like AURA Sync and my Phanteks lights...

Anyway- I kind of doubt those lights would be in any kind of higher current path, but there could be some kind of shielding or isolation problem causing the flickering. Make sure you have both a 4-PIN and 8-PIN power connector attached to the top of the board. Those few RGB LEDs in that I/O cover probably don't even use 1w and probably use less than an amp. It would be best to just turn it off, as I explained. 

Hope this helps. I need a cigarette.


----------



## Krisztias

neurotix said:


> By chance, have you ever downgraded the BIOS using USB BIOS Flashback button? If you remove the USB when it's finished flashing the firmware chip, this may be why. You are supposed to power the board on without removing the USB at the end, and you will see a DOS-esque screen that says it is flashing the LED controller firmware, and not to remove the thumb drive.


You don't have to. It say's don't cut power off.



neurotix said:


> If you flash in the normal way using a drive and that button, the button will blink blue at roughly 1Hz (e.g. on and off once in a second), when it is done it will blink slightly faster/more rapidly. If you pulled the drive out without powering on, I would imagine that the UEFI would still work (you wouldn't have a partially flashed CMOS chip), but the LED controller would not have been flashed. The correct way is to power the system back on when the BIOS Flashback button is blinking blue more quickly, and as stated, it will update the LED controller's firmware. Then it will reboot automatically, you can enter UEFI setup and then remove the thumb drive.


Actually, when it's blinkig at 1Hz it means, that the board reads the new UEFI, and when it's blinking faster, it writes the UEFI on the chip. When it's done, the blue light don't blinking anymore, you can pull out the drive and press CMOS. After the first start flashes automatically the LED firmware and restarts himself.


----------



## neurotix

Krisztias said:


> You don't have to. It say's don't cut power off.
> 
> 
> Actually, when it's blinkig at 1Hz it means, that the board reads the new UEFI, and when it's blinking faster, it writes the UEFI on the chip. When it's done, the blue light don't blinking anymore, you can pull out the drive and press CMOS. After the first start flashes automatically the LED firmware and restarts himself.



Yeah, I caught this after I wrote it.

Slow blink= Reading the C8H.cap file.
Faster blink(probably roughly 2.5Hz if I had to guess) = writing to the CMOS chip
Finished = solid color? Confirm please.

My case is pretty close to two walls, in a corner, elevated slightly higher than my desk. So its not like I'm staring at the button the entire time. Also, if you press your case power button once (quick press) as it is writing, your system will automatically power on once it is finished writing to the firmware chip, so you won't see the solid color at the end. (I found this out accidentally as on my old 2013-era Z87 board I upgraded from, the behavior was different. I thought the faster blinking = finished)

rep+

It would be good to know if it goes fully solid blue when finished. Unfortunately, this procedure is not detailed in the owners manual- it WAS explained fully in my old Z87 M6H, my Z270H Strix, and my AM3+ C5F booklets.


----------



## newls1

question.... looking through hwinfo64 again and thought to check on my chipset temp. if im reading it correctly, its shows me @ 51c YIKES. Where in bios can i adjust fan speed for the chipset? Im attaching a pic, and if you see anything else for my temps/voltages please let me know.. Thank you


----------



## dlbsyst

newls1 said:


> question.... looking through hwinfo64 again and thought to check on my chipset temp. if im reading it correctly, its shows me @ 51c YIKES. Where in bios can i adjust fan speed for the chipset? Im attaching a pic, and if you see anything else for my temps/voltages please let me know.. Thank you


That's a great temperature so I wouldn't worry. For example mine sits at 62-63°C during idle. The reason is that my EVGA 2080 FTW3 is huge and sits right on top of the chipset. It heats it up. Not really sure what I can do about it though.


----------



## newls1

wow, these puppies run warm then!... thanks for the reply


----------



## neurotix

newls1 said:


> question.... looking through hwinfo64 again and thought to check on my chipset temp. if im reading it correctly, its shows me @ 51c YIKES. Where in bios can i adjust fan speed for the chipset? Im attaching a pic, and if you see anything else for my temps/voltages please let me know.. Thank you



There is no option to control fan speed of the chipset afaik.

However, I have noticed the following behavior:

On a cold boot, if I immediately go into the BIOS, the chipset fan will be running at 1500rpm or so.

If I load Windows and then reboot and check, it'll be running at 2000-2500rpm

At least this was the behavior a few BIOS revisions back 

Also, since I added that G.skill memory fan set I had lying around, my DRAM temp dropped from 50c to 37c, my NVMe drive from 50c to 34c, and chipset temp is down too but I'd have to check (it was around 51c before for me, too)

My heat is worse with 2x 1080ti FTW3- even with the cards at idle and all three fans on each card at the 1200rpm range.

In Linux though they idle at 27c top card, 23c bottom, for some reason with the fans at the same rpm in Windows they idle much hotter. Before I figured out a fan control solution in Linux, with the fans off in Linux, the top gpu idled at 50c, even in P8 power state. Ouch.

So my chipset runs hotter for sure given both of those sit on top of it.

Pretty sure folding or mining on both gpus + cpus would not be viable, even with the cpu turbo disabled (all threads at 3800MHz)- I haven't tried because I know the cpu would run far too hot with 750w of heat being exhausted up to the socket area by the cards


----------



## TK421

neurotix said:


> Ok then, a lot to reply to this morning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the reason I suggesting backing off a little/adding a fan/etc has to due with the fact you live in Atlanta. I'd definitely advise you pay closer attention to temperatures when it starts getting hot next year, and possibly lower clocks if your ambient is higher. (I have a small digital thermometer/humidity sensor from Amazon on my desk, so I can track ambient temperatures during benchmarking/testing, and not have the results skewed. Right now, it's fairly cold out so I can just shut my rig off/open a window and wait a few minutes to get the ambient temperature down, if it gets too hot in here. That way, the hotter room temperature, usually on a second run of a benchmark when I plan to change settings in my bios, does not affect the results)
> 
> If your load is mostly gaming, then yes, I'd still suggest backing off your CCD1 clocks and lowering them down to 4.1GHz, which will reduce heat overall and may allow for higher clocks on CCD0.
> 
> Don't dremel off your SSD holder and ruin that case  I doubt it will even make a difference if it is open air. My case (Corsair 780T) has cableless, removable side panels and fan filter panels on the sides, front and top. I can pull these right off and get 10c lower temps, but it is not a true open air case or test bench.
> 
> Anyway, have you ever had those reboots while a game is loading? I would be curious to know this- 99% of games will not use all 32 threads on your chip, but sometimes will use them all, or a majority, while loading a map.
> 
> One way or another- having an open air case, that high end cooling, but especially now knowing your load is mostly gaming and the temperatures are way lower, I feel a lot better about it. I would still highly recommend putting that VRM setting back to T.Probe starting in May/June for a few months, just to be safe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm the one who made that video.
> 
> As I explained in it, BankGroupSwap_Alt will only be active when changing BankGroupSwap to Disabled and BankGroupSwap_Alt to Enabled. Setting them both to Enabled only results in BankGroupSwap being active, you cannot have both active at once.
> 
> I just wanted to make sure you caught that as the part from Gadfly you quoted, he mentioned having them both on (in which case BankGroupSwap is Enabled and BankGroupSwap is off, and there is no point doing this, as the default values are BankGroupSwap = Enabled and BankGroupSwap_Alt = Disabled...)
> 
> I can and have done 3800/1900 cas14 but it is not wholly stable and I really saw no increase in Read bandwidth (which would be the expected result), nor lower latency, so I have not attempted to stabilize it. It was also much easier to do on earlier BIOS ( >= 1001)
> 
> I can guaranteed I have searched high and low through AMD CBS and the AMD Overclocking sections under Advanced, as well as Tweaker's Paradise, and I have never found Boot DRAM Voltage. It doesn't exist on our boards. As I stated in the video, it may be due to the engineering, or Daisy Chain RAM topology on our boards, or it could just be that that voltage is inbuilt to the vDIMM (i.e. DRAM Voltage control) in the bios, so it is redundant. That is, the board will already give the modules whatever you set for vDIMM on boot, so there would be no reason to have that separate setting.
> 
> DRAM Ctrl Ref Voltage on Cha A/B is broken, however, and in the video I *was* using the latest 1201 BIOS- you cannot increase it on either channel past 0.63000, but Ryzen Calc will always recommend somewhere in the 0.71000+ level. So we can't use that setting with this board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak to the C8F, and jeebus, why do you need 3 C8H? lol
> 
> What I can say is that I assume you are talking about the lit up 'HERO' logo on the I/O block cover. No, I have not observed this behavior.
> 
> By chance, have you ever downgraded the BIOS using USB BIOS Flashback button? If you remove the USB when it's finished flashing the firmware chip, this may be why. You are supposed to power the board on without removing the USB at the end, and you will see a DOS-esque screen that says it is flashing the LED controller firmware, and not to remove the thumb drive.
> 
> If you flash in the normal way using a drive and that button, the button will blink blue at roughly 1Hz (e.g. on and off once in a second), when it is done it will blink slightly faster/more rapidly. If you pulled the drive out without powering on, I would imagine that the UEFI would still work (you wouldn't have a partially flashed CMOS chip), but the LED controller would not have been flashed. The correct way is to power the system back on when the BIOS Flashback button is blinking blue more quickly, and as stated, it will update the LED controller's firmware. Then it will reboot automatically, you can enter UEFI setup and then remove the thumb drive.
> 
> If this is not the case, then I am not sure, I don't have any issues with any kind of blinking or flickering under load. I would suspect the power supply.
> 
> You can, however, disable the LEDs on that shield completely if you go to Advanced -> Onboard Devices: there are three settings relating to LEDs. By default they are set as "All On", "POST Code Only" and "All On". Change both that say "All On" to "All Off" and you will totally disable that Hero logo, but also all other debug LEDs (like the small surface mount ones under the 7-segment POST code display that show different colors durimng the boot process- these are very handy to diagnose exactly what step of the boot process is failing.) Otherwise, you would need to install ASUS Aura software (don't) to turn it off. Oh, and a small tip: in that section, change the "POST Code Only" option from that to "Auto", and the 7-segment POST display will show your current temperature while the OS is booted. (The sensor it reads is Core 0). This is still the only way I can see temperatures in Linux, as there are no kernel modules for x570 yet, so lm-sensors, hddtemp, and a few other packages don't work. I basically have no access to hardware sensors under Linux (which is par for the course lol).
> 
> And jeez, newls1, harsh much? I happen to like my blinkenlichten. I got a Phanteks Digital RGB 5050 kit (two light strips) and these are insanely bright and pretty fun to mess with. Its actually a lot better than the lighting I had before, which was just some RED LEDs in a tube, but of course they had to be hooked up to an inverter box connected to Molex that had to be hidden, added unnecessary wires, etc. They also had to be turned off and on via a small switch on a plate that went on one of the rear-bottom PCI-E cutouts. Which is now, thankfully, gone.
> 
> These lights are insanely bright, and the purple/violet spectrum LEDs are actually partially UV, as they cause certain posters I have up in here to behave that way (yellows look orange, etc.) The advertising and packaging said nothing about this, and it just means they are actually legitimately whatever color they claim to be, and a relatively pure wavelength. Anyway, it is very nice to just have to connect the strips to the board directly, have the board power them, control them through software, etc. It's a much, much better solution for people who want it. And no, the strips don't flicker under any load for me.
> 
> I do hate the AURA software though- mostly because it installs a service (check services.msc) called AsusUpdateCheck, that when you disable, automatically reenables itself. I looked through Group Policy as well as Task Scheduler and I cannot find where or how it does this. It is not very transparent. I went back to school in 2012 for Computer Systems Admin Associates, but dropped out, however I had a 4.0, got a Cisco certification to repair computers, and learned a lot about using those administrative tools, and I'm stumped. I would love to disable that stupid service or be informed that when I install AURA, it will install an "Update Service" with network capability. Good thing I know how to set advanced firewall rules in Comodo CIS, and block it.
> 
> On that note, anyone who let Armory Crate app install, you are probably a target of data collection or spying, the EULA basically says this. And the only way to get rid of it is to reinstall Windows, as I found out. It buries itself throughout the system pretty heavily.
> 
> Despite those issues, I do like AURA Sync and my Phanteks lights...
> 
> Anyway- I kind of doubt those lights would be in any kind of higher current path, but there could be some kind of shielding or isolation problem causing the flickering. Make sure you have both a 4-PIN and 8-PIN power connector attached to the top of the board. Those few RGB LEDs in that I/O cover probably don't even use 1w and probably use less than an amp. It would be best to just turn it off, as I explained.
> 
> Hope this helps. I need a cigarette.



C7H is Daisy, C6H is T-top. Yet they both have DRAM VBOOT (alternate voltage to train on startup), which is weird.


I'll look into bankgroupswap thing, I still haven't gotten around messing with dram calculator. Some people seem to have a negative impression on it since they say the suggested presets don't make sense, author got the timings from unauthorized sources etc.


----------



## neurotix

Yeah well they say that because they probably aren't importing a profile from Thaipoon Burning correctly based off their exact dimms

However, some of the 'fast' timings for Bdie are really aggressive, calculated wrong, etc. Especially 3733 fast on Bdie.

14-15-15-15-28-42 are the specific primaries I'm talking about. They're wrong because tRC = tRP + tRAS, yet in that timing set, 15 + 28 = 43 not 42. Also, that tRAS of 28 is too low given the rest of the primaries are 15, and you'll have serious issues posting at that.

14-15-16-15-30-45 is a lot better for 3733 in terms of getting it working.

Anyway, its a really useful utility for secondary and tertiary timings which are a pain to calculate manually without tons of research or having an electrical engineering degree.

I wish I had a utility like this when I was trying to figure out secondary and tertiary timings for benching on Z87 a few years back with DDR3.


----------



## dlbsyst

I've been playing around with my RAM timings trying to get it stable running at 3600MHz tight timings from the Dram Calculator. I think I'm mostly there as I'm able to hit 100% running Memtest Pro with no errors. I had to enable Gear down and also had to put Dram ECC Enable on Auto to keep from getting errors at around 50%. I do want to test more though and maybe try for even higher speeds. I do think maybe I need to invest in one of the G skill memory coolers though. Can you tell me which one you got neurotix and if the fans are loud and noticeable inside your case? Thanks.

Here is what I got with my current RAM speed and timings. Do you think it's okay neurotix?


----------



## neurotix

Did you watch the whole video I made? Read back in this thread.

It looks ok for 3600 but I'm pretty sure I could do better at 3600mhz even with higher timings, your write and latency look iffy (write should be higher, latency is somewhat high)

The 14-15-15-15-28-42 timings you are trying to run is probably the cause of the errors in that test you are using- 15+28=43 and 15+15=30 for tRAS, so try 14-15-15-15-30-45, also raise tRFC from 288 to 304 and tFAW (Four Activate Window  ) from 16 to 24 as I know its telling you to set those that way, and you probably aren't using Thaifuuuuu~ BURN! (Thaiphoon Burner) correctly if I had to guess

The tRAS etc. equations I'm giving to calculate timings are basically legitimate rules used to tweak DRAM that have been used by overclockers for DDR values for as long as its existed.. apparently dlbsyst didnt read my last post at all before posting this.

Also, disable SB Spread Spectrum (first option at the top of Tweakers Paradise), this will fix the incorrect clocks in your screenshot (So it will say 4600MHz instead of 4591)

Whats the model (full SKU) of your DIMMs, and can you post a ss of your Ryzen DRAM Calculator please?


----------



## Section31

I do have an interesting situation. Has anyone encountered issues with performance on waterblock using the Enhance Performance mode option in bios. I noticed the performance doesn't change much but the temperature go up a lot between default and Level 3 (OC). This was the final reason the new cpu block i was testing was performing so poorly.


----------



## CJMitsuki

neurotix said:


> Yeah well they say that because they probably aren't importing a profile from Thaipoon Burning correctly based off their exact dimms
> 
> However, some of the 'fast' timings for Bdie are really aggressive, calculated wrong, etc. Especially 3733 fast on Bdie.
> 
> 14-15-15-15-28-42 are the specific primaries I'm talking about. They're wrong because tRC = tRP + tRAS, yet in that timing set, 15 + 28 = 43 not 42. Also, that tRAS of 28 is too low given the rest of the primaries are 15, and you'll have serious issues posting at that.
> 
> 14-15-16-15-30-45 is a lot better for 3733 in terms of getting it working.
> 
> Anyway, its a really useful utility for secondary and tertiary timings which are a pain to calculate manually without tons of research or having an electrical engineering degree.
> 
> I wish I had a utility like this when I was trying to figure out secondary and tertiary timings for benching on Z87 a few years back with DDR3.



OK, to clear up the BGS and BGS_Alt thing, these settings will be different based on your memory configuration. For instance a 2 x 8gb kit will Disable BGS while enabling BGS_Alt and when running a 4 x 8gb configuration you will want to do the opposite. 

Also, people have a misconception of what the DRAM Calculator actually is. It is only giving out "supposedly" known working timing setups. Now, with that being said how is that actually proven? It isnt, but it does however have quite a bit of good information for someone new to DRAM overclocking if they actually take the information for what is really is. Being that each memory controller is as unique as a fingerprint there will never be a "calculator" to give you the right timings for every cpu, even if the memory is all the same skus. It's only there to serve as a starting point and never a "plug and play" which rarely exists with memory OC. Which means that these "formulas" that have been around long before DDR4 was a thing are no more true than the DRAM calculator would be. I can tell you from personal experience for quite a few years I have spent more weekly hours than I do at my actual job on memory overclocking and tCL + tRAS = tRP has always worked much better. In fact, not only do I run that configuration now @ 16-15-15-22-38 and can run it at 14-15-15-22-36 as well but using Cas @ 16 gives me more freedom to tighten the subtimings up much more. I have always used tCL in this manner to help calculate my primaries. I can assure you that it is very fast as well as stable. While I used to test for a minimum of 10 hours with HCI memtest64 in a shell environment like you do with passmarks test now running to 3000% either on Ramtest or HCI Memtest is sufficient for 99.9% stability.

Point is this, stop trying to follow rules and using them to govern what you think to be true in Memory overclockiing and spend the long hours testing not only what is known to work but discover better ways. Im personally glad there isnt a tool that gives you the "answers" to overclocking memory (if such a thing even exists). We are handed way too much as it is and would end up taking it for granted anyways. Working for it brings much more reward in the end.


----------



## neurotix

Lol, who the hell are you again? Come out of nowhere

Just ran some benches.

3600c16- optimized subtimings- better latency and write








3800 c14, loose subtiming








4133 c16. Not useful at all because of the high latency penalty from running in asynchronous mode. However, running asynchronous at lower frequency or looser timings with high clocks like these starts you off at like 78ns so cutting the latency down so much is good. Still, 3800/1900 is where its at, or 3733/1866 if you care more about latency.








(I very obviously am not just entering timings only from Ryzen DRAM Calculator.)

Edited down, I obviously needed sleep.


----------



## TK421

Where's the option to turn off blck and vrm spread spectrum??


I can only find SB spread spectrum as the one that can be turned off.


C7 and C6 had more complete bios than C8, seriously?


----------



## dlbsyst

neurotix said:


> Did you watch the whole video I made? Read back in this thread.
> 
> It looks ok for 3600 but I'm pretty sure I could do better at 3600mhz even with higher timings, your write and latency look iffy (write should be higher, latency is somewhat high)
> 
> The 14-15-15-15-28-42 timings you are trying to run is probably the cause of the errors in that test you are using- 15+28=43 and 15+15=30 for tRAS, so try 14-15-15-15-30-45, also raise tRFC from 288 to 304 and tFAW (Four Activate Window  ) from 16 to 24 as I know its telling you to set those that way, and you probably aren't using Thaifuuuuu~ BURN! (Thaiphoon Burner) correctly if I had to guess
> 
> The tRAS etc. equations I'm giving to calculate timings are basically legitimate rules used to tweak DRAM that have been used by overclockers for DDR values for as long as its existed.. apparently dlbsyst didnt read my last post at all before posting this.
> 
> Also, disable SB Spread Spectrum (first option at the top of Tweakers Paradise), this will fix the incorrect clocks in your screenshot (So it will say 4600MHz instead of 4591)
> 
> Whats the model (full SKU) of your DIMMs, and can you post a ss of your Ryzen DRAM Calculator please?
> 
> Honestly I wont/cant help people who wont help themselves, read back through my posts, research on their own etc. Because I'm not repeating myself, digging up links I posted previously again, etc. Also coming and going and being gone for a month, being on the site for months now and not having used rigbuilder or otherwise added clearly visible specs of your system to your signature, no sig, no avatar makes it much more difficult and less likely for me to want to help you, as theres a big lack of care/commitment to the site shown. How do I know you wont just disappear again? I took the time to make a 20 min. long video for you, did you watch it and follow along and set every advanced setting? (guessing not as spread spectrum wasn't disabled). If you had your ram kit listed in a sig rig I wouldnt have to ask what you have abd wait for a reply, I could just do the research now and answer, also 3600/1800 is easy to get, Id be more inclined to help you with 3733 or 3800mhz if you can get either to post
> 
> Also I've literally been posting all kinds of helpful, useful information on here, helped many people solve problems, etc. for 3 days straight, answered questions yet only been repped 3 times. Maybe Ill go back to playing games and leave the thread for a while, running out of patience (I like helping you all, sure, and appreciate the compliments/gratitude ans dont just do it hoping to be repped but itd be nice. Questions about ram stability I literally just elaborated on/answered in the literal last post in the thread make me run out of patience though)


Wow, I'm sorry I got you upset. I did actually watch the excellent video you posted days ago.:thumb: I dialed in all the settings from the Ryzen calculator and unfortunately it didn't fix my problem with memory errors. I guess I should have mentioned that before. I think my problem might have been related to not loading Optimized Defaults in my BIOS before changing my settings. I have been just installing the new BIOS and then loading my settings straight away. I wont make that mistake again.lol

I started from scratch with changing my BIOS settings just trying to get my RAM stable at 3600MHz. It wasn't before with all of the settings dialed in from the DRAM Calculator. It is now with just the main timings from the first page dialed in. Some of my settings are still left on Auto. Right now Gear down is enabled because disabling it gives me memory errors. Also I currently have SB spread spectrum enabled because, in the past disabling it made my PC unstable. After getting my RAM situation under control, I will try again disabling it. My RAM is 2 separate 16GB kits for a total of 32GB. It is F4-3200C14D-16GFX, DDR4-3200 8GBx2, CL14-14-14-34 1.35V.

Here are the DRAM Calculator settings.


----------



## dlbsyst

TK421 said:


> Where's the option to turn off blck and vrm spread spectrum??
> 
> 
> I can only find SB spread spectrum as the one that can be turned off.
> 
> 
> C7 and C6 had more complete bios than C8, seriously?


VRM Spread Spectrum is under External Digi+ Power Control.


----------



## dlbsyst

I repped you a few times earlier neurotix.:thumb: Also, I posted the Info you asked for so hopefully you'll help me with my memory settings.

I'll post my full rig info next chance I get, probably tommorow as it's my day off from work.


----------



## Krisztias

neurotix said:


> Finished = solid color? Confirm please.


When flashing is finished the blue light goes off.
After that I pull the drive out and press CMOS clear. Start the PC, than load setup defaults, restart, and dialing in my settings (including CLDO VDDP), except the DRAM related ones. Than cold boot, to take CLDO effect. Than set up DRAM related settings and cold boot again because of the setting "Memory clear" (=disabled). After that don't forget to uninstall and reinstall chipset drivers (info from 1usmus), because you can't possibly know what ASUS/AMD has changed.


----------



## dlbsyst

Krisztias said:


> When flashing is finished the blue light goes off.
> After that I pull the drive out and press CMOS clear. Start the PC, than load setup defaults, restart, and dialing in my settings (including CLDO VDDP), except the DRAM related ones. Than cold boot, to take CLDO effect. Than set up DRAM related settings and cold boot again because of the setting "Memory clear" (=disabled). After that don't forget to uninstall and reinstall chipset drivers (info from 1usmus), because you can't possibly know what ASUS/AMD has changed.


That is a great idea about reinstalling ones chipset drivers after installing a new BIOS.:thumb:Repped+
I'll rep+ 1usmus too if I can find his post.


----------



## Krisztias

dlbsyst said:


> That is a great idea about reinstalling ones chipset drivers after installing a new BIOS.:thumb:Repped+
> I'll rep+ 1usmus too if I can find his post.


Thank you!
I can't help you about that, because I don't know anymore when and where I read that( here in his Calculator thread or on Techpowerup RAM OC or powerplan writings)


----------



## neurotix

dlbsyst said:


> Wow, I'm sorry I got you upset. I did actually watch the excellent video you posted days ago.:thumb: I dialed in all the settings from the Ryzen calculator and unfortunately it didn't fix my problem with memory errors. I guess I should have mentioned that before. I think my problem might have been related to not loading Optimized Defaults in my BIOS before changing my settings. I have been just installing the new BIOS and then loading my settings straight away. I wont make that mistake again.lol
> 
> I started from scratch with changing my BIOS settings just trying to get my RAM stable at 3600MHz. It wasn't before with all of the settings dialed in from the DRAM Calculator. It is now with just the main timings from the first page dialed in. Some of my settings are still left on Auto. Right now Gear down is enabled because disabling it gives me memory errors. Also I currently have SB spread spectrum enabled because, in the past disabling it made my PC unstable. After getting my RAM situation under control, I will try again disabling it. My RAM is 2 separate 16GB kits for a total of 32GB. It is F4-3200C14D-16GFX, DDR4-3200 8GBx2, CL14-14-14-34 1.35V.
> 
> Here are the DRAM Calculator settings.




Sorry for being so harsh.

Anyway, you are not using Ryzen DRAM Calc correctly at all, you havent used Thaiphoon Burner correctly to make a profile for your DIMMs, and loaded into Ryzen Calc. I made posts (either in this thread or the DRAM Stability thread, or Ryzen Calc thread) explaining the process step by step, this was months ago, I couldn't find it if I tried.

I know this because its blank in the top right of your screenshots, whereas if you did import your profile it would list the SKU of whatever modules you have and frequency and stock timings

So essentially you are trying to boot using the inbuilt profile from 1usmus DIMMs as that is what Ryzen Calc uses by default. This is the cause of your issues, and if you cant boot above 3600/1800 that is probably why

I'm not typing the exact process out again as its 9 steps I typed out or something, go read back in the Ryzen Calc thread until you find it. (This was 2? months ago)Unless you do this and learn how to make and import a profile from Thaiphoon Burner correctly, you will continue to have issues.



Krisztias said:


> When flashing is finished the blue light goes off.
> After that I pull the drive out and press CMOS clear. Start the PC, than load setup defaults, restart, and dialing in my settings (including CLDO VDDP), except the DRAM related ones. Than cold boot, to take CLDO effect. Than set up DRAM related settings and cold boot again because of the setting "Memory clear" (=disabled). After that don't forget to uninstall and reinstall chipset drivers (info from 1usmus), because you can't possibly know what ASUS/AMD has changed.


This is the wrong way to do it- when the light stops blinking and it is done flashing the uefi, if you power on then, it will then flash the led controller and reboot. At that point you can turn the rig off, clear CMOS, reinstall chipset, etc


----------



## Krisztias

dlbsyst said:


> Wow, I'm sorry I got you upset. I did actually watch the excellent video you posted days ago.:thumb: I dialed in all the settings from the Ryzen calculator and unfortunately it didn't fix my problem with memory errors. I guess I should have mentioned that before. I think my problem might have been related to not loading Optimized Defaults in my BIOS before changing my settings. I have been just installing the new BIOS and then loading my settings straight away. I wont make that mistake again.lol
> 
> I started from scratch with changing my BIOS settings just trying to get my RAM stable at 3600MHz. It wasn't before with all of the settings dialed in from the DRAM Calculator. It is now with just the main timings from the first page dialed in. Some of my settings are still left on Auto. Right now Gear down is enabled because disabling it gives me memory errors. Also I currently have SB spread spectrum enabled because, in the past disabling it made my PC unstable. After getting my RAM situation under control, I will try again disabling it. My RAM is 2 separate 16GB kits for a total of 32GB. It is F4-3200C14D-16GFX, DDR4-3200 8GBx2, CL14-14-14-34 1.35V.
> 
> Here are the DRAM Calculator settings.


I have the same RAM, you should try GDM off, 1T, power down disabled, Timings from Calculator for 3600 but trcpage and trfc2-4 auto, soc 1.1 LLC2, VDDG 1.0, CLDO VDDP 900, VDDP 0.9, Vdimm 1.45V, VTT DDR= 1/2 Vdimm so choose Vdimm so that it works with minimal over- or undershoot, VPP MEM 2.5V, CHA/B 0.5, proc odt 34.3, disabled-off-RZQ5, 56-56-56, 24-24-24-24


----------



## Krisztias

neurotix said:


> when the light stops blinking and it is done flashing the uefi, if you power on then, it will then flash the led controller and reboot. At that point you can turn the rig off, clear CMOS, reinstall chipset, etc


Exactly. What matters is, when flashing is done clear CMOS. On the first start it flashes led - I not wrote it extra, because you don't have any choice just wait for the flashing/restart and than you can set up the UEFI. We talk about the same


----------



## neurotix

Krisztias said:


> I have the same RAM, you should try GDM off, 1T, power down disabled, Timings from Calculator for 3600 but trcpage and trfc2-4 auto, soc 1.1 LLC2, VDDG 1.0, CLDO VDDP 900, VDDP 0.9, Vdimm 1.45V, VTT DDR= 1/2 Vdimm so choose Vdimm so that it works with minimal over- or undershoot, VPP MEM 2.5V, CHA/B 0.5, proc odt 34.3, disabled-off-RZQ5, 56-56-56, 24-24-24-24





Krisztias said:


> Exactly. What matters is, when flashing is done clear CMOS. On the first start it flashes led - I not wrote it extra, because you don't have any choice just wait for the flashing/restart and than you can set up the UEFI. We talk about the same



Thats a good timing set and will probably work for him at 3600MHz.

I think you misunderstood what I meant (language barrier. Are you Greek? My old boss was Greek). I was talking not about the led controller making the light on the button flash, I was talking about if you turn the machine on when the light on the button goes off (with the drive left in), you will get a DOS screen that says it is updating the bios for the led firmware (for the "Hero" rgb leds in the I/O shield). So, you must not remove the USB drive before powering the system on and seeing this message, and letting it finish and reboot.

If you did it the way you described, this step would be missed. Your system would probably still boot- because once the button isn't lit blue it is done flashing the CMOS chip for the UEFI firmware- but the LED chip for that Hero logo would not be flashed. I just wanted to make this clear for other readers. I'm guessing that the LED controller chip for the Hero rgbs has to be reflashed every time you update the UEFI BIOs because there are some kind of tied pointers or something.

Anyway, dlbsyst, you are in luck, because I have the same RAM kit as you. Flare X 16GB, I have one kit though, 3200mhz, 14-14-14-34 1.35v. 

So, you don't have to read back and find my old post about Thaiphoon Burner (though I highly recommend you try to), I generated timings for you.





















Try the top ones first, if they don't work (they might not) try the bottom set of timings at 3600MHz. (I know it says they are for 3800). The reason I posted the 3800 fast timings is that the ones Thaiphoon burner gave for 3600 "safe" with 4 sticks were ridiculously, unnecessarily loose- with tRFC of 384, tFAW of 36, etc. and these chips should handle 3600MHz at tighter timings even with 4 DIMMs.

Use the same advanced setting you've been using, Cad_Bus settings set to 0, etc., just make your VTT_DDR under Tweakers Paradise as to close to half vDIMM (RAM voltage) as you possibly can, get vDIMM from my screenshots.

....you really should try to read a guide, any guide, on using Thaiphoon Burner correctly though, and I don't feel like typing it all out again (I did it more than once.)

EDIT: I just realized immediately after posting those images, that they were set to 2 DIMMs instead of 4, and you have 4 DIMMs, however then I went to fire up Ryzen Calc again and it literally spits out the exact same timings for 4 sticks as it does for 2, so I am not reposting these.

Also, the value tCWL in the right column in the first set should probably be 15, not 14.


----------



## dlbsyst

neurotix said:


> Sorry for being so harsh.
> 
> Anyway, you are not using Ryzen DRAM Calc correctly at all, you havent used Thaiphoon Burner correctly to make a profile for your DIMMs, and loaded into Ryzen Calc. I made posts (either in this thread or the DRAM Stability thread, or Ryzen Calc thread) explaining the process step by step, this was months ago, I couldn't find it if I tried.
> 
> I know this because its blank in the top right of your screenshots, whereas if you did import your profile it would list the SKU of whatever modules you have and frequency and stock timings
> 
> So essentially you are trying to boot using the inbuilt profile from 1usmus DIMMs as that is what Ryzen Calc uses by default. This is the cause of your issues, and if you cant boot above 3600/1800 that is probably why
> 
> I'm not typing the exact process out again as its 9 steps I typed out or something, go read back in the Ryzen Calc thread until you find it. (This was 2? months ago)Unless you do this and learn how to make and import a profile from Thaiphoon Burner correctly, you will continue to have issues.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the wrong way to do it- when the light stops blinking and it is done flashing the uefi, if you power on then, it will then flash the led controller and reboot. At that point you can turn the rig off, clear CMOS, reinstall chipset, etc


Thanks neurotix for explaining what I was doing wrong. Yeah, I'll get Thaiphoon Burner installed when I get home and get that done. That's pretty exciting because now I'm going to find my Ram's true potential as far as speed and timings. Rep+ for being so helpful.:thumb:


----------



## TK421

dlbsyst said:


> VRM Spread Spectrum is under External Digi+ Power Control.





I checked, it's not there.


I even tried to use the search F9 function for "spectrum" and the only result I found is SB spread spectrum.


----------



## dlbsyst

TK421 said:


> I checked, it's not there.
> 
> 
> I even tried to use the search F9 function for "spectrum" and the only result I found is SB spread spectrum.


Well, that's strange. It's there in my BIOS. I'll screenshot it later tonight for you. I'm at work right now.


----------



## Krisztias

neurotix said:


> If you did it the way you described, this step would be missed. Your system would probably still boot- because once the button isn't lit blue it is done flashing the CMOS chip for the UEFI firmware- but the LED chip for that Hero logo would not be flashed. I just wanted to make this clear for other readers. I'm guessing that the LED controller chip for the Hero rgbs has to be reflashed every time you update the UEFI BIOs because there are some kind of tied pointers or something.


My native language is not english, you're right about it, but I understand what you saying. The next time try out, what I wrote earlier, and you will see, that the LED firmware will be updated without the drive in it - during the procedure the RGB light are "frozen".


----------



## dlbsyst

neurotix said:


> Thats a good timing set and will probably work for him at 3600MHz.
> 
> I think you misunderstood what I meant (language barrier. Are you Greek? My old boss was Greek). I was talking not about the led controller making the light on the button flash, I was talking about if you turn the machine on when the light on the button goes off (with the drive left in), you will get a DOS screen that says it is updating the bios for the led firmware (for the "Hero" rgb leds in the I/O shield). So, you must not remove the USB drive before powering the system on and seeing this message, and letting it finish and reboot.
> 
> If you did it the way you described, this step would be missed. Your system would probably still boot- because once the button isn't lit blue it is done flashing the CMOS chip for the UEFI firmware- but the LED chip for that Hero logo would not be flashed. I just wanted to make this clear for other readers. I'm guessing that the LED controller chip for the Hero rgbs has to be reflashed every time you update the UEFI BIOs because there are some kind of tied pointers or something.
> 
> Anyway, dlbsyst, you are in luck, because I have the same RAM kit as you. Flare X 16GB, I have one kit though, 3200mhz, 14-14-14-34 1.35v.
> 
> So, you don't have to read back and find my old post about Thaiphoon Burner (though I highly recommend you try to), I generated timings for you.
> 
> 
> View attachment 310834
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 310836
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try the top ones first, if they don't work (they might not) try the bottom set of timings at 3600MHz. (I know it says they are for 3800). The reason I posted the 3800 fast timings is that the ones Thaiphoon burner gave for 3600 "safe" with 4 sticks were ridiculously, unnecessarily loose- with tRFC of 384, tFAW of 36, etc. and these chips should handle 3600MHz at tighter timings even with 4 DIMMs.
> 
> Use the same advanced setting you've been using, Cad_Bus settings set to 0, etc., just make your VTT_DDR under Tweakers Paradise as to close to half vDIMM (RAM voltage) as you possibly can, get vDIMM from my screenshots.
> 
> ....you really should try to read a guide, any guide, on using Thaiphoon Burner correctly though, and I don't feel like typing it all out again (I did it more than once.)
> 
> EDIT: I just realized immediately after posting those images, that they were set to 2 DIMMs instead of 4, and you have 4 DIMMs, however then I went to fire up Ryzen Calc again and it literally spits out the exact same timings for 4 sticks as it does for 2, so I am not reposting these.
> 
> Also, the value tCWL in the right column in the first set should probably be 15, not 14.


That's some awesome information there Neurotic.:thumb: It's amazing how different those timings are to the ones I've been using. It's amazing I booted at all.lol I definitely want to learn how to do this correctly and will find your guide later tonight. I want to try 3800Mhz truly.


----------



## neurotix

TK421 said:


> I checked, it's not there.
> 
> 
> I even tried to use the search F9 function for "spectrum" and the only result I found is SB spread spectrum.



You need to disable another option under CPU first, then it appears.

It's there but buried. And yes, it's "VRM Spread Spectrum", not "SB Spread Spectrum", and it's inside the External Digi+ VRM settings submenu, not the Southbridge setting under Tweaker's Paradise.

Give me a second and I can post a screenshot, but yes, it's under the CPU options in the Digi+ VRM submenu

EDIT: Had to reboot to get this.










Its there under the CPU VRM options, just change them until it shows up. Thats from an older BIOS version (1001 I think, I'm using 1201 now) but its still there.


----------



## TK421

neurotix said:


> You need to disable another option under CPU first, then it appears.
> 
> It's there but buried. And yes, it's "VRM Spread Spectrum", not "SB Spread Spectrum", and it's inside the External Digi+ VRM settings submenu, not the Southbridge setting under Tweaker's Paradise.
> 
> Give me a second and I can post a screenshot, but yes, it's under the CPU options in the Digi+ VRM submenu
> 
> EDIT: Had to reboot to get this.
> 
> View attachment 310840
> 
> 
> 
> Its there under the CPU VRM options, just change them until it shows up. Thats from an older BIOS version (1001 I think, I'm using 1201 now) but its still there.





dlbsyst said:


> Well, that's strange. It's there in my BIOS. I'll screenshot it later tonight for you. I'm at work right now.





That's truly odd, I've never seen this option before.


I will try to mess around with the Extreme Tweaker setting. I'm on the latest BIOS.


----------



## dlbsyst

Krisztias said:


> I have the same RAM, you should try GDM off, 1T, power down disabled, Timings from Calculator for 3600 but trcpage and trfc2-4 auto, soc 1.1 LLC2, VDDG 1.0, CLDO VDDP 900, VDDP 0.9, Vdimm 1.45V, VTT DDR= 1/2 Vdimm so choose Vdimm so that it works with minimal over- or undershoot, VPP MEM 2.5V, CHA/B 0.5, proc odt 34.3, disabled-off-RZQ5, 56-56-56, 24-24-24-24


Thanks for the suggestion. I'll definitely try your settings.:thumb:


----------



## dlbsyst

I found your guide Neurotix.:thumb: It's post 2878 in the Ryzen DDR Stability Guide. I can't wait to try it out tonight.


----------



## neurotix

dlbsyst said:


> I found your guide Neurotix.:thumb: It's post 2878 in the Ryzen DDR Stability Guide. I can't wait to try it out tonight.



Awesome- can you please drop a link here?

We need to get MacG32 to add that to the OP, so we dont have to dig to find it, as a lot of newcomers have no idea how to use Ryzen DRAM Calculator correctly, or even know that you HAVE to make a profile in Thaiphoon Burner first and import it, or the timings the application generates will be based off 1usmus' sticks and people have serious issues.

And yes the timings it generates when you have your own profile from Thaiphoon in it are very different. Thats how anytime I see someone saying they are trying 14-15-15-15-28-42 I know they are using the application wrong and haven't imported a profile, because I did this too at first before I realized.

And to appease another certain poster here recently I will point out to you that those timings I generated for you, or anything Ryzen Calc generates, are just a guideline and not the be-all end all of what will give the best performance for your kit, but most people here aren't trying to win hwbot competitions (and have no idea what it even is), they just want to game, so lets not make it too complex, shall we?

In particular, the tRC = tRAS + tRP rule is blatantly ignored by Ryzen Calc, itself being just a guideline, but I've helped numerous posters here (like newls1) when I advised to raise those to evaluate correctly. 

For the first set of timings I linked, dlbsyst, 15+30=45 but that timing set is suggesting 48 for tRC, which is too high, so it works the other way too, and those are the fast timings.

tRFC 288 may be problematic too for the quality of the dies we have and I have better luck keeping that around 304- if you can't post or pass memtest with 288 tRFC (which you may not as you are running 4 DIMMs), try 304.

Personally for 3800, I use the primaries from the fast preset from Ryzen Calculator, and some of the subtimings, but a lot of the subtimings are actually from the 3600 fast preset (e.g. lower), and a few others I calculated manually going off the timings in ns Thaiphoon gave me.

In case anyone didn't know, I have also read that 32GB of dual-rank memory at a lower speed performs better than 16GB of single-rank memory at a higher speed, I recall The Stilt posting here showing as much (So 32GB single rank, 4 DIMMs, 3466MHz can get more bandwidth and lower latency than my 16GB 2 DIMM single-rank at 3800MHz, or the common 3733 that everyone uses)


----------



## dlbsyst

Here's your entire post Neurotix.

+rep to oreonutz (lol)

This is basically correct.

The right way to use Ryzen Dram Calculator is:

1) You need Thaiphoon Burner as stated. (Many AV report it as a false positive because it has code that contains low-level functions, likely in ASM, that query the SMBus, etc. to retrieve the data programmed into the SPD chips on the DIMMs. The program is safe.) Near the top menu bar is a button that is something like 'Read SPD' or 'Read XMP'. Click it.

2) Thaiphoon generates a report that pops up in a window. MAKE SURE YOU SCROLL DOWN TO THE BOTTOM AND CHECK THE CHECKBOX, 'SHOW TIMINGS IN NS'!!! Last time I used the program, for the life of me, I could not find this option again. If you miss this step, DRAM Calc will *bleep* at you and refuse to load your profile.

3) After doing that, Thaiphoon has an option in a dropdown menu or a button, 'Export Profile'. You need to pick 'export full html profile' out of the various options. Navigate to the folder you have Ryzen DRAM Calculator in, and save the html report there.

4) Open Ryzen Calc, and at the bottom, above 'Import XMP', click reset. Then click 'Import XMP' and select the html file. If you did this correctly, you will see the exact model number, specs etc. of your specific memory in the top-right of the application now. If you follow my instructions exactly, you will notice that it has some (expensive) high frequency Gskill DRAM by default- the program seems to have 1usmus' kits profile built into it by default, so it generates timings that most people's memory here simply cannot do.

5) You'll notice after resetting XMP and importing YOUR XMP profile (e.g. erasing or otherwise telling the program to not use the inbuilt profile) everything will be blank. You should see your kits' timing in ns (nanoseconds) in the left column. Go through all the dropdown boxes and change them appropriately. For Ryzen 3000 series processors choose 'Ryzen 2' or 'Ryzen 2nd gen' (2000 series was a die shrink, sort of (not really lol), and optimization of Ryzen 1000... thus Ryzen 3000 is actually 2nd Gen), for memory rank pick 1 or single if you have 16GB (8gb x2) G.skill, pick Bdie if you know you have it, and for motherboard/chipset pick whatever you have. If you have an older mobo it will be X470 or X370 if you bought a decent board for either Ryzen release or Ryzen refresh, if you just bought a setup like I did and didn't buy a cheap junk offbrand board it will be X570.

6) Now you can select the frequency you're targeting. I'd suggest 3800MHz for R9 3900x (And 3950X), and 3733MHz for everything else (as I've heard it can be difficult to get the lower binned IMCs to do higher than 1866MHz Fclk, but I've seen one user with a C8I and R5 3600 getting pretty insane speeds in excess of 4000MHz on DRAM). Click generate fast. Be sure 'profile' on the left side 'Profile' is still set to manual- DO NOT change it to V1 or V2. Take pictures of the settings on your smartphone for both the first tab with timings, and the Advanced tab

7) Enter literally every setting and voltage that the Calculator spits out. Enter the settings from the "Rec." columns. If you don't, don't complain when you can't POST. I advise backing up your bios settings if you can (on my board its Asus User Profile); you WILL be doing cmos resets a lot. I save a few profiles in the settings, and also copy them to a usb stick.

8) Use your head to find some of the Advanced settings. Be thorough and take your time, and you'll find them all. Settings like Interleave Size, DRAM R1-R4 tune, ProcODT, BankGroupSwap_Alt(this one is quite important- may be called BGS_Alt- if you enable it, set BGS to disabled- both cannot be active at once), etc. You really must set everything. No excuses and no complaints! I helped one guy in a PM for over a week and he literally refused to answer when I repeatedly asked if he had found every setting, and even made and uploaded 2 15 minute videos to Youtube showing where to find every relevant setting, that he didn't watch, in the end he insisted he had 'solved his instability problem' at 3733 cas 14 by adding a fan blowing on the DIMMs because he was too lazy and couldn't be bothered to do it all! He claimed his memory "was overheating" (lol- it doesn't... 45C-50C is totally fine, if it were above 70C maybe I'd be concerned...) and refused to consider loosening timings to get to 3800MHz which carries a minimum of performance hit and still lowers latency and increases bandwidth...dont be like him. Learn your board and BIOS! (On mine, all of the Advanced tab settings can be found in 'AMD CBS' in the Advanced tab of our BIOS- Just go from the top and go through literally every menu and submenu and you'll find most of them. A few more are in the RAM timing options themselves (termination impedance) and others are in Tweakers Paradise.) I'm thrilled to have bought $119 3200 cas 14 memory and gotten a +600MHz OC and sub-64ns latency.

9) Good luck! Hope this helps. If you do all this and still have issues- I have a few tricks that might work if your RGB 3600 c16 DIMMS won't stabilize above 3600MHz This is why I buy cheaper, non-blinkenlights memory


----------



## iDShaDoW

dlbsyst said:


> 6) Now you can select the frequency you're targeting. I'd suggest 3800MHz for R9 3900x (And 3950X), and 3733MHz for everything else (as I've heard it can be difficult to get the lower binned IMCs to do higher than 1866MHz Fclk, but I've seen one user with a C8I and R5 3600 getting pretty insane speeds in excess of 4000MHz on DRAM). Click generate fast. Be sure 'profile' on the left side 'Profile' is still set to manual- DO NOT change it to V1 or V2. Take pictures of the settings on your smartphone for both the first tab with timings, and the Advanced tab


Is 'Manual" always better than V1/V2?

I have 3900X and G.Skill F4-3200C14D-32GTZR. It'll boot into Windows at 3800 CL16 but BSODs when I try to run AIDA64 memory bench even if I'm giving it 1.5v for DRAM.
Doesn't like it when I try to set the 'Power Supply System" settings for stability either.

Seems more stable at 3733 CL16 on Fast with V1. Guess I'll give Manual a shot but if you guys have any suggestions for 3800MHz it'd be appreciated.

3733 CL16 gets me like 65-66ns latency.

---

Edit: Manual was a no go on 'rec'. Tried feeding it more voltage to 1.4v and still no luck.

Ended up reverting to 3733 V1 and lowered from Max to Rec voltages.


----------



## neurotix

iDShaDoW said:


> Is 'Manual" always better than V1/V2?
> 
> I have 3900X and G.Skill F4-3200C14D-32GTZR. It'll boot into Windows at 3800 CL16 but BSODs when I try to run AIDA64 memory bench even if I'm giving it 1.5v for DRAM.
> Doesn't like it when I try to set the 'Power Supply System" settings for stability either.
> 
> Seems more stable at 3733 CL16 on Fast with V1. Guess I'll give Manual a shot but if you guys have any suggestions for 3800MHz it'd be appreciated.
> 
> 3733 CL16 gets me like 65-66ns latency.
> 
> ---
> 
> Edit: Manual was a no go on 'rec'. Tried feeding it more voltage to 1.4v and still no luck.
> 
> Ended up reverting to 3733 V1 and lowered from Max to Rec voltages.




Did you set BGS_Alt, Cad Bus, etc. etc. basically every Advanced setting (all in the AMD CBS ->Advanced Menu on this board, multiple settings are under UMC Common Options) from the Advanced tab in the middle and right columns, and so forth? What are the timings you are trying to run (post a ss of V1 and manual timings it's giving you for 3800?) A few pages back is a video I made showing where to find all the Advanced settings in our bios, it's helped a lot of users so far.

Sounds to me like an Fclk stability issue, I'd try 1.45v vDIMM/DRAM Voltage, 0.725v VTT_DDR, set VPP_MEM to 2.52v, 1.125v SoC, 1.075v cLDO_VDDG, 1.100v cLDO_VDDP- though generally lowering SoC is what is recommended for Fclk issues, so if those don't work try 1.08v SoC or so and lower down to 1.05v, with cLDO_VDDG at 900 and cLDO_VDDP at 0.950

What processor do you have? If it's a 3700X or R5 3600, you will have a hard time getting 1900 fclk, and even with a 3800X you will have a hard time, theres even numerous 3900X owners that can't do 3800/1900MHz fclk, as it is the luck of the draw. In that case you may just have a bad UMC, and cache on your core complex dies, and so your Infinity Fabric wont do more than 1866, in which case you are on the right track as you are now (3733/1866) and you probably shouldn't worry about it.

I do get better performance in games, Cinebench, lower latency, higher memory bandwidth at 3800/1900 and it's the best for gaming- I tested Heaven 4.0 at 1080p with both my 1080tis at the same clocks, controlled for heat, etc. and tested 3600/1800 c14, 3733/1866 c14, 3800/1900 c16, and 4066/1866 c16, 3800/1900 c16 performed about 5 fps better than all the rest, likely due to the gain in L3 cache bandwidth from 1900 fclk. This is not new information though. (Obviously I tested at such a low res with an OP GPU setup to make the test CPU-bound)

V1 is basically 1usmus built in 'fast' profile a lot of the time and V2 is built in 'safe', Manual calculates the timings based on your exact DIMMs profile from Thaiphoon you imported (you DID import a profile from Thaiphoon burner, I hope? Sorry to patronize if you did, but *read above* if you did not, as you are using Ryzen Calc wrong if thats the case)


----------



## dlbsyst

Neurotix, I have a feeling that a lot of us are using DRAM Calculator wrong. I, at least, won't be one of them after tonight thanks to you.


----------



## iDShaDoW

neurotix said:


> Sounds to me like an Fclk stability issue, I'd try 1.45v vDIMM/DRAM Voltage, 0.725v VTT_DDR, set VPP_MEM to 2.52v, 1.125v SoC, 1.075v cLDO_VDDG, 1.100v cLDO_VDDP- though generally lowering SoC is what is recommended for Fclk issues, so if those don't work try 1.08v SoC or so and lower down to 1.05v, with cLDO_VDDG at 900 and cLDO_VDDP at 0.950
> 
> What processor do you have?
> 
> V1 is basically 1usmus built in 'fast' profile a lot of the time and V2 is built in 'safe', Manual calculates the timings based on your exact DIMMs profile from Thaiphoon you imported (you DID import a profile from Thaiphoon burner, I hope? Sorry to patronize if you did, but *read above* if you did not, as you are using Ryzen Calc wrong if thats the case)


Hi, I have a Ryzen 3900X and Crosshair 8 also. Viewed your video from beginning to end and located a lot of the options in the BIOS that weren't easily mapped against the DRAM calculator.

I did all that before my previous post so I had most of it dialed in, including most of the voltages you mentioned in the quote above also.

I'll try testing again at 3800 with 1900 fclk while lowering the SoC voltage.

I didn't import for Manual as I wasn't sure how the function worked - always just used V1 before.

See attached for what the DRAM calculator is showing me for 3800Mhz FAST with XML imported from Thaiphoon.


----------



## neurotix

iDShaDoW said:


> Hi, I have a Ryzen 3900X and Crosshair 8 also. Viewed your video from beginning to end and located a lot of the options in the BIOS that weren't easily mapped against the DRAM calculator.
> 
> I did all that before my previous post so I had most of it dialed in, including most of the voltages you mentioned in the quote above also.
> 
> I'll try testing again at 3800 with 1900 fclk while lowering the SoC voltage.
> 
> I didn't import for Manual as I wasn't sure how the function worked - always just used V1 before.



Awesome. Sorry, I'm just used to having to tell folks to set the Advanced options. (I've said it before but- yeah I can't POST without going and setting all, or most of these, at 1900 fclk. Going and finding them all is what finally allowed me to. You will get higher bandwidth generally if you set these anyway, regardless of fclk).

Got it, try lowering from 1.1000v SoC in two-step increments and retesting. However, before you do that, what is probably the issue with your 3800/1900 is having used the timings from V1/V2 profile, this caused me a lot of issues at first too until I imported a profile I made in Thaiphoon Burner; see the post on the last page https://www.overclock.net/forum/28229278-post1637.html

http://softnology.biz/files.html to download it.

Please export a profile following the directions in the post I just linked, then import it into Ryzen DRAM Calculator, and use the Manual preset. When you do so correctly, the top right of the application will show the speed, timings and SKU of your exact kit.

Try generating Manual timings after you do that for 3800MHz, and you will probably notice them to be quite different from what they were when you used V1 (likely the timings will be looser/higher), these should hopefully work for you to get stable at 3800/1900 on your 3900X. You will probably want to accomplish that first, and then if you want to take it further, try manually optimizing your subtimings.

Hope this helps.


----------



## iDShaDoW

neurotix said:


> Awesome. Sorry, I'm just used to having to tell folks to set the Advanced options. (I've said it before but- yeah I can't POST without going and setting all, or most of these, at 1900 fclk. Going and finding them all is what finally allowed me to. You will get higher bandwidth generally if you set these anyway, regardless of fclk).
> 
> Got it, try lowering from 1.1000v SoC in two-step increments and retesting. However, before you do that, what is probably the issue with your 3800/1900 is having used the timings from V1/V2 profile, this caused me a lot of issues at first too until I imported a profile I made in Thaiphoon Burner; see the post on the last page https://www.overclock.net/forum/28229278-post1637.html
> 
> http://softnology.biz/files.html to download it.
> 
> Please export a profile following the directions in the post I just linked, then import it into Ryzen DRAM Calculator, and use the Manual preset. When you do so correctly, the top right of the application will show the speed, timings and SKU of your exact kit.
> 
> Try generating Manual timings after you do that for 3800MHz, and you will probably notice them to be quite different from what they were when you used V1 (likely the timings will be looser/higher), these should hopefully work for you to get stable at 3800/1900 on your 3900X. You will probably want to accomplish that first, and then if you want to take it further, try manually optimizing your subtimings.
> 
> Hope this helps.


Thanks. Turning down the SoC voltage 2 notches seems to have worked:
-SoC 1.08v
-VDDP 0.950
-VDDG 0.900

I lowered VDDP/VDDG like you suggested - would have it have been to leave them at 1.075 and 1.100 while lowering only SoC?

Guess the only other thing to do is to try and tweak the DRAM Voltage from 'Max' of 1.45v down to 'Rec' of 1.42v.


----------



## glnn_23

Thanks to 1usmus and also neurotix for your input it's been very helpful.

Using an Impact I've spent a bit of time and struggled to get IF running at 1900Mhz but it seems to be ok now
2 x 8Gb TridentZ 4266c19

Voltages in bios
Vdimm 1.39v (1.41v in HWinfo)
SOC 1.05v
VDDG CCD .850v
VDDG IOD .965v
CLDO VDDP 865


----------



## neurotix

iDShaDoW said:


> Thanks. Turning down the SoC voltage 2 notches seems to have worked:
> -SoC 1.08v
> -VDDP 0.950
> -VDDG 0.900
> 
> I lowered VDDP/VDDG like you suggested - would have it have been to leave them at 1.075 and 1.100 while lowering only SoC?
> 
> Guess the only other thing to do is to try and tweak the DRAM Voltage from 'Max' of 1.45v down to 'Rec' of 1.42v.


Hey, this looks pretty good, but your write bandwidth is kind of low, despite running at the same timings as me at 3800/1900

What is your tCWL? This might have an effect.

Id still suggest trying to get a profile from Thaiphoon, and using the manual preset, that low write bandwidth will bottleneck the others. I dont have a screenshot offhand but it should be more in the range of 58.5GB/sec-58.8 at that frequency and timings

Regarding VDDP and VDDG,

Both can approach but not exceed SoC Voltage- since you lowered it from 1.1000v to 1.0800v, VDDG cannot be 1.1000v and would not have been taking effect

If you have issues with fclk stability, failing memtest, etc. I'd recommend raising VDDP to 1.050v or so and VDDG to 1.000/1000  Keep it within that ratio compared to SoC

Also to the last poster; any reason VDDG CCD and IOD are different values? Does this help heat, stability at all? Usually they're the same..


----------



## TK421

So apparently spread spectrum is only accessible when cpu vrm switching frequency is set to auto


Usually I always put switching frequency manually to highest since it gives cleaner power delivery (in theory)


----------



## glnn_23

neurotix I had a look through the boards memory presets and a couple of them had VDDG CCD and IOD values set different. So might as well try it and it seems stable enough so far.


----------



## iDShaDoW

neurotix said:


> What is your tCWL?


I have everything set according to the values below - this is from using the Manual profile after importing the XML from Thaiphoon which gave the previous Aida64 results.


----------



## neurotix

TK421 said:


> So apparently spread spectrum is only accessible when cpu vrm switching frequency is set to auto
> 
> 
> Usually I always put switching frequency manually to highest since it gives cleaner power delivery (in theory)
> 
> ugh removed giant image



I think I read once that setting manual frequency switching on the cpu automatically disables spread spectrum, but this was years ago.

Is there a reason you needed this off? Does it affect bclk? A lot of the time my cpu-z still shows 4399mhz despite having VRM spread spectrum and sb spread spectrum off...



glnn_23 said:


> neurotix I had a look through the boards memory presets and a couple of them had VDDG CCD and IOD values set different. So might as well try it and it seems stable enough so far.



Sure, worth a shot. I'd love to see some kind of explanation of this though to know the exact behavior, from Shamino or The_Stilt or someone more knowledgeable than me



iDShaDoW said:


> I have everything set according to the values below - this is from using the Manual profile after importing the XML from Thaiphoon which gave the previous Aida64 results.


Gotcha, didnt realize you got that sorted.

Took a sec to look at your screenshot and realize- it isnt the tCWL, it is because you are running with Gear Down Mode Enabled. This explains the lower write bandwidth. Mine behave the same.

One way or another, its a nice OC and about the best you can do on Ryzen 3000 (though 3800 c14 is better, I haven't stabilized it.) The slightly higher latency compared to 3733/1866 c14 is made up for by higher bandwidth and faster cache access and bandwidth at 3800/1900

Anyway you can bring your write bandwidth up by disabling Gear Down Mode and setting 1T- add DRAM Voltage and VTT_DDR voltage if you decide to try. Assuming you are using the 1.42v/0.71v that Calc recommends, try 1.45v or even 1.48v for 1T GDM Off (aka Command Rate 1)- obviously VTT_DDR in Tweakers Paradise should be exactly half vDIMM

I think mine need 1.45v for 1T, GDM Off. GDM On I can use 1.42v.

--------------------------------------

Also, on another note, here are some interesting links Ive found over the last few days concerning memory oc, inbetween helping people here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/8ml6re/what_is_the_highest_safe_value_for_procodt_on/

^ really interesting stuff there (look at the rambus pdf links too) about ProcODT values. Apparently, 40ohm or higher gives better performance. Why you'd want to increase the electrical resistance on the DIMMs is beyond me

https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2017/05/25/community-update-4-lets-talk-dram

few years old, he doesn't mean next June as its from 2017, but there's great explanation of each RAM value for people new to this (some of these subtimings are different with DDR3 and they are very different with DDR2 and DDR)

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/e4klj0/intel_is_still_sneakily_sabotaging_amd/

^ yeah. Its not the compiler though, I remember all that, just a little used math/scientific program. There was an old program called AMD PSCheck we used with FX-8350 to check the scheduler, there was a way to spoof your CPUID too with certain games to get more performance if those games were compiled for Intel in Visual C++

https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews...ry_optimisation_-_the_effect_of_trc_timings/2

^ reposting, tRC = tRAS + tRP

https://rog.asus.com/articles/guides/maximus-vi-series-uefi-guide-for-overclocking/

^ remember when ROG used to give us really long guides like that written by their Pro OCers like Shamino and others? Anyway, do a Find in Page and put VRM, theres a small section about it, he basically says to max it all out (thermal control to 136 on our boards, current capacity to 140%, Switching Frequency to 500Hz for all, Phase mode to Extreme, I would leave Loadline Calibration alone, never set SoC loadline on C8H, it will overvolt your SoC under load and can fry your chip. CPU Loadline can be set to level 1 for vdroop under load and lower temps, or set to level 3 or 4 to eliminate vdroop if you crash under load- default CPU LLC is level 2. I still need to play with this, especially T Probe - > Extreme and see if I get lower temps and can use less voltage or oc higher.)

https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4 OC Guide.md

^ great read especially the tightening timings section

EDIT: Also @TK421: can you please remove or crop the giant 4000x3000 images of your bios from your last post? They are messing up the form for the Advanced reply on mobile and making it super wide, so I can't see all of what I'm typing on my phone screen at once. Thank you.

EDIT 2: https://www.anandtech.com/show/14694/amd-rome-epyc-2nd-gen

*drooling*  AMD EPYC ROME 7742 2P  cluster... 256 threads. (A lot of very useful information in the introduction sections of that Anandtech article that is applicable to our processors)

https://www.anandtech.com/show/14605/the-and-ryzen-3700x-3900x-review-raising-the-bar


----------



## TK421

neurotix said:


> I think I read once that setting manual frequency switching on the cpu automatically disables spread spectrum, but this was years ago.
> 
> Is there a reason you needed this off? Does it affect bclk? A lot of the time my cpu-z still shows 4399mhz despite having VRM spread spectrum and sb spread spectrum off...





It says on other asus motherboard to turn off the spread spectrum when oc, so that's what I tried to do on this motherboard.






Also, what LLC setting is best used? I find that only level 5 gives 1:1 input voltage and voltage received on the CPU.


I've read that no vdroop is bad, but a stable voltage is also good. So I'm not entirely sure what to do in terms of LLC setting here.


----------



## Krisztias

So Guys, I tested both 1105 and 1201 bioses and like zsoltmol, I'm getting lower performance and instability by 3800/1900 with these two. I must admit, PCH is 2-3°C cooler, the motherboard boots faster, but windows for the first start after cold boot boots extremely slow. I think 1201 is worse than 1105, I do not advise to flash any of them, but if you must do it, than 1105 seems better to me. With 1001 I have nothing to complain.
Back to 1001.


----------



## iDShaDoW

neurotix said:


> One way or another, its a nice OC and about the best you can do on Ryzen 3000 (though 3800 c14 is better, I haven't stabilized it.) The slightly higher latency compared to 3733/1866 c14 is made up for by higher bandwidth and faster cache access and bandwidth at 3800/1900
> 
> Anyway you can bring your write bandwidth up by disabling Gear Down Mode and setting 1T- add DRAM Voltage and VTT_DDR voltage if you decide to try. Assuming you are using the 1.42v/0.71v that Calc recommends, try 1.45v or even 1.48v for 1T GDM Off (aka Command Rate 1)- obviously VTT_DDR in Tweakers Paradise should be exactly half vDIMM
> 
> I think mine need 1.45v for 1T, GDM Off. GDM On I can use 1.42v.


Just noticed you said you can do 3733/3800 CL14. Is it due to chip lottery? 
Yeah, I tried disabling Gear Down and CL15 which was a no go; so I turned it back on.

I have Command Rate set to 1T regardless of whether Gear Mode is on/off. I'll try with slightly higher voltages when I get home.

Is there a benefit to having <Gear Mode Disabled + 1T> vs <Gear Mode Enabled + "some other Command Rate">?

Just wondering if I'm hindering performance somehow by doing <Gear Mode Enabled + 1T>...

---

Just noticed you said you can do 3733/3800 CL14? Is that a typo? Or is it due to chip lottery or your RAM kit? Doesn't mention in your Rig Builder specs if you're running 2x8GB or 2x16GB.

Wasn't sure either if having dual rank RAM lowers OC capability a bit vs single rank. I tried 4 sticks for a total of 64GB (a pair of 2 stick kits - not a 4 stick kit) which was a no go. Couldn't even get it to boot at the rated 3200 CL14 speeds so I returned it. This was before I knew how to set the "Advanced" settings though so don't know if that and/or the new BIOS would have helped.


----------



## gupsterg

Gadfly said:


> @neurotix , @gupsterg Love your input on this.
> 
> I am still building up my 3950X machine and have had some strange behavior with these boards.
> 
> Currently, I have 3 C8H boards, and 1 C8F sitting on my table. All three of the C8H on bios 1105/1201 have RGB lights that flicker with I run HCI memtest or similar application. No idea why (maybe a LED firmware thing?) On 2 of the C8H boards I can run 3800C14 @ 1.43 volts, with FCLK of 1900mhz, vddg @ .950v, vddp @900 and SB @ 1.0v; on one of the C8H it will run the same but the SB requires 1.05v to run 1900mhz FCLK.
> 
> But, the C8F... well it won't even boot at 3800C16 & 1900mhz FCLK; it will post, but it is unstable. It will lock up and reboot in the bios setup menu's, it will reboot whenever the OS starts to load, etc. Keep in mind this is the same CPU, same memory, etc. The board just won't do it. I tried all the normal stuff, pushed VDDG up to 1.0v, SB up to 1.09v, SOC to 1.125v, increased DRAM voltage to 1.48v, and everything in between. Nothing would make that Formula board run 1900mhz FCLK. I was pretty shocked that the top of the line overclocking board is so terrible.
> 
> So it appears the Motherboards themselves are just as much as lottery as the CPU's; I just wish the lights didn't flicker on the hero's


Only have 1 AM4 board, the C7HWIFI.

So far I've used a R5 3600 and R7 3700X, R5 3600 purchased at launch, the R7 3700X I recently got.

The R5 3600 breezes 3800MHz on 4x8GB with 1:1:1. The R7 3700X seems limited to 3733MHz. I managed a POST to OS today with it at 3800MHz 1:1:1, but stability evades me by a lot. I'm planning to purchase a R9 3900X as well.



TK421 said:


> So apparently spread spectrum is only accessible when cpu vrm switching frequency is set to auto
> 
> 
> Usually I always put switching frequency manually to highest since it gives cleaner power delivery (in theory)
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> neurotix said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I read once that setting manual frequency switching on the cpu automatically disables spread spectrum, but this was years ago.
Click to expand...

I concur with neurotix.


----------



## neurotix

Idshadow;

Gear Dpwn Mode disabled + 1T, 3800 cas 16, try that and retest

In my case, all timings the same, GDM Off 1T gives higher write bandwidth.


----------



## WaXmAn

Krisztias said:


> So Guys, I tested both 1105 and 1201 bioses and like zsoltmol, I'm getting lower performance and instability by 3800/1900 with these two. I must admit, PCH is 2-3°C cooler, the motherboard boots faster, but windows for the first start after cold boot boots extremely slow. I think 1201 is worse than 1105, I do not advise to flash any of them, but if you must do it, than 1105 seems better to me. With 1001 I have nothing to complain.
> Back to 1001.



I'm currently on 1201 and noticed it was slower in WIN 10, how do I go back to 1001? You can't do this in BIOS since it says I am already on a later BIOS. Do I need to try the USB flash back?


----------



## Krisztias

WaXmAn said:


> I'm currently on 1201 and noticed it was slower in WIN 10, how do I go back to 1001? You can't do this in BIOS since it says I am already on a later BIOS. Do I need to try the USB flash back?


Yes, this is the way to do it. Pendrive formatted to FAT32, BIOS renamed to C8H or C8HW if you have the WiFi version.


----------



## iDShaDoW

neurotix said:


> Idshadow;
> 
> Gear Dpwn Mode disabled + 1T, 3800 cas 16, try that and retest
> 
> In my case, all timings the same, GDM Off 1T gives higher write bandwidth.


Tried Gear Mode disabled and it would either fail to POST and put me right back into BIOS or not POST at all - at which point I have to turn off my computer, hold the Clear CMOS button, and then go back into BIOS.

I tried GDM Off + 1T while upping the DRAM voltage and having the VTT_DDR at half of DRAM.
1.42v
1.45v
1.48v
1.50v

None worked.

Is there a particular order I should make these changes in?
I've noticed that if something goes wrong and I clear the CMOS, I can't load my BIOS profile and jump right back into 3800 CL16 or it fails to POST.
I have to load my 3733 CL16 profile > let it POST and go back into BIOS > load 3800 CL16 profile > let it POST and boot into Windows.

---

Yeah, so I just tried some more tinkering.

Set the following which booted fine:
DRAM - 1.5v
VTT_DDR - 0.75v
Command Rate - Auto
Gear Down Mode - Auto

Made the following changes 1 at a time and saved and rebooted.

1) Gear Down Mode - Disabled - Boots Fine
2) Command Rate - 2T - Boots Fine
3) Command Rate - 1T - No Go

Is there anything else I can tweak to try and get it to do 1T or is it just luck of the draw and I'm SOL?


----------



## neurotix

iDShaDoW said:


> Tried Gear Mode disabled and it would either fail to POST and put me right back into BIOS or not POST at all - at which point I have to turn off my computer, hold the Clear CMOS button, and then go back into BIOS.
> 
> I tried GDM Off + 1T while upping the DRAM voltage and having the VTT_DDR at half of DRAM.
> 1.42v
> 1.45v
> 1.48v
> 1.50v
> 
> None worked.
> 
> Is there a particular order I should make these changes in?
> I've noticed that if something goes wrong and I clear the CMOS, I can't load my BIOS profile and jump right back into 3800 CL16 or it fails to POST.
> I have to load my 3733 CL16 profile > let it POST and go back into BIOS > load 3800 CL16 profile > let it POST and boot into Windows.
> 
> ---
> 
> Yeah, so I just tried some more tinkering.
> 
> Set the following which booted fine:
> DRAM - 1.5v
> VTT_DDR - 0.75v
> Command Rate - Auto
> Gear Down Mode - Auto
> 
> Made the following changes 1 at a time and saved and rebooted.
> 
> 1) Gear Down Mode - Disabled - Boots Fine
> 2) Command Rate - 2T - Boots Fine
> 3) Command Rate - 1T - No Go
> 
> Is there anything else I can tweak to try and get it to do 1T or is it just luck of the draw and I'm SOL?


Yes, its an issue on these boards with BIOS 1105 and higher (AGESA 1.0.0.4), that when you fail to boot and reset CMOS, the memory will not train if you try to go immediately back to 3800/1900, despite it working previously. This happens to me occasionally if I'm trying 3800 c14 1T GDM off, or higher than 3800mhz (I don't run this way at all, just for testing or benchmarking it, performance is always worse than 3800/1900.)

I have to do the same thing- I boot at 3600/1800 c16 first, then go to 3800/1900 c16. Otherwise, 3800/1900 just fails to boot. This is a well known issue on the last few bios that wasnt present in bios 0901 or 1003 etc

Another user here in this thread gave me this information right when 1105 came out- dont know where they got to (edit: I remember the user was rv7000- credit for this workaround goes to them) and it was a very widespread complaint here, on reddit, etc. that previously stable overclocks would no longer boot when this bios first released. I highly recommend anyone overclocking DRAM on this board currently, boot at 3600/1800 first- if you cannot get 3733/1866 or 3800/1900 no matter what you do, its probably because you haven't POSTed at 3600/1800 yet.

You might be SOL on the 3800 1T GDM off with what you've tried- but 3800/1900, your latency and bandwidth are respectable and very close to the theoretical limits. 60800MB/sec is the maximum theoretical read bandwidth @ 3800MHz, your copy is high, and memory write being lower isnt a huge deal, games performance is mostly copy and latency

I would try raising timings potentially, try 16-17-17-16-32-50, tCWL 17, tFAW 24(or 28 if its already 24), tRFC 312, or as high as 330

Voltage 1.48 vDIMM, 0.74 vtt, 1.05v SoC (or whatever you lowered it to), 1.010v VDDG CCD (Fabric), 1.000 VDDG IOD, VDDP 950

You may want to try raising Proc ODT to 36.9 and all the others (4) to 24, raise Proc ODT as high as 40 ohm.

If you try all that for 3800 1T gdm off and get nowhere, then yes, your memory controller doesnt like it. But you can work on optimizing subtimings at your current overclock instead and this will improve performance, and be easier at 2T. (such as lowering FAW to 20 or 16, lowering tRFC, lower tRP, tRAS and tRC, etc.)

https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4 OC Guide.md

^ you can try the fast or extreme timing sets @ 3800 2T there if you cannot get 3800 1T to boot.

You may have better stability and performance going in that direction instead. Good luck.

Hope this helps


----------



## MacMus

Hello,

Guys what do u suggest Crosshair Hero or Formula ?
Does Asus have issue with external sound cards?

MM


----------



## iDShaDoW

neurotix said:


> https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4 OC Guide.md
> 
> ^ you can try the fast or extreme timing sets @ 3800 2T there if you cannot get 3800 1T to boot.


Thanks. I'll give that and everything else a look this weekend when I have more time.




MacMus said:


> Guys what do u suggest Crosshair Hero or Formula ?
> Does Asus have issue with external sound cards?


Not sure about the differences between the two and which would better suit you, but I had a Sound Blaster Z and now a Sound Blaster AE-7 which have both worked completely fine with no issues on my X370, X470, and now X570 ASUS boards and Windows 10.

Had to upgrade to the AE-7 to have a better headphone jack that could power my new higher impedance headphones.


----------



## MacMus

iDShaDoW said:


> T
> Not sure about the differences between the two and which would better suit you, but I had a Sound Blaster Z and now a Sound Blaster AE-7 which have both worked completely fine with no issues on my X370, X470, and now X570 ASUS boards and Windows 10.
> Had to upgrade to the AE-7 to have a better headphone jack that could power my new higher impedance headphones.


I have AE-9 went all in ;-)

I'm moving down the stack from 1950x to 3950x which i managed to snatch on release date, but have not picked a mobo for it yet :-(

I don't like the fact that is only have 2x M.2 slots that is kind of frustrating... also VRM are quite old "technology" on this board.


----------



## TK421

iDShaDoW said:


> Just noticed you said you can do 3733/3800 CL14. Is it due to chip lottery?
> Yeah, I tried disabling Gear Down and CL15 which was a no go; so I turned it back on.
> 
> I have Command Rate set to 1T regardless of whether Gear Mode is on/off. I'll try with slightly higher voltages when I get home.
> 
> Is there a benefit to having <Gear Mode Disabled + 1T> vs <Gear Mode Enabled + "some other Command Rate">?
> 
> Just wondering if I'm hindering performance somehow by doing <Gear Mode Enabled + 1T>...
> 
> ---
> 
> Just noticed you said you can do 3733/3800 CL14? Is that a typo? Or is it due to chip lottery or your RAM kit? Doesn't mention in your Rig Builder specs if you're running 2x8GB or 2x16GB.
> 
> Wasn't sure either if having dual rank RAM lowers OC capability a bit vs single rank. I tried 4 sticks for a total of 64GB (a pair of 2 stick kits - not a 4 stick kit) which was a no go. Couldn't even get it to boot at the rated 3200 CL14 speeds so I returned it. This was before I knew how to set the "Advanced" settings though so don't know if that and/or the new BIOS would have helped.


Lottery 100%. My 3950x with 1866 FCLK can't do 3733C14. 3733C16 works but have to enable GDM.

I don't want to push mem voltage above 1.45v.


----------



## Synoxia

dlbsyst said:


> Here's your entire post Neurotix.
> 
> +rep to oreonutz (lol)
> 
> This is basically correct.
> 
> The right way to use Ryzen Dram Calculator is:
> 
> 1) You need Thaiphoon Burner as stated. (Many AV report it as a false positive because it has code that contains low-level functions, likely in ASM, that query the SMBus, etc. to retrieve the data programmed into the SPD chips on the DIMMs. The program is safe.) Near the top menu bar is a button that is something like 'Read SPD' or 'Read XMP'. Click it.
> 
> 2) Thaiphoon generates a report that pops up in a window. MAKE SURE YOU SCROLL DOWN TO THE BOTTOM AND CHECK THE CHECKBOX, 'SHOW TIMINGS IN NS'!!! Last time I used the program, for the life of me, I could not find this option again. If you miss this step, DRAM Calc will *bleep* at you and refuse to load your profile.
> 
> 3) After doing that, Thaiphoon has an option in a dropdown menu or a button, 'Export Profile'. You need to pick 'export full html profile' out of the various options. Navigate to the folder you have Ryzen DRAM Calculator in, and save the html report there.
> 
> 4) Open Ryzen Calc, and at the bottom, above 'Import XMP', click reset. Then click 'Import XMP' and select the html file. If you did this correctly, you will see the exact model number, specs etc. of your specific memory in the top-right of the application now. If you follow my instructions exactly, you will notice that it has some (expensive) high frequency Gskill DRAM by default- the program seems to have 1usmus' kits profile built into it by default, so it generates timings that most people's memory here simply cannot do.
> 
> 5) You'll notice after resetting XMP and importing YOUR XMP profile (e.g. erasing or otherwise telling the program to not use the inbuilt profile) everything will be blank. You should see your kits' timing in ns (nanoseconds) in the left column. Go through all the dropdown boxes and change them appropriately. For Ryzen 3000 series processors choose 'Ryzen 2' or 'Ryzen 2nd gen' (2000 series was a die shrink, sort of (not really lol), and optimization of Ryzen 1000... thus Ryzen 3000 is actually 2nd Gen), for memory rank pick 1 or single if you have 16GB (8gb x2) G.skill, pick Bdie if you know you have it, and for motherboard/chipset pick whatever you have. If you have an older mobo it will be X470 or X370 if you bought a decent board for either Ryzen release or Ryzen refresh, if you just bought a setup like I did and didn't buy a cheap junk offbrand board it will be X570.
> 
> 6) Now you can select the frequency you're targeting. I'd suggest 3800MHz for R9 3900x (And 3950X), and 3733MHz for everything else (as I've heard it can be difficult to get the lower binned IMCs to do higher than 1866MHz Fclk, but I've seen one user with a C8I and R5 3600 getting pretty insane speeds in excess of 4000MHz on DRAM). Click generate fast. Be sure 'profile' on the left side 'Profile' is still set to manual- DO NOT change it to V1 or V2. Take pictures of the settings on your smartphone for both the first tab with timings, and the Advanced tab
> 
> 7) Enter literally every setting and voltage that the Calculator spits out. Enter the settings from the "Rec." columns. If you don't, don't complain when you can't POST. I advise backing up your bios settings if you can (on my board its Asus User Profile); you WILL be doing cmos resets a lot. I save a few profiles in the settings, and also copy them to a usb stick.
> 
> 8) Use your head to find some of the Advanced settings. Be thorough and take your time, and you'll find them all. Settings like Interleave Size, DRAM R1-R4 tune, ProcODT, BankGroupSwap_Alt(this one is quite important- may be called BGS_Alt- if you enable it, set BGS to disabled- both cannot be active at once), etc. You really must set everything. No excuses and no complaints! I helped one guy in a PM for over a week and he literally refused to answer when I repeatedly asked if he had found every setting, and even made and uploaded 2 15 minute videos to Youtube showing where to find every relevant setting, that he didn't watch, in the end he insisted he had 'solved his instability problem' at 3733 cas 14 by adding a fan blowing on the DIMMs because he was too lazy and couldn't be bothered to do it all! He claimed his memory "was overheating" (lol- it doesn't... 45C-50C is totally fine, if it were above 70C maybe I'd be concerned...) and refused to consider loosening timings to get to 3800MHz which carries a minimum of performance hit and still lowers latency and increases bandwidth...dont be like him. Learn your board and BIOS! (On mine, all of the Advanced tab settings can be found in 'AMD CBS' in the Advanced tab of our BIOS- Just go from the top and go through literally every menu and submenu and you'll find most of them. A few more are in the RAM timing options themselves (termination impedance) and others are in Tweakers Paradise.) I'm thrilled to have bought $119 3200 cas 14 memory and gotten a +600MHz OC and sub-64ns latency.
> 
> 9) Good luck! Hope this helps. If you do all this and still have issues- I have a few tricks that might work if your RGB 3600 c16 DIMMS won't stabilize above 3600MHz This is why I buy cheaper, non-blinkenlights memory



Hello, i might be "like that user" that thinks his ram OC gets unstable because of heat, but i am willing to try if i did some mistake! (my ram are getting into 60ish with HCI memtest + AC odyssey at 8k 24/7 overnight)
I run these but on C7H hero and 1003ABBA, not 1004b (found out 1004b gives worse SC on my cpu)
I've been reading that setting vddsoc LLC is also bad, so now i am unstable again without LLC (D or it's still the chips itself being unstable... idk
those are 4 dimms 3200c14. Thanks for help!


----------



## zsoltmol

1201, yesterday it tried to cold boot with black screen and switching on-off in every 2seconds, after 8 boot attempts it gave up and told me boot failed.

I did not change a single bit since 3 days, not entered the bios at all.

Strange.


----------



## AStaUK

My PC runs stable, but I've had a couple of system crashes/reboots where my Samsung 970 Evo Plus 2TB disappears. Rebooting the PC doesn't do anything, I have to shut the PC down and then power it back on for it to reappear. If I reboot and load the BIOS the drive is missing. I have all the current firmware updates for my drives/board and temps aren't an issue, hottest that drive has got is 58c and only then when I was transfering a large amount of data from my SSD. The drive itself is only used for game install, OS is on the 1TB 970 Evo+. I can't find anything in the Event Log other than previous shutdown was not clean, there's not even a dmp file to annalyse.

I've only had it crash like this 3-4 times since I built the PC (July), but I'm wondering if it's the drives controller that has an issue and is shutting down. Anyone else seeing or heard of anything like this, wondering if I should contact Samsung or if it's possible that it's something on the motherboard?


----------



## dlbsyst

Okay Neurotix, I have got my RAM stable at 3600MHz but I could use a little more help please.

My settings are a little bit different than yours but I think it's because I'm running 4 sticks rather than two. I plugged all of the settings in from the DRAM Calculator accept changed VTT DDR Voltage to 0.7250 since my RAM is running at 1.45V. Also I had to Enable Gear Down or would get errors with Memtest Pro. SB Spread Spectrum is Enabled because disabling it causes my computer to become unstable and crash, reboot. Maybe you can help me figure out why?

I tried setting my RAM at 3800MHz and it did seem stable when running Memtest Pro but my PC seemed unstable with crackling in my audio so it was a no go. Can you offer some suggestions to get that stable please?

Also, for some reason my PC absolutely refused to boot running my RAM at either 3733MHz or 3466. I tried everything but got nowhere.

Here are my settings and results. If you can offer some suggestions on tightening my timings for better performance that would be great. I would really like to run at 3800MHz if I can get it totally stable. Stability is the most important thing to me.


----------



## iDShaDoW

MacMus said:


> I have AE-9 went all in ;-)
> 
> I'm moving down the stack from 1950x to 3950x which i managed to snatch on release date, but have not picked a mobo for it yet :-(
> 
> I don't like the fact that is only have 2x M.2 slots that is kind of frustrating... also VRM are quite old "technology" on this board.


Nice. I was looking at the AE-9 but wasn't sure I wanted the bigger volume control module. If they had an AE-9 with the AE-5/7 module I would've jumped on it lol.

Not sure you'll find any motherboards with more than 2x M.2 slots (although I've never actually looked). I figured I'd never need more than 2 when PCIe 4.0 NVMe drives are more available and lower cost and can grab 2 to Raid 0 them or something.

I got 2x 10TB drives and my next big purchase will probably be a Synology NAS to fill with the 12TB Reds shucked out of some Western Digital externals. I'm going off topic now though so sorry. 

No clue about the VRMs vs other boards.



TK421 said:


> Lottery 100%. My 3950x with 1866 FCLK can't do 3733C14. 3733C16 works but have to enable GDM.
> 
> I don't want to push mem voltage above 1.45v.


Figured it was probably lottery. Is there reason why? Longevity? I've read they can be run at 1.5v no issue for long term although I try to keep voltages (and temps) down myself.

---

Are the guys who get it running at higher clocks with GDM Off and 1T running 2x8GB kits or 2x16GB?


----------



## neurotix

Ok. My comments will be more brief today.




TK421 said:


> Lottery 100%. My 3950x with 1866 FCLK can't do 3733C14. 3733C16 works but have to enable GDM.
> 
> 
> I don't want to push mem voltage above 1.45v.



I don't like to either, about the highest voltage I'm comfortable with is 1.48v. I need 1.5v for 3800MHz C14 and I used 1.52v for 4133MHz c16/1866 fclk

I have a memory cooler though and my memory stays ridiculously cool even under load at those kinds of settings, but they are not fully stable, my Fabric doesn't like it, system can become laggy, etc. I am more concerned about the heat issues with my processor than the memory.

Sorry to hear about that bad IFclk, the memory sounds... disapppointing too (though not terrible), what kit do you have?




Synoxia said:


> Hello, i might be "like that user" that thinks his ram OC gets unstable because of heat, but i am willing to try if i did some mistake! (my ram are getting into 60ish with HCI memtest + AC odyssey at 8k 24/7 overnight)
> I run these but on C7H hero and 1003ABBA, not 1004b (found out 1004b gives worse SC on my cpu)
> I've been reading that setting vddsoc LLC is also bad, so now i am unstable again without LLC (D or it's still the chips itself being unstable... idk
> those are 4 dimms 3200c14. Thanks for help!



LOL... well, he wasn't wrong and it fixed the issue for him, but the OC wasn't great, and that person pretty much did not listen about trying to set all the stuff in the AMD CBS menu (DF, UMC common options, all the stuff I showed how to find in the video)

Anyway, DDR4 can definitely take more than 1.5v if you keep it cool, and it is also safe up to 70C, it says this quite clearly on Thaiphoon's report for my B-Dies.

However, 60C is hot enough to cause memory errors and issues for sure, DRAM generally runs pretty cool. Even without the heatspreaders on everything now. (My Samsung Miracle RAM DDR3 I had back in 2013 or so had no heatspreaders. DDR3-1600 c14 or something like that that overclocked to DDR3-2400 c9 1.65v  It got fairly warm (55C) but never gave me issues)

Yes, leave VDDSOC LLC on Auto, never change that setting. Especially not with greater than 1.1v VDDSOC volts. You will overvolt your IMC under load and can kill the processor. (Not guaranteed and I'd be surprised but there was some fool on reddit giving it 1.2v with LLC on....)

Try setting your DRAM VRM settings if possible, but the best thing you can do is probably put a 120mm fan over the DIMMs blowing down on them if you have a spare fan and header.




zsoltmol said:


> 1201, yesterday it tried to cold boot with black screen and switching on-off in every 2seconds, after 8 boot attempts it gave up and told me boot failed.
> 
> I did not change a single bit since 3 days, not entered the bios at all.
> 
> Strange.


Yeah, this randomly happens to me too. What post code was is hanging on? (For me it's usually 22 but occasionally 8d)

Pretty annoying with known stable settings that are stable in Ryzen Calc's memtest.



AStaUK said:


> My PC runs stable, but I've had a couple of system crashes/reboots where my Samsung 970 Evo Plus 2TB disappears. Rebooting the PC doesn't do anything, I have to shut the PC down and then power it back on for it to reappear. If I reboot and load the BIOS the drive is missing. I have all the current firmware updates for my drives/board and temps aren't an issue, hottest that drive has got is 58c and only then when I was transfering a large amount of data from my SSD. The drive itself is only used for game install, OS is on the 1TB 970 Evo+. I can't find anything in the Event Log other than previous shutdown was not clean, there's not even a dmp file to annalyse.
> 
> I've only had it crash like this 3-4 times since I built the PC (July), but I'm wondering if it's the drives controller that has an issue and is shutting down. Anyone else seeing or heard of anything like this, wondering if I should contact Samsung or if it's possible that it's something on the motherboard?


I believe the tjMAX on the Samsung 970 drives is 70C- your drive is running really hot- put a fan over your memory angled so it cools the memory, socket and that top M.2 drive. I have a 970 Evo 512GB (non-Plus), and its tjMAX is 70C, but with such a large capacity yours may be lower

Once I put in this memory cooler my idle temp on my 970 Evo went from 52C range down to 37C





dlbsyst said:


> Okay Neurotix, I have got my RAM stable at 3600MHz but I could use a little more help please.
> 
> My settings are a little bit different than yours but I think it's because I'm running 4 sticks rather than two. I plugged all of the settings in from the DRAM Calculator accept changed VTT DDR Voltage to 0.7250 since my RAM is running at 1.45V. Also I had to Enable Gear Down or would get errors with Memtest Pro. SB Spread Spectrum is Enabled because disabling it causes my computer to become unstable and crash, reboot. Maybe you can help me figure out why?
> 
> I tried setting my RAM at 3800MHz and it did seem stable when running Memtest Pro but my PC seemed unstable with crackling in my audio so it was a no go. Can you offer some suggestions to get that stable please?
> 
> Also, for some reason my PC absolutely refused to boot running my RAM at either 3733MHz or 3466. I tried everything but got nowhere.
> 
> Here are my settings and results. If you can offer some suggestions on tightening my timings for better performance that would be great. I would really like to run at 3800MHz if I can get it totally stable. Stability is the most important thing to me.



It's unstable because those timings are far too aggressive for 4 DIMMs and especially if you were trying those at 3800MHz, this might be the problem with the audio crackling/SB Spread Spectrum issues.

I thought I gave you timings before that were far less aggressive? (16-16-16-16-32-50)

Try the 3800mhz fast timings at 3600mhz since you have 4 DIMMs. (16-16-16-16-32-50, tFAW 24, tRFC 304, tCWL 16, etc.)



iDShaDoW said:


> Nice. I was looking at the AE-9 but wasn't sure I wanted the bigger volume control module. If they had an AE-9 with the AE-5/7 module I would've jumped on it lol.
> 
> Not sure you'll find any motherboards with more than 2x M.2 slots (although I've never actually looked). I figured I'd never need more than 2 when PCIe 4.0 NVMe drives are more available and lower cost and can grab 2 to Raid 0 them or something.
> 
> I got 2x 10TB drives and my next big purchase will probably be a Synology NAS to fill with the 12TB Reds shucked out of some Western Digital externals. I'm going off topic now though so sorry.
> 
> No clue about the VRMs vs other boards.
> 
> 
> 
> Figured it was probably lottery. Is there reason why? Longevity? I've read they can be run at 1.5v no issue for long term although I try to keep voltages (and temps) down myself.
> 
> ---
> 
> Are the guys who get it running at higher clocks with GDM Off and 1T running 2x8GB kits or 2x16GB?



I dunno about GDM Off at higher clocks or not (what do you think higher clocks are? Greater than 3800?). I use two 8GB DIMMs. I have to wonder how many people have looked at the manual for this board, and realized the DIMM slots on this board are nontraditional because of daisy chain topology, that is, with only two DIMMs the first stick does NOT go in the DIMM slot closest to the CPU, as in most systems I've ever built.

The booklet advises you to put the DIMMs in the slots silkscreened (labeled) as DIMM_B2* and DIMM_A2* if using two DIMMs.

You will get higher memory clocks if you use these two slots, anyone who didn't read the manual probably put them in B1 and A1 as that's how Intel and older AMD boards always had them. 

See the "Recommended Memory Configurations" diagram on page 1-5 of the user manual.

As far as my clocks- I can do 3800 c16 at 1T with GDM Off, but have to turn GDM On for 3800 c14 or anything higher (and anything higher is effectively useless).

Where and how did you get 12TB Reds to yank out of external enclosures? How much were they each?


------------------

On another note, I may be around less to answer questions as I actually want to use my rig, I have a backlog of like 200 games to play across like 20 systems, lots of soldering projects on hold, etc. Also nowhere near finished tweaking this system, want to figure out if I can get higher than 4400MHz while keeping temps in check somehow, etc. I also have a ton of medical issues, severe pain basically, 3 slipped discs in my lower back, appointments etc as well a wife, family etc. and the holidays are soon. I'd advise some of you having trouble to go read some of the innumerous guides I've posted and learn how all these timings relate to each other. I can't really do this for you.


















Problem is, even with the next highest voltage step for the CPU, heat gets out of control at 4500MHz with 1.375v, I am considering lapping my 3900x IHS as well as my H100i v2

Unluckily for me, Ryzen Master claims my best cores on CCD0 are in the 2nd CCX, and letting the board auto-boost it seems like those needed 1.425v for stability at 4525MHz, while the first CCX in CCD0 did 4475MHz- this sucks for obvious reasons (Like CPU-Z just showing speeds on Thread 0)

Also, yes my DRAM runs that cool with that voltage at 3800MHz, I never thought this g.skill memory cooler would come in so handy (it literally sat in a closet for 5 years)


----------



## TK421

does anyone know how 'CPPC' setting is supposed to be used? I heard that it rearranges the best cores in numerical order so you can get higher few core workload boost. 



when I searched in bios, I could only find 'CPPC' using F9 function.











iDShaDoW said:


> Nice. I was looking at the AE-9 but wasn't sure I wanted the bigger volume control module. If they had an AE-9 with the AE-5/7 module I would've jumped on it lol.
> 
> Not sure you'll find any motherboards with more than 2x M.2 slots (although I've never actually looked). I figured I'd never need more than 2 when PCIe 4.0 NVMe drives are more available and lower cost and can grab 2 to Raid 0 them or something.
> 
> I got 2x 10TB drives and my next big purchase will probably be a Synology NAS to fill with the 12TB Reds shucked out of some Western Digital externals. I'm going off topic now though so sorry.
> 
> No clue about the VRMs vs other boards.
> 
> 
> 
> Figured it was probably lottery. Is there reason why? Longevity? I've read they can be run at 1.5v no issue for long term although I try to keep voltages (and temps) down myself.
> 
> ---
> 
> Are the guys who get it running at higher clocks with GDM Off and 1T running 2x8GB kits or 2x16GB?



Longevity. Even though I don't plan to keep the C8/3950 setup for more than 2-3 years I would like to use the RAM going forward.











neurotix said:


> Ok. My comments will be more brief today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to either, about the highest voltage I'm comfortable with is 1.48v. I need 1.5v for 3800MHz C14 and I used 1.52v for 4133MHz c16/1866 fclk
> 
> I have a memory cooler though and my memory stays ridiculously cool even under load at those kinds of settings, but they are not fully stable, my Fabric doesn't like it, system can become laggy, etc. I am more concerned about the heat issues with my processor than the memory.
> 
> Sorry to hear about that bad IFclk, the memory sounds... disapppointing too (though not terrible), what kit do you have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL... well, he wasn't wrong and it fixed the issue for him, but the OC wasn't great, and that person pretty much did not listen about trying to set all the stuff in the AMD CBS menu (DF, UMC common options, all the stuff I showed how to find in the video)
> 
> Anyway, DDR4 can definitely take more than 1.5v if you keep it cool, and it is also safe up to 70C, it says this quite clearly on Thaiphoon's report for my B-Dies.
> 
> However, 60C is hot enough to cause memory errors and issues for sure, DRAM generally runs pretty cool. Even without the heatspreaders on everything now. (My Samsung Miracle RAM DDR3 I had back in 2013 or so had no heatspreaders. DDR3-1600 c14 or something like that that overclocked to DDR3-2400 c9 1.65v  It got fairly warm (55C) but never gave me issues)
> 
> Yes, leave VDDSOC LLC on Auto, never change that setting. Especially not with greater than 1.1v VDDSOC volts. You will overvolt your IMC under load and can kill the processor. (Not guaranteed and I'd be surprised but there was some fool on reddit giving it 1.2v with LLC on....)
> 
> Try setting your DRAM VRM settings if possible, but the best thing you can do is probably put a 120mm fan over the DIMMs blowing down on them if you have a spare fan and header.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, this randomly happens to me too. What post code was is hanging on? (For me it's usually 22 but occasionally 8d)
> 
> Pretty annoying with known stable settings that are stable in Ryzen Calc's memtest.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the tjMAX on the Samsung 970 drives is 70C- your drive is running really hot- put a fan over your memory angled so it cools the memory, socket and that top M.2 drive. I have a 970 Evo 512GB (non-Plus), and its tjMAX is 70C, but with such a large capacity yours may be lower
> 
> Once I put in this memory cooler my idle temp on my 970 Evo went from 52C range down to 37C
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's unstable because those timings are far too aggressive for 4 DIMMs and especially if you were trying those at 3800MHz, this might be the problem with the audio crackling/SB Spread Spectrum issues.
> 
> I thought I gave you timings before that were far less aggressive? (16-16-16-16-32-50)
> 
> Try the 3800mhz fast timings at 3600mhz since you have 4 DIMMs. (16-16-16-16-32-50, tFAW 24, tRFC 304, tCWL 16, etc.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno about GDM Off at higher clocks or not (what do you think higher clocks are? Greater than 3800?). I use two 8GB DIMMs. I have to wonder how many people have looked at the manual for this board, and realized the DIMM slots on this board are nontraditional because of daisy chain topology, that is, with only two DIMMs the first stick does NOT go in the DIMM slot closest to the CPU, as in most systems I've ever built.
> 
> The booklet advises you to put the DIMMs in the slots silkscreened (labeled) as DIMM_B2* and DIMM_A2* if using two DIMMs.
> 
> You will get higher memory clocks if you use these two slots, anyone who didn't read the manual probably put them in B1 and A1 as that's how Intel and older AMD boards always had them.
> 
> See the "Recommended Memory Configurations" diagram on page 1-5 of the user manual.
> 
> As far as my clocks- I can do 3800 c16 at 1T with GDM Off, but have to turn GDM On for 3800 c14 or anything higher (and anything higher is effectively useless).
> 
> Where and how did you get 12TB Reds to yank out of external enclosures? How much were they each?
> 
> 
> ------------------
> 
> On another note, I may be around less to answer questions as I actually want to use my rig, I have a backlog of like 200 games to play across like 20 systems, lots of soldering projects on hold, etc. Also nowhere near finished tweaking this system, want to figure out if I can get higher than 4400MHz while keeping temps in check somehow, etc. I also have a ton of medical issues, severe pain basically, 3 slipped discs in my lower back, appointments etc as well a wife, family etc. and the holidays are soon. I'd advise some of you having trouble to go read some of the innumerous guides I've posted and learn how all these timings relate to each other. I can't really do this for you.
> 
> 
> View attachment 311260
> 
> 
> View attachment 311262
> 
> 
> Problem is, even with the next highest voltage step for the CPU, heat gets out of control at 4500MHz with 1.375v, I am considering lapping my 3900x IHS as well as my H100i v2
> 
> Unluckily for me, Ryzen Master claims my best cores on CCD0 are in the 2nd CCX, and letting the board auto-boost it seems like those needed 1.425v for stability at 4525MHz, while the first CCX in CCD0 did 4475MHz- this sucks for obvious reasons (Like CPU-Z just showing speeds on Thread 0)
> 
> Also, yes my DRAM runs that cool with that voltage at 3800MHz, I never thought this g.skill memory cooler would come in so handy (it literally sat in a closet for 5 years)



G.skill TridentZ neo 3600 C16-16-16-36.


What memory cooler do you have? I am looking to get one since pointing a 140mm Noctua fan on it doesn't seem to be enough to keep it cool. I'm always hititng near 50c when running testmem5 extreme preset (not 1usmus).


----------



## dlbsyst

neurotix said:


> It's unstable because those timings are far too aggressive for 4 DIMMs and especially if you were trying those at 3800MHz, this might be the problem with the audio crackling/SB Spread Spectrum issues.
> 
> I thought I gave you timings before that were far less aggressive? (16-16-16-16-32-50)
> 
> Try the 3800mhz fast timings at 3600mhz since you have 4 DIMMs. (16-16-16-16-32-50, tFAW 24, tRFC 304, tCWL 16, etc.)


Okay, now I'm confused. You told me that I was using DRAM Calculator wrong because I wasn't plugging the profile from thaiphoon burner into it. Now I have and I'm using the timings and settings from it and your still telling me my timings are too aggressive to be stable? Also, I think you misunderstood my post. I never tried to use the same timings to run at 3800MHz. I used the timings from DRAM Calculator and the settings it said to use at 3800MHz. With said timings my computer is unstable. My RAM gets up to 58C while stress testing it with Memtest Pro and I'm thinking this is too warm and causing errors. Do you agree? 

These are the timings.


----------



## iDShaDoW

neurotix said:


> Where and how did you get 12TB Reds to yank out of external enclosures? How much were they each?
> 
> ------------------
> Also nowhere near finished tweaking this system, want to figure out if I can get higher than 4400MHz while keeping temps in check somehow, etc.
> 
> Problem is, even with the next highest voltage step for the CPU, heat gets out of control at 4500MHz with 1.375v, I am considering lapping my 3900x IHS as well as my H100i v2
> 
> Unluckily for me, Ryzen Master claims my best cores on CCD0 are in the 2nd CCX, and letting the board auto-boost it seems like those needed 1.425v for stability at 4525MHz, while the first CCX in CCD0 did 4475MHz- this sucks for obvious reasons (Like CPU-Z just showing speeds on Thread 0)


I currently have 2x 10TBs. I follow a forum where people post when the deals come up. But Best Buy will have the external drives on sale fairly often for like $180ish for the 12TBs (before tax). I think I paid around $150ish back then for my 10TBs.

You can "shuck" them out of the enclosure using a credit card or plastic wedge and they'll have hard drives in there with white labels that are equivalent to WD Red NAS drives - sometimes the helium-filled version.

I've been planning to get a 6-bay Synology and fill it up eventually and move storage off my main computer.

---

Can't really help with the temp stuff for the Ryzen. I run mine with a -0.1v offset which helps with temps quite a bit but also limits the boosting. I could probably spend some time tinkering with slightly lower offsets and see how well it boosts without temps going crazy and let you know.


----------



## enzu4l

*ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp; Discussion Thread*

Hi there,
I got a 3900x with the C8H WiFi and got 2x16gb of E-Dies at 3800 [email protected] running. There I’m stuck at around 66ns. I’m thinking about switching to B-Dies, but I’m not shure if I should use 2x16 or 4x8 gb, cause I couldn’t find which topology we use. Might anyone help here? 
Cheers


----------



## TK421

enzu4l said:


> Hi there,
> I got a 3900x with the C8H WiFi and got 2x16gb of E-Dies at 3800 [email protected] running. There I’m stuck at around 66ns. I’m thinking about switching to B-Dies, but I’m not shure if I should use 2x16 or 4x8 gb, cause I couldn’t find which topology we use. Might anyone help here?
> Cheers


 C8 has daisychain, so 2x* will be better. Though 2x16GB will give you dual rank benefit, so you don't have to focus on the timing so much.


Regarding upgrading RAM, you will see minimal benefit, so I don't recommend you do it unless you can sell your old ram and only pay a fraction of new b-die price.


Just my opinion.


----------



## enzu4l

TK421 said:


> C8 has daisychain, so 2x* will be better. Though 2x16GB will give you dual rank benefit, so you don't have to focus on the timing so much.
> 
> 
> Regarding upgrading RAM, you will see minimal benefit, so I don't recommend you do it unless you can sell your old ram and only pay a fraction of new b-die price.
> 
> 
> Just my opinion.




Thanks for your advice!


----------



## TK421

Anyone recommend installing 1201 over 1105? C8 Hero wifi.










I have a sneaking suspicion that this board was meant to be shipped with dual blck, but asus cheaped out and removed the feature from all crosshair 8 series motherboard: https://hwbot.org/submission/425691...ncy_rog_crosshair_viii_hero_(wifi)_116.98_mhz


Because no way in hell you can do 117 blck without an external generator (eCLK).


----------



## Synoxia

neurotix said:


> Ok. My comments will be more brief today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like to either, about the highest voltage I'm comfortable with is 1.48v. I need 1.5v for 3800MHz C14 and I used 1.52v for 4133MHz c16/1866 fclk
> 
> I have a memory cooler though and my memory stays ridiculously cool even under load at those kinds of settings, but they are not fully stable, my Fabric doesn't like it, system can become laggy, etc. I am more concerned about the heat issues with my processor than the memory.
> 
> Sorry to hear about that bad IFclk, the memory sounds... disapppointing too (though not terrible), what kit do you have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL... well, he wasn't wrong and it fixed the issue for him, but the OC wasn't great, and that person pretty much did not listen about trying to set all the stuff in the AMD CBS menu (DF, UMC common options, all the stuff I showed how to find in the video)
> 
> Anyway, DDR4 can definitely take more than 1.5v if you keep it cool, and it is also safe up to 70C, it says this quite clearly on Thaiphoon's report for my B-Dies.
> 
> However, 60C is hot enough to cause memory errors and issues for sure, DRAM generally runs pretty cool. Even without the heatspreaders on everything now. (My Samsung Miracle RAM DDR3 I had back in 2013 or so had no heatspreaders. DDR3-1600 c14 or something like that that overclocked to DDR3-2400 c9 1.65v  It got fairly warm (55C) but never gave me issues)
> 
> Yes, leave VDDSOC LLC on Auto, never change that setting. Especially not with greater than 1.1v VDDSOC volts. You will overvolt your IMC under load and can kill the processor. (Not guaranteed and I'd be surprised but there was some fool on reddit giving it 1.2v with LLC on....)
> 
> Try setting your DRAM VRM settings if possible, but the best thing you can do is probably put a 120mm fan over the DIMMs blowing down on them if you have a spare fan and header.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, this randomly happens to me too. What post code was is hanging on? (For me it's usually 22 but occasionally 8d)
> 
> Pretty annoying with known stable settings that are stable in Ryzen Calc's memtest.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the tjMAX on the Samsung 970 drives is 70C- your drive is running really hot- put a fan over your memory angled so it cools the memory, socket and that top M.2 drive. I have a 970 Evo 512GB (non-Plus), and its tjMAX is 70C, but with such a large capacity yours may be lower
> 
> Once I put in this memory cooler my idle temp on my 970 Evo went from 52C range down to 37C
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's unstable because those timings are far too aggressive for 4 DIMMs and especially if you were trying those at 3800MHz, this might be the problem with the audio crackling/SB Spread Spectrum issues.
> 
> I thought I gave you timings before that were far less aggressive? (16-16-16-16-32-50)
> 
> Try the 3800mhz fast timings at 3600mhz since you have 4 DIMMs. (16-16-16-16-32-50, tFAW 24, tRFC 304, tCWL 16, etc.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno about GDM Off at higher clocks or not (what do you think higher clocks are? Greater than 3800?). I use two 8GB DIMMs. I have to wonder how many people have looked at the manual for this board, and realized the DIMM slots on this board are nontraditional because of daisy chain topology, that is, with only two DIMMs the first stick does NOT go in the DIMM slot closest to the CPU, as in most systems I've ever built.
> 
> The booklet advises you to put the DIMMs in the slots silkscreened (labeled) as DIMM_B2* and DIMM_A2* if using two DIMMs.
> 
> You will get higher memory clocks if you use these two slots, anyone who didn't read the manual probably put them in B1 and A1 as that's how Intel and older AMD boards always had them.
> 
> See the "Recommended Memory Configurations" diagram on page 1-5 of the user manual.
> 
> As far as my clocks- I can do 3800 c16 at 1T with GDM Off, but have to turn GDM On for 3800 c14 or anything higher (and anything higher is effectively useless).
> 
> Where and how did you get 12TB Reds to yank out of external enclosures? How much were they each?
> 
> 
> ------------------
> 
> On another note, I may be around less to answer questions as I actually want to use my rig, I have a backlog of like 200 games to play across like 20 systems, lots of soldering projects on hold, etc. Also nowhere near finished tweaking this system, want to figure out if I can get higher than 4400MHz while keeping temps in check somehow, etc. I also have a ton of medical issues, severe pain basically, 3 slipped discs in my lower back, appointments etc as well a wife, family etc. and the holidays are soon. I'd advise some of you having trouble to go read some of the innumerous guides I've posted and learn how all these timings relate to each other. I can't really do this for you.
> 
> 
> View attachment 311260
> 
> 
> View attachment 311262
> 
> 
> Problem is, even with the next highest voltage step for the CPU, heat gets out of control at 4500MHz with 1.375v, I am considering lapping my 3900x IHS as well as my H100i v2
> 
> Unluckily for me, Ryzen Master claims my best cores on CCD0 are in the 2nd CCX, and letting the board auto-boost it seems like those needed 1.425v for stability at 4525MHz, while the first CCX in CCD0 did 4475MHz- this sucks for obvious reasons (Like CPU-Z just showing speeds on Thread 0)
> 
> Also, yes my DRAM runs that cool with that voltage at 3800MHz, I never thought this g.skill memory cooler would come in so handy (it literally sat in a closet for 5 years)



Yeah i know, especially B-DIE are so resiliant to temp that they can be benched at 2.1v/1.8v up to 95c i've heard. Thing is we are trying to get a good 24/7 stable OC here! In my particular case i'm trying to get a rock solid one even in exaggerate conditions ac odyssey + hci open (i mean, i've never seen these sticks at more than 51c under normal usage)
I've found stability bumping vddsoc now that i've moved from LLC2. Seems strange that 1usmus reccomends LLC lv2/3 in calculator though.
My vddsoc at lv2 wasn't getting that much far from the 1.056 i've set... he was going to 1.07 under load, now it's the reversed condition D: 1.075 set that gets to 1.05 under load. Is IMC degradation at 1.07 24/7 "concerning"? I'm normally not going to stress ram that much (only gaming there)
I've got a i5 750 at 4.2ghz 1.45v with a Noctua12 cooler for years without any sign of degradation but that's 45nm i plan to keep 3700x processor until 8cores become obsolete and upgrade to 4950x for cheap D:
I've also got TRFC down to 294 (calculator spec) might try for 288 but at 60c i guess that's gonna be hard.

P.S about 3900x... i'd say that that sucks not because of CPU-z but rather because 99% of apps use core 0 of the system... my best boosting core is on CCX 2, and grey star is the 3rd of CCX1. Feelsbadman


----------



## jfrob75

*Strange CB R20 results*

Recently received and upgraded my CPU to a 3950X. Performance is amazing but noticing some weird results with CB R20 when running different memory speeds. I am using a -0.8 volt offset for the CPU when running the all core CB R20 test. With the memory set to 3733MHz I got a score of 9721. The all core frequency was 4.1+GHz during the test. Switching to a memory speed of 3800MHz, with FCLK, MCLK and IF Clock all at 1900MHz, I get a score of 9219 with similar all core frequency. The only change I make to the memory timing between the 2 speeds is tRFC goes from 298 to 304 and memory voltage goes from 1.38 to 1.42. When running AIDA64 memory benchmark I get similar results between the 2 speeds. Any ideas why I am seeing such a difference in the CB R20 results? Just finished a Blender run with memory @ 3800MHz and it was about 38 sec. slower than the results from a memory speed of 3733MHz.


----------



## 1usmus

*Let's find the best CPU water block for Ryzen 3000!*

I propose to talk 

https://www.reddit.com/r/watercooli...find_the_best_cpu_water_block_for_ryzen_3000/


----------



## newls1

1usmus said:


> *Let's find the best CPU water block for Ryzen 3000!*
> 
> I propose to talk
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/watercooli...find_the_best_cpu_water_block_for_ryzen_3000/


when i get my optimus foundation block, ill add to that


----------



## neurotix

dlbsyst said:


> Okay, now I'm confused. You told me that I was using DRAM Calculator wrong because I wasn't plugging the profile from thaiphoon burner into it. Now I have and I'm using the timings and settings from it and your still telling me my timings are too aggressive to be stable? Also, I think you misunderstood my post. I never tried to use the same timings to run at 3800MHz. I used the timings from DRAM Calculator and the settings it said to use at 3800MHz. With said timings my computer is unstable. My RAM gets up to 58C while stress testing it with Memtest Pro and I'm thinking this is too warm and causing errors. Do you agree?
> 
> These are the timings.



https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...cking-discussion-thread-163.html#post28229100

I've only been telling you in numerous other posts for a month now that 14-15-15-15-*30*-*48* timings are too aggressive for 3600MHz on 4 DIMMs and this is why you are having issues.

I posted the same timing set for you there but you didn't read my post, look at the timings, etc. apparently

I'm getting pretty tired of repeating myself with certain users.


I suggest you go read: https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/ahs5a2/demystifying_memory_overclocking_on_ryzen_oc/ and start learning (use the flowchart and read about the various timings), and you'll be able to realize these things on your own, instead of asking me to do it for you, because when it fails, you don't think of solutions on your own (like trying looser timings etc.) and then come back and respond with an attitude like you just did, when I am giving you help. It is YOUR system, not mine. At least idShadow and most of the other posters here have the initiative and ingenuity to try numerous things on their own (like raising DRAM voltage in steps, failing to post each time and resetting CMOS over and over, and many other things) before they come asking for my help, and are respectful and grateful when they do

That is also not the first guide I've posted either.

What do you want from me?


----------



## dlbsyst

Nothing more. I'm good. Thanks again for your help.


----------



## neurotix

I only have to wonder how many other posters here realize I have been telling dlbsyst to *try the 16-16-16-16-32-50* timings at 3600mhz- as well as GDM on/off, 1T/2T, etc

I think dlbsyst is failing to realize *I am not telling him to try these timings at 3800mhz as per the screenshot* but have repeatedly been telling him to *use all the timings* from the 3800mhz screenshot I linked in that post, with memory set to *3600mhz*, and Ive basically been saying this every time he comes back and complains he is unstable and posts yet another screenshot of those cas14 timings at 3600mhz

If you are unstable at a certain frequency, raising timings if raising voltage doesn't work is the next step- this is the most basic of DRAM overclocking solutions...

This is, of course, a rhetorical question and I am not really asking any other posters to get involved and, yes I realize I am putting dlbsyst "on blast", but I am only human and run out of patience. A lot of current posters in this thread weren't even around 4 mo. ago- I have literally been repeating myself ad infinitum with this advice, and advising pretty much the same solution to get him stable (in addition to setting AMD CBS options, which he has done), once a month for 4 mo. As I got my setup and joined the thread around the end of August.

I will at least do you one last kindness, man, since you asked, and apparently don't know how to use Google/Amazon search, if you haven't already retreated to the comments section of a jays2cents video.

https://www.amazon.com/G-Skill-Turb...8489&sprefix=g.skill+turbulence+&sr=8-1-fkmr0

That may help you and anyone else with DRAM heat issues. If you don't like the black/red, the earlier model (Turbulence II) is apparently what I have, its on there and cheaper. Be advised the fans are white led.

Everyone else; please continue.


----------



## iDShaDoW

neurotix said:


> I only have to wonder how many other posters here realize I have been telling dlbsyst to *try the 16-16-16-16-32-50* timings at 3600mhz- as well as GDM on/off, 1T/2T, etc
> 
> I think dlbsyst is failing to realize *I am not telling him to try these timings at 3800mhz as per the screenshot* but have repeatedly been telling him to *use all the timings* from the 3800mhz screenshot I linked in that post, with memory set to *3600mhz*, and Ive basically been saying this every time he comes back and complains he is unstable and posts yet another screenshot of those cas14 timings at 3600mhz


 @dlbsyst: Had to go back and check but the DRAM calculator shows timings/settings for 3600.

If you're trying to bump the speed up even higher (to 3733 or 3800), you need to adjust the dropdown on the calculator which will provide you with different (most likely looser/"higher") timings to use.

I don't have a strong grasp myself of tinkering with all the separate sub-timings so I'm more than content with sticking with the numbers it recommends. And rarely when I get the itch or have the time, I'll go and read up on it and mess with little things here and there. It's lots of trial and error though if you don't have time/patience to make 1 change, reboot, test, make 1 change, reboot, test. Repeat over and over til your eyes bleed lol.


----------



## dlbsyst

neurotix said:


> https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-a...l#post28229100
> 
> *I've only been telling you in numerous other posts for a month now that 14-15-15-15-30-48 timings are too aggressive for 3600MHz on 4 DIMMs and this is why you are having issues.*
> 
> Ok, that's nonsense. I just started using these timings. The timings that I was using before were 14-14-15-14-28-42. That was before I used Typhoon Burner to get my RAM's profile for DRAM Calculator. The 14-15-15-15-30-48 timings are what I'm currently using and appear to be stable. Like I said, I just had to Enable GD Mode to get 100% stability even though the calculator recommended disabling it.
> 
> *I posted the same timing set for you there but you didn't read my post, look at the timings, etc. apparently
> *
> I did read what you wrote, please don't make assumptions.
> 
> *I'm getting pretty tired of repeating myself with certain users.
> *
> I guess you're talking about me but you don't need to because I hear you and tried what you suggest.
> 
> *I suggest you go read: https://www.reddit.com/r/overclockin...g_on_ryzen_oc/ and start learning (use the flowchart and read about the various timings), and you'll be able to realize these things on your own, instead of asking me to do it for you, because when it fails, you don't think of solutions on your own (like trying looser timings etc.) and then come back and respond with an attitude like you just did, when I am giving you help. It is YOUR system, not mine. At least idShadow and most of the other posters here have the initiative and ingenuity to try numerous things on their own (like raising DRAM voltage in steps, failing to post each time and resetting CMOS over and over, and many other things) before they come asking for my help, and are respectful and grateful when they do
> *
> Thanks for that. I tried my best not be disrespectful but it seems like you insult my intelligence every time you offer me help. Please stop painting me to be some idiot newbie that built my first PC yesterday. I've been doing it since the late 90's.
> 
> *That is also not the first guide I've posted either.*
> 
> It's the first one I've read.
> 
> *What do you want from me?*


Respect and patience. I'm new to RAM Timings.


----------



## dlbsyst

neurotix said:


> *I only have to wonder how many other posters here realize I have been telling dlbsyst to try the 16-16-16-16-32-50 timings at 3600mhz- as well as GDM on/off, 1T/2T, etc.*
> 
> I understand that but those timings seem far to loose and I'm after performance. Also the 14-15-15-15-30-48 timings are stable with GD Enabled.
> 
> *I think dlbsyst is failing to realize I am not telling him to try these timings at 3800mhz as per the screenshot but have repeatedly been telling him to use all the timings from the 3800mhz screenshot I linked in that post, with memory set to 3600mhz, and Ive basically been saying this every time he comes back and complains he is unstable and posts yet another screenshot of those cas14 timings at 3600mhz*
> 
> I don't know why you would assume that. I never tried to run my RAM at 3800MHz with those timings. Never said I did. I ran my RAM at 3800MHz with the timings that the DRAM calculator said to use with my 4 sticks of RAM dialed in. It was unstable. I'm thinking my RAM is simply getting too hot. I will remedy that soon.
> 
> *If you are unstable at a certain frequency, raising timings if raising voltage doesn't work is the next step- this is the most basic of DRAM overclocking solutions...
> *
> I know all of that but thanks. Again, making me out to be a newbie.
> 
> *This is, of course, a rhetorical question and I am not really asking any other posters to get involved and, yes I realize I am putting dlbsyst "on blast", but I am only human and run out of patience. A lot of current posters in this thread weren't even around 4 mo. ago- I have literally been repeating myself ad infinitum with this advice, and advising pretty much the same solution to get him stable (in addition to setting AMD CBS options, which he has done), once a month for 4 mo. As I got my setup and joined the thread around the end of August.
> *
> Understood.
> 
> *I will at least do you one last kindness, man, since you asked, and apparently don't know how to use Google/Amazon search, if you haven't already retreated to the comments section of a jays2cents video.
> *
> I do but thanks. I actually prefer the cooler from Corsair and will probably go with that one.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Corsair-Veng...d_r=86X26KM4T4GRCQF277A4&psc=1&qid=1576157043
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/G-Skill-Turbu...+&sr=8-1-fkmr0
> 
> *That may help you and anyone else with DRAM heat issues. If you don't like the black/red, the earlier model (Turbulence II) is apparently what I have, its on there and cheaper. Be advised the fans are white led.*
> 
> I actually don't like the red since it doesn't go with my case. An easy solution if your getting this cooler is to just paint it the color you like. I do model building as well as PC enthusiast.
> 
> Everyone else; please continue.


I responded to what you said above.


----------



## dlbsyst

iDShaDoW said:


> @dlbsyst: Had to go back and check but the DRAM calculator shows timings/settings for 3600.
> 
> If you're trying to bump the speed up even higher (to 3733 or 3800), you need to adjust the dropdown on the calculator which will provide you with different (most likely looser/"higher") timings to use.
> 
> I don't have a strong grasp myself of tinkering with all the separate sub-timings so I'm more than content with sticking with the numbers it recommends. And rarely when I get the itch or have the time, I'll go and read up on it and mess with little things here and there. It's lots of trial and error though if you don't have time/patience to make 1 change, reboot, test, make 1 change, reboot, test. Repeat over and over til your eyes bleed lol.


iDShaDoW, Thanks for your concern but I actually do know how to use DRAM Calculator correctly after Neurotix explained to use Taiphoon Burner to get your RAM's profile and plug it into the calculator.

I never tried to run the same timings for 3600MHz at 3733 or 3800. I changed it to get the proper timings at those speeds.


----------



## criznit

Is there a final verdict on if we should use Core VID in the CCX menu or if we should leave that auto and change the cpu voltage?


----------



## xutnubu

Having problems with my new build.

I'm getting a 0d code and a yellow light. Can't post at all.

Tried both sticks individually in each slot, one works fine, with the other stick I can't boot at all, not matter what slot I put it in.

I got into the BIOS with the working one and updated to the latest version, but I still can't boot with the other stick.

So I know it looks pretty obvious the stick is faulty, but I'm just posting here because you never know, someone might have had the same problem and found a solution.

C8HW with BIOS 1201
3600X
RX 580
Seasonic GX-750
RAM is Patriot PVS416G440C9K 2x8GB 4400MHz


----------



## newls1

what does the read out code "bd" mean? Asus doesnt list that code in the manual and I seem to get that often ONLY upon a reboot.
*EDIT* upon googling, i came up with a thread saying to increase VCCSA voltage (intel thread) what is equivent to vccsa for amd x570? maybe im a little low on voltage for that setting?


----------



## dlbsyst

xutnubu said:


> Having problems with my new build.
> 
> I'm getting a 0d code and a yellow light. Can't post at all.
> 
> Tried both sticks individually in each slot, one works fine, with the other stick I can't boot at all, not matter what slot I put it in.
> 
> I got into the BIOS with the working one and updated to the latest version, but I still can't boot with the other stick.
> 
> So I know it looks pretty obvious the stick is faulty, but I'm just posting here because you never know, someone might have had the same problem and found a solution.
> 
> C8HW with BIOS 1201
> 3600X
> RX 580
> Seasonic GX-750
> RAM is Patriot PVS416G440C9K 2x8GB 4400MHz


Definitely sounds like you have a faulty chip xutnubu and you used the correct method to find it. I'm going to be checking my chips one at a time soon and see if maybe one of mine is faulty.


----------



## Awsan

Hey everyone I wanted to ask is the Impact worth it this gen? I love the impact series I have owned the z87 and the z170 ones and I LOVED THEM they were full of features and overclocked beyond anything I had at the time and the second I saw the x570 impact I fell in love.

I have worked with itx mobos and I don't require anything more from them but will this impact handle a 3900 or 3950 easily? (Overclocked and ram tweaking) or should I just buy something else?


And one stupid question , if I get 3950x and lets say I was able to get 8 good cores that overclocked decently can I force games to choose those? to run better (Considering PBO) or just get manual overclock on all cores? (Considering only gaming)


----------



## TK421

with your guys 3900x or 3950x, can you show us your load temps under prime/cinebench r20? 

with hwinfo, I'm especially interested in temperature difference between CCD1 and CDD2, because my difference between ccd1 and ccd2 is almost 15-20c


https://i.imgur.com/ZaxRkuG.png


----------



## newls1

newls1 said:


> what does the read out code "bd" mean? Asus doesnt list that code in the manual and I seem to get that often ONLY upon a reboot.
> *EDIT* upon googling, i came up with a thread saying to increase VCCSA voltage (intel thread) what is equivent to vccsa for amd x570? maybe im a little low on voltage for that setting?


anyone?


----------



## TK421

newls1 said:


> anyone?



I got BD and it seems to be memory related, there wasn't enough voltage to train.




ASUS removed the dram vboot (memory training voltage), so you're only left with memory voltage setting. Which sometimes require a higher voltage to train the RAM at boot.
Wasn't able to find dram vboot on bios settings even though Crosshair 6 and 7 had it.


On the manual it says that BD (B8-BF) is reserved for future AMI codes, so I can't say for sure that my ram was the problem at the time, could be FCLK related too.







Which bios are you on btw? I'm thinking of upgrading to 1201 but there have been some reports that indicate it might not give any improvement over 1105, some stability problems here and there too. 

"04. Update auto-rules for CPU and Memory overclocking" - wonder what this actually improves, curious.


----------



## flyinion

newls1 said:


> anyone?


I wonder if it's similar to the 8d code I started getting on warm reboots after the 1105 BIOS. I had to go and change VDDG CCD and IOD and VDDP voltages (3 spots) in Extreme Tweaker from Auto and set them to .950v which fixed it. If you're running those on Auto that might be the issue. Someone told me apparently something changed in the Auto voltages between 1001 and 1105 and that fixed it for me.


----------



## TK421

flyinion said:


> I wonder if it's similar to the 8d code I started getting on warm reboots after the 1105 BIOS. I had to go and change VDDG CCD and IOD and VDDP voltages (3 spots) in Extreme Tweaker from Auto and set them to .950v which fixed it. If you're running those on Auto that might be the issue. Someone told me apparently something changed in the Auto voltages between 1001 and 1105 and that fixed it for me.





I wonder if setting too high voltage could cause stability issues.


Currently I have


1.075
1.075
1050


For the 3 values.


----------



## newls1

flyinion said:


> I wonder if it's similar to the 8d code I started getting on warm reboots after the 1105 BIOS. I had to go and change VDDG CCD and IOD and VDDP voltages (3 spots) in Extreme Tweaker from Auto and set them to .950v which fixed it. If you're running those on Auto that might be the issue. Someone told me apparently something changed in the Auto voltages between 1001 and 1105 and that fixed it for me.


yup, on 1105 and those settings are left on auto.. i will change those and see what happens.. thank you very much

**EDIT, exactly what are the 3 settings called, sorry for any inconvience, just want to make sure i apply the correct voltage to the correct setting. does it matter that our cpus and oc's are way different? still the same voltage? My dram is set to 1.40 if that makes any difference for those 3 settings


----------



## flyinion

newls1 said:


> yup, on 1105 and those settings are left on auto.. i will change those and see what happens.. thank you very much
> 
> 
> 
> **EDIT, exactly what are the 3 settings called, sorry for any inconvience, just want to make sure i apply the correct voltage to the correct setting. does it matter that our cpus and oc's are way different? still the same voltage? My dram is set to 1.40 if that makes any difference for those 3 settings




Don't remember the exact name but all 3 are at the bottom of the extreme tweaker page right next to each other. Those names I listed should be close. The IOD & CCD voltages I set to .950 the other was 950 it doesn't use a decimal. You might need more than that but they can't go over the SOC voltage that's higher up in the page. My understanding is the instability was the new BIOS actually setting those voltages too high on auto. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Krisztias

criznit said:


> Is there a final verdict on if we should use Core VID in the CCX menu or if we should leave that auto and change the cpu voltage?


I tried both with the same result. I use the VID in the CCX menu.


----------



## newls1

flyinion said:


> Don't remember the exact name but all 3 are at the bottom of the extreme tweaker page right next to each other. Those names I listed should be close. The IOD & CCD voltages I set to .950 the other was 950 it doesn't use a decimal. You might need more than that but they can't go over the SOC voltage that's higher up in the page. My understanding is the instability was the new BIOS actually setting those voltages too high on auto.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


thank you


----------



## TK421

flyinion said:


> Don't remember the exact name but all 3 are at the bottom of the extreme tweaker page right next to each other. Those names I listed should be close. The IOD & CCD voltages I set to .950 the other was 950 it doesn't use a decimal. You might need more than that but they can't go over the SOC voltage that's higher up in the page. My understanding is the instability was the new BIOS actually setting those voltages too high on auto.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk





newls1 said:


> thank you





Have you guys tried 1201? Any felt improvement over 1105?


I will try setting all to 0.95, previously on higher voltages due to people's recommendation and partly dram calculator.


----------



## flyinion

TK421 said:


> Have you guys tried 1201? Any felt improvement over 1105?
> 
> 
> I will try setting all to 0.95, previously on higher voltages due to people's recommendation and partly dram calculator.


I haven't yet cause I only recently use DRAM calculator and really don't want to have to go input everything again. I learned the hard way from 09xx to 1001 not to use saved profiles between BIOS versions so I'm waiting for a time when I can sit down and go put everything in again.


----------



## TK421

flyinion said:


> I haven't yet cause I only recently use DRAM calculator and really don't want to have to go input everything again. I learned the hard way from 09xx to 1001 not to use saved profiles between BIOS versions so I'm waiting for a time when I can sit down and go put everything in again.


I think you can save profile to usb stick and load from it too


----------



## flyinion

TK421 said:


> I think you can save profile to usb stick and load from it too


It not that it didn't save the profiles between BIOS updates, it's that the update completely broke the profile. Don't know if saving to a USB stick saves it differently. It was like 1001 added a bunch of new settings and the profile applied null values to them and the system wouldn't boot. So I just assume any new BIOS will have the same issue.


----------



## TK421

flyinion said:


> It not that it didn't save the profiles between BIOS updates, it's that the update completely broke the profile. Don't know if saving to a USB stick saves it differently. It was like 1001 added a bunch of new settings and the profile applied null values to them and the system wouldn't boot. So I just assume any new BIOS will have the same issue.


 Makes sense, thanks for the heads up.


Maybe if new bios is incompatible, you can just q-flash to old version and load profile from usb stick that way?


----------



## newls1

flyinion said:


> I haven't yet cause I only recently use DRAM calculator and really don't want to have to go input everything again. I learned the hard way from 09xx to 1001 not to use saved profiles between BIOS versions so I'm waiting for a time when I can sit down and go put everything in again.


EXACTLY... eeeh, not looking forward to that! plus ive read that 1202 bios pretty much sucks anyways. ill wait till an update comes out that sounds like it would actually be worthy of an "update"


----------



## criznit

Krisztias said:


> I tried both with the same result. I use the VID in the CCX menu.


Thanks!


----------



## Gadfly

AStaUK said:


> My PC runs stable, but I've had a couple of system crashes/reboots where my Samsung 970 Evo Plus 2TB disappears. Rebooting the PC doesn't do anything, I have to shut the PC down and then power it back on for it to reappear. If I reboot and load the BIOS the drive is missing. I have all the current firmware updates for my drives/board and temps aren't an issue, hottest that drive has got is 58c and only then when I was transfering a large amount of data from my SSD. The drive itself is only used for game install, OS is on the 1TB 970 Evo+. I can't find anything in the Event Log other than previous shutdown was not clean, there's not even a dmp file to annalyse.
> 
> I've only had it crash like this 3-4 times since I built the PC (July), but I'm wondering if it's the drives controller that has an issue and is shutting down. Anyone else seeing or heard of anything like this, wondering if I should contact Samsung or if it's possible that it's something on the motherboard?


Bump the SB 1.0v to 1.05v


----------



## Gadfly

neurotix said:


> Ok then, a lot to reply to this morning.
> 
> 
> I can't speak to the C8F, and jeebus, why do you need 3 C8H? lol


Well, i got one, the lights would were blinking, so I RMA'd it, the second one came in, the "Hero" light on the I/O shroud didn't light up at all, so I RMA'd it, Amazon told me they were out of stock, so I requested a Formula replacement, and went to microcenter and bought a C8H. So just as a matter of circumstances and returns, I had 4 motherboards here all at the same time pending RMA return. 

In the end I ended up "fixing" the second board's Hero light by removing the I/O shroud and plugging the light in. But it still blinks when I run certain applications, such as Aida's memory test, or HCI memtest. 



neurotix said:


> What I can say is that I assume you are talking about the lit up 'HERO' logo on the I/O block cover. No, I have not observed this behavior.
> 
> By chance, have you ever downgraded the BIOS using USB BIOS Flashback button? If you remove the USB when it's finished flashing the firmware chip, this may be why. You are supposed to power the board on without removing the USB at the end, and you will see a DOS-esque screen that says it is flashing the LED controller firmware, and not to remove the thumb drive.
> 
> If you flash in the normal way using a drive and that button, the button will blink blue at roughly 1Hz (e.g. on and off once in a second), when it is done it will blink slightly faster/more rapidly. If you pulled the drive out without powering on, I would imagine that the UEFI would still work (you wouldn't have a partially flashed CMOS chip), but the LED controller would not have been flashed. The correct way is to power the system back on when the BIOS Flashback button is blinking blue more quickly, and as stated, it will update the LED controller's firmware. Then it will reboot automatically, you can enter UEFI setup and then remove the thumb drive.
> 
> If this is not the case, then I am not sure, I don't have any issues with any kind of blinking or flickering under load. I would suspect the power supply.


Yes, the "Hero" and the rog logo, and anything plugged into the RGB headers. 

No, I never downgraded, and yes, when I ugraded the bios I kept the USB stick plugged in and got the "Upgrading the LED firmware" prompt. It completed successfully. The same behavior was seen on all three c8h boards. under certain loads the lights will flicker. 

Hmm.. Power supply is an EVGA 750. CPU is running all stock, can't imagine running HCI pulls that much current. Currently it is running on top of the box and not doing anything other than testing before I build it into the case. 



neurotix said:


> You can, however, disable the LEDs on that shield completely if you go to Advanced -> Onboard Devices: there are three settings relating to LEDs. By default they are set as "All On", "POST Code Only" and "All On". Change both that say "All On" to "All Off" and you will totally disable that Hero logo, but also all other debug LEDs (like the small surface mount ones under the 7-segment POST code display that show different colors durimng the boot process- these are very handy to diagnose exactly what step of the boot process is failing.) Otherwise, you would need to install ASUS Aura software (don't) to turn it off. Oh, and a small tip: in that section, change the "POST Code Only" option from that to "Auto", and the 7-segment POST display will show your current temperature while the OS is booted. (The sensor it reads is Core 0). This is still the only way I can see temperatures in Linux, as there are no kernel modules for x570 yet, so lm-sensors, hddtemp, and a few other packages don't work. I basically have no access to hardware sensors under Linux (which is par for the course lol).


Yeah I wouldn't worry so much execpt it flickers the fans plugged into the RGB headers as well. 

I didn't install any Asus software of any kind yet. 



neurotix said:


> Anyway- I kind of doubt those lights would be in any kind of higher current path, but there could be some kind of shielding or isolation problem causing the flickering. Make sure you have both a 4-PIN and 8-PIN power connector attached to the top of the board. Those few RGB LEDs in that I/O cover probably don't even use 1w and probably use less than an amp. It would be best to just turn it off, as I explained.
> 
> Hope this helps. I need a cigarette.


Just the 8 pin connector.


----------



## Krisztias

flyinion said:


> It not that it didn't save the profiles between BIOS updates, it's that the update completely broke the profile. Don't know if saving to a USB stick saves it differently. It was like 1001 added a bunch of new settings and the profile applied null values to them and the system wouldn't boot. So I just assume any new BIOS will have the same issue.


Correct. Never ever load saved profiles from another BIOS version.


----------



## Awsan

Awsan said:


> Hey everyone I wanted to ask is the Impact worth it this gen? I love the impact series I have owned the z87 and the z170 ones and I LOVED THEM they were full of features and overclocked beyond anything I had at the time and the second I saw the x570 impact I fell in love.
> 
> I have worked with itx mobos and I don't require anything more from them but will this impact handle a 3900 or 3950 easily? (Overclocked and ram tweaking) or should I just buy something else?
> 
> 
> And one stupid question , if I get 3950x and lets say I was able to get 8 good cores that overclocked decently can I force games to choose those? to run better (Considering PBO) or just get manual overclock on all cores? (Considering only gaming)


Sorry for the bump


----------



## iDShaDoW

Never really read of (or tried looking up) forcing things to use certain cores.


----------



## gupsterg

iDShaDoW said:


> Never really read of (or tried looking up) forcing things to use certain cores.


On say Zen/Zen+ setting affinity to a fast core manually always benched better. So far Zen2's CPPC seems to me, working as intended most of the time, for example CB20 runs where I did a bench setting affinity to fast core was same as when I didn't.


----------



## newls1

gupsterg said:


> On say Zen/Zen+ setting affinity to a fast core manually always benched better. So far Zen2's CPPC seems to me, working as intended most of the time, for example CB20 runs where I did a bench setting affinity to fast core was same as when I didn't.


that is damn good to know. hoping windows is smart enough to use CCD0 first as all those ccx's are clocked @ 4.525ghz compared to CCD1 @ 4.325ghz... Is windows that smart yet or do i need to force something?


----------



## Gadfly

Awsan said:


> Sorry for the bump


yes you can set games to use certain cores. Look into a program called process lasso to make it easier.


----------



## gupsterg

newls1 said:


> that is damn good to know. hoping windows is smart enough to use CCD0 first as all those ccx's are clocked @ 4.525ghz compared to CCD1 @ 4.325ghz... Is windows that smart yet or do i need to force something?


Make sure in UEFI :-

Advanced > AMD CBS > NBIO Common options > SMU Common options

You have:-

CPPC: [Enabled]
CPPC Preferred Cores: [Enabled]

Under Advanced > AMD CBS > CPU Common options

You have:-

Global C-State Control: [Enabled]

Oddly on the C7HWIFI even with AGESA 1.0.0.4B UEFI [Auto] seems to default to [Disabled] AFAIK.

I use this registry edit to show:-



Spoiler




View attachment W10 core parking.zip










I set % so 2 logical CPUs stay unparked.











I set min CPU state 0% as well.

Yeah I have one R9 3900X which is really nice on CCD0, but as CCD1 is not as great, multicore performance is sorta lower. Second sample CCD0 & CCD1 are more aligned, this benches the best at stock for and responds to PBOE. Third is somewhere in between

CB20 sample 1



Spoiler














CB20 sample 2



Spoiler






















CB20 sample 3



Spoiler


----------



## Awsan

Hey everyone just found a good deal on Trident Z Neo 3800mhz cl14 and wanted to ask why isn't the impact in the qvl list and the hero is? Does the hero have a better memory management system? (and will it matter if I just run manual timings and clocks)

Thanks


----------



## owcraftsman

In the last month, I have built and still overclocking tweaking and tuning my new rig see sig. 
I have yet to tighten my RAM timings but things are going pretty well. 
I've read through about 1/2 of this thread so far and want to thank all it's contributors for the help it's given me so far.
I have settled at 4450 all cores using Ryzen Master with DOCP standard and 1.325 vcore set in bios 1201. 
For whatever reason, all bios so far (7xx (OOB) 1105 1201) have defaulted/optimized Default to 1.481v VCORE so the first change I make is to VCORE (1.325v) followed by D.O.C.P. Standard. 
I consider those two settings and no other changes to be my user default/optimized defaults.
I ran most of the benches at my user defaults and at 4450 all cores. I will spare you the default score screenshots but I will note the percent increase due to OC with each screenie. 

What follows are my best scores using 1105 before updating to 1201 and upgrading my 1080Ti to 2080Ti. I intend to rerun these benches and post my best scores to compare 1105 vs 1201. 



Real Bench 3hrs Stress Test and multiplayer BF4 and BFV Stable not to mention multiple Hand Brake and Blender Test.
Memory passes MemTest Pro 10 Threads 100% coverage all at 4450 all cores. 


+4% SC +18% MC









+4% OpenGL +18% CPU









+15%









self-explanatory









Below is XMP User Defaults vs XMP 4450 all core









User Bench result at 4450 w/1080Ti
UserBenchmarks: Game 128%, Desk 178%, Work 168% ALL UFO

As stated above I want to fine tune my memory but overall I'm pretty happy with my new rig.

Ryzen Master Settings


----------



## Dawidowski

A quick question. 

Do most people run manual CCX OC ? 

Cause no matter what I change in my regular settings in bios without manual CC. 
I get minor changes... 
Highest CR20 score is around 7326 - Current score I got was 7226.
It fluctuates like crazy, and one change can drop it drastically. But nothing really bumbs the score like some other people I see that hit up to 7400~

Any tips?


----------



## newls1

Dawidowski said:


> A quick question.
> 
> Do most people run manual CCX OC ?
> 
> Cause no matter what I change in my regular settings in bios without manual CC.
> I get minor changes...
> Highest CR20 score is around 7326 - Current score I got was 7226.
> It fluctuates like crazy, and one change can drop it drastically. But nothing really bumbs the score like some other people I see that hit up to 7400~
> 
> Any tips?


dont know about "most" people, but for me and some others, its the preferred method of overclocking. There will always be a weaker ccx inside a ccd holding you back so instead of lowering ALL SPEEDS of each core, you can isolate the bad ones and keep the max OC they can achieve, and bring up the speed on the better ccd with stronger ccx's... make sense? also instead of using 1.45 (just throwing this number out there) to get a stable of (lets say) 4.5ghz, you can keep ccd0 @ 4.5ghz (assuming those are the stronger ccx's) and drop the bad ccd (With weaker ccx's) to say like 4.3ghx and use 1.35 vcore...... Really a very very very swift way to OC and have the best of all worlds


----------



## Dawidowski

newls1 said:


> dont know about "most" people, but for me and some others, its the preferred method of overclocking. There will always be a weaker ccx inside a ccd holding you back so instead of lowering ALL SPEEDS of each core, you can isolate the bad ones and keep the max OC they can achieve, and bring up the speed on the better ccd with stronger ccx's... make sense? also instead of using 1.45 (just throwing this number out there) to get a stable of (lets say) 4.5ghz, you can keep ccd0 @ 4.5ghz (assuming those are the stronger ccx's) and drop the bad ccd (With weaker ccx's) to say like 4.3ghx and use 1.35 vcore...... Really a very very very swift way to OC and have the best of all worlds


I doubt I have the cooling to keep my 3900x at 4.5 and the rest at 4.3.
Be quiet Dark rock pro 4 - Is not enough for those temps. 

Either that or just bad die...
I wonder what I'm doing wrong. There was a decent video up at page 160/161 that I wanted to see more of, a guy who posted his settings but that video is now private. 
Honestly, sometimes I get lost and things get confusing since people know so damn much and spire into great details that I have no so much understanding off ^^
Yet you always want to reach a that little extra if you can and keep it that way.


----------



## newls1

Dawidowski said:


> I doubt I have the cooling to keep my 3900x at 4.5 and the rest at 4.3.
> Be quiet Dark rock pro 4 - Is not enough for those temps.
> 
> Either that or just bad die...
> I wonder what I'm doing wrong. There was a decent video up at page 160/161 that I wanted to see more of, a guy who posted his settings but that video is now private.
> Honestly, sometimes I get lost and things get confusing since people know so damn much and spire into great details that I have no so much understanding off ^^
> Yet you always want to reach a that little extra if you can and keep it that way.


a
yes, that cooler will be awful for OCing these ryzen 9 cpus. If you want to setup a watercooling loop, do that, and then ill guide you from start to end on how to OC your chip. you are going to need to use around 1.35-1.4v so what does your current cooler provide you temp wise when using that voltage and a all core OC?


----------



## Dawidowski

newls1 said:


> a
> yes, that cooler will be awful for OCing these ryzen 9 cpus. If you want to setup a watercooling loop, do that, and then ill guide you from start to end on how to OC your chip. you are going to need to use around 1.35-1.4v so what does your current cooler provide you temp wise when using that voltage and a all core OC?


Atm, can't put priority on getting a full loop. I live in sweden and the current costs here for a decent loop are insane. 

Right now I am trying to get a decent run with my system as much stock as possible. Which gives a score of 7144 at best. D.O.C.P on. 
With PBO on, I drop to 7050.
With PBO on, and adding manual 200mhz I get 6400 points.

Current bios is 1201
Temps after a cr20 run are 73.8. 

I barely dare to change anything, score goes lower and lower. I cant say this motherboard has been pleasing to work with. I actually don't know what change will boost or drop my preference. 
As soon as I hit "run" I can see my core speeds go from 4.2-4.5 depending on work load to 3.925-4.000.


----------



## Dawidowski

Manual OC with CCD

CCX0 44.00
CCX1 44.00

CCX0 42.00
CCX1 42.00

D.O.C.P on - 3200 mhz Flare X / CL 14 with FCLK 1600 - 1.35v
CPU Vcore 1.325

PBO - Disabled
Speed Spectrum / VRM Spectrum off. 
Load Line Calibration Level 3 
VDDG CCD Voltage - 0.950
VDDG ICD Voltage - 0.950
SOC Voltage - 1.05

Max load after CR20 80.3 Celcius 
CR score 7642


----------



## owcraftsman

Couple questions

1) Any idea how to get all the lights and USB ports power off when the system is off?
I have turned disabled ErP Ready in bios but I still have some USB ports with constant power.

2) How do I get the USB-C port to charge rapidly?
I have installed AI Charger and since uninstalled since it had no effect.


----------



## criznit

Dawidowski said:


> Atm, can't put priority on getting a full loop. I live in sweden and the current costs here for a decent loop are insane.
> 
> Right now I am trying to get a decent run with my system as much stock as possible. Which gives a score of 7144 at best. D.O.C.P on.
> With PBO on, I drop to 7050.
> With PBO on, and adding manual 200mhz I get 6400 points.
> 
> Current bios is 1201
> Temps after a cr20 run are 73.8.
> 
> I barely dare to change anything, score goes lower and lower. I cant say this motherboard has been pleasing to work with. I actually don't know what change will boost or drop my preference.
> As soon as I hit "run" I can see my core speeds go from 4.2-4.5 depending on work load to 3.925-4.000.


The current bios seems bugged. Don't enable PBO or auto OC and don't undervolt, just leave everything at default. I might downgrade to the previous bios because with pbo+auto oc enable with an undervolt of .1, I was getting ~7480 in cb20.


----------



## Reous

Quick Question. Do you guys have access to the ASPM Option in the Bios? Normally it is in the PCI Subsystem Settings in the Advanced Tab.


----------



## dlbsyst

Hello gents  With all of the talk about per ccx overclocking lately I think I want to give it a go. Does anyone know of a good guide that I can read or watch that details the process? Thanks.


----------



## jfrob75

Dawidowski said:


> Atm, can't put priority on getting a full loop. I live in sweden and the current costs here for a decent loop are insane.
> 
> Right now I am trying to get a decent run with my system as much stock as possible. Which gives a score of 7144 at best. D.O.C.P on.
> With PBO on, I drop to 7050.
> With PBO on, and adding manual 200mhz I get 6400 points.
> 
> Current bios is 1201
> Temps after a cr20 run are 73.8.
> 
> I barely dare to change anything, score goes lower and lower. I cant say this motherboard has been pleasing to work with. I actually don't know what change will boost or drop my preference.
> As soon as I hit "run" I can see my core speeds go from 4.2-4.5 depending on work load to 3.925-4.000.


Try the following to improve your all core performance. Set PBO to manual and set PPT to 200. Set your CPU voltage for a negative offset of 0.1 volts. This improved my CBR20 score substantially. Now I am on liquid cooling but I still think this will help you as well.


----------



## zsoltmol

Looking at the behavior of C8H with various bios since 2019 July I do feel being a beta tester. Still. This is nonsense.

I'm close to being fed up and no longer try to find best settings, leave on auto and forget this mess. For sure no more Asus mainboard will be in my future systems, was their fan for long years. 

Here are my settings if it has any value for anybody. After 2 weeks of hard trial and error, finally 1201 bios is almost as fast as 1001 in my case.

*Valueable credits to this forum and members!* *Without you I would have returned this board way sooner.* 

Please note in settings one file is for 1001 bios.


----------



## newls1

zsoltmol said:


> Looking at the behavior of C8H with various bios since 2019 July I do feel being a beta tester. Still. This is nonsense.
> 
> I'm close to being fed up and no longer try to find best settings, leave on auto and forget this mess. For sure no more Asus mainboard will be in my future systems, was their fan for long years.
> 
> Here are my settings if it has any value for anybody. After 2 weeks of hard trial and error, finally 1201 bios is almost as fast as 1001 in my case.
> 
> *Valueable credits to this forum and members!* *Without you I would have returned this board way sooner.*
> 
> Please note in settings one file is for 1001 bios.


way too many "AUTO" settings applied to your DECEMBER FAST profile. So many options for improvement its crazy.


----------



## iDShaDoW

owcraftsman said:


> As stated above I want to fine tune my memory but overall I'm pretty happy with my new rig.


Have you grabbed the Thaiphoon Burner to determine if they're using Samsung B Dies or some other memory chips?

And then the DRAM Calculator, it's pretty straightforward. Some of the settings can be a bit hidden in your BIOS though.


----------



## zsoltmol

newls1 said:


> zsoltmol said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at the behavior of C8H with various bios since 2019 July I do feel being a beta tester. Still. This is nonsense.
> 
> I'm close to being fed up and no longer try to find best settings, leave on auto and forget this mess. For sure no more Asus mainboard will be in my future systems, was their fan for long years.
> 
> Here are my settings if it has any value for anybody. After 2 weeks of hard trial and error, finally 1201 bios is almost as fast as 1001 in my case.
> 
> *Valueable credits to this forum and members!* *Without you I would have returned this board way sooner.*
> 
> Please note in settings one file is for 1001 bios.
> 
> 
> 
> way too many "AUTO" settings applied to your DECEMBER FAST profile. So many options for improvement its crazy.
Click to expand...

Maybe I have attached the wrong one? Or saving profile settings are buggy too? All my ram settings in the text file are on “auto” despite in bios it is entered manually based on typhoon and dram calculator.

Another strange anomaly.


----------



## owcraftsman

iDShaDoW said:


> Have you grabbed the Thaiphoon Burner to determine if they're using Samsung B Dies or some other memory chips?
> 
> And then the DRAM Calculator, it's pretty straightforward. Some of the settings can be a bit hidden in your BIOS though.


Thanks for the reply!
I have Thaiphoon Burner and have tracked down most of the Settings with some help from ationfictons HERE

If anyone is having trouble finding settings location for Ryzen DRAM Calculator I recommend giving the link a read. 


I'm working with Trident Z NEO memory specifically F4-3600C16Q-32GTZN
Using Thaiphoon my memory shows up as DJR which is not an available option in the drop-down menu. Imagine my concern so, I reached out to 1usmus through twitter and he responded within 2 days. I have no personal relationship with him/her and was quite grateful for the reply. Turns out we can use the "Hynix CJR" option when DJR parts are detected. Although I remain a bit skeptical I feel a bit better proceeding. 










So Far I have been a bit busy getting ready for Christmas and 7 grandkids so its on hold atm.
Seems like there should be a way to export the Thaiphoon data and import it into Ryzen Master but I haven't figured it out yet. I think the subject has been touched on here but I'm only 2/3 the way through reading this thread.

Edit: Link to ROG Forum is down at the moment (505 bad gateway) but I expect it to be back up soon.


----------



## Section31

newls1 said:


> way too many "AUTO" settings applied to your DECEMBER FAST profile. So many options for improvement its crazy.


Much appreciated. 1201 was giving me headaches with 1.0.0.4


----------



## Dawidowski

criznit said:


> The current bios seems bugged. Don't enable PBO or auto OC and don't undervolt, just leave everything at default. I might downgrade to the previous bios because with pbo+auto oc enable with an undervolt of .1, I was getting ~7480 in cb20.


Not reaching those numbers. Roughly 7150~ 
Thats at best wiht 1.0.0.4



jfrob75 said:


> Try the following to improve your all core performance. Set PBO to manual and set PPT to 200. Set your CPU voltage for a negative offset of 0.1 volts. This improved my CBR20 score substantially. Now I am on liquid cooling but I still think this will help you as well.


This did help some, got up to 7270 now. The 1.0.0.4 seems to boost oddly, and I have been testing out some Dram calculator settings. 
Memories get to hot during memtest... at 51c they get errors. 

Under that it seems fine. I have hard times finding some of the settings that are provided in dram calculator :/


----------



## zekikosif

Hi guys Im using Asus Crosshair VIII Hero X570 motherboard my PCH(Chipset) temp very high. İdle 65° Max 72° this is normal temp ?


----------



## owcraftsman

@zekikosif
I'd say no that is not normal. Even stress testing and benching I rarely see it go over 60c on my Hero, for that matter even idle it's 57-59c depending on the ambient temp which in my case is typically 25c here in Florida. 
That said, mine is currently on the benchtop while testing and modding the case which will eventually become it's resting place, so temps will be lower than in a case.

If you are in an airflow restricted case and have a GPU heat sink that is not blower-style you potentially have a lot of heat dumping right in the chipset.
especially if the front of your case is airflow restricted. If so, try feeding some cool air in from the bottom of the case.

There is also the potential that your chipset wasn't properly mounted at the factory or lacks proper TIM. Unlikely

It is also possible to raise the rpm of the chipset fan in bios which may help. Go into Q-Fan control and make adjustments. I would at least check it to make sure it at +1500 RPM or more. 

Start by increasing airflow into the case and get as much hot air out of the case as possible.

If that doesn't help try remounting the chipset HS with a good quality TIM which wouldn't hurt anyway. 

What case are you using?


----------



## raysheri

zekikosif said:


> Hi guys Im using Asus Crosshair VIII Hero X570 motherboard my PCH(Chipset) temp very high. İdle 65° Max 72° this is normal temp ?


yeah that looks normal to me - ie about 7deg increase for load/gaming.
Idle average for these chipsets is around 60deg from my own experience and what I've read others report.
Ambient temp, gpu type, Case and airflow may be causing yours to be a bit higher, but 72 max is nothing to worry about.


----------



## zekikosif

Hey thank you my case phanteks evolv x 3 fan intake Noctua NF-A14 and radiator is top mounting nzxt kraken x72

System Spec:
Asus Crosshair VIII Hero X570
Ryzen 9 3900X
Evga Rtx 2080 SUPER FTW3 
Phanteks Evolv X


----------



## newls1

question.. why does switching my FCLK to 1900 and mem to 3800 make my board go to 2:1 ratio.. I thought 3800dram speed was the max we could go to keep 1:1?. Is this a bios issue? also, my last issue that is PISSING ME OFF, is i get an insta-reboot when I simply just increase my multi from 45.25 to 45.50 and upon post screen it says "CPU OVER HEAT PROTECTION" but this is BULLCRAP, nothing is overheating.. i believe ive changed every single setting to overcome this, so anyone have some input please on how to avoid this?
**EDIT** To those of you running 1900FCLK, what bios are you on? Does the latest 1204 bios fix this issue? Im currently on 1102 (I think its 1102, its 110"Something") Just trying to squeeze some last bit of performance from this 3950x machine, then will prob sell the board and cpu off...


----------



## fr4nc3sco

hi,
I would be interested in purchasing this card to be mounted on the 3950x that is currently arriving I would like to use my 4x8gb memories G.Skill model F4-3200C14-8G I'm B dye could you tell me if I can run into problems? where could I go and could you then help me find the settings?


----------



## newls1

can someone help me with this damn issue please! Why when I set 1900FCLK the board goes to 2:1 mode.. This is pissing me off! Is there a setting in our bios to force 1:1 when setting 1900FCLK?


----------



## MacG32

newls1 said:


> can someone help me with this damn issue please! Why when I set 1900FCLK the board goes to 2:1 mode.. This is pissing me off! Is there a setting in our bios to force 1:1 when setting 1900FCLK?



Check the attached pics. :thumb:


----------



## newls1

MacG32 said:


> Check the attached pics. :thumb:


jesus god THANK YOU!


----------



## dlbsyst

MacG32 said:


> newls1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> can someone help me with this damn issue please! Why when I set 1900FCLK the board goes to 2:1 mode.. This is pissing me off! Is there a setting in our bios to force 1:1 when setting 1900FCLK?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check the attached pics. /forum/images/smilies/thumb.gif
Click to expand...

That's very cool MacG32. I've been running my RAM at 3600MHz because 3800MHz didn't seem to be running at 1:1 ratio. I look forward to trying those settings after work. Thanks.


----------



## newls1

I need some more help PLEASE... Getting insta-reboot again trying to play around with a new OC OF 4.550GHZ CCD 0 AND 4.350GHZ CCD 1, and need help setting these following voltage settings:

CPU SoC Voltage = 1.125v (Is this ok?)
VDDG CCD Voltage = AUTO
VDDG IOD Voltage = AUTO
CLDO VDDP Voltage = AUTO
1.00V SB VOLTAGE = 1.068V
1.8V PLL Voltage = 1.80

With the given OC im trying to achieve, where should the following be set at or around? Really concerned about the vddg ones, i always see people setting those but i just dont know where they should be at.. thanks a million for any help.

HOLY BALLS, Pretty sure I fixed my biggest issue of all.. My on going INSTA-REBOOT saying "CPU OVER TEMP PROTECTION" at post screen upon reboot.. This would only happen during all core stress testing ONLY, but i knew it was NOT overheating as im watching all temps. I disabled CPU Temp monitor in bios, and so far during all stress testing nothing has rebooted. I noticed just while in bios, it was solid red just being in bios before, and didnt think about disabling that sensor monitor... it must be faulty, cause im miles away from over heating with this newly reconstructed waterloop and stuff.


----------



## newls1

newls1 said:


> I need some more help PLEASE... Getting insta-reboot again trying to play around with a new OC OF 4.550GHZ CCD 0 AND 4.350GHZ CCD 1, and need help setting these following voltage settings:
> 
> CPU SoC Voltage = 1.125v (Is this ok?)
> VDDG CCD Voltage = AUTO
> VDDG IOD Voltage = AUTO
> CLDO VDDP Voltage = AUTO
> 1.00V SB VOLTAGE = 1.068V
> 1.8V PLL Voltage = 1.80
> 
> With the given OC im trying to achieve, where should the following be set at or around? Really concerned about the vddg ones, i always see people setting those but i just dont know where they should be at.. thanks a million for any help.
> 
> HOLY BALLS, Pretty sure I fixed my biggest issue of all.. My on going INSTA-REBOOT saying "CPU OVER TEMP PROTECTION" at post screen upon reboot.. This would only happen during all core stress testing ONLY, but i knew it was NOT overheating as im watching all temps. I disabled CPU Temp monitor in bios, and so far during all stress testing nothing has rebooted. I noticed just while in bios, it was solid red just being in bios before, and didnt think about disabling that sensor monitor... it must be faulty, cause im miles away from over heating with this newly reconstructed waterloop and stuff.


going through the googles, i keep seeing people talk about voltage IN and voltage OUT... wth are those settings? would really like to have these settings adjusted correctly by you pro's :thumb:


----------



## newls1

this thread died..... anyone?


----------



## neurotix

newls1 said:


> question.. why does switching my FCLK to 1900 and mem to 3800 make my board go to 2:1 ratio.. I thought 3800dram speed was the max we could go to keep 1:1?. Is this a bios issue? also, my last issue that is PISSING ME OFF, is i get an insta-reboot when I simply just increase my multi from 45.25 to 45.50 and upon post screen it says "CPU OVER HEAT PROTECTION" but this is BULLCRAP, nothing is overheating.. i believe ive changed every single setting to overcome this, so anyone have some input please on how to avoid this?
> **EDIT** To those of you running 1900FCLK, what bios are you on? Does the latest 1204 bios fix this issue? Im currently on 1102 (I think its 1102, its 110"Something") Just trying to squeeze some last bit of performance from this 3950x machine, then will prob sell the board and cpu off...


Did you fix this with MacG32's advice? 

Did you manually set Fclk to 1900MHz underneath DRAM Frequency of 3800MHz?

I don't change the stuff MacG32 stated, I just change those, and have no issue with Memclk (Uclk) ratio not being in sync. Aida's memory test and certain other programs might say Memory to bus ratio is 2:1 or other weird things, but they are reading the values incorrectly afaik.

In CPU-Z for example, it will show Memclk as being 1900MHz (IFclk), and Bus frequency to Memory ratio as 1:1, if you were really running 2:1 it would say 950MHz. Also, I see an across-the-board improvement in cache bandwidth and latency in AIDA64 with my settings this way and never do anything besides just changing DRAM Frequency and Fabric Frequency.

If it really werent at 1900MHz (and at 2:1 would be 950MHz) I would think I would see less bandwidth on the cache in AIDA, compared to 3600/1800. But I see gains.



newls1 said:


> can someone help me with this damn issue please! Why when I set 1900FCLK the board goes to 2:1 mode.. This is pissing me off! Is there a setting in our bios to force 1:1 when setting 1900FCLK?





newls1 said:


> I need some more help PLEASE... Getting insta-reboot again trying to play around with a new OC OF 4.550GHZ CCD 0 AND 4.350GHZ CCD 1, and need help setting these following voltage settings:
> 
> CPU SoC Voltage = 1.125v (Is this ok?)
> VDDG CCD Voltage = AUTO
> VDDG IOD Voltage = AUTO
> CLDO VDDP Voltage = AUTO
> 1.00V SB VOLTAGE = 1.068V
> 1.8V PLL Voltage = 1.80
> 
> With the given OC im trying to achieve, where should the following be set at or around? Really concerned about the vddg ones, i always see people setting those but i just dont know where they should be at.. thanks a million for any help.
> 
> HOLY BALLS, Pretty sure I fixed my biggest issue of all.. My on going INSTA-REBOOT saying "CPU OVER TEMP PROTECTION" at post screen upon reboot.. This would only happen during all core stress testing ONLY, but i knew it was NOT overheating as im watching all temps. I disabled CPU Temp monitor in bios, and so far during all stress testing nothing has rebooted. I noticed just while in bios, it was solid red just being in bios before, and didnt think about disabling that sensor monitor... it must be faulty, cause im miles away from over heating with this newly reconstructed waterloop and stuff.


Do you still have that T.Probe setting changed to Extreme under the VRM settings? Was this set to Extreme when you were getting reboots?

Some part of the chip really was overheating when under an all core load. Yes, you can set it to ignore certain thermal sensors, but be advised that there are sensors inside the chip itself, most likely, that are not exposed in HWINFO and the like. The processor was shutting itself off to prevent damage. These sensors likely cannot be monitored by us, but will trigger thermal shutoff when the chip is exceeding 100 (more commonly, 105C).

Your SoC is right on the edge of what is acceptable/safe. Hope you are not using LLC on it. Try 1.08v and lower until stable.

For IFclk, lowering SoC as opposed to increasing it stabilizes DRAM and IF overclocks. If this doesnt help, try 1.1v and leave it alone.



newls1 said:


> going through the googles, i keep seeing people talk about voltage IN and voltage OUT... wth are those settings? would really like to have these settings adjusted correctly by you pro's :thumb:


Not sure. On my old 4790k setup, Input Voltage was the voltage delivered to the entire chip package, usually stepped down from the 3.3v rail and the current delivered from the 4pin or 8pin (or both on our board) 12V EPS/ATX power connectors. This goes into the chokes, MOSFETs and VRMs which then step it down into the voltages the processor requires (i.e. all the different voltages we adjust through the UEFI). 

On my 4790k, Input Voltage was tunable and would stabilize high overclocks by giving the entire chip package more voltage (useful if encountering voltage limits because of raising so many values derived from it, so the default isn't enough to provide enough power for higher vcore, etc.)

I have been curious to know if a similar value exists on Ryzen- and what its called on our mainboard. On Z87 (Rog Maximus VI Hero) and my 4790k, it was 'Initial CPU Input Voltage' (applied only at boot/for LN2 OCing), and 'Eventual CPU Input Voltage' (applied all the time). In my case, I needed 1.950v Input Voltage for my delidded, binned SiliconLottery 4790k to stabilize at 4.8GHz.

Of course, I could be wrong about this but I think this might be similar to or the same as CPU IN.



newls1 said:


> this thread died..... anyone?


Repeating myself... a certain poster... ah, forget it


----------



## knightriot

I just change from corsair [email protected]@C16 to [email protected]@C16 and ... i got 0D error code,factory reset bios but still no boot, 4x8 old or 2x16 new both good , only 4x16 got issue 
https://www.corsair.com/us/en/Categories/Products/Memory/DOMINATOR-PLATINUM-RGB/p/CMT64GX4M4C3466C16


----------



## newls1

neurotix said:


> Did you fix this with MacG32's advice?
> 
> Did you manually set Fclk to 1900MHz underneath DRAM Frequency of 3800MHz?
> 
> I don't change the stuff MacG32 stated, I just change those, and have no issue with Memclk (Uclk) ratio not being in sync. Aida's memory test and certain other programs might say Memory to bus ratio is 2:1 or other weird things, but they are reading the values incorrectly afaik.
> 
> In CPU-Z for example, it will show Memclk as being 1900MHz (IFclk), and Bus frequency to Memory ratio as 1:1, if you were really running 2:1 it would say 950MHz. Also, I see an across-the-board improvement in cache bandwidth and latency in AIDA64 with my settings this way and never do anything besides just changing DRAM Frequency and Fabric Frequency.
> 
> If it really werent at 1900MHz (and at 2:1 would be 950MHz) I would think I would see less bandwidth on the cache in AIDA, compared to 3600/1800. But I see gains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you still have that T.Probe setting changed to Extreme under the VRM settings? Was this set to Extreme when you were getting reboots?
> 
> Some part of the chip really was overheating when under an all core load. Yes, you can set it to ignore certain thermal sensors, but be advised that there are sensors inside the chip itself, most likely, that are not exposed in HWINFO and the like. The processor was shutting itself off to prevent damage. These sensors likely cannot be monitored by us, but will trigger thermal shutoff when the chip is exceeding 100 (more commonly, 105C).
> 
> Your SoC is right on the edge of what is acceptable/safe. Hope you are not using LLC on it. Try 1.08v and lower until stable.
> 
> For IFclk, lowering SoC as opposed to increasing it stabilizes DRAM and IF overclocks. If this doesnt help, try 1.1v and leave it alone.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure. On my old 4790k setup, Input Voltage was the voltage delivered to the entire chip package, usually stepped down from the 3.3v rail and the current delivered from the 4pin or 8pin (or both on our board) 12V EPS/ATX power connectors. This goes into the chokes, MOSFETs and VRMs which then step it down into the voltages the processor requires (i.e. all the different voltages we adjust through the UEFI).
> 
> On my 4790k, Input Voltage was tunable and would stabilize high overclocks by giving the entire chip package more voltage (useful if encountering voltage limits because of raising so many values derived from it, so the default isn't enough to provide enough power for higher vcore, etc.)
> 
> I have been curious to know if a similar value exists on Ryzen- and what its called on our mainboard. On Z87 (Rog Maximus VI Hero) and my 4790k, it was 'Initial CPU Input Voltage' (applied only at boot/for LN2 OCing), and 'Eventual CPU Input Voltage' (applied all the time). In my case, I needed 1.950v Input Voltage for my delidded, binned SiliconLottery 4790k to stabilize at 4.8GHz.
> 
> Of course, I could be wrong about this but I think this might be similar to or the same as CPU IN.
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating myself... a certain poster... ah, forget it


Yes, even after i change the IF to "FORCE" a 1:1 ratio, cpuz still reports 950mhz and ive played with those settings for the past few days. this was very frusturating and maybe why people on bios 1005 (or whatever is was) get better performance cause obviously 1105 and this 1201 bios are buggy. I even flashed to this lastest bios to see if it would actually work at 1900fclk and same issue still. I gave up. 1833 is close enough i guess.


----------



## neurotix

newls1 said:


> Yes, even after i change the IF to "FORCE" a 1:1 ratio, cpuz still reports 950mhz and ive played with those settings for the past few days. this was very frusturating and maybe why people on bios 1005 (or whatever is was) get better performance cause obviously 1105 and this 1201 bios are buggy. I even flashed to this lastest bios to see if it would actually work at 1900fclk and same issue still. I gave up. 1833 is close enough i guess.


Ok. 

I also noticed since that AIDA64 memory test also shows a 'Memory Bus' field- I assume it says 950MHz there as well?

This would indeed be 2:1. To verify, you manually set 3800mhz RAM frequency, and 1900MHz fclk frequency, at the top of the Extreme Tweaker menu?

I'd suggest resetting cmos using the button on the back of the board, can you do this and try what I just said and set your timings etc. from DRAM calc (and Advanced Options), without manually setting XFR settings for Uclk like MacG32 suggested, and report back?

Hows the crashing/cpu overheat error problem?


----------



## newls1

neurotix said:


> Ok.
> 
> I also noticed since that AIDA64 memory test also shows a 'Memory Bus' field- I assume it says 950MHz there as well?
> 
> This would indeed be 2:1. To verify, you manually set 3800mhz RAM frequency, and 1900MHz fclk frequency, at the top of the Extreme Tweaker menu?
> 
> I'd suggest resetting cmos using the button on the back of the board, can you do this and try what I just said and set your timings etc. from DRAM calc (and Advanced Options), without manually setting XFR settings for Uclk like MacG32 suggested, and report back?
> 
> Hows the crashing/cpu overheat error problem?


i updated bios, and applied "optimzed defaults" after fresh bios flash, rebooted, then applied all tweaks in bios to get me back where i was on old bios, and exact same issue. I'll dig further into this on sunday, im starting another 48 tomorrow, after getting off 1 this morning, and i cant take myself into my pc room while im home for these few short hours cause ill spend way to much time "playing" so im restricting myself to my chromebook in bed hoping to fall asleep. I appreciate your OUTSTANDING want to help me, and i see your youtube video popped back up on my "new upload" list, but it seems to be the same vid from about 2 weeks ago... weird. I will be more tuned in on sunday when I can actually enjoy my day off. thanks again


----------



## neurotix

newls1 said:


> i updated bios, and applied "optimzed defaults" after fresh bios flash, rebooted, then applied all tweaks in bios to get me back where i was on old bios, and exact same issue. I'll dig further into this on sunday, im starting another 48 tomorrow, after getting off 1 this morning, and i cant take myself into my pc room while im home for these few short hours cause ill spend way to much time "playing" so im restricting myself to my chromebook in bed hoping to fall asleep. I appreciate your OUTSTANDING want to help me, and i see your youtube video popped back up on my "new upload" list, but it seems to be the same vid from about 2 weeks ago... weird. I will be more tuned in on sunday when I can actually enjoy my day off. thanks again


Got it.

Yeah, this is very weird, I have no issues with Memclk being out of ratio just by changing Dram Freq and IF freq under Extreme Tweaker on my 3900x.

MacG32s advice to manually force it in the XFR settings under NBIO common options in AMD CBS menu didnt work either?

Maybe its a bug specific to the 3950x on this board with this bios then... tbh I don't know what else to suggest at this point, sorry


----------



## benbenkr

Just about to jump into the Ryzen 3900x wagon, also bought a Crosshair 8 to go along with it. 

Have one question though, correct me if I'm wrong - judging from the past few pages, do I just flash bios to version 1001 only (AGESA 1003 ABBA) instead of going all the way to 1201 to avoid the still on going issues with AGESA 1004 B and the other teething issues with the board (DRAM overclocking for one)?


----------



## newls1

benbenkr said:


> Just about to jump into the Ryzen 3900x wagon, also bought a Crosshair 8 to go along with it.
> 
> Have one question though, correct me if I'm wrong - judging from the past few pages, do I just flash bios to version 1001 only (AGESA 1003 ABBA) instead of going all the way to 1201 to avoid the still on going issues with AGESA 1004 B and the other teething issues with the board (DRAM overclocking for one)?


i would, yes.


----------



## TMatzelle60

Will this ram work on the Crosshair VIII Impact without any problems? I saw the QVL is has the same model # but next to it on the QVL is Ver4.31 mine are 3.31

Kinda worried ill run into problems. Also will XMP work fine?


----------



## neurotix

TMatzelle60 said:


> Will this ram work on the Crosshair VIII Impact without any problems? I saw the QVL is has the same model # but next to it on the QVL is Ver4.31 mine are 3.31
> 
> Kinda worried ill run into problems. Also will XMP work fine?



What ram? You didn't include anything in your post, you have no sig rig or specs in your sig?

QVL is meaningless, if it's DDR4, it will work. As far as XMP, XMP is kinda useless and buggy and not guaranteed. Setting things manually is the way to go- even if you just change the voltage and primary timings and let the board do the rest.


----------



## TMatzelle60

neurotix said:


> What ram? You didn't include anything in your post, you have no sig rig or specs in your sig?
> 
> QVL is meaningless, if it's DDR4, it will work. As far as XMP, XMP is kinda useless and buggy and not guaranteed. Setting things manually is the way to go- even if you just change the voltage and primary timings and let the board do the rest.



Sorry This RAM
https://www.newegg.com/corsair-32gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820233853?Item=N82E16820233853

I am also curious will I run into any heating problems both CPU and VRM on the IO or even loud VRM Fans with the build below

Lian Li TU150 (Black)
AMD Ryzen 7 3800X (Cooled With Noctua NH-U12A)
Asus Crosshair VIII Impact
Corsair Vengeance LPX 32GB DDR4-2666
Asus 5700 XT Strix
Corsair SF750

I will have a front fan and the CPU Cooler will have dual fans. Due to have 2 fans the back fan on the CPU Cooler is to close to the rear fan mount so I can't put another fan on back


----------



## newls1

neurotix said:


> What ram? You didn't include anything in your post, you have no sig rig or specs in your sig?
> 
> QVL is meaningless, if it's DDR4, it will work. As far as XMP, XMP is kinda useless and buggy and not guaranteed. Setting things manually is the way to go- even if you just change the voltage and primary timings and let the board do the rest.


exactly... I cant stand how some people think if "Said item" is not on a QVL list, then it must not be compatible. THere is NO WAY a company can test every single config and manufacture of mem, ssd, etc... if its ddr4, and smart enough to push it into an open ddr4 slot, then it will work. Getting "the purchased speed" out of it might envolve either being lucky enough to have XMP work, or you might have to be a little computer savy and actually make adjustments in bios.


----------



## benbenkr

Reading all the problems with the boost clocks not hitting advertised speeds, high idle voltage (also leading to high idle temps), long POST times, and weird issues like system being stuttery is kind of killing my mood to build the system up. I have all the parts ready, but somehow I don't know why I'm dreading to build it and I'm actually toying with the idea of sending everything back before I unbox anything.

So we're nearly done with 2019, how is the x570 chipset stability wise? How is the 3900x holding up?


----------



## Awsan

benbenkr said:


> Reading all the problems with the boost clocks not hitting advertised speeds, high idle voltage (also leading to high idle temps), long POST times, and weird issues like system being stuttery is kind of killing my mood to build the system up. I have all the parts ready, but somehow I don't know why I'm dreading to build it and I'm actually toying with the idea of sending everything back before I unbox anything.
> 
> So we're nearly done with 2019, how is the x570 chipset stability wise? How is the 3900x holding up?


 These issues are half the fun, it feels very satisfying tweaking and fixing everything to your liking.

I would recommend skipping am4 if you would like a more streamlined experience.


----------



## benbenkr

Awsan said:


> These issues are half the fun, it feels very satisfying tweaking and fixing everything to your liking.
> 
> I would recommend skipping am4 if you would like a more streamlined experience.


I don't mind fixing and tweaking stuff, I do however mind that some of these things aren't fixable until AMD says so. Have you tried any of the latest x570 chipset drivers from AMD's page (not Asus, which is weirdly stuck with only 2 chipset driver versions until today, nearly 6 months later)? How are they?


----------



## neurotix

Working on that lately but I had about the same bandwidth with lower latency at 4133.

Haven't messed with it too much, no idea if it's stable, but I noticed a lot of folks on hwbot doing submissions on the 3900x with memory at that speed.

Also, @newls1, please give the attached CMO file a shot if you are still using the latest bios (1201). Let me know if it fixes your Uclk issue. It is a CMO file for my settings in a zip. Please let me know if you have any issues, if it works etc. You will need to redo your OC (e.g. change the manual CCX OC ratios) and probably check boot settings and fan speeds, but otherwise, it has all the timings and so forth set. If you cant boot with it try increasing the vDIMM up to 1.5v and adjust VTT_DDR to match. Hopefully, you know what to do with this file and how to use it, if not, say so and I will explain it. Happy holidays.


----------



## newls1

neurotix said:


> View attachment 314354
> 
> 
> 
> Working on that lately but I had about the same bandwidth with lower latency at 4133.
> 
> Haven't messed with it too much, no idea if it's stable, but I noticed a lot of folks on hwbot doing submissions on the 3900x with memory at that speed.
> 
> Also, @newls1, please give the attached CMO file a shot if you are still using the latest bios (1201). Let me know if it fixes your Uclk issue. It is a CMO file for my settings in a zip. Please let me know if you have any issues, if it works etc. You will need to redo your OC (e.g. change the manual CCX OC ratios) and probably check boot settings and fan speeds, but otherwise, it has all the timings and so forth set. If you cant boot with it try increasing the vDIMM up to 1.5v and adjust VTT_DDR to match. Hopefully, you know what to do with this file and how to use it, if not, say so and I will explain it. Happy holidays.


Man, you are an extremely helpful dude! thanks, I just cant get to it till sunday/monday when i get off shift. But, to answer your question, NO! I have no clue what to do with a cmo file...:h34r-smi


----------



## phillyman36

Anyone having lan issues? For some reason sometimes website take a while to load. Both on Chrome and Firefox. Browser cache is cleared.


----------



## neurotix

newls1 said:


> Man, you are an extremely helpful dude! thanks, I just cant get to it till sunday/monday when i get off shift. But, to answer your question, NO! I have no clue what to do with a cmo file...:h34r-smi



It's a user profile.

Put the .CMO file on a usb flash stick (Thumb Drive) (or MicroSD card + usb 2.0 adapter), hopefully you have either one of those things. I suppose you can update bios without one now, and read the bios file off the root of C:\, but to downgrade your bios you do still need a flash drive for USB Flashback... 

Put the drive with my file you copied into the back, (extract the zip, it should be '3800.CMO') Go into your bios, go over to the 'Tool' heading on the top (Between 'Boot' and 'Exit'), Go down to "ASUS User Profile", go into the submenu. You'll see a bunch of slots for profiles for bios settings that you can save and reload later if you fail POST (really handy- I use these extensively for memory overclocking, this way I can set up a "base" profile with all my boot options, DRAM Calc advanced options, fan speeds, etc. set with a low memory speed like 3200MHz c16, and then save various presets at different speeds to load or revert to if something I try fails, without having to re-set every single options on the board when I reset CMOS- these profiles are all retained in that case, meaning I can get right back to tweaking memory timings without worrying about setting 200+ options throughout the whole board again for my fans etc.)

Anyway, Tool -> ASUS User Profile -> go all the way to the bottom. There will be a "Load/Save Profile to/from USB Drive" option at the very bottom. I think you just press F2, it will automatically load the file structure off the flash stick, just navigate to the 3800.CMO and click on it and tell it to load it. EDIT: WRONG: Don't press F2, I just remembered that saves the current profile to a file- just read the tooltip underneath when you have the "Load/Save to USB Drive" option at the very bottom highlighted and figure out how to load, and then scroll through the drive to my 3800.CMO in the file browser that pops up and load it.

I have no idea if it will have ALL my presets (which would be very handy for you, indeed), or just the one I was actively using and intended to share (which was my 3800MHz cas16 GDM On preset). If they all end up getting imported (you'll know as all 8 profile slots will now have a saved preset), I'd suggest loading them in this order: 3200c16, 3600c16, 3800c16 to increase the memory speed and Infinity Fabric speed gradually. This avoids the failure to train bug that occurs if you try to go from default speeds (usually 2400mhz/1200mhz IFclk) directly to 1900mhz IFclk- this way you raise it to 1600mhz, then 1800mhz, then 1900mhz. Credit to rv7000, wherever they are, for helping me with this bug on the newest bios versions. So load the 3200c16, reboot, load 3600c16, reboot, then try 3800c16.

If you are already still at 3733mhz you may not need to do that, and as I said I dont know if it will have every saved preset I made or just the one I was running when I saved it. Please be sure to double check options in the AMD CBS menu to make sure that they are being set correctly by my profile (it saves them/sets them again by loading the profile on my board but I don't know about yours).


----------



## dlbsyst

neurotix said:


> It's a user profile.
> 
> Put the .CMO file on a usb flash stick (Thumb Drive) (or MicroSD card + usb 2.0 adapter), hopefully you have either one of those things. I suppose you can update bios without one now, and read the bios file off the root of C:\, but to downgrade your bios you do still need a flash drive for USB Flashback...
> 
> Put the drive with my file you copied into the back, (extract the zip, it should be '3800.CMO') Go into your bios, go over to the 'Tool' heading on the top (Between 'Boot' and 'Exit'), Go down to "ASUS User Profile", go into the submenu. You'll see a bunch of slots for profiles for bios settings that you can save and reload later if you fail POST (really handy- I use these extensively for memory overclocking, this way I can set up a "base" profile with all my boot options, DRAM Calc advanced options, fan speeds, etc. set with a low memory speed like 3200MHz c16, and then save various presets at different speeds to load or revert to if something I try fails, without having to re-set every single options on the board when I reset CMOS- these profiles are all retained in that case, meaning I can get right back to tweaking memory timings without worrying about setting 200+ options throughout the whole board again for my fans etc.)
> 
> Anyway, Tool -> ASUS User Profile -> go all the way to the bottom. There will be a "Load/Save Profile to/from USB Drive" option at the very bottom. I think you just press F2, it will automatically load the file structure off the flash stick, just navigate to the 3800.CMO and click on it and tell it to load it. EDIT: WRONG: Don't press F2, I just remembered that saves the current profile to a file- just read the tooltip underneath when you have the "Load/Save to USB Drive" option at the very bottom highlighted and figure out how to load, and then scroll through the drive to my 3800.CMO in the file browser that pops up and load it.
> 
> I have no idea if it will have ALL my presets (which would be very handy for you, indeed), or just the one I was actively using and intended to share (which was my 3800MHz cas16 GDM On preset). If they all end up getting imported (you'll know as all 8 profile slots will now have a saved preset), I'd suggest loading them in this order: 3200c16, 3600c16, 3800c16 to increase the memory speed and Infinity Fabric speed gradually. This avoids the failure to train bug that occurs if you try to go from default speeds (usually 2400mhz/1200mhz IFclk) directly to 1900mhz IFclk- this way you raise it to 1600mhz, then 1800mhz, then 1900mhz. Credit to rv7000, wherever they are, for helping me with this bug on the newest bios versions. So load the 3200c16, reboot, load 3600c16, reboot, then try 3800c16.
> 
> If you are already still at 3733mhz you may not need to do that, and as I said I dont know if it will have every saved preset I made or just the one I was running when I saved it. Please be sure to double check options in the AMD CBS menu to make sure that they are being set correctly by my profile (it saves them/sets them again by loading the profile on my board but I don't know about yours).


neurotix, I know you meant that .CMO file for newls1 but I went ahead and tried it. I hope you don't mind. Unfortunately it wouldn't work. It said "File is not for this platform" when I tried to load it. I'm sure it's because you have the non WIFI version of the Crosshair VIII Hero. I would really like to try your timings and other settings. Is there any chance that you could please save that .CMO profile as a .txt file also and share it here.?


----------



## Snoopy69

I need help with PBO-Limits...

The PBO limits @ "auto" are PPT 395, TDC 255 and EDC 255 (seen in Rzyen Master)

When i run Prime95 "small FFTs" with these limits, the PC crashes!!!
But NOT with reboot, but on a black screen. I have to switch off the PC at the power switch of the power supply (power switch does not work)

For example, if I set all PBO limits to 333, the PC also crashes
However, if I set all PBO limits to 400, Prime runs stable
But why? Why don't the motherboard limits work?

Can someone check that please? First PBO "on" (limits MUST be "auto")
Then Prime95 *"small FFTs" (NOTHING ELSE)*
Then the same thing with PBO limits at 333. And finally with PBO limits at 400

I have no explanation as to why it happens to work at 400, but not at 333.
At 333 i am still far from the 100% limit


PS:
If i underclock heavily, the pc also crashes

But...
This is ONLY in Prime95 "small FFTs"

In my opinion, this is not a problem with CPU stability (no reboots or blue screens). It must have something to do with the limits



PS2:
I set all PBO-Limits to 1000...
Prime "small FFTs" runs stable, but with a lower VCore und lower clocks! WT*???


----------



## benbenkr

Alright, just got almost everything set up. Leaving it on the open bench for now, only flashed till BIOS version 1001 as was recommended. No WHEA errors after installing Win10, so that's a relief there.

Just a question about the chipset/SB's temp though - it's running at ~60c idle, are these temps what you guys are getting too? Yes my GPU overhangs and pretty much covers the fan on the board.


----------



## dlbsyst

benbenkr said:


> Alright, just got almost everything set up. Leaving it on the open bench for now, only flashed till BIOS version 1001 as was recommended. No WHEA errors after installing Win10, so that's a relief there.
> 
> Just a question about the chipset/SB's temp though - it's running at ~60c idle, are these temps what you guys are getting too? Yes my GPU overhangs and pretty much covers the fan on the board.


Yup, totally normal.


----------



## neurotix

dlbsyst said:


> neurotix, I know you meant that .CMO file for newls1 but I went ahead and tried it. I hope you don't mind. Unfortunately it wouldn't work. It said "File is not for this platform" when I tried to load it. I'm sure it's because you have the non WIFI version of the Crosshair VIII Hero. I would really like to try your timings and other settings. Is there any chance that you could please save that .CMO profile as a .txt file also and share it here.?



Hmm, I didn't consider this. I got the HERO Non-Wifi to save money and because I don't need Wifi. This is sort of stupid, given that all the settings in the .CMO file should be more or less identical across the two models, save any options (probably under the Advanced- > Onboard Devices Configuration) related to the Wifi chip that my board is missing. It's not a bios file or anything that get flashed, just basically all the CMOS settings that get saved into an option ROM chip backed by the battery. I wonder if there's any way around this?

Sure, I can post the .txt file, but I don't know how much help it will be- as stated before, you probably need to raise timings with 4 DIMMs to be able to run at 3800MHz (or 3733MHz). You can try it but I intended these settings for newls1. Also, them being saved in a txt file doesn't change the fact that you have to find all the buried options. (ASUS really should move/duplicate all the commonly used/Ryzen DRAM Calculator AMD CBS settings into their own section in the Extreme Tweaker menu, or even throw them all at the bottom of the Tweaker's Paradise submenu).

I will post this is a few minutes- one for newls1, and one with my suggested timings for your DIMMs which will be a little bit different.



Snoopy69 said:


> I need help with PBO-Limits...
> 
> The PBO limits @ "auto" are PPT 395, TDC 255 and EDC 255 (seen in Rzyen Master)
> 
> When i run Prime95 "small FFTs" with these limits, the PC crashes!!!
> But NOT with reboot, but on a black screen. I have to switch off the PC at the power switch of the power supply (power switch does not work)
> 
> For example, if I set all PBO limits to 333, the PC also crashes
> However, if I set all PBO limits to 400, Prime runs stable
> But why? Why don't the motherboard limits work?
> 
> Can someone check that please? First PBO "on" (limits MUST be "auto")
> Then Prime95 *"small FFTs" (NOTHING ELSE)*
> Then the same thing with PBO limits at 333. And finally with PBO limits at 400
> 
> I have no explanation as to why it happens to work at 400, but not at 333.
> At 333 i am still far from the 100% limit
> 
> 
> PS:
> If i underclock heavily, the pc also crashes
> 
> But...
> This is ONLY in Prime95 "small FFTs"
> 
> In my opinion, this is not a problem with CPU stability (no reboots or blue screens). It must have something to do with the limits
> 
> 
> 
> PS2:
> I set all PBO-Limits to 1000...
> Prime "small FFTs" runs stable, but with a lower VCore und lower clocks! WT*???



You are using PBO incorrectly, and currently with these processors and latest bios on these boards, most posters here in other threads as well as this one that overclock via 'boost' are leaving the PBO options alone, and voltage on Auto, due to observed clocks actually being lower using PBO vs leaving everything on all Auto

Regardless, if you want to play around with PBO overclocking-










Use that chart to set the maximum limits, and it would be wise to set a vCORE offset of -0.10000v (to get somewhere in the 1.35~1.45v range under load)

You are crashing and rebooting because you are telling the chip to ignore all thermal limits and you are probably triggering the CPU Overheat Protection.

Again, note that using PBO your performance will probably be worse than setting offset voltage and leaving everything else (including PBO) on Auto, except for setting your DRAM options.

Hope this helps


----------



## dlbsyst

neurotix said:


> Hmm, I didn't consider this. I got the HERO Non-Wifi to save money and because I don't need Wifi. This is sort of stupid, given that all the settings in the .CMO file should be more or less identical across the two models, save any options (probably under the Advanced- > Onboard Devices Configuration) related to the Wifi chip that my board is missing. It's not a bios file or anything that get flashed, just basically all the CMOS settings that get saved into an option ROM chip backed by the battery. I wonder if there's any way around this?
> 
> Sure, I can post the .txt file, but I don't know how much help it will be- as stated before, you probably need to raise timings with 4 DIMMs to be able to run at 3800MHz (or 3733MHz). You can try it but I intended these settings for newls1. Also, them being saved in a txt file doesn't change the fact that you have to find all the buried options. (ASUS really should move/duplicate all the commonly used/Ryzen DRAM Calculator AMD CBS settings into their own section in the Extreme Tweaker menu, or even throw them all at the bottom of the Tweaker's Paradise submenu).
> 
> I will post this is a few minutes- one for newls1, and one with my suggested timings for your DIMMs which will be a little bit different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are using PBO incorrectly, and currently with these processors and latest bios on these boards, most posters here in other threads as well as this one that overclock via 'boost' are leaving the PBO options alone, and voltage on Auto, due to observed clocks actually being lower using PBO vs leaving everything on all Auto
> 
> Regardless, if you want to play around with PBO overclocking-
> 
> View attachment 314756
> 
> 
> 
> Use that chart to set the maximum limits, and it would be wise to set a vCORE offset of 0.10000v (to get somewhere in the 1.35~1.45v range under load)
> 
> You are crashing and rebooting because you are telling the chip to ignore all thermal limits and you are probably triggering the CPU Overheat Protection.
> 
> Again, note that using PBO your performance will probably be worse than setting offset voltage and leaving everything else (including PBO) on Auto, except for setting your DRAM options.
> 
> Hope this helps


Thanks neurotix. I look forward to seeing what you come up with and trying it out.


----------



## Cutbait

Enjoying this Crosshair VIII board very much, running a 3950x for 1 week now on 1201 bios. Everything playing nice with all components in signature. Memory tweaked with the Ryzen memory calculator fast settings. Just running the rated speed and was able to keep them on 1.35 volts with the tightened timings.

Only difficulty with build was the ROG SupremeFX cover had to be removed for my EVGA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti FTW3 ULTRA HYDRO COPPER to fit into the PCIe slot fully. The cover was just to high to accommodate the graphics card. No big deal.

Good job by all the players in this thread with settings advice and stuff.

That Ryzen memory calculator is really cool!


----------



## neurotix

@newls1 did you try the CMO file yet? I checked your signature, and it just says you have the Crosshair VIII Hero but doesn't say if it's the Wifi model or not. If it's Non-Wifi, my file should load. Whether or not it will fix your issue, is a different story.

Attached are the settings I'm currently running, that are identical to the .CMO file, with two minor changes: "Download Armory Crate" is disabled (no clue why it was 'Enabled' in my saved profiles, I always disable this), and I fixed a specific VRM setting that was incorrectly set.

Good luck


----------



## dlbsyst

neurotix said:


> @newls1 did you try the CMO file yet? I checked your signature, and it just says you have the Crosshair VIII Hero but doesn't say if it's the Wifi model or not. If it's Non-Wifi, my file should load. Whether or not it will fix your issue, is a different story.
> 
> Attached are the settings I'm currently running, that are identical to the .CMO file, with two minor changes: "Download Armory Crate" is disabled (no clue why it was 'Enabled' in my saved profiles, I always disable this), and I fixed a specific VRM setting that was incorrectly set.
> 
> Good luck


Thanks for posting your settings. I want to play around with those settings too. It's going to have to wait though because I'm working. Yeah, I always disable Armory Crate too, can't stand it and don't like Aura Sync either. They just seem way to buggy and use system resources.


----------



## neurotix

dlbsyst said:


> Thanks for posting your settings. I want to play around with those settings too. It's going to have to wait though because I'm working. Yeah, I always disable Armory Crate too, can't stand it and don't like Aura Sync either. They just seem way to buggy and use system resources.



You can try messing about with the settings in the AMD CBS options, the VRM settings, and so forth, as well as try the timings in the file if you want, but you may not have much luck.

As I've told you before, four DIMMs is much more demanding on the memory controller, and this board is optimized for two DIMMs as it is a Daisy Chain layout. The primary timings in that file are 16-16-16-16-32-50, at a somewhat low voltage. These timings are probably too low for four DIMMs at 3800/1900. (The higher the frequency, the higher the timings need to be for stability, as a general rule. If you cannot boot at a given memory frequency, even adding voltage, it probably means your timings are too low, and they need to be raised higher. This has some impact on performance and latency, but is generally offset by an increase in bandwidth, so it is more beneficial to raise frequency than it is to have lower frequency and lower timings. I tried to explain this to you before, a few different ways, a few different times, and you didn't seem to understand. I apologize for my frustration. You posted something that seemed to indicate you were still trying 14-14-14-14-28-42 timings, on four DIMMs, at 3800MHz- even my kit cannot run those timings at 3800MHz.)

As such, instead of trying the timings in the file, I would advise you to take all of your timings from this screenshot, but set your memory frequency to 3800MHz, your Infinity Fabric frequency to 1900MHz, DRAM Voltage to 1.48v, VTT_DDR voltage (in Tweakers Paradise, at the top) to 0.7400v (or 0.74xx, just make sure the first three are 0.74)











^ Again use those timings instead of the ones found in the txt file with DRAM Frequency at *3800* and Fabric Frequency at *1900*

If you can pas POST and get booted and make it to the OS that way, then we can possibly work on adjusting other settings/getting CAS lowered to 16/improve the latency. Getting POST at a certain speed comes first, then you can worry about lowering timings. So substitute timings from that image, while setting the rest of the settings that aren't timings as found in the .txt file.

If you set these timings at that speed exactly, with the other settings set, at 1.48v, and still cannot boot at 3800/1900, I would highly advise you to give up at that point or remove two of your DIMMs. If you remove the DIMMs in slots A1 and B1, and still cannot boot following this guidance, you should 1) give up and run all four at 3600MHz or 2) sell them all and buy a different kit

Regards


----------



## newls1

neurotix said:


> @newls1 did you try the CMO file yet? I checked your signature, and it just says you have the Crosshair VIII Hero but doesn't say if it's the Wifi model or not. If it's Non-Wifi, my file should load. Whether or not it will fix your issue, is a different story.
> 
> Attached are the settings I'm currently running, that are identical to the .CMO file, with two minor changes: "Download Armory Crate" is disabled (no clue why it was 'Enabled' in my saved profiles, I always disable this), and I fixed a specific VRM setting that was incorrectly set.
> 
> Good luck


no matter what settings ive tried from your bios file, she still boots @ 1/2 speeds when trying to set fclk @ 1900... This is ******* crazy. Tell me something please sir, what do these voltages do?

VDDG CCD Voltage Control [1.035]
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [1.015]
CLDO VDDP voltage [1075]

I currently have VDDG CCD AND IOD @ 950MV AND CLDO VDDP @ AUTO.... Wondering if these are something to set correctly to achieve a stable 45.5x multi oc or more maybe???
I cant thank you enough for all your help my friend.. really appreciate it


----------



## dlbsyst

neurotix said:


> You can try messing about with the settings in the AMD CBS options, the VRM settings, and so forth, as well as try the timings in the file if you want, but you may not have much luck.
> 
> As I've told you before, four DIMMs is much more demanding on the memory controller, and this board is optimized for two DIMMs as it is a Daisy Chain layout. The primary timings in that file are 16-16-16-16-32-50, at a somewhat low voltage. These timings are probably too low for four DIMMs at 3800/1900. (The higher the frequency, the higher the timings need to be for stability, as a general rule. If you cannot boot at a given memory frequency, even adding voltage, it probably means your timings are too low, and they need to be raised higher. This has some impact on performance and latency, but is generally offset by an increase in bandwidth, so it is more beneficial to raise frequency than it is to have lower frequency and lower timings. I tried to explain this to you before, a few different ways, a few different times, and you didn't seem to understand. I apologize for my frustration. You posted something that seemed to indicate you were still trying 14-14-14-14-28-42 timings, on four DIMMs, at 3800MHz- even my kit cannot run those timings at 3800MHz.)
> 
> As such, instead of trying the timings in the file, I would advise you to take all of your timings from this screenshot, but set your memory frequency to 3800MHz, your Infinity Fabric frequency to 1900MHz, DRAM Voltage to 1.48v, VTT_DDR voltage (in Tweakers Paradise, at the top) to 0.7400v (or 0.74xx, just make sure the first three are 0.74)
> 
> 
> View attachment 315150
> 
> 
> 
> ^ Again use those timings instead of the ones found in the txt file with DRAM Frequency at *3800* and Fabric Frequency at *1900*
> 
> If you can pas POST and get booted and make it to the OS that way, then we can possibly work on adjusting other settings/getting CAS lowered to 16/improve the latency. Getting POST at a certain speed comes first, then you can worry about lowering timings. So substitute timings from that image, while setting the rest of the settings that aren't timings as found in the .txt file.
> 
> If you set these timings at that speed exactly, with the other settings set, at 1.48v, and still cannot boot at 3800/1900, I would highly advise you to give up at that point or remove two of your DIMMs. If you remove the DIMMs in slots A1 and B1, and still cannot boot following this guidance, you should 1) give up and run all four at 3600MHz or 2) sell them all and buy a different kit
> 
> Regards


Thanks Neurotix. I'll respond in detail to your post when I get home from work. It's just way too difficult to do it on my phone.


----------



## dlbsyst

newls1, I see that you have the Sabrent Rocket 1TB Gen4 NVME. I was thinking about getting this drive. Do you recommend it? Notice any issues with it? My current main drive is the Samsung 500GB 970 Evo Plus.


----------



## newls1

its a great drive and affordable. ill post up a performance shot in a sec


----------



## dlbsyst

newls1 said:


> its a great drive and affordable. ill post up a performance shot in a sec


Thanks I got an Amazon credit that should just about pay for it.


----------



## neurotix

newls1 said:


> no matter what settings ive tried from your bios file, she still boots @ 1/2 speeds when trying to set fclk @ 1900... This is ******* crazy. Tell me something please sir, what do these voltages do?
> 
> VDDG CCD Voltage Control [1.035]
> VDDG IOD Voltage Control [1.015]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [1075]
> 
> I currently have VDDG CCD AND IOD @ 950MV AND CLDO VDDP @ AUTO.... Wondering if these are something to set correctly to achieve a stable 45.5x multi oc or more maybe???
> I cant thank you enough for all your help my friend.. really appreciate it


This really seems like some kind of bug with this board and the 3950x at this point. Unless it's known in the design that above 3733MHz with the 3950x *specifically* decouples the Fabric clock even if you try to force it. I think AMD themselves recommended that people shoot for 3733/1866MHz when overclocking memory, and anything above that isn't supported in synchronous mode (though most people with a 3900x, 3700x, etc. can force the Fabric clock to run higher, 1900MHz at 3800MHz Memclk, but this is the absolute limit really and of course, dependant on luck- not all processors are capable.) I would not be surprised if the memory controller cannot handle anything more than 3733/1866 or will refuse to run at 1:1 Memclk/Fclk/Uclk with the amount of memory you have, in four DIMMs. Have you tried removing two DIMMs and booting at 3800/1900MHz (Try the standard 16-16-16-16-32-50, Geardown On)??? Make sure only slots A2 and B2 are populated, weird I know, but these are the ones that are optimized for memory OC



Code:


On Ryzen 3000, there's also CLDO_VDDG (not to be confused with CLDO_VDDP), which is the voltage to the Infinity Fabric. I've read that SOC voltage should be at least 40mV above CLDO_VDDG, but other than that there's not much information about it.

    Most cLDO voltages are regulated from the two main power rails of the CPU. In case of cLDO_VDDG and cLDO_VDDP, they are regulated from the VDDCR_SoC plane. Because of this, there are couple rules. For example, if you set the VDDG to 1.100V, while your actual SoC voltage under load is 1.05V the VDDG will stay roughly at 1.01V max. Likewise if you have VDDG set to 1.100V and start increasing the SoC voltage, your VDDG will raise as well. I don't have the exact figure, but you can assume that the minimum drop-out voltage (Vin-Vout) is around 40mV. Meaning you ACTUAL SoC voltage has to be at least by this much higher, than the requested VDDG for it to take effect as it is requested.
    Adjusting the SoC voltage alone, unlike on previous gen. parts doesn't do much if anything at all. The default value is fixed 1.100V and AMD recommends keeping it at that level. Increasing the VDDG helps with the fabric overclocking in certain scenarios, but not always. 1800MHz FCLK should be doable at the default 0.9500V value and for pushing the limits it might be beneficial to increase it to =< 1.05V (1.100 - 1.125V SoC, depending on the load-line).
    ~ The Stilt

https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4%20OC%20Guide.md#amd---am4


SoC Voltage is the voltage to the System-on-a-Chip (IMC), as well as the Fabric (the data bus providing communications between the two seperate Core Complex Dies (CCDs), the cache on each CCD, as well as things like motherboard bus I/O to the Southbridge for SATA, PCI-E lanes (I think), definitely external bus to DDR4, etc. that are obviously off-chip and provided by the motherboard.

cLDO_VDDG CCD voltage is derived from SoC voltage and should ideally be 0.04v below SoC (The_Stilt says this above ("Meaning you ACTUAL SoC voltage has to be at least by this much higher, than the requested VDDG for it to take effect as it is requested."), this voltage is for the Data Bus (inter-core Fabric bus between the two CCDs, the SoC, and system memory) this is your VDDG CCD Voltage Control

cLDO_VDDG IOD voltage is the SoC voltage to the CAD Bus, but I think it also affects I/O transfers to the Southbridge stuff, I am unsure on this. Anyway, this value is related to CAD_Bus and also affects Fabric stability primarily but also memory- see CAD Bus termination impedances at the bottom of the memory timing section (the ones that are variously set to be 24/24/24/24 or 24/20/20/24 Ohm)

Both of those values are used to stabilize Fabric overclocks, as well as SoC voltage. As is cLDO_VDDP. Afaik these voltages and the CAD_Bus and impedances in general control the electrical resistance on the DIMMs, and thus affect the slope of the rising and falling signals of the memory clock and transfers. (This stuff is pretty complicated, I can't quite say I understand it. I'm just an overclocker, not an electrical engineer. I did find a data sheet from RAMbus (remember them and RDRAM?) talking about DDR4 impedance but it wasn't very helpful. There was also an ASUS ROG guide for some older platform that went into depth about DRAM resistance values and how they work. In this case, CAD_Bus Block Termination Ω (Ohms- electrical resistance), Termination Block Ω, and to a lesser extent CAD_BUS Timings- three values in the middle top of Ryzen DRAM Calculator. The cLDO_VDDG IOD voltages affects this stuff). (Sometimes with certain DIMMs raising Proc_ODT to 36.9 or as high as 40 Ohm, and raising CAD_Bus termination incrementally as well, can allow for stubborn DIMMs to reach higher frequency, but raising the resistance adds heat)

You can try raising these values, I'd go with 1.1v SoC, 1.060v VDDG CCD and slightly less (1.040v) VDDG IOD. Some users have reported better bandwidth and stability having those two set seperately, though previously on our motherboard they were the same and both controlled by a single cLDO_VDDG setting.

Tbh most of that stuff is irrelevant to your situation, but there's the best explanation I can offer. I would suggest finding other users that have a 3950x, getting the attention of The_Stilt or 1usmus, etc. regarding your situation. If I had to guess it's related to four (4x16GB (dual-rank?)) DIMMs and such high capacity.

You should probably post an image of your AIDA64 at your current 3733/1866 overclock which should actually be pretty outstanding for 64GB and 4x16GB dual rank. As dual rank DIMMs perform more transfers in a similar amount of time than single, I would not be surprised if your bandwidth was higher than mine at 3800mhz, but latency may not be as low (don't worry too much about latency; there's been too much emphasis placed on it. Anything under 70ns is still relatively fast compared to a lot of processors, especially historically. I did extensive testing with DDR3 with my 4790k, and my FX-8350, and when testing games or benching, higher frequency always outperformed lower speed and lower timing, in most cases regardless of low frequency and tight timing having faster access time.)





dlbsyst said:


> Thanks Neurotix. I'll respond in detail to your post when I get home from work. It's just way too difficult to do it on my phone.


Don't worry about responding unless something is still unclear- I tried to make it as clear as possible. Spend your time trying it instead.


----------



## newls1

neurotix said:


> This really seems like some kind of bug with this board and the 3950x at this point. Unless it's known in the design that above 3733MHz with the 3950x *specifically* decouples the Fabric clock even if you try to force it. I think AMD themselves recommended that people shoot for 3733/1866MHz when overclocking memory, and anything above that isn't supported in synchronous mode (though most people with a 3900x, 3700x, etc. can force the Fabric clock to run higher, 1900MHz at 3800MHz Memclk, but this is the absolute limit really and of course, dependant on luck- not all processors are capable.) I would not be surprised if the memory controller cannot handle anything more than 3733/1866 or will refuse to run at 1:1 Memclk/Fclk/Uclk with the amount of memory you have, in four DIMMs. Have you tried removing two DIMMs and booting at 3800/1900MHz (Try the standard 16-16-16-16-32-50, Geardown On)??? Make sure only slots A2 and B2 are populated, weird I know, but these are the ones that are optimized for memory OC
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> On Ryzen 3000, there's also CLDO_VDDG (not to be confused with CLDO_VDDP), which is the voltage to the Infinity Fabric. I've read that SOC voltage should be at least 40mV above CLDO_VDDG, but other than that there's not much information about it.
> 
> Most cLDO voltages are regulated from the two main power rails of the CPU. In case of cLDO_VDDG and cLDO_VDDP, they are regulated from the VDDCR_SoC plane. Because of this, there are couple rules. For example, if you set the VDDG to 1.100V, while your actual SoC voltage under load is 1.05V the VDDG will stay roughly at 1.01V max. Likewise if you have VDDG set to 1.100V and start increasing the SoC voltage, your VDDG will raise as well. I don't have the exact figure, but you can assume that the minimum drop-out voltage (Vin-Vout) is around 40mV. Meaning you ACTUAL SoC voltage has to be at least by this much higher, than the requested VDDG for it to take effect as it is requested.
> Adjusting the SoC voltage alone, unlike on previous gen. parts doesn't do much if anything at all. The default value is fixed 1.100V and AMD recommends keeping it at that level. Increasing the VDDG helps with the fabric overclocking in certain scenarios, but not always. 1800MHz FCLK should be doable at the default 0.9500V value and for pushing the limits it might be beneficial to increase it to =< 1.05V (1.100 - 1.125V SoC, depending on the load-line).
> ~ The Stilt
> 
> https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4%20OC%20Guide.md#amd---am4
> 
> 
> SoC Voltage is the voltage to the System-on-a-Chip (IMC), as well as the Fabric (the data bus providing communications between the two seperate Core Complex Dies (CCDs), the cache on each CCD, as well as things like motherboard bus I/O to the Southbridge for SATA, PCI-E lanes (I think), definitely external bus to DDR4, etc. that are obviously off-chip and provided by the motherboard.
> 
> cLDO_VDDG CCD voltage is derived from SoC voltage and should ideally be 0.04v below SoC (The_Stilt says this above ("Meaning you ACTUAL SoC voltage has to be at least by this much higher, than the requested VDDG for it to take effect as it is requested."), this voltage is for the Data Bus (inter-core Fabric bus between the two CCDs, the SoC, and system memory) this is your VDDG CCD Voltage Control
> 
> cLDO_VDDG IOD voltage is the SoC voltage to the CAD Bus, but I think it also affects I/O transfers to the Southbridge stuff, I am unsure on this. Anyway, this value is related to CAD_Bus and also affects Fabric stability primarily but also memory- see CAD Bus termination impedances at the bottom of the memory timing section (the ones that are variously set to be 24/24/24/24 or 24/20/20/24 Ohm)
> 
> Both of those values are used to stabilize Fabric overclocks, as well as SoC voltage. As is cLDO_VDDP. Afaik these voltages and the CAD_Bus and impedances in general control the electrical resistance on the DIMMs, and thus affect the slope of the rising and falling signals of the memory clock and transfers. (This stuff is pretty complicated, I can't quite say I understand it. I'm just an overclocker, not an electrical engineer. I did find a data sheet from RAMbus (remember them and RDRAM?) talking about DDR4 impedance but it wasn't very helpful. There was also an ASUS ROG guide for some older platform that went into depth about DRAM resistance values and how they work. In this case, CAD_Bus Block Termination Ω (Ohms- electrical resistance), Termination Block Ω, and to a lesser extent CAD_BUS Timings- three values in the middle top of Ryzen DRAM Calculator. The cLDO_VDDG IOD voltages affects this stuff). (Sometimes with certain DIMMs raising Proc_ODT to 36.9 or as high as 40 Ohm, and raising CAD_Bus termination incrementally as well, can allow for stubborn DIMMs to reach higher frequency, but raising the resistance adds heat)
> 
> You can try raising these values, I'd go with 1.1v SoC, 1.060v VDDG CCD and slightly less (1.040v) VDDG IOD. Some users have reported better bandwidth and stability having those two set seperately, though previously on our motherboard they were the same and both controlled by a single cLDO_VDDG setting.
> 
> Tbh most of that stuff is irrelevant to your situation, but there's the best explanation I can offer. I would suggest finding other users that have a 3950x, getting the attention of The_Stilt or 1usmus, etc. regarding your situation. If I had to guess it's related to four (4x16GB (dual-rank?)) DIMMs and such high capacity.
> 
> You should probably post an image of your AIDA64 at your current 3733/1866 overclock which should actually be pretty outstanding for 64GB and 4x16GB dual rank. As dual rank DIMMs perform more transfers in a similar amount of time than single, I would not be surprised if your bandwidth was higher than mine at 3800mhz, but latency may not be as low (don't worry too much about latency; there's been too much emphasis placed on it. Anything under 70ns is still relatively fast compared to a lot of processors, especially historically. I did extensive testing with DDR3 with my 4790k, and my FX-8350, and when testing games or benching, higher frequency always outperformed lower speed and lower timing, in most cases regardless of low frequency and tight timing having faster access time.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry about responding unless something is still unclear- I tried to make it as clear as possible. Spend your time trying it instead.


YOU HAVE TO BE THE MOST HELPFUL INDIVIDUAL ON THESE FORUMS! Thank you for such a detailed reply. Little update, I CAN do 1900fclk 3800 ram speed if i take 2 dimms out, i even posted using 1933, but froze in windows... im sure I could stabilize that OC if i used more then 1.40vdimm. So, yep, using 4 dual rank dimms was my issue. I went ahead an reinstalled all 4dimms again, and will just settle with 64gb @ 3740MHz @ C16 speeds @ 1t.... Ill post up my aida64 mem speed pic in a sec, im on chromebook.... ill go into office and fire her up again. BRB

**EDIT** Back, here you go, how does it look for 64gb's of dual rank??


----------



## newls1

dlbsyst said:


> newls1, I see that you have the Sabrent Rocket 1TB Gen4 NVME. I was thinking about getting this drive. Do you recommend it? Notice any issues with it? My current main drive is the Samsung 500GB 970 Evo Plus.


here is a quick crystal diskmark read/write test for you. Drive has about ~150gb of Data on it, and is a win10 "ONLY" boot drive, so 99% of the data on this drive is all from MS and all the bloatware that comes with owning Win10.

**EDIT** Dont know why the pic didnt upload, but it was 4999MB/s READ 4280MB/s WRITES


----------



## neurotix

Your AIDA looks good for the speed and timings. Don't worry about the latency; I'd expect about that for the speed/timings. You should try to lower primaries if possible to get higher read (and possibly write) bandwidth; your SS says you are at 16-19-19-36 or something.

Try 16-19-16-16-32-48 and increase volts if you can. tRCDRD (2nd primary; though Ryzen Calc has the 2nd as tRCDWR, they are flipped in our bios) at 19 or 18 (or higher than the rest in general) is often needed, but the others can usually match CAS. Getting those lower will bring up your read and write bandwidth, and lowering tRC (last primary) if possible to equal tRP + tRAS will improve things too.

Your Copy bandwidth is great and your L3 cache latency is outstanding. The lowest Ive seen mine is 9.6ns but lately it wont go below 9.9ns and I have no idea why ^^; 

I am unsurprised removing two DIMMs allowed for booting at 3800/1900mhz, I take it the Uclk div ratio was correct?

Interesting that it even booted at 1933mhz; good luck if you decide to stabilize that.


----------



## dlbsyst

Thanks neurotix for all your help and for posting your settings and suggestions. I'll try messing with those shortly. 

For the last week I have been playing around with my RAM trying to get it 100% stable running at my preferred speed of 3600MHz with GD disabled. I think I've finally got it. Here are my settings and results.


----------



## dlbsyst

newls1 said:


> here is a quick crystal diskmark read/write test for you. Drive has about ~150gb of Data on it, and is a win10 "ONLY" boot drive, so 99% of the data on this drive is all from MS and all the bloatware that comes with owning Win10.
> 
> **EDIT** Dont know why the pic didnt upload, but it was 4999MB/s READ 4280MB/s WRITES


Thanks newls1 for posting your feedback on the drive. I'll probably be gabbing one in the future.


----------



## dlbsyst

Happy New Year everyone.


----------



## newls1

dlbsyst said:


> Thanks newls1 for posting your feedback on the drive. I'll probably be gabbing one in the future.


here is the snap shot of the read/write benchmark for you


----------



## newls1

Who in here has some OCing results using DJR modules? Im currently @ 3737MHz @ 16/19/19/36 @ 1.4v. Anyone have more results?


----------



## xutnubu

Almost died when I saw this value after installing Ryzen Master for the first time. I've been running this config for two weeks. Dusted-off my multi-meter and was able to confirm it was a misread from Ryzen Master.

While I was at it I measured the other points, the last one labeled "SB" (I'm guessing Southbridge) throws 1.18v.

I noticed this corresponds with HWiNFO64's "Chipset" voltage. But I'm also seeing another SB voltage labeled "1.00V SB Voltage" with a value of 0.998v.

How do these two differ from each other, and is my reading of 1.18v too high?


----------



## dlbsyst

xutnubu said:


> Almost died when I saw this value after installing Ryzen Master for the first time. I've been running this config for two weeks. Dusted-off my multi-meter and was able to confirm it was a misread from Ryzen Master.
> 
> While I was at it I measured the other points, the last one labeled "SB" (I'm guessing Southbridge) throws 1.18v.
> 
> *I noticed this corresponds with HWiNFO64's "Chipset" voltage. But I'm also seeing another SB voltage labeled "1.00V SB Voltage" with a value of 0.998v*.
> 
> How do these two differ from each other, and is my reading of 1.18v too high?


Those voltages seem normal but CLDO VDDG and VDDCR SOC voltages seem too high. You probably have those set to AUTO in the BIOS. I would manually assign those voltages. You'll find them under "Extreme Tweaker". Set your VDDSOC to 1.1 volts. Then set your VDDG CCD to 0.950 volts and your VDDG IOD to 0.950. Some recommend setting these to a higher value, maybe 0.975 but 0.950 seems fine for my system.


----------



## newls1

dlbsyst said:


> Those voltages seem normal but CLDO VDDG and VDDCR SOC voltages seem too high. You probably have those set to AUTO in the BIOS. I would manually assign those voltages. You'll find them under "Extreme Tweaker". Set your VDDSOC to 1.1 volts. Then set your VDDG CCD to 0.950 volts and your VDDG IOD to 0.950. Some recommend setting these to a higher value, maybe 0.975 but 0.950 seems fine for my system.


I have my CCD and IOD voltages set to 1.035 and 1.015... too high? these came rec by another member. I can say it fixed my 8D error on reboots I was contantly getting, so it did something right


----------



## dlbsyst

newls1 said:


> I have my CCD and IOD voltages set to 1.035 and 1.015... too high? these came rec by another member. I can say it fixed my 8D error on reboots I was contantly getting, so it did something right


Interesting. Did neurotix recommend those values?


----------



## newls1

dlbsyst said:


> Interesting. Did neurotix recommend those values?


yes sir


----------



## dlbsyst

newls1 said:


> yes sir


Yeah, I just read his earlier posts were he talks about it. I think I may try playing around with those values myself when I try and get my RAM stable at 3800MHz.


----------



## neurotix

dlbsyst said:


> Those voltages seem normal but CLDO VDDG and VDDCR SOC voltages seem too high. You probably have those set to AUTO in the BIOS. I would manually assign those voltages. You'll find them under "Extreme Tweaker". Set your VDDSOC to 1.1 volts. Then set your VDDG CCD to 0.950 volts and your VDDG IOD to 0.950. Some recommend setting these to a higher value, maybe 0.975 but 0.950 seems fine for my system.





newls1 said:


> I have my CCD and IOD voltages set to 1.035 and 1.015... too high? these came rec by another member. I can say it fixed my 8D error on reboots I was contantly getting, so it did something right





dlbsyst said:


> Interesting. Did neurotix recommend those values?





newls1 said:


> yes sir





dlbsyst said:


> Yeah, I just read his earlier posts were he talks about it. I think I may try playing around with those values myself when I try and get my RAM stable at 3800MHz.



dlbsyst, you are not wrong but you aren't exactly right either- if that were really the SoC voltage, it is far too high, and user would have probably fried the chip under load by now.

However, the cLDO_VDDG was totally acceptable and I'd wager the actual VDD_SOC/SoC volts were actually in the realm of 1.1-1.13v based on the board typically setting that value around 0.04v less than VDD_SOC. I explained this in detail a few posts back and provided a very useful link to a memory overclocking guide. (Did you ever read it?) This information was quoted directly from The_Stilt. I provide sources 

VDD_SOC is fine up to around 1.125v or slightly higher based on margin of error, vdroop (My board gives it 1.080v when I set it to 1.100v), etc. Either way 1.09~ VDDG is totally safe. Whether or not they are ok depending on what type of memory, attempted speed on Fabric clock, etc. varies and depends on what xutnubu is trying to do. As newls1 stated (and I explained in detail), lowering VDD_SoC below 1.1v actually improves memory stability and chance of POST, and bringing up VDDG voltages and VDDP will stabilize or allow training at high Fabric clocks.

To actually answer xutnubu's question, if that reading was SB 1.00v, then yes it is high and cause for concern. If it is actually the correct reading for VDD_SOC then, it is nothing to worry about but a little on the high side. Manually set it to 1.1v and check with the multimeter again. You will probably want to lower it progressively depending on how high you want to take your memory, although some overclockers advise this and others don't (Particularly, I read something recently that claimed that with the 3970X TR4 that setting VDD_SOC below 1.1v caused memory or system instability, so it may have issues for newls1 or anyone else with the 3950x on AM4 as well. Personally, lowering it has been shown on older platforms (see the memtesthelper DDR4 OC guide AMD section, yet again) to help overclocking.) I would manually set SOC to 1.1v and SB 1.00v ("PLL") to 1.00v personally, and go ahead and use DDU in safe mode to remove all AMD Software and Chipset drivers, use Ccleaner to wipe out the registry junk left behind, manually check registry values left behind in regedit (look it up) as DDU and such leave traces behind, check Task Scheduler or Group Policy, and check C:\AMD, C:\Users\yourusername\AppData\Local (?) where there is usually a crapton of left over installer stuff, and so on. Then I would reboot, download the latest chipset drivers, install those, and then try and install Ryzen Master again (I don't have this installed or install it anymore, it is garbage. It nevers reads values correctly. It changes hidden settings in bios and corrupts it- try to find the Ryzen Master Usage guide PDF file and check it out, they state really clearly to only OC using that software, that it makes hidden registry changes and BIOS/UEFI changes, etc.) If you still want to use RM, please don't overclock in the BIOS anymore, and hopefully if you wiped it out well enough and reinstalled after reinstalling the chipset drivers, you will actually see correct voltages


----------



## benbenkr

So in the process of getting the system tuned in now. Got my RAM to 3600mhz CL16 all nice and dandy.

What about voltages though? At the moment I have it on auto and it spiking >1.4v during medium loads is kind of off putting for me. Would it better to manually set it down to 1.35v (or lower)?


----------



## xutnubu

neurotix said:


> ...
> 
> To actually answer xutnubu's question, *if that reading was SB 1.00v*, then yes it is high and cause for concern...



I doubt it is. To verify it, I set the "SB 1.00v" in the BIOS to 0.95v, and I could see on HWiNFO64 that it changed properly. But the "SB" reading point in the mobo is still showing 1.184v via multi-meter.

So who knows what that voltage is, it probably can't be changed in the BIOS. I assume the value is safe, since I get the same reading with "BIOS Optimized defaults".

All other voltages look normal to what they say in the BIOS, but all of them have modest VDroop, as expected I guess. SOC reading is 1.078v, it's set to 1.1v in the BIOS.


----------



## folklore11

Anyone using newest chipset drivers from AMD and notice any positive conformance gains?


----------



## newls1

folklore11 said:


> Anyone using newest chipset drivers from AMD and notice any positive conformance gains?


they're already 1 1/2 months old. And No is my answer for your question


----------



## pkincy

For those that are setting up this Crosshair VIII for the first time what drivers are necessary to install to get everything running? I would like to get them set up in a USB drive to get on the OS drive. I plan on restoring from a backup to an existing Asus Intel Z370-E OS drive, so obviously their are many different drivers. And the easy one is the BIOS as I can do that from the USB Flashback Port. But after that? I suppose I could install a fresh Win 10 and do the drivers with that install and then just restore over that new install. But any hints to go Red from Blue would be helpful.


----------



## Snoopy69

Help!!!

First site...


> Miscellaneous
> 
> Is your Bus Clock/Speed/FSB ~99.8 MHz? Disable SB Clock Spread Spectrum under Extreme Tweaker\Tweaker's Paradise and set BCLK to Auto


Doesnt work for me, but why?
PC shut down, power on, shut down, power on...


----------



## dlbsyst

Snoopy69 said:


> Help!!!
> 
> First site...
> 
> Doesnt work for me, but why?
> PC shut down, power on, shut down, power on...


I too have problems with my PC becoming slightly unstable when I disable spread spectrum. I just leave it enabled. Trust me it's no big deal to keep it enabled. I do disable the VRM spread spectrum for my RAM though. It's found under Extreme Tweaker.


----------



## dlbsyst

newls1 said:


> here is the snap shot of the read/write benchmark for you


Just got the drive in this morning. Boy, does it look nice in the little metal box it comes in. I'll let you know what kind of results I get after I get it installed in my system.:thumb:


----------



## dlbsyst

OMG! I just got my order in for the 3950X and at retail. Amazon is taking orders! Get one quick boys.


----------



## Krisztias

Snoopy69 said:


> Help!!!
> 
> First site...
> 
> Doesnt work for me, but why?
> PC shut down, power on, shut down, power on...





dlbsyst said:


> I too have problems with my PC becoming slightly unstable when I disable spread spectrum. I just leave it enabled. Trust me it's no big deal to keep it enabled. I do disable the VRM spread spectrum for my RAM though. It's found under Extreme Tweaker.


Because the OC Tuner must be set to Manual and BCLK to 100.


----------



## dlbsyst

Krisztias said:


> Because the OC Tuner must be set to Manual and BCLK to 100.


Thanks for the tip Krisztias.:thumb: I'll give that a shot.


----------



## criznit

Glad I stopped ccx overclocking

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ejgc6p/1325v_is_not_safe_for_zen_2/


----------



## marcelo19941

Guys do you know if i need to do a bios update on de C8 Impact to run a 3950x?


----------



## dlbsyst

marcelo19941 said:


> Guys do you know if i need to do a bios update on de C8 Impact to run a 3950x?


Probably best if you have the newest 1201 or at least the 1105 BIOS.


----------



## newls1

criznit said:


> Glad I stopped ccx overclocking
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ejgc6p/1325v_is_not_safe_for_zen_2/


which is why i stopped chasing Linpack/AIDA64/Cinebench stable BS cause i needed 1.4v+ with my OC. Im 100% games stable and 24/7 stable using my pc doing ALL MY DAILY tasks with 4.6ghz CCD0 and 4.350GHz CCD1 @ 1.375v and temps are just perfect. Being games/daily work stable means no where near hi amperage/wattage loads, so processor should last just as long as a normally PBO enabled cpu.


----------



## dlbsyst

criznit said:


> Glad I stopped ccx overclocking
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ejgc6p/1325v_is_not_safe_for_zen_2/


Yeah, me too. I did try plugging neurotix CCX overclock settings in and tried it for maybe 20 minutes. My Cinebench multi core scores went up about 400 points but my single core dropped some. I did some other tests and decided it just wasn't worth it. Also my CPU was running a tad hotter. I just don't think it's logical to run one's CPU full speed all the time especially when it's idle. No offense to those who enjoy doing this though.


----------



## dlbsyst

newls1 said:


> which is why i stopped chasing Linpack/AIDA64/Cinebench stable BS cause i needed 1.4v+ with my OC. Im 100% games stable and 24/7 stable using my pc doing ALL MY DAILY tasks with 4.6ghz CCD0 and 4.350GHz CCD1 @ 1.375v and temps are just perfect. Being games/daily work stable means no where near hi amperage/wattage loads, so processor should last just as long as a normally PBO enabled cpu.


Did you read that post newls1? It is suggesting that running a mere 1.325v is enough to degrade our CPU over time. 

In that post it explains how to find one's maximum safe 24/7 CPU voltage.


----------



## newls1

newls1 said:


> which is why i stopped chasing Linpack/AIDA64/Cinebench stable BS cause i needed 1.4v+ with my OC. Im 100% games stable and 24/7 stable using my pc doing ALL MY DAILY tasks with 4.6ghz CCD0 and 4.350GHz CCD1 @ 1.375v and temps are just perfect. Being games/daily work stable means no where near hi amperage/wattage loads, so processor should last just as long as a normally PBO enabled cpu.


Correction... 1.365v


----------



## benbenkr

So having some issues with voltages here.

At the moment I'm going to settle with an all-cores OC of 4.25ghz and this was easily done with Ryzen Master in Windows with a peak voltage of 1.3v. My ambient temps are pretty high at the moment as I live in south-east Asia, which is currently going through a heat wave (38-40c daily with next to no wind). So with 4.25ghz @ 1.3v, I'm getting fairly decent temps with the 3900x @ 65c that is cooled with a Noctua D15s.

Now when I try to put these voltage settings in the BIOS so that I can just make it permanent instead of opening RM everytime in Windows to enable it, my temps shoot up to 80c. Upon verifying, it seems that the TDC and EDC are being exceeded way too much with the BIOS settings. So my question is, just where are the settings for the TDC and EDC settings are in the BIOS (my version is 1001)?

And no, I'm not settling for PB+Auto OC+auto all settings because that's spiking my temps up to 79c even while just browsing webpages.


----------



## FeelKun

Just got my ch8, 3900x, Ballistix Sport LT 32GB (micron e). Just waiting on my case, aio, and thermal paste. I'm totally lost when it comes to getting the most out of an amd build besides overclocking the memory. I've read so many mixed answers on pbo, auto oc, ccx. Can anyone give me tips or point me in the right direction? 

reading through this entire thread atm.


----------



## bazskating

Hey guys, I’m looking to buy a X570 formula with a 3900x but I’m really struggling to find a ram kit.

I’ve got many Corsair peripherals so have been trying to look at the Corsair ram kits 

I’m after 32gb but have no idea if I should get 2 stick or 4 sticks 

Can anyone share any insight with this please


----------



## knightriot

bazskating said:


> Hey guys, I’m looking to buy a X570 formula with a 3900x but I’m really struggling to find a ram kit.
> 
> I’ve got many Corsair peripherals so have been trying to look at the Corsair ram kits
> 
> I’m after 32gb but have no idea if I should get 2 stick or 4 sticks
> 
> Can anyone share any insight with this please


don't buy it bro , my corsair dominator 4x16gb don't boot with C8F all way , 2 sticks work finew


----------



## newls1

knightriot said:


> don't buy it bro , my corsair dominator 4x16gb don't boot with C8F all way , 2 sticks work finew


using 4x16gb sticks of CL16 gskill NEO's @ 3740mhz. Cheap but great ram using DJR IC's.. CH8 enjoys them


----------



## zsoltmol

4x8GB single rank Gskill Trident Z RGB Samsung B-die [email protected] running at 3733MHz with 3900X.

https://www.gskill.com/product/165/...GBDDR4-3600MHz-CL16-16-16-36-1.35V32GB-(4x8GB)


----------



## neurotix

https://hwbot.org/user/neurotix/

Buncha hot sawce there. :thumb:

Made a lot of submissions- all the benches will be listed if you scroll down.

Also, this thread (and reddit to a degree) is a lot of the blind leading the blind when it comes to voltage and what is max safe voltage- if mere volts killed chips, or even frequency, then liquid nitrogen overclocking wouldn't work. It's all about temperature. You should see how much volts guys like Splave give chips on nitrogen to get them to 7000mhz+... on 14nm it can be well above 1.8v. And the chips often get used over and over and function fine... 

If you aren't hitting tjMAX or tJUNCTION (look it up) on either the socket or the chip you can use as much voltage as you want. I ran 1.62v through a 5GHz FX-8350 for over a year. Lapped it too. It still functions perfectly normally. It also had Linpack and AVX IntelBurnTest run on it all the time. 1.55v was AMDs recommended max and if you go read back through the Vishera club you will see this parroted all over the place. It was cooled sufficiently and thats why it didn't die.Chip was retired long ago and is my moms office machine at stock now- works great... Stilt was probably trying to kill the chip on purpose, I saw the original reddit + twitter post, he ran 1.325v on THE STOCK COOLER LOLZ at 43x I believe, and said it was thermal throttling at 95c, so he ran Prime AVX for over 24 hours on it. If you're not an idiot or a n00b and aren't still on the Wraith cooler... and make dumb excuses about why you want to use it (its not meant for overclocking....) because you're too stupid to figure out how to use a mounting bracket for a tower heatsink or AIO... yeah

newls1 use as much voltage as you need- you already know all this- your cooling's up to the task. (My manual CCX OC @ 1.38v was topping out at 67c load on an AIO with my side panels and filters off recently- at 4475/4500/4200/4200):


----------



## Synoxia

How much vddsoc do you use for 4 dimms 3800? What LLC settin is safe?


----------



## Dawidowski

So guys, I might need help with my memories and timings. Back again :/

I have a random issues with games where the games just suddenly crash or shut down. 
And I'm fairly sure its something with the bios settings or my timings. 

Problem is, I get no errors. Nothing in event viewer... the game just closes by it self. 
Witcher 3, Dota2 and Pugb lately. Have all done the same.

Windows runs smooth. Aida 64 reports errors after 10-15 min when reaching higher temps of 48c+ on my rams. FlareX 3200mhz cl14 - Dramcalculator adjusted to 3600mh cl14
Asus Q post code says AA or 40 all the time. 
CPU temps are great, around 50-60 while gaming. Stress testing I hit 70-75c.

Any ideas what I should try first?


----------



## neurotix

*Reply*



Synoxia said:


> How much vddsoc do you use for 4 dimms 3800? What LLC settin is safe?


I'd use 1.1000v VDD_SOC.

LLC 2 is the same as Auto, CPU LLC = 3 will prevent vdroop, but this may not be recommended for high overclocks and high voltage if you plan to do heavy all-thread loads. (Encoding, certain benchmarks, etc.) Contrary to popular belief, vdroop is good. Even with manual CCX OC and 1.375v, with CPU LLC Auto, my volts are around 1.34v-1.355v idle @ 4.4GHz, 4.2GHz as per my sig rig, on the Ryzen High Performance Power Plan. Under a heavy multithreaded load (Cinebench), both CPU-Z and HWINFO64 show my chip getting about 1.28-1.3v on all cores. Gaming, the first Core Complex Die (CCD0) gets around 1.37v, but only on 4-6 threads depending on game. This helps reduce heat. If you put CPU LLC to 3, you can eliminate or lessen the droop, but at the cost of higher temperatures. If you have a really crappy clocking chip you are pushing hard, it may be beneficial if you are crashing under all-thread loads to adjust it. The rest of the time, the board is pretty good on Auto. (I idle around 26c-27c and in Cinebench hit 67c all core with peaks to 72c or so at 19c ambient. PK3 Nano Aluminum, G.skill memory cooler, and a 140mm fan behind the socket blowing on the back of the DRAM slot solder joints, socket, MOSFETs, chokes etc. REALLY helps.... :thumb: )

NEVER use LLC on the SoC, leave it on Auto. Don't exceed 1.125v on it either. You might need that much for 4 DIMMs, but it depends on what processor you have. (I don't know because you don't have your components in your signature or a rig from rigbuilder, like most new users here....)

LLC on our board under load dropping like that (to under 1.325v) is another part of the reason I'm unconcerned about voltages, as well as my awesome thermals. :thumb: Power consumption doesn't bother me either, most people here have never heard of a Kill-a-Watt Meter I guess *shrug* Power consumption wasn't affected by letting the board overclock itself, or having a Manual CCX Ratio overclock, as the chip is only going to pull current under load. Meaning the wattage and amperage draw was comparable during the two when it's just sitting with the monitor off and Ryzen Balanced Power Plan on. Because there's nothing running to pull amps. *shrug*





Dawidowski said:


> So guys, I might need help with my memories and timings. Back again :/
> 
> I have a random issues with games where the games just suddenly crash or shut down.
> And I'm fairly sure its something with the bios settings or my timings.
> 
> Problem is, I get no errors. Nothing in event viewer... the game just closes by it self.
> Witcher 3, Dota2 and Pugb lately. Have all done the same.
> 
> Windows runs smooth. Aida 64 reports errors after 10-15 min when reaching higher temps of 48c+ on my rams. FlareX 3200mhz cl14 - Dramcalculator adjusted to 3600mh cl14
> Asus Q post code says AA or 40 all the time.
> CPU temps are great, around 50-60 while gaming. Stress testing I hit 70-75c.
> 
> Any ideas what I should try first?



I am no longer going to be helping anyone figure out their memory overclocks anymore on Ryzen, sorry. :sleepsmil


----------



## newls1

neurotix said:


> https://hwbot.org/user/neurotix/
> 
> Buncha hot sawce there. :thumb:
> 
> Made a lot of submissions- all the benches will be listed if you scroll down.
> 
> Also, this thread (and reddit to a degree) is a lot of the blind leading the blind when it comes to voltage and what is max safe voltage- if mere volts killed chips, or even frequency, then liquid nitrogen overclocking wouldn't work. It's all about temperature. You should see how much volts guys like Splave give chips on nitrogen to get them to 7000mhz+... on 14nm it can be well above 1.8v. And the chips often get used over and over and function fine...
> 
> If you aren't hitting tjMAX or tJUNCTION (look it up) on either the socket or the chip you can use as much voltage as you want. I ran 1.62v through a 5GHz FX-8350 for over a year. Lapped it too. It still functions perfectly normally. It also had Linpack and AVX IntelBurnTest run on it all the time. 1.55v was AMDs recommended max and if you go read back through the Vishera club you will see this parroted all over the place. It was cooled sufficiently and thats why it didn't die.Chip was retired long ago and is my moms office machine at stock now- works great... Stilt was probably trying to kill the chip on purpose, I saw the original reddit + twitter post, he ran 1.325v on THE STOCK COOLER LOLZ at 43x I believe, and said it was thermal throttling at 95c, so he ran Prime AVX for over 24 hours on it. If you're not an idiot or a n00b and aren't still on the Wraith cooler... and make dumb excuses about why you want to use it (its not meant for overclocking....) because you're too stupid to figure out how to use a mounting bracket for a tower heatsink or AIO... yeah
> 
> newls1 use as much voltage as you need- you already know all this- your cooling's up to the task. (My manual CCX OC @ 1.38v was topping out at 67c load on an AIO with my side panels and filters off recently- at 4475/4500/4200/4200):
> 
> View attachment 316798


10-4 captain. So far ive been good with 1.344v @ nearly 4.6ghz (ccd0 4.580GHz) obviously not able to complete CB20 or IBT, but i gamed ALL DAY and night yesterday with every single game and had ZERO issues... so for me, thats is a go for me. I dont "PLAY" benchmarks, but i play games and since they are good to go, so am i. To stabilze this OC would require 1.42v+ and no way in hell I can cool that plus the amperage that would flow into CPU would kill it in no time (Assuming).....


----------



## neurotix

newls1 said:


> 10-4 captain. So far ive been good with 1.344v @ nearly 4.6ghz (ccd0 4.580GHz) obviously not able to complete CB20 or IBT, but i gamed ALL DAY and night yesterday with every single game and had ZERO issues... so for me, thats is a go for me. I dont "PLAY" benchmarks, but i play games and since they are good to go, so am i. To stabilze this OC would require 1.42v+ and no way in hell I can cool that plus the amperage that would flow into CPU would kill it in no time (Assuming).....



I would advise you... because I "play" benchmarks as you say, ahem...(Seems like I'm quitting doing that now for the foreseeable future but that's irrelevant)... and I have for a long time, when Cinebench R11.5 was the one used.. Anyway, I would advise you based on my experience that if you cannot run Cinebench to completion successfully, that your system is not stable, and could possibly overheat while gaming, or at least depending on the games going into the future, you could run into issues with crashing randomly/BSOD. 

IBT generally uses AVX and it is basically Linpack, which is a very very highly demanding performance metric for supercomputers. I would not advise anyone run this ever, anymore. Cinebench is nowhere near as demanding and neither is Prime95. Really nothing you are doing is going to ever place that kind of demand on your system, that IBT does.

I would, however, tell you to back down your voltage and OC slightly to be able to run Cinebench R20, with HWINFO64 open, and note the voltage (vCORE on each CPU) as the chip goes under full load, even at 1.344v (or slightly higher, such as 1.36). You should probably see it is well below 1.3v on every core, look at the "Average" column. If it is not, you should consider tuning VRM settings and setting CPU LLC to Level 1, Level 2 or Auto and monitor the result. Voltage droop is desirable.

https://www.amazon.com/G-SKILL-Turbulence-Memory-Cooler-22DBA/dp/B00O5C6O2M/

I'd highly suggest getting one of those. I have mine clipped on but angled slightly so it isn't blowing directly down on the DIMMs, totally parallel to the motherboard. It's angled so as to blow across the DIMMs and socket. I also have that big 140mm fan behind the socket. Adding these two things dropped my load temps from mid 80s to low 70s, sometimes even under 70c. Despite having such high-end watercooling kit, unfortunately at ambient, these chips have such high thermal density that it takes additional measures to dissipate/remove the heat from them. Under an all-thread load at 4.4GHz+ and 1.3v+ the heat saturation on the dies themself is essentially too much for any ambient cooling to keep up with, even custom water. However, that RAM cooler and the fan behind the motherboard backplate/socket help because they cool the VRMs and socket area.

I think if you get creative you can probably find ways to push it further and increase voltage. (What thermal compound are you using?) Granted, the gains in FPS will be extremely marginal as adding 25 or even 50 MHz when you are already clocked that high will translate to probably margin of error level FPS gains while adding significantly more heat. The tradeoff is probably not worth it... but you seem to want to take it further.


----------



## newls1

neurotix said:


> I would advise you... because I "play" benchmarks as you say, ahem...(Seems like I'm quitting doing that now for the foreseeable future but that's irrelevant)... and I have for a long time, when Cinebench R11.5 was the one used.. Anyway, I would advise you based on my experience that if you cannot run Cinebench to completion successfully, that your system is not stable, and could possibly overheat while gaming, or at least depending on the games going into the future, you could run into issues with crashing randomly/BSOD.
> 
> IBT generally uses AVX and it is basically Linpack, which is a very very highly demanding performance metric for supercomputers. I would not advise anyone run this ever, anymore. Cinebench is nowhere near as demanding and neither is Prime95. Really nothing you are doing is going to ever place that kind of demand on your system, that IBT does.
> 
> I would, however, tell you to back down your voltage and OC slightly to be able to run Cinebench R20, with HWINFO64 open, and note the voltage (vCORE on each CPU) as the chip goes under full load, even at 1.344v (or slightly higher, such as 1.36). You should probably see it is well below 1.3v on every core, look at the "Average" column. If it is not, you should consider tuning VRM settings and setting CPU LLC to Level 1, Level 2 or Auto and monitor the result. Voltage droop is desirable.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/G-SKILL-Turbulence-Memory-Cooler-22DBA/dp/B00O5C6O2M/
> 
> I'd highly suggest getting one of those. I have mine clipped on but angled slightly so it isn't blowing directly down on the DIMMs, totally parallel to the motherboard. It's angled so as to blow across the DIMMs and socket. I also have that big 140mm fan behind the socket. Adding these two things dropped my load temps from mid 80s to low 70s, sometimes even under 70c. Despite having such high-end watercooling kit, unfortunately at ambient, these chips have such high thermal density that it takes additional measures to dissipate/remove the heat from them. Under an all-thread load at 4.4GHz+ and 1.3v+ the heat saturation on the dies themself is essentially too much for any ambient cooling to keep up with, even custom water. However, that RAM cooler and the fan behind the motherboard backplate/socket help because they cool the VRMs and socket area.
> 
> I think if you get creative you can probably find ways to push it further and increase voltage. (What thermal compound are you using?) Granted, the gains in FPS will be extremely marginal as adding 25 or even 50 MHz when you are already clocked that high will translate to probably margin of error level FPS gains while adding significantly more heat. The tradeoff is probably not worth it... but you seem to want to take it further.


Cpu doesnt get over 54/55c while gaming (fc5 and borderlands 3) And i guess I never explained to you my case. I have a Core X9 and my 2 420mm rads are up top, and each rad has a push/pull setup, so I have 12 fans blowing directly down completely over the entire motherboard, so NOTHING EVER gets remotely warm, obviously including my 4 sticks of memory. i can show you a pic tomorrow if youd like when I get home from shift. 
Cinebench reboots the PC the absolute second I start it, but whats crazy is I can run IBT and nearly pass all 10 passes and temps hover near the 90c range. Something with CB20 that my pc hates. CB11.5 i can run for DAYS


----------



## Synoxia

neurotix said:


> I'd use 1.1000v VDD_SOC.
> 
> LLC 2 is the same as Auto, CPU LLC = 3 will prevent vdroop, but this may not be recommended for high overclocks and high voltage if you plan to do heavy all-thread loads. (Encoding, certain benchmarks, etc.) Contrary to popular belief, vdroop is good. Even with manual CCX OC and 1.375v, with CPU LLC Auto, my volts are around 1.34v-1.355v idle @ 4.4GHz, 4.2GHz as per my sig rig, on the Ryzen High Performance Power Plan. Under a heavy multithreaded load (Cinebench), both CPU-Z and HWINFO64 show my chip getting about 1.28-1.3v on all cores. Gaming, the first Core Complex Die (CCD0) gets around 1.37v, but only on 4-6 threads depending on game. This helps reduce heat. If you put CPU LLC to 3, you can eliminate or lessen the droop, but at the cost of higher temperatures. If you have a really crappy clocking chip you are pushing hard, it may be beneficial if you are crashing under all-thread loads to adjust it. The rest of the time, the board is pretty good on Auto. (I idle around 26c-27c and in Cinebench hit 67c all core with peaks to 72c or so at 19c ambient. PK3 Nano Aluminum, G.skill memory cooler, and a 140mm fan behind the socket blowing on the back of the DRAM slot solder joints, socket, MOSFETs, chokes etc. REALLY helps.... :thumb: )
> 
> NEVER use LLC on the SoC, leave it on Auto. Don't exceed 1.125v on it either. You might need that much for 4 DIMMs, but it depends on what processor you have. (I don't know because you don't have your components in your signature or a rig from rigbuilder, like most new users here....)
> 
> LLC on our board under load dropping like that (to under 1.325v) is another part of the reason I'm unconcerned about voltages, as well as my awesome thermals. :thumb: Power consumption doesn't bother me either, most people here have never heard of a Kill-a-Watt Meter I guess *shrug* Power consumption wasn't affected by letting the board overclock itself, or having a Manual CCX Ratio overclock, as the chip is only going to pull current under load. Meaning the wattage and amperage draw was comparable during the two when it's just sitting with the monitor off and Ryzen Balanced Power Plan on. Because there's nothing running to pull amps. *shrug*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am no longer going to be helping anyone figure out their memory overclocks anymore on Ryzen, sorry. :sleepsmil


Why LLC on vddsoc is unsafe tho? 1usmus recommends it at lv 2 and thats what i used to use.
I dont use any LLC on cpu as i only play with PBO (who found out how to fix EDC bug in 1.0.0.4b tho?)
I have my components in my signature, can't you see them? (Not joking, i can see them, 3700x c7h hero, 3200c14 gskill tridentz).
My ram get very hot (62c) because i refuse to hide that juicy RGB under a fan D:


----------



## neurotix

Synoxia said:


> Why LLC on vddsoc is unsafe tho? 1usmus recommends it at lv 2 and thats what i used to use.
> I dont use any LLC on cpu as i only play with PBO (who found out how to fix EDC bug in 1.0.0.4b tho?)
> I have my components in my signature, can't you see them? (Not joking, i can see them, 3700x c7h hero, 3200c14 gskill tridentz).
> My ram get very hot (62c) because i refuse to hide that juicy RGB under a fan D:



I already explained in a post very recently, LLC 2 = Auto. LLC 3 will give you no droop on the CPU/LLC but depending on clocks/voltages it might be bad under an all thread load. Higher LLC than that will raise voltage under load, which will add heat.

You want some droop, particularly under an all thread load. Mine goes from 1.34v to about 1.28v under Cinebench and many other tests at 4400MHz CCDO/4200MHz CCD1. You definitely want this to happen, it lowers temps drastically. In all the games I've tried, as well as every 3dmark and Unigine benchmark to ever exist going back to 3dmark 2001SE, my voltage is 1.35v or so and temps at 30c most of the time as my resolution is GPU limited- 2x 1080 ti FTW3 is grown man stuff :thumb: Some more recent games like SOTTR, I see spikes to 50c while loading and sometimes, 40c while playing. Setting higher voltage allows for higher OCs, but games only using 4-6 threads on the CPU at higher voltages means temps are low, I imagine its the same with a single CCD chip (= 3700X, R5 3600). Then again the Corsair H100i V2 has a very powerful pump and a great block. Too bad they don't make it anymore. The room is usually 18-20c ambient. I idle at 26c

I would suggest leaving LLC on both the CPU and SoC on Auto. If you have stability problems, raise vCore or SoC voltage. Can't help with memory, sorry


----------



## xutnubu

My RAM OC. Seems stable so far.

B-Die at 3733MHz 14-16-15-15-32 1T.

AIDA latency is 64.2 - 64.5

Voltages in BIOS:

VDIMM = 1.465v
VSOC = 1.112v
VDDG CCD = 0.99v
VDDG IOD = 0.99v
CLDO_VDDP = 950mv

I wonder if I can tight something a bit more to get more FPS? The heaviest use for my PC is gaming, so that's all I care about.

Sadly my kit doesn't have temp sensors so I don't know how hot they're running, but I have a 120mm on top of my case blowing air right above them.


----------



## neurotix

newls1 said:


> Cpu doesnt get over 54/55c while gaming (fc5 and borderlands 3) And i guess I never explained to you my case. I have a Core X9 and my 2 420mm rads are up top, and each rad has a push/pull setup, so I have 12 fans blowing directly down completely over the entire motherboard, so NOTHING EVER gets remotely warm, obviously including my 4 sticks of memory. i can show you a pic tomorrow if youd like when I get home from shift.
> Cinebench reboots the PC the absolute second I start it, but whats crazy is I can run IBT and nearly pass all 10 passes and temps hover near the 90c range. Something with CB20 that my pc hates. CB11.5 i can run for DAYS



Missed this sorry. Yes, I really want to see your boss watercooling kit. I could do that myself as Ive read a lot here, know the basic design idea and parts Id need (2 rads, some blocks, fittings, probably soft tubing to start, pump, res) and how to put it together. Problem is, I could never get my wife to agree to pay for it all on credit :thumb: (Was hard to get that monitor and everything else as is... particularly the Ti's...)To cool my system would be around $800. Just two EK FTW3 Nickel- Acetyl full cover blocks would be $320. Id do a 360 and a 240mm rad, probably Alphacool full coppers. I would definitely need a new case too.

Cinebench rebooting the pc... same thing? Did you still have the VRM duty cycle set to Extreme instead of T.Probe? While benching recently I had this happen too, even with it set to Extreme (and 450 Hz manual switching frequency, CPU Power Phase Control (PWM Phase) set to manual -> Ultra Fast, etc. I am guessing some sensor inside the CPU is detecting over temp, I got that message on reboot too. Perhaps it is the CPU drawing too many amps/too much wattage at your socket? You have quite an aggressive OC for that chip. I wouldn't worry about it, but I would suggest you no longer do IBT/Linpack if its hitting 90c. Dont sweat CBR20. Passing a good memory stability test like Karhu or Google GSAT (in a Linux VM), and running Realbench, as well as gaming, should be sufficient. I think I was doing hwbot x265 4K encoding bench when I had that CPU Over Temp reboot, at 4500 CCD0 and 4250 CCD1, 1.38650v or something like that, with a window open lol :devil:

I'm sure you are golden for gaming use- too bad you cant get a boss R20 score, you probably just need to lower clocks slightly to be able to pass, so as not to trip whatever CPU sensor is shutting off, you could try setting every single sensor under 'monitor' to ignore, it may just be wigging out under the start of that CB load once it fully loads all threads, as it pulls a lot of current initially before leveling out. I had this issue on my FX-8350 and my Phenom II 1090T at high voltage and clocks, on a C5F, running IBT. Once I set all the sensors to 'ignore' in Monitor, it fixed it and I could run IBT AVX on those chips. (I tried running IBT on the FX at 5.2GHz w/ 1.67v but it just bsod'ed and I didn't push voltage higher. Made it to OS though https://valid.x86.fr/zemyn2 )

Got a really nice pic of my rig yesterday, with my custom case badge an old buddy here sent me because I did his broke ass a big favor... a gamer shouldn't be using an HD 7850 in 2020...hes got a XFX RX 570 now


----------



## neurotix

xutnubu said:


> My RAM OC. Seems stable so far.
> 
> B-Die at 3733MHz 14-16-15-15-32 1T.
> 
> AIDA latency is 64.2 - 64.5
> 
> Voltages in BIOS:
> 
> VDIMM = 1.465v
> VSOC = 1.112v
> VDDG CCD = 0.99v
> VDDG IOD = 0.99v
> CLDO_VDDP = 950mv
> 
> I wonder if I can tight something a bit more to get more FPS? The heaviest use for my PC is gaming, so that's all I care about.
> 
> Sadly my kit doesn't have temp sensors so I don't know how hot they're running, but I have a 120mm on top of my case blowing air right above them.


Ugh, I said I wouldn't help with memory but this looks really great and pretty competent...you've done great so far. Post your AIDA?

Try 14-15-16-15-30-48 or 14-14-16-14-28-42 for super tight primaries. The second set may require more voltage. The first one is simply lowering tRC and tRAS. Often, you can lower tRCDWR (ras to cas delay- write) to a value equal to CAS, sometimes lower (for example, I did 16-10-16-16 no problem). But tightening tRC and tRAS gives the next biggest boost next to lowering CAS. Manipulating tRC and tRAS may not require any changes to vDIMM, but if has issues, give it a slight bump (press + twice, raise two notches.). Hell, you could even shoot for 14-15-16-15-30-45 if you want to be bold- you'll get nice performance if your kit likes it. tRC = tRP + tRAS :thumb:

If you lower tRCDWR, lower tCWL to match. Additionally, you can tighten FAW to 16, tRFC to 288, or failing that, try those newer timings (lowered tRC and tRAS, possibly tRCDWR) while working on lowering secondaries a notch at a time (probably want to leave the Read ones alone- tRRDS, tRDRD_SCL, tRDRD_SC, SD and DD... work on write stuff instead)

https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4 OC Guide.md#tightening-timings

https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/ahs5a2/demystifying_memory_overclocking_on_ryzen_oc/

Great stuff at both those links, if you are not averse to reading.

Hope this helps you.


----------



## Giustaf

*MY first overclock with 3900X*

Hello guys,
for best performance in game you suggest overclocking 3900x or keep it at default?

If overclock cpu doesn't give more fps, I would try to overclock my Bdie Ram (F4-3200C14D-16GVR) to 3600 or 3800Mhz.
I think to use Thaiphoon Burner and Ram Calculator to know which timings put in bios configuration and then try the stability with TestMem and Memtest HCI

What other settings/voltage should I change?

i know:
VDIMM 
VSOC
VDDG CCD 
VDDG IOD 
CLDO_VDDP
Geardown Mode = Disabled

Ram Calculator suggests some values like vdimm e vSoc, can I try with these values?

Any suggestions are welcome


----------



## Synoxia

neurotix said:


> I already explained in a post very recently, LLC 2 = Auto. LLC 3 will give you no droop on the CPU/LLC but depending on clocks/voltages it might be bad under an all thread load. Higher LLC than that will raise voltage under load, which will add heat.
> 
> You want some droop, particularly under an all thread load. Mine goes from 1.34v to about 1.28v under Cinebench and many other tests at 4400MHz CCDO/4200MHz CCD1. You definitely want this to happen, it lowers temps drastically. In all the games I've tried, as well as every 3dmark and Unigine benchmark to ever exist going back to 3dmark 2001SE, my voltage is 1.35v or so and temps at 30c most of the time as my resolution is GPU limited- 2x 1080 ti FTW3 is grown man stuff :thumb: Some more recent games like SOTTR, I see spikes to 50c while loading and sometimes, 40c while playing. Setting higher voltage allows for higher OCs, but games only using 4-6 threads on the CPU at higher voltages means temps are low, I imagine its the same with a single CCD chip (= 3700X, R5 3600). Then again the Corsair H100i V2 has a very powerful pump and a great block. Too bad they don't make it anymore. The room is usually 18-20c ambient. I idle at 26c
> 
> I would suggest leaving LLC on both the CPU and SoC on Auto. If you have stability problems, raise vCore or SoC voltage. Can't help with memory, sorry


Yes i know you don't help with memory. 
What i am trying to figure out is if it's actually the memory or something else. I'm pointed towards infinity fabric.
My test methodology is AC odyssey at 4k 200% resolution scale + HCI memtest overnight. 3000% = pass and rock solid, else it's not.
I've brought VDDG to 0.995, note that with HCI alone i am able to pass tests of 3000%+ with 1926 infinity fabric (bclk oc)
And VDDSOC to 1.10. Sometimes it gives me a random reboot overnight, sometimes it's not.
My GPU is a 2080 super and it's not overheating, rams shouldn't be rebooting, right? 
Just throw errors... they shouldn't be unstable at all, 1.45v with 3800c16 fast preset of iusmus on 3200c14 gskill. I am 99% sure it's not memory related, what do you think?
On 0002 of c7h with 1.10 vddsoc i was stable and asus bios reported 1.09v, on 3004 however it reports 1.08 when set to 1100... could be this?

P.S note that this is 4 dimms.
@xutnubu you get the same or lower latency than my 3700x with 1900/3800 1:1 oc... what cpu are you using?


----------



## newls1

maybe im missing it, but is there an option in our bios to enable chipset fan to come on or off? not liking this 50c (on average) temps on chipset, and i have not once yet, seen this fan turn on... Do we have a way to enable this bastard?


----------



## Erland82

*[email protected]*

Anyone else have "Cpu overheat reboot" with the 3950x? 
(@4300 vcore 1,29 llc3) 
4x G.Skill TridentZ DDR4 3600MHz CL15 at (@3733 14-15-14-28)
Soc at 1,12v
I have a customloop with D5, EK 480 rad and a EK Monoblock.
Aida runs at 74c-76c (ryzen master)
R15 and R20 runs at 69c-70c (ryzen master)

I run P95 smallest FFTs, instant reeboot and Cpu overheat error.

Bios versjon 1201


----------



## xutnubu

neurotix said:


> Ugh, I said I wouldn't help with memory but this looks really great and pretty competent...you've done great so far. Post your AIDA?
> 
> Try 14-15-16-15-30-48 or 14-14-16-14-28-42 for super tight primaries. The second set may require more voltage. The first one is simply lowering tRC and tRAS. Often, you can lower tRCDWR (ras to cas delay- write) to a value equal to CAS, sometimes lower (for example, I did 16-10-16-16 no problem). But tightening tRC and tRAS gives the next biggest boost next to lowering CAS. Manipulating tRC and tRAS may not require any changes to vDIMM, but if has issues, give it a slight bump (press + twice, raise two notches.). Hell, you could even shoot for 14-15-16-15-30-45 if you want to be bold- you'll get nice performance if your kit likes it. tRC = tRP + tRAS :thumb:
> 
> If you lower tRCDWR, lower tCWL to match. Additionally, you can tighten FAW to 16, tRFC to 288, or failing that, try those newer timings (lowered tRC and tRAS, possibly tRCDWR) while working on lowering secondaries a notch at a time (probably want to leave the Read ones alone- tRRDS, tRDRD_SCL, tRDRD_SC, SD and DD... work on write stuff instead)
> 
> https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4 OC Guide.md#tightening-timings
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/ahs5a2/demystifying_memory_overclocking_on_ryzen_oc/
> 
> Great stuff at both those links, if you are not averse to reading.
> 
> Hope this helps you.


Thank you, those are really comprehensive guides and a lot of limits and correlations to have in mind.

I'm gonna aim for 14-14-16-14-28-42 and report later. But I already know I can't get tRFC much lower than 294, I get white screens in the OS and I have to reboot.

Here's my AIDA for the settings on my other post:


----------



## Cutbait

Greeting friends

Recent build here with the Crosshair VIII Hero and a 3950x, completed Dec 24. Running great with 32GB (2 x 16GB) G.SKILL TridentZ. Very happy with the performance of the board and CPU and Ram.
Benchmarks have been great and system has been very stable with everything I've thrown at it.

But I do have a problem that has me puzzled, I am not an expert builder so my troubleshooting skills are a bit lacking.
But occasionally on a cold boot 4 cores on my 3950x are basically shut down, showing 566MHz, with another core showing 1896MHz in HWMonitor. Confirmed through Cinebench R20 score drop in the 7000 range.
It has done this on stock bios (1201) on optimized defaults once at least. And a few more times since I've updated my memory profile. No OC yet on CPU, auto voltage other than memory and fabric stuff.

But I just reboot and the system will return to normal. Extremely stable and fast, stock settings will get 9400 Cinebench scores. System will handle any extensive task I throw at it.
Karhu Ram test stable, 7 hour + run.

I have included one screen shoot with the system borked. and another after reboot running flawless

Any input on the 4 dead cores on cold boot would be greatly appreciated

Thank you so much


----------



## newls1

newls1 said:


> maybe im missing it, but is there an option in our bios to enable chipset fan to come on or off? not liking this 50c (on average) temps on chipset, and i have not once yet, seen this fan turn on... Do we have a way to enable this bastard?


????


----------



## Synoxia

Dawidowski said:


> So guys, I might need help with my memories and timings. Back again :/
> 
> I have a random issues with games where the games just suddenly crash or shut down.
> And I'm fairly sure its something with the bios settings or my timings.
> 
> Problem is, I get no errors. Nothing in event viewer... the game just closes by it self.
> Witcher 3, Dota2 and Pugb lately. Have all done the same.
> 
> Windows runs smooth. Aida 64 reports errors after 10-15 min when reaching higher temps of 48c+ on my rams. FlareX 3200mhz cl14 - Dramcalculator adjusted to 3600mh cl14
> Asus Q post code says AA or 40 all the time.
> CPU temps are great, around 50-60 while gaming. Stress testing I hit 70-75c.
> 
> Any ideas what I should try first?


Seems like i have the same issue. 3000% HCI and all if i stresstest alone, but AC odyssey + HCI memtest causes random reboots for me. I don't know how this is even remotely possible.


----------



## dlbsyst

newls1 said:


> ????


Mine runs all the time and there is no way to disable it in the BIOS. Your 50C temp is really good and that is with the fan not running? My temp sits at 60C with the fan.lol


----------



## dlbsyst

Cutbait said:


> Greeting friends
> 
> Recent build here with the Crosshair VIII Hero and a 3950x, completed Dec 24. Running great with 32GB (2 x 16GB) G.SKILL TridentZ. Very happy with the performance of the board and CPU and Ram.
> Benchmarks have been great and system has been very stable with everything I've thrown at it.
> 
> But I do have a problem that has me puzzled, I am not an expert builder so my troubleshooting skills are a bit lacking.
> But occasionally on a cold boot 4 cores on my 3950x are basically shut down, showing 566MHz, with another core showing 1896MHz in HWMonitor. Confirmed through Cinebench R20 score drop in the 7000 range.
> It has done this on stock bios (1201) on optimized defaults once at least. And a few more times since I've updated my memory profile. No OC yet on CPU, auto voltage other than memory and fabric stuff.
> 
> But I just reboot and the system will return to normal. Extremely stable and fast, stock settings will get 9400 Cinebench scores. System will handle any extensive task I throw at it.
> Karhu Ram test stable, 7 hour + run.
> 
> I have included one screen shoot with the system borked. and another after reboot running flawless
> 
> Any input on the 4 dead cores on cold boot would be greatly appreciated
> 
> Thank you so much


That's a really nice system you have put together. I have just purchased a 3950x to replace my current 3900x but I haven't installed it yet. It's going in today. I also just purchased the exact RAM that you have but it wont be arriving until early next week. It's nice to see what kind of performance I can expect to get from it.

I'm not really sure what could be causing 4 of your cores to behave that way on occasion other than a defective CPU. Or maybe some kind of bug in the current BIOS.

I'll certainly report back if I also have this issue when I get my CPU installed later today.


----------



## newls1

dlbsyst said:


> Mine runs all the time and there is no way to disable it in the BIOS. Your 50C temp is really good and that is with the fan not running? My temp sits at 60C with the fan.lol


correct, this fan hasent spun up 1 single time for me, i am stairing at it now and its just sitting there.....


----------



## dlbsyst

newls1 said:


> correct, this fan hasent spun up 1 single time for me, i am stairing at it now and its just sitting there.....


Sounds like two possibilities. Either your fan is defective or your temp simply isn't getting high enough to cause it to kick on. I vote the latter.


----------



## newls1

have you seen an option in bios to force on or anything similiar?


----------



## dlbsyst

newls1 said:


> have you seen an option in bios to force on or anything similiar?


Not that I have found. I think Asus have set it in the BIOS to only kick on when the temp reaches a certain threshold. Maybe they'll add that in a future update.

Edit. Looks like that feature was added in the 0803 BIOS.

Version 0803 
2019/08/0214.76 MBytes
ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO (WI-FI) BIOS 0803
1.Updated AM4 combo PI 1.0.0.3 patch ABB
2.*Optimized the chipset fan profile. The new profile allows the chipset fan to stop during idle or when temperature is low.*
3.Supports Ubuntu 19.04 and other Linux distros


----------



## newls1

dlbsyst said:


> Not that I have found. I think Asus have set it in the BIOS to only kick on when the temp reaches a certain threshold. Maybe they'll add that in a future update.
> 
> Edit. Looks like that feature was added in the 0803 BIOS.
> 
> Version 0803
> 2019/08/0214.76 MBytes
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO (WI-FI) BIOS 0803
> 1.Updated AM4 combo PI 1.0.0.3 patch ABB
> 2.*Optimized the chipset fan profile. The new profile allows the chipset fan to stop during idle or when temperature is low.*
> 3.Supports Ubuntu 19.04 and other Linux distros


yeah i saw that, but i guess no physical way to actually "Force" it on... Thanks for looking tho


----------



## dlbsyst

newls1 said:


> yeah i saw that, but i guess no physical way to actually "Force" it on... Thanks for looking tho


You're welcome.


----------



## mahaudi

My new Ryzen 3950x Setup

4400 Mhz Custom Prime95 RUN with 1.288v.

1900 Fabric 1:1 3800 Mhz with strong Ramsettings


----------



## newls1

mahaudi said:


> My new Ryzen 3950x Setup
> 
> 4400 Mhz Custom Prime95 RUN with 1.288v.
> 
> 1900 Fabric 1:1 3800 Mhz with strong Ramsettings


awesome cpu you have sir, hats off to you


----------



## dlbsyst

Just got my 3950x installed. Right now I'm just running stock with PBO enabled. I'm pretty happy with the performance.


----------



## xutnubu

@neurotix

My improved settings. Tightened primaries, tRAS, tRC, tFAW and a couple more.

Thing is, while bandwidth is a bit higher, the latency is actually worse. Like 0.5ns higher on average. The AIDA result here is one of the better ones I got.


----------



## Cutbait

dlbsyst said:


> That's a really nice system you have put together. I have just purchased a 3950x to replace my current 3900x but I haven't installed it yet. It's going in today. I also just purchased the exact RAM that you have but it wont be arriving until early next week. It's nice to see what kind of performance I can expect to get from it.
> 
> I'm not really sure what could be causing 4 of your cores to behave that way on occasion other than a defective CPU. Or maybe some kind of bug in the current BIOS.
> 
> I'll certainly report back if I also have this issue when I get my CPU installed later today.




I just saw your post that you have your system up and running. Nice Cinebench score with PBO! I am sure you will be impressed with the performance, enjoy dailing it in my friend.
Using the DRAM Calculator for Ryzen worked well for me getting the RAM at 3733, the 3800 settings did not boot. But I did not want more than 1.36 going to the sticks anyway so I did not put much effort into dialing in 3800 . Might be the chip holding me back, you may have better luck.
3733 runs well for me at a decent voltage number so I am good there. 



But thank you for your input on my issues. I will try a previous bios this weekend and see how that goes. System booted up fine today and running strong.
I just can't find much info on occasional idle cores on cold boot. I will research more as time permits. Other than that hoping someone smarter than me might chime in 

So yea just bumping the question on occasional idle cores on cold boot. Reboot and all is good, 3950x


----------



## neurotix

xutnubu said:


> @neurotix
> 
> My improved settings. Tightened primaries, tRAS, tRC, tFAW and a couple more.
> 
> Thing is, while bandwidth is a bit higher, the latency is actually worse. Like 0.5ns higher on average. The AIDA result here is one of the better ones I got.


Nice. Don't worry about the latency. Latency is going to vary greatly depending on CPU clock rate (a manual 4500MHz will give you lower latency, latency is tied to clock rate, and if you use PBO it will vary). Protip: Power Plan can give lower latency, Ryzen Balanced seems to give better results consistently over Ryzen HP. You can use 1usmus or you can use that Power Plan Tool to change a specific value and decrease latency (don't have the tool or remember the name of the setting offhand, on my phone, sorry... lemme know if you want these but feed the rep monster- I'll dig it up tomorrow if you do). Also protip: you can decrease latency by as much as 1.5 ns or so simply by booting with literally nothing attached to your machine besides power, monitor, keyboard and mouse. Unplug Ethernet (or turn off wifi and disable the adapter in Windows before rebooting), Speakers, usb devices, headphones, everything. This is because then the processor has less interrupts to service.:thumb: So yeah if latency can be altered so much by something like that, obviously the actual reading doesn't mean much. Shoot for bandwidth and if you are after fps, then test changes not in a flaky latency/memory test but in a CPU-limited graphics benchmark. Older ones work better, like Unigine Heaven at 1080p, 3dmark Vantage (check the CPU score- this one is also free), etc. Basically whatever ram settings give the most fps are the ones you want to use:









I did that at 4500 CCD0/4200 CCD1, RAM at 3800MHz c14 1T GDM off. Tweaked subtimings. A lot of services disabled in Win10. http://www.blackviper.com/service-configurations/black-vipers-windows-10-service-configurations/

In comparison, with memory at 4133MHz c16-18-18-18-36-55 and my GPUs at the same oc (2037/5940), I got 270 fps. Yet Aida bandwidth was higher. Using a cpu bound graphics test works well- depending on what primaries I ran, or subtimings, that fps was going as low as 274 despite the memory being 3800mhz the whole time! Aida is NOT a game 

Anyway-can you get, run and post Mem TweakIt from the bottom of the first post of this thread, in the links section? I might be able to suggest more if I could see every timing.

hope this helps

(Is your user name xubuntu misspelled, like the Linux distribution? lol)


----------



## dlbsyst

Cutbait said:


> I just saw your post that you have your system up and running. Nice Cinebench score with PBO! I am sure you will be impressed with the performance, enjoy dailing it in my friend.
> Using the DRAM Calculator for Ryzen worked well for me getting the RAM at 3733, the 3800 settings did not boot. But I did not want more than 1.36 going to the sticks anyway so I did not put much effort into dialing in 3800 . Might be the chip holding me back, you may have better luck.
> 3733 runs well for me at a decent voltage number so I am good there.
> 
> 
> 
> But thank you for your input on my issues. I will try a previous bios this weekend and see how that goes. System booted up fine today and running strong.
> I just can't find much info on occasional idle cores on cold boot. I will research more as time permits. Other than that hoping someone smarter than me might chime in
> 
> So yea just bumping the question on occasional idle cores on cold boot. Reboot and all is good, 3950x


Thanks. Yeah, when I ran that test my computer was totally unstable.lol I forgot a couple of settings in the BIOS for my RAM and Windows was blue screening like mad. All is good now though. Right now I'm still running my four 8 GB sticks of Flair-X at 3600 MHz with tight timings and GD disabled. I'm hoping to see even better performance when I install those two 16GB sticks of Trident Z Neo's that are arriving Monday.


----------



## dlbsyst

I just ran the Aida64 cache and memory benchmark because I wanted to compare my 3900x and 3950x speeds with the exact same RAM settings. The top score is the 3950x and bottom 3900x.


----------



## newls1

This might be a tad early, but i cant wait for ryzen 4000. Hoping the 4th gen version of the 16core will do 4.7+Speeds with atleast watercooling tam-able temps.


----------



## dlbsyst

newls1 said:


> *This might be a tad early*, but i cant wait for ryzen 4000. Hoping the 4th gen version of the 16core will do 4.7+Speeds with atleast watercooling tam-able temps.


I'll say. I haven't even broken in my 3950x and you're talking about Ryzen 3. Come on newls1.


----------



## newls1

dlbsyst said:


> I'll say. I haven't even broken in my 3950x and you're talking about Ryzen 3. Come on newls1.


ONE CAN DREAM!


----------



## benbenkr

mahaudi said:


> My new Ryzen 3950x Setup
> 
> 4400 Mhz Custom Prime95 RUN with 1.288v.
> 
> 1900 Fabric 1:1 3800 Mhz with strong Ramsettings


What cooler are you on?


----------



## neurotix

mahaudi said:


> My new Ryzen 3950x Setup
> 
> 4400 Mhz Custom Prime95 RUN with 1.288v.
> 
> 1900 Fabric 1:1 3800 Mhz with strong Ramsettings



NICE RAM Oc. I wish I had known about the Impact being so much better for memory overclocking before I got the Hero. Only 2 DIMM slots = no Daisy Chain or T Topology = extremely low latency and high bandwidth (despite that probably only giving a small boost to framerate, or no boost at resolutions greater than 1440p because GPU bound). Every person I've seen with the Impact that gets above 3600mhz on that board has sub 63ns latency  

Do you mind posting full timings from Ryzen Master or Mem TweakIt from the first post in this thread? I'm curious. Thanks



dlbsyst said:


> I just ran the Aida64 cache and memory benchmark because I wanted to compare my 3900x and 3950x speeds with the exact same RAM settings. The top score is the 3950x and bottom 3900x.


Looks great, nice timings.. did you have to raise tRP, tRCDRD, and tRCDWR to get POST/stability at 3600 cas 14? Was tRCDRD 16 mandatory? Asking because I need to test 3600 cas14 possibly being better for certain benchmarks. Ever since bios 1105, I can't do 3600 14-14-14-14 (no post, usually hangs on 22 or 18 post code), yet on earlier bios such as 0803, 0901, Shamino 0901 Beta 0017 or The_Stilt's modded memory OC 0901 it did 3600 14-14-14-14 totally fine and passed Google GSAT in a terminal

The L1 cache speed is higher because its a composite value of the L1 cache speed on all threads, and you have more threads now. Similarly, the L1 cache speed is much lower on the 3700x and especially r5 3600 simply because there are less cores/threads. Also, Write bandwidth is halved on the 3700X and lower. Maybe you knew all this though.


----------



## dlbsyst

neurotix said:


> NICE RAM Oc. I wish I had known about the Impact being so much better for memory overclocking before I got the Hero. Only 2 DIMM slots = no Daisy Chain or T Topology = extremely low latency and high bandwidth (despite that probably only giving a small boost to framerate, or no boost at resolutions greater than 1440p because GPU bound). Every person I've seen with the Impact that gets above 3600mhz on that board has sub 63ns latency
> 
> Do you mind posting full timings from Ryzen Master or Mem TweakIt from the first post in this thread? I'm curious. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> Looks great, nice timings.. *did you have to raise tRP, tRCDRD, and tRCDWR to get POST/stability at 3600 cas 14? Was tRCDRD 16 mandatory*? Asking because I need to test 3600 cas14 possibly being better for certain benchmarks. Ever since bios 1105, I can't do 3600 14-14-14-14 (no post, usually hangs on 22 or 18 post code), yet on earlier bios such as 0803, 0901, Shamino 0901 Beta 0017 or The_Stilt's modded memory OC 0901 it did 3600 14-14-14-14 totally fine and passed Google GSAT in a terminal
> 
> The L1 cache speed is higher because its a composite value of the L1 cache speed on all threads, and you have more threads now. Similarly, the L1 cache speed is much lower on the 3700x and especially r5 3600 simply because there are less cores/threads. Also, Write bandwidth is halved on the 3700X and lower. Maybe you knew all this though.


Thanks. These are the timings from the DRAM Calculator for my RAM at 3600 with 5 of the values raised to get 100% stability. tRCDRD did need to be raised from 15 to 16 in my case to keep from getting errors. Here's my exact timings.


----------



## neurotix

dlbsyst said:


> Thanks. These are the timings from the DRAM Calculator for my RAM at 3600 with 5 of the values raised to get 100% stability. tRCDRD did need to be raised from 15 to 16 in my case to keep from getting errors. Here's my exact timings.


Ty. This is helpful. My cache seemed to be faster at 3600. A shame I can't do 14-14-14-14 anymore.


----------



## Blameless

TMatzelle60 said:


> Sorry This RAM
> https://www.newegg.com/corsair-32gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820233853?Item=N82E16820233853
> 
> I am also curious will I run into any heating problems both CPU and VRM on the IO or even loud VRM Fans with the build below
> 
> Lian Li TU150 (Black)
> AMD Ryzen 7 3800X (Cooled With Noctua NH-U12A)
> Asus Crosshair VIII Impact
> Corsair Vengeance LPX 32GB DDR4-2666
> Asus 5700 XT Strix
> Corsair SF750
> 
> I will have a front fan and the CPU Cooler will have dual fans. Due to have 2 fans the back fan on the CPU Cooler is to close to the rear fan mount so I can't put another fan on back


That memory will almost certainly work, and XMP is likely to work without issue.

That said, I'd recommend something clocked higher out of the box if you want the best possible performance with minimal fuss. 1333MHz fclock is a bit on the low side.

Also, I have the same case, board, and cooler. I'd recommend leaving off the rear fan and installing it as the case's exhaust. With no top vents and only a single exhaust fan mount, better case ventilation trumps the small improvement to air flow through the CPU heatsink.


----------



## fr4nc3sco

sorry for my english I wanted to know if someone had managed to bring 4x8gb to 3600 or more as I am unable to start the pc cpu 3950x in case you could currently help me the bios and set it like this:
VDIMM = 1.35v
VSOC = 1.050v
VDDG CCD = 0.950v
VDDG IOD = 0.950v
CLDO_VDDP = 950mv
SB: 1.00v
PLL: 1.00v
VTT_DDR: 0.7400v
Geardown Mode on Disabled
ram as recommended by ryzen calculator


So doing I can't get boot with 4 modules attached only goes with 2 modules are there remedies? can you help me?

my ram is ripjaws v b-die f4-3200c14q-32gvr


----------



## dlbsyst

fr4nc3sco said:


> sorry for my english I wanted to know if someone had managed to bring 4x8gb to 3600 or more as I am unable to start the pc cpu 3950x in case you could currently help me the bios and set it like this:
> VDIMM = 1.35v
> VSOC = *1.1v*
> VDDG CCD = 0.950v
> VDDG IOD = 0.950v
> CLDO_VDDP = *900mv* *or Auto*
> SB: 1.00v
> PLL: *1.8v* *or Auto*
> VTT_DDR: *0.6750v*
> Geardown Mode on *Enabled*
> *Power Down Mode Enabled*
> ram as recommended by ryzen calculator
> 
> 
> So doing I can't get boot with 4 modules attached only goes with 2 modules are there remedies? can you help me?
> 
> my ram is ripjaws v b-die f4-3200c14q-32gvr


Your RAM should be able to easily run at those settings fr4nc3sco. It looks like those are the safe settings from the DRAM Calculator, correct? Looking at the values you posted it doesn't match what the calculator is showing. I have corrected those values in bold. Try changing to them and see if your computer will boot. One last thing. It doesn't look like you are using the DRAM Calculator correctly for your specific RAM kit. Neurotix set me straight on how to do this and I can help you later if you like. For now just try to see if you post with these settings.


----------



## fr4nc3sco

dlbsyst said:


> Your RAM should be able to easily run at those settings fr4nc3sco. It looks like those are the safe settings from the DRAM Calculator, correct? Looking at the values you posted it doesn't match what the calculator is showing. I have corrected those values in bold. Try changing to them and see if your computer will boot. One last thing. It doesn't look like you are using the DRAM Calculator correctly for your specific RAM kit. Neurotix set me straight on how to do this and I can help you later if you like. For now just try to see if you post with these settings.


if you have time I would also be very pleased to see if you could pull more timings would not be bad ... currently I attach bios configuration only difference is in the command rate now at 1T


----------



## Despotes

Is there a quick settings summary run down guide on the Hero VIII to start out with? I have yet to assembly this board with my 3900X and would like some tips or suggestions before I start. I noticed Jayztwocents lowered a lot of the voltages on settings I've never heard of. Haven't used AMD since my 1.2 Tbird. 
Should I update to latest BIOS before installing Win 10?


----------



## dlbsyst

fr4nc3sco said:


> if you have time I would also be very pleased to see if you could pull more timings would not be bad ... currently I attach bios configuration only difference is in the command rate now at 1T


Those BIOS screens don't show the changes I suggested. Did you change them and try and boot?


----------



## fr4nc3sco

dlbsyst said:


> Those BIOS screens don't show the changes I suggested. Did you change them and try and boot?



yes I upped part of the old bios yes with your voltages the mainboard enters windows and runs memtest without major problems


----------



## dlbsyst

fr4nc3sco said:


> yes I upped part of the old bios yes with your voltages the mainboard enters windows and runs memtest without major problems


Well, that's some progress.:thumb: How can I help? I can't give you exact timings because I don't have your RAM. I do own very similar RAM, 4x8 GB Flair-X B-Die's. Do you want me to give you the DRAM Calculator settings for my RAM that you can try?


----------



## fr4nc3sco

dlbsyst said:


> Well, that's some progress.:thumb: How can I help? I can't give you exact timings because I don't have your RAM. I do own very similar RAM, 4x8 GB Flair-X B-Die's. Do you want me to give you the DRAM Calculator settings for my RAM that you can try?


it is possible to use the 4 benches with car 14-14-14-32 xx ? or is it an option too pushed for 4 banks?


----------



## dlbsyst

Despotes said:


> Is there a quick settings summary run down guide on the Hero VIII to start out with? I have yet to assembly this board with my 3900X and would like some tips or suggestions before I start. I noticed Jayztwocents lowered a lot of the voltages on settings I've never heard of. Haven't used AMD since my 1.2 Tbird.
> Should I update to latest BIOS before installing Win 10?


Don't do what Jay did. The settings you use all depends on your hardware, well mostly RAM. I don't know of any guide per say. It's just trial and error and see what works. My first venture into Ryzen was the 1700X and Crosshair VI Hero. Most of what I learned was with that system. 

Yes, update to the latest BIOS before doing anything. Depending on what BIOS is on your board, you might not even boot with the 3900X. There's no easy settings guide that I know of. It's just going to be trial and error to find the best setting for your computer. If you want I can offer some setting to get you started after you get your computer built.


----------



## dlbsyst

fr4nc3sco said:


> it is possible to use the 4 benches with car 14-14-14-32 xx ? or is it an option too pushed for 4 banks?


No, you won't be able to run at those timings with 4 sticks at 3600MHz. You can if you want to run your RAM at 3200MHz or maybe 3333MHz. If you want your computer to be 100% stable the timings have to be set correctly.


----------



## fr4nc3sco

dlbsyst said:


> No, you won't be able to run at those timings with 4 sticks at 3600MHz. You can if you want to run your RAM at 3200MHz or maybe 3333MHz. If you want your computer to be 100% stable the timings have to be set correctly.


so this setting of ryzen calculator preset fast is not reliable?


----------



## dlbsyst

fr4nc3sco said:


> so this setting of ryzen calculator preset fast is not reliable?


You can try but I don't think you will be able to run at those setting with 4 sticks. I know my RAM won't be stable anyway. If not try my settings that I run. Make sure you set all the values plus change VTT DDR Voltage *0.7250* and Super I/O Clock Skew/Sense Mi Skew *Enabled*


----------



## fr4nc3sco

dlbsyst said:


> You can try but I don't think you will be able to run at those setting with 4 sticks. I know my RAM won't be stable anyway. If not try my settings that I run. Make sure you set all the values plus change VTT DDR Voltage *0.7250* and Super I/O Clock Skew/Sense Mi Skew *Enabled*


could you tell me where to find Super I / O Clock Skew / Sense Mi Skew Enabled I tried to find the items but I was not able

then once you find the stability for the memories is there a way to test and give a little "fuel" to the CPU in overclock? in case you would like to guide me on the settings to use?


----------



## dlbsyst

fr4nc3sco said:


> could you tell me where to find Super I / O Clock Skew / Sense Mi Skew Enabled I tried to find the items but I was not able
> 
> then once you find the stability for the memories is there a way to test and give a little "fuel" to the CPU in overclock? in case you would like to guide me on the settings to use?


Super I/O Clock Skew and Sense Mi Skew are the same thing. I forget where it's at in BIOS. Quick tip though. You can hit F9 in BIOS and search for it. I will help more later. I have to go to work now.


----------



## knightriot

newls1 said:


> using 4x16gb sticks of CL16 gskill NEO's @ 3740mhz. Cheap but great ram using DJR IC's.. CH8 enjoys them


**** bios  , i try downgrade to 1105 and ... it works , btw, 1105 bios keep my single boost to 4.7 regularly , while 1201 just ~4.6~4.675


----------



## pschorr1123

newls1 said:


> This might be a tad early, but i cant wait for ryzen 4000. Hoping the 4th gen version of the 16core will do 4.7+Speeds with atleast watercooling tam-able temps.


all of the leaks/ rumors suggest very mild clock speed increase like 100MHZ at most. (based on TSMCs 7nm+ node) Most performance will come from IPC uplift from ditching the ccx design and having a larger unified L3 cache plus other uArch improvements. 

Hopefully they can get the IMC to be more "Intel like" but it all will depend on how much faster the IF can clock stable. 


However, like you I am looking forward to my 4XXX upgrade that I need like another hole in my head.


----------



## fr4nc3sco

dlbsyst said:


> You can try but I don't think you will be able to run at those setting with 4 sticks. I know my RAM won't be stable anyway. If not try my settings that I run. Make sure you set all the values plus change VTT DDR Voltage *0.7250* and Super I/O Clock Skew/Sense Mi Skew *Enabled*


I tried but with these settings not even part, among other things I tried to try to disable the gearmode that penalizes in game but also at cas 16 gives me errors in memtest for this there can be remedies?


----------



## dlbsyst

fr4nc3sco said:


> I tried but with these settings not even part, among other things I tried to try to disable the gearmode that penalizes in game but also at cas 16 gives me errors in memtest for this there can be remedies?


fr4nc3sco, I know your native language is not English but I'm sorry, I can't understand what you are saying here. What settings did you try? Did you try my settings that I posted? Also are you talking about geardown mode? You might want to enable that. Disabling it is beneficial on your RAMs speed but harder for your RAM to handle.


----------



## fr4nc3sco

dlbsyst said:


> fr4nc3sco, I know your native language is not English but I'm sorry, I can't understand what you are saying here. What settings did you try? Did you try my settings that I posted? Also are you talking about geardown mode? You might want to enable that. Disabling it is beneficial on your RAMs speed but harder for your RAM to handle.


please excuse me then setting cas 16 with geardown enable is ok if I put geardown disabled I can't stabilize the ram at 3600 cas 16.
Tried your last settings for cas 14 including additional voices and volts but not boot


----------



## dlbsyst

fr4nc3sco said:


> please excuse me then setting cas 16 with geardown enable is ok if I put geardown disabled I can't stabilize the ram at 3600 cas 16.
> Tried your last settings for cas 14 including additional voices and volts but not boot


You might not be able to run with my settings. We don't have the same RAM. Just run CL 16 with geardown enabled if you have to. Or you can try to loosen some other timings. Also try running your RAM at 3533MHz instead of 3600MHz with the same timings and Geardown disabled.


----------



## Despotes

dlbsyst said:


> Don't do what Jay did. The settings you use all depends on your hardware, well mostly RAM. I don't know of any guide per say. It's just trial and error and see what works. My first venture into Ryzen was the 1700X and Crosshair VI Hero. Most of what I learned was with that system.
> 
> Yes, update to the latest BIOS before doing anything. Depending on what BIOS is on your board, you might not even boot with the 3900X. There's no easy settings guide that I know of. It's just going to be trial and error to find the best setting for your computer. If you want I can offer some setting to get you started after you get your computer built.


I'm just waiting for my Optimus block. I plan on using my current memory. Trident Z F4-3200C14D-16GTZ. Apparently B-die. Will also use Corsair Force 1Tb 4.0 NVMe SSD. 
Just flashed to the latest bios. 
Yeah, I'd like anything you can share if you don't mind. Much Greek in the bios.


----------



## bazskating

so ive just built my new system up 3900x with a formula viii, I was looking forward to using the small screen on the I/o cover but it appears that my rear fan completely covers this! does anyone else have this issue and if anyone has some pictures of this board in a case it would be great to compare


----------



## dlbsyst

Despotes said:


> I'm just waiting for my Optimus block. I plan on using my current memory. Trident Z F4-3200C14D-16GTZ. Apparently B-die. Will also use Corsair Force 1Tb 4.0 NVMe SSD.
> Just flashed to the latest bios.
> Yeah, I'd like anything you can share if you don't mind. Much Greek in the bios.


That's really good RAM probably very similar to my Flair-X B-Dye that I'm currently running. Mine is 4x8 and I'm pretty much running it at the best speed possible for 4 sticks. I have a new kit coming tomorrow. It's 2x16 Trident Z Neo's also of the B-Dye variety. Should overclock even better, hopefully. 

That Corsair drive is nice.:thumb: I too just installed a Gen4 NVME. It's the Sabrent Rocket 1TB. 
It's probably placebo but it feels snappier than the Gen3 Samsung 970Evo + that it replaced for my Windows drive. 

I will post my full BIOS settings in a .txt file later tonight for you and whoever else might want to take a look. My settings will change some tomorrow after I install the new RAM but it should be minor changes.


----------



## neurotix

fr4nc3sco said:


> I tried but with these settings not even part, among other things I tried to try to disable the gearmode that penalizes in game but also at cas 16 gives me errors in memtest for this there can be remedies?


Are you running primary timings (the first few) at 16-16-16-16?

Try 16-16-17-16-32-50 gdm off or 16-16-17-16-36-56 gdm off

Make sure tRCDRD is 17 and the rest is 16. In our bios tRCDWR and tRCDWR are flipped. Set it like this

CAS: 16
tRCDRD: 17
tRCDWR: 16
tRP: 16
tRAS: 36
tRC: 56

Try 1.48 volts RAM voltage and 0.74 volts VTT_DDR

VTT_DDR and SenseMi Skew are found in Extreme Tweaker -> Tweaker's Paradise submenu. SenseMi skew should be disabled.

So hard to learn a board


----------



## dlbsyst

Thanks for chiming in Neurotix.

Oh, I actually have SenseMi Skew Enabled because it gives me better performance. It's the only setting from the DRAM Calculator Advanced settings that I didn't use.


----------



## Despotes

dlbsyst said:


> That's really good RAM probably very similar to my Flair-X B-Dye that I'm currently running. Mine is 4x8 and I'm pretty much running it at the best speed possible for 4 sticks. I have a new kit coming tomorrow. It's 2x16 Trident Z Neo's also of the B-Dye variety. Should overclock even better, hopefully.
> 
> That Corsair drive is nice.:thumb: I too just installed a Gen4 NVME. It's the Sabrent Rocket 1TB.
> It's probably placebo but it feels snappier than the Gen3 Samsung 970Evo + that it replaced for my Windows drive.
> 
> I will post my full BIOS settings in a .txt file later tonight for you and whoever else might want to take a look. My settings will change some tomorrow after I install the new RAM but it should be minor changes.


That'd be awesome. Thanks


----------



## newls1

what the hell does that setting even do?


----------



## dlbsyst

newls1 said:


> what the hell does that setting even do?


 I'm not really sure.lol There's info on AMD's site about it. I use it along with PBO on my board and there is definitely a substantial improvement to my computer's performance. I originally had it disabled because the DRAM Calculator says to disable. Then, all of a sudden I was getting lower scores in benchmarks like CB R20 and couldn't understand why. After some testing I finally figured out what was killing my computers performance and enabled it.:thumb: For those guys who do all core or per CCX overclocking it might be better to disable.


----------



## dlbsyst

Despotes said:


> That'd be awesome. Thanks


No problem Despotes. Here you go.


----------



## fr4nc3sco

dlbsyst said:


> That's really good RAM probably very similar to my Flair-X B-Dye that I'm currently running. Mine is 4x8 and I'm pretty much running it at the best speed possible for 4 sticks. I have a new kit coming tomorrow. It's 2x16 Trident Z Neo's also of the B-Dye variety. Should overclock even better, hopefully.
> 
> That Corsair drive is nice.:thumb: I too just installed a Gen4 NVME. It's the Sabrent Rocket 1TB.
> It's probably placebo but it feels snappier than the Gen3 Samsung 970Evo + that it replaced for my Windows drive.
> 
> I will post my full BIOS settings in a .txt file later tonight for you and whoever else might want to take a look. My settings will change some tomorrow after I install the new RAM but it should be minor changes.


ok keep us updated so in case I evaluate the ram change also for me that over 3600 cas 16 I can't go down or go up in frequency


----------



## dlbsyst

fr4nc3sco said:


> ok keep us updated so in case I evaluate the ram change also for me that over 3600 cas 16 I can't go down or go up in frequency


Will do. Looks like my new RAM kit is delayed by UPS. It is now scheduled for delivery tomorrow.


----------



## neurotix

newls1 said:


> what the hell does that setting even do?



StoreMi is AMD's proprietary technology for tiered SSD storage, and I believe the skew affects the system memory and performance and limits it. I installed the SenseMi driver from Asus' site for our boards, and it essentially hosed my Windows 10 install, causing me to have to reinstall Windows. This was some time ago.

Essentially, it is used to accellerate the system when you RAID two PCI-E 4.0 M.2 drives and configure them in tiered RAID 0 (I think RAID 0 is what you would use). Personally, I avoid RAID like the plague because of the potential for data loss, especially under Windows. The speed boost is fairly marginal, too, and not even double, after I had the hosed Windows install from installing the SenseMi driver, I looked up reviews on this technology and it was pretty bad.

However, SenseMi https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/sense-mi is some kind of robot overlord A.I. on your processor which we should welcome. I realized that after I wrote out the above. (I continued disabling 'SenseMi Skew' in Tweaker's Paradise as I thought it was related to tiered storage, and because Ryzen DRAM Calculator said to). Well, fair warning either way- DO NOT install the StoreMi driver. Both of you seem to throw money at things lol, however, so if you feel like buying another identical M.2 drive for the second slot, and reinstalling Windows, you should see a decent storage speed boost using it.

AMD/ASUS/whoever have not released very much information at all about exactly what SenseMi Skew or the settings for it do, however, I think you might be correct, dlbsyst. Yesterday, I turned off my manual CCX overclock because I wanted to test game performance and other things without it. I tried enabling PBO, I tried all Auto, I tried 'Auto Overclocking' in bios (Level 1 of 3), Auto ratio with Auto voltage, Auto ratio with manual voltage (1.36, 1.34, and 1.3v), and Auto ratio with offset voltage of -0.100000 and -0.087500, and on pretty much none of those did my chip boost above 4.3GHz or so on CCD0. Under an All-Core load it stayed around 4GHz all cores, which is correct, but in games or single thread tests I didn't see higher than about 4325MHz, even on my best cores. I could not figure this out.

So, I'm off to go test turning this on and seeing if my chip will boost higher, in which yes, leaving SenseMi alone would be a very good idea and it might even explain why everybody thinks that PBO overclocking is "broken" on recent bios, since we've all been disabling it (Why would 1usmus recommend this?)

Very interesting.

GL on your memory; I just got a new desk, and I am getting another mechanical keyboard I'm psyched about (Rosewill K85 RGB; Kailh Blue or (hopefully) Kailh Navy linear/clicky switches/super cheap!) Here's hoping you get Samsung B-Dies on the Neo as it can also come with Hynix DJRs which overclock very poorly. Also, if you got the 3600 cas16 Neo, 3200 cas14 B-Die in the Flare X is a better bin and overclocks better :thumb:


----------



## mcbaes72

After installing 3950X on this motherboard... 

1) After installing Win10 OS and updates, I can't access BIOS pressing F2/Delete during startup with a wired keyboard. I tried with standard HP Keyboard and my Corsair K70. What's strange is I am able to access BIOS when I use a wireless Logitech K400+ keyboard from my HTPC. BIOS updated to latest 1201. Anyone else with this issue? 

2) After many years with Intel, couldn't find XMP in BIOS and RAM stuck at 2400. I unsuccessfully tried manually OC RAM and kept getting black screen and pressed CMOS button to the rescue. Thanks to this thread, I learned that DOCP is the new acronym and it OC'ed to 3600 @ 1.35v and no black screen.

3) Anyone know how to turn off blinking Hero logo while system is powered off? I'm still researching it, but hope someone can provide a quick answer.


----------



## dlbsyst

mcbaes72 said:


> After installing 3950X on this motherboard...
> 
> 1) After installing Win10 OS and updates, I can't access BIOS pressing F2/Delete during startup with a wired keyboard. I tried with standard HP Keyboard and my Corsair K70. What's strange is I am able to access BIOS when I use a wireless Logitech K400+ keyboard from my HTPC. BIOS updated to latest 1201. Anyone else with this issue?
> 
> 2) After many years with Intel, couldn't find XMP in BIOS and RAM stuck at 2400. I unsuccessfully tried manually OC RAM and kept getting black screen and pressed CMOS button to the rescue. Thanks to this thread, I learned that DOCP is the new acronym and it OC'ed to 3600 @ 1.35v and no black screen.
> 
> 3) Anyone know how to turn off blinking Hero logo while system is powered off? I'm still researching it, but hope someone can provide a quick answer.


*1) After installing Win10 OS and updates, I can't access BIOS pressing F2/Delete during startup with a wired keyboard. I tried with standard HP Keyboard and my Corsair K70. What's strange is I am able to access BIOS when I use a wireless Logitech K400+ keyboard from my HTPC. BIOS updated to latest 1201. Anyone else with this issue?*

Not sure what the problem might be. I have my Corsair keyboard and mouse plugged into the top left USB ports on the back of my motherboard and have no issues.

*2) After many years with Intel, couldn't find XMP in BIOS and RAM stuck at 2400. I unsuccessfully tried manually OC RAM and kept getting black screen and pressed CMOS button to the rescue. Thanks to this thread, I learned that DOCP is the new acronym and it OC'ed to 3600 @ 1.35v and no black screen.
*
Glad you got that sorted out.

*3) Anyone know how to turn off blinking Hero logo while system is powered off? I'm still researching it, but hope someone can provide a quick answer.*

Here you go.


----------



## dlbsyst

neurotix said:


> StoreMi is AMD's proprietary technology for tiered SSD storage, and I believe the skew affects the system memory and performance and limits it. I installed the SenseMi driver from Asus' site for our boards, and it essentially hosed my Windows 10 install, causing me to have to reinstall Windows. This was some time ago.
> 
> Essentially, it is used to accellerate the system when you RAID two PCI-E 4.0 M.2 drives and configure them in tiered RAID 0 (I think RAID 0 is what you would use). Personally, I avoid RAID like the plague because of the potential for data loss, especially under Windows. The speed boost is fairly marginal, too, and not even double, after I had the hosed Windows install from installing the SenseMi driver, I looked up reviews on this technology and it was pretty bad.
> 
> However, SenseMi https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/sense-mi is some kind of robot overlord A.I. on your processor which we should welcome. I realized that after I wrote out the above. (I continued disabling 'SenseMi Skew' in Tweaker's Paradise as I thought it was related to tiered storage, and because Ryzen DRAM Calculator said to). Well, fair warning either way- DO NOT install the StoreMi driver. Both of you seem to throw money at things lol, however, so if you feel like buying another identical M.2 drive for the second slot, and reinstalling Windows, you should see a decent storage speed boost using it.
> 
> AMD/ASUS/whoever have not released very much information at all about exactly what SenseMi Skew or the settings for it do, however, I think you might be correct, dlbsyst. Yesterday, I turned off my manual CCX overclock because I wanted to test game performance and other things without it. I tried enabling PBO, I tried all Auto, I tried 'Auto Overclocking' in bios (Level 1 of 3), Auto ratio with Auto voltage, Auto ratio with manual voltage (1.36, 1.34, and 1.3v), and Auto ratio with offset voltage of -0.100000 and -0.087500, and on pretty much none of those did my chip boost above 4.3GHz or so on CCD0. Under an All-Core load it stayed around 4GHz all cores, which is correct, but in games or single thread tests I didn't see higher than about 4325MHz, even on my best cores. I could not figure this out.
> 
> So, I'm off to go test turning this on and seeing if my chip will boost higher, in which yes, leaving SenseMi alone would be a very good idea and it might even explain why everybody thinks that PBO overclocking is "broken" on recent bios, since we've all been disabling it (Why would 1usmus recommend this?)
> 
> Very interesting.
> 
> GL on your memory; I just got a new desk, and I am getting another mechanical keyboard I'm psyched about (Rosewill K85 RGB; Kailh Blue or (hopefully) Kailh Navy linear/clicky switches/super cheap!) Here's hoping you get Samsung B-Dies on the Neo as it can also come with Hynix DJRs which overclock very poorly. *Also, if you got the 3600 cas16 Neo, 3200 cas14 B-Die in the Flare X is a better bin and overclocks better *:thumb:


Thanks for weighing in on the SenseMi Skew confusion and offering some insight on it.

I got the expensive kit so it's supposed to be B-Die but you are saying my 4x8 Flair-X will out perform it? I sure hope not. I thought since its 2x16 sticks rather than 4x8 I will be able to push it a little higher on the clocks with tighter timings.:thumb: Also isn't dual rank RAM supposed to be faster than single rank at the same speed?


----------



## neurotix

dlbsyst said:


> Thanks for weighing in on the SenseMi Skew confusion and offering some insight on it.
> 
> I got the expensive kit so it's supposed to be B-Die but you are saying my 4x8 Flair-X will out perform it? I sure hope not. I thought since its 2x16 sticks rather than 4x8 I will be able to push it a little higher on the clocks with tighter timings.:thumb: Also isn't dual rank RAM supposed to be faster than single rank at the same speed?


Can you link to the exact SKU of the kit you bought? What is the rated speed and timing? Or link the SKU and I'll look it up.

Yes, dual rank performs better at lower clocks- I saw Stilt claim that 3466Mhz DR outperformed 3600MHz SR. He also advised that 4x8GB SR was the best memory layout for Ryzen 3000 (what you already had). 2x16GB DR will overclock about as well as 4x8GB SR- that is to say, low chance of getting above 3600c16. Because it's dual rank, there's twice as many ICs on the DIMM PCB






As you can see, mostly in gaming use- some of the other benches looked like margin-of-error level gains to me

However, DR kits are more commonly Hynix dies, DJR I believe. https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/dsx1sg/how_to_setup_hynix_d_die_in_dram_calculator/

Tbh, if you are hoping to run above 3600MHz, you will have big difficulty regardless of kit with 4 DIMMs. I would strongly suggest at least trying 2x8GB at 3733 or 3800 with the Flare X, as this worked for newls1, and if you really need the extra 16GB, throw it back in when done. Proof of concept. Not sure what you do besides gaming that needs 32GB but gaming doesnt. If you need it, you need it. Yes I am aware you dont want to do this and dont want to run at 3800MHz, but you want more performance, and you wont get much in non gaming tasks from DR vs SR. DR will be highly unlikely to clock above 3600mhz (though 3733 or 3800 might be doable @ 19-19-19) Also, our board is optimized for 2x8GB SR DIMMs in slots A2 and B2.

Hope this helps, and good luck


----------



## dlbsyst

neurotix said:


> Can you link to the exact SKU of the kit you bought? What is the rated speed and timing? Or link the SKU and I'll look it up.
> 
> Yes, dual rank performs better at lower clocks- I saw Stilt claim that 3466Mhz DR outperformed 3600MHz SR. He also advised that 4x8GB SR was the best memory layout for Ryzen 3000 (what you already had). 2x16GB DR will overclock about as well as 4x8GB SR- that is to say, low chance of getting above 3600c16. Because it's dual rank, there's twice as many ICs on the DIMM PCB
> 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JtVRs_Q1ngQ
> 
> As you can see, mostly in gaming use- some of the other benches looked like margin-of-error level gains to me
> 
> However, DR kits are more commonly Hynix dies, DJR I believe. https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/dsx1sg/how_to_setup_hynix_d_die_in_dram_calculator/
> 
> Tbh, if you are hoping to run above 3600MHz, you will have big difficulty regardless of kit with 4 DIMMs. I would strongly suggest at least trying 2x8GB at 3733 or 3800 with the Flare X, as this worked for newls1, and if you really need the extra 16GB, throw it back in when done. Proof of concept. Not sure what you do besides gaming that needs 32GB but gaming doesnt. If you need it, you need it. Yes I am aware you dont want to do this and dont want to run at 3800MHz, but you want more performance, and you wont get much in non gaming tasks from DR vs SR. DR will be highly unlikely to clock above 3600mhz (though 3733 or 3800 might be doable @ 19-19-19) Also, our board is optimized for 2x8GB SR DIMMs in slots A2 and B2.
> 
> Hope this helps, and good luck


This is the kit I got.
I assume it's dual rank and B-Die. Does Samsung make 16GB modules that are single rank?
https://www.gskill.com/product/165/...oDDR4-3600MHz-CL16-16-16-36-1.35V32GB-(2x16GB)

Yeah, I had been running 16GB for a couple of years and really feel like it's time to upgrade to 32GB. I just don't want to sacrifice performance to do it. I really like the performance I'm getting with the 4X8 Flair-X that I'm running accept for 2 things. I have to use 1.45V and use a RAM cooler to achieve these speeds and be 100% stable. I figure If I can run just 2X16 I might be able to run at the same speeds or better at 1.37V and wont have to use the RAM cooler. After all, who want to cover up such pretty RGB RAM with a cooler. Also there is an upgrade path If I want to go with a 4X16 configuration and run 64GB's of RAM or need quad channel for Threadripper.


----------



## mcbaes72

dlbsyst said:


> *1) After installing Win10 OS and updates, I can't access BIOS pressing F2/Delete during startup with a wired keyboard. I tried with standard HP Keyboard and my Corsair K70. What's strange is I am able to access BIOS when I use a wireless Logitech K400+ keyboard from my HTPC. BIOS updated to latest 1201. Anyone else with this issue?*
> 
> Not sure what the problem might be. I have my Corsair keyboard and mouse plugged into the top left USB ports on the back of my motherboard and have no issues.
> 
> *2) After many years with Intel, couldn't find XMP in BIOS and RAM stuck at 2400. I unsuccessfully tried manually OC RAM and kept getting black screen and pressed CMOS button to the rescue. Thanks to this thread, I learned that DOCP is the new acronym and it OC'ed to 3600 @ 1.35v and no black screen.
> *
> Glad you got that sorted out.
> 
> *3) Anyone know how to turn off blinking Hero logo while system is powered off? I'm still researching it, but hope someone can provide a quick answer.*
> 
> Here you go.


For #1, it's only the Corsair K70 causing the problem. I tried your suggestion and moved it to the upper left USB ports and tried other ports as well. Issue seems to be during startup, the K70 lights turn off during POST Delay (I set it for 3 seconds), then turns on. It's as if the motherboard doesn't allow keyboard to connect until right before the PW screen.

The HP keyboard didn't work on my HTPC either, so that didn't count. I borrowed my friend's Logitech wired keyboard and was able to access my BIOS. It's only my Corsair keyboard, wonder if having (2) USB connections plays a factor into it.

Thanks for replying, especially #3, that screenshot was helpful and easy to turn off.


----------



## gupsterg

fr4nc3sco said:


> could you tell me where to find Super I / O Clock Skew / Sense Mi Skew Enabled I tried to find the items but I was not able
> 
> then once you find the stability for the memories is there a way to test and give a little "fuel" to the CPU in overclock? in case you would like to guide me on the settings to use?


Sense Mi Skew should be found in Tweakers Paradise on Extreme Tweaker page.

Super I/O Clock Skew should be found on Onboard Devices Configuration on Advanced page. This was exposed on C6H, isn't on C7H, dunno about C8 series.



dlbsyst said:


> Super I/O Clock Skew and Sense Mi Skew are the same thing.


Sense Mi Skew affects CPU temperature, allows you to skew tctl, did work on Zen/Zen+, dunno about Zen2. Super I/O Clock Skew affects the Super I/O clock. So not the same things.


----------



## neurotix

mcbaes72 said:


> For #1, it's only the Corsair K70 causing the problem. I tried your suggestion and moved it to the upper left USB ports and tried other ports as well. Issue seems to be during startup, the K70 lights turn off during POST Delay (I set it for 3 seconds), then turns on. It's as if the motherboard doesn't allow keyboard to connect until right before the PW screen.
> 
> The HP keyboard didn't work on my HTPC either, so that didn't count. I borrowed my friend's Logitech wired keyboard and was able to access my BIOS. It's only my Corsair keyboard, wonder if having (2) USB connections plays a factor into it.
> 
> Thanks for replying, especially #3, that screenshot was helpful and easy to turn off.


Have you tried messing with the USB XHCI handoff settings (should be in the boards CSM menu?)

Have you tried using the keyboard with just the keyboard usb attached, not the passthrough cable?

I had to do both of these at points on my previous Z87 setup with my K70 Lux. I no longer use it so no more problems.


----------



## dlbsyst

gupsterg said:


> Sense Mi Skew should be found in Tweakers Paradise on Extreme Tweaker page.
> 
> *Super I/O Clock Skew should be found on Onboard Devices Configuration on Advanced page. This was exposed on C6H, isn't on C7H, dunno about C8 series.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Sense Mi Skew affects CPU temperature, allows you to skew tctl, did work on Zen/Zen+, dunno about Zen2. Super I/O Clock Skew affects the Super I/O clock. So not the same things.*


Just like the C7H, it looks like Super I/O Clock Skew isn't available as a setting on our Crosshair VIII Hero either.

Thanks for clearing that up.:thumb: I think I got the information from Neurotix video that he posted about finding all the settings from the DRAM Calculator advanced settings. That settles it though. In the Advanced settings it says to disable Super I/O Clock Skew and not SenseMi Skew.


----------



## dlbsyst

neurotix said:


> Have you tried messing with the USB XHCI handoff settings (should be in the boards CSM menu?)
> 
> Have you tried using the keyboard with just the keyboard usb attached, not the passthrough cable?
> 
> I had to do both of these at points on my previous Z87 setup with my K70 Lux. I no longer use it so no more problems.


USB XHCI hand-off is under Advanced/USB. I have it enabled on my board as well as Legacy USB support.


----------



## bazskating

Hey, so ive got my 3900x and formula all set up but I have a few questions,

im trying to run Cinebench r20 and in single core mode im getting around 4.2 ghz clock speed which seems a little low?
and when running in multi thread and checking ryzen master my clock speed is dropping to around 3.1 ghz and the PPT is showing at 100% 

first AMD build so not 100% sure whats going on 

edited with pictures to show with manual vcore of 1.3v and then on auto vcore


----------



## gupsterg

dlbsyst said:


> Just like the C7H, it looks like Super I/O Clock Skew isn't available as a setting on our Crosshair VIII Hero either.
> 
> Thanks for clearing that up.:thumb: I think I got the information from Neurotix video that he posted about finding all the settings from the DRAM Calculator advanced settings. That settles it though. In the Advanced settings it says to disable Super I/O Clock Skew and not SenseMi Skew.


NP  .

Super I/O Clock Skew on C6H when set to disabled may have aided some, me it didn't TBH and I must have used 5 differing Zen CPUs at the time and at least 3 differing RAM kits with differing ICs.

Another aspect for using Super I/O Clock Skew on C6H was to allow you to use higher SOC voltage, IIRC when pushing 1.2V, there is a post I believe by Elmor in the C6H thread stating this. Again this was the early days with Zen, none of the Zen+/Zen2 CPUs I have experienced needed anything more than 1.05V actual effective SOC voltage when OC'ing RAM.

I can expose Super I/O Clock Skew on C7H with UEFI mod, but it again did not aid me with 3x Zen+ and 5x Zen2. I have not checked a C8I/H/F UEFI to see if setting is hidden, but I think it may not help with anything.


----------



## dlbsyst

bazskating said:


> Hey, so ive got my 3900x and formula all set up but I have a few questions,
> 
> im trying to run Cinebench r20 and in single core mode im getting around 4.2 ghz clock speed which seems a little low?
> and when running in multi thread and checking ryzen master my clock speed is dropping to around 3.1 ghz and the PPT is showing at 100%
> 
> first AMD build so not 100% sure whats going on
> 
> edited with pictures to show with manual vcore of 1.3v and then on auto vcore


Something is definitely going on. bazskating, please post your BIOS settings as a .txt file. I'd like to take a look.


----------



## bazskating

How do I post the BIOS settings as a .txt file? also I have reset all the bios settings and it is still the same I even removed the XMP for the ram


----------



## dlbsyst

bazskating said:


> How do I post the BIOS settings as a .txt file?


Plug a USB thumb drive into your computer.
Open BIOS and go to Tool.
Open Asus User Profile.
Scroll to Load/Save Profile From/To USB Drive.
Hit CTRL + F2.
Name the file.
Hit OK and boot your computer.

The file should now be saved to your USB drive.:thumb:


----------



## bazskating

it was saved as a .cmo file?


----------



## dlbsyst

bazskating said:


> How do I post the BIOS settings as a .txt file? also I have reset all the bios settings and it is still the same I even removed the XMP for the ram


You loaded Optimized Defaults? Please restore your setting to what you had before saving if you want me to help you with your settings.


----------



## dlbsyst

bazskating said:


> it was saved as a .cmo file?


No save as a .txt. A CMO file wont do me any good. I don't want to load your settings on my BIOS. I couldn't anyway as we have different motherboards.


----------



## bazskating

dlbsyst said:


> No save as a .txt. A CMO file wont do me any good. I don't want to load your settings on my BIOS. I couldn't anyway as we have different motherboards.


----------



## dlbsyst

bazskating said:


>


Thanks.

Looks like all of your settings are pretty much at default with DOCP set. So your running a 3900x CPU. What RAM kit do you have and how many sticks? Also what cooler are you using to cool your CPU?


----------



## bazskating

corsair dominator platinum 4 x 8gb cmt32gx4m4c3600c18 currently on the stock cooler, waiting for the new h150 units to come into stock


----------



## dlbsyst

bazskating said:


> corsair dominator platinum 4 x 8gb cmt32gx4m4c3600c18 currently on the stock cooler, waiting for the new h150 units to come into stock


Okay thanks. 

Do you know how to use the DRAM Calculator for your RAM? If not Neurotix has a really good tutorial on how to set it up properly. You'll have to go back a bunch of posts to find it. I think it was around the middle of December. I can help you find it if need be.

That's really good RAM that you have you definitely want to get the timings and speed dialed in for maximum performance.

Corsair has a new h150 AIO coming? Nice.
This is the cooler that I have. I really love and highly recommend it for the 3900x or 3950x.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07S34WNTF/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Let's wait on setting up your BIOS settings until you get the cooler. The stock cooler is fine and all but doesn't really have the headroom for overclocking. Heat is the enemy and you don't want your expensive CPU running hot.


----------



## bazskating

still abit worried that im only hitting 4ghz and im at 100% for PPT and 98% for both TDC and EDC, 

Ive been using a h100i v2 for a few years but it doesn't have an AM4 bracket with it and also corsair currently have nil stock, so thought id get a nice upgrade! its pretty much the same as the old h150 as far as I know with a few minor cosmetic changes, I was supposed to get it on the 11th but for some reason its delayed


----------



## dlbsyst

bazskating said:


> still abit worried that im only hitting 4ghz and im at 100% for PPT and 98% for both TDC and EDC,
> 
> Ive been using a h100i v2 for a few years but it doesn't have an AM4 bracket with it and also corsair currently have nil stock, so thought id get a nice upgrade! its pretty much the same as the old h150 as far as I know with a few minor cosmetic changes, I was supposed to get it on the 11th but for some reason its delayed


Corsair AIO coolers are nice. Here is what my Ryzen Master software is showing while running CB R20 with my 3950X.:thumb:


----------



## bazskating

nice chip! I take it you have removed the limits for PPT etc?


----------



## dlbsyst

bazskating said:


> nice chip! I take it you have removed the limits for PPT etc?


Thanks.

No, I'm just running with PBO enabled, SenseMi Skew Enabled. 3600MHz with tight timings and GDM disabled on my RAM. Most of my settings are left on Auto.

I posted my BIOS setting as a .txt file a few posts back if you want to take a look.

Here's my CB R20 scores.


----------



## mahaudi

benbenkr said:


> What cooler are you on?


Watercool Heatkiller IV pro Nickel


https://www.alternate.de/html/produ...5NQPvNPzVBueIgQ_zFirDWMAIMAaj8DBoCED0QAvD_BwE


----------



## bazskating

dlbsyst said:


> Thanks.
> 
> No, I'm just running with PBO enabled, SenseMi Skew Enabled. 3600MHz with tight timings and GDM disabled on my RAM. Most of my settings are left on Auto.
> 
> I posted my BIOS setting as a .txt file a few posts back if you want to take a look.
> 
> Here's my CB R20 scores.


nice score! yeh im guessing im going to need to switch PBO on once the cooler turns up


----------



## dlbsyst

bazskating said:


> nice score! yeh im guessing im going to need to switch PBO on once the cooler turns up


Thanks.

Yeah, I think you definitely do and enable SenseMi Skew too.:thumb: Please don't try it with your stock cooler though because it won't be able handle it.


----------



## tomzyka

Hey guys,
first of all I want to thank all of you for providing such useful information and empirical values!
I read the whole thread throughout my christmas break ( and don't regret it  ) and had some spare time the last few days and was finally able to do some ram overclocking.

The attached image shows what I achieved yet with following voltages:

DRAM Voltage 1.4V
VTT_DDR 0.7V

SOC Voltage 1.08V
VDDG 0.95V
VDDP 0.9V


I am still testing some lower subtimings, so I'm not finished yet!


----------



## dlbsyst

tomzyka said:


> Hey guys,
> first of all I want to thank all of you for providing such useful information and empirical values!
> I read the whole thread throughout my christmas break ( and don't regret it  ) and had some spare time the last few days and was finally able to do some ram overclocking.
> 
> The attached image shows what I achieved yet with following voltages:
> 
> DRAM Voltage 1.4V
> VTT_DDR 0.7V
> 
> SOC Voltage 1.08V
> VDDG 0.95V
> VDDP 0.9V
> 
> 
> I am still testing some lower subtimings, so I'm not finished yet!


Looking good there tomzyka.:thumb:


----------



## dlbsyst

Got my new RAM kit in Neurotix. So far I'm running it at 3733MHz Cl16. It seems stable but I do have more testing to do just to be sure. Also I will try 3800MHz too.

Here are my timings and speed so far.:thumb:

My voltage is at 1.3750 and my VTT DDR Voltage is 0.6875. Everything else is the same as the DRAM Calculator.
It's definitely an improvement from my best from the Flair-X 4X8 kit.


----------



## Giustaf

Has anyone tried these settings? 

I have only changed cpu current capability to 130%, not 140! 

in gaming at default, my cpu boost up to 4325 all core, with this setting my cpu boost up to 4400 all core

do you think they are safe for 3900x?


SETTINGS:
The EDC limit set to 1 really works for boosting all cores and single core to their MAX! Thanks to the guy that figured this out.

Here is what I did to get it to work
Set your ram timmings to whatever you prefer.
And the fclk to half that of your ram speed.

In extreme Tweaker/core performance boost

set it to – Auto

In extreme Tweaker/precision boost overdrive

precision boost overdrive = auto
max cpu boost clock override = auto
platform throttle limit = auto
Set all 3 options to AUTO

In extreme Tweaker/digi+ power control
cpu load-line calibration set to = LEVEL 3
cpu current capability to 140%

In advanced/amd cbs/nbio common options/xfr enhancement/accepted
precision boost overdrive = auto
and precision boost overdrive = auto


now in
advanced/amd overclocking/amd overclocking/precision boost override
precision boost override set this to -advanced
PBO limits to manual
PPT limit =0
TDC limit =0
EDC limit =1
precision boost overdrive scalar - manual =10x
max cpu boost clock override =200mhz
and the thermal throttle to =200
save and restart.


----------



## benbenkr

Is AGESA 1004B on the CH8 really that as bad as some users are saying?


----------



## dlbsyst

benbenkr said:


> Is AGESA 1004B on the CH8 really that as bad as some users are saying?


No, not for me. I guess it really depends on how you have your BIOS set up.


----------



## dlbsyst

Giustaf said:


> Has anyone tried these settings?
> 
> I have only changed cpu current capability to 130%, not 140!
> 
> in gaming at default, my cpu boost up to 4325 all core, with this setting my cpu boost up to 4400 all core
> 
> *do you think they are safe for 3900x?*
> 
> 
> SETTINGS:
> The EDC limit set to 1 really works for boosting all cores and single core to their MAX! Thanks to the guy that figured this out.
> 
> Here is what I did to get it to work
> Set your ram timmings to whatever you prefer.
> And the fclk to half that of your ram speed.
> 
> In extreme Tweaker/core performance boost
> 
> set it to – Auto
> 
> In extreme Tweaker/precision boost overdrive
> 
> precision boost overdrive = auto
> max cpu boost clock override = auto
> platform throttle limit = auto
> Set all 3 options to AUTO
> 
> In extreme Tweaker/digi+ power control
> cpu load-line calibration set to = LEVEL 3
> cpu current capability to 140%
> 
> In advanced/amd cbs/nbio common options/xfr enhancement/accepted
> precision boost overdrive = auto
> and precision boost overdrive = auto
> 
> 
> now in
> advanced/amd overclocking/amd overclocking/precision boost override
> precision boost override set this to -advanced
> PBO limits to manual
> PPT limit =0
> TDC limit =0
> EDC limit =1
> precision boost overdrive scalar - manual =10x
> max cpu boost clock override =200mhz
> and the thermal throttle to =200
> save and restart.


Looks good.:thumb:

Who know's really. IMO there's always some risk when you push ones CPU to the limits. The question is it worth the risk to you?


----------



## Giustaf

dlbsyst said:


> Looks good.:thumb:
> 
> Who know's really. IMO there's always some risk when you push ones CPU to the limits. The question is it worth the risk to you?


i think it is safe to overclock all cores under 1.325 Vcore, but I don't know how this configuration works


----------



## dlbsyst

Giustaf said:


> i think it is safe to overclock all cores under 1.325 Vcore, but I don't know how this configuration works


It probably is. That's a pretty low voltage. I just let the motherboard control my voltage. I prefer a dynamic voltage that changes depending on what's being asked of the CPU.


----------



## mcbaes72

neurotix said:


> Have you tried messing with the USB XHCI handoff settings (should be in the boards CSM menu?)
> 
> Have you tried using the keyboard with just the keyboard usb attached, not the passthrough cable?
> 
> I had to do both of these at points on my previous Z87 setup with my K70 Lux. I no longer use it so no more problems.


Yes, I unplugged one and kept the other plugged in for the keyboard USB only, still didn't work. XHCI is default to Enabled.

Maybe it's a sign that I need to change keyboards, too.


----------



## mcbaes72

dlbsyst said:


> USB XHCI hand-off is under Advanced/USB. I have it enabled on my board as well as Legacy USB support.


From the screenshot, both of mine are default to Enabled. When my friend dropped by to pick up his wired keyboard, I showed him the issue. He couldn't figure out why K70 is non-responsive only during the POST delay (keyboard lights turn off). But I can access BIOS just fine on a Logitech wired and wireless keyboard.

Thanks for trying.


----------



## dlbsyst

mcbaes72 said:


> From the screenshot, both of mine are default to Enabled. When my friend dropped by to pick up his wired keyboard, I showed him the issue. He couldn't figure out why K70 is non-responsive only during the POST delay (keyboard lights turn off). But I can access BIOS just fine on a Logitech wired and wireless keyboard.
> 
> Thanks for trying.


You're welcome. I do have occasional issues that when I boot up both my keyboard and mouse fail to initialize or just one. Also, sometimes when I'm hitting delete during a reboot my keyboard isn't detected. It's usually when I make changes in my BIOS though and happens rarely.


----------



## gui llaume

Hello,

I am French and happy owner of a 3900x and a CROSSHAIR HERO VIII.

I want to overclock my processor for H24 using only the Bios settings.

Here is my configuration:


Ryzen 3900x
Asus Crosshair Hero VIII
2 x 16Go Trident Z Neo 16 19 19 19 39 @ 1.35
Corsair RM850X
Noctua NH-U12A
DarkBase 700 + 3 Silent Wings 3 on Front 1 SW140 Top and 1 SW 140 Behind
RTX MSI 2080 Super Gaming X Trio


Bios 1201 and last AMD Drivers


I ask your help because I am starting in overclocking and you seem to master the subject.


To date, by modifying some standard settings, I manage to reach 4.3 all Cores with 1.28125 Vcore



I don't think I want OC la Ram because it's quite complicated. By cons I would like to know if you could give me the most important settings to make in the Bios for a stable and efficient OC.


Would it be possible for you to make screens of the Bios Settings or Video Guide Step by step ?


----------



## dlbsyst

gui llaume said:


> Hello,
> 
> I am French and happy owner of a 3900x and a CROSSHAIR HERO VIII.
> 
> I want to overclock my processor for H24 using only the Bios settings.
> 
> Here is my configuration:
> 
> 
> Ryzen 3900x
> Asus Crosshair Hero VIII
> 2 x 16Go Trident Z Neo 16 19 19 19 39 @ 1.35
> Corsair RM850X
> Noctua NH-U12A
> DarkBase 700 + 3 Silent Wings 3 on Front 1 SW140 Top and 1 SW 140 Behind
> RTX MSI 2080 Super Gaming X Trio
> 
> 
> Bios 1201 and last AMD Drivers
> 
> 
> I ask your help because I am starting in overclocking and you seem to master the subject.
> 
> 
> To date, by modifying some standard settings, I manage to reach 4.3 all Cores with 1.28125 Vcore
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I want OC la Ram because it's quite complicated. By cons I would like to know if you could give me the most important settings to make in the Bios for a stable and efficient OC.
> 
> 
> Would it be possible for you to make screens of the Bios Settings or Video Guide Step by step ?


Hello gui llaume and welcome. To whom were you addressing in your post?


----------



## gui llaume

This post was addressed to Neurotix. But I think everyone can help me and advise me.


----------



## dlbsyst

gui llaume said:


> This post was addressed to Neurotix. But I think everyone can help me and advise me.


Yeah, Neurotix is a smart fellow.


----------



## boldenc

is there a way to let the CPU downclock to lower speed if I overclock manually? I just changed the core ratio value and the CPU will just stay running at full speed.


----------



## Phage

Anyone else having issues with 1201 ? My system was completely fine with 1001, but now it won't boot unless I hit the reset key. It just hangs after power is turned on. Hit reset and it boots fine.

There's no sound card - just the GPU.

(3800x, Bios 1201, 16gb Ram @3200)


----------



## Kernel-Debugger

*Kernel-Debugger*

Chipset drivers posted on AMD: https://www.amd.com/en/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570

Revision Number
2.01.15.2138


----------



## dlbsyst

Kernel-Debugger said:


> Chipset drivers posted on AMD: https://www.amd.com/en/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570
> 
> Revision Number
> 2.01.15.2138


Nice!:thumb: Thanks.


----------



## flyinion

Phage said:


> Anyone else having issues with 1201 ? My system was completely fine with 1001, but now it won't boot unless I hit the reset key. It just hangs after power is turned on. Hit reset and it boots fine.
> 
> 
> 
> There's no sound card - just the GPU.
> 
> 
> 
> (3800x, Bios 1201, 16gb Ram @3200)




Yeah something happened starting with 1105. The auto voltages for the IO die are getting set too high and causing stability issues. I don't have the three voltage names offhand but I set them manually to 0.95v. They're near the bottom of the extreme tweaker page. I'll try to find it for you in the morning. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Phage

flyinion said:


> Yeah something happened starting with 1105. The auto voltages for the IO die are getting set too high and causing stability issues. I don't have the three voltage names offhand but I set them manually to 0.95v. They're near the bottom of the extreme tweaker page. I'll try to find it for you in the morning.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


That would be great Thanks. I;ve rolled back to 1105 same issue....


----------



## Sam64

New chipset-driver is already available for x470/x570:

https://www.amd.com/de/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x470
https://www.amd.com/de/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570

Looks like we can expect new Agesa/Bios version soon...


----------



## dlbsyst

Sam64 said:


> New chipset-driver is already available for x470/x570:
> 
> https://www.amd.com/de/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x470
> https://www.amd.com/de/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570
> 
> Looks like we can expect new Agesa/Bios version soon...


I hope.


----------



## mcbaes72

Four days ago, sent ASUS Tech Support question on my K70 being non-responsive during POST delay. They finally responded...

*****

I understand that you're having issues with your wired keyboards booting into the BIOS. I will recommend updating the necessary drivers for the keyboards being used. I will also suggest updating the motherboard chipset driver using the steps below. 

AMD Chipset driver Version 1.7.29.0115
https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...99.417744411.1579196827-1705260420.1545145869

Once downloaded, right click on the folder and choose ''Extract All'' and then choose ''Extract'' again. Open the folder to view its contents then double click on any
of the following to run the installer.

*setup.exe
*setup application
*Asussetup
*pnpinstal64
*igxpin

You would be required to restart the product for the update to take effect.

If the issue remains the same, please consider using a keyboard that is listed on the motherboard keyboard QVL. 

https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...46.417744411.1579196827-1705260420.1545145869

*****

*EDIT:* After the update, still having issues accessing BIOS during POST delay. Either I borrow my HTPC keyboard whenever I need access BIOS on my Gaming Rig or time to buy a new keyboard.


----------



## jfrob75

*FYI*

Just tried to install the new chipset drivers but get a script error that prevents installation. Yes, I did download the driver from the English AMD site. Says nothing about needing a bios update.


Edit: I did some googling concerning the error I was getting and found possible answers, one being a corrupted down load. 1)Deleted the original download file and re-downloaded the file. 2) Uninstalled the the existing chipset drivers. 3) Installed new chipset drivers, this time successfully, and rebooted. So far no issues.


----------



## newls1

Sam64 said:


> New chipset-driver is already available for x470/x570:
> 
> https://www.amd.com/de/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x470
> https://www.amd.com/de/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570
> 
> Looks like we can expect new Agesa/Bios version soon...


scared to change anything anymore, pc is running pretty well.


----------



## Gred

Giustaf said:


> Has anyone tried these settings?
> 
> I have only changed cpu current capability to 130%, not 140!
> 
> in gaming at default, my cpu boost up to 4325 all core, with this setting my cpu boost up to 4400 all core
> 
> do you think they are safe for 3900x?
> 
> 
> SETTINGS:
> The EDC limit set to 1 really works for boosting all cores and single core to their MAX! Thanks to the guy that figured this out.
> 
> Here is what I did to get it to work
> Set your ram timmings to whatever you prefer.
> And the fclk to half that of your ram speed.
> 
> In extreme Tweaker/core performance boost
> 
> set it to – Auto
> 
> In extreme Tweaker/precision boost overdrive
> 
> precision boost overdrive = auto
> max cpu boost clock override = auto
> platform throttle limit = auto
> Set all 3 options to AUTO
> 
> In extreme Tweaker/digi+ power control
> cpu load-line calibration set to = LEVEL 3
> cpu current capability to 140%
> 
> In advanced/amd cbs/nbio common options/xfr enhancement/accepted
> precision boost overdrive = auto
> and precision boost overdrive = auto
> 
> 
> now in
> advanced/amd overclocking/amd overclocking/precision boost override
> precision boost override set this to -advanced
> PBO limits to manual
> PPT limit =0
> TDC limit =0
> EDC limit =1
> precision boost overdrive scalar - manual =10x
> max cpu boost clock override =200mhz
> and the thermal throttle to =200
> save and restart.


Just jumping in to say if you havent tried this, this fixed my boost issues for me.
I've never gone above 4525 on best core, now i am seeing 4.7 on 6 cores with one hitting 4.75, and the bad ccd all doing 4.5.
Thanks a lot.


----------



## flyinion

Phage said:


> That would be great Thanks. I;ve rolled back to 1105 same issue....




It's VDDG IOD, VDDG CCD, VDDP all in the same area at the bottom of that page. I set them to .95, .95, and 950. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Dsrt

Upgraded to custom loop, and bought external water temperature sensor. The problem is that I can read the water temperature in UEFI BIOS, but not in windows. HWINFO / HWmonitor doesnt show the T-sensor temp. Does anyone know how to check that sensor temperature in windows?


----------



## Reous

If anyone is interested in: Crosshair VIII Mod Series Bios 1201

_Added Monitoring Values in Bios (Monitor)
- PCH Temperature
- PCH Core Voltage
- DRAM Voltage
- Core PLL Voltage

Added PCH Fan Control (Monitor)
- Changing settings can overheat your Chipset!

Added ASPM Support (Advanced - PCI Subsystem Settings)
- PCIe power saving. Reduces power cosumption at idle and load.
__ Some PCIe devies might fail_

_*Crosshair VIII Mod Series *
_


----------



## gupsterg

Dsrt said:


> Upgraded to custom loop, and bought external water temperature sensor. The problem is that I can read the water temperature in UEFI BIOS, but not in windows. HWINFO / HWmonitor doesnt show the T-sensor temp. Does anyone know how to check that sensor temperature in windows?


HWINFO should, perhaps reset user settings and restore order of sensors. I had hidden T-Sensor on differing ASUS board in HWINFO and when started using T_Sensor it did not show in HWINFO until I did that, it had disappeared from hidden list to just restore it.


----------



## Phage

flyinion said:


> It's VDDG IOD, VDDG CCD, VDDP all in the same area at the bottom of that page. I set them to .95, .95, and 950.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Ok - Thanks. I found those but there doesn't seem to be an option to change them ? Is there another variable I have to enable first ?


----------



## criznit

Giustaf said:


> Has anyone tried these settings?
> 
> I have only changed cpu current capability to 130%, not 140!
> 
> in gaming at default, my cpu boost up to 4325 all core, with this setting my cpu boost up to 4400 all core
> 
> do you think they are safe for 3900x?
> 
> 
> SETTINGS:
> The EDC limit set to 1 really works for boosting all cores and single core to their MAX! Thanks to the guy that figured this out.
> 
> Here is what I did to get it to work
> Set your ram timmings to whatever you prefer.
> And the fclk to half that of your ram speed.
> 
> In extreme Tweaker/core performance boost
> 
> set it to – Auto
> 
> In extreme Tweaker/precision boost overdrive
> 
> precision boost overdrive = auto
> max cpu boost clock override = auto
> platform throttle limit = auto
> Set all 3 options to AUTO
> 
> In extreme Tweaker/digi+ power control
> cpu load-line calibration set to = LEVEL 3
> cpu current capability to 140%
> 
> In advanced/amd cbs/nbio common options/xfr enhancement/accepted
> precision boost overdrive = auto
> and precision boost overdrive = auto
> 
> 
> now in
> advanced/amd overclocking/amd overclocking/precision boost override
> precision boost override set this to -advanced
> PBO limits to manual
> PPT limit =0
> TDC limit =0
> EDC limit =1
> precision boost overdrive scalar - manual =10x
> max cpu boost clock override =200mhz
> and the thermal throttle to =200
> save and restart.


Are these settings safe?


----------



## mcbaes72

criznit said:


> Are these settings safe?


Defining "Safe" depends on end user. I was making these same changes in BIOS, but at least twice I had to "Accept" AMD's warning disclaimer that it could damage CPU or void warranty. That made me second-guess it and exited without saving changes.

I'd be more daring on a lower cost CPU, but not on my 3950X. DOCP is good enough for me, for now.


----------



## newls1

mcbaes72 said:


> Defining "Safe" depends on end user. I was making these same changes in BIOS, but at least twice I had to "Accept" AMD's warning disclaimer that it could damage CPU or void warranty. That made me second-guess it and exited without saving changes.
> 
> I'd be more daring on a lower cost CPU, but not on my 3950X. DOCP is good enough for me, for now.


then why are you on overclock.net?


----------



## criznit

Lol my main concern is the Scalar setting. These chips just worry me coming from a 5820k. With that chip, I was able to get 4.4ghz for my daily usage and it ran great for 3 years with zero issues.


----------



## neurotix

criznit said:


> Are these settings safe?



I have been experimenting with those settings for some time, and I think they are safe, with one caveat:

When I set 'manual' voltage inside the AMD Overclocking panel to 1350, it caused the chip to idle at 0.900v or less, and this seemed to cause issues with system hangs in Linux. I would recommend not setting voltage there, but as per normal in the Extreme Tweaker menu. (manual voltage)

I would make some changes here to ensure vdroop on all-thread loads, such as lowering Loadline Calibration from Level 3 to Level 1 in the VRM menu. You definitely want vdroop here.

I have noticed that yes, compared to Auto (where my best CCX would only boost to 4400, tops), this will make your chip actually attain the advertised frequency when running games. However, how high it goes is highly dependent on the manual voltage you assign. For it to boost 4 threads to 4500+, or 4625 on 3 threads, it seems to need around 1.45v manual voltage. Not coincidentally, this is roughly what the board gives it when everything is set to Auto, no PBO in either menu. However, in that case, it will give it 1.45v or so and only 4 threads will hit 4400 or so for gaming, and an all-thread load (Cinebench or CPU-Z) will cause the chip to run at 4000MHz with around 1.28v. With this PBO method described, and the voltage needed for the chip to boost up past 4600 on multiple threads while gaming, under a multithread load all cores are running at 4400MHz and 1.35v. I have only tested this in CPU-Z and my temps don't go above 77c or so, but I'm pretty confident if I ran Cinebench R20 @ Realtime priority that the system would basically instantly overheat and shut off. Though it might just throttle (but PBO basically tells it not to throttle).

So, I'd say for gaming, yes this method is fine and even giving it the voltage it wants to boost above 4600 is fine, just don't run any kind of multithreaded loads, and if you do you may want to set the system to stock, use a moderate CCX ratio overclock (like 4450/4425/4325/4300 @ 1.325v on a 3900x or 3950x).

Remember that these chips are 'intelligent' and AMD themselves have basically confirmed that 1.45v~1.5v is the expected voltage required for the chip to intelligently boost four threads to 4600+. If they begin to overheat, they will lower to stay within thermal limits, before clocking back up. I would say I am somewhat concerned about these settings causing multithread loads to run at 4400mhz all core @ 1.35v- ideally, 4300mhz @1.29-ish is safe (and right now its very cold here in this room and outside so that runs around 66c during Cinebench.)

Also, I probably won't be around much, and the reason I haven't been answering questions is that I'm not feeling well again. Regards.


----------



## gui llaume

My Bios Settings.















Do you see things to improve ?


----------



## mcbaes72

newls1 said:


> then why are you on overclock.net?



I enjoy reading the OC success stories of others and keeping up with tech news.


----------



## flyinion

Phage said:


> Ok - Thanks. I found those but there doesn't seem to be an option to change them ? Is there another variable I have to enable first ?




I think I just highlighted the entry and started typing the number. It's not a drop-down type selection. If that doesn't work I have no idea honestly. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## dlbsyst

mcbaes72 said:


> I enjoy reading the OC success stories of others and keeping up with tech news.


:thumb:


----------



## Lobstar

3950x @ 44.5x/43.5x. 72*C under full CBr20 load.


----------



## gui llaume

Lobstar said:


> 3950x @ 44.5x/43.5x. 72*C under full CBr20 load.



Settings ?


----------



## Lobstar

gui llaume said:


> Settings ?


Not sure what you're looking for but I only set the multiplier per ccx and changed the voltage to 1.288v.


----------



## folklore11

Question: I have a different boot code showing on my Rog crosshair 8 hero every-time it boots to win 10. Computer works flawlessly and I can OC w/o errors too, boots very fast, etc. Why does it do this? BIOS 1001 (no reason for me to update) chipset is 19.10.16, newest version of windows all other drivers are up to date.


----------



## mahaudi

3950x .. all core 4400 Mhz... @ 1.280v.

RAM 1:1 3800 + 1900 Fabric


----------



## Krisztias

What have you Guys experienced with the two VDDG Voltages?


----------



## dlbsyst

neurotix said:


> I have been experimenting with those settings for some time, and I think they are safe, with one caveat:
> 
> When I set 'manual' voltage inside the AMD Overclocking panel to 1350, it caused the chip to idle at 0.900v or less, and this seemed to cause issues with system hangs in Linux. I would recommend not setting voltage there, but as per normal in the Extreme Tweaker menu. (manual voltage)
> 
> I would make some changes here to ensure vdroop on all-thread loads, such as lowering Loadline Calibration from Level 3 to Level 1 in the VRM menu. You definitely want vdroop here.
> 
> I have noticed that yes, compared to Auto (where my best CCX would only boost to 4400, tops), this will make your chip actually attain the advertised frequency when running games. However, how high it goes is highly dependent on the manual voltage you assign. For it to boost 4 threads to 4500+, or 4625 on 3 threads, it seems to need around 1.45v manual voltage. Not coincidentally, this is roughly what the board gives it when everything is set to Auto, no PBO in either menu. However, in that case, it will give it 1.45v or so and only 4 threads will hit 4400 or so for gaming, and an all-thread load (Cinebench or CPU-Z) will cause the chip to run at 4000MHz with around 1.28v. With this PBO method described, and the voltage needed for the chip to boost up past 4600 on multiple threads while gaming, under a multithread load all cores are running at 4400MHz and 1.35v. I have only tested this in CPU-Z and my temps don't go above 77c or so, but I'm pretty confident if I ran Cinebench R20 @ Realtime priority that the system would basically instantly overheat and shut off. Though it might just throttle (but PBO basically tells it not to throttle).
> 
> So, I'd say for gaming, yes this method is fine and even giving it the voltage it wants to boost above 4600 is fine, just don't run any kind of multithreaded loads, and if you do you may want to set the system to stock, use a moderate CCX ratio overclock (like 4450/4425/4325/4300 @ 1.325v on a 3900x or 3950x).
> 
> Remember that these chips are 'intelligent' and AMD themselves have basically confirmed that 1.45v~1.5v is the expected voltage required for the chip to intelligently boost four threads to 4600+. If they begin to overheat, they will lower to stay within thermal limits, before clocking back up. I would say I am somewhat concerned about these settings causing multithread loads to run at 4400mhz all core @ 1.35v- ideally, 4300mhz @1.29-ish is safe (and right now its very cold here in this room and outside so that runs around 66c during Cinebench.)
> 
> *Also, I probably won't be around much, and the reason I haven't been answering questions is that I'm not feeling well again. Regards*.


Get well soon Neurotix. It's just not the same around here without you.


----------



## newls1

for us manual overclockers and per ccx overclockers, do we need to set EDC and the other 3 power options manually in our bios? Still trying to hunt down my insta-reboot upon doing most stress tests. Like ive said many times before, the second i try to run cb20 or ibt, the pc reboots stating "Overheat protection" which is BS, and thinking these power options may need to be set and never thought about it. 300EDC to much? and what about the other 3 options related to amps/power setup.. where should they be set at? Thanks


----------



## marcelo19941

Im not sure of running an OC with a load voltage above 1,20V, that test that indicate what is the fit voltage of my processor gave me a voltage of 1,16V


----------



## neurotix

There it is again for anyone who needs it

I hate my voice, I say um too much, and I get a lot of things wrong before showing the correct locations for them later

Needs to be remade


----------



## gui llaume

Neurotix,


Thank u very much !!!


----------



## dlbsyst

neurotix said:


> https://youtu.be/WF7Bnn8YleE
> 
> There it is again for anyone who needs it
> 
> I hate my voice, I say um too much, and I get a lot of things wrong before showing the correct locations for them later
> 
> Needs to be remade


Thanks for posting your video here. I tried to find it on YouTube recently with no luck. I enjoy it and your voice sounds fine.:thumb: No one ever likes hearing their voice recorded and played back. I actually watched a video about that very thing recently.


----------



## Philwong

Juz setup a C8F with a 3900X. CPU, GPU & VRM are cooled with 3 x 360mm rads. Problem is idle temp is pretty high around 40c despite the cooling capacity. Ave room temp is around 30c. PBO and auto OC are both disabled. Vcore offset @ -0.025V. 

What I observed is my Vcore rarely dips below 1V, and freq typically hovers between 3.5Ghz to 4.5Ghz.

Just found out the culprit is Aura Sync. Can I run my synchronised mobo, fan & RAM rainbow profile without load & temp spikes? The mobo's RGB lighting will still cycle by default without the OS loading Aura Sync right? 

The fan speed control in the bios is also broken. I can't get my rad fans to throttle according to w_in temp. Speed is perpetually stuck at the lower temp threshold right now. The only solution is to run AI Suite, which is another bloatware. I read here that it is possible not to load this software once the fan curves are set. Is that true?

Thanks.


----------



## Synoxia

Gred said:


> Just jumping in to say if you havent tried this, this fixed my boost issues for me.
> I've never gone above 4525 on best core, now i am seeing 4.7 on 6 cores with one hitting 4.75, and the bad ccd all doing 4.5.
> Thanks a lot.


 a
What the actual fuark is this. Holy fuark this is completely NON SENSE. I repeat myself this defeats any logic. Why is EDC scaling backwards? I'm on a c7h hero and 1.0.0.3abba and this works for me. Now some cores are perma 4.450...
Maybe it's a bug with reportings?


----------



## neurotix

gui llaume said:


> Neurotix,
> 
> 
> Thank u very much !!!





dlbsyst said:


> Thanks for posting your video here. I tried to find it on YouTube recently with no luck. I enjoy it and your voice sounds fine.:thumb: No one ever likes hearing their voice recorded and played back. I actually watched a video about that very thing recently.



Yes well the reason why I am not answering questions here, even though I know the answers, and I didn't answer guillarme's pm/questions about oc, is that I am not receiving rep from numerous users despite taking a lot of my free time to type out and post very thorough explanations and answers to questions here

Case in point: that video received about 50 views overnight and I have gotten not a single rep. It also had 200~ views and after making it I did not receive 200 rep (or 100, or 50, or 25, or even 15) yet everyone was using it to find the hidden settings from DRAM Calc on our board.

So, I will leave it for a day and I better get thanks for it or it will be private again and I will probably not bother answering quite a few questions I havent yet here

Look- I like helping people for the sake of helping, but I have many many many other projects that get sidelined when I answer questions here all day, I have barely gamed on my setup since getting it, I have more benches to do, I have the project to rebuild my rig as soon as I get the case, I have 4+ retro consoles to replace capacitors in, I have a Macintosh SE that needs a full recap + retrobrite + tear apart and retrobrite the Woz keyboard, I have watercolor paintings I promised to people, Raspberry Pi stuff I have planned, I need to build a better Shortwave dipole antenna out of wire for my Tecsun radio, I want to recap the crossovers in my Technics sb-a32 speakers for my retro modern stereo build, and I also have a wife to spend time with and keep happy. Theres a lot of other stuff too. As well as having numerous things wrong with my neck and lower back/hips, causing constant severe pain that has been poorly treated by 11 different "pain specialists" for 5 years now and just keeps getting worse. I am waiti g for a potential SI joint fusion/back surgery in a month or two and with my past experience I'm afraid they'll f it up per usual and I'll be unable to walk.

So really, theres a lot I do and have to deal with otherwise, if you want me to help here and answer all your questions about the board or make more videos, make it worth my time. Please.


----------



## Sam64

Philwong: It works for me. I configured the curves with AI Suite, but it's not auto-starting with windows, still the curve setting is active. It's handled in windows automatically by a service called AsusFanControlService.


Did you try setting the curve in BIOS in EZ-Mode? (Press F7 in Bios, click on QFanControl and set up your curves).


Also big thanks to Neurotix, really helpful and great video! :thumb:


----------



## flyinion

Not sure if it's just me, but since installing those new chipset drivers I noticed the long lag in doing a reboot is now gone


----------



## mcbaes72

neurotix said:


> There it is again for anyone who needs it
> 
> I hate my voice, I say um too much, and I get a lot of things wrong before showing the correct locations for them later
> 
> Needs to be remade


EDIT: I found this helpful first time you shared it, will check it out again after work.


----------



## gui llaume

Neurotix, thank you again for your help and your video. However, I am a bit lost regarding the best method for processor OC.

Fix Ratio for all cores?

CCX Overclock?

CCD Overclock?

What is the best choice for H24 / 7 and gaming?

When I watch your video, I see that you have made a CCX OC.

Should I leave the PBO activated? What are the settings for the PBO?

Should your Core Performance Boost be disabled?

I'm really lost ... and Noob ...

It was much easier with my 8600K ...


----------



## Synoxia

neurotix said:


> Yes well the reason why I am not answering questions here, even though I know the answers, and I didn't answer guillarme's pm/questions about oc, is that I am not receiving rep from numerous users despite taking a lot of my free time to type out and post very thorough explanations and answers to questions here
> 
> Case in point: that video received about 50 views overnight and I have gotten not a single rep. It also had 200~ views and after making it I did not receive 200 rep (or 100, or 50, or 25, or even 15) yet everyone was using it to find the hidden settings from DRAM Calc on our board.
> 
> So, I will leave it for a day and I better get thanks for it or it will be private again and I will probably not bother answering quite a few questions I havent yet here
> 
> Look- I like helping people for the sake of helping, but I have many many many other projects that get sidelined when I answer questions here all day, I have barely gamed on my setup since getting it, I have more benches to do, I have the project to rebuild my rig as soon as I get the case, I have 4+ retro consoles to replace capacitors in, I have a Macintosh SE that needs a full recap + retrobrite + tear apart and retrobrite the Woz keyboard, I have watercolor paintings I promised to people, Raspberry Pi stuff I have planned, I need to build a better Shortwave dipole antenna out of wire for my Tecsun radio, I want to recap the crossovers in my Technics sb-a32 speakers for my retro modern stereo build, and I also have a wife to spend time with and keep happy. Theres a lot of other stuff too. As well as having numerous things wrong with my neck and lower back/hips, causing constant severe pain that has been poorly treated by 11 different "pain specialists" for 5 years now and just keeps getting worse. I am waiti g for a potential SI joint fusion/back surgery in a month or two and with my past experience I'm afraid they'll f it up per usual and I'll be unable to walk.
> 
> So really, theres a lot I do and have to deal with otherwise, if you want me to help here and answer all your questions about the board or make more videos, make it worth my time. Please.



It was helpful and entertaining to watch you carefully explain everything, i've also made some modifications according to your spoke.

Thank you for the free time and knowledge you share with us more or less experts. 

I suggest you to take a breath and enjoy your setup, a plenty stable CCX oc on your 3900x should provide you very smooth frametimes


----------



## Philwong

Sam64 said:


> Philwong: It works for me. I configured the curves with AI Suite, but it's not auto-starting with windows, still the curve setting is active. It's handled in windows automatically by a service called AsusFanControlService.
> 
> 
> Did you try setting the curve in BIOS in EZ-Mode? (Press F7 in Bios, click on QFanControl and set up your curves).
> 
> 
> Also big thanks to Neurotix, really helpful and great video! /forum/images/smilies/thumb.gif


Thanks for replying. 

I stopped AI Suite from auto loading @ start-up without compromising the fan curve functionality, but more crucially, killing Aura Sync/armour crate solved my high idle temp prob. 

The only tradeoff is my mobo's RGB lighting is now stuck @ red. 

Asus really sucks in the software dept. It's been years since this issue was first detected, yet they don't have a solution.

BTW, the bios' fan curve function using the auxiliary temp inputs (w_in, out) is broken. You can try it out and let me know if it works for you. 

Phil


----------



## Philwong

What is the lowest vcore we can expect for 3900X when it's idling. The lowest I ever get is around 0.5V according to Ryzen Master.

Phil


----------



## Lobstar

Philwong said:


> BTW, the bios' fan curve function using the auxiliary temp inputs (w_in, out) is broken. You can try it out and let me know if it works for you.


I thought it was just me. I tried with both connected, one on either, reversing polarity ... I couldn't think of any other ways to connect them and nothing seemed to respond. I bet it's a left over feature from another series of mobo that was just never removed ...


----------



## Philwong

Lobstar said:


> Philwong said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, the bios' fan curve function using the auxiliary temp inputs (w_in, out) is broken. You can try it out and let me know if it works for you.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it was just me. I tried with both connected, one on either, reversing polarity ... I couldn't think of any other ways to connect them and nothing seemed to respond. I bet it's a left over feature from another series of mobo that was just never removed ...
Click to expand...

I was truly amazed how broken the C8F although it was launched many months ago.

It's not only the bios, but other key USPs like Aura Sync. Just running my RGB lighting in rainbow profile caused my 3900X's idle temp to spike.

Truly regretted replacing my Aquero's fan control with this board. FUBAR!!

Phil


----------



## marcelo19941

Philwong said:


> Lobstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philwong said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, the bios' fan curve function using the auxiliary temp inputs (w_in, out) is broken. You can try it out and let me know if it works for you.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it was just me. I tried with both connected, one on either, reversing polarity ... I couldn't think of any other ways to connect them and nothing seemed to respond. I bet it's a left over feature from another series of mobo that was just never removed ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was truly amazed how broken the C8F although it was launched many months ago.
> 
> It's not only the bios, but other key USPs like Aura Sync. Just running my RGB lighting in rainbow profile caused my 3900X's idle temp to spike.
> 
> Truly regretted replacing my Aquero's fan control with this board. FUBAR!!
> 
> Phil
Click to expand...

Yeah I was thinking to replace my aquaero 6 for the water-cooling support of the c8i but I decided to keep it, it was a good choice


----------



## Philwong

marcelo19941 said:


> Philwong;28296026
> [quote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I was thinking to replace my aquaero 6 for the water-cooling support of the c8i but I decided to keep it, it was a good choice
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you. I've space constraint after squeezing 3 x 360mm rad-based custom loop inside a Lian Li o11.
> 
> Phil
Click to expand...


----------



## marcelo19941

Synoxia said:


> a
> What the actual fuark is this. Holy fuark this is completely NON SENSE. I repeat myself this defeats any logic. Why is EDC scaling backwards? I'm on a c7h hero and 1.0.0.3abba and this works for me. Now some cores are perma 4.450...
> Maybe it's a bug with reportings?


I tried those settings too and now 4 of my cores are able to hit 4,7, not at the same time, and core 0 can hit 4,8 lol


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Mine are hitting 4.7 too. 3900x


----------



## gui llaume

I reach 86 ° on Cinebench20 with a 3900x and a Noctua NH-U12A + 3 Silent Wings 3 120 + 2 Silent Wings 3 140 and a Darkbase 700 from BeQuiet and 41 ° in Idle.

3900X @ 4.3 All cores at 1.28 Vcore.

It seems high to me in charge.

I often see 77/80 °.

: /


----------



## newls1

marcelo19941 said:


> I tried those settings too and now 4 of my cores are able to hit 4,7, not at the same time, and core 0 can hit 4,8 lol


are you leaving vcore to "auto" when using those settings? i wanna try this out......


----------



## Warsteiner

Is anyone else having an issue with the new AMD Drivers? I cannot get them to install. It keeps telling me that a script required for install did not complete. Has anyone else seen this error?


----------



## Schmuckley

FlanK3r said:


> Extreme overlcocking Guide (LN2): https://community.hwbot.org/topic/1...6Znds021RTEONuZepQtZ9EdO4mAZQqHqXsIHSIkwoqduA


Did you write it?

I'm happy to get USB working on them. How you supposed to do SuperPi on XP with them?


----------



## Schmuckley

Warsteiner said:


> Is anyone else having an issue with the new AMD Drivers? I cannot get them to install. It keeps telling me that a script required for install did not complete. Has anyone else seen this error?


They are FUBAR! Win 10 only, what about Linux and Server 2008? AMD is seriously shooting themselves in the foot.

I just had to work 4 hrs to get USB on the 570 platform. Way to fail, AMD.

Bloated drivers that don't work? Seriously?

You should see the CPU paging on the new AMD GPU drivers, it pages your CPU every 1/4 second or less. It's like running Wprime 24/7 until it messes up and kills your hardware.


----------



## gerardfraser

Giustaf said:


> Has anyone tried these settings?


Just tried this,it is good .Free FPS is always welcome.Recorded BF5 .
Thanks

BF5 and MSI Motherboard settings for boost,not that anyone with MSI board would look in this thread.


Spoiler


----------



## Giustaf

gerardfraser said:


> Just tried this,it is good .Free FPS is always welcome.Recorded BF5 .
> Thanks
> 
> BF5 and MSI Motherboard settings for boost,not that anyone with MSI board would look in this thread.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPt_pLZg8j4&feature=emb_logo



ok but is it a safe setting?


----------



## marcelo19941

Yeah! Vcore at auto, no messing with voltages


----------



## marcelo19941

newls1 said:


> are you leaving vcore to "auto" when using those settings? i wanna try this out......


Yeah vcore on auto, no messing with voltages


----------



## Giustaf

ok, but with the auto voltages the motherboard could increase them beyond the safety threshold, or not?


----------



## marcelo19941

Giustaf said:


> ok, but with the auto voltages the motherboard could increase them beyond the safety threshold, or not?


I think it wont because under load is running at 1,13V max


----------



## MikeS3000

marcelo19941 said:


> I tried those settings too and now 4 of my cores are able to hit 4,7, not at the same time, and core 0 can hit 4,8 lol


I'm also seeing boosting over 4.6 on my 3900x but I am having weirdness when running single core benchmarks like Cpu-z or CB15 single core. My frequencies bounce around but seem to hover around 2 ghz. Multi-thread scores are good but single core is much worse. Anyone else seeing this?


----------



## gerardfraser

Giustaf said:


> ok but is it a safe setting?


I am not trying to be ignorant,so for me it is a cheap CPU and nothing that has sentimental value to me and as a hobby it is awesome tweak.Video was set on auto settings and the CPU should last 10 years at those settings.
Thanks again for the heads up.

After adding some CPU offset + voltage for CPU on AMD Ryzen 3800X well the tweak is real .Recorded 1 hour of RDR2 and sustained CPU clocks were up to 4600Mhz with and average around 4525Mhz-4550Mhz.

Highest normal Boost is still 4650Mhz and with BCLK overclocking still same with around 4750Mhz in light loads in HWInfo64.

Light gaming loads all core boost up to 4625Mhz Outlast 2 


Spoiler



Outlast 2 Screenshot by gerard fraser, on Flickr



Normal to heavy gaming loads all core boost 4575Mhz Red Dead Redemption 2


Spoiler



Red Dead Redemption 2 by gerard fraser, on Flickr



BF5 4550Mhz 


Spoiler



Battlefield V by gerard fraser, on Flickr


----------



## Lobstar

Giustaf said:


> Has anyone tried these settings?
> 
> I have only changed cpu current capability to 130%, not 140!
> 
> in gaming at default, my cpu boost up to 4325 all core, with this setting my cpu boost up to 4400 all core
> 
> do you think they are safe for 3900x?
> 
> 
> SETTINGS:
> The EDC limit set to 1 really works for boosting all cores and single core to their MAX! Thanks to the guy that figured this out.
> 
> Here is what I did to get it to work
> Set your ram timmings to whatever you prefer.
> And the fclk to half that of your ram speed.
> 
> In extreme Tweaker/core performance boost
> 
> set it to – Auto
> 
> In extreme Tweaker/precision boost overdrive
> 
> precision boost overdrive = auto
> max cpu boost clock override = auto
> platform throttle limit = auto
> Set all 3 options to AUTO
> 
> In extreme Tweaker/digi+ power control
> cpu load-line calibration set to = LEVEL 3
> cpu current capability to 140%
> 
> In advanced/amd cbs/nbio common options/xfr enhancement/accepted
> precision boost overdrive = auto
> and precision boost overdrive = auto
> 
> 
> now in
> advanced/amd overclocking/amd overclocking/precision boost override
> precision boost override set this to -advanced
> PBO limits to manual
> PPT limit =0
> TDC limit =0
> EDC limit =1
> precision boost overdrive scalar - manual =10x
> max cpu boost clock override =200mhz
> and the thermal throttle to =200
> save and restart.


No luck, clocks won't boost at all under any conditions. Full load in CR20 at 43*C with the above settings.


----------



## newls1

gerardfraser said:


> I am not trying to be ignorant,so for me it is a cheap CPU and nothing that has sentimental value to me and as a hobby it is awesome tweak.Video was set on auto settings and the CPU should last 10 years at those settings.
> Thanks again for the heads up.
> 
> After adding some CPU offset + voltage for CPU on AMD Ryzen 3800X well the tweak is real .Recorded 1 hour of RDR2 and sustained CPU clocks were up to 4600Mhz with and average around 4525Mhz-4550Mhz.
> 
> Highest normal Boost is still 4650Mhz and with BCLK overclocking still same with around 4750Mhz in light loads in HWInfo64.
> 
> Light gaming loads all core boost up to 4625Mhz Outlast 2
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Outlast 2 Screenshot by gerard fraser, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> Normal to heavy gaming loads all core boost 4575Mhz Red Dead Redemption 2
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Red Dead Redemption 2 by gerard fraser, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> BF5 4550Mhz
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Battlefield V by gerard fraser, on Flickr


that is freaking awesome!! Can you PLEASE do me a favor and explain 1 more time what you set in bios to achieve this??? i'd be your best friend!


----------



## gerardfraser

newls1 said:


> that is freaking awesome!! Can you PLEASE do me a favor and explain 1 more time what you set in bios to achieve this??? i'd be your best friend!


Sure no problem.
Red Dead 2 Video played 1 hour


Spoiler











Ram Timings in Ryzen Master,I know you do not need just showing for anyone who wants to see.


Spoiler



Ram Time by gerard fraser, on Flickr



♦ Mobo - MSI X470 - Gaming Plus(E7B79AMS.AAG-AMD ComboPI1.0.0.4b) BIOS settings ,Added CPU offset voltage for sustained boost.


Spoiler



PBO settings
CPUConfig by gerard fraser, on Flickr

Voltages
CPUConfig_00 by gerard fraser, on Flickr

CPU Features
CPUConfig_01 by gerard fraser, on Flickr


----------



## newls1

thank you buddy


----------



## Visceral

See this fascinates me there has to be a down side. Are you positive that in addition to showing higher boost clocks there is an actual tangible difference in performance? In other words not just giving false positives?


----------



## gerardfraser

Visceral said:


> See this fascinates me there has to be a down side. Are you positive that in addition to showing higher boost clocks there is an actual tangible difference in performance? In other words not just giving false positives?


Well I tested BF5 PBO Override before and after EDC 1,got some free FPS.Also Cinebench20 scores higher before and after.I hate Cinebench20 ,anyway here is the test I did a couple post up.Always do your own test.
https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...cking-discussion-thread-201.html#post28298044


----------



## Sam64

Not sure about that, sounds kind of crazy, but it's an interesting finding. I tried it as well with EDC 1. Can confirm slightly higher boost on all cores and yes, CB20 mulitcore result is nice as well, BUT: I got the worst singlecore performance ever with this setting (did i miss something?). So it's kind of an allcore-oc-boost scenario? But why do i need this, when i can do Allcore- or CCX-OC and get the same (and even slightly better) multicore results? And FPS in my games (e.g. Anno1800) are more or less identical to PB2/AutoOC and normal TDP settings, but yes, i also get 1-2 FPS more with EDC=1.


----------



## Nighthog

I can say you guys can use EDC in the range 1~12.

1A Gives best multi-core stock. while at the top end 8-11 might give you the best single-core closest to stock behaviour while still retaining the all-core boost to quite a degree.

You will have to play with Scalar, LLC & offset voltage to get the best balance between multi-core boost and single core boost.

What I found was it's still trying to wrestle control and maintain the EDC target under idle and single-thread loads so if you have only 1A limit you get horrible single thread throttling. Meanwhile a target close to 10A will give it most of the normal limits for any single thread load will use but the multi-thread boost will still go beyond any limits and go full throttle.

Started a thread over at AMD - General about this.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Has a one used these settings with aida64 cache and memory Benchmark? I’m using hwinfo64-6.21-4055 and these settings with this benchmark down clock the cpu to below 1mhz. Is anyone else having this happen to them? 3900x


----------



## newls1

Nighthog said:


> I can say you guys can use EDC in the range 1~12.
> 
> 1A Gives best multi-core stock. while at the top end 8-11 might give you the best single-core closest to stock behaviour while still retaining the all-core boost to quite a degree.
> 
> You will have to play with Scalar, LLC & offset voltage to get the best balance between multi-core boost and single core boost.
> 
> What I found was it's still trying to wrestle control and maintain the EDC target under idle and single-thread loads so if you have only 1A limit you get horrible single thread throttling. Meanwhile a target close to 10A will give it most of the normal limits for any single thread load will use but the multi-thread boost will still go beyond any limits and go full throttle.
> 
> Started a thread over at AMD - General about this.


link to thread?


----------



## MrPhilo

gerardfraser said:


> I am not trying to be ignorant,so for me it is a cheap CPU and nothing that has sentimental value to me and as a hobby it is awesome tweak.Video was set on auto settings and the CPU should last 10 years at those settings.
> Thanks again for the heads up.
> 
> After adding some CPU offset + voltage for CPU on AMD Ryzen 3800X well the tweak is real .Recorded 1 hour of RDR2 and sustained CPU clocks were up to 4600Mhz with and average around 4525Mhz-4550Mhz.
> 
> Highest normal Boost is still 4650Mhz and with BCLK overclocking still same with around 4750Mhz in light loads in HWInfo64.
> 
> Light gaming loads all core boost up to 4625Mhz Outlast 2
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Outlast 2 Screenshot by gerard fraser, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> Normal to heavy gaming loads all core boost 4575Mhz Red Dead Redemption 2
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Red Dead Redemption 2 by gerard fraser, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> BF5 4550Mhz
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Battlefield V by gerard fraser, on Flickr


Won't most cores boost high anyways when you limit your fps to 60?


----------



## gerardfraser

MrPhilo said:


> Won't most cores boost high anyways when you limit your fps to 60?


No difference as far as I can tell from my 4k 65" G-sync compatible 120Hz screen ,G-sync 165Hz monitor or and the monitor I did the test on my 27" 4K 60 G-sync compatible .The CPU boost is real and I am enjoying it.
Now my 3800X could always boost to 4650Mhz in light gaming loads but now sustained heavy PC gaming loads CPU boost are up 100Mhz-200Mhz with the tweak.

Well thanks for the idea ,I am actually going to test 60 G-sync/60 Freesync/60 VRR then test all at 120.While I am at it I will test over display port vs HDMI.Time to get out the beer and mess around.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

gerardfraser said:


> MrPhilo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Won't most cores boost high anyways when you limit your fps to 60?
> 
> 
> 
> No difference as far as I can tell from my 4k 65" G-sync compatible 120Hz screen ,G-sync 165Hz monitor or and the monitor I did the test on my 27" 4K 60 G-sync compatible .The CPU boost is real and I am enjoying it.
> Now my 3800X could always boost to 4650Mhz in light gaming loads but now sustained heavy PC gaming loads CPU boost are up 100Mhz-200Mhz with the tweak.
> 
> Well thanks for the idea ,I am actually going to test 60 G-sync/60 Freesync/60 VRR then test all at 120.Time to get out the beer and mess around.
Click to expand...

Can you test also with EDC=10. Been trying this this evening but had my evening cut short to a call out with work.


----------



## Warsteiner

How would you modify these settings to work with a 3800x? I can never get over 4.3 Ghz even on a single core. I also don't like that from Ryzen Master to HWInfo and even Task Manager these core clocks are all over the place there is no consistency at all.


----------



## gerardfraser

MrPhilo said:


> Won't most cores boost high anyways when you limit your fps to 60?


Well you are 100% correct ,you do get a higher CPU clock when running 60FPS compared to 120FPS and then I stopped there with testing.I am now going to sell MY 4K OLED TV's and 144+ monitors and stick with 4K 60 FPS .Thanks 



Badgerslayer7 said:


> Can you test also with EDC=10. Been trying this this evening but had my evening cut short to a call out with work.


Sure no problem I did a test with EDC 10 and it seems the same as EDC 1 for CPU speed when gaming.I did a video if interested.



Warsteiner said:


> How would you modify these settings to work with a 3800x? I can never get over 4.3 Ghz even on a single core. I also don't like that from Ryzen Master to HWInfo and even Task Manager these core clocks are all over the place there is no consistency at all.


I put the settings in video ,also CPU clocks changing is how the cpu works but 3800X is capable of 4600Mhz+ single thread running Cinbench.


----------



## Visceral

Is anyone trying this with an Aorus X570 elite? I can find most of these settings but load line calibration on my BIOS menus is different. This guide calls for "level 3" and I have a ton of options marked things like auto, low, normal, extreme, turbo, etc..


----------



## Schmuckley

MacG32 said:


> Looky what came in today! :drool:



Looks like you're about to experience what I did last night! 

Whoo! May the Force be with you!

I was 1/2 step away from taking a hammer to the thing and being done with it. Seriously.

You may need this:

https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...pport-matisse-ryzen-3000-zen-2-x370-x470.html


----------



## Schmuckley

gerardfraser said:


> Well you are 100% correct ,you do get a higher CPU clock when running 60FPS compared to 120FPS and then I stopped there with testing.I am now going to sell MY 4K OLED TV's and 144+ monitors and stick with 4K 60 FPS .Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> Sure no problem I did a test with EDC 10 and it seems the same as EDC 1 for CPU speed when gaming.I did a video if interested.
> 
> 
> I put the settings in video ,also CPU clocks changing is how the cpu works but 3800X is capable of 4600Mhz+ single thread running Cinbench.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EIHD3OBrdY&feature=youtu.be



4600, aye? So you have no problem validating that with CPU-Z, amirite?

I mean, I bet I could get it a bit higher, but 4600 is a bit much with conventional methods.


----------



## Schmuckley

gerardfraser said:


> Well you are 100% correct ,you do get a higher CPU clock when running 60FPS compared to 120FPS and then I stopped there with testing.I am now going to sell MY 4K OLED TV's and 144+ monitors and stick with 4K 60 FPS .Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> Sure no problem I did a test with EDC 10 and it seems the same as EDC 1 for CPU speed when gaming.I did a video if interested.
> 
> 
> I put the settings in video ,also CPU clocks changing is how the cpu works but 3800X is capable of 4600Mhz+ single thread running Cinbench.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EIHD3OBrdY&feature=youtu.be





Warsteiner said:


> How would you modify these settings to work with a 3800x? I can never get over 4.3 Ghz even on a single core. I also don't like that from Ryzen Master to HWInfo and even Task Manager these core clocks are all over the place there is no consistency at all.


4300 isn't awful bad. You didn't win the silicon lottery and if you sold that off and got another it would most likely be better because that's the low-end of the spectrum.

Mine will do 4350 np, but I run @ 4275. It's a 3600x, but verrry similar silicon.

As for 4600+? I ask for proof of that.

I like your handle, that's good beer!

Maybe with a chiller or SS 4600Mhz. Maybe the center wafer chips might do that, but most don't.

How much you want to bet I can get one going over 5K? Do you want to bet I can't? Hmm?

Not you, Warsteiner, the 4600Mhz claimer with no proof.

Did you get your driver issues sorted?


----------



## Warsteiner

Schmuckley said:


> 4300 isn't awful bad. You didn't win the silicon lottery and if you sold that off and got another it would most likely be better because that's the low-end of the spectrum.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you get your driver issues sorted?


No I still have not gotten them to install. Seems like it might be a windows update the is the culprit but I am finding a lot of different opinions in my searches as to whether or not that is true. I also see that it is not an issue that is necessarily specific to AMD drivers. I have seen people getting the same issue with multiple different installers including Adobe, Microsoft Lync, and many others. If it breaks Microsoft's own installers then it is most definitely a bug in the installer service somewhere. I am still going through my logs to see if I can get a better error to look at.

I was just thinking that 4300 was bad because the specs say it should boost to 4500 single core. I am getting the 4300 at all core and single core both. That is why I was thinking it was an issue with my settings. It may be thermal throttle as well though since I hit 74 degrees on CPU. Pretty sure that puts me in the throttle zone. I have a DeepCool Castle 360EX so it should be plenty to keep my temps at bay. I may try to redo the paste on my CPU since I am using the paste that came on the cooler. I have some MX4 that I might try instead and see if I can get some better temps. If not it may be time to break down and get a tower cooler. I just like the AIO because it is a lot smaller on the CPU mount and does not cover my ram. Makes tinkering in the case a lot easier for me since I don't have to get around a huge hunk of metal.


----------



## gerardfraser

Schmuckley said:


> Not you, Warsteiner, the 4600Mhz claimer with no proof.


Wow you a special kind of person ok I play along.What proof do you want.


----------



## Warsteiner

gerardfraser said:


> I put the settings in video ,also CPU clocks changing is how the cpu works but 3800X is capable of 4600Mhz+ single thread running Cinbench.


Sorry I did not realize you had a 3800x. I thought you were listing settings for the 3900x. I will try these settings tomorrow when I have the full day to test. What are you using for you overlay?


----------



## gerardfraser

Warsteiner said:


> Sorry I did not realize you had a 3800x. I thought you were listing settings for the 3900x. I will try these settings tomorrow when I have the full day to test. What are you using for you overlay?


MSI after burner for overlay.


----------



## Visceral

Well. This cannot be accurate.

3800x. Tweak everything according to most of the info in this thread. It's repeatable and the score is significantly higher in cinebench then when not tweaked.


----------



## gerardfraser

Visceral said:


> Well. This cannot be accurate.
> 
> 3800x. Tweak everything according to most of the info in this thread. It's repeatable and the score is significantly higher in cinebench then when not tweaked.


It is accurate as far as when the CPU is doing nothing and voltage max out on CPU and powerplan.
Actual playing a PC game on light loads the AMD 3800X will, can go up to 4650Mhz in light loads and single core,so two threads.

The tweak is real and does works and add 100Mhz+ in real world benches,PC gaming

Then there is BCLK overclocking which PBO Override on can boost higher doing nothing like this.Does not translate in real world test.


3800x Boost by gerard fraser, on Flickr


----------



## Visceral

How important to disable C States and Cool&Quiet if I haven't already done that?

Edit: NM, looks like from your previous settings your left it alone.


----------



## pschorr1123

gerardfraser said:


> It is accurate as far as when the CPU is doing nothing and voltage max out on CPU and powerplan.
> Actual playing a PC game on light loads the AMD 3800X will, can go up to 4650Mhz in light loads and single core,so two threads.
> 
> The tweak is real and does works and add 100Mhz+ in real world benches,PC gaming
> 
> Then there is BCLK overclocking which PBO Override on can boost higher doing nothing like this.Does not translate in real world test.
> 
> 
> 3800x Boost by gerard fraser, on Flickr


Nice golden sample you must have there! Maybe you got lucky and got a CCD that was supposed to be binned for the 3950X


----------



## gerardfraser

Sorry man ,not a golden sample at all,anyone can get this boost with BCLK overclock as little as 103 Base instead of 100 on desktop.


----------



## gui llaume

gentlemen,

I ask for your help regarding a fan issue with my Noctua NH-U12A which causes it to vary every 20 sec. Knowing that the temperatures of my 3900x oscillate between 40 and 55 in idle, I can not find a solution to avoid starting and stopping in PMW.

What settings have to be made in the bios? Do you have examples of optimal curves?


----------



## dlbsyst

gui llaume said:


> gentlemen,
> 
> I ask for your help regarding a fan issue with my Noctua NH-U12A which causes it to vary every 20 sec. Knowing that the temperatures of my 3900x oscillate between 40 and 55 in idle, I can not find a solution to avoid starting and stopping in PMW.
> 
> What settings have to be made in the bios? Do you have examples of optimal curves?


gui llaume, I'm at work right now but I can help you later tonight when I get home. I'll show the process I use to set up my fans and show you how I set my fan curve. It's not perfect but it does cut down on the fans ramping up so much.


----------



## gerardfraser

gui llaume said:


> gentlemen,
> 
> I ask for your help regarding a fan issue with my Noctua NH-U12A which causes it to vary every 20 sec. Knowing that the temperatures of my 3900x oscillate between 40 and 55 in idle, I can not find a solution to avoid starting and stopping in PMW.
> 
> What settings have to be made in the bios? Do you have examples of optimal curves?


You say 40°C and 55°C on idle the temperatures oscillate.

In BIOS set CPU Fan RPM to something silent 1°C above your highest idle temperature you have observed and never hear fan oscillate again on idle.
If you need a picture of graph I can supply one for a small fee,J/K

56°C -30% Fan Speed Silent on idle @56°C
60°C -45% Fan Speed 
65°C -50% Fan Speed 
75°C -100% Fan Speed


----------



## slohcine

Geoff01 said:


> yes power is getting to the keyboard. the LED light(s) is on.


Geoff01,
Did you get your issue resolved? Having same issue you describe. After 1101 update, no video, no option to go to UEFI BIOS, no keyboard lights. Post code of 9C, which seems OK since my USB device is bootable. 

CH8 Hero Wifi
3900X
New build. No OS installed yet.


----------



## gui llaume

dlbsyst said:


> gui llaume, I'm at work right now but I can help you later tonight when I get home. I'll show the process I use to set up my fans and show you how I set my fan curve. It's not perfect but it does cut down on the fans ramping up so much.





Thank u 


If u can post Screens of bios settings ?


Guillaume



A French noob Overclocker ^^


----------



## slohcine

Magically, I'm OK. Based on other posts, I pulled out a firewire adapter from PCIe 1x slot. Removed all USBs, cold started and the updating BIOS msgs appeared and now happily running latest BIOS. 

I'm using an old USB stick. Should at least be USB2.0 but wondering if that is an issue, where the discovery polling doesn't wait long enough for the old stick to respond in time. Worked fine on 9 and 10 bios version updates. 

Relieved I didn't hose the board and VERY happy I discovered Overclock.net. Great info and nice community.


----------



## dlbsyst

slohcine said:


> Magically, I'm OK. Based on other posts, I pulled out a firewire adapter from PCIe 1x slot. Removed all USBs, cold started and the updating BIOS msgs appeared and now happily running latest BIOS.
> 
> I'm using an old USB stick. Should at least be USB2.0 but wondering if that is an issue, where the discovery polling doesn't wait long enough for the old stick to respond in time. Worked fine on 9 and 10 bios version updates.
> 
> Relieved I didn't hose the board and VERY happy I discovered Overclock.net. Great info and nice community.


Glad you got it sorted slohcine.:thumb:


----------



## dlbsyst

gui llaume said:


> Thank u
> 
> 
> If u can post Screens of bios settings ?
> 
> 
> Guillaume
> 
> 
> 
> A French noob Overclocker ^^


You're very welcome.

Here you go. First thing you want to do in BIOS is run Qfan Control by hitting F6. Then you want to click on Optimize All. This is to set the minimum RPM that your fans can run before stopping. From there you want to click on your various fans on the left and set the fan curves for each. Here are a few images of the fan curve that I use. I have my curve set to start ramping up the fans at about 53°C but you might want to set yours a little higher if you want your fans quieter.


----------



## gui llaume

dlbsyst 


it works !!


my ears will be able to stop bleeding ...


----------



## dlbsyst

gui llaume said:


> dlbsyst
> 
> 
> it works !!
> 
> 
> my ears will be able to stop bleeding ...


:thumb:


----------



## Schmuckley

I tried this and got single core of 74 in CPU-Z bench! LOL!

Going back to manual OC now. Settings came out lower than my manual OC.


----------



## slohcine

*Can older PCIe X1 adapter run on C8H mb?*



slohcine said:


> Magically, I'm OK. Based on other posts, I pulled out a firewire adapter from PCIe 1x slot. Removed all USBs, cold started and the updating BIOS msgs appeared and now happily running latest BIOS.
> 
> I'm using an old USB stick. Should at least be USB2.0 but wondering if that is an issue, where the discovery polling doesn't wait long enough for the old stick to respond in time. Worked fine on 9 and 10 bios version updates.
> 
> Relieved I didn't hose the board and VERY happy I discovered Overclock.net. Great info and nice community.


Issue with BIOS updates definitely is related to the firewall adapter I mentioned in previous post. Now I'm wondering why that adapter doesn't work. It works fine in an older X99 mb and I would like to use it in my new rig. I've read that other ASUS mb's support a BIOS setting to tell the system that a PCIe slot is not for USB type devices. I don't see that in the C8H BIOS for the PCIe X1 slot. Just: Auto, Gen 1, Gen 2, etc. Firewire adapter in question is a Siig Firewire adapter

https://www.siig.com/firewire-800-3-port-pcie.html

I feel like I'm missing something that should be obvious but appreciate any direction. Thanks!


----------



## dlbsyst

slohcine said:


> Issue with BIOS updates definitely is related to the firewall adapter I mentioned in previous post. Now I'm wondering why that adapter doesn't work. It works fine in an older X99 mb and I would like to use it in my new rig. I've read that other ASUS mb's support a BIOS setting to tell the system that a PCIe slot is not for USB type devices. I don't see that in the C8H BIOS for the PCIe X1 slot. Just: Auto, Gen 1, Gen 2, etc. Firewire adapter in question is a Siig Firewire adapter
> 
> https://www.siig.com/firewire-800-3-port-pcie.html
> 
> I feel like I'm missing something that should be obvious but appreciate any direction. Thanks!


My guess is that since your card is old it probably doesn't support Windows UEFI mode. You will need to enable the CSM in your BIOS. Here's a couple of screenshots. Note: I have it disabled since I have no legacy devices in my system.


----------



## zsoltmol

Hi Guys,

I start to lose ground what and where to set up. 1201 bios Crosshair VIII with 3900X and 4x8GB ram running at 3733MHz with 1866MHz FCLK. Ram settings giga stable. Custom water cooling with D5 pump and two radiators (internal is 280x30mm, external is 280x60mm). Temps are with 23 celsius room temp: idle at 27, Cinebench R20 at 68-70 max. Tdie/CCD1/CCD2

I want to setup PBO with scalar 1x, OC of 25-75MHz above PB, using motherboard capabilities for TDC, etc.

What should I set in these menus:
Extreme Tweaker
Tweakers Paradise
Advanced CBS, PBS, Amd Overclocking 

Why do we have 3 different places to set something which one overrides which? Experimented with some of these, my best success was manual PBO settings entered both in Extreme Tweaker PBO menu and same settings in AMD Overclocking PBO menu. But this success was medicore regarding reaching or going past 4.6GHz. 

Can you please visually help where to set what?


----------



## slohcine

dlbsyst said:


> My guess is that since your card is old it probably doesn't support Windows UEFI mode. You will need to enable the CSM in your BIOS. Here's a couple of screenshots. Note: I have it disabled since I have no legacy devices in my system.


Many thanks for the quick reply. Make sense and I'll try this.


----------



## Warsteiner

So I got my issue resolved with installing the AMD Chipset drivers. To refresh I was getting an error 1702 that a script could not run during install. Well turns out it was because of some corruption in the previous version driver install. It did not completely uninstall. I had to run a driver cleaner to fully remove all traces of the previous version drivers then I was able to install the new chipset drivers.


----------



## Krisztias

zsoltmol said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> I start to lose ground what and where to set up. 1201 bios Crosshair VIII with 3900X and 4x8GB ram running at 3733MHz with 1866MHz FCLK. Ram settings giga stable. Custom water cooling with D5 pump and two radiators (internal is 280x30mm, external is 280x60mm). Temps are with 23 celsius room temp: idle at 27, Cinebench R20 at 68-70 max. Tdie/CCD1/CCD2
> 
> I want to setup PBO with scalar 1x, OC of 25-75MHz above PB, using motherboard capabilities for TDC, etc.
> 
> What should I set in these menus:
> Extreme Tweaker
> Tweakers Paradise
> Advanced CBS, PBS, Amd Overclocking
> 
> Why do we have 3 different places to set something which one overrides which? Experimented with some of these, my best success was manual PBO settings entered both in Extreme Tweaker PBO menu and same settings in AMD Overclocking PBO menu. But this success was medicore regarding reaching or going past 4.6GHz.
> 
> Can you please visually help where to set what?


You should set everything you can under Extreme Tweaker (ASUS settings in general), and never set thing's twice/paralell! The settings under AMD CBS etc. are part of the AGESA code and cannot be hidden, even ASUS and other vendors can't do anything with it because AMD doesn't gave the info/right to do that. ( I'm not sure anymore who told us in the C6H or C7H thread, Elmor or The Stilt) If you set things more than once you can get unknown stability anomalies/worst performance. Of course you can try to set everything under the AMD menus, but I suggests do it trough the vendor-way, because those menus are the ones where you can control your motherboard fully, not the AGESA related ones.

I hope it helps.


----------



## zsoltmol

Krisztias said:


> You should set everything you can under Extreme Tweaker (ASUS settings in general), and never set thing's twice/paralell! The settings under AMD CBS etc. are part of the AGESA code and cannot be hidden, even ASUS and other vendors can't do anything with it because AMD doesn't gave the info/right to do that. ( I'm not sure anymore who told us in the C6H or C7H thread, Elmor or The Stilt) If you set things more than once you can get unknown stability anomalies/worst performance. Of course you can try to set everything under the AMD menus, but I suggests do it trough the vendor-way, because those menus are the ones where you can control your motherboard fully, not the AGESA related ones.
> 
> I hope it helps.


In Extreme Tweaker I cannot select PBO with Motherboard Limits. It's not an option selectable. So I cannot configure PPT, TDC, EDC to those values (and not above) what the C8H is capable of. In Extreme Tweaker I can manually specify what these limits should be by entering a number, but these numbers are unknown to me.

Do you have these numbers?

Set up PBO in Extreme Tweaker only as per your suggestion. 
Cinebench R20 multi core test runs at 4.05GHz instead of 4.1-4.175GHz. Score is down from 74xx to 70xx (5.7% lost). CPU VID is down by 0.02 volts, temp down by 2 celsius.

Both EDC and PPT maxes out at 100%. Not the case before. This clearly says C8H extra features to provide juice to 3900X are disabled.

See picture.


----------



## Krisztias

zsoltmol said:


> In Extreme Tweaker I cannot select PBO with Motherboard Limits. It's not an option selectable. So I cannot configure PPT, TDC, EDC to those values (and not above) what the C8H is capable of. In Extreme Tweaker I can manually specify what these limits should be by entering a number, but these numbers are unknown to me.
> 
> Do you have these numbers?
> 
> Set up PBO in Extreme Tweaker only as per your suggestion.
> Cinebench R20 multi core test runs at 4.05GHz instead of 4.1-4.175GHz. Score is down from 74xx to 70xx (5.7% lost). CPU VID is down by 0.02 volts, temp down by 2 celsius.
> 
> Both EDC and PPT maxes out at 100%. Not the case before. This clearly says C8H extra features to provide juice to 3900X are disabled.
> 
> See picture.


If I remember corretly, if you choose "Enabled" - this is the pre-configured settingfor C8H. I use it with my 3800x and scalar 2x, I got 4100-4150MHz in CB15-CB20. I left VCore on auto with LLC1
Was this setting on your picture?
You can try to set 254-254-254 or 1000-1000-1000 OR try this out:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-amd-general/1741052-edc-1-pbo-turbo-boost.html


----------



## shamino1978

Had an idea for the CPU to slip in and out of CCX OC Mode depending on workload to maximize light/heavy load Freq.
This will work on Crosshair/zenith 2:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/eeya0t0cbij07jg/SlipTool.rar?dl=0

Usage:
load defaults in bios with whatever rest of tweaks desired except manual oc.
Run Tool.exe
Key in CCXs freq desired in MHz (eg, 4100)
Key in Voltage desired in mv (eg 1250) when in CCX OC Mode, and whether to use adaptive VID or manual mode.
Key in threshold to switch in terms of % of core loading (eg 10 means 10% and >10% core loading will switch to CCX OC Mode and <=10% will remain at normal XFR mode.
There is some hystersis built in to prevent too much slipping in and out of OC Mode when at borderline-threshold load. Shouldn't be noticable load since the freq is already set and it just slips in and out of OC Mode.)
Click Start to start.
Click Stop to stop. It will resume into normal XFR mode
Changes to parameters without clicking stop will not take effect.
Save/load profiles as needed.

Once satisfied, save the profile as the default 'profile.sav'. Then close program and from then on just double click and run Background.exe to keep it in the background/load at startup.


----------



## Krisztias

shamino1978 said:


> Had an idea for the CPU to slip in and out of CCX OC Mode depending on workload to maximize light/heavy load Freq.
> This will work on Crosshair/zenith 2:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/eeya0t0cbij07jg/SlipTool.rar?dl=0
> 
> Usage:
> load defaults in bios with whatever rest of tweaks desired except manual oc.
> Run Tool.exe
> Key in CCXs freq desired in MHz (eg, 4100)
> Key in Voltage desired in mv (eg 1250) when in CCX OC Mode, and whether to use adaptive VID or manual mode.
> Key in threshold to switch in terms of % of core loading (eg 10 means 10% and >10% core loading will switch to CCX OC Mode and <=10% will remain at normal XFR mode.
> There is some hystersis built in to prevent too much slipping in and out of OC Mode when at borderline-threshold load. Shouldn't be noticable load since the freq is already set and it just slips in and out of OC Mode.)
> Click Start to start.
> Click Stop to stop. It will resume into normal XFR mode
> Changes to parameters without clicking stop will not take effect.
> Save/load profiles as needed.
> 
> Once satisfied, save the profile as the default 'profile.sav'. Then close program and from then on just double click and run Background.exe to keep it in the background/load at startup.


Wow, thank you!  I will try it out. +rep
Have you read about this:

https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-amd-general/1741052-edc-1-pbo-turbo-boost.html

It looks promising, but I personally have memory OC instability with it. I could be cool to adopt something like this (controllable) in UEFI


----------



## neurotix

Oh crap its  Shamino.

Press F to pay respekt

Thanks man


----------



## 1usmus

*DRAM Calculator for Ryzen 1.7.0*










*Download:*
Techpowerup link
Guru3d link
Сomputerbase.de link


----------



## Badgerslayer7

1usmus said:


> *DRAM Calculator for Ryzen 1.7.0*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Download:*
> Techpowerup link
> Guru3d link
> Ð¡omputerbase.de link


Thank you very much. Appreciate the hard work.


----------



## neurotix

Thank you for your work.

Is there a detailed changelog since the last release that you can post here, please? Similar to most github software's Readme page. If its in the download package, I'll just check that Readme. Thank you.

Edit: Nevermind. Saw the changelog. Thats a lot of useful things added, especially the inter-core latency test. Awesome.


----------



## neurotix

I rebuilt my system into a new case.

























Thoughts? Suggestions?


----------



## newls1

wonder if we'll get a new bios update soon?


----------



## criznit

newls1 said:


> wonder if we'll get a new bios update soon?


I hope so because 1201 is buggy.


----------



## dlbsyst

criznit said:


> I hope so because 1201 is buggy.


criznit, what bugs did you find in the 1201 BIOS because I've actually been pretty happy with it.


----------



## Phage

dlbsyst said:


> criznit, what bugs did you find in the 1201 BIOS because I've actually been pretty happy with it.


1201 and 1105 will not boot for me....


----------



## criznit

dlbsyst said:


> criznit, what bugs did you find in the 1201 BIOS because I've actually been pretty happy with it.


Overall its good, but some voltage settings don't stick unless I exit the bios and re-enter them. Another issue is some settings won't go as they did before, i.e. the vtt ddr voltage.


----------



## dlbsyst

criznit said:


> Overall its good, but some voltage settings don't stick unless I exit the bios and re-enter them. Another issue is some settings won't go as they did before, i.e. the vtt ddr voltage.


Oh, okay. I guess I never noticed those issues with my hardware and configuration settings. Overall it seems like a very fast and stable BIOS IMO. Of course an even better BIOS is always welcome.:thumb:


----------



## stimpy88

1201 BIOS does not let me set a CAS latency of 15. It will do every other number, but it ignores 15.

I think there is much polishing work to be done in this BIOS.


----------



## pantsoftime

stimpy88 said:


> 1201 BIOS does not let me set a CAS latency of 15. It will do every other number, but it ignores 15.
> 
> I think there is much polishing work to be done in this BIOS.


Did you verify that GearDown Mode is disabled?


----------



## neurotix

stimpy88 said:


> 1201 BIOS does not let me set a CAS latency of 15. It will do every other number, but it ignores 15.
> 
> I think there is much polishing work to be done in this BIOS.





pantsoftime said:


> Did you verify that GearDown Mode is disabled?


To run odd memory timings, Geardown Mode must be disabled, so you have to run a true 1T/2T (CR1 or 2) command rate.

Because of how the timing latching works in Geardown Mode, which allows operation/stability with less voltage and lower timing when under load, odd timings are not allowed with it on. You should see a decent difference in Memory Copy bandwidth in AIDA64 and lowered latency with GDM off vs on at the same settings and latency. This is because the memory controller on the processor will raise timings (primaries from what I understand), in order to avoid crashes, with GDM On. This dynamic switching of timing on the rising and falling slope of the transfers/signal (which is when the IMC will latch timings higher) causes performance comparable to true Command Rate 1(transfers on every processor clock cycle- 4.5GHz = 4,500,000,000 (four- billion five-hundred million Hertz) = a full clock cycle happens that many times per second as 1 Hz is one refresh per second- a transistor turning on and off once per second, so under full load a 4.5GHz chip's transistors will switch on and off that many times, and a Ryzen 9 3900x probably has close to 5 billion transistors on 7nm (? estimation, a Skylake Quad Core had around 1.2 billion transistors on the die)) Anyway, aside from that, this all means that memory commands (a request for data from the processor cores out to main memory to keep the caches full) can be issued every clock cycle at Command Rate 1 (aka 1T) vs every other clock cycle or Command rate 2 (aka 2T). Memory latching in Geardown Mode subsequently allows for these commands to be issued at the peak of the rising slope of the signal (a waveform) at once per clock cycle but only at the peak, if a request for data is made by the processor at other times (rising or falling slope) that request will take 2 cycles to go to the IMC to be issued to the DRAM. This is a vast oversimplification of how DDR4 works and ignores things like memory requests across processor dies (or NUMA)..

This also doesn't mean memory requests come back from the processor every clock cycle- that is what the timings you are changing on the memory are- those are all various cycle timings that define the speed in clock cycles of what the DRAM can provide. So, if the processor wants to perform a write to main memory, and tRCDWR (Row Address to Column Address Delay- Write) and this value is 16 (as with my usual overclock), this is the minimum number of cycles between the *integrated memory controller requesting a write and sending the data over- not the processor* and the DIMM being able to write the first bit to that address. (Mind you, we are using 64-Bit processors and there are 8 bytes in a bit, and generally that means data is not transferred or written by individual bits, but is transferred in chunks of bytes at a time. 64 bits / 8 bits (in a byte) gives us 8 bytes written at once, known as a QWORD I believe under x86-64, which you have probably seen if you have ever opened regedit. A QWORD being 64 bits or 8 bytes, and being a processor word, basically written all at once.
However the point stands that the time for the memory to comply to open a column to write the first bit, would be 16 clock cycles. This is my understanding of how it works anyway but generally then these measurements are calculated into a physical time, which would be something like 8.7 -7.8ns per primary timing (so 8.3 ns for the memory to open a column and write it, let's say). You probably saw this stuff in the Thaiphoon HTML report. This is calculated by using the timing (tRCDWR = 16), and involving multiplication against the frequency in Hz (lets say 3800MHz), but I don't know the formula. You could probably dig it up though.

Anyway. My suggestion for running GDM Off at 1T would be to be aggressive with voltage but only with B-Dies. If you use Dual Rank Hynix AFR/CFR dies (like are on a lot of G.skill TridentZ Neo 3600c16 16GB DIMMs) keep the voltages below 1.4v as this memory becomes unstable at higher voltages.) With single rank B-Dies like I use, at 16GB, up to 1.5v can be used without issues/memory errors. So to achieve 1T GDM Off with mine and maintain stability, my suggestions would be 1.48v, half that for VTT_DDR, and raise tRCDRD to 17 (if using 16-16-16-16-32-50 timing @ whatever frequency).

I have passed Google GSAT in bare metal Linux at 3800MHz 16-16-16-16-32-50 1T Gdm Off at 1.42v as well as Ryzen Dram Calc memtest to 3200% coverage, 105% all threads. But my DIMMs are uncommonly good and Dram Calc 1.6.2 gives me a crazy memory quality:

View attachment 323530


I've done 4133 c16 as well as 4266 c18 so..

Anyhow, with Hynix AFR, I'd suggest 3600MHz and something like 1.4v, 16-18 (tRCDRD)-16-16-36-55 1T if you have trouble posting. You might need to run a very high (greater than 400) tRFC as well. See more discussion here: https://www.overclock.net/forum/18051-memory/1735436-hynix-17nm-djrs.html

(For AFR/DJR/etc owners)]

Also the penalty for running 2T has only decreased with time, it is a small latency penalty and lower memory copy, but if you are stuck with a kit that won't post at anything higher than 3600Mhz (or 3466 if very unlucky) you can try the timings I gave and 2T to get 3800MHz. 2T is far less demanding and our timings dont look like 2-2-2-3-5 anymore (DDR-333MHz values) where it reacted so fast that going to 2T gave a serious latency penalty.

Someone like Pook or jpmboy or Noxinite or mllrkllr should really cross check my post for any errors. Stilt and 1usmus don't really participate often in discussions here but my explanations really should be fact checked and corrected if necessary. @Jpmboy should probably please read my post and address any mistakes I've made, these memory timings do work roughly the same across Intel and AMD, and sorry I'm not trying to put you in the hot seat. I don't want to be giving out bad info. Too bad I can't get Dr. Cutress fron Anandtech to come correct me  EDIT: Ok I'm just gonna tag @KyadCK to correct me on my understanding of the memory timing thing too because we both used to post in the Vishera thread... and probably more knowledgeable than I. Also has Ryzen now and was posting in the news section recently.

Hope this helps...


----------



## marcelo19941

Do your motherboard overvolt dram too? Mine always put an offset of +0,02v, so to run at 1.5V I use 1.48V


----------



## newls1

marcelo19941 said:


> Do your motherboard overvolt dram too? Mine always put an offset of +0,02v, so to run at 1.5V I use 1.48V


yes


----------



## neurotix

My board seems to undervolt the ram. 1.44 is needed to get around 1.425v


----------



## criznit

newls1 said:


> yes





neurotix said:


> My board seems to undervolt the ram. 1.44 is needed to get around 1.425v


Are you guys running 1201 as well? This was the issue I mentioned where it didn't want to run voltages at certain values.


----------



## neurotix

criznit said:


> Are you guys running 1201 as well? This was the issue I mentioned where it didn't want to run voltages at certain values.


Yep, I'm using 1201, but on every other bios it has been the same and my memory undervolts as well as processor and SoC.

I think if you want a more accurate voltage on everything, you need to set Loadline Calibration/LLC in VRM settings to Level 3 for both CPU and SoC. Default is level 2, and this causes some vdroop/undervolting under load, which is desirable as the system will generally be stable but run cooler. Especially under full load where at 4400 CCD0/4200CCD1 and 1.36v manual VID, I'd get 1.345v applied to the chip idle or under gaming load but under Cinebench it would give it 1.275~1.29v, decreasing temps. This is with Auto LLC = Level 2

Try setting CPU and SoC LLC to Level 3 and you will see accurate voltage per what you set applied without higher voltage in the OS, if you go higher than level 3, bios will report higher voltages and overvolt your chip under load, making it run hotter. With LLC 3 I get 1.36 when I set it as described and slightly less (around 1.32v) under MT load

Putting SoC loadline to level 3 should give a RAM voltage setting closer to what you set for vDIMM but dont do it if you are really close to 1.125v SoC volts and never use higher LLC than that. Havent messed with this myself because the vdroop is desirable to me so my RAM getting 1.418v instead of 1.425v is fine, etc.

None of this is ever exact anyway and variable by many factors but I'd suggest trying LLC 3 if you want to have it match as close as possible. Without the severe droop for MT/all core loads though the CPU will run hotter/get more voltage. LLC 2 on CPU and LLC 3 on SoC might work.


----------



## EvGaOrNothin

On my Hero wifi my 3900x is stable at 4400 on all cores with manual 1.2v on cpu. When I check my voltage while running CB 20 my vid never goes above 1.1v no matter what I do, if I drop my voltage below 1.2 I crash . If I can get my vid up from 1.1v under load I think 4.5 ghz is in my grasp. I change the load line to max and it does not help. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Despotes

Anybody able to get Fan Xpert 4 to actually save a profile and have it work with the app? I customize a profile for Turbo for example, but when I click on the Turbo icon on the desktop app it reverts back to it's default setting. Save, Load etc. Nothing works.


----------



## AStaUK

Despotes said:


> Anybody able to get Fan Xpert 4 to actually save a profile and have it work with the app? I customize a profile for Turbo for example, but when I click on the Turbo icon on the desktop app it reverts back to it's default setting. Save, Load etc. Nothing works.


I briefly used Fan Xpert 4 and found it best to save my settings to their own profile, but didn't keep it installed for long. What I was finding was I'd turn my PC on, the fans would settle down, I'd login and FE4 would load with the fans going to 100% before loading my profile and dropping back down. In the end I setup custom fan curves within the BIOS and didn't bother loading any Asus software, it's mostly to buggy and frustrating to use.


----------



## CaptainZombie

I had bought my 3900X back on release week, at that time Microcenter was limited on X570 motherboards so I ended up getting the ASRock Taichi X570. While the motherboard has been okay, I've been a fan of ASUS ROG. I was going to get the X570-E at the time or jump up to the Crosshair Hero VIII but they were all out and I was stuck getting the Taichi. I've never been a fan of ASRock, as my last board of theirs was when I had the 2500K.

I do plan on keeping this CPU for several years, any thoughts on if getting the Crosshair Hero VIII would be the best choice out of what I have now and the X570-E? I also like the announcement at CES this year with Corsair and ASUS partnering up on using the iCue software for their products.

I bring this up now because I plan to move all of my hardware out of the NZXT H500 to the Lian Li O11D, figure its a perfect time to make the swap. I'd be selling the Taichi anyways if I did go with the Crosshair Hero since I won't have no need for it.


----------



## neurotix

CaptainZombie said:


> I had bought my 3900X back on release week, at that time Microcenter was limited on X570 motherboards so I ended up getting the ASRock Taichi X570. While the motherboard has been okay, I've been a fan of ASUS ROG. I was going to get the X570-E at the time or jump up to the Crosshair Hero VIII but they were all out and I was stuck getting the Taichi. I've never been a fan of ASRock, as my last board of theirs was when I had the 2500K.
> 
> I do plan on keeping this CPU for several years, any thoughts on if getting the Crosshair Hero VIII would be the best choice out of what I have now and the X570-E? I also like the announcement at CES this year with Corsair and ASUS partnering up on using the iCue software for their products.
> 
> I bring this up now because I plan to move all of my hardware out of the NZXT H500 to the Lian Li O11D, figure its a perfect time to make the swap. I'd be selling the Taichi anyways if I did go with the Crosshair Hero since I won't have no need for it.



This board, its bios, boot times with a 3900x and NVMe (a minute plus with a 970 Evo m.2 for me for Win10), the poor support from Asus regarding AGESA/bios updates (no information period- while other board vendors post updates on social media, the dead ROG forums where no staff is present and posts updates), etc. make it impossible to recommend currently.

Asus really needs to get its act together and my next board will be an MSI.

Keep your Taichi- especially if you have no problems currently. If you want to have problems, sure, go ahead and get it. No support either i.e. https://rog.asus.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?127-ROG-Discussion 

^ make an acct and check out all the complaints and problems users are having with this board, check the x570 forum. And how everyone is literally getting ignored by Asus and we are their premium buyers who bought their most expensive product for Ryzen 3000.

Theyre being a bunch of asses by remaining silent. Spend your money elsewhere. When we have some communication and fixes perhaps I will recommend the product, but its too late, the damage is done.

I wish I got an x570 MEG ACE or x570 Aorus Extreme.


----------



## superchad

I have a Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi, Ryzen 7 3800X, and 64GB DDR4 3333 16-18-18-36

I have overclocked my RAM to 3600 16-17-16-32, I did noticed a slight drop in 3dmark Physics score after overclocking

I have Performance enhancer Level 3, PBO on with +200MHz

voltage Monitor Die Sence
LLC Level 3, 
130% CPU current capability, 
VRM manual Frequency 400KHz
Power Thermal Control 120, 
CPU power duty control T.Probe
Power Phase Control set to Power Phase Response Ultra Fast

VDDSOC 
LLC level 3, 
Switching Frequency 400KHz
Power Phase Control Optimized
120% current capability,

Dram Current Capability 120%
DRAM Switching frequency 350KHz
DRAM Power Phase Control Extreme

D.O.C.P Standard
Performance Enhancer Level 3
Memory Frequency 3600
FCLK Frequency 1800
Core Performance Boost enabled
DRAM Voltage 1.4v
all other voltages auto
PBO Enabled
Overdrive Scalar Auto
Max CPU Boost Clock Override +200
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit auto
have not touched amd CBS at all

What is a good way to get a bit more peformance? how can i get the CPU to boost higher and longer? i will be trying to push for tighter timings (CL15, CL14) as well as trying to push for higher clocks (3800 and 1900 FCLK) I also may see if i can get a boost with FCLK at 1900 and DRAM at 3600


----------



## CaptainZombie

neurotix said:


> This board, its bios, boot times with a 3900x and NVMe (a minute plus with a 970 Evo m.2 for me for Win10), the poor support from Asus regarding AGESA/bios updates (no information period- while other board vendors post updates on social media, the dead ROG forums where no staff is present and posts updates), etc. make it impossible to recommend currently.
> 
> Asus really needs to get its act together and my next board will be an MSI.
> 
> Keep your Taichi- especially if you have no problems currently. If you want to have problems, sure, go ahead and get it. No support either i.e. https://rog.asus.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?127-ROG-Discussion
> 
> ^ make an acct and check out all the complaints and problems users are having with this board, check the x570 forum. And how everyone is literally getting ignored by Asus and we are their premium buyers who bought their most expensive product for Ryzen 3000.
> 
> Theyre being a bunch of asses by remaining silent. Spend your money elsewhere. When we have some communication and fixes perhaps I will recommend the product, but its too late, the damage is done.
> 
> I wish I got an x570 MEG ACE or x570 Aorus Extreme.


Thanks for the advice. I just went and took a look at the forums as you suggested and it sounds like a lot of people with issues and no support. That is not cool as this is not a cheap motherboard either. I notice that there are a lot of Wifi and Bios related issues, among many others. Guess what a great way for ASUS to stand behind their product. I'll probably just stick it out with the Taichi for now since I haven't had any issues.

I've heard a lot of good about the X570 MEG ACE, might not be a bad board for you to consider if you can offload the Crosshair at a decent price.


----------



## criznit

neurotix said:


> This board, its bios, boot times with a 3900x and NVMe (a minute plus with a 970 Evo m.2 for me for Win10), the poor support from Asus regarding AGESA/bios updates (no information period- while other board vendors post updates on social media, the dead ROG forums where no staff is present and posts updates), etc. make it impossible to recommend currently.
> 
> Asus really needs to get its act together and my next board will be an MSI.
> 
> Keep your Taichi- especially if you have no problems currently. If you want to have problems, sure, go ahead and get it. No support either i.e. https://rog.asus.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?127-ROG-Discussion
> 
> ^ make an acct and check out all the complaints and problems users are having with this board, check the x570 forum. And how everyone is literally getting ignored by Asus and we are their premium buyers who bought their most expensive product for Ryzen 3000.
> 
> Theyre being a bunch of asses by remaining silent. Spend your money elsewhere. When we have some communication and fixes perhaps I will recommend the product, but its too late, the damage is done.
> 
> I wish I got an x570 MEG ACE or x570 Aorus Extreme.


Glad I'm not the only one feeling this way. This was my first ASUS board, and this will definitely be my last due to the above statement. I will do a mobo+cpu swap once the 4000 chips drop (or whatever the desktop version will be called this year) because the amount I spent on this board has left a bad taste in my mouth with the way asus does business.


----------



## folklore11

newls1 said:


> they're already 1 1/2 months old. And No is my answer for your question



thanks


----------



## folklore11

neurotix said:


> I rebuilt my system into a new case.
> 
> View attachment 323204
> 
> 
> View attachment 323206
> 
> 
> View attachment 323208
> 
> 
> Thoughts? Suggestions?





Looks great to me!


----------



## neurotix

folklore11 said:


> Looks great to me!


Thanks, finally someone responded to this... Repped

Welcome to OCN.


----------



## CaptainZombie

criznit said:


> Glad I'm not the only one feeling this way. This was my first ASUS board, and this will definitely be my last due to the above statement. I will do a mobo+cpu swap once the 4000 chips drop (or whatever the desktop version will be called this year) because the amount I spent on this board has left a bad taste in my mouth with the way asus does business.


Thanks for your feedback too on this board, I'll just be holding off on swapping out the Taichi. I haven't had any issues with it and like a fool I'm looking to just swap it out. I'll wait till the 4000 CPU's release and probably just grab a X670 board which by then they should have improved.

I can't believe that ASUS hasn't done anything to fix the issues with this board considering that this is almost $400.


----------



## zsoltmol

+1

Asus ROG is nowdays is a joke at least what they do with their X570 and bios line up. Big regret I've joined their bandwagon. Not going to happen in the future!

Say goodbye to my $$$ dear Asus.


----------



## dlbsyst

Well, it looks like I'm the only one who loves his Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi. I'm having no issues with it either. I had the VI before and loved it too.


----------



## marcelo19941

dlbsyst said:


> Well, it looks like I'm the only one who loves his Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi./forum/images/smilies/smile.gif I'm having no issues with it either. I had the VI before and loved it too./forum/images/smilies/smile.gif


 yeah I have no issues with my impact too


----------



## dlbsyst

marcelo19941 said:


> yeah I have no issues with my impact too


:thumb:


----------



## pantsoftime

No major issues with C8F. I wish Asus was doing more community support with this gen of boards/CPUs like Elmor and Shamino used to.


----------



## dlbsyst

pantsoftime said:


> No major issues with C8F. I wish Asus was doing more community support with this gen of boards/CPUs like Elmor and Shamino used to.


Yeah, I do agree with that.:thumb: I did feel the need to chime in and say I am quite happy with my board because of all the doom and gloom around here lately.


----------



## jfrob75

dlbsyst said:


> Yeah, I do agree with that.:thumb: I did feel the need to chime in and say I am quite happy with my board because of all the doom and gloom around here lately.


I will chime in here as well with my satisfaction with CH8 nonwifi. Have not had any real issues that are board related.


----------



## dlbsyst

jfrob75 said:


> I will chime in here as well with my satisfaction with CH8 nonwifi. Have not had any real issues that are board related.


Nice!:thumb: Glad I'm not the only one.


----------



## Giustaf

sometimes my motherboard doesn't boot with Code error: 0d , I also replaced my ram with the new F4-3600C16D-16GTZN.

I have bios 1201. 

Why?


----------



## neurotix

Giustaf said:


> sometimes my motherboard doesn't boot with Code error: 0d , I also replaced my ram with the new F4-3600C16D-16GTZN.
> 
> I have bios 1201.
> 
> Why?


0d is failure to train memory.

Try more voltage or raise timings, or if at 1T, turn GDM on.


----------



## Giustaf

ok I try!


----------



## dlbsyst

Giustaf said:


> sometimes my motherboard doesn't boot with Code error: 0d , I also replaced my ram with the new F4-3600C16D-16GTZN.
> 
> I have bios 1201.
> 
> Why?


I'm not sure Giustaf. Could be any number of things. I have that same RAM kit accept It's the 32GB version (16x2). I really love this Samsung B-Die RAM. I have mine running totally stable at 3733MHz with really tight timings from the Ryzen calculater. I can give you all my settings as it pertains to my RAM settings if you like.


----------



## EvGaOrNothin

*Agreed*



marcelo19941 said:


> yeah I have no issues with my hero wifi


same here +1


----------



## EvGaOrNothin

*Please do*



dlbsyst said:


> I'm not sure Giustaf. Could be any number of things. I have that same RAM kit accept It's the 32GB version (16x2). I really love this Samsung B-Die RAM. I have mine running totally stable at 3733MHz with really tight timings from the Ryzen calculater. I can give you all my settings as it pertains to my RAM settings if you like.


I have B's too.


----------



## dlbsyst

EvGaOrNothin said:


> I have B's too.


Nice EvGaOrNothin. I will post it for you later, probably in the morning. Which RAM kit do you have and what are you currently running it at?


----------



## Giustaf

dlbsyst said:


> I'm not sure Giustaf. Could be any number of things. I have that same RAM kit accept It's the 32GB version (16x2). I really love this Samsung B-Die RAM. I have mine running totally stable at 3733MHz with really tight timings from the Ryzen calculater. I can give you all my settings as it pertains to my RAM settings if you like.


perfect! thank you so much for settings


----------



## dlbsyst

EvGaOrNothin said:


> I have B's too.





Giustaf said:


> perfect! thank you so much for settings


Here you go guys.:thumb: Do keep in mind that this is for my (2x16) RAM kit and your mileage may vary. I wouldn't try running these settings if you have a (4x8) kit.


----------



## Giustaf

thank you so much!


----------



## dlbsyst

Giustaf said:


> thank you so much!


:thumb:


----------



## EvGaOrNothin

Gskill RGB 3200 C14 4X8


----------



## Krisztias

dlbsyst said:


> Well, it looks like I'm the only one who loves his Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi. I'm having no issues with it either. I had the VI before and loved it too.


Not the only one  I am happy with it too. I had a C6H before the C8HW and the difference is like night and day. With the C6H i was not satisfied, but learned a lot in the C6H thread. With this board I don't have any problems at all, everything is PnP, even RAM OC (okay, I have 2x8 B-die...)


----------



## dlbsyst

EvGaOrNothin said:


> Gskill RGB 3200 C14 4X8


I don't think you will be able to run 4 sticks any higher than 3600MHz but you can get some pretty tight timings. Try these setting for your RAM.:thumb:

Set your VTT DDR Voltage to 0.7250. I had these settings running totally stable with my Flair-X 4x8 kit that I had before but I did have to use a RAM cooler when running stability tests because it would get up to about 57C. It really depends on the airflow in your case.


----------



## dlbsyst

Krisztias said:


> Not the only one  I am happy with it too. I had a C6H before the C8HW and th difference is like night and day. With the C6H i was not satisfied, but leraned a lot in the C6H thread. With this board I don't have any problems at all, everything is PnP, even RAM OC (okay, I have 2x8 B-die...)


Nice! Yeah, the C8HW has been pretty rock solid since the beginning for me but it has been improving with the BIOS updates. I remember when I first got my C6H it was somewhat of a challenge to get everything dialed in and stable considering it was a new platform and they were still figuring things out.


----------



## sparkywaz

neurotix said:


> This board, its bios, boot times with a 3900x and NVMe (a minute plus with a 970 Evo m.2 for me for Win10, the poor support from Asus regarding AGESA/bios updates (no information period- while other board vendors post updates on social media, the dead ROG forums where no staff is present and posts updates), etc. make it impossible to recommend currently.
> 
> Asus really needs to get its act together .


hi there it seems i've came across someone else who might be having the same problem as myself where the boot time is utter slow!  when it comes to using 1103/1105/1201 (agesa 1.0.0.4) yet when it comes to anything from 1001 (agesa 1.0.0.3) and before its 100% fine
when it boots up does it hang on A0 or A2 for around ~2 minutes before it even boots and pasts this check/part ? (also own both the same as you)


----------



## dlbsyst

sparkywaz said:


> hi there it seems i've came across someone else who might be having the same problem as myself where the boot time is utter slow!  when it comes to using 1103/1105/1201 (agesa 1.0.0.4) yet when it comes to anything from 1001 (agesa 1.0.0.3) and before its 100% fine
> when it boots up does it hang on A0 or A2 for around ~2 minutes before it even boots and pasts this check/part ? (also own both the same as you)


Sorry your having issues. I have a 3950X currently but I did own a 3900X for a while along with a 970 Evo+ as my Windows drive and had no boot issues. I currently have switched to a Sabrent Rocket 1TB Gen4 NVME as my boot drive and it boots even faster. I actually have fast boot disabled in Bios as well as Windows.


----------



## tien113

dlbsyst said:


> sparkywaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> hi there it seems i've came across someone else who might be having the same problem as myself where the boot time is utter slow! /forum/images/smilies/mad.gif when it comes to using 1103/1105/1201 (agesa 1.0.0.4) yet when it comes to anything from 1001 (agesa 1.0.0.3) and before its 100% fine
> when it boots up does it hang on A0 or A2 for around ~2 minutes before it even boots and pasts this check/part ? (also own both the same as you)
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry your having issues./forum/images/smilies/frown.gif I have a 3950X currently but I did own a 3900X for a while along with a 970 Evo+ as my Windows drive and had no boot issues. I currently have switched to a Sabrent Rocket 1TB Gen4 NVME as my boot drive and it boots even faster. I actually have fast boot disabled in Bios as well as Windows.
Click to expand...

why you disable fastboot in bios?


----------



## sparkywaz

dlbsyst said:


> Sorry your having issues. I have a 3950X currently but I did own a 3900X for a while along with a 970 Evo+ as my Windows drive and had no boot issues. I currently have switched to a Sabrent Rocket 1TB Gen4 NVME as my boot drive and it boots even faster. I actually have fast boot disabled in Bios as well as Windows.


thank you for the reply and letting me know :thumb:


----------



## dlbsyst

tien113 said:


> why you disable fastboot in bios?


I forget, to be honest. I just know that I've had a problem with my computer in the past that I traced back to fast boot so I always disable it. Also, my boot time is about the same either way.


----------



## dlbsyst

sparkywaz said:


> thank you for the reply and letting me know :thumb:


You're welcome.


----------



## pschorr1123

tien113 said:


> why you disable fastboot in bios?


delete misead lol


----------



## tien113

dlbsyst said:


> I forget, to be honest. I just know that I've had a problem with my computer in the past that I traced back to fast boot so I always disable it. Also, my boot time is about the same either way.


what is your problem? I don't have any problem when enable fast boot.



pschorr1123 said:


> delete misead lol


what is it?


----------



## dlbsyst

tien113 said:


> what is your problem? I don't have any problem when enable fast boot.


I'm pretty sure when fast boot in BIOS is enabled it skips certain checks while booting and doesn't boot USB drives to speed up the boot. I disable it so that every boot is totally fresh and all my devices boot up before handing it over to Windows.:thumb:

That said, if you like having fast boot enabled and aren't having any problems then certainly leave it enabled.


----------



## tien113

CPU Over Temperature error - how to fix this problem? my cpu didn't reach to 85oC.

when I change cpu power duty control to extreme and ignore the cpu temperature monitor. my pc sleep and auto wake. how can I fix it?


----------



## Phage

Giustaf said:


> sometimes my motherboard doesn't boot with Code error: 0d , I also replaced my ram with the new F4-3600C16D-16GTZN.
> 
> I have bios 1201.
> 
> Why?


I have the same issue. Neither 1201, or 1105 will boot. 1001 is fine.
I have been told here that this is because they increased 3 key voltages and to turn them down, but the options are grayed out for me....


----------



## Phage

tien113 said:


> CPU Over Temperature error - how to fix this problem? my cpu didn't reach to 85oC.
> 
> when I change cpu power duty control to extreme and ignore the cpu temperature monitor. my pc sleep and auto wake. how can I fix it?


What tool are you using the measure the temperature ?
What cooler are you using ?


----------



## flyinion

Phage said:


> I have the same issue. Neither 1201, or 1105 will boot. 1001 is fine.
> I have been told here that this is because they increased 3 key voltages and to turn them down, but the options are grayed out for me....





Giustaf said:


> sometimes my motherboard doesn't boot with Code error: 0d , I also replaced my ram with the new F4-3600C16D-16GTZN.
> 
> I have bios 1201.
> 
> Why?


Sounds like you guys have the same issue I did when I went to 1105 (still on it).  I have the 2x16 CL18 version of the Neo kit. Here's what I changed on the Extreme Tweaker page in BIOS near the bottom. If those don't fix it there was one other one to check and I don't remember the name offhand (near the top of the page with the CPU voltage). 

VDDG IOD, VDDG CCD, VDDP all in the same area at the bottom of that page. I set them to .95, .95, and 950.


----------



## Giustaf

flyinion said:


> Sounds like you guys have the same issue I did when I went to 1105 (still on it). I have the 2x16 CL18 version of the Neo kit. Here's what I changed on the Extreme Tweaker page in BIOS near the bottom. If those don't fix it there was one other one to check and I don't remember the name offhand (near the top of the page with the CPU voltage).
> 
> VDDG IOD, VDDG CCD, VDDP all in the same area at the bottom of that page. I set them to .95, .95, and 950.


ok, thank you, I try!


----------



## tien113

Phage said:


> What tool are you using the measure the temperature ?
> What cooler are you using ?


ryzen master, hwinfo64. I use aio 360 enermax. it should be enough for vcore 1.3v.


----------



## sakete

Hi,

Question about the C8H and C8F. The Hero does not have two internal USB 3 headers, right? Only 1 USB C and one USB 3? While the Formula does have 2 USB 3 + 1 Type C, right?

My case has 4 front-panel USB 3 ports, so I'd need a board with 2 USB 3 headers.


----------



## dlbsyst

sakete said:


> Hi,
> 
> Question about the C8H and C8F. The Hero does not have two internal USB 3 headers, right? Only 1 USB C and one USB 3? While the Formula does have 2 USB 3 + 1 Type C, right?
> 
> My case has 4 front-panel USB 3 ports, so I'd need a board with 2 USB 3 headers.


Yes, it has 1 of each ports. Luckily my Lian Li 011 Dynamic has 2 gen 1 and 1 gen 2 ports.


----------



## sakete

dlbsyst said:


> Yes, it has 1 of each ports. Luckily my Lian Li 011 Dynamic has 2 gen 1 and 1 gen 2 ports.


Yeah, bummer. Guess I'm not getting an Asus board this time around. Gigabyte is the only brand that offers two USB 3 headers on most of their boards. The Asus C8F is just too expensive just to have 2 headers (and I don't need all the other stuff it comes with).


----------



## pantsoftime

sakete said:


> Yeah, bummer. Guess I'm not getting an Asus board this time around. Gigabyte is the only brand that offers two USB 3 headers on most of their boards. The Asus C8F is just too expensive just to have 2 headers (and I don't need all the other stuff it comes with).


Have you considered an internal USB 3 hub like this? I use a similar USB2 NZXT one and it gets the job done. 

https://www.amazon.com/Sabrent-Port-Internal-Controller-HB-INTR/dp/B0794V75LB


----------



## tien113

sakete said:


> Yeah, bummer. Guess I'm not getting an Asus board this time around. Gigabyte is the only brand that offers two USB 3 headers on most of their boards. The Asus C8F is just too expensive just to have 2 headers (and I don't need all the other stuff it comes with).


MSI has 2 USB 3 header, too. you can try MSI.

if you use asus, you need a converter 19-pin usb3 to usb2.

I tried gigabyte x570 aorus master before but this main didn't work for me so I have to switch to C8HW.


----------



## sakete

tien113 said:


> MSI has 2 USB 3 header, too. you can try MSI.
> 
> 
> 
> if you use asus, you need a converter 19-pin usb3 to usb2.
> 
> 
> 
> I tried gigabyte x570 aorus master before but this main didn't work for me so I have to switch to C8HW.


I think those MSI boards then only have 4 Sata, and I need at least 5.

What did you not like about the Gigabyte board?


----------



## sakete

pantsoftime said:


> Have you considered an internal USB 3 hub like this? I use a similar USB2 NZXT one and it gets the job done.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Sabrent-Port-Internal-Controller-HB-INTR/dp/B0794V75LB


I'll be doing a watercooling build and will have all kinds of stuff in my case. This would be yet another thing taking up space, so I'd prefer to avoid it.


----------



## Blameless

My month old Crosshair VIII Impact crapped itself the other day after. Powered up the system, no image from the display, board was stuck on a "02" POST code "AP initialization before microcode loading" error. Narrowed the problem down to the motherboard itself by swapping in all known good components and testing all components I was using elsewhere. Single known-working DIMM, CPU, PSU, and video card attached..."02" code and no video out. Even used the BIOS flashback feature, which appeared to complete successfully, to no avail.

Since I'm a week or so outside the etailer return window I'll have to go through ASUS directly...something I'm not looking forward to as I'm sure they'll try to blame a missing PCI-E retention latch (probably fell off during packaging or in an Amazon wearhouse somewhere, perhaps was never installed, cause I never had it...slot itself is pristine and board worked fine at the time so I wasn't about to send it back for a latch that would only make pulling the GPU for cleaning major chore in an air cooled SFF setup) for this problem and call it physical damage.

ASUS' RMA form is throwing errors as well...


----------



## pantsoftime

Blameless said:


> My month old Crosshair VIII Impact crapped itself the other day after. Powered up the system, no image from the display, board was stuck on a "02" POST code "AP initialization before microcode loading" error. Narrowed the problem down to the motherboard itself by swapping in all known good components and testing all components I was using elsewhere. Single known-working DIMM, CPU, PSU, and video card attached..."02" code and no video out. Even used the BIOS flashback feature, which appeared to complete successfully, to no avail.
> 
> Since I'm a week or so outside the etailer return window I'll have to go through ASUS directly...something I'm not looking forward to as I'm sure they'll try to blame a missing PCI-E retention latch (probably fell off during packaging or in an Amazon wearhouse somewhere, perhaps was never installed, cause I never had it...slot itself is pristine and board worked fine at the time so I wasn't about to send it back for a latch that would only make pulling the GPU for cleaning major chore in an air cooled SFF setup) for this problem and call it physical damage.
> 
> ASUS' RMA form is throwing errors as well...


That would be terrible. You clearly spent a significant amount of time doing smart things. Keep us apprised of how your warranty experience goes. You might get some extra help if you leave an honest review on your retailer/e-tailer website and the community outreach people respond.


----------



## WereCat

@neurotix 
Just registered here to thank you. I have been reading the forums for quite a while and tried to get in my own DRAM OC and I managed 3600CL14 on the older version of BIOS but I struggled a lot to get 3733MHz working on the newer versions. Now I am even confident to push to 3800MHzCL16 but I am likely out of luck with my FCLK and it seems to not budge above 1866MHz.



This is what I have as a baseline for now for daily usage (Micron Rev-E, Dual Rank 4x16GB set to 1.45V). Takes over 12h to get full 4 passes on Memtest86 so it took me ages to find a good stable daily setting. I'll slowly work out the timings down now when I get the time and hopefully by some miracle get the 1900MHz FCLK working.
DRAM Calc helped as well but I found I could get some timings a tiny bit lower.


----------



## MultiDoc

Took me days but I’ve now read most of the info in the thread and thanks a lot to everyone that contributed and continues to do so. I greatly appreciate your helpful input in here gents.

I’ve been always building intel based systems for the last 20 years, but for my next build I’m going AMD. I’ve already made up my mind of the parts for it and slowly gathering them. I’ve read recently somewhere about some Asus Crosshair Impact VIII boards that have been found to be missing thermal pads between the PCH and the heat sink, but can’t find where I’ve read it in order to get some correct thickness for the pads that are missing. Anyone can help ?

As for the board itself, I’m waiting for my Impact to arrive and expecting to start the build some time in March (waiting also for the case to arrive, an Ncase M1 v6.1). So as I said earlier thanks again for your invaluable contribution to the community, I’ll keep on reading and hopefully will be able to add to this as soon as I have my system up and running in a month or so.


----------



## neurotix

WereCat said:


> @neurotix
> Just registered here to thank you. I have been reading the forums for quite a while and tried to get in my own DRAM OC and I managed 3600CL14 on the older version of BIOS but I struggled a lot to get 3733MHz working on the newer versions. Now I am even confident to push to 3800MHzCL16 but I am likely out of luck with my FCLK and it seems to not budge above 1866MHz.
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I have as a baseline for now for daily usage (Micron Rev-E, Dual Rank 4x16GB set to 1.45V). Takes over 12h to get full 4 passes on Memtest86 so it took me ages to find a good stable daily setting. I'll slowly work out the timings down now when I get the time and hopefully by some miracle get the 1900MHz FCLK working.
> DRAM Calc helped as well but I found I could get some timings a tiny bit lower.



Nice but if the latency at 68ns is that high already you may as well do 3800MHz, your ss shows 3733MHz, please post 3800C16.

I can help you with optimizing subtimings, if you want, but I'd need to see a ss from the Calc in compare mode, Asus MemTweakit! (see link in first post of this thread), etc.


















Or just try the timings in the 2nd screenshot if you dare  I was in full 1T with GearDownMode = Off

Keeping in mind, my kit is a golden Flare X sample (won the silicon lottery) that is likely a 1/50 or so bin if I had to guess. GL on that

I don't know much about Micron E-Die but I can say that the latency is due to using Dual Rank DIMMs, which respond slower but do more MT/s at the same bandwidth and timing than a kit with lower latency (B-Die, Hynix DJRs, etc.) I basically feel that if all you really do is game or especially bench, go with 16GB (8GBx2) SR B-Die and run a NVMe pagefile if necessary for large memory capacity tasks. The extra MT/s is still probably slower with latency that high. My G.skill Flare X 3200c14 kit has guaranteed 20nm Samsung B-Die and Ive even overclocked it 16 dividers higher than its rating  4266c18. It does great at 3800c16 or c14 and best part was it was only $120 on Amazon. Two other users here on OCN had it and got similar AIDA results to me.

I am guessing you probably had to set really high tRFC to get it that high as well? Hynix DJR/AFR (Hynix D-Die) needs high tRFC to overclock to those levels (It also usually involves raising CAS to 18 too, but they end up with ~66ns latency).

I'd also like to see your Inter-CCX latency in the latest Ryzen DRAM calc benchmark:










Lemme know if you need any help. Go check out the Hynix AFR thread too.


----------



## marcelo19941

MultiDoc said:


> Took me days but I’ve now read most of the info in the thread and thanks a lot to everyone that contributed and continues to do so. I greatly appreciate your helpful input in here gents.
> 
> I’ve been always building intel based systems for the last 20 years, but for my next build I’m going AMD. I’ve already made up my mind of the parts for it and slowly gathering them. I’ve read recently somewhere about some Asus Crosshair Impact VIII boards that have been found to be missing thermal pads between the PCH and the heat sink, but can’t find where I’ve read it in order to get some correct thickness for the pads that are missing. Anyone can help ?
> 
> As for the board itself, I’m waiting for my Impact to arrive and expecting to start the build some time in March (waiting also for the case to arrive, an Ncase M1 v6.1). So as I said earlier thanks again for your invaluable contribution to the community, I’ll keep on reading and hopefully will be able to add to this as soon as I have my system up and running in a month or so.


I think i replaced mines with 1,00 mm for the mosfets and 1,5mm for the chipset. using those fujipoly 17mw


----------



## neurotix

marcelo19941 said:


> I think i replaced mines with 1,00 mm for the mosfets and 1,5mm for the chipset. using those fujipoly 17mw


Did you try these on the VRM heatsink? What size do they need to be?

I think I did this on my Crosshair V Hero and FX-8350 for 5.2GHz


----------



## MultiDoc

marcelo19941 said:


> I think i replaced mines with 1,00 mm for the mosfets and 1,5mm for the chipset. using those fujipoly 17mw


Thanks for the info, I’ve already some 1.5mm Fujipoly 17mw already so will use these. Will post back on this when I do get them replaced.


----------



## marcelo19941

neurotix said:


> marcelo19941 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think i replaced mines with 1,00 mm for the mosfets and 1,5mm for the chipset. using those fujipoly 17mw
> 
> 
> 
> Did you try these on the VRM heatsink? What size do they need to be?
> 
> I think I did this on my Crosshair V Hero and FX-8350 for 5.2GHz
Click to expand...

Yeah replaced for the vrm and chipset of my Impact. The size exactly I didn't measured but the original thermalpad of the chipset was quite thick so I used the 1,5mm and the ones from the mosfets and chokes looked like 1mm. I actually never tested temperatures with the stock thermal pads...but now the chipset won't go past 55C and the VRM never reached 60C with my 3950x pulling 230W under full load.


----------



## neurotix

marcelo19941 said:


> Yeah replaced for the vrm and chipset of my Impact. The size exactly I didn't measured but the original thermalpad of the chipset was quite thick so I used the 1,5mm and the ones from the mosfets and chokes looked like 1mm. I actually never tested temperatures with the stock thermal pads...but now the chipset won't go past 55C and the VRM never reached 60C with my 3950x pulling 230W under full load.



Oh wow 230w is crazy for the VRMs to only be 60C. Repped. Did you take a reading before and run the same load to see the improvement? What was the temps before replacement?

Also did you need to remove the rear I/O shield to take off the VRM heatsink? What kind of cooling is on the MOSFETs in particular? (Direct heatpipe I'd hope as they are small)

Thanks.


----------



## Giustaf

flyinion said:


> Sounds like you guys have the same issue I did when I went to 1105 (still on it). I have the 2x16 CL18 version of the Neo kit. Here's what I changed on the Extreme Tweaker page in BIOS near the bottom. If those don't fix it there was one other one to check and I don't remember the name offhand (near the top of the page with the CPU voltage).
> 
> VDDG IOD, VDDG CCD, VDDP all in the same area at the bottom of that page. I set them to .95, .95, and 950.


I tried these settings (VDDG IOD, VDDG CCD, VDDP) but after a few days I again saw the error "0d"


----------



## WereCat

@neurotix

I'll definitely try once I get the time. It may take me a couple of days though. 
Also you're right that tRFC is high, currently I'm using the value from DRAM Calc which is 580 (seems to be almost double of what you can do on B-Die) but I'll work on lowering this one first.
I'm also using Gear Down Mode enabled right now, haven't tested with disabled as I had not enough time to try.

I'll post my Inner CCX Latency once I get home. And thanks for suggestions. 

And I haven't mentioned that before but I'm actually using two kits of 2x16GB 3200CL16 (I'll also post which exact part number once I get home).
I need 64GB for 3D renders and at the time I bought it was around the same price as 32GB of B-Die.


----------



## marcelo19941

neurotix said:


> marcelo19941 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah replaced for the vrm and chipset of my Impact. The size exactly I didn't measured but the original thermalpad of the chipset was quite thick so I used the 1,5mm and the ones from the mosfets and chokes looked like 1mm. I actually never tested temperatures with the stock thermal pads...but now the chipset won't go past 55C and the VRM never reached 60C with my 3950x pulling 230W under full load.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wow 230w is crazy for the VRMs to only be 60C. Repped. Did you take a reading before and run the same load to see the improvement? What was the temps before replacement?
> 
> Also did you need to remove the rear I/O shield to take off the VRM heatsink? What kind of cooling is on the MOSFETs in particular? (Direct heatpipe I'd hope as they are small)
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...

I didn't measured temperatures before, I was kinda traumatized with my Strix Z390i reaching 110C with my 9900KS on the vrm so I ordered the impact with those fujipoly thermal pads lol.

I had the remove everything basically, backplate, the io cover with the little fans, basically disassemble the entire board. There are some vrm components at the back of the board that have a heatpipe on contact with then and the power stages and chokes at the front are connected to the big heatsink with 2 fans that cool both chipset and vrm


----------



## neurotix

WereCat said:


> @neurotix
> 
> I'll definitely try once I get the time. It may take me a couple of days though.
> Also you're right that tRFC is high, currently I'm using the value from DRAM Calc which is 580 (seems to be almost double of what you can do on B-Die) but I'll work on lowering this one first.
> I'm also using Gear Down Mode enabled right now, haven't tested with disabled as I had not enough time to try.
> 
> I'll post my Inner CCX Latency once I get home. And thanks for suggestions.
> 
> And I haven't mentioned that before but I'm actually using two kits of 2x16GB 3200CL16 (I'll also post which exact part number once I get home).
> I need 64GB for 3D renders and at the time I bought it was around the same price as 32GB of B-Die.


Makes sense to use it/need it for renders.

To be honest, tweaking will only give margin-of-error level improvements in that task anyway and of course, it will still game fine too.

Yes, thats very high tRFC, bringing it down may lower latency some. Keep GDM On with that kit.

Nice work :thumb:


----------



## WereCat

@neurotix

I managed to get some extra free time today so here we go...

This is with my slightly lower tRDRD SCL, tWRWR SCL and tRDWR timings (when I did 3600CL14 on BIOS v.1001 I noticed I can go low on these so I kept them lower here as well, it likely makes no real difference though).
I can boot with tRC 56, tWR 14 but I have't tested for stability with these yet. And from what I've read about rev-E I am likely as stuck with high tRC timings as with tRFC.


















This is the benchmark with the DRAM Calc timings...









The Inner CCX Latency is 0.3 lower and it finished 0.06s faster. Probably just a range of error but its repeatable across multiple runs so idk.

And for the 3800CL16 ... I haven't bothered to test with Memtest86 but it seems that its basicaly using the 3733CL16 timings just with higher DRAM and VTT voltage.










Definitely not worth it as long as I can't match it with FCLK. I tried if I can boot 3866MHz with no change to timings and voltage but nope...

According to DRAM Calc my Memory chip quality is 100% and potential is 4133CL16, however the calc doese't work above 3800MHz for me so I would have to just tinker on my own which I am not going to unless I get the FCLK higher (unlikely).










And I still haven't tried with GDM disabled or lowering tRFC yet. I'll probably leave it as it is for now, I need to use the PC as well. And you are right, I'm getting into diminishing returns at this point.
Once again thanks for your input.


----------



## flyinion

Giustaf said:


> I tried these settings (VDDG IOD, VDDG CCD, VDDP) but after a few days I again saw the error "0d"


Hmmm, hopefully someone with more experience can help you out more. I was just sharing what fixed it for me when I had the same problem and some helpful people replied. Sorry I couldn't be more help


----------



## neurotix

WereCat said:


> I managed to get some extra free time today so here we go...
> 
> This is with my slightly lower tRDRD SCL, tWRWR SCL and tRDWR timings (when I did 3600CL14 on BIOS v.1001 I noticed I can go low on these so I kept them lower here as well, it likely makes no real difference though).
> I can boot with tRC 56, tWR 14 but I have't tested for stability with these yet. And from what I've read about rev-E I am likely as stuck with high tRC timings as with tRFC.



You are correct. tRC needs to be higher as well. You should be trying to tune your system towards bandwidth, not latency, though, so you would most definitely want to play with it.

I'd suggest timings of 16-17-15-16-36-55 tRFC 512, 524, 532, 536, 548, etc. Leave GDM On. You can improve memory write bandwidth if you lower tRCDWR while raising tRCDRD. This shouldn't have much penalty on Read Bandwidth. Also, make sure you are using BankGroupSwap_Alt = Enabled and BankGroupSwap = Disabled. You may see an improvement in copy bandwidth this way.

You'd be surprised how low primary timings can go on Ryzen 3000, if you keep tRCDRD high. Put it at 19 if you have to. Frequency matters more for those DIMMs. You can bring write bandwidth well above 58GB/s if you play with tRCDWR, tCWL, tWR etc. I recommend trying tRCDWR = 14 and tCWL = 14



WereCat said:


> This is the benchmark with the DRAM Calc timings...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Inner CCX Latency is 0.3 lower and it finished 0.06s faster. Probably just a range of error but its repeatable across multiple runs so idk.
> 
> And for the 3800CL16 ... I haven't bothered to test with Memtest86 but it seems that its basicaly using the 3733CL16 timings just with higher DRAM and VTT voltage.


You want to be at 3800 if possible because this impoves bandwidth on the cache, between the CCDs, and between the SoC and system RAM. Mostly cache though but it has a significant difference, especially in gaming.

Memory like that likes fast processor cache a lot. If tuned, you may see copy bandwidth exceeding 62GB/s. The trick is to adjust cLDO_VDDG IOD, cLDO_VDDP, vSoC, cLDO_VDDG CCD correctly. A lot of users either lower the SoC far too much and starve the memory controller for voltage, or give it far far too much (1.125v and above)

For that memory I'd suggest 1.09375v vSoC, 1090 VDDP, 1.053 VDDG IOD and 1.043 VDDG CCD  You can also try setting all the debug voltages to what the Calculator suggests but keep vSoC at ~1.1v if you do. (950 VDDP, 0.900 VDDG both, the usual)

Try mine vs that and ss to track the improvements.



WereCat said:


> Definitely not worth it as long as I can't match it with FCLK. I tried if I can boot 3866MHz with no change to timings and voltage but nope...
> 
> According to DRAM Calc my Memory chip quality is 100% and potential is 4133CL16, however the calc doese't work above 3800MHz for me so I would have to just tinker on my own which I am not going to unless I get the FCLK higher (unlikely).


yeah












WereCat said:


> And I still haven't tried with GDM disabled or lowering tRFC yet. I'll probably leave it as it is for now, I need to use the PC as well. And you are right, I'm getting into diminishing returns at this point.
> Once again thanks for your input.



Good luck. Hope this helps

Also check out this thread by my longtime OCN friend, damric: https://www.overclock.net/forum/18051-memory/1735436-hynix-17nm-djrs.html Tuning that memory is quite similar to tuning what you have, check the users results who got 64GB of D-Die to 3800/1900 (He had 60/58/62 AIDA with around 66ns if I recall)

EDIT redux: Btw, I *literally* cannot see any of the timings in your ss at all. Because you uploaded on mobile. Please use the vBulletin Advanced editor feature in the site settings, make an advanced reply, and attach the ss correctly in full resolution. Converting to a png is generally necessary for this as well  Cant see what your subtimings, tCWL tWR etc are and you also need to tweak secondary and tertiary timings too.


----------



## neurotix

delete


----------



## Giustaf

flyinion said:


> Hmmm, hopefully someone with more experience can help you out more. I was just sharing what fixed it for me when I had the same problem and some helpful people replied. Sorry I couldn't be more help


now i try to increase SOC Voltage to 1.1v (before it was at 1.05v)


----------



## flyinion

*ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp; Discussion Thread*



Giustaf said:


> now i try to increase SOC Voltage to 1.1v (before it was at 1.05v)




Good luck yeah that's the other voltage I couldn't remember offhand. You might need more or less on the others as well. My understanding is the auto voltages got increased with 1105+ which in my case introduced instability on reboots with 0d. I could cold boot with no issues. You could also run your RAM through the calculator to get some recommendations for the voltages. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## sakete

So looking at the C8F board, the VRMs have a watercooling block on it. How well does that block perform passively when not being watercooled? (I will be watercooling it eventually, but it will run air-cooled for a few months at least).

Also, how prone are these Asus boards to coil whine and such? Reading on the Gigabyte threads a lot of incidents of noisy boards across the whole Gigabyte range, which doesn't give off the impression of quality.


----------



## MacG32

Howdy all! It's been a while since I've posted. Seems everything here has been running smoothly. In my PC, not so much.

I thought I had a bad motherboard but wanted to test another processor to rule that out. I bought another 3900X and dropped it in. I still had random stability issues on cold boots and restarts. My system would not fully start up properly and I would have to reboot, sometimes repeatedly. So I thought it was the motherboard. I bought another motherboard, swapped it out, and still had booting issues. I've tested 2 different sets of RAM and they're both golden. I've been dealing with this issue for a few months now.

All the sudden my power supply's 5V has dropped slightly below 5V and also a few random voltages have dropped, like the 1.8V runs. I wouldn't think this motherboard is that sensitive to such minor voltage drops. So, I ordered a new power supply and it will be here tomorrow or the day after. We'll see if that does the trick or not.

I've heard that Microsoft put out an update that causes boot instability, but this started well before these latest updates. I wouldn't know how Microsoft could make a system unstable randomly, but I would like this instability I'm having to stop immediately.

Windows acts like it's a memory issue and not everything in my task bar starts up, but upon a reboot(s), everything's rock solid. I've tested with Prime95, Karhu RAM Test, and HCI Memtest. If this new power supply doesn't fix this issue then it's either a random BIOS or Microsoft issue. If the latter is the case, how do I get ASUS or Microsoft to fix this issue? My patience is running paper thin.

I gave my wife the 3900X and am returning the new motherboard, if anyone was wondering.


----------



## dlbsyst

MacG32 said:


> Howdy all! It's been a while since I've posted. Seems everything here has been running smoothly. In my PC, not so much.
> 
> I thought I had a bad motherboard but wanted to test another processor to rule that out. I bought another 3900X and dropped it in. I still had random stability issues on cold boots and restarts. My system would not fully start up properly and I would have to reboot, sometimes repeatedly. So I thought it was the motherboard. I bought another motherboard, swapped it out, and still had booting issues. I've tested 2 different sets of RAM and they're both golden. I've been dealing with this issue for a few months now.
> 
> All the sudden my power supply's 5V has dropped slightly below 5V and also a few random voltages have dropped, like the 1.8V runs. I wouldn't think this motherboard is that sensitive to such minor voltage drops. So, I ordered a new power supply and it will be here tomorrow or the day after. We'll see if that does the trick or not.
> 
> I've heard that Microsoft put out an update that causes boot instability, but this started well before these latest updates. I wouldn't know how Microsoft could make a system unstable randomly, but I would like this instability I'm having to stop immediately.
> 
> Windows acts like it's a memory issue and not everything in my task bar starts up, but upon a reboot(s), everything's rock solid. I've tested with Prime95, Karhu RAM Test, and HCI Memtest. If this new power supply doesn't fix this issue then it's either a random BIOS or Microsoft issue. If the latter is the case, how do I get ASUS or Microsoft to fix this issue? My patience is running paper thin.
> 
> I gave my wife the 3900X and am returning the new motherboard, if anyone was wondering.


Sorry your having trouble with your computer MacG32. It could be a so called security update from Microsoft that is causing it. I recently installed an update and it made my computer act crazy. It was sluggish and kept freezing up. After I uninstalled it things were back to normal. I'm really getting tired of all the piss poor updates that Microsoft is rolling out lately.


----------



## schnebdreleg

MacG32 said:


> Howdy all! It's been a while since I've posted. Seems everything here has been running smoothly. In my PC, not so much.
> 
> I thought I had a bad motherboard but wanted to test another processor to rule that out. I bought another 3900X and dropped it in. I still had random stability issues on cold boots and restarts. My system would not fully start up properly and I would have to reboot, sometimes repeatedly. So I thought it was the motherboard. I bought another motherboard, swapped it out, and still had booting issues. I've tested 2 different sets of RAM and they're both golden. I've been dealing with this issue for a few months now.
> 
> All the sudden my power supply's 5V has dropped slightly below 5V and also a few random voltages have dropped, like the 1.8V runs. I wouldn't think this motherboard is that sensitive to such minor voltage drops. So, I ordered a new power supply and it will be here tomorrow or the day after. We'll see if that does the trick or not.
> 
> I've heard that Microsoft put out an update that causes boot instability, but this started well before these latest updates. I wouldn't know how Microsoft could make a system unstable randomly, but I would like this instability I'm having to stop immediately.
> 
> Windows acts like it's a memory issue and not everything in my task bar starts up, but upon a reboot(s), everything's rock solid. I've tested with Prime95, Karhu RAM Test, and HCI Memtest. If this new power supply doesn't fix this issue then it's either a random BIOS or Microsoft issue. If the latter is the case, how do I get ASUS or Microsoft to fix this issue? My patience is running paper thin.
> 
> I gave my wife the 3900X and am returning the new motherboard, if anyone was wondering.


I also have some random stability issues and lately, alot of blue screens. Every hint I get aims at the RAM, but I used Memtest and Kahru for multiple hours without an issue. Do you also have bluescreens, or just random restarts? This problem drives me nuts. Multiple clean installs, changed every driver, removed unnecessary hardware..


----------



## MacG32

schnebdreleg said:


> I also have some random stability issues and lately, alot of blue screens. Every hint I get aims at the RAM, but I used Memtest and Kahru for multiple hours without an issue. Do you also have bluescreens, or just random restarts? This problem drives me nuts. Multiple clean installs, changed every driver, removed unnecessary hardware..



I used the same tests for hours at a time. I've experienced a few blue screens when it looks like my computer has started normally, but is eventually unstable. Since my power supply is now below average, I have to replace it. This isn't the first EVGA power supply to start dying, but it is the last. I'm going with a Seasonic PRIME TX-850 850W 80+ Titanium Fully Modular. Check this article for the Windows Updates to uninstall. There are 2 of them listed there and a reboot afterwards. Good luck. :thumb:


----------



## Badgerslayer7

If your getting restarts and you’ve overclocked your ram try increasing clDO vddp voltage. I was getting random restarts as well until I increased this.


----------



## sakete

Hi, this week I bought the 3900x + 32gb ddr4-3600 c16 and the Gigabyte x570 Aorus Master board.

So far I've found the Gigabyte bios to be pretty finicky, perhaps the most finicky bios I've ever used. I haven't even started over clocking yet, but have already had multiple bios resets and sometimes it takes forever to boot. And the only settings I've changed in bios are pretty basic things such as Wake on Lan, boot order, etc. Ram worked fine with XMP enabled.

I've always had good experiences with Asus in the past (but that was mostly on the Intel side). How is the Asus bios on these C8 boards? Stable? Reliable? Easy to use? I'm debating returning the Gigabyte and getting Asus but would like some user feedback first


----------



## gqneon

*CPU load voltage*

I tried searching but am probably searching the wrong terms - I have a C8H with 3950x here - bios 1201 - i can change CPU voltage but it always goes to 1.019 under load all core - LL auto through LL4 changes didn't affect this. 

What is the setting called to allow increases to CPU under load on this board/bios? Trying to get some manual OC's but can't actually seem to change what voltage GETS to the cores.


----------



## sakete

Another question is, does this C8 Formula motherboard support 2x 2280 M.2 drives installed? It says it support up to 22110 and 2280, but then when 22110 is installed, the other slot can only go up to 2242. Since the most common form factor appears to be 2280, wondering if it can at least do 2x 2280 at the same time.


----------



## MacG32

dlbsyst said:


> Sorry your having trouble with your computer MacG32. It could be a so called security update from Microsoft that is causing it. I recently installed an update and it made my computer act crazy. It was sluggish and kept freezing up. After I uninstalled it things were back to normal. I'm really getting tired of all the piss poor updates that Microsoft is rolling out lately.



Thank you and thanks for the heads up as well! +REP



sakete said:


> So looking at the C8F board, the VRMs have a watercooling block on it. How well does that block perform passively when not being watercooled? (I will be watercooling it eventually, but it will run air-cooled for a few months at least).
> 
> Also, how prone are these Asus boards to coil whine and such? Reading on the Gigabyte threads a lot of incidents of noisy boards across the whole Gigabyte range, which doesn't give off the impression of quality.





sakete said:


> Hi, this week I bought the 3900x + 32gb ddr4-3600 c16 and the Gigabyte x570 Aorus Master board.
> 
> So far I've found the Gigabyte bios to be pretty finicky, perhaps the most finicky bios I've ever used. I haven't even started over clocking yet, but have already had multiple bios resets and sometimes it takes forever to boot. And the only settings I've changed in bios are pretty basic things such as Wake on Lan, boot order, etc. Ram worked fine with XMP enabled.
> 
> I've always had good experiences with Asus in the past (but that was mostly on the Intel side). How is the Asus bios on these C8 boards? Stable? Reliable? Easy to use? I'm debating returning the Gigabyte and getting Asus but would like some user feedback first





sakete said:


> Another question is, does this C8 Formula motherboard support 2x 2280 M.2 drives installed? It says it support up to 22110 and 2280, but then when 22110 is installed, the other slot can only go up to 2242. Since the most common form factor appears to be 2280, wondering if it can at least do 2x 2280 at the same time.



The VRM are passively cooled by the waterblock, but I wouldn't put a 100% load on them for any length of time until it's watercooled, just to be safe. Nowhere in the manual does it state anything about the waterblock. Must have been an oversight on ASUS' part.

I've never heard any coil whine whatsoever and I've 100% loaded this board for 24 hours at least 5 times.

I would say the BIOSes are all similar and I've had pleasant experiences. The boards seem rock solid, stable, reliable, and fairly easy to use. I would say to stick with RAM listed on the QVL or any RAM made for AMD. Other RAM not listed will give you nothing but problems. I bought a 4000MHz set (4x8GB) and had to downclock them to 3733MHz for 1:1:1 stability. The set wasn't listed on the QVL as 32GB, but were listed as 16GB (2x8GB).

The board supports 2x2280 drives. One from the processor and one from the chipset. I did hear that someone experienced new drives automatically RAIDing somehow, but I can't confirm this. I would think it would take a bit of user interaction to RAID two NVMe drives together.


----------



## The Stilt

sakete said:


> Another question is, does this C8 Formula motherboard support 2x 2280 M.2 drives installed? It says it support up to 22110 and 2280, but then when 22110 is installed, the other slot can only go up to 2242. Since the most common form factor appears to be 2280, wondering if it can at least do 2x 2280 at the same time.


I have two EX950 1TB drives installed, so sure.


----------



## sakete

MacG32 said:


> Thank you and thanks for the heads up as well! +REP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The VRM are passively cooled by the waterblock, but I wouldn't put a 100% load on them for any length of time until it's watercooled, just to be safe. Nowhere in the manual does it state anything about the waterblock. Must have been an oversight on ASUS' part.
> 
> 
> 
> I've never heard any coil whine whatsoever and I've 100% loaded this board for 24 hours at least 5 times.
> 
> 
> 
> I would say the BIOS' are all similar and I've had pleasant experiences. The boards seem rock solid, stable, reliable, and fairly easy to use. I would say to stick with RAM listed on the QVL or any RAM made for AMD. Other RAM not listed will give you nothing but problems. I bought a 4000MHz set (4x8GB) and had to downclock them to 3733MHz for 1:1:1 stability. The set wasn't listed on the QVL as 32GB, but were listed as 16GB (2x8GB).
> 
> 
> 
> The board supports 2x2280 drives. One from the processor and one from the chipset. I did hear that someone experienced new drives automatically RAIDing somehow, but I can't confirm this. I would think it would take a bit of user interaction to RAID to NVMe drives together.


Awesome, thanks for confirming. I think I'll be happier going back to Asus. So far this Gigabyte board has been a real pain in the butt. Never used something so finicky before.


----------



## neurotix

*yup*


----------



## pantsoftime

sakete said:


> So looking at the C8F board, the VRMs have a watercooling block on it. How well does that block perform passively when not being watercooled? (I will be watercooling it eventually, but it will run air-cooled for a few months at least).
> 
> Also, how prone are these Asus boards to coil whine and such? Reading on the Gigabyte threads a lot of incidents of noisy boards across the whole Gigabyte range, which doesn't give off the impression of quality.


Late response here but I ran this board without VRM water for quite some time and the VRM temp sensor never got over 40C under load. With water it's down closer to 28-30C. Also I never have noticed any coil whine with this board.


----------



## dlbsyst

MacG32 said:


> Thank you and thanks for the heads up as well! +REP


You're very welcome. Thanks for the +REP.:thumb:


----------



## apxitektop

Hello, I don't understand where is +/— for Speaker connector on motherboard =)
I don't see +/- in manual, of course that's Im connected speaker, and Ive sound from
him, but), where is fu...g plus/minus?) ...


----------



## GiannhsAtenza

Greetings to the community , first of all i would like to thank neurotix for all the work and info , i managed a rock stable oc of 3800-1900if on the ram on my 3700x (ram is a 16gb 3600c16 b die kit)
If you can see the pictures i provided i have 2 different setups , one is with fixed voltage and fixed multiplier with bclk 101.1 and one is on auto settings on the cpu , ram is about the same.
101 bclk gives a lot better latency on the aida test but i dont want to use a fixed voltage and multiplier , i would like to work my cpu on auto and just use 101.1 bclk in order to boost high and achieve better results.
Everytime i set 101 bclk with everything else untouched i get my cpu to lock at 3600 speed and would not boost higher , how can i get it to work that way so i can get some more perfomance ?


----------



## MacG32

Thought this might help a few of you out trying to use PBO for overclocking. https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/dqwcpo/agesa_1004_pbo_bug_and_how_to_fix_it/

I noticed AGESA 1004 is full of bugs. One of the biggest is the inconsistency of maintaining boost clocks after every reboot. One time it will boost to 4550MHz, next time to 4600MHz, another reboot and 4575MHz max boost. I really wish AMD would fix these bugs. The inconsistencies are killing me. I love precision and stability, but I'm still waiting for it.

Just because the common Joe doesn't look at their system's performance at every boot, check it consistently, and report it doesn't mean it's not a problem or doesn't happen. I've tested this with 2 motherboards and 2 3900Xs. It's a problem that needs fixed. Also boot stability is an issue. I'm sure if the engineers sat down with their processors a bit more, these inconsistencies would be discovered and dealt with by issuing a fixed AGESA.


----------



## neurotix

MacG32 said:


> Thought this might help a few of you out trying to use PBO for overclocking. https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/dqwcpo/agesa_1004_pbo_bug_and_how_to_fix_it/
> 
> I noticed AGESA 1004 is full of bugs. One of the biggest is the inconsistency of maintaining boost clocks after every reboot. One time it will boost to 4550MHz, next time to 4600MHz, another reboot and 4575MHz max boost. I really wish AMD would fix these bugs. The inconsistencies are killing me. I love precision and stability, but I'm still waiting for it.
> 
> Just because the common Joe doesn't look at their system's performance at every boot, check it consistently, and report it doesn't mean it's not a problem or doesn't happen. I've tested this with 2 motherboards and 2 3900Xs. It's a problem that needs fixed. Also boot stability is an issue. I'm sure if the engineers sat down with their processors a bit more, these inconsistencies would be discovered and dealt with by issuing a fixed AGESA.


It's AMD that needs to do this, and 100% agreed. Random failing post and CMOS reset every few days. Win10 boot time off a PCI-E 3.0 NVMe like mine can take over a minute. I have also observed the boost clock behavior on 1004 in my testing and benching. Also, if I try and use Auto voltage for PBO overclocking or even an offset (and use the tdp 0 0 edc 1, etc trick in the AMD Overclocking section), Auto voltage doesnt work correctly and I get 0.904v or something as the offset instead of 1.4v or even 1.5v (that I could apply a negative offset to).

I can get this working fine with manual voltage but the way it works on Auto (and that voltage is its lowest idle voltage), I get freezes and hangs running compiz under Debian 10 and not even Ctrl + Alt + F1 is usable (so I could login in a terminal and run killall lightdm then immediately get a new X11 session).

So having it idle as a server with power management forcing it to downclock to 2.2ghz at all times doesnt work (saves heat and power)

There are many other bugs too, especially in maintaining a stable, accurate bus clock, even with SB Spread Spectrum disabled and VRM SS disabled.

I wish I had gotten an MSI MEG x570 ACE, Asrock Taichi etc. or something instead

Also to the other guy who thanked me, click the rep button and I will too. I'd appreciate it. (no clue on the bus clock thing its generally best to leave on Auto, also congrats on 3800/1900)

Just built a new keyboard see the last post in my build log for photos-


Not feeling well lately, sorry for not being more helpful or active atm. I have a lot of projects


----------



## MacG32

neurotix said:


> It's AMD that needs to do this, and 100% agreed. Random failing post and CMOS reset every few days. Win10 boot time off a PCI-E 3.0 NVMe like mine can take over a minute. I have also observed the boost clock behavior on 1004 in my testing and benching. Also, if I try and use Auto voltage for PBO overclocking or even an offset (and use the tdp 0 0 edc 1, etc trick in the AMD Overclocking section), Auto voltage doesnt work correctly and I get 0.904v or something as the offset instead of 1.4v or even 1.5v (that I could apply a negative offset to).
> 
> I can get this working fine with manual voltage but the way it works on Auto (and that voltage is its lowest idle voltage), I get freezes and hangs running compiz under Debian 10 and not even Ctrl + Alt + F1 is usable (so I could login in a terminal and run killall lightdm then immediately get a new X11 session).
> 
> So having it idle as a server with power management forcing it to downclock to 2.2ghz at all times doesnt work (saves heat and power)
> 
> There are many other bugs too, especially in maintaining a stable, accurate bus clock, even with SB Spread Spectrum disabled and VRM SS disabled.
> 
> I wish I had gotten an MSI MEG x570 ACE, Asrock Taichi etc. or something instead
> 
> Also to the other guy who thanked me, click the rep button and I will too. I'd appreciate it. (no clue on the bus clock thing its generally best to leave on Auto, also congrats on 3800/1900)
> 
> Just built a new keyboard see the last post in my build log for photos-
> 
> 
> Not feeling well lately, sorry for not being more helpful or active atm. I have a lot of projects



Sounds like AMD needs to get their stuff together, because they seem to have dropped the ball. I've read through all the other X570 threads and everyone is having problems with AGESA 1004B. Those MSI and ASRock models are having quite the issues with their current and/or BETA BIOSes. If ASUS would fine tune the latest BIOS to be just a bit more functional and bring in a lot more RAM support, they'd be the cream of the crop. Maybe they could even counter the random boot up frequency issue and smooth it out to a high frequency. Your keyboard looks great! Looks like you put a lot of time and effort in to it. I hope you get to feeling better soon and get some time to relax. Take care of yourself. The thread will be here when you get back. :thumb:


----------



## neurotix

MacG32 said:


> Sounds like AMD needs to get their stuff together, because they seem to have dropped the ball. I've read through all the other X570 threads and everyone is having problems with AGESA 1004B. Those MSI and ASRock models are having quite the issues with their current and/or BETA BIOSes. If ASUS would fine tune the latest BIOS to be just a bit more functional and bring in a lot more RAM support, they'd be the cream of the crop. Maybe they could even counter the random boot up frequency issue and smooth it out to a high frequency. Your keyboard looks great! Looks like you put a lot of time and effort in to it. I hope you get to feeling better soon and get some time to relax. Take care of yourself. The thread will be here when you get back. :thumb:


Thanks, I appreciate it.

I'll be around if anyone needs help.


----------



## dlbsyst

apxitektop said:


> Hello, I don't understand where is +/— for Speaker connector on motherboard =)
> I don't see +/- in manual, of course that's Im connected speaker, and Ive sound from
> him, but), where is fu...g plus/minus?) ...


I'm not sure about +/- as it has a 4-pin connector on the system panel connector. It's on page 1-24 in the manual. I don't have this connected because my Lian Li 011 Dynamic doesn't have a built in speaker. Plus we have the Q-Code LED for system errors.


----------



## Jackalito

MacG32 said:


> Howdy all! It's been a while since I've posted. Seems everything here has been running smoothly. In my PC, not so much.
> 
> I thought I had a bad motherboard but wanted to test another processor to rule that out. I bought another 3900X and dropped it in. I still had random stability issues on cold boots and restarts. My system would not fully start up properly and I would have to reboot, sometimes repeatedly. So I thought it was the motherboard. I bought another motherboard, swapped it out, and still had booting issues. I've tested 2 different sets of RAM and they're both golden. I've been dealing with this issue for a few months now.
> 
> All the sudden my power supply's 5V has dropped slightly below 5V and also a few random voltages have dropped, like the 1.8V runs. I wouldn't think this motherboard is that sensitive to such minor voltage drops. So, I ordered a new power supply and it will be here tomorrow or the day after. We'll see if that does the trick or not.
> 
> I've heard that Microsoft put out an update that causes boot instability, but this started well before these latest updates. I wouldn't know how Microsoft could make a system unstable randomly, but I would like this instability I'm having to stop immediately.
> 
> Windows acts like it's a memory issue and not everything in my task bar starts up, but upon a reboot(s), everything's rock solid. I've tested with Prime95, Karhu RAM Test, and HCI Memtest. If this new power supply doesn't fix this issue then it's either a random BIOS or Microsoft issue. If the latter is the case, how do I get ASUS or Microsoft to fix this issue? My patience is running paper thin.
> 
> I gave my wife the 3900X and am returning the new motherboard, if anyone was wondering.



Hi, *MacG32*! Long time no see!


I've also been away from the forums due to personal reasons. Listen, just to leave it out, have you tried lowering the frequency of the fabric and RAM? I've found that sometimes, even if those RAM test programs tell you the OC is OK, the fabric clock can be too high to be completely stable depending on the lottery of the CPU IMC. So, maybe the OC for the RAM is ok, but not for the fabric. Just my 2 cents. With my 3900X I've got mine at 3666-1833 MHz and it's completely stable.




schnebdreleg said:


> I also have some random stability issues and lately, alot of blue screens. Every hint I get aims at the RAM, but I used Memtest and Kahru for multiple hours without an issue. Do you also have bluescreens, or just random restarts? This problem drives me nuts. Multiple clean installs, changed every driver, removed unnecessary hardware..



See the above reply, and try and see if it makes any difference.


I gotta say I haven't had any issues with the latest two BIOS, including 1201. I must have been lucky this time around.


Cheers! :thumb:


----------



## MacG32

Jackalito said:


> Hi, *MacG32*! Long time no see!
> 
> 
> I've also been away from the forums due to personal reasons. Listen, just to leave it out, have you tried lowering the frequency of the fabric and RAM? I've found that sometimes, even if those RAM test programs tell you the OC is OK, the fabric clock can be too high to be completely stable depending on the lottery of the CPU IMC. So, maybe the OC for the RAM is ok, but not for the fabric. Just my 2 cents. With my 3900X I've got mine at 3666-1833 MHz and it's completely stable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the above reply, and try and see if it makes any difference.
> 
> 
> I gotta say I haven't had any issues with the latest two BIOS, including 1201. I must have been lucky this time around.
> 
> 
> Cheers! :thumb:



Long time no see.  I took my RAM to default and still had problems. I tried that and everything else I could think of for stability. I even went through all of the other X570 threads looking for any more ideas to try...lol Since then, I changed my RAM out with this set: G.Skill - Flare X 64GB (4x16GB) 3200MHz F4-3200C14D-64GFX. Things are a bit more stable now, but every 3rd or so cold boot fails to boot correctly and needs a reboot. My max boost clock also fluctuates between boots from 4550MHz to 4650MHz. Maybe it'll get fixed in a future AGESA/BIOS release. We'll see. Welcome back! :thumb:


----------



## Jackalito

MacG32 said:


> Long time no see.  I took my RAM to default and still had problems. I tried that and everything else I could think of for stability. I even went through all of the other X570 threads looking for any more ideas to try...lol Since then, I changed my RAM out with this set: G.Skill - Flare X 64GB (4x16GB) 3200MHz F4-3200C14D-64GFX. Things are a bit more stable now, but every 3rd or so cold boot fails to boot correctly and needs a reboot. My max boost clock also fluctuates between boots from 4550MHz to 4650MHz. Maybe it'll get fixed in a future AGESA/BIOS release. We'll see. Welcome back! :thumb:



Well that definitely sucks big time!
What kind of OC are you using for the CPU? PBO or old-fashioned manual OC?


----------



## tien113

MacG32 said:


> Long time no see.  I took my RAM to default and still had problems. I tried that and everything else I could think of for stability. I even went through all of the other X570 threads looking for any more ideas to try...lol Since then, I changed my RAM out with this set: G.Skill - Flare X 64GB (4x16GB) 3200MHz F4-3200C14D-64GFX. Things are a bit more stable now, but every 3rd or so cold boot fails to boot correctly and needs a reboot. My max boost clock also fluctuates between boots from 4550MHz to 4650MHz. Maybe it'll get fixed in a future AGESA/BIOS release. We'll see. Welcome back! :thumb:


I don't have any problem with cold boot or warm boot? what exactly is that?


----------



## neurotix

tien113 said:


> I don't have any problem with cold boot or warm boot? what exactly is that?


DBZ fan? Taihoken 太陽軒?

Cold boot means you start the system after the power supply has been shut off or after the system has been shut down (mine is on 24/7), warm boot is rebooting basically.

So he's saying when he starts it up pressing the power button in the morning it fails to boot randomly every 1/3 times (btw check that cLD0_VDDP voltage there bud, if its set too low like 700 instead of a minimum 900 like someone recommended it can cause this behavior but if you just reboot it does not occur  maybe this isnt a problem I'm certain you would have but you can't trust everything you read. My system failed to post when I tried a little bit ago.)

hope this helps


----------



## dangerSK

neurotix said:


> DBZ fan? Taihoken 太陽軒?
> 
> Cold boot means you start the system after the power supply has been shut off or after the system has been shut down (mine is on 24/7), warm boot is rebooting basically.
> 
> So he's saying when he starts it up pressing the power button in the morning it fails to boot randomly every 1/3 times (btw check that cLD0_VDDP voltage there bud, if its set too low like 700 instead of a minimum 900 like someone recommended it can cause this behavior but if you just reboot it does not occur  maybe this isnt a problem I'm certain you would have but you can't trust everything you read. My system failed to post when I tried a little bit ago.)
> 
> hope this helps


Normal thing, when pushing 1900FCLK my Impact posts maybe on the 5th try and I have correct voltages set


----------



## neurotix

dangerSK said:


> Normal thing, when pushing 1900FCLK my Impact posts maybe on the 5th try and I have correct voltages set


What do you mean by correct voltage? There's no explicit context. This is an irrational statement.

https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4 OC Guide.md#thaiphoon-report

Are we going by Ryzen DRAM Calculator OC, or The_Stilt cLDO_VDDG CCD and cLDO_IOD? Because Stilt says keep VDD_SoC at 1.1v or lower gradually to 1.0775v~1.09875v while keeping the VDDG_CCD at 0.040 below VDD_SoC. So 1.09785v would be 1.057v VDDG_CCD. Having VDDG_IOD at 0.020v under CCD can increase stability. so 1.037v cLDO_VDDG IOD.

Whenever I use these voltages and enough RAM voltage (1.47v for 3800/1900 1T cas16) with VTT_DDR at exactly half the vDIMM voltage, minus one step. (0.725v)

With my settings like this I literally never have errors and if I ever do its because I changed VDDG and VDDP.

Pretty easy stuff. 

What say you? English language reading comprehension is necessary to use these forums and most guides...

Good day.


----------



## dangerSK

neurotix said:


> What do you mean by correct voltage? There's no explicit context. This is an irrational statement.
> 
> https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4 OC Guide.md#thaiphoon-report
> 
> Are we going by Ryzen DRAM Calculator OC, or The_Stilt cLDO_VDDG CCD and cLDO_IOD? Because Stilt says keep VDD_SoC at 1.1v or lower gradually to 1.0775v~1.09875v while keeping the VDDG_CCD at 0.040 below VDD_SoC. So 1.09785v would be 1.057v VDDG_CCD. Having VDDG_IOD at 0.020v under CCD can increase stability. so 1.037v cLDO_VDDG IOD.
> 
> Whenever I use these voltages and enough RAM voltage (1.47v for 3800/1900 1T cas16) with VTT_DDR at exactly half the vDIMM voltage, minus one step. (0.725v)
> 
> With my settings like this I literally never have errors and if I ever do its because I changed VDDG and VDDP.
> 
> Pretty easy stuff.
> 
> What say you? English language reading comprehension is necessary to use these forums and most guides...
> 
> Good day.


Thanks for the fast english course. Correct voltages were meant as recommended by Dram calculator. Your settings are irrelevant to me as I'm using different ddr4 kit, my kit likes the /2 vtt the best so your minus one step is useless for me (tested on Z370/X299 platforms and now AMD). I might try other settings to see if its rly and issue of bios bug or unstable mem/fclk or if just my cpu doesnt like 1900fclk.


----------



## neurotix

tien113 said:


> I don't have any problem with cold boot or warm boot? what exactly is that?



Still no response. Bot. Do not rep.

@ENTERPRISE


----------



## newls1

anyone try out the new bios for our board yet? Curious to know if anything positive came from it?


----------



## Jackalito

newls1 said:


> anyone try out the new bios for our board yet? Curious to know if anything positive came from it?


 I wasn't aware there was a new BIOS...
The last one I knew of was 1201 from December last year. Can you give us more info?


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Delete post


----------



## dlbsyst

newls1 said:


> anyone try out the new bios for our board yet? Curious to know if anything positive came from it?


Thanks for the heads up newls1.:thumb: I just downloaded it.


----------



## MacG32

The Heros Motherboards have an updated BIOS, v1302: Regular or Wi-Fi

1.Improved system performance


----------



## dlbsyst

Jackalito said:


> I wasn't aware there was a new BIOS...
> The last one I knew of was 1201 from December last year. Can you give us more info?


It's posted on the Asus website currently under other.:thumb: I have it downloaded but haven't installed it yet. As my computer is stable as a rock, I think I want to wait a little for some of you guys to test it out.


----------



## dlbsyst

MacG32 said:


> The Heros Motherboards have an updated BIOS, v1302: Regular or Wi-Fi
> 
> 1.Improved system performance


Okay, let us know what you think of the new BIOS MacG32.


----------



## LtMatt

Never fear men, i have updated to the new BIOS. 

Updated via EZ Flash, restart, boot, clear cmos. Load previous saved profile (which was saved in the Asus profile list) and no issues so far.

To be honest i have not noticed any change in performance or boost clock behaviour. My previous memory overclock and tuning is still stable. 

Got 2x 16GB GSkill Neo RGB 3600 CL16 sticks running at 3800Mhz CL16 @ 1.4v.


----------



## MacG32

Jackalito said:


> Well that definitely sucks big time!
> What kind of OC are you using for the CPU? PBO or old-fashioned manual OC?



I'm actually not overclocking this CPU. I've used PBO in the past, but it doesn't seem to work anymore.



dlbsyst said:


> Okay, let us know what you think of the new BIOS MacG32.



I'm running it right now and it's behaving well. I'll have to see how cold boots perform on a day to day basis. I'm going to restart my computer 20 times in a row and see how that works out. I'll go ahead and test out PBO after that. Others will have to test out the finer details of this new BIOS. Maybe I'll try out a BCLK overclock, for old time sakes. :thumb:


----------



## dlbsyst

LtMatt said:


> Never fear men, i have updated to the new BIOS.
> 
> Updated via EZ Flash, restart, boot, clear cmos. Load previous saved profile (which was saved in the Asus profile list) and no issues so far.
> 
> To be honest i have not noticed any change in performance or boost clock behaviour. My previous memory overclock and tuning is still stable.
> 
> Got 2x 16GB GSkill Neo RGB 3600 CL16 sticks running at 3800Mhz CL16 @ 1.4v.





MacG32 said:


> I'm actually not overclocking this CPU. I've used PBO in the past, but it doesn't seem to work anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm running it right now and it's behaving well. I'll have to see how cold boots perform on a day to day basis. I'm going to restart my computer 20 times in a row and see how that works out. I'll go ahead and test out PBO after that. Others will have to test out the finer details of this new BIOS. Maybe I'll try out a BCLK overclock, for old time sakes. :thumb:


Okay guys. Thanks for checking it out.:thumb: I'll update soon.


----------



## MacG32

dlbsyst said:


> Okay guys. Thanks for checking it out.:thumb: I'll update soon.



I'm having the same exact issues as before. At stock, one in every 3 boots is unstable. The boost clocks max out between 4550MHz to 4600MHz between boots. I've tried everything I know over the past 2 months to have a completely stable system. Nothing works.

I tested out PBO. That doesn't keep me at 4600MHz + with every boot, so that's not functioning properly either. I also tried Performance Enhancer. On level 1 and 2, it downgraded my clock speeds. At level 3, it was close to normal, but not at normal operating specs. I don't even dare try a BCLK overclock.


________________________________________________________
This AGESA 1004B does not function properly AMD and I want it fixed. There are countless people using X570 motherboards having problems they shouldn't have due to an inconsistent AGESA. There are BIOS problems trying to get stuff to work correctly with this AGESA. This doesn't look good at all for AMD when everyone is experiencing inconsistencies. Please fix your AGESA to be completely consistent with all systems. More than half the time, my processor doesn't reach the advertised boost speed of 4600MHz. One third of the time, my system is completely unstable at stock. This is ridiculous AMD.


----------



## newls1

MacG32 said:


> I'm having the same exact issues as before. At stock, one in every 3 boots is unstable. The boost clocks max out between 4550MHz to 4600MHz between boots. I've tried everything I know over the past 2 months to have a completely stable system. Nothing works.
> 
> I tested out PBO. That doesn't keep me at 4600MHz + with every boot, so that's not functioning properly either. I also tried Performance Enhancer. On level 1 and 2, it downgraded my clock speeds. At level 3, it was close to normal, but not at normal operating specs. I don't even dare try a BCLK overclock.
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________
> This AGESA 1004B does not function properly AMD and I want it fixed. There are countless people using X570 motherboards having problems they shouldn't have due to an inconsistent AGESA. There are BIOS problems trying to get stuff to work correctly with this AGESA. This doesn't look good at all for AMD when everyone is experiencing inconsistencies. Please fix your AGESA to be completely consistent with all systems. More than half the time, my processor doesn't reach the advertised boost speed of 4600MHz. One third of the time, my system is completely unstable at stock. This is ridiculous AMD.


thank you for testing this stuff out for us, i know i really appreciate that. for all your issues above, i can tell you that is why i do per ccx OC'ing. Always consistant, and using no more voltage then what i manually set. Really have no complaints other then im ready for the 4000 series cpus to come out. im bored with this 3950 already


----------



## tien113

Thank god, the new bios 1302 doesn't clear my profile. I use manual oc and everything is fine.


----------



## sakete

MacG32 said:


> I'm having the same exact issues as before. At stock, one in every 3 boots is unstable. The boost clocks max out between 4550MHz to 4600MHz between boots. I've tried everything I know over the past 2 months to have a completely stable system. Nothing works.
> 
> 
> 
> I tested out PBO. That doesn't keep me at 4600MHz + with every boot, so that's not functioning properly either. I also tried Performance Enhancer. On level 1 and 2, it downgraded my clock speeds. At level 3, it was close to normal, but not at normal operating specs. I don't even dare try a BCLK overclock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________
> 
> This AGESA 1004B does not function properly AMD and I want it fixed. There are countless people using X570 motherboards having problems they shouldn't have due to an inconsistent AGESA. There are BIOS problems trying to get stuff to work correctly with this AGESA. This doesn't look good at all for AMD when everyone is experiencing inconsistencies. Please fix your AGESA to be completely consistent with all systems. More than half the time, my processor doesn't reach the advertised boost speed of 4600MHz. One third of the time, my system is completely unstable at stock. This is ridiculous AMD.


Just to clarify, when you talk about every few boots being unstable, what do you mean exactly? Your system crashing? Or something else?


----------



## MacG32

neurotix said:


> DBZ fan? Taihoken 太陽軒?
> 
> Cold boot means you start the system after the power supply has been shut off or after the system has been shut down (mine is on 24/7), warm boot is rebooting basically.
> 
> So he's saying when he starts it up pressing the power button in the morning it fails to boot randomly every 1/3 times (btw check that cLD0_VDDP voltage there bud, if its set too low like 700 instead of a minimum 900 like someone recommended it can cause this behavior but if you just reboot it does not occur  maybe this isnt a problem I'm certain you would have but you can't trust everything you read. My system failed to post when I tried a little bit ago.)
> 
> hope this helps



By any chance, have you done a fresh install of Windows at all with your AMD rig? I was just curious.



sakete said:


> Just to clarify, when you talk about every few boots being unstable, what do you mean exactly? Your system crashing? Or something else?



Some of my start up applications do not start up. It takes a while to load programs. Any stability tests almost immediately cause blue screens. This is all at stock and with 2 different 3900Xs and C8H motherboards.


----------



## Jackalito

MacG32 said:


> The Heros Motherboards have an updated BIOS, v1302: Regular or Wi-Fi
> 
> 1.Improved system performance



Thanks, mate. I've just downloaded the new BIOS :thumb:




MacG32 said:


> I'm having the same exact issues as before. At stock, one in every 3 boots is unstable. The boost clocks max out between 4550MHz to 4600MHz between boots. I've tried everything I know over the past 2 months to have a completely stable system. Nothing works.
> 
> I tested out PBO. That doesn't keep me at 4600MHz + with every boot, so that's not functioning properly either. I also tried Performance Enhancer. On level 1 and 2, it downgraded my clock speeds. At level 3, it was close to normal, but not at normal operating specs. I don't even dare try a BCLK overclock.





newls1 said:


> thank you for testing this stuff out for us, i know i really appreciate that. for all your issues above, i can tell you that is why i do per ccx OC'ing. Always consistant, and using no more voltage then what i manually set. Really have no complaints other then im ready for the 4000 series cpus to come out. im bored with this 3950 already



I'm also using per CCX OC and no issues at all - it's rock stable.




MacG32 said:


> By any chance, have you done a fresh install of Windows at all with your AMD rig? I was just curious.
> 
> Some of my start up applications do not start up. It takes a while to load programs. Any stability tests almost immediately cause blue screens. This is all at stock and with 2 different 3900Xs and C8H motherboards.



I have recently clean installed Windows 10 without any issues whatsoever. I keep thinking you could try and lower FCLOCK to see if those issues go away.


I'll flash the new BIOS later this week and I'll report back any findings.


Cheers!


----------



## sakete

MacG32 said:


> By any chance, have you done a fresh install of Windows at all with your AMD rig? I was just curious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of my start up applications do not start up. It takes a while to load programs. Any stability tests almost immediately cause blue screens. This is all at stock and with 2 different 3900Xs and C8H motherboards.


Hmm, that's concerning. Just ordered the C8F to replace a Gigabyte x570 mobo that's been giving me issues (lots of random bios resets, super annoying). I'll have to test for stability as soon as I have it.

Are you using xmp settings for your ram by chance?


----------



## MacG32

Jackalito said:


> Thanks, mate. I've just downloaded the new BIOS :thumb:
> 
> I'm also using per CCX OC and no issues at all - it's rock stable.
> 
> I have recently clean installed Windows 10 without any issues whatsoever. I keep thinking you could try and lower FCLOCK to see if those issues go away.
> 
> I'll flash the new BIOS this week and I'll report back any findings.
> 
> Cheers!



I've tried everything I know, but thanks.



sakete said:


> Hmm, that's concerning. Just ordered the C8F to replace a Gigabyte x570 mobo that's been giving me issues (lots of random bios resets, super annoying). I'll have to test for stability as soon as I have it.
> 
> Are you using xmp settings for your ram by chance?



ASUS decided not to implement XMP in their AMD BIOSes. They have a gimped replacement that doesn't pick up the XMP profile from the RAM, so you'll have to punch the values in manually. I put my RAM in, started my computer, opened AIDA64, went to Motherboard | SPD, and got the appropriate timings.

I think you'll be fine with the C8F. Not everyone is having the problems I'm having. There are a few from each thread I could find experiencing similar problems. I can't narrow down the problems to anything specific, other than the AGESA performing inconsistently upon every boot. AMD needs to get their stuff together.


----------



## MacG32

Do all of these values look normal to all of you? VDDP in AIDA64 and HWiNFO64 look off from Ryzen Master. Are they the same value? I'm still at stock here and only added the memory XMP timings from AIDA64 and voltage to the BIOS.


----------



## dlbsyst

MacG32 said:


> Do all of these values look normal to all of you? VDDP in AIDA64 and HWiNFO64 look off from Ryzen Master. Are they the same value? I'm still at stock here and only added the memory XMP timings from AIDA64 and voltage to the BIOS.


Do you have those set to Auto in the BIOS MacG32. If so, I would manually assign them because the values are too high on two of them especially your SOC voltage. Set SOC to 1.1 volts, VDDP to .900 volts and VDDG to .950 in both values (CCD/IOD).


----------



## pantsoftime

Has anyone seen a link for BIOS 1302 for C8F? I only see C8H and C8HW.


----------



## MacG32

dlbsyst said:


> Do you have those set to Auto in the BIOS MacG32. If so, I would manually assign them because the values are too high on two of them especially your SOC voltage. Set SOC to 1.1 volts, VDDP to .900 volts and VDDG to .950 in both values (CCD/IOD).



Thank you, switched, and +REP. :thumb:



pantsoftime said:


> Has anyone seen a link for BIOS 1302 for C8F? I only see C8H and C8HW.



This site normally has them listed first, but there's no 1302 listed there for the C8F or C8I yet.


----------



## flyinion

dlbsyst said:


> Do you have those set to Auto in the BIOS MacG32. If so, I would manually assign them because the values are too high on two of them especially your SOC voltage. Set SOC to 1.1 volts, VDDP to .900 volts and VDDG to .950 in both values (CCD/IOD).





MacG32 said:


> Thank you, switched, and +REP. :thumb:


Yeah I don't know about the 1302 BIOS since I haven't tried it yet (probably this weekend) but 1105 which I'm on and apparently 12xx they changed something in the Auto setting that made them too high. Someone suggested the same settings to me and it fixed an issue I was having where it would hang with I believe 0D or 8D (don't remember now) on a soft reboot. Cold boots always booted fine for some reason.


----------



## tien113

MacG32 said:


> By any chance, have you done a fresh install of Windows at all with your AMD rig? I was just curious.
> 
> Some of my start up applications do not start up. It takes a while to load programs. Any stability tests almost immediately cause blue screens. This is all at stock and with 2 different 3900Xs and C8H motherboards.


I didn't install new fresh windows because I'm lazy. I bring everything from the old mainboard gigabyte x570 aorus master to asus c8hw and it works perfectly. I never have any BSOD or something like this even in oc mode.



sakete said:


> Hmm, that's concerning. Just ordered the C8F to replace a Gigabyte x570 mobo that's been giving me issues (lots of random bios resets, super annoying). I'll have to test for stability as soon as I have it.
> 
> Are you using xmp settings for your ram by chance?


gigabyte x570 aorus master gave me a lot of headache before and now with c8hw, I am very satisfy.



MacG32 said:


> I've tried everything I know, but thanks.
> 
> 
> ASUS decided not to implement XMP in their AMD BIOSes. They have a gimped replacement that doesn't pick up the XMP profile from the RAM, so you'll have to punch the values in manually. I put my RAM in, started my computer, opened AIDA64, went to Motherboard | SPD, and got the appropriate timings.
> 
> I think you'll be fine with the C8F. Not everyone is having the problems I'm having. There are a few from each thread I could find experiencing similar problems. I can't narrow down the problems to anything specific, other than the AGESA performing inconsistently upon every boot. AMD needs to get their stuff together.


asus have xmp but with different name. you can use that and tighten the dram timing later.



flyinion said:


> Yeah I don't know about the 1302 BIOS since I haven't tried it yet (probably this weekend) but 1105 which I'm on and apparently 12xx they changed something in the Auto setting that made them too high. Someone suggested the same settings to me and it fixed an issue I was having where it would hang with I believe 0D or 8D (don't remember now) on a soft reboot. Cold boots always booted fine for some reason.


for me, the new bios (1302) is the same as the old one (1201).


----------



## Sam64

Made some benchmarks with 1201 and flashed the 1302 Bios yesterday (Flash, CMOS Reset and Proflle loaded without any harm) and found some small performance improvements:

[email protected], RAM 3733CL16, FCLK 1866.5, PBO+PB2 Auto

Before (1201) vs After (1302)
-------------------------------------------

CB20 MC: 7004 vs 7081
CB20 SC: 518 vs 523
PC Mark 10: 7646 vs 7656
CPU-Z 539.6/8202.9 vs 550.5/8319.0


----------



## Reous

pantsoftime said:


> Has anyone seen a link for BIOS 1302 for C8F? I only see C8H and C8HW.



https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...MULA/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-1302.zip


----------



## Jackalito

Sam64 said:


> Made some benchmarks with 1201 and flashed the 1302 Bios yesterday (Flash, CMOS Reset and Proflle loaded without any harm) and found some small performance improvements:
> 
> [email protected], RAM 3733CL16, FCLK 1866.5, PBO+PB2 Auto
> 
> Before (1201) vs After (1302)
> -------------------------------------------
> 
> CB20 MC: 7004 vs 7081
> CB20 SC: 518 vs 523
> PC Mark 10: 7646 vs 7656
> CPU-Z 539.6/8202.9 vs 550.5/8319.0



Thanks for sharing! +Rep :thumb:


----------



## pantsoftime

Reous said:


> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...MULA/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-1302.zip


Thank you good sir.


----------



## AStaUK

With BiOS 1302 is the AGESA version the same, 1.0.0.4B?


----------



## MacG32

dlbsyst said:


> Do you have those set to Auto in the BIOS MacG32. If so, I would manually assign them because the values are too high on two of them especially your SOC voltage. Set SOC to 1.1 volts, VDDP to .900 volts and VDDG to .950 in both values (CCD/IOD).



Update: My computer wouldn't start correctly with those values. I had to put them back on Auto and everything booted fine afterwards.



AStaUK said:


> With BiOS 1302 is the AGESA version the same, 1.0.0.4B?



Yes it is.


----------



## sakete

Any tips on the best way to test RAM for stability? Not even necessarily for overclocks, but want to test if my RAM sticks at stock settings are stable.


----------



## MacG32

sakete said:


> Any tips on the best way to test RAM for stability? Not even necessarily for overclocks, but want to test if my RAM sticks at stock settings are stable.



The easiest one is MEMTest in the DRAM Calculator for Ryzen. You could also try Karhu RAM Test. Either test needs to run for an hour. MEMTest is automatic and will stop on it's own. All this information and more is listed in the first post. :thumb:


----------



## sakete

MacG32 said:


> The easiest one is MEMTest in the DRAM Calculator for Ryzen. You could also try Karhu RAM Test. Either test needs to run for an hour. MEMTest is automatic and will stop on it's own. All this information and more is listed in the first post. :thumb:


Thx, guess I should've read the OP first


----------



## Krisztias

MacG32 said:


> I'm having the same exact issues as before. At stock, one in every 3 boots is unstable. The boost clocks max out between 4550MHz to 4600MHz between boots. I've tried everything I know over the past 2 months to have a completely stable system. Nothing works.
> 
> I tested out PBO. That doesn't keep me at 4600MHz + with every boot, so that's not functioning properly either. I also tried Performance Enhancer. On level 1 and 2, it downgraded my clock speeds. At level 3, it was close to normal, but not at normal operating specs. I don't even dare try a BCLK overclock.
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________
> This AGESA 1004B does not function properly AMD and I want it fixed. There are countless people using X570 motherboards having problems they shouldn't have due to an inconsistent AGESA. There are BIOS problems trying to get stuff to work correctly with this AGESA. This doesn't look good at all for AMD when everyone is experiencing inconsistencies. Please fix your AGESA to be completely consistent with all systems. More than half the time, my processor doesn't reach the advertised boost speed of 4600MHz. One third of the time, my system is completely unstable at stock. This is ridiculous AMD.


Hi!

I think something is off with your hardware, if you doesn't changed settings. I didn't get any instability's with my setup.


----------



## LancerVI

Jackalito said:


> I wasn't aware there was a new BIOS...
> The last one I knew of was 1201 from December last year. Can you give us more info?



edit: disregard. Thought I was on the last page.

Version 1302
2020/03/0314.97 MBytes
ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO (WI-FI) BIOS 1302
1.Improved system performance
Before running the USB BIOS Flashback tool, please rename the BIOS file (C8HW.CAP) using BIOSRenamer.


----------



## sakete

Well I got the C8F up and running and bios wise no weird issues from the start like I had with the Gigabyte board. Also flashed the latest 1302 bios right away.

One thing I did not realize is that with my Noctua NH-D15 air-cooler, I can't fit a gpu in the top slot, so now it's in the second slot in x8 mode. The cooler is too wide. This wasn't an issue on my old Z97 board and on the Gigabyte board, so looks like Asus move the cpu socket a bit closer to the pcie slot on this board? 

Performance wise it shouldn't matter that much, but it's pretty annoying otherwise as all the connectors and buttons at the bottom of the board are now hard to reach.

For a watercooling setup it doesn't matter, but I'm not sure yet I'll be going that route as it's a lot of money and a lot of hassle.

Yesterday and today I had otherwise no issues with the Gigabyte board, especially after manually entering ram timings and disabling xmp. Decisions, decisions...


----------



## Schmuckley

So..which one of you made it cold and gave it 2v and called it a day, hmm?


What's that? Oh! Askeered? Maybe 2v is excessive with this node, idk..


----------



## YugoSKS

Been dealing with this 8d code on my Crosshair VIII Hero WiFi...has anyone got an idea on a fix?


----------



## Badgerslayer7

YugoSKS said:


> Been dealing with this 8d code on my Crosshair VIII Hero WiFi...has anyone got an idea on a fix?


Have you tried increasing soc or ram voltage. These 1302 bios are no different at least for me to the last bios. Still getting the occasional cold boot issue.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Does anyone with the crosshair Wifi get random constant usb connects/ disconnects on boot. It can last for about 10 minutes until it eventually stops. It doesn’t happen every boot but just now and then. I have a 3900x with 32GB 3600 ram overclocked to 3800/1900 if clock.


----------



## sakete

sakete said:


> Well I got the C8F up and running and bios wise no weird issues from the start like I had with the Gigabyte board. Also flashed the latest 1302 bios right away.
> 
> One thing I did not realize is that with my Noctua NH-D15 air-cooler, I can't fit a gpu in the top slot, so now it's in the second slot in x8 mode. The cooler is too wide. This wasn't an issue on my old Z97 board and on the Gigabyte board, so looks like Asus move the cpu socket a bit closer to the pcie slot on this board?
> 
> Performance wise it shouldn't matter that much, but it's pretty annoying otherwise as all the connectors and buttons at the bottom of the board are now hard to reach.
> 
> For a watercooling setup it doesn't matter, but I'm not sure yet I'll be going that route as it's a lot of money and a lot of hassle.
> 
> Yesterday and today I had otherwise no issues with the Gigabyte board, especially after manually entering ram timings and disabling xmp. Decisions, decisions...


Well, I just swapped in the Gigabyte board again to give it another try and got that stupid bios reset bull**** again, so Asus C8F it is. This Gigabyte board is going back on Monday. I've also decided to build a custom waterloop, to make full use of this board.

I've now become pretty quick at swapping out boards and cleaning and repasting cpu + heatsink


----------



## heptilion

Hi folks,

I have been struggling to getget my flare-x 3200 cl14 ram at 3733/3800. I have entered as per what's on dram calculator fast preset for my RAM and to boot on 3733 i need 1.48dram voltage, but memtest is giving me errors. i have tried upping my soc voltage to 1.112, procodt to 40ohms as well as running upping the vddg =1 and vddp =.950. I have also tried increasing trcd to 17 and trfc to 358.

The funny thing is when i try to run at 16-16-16-32 at 3733, PC wont even post so I have to clear cmos, but with fast preset at 14-16-15-32 I end up getting mem test errors. So I am clueless as to what's going on. 

Any help would be much appreciated.


----------



## Sam64

Update to the new Bios (1302): As i reported, flashing and loading the old profile wasn't a problem, but after i got 2x freezes (gaming and video streaming) I did again a CMOS reset and edited every single value manually into the Bios and now it seems to be stable. I'm afraid, loading old Bios profiles after flashing a new Bios version is still not the way to go....


----------



## heptilion

I have managed to get the RAM to be stable at 3733 with 1.485(actual value 1.496 in hwinfo and bios with changes to soc 1.112, procodt 40ohm, vddg 1.05 and vddp 1.0. 

The issue now is why i get boot issues running 3733 at 16-16-16-32 and should I be running at 1.496 dram voltage for everyday use.


----------



## dlbsyst

Guys, there's another Windows 10 update you might want to avoid installing. Or if you already have and are having issues, uninstall it. Might explain some of you guys boot problems.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordon...lowdown-problems-upgrade-windows-10-free/amp/


----------



## sakete

dlbsyst said:


> Guys, there's another Windows 10 update you might want to avoid installing. Or if you already have, uninstall it. Might explain some of you guys boot problems.
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordon...lowdown-problems-upgrade-windows-10-free/amp/


This is why I generally defer feature updates for 200 days (still on 1903) and security updates for 30 days. My OS doesn't need to be bleeding edge.


----------



## dlbsyst

sakete said:


> This is why I generally defer feature updates for 200 days (still on 1903) and security updates for 30 days. My OS doesn't need to be bleeding edge.


Interesting. I do like to keep my computer on the bleeding edge with updates. What's strange with this latest Windows 10 update is I actually have it installed and not experiencing any of the issues talked about in that article. I wonder why?


----------



## sakete

dlbsyst said:


> Interesting. I do like to keep my computer on the bleeding edge with updates. What's strange with this latest Windows 10 update is I actually have it installed and not experiencing any of the issues talked about in that article. I wonder why?


I've seen that often enough with an initial update it can be a bit buggy. I'll let Microsoft work out the kinks first before I install an update.


----------



## Korennya

If one was setting up a nvme raid on this board. Would you get better results if you used the m.2 slots on the board, which splits one drive over the pch and one direct cpu. Or. Install one on the m.2 on the pch, and the second on the pcie16x3 slot with a m.2 adapter card?

The latter would put both drives on the same channel to the cpu. I'd be using dual pcie 3.0 drives, so saturating the pcie 4.0 from the pch to cpu shouldn't be a problem.

Is there a difference or is it pretty moot between the two ways of doing it?


----------



## Jackalito

dlbsyst said:


> Interesting. I do like to keep my computer on the bleeding edge with updates. What's strange with this latest Windows 10 update is I actually have it installed and not experiencing any of the issues talked about in that article. I wonder why?



I have no issues with any of the latest Windows 10 updates or with the recent UEFI BIOS on this mobo. My system is just rock solid, at least with what I use it for.
Just wanted to say it again, in case someone gets in here and thinks this is a disaster and we're all facing the same problems with unstable systems.


----------



## eyecrave

Finally upgraded from bios 1001to 1302 and all my oc settings still work. Also got a negative offset of 0.0875 (tried putting -0.075 but automatically went up). Seems pretty stable so far and tried some pbo settings that actually work. Tried a negative offset of 0.1 but crashed so I've just been testing -0.0875 for now and no crashes so far but it's only been 2 days. If you are hesitant upgrading from 1001 bios like me there is no need to worry. Although I did have to input all my settings manually from a saved bios text version so make sure you do that. Saved it to a USB stick and uploaded to Dropbox so I could read it from my phone.


----------



## Alastair

neurotix said:


> For best performance and memory overclocking, I'd definitely recommending flashing back to 1001 (I think its 1001...) if you're on 1105 and not going to 1201
> 
> 1001 should be 1.0.0.3abba AGESA and fixes the poor auto OC function, that is, the boost clock controversy fix for those who OC uses PBO and not manual CCX OC. However, since 1105 and now with 1201 we have AGESA 1.0.0.4 and memory overclocks poorly and is less stable. The board post time is faster and apparently boot time is faster too but it didnt fix my turtle speed 970 Evo boot time (a minute...) into Win10. It did speed up Linux but Linux already booted in 3 seconds.
> 
> I have a working Macintosh SE from 1986 that I bought and repaired over the summer (first computers I used) and it boots faster off a 400k single sided floppy disk, the OS was made in 1983 too. It does have four 1MB 80ns 9-chip SIMMs though (stock were four 256k 150ns so upgrading the ram capacity also cut latency by more than half  )Unacceptable. My prior 4790k + M6H + 840 Evo SATA booted Win7 in 5 seconds, I expected an M.2 to be on instantly
> 
> Anyway, since going to 1105 my boot times became even longer and my system bsods or randomly fails to post with my memory at XMP, 3200mhz 14-14-14-34-55 1.35v and it previously did 3600mhz at those timings. Ive done 3733mhz 14-15-16-15-32-47 1T gdm off tFAW 16 tRFC 288 as well as 3800 14-15-16-15 before. Now it seems the rig will randomly fail to POST on reboot at any timings, any speed CAS14 including XMP. But its stable currently at 16-16-16-16-32-50 1t gdm off tFAW 20 tRFC 302 3800/1900 on bios 1201
> 
> When bios 1105 with AGESA 1.0.0.4 (with the full boost clock fix) dropped many users here and especially on ROG forums and reddit complained that previously stable ram overclocks from 1001 werent booting. Most were using Bdies @ CAS 14 and aiming for 3733/1866. If your processors fabric will do 1900 and 3733mhz has problems doing 3733 cas 14 Id recommend trying for 3800/1900 cas 16 because the higher memory bandwidth and cache bandwidth nullifies the slightly higher latency from not running cas at 14.
> 
> Tbh if you want my opinion on the best bios for memory overclocking it is, by far, the Shamino beta 0017 bios (based on 0901 but released before it) from ROG forums. Shamino may have removed it now if he got in trouble with management or if he chose to remove it since later versions that fix boost behavior are out. I have it if you want it and cant find it, I'll attach it, IF you know how to safely downgrade using USB BIOS Flashback button correctly (not explained in the manual; I can explain the correct downgrade process but theres a small chance of bricking basically if you guys dont listen to my explanation and remove the thumbdrive before you're supposed to...) If Shamino sees and doesnt want me to post it, i know he lurks here, i wont though because i respect him a lot. hes a legend The_Stilts custom patched bios to improve memory overclocking are good too, I think he did them for all Crosshair boards for BIOS 0803 but for 1001 he just did one for the Crosshair VIII Formula and said ASUS wasnt going to allow him to release his tweaked version of the unfinished 1001 bios for the Hero or Impact boards.
> 
> Anyway that one (Shamino 0017 based on 0901) overclocks memory the easiest and best, I got my lowest latency scores at 3800 with that. Id recommend downgrading to 1001 though if you know how. Longer post times but has boost fix and clocks memory better. Shaminos bios doesnt have the boost fix + core parking/thread allocation to first CCX fixes
> 
> However, on the contrary maybe ASUS will come through for us, their premium board buyers, and surprise us with new features, figure out the slow boot times issues with M.2 and the 3900x, etc. If you look closely, all bios releases (named after the date) are being released at the beginning of the month: 1201 for Dec 1st, 1105 was Nov 5th, 1001 was Oct 1st, 0901 was Sept 1st, and 0803 waa Aug 3rd. There were some before that but dont ever use them: they have a bug that silently corrupts your Windows install. Anyway, clearly their development cycle and schedule is a month long and they aim to release on the 1st but have missed that target a few times. So if you wait- we might get a release on Jan 3rd given that Christmas is the 25th and the 1st is New Year's. I wouldn't hold my breath though as most people (including their code grunts programming the UEFI) get a full week off at the end of the month. Then its Chinese new year and ASUS is Taiwanese, I dont know if the uefi is developed here or in Taiwan, but yeah they wont get a full ~22-23 days (weekends subtracted) to develop it this month. I would not be surprised if we dont see the next bios until the middle of January but if Im wrong then in 3 weeks we'll get a new one on the 3rd so some might rather wait.
> 
> EDIT: And I totally replied thinking you were asking about downgrading and memory clocking. Oops. Either way, no I have not noticed any difference in performance (at manual CCX 4.4ghz chiplet 1, 4.2ghz chiplet 2) with 1201 vs 1105. My advice still stands: because of the memory instability issues past 1001, worse clocking memory, no fix for slow boot times on 3900x with 1201, and so on.. 1001 was the last bios that OCed memory well and does have the PBO boost behavior fix and single thread allocation to CCX0 (First chiplet/core complex die, first core complex) that runs your first complex faster and assigns preference to it for single threaded tasks (e.g. gaming) in the Windows Scheduler.
> 
> Downgrading is your choice but my boot time is still bad and I noticed no performance gain or decrease with 1201, though 1105 and 1201 both OC memory far worse as I described (Running cas at 14 is bugged. This is a 3200 cas 14 kit that passed memtest at 4066 c16 w 1866 fclk). I've seen quite a few users in other threads posting Cinebench scores and they use PBO, two claimed the chip was boosting worse and performing less and one showed that yes, 1201 is worse vs 1105, they decided to stick with 1105. (200 points less in Cinebench). Your call.
> 
> ...and dont call me sir, all my amd friends from 2011-2012 fx-8350 club on here all called me neuro, most are gone now besides damric and @*Alastair* who I think was getting Ryzen 3k?


Yebo. Grabbed myself 3800X with Aorus X570 Pro wifi and some B-die Avexir Core2's. The FX is either going to get sold, or retired into a homemade NAS or something. Damn shame that almost everyone POST OCNs migration to... whatever this god awful platform is now, is gone. :sadsmiley


----------



## Korennya

Any positive change in memory OC with 1302 vs 1201?


----------



## Lobstar

Crossposting from the 3950x thread: I was just able to set 1900 FCLK with no other changes after upgrading to the 1302 bios. I purchased mine from Silicon Lottery and it was 'confirmed' to not operate at 1900 FCLK. YMMV obv.


----------



## dlbsyst

I like the new Bios so far. Plugging in the same settings I used from 1201 I get better performance across the board. I'll report back if I notice any issues.


----------



## sakete

For you C8 Formula owners that are watercooling the vrm block, did you flush and clean it before use? Or is it already ready for use?


----------



## pantsoftime

sakete said:


> For you C8 Formula owners that are watercooling the vrm block, did you flush and clean it before use? Or is it already ready for use?


I didn't flush and things have been fine. I haven't seen any evidence of contamination or debris.


----------



## tien113

sakete said:


> For you C8 Formula owners that are watercooling the vrm block, did you flush and clean it before use? Or is it already ready for use?


you can put the filter to make it clean.


----------



## Krisztias

Wohooo:


----------



## heptilion

I am having a new issue now. I swapped my 1660ti with a 5700xt and now im getting cackling and popping sound when playing audio. I have my memory overclocked and its stable on both memtest 1000% single and kahru(ran for 12 hours). I read that it can cause because of lower soc voltage and i increased it upto 1.125 and the audio issue is minimized but not completely fixed.

Should I up the soc voltage a bit more? is there any other tweak that i should do?

Thanks


----------



## Lobstar

heptilion said:


> I am having a new issue now. I swapped my 1660ti with a 5700xt and now im getting cackling and popping sound when playing audio.


Just for the sake of troubleshooting, are you using a front audio port? If so, did the audio cable change its location in relation to the power cable of the video card? My thought is that the power draw (or possibly a higher power draw) is causing the issue and not something board related. Maybe try moving the front audio cable just for the sake of it if you are using the front port. If not, sorry for wasting your time!


----------



## heptilion

Lobstar said:


> Just for the sake of troubleshooting, are you using a front audio port?


I normally use the rear port audio. I have tried using different headsets and speakers on both front and rear ports but the issue is still there. Thanks for the suggestion though.


----------



## Ov3rdos3

Hello Guys,

If I have a Ryzen 3700X and these are my settings:

PBO Manual
EDC/TDC/TTP


----------



## Ov3rdos3

Hello Guys,

If I have a Ryzen 3700X and these are my settings:

Vcore AUTO
LLC LEVEL 3
CPU CONSM +140%
PBO Manual
EDC/TDC/TTP Motherboard
Offset +200mhz
Sclar x10
Memory 3600mhz CL16
FCLK 1800MHZ


My CPU boost full cores to 4300ish all time, however the temps are high 73degrees, I am setting Vcore to auto in the motherboard, is there a way to reduce heat by setting a lower Vcore or the Stock Vcore?

Thank you very much.


----------



## pschorr1123

Ov3rdos3 said:


> Hello Guys,
> 
> If I have a Ryzen 3700X and these are my settings:
> 
> Vcore AUTO
> LLC LEVEL 3
> CPU CONSM +140%
> PBO Manual
> EDC/TDC/TTP Motherboard
> Offset +200mhz
> Sclar x10
> Memory 3600mhz CL16
> FCLK 1800MHZ
> 
> 
> My CPU boost full cores to 4300ish all time, however the temps are high 73degrees, I am setting Vcore to auto in the motherboard, is there a way to reduce heat by setting a lower Vcore or the Stock Vcore?
> 
> Thank you very much.


You can try to add a negative vcore offset for the CPU to see if that helps with temps.

Also I see you have the scalar for PBO at x10. I believe this causes excessive voltage so try to lower to 1 or 2 to see if any improvement.

You can also set your CPU fan curve to run at higher RPMs above 65 degrees or whatever you prefer.


----------



## Ov3rdos3

Thanks a lot for you help I did change the scalar to x3 I will give a feedback on the temps later.

I would like to set the Vcore Manually on stock, it is set on auto and I see it at 1.48V very often, it peaks at that level... Which seems high. Is this normal?

My max temps at the above settings PBO and scalar to x10 are 75 degrees, the CPU is watercooled 2x360mm rads. Coming from an intel platform the temps seems a little high especially at Vcore auto (stock?).

So what is the stock Vcore guys? Is the 1.48v normal at boost speeds? Any Digi+Vrm tweaks?

Sorry for the amount of questions


----------



## pschorr1123

Ov3rdos3 said:


> Thanks a lot for you help I did change the scalar to x3 I will give a feedback on the temps later.
> 
> I would like to set the Vcore Manually on stock, it is set on auto and I see it at 1.48V very often, it peaks at that level... Which seems high. Is this normal?
> 
> My max temps at the above settings PBO and scalar to x10 are 75 degrees, the CPU is watercooled 2x360mm rads. Coming from an intel platform the temps seems a little high especially at Vcore auto (stock?).
> 
> So what is the stock Vcore guys? Is the 1.48v normal at boost speeds? Any Digi+Vrm tweaks?
> 
> Sorry for the amount of questions



The behavior for these 3000 series CPUs are radically different from previous gen or Intel. AMD designed these to hit up to 1.5 on lightly threaded single core loads so you seeing 1.48 on auto is normal. Amd CPUs are able to change their speed and voltage up to 1000 times per second so when you are seeing 1.48 it is for very brief periods of time. (most reporting software polls much slower) These CPUs behave more like Nvidia GPUs how they dynamically regulate themselves depending on workload and temps. You can read a better explanation from AMD Robert Hallock here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cbls9g/the_final_word_on_idle_voltages_for_3rd_gen_ryzen/

You will notice that if you were to fire up an AVX workload like CB20 multi core that the vcore drops down to 1.2-1.3. If you had an all core workload running at 1.48 then that would be an issue but AMD's Sense MI has 1000s of sensors located throughout the CPU package to regulate it's silicon FIT. (temps, voltages, amps, etc)

The negative offset for vcore works by leaving it at auto then subtracting what the offset is. like -.00625 I have seen mixed reviews about using this on Ryzen 3000. It was needed for 2700X for sure but using too large of an offset will cause clock stretching where your clocks will stay the same but performance will lower. You will have to do your own testing as your mileage may vary. This being an ASUS forum there are well known experts posting in here like The Stilt, Gupsterg, and others. You can learn a lot by going back and reading their posts. The Stilt did an awesome technical write up for Zen 2 here: https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-amd-cpus/1728758-strictly-technical-matisse-not-really.html

I steel feel the scalar at x10 should be lowered to reduce multi core voltage and heat. Test to confirm

EDIT: just wanted to note that theses chips due indeed get toasty from having the cores take up such a small area of the 7nm die. You will notice Single Core loads get pretty hot fast while multi core loads having more die area to dissipate heat.


----------



## LtMatt

*ltmatt*



heptilion said:


> I am having a new issue now. I swapped my 1660ti with a 5700xt and now im getting cackling and popping sound when playing audio. I have my memory overclocked and its stable on both memtest 1000% single and kahru(ran for 12 hours). I read that it can cause because of lower soc voltage and i increased it upto 1.125 and the audio issue is minimized but not completely fixed.
> 
> Should I up the soc voltage a bit more? is there any other tweak that i should do?
> 
> Thanks


I had this issue, but i managed to resolve it but i am not completely sure how. 

I did found one workaround that worked prior to this, and that was switching to PCI-E Gen 3. However i am now able to run PCI-e Gen 4 without the sound cracking with my 5700 XT. Using the 1302 BIOS.


----------



## Blameless

pantsoftime said:


> That would be terrible. You clearly spent a significant amount of time doing smart things. Keep us apprised of how your warranty experience goes. You might get some extra help if you leave an honest review on your retailer/e-tailer website and the community outreach people respond.


Got my Crosshair VIII impact back a couple of weeks ago; turn around time was reasonable (maybe a week), and they did fix the issue I was having without complaint. Apparently, all they had to do was reflash the firmware (no idea why the BIOS flashback didn't work, if that's the case). They also replaced my missing latch, though with one I don't think is native to this model of board. One small annoyance is that they kept the cardboard and hard plastic motherboard packaging/case and returned it in a plain anti-static bag.

The hardest part of the process was actually filing the RMA. The online form never worked and I had to go through a lot of redundant trouble shooting with their on-line support before being approved and sent the appropriate forms.

Overall the experience went fairly smoothly and I didn't feel as if they were trying to screw me over at any point. However, the actual process still needs some streamlining.

On a more general note I'm rather miffed that a ~430 dollar board has only a single BIOS and that it's apparently so easy to corrupt beyond easy end-user repair.


----------



## Korennya

Anyone running 64gb ram on these boards? I've got 4 16gb sticks (so dual rank each). 3200mhz seems like a hard limit for this config on my 3950x. Anything over that and it drops down to a 2:1 uclk:fclk ratio.


----------



## YugoSKS

Welp...8d code came back. I've tried every fix out there and it still show up. Thought the 1302 BIOS fixed it but it didn't. RAM is fine and has cleared multiple passes of memtest86 with no errors.

My question now is this...is anyone running this board that hasn't had the 8d code (with just regular DOCP settings)? If so, what RAM are you using?


----------



## flyinion

YugoSKS said:


> Welp...8d code came back. I've tried every fix out there and it still show up. Thought the 1302 BIOS fixed it but it didn't. RAM is fine and has cleared multiple passes of memtest86 with no errors.
> 
> My question now is this...is anyone running this board that hasn't had the 8d code (with just regular DOCP settings)? If so, what RAM are you using?


Have you tried changing the VDDG, VDDP, and SOC voltages if they're currently on Auto? I had the 8d issue starting with 1105 because they apparently changed the Auto values and they're now at a value that is not stable in some cases. There is a VDDG_CCD and VDDG_IOD that I set manually to .95 and the VDDP setting to 950. I didn't touch the SoC voltage for now as it was showing in spec and changing the others fixed it.


----------



## YugoSKS

flyinion said:


> Have you tried changing the VDDG, VDDP, and SOC voltages if they're currently on Auto? I had the 8d issue starting with 1105 because they apparently changed the Auto values and they're now at a value that is not stable in some cases. There is a VDDG_CCD and VDDG_IOD that I set manually to .95 and the VDDP setting to 950. I didn't touch the SoC voltage for now as it was showing in spec and changing the others fixed it.


Yes, I changed them and no dice, 8d eventually came back. The only thing that was somewhat successful was changing the SOC to 1.625. I didn't wanna go any lower because I wasn't sure if it would affect the performance of my system. I've seen a fair amount of posts from people who don't have this issue so it got me thinking that there may be a specific kit of RAM out there that will work with this board and be issue free. I even tried to enter everything manually and I either didn't do it correctly or the system didn't like the settings because it just boot looped until it entered the BIOS.

System specs are as follows in case anyone was wondering or can shed some more light on this issue.

3900X
Crosshair VIII Hero wifi
32 gigs of G Skill Ripjaws V 3600 16-19-19-38


----------



## Kildar

Any real difference between the C7H and the C8H other than PCI 4?

I can get a 7 for just $159 and was just wondering. I have a 6 now.


----------



## MacG32

New AMD Chipset Drivers v2.03.12.0657 50MB 3/19/2020


----------



## newls1

MacG32 said:


> New AMD Chipset Drivers v2.03.12.0657 50MB 3/19/2020


wonder what has changed?


----------



## benbenkr

Regret updating to 1302 BIOS from 1001.

Been dealing with cold boots (8d) even on stock memory settings, that's very annoying to say the least. Is it still possible to flash back down to 1001?


----------



## wisepds

Hello guys, i have a X files on my pc... i have a raid 0 with 2 8 TB wd red but if i suspend pc i get this when pc wake up:


If i reboot pc, unit D (Raid 0) appears. I have tested Ep, S4,S5 and nothing...raid dissapear if i sleep computer.

And in the other hand, this raid 0 never sppining downs the hdd, why?

Anybody can help me? My specs: 3950X, crosshair viii wifi and 32 gb ddr4 triden z samsung b-die cl14.
Thanks


----------



## dlbsyst

MacG32 said:


> New AMD Chipset Drivers v2.03.12.0657 50MB 3/19/2020





newls1 said:


> wonder what has changed?


Thanks for the heads up MacG32. Newls1, I do know that 3 of the drivers in the package were updated after comparing them in Windows device manager. One of them I'm not sure. Seems like a good update though.:thumb:


----------



## pendrago

Hello everyone!

I am browsing through the whole thread but I got like to page 8 out of 38 and I am starting to develop this idea that it's gonna be painful ... the process of building my new rig 

Generally I was a frequent visitor to Overclock.net a few years ago. I see now that some things have changed  but that impression of people here being friendly and helpful is still with me. That's why I like this community a lot, because people here do care and try to help. But... I digress. 

Since most of people on this thread own *Ryzen 3900x* and *Asus CH VIII Hero* I can cross that out from my "Which parts should I buy" list.

The main issue is which memory should I choose?
In the era of *AMD FX Bulldozers* having kit of 2x4 GB was easier to overclock than kit 4x2 GB (at least that was my experience back then). 
Isn't that an issue nowadays? What I mean is that I would like to buy kit 2x16 GB (32 GB) than 4x8 GB. Does the fact of having 4 ram sticks have any impact on their overclocking capabilities?

I was thinking about buying those *G.Skill Trident Z F4-3600C16D-32GTZR* or at least I thought they would be ok after reading about memory on https://benzhaomin.github.io/bdiefinder/ 

Would like to stick to G.Skill Trident Z but exactly which ones? Trident Z Neo, Trident Z Royal and with what timings? Any recommendation?

--------
Another thing is M.2 disks. Is there any difference between 
*SAMSUNG 970 EVO M.2 2280 1TB PCIe Gen3. X4, MZ-V7E1T0BW *
and
*SAMSUNG 970 EVO PLUS M.2 2280 1TB PCIe Gen 3.0 x4, MZ-V7S1T0B/AM *
or even PRO version ? (aside from the price of course 

-----
I noticed that a lot of you own Phanteks cases especially *Enthoo Evolv X*. Is there (I have seen specifications but I can't exactly verify this) enough room for two WC loops: one 360 for GPU and one 240 for CPU and 2 reservoires? And maybe what are your opinion about that case? 

Really sorry for spamming. I am aware that this might be frustrating. I just want to rejoin this community and I have like 7 years to catch up on. Not impossible task to do but could be a little bit overwhelming. 

Once again sorry for spamming. 

Take care (and wash your hands, because you don't want to leave your fingerprints on your glass side panels


----------



## neurotix

pendrago said:


> Hello everyone!
> 
> I am browsing through the whole thread but I got like to page 8 out of 38 and I am starting to develop this idea that it's gonna be painful ... the process of building my new rig
> 
> Generally I was a frequent visitor to Overclock.net a few years ago. I see now that some things have changed  but that impression of people here being friendly and helpful is still with me. That's why I like this community a lot, because people here do care and try to help. But... I digress.
> 
> Since most of people on this thread own *Ryzen 3900x* and *Asus CH VIII Hero* I can cross that out from my "Which parts should I buy" list.
> 
> The main issue is which memory should I choose?
> In the era of *AMD FX Bulldozers* having kit of 2x4 GB was easier to overclock than kit 4x2 GB (at least that was my experience back then).
> Isn't that an issue nowadays? What I mean is that I would like to buy kit 2x16 GB (32 GB) than 4x8 GB. Does the fact of having 4 ram sticks have any impact on their overclocking capabilities?
> 
> I was thinking about buying those *G.Skill Trident Z F4-3600C16D-32GTZR* or at least I thought they would be ok after reading about memory on https://benzhaomin.github.io/bdiefinder/
> 
> Would like to stick to G.Skill Trident Z but exactly which ones? Trident Z Neo, Trident Z Royal and with what timings? Any recommendation?
> 
> --------
> Another thing is M.2 disks. Is there any difference between
> *SAMSUNG 970 EVO M.2 2280 1TB PCIe Gen3. X4, MZ-V7E1T0BW *
> and
> *SAMSUNG 970 EVO PLUS M.2 2280 1TB PCIe Gen 3.0 x4, MZ-V7S1T0B/AM *
> or even PRO version ? (aside from the price of course
> 
> -----
> I noticed that a lot of you own Phanteks cases especially *Enthoo Evolv X*. Is there (I have seen specifications but I can't exactly verify this) enough room for two WC loops: one 360 for GPU and one 240 for CPU and 2 reservoires? And maybe what are your opinion about that case?
> 
> Really sorry for spamming. I am aware that this might be frustrating. I just want to rejoin this community and I have like 7 years to catch up on. Not impossible task to do but could be a little bit overwhelming.
> 
> Once again sorry for spamming.
> 
> Take care (and wash your hands, because you don't want to leave your fingerprints on your glass side panels



Sure I can help:

Yes there is a huge advantage in memory types. 2x8GB single rank Samsung B-Die memory is the absolute best for performance. 2x16GB (and that kit you mentioned) is almost always going to overclock way worse, need higher timings (in some cases twice as high tRFC, 496 or 502 vs 294 or 288). These are Hynix D-Die dual rank usually or sometimes Micron E-Die.

If you have a need for actual capacity, do it, if gaming and using the internet, benching etc. get the G.Skill Flare X 3200 c14 kit as it overclocks heavily, is cheap ($120, no rgb) and Ive clocked mine to 4266MHz which is 15 dividers higher. 

For drives, dont get a 970 Evo, get a Sabrent Rocket 1tb or 512gb as it will be faster. PCI-E 4.0

As for the case its up to preference but generally yes, be aware that case is giant. There are midtower cases now that can do two 360mm rads, a D5 pump/res combo, etc. Corsair has a really nice high end frosted glass tower too, Id probably do that but I just rebuilt mine.


----------



## apxitektop

neurotix said:


> Sure I can help:
> As for the case its up to preference but generally yes, be aware that case is giant. There are midtower cases now that can do two 360mm rads, a D5 pump/res combo, etc. Corsair has a really nice high end frosted glass tower too, Id probably do that but I just rebuilt mine.


Im also noob in this ), can u upload your overclocking for 3900x and Crosshair VIII profile on *.CMO file ?


----------



## Woodland

pendrago said:


> Hello everyone!
> 
> I am browsing through the whole thread but I got like to page 8 out of 38 and I am starting to develop this idea that it's gonna be painful ... the process of building my new rig
> 
> Generally I was a frequent visitor to Overclock.net a few years ago. I see now that some things have changed  but that impression of people here being friendly and helpful is still with me. That's why I like this community a lot, because people here do care and try to help. But... I digress.
> 
> Since most of people on this thread own *Ryzen 3900x* and *Asus CH VIII Hero* I can cross that out from my "Which parts should I buy" list.
> 
> The main issue is which memory should I choose?
> In the era of *AMD FX Bulldozers* having kit of 2x4 GB was easier to overclock than kit 4x2 GB (at least that was my experience back then).
> Isn't that an issue nowadays? What I mean is that I would like to buy kit 2x16 GB (32 GB) than 4x8 GB. Does the fact of having 4 ram sticks have any impact on their overclocking capabilities?
> 
> I was thinking about buying those *G.Skill Trident Z F4-3600C16D-32GTZR* or at least I thought they would be ok after reading about memory on https://benzhaomin.github.io/bdiefinder/
> 
> Would like to stick to G.Skill Trident Z but exactly which ones? Trident Z Neo, Trident Z Royal and with what timings? Any recommendation?
> 
> --------
> Another thing is M.2 disks. Is there any difference between
> *SAMSUNG 970 EVO M.2 2280 1TB PCIe Gen3. X4, MZ-V7E1T0BW *
> and
> *SAMSUNG 970 EVO PLUS M.2 2280 1TB PCIe Gen 3.0 x4, MZ-V7S1T0B/AM *
> or even PRO version ? (aside from the price of course
> 
> -----
> I noticed that a lot of you own Phanteks cases especially *Enthoo Evolv X*. Is there (I have seen specifications but I can't exactly verify this) enough room for two WC loops: one 360 for GPU and one 240 for CPU and 2 reservoires? And maybe what are your opinion about that case?
> 
> Really sorry for spamming. I am aware that this might be frustrating. I just want to rejoin this community and I have like 7 years to catch up on. Not impossible task to do but could be a little bit overwhelming.
> 
> Once again sorry for spamming.
> 
> Take care (and wash your hands, because you don't want to leave your fingerprints on your glass side panels



The G.Skill Trident Z you mentioned (F4-3600C16D-32GTZR) are most definitely Samsung B-Die. And they overclock very well on my Crosshair VIII. 



Much respect to neurotix, but he is just mistaken on this particular G.Skill set


Good luck.


----------



## tien113

pendrago said:


> Hello everyone!
> 
> I am browsing through the whole thread but I got like to page 8 out of 38 and I am starting to develop this idea that it's gonna be painful ... the process of building my new rig
> 
> Generally I was a frequent visitor to Overclock.net a few years ago. I see now that some things have changed  but that impression of people here being friendly and helpful is still with me. That's why I like this community a lot, because people here do care and try to help. But... I digress.
> 
> Since most of people on this thread own *Ryzen 3900x* and *Asus CH VIII Hero* I can cross that out from my "Which parts should I buy" list.
> 
> The main issue is which memory should I choose?
> In the era of *AMD FX Bulldozers* having kit of 2x4 GB was easier to overclock than kit 4x2 GB (at least that was my experience back then).
> Isn't that an issue nowadays? What I mean is that I would like to buy kit 2x16 GB (32 GB) than 4x8 GB. Does the fact of having 4 ram sticks have any impact on their overclocking capabilities?
> 
> I was thinking about buying those *G.Skill Trident Z F4-3600C16D-32GTZR* or at least I thought they would be ok after reading about memory on https://benzhaomin.github.io/bdiefinder/
> 
> Would like to stick to G.Skill Trident Z but exactly which ones? Trident Z Neo, Trident Z Royal and with what timings? Any recommendation?
> 
> --------
> Another thing is M.2 disks. Is there any difference between
> *SAMSUNG 970 EVO M.2 2280 1TB PCIe Gen3. X4, MZ-V7E1T0BW *
> and
> *SAMSUNG 970 EVO PLUS M.2 2280 1TB PCIe Gen 3.0 x4, MZ-V7S1T0B/AM *
> or even PRO version ? (aside from the price of course
> 
> -----
> I noticed that a lot of you own Phanteks cases especially *Enthoo Evolv X*. Is there (I have seen specifications but I can't exactly verify this) enough room for two WC loops: one 360 for GPU and one 240 for CPU and 2 reservoires? And maybe what are your opinion about that case?
> 
> Really sorry for spamming. I am aware that this might be frustrating. I just want to rejoin this community and I have like 7 years to catch up on. Not impossible task to do but could be a little bit overwhelming.
> 
> Once again sorry for spamming.
> 
> Take care (and wash your hands, because you don't want to leave your fingerprints on your glass side panels


32GB is a future proof and this is bdie so it should be good because it's so expensive (double price).

you shouldn't get phanteks case, grab lian li o11 dynamic xl that is way better than phanteks.

you should get sabrent rocket 1tb because it's maximum your bandwidth pci-e 4.0.


----------



## James Cole

I was hoping someone could help me out.

I have a Asus ROG Crosshair Hero VIII WiFi motherboard on BIOS 1302 and it is in a Coolermaster H500M case.

I have the USB 3.2 Gen2 front panel connector on the motherboard (item 11 in the manual listed as U32G2_5) connected to the case.

When I plug in any USB-C device, it charges the device, but it never shows up as a device on the computer or makes a USB connecting sound.
The rear USB-C port works fine. (Tried iPad, iPhone, USB-C drive).

Looking in the BIOS, everything for USB is enabled. I noticed that under single port control – U32G2_5 is not even listed.

Does anyone with an older BIOS see this listed? Is there somewhere else in the BIOS I need to enable it?

Thanks for the help!


----------



## pendrago

neurotix said:


> Sure I can help:
> 
> Yes there is a huge advantage in memory types. 2x8GB single rank Samsung B-Die memory is the absolute best for performance. 2x16GB (and that kit you mentioned) is almost always going to overclock way worse, need higher timings (in some cases twice as high tRFC, 496 or 502 vs 294 or 288). These are Hynix D-Die dual rank usually or sometimes Micron E-Die.
> 
> If you have a need for actual capacity, do it, if gaming and using the internet, benching etc. get the G.Skill Flare X 3200 c14 kit as it overclocks heavily, is cheap ($120, no rgb) and Ive clocked mine to 4266MHz which is 15 dividers higher.


So, how much ram do you have if I may ask ? I assume it's 16 GB and it's 2x8GB right? 
I was browsing that page --> https://benzhaomin.github.io/bdiefinder/ to find 32 GB kits with CAS 14 and the result I got is here:



Spoiler



G.Skill Trident Z Royal F4-3600C14Q-32GTRGB 3600C14 / 7.8ns 4x8GB / SR 
G.Skill Trident Z Royal F4-3600C14Q-32GTRSB 3600C14 / 7.8ns 4x8GB / SR <-- link to official site of G.Skill
G.Skill Trident Z Neo (rgb) F4-3600C14Q-32GTZN 3600C14 / 7.8ns 4x8GB / SR 
G.Skill Trident Z Neo (rgb) F4-3600C14Q-32GTZNB 3600C14 / 7.8ns 4x8GB / SR



My guess is there is not much difference as their performance would be similar (I kinda don't fancy that sparkling thing on Trident Z Royal but it actually doesn't matter because all I care of is efficiency).

You've overclocked your kit with specified speed 3200 to over 4 GHz? Impressive! And how about temps under high load?



> For drives, dont get a 970 Evo, get a Sabrent Rocket 1tb or 512gb as it will be faster. PCI-E 4.0


Is this that one --> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sabrent-Internal-Maximum-Performance-SB-ROCKET-NVMe4-1TB/dp/B07TLYWMYW ?

So that would be 170 € for a PCI-e 4.0 1 TB drive, hmmm. Not so bad after all.

I live in Ireland where I coulndn't find any decent online shop with computer parts, so I was left with either Newegg (but shipping cost are horrendous!) or Amazon.co.uk (I would say that's terrible situation I am in 



> As for the case its up to preference but generally yes, be aware that case is giant. There are midtower cases now that can do two 360mm rads, a D5 pump/res combo, etc. Corsair has a really nice high end frosted glass tower too, Id probably do that but I just rebuilt mine.


The other PC Case I had in mind was this one Fractal Design Define S2 Blackout Brushed Aluminum/Steel ATX Silent Modular Light Tint Tempered Glass Window Mid Tower Computer Case 

Every case that would fit 2 360 (maybe) rads and 2 reservoirs (or maybe just one ... so far I have been using EKWB products and I would say in terms of quality they are almost perfect 



Woodland said:


> The G.Skill Trident Z you mentioned (F4-3600C16D-32GTZR) are most definitely Samsung B-Die. And they overclock very well on my Crosshair VIII.
> 
> Good luck.


Thank You! So, your kit... what is your "score" with those? Could you tell me your timings and final overclocked speed?



tien113 said:


> 32GB is a future proof and this is bdie so it should be good because it's so expensive (double price).
> 
> you shouldn't get phanteks case, grab lian li o11 dynamic xl that is way better than phanteks.
> 
> you should get sabrent rocket 1tb because it's maximum your bandwidth pci-e 4.0.


Thanks! I just checked this Lian li Case and it's huge!  https://www.amazon.co.uk/Lian-Dynam...+dynamic+xl&qid=1584832626&s=computers&sr=1-2

I know that is a lot of questions but there is one more thing I would like to ask you. 
It's about PSU. I know nowadays PSUs are much more efficient and the one I got is acutally very high ranked. 
It's SeaSonic Platinum-760 XP2 and it comes with 7 year warranty and I must say it has been working fantastic for the last *6 years *or so. The problem is that if I put in my rig Ryzen 3900 plus some RTX 2080 that gives me somewhere about 630 Watts of power on one 12 V line. Would that be enough?

The other issue is that it is 6 years old, so maybe it's time to get some new PSU anyway... just thinking.

Just an idea. Someone should definitely design a page where one could virtually put all of pc parts togheter and then you could visualize that build before buying any pc part. Sure they are some PC-configurators but I haven't seen one with that feature so far.

Thank you! You've been all very helpful. I think the most difficult part would be the time when I would have to begin fine tunning my build once I got all the parts - countless hours of trial and errors, benchmarking and all that stuff which was (as I remembered) so time consuming.


----------



## newls1

flash to latest 13xx bios or not???


----------



## tien113

pendrago said:


> Thanks! I just checked this Lian li Case and it's huge!  https://www.amazon.co.uk/Lian-Dynam...+dynamic+xl&qid=1584832626&s=computers&sr=1-2
> 
> 
> I know that is a lot of questions but there is one more thing I would like to ask you.
> It's about PSU. I know nowadays PSUs are much more efficient and the one I got is acutally very high ranked.
> It's SeaSonic Platinum-760 XP2 and it comes with 7 year warranty and I must say it has been working fantastic for the last *6 years *or so. The problem is that if I put in my rig Ryzen 3900 plus some RTX 2080 that gives me somewhere about 630 Watts of power on one 12 V line. Would that be enough?
> 
> The other issue is that it is 6 years old, so maybe it's time to get some new PSU anyway... just thinking.
> 
> Just an idea. Someone should definitely design a page where one could virtually put all of pc parts togheter and then you could visualize that build before buying any pc part. Sure they are some PC-configurators but I haven't seen one with that feature so far.
> 
> Thank you! You've been all very helpful. I think the most difficult part would be the time when I would have to begin fine tunning my build once I got all the parts - countless hours of trial and errors, benchmarking and all that stuff which was (as I remembered) so time consuming.


psu 760w is enough for your rig.

you can use pcpartpicker.com before you buy anything else.


----------



## sakete

Alright, now that I have my watercooling stuff up and running, I want to start overclocking this 3900X. My goal is to find the best stable speed for all-cores first, and then fine-tune per CCD and perhaps go down to the CCX level as well.

One question I have is, I just manually set CPU voltage to 1.35V, while leaving PBO enabled. Without changing anything else, I still see the voltage hitting 1.45V+ when running Cinebench R20. Is that expected behavior?

Also, when doing these manual overclocks, should I fully disable PBO?

Otherwise with some preliminary testing and locking the voltage and core ratios, the CPU runs much warmer at idle (which makes sense). Not even sure it's worth it. What's the best way to ensure the chip will reach maximum boost on this motherboard?


----------



## MacG32

newls1 said:


> flash to latest 13xx bios or not???



Many people are getting less scores in benchmarks with any BIOS over v1001. Memory overclocking/stability are negatively affected. I was on 1302 and still had boot problems. 1.0.0.4 patch B seems to be very problematic. Since I've been back to BIOS v1001, I haven't had any boot issues.


----------



## tien113

sakete said:


> Alright, now that I have my watercooling stuff up and running, I want to start overclocking this 3900X. My goal is to find the best stable speed for all-cores first, and then fine-tune per CCD and perhaps go down to the CCX level as well.
> 
> One question I have is, I just manually set CPU voltage to 1.35V, while leaving PBO enabled. Without changing anything else, I still see the voltage hitting 1.45V+ when running Cinebench R20. Is that expected behavior?
> 
> Also, when doing these manual overclocks, should I fully disable PBO?
> 
> Otherwise with some preliminary testing and locking the voltage and core ratios, the CPU runs much warmer at idle (which makes sense). Not even sure it's worth it. What's the best way to ensure the chip will reach maximum boost on this motherboard?


you have to do manual vcore and core ratio to make sure vcore is working correctly (1.35v).

when you do manually, PBO will auto disable.

you can increase core ratio until it reaches unstable and increase the vcore until you satisfy the speed and temp.


----------



## sakete

tien113 said:


> you have to do manual vcore and core ratio to make sure vcore is working correctly (1.35v).
> 
> when you do manually, PBO will auto disable.
> 
> you can increase core ratio until it reaches unstable and increase the vcore until you satisfy the speed and temp.


Is there a way to force higher boost speeds without doing an all-core overclock? I don't like that at idle the temps are much higher when doing a manual OC, as a lot of the time the PC is just on not doing much and then it's just a waste of energy to be clocked so high.


----------



## tien113

sakete said:


> Is there a way to force higher boost speeds without doing an all-core overclock? I don't like that at idle the temps are much higher when doing a manual OC, as a lot of the time the PC is just on not doing much and then it's just a waste of energy to be clocked so high.


you can use PBO (set auto vcore and core ratio), it can run one core with very high speed but it uses a lot of vcore (1.4v+) which I don't like it.

manual oc is not waste of energy. when you don't use much cpu power, cpu clock is reduced to minimize the cpu power, temperature.


----------



## sakete

tien113 said:


> you can use PBO (set auto vcore and core ratio), it can run one core with very high speed but it uses a lot of vcore (1.4v+) which I don't like it.
> 
> manual oc is not waste of energy. when you don't use much cpu power, cpu clock is reduced to minimize the cpu power, temperature.


I have an all-core OC now with a 43x multiplier, so at 4.3GHz, CPU Vcore at 1.35V and CPU SOC at 1.25V. Even at low load it's stuck at 4.3GHz all the time. So are you sure it downclocks to lower frequencies under low load? Otherwise what other setting am I missing?


----------



## tien113

sakete said:


> I have an all-core OC now with a 43x multiplier, so at 4.3GHz, CPU Vcore at 1.35V and CPU SOC at 1.25V. Even at low load it's stuck at 4.3GHz all the time. So are you sure it downclocks to lower frequencies under low load? Otherwise what other setting am I missing?


why do u need vcpu soc 1.25v, it's too high. 1.1v is enough.


how do you check the clock? I use ryzen master.


----------



## sakete

tien113 said:


> why do u need vcpu soc 1.25v, it's too high. 1.1v is enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how do you check the clock? I use ryzen master.


I saw that suggested somewhere, and just used it as a starting point. But besides that, it shouldn't matter for the cores not clocking down. I was using HWinfo to monitor it.


----------



## flyinion

sakete said:


> I have an all-core OC now with a 43x multiplier, so at 4.3GHz, CPU Vcore at 1.35V and CPU SOC at 1.25V. Even at low load it's stuck at 4.3GHz all the time. So are you sure it downclocks to lower frequencies under low load? Otherwise what other setting am I missing?



Are you using a Ryzen power plan on Windows? If so they usually have minimum processor state at 99%


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## sakete

flyinion said:


> Are you using a Ryzen power plan on Windows? If so they usually have minimum processor state at 99%
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I am, but I changed Ryzen Balanced minimum state to 5%.


----------



## MacG32

When I ordered a replacement processor for testing, I left it in my rig. My computer is no longer experiencing boot problems after reverting to BIOS v1001 and running the latest AMD Drivers. I've noticed my processor boosting a good amount, so I've decided to post it. I'm very pleased and happy with the results. :thumb: Now I can experiment with this memory to see what kind of overclock I can safely get.


----------



## heptilion

LtMatt said:


> I had this issue, but i managed to resolve it but i am not completely sure how.
> 
> I did found one workaround that worked prior to this, and that was switching to PCI-E Gen 3. However i am now able to run PCI-e Gen 4 without the sound cracking with my 5700 XT. Using the 1302 BIOS.


I tried upping my vddg voltage by 10mv to 1.06 and it seems to be gone. Time will tell. @neurotix any tips on this please.


----------



## YugoSKS

MacG32 said:


> My computer is no longer experiencing boot problems after reverting to BIOS v1001 and running the latest AMD Drivers.


So, no more 8d codes? Any issues flashing back to 1001?

If this is the case I might just try reverting myself. I'm currently testing manual DRAM and voltage settings to see if DOCP was the cause of my 8d issues. My system runs very well so i am hesitant to make any drastic changes but this 8d code nonsense is driving me nuts!


----------



## newls1

YugoSKS said:


> So, no more 8d codes? Any issues flashing back to 1001?
> 
> If this is the case I might just try reverting myself. I'm currently testing manual DRAM and voltage settings to see if DOCP was the cause of my 8d issues. My system runs very well so i am hesitant to make any drastic changes but this 8d code nonsense is driving me nuts!


I have my ram and all settings manually set using the dram calc app, and every now and then I get 8D boot error... ive just learned to live with it. sucks, but whatever.


----------



## pmachado

newls1 said:


> I have my ram and all settings manually set using the dram calc app, and every now and then I get 8D boot error... ive just learned to live with it. sucks, but whatever.


In my recent ram overclocking trials I noticed I would get boot error code 8d if I set my SoC voltage anywhere above 1.1. I keep it at 1.1 now and have not gotten the 8d boot error. Also read somewhere else of a person with the same experience. Not sure if that's helpful to anyone.


----------



## Warsteiner

I am having an issue with Aura Sync. I can't seem to get all of my devices to work at the same time. I can get all but one component to work. So if my aRGB header works my video card stops working. If my video card starts working again the RAM will stop working. It seems like I am constantly fighting this and have never gotten them all to work at the same time. There is always one of my aRGB devices that refuses to work. Has anyone seen this issue? Is it a setting I need to change somewhere? It feels like there is not enough power to run everything so it cuts something to be within the power limit.


----------



## neurotix

Warsteiner said:


> I am having an issue with Aura Sync. I can't seem to get all of my devices to work at the same time. I can get all but one component to work. So if my aRGB header works my video card stops working. If my video card starts working again the RAM will stop working. It seems like I am constantly fighting this and have never gotten them all to work at the same time. There is always one of my aRGB devices that refuses to work. Has anyone seen this issue? Is it a setting I need to change somewhere? It feels like there is not enough power to run everything so it cuts something to be within the power limit.


Yes, likely, you cannot exceed a certain amount of amperage on the strips (something like 3a) or in excess of 100 individually addressable LEDs. If you do so, you exceed the current limit the pins can provide. My case had a piece of paper that said dont use more than 5 led strips. Mine uses 4 + the rgb fans from my case and a pwm/rgb hub.

EDIT: hey Mac I flashed down too and havent had a failed post once, also my under voltage lockups in compiz (Linux WM) requiring reboots when the chip is on auto are gone, + its Shamino's beta 0017 driver so my latency is ~63ns


----------



## neurotix

sakete said:


> Is there a way to force higher boost speeds without doing an all-core overclock? I don't like that at idle the temps are much higher when doing a manual OC, as a lot of the time the PC is just on not doing much and then it's just a waste of energy to be clocked so high.


Yes you can do this but need serious cooling.

Try this

In extreme Tweaker/core performance boost

set it to – Auto

In extreme Tweaker/precision boost overdrive

precision boost overdrive = auto
max cpu boost clock override = auto
platform throttle limit = auto
Set all 3 options to AUTO

In extreme Tweaker/digi+ power control
cpu load-line calibration set to = LEVEL 3
cpu current capability to 140%

In advanced/amd cbs/nbio common options/xfr enhancement/accepted
precision boost overdrive = auto
and precision boost overdrive = auto


now in
advanced/amd overclocking/amd overclocking/precision boost override
precision boost override set this to -advanced
PBO limits to manual
PPT limit =0
TDC limit =0
EDC limit =1 *
precision boost overdrive scalar - manual =10x
max cpu boost clock override =200mhz
and the thermal throttle to =200
save and restart.


* The above makes the chip boost to 4400Mhz in all core tasks, suitable for video, audio, rendering, etc workloads. Set edc = 8 and launch a benchmark. Play a game. Leave hwinfo64 up in the system tray and check and ypu should see the first 3 threads hitting 4625, 4575, 4550 mhz. Feed it voltage, up to 1.425v (or 1.435 even) seemed ideal for me to see those high clocks. At 1.35v or lower the electrical potential is not sufficient to gate the transistors to those high clocks. Leave power saving (C States) alone. Also, please disregard anything anyone tells you about using too high voltage etc. They dont know what they are doing. 


edit: see here https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...cking-discussion-thread-194.html#post28284160

and here:

https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...-pbo-turbo-boost.html#/topics/1741052?page=54

Credit to the guy who figured this out


----------



## MacG32

YugoSKS said:


> So, no more 8d codes? Any issues flashing back to 1001?
> 
> If this is the case I might just try reverting myself. I'm currently testing manual DRAM and voltage settings to see if DOCP was the cause of my 8d issues. My system runs very well so i am hesitant to make any drastic changes but this 8d code nonsense is driving me nuts!



I never had an 8d issue. I have noticed that this motherboard doesn't like 4 sticks of RAM or RAM that's not on the QVL. I noticed a lot of people testing stability with benchmarks and they aren't indicators of a stable system. Prime 95 for 24 hours is the only stability test that guarantees you 100% stability. Even before overclock stability testing, one should test their RAM to make sure their sticks aren't bad. A minimum of an hour testing is needed at around 98%. I noticed there are unneeded voltage changes on BIOSes above v1001 and different settings opened up. Maybe one of the BIOS Gurus could release a v1001 BIOS with the same settings unlocked as the latter BIOSes. I can not recommend any BIOS over v1001.


----------



## sakete

neurotix said:


> Yes you can do this but need serious cooling.
> 
> Try this
> 
> In extreme Tweaker/core performance boost
> 
> set it to – Auto
> 
> In extreme Tweaker/precision boost overdrive
> 
> precision boost overdrive = auto
> max cpu boost clock override = auto
> platform throttle limit = auto
> Set all 3 options to AUTO
> 
> In extreme Tweaker/digi+ power control
> cpu load-line calibration set to = LEVEL 3
> cpu current capability to 140%
> 
> In advanced/amd cbs/nbio common options/xfr enhancement/accepted
> precision boost overdrive = auto
> and precision boost overdrive = auto
> 
> 
> now in
> advanced/amd overclocking/amd overclocking/precision boost override
> precision boost override set this to -advanced
> PBO limits to manual
> PPT limit =0
> TDC limit =0
> EDC limit =1 *
> precision boost overdrive scalar - manual =10x
> max cpu boost clock override =200mhz
> and the thermal throttle to =200
> save and restart.
> 
> 
> * The above makes the chip boost to 4400Mhz in all core tasks, suitable for video, audio, rendering, etc workloads. Set edc = 8 and launch a benchmark. Play a game. Leave hwinfo64 up in the system tray and check and ypu should see the first 3 threads hitting 4625, 4575, 4550 mhz. Feed it voltage, up to 1.425v (or 1.435 even) seemed ideal for me to see those high clocks. At 1.35v or lower the electrical potential is not sufficient to gate the transistors to those high clocks. Leave power saving (C States) alone. Also, please disregard anything anyone tells you about using too high voltage etc. They dont know what they are doing.
> 
> 
> edit: see here https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...cking-discussion-thread-194.html#post28284160
> 
> and here:
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...-pbo-turbo-boost.html#/topics/1741052?page=54
> 
> Credit to the guy who figured this out


Awesome tip, thanks!

Alright, I made those tweaks, but set EDC at 16 per a suggestion in the thread by that guy who figured it out, as that should help lower-load boosting as well. I've seen a max boost so far on two cores at 4,675mhz, 2 other cores at 4,650 and two others at 4,625, all on the same CCD. The other CCD saw a max boost of 4,475, which seems about right. During Cinebench R20 it only max boosted to 4,125 on all cores or so, but I did get a higher score than I was getting before.

I'll tweak with the EDC at lower settings to see if I can balance all-core boost on high-load vs low to medium loads.

You were saying put in a voltage up to 1.425 - 1.435? I still have that on auto for now.

Edit: leaving voltage on Auto. When I set it to 1.425 and had EDC at 1 or 8 or 16, it was severly downclocking the processor under load, as low as 800 MHz on all cores. I now have it at 8 and I'm getting boosts as high as 4.7Ghz on 1 core. And also got the highest Cinebench score yet with EDC at 8, at 7209. I think this will do, thanks for the tip!


----------



## flyinion

MacG32 said:


> I never had an 8d issue. I have noticed that this motherboard doesn't like 4 sticks of RAM or RAM that's not on the QVL. I noticed a lot of people testing stability with benchmarks and they aren't indicators of a stable system. Prime 95 for 24 hours is the only stability test that guarantees you 100% stability. Even before overclock stability testing, one should test their RAM to make sure their sticks aren't bad. A minimum of an hour testing is needed at around 98%. I noticed there are unneeded voltage changes on BIOSes above v1001 and different settings opened up. Maybe one of the BIOS Gurus could release a v1001 BIOS with the same settings unlocked as the latter BIOSes. I can not recommend any BIOS over v1001.


Hmm I was thinking of going to 1302 from 1105, now I'm thinking maybe I should go back to 1001. I don't see anything on the 1st page on how to do that. I seem to remember it was mentioned on the Asus page for 1105+ that you couldn't go back, but I remember there actually was a method just can't remember it now. Any idea?


----------



## MacG32

flyinion said:


> Hmm I was thinking of going to 1302 from 1105, now I'm thinking maybe I should go back to 1001. I don't see anything on the 1st page on how to do that. I seem to remember it was mentioned on the Asus page for 1105+ that you couldn't go back, but I remember there actually was a method just can't remember it now. Any idea?



https://www.asus.com/support/FAQ/1038568 This doesn't show the Flashback USB port, but it's circled and under the BIOS Button on the back of your computer. The BIOS Renamer from the BIOS file also needs used to rename the BIOS. Happy flashing.


----------



## neurotix

MacG32 said:


> https://www.asus.com/support/FAQ/1038568 This doesn't show the Flashback USB port, but it's circled and under the BIOS Button on the back of your computer. The BIOS Renamer from the BIOS file also needs used to rename the BIOS. Happy flashing.


Heres a better explanation..

1. Take bios file, rename to C8H.CAP (This will differ depending on board, but once you you renamer pay attention to what it names it and remember for the next time) https://www.computerbase.de/forum/t...t-aller-bios-versionen.1902983/#post-23306627 You're welcome

2. Copy to usb stick

3. Put stick in port outlined by white rectangle

4. Press and hold the arrow button on the top left in the back until it blinks blue

5. wait for light to turn off, turn system on, wait til it flashes LED controller and microcode

When done it will turn on. Remove flash stick.

Using this method, you can downgrade to any bios. Avoid flashing files that arent from ASUS servers.

Hopefully that explains it better for newer folks.

Also, sakete, if your cooling is really good then try manual CCX ratio oc (leave cpu voltage on Auto and change VRM settings to auto), and try 1.425v manual ratios of 46.25/46.00/43.00/42.50 youll crush Cinebench that way (Ive done 7800 on R20, but you want to be careful here, I can do 45.50/45.00/42.75/42.50 no issues, temps are 72C, the chip will actually idle lower this way too, mine often idles at 26C).

Hope all this is helpful


----------



## sakete

neurotix said:


> Also, sakete, if your cooling is really good then try manual CCX ratio oc (leave cpu voltage on Auto and change VRM settings to auto), and try 1.425v manual ratios of 46.25/46.00/43.00/42.50 youll crush Cinebench that way (Ive done 7800 on R20, but you want to be careful here, I can do 45.50/45.00/42.75/42.50 no issues, temps are 72C, the chip will actually idle lower this way too, mine often idles at 26C).
> 
> Hope all this is helpful


Yeah cooling is not my issue, running a custom loop with an Optimus block and 360 rad. I currently hit 70C when running R20 and scoring around 7200, with EDC = 8. As for using fixed core ratios, I don't like that the core speeds stay fixed (at least, according to HWInfo) and never clock down. So my idle temps stay quite a bit higher than when I have core speeds set to Auto. So not sure how you're getting idle temps of 26C, your ambient temps must be really low, or maybe you have a case with much better airflow than mine which can make a difference too. I'm using the Phanteks Enthoo 719 which while a great case to build in and flexible for water cooling setups, it doesn't have the best airflow out there.

My idle temps don't go below 36C.


----------



## neurotix

Yeah its very cool and dry where I live now, and its in a finished downstairs area..


----------



## wisepds

wisepds said:


> Hello guys, i have a X files on my pc... i have a raid 0 with 2 8 TB wd red but if i suspend pc i get this when pc wake up:
> 
> 
> If i reboot pc, unit D (Raid 0) appears. I have tested Ep, S4,S5 and nothing...raid dissapear if i sleep computer.
> 
> And in the other hand, this raid 0 never sppining downs the hdd, why?
> 
> Anybody can help me? My specs: 3950X, crosshair viii wifi and 32 gb ddr4 triden z samsung b-die cl14.
> Thanks



Can anyone help me with this?


----------



## Korennya

wisepds said:


> Can anyone help me with this?


What bios are you using? Did you create the raid through the bios or the utility? 

I've got a similar setup to you hardware wise. As for storage drives, I'm using 2x nvme drives in the onboard slots which are setup in raid 0 (os location), 2x sata Sdd in raid 0 and 2x HDD in raid 0. I haven't had any issues with loosing any of them after a resume from sleep. I'm currently using the 1201 bios. I set my nvme raid up through raidxpert in the bios. The other two raids were existing that moved over from my c6h and worked fine. I'm also running the latest amd chipset drivers, and nvme raid drivers.

Is your bios setup with CSM enabled or disabled?


----------



## wisepds

Korennya said:


> What bios are you using? Did you create the raid through the bios or the utility?
> 
> I've got a similar setup to you hardware wise. As for storage drives, I'm using 2x nvme drives in the onboard slots which are setup in raid 0 (os location), 2x sata Sdd in raid 0 and 2x HDD in raid 0. I haven't had any issues with loosing any of them after a resume from sleep. I'm currently using the 1201 bios. I set my nvme raid up through raidxpert in the bios. The other two raids were existing that moved over from my c6h and worked fine. I'm also running the latest amd chipset drivers, and nvme raid drivers.
> 
> Is your bios setup with CSM enabled or disabled?


I have the latest bios (1302). I have tested made the raid from BIOS and from Sotware Raid Xpert and both lost the raid when resume. CSM is disabled. Only Windows 10 OS. The PC work fine, really really fine, but this is the only bug i have found.
Thanks.


----------



## Korennya

wisepds said:


> I have the latest bios (1302). I have tested made the raid from BIOS and from Sotware Raid Xpert and both lost the raid when resume. CSM is disabled. Only Windows 10 OS. The PC work fine, really really fine, but this is the only bug i have found.
> Thanks.


Well.. I just had this happen to me too actually. Lost the HDD based raid on resume. The nvme and sata SSD were fine.  I'm not sure what would fix this. There aren't a whole let of settings to tinker with for the sata ports. My guess is it's something bios related as the drives are total absent in any form.


----------



## newls1

have you tried to see if setting all sata ports to "hot swappable"??


----------



## Baio73

Hi to all the thread... I'm gonna move from a Crosshair VII Hero WiFi to a Crosshair VIII Formula in a few days (just for fun, not for need).
I'd like not to reinstall Windows from scratch, I see AMD chipset drivers are the same for X470 and X570 (I have the latest with all their installation problems), do you think I will manage to simply switch the boards? Or I'd better follow another way?
Thanks.

Baio


----------



## sakete

Baio73 said:


> Hi to all the thread... I'm gonna move from a Crosshair VII Hero WiFi to a Crosshair VIII Formula in a few days (just for fun, not for need).
> 
> I'd like not to reinstall Windows from scratch, I see AMD chipset drivers are the same for X470 and X570 (I have the latest with all their installation problems), do you think I will manage to simply switch the boards? Or I'd better follow another way?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> Baio


You'll be fine. I went from Intel Z97 to AMD X570 without reinstalling Windows.

You'll just need to reactivate Windows.


----------



## Korennya

newls1 said:


> have you tried to see if setting all sata ports to "hot swappable"??


THose options go away when you set the mode from achi to raid.


@wisepds Maybe try this. IN windows power settings try setting pci express link power management to disabled. I set that to disabled on mine and thus far the HDD based array hasn't disappeared on resume. Mine wasn't consistently failing like yours though, so maybe it's a fluke thing on my end. Worth giving a try though.


----------



## Baio73

sakete said:


> You'll be fine. I went from Intel Z97 to AMD X570 without reinstalling Windows.
> 
> You'll just need to reactivate Windows.


Good news!

Just another question… with CH7 boards installing a nVme SSD upper slot (meaning the nearest to the CPU slot) led to performance degrade.. it's the same with CH8?
It's better having those devices driven by the CPU or the Chipset?

Baio


----------



## wisepds

newls1 said:


> have you tried to see if setting all sata ports to "hot swappable"??


I have not tested...why? It,s a raid problem? How can fix this?


----------



## wisepds

Korennya said:


> THose options go away when you set the mode from achi to raid.
> 
> 
> 
> @wisepds Maybe try this. IN windows power settings try setting pci express link power management to disabled. I set that to disabled on mine and thus far the HDD based array hasn't disappeared on resume. Mine wasn't consistently failing like yours though, so maybe it's a fluke thing on my end. Worth giving a try though.


I,ll try... thanks..


----------



## wisepds

Korennya said:


> Well.. I just had this happen to me too actually. Lost the HDD based raid on resume. The nvme and sata SSD were fine.  I'm not sure what would fix this. There aren't a whole let of settings to tinker with for the sata ports. My guess is it's something bios related as the drives are total absent in any form.


Have you found a solution?


----------



## wisepds

I found the solution for Raid offline when suspend! I,m testing and post my configuration. 

Edit: not..still broken when sleep.

Edit II: Nothing.. S4, S5, raid without Raid Xpert, with RaidXpert, hybrid suspend, CSM on, CSM OFF, new chipset drivers, buffffff ... Raid is offline when resume... 

Edit III: IF I install Raid Xpert and rescan disk, array come back...but it's not automatic...but nothing... nope... RAID IS GONE... CAME ON AMD!


----------



## rv8000

Does anyone have any experience overclocking the Gskill neo kits or corsair vengeance pro kits with the ch8/ryzen 3000. They seem to mostly be Hynix based kits. I'm looking to get (or oc to) 3600/3733 across 2 or 4 dimms with 32GB (really whatever is going to be the most cost effective option) with timings around 16-19-19-40 give or take. May tilt towards a 3200mhz dominator pro kit if any can verify what ic's these kits are using.

Working from home and I need to upgrade my ram due to capacity issues for rendering. All of the b-die kits are now beyond expensive.


----------



## Price

Hi folks,

Does anyone here run 2x8GB Teamgroup Darkpro 3200 CL14? Any issues?


----------



## Korennya

wisepds said:


> I found the solution for Raid offline when suspend! I,m testing and post my configuration.
> 
> Edit: not..still broken when sleep.
> 
> Edit II: Nothing.. S4, S5, raid without Raid Xpert, with RaidXpert, hybrid suspend, CSM on, CSM OFF, new chipset drivers, buffffff ... Raid is offline when resume...
> 
> Edit III: IF I install Raid Xpert and rescan disk, array come back...but it's not automatic...but nothing... nope... RAID IS GONE... CAME ON AMD!


Did you try setting pcie power management to disabled in the windows power settings yet? Since doing that my HDD based array hasn't gone offline once.


----------



## wisepds

Korennya said:


> Did you try setting pcie power management to disabled in the windows power settings yet? Since doing that my HDD based array hasn't gone offline once.


No, that option not has been tested yet, but, why PCIE? Is a SATA RAID... are you sure about that?
I'll test ok?
Thanks


----------



## wisepds

Korennya said:


> Did you try setting pcie power management to disabled in the windows power settings yet? Since doing that my HDD based array hasn't gone offline once.


Nothing...it doesn't works


----------



## MultiDoc

Hello everyone, need some urgent help! 

Just finished building my new system (finally) and just booted up for the first time, still haven’t installed windows yet. I updated the Bios to the latest one (1302) and configured pump and fans and also enabled xmp.
But the problem I have is that only one nvme drive shows in the bios, M2_2. It shows up fine while the M2_1 doesnt show up at all ! Both ports are populated with identical MP600 2TB drives.

Any ideas please ?

System specs as follows: 3950x, Crosshair VIII Impact, g.skill 2x32GB 3200cl14, 2 x Corsair mp600 2Tb, 2080Ti oc, watercooled cpu with apogee drive II

Thanks in advance !


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Have you tried removing the drive and reseating it? Or swapping the drives over to see if its not faulty.


----------



## Baio73

sakete said:


> You'll be fine. I went from Intel Z97 to AMD X570 without reinstalling Windows.
> 
> You'll just need to reactivate Windows.


Back to say everyhing worked fine... and no Windows reactivation!
Now it's time to understand the new board!

Baio


----------



## newls1

you dont happen to have any actual SATA drives attached to any of the sata ports do you? only ask cause m2 slots share with certain sata ports


----------



## Korennya

newls1 said:


> you dont happen to have any actual SATA drives attached to any of the sata ports do you? only ask cause m2 slots share with certain sata ports


Is there a chart somewhere showing which sata ports share with the m.2?


----------



## MultiDoc

Update: after numerous trials, different bios option, swapping slots and drives etc, It appears the drive itself is faulty. The other drive appears/gets detected in both slots but this one doesn't no matter what... despite being two identical drives. Disconnecting the sata ssd's didn't help either.

I've initiated a return/exchange through Amazon and hopefully will have a working one soon.
In the mean time I'll set the system up, install windows and see what i can do with ram and cpu oc.

Thanks for the help and suggestions gents, much appreciated


----------



## newls1

Korennya said:


> Is there a chart somewhere showing which sata ports share with the m.2?


yeah, the owners manual


----------



## Baio73

Just to say that those BIOS settings:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1A0vQnelyY-R96lO6p1gwJXcYEaBHW4UfRbrMhvLT11E/edit

that used to work with CH7WF are also good for Formula with RAM in sign.
Didn't find DRAM BOOT VOLTAGE but I assume it's something Asus as better implemented in CH8.
Other difference... with x470 board I had to keep GearDownMode enabled, otherwise I got BSOD resuming from sleep. No necessary on x570.

Baio


----------



## Kanuki

Hi.. guys..

I'm currently using Crosshair VI Hero and I believe that I'm hitting the PCIe support limitation.
I'm considering to upgrade to this Crosshair VIII.

I need your advise or experience whether it can support all of my PCIe card or not.

--------------------------------------------------

My PC components are

CPU: Ryzen 7 3800X

GPU: NVIDIA GTX 1080 8GB PCIe x16

Sound: ASUS Xonar STX II 7.1 PCIe x1

SSD: Samsung 960 EVO 500GB M.2 NVMe SSD

NIC: Intel i350 1Gbps Base-T Dual Port PCIe x4

--------------------------------------------------


----------



## Korennya

newls1 said:


> yeah, the owners manual


What page? The only chart in my manual shows the number of PCIE lanes you have for each slot with certain slot usage. That's not the same as which m.2 slot shares lanes with which sata port.


----------



## Korennya

Just wondering why you need an NIC card? The C8H has 2 built in networks adapters, one of which runs faster than your two ports combined? Are you bridging the two ports for more bandwidth?

I don't know if my boards a bit odd, but if I put a 4x card in the bottom PCIE 16x slot, I loose my PCIE 2 slot. WHich makes no sense to me as the top two 16x slots are supposed to be direct to CPU and the bottom slot is through the PCH. Unless i'm getting some kind of IRQ conflict or something. Manual shows that it should be possible to populate all three 16x slots, but mine doesn't behave.



Kanuki said:


> Hi.. guys..
> 
> I'm currently using Crosshair VI Hero and I believe that I'm hitting the PCIe support limitation.
> I'm considering to upgrade to this Crosshair VIII.
> 
> I need your advise or experience whether it can support all of my PCIe card or not.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------
> 
> My PC components are
> 
> CPU: Ryzen 7 3800X
> 
> GPU: NVIDIA GTX 1080 8GB PCIe x16
> 
> Sound: ASUS Xonar STX II 7.1 PCIe x1
> 
> SSD: Samsung 960 EVO 500GB M.2 NVMe SSD
> 
> NIC: Intel i350 1Gbps Base-T Dual Port PCIe x4
> 
> --------------------------------------------------


----------



## Baio73

Korennya said:


> What page? The only chart in my manual shows the number of PCIE lanes you have for each slot with certain slot usage. That's not the same as which m.2 slot shares lanes with which sata port.


I don't think it's something shown in the manual... to be honest I've always heard of shared lanes between PCIe and M.2, not with SATA ports.

Baio


----------



## highdude702

Price said:


> Hi folks,
> 
> Does anyone here run 2x8GB Teamgroup Darkpro 3200 CL14? Any issues?


I am running 4 sticks of those on a 3900x at 3600c14.


----------



## Baio73

Baio73 said:


> Just to say that those BIOS settings:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1A0vQnelyY-R96lO6p1gwJXcYEaBHW4UfRbrMhvLT11E/edit
> 
> that used to work with CH7WF are also good for Formula with RAM in sign.
> Didn't find DRAM BOOT VOLTAGE but I assume it's something Asus as better implemented in CH8.
> Other difference... with x470 board I had to keep GearDownMode enabled, otherwise I got BSOD resuming from sleep. No necessary on x570.
> 
> Baio


Autoquoting to state that RAM OC was not RS... had to push up RAM from 1.43 to 1.44 and activate GearDown to find stability.

Baio


----------



## MacG32

New AMD Chipset Drivers v2.04.04.111 50MB 07APR20

The change-log follows.

*Release Highlights*

Removed deprecated device IDs from the IOV driver
Removed deprecated device IDs from the USB 3.0 driver
General system stability improvements

*Fixed Issues*

Installer may hang during installation progress
Installer may abort with "Error 1720" code
Installation will not install on a non C:\ location
Resolved screen rotation bug with select AMD mobile processors
Rare system halt on 7th Gen AMD A-Series APUs

*Known Issues*

Windows Installer pop up message may appear during install
Moving installer window during install process may cause installer window to flicker/move around the screen
Cannot open installation log file after completion
*Installer may not update a sub-package to the latest version
o Workaround: Manually uninstall any prior sub-package, reboot, then re-install the full Chipset package*


----------



## newls1

well, this is a farewell guys... Sold my 3950x, CH8 board, and my ram to move on to other ventures. This thread was a huge help to all things ram, ccx overclocking, and everything else related to this platform. Thanks for all the past help!


----------



## pantsoftime

newls1 said:


> well, this is a farewell guys... Sold my 3950x, CH8 board, and my ram to move on to other ventures. This thread was a huge help to all things ram, ccx overclocking, and everything else related to this platform. Thanks for all the past help!


Gonna miss you  thanks for the insights.

Another thought... does anyone know why Asus posted a "Marvell Ethernet connection Driver" on the CH8F page? There's no Marvell chips on the board...


----------



## sakete

pantsoftime said:


> Gonna miss you  thanks for the insights.
> 
> 
> 
> Another thought... does anyone know why Asus posted a "Marvell Ethernet connection Driver" on the CH8F page? There's no Marvell chips on the board...


I believe the Atheros chip is made by Marvell.


----------



## Baio73

sakete said:


> I believe the Atheros chip is made by Marvell.


Confirmed... just update and it's the driver for Aquantia LAN board.

Baio


----------



## sakete

Baio73 said:


> Confirmed... just update and it's the driver for Aquantia LAN board.
> 
> Baio


Yeah, Aquantia is what I meant, not Atheros


----------



## pantsoftime

Baio73 said:


> Confirmed... just update and it's the driver for Aquantia LAN board.
> 
> Baio


Oh that's right, I forgot that Marvell acquired Aquantia.


----------



## TK421

With modded bios to raise switching frequency to 800khz on cpu vrm, I am seeing around 25mhz to 50mhz improvement under games.




600mhz seems to be good, any higher causes some small performance loss or minuscule improvements at the cost of much hotter vrm operating temperatures.




Tested with 3950X C8HW, 3900X C6H normal.






















Also where is dual BLCK feature in X570 boards? Did ASUS remove it completely? On C6 and C7 there's an external clockgen supplementing BLCK so you can separate cpu with other system devices.


----------



## tolis626

Hi guys!

I wanted to ask a quick question because so far, scouring the internet and other threads for answers has not solved my problem. The problem is that I get stupid amounts of audio crackling when using a USB DAC with my system. The problem is so bad that I'm forced to use my Fiio Q5s with an optical input, which is fine for the most part, but even that gets some crackling, albeit of a much lower volume to the point it's usually inaudible unless listening for it. So far it seems the problem is isolated to USB DACs mainly, with 3 different ones having the same problem (And like 5 different headphones and IEMs, but I don't have speakers). Optical seems to be mostly trouble free and, weirdly, so does the onboard audio, but I'm not sure about that last one as I don't really use it. The problem persists even if I use the USB ports on my monitor.

Just a quick summary of my config here. Ryzen 3800x running with PBO with tweaked limits, 8x scalar, +200MHz and -75mV offset, 16GB of G.Skill TridentZ Neo (B-die) running at 3800MHz (with Ryzen DRAM Calculator's fast profile) at 1.425V, FCLK at 1900MHz, SOC voltage at 1.075V, VDDG (both) at 0.975V and VDDP at 0.9V. My GPU is a Sapphire RX 5700xt Nitro+ overclocked to 2150/1850MHz.

I've found quite a few "solutions" online from other people that have the same problem. Raise SOC and VDDG voltages. Nope, nothing, tried high and low, same thing all the time. Lower RAM clocks. Nope, happens at XMP settings, which wasn't the case when I bought the system. Try different VDDP voltages. Nope, both VDDP and CLDO VDDP were tweaked upwards or downwards to no effect. Increase PCH voltage. Tried increasing both the 1.00V and 1.2V SB voltages by 0.05V, but absolutely nothing changed. Tried using LatencyMon and my latencies are good, no warnings there. There's other things I tried but can't remember right now too. The only thing that seems to "fix" the issue is running the 5700 XT at PCIe 3.0. I know, not really a problem, the performance difference is practically 0, but still I'd prefer to not have to do that. I think there's something else going on, but I can't for the life of me figure out what it is. I was kinda hoping that chipset drivers would fix it, but installing the latest ones when they came out changed nothing. The problem is more pronounced in browsers, especially when scrolling through pages it sounds like someone's crushing aluminum foil next to my ears.

So far, this has been the only issue I have with this system not directly created by me (I get crashes, but that's what happens when you try stupid overclocks). Can you guys provide any help, insight or ideas on what to try next? I'm getting kind of desperate here.

Thanks in advance!

PS : There's also another thing, my CPU seems like it never actually goes into idle. It won't stay at max clocks/voltages, but it will maybe drop to 3100MHz and 1.05-1.1V for a bit, then shoot back way up. Thing is, it never, ever goes to C6/C7 states, at least according HWiNFO64. I never see <1V and never <3GHz. C-states are enabled in AMD CBS.


----------



## pschorr1123

tolis626 said:


> Hi guys!
> 
> I wanted to ask a quick question because so far, scouring the internet and other threads for answers has not solved my problem. The problem is that I get stupid amounts of audio crackling when using a USB DAC with my system. The problem is so bad that I'm forced to use my Fiio Q5s with an optical input, which is fine for the most part, but even that gets some crackling, albeit of a much lower volume to the point it's usually inaudible unless listening for it. So far it seems the problem is isolated to USB DACs mainly, with 3 different ones having the same problem (And like 5 different headphones and IEMs, but I don't have speakers). Optical seems to be mostly trouble free and, weirdly, so does the onboard audio, but I'm not sure about that last one as I don't really use it. The problem persists even if I use the USB ports on my monitor.
> 
> Just a quick summary of my config here. Ryzen 3800x running with PBO with tweaked limits, 8x scalar, +200MHz and -75mV offset, 16GB of G.Skill TridentZ Neo (B-die) running at 3800MHz (with Ryzen DRAM Calculator's fast profile) at 1.425V, FCLK at 1900MHz, SOC voltage at 1.075V, VDDG (both) at 0.975V and VDDP at 0.9V. My GPU is a Sapphire RX 5700xt Nitro+ overclocked to 2150/1850MHz.
> 
> I've found quite a few "solutions" online from other people that have the same problem. Raise SOC and VDDG voltages. Nope, nothing, tried high and low, same thing all the time. Lower RAM clocks. Nope, happens at XMP settings, which wasn't the case when I bought the system. Try different VDDP voltages. Nope, both VDDP and CLDO VDDP were tweaked upwards or downwards to no effect. Increase PCH voltage. Tried increasing both the 1.00V and 1.2V SB voltages by 0.05V, but absolutely nothing changed. Tried using LatencyMon and my latencies are good, no warnings there. There's other things I tried but can't remember right now too. The only thing that seems to "fix" the issue is running the 5700 XT at PCIe 3.0. I know, not really a problem, the performance difference is practically 0, but still I'd prefer to not have to do that. I think there's something else going on, but I can't for the life of me figure out what it is. I was kinda hoping that chipset drivers would fix it, but installing the latest ones when they came out changed nothing. The problem is more pronounced in browsers, especially when scrolling through pages it sounds like someone's crushing aluminum foil next to my ears.
> 
> So far, this has been the only issue I have with this system not directly created by me (I get crashes, but that's what happens when you try stupid overclocks). Can you guys provide any help, insight or ideas on what to try next? I'm getting kind of desperate here.
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> 
> PS : There's also another thing, my CPU seems like it never actually goes into idle. It won't stay at max clocks/voltages, but it will maybe drop to 3100MHz and 1.05-1.1V for a bit, then shoot back way up. Thing is, it never, ever goes to C6/C7 states, at least according HWiNFO64. I never see <1V and never <3GHz. C-states are enabled in AMD CBS.


I can't offer any advice on your main problem but IMO if running the GPU at pcie gen 3 fixes the issue then that's your solution. Maybe there's extra noise coming from the pcie bus running at gen 4 speeds that crosses over into the audio traces. IDK, hopefully the smarter people in here can give you some insight.

The main reason I responded was that only Ryzen Master is the only software that can see the cores sleeping that I know of for now. All other software will report the last VID and voltage/ speed before going into sleep otherwise pinging the core to see it's speed/ voltage from the software would wake it up


For what it's worth my Vega 64 liquid makes a high pitched electronic humming noise when using my browser to scroll up or down on a white web page. It's very faint but it only makes noise when I use the scroll wheel to go up or down. I believe my issue is some sort of coil whine on the GPU itself


----------



## Badgerslayer7

TK421 said:


> With modded bios to raise switching frequency to 800khz on cpu vrm, I am seeing around 25mhz to 50mhz improvement under games.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 600mhz seems to be good, any higher causes some small performance loss or minuscule improvements at the cost of much hotter vrm operating temperatures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tested with 3950X C8HW, 3900X C6H normal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also where is dual BLCK feature in X570 boards? Did ASUS remove it completely? On C6 and C7 there's an external clockgen supplementing BLCK so you can separate cpu with other system devices.


Modded bios? Where might I be able to acquire these modded bios kind sir? 😊


----------



## tolis626

pschorr1123 said:


> I can't offer any advice on your main problem but IMO if running the GPU at pcie gen 3 fixes the issue then that's your solution. Maybe there's extra noise coming from the pcie bus running at gen 4 speeds that crosses over into the audio traces. IDK, hopefully the smarter people in here can give you some insight.
> 
> The main reason I responded was that only Ryzen Master is the only software that can see the cores sleeping that I know of for now. All other software will report the last VID and voltage/ speed before going into sleep otherwise pinging the core to see it's speed/ voltage from the software would wake it up
> 
> 
> For what it's worth my Vega 64 liquid makes a high pitched electronic humming noise when using my browser to scroll up or down on a white web page. It's very faint but it only makes noise when I use the scroll wheel to go up or down. I believe my issue is some sort of coil whine on the GPU itself


Well, true, but I bought a CPU, motherboard and GPU that support PCIe 4.0 and that's what I wanna use. The fact that I have to turn it off to properly use something as basic as USB audio gets on my nerves. It's not like I have bad coil whine or anything on my GPU. I also use a PCIe 4.0 NVMe SSD and that doesn't cause problems. I mean, it's a great PC, but Asus or AMD need to get their **** together on stuff like this.

As for the CPU idling issue, I know that RM shows the cores sleeping and, sometimes, some of my cores do go to sleep. It's just the voltage not really going down. I see HWiNFO screenshots from other people and see their CPUs do 2100Mhz and 0.9V or whatever, but mine never does that. It would drop to 0.8V when I was using it with a manual 4.4GHz all core overclock too, so the fact that it doesn't seems weird to me. I mean, AMD can say that 1.5V is safe all they want, I don't feel safe with my chip idling at over 1.4V.


----------



## flyinion

Anyone know on these boards (the Hero specifically) what the difference is between the "Speakers - REaltek Audio" and "Speakers - Sonic Studio Virtual Mixer" devices in the "Playback" tab in the Windows Sound properties? I've been running with the Realtek set as the default when I'm using a pair of speakers connected to the mobo's sound output vs my USB headphones but I'm wondering if I should be using the virtual mixer as the playback device instead? Changing sound options in Sonic Studio still has an effect, I just didn't notice the virtual mixer device originally because it was scrolled off the bottom of the list due to my monitors etc showing up and pushing it off.


----------



## anr11

tolis626 said:


> Well, true, but I bought a CPU, motherboard and GPU that support PCIe 4.0 and that's what I wanna use. The fact that I have to turn it off to properly use something as basic as USB audio gets on my nerves. It's not like I have bad coil whine or anything on my GPU. I also use a PCIe 4.0 NVMe SSD and that doesn't cause problems. I mean, it's a great PC, but Asus or AMD need to get their **** together on stuff like this.
> 
> As for the CPU idling issue, I know that RM shows the cores sleeping and, sometimes, some of my cores do go to sleep. It's just the voltage not really going down. I see HWiNFO screenshots from other people and see their CPUs do 2100Mhz and 0.9V or whatever, but mine never does that. It would drop to 0.8V when I was using it with a manual 4.4GHz all core overclock too, so the fact that it doesn't seems weird to me. I mean, AMD can say that 1.5V is safe all they want, I don't feel safe with my chip idling at over 1.4V.


I'm running a very similar setup to yours, including the USB DAC. The main differences are 3900X and 5700XT Anniversary Edition. I have no such issue so it is at least not something that is inherent to Asus/AMD. One thing I have always done is to disable the onboard audio in the BIOS. I would suggest giving that a try. If it does not help, maybe try experimenting with a few different BIOS versions (I'm currently on 1001) to see if that changes anything.


----------



## tolis626

anr11 said:


> I'm running a very similar setup to yours, including the USB DAC. The main differences are 3900X and 5700XT Anniversary Edition. I have no such issue so it is at least not something that is inherent to Asus/AMD. One thing I have always done is to disable the onboard audio in the BIOS. I would suggest giving that a try. If it does not help, maybe try experimenting with a few different BIOS versions (I'm currently on 1001) to see if that changes anything.


Well, I think it's X570 related because it's occuring on other boards too. With that said, it's kinda random. I didn't use to have this issue with the previous BIOS (I think 1204, but I'm not sure on the number), that's for sure. I just can't be arsed to try that at the moment because hey, it might not work. Unless someone comes up with a solution that isn't "Run the GPU on PCIe 3.0", I think I'll probably just wait for the next BIOS and hope for the best. Running PCIe 3.0 at the moment and it's quiet, so eh, I'll survive. It's mostly my OCD inner self that's screaming in rage and agony that wants it fixed ASAP.

On another note, Fiio Q5s, huh? How awesome is that thing? Unbelievable how much sound quality and how many features you're getting for the price. Unless your headphones are power hogs (*cough*T50rp*cough*) it can pretty much do it all.


----------



## anr11

tolis626 said:


> Well, I think it's X570 related because it's occuring on other boards too. With that said, it's kinda random. I didn't use to have this issue with the previous BIOS (I think 1204, but I'm not sure on the number), that's for sure. I just can't be arsed to try that at the moment because hey, it might not work. Unless someone comes up with a solution that isn't "Run the GPU on PCIe 3.0", I think I'll probably just wait for the next BIOS and hope for the best. Running PCIe 3.0 at the moment and it's quiet, so eh, I'll survive. It's mostly my OCD inner self that's screaming in rage and agony that wants it fixed ASAP.
> 
> On another note, Fiio Q5s, huh? How awesome is that thing? Unbelievable how much sound quality and how many features you're getting for the price. Unless your headphones are power hogs (*cough*T50rp*cough*) it can pretty much do it all.


Oh, sorry, I didn't word that very well. I meant to say that I'm also running a USB DAC, but not the same one. Anyway, if you haven't tried already, I'd be curious to see if just disabling onboard sound in BIOS fixes the issue. It wouldn't be much trouble and you mentioned you don't need it anyway. It's also worth mentioning that many still consider 1001 the best BIOS for this board and are able to achieve better stable overclocks with it than any of the new ones so far so there's that too.


----------



## sakete

tolis626 said:


> Well, I think it's X570 related because it's occuring on other boards too. With that said, it's kinda random. I didn't use to have this issue with the previous BIOS (I think 1204, but I'm not sure on the number), that's for sure. I just can't be arsed to try that at the moment because hey, it might not work. Unless someone comes up with a solution that isn't "Run the GPU on PCIe 3.0", I think I'll probably just wait for the next BIOS and hope for the best. Running PCIe 3.0 at the moment and it's quiet, so eh, I'll survive. It's mostly my OCD inner self that's screaming in rage and agony that wants it fixed ASAP.
> 
> 
> 
> On another note, Fiio Q5s, huh? How awesome is that thing? Unbelievable how much sound quality and how many features you're getting for the price. Unless your headphones are power hogs (*cough*T50rp*cough*) it can pretty much do it all.


Try running it through a powered USB hub, that has usually solved the issue with USB dacs for me.


----------



## anr11

sakete said:


> Try running it through a powered USB hub, that's usually solved the issue with USB dacs for me.


Or a USB isolator might also help. We use the Delock 62588 at work for some measurement devices we calibrate which are sensitive to noise. There are of course higher end ones (aren't there always?) but it does the job without breaking the bank.


----------



## TK421

With 1302 I'm not able to get 100 blck anymore


Anyone know a fix?


----------



## flyinion

TK421 said:


> With 1302 I'm not able to get 100 blck anymore
> 
> 
> Anyone know a fix?


What is it showing? If it's off by a couple of Mhz make sure spread spectrum stuff is turned off.


----------



## IF6WAS9

tolis626 said:


> Hi guys!
> 
> I wanted to ask a quick question because so far, scouring the internet and other threads for answers has not solved my problem. The problem is that I get stupid amounts of audio crackling when using a USB DAC with my system. The problem is so bad that I'm forced to use my Fiio Q5s with an optical input, which is fine for the most part, but even that gets some crackling, albeit of a much lower volume to the point it's usually inaudible unless listening for it. So far it seems the problem is isolated to USB DACs mainly, with 3 different ones having the same problem (And like 5 different headphones and IEMs, but I don't have speakers). Optical seems to be mostly trouble free and, weirdly, so does the onboard audio, but I'm not sure about that last one as I don't really use it. The problem persists even if I use the USB ports on my monitor.
> 
> Just a quick summary of my config here. Ryzen 3800x running with PBO with tweaked limits, 8x scalar, +200MHz and -75mV offset, 16GB of G.Skill TridentZ Neo (B-die) running at 3800MHz (with Ryzen DRAM Calculator's fast profile) at 1.425V, FCLK at 1900MHz, SOC voltage at 1.075V, VDDG (both) at 0.975V and VDDP at 0.9V. My GPU is a Sapphire RX 5700xt Nitro+ overclocked to 2150/1850MHz.
> 
> I've found quite a few "solutions" online from other people that have the same problem. Raise SOC and VDDG voltages. Nope, nothing, tried high and low, same thing all the time. Lower RAM clocks. Nope, happens at XMP settings, which wasn't the case when I bought the system. Try different VDDP voltages. Nope, both VDDP and CLDO VDDP were tweaked upwards or downwards to no effect. Increase PCH voltage. Tried increasing both the 1.00V and 1.2V SB voltages by 0.05V, but absolutely nothing changed. Tried using LatencyMon and my latencies are good, no warnings there. There's other things I tried but can't remember right now too. The only thing that seems to "fix" the issue is running the 5700 XT at PCIe 3.0. I know, not really a problem, the performance difference is practically 0, but still I'd prefer to not have to do that. I think there's something else going on, but I can't for the life of me figure out what it is. I was kinda hoping that chipset drivers would fix it, but installing the latest ones when they came out changed nothing. The problem is more pronounced in browsers, especially when scrolling through pages it sounds like someone's crushing aluminum foil next to my ears.
> 
> So far, this has been the only issue I have with this system not directly created by me (I get crashes, but that's what happens when you try stupid overclocks). Can you guys provide any help, insight or ideas on what to try next? I'm getting kind of desperate here.
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> 
> PS : There's also another thing, my CPU seems like it never actually goes into idle. It won't stay at max clocks/voltages, but it will maybe drop to 3100MHz and 1.05-1.1V for a bit, then shoot back way up. Thing is, it never, ever goes to C6/C7 states, at least according HWiNFO64. I never see <1V and never <3GHz. C-states are enabled in AMD CBS.


I have a similar issue with USB DACs on this board with the same CPU & video card and found it was related to the PCIE slot. I too tried several DACs and they all had terrible feedback when running a game or video except when using the optical out. 

Try re-seating your video card or moving it to the bottom slot to see if that fixes things for you.


----------



## TK421

flyinion said:


> What is it showing? If it's off by a couple of Mhz make sure spread spectrum stuff is turned off.


 cpu-z 99.98


https://i.imgur.com/xRbKYOf.png


----------



## flyinion

TK421 said:


> cpu-z 99.98
> 
> 
> https://i.imgur.com/xRbKYOf.png


 Yeah that sounds like spread spectrum.


----------



## TK421

flyinion said:


> Yeah that sounds like spread spectrum.



I have disabled sb and vrm spread spectrum


Previously I was able to do 100.0000something on 1105.


I made sure to set core vrm switching frequency auto+disable vrm spread spectrum -> restart to windows (still 99.98) -> then re-apply manual core vrm switching frequency to 600 (setting manual frequency hides the spread spectrum option).










Any idea to actually fix this?


----------



## flyinion

TK421 said:


> I have disabled sb and vrm spread spectrum
> 
> 
> Previously I was able to do 100.0000something on 1105.
> 
> 
> I made sure to set core vrm switching frequency auto+disable vrm spread spectrum -> restart to windows (still 99.98) -> then re-apply manual core vrm switching frequency to 600 (setting manual frequency hides the spread spectrum option).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any idea to actually fix this?



Sorry that was my only idea [emoji52]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## pschorr1123

tolis626 said:


> Well, true, but I bought a CPU, motherboard and GPU that support PCIe 4.0 and that's what I wanna use. The fact that I have to turn it off to properly use something as basic as USB audio gets on my nerves. It's not like I have bad coil whine or anything on my GPU. I also use a PCIe 4.0 NVMe SSD and that doesn't cause problems. I mean, it's a great PC, but Asus or AMD need to get their **** together on stuff like this.
> 
> As for the CPU idling issue, I know that RM shows the cores sleeping and, sometimes, some of my cores do go to sleep. It's just the voltage not really going down. I see HWiNFO screenshots from other people and see their CPUs do 2100Mhz and 0.9V or whatever, but mine never does that. It would drop to 0.8V when I was using it with a manual 4.4GHz all core overclock too, so the fact that it doesn't seems weird to me. I mean, AMD can say that 1.5V is safe all they want, I don't feel safe with my chip idling at over 1.4V.


Yeah I hear you but if I had your annoying audio issue I would do whatever I had to to fix it. I hope that the pcie @ gen 3 "fix" is just temporary. You mentioned that it wasn't happening when you first built it so perhaps it's a bios/ agesa issue. You are absolutely right that your CPU /MB/GPU should work as intended with advertised specs. Just consider your work around as temporary until a proper fix comes. I know you have done tons of trouble shooting to resolve, have you tried reinstalling the realtec sound drivers off of Asus's website? Perhaps Windows updated the driver or installed a generic one at initial OS install.

As for your idling and voltages does RM show you low voltages? Also I have had similar issue when I first did my 3000 build. It didn't get resolved for me until I got the abba agesa bios and whatever new chipset driver that launched around that time (October 2019 I believe). I have A GB board so I couldn't tell you which bios you need for the abba fix. I have found in my testing that the chipset driver has more impact on voltages and max frequency that the bios. YMMV you have have to test different bios/ chipset driver versions to see which combo gives you the best results with your hardware.

I'm sure you saw this but the Reddit Link for 3000 voltages by Robert Hallock here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cbls9g/the_final_word_on_idle_voltages_for_3rd_gen_ryzen/

EDIT: just wanted to mention that I haven't had high idle voltages since the abba bios and chipset driver that went with it. I remember being disgusted when I'd see 1.48 at idle and did all of the trouble shooting mentioned in the reddit thread prior to proper bios / chipset driver fix


----------



## TK421

600KHz vs 500KHz vrm frequency


ASUS is once again pulling a cuck move on amd users by limiting the vrm tuning parameters up to only 500khz



600: https://imgur.com/a/pgB8W3B

500: https://imgur.com/a/X26puWv













flyinion said:


> Sorry that was my only idea [emoji52]
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



this is so sad can I get an F in the chat


why can't we have 100 anyways, I don't care about emi interference or anything of the sort


----------



## tolis626

anr11 said:


> Oh, sorry, I didn't word that very well. I meant to say that I'm also running a USB DAC, but not the same one. Anyway, if you haven't tried already, I'd be curious to see if just disabling onboard sound in BIOS fixes the issue. It wouldn't be much trouble and you mentioned you don't need it anyway. It's also worth mentioning that many still consider 1001 the best BIOS for this board and are able to achieve better stable overclocks with it than any of the new ones so far so there's that too.


Ah, I thought you also had the Q5s and almost got excited. 

Well, I will try that, but I kind of need the onboard too, mainly for optical out when I don't want my Q5s charging throught USB and, mostly, for my mic, which is a cheapo 3.5mm jack one. But I will try disabling the onboard audio and, if it helps, I may have a direction to move towards. Thanks mate!


sakete said:


> Try running it through a powered USB hub, that has usually solved the issue with USB dacs for me.





anr11 said:


> Or a USB isolator might also help. We use the Delock 62588 at work for some measurement devices we calibrate which are sensitive to noise. There are of course higher end ones (aren't there always?) but it does the job without breaking the bank.


Hmmm... I'll see if I have a powered hub around, but I'm damn sure I don't have an isolator. Still, kind of falls into the "it should be working already" category. What's the point of getting an expensive board if I have to get extra stuff for basic things to work on it? It's not like I get 0.01% higher noise through the onboard audio, it's USB that's malfunctioning. Oof...


IF6WAS9 said:


> I have a similar issue with USB DACs on this board with the same CPU & video card and found it was related to the PCIE slot. I too tried several DACs and they all had terrible feedback when running a game or video except when using the optical out.
> 
> Try re-seating your video card or moving it to the bottom slot to see if that fixes things for you.


Hmmm... That could work, I'll give it a try. I kind of hope it doesn't work on the bottom slot because that's gonna look ugly. 

On a more serious note, I can't for the life of me remember if I've taken the card out recently. Hmmmm... I'll try that and I'll also try another power strip, just in case that's to blame, although I highly doubt that the PSU would let that much electrical noise through.


pschorr1123 said:


> Yeah I hear you but if I had your annoying audio issue I would do whatever I had to to fix it. I hope that the pcie @ gen 3 "fix" is just temporary. You mentioned that it wasn't happening when you first built it so perhaps it's a bios/ agesa issue. You are absolutely right that your CPU /MB/GPU should work as intended with advertised specs. Just consider your work around as temporary until a proper fix comes. I know you have done tons of trouble shooting to resolve, have you tried reinstalling the realtec sound drivers off of Asus's website? Perhaps Windows updated the driver or installed a generic one at initial OS install.
> 
> As for your idling and voltages does RM show you low voltages? Also I have had similar issue when I first did my 3000 build. It didn't get resolved for me until I got the abba agesa bios and whatever new chipset driver that launched around that time (October 2019 I believe). I have A GB board so I couldn't tell you which bios you need for the abba fix. I have found in my testing that the chipset driver has more impact on voltages and max frequency that the bios. YMMV you have have to test different bios/ chipset driver versions to see which combo gives you the best results with your hardware.
> 
> I'm sure you saw this but the Reddit Link for 3000 voltages by Robert Hallock here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cbls9g/the_final_word_on_idle_voltages_for_3rd_gen_ryzen/
> 
> EDIT: just wanted to mention that I haven't had high idle voltages since the abba bios and chipset driver that went with it. I remember being disgusted when I'd see 1.48 at idle and did all of the trouble shooting mentioned in the reddit thread prior to proper bios / chipset driver fix


Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm using PCIe 3.0 right now. I'm just mad that I have to. At least it's the GPU and not my SSD that I need to do this with, because then I'd be hella pissed.

Regarding Realtek drivers, I haven't checked them now that you mentioned it, so I'm gonna do that. Maybe I'll try to uninstall and reinstall them. I doubt they're to blame, but it's easy to do so wth. As for BIOS and chipset drivers, why oh why can't the latest ones always be the best? Life would be so much simpler. 

Yeah, I've seen Hallock's comments. I understand that this is "intended behavior", but I'm sure it shouldn't stick that high. Not even Ryzen Master shows low voltages anymore, and it used to. I've also tried messing with my power plans, using AMD's ones, 1usmus' ones, lowering the "min processor state" to 1%, 5%, 80%, nothing changes. It's strange to say the least. Also, look at this screenshot from HWiNFO. The PC was mostly idling during these ~3 hours, with some light browsing thrown in. It's just discomforting to see.


----------



## Jdpurvis

tolis626 said:


> Ah, I thought you also had the Q5s and almost got excited.
> 
> Well, I will try that, but I kind of need the onboard too, mainly for optical out when I don't want my Q5s charging throught USB and, mostly, for my mic, which is a cheapo 3.5mm jack one. But I will try disabling the onboard audio and, if it helps, I may have a direction to move towards. Thanks mate!
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... I'll see if I have a powered hub around, but I'm damn sure I don't have an isolator. Still, kind of falls into the "it should be working already" category. What's the point of getting an expensive board if I have to get extra stuff for basic things to work on it? It's not like I get 0.01% higher noise through the onboard audio, it's USB that's malfunctioning. Oof...
> 
> Hmmm... That could work, I'll give it a try. I kind of hope it doesn't work on the bottom slot because that's gonna look ugly.
> 
> On a more serious note, I can't for the life of me remember if I've taken the card out recently. Hmmmm... I'll try that and I'll also try another power strip, just in case that's to blame, although I highly doubt that the PSU would let that much electrical noise through.
> 
> 
> Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm using PCIe 3.0 right now. I'm just mad that I have to. At least it's the GPU and not my SSD that I need to do this with, because then I'd be hella pissed.
> 
> Regarding Realtek drivers, I haven't checked them now that you mentioned it, so I'm gonna do that. Maybe I'll try to uninstall and reinstall them. I doubt they're to blame, but it's easy to do so wth. As for BIOS and chipset drivers, why oh why can't the latest ones always be the best? Life would be so much simpler.
> 
> Yeah, I've seen Hallock's comments. I understand that this is "intended behavior", but I'm sure it shouldn't stick that high. Not even Ryzen Master shows low voltages anymore, and it used to. I've also tried messing with my power plans, using AMD's ones, 1usmus' ones, lowering the "min processor state" to 1%, 5%, 80%, nothing changes. It's strange to say the least. Also, look at this screenshot from HWiNFO. The PC was mostly idling during these ~3 hours, with some light browsing thrown in. It's just discomforting to see.


I saw a recent review of the effect of PCie 3 vs 4 on graphics benchmarks - only 1-2% difference - and there tended to be less benefit for higher resolutions (because frame rate is lower, so amount of data transferred is lower). We knew that there was a big benefit for SSD...
So, even though it's irritating, you're not losing much if you have to leave graphics at 3.0. I'm not sure I understand why the graphics card would cause noise more than SSD (3.0 vs 4.0). A puzzlement.


----------



## schnebdreleg

FYI... I had a colleague send me 3600s of E-Die memory for a test today. Unfortunately, my computer only manages to run into Windows on the third or fourth try and even with increased voltages Karhu fails after a few minutes (with the XMP profile 3600 16 18 18 18).
I have to get used to the idea that either my CPU has got a bad memory controller or my 500€ board is badly shielded. I know that everything over 3200 is OC, but I can't even run the XMP profile of my B-Die-Ram (3200 CL 14). Meanwhile, the computer has been running at 3200 CL 16 for a few days now and I haven't had any more crashes or bluescreens; not really satisfying for the money invested, though..


What do you guys think is more likely? Mainboard or CPU?


----------



## rv8000

schnebdreleg said:


> FYI... I had a colleague send me 3600s of E-Die memory for a test today. Unfortunately, my computer only manages to run into Windows on the third or fourth try and even with increased voltages Karhu fails after a few minutes (with the XMP profile 3600 16 18 18 18).
> I have to get used to the idea that either my CPU has got a bad memory controller or my 500€ board is badly shielded. I know that everything over 3200 is OC, but I can't even run the XMP profile of my B-Die-Ram (3200 CL 14). Meanwhile, the computer has been running at 3200 CL 16 for a few days now and I haven't had any more crashes or bluescreens; not really satisfying for the money invested, though..
> 
> 
> What do you guys think is more likely? Mainboard or CPU?


My first 3700x couldnt do anything over 3333 on the IF, replaced it with another 3700X and got 3800 with the same memory kit/mobo without issue. It's rare that a 3rd gen cpu will have difficulty at @3200 and slightly above, but it can happen.

Overvoltage and high temps on the memory can also cause problems and show "false" errors in memory testing applications.


----------



## eyecrave

So I ended up going back to 1001 bios as I got a few crashes with latest 1302. The only positive I found with 1302 is that it has lower temps when benching or doing stability tests. No crashes so far with 1001 for a week now and stable so far it just runs a little hot.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

New bios with agesa 1.0.0.5 will be out soon enough anyway hopefully.


----------



## Baio73

Badgerslayer7 said:


> New bios with agesa 1.0.0.5 will be out soon enough anyway hopefully.


Great news, thanks!
I'll watch out, usually they release new BIOS on friday.

Baio


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Does anyone know where to set the boot voltage for dram in bios. Keep getting f9 intermittently but the ram is perfectly stable when it gets into windows. Thanks


----------



## Baio73

Badgerslayer7 said:


> Does anyone know where to set the boot voltage for dram in bios. Keep getting f9 intermittently but the ram is perfectly stable when it gets into windows. Thanks


Hi, me curious too.
Jumped form a CH7 to the Formula and couldn't find it.
But my RAM still boots normally even without.

Baio


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Baio73 said:


> Badgerslayer7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know where to set the boot voltage for dram in bios. Keep getting f9 intermittently but the ram is perfectly stable when it gets into windows. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, me curious too.
> Jumped form a CH7 to the Formula and couldn't find it.
> But my RAM still boots normally even without.
> 
> Baio
Click to expand...

My ram is overclocked to 3800. It’s not a major problem it just keeps rebooting until it starts. Hopefully the new bios fix this issue.


----------



## Baio73

Badgerslayer7 said:


> My ram is overclocked to 3800. It’s not a major problem it just keeps rebooting until it starts. Hopefully the new bios fix this issue.


Mine are 4000MHz but I keep them @3600 CAS 14.
On the CH7 I had to set RAM Boot Voltage to 1.40 or the system beeped.
On the Formula boot is ok, but I had to raise VRAM to 1.43 to reach stability.

Baio


----------



## pmachado

I'm pretty sure the option to set the DRAM boot voltage doesn't exist in the Asus X570 bios. Yes they had it on prior chipsets but now MIA.


----------



## kroaton

Giustaf said:


> Has anyone tried these settings?
> 
> I have only changed cpu current capability to 130%, not 140!
> 
> 
> in gaming at default, my cpu boost up to 4325 all core, with this setting my cpu boost up to 4400 all core
> 
> do you think they are safe for 3900x?
> 
> 
> SETTINGS:
> The EDC limit set to 1 really works for boosting all cores and single core to their MAX! Thanks to the guy that figured this out.
> 
> Here is what I did to get it to work
> Set your ram timmings to whatever you prefer.
> And the fclk to half that of your ram speed.
> 
> In extreme Tweaker/core performance boost
> 
> set it to – Auto
> 
> In extreme Tweaker/precision boost overdrive
> 
> precision boost overdrive = auto
> max cpu boost clock override = auto
> platform throttle limit = auto
> Set all 3 options to AUTO
> 
> In extreme Tweaker/digi+ power control
> cpu load-line calibration set to = LEVEL 3
> cpu current capability to 140%
> 
> In advanced/amd cbs/nbio common options/xfr enhancement/accepted
> precision boost overdrive = auto
> and precision boost overdrive = auto
> 
> 
> now in
> advanced/amd overclocking/amd overclocking/precision boost override
> precision boost override set this to -advanced
> PBO limits to manual
> PPT limit =0
> TDC limit =0
> EDC limit =1
> precision boost overdrive scalar - manual =10x
> max cpu boost clock override =200mhz
> and the thermal throttle to =200
> save and restart.



I tried these settings but get lower performances than my settings in my video here


----------



## kuutale

Hello All

I change motherboard ch6 to ch8, and ram timings and speed is problem. ch6 Old board i can go 3800mzh cl16 flck 1900 but new board cant do that, can somebody advice? bios is 1302 i think thank you.


----------



## tolis626

kuutale said:


> Hello All
> 
> I change motherboard ch6 to ch8, and ram timings and speed is problem. ch6 Old board i can go 3800mzh cl16 flck 1900 but new board cant do that, can somebody advice? bios is 1302 i think thank you.


Well, if the RAM and CPU are the same, then the motherboard should easily be able to let you do well above 3800MHz. Maybe you missed something, so take it step by step. Check voltages for the RAM, SOC, VDDG, VDDP first. These are likely culprits. Then check your RAM timings again. I'd recommend Ryzen DRAM Calculator, it gives you suggestions for every little thing. Check out the screenshot below (red boxes). I will suppose your 3200MHz CL14 RAM is B-Die and it's 16GB, so below is the fast preset for 3800MHz (If I'm wrong on any of these things, download RDC and use the appropriate settings). I'm using that right now and I have zero problems. Lastly, check your other settings in the "DRAM Timing control" section, there's a lot of stuff in there. Better set them as they are in my screenshot.

Good luck!

PS : At some point the board was giving me trouble with not booting at 3800/1900. It would just not post and gave me q-code 07. I went into BIOS, used 3600/1800, booted, rebooted into BIOS, went back to 3800/1900 and then it worked. Can't remember if this was with the latest BIOS or the previous one, but it may be worth a shot.


----------



## neurotix

kuutale said:


> Hello All
> 
> I change motherboard ch6 to ch8, and ram timings and speed is problem. ch6 Old board i can go 3800mzh cl16 flck 1900 but new board cant do that, can somebody advice? bios is 1302 i think thank you.


Hi, try these timings:

16-16-16-16-32-50-6-8-24-6-14-14-304-6-8-16-8-9-1-3-5-5-1-7-7-1

Make sure Geardown Mode = On, 1T, use up to 1.5 vDIMM, 0.7500 VTT_DDR, 0.950 cLDO_VDDG and 900/ 0.900 cLDO_VDDP, 1900 fclk, 1.1000v VDD_SoC

Youre welcome


----------



## Baio73

pmachado said:


> I'm pretty sure the option to set the DRAM boot voltage doesn't exist in the Asus X570 bios. Yes they had it on prior chipsets but now MIA.


Confirmed (or they hid it very well!).

Baio


----------



## neurotix

Baio73 said:


> Confirmed (or they hid it very well!).
> 
> Baio


This has been well-known; I discovered this early myself (Sept. and posted a complaint). Im pretty sure its because ASUS' VRM design now and the board being Daisy Chain means the voltage gets applied immediately anyway. So the vDIMM you set is basically the boot voltage anyway.

tk432 (or w/e the username is) also noticed and confirmed it is missing back when they joined the thread, and I confirmed it to them, so yes. Try reading back in Dec or Nov last year.


----------



## kuutale

tolis626 said:


> Well, if the RAM and CPU are the same, then the motherboard should easily be able to let you do well above 3800MHz. Maybe you missed something, so take it step by step. Check voltages for the RAM, SOC, VDDG, VDDP first. These are likely culprits. Then check your RAM timings again. I'd recommend Ryzen DRAM Calculator, it gives you suggestions for every little thing. Check out the screenshot below (red boxes). I will suppose your 3200MHz CL14 RAM is B-Die and it's 16GB, so below is the fast preset for 3800MHz (If I'm wrong on any of these things, download RDC and use the appropriate settings). I'm using that right now and I have zero problems. Lastly, check your other settings in the "DRAM Timing control" section, there's a lot of stuff in there. Better set them as they are in my screenshot.
> 
> Good luck!
> 
> PS : At some point the board was giving me trouble with not booting at 3800/1900. It would just not post and gave me q-code 07. I went into BIOS, used 3600/1800, booted, rebooted into BIOS, went back to 3800/1900 and then it worked. Can't remember if this was with the latest BIOS or the previous one, but it may be worth a shot.





neurotix said:


> Hi, try these timings:
> 
> 16-16-16-16-32-50-6-8-24-6-14-14-304-6-8-16-8-9-1-3-5-5-1-7-7-1
> 
> Make sure Geardown Mode = On, 1T, use up to 1.5 vDIMM, 0.7500 VTT_DDR, 0.950 cLDO_VDDG and 900/ 0.900 cLDO_VDDP, 1900 fclk, 1.1000v VDD_SoC
> 
> Youre welcome



Hello i use ryzen dram calculator settings and timings. 3800/1900 i get 08 0d it wont boot, then i must do clear cmos or use safe boot button many times. I try gm on and different vdimm voltages but it not work. i go lower settins try 3600/1800 try to balance this cl16. this motherboard missing dram boot voltage?


----------



## Badgerslayer7

try these timings:
16-16-16-16-32-50-6-8-24-6-14-14-304-6-8-16-8-9-1-3-5-5-1-7-7-1
Make sure Geardown Mode = On, 1T, use up to 1.45vDIMM, VDDG_CCD 1.075 VDDG_IOD 1.075, cLDO VDDP 1100, 1900 fclk, 1.1000v VDD_SoC

That’s what I use. If you get 07 error code switch machine off wait a min and then turn it back on. I always get 07 error code when I first enter any setting with 1900 fclk


----------



## kuutale

Badgerslayer7 said:


> try these timings:
> 16-16-16-16-32-50-6-8-24-6-14-14-304-6-8-16-8-9-1-3-5-5-1-7-7-1
> Make sure Geardown Mode = On, 1T, use up to 1.45vDIMM, VDDG_CCD 1.075 VDDG_IOD 1.075,1900 fclk, 1.1000v VDD_SoC
> 
> That’s what I use. If you get 07 error code switch machine off wait a min and then turn it back on. I always get 07 error code when I first enter any setting with 1900 fclk



Yes Let's see my cpu is 3950x, this is new board maybe the new agesa settings not work. ch6 is begin 2017 not working so good, all kind bugs and errors, but eventually it work very good. ch6 motherboard i can do 3950x 3800/1900 cl16 easy not boot problem and other problems, ill try u config and report what happen. now im 3733/1833 cl16 dram calculator timingins.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Sorry I’ve had to edit my original post I missed my cLDO voltage off there. It’s now on there.


----------



## neurotix

Badgerslayer7 said:


> try these timings:
> 16-16-16-16-32-50-6-8-24-6-14-14-304-6-8-16-8-9-1-3-5-5-1-7-7-1
> Make sure Geardown Mode = On, 1T, use up to 1.45vDIMM, VDDG_CCD 1.075 VDDG_IOD 1.075, cLDO VDDP 1100, 1900 fclk, 1.1000v VDD_SoC
> 
> That’s what I use. If you get 07 error code switch machine off wait a min and then turn it back on. I always get 07 error code when I first enter any setting with 1900 fclk


Yes, it also helps to enter the timings and voltage and boot at 3200/1600, then 3600/1800, then 3800/1900. (Its fine to do 16-16-16-16-32-50-etc I posted the entire time)

If I try to go straight from default board settings to 3800 I will sometimes get these error codes as well. However a user found out these errors can be avoided by going to 3600mhz before 3800mhz...only happening since AGESA 1.0.0.4

If it still wont do it, your chip probably cant do 1900 fclk, only about 33% of R9 3900x can according to SiliconLottery and lower SKUs are a crapshoot, but trying for 3600 c14 is fine too (offers good latency and gaming performance)


----------



## kuutale

neurotix said:


> Yes, it also helps to enter the timings and voltage and boot at 3200/1600, then 3600/1800, then 3800/1900. (Its fine to do 16-16-16-16-32-50-etc I posted the entire time)
> 
> If I try to go straight from default board settings to 3800 I will sometimes get these error codes as well. However a user found out these errors can be avoided by going to 3600mhz before 3800mhz...only happening since AGESA 1.0.0.4
> 
> If it still wont do it, your chip probably cant do 1900 fclk, only about 33% of R9 3900x can according to SiliconLottery and lower SKUs are a crapshoot, but trying for 3600 c14 is fine too (offers good latency and gaming performance)


with ch6 i can do 3800/1900 easy not boot problems. this moment i cant boot 3800/1900flk with c8h. I think my 3950x can do 3800/1900 because ch6 i run it everyday use this settings. I try different settings but no work. Maybe later with new bios i go 3733 or 3600 try go cl14, b-die maybe can work, because my kits is 3200 cl4 flarex. Maybe 1usmus new dram calculator help us when is released. hi_amp fan header how much that can handle? if use 140mm fans


----------



## chaosweapon

Hi, I have a new 3900X CPU installed on an ASUS Crosshair VIII motherboard. I fresh installed Windows 10, however, in hwinfo I'm noticing that the CPU frequency does not go below 3.8GHz. How do I allow the frequency to decrease below the base frequency when the PC is idle?

Edit: I switched from the AMD Ryzen Balanced to the default Balanced power profile and now the frequencies do drop below 3.8GHz now. What is the difference between the two profiles?


----------



## Reikoji

Hows bios 1302 working?


----------



## Jackalito

Reikoji said:


> Hows bios 1302 working?


Trouble-free so far for me.


----------



## TK421

agesa update to 1005 when?


----------



## Badgerslayer7

TK421 said:


> agesa update to 1005 when?


I’m going for next Friday


----------



## chaosweapon

Today I tried connecting a mic to the front panel and with the default Windows sound drivers all I heard was static while the back port worked fine.

I installed the Realtek drivers that are available on the motherboard's support webpage and then the front mic worked. Though when I connect the mic to the front panel there is a low hum which isn't there when I connect the mic to the back panel. Is this normal?


----------



## sakete

chaosweapon said:


> Today I tried connecting a mic to the front panel and with the default Windows sound drivers all I heard was static while the back port worked fine.
> 
> 
> 
> I installed the Realtek drivers that are available on the motherboard's support webpage and then the front mic worked. Though when I connect the mic to the front panel there is a low hum which isn't there when I connect the mic to the back panel. Is this normal?


Yeah, that hum will be more dependent on the case you're using and how well shielded the wire is that runs from your mobo to the front of your case.

In general using those audio jacks, whether front or back, will be prone to all kinds of noise end electromagnetic interference as there's a ton of stuff going on inside a case.

For the best sound quality you'll want to use an external sound card that connects via USB.


----------



## schnebdreleg

rv8000 said:


> My first 3700x couldnt do anything over 3333 on the IF, replaced it with another 3700X and got 3800 with the same memory kit/mobo without issue. It's rare that a 3rd gen cpu will have difficulty at @3200 and slightly above, but it can happen.
> 
> Overvoltage and high temps on the memory can also cause problems and show "false" errors in memory testing applications.



Well.. I had more bluescreens and crashes, even with relaxed timings at 3200 or 3000. I was so frustrated that I ordered a 3800X over my 3700X, because I hoped that the 3800X is of better quality. What can I say.. RAM is now running at 3733 CV 16 without trying tighter timings/higher frequency yet and I havn't had a single bluescreen or crash for days.



I don't know whats wrong with my 3700X but it cant even run 3200 or 3000 with relaxed timings without random bluescreens, so I put in a warrenty request with AMD and hope for an exchange to sell it. Thats the first time in 18 years I had to replace a CPU and would have never expected the problems are caused by it :thumbsdow:thumbsdow


----------



## TK421

Where is agesa 1005? 



Where is DRAM VBOOT setting? Why is this feature missing on 8 even though 6 and 7 has it?


----------



## Reikoji

chaosweapon said:


> Hi, I have a new 3900X CPU installed on an ASUS Crosshair VIII motherboard. I fresh installed Windows 10, however, in hwinfo I'm noticing that the CPU frequency does not go below 3.8GHz. How do I allow the frequency to decrease below the base frequency when the PC is idle?
> 
> Edit: I switched from the AMD Ryzen Balanced to the default Balanced power profile and now the frequencies do drop below 3.8GHz now. What is the difference between the two profiles?


With HWinfo, the 'Effective Clock' readings are what you should be looking at. And even then, only Ryzen master will show cores in sleep state rather than just really low frequencies.


----------



## Baio73

TK421 said:


> Where is agesa 1005?
> 
> 
> 
> Where is DRAM VBOOT setting? Why is this feature missing on 8 even though 6 and 7 has it?


AGESA 1.0.0.5 is probably down the track... usually ASUS releases BIOS updates on friday.

DRAM VBOOT simply does not exist of X570 boards.
But why do you need that?

Baio


----------



## TK421

Baio73 said:


> AGESA 1.0.0.5 is probably down the track... usually ASUS releases BIOS updates on friday.
> 
> DRAM VBOOT simply does not exist of X570 boards.
> But why do you need that?
> 
> Baio



Do you not realize that some ram setups require higher than normal startup voltage to pass POST? 


You post this question on an OC focused motherboard thread, which confuses me.


----------



## Baio73

TK421 said:


> Do you not realize that some ram setups require higher than normal startup voltage to pass POST?
> 
> 
> You post this question on an OC focused motherboard thread, which confuses me.


I'm perfectly aware of that, but can't see the point... do you think Asus didn't put this option into their flagship motherboard for joke?

I can speak of my direct experience. Same RAM kit, moved from C7HWF to C8F my ram boot normally (on the X470 board I had to set the DRAM VBOOT, otherwise I got beeps) without that option. I had only to raise VDRAM from 1.40 to 1.43 to pass MemTest.

So maybe you are waiting for something in vain...

Baio


----------



## Reikoji

TK421 said:


> Do you not realize that some ram setups require higher than normal startup voltage to pass POST?
> 
> 
> You post this question on an OC focused motherboard thread, which confuses me.





Baio73 said:


> I'm perfectly aware of that, but can't see the point... do you think Asus didn't put this option into their flagship motherboard for joke?
> 
> I can speak of my direct experience. Same RAM kit, moved from C7HWF to C8F my ram boot normally (on the X470 board I had to set the DRAM VBOOT, otherwise I got beeps) without that option. I had only to raise VDRAM from 1.40 to 1.43 to pass MemTest.
> 
> So maybe you are waiting for something in vain...
> 
> Baio


I think ASUS successfully made it so that setting isn't required now. DRAM VBOOT and VDIMM are probably just tied together now.\



neurotix said:


> This has been well-known; I discovered this early myself (Sept. and posted a complaint). Im pretty sure its because ASUS' VRM design now and the board being Daisy Chain means the voltage gets applied immediately anyway. So the vDIMM you set is basically the boot voltage anyway.
> 
> tk432 (or w/e the username is) also noticed and confirmed it is missing back when they joined the thread, and I confirmed it to them, so yes. Try reading back in Dec or Nov last year.


Basically what he said


----------



## TK421

Baio73 said:


> I'm perfectly aware of that, but can't see the point... *do you think Asus didn't put this option into their flagship motherboard for joke?*
> 
> I can speak of my direct experience. Same RAM kit, moved from C7HWF to C8F my ram boot normally (on the X470 board I had to set the DRAM VBOOT, otherwise I got beeps) without that option. I had only to raise VDRAM from 1.40 to 1.43 to pass MemTest.
> 
> So maybe you are waiting for something in vain...
> 
> Baio



I'm pretty sure this is the case seeing as they locked core VRM switching to 500KHz. Even though you can go up to 1000KHz with simple bios mods.




Even on C8, some niche memory settings still can benefit from DRAM vboot. My B-die kit for example, will be stable with lower voltage (1.3875 LLC3) compared to voltage required to pass post (1.4000)












Reikoji said:


> I think ASUS successfully made it so that setting isn't required now. DRAM VBOOT and VDIMM are probably just tied together now.\
> 
> 
> 
> Basically what he said



ASUS should readd DRAM VBOOT into C8.


I believe giving users choices is a better way of handling things. Instead of locking settings because you believe it doesn't give benefit (in this case I can benefit from the added option).






Crosshair 6 X370 and Crosshair 7 X470 has DRAM_VBOOT option.


Crosshair 7 is Daisy-chan, same as Crosshair 8.
Crosshair 6 is T-top.


Edit: even same 2phase vrm design.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

My ram will sometimes not post and I get the f9 error and it will reboot even though it’s perfectly stable in windows at a lower voltage. kind of annoying to have to run a higher voltage to avoid this. Might have been able to get tighter timings otherwise


----------



## kuutale

Badgerslayer7 said:


> My ram will sometimes not post and I get the f9 error and it will reboot even though it’s perfectly stable in windows at a lower voltage. kind of annoying to have to run a higher voltage to avoid this. Might have been able to get tighter timings otherwise


Yes i have same problem, Ch6 not have this problem, maybe new agesa help us


----------



## TK421

Badgerslayer7 said:


> My ram will sometimes not post and I get the f9 error and it will reboot even though it’s perfectly stable in windows at a lower voltage. kind of annoying to have to run a higher voltage to avoid this. Might have been able to get tighter timings otherwise





kuutale said:


> Yes i have same problem, Ch6 not have this problem, maybe new agesa help us



This is exactly what DRAM VBOOT is designed to help mitigate.


----------



## kuutale

I have weird problem and i dont know what to do.
set bios soc voltage 1.1 .

hwmonitor show 1.08 ryzen master says 1.1.

I believe hwmonitor or set bios voltage like 1.15 or set vsoc llc?

my old board ch6 if i set 1.1 both monitoring software says 1.1. im little confused right now.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Where’s the new bios at? 😁


----------



## rares495

kuutale said:


> I have weird problem and i dont know what to do.
> set bios soc voltage 1.1 .
> 
> hwmonitor show 1.08 ryzen master says 1.1.
> 
> I believe hwmonitor or set bios voltage like 1.15 or set vsoc llc?
> 
> my old board ch6 if i set 1.1 both monitoring software says 1.1. im little confused right now.


Probably auto LLC. HWInfo probably shows some vdroop.


----------



## kuutale

Hi

how about performance enhancer is that working ryzen 300 cpus ? or only 2000 series cpus


----------



## btripp2

Ryzen Balanced Power Plan has the minimum processor power state set at 99% the Windows Balanced Plan is set at 5%


----------



## Badgerslayer7

btripp2 said:


> Ryzen Balanced Power Plan has the minimum processor power state set at 99% the Windows Balanced Plan is set at 5%


It’s supposed to be at 99% that’s how how ryzen 3 is supposed to be.


----------



## chaosweapon

Badgerslayer7 said:


> It’s supposed to be at 99% that’s how how ryzen 3 is supposed to be.


From testing I have determined that the Ryzen Balanced Power Plan has a higher idle power consumption than the Windows Balanced Power Plan. Approximately 5-10W more.

In Cinebench, these power plans give the same scores.


----------



## MacG32

I just purchased a MSI - MEG X570 ACE and it will be here in a few days. Seems I was never able to have a stable system at stock, let alone overclocked. There is a boot up bug with 3900Xs and the Hero. It may be linked to having 4 sticks of RAM. I give up trying to get a stable system with this motherboard. It's been way too long and so much time and money wasted. Good luck to everyone and have a good one!


----------



## TK421

MacG32 said:


> I just purchased a MSI - MEG X570 ACE and it will be here in a few days. Seems I was never able to have a stable system at stock, let alone overclocked. There is a boot up bug with 3900Xs and the Hero. It may be linked to having 4 sticks of RAM. I give up trying to get a stable system with this motherboard. It's been way too long and so much time and money wasted. Good luck to everyone and have a good one!


more vdimm and/or fclk voltage?


----------



## schnebdreleg

MacG32 said:


> I just purchased a MSI - MEG X570 ACE and it will be here in a few days. Seems I was never able to have a stable system at stock, let alone overclocked. There is a boot up bug with 3900Xs and the Hero. It may be linked to having 4 sticks of RAM. I give up trying to get a stable system with this motherboard. It's been way too long and so much time and money wasted. Good luck to everyone and have a good one!



Good luck with that. I was struggling for a long time whether I should really buy a new processor for 350€, but the problems have finally disappeared since the change - no more bluescreens and random crashes. It's a lot of money, but it's good for the soul to use a perfect system :thumb:


Now I have to deal with the AMD support


----------



## sakete

So I have this weird issue where often on cold boot, when I try to launch a game or an application it takes forever to start up, as if the SSD throughput is super slow, and then once the game is actually running it's stuttering a lot. A reboot usually solves it and everything is quick and snappy.

Using a C8F mobo with latest 1302 bios. Could this be a motherboard issue? Chipset? Windows issue?

All my stuff was running perfectly on a Intel 4790k/z97 Asus board for 5 years. But then once I swapped in the AMD stuff it's been a bit weird at times.

Granted, I didn't do a fresh windows install, which could maybe resolve it (though it's the last thing I want to deal with right now). But could this also be related to something else potentially?


----------



## 1usmus

*DRAM Calculator for Ryzen 1.7.1
*










* New presets adapted to latest AGESA 
* DRAM PCB revision - presets became more "flexible"
* New features (overclocking assist) and etc.
* Reading timings for all Ryzen's (even Zen3)

*Guide (DE)* >> https://www.computerbase.de/2020-05/dram-calculator-for-ryzen-1.7.1/
*Guide (EN)* >> https://wccftech.com/dram-calculator-for-ryzen-1-7-1-download/

*Download:*

Techpowerup link
Guru3d link
WCCFTECH link
Сomputerbase.de link
Techspot link


----------



## Dawidowski

This motherboard is pure garbage for me. 

No matter what bios I try or what changes. 
My all core boost is either 4000-4150.

Unless I do a manual change it just doesnt do anything. 
PPT EDC changes, still 4100-4150.
What ever PBO adjustments I do its still 4100-4150.
Giving the cpu more power to 140% with LLC level 3. Still 4100-4150.

with XFR on or off. Same damn crap. 
I can never reach cr20 over like 7.3k like most people do, hell some even reach 7.4k.
And idle temps are like 37-40c and 72 during load.

Off set voltage? Forget that. BSOD instantly, even at -0.05
I do not know what to do next.


----------



## zsoltmol

Dawidowski said:


> This motherboard is pure garbage for me.
> 
> No matter what bios I try or what changes.
> My all core boost is either 4000-4150.
> 
> Unless I do a manual change it just doesnt do anything.
> PPT EDC changes, still 4100-4150.
> What ever PBO adjustments I do its still 4100-4150.
> Giving the cpu more power to 140% with LLC level 3. Still 4100-4150.
> 
> with XFR on or off. Same damn crap.
> I can never reach cr20 over like 7.3k like most people do, hell some even reach 7.4k.
> And idle temps are like 37-40c and 72 during load.
> 
> Off set voltage? Forget that. BSOD instantly, even at -0.05
> I do not know what to do next.


With 1302 bios I still have same behaviour as before.

One boot, CB20 all core runs at max 4050-4075 range, score is 7150-7200
After some reboot CB20 all core runs at max 4125-4150 range, score is 7270-7330
After some reboot CB20 all core runs at max 4200-4225 range, score is 7400-7460

Then the cycle repeats itself forever.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Dawidowski said:


> This motherboard is pure garbage for me.
> 
> No matter what bios I try or what changes.
> My all core boost is either 4000-4150.
> 
> Unless I do a manual change it just doesnt do anything.
> PPT EDC changes, still 4100-4150.
> What ever PBO adjustments I do its still 4100-4150.
> Giving the cpu more power to 140% with LLC level 3. Still 4100-4150.
> 
> with XFR on or off. Same damn crap.
> I can never reach cr20 over like 7.3k like most people do, hell some even reach 7.4k.
> And idle temps are like 37-40c and 72 during load.
> 
> Off set voltage? Forget that. BSOD instantly, even at -0.05
> I do not know what to do next.


Have you tried performance enhancer level 3? I can get over 7350 on CB20 with that.


----------



## TK421

Badgerslayer7 said:


> Have you tried performance enhancer level 3? I can get over 7350 on CB20 with that.



does PE even change anything if you manually set PBO limits?


----------



## Badgerslayer7

TK421 said:


> Badgerslayer7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you tried performance enhancer level 3? I can get over 7350 on CB20 with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> does PE even change anything if you manually set PBO limits?
Click to expand...

I haven’t a clue I have mine set to auto.


----------



## Dawidowski

TK421 said:


> does PE even change anything if you manually set PBO limits?


Not really, everyone I heard says its not recommended. 
Will try that then, biggest issue now after managing to push to 7360 and single core 507 is the voltages. 
Ryzen master keeps it at like 1.45-1.46 core like constantly... 

I dont get the dips to drop to like 0.5-0.9 volts. My avarage is 1.46 without touching any voltage settings ^^ even with c states enabled.


----------



## SpeedyIV

*Wow - Surprised and Curious*



MacG32 said:


> I just purchased a MSI - MEG X570 ACE and it will be here in a few days. Seems I was never able to have a stable system at stock, let alone overclocked. There is a boot up bug with 3900Xs and the Hero. It may be linked to having 4 sticks of RAM. I give up trying to get a stable system with this motherboard. It's been way too long and so much time and money wasted. Good luck to everyone and have a good one!


Wow. I don't follow this thread regularly and I don't own a CH VIII Hero or a Ryzen chip. Still running an 8700K and was waiting for the R3K platform to mature a bit. Now I am debating whether to wait for R4K! Anyway, if I went with X570 it was always going to be a Hero. My Z370 is a Hero Wifi and I have had great luck with it. I have always bought Asus motherboards but I just don't have confidence in them anymore. Buggy BIOS's, late AGESA updates, arguably deceptive marketing, an ignored forum, no presence here (like when Raja was around), etc. I remember how stoked you were when you started this thread. I do wonder why you went to MSI verses Gigabyte. If I jump from Asus, I think it would be to GB.

Good luck with the MEG X570 ACE!


----------



## Dawidowski

I can't use any negative offset, even at 0.05 or 0.04 it just crashes my pc. 

******* hate asus right now...


----------



## glnn_23

Reading here that a few a not happy with the C8H. 
I'm pretty pleased how it works for me for both memory and cpu. 
Vcore 1.264-1.272v under load.


----------



## sakete

SpeedyIV said:


> Wow. I don't follow this thread regularly and I don't own a CH VIII Hero or a Ryzen chip. Still running an 8700K and was waiting for the R3K platform to mature a bit. Now I am debating whether to wait for R4K! Anyway, if I went with X570 it was always going to be a Hero. My Z370 is a Hero Wifi and I have had great luck with it. I have always bought Asus motherboards but I just don't have confidence in them anymore. Buggy BIOS's, late AGESA updates, arguably deceptive marketing, an ignored forum, no presence here (like when Raja was around), etc. I remember how stoked you were when you started this thread. I do wonder why you went to MSI verses Gigabyte. If I jump from Asus, I think it would be to GB.
> 
> Good luck with the MEG X570 ACE!


My first X570 board was a GB. Maybe it was just me, but I had bad luck with it, got regular bios resets, that appearted to be random. Was really frustrating. So I went back to Asus (always used Asus in the past) and so far no problems.

I went with the GB board at first because I could get all the features I needed in a cheaper package. To get the same features with Asus, I needed to spring for the C8F board. In the end that's what I did as I was going to build a custom loop anyway, so watercooled VRMs was a nice bonus.


----------



## helis4life

I've got an issue with ny CH8. Running a D5 but can no longer get an rpm readout. 

Rpm was reading fine initially but I swapped the pump to an ek connect to test it. Swapped it back to the w_pump header but put it on incorrectly offset so the 12v pin on the header was on the rpm signal connection of the d5 plug. Figured it burnt the transistor on the d5 when I did so. But if I plug the d5 back in to the ek connect it reads the rpm no worries

Bit confused. Also tested the w_pump header with a fan, reads rpm no worries.


I've got no idea what's going on. W_pump is def set to pwm in bios

Anyone got any ideas? 



Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk


----------



## Baio73

Dawidowski said:


> Not really, everyone I heard says its not recommended.
> Will try that then, biggest issue now after managing to push to 7360 and single core 507 is the voltages.
> Ryzen master keeps it at like 1.45-1.46 core like constantly...
> 
> I dont get the dips to drop to like 0.5-0.9 volts. My avarage is 1.46 without touching any voltage settings ^^ even with c states enabled.


I think you have some software working in background that keeps bumping up turbo on the cores... it happens in my system with Corsair iCUE.
Check this by killing opened software one per time and see if Ryzen Master shows Vcore drops.

Baio


----------



## Baio73

Does anyone have issues when booting from USB flash drives?
I'm in this strange situation: ISO 1 (Passmark MemTest) and 2 (MemTest86+), flash drive A (Sandisk ) and B (Corsair GT).

ISO 1 => flash drive A => No boot, the pc goes back into BIOS
ISO 1 => B => boot ok
ISO 2 => A => no boot
ISO 2 => B => no boot

I can assume MemTest86+ ISO is somehow bugged (strange, last release is very recent) but how can it be that the same ISO of Passmark works with a flash drive and don't work with another? Sandisk stick is ok, I can use it with Media Creation Tool to build up a Windows 10 installation.
I used the last release of Rufus to write the ISOs.

Baio

EDIT:
Solved. had to disable the Secure Boot from BIOS.


----------



## benbenkr

Is Asus ever going to release Agesa 1005? Like... everyone else has already done so lmao.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

benbenkr said:


> Is Asus ever going to release Agesa 1005? Like... everyone else has already done so lmao.


I think only msi have 1.0.0.5 bios and there only beta. Could be wrong though.


----------



## Reous

You are not wrong. Only MSI have it for some few boards.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

I don't have this exact board but mines pretty close have any of you run into a issue when you overclock your sata speeds tank badly, I run 3x 500gigs in raid 0 with stock or pbo i get 1500MB/s when i overclock speeds drop to 200MB/s same with my os ssd i tried turning tons of stuff off i cant figure this one out so far.


----------



## oreonutz

Hey Everyone! Some of you Might know me from the Crosshair VII or VI Threads. I tend to talk too much! LOL! Anyways, because of current events, I am finally looking to grab me a Crosshair Viii board, something I should have done a while ago. I have already put a WTB over in the Marketplace, but wanted to just drop in here as well, just in case there is one of you guys looking to get rid of your C8H.

If one of you guys wants to get rid of your C8H, for a fair Price, and its in Good Condition (Works). I will buy it off your hands. Let me know if anyone is interested. I will shut up now before I got off on another tangent! LOL!


----------



## dlbsyst

oreonutz said:


> Hey Everyone! Some of you Might know me from the Crosshair VII or VI Threads. I tend to talk too much! LOL! Anyways, because of current events, I am finally looking to grab me a Crosshair Viii board, something I should have done a while ago. I have already put a WTB over in the Marketplace, but wanted to just drop in here as well, just in case there is one of you guys looking to get rid of your C8H.
> 
> If one of you guys wants to get rid of your C8H, for a fair Price, and its in Good Condition (Works). I will buy it off your hands. Let me know if anyone is interested. I will shut up now before I got off on another tangent! LOL!


I was wondering when you would join the ranks and come join us.:thumb: I hope you find someone who's willing to part with his board and at a good price. I just took a look at various retailers and for some reason the Crosshair 8 Hero is sold out everywhere. Not sure why but it is a bad ass board. Amazon is saying they will be getting more stock on June 3 for the non wifi version. Might want to get your order in if your pursuits here fall through. Good luck.


----------



## oreonutz

dlbsyst said:


> I was wondering when you would join the ranks and come join us.:thumb: I hope you find someone who's willing to part with his board and at a good price. I just took a look at various retailers and for some reason the Crosshair 8 Hero is sold out everywhere. Not sure why but it is a bad ass board. Amazon is saying they will be getting more stock on June 3 for the non wifi version. Might want to get your order in if your pursuits here fall through. Good luck.



Yup! Thats exactly Why I am here. I almost always buy new, But there is literally NO WHERE to buy the board new. I didn't want to bring that up though, because I didn't want people inflating the price of the board, lol. But yeah, if anyone is willing to part with it at a fair price (IE Not higher than what they paid for it) then I am willing to take it off their hands. I have noticed a few times of people complaining about their board for one reason or another, and saying "I am going to buy Gigabyte Next Time", or something along those lines. Well if anyone with that sentiment is still here, and wants to go buy a Gigabyte board, I am willing to take the Crosshair VIII Hero off your hands at a fair price, then you can go grab whatever board you want. (Although Fair Warning, its not just the Crosshair VIII Hero's that are out of stock, literally every Quality Board from the $250 to $500 Price point that I am shopping in is sold out now. Even the boards at Amazon that look like they are in stock, you go to purchase them and then you notice that they aren't actually shipping until June 3rd or something like that. Probably has to do with the Human Malware, but yeah, thats that. If I can't find someone willing to sell at a fair price its all good, I don't actually need the board until the Launch of Zen 3, so I can wait until Stock replenishes, but was just looking to get a head start on getting used to the board, not the end of the world if I can't find it though.

Anyways, I appreciate the warm welcome @dlbsyst.

You know, funny enough, I really regret my decision now, but for just One Day back at last Black Friday, NewEgg had a sale for the Crosshair Viii Formula (Basically the VIII Hero with a Waterblock on the VRM's and 5Gbe Ethernet instead of 2.5Gbe Nic) for just $420, when the Launch price for that board was around $700. I had to stop my self from buying it, and I wanted to so bad, but I convinced myself I didn't need it and that the Crosshair VII board was treating me just fine. At The time I thought that was the right decision, but now, considering I am probably going to be spending around $300 to $350 on the Normal Hero (hopefully less, but doubtful), spending just a little more back then to have the VRM WB Built in, was a damn good deal, and I probably should have taken it... Oh Well...


----------



## dlbsyst

oreonutz said:


> Yup! Thats exactly Why I am here. I almost always buy new, But there is literally NO WHERE to buy the board new. I didn't want to bring that up though, because I didn't want people inflating the price of the board, lol. But yeah, if anyone is willing to part with it at a fair price (IE Not higher than what they paid for it) then I am willing to take it off their hands. I have noticed a few times of people complaining about their board for one reason or another, and saying "I am going to buy Gigabyte Next Time", or something along those lines. Well if anyone with that sentiment is still here, and wants to go buy a Gigabyte board, I am willing to take the Crosshair VIII Hero off your hands at a fair price, then you can go grab whatever board you want. (Although Fair Warning, its not just the Crosshair VIII Hero's that are out of stock, literally every Quality Board from the $250 to $500 Price point that I am shopping in is sold out now. Even the boards at Amazon that look like they are in stock, you go to purchase them and then you notice that they aren't actually shipping until June 3rd or something like that. Probably has to do with the Human Malware, but yeah, thats that. If I can't find someone willing to sell at a fair price its all good, I don't actually need the board until the Launch of Zen 3, so I can wait until Stock replenishes, but was just looking to get a head start on getting used to the board, not the end of the world if I can't find it though.
> 
> *Anyways, I appreciate the warm welcome* @dlbsyst.
> 
> You know, funny enough, I really regret my decision now, but for just One Day back at last Black Friday, NewEgg had a sale for the Crosshair Viii Formula (Basically the VIII Hero with a Waterblock on the VRM's and 5Gbe Ethernet instead of 2.5Gbe Nic) for just $420, when the Launch price for that board was around $700. I had to stop my self from buying it, and I wanted to so bad, but I convinced myself I didn't need it and that the Crosshair VII board was treating me just fine. At The time I thought that was the right decision, but now, considering I am probably going to be spending around $300 to $350 on the Normal Hero (hopefully less, but doubtful), spending just a little more back then to have the VRM WB Built in, was a damn good deal, and I probably should have taken it... Oh Well...


You're very welcome oreonutz 

I don't know how you feel about purchasing a used Crosshair VIII Hero on eBay but you might be able to get a used one there for a good price. Most sellers are gauging but sometimes someone lists for a fair price. There a bunch currently up but it looks like they all have some sort of damage.

It's too bad about that Formula during Black Friday and that was an amazing price. Believe me I did the same thing with many things I wanted. Kept putting it in my cart but just couldn't justify pulling the trigger and spending the money. Probably because I was trying to get the 3950X CPU. Ended up getting one early January.:thumb:


----------



## oreonutz

dlbsyst said:


> You're very welcome oreonutz
> 
> I don't know how you feel about purchasing a used Crosshair VIII Hero on eBay but you might be able to get a used one there for a good price. Most sellers are gauging but sometimes someone lists for a fair price. There a bunch currently up but it looks like they all have some sort of damage.
> 
> It's too bad about that Formula during Black Friday and that was an amazing price. Believe me I did the same thing with many things I wanted. Kept putting it in my cart but just couldn't justify pulling the trigger and spending the money. Probably because I was trying to get the 3950X CPU. Ended up getting one early January.:thumb:


I know how it goes. I got my 3950x In Early December. I paid $900 for it. And I bought it direct from Newegg, not a Third Party Seller, and they were willing to Cash in selling them for an Extra $150. So I didn't feel bad when I returned it using their Holiday Return Policy in Mid Jan when they finally had them in stock for the Normal Price. Got my $150 back, and a better binned chip. Win Win! 

Still wish I woulda gotten that Formula Though. Oh Well...

*EDIT:* Oh and I appreciate the nudge towards Ebay. I always forget about ebay because something always goes wrong when I purchase from there, so I think I put it out of my mind. But I will check it out. eBay has always taken care of me, but somehow almost always my initial purchase always either ends up being a defect, or the seller contacts me saying they don't actually have the product, or the seller never sends the product, Or I get the delivery and it ends up not being what I purchase. I swear at some point eBay is going to think I am scamming them or something, but I just always seem to get the short end of the stick there! Anyways, I will definitely check out the boards they have up, see if I can find a diamond in the Ruff.


----------



## dlbsyst

There's a used one on Amazon right now oreonutz. It says its in very good condition but says missing bonus material. Not sure what that means. You could contact them and ask about it.

Edit: Seems to be gone already. I'm going to PM you from now on if I come across one for sell.


----------



## Baio73

dlbsyst said:


> There's a used one on Amazon right now oreonutz. It says its in very good condition but says missing bonus material. Not sure what that means. You could contact them and ask about it.


Never trust Amazon WH descriptions too much!
I bought my CH8 Formula there and the price was very discounted as the description was quite horrible... scratches (front and back), damaged box, missing or ruined accessories and so on.
I decided to try it anyway and I got a quite perfect board! All accessories were sealed in their plastic bags, the board still had adhesive plastics on the mirrored parts, just a very very small scratch on the backplate... even both the M.2 thermal pads were new.
As AMD's latest announcement, it was one the biggest butt bangs of my informatic life! 8-D

Baio


----------



## oreonutz

dlbsyst said:


> There's a used one on Amazon right now oreonutz. It says its in very good condition but says missing bonus material. Not sure what that means. You could contact them and ask about it.
> 
> Edit: Seems to be gone already. I'm going to PM you from now on if I come across one for sell.





Baio73 said:


> Never trust Amazon WH descriptions too much!
> I bought my CH8 Formula there and the price was very discounted as the description was quite horrible... scratches (front and back), damaged box, missing or ruined accessories and so on.
> I decided to try it anyway and I got a quite perfect board! All accessories were sealed in their plastic bags, the board still had adhesive plastics on the mirrored parts, just a very very small scratch on the backplate... even both the M.2 thermal pads were new.
> As AMD's latest announcement, it was one the biggest butt bangs of my informatic life! 8-D
> 
> Baio


Damn! That sucks, I missed it! Just now saw your message! I appreciate your help, I guess I will stay looking on Amazon, I had written it off after seeing the state of things, but I will keep it in my sights. I appreciate your help. PM's are awesome because If I am in front of my PC, I get an email notification. Appreciate your help!

And @Baio73 that is so awesome man! I envy you!


----------



## Baio73

oreonutz said:


> Damn! That sucks, I missed it! Just now saw your message! I appreciate your help, I guess I will stay looking on Amazon, I had written it off after seeing the state of things, but I will keep it in my sights. I appreciate your help. PM's are awesome because If I am in front of my PC, I get an email notification. Appreciate your help!
> 
> And @Baio73 that is so awesome man! I envy you!


Thanks bud, hope you'll put your hands on one of this boards as soon as possible!
I've always appreciate your posts in the CH7 thread, hope I'm gonna read your contributions here soon!

Baio


----------



## Nitethorn

oreonutz said:


> I know how it goes. I got my 3950x In Early December. I paid $900 for it. And I bought it direct from Newegg, not a Third Party Seller, and they were willing to Cash in selling them for an Extra $150. So I didn't feel bad when I returned it using their Holiday Return Policy in Mid Jan when they finally had them in stock for the Normal Price. Got my $150 back, and a better binned chip. Win Win!
> 
> Still wish I woulda gotten that Formula Though. Oh Well...
> 
> *EDIT:* Oh and I appreciate the nudge towards Ebay. I always forget about ebay because something always goes wrong when I purchase from there, so I think I put it out of my mind. But I will check it out. eBay has always taken care of me, but somehow almost always my initial purchase always either ends up being a defect, or the seller contacts me saying they don't actually have the product, or the seller never sends the product, Or I get the delivery and it ends up not being what I purchase. I swear at some point eBay is going to think I am scamming them or something, but I just always seem to get the short end of the stick there! Anyways, I will definitely check out the boards they have up, see if I can find a diamond in the Ruff.


I got my C8H non-wifi used from ebay for $300. Came with all of the original packaging intact, not a single blemish on it, just like new. Works amazingly. I love it. But I suppose there's no guarantee that you will have the same luck. I hope you find one though, it's an awesome board!


----------



## oreonutz

dlbsyst said:


> There's a used one on Amazon right now oreonutz. It says its in very good condition but says missing bonus material. Not sure what that means. You could contact them and ask about it.
> 
> Edit: Seems to be gone already. I'm going to PM you from now on if I come across one for sell.





Baio73 said:


> Thanks bud, hope you'll put your hands on one of this boards as soon as possible!
> I've always appreciate your posts in the CH7 thread, hope I'm gonna read your contributions here soon!
> 
> Baio





Nitethorn said:


> I got my C8H non-wifi used from ebay for $300. Came with all of the original packaging intact, not a single blemish on it, just like new. Works amazingly. I love it. But I suppose there's no guarantee that you will have the same luck. I hope you find one though, it's an awesome board!


I really appreciate the good wishes guys. I am more determined than ever to join the VIII Community now. 

So I am at a Dilemma. I have an Offer out for a VIII Hero for $250, although after taxes and shipping will come out to $290 Shipped, and it would be here in 2 Weeks Max. It is Used, has the backplate but not the Stock Mounting Brackets that the back plate screws into. Thankfully I have literally over a Dozen Extra because I always use aftermarket coolers, so I already have replacements if I needed them, and I definitely won't. But its Picture shows a Broken PCIE Latch in the top slot. I don't know how easy that would be to fix. I could take a latch off of an older Board that isn't in use, but I don't know if those things literally just snap in place, or its more work than that. But once I saw after Tax and Shipping it comes out to damn near $300 I thought I might as well spend an extra $50 and get it new.

So Amazon still has that listing, a brand new board, that wouldn't arrive until June 5th. Really that's only an extra 8 days or so after I would receive the used board, I know I would be antsy waiting for it, but its not like I would be down in the mean time. However I threw it in my cart, and now after taxes and shipping (So deceptive!!! LOL) It comes out to $390. So it turns out to be a full $100 more than the used board, but I can have the piece of mind of the full warranty and expect that I receive a board with no defects.

Now I am having a hard time making the decision to pull the trigger. My Brain keeps throwing arguments out for both! Either way I have the money, but do I save $100 and roll the dice? Or do I go for safety, and grab the New One, and wait an extra week to receive it? Decisions Decisions...


----------



## Nitethorn

oreonutz said:


> I really appreciate the good wishes guys. I am more determined than ever to join the VIII Community now.
> 
> So I am at a Dilemma. I have an Offer out for a VIII Hero for $250, although after taxes and shipping will come out to $290 Shipped, and it would be here in 2 Weeks Max. It is Used, has the backplate but not the Stock Mounting Brackets that the back plate screws into. Thankfully I have literally over a Dozen Extra because I always use aftermarket coolers, so I already have replacements if I needed them, and I definitely won't. But its Picture shows a Broken PCIE Latch in the top slot. I don't know how easy that would be to fix. I could take a latch off of an older Board that isn't in use, but I don't know if those things literally just snap in place, or its more work than that. But once I saw after Tax and Shipping it comes out to damn near $300 I thought I might as well spend an extra $50 and get it new.
> 
> So Amazon still has that listing, a brand new board, that wouldn't arrive until June 5th. Really that's only an extra 8 days or so after I would receive the used board, I know I would be antsy waiting for it, but its not like I would be down in the mean time. However I threw it in my cart, and now after taxes and shipping (So deceptive!!! LOL) It comes out to $390. So it turns out to be a full $100 more than the used board, but I can have the piece of mind of the full warranty and expect that I receive a board with no defects.
> 
> Now I am having a hard time making the decision to pull the trigger. My Brain keeps throwing arguments out for both! Either way I have the money, but do I save $100 and roll the dice? Or do I go for safety, and grab the New One, and wait an extra week to receive it? Decisions Decisions...


If the used board has missing and broken pieces I would definitely go for the new board if you can swing it. I know you have to wait longer, but how do you know for sure you just need to put a new plastic piece on for that latch? What if it broke the little piece that it snaps to on the MB? Then that slot would be about useless. I dunno man, I'd have big reservations getting a board with a broken part on it.


----------



## oreonutz

Nitethorn said:


> If the used board has missing and broken pieces I would definitely go for the new board if you can swing it. I know you have to wait longer, but how do you know for sure you just need to put a new plastic piece on for that latch? What if it broke the little piece that it snaps to on the MB? Then that slot would be about useless. I dunno man, I'd have big reservations getting a board with a broken part on it.


Yup! Glad I am not the only one who thinks that way... The seller is yet to contact me back yet either. I mean its only been an hour, but I would hope with Email and someone saying that he would literally buy this right now if I could have a little clarification, I would hope they would get back to me sooner. But, thats just the spoiled side of me talking, I know I should probably give them at least a few hours to respond before writing him/her off. 

But you hit the nail on the head. Thats exactly what I was thinking. On one hand, I don't know if a PCIE Latch is really worth $100. But on the other hand, I do not know if its just the latch, or if their is other damage. Nor if it was just the latch, do I know how to fix it. I assume it just snaps into place, but in all my experience, I have never had a Latch come undone, so I have never had to try to fix it. I have a few spare AM3 motherboards within arms reach, I guess I could stop being lazy and pick one up and see If I can figure it out... But yeah. Was hoping from some perspective from you guys. Thank You @Nitethorn, that helped. I was thinking the same exact thing, I think I might go for New.

Before I pull the trigger, any one else have any thoughts or advice? Or even better, does anyone know of anywhere else I could purchase a Crosshair VIII Brand New (Or Used in Good Condition) Where the seller isn't asking an outrageous price (Like more than MSRP)?


----------



## dlbsyst

oreonutz said:


> Nitethorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the used board has missing and broken pieces I would definitely go for the new board if you can swing it. I know you have to wait longer, but how do you know for sure you just need to put a new plastic piece on for that latch? What if it broke the little piece that it snaps to on the MB? Then that slot would be about useless. I dunno man, I'd have big reservations getting a board with a broken part on it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup! Glad I am not the only one who thinks that way... The seller is yet to contact me back yet either. I mean its only been an hour, but I would hope with Email and someone saying that he would literally buy this right now if I could have a little clarification, I would hope they would get back to me sooner. But, thats just the spoiled side of me talking, I know I should probably give them at least a few hours to respond before writing him/her off.
> 
> But you hit the nail on the head. Thats exactly what I was thinking. On one hand, I don't know if a PCIE Latch is really worth $100. But on the other hand, I do not know if its just the latch, or if their is other damage. Nor if it was just the latch, do I know how to fix it. I assume it just snaps into place, but in all my experience, I have never had a Latch come undone, so I have never had to try to fix it. I have a few spare AM3 motherboards within arms reach, I guess I could stop being lazy and pick one up and see If I can figure it out... But yeah. Was hoping from some perspective from you guys. Thank You @Nitethorn, that helped. I was thinking the same exact thing, I think I might go for New.
> 
> Before I pull the trigger, any one else have any thoughts or advice? Or even better, does anyone know of anywhere else I could purchase a Crosshair VIII Brand New (Or Used in Good Condition) Where the seller isn't asking an outrageous price (Like more than MSRP)?
Click to expand...

 I would definitely stick with a new board vs getting a used board that is damaged in anyway. You could also try Craigslist if you don't mind meeting directly. I've sold a lot of things on Craigslist without issue.


----------



## oreonutz

dlbsyst said:


> I would definitely stick with a new board vs getting a used board that is damaged in anyway. You could also try Craigslist if you don't mind meeting directly. I've sold a lot of things on Craigslist without issue.


DAMNIT!!!! I just went to buy the new board, and its GONE! DAMNIT! F*** My LIFE!!! LOL!


----------



## dlbsyst

oreonutz said:


> dlbsyst said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would definitely stick with a new board vs getting a used board that is damaged in anyway. You could also try Craigslist if you don't mind meeting directly. I've sold a lot of things on Craigslist without issue.
> 
> 
> 
> DAMNIT!!!! I just went to buy the new board, and its GONE! DAMNIT! F*** My LIFE!!! LOL!
Click to expand...

wow, that's just crazy. Don't give up oreonutz. Keep an eye here also for stock. They also have the wifi version too. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...10t0_m0aay0_republic_of_gamers_crosshair.html


----------



## sakete

oreonutz said:


> DAMNIT!!!! I just went to buy the new board, and its GONE! DAMNIT! F*** My LIFE!!! LOL!


Try buying through Micro Center if you can.


----------



## oreonutz

sakete said:


> Try buying through Micro Center if you can.


Do they Ship now??? Checking now

*EDIT:* Damnit. Of course, In Store Only. So my only option there would be having my Sister who is in St. Louis go pick it up, and she is at risk, imno compromised or whatever, so that would be asking a lot of her, and then she would have to ship it to me. Unfortunately Microcenter doesn't seem to believe a Las Vegas store would be profitable.

I dont know why I sat on the Amazon Board, I should have just taken it. I have my local partnered Supplier OutletPC.com looking for stock with their suppliers for me right now, they told me they would give me an ETA on Stock by the end of the Day. Right now they are thinking it will be at least 2 Weeks, but are trying to get a firm number from their suppliers before they have me put down any money, which I appreciate. I may end up just taking this USED board. I wish there was a Used Board I could find for a reasonable price that didn't have broken parts...

This used board is starting to look more palatable.


----------



## Nitethorn

oreonutz said:


> Do they Ship now??? Checking now
> 
> *EDIT:* Damnit. Of course, In Store Only. So my only option there would be having my Sister who is in St. Louis go pick it up, and she is at risk, imno compromised or whatever, so that would be asking a lot of her, and then she would have to ship it to me. Unfortunately Microcenter doesn't seem to believe a Las Vegas store would be profitable.
> 
> I dont know why I sat on the Amazon Board, I should have just taken it. I have my local partnered Supplier OutletPC.com looking for stock with their suppliers for me right now, they told me they would give me an ETA on Stock by the end of the Day. Right now they are thinking it will be at least 2 Weeks, but are trying to get a firm number from their suppliers before they have me put down any money, which I appreciate. I may end up just taking this USED board. I wish there was a Used Board I could find for a reasonable price that didn't have broken parts...
> 
> This used board is starting to look more palatable.


eBay still has options.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/ASUS-ROG-C...sh=item42185607e8:g:NPEAAOSw97heuuvj&LH_BIN=1

That one is advertised to only be missing the heatsink mounting bracket, which is easily replaceable. No broken latches and only lightly used. Says there are 4 available and it is from a reputable seller. Food for thought.


----------



## oreonutz

Nitethorn said:


> eBay still has options.
> 
> https://www.ebay.com/itm/ASUS-ROG-C...sh=item42185607e8:g:NPEAAOSw97heuuvj&LH_BIN=1
> 
> That one is advertised to only be missing the heatsink mounting bracket, which is easily replaceable. No broken latches and only lightly used. Says there are 4 available and it is from a reputable seller. Food for thought.


Ladies and Gentleman He Shoots he Scores!!! Thank you guys for all your help.

So the board I was eyeing and negotiating with the eBay Seller, he had several boards in stock, and he found one with all accessories and no broken latches or missing items, save for the Back Plate Mount. Which I am cool with. He had 4 other stock, they all had broken latches, so the one that did not have broken latches in the listing, if you looked at the picture, the one showing the bottom half of the board, you would clearly see the latch was broken. This is the one I had emailed about and sent in an offer. Well they just got back to me, and not only did they accept my offer, but he informed me that he had only One Without the Broken Latches, and with all Items included, and he would send that one. So I purchased it! Should be here in a Week to 10 days, then I will finally be apart of the C8H Community! LOL! Thank You guys for all your help!

Oh yep. @Nitethorn that is the exact listing I was eyeing, just was uncertain about because of the pictures. But I bought one, Appreciate you looking out for me!


----------



## Nitethorn

oreonutz said:


> Ladies and Gentleman He Shoots he Scores!!! Thank you guys for all your help.
> 
> So the board I was eyeing and negotiating with the eBay Seller, he had several boards in stock, and he found one with all accessories and no broken latches or missing items, save for the Back Plate Mount. Which I am cool with. He had 4 other stock, they all had broken latches, so the one that did not have broken latches in the listing, if you looked at the picture, the one showing the bottom half of the board, you would clearly see the latch was broken. This is the one I had emailed about and sent in an offer. Well they just got back to me, and not only did they accept my offer, but he informed me that he had only One Without the Broken Latches, and with all Items included, and he would send that one. So I purchased it! Should be here in a Week to 10 days, then I will finally be apart of the C8H Community! LOL! Thank You guys for all your help!
> 
> Oh yep. @Nitethorn that is the exact listing I was eyeing, just was uncertain about because of the pictures. But I bought one, Appreciate you looking out for me!


Glad you found a good one! If you're anything like me, the next 10 days will be pure hell waiting for your part. When it finally does arrive it's like being 5 years old on Christmas morning again  My fiancé just rolls her eyes and finds something else to do because she knows I'll be ripping my PC apart as soon as I get home from work when I've ordered parts.


----------



## -Gifted-

Just a quick one guys, as many have way more experience than me messing with this board.

I have been running the crosshair VIII Hero with a 3900X from launch week, mostly stock and 100% stable (literally leave my pc on 24/7 and lucky if it gets a reboot once a month).

Now I have some time on my hands like everyone else with lockdown etc. ive been looking to finally dial it in more. 

When i first got the board it was during the amd boost issues.. my 3900x never would boost more than 4.1 in R20... so at the time I penned it down to early drivers/bios and simply just set up an all core overclock of 4.3ghz at manual 1.281v and just XMP on the ram (everything else just default in bios apart from fan curves) and its been running perfectly stable and cool for months and months ever since. 

Today I finally update bios to latest and have a play (I was on a pretty old bios) and latest chipset drivers, and surprised that it appears not much has changed? on all auto R20 still only boosting to 4.15 and im way better off with my all core overclock again, which is not only faster but way cooler.

Can people share what settings they are using with the 3900X?

I have a beastly custom water loop with 2x thick 360mm rads, but it does have a 2080ti on it also (although that never gets over 40oC)

Also did some play with my ram (4 sticks of Corsair Dom Plats 3600 CL18 - Micron E-Die) - runs perfectly on XMP settings, but trying the Ryzen Calculator @ 3800 or 3600 with tighter timings allows windows to boot no problem but gives memtest errors and is not fully stable.

Any tips.. or should I just go back to my XMP and 4.3 @ 1.281V and be perfectly happy? (for reference in R20 I get 7360 points with current config at 4.3 and that with a bunch of crap loaded in taskbar)


----------



## dlbsyst

oreonutz said:


> Nitethorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> eBay still has options.
> 
> https://www.ebay.com/itm/ASUS-ROG-C...sh=item42185607e8:g:NPEAAOSw97heuuvj&LH_BIN=1
> 
> That one is advertised to only be missing the heatsink mounting bracket, which is easily replaceable. No broken latches and only lightly used. Says there are 4 available and it is from a reputable seller. Food for thought.
> 
> 
> 
> Ladies and Gentleman He Shoots he Scores!!! Thank you guys for all your help.
> 
> So the board I was eyeing and negotiating with the eBay Seller, he had several boards in stock, and he found one with all accessories and no broken latches or missing items, save for the Back Plate Mount. Which I am cool with. He had 4 other stock, they all had broken latches, so the one that did not have broken latches in the listing, if you looked at the picture, the one showing the bottom half of the board, you would clearly see the latch was broken. This is the one I had emailed about and sent in an offer. Well they just got back to me, and not only did they accept my offer, but he informed me that he had only One Without the Broken Latches, and with all Items included, and he would send that one. So I purchased it! Should be here in a Week to 10 days, then I will finally be apart of the C8H Community! LOL! Thank You guys for all your help!
> 
> Oh yep. @Nitethorn that is the exact listing I was eyeing, just was uncertain about because of the pictures. But I bought one, Appreciate you looking out for me!
Click to expand...

 Congratulations Oreonutz. I'm am so happy you got one and at a good price. Just think, in about a week you get to tear down your entire computer and rebuild it.


----------



## dlbsyst

-Gifted- said:


> Just a quick one guys, as many have way more experience than me messing with this board.
> 
> I have been running the crosshair VIII Hero with a 3900X from launch week, mostly stock and 100% stable (literally leave my pc on 24/7 and lucky if it gets a reboot once a month).
> 
> Now I have some time on my hands like everyone else with lockdown etc. ive been looking to finally dial it in more.
> 
> When i first got the board it was during the amd boost issues.. my 3900x never would boost more than 4.1 in R20... so at the time I penned it down to early drivers/bios and simply just set up an all core overclock of 4.3ghz at manual 1.281v and just XMP on the ram (everything else just default in bios apart from fan curves) and its been running perfectly stable and cool for months and months ever since.
> 
> Today I finally update bios to latest and have a play (I was on a pretty old bios) and latest chipset drivers, and surprised that it appears not much has changed? on all auto R20 still only boosting to 4.15 and im way better off with my all core overclock again, which is not only faster but way cooler.
> 
> Can people share what settings they are using with the 3900X?
> 
> I have a beastly custom water loop with 2x thick 360mm rads, but it does have a 2080ti on it also (although that never gets over 40oC)
> 
> Also did some play with my ram (4 sticks of Corsair Dom Plats 3600 CL18 - Micron E-Die) - runs perfectly on XMP settings, but trying the Ryzen Calculator @ 3800 or 3600 with tighter timings allows windows to boot no problem but gives memtest errors and is not fully stable.
> 
> Any tips.. or should I just go back to my XMP and 4.3 @ 1.281V and be perfectly happy? (for reference in R20 I get 7360 points with current config at 4.3 and that with a bunch of crap loaded in taskbar)


 It takes a lot of time and playing around to find the fastest speed and timings your RAM will support. You definitely don't want to run your RAM past what it will handle though. If your happy with XMP settings just use that. I wouldn't be but that's just me.


----------



## -Gifted-

dlbsyst said:


> It takes a lot of time and playing around to find the fastest speed and timings your RAM will support. You definitely don't want to run your RAM past what it will handle without errors. If your happy with XMP settings just use that. I wouldn't be but that's just me.


Yea I would like to get them running stable at 3800 with FCLK 1900 tbh. but currently using latest Ryzen Calulator with safe settings just doesn't work like everyone else.. even if I start to push voltages into max areas...

So I thought just tightening timings at 3600 would be a compromise, but i get memtest errors if i go just slightly over xmp settings. 

Just wondering if anyone had any suggestions before manually grinding it out one setting at a time. and also checking if people are running all core overclocks on the cpu with fixed manual voltage, or is there a better method now?

I have so much cooling on this setup that at least cooling shouldnt be an issue, It was mostly built for fun as a showpiece, but would be nice to gain some performance advantage out of it as well! lol


----------



## Nitethorn

-Gifted- said:


> Yea I would like to get them running stable at 3800 with FCLK 1900 tbh. but currently using latest Ryzen Calulator with safe settings just doesn't work like everyone else.. even if I start to push voltages into max areas...
> 
> So I thought just tightening timings at 3600 would be a compromise, but i get memtest errors if i go just slightly over xmp settings.
> 
> Just wondering if anyone had any suggestions before manually grinding it out one setting at a time. and also checking if people are running all core overclocks on the cpu with fixed manual voltage, or is there a better method now?
> 
> I have so much cooling on this setup that at least cooling shouldnt be an issue, It was mostly built for fun as a showpiece, but would be nice to gain some performance advantage out of it as well! lol


There's a guy over in AMD - General who has been having a hell of a time getting his micron e-die stable. 

Here's his thread - https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...-had-no-progress-plzhelp-ryzen-3950x-ram.html

Reading that thread might be a little painful, he's frustrated so he's being very edgy. But there's a ton of replies with good info that might help you out.


----------



## oreonutz

-Gifted- said:


> Yea I would like to get them running stable at 3800 with FCLK 1900 tbh. but currently using latest Ryzen Calulator with safe settings just doesn't work like everyone else.. even if I start to push voltages into max areas...
> 
> So I thought just tightening timings at 3600 would be a compromise, but i get memtest errors if i go just slightly over xmp settings.
> 
> Just wondering if anyone had any suggestions before manually grinding it out one setting at a time
> 
> I have so much cooling on this setup that at least cooling shouldnt be an issue, It was mostly built for fun as a showpiece, but would be nice to gain some performance advantage out of it as well! lol


So a few things. I don't have the board you have (although I will in a week! Thanks @dlbsyst! I know, I can't wait to tear down! I also have RAM Waterblocks set to go on, and a new Aquaero 6 XT To replace the LT, So can't wait!)

Anyways... I am running my 3950x on the C7H, and my 3900x on my C6H. And in both cases, I was not able to run my 4 Sticks of Ram at 3800 with the Low Timings that the Calc Spit out without having Gear Down Mode Enabled. The Other Timing that I had to change that was different from the Calc was the tWRRD had to be set to 3. After those 2 changes, and everything else using the Safe calculation for my specific Kit, that god me there. *EDIT:* _I just re read your post and realized you are on Micron, which obviously would differ from B-Die, so My Settings might not help you get your Ram Stable. The other thing I can tell you that did help me though, and I think would apply the same to Micron, is to get Error's To Stop popping in I ended up having to raise my On-Die Termination to between 40 and 53.3 Ohms before My Errors were solved. Also I don't know if Micron is the same way, but I noticed that as long as I kept my Ram below 45c, I wouldn't get any errors once I raised the ODT, So just making sure I kept them Cool also helped. Not sure if any of this will help for you, but I hope it does. Good Luck_

Also, make sure that you set the profile to manual in the Calc, and that you actually import your xmp Profile from Thaiphoon Burner. Otherwise you will just be getting the generic timings in the calc, and it won't be tailored to your specific kit.

Hope This Helps!

*EDIT:* _Oh and as far as the Boosting. I am one of those that has had great single threaded boosts when using PB or PBO, but crap All Core (Which is what I bought the High Core CPU's For), so I am the same, I use either All Core OC or Per CCX OC._


----------



## dlbsyst

-Gifted- said:


> dlbsyst said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes a lot of time and playing around to find the fastest speed and timings your RAM will support. You definitely don't want to run your RAM past what it will handle without errors. If your happy with XMP settings just use that. I wouldn't be but that's just me./forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> 
> 
> Yea I would like to get them running stable at 3800 with FCLK 1900 tbh. but currently using latest Ryzen Calulator with safe settings just doesn't work like everyone else.. even if I start to push voltages into max areas...
> 
> So I thought just tightening timings at 3600 would be a compromise, but i get memtest errors if i go just slightly over xmp settings.
> 
> Just wondering if anyone had any suggestions before manually grinding it out one setting at a time. and also checking if people are running all core overclocks on the cpu with fixed manual voltage, or is there a better method now?
> 
> I have so much cooling on this setup that at least cooling shouldnt be an issue, It was mostly built for fun as a showpiece, but would be nice to gain some performance advantage out of it as well! lol
Click to expand...

 You're running 4 sticks and that's really hard on your 3900x's memory controller. That will probably be your bottleneck on what you can achieve with your RAM. I would suggest just playing around with it and see what you get. No pressure, it's just for fun.

Edit: Oreonutz has some great suggestions in his post right above mine.


----------



## -Gifted-

thanks for the advice.. im not gonna loose allot of sleep over it as realistically we are not talking major performance gains here tbh, but would be nice to just get that little bit extra out of it.

Yes i exported XMP correctly and used manual. and I have gear down enabled. copied all settings exactly at the moment, not started properly messing about with it yet. I will do that tomorrow.

attached are the settings it fired out at me for safe 3800 with my imported xmp. 

Like I said windows boots fine, but the built in memtest shows a fair few errors, and windows BSOD occurs eventually at random, so it def not a goer at the moment. 

I think im happy with the all core OC on the 3900x then.. I can get 4.4 stable also, but originally picked 4.3 for cooler temps in our hot summers in Cape Town... I could probably run 4.4 easy now though as we are going into winter. currently im idle at about 37ish and R20 load is about 70oC (ambient today was about 23oC i would guess) - but i have my case fan curve set very very low for silence to be fair, which i would prefer over full blast just for a couple of hundred megahertz anyway if im honest.
Ram dimms reporting in iCue as coolest stick at 37oC, hotest is 39.5oC - HWMonitor shows that none of them have ever maxed over 40oC
I did at least manage to get a pretty beastly overlook on my 2080ti on water though which made a big difference, and has been stable since the day i got it, so happy with that.


----------



## oreonutz

-Gifted- said:


> thanks for the advice.. im not gonna loose allot of sleep over it as realistically we are not talking major performance gains here tbh, but would be nice to just get that little bit extra out of it.
> 
> Yes i exported XMP correctly and used manual. and I have gear down enabled. copied all settings exactly at the moment, not started properly messing about with it yet. I will do that tomorrow.
> 
> attached are the settings it fired out at me for safe 3800 with my imported xmp.
> 
> Like I said windows boots fine, but the built in memtest shows a fair few errors, and windows BSOD occurs eventually at random, so it def not a goer at the moment.
> 
> I think im happy with the all core OC on the 3900x then.. I can get 4.4 stable also, but originally picked 4.3 for cooler temps in our hot summers in Cape Town... I could probably run 4.4 easy now though as we are going into winter. currently im idle at about 37ish and R20 load is about 70oC (ambient today was about 23oC i would guess) - but i have my case fan curve set very very low for silence to be fair, which i would prefer over full blast just for a couple of hundred megahertz anyway if im honest.
> Ram dimms reporting in iCue as coolest stick at 37oC, hotest is 39.5oC - HWMonitor shows that none of them have ever maxed over 40oC
> I did at least manage to get a pretty beastly overlook on my 2080ti on water though which made a big difference, and has been stable since the day i got it, so happy with that.


So after looking at your Calc, I would recommend Raising the ProcODT, if you are at the recommended 40 Ohms now, Raise to 53.3 Ohms and see if that makes a difference. If it does, but you are still Blue Screening, then from there I would go about Slightly adjusting your SOCv, and hopefully you can lock it in. I just advise not bringing your SOCv over 1.2v, but anything under that should be safe. Hopefully that helps dial it in, but unfortunately its so hard to tell without making a single change one at a time until you find the Voltage or Timing that helps you stabilize. Good Luck!


----------



## oreonutz

Today must be my day. Got 3 Projects Done, 2 of which have been pain in my ass for the past few weeks, with nothing but issues, but today just went smooth and I was able to wrap up not just those 2 but one more! I got my Crosshair VIII Hero Board for $280 Shipped. I got my Stimulus Check from the Guvument! I got 5 Clients Payments, 2 of which I have been waiting on for Months. And then to top ALL THAT OFF, One of the Few Youtubers I Respect, Steve @ Gamers Nexus, just shouted me out! I am using my Old Recording Studios Youtube Account, its the one I use these days for just watching Videos, its the One I bought Youtube Red on years ago, and just never changed it. So My Name on Youtube is EvocatiProductions. And I sent Steve The Software I have spread around this forum to those of you who have asked, that allows you to CCX OC On the Fly, and Steve Shouted me out! So Awesome!

Good Day man!


----------



## Baio73

oreonutz said:


> Ladies and Gentleman He Shoots he Scores!!! Thank you guys for all your help.
> 
> So the board I was eyeing and negotiating with the eBay Seller, he had several boards in stock, and he found one with all accessories and no broken latches or missing items, save for the Back Plate Mount. Which I am cool with. He had 4 other stock, they all had broken latches, so the one that did not have broken latches in the listing, if you looked at the picture, the one showing the bottom half of the board, you would clearly see the latch was broken. This is the one I had emailed about and sent in an offer. Well they just got back to me, and not only did they accept my offer, but he informed me that he had only One Without the Broken Latches, and with all Items included, and he would send that one. So I purchased it! Should be here in a Week to 10 days, then I will finally be apart of the C8H Community! LOL! Thank You guys for all your help!
> 
> Oh yep. @Nitethorn that is the exact listing I was eyeing, just was uncertain about because of the pictures. But I bought one, Appreciate you looking out for me!


Good news here!!

Baio


----------



## dlbsyst

oreonutz said:


> Today must be my day. Got 3 Projects Done, 2 of which have been pain in my ass for the past few weeks, with nothing but issues, but today just went smooth and I was able to wrap up not just those 2 but one more! I got my Crosshair VIII Hero Board for $280 Shipped. I got my Stimulus Check from the Guvument! I got 5 Clients Payments, 2 of which I have been waiting on for Months. And then to top ALL THAT OFF, One of the Few Youtubers I Respect, Steve @ Gamers Nexus, just shouted me out! I am using my Old Recording Studios Youtube Account, its the one I use these days for just watching Videos, its the One I bought Youtube Red on years ago, and just never changed it. So My Name on Youtube is EvocatiProductions. And I sent Steve The Software I have spread around this forum to those of you who have asked, that allows you to CCX OC On the Fly, and Steve Shouted me out! So Awesome!
> 
> Good Day man!


:thumb:


----------



## -Gifted-

oreonutz said:


> So after looking at your Calc, I would recommend Raising the ProcODT, if you are at the recommended 40 Ohms now, Raise to 53.3 Ohms and see if that makes a difference. If it does, but you are still Blue Screening, then from there I would go about Slightly adjusting your SOCv, and hopefully you can lock it in. I just advise not bringing your SOCv over 1.2v, but anything under that should be safe. Hopefully that helps dial it in, but unfortunately its so hard to tell without making a single change one at a time until you find the Voltage or Timing that helps you stabilize. Good Luck!


Many thanks... ill try those. def gives me something to look at first later, which is half the battle. Much appreciated.

I had a read through the thread from the link posted on that other guy struggling with E-Die... and to be honest he sounds like a complete idiot... he asks for help. has a load of nice people offer him help for free and then proceeds to be a complete dick back to them, moans like crazy and ignores half the advice.... lol, honestly, some people!

Ill start with ProcODT and a tick up in SOCv then and see what happens to error numbers - I def think its possible toi run stable at 3800 with these dimms as it doesn't have any problems posting (thinks back to my first 1800x build and the nightmares of ram and post errors on the Crosshair VI), and fires straight into windows no worries, obviously just needs some love - I only fired in all the default settings for first attempt, very possible i might have even missed one of them myself. Plus Dominator Platinums are generally pretty high standard ram. 

will report back.


----------



## Dawidowski

Baio73 said:


> I think you have some software working in background that keeps bumping up turbo on the cores... it happens in my system with Corsair iCUE.
> Check this by killing opened software one per time and see if Ryzen Master shows Vcore drops.
> 
> Baio


Removed ICUE and it has dropped ever since. 
But I still cant get single core up and running as well. 

And offset volt keeps crashing the pc all the time.


----------



## oreonutz

Well damn, those went Quick. That seller I bought that C8H From, I was thinking to myself I should probably buy the others and then flip them myself. I went back and checked on the listing. He sold all of them! LOL! People really want their x570 Boards right now!


----------



## -Gifted-

oreonutz said:


> Well damn, those went Quick. That seller I bought that C8H From, I was thinking to myself I should probably buy the others and then flip them myself. I went back and checked on the listing. He sold all of them! LOL! People really want their x570 Boards right now!


Especially with the announcement that only 5 series boards will receive 4000 series cpu compatibility. Probably allot of recent b450 owners feeling a bit pissed off right now.


----------



## oreonutz

-Gifted- said:


> Especially with the announcement that only 5 series boards will receive 4000 series cpu compatibility. Probably allot of recent b450 owners feeling a bit pissed off right now.


Yup. Can confirm. I Own Multiple x470 and x370 Boards, and can confirm I felt the sting, in particular with the most recent x470 Purchase I made. I would have jumped on x570 sooner had I known I would need to to start testing as soon as Zen3 Drops. O well, it is what it is. My Personal Rig will be good now for Zen 3, and at some point when a good deal comes out for a solid x570 board, I will grab another to throw on my Test Bench.


----------



## dlbsyst

oreonutz said:


> -Gifted- said:
> 
> 
> 
> Especially with the announcement that only 5 series boards will receive 4000 series cpu compatibility. Probably allot of recent b450 owners feeling a bit pissed off right now.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. Can confirm. I Own Multiple x470 and x370 Boards, and can confirm I felt the sting, in particular with the most recent x470 Purchase I made. I would have jumped on x570 sooner had I known I would need to to start testing as soon as Zen3 Drops. O well, it is what it is. My Personal Rig will be good now for Zen 3, and at some point when a good deal comes out for a solid x570 board, I will grab another to throw on my Test Bench.
Click to expand...

 Wouldn't you know it, Newegg has Hero VIII boards available right now on their web site and on eBay. The wifi version.


----------



## oreonutz

dlbsyst said:


> Wouldn't you know it, Newegg has Hero VIII boards available right now on their web site and on eBay. The wifi version.


It Figures! LOL! Yesterday it was like going to war finding one of those boards somewhere, and today, Newegg was like, Oh you wanted stock, well here you go, have some!

As long as my board works though, I will be happy, $100 Savings!


----------



## -Gifted-

Well that seemed easy!.

Changed procODT to 53 as suggested, and also manually input all the additional recommended settings from the calculator under advanced and power supply too including LLC to level 3 etc which was also previously just defaulted. 

first boot straight in and it passes the initial Memtest run with no errors 


Latency gone from 75 to 70.3, Bandwidth read gone from 47.4 to 53.1 and on writes from 45.3 to 54.7 compared to XMP 3600.

Temps identical at 39oC max. 


Now lets see if its stable longterm i guess, but promising start. No idea why that other guy struggling so much with e-Die, '40hours spent tweaking' my ass... took me literally 10 minutes.


----------



## -Gifted-

lol... spoke to soon. some BSOD pain.... ill play with some voltages, obviously need to do some much longer test runs.


----------



## wisepds

Any news about new AGESA????


----------



## oreonutz

-Gifted- said:


> lol... spoke to soon. some BSOD pain.... ill play with some voltages, obviously need to do some much longer test runs.


Damn! I was about to cheer too! Sorry man. Memory tuning is one of the biggest pains in the asses ever. It will drive you crazy sometimes. I would try just inching up the SOCv and see if that helps. Also try bringing the Memory Voltage just a TAD over what is recommended. So if its recommended to give it 1.4v, then give it 1.41 or 1.42v, and see if that helps. Good Luck!


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Can anyone get gear down mode disabled to work with this motherboard? I’ve tried numerous times with my ram. It’s Samsung b die a2 PCB. 3600mhz


----------



## Krisztias

Badgerslayer7 said:


> Can anyone get gear down mode disabled to work with this motherboard? I’ve tried numerous times with my ram. It’s Samsung b die a2 PCB. 3600mhz


Hi!

I never needed to use Geardown mode with my Flare X RAM's, and they run @3800C16


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Krisztias said:


> Badgerslayer7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone get gear down mode disabled to work with this motherboard? Iâ€™️ve tried numerous times with my ram. Itâ€™️s Samsung b die a2 PCB. 3600mhz
> 
> 
> 
> Hi!
> 
> I never needed to use Geardown mode with my Flare X RAM's, and they run @3800C16
Click to expand...

So you have gear down mode disabled then?


----------



## Krisztias

Badgerslayer7 said:


> So you have gear down mode disabled then?


Yes. What RAM do you have?


----------



## Despotes

Badgerslayer7 said:


> Can anyone get gear down mode disabled to work with this motherboard? I’ve tried numerous times with my ram. It’s Samsung b die a2 PCB. 3600mhz


Same problem here. Trident Z 3200 CL14 b-die Ryzen Calculator 3600 FAST settings except it won't accept 15T tCL. Always shows 16. Read disabling gear down mode permits odd numbers in tCL, but system won't boot with gear down disabled.
There seems to be very little to gain going from 3200C14-14-14 to 3600 C16-15-15 higher voltages. Synthetics show improvements, but real time use not so much. Also, I'm getting lower scores in multithread Cinebench R20. Single core slightly higher. Weird. 
3900X at 4.5Ghz all core. Might just go back to 3200C14 FAST settings which is cooler.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

I have gskill rgb trident z F4-3600C16Q-32GTZR. Which I have overclocked to 3800mhz. Just trying odd timings with GDM disabled. I get f9 error every time it’s disabled no matter how much voltage I apply. Does anyone know why you can’t set vref (cha/chb) Above 0.63v on this board? CH8wifi


----------



## GiannhsAtenza

A little update from me , i rarely post since everything with my build is going butter smooth , new dram calculator settings seems to be working really well for me. The fast settings for bdie ram are much tighter now.
Previous i was at 3800 c16 , now new dram settings give me 3800 with c15 , tested for stability and got no errors just as with c16. IF at 1900 and gear down disable.
Maybe my 3700x is a golden sample as a chip , or maybe it is that i apply every single setting , even the ones on the advanced tab.


----------



## dlbsyst

GiannhsAtenza said:


> A little update from me , i rarely post since everything with my build is going butter smooth , new dram calculator settings seems to be working really well for me. The fast settings for bdie ram are much tighter now.
> Previous i was at 3800 c16 , now new dram settings give me 3800 with c15 , tested for stability and got no errors just as with c16. IF at 1900 and gear down disable.
> Maybe my 3700x is a golden sample as a chip , or maybe it is that i apply every single setting , even the ones on the advanced tab.


Great job!


----------



## kuutale

GiannhsAtenza said:


> A little update from me , i rarely post since everything with my build is going butter smooth , new dram calculator settings seems to be working really well for me. The fast settings for bdie ram are much tighter now.
> Previous i was at 3800 c16 , now new dram settings give me 3800 with c15 , tested for stability and got no errors just as with c16. IF at 1900 and gear down disable.
> Maybe my 3700x is a golden sample as a chip , or maybe it is that i apply every single setting , even the ones on the advanced tab.


can u share u settings? i have problem old board i can do 3800/1900 but new ch8 i can do only 3733/1866. 3800/1900 do not even post, i try many different thing but not succeed.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

kuutale said:


> GiannhsAtenza said:
> 
> 
> 
> A little update from me , i rarely post since everything with my build is going butter smooth , new dram calculator settings seems to be working really well for me. The fast settings for bdie ram are much tighter now.
> Previous i was at 3800 c16 , now new dram settings give me 3800 with c15 , tested for stability and got no errors just as with c16. IF at 1900 and gear down disable.
> Maybe my 3700x is a golden sample as a chip , or maybe it is that i apply every single setting , even the ones on the advanced tab.
> 
> 
> 
> can u share u settings? i have problem old board i can do 3800/1900 but new ch8 i can do only 3733/1866. 3800/1900 do not even post, i try many different thing but not succeed.
Click to expand...

What happens when you try to post with 3800/1900? Do you get an error code and what is it?


----------



## kuutale

Badgerslayer7 said:


> What happens when you try to post with 3800/1900? Do you get an error code and what is it?



f9 0d 33 q-code display shows, first time i enter bios and change settings 3800/1900 its stuck 0d or f9, then i hit restart button and boot is work and and start loading windows then its black screen and hit restart i can go bios but it freezes allmost right away. i need do clear cmos. I try different settings (dram calculator) and other working timings ch6 board. But not refuse working. im using edc bug thats not probably is the issue.
any idea

i use f4-3200c14-8gfx16gb ram sticks

dram pcb revision A0/B0
ram voltage 1.43
soc 1.1
vddg voltage 0.950 if change 1.05 it wont boot 3733
iod voltage 0.950 if change 1.05 it wont boot 3733
cldo vddp voltage 0.900
procODT 34,3

power down mode off
gear mode down off
command rate 1t

cad settings 24 20 24 24

timings dram calculator fast settings

any ideas what i mighty try, im so confused if i miss something but what thanks.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

kuutale said:


> Badgerslayer7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens when you try to post with 3800/1900? Do you get an error code and what is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> f9 0d 33 q-code display shows, first time i enter bios and change settings 3800/1900 its stuck 0d or f9, then i hit restart button and boot is work and and start loading windows then its black screen and hit restart i can go bios but it freezes allmost right away. i need do clear cmos. I try  different settings (dram calculator) and other working timings ch6 board. But not refuse working. im using edc bug thats not probably is the issue.
> any idea
> 
> i use f4-3200c14-8gfx16gb ram sticks
> 
> dram pcb revision A0/B0
> ram voltage 1.43
> soc 1.1
> vddg voltage 0.950 if change 1.05 it wont boot 3733
> iod voltage 0.950 if change 1.05 it wont boot 3733
> cldo vddp voltage 0.900
> procODT 34,3
> 
> power down mode off
> gear mode down off
> command rate 1t
> 
> cad settings 24 20 24 24
> 
> timings dram calculator fast settings
> 
> any ideas what i mighty try, im so confused if i miss something but what thanks.
Click to expand...

Try gear down mode enabled. 

F9 normally means you need more dram voltage. You could try increasing that. My sticks won’t boot and I get f9 with gear down mode disabled as well. I also get 07 error code when I first set my system to 1900/3800 but I just unplug the power for a few mins and then restart and then I don’t get it again unless I’m altering ram timings

I have mine set to

Soc 1.1v
Vddg ccd 1.075
Vddg iod 1.050
Vddg 900


----------



## kuutale

Badgerslayer7 said:


> Try gear down mode enabled.
> 
> F9 normally means you need more dram voltage. You could try increasing that. My sticks won’t boot and I get f9 with gear down mode disabled as well. I also get 07 error code when I first set my system to 1900/3800 but I just unplug the power for a few mins and then restart and then I don’t get it again unless I’m altering ram timings
> 
> I have mine set to
> 
> Soc 1.1v
> Vddg ccd 1.075
> Vddg iod 1.050
> Vddg 900



i get first boot f9 code then i bump dram voltage it says 07, and if i try go bios its freezes 3-5 seconds and black screen restart again, maybe i wait new bios with agesa 1.0.0.5. I try dram voltage bump up to 1.55 but same problem.
when i unplug power off? first time or?


----------



## tolis626

So I tried the settings from the new version of Ryzen DRAM Calculator (v. 1.7.3) and it seems my memory is using better stepping B-Die (not A0) because the settings for the A2/B2/A3 steppings were basically plug n' play. I'm now running the 3800MHz fast profile (so 15-15-15-15-30-46 1T) at 1.4V (could do lower, but 1.4V is fine and I prefer the peace of mind). I did also try 3866MHz with the same timings, but it seems my CPU's IF can't do 1933MHz, I get an O7 q-code when I try to boot with 1933MHz. Weird thing is, when I clear CMOS and load my previous profile (3800/1900) it will still give me an O7 and I have to switch off the PSU and turn it back on again for it to boot. But after that it's fine and boots normally every time. Performance is about what you'd expect too. Just kind of bummed I can't push the IF further because the memory can surely do it. Oh well.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

kuutale said:


> Badgerslayer7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try gear down mode enabled.
> 
> F9 normally means you need more dram voltage. You could try increasing that. My sticks wonâ€™️t boot and I get f9 with gear down mode disabled as well. I also get 07 error code when I first set my system to 1900/3800 but I just unplug the power for a few mins and then restart and then I donâ€™️t get it again unless Iâ€™️m altering ram timings
> 
> I have mine set to
> 
> Soc 1.1v
> Vddg ccd 1.075
> Vddg iod 1.050
> Vddg 900
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i get first boot f9 code then i bump dram voltage it says 07, and if i try go bios its freezes 3-5 seconds and black screen restart again, maybe i wait new bios with agesa 1.0.0.5. I try dram voltage bump up to 1.55 but same problem.
> when i unplug power off? first time or?
Click to expand...

When I get 07 I turn off my pc on the power supply. Until the lights on my motherboard go off and then turn it on again. Boots fine after that.


----------



## Nitethorn

Hey guys, I posted this in the Ryzen 3000 owners club post over in AMD CPU but I think my post got lost in the middle of a convo they were having on that thread. So I have a 3800x on a C8H and for daily use I have it at 4.4 ghz 1.29v. (see my sig for full system details). Anywho I thought it would be fun to see what it could do, but I haven't had any luck going past that and remaining stable enough to do a CB20 run and a few minutes with OCCT. I have tried up to 1.42v but at that point even just a handful of seconds gets it close to 80C so I'm a little uneasy going past 1.42. I have also tried LLC at auto and up to level 3. My daily OC is perfectly stable so it's not like I'm having any real problems just wondering if any of you guys had any advice on trying to clock higher just long enough to get a CB20 score and remain stable for a few minutes in OCCT.

Thanks


----------



## Derpcrawler

Hey everyone.

Recently got myself Ryzen 3900 non-X and this motherboard. My first AMD PC since Athlon 64 3000+.

I had few issues with my setup in last few days. On 2 or 3rd day after building my PC, I noticed that RGB on my Thermaltake Toughram RAM kit (8Gbx4 rated at 3600Mhz, Hynix CJR) stopped syncing. After almost 2 days of trying figure it out, I cam to the conclusion that SPD got corrupted because I had Asus Sync running at the same time as Asus Armoury Crate. Out of 4 sticks only 1 returned CRC pass in Thaiphoon Burner.

I crossed my fingers, dumped SPD binary of uncorrupted SPD and reflashed those 3 with it. After that, CRC passes all checks and RGB sync started working again. But I now have different kind of issue. And I am not sure if it got caused by SPD reflash or something else, and I just didn't notice it before.

Now, when I am using either XMP or "optimized safe" settings from AMD RAM Calc, whenever I try to reboot system, it gets stuck on POST with error related to memory, not single error, but different ones - 22, 23, F9, etc. Only way to boot for sure is to do full shutdown for a minute or two, that seems to fix it. Or do CMOS reset. Stock works just fine. I tried bumping voltage on RAM to 1.45V, didn't help. Also RAM is 100% stable in Windows even at 1.39V at safe settings by AMD RAM Calc. It passes every test I throw at it just fine. It's just issues during reboots. When I flashed SPD, I made sure all 4 RAM sticks had same modules. But it was obvious, since all 4 sticks had consecutive S/N (like 12, 13, 14, 15 at the end) all made during same week on same factory, so I don't think reflashing them with SPD from 1 uncorrupted stick would change anything.

I also might have no just notice this issue before. Since during first few days I wasn't rebooting my PC, I would just put it to sleep or do full shutdown, where this issue doesn't crop up. Any idea what I can try before RMAing memory or Motherboard?

Edit: 
Did some experiments. If I use memory (any of the 4) in A2/B2 DIMM slots, I get 3800Mhz dual channel without any issues or the built in 3600Mhz XMP. Even if I use a single stick in one of those slots. But if I use A1/B1 with either 1 or 2 DDR modules, system gets stuck with Post code 22 or 15 if I set DDR freq to anything above 3200Mhz. What gives? I even tried Asus "Freq" profile with maxed out timings (so it's easy to get higher Mhz) and I set RAM to 1.45V. It doesn't matter, it just won't boot if it's set at anything above 3200Mhz. If I put all 4 modules, system boots fine at 3600Mhz or 3800Mhz, but as soon as I restart, I have this issue of getting stuck on Post, unless I do full shutdown and wait 1-2 minutes before powering on my PC. I will try to downgrade BIOS as a last ditch effort. If not, I might just return my motherboard and ask for exchange for a new one.


----------



## jfrob75

Derpcrawler said:


> Hey everyone.
> 
> Recently got myself Ryzen 3900 non-X and this motherboard. My first AMD PC since Athlon 64 3000+.
> 
> I had few issues with my setup in last few days. On 2 or 3rd day after building my PC, I noticed that RGB on my Thermaltake Toughram RAM kit (8Gbx4 rated at 3600Mhz, Hynix CJR) stopped syncing. After almost 2 days of trying figure it out, I cam to the conclusion that SPD got corrupted because I had Asus Sync running at the same time as Asus Armoury Crate. Out of 4 sticks only 1 returned CRC pass in Thaiphoon Burner.
> 
> I crossed my fingers, dumped SPD binary of uncorrupted SPD and reflashed those 3 with it. After that, CRC passes all checks and RGB sync started working again. But I now have different kind of issue. And I am not sure if it got caused by SPD reflash or something else, and I just didn't notice it before.
> 
> Now, when I am using either XMP or "optimized safe" settings from AMD RAM Calc, whenever I try to reboot system, it gets stuck on POST with error related to memory, not single error, but different ones - 22, 23, F9, etc. Only way to boot for sure is to do full shutdown for a minute or two, that seems to fix it. Or do CMOS reset. Stock works just fine. I tried bumping voltage on RAM to 1.45V, didn't help. Also RAM is 100% stable in Windows even at 1.39V at safe settings by AMD RAM Calc. It passes every test I throw at it just fine. It's just issues during reboots. When I flashed SPD, I made sure all 4 RAM sticks had same modules. But it was obvious, since all 4 sticks had consecutive S/N (like 12, 13, 14, 15 at the end) all made during same week on same factory, so I don't think reflashing them with SPD from 1 uncorrupted stick would change anything.
> 
> I also might have no just notice this issue before. Since during first few days I wasn't rebooting my PC, I would just put it to sleep or do full shutdown, where this issue doesn't crop up. Any idea what I can try before RMAing memory or Motherboard?
> 
> Edit:
> Did some experiments. If I use memory (any of the 4) in A2/B2 DIMM slots, I get 3800Mhz dual channel without any issues or the built in 3600Mhz XMP. Even if I use a single stick in one of those slots. But if I use A1/B1 with either 1 or 2 DDR modules, system gets stuck with Post code 22 or 15 if I set DDR freq to anything above 3200Mhz. What gives? I even tried Asus "Freq" profile with maxed out timings (so it's easy to get higher Mhz) and I set RAM to 1.45V. It doesn't matter, it just won't boot if it's set at anything above 3200Mhz. If I put all 4 modules, system boots fine at 3600Mhz or 3800Mhz, but as soon as I restart, I have this issue of getting stuck on Post, unless I do full shutdown and wait 1-2 minutes before powering on my PC. I will try to downgrade BIOS as a last ditch effort. If not, I might just return my motherboard and ask for exchange for a new one.


If you are using only 2 sticks of RAM they must be installed in A2/B2 slots for it work correctly. Your MB manual should indicate that.


----------



## oreonutz

Real Quick, just want to bring to everyone's attention a deal that I would Scoop up if I already didn't have more DDR4 Lying around then I needed. It's a Kit of 3000Mhz CL14 B-Die that CERTAINLY can be Overclocked, 32GB in a 2x16GB Kit, for only $150. Would Swoop up while you can. Being sold by @Tobiman

https://www.overclock.net/forum/146...ll-32gb-16-x-2-3000mhz-c14-samsung-b-die.html

Just wanted to get this out there in case anyone cared.

In Other news, My Crosshair VIII Hero is in town and will be delivered tomorrow!


----------



## Price

highdude702 said:


> I am running 4 sticks of those on a 3900x at 3600c14.


That's awesome! Anyone running 2 sticks at 3800mhz?


----------



## Jon Juliano

Yes I am. G.Skill Trident Z Neo Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin SDRAM PC4-28800 DDR4 3600MHz CL16-19-19-39 1.35V Desktop Memory Model F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC works great. stock settings no changes in voltage or timings.


----------



## oreonutz

Got my C8H Wifi today! All Looks good on it. I am buried in projects right now, so I have to knock out my work before I can throw this on the test bench and make sure its all good. I know I can look this up in 2 seconds, so I will in a bit, but anyone here have experience with x570 and the 2000 series chips? I know you can't put 1000 series chips in x570, was wondering if x570 was compatible with 2000 series though. I have all my 3000 Series chips in other systems right now, and just want to test the board to make sure its in working order, and I have several 2700x so just wanted to throw one of those in when I have a few mins. If anyone knows if they are compatible would be awesome to hear from you, if not, no big deal I will look it up.


----------



## Sam64

I tested the Crucial Ballistix White 3600CL16 (Micron E) 32GB/dual ranked running at 3800CL16-16-19-16-36/FCLK1900 on my C8H/3900X:


Special thanks to 1usmus. The new Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.7.3 has got some nice Micron-E settings as well.


----------



## Nitethorn

oreonutz said:


> Got my C8H Wifi today! All Looks good on it. I am buried in projects right now, so I have to knock out my work before I can throw this on the test bench and make sure its all good. I know I can look this up in 2 seconds, so I will in a bit, but anyone here have experience with x570 and the 2000 series chips? I know you can't put 1000 series chips in x570, was wondering if x570 was compatible with 2000 series though. I have all my 3000 Series chips in other systems right now, and just want to test the board to make sure its in working order, and I have several 2700x so just wanted to throw one of those in when I have a few mins. If anyone knows if they are compatible would be awesome to hear from you, if not, no big deal I will look it up.


Yes they are compatible. When I first got my C8H a 2700x cpu is what I was running on it for a while until I got my 3800x.


----------



## oreonutz

Nitethorn said:


> Yes they are compatible. When I first got my C8H a 2700x cpu is what I was running on it for a while until I got my 3800x.


Sweet! TY Sir!


----------



## highdude702

oreonutz said:


> You know, funny enough, I really regret my decision now, but for just One Day back at last Black Friday, NewEgg had a sale for the Crosshair Viii Formula (Basically the VIII Hero with a Waterblock on the VRM's and 5Gbe Ethernet instead of 2.5Gbe Nic) for just $420, when the Launch price for that board was around $700. I had to stop my self from buying it, and I wanted to so bad, but I convinced myself I didn't need it and that the Crosshair VII board was treating me just fine. At The time I thought that was the right decision, but now, considering I am probably going to be spending around $300 to $350 on the Normal Hero (hopefully less, but doubtful), spending just a little more back then to have the VRM WB Built in, was a damn good deal, and I probably should have taken it... Oh Well...


My lord, I had the same exact conversation with myself since I had already bought a C8H like a month prior.. Now that I see the market today I wish I had bought it and boxed this mobo up to sell for my money back down the road. Hind sight 20/20 and all that bs lol..


----------



## oreonutz

highdude702 said:


> My lord, I had the same exact conversation with myself since I had already bought a C8H like a month prior.. Now that I see the market today I wish I had bought it and boxed this mobo up to sell for my money back down the road. Hind sight 20/20 and all that bs lol..


Yup! Exactly. Oh well, it is what it is right? Keep in mind, by this next Black Friday, x670 will have almost certainly have launched, so x570 will be a generation behind, so if we still want this board, if NewEgg still has stock of it (And they almost certainly will) its a pretty sure bet they will have even a better deal on these boards if we still want them. We may even find, if you watch prices every hour (like it seems we both do) that the x670 equivalent of this board will be on sale for a low price like this. So we may very well get the chance again. Its just, we also have to consider that, it is likely that Zen3 is the last Zen Gen to use the AM4 Platform, so a purchase like this may be a bad investment considering at BEST we only get one more generation out of it, so it will be a matter of whether or not x670 offers something substantial over our x570 boards, to entice us over to make the Max 2 CPU's the board will see worth it. We probably should treat it like it will only see Zen3, and then if Zen3+ or a Zen4 Launches on AM4, then we can be pleasantly surprised, instead of expecting another AM4 Generation, and then not getting it, so with that mindset its best to evaluate a new MB Purchase with that lens. Lets Hope AMD Makes these x670 Boards really enticing. (Maybe Something like DDR4/5 Support, or 10Gbe Lan Built into the Chipset, something with some actual value add to it.)

Anyways shutting up now. Still kicking myself over not jumping on that deal despite having the money...


----------



## highdude702

oreonutz said:


> Yup! Exactly. Oh well, it is what it is right? Keep in mind, by this next Black Friday, x670 will have almost certainly have launched, so x570 will be a generation behind, so if we still want this board, if NewEgg still has stock of it (And they almost certainly will) its a pretty sure bet they will have even a better deal on these boards if we still want them. We may even find, if you watch prices every hour (like it seems we both do) that the x670 equivalent of this board will be on sale for a low price like this. So we may very well get the chance again. Its just, we also have to consider that, it is likely that Zen3 is the last Zen Gen to use the AM4 Platform, so a purchase like this may be a bad investment considering at BEST we only get one more generation out of it, so it will be a matter of whether or not x670 offers something substantial over our x570 boards, to entice us over to make the Max 2 CPU's the board will see worth it. We probably should treat it like it will only see Zen3, and then if Zen3+ or a Zen4 Launches on AM4, then we can be pleasantly surprised, instead of expecting another AM4 Generation, and then not getting it, so with that mindset its best to evaluate a new MB Purchase with that lens. Lets Hope AMD Makes these x670 Boards really enticing. (Maybe Something like DDR4/5 Support, or 10Gbe Lan Built into the Chipset, something with some actual value add to it.)
> 
> Anyways shutting up now. Still kicking myself over not jumping on that deal despite having the money...


Yep! Day late and a dollar short(or 400) lol. And as you said about X670 and AM4. it does make it really hard to justify since if I do so choose to grab a zen3 cpu it will pop right into my C8H which isnt a bad board imo. So chances are I will skip X670 completely. I'm wondering if with zen4 we will see them jump to X*90 boards like what happened with AM3. I.E. making AM4+, IDK how that would work considering them removing support for 1xxx and 2xxx cpu's. I guess it all depends on how much money i have to piss away and whether or not there is a large increase in performance. I cant wait until release. I get all excited like a kid in a candy store lol. And waiting for release day is like being a kid waiting for christmas next month... I have given up on believing leaks. There is too many if and buts in them for my liking.


----------



## RoivonPC

Alright, I'm stuck and searches are rendering no results. I've updated my Crosshair VIII Hero to the latest bios, yet when I attempt to manually change CPU core ratios to start overclocking I'm unable, the core ratio is locked. I've set the AI tweak setting to manual, still grayed out. What am I forgettting? 3950x CPU and custom waterloop FYI.


----------



## masterskop

Hi,

I need some information on a video card, but couldn't find it on a search. I need to know if an evga 780 ti (actually 2 of them) will work on a crosshair viii with an x3900 amd processor? I know there will be a bottleneck between the processor and the gpu. I'm having a hard time in getting a new gpu. My current system's mobo / processor died. So, I'm going from an intel Asus rampage iv black edition to an AMD x570 crosshair viii. I'm waiting for the 3080s to come out. Any info is appreciated.

Thanks!


----------



## Nitethorn

masterskop said:


> Hi,
> 
> I need some information on a video card, but couldn't find it on a search. I need to know if an evga 780 ti (actually 2 of them) will work on a crosshair viii with an x3900 amd processor? I know there will be a bottleneck between the processor and the gpu. I'm having a hard time in getting a new gpu. My current system's mobo / processor died. So, I'm going from an intel Asus rampage iv black edition to an AMD x570 crosshair viii. I'm waiting for the 3080s to come out. Any info is appreciated.
> 
> Thanks!


They will work just fine. PCI-E is backwards compatible so even though the board supports 4.0, it will run 2.0/3.0 just as well, they just won't take advantage of the bandwidth.


----------



## masterskop

Thank you for the info! I'm just going to run my 780ti kps cards on this new system until I can get a hold of the 3080 ti ftw3 cards or kps.


----------



## xcr89

Can anyone confirm if armoury crate 2.7.8.0 latest updates is working with bios 1001 or if you have bios 1001 if you have rog ryujin 360 aswell and that also works.

My armoury crate is totally messed up, i am thinking they maybe removed support for bios 1001 in the latest update since its agesa 1.0.0.3?

yes my aura sync isnt working either. after latest update.

yes it was working previously before update both of them.


i have reported my issue here if anyone wants to check, full detailed one.

https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthre...-0-Report-here-if-any-issues/page4#post805627

if anyone knows something that might fix this your welcome to help out.

i have rog ryujin 360 and obviously this motherboard. none of them are working anylonger in armoury crate after latest updates.

maybe its a bios issue or simply something in the update broke it completly for me...


----------



## Danilushka

*3950x locked from overclock in Impact BIOS*



RoivonPC said:


> Alright, I'm stuck and searches are rendering no results. I've updated my Crosshair VIII Hero to the latest bios, yet when I attempt to manually change CPU core ratios to start overclocking I'm unable, the core ratio is locked. I've set the AI tweak setting to manual, still grayed out. What am I forgetting? 3950x CPU and custom waterloop FYI.


I have that board on order for a 3950x build in a singularity Wraith case. I'll be interested in what you find out.
also, finding a 64GB DRRAM kit on the QVL is nearly impossible for the board: disappointed since Asus claims 64GB support.


----------



## masterskop

Hi,

I got my Asus rog crosshair viii wifi board Thursday and my processor / ram yesterday. I got the board from Newegg. The seller had it listed as new. No static bag around the board. No security tape on the box. Matter of fact when I opened the newegg box it had the 'protective' bubbles ontop, but the actual motherboard box was at the bottom with no protection on the backside. The motherboard box did not have any security seal at all. Upon opening the box, no protective anti static bag. Is this normal? Also the two white rgb connection pins in the upper right corner of the board below the mobo code display were bent to the left. The 'white' plastice parts were a few millimeters above the surface of the board. This may be a manufacturing / quality control issue.

The bigger issue is with the moffits. I believe the soldering job is much to be desired. Upon inspection of the moffits there are cracks running across several of them. Do you gents have the same issue? Is this something that I need to worry about? I haven't tested the board yet due to this issue. I'm sending an email to an Asus rep to see if this is safe to run. The seller had it as 'new' on newegg. I'm beginning to believe that is was an 'open box' item.

If Asus says it's ok to run and it fries my system, will they replace my loss? I have a newly puchased x3900, 64 gigs of trident ram as well as a 780 ti kp to test with and a seasonic platinum 1200 psu. 

Thank you for any info!


----------



## Badgerslayer7

My board wasn’t sealed either. No static bag, no securty tape. Just a plastic cover that held the board in place in the box . I think my pins are pretty straight not sure about the soldering will have to look later. I bought mine on release so I doubt it would be pre opened.


----------



## D-EJ915

ROG boards aren't sealed and don't come with static bags. Box with no packaging is how every seller sends boards these days too unfortunately lol. Not had any issues though boards are pretty resilient, dropped my Apex IX the other day and it works fine lol.


----------



## TK421

Any ideas on how I can tighten this memory settings further?


----------



## masterskop

Got an RMA going for the motherboard. Asking for a replacement motherboard of the same type. I really like ASUS products. I had an ASUS rampage iv black edition for 5 years until the controllers started to die on it. Hopefully, they'll look at the cracked/split soldering. Is the soldering too 'thin' or did it crack for some reason? It seems odd that several came in that condition on both banks of the vrm/moffitts. The pics of the motherboards that I have seen while doing a google search did not have those cracks / splits in the solder. Thoughts?


----------



## Apotropaic

Really specific question for you guys: on the crosshair VIII, does the m.2 riser interfere with the heatpipes on the be quiet Dark Rock TF if the heatpipes are facing downwards?

If anyone could share the dimensions of the m.2 riser I would really appreciate it.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

TK421 said:


> Any ideas on how I can tighten this memory settings further?


Your better off asking here 

https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...-dram-bench-160.html#/topics/1640919?page=789


----------



## TK421

Badgerslayer7 said:


> Your better off asking here
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...-dram-bench-160.html#/topics/1640919?page=789


ok I reposted the same question there


----------



## RoivonPC

I'm going to try another bump. 



I'm stuck and searches are rendering no results. I've updated my Crosshair VIII Hero to the latest bios, yet when I attempt to manually change CPU core ratios to start overclocking I'm unable, the core ratio is locked. I've set the AI tweak setting to manual, still grayed out. What am I forgettting? 3950x CPU and custom water loop FYI.


----------



## rammwurst

Gadfly said:


> No, looks like they just set it to max by default. Thing is you will get hangs and boot failures as you start to turn up FCLK. VDDG is not like CPU core voltage where more volts = higher clock. For example, my 3950X will boot fine with a VDDG @ 1.1v with an FCLK of 1800mhz and 1833mhz, but at 1866mhz it will boot loop and hang at 0.980v, for 1900mhz I landed on VDDG of 0.935v with a VDDP of 0.800v, Southbridge at 1.06v and SOC at 1.08v. This runs the memory and FCLK at 1900mhz 1:1.


Gotta thank google for bringing me to your comment

I never really managed to get to 1900MHz FCLK on my 3700X but I noticed that my MB set my VDDG to 1.14v if left on auto.

I wondered if this was normal and safe and googled for that.

Good thing I did because with your voltages I can finally boot with FLCK 1900 MHz. And I mean just about exactly your voltages.

Any lower VDDG and it won't post, any higher VDDG and I get sound issues, mouse lag, etc - the usual, even at 0.95v. Much higher VDDG and it won't post.

People always seem to post about how they push their voltages upward to reach 1900. But with your low VDDP and VDDG voltages it seems stable for me so far. With my memory at 1800 MHz as well ofc.


----------



## tolis626

rammwurst said:


> Gotta thank google for bringing me to your comment
> 
> I never really managed to get to 1900MHz FCLK on my 3700X but I noticed that my MB set my VDDG to 1.14v if left on auto.
> 
> I wondered if this was normal and safe and googled for that.
> 
> Good thing I did because with your voltages I can finally boot with FLCK 1900 MHz. And I mean just about exactly your voltages.
> 
> Any lower VDDG and it won't post, any higher VDDG and I get sound issues, mouse lag, etc - the usual, even at 0.95v. Much higher VDDG and it won't post.
> 
> People always seem to post about how they push their voltages upward to reach 1900. But with your low VDDP and VDDG voltages it seems stable for me so far. With my memory at 1800 MHz as well ofc.


I can run my system with pretty much any VDDG and VDDP settings at 1900MHz fclk and 3800MHz RAM. But no matter what I do I get sound issues. Crackling and popping, especially through USB audio. Lots and lots of it. Only way to "solve" this issue is to run my GPU at PCIe 3.0 instead of 4.0. I can't seem to find anything else that fixes it.


----------



## xcr89

Wasnt there supposed to come out a new bios and a new agesa that alot of people talked about a while ago?


----------



## MoroKiel

New chipset driver released today
https://www.amd.com/en/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570


----------



## criznit

Disregard lol


----------



## tien113

MoroKiel said:


> New chipset driver released today
> https://www.amd.com/en/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570


Thanks. Download asap.


----------



## garyd9

I recently purchased a C8H to strap under a 3900x, and I'm wondering if there is any option for controlling the m/b LED headers that actually works all the time. I'm finding that the asus "Aura" software is pretty bad (for many reasons.) Supposedly, there's a "Aura Creator" package, but it requires using "Armoury crate" that is incredibly bloated (and is also pretty bad as a LED controller.)

If there's no existing (worthwhile) software, is there at least an API of some kind I could use to write my own?


----------



## Sam64

I agree, garyd9. Armory crate as well as Aura is pretty bad, that's why I disabled both in the BIOS. I don't know about any available API, but a buddy from me managed to integrate it with iCUE. Afaik you have to install the Aura Package but do not let it start automatically, then it should work with iCUE.


----------



## garyd9

garyd9 said:


> I recently purchased a C8H to strap under a 3900x, and I'm wondering if there is any option for controlling the m/b LED headers that actually works all the time. I'm finding that the asus "Aura" software is pretty bad (for many reasons.) Supposedly, there's a "Aura Creator" package, but it requires using "Armoury crate" that is incredibly bloated (and is also pretty bad as a LED controller.)
> 
> If there's no existing (worthwhile) software, is there at least an API of some kind I could use to write my own?


(Replying to myself to make it easier to find for others.) 

Asus has an SDK, but it hasn't been updated for at least 3 years and doesn't support the addressable LED headers (which are the only headers I'm using.)

I did find a couple of things that might be worth pursuing (but I haven't had a chance to dig too deeply yet):

https://gitlab.com/CalcProgrammer1/OpenRGB 

https://github.com/boredom101/Asus-Aura-Alternative/tree/master/aura

If all else fails, I can revert to what I've done before: Whip up something on a teensy (arduino) board and attach the LED's to that along with a +5VDC from the PSU.


----------



## garyd9

Just a random comment to Asus (and I realize that Asus isn't listening): Asus, if you don't start getting your act together, you're going to lose customers quickly. Your software packages have become overly bloated, your documentation sucks, your MONTHS behind on AMD supplied updates in your BIOS, your BIOS is littered with cosmetic bugs (that have been carried over from previous motherboards for years - for example, QCODE in auto doesn't display the CPU temp. it displays the motherboard temp), and now I'm finding that the BIOS can become corrupted (and that corruption gets saved in profiles.)

I'm currently experiencing an issue where the BIOS is somehow corrupted. If I load a profile and boot into windows, windows will crash (reporting a hardware error) when I try to go into standby. If I manually set all the settings in the BIOS to default (or even "load optimized defaults"), it still crashes. 

Yet, if I press the CLEAR CMOS button on the back of the i/o panel, and then manually put back each and every setting - no more crashes.


----------



## pantsoftime

garyd9 said:


> now I'm finding that the BIOS can become corrupted (and that corruption gets saved in profiles.)
> 
> I'm currently experiencing an issue where the BIOS is somehow corrupted. If I load a profile and boot into windows, windows will crash (reporting a hardware error) when I try to go into standby. If I manually set all the settings in the BIOS to default (or even "load optimized defaults"), it still crashes.
> 
> Yet, if I press the CLEAR CMOS button on the back of the i/o panel, and then manually put back each and every setting - no more crashes.



There's been an issue with these boards where if you save an OC profile on one BIOS version and load it into another version then it won't work correctly. If you save it to a USB drive and load it from there on the next BIOS version then it usually works fine.


----------



## garyd9

pantsoftime said:


> There's been an issue with these boards where if you save an OC profile on one BIOS version and load it into another version then it won't work correctly. If you save it to a USB drive and load it from there on the next BIOS version then it usually works fine.


I haven't changed BIOS versions. It had 1302 installed on it when I purchased it (a week ago), and Asus apparently has become VERY slow in BIOS updates. (Weren't they one of the fastest for BIOS updates for the 1st gen ryzen?)

Your description about loading from USB is amusing. My previous board was the asus maximus ix hero (intel Z270) and if you saved a profile to USB, it was impossible to load it to a different BIOS version. I learned then to take pictures of any settings I might want to restore (such as fan control settings for my radiators, etc.)

I should ask, though, if there's anything I need to know about this motherboard that's not obvious from the included documentation. It might help to know that I haven't used an AMD chip since the original 64bit chips in the early 2000's. (I've already learned that I should have bought different RAM, but the Hynix DJR I have is working well enough.) I'm also amused seeing the 3900x clock to 4.3GHz on all 12 cores. It's disappointing that I rarely see single cores jump to 4.6, but if I wanted single core performance, I'd have bought another intel setup.

Thank you - and take care
Gary


----------



## masterskop

Hi,

Is anyone watercooling the sb or an Asus ch8 hero or formula board? I was wondering it a heatkiller nsb rev 3 would work with 2 780 ti kingpins. I don't know if the 2nd kingpin would fit. Also, I'm trying to figure out for a later update to a 3080 ti (two of them) or more advanced vid cards using ndsa 3 or 4 tech. If anyone replies that you are using a sb block, but not a heatkiller, what are you using if I might ask?

Thank you,

masterskop


----------



## usoldier

Hey CH8 users i would like to know if fans and pump shuting down randomly ever happen with thios board or just the CH6 , anyone using Pump conector and working ok ?


----------



## flyinion

usoldier said:


> Hey CH8 users i would like to know if fans and pump shuting down randomly ever happen with thios board or just the CH6 , anyone using Pump conector and working ok ?


I'm using the W_PUMP+ connector, however my Aquacomputer PWM D5 pump only uses the 4 pin connector for PWM signal. It uses molex for the actual 12V power. I haven't had any issues with the PWM feed at least though and I've been running basically 24/7 since I put the water cooling in back in September.


----------



## Reikoji

New info about power reporting (shenanegans)

https://www.hwinfo.com/forum/thread...er-reporting-deviation-metric-in-hwinfo.6456/

Doesn't seem VIII Formula or Hero are doing it, at least with the 3900x. May be processor dependent too. Anyone read, get new HWiNfo beta, and check with their own processor/board combos?


----------



## shamino1978

preview bios...... :
(ironically, as thestilt published the telemetry skews, new options in tweakers paradise core/soc telemetry offsets, for user to manually "exploit" if they choose to, nothing done at defaults)

C8H wifi
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hq0ur9ki9534ozt/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-2101.rar?dl=0

c8h
https://www.dropbox.com/s/35psb0h5vb2x0j7/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-2101.rar?dl=0

c8f
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lp57r85fd80ekkh/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-2101.rar?dl=0

c8i
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rbbj82oo9wrr7fj/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-2101.rar?dl=0


----------



## Reous

ComboAM4*v2* 1.0.0.2 :thumb:


----------



## oile

@shamino1978 any news for ch6? 
On ch6 we still have 100% gpu fan (nvidia Turing) fan at bios initialization

Inviato dal mio SM-G970F utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## usoldier

flyinion said:


> I'm using the W_PUMP+ connector, however my Aquacomputer PWM D5 pump only uses the 4 pin connector for PWM signal. It uses molex for the actual 12V power. I haven't had any issues with the PWM feed at least though and I've been running basically 24/7 since I put the water cooling in back in September.


Thanks for the input it eases my mind knowing its been working ok.


----------



## Reikoji

shamino1978 said:


> preview bios...... :
> (ironically, as thestilt published the telemetry skews, new options in tweakers paradise core/soc telemetry offsets, for user to manually "exploit" if they choose to, nothing done at defaults)
> 
> C8H wifi
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/hq0ur9ki9534ozt/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-2101.rar?dl=0
> 
> c8h
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/35psb0h5vb2x0j7/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-2101.rar?dl=0
> 
> c8f
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/lp57r85fd80ekkh/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-2101.rar?dl=0
> 
> c8i
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/rbbj82oo9wrr7fj/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-2101.rar?dl=0


Time to get a guinea pig T-Shirt !


----------



## Reikoji

shamino1978 said:


> preview bios...... :
> (ironically, as thestilt published the telemetry skews, new options in tweakers paradise core/soc telemetry offsets, for user to manually "exploit" if they choose to, nothing done at defaults)
> 
> C8H wifi
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/hq0ur9ki9534ozt/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-2101.rar?dl=0
> 
> c8h
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/35psb0h5vb2x0j7/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-2101.rar?dl=0
> 
> c8f
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/lp57r85fd80ekkh/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-2101.rar?dl=0
> 
> c8i
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/rbbj82oo9wrr7fj/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-2101.rar?dl=0





Reikoji said:


> Time to get a guinea pig T-Shirt !


So.... With this bios on the Formula, I cant change AI Overclock Tuner mode from default or it will lock at code 22 during boot 
Can change everything else, but must leave that on Default.

The CPU Telemetry changes work, but the incremental value of 1000 doesn't match the help text :3 its more like 10 Milliamps than 1000.


----------



## raiikd

Anyone know agesa version of the new bios? I updated, but it doesn't show.


----------



## Baio73

raiikd said:


> Anyone know agesa version of the new bios? I updated, but it doesn't show.


Did you check with CPU-Z (motherboard tab)?

Baio


----------



## Reous

raiikd said:


> Anyone know agesa version of the new bios? I updated, but it doesn't show.


I've posted the Agesa version some posts above.


----------



## Baio73

Reous said:


> I've posted the Agesa version some posts above.


How do you read the AGESA version?
Both AIDA and CPU-Z don't report it...

Baio


----------



## Reous

By checking the bios file or by unlocking some parts with a mod.


----------



## SubiXT

what mod did you used to see this information


----------



## Krisztias

Reikoji said:


> So.... With this bios on the Formula, I cant change AI Overclock Tuner mode from default or it will lock at code 22 during boot


Thank you for the info!
I don't want this BIOS. Maybe the official version will be functioning, like it should.

Did you tested PBO?


----------



## Reous

SubiXT said:


> what mod did you used to see this information


My own, not for public


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Keep getting ea 07 error code with these 2101 bios hero viii WiFi @ 3800:1900. Never had this issue before. 
Edit:- I reflashed the bios and it’s working now. Ai overclock tuner is working at manual too for me.


----------



## Bold Eagle

Baio73 said:


> How do you read the AGESA version?
> Both AIDA and CPU-Z don't report it...
> 
> Baio


CUP-z reports it as AMD AGESA Combo-AM4 1.0.0.4


----------



## Kokin

shamino1978 said:


> preview bios...... :
> (ironically, as thestilt published the telemetry skews, new options in tweakers paradise core/soc telemetry offsets, for user to manually "exploit" if they choose to, nothing done at defaults)
> 
> C8H wifi
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/hq0ur9ki9534ozt/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-2101.rar?dl=0
> 
> c8h
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/35psb0h5vb2x0j7/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-2101.rar?dl=0
> 
> c8f
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/lp57r85fd80ekkh/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-2101.rar?dl=0
> 
> c8i
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/rbbj82oo9wrr7fj/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-2101.rar?dl=0


I'll give it a try on my C8i, does this mean we are getting an official version soon? 

With the latest 1302 official C8i BIOS, I was seeing HWiNFO reporting 150-219% Power Reporting Deviation in idle conditions, but appropriately 90-95% when stresstesting. This is with PBO ON and auto CPU voltage, main tweaks were to bump up my RAM from 3200CL14 to 3600CL16.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Bold Eagle said:


> Baio73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you read the AGESA version?
> Both AIDA and CPU-Z don't report it...
> 
> Baio
> 
> 
> 
> CUP-z reports it as AMD AGESA Combo-AM4 1.0.0.4
Click to expand...

There’s no strix test bios there. There just for the formula, crosshair and impact.


----------



## wisepds

For me this 2101 bios is a nightmare... all fail... i don't know why... i,m coming back to the official latest bios...


----------



## maxrealliti

2101 BIOS works fine for me, there were problems with the overclocking profile and initial launches, everything was decided by the new settings and selection method, the voltage during memory overclocking decreased and the processor began to behave more adequately although EDC 1 costs and boost has up to 4650 in 4550 games in stress 4350 tests had problems with video and sound, everything was decided by reinstalling drivers, normal flight everything is fine


----------



## Krisztias

shamino1978 said:


> preview bios...... :
> (ironically, as thestilt published the telemetry skews, new options in tweakers paradise core/soc telemetry offsets, for user to manually "exploit" if they choose to, nothing done at defaults)
> 
> C8H wifi
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/hq0ur9ki9534ozt/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-2101.rar?dl=0
> 
> c8h
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/35psb0h5vb2x0j7/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-2101.rar?dl=0
> 
> c8f
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/lp57r85fd80ekkh/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-2101.rar?dl=0
> 
> c8i
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/rbbj82oo9wrr7fj/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-2101.rar?dl=0


Thank you for the BIOS's.

Can you share your knowledge about the flow sensor input on the C8H? I would like to use it, but I don't know what it exactly reads, and i have no idea how to configure it.
I have connected an Aquacomputer High Flow sensor ti it, and HWiNFO reads something, but... based on what?
Asked Mumak about it, but he didn't know anything either:

https://www.overclock.net/forum/21-...ial-hwinfo-32-64-thread-215.html#post28492360

Please help, if you can.
Thank you.


----------



## Reikoji

wisepds said:


> For me this 2101 bios is a nightmare... all fail... i don't know why... i,m coming back to the official latest bios...


If you can 



Krisztias said:


> Thank you for the info!
> I don't want this BIOS. Maybe the official version will be functioning, like it should.
> 
> Did you tested PBO?


PBO works the same as before, as far as I can tell. I havent used Auto settings after enabling PBO in a while, so I notice With ASUS actually raised the PPT/TDC/EDC to 395/255/200 respectively. Last time I tried auto PBO the PPT was 142 still, but it was a super long time ago I bothered with auto or enabled for PBO. Is probably part of the AUTO rules changing in 1201. But idk

So, if they did fake it for at least PBO, they don't anymore and just raise the power limit as they should.


----------



## wisepds

*wisepds*



Reikoji said:


> If you can
> 
> 
> 
> PBO works the same as before, as far as I can tell. I havent used Auto settings after enabling PBO in a while, so I notice With ASUS actually raised the PPT/TDC/EDC to 395/255/200 respectively. Last time I tried auto PBO the PPT was 142 still, but it was a super long time ago I bothered with auto or enabled for PBO. Is probably part of the AUTO rules changing in 1201. But idk
> 
> So, if they did fake it for at least PBO, they don't anymore and just raise the power limit as they should.


You'r right...I'cant... but at last it's working finally... but now i need a little more vcore to stabilize my OC..Before: 4.4, 4.4, 4.2, 4.2 with 1.28v (1.250 under load)... After new bios: 4.4,4.4,4.2,4.2 with 1.29v (1.255v under load) All the other settings equal than before. Now it's working well. Mem Ok (65 ns, 3600 Cl14 4x32GB)... 10180 points on CBR20.


----------



## arcanexvi

Thank you @shamino1978 for giving us a peek into what you're working on. Are you now dropping the beta builds here instead of the ASUS forums?


----------



## masterskop

Hi,

It's been a while since I built a new system. It's been about 5 years. Here's my setup and I need advice on the bios and settings before I go on.

Mobo: Asus CH8 Formula
CPU: x3900 w/ factory Wraith Prism aircooler
Ram: 64 Gb DDR4 3600 Trident Z Neo 
GPU: 780TI KP on air

I'll put the other KP with it when I put this under water.

Bios: 0605 x64
Build date: 7/02/2019
CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 3900x 12-Core Processor (48C temp, BCLK freq: 100 MHz Core Voltage: 1.457v, Ratio 38x)
Speed: 3800 MHz
Total Mem: 65536 MB ( Freq 2133 MHz, Voltage 1.200 V)
speed: 2133 MHz

board voltage seems to be good. (+12v = 12.512 v, +5v = 5.000 v, +3.3v = 3.312 v)

Questions:
1. What bios would you all recommend?
2. What should the voltage be on the x3900? Is 1.45v correct?
3. Ram, what should it be running at?

Probably need a bit of help setting this up. Yes, I know the 780 TI Kps will be the bottleneck, but I'm waiting for the new vid cards to come out. Look at either two 3080ti cards or two 3090 ti cards. 

Thanks,

masterskop


----------



## shamino1978

This shd fix the tuner = manual hang 22 issue:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9cbstuuk2y79dj3/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-0097.rar?dl=0


----------



## Reikoji

shamino1978 said:


> This shd fix the tuner = manual hang 22 issue:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/9cbstuuk2y79dj3/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-0097.rar?dl=0


Sweet, thanks.


----------



## TK421

shamino1978 said:


> This shd fix the tuner = manual hang 22 issue:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/9cbstuuk2y79dj3/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-0097.rar?dl=0


 @shamino1978 can you raise vrm switching frequency to 1MHz? the controller should be able to do it but asus limits to 500 for some reason


----------



## The Stilt

TK421 said:


> @shamino1978 can you raise vrm switching frequency to 1MHz? the controller should be able to do it but asus limits to 500 for some reason


fSW is typically limited due to the thermals, since it directly affects the losses.
Based on my own experience, high fSWs generally aren't worth the trouble, unless we're talking about extreme OC.


----------



## kitfit1

I really am wondering why we are STILL waiting for Asus to come up with the AMD AGESA 1.0.0.5 bios update for the CH8. AGESA 1.0.0.5 was released in May to mobo vendors, and yet here we are getting towards the end of June..........................and still nothing from Asus.


----------



## The Stilt

kitfit1 said:


> I really am wondering why we are STILL waiting for Asus to come up with the AMD AGESA 1.0.0.5 bios update for the CH8. AGESA 1.0.0.5 was released in May to mobo vendors, and yet here we are getting towards the end of June..........................and still nothing from Asus.


Is there something wrong with ComboAM4V2PI 1.0.0.2 bioses, that are available for all Crosshair VIII models?


----------



## jfrob75

The Stilt said:


> Is there something wrong with ComboAM4V2PI 1.0.0.2 bioses, that are available for all Crosshair VIII models?


Checking the ASUS US website there is no updated BIOS for CH8 wifi or nonwifi. I assume the new bios you reference is available from another source?


----------



## TK421

The Stilt said:


> fSW is typically limited due to the thermals, since it directly affects the losses.
> Based on my own experience, high fSWs generally aren't worth the trouble, unless we're talking about extreme OC.



We modded C6 and C8 to use up to 800, same controller and stages as the old Maximus boards that can go up to 700 or 1MHz afaik.


Some small perf gains.


----------



## The Stilt

jfrob75 said:


> Checking the ASUS US website there is no updated BIOS for CH8 wifi or nonwifi. I assume the new bios you reference is available from another source?


This very same thread, few posts back.

https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-amd-motherboards/1728796-asus-rog-x570-crosshair-viii-overclocking-discussion-thread-64.html#post28489558


----------



## The Stilt

TK421 said:


> We modded C6 and C8 to use up to 800, same controller and stages as the old Maximus boards that can go up to 700 or 1MHz afaik.
> 
> 
> Some small perf gains.


Performance gains?
You mean higher maximum frequency, during manual OC?


----------



## TK421

The Stilt said:


> Performance gains?
> You mean higher maximum frequency, during manual OC?





I haven't tried manual OC



In bench and cpu-z (minimal OS setting), PBO autoOC with undervolt




3950X / C8



500Hz: https://imgur.com/a/X26puWv


600Hz: https://imgur.com/a/pgB8W3B






3900X / C6


Geekbench5 1380-1388 -> 1395-1400


GB5 scores all on 600: https://browser.geekbench.com/user/241683



Margin of error likely?



















There's also the 3600/X570P with the 4 phase _Minimus_ Hero 11 VRM which got capped at 350KHz max. The default 200(250?) is too slow to let the CPU boost normally.


----------



## rhadamanthys78

https://www.hardwareluxx.de/communi...s-agesa-ubersicht-23-12-19-a-1228903.html#2.7


Version 2010 BIOS files are on the Asus servers. Support pages just haven't updated links.


----------



## The Stilt

TK421 said:


> I haven't tried manual OC
> 
> 
> 
> In bench and cpu-z (minimal OS setting), PBO autoOC with undervolt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3950X / C8
> 
> 
> 
> 500Hz: https://imgur.com/a/X26puWv
> 
> 
> 600Hz: https://imgur.com/a/pgB8W3B
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3900X / C6
> 
> 
> Geekbench5 1380-1388 -> 1395-1400
> 
> 
> GB5 scores all on 600: https://browser.geekbench.com/user/241683
> 
> 
> 
> Margin of error likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's also the 3600/X570P with the 4 phase _Minimus_ Hero 11 VRM which got capped at 350KHz max. The default 200(250?) is too slow to let the CPU boost normally.


No, the quality of the output voltage (which the fSW affects) doesn't affect the CPU boost behavior. There is no way for the CPU to measure the so called quality of the output voltage, it either works or doesn't. 
An undervoltage condition manifest itself as instability or clock stretching, but things like switching frequency doesn't affect the output voltage levels. Higher fSW will provide better transient reponse and lower ripple, but VRMs such as the ones on Crosshair VIII series boards can probably meet, or exceed the specs even with 100kHz fSW or so.


----------



## TK421

The Stilt said:


> No, the quality of the output voltage (which the fSW affects) doesn't affect the CPU boost behavior. There is no way for the CPU to measure the so called quality of the output voltage, it either works or doesn't.
> An undervoltage condition manifest itself as instability or clock stretching, but things like switching frequency doesn't affect the output voltage levels. Higher fSW will provide better transient reponse and lower ripple, but VRMs such as the ones on Crosshair VIII series boards can probably meet, or exceed the specs even with 100kHz fSW or so.



Thanks for the input, I'll keep that in mind.





Btw when do you think we'll see Crosshair Apex lol?


----------



## pantsoftime

rhadamanthys78 said:


> https://www.hardwareluxx.de/communi...s-agesa-ubersicht-23-12-19-a-1228903.html#2.7
> 
> 
> Version 2010 BIOS files are on the Asus servers. Support pages just haven't updated links.


They seem to be live now for anyone wondering.


----------



## raiikd

pantsoftime said:


> rhadamanthys78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.hardwareluxx.de/communi...s-agesa-ubersicht-23-12-19-a-1228903.html#2.7
> 
> 
> Version 2010 BIOS files are on the Asus servers. Support pages just haven't updated links.
> 
> 
> 
> They seem to be live now for anyone wondering.
Click to expand...

Doesn't look like there's one available for the WIFI version.


----------



## flyinion

So is combo V2 PI 1.0.0.1 patch B the AGESA 1.0.0.5 stuff finally?


----------



## Reikoji

raiikd said:


> Doesn't look like there's one available for the WIFI version.


Just gonna repost all those links

C8H wifi
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hq0ur9ki9534ozt/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-2101.rar?dl=0

c8h
https://www.dropbox.com/s/35psb0h5vb2x0j7/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-2101.rar?dl=0

c8f
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lp57r85fd80ekkh/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-2101.rar?dl=0

c8i
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rbbj82oo9wrr7fj/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-2101.rar?dl=0

Wifi is at the very top.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Reikoji said:


> raiikd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't look like there's one available for the WIFI version.
> 
> 
> 
> Just gonna repost all those links
> 
> C8H wifi
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/hq0ur9ki9534ozt/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-2101.rar?dl=0
> 
> c8h
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/35psb0h5vb2x0j7/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-2101.rar?dl=0
> 
> c8f
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/lp57r85fd80ekkh/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-2101.rar?dl=0
> 
> c8i
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/rbbj82oo9wrr7fj/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-2101.rar?dl=0
> 
> Wifi is at the very top.
Click to expand...

These are test bios the official release ones are 2010 and it does seem the C8H WiFi are missing at the minute. Hopefully they’ll be up soon as that’s the one I have. 😀


----------



## chaosweapon

Does BIOS 2010 improve boot times? If yes, any idea by how much?


----------



## AStaUK

chaosweapon said:


> Does BIOS 2010 improve boot times? If yes, any idea by how much?


The boot does seem to be quicker, not scientific, but Task Manager is showing my boot as 9.9secs, I'm sure it was around 20 before.


----------



## Nitethorn

So I'm a little confused, hopefully you guys can clear this up for me. Latest chipset driver from AMD is version 2.04.28.626 released 6/3.
Latest chipset driver from Asus is 2.04.09.131 released 6/11. I'm currently running 28.626 from AMD's website. But what's up with Asus releasing an older version AFTER the newer version is available from AMD? I might be missing something here...


----------



## Sam64

Nitethorn: Take latest chipset driver always from AMD and you're fine. Asus for Bios Update or other mainboard related stuff. It's pretty normal, they are nearly always behind the latest version.


----------



## Nitethorn

Sam64 said:


> Nitethorn: Take latest chipset driver always from AMD and you're fine. Asus for Bios Update or other mainboard related stuff. It's pretty normal, they are nearly always behind the latest version.


Ok, that's the one I'm currently using. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. I get confused easily lol. Thank you for setting me straight


----------



## garyd9

Possible BIOS bug in 1302 on the C8H (wifi):

(I'd send this to Asus, but I've found that Asus tech support to be unhelpful beyond their scripts.)

I have my D5 PWM water pump attached to the CPU fan header. The only wires connected are PWM and Tach. (The pump gets +12VDC and GND direct from the PSU.) I neither want, nor need, the ASUS bios to dynamically change the pump speed based on the CPU temp. (I do have BIOS configured to alter my radiator fan speeds based on the water temperature, however.) 

My goal is to run the pump at 65%, and have it NEVER change. So, I've made the following changes in the q-fan config:

CPU Q-Fan Control: PWM Mode
CPU Fan Step Up: 0 sec
CPU Fan Step Down: 0 sec
CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit: 600
CPU Fan Profile: Manual
CPU Upper Temp: 45
CPU Fan Max Duty Cycle: 65
CPU Middle Temp: 45
CPU Fan Middle Duty Cycle: 65
CPU Lower Temp: 45
CPU Fan Min Duty Cycle: 65

(I've also tried other variations of temperatures, but always with all 3 duty cycle settings at 65.)

What I'm finding, however, is that the ASUS Crosshair VIII Hero (Wifi) will ignore my settings when the CPU starts warming up and will speed up the pump to ~90% when the "CPU Package" temperature sensor starts reporting higher values.

THIS IS NOT WHAT I WANT and ignores the settings I provided. Max duty cycle of 65% is... a max duty cycle of 65%. 

I've considered putting the D5 pump on another fan header (AIO and W_PUMP are my only free headers) but most m/b's will send a critical failure message if the tach from a CPU header isn't reporting, and it'd certainly be critical if my D5 failed. (As well, some motherboards won't even boot if there isn't something connected to the CPU_FAN header.)

Does anyone have any suggestion to get this to work how I have it configured?

(Also helpful would be a way to report it to Asus and have it passed along to someone who might actually try to fix it.)

Thanks
Gary


----------



## Badgerslayer7

garyd9 said:


> Possible BIOS bug in 1302 on the C8H (wifi):
> 
> (I'd send this to Asus, but I've found that Asus tech support to be unhelpful beyond their scripts.)
> 
> I have my D5 PWM water pump attached to the CPU fan header. The only wires connected are PWM and Tach. (The pump gets +12VDC and GND direct from the PSU.) I neither want, nor need, the ASUS bios to dynamically change the pump speed based on the CPU temp. (I do have BIOS configured to alter my radiator fan speeds based on the water temperature, however.)
> 
> My goal is to run the pump at 65%, and have it NEVER change. So, I've made the following changes in the q-fan config:
> 
> CPU Q-Fan Control: PWM Mode
> CPU Fan Step Up: 0 sec
> CPU Fan Step Down: 0 sec
> CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit: 600
> CPU Fan Profile: Manual
> CPU Upper Temp: 45
> CPU Fan Max Duty Cycle: 65
> CPU Middle Temp: 45
> CPU Fan Middle Duty Cycle: 65
> CPU Lower Temp: 45
> CPU Fan Min Duty Cycle: 65
> 
> (I've also tried other variations of temperatures, but always with all 3 duty cycle settings at 65.)
> 
> What I'm finding, however, is that the ASUS Crosshair VIII Hero (Wifi) will ignore my settings when the CPU starts warming up and will speed up the pump to ~90% when the "CPU Package" temperature sensor starts reporting higher values.
> 
> THIS IS NOT WHAT I WANT and ignores the settings I provided. Max duty cycle of 65% is... a max duty cycle of 65%.
> 
> I've considered putting the D5 pump on another fan header (AIO and W_PUMP are my only free headers) but most m/b's will send a critical failure message if the tach from a CPU header isn't reporting, and it'd certainly be critical if my D5 failed. (As well, some motherboards won't even boot if there isn't something connected to the CPU_FAN header.)
> 
> Does anyone have any suggestion to get this to work how I have it configured?
> 
> (Also helpful would be a way to report it to Asus and have it passed along to someone who might actually try to fix it.)
> 
> Thanks
> Gary


I have mine connected to the water pump header and have the cpu header selected to ignore in monitoring as I use a commander pro, works fine at a set speed for me. I run mine at 75% all the time.


----------



## zsoltmol

Try to enter higher temp number for middle and upper temp like 55/70 while keeping duty cycle at 65 for all three temps.


----------



## garyd9

Badgerslayer7 said:


> I have mine connected to the water pump header and have the cpu header selected to ignore in monitoring as I use a commander pro, works fine at a set speed for me. I run mine at 75% all the time.


I've tried using a different header, but it won't boot without something on the CPU_FAN header. Perhaps it'd work if I had something on the W_PUMP+ header, but that would require me to take some things apart to move the wire to the other side of the motherboard. (Cable organization is great as long as you don't have to move anything.)



zsoltmol said:


> Try to enter higher temp number for middle and upper temp like 55/70 while keeping duty cycle at 65 for all three temps.


Based on this comment, I set all three temps to 75C (the max allowed) and all three duty cycles to 65%. It seems that as long as I don't exceed 75C, the pump is now staying fairly consistent. I'm not sure what would happen if the CPU went over 75C, though. To be honest, if that happened, hearing the pump changing frequency would probably be a Good Thing to alert me that something is wrong with my loop. 

Thank you!
Gary


----------



## Badgerslayer7

garyd9 said:


> Badgerslayer7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have mine connected to the water pump header and have the cpu header selected to ignore in monitoring as I use a commander pro, works fine at a set speed for me. I run mine at 75% all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> I've tried using a different header, but it won't boot without something on the CPU_FAN header. Perhaps it'd work if I had something on the W_PUMP+ header, but that would require me to take some things apart to move the wire to the other side of the motherboard. (Cable organization is great as long as you don't have to move anything.)
> 
> 
> 
> zsoltmol said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to enter higher temp number for middle and upper temp like 55/70 while keeping duty cycle at 65 for all three temps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Based on this comment, I set all three temps to 75C (the max allowed) and all three duty cycles to 65%. It seems that as long as I don't exceed 75C, the pump is now staying fairly consistent. I'm not sure what would happen if the CPU went over 75C, though. To be honest, if that happened, hearing the pump changing frequency would probably be a Good Thing to alert me that something is wrong with my loop.
> 
> Thank you!
> Gary
Click to expand...

You need to select ignore cpu fan speed in the monitoring section of the bios and connect to water pump header.


----------



## flyinion

Updated from 1105 to 2010 tonight on my non WiFi hero. Still had to go back in and manually set the three VDDG VDDP voltages to .95 again at the bottom of Extreme Tweaker to get rid of the 8d error on reboots. No other issues that I could see. 

Windows reinstalled a bunch of USB peripherals though. Not a full setup but a notification popup liked "we're finishing setting up X device". 

Also the realtek audio entry in the sound panel changed. It says 2 channel speakers now instead of well I can't remember exactly but it's different and the list of audio devices re-sorted itself. I'm in there daily to fix my steelseries DAC so I'm not just trying to remember something I haven't looked at in weeks. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Asylumpwnz

.


----------



## kitfit1

Asylumpwnz said:


> why is there no new bios update for the C8H wifi? only the non wifi gets a update? why?


Probably won't be long, the CH8 bios has already been updated.


----------



## flyinion

Anyone on a Hero (wifi or not) or any other CH8 board with the new 2010 BIOS having Aura issues? I think it's related to armory crate or Aura creator. When I reboot and log in my fans in the argb headers stop updating the color cycle I have set up and half the LED shut off. Only way to fix is to into armory crate and in the argb led count change it to something else and back. That fixes it until the next boot. I'm assuming armory crate needs an update or something?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## GlowingBurrito

Anyone getting random restarts with the 2010 bios on the non-wifi version? Running the same settings I've been running since the 3000 series launched but after updating to 2010, my system will randomly shut down and restart. Cleared CMOS before using bios flashback and put in the same exact settings as prior BIOS versions and will get the random restarts in Windows. Flashed back to 1302 and everything is fine again.


----------



## flyinion

GlowingBurrito said:


> Anyone getting random restarts with the 2010 bios on the non-wifi version? Running the same settings I've been running since the 3000 series launched but after updating to 2010, my system will randomly shut down and restart. Cleared CMOS before using bios flashback and put in the same exact settings as prior BIOS versions and will get the random restarts in Windows. Flashed back to 1302 and everything is fine again.



No problems yet here. Only been running about 24 hours though. Only difference is I'm not currently running the settings from DRAM calculator that I was on 1105 BIOS that I was running (went straight to 2010). Running stock DOCP right now. I was at 3600 before but running Safe settings to tighten timings a bit. It was just from the R-XMP values though and I'll be swapping to 1.7.3 and basing off a taiphoon export when I tweak again. 

Anyway but yeah no reboots and it's been running Folding for most of the 24 hours so it's definitely being pushed too. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## GlowingBurrito

flyinion said:


> No problems yet here. Only been running about 24 hours though. Only difference is I'm not currently running the settings from DRAM calculator that I was on 1105 BIOS that I was running (went straight to 2010). Running stock DOCP right now. I was at 3600 before but running Safe settings to tighten timings a bit. It was just from the R-XMP values though and I'll be swapping to 1.7.3 and basing off a taiphoon export when I tweak again.
> 
> Anyway but yeah no reboots and it's been running Folding for most of the 24 hours so it's definitely being pushed too.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Yeah it's so strange. I've just been running DOCP forever and letting the CPU do its own boosting. I could be sitting on youtube and the system would just restart. Guess I'll sit on 1302.


----------



## flyinion

GlowingBurrito said:


> Yeah it's so strange. I've just been running DOCP forever and letting the CPU do its own boosting. I could be sitting on youtube and the system would just restart. Guess I'll sit on 1302.



As I noted above I had to modify the 3 VDDG VDDP values at the bottom of Extreme Tweaker from Auto to .950 like I had to starting with 1105 BIOS to avoid 8d issues on reboot. Maybe you're having a similar issue if you're on auto but it's manifesting as reboots instead of hanging on a reboot. I'm just kinda throwing ideas out there though. 

I think it was mentioned some of the auto voltages algorithms changed in 2010 so maybe something is misbehaving for you and causing instability. I've been letting the CPU do its own boosting as well and just trying my hand at memory tweaking with this build. 

I do want to play with enabling pbo with some guidelines I saw on a AHC video for "quick settings" for it on Asus boards (ie Asus bios settings labels) as far as PPT etc values. I want to redo my thermal paste first though as I don't think my mx4 is cutting it good enough last time I tried pbo. Or I need a different block and or second rad. I'm getting the feeling the aquacomputer kryos next block I bought for this build isn't quite up to effectively cooling Zen 2 chips with the chiplet design. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## skellattarr

Hi all, I got my crosshair viii hero about 3 weeks ago and a Ryzen 9 3950x just updated the BIOS to 2010 a day ago seems to be running fine on windows 10 v 20h2 CPU at stock and memory set to DOCP.


----------



## GlowingBurrito

flyinion said:


> As I noted above I had to modify the 3 VDDG VDDP values at the bottom of Extreme Tweaker from Auto to .950 like I had to starting with 1105 BIOS to avoid 8d issues on reboot. Maybe you're having a similar issue if you're on auto but it's manifesting as reboots instead of hanging on a reboot. I'm just kinda throwing ideas out there though.
> 
> I think it was mentioned some of the auto voltages algorithms changed in 2010 so maybe something is misbehaving for you and causing instability. I've been letting the CPU do its own boosting as well and just trying my hand at memory tweaking with this build.
> 
> I do want to play with enabling pbo with some guidelines I saw on a AHC video for "quick settings" for it on Asus boards (ie Asus bios settings labels) as far as PPT etc values. I want to redo my thermal paste first though as I don't think my mx4 is cutting it good enough last time I tried pbo. Or I need a different block and or second rad. I'm getting the feeling the aquacomputer kryos next block I bought for this build isn't quite up to effectively cooling Zen 2 chips with the chiplet design.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Thanks for the info. I'll try flashing it again to 2010 tomorrow and mess with those settings.


----------



## Reikoji

GlowingBurrito said:


> Anyone getting random restarts with the 2010 bios on the non-wifi version? Running the same settings I've been running since the 3000 series launched but after updating to 2010, my system will randomly shut down and restart. Cleared CMOS before using bios flashback and put in the same exact settings as prior BIOS versions and will get the random restarts in Windows. Flashed back to 1302 and everything is fine again.


I've actually have had various issues with the recent Crosshair Formula bios updates. 2101 wasnt so bad, but in 0097 hotfix for 22 hang i started having random resets, then just tonight became unable to run 1900 fclk without locking at code 07 before post. now with 2010 I can post with 1900 but unless i bump up CCD and IOD voltages to close to 1.2v manually performance is stupid shot, and its still not as good as it was pre-these new bios. 5000's in CB R20 when I should be over 7700, and power draw is lower and sometimes leads to resets on runs. And even then, I get random resets in less than 10mins at idle so long as I'm trying to run 1900fclk. I now have to drop memory down to 3666 and fclk to 1833. 

I think some auto-rules on voltages got changed going from 1302, or something. It just doesn't work anymore. With the lowered speeds i'm getting higher scores than my normal 3800/1900 even with those raised voltages, and I can leave those voltages at auto again. IDK if i can try 1866, but just to be safe....


----------



## Badgerslayer7

GlowingBurrito said:


> Anyone getting random restarts with the 2010 bios on the non-wifi version? Running the same settings I've been running since the 3000 series launched but after updating to 2010, my system will randomly shut down and restart. Cleared CMOS before using bios flashback and put in the same exact settings as prior BIOS versions and will get the random restarts in Windows. Flashed back to 1302 and everything is fine again.


I had random reboots with the test bios 2100 not tried 2010 yet as it’s not out c8h WiFi yet. I presume it has some thing to do with my ram as I have it running at 3800/1900 couldn’t be bothered with it so went back down to 1302. Was hoping the 2010 bios would fix it but obviously not.


----------



## Krisztias

flyinion said:


> I'm getting the feeling the aquacomputer kryos next block I bought for this build isn't quite up to effectively cooling Zen 2 chips with the chiplet design.


Do you have the Ryzen 3000 Edition? I have and mine doing well. If not, you can buy the conversion kit for cheap (cheaper like a new block)
I have tested with my 3800X HK IV Pro, EK Velocity, Phanteks C360A and this Kryos next the best so far, but not every CPU is the same... I would like to try out the Optimus foundation, but im from Europe and currently the block would cost me like 260+ USD what is more, than I want to pay for a block.


----------



## usoldier

Krisztias said:


> Do you have the Ryzen 3000 Edition? I have and mine doing well. If not, you can buy the conversion kit for cheap (cheaper like a new block)
> I have tested with my 3800X HK IV Pro, EK Velocity, Phanteks C360A and this Kryos next the best so far, but not every CPU is the same... I would like to try out the Optimus foundation, but im from Europe and currently the block would cost me like 260+ USD what is more, than I want to pay for a block.



Just instaled a Kryos Next full copper version the build quality is top notch and temps are great.


----------



## shamino1978

just a heads up from what im seeing with combo pi V2 1002, not saying its the cause of what u facing,

matisse doesnt like high SOC voltage with high fclk anymore, 1.35v soc with 1800fclk would almost never boot, even tho 1.35v soc with 1400fclk does.
the same settings used to work before this update.
not saying u need the high soc (tho i typically do on ln2), but something must have changed with the gmi training.


----------



## flyinion

Krisztias said:


> Do you have the Ryzen 3000 Edition? I have and mine doing well. If not, you can buy the conversion kit for cheap (cheaper like a new block)
> I have tested with my 3800X HK IV Pro, EK Velocity, Phanteks C360A and this Kryos next the best so far, but not every CPU is the same... I would like to try out the Optimus foundation, but im from Europe and currently the block would cost me like 260+ USD what is more, than I want to pay for a block.


I didn't realize there was a conversion kit. I bought my block in September so I'm sure I have whatever the old design is.


----------



## flyinion

Ok I managed to find that conversion kit you guys are talking about. Apparently it just shifts the Kryos block slightly (new mounting brackets). The only place I can find it though is Aquatuning and it doesn't ship for 60-120 days. Couldn't find anything like it on PPC or ModMyMods. No idea where else to look.


----------



## Krisztias

flyinion said:


> Ok I managed to find that conversion kit you guys are talking about. Apparently it just shifts the Kryos block slightly (new mounting brackets). The only place I can find it though is Aquatuning and it doesn't ship for 60-120 days. Couldn't find anything like it on PPC or ModMyMods. No idea where else to look.


I don't know wich version you have, but on the aquacomputer site is on stock for both versions:

https://shop.aquacomputer.de/product_info.php?products_id=3895

https://shop.aquacomputer.de/product_info.php?products_id=3896


----------



## flyinion

Krisztias said:


> I don't know wich version you have, but on the aquacomputer site is on stock for both versions:
> 
> https://shop.aquacomputer.de/product_info.php?products_id=3895
> 
> https://shop.aquacomputer.de/product_info.php?products_id=3896



Thanks. I wonder how much that's going to cost to get it to the US though hmm. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## flyinion

Krisztias said:


> I don't know wich version you have, but on the aquacomputer site is on stock for both versions:
> 
> https://shop.aquacomputer.de/product_info.php?products_id=3895
> 
> https://shop.aquacomputer.de/product_info.php?products_id=3896


HAHAHAHAA $59 euros for shipping, yeah, that's NOT going to happen.


----------



## Krisztias

flyinion said:


> HAHAHAHAA $59 euros for shipping, yeah, that's NOT going to happen.


Yeah.. I'm sorry...  the same reason, why I don't buy the Optimus Foundation block...


----------



## flyinion

Krisztias said:


> Yeah.. I'm sorry...  the same reason, why I don't buy the Optimus Foundation block...



I've been thinking about getting that block anyway when I redo my cooling from soft to hard tube


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## zsoltmol

Originally, my G.Skill Samsung b-die, single rank 3600MHz 16-16-16-36 rams went at 3733 / 1866MHz for almost 1 year. 
I have 4x8GB installed.

However, since Windows 10 2004 and / or Asus C8H 2010 bios (agesa v2 1.0.0.1/2) have been added, I have received some WHEA error every time I start computer or wake up from sleep.
This is a correctable WHEA error (event 19, bus / interconnect) so it didn't cause stability issues, but was annoying.

1usmus team suggested try to change VDDG, VLDO SOC VDD values ​​because it causes this error. 
At the time I used these: 
CLDO VDDP: 0.910
CLDO VDDG CCX: 0.950
CLDO VDDG IOD: 0.950
SOC VDD with negative offset (1.088-1.064 in HWinfo)

During the adjustments, it could reach 3733/1866 again without WHEA errors, but I got a black screen after each reboot. Then booting perfectly if I pressed reset button.

Used bios flashback again to start fresh with 2010 bios and tested what the Asus C8H gives to the CPU with default settings.

2010 bios full default settings
CLDO VDDP: 0.900
CLDO VDDG: 0.950

XMP profile enabled 3600MHz / 1800 FCLK, rest is at default:
CLDO VDDP: 0.900
CLDO VDDG: *1.0979* ?

XMP profile enabled 3733MHz / 1866 FCLK, rest is at default:
CLDO VDDP: *0.990* ?
CLDO VDDG: *1.1481* ?

To me, those automatic voltages seemed very high, so I started adjusting everything again one by one. In doing so, I realized that even though I am using the Ryzen DRAM calculator properly (with Typhoon Burner profiles, etc.), the fast settings in the calculator with the new 2010 bios either don’t give a stable machine or I get a correctable WHEA error. I've used the same memory and voltage settings for almost 1 year and it was 100% stable before. With 2010 bios if I would like to have stable WHEA error free operation at 3733/1866MHz VDDP / VDDG voltage needs to be 1.05-1.07v instead of the previous 0.950v range.

I'm not that comfortable with VDDG CCD / IOD voltages at 1.05-1.07v, not to mention the Asus default XMP profile voltage of 1.09-1.14v.

What is your experience with 3733/1866MHz with 2010 bios? What VDDG CCD / IOD do you use?


----------



## Reikoji

zsoltmol said:


> Originally, my G.Skill Samsung b-die, single rank 3600MHz 16-16-16-36 rams went at 3733 / 1866MHz for almost 1 year.
> I have 4x8GB installed.
> 
> However, since Windows 10 2004 and / or Asus C8H 2010 bios (agesa v2 1.0.0.1/2) have been added, I have received some WHEA error every time I start computer or wake up from sleep.
> This is a correctable WHEA error (event 19, bus / interconnect) so it didn't cause stability issues, but was annoying.
> 
> 1usmus team suggested try to change VDDG, VLDO SOC VDD values ​​because it causes this error.
> At the time I used these:
> CLDO VDDP: 0.910
> CLDO VDDG CCX: 0.950
> CLDO VDDG IOD: 0.950
> SOC VDD with negative offset (1.088-1.064 in HWinfo)
> 
> During the adjustments, it could reach 3733/1866 again without WHEA errors, but I got a black screen after each reboot. Then booting perfectly if I pressed reset button.
> 
> Used bios flashback again to start fresh with 2010 bios and tested what the Asus C8H gives to the CPU with default settings.
> 
> 2010 bios full default settings
> CLDO VDDP: 0.900
> CLDO VDDG: 0.950
> 
> XMP profile enabled 3600MHz / 1800 FCLK, rest is at default:
> CLDO VDDP: 0.900
> CLDO VDDG: *1.0979* ?
> 
> XMP profile enabled 3733MHz / 1866 FCLK, rest is at default:
> CLDO VDDP: *0.990* ?
> CLDO VDDG: *1.1481* ?
> 
> To me, those automatic voltages seemed very high, so I started adjusting everything again one by one. In doing so, I realized that even though I am using the Ryzen DRAM calculator properly (with Typhoon Burner profiles, etc.), the fast settings in the calculator with the new 2010 bios either don’t give a stable machine or I get a correctable WHEA error. I've used the same memory and voltage settings for almost 1 year and it was 100% stable before. With 2010 bios if I would like to have stable WHEA error free operation at 3733/1866MHz VDDP / VDDG voltage needs to be 1.05-1.07v instead of the previous 0.950v range.
> 
> I'm not that comfortable with VDDG CCD / IOD voltages at 1.05-1.07v, not to mention the Asus default XMP profile voltage of 1.09-1.14v.
> 
> What is your experience with 3733/1866MHz with 2010 bios? What VDDG CCD / IOD do you use?


That WHEA code is definitely since windows 2004 edition. I have been using it from being on the slow ring before it launched, and I too get that random error every now and then. Its not just from sleep tho. Randomly at Idle I get it. Its not from the new bios, but from that windows update. I didn't get any WHEA codes before guinea pigging the new windows version. 

I looked it up and you can safely ignore it as it was a 'corrected' error. You don't need to slow down your memory because of it, it wont make a difference. I tried :|

With the new agesa, higher FCKs dont seem to be stable at all tho. The 1usmas suggested voltages wont even let 1833 post for me. the Auto voltages have been higher since before this agesa version tho, so I don't think those are an issue. Auto voltages for me have been ~0.1v VDDP and 1.09 VDDG since Bios 1302. Those, however, aren't good enough to run even 1866 FCK on my end since this new AGESA... spontaneous system reboots from it.


----------



## eyecrave

Still on the beta bios since wifi version not up yet on 2004 update and pretty stable for me. Still using old setting from dram calculator since it's been working fine for me and 5 days up time.


----------



## raiikd

shamino1978 said:


> just a heads up from what im seeing with combo pi V2 1002, not saying its the cause of what u facing,
> 
> matisse doesnt like high SOC voltage with high fclk anymore, 1.35v soc with 1800fclk would almost never boot, even tho 1.35v soc with 1400fclk does.
> the same settings used to work before this update.
> not saying u need the high soc (tho i typically do on ln2), but something must have changed with the gmi training.


Hi, do you have the 2010 BIOS available for the Crosshair VIII WIFI version available because the website still doesn't have it uploaded yet.


----------



## Karagra

Hey guys I am using a Crosshair Impact and updated to the latest Version 2010 Bios.. Well now my computer enjoys randomly restarting out of the blue I have cleared the CMOS, downclocked my ram etc etc still happens.. I want to downgrade back to Version 1302 but it doesnt seem possible... anyone know a work around?


----------



## eyecrave

Karagra said:


> Hey guys I am using a Crosshair Impact and updated to the latest Version 2010 Bios.. Well now my computer enjoys randomly restarting out of the blue I have cleared the CMOS, downclocked my ram etc etc still happens.. I want to downgrade back to Version 1302 but it doesnt seem possible... anyone know a work around?



The only way I know of is USB flashback but someone mentioned on here earlier that it's not possible with the newest bios.


----------



## garyd9

Based on some of the recent comments in this thread, I'm kind of happy that Asus is neglecting to update the C8H(Wifi) BIOS.


----------



## flyinion

So I've been "blindly" setting the 3 VDDP and VDDG voltages near the bottom of Extreme Tweaker to .95 from Auto since 1105 BIOS based on some suggestions when I started getting 8d errors with that BIOS vs the older ones. I never thought to look in Ryzen Master to see what Auto was setting them to so I just did that. Wondering which one might be the culprit. CLDO VDDP was being set to .90, CLDO VDDG was being set to like 1.03. I'm suspecting maybe VDDG was being set too high? Or maybe the VDDP voltage was just .05 too low? 2x16GB dimms if that helps. SOC is on auto and VDDCR SOC entry shows 1.363.


----------



## eyecrave

I've been using pretty much the same settings since bios 1001. I save as a text file to USB then upload to Dropbox so I can input manually once a new bios gets released. It's tedious but so far works well.


----------



## TK421

any ideas on how to force new bios version for wifi version of the motherboard?


----------



## Phage

garyd9 said:


> Based on some of the recent comments in this thread, I'm kind of happy that Asus is neglecting to update the C8H(Wifi) BIOS.


Exactly why I am still on 1001. Every BIOS after that is simply not stable without faffing about with voltages. Simply, I shouldn't have to do that at stock.


----------



## Reikoji

eyecrave said:


> The only way I know of is USB flashback but someone mentioned on here earlier that it's not possible with the newest bios.


Sure isn't. Morever it seems more like USB flashback has been totally disabled, because I havent even been able to use it with the new bios. Tho, i still have to verify that with how my USB drive is setup..

EDIT: Nvm, that was my bad. my drive has 2 partitions and the board wasnt liking the one i had the C8F.cap on. moved to the other partition and was able to flash back to 1302.


----------



## Reikoji

Yea, As I thought, auto rules for voltages had indeed changed as well. With 1900fclk in 2010, Auto VDDG voltage was setting 1.1v for IOD/CCD, but in 1302 its 1.15v. 1900 FCLK wasn't stable at all trying that 1.1v manual in 1302. 1.15v didnt seem to work for 2010, either, tho.

Also... dumb me had my manual SOC voltage set too low since idk how long, making it lower than the auto VDDG voltage. This has been hurting my performance the whole time. It needs to be a bit higher since VDDG voltages are derived from soc. Setting it to 1.1625 now has my Cenebench scores much higher now. I'm going to test some games I had "Inexplicably" low performance in and see if this will fix those too.

Yep. Just increasing my soc voltage brought WWZ 1080 ultra bench from 171fps to 191-192fps  been self-rekting myself. But I gotta say, at least in 1302 that didnt cause my system to just random restart constantly :3. 2010 has too many system restarts trying to run 1900fclk.


----------



## Krisztias

usoldier said:


> Just instaled a Kryos Next full copper version the build quality is top notch and temps are great.


Today I lapped my Kryos and gained 3°C with it. 




zsoltmol said:


> Originally, my G.Skill Samsung b-die, single rank 3600MHz 16-16-16-36 rams went at 3733 / 1866MHz for almost 1 year.
> I have 4x8GB installed.
> 
> However, since Windows 10 2004 and / or Asus C8H 2010 bios (agesa v2 1.0.0.1/2) have been added, I have received some WHEA error every time I start computer or wake up from sleep.
> This is a correctable WHEA error (event 19, bus / interconnect) so it didn't cause stability issues, but was annoying.
> 
> 1usmus team suggested try to change VDDG, VLDO SOC VDD values ​​because it causes this error.
> At the time I used these:
> CLDO VDDP: 0.910
> CLDO VDDG CCX: 0.950
> CLDO VDDG IOD: 0.950
> SOC VDD with negative offset (1.088-1.064 in HWinfo)
> 
> During the adjustments, it could reach 3733/1866 again without WHEA errors, but I got a black screen after each reboot. Then booting perfectly if I pressed reset button.
> 
> Used bios flashback again to start fresh with 2010 bios and tested what the Asus C8H gives to the CPU with default settings.
> 
> 2010 bios full default settings
> CLDO VDDP: 0.900
> CLDO VDDG: 0.950
> 
> XMP profile enabled 3600MHz / 1800 FCLK, rest is at default:
> CLDO VDDP: 0.900
> CLDO VDDG: *1.0979* ?
> 
> XMP profile enabled 3733MHz / 1866 FCLK, rest is at default:
> CLDO VDDP: *0.990* ?
> CLDO VDDG: *1.1481* ?
> 
> To me, those automatic voltages seemed very high, so I started adjusting everything again one by one. In doing so, I realized that even though I am using the Ryzen DRAM calculator properly (with Typhoon Burner profiles, etc.), the fast settings in the calculator with the new 2010 bios either don’t give a stable machine or I get a correctable WHEA error. I've used the same memory and voltage settings for almost 1 year and it was 100% stable before. With 2010 bios if I would like to have stable WHEA error free operation at 3733/1866MHz VDDP / VDDG voltage needs to be 1.05-1.07v instead of the previous 0.950v range.
> 
> I'm not that comfortable with VDDG CCD / IOD voltages at 1.05-1.07v, not to mention the Asus default XMP profile voltage of 1.09-1.14v.
> 
> What is your experience with 3733/1866MHz with 2010 bios? What VDDG CCD / IOD do you use?


I'm not sure that this BIOS is worth the hassle. Almost everybody got problems with it in many ways... my computer works fine with the 1302... Hopefully the next release along with the Calculator will be better.


----------



## highdude702

GlowingBurrito said:


> Anyone getting random restarts with the 2010 bios on the non-wifi version? Running the same settings I've been running since the 3000 series launched but after updating to 2010, my system will randomly shut down and restart. Cleared CMOS before using bios flashback and put in the same exact settings as prior BIOS versions and will get the random restarts in Windows. Flashed back to 1302 and everything is fine again.


I wonder if your issue is due to this.
https://wccftech.com/microsoft-confirms-june-windows-10-update-could-crash-systems/


----------



## Reikoji

highdude702 said:


> GlowingBurrito said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone getting random restarts with the 2010 bios on the non-wifi version? Running the same settings I've been running since the 3000 series launched but after updating to 2010, my system will randomly shut down and restart. Cleared CMOS before using bios flashback and put in the same exact settings as prior BIOS versions and will get the random restarts in Windows. Flashed back to 1302 and everything is fine again.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if your issue is due to this.
> https://wccftech.com/microsoft-confirms-june-windows-10-update-could-crash-systems/
Click to expand...

Could or couldnt be. Could be both at the same time  Alls i know is i can run 1900fclk again without reboots after flashing back to 1302. At least, its not from 19000fclk anymore, cuz that happened in less than 10m after starting windows on 2010, every time.


----------



## Baio73

Hi there...
I've been out for a week for surgery and ASUS put out the new BIOS... I've read on their website the one the flash is done, you can go back.
Seems very strange to me... so I'm asking if the upgrade it's worth the risk.
Thanks!

Baio


----------



## eyecrave

Baio73 said:


> Hi there...
> I've been out for a week for surgery and ASUS out out the new BIOS... I've read on their website the one the flash is done, you can go back.
> Seems very strange to me... so I'm asking if the upgrade it's worth the risk.
> Thanks!
> 
> Baio


Yes you can do a USB flashback to downgrade. Someone said earlier you couldn't but corrected themselves and already downgraded to previous bios.


----------



## Baio73

eyecrave said:


> Yes you can do a USB flashback to downgrade. Someone said earlier you couldn't but corrected themselves and already downgraded to previous bios.


Thanks, I supposed the Flashback option would work.
But it seems to me not so many users are happy with this new release, isn't it?

Baio


----------



## bobby_b

only one half of the cores actually boost (6/12). so is this normal behaviour? this is on a c8f with bios version 2010 and 3900X cpu


----------



## Reikoji

bobby_b said:


> only one half of the cores actually boost (6/12). so is this normal behaviour? this is on a c8f with bios version 2010 and 3900X cpu


Yes. Windows will always target cores in CCD0 for light load boosting. The cores in CCD1 of 3900x's, and I think 3950x's, are low-binned and cant run as fast. Stock all-core boosts have generally been limited by the lower capability of CCD1.


----------



## PainKiller89

I am using DOCP profile with CPU Voltage set to static to 1.35 and RAM voltage to be at 1.35. Anything else i would need to do? Please let me know.


----------



## eyecrave

Baio73 said:


> Thanks, I supposed the Flashback option would work.
> But it seems to me not so many users are happy with this new release, isn't it?
> 
> Baio


I'm still on the beta bios that was posted earlier on in this thread so i'm not sure if the one's on asus website are the same. Also the wifi version is not released yet so i can't check,



PainKiller89 said:


> I am using DOCP profile with CPU Voltage set to static to 1.35 and RAM voltage to be at 1.35. Anything else i would need to do? Please let me know.



I hope you haven't manually put your cpu voltage at 1.35. Just leave it auto or use negative offset so you don't damage your cpu.


----------



## flyinion

eyecrave said:


> I'm still on the beta bios that was posted earlier on in this thread so i'm not sure if the one's on asus website are the same. Also the wifi version is not released yet so i can't check,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you haven't manually put your cpu voltage at 1.35. Just leave it auto or use negative offset so you don't damage your cpu.



The ones on the site seem to be an older BIOS. They're 2010. The betas are 2101


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## eyecrave

flyinion said:


> The ones on the site seem to be an older BIOS. They're 2010. The betas are 2101
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


The beta bios seems to be working fine for me with the 2004 windows update. Maybe the number thing is different for beta.


----------



## porkass

GlowingBurrito said:


> Anyone getting random restarts with the 2010 bios on the non-wifi version? Running the same settings I've been running since the 3000 series launched but after updating to 2010, my system will randomly shut down and restart. Cleared CMOS before using bios flashback and put in the same exact settings as prior BIOS versions and will get the random restarts in Windows. Flashed back to 1302 and everything is fine again.



Oh yes ! I have tried many things for find why (Voltage, LLC, ProcODT, RTT, Timing RAM, with a stock CPU), but it's realy random, this BIOS have a bug, i have almost loose my mind this last day ...



Like other, this BIOS has a negative impact on the performance, i have retrieve a part of my loosing perf when i set my BankGroupSwap option on Auto, enable BGS or BGS alt give negative impact, but it's always less than before, with the 1302 BIOS.



It's not Windows because i have migrate my OS the day of the 2004 are out, and with the 1302 BIOS i never had a reboot like that.


So like you, i use the USB Flashback method for return to 1302 BIOS, and for now my system is stable and my performance like before the 2010 update.


----------



## immortal3000

Hi guys

updated to the new agesa (beta) again))

And all the stable voltages - became unstable, all the garbage - come on first: crazy:
VDDG already had to be reduced to 0.775
Soc reduced to 1,025 otherwise bootlap post and reboots

dig further

reached 0.700

Latensy memory 73+, or even 113
Soc stable 1.025 + - one step otherwise reboot or bsod
In the 50-link, it scares and in all benches there is a drawdown, the sound wheezes
The campaign is otrottlite, but does not go above 1900, code 07
Yes, and 1900 with a huge tambourine stabilizes at the expense of performance, in general, while the Kaka bios

FCLK no longer works stably for 1900

Rolled back to the old BIOS ..

Sorry for my english, I used google translator


----------



## Sam64

> It's not Windows because....


I wouldn't be so sure about that:
https://wccftech.com/microsoft-conf...ystems/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter




> The issue affects several versions of the operating system, including the latest May 2020 Update (version 2004), the November 2019 Update (version 1909), the May 2019 Update (version 1903), and the October 2018 Update (version 1809).


----------



## Reikoji

Sam64 said:


> I wouldn't be so sure about that:
> https://wccftech.com/microsoft-conf...ystems/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


You can probably tell if its the windows bug crash if your windows log-in screen doesn't have the background, but is just a gray screen. System instability crashes I still have that background.

Just my observation...


----------



## TK421

Any official word to why the Wi-Fi bios isn't updated yet?


----------



## tolis626

TK421 said:


> Any official word to why the Wi-Fi bios isn't updated yet?


Asus is trying to show us that having Wi-Fi on a desktop is shameful and we are plebs for getting that version of the board I guess.

I promise Asus, I'm using ethernet 24/7. I don't even have the wifi antenna connected.


----------



## garyd9

tolis626 said:


> Asus is trying to show us that having Wi-Fi on a desktop is shameful and we are plebs for getting that version of the board I guess.
> 
> I promise Asus, I'm using ethernet 24/7. I don't even have the wifi antenna connected.


LOL. If you use wifi, you don't deserve to overclock! 

I also have a C8H wifi, but I'm not upset at the lack of updated BIOS. I'm getting the impression that they have the so-called developers who normally work on their bad excuse for LED control software working on the x570 board firmware now. That would explain why it's buggy in the most recent version. 

On the other hand, I had an interesting experience with my motherboard last night: I forgot to tighten a fitting on my CPU water block after changing it around and refilling. Yes, I had a paper tower wrapped around the fitting, but the water didn't "ooze" out slowly. It POURED out. The entire area between the memory slots, PCIe cards and VRMs was underwater.  (To add insult to injury, the motherboard's main power was disconnected, but I accidentally left the extra 8pin +12VDC connected.)

Soaked up as much water as I could with paper towels... jabbed some q-tips everywhere I could to get more, and gave it a nice blow dry (which really only made it easier to see where the water crept.) 3 hours later, the board booted into Windows 10. (I was shocked.)

I powered it all down at the PSU for the night, and the next morning, Windows 10 wouldn't boot. Kept giving me a BSOD that a critical process terminated or something. At that point, I was under the assumption that I'd have to get another m/b (but I can't find a C8H in stock anywhere I can get to - so it would have ended up being a gigabyte board.) 

In the end, I tried One More Thing: Reinstall windows. To my amazement and shock, everything seems to be working okay after the reinstall. To be quite honest, I'm assuming that the board is going to fail any hour now. Maybe I'll get lucky, but... 

I wonder if the LED management software is less bloated and more functional for gigabyte boards. Asus Aura installs too much crap (and is buggy) while "Asus armoury" installs even MORE crap and has even more bugs.


----------



## Reous

2010 Wifi Version 

https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...FI/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-2010.zip


----------



## SubiXT

is this version newer than the "test 2101" Thanks


----------



## Reous

No, 2010 is just the latest official Bios. 2101 is newer but still a test Bios


----------



## SubiXT

Reous said:


> No, 2010 is just the latest official Bios. 2101 is newer but still a test Bios


Thanks


----------



## petercar59

*Latest BIOS appears in EZ-FLASH ... but*

Replace 2010 with 2103 in the link above and you'll get the latest official release. I found it through EZ-FLASH in my BIOS, but it only got to 14% both times I tried to download it using EZ-FLASH. It didn't get to the flashing stage.


----------



## SubiXT

petercar59 said:


> Replace 2010 with 2103 in the link above and you'll get the latest official release. I found it through EZ-FLASH in my BIOS, but it only got to 14% both times I tried to download it using EZ-FLASH. It didn't get to the flashing stage.


I was able to download it. thank you for the tip.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Can anyone get there Vref (CHA/CHB) voltages above 0.68v? Dram calculator says to set it at 0.71Vbut it will not go above 0.68v. Thanks


----------



## Krazeswift

Found 2103 on ASUS Singapore. Not tried it yet but they also have 2010 listed too. 

https://www.asus.com/sg/Motherboards/ROG-Crosshair-VIII-Hero-WI-FI/HelpDesk_Download/


----------



## flyinion

Krazeswift said:


> Found 2103 on ASUS Singapore. Not tried it yet but they also have 2010 listed too.
> 
> https://www.asus.com/sg/Motherboards/ROG-Crosshair-VIII-Hero-WI-FI/HelpDesk_Download/


Man that's weird, I looked up the non-WiFi model (which I'm running) and they only have the 2010 on the Singapore site, then the US has anything over 1302 missing for the WiFi. Apparently 2103 bumps the AGESA slightly.


----------



## MoroKiel

Their sites are messed up, depending on the region they display different bios.

Did anyone try 2103 on CH8 WiFi?


----------



## Nitethorn

Badgerslayer7 said:


> Can anyone get there Vref (CHA/CHB) voltages above 0.68v? Dram calculator says to set it at 0.71Vbut it will not go above 0.68v. Thanks


On the C8H the cha/chb voltage works as a percentage of your DRAM voltage. So if you are running 1.4v dram then 0.68 will actually give you 0.95v for cha/chb. Took me a while to figure that out on mine.


----------



## Corey Carroz

MoroKiel said:


> Their sites are messed up, depending on the region they display different bios.
> 
> Did anyone try 2103 on CH8 WiFi?


Here you go. 
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AqVJ3UTCymvthoRh-FmVemBuE6jMbA?e=OMfZOD

Anyone have the non WIFI 2103 BIOS? The singapore site doesn't seem to have the non WIFI as a option.


----------



## Reous

This site is almost alawys up to date and provides the direct download link for bios versions.
https://www.hardwareluxx.de/communi...4-uefi-bios-agesa-Übersicht-29-06-20.1228903/


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Nitethorn said:


> Badgerslayer7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone get there Vref (CHA/CHB) voltages above 0.68v? Dram calculator says to set it at 0.71Vbut it will not go above 0.68v. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> On the C8H the cha/chb voltage works as a percentage of your DRAM voltage. So if you are running 1.4v dram then 0.68 will actually give you 0.95v for cha/chb. Took me a while to figure that out on mine.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that much appreciated


----------



## tien113

can not apply old setting to 2103, be aware.


----------



## Reikoji

I see the 2103 now for the formula. Completely different agesa too, and likely the desired upgrade. 2103 is V2 PI 1.0.0.2 while that 2010 was V2 PI 1.0.0.1 patch B. was totally bad for my system/processor and is likely designed for pro processors.

Gonna give 2103 a shot.


----------



## Reikoji

tien113 said:


> can not apply old setting to 2103, be aware.


If you save your settings to a .CMO file you can apply them that way. The other profiles tend to fail after a bios update.


----------



## Othoric

Just updated BIOS to 2103. I noticed new settings: CPU Telemetry and SOC Telemetry. It seems to involve something about motherboard power reporting? Does this setting have something to do with Power Reporting Deviation that was discovered recently?


----------



## flyinion

Just upgraded my non-WiFi Hero from 2010 to 2103. I like it so far. Seems, for now at least, I no longer have to manually enter VDDP/VDDG voltages at the bottom of Extreme Tweaker to avoid 8d errors on warm boots that I had to enter on 1105 and 2010 (and from what I read a few months ago people were needing to change on 1201 and 1302). So they seem to have tweaked the auto voltages again or something. Though I swear Ryzen Master is reporting the same values for them as Auto on the 2010 BIOS so maybe there was something else cause it but the fix was changing the voltages. Gonna give it a day to check for random instability etc. then put some RAM tweaks back in.


----------



## The Stilt

Othoric said:


> Just updated BIOS to 2103. I noticed new settings: CPU Telemetry and SOC Telemetry. It seems to involve something about motherboard power reporting? Does this setting have something to do with Power Reporting Deviation that was discovered recently?


It allows the user to offset both the VDDCR_CPU (CPU cores) and VDDCR_SoC telemetry that is seen by the CPU.
E.g. a positive offset of 10000mA for VDDCR_CPU will make the CPU to think it is drawing 10A higher current, than its actually drawing. A negative offset of the same magnitude will have an opposite effect.
At ±0A offset the reporting is generally extremely accurate on ASUS boards, always has been


----------



## flyinion

I noticed one thing new so for on the 2103 BIOS for my C8H. Chipset fan seems to be bouncing around a lot more. Used to run at 1593 @ 58C now it runs 1616 at that and is bouncing to 17xx/18xx a lot at the same temp. Seems they changed the fan curve to be more annoying.


----------



## garyd9

flyinion said:


> Seems they changed the fan curve to be more annoying.


Imagine the scene... two firmware devs sitting in a darkened conference room and one of them is griping about how users whine and moan about the chipset fan / fan curve. The other one winks and says "I'll give them something to whine about. Don't worry about QA, they'll never notice (if they even bother to test it.)" Both developers walk out of the conference room with smiles. A manager notices and pats himself on his own back for having such happy employees.


(While I can't say that this is how it really happened, I can tell you from first-hand knowledge that these types of things really do happen...)


----------



## eyecrave

I thought they forgot about the wifi version of this board. Finally flashed earlier and i got a bit better aida score with this and decided to run karhu ram test. So far everything seems to be running good with my 1001 bios settings so next will check for system stability.


----------



## marcelo19941

Damn lost all my profiles on the latest bios (C8I)


----------



## Othoric

I know this is more of a niche complaint, but I am getting some errors during boot in Linux. Some brief Google-Fu and I have discovered that it may be due to the AGESA update (which may be fixed in newer Linux kernel versions) and may also explain why Windows had to reinstall some USB drivers at after booting as well. Is anyone having any USB issues with 2103?


----------



## Reikoji

No dice. 2103 on my C8F with 3900X cant even post when i try to set a manual FCLK. I set 1800, it locks at code 7. I set auto, which sets 1800, and it posts. Its a major stability downgrade from 1302 for me.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Reikoji said:


> No dice. 2103 on my C8F with 3900X cant even post when i try to set a manual FCLK. I set 1800, it locks at code 7. I set auto, which sets 1800, and it posts. Its a major stability downgrade from 1302 for me.


Mine always locks at code 07 no matter what bios after setting 3800/1900. A switch off of the power supply and back on and it boots fine. No problems after that.


----------



## eyecrave

Not sure if Asus is trolling us but 2103 is supposedly beta even though it doesn't say so on asus website.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/hiqxds/new_uefi_2103_for_asus_c8h_crosshair_viii_hero_no/


----------



## Reikoji

Badgerslayer7 said:


> Reikoji said:
> 
> 
> 
> No dice. 2103 on my C8F with 3900X cant even post when i try to set a manual FCLK. I set 1800, it locks at code 7. I set auto, which sets 1800, and it posts. Its a major stability downgrade from 1302 for me.
> 
> 
> 
> Mine always locks at code 07 no matter what bios after setting 3800/1900. A switch off of the power supply and back on and it boots fine. No problems after that.
Click to expand...

Ive tried everything. after super playing with voltages ive gotten it to not hang at 7, once. but in windows there is no performance. Everything is choppy and the processor refuses to pull the power needed for a simple cinebench run.

setting 1866 works without having to play with voltages but the result is the same in windows. This Bios/Agesa just doesnt play right with my config.

Back on 1302 again and everything just works. The new Agesa is just bad.


----------



## flyinion

Othoric said:


> I know this is more of a niche complaint, but I am getting some errors during boot in Linux. Some brief Google-Fu and I have discovered that it may be due to the AGESA update (which may be fixed in newer Linux kernel versions) and may also explain why Windows had to reinstall some USB drivers at after booting as well. Is anyone having any USB issues with 2103?


Not here. I actually previously installed 2010 on my C8H (non-wifi) and got the USB thing. I didn't get it again on 2103. The 2xxx BIOS's definitely modified something. My sound panel is all re-arranged (device listing order) and I swear the Realtek analog audio outputs device got renamed. I don't remember offhand the exact name it had but now it's called "2-Realtek audio" which I'm not sure if it's related to having two channel speakers plugged in, or because it installed a second copy of the Realtek audio device. I guess I could jump into safe mode and see if device manager has multiple listings. Anyway, I haven't had any actual issues with USB (or the sound). The only weirdness is since the 2010 BIOS about 70% of the time I boot up once I log in my fans directly connected to one of the ARGB headers about half the LED's shut off. The other header has fans and built in case lighting connected through the Phanteks ARGB controller in my case. If I go into Armoury Crate and change the LED count to a new number (doesn't matter what or which header) it resets itself and fixes the turned off LED's. I think Armoury Crate needs an update or something.


----------



## flyinion

eyecrave said:


> Not sure if Asus is trolling us but 2103 is supposedly beta even though it doesn't say so on asus website.
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/hiqxds/new_uefi_2103_for_asus_c8h_crosshair_viii_hero_no/


Wow, that's not cool. I guess at least I'm not having issues with it so far other than some lighting oddities. For me it's actually more stable than the 1105 I came from (and 2010 before it) with not having to manually change VDDP/VDDG voltages to avoid 8d hangs on boot.


----------



## xeizo

3103 on C7H works very well for me

and the 0806 on B550-F is awesome imo really good bios


----------



## garyd9

I thought I'd give 2103 a try on my C8H wifi. Something is very wrong with it. After letting it clear BIOS, I went in and made 1 change from the cleared BIOS settings: I changed it to DOCP. BIOS recognized that my memory was DDR4-3600 and copied the XMP settings to the memory timings. I rebooted and my memory was running at DDR4-2133 speeds. huh?

So, I copied all my 1302 settings back into the newer 2103 BIOS and rebooted... and it's still running at 2133 memory speeds.

I pull up hwinfo64 and notice that it's running the FCLK at variable speeds (I've never seen that before) maxing out at 1200 MHz while running something like IBT.

Boot back into BIOS and manually set my FCLK to 1800, hit F10 to save, it reboots and soft powers down. Attempt to turn it back on, and it soft powers down again with 1 second. 

So, I clear CMOS again, go into BIOS and go back to only changing things to use DOCP (and nothing manual.) It boots the memory to 2133 with this odd variable FCLK still. Maxing at 1200MHz.

CPU is a 3900x and RAM is g.skill DDR4-3600 using hynix DFR chips. The kit is on the QVL.

I was really only joking about their "aura" or "armoury crate" s/w devs working on the BIOS firmware, but perhaps I was right. This is a mess. I'm going back to 1302.

Edit: after getting back to 1302 (which was somewhat annoying because I don't have easy physical or visual access to the back of the m/b), everything is back to working properly... and at the proper speeds.


----------



## garyd9

Reikoji said:


> Back on 1302 again and everything just works. The new Agesa is just bad.


I'm not sure that the problem is the AGESA or what the Asus people have done to "tweak" it. It might be interesting to compare notes, though.

If you have some time to waste, can you go back to 2103, clear the BIOS, and ONLY enable DOCP and see if it actually uses your RAM's XMP speed? (Just reboot into BIOS and look at the panel on the right side. IT should show the actual CPU speed and actual memory speed. 2133 is a fail.)

To compare, I'm using the C8H Wifi, ryzen 9 3900x, 2x 16GB g.skill DDR4-3600 memory modules (which have hynix DFR chips.) Not sure if it matters, but I'm also using a single m2 NVME drive (samsung 970 EVO Plus) in the M2 slot closest to the CPU socket.


----------



## Ghaxx

I updated from the original bios 0702 to 2103. Never updated a bios before and was hesitant, considering all the complaints about the various bios versions. But I got tired of laggy performance and the occasional blue screens on the old bios. Updated to 2103 as soon as I saw that it was available.

2103 for me so far has been solid. Only thing I changed in the bios was enabling DOCP which took my memory up to 3600MHz speed. My infinity fabric on automatic settings shows as a steady 1800 in Ryzen Master.

Computer has not crashed or had any performance issues since updating two days ago. No crazy fan activity that I can hear and the LED's in my computer look like they're all spectrum cycling like normal. Knock on wood it stays this way.

Specs are Ryzen 3950x, Asus Crosshair Hero VIII, 64gb Trident Z Neo 3600 RAM.


----------



## Othoric

garyd9 said:


> I'm not sure that the problem is the AGESA or what the Asus people have done to "tweak" it. It might be interesting to compare notes, though.
> 
> If you have some time to waste, can you go back to 2103, clear the BIOS, and ONLY enable DOCP and see if it actually uses your RAM's XMP speed? (Just reboot into BIOS and look at the panel on the right side. IT should show the actual CPU speed and actual memory speed. 2133 is a fail.)
> 
> To compare, I'm using the C8H Wifi, ryzen 9 3900x, 2x 16GB g.skill DDR4-3600 memory modules (which have hynix DFR chips.) Not sure if it matters, but I'm also using a single m2 NVME drive (samsung 970 EVO Plus) in the M2 slot closest to the CPU socket.



I have a 3900X and G.Skill TridentZ Neo 3600Mhz RAM as well. After testing 2103 for a bit I discovered in addition to the problems I was having with USB and Linux boot-up, I most definitely lost performance with some lower boost clocks. I used USB flashback to go back to 1302 and everything is running perfect again. Lost my profiles in the process and had to recover the Grub boot-loader to get back into my distro but it wasn't too much of a hassle. I am very slightly annoyed that according to an Asus rep on the r/AMD subreddit 2103 was supposed to be marked as a beta but the downloads page doesn't reflect that. Anyways, all is well that ends well.


----------



## Baio73

eyecrave said:


> Not sure if Asus is trolling us but 2103 is supposedly beta even though it doesn't say so on asus website.
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/hiqxds/new_uefi_2103_for_asus_c8h_crosshair_viii_hero_no/


Quite unbelievable... 

Baio


----------



## xeizo

Baio73 said:


> Quite unbelievable...
> 
> Baio


DO you know what a beta is?

A Beta is a test version, there can be several, until one of them is deemed not a Beta anymore. It's still the exact same file, just not called beta. Final version can still contain bugs as there are no such thing as bug free software unless it's very small and simple doing just a few tasks.

This is normal.


----------



## stimpy88

xeizo said:


> DO you know what a beta is?
> 
> A Beta is a test version, there can be several, until one of them is deemed not a Beta anymore. It's still the exact same file, just not called beta. Final version can still contain bugs as there are no such thing as bug free software unless it's very small and simple doing just a few tasks.
> 
> This is normal.


The point is that ASUS tells you that it's a beta, when you download it from their site. This BIOS is presented as if it was a final/stable release. It was only when an ASUS staff member told that forum that the 2103 release was, in fact, a beta, that we found out the nature of this release.

Many people will not let their daily driver be a beta testbed for ASUS, and choose to only install final releases, and at least they have recourse with ASUS if a stable release has catastrophic bugs in it, whereas if it's a beta, then you install at your own risk. THATS the difference.


----------



## xeizo

stimpy88 said:


> The point is that ASUS tells you that it's a beta, when you download it from their site. This BIOS is presented as if it was a final/stable release. It was only when an ASUS staff member told that forum that the 2103 release was, in fact, a beta, that we found out the nature of this release.
> 
> Many people will not let their daily driver be a beta testbed for ASUS, and choose to only install final releases, and at least they have recourse with ASUS if a stable release has catastrophic bugs in it, whereas if it's a beta, then you install at your own risk. THATS the difference.


Well, it doesn't say beta on the official download page which means it IS a final release. Even it's the exact same as a earlier beta.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Wasn’t 2101 the beta bios. It was posted on here by reous a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## Baio73

xeizo said:


> DO you know what a beta is?
> 
> [CUT]


I know. I'm wondering if the people from ASUS knows.
I think that the final user has the right to know what he's downloading.

Baio


----------



## xeizo

Baio73 said:


> I know. I'm wondering if the people from ASUS knows.
> I think that the final user has the right to know what he's downloading.
> 
> Baio


On that I can agree, changelogs are a joke, but if Asus doesn't explicitly state it is a beta on the download page it is a final version.


----------



## flyinion

xeizo said:


> On that I can agree, changelogs are a joke, but if Asus doesn't explicitly state it is a beta on the download page it is a final version.



Or whoever updated their website screwed up. I think that’s what is being suggested. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## The Stilt

I'm honestly not sure what difference does it make to then end-user, if they're using a "beta" or a "release" bios version.
The only difference between a beta and a release bios in general is that the bioses which end up as release versions are tested more extensively, before they are outed as a "release version".
The more in-depth testing obviously takes time and for the most part, even that won't be able to find the minor bugs, which are more of a rule than an exception.

Because of that, I find it rather hilarious that there are people who complain about the slow update cycle, but also refuse to use "beta bioses" at the same time.
I do realize that these people are the same ones who are reading QVLs with a magnifying glass, but nevertheless I find it amusing and irritating at the same time.

That being said, I do fully agree that the bioses available for download should be properly labeled.


----------



## Baio73

xeizo said:


> On that I can agree, changelogs are a joke, but if Asus doesn't explicitly state it is a beta on the download page it is a final version.


So ASUS should fire this employer:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/hiqxds/new_uefi_2103_for_asus_c8h_crosshair_viii_hero_no/

Baio


----------



## Reikoji

Badgerslayer7 said:


> Wasn’t 2101 the beta bios. It was posted on here by reous a couple of weeks ago.


It was, and I think the real issue that with them putting 2103 on the website is that they don't normally put beta bios up there. Thats the reason they didn't but 2101, or the Formula specific 0097 up there. If it is still a beta then they should have held off, for the people that don't wish to be guinea pigs like that. Me, I dont mind :3 The primary reason they shouldn't do it is because the official bios listing on the page should be stable versions only, and you have to jump through hoops to get back if you experience too many issues with the guinea pig bios like I have, and if they did it on boards that dont have flashback... HOO BOY. With every non-beta, official bios that ASUS have put up there, i have not had any issues and wouldn't expect to have any. Thats what people that aren't willing guinea pigs expect.



Baio73 said:


> So ASUS should fire this employer:
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/hiqxds/new_uefi_2103_for_asus_c8h_crosshair_viii_hero_no/
> 
> Baio


Putting it on reddit or here is fine, putting it on the primary software/driver download page is not, if its still beta. Or if it is, be properly marked as a beta, which it is not.

For example. AMD has a beta driver for Microsofts Hardware GPU Scheduler, but they aren't listing that one where you find their normal driver updates, you have to jump through hoops (search) to find it. Not for the normal consumer, like beta bios.


----------



## kitfit1

I must admit, i had no idea that 2103 or 2010 were Beta bios's. I can see exactly why risk averse people simply don't want to flash to a beta bios, it has never bothered me personally. What i think is completely out of order though is Asus posting not one but two Beta bios's up on the official download site as if they were stable bios's.
I can say though that 2103 for me has been a very good bios, the improvement in CB20 is well past margin of error territory as is FCLK even with 4 sticks.


----------



## garyd9

Concerning 2103: I really can't understand how FCLK 1800 is working fine for some people and not at all for others (such as myself.) I could understand if I had some tweaked setting that was interfering, but a completely stock BIOS with nothing but DOCP turned on shouldn't be a problem. Left completely "auto" (with DOCP enabled), it refuses to use the memory XMP speeds, and forcing FCLK to 1800 (with DOCP enabled and everything else 'auto') results in the board shutting itself down instantly.

Revert to 1302 and everything is fine - indicating that everything with the physical hardware is fine.


----------



## flyinion

garyd9 said:


> Concerning 2103: I really can't understand how FCLK 1800 is working fine for some people and not at all for others (such as myself.) I could understand if I had some tweaked setting that was interfering, but a completely stock BIOS with nothing but DOCP turned on shouldn't be a problem. Left completely "auto" (with DOCP enabled), it refuses to use the memory XMP speeds, and forcing FCLK to 1800 (with DOCP enabled and everything else 'auto') results in the board shutting itself down instantly.
> 
> Revert to 1302 and everything is fine - indicating that everything with the physical hardware is fine.



That’s definitely weird. My DDR3600 CL18 trident Neo is working great on DOCP and auto fclk. I actually had to tweak less things than on 2010 and earlier BIOS versions 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## garyd9

flyinion said:


> That’s definitely weird. My DDR3600 CL18 trident Neo is working great on DOCP and auto fclk. I actually had to tweak less things than on 2010 and earlier BIOS versions


I hate asking the obvious, but can you confirm that your FCLK is actually at 1800? With 2103, when I turned on DOCP in BIOS and left FCLK at auto, it actually booted my RAM as 2133 and FCLK was jumping all over the place (according to hwinfo64) and maxing at 1200.


----------



## Ghaxx

garyd9 said:


> I hate asking the obvious, but can you confirm that your FCLK is actually at 1800? With 2103, when I turned on DOCP in BIOS and left FCLK at auto, it actually booted my RAM as 2133 and FCLK was jumping all over the place (according to hwinfo64) and maxing at 1200.


If it helps, I can confirm that my RAM is running at 3600 and FCLK is at 1800 with bios 2103. FCLK is set to auto, only change in the bios from default was turning on DOCP. Confirmed readings in both HWInfo and Ryzen Master.

Running 4 sticks of TridentZ Neo 3600 on the non-wifi CH8 version of the board.


----------



## garyd9

Ghaxx said:


> If it helps, I can confirm that my RAM is running at 3600 and FCLK is at 1800 with bios 2103. FCLK is set to auto, only change in the bios from default was turning on DOCP. Confirmed readings in both HWInfo and Ryzen Master.
> 
> Running 4 sticks of TridentZ Neo 3600 on the non-wifi CH8 version of the board.


G.skill packages three different types of RAM chips in the tridentZ neo with 3600 speeds. They're most easily identified by the XMP timings: Samsung B die (16-16-16-36), hynix DFR (16-19-19-39) and something else (18-22-22-42) Do you know which set you have?

Also, which ryzen processor are you using?

(Trying to figure out if it's something related to the specific CPU, specific RAM type, or perhaps just an issue with the motherboard.)


----------



## Ghaxx

garyd9 said:


> G.skill packages three different types of RAM chips in the tridentZ neo with 3600 speeds. They're most easily identified by the XMP timings: Samsung B die (16-16-16-36), hynix DFR (16-19-19-39) and something else (18-22-22-42) Do you know which set you have?
> 
> Also, which ryzen processor are you using?
> 
> (Trying to figure out if it's something related to the specific CPU, specific RAM type, or perhaps just an issue with the motherboard.)


I am using a Ryzen 9 3950X and the TridentZ version is Hynix DFR (16-19-19-39 timings).


----------



## garyd9

Ghaxx said:


> I am using a Ryzen 9 3950X and the TridentZ version is Hynix DFR (16-19-19-39 timings).


Thank you. 

Same memory as mine (same chips, different heatsink.) You have a 3950x and I have a 3900x (so they are both dual CCD.) 

Same motherboard with the exception of mine being wifi and yours non-wifi. I'm not sure how the AX200 (wifi) is wired on this m/b. (Windows shows it as a PCIe device.) If it's like a previous asus board I had, it's just a small PCIe card under the i/o port shield (and the non-wifi board has an empty slot in the same location.) Considering how early the board turns itself off when I try to boot 2103 with a 1800 FCLK, I doubt it's even started to initialize the PCIe bus. 

It could be a bug in the wifi specific version of 2103 (which would impact all users who bother to pay attention to their memory speeds and FCLK - which probably aren't many) or something more isolated.

If this is broken on all wifi boards, surely asus would have noticed before now. Then again, maybe they wouldn't. The quality of their firmware has dropped quite a bit over the past few years and I'm not convinced they are doing any serious Q/A anymore.

So, a call out to anyone reading this: If you have a C8H, either wifi or non-wifi, and have tried 2103, is it working for you? wifi or non-wifi board? Did you check that your memory is really running at 3600 (or higher) and that your FCLK is stable at 1800 (or higher)? What memory/CPU?

Thanks
Gary

Ghaxx (working): non-wifi, 3950x, 4x??gb hynix DJR
flyinion (working): non-wifi, 3700x, 2x16 hynix CJR
garyd9 (working after reflashing): wifi, 3900x, 2x16 hynix DJR
eyecrave (working): wifi, 3800x, (?x? B-die) (mclk 1900, FCLK 1900)
Reikoji (NOT working): wifi (formula), 3900x, 4x8GB ???
Othoric (inconclusive): wifi, 3900x, 2x16GB hynix DJR
tien113, (working): wifi, 3950x, 2x16 hynix DJR
chaosweapon (working): wifi, 3900x, 2x16 hynix DJR

NOTE: "NOT working" indicates that the user reported enough problems with the BIOS that they felt it was unusable for their use. "working" indicates a user who is using that BIOS and is content keeping that BIOS in use. (I don't think anyone who has had any issues at all is content to keep using it.)

Another Note: While previous posts (and probably a couple after this one) document my experiences, this table wouldn't be accurate without noting that 2103 worked for me after I went back to 1302 and then flashed 2103 again the next day. Perhaps bad flash? No idea.


----------



## flyinion

Ghaxx said:


> If it helps, I can confirm that my RAM is running at 3600 and FCLK is at 1800 with bios 2103. FCLK is set to auto, only change in the bios from default was turning on DOCP. Confirmed readings in both HWInfo and Ryzen Master.
> 
> Running 4 sticks of TridentZ Neo 3600 on the non-wifi CH8 version of the board.



Yep I’m running the CL18 CJR sticks 2x16GB. Non-WiFi CH8 with a 3700X. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## tien113

I confirmed:

(working): wifi, 3950x, 2x16 hynix DJR

everything is working good.


----------



## eyecrave

Posted earlier about mine with 2103 bios and ran karhu ram test as well over 20k%. Specs in sig but for some odd reason it won't update my windows version which is 2004. For me anyway it seems pretty stable with no game crashes or blue screens. Might be just within margin of error but i got better scores with 2103 bios compared to 2101. I didn't run karhu ram test on 2101 though but seemed stable.


https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...cking-discussion-thread-267.html#post28521444


----------



## garyd9

eyecrave said:


> Posted earlier about mine with 2103 bios and ran karhu ram test as well over 20k%.


I have you listed here: https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...cking-discussion-thread-270.html#post28523984 as 

eyecrave (working): wifi, 3800x, (? 3200-CL14. b-die?) (mclk 1900, FCLK 1900)

I'm not sure what type of memory chips are on the model memory sticks you have listed, but 3200-CL14 is often samsung b-die.

There's hardly enough of a sample size (7 people) to be sure, but so far anyone with a 3900x has had issues with 2103 on a wifi board. (The C8F is a wifi board.) I don't have any samples of a non-wifi 3900x user.

More people posting their results of trying to use the 2301 BIOS would be helpful. Again, please post which m/b (if it's a hero, is it wifi or not), which CPU, what type of RAM (the type of memory chip is more important than the brand on the label, but I can usually make a good guess from a model number) and if things are working well under BIOS 2301. It would also be useful to post if your FCLK is actually sticking to the proper speed (1800 for DDR4 3600) when viewed with hwinfo.


----------



## eyecrave

garyd9 said:


> I have you listed here: https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...cking-discussion-thread-270.html#post28523984 as
> 
> eyecrave (working): wifi, 3800x, (? 3200-CL14. b-die?) (mclk 1900, FCLK 1900)
> 
> I'm not sure what type of memory chips are on the model memory sticks you have listed, but 3200-CL14 is often samsung b-die.
> 
> There's hardly enough of a sample size (7 people) to be sure, but so far anyone with a 3900x has had issues with 2103 on a wifi board. (The C8F is a wifi board.) I don't have any samples of a non-wifi 3900x user.
> 
> More people posting their results of trying to use the 2301 BIOS would be helpful. Again, please post which m/b (if it's a hero, is it wifi or not), which CPU, what type of RAM (the type of memory chip is more important than the brand on the label, but I can usually make a good guess from a model number) and if things are working well under BIOS 2301. It would also be useful to post if your FCLK is actually sticking to the proper speed (1800 for DDR4 3600) when viewed with hwinfo.


Yes they are b die.


----------



## Othoric

garyd9 said:


> Thank you.
> 
> Same memory as mine (same chips, different heatsink.) You have a 3950x and I have a 3900x (so they are both dual CCD.)
> 
> Same motherboard with the exception of mine being wifi and yours non-wifi. I'm not sure how the AX200 (wifi) is wired on this m/b. (Windows shows it as a PCIe device.) If it's like a previous asus board I had, it's just a small PCIe card under the i/o port shield (and the non-wifi board has an empty slot in the same location.) Considering how early the board turns itself off when I try to boot 2103 with a 1800 FCLK, I doubt it's even started to initialize the PCIe bus.
> 
> It could be a bug in the wifi specific version of 2103 (which would impact all users who bother to pay attention to their memory speeds and FCLK - which probably aren't many) or something more isolated.
> 
> If this is broken on all wifi boards, surely asus would have noticed before now. Then again, maybe they wouldn't. The quality of their firmware has dropped quite a bit over the past few years and I'm not convinced they are doing any serious Q/A anymore.
> 
> So, a call out to anyone reading this: If you have a C8H, either wifi or non-wifi, and have tried 2103, is it working for you? wifi or non-wifi board? Did you check that your memory is really running at 3600 (or higher) and that your FCLK is stable at 1800 (or higher)? What memory/CPU?
> 
> Thanks
> Gary
> 
> Ghaxx (working): non-wifi, 3950x, 4x??gb hynix DJR
> flyinion (working): non-wifi, 3700x, 2x16 hynix CJR
> garyd9 (NOT working): wifi, 3900x, 2x16 hynix DJR
> eyecrave (working): wifi, 3800x, (? 3200-CL14. b-die?) (mclk 1900, FCLK 1900)
> Reikoji (NOT working): wifi (formula), 3900x, 4x8GB ???
> Othoric (NOT working): ??, 3900x, ??
> tien113, (working): wifi, 3950x, 2x16 hynix DJR
> 
> Is 3900x a pattern?



To clarify, I'm using the Crosshair VIII Hero Wi-Fi and 32gb (16x2) G.Skill TridentZ Neo 16-19-19-39 (Hynix). The errors that I was having in Linux pointed to PCI-E and USB devices but I didn't investigate further. In Windows I noticed a reduction in boost clock (with only DOCP enabled). On 1302 and earlier BIOS revisions I always set all of my voltages manually as I was having audio crackling and sleep bugs related to the Auto setting applying too low of voltages. On 2103 I did not start out adjusting voltages as I did with 1302, but I did end up having to manually put my FCLK at 1800, and set my SOC, VDDG CCD, VDDG IOD, and cLDO VDDP voltages manually to get past some random reboots although I did not keep 2103 long enough to run full system stability checks.


----------



## garyd9

Othoric said:


> To clarify ... On 2103 I did not start out adjusting voltages as I did with 1302, but I did end up having to manually put my FCLK at 1800, and set my SOC, VDDG CCD, VDDG IOD, and cLDO VDDP voltages manually to get past some random reboots ...


I updated yours to indicate 2x16 hynix DJR. I will also edit to include a comment that "not working" indicates different types of problems. Do you remember what happened if you set your FCLK to 1800 manually, but didn't override the voltages? 

Way too small of a sample size to even call it a pattern, but so far anyone with a 3900x on a wifi capable board has had some issues with 2103... and everything seems fine for anyone with anything other than a 3900x.


----------



## Othoric

garyd9 said:


> I updated yours to indicate 2x16 hynix DJR. I will also edit to include a comment that "not working" indicates different types of problems. Do you remember what happened if you set your FCLK to 1800 manually, but didn't override the voltages?
> 
> Way too small of a sample size to even call it a pattern, but so far anyone with a 3900x on a wifi capable board has had some issues with 2103... and everything seems fine for anyone with anything other than a 3900x.



With the DOCP enabled and the FCLK set at 1800 manually but without any voltage overrides ended with a random reboot within about 3 minutes of reaching the desktop. According to the log in Linux it came up as an "AMD microcode error" which in at least my experience with this board is an error I've received that usually indicates the SOC or VDDP voltage was too low. However, being that 2103 had a new AGESA I concede that it there is a very high possibility it could have been a kernel issue.


----------



## chaosweapon

Othoric said:


> To clarify, I'm using the Crosshair VIII Hero Wi-Fi and 32gb (16x2) G.Skill TridentZ Neo 16-19-19-39 (Hynix). The errors that I was having in Linux pointed to PCI-E and USB devices but I didn't investigate further. In Windows I noticed a reduction in boost clock (with only DOCP enabled). On 1302 and earlier BIOS revisions I always set all of my voltages manually as I was having audio crackling and sleep bugs related to the Auto setting applying too low of voltages. On 2103 I did not start out adjusting voltages as I did with 1302, but I did end up having to manually put my FCLK at 1800, and set my SOC, VDDG CCD, VDDG IOD, and cLDO VDDP voltages manually to get past some random reboots although I did not keep 2103 long enough to run full system stability checks.


I flashed version 2103 onto my C8H WiFi motherboard and it works fine.

I have a 3900X CPU and Neo Trident RAM. Check the screenshot for the exact RAM model.

The RAM is running at 3600MHz without any problems.


----------



## garyd9

chaosweapon said:


> I flashed version 2103 onto my C8H WiFi motherboard and it works fine.


Well, then it's not the 3900x causing the problem. You're also using hynix DJR. No idea now. Now I'm back to not even having a guess as to what is going wrong.

On your system, did you leave the FCLK at auto and just set DOCP on, or are you manually setting the RAM speed, FCLK, etc? (I'm just trying to find any differences to understand why some people are having no issue and others are having major problems.) The more information you can post about anything non-auto in BIOS might be helpful.


----------



## Othoric

garyd9 said:


> Well, then it's not the 3900x causing the problem. You're also using hynix DJR. No idea now. Now I'm back to not even having a guess as to what is going wrong.
> 
> On your system, did you leave the FCLK at auto and just set DOCP on, or are you manually setting the RAM speed, FCLK, etc? (I'm just trying to find any differences to understand why some people are having no issue and others are having major problems.) The more information you can post about anything non-auto in BIOS might be helpful.



I may be reaching a bit here, but since there are some inconsistencies with some people having issues and some not having issues with the same CPU and RAM, could hardware be a factor? Infinity fabric degradation, or silicon lottery?


----------



## xeizo

Othoric said:


> I may be reaching a bit here, but since there are some inconsistencies with some people having issues and some not having issues with the same CPU and RAM, could hardware be a factor? Infinity fabric degradation, or silicon lottery?


Rather wrong timings/subtimings and some voltages a bit off, you have to work real hard to degrade the chips

Here is stable 3800/1900 on the B550-F with Hynix DJR, it needs some loose timings to shine it's not B-die










Gives these latencies/bandwith, which are not near B-die, but pretty good anyway


----------



## garyd9

Othoric said:


> I may be reaching a bit here, but since there are some inconsistencies with some people having issues and some not having issues with the same CPU and RAM, could hardware be a factor? Infinity fabric degradation, or silicon lottery?


Perhaps, but I think that would be extremely unlikely. Keep in mind that it won't boot properly in even full "auto" mode on 2103. Then there's the oddity of a variable FCLK rate with 2103. That's something I've never seen before. (I wonder if that's a zen3 feature. If the bios was confusing my chip for a zen3, it could explain a lot of things.)

I'm also not trying to push things out of spec. My 3900x is less than 3 months old and has never seen a FCLK greater than the AMD approved 1800.


----------



## garyd9

If I was confused before about 2103, I'm even more confused now...

I just updated from 1302 to 2103 again today. I used the exact same .cap file I used previously, from the exact same USB stick. I followed the exact same steps as I performed previously: 

Booted into BIOS and saved my settings to a CMO file.

Updated to 2301 from the flash utility built into UEFI. 

It finished. It rebooted. Then it rebooted again. 

Then I had to press F1 because all my settings were cleared.

Went into BIOS and turned on DOCP. I made NO OTHER CHANGE.

Rebooted and went back into BIOS. Be shocked that it's using my memory at full DDR4-3600 speed. 

Loaded the .CMO file I created above. Validate that everything is set as expected (including FCLK, memory, etc)

F10 and reboot. Be shocked that it didn't immediately turn off.

Allow it to boot into windows and run hwinfo64. Be shocked that my FCLK is properly at 1800, memory is properly at 3600, etc.

Run CB R20 (which I prefer as a general purpose benchmark over things that explicitly try to stress certain aspects)

Note that I gained an insignificant 30 points on the multi-core test. (I don't bother with the single core test.)

---

In all fairness, I did make a single hardware change between the last attempt at 2103 and this attempt just now. It was one of those "it shouldn't make any difference but it probably can't hurt" type changes: I've only been using the 8 pin +12VDC CPU power connector on the motherboard. The additional 4pin connector shouldn't be needed unless I'm doing EXTREME overclocking (at which point I'd have better than a 650watt PSU.) 

For no particular reason, I decided to attach the 4 pin, but my EVGA PSU only has a single "CPU" connector, so I used the included splitter to "split" the single 8 pin connector to a 8pin + 4pin, and then attached them both. (This isn't something I'd normally do, but I know that my CPU would throttle long before using the splitter would become an issue.) 

I'm starting to wonder (and I'll be testing soon) if just having current over that extra connector is actually making a difference. If so, they need to update the manual for the board to indicate that the 4pin connector is NOT optional...

---

And another edit: I disconnected the 4pin +12VDC and... it worked fine. Perhaps it was a bad flash. I'd have expected the flashing utility to validate the process, but that might be expecting too much from Asus.

On a side note, the new BIOS caused Windows to re-detect several USB items (bluetooth device, keyboard, and mouse) as well as the sound chip. Examining the device tree, it appears that it re-assigned the hardware ID of 2 different PCIe Root Ports. 

old: PCI\VEN_1022&DEV_1484&SUBSYS_14841022&REV_00\3&11583659&0&41
new: PCI\VEN_1022&DEV_1484&SUBSYS_87C01043&REV_00\3&11583659&0&41

This really only matters if you have/had specific device settings configured (such as turning off the ability of a mouse to wake the computer from sleep)


----------



## xeizo

The 4-pin should not be necessary, just saying

A great tip is to use Bios Flashback the next time you update bios, and all the times after that, far less things can go wrong using Flashback!


----------



## flyinion

Yeah sounds like your first flash was just a bad one somehow then. I also had the same USB issue, but going from 1105 to the earlier 2010 release. Nothing changed going to 2103. Whatever it is, it's something with the 2xxx series BIOS's though.


----------



## chaosweapon

garyd9 said:


> Well, then it's not the 3900x causing the problem. You're also using hynix DJR. No idea now. Now I'm back to not even having a guess as to what is going wrong.
> 
> On your system, did you leave the FCLK at auto and just set DOCP on, or are you manually setting the RAM speed, FCLK, etc? (I'm just trying to find any differences to understand why some people are having no issue and others are having major problems.) The more information you can post about anything non-auto in BIOS might be helpful.


DOCP is set to the standard profile and FCLK is set to auto.

Are you loading the bios settings from a saved file or are you reapplying them manually? I reapplied them manually.


----------



## zsoltmol

When can we have a finally not beta bios after 2103? It was said "soon" one-two weeks ago in a reddit post by one Asus employee who said 2103 is indeed a beta bios. I don't know if Asus beta bios is good or bad, I just know Asus NON-beta bios for X570 behaves like it is a beta. 

I'm a bit tired to pay premium price for such mainboard and 1 year after purchase we are still public beta testers.... :-(


----------



## garyd9

zsoltmol said:


> When can we have a finally not beta bios after 2103? It was said "soon" one-two weeks ago in a reddit post by one Asus employee who said 2103 is indeed a beta bios.


You're assuming that the reddit poster had a clue. 

Which is more likely:

1) An Asus employee who's job it is to post on "reddit" has a clue.

or..

2) They accidentally posted a beta firmware without a beta tag in the public "support" section of their website, and left it like that for over a week with no additional comment, warning, or taking it down -- knowing that if customers download a "beta" firmware from their support site, that their support staff will have to support it.

...

(Okay, neither scenario is really unlikely, but #2 would cost them money, so I think they'd have flagged it as beta or taken it down by now.)


----------



## Baio73

garyd9 said:


> You're assuming that the reddit poster had a clue.
> 
> Which is more likely:
> 
> 1) An Asus employee who's job it is to post on "reddit" has a clue.
> 
> or..
> 
> 2) They accidentally posted a beta firmware without a beta tag in the public "support" section of their website, and left it like that for over a week with no additional comment, warning, or taking it down -- knowing that if customers download a "beta" firmware from their support site, that their support staff will have to support it.
> 
> ...
> 
> (Okay, neither scenario is really unlikely, but #2 would cost them money, so I think they'd have flagged it as beta or taken it down by now.)


If it was "accidental", it means ASUS people is quite careless as the BETA BIOS is still there...

Baio


----------



## benbenkr

zsoltmol said:


> When can we have a finally not beta bios after 2103? It was said "soon" one-two weeks ago in a reddit post by one Asus employee who said 2103 is indeed a beta bios. I don't know if Asus beta bios is good or bad, I just know Asus NON-beta bios for X570 behaves like it is a beta.
> 
> I'm a bit tired to pay premium price for such mainboard and 1 year after purchase we are still public beta testers.... :-(



Newsflash, you're never going to stop being a beta tester if you're using the latest hardware. When AM4 finally retires next year after Zen 3, it'll be a whole new platform with a whole host of issues again. The cycle will not stop.


----------



## xeizo

Baio73 said:


> If it was "accidental", it means ASUS people is quite careless as the BETA BIOS is still there...
> 
> Baio


If it's still there it is because it is no longer a Beta, easy as that.

Beta-status is just a flag the developer sets on a testing bios, when the testing is done he/she is free to call it no longer a Beta. The decision is made by the developers, in this case Asus, not by the comsumer in this case You. There is no magical stuff separating a Beta-version from a final version. It's just a name for what it is called before it is deemed ready.

If Asus has it on it's official pages, it is officially supported whatever someone calls it.


----------



## Sam64

> There is no magical stuff separating a Beta-version from a final version. It's just a name for what it is called before it is deemed ready.


Sorry, maybe I'm oldskool (developer for 25 years now): Beta is never Final and if you have to update a business critical system, you avoid Beta versions whenever you can.


Anyhow as an "enthusiast" you can always give it a try to use Beta versions on a non-critical system, but without complaining afterwards, of course 


Update to garyd9:


Beta software is usually a pre-release version of the final version and yes, it's mostly feature complete, but it may be unstable or lack features that will be be included in the final release. Nothing todo with oldskool... but ok, let me change from "beta is never final" to "beta is mostly not final", peace?


----------



## arkantos91

Hello guys, nice to meet you.

I just upgraded from a X470 Gigabyte to the Hero X570.

I have a 3900X but even with a Noctua NH-D14 I really don't like the temps I'm getting. Even if it's hot here in the summer. In my room there is 26/27° C.

My case is big,clean and it's sitting on my desk so there's plenty of airflow also considering I have a Noctua 200mm fan as intake in the front of the chassis.

I tried auto settings for the cpu, tweaking only the ram according to the DRAM calculator but the cpu vcore is most of the time around 1.4V with random spikes also to 1.48. In games like PUBG it goes around and OVER 70° C, always never less than 65°.

Only way I managed to keep the temps a little bit under control is with negative offset of 0.05V. I don't know if I can push it further without having instability.

This afternoon I've been trying 1usmus power plan but it's the same. If possibile, the vcore stays even more around 1.4V and above. PBO on or off it does not make any difference to me.

Any hints on how to change the BIOS to achieve reasonable temps? I just game on this machine, so even if it means losing some multi core performance, I don't really care.


----------



## garyd9

Sam64 said:


> Sorry, maybe I'm oldskool (developer for 25 years now): Beta is never Final and if you have to update a business critical system, you avoid Beta versions whenever you can.


"beta is never final..." umm... you don't sound like a developer to me. At least not a s/w developer. 

Tell me something: when the "beta" passes testing, what is it called? If you're really "oldskool", you know "beta" as "feature complete" and that if no bugs are found, it can be released. If you're "oldskool", you're also paranoid enough that ANY rebuild should kick off another round of beta testing to validate that nothing unforeseen crept into the code.

(Of course, "modern" developers tend to be a bit more casual about things. As long as it works on their machine 50% of the time, they just release it and "beta" is just a marketing term.)

Regardless, all this discussion about "beta" is assuming some person on reddit was actually correct in calling it a beta. Considering that this person is trying to talk to hundreds of different people regarding hundreds (or perhaps thousands) of different products (of which motherboards are only a small part), AND that they never responded to inquiries about it not showing a beta label, AND that they were wrong about newer versions being posted that Friday (it was over a week ago) - I think it's fairly safe to assume that the reddit poster was wrong/mistaken.


----------



## garyd9

arkantos91 said:


> I have a 3900X but even with a Noctua NH-D14 I really don't like the temps I'm getting.
> ...
> In games like PUBG it goes around and OVER 70° C, always never less than 65°.
> 
> Only way I managed to keep the temps a little bit under control is with negative offset of 0.05V. I don't know if I can push it further without having instability.


Did you run the same 3900x in your x470? How different were the temps? 

To compare with you, if I run cinebench R20 in a 10 minute loop, my CPU die temps peak at ~73.9C. I use a -0.1v offset on the CPU. In my case, I throttle from power draw (EDC) not from temperature. I've never seen my temps go over 60C while just playing normal games, however. (I don't play many games, though.)

Oh, and I'm running a custom water loop. I have a crappy EK velocity waterblock, but it should still cool better than any "off the shelf" cooling. At the time I measured the 73.9, my water temperature was 35C.

The point is that the 3900x is a hot processor...


----------



## xenolith

Is there anybody who got an EVGA RTX 2080 Super FTW3 video card to work in the ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII (non-WiFi)?

I've tried EVERYTHING to get this motherboard to work with this video card without any success. I can not get it to POST. The POST process always stops with the VGA diagnostic LED remaining on, with Q-LED 02 error code. Installing the latest firmware (2103) and clearing CMOS (battery removed for 10 min) didn't fix it. I've tried two known good EVGA 1000W PSU's, so that's not the issue.

I've tested three other video cards, a GTX 1080 ti, GTX 980 ti, and an old HD 6780, and they all boot straight into the UEFI without a hiccup.

After testing the 2080 in a totally separate PC, it initialized and booted straight into Windows with no problem at all.

I talked to ASUS support today and they want me to RMA the motherboard, but I'm hesitant because it maybe very hard to replicate the issue. What are the odds they'll have a EVGA RTX 2080 Super FTW3 on their test bench?

I can't imagine being the only one who has configured these two pieces of hardware together over the last year and it being a bug in the firmware, or would it?

UPDATE: I may have found the issue: https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...ocking-discussion-thread-69.html#post28532678


----------



## zykic

xenolith said:


> Is there anybody who got an EVGA RTX 2080 Super FTW3 video card to work in the ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII (non-WiFi)?
> 
> I've tried EVERYTHING to get this motherboard to work with this video card without any success. I can not get it to POST. The POST process always stops with the VGA diagnostic LED remaining on, with Q-LED 02 error code. Installing the latest firmware (2103) and clearing CMOS (battery removed for 10 min) didn't fix it. I've tried two known good EVGA 1000W PSU's, so that's not the issue.
> 
> I've tested three other video cards, a GTX 1080 ti, GTX 980 ti, and an old HD 6780, and they all boot straight into the UEFI without a hiccup.
> 
> After testing the 2080 in a totally separate PC, it initialized and booted straight into Windows with no problem at all.
> 
> I talked to ASUS support today and they want me to RMA the motherboard, but I'm hesitant because it maybe very hard to replicate the issue. What are the odds they'll have a EVGA RTX 2080 Super FTW3 on their test bench?
> 
> I can't imagine being the only one who has configured these two pieces of hardware together over the last year and it being a bug in the firmware, or would it?


did you try to clean the card and/or slot contact yet?


----------



## xenolith

zykic said:


> did you try to clean the card and/or slot contact yet?


The video card and motherboard are brand new and look clean and they both work just fine. They just don't work together. lol

Thank you for the suggestion.


----------



## flyinion

xenolith said:


> Is there anybody who got an EVGA RTX 2080 Super FTW3 video card to work in the ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII (non-WiFi)?
> 
> I've tried EVERYTHING to get this motherboard to work with this video card without any success. I can not get it to POST. The POST process always stops with the VGA diagnostic LED remaining on, with Q-LED 02 error code. Installing the latest firmware (2103) and clearing CMOS (battery removed for 10 min) didn't fix it. I've tried two known good EVGA 1000W PSU's, so that's not the issue.
> 
> I've tested three other video cards, a GTX 1080 ti, GTX 980 ti, and an old HD 6780, and they all boot straight into the UEFI without a hiccup.
> 
> After testing the 2080 in a totally separate PC, it initialized and booted straight into Windows with no problem at all.
> 
> I talked to ASUS support today and they want me to RMA the motherboard, but I'm hesitant because it maybe very hard to replicate the issue. What are the odds they'll have a EVGA RTX 2080 Super FTW3 on their test bench?
> 
> I can't imagine being the only one who has configured these two pieces of hardware together over the last year and it being a bug in the firmware, or would it?


I've been running the Hydro Copper SKU of that card since September without issue on at least 3 different BIOS versions on a non-wifi Hero. Only difference between my card and yours is mine came with the water block factory installed instead of an air cooler. No idea why you'd be having problems. You ran two separate PCIE connectors to it correct? Did you try the alternate BIOS switch on the card to see if it's an issue with one of the BIOS's on the card?


----------



## Krisztias

xenolith said:


> Is there anybody who got an EVGA RTX 2080 Super FTW3 video card to work in the ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII (non-WiFi)?
> 
> I've tried EVERYTHING to get this motherboard to work with this video card without any success. I can not get it to POST. The POST process always stops with the VGA diagnostic LED remaining on, with Q-LED 02 error code. Installing the latest firmware (2103) and clearing CMOS (battery removed for 10 min) didn't fix it. I've tried two known good EVGA 1000W PSU's, so that's not the issue.
> 
> I've tested three other video cards, a GTX 1080 ti, GTX 980 ti, and an old HD 6780, and they all boot straight into the UEFI without a hiccup.
> 
> After testing the 2080 in a totally separate PC, it initialized and booted straight into Windows with no problem at all.
> 
> I talked to ASUS support today and they want me to RMA the motherboard, but I'm hesitant because it maybe very hard to replicate the issue. What are the odds they'll have a EVGA RTX 2080 Super FTW3 on their test bench?
> 
> I can't imagine being the only one who has configured these two pieces of hardware together over the last year and it being a bug in the firmware, or would it?





flyinion said:


> I've been running the Hydro Copper SKU of that card since September without issue on at least 3 different BIOS versions on a non-wifi Hero. Only difference between my card and yours is mine came with the water block factory installed instead of an air cooler. No idea why you'd be having problems. You ran two separate PCIE connectors to it correct? Did you try the alternate BIOS switch on the card to see if it's an issue with one of the BIOS's on the card?


Same VGA, but Hero VIII Wi-Fi without a problem. Actually the EVGA Waterblock did not bring me the temps, what I wanted so I bought the EK Waterblock, and now I can game in the Summer with 43-45°C


----------



## Kokin

Jumped from 2101 to 2103 BIOS for my C8i and didn't really see any changes. My 3900X hits 4.5-4.6GHz max boost, 2x16GB TridentZ 3200CL14 B-die has no problems at 3600CL16 (Aida64 66.2 ns latency). 

Still cannot hit 1900Fclk, 1866Fclk is kinda unstable and there isn't much difference between 1800 and 1833. 

Are there certain tricks to getting my B-die to run 3600 14-14-14 or 15-15-15? I've tried XMP Fast/Safe for Ryzen Dram Calc and cannot hit those manual timings, even at 1.5V DRAM. Played around with low and high SoC/Vddg/Vddp voltages without any success. Using the A0 setting timings (16-16-16 @ 1.38V) passed 3 hrs of Karhu ram test and has always been solid. Although 3600CL16 isn't much of a gain over my stock 3200CL14. Anyone have advice?


----------



## zykic

Kokin said:


> Jumped from 2101 to 2103 BIOS for my C8i and didn't really see any changes. My 3900X hits 4.5-4.6GHz max boost, 2x16GB TridentZ 3200CL14 B-die has no problems at 3600CL16 (Aida64 66.2 ns latency).
> 
> Still cannot hit 1900Fclk, 1866Fclk is kinda unstable and there isn't much difference between 1800 and 1833.
> 
> Are there certain tricks to getting my B-die to run 3600 14-14-14 or 15-15-15? I've tried XMP Fast/Safe for Ryzen Dram Calc and cannot hit those manual timings, even at 1.5V DRAM. Played around with low and high SoC/Vddg/Vddp voltages without any success. Using the A0 setting timings (16-16-16 @ 1.38V) passed 3 hrs of Karhu ram test and has always been solid. Although 3600CL16 isn't much of a gain over my stock 3200CL14. Anyone have advice?


3200CL14(228.57 rating) is a mid-bin 8Gb b-die it's not going to do mid-high-bin b-die like 3600C14(257.14 rating)@<=1.5v, less so on dual rank.

I'm on [email protected] myself, and I can guarantee you realworld insignificant performance gain is not worth your efforts and money, unless you're on ocd(like myself). if you're going to upgrade, save you money for Zen 3, which may have lower base DRAM latency and/or much better memory controller. Upcoming Zen 2 APUs seem to have much lower latency/better controller too.


----------



## edit0r

Hello !

I am thinking on moving from x99/6850k to an 3900X/XT (haven't decided yet) and I would like to buy an Asus X570 Crosshair VIII Formula.

I might sound like a broken record but can you please tell me how are the temps on the chipset given the fact that the fan position is really bad and not only that is covered by the video card but also ar the right height so all the scorching hot air from the GPU is sucked in by the chipset fan.
I've looked on many pictures and unfortunately the heatsink is rather small completely covered by the plastic shroud so there is no way of providing additional cooling (with an external fan).


I've downloaded the manual and I haven't seen any mention what happens with the 8 sata ports if I install 2 x m.2 PCIE drives... usually you loose at least 1 or 2 sata ports... I've carefully searched but no word in the manual? 
Is like you can use 2 x PCIE m.2 AND 8 SATA ports all at the same time... 
What's your experience? It's a slip up in the manual or they pulled a miracle?

Thank you !


----------



## flyinion

Krisztias said:


> Same VGA, but Hero VIII Wi-Fi without a problem. Actually the EVGA Waterblock did not bring me the temps, what I wanted so I bought the EK Waterblock, and now I can game in the Summer with 43-45°C


I might replace mine as well for those reasons, though I think it's doing decent. Caps out around 50-52 with reasonable fan/pump settings while hammering it with Folding 24/7 while not gaming/etc. I had thought about buying something like an XC Ultra and a 3rd party block, but I liked the look of the EVGA blocks so I went the lazy route and bought the version with the pre-installed EVGA block.


----------



## Krisztias

flyinion said:


> I might replace mine as well for those reasons, though I think it's doing decent. Caps out around 50-52 with reasonable fan/pump settings while hammering it with Folding 24/7 while not gaming/etc. I had thought about buying something like an XC Ultra and a 3rd party block, but I liked the look of the EVGA blocks so I went the lazy route and bought the version with the pre-installed EVGA block.


I done the same, but even on EVGA forum are people, who having problems with the temps. I think it's "well known" among watercoolers, that this waterblock is not a good performer. Wish I had know it before.


----------



## flyinion

Krisztias said:


> I done the same, but even on EVGA forum are people, who having problems with the temps. I think it's "well known" among watercoolers, that this waterblock is not a good performer. Wish I had know it before.



Yep though it seems some of the issues are because there’s some design issue that makes it difficult to mount them flush and they end up not making good contact. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## benbenkr

edit0r said:


> Hello !
> 
> I am thinking on moving from x99/6850k to an 3900X/XT (haven't decided yet) and I would like to buy an Asus X570 Crosshair VIII Formula.
> 
> I might sound like a broken record but can you please tell me how are the temps on the chipset given the fact that the fan position is really bad and not only that is covered by the video card but also ar the right height so all the scorching hot air from the GPU is sucked in by the chipset fan.
> I've looked on many pictures and unfortunately the heatsink is rather small completely covered by the plastic shroud so there is no way of providing additional cooling (with an external fan).
> 
> 
> I've downloaded the manual and I haven't seen any mention what happens with the 8 sata ports if I install 2 x m.2 PCIE drives... usually you loose at least 1 or 2 sata ports... I've carefully searched but no word in the manual?
> Is like you can use 2 x PCIE m.2 AND 8 SATA ports all at the same time...
> What's your experience? It's a slip up in the manual or they pulled a miracle?
> 
> Thank you !


Chipset runs between 58c to 64c for me, idle and load. Surprising at first but not alarming.

You don't lose any SATA ports if you use both NVME slots.


----------



## xenolith

flyinion said:


> I've been running the Hydro Copper SKU of that card since September without issue on at least 3 different BIOS versions on a non-wifi Hero. Only difference between my card and yours is mine came with the water block factory installed instead of an air cooler. No idea why you'd be having problems. You ran two separate PCIE connectors to it correct? Did you try the alternate BIOS switch on the card to see if it's an issue with one of the BIOS's on the card?


Yes, made sure the two 8-pin power connectors are supplied to the 2080 with two separate VGA power cables from the PSU. Yes, tried the 2080's alternate BIOS switch. 

I found one other user in the whole internet universe saying they have this specific motherboard and video card together and they didn't seem to have any issue.

It's crazy. I tried this 2080 in two more completely different PCs and it works perfectly. It Looks like I'm going to have to send the motherboard back to ASUS. I'm not confident. I've dealt with ASUS support in the past and they've returned a faulty motherboard back to me without repair or replacement before. This is going to be tough to troubleshoot without having, in hand, these two exact pieces of hardware that work perfectly fine - except when they're put together.


----------



## edit0r

benbenkr said:


> Chipset runs between 58c to 64c for me, idle and load. Surprising at first but not alarming.
> 
> You don't lose any SATA ports if you use both NVME slots.


May I ask please what video card you have ?
I am curios if those 64c happen when you are gaming if your video card covers the fan area completely... mine is 2.5 slots... pretty big heatsink.

Thanks for the feedback man !


----------



## arkantos91

garyd9 said:


> Did you run the same 3900x in your x470? How different were the temps?
> 
> To compare with you, if I run cinebench R20 in a 10 minute loop, my CPU die temps peak at ~73.9C. I use a -0.1v offset on the CPU. In my case, I throttle from power draw (EDC) not from temperature. I've never seen my temps go over 60C while just playing normal games, however. (I don't play many games, though.)
> 
> Oh, and I'm running a custom water loop. I have a crappy EK velocity waterblock, but it should still cool better than any "off the shelf" cooling. At the time I measured the 73.9, my water temperature was 35C.
> 
> The point is that the 3900x is a hot processor...


Yes I did run the cpu on X470, temps were the same.

I'm waiting for the Corsair H150i Pro XT to be shipped.... but I'm new to liquid cooling.

What would you suggest for radiator positioning?

This is my chassis 

https://thermaltake.azureedge.net/p...0M1WN-02_1c9654cd15b94c39b834c95c2f3f90d9.jpg

The motherboard is horizontally placed.

I can put the 360mm radiator either on the front or on the top of the chassis, moving the Noctua 200mm fan I have now as intake in the front accordingly.

Putting the rad on top as exhaust means it would probably suck up most of the hot air from the gpu (my 2080TI gets VERY HOT in summer)... and that's probably not a very good idea.

Putting it in the front as intake would probably give better result. Then I can move the 200 Noctua fan on top as intake too so also the gpu gets some fresh air, otherwise it would only get hot air coming from the rad in front of the chassis.

At that point thought, there wouldn't be any exhaust fans, so I can put one in the rear just to compensate.

What would you do?


----------



## xenolith

arkantos91 said:


> Yes I did run the cpu on X470, temps were the same.
> 
> I'm waiting for the Corsair H150i Pro XT to be shipped.... but I'm new to liquid cooling.
> 
> What would you suggest for radiator positioning?
> 
> This is my chassis
> 
> https://thermaltake.azureedge.net/p...0M1WN-02_1c9654cd15b94c39b834c95c2f3f90d9.jpg
> 
> The motherboard is horizontally placed.
> 
> I can put the 360mm radiator either on the front or on the top of the chassis, moving the Noctua 200mm fan I have now as intake in the front accordingly.
> 
> Putting the rad on top as exhaust means it would probably suck up most of the hot air from the gpu (my 2080TI gets VERY HOT in summer)... and that's probably not a very good idea.
> 
> Putting it in the front as intake would probably give better result. Then I can move the 200 Noctua fan on top as intake too so also the gpu gets some fresh air, otherwise it would only get hot air coming from the rad in front of the chassis.
> 
> At that point thought, there wouldn't be any exhaust fans, so I can put one in the rear just to compensate.
> 
> What would you do?


That looks like a Core X5. I have the Core X9. Same case only the Core X5 is 4 inches shorter front to back. I put an 360 AIO water-cooler in it once. The only way I could get the block to reach the CPU was to mount the radiator on top. It exhausted out through the top as well and performed fine. Even though your case is shorter, mounting a typical AIO on the front may not allow it to reach the CPU.


----------



## garyd9

arkantos91 said:


> Yes I did run the cpu on X470, temps were the same.
> 
> I'm waiting for the Corsair H150i Pro XT to be shipped.... but I'm new to liquid cooling.
> 
> What would you suggest for radiator positioning?
> 
> This is my chassis


(I'm using a core x5 myself.) First, I always advocate for radiators to be fanned with fresh ambient air, not from warmed case air.

Second, there are several places in that case that can handle a 360mm radiator. My preference is on the bottom of the case, as an intake, while also having fans at the front (also doing intake.) That creates a very positive pressure case (which is fine considering how much open space there is at the top/rear of the case.) The fans at the front provide fresh air for cooling your video card and motherboard.

However, that might not be an option for a AIO. I don't know how long those tubes are. If it's not an option you can intake from the front as well. That will limit the amount of cool air getting to the motherboard and video card, however. (The radiator does block some airflow.) I'd also be concerned that the limited water cooling tubes might not reach that far forward. (Even though it's smaller than the x9, it's still a large case.)

It's also not unreasonable to intake from the top. The back of the case is quite large and vented, so there's lots of room for air to "escape" even with an excess of positive pressure. (If you do intake from the top, try to block off the extra vents on the lid of the case so you don't get into a situation where warm air is leaving at the top and then getting sucked back in to the radiator.)

Good luck!
Gary


----------



## arkantos91

xenolith said:


> That looks like a Core X5. I have the Core X9. Same case only the Core X5 is 4 inches shorter front to back. I put an 360 AIO water-cooler in it once. The only way I could get the block to reach the CPU was to mount the radiator on top. It exhausted out through the top as well and performed fine. Even though your case is shorter, mounting a typical AIO on the front may not allow it to reach the CPU.


That's exactly a Core X5! A friend of mine had the X9 and I know it's a HUGE case. I hope I can reach the cpu with the front top... I really haven't considered the chance of not being able to tbh, unless the AIO pipes are too short.

You should know pretty well how the X5 is... its roof is "splitted" in two halfs, each one able to support a 360mm radiator. The right one is precisely above the cpu, while the left one is above the gpu. By mounting the radiator on the right half on top, it shouldn't be catching too much hot air from the gpu which is more on the left down below.

I think I'll have to do some testing to understand what's best... unless of course I can reach the cpu only by having the radiator on top.

About push or pulling... what's generally advisable? Should I have the radiator fans attached to the case or not in a top mount? What about front mount?


----------



## garyd9

arkantos91 said:


> About push or pulling... what's generally advisable? Should I have the radiator fans attached to the case or not in a top mount? What about front mount?


Your choice. For efficiency, push is slightly better. Pull is easier to clean. 

(Even with dust filters, dust will still get into the radiator. When the fans pull air into the rad, the dust gets caught on the side of the radiator where there are no fans, making it slightly easier to clean when compared to the alternative which is dust getting caught on the side of the radiator where the fans are.)

My choice is push, but I've always been the pushy kind of person.


----------



## arkantos91

garyd9 said:


> (I'm using a core x5 myself.) First, I always advocate for radiators to be fanned with fresh ambient air, not from warmed case air.
> 
> Second, there are several places in that case that can handle a 360mm radiator. My preference is on the bottom of the case, as an intake, while also having fans at the front (also doing intake.) That creates a very positive pressure case (which is fine considering how much open space there is at the top/rear of the case.) The fans at the front provide fresh air for cooling your video card and motherboard.
> 
> However, that might not be an option for a AIO. I don't know how long those tubes are. If it's not an option you can intake from the front as well. That will limit the amount of cool air getting to the motherboard and video card, however. (The radiator does block some airflow.) I'd also be concerned that the limited water cooling tubes might not reach that far forward. (Even though it's smaller than the x9, it's still a large case.)
> 
> It's also not unreasonable to intake from the top. The back of the case is quite large and vented, so there's lots of room for air to "escape" even with an excess of positive pressure. (If you do intake from the top, try to block off the extra vents on the lid of the case so you don't get into a situation where warm air is leaving at the top and then getting sucked back in to the radiator.)
> 
> Good luck!
> Gary





garyd9 said:


> Your choice. For efficiency, push is slightly better. Pull is easier to clean.
> 
> (Even with dust filters, dust will still get into the radiator. When the fans pull air into the rad, the dust gets caught on the side of the radiator where there are no fans, making it slightly easier to clean when compared to the alternative which is dust getting caught on the side of the radiator where the fans are.)
> 
> My choice is push, but I've always been the pushy kind of person.


Thanks for helping me out! Hearing from someone sharing the same chassis it's very useful for sure.

I've check and the tubing length is 380mm... so it can probably barely reach the cpu from the front using a particular orientation that shortens distance. We will see I guess.

I do not have any experience by I also have a feeling that taking fresh air instead of already warmed case air it's much better.

Given that I have a very large Noctua fan, it's going to be only a matter of seeing if I can put the radiator in the front of the case. Then the Noctua fan would go up also as intake creating positive pressure. And also so for getting air to vrms, chipset and gpu. Air should get out from the other openings in the back of the case or from the roof around the intake fan.

Out of curiosity how does a bottom radiator work as intake? Is it getting air from below on the floor? Isn't there too little space for air to get inside from below the chassis?

About pull/push, just to be sure I'm not going the wrong direction... .push means that - going from outside to inside the chassis - we find the chassis, the fans and then the radiator, right?


----------



## The Sandman

arkantos91 said:


> Out of curiosity how does a bottom radiator work as intake? Is it getting air from below on the floor? Isn't there too little space for air to get inside from below the chassis?
> About pull/push, just to be sure I'm not going the wrong direction... .push means that - going from outside to inside the chassis - we find the chassis, the fans and then the radiator, right?



Bottom rad intake here as well. Front and top rads are both intake too. Works great. (rig sig below if interested different case)
My case has approx 30mm from floor to bottom of case (rad) and it sits on top of a DIY pedestal to minimize dust off floor etc.
Need more height just increase case feet height (shim/block?)



Push/Pull,
push is fan pushing through rad where pull is simply pulling air through rad. Doesn't matter intake or exhaust.
I run all my rads push as intake.


----------



## Rawson

Hi. I've got 2x kits of trident z. ones a samsung b and ones a hynix a. both kits are 16-18-18-18-38-58. The hynix will do 14-17-17-17-30-32, but the Samsung won't really do anything, no 16-16-16-16 either. Will I have to do step by step tuning on the Samsung? Is this motherboards overclocking support for RAM bad or is it bottom barley B die? I didn't expect B die to perform worse than Hynix A die - but will run in conjunction @stock XMP @1.4.


----------



## Kokin

zykic said:


> 3200CL14(228.57 rating) is a mid-bin 8Gb b-die it's not going to do mid-high-bin b-die like 3600C14(257.14 rating)@<=1.5v, less so on dual rank.
> 
> I'm on [email protected] myself, and I can guarantee you realworld insignificant performance gain is not worth your efforts and money, unless you're on ocd(like myself). if you're going to upgrade, save you money for Zen 3, which may have lower base DRAM latency and/or much better memory controller. Upcoming Zen 2 APUs seem to have much lower latency/better controller too.


Thanks for your input. I know the gains are minuscule, but I thought b-die had a lot of potential to get better timings than just "stock". I guess the dual rank really hurts OC potential. 

I'm looking forward to Zen 3! If boost clocks improve to 4.8-5GHz and we can attain 2000+FCLK normally, I'm upgrading my 3900X and giving it to my wife who has a 3600X. Also looking forward to the new GPUs from Nvidia and AMD to see if they gain enough performance to justify an upgrade from my 1080Ti.


----------



## Kokin

xenolith said:


> Yes, made sure the two 8-pin power connectors are supplied to the 2080 with two separate VGA power cables from the PSU. Yes, tried the 2080's alternate BIOS switch.
> 
> I found one other user in the whole internet universe saying they have this specific motherboard and video card together and they didn't seem to have any issue.
> 
> It's crazy. I tried this 2080 in two more completely different PCs and it works perfectly. It Looks like I'm going to have to send the motherboard back to ASUS. I'm not confident. I've dealt with ASUS support in the past and they've returned a faulty motherboard back to me without repair or replacement before. This is going to be tough to troubleshoot without having, in hand, these two exact pieces of hardware that work perfectly fine - except when they're put together.


Sorry for the double post, but have you tried going into the BIOS and setting PCI-E speeds to Gen 3? I've read issues with some motherboards giving issues with audio/video when running their PCI-E slots at Gen4 instead of Gen3 when using Gen3 peripherals.


----------



## xenolith

UPDATE:

I think I may have discovered what's going on. I was using a LG OLED C9 TV as the display over HDMI. 

While looking in my closet for a suitable box to ship the motherboard off to ASUS warranty service, I noticed my old 22 inch 1080p 60hz monitor collecting dust and wondered, what the heck, what could it hurt to test the display port. I've tested every other possibility. Maybe, just maybe.

So I pulled the monitor out and hooked it up, and lo and behold it booted straight into the UEFI. It appears this motherboard/video card configuration demanded to boot only from display port and not through HDMI.

All the other video card and motherboard configurations I currently have in my possession have no problem booting initially through HDMI and I've never heard or seen such an issue from others. I've build many systems for family, friends, and myself, for many years, exclusively with ASUS motherboards and have never experienced this kind of thing before so I never thought to look for it.

The legacy HD 6870 video card in my original post gave me a hint, but I didn't quite put 2 and 2 together. Currently, the only way I can get this configuration to boot while connected to a TV (they only have HDMI) is the following UEFI setting: BOOT > CSM > Launch CSM: Enabled > Boot Device Control: UEFI and Legacy OPROM. This HDMI connectivity issue is very repeatable. Simply by clearing CMOS or Load Optimized Defaults I get no POST while connected to HDMI like before.

I can't tell you how frustrating this whole thing has been in tracking down what appears to be quite a nasty little firmware bug. I posted the initial issue over at the ASUS ROG forums four days ago, but so far it's received 0 response.


----------



## xenolith

Kokin said:


> Sorry for the double post, but have you tried going into the BIOS and setting PCI-E speeds to Gen 3? I've read issues with some motherboards giving issues with audio/video when running their PCI-E slots at Gen4 instead of Gen3 when using Gen3 peripherals.


Thanks for the suggestion. see post #2746


----------



## garyd9

arkantos91 said:


> Out of curiosity how does a bottom radiator work as intake? Is it getting air from below on the floor? Isn't there too little space for air to get inside from below the chassis?


Bottom rad works fine. The X5's feet raise it about 1.25 inches (~30cm) off the table, giving quite a bit of room for air intake. If my radiator fans are spinning fast enough that air is becoming restricted, it's time for me to add another radiator to the loop. I've also had to add some mesh under there to act as a dust filter. Cleaning that requires I power everything down and lift the case up to get the mesh out.

Someone else already answered about the fans... "push" is the fans pushing air into the rad, and "pull" is the fans pulling air through the rad.


----------



## pantsoftime

xenolith said:


> UPDATE:
> 
> I think I may have discovered what's going on. I was using a LG OLED C9 TV as the display over HDMI.
> 
> While looking in my closet for a suitable box to ship the motherboard off to ASUS warranty service, I noticed my old 22 inch 1080p 60hz monitor collecting dust and wondered, what the heck, what could it hurt to test the display port. I've tested every other possibility. Maybe, just maybe.
> 
> So I pulled the monitor out and hooked it up, and lo and behold it booted straight into the UEFI. It appears this motherboard/video card configuration demanded to boot only from display port and not through HDMI.
> 
> All the other video card and motherboard configurations I currently have in my possession have no problem booting initially through HDMI and I've never heard or seen such an issue from others. I've build many systems for family, friends, and myself, for many years, exclusively with ASUS motherboards and have never experienced this kind of thing before so I never thought to look for it.
> 
> The legacy HD 6870 video card in my original post gave me a hint, but I didn't quite put 2 and 2 together. Currently, the only way I can get this configuration to boot while connected to a TV (they only have HDMI) is the following UEFI setting: BOOT > CSM > Launch CSM: Enabled > Boot Device Control: UEFI and Legacy OPROM. This HDMI connectivity issue is very repeatable. Simply by clearing CMOS or Load Optimized Defaults I get no POST while connected to HDMI like before.
> 
> I can't tell you how frustrating this whole thing has been in tracking down what appears to be quite a nasty little firmware bug. I posted the initial issue over at the ASUS ROG forums four days ago, but so far it's received 0 response.



Thanks for posting about this. I was reading your post and pondering my own experiences, and I believe that I've never seen a Crosshair board work with HDMI during post. I've got a Crosshair VI setup and two Crosshair VIII setups and none of them have ever posted over HDMI. I usually have the HDMI as a secondary screen, but I did have a situation once a little like yours and I remember it never worked. I'm not sure why Asus is worse than others in this area, but I completely concur with your findings.


----------



## xenolith

pantsoftime said:


> Thanks for posting about this. I was reading your post and pondering my own experiences, and I believe that I've never seen a Crosshair board work with HDMI during post. I've got a Crosshair VI setup and two Crosshair VIII setups and none of them have ever posted over HDMI. I usually have the HDMI as a secondary screen, but I did have a situation once a little like yours and I remember it never worked. I'm not sure why Asus is worse than others in this area, but I completely concur with your findings.


You're welcome.

I've done a little more digging around, and there seems to not be a whole lot of people with the issue, even with ASUS Crosshair motherboards. I think it may be because it only involves very specific motherboards and video cards. Add to that, the very narrow use of a HDMI TV as a primary display in the enthusiast market could be why complaints of the issue are not more widespread. But, as HDMI 2.1 video cards start appearing, the use case for HDMI connectivity likely will spike.


----------



## TK421

C8 Wifi owners havint weird DRAM voltages after update to latest bios?


----------



## benbenkr

edit0r said:


> May I ask please what video card you have ?
> I am curios if those 64c happen when you are gaming if your video card covers the fan area completely... mine is 2.5 slots... pretty big heatsink.
> 
> Thanks for the feedback man !


MSI GTX 1080Ti Gaming X.

It's a 2 slot card. Honestly, 64c is no big deal. I've seen people with temps at 70c during gaming.


----------



## edit0r

benbenkr said:


> MSI GTX 1080Ti Gaming X.
> 
> It's a 2 slot card. Honestly, 64c is no big deal. I've seen people with temps at 70c during gaming.


Thanks for the feedback man, it's much appreciated !

I've been reading for more then 4-5 days and I am having a hard time deciding on the motherboard. People complained a lot of the fan poor positioning (that is true, MSI for instance put more brains into it), that is covered by the GPU, that sucks in hot air expelled by the GPU and so on... their chipset reaching frequently 80C and even 90C (this got me worried)

Problem is they don't share a lot of info to get myself the complete picture, how hot was in their room (some live in hot climate with no AC and the temps get to 30-35C), if they have decent amount of case airflow.


----------



## garyd9

TK421 said:


> C8 Wifi owners havint weird DRAM voltages after update to latest bios?


Weird in what way? I configure BIOS for VDIMM 1.350 and it typically runs at 1.344. So, I often bump it up to 1.355 and bounces between 1.344 and 1.352, but that might just be a measurement error on the m/b. (I wonder if there's some kind of VDIMM LLC at play here...)


----------



## TK421

garyd9 said:


> Weird in what way? I configure BIOS for VDIMM 1.350 and it typically runs at 1.344. So, I often bump it up to 1.355 and bounces between 1.344 and 1.352, but that might just be a measurement error on the m/b. (I wonder if there's some kind of VDIMM LLC at play here...)



for me on bios it says 0.03v, etc




really low values, not where it's supposed to be


----------



## Jackalito

Guys, what's your experiencie with the latest BIOS update, 2103? Any major issues?
Thanks!


----------



## garyd9

Jackalito said:


> Guys, what's your experiencie with the latest BIOS update, 2103? Any major issues?
> Thanks!


Its always obvious when someone didn't read the last 2-3 pages in a thread...


----------



## Sam64

Jackalito said:


> Guys, what's your experiencie with the latest BIOS update, 2103? Any major issues?
> Thanks!



Tried it, had random shutdowns and went back to 1302. For me it's not working and I sincelery hope, that it's not final.


----------



## xenolith

Sam64 said:


> Tried it, had random shutdowns and went back to 1302. For me it's not working and I sincelery hope, that it's not final.


Rest assured, there will be future updates. At the very least, their will be updates when the 4th gen Ryzen 3 is released.


----------



## CoD511

Jackalito said:


> Guys, what's your experiencie with the latest BIOS update, 2103? Any major issues?
> Thanks!


Personally with my current setup in my signature, I've had no issues at all. I updated from 1302 to 2103 and indeed, no issues at all have occurred as of yet over the past 10~ days. Might be worth noting I'm on Windows 10 version 2004, build 19041.329.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Just had something really strange happen with these 2103 bios. My pc randomly restarted and just kept looping through the boot sequence. I managed to get into bios but it then restarted in there as well. Been using these bios since they first came out and this has never happen before. Turned my it off on the power supply and touch wood it’s been ok for the last 2 hours.


----------



## kuutale

Badgerslayer7 said:


> Just had something really strange happen with these 2103 bios. My pc randomly restarted and just kept looping through the boot sequence. I managed to get into bios but it then restarted in there as well. Been using these bios since they first came out and this has never happen before. Turned my it off on the power supply and touch wood it’s been ok for the last 2 hours.



today i try go flck 1900 and memory 3800 and had to do clear cmos, after that my bios go sick laggy. I press downarrow and wait 6-8 then something happen  . And another problem is when i try 1900 flck and 3800, it not let me go bios or go bootloop shutdown and restart again. when i go bios it restart again pc, i must do clear cmos alltime. I dont get it what the **** ? Bios 2103. Windows working fine and nothing wrong there.

cpu 3950x.

Can somebody advice what i do bios lagg thing, reflash bios?


----------



## Badgerslayer7

kuutale said:


> Badgerslayer7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just had something really strange happen with these 2103 bios. My pc randomly restarted and just kept looping through the boot sequence. I managed to get into bios but it then restarted in there as well. Been using these bios since they first came out and this has never happen before. Turned my it off on the power supply and touch wood itâ€™️s been ok for the last 2 hours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> today i try go flck 1900 and memory 3800 and had to do clear cmos, after that my bios go sick laggy. I press downarrow and wait 6-8 then something happen /forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif . And another problem is when i try 1900 flck and 3800, it not let me go bios or go bootloop shutdown and restart again. when i go bios it restart again pc, i must do clear cmos alltime. I dont get it what the **** ? Bios 2103. Windows working fine and nothing wrong there.
> 
> cpu 3950x.
> 
> Can somebody advice what i do bios lagg thing, reflash bios?
Click to expand...

The bios lag thing has been there a while for me with quite a few bios. I’ve had this board since release.


----------



## Ufuk Özsaran

Hello all.


I am installing a new setup. I will use it with ZEN 3 4900X. So I want to buy X570 Crosshair VIII HERO. There are some things I want to ask. I would really appreciate if you can help. 

1. I will take the model without Wi-Fi. I have to buy an external wifi card. I will use 2 m2.They will spend 8x line. Spends 16 lines of video cards. All 24 lines are running out. Will m2 speed decrease if I buy an external wifi card? or will the graphics card line drop?

2. Would you recommend the card? Will the X670 be released soon? Do you expect X670 hero?


Thank you all..


----------



## kuutale

Badgerslayer7 said:


> The bios lag thing has been there a while for me with quite a few bios. I’ve had this board since release.


ok, i think i change my old ch6 back  plz asus fix this board!


lmao, this is first time lag come to play my board. And i think it's link to my memory flck/overlocking what is doesnt work. But i try this overlock sometimes if it works, and this is first time lag come to me. its very annoying.


----------



## arkantos91

Guys, how did the m2 ssd installation go for you?

Before even accessing the m2 slot, I had to remove the slim plastic covering the chipset fan which is held in place by two screws. One is short the other one is much longer. Does anyone remeber where each of the two is supposed to go? I'm afraid I've switched them.

I put the longer one on the hole where the m2 shield is located but I'm not sure it's the right one because it endlessly turns without ever locking in place. 

The smaller one is on the hole below the chipset fan and it locked in place without any issues.

I also noticed the longer screw gets thicker on the bottom... I'm afraid I can damage the ssd below by keeping on turning.


----------



## flyinion

arkantos91 said:


> Guys, how did the m2 ssd installation go for you?
> 
> Before even accessing the m2 slot, I had to remove the slim plastic covering the chipset fan which is held in place by two screws. One is short the other one is much longer. Does anyone remeber where each of the two is supposed to go? I'm afraid I've switched them.
> 
> I put the longer one on the hole where the m2 shield is located but I'm not sure it's the right one because it endlessly turns without ever locking in place.
> 
> The smaller one is on the hole below the chipset fan and it locked in place without any issues.
> 
> I also noticed the longer screw gets thicker on the bottom... I'm afraid I can damage the ssd below by keeping on turning.


Ummm the thin shield uses two small screws the same size. The heatsink has two screws in it that are supposed to be captive. Assuming you're talking about a CH8 Hero though since you didn't actually mention which board you're talking about. I don't know on the others.


----------



## Sam64

CoD511 said:


> Personally with my current setup in my signature, I've had no issues at all. I updated from 1302 to 2103 and indeed, no issues at all has occurred as of yet over the past 10~ days. Might be worth noting i'm on Windows 10 version 2004, build 19041.329.



Not sure, but might really be worth noting. Also coming from 1302, 2103 didn't work for me and I'm still on Win 10 version 1909 build 18363.900.


----------



## phillyman36

Same here random reboots after updating to 2103 may go back to 1302.


----------



## garyd9

phillyman36 said:


> Same here random reboots after updating to 2103 may go back to 1302.


This is interesting. I was starting to think my PSU was failing. Perhaps it's just Asus firmware development to blame.


----------



## phillyman36

garyd9 said:


> This is interesting. I was starting to think my PSU was failing. Perhaps it's just Asus firmware development to blame.


My psu is no more than a year old. I didnt get the reboot until 2103. I just updated to July 14, 2020—KB4565503 Window 10 2004(OS Build 19041.388). So far no reboots as of yet.(3 hours)


----------



## phillyman36

Ok just had another reboot. Going back to old bios.


----------



## flyinion

Hmm I’ve been having them but I thought it was something with folding @ home not clearing something out properly after shutting it off. It can fold 24 hours a day with no issues and game with no issues but if I shut folding off and just leave it idle I’ll usually end up with a blue screen reboot happening within a few hours. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Baio73

Moved from 1302 to 2103 yesterday, no issue even with the RAM in sign @3600 CAS 14.
Gonna try IF 1900 and 3800 CAS? one of this days...

Baio


----------



## garyd9

phillyman36 said:


> My psu is no more than a year old. I didnt get the reboot until 2103. I just updated to July 14, 2020—KB4565503 Window 10 2004(OS Build 19041.388). So far no reboots as of yet.(3 hours)


I didn't have any reboots when I first managed to get 2103 working. About a day or two later, I attached something to the 5v line of my PSU. The next day, I started to get reboots when my machine would come out of standby. No error, no BSOD.. just a reboot as if the PSU tripped. So, I unplugged what I had on the PSU (which wasn't connected in any other way to my computer) and assumed that the tiny 2 amps I was pulling from the 5v line was causing a fault on the PSU... Once I disconnected it, I didn't have a reboot for 2 days...

Based on the above, I assumed I needed to replace the PSU, so ordered a new one from newegg this past Friday (a really nice "80 plus titanium" which they managed to put a tracking number on and promptly lose before UPS got it. Been 4-5 days now, and newegg claims they gave it to UPS, but UPS has never scanned it.)

Then the next day, I got another reboot. Not related to standby, it just rebooted in the middle of me working on the computer. I could run cinebench for hours with no reboot, play games for hours and hours... but it would just randomly reset while I was just reading a web page. Then it would be fine for a day or two. However, it more frequently rebooted when coming out of standby. 

So, I've reverted to 1302 as well, and restored all my settings. We'll see how things go...

(I listed all my symptoms for anyone else reading this - in case they can relate. I also gave a little detail on newegg because I hope it drives business away from them. They are currently giving me a run-around on that order.)


----------



## edit0r

Guys, I am planning to buy the 3900XT or maybe 3950X for my ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Formula and I want an very silent CPU Air Cooler. 

Unfortunately when I looked at the Noctua compatibility page the best I could use is the Noctua NH-D15S.
https://noctua.at/en/mainboard/Asus_ROG_Crosshair_VIII_Formula
I would have liked to use this one Noctua NH-D15 Chromax.Black but unfortunately looks like it's not compatible... has a very cool look... 

What is your advice guys when it comes to cooling ? 

I would go the air way because I want a very quiet running computer and low maintenance. 

I am not against AIO's but when I built my actual computer 6 years ago, I read a lot on the subject and they weren't very good in therms of silence (pumps were making noise, fans as well while running at bigger rpm needed and air was passing through the radiator)... overall the AIO cooling was better but worse because of the increased noise.

My case is in the sig... it's huge, 4 intake fans at 700 rpm, 3 out at 600 rpm, very quiet ones (not fixed, temp controlled, if needed all can go higher in sync)


Thank you !


----------



## Ufuk Özsaran

Hello all.


I am installing a new setup. I will use it with ZEN 3 4900X. So I want to buy X570 Crosshair VIII HERO. There are some things I want to ask. I would really appreciate if you can help.

1. I will take the model without Wi-Fi. I have to buy an external wifi card. I will use 2 m2.They will spend 8x line. Spends 16 lines of video cards. All 24 lines are running out. Will m2 speed decrease if I buy an external wifi card? or will the graphics card line drop?

2. Would you recommend the card? Will the X670 be released soon? Do you expect X670 hero?


Thank you all..


----------



## edit0r

Ufuk Özsaran said:


> Hello all.
> 
> 
> I am installing a new setup. I will use it with ZEN 3 4900X. So I want to buy X570 Crosshair VIII HERO. There are some things I want to ask. I would really appreciate if you can help.
> 
> 1. I will take the model without Wi-Fi. I have to buy an external wifi card. I will use 2 m2.They will spend 8x line. Spends 16 lines of video cards. All 24 lines are running out. Will m2 speed decrease if I buy an external wifi card? or will the graphics card line drop?
> 
> 2. Would you recommend the card? Will the X670 be released soon? Do you expect X670 hero?
> 
> 
> Thank you all..


1. depending on what m.2 slot you will use it will use the PCI lanes from the CPU (upper socket) or chipset (lower one)... It does not matter If you use 1 x m.2 or 2 x m.2 your graphics card will still get 16 PCI Lanes.
2. if you get an PCI wi-fi card you will loose lanes and your Graphics card will only get 8 PCI lanes
3. external wi-fi cards only means USB ones that usually are not that fast and have pretty crappy antennas from my experience... I don't know what your expectations are.... of course it depends on the brand and price... like always lower price usually means bad
4. x670 would be probably released in 3 to 6 months... no one knows for sure... there weren't important leaks so far. If you aim for a new released chipset and motherboard BE PREPARED and set your expectations acordingly to face all sorts of bugs and issues like all the new fresh launched hardware get these days.
This is one of the reasons I plan to go with x570, it's a more mature platform, a lot of the issues have been iron out.... not all ofc


----------



## garyd9

edit0r said:


> ... the 3900XT or maybe 3950X ...
> 
> ... the best I could use is the Noctua NH-D15S.
> 
> ... but unfortunately looks like it's not compatible... has a very cool look...
> 
> What is your advice guys when it comes to cooling ?


To clarify, you want something that works great, cools the hottest CPU you could put on the board, is silent, and looks good? Any other needs/desires? Does it need to wash dishes as well?  (The sarcasm is only to point out that usually there are sacrifices with cooling. Getting everything at once isn't easy.)

For air cooling, the NH-D15S is probably your best option for running silently. There are probably other variations of something similar, but they all come down to using multiple very large fans on a massive chunk of metal strapped on your CPU socket. It might not look pretty, but it gets the job done.

For water cooling, I'm personally not a big "fan" of AIO's, but a bigger radiator means less noise. A good 360mm AIO might be as quiet as the NH-D15S with similar performance. Personally, I don't think it would be as good, but I've seen some major AIO disappointments.

If you want something that works great, cools the hottest CPUs, is mostly silence AND looks good, however, you're going to have to invest in building your own custom water loop. Even a "slim" 360mm copper radiator (hwlabs GTS 360) with a decent D5 pump and good water block (heatkiller iv or optimus foundation) would outperform both the NH-D15 air cooler and any 360mm AIO I've ever seen. (Of course, it'd cost 3x as much as either of the other options and require work to build.)


----------



## edit0r

garyd9 said:


> To clarify, you want something that works great, cools the hottest CPU you could put on the board, is silent, and looks good? Any other needs/desires? Does it need to wash dishes as well?


Dude, chill, I only posted what I am looking for and it's nothing absurd like you play it out to be, you don't need to mock me in the public square for it... is not like I asked for cheap 20$ pink CPU cooler with red flowers that sparkle at night, smells like unicorns farts while running, keeps the CPU at 30C without a fan while my 3950C is OC all core at 4.4.... 

The CPU will not be OC and it's still just an 105W CPU.... It's not an 10900X at 5.0 all core or an 10900k at 5.3 all core that's hot like crazy and draws 300W.... 

Ah nevermind... with your attitude... yuck... welcome to my ignore list


----------



## garyd9

garyd9 said:


> ...Does it need to wash dishes as well?  (The sarcasm is only to point out that usually there are sacrifices with cooling. Getting everything at once isn't easy.)





edit0r said:


> Dude, chill, I only posted what I am looking for and it's nothing absurd like you play it out to be, you don't need to mock me in the public square for it...


I love when people edit my text to completely change the meaning. If you include the portion I took the time to include, I expressed that I was being intentionally sarcastic, and why I was doing it. Then I followed by answering your question. 

...and if I did make it to your "ignore list", then it's probably a good thing: People who have such thin skin as to be offended by what I typed here probably shouldn't read any of my other posts.


----------



## arkantos91

flyinion said:


> Ummm the thin shield uses two small screws the same size. The heatsink has two screws in it that are supposed to be captive. Assuming you're talking about a CH8 Hero though since you didn't actually mention which board you're talking about. I don't know on the others.


Thank you.

I choosed to install the nvme drive on the bottom slot, so it's not close to the 2080TI which can get fairly hot these days.

I know however that the first slot near the pci-e is directly linked to the cpu.... which kind of % difference in performance should I expect with a 970 Plus Evo?


----------



## garyd9

arkantos91 said:


> I know however that the first slot near the pci-e is directly linked to the cpu.... which kind of % difference in performance should I expect with a 970 Plus Evo?


I have the C8H wifi and also a 970 EVO Plus. I originally put it in the "lower" (farthest from the CPU socket) m.2 socket thinking it wouldn't make much difference considering the drive is Gen 3 and not Gen 4 (and that it's connected via the chipset using 4x gen4 links which should easily outperform any slowdowns from using the chipset provided links.) 

Booting seemed sluggish and the benchmark numbers from Samsung's "magician" software showed lower numbers than I expected from this drive.

I then tried to put it in the "top" (closest to CPU) socket and the benchmark numbers (still from samsungs magician software) jumped about 500 on each - to what would normally be expected from this particular nvme drive.

I don't have any other m.2 devices, nor do I have any PCIe devices other than a video card in the primary x16 slot. I'm using the samsung NVME driver, not the default microsoft one. 

Of course, anyone else might see slightly different results, but the "bottom" m.2 socket is definitely limited compared to the top one.


----------



## flyinion

garyd9 said:


> I have the C8H wifi and also a 970 EVO Plus. I originally put it in the "lower" (farthest from the CPU socket) m.2 socket thinking it wouldn't make much difference considering the drive is Gen 3 and not Gen 4 (and that it's connected via the chipset using 4x gen4 links which should easily outperform any slowdowns from using the chipset provided links.)
> 
> Booting seemed sluggish and the benchmark numbers from Samsung's "magician" software showed lower numbers than I expected from this drive.
> 
> I then tried to put it in the "top" (closest to CPU) socket and the benchmark numbers (still from samsungs magician software) jumped about 500 on each - to what would normally be expected from this particular nvme drive.
> 
> I don't have any other m.2 devices, nor do I have any PCIe devices other than a video card in the primary x16 slot. I'm using the samsung NVME driver, not the default microsoft one.
> 
> Of course, anyone else might see slightly different results, but the "bottom" m.2 socket is definitely limited compared to the top one.


Huh, that's interesting. I wouldn't have thought it would have mattered either. I wonder if it's a driver issue since it has to go through the chipset. Maybe the drivers weren't optimized enough at the time? I put mine in the top from the beginning (500GB 970 Evo Plus as well) but I originally had a 1070 which ran pretty cool, then moved to a full water loop with a watercooled 2080 Super. That was mounted direct for about two months, then I swapped cases and the GPU is actually in a vertical mount now so the NVME heatsink and the chipset fan are now wide open to airflow.


----------



## tolis626

garyd9 said:


> I have the C8H wifi and also a 970 EVO Plus. I originally put it in the "lower" (farthest from the CPU socket) m.2 socket thinking it wouldn't make much difference considering the drive is Gen 3 and not Gen 4 (and that it's connected via the chipset using 4x gen4 links which should easily outperform any slowdowns from using the chipset provided links.)
> 
> Booting seemed sluggish and the benchmark numbers from Samsung's "magician" software showed lower numbers than I expected from this drive.
> 
> I then tried to put it in the "top" (closest to CPU) socket and the benchmark numbers (still from samsungs magician software) jumped about 500 on each - to what would normally be expected from this particular nvme drive.
> 
> I don't have any other m.2 devices, nor do I have any PCIe devices other than a video card in the primary x16 slot. I'm using the samsung NVME driver, not the default microsoft one.
> 
> Of course, anyone else might see slightly different results, but the "bottom" m.2 socket is definitely limited compared to the top one.


That's strange. I have a Corsair MP600 1TB (PCIe 4.0) and I have it on the bottom slot. Definitely getting the performance I should, just shy of 5GB/s reads and about 4.3GB/s writes on CrystalDiskMark. IOPS are in line too. I'm curious to try it on the top slot now, though. I probably won't, it's tedious, but I might on a boring day. I'm also thinking about getting the rumored upcoming Samsung 980 Evo/Pro/Whatever which will be PCIe 4.0 and quite a bit faster than the MP600. That's going in the top slot if I ever get one.

PS : I just touched the heatsink on my MP600. That thing's running hot!


----------



## garyd9

tolis626 said:


> That's strange. I have a Corsair MP600 1TB (PCIe 4.0) and I have it on the bottom slot. Definitely getting the performance I should, just shy of 5GB/s reads and about 4.3GB/s writes on CrystalDiskMark. IOPS are in line too.


Perhaps it acts differently with a Gen4 vs Gen3 drive? no idea..


----------



## AStaUK

I have a 1TB 970 Evo Plus in the top and a 2TB Evo Plus in the bottom NVMe slot, the 1TB gets 3544 read and 3323 write, the 2TB gets 3285 read and 2673 write but does have a slightly higher IOPS I guess because the number of NAND (?) chips is higher. Temperature wise the bottom slot is a few degrees higher, I also ended up vertically mounting my graphics card as the bottom slot was getting noticeably hotter with it blow air directly onto the drive, if I recall it was getting up into the 50s where the top slot stayed mid-40s. Still well within it's thermal limits so wasn't to worried.


----------



## dansi

garyd9 said:


> I have the C8H wifi and also a 970 EVO Plus. I originally put it in the "lower" (farthest from the CPU socket) m.2 socket thinking it wouldn't make much difference considering the drive is Gen 3 and not Gen 4 (and that it's connected via the chipset using 4x gen4 links which should easily outperform any slowdowns from using the chipset provided links.)
> 
> Booting seemed sluggish and the benchmark numbers from Samsung's "magician" software showed lower numbers than I expected from this drive.
> 
> I then tried to put it in the "top" (closest to CPU) socket and the benchmark numbers (still from samsungs magician software) jumped about 500 on each - to what would normally be expected from this particular nvme drive.
> 
> I don't have any other m.2 devices, nor do I have any PCIe devices other than a video card in the primary x16 slot. I'm using the samsung NVME driver, not the default microsoft one.
> 
> Of course, anyone else might see slightly different results, but the "bottom" m.2 socket is definitely limited compared to the top one.


bottom socket from the chipset is also sharing that 4x pcie lanes with your lan/wifi/bt/sata/usb/audio and basically anything that isnt built in the cpu. :thumb:

iirc Zen2 has 16x pcie lanes exclusives to gpu(some boards may multiplex it but..) and 4x pcie lanes to nvme, a couple of usb lanes. The last 4x pcie lanes go to the x570 chipset and gets multiplex to every other connections.


----------



## arkantos91

AStaUK said:


> I have a 1TB 970 Evo Plus in the top and a 2TB Evo Plus in the bottom NVMe slot, the 1TB gets 3544 read and 3323 write, the 2TB gets 3285 read and 2673 write but does have a slightly higher IOPS I guess because the number of NAND (?) chips is higher. Temperature wise the bottom slot is a few degrees higher, I also ended up vertically mounting my graphics card as the bottom slot was getting noticeably hotter with it blow air directly onto the drive, if I recall it was getting up into the 50s where the top slot stayed mid-40s. Still well within it's thermal limits so wasn't to worried.


Ok, so the difference is negligible at best in practical terms.

However I don't understand how your temps are higher in the bottom slot. It doesn't have the gpu over it, so unless you mount your gpu in the bottom pci-e slot, you shouldn't have any temps issues. Instead the upper m2 slot gets hotter because of the gpu in the first pci-e slot.


----------



## arkantos91

So uuuuh I think I might have ****ed up big time...

I thought to try and test the benchmark score difference for my m2 drive while it's in the first slot or in the second one.

However I swapped two screws, the short one for the plastic cover of the chipset fan and the long one that goes in the shield/heatsink.

Here's the result:

https://imgur.com/qiTmpKA

I dug up a hole in the m2 socket.

After reseating the gpu and turning on my pc, Windows failed to boot. I went into the BIOS and realized the ssd was nowhere to be found. So I had to reopen my computer, remove the gpu and find out about it.

Fortunately the drive itself wasn't touched, however the "socket" (I don't know if that is its name) has a hole in it.

I tried removing and putting the ssd back in and then Windows booted. Tried to do a Crystal Disk run and all went fine, values were ok. I decided to do a second run of all tests just to be sure and as soon as I started them I get a blue screen and after rebooting the ssd was gone again.

Now, how the hell is it possibile that it seems to work fine and then after a while it loses connection? If the hole was too deep it shouldn't even recognize the ssd, but it does. Maybe it is something related to the heat that makes some kind of contact after a while?

What should I do? Is it possible to repair the m2 socket or at least repair it anyway?

I've been building pc for 10 years and never did a major ****up like this... I feel terrible and ashamed. Of course I **** up when it's the most expensive hardware I ever owned in my hand.


----------



## Snoopy69

Snoopy69 said:


> Help!!!
> First site...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Miscellaneous
> 
> Is your Bus Clock/Speed/FSB ~99.8 MHz? Disable SB Clock Spread Spectrum under Extreme Tweaker\Tweaker's Paradise and set BCLK to Auto
> 
> 
> 
> Doesnt work for me, but why?
> PC shut down, power on, shut down, power on...
Click to expand...

I´m back again with BIOS 2103, but without solving my problem 

Disable SB Clock Spread Spectrum is ok (i get 99.98MHz)
But BCLK @ Auto causes in a very quick on and off of my system in a endless loop :sozo:

And i dont know why people with the same C8H dont have problems with BCLK @ Auto


----------



## garyd9

Snoopy69 said:


> I´m back again with BIOS 2103, but without solving my problem
> 
> Disable SB Clock Spread Spectrum is ok (i get 99.98MHz)
> But BCLK @ Auto causes in a very quick on and off of my system in a endless loop :sozo:
> 
> And i dont know why people with the same C8H dont have problems with BCLK @ Auto


There are two spread spectrum options buried in the Asus BIOS. I forget which one has to be turned off for a bus clock of 100 to work properly. It might be easier to turn them both off. (in the BIOS, hit the search button.. I think it's F9.. and search for "spread" - turn them both off.)

You don't need the bus clock set to 'auto' if the correct spread spectrum option is set...


----------



## Phage

HI All, I've stayed away, waiting for ASUS to produce a BIOS that actually allows my stem to boot 
(hi flynion)
On BIOS 1001 the system is rock solid, and from the reading it looks like 2103 is a bust as well. See you in another couple of months I guess.


----------



## garyd9

Phage said:


> HI All, I've stayed away, waiting for ASUS to produce a BIOS that actually allows my stem to boot
> (hi flynion)
> On BIOS 1001 the system is rock solid, and from the reading it looks like 2103 is a bust as well. See you in another couple of months I guess.


1302 seems to be fairly good. I've only encountered the normal Asus bios bugs (that apparently come from a common library at Asus, as they are the same bugs seen in every generation, chipset and platform.)


----------



## Phage

garyd9 said:


> 1302 seems to be fairly good. I've only encountered the normal Asus bios bugs (that apparently come from a common library at Asus, as they are the same bugs seen in every generation, chipset and platform.)


I read that. Seems a lot of support for 1302, but I also read a couple of people who had the same boot issues as I do (Mac-something, and someone else) on all BIOS post-1001. Flyinion and a couple of others think that's it's the base voltages being set wrong. There was another poster who updated their voltages per the advice, and the problem remained.

For me, the voltages are not able to be changed ? The options appear greyed out.


----------



## garyd9

Phage said:


> I read that. Seems a lot of support for 1302, but I also read a couple of people who had the same boot issues as I do (Mac-something, and someone else) on all BIOS post-1001. Flyinion and a couple of others think that's it's the base voltages being set wrong. There was another poster who updated their voltages per the advice, and the problem remained.
> 
> For me, the voltages are not able to be changed ? The options appear greyed out.


ah, okay. I started with 1302 and tried newer versions, but keep going back to 1302. I wasn't aware (or wasn't paying attention) that it was unstable for others.


----------



## flyinion

Anyone else update to Win10 2004 update (Pro if it matters) and have any issues on a C8H or C8H wifi? I noticed it was finally available the other day (heard Realtek drivers were the cause of the delay) and so after backing everything up I went for it. 

Got an Nvidia driver related "KMODE" blue screen during one of the install/reboot cycles where it's installing stuff before you get to the desktop. Then once it was finished on the first boot after I was in the desktop about a minute max before my mouse froze. Keyboard still worked, got up to unplug and re-plug the mouse in and as I went to plug it back in heard my fans ramp up and it was at the BIOS splash screen. Got back in, and it just froze solid a couple minutes later. 

I powered off and back on, went to roll back and it suggested checking for updates first. Just an Adobe update and KB4565627 for .Net framework stuff but after installing and rebooting it seems stable for now. Gonna give it a couple days I guess and decide before the 10 day rollback window ends. 

Oh, also had to run the sonic studio repair thing that was released a number of months ago (listed as removing duplicate entries, it's in the audio drivers expanded list on Asus site). It would open but eventually error out saying it couldn't load any devices.


----------



## AStaUK

I have 2004 installed with BIOS v2103 and everything is working fine. After I installed BIOS v2103 I did a CMOS reset and then applied all my settings manually, I then followed that with a fresh install of 2004. I'm not much of an overclocker so the only things I change are my fan curve, enabled D.O.C.P and then apply some timing's manually, although they show in the XMP profile they always get ignored. I tweak a few other settings for the boot process.


----------



## Kokin

I've been using BIOS 2103 on my Crosshair VIII Impact and has been rock solid for the last 2+ weeks. Every BIOS setting was manually set since I tried out beta BIOS 2101 prior to 2103 and that didn't set my BIOS profiles correctly. 3900X runs between 4.5-4.6GHz for the stronger CCD and 4.3-4.4GHz for the weaker CCD. My 2x16GB 3200CL14 RAM runs at 3600CL16 (Samsung b-die) and passed the Karhu RAM test for 5 hours without any errors. 

I am still on the older Windows 10 1903 and using the 1usmus power plan with the latest AMD chipset drivers. Is that still the power plan to use or have the newer AMD power plans improved?


----------



## flyinion

AStaUK said:


> I have 2004 installed with BIOS v2103 and everything is working fine. After I installed BIOS v2103 I did a CMOS reset and then applied all my settings manually, I then followed that with a fresh install of 2004. I'm not much of an overclocker so the only things I change are my fan curve, enabled D.O.C.P and then apply some timing's manually, although they show in the XMP profile they always get ignored. I tweak a few other settings for the boot process.



Thanks. I did an upgrade install from 1909 to 2004. Just the standard update where windows update does it for you. Maybe that was the cause of my issues. Never had them before but this system has only gone from 1903 to the very minor 1909. My old system was from 2014 and had a lot of time to become stable with drivers bios etc. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## jfrob75

*Raid configuration question*

Should Write Back Cache and/or Read Ahead be enabled for best raid 0 performance?


----------



## Papa Emeritus

Is it possible to control the PCH fan in any way on the CH8 Formula? I just got the board and the PCH fan is by far the most annoying thing in my system, it spins at around 3500rpm all the time. 

Bios version 2103

I'm really disappointed atm and thinking of returning it and sticking with my CH7 instead.


----------



## garyd9

Papa Emeritus said:


> Is it possible to control the PCH fan in any way on the CH8 Formula? I just got the board and the PCH fan is by far the most annoying thing in my system, it spins at around 3500rpm all the time.


There's no way I know of to change the fan curve. However, I'm surprised you can hear it. 

Right now, my chipset temp is 57.5C and the chipset fan is at 1009RPM. I can't hear it at all. When I'm doing something that heats up the chipset, it's usually heating up other parts of my case as well, so the case fans are spinning faster, and while I can hear the case fans, I can't hear the chipset fan at all.

Either you have EXTREMELY sensitive hearing, there's something wrong with your chipset fan causing it to be noisy, or you have absolutely nothing else in your case making any noise whatsoever. Even water cooling, the hum of a D5 pump is more noticeable to me than the chipset fan.


----------



## Papa Emeritus

garyd9 said:


> There's no way I know of to change the fan curve. However, I'm surprised you can hear it.
> 
> Right now, my chipset temp is 57.5C and the chipset fan is at 1009RPM. I can't hear it at all. When I'm doing something that heats up the chipset, it's usually heating up other parts of my case as well, so the case fans are spinning faster, and while I can hear the case fans, I can't hear the chipset fan at all.
> 
> Either you have EXTREMELY sensitive hearing, there's something wrong with your chipset fan causing it to be noisy, or you have absolutely nothing else in your case making any noise whatsoever. Even water cooling, the hum of a D5 pump is more noticeable to me than the chipset fan.


Thanks for the reply.

Today after a reboot the fan is more tolerable at ~2500rpm and stays at around 60-65C at idle compared to 3500rpm and 75C yesterday, however i can still hear it (Under load it dosen't bother me). The fan is more or less obstructed by an RTX 2080 gaming x trio i guess this is one of the factors to my problem.

Edit: Now it's back at ~3500rpm at 75C idle


----------



## flyinion

Papa Emeritus said:


> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> Today after a reboot the fan is more tolerable at ~2500rpm and stays at around 60-65C at idle compared to 3500rpm and 75C yesterday, however i can still hear it (Under load it dosen't bother me). The fan is more or less obstructed by an RTX 2080 gaming x trio i guess this is one of the factors to my problem.
> 
> Edit: Now it's back at ~3500rpm at 75C idle


That must be the issue. Mine is always about 58-59C and bounces between 1500-2000RPM. My GPU is in a vertical mount though, but even when it wasn't temps/speeds were the same, maybe hanging out at 59C more. That was with both an air cooled dual slot 1070 SC from EVGA, and my current 2080 Super with a water block. I can't imagine having it run at 3000+ RPM constantly. Maybe you should pull the heatsink off the chipset and make sure there's thermal material under there. Even with a video card over it, those temps and speeds seem excessive from what I've seen others reporting.


----------



## Papa Emeritus

flyinion said:


> That must be the issue. Mine is always about 58-59C and bounces between 1500-2000RPM. My GPU is in a vertical mount though, but even when it wasn't temps/speeds were the same, maybe hanging out at 59C more. That was with both an air cooled dual slot 1070 SC from EVGA, and my current 2080 Super with a water block. I can't imagine having it run at 3000+ RPM constantly. Maybe you should pull the heatsink off the chipset and make sure there's thermal material under there. Even with a video card over it, those temps and speeds seem excessive from what I've seen others reporting.


Yeah i'll probably do that, it sure seems possible that there's no thermal pad under the heatsink. If i set the gpu fan to 100% the pch temperature stays the same.


----------



## flyinion

Papa Emeritus said:


> Yeah i'll probably do that, it sure seems possible that there's no thermal pad under the heatsink. If i set the gpu fan to 100% the pch temperature stays the same.


Oh, I just realized you're running the formula, I'm running a Hero, but really they should all be running pretty similar. I think the only real difference is the physical design of the heatsink/shroud cosmetics. Looks like the formula the chipset/fan sits slightly lower and towards the back of the board but looks like a similar grill slotting and probably the same fan underneath. The Hero has the CPU connected NVME slot up top, but that heatsink is completely not connected to the chipset one.


----------



## garyd9

flyinion said:


> Oh, I just realized you're running the formula, I'm running a Hero, but really they should all be running pretty similar.


Does the C8 formula have all kinds of excessive plastic insulation all over? (I remember a couple generations ago I returned a maximus formula when I realized that all the plastic "shielding" was really only trapping heat against the m/b.)

I wonder if that excess plastic would impact air flow around the chipset. Having a fan where air can get in, but has no clear path out, could cause issues, and considering that Asus put a completely useless waterblock on the VRMs, it wouldn't surprise me if they put other cosmetics ahead of performance on the more expensive board. 

(To clarify: the waterblock isn't useless. The fact that it's on the VRM's is what makes it useless. The VRM's could be air cooled without even a heatsink and they'd be fine. If Asus really wanted to make a waterblock on their motherboard, they'd have served their customers much more with a PCH waterblock.)


----------



## pantsoftime

Papa Emeritus said:


> Yeah i'll probably do that, it sure seems possible that there's no thermal pad under the heatsink. If i set the gpu fan to 100% the pch temperature stays the same.


Definitely check to see if something's not making a good thermal connection. I've got a C8F and the fan is inaudible at 60C and it never strays from that temperature. There are others here who usually say something similar. If yours is getting to 75 then I think something isn't making contact.


----------



## flyinion

Looks like nobody noticed, but new chipset drivers apparently came out 3 days ago.........



Code:


Revision Number     File Size     Release Date
2.07.14.327         48 MB         7/21/202


----------



## nuvector

*New CH8W with CPU Power Issue*

Just finished building a machine with a C8HW motherboard that lites up the 8-Pin CPU LED as soon as the PSU is turned on. Have two 4x4 cables attached to both the 8-pin connector and the 4-pin connector and can't seem to convince the damn thing it's getting power. Everything else is fine, fans etc. Just a bright red "hey dummy connect the 8-pin CPU power before you burn out your motherboard" light nagging at me.

Is this normal?

THOR 1200 P PSU should work amirite?


----------



## garyd9

nuvector said:


> Just finished building a machine with a C8HW motherboard that lites up the 8-Pin CPU LED as soon as the PSU is turned on. Have two 4x4 cables attached to both the 8-pin connector and the 4-pin connector and can't seem to convince the damn thing it's getting power. Everything else is fine, fans etc. Just a bright red "hey dummy connect the 8-pin CPU power before you burn out your motherboard" light nagging at me.
> 
> Is this normal?
> 
> THOR 1200 P PSU should work amirite?


No, it's not normal. First, just for the sake of testing, I'd only connect the 8pin connector. (The additional 4pin isn't really needed unless your going for extreme overclocking or your PSU cables use thin wires. The motherboard should boot fine with only the 8pin connected (in addition to the normal ATX connector, of course.) 

If you get the same issue, try to swap cables and/or connections to the PSU. (If it's a modular PSU, try a different cable and different PSU connector. If it's not modular, then just a different cable.) Again, stick with only the 8pin connector.

If you still get the same issue, I'd check that the cables/connectors with a multi-meter to ensure they are providing 12VDC on all 4 pairs. If the cables/PSU connectors are all good based on a multi-meter test, but the motherboard still acts as if it's not getting power on the connection, I'd exchange the motherboard for a new one.


----------



## nuvector

*New CH8W with CPU Power Issue*



garyd9 said:


> If you still get the same issue, I'd check that the cables/connectors with a multi-meter to ensure they are providing 12VDC on all 4 pairs. If the cables/PSU connectors are all good based on a multi-meter test, but the motherboard still acts as if it's not getting power on the connection, I'd exchange the motherboard for a new one.


Ugh. I put a multimeter on the cable and I'm reading 6.4-6.8VDC across the pins. I think that's not good. (Tried plugging the cable into a couple of other plugs into the PSU and got no voltage.) May have a bad PSU?

I'm not an electrical engineer, but I feel like someone should be paying me like one...


----------



## garyd9

nuvector said:


> Ugh. I put a multimeter on the cable and I'm reading 6.4-6.8VDC across the pins. I think that's not good. (Tried plugging the cable into a couple of other plugs into the PSU and got no voltage.) May have a bad PSU?


If the PSU is on (not in standby) You should be seeing 12VDC across the pins on all 4 pairs of the 8 pin connector (sometimes called ATX12V 4+4, sometimes called EPS 8pin)

Doing that is tricky - you have to attach the main ATX power connector to the motherboard (or jumper it) to get the PSU to power up, and them carefully measure the 4+4 or 8pin connector. Be aware of which pins are +12VDC and which pins are ground. You can use the following webpage as a guide: https://www.moddiy.com/pages/Power-Supply-Connectors-and-Pinouts.html

On some modular power supplies, it's possible to plug the modular cables into the wrong jacks on the power supply, so just be aware of that possibility.

Otherwise, if the PSU was properly powered on (not in standby) and you're only seeing 6.5VDC on the EPS connectors, you should consider replacing the PSU or at least contacting the manufacturer for support.


----------



## Reikoji

flyinion said:


> Looks like nobody noticed, but new chipset drivers apparently came out 3 days ago.........
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Revision Number     File Size     Release Date
> 2.07.14.327         48 MB         7/21/202


I noticed today


----------



## Baio73

Since I've updated to BIOS v2103 I can no longer set my RAM @3600MHz CAS 14 with the values from Calculator.
I've tried raising VRAM to 1.45 but still get beeps on boot... best I can set now is CAS 15 but with GearDownMode enabled it's 16 (with GDM off it won't post).
Any advice for me?

Baio


----------



## Reikoji

Baio73 said:


> Since I've updated to BIOS v2103 I can no longer set my RAM @3600MHz CAS 14 with the values from Calculator.
> I've tried raising VRAM to 1.45 but still get beeps on boot... best I can set now is CAS 15 but with GearDownMode enabled it's 16 (with GDM off it won't post).
> Any advice for me?
> 
> Baio


Better off flashing back to 1302 or prior. 2103 doesn't work right for everyone, me included.


----------



## Baio73

Reikoji said:


> Better off flashing back to 1302 or prior. 2103 doesn't work right for everyone, me included.


Well... I read around of many people made the step to the new BIOS without issues...
Just wondering if there is a specific parameter to look at to improve stability. For example, I read on Reddit about people reaching stable 1900 IF lowering SOC voltage, which is something against theory.
I'm not so addicted with hardware I can't run my pc at CAS16 for a while. 

Baio


----------



## benbenkr

I really wonder why the poor SATA performance hasn't been acknowledged yet. It's like everyone is trying to sweep it under the rug.


----------



## tolis626

benbenkr said:


> I really wonder why the poor SATA performance hasn't been acknowledged yet. It's like everyone is trying to sweep it under the rug.


There's a problem with SATA performance? First time I've heard of this. Just tried copying a large-ish video file from my M.2 SSD to my SATA one and it was basically instant, getting the full 500-ish MB/s write speed of my SATA SSD. What problem are you facing? Can you elaborate?


----------



## AStaUK

Same here, copying from/to NVMe drives maxes out my SATA port.


----------



## Krisztias

Same here, no problem with my SATA ports (2x HDD, 1x SSD) and NVMe


----------



## Baio73

benbenkr said:


> I really wonder why the poor SATA performance hasn't been acknowledged yet. It's like everyone is trying to sweep it under the rug.


A thread in Reddit sub was created, but resulted not to be a real issue.

Baio


----------



## garyd9

benbenkr said:


> I really wonder why the poor SATA performance hasn't been acknowledged yet. It's like everyone is trying to sweep it under the rug.


People still use SATA drives? I thought those ports were like the floppy interfaces that appeared on motherboards for years after people stopped using them.


----------



## Lionvibez

Considering most Boards still offer more SATA ports then M2 yes they do.


----------



## Reikoji

benbenkr said:


> I really wonder why the poor SATA performance hasn't been acknowledged yet. It's like everyone is trying to sweep it under the rug.


I dont think there is a problem with Sata performance from the motherboards. In Crystal Diskmark, my older 512gb Crucial SSD consistently shows very close the read/write speeds it was advertised with, but a newer 2TB WD Blue SSD is consistently falling quite a bit short. Its likely just the drive in question. Having two different samples of SSD on the same system, one getting near its advertised and one falling very short, leads me to believe one of the drives just sucks or is bad.

And, each drive can get away with falling short by having "Up To" in its spec descriptions.


----------



## Cadman597

There seems to be another bios but not available yet for download:

https://www.asus.com/News/bsjsimurwekytffr 

Bios version 2204 with AGESA 1.0.8.0


----------



## neurotix

*Hi and bye? Best wishes.*

Hello all,

Contrary to popular rumors, Ihave not met my demise or anything of the sort.

A lot of people here know I suffer with mental illness (bipolar), and I have just come off of being essentially sectioned as you would say overseas for the better part of 2 months. This is not a sympathy or pity post or request for such, as this kind of help has been desperately needed for about five years now, but I am focused on family and recovery. If you read EVERYTHING I've ever posted in this thread, and ask others for help on key points you don't understand (or read the excellent "DDR4 Memtest helper" readme on Github done by The_Stilt, where I got a lot of my info), you will find all the info you need if you are an astute student and ask others for help so you can be a l33t Ryzen memory technologist too.
So yes, I am alive and kicking (Check out the song "Alive and Kicking" by Nonpoint if you like metal music!) but cannot leave my home because of Coronavirus here in Wisconsin.

Just wanted to check in and give my regards- perhaps I will see you elsewhere online, on reddit maybe, under a different name, as I am essentially finished using this site since we are going through yet another forum transition and I no longer care to use the site, bots and all.

This goes to my longtime friends here (not many post in this threaad), especially the HWBOT team guys- and anime club guys, and my retro game club guys, (apologies to any females present for not using a gender neutral term LOL but this site is 99% male) I am safe, somewhat healthy and focusing on healing as well as a 6 mo. court ordered psychiatric plan I must follow to stay out of a very not nice and very restrictive (for good reason), state mental hospital.

I will be praying for all of you and your safety, for what its worth, and may return in the future, but need to rest as well as secure my machine better and home network due to some incidents.

Feel free to ignore or troll this post lol, or drop me a pm, as I will check and respond to those but I will not be answering tech questions for the foreseeable future (supportive messages will get responses when I have time but I will be very infrequently checking this week). Go ask Anthony from LinusTechTips who I suspect of plagiarising a lot of my Ryzen posts. Paranoid? Yes. But there were certain videos they made where they were literally showing OCN, as well as showing info they took from The_Stilt without giving him credit  So they may have done the same to me.

We'll see what the future holds but, the world being what it is, I am focused on family, love and healing and not technology that can literally never be made secure or private.

Adieu for now.

neurotix (pronounced "neurotic" - it was taken and AOL Instant Message-er being what it was when I signed up, yeah lol. Candygram!)

Peace

@damric


----------



## benbenkr

tolis626 said:


> There's a problem with SATA performance? First time I've heard of this. Just tried copying a large-ish video file from my M.2 SSD to my SATA one and it was basically instant, getting the full 500-ish MB/s write speed of my SATA SSD. What problem are you facing? Can you elaborate?





AStaUK said:


> Same here, copying from/to NVMe drives maxes out my SATA port.





Krisztias said:


> Same here, no problem with my SATA ports (2x HDD, 1x SSD) and NVMe





Reikoji said:


> I dont think there is a problem with Sata performance from the motherboards. In Crystal Diskmark, my older 512gb Crucial SSD consistently shows very close the read/write speeds it was advertised with, but a newer 2TB WD Blue SSD is consistently falling quite a bit short. Its likely just the drive in question. Having two different samples of SSD on the same system, one getting near its advertised and one falling very short, leads me to believe one of the drives just sucks or is bad.
> 
> And, each drive can get away with falling short by having "Up To" in its spec descriptions.


Sorry for a very late reply.

I'm experiencing very, very slow copy times from copying a file (40-60GB+ remux video files) from one HDD to another. And while I know HDDs are slow, this is abnormally slow. I'm getting 30-40MB/s at MOST, that's waaaaay below the speed of even HDDs from 15 years ago. On an Intel system with the same HDDs (Seagate NAS drives), I'm getting 90MB/s at the least.

For SSDs, it's not a whole lot better either. I'm only seeing around 120MB/s at most.

My drives are:
1TB ADATA SX8200 Pro
1TB Crucial MX500
512GB Samsung Evo 850
3 x Seagate IronWolf NAS (4TB each) drives

Copying to the NVME drive is quick, copying to anything else connected via SATA is abnormally slow.



garyd9 said:


> People still use SATA drives? I thought those ports were like the floppy interfaces that appeared on motherboards for years after people stopped using them.


If you're someone like me who uses their PC also as a HTPC for an actual dedicated Home Theater, then yes - HDDs are essential. There is no way to store my 4k REMUXes otherwise.


----------



## Krisztias

Cadman597 said:


> There seems to be another bios but not available yet for download:
> 
> https://www.asus.com/News/bsjsimurwekytffr
> 
> Bios version 2204 with AGESA 1.0.8.0


It's not there


----------



## D_BRASCO

Krisztias said:


> It's not there


It's now showing up in Asus download


----------



## Othoric

Just saw the new 2204 BIOS on the ASUS Download page for the Crosshair VIII Hero Wi-Fi. If anyone here is running Linux that uses it, please reply if you're still receiving "no irq handler for vector" error messages during boot-up or if they have gone away with the new BIOS update. It is greatly appreciated by myself and other Linux developers, thank you!


----------



## papysoupape

Hello, sorry for my poor english im french.
I ve got a crosshair VIII wifi for one year now. no problem until new bios 2010, 2103 or the last 2204.
Each time i try a new one i lost my SATA ports. I check everytime if sata is active with ahci mode enable, even try to change sata port (for ssd and dvd driver) and its always the same, it just disapear.
I dont talk about stability which seem for me far worse than the 1302 bios.

Maybe i m asking something stupid and i apologise for that but im really out of answers.
Great topic by the way


----------



## Baio73

BIOS v2204 seems to have been released for C8 Hero, not Formula 

Baio


----------



## jfrob75

*BIOS 2204*

So, I updated to the new 2204 bios. After some initial issues I was able to achieve the OC and MEM OC I was using with bios 1302. One significant difference is I had to use a much lower SOC voltage than previously for my 3800MT/s OC. Previoiusly I had SOC set to 1.135. Now I have set at 1.0625. I actually ran into a situation were the BMW blender test would crash immediately when it was set to 1.08, but lowering it resolved that issue. Anyway after running my normal tests all appears well at this time. For those that use the EDC "bug" it still works as before. I use an EDC value of 25 which results in about 175MHz boost over setting it 350, the same value I have set for TDC.


----------



## Kerwas

*PBO goes bonkers under load. Need hints to fix it.*

My Problem is solved due to BIOS Update from 2010 and Frontpanel removement.


Complete Std Bios runs now at 85,25°C. exactly what i wanted.


----------



## AStaUK

Think I’ll hold off installing 2404, sounds like it might be a beta BIOS. Was opting it might fix my intermittent issue with the 2nd M.2 drive dropping out.


----------



## Hitman82

I am not a very experienced overclocker but try my hands at it by reading various guides available online. I recently updated my board to 2103 BIOS and was trying EDC bug set at 10. I believe I was able to run everything fine but eventually my board is now dead, it refuse to post with 3900X CPU. Not sure what caused this but all attempts to revive it failed (in just 10 months).

I am sad at this point and wondering how long it is going to take to get my replacement board in this pandemic situation where the stock in my country's online stores does not show a single C8H board.


----------



## Kerwas

Hitman82 said:


> I am not a very experienced overclocker but try my hands at it by reading various guides available online. I recently updated my board to 2103 BIOS and was trying EDC bug set at 10. I believe I was able to run everything fine but eventually my board is now dead, it refuse to post with 3900X CPU. Not sure what caused this but all attempts to revive it failed (in just 10 months).
> 
> I am sad at this point and wondering how long it is going to take to get my replacement board in this pandemic situation where the stock in my country's online stores does not show a single C8H board.



Wait, there was a knowed EDC Bug all along?
Also there should be probe point somewhere. get a voltmeter and try to check if there any power at all


----------



## Hitman82

Kerwas said:


> Wait, there was a knowed EDC Bug all along?
> Also there should be probe point somewhere. get a voltmeter and try to check if there any power at all


I am sure you must have known about EDC bug, but if not then youtube is full of related videos.

I lacked instruments and time to check my board so gave my PC to the shop where I bought it from and they tested all components to rule out the culprit as the board. Now it has gone for RMA, hope I get it the replacement soon. I am back to my secondary PC with i5-6600k and it feels so primitive.


----------



## Kerwas

Hitman82 said:


> I am sure you must have known about EDC bug, but if not then youtube is full of related videos.
> 
> I lacked instruments and time to check my board so gave my PC to the shop where I bought it from and they tested all components to rule out the culprit as the board. Now it has gone for RMA, hope I get it the replacement soon. I am back to my secondary PC with i5-6600k and it feels so primitive.



It's not "primitive" It's "nostalgic". ^^



sry but no i had never heard anything about this bug, b/c i had so much trust in Asus until recently that this was not even in my consideration to check. 

Bloody Hell What they have done to their BIOS department? Back in the days they wrote "goodbye" BIOS versions with whom you could run next gen socket CPUs (if they physical fit in your socket) until your board dies due to current strains on components. Today they can't even get their top of the Line Board BIOS bugfree. (so happens to the old M2N-E on AM3)


----------



## chitos123

I'm completely at a loss how to calculate *tSTAG* and *tREF* 
Anyone know about this. Please teach me


tSTAG



Spoiler

















tREF



Spoiler














 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...JV3BjdL-dcfJJeyhdSAoJmuzJE/edit#gid=283210006


----------



## robertvb

Hello guys, i'm upgrading my pc from ryzen 1800x and rog crosshair VI hero to ryzen 3900x and rog crosshair VIII hero cuz i'm a idiot that wanna waste some money, i'll be also using a noctua d15 cpu cooler since that what i run now on my 1800x. I just wanna know how this board is doing and is it a good choice, also i'm a little bit concern of ryzen 3000 temps, since i saw that 3900x can run really hot so i'm also curious will i be able to get full performance from 3900x with a high end air cooler like noctua d15 and is water cooling really needed for this chip? Also if someone can be kind to link me or give me some tips about ryzen 3900x bios overclock since i don't wanna use ryzen master, i see that many 3900x chips are runing at 4.3ghz OC so i would really appreciate if someone can link a good bios OC configurations for 3900x, like voltages, pbo levels, LLC levels etc....i'll be also geting a g.skill 3600mhz cl16 samsung b-die ram since i saw that is a sweet spot for this chip. Thank you in advance and i would rly like to hear some opinions about this combo.


----------



## Hitman82

robertvb said:


> Hello guys, i'm upgrading my pc from ryzen 1800x and rog crosshair VI hero to ryzen 3900x and rog crosshair VIII hero cuz i'm a idiot that wanna waste some money, i'll be also using a noctua d15 cpu cooler since that what i run now on my 1800x. I just wanna know how this board is doing and is it a good choice, also i'm a little bit concern of ryzen 3000 temps, since i saw that 3900x can run really hot so i'm also curious will i be able to get full performance from 3900x with a high end air cooler like noctua d15 and is water cooling really needed for this chip? Also if someone can be kind to link me or give me some tips about ryzen 3900x bios overclock since i don't wanna use ryzen master, i see that many 3900x chips are runing at 4.3ghz OC so i would really appreciate if someone can link a good bios OC configurations for 3900x, like voltages, pbo levels, LLC levels etc....i'll be also geting a g.skill 3600mhz cl16 samsung b-die ram since i saw that is a sweet spot for this chip. Thank you in advance and i would rly like to hear some opinions about this combo.


I have exact same combo of CPU, MoBo and RAM which I was running stable around 4.25 Ghz with AIO. My OC was a combination of multiple trial and error attempts by referring various online OC guides.

It will take some attempts to get to know the sweet spot for your CPU as each can clock differently, but 3900X is already an awesome CPU and this motherboard compliments it well.

Do not want to scare you off but my MoBo has recently died so I am unable to provide you much details around my settings. 

Sent from my Redmi Note 7 Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## Baio73

New BIOS released:

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BIOS 2206
-Update AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.0.8.0
-Improve system performance.
-Improve system stability
-Improve M.2 storage compatibility
-Improve DRAM stability

https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...MULA/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-2206.ZIP

Baio


----------



## phillyman36

Baio73 said:


> New BIOS released:
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BIOS 2206
> -Update AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.0.8.0
> -Improve system performance.
> -Improve system stability
> -Improve M.2 storage compatibility
> -Improve DRAM stability
> 
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...MULA/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-2206.ZIP
> 
> Baio


Do we know whats different? 2204 says the same exact thing.(Agesa V2 PI 1.0.8.0)
ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO (WI-FI) BIOS 2204
"-Update AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.0.8.0
-Improve system performance.
-Improve system stability
-Improve M.2 storage compatibility
-Improve DRAM stability


----------



## robertvb

Hitman82 said:


> I have exact same combo of CPU, MoBo and RAM which I was running stable around 4.25 Ghz with AIO. My OC was a combination of multiple trial and error attempts by referring various online OC guides.
> 
> It will take some attempts to get to know the sweet spot for your CPU as each can clock differently, but 3900X is already an awesome CPU and this motherboard compliments it well.
> 
> Do not want to scare you off but my MoBo has recently died so I am unable to provide you much details around my settings.
> 
> Sent from my Redmi Note 7 Pro using Tapatalk


Thank you for your respond....sad to hear about your mobo.....yea i see there are a lot of settings around so i guess i just have to play with it....i just wanna know how were ur cpu temps? Is water cooling really necesary to enjoy full performance of this cpu or i'll be just fine with noctua d15 high end air cooler? Since i saw a lot mixed opinions about cooling systems for this cpu...like some people say that water cooling is very important some of them don't so i really can't decide


----------



## Baio73

phillyman36 said:


> Do we know whats different? 2204 says the same exact thing.(Agesa V2 PI 1.0.8.0)
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO (WI-FI) BIOS 2204
> "-Update AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.0.8.0
> -Improve system performance.
> -Improve system stability
> -Improve M.2 storage compatibility
> -Improve DRAM stability


Can't say... I've a C8F and this should be the first 1.0.8.0 BIOS.

Baio


----------



## tien113

Baio73 said:


> New BIOS released:
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BIOS 2206
> -Update AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.0.8.0
> -Improve system performance.
> -Improve system stability
> -Improve M.2 storage compatibility
> -Improve DRAM stability
> 
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...MULA/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-2206.ZIP
> 
> Baio


can I use the old profile?


----------



## Baio73

tien113 said:


> can I use the old profile?


I wasn't able to.

Baio

PS as far as I've tested my RAM needs more V to work than before.


----------



## tien113

Baio73 said:


> I wasn't able to.
> 
> Baio
> 
> PS as far as I've tested my RAM needs more V to work than before.


I confirmed that I can use the old profile. Nothing has to been changed.


----------



## Raulka

*lower the chipset temp?*

Hi Guys!

Is there any BIOS settings trick to lower the chipset temperature?

I read in a gigabyte x570 forum that: lower the Chipset SOC voltage to 0.9...0.95V and Lower the Chip CLD0 to 1.0V but this settings are changeable in the CH8 Formula BIOS? If YES, than where could I find these settings? I'm on the new 2206 BIOS version. 

Thanks!


----------



## dlbsyst

I went from BIOS 1302 to the newest one 2206. This is what I did. First I saved the Profile (CMO) of my 1302 BIOS to a USB thumb drive. I cleared the cmos using the button on the back of my motherboard. Then I used BIOS flashback to load the new BIOS. Upon booting for the first time it said it was updating the BIOS and then it rebooted. Then on the second boot I went into the BIOS and loaded the CMO Profile I saved to BIOS 2206. Then I rebooted and ran some tests in Windows. Everything seems stable so far and I'm getting about the same performance I got with 1302. I will probably play around some with the new BIOS and see if I can get some more performance out of it but so far I'm happy with it. I'll report here If I notice anything out of the ordinary.


----------



## jfrob75

I updated to bios 2206 and was able to load 2 saved profiles from bios 2204. So far all is working as before. So, whatever the difference is between 2204 and 2206 it doesn't appear to be significant.


----------



## AStaUK

I was reading on [H]ard|Forums that 2206 fixes a stability bug with DRAM settings.


----------



## Sam64

> So, whatever the difference is between 2204 and 2206 it doesn't appear to be significant.



Well, for me 2204 worked fine for 3 days, than i gave it a try with 2206 and had again random reboots after one day. Flashback to 2204, hope it's again stable now.


----------



## garyd9

Sam64 said:


> Well, for me 2204 worked fine for 3 days, than i gave it a try with 2206 and had again random reboots after one day. Flashback to 2204, hope it's again stable now.


I hadn't gotten around to 2206 yet, but 2204 was stable for 3 days or so and then the reboots started (2 in one day.) Back to 1302. With COVID and working from home, I need this machine to be stable. (Maybe I should try to get a different motherboard.)


----------



## flyinion

Updated from 2103 to 2206 today with no issues so far. Vddg and vddp voltages still behaving on auto vs the 1xxx BIOS versions. I’ll change them soon anyway when I redo my memory OC.


----------



## Hauser_Ger

Hi,

I tried 2206 and it is even worse than 2103 & 2010.  Version 1302 is still the best version, if you want a stable system and have fast RAM timings.

Every time they "Improve DRAM stability", they actually make it worse! I opened a support ticket and wrote back and forth with the BIOS guys in Taiwan, for almost 2 month now, but they are just not listening or willing to do something about it. 

Greets,
Hauser


----------



## Karagra

Hauser_Ger said:


> Hi,
> 
> I tried 2206 and it is even worse than 2103 & 2010.  Version 1302 is still the best version, if you want a stable system and have fast RAM timings.
> 
> Every time they "Improve DRAM stability", they actually make it worse! I opened a support ticket and wrote back and forth with the BIOS guys in Taiwan, for almost 2 month now, but they are just not listening or willing to do something about it.
> 
> Greets,
> Hauser


Damn sorry to hear that, I think each bios is hit or miss depending on exact hardware but for me 2206 is the bios I have been looking for better gaming fps and can finally run stable at 3800 cl14


----------



## Veii

Baio73 said:


> New BIOS released:
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BIOS 2206
> -Update AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.0.8.0
> -Improve system performance.
> -Improve system stability
> -Improve M.2 storage compatibility
> -Improve DRAM stability
> 
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...MULA/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-2206.ZIP
> 
> Baio
> 
> 
> phillyman36 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we know whats different? 2204 says the same exact thing.(Agesa V2 PI 1.0.8.0)
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO (WI-FI) BIOS 2204
> "-Update AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.0.8.0
> -Improve system performance.
> -Improve system stability
> -Improve M.2 storage compatibility
> -Improve DRAM stability
Click to expand...

This are the differences 








Between 2204 & 2206 no idea 
There was a 1.0.8.0 released 5 days ago and a patch A hotfix "yesterday"
CH8 has only 1080 non A, or they forgot to put "patch A" there 
Sadly no idea what was fixed between non A and A - would need to check :thinking:
No idea too if you guys aren't on 1080 non patch :thinking:


----------



## benbenkr

Seems like 2206 is a real mixed bag. Many has had all their problems eradicated that they suffered from 2010/2103. But some are getting even worse results with system lock ups and instability.

Pretty sad state of affairs in how Asus has managed their BIOS release for their x570 boards so far to be frank. It's a new chipset sure, but come on man... it's been nearly a year after release.


----------



## Baio73

Finally I had some time to test... must say "thanks" to Asus, as they finally were able to release a BIOS that allows me to make my 4x8Gb config to work smoothless.
With previous releases I got errors with my 2 kits (1 G.Skill 4000C17D and 1 4133C19D) set @3600 CAS 14... with 2206 I've passed 5 hours of Karhu MemTest, so I think it's stable.
Maybe the lower temperatures of theese days help.

Baio


----------



## Krisztias

Guys, who got problems with the last two BIOS releases:

Do you set up the BIOS from sratch, or used an old profile? Because it's recommended NOT to carry over old profiles. I'm on 1302, but I'm not sure, what the problem is by many users. Maybe the old profiles making problems?


----------



## Yoizhik

Hi, i was using fixed voltage until now and i want to try offset mode but i don't know how to limit it. I dont want voltage to go past 1.25V. I'm using Ryzen 3300x (temporary) on Asus Strix X570-E

I set 0.05 offset (don't know good or bad, maybe 0.0125 or 0.075 is better) all i want to do is that Vcore doesn't jump to 1.35-1.4V's


----------



## benbenkr

Krisztias said:


> Guys, who got problems with the last two BIOS releases:
> 
> Do you set up the BIOS from sratch, or used an old profile? Because it's recommended NOT to carry over old profiles. I'm on 1302, but I'm not sure, what the problem is by many users. Maybe the old profiles making problems?


I always start from scratch. This is because sometimes Asus moves certain settings around from one BIOS to another and when you load an old profile, the previous setting couldn't find itself in the table and it would then be left null. 




Yoizhik said:


> Hi, i was using fixed voltage until now and i want to try offset mode but i don't know how to limit it. I dont want voltage to go past 1.25V. I'm using Ryzen 3300x (temporary) on Asus Strix X570-E
> 
> I set 0.05 offset (don't know good or bad, maybe 0.0125 or 0.075 is better) all i want to do is that Vcore doesn't jump to 1.35-1.4V's


Why would you not want to go past 1.25v? That makes no sense when the CPU is designed to go above it for the boost algorithm to work properly.

Your offset can be set to whatever you want, as long as you the CPU remains stable.


----------



## Krisztias

benbenkr said:


> I always start from scratch. This is because sometimes Asus moves certain settings around from one BIOS to another and when you load an old profile, the previous setting couldn't find itself in the table and it would then be left null.


Exactly this is why I'm asking people, who had/having problems with the new BIOSes. I would like to know, if the used an old profile or not.


----------



## pantsoftime

Krisztias said:


> Exactly this is why I'm asking people, who had/having problems with the new BIOSes. I would like to know, if the used an old profile or not.


I've been successful at migrating my profile over the last 3 or 4 BIOS releases simply by saving it to USB and then restoring it. Restoring a built-in profile rarely works between releases, but saving to a USB .CMO file and restoring is pretty reliable.


----------



## Reikoji

2206 is the same for me: cant set 1900fclk or code 07 lockup. Just gonna stick to 1302 until it comes time to pop in a Zen 3 processor.


----------



## Phage

2206 has finally worked for me !
I've been stuck on 1001 for months, as any BIOS after that wouldn't boot reliably.

2206 with Windows 2004 is rock solid. FINALLY.


----------



## arkantos91

I upgraded to august latest BIOS but as soon as I loaded my old profile, a bunch of wierdness happened.

First of all my Soundblaster G6 wasn't detected. Then on the next reboot my keyboard wasn't working, like EVERY other usb port (both the ones from the front panel and those on the back of the mobo) only the mouse was working, God knows why.

My Corsair Rapidfire didn't even light its rgb unless I removed the usb and cable and plugged it back in. So the ports were powered but still any key I pressed wasn't detected.

I tried to check what was happening just after loading my profile in the BIOS, when you do F10 to save and reset, it says every change it's being made and some of them were things I never touched or even never actually even saw in the BIOS lol

Guess it's not advisable to carry profiles from old bios to new bios. All I did was a "custom" dram timing/voltage setting and a 0.05 negative offset to the cpu


----------



## supershanks

I always lose my profiles after changing bios, unless you save them to USB, which I haven't tried. 
If your talking of the latest 2206. I have some really weird events occuring. I have been able to clock at 4.4 with 1.325v vcore. Run Linpack OCCT error free with acceptable max temps (WC) of around 75C. Temps are now through the roof. Looks like some auto voltages have been racked up. Anyone else found this?


----------



## Sam64

Never load profiles from different Bios versions. Even when it's running, sooner or later you will be in trouble. I tried it several times, it does not work.


Bios-Versions: For me 2103 (AGESA Combo V2 1002) is the one, that is running stable. From what I know, every AGESA Version with 00 as second and third digit is stable.


----------



## Phage

Phage said:


> 2206 has finally worked for me !
> I've been stuck on 1001 for months, as any BIOS after that wouldn't boot reliably.
> 
> 2206 with Windows 2004 is rock solid. FINALLY.


Spoke too soon - it will boot but have random restarts. Did anyone find a solution to this ?


----------



## garyd9

Phage said:


> Spoke too soon - it will boot but have random restarts. Did anyone find a solution to this ?


Same symptom here. It's actually comical in that the BIOS will run any stress test I throw at it - both memory and CPU, but randomly restart when the machine is mostly idle. Sometimes it will go for days without restarting. Sometimes it'll restart twice in 2 hours. Very unpredictable.

(And I've tried both loading a previously saved profile from USB and clearing everything and typing in all the values by hand.)


----------



## Krisztias

garyd9 said:


> Same symptom here. It's actually comical in that the BIOS will run any stress test I throw at it - both memory and CPU, but randomly restart when the machine is mostly idle. Sometimes it will go for days without restarting. Sometimes it'll restart twice in 2 hours. Very unpredictable.
> 
> (And I've tried both loading a previously saved profile from USB and clearing everything and typing in all the values by hand.)


With to much undervolt can happend.


----------



## Phage

I'm not undervolting - it's set at Auto. This is something else.


----------



## flyinion

Phage said:


> I'm not undervolting - it's set at Auto. This is something else.


I'm seeing the same issue. Run Folding 24/7 no issues, game no issues. Leave the system sitting idle and randomly come back to the windows login screen and see that it bugchecked, and then bugchecked again after the restart. Most of the time the 1st bugcheck there is a volmgr message that it can't create the dump file either. I did have something like this early on last year after building the system that I wrote off as a bad Windows update though. Not sure if that's still the case. Thinking of doing a wipe and reload of Windows at this point. Since the new MS flightsim came out I got rid of my 14 year old version with tons of addons so my overall reloading Windows process just got a lot quicker.


----------



## Baio73

With the last BIOS I see an error "Code 30 Check CPU" on the mobo's display after resuming from sleep.
System seems to work fine.

Baio


----------



## Phage

flyinion said:


> I'm seeing the same issue. Run Folding 24/7 no issues, game no issues. Leave the system sitting idle and randomly come back to the windows login screen and see that it bugchecked, and then bugchecked again after the restart. Most of the time the 1st bugcheck there is a volmgr message that it can't create the dump file either. I did have something like this early on last year after building the system that I wrote off as a bad Windows update though. Not sure if that's still the case. Thinking of doing a wipe and reload of Windows at this point. Since the new MS flightsim came out I got rid of my 14 year old version with tons of addons so my overall reloading Windows process just got a lot quicker.


Yep - I reloaded windows as well. Seems OK so far, fingers crossed


----------



## porkass

Hello, 

Just for information / update, for me BIOS 2206 don't have the reboot / shutdown problem. I had this problem since 2010, 2103 and 2204. My performance are the same as 1302 BIOS. Now i have even a better stability with my ram at 3733 Mhz, with lower SOC voltage (1.1 in 1302 to 1.05 in 2206).


----------



## The Stilt

Just a little heads-up on a new feature, that will find its way into the upcoming bios releases. The feature is called as "PBO Fmax Enhancer", and it will be available in the "Ai Tweaker/Precision Boost Override" -menu among with other of the “Precision Boost Override” related options, on compatible ASUS motherboards. This feature is exclusive to Zen 2 based Ryzen 3000-series CPUs ("Matisse" & "Starship") and it will work on both, the consumer (AM4) and HEDT (sTRX40) platforms.










*So, what does it do then?*

This is an opportunistic feature and because of that, exactly no improvements are granted, let alone being promised to or by anyone. What it means in practical terms, is that the results will depend mostly on the silicon quality and partly, on the CPU SKU as well. Because of that the achieved results are expected to vary rather wildly, even between the different specimens of the same CPU SKU.

As a real-world example, this is what was achieved on a random early-production R9 3900X CPU. Despite this most likely is far from the best-case-scenario, consider it as a such if you will: Cinebench R20 nT average effective frequency (APERF) >> 145.9MHz improvement (3946.8MHz to 4092.7MHz). The improvement during a single-threaded, scalar-vector path-tracing workload (SPT-AVX2): 61.6MHz (average effective frequency, APERF), 4548MHz >> 4609.6MHz. As said before, there is no question if the achieved results will vary, since they will and wildly so. Some of the combinations might illustrate even better results, some no change at all, and some even WORSE behaviour than the stock.



Spoiler



Cinebench R20 nT Default:










Cinebench R20 nT "PBO Fmax Enhancer Enabled":










SPT-AVX2 single-threaded hybrid path-tracer (SSE4.2/AVX2) workload, default:










SPT-AVX2 single-threaded hybrid path-tracer (SSE4.2/AVX2) workload, "PBO Fmax Enhancer Enabled":













*At what cost is this done?*

Reliability wise, while maintaining the same user-controller settings that directly affect the reliability (PBO Scalar), there will not be any meaningful or measurable difference in the reliability. In fact, in multithreaded workloads the reliability should typically be ever-so-slightly higher than stock, due to the slightly lower voltage. In single-threaded workloads there might be a tiny increase in peak voltage observed during the maximum boost, at least on some CPU SKUs.

That being said, all of the CPUs will still obey the absolute maximum (and in terms of an increase, immutable) voltage limit of 1.50000V, that is enforced by the power management of the CPU. So, in case a CPU already hits 1.50000V during the maximum boost, at stock, enabling the feature will not increase the voltage any further, without actions done by the user (e.g. a voltage offset).

Personally, I have observed ± 1 VID (i.e. 6.25mV) worth of a change in the maximum voltage, during single-threaded workloads. These observations have taken place on CPU SKUs with the default Fmax limit of 4.4 - 4.65GHz and therefore their peak voltage has been closer to, or even time to time at the 1.50000V limit, even at stock. Because of that, CPU SKUs with a more modest Fmax limit and hence a lower maximum voltage at stock (due to a greater "distance" until the hard 1.50000V limit), might illustrate larger absolute voltage increases.

So essentially, instead of a typical brute-force approach this is a more of a dance with the available margins. The margins that might, or might not be present in your piece of the silicon. In technical terms, what is effectively happening inside the CPU, is that the default V/F (voltage-frequency) curve is being optimized to allow slightly higher frequency headroom, at the expense of the potentially available margins.

*A quick check of facts:*


An ASUS exclusive feature for 3rd Gen. Ryzen CPUs (“Matisse” and “Starship”)
A supplemental feature (i.e. an enhancement) to the standard "Precision Boost" operation. Not available (nor required) in OC-Mode, regardless if “static” or "per-CCX".
Not compatible with the so-called "EDC tweak".
Will not directly increase the voltage (i.e. no voltage related rule attached). The user remains in control of all voltage related settings.
Will not either disable, or alter the parameters of FIT (i.e. silicon fitness / reliability).
The results WILL vary between the different CPUs and even between the different specimens of the same CPU SKU
*So, what to do first, when I want to try this out?*

The very first thing you do, is reading the post as a whole through couple more times, until you have even a vague idea of what was being said and meant. Flash the bios as usual, load the fail-safe defaults (yeah, no kidding, due to RM's hive) and start entering the settings of your choice. With the exception being anything related to the CPU voltage (VDDCR_CPU), discard all of your previous CPU voltage related settings that affect the output voltage level (i.e. offsets and load-line).

Also, the described behaviour has only been tested while the "Ai Overclock Tuner" option is set to "Manual" and the "Performance Enhancer" option to "Default". Due to the auto-rules (“do if's”) potentially affecting the other setting combinations, it's on the user’s responsibility to ensure that the parameters remain where they should be, if any other combinations are being used.

*Troubleshooting, suggestions and hints:*


Q: Any hints or suggestions, before I start testing this out?
A: Not a suggestion, but a hard requirement: Disable ALL of the voltage offsets (regardless if ±) AND load-line adjustments affecting the CPU voltage (VDDCR_CPU) prior using this feature, i.e. your previous CPU voltage related settings. Whatever settings might have worked for you before, forget about them since they won't apply anymore.


Q: Performance has deteriorated compared to stock, when all cores are utilized (e.g. CB20 NT)?
A: If this is a fact and not a margin-of-error kind of stuff (as usual), i.e. a 3 run reproducible average: The reason for the deteriorated performance is most likely clock stretching, which occurs when the core supply voltage falls below a certain threshold. Try increasing load-line level for CPU voltage (one step at a time), until the performance either matches, or exceeds the stock. If the performance cannot be restored through the use of load-line adjustment, restore load-line to "Auto" setting and add a positive voltage offset to the CPU voltage (again, one step at the time, i.e. 6.25mV). NOTE: Unless there is a valid reason, the user SHOULD NEVER touch the load-line setting during the "Precision Boost" operation, only while in OC-Mode (“static” or “per-CCX”). During "Precision Boost" operation, the CPU is in the control of the load-line, and a user set load-line override will prevent the CPU from controlling the load-line correctly.


Q: I'm having stability issues, when this feature is activated.
A: Proceed as described above, first try increasing the load-line and then try offset if the load-line adjustment didn't help. If neither helped, the margins in the silicon are insufficient and the feature should remain turned off ("Auto" or "Disabled").


Q: I'm seeing no improvement?
A: Tough luck, better luck with the next CPU.


Q: What voltage should I be monitoring?
A: "CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN)" that is displayed under HWiNFO sensors, that’s only reading that matters for evaluating stable-state voltages without external equipment. Anything with a "VID" in it’s the name are basically just voltage requests, or commands. On a single main-plane design such as AM4 or even sTRX40 the VIDs are completely irrelevant, since despite each of the cores having their own VIDs, there is only a single voltage plane (and hence a single concurrent voltage level at the time).


A suggestion: ONLY enable "Max CPU Boost Clock Override" if you are close (within ~ 25MHz) of saturating the factory Fmax*, and upon saturation, only increase the Fmax by the minimum available amount at the time. Unless saturated, unnecessarily large increases will only deteriorate the result. * (3600 = 4.200GHz, 3600X = 4.400GHz, 3700X 4.400GHz, 3800X = 4.550GHz, 3900X = 4.650GHz, 3950X = 4.725GHz, for other SKUs check HWiNFO). The bios releases featuring the newly added "PBO Fmax Enhancer" will also increase the available Fmax margin from 200MHz to 400MHz, to ensure that SKUs with a low total Fmax ceiling (factory + offset), such as 3600 will have a sufficient headroom available. The initial test versions will still have the standard +200MHz limit however, the said change has already been implemented in the code.


A suggestion: In some cases, the results can be improved even further, by increasing the "Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar" value from the default 1x setting. This option directly affects the silicon reliability and because of that, it should be only increased from the stock if the performance improvements justify it (which they frankly, seldom do). Personally, I would never increase it to higher than 4x. The current level can be checked with HWiNFO (Central Processors >> CPU PBO Scalar (Reliability Reduction)).


A hint: All "Precision Boost Override" related parameters remain available, as usual. The user can increase PPT and TDC limits if they become saturated, to improve the performance even further. EDC is piped with TDC and there is no need for the user to adjust it.

*A request: Out of a common courtesy, please don’t quote or link to this post, unless you’re certain that you understood what was being said and intended. That applies especially to you Paul.*

Peter (Shamino) from ASUS will post some initial bios builds for you to test shortly.


----------



## shamino1978

thanks to thestilt! 
have fun... test bios 
for Formula








ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-0039.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com





for hero








ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-0039.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Thanks both. Look forward to testing them soon.


----------



## slice313

shamino1978 said:


> thanks to thestilt!
> have fun... test bios
> for Formula
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-0039.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for hero
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-0039.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


Can I use the Crosshair HERO VIII BIOS WIFI for my Crosshair HERO VIII?


----------



## The Stilt

slice313 said:


> Can I use the Crosshair HERO VIII BIOS WIFI for my Crosshair HERO VIII?


Technically you can however, there is no official method to update the "wrong" binary.
You can strip the .CAP header (1000h) out of the bios binary and use e.g. Flashrom to update.


----------



## slice313

The Stilt said:


> Technically you can however, there is no official method to update the "wrong" binary.
> You can strip the .CAP header (1000h) out of the bios binary and use e.g. Flashrom to update.


I think it would be nice if Shamino post the NON WIFI bios for the HERO too. I would like to test this new BIOS.

I have been suffering the random restart bug since the introduction of the 2000 series BIOSes... and always had to roll back to 1302 (which is perfectly stable)

I need the newer AGESA for several reasons but I wonder when is ASUS going to release a "problem free" BIOS... Please Shamino.


----------



## benbenkr

slice313 said:


> I think it would be nice if Shamino post the NON WIFI bios for the HERO too. I would like to test this new BIOS.
> 
> I have been suffering the random restart bug since the introduction of the 2000 series BIOSes... and always had to roll back to 1302 (which is perfectly stable)
> 
> I need the newer AGESA for several reasons but I wonder when is ASUS going to release a "problem free" BIOS... Please Shamino.


By the time they do, Zen 3 will be here and we'll be asking for Zen 3 BIOSes. Then the cycle repeats again, waiting (hopefully) for months before a stable BIOS arrives. Add to that we'd also have to wait for good chipset drivers.

Don't think x570 and Zen 2/3 will mature until late 2021.


----------



## The Stilt

slice313 said:


> I have been suffering the random restart bug since the introduction of the 2000 series BIOSes... and always had to roll back to 1302 (which is perfectly stable)


So your saying that the Crosshair VIII boards have been broken ever since the 1302 bios version, that released more than 6 months ago?
I admit I haven't used much of the C8x series board (C8F in my case) recently however, I cannot say I've noticed any issues.


----------



## The Stilt

benbenkr said:


> Add to that we'd also have to wait for good chipset drivers.


Is there something in particular wrong with the current drivers?
AMD updated the drivers extremely rapidly when the plaform launched. Obviously on a more mature systems, there is usually little to no need to upgrade the drivers for hardware such as the chipset.


----------



## polynomialc

just updated to 2206, I was using 1302. so far no issues. I would like to say that i have never had this motherboard crash since ive owned it. Ive had it since release. I really think most of the issues people are having is somehow related to the ram , they are using. If you have a stable set, I feel like this board has been very reliable.

one thing to note, i have pbo off, most settings are auto and far from tweaked. onboard audio has always been disabled and realtek lan disabled. other then that mostly stock, didnt see a huge point oc'ing 3800x.


----------



## slice313

The Stilt said:


> So your saying that the Crosshair VIII boards have been broken ever since the 1302 bios version, that released more than 6 months ago?
> I admit I haven't used much of the C8x series board (C8F in my case) recently however, I cannot say I've noticed any issues.


I am not the only one having issues, we have been talking about random restarts (even within the BIOS settings in the case of 2010-2204) since the 2xxx BIOS introduction. I thought that the 2206 BIOS had finally fix the problems but, yeah, random restarts when idle started happening after a week I believe, for some random reason (Sounds like BIOS corruption?)...

My ram modules have been working without issues from the beginning. I have two ryzen 3900X/Crosshair VIII setups, one with 2 modules of Samsung B-die chips and other one with 2 modules of Hynix DJR modules. Both systems working at CL16/3600 Mhz and tested with the "Karhu Ramtest" for at least ~+6400% coverage, so pretty much 99.98% stable... I have the same issues with both systems, so do other people at the forums. Only downgrading back to 1302 fixes the random restarts.

I include various links of the abandoned  ASUS? forums and some "random" reddit threads, in case anyone is curious about the issues that plagues the Crosshair VIII 2xxx BIOSes...

BIOS-2204-Follow-up
BIOS-2103-High-Instability-Crashes
After quite some time it has begun again to randomly turn off (Reddit)
random restarts (Reddit)


----------



## The Stilt

slice313 said:


> I am not the only one having issues, we have been talking about random restarts (even within the BIOS settings in the case of 2010-2204) since the 2xxx BIOS introduction. I thought that the 2206 BIOS had finally fix the problems but, yeah, random restarts when idle started happening after a week I believe, for some random reason (Sounds like BIOS corruption?)...
> 
> My ram modules have been working without issues from the beginning. I have two ryzen 3900X/Crosshair VIII setups, one with 2 modules of Samsung B-die chips and other one with 2 modules of Hynix DJR modules. Both systems working at CL16/3600 Mhz and tested with the "Karhu Ramtest" for at least ~+6400% coverage, so pretty much 99.98% stable... I have the same issues with both systems, so do other people at the forums. Only downgrading back to 1302 fixes the random restarts.
> 
> I include various links of the abandoned  ASUS? forums and some "random" reddit threads, in case anyone is curious about the issues that plagues the Crosshair VIII 2xxx BIOSes...
> 
> BIOS-2204-Follow-up
> BIOS-2103-High-Instability-Crashes
> After quite some time it has begun again to randomly turn off (Reddit)
> random restarts (Reddit)


Bioses don't really corrupt.

If a system illustrates these issues when everything is running within the AMD spec and it has been verified to be an OS idenpendent issue, then some component within the system is defective. If it was a bios issue, everyone would have it.

Otherwise, it is most likely a matter of unstable OC settings.


----------



## slice313

The Stilt said:


> Bioses don't really corrupt.
> 
> If a system illustrates these issues when everything is running within the AMD spec and it has been verified to be an OS independent issue, then some component within the system is defective. If it was a bios issue, everyone would have it.
> 
> Otherwise, it is most likely a matter of unstable OC settings.


But then, why do you think I dont have this issue with 1302 BIOS and older? I only suffer random restarts with 2010,2203-2204 and 2206. Something must have changed, don't you agree?


----------



## The Stilt

slice313 said:


> But then, why do you think I dont have this issue with 1302 BIOS and older? I only suffer random restarts with 2010,2203-2204 and 2206. Something must have changed, don't you agree?


So for example version 1201 works fine too?
If all versions after 1302 have issues on your system, it's probably somehow AGESA related.
1302 is the last version which was based on ComboPI AGESA. All of the newer ones are CombiPI V2, which include support for Renoir APUs for example.

Does the issue happen if you run Samsung B-die DIMMs at say, 2666MHz?


----------



## slice313

The Stilt said:


> So for example version 1201 works fine too?
> If all versions after 1302 have issues on your system, it's probably somehow AGESA related.
> 1302 is the last version which was based on ComboPI AGESA. All of the newer ones are CombiPI V2, which include support for Renoir APUs for example.
> 
> Does the issue happen if you run Samsung B-die DIMMs at say, 2666MHz?


1201 works fine, as fine as 1302 I would say. Only after 1302 I have problems. 

I never tested running the DIMMs at 2666 Mhz but I also don't overclock. But could be... maybe new AGESA is screwing with the memory, maybe not (Since users of GIGABYTE, MSI and such are not reporting this issue). The thing is, with recent BIOS like the 2206, RAM pass all tests without an error. It is during idle (not working with the computer or even looking at it) when it just... restarts.

Since more people are affected and I have two separate systems with different DIMMS technologies... I would guess that there is an issue with newer BIOS when using certain setting or certain hardware.


----------



## The Stilt

slice313 said:


> 1201 works fine, as fine as 1302 I would say. Only after 1302 I have problems.
> 
> I never tested running the DIMMs at 2666 Mhz but I also don't overclock. But could be... maybe new AGESA is screwing with the memory, maybe not (Since users of GIGABYTE, MSI and such are not reporting this issue). The thing is, with recent BIOS like the 2206, RAM pass all tests without an error. It is during idle (not working with the computer or even looking at it) when it just... restarts.
> 
> Since more people are affected and I have two separate systems with different DIMMS technologies... I would guess that there is an issue with newer BIOS when using certain setting or certain hardware.


Low MEMCLK is worth trying, since most of the stability issue on AMD platforms are DRAM related.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

I was getting random restarts after 1302 until I altered both CCD/IOD VDDG Voltages, Been fine since.


----------



## slice313

delete


----------



## slice313

Badgerslayer7 said:


> I was getting random restarts after 1302 until I altered both CCD/IOD VDDG Voltages, Been fine since.


Could you share your CCD/IOD VDDG Voltages? for science? ty


----------



## Badgerslayer7

I have them both at 1.075
Vddp 950
Soc. 1.1
That’s a 3900x with ram at 3800/1900 IF.


----------



## Sam64

slice313 said:


> It is during idle (not working with the computer or even looking at it) when it just... restarts.


Exactly. 1302 ran 100% stable with with RAM (Samsung B-Die) set to 3733/FCLK1866 or 3800/FCLK 1900. I never had any issues. With 2103 or higher (i tried 2204 and 2206 as well) I got random reboots at idle states only. Now I'm still on 2103 trying to find out, why it's happening. Didn't try 1.075 VDDP, thanks @Badgerslayer7. I'll give it a try.


----------



## The Stilt

Sam64 said:


> Exactly. 1302 ran 100% stable with with RAM (Samsung B-Die) set to 3733 FCLK 1866 or 1800 FCLK 1900. I never had any issues. With 2103 or higher (i tried 2204 and 2206 as well) I got random reboots at idle states only. Now I'm still on 2103 trying to find out, why it's happening. Didn't try 1.075 VDDP, thanks @Badgerslayer7. I'll give it a try.


Does it happen if FCLK is running within the spec (FCLK =< 1600MHz)?
Personally, I've never seen a CPU capable more than 1800MHz FCLK, regardless if we're talking about a AM4 or sTRX40 CPUs.


----------



## nick name

Sam64 said:


> Exactly. 1302 ran 100% stable with with RAM (Samsung B-Die) set to 3733 FCLK 1866 or 1800 FCLK 1900. I never had any issues. With 2103 or higher (i tried 2204 and 2206 as well) I got random reboots at idle states only. Now I'm still on 2103 trying to find out, why it's happening. Didn't try 1.075 VDDP, thanks @Badgerslayer7. I'll give it a try.


I'm seeing something similar, but I attributed it to CPU voltage. Similar isn't at idle states, but light load operations. 

Are you using the EDC bug?


----------



## Sam64

The Stilt said:


> Does it happen if FCLK is running within the spec (FCLK =< 1600MHz)?
> Personally, I've never seen a CPU capable more than 1800MHz FCLK, regardless if we're talking about a AM4 or sTRX40 CPUs.


Really? My 3900X (from Nov 2019) is running 100% stable on C8H-Wifi with FCLK 1866 with nearly every BIOS version starting 1105, 1202 and 1302. I found some instabilities at 1900, so I went back to 1866.

Right now I'm testing Shaminos latest 0039 Test-Bios (many thanks for that, great work!) and it seems, it's getting stable as long as I'm runnnig with more conservative RAM-settings, but still with 1866 FCLK. And with the new feature "PBO Fmax Enhancer" enabled, I really get some performance gains. CB20 Multicore Score: +140, CPU-Z Bench +180 MC +10 SC, 3D Mark CPU score: +200. Will see, if it's running stable without random idle reboots.


----------



## Sam64

nick name said:


> Are you using the EDC bug?


No, I'm not. But for some games I'm running my 3900X with 88/60/90 TDP limits, since I get a bit more singlecore performance.


----------



## arcanexvi

I'd love to hop in and test the new builds as well but have the non-wifi board. Any chance of someone editing the test bios or @shamino1978 dropping it for us?


----------



## nick name

@The Stilt is your new feature something that will be added to older Crosshair boards?


----------



## The Stilt

nick name said:


> @The Stilt is your new feature something that will be added to older Crosshair boards?


It is up to ASUS obviously, but I'm not aware of any reason why it wouldn't be possible to implement.


----------



## Sam64

Many Thanks @The Stilt. Your feature is working fine for me. I'm really starting to like that Bios


----------



## nick name

The Stilt said:


> It is up to ASUS obviously, but I'm not aware of any reason why it wouldn't be possible to implement.


That's good enough for me. Thank you, sir.


----------



## pantsoftime

Spent some time working with The Stilt's new feature and I like it a lot. ST performance was very close to my manual CCX overclock. With a little bit of fine tuning I saw 2 cores boosting to 4750 and a third to 4675. MT benchmarks like Cinebench were still well below what I typically get with the manual overclock but it seems like a great feature and ran at much lower temps.


----------



## Sam64

Definitely like it a lot as well with PBO settings. Pushes my better CCD with (overall) slightly lower vcore and lower temps. No reboots so far, love it!


----------



## RHBH

Hello, I'm looking for a X570 motherboard to buy.

Currently I'm between the ASUS Crosshair VIII, Gigabyte X570 AORUS Master and MSI X570 ACE

Is the Crosshair VIII Formula running stable, any known issues?


----------



## bt1

Running stable with FCLK 1905
PBO 171-119-166 Scalar x2
CPU voltage negative offset by two steps: -0,0125V
W10 2004, 1usmus power profile


----------



## slice313

Badgerslayer7 said:


> I have them both at 1.075
> Vddp 950
> Soc. 1.1
> That’s a 3900x with ram at 3800/1900 IF.


Hey @Badgerslayer7, I using your CCD/IOD VDDG (1.075) values and so far so good. I am still early in the testing phase but no random restarts so far. My previous values were set at 1.050 so maybe that little bump is needed for better stability with the newer microcode...


----------



## Sam64

@The Stilt Shamino1978
0039 runs now 24 hours without any issues (Auto PBO with 4x Scalar, PBO Fmax Enhancer enabled). This is the way.


----------



## Phage

@The Stilt @Shamino

Just popping in to conform that 2206 crashes/restarts when idling with no OC applied. Just DOCP settings


----------



## kuutale

shamino1978 said:


> thanks to thestilt!
> have fun... test bios
> for Formula
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-0039.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for hero
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-0039.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


is there test bios crosshair viii (non wifi version) with this feature, or when it comes?


----------



## benbenkr

The Stilt said:


> Is there something in particular wrong with the current drivers?
> AMD updated the drivers extremely rapidly when the plaform launched. Obviously on a more mature systems, there is usually little to no need to upgrade the drivers for hardware such as the chipset.


Mediocre SATA performance that has been ignored until today, swept under the rug and hopefully the masses don't realize.


----------



## The Stilt

Phage said:


> @The Stilt @Shamino
> 
> Just popping in to conform that 2206 crashes/restarts when idling with no OC applied. Just DOCP settings


The use of only D.O.C.P doesn't mean it's running stock.
For instance, if you are using 3600MHz modules the FCLK will run 200MHz above the AMD maximum spec, when you enable D.O.C.P.
While all CPUs SHOULD be capable of 1800MHz FCLK, only the crashes at stock are worth of investigating obviously.


----------



## The Stilt

benbenkr said:


> Mediocre SATA performance that has been ignored until today, swept under the rug and hopefully the masses don't realize.


I don't think AMD has even released AHCI drivers for these platforms?
At least my system uses Microsoft generic driver.


----------



## escoltajuverf

not all cpu can run 1800IF or 3600 ram at 24/7 stable, specially if its 4 sticks/8ranks of ram, black screen, sudden reboots, or cold boot is an indication of that.


----------



## RHBH

escoltajuverf said:


> not all cpu can run 1800IF or 3600 ram at 24/7 stable, specially if its 4 sticks/8ranks of ram, black screen, sudden reboots, or cold boot is an indication of that.


What is easier / provide best OC results in Ryzen? 

4x Single sided (eg: 4x8GB)
Or
2x Double sided (eg: 2x16GB)


----------



## dlbsyst

OMG. This new test BIOS is amazing! Using my Ryzen 9 3950x my CBR20 score went from 9592 to 9918. Single core score is 539. Also seems to run cooler too. Thank you so much The Stilt and Shamino1978 for creating and then sharing it. Definitely two big thumbs up.


----------



## dlbsyst

RHBH said:


> What is easier / provide best OC results in Ryzen?
> 
> 4x Single sided (eg: 4x8GB)
> Or
> 2x Double sided (eg: 2x16GB)


 From my experience, 2x Double sided (eg: 2x16GB) will give you overall better overclock potential and better performance.


----------



## RHBH

dlbsyst said:


> From my experience, 2x Double sided (eg: 2x16GB) will give you overall better overclock potential and better performance.


Thanks! That's exactly what I bought. 

I got a 2x16GB (double sided) Micron E Die kit. 

It is rated for 3600MHz 16-18-18-36 1.35v


----------



## dlbsyst

RHBH said:


> Thanks! That's exactly what I bought.
> 
> I got a 2x16GB (double sided) Micron E Die kit.
> 
> It is rated for 3600MHz 16-18-18-36 1.35v
> 
> View attachment 2458910
> 
> 
> View attachment 2458911


Nice! It looks like really good RAM. I hope you get a good overclock from it.

My RAM is:
Trident Z Neo
DDR4-3600MHz CL16-16-16-36 1.35V
32GB (2x16GB)

I have it running at 3733MHz with 16-16-16-32 1.37v. It's totally stable.


----------



## arcanexvi

Any love for non-wifi hero yet?


----------



## The Stilt

arcanexvi said:


> Any love for non-wifi hero yet?


Shouldn't be long.


----------



## RHBH

dlbsyst said:


> Nice! It looks like really good RAM. I hope you get a good overclock from it.
> 
> My RAM is:
> Trident Z Neo
> DDR4-3600MHz CL16-16-16-36 1.35V
> 32GB (2x16GB)
> 
> I have it running at 3733MHz with 16-16-16-32 1.37v. It's totally stable.


Oh these B-Dies... fantastic, but they're kinda rare to find in my country and very very expensive, I don't think the tighten secondary timings improvements are worth the extra bucks.

I haven't bought all PC parts, still missing MB and CPU, I'm waiting for Zen 3 launch (and possibly X670 MBs), got this RAM kit now because of a good deal from a local store nearby.


----------



## Corey Carroz

dlbsyst said:


> Nice! It looks like really good RAM. I hope you get a good overclock from it.
> 
> My RAM is:
> Trident Z Neo
> DDR4-3600MHz CL16-16-16-36 1.35V
> 32GB (2x16GB)
> 
> I have it running at 3733MHz with 16-16-16-32 1.37v. It's totally stable.


What are your settings? I have the same kit and have not had much luck using ryzen master.


----------



## dlbsyst

Corey Carroz said:


> What are your settings? I have the same kit and have not had much luck using ryzen master.


I'll post them for you shortly or if you look back a while you should be able to find my posted settings. I'm not sure how far back though.


----------



## shamino1978

ok here is the non wifi ver:








ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-0039.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com


----------



## kuutale

Stilt's pbo fmax working great for me 3950x
pbo fmax enable
pbo auto
i put scalar 2x
25mhz overdrive

Singlecore points:
stilts fmax i get cpu-z 560
edc bug 555

i see 3 cores hit 4716 and other first ccd hit 4,691, and temp control is better, using usmus1 powerplan

Edit:
stilts pbofmax All cpu voltage levels auto LLC auto . With edc bug i need put LLC3


----------



## The Stilt

shamino1978 said:


> ok here is the non wifi ver:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-0039.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


Thanks Peter!


----------



## slice313

Thank you Shamino and The Stilt! I couldnt wait to test the new BIOS and the results are astonishing!

Not only I finally fixed (so it seems) my stability problems (sightly increasing the CCD/IOD VDDG voltage) but the new BETA BIOS rocks! My performance increased greatly for all-core and single-core performance! No issues so far. Thank you so much for this!

My Cinebench20 score went from 7080-7150 to 7400-7410. I think I could still improve it further since, at this moment, my all core boost is just 4150-4175 MHZ. How could I push to 4200 mhz? I am using x4 scalar already and AUTO "max CPU boost overdrive".

PD: I still have random restarts :/


----------



## The Stilt

slice313 said:


> Thank you Shamino and The Stilt! I couldnt wait to test the new BIOS and the results are astonishing!
> 
> Not only I finally fixed (so it seems) my stability problems (sightly increasing the CCD/IOD VDDG voltage) but the new BETA BIOS rocks! My performance increased greatly for all-core and single-core performance! No issues so far. Thank you so much for this!
> 
> My Cinebench20 score went from 7080-7150 to 7400-7410. I think I could still improve it further since, at this moment, my all core boost is just 4150-4175 MHZ. How could I push to 4200 mhz? I am using x4 scalar already and AUTO "max CPU boost overdrive".


Improving the cooling further should result in some additional frequency and also, I expect at that point the CPU to be limited by the voltage, essentially the FIT limit.
Personally, I advised against of using higher than 4x PBO Scalar however, that doesn't mean you cannot use higher if you want to. Increasing the PBO Scalar will affect the reliability of the silicon however, increasing past the said 4x mark won't kill the CPU. Even at 4x setting we're talking about several years (worst-case), depending on the use.

In case of multicore workloads, I would expect the temperatures to be the lowest hanging fruit, so to speak.


----------



## nick name

slice313 said:


> Thank you Shamino and The Stilt! I couldnt wait to test the new BIOS and the results are astonishing!
> 
> Not only I finally fixed (so it seems) my stability problems (sightly increasing the CCD/IOD VDDG voltage) but the new BETA BIOS rocks! My performance increased greatly for all-core and single-core performance! No issues so far. Thank you so much for this!
> 
> My Cinebench20 score went from 7080-7150 to 7400-7410. I think I could still improve it further since, at this moment, my all core boost is just 4150-4175 MHZ. How could I push to 4200 mhz? I am using x4 scalar already and AUTO "max CPU boost overdrive".


If you're cooling with air then try to reduce case temperature. If you're cooling with an AIO then pulling air from outside of the case through the rad. A difference of as little as 3*C in the ambient air might be all that's needed to get you to that 4.2GHz mark from 4.17GHz. 

If you can't improve cooling then try adding just a touch of BCLK. Something like 100.4 gets that 4175 to 4191 and 100.6 gets it to 4200. Though you may find that if you're running 1900 FCLK then using 100.6 BCLK will put you at or past the edge of stability. I can't POST with anything higher than 100.6 with FCLK at 1900.


----------



## SubiXT

shamino1978 said:


> ok here is the non wifi ver:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-0039.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


I notice that EZ Update is providing 3 versions of the 0039 bios. Version 1001, 0803, 0702. I tried to download and installed, but the installation failed. Any insights?


----------



## slice313

nick name said:


> If you're cooling with air then try to reduce case temperature. If you're cooling with an AIO then pulling air from outside of the case through the rad. A difference of as little as 3*C in the ambient air might be all that's needed to get you to that 4.2GHz mark from 4.17GHz.
> 
> If you can't improve cooling then try adding just a touch of BCLK. Something like 100.4 gets that 4175 to 4191 and 100.6 gets it to 4200. Though you may find that if you're running 1900 FCLK then using 100.6 BCLK will put you at or past the edge of stability. I can't POST with anything higher than 100.6 with FCLK at 1900.


Thanks for the advice! I am on AIR, using a "dark Rock 3" for the CPU, which I think may not be best for this Ryzen 3900X due to "not optimal" mounting pressure (the instalation system is really weak for the 3 series) I would like to try a Noctua NHD15...


----------



## Sam64

@SubiXT: Try USB-Flashback, worked for me like a charm.


----------



## dlbsyst

Corey Carroz said:


> What are your settings? I have the same kit and have not had much luck using ryzen master.


Here you are Corey. Be sure and enter all of these settings.
Edit: I actually have tRRDS set to 4 in my BIOS.


----------



## Corey Carroz

dlbsyst said:


> Here you are Corey. Be sure and enter all of these settings.
> Edit: I actually have tRRDS set to 4 in my BIOS.
> View attachment 2458993
> View attachment 2458994


Thanks! I was digging through the thread and only could find your 4x8GB kit settings. Much appreciated.


----------



## nick name

slice313 said:


> Thanks for the advice! I am on AIR, using a "dark Rock 3" for the CPU, which I think may not be best for this Ryzen 3900X due to "not optimal" mounting pressure (the instalation system is really weak for the 3 series) I would like to try a Noctua NHD15...


It would be awesome if it was just a mediocre mount. That would mean you might see much a noticeable increase in performance once it's sorted.


----------



## dlbsyst

Corey Carroz said:


> Thanks! I was digging through the thread and only could find your 4x8GB kit settings. Much appreciated.


No problem.


----------



## quarx2k

For me pbo fmax works great also on 3950x
Fmax enable, Pbo auto, Scalar 4x, 175mhz overdrive. Voltage auto. (SVI2 TFN max 1.5v)
CB20 single core - 546
CB20 multi core - 9918
Also temps much better with pbo fmax!









With 200mhz overdrive i get random reboots.


----------



## Jeffrey Kistler

I got a pretty nice uplift in performance from fmax pbo with a 3900x, thanks for sharing. Could I possibly see any performance gain if I added a negative offset, or would that break what this setting is doing? Currently have vcore on auto as recommended


----------



## The Stilt

quarx2k said:


> For me pbo fmax works great also on 3950x
> Fmax enable, Pbo auto, Scalar 4x, 175mhz overdrive. Voltage auto. (SVI2 TFN max 1.5v)
> CB20 single core - 546
> CB20 multi core - 9918
> Also temps much better with pbo fmax!
> View attachment 2459023
> 
> 
> With 200mhz overdrive i get random reboots.


3950X has factory Fmax of 4725MHz, so you're not supposed to use 175MHz or 200MHz offset anyway.
Try 75 or 100MHz.


----------



## quarx2k

The Stilt said:


> 3950X has factory Fmax of 4725MHz, so you're not supposed to use 175MHz or 200MHz offset anyway.
> Try 75 or 100MHz.


Interesting, but i can see sometimes effective clock of cores 0,1 > 4780mhz.


----------



## btripp2

Does anyone have PCB pics or can anyone tell me if the M.2 slot for the wireless module is still present on the standard ROG Crosshair VIII Hero.


----------



## RHBH

btripp2 said:


> Does anyone have PCB pics or can anyone tell me if the M.2 slot for the wireless module is still present on the standard ROG Crosshair VIII Hero.


There is no M.2 (Key-E) slot (used for the Intel AX200 WiFi/BT) on the Crosshair VIII Hero

Source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wmsTYK9Z3-jUX5LGRoFnsZYZiW1pfiDZnKCjaXyzd1o/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## arcanexvi

shamino1978 said:


> ok here is the non wifi ver:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-0039.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


Thanks!


----------



## btripp2

RHBH said:


> There is no M.2 (Key-E) slot (used for the Intel AX200 WiFi/BT) on the Crosshair VIII Hero
> 
> Source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wmsTYK9Z3-jUX5LGRoFnsZYZiW1pfiDZnKCjaXyzd1o/edit?usp=sharing


Thanks a lot! As the boards are so similar I was expecting the M.2 (E-Key) slot to be there just not populated. Glad I didn't tear things apart just to find out.


----------



## kuutale

quarx2k said:


> For me pbo fmax works great also on 3950x
> Fmax enable, Pbo auto, Scalar 4x, 175mhz overdrive. Voltage auto. (SVI2 TFN max 1.5v)
> CB20 single core - 546
> CB20 multi core - 9918
> Also temps much better with pbo fmax!
> View attachment 2459023
> 
> 
> With 200mhz overdrive i get random reboots.


what windows power plan u use?

edit i get random bsod when i use firefox, all benchmark programs finnish without bsod, and games work perfectly. Maybe i try add some LLC

enabled pbo fmax
pbo auto
scalar 2x
75mhz override
cpu and llc auto


----------



## LtMatt

shamino1978 said:


> thanks to thestilt!
> have fun... test bios
> for Formula
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-0039.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for hero
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-0039.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


Is this PBO Fmax enhancer option going to make it to the Asus X570 Prime Pro board or would i need to buy a Crosshair VIII board?

Currently using the Prime Pro and would prefer not to upgrade, if possible.


----------



## HoloWS

shamino1978 said:


> ok here is the non wifi ver:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-0039.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


Does this include the updated AGESA version (1.0.8.1 Combo v2) that has the latency improvements or is that to come later with public release / beta?

I noticed the SMU firmware was updated to 46.64.0.


----------



## slice313

kuutale said:


> what windows power plan u use?
> 
> edit i get random bsod when i use firefox, all benchmark programs finnish without bsod, and games work perfectly. Maybe i try add some LLC
> 
> enabled pbo fmax
> pbo auto
> scalar 2x
> 75mhz override
> cpu and llc auto


I am also getting some crashes here, I was testing various settings and noticed that when I set the "CPU scalar" and "Max CPU overdrive" to "auto" the crashes are much more frequent. than lets say scalar x4 and overdrive +25 mhz


----------



## Phage

The Stilt said:


> The use of only D.O.C.P doesn't mean it's running stock.
> For instance, if you are using 3600MHz modules the FCLK will run 200MHz above the AMD maximum spec, when you enable D.O.C.P.
> While all CPUs SHOULD be capable of 1800MHz FCLK, only the crashes at stock are worth of investigating obviously.


Hi - I took off the DOCP and it still has the randpm restarts. It's not that.
They can happen at anytime when stressed or at idle


----------



## slice313

Phage said:


> Hi - I took off the DOCP and it still has the randpm restarts. It's not that.
> They can happen at anytime when stressed or at idle


I did the following and now I am running fine. Load optimal setting from BIOS and reconfigure everything by hand. Dont touch anything related to voltage except Load Line Calibration for the CPU to "level 3" and the voltage required for you memory. If you have B-die DIMMs, you can use the ASUS included profiles for now, you can tighten latencies later, whenever you are sure there are no stability problems with the CPU. I am seeing better performance yet and no crashes. Before of that I was carrying my old .CMO with my all my custom settings (bad idea).


----------



## The Stilt

kuutale said:


> what windows power plan u use?
> 
> edit i get random bsod when i use firefox, all benchmark programs finnish without bsod, and games work perfectly. Maybe i try add some LLC
> 
> enabled pbo fmax
> pbo auto
> scalar 2x
> 75mhz override
> cpu and llc auto


For low loads, a small positive offset (1-2 clicks) is probably better, since the effectiveness of load-line depends on the current draw.


----------



## Reous

HoloWS said:


> Does this include the updated AGESA version (1.0.8.1 Combo v2) ...


In this Bios is Agesa v2 1.0.8.*2*


----------



## The Stilt

Phage said:


> Hi - I took off the DOCP and it still has the randpm restarts. It's not that.
> They can happen at anytime when stressed or at idle


Crashes on a system running at stock settings always indicate defective hardware. Unless you have a Radeon Navi based GPU in the system, DRAM is the most probable suspect.


----------



## The Stilt

slice313 said:


> I am also getting some crashes here, I was testing various settings and noticed that when I set the "CPU scalar" and "Max CPU overdrive" to "auto" the crashes are much more frequent. than lets say scalar x4 and overdrive +25 mhz


Depending on the condition where the crash occurs, increasing the voltage slightly is probably beneficial.
Essentially, if the crashes occur during low-current loads (idle, or single threaded, use offset of 1-2 clicks) and for high-current loads use load-line.
The voltage drop depends on the current draw, so it is only effective on higher current draws (V = I * R).


----------



## slice313

The Stilt said:


> Depending on the condition where the crash occurs, increasing the voltage slightly is probably beneficial.
> Essentially, if the crashes occur during low-current loads (idle, or single threaded, use offset of 1-2 clicks) and for high-current loads use load-line.
> The voltage drop depends on the current draw, so it is only effective on higher current draws (V = I * R).


I really tried but the system is not stable, random restarts... I bumped up 2 clicks for the low current loads, I used LLC level 3... I used scalar X1, overdrive +0 mhz... I tried all possible combinations. During stress testing it is all fine (Unless I was really pushing with +100 mhz overdrive), memory testing is also perfectly stable up to 99.45% using Karhu, using VR high load aplications and pushing the limits of the system is okay but but... random restarts at idle.

For the time being I went back to 1302 BIOS, I cant deal with more random restarts, I would go insane. I really hope being able to try again and success with a newer BIOS...


----------



## oreonutz

Hey Everyone, long time no talk.

Been watching reviews all morning. Has anyone been able to find out why reviewers were having problems with x570 test systems yet?


----------



## kuutale

The Stilt said:


> For low loads, a small positive offset (1-2 clicks) is probably better, since the effectiveness of load-line depends on the current draw.


Ok i give little + offset cpu voltage.


slice313 said:


> I really tried but the system is not stable, random restarts... I bumped up 2 clicks for the low current loads, I used LLC level 3... I used scalar X1, overdrive +0 mhz... I tried all possible combinations. During stress testing it is all fine (Unless I was really pushing with +100 mhz overdrive), memory testing is also perfectly stable up to 99.45% using Karhu, using VR high load aplications and pushing the limits of the system is okay but but... random restarts at idle.
> 
> For the time being I went back to 1302 BIOS, I cant deal with more random restarts, I would go insane. I really hope being able to try again and success with a newer BIOS...


what windows power plan use?


----------



## dlbsyst

kuutale said:


> Ok i give little + offset cpu voltage.
> 
> what windows power plan use?


I use AMD Ryzen Balanced.


----------



## dlbsyst

oreonutz said:


> Hey Everyone, long time no talk.
> 
> Been watching reviews all morning. Has anyone been able to find out why reviewers were having problems with x570 test systems yet?


Which reviews did you watch oreonutz? I'd like to check them out.


----------



## Giustaf

shamino1978 said:


> ok here is the non wifi ver:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-0039.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


I would like to try this bios with my 3900x, can you tell me which settings I need to change? 🙏 🙏 🙏

I just set the ram timings (via DRAM Calculator suggestions), the rest is default! Thank you!


----------



## oreonutz

dlbsyst said:


> Which reviews did you watch oreonutz? I'd like to check them out.


Linus' Review mentioned some kind of Problem Anthony was having with their x570 test system, and showed a tweet where apparently other reviewers ran into the same issue. I am not sure if it was x570 related or not, HUB didn't seem to have an issue with his x570 test system (or if he did he didn't mention it in his review) so am just trying to figure out what that was about. Want to make sure my new Shiny 3080 doesn't have issues on my Crosshair VIII, or if there are issues figure out what they are so I can find out how to mitigate them.

Its also entirely possible it has nothing to do with x570, and I just read the situation wrong though, definitely not ruling that one out yet, lol.


----------



## quarx2k

kuutale said:


> what windows power plan u use?
> 
> edit i get random bsod when i use firefox, all benchmark programs finnish without bsod, and games work perfectly. Maybe i try add some LLC
> 
> enabled pbo fmax
> pbo auto
> scalar 2x
> 75mhz override
> cpu and llc auto


Power Plan: 1usmus Ryzen Universal. LLC Auto.
No crashes at all. Problems only with +200mhz offset.


----------



## jfrob75

oreonutz said:


> Linus' Review mentioned some kind of Problem Anthony was having with their x570 test system, and showed a tweet where apparently other reviewers ran into the same issue. I am not sure if it was x570 related or not, HUB didn't seem to have an issue with his x570 test system (or if he did he didn't mention it in his review) so am just trying to figure out what that was about. Want to make sure my new Shiny 3080 doesn't have issues on my Crosshair VIII, or if there are issues figure out what they are so I can find out how to mitigate them.
> 
> Its also entirely possible it has nothing to do with x570, and I just read the situation wrong though, definitely not ruling that one out yet, lol.


I watched Hardware Unboxed and they had no issues using their X570 test system.


----------



## dlbsyst

oreonutz said:


> Linus' Review mentioned some kind of Problem Anthony was having with their x570 test system, and showed a tweet where apparently other reviewers ran into the same issue. I am not sure if it was x570 related or not, HUB didn't seem to have an issue with his x570 test system (or if he did he didn't mention it in his review) so am just trying to figure out what that was about. Want to make sure my new Shiny 3080 doesn't have issues on my Crosshair VIII, or if there are issues figure out what they are so I can find out how to mitigate them.
> 
> Its also entirely possible it has nothing to do with x570, and I just read the situation wrong though, definitely not ruling that one out yet, lol.


Thanks. Yeah, I watched his video earlier. He doesn't really say what trouble they had. I plan on getting a RTX 3080 tomorrow morning hopefully. Assuming it doesn't sell out before I can order one. I'll post here if I have any problems when I get it installed.


----------



## kuutale

quarx2k said:


> Power Plan: 1usmus Ryzen Universal. LLC Auto.
> No crashes at all. Problems only with +200mhz offset.


i can do without power managment:
usmus1 universal power plan
llc auto
1x
offset 75

or put llc2 and do this:
usmus1 universal power plan
llc2
2x
offset 75mhz


i see boost clok 4800, 3 cores. others go first ccd 4700
Ok, u must have good silicon, i try llc2 right now and its seems helping idle crashes. I dont why it helps. i dont know i keep it llc2 maybe its hurts my cpu pushing too much voltage? cpu voltage is auto


----------



## Jeffrey Kistler

R20: was getting 510-515 ST, 7150-7170 MT with 100mv undervolt + pbo and 3800c14 tuned
pbo fmax enabled, pbo auto, scalar 2x, everything else auto w/ xmp 3200c14:


----------



## LtMatt

The Stilt said:


> SNIP


Will this new feature make its way into the Asus Prime Pro X570 board BIOS updates?


----------



## The Stilt

LtMatt said:


> Will this new feature make its way into the Asus Prime Pro X570 board BIOS updates?


Impossible to say for certain, since ASUS ROG motherboards are maintained by different team / branch in Taiwan (vs. the rest by the PRC branch).
I don't think the other branches would be refused access to this, in case they wanted to add it. But by default, probably not as I have no contacts at the PRC branch.


----------



## LtMatt

The Stilt said:


> Impossible to say for certain, since ASUS ROG motherboards are maintained by different team / branch in Taiwan (vs. the rest by the PRC branch).
> I don't think the other branches would be refused access to this, in case they wanted to add it. But by default, probably not as I have no contacts at the PRC branch.


Okay, thanks for the answer. 

I hope @shamino1978 can provide a definite answer.


----------



## kuutale

slice313 said:


> I really tried but the system is not stable, random restarts... I bumped up 2 clicks for the low current loads, I used LLC level 3... I used scalar X1, overdrive +0 mhz... I tried all possible combinations. During stress testing it is all fine (Unless I was really pushing with +100 mhz overdrive), memory testing is also perfectly stable up to 99.45% using Karhu, using VR high load aplications and pushing the limits of the system is okay but but... random restarts at idle.
> 
> For the time being I went back to 1302 BIOS, I cant deal with more random restarts, I would go insane. I really hope being able to try again and success with a newer BIOS...


i found stable settings and little nice performance boost. No idle restarts or crashes hihg load
3950x cpu my silicon is not best but little llc bump its go stable against idle crashes. im happy new bios and the stilt pbo fmax feature

LLC2
Pbo fmax enabled
pbo auto
scalar 2x
offset 100


----------



## slice313

I


kuutale said:


> i found stable settings and little nice performance boost. No idle restarts or crashes hihg load
> 3950x cpu my silicon is not best but little llc bump its go stable against idle crashes. im happy new bios and the stilt pbo fmax feature
> 
> LLC2
> Pbo fmax enabled
> pbo auto
> scalar 2x
> offset 100


Thanks for letting me know  I have been busy too, tinkering with all possible variables. I managed to shave off around 3 degrees at full load from my CPU (re-mounting/re-pasting my 3900X with NT-H2)


That just improved the cooling and possible boosting but instability problems persisted with this BIOS. I managed to fix my instability problems my simply completely re-doing my memory OC (like the Stilt said: "anything higher than 3200 mhz is memory OC for this CPU and not guaranteed...) It seems that, from the 1302 BIOS going on, reaching to 3600 mhz becomes much more harder and requires of more tweaking than I ever thought. What is perfectly rock stable with 1302, becomes a pile of crap with the 2010 BIOS and beyond (Thank you AMD for your magnificent AGESA code).

If anyone is experiencing the sames problems that I did and would like to know what settings I used to fix it, please PM me. My system for reference (3900X, Crosshair Hero VIII, x2 8GB Samsung B-Die DIMMS)

Now, going back to the experimental BIOS, results are really great. I went from barely 4000 mhz all core boost to 4200 mhz. Single core performance is also increased and benchmarks show a significant improvement. "Seems" I finally managed to stabilize the system (I still don't completely believe it), I will give this a good test this weekend and share later.

*_*


🙌Update: Later today I gave the final tweaks to my mem timings and the results are now as good as with the 1302 and perfectly stable.

Futhermore, I managed to boost all-core up to 4292-4312 MHZ during the CPU passmark benchmarks and 4192-4200 mhz all-core for cinebench, so I could say I am very happy indeed . I spent all day testing, stressing a performing light tasks and idle, no crashes whatsoever. This looks promising.

Nope, still suffer from random reboots. I went back to BIOS 1302.


----------



## Alpi

Shamino & The Stilt : Special thanks for Your work ! Possibly this overrideable Fmax is the most wanted (dreamed about) feature by me ! I hope my oldy will get this soon !
Thx again, I'm really appreciate by Your (and other bios dev mate) work ! 👍💪


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Can a new GPU throw off a memory OC? 

I had my system running fine with a 1080 Ti and a 2080 Ti. After installing a 3080 with PCI-E 4, there was a boot error about the video card after the initial post boot. Upon returning to bios default or XMP profile, the beep went away. 

I had to back down from 3733 CL14 to 3600 CL14. Any insight on this? The motherboard did bark at me stating that SOC over voltages can mess up a GEN 4 PCI-E. I'm assuming that the 3080 being PCI-E 4.0 has thrown this off?


----------



## eslacker

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Can a new GPU throw off a memory OC?
> 
> I had my system running fine with a 1080 Ti and a 2080 Ti. After installing a 3080 with PCI-E 4, there was a boot error about the video card after the initial post boot. Upon returning to bios default or XMP profile, the beep went away.
> 
> I had to back down from 3733 CL14 to 3600 CL14. Any insight on this? The motherboard did bark at me stating that SOC over voltages can mess up a GEN 4 PCI-E. I'm assuming that the 3080 being PCI-E 4.0 has thrown this off?


Hi, I'm curious, what happens when u tune back ur PCI-e x16 back to Gen 3 in the bios settings, same results? Congrats on the new gpu card btw.
Ps:I have been watching this thread for a while, trying to figure out how to get rid of the idle reboots. Kudos to all on this endeavour.


----------



## finas

shamino1978 said:


> thanks to thestilt!
> have fun... test bios
> for Formula
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-0039.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for hero
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-0039.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


I would love to test the one for the VIII impact. Can you share it?


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

eslacker said:


> Hi, I'm curious, what happens when u tune back ur PCI-e x16 back to Gen 3 in the bios settings, same results? Congrats on the new gpu card btw.
> Ps:I have been watching this thread for a while, trying to figure out how to get rid of the idle reboots. Kudos to all on this endeavour.


Changing it to pci-e 3 did not change anything. 

Here's a video of this error of anyone is interested.

The pass post beep happens then 3 sorry beeps happen.



http://imgur.com/a/obtmXCv


----------



## Jendator

Hi guys,

Im just testing now newly borrowed MB ROG Crosshair VIII Formula with the rest of my built, the config is:

AMD Ryzen 7 3700X, ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Formula X570, MSI RTX2070 Armor 8G, 32GB DDR4-3600 CL16 G.Skill Trident Z RGB Neo (kit of 2x16), SSD Samsung 970 EVO Plus 500GB, SSD Goodram CX300 500GB, HDD WD Black 1TB 7200RPM, (EDIT: case SilentiumPC Signum SG1X TG RGB, PSU CoolerMaster Real Power M620 620W)

On the beginning, I struggled with starting the system so I cleared the CMOS (by HW button on Back I/O) and later I used EZ Update to update the BIOS to 1001 version. No newer is offered by EZ Update. Do you recommend for my built to update manually on another version to get best crashless results?

In BIOS I just turned on DOCP to XMP profile with [email protected]@1,35V, turned on PBO, setted the FSB on 1800Mhz.

Since the begining, I feel some struggles with memories, but at the moment I hope I fixed, they run like this:











Problems:
1) I put the FSB frequency in BIOS on 1800Mhz to get the ratio 1:1 for best latency possible, but for some reason it shows ratio 3:54 (?!?).
2) CPU-Z shows me, that Bank Cycle Time (tRC) should be 58 with XMP profile, but it shows here 85.

Can you please kindly give me hint, what I am doing wrong or Im just missing in reading the data?

I am not very experienced overclocker with ROG CVIII F, right now just testing it second day. Please excuse my noobery then


----------



## Sam64

@Jendator Don't worrry about "FSB:RAM "in CPU-Z, it's not about ratio 1:1. It's about on how the memory reference clock is relative to the memory multiplier. You're fine with your setting in general, it's 1:1. You might wanna try "Zen Timings" which is a nice tool for monitoring all ram settings:
ZenTimings
https://github.com/irusanov/ZenTimings/releases


----------



## pantsoftime

Jendator said:


> On the beginning, I struggled with starting the system so I cleared the CMOS (by HW button on Back I/O) and later I used EZ Update to update the BIOS to 1001 version. No newer is offered by EZ Update. Do you recommend for my built to update manually on another version to get best crashless results?


I recommend using the updater built into the BIOS interface. BIOS 2206 is available here at this link (Asus's support page). Extract it to a thumb drive and you can load it from the Asus Update interface.


----------



## RHBH

pantsoftime said:


> I recommend using the updater built into the BIOS interface. BIOS 2206 is available here at this link (Asus's support page). Extract it to a thumb drive and you can load it from the Asus Update interface.


Is BIOS Flashback reliable as the updater built into the BIOS interface?


----------



## The Stilt

RHBH said:


> Is BIOS Flashback reliable as the updater built into the BIOS interface?


More reliable, since the Flashback-feature is hardware based.


----------



## leoxtxt

I tried the PBO Fmax Enhancer on my 3900X;

CB20 (ST 515 - > 530 // MT: 7250ish - > 7500)

It runs a bit hotter (70 degrees after a 30 mins loop of CB20), i suppose that is acceptable.

But the most important thing, with the PBO Fmax enabled i no longer have the random and extremely annoying idle BSODs.

Really impressive 👍


----------



## RHBH

What is your chipset temperature while idle and load (what kind of load)?

I just bought a Crosshair VIII Hero Wi-Fi, should I be worried with chipset temps?

Is replacing the chipset thermal pad to a regular thermal paste, such as Kyronaut a good idea?


----------



## raysheri

Jendator said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> Im just testing now newly borrowed MB ROG Crosshair VIII Formula with the rest of my built, the config is:
> 
> AMD Ryzen 7 3700X, ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Formula X570, MSI RTX2070 Armor 8G, 32GB DDR4-3600 CL16 G.Skill Trident Z RGB Neo (kit of 2x16), SSD Samsung 970 EVO Plus 500GB, SSD Goodram CX300 500GB, HDD WD Black 1TB 7200RPM, (EDIT: case SilentiumPC Signum SG1X TG RGB, PSU CoolerMaster Real Power M620 620W)
> 
> On the beginning, I struggled with starting the system so I cleared the CMOS (by HW button on Back I/O) and later I used EZ Update to update the BIOS to 1001 version. No newer is offered by EZ Update. Do you recommend for my built to update manually on another version to get best crashless results?
> 
> In BIOS I just turned on DOCP to XMP profile with [email protected]@1,35V, turned on PBO, setted the FSB on 1800Mhz.
> 
> Since the begining, I feel some struggles with memories, but at the moment I hope I fixed, they run like this:
> 
> 
> View attachment 2459356
> 
> 
> Problems:
> 1) I put the FSB frequency in BIOS on 1800Mhz to get the ratio 1:1 for best latency possible, but for some reason it shows ratio 3:54 (?!?).
> 2) CPU-Z shows me, that Bank Cycle Time (tRC) should be 58 with XMP profile, but it shows here 85.
> 
> Can you please kindly give me hint, what I am doing wrong or Im just missing in reading the data?
> 
> I am not very experienced overclocker with ROG CVIII F, right now just testing it second day. Please excuse my noobery then


I've recently installed what I think is the same ram.
In the Dram timings, Try setting tRC -58 or 60 , tRFC -480 , ProcODT - 48 + the usual 16 19 19 19 39 CL to tRAS.


----------



## RHBH

The Stilt said:


> More reliable, since the Flashback-feature is hardware based.


Thank you! My board should be arriving in a few days, looking forward to test it.

I'm going for a full upgrade, just keeping the GPU and a temporary CPU until I get Zen 3 and an Ampere GPU.

Jumping from a Z97 MB with i7 4790k to a X570 MB with a 3300X. I bought the cheapest CPU I found so I can upgrade to Zen 3 when it becomes available.

I'll also keep my current GTX 980 until I can get my hands on one of these new RTX 3080 cards.

I was tired of waiting as I have most hardware parts in the next room (aio wc, psu, case, ram...)


----------



## kuutale

RHBH said:


> What is your chipset temperature while idle and load (what kind of load)?
> 
> I just bought a Crosshair VIII Hero Wi-Fi, should I be worried with chipset temps?
> 
> Is replacing the chipset thermal pad to a regular thermal paste, such as Kyronaut a good idea?


my max chipset temperature is using pcie 3.0 60 under load, idle it 50-55 maybe sometimes lower my room ambient is 21

ram 3733 cl16
all other settings auto, only tweaked precision boost menu

llc 2
pbo fmax enabled
pbo auto
override 75mhz

i think this very much max. Maybe more if breaking tdp barrier. But i dont have time this week play pbo setups maybe future


----------



## slice313

I still suffer from random reboots. HCI mem test 5 hours pass, Karhu memtest 6500% pass but, random reboots at idle. 

I tried 3200 mhz, CL14, CL15, Cl16, 3600 CL14, CL15, Cl16, Auto values, Ryzen Dram Calculator recommended values, I tried all, all posible combinations, voltages and whatnot. I even changed the PSU to rule out a faulty unit, remounted my CPU Cooler (Dark Rock PRO 3) Nothing! My PC is fine, New BIOS are not.

I went back to BIOS 1302, no more random reboots.


----------



## schnebdreleg

slice313 said:


> I still suffer from random reboots. HCI mem test 5 hours pass, Karhu memtest 6500% pass but, random reboots at idle.
> 
> I tried 3200 mhz, CL14, CL15, Cl16, 3600 CL14, CL15, Cl16, Auto values, Ryzen Dram Calculator recommended values, I tried all, all posible combinations, voltages and whatnot. I even changed the PSU to rule out a faulty unit, remounted my CPU Cooler (Dark Rock PRO 3) Nothing! My PC is fine, New BIOS are not.
> 
> I went back to BIOS 1302, no more random reboots.


I had the same issue with random reboots at idle or when I went afk for some time. I changed my settings/hardware but nothing seemed to help. As a last resort I bought and tested a new processor and since then the problems have actually disappeared. I went from a "bought on release date" 3700X to a 3800X that was manufactured about a year later.

Using the Crosshair Hero non WiFi with the newest BIOS and 32 GB RAM @ 3733 CL 16

Edit:
Btw, for me the idle restarts were always caused by some random bluescreen. Unfortunately, it wasn't always the same one  Maybe check your
event display within windows or use a tool like bluescreen view.


----------



## IwannaKnow

I wanna associate to @schnebdreleg , @slice313 and all the other who have issues with the bios version after 1302. Bought also a 3900x during the release. Everything went fine even with OC RAM.
No CPU OC, PBO off. Samsung B-Die.
Every Bios after 1302 gives me random reboots during idle. Tried everything typing in all settings manually, let it run with default settings. Nothing helps except going back to 1302.

This is quite a thing what @schnebdreleg mentioned. There need to be a massiv bug in the agesa, or bios since the newer bios versions. It can´t be that a full running CPU is running into random reboots during idle, if it was working in the beginning. The most saddest thing is that a lot ppl has this issues and it is ignored by Asus in the support and on reddit too.
This board is not a 150€ Board, and I also doubt that it is an agesa issue. I don´t read anything from other manufacturers that they have this kind of issues since a specific Bios update and not so constantly.

I don´t know how to get the attention from Asus to this topic. This is very disappointing.


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ibi6h9



We'll be back.




We'll be back.




https://hardforum.com/threads/rog-crosshair-viii-hero-wi-fi-bios-2103.1998652/



@The Stilt @shamino1978 is it possible that you could raise your voice maybe for this issue to address it and considering the information which we got from @schnebdreleg? This would be really awesome.


----------



## slice313

This is really interesting to know... thanks @schnebdreleg and @IwannaKnow for your messages.

I also know that @eslacker and many others have exactly the same problem. I would like to hear from them too. This issue have been going on for a long time in the Asus forums, but was grossly ignored. (From BIOS 2010)

I would like to know what is exactly causing the problem with (so it seems) earlier manufactured RyZen 2 CPUs.

Sadly, Asus will state that AMD is at fault with the newer AGESA code and AMD will dismiss it as a BIOS issue.

Who can we talk to, that will at least, listen our problem?

*Update: *Now I understand why messages at the ASUS forums that are related to this issue are being ignored... they are deleting most of the negatives comments about the subject. I just checked and I had messages deleted that werent even offensive to begin with, just talking about the issue. I will be deleting my account at the Asus forums since I dont like the aptitude of the MODs stalking, but never, ever, helping the customers.


----------



## schnebdreleg

to add to my last post: I later sold my 3700X to a friend of mine and he knew of the problems I had with that CPU. Funny thing, he never had problems like that (we agreed that he can try the CPU for some time).

Before that, I tried to open a RMA ticket with AMD for the 3700X after I was sure that the 3800X solved my problems, but the customer support is a joke. I created three!! RMA tickets and every ticket was closed with "Ah, you want to lend a CPU for a BIOS update? Here is the link". Like no one on their side read my detailed statements.. even when I attached the closed tickets and wrote, that i don't want to lend a CPU for a BIOS update, but an exchange


----------



## zsoltmol

I have these random restart / never wake up from sleep issue as well, since 1302. Disabled sleep for my system which helped, but if my rig is idling (not sleeping) for 1-2 days I can still have a random restart sometimes. It is always related to a WHEA error ID 18 in the system log. My 3900X CPU is from the really very first batches in Europe, installed in 2019 July.


----------



## pp2

IwannaKnow said:


> I wanna associate to @schnebdreleg , @slice313 and all the other who have issues with the bios version after 1302. Bought also a 3900x during the release. Everything went fine even with OC RAM.
> No CPU OC, PBO off. Samsung B-Die.
> Every Bios after 1302 gives me random reboots during idle. Tried everything typing in all settings manually, let it run with default settings. Nothing helps except going back to 1302.
> 
> This is quite a thing what @schnebdreleg mentioned. There need to be a massiv bug in the agesa, or bios since the newer bios versions. It can´t be that a full running CPU is running into random reboots during idle, if it was working in the beginning. The most saddest thing is that a lot ppl has this issues and it is ignored by Asus in the support and on reddit too.
> This board is not a 150€ Board, and I also doubt that it is an agesa issue. I don´t read anything from other manufacturers that they have this kind of issues since a specific Bios update and not so constantly.
> 
> I don´t know how to get the attention from Asus to this topic. This is very disappointing.
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ibi6h9
> 
> 
> 
> We'll be back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We'll be back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://hardforum.com/threads/rog-crosshair-viii-hero-wi-fi-bios-2103.1998652/
> 
> 
> 
> @The Stilt @shamino1978 is it possible that you could raise your voice maybe for this issue to address it and considering the information which we got from @schnebdreleg? This would be really awesome.


I have exactly the same issues with a 3900x (bought at release) and a Crosshair Hero VIII. During idle or very low usage (like reading in a forum) I have random restarts with anything higher as 1302. Tried increasing CPU Power and/or LLC with no sucess. I contacted Asus but the did not really want to help me, no OC, RAM not OK, etc. But what a miracle with 1302 everything runs fine.
By the amount of people who have this issues it is a shame that Asus is denying it.


----------



## quarx2k

pp2 said:


> I have exactly the same issues with a 3900x (bought at release) and a Crosshair Hero VIII. During idle or very low usage (like reading in a forum) I have random restarts with anything higher as 1302. Tried increasing CPU Power and/or LLC with no sucess. I contacted Asus but the did not really want to help me, no OC, RAM not OK, etc. But what a miracle with 1302 everything runs fine.
> By the amount of people who have this issues it is a shame that Asus is denying it.


Vcore offset +1 or 2 steps, should fix problem without noticeable temperature changes.


----------



## RHBH

pp2 said:


> I have exactly the same issues with a 3900x (bought at release) and a Crosshair Hero VIII. During idle or very low usage (like reading in a forum) I have random restarts with anything higher as 1302. Tried increasing CPU Power and/or LLC with no sucess. I contacted Asus but the did not really want to help me, no OC, RAM not OK, etc. But what a miracle with 1302 everything runs fine.
> By the amount of people who have this issues it is a shame that Asus is denying it.


Have you tried to remove the cpu and update the bios without the cpu installed?

This way, you'll be forcing the cpu to be recognized by the new bios, ensuring a clean process with nothing being migrated from the older bios.


----------



## slice313

quarx2k said:


> Vcore offset +1 or 2 steps, should fix problem without noticeable temperature changes.


Nope, I tried that. PBO max Enhancer enabled or not, random restarts at idle dont stop with a vcore positve offset or higher LLC levels... The problem lies elsewhere...


----------



## The Stilt

Are these restarts showing as Event 41 in the Event Viewer?


----------



## slice313

The Stilt said:


> Are these restarts showing as Event 41 in the Event Viewer?


All "*events 41*" exactly. I have a collection of 32 "*events 41*" from the last 7 days since I have been testing a newer BIOS than 1302.


----------



## The Stilt

slice313 said:


> All "*events 41*" exactly. I have a collection of 32 "*events 41*" from the last 7 days since I have been testing a newer BIOS than 1302.


Ok.
If you use Google, you'll see it isn't a ASUS specific issue, but somehow related to the CPUs themselves.

I have some suspicions of what it might be, but I'll need to continue testing.


----------



## rares495

New toy.









Bought for $265


----------



## slice313

The Stilt said:


> Ok.
> If you use Google, you'll see it isn't a ASUS specific issue, but somehow related to the CPUs themselves.
> 
> I have some suspicions of what it might be, but I'll need to continue testing.


I am not saying you are wrong, but, can you explain to us why do we have this issue ''only'' with newer BIOS?

Are all early Ryzen 2 CPUs defective?


----------



## kuutale

slice313 said:


> I am not saying you are wrong, but, can you explain to us why do we have this issue ''only'' with newer BIOS?
> 
> Are all early Ryzen 2 CPUs defective?


i dont think so, i have early 2gen 3950x (25.11.2019 *)*and works fine all bios versions. not idle crash or restarts, only if i push oc too agressive and silicon cand handle it.


----------



## leoxtxt

The Stilt said:


> Are these restarts showing as Event 41 in the Event Viewer?


Mine were also all event 41 (3900X bought @ July 2019) which i never experienced with my previous Gigabyte X470 Gaming 7 but unlike the others, in my case with the PBO Fmax Enabled i believe it is the third day in a row without a single idle BSOD.

I have to say i never tried BIOS V1302, i bought the Crosshair VIII Formula two weeks ago and first thing i did was to update to the newest BIOS (2206).


----------



## Annik1

Been following this thread for ages but made an account today to say that I also found alot of event 41 critical errors in my event viewer, but not a single one since 1st september. I guess that was when I tried to upgrade to a newer bios last time  Currently on 1001 bios just because I trust it. Will try 1302 and newest one eventually, when I feel like swetting in my palms again...


----------



## slice313

Annik1 said:


> Been following this thread for ages but made an account today to say that I also found alot of event 41 critical errors in my event viewer, but not a single one since 1st september. I guess that was when I tried to upgrade to a newer bios last time  Currently on 1001 bios just because I trust it. Will try 1302 and newest one eventually, when I feel like swetting in my palms again...


-There must be some problem within the new BIOSes from 1302 going forward. It seems highly improbable that almost every CPU is defective and that the problems are only triggered by a higher version BIOS (presumably 2010-2206 and 0039) This should be properly investigated.

-Events 41 are just sudden lost of power, there is no more info, it could be anything! from your CPU, PSU, MB, Software bug, RAM to your lovely dog chewing the main power cables down at the basement. It could even be a cosmic ray from a supernova explosion hitting your PC


----------



## RHBH

Why would only first batch CPUs be affected by this random idle reboot.


----------



## Annik1

RHBH said:


> Why would only first batch CPUs be affected by this random idle reboot.


And why would it not show itself on earlier Bios versions. 

Blurgh.


----------



## slice313

The correct answer tends to always be the simplest one.

It must be something affecting new BIOSes. AMD care literally* laughed at me* when I suggested that my two AMD 3900X must be affected by some kind of problem that makes newer BIOSes for both CHVIII MOBOS to randomly restart at idle. (Thank you for your kind words Chris T. from AMD)


----------



## The Stilt

slice313 said:


> I am not saying you are wrong, but, can you explain to us why do we have this issue ''only'' with newer BIOS?
> 
> Are all early Ryzen 2 CPUs defective?


AGESA essentially controls every bit of the hardware, every aspect of it.
So a change in AGESA can easily change the behavior, or even render the CPU completely useless in extreme cases (depending on the change of course).


----------



## rares495

Should I not have flashed the latest BIOS on my hero? I haven't been keeping up with this thread lately but people seem to have experienced some issues.


----------



## pp2

RHBH said:


> Have you tried to remove the cpu and update the bios without the cpu installed?
> 
> This way, you'll be forcing the cpu to be recognized by the new bios, ensuring a clean process with nothing being migrated from the older bios.


I tried 2 clicks and also LLC 2 and 3 and it is the same. Sometimes I have two reboots in up to 3h and sometimes only every second day. If you believe this will help I am currently trying +4 clicks. CPU is running on stock no OC. Just memory at 3600Mhz. Lets see.
I did not try to update without CPU. Do you think this will really help? This would be some hassle as I am running on water.

BTW: I just checked with event viewer and it also shows event 41... .

Thanks to all for looking into it as this is driving me crazy.


----------



## AStaUK

Probably not the most useful reply, but my system is running stable on a release 3900X with BIOS 2206. The biggest problem I've had, and I'm hoping that this BIOS might have resolved it is my 2nd M.2 drive dropping out and the system restarting, not even a BSOD. So far so good.


----------



## IwannaKnow

May someone with a higher bios than 1302 and who has encounter the issues with the random reboots check if the rdrand is detected correctly with the new bios? Just an idea.
My System with 1302 looks like (I recommend to use the x64 file:

CPU Information - By Mounir IDRASSI ([email protected])
----------------------------------------------------------------

Manufacturer ID: AuthenticAMD
Processor Brand: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12-Core Processor

Features: ABM ADX AES AVX AVX2 BMI1 BMI2 CLFSH CMPXCHG16B CX8 F16C FMA FSGSBASE FXSR LAHF MMX MMXEXT MONITOR MOVBE MSR OSXSAVE PCLMULQDQ POPCNT RDRAND RDSEED SEP SHA SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSE4.1 SSE4.2 SSE4a SSSE3 XSAVE.

Here is the Link for the tool:


https://github.com/idrassi/cpu_info/releases/download/cpu_info_1.0/cpu_info-1.0-bin.zip



and the source code:
https://github.com/idrassi/cpu_info.

Thank you in advance.


----------



## kuutale

slice313 said:


> I am not saying you are wrong, but, can you explain to us why do we have this issue ''only'' with newer BIOS?
> 
> Are all early Ryzen 2 CPUs defective?


 is this only 3900x problem?


----------



## RHBH

pp2 said:


> I tried 2 clicks and also LLC 2 and 3 and it is the same. Sometimes I have two reboots in up to 3h and sometimes only every second day. If you believe this will help I am currently trying +4 clicks. CPU is running on stock no OC. Just memory at 3600Mhz. Lets see.
> I did not try to update without CPU. Do you think this will really help? This would be some hassle as I am running on water.
> 
> BTW: I just checked with event viewer and it also shows event 41... .
> 
> Thanks to all for looking into it as this is driving me crazy.


I think it's worth the shot if you tried everything else. 

As you using custom wc, wait till you do a regular maintenance, remove the CPU and try it, at the worst case, it won't change anything and you'll lose 5mins.


----------



## benbenkr

rares495 said:


> Should I not have flashed the latest BIOS on my hero? I haven't been keeping up with this thread lately but people seem to have experienced some issues.


If you weren't facing any issues before, you shouldn't have. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. That's always true for BIOS updates aside from the day 1 release, usually.


----------



## rares495

benbenkr said:


> If you weren't facing any issues before, you shouldn't have. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. That's always true for BIOS updates aside from the day 1 release, usually.


Just got the board yesterday and updating the BIOS is the first thing I do with all my new boards so I did it. You can just flash an older version right?


----------



## kuutale

rares495 said:


> Just got the board yesterday and updating the BIOS is the first thing I do with all my new boards so I did it. You can just flash an older version right?


i have 0 issues 2204,2206, very good bios 0039beta


----------



## schnebdreleg

IwannaKnow said:


> May someone with a higher bios than 1302 and who has encounter the issues with the random reboots check if the rdrand is detected correctly with the new bios? Just an idea.
> My System with 1302 looks like (I recommend to use the x64 file:
> 
> CPU Information - By Mounir IDRASSI ([email protected])
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Manufacturer ID: AuthenticAMD
> Processor Brand: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12-Core Processor
> 
> Features: ABM ADX AES AVX AVX2 BMI1 BMI2 CLFSH CMPXCHG16B CX8 F16C FMA FSGSBASE FXSR LAHF MMX MMXEXT MONITOR MOVBE MSR OSXSAVE PCLMULQDQ POPCNT RDRAND RDSEED SEP SHA SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSE4.1 SSE4.2 SSE4a SSSE3 XSAVE.
> 
> Here is the Link for the tool:
> 
> 
> https://github.com/idrassi/cpu_info/releases/download/cpu_info_1.0/cpu_info-1.0-bin.zip
> 
> 
> 
> and the source code:
> https://github.com/idrassi/cpu_info.
> 
> Thank you in advance.


I am at the latest, official BIOS with the 3800X:

_Manufacturer ID: AuthenticAMD_
_Processor Brand: AMD Ryzen 7 3800X 8-Core Processor
_
_Features: ABM ADX AES AVX AVX2 BMI1 BMI2 CLFSH CMPXCHG16B CX8 F16C FMA FSGSBASE FXSR LAHF MMX MMXEXT MONITOR MOVBE MSR OSXSAVE PCLMULQDQ POPCNT RDRAND RDSEED SEP SHA SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSE4.1 SSE4.2 SSE4a SSSE3 XSAVE_


----------



## stimpy88

IwannaKnow said:


> May someone with a higher bios than 1302 and who has encounter the issues with the random reboots check if the rdrand is detected correctly with the new bios? Just an idea.
> My System with 1302 looks like (I recommend to use the x64 file:
> 
> CPU Information - By Mounir IDRASSI ([email protected])
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Manufacturer ID: AuthenticAMD
> Processor Brand: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12-Core Processor
> 
> Features: ABM ADX AES AVX AVX2 BMI1 BMI2 CLFSH CMPXCHG16B CX8 F16C FMA FSGSBASE FXSR LAHF MMX MMXEXT MONITOR MOVBE MSR OSXSAVE PCLMULQDQ POPCNT RDRAND RDSEED SEP SHA SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSE4.1 SSE4.2 SSE4a SSSE3 XSAVE.
> 
> Here is the Link for the tool:
> 
> 
> https://github.com/idrassi/cpu_info/releases/download/cpu_info_1.0/cpu_info-1.0-bin.zip
> 
> 
> 
> and the source code:
> https://github.com/idrassi/cpu_info.
> 
> Thank you in advance.


Not quite what you asked for, as my system is stable, but at least its another system for the baseline... 

My 3900X is running the last official 2206 BIOS, and runs stable with no restarts...

CPU Information - By Mounir IDRASSI ([email protected])
----------------------------------------------------------------

Manufacturer ID: AuthenticAMD
Processor Brand: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12-Core Processor

Features: ABM ADX AES AVX AVX2 BMI1 BMI2 CLFSH CMPXCHG16B CX8 F16C FMA FSGSBASE FXSR LAHF MMX MMXEXT MONITOR MOVBE MSR OSXSAVE PCLMULQDQ POPCNT RDRAND RDSEED SEP SHA SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSE4.1 SSE4.2 SSE4a SSSE3 XSAVE


----------



## IwannaKnow

schnebdreleg said:


> I am at the latest, official BIOS with the 3800X:
> 
> _Manufacturer ID: AuthenticAMD_
> _Processor Brand: AMD Ryzen 7 3800X 8-Core Processor_
> 
> _Features: ABM ADX AES AVX AVX2 BMI1 BMI2 CLFSH CMPXCHG16B CX8 F16C FMA FSGSBASE FXSR LAHF MMX MMXEXT MONITOR MOVBE MSR OSXSAVE PCLMULQDQ POPCNT RDRAND RDSEED SEP SHA SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSE4.1 SSE4.2 SSE4a SSSE3 XSAVE_


Ah thank you, okay. So, rdrand is shown. I thought maybe there was some kind of issue that the rdrand fix was forgotten suddenly to implement in the newer bios version as it was at the very beginning after the release of zen2. I remembered that there was some kind of issue with random number calculation which created some issues and ith destiny2.

Thank you, but sadly it will be be something else to cause the issues. I'm really desperate. I dunno how to fix it or who can fix it AMD/Asus. Some ppl with the newer boards b550 on Asus had some issues too with the initial bios with random restarts too with the newer agesa


----------



## stimpy88

IwannaKnow said:


> Thank you, but sadly it will be be something else to cause the issues. I'm really desperate. I dunno how to fix it or who can fix it AMD/Asus. Some ppl with the newer boards b550 on Asus had some issues too with the initial bios with random restarts too with the newer agesa


TheStilt has a good idea of what it is, he just needs to prove it before going further.


----------



## Phage

I have the random restart probelm under 2206, but this is the latest in a LONG list of BIOSs that have had a number of issues.
The minimum standard I require is that the damn thing works reliably. I can't say that this is true for this board.
Doubly annoying when my CH6 is still running rock solid in my daughters machine.

3800x, 16Gb 3600Mhz, Samsung 960nvme










I selling this board, and going to another manufacturer. 
To be clear, I'm going to sell it as possibly faulty, at a reduced price


----------



## slice313

Phage said:


> I have the random restart probelm under 2206, but this is the latest in a LONG list of BIOSs that have had a number of issues.
> The minimum standard I require is that the damn thing works reliably. I can't say that this is true for this board.
> Doubly annoying when my CH6 is still running rock solid in my daughters machine.
> 
> 3800x, 16Gb 3600Mhz, Samsung 960nvme
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I selling this board, and going to another manufacturer.
> To be clear, I'm going to sell it as possibly faulty, at a reduced price



I wouldn't sell it just yet... if @TheStilt is taking a look at it, I bet this issue will be solved. Lets at least have hope.


----------



## Phage

The trouble is I expect better of a board at this price point. It's been how long since release ?
We should not be relying on talented amateurs/enthusiasts to fix this


----------



## slice313

Phage said:


> The trouble is I expect better of a board at this price point. It's been how long since release ?
> We should not be relying on talented amateurs/enthusiasts to fix this


We all here involved learned a lesson for the next board, that is for sure.

But until then, @TheStilt is the only individual who took interest in investigating the issue, so here is my big hat.


----------



## nick name

I'm not sure if it's relevant (CH7 mobo), but I see the same Event 41 when using the EDC bug. I was simply assuming my CPU wasn't capable of running at 4.65GHz+ (reliably) because when using standard PBO my CPU never reaches 4.6GHz. 

Keeping a close eye on what develops here. And keeping my fingers crossed that Fmax makes it down to us to see if that cures my problem with Event 41.


----------



## stimpy88

slice313 said:


> We all here involved learned a lesson for the next board, that is for sure.
> 
> But until then, @TheStilt is the only individual who took interest in investigating the issue, so here is my big hat.


Totally agree... I think this will also be my last ASUS board (I've used ASUS boards for well over 20 years), as it was relatively expensive for what you get. It's badly supported, many of it's utilities and drivers are over a year old, or have never been updated... BIOS updates containing the latest AGESA version are weeks/months behind all other MB brands. I feel this board and it's users are ignored by ASUS, their forum for this board tells you everything you need to know about their attitude towards it and their customers.


----------



## nick name

stimpy88 said:


> Totally agree... I think this will also be my last ASUS board (I've used ASUS boards for well over 20 years), as it was relatively expensive for what you get. It's badly supported, many of it's utilities and drivers are over a year old, or have never been updated... BIOS updates containing the latest AGESA version are weeks/months behind all other MB brands. I feel this board and it's users are ignored by ASUS, their forum for this board tells you everything you need to know about their attitude towards it and their customers.


ASUS boards did get the latest AGESA (via beta access) before other vendors released theirs so that was nice.


----------



## RHBH

stimpy88 said:


> Totally agree... I think this will also be my last ASUS board (I've used ASUS boards for well over 20 years), as it was relatively expensive for what you get. It's badly supported, many of it's utilities and drivers are over a year old, or have never been updated... BIOS updates containing the latest AGESA version are weeks/months behind all other MB brands. I feel this board and it's users are ignored by ASUS, their forum for this board tells you everything you need to know about their attitude towards it and their customers.


I can tell you that Gigabyte isn't much better either.

Some x570 aorus boards have a cold boot issue (require cmos battery removal do temporary fix it).

They released a rev. 1.1/1.2 of these boards and fixed it. But still they officially deny the issue. You won't get rma/support from them if you bought a rev 1.0 board and have the cold boot issue.

Google it and you'll see tons of reports.


----------



## xeizo

I have C7H, X470-Prime Pro and B550-F, all are solid with 3900X/2700X/3700X running 3800MHz memory on C7H and B550-F. Everything works, no sudden reboots, normal reboot works, cold start works, gaming for hours on all three without problems. But I did the extra mile to find the best settings for all voltages in the bioses, as Asus sometimes seems a bit off on voltages. All three are well ventilated and with good coolers, NH-D15/DRP4/H150i Pro.


----------



## Phage

But not the C8H ? My X370 C6H is also fine


----------



## Karagra

I have the VIII Impact with a 3900x no random reboots or other issues for me, I use a manual voltage not an offset and also manually set my clock speeds to 4.0. Bios 2206.. Some of us might of just got a little lucky lol.


----------



## Phage

A bit of Googling shpws this to be an issue for ASUS, MSI and Gigabyte owners. That smells like an AMD issue


----------



## IwannaKnow

Phage said:


> A bit of Googling shpws this to be an issue for ASUS, MSI and Gigabyte owners. That smells like an AMD issue


So they have also old bios versions which is working and with newer they have random reboots?


----------



## The Stilt

For those who have random reboot, aka "Event 41" issues on later than 1302 bios versions:

While using 2206 bios:


Load the optimized defaults.
Set: Ai Overclock Tuner == Manual, Performance Enhancer == Default, Performance Bias == None.
Configure your RAM parameters in terms of frequency, timing and voltage while remaining within AMD spec (MEMCLK =< 3200MHz && FCLK =< 1600MHz).
Leave all voltage related settings == Auto, besides the memory voltage.
Enter Advanced / AMD CBS / CPU Common Options menu.
Set "Global C-State Control" == Disabled.

See if this fixes the random restarts.
The performance and efficiency will be poor, that is to be expected, this is a test.

EDIT: The workaround: ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...


----------



## slice313

I will begin testing tonight. I will report back any random restart, if any.

Update: Already testing this BIOS/Settings as you instructed. All good for know, crossing fingers. If I understood correctlly, something could be messing up C-states and cutting too much power isnt it? (That would explain many random restarts at idle/afk)

Update 2: No random reboots so far, 4 hours in, idle/afk, light browsing and rendering a couple scenes. All fine. If tomorrow I dont get any restart this will be stable for me because before I used to get a few per day.

Thank you!


----------



## SaiKamalDoss

FlanK3r said:


> I have newer BIOS for C8H Wifi - 7702 BIOS: ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-7702.7z


Thanks for sharing. Is this AGESA V2 PI 1.0.8.1 or 2 or later or is there a newer version ? Can i install this on my Hero 8 WiFi x570 ?


----------



## kuutale

SaiKamalDoss said:


> Thanks for sharing. Is this AGESA V2 PI 1.0.8.1 or 2 or later or is there a newer version ? Can i install this on my Hero 8 WiFi x570 ?



ROG Crosshair VIII Hero (WI-FI) Driver & Tools | Motherboards | ASUS Global check this 2206 is the newest, and we have test bios 0039 but its not offiacial


----------



## Phage

IwannaKnow said:


> So they have also old bios versions which is working and with newer they have random reboots?


Yes , exactly


----------



## kuutale

Phage said:


> Yes , exactly


Using edc bug cause random restarts some cpus and mobos and perform tanks, but if c-state disabled no more idle crash and perf no tanks anymore. Maybe c-state and some cpu silicon cant handle newer agesas? i dont have any problem 3950 and c8h non wifi version, only if use edc bug or go too far overlock.


----------



## Phage

kuutale said:


> Using edc bug cause random restarts some cpus and mobos and perform tanks, but if c-state disabled no more idle crash and perf no tanks anymore. Maybe c-state and some cpu silicon cant handle newer agesas? i dont have any problem 3950 and c8h non wifi version, only if use edc bug or go too far overlock.


Not using the EDC bug, and that list of crashes I posted relate to when the systrem is stock, just the RAM running at 3600. Not DOCP


----------



## IwannaKnow

slice313 said:


> I will begin testing tonight. I will report back any random restart, if any.
> 
> Update: Already testing this BIOS/Settings as you instructed. All good for know, crossing fingers. If I understood correctlly, something could be messing up C-states and cutting too much power isnt it? (That would explain many random restarts at idle/afk)
> 
> Update 2: No random reboots so far, 4 hours in, idle/afk, light browsing and rendering a couple scenes. All fine. If tomorrow I dont get any restart this will be stable for me because before I used to get a few per day.
> 
> Thank you!


Flashed this morning 2206 again, set default settings. random reboot happened around 2 hours of idling.
Set all settings according to the stilts test.
No random reboot in 5 hours of idling. PC is idling in the background during my homeoffice.


----------



## SaiKamalDoss

kuutale said:


> ROG Crosshair VIII Hero (WI-FI) Driver & Tools | Motherboards | ASUS Global check this 2206 is the newest, and we have test bios 0039 but its not official


Thank you. I always keep the official bios updated. I am on 2206 which is AGESA V2 PI 1.0.8.0. I need test bios with AGESA V2 PI 1.0.8.1. Is 0039 coming with 1.0.8.1 ? if so can I have a link to download.



IwannaKnow said:


> Flashed this morning 2206 again, set default settings. random reboot happened around 2 hours of idling.
> Set all settings according to the stilts test.
> No random reboot in 5 hours of idling. PC is idling in the background during my homeoffice.


I flashed 2206 on the very first day it came out on my Hero CH8 WIFI and never had such issues. I am on 3000 series CPU.


----------



## kuutale

SaiKamalDoss said:


> Thank you. I always keep the official bios updated. I am on 2206 which is AGESA V2 PI 1.0.8.0. I need test bios with AGESA V2 PI 1.0.8.1. Is 0039 coming with 1.0.8.1 ? if so can I have a link to download.
> 
> 
> 
> I flashed 2206 on the very first day it came out on my Hero CH8 WIFI and never had such issues. I am on 3000 series CPU.











ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-0039.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com





there's thestilt pbo fmax feature. i think that is 1.0.8.2 im not sure. This is test bios but me work perfect no complain.


----------



## slice313

I have been idling the PC from yesterday’s night. Not a single random restart. I’m pretty sure, it is stable. So, whatever you found @Thestilt ,I believe it works.


----------



## SaiKamalDoss

kuutale said:


> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-0039.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there's thestilt pbo fmax feature. i think that is 1.0.8.2 im not sure. This is test bios but me work perfect no complain.


It works for WIFI version of the board too ? Mine is WIFI version and it says its not detecting the file.

I found it on page 145 









ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-0039.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com


----------



## stimpy88

SaiKamalDoss said:


> It works for WIFI version of the board too ? Mine is WIFI version and it says its not detecting the file.
> 
> I found it on page 145
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-0039.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


Seriously??? Go back in this thread a couple of pages and do it yourself.

EDIT, original post updated as I was replying.


----------



## RHBH

IwannaKnow said:


> Flashed this morning 2206 again, set default settings. random reboot happened around 2 hours of idling.
> Set all settings according to the stilts test.
> No random reboot in 5 hours of idling. PC is idling in the background during my homeoffice.


Makes lots of sense something related to C-State, maybe the C state is lowering the voltage too much and it crashes due the memory overclock?


----------



## kuutale

RHBH said:


> Makes lots of sense something related to C-State, maybe the C state is lowering the voltage too much and it crashes due the memory overclock?


but why not all processors not suffered that problem? if related c-state problem


----------



## IwannaKnow

kuutale said:


> but why not all processors not suffered that problem? if related c-state problem


I assume every silicon has his own range and a certain diversity. Some get better oc quality some better UV quality or like the capability of and infinity clock.
In this case it seems like the minimum voltage is not handled appropriate to the c-states for some silicons.


----------



## RHBH

kuutale said:


> but why not all processors not suffered that problem? if related c-state problem


This is just especulation from my part, maybe because it's overclock a.k.a silicon lottery. 

Maybe not all CPUs can run 3600 ram 100% stable.

The spec says 3200 ram is the max. officially support.

I recommend you guys with the idle reboot issue to run 3200 ram with c state enabled to confirm this.


----------



## slice313

RHBH said:


> This is just especulation from my part, maybe because it's overclock a.k.a silicon lottery.
> 
> Maybe not all CPUs can run 3600 ram 100% stable.
> 
> The spec says 3200 ram is the max. officially support.
> 
> I recommend you guys with the idle reboot issue to run 3200 ram with c state enabled to confirm this.


I tested that last week, Ram wasn’t the issue, still had the same random reboots with event 41.


----------



## Kokin

Was there any beta BIOS for the CH8 Impact? I went through the last 9 pages, but don't think I saw one. Will the X570i Strix will get this new PBO Fmax Enhancer feature as well?


----------



## kuutale

Kokin said:


> Was there any beta BIOS for the CH8 Impact? I went through the last 9 pages, but don't think I saw one. Will the X570i Strix will get this new PBO Fmax Enhancer feature as well?


Thestilt says "
Impossible to say for certain, since ASUS ROG motherboards are maintained by different team / branch in Taiwan (vs. the rest by the PRC branch).
I don't think the other branches would be refused access to this, in case they wanted to add it. But by default, probably not as I have no contacts at the PRC branch. "


----------



## Phage

I've obtained an MSI MEG Unify at a discounted price. I'm going to see how I fare with that. I'll keep the CH8 handy....


----------



## The Stilt

So regarding the idle restart issue, aka "Event 41" problem:

Based on the testing, disabling option called "DF CStates" found in AMD CBS-menu (Advanced / AMD CBS / NBIO Common Options / SMU Common Options) should solve the issue.

The CBS-menu also contains a second C-State related option (Global C-State Control) that has some redundant functionality and can be used as well however, if this option is used it will negatively affect both the CPU power consumption and performance as well. Because of that, the "Global C-State Control" setting should remain at the default "Auto" setting, while the "DF CState" -setting should be disabled.

Unless the user encounters the idle restart symptom associated with the "41 code" events in the Windows Even Viewer, there is no need for the user to change this setting.

Both the problem and the fix are universal, and not either ASUS or Crosshair VIII specific.

Many thanks to @slice313 for the services rendered as a guinea-pig (i.e testing the workaround)


----------



## slice313

@The Stilt Delivered, not only a hell of a new feature for the board, but also a huge FIX for all of us suffering from random reboots.

"PBO Fmax Enhancer" Makes your Ryzen 3xxx to behave as AMD advertised, but never delivered. However, you did @The Stilt, Thank you!


Cheers to this man!
🍻🍻🍻😙


----------



## bt1

The Stilt said:


> "DF CStates"


Isnt it similar to "SOC/Uncore OC Mode" setting?


----------



## kuutale

The Stilt said:


> So regarding the idle restart issue, aka "Event 41" problem:
> 
> Based on the testing, disabling option called "DF CStates" found in AMD CBS-menu (Advanced / AMD CBS / NBIO Common Options / SMU Common Options) should solve the issue.
> 
> The CBS-menu also contains a second C-State related option (Global C-State Control) that has some redundant functionality and can be used as well however, if this option is used it will negatively affect both the CPU power consumption and performance as well. Because of that, the "Global C-State Control" setting should remain at the default "Auto" setting, while the "DF CState" -setting should be disabled.
> 
> Unless the user encounters the idle restart symptom associated with the "41 code" events in the Windows Even Viewer, there is no need for the user to change this setting.
> 
> Both the problem and the fix are universal, and not either ASUS or Crosshair VIII specific.
> 
> Many thanks to @slice313 for the services rendered as a guinea-pig (i.e testing the workaround)


 Okey thanks, do you know why this "event 41" problem not to come out all users? Why some users get errors, another user not get errors? is this easy fix amd side or motherboard side?


----------



## The Stilt

bt1 said:


> Isnt it similar to "SOC/Uncore OC Mode" setting?


Nope, OC-Mode changes many other things besides of just disabling the DPM for DF.


----------



## nick name

The Stilt said:


> So regarding the idle restart issue, aka "Event 41" problem:
> 
> Based on the testing, disabling option called "DF CStates" found in AMD CBS-menu (Advanced / AMD CBS / NBIO Common Options / SMU Common Options) should solve the issue.
> 
> The CBS-menu also contains a second C-State related option (Global C-State Control) that has some redundant functionality and can be used as well however, if this option is used it will negatively affect both the CPU power consumption and performance as well. Because of that, the "Global C-State Control" setting should remain at the default "Auto" setting, while the "DF CState" -setting should be disabled.
> 
> Unless the user encounters the idle restart symptom associated with the "41 code" events in the Windows Even Viewer, there is no need for the user to change this setting.
> 
> Both the problem and the fix are universal, and not either ASUS or Crosshair VIII specific.
> 
> Many thanks to @slice313 for the services rendered as a guinea-pig (i.e testing the workaround)


If only the AMD CBS menu options didn't reset when memory training fails. Something to keep in mind if tuning memory. It's also why I use the safe boot button if it looks like RAM settings are going to fail training so that settings I've adjusted in AMD CBS don't reset.


----------



## Alpi

How Your win energy scheme is configured ? Just because I had a very same issue with bclk oc with earlier 5% min. at cpu power. (it raises the lower state clocks from 2200 but the vcore stays)
I had to raise the cpu min, not let the vcore fall that low. I use pretty big neg. offset too, so my earlier vcore fallen till some 0,8 - 0,82, now it stays at some 0,86 but the problem solved with this. My crashes occured always at idle like Yours. Maybe this could be helpful. At least, the C-state way causing this became a bit more possible.
Some of You mentioned that tryed out more llc settings. Have You try to set the vcore phase freq a bit higher ? I give more chance to that than llc. llc isn't really bother at idle but some very fast jump to high boost state from idle can cause the vcore "left behind". Possibly, not sure.


----------



## mongoled

Phage said:


> MSI MEG Unify


Would be interesting to hear you thoughts regards the two motherboards.

Im currently deciding which X570 motherboard to upgrade to ...


----------



## finas

Kokin said:


> Was there any beta BIOS for the CH8 Impact? I went through the last 9 pages, but don't think I saw one. Will the X570i Strix will get this new PBO Fmax Enhancer feature as well?


I asked @shamino1978 a couple of days ago for the beta bios for the Impact be he hasn't replied yet.


----------



## nick name

@The Stilt Could you write (or point to a program) that runs the lightest of loads to test for crashing with Event 41? I have a program that was put out a while ago to test Ryzen 3000 boost speeds, but that seems to be a heavier load than what normally induces a crash. I don't ever see crashes at idle like others so I can't simply let the system sit to test.

Edit:
The BoostTester program I use:








jedi95/BoostTester


Simple tool for generating loads that should trigger maximum CPU boost clocks. - jedi95/BoostTester




github.com


----------



## Kokin

kuutale said:


> Thestilt says "
> Impossible to say for certain, since ASUS ROG motherboards are maintained by different team / branch in Taiwan (vs. the rest by the PRC branch).
> I don't think the other branches would be refused access to this, in case they wanted to add it. But by default, probably not as I have no contacts at the PRC branch. "


Given that statement, isn't the _ROG Crosshair VIII_ Impact part of the same family as the_ ROG Crosshair VIII_ Hero and Formula? The Impact also got the same beta BIOS releases as the Hero/Formula in the past but not for this latest beta BIOS. 

The ITX Strix is also part of the "ROG Strix" lineup, although I can see it being a non-ROG board as it's not part of the Crosshair lineup. 



finas said:


> I asked @shamino1978 a couple of days ago for the beta bios for the Impact be he hasn't replied yet.


Ah that's a shame. I guess we just have to be patient for now, but I'm jealous of not being able to try out that new feature.


----------



## kuutale

Disabling df cstates not hit performance, what is this "df cstates". when disabling c-states performance stall and effiency hit too. Anybody know?


Kokin said:


> Given that statement, isn't the _ROG Crosshair VIII_ Impact part of the same family as the_ ROG Crosshair VIII_ Hero and Formula? The Impact also got the same beta BIOS releases as the Hero/Formula in the past but not for this latest beta BIOS.
> 
> The ITX Strix is also part of the "ROG Strix" lineup, although I can see it being a non-ROG board as it's not part of the Crosshair lineup.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah that's a shame. I guess we just have to be patient for now, but I'm jealous of not being able to try out that new feature.



i dont know for sure, ask TheStilt he knows for sure.


----------



## Phage

mongoled said:


> Would be interesting to hear you thoughts regards the two motherboards.
> 
> Im currently deciding which X570 motherboard to upgrade to ...


No problem. Will be putting it in on Tuesday.


----------



## IwannaKnow

The Stilt said:


> Just a little heads-up on a new feature, that will find its way into the upcoming bios releases. The feature is called as "PBO Fmax Enhancer", and it will be available in the "Ai Tweaker/Precision Boost Override" -menu among with other of the “Precision Boost Override” related options, on compatible ASUS motherboards. This feature is exclusive to Zen 2 based Ryzen 3000-series CPUs ("Matisse" & "Starship") and it will work on both, the consumer (AM4) and HEDT (sTRX40) platforms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So, what does it do then?*
> 
> This is an opportunistic feature and because of that, exactly no improvements are granted, let alone being promised to or by anyone. What it means in practical terms, is that the results will depend mostly on the silicon quality and partly, on the CPU SKU as well. Because of that the achieved results are expected to vary rather wildly, even between the different specimens of the same CPU SKU.
> 
> As a real-world example, this is what was achieved on a random early-production R9 3900X CPU. Despite this most likely is far from the best-case-scenario, consider it as a such if you will: Cinebench R20 nT average effective frequency (APERF) >> 145.9MHz improvement (3946.8MHz to 4092.7MHz). The improvement during a single-threaded, scalar-vector path-tracing workload (SPT-AVX2): 61.6MHz (average effective frequency, APERF), 4548MHz >> 4609.6MHz. As said before, there is no question if the achieved results will vary, since they will and wildly so. Some of the combinations might illustrate even better results, some no change at all, and some even WORSE behaviour than the stock.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Cinebench R20 nT Default:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cinebench R20 nT "PBO Fmax Enhancer Enabled":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SPT-AVX2 single-threaded hybrid path-tracer (SSE4.2/AVX2) workload, default:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SPT-AVX2 single-threaded hybrid path-tracer (SSE4.2/AVX2) workload, "PBO Fmax Enhancer Enabled":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *At what cost is this done?*
> 
> Reliability wise, while maintaining the same user-controller settings that directly affect the reliability (PBO Scalar), there will not be any meaningful or measurable difference in the reliability. In fact, in multithreaded workloads the reliability should typically be ever-so-slightly higher than stock, due to the slightly lower voltage. In single-threaded workloads there might be a tiny increase in peak voltage observed during the maximum boost, at least on some CPU SKUs.
> 
> That being said, all of the CPUs will still obey the absolute maximum (and in terms of an increase, immutable) voltage limit of 1.50000V, that is enforced by the power management of the CPU. So, in case a CPU already hits 1.50000V during the maximum boost, at stock, enabling the feature will not increase the voltage any further, without actions done by the user (e.g. a voltage offset).
> 
> Personally, I have observed ± 1 VID (i.e. 6.25mV) worth of a change in the maximum voltage, during single-threaded workloads. These observations have taken place on CPU SKUs with the default Fmax limit of 4.4 - 4.65GHz and therefore their peak voltage has been closer to, or even time to time at the 1.50000V limit, even at stock. Because of that, CPU SKUs with a more modest Fmax limit and hence a lower maximum voltage at stock (due to a greater "distance" until the hard 1.50000V limit), might illustrate larger absolute voltage increases.
> 
> So essentially, instead of a typical brute-force approach this is a more of a dance with the available margins. The margins that might, or might not be present in your piece of the silicon. In technical terms, what is effectively happening inside the CPU, is that the default V/F (voltage-frequency) curve is being optimized to allow slightly higher frequency headroom, at the expense of the potentially available margins.
> 
> *A quick check of facts:*
> 
> 
> An ASUS exclusive feature for 3rd Gen. Ryzen CPUs (“Matisse” and “Starship”)
> A supplemental feature (i.e. an enhancement) to the standard "Precision Boost" operation. Not available (nor required) in OC-Mode, regardless if “static” or "per-CCX".
> Not compatible with the so-called "EDC tweak".
> Will not directly increase the voltage (i.e. no voltage related rule attached). The user remains in control of all voltage related settings.
> Will not either disable, or alter the parameters of FIT (i.e. silicon fitness / reliability).
> The results WILL vary between the different CPUs and even between the different specimens of the same CPU SKU
> *So, what to do first, when I want to try this out?*
> 
> The very first thing you do, is reading the post as a whole through couple more times, until you have even a vague idea of what was being said and meant. Flash the bios as usual, load the fail-safe defaults (yeah, no kidding, due to RM's hive) and start entering the settings of your choice. With the exception being anything related to the CPU voltage (VDDCR_CPU), discard all of your previous CPU voltage related settings that affect the output voltage level (i.e. offsets and load-line).
> 
> Also, the described behaviour has only been tested while the "Ai Overclock Tuner" option is set to "Manual" and the "Performance Enhancer" option to "Default". Due to the auto-rules (“do if's”) potentially affecting the other setting combinations, it's on the user’s responsibility to ensure that the parameters remain where they should be, if any other combinations are being used.
> 
> *Troubleshooting, suggestions and hints:*
> 
> 
> Q: Any hints or suggestions, before I start testing this out?
> A: Not a suggestion, but a hard requirement: Disable ALL of the voltage offsets (regardless if ±) AND load-line adjustments affecting the CPU voltage (VDDCR_CPU) prior using this feature, i.e. your previous CPU voltage related settings. Whatever settings might have worked for you before, forget about them since they won't apply anymore.
> 
> 
> Q: Performance has deteriorated compared to stock, when all cores are utilized (e.g. CB20 NT)?
> A: If this is a fact and not a margin-of-error kind of stuff (as usual), i.e. a 3 run reproducible average: The reason for the deteriorated performance is most likely clock stretching, which occurs when the core supply voltage falls below a certain threshold. Try increasing load-line level for CPU voltage (one step at a time), until the performance either matches, or exceeds the stock. If the performance cannot be restored through the use of load-line adjustment, restore load-line to "Auto" setting and add a positive voltage offset to the CPU voltage (again, one step at the time, i.e. 6.25mV). NOTE: Unless there is a valid reason, the user SHOULD NEVER touch the load-line setting during the "Precision Boost" operation, only while in OC-Mode (“static” or “per-CCX”). During "Precision Boost" operation, the CPU is in the control of the load-line, and a user set load-line override will prevent the CPU from controlling the load-line correctly.
> 
> 
> Q: I'm having stability issues, when this feature is activated.
> A: Proceed as described above, first try increasing the load-line and then try offset if the load-line adjustment didn't help. If neither helped, the margins in the silicon are insufficient and the feature should remain turned off ("Auto" or "Disabled").
> 
> 
> Q: I'm seeing no improvement?
> A: Tough luck, better luck with the next CPU.
> 
> 
> Q: What voltage should I be monitoring?
> A: "CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN)" that is displayed under HWiNFO sensors, that’s only reading that matters for evaluating stable-state voltages without external equipment. Anything with a "VID" in it’s the name are basically just voltage requests, or commands. On a single main-plane design such as AM4 or even sTRX40 the VIDs are completely irrelevant, since despite each of the cores having their own VIDs, there is only a single voltage plane (and hence a single concurrent voltage level at the time).
> 
> 
> A suggestion: ONLY enable "Max CPU Boost Clock Override" if you are close (within ~ 25MHz) of saturating the factory Fmax*, and upon saturation, only increase the Fmax by the minimum available amount at the time. Unless saturated, unnecessarily large increases will only deteriorate the result. * (3600 = 4.200GHz, 3600X = 4.400GHz, 3700X 4.400GHz, 3800X = 4.550GHz, 3900X = 4.650GHz, 3950X = 4.725GHz, for other SKUs check HWiNFO). The bios releases featuring the newly added "PBO Fmax Enhancer" will also increase the available Fmax margin from 200MHz to 400MHz, to ensure that SKUs with a low total Fmax ceiling (factory + offset), such as 3600 will have a sufficient headroom available. The initial test versions will still have the standard +200MHz limit however, the said change has already been implemented in the code.
> 
> 
> A suggestion: In some cases, the results can be improved even further, by increasing the "Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar" value from the default 1x setting. This option directly affects the silicon reliability and because of that, it should be only increased from the stock if the performance improvements justify it (which they frankly, seldom do). Personally, I would never increase it to higher than 4x. The current level can be checked with HWiNFO (Central Processors >> CPU PBO Scalar (Reliability Reduction)).
> 
> 
> A hint: All "Precision Boost Override" related parameters remain available, as usual. The user can increase PPT and TDC limits if they become saturated, to improve the performance even further. EDC is piped with TDC and there is no need for the user to adjust it.
> *A request: Out of a common courtesy, please don’t quote or link to this post, unless you’re certain that you understood what was being said and intended. That applies especially to you Paul.*
> 
> Peter (Shamino) from ASUS will post some initial bios builds for you to test shortly.


Thank you @The Stilt for the feature and figuring out about the random restarts with a newer bios than 1302 in corporation with @slice313 .
Today I tried the beta Bios version. And it is amazing just with your FMAX on enabled I´m getting 4650mhz boost on my first batch 3900x with lower temps and less crazy high average voltages.

I disabled DF CState, but I still don´t know what it exactly does. Before I encountered random reboots with all newer bios versions than 1302. 
On RAM stock it seemed fixed, but I encountered a random restart on IF 1900 MEM 3800. So I raised the vddg from 1.025 to 1.050 (still not enough) to 1.075. (on the 1302 version a vddg of 1.025 was enought to be rock stable)
Now my system is running rock stable. Thank you very much!
I really wonder what the DF CState option is doing in the background.


----------



## kitfit1

Got to give @shamino1978 a big thanks for this bios  Got a CH8 with a 3950x and this bios has brought me much lower temps, plus i'm seeing 4.73Ghz on cores 0 and 1 along with 4.7Ghz on cores 3,4,5 and 7 in single threaded CB R20. Also seeing all cores at 4.15Ghz/4.18Ghz in multi threaded CB R20 as well.
A win win all round, looking forward to seeing PBO Fmax Enhancer within official Bios releases from Asus in the future.


----------



## The Stilt

Kokin said:


> Given that statement, isn't the _ROG Crosshair VIII_ Impact part of the same family as the_ ROG Crosshair VIII_ Hero and Formula? The Impact also got the same beta BIOS releases as the Hero/Formula in the past but not for this latest beta BIOS.
> 
> The ITX Strix is also part of the "ROG Strix" lineup, although I can see it being a non-ROG board as it's not part of the Crosshair lineup.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah that's a shame. I guess we just have to be patient for now, but I'm jealous of not being able to try out that new feature.


I know full well from my own experience, how frustrating the bios release cycle time to time seems to be.
It's really not like that the ODMs, be it ASUS or whoever are holding back the releases on purpose. The fact is, that the software engineers who work on the bioses
are extremely overworked, regardless of the company. A brute-force approach of throwing more people at the problem usually won't work, since the work tends increase at the same rate as the amount of workers, at the minimum, since the people who sanction the additional labour now see that more motherboard SKUs can be supported (and had) 

Because of this, bios builds intended for testing a new feature, fix or new AGESA version are built on demand, for the specific boards (projects). While all of the e.g. Crosshair VIII -family boards belong to same family and have their bios releases pretty much in a sync, it doesn't mean that a single change is needed to reflect the change in the bios, or that a single mouse click will produce bios binaries for all of the boards. Each of the boards, be it C8H, C8HW, C8F or C8I is a separate project and the code changes and bios builds must and will be done separately to each of them. So its really not like the ODMs are holding back "the goods" just for fun, or for being lazy.

I'll see what can be done regarding the C8I bios.


----------



## The Stilt

kuutale said:


> Disabling df cstates not hit performance, what is this "df cstates". when disabling c-states performance stall and effiency hit too. Anybody know?





IwannaKnow said:


> I really wonder what the DF CState option is doing in the background.


At this point it is pretty pointless to speculate of what exactly is the actual cause behind the phenomenon or the fix.

The CPU cores have CC6 State, PC6 State and C-State Boost feature that are required for the power gating and the boost to work properly.
Disabling the "Global C-State Control" option will neutralize all of these and more, and hence it affects the efficiency and the performance of the actual CPU cores negatively.
Meanwhile the "DF CState" option, that is the current suggested workaround, alone will not touch any of the three features, and hence it has no effect either on the efficiency or the performance of the CPU cores. It will have a minor impact on the fabric power consumption at idle, but we're talking about a change from around 7W to 8W or so.


----------



## pills85

Please just let me add this despite being off topic. 

I'd be willing to test a beta BIOS for my ROG STRIX B550-F.
At least as long as it won't brick my board or instantly kill any components.
Anything else I wouldn't complain, since you can flash it back without even getting into BIOS or anything.


----------



## finas

The Stilt said:


> I know full well from my own experience, how frustrating the bios release cycle time to time seems to be.
> It's really not like that the ODMs, be it ASUS or whoever are holding back the releases on purpose. The fact is, that the software engineers who work on the bioses
> are extremely overworked, regardless of the company. A brute-force approach of throwing more people at the problem usually won't work, since the work tends increase at the same rate as the amount of workers, at the minimum, since the people who sanction the additional labour now see that more motherboard SKUs can be supported (and had)
> 
> Because of this, bios builds intended for testing a new feature, fix or new AGESA version are built on demand, for the specific boards (projects). While all of the e.g. Crosshair VIII -family boards belong to same family and have their bios releases pretty much in a sync, it doesn't mean that a single change is needed to reflect the change in the bios, or that a single mouse click will produce bios binaries for all of the boards. Each of the boards, be it C8H, C8HW, C8F or C8I is a separate project and the code changes and bios builds must and will be done separately to each of them. So its really not like the ODMs are holding back "the goods" just for fun, or for being lazy.
> 
> I'll see what can be done regarding the C8I bios.


I really appreciate it! thanks


----------



## kuutale

The Stilt said:


> At this point it is pretty pointless to speculate of what exactly is the actual cause behind the phenomenon or the fix.
> 
> The CPU cores have CC6 State, PC6 State and C-State Boost feature that are required for the power gating and the boost to work properly.
> Disabling the "Global C-State Control" option will neutralize all of these and more, and hence it affects the efficiency and the performance of the actual CPU cores negatively.
> Meanwhile the "DF CState" option, that is the current suggested workaround, alone will not touch any of the three features, and hence it has no effect either on the efficiency or the performance of the CPU cores. It will have a minor impact on the fabric power consumption at idle, but we're talking about a change from around 7W to 8W or so.


im testing that df cstate on/off it's seems i can go further cpu ovverdrive 75mzh and no need llc. when turn df cstate on i can go only 25mhz, performance not different. and another point, df cstate on my cores hit 4791mzh when disabled, it hit 4766mzh. And i can use scalar 1x and 2x withouht llc when df cstate off, when on i need llc if use scalar


----------



## shamino1978

C8i version:








ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-0066.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com


----------



## CYoung234

Hello all. I am currently on BIOS 1302 with a Crosshair VIII Hero WiFi and a 3900X, with 64GB G.Skill 3600MHz RAM,G Skill F4-3600C19-16GTRS. This memory is not on the memory list for this board. I had been having Kernel Power reboots for a long time prior to going back to 1302, and could never solve them. Even on 1302, I was still seeing them if I only used the DOCP settings for the memory. At default settings, everything worked. However, using the Ryzen Memory Calculator, I have been able to get stable 3600MHz operation. I am not doing any other overclocking. I am wondering if the new BIOS from shamino will offer enough benefits to make it worthwhile to use? Here are my settings from Ryzen Master:


----------



## CYoung234

Oh, I am also only using a few of the basic settings from the Ryzen Calculator. Here is the entire calculator page. Another question I have is whether it would be worthwhile to tweak any of the other settings, such as PBO, any other overclocking, etc. I am using a Noctual D15-S cooler, and live in a hot country.


----------



## kuutale

CYoung234 said:


> Oh, I am also only using a few of the basic settings from the Ryzen Calculator. Here is the entire calculator page. Another question I have is whether it would be worthwhile to tweak any of the other settings, such as PBO, any other overclocking, etc. I am using a Noctual D15-S cooler, and live in a hot country.
> View attachment 2460272


i think new bios beta 0039 is worth upgrade, its lower temps voltages, and cpu behavior is better. Pbo fmax add ur cpu single core performance more performance. I use 0039 since release and i works very well.


----------



## IwannaKnow

CYoung234 said:


> Hello all. I am currently on BIOS 1302 with a Crosshair VIII Hero WiFi and a 3900X, with 64GB G.Skill 3600MHz RAM,G Skill F4-3600C19-16GTRS. This memory is not on the memory list for this board. I had been having Kernel Power reboots for a long time prior to going back to 1302, and could never solve them. Even on 1302, I was still seeing them if I only used the DOCP settings for the memory. At default settings, everything worked. However, using the Ryzen Memory Calculator, I have been able to get stable 3600MHz operation. I am not doing any other overclocking. I am wondering if the new BIOS from shamino will offer enough benefits to make it worthwhile to use? Here are my settings from Ryzen Master:
> View attachment 2460266


I don´t know if this counts here under offtopic.
Anyways. I just see your VSOC is way to high. max is 1.2v your is around 1.363v. PPL suggest max 1.15v for daily use.
Try to stick with all recommend settings from your dram calculator screenshot and do a karhu test for stability check.


----------



## SaiKamalDoss

stimpy88 said:


> Seriously??? Go back in this thread a couple of pages and do it yourself.
> 
> EDIT, original post updated as I was replying.


Seriously.. ?? Did you read the post above yours ?? I found it myself... 

show your frustration to your loved ones and not to me. if you cant help. please mind your business.


----------



## SaiKamalDoss

I upgraded to the beta but I see performance going down hill on CPUZ 

2206 Bios











The beta from the link










I wanted to test it as I heard its core to core speed has increased and its faster :/


I tried again pushing ram to 3466mhz and this Bios easily lets me  But why is CPU performance going down ?


----------



## Reous

Maybe because you are using different RAM settings or RAM Kits? 3200 vs 3466.


----------



## finas

shamino1978 said:


> C8i version:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-0066.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com



Thanks! much appreciated.


----------



## CYoung234

IwannaKnow said:


> I don´t know if this counts here under offtopic.
> Anyways. I just see your VSOC is way to high. max is 1.2v your is around 1.363v. PPL suggest max 1.15v for daily use.
> Try to stick with all recommend settings from your dram calculator screenshot and do a karhu test for stability check.


Okay. Not sure where that is even configured, and I did not change it. Most of the voltages are set on AUTO, except for the DDR voltage, which the DOCP set to 1.35v. Where in the BIOS would I configure this?

EDIT: Okay, I found it under External Digi - Power Control. Changed it to 1.05. It was on AUTO, so my guess is the DOCP configuration changed it? Good catch - thank you!

I may try out the BETA BIOS and not use DOCP, but just set it up manually.


----------



## kuutale

SaiKamalDoss said:


> I upgraded to the beta but I see performance going down hill on CPUZ
> 
> 2206 Bios
> View attachment 2460276
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The beta from the link
> 
> View attachment 2460278
> 
> 
> I wanted to test it as I heard its core to core speed has increased and its faster :/
> 
> 
> I tried again pushing ram to 3466mhz and this Bios easily lets me  But why is CPU performance going down ?
> 
> View attachment 2460279
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2460280


go precision boost menu and enabled pbo fmax feature?


----------



## Kokin

shamino1978 said:


> C8i version:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-0066.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com





The Stilt said:


> I know full well from my own experience, how frustrating the bios release cycle time to time seems to be.
> It's really not like that the ODMs, be it ASUS or whoever are holding back the releases on purpose. The fact is, that the software engineers who work on the bioses
> are extremely overworked, regardless of the company. A brute-force approach of throwing more people at the problem usually won't work, since the work tends increase at the same rate as the amount of workers, at the minimum, since the people who sanction the additional labour now see that more motherboard SKUs can be supported (and had)
> 
> Because of this, bios builds intended for testing a new feature, fix or new AGESA version are built on demand, for the specific boards (projects). While all of the e.g. Crosshair VIII -family boards belong to same family and have their bios releases pretty much in a sync, it doesn't mean that a single change is needed to reflect the change in the bios, or that a single mouse click will produce bios binaries for all of the boards. Each of the boards, be it C8H, C8HW, C8F or C8I is a separate project and the code changes and bios builds must and will be done separately to each of them. So its really not like the ODMs are holding back "the goods" just for fun, or for being lazy.
> 
> I'll see what can be done regarding the C8I bios.


Thank you!!! I will get to testing it out tonight.

I do admit I was assuming each family of boards were based off the same base code, but I know almost nothing when it comes to building a bios. Thank you for the explanation and insight on the process. Next time I feel impatient, I will remember this post.


----------



## Von Clausewitz

My experience with 0039 beta bios is not good, have just flashed back to 1302. 
Specs: Windows 10 latest updates, C8HW, 3950X (batch 2019 week 35), 280mm AiO, 2070S FE, RM750x and 64GB Dominator CMT64GX4M4C3200C16.
Initial settings all auto except: DOCP, PBO Fmax enabled, +75MHz, Scalar 2x, dram overclocked to 3600 16-19-19-39. All looked well including cpu-z bench (increase) and AIDA memory bench (about same, latency tad higher though), but I couldn't start CB20 (error). And both AIDA FPU tests didn't work (result was 0 for FPU32 and a BSOD for FPU64).
After that I disabled the dynamic power mngt for the Data Fabric and dialed back the overclock to +25MHz. BSOD
Reduced memory speed to DOCP 3200MHz. BSOD
Scalar and overclock to auto: BSOD
Overclock to 0MHz (just in case): BSOD
Even with PBO Fmax disabled it was not stable.

Temperatures where lower according to HWiNFO. Normal (i.e. with bios 1302) idle around 29-34°C, with 0039 as low as 26-28°C. Under load also lower. Clocks boosted indeed higher, both single and multicore, perhaps a bit too much for an early batch 3950X? 

My last update was to BIOS 1302 beginning this year and all was 100% stable, including the memory overclock. Never tried newer BIOS versions, but this PBO Fmax functionality made me very curious. But alas.


----------



## FlanK3r

Try Cinebench comparison, better reflex than CPUZ test


----------



## kuutale

Von Clausewitz said:


> My experience with 0039 beta bios is not good, have just flashed back to 1302.
> Specs: Windows 10 latest updates, C8HW, 3950X (batch 2019 week 35), 280mm AiO, 2070S FE, RM750x and 64GB Dominator CMT64GX4M4C3200C16.
> Initial settings all auto except: DOCP, PBO Fmax enabled, +75MHz, Scalar 2x, dram overclocked to 3600 16-19-19-39. All looked well including cpu-z bench (increase) and AIDA memory bench (about same, latency tad higher though), but I couldn't start CB20 (error). And both AIDA FPU tests didn't work (result was 0 for FPU32 and a BSOD for FPU64).
> After that I disabled the dynamic power mngt for the Data Fabric and dialed back the overclock to +25MHz. BSOD
> Reduced memory speed to DOCP 3200MHz. BSOD
> Scalar and overclock to auto: BSOD
> Overclock to 0MHz (just in case): BSOD
> Even with PBO Fmax disabled it was not stable.
> 
> Temperatures where lower according to HWiNFO. Normal (i.e. with bios 1302) idle around 29-34°C, with 0039 as low as 26-28°C. Under load also lower. Clocks boosted indeed higher, both single and multicore, perhaps a bit too much for an early batch 3950X?
> 
> My last update was to BIOS 1302 beginning this year and all was 100% stable, including the memory overclock. Never tried newer BIOS versions, but this PBO Fmax functionality made me very curious. But alas.


i have too early patch of 3950x, do u disabled df-cstate under smu options?
i can go scalar 1x and 75mhz 3733 16 16 16-32

what power plan use? i use usmus1 ryzen universal


----------



## Von Clausewitz

Yeah, I did disable DF C-states. And I use AMD Ryzen High Performance (from the AMD chipset driver 2.07.14.327).


----------



## James Cole

So I've used every BIOS and never had any issues. Just upgraded to the BETA bios and have got blue screens, and computer not becoming responsive after idle for a while, crashing, etc.
All my settings are the same as previous - DOCP and simply enabled PBO Fmax on this one.

I have a 3950x (I got when ordered on launch), Crosshair Hero VIII WiFi, 2x16GB G.SKILL Trident Z Neo DDR4 3600 (F4-3600C16D-32GTZN).

Edit: did some reading. Will disable df-cstate and mirror kuutale settings and report back.


----------



## kuutale

James Cole said:


> So I've used every BIOS and never had any issues. Just upgraded to the BETA bios and have got blue screens, and computer not becoming responsive after idle for a while, crashing, etc.
> All my settings are the same as previous - DOCP and simply enabled PBO Fmax on this one.
> 
> I have a 3950x (I got when ordered on launch), Crosshair Hero VIII WiFi, 2x16GB G.SKILL Trident Z Neo DDR4 3600 (F4-3600C16D-32GTZN).
> 
> Edit: did some reading. Will disable df-cstate and mirror kuutale settings and report back.


 TheStilt says "Based on the testing, disabling option called "DF CStates" found in AMD CBS-menu (Advanced / AMD CBS / NBIO Common Options / SMU Common Options) should solve the issue."

and depend your silicon quality you may need put LLC 2-3, i run my 3950x this moment scalar 1x pbo fmax enabled 75mhz ovveride and my cpu is buy after launch (early patch) i got 0 bsod or problems.

also you may need set positive offset or llc depend your silicon quality, so test all things, and bios is beta right now. And power managment problem is occur too event "41".


----------



## Von Clausewitz

I didn't play with the LLC settings (neither with offset voltages), perhaps i will, to make sure I tried everything. What LLC level do you use with your early batch 3950X?


----------



## James Cole

kuutale said:


> TheStilt says "Based on the testing, disabling option called "DF CStates" found in AMD CBS-menu (Advanced / AMD CBS / NBIO Common Options / SMU Common Options) should solve the issue."
> 
> and depend your silicon quality you may need put LLC 2-3, i run my 3950x this moment scalar 1x pbo fmax enabled 75mhz ovveride and my cpu is buy after launch (early patch) i got 0 bsod or problems.
> 
> also you may need set positive offset or llc depend your silicon quality, so test all things, and bios is beta right now. And power managment problem is occur too event "41".


Thanks @kuutale 
Ok, I'm a noob with AMD OCing.
Here is what I did so far.... Please let me know if I did anything incorrectly, it would be a huge help.

*Disabled DF Cstates
LLC2 *(Went to Extreme Tweaker > External Digi+ Power Control > CPU Load Line Calibration = Level 2)
*PBO fmax enabled* (Extreme Tweaker > Precision Boost Overdrive > PBO fmax = enabled)
*PBO Auto* (Extreme Tweaker > Precision Boost Overdrive > PBO = auto)
*PBO Scaler = 2 *(Extreme Tweaker > Precision Boost Overdrive > PBO Scaler = 2)
*PBO override = 75Mhz *(Extreme Tweaker > Precision Boost Overdrive > PBO Override = 75Mhz)

*You said Offset = 100?*
Is this Extreme Tweaker > CPU Core Voltage = Offset Mode + .0100? (I can only set .00625 or .0125) or am I looking at the wrong setting?
I set to .00625 currently.

I see you changed to 1x scaler, I will also make this change. Thanks for all the help!


----------



## kuutale

Von Clausewitz said:


> I didn't play with the LLC settings (neither with offset voltages), perhaps i will, to make sure I tried everything. What LLC level do you use with your early batch 3950X?


it's weird thing



when df-cstate is enabled
i can do 

ai overlock tuner manual
performance bias none
performance encharer default
all cpu voltages auto
ram vsoc vddp vddg i change voltages my memory overlock 3773 cl16
using usmus1 ryzen universal power plan

LLC 2
scalar 1x
override 25mzh
two best cores hit 4716/4716


i like more not llc manual control, cpu set own parametres automatically

df-cstate disabled
no llc need
1x
ovveride 75mzh
two best cores hit 4766/4741
this option i gain more performance but i think they are same, llc setting put more heat cpu/vrm


----------



## kuutale

James Cole said:


> Thanks @kuutale
> Ok, I'm a noob with AMD OCing.
> Here is what I did so far.... Please let me know if I did anything incorrectly, it would be a huge help.
> 
> *Disabled DF Cstates
> LLC2 *(Went to Extreme Tweaker > External Digi+ Power Control > CPU Load Line Calibration = Level 2)
> *PBO fmax enabled* (Extreme Tweaker > Precision Boost Overdrive > PBO fmax = enabled)
> *PBO Auto* (Extreme Tweaker > Precision Boost Overdrive > PBO = auto)
> *PBO Scaler = 2 *(Extreme Tweaker > Precision Boost Overdrive > PBO Scaler = 2)
> *PBO override = 75Mhz *(Extreme Tweaker > Precision Boost Overdrive > PBO Override = 75Mhz)
> 
> *You said Offset = 100?*
> Is this Extreme Tweaker > CPU Core Voltage = Offset Mode + .0100? (I can only set .00625 or .0125) or am I looking at the wrong setting?
> I set to .00625 currently.
> 
> I see you changed to 1x scaler, I will also make this change. Thanks for all the help!


maybe u try

LLC auto
PBO SCALAR 1x
Pbo ovverride 25mzh or 75mhz , i go one step a time and make sure system is stability is good
try usmus1 universal power plan too
see what is your cores hit

leave cpu voltage auto, test system and make sure it is stable, then u can go scalar 2 (probably need LLC) then.


EDIT:

I go test now

LLC auto
pbo scalar 1x
ovveride 100mhz
df-cstate disabled


----------



## James Cole

kuutale said:


> maybe u try
> 
> LLC auto
> PBO SCALAR 1x
> Pbo ovverride 25mzh or 75mhz , i go one step a time and make sure system is stability is good
> try usmus1 universal power plan too
> see what is your cores hit
> 
> leave cpu voltage auto, test system and make sure it is stable, then u can go scalar 2 (probably need LLC) then.
> 
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> I go test now
> 
> LLC auto
> pbo scalar 1x
> ovveride 100mhz
> df-cstate disabled


So I played around and am currently at:
df-cstate disabled
LLC 1
PBO fmax enabled
all other PBO settings auto

So far so good, will post back if any other issues. 
Thanks for all the help!


----------



## Kokin

Whoa! This new beta BIOS for the Impact is amazing. Hats off to the Asus engineers for making this possible.

My post-early batch 3900X (bought Oct 2019) is now able to reach single-core 4675Mhz with Fmax enhancer enabled. Previous BIOS versions would cap between 4500-4600Mhz. Multi-core has gone up from 4025Mhz to 4200Mhz. 









PBO Fmax Enhancer = Enabled
PBO Scalar = 4x
PBO Override = 100Mhz
CPU Voltage/LLC = all Auto
DF C-states = Disabled

Currently using the sz_cb Ryzen Balanced V4 power plan and I'm actually getting 0.5W-7W of CPU usage during idle (based off HWiNFO). CPU temps dropped about 5-10C for idle/load. All my benchmarks were using this power plan and not the 1usmus plan. I'll have to revisit tests using 1usmus power plan to see if synthetic scores change.

Global C-state Control = Enabled
Power Supply Idle Control = Low Current Idle *(this is new for the Impact, I only saw this option on my wife's X570i Strix)*
CPPC = Enabled
CPPC Preferred Cores = Enabled











2x16GB (3200C14D-32GTZR) clocked to 3733MHz 16-15-15-32-48, basically DR B-die 3600 Fast timings set to 3733.

Aida64 Mem latency dropped from 65ns to 63.9ns.









CPU-Z had increased scores for both single/multi-core
2206 BIOS - 535.9 Single / 8184.5 Multi
0066 BIOS - 554.0 Single / 8489.0 Multi

CBR20 also had increased scores for both single/multi-core
2206 BIOS - 511 Single / 7254 Multi
0066 BIOS - 526 Single / 7473 Multi

Huge thanks to @The Stilt and @shamino1978 for this beta BIOS release!


----------



## kuutale

ClockTuner for Ryzen (CTR) v2.1 RC5 Download


Download ClockTuner for Ryzen (CTR), Guru3D is the official download partner for this handy utility that can possibly boost ZEN2 processor performance on your PC....




www.guru3d.com






new application from usmus1


----------



## finas

shamino1978 said:


> C8i version:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-0066.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


I've tried the C8i beta bios today and there is a major issue with it. 
Basically anything that I select on CPU LLC except for auto or 1 will make windows crash on boot. So, 2,3,4,5 will have the same result. 
And this is with everything else at default configuration. CPU is a 3950x.


----------



## IwannaKnow

IwannaKnow said:


> Thank you @The Stilt for the feature and figuring out about the random restarts with a newer bios than 1302 in corporation with @slice313 .
> Today I tried the beta Bios version. And it is amazing just with your FMAX on enabled I´m getting 4650mhz boost on my first batch 3900x with lower temps and less crazy high average voltages.
> 
> I disabled DF CState, but I still don´t know what it exactly does. Before I encountered random reboots with all newer bios versions than 1302.
> On RAM stock it seemed fixed, but I encountered a random restart on IF 1900 MEM 3800. So I raised the vddg from 1.025 to 1.050 (still not enough) to 1.075. (on the 1302 version a vddg of 1.025 was enought to be rock stable)
> Now my system is running rock stable. Thank you very much!
> I really wonder what the DF CState option is doing in the background.


@slice313 @The Stilt
I tried the beta bios now for a few days. Even with disabled DF CState I´m encountering random reboots. Not during idle. I tried a lot of dram settings, all test karhu for 13 hours! No error. Aida stress test 2 hours no issue.
As soon I start playing games like Rainbos Six siege I´m getting game crashes, or blue screens or complete freezes.
Tried to change LLC level from auto to 3-4. During this I getting a bios bootloop till the bios gets an automatic reset.
God, I´m so sad, my cpu much better temperatures, and higher clock speed just with fmax enabled and all pbo on auto, but I´m tired of the reboots and no possibility to fix it 
Side note, one of the first batches from 3900x 
Going back to 1302 Dram voltage 1,38 VSOC 1,081 16-17-16-16-32 timings with IF1900 3800.
With the beta bios or anything higher than 1302 I need to go way up to DRAM 1,42 VSOC 1,1 and VDDP 950 and VDDG 1,050 and still not stable.
On Beta it´s also not working for me with 3600mhz.
I really don´t know what else I could try

This are my settings back with my only working 1302 BIOS

















This the settings with the Beta Bios to get it at least stress test stable, but not during games. I even lowered the timings a bit but nothing helped.









I really just don´t know what is causing the issue. Anyone with an idea?


----------



## The Stilt

IwannaKnow said:


> @slice313 @The Stilt
> I tried the beta bios now for a few days. Even with disabled DF CState I´m encountering random reboots. Not during idle. I tried a lot of dram settings, all test karhu for 13 hours! No error. Aida stress test 2 hours no issue.
> As soon I start playing games like Rainbos Six siege I´m getting game crashes, or blue screens or complete freezes.
> Tried to change LLC level from auto to 3-4. During this I getting a bios bootloop till the bios gets an automatic reset.
> God, I´m so sad, my cpu much better temperatures, and higher clock speed just with fmax enabled and all pbo on auto, but I´m tired of the reboots and no possibility to fix it
> Side note, one of the first batches from 3900x
> Going back to 1302 Dram voltage 1,38 VSOC 1,081 16-17-16-16-32 timings with IF1900 3800.
> With the beta bios or anything higher than 1302 I need to go way up to DRAM 1,42 VSOC 1,1 and VDDP 950 and VDDG 1,050 and still not stable.
> On Beta it´s also not working for me with 3600mhz.
> I really don´t know what else I could try
> 
> This are my settings back with my only working 1302 BIOS
> View attachment 2460390
> 
> View attachment 2460391
> 
> 
> This the settings with the Beta Bios to get it at least stress test stable, but not during games. I even lowered the timings a bit but nothing helped.
> View attachment 2460392
> 
> 
> I really just don´t know what is causing the issue. Anyone with an idea?


Most likely an unstable fabric (too high FCLK).
I've never seen a Ryzen CPU that can actually do higher than 1833MHz fully stable.

Try setting FCLK to 1800MHz while leaving everything rest to "Auto" and see if the reboots disappear.
I bet they do.


----------



## mrazster

Have anyone of you guys had any troubles with the USB ports after flashing the 0039 bios ?

I have tried every bios from 1302 up until 0039. I always do a cmos after flash en then load "Optimized Defaults".
All of the other bioses work perfectly fine. But with 0039 the usb-connectors on the mobo where my front usb-ports on my case are connected, stops working completly. They ar gonne, dead, not recognizing any ov my usb thumbs, drives, cardreaders or camerasd.
When I flash back anyone of the others, the usb ports works again.


----------



## Reikoji

Ive been running 3800mhz memory and 1900mhz fclk on 1302 and prior since owning the Formula and 3900x. The newer Agesa/bios have had me locking up prior to post with code 07 trying to use my use the same settings, not allowing anything higher than 1833fclk, and even with that, random reboots and major loss of performance. This is a release 3900x too, the suspect of the issue.

I plan to give 0039 a try with the various mentioned workarounds... But in the end, I think I will find myself back on 1302 and just waiting for a Zen 3 processor to flash the new bios and get reliable stability.


----------



## Kokin

After a full day of idle/light usage with the 0066 Impact bios, there have been zero reboots and all USB ports are working. Gaming has not seen any issues or crashing either.


----------



## kuutale

Kokin said:


> After a full day of idle/light usage with the 0066 Impact bios, there have been zero reboots and all USB ports are working. Gaming has not seen any issues or crashing either.


you have good cpu, not need llc. I try usmus1 ctr program, and my 3950x is silver batch so i need llc, maybe better luck 5000 series processors


----------



## Kokin

kuutale said:


> you have good cpu, not need llc. I try usmus1 ctr program, and my 3950x is silver batch so i need llc, maybe better luck 5000 series processors


I thought The Stilt said we cannot use any voltage/LLC adjustments for the CPU from his original post about Fmax Enhancer, so I followed that. Didn't you have better results with LLC auto and DF-Cstate disabled?

I am curious on how the 5000 series CPUs will perform, but I'm not gonna be an early adopter since early batches tend to have issues. If the 5900X can boost up to 5GHz single/4.5-4.7GHz multi and reach 2000+ IF, then I will probably upgrade sometime in Summer/Fall 2021 when prices drop. That's probably an unrealistic expectation, but anything less doesn't really justify an upgrade from my current 3900X, especially since I stuck with an i5 3570K for 6+ years.


----------



## The Stilt

Kokin said:


> I thought The Stilt said we cannot use any voltage/LLC adjustments for the CPU from his original post about Fmax Enhancer, so I followed that. Didn't you have better results with LLC auto and DF-Cstate disabled?


That's not what I said at all.

You should only touch those settings, if you need them for the feature to work properly on your CPU.
The point was that the user won't be trying to use the same settings, whatever has worked in the past.


----------



## IwannaKnow

So to sum it up.
Somewhere between this AGESA Version, something changed where a lot of first batch 3900x are not stable like on 1302 anymore (COMBO-AM4 1.0.0.4b).








Just curious if anyone from ASUS has noted this issue and complains from the users.
I understand the point of view from @The Stilt , but it doesn´t really explain why this users have a rock stable system even with RAM OC IF1900 with the almost 6 month old Bios and further more that there is no possibility to fix it with voltages or any other BIOS change.

Don´t get me wrong I´m super hyped and appreciate the new optimizations and I really wanna enjoy the new features which Asus and @The Stilt provided, but I´m desperate that ASUS don´t try to investigate into this issue


----------



## kuutale

The Stilt said:


> That's not what I said at all.
> 
> You should only touch those settings, if you need them for the feature to work properly on your CPU.
> The point was that the user won't be trying to use the same settings, whatever has worked in the past.


What is your opinion use LLC ryzen 3000 series? Somewhere u write it but i cant remember/find it? Because my cpu is like allways LLC 3 when do little tweaks. Can LLC help infinity fabric stability?

I ask because i lower flck 1866 ->1833 and not need LLC, random crash is gone, df-cstate is allways disabled, but llc 3 help random crash if i put 1866 flck


----------



## stimpy88

SaiKamalDoss said:


> show your frustration to your loved ones and not to me. if you cant help. please mind your business.


We both know what your post said before you edited it...

Over and out.


----------



## stimpy88

And now we have *AGESA Combo PI V2 1.1.0.0*

MSi will be releasing BIOS updates with it for their 5xx series boards in a few weeks...


----------



## The Stilt

kuutale said:


> What is your opinion use LLC ryzen 3000 series? Somewhere u write it but i cant remember/find it? Because my cpu is like allways LLC 3 when do little tweaks. Can LLC help infinity fabric stability?
> 
> I ask because i lower flck 1866 ->1833 and not need LLC, random crash is gone, df-cstate is allways disabled, but llc 3 help random crash if i put 1866 flck


You mean the load-line control for the CPU cores themselves (VDDCR_CPU) or for the SoC (VDDCR_SOC)?

In case of the latter, potentially because the voltages that are used by the fabric (VDDG) are regulated from the SoC voltage. Otherwise no, with everything else being equal (temperature and so on).

That being said, unless the VDDG's are close to the SoC voltage level, I wouldn't expect a varying SoC output voltage level to affect the VDDG very much, if at all. 

Frankly I've never understood the obsession people have about the FCLK.
The performance difference between 1800MHz and say 1866MHz is diminishing and typically falls well within the margin of error, while the difference is the stability can be significant.


----------



## The Stilt

IwannaKnow said:


> So to sum it up.
> Somewhere between this AGESA Version, something changed where a lot of first batch 3900x are not stable like on 1302 anymore (COMBO-AM4 1.0.0.4b).
> View attachment 2460466
> 
> Just curious if anyone from ASUS has noted this issue and complains from the users.
> I understand the point of view from @The Stilt , but it doesn´t really explain why this users have a rock stable system even with RAM OC IF1900 with the almost 6 month old Bios and further more that there is no possibility to fix it with voltages or any other BIOS change.
> 
> Don´t get me wrong I´m super hyped and appreciate the new optimizations and I really wanna enjoy the new features which Asus and @The Stilt provided, but I´m desperate that ASUS don´t try to investigate into this issue


There is nothing an ODM can do about the changes AMD makes to AGESA, unless stopping releasing builds based on the newer AGESA versions counts as doing something.

The changes in the behavior have apparently been noted, but as said before there is nothing that can be done about it. Unless of course AMD decides to make another change.

As unfortunate as it may be, nobody has ever been promised any overclocks in any regard. AMD guarantees FCLK up to 1600MHz with 1 DPC memory configs.


----------



## SaiKamalDoss

kuutale said:


> go precision boost menu and enabled pbo fmax feature?


It was set to auto and now changed it to enabled. But don't see any difference. Ram sticks are untouched except for playing with timing and timing is the same for both test as that is saved in my profile and have it exported as text as well.


----------



## kuutale

SaiKamalDoss said:


> It was set to auto and now changed it to enabled. But don't see any difference. Ram sticks are untouched except for playing with timing and timing is the same for both test as that is saved in my profile and have it exported as text as well.



add cpu max boost override 25/75 test what is best, maybe scalar 1x. Test what is best for you, and stability .


----------



## kuutale

The Stilt said:


> You mean the load-line control for the CPU cores themselves (VDDCR_CPU) or for the SoC (VDDCR_SOC)?
> 
> In case of the latter, potentially because the voltages that are used by the fabric (VDDG) are regulated from the SoC voltage. Otherwise no, with everything else being equal (temperature and so on).
> 
> That being said, unless the VDDG's are close to the SoC voltage level, I wouldn't expect a varying SoC output voltage level to affect the VDDG very much, if at all.
> 
> Frankly I've never understood the obsession people have about the FCLK.
> The performance difference between 1800MHz and say 1866MHz is diminishing and typically falls well within the margin of error, while the difference is the stability can be significant.


VDDCR_CPU load line control connect to fabric. I lower flck 1866 ->1833 now i not need LLC and random bsod's is away. Not stable fabric can stable put LLC vddr_Cpu on? i can do stable settings 1866 LLC 3 and 1833 LLC Auto, performance is probably same(error margin). Only use pbo fmax enabled and scalar 1x cpu override 25/75

Soc is 1.1 vddg 0.950 vddp 900 ram 1.40. df-cstate is disabled Others settings is auto


----------



## The Stilt

kuutale said:


> VDDCR_CPU load line control connect to fabric. I lower flck 1866 ->1833 now i not need LLC and random bsod's is away. Not stable fabric can stable put LLC vddr_Cpu on? i can do stable settings 1866 LLC 3 and 1833 LLC Auto, performance is probably same(error margin). Only use pbo fmax enabled and scalar 1x cpu override 25/75
> 
> Soc is 1.1 vddg 0.950 vddp 900 ram 1.40. df-cstate is disabled Others settings is auto


No, the CPU voltage load-line should have no effect what so ever to anything else. Outside of the difference caused by the potential difference in the temperature.


----------



## robertvb

Hello everyone, tomorrow i'm finally getting my asus crosshair viii hero wifi mobo so i just wanna ask is there any particular 'best' version of bios that is recomended for stability and performance or should i just instal the latest version of bios for this mobo and roll that with my ryzen 3900x and g.skill 3600mhz cl16 neo ram? I would really appreciate any advice and if can someone tell me are there any common issues among the users of this mobo and for what should i care about, i just read about random pc restarts  .....thank you in advance!


----------



## kuutale

robertvb said:


> Hello everyone, tomorrow i'm finally getting my asus crosshair viii hero wifi mobo so i just wanna ask is there any particular 'best' version of bios that is recomended for stability and performance or should i just instal the latest version of bios for this mobo and roll that with my ryzen 3900x and g.skill 3600mhz cl16 neo ram? I would really appreciate any advice and if can someone tell me are there any common issues among the users of this mobo and for what should i care about, i just read about random pc restarts  .....thank you in advance!


bios work for me 2206 df-cstate disabled


The Stilt said:


> No, the CPU voltage load-line should have no effect what so ever to anything else. Outside of the difference caused by the potential difference in the temperature.


Okey thanks for information


----------



## Kokin

The Stilt said:


> That's not what I said at all.
> 
> You should only touch those settings, if you need them for the feature to work properly on your CPU.
> The point was that the user won't be trying to use the same settings, whatever has worked in the past.


My apologies, I totally missed the mark on that point. I took this part way too literally:

"Not a suggestion, but a hard requirement: Disable ALL of the voltage offsets (regardless if ±) AND load-line adjustments affecting the CPU voltage (VDDCR_CPU)"


----------



## crash_ice

Why Asus are so long to released bios?
Damn ...


----------



## domdtxdissar

Getting great results with the PBO fmax bios, thanks alot The Stilt and *shamino1978 *
This is what i manage to squeeze out of my 3950x 

Geekbench 4 @ System manufacturer System Product Name - Geekbench Browser
Singlecore score = 6595
Multicore score = 63316

Geekbench 5 @ System manufacturer System Product Name - Geekbench Browser
Singlecore score = 1439
Multicore score = 17206

Cinebench R20
Singlecore = 548
Multicore score = 10052


----------



## Reikoji

Yep.... 0039 just nets me a blue/green screen and automatic repair loop, with memory and fclk not even touched either.

As i predicted, back to 1302. I will play with new Agesa when i have a 5900x installed :3


----------



## dansi

Hi stilt, do you know what the thermal platform limit values do? It is in amd overclocking pbo section

I find pbo too aggressive in dropping clocks every 5-10c. My 3950x hit >75c while loading avx2, but the clocks drop to 4ghz.

I wonder if raising the thermal limits or set it higher at 85-90c helps to prevent clocks drop. My old intel hedt can run 90c at avx2 load which should be still good


----------



## The Stilt

dansi said:


> Hi stilt, do you know what the thermal platform limit values do? It is in amd overclocking pbo section
> 
> I find pbo too aggressive in dropping clocks every 5-10c. My 3950x hit >75c while loading avx2, but the clocks drop to 4ghz.
> 
> I wonder if raising the thermal limits or set it higher at 85-90c helps to prevent clocks drop. My old intel hedt can run 90c at avx2 load which should be still good


I'm not sure to what value are you referring to?
"Platform Thermal Throttle Limit" value that can be found in the "Precision Boost Overdrive" page in the bios?


----------



## dansi

The Stilt said:


> I'm not sure to what value are you referring to?
> "Platform Thermal Throttle Limit" value that can be found in the "Precision Boost Overdrive" page in the bios?


Yep you right Stilt. But i coming from X570 master, i believe is same feature of aegsa
Amd oc -> Pbo -> platform thermal throttle limit. What does it do? Can i change the values from auto to something so that Pbo can continue longer at a higher core temp?


----------



## The Stilt

dansi said:


> Yep you right Stilt. But i coming from X570 master, i believe is same feature of aegsa
> Amd oc -> Pbo -> platform thermal throttle limit. What does it do? Can i change the values from auto to something so that Pbo can continue longer at a higher core temp?


It the maximum temperature limit (tJMax) that defaults to 95°C on all SKUs.
It has no effect on the boost behaviour, unless this limit is reached.

AVFS has it's own temperature related variables that cannot be changed.


----------



## James Cole

I have DF-Cstate disabled, LLC 1. Everything works perfect, and no more Error 41 issue at idle. Stress tests fine, temps are good, no crashing/errors.

However, I've been having an issue where the computer will not wake the monitor. The computer is set to never sleep, the monitor turns off, and next day I go to use the computer and I can't get the screen to turn on. The computer is running, all the lights are on. Have to hard reset and works again. Only started to have this issue after this BIOS.

Should I increase LLC or voltage to fix?


----------



## The Stilt

James Cole said:


> Only started to have this issue after this BIOS.
> 
> Should I increase LLC or voltage to fix?


Does it only happen with the "PBO Fmax Enhancer" option enabled?


----------



## jfrob75

Recently installed BIOS 0039 from 2206. So far all my memory settings function the same as before. My single thread performance was improved significantly under CBr20. I now see 542 consistently. Multi thread performance appears about same as before, where as I was using the "EDC BUG". I have had a couple hard reboots. One of them seems to have been caused by

fatal hardware error has occurred.

Reported by component: Processor Core
Error Source: Machine Check Exception
Error Type: Cache Hierarchy Error
Processor APIC ID: 3

I have PBO set to 10X and + 200MHz, this results in the following;
Core 1 boosts as high 4.8 GHz and Cores 0,2 & 3 boost to 4.7 GHz, Cores 4-7 boost to 4.675 GHz and the remaining cores boost anywhere from 4.25 to 4.3 GHz. Cores 0-7 boost behavior now is about 25 MHz higher than before the Fmax mod.

So far fairly happy with the results!!


----------



## RobertHull

kitfit1 said:


> Got to give @shamino1978 a big thanks for this bios  Got a CH8 with a 3950x and this bios has brought me much lower temps, plus i'm seeing 4.73Ghz on cores 0 and 1 along with 4.7Ghz on cores 3,4,5 and 7 in single threaded CB R20. Also seeing all cores at 4.15Ghz/4.18Ghz in multi threaded CB R20 as well.
> A win win all round, looking forward to seeing PBO Fmax Enhancer within official Bios releases from Asus in the future.


hi can you pass that bios for me please ?


----------



## tommy7600

shamino1978 said:


> thanks to thestilt!
> have fun... test bios
> for Formula
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-0039.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for hero
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-0039.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


Just installed the 0039 BETA on my Hero VIII WiFi. Still the same stability issues I had on higher bioses than 1302  Hopefully workaround still works - set DRAM voltage manually to 1.36V that allows MB to keep stable 1.352V. Below 1.35V I have crashes and reboots. I also set DRAM current limit to 110%/120% instead of 100%.

I totally don't understand what changes so badly that after 1302 I need higher voltage for my DRAM with applied DOCP profile.


Specs:

Crosshair VIII Wifi
3900x
64gb TridentZ (4x16) - G.Skill Trident Z, DDR4, 32 GB,3200MHz, CL14 (F4-3200C14D-32GTZ)
Samsung SSD NMVE 512 GB 970 PRO M.2 (main)
Samsung SSD NMVE 1 TB 970 EVO M.2 (secondary)
MSI RTX 2080
be quiet! Dark Power Pro P11 1200W


----------



## Reikoji

The Stilt said:


> Does it only happen with the "PBO Fmax Enhancer" option enabled?


I'll note that I noticed in bios, from 1302 to 0039, that CPU voltage was down from the typical ~1.48 to ~1.44, without enabling FMax enhancer. Was from fresh bios update. Couldn't get to windows without a bluescreen, which I suspect is because my CPU cant ~1.44v at its rated boost speed.


----------



## Kokin

Reikoji said:


> I'll note that I noticed in bios, from 1302 to 0039, that CPU voltage was down from the typical ~1.48 to ~1.44, without enabling FMax enhancer. Was from fresh bios update. Couldn't get to windows without a bluescreen, which I suspect is because my CPU cant ~1.44v at its rated boost speed.


Just some questions:

Did you load optimized settings after flashing the new bios?
You didn't load bios settings via an older bios profile right? It's best to manually set everything for the newer bios versions.


----------



## CYoung234

Hello. I have been running the beta BIOS for a few days. I loaded optimized defaults, and set things up manually based on my Ryzen Memory Calc settings noted a few days back. I have DF CStates disabled, and PBO FMax set to enabled. I am not setting any LLC, and the only voltages I adjusted were the DRAM (1.35) and SOC (1.05).

I just had a reboot with the Kernel Power Error 41, so this does not appear to fix that issue for me. I can provide screen shots of my BIOS settings if you like. Here is a shot from Ryze
n Master to show the basic settings:
EDIT: I just had a second reboot, also a kernel power error 41. I am going back to 1302. As a note, my reboots only seem to happen if I am running my memory at DOCP or setting it up manually according to the Ryzen Calc. On 1302, it all works flawlessly, so, back I go.


----------



## rares495

I find it very weird that only some people are having the reboot 41 issues. Could it be a faulty batch of C8H?


----------



## kuutale

rares495 said:


> I find it very weird that only some people are having the reboot 41 issues. Could it be a faulty batch of C8H?


maybe it's agesa because ch8 board is not alone. check google "41" all motherboards issues that code, someone not face that error. My 3950x can do default settings df-cstate on, but when i hit performance enchacer i need disabled it, aggresive settings can hit that problem, and llc or offset cannot help solve problem


----------



## Reikoji

Kokin said:


> Just some questions:
> 
> Did you load optimized settings after flashing the new bios?
> You didn't load bios settings via an older bios profile right? It's best to manually set everything for the newer bios versions.


That was everything defaulted. CMOS was reset.


----------



## James Cole

The Stilt said:


> Does it only happen with the "PBO Fmax Enhancer" option enabled?


I did not test it without PBO Fmax Enhancer off. I reverted back to 2206.
I then used CTR following 1usmus ASUS BIOS settings recommendations to LLC3, CPU Current Capability = 100%, CPU Power Phase Control = Standard to get a great stable OC.


----------



## rares495

kuutale said:


> maybe it's agesa because ch8 board is not alone. check google "41" all motherboards issues that code, someone not face that error. My 3950x can do default settings df-cstate on, but when i hit performance enchacer i need disabled it, aggresive settings can hit that problem, and llc or offset cannot help solve problem


Weird indeed. Never seen this reboot thing outside of this thread. Didn't even know such an issue existed until I bought this board and started following the thread.


----------



## kuutale

James Cole said:


> I did not test it without PBO Fmax Enhancer off. I reverted back to 2206.
> I then used CTR following 1usmus ASUS BIOS settings recommendations to LLC3, CPU Current Capability = 100%, CPU Power Phase Control = Standard to get a great stable OC.


u lost single core performance with usmus1 tool, multi core performance increase, i want single core performance more with stilt fmaz tool. ryzen single core is little bit weak maybe zen 3 take lead single core and multicore performance.



rares495 said:


> Weird indeed. Never seen this reboot thing outside of this thread. Didn't even know such an issue existed until I bought this board and started following the thread.


i think first time i get problems "41" is 2204 or 2206, with ch6 i dont have that problem never.


----------



## slice313

I fixed my random reboots (event 41) by raising the DRAM voltage to 1.45 v. from 1.35-1.38 v. (my two DIMMs are B-Die rated for 3600/[email protected] v.)

With BIOS 1302 and earlier I only need 1.35 v.

(1.38 for CL14 using 1Usmus Ryzen Dram calculator)

Any Bios version newer than that needs 1.45 v. or it will randomly reboot.

What I don’t entire understand is the following:

I set DRAM voltage to 1,35 v and pass Karhu RAMTest with a coverage of 6500% but it can randomly restart anytime at idle. So the memory is stable but still, voltage causes events 41...

Only setting the RAM to 1.45 v. fixed the random restarts for me.

PD: I tried other voltages, 1.38, 1.40, 1.44 etc, nope, random restarts.

PD: I have been 3 days now without a single reboot using 0039 BIOS with MaX PBO enhancer enabled.

Nope, had one late last night, I hate this board with intensity.


----------



## James Cole

kuutale said:


> u lost single core performance with usmus1 tool, multi core performance increase, i want single core performance more with stilt fmaz tool. ryzen single core is little bit weak maybe zen 3 take lead single core and multicore performance.


Yeah I use more workstation task than gaming, so fine with dip in single core performance.

Just to experiment more, I flashed back to 0039, turned off fbmax enhancer, and am testing to see how computer performs with it off per @The Stilt suggestion.
Will post back later to see if any BSOD, or no revive from long idle, etc.


----------



## rares495

slice313 said:


> What I don’t entire understand is the following:
> 
> I set DRAM voltage to 1,35 v and pass Karhu RAMTest with a coverage of 6500% but it can randomly restart anytime at idle. So the memory is stable but still, voltage causes events 41...
> 
> Only setting the RAM to 1.45 v. fixed the random restarts for me.


False. It's not stable if it causes random reboots. Just the fact that it passed Karhu (one test) doesn't mean it's 100% stable. It can pass Karhu 20000% then 50 cycles of TM5 and then Y-Cruncher + 24 hours of Large FFT Prime95 but crash when you open Firefox. Synthetics are fine but actually using your PC for a while is the real test.


----------



## Kokin

rares495 said:


> Weird indeed. Never seen this reboot thing outside of this thread. Didn't even know such an issue existed until I bought this board and started following the thread.


It almost seems impossible to pinpoint the issue. Some of us have zero issues with the newer bios versions, but some are stuck with random reboots.

Currently no issues with the CH8 Impact + 3900X on the 2206 and beta 0066 bios (Fmax enabled), as well as X570i Strix + 3600X on the 2606 bios.


----------



## slice313

rares495 said:


> False. It's not stable if it causes random reboots. Just the fact that it passed Karhu (one test) doesn't mean it's 100% stable. It can pass Karhu 20000% then 50 cycles of TM5 and then Y-Cruncher + 24 hours of Large FFT Prime95 but crash when you open Firefox. Synthetics are fine but actually using your PC for a while is the real test.


Obviously it is not stable, only using an earlier BIOS is stable while using "normal" DRAM voltages for me. I don't know why, maybe something related with the new AGESA code.


----------



## petercar59

After more than a day on 0039 and Fmax enabled with DF-CSTATE disabled I was okay with RAM at 2133 MHz (default) and everything on AUTO, resulting in FCLK at 1200. It was also okay with DF-CSTATE enabled. Activity was mainly multiple runs of TimeSpy but mostly general computing tasks with no stress testing.

When I changed to FCLK=UCLK=1600, with Fmax enabled, DF-CSTATE disabled, 1usmus SAFE timings for Bad 3200 RAM, but mem voltage to 1.4V, PROCODT 43.6 and CPU SOC 1.1V, it was okay for about 4 to 5 hours of TimeSpy and (mainly) general computing until I turned the PC off. This morning I turned it on and walked away. It rebooted soon after with an Event ID 41 error. The fans are now on for much longer when it starts booting after a shutdown, but not after a reset. I assume that this is a function of memory training.

HWiNFO shows an average Power Reporting Deviation (Accuracy) of 83.9% after browsing and using Word for some time. This seems quite a significant deviation from the expected 100%.

I am currently trying mem at 1.45V. With 2 sticks my RAM is rated at 1.35V at 4266MHz or 1.45V at 4400MHz. I have 4 sticks, so I expect to need more V on RAM and CPU SOC. However, this is a lot of work to try to end up within standard performance limits.

Using 1201 I can run at FCLK=UCLK=1866, 1usmus SAFE settings (but RAM @1.45V, SOC 1.1V) with memory latency in the mid-60s and with no reboots. Not sure about 1302.

Kit:

C8H WIFI, 3900X, Noctua D15S, 4 x 8GB Viper Steel DDR4 4400 PVS416G440C9K (*non-QVL* for C8H WIFI), AX1600i, STRIX 2080Ti OC Gaming, ROG Xonar Phoebus, 3 x 2TB NVMe, 1 x 480GB SATA SSD, 3 x SATA HDDs, Silverstone FT02


----------



## dansi

any asus users facing : WHEA Error Event 19 Type: Bus/Interconnect Error
with latest zen3 compatiblie agesa?


----------



## Reikoji

dansi said:


> any asus users facing : WHEA Error Event 19 Type: Bus/Interconnect Error
> with latest zen3 compatiblie agesa?


It has to do with security mitigations. can be ignored.


----------



## dansi

Reikoji said:


> It has to do with security mitigations. can be ignored.


But it don't seem like security mitigation to me


----------



## kuutale

petercar59 said:


> After more than a day on 0039 and Fmax enabled with DF-CSTATE disabled I was okay with RAM at 2133 MHz (default) and everything on AUTO, resulting in FCLK at 1200. It was also okay with DF-CSTATE enabled. Activity was mainly multiple runs of TimeSpy but mostly general computing tasks with no stress testing.
> 
> When I changed to FCLK=UCLK=1600, with Fmax enabled, DF-CSTATE disabled, 1usmus SAFE timings for Bad 3200 RAM, but mem voltage to 1.4V, PROCODT 43.6 and CPU SOC 1.1V, it was okay for about 4 to 5 hours of TimeSpy and (mainly) general computing until I turned the PC off. This morning I turned it on and walked away. It rebooted soon after with an Event ID 41 error. The fans are now on for much longer when it starts booting after a shutdown, but not after a reset. I assume that this is a function of memory training.
> 
> HWiNFO shows an average Power Reporting Deviation (Accuracy) of 83.9% after browsing and using Word for some time. This seems quite a significant deviation from the expected 100%.
> 
> I am currently trying mem at 1.45V. With 2 sticks my RAM is rated at 1.35V at 4266MHz or 1.45V at 4400MHz. I have 4 sticks, so I expect to need more V on RAM and CPU SOC. However, this is a lot of work to try to end up within standard performance limits.
> 
> Using 1201 I can run at FCLK=UCLK=1866, 1usmus SAFE settings (but RAM @1.45V, SOC 1.1V) with memory latency in the mid-60s and with no reboots. Not sure about 1302.
> 
> Kit:
> 
> C8H WIFI, 3900X, Noctua D15S, 4 x 8GB Viper Steel DDR4 4400 PVS416G440C9K (*non-QVL* for C8H WIFI), AX1600i, STRIX 2080Ti OC Gaming, ROG Xonar Phoebus, 3 x 2TB NVMe, 1 x 480GB SATA SSD, 3 x SATA HDDs, Silverstone FT02


my experince 0039 bios
df-cstate disabled
withouht touching voltages
my testing 3950x
pbo fmax enabled
scalar 1
override 25

Stable best i can do withouh touching voltages

one thing what i wondering

first boot
scalar 1
ovveride 75
is stable but, if do second boot it goes "41" event

anything else bsod "41"

llc or offset no help

maybe my silicon limit is that


----------



## tommy7600

slice313 said:


> I fixed my random reboots (event 41) by raising the DRAM voltage to 1.45 v. from 1.35-1.38 v. (my two DIMMs are B-Die rated for 3600/[email protected] v.)
> 
> With BIOS 1302 and earlier I only need 1.35 v.
> 
> (1.38 for CL14 using 1Usmus Ryzen Dram calculator)
> 
> Any Bios version newer than that needs 1.45 v. or it will randomly reboot.
> 
> What I don’t entire understand is the following:
> 
> I set DRAM voltage to 1,35 v and pass Karhu RAMTest with a coverage of 6500% but it can randomly restart anytime at idle. So the memory is stable but still, voltage causes events 41...
> 
> Only setting the RAM to 1.45 v. fixed the random restarts for me.
> 
> PD: I tried other voltages, 1.38, 1.40, 1.44 etc, nope, random restarts.
> 
> PD: I have been 3 days now without a single reboot using 0039 BIOS with MaX PBO enhancer enabled.


I have similar situation with my C8HW and 3200/[email protected], but I need to set 1.36V to have stable system. I have noticed that fastest DRAM needs higher voltage even, when DOCP says different. It happens from BIOS version higher than 1302.

Based on my checks. The situation looks like this on newer BIOS versions when DRAM voltage is set to DOCP value.
1. System boots. Motherboard keeps the DRAM voltage above 1.35V as it needs high performance.
2. DRAM voltage is kept by this by some time.
3. System goes idle. MB can decide to lower DRAM voltage to level below 1.35V. And then system crashes.
4. When you do some DRAM test, MB is keeping the DRAM voltage above 1.35V so system is stable.

The key here is to find safe DRAM voltage that will not allow MB to set DRAM voltage below stable value. I guess that from bios above 1302 there is some hysteresis or range of values for DRAM voltages, eg. for 3200 it's +-0.1V, so on idle MB will drop volage to 1.34V that will cause crash. Maybe on 3600 that value is higher. But definitely the behaviour regarding DRAM voltage management changed.


----------



## rares495

Most boards I've worked with set the DRAM voltage to 1.36V after you apply DOCP instead of 1.35V


----------



## mongoled

Anyone doing BCLK overclocking on this board ?

Whats max stable BCLK you have reached ??


----------



## CYoung234

tommy7600 said:


> I have similar situation with my C8HW and 3200/[email protected], but I need to set 1.36V to have stable system. I have noticed that fastest DRAM needs higher voltage even, when DOCP says different. It happens from BIOS version higher than 1302.
> 
> Based on my checks. The situation looks like this on newer BIOS versions when DRAM voltage is set to DOCP value.
> 1. System boots. Motherboard keeps the DRAM voltage above 1.35V as it needs high performance.
> 2. DRAM voltage is kept by this by some time.
> 3. System goes idle. MB can decide to lower DRAM voltage to level below 1.35V. And then system crashes.
> 4. When you do some DRAM test, MB is keeping the DRAM voltage above 1.35V so system is stable.
> 
> The key here is to find safe DRAM voltage that will not allow MB to set DRAM voltage below stable value. I guess that from bios above 1302 there is some hysteresis or range of values for DRAM voltages, eg. for 3200 it's +-0.1V, so on idle MB will drop volage to 1.34V that will cause crash. Maybe on 3600 that value is higher. But definitely the behaviour regarding DRAM voltage management changed.


I may go back and run some tests on the 0039 BIOS, as I am suspecting that the BSOD 41 problem is caused by the DRAM voltage dropping on the newer BIOSes versus 1302 and earlier. I have been running my 4 sticks of G.Skill F4-3600C19-16GTRS at 1.35V. Before, I used the DOCP settings, but more recently, I have been setting everything manually. The sticks are rated for 19-20-20-20-40, but the calculator suggested 16-18-19-19-38, so that is what I have been running. I may try bumping the voltage to 1.36 or 1.37 to see if that resolves the BSOD issue.

This is a production system though, so there are limited days where I have time to play around. Also, my BSODs tend to happen overnight or when the system is pretty idle, just reading email or using a browser. I did have one BSOD during a Zoom meeting though...


----------



## RHBH

CYoung234 said:


> I may go back and run some tests on the 0039 BIOS, as I am suspecting that the BSOD 41 problem is caused by the DRAM voltage dropping on the newer BIOSes versus 1302 and earlier. I have been running my 4 sticks of G.Skill F4-3600C19-16GTRS at 1.35V. Before, I used the DOCP settings, but more recently, I have been setting everything manually. The sticks are rated for 19-20-20-20-40, but the calculator suggested 16-18-19-19-38, so that is what I have been running. I may try bumping the voltage to 1.36 or 1.37 to see if that resolves the BSOD issue.
> 
> This is a production system though, so there are limited days where I have time to play around. Also, my BSODs tend to happen overnight or when the system is pretty idle, just reading email or using a browser. I did have one BSOD during a Zoom meeting though...


Have you tried to change de memory and soc phase mode from standard to extreme (full phase mode)? 

Maybe that setting can prevent the VRAM voltage drop.


----------



## Reikoji

dansi said:


> But it don't seem like security mitigation to me





English Community-Lenovo Community







Event ID 19 WHEA-Logger - Hardware Error - BSOD - Meltdown Spectre - Windows 10 Help Forums


Dell Precision T1700 Workstations. 10 of them. Thousands of Event ID 19 - WHEA-Logger - A corrected hardware error has occurred. Random blue screens. They all have the new Dell Bios with the Meltdown




www.tenforums.com












Microsoft Issues Windows Out-of-Band Update That Disables Spectre Mitigations


Microsoft has issued on Saturday an emergency out-of-band Windows update that disables patches for the Spectre Variant 2 bug (CVE-2017-5715).




www.bleepingcomputer.com


----------



## CYoung234

RHBH said:


> Have you tried to change de memory and soc phase mode from standard to extreme (full phase mode)?
> 
> Maybe that setting can prevent the VRAM voltage drop.


Thanks for the reply. No, I have not tried that, mainly because I do not know what I am doing! All of the settings in that area of the BIOS are optimized defaults right now. As this is a production system used for CAD and 3D modeling, I have never been that interested in overclocking. I am just trying to get the best performance possible in that environment. But, overall stability of the system is a big priority. I also live in a very hot country (Paraguay), and am using air cooling (Noctua DH-15-S), So, running cool is good, although I have air conditioning.


----------



## HoloWS

Has there been any news about a possible beta bios with AGESA ComboAM4v2 1.1.0.0 for the C8H (non-wifi)? MSI seems to have already released some and the Crosshair VIII Impact got it 8 days ago according to this.









[Übersicht] - Ultimative AM4 UEFI/BIOS/AGESA Übersicht


Inhaltsverzeichnis: UEFI Collection | Hersteller Support Links | UEFI Mods | Weiterführende Links Keine weiteren Updates mehr geplant! AM5 UEFI/BIOS/AGESA Übersicht ASRock ASUS Biostar Gigabyte MSI EVGA NZXT B350 B450 B550 X370 X470 X570 B350 B450 B550 X370 X470 X570 B350 B450...




www.hardwareluxx.de












ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...


Got to give @shamino1978 a big thanks for this bios (y)(y) Got a CH8 with a 3950x and this bios has brought me much lower temps, plus i'm seeing 4.73Ghz on cores 0 and 1 along with 4.7Ghz on cores 3,4,5 and 7 in single threaded CB R20. Also seeing all cores at 4.15Ghz/4.18Ghz in multi threaded...




www.overclock.net


----------



## James Cole

slice313 said:


> I fixed my random reboots (event 41) by raising the DRAM voltage to 1.45 v. from 1.35-1.38 v. (my two DIMMs are B-Die rated for 3600/[email protected] v.)
> 
> With BIOS 1302 and earlier I only need 1.35 v.
> 
> (1.38 for CL14 using 1Usmus Ryzen Dram calculator)
> 
> Any Bios version newer than that needs 1.45 v. or it will randomly reboot.
> 
> What I don’t entire understand is the following:
> 
> I set DRAM voltage to 1,35 v and pass Karhu RAMTest with a coverage of 6500% but it can randomly restart anytime at idle. So the memory is stable but still, voltage causes events 41...
> 
> Only setting the RAM to 1.45 v. fixed the random restarts for me.
> 
> PD: I tried other voltages, 1.38, 1.40, 1.44 etc, nope, random restarts.
> 
> PD: I have been 3 days now without a single reboot using 0039 BIOS with MaX PBO enhancer enabled.





James Cole said:


> Yeah I use more workstation task than gaming, so fine with dip in single core performance.
> 
> Just to experiment more, I flashed back to 0039, turned off fbmax enhancer, and am testing to see how computer performs with it off per @The Stilt suggestion.
> Will post back later to see if any BSOD, or no revive from long idle, etc.


So far zero issues with 0039 when NOT using fbmax.


----------



## slice313

James Cole said:


> So far zero issues with 0039 when NOT using fbmax.


Only rising the DRAM voltage to 1.45 v. wasn't enough, I´ve got one random restart after 3 days. However, I am testing now with SOC 1.05 , CLDO_VDDG 1.000 and CLDO_VDDP 0.950.So far, perfectly fine. I ->>>> I just suffered a random restart after hitting "send"   

More and more these days I believe the new BIOSes have some kind of issue with DRAM voltages... I am going back to 1302.


----------



## renecapo

my 3900 works perfekt with 0039 Bios, pbo fmax enabled CPU Core voltage Auto with offset 0.075+ now no reboots in idle


----------



## kuutale

renecapo said:


> my 3900 works perfekt with 0039 Bios, pbo fmax enabled CPU Core voltage Auto with offset 0.075+ now no reboots in idle


can u share u settings? ur single core is pretty good. scalar 1x maybe more?


----------



## renecapo

important is offset the cpu core Voltage +0,075
df-cstate enabled
Dram 1.5Volt
withouht touching other voltages
pbo fmax enabled
scalar 10
override 200


----------



## CYoung234

renecapo said:


> important is offset the cpu core Voltage +0,075
> df-cstate enabled
> Dram 1.5Volt
> withouht touching other voltages
> pbo fmax enabled
> scalar 10
> override 200


Just a question - is 1.5v safe for your DRAM? I know that most DRAM used to be 1.5v, but most these days is listed as 1.35v.


----------



## renecapo

1.5 Volt Dram Voltage is the limit for 24/7 
active Aircooling on Ram recommended


----------



## petercar59

petercar59 said:


> After more than a day on 0039 and Fmax enabled with DF-CSTATE disabled I was okay with RAM at 2133 MHz (default) and everything on AUTO, resulting in FCLK at 1200. It was also okay with DF-CSTATE enabled. Activity was mainly multiple runs of TimeSpy but mostly general computing tasks with no stress testing.
> 
> When I changed to FCLK=UCLK=1600, with Fmax enabled, DF-CSTATE disabled, 1usmus SAFE timings for Bad 3200 RAM, but mem voltage to 1.4V, PROCODT 43.6 and CPU SOC 1.1V, it was okay for about 4 to 5 hours of TimeSpy and (mainly) general computing until I turned the PC off. This morning I turned it on and walked away. It rebooted soon after with an Event ID 41 error. The fans are now on for much longer when it starts booting after a shutdown, but not after a reset. I assume that this is a function of memory training.
> 
> HWiNFO shows an average Power Reporting Deviation (Accuracy) of 83.9% after browsing and using Word for some time. This seems quite a significant deviation from the expected 100%.
> 
> I am currently trying mem at 1.45V. With 2 sticks my RAM is rated at 1.35V at 4266MHz or 1.45V at 4400MHz. I have 4 sticks, so I expect to need more V on RAM and CPU SOC. However, this is a lot of work to try to end up within standard performance limits.
> 
> Using 1201 I can run at FCLK=UCLK=1866, 1usmus SAFE settings (but RAM @1.45V, SOC 1.1V) with memory latency in the mid-60s and with no reboots. Not sure about 1302.
> 
> Kit:
> 
> C8H WIFI, 3900X, Noctua D15S, 4 x 8GB Viper Steel DDR4 4400 PVS416G440C9K (*non-QVL* for C8H WIFI), Corsair AX1600i, STRIX 2080Ti OC Gaming, ROG Xonar Phoebus, 3 x 2TB NVMe, 1 x 480GB SATA SSD, 3 x SATA HDDs, Silverstone FT02


-------------
UPDATE:
-------------
0039 Doesn't work for me, not even within standard performance limits at at FCLK=UCLK=1600. I still had Event ID 41 restarts even with higher mem V and CPU SOC V, and with RAM that is rated for 4266 at 1.35V (al







though non-QVL for this board).

This is the log entry immediately before the restart - and immediately before the 5 other restarts I've had since Oct 3:

"File System Filter 'npsvctrig' (10.0, ‎2025‎-‎01‎-‎06T13:41:12.000000000Z) has successfully loaded and registered with Filter Manager". Then it restarted.

BlueScreenView shows:










There is nothing in the "Caused By Driver" column and I have nothing untoward showing in device manager. 

Looking up Parameter 1 gives: 
"0xC0000005: STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION

A memory access violation occurred. (Parameter 4 of the bug check is the address that the driver attempted to access.)".

So I'm going back to 1201 and FCLK=UCLK=1866. Maybe add the "PBO Fmax Enhancer" option to earlier BIOSes?

The more recent BIOSes are supposed to have improved memory stability. I haven't seen any of that; instead something has regressed.


----------



## kuutale

s


petercar59 said:


> -------------
> UPDATE:
> -------------
> 0039 Doesn't work for me, not even within standard performance limits at at FCLK=UCLK=1600. I still had Event ID 41 restarts even with higher mem V and CPU SOC V, and with RAM that is rated for 4266 at 1.35V (al
> View attachment 2461203
> though non-QVL for this board).
> 
> This is the log entry immediately before the restart - and immediately before the 5 other restarts I've had since Oct 3:
> 
> "File System Filter 'npsvctrig' (10.0, ‎2025‎-‎01‎-‎06T13:41:12.000000000Z) has successfully loaded and registered with Filter Manager". Then it restarted.
> 
> BlueScreenView shows:
> 
> View attachment 2461203
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the "Caused By Driver" column and I have nothing untoward showing in device manager.
> 
> Looking up Parameter 1 gives:
> "0xC0000005: STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION
> 
> A memory access violation occurred. (Parameter 4 of the bug check is the address that the driver attempted to access.)".
> 
> So I'm going back to 1201 and FCLK=UCLK=1866. Maybe add the "PBO Fmax Enhancer" option to earlier BIOSes?
> 
> The more recent BIOSes are supposed to have improved memory stability. I haven't seen any of that; instead something has regressed.



maybe try cpu core voltage offset+ one or two clicks like stilt suggest, my case it end of bsod two clicks core voltage offset llc auto. its depend your silicon quality how pbo fmax effect your system.


----------



## RHBH

Any update when Asus will rollout the new 1.1.0.0 Agesa V2?


----------



## rares495

renecapo said:


> 1.5 Volt Dram Voltage is the limit for 24/7


Says who?


----------



## renecapo

What Is The Safe Voltage Range For DDR4 Memory Overclocking? - Legit Reviews







www.legitreviews.com


----------



## rares495

renecapo said:


> What Is The Safe Voltage Range For DDR4 Memory Overclocking? - Legit Reviews
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.legitreviews.com


Some random guy from 2014. Ok then.


----------



## renecapo

AMD RAM overclocking


ZEN 2 - Matisse (7nm TSMC) s name,latency,FCLK,MT/s,timings,DIMMS,IC-type,part number,read,write,copy,VSOC,VDDG,VDIMM,VDDP,ProcODT,RTT,stability test,CPU,mainboard Reous,57,5 ns,1900 Mhz,3800 Mhz,<a href="https://abload.de/image.php?img=380014-14-13-1310000kzbkdb.png">14-13-14-13-30-44-247</a>...




docs.google.com





overclocking list
nobody goes over 1.5 Volt Dram 
they know what they are doing


----------



## rares495

renecapo said:


> AMD RAM overclocking
> 
> 
> ZEN 2 - Matisse (7nm TSMC) s name,latency,FCLK,MT/s,timings,DIMMS,IC-type,part number,read,write,copy,VSOC,VDDG,VDIMM,VDDP,ProcODT,RTT,stability test,CPU,mainboard Reous,57,5 ns,1900 Mhz,3800 Mhz,<a href="https://abload.de/image.php?img=380014-14-13-1310000kzbkdb.png">14-13-14-13-30-44-247</a>...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docs.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> overclocking list
> nobody goes over 1.5 Volt Dram
> they know what they are doing


Oh look, I'm in there as well on row 6. The only reason why people don't go over 1.5V is cooling, not because it isn't "safe".


----------



## kuutale

rares495 said:


> Oh look, I'm in there as well on row 6. The only reason why people don't go over 1.5V is cooling, not because it isn't "safe".


i hear something some good kits can run 1.60volt without damage 24/7 if the circuit is well cooled


----------



## renecapo

Rares that´s super i´m on row 8  
where are the new agesa Bios for Crosshair VIII Formula


----------



## stimpy88

renecapo said:


> Rares that´s super i´m on row 8
> where are the new agesa Bios for Crosshair VIII Formula


I would like to assume that ASUS is working on the new AGESA bios releases so that their boards work properly with the new Zen 3 CPUs. But I'm not going to hold my breath...


----------



## finas

the 066 beta bios for my VIII impact has the 1.1.0.0 AGESA.

Regarding vram voltage, I am running 1.55V 24/7 since January on my G.skill 4000-CL19 2X16GB without any side effects. ( Samsung B-die )


----------



## nick name

finas said:


> the 066 beta bios for my VIII impact has the 1.1.0.0 AGESA.
> 
> Regarding vram voltage, I am running 1.55V 24/7 since January on my G.skill 4000-CL19 2X16GB without any side effects. ( Samsung B-die )


Wait you need that much voltage for 3800C16?


----------



## pfinch

hey,
which energyplan should i use as a 3900x owner? the 1usmus or AMD performance one?


----------



## finas

nick name said:


> Wait you need that much voltage for 3800C16?


3800CL14. ( 1900FCLK ). 
101% stable with prime95 24h, memtest86, etc. and it is turned on 24/7 since January. 
CPU is 3950X delided with bare core on CPU block.
These are the exact settings:


----------



## RHBH

Jedec standards requires that DDR4 should be able to support voltage spikes of up to 1.95v.

The safe 24x7 voltage depends on IC and silicon lottery.

Usually temperature is the bottleneck around 1.45v.


----------



## phillyman36

Just curious. Do x570 chipset go thru any revisions? Would a new Crosshair Hero VIII brought today have any improvements over the ones first available? (hardware revisions) (I told my cousin ide sell him my Hero VIII and use the money to by an x670 mobo. weelll from what I can tell no x670 nor any mobo refreshes for Ryzen 5000 but still waiting for confirmation)


----------



## rares495

phillyman36 said:


> Just curious. Do x570 chipset go thru any revisions? Would a new Crosshair Hero VIII brought today have any improvements over the ones first available? (hardware revisions) (I told my cousin ide sell him my Hero VIII and use the money to by an x670 mobo. weelll from what I can tell no x670 nor any mobo refreshes for Ryzen 5000 but still waiting for confirmation)


Yup. There will be no X670 boards. There are ZERO leaks and that's very unusual.


----------



## tommy7600

phillyman36 said:


> Just curious. Do x570 chipset go thru any revisions? Would a new Crosshair Hero VIII brought today have any improvements over the ones first available? (hardware revisions) (I told my cousin ide sell him my Hero VIII and use the money to by an x670 mobo. weelll from what I can tell no x670 nor any mobo refreshes for Ryzen 5000 but still waiting for confirmation)


ASUS shown new Dark Hero based on x570 today: The ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero unleashes more power in stealthy silence for next-gen AMD Ryzen CPUs | ROG - Republic of Gamers Global


----------



## nick name

tommy7600 said:


> ASUS shown new Dark Hero based on x570 today: The ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero unleashes more power in stealthy silence for next-gen AMD Ryzen CPUs | ROG - Republic of Gamers Global


I wonder if AMD made new chipset silicon or if ASUS just threw a larger heatsink on the new Dark boards.


----------



## tommy7600

nick name said:


> I wonder if AMD made new chipset silicon or if ASUS just threw a larger heatsink on the new Dark boards.


Based on their site - only bigger heatstink.

"A massive high surface area heatsink covers the chipset and extends into the space between the main PCIe slots to provide plenty of heat dissipation. Compared to the active cooling design on the Crosshair VIII Hero, the Dark Hero's chipset temperature under load is just 2.25% higher in our internal testing. "


----------



## RHBH

tommy7600 said:


> Based on their site - only bigger heatstink.
> 
> "A massive high surface area heatsink covers the chipset and extends into the space between the main PCIe slots to provide plenty of heat dissipation. Compared to the active cooling design on the Crosshair VIII Hero, the Dark Hero's chipset temperature under load is just 2.25% higher in our internal testing. "


They didn't even upgrade the Intel i211 (1GbE) to the new Intel i225 (2.5GbE), these are avaliable in B550 boards.

I know there is a Realtek 2.5GbE on the board, but Realtek ICs aren't as good as the Intel ICs, they tend to perform a bit worse in heavy transfer loads and use more CPU overhead.


----------



## Syldon

Can someone answer a question for me regarding NVME drives and the PCIe usage. I am looking to buy the CH8 (upgrade from the CH7) for Zen 3. I have read that there is next to no loss on a PCIe 4.0 bus when using 2 of the PCIe buses up by adding a second device to the GPU, since the GPU doesn't use all that bus up anyways, there is little to no loss. I think Linus checked this one out with a 3080. I am thinking of installing 2 NVME drives. This will reduce the bandwidth of the GPU PCIe by 50%.

Am I right in thinking this, or is there another pitfall I should be looking into? And if this is feasible which is the best slots to add the NVME drives to? One will be a system drive and the other will have games on.

Thanks


----------



## Naeem

is anyone here running old ryzen 1700, 1700x or 1800x with Crosshair VIII hero ? i want to buy new motherboard as my old one ( C6H) died but do not want to go for new cpu untill prices comes down next year so need a 5000 series ready mobo


----------



## RHBH

Syldon said:


> Can someone answer a question for me regarding NVME drives and the PCIe usage. I am looking to buy the CH8 (upgrade from the CH7) for Zen 3. I have read that there is next to no loss on a PCIe 4.0 bus when using 2 of the PCIe buses up by adding a second device to the GPU, since the GPU doesn't use all that bus up anyways, there is little to no loss. I think Linus checked this one out with a 3080. I am thinking of installing 2 NVME drives. This will reduce the bandwidth of the GPU PCIe by 50%.
> 
> Am I right in thinking this, or is there another pitfall I should be looking into? And if this is feasible which is the best slots to add the NVME drives to? One will be a system drive and the other will have games on.
> 
> Thanks


I think it's true for PCIE 4.0.

PCIE 3.0 has half the bandwidth of PCIE 4.0 and the performancd difference is negligible for a GPU.


----------



## D-EJ915

RHBH said:


> They didn't even upgrade the Intel i211 (1GbE) to the new Intel i225 (2.5GbE), these are avaliable in B550 boards.
> 
> I know there is a Realtek 2.5GbE on the board, but Realtek ICs aren't as good as the Intel ICs, they tend to perform a bit worse in heavy transfer loads and use more CPU overhead.


I am almost not surprised here given people complaining about the 2.5gb in the asus z490 threads here and RMAing their boards because of it lol.


----------



## RHBH

D-EJ915 said:


> I am almost not surprised here given people complaining about the 2.5gb in the asus z490 threads here and RMAing their boards because of it lol.


Why RMA a board for 2.5gb?

Almost no one have 2.5gb router/switches.


----------



## Syldon

RHBH said:


> I think it's true for PCIE 4.0.
> 
> PCIE 3.0 has half the bandwidth of PCIE 4.0 and the performancd difference is negligible for a GPU.


I think the same I will grab me a new NVME drive and see if there is a loss with both fitted. 

Thanks for the opinion.


----------



## jfrob75

Syldon said:


> Can someone answer a question for me regarding NVME drives and the PCIe usage. I am looking to buy the CH8 (upgrade from the CH7) for Zen 3. I have read that there is next to no loss on a PCIe 4.0 bus when using 2 of the PCIe buses up by adding a second device to the GPU, since the GPU doesn't use all that bus up anyways, there is little to no loss. I think Linus checked this one out with a 3080. I am thinking of installing 2 NVME drives. This will reduce the bandwidth of the GPU PCIe by 50%.
> 
> Am I right in thinking this, or is there another pitfall I should be looking into? And if this is feasible which is the best slots to add the NVME drives to? One will be a system drive and the other will have games on.
> 
> Thanks


The top NVME position is tied directly to the CPU, where as the bottom NVME slot goes thru the chipset. If one or both are populated it will not affect the top GPU slot. It will still be X16 at gen 4 speed.


----------



## tien113

jfrob75 said:


> The top NVME position is tied directly to the CPU, where as the bottom NVME slot goes thru the chipset. If one or both are populated it will not affect the top GPU slot. It will still be X16 at gen 4 speed.


how's about if both nvmes are occupied? do I lost something?


----------



## RHBH

tien113 said:


> how's about if both nvmes are occupied? do I lost something?


The only thing that will reduce the 1st PCIE x16 slot is if you add something in the 2nd PCIE x16 slot. 

They work in x16/x0 or x8/x8. 

The M.2 slots will always work at x4 independent from the rest of system.


----------



## highdude702

Naeem said:


> is anyone here running old ryzen 1700, 1700x or 1800x with Crosshair VIII hero ? i want to buy new motherboard as my old one ( C6H) died but do not want to go for new cpu untill prices comes down next year so need a 5000 series ready mobo


X570 only supports ryzen 2000 and above. you can not run any 1st gen ryzen on the board. I was hoping to be able to as well for testing purposes but its a solid no.


----------



## Naeem

highdude702 said:


> X570 only supports ryzen 2000 and above. you can not run any 1st gen ryzen on the board. I was hoping to be able to as well for testing purposes but its a solid no.


I saw people running on Reddit with some old bios


----------



## Reikoji

RHBH said:


> Jedec standards requires that DDR4 should be able to support voltage spikes of up to 1.95v.
> 
> The safe 24x7 voltage depends on IC and silicon lottery.
> 
> Usually temperature is the bottleneck around 1.45v.


Never seen it said, but what is the max Temperature for ddr4?


----------



## Kokin

Reikoji said:


> Never seen it said, but what is the max Temperature for ddr4?


This is based off my prior research, so it may be outdated info or ballpark numbers: 

Max operating temp is around 85C+, although you may start degrading the chips before that. 50-60C can cause a lot of instability issues if you're at the OCing limits, otherwise if you're stable at 50C+, then all is good. Anything below 50C should be peachy for 24/7 usage.


----------



## LesPaulLover

kuutale said:


> i hear something some good kits can run 1.60volt without damage 24/7 if the circuit is well cooled


Worth noting that, contrary to popular belief, increased DRAM voltage DOES INDEED decrease the quality of your CPU IMC (in case of Ryzen the entire I/O Die itself)

I wouldn't personally go beyond 1.450v (MAYBE 1.500v if my CPU is on a custom loop) for 24/7 usage.


----------



## stimpy88

ASUS just gave the middle finger to owners of the ROG x470 CH7. No support for the 5000 series CPUs!

AMD have provided ASUS with the necessary BIOS code to implement 5000 series support, and ASUS said no thanks, we don't like our customers, and we can't be bothered...


----------



## tommy7600

stimpy88 said:


> ASUS just gave the middle finger to owners of the ROG x470 CH7. No support for the 5000 series CPUs!


I'm so disappointed by ASUS recently.

More abut it:

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ja23gg


----------



## kaefers

Hey.

I thought I'd throw this in here for general discussion. As far as I am concerned, I am still getting the best results with 1001 (best SC) and 1201 (best MC). Don't have too much of an opinion on 1201 vs 1302. Also interesting, how with Fmax=1 and EDC=1 / EDC=165, CCD1 clocks a lot lower. Also, I never experienced any major issues with either of those UEFI firmwares, overall system has been stable. Also, been daily running EDC=1 all the way through 2020, no issues. Best ever boost I got with Windows 1809, no chipset driver and 1001. Now on v2004 it's a little less dramatic on 1001.

I'd appreciate any thoughts or suggestions on my UEFI settings, happy to check those out. Biggest bottleneck remains the Ncase + 240mm AIO, with a custom loop that would be a whole lot easier and more consistent.

System: Ncase M1 v6.1, C8I, 3950X, 2x16GB Gskill 3600C16 Bdie @ 3800C14, 1080Ti, 1TB 970 Pro, Kraken X52, 2x NF-A12x15. For convenience I just used the Asus UEFI memory OC preset.













Ai Overclock TunerManualD.O.C.P.-BCLK Frequency100Performance EnhancerLevel 3 (OC)Memory FrequencyDDR4-3800MHzFCLK Frequency1900MHzCore Performance BoostAutoPerformance BiasAutoPrecision Boost OverdriveManualPPT Limit240TDC Limit165EDC Limit1Precision Boost Overdrive ScalarManualCustomized Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar10XMax CPU Boost Clock Override200MHzPlatform Thermal Throttle LimitAutoDRAM CAS# Latency14Trcdrd15Trcdwr15DRAM RAS# PRE Time15DRAM RAS# ACT Time30Trc51TrrdS5TrrdL8Tfaw16TwtrS4TwtrL8Twr14TrcpageAutoTrdrdScl5TwrwrScl5Trfc320Trfc2AutoTrfc4AutoTcwlAutoTrtp8Trdwr8Twrrd3TwrwrSc1TwrwrSd6TwrwrDd6TrdrdSc1TrdrdSd4TrdrdDd4Tcke6ProcODTAutoCmd2T1TGear Down ModeDisabledPower Down EnableDisabledRttNomAutoRttWrAutoRttParkAutoMemAddrCmdSetupAutoMemCsOdtSetupAutoMemCkeSetupAutoMemCadBusClkDrvStrenAutoMemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStrenAutoMemCadBusCsOdtDrvStrenAutoMemCadBusCkeDrvStrenAutoMem Over Clock Fail CountAutoVoltage MonitorDie SenseCPU Load-line CalibrationAutoCPU Current Capability140%CPU VRM Switching FrequencyManualFixed CPU VRM Switching Frequency(KHz)500CPU Power Duty ControlExtremeCPU Power Phase ControlPower Phase ResponseManual AdjustmentUltra FastCPU Power Thermal Control120VDDSOC Load-line CalibrationAutoVDDSOC Current Capability140%VDDSOC Switching FrequencyManualFixed VDDSOC Switching Frequency(KHz)600VDDSOC Phase ControlPower Phase ResponseManual AdjustmentUltra FastForce OC Mode DisableDisabledSB Clock Spread SpectrumDisabledVTTDDR VoltageAutoCPU Core VoltageAutoCPU SOC VoltageAutoDRAM Voltage1.5VDDG CCD Voltage ControlAutoVDDG IOD Voltage ControlAutoCLDO VDDP voltageAutoAMD CPU fTPMEnableErase fTPM NV for factory resetDisabledSVM ModeDisabledHD Audio ControllerDisabledWhen system is in working stateAll OnQ-Code LED FunctionAutoWhen system is in sleep, …Stealth ModeWi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) ControllerDisabledBluetooth ControllerDisabledCPU Q-Fan ControlDisabledChassis Fan Q-Fan ControlDisabledRadiator Fan 1 Q-Fan ControlDisabledOS TypeWindows UEFI modeDownload & Install ARMOURY CRATE appDisabledInfinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers1900MHzPrecision Boost OverdriveAdvancedPBO LimitsManualPPT Limit240TDC Limit165EDC Limit1Precision Boost Overdrive ScalarManualPrecision Boost Overdrive Scalar10XMax CPU Boost Clock Override200MHzPlatform Thermal Throttle LimitAutoSoC/Uncore OC ModeEnabledGlobal C-state ControlDisabledPrecision Boost OverdriveManualPPT Limit240TDC Limit165EDC Limit1Precision Boost Overdrive ScalarManualcustomized Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar10XFCLK Frequency1900MHzUCLK DIV1 MODEUCLK==MEMCLKSoC/Uncore OC ModeEnabledDF CstatesDisabledCPPCEnabledCPPC Preferred CoresEnabledData Link Feature ExchangeDisabled


----------



## Baio73

tommy7600 said:


> I'm so disappointed by ASUS recently.
> 
> More abut it:
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ja23gg


And people is still blaming AMD... Why they can't understand that AMD has all the interest in mobo's vendors supplying X370 and X470 chipsets??

Baio


----------



## kuutale

kaefers said:


> Hey.
> 
> I thought I'd throw this in here for general discussion. As far as I am concerned, I am still getting the best results with 1001 (best SC) and 1201 (best MC). Don't have too much of an opinion on 1201 vs 1302. Also interesting, how with Fmax=1 and EDC=1 / EDC=165, CCD1 clocks a lot lower. Also, I never experienced any major issues with either of those UEFI firmwares, overall system has been stable. Also, been daily running EDC=1 all the way through 2020, no issues. Best ever boost I got with Windows 1809, no chipset driver and 1001. Now on v2004 it's a little less dramatic on 1001.
> 
> I'd appreciate any thoughts or suggestions on my UEFI settings, happy to check those out. Biggest bottleneck remains the Ncase + 240mm AIO, with a custom loop that would be a whole lot easier and more consistent.
> 
> System: Ncase M1 v6.1, C8I, 3950X, 2x16GB Gskill 3600C16 Bdie @ 3800C14, 1080Ti, 1TB 970 Pro, Kraken X52, 2x NF-A12x15. For convenience I just used the Asus UEFI memory OC preset.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2461831



TheStilt says dont use fmax and edc tweak same time, it can be result bad performance. If use edc 165 fmax and disable c-state control it can be effective bad performance too, ryzen have own features need to enabled when use auto boost, if some feature missing it can lead bad performance. i dont know that things but read this forum and what TheStilt saying.


----------



## Sam64

There will be support for X470 and B450 for Zen 3 on Asus Boards. Afaik the info, that it won't be supported is wrongly posted on reddit by some Asus support guy, who wasn't up-to-date...


----------



## kaefers

kuutale said:


> TheStilt says dont use fmax and edc tweak same time, it can be result bad performance. If use edc 165 fmax and disable c-state control it can be effective bad performance too, ryzen have own features need to enabled when use auto boost, if some feature missing it can lead bad performance. i dont know that things but read this forum and what TheStilt saying.


My post was less about trying out Fmax as such, but more about comparing different UEFI versions. Since Asus have been "improving stability" and "increasing performance" continuously with the UEFI updates, I wanted to properly check that for myself. As expected, 1001 and 1201 (1302?!) are still the best performers, imho at least.

I did read @The Stilt 's post, hence my post here and me trying out 0066 for C8I in the first place, but alas I am not very good at following instructions in general :] Updated my table above, with the proper use of the new function - not bad!, but it still cannot beat the EDC bug overall, especially versus 1001 / 1201 UEFI.

A Fmax custom UEFI based on 1001 - now that would be interesting !!!

Basically, I was hoping for anyone saying they can match or beat both MC & SC scores, and of course how. My system is somewhat limited by cooling, but I have yet to find a better alternative to the EDC bug that increases MC while not lowering SC.


----------



## kuutale

kaefers said:


> My post was less about trying out Fmax as such, but more about comparing different UEFI versions. Since Asus have been "improving stability" and "increasing performance" continuously with the UEFI updates, I wanted to properly check that for myself. As expected, 1001 and 1201 (1302?!) are still the best performers, imho at least.
> 
> I did read @The Stilt 's post, hence my post here and me trying out 0066 for C8I in the first place, but alas I am not very good at following instructions in general :] Updated my table above, with the proper use of the new function - not bad!, but it still cannot beat the EDC bug overall, especially versus 1001 / 1201 UEFI.
> 
> A Fmax custom UEFI based on 1001 - now that would be interesting !!!
> 
> Basically, I was hoping for anyone saying they can match or beat both MC & SC scores, and of course how. My system is somewhat limited by cooling, but I have yet to find a better alternative to the EDC bug that increases MC while not lowering SC.


Nice, im curious what powerplan using? windows or usmus1 ? What are your cpu temps? thx for hard job what u do.


----------



## kaefers

kuutale said:


> Nice, im curious what powerplan using? windows or usmus1 ? What are your cpu temps? thx for hard job what u do.


Since I am using EDC=1 as my daily driver, I have Global CStates / DF-CStates usually disabled, as no matter what power plan, the CPU will at times draw less than 1A, thus showing sub-par idle performance behaviour.
I tried out 1usmus plan early on, but since i am on Windows v2004, it does not seem to matter all that much anymore, e.g. Reddit r/AMD . So right now, I am using Ryzen Balanced, but also tried Windows Balanced and cannot see much of a difference. I am not too concerned with idle power draw, since I want the extra peformance than EDC=1 offers.
Idle temps are all over the place, anywhere from 35C to 45C. Temps for single run R20 at about 20C ambient are somewhere between 75C and 80C, depending how warm the CLC liquid is. Continuous runs of R20 or other rendering will see some performance degradation as the liquid get's warmer, the CLC pump and cheapo 240mm radiator just can't cut it. Overall still better than stock or basic PBO imho.
My alternative to 240 / 165 / EDC=1 would be somewhere between 240 / 165 / 165 and 275 / 175 / 175, above that I don't seem to get optimal boost behaviour.


----------



## Kokin

Sam64 said:


> There will be support for X470 and B450 for Zen 3 on Asus Boards. Afaik the info, that it won't be supported is wrongly posted on reddit by some Asus support guy, who wasn't up-to-date...


Yeah, people starting drama with misinformation should stay in Reddit.

Asus has confirmed a later roll out for X470/B450, sometime Jan 2021: ASUS clarifies its position on Zen 3; support for X470 and B450 chipsets still coming early next year


----------



## stimpy88

Kokin said:


> *Yeah, people starting drama with misinformation should stay in Reddit.*
> 
> Asus has confirmed a later roll out for X470/B450, sometime Jan 2021: ASUS clarifies its position on Zen 3; support for X470 and B450 chipsets still coming early next year


No, ASUS Support started the "drama", and customers quite rightly took to show their disgust at ASUS. And now, thanks to people holding ASUS accountable, ASUS have issued a clarification of their intent.

I call that a win for customers, and a loss for trolls... But nice try at keeping the hate going.


----------



## MarvinFS

So bios v.0039 didn't work for me either,
flashed it, reset to optimized defaults
MB Crosshair VIII hero nowifi
CPU 3950x (although CTR reports it's bronze sample, bough it in feb. 2020)
PSU 1200W platinum dont remember brand
CMT64GX4M4K3600C18 (4x16GB 1.35v Corsair brand, Micron chips) freaking crazy expensive memory still reports 2133mhz in SPD, wat?!

Bios as suggested
Pbo fmax enabled
pbo auto
scalar 2x (tried 4x also)
offset 100 (tried 100 75 and 25)
DF Cstates disabled
FCLCK 1800
Memory DOCP standart 3600mhz (I did try it with auto also which sets it to 2133mhz - windows boots but doesn't pass cpu stress test)


Spoiler



XMP profile XMP-3596
Specification DDR4-3596
Voltage level 1.350 Volts
Min Cycle time 0.556 ns (1798 MHz)
Max CL 18.0
Min tRP 10.56 ns
Min tRCD 10.56 ns
Min tRAS 21.62 ns
Min tRC 32.25 ns
Min tRRD 3.89 ns


Everything else default - haven't changed anything.

so with v39 - BSODs, only one time was able to boot to desktop, either reboots or says hardware error during AIDA64 stress test for CPU.
Cooling is AiO NZXT Kraken with 3x120 fans

CTRbeta3 also didn't help much, so I just ended up manually combining data from CTR and Ryzenmaster to get stable build
here are my current freqs - will try CTR new build when it's released also.
Any suggestions please welcome.

PS that's when I returned to bios 2206 as 0039 was not working for me absolutely.(btw forum doesn't allow me to upload 500k screenshot, so I guess nothing works for me ever)
here's imagur pic
Performance snapshot under stress test


http://imgur.com/a/zrrKqS5


----------



## Jesaul

Welcome to the 0d club.
I have switched from c6h to x570 taichi and to c8h. My g.skill 3200cl14 2x16gb refuses to boot in dual memory slots on both motherboards. I can only use in in single memory location.
Or I immediately get 0d error during boot.
Did anyone find the solution?


----------



## petercar59

MarvinFS said:


> So bios v.0039 didn't work for me either,
> flashed it, reset to optimized defaults
> MB Crosshair VIII hero nowifi
> CPU 3950x (although CTR reports it's bronze sample, bough it in feb. 2020)
> PSU 1200W platinum dont remember brand
> CMT64GX4M4K3600C18 (4x16GB 1.35v Corsair brand, Micron chips) freaking crazy expensive memory still reports 2133mhz in SPD, wat?!
> 
> Bios as suggested
> Pbo fmax enabled
> pbo auto
> scalar 2x (tried 4x also)
> offset 100 (tried 100 75 and 25)
> DF Cstates disabled
> FCLCK 1800
> Memory DOCP standart 3600mhz (I did try it with auto also which sets it to 2133mhz - windows boots but doesn't pass cpu stress test)
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> XMP profile XMP-3596
> Specification DDR4-3596
> Voltage level 1.350 Volts
> Min Cycle time 0.556 ns (1798 MHz)
> Max CL 18.0
> Min tRP 10.56 ns
> Min tRCD 10.56 ns
> Min tRAS 21.62 ns
> Min tRC 32.25 ns
> Min tRRD 3.89 ns
> 
> 
> Everything else default - haven't changed anything.
> 
> so with v39 - BSODs, only one time was able to boot to desktop, either reboots or says hardware error during AIDA64 stress test for CPU.
> Cooling is AiO NZXT Kraken with 3x120 fans
> 
> CTRbeta3 also didn't help much, so I just ended up manually combining data from CTR and Ryzenmaster to get stable build
> here are my current freqs - will try CTR new build when it's released also.
> Any suggestions please welcome.
> 
> PS that's when I returned to bios 2206 as 0039 was not working for me absolutely.(btw forum doesn't allow me to upload 500k screenshot, so I guess nothing works for me ever)
> here's imagur pic
> Performance snapshot under stress test
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/zrrKqS5


Like you I had many restarts while testing 0039. Ultimately it might depend on what you're willing to lose to gain stability and a tad more performance. TheStilt mentioned that AMD only guarantees performance to 3200 - with 2 sticks of RAM, and I think he said 2933 with 4 sticks. Anything more is a silicon bonus.

With 1201 I can run FCLK 1866 and MCLK 1866 - with 1usmus FAST timings, but I had to use a lot more V (1.45V) on the memory than he recommended, and more V on the SOC to juice the MC to sufficiently drive the extra 2 sticks of RAM. With 0039 while it seems to be much harder to get high FCLK/UCLK but I get about 100-150 more boost - with 6 of my cores now boosting to 4600 or higher (yes, it's a 3900X). I've got no PBO off-set and Scalar on AUTO. I have had to set DF-CStates to Disabled to stop the reboots.

If you are stable on default settings on 0039, you could try low MCLK (say 2133) with high FCLK (say 2933) and see if you are stable to check your memory stability and direct your efforts there if necessary.

I started retrying 0039 3 days ago with default settings. That's probably a good place to start with 4 sticks of memory. It might help you to know that LLC didn't help me (I think the V steps might be too large), but 0.013V of + off-set appear to have done the job. I now hit 1.513V on CPU Core V but I've had no restarts for 3 days and I'm up to FCLK=UCLK=1333. It's a long road...

Once I reach the limit of my 4 sticks, I'll probably try removing 2 of them and see what results.

Good luck!

EDIT: Oops. Just had a restart at FCLK=UCLK=1333 while it was idling - and that's what I don't get. I've tried DF-CStates Enabled and Disabled with restarts in both cases. It never happens while boosting, only while it appears to be idling.

C8H WIFI, Ryzen 3900X, Noctua D15S, 4 x 8GB Viper Steel DDR4 4400 PVS416G440C9K, Corsair AX1600i, STRIX 2080Ti OC Gaming, ROG Xonar Phoebus, 3 x 2TB NVMe, 1 x 480GB SATA SSD, 3 x SATA HDDs, Silverstone FT02, Acer x27.


----------



## slice313

"Two weeks after the official CTR announcement, ASUS began developing a simpler version of the CTR."

Someone needs a little bit of attention.  While the CTR tool is amazing ( I am using it right now together with the 1302 BIOS) accusing ASUS and @The Stilt of copying his idea is bollocks.


----------



## Von Clausewitz

petercar59 said:


> Like you I had many restarts while testing 0039. Ultimately it might depend on what you're willing to lose to gain stability and a tad more performance. TheStilt mentioned that AMD only guarantees performance to 3200 - with 2 sticks of RAM, and I think he said 2933 with 4 sticks. Anything more is a silicon bonus.
> 
> With 1201 I can run FCLK 1866 and MCLK 1866 - with 1usmus FAST timings, but I had to use a lot more V (1.45V) on the memory than he recommended, and more V on the SOC to juice the MC to sufficiently drive the extra 2 sticks of RAM. With 0039 while it seems to be much harder to get high FCLK/UCLK but I get about 100-150 more boost - with 6 of my cores now boosting to 4600 or higher (yes, it's a 3900X). I've got no PBO off-set and Scalar on AUTO. I have had to set DF-CStates to Disabled to stop the reboots.
> 
> If you are stable on default settings on 0039, you could try low MCLK (say 2133) with high FCLK (say 2933) and see if you are stable to check your memory stability and direct your efforts there if necessary.
> 
> I started retrying 0039 3 days ago with default settings. That's probably a good place to start with 4 sticks of memory. It might help you to know that LLC didn't help me (I think the V steps might be too large), but 0.013V of + off-set appear to have done the job. I now hit 1.513V on CPU Core V but I've had no restarts for 3 days and I'm up to FCLK=UCLK=1333. It's a long road...
> 
> Once I reach the limit of my 4 sticks, I'll probably try removing 2 of them and see what results.
> 
> Good luck!
> 
> C8H WIFI, Ryzen 3900X, Noctua D15S, 4 x 8GB Viper Steel DDR4 4400 PVS416G440C9K, Corsair AX1600i, STRIX 2080Ti OC Gaming, ROG Xonar Phoebus, 3 x 2TB NVMe, 1 x 480GB SATA SSD, 3 x SATA HDDs, Silverstone FT02, Acer x27.


I'm thinking about trying 0039 again too. Last time was a bsod fest and I suspect this was due to insufficient cpu voltage. Reading your experience with a positive off-set gives me hope. What voltage does HWiNFO64 show for 'CPU Core Voltage (SV12 TFN)' during all-core load with for instance Cinebench 20? And how does 1.513V affect your single-core performance in regards to temperature and max boost?


----------



## Syldon

jfrob75 said:


> The top NVME position is tied directly to the CPU, where as the bottom NVME slot goes thru the chipset. If one or both are populated it will not affect the top GPU slot. It will still be X16 at gen 4 speed.


I believe you are wrong on this sorry my friend. I trawled the manual. There are comments in the CH7 manual that are not in the CH8 manual. 










The CH8 is essential a CH7 with the VRMs moved to away from the CPU seat. The x570 chipset and the X470 both behave in this way. 

It admits this by omission in the CH8 manual when it states that the CH8 will only support 1 X M2 device.









Or have I missed something ?


----------



## Syldon

Baio73 said:


> And people is still blaming AMD... Why they can't understand that AMD has all the interest in mobo's vendors supplying X370 and X470 chipsets??
> 
> Baio


This is not the case anymore. Asus have said that they will provide Ryzen 5000 support as soon as AMD provide the bios revision.

I don't think that AMD loose out on a great deal by motherboard manufacturers creating extra boards. My belief is that the pressure comes from board manufacturers pressuring AMD to stop support so they can sell more boards. The CH6, CH7 and the CH8 are essentially the same boards in respect to VRMs and power delivery. There is no real reason not to provide PCIe 4.0 support on the CH6 and CH7. The CH7 had PCIe 4.0 support on the first revision. They took it off because of heat concerns that were never there. Someone on utube did a video on it with temp results etc (maybe hardware unboxed).


----------



## kuutale

petercar59 said:


> Like you I had many restarts while testing 0039. Ultimately it might depend on what you're willing to lose to gain stability and a tad more performance. TheStilt mentioned that AMD only guarantees performance to 3200 - with 2 sticks of RAM, and I think he said 2933 with 4 sticks. Anything more is a silicon bonus.
> 
> With 1201 I can run FCLK 1866 and MCLK 1866 - with 1usmus FAST timings, but I had to use a lot more V (1.45V) on the memory than he recommended, and more V on the SOC to juice the MC to sufficiently drive the extra 2 sticks of RAM. With 0039 while it seems to be much harder to get high FCLK/UCLK but I get about 100-150 more boost - with 6 of my cores now boosting to 4600 or higher (yes, it's a 3900X). I've got no PBO off-set and Scalar on AUTO. I have had to set DF-CStates to Disabled to stop the reboots.
> 
> If you are stable on default settings on 0039, you could try low MCLK (say 2133) with high FCLK (say 2933) and see if you are stable to check your memory stability and direct your efforts there if necessary.
> 
> I started retrying 0039 3 days ago with default settings. That's probably a good place to start with 4 sticks of memory. It might help you to know that LLC didn't help me (I think the V steps might be too large), but 0.013V of + off-set appear to have done the job. I now hit 1.513V on CPU Core V but I've had no restarts for 3 days and I'm up to FCLK=UCLK=1333. It's a long road...
> 
> Once I reach the limit of my 4 sticks, I'll probably try removing 2 of them and see what results.
> 
> Good luck!
> 
> EDIT: Oops. Just had a restart at FCLK=UCLK=1333 while it was idling - and that's what I don't get. I've tried DF-CStates Enabled and Disabled with restarts in both cases. It never happens while boosting, only while it appears to be idling.
> 
> C8H WIFI, Ryzen 3900X, Noctua D15S, 4 x 8GB Viper Steel DDR4 4400 PVS416G440C9K, Corsair AX1600i, STRIX 2080Ti OC Gaming, ROG Xonar Phoebus, 3 x 2TB NVMe, 1 x 480GB SATA SSD, 3 x SATA HDDs, Silverstone FT02, Acer x27.


We have sometgin power delivery problem agesa/bios, is your bsod "41" or random bsod? i think my problem is that's case is too low dram voltage. 2206 i can run 1.40 vddg 0.970, 0039 i nedd 1.41 and vddg voltage 1.00. And set LLC3 asus board cpu voltage set auto, allways df-cstate disabled before asus/amd can fix the problem what causing "41" kernel power lost etc what's call that

edit:
my settings
FLCK 1867
RAM 3733
CL16 dram calculator
dramvoltage 1.41
vsoc 1.1
vddg 1.000
vddp 0.950
vcore auto
LLC 3
other voltage settings auto

pbofmax enable
pbo auto
scalar 1x
cpu ovveride 25mhz

df-cstate disable
CPPC enabled
cppc preferred cores enabled
no bsod 7 days


cpu-z single core hits 4,600
multi 4,192
cinebench two cores 4,700
multi 4,092


----------



## Von Clausewitz

Syldon said:


> I believe you are wrong on this sorry my friend. I trawled the manual. There are comments in the CH7 manual that are not in the CH8 manual.
> 
> View attachment 2462139
> 
> 
> The CH8 is essential a CH7 with the VRMs moved to away from the CPU seat. The x570 chipset and the X470 both behave in this way.
> 
> It admits this by omission in the CH8 manual when it states that the CH8 will only support 1 X M2 device.
> View attachment 2462140
> 
> 
> Or have I missed something ?


jfrob75 is absolutely correct. See C8H manual page 8:










A Zen 2 cpu has 24 PCIe lanes:

16 lanes for PCIe slots (16 lanes for 1 slot, or 16 lanes split into 2 for 2 slots (8 lanes each))
4 lanes for the connection with the X570 chip
4 lanes for an SSD
In case of the C8H, the M.2_1 slot has a direct connection with the cpu. The M.2_2 slot (the one at the bottom) is directly connected with the X570 chip.


----------



## Syldon

Von Clausewitz said:


> jfrob75 is absolutely correct. See C8H manual page 8:
> 
> 
> View attachment 2462141
> 
> 
> A Zen 2 cpu has 24 PCIe lanes:
> 
> 16 lanes for PCIe slots (16 lanes for 1 slot, or 16 lanes split into 2 for 2 slots (8 lanes each))
> 4 lanes for the connection with the X570 chip
> 4 lanes for an SSD
> In case of the C8H, the M.2_1 slot has a direct connection with the cpu. The M.2_2 slot (the one at the bottom) is directly connected with the X570 chip.


Yes it has a direct connection, because it takes up some of the bus that is usually available to the GPU. M.2_1(socket3) shares its bus with the PCIe. Adding a device to that socket is adding a new PCIe device. As such the PCIeX16_1 is forced into X8 mode. 

If you are only using one M2 drive then it should go into the bottom socket M.2_2(socket3).


----------



## petercar59

kuutale said:


> We have sometgin power delivery problem agesa/bios, is your bsod "41" or random bsod? i think my problem is that's case is too low dram voltage. 2206 i can run 1.40 vddg 0.970, 0039 i nedd 1.41 and vddg voltage 1.00. And set LLC3 asus board cpu voltage set auto, allways df-cstate disabled before asus/amd can fix the problem what causing "41" kernel power lost etc what's call that


Yes, mine are always Event ID 41 and while the CPU appears to be idling. DF-CState ENABLED/DISABLED makes no difference. I get Event ID 41 reboots with both.

I tried the LLC settings from AUTO to 3; reboots just got more frequent the higher I went., and I'm using DDR4400 at MCLK 2666 with loose timings! As you say, maybe the memory V is the issue and perhaps going down to 2 sticks of memory will also improve matters in my case.

If the C8H is still the same as the C6H, then there's quite a drop in R from AUTO to LLC 1 and then smaller increments to LLC 5:










(From: ROG Crosshair VI overclocking thread )

That first step from AUTO to Level 1 is a substantial 40% drop in R. Level 3 is down 75%. This (and TheStilt's advice) led me to eventually try a + offset on CPU Core Voltage (SV12 TFN). Now that I've had another restart after 3 days, I'll try increasing this by another step and see if that fixes it. I'm still not increasing FCLK/UCLK past 1333; that's an issue for another day because, for me, 0039 is *far* less stable memory-wise than earlier BIOS'. 

*_*
C8H WIFI, Ryzen 3900X, Noctua D15S, 4 x 8GB Viper Steel DDR4 4400 PVS416G440C9K (non-QVL for C8H WIFI), Corsair AX1600i, STRIX 2080Ti OC Gaming, ROG Xonar Phoebus, 3 x 2TB NVMe, 1 x 480GB SATA SSD, 3 x SATA HDDs, Silverstone FT02, Acer x27.


----------



## petercar59

Von Clausewitz said:


> I'm thinking about trying 0039 again too. Last time was a bsod fest and I suspect this was due to insufficient cpu voltage. Reading your experience with a positive off-set gives me hope. What voltage does HWiNFO64 show for 'CPU Core Voltage (SV12 TFN)' during all-core load with for instance Cinebench 20? And how does 1.513V affect your single-core performance in regards to temperature and max boost?


It showed around 1.275 during nearly all of the test. It went up to about 1.4 near the end, and immediately *after* went to 1.513 - my maximum, with no subsequent restart.

Avg CPU temp was 41C after idling for a while and before CB20, and 44C after CB20. Ambient is about 18C. Single core score 507, and multi 7300.

No real change to max boost that I have noticed. The big difference to boost came from enabling PBO FMax

​C8H WIFI, Ryzen 3900X, Noctua D15S, 4 x 8GB Viper Steel DDR4 4400 PVS416G440C9K (non-QVL for C8H WIFI), Corsair AX1600i, STRIX 2080Ti OC Gaming, ROG Xonar Phoebus, 3 x 2TB NVMe, 1 x 480GB SATA SSD, 3 x SATA HDDs, Silverstone FT02, Acer x27.


----------



## Von Clausewitz

No, M.2_1 has dedicated 4 lanes, it does _not_ share anything with the gpu lanes.


Syldon said:


> Yes it has a direct connection, because it takes up some of the bus that is usually available to the GPU. M.2_1(socket3) shares its bus with the PCIe. Adding a device to that socket is adding a new PCIe device. As such the PCIeX16_1 is forced into X8 mode.
> 
> If you are only using one M2 drive then it should go into the bottom socket M.2_2(socket3).


M.2_1 does _not_ take up something from the bandwidth available to the gpu. If you install an SSD in M.2_1, all 16 lanes are still available to the gpu. The picture from the manual I showed shows it as well (1st column depicts a rather standard situation). The 16 lanes for the gpu form a dedicated point-to-point connection between cpu and gpu. Same goes for M.2_1, all 4 lanes form a dedicated point-to-point connection between cpu and SSD. 

Perhaps this block diagram helps:









As you can see, the cpu has 24 PCIe lanes. 16 are dedicated to graphics, 4 dedicated to the X570 chip and another 4 dedicated to storage (the SSD).

You can test it yourself (I did): my gpu is configured for x16 while having an SSD in M.2_1 (that uses all 4 lanes).


----------



## Von Clausewitz

petercar59 said:


> It showed around 1.275 during nearly all of the test. It went up to about 1.4 near the end, and immediately *after* went to 1.513 - my maximum, with no subsequent restart.
> 
> Avg CPU temp was 41C after idling for a while and before CB20, and 44C after CB20. Ambient is about 18C. Single core score 507, and multi 7300.
> 
> No real change to max boost that I have noticed. The big difference to boost came from enabling PBO FMax
> 
> ​
> C8H WIFI, Ryzen 3900X, Noctua D15S, 4 x 8GB Viper Steel DDR4 4400 PVS416G440C9K (non-QVL for C8H WIFI), Corsair AX1600i, STRIX 2080Ti OC Gaming, ROG Xonar Phoebus, 3 x 2TB NVMe, 1 x 480GB SATA SSD, 3 x SATA HDDs, Silverstone FT02, Acer x27.


Thanks. That 1.275V would seem okay. Stock mine does 1.125-1.144V, with PBO it is 1.306V (this with 1302 BIOS). Once I test 0039 again, I'll know what to aim for - a tad below 1.306, which sounds logical since that voltage creates quite some heat (that's why I don't run PBO, it gives me 5% performance increase in multi-core loads, but power consumption rises from 142W to 223W).


----------



## kuutale

petercar59 said:


> Yes, mine are always Event ID 41 and while the CPU appears to be idling. DF-CState ENABLED/DISABLED makes no difference. I get Event ID 41 reboots with both.
> 
> I tried the LLC settings from AUTO to 3; reboots just got more frequent the higher I went., and I'm using DDR4400 at MCLK 2666 with loose timings! As you say, maybe the memory V is the issue and perhaps going down to 2 sticks of memory will also improve matters in my case.
> 
> If the C8H is still the same as the C6H, then there's quite a drop in R from AUTO to LLC 1 and then smaller increments to LLC 5:
> 
> View attachment 2462144
> 
> 
> (From: ROG Crosshair VI overclocking thread )
> 
> That first step from AUTO to Level 1 is a substantial 40% drop in R. Level 3 is down 75%. This (and TheStilt's advice) led me to eventually try a + offset on CPU Core Voltage (SV12 TFN). Now that I've had another restart after 3 days, I'll try increasing this by another step and see if that fixes it. I'm still not increasing FCLK/UCLK past 1333; that's an issue for another day because, for me, 0039 is *far* less stable memory-wise than earlier BIOS'.
> 
> *_*
> C8H WIFI, Ryzen 3900X, Noctua D15S, 4 x 8GB Viper Steel DDR4 4400 PVS416G440C9K (non-QVL for C8H WIFI), Corsair AX1600i, STRIX 2080Ti OC Gaming, ROG Xonar Phoebus, 3 x 2TB NVMe, 1 x 480GB SATA SSD, 3 x SATA HDDs, Silverstone FT02, Acer x27.


i try use offset i think my cpu stop bsod like +0,1875, but then i try but llc3 and vcore auto and work. i think llc3 is not so bad thing but vcore, but i go try now set llc2 when i know my memory/flck is rock stable. im not thermal limited so i like llc my cpu behaves better.


slice313 said:


> "Two weeks after the official CTR announcement, ASUS began developing a simpler version of the CTR."
> 
> Someone needs a little bit of attention.  While the CTR tool is amazing ( I am using it right now together with the 1302 BIOS) accusing ASUS and @The Stilt of copying his idea is bollocks.


i think pbofmax get more single core performance, 1usmus tool ctr adds multicore performance. So i think they work same way but different performance target. TheStilt and asus bios tool is fantastic. 1usmus program is fantastic too.


----------



## MarvinFS

petercar59 said:


> TheStilt mentioned that AMD only guarantees performance to 3200 - with 2 sticks of RAM, and I think he said 2933 with 4 sticks. Anything more is a silicon bonus.


Yeah I have 4 stick maybe that's the issue although that FCLK/UCLK to 1333 seems a waste of memory performance as currently I ran at 1800 and i get 59K with 70ish ns of latency in memory bandwidth... whether with default's I only get 39K... I think will just leave it as it.. no point of getting higher... still have my 10% bonus with CPU overclocking. I'd gladly upgrade for 2x 32GB sticks but it's not avail... as I need 64 gigs for my VMs and such... in general just using more that 32gigs of RAM at home...


----------



## Syldon

Von Clausewitz said:


> No, M.2_1 has dedicated 4 lanes, it does _not_ share anything with the gpu lanes.
> 
> 
> M.2_1 does _not_ take up something from the bandwidth available to the gpu. If you install an SSD in M.2_1, all 16 lanes are still available to the gpu. The picture from the manual I showed shows it as well (1st column depicts a rather standard situation). The 16 lanes for the gpu form a dedicated point-to-point connection between cpu and gpu. Same goes for M.2_1, all 4 lanes form a dedicated point-to-point connection between cpu and SSD.
> 
> Perhaps this block diagram helps:
> View attachment 2462149
> 
> 
> As you can see, the cpu has 24 PCIe lanes. 16 are dedicated to graphics, 4 dedicated to the X570 chip and another 4 dedicated to storage (the SSD).
> 
> You can test it yourself (I did): my gpu is configured for x16 while having an SSD in M.2_1 (that uses all 4 lanes).


Yeah I will check it out once I buy the kit. Waiting for Navi reviews before I make my choices. What you are stating makes absolutely no sense as the maths do not add up. I will post back either way. I have to bow to your experience as you have the board at hand.


----------



## PJVol

IwannaKnow said:


> I understand the point of view from @The Stilt , but it doesn´t really explain why this users have a rock stable system even with RAM OC IF1900 with the almost 6 month old Bios and further more that there is no possibility to fix it with voltages or any other BIOS change


Hi, Asrock b550 user here and I fully agree with that. i've got similar issues with v2 1.0.8.0 based bios. Previously built on the x370 (last agesa 1.0.0.6), system was rock stable with this daily config:

IF 1900 / mem 3800 cl16.
CPU voltage was "auto" -68mv (LLC auto or 3)
SOC 1.1/ LLC1 - (nesessary to avoid random idle whea-19 reboots)
Then all parts (cpu, ram, gpu) have been migrated to the new b550 board with 1.0.8.0 based BIOS and the nightmare has begun (after tuning bios with the settings closly resembling that of the x370 board)
As you've mentioned, all stress tests were passed on the b550, all but GAMES. Just in a 2-10 min of playing you've got pc rebooted with critical error in log: "Kernel power 41".
After some tinkering, i found out that new agesa(smu) absolutely hates negative offset to vddr_cpu. So setting it to no lower than -30/-35 mv may help to stabilize the system, but the temps, and therefore boost are not as good as before. Setting pbo scalar at anything other than auto cause guaranteed reboot (in game).
Some beleive, all that may point to the IF instability due to SMU changes in newer firmware. I understand, probably the changes made were nesessarily indeed to support future CPU's, and IMO (as is usually the case) with some performance/compatibility trade-offs. It's just sad, that some ryzen 3000 users are experiencing performance regression hereupon. One only may hope for the upcoming fixes in 1.1.0.0.
Sorry for a bit chaotic post.


----------



## jfrob75

Syldon said:


> I believe you are wrong on this sorry my friend. I trawled the manual. There are comments in the CH7 manual that are not in the CH8 manual.
> 
> View attachment 2462139
> 
> 
> The CH8 is essential a CH7 with the VRMs moved to away from the CPU seat. The x570 chipset and the X470 both behave in this way.
> 
> It admits this by omission in the CH8 manual when it states that the CH8 will only support 1 X M2 device.
> View attachment 2462140
> 
> 
> Or have I missed something ?


I'm not sure what your issue is. I have 2 NVME's installed on my CH8 ( so both m.2 slots filled) in raid 0 and my top PCIe(GPU) is running at X16


----------



## Kokin

stimpy88 said:


> No, ASUS Support started the "drama", and customers quite rightly took to show their disgust at ASUS. And now, thanks to people holding ASUS accountable, ASUS have issued a clarification of their intent.
> 
> I call that a win for customers, and a loss for trolls... But nice try at keeping the hate going.


I don't get why you're so defensive? Asus has been stating they will support the 5000 series on their 400 series boards even before that Reddit thread came up, they are just reiterating what they already said before because people are so quick to jump the gun.

In my eyes, it's no different than people earlier this year saying AMD was delaying Zen3 until next year, but AMD had to continually confirm they were not delaying Zen3. 



stimpy88 said:


> ASUS just gave the middle finger to owners of the ROG x470 CH7. No support for the 5000 series CPUs!
> 
> AMD have provided ASUS with the necessary BIOS code to implement 5000 series support, and ASUS said no thanks, we don't like our customers, and we can't be bothered...


If anything, doesn't your previous post seem like you're the one spewing hate? Misinformation is still misinformation and people spreading it should be accountable for their actions. But sure call me a hater all you like, it doesn't change the truth.


----------



## crash_ice

jfrob75 said:


> I'm not sure what your issue is. I have 2 NVME's installed on my CH8 ( so both m.2 slots filled) in raid 0 and my top PCIe(GPU) is running at X16


I have a 3850X and C8H 2 NVME and i am unable to Run in 16X my 5700XT.
i RMA 2 MB ia was thinking the problem was there and no.
My 5700XT only Work at PCIE 4 8X .

i know i am not lost Perf but this pissed me off lol.


----------



## tommy7600

I have 3900X, all SATA and two NVME installed. My RTX 2080 works with x16 3.0 on C8HW. Interesting.


----------



## rares495

tommy7600 said:


> I have 3900X, all SATA and two NVME installed. My RTX 2080 works with x16 3.0 on C8HW. Interesting.


X16 3.0 is the same thing as X8 4.0, isn't it? You need a 4.0 GPU to test this.


----------



## PJVol

kuutale said:


> We have sometgin power delivery problem agesa/bios


May be this will come in handy, following other user's tips here and there, i decided to crank some controls up, and it looks like the system is quite more stable at the moment. Some of these settings may have helped:

DF C-States: disabled
VDDG : 1.070 v (1.05 was not enough)
VDDR : 1.38 v (1.36 before)
The ones left unchanged:

VSOC : 1.1v / LLC1 (strongest)
VCore : offset -70mv / LLC5 (weakest)
--------------
At last, I can safely turn on scalar (set it to 3-4x), AutoOC. Performance and temps are back to normal. I suspect VDDG contributed the most to fixing the unstable FCLK, but that remains to be clear. Surely something has changed in the power management code. Just curious, what SMU build we'll see in the 1.1.0.0.


----------



## petercar59

Well I tried CTR to see how that would score my CPU. My CPU scored Bronze - which I guess explains my PBO Fmax issues. I have 2 okay CCXs and 2 not so okay:










Since my Fabric is okay to 1866 (on 1201 BIOS), I guess my PBO Fmax is limited by my lower grade CCXs/Cores. Maybe it's fixable with a PBO Fmax that is variable across CCXs rather than all this manual faffing around with voltages, offsets and LLC. It just needs to be able to be set to ENABLED or AUTO on a per CCX basis. We could use CTR to grade the CCXs. This would give us even more to play with!
​
C8H WIFI, Ryzen 3900X, Noctua D15S, 4 x 8GB Viper Steel DDR4 4400 PVS416G440C9K (non-QVL for C8H WIFI), Corsair AX1600i, STRIX 2080Ti OC Gaming, ROG Xonar Phoebus, 3 x 2TB NVMe, 1 x 480GB SATA SSD, 3 x SATA HDDs, Silverstone FT02, Acer x27.


----------



## The Stilt

petercar59 said:


> View attachment 2462144


Checked on Dark Hero, still applies.


----------



## Kokin

crash_ice said:


> I have a 3850X and C8H 2 NVME and i am unable to Run in 16X my 5700XT.
> i RMA 2 MB ia was thinking the problem was there and no.
> My 5700XT only Work at PCIE 4 8X .
> 
> i know i am not lost Perf but this pissed me off lol.


Is there some BIOS setting that's preventing you from running the full x16 speed? You should get 16x if the 5700XT is the only PCIe device plugged in (not including the 2 nvmes).


----------



## crash_ice

Kokin said:


> Is there some BIOS setting that's preventing you from running the full x16 speed? You should get 16x if the 5700XT is the only PCIe device plugged in (not including the 2 nvmes).
> 
> View attachment 2462391


Yep but i am unable to run at 16X .
I set everything in the bios but it's not working.

Maybe the problem it's the 5700XT Red Devil from Powercolor but 
the client service arevery crap. Unable to reach someone.
i will never buy again powercolor product for sure .


----------



## flyinion

Has anyone found a flow meter that plugs into the water flow 3 pin port on this board? I nearly bought this Aquacomputer Flow Sensor 'High Flow' G1/4 for Aquaero, Aquastream XT Ultra and Poweradjust (53068) before realizing it probably wouldn't work since it mentions needing one of the Aquacomputer controllers and nothing about a motherboard connection. I found some others that mention plugging into a fan header and providing an RPM that you can convert to flow rate, but that doesn't seem like the right thing to use either.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

I'm sorry if this has been answered, but can someone please help be decipher these settings from the 1usmus power plan? 

You have to set the following in your BIOS, under "CPU Features" or "AMD_CBS":

Global C-state Control = Enabled
Power Supply Idle Control = Low Current Idle
CPPC = Enabled
CPPC Preferred Cores = Enabled
AMD Cool'n'Quiet = Enabled
PPC Adjustment = PState 0

Thank you in advance


----------



## benbenkr

New AMD chipset drivers are out btw.


----------



## SubiXT

Does anyone have any info on the new Crosshair VIII wifi bios 2311? it is out.


----------



## tommy7600

SubiXT said:


> Does anyone have any info on the new Crosshair VIII wifi bios 2311? it is out.


Just installed. For sure there is AGESA combo 1.1.0.0 patch B. Still have the same issues I had from bios above 1302. Fortunatelly setting DRAM voltage to 1.36V still helps.


----------



## Chastity

SubiXT said:


> Does anyone have any info on the new Crosshair VIII wifi bios 2311? it is out.


I don't see it on their website for the C8HW BIOS page. If someone could provide a link I'd appreciate it.


----------



## tommy7600

Chastity said:


> I don't see it on their website for the C8HW BIOS page.


I have downloaded it from this URL: https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...FI/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-2311.ZIP


----------



## Chastity

tommy7600 said:


> I have downloaded it from this URL: https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...FI/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-2311.ZIP


Thx, but where did you find that link?


----------



## djase45

Bios 2311 for c8h


https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_HERO/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-2311.ZIP


----------



## slice313

Chastity said:


> Thx, but where did you find that link?











[Übersicht] - Ultimative AM4 UEFI/BIOS/AGESA Übersicht


Inhaltsverzeichnis: UEFI Collection | Hersteller Support Links | UEFI Mods | Weiterführende Links Keine weiteren Updates mehr geplant! AM5 UEFI/BIOS/AGESA Übersicht ASRock ASUS Biostar Gigabyte MSI EVGA NZXT B350 B450 B550 X370 X470 X570 B350 B450 B550 X370 X470 X570 B350 B450...




www.hardwareluxx.de





You will always find those here


----------



## Sam64

> 1. Updated AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.1.0.0 PatchB
> 2. Improve system performance and stability
> 3. Improved DRAM compatibility
> 4. Fixed keyboard device issue


Already flashed on my CH8W. PBO Fmax Enhancer from Stilts 0039 test-version is available as well


----------



## Chastity

slice313 said:


> [Übersicht] - Ultimative AM4 UEFI/BIOS/AGESA Übersicht
> 
> 
> Inhaltsverzeichnis: UEFI Collection | Hersteller Support Links | UEFI Mods | Weiterführende Links Keine weiteren Updates mehr geplant! AM5 UEFI/BIOS/AGESA Übersicht ASRock ASUS Biostar Gigabyte MSI EVGA NZXT B350 B450 B550 X370 X470 X570 B350 B450 B550 X370 X470 X570 B350 B450...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hardwareluxx.de
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will always find those here


My! What a lovely index! TY! This will be useful.


----------



## Sam64

Yes, that's a lovely index indeed. Many Thanks to @Reous


----------



## kuutale

djase45 said:


> Bios 2311 for c8h
> 
> 
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_HERO/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-2311.ZIP


 good job asus, hopeful "41" error has fixed too, if someone test can tell i go later test this bios


----------



## jfrob75

Updated my BIOS from 039 to 2311. So far still able to run 4DIMMS at 3733 MHz with tight timings as before. Still early but no unusual behavior.


----------



## Sam64

jfrob75 said:


> Updated my BIOS from 039 to 2311


Same here. Too early to tell, but no issues so far.


----------



## kuutale

Sam64 said:


> Same here. Too early to tell, but no issues so far.


i enter same settings but i leave df-cstate auto, let's see what happened


----------



## slice313

BIOS 2311 tested. Random restarts from within the BIOS configuration screen and also, windows 10. Nothing changed for me.

Went back to to 1302 BIOS immediately.


----------



## kuutale

slice313 said:


> BIOS 2311 tested. Random restarts from within the BIOS configuration screen and also, windows 10. Nothing changed for me.
> 
> Went back to to 1302 BIOS immediately.


u have default settings and it starts bsod's? maybe u board or cpu is defective?
this bios work just like 2206, i use bios 6hours now and no "41" bsod occurs. Performance is good i do testing when i know system is stable. i can set df-cstate auto now like 2206, but 0039 i cant use it.

pbo fmax enabled
pbo auto
scalar 1x
override 75mhz
LLC3
vsoc 1.1
vddg 1.000
vddp 0.950

Cpu-Z
single core points 565
multi core points 11232,2

Cinebench
single core 545
multi 9600


----------



## IwannaKnow

@kuutale
I suffer the same issue like @slice313.
Everything works perfectly fine with 1302. Everything newer results in random reboots.
Tried almost everyhting with voltages etc. to get it working. No chance. Last try was the beta bios for over 1 week, I treid everyday to fix it, but still result in random reboots.
Back to 1302, everything works fine and is stable.

I will give the new release bios a try later this day and will report here.

And btw with the stable 1302 I tried the 1usmus CTR tool and it rated the CPU as silver, so it should be not the most worst batch, which could cause the issues.


----------



## kuutale

IwannaKnow said:


> @kuutale
> I suffer the same issue like @slice313.
> Everything works perfectly fine with 1302. Everything newer results in random reboots.
> Tried almost everyhting with voltages etc. to get it working. No chance. Last try was the beta bios for over 1 week, I treid everyday to fix it, but still result in random reboots.
> Back to 1302, everything works fine and is stable.
> 
> I will give the new release bios a try later this day and will report here.
> 
> And btw with the stable 1302 I tried the 1usmus CTR tool and it rated the CPU as silver, so it should be not the most worst batch, which could cause the issues.


my exprience bsod 41 causing wrong fclk/ram voltage or both. when auto oc limit is reach i can do that anything, 0039 my override is 25, 2213 i can put it 75mhz and gain some few mhz but limit is reached. my i loose pbo settings i dont know. i think i sell my 3950x ang go 5950x or not. i dont have performance problem, this cpu's i so powerful. only gaming performance needed . 
maybe @TheStilt can tell us something chances bios 2213 or is that same 0039?


----------



## Sam64

> my exprience bsod 41 causing wrong fclk/ram voltage or both


I had reboots with id 41 as well on v2206 or v0039. Increasing DRAM voltages seems to help, no reboots so far with v2311.


----------



## slice313

Sam64 said:


> I had reboots with id 41 as well on v2206 or v0039. Increasing DRAM voltages seems to help, no reboots so far with v2311.


Using a very high DRAM voltage (1.45 v) make random reboots more rare, but still can happen from time to time. I prefer waiting until the issue is fixed, I need a stable system.


----------



## Jesaul

slice313 said:


> Using high DRAM voltage (1.45 v) make random reboots more rare, but still can happen from time to time. I prefer waiting until the issue is fixed, I need an stable system.


In my case, 1.48v was the stable voltage for me.


----------



## slice313

kuutale said:


> u have default settings and it starts bsod's? maybe u board or cpu is defective?
> this bios work just like 2206, i use bios 6hours now and no "41" bsod occurs. Performance is good i do testing when i know system is stable. i can set df-cstate auto now like 2206, but 0039 i cant use it.
> 
> pbo fmax enabled
> pbo auto
> scalar 1x
> override 75mhz
> LLC3
> vsoc 1.1
> vddg 1.000
> vddp 0.950
> 
> Cpu-Z
> single core points 565
> multi core points 11232,2
> 
> Cinebench
> single core 545
> multi 9600


Deafult settings, nothing fancy. Flash the bios, clear cmos, load default settings and configuring "safe" mem timings with proved stability over the last year. Something is wrong with the newer Bioses from 1302 that affect to some of us.


----------



## slice313

Jesaul said:


> In my case, 1.48v was the stable voltage for me.


Is it safe to run that high voltage? I have "normal" quality Samsung BDie DIMMS.


----------



## kuutale

slice313 said:


> Is it safe to run that high voltage? I have "normal" quality Samsung BDie DIMMS.


i have A0 bins samsung b-die memory kit, i buy kit 2017 when 1gen ryzen come. i think my max voltage is 1.45 and cooling keep it under 50'c and they work fine
F4-3200c14-8gfx, and i run 3733mhz right now dram voltage is 1.41


----------



## Jesaul

slice313 said:


> Is it safe to run that high voltage? I have "normal" quality Samsung BDie DIMMS.


Yes, it is. My B-die samsung 3200CL14 has the max of 1.5v. I only have thermal monitoring attached to the memory to cool it if it is "overused". So the temp is below 39


----------



## tommy7600

slice313 said:


> BIOS 2311 tested. Random restarts from within the BIOS configuration screen and also, windows 10. Nothing changed for me.
> 
> Went back to to 1302 BIOS immediately.


I would really wanted to know why some users (me also) have those issues with post 1302 bioses. Hopefully I can fix my crashes by increasing DRAM voltage. Still 1302 is rock stable without any changes.


----------



## slice313

tommy7600 said:


> I would really wanted to know why some users (me also) have those issues with post 1302 bioses. Hopefully I can fix my crashes by increasing DRAM voltage. Still 1302 is rock stable without any changes.


You, me and everyone really. I truly think that ASUS blames the "event 41" to faulty hardware and will ignore it. We are doomed. I hope to be wrong.


----------



## Sam64

Best guess: All new AGESA Versions are already prepared to work with Ryzen 5000 series and so are the new BIOS versions. In order to make the new versions stable on current and future CPUs, it's possible, that there are still some migration issues.


----------



## kuutale

slice313 said:


> You, me and everyone really. I truly think that ASUS blames the "event 41" to faulty hardware and will ignore it. We are doomed. I hope to be wrong.


12h no bsod, rock solid stable and 2213 not complaining. Amd or asus is do some tweak boost behavior, feels better than other bios, and perfomance scores go up too.


----------



## bookingyo

2311 causes random reboots even with a basic XMP overclock (3600mhz) on the memory.

2206 is rock solid. I flashed back to 2206 and it reboot while flashing.....luckily it was able to recover without a problem.


----------



## Von Clausewitz

Have updated from 1302 to 2311. Initial experience: same behavior as 1302. Have overclocked my 64GB of DDR4-3200CL16 to 3600CL16, same settings as previously. 
If everything works fine for a day or two and I don't encounter instabilities, I'll start with the new PBO Fmax option.


----------



## IwannaKnow

My feedback so far for the new bios.
Flashed the BIOS over USB Recovery not UEFI.
Booting up first time. Screen text appears "BIOS UPDATE etc...." PC restarts so far normal.
During the restarts before I even get to the first BIOS Screen which u usually see to get into the bios for the first configuration after a Bios update. The PC just turned off. ^^ ***
Reflashing now....next try, if it still doesn´t work. I will go back to 1302 immediately.


I´m just speechless.

EDIT1: As mentioned I directly reflashed the new BIOS again. No issues so far.
What I noticed is, that this time there was no DOS text after the flashing that a new BIOS was flashed and it didn´t restart by itself.
I tried a few games now, also with FMAX enabled. Seems okay, but will report here after a while, if I encounter the random reboots, or not.

I found a new setting btw.
There a few more settings, which were not available before.

Power Supply Idle Control I still have it on auto / any recommendation according to this setting? @The Stilt Thank you in advance


----------



## T[]RK

I move here from C6H topic and read few pages... Is C8H/HW decent option for Zen 3 (5800X probably)? Random reboots ain’t sound good... How old X570 board now (year, two)?

November 5th really close and i don’t want to stuck with CPU i can’t use and motherboard which reboots with “last” BIOS and don’t work with new CPU and old BIOS. I may buy lower tier CPU till BIOS will be fixed, but R3 1200 AF (one of cheapest) not in “CPU support list”. I even got small chat with ASUS support about it, but they told me: “We assume that the CPUs you mentioned are also compatible, but until this is confirmed in the laboratory by our RD engineers.”. Yeah...

Maybe it’s better to wait a bit for actual testing Zen 3 on the board? I really want to be sure that it capable to work with DDR4-4000 as AMD said. And i got two nice 2x 8Gb kits 4133MHz CL18 (B-Die). So i may test both 2 DIMMs and 4 DIMMs.

Also, i googled yesterday info about ASUS factory package... and look’s like boxes ain’t sealed. I can’t know for sure that board new or returned one. But it’s apply to GIGABYTE and MSI too... but damn, my EVGA X299 Dark was sealed twice... box and motherboard bag.


----------



## Othoric

I had stayed on BIOS 1302 since I was always having issues with the newer ones. However, this new BIOS is the best that I have used by far. No random reboots or error codes. I have DOCP enabled, all other settings on Auto except for SoC at 1.05v, PBO Enabled and new PBO Fmax setting enabled. I am getting 4.625 GHz in games, the highest I've ever gotten since getting the CPU in January.


----------



## Von Clausewitz

Tried PBO Fmax (25MHz setting, rest in PBO-menu on Auto) and it seems my 3950X really doesn't like it. Observations with HWiNFO64, CPU-Z and CB20: in stock-mode the cpu gets a minimum of 1.031V and a maximum of 1.50V. When I enable PBO Fmax the minimum voltage drops to 0.931V, max doesn't reach 1.50V. CPU-Z will work (higher scores because higher clocks) but CB20 crashes (can't make head nor tail of the CB20 crash report). So, voltage seems to low for my specific cpu sample. With Fmax enabled I tried the following:

0) all default: cpu-z works, CB20 crashes.

1) cpu LLC Level 3: cpu-z works, CB20 crashes (took a few seconds longer to crash).

2) cpu LLC to Auto. cpu offset +1 click (0.00625V): cpu-z works, CB20 crashes. BSOD: 'kernel_boost_invalid_lock_release'

3) cpu offset +2 clicks (0.0125V): cpu-z works, CB20 crashes. BSOD: 'cant remember exact error, but different'.

4) cpu offset +2 clicks (0.0125V) and LLC3: cpu-z works, CB20 crashes.

5) cpu offset +3 clicks (0.01875V) and LLC3:cpu-z works, CB20 crashes.

6) cpu LLC to Auto. cpu offset +4 clicks (0.025V):cpu-z works, CB20 crashes. BSOD:'irq_not_less_or_equal'.


In all cases minimum voltage was clearly lower as stock: 0.931V-0.944V vs 1.031V. Even an offset of +0.025V or a combination of LLC3 and an offset of +0.01875V didn't help; cpu drops below 0.94-0.95V and never reaches 1.50V. My guess is that my cpu has a narrow voltage 'Goldilocks zone' and Fmax keeps the cpu out of this zone by undervolting too much. Compensating via an offset and/or LLC doesn't help: voltage stays too low and once you apply load it crashes. Have no clue what else I could try. Just accept that I will probably waste money on a 5000 series within a few months 

With Fmax disabled all is back to normal though


----------



## kuutale

Von Clausewitz said:


> Tried PBO Fmax (25MHz setting, rest in PBO-menu on Auto) and it seems my 3950X really doesn't like it. Observations with HWiNFO64, CPU-Z and CB20: in stock-mode the cpu gets a minimum of 1.031V and a maximum of 1.50V. When I enable PBO Fmax the minimum voltage drops to 0.931V, max doesn't reach 1.50V. CPU-Z will work (higher scores because higher clocks) but CB20 crashes (can't make head nor tail of the CB20 crash report). So, voltage seems to low for my specific cpu sample. With Fmax enabled I tried the following:
> 
> 0) all default: cpu-z works, CB20 crashes.
> 
> 1) cpu LLC Level 3: cpu-z works, CB20 crashes (took a few seconds longer to crash).
> 
> 2) cpu LLC to Auto. cpu offset +1 click (0.00625V): cpu-z works, CB20 crashes. BSOD: 'kernel_boost_invalid_lock_release'
> 
> 3) cpu offset +2 clicks (0.0125V): cpu-z works, CB20 crashes. BSOD: 'cant remember exact error, but different'.
> 
> 4) cpu offset +2 clicks (0.0125V) and LLC3: cpu-z works, CB20 crashes.
> 
> 5) cpu offset +3 clicks (0.01875V) and LLC3:cpu-z works, CB20 crashes.
> 
> 6) cpu LLC to Auto. cpu offset +4 clicks (0.025V):cpu-z works, CB20 crashes. BSOD:'irq_not_less_or_equal'.
> 
> 
> In all cases minimum voltage was clearly lower as stock: 0.931V-0.944V vs 1.031V. Even an offset of +0.025V or a combination of LLC3 and an offset of +0.01875V didn't help; cpu drops below 0.94-0.95V and never reaches 1.50V. My guess is that my cpu has a narrow voltage 'Goldilocks zone' and Fmax keeps the cpu out of this zone by undervolting too much. Compensating via an offset and/or LLC doesn't help: voltage stays too low and once you apply load it crashes. Have no clue what else I could try. Just accept that I will probably waste money on a 5000 series within a few months
> 
> With Fmax disabled all is back to normal though


is ur memory and flck stable?
i have 3950x

do u try df-cstate disabled?



I use usmus1 power plan
cppc enabled
cppc preferred cores enabled

i need only

LLC3
scalar 1x
75-100 override
not bsod at all 2213


tomorrow i try go higher settings


----------



## slice313

Jesaul said:


> In my case, 1.48v was the stable voltage for me.


I am trying with 1.48. For now, no random restarts, I will test for a few days or until I get one... 

But why do new BIOSses need a huge bumb over the Dram voltage? I cannot understand...


----------



## HoloWS

Is event 41 caused by the dram voltage? I just enable DOCP and keep everything else on auto/default. These random restarts are killing my stability.  

Had it with the last few bioses, still have it occurring with 2311.


----------



## kaefers

kuutale said:


> is ur memory and flck stable?
> ...
> tomorrow i try go higher settings


Gonna give version 2311 a go tomorrow as well with my C8I / 3950X.
I've been running 1001 ever since I posted last (see below with 1001 / EDC bug), but might as well try 2311 :]
Also, you said somewhere you're considering 5950X - same here, not that I need it, but ... it is shiny.
Going to finally upgrade my 1080 Ti by latest Q1 2021 to whatever Nvidia / AMD have until then.


----------



## Von Clausewitz

kuutale said:


> is ur memory and flck stable?
> i have 3950x
> 
> do u try df-cstate disabled?
> 
> 
> 
> I use usmus1 power plan
> cppc enabled
> cppc preferred cores enabled
> 
> i need only
> 
> LLC3
> scalar 1x
> 75-100 override
> not bsod at all 2213
> 
> 
> tomorrow i try go higher settings


I also tried it with safe DDR4-3200 speed, no effect. My cpu just doesn't like PBO Fmax. 
A few more percent boost would have been nice, but it wasn't a given to start with. Ah well, won't loose any sleep over it


----------



## PJVol

Sorry guys, this may sound silly, but why are so many here using these "docp" or "xmp" things, I mean are you sure these presets are being applied correctly?


----------



## bt1

"Force OC Mode Disable" is not working in 2311,
every time i set BCLK != 100, core boost is disabled and all cores a set to static frequency.
Worked fine on 2206 and the 0039 beta


----------



## petercar59

Von Clausewitz said:


> Tried PBO Fmax (25MHz setting, rest in PBO-menu on Auto) and it seems my 3950X really doesn't like it. Observations with HWiNFO64, CPU-Z and CB20: in stock-mode the cpu gets a minimum of 1.031V and a maximum of 1.50V. When I enable PBO Fmax the minimum voltage drops to 0.931V, max doesn't reach 1.50V. CPU-Z will work (higher scores because higher clocks) but CB20 crashes (can't make head nor tail of the CB20 crash report). So, voltage seems to low for my specific cpu sample. With Fmax enabled I tried the following:
> 
> 0) all default: cpu-z works, CB20 crashes.
> 
> 1) cpu LLC Level 3: cpu-z works, CB20 crashes (took a few seconds longer to crash).
> 
> 2) cpu LLC to Auto. cpu offset +1 click (0.00625V): cpu-z works, CB20 crashes. BSOD: 'kernel_boost_invalid_lock_release'
> 
> 3) cpu offset +2 clicks (0.0125V): cpu-z works, CB20 crashes. BSOD: 'cant remember exact error, but different'.
> 
> 4) cpu offset +2 clicks (0.0125V) and LLC3: cpu-z works, CB20 crashes.
> 
> 5) cpu offset +3 clicks (0.01875V) and LLC3:cpu-z works, CB20 crashes.
> 
> 6) cpu LLC to Auto. cpu offset +4 clicks (0.025V):cpu-z works, CB20 crashes. BSOD:'irq_not_less_or_equal'.
> 
> 
> In all cases minimum voltage was clearly lower as stock: 0.931V-0.944V vs 1.031V. Even an offset of +0.025V or a combination of LLC3 and an offset of +0.01875V didn't help; cpu drops below 0.94-0.95V and never reaches 1.50V. My guess is that my cpu has a narrow voltage 'Goldilocks zone' and Fmax keeps the cpu out of this zone by undervolting too much. Compensating via an offset and/or LLC doesn't help: voltage stays too low and once you apply load it crashes. Have no clue what else I could try. Just accept that I will probably waste money on a 5000 series within a few months
> 
> With Fmax disabled all is back to normal though


That's what I ended up doing for 0039 after a similar process; I set PBO Fmax to DISABLED. Leaving it on AUTO still resulted in Event ID 41 restarts - just far fewer of them. Setting it to DISABLED has settled things down for a few days now.

I've done the same thing with 2311. I was surprised to see that it defaulted to PBO Fmax set to AUTO. This will likely cause problems for many people who just load defaults but have fourth rate CPUs like mine. Better to have the default for PBO Fmax at DISABLED to allow for those with “Bronze” silicon.

I suggest that people try CTR and use it to grade their CPU. If your grade is Bronze (who knows – maybe Silver too), your CPU may not be up to using PBO Fmax. The Stilt did note that some silicon won’t be stable using PBO Fmax, so it’s unsurprising that there are people for whom PBO Fmax AUTO or ENABLED results in instability.

I'm running memory at 3600 and 1.40V and this has been fine too – even with my 4 sticks. Memory training seems faster and I haven’t had to explore additional V on SOC for MC. I have only had issues when PBO Fmax was set to AUTO or ENABLED and I believe this had everything to do with my (Bronze) CPU and nothing to do with my memory. On to 3733!

​C8H WIFI, Ryzen 3900X, Noctua D15S, 4 x 8GB Viper Steel DDR4 4400 PVS416G440C9K (non-QVL for C8H WIFI), Corsair AX1600i, STRIX 2080Ti OC Gaming, ROG Xonar Phoebus, 3 x 2TB NVMe, 1 x 480GB SATA SSD, 3 x SATA HDDs, Silverstone FT02, Acer x27.


----------



## kuutale

kaefers said:


> Gonna give version 2311 a go tomorrow as well with my C8I / 3950X.
> I've been running 1001 ever since I posted last (see below with 1001 / EDC bug), but might as well try 2311 :]
> Also, you said somewhere you're considering 5950X - same here, not that I need it, but ... it is shiny.
> Going to finally upgrade my 1080 Ti by latest Q1 2021 to whatever Nvidia / AMD have until then.
> 
> View attachment 2462805


5950x intresting because it can hit 5ghz, and its do same power draw more performance, i think gaming perfomance suffers because so many cores. 5900x best gaming cpu but i think i can be 10 faster best way scenarios.



Von Clausewitz said:


> I also tried it with safe DDR4-3200 speed, no effect. My cpu just doesn't like PBO Fmax.
> A few more percent boost would have been nice, but it wasn't a given to start with. Ah well, won't loose any sleep over it


hmm, maybe not but u have best binned silicon i think that can do pbofmax thing. do u try usmus1 ctr what silicon u have, mine is silver silicon



PJVol said:


> Sorry guys, this may sound silly, but why are so many here using these "docp" or "xmp" things, I mean are you sure these presets are being applied correctly?


Yes check this thing too sometimes docp xmp needs do work it is stable.


----------



## artafinde

Hi guys, newbie here. I am trying to the most out of PBO with my Asus Crosshair VIII Hero (Wi-fi) my 3950X and the memory I have Flare-X F4-3200C14Q-32GFX (4 pieces kit). This is cooled with an AIO NZXT Kraken 280cm at the moment.

I tried yesterday the new released UEFI with PBO fmax and manual 3600 mem settings (see attachment) and didn't boot. My settings with previous UEFI 2206 was Manual (no XMP) 3600 settings and PBO set to Auto and was fine.
My last try was Load Optimized and not do mem OC at all just enable PBO fmax. This resulted in worst overall score in R20 but 1-2 cores clocking at 4717MHz (first time ever usually it clocked 4.6 max).

Today I might try:

Load XMP 3200 which memory supports and see if it can do PBO fmax - although not optimal in Fabric speeds it's still better than 2400 which is the default.
Try the alternative values for memory at 3600 from the attached settings in voltages and leave PBO scalar and override Freq to Auto.

The fact the CPU is working with PBO fmax tells my the memory 3600 manual needs some tweaking, right? Or it could be affected from the memory controller also? Maybe slightly increased voltages would fix it..

When I tried CTR it was ranking my silicon Bronze so this contradicts the statement above about Bronze not being able to do PBO fmax.

Attached are my settings for 3600 safe which I was using.









Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## petercar59

artafinde said:


> Hi guys, newbie here. I am trying to the most out of PBO with my Asus Crosshair VIII Hero (Wi-fi) my 3950X and the memory I have Flare-X F4-3200C14Q-32GFX (4 pieces kit). This is cooled with an AIO NZXT Kraken 280cm at the moment.
> 
> I tried yesterday the new released UEFI with PBO fmax and manual 3600 mem settings (see attachment) and didn't boot. My settings with previous UEFI 2206 was Manual (no XMP) 3600 settings and PBO set to Auto and was fine.
> My last try was Load Optimized and not do mem OC at all just enable PBO fmax. This resulted in worst overall score in R20 but 1-2 cores clocking at 4717MHz (first time ever usually it clocked 4.6 max).
> 
> Today I might try:
> 
> Load XMP 3200 which memory supports and see if it can do PBO fmax - although not optimal in Fabric speeds it's still better than 2400 which is the default.
> Try the alternative values for memory at 3600 from the attached settings in voltages and leave PBO scalar and override Freq to Auto.
> The fact the CPU is working with PBO fmax tells my the memory 3600 manual needs some tweaking, right? Or it could be affected from the memory controller also? Maybe slightly increased voltages would fix it..
> 
> When I tried CTR it was ranking my silicon Bronze so this contradicts the statement above about Bronze not being able to do PBO fmax.
> 
> Attached are my settings for 3600 safe which I was using.
> View attachment 2462860
> 
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk


Aren't 3950X's also the best bins? That might explain your success, and the CTR grading is pretty rough with only 4 grades. Maybe my 3900X is lower Bronze?

The Stilt was pretty clear; success will depend on the quality of your silicon. Probably better if I'd said that having a Bronze grade makes it more likely that you won't have success with PBO Fmax inasmuch as the CTR grading reflects the quality of your silicon - per The Stilt's comment, but clearly it doesn't mean that you won't have success. I didn't intend to imply that there was some sort of strict relationship between the CTR grade and PBO Fmax working or not. It can only be a guide, but for those people for whom the new BIOS is causing Event ID 41 restarts, maybe PBO Fmax should be disabled.


----------



## Sam64

Running v2311 for 48 hours by now and I got no issues whatsoever. 3900X running at FCLK 1866 (B-die RAM 3733CL16, 1.45v, SOC 1.25v, VDDG 1.075, VDDP 1.050) , PBO fmax enabled 200Mhz, 4xScalar, LLC auto. CTR grade is silver.


----------



## kuutale

Sam64 said:


> Running v2311 for 48 hours by now and I got no issues whatsoever. 3900X running at FCLK 1866 (B-die RAM 3733CL16, 1.45v, SOC 1.25v, VDDG 1.075, VDDP 1.050) , PBO fmax enabled 200Mhz, 4xScalar, LLC auto. CTR grade is silver.


I also confirm ctr silver silicon 36h no issues 3950x 1866 3733 1.41 soc 1.1875 vddg 1.000 vddp 0.950 fmax enabled 100mzh scalar 2x LLC3

btw
who knows what under CBS menu in bios core watchdog means, there is new feature. I think sometimes my bsod related watchdog_violation?


----------



## PJVol

kuutale said:


> btw
> who knows what under CBS menu in bios core watchdog means, there is new feature. I think sometimes my bsod related watchdog_violation?


Watchdog timer


----------



## Von Clausewitz

Had one idea I wanted to try, and for the first time the computer didn't crash with PBO Fmax enabled during CB20! It scored 9800. I enabled PBO Fmax and this time also regular PBO (didn't during all my previous attempts). And 25Mhz override as well as LLC3.

However, during idle I got a BSOD :/
Tried with LLC Auto and positive cpu voltage offsets to avoid idle crashes. And tried with LLC2 and 3 _and_ positive cpu voltage offsets to avoid idle _and_ CB20 crashes. Can't get it stable or do a full CB20 run with Fmax. In some cases with LLC and cpu offset combined, CB20 did start properly and ran the render-test, but then the whole pc just restarted (too much volts probably due to LLC + cpu voltage offset).


----------



## Sam64

Just an honest opinion based on some experience with zen&zen2 cpus: Changing LLC, well, I'm not sure, what's the idea behind it. Maybe it's an interesting feature, when it comes to allcore oc, running applications, that can make use of it. But for PBO scenarios it's not needed, so leave it at auto llc and let the cpu do it's thing.

I'm lucky, that 2311 works for me so far and I hope you guys with reboots/crashes will get to the root cause soon. My best guess is still trying different RAM and/or SOC voltages plus the fact, that many of the Ryzen 9 cannot run 100% stable at or over 1800 FCLK when you try to get the maximum boost via PBO fmax.


----------



## kuutale

Sam64 said:


> Just an honest opinion based on some experience with zen&zen2 cpus: Changing LLC, well, I'm not sure, what's the idea behind it. Maybe it's an interesting feature, when it comes to allcore oc, running applications, that can make use of it. But for PBO scenarios it's not needed, so leave it at auto llc and let the cpu do it's thing.
> 
> I'm lucky, that 2311 works for me so far and I hope you guys with reboots/crashes will get to the root cause soon. My best guess is still trying different RAM and/or SOC voltages plus the fact, that many of the Ryzen 9 cannot run 100% stable at or over 1800 FCLK when you try to get the maximum boost via PBO fmax.


my cpu need llc if i want use pbofmax, im not sure why its need that. ctr say my silicon is silver so its no bad or good


----------



## Sam64

@kuutale Silver by CTR here as well and it's running fine with auto llc.


----------



## Abnormalia

So I've got 3900X bronze graded, 4x16 NeoZ CL16 on 1302, any higher caused me idle random reboots. Do you recommend to care for bios upgrade ATM system is rock solid.
If yes, what bios settings are recommended and must have? Thanks in advance.


----------



## kuutale

Sam64 said:


> @kuutale Silver by CTR here as well and it's running fine with auto llc.


hmm, maybe i try llc auto and little give more dram voltage and soc, what programs u use stable secure? prime95 fails so little things.

Edit:
Thank you sam64 your advice i think im stable without llc, i raise vddp 1.000 and dram 1.45, later i go test can i lower voltages.


----------



## Karagra

Does anyone know what size the chipset fans in the Asus Impact VIII are? I am guessing 25mm


----------



## rostock27

I have a 3950X Bronze, and also 4x16 NeoZ CL16 with me is the same problem it starts again and again when idling, this must be due to the BIOS 2311 or do I have to set something else I have everything in the BIOS to standard.


----------



## PJVol

rostock27 said:


> I have a 3950X Bronze, and also 4x16 NeoZ CL16 with me is the same problem it starts again and again when idling, this must be due to the BIOS 2311 or do I have to set something else I have everything in the BIOS to standard.


Try to fix the SOC voltage at 1.1v (possibly using strong LLC)


----------



## kuutale

Sam64 said:


> @kuutale Silver by CTR here as well and it's running fine with auto llc.


i cant get avx loads stable cpu without llc, @Sam64 can u share u settings u have pbo on and break the limit ppt 142w?. Light loads is stable. i try dram up to 1.50 but better is set llc3 and then its prime95 stable. any advice or thoughts? how u check cpu is rock stable?

edit
i think i found the problem without LLC3 vcore voltage drop 1.031 avx load, when LLC3 it drop 1.15 and it be stable, vdroop is the problem my cpu silicon maybe


----------



## Sam64

@kuutale PBO with fmax is enabled, PPT goes up to 171.5 watt. I tested my RAM with Karhu 4000%. Let me check prime95, but I'm not really interested in testing full AVX load, because I never use applications, which create that crazy prime AVX load. My main concern with Bios v2311 are the idle-reboots , that I got with v2206 and v0039. With v2311 the idle-reboots are gone for me.


----------



## Karagra

I have had nothing but good times with my 3900x, 2311 on the VIII Impact and only CPU setting I touched was offset to 0.125. Outside of the CPU I manually setup my ram to 3600cl15 1.4v, and Soc 1.1v (This is Apex on the stock Cooler)


----------



## kuutale

Sam64 said:


> @kuutale PBO with fmax is enabled, PPT goes up to 171.5 watt. I tested my RAM with Karhu 4000%. Let me check prime95, but I'm not really interested in testing full AVX load, because I never use applications, which create that crazy prime AVX load. My main concern with Bios v2311 are the idle-reboots , that I got with v2206 and v0039. With v2311 the idle-reboots are gone for me.





Sam64 said:


> @kuutale PBO with fmax is enabled, PPT goes up to 171.5 watt. I tested my RAM with Karhu 4000%. Let me check prime95, but I'm not really interested in testing full AVX load, because I never use applications, which create that crazy prime AVX load. My main concern with Bios v2311 are the idle-reboots , that I got with v2206 and v0039. With v2311 the idle-reboots are gone for me.


yes i need sometimes my work heavy load's be stable, and llc is target is deny vdroop and its no affect temperatures so much because i had very good cooling solution and target is get 5900/5950x

i confirm that 2 days testing 0 bsod's idle or load occur so asus fix some cpu problems but they need do more.

There are many people not new 2213 bios help. So maybe next bios fix this annoying event 41 bsod


----------



## slice313

kuutale said:


> yes i need sometimes my work heavy load's be stable, and llc is target is deny vdroop and its no affect temperatures so much because i had very good cooling solution and target is get 5900/5950x
> 
> i confirm that 2 days testing 0 bsod's idle or load occur so asus fix some cpu problems but they need do more.
> 
> There are many people not new 2311 bios help. So maybe next bios fix this annoying event 41 bsod


I finally fixed my event 41 random restarts with all newer BIOS, including 2213 (Thanks to @IwannaKnow). Also I use @The Stilt PBO FMax Enhancer with great results, no problems or instability. Few days of testing multiple workloads and lots of idling, it has been perfect.










My problem was fixed by simply lowering the VDDP voltage from "default-Auto"

If I keep Auto or default value, random restarts occurs (AKA event 41). If a lower it to 0,850-0,855, all perfect. Not only that, my DRAM becomes more stable and requires a less voltage to boot/work.

To conclude:

-BIOS 1302 and prior ->VDDP is fine and don't need tinkering for the computer to work with default optimal settings.

-BIOS 2010, 2103,2206, 2311 and test 0039, ->VDDP is too high at AUTO/Default and needs lowering its value.

Now I understand that many of you dont have this problem. I would blame this to the variation within the silicon´s quality. Whatever change was made by AMD/ASUS regarding VDDP, it isnt affecting everyone in same way. 

Anyhow, I find it hard to believe that AMD/ASUS isn't aware of this, the fix was after all, an easy one (despite the many months it took me to find it). So the* CLDO VDDP *voltage value needs some serious tuning, because AUTO isn't working for everyone.

🍻


----------



## kuutale

slice313 said:


> I finally fixed my event 41 random restarts with all newer BIOS, including 2213 (Thanks to @IwannaKnow). Also I use @The Stilt PBO FMax Enhancer with great results, no problems or instability. Few days of testing multiple workloads and lots of idling, it has been perfect.
> 
> View attachment 2463078
> 
> 
> My problem was fixed by simply lowering the VDDP voltage from "default-Auto"
> 
> If I keep Auto or default value, random restarts occurs (AKA event 41). If a lower it to 0,850-0,855, all perfect. Not only that, my DRAM becomes more stable and requires a less voltage to boot/work.
> 
> To conclude:
> 
> -BIOS 1302 and prior ->VDDP is fine and don't need tinkering for the computer to work with default optimal settings.
> 
> -BIOS 2010, 2103,2206, 2311 and test 0039, ->VDDP is too high at AUTO/Default and needs lowering its value.
> 
> Now I understand that many of you dont have this problem. I would blame this to the variation within the silicon´s quality. Whatever change was made by AMD/ASUS regarding VDDP, it isnt affecting everyone in same way.
> 
> Anyhow, I find it hard to believe that AMD/ASUS isn't aware of this, the fix was after all, an easy one (despite the many months it took me to find it). So the* CLDO VDDP *voltage value needs some serious tuning, because AUTO isn't working for everyone.
> 
> 🍻


Indeed cldo_vddp is because memory holes, first gen and ryzen+ cpu's that's settings i very tricky, but congratulations u find stable settings. but what cause that is it your cpu or memory or board ? that's tricky.


----------



## CyrIng

Analyses with CoreFreq

Stressing the 3950X with the "PBO Fmax Enhancer" enabled; the load is no more even and seems to be CCD dependent. 
The Processor crashed within a few seconds.









Disabling PBO Fmax restore the load balancing as previous 2211 version

More in my ChangeLog


----------



## RHBH

I just updated my C8H Wi-Fi BIOS from 2206 to 2311.

I had no issues with 2206, I noticed crackling sound from my audio (Creative Sound Blaster Z).

The issue presents when I run FLCK @ 1900MHz.

Fixed by increasing my VDDG voltages from 0.95v to 0.975v.

Basically the new BIOS required this +25mV in the VDDG IO voltage so my sound card would work properly.


----------



## artafinde

CyrIng said:


> Analyses with CoreFreq
> 
> Stressing the 3950X with the "PBO Fmax Enhancer" enabled; the load is no more even and seems to be CCD dependent.
> The Processor crashed within a few seconds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disabling PBO Fmax restore the load balancing as previous 2211 version
> 
> More in my ChangeLog


This is quite useful for me as well as I run also Archlinux on the same hardware - thanks for the tool! Out of interest what's your RAM and cooling? Mine are 4x sticks of G.SKILL F4-3200C14Q-32GFX (bought them originally for my old threadripper 1950x to support Quad-channel) running at 3200 XMP profile and NZXT KRAKEN Z63 (not really happy with it..).

With PBO Fmax I experienced some BSOD (which is my case is green as I'm running Windows Insider) and 1-2 crashes in Gnome so it's not super stable. The crashes are random - some during idle, some during gaming (Diablo 3 so not so much CPU usage) even some during browsing (Firefox watching YT videos).

Memtest64 finishing successfully without errors and any stress in Linux / Windows it's success. So it's probably a CPU load which I can't reproduce at the moment :/


----------



## kuutale

artafinde said:


> This is quite useful for me as well as I run also Archlinux on the same hardware - thanks for the tool! Out of interest what's your RAM and cooling? Mine are 4x sticks of G.SKILL F4-3200C14Q-32GFX (bought them originally for my old threadripper 1950x to support Quad-channel) running at 3200 XMP profile and NZXT KRAKEN Z63 (not really happy with it..).
> 
> With PBO Fmax I experienced some BSOD (which is my case is green as I'm running Windows Insider) and 1-2 crashes in Gnome so it's not super stable. The crashes are random - some during idle, some during gaming (Diablo 3 so not so much CPU usage) even some during browsing (Firefox watching YT videos).
> 
> Memtest64 finishing successfully without errors and any stress in Linux / Windows it's success. So it's probably a CPU load which I can't reproduce at the moment :/


try cpu cpu LLC i see vdroop very heavy loads like AVX, my cpu corre voltage drop 1.031 and causes bsod, i put llc3 and no more bsods heavy loads.

and settings depend how much use pbofmax, use scalar and override or only pbofmax enabled?


----------



## artafinde

kuutale said:


> try cpu cpu LLC i see vdroop very heavy loads like AVX, my cpu corre voltage drop 1.031 and causes bsod, i put llc3 and no more bsods heavy loads.
> 
> and settings depend how much use pbofmax, use scalar and override or only pbofmax enabled?


I increased the LCC to 3 and I will report if I got any crashes. 
My settings are attached and I can turbo to 4720 single core and 4242 all cores at linux (measured with corefreq and zenmonitor). I noticed though that the linux kernel picks core 22-23 when single core and not cores 1-2 which windows picks. According to AMD Ryzen Master and CTR my best CCD is the first (which windows picks when it's light workload).


----------



## CyrIng

artafinde said:


> This is quite useful for me as well as I run also Archlinux on the same hardware - thanks for the tool! Out of interest what's your RAM and cooling? Mine are 4x sticks of G.SKILL F4-3200C14Q-32GFX (bought them originally for my old threadripper 1950x to support Quad-channel) running at 3200 XMP profile and NZXT KRAKEN Z63 (not really happy with it..).



Dual 16GB G.Skill GTZN @ 3600 MHz CL 16
Celsius+ S36 Dynamic AIO WC

Overview of components here



artafinde said:


> With PBO Fmax I experienced some BSOD (which is my case is green as I'm running Windows Insider) and 1-2 crashes in Gnome so it's not super stable. The crashes are random - some during idle, some during gaming (Diablo 3 so not so much CPU usage) even some during browsing (Firefox watching YT videos).
> 
> Memtest64 finishing successfully without errors and any stress in Linux / Windows it's success. So it's probably a CPU load which I can't reproduce at the moment :/


Random crashes are also happening with now PBO Fmax disabled.

I can hear the PSU stopped in emmergency

I will fully reset all values, and let them as default; beside DRAM frequency and voltage set with the Manufacturer values. Because D.O.C.P. prevents from booting.

However these crashes make me nut. As a developer I can't loose source code.

If I can't get it stable, I'm going back to the original 1201 (or 1302, according to others saying for its stability)


----------



## kuutale

artafinde said:


> I increased the LCC to 3 and I will report if I got any crashes.
> My settings are attached and I can turbo to 4720 single core and 4242 all cores at linux (measured with corefreq and zenmonitor). I noticed though that the linux kernel picks core 22-23 when single core and not cores 1-2 which windows picks. According to AMD Ryzen Master and CTR my best CCD is the first (which windows picks when it's light workload).


note that d.o.c.p can be very non-stable settings, check hci memtest or 1usmus dram calculator stability your memory. if memory is unstable little bit is caused bsod. unstable ram = bsod randomly like cpu is unstable. check 1usmus dram calculator is my advice.



CyrIng said:


> Dual 16GB G.Skill GTZN @ 3600 MHz CL 16
> Celsius+ S36 Dynamic AIO WC
> Overview of components here
> 
> 
> 
> Random crashes are also happening with now PBO Fmax disabled.
> 
> I can hear the PSU stopped in emmergency
> 
> I will fully reset all values, and let them as default; beside DRAM frequency and voltage set with the Manufacturer values. Because D.O.C.P. prevents from booting.
> 
> However these crashes make me nut. As a developer I can't loose source code.
> 
> If I can't get it stable, I'm going back to the original 1201 (or 1302, according to others saying for its stability)


what fclk setting and how much u give voltage ram?
u can try stable this 3950x add LLC.
maybe try give more voltage dram, manufactures voltages is sometimes wrong
i have too 3950x i can try ur software tomorrow, my cpu is stable under prime95 and intelburntest occt, i have settings
pbofmax enabled
pbo auto
scalar 2x
override 100mhz

@slice313 had problem with CLDO_vddp voltage causing he's blue screen on default settings 0039 and 2213
@The Stilt maybe knows why your program not work, he's desing that pbo fmax thing?


----------



## CyrIng

kuutale said:


> ...
> 
> what fclk setting and how much u give voltage ram?
> u can try stable this 3950x add LLC.
> maybe try give more voltage dram, manufactures voltages is sometimes wrong
> i have too 3950x i can try ur software tomorrow, my cpu is stable under prime95 and intelburntest occt, i have settings
> pbofmax enabled
> pbo auto
> scalar 2x
> override 100mhz
> ...



Booted with default settings, even DRAM !
So far no crash, especially during the idle states.











Setting manually the DDR has been *rock stable* with the BIOS original version *1201*


With version 2311, timings and voltage are set into same conditions than 1201.
16-16-16-16-36-52-4-9 as the G.Skill sticker and as found into the SPD.
Remaining timings as auto











DRAM Voltage ~ 1.35V as specified by G.Skill
But, set a bit lower than 1.35V because the ASUS BIOS(es) seem to exaggerate the voltage.

*EDIT: or their voltage monitoring is wrong !*











FYI here all the changes I brought post 2311 update to fit my needs.


----------



## Abnormalia

Updated to latest bios it was restarting after boot, in 5 min while idle, after that it was working fine on high load and all stress test for hours.
Set LLC3, updated VDDG as advised. My Bronze 3900X was set like that:










2 days in: Temps are fine, no restarts. Before that only 1302 was rock stable.


----------



## kuutale

@CyrIng 

read page 145, The Stilt tell us pbo fmax thing, i think it is auto overlock thing, all cpu cant not handle it u must find own setups for that working. Asus xmp/docp are trouble so many this section complaining voltages not correct, they must find settings, some cases they work like charm. 

memtest can be stable but then u add boost light/heavy ram is unstable, so i add first ram voltage everytime i had bsod problems rule out ram is the unstable.

hopefully u can find settings and enjoy your "beast" cpu


----------



## CyrIng

kuutale said:


> @CyrIng
> 
> read page 145, The Stilt tell us pbo fmax thing, i think it is auto overlock thing, all cpu cant not handle it u must find own setups for that working. Asus xmp/docp are trouble so many this section complaining voltages not correct, they must find settings, some cases they work like charm.
> 
> memtest can be stable but then u add boost light/heavy ram is unstable, so i add first ram voltage everytime i had bsod problems rule out ram is the unstable.
> 
> hopefully u can find settings and enjoy your "beast" cpu


Thanks for your help

DDR settings may been the culprit.

Boot after boot, I changed from full auto settings towards a frequency at 3600 MHz , voltage to 1.35V without any offset and Timings set with the first manufacturer clocks.










Meanwhile I also found, probably a CoreFreq bug, that my kernel idle states loop, which is MWAIT based, does not allow a 47 P-State (but a limit of 46).
That same instruction is also doubling the _idle_ power consumed on counters:


Code:


from:
Package: 15.6972(W) - Cores: 0.1121(W)
to:
Package: 31.0717(W) - Cores: 4.1968(W)

Still a lot to work on with the Zen architecture ...
I wish I could have the DRAM voltage register to monitor it ...


----------



## CyrIng

kuutale said:


> @CyrIng
> 
> read page 145, The Stilt tell us pbo fmax thing, i think it is auto overlock thing, all cpu cant not handle it u must find own setups for that working. Asus xmp/docp are trouble so many this section complaining voltages not correct, they must find settings, some cases they work like charm.
> 
> memtest can be stable but then u add boost light/heavy ram is unstable, so i add first ram voltage everytime i had bsod problems rule out ram is the unstable.
> 
> hopefully u can find settings and enjoy your "beast" cpu


Just read the whole thing. Will give another chance with a chosen Load-Line

One question : is the Stilt, a firmware programmer of ASUS ?


----------



## artafinde

kuutale said:


> note that d.o.c.p can be very non-stable settings, check hci memtest or 1usmus dram calculator stability your memory. if memory is unstable little bit is caused bsod. unstable ram = bsod randomly like cpu is unstable. check 1usmus dram calculator is my advice.


I think that was might be the issue. I exported my memory report with Thaiphoon and import them into 1usmys DRAM calculator. Then set it to 3600 Safe settings (even though my mem officially is rated for 3200). I've been playing Destiny 2 for a few hours without issues. Now running memtest on DRAM Calculator to figure out if these settings are OK. If everything pass I will try PBO Fmax after.


----------



## kuutale

CyrIng said:


> Just read the whole thing. Will give another chance with a chosen Load-Line
> 
> One question : is the Stilt, a firmware programmer of ASUS ?


I dont know, the Stilt do features previous generation gen1 gen+ and now zen 2 motherboards (hero board). one feature performance enhancer and pbo fmax


----------



## CyrIng

uptime of 5 hours with no crash.
(issue was DRAM voltage)

BIOS 2311 is stable


----------



## kuutale

CyrIng said:


> uptime of 5 hours with no crash.
> (issue was DRAM voltage)
> 
> BIOS 2311 is stable


Nice ryzen be can tricky dram settings, allways first thing check voltage if u have problems.


i have new problem my 2080 ti 2 monitor setup not downlocking idle, when i boot on monitor it workin but when connected 34LG and 27Acer its sits gpu1230 and memory 14000. i dont see this problem last week and i dont know is the bios problem or nviadia driver problem.


----------



## CyrIng

CyrIng said:


> uptime of 5 hours with no crash.
> (issue was DRAM voltage)
> 
> BIOS 2311 is stable


After a full day and a full night of mixed usage, this BIOS appears strong stable.
Time to give a rest to Computer


----------



## The Stilt

CyrIng said:


> One question : is the Stilt, a firmware programmer of ASUS ?


No.


----------



## RHBH

The Stilt said:


> No.


Wow! You're here, come back to my bios now!


----------



## CyrIng

This morning, got an instant hardware reboot under Linux.
Thus I checked DDR voltage where AUTO has set to the right 1.36 V and main timings are correct for 3600 MHz.
If this happens again I will set every-thing manually


----------



## Abnormalia

Day 4, BIOS 2311, system uber stable and performance is bit better as well. God bless who posted about VDDG settings. Before that any BIOS rather than 1302 was unstable !


----------



## HoloWS

I wish my bios was stable. I can't escape the random restarts from event 41.  Is my board defective?

I've tried setting CLDO VDDP to what slice313 said worked, also tried disabling PBO FMax Enhancer instead of keeping it defaullt/auto.


----------



## kuutale

HoloWS said:


> I wish my bios was stable. I can't escape the random restarts from event 41.  Is my board defective?
> 
> I've tried setting CLDO VDDP to what slice313 said worked, also tried disabling PBO FMax Enhancer instead of keeping it defaullt/auto.


check ur ram and flck, what ram speed and flck what voltages using?


----------



## artafinde

kuutale said:


> check ur ram and flck, what ram speed and flck what voltages using?


That is absolutely true. Basically with newer version you need to first find your stable RAM and then fiddle with PBO fmax. I spend a few days figuring stable RAM @3200 MHz manual settings before (currently) testing the PBO fmax various settings.
If you have done the RAM settings before in previous BIOS they might not work with latest. 

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## HoloWS

kuutale said:


> check ur ram and flck, what ram speed and flck what voltages using?


3600mhz, 1.352v according to the asus bios monitor, flck 1800mhz. I just enable the DOCP profile on the ram kit I have and leave everything auto.

Are you saying that my ram's tested profile is no longer stable with the latest bios? This issue didn't use to happen with the original bios that came with the motherboard.


----------



## bookingyo

I tried several things to get my 3950x and memory (3600mhz) stable with the latest version 2311

Dram Calc safe settings
Increased voltage
Reduced clocks \ voltage
I believe it's memory related as I'm using GSkill 2x16gb Hynix kit (F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC). Thinking of switching to a better kit and selling this one.

I have no issues with version 2206 using DOCP profile.


----------



## sakete

bookingyo said:


> I tried several things to get my 3950x and memory (3600mhz) stable with the latest version 2311
> 
> Dram Calc safe settings
> Increased voltage
> Reduced clocks \ voltage
> I believe it's memory related as I'm using GSkill 2x16gb Hynix kit (F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC). Thinking of switching to a better kit and selling this one.
> 
> I have no issues with version 2206 using DOCP profile.


I'm using a similar memory kit, except it's the Ripjaws (non-RGB) version, also 2x16GB C16, and I have zero issues with bios 2311. Granted, I've haven't really had any issues with any of the prior bios versions. My RAM is using the stock timings and speed (3600) and I manually set voltage at 1.35V.


----------



## bookingyo

sakete said:


> I'm using a similar memory kit, except it's the Ripjaws (non-RGB) version, also 2x16GB C16, and I have zero issues with bios 2311. Granted, I've haven't really had any issues with any of the prior bios versions. My RAM is using the stock timings and speed (3600) and I manually set voltage at 1.35V.


I also had no issues with any other version except 2103. I'm surprised I'm getting so much instability with version 2311.


----------



## kuutale

bookingyo said:


> I tried several things to get my 3950x and memory (3600mhz) stable with the latest version 2311
> 
> Dram Calc safe settings
> Increased voltage
> Reduced clocks \ voltage
> I believe it's memory related as I'm using GSkill 2x16gb Hynix kit (F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC). Thinking of switching to a better kit and selling this one.
> 
> I have no issues with version 2206 using DOCP profile.


pbofmax enabled? what powerplan using? do run hci memtest or memtest?how much u increase voltage? soc voltage? can u share u settings maybe we find problem?


bookingyo said:


> I also had no issues with any other version except 2103. I'm surprised I'm getting so much instability with version 2311.


pbofmax enabled? what powerplan using? do run hci memtest or memtest?how much u increase voltage? soc voltage? can u share u settings maybe we find problem?


HoloWS said:


> 3600mhz, 1.352v according to the asus bios monitor, flck 1800mhz. I just enable the DOCP profile on the ram kit I have and leave everything auto.
> 
> Are you saying that my ram's tested profile is no longer stable with the latest bios? This issue didn't use to happen with the original bios that came with the motherboard.


Yes different bios behaving different, u can try bumb mem voltage 1.37. What is your soc? pbofmax enabled?


----------



## Price

Hi all,

Just managed to put together my 3700x system. Processor currently running at [email protected] (AUTO), [email protected] 2206 BIOS

16GB Teamgroup Dark Pro 3200CL14 running at 3733MT 16-16-16-32 @ 1.344v (AUTO)

[email protected]

Everything else auto, default.

3700x was manufactured week 52 year 2019, it that matters.

Cpu-Z
single core 522.6
multi core 5666.8


----------



## Akasias

anyone know which is the actual correct voltage reading for your cpu in HWinfo? is it Vcore or CPU Core Voltage(SV12 TFN)? Vcore is always slightly below the SV12 TFN during load and I can't tell which one is the true voltage so I can determind my LLC and core voltage, anyone can shed some light?


----------



## CyrIng

CyrIng said:


> This morning, got an instant hardware reboot under Linux.
> Thus I checked DDR voltage where AUTO has set to the right 1.36 V and main timings are correct for 3600 MHz.
> If this happens again I will set every-thing manually


BIOS appears more stable with *Manual* settings
Not the best OC results  but I can work safely




















Idle / Single / All Cores


----------



## artafinde

CyrIng said:


> BIOS appears more stable with *Manual* settings
> Not the best OC results  but I can work safely
> 
> View attachment 2463741
> View attachment 2463742
> View attachment 2463743
> 
> Idle / Single / All Cores


I'm running with manual settings at 3200 with 1.36V as well. All PBO settings are set to auto. That's the only stable settings I've found so far.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## bookingyo

kuutale said:


> pbofmax enabled? what powerplan using? do run hci memtest or memtest?how much u increase voltage? soc voltage? can u share u settings maybe we find problem?
> 
> Yes different bios behaving different, u can try bumb mem voltage 1.37. What is your soc? pbofmax enabled?


Here are the memory settings I used.
















I also tried:

Memory Voltage =1.36 and 1.37
PBOfmax = disabled and enabled
Powerplan = Performance when I use windows however, I mostly boot in Linux.


----------



## CyrIng

Any idea why Kernel is logging this Machine Check !


Code:


[Hardware Error]: Corrected error, no action required.
[Hardware Error]: CPU:0 (17:71:0) MC25_STATUS[-|CE|MiscV|-|-|-|-|CECC|-|-|-]: 0x98004000003e0000
[Hardware Error]: IPID: 0x000100ff03830400
[Hardware Error]: Platform Security Processor Ext. Error Code: 62
[Hardware Error]: cache level: RESV, tx: INSN

EDIT: caught in mce_amd.c

EDIT2: Putting back AUTO in BIOS and no MCA errors since


----------



## CYoung234

Up and running on 2311. I have the best scores on cb20 ever, and things seem stable with PBO Fmax on. However, I am getting spurious unexpected restarts in Zoom. Not sure why, and I do not get any logs. I am manually configured in the BIOS. Here is a screenshot of some of the setup parameters via Ryzen Master. Any ideas?


----------



## HoloWS

kuutale said:


> Yes different bios behaving different, u can try bumb mem voltage 1.37. What is your soc? pbofmax enabled?


SOC is Auto. pbofmax on auto and disabled - tried both. Having it enabled lead to random restarts more frequently. 

I'll try increasing memory voltage to 1.37.


----------



## kuutale

HoloWS said:


> SOC is Auto. pbofmax on auto and disabled - tried both. Having it enabled lead to random restarts more frequently.
> 
> I'll try increasing memory voltage to 1.37.


do u ran hci memtest also and what is your flck ?


----------



## Akasias

kuutale said:


> do u ran hci memtest also and what is your flck ?


i got some random restart just opening things like sticky key, or opening dram calculator, and for the first time I got a blue screen while doing membench and I've done these test at 200% thread for over 5 days no errors. This might be ram related as well? Using dram calculator set numbers, I ran membench in dram calc and no error was found, did this many times but still having random restart sometimes, computer was stable for 2 days idle + gaming with the new 2311 bios before the restart happened, after the bios update I made sure to find the stable ram result before I started overclocking. not sure what the issue is, Ram settings Gyazo Gyazo spread spectrum on like it suggested, so I calculatet tRFC 369 tRFC2 275 tRFC4 168.
I tried dram voltage 1.4, 1.405, 1.41, 1.42(this one didn't even post) they all have random restart? I'm not sure anymore.
Here is Dram setting i'm testing now, BIO is set to manual, DOCP was buggy. Using 1.395v dram voltage 1.05v soc, 0.975 VDDG 0.855 VDDP and following exact dram calc settings. membench 100% thread come back 0 error stable, no random restart after test like the couple times. OC to 4.2ghz @ 1.200v, FIT Voltage is 1.212v. 


Aida64 for 8+ hours stress test was fine before, many membench test at 200% thread as 0 error. what could be the issue? can shed some light for me?


----------



## CyrIng

CyrIng said:


> Any idea why Kernel is logging this Machine Check !
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> [Hardware Error]: Corrected error, no action required.
> [Hardware Error]: CPU:0 (17:71:0) MC25_STATUS[-|CE|MiscV|-|-|-|-|CECC|-|-|-]: 0x98004000003e0000
> [Hardware Error]: IPID: 0x000100ff03830400
> [Hardware Error]: Platform Security Processor Ext. Error Code: 62
> [Hardware Error]: cache level: RESV, tx: INSN
> 
> EDIT: caught in mce_amd.c
> 
> EDIT2: Putting back AUTO in BIOS and no MCA errors since


EDIT3:

Machine checks are happening again
Processor restarts when it is idling
EDIT4:

Load Optimized default > DRAM set to first SPD (the lowest)
No machine checks are logged
Apparently BIOS 2311 does not well manage 3600 MHz (even in AUTO)


----------



## Deeptek

I just got my Impact board in last night.

Every time I turn it on it gives me a strange RAID error. I am able to bypass it by going into boot manager and selecting the drive and booting into it. Has anyone else seen this RAID error and got it to go away?


----------



## bookingyo

Deeptek said:


> I just got my Impact board in last night.
> 
> Every time I turn it on it gives me a strange RAID error. I am able to bypass it by going into boot manager and selecting the drive and booting into it. Has anyone else seen this RAID error and got it to go away?
> 
> View attachment 2463833


Have you enabled any of the raid settings in the bios?


----------



## Deeptek

bookingyo said:


> Have you enabled any of the raid settings in the bios?


No. It's all at factory default. I've never ran a RAID in my 20 years of building PCs so I'm not sure why it is saying this. I also did a format of my m.2 drive hoping it would fix the issue and it is still giving me this error on start up.`


----------



## bookingyo

Deeptek said:


> No. It's all at factory default. I've never ran a RAID in my 20 years of building PCs so I'm not sure why it is saying this. I also did a format of my m.2 drive hoping it would fix the issue and it is still giving me this error on start up.`


I recommend making sure that all raid settings are disabled in the Bios.
You could also try to Clear CMOS or update the Bios.


----------



## IwannaKnow

Hi all,


1. Can not get the RAM Settings work, which are rockstable with 1302.
2. tried 6 days with RYZEN OC Community from Computerbase and Hardwareluxx to get the system stable with a lot help in discord.
3. Find out that for some users lowering the VDDG and VDDP voltage helps to avoid random reboots. ( VSOC 1.1, VDDG 950 VDDP 755-800)
4. Couldn´t find a new fix for my own PC, as I finally got no ram issues and WHEA Errors (VSOC 1.1, VDDG 1.025 VDDP , the system started randomly to reboot again.
5. Gave up after 7days and went back to 1302. I really tried every voltage step by step in 10mv steps, nothing helped.
6. All tests were done without PBO FMAX or other CPU OC and with recommend settings from @The Stilt 

Once I tried the CTR tool from 1usmus and the CPU was labeled as silver so it should be not sooo bad. (BTW I´m not a big fan of this tool anyways, I just was curious how it works and removed it afterwards)

@The Stilt do you have maybe an idea what could be the reason? They are still a lot ppl in ROG Forum who have still problems with anything newer than 1302 also without RAM OC.
Btw at this point I really wanna thank you for your support and the communication with ASUS ROG


----------



## Deeptek

bookingyo said:


> I recommend making sure that all raid settings are disabled in the Bios.
> You could also try to Clear CMOS or update the Bios.


Unfortunately I have done all of these things. Almost at a loss right now.


----------



## Jesaul

Deeptek said:


> Unfortunately I have done all of these things. Almost at a loss right now.


Format hard drives maybe?


----------



## CyrIng

CyrIng said:


> EDIT3:
> 
> Machine checks are happening again
> Processor restarts when it is idling
> EDIT4:
> 
> Load Optimized default > DRAM set to first SPD (the lowest)
> No machine checks are logged
> Apparently BIOS 2311 does not well manage 3600 MHz (even in AUTO)


EDIT5:

Too many Machine checks with 2311; whatever the settings are.
Motherboard is downgraded to BIOS version 2206


----------



## bt1

Deeptek said:


> Unfortunately I have done all of these things. Almost at a loss right now.


You got to check if CMOS battery is installed correctly on motherboard.
Also, is time/date reset after you see this message?


----------



## Deeptek

Jesaul said:


> Format hard drives maybe?


I did that as well. Left only one drive plugged in and nothing. Nothing seems to be working.


----------



## slice313

IwannaKnow said:


> Hi all,
> 
> 
> 1. Can not get the RAM Settings work, which are rockstable with 1302.
> 2. tried 6 days with RYZEN OC Community from Computerbase and Hardwareluxx to get the system stable with a lot help in discord.
> 3. Find out that for some users lowering the VDDG and VDDP voltage helps to avoid random reboots. ( VSOC 1.1, VDDG 950 VDDP 755-800)
> 4. Couldn´t find a new fix for my own PC, as I finally got no ram issues and WHEA Errors (VSOC 1.1, VDDG 1.025 VDDP , the system started randomly to reboot again.
> 5. Gave up after 7days and went back to 1302. I really tried every voltage step by step in 10mv steps, nothing helped.
> 6. All tests were done without PBO FMAX or other CPU OC and with recommend settings from @The Stilt
> 
> Once I tried the CTR tool from 1usmus and the CPU was labeled as silver so it should be not sooo bad. (BTW I´m not a big fan of this tool anyways, I just was curious how it works and removed it afterwards)
> 
> @The Stilt do you have maybe an idea what could be the reason? They are still a lot ppl in ROG Forum who have still problems with anything newer than 1302 also without RAM OC.
> Btw at this point I really wanna thank you for your support and the communication with ASUS ROG


We had the exactly the same issue, and thanks to your suggestion, now I am perfectly stable now using latest BIOS with PBO Fmax enabled. I really hope something can be done to help this matter for everyone involved. 🤞 

thanks my friend


----------



## Deeptek

bt1 said:


> You got to check if CMOS battery is installed correctly on motherboard.
> Also, is time/date reset after you see this message?


I just drained my loop and took the mobo out of my case. Disassembled it and installed the battery from my old mobo in. Still doing the same thing. This is one big headache :-/


----------



## GlowingBurrito

Anyone getting a large amount of WHEA - event 19 errors with 2311? I got 257 after booting into Windows with the same settings as 2206. Flashed back to 2206 and the errors went away.


----------



## kuutale

GlowingBurrito said:


> Anyone getting a large amount of WHEA - event 19 errors with 2311? I got 257 after booting into Windows with the same settings as 2206. Flashed back to 2206 and the errors went away.


i check and see last 7 days 21 whea logger error bios 0039 not have this error and 2206 but 2213 whea logger error is real


----------



## CyrIng

GlowingBurrito said:


> Anyone getting a large amount of WHEA - event 19 errors with 2311? I got 257 after booting into Windows with the same settings as 2206. Flashed back to 2206 and the errors went away.


Looks like the Windows code to say Machine Check


----------



## mgardiner73

I am having a bugger of a time getting PBO Fmax Enhancer working. Strangely enough, my system will pass Prime95 however gaming will almost always crash within 10-25 minutes or so.


----------



## James Cole

mgardiner73 said:


> I am having a bugger of a time getting PBO Fmax Enhancer working. Strangely enough, my system will pass Prime95 however gaming will almost always crash within 10-25 minutes or so.


I had too many weird issues with PBO Fmax Enhancer. (Error 41 reboots at idle - had to turn off df cstate as mentioned, weird crashing, BSODs at random times). I gave up and just left it off and turned PBO on and works perfect.


----------



## zsoltmol

I'm using 2206 and since long time and I have had WHEA 19 error when returning from sleep (1 per wake up event) and very rare Event 41 crash at idle. PBO enabled, Scalar 1x, PBO offset 0MHz, PBO with motherboard limits

In my case this helped to get rid of WHEA 19:
VSOC auto setting, real range is 1,0938-1,0813 V
CLDO VDDP 0.900 V
VDDG CCD 0.950 V
VDDG IOD 0.924 V
Set negative offset on CPU Voltage by 0.03750


----------



## robertvb

So is it worth to update to a new bios if u have rock solid system on 2206 bios version? Cause i'm getting ryzen 5900x next year b4 summer.....thank you!


----------



## The Stilt

IwannaKnow said:


> @The Stilt do you have maybe an idea what could be the reason? They are still a lot ppl in ROG Forum who have still problems with anything newer than 1302 also without RAM OC.
> Btw at this point I really wanna thank you for your support and the communication with ASUS ROG


Everyone is currently kind of busy with the upcoming Ryzen 5000-series launch. I know this is not something you want to hear, but claiming otherwise would be nothing more but utter BS, frankly. All I can do for now is to promise that the issue won't be forgotten. I'll keep harrassing all of the appropriate parties until there is some sort of a solution for it, whatever it may be.


----------



## DaddyMadu

Kindly delete it


----------



## DaddyMadu

The Stilt said:


> Everyone is currently kind of busy with the upcoming Ryzen 5000-series launch. I know this is not something you want to hear, but claiming otherwise would be nothing more but utter BS, frankly. All I can do for now is to promise that the issue won't be forgotten. I'll keep harrassing all of the appropria





bookingyo said:


> I tried several things to get my 3950x and memory (3600mhz) stable with the latest version 2311
> 
> Dram Calc safe settings
> Increased voltage
> Reduced clocks \ voltage
> I believe it's memory related as I'm using GSkill 2x16gb Hynix kit (F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC). Thinking of switching to a better kit and selling this one.
> 
> I have no issues with version 2206 using DOCP profile.


hey i just registered to tell you the following
I have the same ram chip gtznc but mine are 2x8gb 3600cl16 gskill rgb neo hynix cjr kit, i have asus x570-e rog strix board
With 3900x
I use my rig for gaming and content creation also I'm streaming daily or semi daily on fb, yt, tw so it i must have stable system and here's my ram setting try them and start will low frequency like 3600 fclk 1800 first and increase them using the same timing as below don't increase or decrease those numbers also dram voltage set it at 1.45 till you get stable performance then decrease it as recommended below, hope i helped as much as i could. I passed mem5 extreme profile 20 cycle with those with 0 error, ymmv for sure
But give it a try and please save user profile of your current bios setting first


Set the following
Memory manual
Memory 3800mhz or lower 3600
Fclk 1900mhz or 1800
Sb spectrum disabled
Soc voltage 1.1v
Dram voltage 1.42v
Vddg ccd 1.097v
Vddg iod 1.097v
Cldo vddp 1.047v


Set your dram timing control to the following


Screenshot
Screenshot
Screenshot
Screenshot
Screenshot


Also here's my digi+ settings


Screenshot
Screenshot


----------



## HoloWS

kuutale said:


> do u ran hci memtest also and what is your flck ?


FCLK is 1:1 with the ram's DOCP profile, so 1800mhz. Memory tested fine.

I however haven't had a random event 41 reboot since raising the memory voltage to 1.36v. I assume something must have changed with recent bios updates that made the dram voltage a bit more unstable?


----------



## mgardiner73

Evening everyone,

Quick question, does anyone happen to know what's considered the max safe voltage while using PBO? I've been watching HWInfo and occasionally I see my Vcore spike for a brief moment to 1.504v. However, it comes back down to sub 1.500v. Core VID's and CPU Core SVI2 (at least according to HWInfo). The highest I think I've seen those state (and again for a brief moment) is 1.494v.

Thank you.


----------



## Reikoji

the new 1.1.0.0 bios is still a bluescreen loop for me. Even increasing the voltage offset doesn't work. Doesn't matter what memory or fclk settings i use, even the defaults.

SYSTEM_THREAD_EXCEPTION_NOT_HANDLED is the stop error. This loop has been since the boost frequency enhancer bios.

I'll just flash when i have my 5950x on hand. This processor clearly doesnt like anything done since 1.0.8.0 came to life.


----------



## kuutale

Reikoji said:


> the new 1.1.0.0 bios is still a bluescreen loop for me. Even increasing the voltage offset doesn't work. Doesn't matter what memory or fclk settings i use, even the defaults.
> 
> SYSTEM_THREAD_EXCEPTION_NOT_HANDLED is the stop error. This loop has been since the boost frequency enhancer bios.
> 
> I'll just flash when i have my 5950x on hand. This processor clearly doesnt like anything done since 1.0.8.0 came to life.


3950x 2213 works ok, not super great but i managed stabilize cpu performance is bit better than previous bios, allthougt i wait 5950x and maybe sell this or do second pc, i have crosshair vi in box waiting moment when 5950x steps in


----------



## Reikoji

kuutale said:


> 3950x 2213 works ok, not super great but i managed stabilize cpu performance is bit better than previous bios, allthougt i wait 5950x and maybe sell this or do second pc, i have crosshair vi in box waiting moment when 5950x steps in


What mobo?


----------



## kuutale

Reikoji said:


> What mobo?


crosshair viii hero (non wifi)


----------



## Reikoji

kuutale said:


> crosshair viii hero (non wifi)


I wonder how many with the formula are having my issues. thinkin it may be formula bios soecific.


----------



## kuutale

Reikoji said:


> I wonder how many with the formula are having my issues. thinkin it may be formula bios soecific.


problems is not only asus boards, all mobos have same problem's


----------



## Reikoji

kuutale said:


> problems is not only asus boards, all mobos have same problem's


gonna hope its just the proccessor then and i dont bluescreen loop with the 5950x then 

it is a launch day 3900x... seems to be a problem child.


----------



## Hale59

Ryzen 5600X HWBOT benched on this board.
Check the cores speed and voltage.





AMD Ryzen 5 5600X @ HWBOT


2,424 submissions, 0/100 hw index




hwbot.org


----------



## kuutale

Reikoji said:


> gonna hope its just the proccessor then and i dont bluescreen loop with the 5950x then
> 
> it is a launch day 3900x... seems to be a problem child.


hopefully, new architecture can be help some problems, but can add new problems. i think all troubles allways come when cpu's released. hopefully this 5000 series working better then 3000, i dont complain 3000 series because i had two cpus and both work just fine, little problems sometimes.

this look very good at this point  








Ryzen 5 5600X Cinebench scores leak and stay above 600 point in CB20 ST


And that would be both Cinebench 11.5, 15 and the new CB20. The Ryzen 5 5600X scores 609 points in Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark....




www.guru3d.com


----------



## mgardiner73

Well bummer. I've tried to get PBO Fmax Enhancer to cooperate but I think I am just going to have to settle for PBO/AutoOC. It's strange, temps...etc.. all look great while it's on and it doesn't seem to matter what amount of voltage I try to give it, it always will crash while gaming (for me) after about 10-20 minutes. Hopefully another BIOS revision will improve my stability with it. Not going to lie though, I've been eyeing the 5800X to replace my 3800X... lol


----------



## 7lk

error 41 repeats, I set according to the patterns here, stable running max 2-3 days. can anyone advise you what to change?


----------



## SubiXT

a new beta bios is available. Version 2404



https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_HERO_WI-FI/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-2402.ZIP


----------



## IwannaKnow

SubiXT said:


> a new beta bios is available. Version 2404
> 
> 
> 
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_HERO_WI-FI/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-2402.ZIP



Anyone who has some issues with the latest stable and has some spare time to check if it fixes the issues?  I´m still too depressed from my last 6 days trials with the latest bios and enyoying right now again 1302 with 3800 RAM OC instead of 3200 RAM random reboots or WHEA errors.

Please let us know, if it helped with the issues.  I will try my luck in my holidays in a few weeks.

This sounds promising, would be great, if it would fix our issues.
Final Bios versions for MSI B550 / X570 added
Patch C for Crosshair VIII boards added"


----------



## Baio73

I had problems with my RAM (4x8Gb B-Die) until BIOS 2206... with any previous version the system was stable but Kharu RAM test failed.

Today I've given a chance to BIOS 2311, I struggled a bit but finally passed 4 hours of Kharu, I found stability setting in the BIOS the values of "Power Supply System" section from DRAM Calculator (which I didn't do with 2206).
When I rebooted the system, here's the bad surprise... the system hangs on "Test CMOS". If I power off and the on, I get "F9" code, then the pc reboots 3 times and finally I get control back (but have to go into the BIOS and load Safe Defaults).
Here are the values I entered from Power Supply System:

CPU:
LLC [Level 4]
Current Capability [140%]
VRM Switching Frequency [400]
Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Power Thermal Control [120]
Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]

VDDSOC:
LLC [Level 3]
Current Capability [120%]
Switching Frequency [Manual]
Switching Frequency (Fixed) [400]
Pashe Control [Manual/Optimized]

DRAM:
Current Capability [120%]
Power Phase Control [Extreme]
Switching Frequency [Manual]
Switching Frequency (Fixed) [400]

Other settings from Calculator:
DRAM Voltage [1.44]
SOC Voltage [1.1]
VDDG CCD Voltage [1.050]
VDDG IOD Voltage [1.050]
CLDO VDDP Voltage [1.050]

Any help will be VERY appreciated!!

Baio


----------



## SubiXT

I just updated to ver. 2402. so far so good.


----------



## T[]RK

Just founded today interesting video about new ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero motherboard. Interesting thing is... it was fully disassembled. Integrated I/O shield was in sealed bag, all heatsinks was disconnected and have blue protection tape on thermal pads. Even protection rings for screws was on separate film. I never saw anything like this...

Here is video:


----------



## James Cole

SubiXT said:


> I just updated to ver. 2402. so far so good.


Where is this version at? I don't see it listed on the site.


----------



## djase45

Version 2402 Beta Version
2020/11/04 20.13 MBytes
ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BIOS 2402
"1. Update AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.1.0.0 Patch C
2. Improve system stability
3. Improve DRAM compatibility

Before running the USB BIOS Flashback tool, please rename the BIOS file (C8H.CAP) using BIOSRenamer."





ROG Crosshair VIII Hero | ROG Crosshair | Gaming Motherboards｜ROG - Republic of Gamers｜ROG USA


AMD Ryzen 3000 series ATX motherboard with Aura Sync, SupremeFX, ROG Audio, Dual M.2, Realtek LAN, Dual Lan , M.2 heatsink and USB 3.2 Gen 2



rog.asus.com


----------



## 7lk

SubiXT said:


> a new beta bios is available. Version 2404
> 
> 
> 
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_HERO_WI-FI/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-2402.ZIP


version without wifi is not? ........... sorry I already found


----------



## keeph8n

T[]RK said:


> Just founded today interesting video about new ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero motherboard. Interesting thing is... it was fully disassembled. Integrated I/O shield was in sealed bag, all heatsinks was disconnected and have blue protection tape on thermal pads. Even protection rings for screws was on separate film. I never saw anything like this...
> 
> Here is video:


Bing is a great person!


----------



## Baio73

Baio73 said:


> I had problems with my RAM (4x8Gb B-Die) until BIOS 2206... with any previous version the system was stable but Kharu RAM test failed.
> 
> Today I've given a chance to BIOS 2311, I struggled a bit but finally passed 4 hours of Kharu, I found stability setting in the BIOS the values of "Power Supply System" section from DRAM Calculator (which I didn't do with 2206).
> When I rebooted the system, here's the bad surprise... the system hangs on "Test CMOS". If I power off and the on, I get "F9" code, then the pc reboots 3 times and finally I get control back (but have to go into the BIOS and load Safe Defaults).
> Here are the values I entered from Power Supply System:
> 
> CPU:
> LLC [Level 4]
> Current Capability [140%]
> VRM Switching Frequency [400]
> Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Power Thermal Control [120]
> Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
> 
> VDDSOC:
> LLC [Level 3]
> Current Capability [120%]
> Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Switching Frequency (Fixed) [400]
> Pashe Control [Manual/Optimized]
> 
> DRAM:
> Current Capability [120%]
> Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Switching Frequency (Fixed) [400]
> 
> Other settings from Calculator:
> DRAM Voltage [1.44]
> SOC Voltage [1.1]
> VDDG CCD Voltage [1.050]
> VDDG IOD Voltage [1.050]
> CLDO VDDP Voltage [1.050]
> 
> Any help will be VERY appreciated!!
> 
> Baio


UPDATE:
Quite the same behaviour with BIOS 2402 beta, on reboot I get error code 22 "detect HD", but if I reset via case button, the pc finally reboots.

Baio


----------



## DerKaiser

7lk said:


> error 41 repeats, I set according to the patterns here, stable running max 2-3 days. can anyone advise you what to change?
> 
> View attachment 2464341
> 
> View attachment 2464342
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2464344


This has been repeat like 2 o 3 times in the thread, but have you tried....

BIOS/Advanced/AMD CBS/CPU Common Options
Global C-State Control -> Enabled
The only problem with that is, it might be already enabled :-D
You could also try
*BIOS/Advanced/AMD CBS/NBIO Common Options/SMU Common Options
DF Cstates -> Enabled*

It fixed my problem with the DF C states!, but some people also recommend the first option as well

Gl!


----------



## kaefers

der8auer | "Neues Overclocking-Feature verändert Ryzen OC KOMPLETT - 5950X 16 Kern OC"




der8auer | Overclocking AMD Ryzen just became INSANE - 5950X 16 Core OC





I just ordered a 5950X earlier today. Now watching the above video from der8auer and I am very much wondering if the Dark Hero will be the only one to have the "*Dynamic OC Switcher*" functionality, or whether this will quickly be made available for my Crosshair VIII Impact as well. It would seriously be very disappointing not to get this feature, as surely I cannot just upgrade my entire SFF build just to fit a Dark Hero size motherboard. My Ncase would be very sad.

@The Stilt - any info on this highly appreciated


----------



## YouKnowSedri

I want to buy ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Hero with 5900x, right now i own z370 with F4-3200C14D-16GTZ ram. My question is, do i need replace ram or i can keep it?
Ofc i think about oc


----------



## kaefers

YouKnowSedri said:


> I want to buy ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Hero with 5900x, right now i own z370 with F4-3200C14D-16GTZ ram. My question is, do i need replace ram or i can keep it?
> Ofc i think about oc


I don't see why not. I got the F4-3600C16D-16GTZN which is also Bdie like yours. I have had this running at 3800C14 1.48v 1:1:1 on my C8I and 3950X for about a year now. I am upgrading to 5950X now and planning to keep the kit, maybe 4000C16 will be possible (althought that is slightly worse latency vs 3800C14). Unless you do mem oc for the sake of it, just keep it imho.


----------



## Krisztias

kaefers said:


> der8auer | "Neues Overclocking-Feature verändert Ryzen OC KOMPLETT - 5950X 16 Kern OC"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> der8auer | Overclocking AMD Ryzen just became INSANE - 5950X 16 Core OC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just ordered a 5950X earlier today. Now watching the above video from der8auer and I am very much wondering if the Dark Hero will be the only one to have the "*Dynamic OC Switcher*" functionality, or whether this will quickly be made available for my Crosshair VIII Impact as well. It would seriously be very disappointing not to get this feature, as surely I cannot just upgrade my entire SFF build just to fit a Dark Hero size motherboard. My Ncase would be very sad.
> 
> @The Stilt - any info on this highly appreciated


If this new function will not be available on the existing x570 Crosshair lineup... well.... would be VERY disapponting


----------



## nick name

Krisztias said:


> If this new function will not be available on the existing x570 Crosshair lineup... well.... would be VERY disapponting





> A new exclusive feature on the ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Dark is the Dynamic Overclock Switcher (DOS).


From this post:








Ryzen 9 5950X Curve Optimizer to 5.1 GHz, PBO and...


Zen 3 is here The much anticipated Zen 3 architecture has finally been launched close to a year and a half after Zen 2 while remaining on the same 7nm TSMC process. AMD's recently released Ryzen 3000XT showed there are frequency gains to be had just by manufacturing improvements over time. The...




www.overclock.net





He said "exclusive feature on" instead of saying "exclusive feature of" so perhaps that statement meant an ASUS exclusive feature and not a Dark exclusive feature.


----------



## kaefers

nick name said:


> From this post:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ryzen 9 5950X Curve Optimizer to 5.1 GHz, PBO and...
> 
> 
> Zen 3 is here The much anticipated Zen 3 architecture has finally been launched close to a year and a half after Zen 2 while remaining on the same 7nm TSMC process. AMD's recently released Ryzen 3000XT showed there are frequency gains to be had just by manufacturing improvements over time. The...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He said "exclusive feature on" instead of saying "exclusive feature of" so perhaps that statement meant an ASUS exclusive feature and not a Dark exclusive feature.


der8auer is saying in his video(s) that (paraphrased) "as far as he is aware, this (C8H Dark) is the only one to have this feature" ... I don't see any technical reasons, from my limited perspective, why Asus would not bring this to other Crosshair (VIII) boards, aside from trying to get people to buy the Dark boards. 

But for me with my SFF build, there is nothing announced. So yh, Asus should not have to make me buy a new hypothetical C8I Dark - unless it's still USB-C front panel header & Bios flashback & has a 10Gbe Intel NIC & shrink it from DTX to ITX (for example by getting rid of that stupid audiophile bla)


----------



## diaaablo

hi all, few questions:
Why Crosshair VIII doesn't start with 15-15-15 timings? No matter GDM on or off. Getting q-code 22.
Where BGS/BGS alt are? Can't find them.
bios v. 2402
Thanks in advance.


----------



## SamSqautch84

Reikoji said:


> I wonder how many with the formula are having my issues. thinkin it may be formula bios soecific.


I have a formula. There's definitly something not right. I had a big performance jump after updating to 2311. But if I started having random reboots.


----------



## dave12

SubiXT said:


> I just updated to ver. 2402. so far so good.


What CPU?


----------



## crash_ice

2402 Whit my 3950X i am unable to overvlock lol.
Bone stock . if i change just 1 value the computer made F9 error on the Qcode


----------



## tommy7600

YouKnowSedri said:


> I want to buy ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Hero with 5900x, right now i own z370 with F4-3200C14D-16GTZ ram. My question is, do i need replace ram or i can keep it?
> Ofc i think about oc


It should be ok. Most issues occure when all 4 bank of ram are used. I have the same ram but 4x and the solution to keep it stable was to use higer DRAM voltege. And remeber - you should use bank 2 for one dice of RAM.


----------



## sakete

To all you people having problems with all these BIOS versions, do you have fast boot enabled? I recommend you disable fast boot in the BIOS _and_ in Windows 10 (there is a separate fast boot option in windows 10). Google how to do it in Windows 10.

I used to have some weirdness at times with my 3900X/C8F, but ever since I disabled fast boot it's all been running well and stable.


----------



## Driftnick

Krisztias said:


> If this new function will not be available on the existing x570 Crosshair lineup... well.... would be VERY disapponting








In the comments of his video he said the following.

"Just got word from Asus. Implementating Dynamic OC Switching required some specific changes that can't be done on the older boards. So for now it will be a Dark Hero exclusive!"


----------



## kaefers

Driftnick said:


> In the comments of his video he said the following.
> 
> "Just got word from Asus. Implementating Dynamic OC Switching required some specific changes that can't be done on the older boards. So for now it will be a Dark Hero exclusive!"


IF that is really so, it would a very slow clap for Asus. And I would hope Gamers Nexus of Buildzoid commenting on that. - There is zero information on the Dark Hero's product page with respect to those changes, unless I missed something. VRM may be a litter nicer, but that cannot be reason enough, since other Crosshair VIII boards don't exactly have bad VRMs at all.


----------



## Gadfly

kaefers said:


> IF that is really so, it would a very slow clap for Asus. And I would hope Gamers Nexus of Buildzoid commenting on that. - There is zero information on the Dark Hero's product page with respect to those changes, unless I missed something. VRM may be a litter nicer, but that cannot be reason enough, since other Crosshair VIII boards don't exactly have bad VRMs at all.


It is bullshit, it is just a bios feature, there is nothing in the hardware that required a change. They only reason it is exclusive is so they sell more boards.


----------



## Baio73

diaaablo said:


> hi all, few questions:
> Why Crosshair VIII doesn't start with 15-15-15 timings? No matter GDM on or off. Getting q-code 22.
> Where BGS/BGS alt are? Can't find them.
> bios v. 2402
> Thanks in advance.


Don't know the error code 22, but I can say you'll find BGS/BGS alt hitting F9 and typing "bank".
Asus calls them BankGroupSwap.

Baio


----------



## nick name

Gadfly said:


> It is bullshit, it is just a bios feature, there is nothing in the hardware that required a change. They only reason it is exclusive is so they sell more boards.


Care to elaborate on how you believe they implemented it and how you believe it should be easily ported over to other boards?


----------



## diaaablo

Baio73 said:


> Don't know the error code 22, but I can say you'll find BGS/BGS alt hitting F9 and typing "bank".
> Asus calls them BankGroupSwap.
> 
> Baio


didn't use search at all before, thank you


----------



## Haldi

The Stilt said:


> Just a little heads-up on a new feature, that will find its way into the upcoming bios releases. The feature is called as "PBO Fmax Enhancer", and it will be available in the "Ai Tweaker/Precision Boost Override" -menu among with other of the “Precision Boost Override” related options, on compatible ASUS motherboards.


WoW!
That's the first time i'm getting a pretty good score on my Asus Strix X570-E!
This feature is Insane!

Manually optimized Bios Settings with vCore -0.0875V (which resulted in the highest CB20 Multi score)
CB20 Multi: 7070
CB20 Single: 506
 https://i.imgur.com/LAOPP6L.jpg

After Fmax enabled and Auto Voltage:
CB20 Multi: 7342
CB20 Single: 523
 https://i.imgur.com/b6p37C3.jpg


----------



## MacG32

Updated the Original Post with the ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero and a review. Also, the links to Asus Website have been updated.


----------



## petercar59

I’ve finally got my system stable using 2311. I’ve got PBO FMAX ENABLED and no more restarts or WHEA “warnings”. The bad news is I had to lose 2 sticks of RAM and I’m only at 3200 with my RAM, but at 14-14-14-14-28/1T…*so far*, and way better than the low 2000s with 4 sticks.

This worked for me:

Clear BIOS
Load BIOS defaults
Use The Stilt’s basic changes to the BIOS settings:
AI Overclock Tuner – MANUAL
Performance Enhancer – DEFAULT

PBO Fmax - ENABLED
SOC/Uncore OC Mode – DISABLED. No more restarts while idling. These were Event ID 41 Critical Errors with Event ID 19 WHEA “Warnings” "Reported by component: Processor Core".
Change Power Plan from “Ryzen Balanced” to “Ryzen High Power”. No more restarts while trying to sleep. These were Event ID 41 Critical Errors without Event ID 19 WHEA “Warnings”.
I've been stable for 3 days now.

Now for the new Beta BIOS!










*__*

C8H WIFI, Ryzen 3900X, Noctua D15S, 2 x 8GB Viper Steel DDR4 4400 PVS416G440C9K (non-QVL for C8H WIFI), Corsair AX1600i, STRIX 2080Ti OC Gaming, ROG Xonar Phoebus, 3 x 2TB NVMe, 1 x 480GB SATA SSD, 3 x SATA HDDs, Silverstone FT02, Acer x27.


----------



## Krisztias

Driftnick said:


> In the comments of his video he said the following.
> 
> "Just got word from Asus. Implementating Dynamic OC Switching required some specific changes that can't be done on the older boards. So for now it will be a Dark Hero exclusive!"


S**t...


----------



## leoxtxt

5950X / Crosshair VIII Formula

BIOS 2301 (AGESA V2 PI 1.1.0.0 PatchB) : No issues but occasionally i notice some massive voltage and temperature spikes (to 80-82c) @ idle. It is not cooling related, i'm using a Liquid Freezer II 360mm and during AID64 stress test it stays well below 70 degrees.

BIOS 2402 (AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.1.0.0 Patch C): The temperature spikes are gone but there is a massive drop in ST (CB20) performance, from 640 (2301) to 610 +- (2402), i ran the test like 10 times with each BIOS and it happens consistently.


----------



## kaefers

leoxtxt said:


> 5950X / Crosshair VIII Formula
> 
> BIOS 2301 (AGESA V2 PI 1.1.0.0 PatchB) : No issues but occasionally i notice some massive voltage and temperature spikes (to 80-82c) @ idle. It is not cooling related, i'm using a Liquid Freezer II 360mm and during AID64 stress test it stays well below 70 degrees.
> 
> BIOS 2402 (AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.1.0.0 Patch C): The temperature spikes are gone but there is a massive drop in ST (CB20) performance, from 640 (2301) to 610 +- (2402), i ran the test like 10 times with each BIOS and it happens consistently.


Sounds like the 2301 for Ryzen 5000 is what 1003ABBA / 1001 was for Ryzen 3000. Any PBO / Performance Enhancer / Performance Boost / Fmax / EDC=0 tried yet? :]


----------



## 7lk

I have errors 41 - bios 2402, settings by hints here: - (, is there a detailed bios manual? I do not want to degrade to two memory slots :-(, this is not the solution. I like ASUS, this board is a big disappointment


----------



## Naeem

Having issues with my audio drvers when i have no drivers installed i can hear sound but when i isntal l atest drvers from c8h support page there is no sound at all , anyone know any fix or had such issue ? i have latest version of windows installed now but had same issue with version 2004


----------



## EpicFlails

@The Stilt 

Is FMAX safe to use on 5000 series? I just turned it on and set it +200mhz.

Check out my 5900x doing 5.15ghz. Cooling is 420mm Arctic AIO and it seems to stay right below 60c but the voltage is what I'm worried about. It seems to increase for sure.


----------



## xeizo

EpicFlails said:


> @The Stilt
> 
> Is FMAX safe to use on 5000 series? I just turned it on and set it +200mhz.
> 
> Check out my 5900x doing 5.15ghz. Cooling is 420mm Arctic AIO and it seems to stay right below 60c but the voltage is what I'm worried about. It seems to increase for sure.


VID is not the actual voltage, its the requested voltage. You have to look under sensors to see the real voltage, and check during load.


----------



## kuutale

EpicFlails said:


> @The Stilt
> 
> Is FMAX safe to use on 5000 series? I just turned it on and set it +200mhz.
> 
> Check out my 5900x doing 5.15ghz. Cooling is 420mm Arctic AIO and it seems to stay right below 60c but the voltage is what I'm worried about. It seems to increase for sure.


check this. i think ur voltages just fine.


https://www.io-tech.fi/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/amd-ryzen-5000-voltage-20201106.jpg


----------



## kaefers

EpicFlails said:


> @The Stilt
> 
> Is FMAX safe to use on 5000 series? I just turned it on and set it +200mhz.
> 
> Check out my 5900x doing 5.15ghz. Cooling is 420mm Arctic AIO and it seems to stay right below 60c but the voltage is what I'm worried about. It seems to increase for sure.


Don't see any issue with the Core VID, but you didn't share your Core SVI2 TFN.

Below are my two 3950X with PBO OC. You can compare Core VID & especially Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN) to my two 3950X:
ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp... [My current CPU until I my 5950X gets delivered].
https://i.redd.it/r32knr84x2641.png [This one was a very early model, and using Windows 1809 w/o chipset drivers and UEFI1001 / 1003ABBA it kinda went a bit off in terms of voltage, was a dud at stock though].

EDIT: 5150 is nice


----------



## The Stilt

EpicFlails said:


> @The Stilt
> 
> Is FMAX safe to use on 5000 series? I just turned it on and set it +200mhz.
> 
> Check out my 5900x doing 5.15ghz. Cooling is 420mm Arctic AIO and it seems to stay right below 60c but the voltage is what I'm worried about. It seems to increase for sure.


I haven't used it personally on 5000-series, but yeah it works the same way on 5000-series as it did on the 3000-series.


----------



## Akasias

EpicFlails said:


> @The Stilt
> 
> Is FMAX safe to use on 5000 series? I just turned it on and set it +200mhz.
> 
> Check out my 5900x doing 5.15ghz. Cooling is 420mm Arctic AIO and it seems to stay right below 60c but the voltage is what I'm worried about. It seems to increase for sure.


that's not your average clock, maybe single core it will shoot up to that when opening program and such but multi thread you will stay below that, you didn't provide any info if this was during cinebench or anything, but from the looks of it its very normal. Next time post please give more info, we can't judge anything from this other than its very normal PBO Behaviour.


----------



## schnebdreleg

Some information about topics I stumbled upon myself. I bought a Ryzen 5800 and wondered why the new chipset driver doesn't include an energy saving plan anymore. See the following post (#1):








AMD Robert Hallock promises Ryzen 5000 undervolting with new functionality - VideoCardz.com


AMD Director of Technical Marketing – Robert Hallock – provided more details on Ryzen 5000 series compatibility, upcoming features, and upgrade opportunities for users with AMD 500 series motherboards. AMD lifts the curtain on Ryzen 5000 series Yesterday AMD released its Ryzen 5000 series...




videocardz.com




If you, like me, installed the latest driver without deleting the previous driver, you will still be on the Ryzen Balanced Plan like before. I don't know if that can cause problems. I had some issues with audio stutter (youtube/spotify) that are now gone.

I wanted to undervolt my 5800X as I did with my 3800X. Even with the smallest possible offset I lost about 500 points in Cinebench. Again, see also the following post (#9):








AMD Robert Hallock promises Ryzen 5000 undervolting with new functionality - VideoCardz.com


AMD Director of Technical Marketing – Robert Hallock – provided more details on Ryzen 5000 series compatibility, upcoming features, and upgrade opportunities for users with AMD 500 series motherboards. AMD lifts the curtain on Ryzen 5000 series Yesterday AMD released its Ryzen 5000 series...




videocardz.com





I was able to oc my 3200er CL 14 2x16GB kit to 3866 CL 16 without hassle. On my 3800X, 3733 CL 16 was the max I was able to archive.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

leoxtxt said:


> 5950X / Crosshair VIII Formula
> 
> BIOS 2301 (AGESA V2 PI 1.1.0.0 PatchB) : No issues but occasionally i notice some massive voltage and temperature spikes (to 80-82c) @ idle. It is not cooling related, i'm using a Liquid Freezer II 360mm and during AID64 stress test it stays well below 70 degrees.
> 
> BIOS 2402 (AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.1.0.0 Patch C): The temperature spikes are gone but there is a massive drop in ST (CB20) performance, from 640 (2301) to 610 +- (2402), i ran the test like 10 times with each BIOS and it happens consistently.


I have the same issue with 5950x with TUF X570. Got much higher score before with ST but no I only get 620. I checked and something is off with voltage. Only goes to 1.45v instead of 1.5v as it did before. Core CLK is also 4.85ghz vs 5.05ghz it was before.


----------



## Gandyman

Hey guys, got a 5900x pre-orderd -- Gunna have some fun with team red for the first time in years. Lost silicone lottery with my 10900k anyways, and AMD have done enough to earn my business. Having a 8 week old baby at home my research time is lower than it usually is, but I've narrowed my mobo choices down to a Crosshair Hero or a Aorus Master. Both are similar priced and availiable from my supplier. Anyone here with some insight as to what one to pick? I have a 2x16 kit of b-die 3600 cl16. I doubt I'll overclock, as PBO seems like a good enough solution for the small time I have at the moment. i see a lot of buzz last few days about daisy chains and T topologies; I've never worried about RAM overclocking before (intel) but it seems quite beneficial for Zen architecture. The VRMS all seem overkill on all these mobos, but is there a difference between the two RAM wise? Any advice appreciated.

Cheers in advance


----------



## Moutsatsos

If you really like fine tunning you might wana wait for the Dark Hero to come out,either choise is decent I lean towards Gigabyte for x570 especially the Master.Does anyone know if they have fixed the fans ramping up and getting stack on CH8?


----------



## Price

Gandyman said:


> Hey guys, got a 5900x pre-orderd -- Gunna have some fun with team red for the first time in years. Lost silicone lottery with my 10900k anyways, and AMD have done enough to earn my business. Having a 8 week old baby at home my research time is lower than it usually is, but I've narrowed my mobo choices down to a Crosshair Hero or a Aorus Master. Both are similar priced and availiable from my supplier. Anyone here with some insight as to what one to pick? I have a 2x16 kit of b-die 3600 cl16. I doubt I'll overclock, as PBO seems like a good enough solution for the small time I have at the moment. i see a lot of buzz last few days about daisy chains and T topologies; I've never worried about RAM overclocking before (intel) but it seems quite beneficial for Zen architecture. The VRMS all seem overkill on all these mobos, but is there a difference between the two RAM wise? Any advice appreciated.
> 
> Cheers in advance


The two boards that you mentioned are pretty much similar in terms of features, for me it boils down to (not in order of importance):

1) which one is cheaper
2) the look
3) user base
4) bios / ease of OC


----------



## Gandyman

Price said:


> The two boards that you mentioned are pretty much similar in terms of features, for me it boils down to (not in order of importance):
> 
> 1) which one is cheaper
> 2) the look
> 3) user base
> 4) bios / ease of OC


Right, price is similar enough to not be a worry for me. Looks also, both are following the new charcoal with cypberpunk-esque rgb elements. User base would be pretty similar I'de imagine between a mainstream ROG and Aorus board no? And as for BIOS, if its anything like the Intel versions of these two, then the ASUS BIOS would probably be superior? That said I;m currently using a Aorus Master for my 10900k, and whilst it is more convoluted and menus and sub menus make you feel like Sarah searching for Toby, all the functionality is there.

Perhaps I'll Just flip a coin


----------



## Price

Gandyman said:


> Right, price is similar enough to not be a worry for me. Looks also, both are following the new charcoal with cypberpunk-esque rgb elements. User base would be pretty similar I'de imagine between a mainstream ROG and Aorus board no? And as for BIOS, if its anything like the Intel versions of these two, then the ASUS BIOS would probably be superior? That said I;m currently using a Aorus Master for my 10900k, and whilst it is more convoluted and menus and sub menus make you feel like Sarah searching for Toby, all the functionality is there.
> 
> Perhaps I'll Just flip a coin


User base is an important consideration for me, a larger user base equals to better support by the community. This thread with over 170 pages of post is a very good example. 

On the other hand I think the Aorus Master probably has less than 30 pages of post? So, if I am looking to squeeze out every bit of performance from my C8H, the chances are higher that I can find that information here.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Moutsatsos

They don't have the same vrm in fact the Master's vrm is the best,at least in papper,from all the x570 line.I don't remember details but i recall upon launch there was some heat about C8H vrm declaration by the company.In practice both mobos are more than capable to support any cpu.As for the support,from my personal experience the support asus provides is not the best.The only good thing with asus is that its a brand widely used so you will find knowledgeable people in their forums sections.Even thought after the C6H fiascos plenty of them turned to other brands.


----------



## oreonutz

@The Stilt I don't suppose you have any insight to this Dynamic Overclock Switcher (DOS) that ASUS Built into the New Dark Hero Board? Wondering if you think it will be ported over to the C8H/C8F/C8I In time, or if there is actually some Hardware reason for this feature to remain exclusive on the new Dark Hero Mobo?

I know it may make business sense for ASUS to do so, but I have been begging for a feature like this since the Launch of Zen2 and it would be amazing if ASUS would port it over the rest of their x570 Crosshair Line up as well. I know you don't speak for them, was just hoping you might have some insight for us. Appreciate you as always!


----------



## 7lk




----------



## The Stilt

oreonutz said:


> @The Stilt I don't suppose you have any insight to this Dynamic Overclock Switcher (DOS) that ASUS Built into the New Dark Hero Board? Wondering if you think it will be ported over to the C8H/C8F/C8I In time, or if there is actually some Hardware reason for this feature to remain exclusive on the new Dark Hero Mobo?
> 
> I know it may make business sense for ASUS to do so, but I have been begging for a feature like this since the Launch of Zen2 and it would be amazing if ASUS would port it over the rest of their x570 Crosshair Line up as well. I know you don't speak for them, was just hoping you might have some insight for us. Appreciate you as always!


In case of this feature, I actually have no idea how it works in practical terms, at HW/SW level.
I have some ideas, but not entirely certain if that's accurate or not.


----------



## canada2005

2402 Beta C - Crosshair Hero Wifi - Having random shut downs with all default bios except xmp settings and water pump control.


----------



## DerKaiser

Guys I stated a few pages before, for the shutdowns just try:

BIOS/Advanced/AMD CBS/CPU Common Options
Global C-State Control -> Enabled

The only problem with that is, it might be already enabled :-D
You could also try

BIOS/Advanced/AMD CBS/NBIO Common Options/SMU Common Options
DF Cstates -> Enabled

I found it in reddit and it fixed my issues on the C8H


----------



## nick name

I plow my CPU with voltage to stop the reboots. With LLC 1 I use an offset of +0.01875V and with that offset SVI2 droops below VID during loads and occasionally slightly peaks (about .006V) above VID while idle. During an all-core CB20 run SVI2 ranges from 1.244V to 1.275V.

Edit:
Sorry at idle SVI2 is about .013V above VID. Looking at HWiNFO Maximum voltage is where I only saw an increase of .006V in SVI2 over VID. But under loads SVI2 droops below VID.


----------



## Po1293

I've got the WiFi of CH8 motherboard.
I've bought 2 different purchases of F4-3200C14D-32GTZR so that is 2x 2x16GB = 4x 16GB
(so can't regret this purchase now)

I'm waiting for the Zen3 5900x to be sent me in December.

What can I expect from this setup regarding a little on the safe side OC? I would prefer to underclock voltage if possible, would that provide even better performance on the RAM, or is it better to do overvoltage?

I intend to maybe buy the 6800 XT gpu for this setup later this month if I can even get hold of one.

I'm very new to overclocking, and even if there are some competence in my country on the larger discussion forum, I don't always understand everything, and it seems that not all advice is good. So I trusted someone, added the settings and it wouldn't run. So I have ran it for a year now with DOCP settings. With a corrupted Windows installation too. So I really look forward to reinstall Win10 any time now that I receive the new 5900x cpu.

I've got these Thaiphoon readouts:


----------



## shamino1978

Edit updated links to 2502, these have the 'curve optimizer' exposed in AMD/overclocking/pbo/advanced
Also have the much wanted Revise SIO Fan temperature upper limit to 100.





__





We'll be back.






rog.asus.com


----------



## CyrIng

shamino1978 said:


> 2501s for C8's, still based on Patch C, should resolve some dram issues seen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We'll be back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rog.asus.com


Thanks
Any detailed ChangeLog from ASUS ? 
What about Interrupt remapping, and, Machine Checks, logged by Kernel ?


----------



## 7lk

DerKaiser said:


> Guys I stated a few pages before, for the shutdowns just try:
> 
> BIOS/Advanced/AMD CBS/CPU Common Options
> Global C-State Control -> Enabled
> 
> The only problem with that is, it might be already enabled :-D
> You could also try
> 
> BIOS/Advanced/AMD CBS/NBIO Common Options/SMU Common Options
> DF Cstates -> Enabled
> 
> I found it in reddit and it fixed my issues on the C8H


I set everything according to the advice. Mistakes are repeated. Just stating, I'm not complaining about anyone here!


----------



## shamino1978

Edit updated links to 2502, these have the 'curve optimizer' exposed in AMD/overclocking/pbo/advanced
Also have the much wanted Revise SIO Fan temperature upper limit to 100.


----------



## kaefers

I know it's not Crosshair, but I thought worth sharing nonetheless. Optimum Tech in his latest youtube video describing UEFI issues (e.g. low all-core clock and boost issues) during his SFF build 5950X / 3090 test with Asus X570-I and B550-I. 





Reminded me a bit of what @leoxtxt said here 








ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...


In the comments of his video he said the following. "Just got word from Asus. Implementating Dynamic OC Switching required some specific changes that can't be done on the older boards. So for now it will be a Dark Hero exclusive!" IF that is really so, it would a very slow clap for Asus. And I...




www.overclock.net


----------



## finas

@shamino1978 
Can you tell me regarding drvstr memory parameters, if they are board specific, memory specific, board+memory combo specific, and if there is a way to figure out the proper values for them?
Same for procodt, rttnom, rttwr, rttpark.
I have an crosshair VIII impact with two 16gb memory modules from g-skill ( F4-4000C1916GTZR ).

currently using:


----------



## kaefers

finas said:


> @shamino1978
> Can you tell me regarding drvstr memory parameters, if they are board specific, memory specific, board+memory combo specific, and if there is a way to figure out the proper values for them?
> Same for procodt, rttnom, rttwr, rttpark.
> I have an crosshair VIII impact with two 16gb memory modules from g-skill ( F4-4000C1916GTZR ).
> 
> currently using:
> 
> 
> View attachment 2465071


I got a similar result, slightly different timings, a little less VSOC etc with the same board and cpu, but GSkill 3600C16 Bdie kit @ 3800C14. Very nice!


----------



## Gadfly

Wanted to post a quick update on my initial testing with bios 2402 and 2311 and aa 5950X:


Bios 2311: Garbage. My 5950X was hard capped at 1900mhz fclk, NOTHING I did would get it to run over 1900mhz. That said, I had no issues running 4x8GB @ 3800C14 with tight subs 1:1.

Bios 2411: FCLK immediately booted at 2000mhz, in facted it booted 2100mhz fclk and 4200C16 1:1. VCCD was set to .985v, 2066mhz was stable, but 2100mhz was not quite stable, I need to test 2100mhz fck with a higher vccd.

I was unable to get ether bios to boot with memory set to anything higher than 3866 MT/s in a 4x8gb config, but I had no issues booting 4400C16 in 2x8gb. I am planning on trying 2x16GB later today to see if I can get 32GB of memory at 4200 MT/s. I also saw that Asus pushed a new beta bios, so I guess I will try that tonight as well.

If anyone has any tips on 4x8GB @ 4000+ mhz let me know; I suspect the key will lie in the drive strengths and terminations.

@elmor FYI: Here is a pic of the 2100mhz fclk:


----------



## Gadfly

finas said:


> @shamino1978
> Can you tell me regarding drvstr memory parameters, if they are board specific, memory specific, board+memory combo specific, and if there is a way to figure out the proper values for them?
> Same for procodt, rttnom, rttwr, rttpark.
> I have an crosshair VIII impact with two 16gb memory modules from g-skill ( F4-4000C1916GTZR ).
> 
> currently using:
> 
> 
> View attachment 2465071


Try this:

Set RttNom to RXQ/7, Set ClkDrvStr to 30 ohm, ckedrvstr to 20 ohm, also I noticed your tRAS is also too low; it should be TRCD + CL, so 15+14 = 29, round up to even value: 30.


----------



## finas

Gadfly said:


> Try this:
> 
> Set RttNom to RXQ/7, Set ClkDrvStr to 30 ohm, ckedrvstr to 20 ohm, also I noticed your tRAS is also too low; it should be TRCD + CL, so 15+14 = 29, round up to even value: 30.


I know that tRAS rule, but I actually get better performance with 21, the lower I can get away with. So not sure how valid that rule still is. My system is 100% stable, 9940 cine multi and 533 single. 
The parameters you suggest, any reason why?


----------



## finas

kaefers said:


> I got a similar result, slightly different timings, a little less VSOC etc with the same board and cpu, but GSkill 3600C16 Bdie kit @ 3800C14. Very nice!


I'm still trying to figure out how low I can go on vsoc, vddp, vddg-iod and vddg-ccd. What I do know, is that there is a direct correlation between vddg-ccd + @The Stilt feature and cine R20 m multi score. The lower the vddg-ccd voltage, the higher the score will be.


----------



## finas

Gadfly said:


> Wanted to post a quick update on my initial testing with bios 2402 and 2311 and aa 5950X:
> 
> 
> Bios 2311: Garbage. My 5950X was hard capped at 1900mhz fclk, NOTHING I did would get it to run over 1900mhz. That said, I had no issues running 4x8GB @ 3800C14 with tight subs 1:1.
> 
> Bios 2411: FCLK immediately booted at 2000mhz, in facted it booted 2100mhz fclk and 4200C16 1:1. VCCD was set to .985v, 2066mhz was stable, but 2100mhz was not quite stable, I need to test 2100mhz fck with a higher vccd.
> 
> I was unable to get ether bios to boot with memory set to anything higher than 3866 MT/s in a 4x8gb config, but I had no issues booting 4400C16 in 2x8gb. I am planning on trying 2x16GB later today to see if I can get 32GB of memory at 4200 MT/s. I also saw that Asus pushed a new beta bios, so I guess I will try that tonight as well.
> 
> If anyone has any tips on 4x8GB @ 4000+ mhz let me know; I suspect the key will lie in the drive strengths and terminations.
> 
> @elmor FYI: Here is a pic of the 2100mhz fclk:
> 
> View attachment 2465079


man, 2100fclk, I am drooling.


----------



## Giustaf

Hi, I just put the 5900x on the signature configuration, i just set my standard ram (4x8Gb 3600 16-16-16-16-32 1T) and *cpu overclock completely default.*

*CB20 Multi: 8247
CB20 Single: 633*

Max temp 58°C (136° F). Ryzen Master show during the test PPT 100% TDC 97%, EDC 100%

I have the latest bios (non beta) 2311, energy profile on calanced and i latest AMD chipset drivers.









My scores are ok or low? 😰😰😰


----------



## Sam64

@Giustaf Looks very nice from my point of view (still on [email protected] and impatiently waiting for 5900X)


----------



## leoxtxt

With the latest BIOS (2502) WHEA Errors are gone @ FCLK 1900Mhz and ST boost is fixed.

👌


----------



## CyrIng

leoxtxt said:


> With the latest BIOS (2502) WHEA Errors are gone @ FCLK 1900Mhz and ST boost is fixed.
> 
> 👌
> 
> View attachment 2465143


Great news, thank you. 
Can you tell if booting Linux, there all still interrupts warnings, but also a firmware bug ?


----------



## dante`afk

is there any guide on how to use the curve optimizer?
what is the difference between the vcore under"extreme tweaker" and the core vid under "cpu core ratio (ccx)" ?


----------



## CyrIng

CyrIng said:


> Great news, thank you.
> Can you tell if booting Linux, there all still interrupts warnings, but also a firmware bug ?


I meant those issues:


Code:


Linux version 5.9.8-arch1-1 ([email protected]) (gcc (GCC) 10.2.0, GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.35.1)
...
efi: EFI v2.70 by American Megatrends
SMBIOS 3.2.0 present.
DMI: System manufacturer System Product Name/ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO (WI-FI), BIOS 2206 08/13/2020
...
smp: Bringing up secondary CPUs ...
x86: Booting SMP configuration:
.... node  #0, CPUs:        #1
__common_interrupt: 1.55 No irq handler for vector
  #2
__common_interrupt: 2.55 No irq handler for vector
  #3
__common_interrupt: 3.55 No irq handler for vector
  #4
__common_interrupt: 4.55 No irq handler for vector
  #5
__common_interrupt: 5.55 No irq handler for vector
  #6
__common_interrupt: 6.55 No irq handler for vector
  #7
__common_interrupt: 7.55 No irq handler for vector
  #8
__common_interrupt: 8.55 No irq handler for vector
  #9
__common_interrupt: 9.55 No irq handler for vector
 #10
__common_interrupt: 10.55 No irq handler for vector
 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 #24 #25 #26 #27 #28 #29 #3>
smp: Brought up 1 node, 32 CPUs
smpboot: Max logical packages: 1
smpboot: Total of 32 processors activated (224092.20 BogoMIPS)




Code:


ACPI: 9 ACPI AML tables successfully acquired and loaded
ACPI: [Firmware Bug]: BIOS _OSI(Linux) query ignored
...
acpi PNP0C14:02: duplicate WMI GUID 05901221-D566-11D1-B2F0-00A0C9062910 (first instance was on PNP0C14:01)
acpi PNP0C14:03: duplicate WMI GUID 05901221-D566-11D1-B2F0-00A0C9062910 (first instance was on PNP0C14:01)
acpi PNP0C14:04: duplicate WMI GUID 05901221-D566-11D1-B2F0-00A0C9062910 (first instance was on PNP0C14:01)
acpi PNP0C14:05: duplicate WMI GUID 05901221-D566-11D1-B2F0-00A0C9062910 (first instance was on PNP0C14:01)


----------



## PopeBenedict

Hello,
I recently upgraded from my good old Crosshair VI Hero with a 3700X to a to the Crosshair VIII Hero with a 5800X. I downloaded and installed the beta BIOS v2402 listed by Asus and bought this memory kit to pair it with *16GB G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4 PC 3800 CL14 KIT (2X8GB) 16GTZN NEO. *

My problems are the following:

- Using both my old kit (TridentZ 3200 CL14) or the new kit (TridentZ Neo 3800 CL14) I test with CB r20 and get scores that are around 5800 MC and 620 SC. Maximal MC boost goes to 4.4-4.5 reaching temperatures in average around 85 C and CPU core voltages around 1.35V. Under these conditions I get 0 errors as monitored unsing HW64 Info.

- When I use the TridentZ Neo 3800 CL14 running at 3600 CL14 or CL16 (using DRam calculator safe settings) leaving FCLK in AUTO or manually setting it to1800 generally results in a fail to boot status. Only after turning off the power and unplugging PSU, however, sometimes it will boot with these settings still saved into windows. When I manage to get into Windows and test with CB r20 immediately I get "Windows hardware errors" usually between 20-40, specifically listed as "CPU/Interconnect" and both CB r20 scores (MC and SC) plummet.

- When using the TridentZ Neo 3800 CL14 using DOCP leaving FCLK in AUTO or setting it manually to 1900 I get over 200 of these errors.

- Finally, by clearing CMOS and now setting memory speed to 3600 MHz (not DOCP) and leaving everything else in AUTO, I don't get problems booting into windows but still get the errors of the CPU/Interconnect. Under these conditions the motherboard sets automatically the FCLK to 1800.

My question is, could this be a problem of getting a faulty 5800X, a motherboard issue or a BIOS problem?

Any input is highly appreciated.


----------



## The Stilt

Gadfly said:


> Wanted to post a quick update on my initial testing with bios 2402 and 2311 and aa 5950X:
> 
> 
> Bios 2311: Garbage. My 5950X was hard capped at 1900mhz fclk, NOTHING I did would get it to run over 1900mhz. That said, I had no issues running 4x8GB @ 3800C14 with tight subs 1:1.
> 
> Bios 2411: FCLK immediately booted at 2000mhz, in facted it booted 2100mhz fclk and 4200C16 1:1. VCCD was set to .985v, 2066mhz was stable, but 2100mhz was not quite stable, I need to test 2100mhz fck with a higher vccd.
> 
> I was unable to get ether bios to boot with memory set to anything higher than 3866 MT/s in a 4x8gb config, but I had no issues booting 4400C16 in 2x8gb. I am planning on trying 2x16GB later today to see if I can get 32GB of memory at 4200 MT/s. I also saw that Asus pushed a new beta bios, so I guess I will try that tonight as well.
> 
> If anyone has any tips on 4x8GB @ 4000+ mhz let me know; I suspect the key will lie in the drive strengths and terminations.
> 
> @elmor FYI: Here is a pic of the 2100mhz fclk:
> 
> View attachment 2465079


Was the performance, >= 2000MHz FCLK better than at, say 1800MHz?
Its pretty easy to check with e.g. Cinebench R20 nT.

In some cases, the CPU might be able to boot with e.g. 2000MHz FCLK, but the performance is complete garbage due to a massive amount of errors, that get corrected, in the fabric.
The system appears to be otherwise perfectly stable, only the performance is worse.


----------



## Price

PopeBenedict said:


> Hello,
> I recently upgraded from my good old Crosshair VI Hero with a 3700X to a to the Crosshair VIII Hero with a 5800X. I downloaded and installed the beta BIOS v2402 listed by Asus and bought this memory kit to pair it with *16GB G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4 PC 3800 CL14 KIT (2X8GB) 16GTZN NEO. *
> 
> My problems are the following:
> 
> - Using both my old kit (TridentZ 3200 CL14) or the new kit (TridentZ Neo 3800 CL14) I test with CB r20 and get scores that are around 5800 MC and 620 SC. Maximal MC boost goes to 4.4-4.5 reaching temperatures in average around 85 C and CPU core voltages around 1.35V. Under these conditions I get 0 errors as monitored unsing HW64 Info.
> 
> - When I use the TridentZ Neo 3800 CL14 running at 3600 CL14 or CL16 (using DRam calculator safe settings) leaving FCLK in AUTO or manually setting it to1800 generally results in a fail to boot status. Only after turning off the power and unplugging PSU, however, sometimes it will boot with these settings still saved into windows. When I manage to get into Windows and test with CB r20 immediately I get "Windows hardware errors" usually between 20-40, specifically listed as "CPU/Interconnect" and both CB r20 scores (MC and SC) plummet.
> 
> - When using the TridentZ Neo 3800 CL14 using DOCP leaving FCLK in AUTO or setting it manually to 1900 I get over 200 of these errors.
> 
> - Finally, by clearing CMOS and now setting memory speed to 3600 MHz (not DOCP) and leaving everything else in AUTO, I don't get problems booting into windows but still get the errors of the CPU/Interconnect. Under these conditions the motherboard sets automatically the FCLK to 1800.
> 
> My question is, could this be a problem of getting a faulty 5800X, a motherboard issue or a BIOS problem?
> 
> Any input is highly appreciated.


What RAM voltage?


----------



## Gadfly

The Stilt said:


> Was the performance, >= 2000MHz FCLK better than at, say 1800MHz?
> Its pretty easy to check with e.g. Cinebench R20 nT.
> 
> In some cases, the CPU might be able to boot with e.g. 2000MHz FCLK, but the performance is complete garbage due to a massive amount of errors, that get corrected, in the fabric.
> The system appears to be otherwise perfectly stable, only the performance is worse.


Hey there, been a while.

I didn't really see any performance scaling beyond 2000mhz, CB R20 scores went up ~30 points (I turned off PBO, no OC, everything stock but memory and fclk settings); but then again I am not getting the scores that others get. Even stock "out of the box" I am not breaking 10k in R20, only about 9700; even though it is in a custom loop; not sure if it is CPU, or the beta bios. My 3950X scored well over 10k, but so far this 5950X has been a bit of a dud outside of high fclk's.

I didn't really spend the time messing with 2000+ fclk as I can only get the board to boot 4x8GB @ 3866 (I need 32GB for my professional workloads) so that is where I am spending my time. I will likely revisit it when a more stable bios is out. Thus far 2402 has been ok, the new 2501 beta seems to lock people back down 1900mhz fclk.


----------



## dante`afk

what LLC are you guys running?


----------



## shamino1978

saw a lot of people concerned about high temps they see running loads on the 5800X, you can easily configure thermal limit from the default 90c to whatever you want under PBO menu Thermal limit
for example 80c, proc will never pass that.


----------



## artafinde

Version 2502 released. non-BETA.


----------



## CyrIng

artafinde said:


> Version 2502 released. non-BETA.


Where ? not here
EDIT: official now, thanks


----------



## artafinde

CyrIng said:


> Where ? not here


Yes from there:









Try to refresh your browser (Ctrl+F5) it probably needs a bit of time to sync across all CDN they are using?


----------



## CyrIng

artafinde said:


> Yes from there:
> View attachment 2465291
> 
> 
> Try to refresh your browser (Ctrl+F5) it probably needs a bit of time to sync across all CDN they are using?


Thanks.
Did you try it ? Is it stable ?


----------



## artafinde

CyrIng said:


> Did you try it ? Is it stable ?


It seems stable enough with 3200-CL14 settings (no XMP) and Fmax enabled. I've only run a couple of stress loads so far so the load->idle stability is still pending. I also used to get crashed during gaming on Alt-tab so I'll report back in a couple of days if anything happens. For a small comparison of pre and after Fmax:
CR20:
Stock: 8868 multi
Fmax: 9756 multi

Pre-Fmax








post-Fmax









I was re-reading the original post from @The Stilt and seems I might still have some room as the SVI2 TFN still is less than 1.5V (maxing around 1.457V) with Auto Vcore and Auto CPU LLC.


----------



## tien113

CyrIng said:


> Thanks.
> Did you try it ? Is it stable ?


I tried 2502. everything is the same as previous bios.


----------



## Po1293

This seems like a very little supportive forum. No interest in helping newbies to overclocking?
More important with self glorification of achievements?


----------



## owntecx

shamino1978 said:


> Edit updated links to 2502, these have the 'curve optimizer' exposed in AMD/overclocking/pbo/advanced
> Also have the much wanted Revise SIO Fan temperature upper limit to 100.


Any information when other boards will get the update to fix the Whea errors?


----------



## Gadfly

owntecx said:


> Any information when other boards will get the update to fix the Whea errors?



2501 fixed the whea errors, and fixed the high PLL voltages. 2502 is exactly the same as 2501 but with curve optimizer exposed in the AMD Overclocking section of the BIOS.

That said, 2501 broke the ability to run over 1900mhz fclk, and it still has issues with memory; requiring ~50mV+ of additional voltage on memory profiles vs older bios builds.

I was able to run a really tight 3800C14 profile at 1.485v, but that same profile takes 1.55v just to post with 2501/2502. For now I am running 1900mhz 1:1, 16-15-15-15-30-46 @ 1.48v (!).

I am going to leave the memory and fclk here for now, mess with PBO for a bit and wait for Asus to fix the bios issues / new agesa core.


----------



## Gadfly

Po1293 said:


> This seems like a very little supportive forum. No interest in helping newbies to overclocking?
> More important with self glorification of achievements?


First... Don't be a *******. Especially if you want people to take the time to help you.

Second... what help do you need?


----------



## zsoltmol

I have tried 2502. everything is catastrophic. System does not even boot at 3733MHz to Windows with all the exast same settings which were good since 13xx bios and also 2206. Even I need to be very fast to switch back to 3866MHz as it can freeze even in Bios while making changes. I have no words currently. 4x8GB with 3900X, C8H non Wifi. Performance loss is also there 74xx down to 71xx in CB R20 nT.

I dont have that 'curve optimizer' exposed in AMD/overclocking/pbo/advanced at all. Even if I search in the BIOS with F9 there is nothing. I dont know whats wrong, and I do the proper way to flash bios and re-enter manually everything.


----------



## rv8000

^

Rule of thumb I've gone by since gen1, never flash a bios without ram set to default platform speeds. The number of problems and OS corruption caused by this on my x370 setup was EXTREMELY frustrating.


----------



## Gadfly

shamino1978 said:


> Edit updated links to 2502, these have the 'curve optimizer' exposed in AMD/overclocking/pbo/advanced
> Also have the much wanted Revise SIO Fan temperature upper limit to 100.



Hey there @shamino1978

Quick feed back on 2502 testing:


whea errors at 1900mhz fclk resolved.
vccd voltages required for 1900mhz fclk are back to normal (0.945v ccd/iod working again).
Tight memory profiles require at least +50mv of additional voltage to train and post. I had to drop from 3800C14 to 3800C16 to keep it under 1.5v
Just like 2311, unable to boot anything over 1900fclk, no matter the vccd voltage.
The high PLL voltages are resolved as well, and manually lowering PLL does no longer interferes with CPU performance.
The slow nvme storage issue and low iops in name raid issue remains, but I think that needs to be fixed by AMD.

(@elmor fyi) PBO, boosting and curve optimizer are working very well in 2502, stock pbo settings, curve at -20, cpu V at + 0.05v, and additional boost clock at +50mhz sees 5.07 - 5.1ghz sustained single core (5.1 sustains if lock affinity to the two #1 cores) with a 652 CB R20 single test (no affinity locked, so it moved around. Core 0 and 7 run 5.1, rest 5050-5075ish).

Let me know if there is anything specific you want tested.


----------



## Gadfly

dante`afk said:


> what LLC are you guys running?


Not sure if this was directed at me, but llc is auto, with soc llc at level 2.


----------



## Bostonjunk

Updated from 2311 to 2502 and my memory bandwidth seems to have taken a nosedive - especially copy
All settngs identical as far as I can tell. 2311 on the left and 2502 on the right.









No idea what I could be doing wrong - does anyone have any suggestions?


----------



## zsoltmol

Go back to previous AIDA version! It is related to AIDA new becnhmarking DLL and not 2502.



Bostonjunk said:


> Updated from 2311 to 2502 and my memory bandwidth seems to have taken a nosedive - especially copy
> All settngs identical as far as I can tell. 2311 on the left and 2502 on the right.
> View attachment 2465354
> 
> 
> No idea what I could be doing wrong - does anyone have any suggestions?


----------



## zsoltmol

Gadfly said:


> ...curve optimizer are working very well in 2502, stock pbo settings, curve at -20, cpu V at + 0.05v, and additional boost clock at +50mhz sees 5.07 - 5.1ghz sustained single core (5.1 sustains if lock affinity to the two #1 cores) with a 652 CB R20 single test (no affinity locked, so it moved around. Core 0 and 7 run 5.1, rest 5050-5075ish).
> 
> Let me know if there is anything specific you want tested.


Is this curve optimiser a Ryzen 5xxxx feature? Can you please share a screen where it is on 2502? I go to the specified AMD/overclocking/pbo/advanced path in my 2502 ant there is no such thing.

More interestingly besides heavy 3733MHz instability I have lost quite a bit of ram performance. Both test were done with same AIDA version.
2206 bios, same settings









2502 bios same settings


----------



## Bostonjunk

zsoltmol said:


> Go back to previous AIDA version! It is related to AIDA new becnhmarking DLL and not 2502.


That's a relief! 😁 Thank you


----------



## Gryzor

Gadfly said:


> Hey there @shamino1978
> 
> Quick feed back on 2502 testing:
> 
> 
> whea errors at 1900mhz fclk resolved.
> vccd voltages required for 1900mhz fclk are back to normal (0.945v ccd/iod working again).
> Tight memory profiles require at least +50mv of additional voltage to train and post. I had to drop from 3800C14 to 3800C16 to keep it under 1.5v
> Just like 2311, unable to boot anything over 1900fclk, no matter the vccd voltage.
> The high PLL voltages are resolved as well, and manually lowering PLL does no longer interferes with CPU performance.
> The slow nvme storage issue and low iops in name raid issue remains, but I think that needs to be fixed by AMD.
> 
> (@elmor fyi) PBO, boosting and curve optimizer are working very well in 2502, stock pbo settings, curve at -20, cpu V at + 0.05v, and additional boost clock at +50mhz sees 5.07 - 5.1ghz sustained single core (5.1 sustains if lock affinity to the two #1 cores) with a 652 CB R20 single test (no affinity locked, so it moved around. Core 0 and 7 run 5.1, rest 5050-5075ish).
> 
> Let me know if there is anything specific you want tested.


Hi, I purchased trident CL17 at 4000 (4 sticks) I cannot surpass above 3600 Mhz. In addition, I cannot set CL17, even I put in my BIOS, everytime is CL18. What is VCCD voltage? its for memory? I´m a bit new in this so I would appreciate your help. Thanks.


----------



## leoxtxt

I was playing with the Curve Optimizer and managed to squeeze some extra ST/MT performance, i'm very happy with the result but it'd be nice to have more details, is it still an experimental feature ? because the explanation in the bios is very vague.


----------



## Gadfly

Gryzor said:


> Hi, I purchased trident CL17 at 4000 (4 sticks) I cannot surpass above 3600 Mhz. In addition, I cannot set CL17, even I put in my BIOS, everytime is CL18. What is VCCD voltage? its for memory? I´m a bit new in this so I would appreciate your help. Thanks.


In order to run an odd CAS Latency you have to disable Gear Down mode; but I don't think you will have much luck running 3800 or 4000 without gear down mode enabled; you can try running 2T instead of 1T and compare your results. 

VCCD voltages ( VCCD CCD and VCCD IOD) are the voltages that drive the infinity fabric (fclk). You always want fclk to match your memory clock (mclk). So for example, DDR3600 is 1800mhz, so you want fclk to run at 1800mhz. if your run DDR3800 you want fclk to run at 1900mhz. Etc. this is what people are talking about when they say "1:1". both the memory and the infinity fabric running at the same clock rate.


----------



## Gadfly

zsoltmol said:


> Go back to previous AIDA version! It is related to AIDA new becnhmarking DLL and not 2502.


Please don't. AIDA fixed the artificially high results they were reporting before and the test is far more accurate now.


----------



## Gadfly

zsoltmol said:


> Is this curve optimiser a Ryzen 5xxxx feature? Can you please share a screen where it is on 2502? I go to the specified AMD/overclocking/pbo/advanced path in my 2502 ant there is no such thing.


I don't have a way to screen capture the bios, but your path is correct. If it is not there then I would suspect it is a Zen3 only feature.


----------



## Gadfly

leoxtxt said:


> I was playing with the Curve Optimizer and managed to squeeze some extra ST/MT performance, i'm very happy with the result but it'd be nice to have more details, is it still an experimental feature ? because the explanation in the bios is very vague.


I just played with it a little bit, here are my Cb R15 and R20 results::


----------



## Gryzor

Gadfly said:


> In order to run an odd CAS Latency you have to disable Gear Down mode; but I don't think you will have much luck running 3800 or 4000 without gear down mode enabled; you can try running 2T instead of 1T and compare your results.
> 
> VCCD voltages ( VCCD CCD and VCCD IOD) are the voltages that drive the infinity fabric (fclk). You always want fclk to match your memory clock (mclk). So for example, DDR3600 is 1800mhz, so you want fclk to run at 1800mhz. if your run DDR3800 you want fclk to run at 1900mhz. Etc. this is what people are talking about when they say "1:1". both the memory and the infinity fabric running at the same clock rate.


Many thanks! Where is GEAR MODE option?

its better to modify the BIOS thorought software? or diretly at BIOS? I´m sorry for my questions..., I came from Intel (last 10 years...), so I don´t know nothing about AMD Ryzen overclocking... do you know some link specially referred to ASUS motherboards which help me a bit in tweaking? Thanks


----------



## Gadfly

Gryzor said:


> Many thanks! Where is GEAR MODE option?
> 
> its better to modify the BIOS thorought software? or diretly at BIOS? I´m sorry for my questions..., I came from Intel (last 10 years...), so I don´t know nothing about AMD Ryzen overclocking... do you know some link specially referred to ASUS motherboards which help me a bit in tweaking? Thanks


Always the bios.

It is in xtream tweaker > dram timings 

Getting faster memory running on AMD is nothing like Intel. XMP doesn't work most of the time, and when it does the timings are garbage.

You need to research:


proc_odt
cldo_vddp
Ryzen Dram Calculator
infinity fabric (fclk)
VDDP

Download Zentimings for your screenshots you post here; it will help a lot.


----------



## T[]RK

Po1293 said:


> I've bought 2 different purchases of F4-3200C14D-32GTZR so that is 2x 2x16GB = 4x 16GB
> (so can't regret this purchase now)
> 
> I'm waiting for the Zen3 5900x to be sent me in December.
> 
> What can I expect from this setup regarding a little on the safe side OC?


No idea why you need 64Gb of RAM, but it’s overclock will be difficult. Not only because it’s 16 GB sticks (dual rank), but also because you got 4 of them (8 ranks i think... high load on CPU memory controller i guess).



Po1293 said:


> I would prefer to underclock voltage if possible, would that provide even better performance on the RAM, or is it better to do overvoltage?


Need to find sweet spot. Use memory XMP as base line. But remember, that overvoltage may kill memory. If you “new” in overclock i suggest to view more videos about memory overclocking for better undestanding.


----------



## xero404

Damn looks like 2502 won't let me set the fclk to 2000 anymore. 2402 did no problems


----------



## Spartoi

Same. On 2402 I could boot into Windows with 2000 FLCK (although it would eventually crash). On 2502, it won't even post.


----------



## Giustaf

with 2311 no problem:
5900x with PBO enabled and ram 4x8GB at 3800 16-16-16-32









with 2402 beta if I touch the ram even only XMP profile, my mobo don't boot. Error 07

I'm afraid to try the 2502


----------



## dlbsyst

Here are comparisons of the old and new Aida64 using the 2311 BIOS.


----------



## zsoltmol

I wonder what is happening with the new bios releases since 1302. First some of us lost performance which I could personally regain with 2206 after many hours of tweaking. Recent since then releases introduced instability with exact same settings. WHEA errors, no boot situation, fail to wake from sleep, random restart at low load web browsing, random restarts while idling, freezing at bios screen or simply freezing while Windows loads or even display driver failure every 5-10 seconds.

I thought C8H family is not a cheapo motherboard, after more than 1 year since it release it is STILL problematic and my ram (Trident Z RGB, 4x8GB, Samsung b-die, 3600CL16 @ 1.35V) is on the QVL list.

It seems some other guys have similar problems from ROG Asus C8H forum:


















I really do not want to switch from this board, I have a vendor lock due to SATA ports, but the sheer number of issues are getting crazy. :-(


----------



## Gadfly

dlbsyst said:


> Here are comparisons of the old and new Aida64 using the 2311 BIOS.
> View attachment 2465409
> View attachment 2465410


Glad to see aida64's memory test is finally fixed!

It might be a good tool to test memory performance again, but maxxmem2 is still the best tool I am aware of (and it is free).


----------



## Gadfly

zsoltmol said:


> I wonder what is happening with the new bios releases since 1302. First some of us lost performance which I could personally regain with 2206 after many hours of tweaking. Recent since then releases introduced instability with exact same settings. WHEA errors, no boot situation, fail to wake from sleep, random restart at low load web browsing, random restarts while idling, freezing at bios screen or simply freezing while Windows loads or even display driver failure every 5-10 seconds.
> 
> I thought C8H family is not a cheapo motherboard, after more than 1 year since it release it is STILL problematic and my ram (Trident RGB, 4x8GB, Samsung b-die, 3600CL16 @ 1.35V) is on the QVL list.
> 
> It seems some other guys have similar problems from ROG Asus C8H forum:
> View attachment 2465439
> 
> 
> View attachment 2465440
> 
> 
> I really do not want to switch from this board, I have a vendor lock due to SATA ports, but the shear number of issues are getting crazy. :-(


I have run nothing but high end ROG boards for well over 10 years now (and easily 12 motherboards), but I have to admit I am getting sick of this BS. I swore I would NEVER buy another MSI board. But lately they really have thier stuff together. Thier x570 "patch C" bios is working perfectly, it is getting to the point that I am seriously considering making the jump.


----------



## xero404

I reflashed back to 2402 and I'm back in business albeit i still need to oc this ram.


----------



## kazablanka

xero404 said:


> I reflashed back to 2402 and I'm back in business albeit i still need to oc this ram.
> 
> View attachment 2465465


check your fclk frequency ,propably is @1800mhz or it is unstable


----------



## Novus88

Hi everyone what are all the recommended settings to get the best performance from the 5900x? As a ram I have Tridentz neo 2x16 3600C18.
With the latest bios 2502 I have system crash problems surely because of the ram with 2311 everything is fine what do you recommend to get the most out of my configuration?


----------



## TheRyge

Newcomer here, just found this page, great tips and knowledge.
I found 2402 to be bootable 2000+fclk but would not pass OCCT stability tests without WHEA errors above 1600fclk.
2311 was much more stable and 1900fclk was largely stable but settled at 1800 due to higher needed DRAM volts and resulting DRAM temps.
Going to download the latest BIOS but I noticed something, why is my AIDA64 L3 cash scores so low ? What could be causing this. Another 5800x on here is getting 200-300GB/s more than mine, pics below on both BIOS.
Memory is Micro E-Die Crucial 4000 18-19-19-39 2x8GB


----------



## Novus88

I dont find the best bios trick to have maximum performance whit 5900x on crosshair viii hero wifi. Can you help me ?


----------



## Gryzor

Hello, with my 5900x everytime I stress with CPU burner -fumark- (24 threads) I get very good temps (65 degrees more or less). However, If I do the same test with only 2 or 3 threads, temps are surprising high (reaching even 90 degrees). Is this normal?


----------



## uplink

Hey there,

I recently purchased Asus ROG VIII Formula and gotten 5950X on her. I'm using newest beta BiOS 2402 [tried also previous version 2311 ] and I'm running into massive issues.

When I use BiOS default settings, I can get barely 11K pts [and sometimes going down to 8k] in CPUz multi-thread and 580 - 610 in single-thread. Cinebench R20 is running also very poorly in default settings and that's at ~8500cb for multicore and 550cb for single core. I also ran Geekbench and 3D Mark.

I'm using NH-D15 Chromax Black to cool the monster, and am using 2 x 16GB G.Skill TridentZ Royal CL16 memory running at 3600 MHz [D.O.C.P.]. I tried 4 x 16 GB but that's a complete disaster.

I'm using second PCi-e slot for my VGA [RTX 3090 Strix OC], because first interferes with cooler.

I tried all possible and impossible memory and PBO settings in BiOS and the only time I'm getting "so so" performance, as I should according to benchmarks is when I use Ryzen Master and use Auto OC mode, and in this case I achieve "stock" values in multithread and subpar values in singlethread.

I'm able to get good single thread performance [677 pts in CPUz] in some random settings in BiOS, but than the multithread suffers [11k instead of 12 - 13k].

Any clue on what should I do? I'm totally desperate :/.

I mean I tried so much, cought only a glimpse in this thread of mine. What could be the issue? Memory? Graphcis card in PCi-e port #2? My two MP600 NVMe SSD drives? Should I get 4000 MHz memory?

I'm totally lost here, please advise,

With kind regards

uplink

P.S.: Today I've reinstalled Windows, put VGA into PCi-e slot 1, changed RAM for 2 x 8GB G.Skill 4266 MHz but CL19, tomorrow I'm gonna try 3800 CL14 Memory, but...damn :/. I'm also cooling it with Ryujin 360 atm. I'm still on super poor results in 3D Mark Time Spy, I'm better on Cinebench R20 and CPU-z.



https://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/14860693/spy/15312220#



Look at that CPU score, this is so wrong :/


----------



## uplink

Gryzor said:


> Hello, with my 5900x everytime I stress with CPU burner -fumark- (24 threads) I get very good temps (65 degrees more or less). However, If I do the same test with only 2 or 3 threads, temps are surprising high (reaching even 90 degrees). Is this normal?


 Yes and no. Low-threaded load invokes higher vCore [up to 1.5v]. What cooler do You have?


----------



## Gryzor

uplink said:


> Yes and no. Low-threaded load invokes higher vCore [up to 1.5v]. What cooler do You have?


Corsair icue i150


----------



## uplink

Gryzor said:


> Corsair icue i150


 That one's a beast, You shouldn't see such a high temperature spikes. Do You have well applied TiM? Did You use stock TiM that came with AiO? What settings do You use? I'm having ROG Ryujin 360 and I'm never going above 78°C no matter what I do to CPU when I run on stock settings. iCue i150 has similiar performance.


----------



## Gryzor

uplink said:


> That one's a beast, You shouldn't see such a high temperature spikes. Do You have well applied TiM? Did You use stock TiM that came with AiO? What settings do You use? I'm having ROG Ryujin 360 and I'm never going above 78°C no matter what I do to CPU when I run on stock settings. iCue i150 has similiar performance.


I put MX4, the AIO didn´t came with any thermal paste (tin layer spreaded over CPU). What is your CPU? I read that for those 5900x these temps spikes are normal, as is designed (usually most cores reach 4950 mhz with 1.5V, at least with my chip, on stock settings)


----------



## xero404

kazablanka said:


> check your fclk frequency ,propably is @1800mhz or it is unstable





















seems good and stable to me


----------



## kuutale

xero404 said:


> View attachment 2465589
> 
> 
> View attachment 2465588
> 
> 
> seems good and stable to me


nice, i still waiting my 5950x estimated is 26.11.

how u check u are stable? and how much performance gain u get? can u share that information?


----------



## pantsoftime

I've been trying to help a friend with a hero issue. He has an H100i on a 5800x and when he runs any sort of stress testing he gets temps into the upper 90s, sometimes over 100 with shutdowns. All of the mechanics have been checked and the cooler is at max speed. 
He says that the auto voltages seem very high. Does anyone know if there are any overrides required (vs default) to get zen3 under control thermally?


----------



## nick name

pantsoftime said:


> I've been trying to help a friend with a hero issue. He has an H100i on a 5800x and when he runs any sort of stress testing he gets temps into the upper 90s, sometimes over 100 with shutdowns. All of the mechanics have been checked and the cooler is at max speed.
> He says that the auto voltages seem very high. Does anyone know if there are any overrides required (vs default) to get zen3 under control thermally?


I would re-check the mounting pressure used.


----------



## Gryzor

pantsoftime said:


> I've been trying to help a friend with a hero issue. He has an H100i on a 5800x and when he runs any sort of stress testing he gets temps into the upper 90s, sometimes over 100 with shutdowns. All of the mechanics have been checked and the cooler is at max speed.
> He says that the auto voltages seem very high. Does anyone know if there are any overrides required (vs default) to get zen3 under control thermally?


I have also very high temps, specially in some testes for example, fumark cpu burner with 1 to 6 threads, I get temps arount 90 degrees.

With the same test BUT with 24 threads, temps are around 70 degrees. I think that auto-overclock takes very hight voltage in some situations, in addition some testes are specially unrealistic (concretely, fumark cpu burner is a test designed to take out maximum heat from CPU, is not a stability load test, and this is a completely unrealistic scenario - I think that is related with moving very few data with AVX2 instructions or so -.


----------



## shamino1978

pantsoftime said:


> I've been trying to help a friend with a hero issue. He has an H100i on a 5800x and when he runs any sort of stress testing he gets temps into the upper 90s, sometimes over 100 with shutdowns. All of the mechanics have been checked and the cooler is at max speed.
> He says that the auto voltages seem very high. Does anyone know if there are any overrides required (vs default) to get zen3 under control thermally?


theres no way it shd be 100c unless he is overclocking, the thm limit is 90c and the cpu will drop volt and freq by any means to stay at 90c


----------



## IceB

Is there any Asus related Ryzen OC guide with the old school BIOS approach ?
I have pulled the trigger on the Crosshair Hero VIII (Wi-Fi) / 5900X / F4-4000C15Q-32GVK .
Moving from the good old 5820K Haswell E on X99 platform is quite confusing ATM.
Flashedback the MB with the recent v2502 BIOS. Checked the stock settings - while it seems to get running all right the PBO behavior is quite aggressive for my taste in terms of the voltage which leads to the high temps peaks even with pretty low CPU load. However with the D.O.C.P activated the MB won't even boot with everything else in stock.
The transition learning curve is in progress... Any suggestions ?


----------



## WaXmAn

Best results from my 5950x boosting. CCX 1 is getting two cores to 5050Mhz. Would be nice if CCX 2 was the same


----------



## djase45

So this new bios 2502, is it good?


----------



## pantsoftime

shamino1978 said:


> theres no way it shd be 100c unless he is overclocking, the thm limit is 90c and the cpu will drop volt and freq by any means to stay at 90c


Hi shamino - is it possible there's an Asus setting that's affecting that behavior?


----------



## The Stilt

pantsoftime said:


> I've been trying to help a friend with a hero issue. He has an H100i on a 5800x and when he runs any sort of stress testing he gets temps into the upper 90s, sometimes over 100 with shutdowns. All of the mechanics have been checked and the cooler is at max speed.
> He says that the auto voltages seem very high. Does anyone know if there are any overrides required (vs default) to get zen3 under control thermally?


5800X especially tend to run hot.

However, Precision Boost will not let the CPU to reach higher than 90°C (105W TDP SKUs) or 95°C (65W TDP SKUs). While it is possible to lower the default limit, it is impossible to raise it.

If the CPU actually reaches higher than those readings, it is either because of using the "OC-Mode" (where the only limit is ProcHOT at 115°C) or due to a cooling failure, i.e. even throttling isn't sufficient to get the temperatures in check.

HWiNFO and Ryzen Master should be the only two software used for monitoring these CPUs.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Trying it out now, don't know what should be good or bad about it. Running my memory at 3800 MHz and CL16.


----------



## IceB

Following my previous post it seems that I am getting somewhere, yet it makes me feel wrong...
The 4x8Gb memory (F4-4000C15Q-32GVK) I got is unable to run anything above 3000Mhz with all 4 slots populated - immediate F9 error core

I checked the board with 2 DIMMs only :

With the A2 & B2 slots - 4000Mhz like a charm with the D.O.C.P. or manual. Tested all 4 sticks - 2 by 2 - any pair gets 4000 Mhz.
With the A1 & B1 slots - maximus is 3000Mhz - anything above is F9 as mentioned. - tested all 4 - any pair (or single) gets the same error above the 3000Mhz.
Reseated the CPU with the heatsink twice - same.
Checked with the BIOS v. 2402 beta and with the v. 2502 - same behavior.
However with the v. 2402 beta the MB allows 2000BCLK with the pair of the RAM sticks at A2 & B2 slots at 4000Mhz at 1:1 with stable Cinebench runs - not checked anything else yet. The recent BIOS v. 2502 is somehow limited with the BCLK - not getting the 2000 1:1 for me.

What is going on with this A1 B1 / A2 B2. Is it a faulty MB ? RMA ? Or is there any BIOS tweak I might try with the X570 to try to get the s slots to run above 3000Mhz ?
I have searched the thread and found different stories with the A1 B1 slots. Is there anyone here with this MB running fast 4 RAM sticks ?


----------



## kx11

finally Bios updated from Beta to stable, hopefully this will fix my A2 DETECT HDD error



https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_FORMULA/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-2502.ZIP


----------



## Baio73

kx11 said:


> finally Bios updated from Beta to stable, hopefully this will fix my A2 DETECT HDD error
> 
> 
> 
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_FORMULA/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-2502.ZIP


Are there any differences between 2502 BETA and 2502 FINAL?^

Baio


----------



## Gadfly

Baio73 said:


> Are there any differences between 2502 BETA and 2502 FINAL?^
> 
> Baio


Doubt it.

If there where changes i would expect the number would change, but I could be wrong.

Have to see if anyone can get 4 sticks running 2000mhz without crazy voltages, or if the fclk wall is still there at 1900mhz.


----------



## stimpy88

I have to report that with the latest non-beta version of the 2502 BIOS, my system constantly restarts. I have a 3900x and have never had this problem before, although I have not bothered to update my BIOS since version 2206, due to not having any issues, but have heard many others not being able to use these later BIOS's due to random restarts.

I use the flashback feature to update my BIOS, which completely resets it to a clean state. However my system will perform random, full restarts, which is not the same as pressing the reset button, for instance. The system acts as if I have held down the power button, so even the memory switches off (I have RGB memory), then the motherboard switches itself back on, and Windows boots. Then rinse and repeat. My Event log is full of Event 41's.

If I flashback to 2206 or earlier, my system does not exhibit this behaviour, and runs fine. My system was built last December, and has been used everyday since, and has never had this issue up until the 2502 BIOS release.

I'm currently trying out BIOS 2311, and will report back. The computer has been running this for an hour so far, and no restarts yet.


----------



## CyrIng

stimpy88 said:


> I have to report that with the latest non-beta version of the 2502 BIOS, my system constantly restarts. I have a 3900x and have never had this problem before, although I have not bothered to update my BIOS since version 2206, due to not having any issues, but have heard many others not being able to use these later BIOS's due to random restarts.
> 
> I use the flashback feature to update my BIOS, which completely resets it to a clean state. However my system will perform random, full restarts, which is not the same as pressing the reset button, for instance. The system acts as if I have held down the power button, so even the memory switches off (I have RGB memory), then the motherboard switches itself back on, and Windows boots. Then rinse and repeat. My Event log is full of Event 41's.
> 
> If I flashback to 2206 or earlier, my system does not exhibit this behaviour, and runs fine. My system was built last December, and has been used everyday since, and has never had this issue up until the 2502 BIOS release.
> 
> I'm currently trying out BIOS 2311, and will report back. The computer has been running this for an hour so far, and no restarts yet.


If you have the BugcheckCode ? You can then refer to the table 3.1.3.3 Error Codes in the AMD Processor Programming Reference (PPR) for AMD Family 17h. LINK

Version 2206 is so far the latest stable with my 3950X


----------



## kx11

Baio73 said:


> Are there any differences between 2502 BETA and 2502 FINAL?^
> 
> Baio


nope

so far it's the same


----------



## stimpy88

CyrIng said:


> If you have the BugcheckCode ? You can then refer to the table 3.1.3.3 Error Codes in the AMD Processor Programming Reference (PPR) for AMD Family 17h. LINK
> 
> Version 2206 is so far the latest stable with my 3950X


Many thanks for the info!

Unfortunately I have cleared my event logs, but as soon as anything happens I will post what the BugCode was. If this 2311 BIOS does not have the restart bug (no restarts in 4 hours of use so far), then I will re-install the 2502 BIOS to obtain the code.

FYI, CPU is a 3900x Family 17h Model 71h B0

UPDATE: The bloody thing has gone crazy again. There is no BugCheck code on the logs, just a System Unexpectedly Shutdown error. I have now downgraded to 2206, and have no problems now.


----------



## Po1293

Gadfly said:


> First... Don't be a *****. Especially if you want people to take the time to help you.
> 
> Second... what help do you need?


Sorry, should probably have tried a _Bump_ first. Just got impatient after 3 days or so..








ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...


5950X / Crosshair VIII Formula BIOS 2301 (AGESA V2 PI 1.1.0.0 PatchB) : No issues but occasionally i notice some massive voltage and temperature spikes (to 80-82c) @ idle. It is not cooling related, i'm using a Liquid Freezer II 360mm and during AID64 stress test it stays well below 70 degrees...




www.overclock.net





1. What you think I could achieve with the new 5900x cpu + the B-die Cas 14 RAM. 2 or what loss on 4 modules?
2. Some pointers for newbies like me where to begin with overclocking?

btw:
My system is air cooled with Be-Quiet Dark Rock Pro 4


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Okay so *this restart bug, *this explains why sometimes if I leave my PC there doing nothing, it'll reboot itself... I'm on 2502. I know the Patch D is coming out soon so hopefully that fixes this but this is crazy how they can't get this down.


----------



## stimpy88

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Okay so *this restart bug, *this explains why sometimes if I leave my PC there doing nothing, it'll reboot itself... I'm on 2502. I know the Patch D is coming out soon so hopefully that fixes this but this is crazy how they can't get this down.


Yes, there seems to be a very serious bug in the BIOS, starting with version 2311 and every version after.

I have the same problem, after having a perfectly stable system for a year, then as soon as I install 2502 on it, all hell breaks loose, and this is with default BIOS settings, no overclock, not even XMP on the memory. I have tried all BIOS's down to 2311 just to find my system will just randomly have fits of rebooting itself, even while I'm using it!

I'm now back on 2206 (the latest BIOS update before this bug appears), and my system is fine again.


----------



## Gadfly

@The Stilt

Quest about Fmax optimizer, if enabled on a 5950X i notice it will boost ccd 0 to a higher clock, and hwinfo will report the higher effect clock, but ccd 1 will boost higher, to about 4600, but effective clock is 3800. 

Any idea?


----------



## Badgerslayer7

After not being able to use my pc for a couple of months as I sold my card to get a new one and it only arrived yesterday. I’ve updated my bios and I’m having a few issues. For some reason my pc gets stuck when I try to do a restart from windows. Anyone else having this issue? Also getting a blank screen when entering windows


----------



## The Stilt

Gadfly said:


> @The Stilt
> 
> Quest about Fmax optimizer, if enabled on a 5950X i notice it will boost ccd 0 to a higher clock, and hwinfo will report the higher effect clock, but ccd 1 will boost higher, to about 4600, but effective clock is 3800.
> 
> Any idea?


I would say its probably clock stretching.
Its visible in effective clock, but not in the set clock.

If you add a small positive voltage offset, is the clock delta decreasing?
If yes, then it is clock stretching.

Otherwise, no idea.


----------



## uplink

Gryzor said:


> I put MX4, the AIO didn´t came with any thermal paste (tin layer spreaded over CPU). What is your CPU? I read that for those 5900x these temps spikes are normal, as is designed (usually most cores reach 4950 mhz with 1.5V, at least with my chip, on stock settings)


 I'm on NT-H2.


----------



## shamino1978

bios 2701, names in links
fixes some bugs and raises settable fmax offset.
this is still based on the same AGESA version as 250x so dont expect any difference in Fclockiness against that version. 









ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-2701.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com












ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-2701.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com












ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-2701.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com












ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-2701.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com












ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-2701.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com


----------



## kx11

using it now on FORMULA, cpu is 3900xt 4.2ghz all cores from Bios Dram is OC to 3200mhz


----------



## Alemancio

*Are there some quirks to this board?* 

*1.* I can't reach FCLK >1900 nor DRAM >3900. 
*2*. Also there is no V/F Optimizer for 5800X?
*3.* No tREFI or tXD Ram timings?

I just got it (coupled with a 5800X, 4x8GB CL17 4000MHz GSkill, H150i Pro. Tested with 2502).

Thanks


----------



## stimpy88

shamino1978 said:


> bios 2701, names in links
> fixes some bugs and raises settable fmax offset.
> this is still based on the same AGESA version as 250x so dont expect any difference in Fclockiness against that version.


When you say "fixes some bugs", does this include the restart bug that is in the 2311, 2402 & 2502 BIOS's?


----------



## zsoltmol

stimpy88 said:


> Yes, there seems to be a very serious bug in the BIOS, starting with version 2311 and every version after.
> 
> I have the same problem, after having a perfectly stable system for a year, then as soon as I install 2502 on it, all hell breaks loose, and this is with default BIOS settings, no overclock, not even XMP on the memory. I have tried all BIOS's down to 2311 just to find my system will just randomly have fits of rebooting itself, even while I'm using it!
> 
> I'm now back on 2206 (the latest BIOS update before this bug appears), and my system is fine again.


Exact same issue here. 3900X with 4 dimms, anything above 3666MHz is unusuable with every bios above 2206.


----------



## stimpy88

Alemancio said:


> *Are there some quirks to this board?
> 
> 1.* I can't reach FCLK >1900 nor DRAM >3900.
> *2*. Also there is no V/F Optimizer for 5800X?
> *3.* No tREFI or tXD Ram timings?
> 
> I just got it (coupled with a 5800X, 4x8GB CL17 4000MHz GSkill, H150i Pro. Tested with 2502).
> 
> Thanks


Not really many quirks, other than an unstable/unusable BIOS for some of the 3000 series CPU's...

1.) FCLK limits are the CPU and AGESA, AMD has a new AGESA coming soon that will help the FCLK go higher on 5000 series CPUs.
2.) Available from BIOS 2502, the Curve Optimizer is located in AMD/overclocking/pbo/advanced.
3.) No, tREFI and tXD are handled by the CPU, and not exposed in the BIOS, could be an AGESA limitation, as I'm not sure if any other manufacturers include those options.


----------



## arcanexvi

shamino1978 said:


> bios 2701, names in links
> fixes some bugs and raises settable fmax offset.
> this is still based on the same AGESA version as 250x so dont expect any difference in Fclockiness against that version.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-2701.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-2701.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-2701.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-2701.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-2701.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


Getting multiple error 41 and hard shutdowns related to kernel when I was not before. Running DOCP settings and that's it.


----------



## stimpy88

arcanexvi said:


> Getting multiple error 41 and hard shutdowns related to kernel when I was not before. Running DOCP settings and that's it.


Thanks for testing and reporting...

Now we have 2311, 2402, 2502 & 2701 labelled as unusable garbage.

Somebody made a mistake during 2311 development, this really needs prioritising as a critical bug. What was changed with 2311? Not the public changelog, but the private one...?


----------



## tommy7600

stimpy88 said:


> Thanks for testing and reporting...
> 
> Now we have 2311, 2402, 2502 & 2701 labelled as unusable garbage.


True. All above 1302 are... garbage. I would like to know what changed in AGESA so much that we have so many issues from that version.


----------



## stimpy88

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Okay so *this restart bug, *this explains why sometimes if I leave my PC there doing nothing, it'll reboot itself... I'm on 2502. I know the Patch D is coming out soon so hopefully that fixes this but this is crazy how they can't get this down.





zsoltmol said:


> Exact same issue here. 3900X with 4 dimms, anything above 3666MHz is unusuable with every bios above 2206.





arcanexvi said:


> Getting multiple error 41 and hard shutdowns related to kernel when I was not before. Running DOCP settings and that's it.





tommy7600 said:


> True. All above 1302 are... garbage. I would like to know what changed in AGESA so much that we have so many issues from that version.


Which CPU's are you guys using? Mine is a 3900x Family 17h Model 71h B0

5 people in less than 24 hours with this exact same issue, over multiple BIOS versions, all saying the same thing. This must represent tens of thousands of customers, most of which would not post here, and many would not even understand what this bug is to begin with, or even that it is a direct fault of the BIOS. Many would assume it was something they did wrong when they built their system, faulty memory, faulty GPU, faulty CPU, faulty PSU etc etc etc.

Someone's thumb needs pulling out of an ass somewhere, and get this issue reported and solved.


----------



## tommy7600

Mine is the same - 3900X Family 17h Model 71h B0


----------



## zsoltmol

tommy7600 said:


> Mine is the same - 3900X Family 17h Model 71h B0


Same CPU here. 1302 was the best 3733MHz no issues, on 2206 with 3666MHz I had occasional WHEA 19 errors (once per 3 days), but at 3733MHz had more errors and WHEA 41 and idle restarts. Anything above 2206 is so unstable I cannot use.


----------



## escoltajuver

the restart problem happens right after agesa 1.0.0.4, in older agesa when pcie or cpu power saving kicks in specially in idle sometimes the gpu would crash resulting in few seconds of blackscreen and windows will be very choppy or stutters alot after it recovers from backscreen, if you use nvidia gpu you will see some nvlddmkm.sys errors in event logs when this happens, while in higher agesa the system will restart instead, i fixed 2 systems with this problem by changing ram from 3600 to 3200 and using micron e. 3900 x and 3950x is the most common to have this problems.


----------



## ahk057

stimpy88 said:


> Which CPU's are you guys using? Mine is a 3900x Family 17h Model 71h B0
> 
> 5 people in less than 24 hours with this exact same issue, over multiple BIOS versions, all saying the same thing. This must represent tens of thousands of customers, most of which would not post here, and many would not even understand what this bug is to begin with, or even that it is a direct fault of the BIOS. Many would assume it was something they did wrong when they built their system, faulty memory, faulty GPU, faulty CPU, faulty PSU etc etc etc.
> 
> Someone's thumb needs pulling out of an ass somewhere, and get this issue reported and solved.


I'm also dealing with this issue on my machine.

3900X bought at launch
2X16GB G.Skill 3600 C16

Any BIOS after 1302 has random restarts. I see you guys referencing the family of your CPU... How do I check my to confirm that it is also probably the same as y'all? And when the heck will anybody from ASUS acknowledge this is an actual issue?


----------



## Pr3t3nd3r

stimpy88 said:


> Which CPU's are you guys using? Mine is a 3900x Family 17h Model 71h B0
> 
> 5 people in less than 24 hours with this exact same issue, over multiple BIOS versions, all saying the same thing. This must represent tens of thousands of customers, most of which would not post here, and many would not even understand what this bug is to begin with, or even that it is a direct fault of the BIOS. Many would assume it was something they did wrong when they built their system, faulty memory, faulty GPU, faulty CPU, faulty PSU etc etc etc.
> 
> Someone's thumb needs pulling out of an ass somewhere, and get this issue reported and solved.


I have just registered to confirm several problems with the new build. I have 5950x and ASUS Crosshair Hero VIII. So far 2311 is "stable" but those high idle clocks are killing it. I went to 2402 and had 750 WHEA errors everything set to stock settings. I don't want to try any other BIOS crap FAILsus is giving us because I can see where this crap is going to! 

As far as I can see we need to wait for a few weeks or months because they are training us like dogs with some garbage BIOS updates. No response and no actions taken against our problems!


----------



## Raulka

ahk057 said:


> I'm also dealing with this issue on my machine.
> 
> 3900X bought at launch
> 2X16GB G.Skill 3600 C16
> 
> Any BIOS after 1302 has random restarts. I see you guys referencing the family of your CPU... How do I check my to confirm that it is also probably the same as y'all? And when the heck will anybody from ASUS acknowledge this is an actual issue?


Completly same issue with my config.. BIOS 1302 is stable, but any newer BIOS randomly restarts (error 41).

Ryzen 3900X 17-71-B0
CH8 Formula
G.Skill 4x8GB F4-3600C16Q-32GTZR with D.O.C.P standard 3603MHz.
Without OC...


----------



## Krisztias

The problem that many people experiencing can be software (and of course BIOS) related too. I had an Event 41 error and restart yesterday with BIOS 1302. After the "automatic" restart my onboard WiFi was unable to function, I had to restart windows manually to get it work again. The only thing I updated every time was the chipset driver.


----------



## T[]RK

I still not builded my PC on AMD’s Ryzen, but such strange reboots and shutdowns look very strange. So i google it and founded old topic right here on forum:

Idle crashes/reboots:
https:///www.overclock.net/threads/idle-crashes-reboots.1749982/

Reboot after sleep was caused by outdated RealTek LAN driver. Error was 41 (Kernel-Power). But vendor was GIGABYTE... maybe will work for ASUS too?


----------



## IwannaKnow

ahk057 said:


> I'm also dealing with this issue on my machine.
> 
> 3900X bought at launch
> 2X16GB G.Skill 3600 C16
> 
> Any BIOS after 1302 has random restarts. I see you guys referencing the family of your CPU... How do I check my to confirm that it is also probably the same as y'all? And when the heck will anybody from ASUS acknowledge this is an actual issue?





stimpy88 said:


> Which CPU's are you guys using? Mine is a 3900x Family 17h Model 71h B0
> 
> 5 people in less than 24 hours with this exact same issue, over multiple BIOS versions, all saying the same thing. This must represent tens of thousands of customers, most of which would not post here, and many would not even understand what this bug is to begin with, or even that it is a direct fault of the BIOS. Many would assume it was something they did wrong when they built their system, faulty memory, faulty GPU, faulty CPU, faulty PSU etc etc etc.
> 
> Someone's thumb needs pulling out of an ass somewhere, and get this issue reported and solved.


@stimpy88 & @ahk057 
You can add me and @slice313 to the list we struggling with any bios higher than 1302.

I´m also not able to get a stable system with anything above 1302.

I´ll add my last post here:
Hi all,


1. Can not get the RAM Settings work, which are rockstable with 1302.
2. tried 6 days with RYZEN OC Community from Computerbase and Hardwareluxx to get the system stable with a lot help in discord.
3. Find out that for some users lowering the VDDG and VDDP voltage helps to avoid random reboots. ( VSOC 1.1, VDDG 950 VDDP 755-800)
4. Couldn´t find a new fix for my own PC, as I finally got no ram issues and WHEA Errors (VSOC 1.1, VDDG 1.025 VDDP , the system started randomly to reboot again.
5. Gave up after 7days and went back to 1302. I really tried every voltage step by step in 10mv steps, nothing helped.
6. All tests were done without PBO FMAX or other CPU OC and with recommend settings from @The Stilt

Once I tried the CTR tool from 1usmus and the CPU was labeled as silver so it should be not sooo bad. (BTW I´m not a big fan of this tool anyways, I just was curious how it works and removed it afterwards)


----------



## zsoltmol

If you look back my posts here (1 year) I was complaining about this issue. Using QVL memory, using stock settings. 1 year passed since my Asus C8H and 3900X was installed, I have no heavy overclock. Evertything beyond 1302 and especially 2206 is a disaster. This board have had a serious premium price tag. :-(

Asus, can you please take this issue seriously NOW?


----------



## uplink

zsoltmol said:


> If you look back my posts here (1 year) I was complaining about this issue. Using QVL memory, using stock settings. 1 year passed since my Asus C8H and 3900X was installed, I have no heavy overclock. Evertything beyond 1302 and especially 2206 is a disaster. This board have had a serious premium price tag. :-(
> 
> Asus, can you please take this issue seriously NOW?


 They won't, they don't give a damn. I buy PegAsus products for over two and a half a decade now [my first Asus product was an PegAsus motherboard for 80486] and they're like cats.


----------



## tyhummel

My 5800X is literally unusable with this motherboard. I tried 2311, 2402, & 2502 and I cannot fix the WHEA_UNCORRECTABLE_ERROR BSOD. Everything is stock and I am using the BIOS Default Optimized setting with no D.O.C.P enabled. My specs:

Ryzen 5800X @ Stock
Crosshair VIII Hero WIFI AC
G.Skill Trident Z RGB 32gb (8x4) 3200Mhz CL14 (Running stock @ 2133Mhz)
Nvidia 3080 FE @ Stock
Corsair 850W PSU
NZXT Kraken Z73 AIO (Running NZXT CAM Beta @ Fixed Speeds 100% every fan, including case fans)
NZXT H710i Case
Samsung 980 PRO M.2 SSD
Samsung 970 EVO Plus M.2 SSD
Samsung 850 SATA SSD


----------



## Reica

Looks like I might be reasonably lucky with this board (C8H non wifi) so far. 

Managed to get a 5950X a week ago and ran 2402 for a few days as 2502 wasn't out yet.
2402 gave massive amounts of WHEA errors (1500 in 3 hours) but was stable at fclock 1900 with 3800mhz CL16-17-16-32 RAM @ 1.42v (4x8 trident Z 3866 CL18 kit).
Only thing I had to change from 2402 to 2502 was the vsoc from 1.1 to 1.10625. WHEA errors are all gone now and the system is rock solid.

The CPU is hitting 5.050 on 4 cores (3 in ccx0 and 1 in ccx1) the rest all hover between 4.825 and 4.975 when using the coretester. Also getting around a 625 cinebench R20 score instead of 630+ but that might be me being stubborn and using the NH-D15 and a quiet fan profile instead of a fat AIO and casefans running full bore, but I've had too much bad luck with pumps breaking over the years and air has never failed me.

One weird thing that bugs me about this board is its inability to boot to the BIOS when using Displayport. Screen stays black (don't see POST either) until it hits Windows. When I use HDMI it works fine.


----------



## uplink

Reica said:


> Looks like I might be reasonably lucky with this board (C8H non wifi) so far.
> 
> Managed to get a 5950X a week ago and ran 2402 for a few days as 2502 wasn't out yet.
> 2402 gave massive amounts of WHEA errors (1500 in 3 hours) but was stable at fclock 1900 with 3800mhz CL16-17-16-32 RAM @ 1.42v (4x8 trident Z 3866 CL18 kit).
> Only thing I had to change from 2402 to 2502 was the vsoc from 1.1 to 1.10625. WHEA errors are all gone now and the system is rock solid.
> 
> The CPU is hitting 5.050 on 4 cores (3 in ccx0 and 1 in ccx1) the rest all hover between 4.825 and 4.975 when using the coretester. Also getting around a 625 cinebench R20 score instead of 630+ but that might be me being stubborn and using the NH-D15 and a quiet fan profile instead of a fat AIO and casefans running full bore, but I've had too much bad luck with pumps breaking over the years and air has never failed me.
> 
> One weird thing that bugs me about this board is its inability to boot to the BIOS when using Displayport. Screen stays black (don't see POST either) until it hits Windows. When I use HDMI it works fine.


A corrected hardware error has occurred.

Reported by component: Processor Core
Error Source: Unknown Error Source
Error Type: Bus/Interconnect Error
Processor APIC ID: 0

The details view of this entry contains further information.

Yup, they are many


----------



## shamino1978

for the random reboots after 1302 crowd:
there are some people saying it goes away with cstates disabled, and such. 
if you'all would follow the same procedure in conducting the experiment it will be easier to pin point the issue:

Step 1:
jut defaults, no docp no oc nothing:
pass/fail?
Step 2:
following from step 1, disable DF Cstates, data fabric cstate : amd cbs\nbio common options\smu common options
disable dram power down enable: dram timings
pass/fail?
Step 3:
following from step 2, disable global c states, amd cbs\cpu common options
pass/fail?

report back like so 
Step 1: fail
Step 2: fail
Step 3: pass
System specs:


----------



## arcanexvi

I wouldn't say it's garbage as they're obviously working on it. I didn't have issues on 2502 but 2701 I'm seeing significant issues so if there's not another build shortly I'll roll back. I'll try running at full defaults later and see what it does but that'll put my ram at 2133...

3900x - hero viii (non-wifi)
32gb gskill 3600 CL16
DOCP standard settings.


----------



## flyinion

Anyone water cooling with the Hero (or possibly any of the other models) just wondering how you have your CPU fan connection set up? I have been using a single rad until this weekend when I added a second and a temp probe to the loop. I had the rad fans daisy chained to the CPU_FAN header. I'd like to set everything to be controlled based on the temp sensor in the loop so it doesn't try to spike any of the fans if the CPU spikes while doing something. In the BIOS of course there is no option for this unless connected to the AIO header instead. In the AI Suite fan control you can set the CPU fan header to be a "Water Cooler" but then you can't set the fan speed at all. Should I plug these fans into the AIO port and try that? Or can you disable the error about having no CPU fan and I should just have all the fans on regular headers? I do have the PWM feed from my D5 connected to the W_PUMP header.


----------



## kx11

currently on 2701 Bios

[email protected] 4.3ghz all cores
3600mhz 16-18-18-36

it seems stable so far after i followed J2C bios to normalize the voltage values, tested a number of games and non of them crashed


----------



## arcanexvi

shamino1978 said:


> for the random reboots after 1302 crowd:
> there are some people saying it goes away with cstates disabled, and such.
> if you'all would follow the same procedure in conducting the experiment it will be easier to pin point the issue:
> 
> Step 1:
> jut defaults, no docp no oc nothing:
> pass/fail?
> Step 2:
> following from step 1, disable DF Cstates, data fabric cstate : amd cbs\nbio common options\smu common options
> disable dram power down enable: dram timings
> pass/fail?
> Step 3:
> following from step 2, disable global c states, amd cbs\cpu common options
> pass/fail?
> 
> report back like so
> Step 1: fail
> Step 2: fail
> Step 3: pass
> System specs:


All pass as long as I don't try and run my system beyond defaults. Even DOCP which it hasn't really struggled with before is failing.


----------



## stimpy88

escoltajuver said:


> the restart problem happens right after agesa 1.0.0.4, in older agesa when pcie or cpu power saving kicks in specially in idle sometimes the gpu would crash resulting in few seconds of blackscreen and windows will be very choppy or stutters alot after it recovers from backscreen, if you use nvidia gpu you will see some nvlddmkm.sys errors in event logs when this happens, while in higher agesa the system will restart instead, i fixed 2 systems with this problem by changing ram from 3600 to 3200 and using micron e. 3900 x and 3950x is the most common to have this problems.


My system seems to be perfectly fine with all BIOS's until 2311, then it's completely unusable, as it can power off/ start up on its own up to 5 times an hour, sometimes fine for 4 hours. This is with default BIOS settings, no OC and default memory speeds, using 3600 memory which is on the QVL list for this board.



Krisztias said:


> The problem that many people experiencing can be software (and of course BIOS) related too. I had an Event 41 error and restart yesterday with BIOS 1302. After the "automatic" restart my onboard WiFi was unable to function, I had to restart windows manually to get it work again. The only thing I updated every time was the chipset driver.


Nope, I ruled this out, as I've had it happen in DOS, and others have even reported it happening in the BIOS screen.



T[]RK said:


> I still not builded my PC on AMD’s Ryzen, but such strange reboots and shutdowns look very strange. So i google it and founded old topic right here on forum:
> 
> Idle crashes/reboots:
> https:///www.overclock.net/threads/idle-crashes-reboots.1749982/
> 
> Reboot after sleep was caused by outdated RealTek LAN driver. Error was 41 (Kernel-Power). But vendor was GIGABYTE... maybe will work for ASUS too?


Nope, as mine has never been enabled in the BIOS. Ever!



uplink said:


> A corrected hardware error has occurred.
> 
> Reported by component: Processor Core
> Error Source: Unknown Error Source
> Error Type: Bus/Interconnect Error
> Processor APIC ID: 0
> 
> The details view of this entry contains further information.
> 
> Yup, they are many


Yep, I see these as well, but not on BIOS's earlier than 2311. Maybe this is something related.


----------



## stimpy88

shamino1978 said:


> for the random reboots after 1302 crowd:
> there are some people saying it goes away with cstates disabled, and such.
> if you'all would follow the same procedure in conducting the experiment it will be easier to pin point the issue:
> 
> Step 1:
> jut defaults, no docp no oc nothing:
> pass/fail?
> Step 2:
> following from step 1, disable DF Cstates, data fabric cstate : amd cbs\nbio common options\smu common options
> disable dram power down enable: dram timings
> pass/fail?
> Step 3:
> following from step 2, disable global c states, amd cbs\cpu common options
> pass/fail?
> 
> report back like so
> Step 1: fail
> Step 2: fail
> Step 3: pass
> System specs:


OK, many thanks for looking in to this serious issue.

I will update to a later BIOS and start your procedure. But I can already confirm that Step 1 still results in random restarts.

I will again reiterate that this is not a normal kind of restart, the behaviour is different. It's not like the reset button has been pressed, nor is it like the power button is long-pressed, as the system totally shuts off, and even the memory is turned off (the RGB on it shuts off), then the system automatically powers back up and Windows boots. No POST or BIOS errors displayed, other than Windows complaining about being shutdown improperly. The Windows log also has no BugCheckCode, (in my case) and also says that the power button was NOT long pressed.

I will report back what happens with Step 2 and 3 a bit later today.


----------



## TheRyge

I seem to be fairly lucky with my 5800X on this board by the sound of things.
In case I can help I list my setup/experience.
Started with the 2402 Beta, which was a strange beast, I could get FCLKs above 2000 to boot but could not get anything above 3200/1600 to not throw WHEA errors in OCCT. My previously stable memory settings for 3600X at 3733mhz wouldn't even boot. I wasted a whole day with that bios ! I realised my mistake so took a step back to 2311. Which wouldn't boot FCLK above 1900, but was stable, no WHEA errors providing SOC voltage was 1.1v. A move to 2502 didn't change much, no FCLK above 1900 but stable. Settled for 1800/3600 with tight timings and lower DRAM voltage over 1900/3800. Been playing with the new PBO curve settings, can get my best scores on CB20 6322/648 or 6258/653 but will crash on occasion when running the test for a second time or moving to CB23, although it passes all other tests including a CB23 30min multi test, very odd. So settled with my non curve PBO settings and CB20 scores 6207/647 which is pretty decent.
I always start a new bios with, Load optimised defaults, set the DOCP profile, 4000 18,19,19,39 1.35V in my case. Lower the speed to 3200 with a 1600FCLK and set the memory voltage up to 1.45V and the SOC to 1.1. I find OCCT's memory and OCCT Large data set tests to quickly pick up WHEA errors the best. I then work my way up from there. Increasing speeds, lowering timings, raising a lower voltages and finally a PBO overclock once stable.
Cooling is a Noctua DH-15, EVGA 850W, 2080Ti lots of case fans. Memory is Micron E-die 2x8GB Crucial Ballistix Max 4000. All ASUS RGB software uninstalled. Attached current settings, passed 3 nights of different tests.
C-states are all untouched Auto from optimised defaults.


----------



## Giustaf

I use 2311 bios, ram 3800 16-16-16-16-32 32Gb, 5900x with PBO enabled. First I formatted and installed a clean version of windows 10.
My sistem passed 7 hours of Memtest HCI (24 instances).

I had occasional WHEA 19 errors (six per 3 days), no crash or idle restarts. Do you suggest me to set the Vsoc from AUTO to 1.065v? Bios 2701 is good?


----------



## finas

shamino1978 said:


> for the random reboots after 1302 crowd:
> there are some people saying it goes away with cstates disabled, and such.
> if you'all would follow the same procedure in conducting the experiment it will be easier to pin point the issue:
> 
> Step 1:
> jut defaults, no docp no oc nothing:
> pass/fail?
> Step 2:
> following from step 1, disable DF Cstates, data fabric cstate : amd cbs\nbio common options\smu common options
> disable dram power down enable: dram timings
> pass/fail?
> Step 3:
> following from step 2, disable global c states, amd cbs\cpu common options
> pass/fail?
> 
> report back like so
> Step 1: fail
> Step 2: fail
> Step 3: pass
> System specs:


@shamino1978 , If you believe that this is not an end user problem, and considering the implications it has as well as the budget capacity of a company like Asus, wouldn't it make sense for Asus to contact some of these users, say 4 or 5 persons having similar problems, and offering to purchase their complete system or trade it by a equal/similar one? You would then have those systems on your hand and I am sure this would make for a much faster understanding of what really is going on.


----------



## lDevilDriverl

shamino1978 said:


> bios 2701, names in links
> fixes some bugs and raises settable fmax offset.
> this is still based on the same AGESA version as 250x so dont expect any difference in Fclockiness against that version.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-2701.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-2701.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-2701.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-2701.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-2701.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


Hi,
Can you please provide detailed info about Per Core Curve overclocking? looks like it's not working wright not.
Is it possible to remove fclk1900 limitation for 2502+ bioses (post code F9>07)?
2402 is stable on 1600fclk but can go up to 2100
2502 stable on 1900 but can't go higher

C8HW+5600x


----------



## kazablanka

xero404 said:


> View attachment 2465589
> 
> 
> View attachment 2465588
> 
> 
> seems good and stable to me


62ns is pretty bad dude try to tight you timings


----------



## 7lk

I still have 41 errors, have I tried all the hints, does anyone use these memories?


https://www.kingston.com/dataSheets/HX436C18PB3K2_64.pdf


----------



## Alemancio

kazablanka said:


> 62ns is pretty bad dude try to tight you timings


Im barely able to beat 64ns at 3600MHz w/ 14-15-14-30 and tight timings.


----------



## leoxtxt

Alemancio said:


> Im barely able to beat 64ns at 3600MHz w/ 14-15-14-30 and tight timings.


Your memory might not be stable or there is something wrong with your sub timings, you should have less latency with a Zen 3 + 3600Mhz CL14.


----------



## dave12

I have been having nothing but problems doing anything other than stock everything with my 5600x on 2402. 2502 has fixed everything. 3800 cl14, 1900,1900 zero errors, zero issues. Just saying because I have been looking for anecdotal evidence about its effectiveness and haven't seen much.


----------



## dev1ance

Not a Crosshair board but still Asus as there's a dearth of threads to discuss things.

55-55.5ns at DDR4-3800 16-16-16, sticks just can't do 14 at 3800+ without erroring out regardless of voltage. Can run HCI fine at 16-16-16 at 3800/4000. Zero WHEAs or mem errors.









53-53.5ns at DDR4-4000 16-16-16. A few WHEA crops up now and then so I figured it's best to pull back.


----------



## Jesaul

I need your help.
I'm selling my old memory g.skill 3200cl14 2x16GB because it's not working in dual channel model.
Can anyone recommend good 2x16GB 3800 cl16 that you have and is working perfectly on c8h?
Please. G.skill support was completely unhelpful.


----------



## Sam64

7lk said:


> I still have 41 errors, have I tried all the hints, does anyone use these memories?
> 
> 
> https://www.kingston.com/dataSheets/HX436C18PB3K2_64.pdf


Imho these errors have mostly nothing todo with memory. AMD messed up the new Agesa versions, thus it looks like it's a problem with FCLK and probably not a well balanced PBO Fmax feature. Reminds me of the past. AMD builds great hardware, but you can bet, that the first firmware versions are always a mess until one day, they got it fixed...


----------



## superchad

Anyone else having issues with low CB R15 and R20 scores with a Ryzen 7 5800X? this is really ticking me off, my 5800X is SLOWER than my 3800X on this board with the latest BIOS


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Having nothing but issues with these last 2 bios (random reboots error 41). The last one stable for me was 2206 and even with that my pc wouldn’t wake from sleep. I had to shutdown and restart each time.


----------



## 7lk

Sam64 said:


> Imho tyto chyby mají většinou nic dělat s pamětí. AMD zpackal nové verze Agesa, tak to vypadá, že je to problém s FCLK a pravděpodobně není dobře vyvážený PBO Fmax funkce. Připomíná mi to minulost. AMD staví skvělý hardware, ale můžete se vsadit, že první verze firmwaru jsou vždy nepořádek, dokud jeden den, dostali to pevné ...


-----------------------------------------------
I returned bios 2206, set XMP profile #1 Special fclk 1633, others defaut, C-state control->enable, DF cstates->enable, so far two days without error. I turned on ramcache 20GB; -) let the memory work. I tried technical support directly manufacturer. He read the mail. The answers are useless. Just excuses. No advice or effort to solve the problem.


----------



## kx11

Reading the comments about memory latency, i think my latency is bad but other stuff looks good??


----------



## n0one

Been following this forum thread for a while, bought Hero 8 wifi + 3700x on launch.
2311 Bios is the only recent bios i have had no error 41 or bluescreens at all since flashing it, last time i had a semi stable system prob around 0803 -1001. 1301 was 1-3 error 41 /24h
Ram: CMK32GX4M2Z3200C16 , 1.36 voltage default xmp 3200 16 18 18 36


----------



## zsoltmol

shamino1978 said:


> for the random reboots after 1302 crowd:
> there are some people saying it goes away with cstates disabled, and such.
> if you'all would follow the same procedure in conducting the experiment it will be easier to pin point the issue:
> 
> Step 1:
> jut defaults, no docp no oc nothing:
> pass/fail?
> Step 2:
> following from step 1, disable DF Cstates, data fabric cstate : amd cbs\nbio common options\smu common options
> disable dram power down enable: dram timings
> pass/fail?
> Step 3:
> following from step 2, disable global c states, amd cbs\cpu common options
> pass/fail?
> 
> report back like so
> Step 1: fail
> Step 2: fail
> Step 3: pass
> System specs:


Dear Shamino,

I really appreciate your serious efforts in BIOS development to give us OC potential and new features for OC.

However I'm not the only one to report something is seriously broken since 1302/2206 and especially since bioses above 2206.

Should we really dig into the bios and modify many settings from auto TO HOPE it gets stability back? Do we consider a 3666MHz with 1:1 CLK and four QVL memories an overclock if these memories are XMP certified at 3600MHz for this C8H board? Wow never thought 1.6% stretch is an overclock. 

Do we really need to adjust half of the universe in trial and error mode to get back:
1. performance since 1302
2. stability since 1302/2206

Some users have BSOD or no wake from sleep or WHEA 41 daily or WHEA 19 dozens of times per day.

I do not care about FMAX and whatever curveoptimizer, I want to understand why my board and my 3900X is getting worse and worse in the last 1 year using official - non beta - bios. When I have QVL memory. I run default XMP, I have PBO on, with 1X scalar, 0MHz extra and motherboard limits, allmost everything on auto. 

Why should I be a beta tester after 1 year of struggle and still keep loosing:
1. performance
2. stability

Please help! it is $$$ or £££ or EUR.


----------



## artafinde

zsoltmol said:


> Dear Shamino,
> 
> I really appreciate your serious efforts in BIOS development to give us OC potential and new features for OC.
> 
> However I'm not the only one to report something is seriously broken since 1302/2206 and especially since bioses above 2206.
> 
> Should we really dig into the bios and modify many settings from auto TO HOPE it gets stability back? Do we consider a 3666MHz with 1:1 CLK and four QVL memories an overclock if these memories are XMP certified at 3600MHz for this C8H board? Wow never thought 1.6% stretch is an overclock.
> 
> Do we really need to adjust half of the universe in trial and error mode to get back:
> 1. performance since 1302
> 2. stability since 1302/2206
> 
> Some users have BSOD or no wake from sleep or WHEA 41 daily or WHEA 19 dozens of times per day.
> 
> I do not care about FMAX and whatever curveoptimizer, I want to understand why my board and my 3900X is getting worse and worse in the last 1 year using official - non beta - bios. When I have QVL memory. I run default XMP, I have PBO on, with 1X scalar, 0MHz extra and motherboard limits, allmost everything on auto.
> 
> Why should I be a beta tester after 1 year of struggle and still keep loosing:
> 1. performance
> 2. stability
> 
> Please help! it is $$$ or £££ or EUR.


You are right, although I would point out that DOCP (or XMP) is considered overclock even without the 66MHz extra I think.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## CyrIng

Adding to the list of complaints, issues which are just ignored by the Manufacturer.


----------



## 00Asgaroth00

CyrIng said:


> Adding to the list of complaints, issues which are just ignored by the Manufacturer.


I have those same issues, currently dual booting Windows 10 and Manjaro Linux kernel v5.8


----------



## tommy7600

zsoltmol said:


> Dear Shamino,
> 
> I really appreciate your serious efforts in BIOS development to give us OC potential and new features for OC.
> 
> However I'm not the only one to report something is seriously broken since 1302/2206 and especially since bioses above 2206.
> 
> Should we really dig into the bios and modify many settings from auto TO HOPE it gets stability back? Do we consider a 3666MHz with 1:1 CLK and four QVL memories an overclock if these memories are XMP certified at 3600MHz for this C8H board? Wow never thought 1.6% stretch is an overclock.
> 
> Do we really need to adjust half of the universe in trial and error mode to get back:
> 1. performance since 1302
> 2. stability since 1302/2206
> 
> Some users have BSOD or no wake from sleep or WHEA 41 daily or WHEA 19 dozens of times per day.
> 
> I do not care about FMAX and whatever curveoptimizer, I want to understand why my board and my 3900X is getting worse and worse in the last 1 year using official - non beta - bios. When I have QVL memory. I run default XMP, I have PBO on, with 1X scalar, 0MHz extra and motherboard limits, allmost everything on auto.
> 
> Why should I be a beta tester after 1 year of struggle and still keep loosing:
> 1. performance
> 2. stability
> 
> Please help! it is $$$ or £££ or EUR.


Totally agree. Since bioses above 1302 I'm beta tester. Why XMP profile cannot work with AMD board, when with Intel it does work OK. Don't give us new features - fix the issues that so many users have, especially with 3900X and 3950X and 4 ddr. I want to be able to use MB out of the box, with XMP profile (optionally) without any issues. And I could up to 1302. Since then it's not possible. I will update CPU to 5000 series and I'm afraid that I will find new issues. ASUS with AMD should make the BIOS stable again. I don't know what is broken from AGESA above 1.0.4 but it's huge and QA should be able find it. I know that PC are DIY, but most of us have standard configurations.


----------



## Dawidowski

My 3900x with 2501 cant handle Fmax PBO on without LLC3.

As soon as I hit prime95 stress test button I get weird kernel errors.
Despite this, best scores in cr20 are only with fmax pbo on. My singlecore score is outstanding but the Bsod I get are horrible. 


Best score settings are:
Fmax PBO on
PBO on 
Manual 10x scalar
125 mhz
No LLC 
Scores: 530/7300-7350 at best. 

With LLC3 on for stability 

Scores: 520/7100-7200

My sample is ****ed as well, I mean the clocktuner said like 4050 mhz... 
Can't wait to try a 5900x if it ever gets delivered.


----------



## anr11

tommy7600 said:


> Totally agree. Since bioses above 1302 I'm beta tester. Why XMP profile cannot work with AMD board, when with Intel it does work OK. Don't give us new features - fix the issues that so many users have, especially with 3900X and 3950X and 4 ddr. I want to be able to use MB out of the box, with XMP profile (optionally) without any issues. And I could up to 1302. Since then it's not possible. I will update CPU to 5000 series and I'm afraid that I will find new issues. ASUS with AMD should make the BIOS stable again. I don't know what is broken from AGESA above 1.0.4 but it's huge and QA should be able find it. I know that PC are DIY, but most of us have standard configurations.


XMP is an Intel technology and if that is what you really want then you should consider switching to Intel. There are safe setting profiles in all of the C8H BIOS which you can use for your ram based on what it is, but using these will likely net you only equal to or possibly even a bit less performance than a comparable Intel CPU running at "plug and play" settings. Getting the maximum performance out of Ryzen takes some coaxing and requires some work from you.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Just got this board thinking it would fix issues that I had with X570 TUF.
I can't boot with anything over 3733, TUF did 3800.
SAM does not work on either board.
My single core Boost is still broken. I barely hit 4.9GHz with 5950x. I was able to hit 5.1GHz when I first tried 5950x. This could be something wrong with my Windows image.


----------



## kx11

some OC and getting a bit better at ram OC with Ryzen 3000 , currently 3600mhz CL16 with Corsair Dominator 4 sticks Rank1 rated 3200mhz, Corsair guide is very useful



https://www.corsair.com/corsairmedia/sys_master/productcontent/Ryzen3000_MemoryOverclockingGuide.pdf


----------



## CyrIng

I have observed that a *cold boot* is giving consistency BIOS results and thus the top frequency.
After shutting down, I switch off/on the *PSU* then boot to get what I have programmed in the Precision Boost 2 settings.











After a cold boot










After a warm reboot










This has been observed with version 2206. Monitored by CoreFreq

Can someone confirmed this please ?


----------



## Dawidowski

CyrIng said:


> I have observed that a *cold boot* is giving consistency BIOS results and thus the top frequency.
> After shutting down, I switch off/on the *PSU* then boot to get what I have programmed in the Precision Boost 2 settings.
> 
> View attachment 2466201
> 
> 
> 
> After a cold boot
> 
> View attachment 2466203
> 
> 
> After a warm reboot
> 
> View attachment 2466206
> 
> 
> This has been observed with version 2206. Monitored by CoreFreq
> 
> Can someone confirmed this please ?


What mobo is that?


----------



## CyrIng

Dawidowski said:


> What mobo is that?


*Crosshair VIII Hero (WI-FI) *


----------



## tommy7600

anr11 said:


> XMP is an Intel technology and if that is what you really want then you should consider switching to Intel. There are safe setting profiles in all of the C8H BIOS which you can use for your ram based on what it is, but using these will likely net you only equal to or possibly even a bit less performance than a comparable Intel CPU running at "plug and play" settings. Getting the maximum performance out of Ryzen takes some coaxing and requires some work from you.


Sorry! D.O.C.P  And D.O.C.P should, and with BIOS up to 1302 it worked, out of the box without issues. And even without docp enabled with all DEFAULT options computer can crash on BIOS version higher than 1302. To me the workaround is to increase dram voltage. Others had to find different solutions. In my opinion all should work out of the box when user don't change anything in bios, and on 1302 it did! I want to update CPU to 5000 series so I need to update BIOS, so I would like to see working MB.


----------



## ahk057

tommy7600 said:


> Sorry! D.O.C.P  And D.O.C.P should, and with BIOS up to 1302 it worked, out of the box without issues. And even without docp enabled with all DEFAULT options computer can crash on BIOS version higher than 1302. To me the workaround is to increase dram voltage. Others had to find different solutions. In my opinion all should work out of the box when user don't change anything in bios, and on 1302 it did! I want to update CPU to 5000 series so I need to update BIOS, so I would like to see working MB.


I haven't tried a BIOS since 2206 because I don't want to deal with all of the hassle. I don't want to have to tweak voltages and whatnot, I just want my 2x16GB 3600 G.Skill set to work at DOCP


----------



## Dawidowski

My D.O.C.P doesnt even show 3600 with timings but 3597... lol


----------



## arcanexvi

Dawidowski said:


> My D.O.C.P doesnt even show 3600 with timings but 3597... lol


I've got you beat. Mine's 3602


----------



## CornerJack

Hello, feedback with my Ryzen 9 5950X on the Crosshair VIII Dark Hero (BIOS 2402).
Under watercooling 4.7 GHz 1.19v R15/R20 and 4.8 GHz 1.29v.



















First test under LN2 with my Ryzen 5950X on the C8D. The CPU takes 5.8 GHz at 1.5875 volt (multimeter) at -155°C. I think I have a coldbug at -160°C and I also have a code 07 coming in while the FCLK frequency is only 1400 MHz. I will do another set of tests tomorrow.










SOC : 1.35v - VDDG CCD : 1.15v - VDDG IOD : 0.9v - PLL : 2.1v
Do you think my coldbug at -160°C can come from the FCLK? If I put a voltage higher than 1.62v, the motherboard will reboot directly, so even at -155°C, I can't try to increase the frequency.


----------



## zsoltmol

CyrIng said:


> I have observed that a *cold boot* is giving consistency BIOS results and thus the top frequency.
> After shutting down, I switch off/on the *PSU* then boot to get what I have programmed in the Precision Boost 2 settings.
> 
> View attachment 2466201
> 
> 
> 
> After a cold boot
> 
> View attachment 2466203
> 
> 
> After a warm reboot
> 
> View attachment 2466206
> 
> 
> This has been observed with version 2206. Monitored by CoreFreq
> 
> Can someone confirmed this please ?





CyrIng said:


> I have observed that a *cold boot* is giving consistency BIOS results and thus the top frequency.
> After shutting down, I switch off/on the *PSU* then boot to get what I have programmed in the Precision Boost 2 settings.
> 
> View attachment 2466201
> 
> 
> 
> After a cold boot
> 
> View attachment 2466203
> 
> 
> After a warm reboot
> 
> View attachment 2466206
> 
> 
> This has been observed with version 2206. Monitored by CoreFreq
> 
> Can someone confirmed this please ?


I can confirm. I did post this behaviour in this forum around july-august when I saw different boost under Cinebench R20 after restarts. R20 cNT run all core at 4.2 , 4.150, 4.075 after various reboots. I have had this already with 1302 bios.


----------



## zsoltmol

zsoltmol said:


> I can confirm. I did post this behaviour in this forum around july-august when I saw different boost under Cinebench R20 after restarts. R20 cNT run all core at 4.2 , 4.150, 4.075 after various reboots. I have had this already with 1302 bios.


Here is my 6 month old post>


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Also the awake from sleep is still not working for me. The pc itself seems to wake just fine but I’m getting no video output. I’m getting a kernel boot error event I.d 16 and a kernel-event tracing event id 2. Not sure if it’s a graphics driver issue or not,


----------



## CyrIng

Badgerslayer7 said:


> Also the awake from sleep is still not working for me. The pc itself seems to wake just fine but I’m getting no video output. I’m getting a kernel boot error event I.d 16 and a kernel-event tracing event id 2. Not sure if it’s a graphics driver issue or not,


Resuming from S3 is partially working for me:
In console mode: no video restored but I have a shell from ssh: WiP
In graphic mode: video is resumed with NVIDIA 570 and the AUR package nvidia-390xx

Kernel is 5.9.9 based on ArchLinux

Not sure if you have already activate it, BIOS are oftently providing an option to hard reset video when resuming from sleep.


----------



## CyrIng

zsoltmol said:


> Here is my 6 month old post>
> View attachment 2466293


I also noticed that Core C6 State (CC6 disabled) is killing my top-frequency by a 100 MHz amount !
Somehow one ratio bin lower.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

CyrIng said:


> Resuming from S3 is partially working for me:
> In console mode: no video restored but I have a shell from ssh: WiP
> In graphic mode: video is resumed with NVIDIA 570 and the AUR package nvidia-390xx
> 
> Kernel is 5.9.9 based on ArchLinux
> 
> Not sure if you have already activate it, BIOS are oftently providing an option to hard reset video when resuming from sleep.


Not sure how to enable a hard reset of the video when resuming from sleep. Be nice to have a bios where you didn’t have to spend days trying to get it work. I’ve just got a 3090 and I’ve hardly gamed on it. I would have stuck to an older version that I had running perfectly but the 3090’s are not supported with them.


----------



## Jackalito

Smooth sailing so far with my new Ryzen 7 5800X using BIOS UEFI 2701 at stock settings and RAM at 3600. Will go for faster IF/RAM speeds once newer AGESA BIOS are available.


----------



## T[]RK

CornerJack said:


> Hello, feedback with my Ryzen 9 5950X on the Crosshair VIII Dark Hero (BIOS 2402).


Hi. Since you got most new ASUS board, can you check bug with awake from sleep? I looking forward to get this board too.


----------



## stimpy88

T[]RK said:


> Hi. Since you got most new ASUS board, can you check bug with awake from sleep? I looking forward to get this board too.


Is this not off topic? Maybe make a new thread about a different motherboard, with a different BIOS.

*OK, I apologise. I did not realise that this new board has been added to the OP.*


----------



## CornerJack

Test Asus ROG Crosshair VII Hero Wifi with Ryzen 5 5600X ! (Vermeer 5600X + chipset X470, oui ça fonctionne !)


----------



## CyrIng

CornerJack said:


> Test Asus ROG Crosshair VII Hero Wifi with Ryzen 5 5600X ! (Vermeer 5600X + chipset X470, oui ça fonctionne !)


Nice! 
Now please give a look into the events viewer for any error. Next boot Linux and please provide us the kernel log. Thks


----------



## shiokarai

So I have a question: on the ASUS site there's a memory QVL supposedly updated few days ago specifically for ryzen 5000 series CPUs... and there is no 3800+MHz 32 gigs g.skill kits verified to work on any of the crosshair VIII boards (with full capacity, that is).



https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO_WI-FI/Memory_QVL_for_AMD_Ryzen_5000_X570-4DIMM.pdf



but on the g.skill's site there are some nice kits QVL'ed for this boards... so who's right? 









F4-3800C14Q-32GTZN - G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.


Trident Z Neo DDR4-3800 CL14-16-16-36 1.50V 32GB (4x8GB) Engineered and optimized for full compatibility on the latest AMD Ryzen platforms, Trident Z Neo brings unparalleled DRAM memory performance and vibrant RGB lighting to any gaming PC or workstation with latest AMD Ryzen CPUs and AMD DDR4...




www.gskill.com













F4-3800C14D-32GTZN - G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.


Trident Z Neo DDR4-3800 CL14-16-16-36 1.50V 32GB (2x16GB) Engineered and optimized for full compatibility on the latest AMD Ryzen platforms, Trident Z Neo brings unparalleled DRAM memory performance and vibrant RGB lighting to any gaming PC or workstation with latest AMD Ryzen CPUs and AMD DDR4...




www.gskill.com





what's interesting is, those kits are verified by g.skill to be working even on the entry-level budget X570-p board? How come?


----------



## Jesaul

shiokarai said:


> what's interesting is, those kits are verified by g.skill to be working even on the entry-level budget X570-p board? How come?


Right now I've sold my g.skill trident z 3200 cl14 because it does not work in dual mode. It works in single mode only... RMA did not help.
I've ordered a different one - 3600cl16 and will try it today.
I'll post in 2 hours...
In short, don't ever trust g.skill QVL page. Only ASUS specific one.
Nope. does not work.


----------



## shiokarai

Jesaul said:


> Right now I've sold my g.skill trident z 3200 cl14 because it does not work in dual mode. It works in single mode only... RMA did not help.
> I've ordered a different one - 3600cl16 and will try it today.
> I'll post in 2 hours...
> In short, don't ever trust g.skill QVL page. Only ASUS specific one.
> Nope. does not work.


Thanks, that's a valuable input. Seems fishy kits working on all, even budget motherboards...


----------



## Jesaul

shiokarai said:


> Thanks, that's a valuable input. Seems fishy kits working on all, even budget motherboards...


g.skill says I have a defective processor  But I used the same memory on c6h. I'll give last try with the memory on asus QVL list. This time 4/8gb -
*F4-3600C16Q-32GTZN*


----------



## GRABibus

CornerJack said:


> Hello, feedback with my Ryzen 9 5950X on the Crosshair VIII Dark Hero (BIOS 2402).
> Under watercooling 4.7 GHz 1.19v R15/R20 and 4.8 GHz 1.29v.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First test under LN2 with my Ryzen 5950X on the C8D. The CPU takes 5.8 GHz at 1.5875 volt (multimeter) at -155°C. I think I have a coldbug at -160°C and I also have a code 07 coming in while the FCLK frequency is only 1400 MHz. I will do another set of tests tomorrow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SOC : 1.35v - VDDG CCD : 1.15v - VDDG IOD : 0.9v - PLL : 2.1v
> Do you think my coldbug at -160°C can come from the FCLK? If I put a voltage higher than 1.62v, the motherboard will reboot directly, so even at -155°C, I can't try to increase the frequency.


hello,
80degrees on package at 1,3V with LN2 ? OMG.
This would mean between 90degrees and 100 degrees at 1,3V with a AIO 280mm....


----------



## jhbodle

shiokarai said:


> So I have a question: on the ASUS site there's a memory QVL supposedly updated few days ago specifically for ryzen 5000 series CPUs... and there is no 3800+MHz 32 gigs g.skill kits verified to work on any of the crosshair VIII boards (with full capacity, that is).
> 
> 
> 
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO_WI-FI/Memory_QVL_for_AMD_Ryzen_5000_X570-4DIMM.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> but on the g.skill's site there are some nice kits QVL'ed for this boards... so who's right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F4-3800C14Q-32GTZN - G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.
> 
> 
> Trident Z Neo DDR4-3800 CL14-16-16-36 1.50V 32GB (4x8GB) Engineered and optimized for full compatibility on the latest AMD Ryzen platforms, Trident Z Neo brings unparalleled DRAM memory performance and vibrant RGB lighting to any gaming PC or workstation with latest AMD Ryzen CPUs and AMD DDR4...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.gskill.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F4-3800C14D-32GTZN - G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.
> 
> 
> Trident Z Neo DDR4-3800 CL14-16-16-36 1.50V 32GB (2x16GB) Engineered and optimized for full compatibility on the latest AMD Ryzen platforms, Trident Z Neo brings unparalleled DRAM memory performance and vibrant RGB lighting to any gaming PC or workstation with latest AMD Ryzen CPUs and AMD DDR4...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.gskill.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what's interesting is, those kits are verified by g.skill to be working even on the entry-level budget X570-p board? How come?


That's very annoying as I purchased the G.Skill F4-3800C14Q-32GTZN kit specifically because it WAS listed on the QVL when I bought the board and the RAM. Now it seems like the QVL is BIOS and CPU dependant, in which case it's pretty pointless in my opinion.

For the record, this memory runs fine at 3600 CL14 but the PC won't boot at 3800MHz. Not sure if thats my 5900x playing up or the RAM.


----------



## GRABibus

jhbodle said:


> That's very annoying as I purchased the G.Skill F4-3800C14Q-32GTZN kit specifically because it WAS listed on the QVL when I bought the board and the RAM. Now it seems like the QVL is BIOS and CPU dependant, in which case it's pretty pointless in my opinion.
> 
> For the record, this memory runs fine at 3600 CL14 but the PC won't boot at 3800MHz. Not sure if thats my 5900x playing up or the RAM.


Did you try to increase the RAM voltage ?


----------



## jhbodle

GRABibus said:


> Did you try to increase the RAM voltage ?


I didn't want to go above the rated 1.5V - I tried 1.55v but that was no good. PC boots at 3733MHz but is unstable. RAM passes Memtest though so could be a CPU thing.


----------



## GRABibus

jhbodle said:


> I didn't want to go above the rated 1.5V - I tried 1.55v but that was no good. PC boots at 3733MHz but is unstable. RAM passes Memtest though so could be a CPU thing.


3600MHz seems to be a sweet spot to what I read and see as benchmarks....

are some people running the 5900x with RAM at 4000MHz for example ?


----------



## owntecx

Anyone with random reboots and a ryzen 5900x managed to fix it?


----------



## GRABibus

I will receive in 10 days to 2 weeks my new rig with 5900x and Crosshair VIII Hero.

I read all your posts in order to take some advised and check potential issues and fixes.
I found this video on YouTube on OC for 5900x. Very well explained :
´


----------



## Reica

My two kits of G.Skill F4-3866C18-8GTRZ are not on the QVL list of the C8H but they seem to run fine with 3800Mhz at 1.42v (vsoc at 1.10625v in BIOS). Can't get that one 17 timing to drop to 16 whatever I try though. Seems either the board of the memory controller are a little picky with G.Skill memory?

These timings were tested to 10.000% with the ramtester utility.


----------



## Alemancio

shiokarai said:


> So I have a question: on the ASUS site there's a memory QVL supposedly updated few days ago specifically for ryzen 5000 series CPUs... and there is no 3800+MHz 32 gigs g.skill kits verified to work on any of the crosshair VIII boards (with full capacity, that is).
> 
> 
> 
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO_WI-FI/Memory_QVL_for_AMD_Ryzen_5000_X570-4DIMM.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> but on the g.skill's site there are some nice kits QVL'ed for this boards... so who's right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F4-3800C14Q-32GTZN - G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.
> 
> 
> Trident Z Neo DDR4-3800 CL14-16-16-36 1.50V 32GB (4x8GB) Engineered and optimized for full compatibility on the latest AMD Ryzen platforms, Trident Z Neo brings unparalleled DRAM memory performance and vibrant RGB lighting to any gaming PC or workstation with latest AMD Ryzen CPUs and AMD DDR4...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.gskill.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F4-3800C14D-32GTZN - G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.
> 
> 
> Trident Z Neo DDR4-3800 CL14-16-16-36 1.50V 32GB (2x16GB) Engineered and optimized for full compatibility on the latest AMD Ryzen platforms, Trident Z Neo brings unparalleled DRAM memory performance and vibrant RGB lighting to any gaming PC or workstation with latest AMD Ryzen CPUs and AMD DDR4...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.gskill.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what's interesting is, those kits are verified by g.skill to be working even on the entry-level budget X570-p board? How come?


Gskill is right. Vendors rarely test all kits, but ram makers can test them for some motherboards. All it states is that if you enable DOCP, that it will load fine. Nothing else.


----------



## kx11

i got 4 sticks in my build now, 3200mhz seems to be very stable for me since 3600/4000mhz isn't, now i'm thinking of 32gb ram w/2 sticks from corsair going by Asus sheet, do you guys think it's a good idea? going for 4200mhz


----------



## Ardaen

Hey guys. So I have a Crosshair VIII Formula and had it running fine with 3800 mhz memory/fabric with my 3900x. I recently switched to the 5950x ('cause yolo, right?) and can't for the love of god run it past 3600 mhz with the same memory kit (4x8gb b-die rated for 4000c17). Does the current bios (2504) have issues with fabric clock-rates or do I have a crappy CPU sample? Any experiences from other members? Thanks!


----------



## CornerJack

GRABibus said:


> hello,
> 80degrees on package at 1,3V with LN2 ? OMG.
> This would mean between 90degrees and 100 degrees at 1,3V with a AIO 280mm....


It's underwatercooling custom (480mm)


----------



## Alemancio

jhbodle said:


> Now it seems like the QVL is BIOS and CPU dependant, in which case it's pretty pointless in my opinion.


it has always been.... since the memory controller is integrated into the cpus. Remember that JEDEC ends at 3200mhz anything above is an overclock and not fully guaranteed.


----------



## djase45

UEFI 2702 online.


----------



## CyrIng

djase45 said:


> UEFI 2702 online.


Any link to the change-log ?


----------



## Giustaf

Where?


----------



## artafinde

CyrIng said:


> Any link to the change-log ?


Nah, Asus seem to be doing blind commits in hope that something is fixed XD

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## djase45

NO changelog yet
In the FTP link of your board's 2502, replace 2502 am with 2702.

So dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_HERO/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-2502.ZIP Is then dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_HERO/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-2702.ZIP


----------



## pippo369

Hi, do you know if there is also the version for the Dark Hero?
You could possibly give me the link for the download


----------



## GRABibus

pippo369 said:


> Hi, do you know if there is also the version for the Dark Hero?
> You could possibly give me the link for the download





djase45 said:


> NO changelog yet
> In the FTP link of your board's 2502, replace 2502 am with 2702.
> 
> So dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_HERO/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-2502.ZIP Is then dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_HERO/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-2702.ZIP


On Asus site for Crosshair hero, it is still the 2502.


----------



## Giustaf

Now it's ok:




__





ROG Crosshair VIII Hero | ROG Crosshair | Gaming Motherboards｜ROG - Republic of Gamers｜ROG Global


AMD Ryzen 3000 series ATX motherboard with Aura Sync, SupremeFX, ROG Audio, Dual M.2, Realtek LAN, Dual Lan , M.2 heatsink and USB 3.2 Gen 2



rog.asus.com


----------



## GRABibus

Giustaf said:


> Now it's ok:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG Crosshair VIII Hero | ROG Crosshair | Gaming Motherboards｜ROG - Republic of Gamers｜ROG Global
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 3000 series ATX motherboard with Aura Sync, SupremeFX, ROG Audio, Dual M.2, Realtek LAN, Dual Lan , M.2 heatsink and USB 3.2 Gen 2
> 
> 
> 
> rog.asus.com


I still have 2502 on below link :









ROG Crosshair VIII Hero


ROG Crosshair VIII Hero - Carte mère gaming AMD X570 au format ATX avec slot PCIe 4.0, 16 phases d´alimentation, OptiMem III, LAN 2,5 Gb/s, USB 3.2, SATA, M.2 et éclairage Aura Sync



rog.asus.com


----------



## Ardaen

Hey guys don't get your hopes up to high. The bios 2702 changes nothing for me in regards to ram oc. Still unable to boot with ram higher than 3600 mhz, even though the ram and the board defenitely can (had it running fine with the 3900x @3800 mhz) in the meantime I found out that my cpu IF-Clock can go to 1900 mhz no problem as long as the ram stays at 3600 or lower (which ofc doesn't make sense from a performance standpoint, just for testing) good to know that my cpu sample is not completely craptastic. So my hope is that with a good bios I can finally get some ram OC going on ryzen 5000...


----------



## GRABibus

Don’t forget than in AMD spec, max RAM frequency is 3200MHz...



https://www.amd.com/fr/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-9-5900x


----------



## kaefers

I thought it would be good to aggregate some sentiment about which UEFI / Agesa versions people here prefer using right now.


*strawpoll.me | Which ASUS X570 UEFI works best for you right now?*


My choice remains 1003ABBA (1001) and 1004B (1201) with Asus C8I, 3950X, GSkill Bdie 2x16GB at 3800C14, EDC=0. I don't have my 5950X yet, so things might (have to) change.
I have not seen any major improvements since (Fmax is interesting though!), but I have seen some boot / RAM problems with some versions since, so I flashed back to 1004B (1201).


----------



## Redlurkeraite

Ardaen said:


> Hey guys. So I have a Crosshair VIII Formula and had it running fine with 3800 mhz memory/fabric with my 3900x. I recently switched to the 5950x ('cause yolo, right?) and can't for the love of god run it past 3600 mhz with the same memory kit (4x8gb b-die rated for 4000c17). Does the current bios (2504) have issues with fabric clock-rates or do I have a crappy CPU sample? Any experiences from other members? Thanks!


I've got 4x16gb running at 3800mhz with infinity fabric clocked at 1900mhz with the 5950x.
Please note that this is micron e die.


----------



## Jesaul

Redlurkeraite said:


> I've got 4x16gb running at 3800mhz with infinity fabric clocked at 1900mhz with the 5950x.
> Please note that this is micron e die.


Which memory is that?


----------



## Redlurkeraite

Jesaul said:


> Which memory is that?


Crucial Ballistix Sport LT 3000Mhz CL15, It hasn't failed me yet with its abilities especially at it's price point. 
3200Mhz Cl14 - Ryzen 2700x
3800Mhz CL16 - Ryzen 3950x/5950x

I'll try do some testing's and see if I can get push it above 3800mhz.


----------



## artafinde

djase45 said:


> UEFI 2702 online.


Just for some context this is still a Testing BIOS and same ASEGA as before.

Ref (with wrong title): Crosshair VIII 2501's for testing


----------



## 7lk

BIOS Version 2702 for HERO (non wifi) ROG Crosshair VIII Hero | ROG Crosshair | Gaming Motherboards｜ROG - Republic of Gamers｜ROG USA (asus.com)
Who will find the courage to try? Experience?


----------



## zsoltmol

7lk said:


> BIOS Version 2702 for HERO (non wifi) ROG Crosshair VIII Hero | ROG Crosshair | Gaming Motherboards｜ROG - Republic of Gamers｜ROG USA (asus.com)
> Who will find the courage to try? Experience?


Not me this time. I have had enough with testing. :-(


----------



## owntecx

Im about to return my asus strix b550e and bought a X570 Hero VIII for my 5900x cause im having random restarts since the start. What bios do you guys sujest to start from? I have 2 kits of 4000cl19 bdie. Hoping to atleast use it at 3600mhz.


----------



## GRABibus

I wait for my Rig from PCSpecialist (5900x and Crosshair hero).

i bought several kits which are in the QVL in order to make several tests :
F4-4133C17D-16GTZR
F4-4000C17D-16GTZR
F4-3200C14D-16VGK
F4-3600C16D-16VGK


----------



## Dawidowski

I just got Team Group Xtreeme 3600CL14.
Booted fine with DOCP


----------



## GRABibus

Dawidowski said:


> I just got Team Group Xtreeme 3600CL14.
> Booted fine with DOCP


what is the part number ?


----------



## Dawidowski

_TF10D416G3600HC14CDC01_ - If not mistaken


----------



## GRABibus

Dawidowski said:


> _TF10D416G3600HC14CDC01_ - If not mistaken


it is not in QVL and it is only one stick , right ?


----------



## Dawidowski

GRABibus said:


> it is not in QVL and it is only one stick , right ?


One stick? 
Its two sticks, 2x8 and it runs just fine. 
I've seen plenty of people running none QVL Rams and these are not on the QVL. 
But the same version of single sticks and 2x16 and 4x16 are supported according to QVL


----------



## greg_p

Just applied the 27.02, I don't see any difference but anyway it's working fine for me, I have slow and aged 4x8Gb of Gskill F4-3000C15 working at 3333, and a 5950x.
I wonder if any of you see a difference between PBO setting in the extreme tweaker menu and the same in overclocking menu (the menu behing the disclaimer in bios) ?


----------



## GRABibus

greg_p said:


> Just applied the 27.02, I don't see any difference but anyway it's working fine for me, I have slow and aged 4x8Gb of Gskill F4-3000C15 working at 3333, and a 5950x.
> I wonder if any of you see a difference between PBO setting in the extreme tweaker menu and the same in overclocking menu (the menu behing the disclaimer in bios) ?


I sent you a PM


----------



## Jesaul

GRABibus said:


> I wait for my Rig from PCSpecialist (5900x and Crosshair hero).
> 
> i bought several kits which are in the QVL in order to make several tests :
> F4-4000C17D-16GTZR


I'm going for this one also,


----------



## Spartoi

I flashed 2702 bios on my Impact motherboard. No changes for me. FLCK still can't boot at 2000Mhz (whereas 2000Mhz could) but at least everything is still working as before I guess. I loaded up my profile from 2502 bios and haven't had any issues.


----------



## kuutale

I get my 5950x maybe this week or next week, what is best bios, i mean stable bios right know? i use crosshair viii hero motherboard.


----------



## artafinde

And now 2702 is live (not beta)
Not much of a changelog...


> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO (WI-FI) BIOS 2702
> 1. Improve system performance
> Before running the USB BIOS Flashback tool, please rename the BIOS file (C8HW.CAP) using BIOSRenamer.


----------



## benbenkr

kuutale said:


> I get my 5950x maybe this week or next week, what is best bios, i mean stable bios right know? i use crosshair viii hero motherboard.


A stable BIOS for Zen 3 doesn't exist lol.


----------



## kuutale

benbenkr said:


> A stable BIOS for Zen 3 doesn't exist lol.


this sounds like same thing ryzen 3000 series, after couple months we have stáble bios i guess. Maybe i go the newest then.


----------



## GRABibus

kuutale said:


> this sounds like same thing ryzen 3000 series, after couple months we have stáble bios i guess. Maybe i go the newest then.


of course it will improve, 59xx are only here since 2 weeks


----------



## Jesaul

GRABibus said:


> of course it will improve, 59xx are only here since 2 weeks


Yes, yes. That's overpriced beta test.


----------



## CyrIng

GRABibus said:


> of course it will improve, 59xx are only here since 2 weeks


2 weeks for us, not for Integrators...


----------



## lDevilDriverl

C8HW 2702 EDC bug - EDC can't go higher than 60A with 5600x
2502 is ok (120-125A)


----------



## Pr3t3nd3r

kuutale said:


> I get my 5950x maybe this week or next week, what is best bios, i mean stable bios right know? i use crosshair viii hero motherboard.


For me it is 2311. No WHEA errors but somehow slower speeds in Cinebench R15 (270 max score single core). Will be changing my RAM very soon to G.Skill TridentZ Neo 3600 and will be reporting back...


----------



## benbenkr

kuutale said:


> this sounds like same thing ryzen 3000 series, after couple months we have stáble bios i guess. Maybe i go the newest then.


In theory we should be getting stable BIOS for Zen 3 soon, but who is to say that Asus and AMD won't continue to break things after a single stable BIOS? There's a reason why so many people are still on 1302 with their Zen 2 CPUs.


----------



## greg_p

Actually AMD did publish PBO2, I assume this will be retrofitted, they beta-tested with us for some time...


----------



## kx11

Bios 2702 for Crosshair Formula 



https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_FORMULA/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-2702.ZIP


----------



## uplink

kx11 said:


> Bios 2702 for Crosshair Formula
> 
> 
> 
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_FORMULA/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-2702.ZIP


 Did You test it? I'm very happy with 2701, although, 3800 CL14 mem. works well only at 3200 MHz [and 1600 MHz inf. fabric]. TBH, I've seen zero performance increase in games, even when I managed to run and crash on 3600 MHz/1800 MHz, or 3800 MHz/1900 MHz on older BiOS-es.


----------



## kx11

uplink said:


> Did You test it? I'm very happy with 2701, although, 3800 CL14 mem. works well only at 3200 MHz [and 1600 MHz inf. fabric]. TBH, I've seen zero performance increase in games, even when I managed to run and crash on 3600 MHz/1800 MHz, or 3800 MHz/1900 MHz on older BiOS-es.


same here, 3600mhz CL16 started crashing randomly, now i'm running it stable 3200mhz CL16 and no increase in gaming performance, 2702 is good so far my 3900xt can hit 4.8ghz 1core 4.3ghz for the rest which is amazing for me


----------



## Jackalito

2702 over here. Everything working fine, including memory at 3600 MHz.


----------



## OMPCritical

I'm on a 5900X. 
The system is pretty unstable on 2402, 2502 and 2702....
I have random reboots quite often. No XMP, No PBO.

Benchmarks work just fine (memtest86+, phoronix-benchmark-suit, stress-ng). 
The reboot seems to happen when starting/finalizing a process but not during a benchmark (at least so far).

any tips?


----------



## uplink

kx11 said:


> same here, 3600mhz CL16 started crashing randomly, now i'm running it stable 3200mhz CL16 and no increase in gaming performance, 2702 is good so far my 3900xt can hit 4.8ghz 1core 4.3ghz for the rest which is amazing for me


 Nice! Okay, so I'll stay on 2701 for the time being and maybe, just maybe hit the 2702 during the weekend. Thank You!


Jackalito said:


> 2702 over here. Everything working fine, including memory at 3600 MHz.


 Nice, good to know! What CL are You running on Your memory? And how many sticks do You have? What model? Are You running JEDEC, or D.O.C.P. memory settings? Or custom/manual?


OMPCritical said:


> I'm on a 5900X.
> The system is pretty unstable on 2402, 2502 and 2702....
> I have random reboots quite often. No XMP, No PBO.
> 
> Benchmarks work just fine (memtest86+, phoronix-benchmark-suit, stress-ng).
> The reboot seems to happen when starting/finalizing a process but not during a benchmark (at least so far).
> 
> any tips?


 Yeah, just hit me with Your memory modules, type, CAS latency, number of sticks. I have 5950X and I'm running just fine. On 2701. You need/should run D.O.C.P. at 3200 MHz TOPs and 1600 MHz FCLK [always half of the memory speed].

Leave everything on default in BiOS, just arbitrary settings like SATA controller, CPU virtualization and stuff can be tweaked. Leave Extreme Tweaker to auto except memory D.O.C.P., but first, tell us Your mem specs


----------



## sakete

I have to say though, what is it with AMD and everything always being unstable and buggy as hell when they release new hardware?

In the past with Intel I never really experienced it that way, and things just work.

Otherwise currently my 3900X running very stable.


----------



## mfachmann

I can do 3667 14-15-15-15 1:1 on 2702 with a x570 hero wifi / 5800x, absolutely stable. Anything above that is a no post. Cant wait for them to fix these issues.


----------



## CyrIng

CoreFreq needs 59xx owners for alpha tests. 
If you are in, feel free to open an issue named with your Ryzen v3 processor at:
github.com/cyring/CoreFreq/issues

CoreFreq is a processor monitoring software with BIOS features like Core Performance Boost, DRAM timings and frequency, CC2, CC6, PC6, Max frequency OC, per Core stressing, and many other features bits. 

I need your support,
thank you.


----------



## GRABibus

You all make me afraid with your posts on instability.
I receive my new rig (in sig) tomorrow or next Monday and it seems that I will spend some nights to stabilize the beast


----------



## zsoltmol

It would be good to have at least some soft of unofficial answer here from Asus or guys close to Asus.

Like "yes we know the issues, we are working on it and expect a fix at xxxxx date."

Or "all Zen2 users please roll back to xxxx bios, new features are not guaranteed to work on Zen2, only Zen3."

Or "Sorry even though your memory was on our QVL list 1 year ago we found out this memory is no longer supported with new xxxx bios."

Whatever, so I can decide should I wait (even more?! since 2020/06/18 when 2010 was published) or should I sell this MB?


----------



## OMPCritical

uplink said:


> Nice! Okay, so I'll stay on 2701 for the time being and maybe, just maybe hit the 2702 during the weekend. Thank You!
> Nice, good to know! What CL are You running on Your memory? And how many sticks do You have? What model? Are You running JEDEC, or D.O.C.P. memory settings? Or custom/manual?
> Yeah, just hit me with Your memory modules, type, CAS latency, number of sticks. I have 5950X and I'm running just fine. On 2701. You need/should run D.O.C.P. at 3200 MHz TOPs and 1600 MHz FCLK [always half of the memory speed].
> 
> Leave everything on default in BiOS, just arbitrary settings like SATA controller, CPU virtualization and stuff can be tweaked. Leave Extreme Tweaker to auto except memory D.O.C.P., but first, tell us Your mem specs


Thanks! 
I have 4 sticks of 16GB Gskill F4-3200C16D with 16-18-18-38.
D.O.C.P. is of right now. So everything is on auto or defaults apart of fan curves.
Dram frequency is at 2133 and FCLK is at 1066.


----------



## pantsoftime

I've been playing with 5950x for the last couple of days. I'm on the 2702 BIOS. 

Good stuff:

Managed to get 4 dual-rank sticks of B-Die (64GB total) running at 3600CL14. I was unable to get this memory to work at any frequency above 2933 on my previous 3950x (it worked just fine with 2 sticks)
CCD Overclocking is stable at 1.29V 4.8CCD1 / 4.6CCD2 - Results are CPU-Z 668 single, 13427 multicore, CB20 11921 multicore.
Temperatures are reasonable under water

Not as awesome:

Cannot get PBO Curve optimizer to work even with the most conservative settings. It crashes/reboots before even loading an OS.
PBO with Fmax enhancer isn't really stable. I got it to work a little bit by adding a + offset on Vcore but it still crashed every so often
Regular PBO works with a + offset on Vcore, but due to this it runs hot and doesn't seem to be all that efficient. I'd like to get the curve optimizer to work to fix this but it just refuses to.

Any advice / protips on curve optimizer? I tried setting it up the way I saw in some posts here but maybe I missed something.


----------



## GRABibus

pantsoftime said:


> I've been playing with 5950x for the last couple of days. I'm on the 2702 BIOS.
> 
> Good stuff:
> 
> Managed to get 4 dual-rank sticks of B-Die (64GB total) running at 3600CL14. I was unable to get this memory to work at any frequency above 2933 on my previous 3950x (it worked just fine with 2 sticks)
> CCD Overclocking is stable at 1.29V 4.8CCD1 / 4.6CCD2 - Results are CPU-Z 668 single, 13427 multicore, CB20 11921 multicore.
> Temperatures are reasonable under water
> 
> Not as awesome:
> 
> Cannot get PBO Curve optimizer to work even with the most conservative settings. It crashes/reboots before even loading an OS.
> PBO with Fmax enhancer isn't really stable. I got it to work a little bit by adding a + offset on Vcore but it still crashed every so often
> Regular PBO works with a + offset on Vcore, but due to this it runs hot and doesn't seem to be all that efficient. I'd like to get the curve optimizer to work to fix this but it just refuses to.
> 
> Any advice / protips on curve optimizer? I tried setting it up the way I saw in some posts here but maybe I missed something.


What’s your kit part number ?


----------



## pantsoftime

GRABibus said:


> What’s your kit part number ?


G.Skill F4-3200C14-16GTZR (two kits)

and just to be clear - Either kit worked fine at 3600CL14 on the 3950x but I couldn't get both sets to work simultaneously until I got to the 5950x. I think that chip had a weak IMC.


----------



## GRABibus

A detailed gaming benchmark with RAM analysis (numbers of kits, SS or DS, etc...).
His conclusion is that 4 kits perform better than 2 sticks globally in games (for Ryzen 5000).
Of course, I assume that 4 kits is more difficult to overclock, especially in case of weak IMC:


----------



## uplink

OMPCritical said:


> Thanks!
> I have 4 sticks of 16GB Gskill F4-3200C16D with 16-18-18-38.
> D.O.C.P. is of right now. So everything is on auto or defaults apart of fan curves.
> Dram frequency is at 2133 and FCLK is at 1066.


 Okay. So try D.O.C.P. with default settings, time them manually, board won't time them correctly, at least not the tRAS or however it's called [the last value]. And use 1600 Mhz, try it. If it won't work, try 3000 MHz and 1500 MHz for FCLK, etc.


----------



## RHBH

GRABibus said:


> A detailed gaming benchmark with RAM analysis (numbers of kits, SS or DS, etc...).
> His conclusion is that 4 kits perform better than 2 sticks globally in games (for Ryzen 5000).
> Of course, I assume that 4 kits is more difficult to overclock, especially in case of weak IMC:


Your conclusion is wrong. 

Correction: 4 ranks is better than 2 ranks. 

2 sticks with double ranks provides the same performance that 4 sticks with single ranks.


----------



## Reica

RHBH said:


> Your conclusion is wrong.
> 
> Correction: 4 ranks is better than 2 ranks.
> 
> 2 sticks with double ranks provides the same performance that 4 sticks with single ranks.


Yeah, you seemingly want to match the number of ranks to the amount of channels your memory controller has.

The (odd?) way it works is like this:

2 single rank sticks = single rank
4 single rank sticks = dual rank
2 dual rank sticks = dual rank
4 dual rank sticks = quad rank
Ranks cannot be accessed simultaneously, but they can be addressed independently. This means the memory controller can write data to one rank and when that is done immediately receive read data from the other rank, instead of sending write data > having the RAM process it > then exporting read data back to the mem controller. This seems to give more bandwidth and throughput.

I think currently, unless you have a quad channel memory controller, running your RAM in a quad rank setup might be worsening your performance again. Could be wrong on this.

Edit: This is not just true for Zen 3. Ryzen 3000's and Intel CPU's also benefit from this. All as long as the application you're running is either CPU or Memory limited.


----------



## Jesaul

Ok. More fun with motherboard.
I've god 3rd set of memory - 2x8GB on qvl list. And it does not work in dual memory mode (0D error). I suspect that the person who told me that my 3600 is faulty may be true..


----------



## RHBH

Reica said:


> Yeah, you seemingly want to match the number of ranks to the amount of channels your memory controller has.
> 
> The (odd?) way it works is like this:
> 
> 2 single rank sticks = single rank
> 4 single rank sticks = dual rank
> 2 dual rank sticks = dual rank
> 4 dual rank sticks = quad rank
> Ranks cannot be accessed simultaneously, but they can be addressed independently. This means the memory controller can write data to one rank and when that is done immediately receive read data from the other rank, instead of sending write data > having the RAM process it > then exporting read data back to the mem controller. This seems to give more bandwidth and throughput.
> 
> I think currently, unless you have a quad channel memory controller, running your RAM in a quad rank setup might be worsening your performance again. Could be wrong on this.
> 
> Edit: This is not just true for Zen 3. Ryzen 3000's and Intel CPU's also benefit from this. All as long as the application you're running is either CPU or Memory limited.


Tecnically having a quad rank setup (4 sticks with two ranks each) is the best performance you can get.

In practical terms you won't get the best performance from a quad rank setup because the amount of stress in the memory controller is much higher than having a dual rank setup.

So you most likely will lose performance due the lower clock / loosen timings required to stabilize all ranks, the benefit from a quad rank setup is not enough to compensate this.

If you can get 4x16GB stable at 4000MHz with a tight timing and 2000 FLCK, yeah that's the best possible performance, but you'll be luck if you can POST at more than 3600MHz with a quad rank setup.

That's the reason why AMD rates their memory controller as 3200MHz, because that's the higher clock they guarantee their memory controller will handle with whatever you throw at it.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

RHBH said:


> Your conclusion is wrong.
> 
> Correction: 4 ranks is better than 2 ranks.
> 
> 2 sticks with double ranks provides the same performance that 4 sticks with single ranks.





Reica said:


> Yeah, you seemingly want to match the number of ranks to the amount of channels your memory controller has.
> 
> The (odd?) way it works is like this:
> 
> 2 single rank sticks = single rank
> 4 single rank sticks = dual rank
> 2 dual rank sticks = dual rank
> 4 dual rank sticks = quad rank
> Ranks cannot be accessed simultaneously, but they can be addressed independently. This means the memory controller can write data to one rank and when that is done immediately receive read data from the other rank, instead of sending write data > having the RAM process it > then exporting read data back to the mem controller. This seems to give more bandwidth and throughput.
> 
> I think currently, unless you have a quad channel memory controller, running your RAM in a quad rank setup might be worsening your performance again. Could be wrong on this.
> 
> Edit: This is not just true for Zen 3. Ryzen 3000's and Intel CPU's also benefit from this. All as long as the application you're running is either CPU or Memory limited.


So right now I am at 3800 MHz CL16 and 54ns of latency with dual channel *single rank ram. *Is there any benefit in me getting two more sticks for four sticks total? Specially if I game at 1440P?


----------



## Jackalito

uplink said:


> Nice, good to know! What CL are You running on Your memory? And how many sticks do You have? What model? Are You running JEDEC, or D.O.C.P. memory settings? Or custom/manual?


My RAM is 16 GB. DDR4 G.SKILL TRIDENTZ F4-3600C15D-16GTZ (2x8GB) Single Rank, obviously.
No D.O.C.P., manually set as:



















Note: VDIMM is 1.365V

Cheers!


----------



## xeizo

KingEngineRevUp said:


> So right now I am at 3800 MHz CL16 and 54ns of latency with dual channel *single rank ram. *Is there any benefit in me getting two more sticks for four sticks total? Specially if I game at 1440P?


Latency will be worse as more ranks = more latency, but bandwidth will be higher. In games, bandwidth is more important for moar fps.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

xeizo said:


> Latency will be worse as more ranks = more latency, but bandwidth will be higher. In games, bandwidth is more important for moar fps.


I watched the HU video and the single rank 3800MHz with 54.6ns seems to hold up against everything. Would you say there's hardly if any more benefit for me to getting 2 more sticks?


----------



## xeizo

KingEngineRevUp said:


> I watched the HU video and the single rank 3800MHz with 54.6ns seems to hold up against everything. Would you say there's hardly if any more benefit for me to getting 2 more sticks?
> View attachment 2466881
> View attachment 2466882
> View attachment 2466883


The difference will be very small, it's never worth it unless you're hunting the last fps


----------



## OblivionXT

Wanted to share my personal 4-DIMM stability issues and "fixes" (Had to give up some minor functionality) These issues occur for me on virtually all BIOS versions, especially post 1302.

Current Build:
Crosshair VIII Hero Wi-Fi (BIOS 2702), Ryzen 3600, Team Group Xtreem 4500 - 4x8GB @ 3733 CL14 IF 1866

Issue #1: Randomly hangs up on POST with 1F or 01 Code, always passes POST once reset button is toggled.
Fix: Reset PROCODT and other termination resistances to Auto, RAM OC remained stable, no longer hangs up on POST

Issue #2: Frequent crashes, often within minutes of boot, no blue screen.
Fix: Reset C States to Auto from Enabled, these crashes seemed to occur when the CPU was unloading completed tasks and more cores were entering C6. C1 has had no issues thus far.

Issue #3: Occasional crashes intermittent and no pattern, no blue screen
Fix: Disabled all boost and PBO settings, set manual OC (4.2 Mhz @1.33v on my chip)

Hopefully I can get at least this level of stability once the 5900X arrives....next year, ha.


----------



## RHBH

So, let me clarify some things.

About the HU video

4 ranks running 3600CL16
Against
2 ranks running 3800CL16

Its obvious that higher frequency matters more than more ranks. But if you can run different number of ranks at the same frequency and timings more ranks will improve the performance.

In games going from two ranks to four ranks tends to show improvements around 2% to 4%, more improvements in memory bandwidth/CPU bound games.

Also there is a slightly mistake in HU video. Their 4000MHz are not in 1:1 as they were able to run 1900MHz FLCK. That's why you see 3800CL16 beating 4000CL16.

Regarding the "more ranks more latency myth".

It is true that more ranks will show you a higher latency in synthetic benchmarks such as AIDA64

These benchmarks will measure the DRAM latency by accessing all installed ranks, as explained before you cannot execute operations in more than one par at the same time. Thus the benchmark will measure more latency.

In practical terms more ranks will actually improve latency as your memory controller will be able to perform operations in one par of ranks while another par is refreshing. This is why more ranks show improvements in latency sensitivity applications such as games.


----------



## dev1ance

Have you guys with two sticks noticed that there's a problem using slots 1 and 3? I can do DDR4-3800 16-16-16 easily or DDR4-4000 on slots 2 and 4, but I wanted to try slots 1 and 3 but I'm getting the exact same problem that a lot of people complained about if I do (the problem is not booting above DDR4-3200 even though you can set IF higher, just memory cannot do above 3200 on slots 1 and 3). If I get another two sticks and put them in 1 and 3, will I be facing the same problem of not booting above DDR4-3200? Or is it not a problem if I'm running 4 sticks?



IceB said:


> Following my previous post it seems that I am getting somewhere, yet it makes me feel wrong...
> The 4x8Gb memory (F4-4000C15Q-32GVK) I got is unable to run anything above 3000Mhz with all 4 slots populated - immediate F9 error core
> 
> I checked the board with 2 DIMMs only :
> 
> With the A2 & B2 slots - 4000Mhz like a charm with the D.O.C.P. or manual. Tested all 4 sticks - 2 by 2 - any pair gets 4000 Mhz.
> With the A1 & B1 slots - maximus is 3000Mhz - anything above is F9 as mentioned. - tested all 4 - any pair (or single) gets the same error above the 3000Mhz.
> Reseated the CPU with the heatsink twice - same.
> Checked with the BIOS v. 2402 beta and with the v. 2502 - same behavior.
> However with the v. 2402 beta the MB allows 2000BCLK with the pair of the RAM sticks at A2 & B2 slots at 4000Mhz at 1:1 with stable Cinebench runs - not checked anything else yet. The recent BIOS v. 2502 is somehow limited with the BCLK - not getting the 2000 1:1 for me.
> 
> What is going on with this A1 B1 / A2 B2. Is it a faulty MB ? RMA ? Or is there any BIOS tweak I might try with the X570 to try to get the s slots to run above 3000Mhz ?
> I have searched the thread and found different stories with the A1 B1 slots. Is there anyone here with this MB running fast 4 RAM sticks ?


Have you found a solution at all? I noticed something similar but DDR4-3200 is the limit on A1 and B1 for some reason


----------



## OblivionXT

dev1ance said:


> Have you guys with two sticks noticed that there's a problem using slots 1 and 3? I can do DDR4-3800 16-16-16 easily or DDR4-4000 on slots 2 and 4, but I wanted to try slots 1 and 3 but I'm getting the exact same problem that a lot of people complained about if I do (the problem is not booting above DDR4-3200 even though you can set IF higher, just memory cannot do above 3200 on slots 1 and 3). If I get another two sticks and put them in 1 and 3, will I be facing the same problem of not booting above DDR4-3200? Or is it not a problem if I'm running 4 sticks?


This problem is specifically caused from only having sticks in the first and third slots. Without sticks in the second and fourth slots as well (four sticks total) you get signal reflection/interference.


----------



## dev1ance

OblivionXT said:


> This problem is specifically caused from only having sticks in the first and third slots. Without sticks in the second and fourth slots as well (four sticks total) you get signal reflection/interference.


Hmm, hopefully that's the case because IceB above is getting problems with 4 sticks populated and essentially being limited to A1 and B1 speeds...I have another kit incoming to run 4x8GB as well. Noticed it's working for you with Zen 2 though but the problem doesn't seem to be Zen 2 related as people were hitting higher speeds with their Zen 2 chips but Zen 3 was the culprit and limiting their speeds (not booting above 3200)

Is anyone else running 4 sticks just fine with Zen 3?


----------



## lklem

dev1ance said:


> Hmm, hopefully that's the case because IceB above is getting problems with 4 sticks populated and essentially being limited to A1 and B1 speeds...I have another kit incoming to run 4x8GB as well. Noticed it's working for you with Zen 2 though but the problem doesn't seem to be Zen 2 related as people were hitting higher speeds with their Zen 2 chips but Zen 3 was the culprit and limiting their speeds (not booting above 3200)
> 
> Is anyone else running 4 sticks just fine with Zen 3?





dev1ance said:


> Hmm, hopefully that's the case because IceB above is getting problems with 4 sticks populated and essentially being limited to A1 and B1 speeds...I have another kit incoming to run 4x8GB as well. Noticed it's working for you with Zen 2 though but the problem doesn't seem to be Zen 2 related as people were hitting higher speeds with their Zen 2 chips but Zen 3 was the culprit and limiting their speeds (not booting above 3200)
> 
> Is anyone else running 4 sticks just fine with Zen 3?


Ryzen 9 5900X, Asus C8HW, 4x8gb Gskill Trident Z 3200mhz CL14 @ 3600mhz CL14 (F4-3200C14D-16GTZR)


----------



## lDevilDriverl

dev1ance said:


> Hmm, hopefully that's the case because IceB above is getting problems with 4 sticks populated and essentially being limited to A1 and B1 speeds...I have another kit incoming to run 4x8GB as well. Noticed it's working for you with Zen 2 though but the problem doesn't seem to be Zen 2 related as people were hitting higher speeds with their Zen 2 chips but Zen 3 was the culprit and limiting their speeds (not booting above 3200)
> 
> Is anyone else running 4 sticks just fine with Zen 3?


I'm running 4x8 bdie on 3800cl16 easily with c8hw and 5600x, same as on 3600x. On 2600x this kits was running on 3600cl14


----------



## Syldon

Looking for advice on tweaks. I think I set up as best as I can with the knowledge I have. I have ran Ryzen from CH6,7 and now 8 on 1800x, 2700x and now the 5950.










The stress tests included here do not include the 3090 in my profile. It arrives in about 1 hour's time. The GPU should have little to no effect on the stability runs.

Any advice is appreciated. Super impressed with what I am seeing so far. 



Spoiler: Bios text dump



[2020/11/28 09:50:54]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3800MHz]
FCLK Frequency [1900MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Core VID [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
Performance Bias [Auto]
PBO Fmax Enhancer [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [Auto]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [16]
Trcdrd [16]
Trcdwr [16]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [17]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [34]
Trc [52]
TrrdS [7]
TrrdL [10]
Tfaw [28]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [12]
Twr [14]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [4]
TwrwrScl [4]
Trfc [333]
Trfc2 [Auto]
Trfc4 [Auto]
Tcwl [16]
Trtp [14]
Trdwr [14]
Twrrd [6]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
ProcODT [53.3 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [RZQ/7]
RttWr [RZQ/3]
RttPark [RZQ/1]
MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
MemCkeSetup [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 2]
CPU Current Capability [120%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Auto]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Auto]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 1]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Auto]
DRAM Current Capability [110%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
CPU SOC Voltage [Auto]
DRAM Voltage [1.36000]
VDDG CCD Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [Auto]
CLDO VDDP voltage [Auto]
1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Enabled]
PPC Adjustment [PState 2]
NX Mode [Enabled]
SVM Mode [Disabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
CCD Control [Auto]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
SMART Self Test [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth [Auto Mode]
PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth [Auto Mode]
When system is in working state [All On]
Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [Aura Off]
Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Enabled]
Realtek PXE OPROM [Disabled]
Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_2 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
SB Link Mode [Auto]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Above 4G Decoding [Disabled]
SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
KingstonDataTraveler 2.0PMAP [Auto]
USB Device Enable [Enabled]
U32G2_2 [Enabled]
U32G2_3 [Enabled]
U32G2_4 [Enabled]
U32G1_10 [Enabled]
U32G1_11 [Enabled]
USB12 [Enabled]
USB13 [Enabled]
U32G2_7 [Enabled]
U32G2_8 [Enabled]
U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Device [SATA6G_8: Samsung SSD 850 EVO 2TB]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
PCH Fan Speed [Monitor]
Flow Rate [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
CPU Fan Step Up [0 sec]
CPU Fan Step Down [0 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit [200 RPM]
CPU Fan Profile [Manual]
CPU Upper Temperature [68]
CPU Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
CPU Middle Temperature [60]
CPU Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [100]
CPU Lower Temperature [30]
CPU Fan Min. Duty Cycle (%) [20]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [Ignore]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Silent]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [Ignore]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Manual]
Chassis Fan 2 Upper Temperature [65]
Chassis Fan 2 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 2 Middle Temperature [60]
Chassis Fan 2 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [75]
Chassis Fan 2 Lower Temperature [20]
Chassis Fan 2 Min. Duty Cycle (%) [40]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
High Amp Fan Profile [Standard]
WATER PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
AIO PUMP Control [Disabled]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
Boot Logo Display [Disabled]
Bootup NumLock State [On]
POST Report [1 sec]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Disabled]
OS Type [Other OS]
AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
Flexkey [Reset]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [1]
Profile Name [3800 stable]
Save to Profile [1]
DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A2]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Enabled]
CPU Frequency [0]
CPU Voltage [0]
CCD Control [Auto]
Core control [Auto]
SMT Control [Auto]
Overclock [Enabled ]
Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
Tcl [Auto]
Trcdrd [Auto]
Trcdwr [Auto]
Trp [Auto]
Tras [Auto]
Trc Ctrl [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr Ctrl [Auto]
Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
ECO Mode [Disable]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
SoC Voltage [0]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
SMEE [Auto]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
Global C-state Control [Auto]
Power Supply Idle Control [Auto]
SEV ASID Count [Auto]
SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
Local APIC Mode [Auto]
ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
RdRand Speedup Disable [Enabled]
IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
DRAM scrub time [Auto]
Poison scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Memory interleaving [Auto]
Memory interleaving size [Auto]
1TB remap [Auto]
DRAM map inversion [Auto]
ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
GMI encryption control [Auto]
xGMI encryption control [Auto]
CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
PcsCG control [Auto]
Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
Memory Clear [Auto]
Overclock [Enabled]
Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
Tcl [Auto]
Trcdrd [Auto]
Trcdwr [Auto]
Trp [Auto]
Tras [Auto]
Trc Ctrl [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr Ctrl [Auto]
Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Data Poisoning [Auto]
DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
RCD Parity [Auto]
DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
Write CRC Enable [Auto]
DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
TSME [Auto]
Data Scramble [Auto]
DFE Read Training [Auto]
FFE Write Training [Auto]
PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
BankGroupSwap [Auto]
BankGroupSwapAlt [Disabled]
Address Hash Bank [Auto]
Address Hash CS [Auto]
Address Hash Rm [Auto]
SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
MBIST Enable [Disabled]
Pattern Select [PRBS]
Pattern Length [6]
Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
IOMMU [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
FCLK Frequency [Auto]
SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
ACS Enable [Auto]
PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
cTDP Control [Auto]
EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
APBDIS [Auto]
DF Cstates [Auto]
CPPC [Auto]
CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
Early Link Speed [Auto]
Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
Preferred IO [Auto]
CV test [Auto]
Loopback Mode [Auto]
Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]


----------



## CyrIng

Those 500's lines of code may help with the DIMM(s) topology 










As a low level program zencli can also peek into the SMU, FCH, PM, BIOS ...

CyrIng


----------



## Deluxe1

I've just installed a 5900x in my Crosshair VIII Hero and when playing games it won't boost at all and is locked to it's base clock of 3.7

If I run cinebench then it boosts just fine.

Is this just a bug?


----------



## Syldon

Deluxe1 said:


> I've just installed a 5900x in my Crosshair VIII Hero and when playing games it won't boost at all and is locked to it's base clock of 3.7
> 
> If I run cinebench then it boosts just fine.
> 
> Is this just a bug?


Can you dump a copy of your bios settings ?


----------



## Deluxe1

Syldon said:


> Can you dump a copy of your bios settings ?


Yeah, any others you want? All the other settings are just stock.


----------



## Deluxe1

This is what it looks like in game, just doesn't budge from 3.7:










This is it when running benchmarks:


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

lDevilDriverl said:


> I'm running 4x8 bdie on 3800cl16 easily with c8hw and 5600x, same as on 3600x. On 2600x this kits was running on 3600cl14


Do you ha e updated benchmarks, Zen timings screenshots,etc?

I own a 2x8GB 3600 MHz CL16-16-16-36 kit and just purchased another kit to try it in dual rank 4x8GB.

My current timings are 3800 CL16 with 54.1 ns of latency. I'm hoping I can keep them but I know a few settings might have to be changed.


----------



## Safetytrousers

Deluxe1 said:


> Yeah, any others you want? All the other settings are just stock.


Why are you running it in LN2 mode?


----------



## Deluxe1

Safetytrousers said:


> Why are you running it in LN2 mode?


What's that and where do I disable it if need be?


----------



## CyrIng

Deluxe1 said:


> This is what it looks like in game, just doesn't budge from 3.7:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is it when running benchmarks:


Your first CPU monitoring software reports the P-State frequency whereas the second displays the relative frequency.


----------



## thepccaptain

owntecx said:


> Im about to return my asus strix b550e and bought a X570 Hero VIII for my 5900x cause im having random restarts since the start. What bios do you guys sujest to start from? I have 2 kits of 4000cl19 bdie. Hoping to atleast use it at 3600mhz.


uninstall asus ai charger


----------



## dev1ance

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Do you ha e updated benchmarks, Zen timings screenshots,etc?
> 
> I own a 2x8GB 3600 MHz CL16-16-16-36 kit and just purchased another kit to try it in dual rank 4x8GB.
> 
> My current timings are 3800 CL16 with 54.1 ns of latency. I'm hoping I can keep them but I know a few settings might have to be changed.


Well, got 4 sticks running at DDR4-3800 16-16-16 today. Won't boot with anything more than than that unfortunately, was able to do DDR4-4000 with 2 sticks (these 2 can do DDR4-4300 16-17-17 on Intel but can't do 14-14-14 at 3800...go figure) before but I guess this is a tradeoff.


----------



## lDevilDriverl

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Do you ha e updated benchmarks, Zen timings screenshots,etc?
> 
> I own a 2x8GB 3600 MHz CL16-16-16-36 kit and just purchased another kit to try it in dual rank 4x8GB.
> 
> My current timings are 3800 CL16 with 54.1 ns of latency. I'm hoping I can keep them but I know a few settings might have to be changed.


----------



## kuutale

last check for 2702 bios on ryzen 3950x it's seems to good stable, and performance is little bit better then 2402 i think, no whea errors or 41 kernel power problem. It's time say goodbye 3950x it goes tomorrow new home, and 5950x is arrive replace it. 3950x is very good processors i have little problems with asus bios and asus some how fix generally all problems but it need time.

i wondering i use *der8auer* custom oc brackets if they for 5000 series, i try because cpu layout is same compared to 3000 series

pbofmax on
scalar 1x
ovveride 200mzh
memory 3733 cl16
flck 1866

cinebench i get single score 545
and multi score 9660

cpu-z 568
11330


----------



## Syldon

kuutale said:


> last check for 2702 bios on ryzen 3950x it's seems to good stable, and performance is little bit better then 2402 i think, no whea errors or 41 kernel power problem. It's time say goodbye 3950x it goes tomorrow new home, and 5950x is arrive replace it. 3950x is very good processors i have little problems with asus bios and asus some how fix generally all problems but it need time.
> 
> i wondering i use *der8auer* custom oc brackets if they for 5000 series, i try because cpu layout is same compared to 3000 series
> 
> pbofmax on
> scalar 1x
> ovveride 200mzh
> memory 3733 cl16
> flck 1866
> 
> cinebench i get single score 545
> and multi score 9660
> 
> cpu-z 568
> 11330


I gave up on 2702 and stayed at 2502. I keep seeing Vdroops and massive frequency drops. I tried all the ways I could to get rid but they kept persisting. I dont see those on 2502.




Deluxe1 said:


> This is what it looks like in game, just doesn't budge from 3.7:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is it when running benchmarks:


It is as *CyrIng* states. One is reporting the base frequency, where as it checks once for stock output, and then does not update again. Hwinfo will update actuals at intervals.

For bios dump look at the last tab in the bios under profiles. The very last option will allow you to save profile and export them to either a text dump or CMO extension. That will save you making screenshots. LN2 mode comes under advanced options under CPU I think.


----------



## kuutale

Syldon said:


> I gave up on 2702 and stayed at 2502. I keep seeing Vdroops and massive frequency drops. I tried all the ways I could to get rid but they kept persisting. I dont see those on 2502.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is as *CyrIng* states. One is reporting the base frequency, where as it checks once for stock output, and then does not update again. Hwinfo will update actuals at intervals.
> 
> For bios dump look at the last tab in the bios under profiles. The very last option will allow you to save profile and export them to either a text dump or CMO extension. That will save you making screenshots. LN2 mode comes under advanced options under CPU I think.


u have 3950x or 5950x?

3950x i dont see massive vdroop or freq droop different loads, its likely normaly boost behavior because my bench get more points and few fps gained

i currently use 3950x tomorrow i change 5950x because it finally come retailer and send it friday


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

lDevilDriverl said:


> View attachment 2467107


Thank you! This will be a great start for me to try with my b die memory


----------



## Gryzor

Testing with "PBO FMax enhancer" to ENABLED, it seems to me to have better temps and higher mhz (with my 5900x, about 4950Mhz in single core), however my cpu Z in single and multicore is lower (580 NO-PBO FMAX vs 560 PBO FMAX on single, and 9700 vs 9500 on multicore). I don´t understand why if it seems better sustained speed and looking that option in bios it would be increase FPS, why the bench scores are lower? any tips?

Other thing I noticed I have good temps with default stock setting, reaching 72 degrees only with prime or fumark cpu-burner (all 24 threads, all cores, between 4200 and 4400 Mhz). However, if I do that test only with 6 threads, my temps goes to 85-90 degrees. Less threads and more heat?? I don´t understand why


----------



## ibeat117

Gryzor said:


> Testing with "PBO FMax enhancer" to ENABLED, it seems to me to have better temps and higher mhz (with my 5900x, about 4950Mhz in single core), however my cpu Z in single and multicore is lower (580 NO-PBO FMAX vs 560 PBO FMAX on single, and 9700 vs 9500 on multicore). I don´t understand why if it seems better sustained speed and looking that option in bios it would be increase FPS, why the bench scores are lower? any tips?
> 
> Other thing I noticed I have good temps with default stock setting, reaching 72 degrees only with prime or fumark cpu-burner (all 24 threads, all cores, between 4200 and 4400 Mhz). However, if I do that test only with 6 threads, my temps goes to 85-90 degrees. Less threads and more heat?? I don´t understand why


it seems that while the clock is higher but the effective clock actually being lower, for it's 4.6GHz all core normal clock and 4.4GHz effective


----------



## Gryzor

ibeat117 said:


> it seems that while the clock is higher but the effective clock actually being lower, for it's 4.6GHz all core normal clock and 4.4GHz effective


What is the difference between effective clock and normal? If the core which is benched is at 4950 Mhz. Any explanation/help about temps issues testing 6 threads?


----------



## EnJoY

Just setup a new 5800X with (4x8GB) of G.Skill F4-3800C14-8GTZN running 1900MHz FCLK/MCLK 1:1. Currently prime blend stable, only enabled DOCP, set FCLK to match the speed and bumped vSOC to 1.0275 in BIOS.

Any suggestions on tightening timings without having to increase voltages significantly?


----------



## pantsoftime

Deluxe1 said:


> I've just installed a 5900x in my Crosshair VIII Hero and when playing games it won't boost at all and is locked to it's base clock of 3.7
> 
> If I run cinebench then it boosts just fine.
> 
> Is this just a bug?


That sounds very much like a Windows power profile issue. If the other suggestions don't work try changing this setting to 95% or higher (maybe try 100% to start):


----------



## Syldon

kuutale said:


> u have 3950x or 5950x?
> 
> 3950x i dont see massive vdroop or freq droop different loads, its likely normaly boost behavior because my bench get more points and few fps gained
> 
> i currently use 3950x tomorrow i change 5950x because it finally come retailer and send it friday


I was getting slightly higher in single core at 5150 which occurred only a very few occasions. The Vdroop you can only see when you do all core stability runs. You will never see it with single core usage. I saw vdroop down by about .1v, and I couldnt find a way to boost it higher. Frequencies were hittings 2800mhz then skipping back to 4150s with intel burn test and aida 64.


----------



## Syldon

EnJoY said:


> Just setup a new 5800X with (4x8GB) of G.Skill F4-3800C14-8GTZN running 1900MHz FCLK/MCLK 1:1. Currently prime blend stable, only enabled DOCP, set FCLK to match the speed and bumped vSOC to 1.0275 in BIOS.
> 
> Any suggestions on tightening timings without having to increase voltages significantly?
> 
> View attachment 2467129
> View attachment 2467131


RDRDscl and WRWRscl will give better latencies if you can find a stable set up by reducing those. I couldnt get mine below 4 even by increasing voltages. Use aida 64 to check out latency.

EDIT**
Nice site here for how timings work. Dont take it as gospel though. Use to find ball park areas.


----------



## Safetytrousers

Deluxe1 said:


> What's that and where do I disable it if need be?


LN2 is liquid nitrogen. The second screenshot at the top says you are in that mode.
It's a jumper, third thing from the left at bottom of board. The pin needs to be on the left two prongs to turn it off, that's how it should be by default.


----------



## stimpy88

Safetytrousers said:


> LN2 is liquid nitrogen. The second screenshot at the top says you are in that mode.
> It's a jumper, third thing from the left at bottom of board. The pin needs to be on the left two prongs to turn it off, that's how it should be by default.


It clearly says that it is DISABLED in that screenshot.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Deluxe1 said:


> Yeah, any others you want? All the other settings are just stock.


Here is a better way. You can go into a setting to load a saved profile of all your bios settings. Here you can save your BIOS settings also and actually export them as a text file. 

The text file will show ALL of your bios settings and those can be shared here for others to see.


----------



## Phant00n

Anyone having audio issues on this board? Last night I had an issue develop where if be getting static during audio events, YouTube, gaming, video editing, windows system sounds.

What I've done so far, defaulted BIOS, flashed to 2701, pulled cmos battery, reseated everything but CPU. Reformatted windows twice, went into insider program to 20h3 or whatever the freshest windows is. Driver cleaned everything. Unplugged all USB headers, turned off all aura, defaulted everything in bios. 

Swapped from my sennhesier 600s to my akg headset, no change.

Pulled my Soundblaster card out and went only with the on-board system, reformatted. No change

I bought new ram, on qvl list, corsair lpx 3200. No change. Ran only one stick of ram, better but may be placebo at this point I'm going crazy.

Bought a second 3090, gigabyte this time, no changes. Put in my old 1080ti, no change.

Someone please help I can't figure out what is causing this audio crackling/popping.

Latencymon calls out nvlddmkm.sys but two different 3090s, a 1080ti, all can't have the same problem. The literal only things i haven't changed at this point are the mobo and cpu.


My specs;
Ryzen 5900x
Asus hero viii on bios 2702
Corsair vengeance pro 3600 64gb
Corsair rm1000
Asus tuf 3090 oc
Samsung 970 evo pro m2
Samsung 850 2.5"


----------



## RHBH

Phant00n said:


> Anyone having audio issues on this board? Last night I had an issue develop where if be getting static during audio events, YouTube, gaming, video editing, windows system sounds.
> 
> What I've done so far, defaulted BIOS, flashed to 2701, pulled cmos battery, reseated everything but CPU. Reformatted windows twice, went into insider program to 20h3 or whatever the freshest windows is. Driver cleaned everything. Unplugged all USB headers, turned off all aura, defaulted everything in bios.
> 
> Swapped from my sennhesier 600s to my akg headset, no change.
> 
> Pulled my Soundblaster card out and went only with the on-board system, reformatted. No change
> 
> I bought new ram, on qvl list, corsair lpx 3200. No change. Ran only one stick of ram, better but may be placebo at this point I'm going crazy.
> 
> Bought a second 3090, gigabyte this time, no changes. Put in my old 1080ti, no change.
> 
> Someone please help I can't figure out what is causing this audio crackling/popping.
> 
> Latencymon calls out nvlddmkm.sys but two different 3090s, a 1080ti, all can't have the same problem. The literal only things i haven't changed at this point are the mobo and cpu.
> 
> 
> My specs;
> Ryzen 5900x
> Asus hero viii on bios 2702
> Corsair vengeance pro 3600 64gb
> Corsair rm1000
> Asus tuf 3090 oc
> Samsung 970 evo pro m2
> Samsung 850 2.5"


Try increasing the VDDG IOD voltage by 0.25mV.


----------



## Syldon

Phant00n said:


> Anyone having audio issues on this board? Last night I had an issue develop where if be getting static during audio events, YouTube, gaming, video editing, windows system sounds.
> 
> What I've done so far, defaulted BIOS, flashed to 2701, pulled cmos battery, reseated everything but CPU. Reformatted windows twice, went into insider program to 20h3 or whatever the freshest windows is. Driver cleaned everything. Unplugged all USB headers, turned off all aura, defaulted everything in bios.
> 
> Swapped from my sennhesier 600s to my akg headset, no change.
> 
> Pulled my Soundblaster card out and went only with the on-board system, reformatted. No change
> 
> I bought new ram, on qvl list, corsair lpx 3200. No change. Ran only one stick of ram, better but may be placebo at this point I'm going crazy.
> 
> Bought a second 3090, gigabyte this time, no changes. Put in my old 1080ti, no change.
> 
> Someone please help I can't figure out what is causing this audio crackling/popping.
> 
> Latencymon calls out nvlddmkm.sys but two different 3090s, a 1080ti, all can't have the same problem. The literal only things i haven't changed at this point are the mobo and cpu.
> 
> 
> My specs;
> Ryzen 5900x
> Asus hero viii on bios 2702
> Corsair vengeance pro 3600 64gb
> Corsair rm1000
> Asus tuf 3090 oc
> Samsung 970 evo pro m2
> Samsung 850 2.5"


Most likely a dodgy sound chip. It could be a bad earth, but since everything else is working fine, that is unlikely. I would talk to the vendor about tech support.


----------



## Phant00n

RHBH said:


> Try increasing the VDDG IOD voltage by 0.25mV.


Increased ccd, iod, and cldo to 1.05 and soc to 1.1. Ram is at 1.35, no change.

Load level is lvl3 with current at 130%, also no change....


Syldon said:


> Most likely a dodgy sound chip. It could be a bad earth, but since everything else is working fine, that is unlikely. I would talk to the vendor about tech support.


As far as the sound chip, I've tried a dedicated pcie sound card and on-board sound. Same result, popping like wild


----------



## RHBH

My PC is rebooting when resuming from S3 (sleep) since BIOS 2502.

I'm not sure if this is a BIOS behavior or a GPU behavior since I upgrade the BIOS and installed a new RTX 3080 pretty much in the same period. 

Did anyone notice wake-up from sleep issues in the newer BIOS?


----------



## Kronos35

shamino1978 said:


> for the random reboots after 1302 crowd:
> there are some people saying it goes away with cstates disabled, and such.
> if you'all would follow the same procedure in conducting the experiment it will be easier to pin point the issue:
> 
> Step 1:
> jut defaults, no docp no oc nothing:
> pass/fail?
> Step 2:
> following from step 1, disable DF Cstates, data fabric cstate : amd cbs\nbio common options\smu common options
> disable dram power down enable: dram timings
> pass/fail?
> Step 3:
> following from step 2, disable global c states, amd cbs\cpu common options
> pass/fail?
> 
> report back like so
> Step 1: fail
> Step 2: fail
> Step 3: pass
> System specs:


I'm glad I found this thread as I'm having a horrible time with random reboots lately. It seems primarily in low load states or when coming out of sleep. Not getting any bug check codes in the event viewer either.

I've been testing multiple BIOS revisions with stock settings except for enabling DOCP (I have not tried 2133 speed with no DOCP yet). However, I have had zero issues with DOCP or even higher mem OCs in the past, and my RAM passes hours and hours and multiple passes of both memtest86 and memtest pro. Before I traced this back to BIOS versions, I thought perhaps I was having a RAM issue so I do have another kit on the way but my memtest results seem to indicate the RAM itself should be absolutely fine.

From my limited testing, I encountered the highest frequency of crashes in anything 2311 or later. I've been working my way back through BIOS revisions to find a stable one and just had my first crash coming out of sleep on 2103 today.

If I have time and availability, I will follow your steps to the letter and get some test data, but I do need this machine for work so I need it to be stable. This may mean that I need to rollback all the way to 1302 for the time being.

I hope this all gets worked out soon.

Specs:
ASUS ROG x570 Crosshair VIII Hero WiFi
Ryzen 9 3900x
G.SKILL F4-3200C14D-32GTZKW - 2x16GB 3200 14-14-14-34


----------



## Kronos35

RHBH said:


> My PC is rebooting when resuming from S3 (sleep) since BIOS 2502.
> 
> I'm not sure if this is a BIOS behavior or a GPU behavior since I upgrade the BIOS and installed a new RTX 3080 pretty much in the same period.
> 
> Did anyone notice wake-up from sleep issues in the newer BIOS?


Exact same boat here (see my post just prior). Unfortunately, I don't have more data for you right now because I also upgraded BIOS and got everything back up to the latest when I installed my 3080 as well. Before both of these things, I was stable.

To be clear, I've also been having random reboots outside of just resuming from sleep, which seem to be tied more closely to what others are experiencing. After rolling back to 2103 though, the only crash I've had so far was coming out of sleep but it hasn't even been a full day yet since I did that.

There are a lot of variables here so it's hard for me to say for certain if this is BIOS, GPU, or something else entirely.


----------



## RHBH

Kronos35 said:


> Exact same boat here (see my post just prior). Unfortunately, I don't have more data for you right now because I also upgraded BIOS and got everything back up to the latest when I installed my 3080 as well. Before both of these things, I was stable.
> 
> To be clear, I've also been having random reboots outside of just resuming from sleep, which seem to be tied more closely to what others are experiencing. After rolling back to 2103 though, the only crash I've had so far was coming out of sleep but it hasn't even been a full day yet since I did that.
> 
> There are a lot of variables here so it's hard for me to say for certain if this is BIOS, GPU, or something else entirely.


I don't have don't have any issues with the PC running (S0).

Crashes/reboot occur 100% of time when resuming from S3 to S0.


----------



## Muqeshem

Ok this is very annoying to me as an owner of this ROG-Crosshair-VIII-Impact ****. Who is having issues with memory timings on it with the latest bios versions ?? The beta one works fine with me but the other new pushed bios are terrible.


----------



## Muqeshem

ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-2402 worked fine with my 4000mhz cl16 32gb memory kit (two 16gb kits). However, I had a huge fight trying to boot with 2502 and the latest one on the site.


----------



## Muqeshem

Ardaen said:


> Hey guys don't get your hopes up to high. The bios 2702 changes nothing for me in regards to ram oc. Still unable to boot with ram higher than 3600 mhz, even though the ram and the board defenitely can (had it running fine with the 3900x @3800 mhz) in the meantime I found out that my cpu IF-Clock can go to 1900 mhz no problem as long as the ram stays at 3600 or lower (which ofc doesn't make sense from a performance standpoint, just for testing) good to know that my cpu sample is not completely craptastic. So my hope is that with a good bios I can finally get some ram OC going on ryzen 5000...


 I have the same issue, which bios are you using now ??


----------



## finas

Phant00n said:


> Increased ccd, iod, and cldo to 1.05 and soc to 1.1. Ram is at 1.35, no change.
> 
> Load level is lvl3 with current at 130%, also no change....
> 
> As far as the sound chip, I've tried a dedicated pcie sound card and on-board sound. Same result, popping like wild


try putting the cpu load level at auto and the soc load level at 3. The other voltages leave them at the value you specified. 
I have the same issue with fclk at 1900 with my 3950x at stock settings and what cures the crackling in my case is either high vsoc or high ccd/iod or a combination of both. Also, disable the spread spectrum on tweakers paradise menu.


----------



## Gryzor

Gryzor said:


> Testing with "PBO FMax enhancer" to ENABLED, it seems to me to have better temps and higher mhz (with my 5900x, about 4950Mhz in single core), however my cpu Z in single and multicore is lower (580 NO-PBO FMAX vs 560 PBO FMAX on single, and 9700 vs 9500 on multicore). I don´t understand why if it seems better sustained speed and looking that option in bios it would be increase FPS, why the bench scores are lower? any tips?
> 
> Other thing I noticed I have good temps with default stock setting, reaching 72 degrees only with prime or fumark cpu-burner (all 24 threads, all cores, between 4200 and 4400 Mhz). However, if I do that test only with 6 threads, my temps goes to 85-90 degrees. Less threads and more heat?? I don´t understand why


Any thought please?


----------



## Syldon

Phant00n said:


> Increased ccd, iod, and cldo to 1.05 and soc to 1.1. Ram is at 1.35, no change.
> 
> Load level is lvl3 with current at 130%, also no change....
> 
> As far as the sound chip, I've tried a dedicated pcie sound card and on-board sound. Same result, popping like wild


have you tested if the power matches what the sensor are stating using the probit bar? 
It really sounds like a bad earth to me. You have it on two sources. Remount the board with insulating washer. 
You could even try a different PSU, bad signal deviations could cause that. As well as check the incoming supply from the socket.
Just out of curiosity what is your proc ODT strength? It isn't set to something silly like >96ohms


----------



## Kronos35

RHBH said:


> I don't have don't have any issues with the PC running (S0).
> 
> Crashes/reboot occur 100% of time when resuming from S3 to S0.


So I've been doing some more digging trying to test various BIOS versions and checking some other forums on EVGA and Reddit. I believe my crashes/reboots when the PC is running were BIOS related.

However, I think the resuming from s3 issue to be driver related. I could reliably reproduce these crashes on both GeForce Driver 457.09 and 457.30. I used DDU and rolled back to 456.71 and so far so good. I was able to sleep and resume without any crashing. I've only been testing this for an hour or so now so don't take this as a fix, but you may want to check into the driver used for the 3080 and rollback to prior revisions to see if that helps.

I'm going to run for a bit on BIOS 2103 and nvidia driver 456.71 to see if any crashes occur. If all looks good after a couple of days, I'll update BIOS again to see if issues persist.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

RHBH said:


> My PC is rebooting when resuming from S3 (sleep) since BIOS 2502.
> 
> I'm not sure if this is a BIOS behavior or a GPU behavior since I upgrade the BIOS and installed a new RTX 3080 pretty much in the same period.
> 
> Did anyone notice wake-up from sleep issues in the newer BIOS?


This is happen to me if I have EVGA Precision X1 open. If I close it, it's fine. 

If you are having this issue like me then let's submit tickets to EVGA.


----------



## denizg

Hello everyone, 

Is it possible to stay on BIOS version 1302 after switching to 5900x from 3900x?


----------



## kuutale

Gryzor said:


> Any thought please?


do u run other pbo settings or only pbofmax enabled? i go testing this feature, i get my 5950x yesterday and learning settings and how its behavior


----------



## evilhf

Ardaen said:


> Hey guys. So I have a Crosshair VIII Formula and had it running fine with 3800 mhz memory/fabric with my 3900x. I recently switched to the 5950x ('cause yolo, right?) and can't for the love of god run it past 3600 mhz with the same memory kit (4x8gb b-die rated for 4000c17). Does the current bios (2504) have issues with fabric clock-rates or do I have a crappy CPU sample? Any experiences from other members? Thanks!


I have MB Asus crosshair formula VIII together with ryzen 5900x and gskill 4000 c17 memories.
In the last bios available for my 2702 card the maximum I got was 1900mhz IF 1: 1 with 3800mhz memory.
So I tested all previous bios compatible with ryzen 5000.
Luckily the bios 2402 beta was able to activate 2000mhz IF 1: 1 with memory 4000mhz cl16 !!
It is a tip, test other bios that is compatible with the cpu.
Maybe work !!!
Waiting for ASUS to resolve this issue in later bios to update!


----------



## stimpy88

denizg said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> Is it possible to stay on BIOS version 1302 after switching to 5900x from 3900x?


I'm afraid not.


----------



## Baio73

evilhf said:


> I have MB Asus crosshair formula VIII together with ryzen 5900x and gskill 4000 c17 memories.
> In the last bios available for my 2702 card the maximum I got was 1900mhz IF 1: 1 with 3800mhz memory.
> So I tested all previous bios compatible with ryzen 5000.
> Luckily the bios 2402 beta was able to activate 2000mhz IF 1: 1 with memory 4000mhz cl16 !!
> It is a tip, test other bios that is compatible with the cpu.
> Maybe work !!!
> Waiting for ASUS to resolve this issue in later bios to update!
> View attachment 2467344


Hi mate,
What's the exact model of your G.Skill RAM?
I'm running 2 2x8Gb kits of F4-4000C17D-16GTZR with a 3900XT but having huge problems... I can push a single kit up to 3800 CAS14 but can't do better than 3600 CAS18 when using both kits.
The funny thing is they worked smoothly with BIOS 2206... Asus didn't work well with this generation of motheboards.

Baio


----------



## benbenkr

denizg said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> Is it possible to stay on BIOS version 1302 after switching to 5900x from 3900x?


Your system won't even POST if you're on 1302 with a 5900x in it lol. 2311 is the minimum for Zen 3 CPUs to POST.


----------



## kuutale

@The Stilt do u know why pbofmax lose performance especially single core load? i hit 50mhz less than stock but multicore show 300mhz more but like cinebench overall score is bad?

is there something what i dont see?

bios 2720 i dont try another bios version´because i get 5950x yesterday

i try different settings but stock is better allways.


----------



## tommy7600

Quick question - do you see Resizable BAR (Smart Access Memory) in BIOS options? I'm on 2702 on VIII Hero Wifi.


----------



## Jackalito

Hey everyone!

I recently upgraded to a Ryzen 7 5800X, which I'm using with the ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Hero that I purchased last year. Currently using the latest official BIOS, 2702.

The thing is that it seems like I've gotten the worst piece of silicon imaginable for a 5800X, at least according to what I've been seeing online. Not only does it clock lower than others, I'm hitting a wall where it seems impossible to reach anything higher than 3666/1833 for RAM/IF. My RAM is 2x8GB F4-3600C15D-16GTZ (Samsung B-die, Single Rank). This is my current config: 










VDIMM: 1.365V

I've tried going higher with ProcODT, voltages, lowering timings, etc., but it's unstable beyond those clocks. Something else worth noting is the fact that, according to this list of RAM OC with Zen3:
Zen RAM Overclocking

...the two people using the same motherboard can go to 3800/1900, although they're using older BIOS revisions, 2311 and 2502.
I would appreciate any kind of insights you could share with me.

Thanks!


----------



## Pr3t3nd3r

Jackalito said:


> Hey everyone!
> 
> I recently upgraded to a Ryzen 7 5800X, which I'm using with the ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Hero that I purchased last year. Currently using the latest official BIOS, 2702.
> 
> The thing is that it seems like I've gotten the worst piece of silicon imaginable for a 5800X, at least according to what I've been seeing online. Not only does it clock lower than others, I'm hitting a wall where it seems impossible to reach anything higher than 3666/1833 for RAM/IF. My RAM is 2x8GB F4-3600C15D-16GTZ (Samsung B-die, Single Rank). This is my current config:
> 
> View attachment 2467412
> 
> 
> VDIMM: 1.365V
> 
> I've tried going higher with ProcODT, voltages, lowering timings, etc., but it's unstable beyond those clocks. Something else worth noting is the fact that, according to this list of RAM OC with Zen3:
> Zen RAM Overclocking
> 
> ...the two people using the same motherboard can go to 3800/1900, although they're using older BIOS revisions, 2311 and 2502.
> I would appreciate any kind of insights you could share with me.
> 
> Thanks!


Hi!

It's more like you have joined the club of desperate people who are waiting for the stable BIOS update which seems is not going to happen anytime soon  I have tried 2502 and had tons of WHEA errors...haven't tried 2702 and not intending to...it's going from silicon lottery to BIOS lottery it seems


----------



## Gadfly

Jackalito said:


> Hey everyone!
> 
> I recently upgraded to a Ryzen 7 5800X, which I'm using with the ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Hero that I purchased last year. Currently using the latest official BIOS, 2702.
> 
> The thing is that it seems like I've gotten the worst piece of silicon imaginable for a 5800X, at least according to what I've been seeing online. Not only does it clock lower than others, I'm hitting a wall where it seems impossible to reach anything higher than 3666/1833 for RAM/IF. My RAM is 2x8GB F4-3600C15D-16GTZ (Samsung B-die, Single Rank). This is my current config:
> 
> View attachment 2467412
> 
> 
> VDIMM: 1.365V
> 
> I've tried going higher with ProcODT, voltages, lowering timings, etc., but it's unstable beyond those clocks. Something else worth noting is the fact that, according to this list of RAM OC with Zen3:
> Zen RAM Overclocking
> 
> ...the two people using the same motherboard can go to 3800/1900, although they're using older BIOS revisions, 2311 and 2502.
> I would appreciate any kind of insights you could share with me.
> 
> Thanks!


Change:

VDIM: 1.45v
VSOC: 1.1v
RTTNOM RZQ/7
RTTWRR RZQ/3
RTTPARK RZQ/1

That will get you up to 3800/1900mhz, but you will hit the 1900mhz fclk wall; you might need to add a little more VDIMM to get it stable at 1900mhz. I have to run at least 0.05v higher vdimm on the 2311+ bios to reach the same stable freq/timings as 1302.


----------



## Jackalito

Gadfly said:


> Change:
> 
> RTTNOM RZQ/7
> RTTWRR RZQ/3
> RTTPARK RZQ/1
> 
> That will get you up to 3800/1900mhz, but you will hit the 1900mhz fclk wall.


Thanks, will try a little bit later and share my results


----------



## Jackalito

Pr3t3nd3r said:


> Hi!
> 
> It's more like you have joined the club of desperate people who are waiting for the stable BIOS update which seems is not going to happen anytime soon  I have tried 2502 and had tons of WHEA errors...haven't tried 2702 and not intending to...it's going from silicon lottery to BIOS lottery it seems


Yeah, in the department of BIOS lottery, I can at least confirm that with 2701 and 2702 I have yet to encounter a single WHEA error on HWiNFO.


----------



## TheRyge

Jackalito said:


> Hey everyone!
> 
> I recently upgraded to a Ryzen 7 5800X, which I'm using with the ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Hero that I purchased last year. Currently using the latest official BIOS, 2702.
> 
> The thing is that it seems like I've gotten the worst piece of silicon imaginable for a 5800X, at least according to what I've been seeing online. Not only does it clock lower than others, I'm hitting a wall where it seems impossible to reach anything higher than 3666/1833 for RAM/IF. My RAM is 2x8GB F4-3600C15D-16GTZ (Samsung B-die, Single Rank). This is my current config:
> 
> View attachment 2467412
> 
> 
> VDIMM: 1.365V
> 
> I've tried going higher with ProcODT, voltages, lowering timings, etc., but it's unstable beyond those clocks. Something else worth noting is the fact that, according to this list of RAM OC with Zen3:
> Zen RAM Overclocking
> 
> ...the two people using the same motherboard can go to 3800/1900, although they're using older BIOS revisions, 2311 and 2502.
> I would appreciate any kind of insights you could share with me.
> 
> Thanks!


Hey, sorry to hear your troubles, maybe I can help. My memory is Micron E-Die so ignore my timings, but I have found VSOC, CLDO VDDP, VDDG CCD and IOD to be very important. I can't get a stable FCLK of 1800 at the VSOC of 1.00 you have, let alone 1833. My 1900 FCLK requires 1.1125 to be fully stable. Going from 0.95 VDDG CCD and IOD to 0.975 enabled CL14 instead of CL16, completely stable, 10 hours memtest, 10 hours OCCT Large. CL14 or CL15 would not boot at all at 0.9 with FCLK 1900 ! 
Try my values for VSOC 1.125, VDDP 0.925 and VDDG's 0.975, loosen the timings the 3600 xmp will do, see if that boots and passes stability, OCCT Large will quickly through WHEA errors at you if things are unstable, then use the DRAM calculator from there. 
If I used your VSOC, VDDP and VDDG voltages I doubt it would boot, I might just go test it let you know.
I am on 2702 Bios.


----------



## Jackalito

TheRyge said:


> Hey, sorry to hear your troubles, maybe I can help. My memory is Micron E-Die so ignore my timings, but I have found VSOC, CLDO VDDP, VDDG CCD and IOD to be very important. I can't get a stable FCLK of 1800 at the VSOC of 1.00 you have, let alone 1833. My 1900 FCLK requires 1.1125 to be fully stable. Going from 0.95 VDDG CCD and IOD to 0.975 enabled CL14 instead of CL16, completely stable, 10 hours memtest, 10 hours OCCT Large. CL14 or CL15 would not boot at all at 0.9 with FCLK 1900 !
> Try my values for VSOC 1.125, VDDP 0.925 and VDDG's 0.975, loosen the timings the 3600 xmp will do, see if that boots and passes stability, OCCT Large will quickly through WHEA errors at you if things are unstable, then use the DRAM calculator from there.
> If I used your VSOC, VDDP and VDDG voltages I doubt it would boot, I might just go test it let you know.
> I am on 2702 Bios.
> View attachment 2467430


Thanks. I can boot with relatively low voltages and even play some games, but as soon as I throw a RAM test application at it, it starts giving me errors within minutes. Currently using Karhu RAM Test and TM5.

I have tried with higher voltages unsuccessfully, but I'll try your suggested values and see how it goes, thanks!


----------



## Jackalito

Jackalito said:


> Thanks. I can boot with relatively low voltages and even play some games, but as soon as I throw a RAM test application at it, it starts giving me errors within minutes. Currently using Karhu RAM Test and TM5.
> 
> I have tried with higher voltages unsuccessfully, but I'll try your suggested values and see how it goes, thanks!


Update: It doesn't work either


----------



## RHBH

TheRyge said:


> Hey, sorry to hear your troubles, maybe I can help. My memory is Micron E-Die so ignore my timings, but I have found VSOC, CLDO VDDP, VDDG CCD and IOD to be very important. I can't get a stable FCLK of 1800 at the VSOC of 1.00 you have, let alone 1833. My 1900 FCLK requires 1.1125 to be fully stable. Going from 0.95 VDDG CCD and IOD to 0.975 enabled CL14 instead of CL16, completely stable, 10 hours memtest, 10 hours OCCT Large. CL14 or CL15 would not boot at all at 0.9 with FCLK 1900 !
> Try my values for VSOC 1.125, VDDP 0.925 and VDDG's 0.975, loosen the timings the 3600 xmp will do, see if that boots and passes stability, OCCT Large will quickly through WHEA errors at you if things are unstable, then use the DRAM calculator from there.
> If I used your VSOC, VDDP and VDDG voltages I doubt it would boot, I might just go test it let you know.
> I am on 2702 Bios.
> View attachment 2467430


What DRAM voltage are you using?


----------



## TheRyge

RHBH said:


> What DRAM voltage are you using?


1.48V DRAM, the DIMMS have their own 40mm fan to keep them nice and cool.


----------



## RHBH

My 5900X arrived yesterday. 

So far so good, no crashes.


----------



## slow4cyl

64GB


----------



## GRABibus

evilhf said:


> I have MB Asus crosshair formula VIII together with ryzen 5900x and gskill 4000 c17 memories.
> In the last bios available for my 2702 card the maximum I got was 1900mhz IF 1: 1 with 3800mhz memory.
> So I tested all previous bios compatible with ryzen 5000.
> Luckily the bios 2402 beta was able to activate 2000mhz IF 1: 1 with memory 4000mhz cl16 !!
> It is a tip, test other bios that is compatible with the cpu.
> Maybe work !!!
> Waiting for ASUS to resolve this issue in later bios to update!
> View attachment 2467344





RHBH said:


> My 5900X arrived yesterday.
> 
> So far so good, no crashes.
> 
> View attachment 2467534


Nice


----------



## Jackalito

RHBH said:


> My 5900X arrived yesterday.
> 
> So far so good, no crashes.
> 
> View attachment 2467534





slow4cyl said:


> 64GB
> 
> View attachment 2467575


Nice results, guys.

I keep having the same issues when I try to set my RAM higher than 3666. I'm starting to think I've gotten a CPU with a weak IMC 
Hopefully, we'll get new BIOS with AGESA 1.1.0.0 Patch D soon enough and I'll test it again.

Cheers!


----------



## RHBH

Jackalito said:


> Nice results, guys.
> 
> I keep having the same issues when I try to set my RAM higher than 3666. I'm starting to think I've gotten a CPU with a weak IMC
> Hopefully, we'll get new BIOS with AGESA 1.1.0.0 Patch D soon enough and I'll test it again.
> 
> Cheers!


You can always try to buy a new one and sell your current one for someone who doesn't care about high speed ram.

My FLCK wall so far is 1900MHz, I got it with a relatively low voltag.

No matter how many volts I push to the SOC and IF, I cannot even post with 1933MHz FLCK.

I think it is an AGESA or Silicon limitation. Future BIOS update should clarify this.

I can't wait to test the new PBO2 feature with undervolt.


----------



## RHBH

Kronos35 said:


> So I've been doing some more digging trying to test various BIOS versions and checking some other forums on EVGA and Reddit. I believe my crashes/reboots when the PC is running were BIOS related.
> 
> However, I think the resuming from s3 issue to be driver related. I could reliably reproduce these crashes on both GeForce Driver 457.09 and 457.30. I used DDU and rolled back to 456.71 and so far so good. I was able to sleep and resume without any crashing. I've only been testing this for an hour or so now so don't take this as a fix, but you may want to check into the driver used for the 3080 and rollback to prior revisions to see if that helps.
> 
> I'm going to run for a bit on BIOS 2103 and nvidia driver 456.71 to see if any crashes occur. If all looks good after a couple of days, I'll update BIOS again to see if issues persist.


Resume from sleep (S3) crashes are fixed by NVIDIA (driver 457.51):

Fixed Issues in this Release
[NVIDIA Ampere architecture GPU]: Blue-screen crash may occur upon waking from sleep. [3173027]

Source: http://us.download.nvidia.com/Windows/457.51/457.51-win10-win8-win7-release-notes.pdf


----------



## shaolin95

Hello guys!
Getting my 5950x tomorrow for the Hero Wifi...first AMD building since Phenom II 965!
Anything I should know regarding BIOS options? I am going to do flashback right now for the Hero mobo in prepartion.
Thanks!


----------



## Dawidowski

Anyone else getting dcp watchdog timer bsod? Only game that makes me go bsod is call of duty black ops ..... ****ing odd


----------



## KingEngineRevUp




----------



## kuutale

Dawidowski said:


> Anyone else getting dcp watchdog timer bsod? Only game that makes me go bsod is call of duty black ops ..... ****ing odd


what bios version? stock cpu?


----------



## Dawidowski

kuutale said:


> what bios version? stock cpu?


2702. 
Pbo on, fmax on
125 mhz since that boosts the highest for me after testing with every increment.
Scalar 10x
D.O.C.P - Profile on
3600 mhz according to the profile of the ram and 1800 flck
LLC 3 on the CPU because else with fmax on I just bsod.


----------



## GRABibus

Dawidowski said:


> Anyone else getting dcp watchdog timer bsod? Only game that makes me go bsod is call of duty black ops ..... ****ing odd


No BSOD at stock ?


----------



## Dawidowski

GRABibus said:


> No BSOD at stock ?


Upgraded bios and switched gpu like 2-3 days ago to a 3080.
Thats all I've done, firstly I though it was the undervolt of the card but then after reading about it it was a core relation.. so I removed undervolt. Crashed again.
Removed Fmax, crashed still.
Only thing to remove is PBO now and its as stock as it can get...

I already have like a lower then bronze bin 3900x...
Can't get worse then this really if I cant use fmax or pbo..

Trying with 2502 now.
This motherboard with a 3900x has been hell... issues from day one.
Getting fed up with Asus

Edit: 2502 - No bsod yet.. played for over an hour now. 
Before I lasted like 20-25 minutes ... and windows crashed.


----------



## Kokin

Updated to the latest 2702 BIOS and so far it's been similar to the 0066 beta BIOS for the C8I (beta BIOS prior to 2311). In the 2 months of using 0066, I never encountered any kernel or 41 errors and only had one reboot when the system was idle. 

3900X (Bought Oct 2019), single core is topping off at 4650mhz, down from 4675mhz (CCD0 ranges 4600-4650mhz, CCD1 ranges 4325-4400mhz), multi core is still 4200mhz. 

PBO Fmax Enhancer = Enabled
PBO Scalar = 4x
PBO Override = 100Mhz
CPU Voltage/LLC = all Auto
DF C-states = Disabled 

Still using the sz_cb Ryzen Balanced V4 power plan, CPU idles around 35C and load temps 45-55C, peaked at 67C, custom loop with a 1080ti and 280+240 rads, NF-A12x25s running at 1000rpm during load.

2x16GB (3200C14D-32GTZR) clocked to 3733MHz 16-15-15-32-48 1.45V










Synthetics below:
CPU-Z
2206 BIOS - 535.9 Single / 8184.5 Multi
0066 BIOS - 554.0 Single / 8489.0 Multi
*2702 BIOS - 556.4 Single / 8619.5 Multi*










CBR20
2206 BIOS - 511 Single / 7254 Multi
0066 BIOS - 526 Single / 7473 Multi 
*2702 BIOS - 526 Single / 7529 Multi*










AIDA has similar results with the previous 0066 BIOS, I'm keeping the same older version for a more consistent comparison.


----------



## Kokin

One thing to mention was during 0066 BIOS, I could not run all auto settings or even DOCP without Windows crashing while booting up. It was only when I set higher clocks and voltages did it play nice. I haven't tried it with the newest 2702 BIOS, but can do so if anyone is interested.


----------



## GRABibus

Jackalito said:


> Nice results, guys.
> 
> I keep having the same issues when I try to set my RAM higher than 3666. I'm starting to think I've gotten a CPU with a weak IMC
> Hopefully, we'll get new BIOS with AGESA 1.1.0.0 Patch D soon enough and I'll test it again.
> 
> Cheers!


what does this patch AGESA 1.1.0.0 Patch D suppose to improve ?


----------



## Dawidowski

Kokin said:


> Updated to the latest 2702 BIOS and so far it's been similar to the 0066 beta BIOS for the C8I (beta BIOS prior to 2311). In the 2 months of using 0066, I never encountered any kernel or 41 errors and only had one reboot when the system was idle.
> 
> 3900X (Bought Oct 2019), single core is topping off at 4650mhz, down from 4675mhz (CCD0 ranges 4600-4650mhz, CCD1 ranges 4325-4400mhz), multi core is still 4200mhz.
> 
> PBO Fmax Enhancer = Enabled
> PBO Scalar = 4x
> PBO Override = 100Mhz
> CPU Voltage/LLC = all Auto
> DF C-states = Disabled
> 
> Still using the sz_cb Ryzen Balanced V4 power plan, CPU idles around 35C and load temps 45-55C, peaked at 67C, custom loop with a 1080ti and 280+240 rads, NF-A12x25s running at 1000rpm during load.
> 
> 2x16GB (3200C14D-32GTZR) clocked to 3733MHz 16-15-15-32-48 1.45V
> 
> View attachment 2467708
> 
> 
> Synthetics below:
> CPU-Z
> 2206 BIOS - 535.9 Single / 8184.5 Multi
> 0066 BIOS - 554.0 Single / 8489.0 Multi
> *2702 BIOS - 556.4 Single / 8619.5 Multi*
> 
> View attachment 2467709
> 
> 
> CBR20
> 2206 BIOS - 511 Single / 7254 Multi
> 0066 BIOS - 526 Single / 7473 Multi
> *2702 BIOS - 526 Single / 7529 Multi*
> 
> View attachment 2467711
> 
> 
> AIDA has similar results with the previous 0066 BIOS, I'm keeping the same older version for a more consistent comparison.
> 
> View attachment 2467710


How on earth are you getting like 7.5k multi score?
I mean thats insane... ive reached 7398 at best but then my lower then bronze bin on 3900x maybe cant do more.
Also seems you turn off speed spectrum? Due to the even readings on the cores?

Can you run prime95 with those settings on heavy load?
Mine blue screens instantly... even CR20 crashes at times.. so only those settings with LLC3 can I run prime95


----------



## PWn3R

Hi All - Just bought one of these boards and a 5950x. I cannot get the system to post past QCode 02 with FCLK set to 1800 or higher. It doesn't matter if I let the ram run at 2133 or use DOCP. According to the manual, that post code means "AP Initialization before Microcode loading". It defaults to 1066 on UCLK, FCLK and RAM speed and boots that way.

I'm using 4x G SKILL Samsung B-Die F4-4000C16D-16GVK (4sticks, 2 packs) 

I'm new to AMD hardware (last go was FX60). I am very experienced with overclocking on Intel, and just moved to this 5950x from a delidded 7980xe that was running 5 cores at 5ghz and the other 13 at 4.6ghz.

I have tried running each setting 1800-2000 fclk and tried booting most recently with the SOC voltage set to 1.25 which seems to be as high as anyone says you should set. I still couldn't boot at 1800 fclk with 1.25 SOC and ram at defaults 2133.
Should I be contacting AMD for an RMA on this CPU?

I have tried adjusting ONLY the DOCP profile to ON and setting SoC voltage to the following values: 1.05, 1.1, 1.125. None of those allowed a proper boot. I have also tried another CMOS reset, and then set ONLY the FCLK to 1800Mhz, the system does not boot. After multiple power cycles it resets and boots at 1066/2133.

I contacted ASUS and was sent a form to contact their software engineering. I do have some old (marked as compatible) CL15 3000Mhz RAM (4GB sticks though, ouch, and it was $400 for 1 4 stick kit back when I bought my 7980xe) that I can try, but that can't be a long term solution.

I also reached out to GSKILL about the kits I bought, as they were marked AMD compatible on NewEggs site, and and were on the GSKILL site as certified with this board. With the system booting at 1066/2033, Cinebench is about 35% slower than what it should be for this CPU on single threaded and multi-threaded.

Anyone got any thoughts on things to try that I don't know about?


----------



## Kokin

Dawidowski said:


> How on earth are you getting like 7.5k multi score?
> I mean thats insane... ive reached 7398 at best but then my lower then bronze bin on 3900x maybe cant do more.
> Also seems you turn off speed spectrum? Due to the even readings on the cores?
> 
> Can you run prime95 with those settings on heavy load?
> Mine blue screens instantly... even CR20 crashes at times.. so only those settings with LLC3 can I run prime95


I honestly think 7.5k is an average score, especially since I chose to go towards the normal FMAX/PBO boosting behavior (focusing on lighter loads) instead of an all core OC. You could do an OC of 4.2 all core and hit a similar score with b-die RAM. I've seen people with 4.3 all core and 3600CL14 hit 7.9-8K in CBR20. 

Yes it's stable enough to run Prime95 small FFTs for a few hours as well as run Karhu test for a few hours and I haven't experienced any crashing from my games. I am on a custom loop and my voltages are a bit higher than what most people are using:

SoC Voltage: 1.125V
DRAM Voltage: 1.45V
VDDG CCD Voltage: 1.1V
VDDG IOD Voltage: 1.1V
CLDO VDDP Voltage: 1.075V

One thing that might help is setting Performance Enhancer to "Default", I used to have that set to the highest level and couldn't hit higher clocks on my CPU and RAM until I set it to Default.

I'll attach my BIOS settings in a txt file.


----------



## Kokin

PWn3R said:


> According to the manual, that post code means "AP Initialization before Microcode loading".


From what I've seeing from google, people were getting this post code if:

GPU wasn't seated properly
PSU cables weren't fully connected
RAM sticks weren't seated properly
People were plugging their monitors into the motherboard I/O instead of the GPU
I suggest re-seating your GPU and RAM, then unplugging and replugging PSU connectors and see if any of those fixes your problem.


----------



## GRABibus

I have some questions concerning M2 slots.
i plan to install 2 SSD’s. NVMe Samsung 980 Pro 1TB (Not in Raid configuration).
One for the games, one for OS and miscellaneous softwares.

questions:

Will they both work at « 4.0 » ?
Will this affect GPU bandwidth or will the RTX3090 will work at PCIe 16x 4.0 ? (= full capacity).
Should I preferably install games on the NVMe which in the slot closest to CPU ?

´Thank you !


----------



## PWn3R

Kokin said:


> From what I've seeing from google, people were getting this post code if:
> 
> GPU wasn't seated properly
> PSU cables weren't fully connected
> RAM sticks weren't seated properly
> People were plugging their monitors into the motherboard I/O instead of the GPU
> I suggest re-seating your GPU and RAM, then unplugging and replugging PSU connectors and see if any of those fixes your problem.


With my technical ability, I'm embarrassed to post this, but reseating the RAM let me get to 1800/3600, I didn't try any of the 33Mhz jumps above that, can mess with that later. I'm surprised it did anything, because everything clicked in so well the first go around. 1900 doesn't work with 3800, and 2000/4000 didn't work, which are bummers. Maybe a future update will help get 2000 IF.


----------



## CyrIng

Under Linux if the 3950X is routed to idle in the MWAIT instruction rather than the HALT instruction, the processor is topping one frequency ratio less on a single boosted Core. 

I changed my kernel idle loop to HALT, because an AMD developer sent a patch, commenting that MWAIT on Zen does not sleep into C6 !!! Only HALT will implicitly invoke C6. 
The Vcore at idle will reflect this from 1.1 down to 0,9V


----------



## kuutale

i use probably week now my 5950x with bios 2702, only ram and flck 3733 timings 1866 and soc 1.1 rest is auto. No whea erros or 41 event kernel boot, probably i use pbo when fmax is working again its good feature.


----------



## Deluxe1

GRABibus said:


> I have some questions concerning M2 slots.
> i plan to install 2 SSD’s. NVMe Samsung 980 Pro 1TB (Not in Raid configuration).
> One for the games, one for OS and miscellaneous softwares.
> 
> questions:
> 
> Will they both work at « 4.0 » ?
> Will this affect GPU bandwidth or will the RTX3090 will work at PCIe 16x 4.0 ? (= full capacity).
> Should I preferably install games on the NVMe which in the slot closest to CPU ?
> 
> ´Thank you !


Mine all work at the correct speeds no problems at all.

I have two 1tb SN850's running in the motherboard slots and 1 SN750 running from a PCIe slot (SilverStone ECM23 INTRODUCTION).


----------



## RHBH

Did anyone achieved 2000MHz FLCK with Ryzen 5000 and C8 boards?


----------



## PWn3R

RHBH said:


> Did anyone achieved 2000MHz FLCK with Ryzen 5000 and C8 boards?


I have not, I can't get 1900 to work. I haven't tried 1833 or 1866 yet.

Edit: Does anyone know if there are any other voltages besides SoC that I could try raising to see if I can get 1900 or more? I tried SoC up to 1.15 and wasn't able to get even 1900 working.


----------



## xstarscream

Hello, is Version 2702 the best BIOS to be running right now for Ryzen 5000? Is there a changelog I can read somehwhere about it? I'm not seeing anything to read on ASUS's website.


----------



## PWn3R

xstarscream said:


> Hello, is Version 2702 the best BIOS to be running right now for Ryzen 5000? Is there a changelog I can read somehwhere about it? I'm not seeing anything to read on ASUS's website.


I don't know. It looks like you can run a couple older versions and have them work. I'm seeing more and more in the research I'm doing saying the version of Agesa in the 2702 BIOS is probably a crappy one. I don't know when we will get an updated one. My board was bought last week from Newegg, but the version that came on my board was so old it wouldn't boot with a 5950x. Looking at the box, it looks like mine may have shipped with a version from September of 2019 as I see a reference to 1001 on a sticker on the box. The only release notes I see are the tidbits in the description on the download on the ASUS site. I was debating trying 2311 to see if it would help me get a better IF speed so I can run my RAM faster, but I found someone saying that they couldn't get any stability with a 5950x until they went to a newer version than that 25XX that contains the same Agesa version in 2702 that apparently is crap.


----------



## Pr3t3nd3r

PWn3R said:


> I don't know. It looks like you can run a couple older versions and have them work. I'm seeing more and more in the research I'm doing saying the version of Agesa in the 2702 BIOS is probably a crappy one. I don't know when we will get an updated one. My board was bought last week from Newegg, but the version that came on my board was so old it wouldn't boot with a 5950x. Looking at the box, it looks like mine may have shipped with a version from September of 2019 as I see a reference to 1001 on a sticker on the box. The only release notes I see are the tidbits in the description on the download on the ASUS site. I was debating trying 2311 to see if it would help me get a better IF speed so I can run my RAM faster, but I found someone saying that they couldn't get any stability with a 5950x until they went to a newer version than that 25XX that contains the same Agesa version in 2702 that apparently is crap.


Shouldn't new AGESA version with SAM enable come to us soon?


----------



## PWn3R

Pr3t3nd3r said:


> Shouldn't new AGESA version with SAM enable come to us soon?


That was my understanding from what I read in multiple places was that they next Agesa version should allow for better clocking of the IF/FCLK.


----------



## Dawidowski

Kokin said:


> I honestly think 7.5k is an average score, especially since I chose to go towards the normal FMAX/PBO boosting behavior (focusing on lighter loads) instead of an all core OC. You could do an OC of 4.2 all core and hit a similar score with b-die RAM. I've seen people with 4.3 all core and 3600CL14 hit 7.9-8K in CBR20.
> 
> Yes it's stable enough to run Prime95 small FFTs for a few hours as well as run Karhu test for a few hours and I haven't experienced any crashing from my games. I am on a custom loop and my voltages are a bit higher than what most people are using:
> 
> SoC Voltage: 1.125V
> DRAM Voltage: 1.45V
> VDDG CCD Voltage: 1.1V
> VDDG IOD Voltage: 1.1V
> CLDO VDDP Voltage: 1.075V
> 
> One thing that might help is setting Performance Enhancer to "Default", I used to have that set to the highest level and couldn't hit higher clocks on my CPU and RAM until I set it to Default.
> 
> I'll attach my BIOS settings in a txt file.


Thanks dude, will check that out in the weekend since I have 2 heavy work days before im off for 3  
But I doubt my cpu will last during prime heavy FFTs..
Honestly 7.5k with just PBO is high, most people I've seen in sweden land on 7.2-7-4k unless they all core OC which then lands as you say up to 8k but you lose on the single core score. 
The performance enhancer on default I have on auto and core boost enabled. Might change those then!


----------



## finas

@shamino1978
Any Impact VIII agesa 1.1.0.0 patchD bios that you can share?


----------



## Jackalito

finas said:


> @shamino1978
> Any Impact VIII agesa 1.1.0.0 patchD bios that you can share?


Also for the rest of the lineup


----------



## GRABibus

PWn3R said:


> With my technical ability, I'm embarrassed to post this, but reseating the RAM let me get to 1800/3600, I didn't try any of the 33Mhz jumps above that, can mess with that later. I'm surprised it did anything, because everything clicked in so well the first go around. 1900 doesn't work with 3800, and 2000/4000 didn't work, which are bummers. Maybe a future update will help get 2000 IF.





Jackalito said:


> Also for the rest of the lineup


What this Bios is supposed to solve or improve ??


----------



## RHBH

finas said:


> @shamino1978
> Any Impact VIII agesa 1.1.0.0 patchD bios that you can share?


Looking forward for the new AGESA. Patch C is just a big wall for 1900+ FLCK.


----------



## Jackalito

GRABibus said:


> What this Bios is supposed to solve or improve ??


It's supposed to help with the fabric frequency OC as far as I know.


----------



## GRABibus

Jackalito said:


> It's supposed to help with the fabric frequency OC as far as I know.


ok thanks.


----------



## RHBH

GRABibus said:


> What this Bios is supposed to solve or improve ??





Jackalito said:


> It's supposed to help with the fabric frequency OC as far as I know.


The next AGESA should be easier to achieve 1900MHz+ FLCK (as mentioned by Jackalito).

Also we should be getting the new Precision Boost Overdrive 2 (PBO2), it will bring smart undervolt this is a major deal for many users as tradicional undervolt (negative vcore offset) typically reduces Ryzen CPU performance in some degree.

With PBO2 you'll be able to:

Keep stock performance while reducing power consumption and heat output.
Overclock the CPU while keeping the stock power consumption and heat output.
Or a mix between these two cases, keep in mind that the results will vary depending on each individual silicon quality, some luck people will show impressive results, others not so much...


----------



## GRABibus

Jackalito said:


> It's supposed to help with the fabric frequency OC as far as I know.





RHBH said:


> The next AGESA should be easier to achieve 1900MHz+ FLCK (as mentioned by Jackalito).
> 
> Also we should be getting the new Precision Boost Overdrive 2 (PBO2), it will bring smart undervolt this is a major deal for many users as tradicional undervolt (negative vcore offset) typically reduces Ryzen CPU performance in some degree.
> 
> With PBO2 you'll be able to:
> 
> Keep stock performance while reducing power consumption and heat output.
> Overclock the CPU while keeping the stock power consumption and heat output.
> Or a mix between these two cases, keep in mind that the results will vary depending on each individual silicon quality, some luck people will show impressive results, others not so much...


Great video, thank you.
The only thing I didn’t get is the number of counts we will have in Bios. 
why 30 counts and how to use them ?
Let’s see when those Bioses come up


----------



## evilhf

RHBH said:


> The next AGESA should be easier to achieve 1900MHz+ FLCK (as mentioned by Jackalito).
> 
> Also we should be getting the new Precision Boost Overdrive 2 (PBO2), it will bring smart undervolt this is a major deal for many users as tradicional undervolt (negative vcore offset) typically reduces Ryzen CPU performance in some degree.
> 
> With PBO2 you'll be able to:
> 
> Keep stock performance while reducing power consumption and heat output.
> Overclock the CPU while keeping the stock power consumption and heat output.
> Or a mix between these two cases, keep in mind that the results will vary depending on each individual silicon quality, some luck people will show impressive results, others not so much...













looks like I have good infinity fabric 😎


----------



## kuutale

evilhf said:


> View attachment 2467979
> 
> 
> 
> looks like I have good infinity fabric 😎


what ram kit u have?


----------



## Ardaen

Hi guys. So I was struggling to get 3800 memclk and 1900 if clock to work on my 5950x + C8F. 

Now it works really stable at CL16 with tight subtimings.4x8gb Bdie (gskill trident z 4000cl17) 

Things that helped:

Use the retry button of first setting of the timings /if clock. 

Cads
120/20/24/24

Rtts
7/3/1

Procodt 43,6 ohm
Vsoc 1,075
Vdimm 1,45
Cldo_vddp 0,95
Vddgs both at 1,0 v

Good luck!


----------



## lDevilDriverl

RHBH said:


> The next AGESA should be easier to achieve 1900MHz+ FLCK (as mentioned by Jackalito).
> 
> Also we should be getting the new Precision Boost Overdrive 2 (PBO2), it will bring smart undervolt this is a major deal for many users as tradicional undervolt (negative vcore offset) typically reduces Ryzen CPU performance in some degree.
> 
> With PBO2 you'll be able to:
> 
> Keep stock performance while reducing power consumption and heat output.
> Overclock the CPU while keeping the stock power consumption and heat output.
> Or a mix between these two cases, keep in mind that the results will vary depending on each individual silicon quality, some luck people will show impressive results, others not so much...


PBO2 is a trash, like all this man's words.


----------



## lDevilDriverl

evilhf said:


> View attachment 2467979
> 
> 
> 
> looks like I have good infinity fabric 😎


looks like you don't know how to use TM5, zentimings, aida64 and where whea errors are


----------



## Pr3t3nd3r

lDevilDriverl said:


> PBO2 is a trash, like all this man's words.


Ouch, someone stood on the wrong foot today it seems...


----------



## shaolin95

Guys I just installed my 5950x with latest bios and I am seeing voltages in BIOS like 1.44! 
In CPU-Z I see it idle very low but sometimes I will see those big spikes without no work done on the PC. Is there an issue with those Auto settings? Guess it is time to start looking for some bios tweaks posts.
Thanks!!!


----------



## greg_p

I'm very happy with the PBO2 on my 5950x, my 4 better core are -5/-10 on the curve optimizer, the other are -60, with an offset of 100MHz, the good cores boost around 5050 to 5150 (depend on the capture of HWmonitor), and with power values updated, I can have multithread workload as heavy as 4.3 to 4.4 with AVX, and 4.5 to 4.6 without. very nice.
But I just got some good memory (Adata 4133 19 19 19) with samsung b die, and not only it doesn't boot over 3800 on the mem, it also decrease FCLK to 1800 and UCLK to 900 - if you let FCLK in auto in the bios.

Manually setting FCLK permits to have it set correctly, but still impossible to have FCLK at 1900 or higher, it simply don't boot.








Memory can handle 4133, it's 4x adata D60T based on samsung B die... hope that next bios will settle this down


----------



## PWn3R

Ardaen said:


> Hi guys. So I was struggling to get 3800 memclk and 1900 if clock to work on my 5950x + C8F.
> 
> Now it works really stable at CL16 with tight subtimings.4x8gb Bdie (gskill trident z 4000cl17)
> 
> Things that helped:
> 
> Use the retry button of first setting of the timings /if clock.
> 
> Cads
> 120/20/24/24
> 
> Rtts
> 7/3/1
> 
> Procodt 43,6 ohm
> Vsoc 1,075
> Vdimm 1,45
> Cldo_vddp 0,95
> Vddgs both at 1,0 v
> 
> Good luck!


Did you find that you had to tinker with the voltages to get it to work with the higher speed? I was just told by ASUS support that the kit of RAM I have is no longer on the QVL with GSKILL and I have confirmed that is the case, though it was previously. I am going to try to return the kit I have and order a different one that is on the QVL to see if that helps me get to 1900/3800 or higher.


----------



## greg_p

This Adata kit I have is on the QVL list and doesn't work much...


----------



## Gadfly

greg_p said:


> I'm very happy with the PBO2 on my 5950x, my 4 better core are -5/-10 on the curve optimizer, the other are -60, with an offset of 100MHz, the good cores boost around 5050 to 5150 (depend on the capture of HWmonitor), and with power values updated, I can have multithread workload as heavy as 4.3 to 4.4 with AVX, and 4.5 to 4.6 without. very nice.
> But I just got some good memory (Adata 4133 19 19 19) with samsung b die, and not only it doesn't boot over 3800 on the mem, it also decrease FCLK to 1800 and UCLK to 900 - if you let FCLK in auto in the bios.
> 
> Manually setting FCLK permits to have it set correctly, but still impossible to have FCLK at 1900 or higher, it simply don't boot.
> View attachment 2468021
> 
> Memory can handle 4133, it's 4x adata D60T based on samsung B die... hope that next bios will settle this down


Bios 2702 does not have PBO2 in it.


----------



## kuutale

what temperature people get when gaming? 5950x especially.


----------



## Dawidowski

Kokin said:


> I honestly think 7.5k is an average score, especially since I chose to go towards the normal FMAX/PBO boosting behavior (focusing on lighter loads) instead of an all core OC. You could do an OC of 4.2 all core and hit a similar score with b-die RAM. I've seen people with 4.3 all core and 3600CL14 hit 7.9-8K in CBR20.
> 
> Yes it's stable enough to run Prime95 small FFTs for a few hours as well as run Karhu test for a few hours and I haven't experienced any crashing from my games. I am on a custom loop and my voltages are a bit higher than what most people are using:
> 
> SoC Voltage: 1.125V
> DRAM Voltage: 1.45V
> VDDG CCD Voltage: 1.1V
> VDDG IOD Voltage: 1.1V
> CLDO VDDP Voltage: 1.075V
> 
> One thing that might help is setting Performance Enhancer to "Default", I used to have that set to the highest level and couldn't hit higher clocks on my CPU and RAM until I set it to Default.
> 
> I'll attach my BIOS settings in a txt file.


I bsod on small FFT's.. as soon as I hit "ok" it just goes blue and crash. 
Kinda off, since theres no ram oc. 
Just PBO on and thats it ^^


----------



## greg_p

Gadfly said:


> Bios 2702 does not have PBO2 in it.


And so what is Curve optimizer?


----------



## Pr3t3nd3r

shaolin95 said:


> Guys I just installed my 5950x with latest bios and I am seeing voltages in BIOS like 1.44!
> In CPU-Z I see it idle very low but sometimes I will see those big spikes without no work done on the PC. Is there an issue with those Auto settings? Guess it is time to start looking for some bios tweaks posts.
> Thanks!!!


Same here but AFAIK it's normal...tried to undervolt it but no luck so far...


----------



## Pr3t3nd3r

kuutale said:


> what temperature people get when gaming? 5950x especially.


It depends...never goes above 70, but 50-60 in my case.


----------



## Gadfly

greg_p said:


> And so what is Curve optimizer?


Just curve optimizer, which is part of PBO2, but PBO2 is a lot more than just curve optimizer.

Also you are using curve optimizer backwards.

On your good ccd0 start with -30, and -35 on your best 2 cores, then -25 for ccd1. Set your overdrive to +50mhz, and your CPU voltage offset to +0.05v.

That will get single/dual thread to 5100mhz, and 4550-4600mhz all core. Should be about 12k all core and 655 single core in CB R20.


----------



## Gadfly

Dawidowski said:


> I bsod on small FFT's.. as soon as I hit "ok" it just goes blue and crash.
> Kinda off, since theres no ram oc.
> Just PBO on and thats it ^^


You need to increase LLC or add a cpu voltage + offset.


----------



## Gadfly

Jackalito said:


> Thanks, will try a little bit later and share my results


How did it go?


----------



## RHBH

GRABibus said:


> Great video, thank you.
> The only thing I didn’t get is the number of counts we will have in Bios.
> why 30 counts and how to use them ?
> Let’s see when those Bioses come up


In his example 1 count = 3mV to 5mV.

He said the counts go up to 30.

You'll set the number of counts you want in the PBO2 BIOS screen. So 30 counts will be the most aggressive undervolt going from 90mV to 150mV.

PBO2 should automatically find the correct adjustment in the voltage for your CPU (inside the provided count range).

Thats the trick in PBO2, instead of lowering the max voltage for heavy loads, it will lower the voltage across the entire frequency x voltage curve, saving you more energy and producing less heat than traditional negative offset while not penalizing performance.


----------



## Gadfly

RHBH said:


> In his example 1 count = 3mV to 5mV.
> 
> He said the counts go up to 30.
> 
> You'll set the number of counts you want in the PBO2 BIOS screen. So 30 counts will be the most aggressive undervolt going from 90mV to 150mV.
> 
> PBO2 should automatically find the correct adjustment in the voltage for your CPU (inside the provided count range).
> 
> Thats the trick in PBO2, instead of lowering the max voltage for heavy loads, it will lower the voltage across the entire frequency x voltage curve, saving you more energy and producing less heat than traditional negative offset while not penalizing performance.


Maybe... I remain highly skeptical it will work. After all amd has trouble pushing a bios that functions on a basic level.


----------



## RHBH

Gadfly said:


> Maybe... I remain highly skeptical it will work. After all amd has trouble pushing a bios that functions on a basic level.


Yea, their claims regarding PBO2 need independent testing and validation.

But it seems promissing.

As far as I know, some ASUS X470/B450 already received AGESA 1.1.8.0, including ROG C7H.









AMD Curve Optimizer: ASUS offers AGESA 1.1.8.0 for B450 / X470 motherboards







www.de24.news










ROG CROSSHAIR VII HERO | ROG Crosshair | Gaming Motherboards｜ROG - Republic of Gamers｜ROG Global


Best AMD Ryzen X470 ATX motherboard with Aura Sync, ROG Audio, Dual M.2, Intel LAN, VR functionality, M.2 heatsink and USB 3.1 Gen 2 (Character 132/140)



rog.asus.com





Asus decided to not release 1.1.8.0 for 500-series motherboard just yet, I believe they are still tweaking it as they release it for 400-series as beta bios.

We should see this new AGESA for C8 boards later this month.


----------



## kx11

i was having sudden blue screens and mobo error code 80 (check cpu) turns out it was just Asus Ai Suite, removed it and everything is back to normal


----------



## evilhf

[QUOTE = "kuutale, post: 28685956, membro: 171070"]
qual kit ram você tem?
[/ CITAR]


----------



## Kokin

Dawidowski said:


> I bsod on small FFT's.. as soon as I hit "ok" it just goes blue and crash.
> Kinda off, since theres no ram oc.
> Just PBO on and thats it ^^


Sorry mate, you may just have to keep playing around with settings to find something that is stable for you.


----------



## lDevilDriverl

greg_p said:


> I'm very happy with the PBO2 on my 5950x, my 4 better core are -5/-10 on the curve optimizer, the other are -60, with an offset of 100MHz, the good cores boost around 5050 to 5150 (depend on the capture of HWmonitor), and with power values updated, I can have multithread workload as heavy as 4.3 to 4.4 with AVX, and 4.5 to 4.6 without. very nice.
> But I just got some good memory (Adata 4133 19 19 19) with samsung b die, and not only it doesn't boot over 3800 on the mem, it also decrease FCLK to 1800 and UCLK to 900 - if you let FCLK in auto in the bios.
> 
> Manually setting FCLK permits to have it set correctly, but still impossible to have FCLK at 1900 or higher, it simply don't boot.
> View attachment 2468021
> 
> Memory can handle 4133, it's 4x adata D60T based on samsung B die... hope that next bios will settle this down


Negative curve offset shout be bigger for better cores and lower for the bad ones


----------



## lDevilDriverl

Gadfly said:


> You need to increase LLC or add a cpu voltage + offset.


No need to set cpu voltage offset to + and curve not working properly. I would not recommend to use it. Better to wait agesa 1.1.9.0


----------



## greg_p

Gadfly said:


> Just curve optimizer, which is part of PBO2, but PBO2 is a lot more than just curve optimizer.
> 
> Also you are using curve optimizer backwards.
> 
> On your good ccd0 start with -30, and -35 on your best 2 cores, then -25 for ccd1. Set your overdrive to +50mhz, and your CPU voltage offset to +0.05v.
> 
> That will get single/dual thread to 5100mhz, and 4550-4600mhz all core. Should be about 12k all core and 655 single core in CB R20.


Thanks for the tip. I gave it a try this morning, and unfortunately this is not conclusive. Actually my setting gaves pretty nice results (11545 MT on CBR20 and 636 ST), but your setting makes single thread workload too unstable. Rebooted once after bios has been set, it just reboot once again after starting the ST bench on CBR20. The MT gaves 11250, which is less than my config, probably because my setting has higher overdrive.
This looks not enough voltage on single thread, so I reduced the counts on the good cores by 10, but it is still rebooting at half the way of the CBR single thread bench.

I think that CO setting depends on the silicon quality. THE Pbo2 algorithm that we may have will probably get better results kind of automatically, which is what you meant by "PBO2 is a lot more...", which I would agree, but at the end, what I have seen from the AMD presentation is already in 2702.
When silicon is "hot", it can get more frequency but will generate a lot of heat, so you need to reduce the voltage. If silicon is called, it generated less heat but will not accept higher frequencies, so you need to increase voltage on these. And as HW monitor cannot sample fast enough to get an idea of the otained frequency, the only thing to ensure the good way of setting it is, by core, running CBR20... quite a long task.


----------



## Deluxe1

Since I installed my 5900x and going onto the latest bios I can't change anything under "Max CPU Boost Clock Override" it's now just stuck on auto where as before with my 3700x I could always set it at 200MHz.


----------



## mevorach

Deluxe1 said:


> Since I installed my 5900x and going onto the latest bios I can't change anything under "Max CPU Boost Clock Override" it's now just stuck on auto where as before with my 3700x I could always set it at 200MHz.
> 
> View attachment 2468099


You can type what ever you want ! type 200 if you want 200


----------



## sesca128

Looking for input on what might have gone wrong with an attempt to increase the EDC using the manual PBO settings. I'm running a 5950x on a C8H. My baseline settings were pretty much just DOCP to get my XMP profile and I have PBO enabled. No clock/voltage/whatever offsets. Running the latest 2702 bios. I noted that gave me an EDC of 200A on the C8H by default. When I run any sort of heavy MT workload I'm pegged at 100% on the EDC. My thinking was that I had a bit of thermal headroom and the C8A has overbuilt VRMs which should be capable of more than 200A (right?).

I attempted to switch over to manual PBO and set an EDC of 240A. The system booted fine and and Ryzen Master reflected the 240A limit as expected. I decided to try p95 small fft. This caused my PC to immediately power down (other than fans). By immediately I mean within less than a second of starting the P95 run. I completely powered off the system via the hard power switch on the PSU. I then tried powering back on but the system failed to POST. Just got a 00 code. Panicked, I hard powered down, then tried again. This time, to my relief, the system booted normally. So far no sign of any ill effects. 

Any thoughts as to what the heck happened? I thought that setting ought to have been well within the capabilities of the C8H. Especially since my understanding is that other comparable boards have stock PBO EDC settings of ~600A. Further I thought people running with the EDC bug effectively removes the limit altogether. So I had thought this should have been a relatively safe thing to try. At this point largely just trying to understand where I went wrong . The experience has me scared to try pretty much anything further as I do _not_ want to fry a new 5950x.

Thanks for any insight!!!


----------



## dlbsyst

Guys, would there be any benefit to me installing the latest BIOS 2702 using my 3950x CPU?


----------



## bookingyo

dlbsyst said:


> Guys, would there be any benefit to me installing the latest BIOS 2702 using my 3950x CPU?


I installed it, things went great for the first 2 days with a basic XMP profile. Then the random reboots started after I started gaming a bit.

Had to switch back to 2206 and everything just works.


----------



## GRABibus

sesca128 said:


> Looking for input on what might have gone wrong with an attempt to increase the EDC using the manual PBO settings. I'm running a 5950x on a C8H. My baseline settings were pretty much just DOCP to get my XMP profile and I have PBO enabled. No clock/voltage/whatever offsets. Running the latest 2702 bios. I noted that gave me an EDC of 200A on the C8H by default. When I run any sort of heavy MT workload I'm pegged at 100% on the EDC. My thinking was that I had a bit of thermal headroom and the C8A has overbuilt VRMs which should be capable of more than 200A (right?).
> 
> I attempted to switch over to manual PBO and set an EDC of 240A. The system booted fine and and Ryzen Master reflected the 240A limit as expected. I decided to try p95 small fft. This caused my PC to immediately power down (other than fans). By immediately I mean within less than a second of starting the P95 run. I completely powered off the system via the hard power switch on the PSU. I then tried powering back on but the system failed to POST. Just got a 00 code. Panicked, I hard powered down, then tried again. This time, to my relief, the system booted normally. So far no sign of any ill effects.
> 
> Any thoughts as to what the heck happened? I thought that setting ought to have been well within the capabilities of the C8H. Especially since my understanding is that other comparable boards have stock PBO EDC settings of ~600A. Further I thought people running with the EDC bug effectively removes the limit altogether. So I had thought this should have been a relatively safe thing to try. At this point largely just trying to understand where I went wrong . The experience has me scared to try pretty much anything further as I do _not_ want to fry a new 5950x.
> 
> Thanks for any insight!!!


Honestly, by reading all the problems With Ryzen 5000 and new Bios, I wonder if I am going to build my new rig With a 10900k or other Intel Powerful CPU instead of 5900X....😊


----------



## Gadfly

greg_p said:


> Thanks for the tip. I gave it a try this morning, and unfortunately this is not conclusive. Actually my setting gaves pretty nice results (11545 MT on CBR20 and 636 ST), but your setting makes single thread workload too unstable. Rebooted once after bios has been set, it just reboot once again after starting the ST bench on CBR20. The MT gaves 11250, which is less than my config, probably because my setting has higher overdrive.
> This looks not enough voltage on single thread, so I reduced the counts on the good cores by 10, but it is still rebooting at half the way of the CBR single thread bench.
> 
> I think that CO setting depends on the silicon quality. THE Pbo2 algorithm that we may have will probably get better results kind of automatically, which is what you meant by "PBO2 is a lot more...", which I would agree, but at the end, what I have seen from the AMD presentation is already in 2702.
> When silicon is "hot", it can get more frequency but will generate a lot of heat, so you need to reduce the voltage. If silicon is called, it generated less heat but will not accept higher frequencies, so you need to increase voltage on these. And as HW monitor cannot sample fast enough to get an idea of the otained frequency, the only thing to ensure the good way of setting it is, by core, running CBR20... quite a long task.


Then your good cores are not good enough to run -35/-30. Set it to an all core -25, LLC on the lowest setting, Scaler set to Auto, and keep the +50 overdrive and +0.05v CPU voltage offset. that will give your good cores a little more voltage when boosting, and stabilize the single core. 

What curve optimizer does is it lowers the VID on the boost curve; the higher the negative offset, the less voltage the core will request as it boosts. This will net you a higher all core boost clock as they are pulling less current and will not violate the PBO limits. For a 5950X (you said you have a 5950x right?) you can try 280/235/240 (or 245/250 EDC) once you have your single core boost up to 5100mhz and stable. Single core boosting is still entirely controlled by the overdrive. For a 5950X max stock boost is 5050mhz; if you add +50mhz of overdrive you will get 5100mhz; but it is likely to be unstable as you moved the VID down with the curve optimizer; so you need to add a small amount of CPU voltage offset to stabilize the higher single core boost. 

You would only want to ever use a + curve optimizer setting if you have one really ****ty core. For example if all your other cores are happy and are boosting to a sustained all core 4.55ghz @ 1.3v but a single core continues to drop out of a stability test (such as P95, which tests each core independently), then you would want to switch curve optimizer to per core, and decrease the negative offset, or even go into a positive offset to feed that once core a bit more voltage to stabilize it. The down side being the more power you draw, the lower your all core clock speed will be. 

So to wrap all those settings together:


PBO: Manual; 280/235/245
Scaler: Auto
Overdrive: +50mhz (for 5950X, for other CPU, find your max boost in Ryzen master, then add whatever overdrive you need to get 5100mhz)
Curve optimizer: -25 (all core)
CPU voltage: +0.05v
CPU LLC: Level 1 or Level 2
SOC LLC: Level 3
CPU Current: Max (in digi+)



> "what I have seen from the AMD presentation is already in 2702.
> When silicon is "hot", it can get more frequency but will generate a lot of heat, so you need to reduce the voltage. If silicon is called, it generated less heat but will not accept higher frequencies, so you need to increase voltage on these. And as HW monitor cannot sample fast enough to get an idea of the otained frequency, the only thing to ensure the good way of setting it is, by core, running CBR20... quite a long task."


What? Uhh... no. That is never have CPU's have worked or will ever work; to do so would be contrary to the physical properties of silicon. You are not understanding what they are trying to tell you. 

First and foremost, There is no part of PBO2 in 2702; Asus just exposed the curve optimizer so it is possible to manipulate the PBO(1) boost curves. PBO, has always adjusted boost clocks based on temp, power draw, and that is exactly what you are seeing today. When monitoring, you want to use the "effective" clock register in HWinfo to monitor your cores for clock stretching (Which I 100% guarantee based on your low CB R20 score, you are doing a LOT of stretching). 

Hope this helps.


----------



## Gadfly

dlbsyst said:


> Guys, would there be any benefit to me installing the latest BIOS 2702 using my 3950x CPU?


NO! for a 3950X just keep using 1302 on an all core per CCX OC, that is the best way to go.


----------



## Gadfly

sesca128 said:


> Looking for input on what might have gone wrong with an attempt to increase the EDC using the manual PBO settings. I'm running a 5950x on a C8H. My baseline settings were pretty much just DOCP to get my XMP profile and I have PBO enabled. No clock/voltage/whatever offsets. Running the latest 2702 bios. I noted that gave me an EDC of 200A on the C8H by default. When I run any sort of heavy MT workload I'm pegged at 100% on the EDC. My thinking was that I had a bit of thermal headroom and the C8A has overbuilt VRMs which should be capable of more than 200A (right?).
> 
> I attempted to switch over to manual PBO and set an EDC of 240A. The system booted fine and and Ryzen Master reflected the 240A limit as expected. I decided to try p95 small fft. This caused my PC to immediately power down (other than fans). By immediately I mean within less than a second of starting the P95 run. I completely powered off the system via the hard power switch on the PSU. I then tried powering back on but the system failed to POST. Just got a 00 code. Panicked, I hard powered down, then tried again. This time, to my relief, the system booted normally. So far no sign of any ill effects.
> 
> Any thoughts as to what the heck happened? I thought that setting ought to have been well within the capabilities of the C8H. Especially since my understanding is that other comparable boards have stock PBO EDC settings of ~600A. Further I thought people running with the EDC bug effectively removes the limit altogether. So I had thought this should have been a relatively safe thing to try. At this point largely just trying to understand where I went wrong . The experience has me scared to try pretty much anything further as I do _not_ want to fry a new 5950x.
> 
> Thanks for any insight!!!


No stock EDC setting is 600A. You need to adjust all of the PBO settings at the same time, not just one. So once you set PBO to manual try this: 280/235/240, leave the scaler on Auto and thermal limit on auto. Then go into into the DIGI+ section of extreme tweaker in the bios. make sure that CPU LLC is set to level 1, SOC LLC is set to level 2 or 3, and finally that CPU current is set to 130 or 140 ( I just max mine out). 

Keep in mind that PBO EDC limits do not always work the way you would think they work. Setting everything to 300 will produce lower clocks and lower performance than riding a 240A EDC limit. That is because the CORE voltages will go up with the higher limits ( allow the PBO boost curves), So it will run hotter and PBO will lower the clocks. So without getting too deep in the balancing act the best thing to do is to raise the EDC limit slowly to find your max all core boost clock, then use overdrive and voltage offsets to get the best single core boost.


----------



## greg_p

Gadfly said:


> Then your good cores are not good enough to run -35/-30. Set it to an all core -25, LLC on the lowest setting, Scaler set to Auto, and keep the +50 overdrive and +0.05v CPU voltage offset. that will give your good cores a little more voltage when boosting, and stabilize the single core.
> 
> What curve optimizer does is it lowers the VID on the boost curve; the higher the negative offset, the less voltage the core will request as it boosts. This will net you a higher all core boost clock as they are pulling less current and will not violate the PBO limits. For a 5950X (you said you have a 5950x right?) you can try 280/235/240 (or 245/250 EDC) once you have your single core boost up to 5100mhz and stable. Single core boosting is still entirely controlled by the overdrive. For a 5950X max stock boost is 5050mhz; if you add +50mhz of overdrive you will get 5100mhz; but it is likely to be unstable as you moved the VID down with the curve optimizer; so you need to add a small amount of CPU voltage offset to stabilize the higher single core boost.
> 
> You would only want to ever use a + curve optimizer setting if you have one really ****ty core. For example if all your other cores are happy and are boosting to a sustained all core 4.55ghz @ 1.3v but a single core continues to drop out of a stability test (such as P95, which tests each core independently), then you would want to switch curve optimizer to per core, and decrease the negative offset, or even go into a positive offset to feed that once core a bit more voltage to stabilize it. The down side being the more power you draw, the lower your all core clock speed will be.
> 
> So to wrap all those settings together:
> 
> 
> PBO: Manual; 280/235/245
> Scaler: Auto
> Overdrive: +50mhz (for 5950X, for other CPU, find your max boost in Ryzen master, then add whatever overdrive you need to get 5100mhz)
> Curve optimizer: -25 (all core)
> CPU voltage: +0.05v
> CPU LLC: Level 1 or Level 2
> SOC LLC: Level 3
> CPU Current: Max (in digi+)
> 
> 
> What? Uhh... no. That is never have CPU's have worked or will ever work; to do so would be contrary to the physical properties of silicon. You are not understanding what they are trying to tell you.
> 
> First and foremost, There is no part of PBO2 in 2702; Asus just exposed the curve optimizer so it is possible to manipulate the PBO(1) boost curves. PBO, has always adjusted boost clocks based on temp, power draw, and that is exactly what you are seeing today. When monitoring, you want to use the "effective" clock register in HWinfo to monitor your cores for clock stretching (Which I 100% guarantee based on your low CB R20 score, you are doing a LOT of stretching).
> 
> Hope this helps.


Don't take it personnal, you sound like know your stuff, but this second setting you advised didn't even boot, I think because -25 is to high a voltage reduction for best cores, although I'm getting good results on my settings without pushing multicore as high as 280/235/245 which is where - I think - limit my multicore CBR20 score.
And I admit that you may have a different understanding of silicon behavior, especially in big cpu silicon, I just base my judgement as validation engineer in Texas Instrument, Intel and Samsung LSI - on different kind of SoC.

Btw, is there any other sw to know that PBO limits are set? Ryzen master reports 200 as max EDC although it's set correctly at 245 in the Bios.


----------



## dlbsyst

Guys, thanks for your input.


----------



## GRABibus

Hey,
By using Hwinfo64, which temperature do you take into account to evaluate your CPU temp ?


CPU (TCTL/TDIE) ?
CPU DIE (Average) ?
CPU CCD1 (Tdie) ?
CPU CCD2 (Tdie) ?
CPU Package ?
thank you !!


----------



## Dawidowski

GRABibus said:


> Hey,
> By using Hwinfo64, which temperature do you take into account to evaluate your CPU temp ?
> 
> 
> CPU (TCTL/TDIE) ?
> CPU DIE (Average) ?
> CPU CCD1 (Tdie) ?
> CPU CCD2 (Tdie) ?
> CPU Package ?
> thank you !!


First one I'd say. 
Second is more avarage for the whole cpu.


----------



## Gadfly

greg_p said:


> Don't take it personnal, you sound like know your stuff, but this second setting you advised didn't even boot, I think because -25 is to high a voltage reduction for best cores, although I'm getting good results on my settings without pushing multicore as high as 280/235/245 which is where - I think - limit my multicore CBR20 score.
> And I admit that you may have a different understanding of silicon behavior, especially in big cpu silicon, I just base my judgement as validation engineer in Texas Instrument, Intel and Samsung LSI - on different kind of SoC.
> 
> Btw, is there any other sw to know that PBO limits are set? Ryzen master reports 200 as max EDC although it's set correctly at 245 in the Bios.


Oh... I am not taking anything personal, sorry if I made it sound as if I am.

I am shocked it wouldn't boot; -25 all core works with a +0.05v cpu voltage offset pretty universally. Is the fmax optimizer tuned on, or LLC set higher than lvl 1 per chance? Just to confirm, this is a 5950X on bios 2702?

I have to admit I am very curious why your setup is running so differently than all the others.

Normally you expect a -15 all core curve offset with no cpu voltage offset, and + 25mhz to do 5075 mhz single core for cb r20 ~635, and 4.5ghz all core for @11600 CB R20, and -25, + 50mhz, +0.05v at 655/12000.


----------



## kuutale

Gadfly said:


> Oh... I am not taking anything personal, sorry if I made it sound as if I am.
> 
> I am shocked it wouldn't boot; -25 all core works with a +0.05v cpu voltage offset pretty universally. Is the fmax optimizer tuned on, or LLC set higher than lvl 1 per chance? Just to confirm, this is a 5950X on bios 2702?
> 
> I have to admit I am very curious why your setup is running so differently than all the others.
> 
> Normally you expect a -15 all core curve offset with no cpu voltage offset, and + 25mhz to do 5075 mhz single core for cb r20 ~635, and 4.5ghz all core for @11600 CB R20, and -25, + 50mhz, +0.05v at 655/12000.


im not tested curved optimizer yet, do i need set pbo on? And first cdd1 can i do more undervolt, and second cdd overvolt is little less? this i basic? Core's what want boost high can sustained more undervolt?

this 5950x peaking such high temps, espiacially escape from tarkov tdie/first cdd goes 75 degrees, i have liquid metal maybe i test sometimes how temps goes. I have custom loop 420+360+360 water goes 35-40 degrees, same loop with gpu (2080ti).


----------



## Jesaul

I've been talking with 1usmus about patch D. He has told to expect problems with IF locked at 1900 - something like this. I don't know why, but he says don't expect stable bios yet 
I've cancelled my 5800x order at this moment.


----------



## greg_p

Actually I can't have it locked at 1900 indeed, locked at 1866 with 4133 DDR4.


----------



## RHBH

Jesaul said:


> I've been talking with 1usmus about patch D. He has told to expect problems with IF locked at 1900 - something like this. I don't know why, but he says don't expect stable bios yet
> I've cancelled my 5800x order at this moment.


Isn't the next AGESA supposed to be 1.1.8.0?

Will it be 1.1.0.0 Patch D?


----------



## Jesaul

RHBH said:


> Isn't the next AGESA supposed to be 1.1.8.0?
> 
> Will it be 1.1.0.0 Patch D?


I've been told: by *1usmus* "Patch D is just for hotfixing bugs. Bugs in the best case will overcome by March, but for now do not complain guys"


----------



## greg_p

Gadfly said:


> Oh... I am not taking anything personal, sorry if I made it sound as if I am.
> 
> I am shocked it wouldn't boot; -25 all core works with a +0.05v cpu voltage offset pretty universally. Is the fmax optimizer tuned on, or LLC set higher than lvl 1 per chance? Just to confirm, this is a 5950X on bios 2702?
> 
> I have to admit I am very curious why your setup is running so differently than all the others.
> 
> Normally you expect a -15 all core curve offset with no cpu voltage offset, and + 25mhz to do 5075 mhz single core for cb r20 ~635, and 4.5ghz all core for @11600 CB R20, and -25, + 50mhz, +0.05v at 655/12000.


I have tried the -15 +25 and can indeed reach 5075 but have CBR 11200/611, with -15/50+0.05 it doesn't boot or doesn't support single treaded CBR20 (I assume my best cores need more mv). With -5/-10/-30 on best/good/others cores and FCLK+100, i can achieve these scores. All silicon are not the same, but the good news is that we can tune it.
By the way the bios is bugged. I am sometime loosing some settings - not the most important (aura off when off, or boot logo), and I couldn't put EDC more than 200Amps although it well saved into the bios... Not really an issue for my use, but it do limit cinebench score.
If a bios with a Fclk over 1900 that would be nice.


----------



## arcanexvi

Bios version 3003 dropped on ASUS' site this morning. Time to see if it's any better than 2702...

Boots fine. After an entire 10s of testing, seems flawless! 

In all seriousness though. AGESA is 1.1.8.0


----------



## Deluxe1

arcanexvi said:


> Bios version 3003 dropped on ASUS' site this morning. Time to see if it's any better than 2702...


Do they get rolled out in diff regions first as here in the UK for me it's still showing as 2702 as the latest.


----------



## arcanexvi

Deluxe1 said:


> Do they get rolled out in diff regions first as here in the UK for me it's still showing as 2702 as the latest.


It shouldn't. You probably have your page cached. Here's the direct link for the Hero VIII non-wifi:


https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_HERO/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3003.ZIP



I did a quick pair of Cinebench runs before I have to leave for work and the single core boost are definitely higher than 2702 for my 3900x. Multi seems about the same for me. I don't have a particularly good 3900x sample so any improvement is good on my end.


----------



## Deluxe1

arcanexvi said:


> It shouldn't. You probably have your page cached. Here's the direct link for the Hero VIII non-wifi:
> 
> 
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_HERO/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3003.ZIP
> 
> 
> 
> I did a quick pair of Cinebench runs before I have to leave for work and the single core boost are definitely higher than 2702 for my 3900x. Multi seems about the same for me. I don't have a particularly good 3900x sample so any improvement is good on my end.


Thanks for the link.

For some reason Chrome still shows 2702 but Firefox comes up with 3003 under others for OS, if I choose win10 64bit it still comes up as 2702.


----------



## Giustaf

No PBO 2??


----------



## Jesaul

*1usmus* :

People, do not suffer, do not touch these BIOSes, it will not be useful. Neither Kurva nor RAM overclocking from the word does not function as planned at all. The priority task for AMD is now to finish the mobile processors, and then return to Zen 3 again.

The planned date to "overcome" is January-February. What is going on there and how they will solve the problem is unknown.


----------



## greg_p

Nice message. Actually The curve optimizer seems less buggy on that 3003, but as mentionned, same fclk support. And don't expect more performance, actually I have lower scores everywhere.


----------



## Gryzor

greg_p said:


> Nice message. Actually The curve optimizer seems less buggy on that 3003, but as mentionned, same fclk support. And don't expect more performance, actually I have lower scores everywhere.


Really? so with 3003 I will get lowe scores with the same settings???


----------



## WaXmAn

ROG Crosshair VIII Hero (WI-FI) - Support







www.asus.com


----------



## greg_p

Gryzor said:


> Really? so with 3003 I will get lowe scores with the same settings???


I see boost clocks gettings higher on HWinfo, but scores on CBR20 and superpi are both below. What is less buggy in the curve optimizer is that it doesn't let you put values higher than 30 count, which is supposed to be the max value. Then, I seems that it has better effect on the voltage as per what I am seeing, but scores are lower - it may be just with my chip.


----------



## TheRyge

My system is now unstable with this BIOS 3003. I CANNOT now roll back the BIOS via EZFlash, both 2702 or 2502 tried, I get a 'selected file is not a proper bios' message, so be aware. If completely stable I wouldn't bother at the moment. I'm going to try bios flashback but could never get it to work before.


----------



## Sam64

@TheRyge Have you tried USB Flashback to rollback? Worked for me everytime I had to rollback.


----------



## TheRyge

Sam64 said:


> @TheRyge Have you tried USB Flashback to rollback? Worked for me everytime I had to rollback.


Now going to try, but I couldnt get it to ever work before.
Any tips? Doing a full format on the usb, followed the instructions, renamed the file ect


----------



## EnJoY

TheRyge said:


> Now going to try, but I couldnt get it to ever work before.
> Any tips? Doing a full format on the usb, followed the instructions, renamed the file ect


I had tons of problems getting flash back to work. In the end, I needed to use an old 2GB flash drive that I had. My two newer drivers simply would not work and the flash back button would just stay solid after the first three blinks.


----------



## dyanikoglu

So, how is that possible? AGESA 1.1.8.0 in latest bios, but no PBO 2? lol...


----------



## mevorach

Where is the " ReSize BAR " shortcut ?


----------



## TheRyge

Well I got Flashback to work on a stick it would not before. I did a full format while in the past I did a quick format. So I'm back on 2702.
My timings are very tight and took a week to setup and stability test while playing Demons Souls on PS5. I imagine this is causing my instability with the new bios and now I'm back to work I don't have the time to do that all again at the moment so 2702 will do till next lockdown 
I should have listened to 1smus. 'RAM overclocking from the word does not function as planned at all'


----------



## speedagera

mevorach said:


> Where is the " ReSize BAR " shortcut ?


youll find it on the top right in the bios


----------



## finas

mevorach said:


> Where is the " ReSize BAR " shortcut ?


Enable above 4gb decoding and it will appear bellow that.


----------



## mevorach

speedagera said:


> youll find it on the top right in the bios


Thanks ! actually it was at older bioses also . It do not improve performance ( I have 6800xt ) !


----------



## leoxtxt

BIOS 3003:

CB20 ST - > From 650 pts (BIOS 2702) to 617.


----------



## webwilli

L3 Cache seems faster now...
Identical Settings in BIOS.


----------



## Spectre73

Deleted


----------



## Gadfly

mevorach said:


> Thanks ! actually it was at older bioses also . It do not improve performance ( I have 6800xt ) !





mevorach said:


> Thanks ! actually it was at older bioses also . It do not improve performance ( I have 6800xt ) !


That doesn't surprise me at all. This feature is not a universal performance improvement, only in very specific situations where thoughput/bandwidth/latency is the bottleneck.

If your GPU is compute limited, or your CPU is a bottleneck; it won't help it go any faster.


----------



## Dawidowski

So after a lot of testing I think I've figured out my issue with my 3900x.
My cpu is so **** that it doesnt like "Fmax Pbo" to be on enabled. 

Everything on stock it just runs, even prime95 runs without issues. 
As soon as enable "Fmax" with LLC3 cores crash during prime and if LLC3 is off I get an instant BSOD. 

So my question is this, do I sell my 3900x and keep my wifes 3700x for her...while I pick up my 5900x. 
Or do I just keep it and sell the 3700x? 

Man am I mad, such a **** bin.


----------



## Nitrostat

My L3 has doubled in speed as well from 2702 to 3003.

2702








3003


----------



## Gadfly

Nitrostat said:


> My L3 has doubled in speed as well from 2702 to 3003.
> 
> 2702
> View attachment 2468296
> 
> 3003
> View attachment 2468307


Jesus.....


----------



## Gryzor

But in cinebech 3003 is lower?
Any benches in gaming?


----------



## kx11

Bad latency i know but amazing read/write data i guess


----------



## PWn3R

I'm probably going to install 3003 and see how it performs in games in a bit here. I don't care so much if CB scores went down slightly if the performance is better in games. I'm running a 5950x soooo....


----------



## gerardfraser

Someone say there is AMD Adaptive Undervolting or PBO 2 With 
*ComboAM4v2
1.1.8.0* on the 3003 BIOS ,your killing me here with all the talk and no information 😄


----------



## PWn3R

gerardfraser said:


> Someone say there is AMD Adaptive Undervolting or PBO 2 With
> *ComboAM4v2
> 1.1.8.0* on the 3003 BIOS ,your killing me here with all the talk and no information 😄


YOU DOOOO! (Install it)!


----------



## gerardfraser

PWn3R said:


> YOU DOOOO! (Install it)!


I can not I am using MSI Motherboard ,I am looking for the information.


----------



## Krisztias

kx11 said:


> Bad latency i know but amazing read/write data i guess
> 
> 
> View attachment 2468319


3600MHz and *CL26*


----------



## dyanikoglu

gerardfraser said:


> Someone say there is AMD Adaptive Undervolting or PBO 2 With
> *ComboAM4v2
> 1.1.8.0* on the 3003 BIOS ,your killing me here with all the talk and no information 😄


There is no PBO2 on that bios update


----------



## leoxtxt

leoxtxt said:


> BIOS 3003:
> 
> CB20 ST - > From 650 pts (BIOS 2702) to 617.


I fixed it by enabling CPPC / CPPC Preferred Cores.

So far i haven't seen a single WHEA Error (FCLK 1900Mhz), fingers crossed.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

leoxtxt said:


> I fixed it by enabling CPPC / CPPC Preferred Cores.
> 
> So far i haven't seen a single WHEA Error (FCL 1900Mhz), fingers crossed.
> 
> View attachment 2468353


I'm a bit behind and out of the loop. How do you monitor for WHEA errors? HWINFO64 error count and the event viewer?


----------



## leoxtxt

KingEngineRevUp said:


> I'm a bit behind and out of the loop. How do you monitor for WHEA errors?* HWINFO64 error count and the event viewer*?


Exactly.


----------



## gerardfraser

dyanikoglu said:


> There is no PBO2 on that bios update


Yeah I did not believe the guy.


----------



## RHBH

Found this for a very good price in a local store.









F4-4133C19D-16GTZR - Specification - G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.


Trident Z RGB DDR4-4133 CL19-19-19-39 1.35V 16GB (2x8GB)




www.gskill.com





Is this a good B-die bin?

Is it worth buying two kits (4x8GB) for 5900X + C8H?

I know it won't work in 1:1 mode, but I thought about running it in 3800MHz.

What kind of timings and voltage can I expect at 3800MHz?


----------



## mevorach

leoxtxt said:


> I fixed it by enabling CPPC / CPPC Preferred Cores.
> 
> So far i haven't seen a single WHEA Error (FCLK 1900Mhz), fingers crossed.
> 
> View attachment 2468353


where do you find this CPPC Preferred Cores. ?


----------



## leoxtxt

mevorach said:


> where do you find this CPPC Preferred Cores. ?


AMD CBS > NBIO Common Options > SMU Common Options > CPPC / CPPC Preferred Cores

If you can't find it, press F9 and type "CPPC".


----------



## greg_p

Could you explain what does this setting?


----------



## Jackalito

Gadfly said:


> How did it go?


It didn't, but now I have BIOS 3003 to test and fiddle with


----------



## mevorach

leoxtxt said:


> AMD CBS > NBIO Common Options > SMU Common Options > CPPC / CPPC Preferred Cores
> 
> If you can't find it, press F9 and type "CPPC".


Thanks ( תודה )


----------



## 7lk

Hi. Does anyone use NVMe RAID 0? Is to know a higher speed?


----------



## martyflat4

7lk said:


> Hi. Does anyone use NVMe RAID 0? Is to know a higher speed?


I just setup a raid 0 with 2 x Samsung 1TB 980 Pros.

I didn't bench a single drive, I'm sure a quick google search would yield some benchmarks.

Hope this helps.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

leoxtxt said:


> AMD CBS > NBIO Common Options > SMU Common Options > CPPC / CPPC Preferred Cores
> 
> If you can't find it, press F9 and type "CPPC".


What does this setting do?


----------



## 7lk

martyflat4 said:


> I just setup a raid 0 with 2 x Samsung 1TB 980 Pros.
> 
> I didn't bench a single drive, I'm sure a quick google search would yield some benchmarks.
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> View attachment 2468443
> 
> View attachment 2468444


I have now one Adata XPG Gammix S50, M. 2-1TB. I'm waiting for S70. Or put two S50?


----------



## benbenkr

Seems like there are some reports over on the Gigabyte and MSI x570 camps where any of the RTX 30 series cards are causing USB dropouts and audio crackling. Forcing PCIE back down to gen 3 fixes the issue. Anyone of you facing the issue too?


----------



## 7lk

martyflat4 said:


> Jen jsem nastavit raid 0 s 2 x Samsung 1TB 980 Pros.
> 
> Nechtěl jsem lavičku jeden disk, jsem si jistý, že rychlé vyhledávání Google by výnos některých měřítek.
> 
> Doufám, že to pomůže.
> 
> View attachment 2468443
> 
> View attachment 2468444





martyflat4 said:


> I just setup a raid 0 with 2 x Samsung 1TB 980 Pros.
> 
> I didn't bench a single drive, I'm sure a quick google search would yield some benchmarks.
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> View attachment 2468443
> 
> View attachment 2468444


Your values are very good. My one Adata XPG Gammix S50, M. 2-1TB.


----------



## dyanikoglu

benbenkr said:


> Seems like there are some reports over on the Gigabyte and MSI x570 camps where any of the RTX 30 series cards are causing USB dropouts and audio crackling. Forcing PCIE back down to gen 3 fixes the issue. Anyone of you facing the issue too?


Yes! Exactly same issue with Crosshair Hero. The new HP Reverb G2 VR headset is also suffering from this issue, and setting pcie to gen 3 mostly solves the problem


----------



## 7lk

How to achieve reliability? Where to look for a bug? Does anyone know of any instrument that could detect this? I've gone through almost all the advice here.


----------



## Bostonjunk

What are people's results with Resizeable BAR support?
I have a 3900x and a 5700XT on a Crosshair VIII Formula
I enabled it and now have a Large Memory Range entry on my 5700XT under Resources in Device Manager.
My Time Spy score also went up by around 5% compared to before.
I know it's not supposed to work, but it kinda seems like it is for me.


----------



## Gryzor

Bostonjunk said:


> What are people's results with Resizeable BAR support?
> I have a 3900x and a 5700XT on a Crosshair VIII Formula
> I enabled it and now have a Large Memory Range entry on my 5700XT under Resources in Device Manager.
> My Time Spy score also went up by around 5% compared to before.
> I know it's not supposed to work, but it kinda seems like it is for me.


Do you know If Resizeable BAR support will work with Nvidia 3090?


----------



## mevorach

Gryzor said:


> Do you know If Resizable BAR support will work with Nvidia 3090?


This Resizable BAR support, don't do nothing so it doesn't matter


----------



## RHBH

Gryzor said:


> Do you know If Resizeable BAR support will work with Nvidia 3090?


You need several checklkst for reBAR:


Compatible CPU (Intel 4th gen / Ryzen 5000 or newer)
Compatible MB/BIOS (C8 boards with latest bios supports it)
Compatible GPU (RX 6000 or RTX 3000)
OS/Wddm support (Windows 10 64 bit)
Graphics driver support (This one is missing in NVIDIA).

NVIDIA will enable reBAR for GeForce Ampere cards in their drivers in the future. So we should be ready to go if you have a C8 board with latest bios, Ryzen 5000 CPU and Windows 10 64 bit.


----------



## dyanikoglu

RHBH said:


> You need several checklkst for reBAR:
> 
> 
> Compatible CPU (Intel 4th gen / Ryzen 5000 or newer)
> Compatible MB/BIOS (C8 boards with latest bios supports it)
> Compatible GPU (RX 6000 or RTX 3000)
> OS/Wddm support (Windows 10 64 bit)
> Graphics driver support (This one is missing in NVIDIA).
> 
> NVIDIA will enable reBAR for GeForce Ampere cards in their drivers in the future. So we should be ready to go if you have a C8 board with latest bios, Ryzen 5000 CPU and Windows 10 64 bit.


I have a feeling it will come with Cyberpunk Day-1 driver.


----------



## invizen

Gryzor said:


> Do you know If Resizeable BAR support will work with Nvidia 3090?


Not yet, I believe NVIDIA is still working on getting this to work.


----------



## greg_p

Just for those who have achieved 1900 IF, are you tuning PLL or other things that SOC voltage?
This bios sux, and indeed impossible to rollback unless flashback...
When buying this card, I was expecting more maturity for a product that on the market for more than 1 year...


----------



## koji

greg_p said:


> Just for those who have achieved 1900 IF, are you tuning PLL or other things that SOC voltage?
> This bios sux, and indeed impossible to rollback unless flashback...
> When buying this card, I was expecting more maturity for a product that on the market for more than 1 year...


Didn't really have to do anything on my Dark Hero, load DOCP, set IF on 1900mhz and done. Guess it's just luck / silicon lottery. (I'm on bios 2601 btw, still have to flash to the latest official one, doubt that I'll do it from these reports though...)

Anyone happen to know if there are any downsides to running DOCP "overclock"' or better to dial in everything manually? Just put this rig together during the weekend, still figuring out what does what here... New to AMD too.


----------



## EnJoY

koji said:


> Didn't really have to do anything on my Dark Hero, load DOCP, set IF on 1900mhz and done. Guess it's just luck / silicon lottery. (I'm on bios 2601 btw, still have to flash to the latest official one, doubt that I'll do it from these reports though...)
> 
> Anyone happen to know if there are any downsides to running DOCP "overclock"' or better to dial in everything manually? Just put this rig together during the weekend, still figuring out what does what here... New to AMD too.


The Dark Hero definitely seems to have differences in hardware to allow for 1900MHz+ with greater chance of stability. I spent the last two weekends tuning the my Hero (WiFi) and had to settle at 1833MHz IFRAM 1:1 on my 5800x using BIOS 2701. I'll be trying this 3003 this weekend as well to see if it changes anything.

It's a very change board, however, and it always feels most stable fresh after a CMOS reset. After that, it feels like instability stacks and after you've tried a few failed BIOS settings, even settings that you could previously run Prime on may not POST. I was running Prime Blend for hours at 1900MHz 1:1 and I haven't been able to get it to POST since.


----------



## Gadfly

@shamino1978

Quick testing results with 3303, and a 5950X.


Fclk is still hard capped at 1900mhz. it is stable at 0.945v on both VDDG, with SOC at 1.08v.
4x8GB memory still isn't working right. I can only train at up to 1933mhz, no matter timings, or voltages/SOC/Settings etc. (G.skill 3800C14 sticks; could run 4400 stable on bios 1302 w/3950X)
PBO behavior appears to be a bit different in this bios release, I am seeing a 25-50mhz drop in boost clocks with the same settings. I was able to correct some of it by manually enabling the CPPC core options in the bios, and manually setting global C-state control to disabled; but even so it is down about 10-15 mhz.
L3 cache performance is almost double that of 2502, and I am seeing performance gains in Blender Benchmark; as well as a 5ns drop in core to core latency (nice job my friend).
Memory profiles are able to be run at slightly lower voltages vs 2502, but still a bit higher than 1302. I can run my old memory profile at 1.5v in 3303 vs 1.55v in 2502 and 1.48v in 1302. I am very happy with the improvement.
CPU stability appears to be slightly improved. I am able to run the same PBO and curve optimizer settings without a CPU voltage offset in 3303, vs +0.05v in 2502. My Settings:
PBO Manual: 280/240/245
boost override +50mhz,
Curve optimizer: -25 all core
CPU voltage: (3033) Auto / (2502) Offset +0.05v

CB R20 all core scores are down about 50 points vs 2502, and single core down about 10 points. (really not a big deal as real world application performance is improved)
CPU Runs about 3'C cooler in most of my testing workloads (could be because of lower boost clock)
Odd things I noticed:


I normally hard set my 1.8 PLL to 1.80v in the bios. When I do this the system fails memory training. If I leave it on Auto, it trains every time, despite reporting the same voltage in the Bios.

I also noticed that is Bios 2411 that PLL would be set very high (over 2v!), and that if I manually reduced PLL back down to 1.8v manually, performance absolutely tanked. Can you please elaborate on the effect 1.8V PLL has on this platform (x570/Ryzen 5k)? What would be the advantages of manually raising and/or lower PLL in terms of fclk and memory overclocking?

Do you have any suggestions

That is all I have for now; overall I like the new bios.


----------



## Gadfly

greg_p said:


> Just for those who have achieved 1900 IF, are you tuning PLL or other things that SOC voltage?
> This bios sux, and indeed impossible to rollback unless flashback...
> When buying this card, I was expecting more maturity for a product that on the market for more than 1 year...


Just leave 1.8v PLL on Auto.


----------



## Gryzor

Just a question, I updated to 3003 but when I loaded previous saved settings (with 2704) my PC reboots 30 or 40 seconds after windows boot. I solved just loading BIOS "optimized settings", after that, tweaking manually those settings. What surprised me is that my system now works perfectly, just with the same settings. Anyone knows if its problematic loading settings saved with other older bios?


----------



## sakete

Gryzor said:


> Just a question, I updated to 3003 but when I loaded previous saved settings (with 2704) my PC reboots 30 or 40 seconds after windows boot. I solved just loading BIOS "optimized settings", after that, tweaking manually those settings. What surprised me is that my system now works perfectly, just with the same settings. Anyone knows if its problematic loading settings saved with other older bios?


Usually not a good idea to load saved settings when upgrading BIOS. Start with default settings and re-tweak from there.


----------



## greg_p

Gadfly said:


> @shamino1978
> 
> PBO Manual: 280/240/245


Quick question: how can you set 245 on EDC? although it's set 240 in the bios, either RM and HWinfo shows 200 (on CH8).


----------



## Gadfly

greg_p said:


> Quick question: how can you set 245 on EDC? although it's set 240 in the bios, either RM and HWinfo shows 200 (on CH8).


You are setting in in extreme tweaker and not Advanced>Amd overclocking correct?

Amd overclocking pbo menu should all be auto execpt for the curve optimizer, you set pbo limits in extreme tweaker, which allows for 300 as the limit.


----------



## RHBH

BIOS 3003 is requiring way more VDDG IOD voltage. 

I'm having crackling sound (Sound Blaster Z, PCIe soundcard) with anything below 1.075v VDDG IOD. 

Previous BIOS I was running it with 0.975v.

5900x with 1900MHz FLCK.


----------



## greg_p

Gadfly said:


> You are setting in in extreme tweaker and not Advanced>Amd overclocking correct?
> 
> Amd overclocking pbo menu should all be auto execpt for the curve optimizer, you set pbo limits in extreme tweaker, which allows for 300 as the limit.


Right! Again thx for the tip. should I suggest that, after enabling IF at 2K, it would be good to have the bios menu cleaned up.
By the way, indeed this is working much better with just 2 ram sticks. I rolled back on 2502 for some time.


----------



## slice313

-BIOS 3003 was a fun one for me. Randomly, the PC would start with "safe default settings" This is in my PC with the 3900x and CH8. -> Back to BIOS 2702 where all is good and dandy.

-Now regarding my built with a Strixx Gaming - E and a Ryzen 5800X, BIOS 3001 makes it impossible to boot with Infinity Fabric higher than 1800 mhz, so I am stuck with 3600 mhz for the mem. Bios 2816 Beta was perfectly stable with 3800/1900 FCLK (I didn't test higher yet) Also Fmax/curve optimizer is broken on both BIOS (random restarts at idle and garbage performance when fmax on)

-It fun as as hell to beta test these products. (insert clinking beer mugs and happy face emoticons here)


----------



## TheRyge

Well I gave 3003 another go as Flashback works for me now. I raised my VDDP (0.925-0.95) and VDDG's (0.95-0.975) by 0.025 and that seems to have brought back stability with my settings and timings.
I do still have one issue that is bugging me that I hope someone can help me with. My AIDA64 cache scores seem to be about half of what everyone else is experiencing !
L3 results on 2502 and 2702 were about 350GB/s which was about half of what others were getting. I see a 5600X above was getting about 350GB/s which then improved by nearly double to about 600GB/s on 3003, while mine only went up by 70 points to 420GB/s. Not only was my score lower to start but it is not increasing in the same way as others, any ideas?


----------



## Gadfly

RHBH said:


> BIOS 3003 is requiring way more VDDG IOD voltage.
> 
> I'm having crackling sound (Sound Blaster Z, PCIe soundcard) with anything below 1.075v VDDG IOD.
> 
> Previous BIOS I was running it with 0.975v.
> 
> 5900x with 1900MHz FLCK.



If I may make a suggestion, turn vddg back down to 0.95v and then in extreme tweaker, under the SoC and core voltage settings, find "SB 1.0v" and try 1.02 - 1.05v. See if that fixes your sound issues without a ton of vddg?

Please let me know if it works for you.


----------



## IM0001

Ok so it's been a little while since I dabbled in OC'ing as my own system is what, 8+ years old now? (X79 with 1660V1). Anyway I have built a few Zen 2 systems but only had them long enough to tune up with a few minor tweaks and let them go. I now have a pretty crazy build that I am working on and really would like to at least optimize the memory OC on it before letting it go as I know there is some performance left on the table over the stock settings or XMP profiles that the ram I got offers alone. 

Parts are a HERO VIII (Wifi), 5950X, EVGA 3090 FTW3 Ultra, 32G GSkill F4-3600C14Q-32GTZNB, Raid-0 1TB 970 EVO's, Corsair H150i, and Phanteks Revolt X PSU in a P500A case. 

The system runs really good and hell, outside of only 1 issue. The Phanteks Riser card not working with PCI-E 4.0 and having to swap it to 3.0 before the VGA would post. Everything else worked on the first try. 

My issue is when I am looking for info on the Memory timing and tuning, there are sooooo many more fields to fill in that I don't know where to go to get a full rundown of all that I need. The Ryzen Memory Calculator gives me a ballpark, but is missing entries for say tRFC which gives you tRFC and tRFC (Alt) but on the HERO VIII (WiFi) there is also tRFCx2 and x4 with smaller numbers for each.. And a few other entries are either missing in the calculator or the bios so it makes trying to figure out what to put in there outside of default a bit of a crapshoot as I continue to scour at least a baseline of someone with the same kit trying to hit the same sort of tune as me. 

So far I was able to get the system to boot with the Calculate FAST timings that I got out of the calculator for this ram, however it was throwing errors around right away under testing so I have to go back and fiddle with the timings/voltages to get that handled. Trying to just push the ram with XMP timings up to 3800/4000mhz hasn't been successful so far but I do hear this kit can go way past 4000 with timings loosened, however I continue to see what I believe are reports that for Primarily gaming, Tighter Timings > raw MHZ bandwidth with Zen3 so I am trying to dial in this kit as tight as possible with the 3600mhz speed. The MEMBench tab under the calculator says my "Best Result" I should shoot for is 108 where the system hits 132 and showing Read/Write speed of 47.8 and 45.4GB/s which I know can be improved.

Sooooo I guess I am just asking, where can I start or does anyone have the same memory kit and can give me a ballpark of what they have come up with that I can try on my end. The system is not slow, but I want to make sure its as close to optimal as possible before I have to ship it out.


IT is nearly an identical build to the one I plan to build for myself once the scalper games slow down a bit. Already have a Dark Hero on order for myself, and hopefully another P500A with PWN fans as this one came with 4Pin PWM fans instead of the 3Pin Case fans it's supposed to have. Even under full load and messing with PBO, this build is whisper quiet.


----------



## skalinator

Gadfly said:


> @shamino1978
> 
> Quick testing results with 3303, and a 5950X.
> 
> 
> Fclk is still hard capped at 1900mhz. it is stable at 0.945v on both VDDG, with SOC at 1.08v.
> 4x8GB memory still isn't working right. I can only train at up to 1933mhz, no matter timings, or voltages/SOC/Settings etc. (G.skill 3800C14 sticks; could run 4400 stable on bios 1302 w/3950X)
> PBO behavior appears to be a bit different in this bios release, I am seeing a 25-50mhz drop in boost clocks with the same settings. I was able to correct some of it by manually enabling the CPPC core options in the bios, and manually setting global C-state control to disabled; but even so it is down about 10-15 mhz.
> L3 cache performance is almost double that of 2502, and I am seeing performance gains in Blender Benchmark; as well as a 5ns drop in core to core latency (nice job my friend).
> Memory profiles are able to be run at slightly lower voltages vs 2502, but still a bit higher than 1302. I can run my old memory profile at 1.5v in 3303 vs 1.55v in 2502 and 1.48v in 1302. I am very happy with the improvement.
> CPU stability appears to be slightly improved. I am able to run the same PBO and curve optimizer settings without a CPU voltage offset in 3303, vs +0.05v in 2502. My Settings:
> PBO Manual: 280/240/245
> boost override +50mhz,
> Curve optimizer: -25 all core
> CPU voltage: (3033) Auto / (2502) Offset +0.05v
> 
> CB R20 all core scores are down about 50 points vs 2502, and single core down about 10 points. (really not a big deal as real world application performance is improved)
> CPU Runs about 3'C cooler in most of my testing workloads (could be because of lower boost clock)
> Odd things I noticed:
> 
> 
> I normally hard set my 1.8 PLL to 1.80v in the bios. When I do this the system fails memory training. If I leave it on Auto, it trains every time, despite reporting the same voltage in the Bios.
> 
> I also noticed that is Bios 2411 that PLL would be set very high (over 2v!), and that if I manually reduced PLL back down to 1.8v manually, performance absolutely tanked. Can you please elaborate on the effect 1.8V PLL has on this platform (x570/Ryzen 5k)? What would be the advantages of manually raising and/or lower PLL in terms of fclk and memory overclocking?
> 
> Do you have any suggestions
> 
> That is all I have for now; overall I like the new bios.


Do you have fmax disabled or enabled?


----------



## Gadfly

skalinator said:


> Do you have fmax disabled or enabled?


You mean TheStilt's fmax override thing? Disabled, it doesn't work right for me and ccd1 just clock stretches like crazy.


----------



## skalinator

Gadfly said:


> You mean TheStilt's fmax override thing? Disabled, it doesn't work right for me and ccd1 just clock stretches like crazy.


Yeah same here. I’m using your exact settings, I had the best run I have had yet on my 5900x. But stability still an issue. OCCT threw errors on large data test. Memory test was fine. Did you change anything in the digi+ settings?


----------



## skalinator

Gadfly said:


> You mean TheStilt's fmax override thing? Disabled, it doesn't work right for me and ccd1 just clock stretches like crazy.


Yeah same here. I’m using your exact settings, I had the best run I have had yet on my 5900x. But stability still an issue. OCCT threw errors on large data test. Memory test was fine. Did you change anything in the digi+ settings?


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Maybe someone here can assist me with this. What do you do if your system has to sometimes boot 1 or 2 times to lock in ram settings? When my system does boot, I'm able to do memory test all night and it is stable. It just seems something in my motherboard needs to be readjusted each time when it boots up.

My ASUS Crosshair Hero VIII does not have the ability to set a boot voltage. Is there another setting I can check?

EDIT: NVM, I found the problem... Memory Clear setting was enabled, what that did was it reset my motherboard every boot up. I disabled that, and now it should remember the memory settings for next time instead of constantly trying to find and autoconfigure some.


----------



## Gadfly

skalinator said:


> Yeah same here. I’m using your exact settings, I had the best run I have had yet on my 5900x. But stability still an issue. OCCT threw errors on large data test. Memory test was fine. Did you change anything in the digi+ settings?


Yeah. Disabled all the spread spectrum, maxed current limits, sec soc llc to level 3, cph llc to lvl 1


Try cpu llc 2?


----------



## Dawidowski

3003 doenst seem to have working "fmax"
Any Ideas on how to boost my 5900x single score in cr20?
I hit like 615-620 at best..

Multi with PBO hits 8600-8700


----------



## lDevilDriverl

Manual cpu overclocking in 3003 is bad... 2502, 2702 were stable at 4.6 allcore and 1.225 in linX 0.7.0.
3003 4.6 1.225-1.25 cpu overhead shot down....
Maybe because x2 L3 cache speed in 3003?


----------



## skalinator

Gadfly said:


> Yeah. Disabled all the spread spectrum, maxed current limits, sec soc llc to level 3, cph llc to lvl 1
> 
> 
> Try cpu llc 2?


Yeah maybe that’s my problem I have been setting level 3 or 4, I thought you would want higher to stabilize vdroop? But I guess in this case less is more?


----------



## mrazster

OK..so I´ve been following the discussion about the whole bios snafu..and as many others trying to get a stable system.

I´m using Arch Linux so I don´t have the same tools and options as you guys have.
So AFAIK there is no way for me to check logs for WHEA and error code 41 (if memory serves correctly) since the logging and error reporting works differently.
Relevant hardware as follow:
_Crosshair 8 Formula
Ryzen 7 3700X
32GB (4x8) Corsair Dominator Platinum 3200mhz (CMT32GX4M4Z3200C16, wich is QVL certified by asus)_

The problem I´ve been having is that as soon as I turn on the _PBO Fmax_, my system hangs/freezes randomly while ideling (mostly).
Some times it could run prime 5 hours straight (small, large or blended FFTs, doesn´t matter) without a problem, rendering movies, looping game benchmarks and all other loads I throw at it without any problems. And then 15 mins after I stop the torture, while the rigg is ideling it just freezes up completely. And other times the rigg was on for 36hours days without any problems and all of a sudden while streaming a movie it freezes/hangs again. A couple of times it even froze during booting the os.

For me the problems have all been about the _Fmax "tool" by @The Stilt_. As soon as I turn *off* _Fmax_ it works as it should without any freezing.
YEAH YEAH I KNOW !!  ....I could just have turn off the _Fmax_ and be done with it. But my cpu and system is responding really well to it performance wise, and I actually got really nice clocks out of my cpu. And also it bugged me that others could run just fine with _Fmax_ and my system wouldn´t.
So I just had to figure out what it was and why.
One thing I want to point out, don´t get me wrong here I´m not pointing any fingers or pinning any fault on @The Stilt or anyone else.
Just pointing out that the _PBO Fmax_ was the source of my problems.

So I have tried all bios from 0039 up until the latest 2702.
I have played around and tested almost every days since the 0039 bios was released.
Trying out suggestions in this thread, high and low. Turning on and off "Global c-states", "DF c-states", playing around with diffirent "scalar" and and trying 0-200mhz, different LLC, different voltage settings (vcore, vsoc, vddg e.t.c) and trying different current limits e.t.c. I´ve also been trying out different kind of ram settings and even remove 2 of the sticks to eliminate the possibility of 4-stick ram incompatibility. I just couldn´t get it stable !

And then, a couple of days ago the 3003 bios was released, and ofcourse I had to try that one to, not actually thinking it would make any difference.
But lo and behold, so far it´s still holding it´s own, no hangs, freezes or other hick-ups. Almost a bit scared I´m jinxing it by posting this.
PBO Fmax on
Scalar 3X
200mhz
LLC 3
vcore auto
D.O.C.P
vdim 1.36v
vsoc 1.1v (according to posts on the ROG forum that should help with 4 dimms populated)
vddg 1.05v (and the following 2 voltages, can´t remember on top of my head)

So far it´s been stable..holding my fingers crossed.
As soon as i feel completely safe that my system is in fact stable, I´ll work on lowering some off the voltages.

So yeah bios 3003 did the trick for me at least !  
Unless I need to, due to cpu-upgrade, I won´t be touching the bios any time soon.


----------



## lDevilDriverl

skalinator said:


> Yeah maybe that’s my problem I have been setting level 3 or 4, I thought you would want higher to stabilize vdroop? But I guess in this case less is more?


You can check it using hwinfo and cb20 with fixed cpu frequently and voltage.


----------



## skalinator

Gadfly said:


> Yeah. Disabled all the spread spectrum, maxed current limits, sec soc llc to level 3, cph llc to lvl 1
> 
> 
> Try cpu llc 2?


That was it. Best scores so far with PBO, basically using your settings. Awesome, thanks!


----------



## Lobstar

Jesus ****ing Christ ... I installed 3003, defaulted my bios. This is auto settings, the only changes were to set it up for 3800/1900mhz @14-14-14-14-28-42-300 1T. I have only set the voltage to 1.5v since my b-die likes it. Every other setting on my C8H is set from optimized defaults. What the **** is this magic?! On early bios revs I couldn't boot 3733CL18 ... Cinebench r20 is 9800 without an all-core OC?!


----------



## skalinator

Lobstar said:


> Jesus **ing Christ ... I installed 3003, defaulted my bios. This is auto settings, the only changes were to set it up for 3800/1900mhz @14-14-14-14-28-42-300 1T. I have only set the voltage to 1.5v since my b-die likes it. Every other setting on my C8H is set from optimized defaults. What the ** is this magic?! On early bios revs I couldn't boot 3733CL18 ... Cinebench r20 is 9800 without an all-core OC?!
> View attachment 2468607


Damn. I also have b die, I could get aggressive timings but it would get a few errors in memory tests. Have you stress tested it yet? And how the hell you get a 9800!? Are you on 5900x? What were you boosting to all core? You didn’t even change anything in the optimizer?


----------



## Lobstar

skalinator said:


> Damn. I also have b die, I could get aggressive timings but it would get a few errors in memory tests. Have you stress tested it yet? And how the hell you get a 9800!? Are you on 5900x? What were you boosting to all core? You didn’t even change anything in the optimizer?


Lemme clarify. I'm about an hour into just benchmarking and making sure I actually effected positive change lol. So far so good!

I'm on a C8H (no wifi), CM v3 1300w plat PSU, 3950x, 4x8gb Patriot VS 4400 CL18, EVGA 3090 FTW3 Ultra. I have the ekwb monoblock on the proc and their ram blocks as well.

After I updated from 2702 to 3003 I just loaded optimized defaults, booted to windows, shut it down, cleared cmos. On the next boot I went to bios and loaded optimized defaults. I then set the RAM voltage to 1.5. I set DOCP to manual, chose 3800/1900, went to PBO and noticed the new option for FMax or whatever so yolo'd that to the on position as well as explicitly enabled pbo. I then set the memory timings to 16-16-16-16-32-48-300 1T and it booted with no training non-sense. I was absolutely beside myself so decided to go for broke so I shut down, yanked the power cable, waited, booted to bios and literally just ****ing went and put in 14-14-14-14-28-42-300 1T in it's place, saved the profile as 'yolo_lol' and it booted and has been benchmarking since I posted. I'm seriously surprised.


----------



## 7lk

mrazster said:


> OK..so I´ve been following the discussion about the whole bios snafu..and as many others trying to get a stable system.
> 
> I´m using Arch Linux so I don´t have the same tools and options as you guys have.
> Takže AFAIK neexistuje žádný způsob, jak pro mě zkontrolovat protokoly pro WHEA a kód chyby 41 (pokud paměť slouží správně), protože protokolování a hlášení chyb funguje jinak.
> Příslušný hardware takto:
> _Crosshair 8 Formule
> Ryzen 7 3700X
> 32GB (4x8) Corsair Dominator Platinum 3200mhz (CMT32GX4M4Z3200C16, který je QVL certifikován asus)_
> 
> Problém jsem byl s je, že jakmile jsem zase na _PBO Fmax_, můj systém visí / zamrzne náhodně při ideling (většinou).
> Někdy by to mohlo běžet prime 5 hodin rovně (malé, velké nebo smíšené FFTs, nezáleží) bez problémů, vykreslování filmy, opakování herních měřítek a všechny ostatní zatížení hodím na to bez problémů. A pak 15 minut poté, co jsem přestal mučení, zatímco rigg je ideling to prostě zamrzne úplně. A jindy rigg byl na 36 hodin dny bez problémů a najednou při streamování filmu zamrzne / visí znovu. Několikrát dokonce zamrzl při zavádění os.
> 
> Pro mě všechny problémy byly o _Fmax "nástroj" od [USER = 348110]@The Stilt [/USER]_. Jakmile *vypnu* _Fmax,_ funguje to tak, jak by mělo bez zmrazení.
> JO JO JÁ VÍM!! .... Mohl jsem prostě vypnout _Fmax_ a skonkusnout s tím. Ale můj procesor a systém reaguje opravdu dobře na to výkon moudrý, a já jsem vlastně dostal opravdu pěkné hodiny z mého cpu. A také to mě odposlouchávalo, že ostatní mohli běžet v pohodě s _Fmax_ a můj systém by ne.
> Takže jsem musel přijít na to, co to bylo a proč.
> Jedna věc, kterou chci zdůraznit, nechápejte mě špatně tady nejsem ukazovat prstem nebo připnutí jakékoli chyby na [USER = 348110] @The Stilt [/ USER] nebo někdo jiný.
> Jen poukazuje na to, že _PBO Fmax_ byl zdrojem mých problémů.
> 
> Tak jsem se snažil všechny bios od 0039 až do posledního 2702.
> Hrál jsem kolem a testovány téměř každý den, protože 0039 bios byl propuštěn.
> Vyzkoušení návrhů v tomto vlákně, vysoké a nízké. Zapnutí a vypnutí "Globální c-státy", "DF c-státy", hrát si s diffirent "skalární" a snaží 0-200mhz, různé LLC, různé nastavení napětí (vcore, vsoc, vddg e.t.c) a snaží různé proudové limity e.t.c. Také jsem se snaží z různých druhů ram nastavení a dokonce odstranit 2 hole eliminovat možnost 4-stick ram neslučitelnosti. Prostě jsem to nemohl stabilizovat!
> 
> A pak, před pár dny 3003 bios byl propuštěn, a samozřejmě jsem musel zkusit, že jeden, ne ve skutečnosti si myslel, že by nějaký rozdíl.
> Ale hle, zatím je to stále drží je to vlastní, žádné visí, zamrzne nebo jiné hick-up. Téměř trochu strach jsem zakřikl to tím, že posílá toto.
> PBO Fmax na
> Skalár 3X
> 200mhz
> LLC 3
> vcore auto
> D.O.C.P.
> vdim 1,36v
> vsoc 1.1v (podle příspěvků na fóru ROG, které by měly pomoci s 4 dimms obydlené)
> vddg 1.05v (a následující 2 napětí, nemůže vzpomenout na vrcholu mé hlavy)
> 
> Zatím je stabilní. držím palce.
> Jakmile se budu cítit naprosto bezpečně, že můj systém je ve skutečnosti stabilní, budu pracovat na snížení některých z napětí.
> 
> Takže ano, bios 3003 udělal trik pro mě alespoň!
> Pokud nebudu muset, vzhledem k cpu-upgrade, nebudu se dotýkat BIOS v dohledné době.





mrazster said:


> OK..so I´ve been following the discussion about the whole bios snafu..and as many others trying to get a stable system.
> 
> I´m using Arch Linux so I don´t have the same tools and options as you guys have.
> So AFAIK there is no way for me to check logs for WHEA and error code 41 (if memory serves correctly) since the logging and error reporting works differently.
> Relevant hardware as follow:
> _Crosshair 8 Formula
> Ryzen 7 3700X
> 32GB (4x8) Corsair Dominator Platinum 3200mhz (CMT32GX4M4Z3200C16, wich is QVL certified by asus)_
> 
> The problem I´ve been having is that as soon as I turn on the _PBO Fmax_, my system hangs/freezes randomly while ideling (mostly).
> Some times it could run prime 5 hours straight (small, large or blended FFTs, doesn´t matter) without a problem, rendering movies, looping game benchmarks and all other loads I throw at it without any problems. And then 15 mins after I stop the torture, while the rigg is ideling it just freezes up completely. And other times the rigg was on for 36hours days without any problems and all of a sudden while streaming a movie it freezes/hangs again. A couple of times it even froze during booting the os.
> 
> For me the problems have all been about the _Fmax "tool" by @The Stilt_. As soon as I turn *off* _Fmax_ it works as it should without any freezing.
> YEAH YEAH I KNOW !!  ....I could just have turn off the _Fmax_ and be done with it. But my cpu and system is responding really well to it performance wise, and I actually got really nice clocks out of my cpu. And also it bugged me that others could run just fine with _Fmax_ and my system wouldn´t.
> So I just had to figure out what it was and why.
> One thing I want to point out, don´t get me wrong here I´m not pointing any fingers or pinning any fault on @The Stilt or anyone else.
> Just pointing out that the _PBO Fmax_ was the source of my problems.
> 
> So I have tried all bios from 0039 up until the latest 2702.
> I have played around and tested almost every days since the 0039 bios was released.
> Trying out suggestions in this thread, high and low. Turning on and off "Global c-states", "DF c-states", playing around with diffirent "scalar" and and trying 0-200mhz, different LLC, different voltage settings (vcore, vsoc, vddg e.t.c) and trying different current limits e.t.c. I´ve also been trying out different kind of ram settings and even remove 2 of the sticks to eliminate the possibility of 4-stick ram incompatibility. I just couldn´t get it stable !
> 
> And then, a couple of days ago the 3003 bios was released, and ofcourse I had to try that one to, not actually thinking it would make any difference.
> But lo and behold, so far it´s still holding it´s own, no hangs, freezes or other hick-ups. Almost a bit scared I´m jinxing it by posting this.
> PBO Fmax on
> Scalar 3X
> 200mhz
> LLC 3
> vcore auto
> D.O.C.P
> vdim 1.36v
> vsoc 1.1v (according to posts on the ROG forum that should help with 4 dimms populated)
> vddg 1.05v (and the following 2 voltages, can´t remember on top of my head)
> 
> So far it´s been stable..holding my fingers crossed.
> As soon as i feel completely safe that my system is in fact stable, I´ll work on lowering some off the voltages.
> 
> So yeah bios 3003 did the trick for me at least !
> Unless I need to, due to cpu-upgrade, I won´t be touching the bios any time soon.


Ask. Send BIOS dump txt? Please, thank you


----------



## X3NEIZE

greg_p said:


> And then, a couple of days ago the 3003 bios was released, and ofcourse I had to try that one to, not actually thinking it would make any difference.
> But lo and behold, so far it´s still holding it´s own, no hangs, freezes or other hick-ups. Almost a bit scared I´m jinxing it by posting this.
> PBO Fmax on
> Scalar 3X
> 200mhz
> LLC 3
> vcore auto
> D.O.C.P
> vdim 1.36v
> vsoc 1.1v (according to posts on the ROG forum that should help with 4 dimms populated)
> vddg 1.05v (and the following 2 voltages, can´t remember on top of my head)


Do you mind taking a screenshot with these values? (specifically the volatges and the PBO screen)

Thanks bud.


----------



## RHBH

Gadfly said:


> If I may make a suggestion, turn vddg back down to 0.95v and then in extreme tweaker, under the SoC and core voltage settings, find "SB 1.0v" and try 1.02 - 1.05v. See if that fixes your sound issues without a ton of vddg?
> 
> Please let me know if it works for you.


I haven't tried your suggestion yet, doing some testing.

Still testing, as the problem appear after some usage.

I had the issue with VSOC 1.05v and 0.95v VDDG IOD.

With VSOC 1.15v and 1.10v VDDG IOD, I was rock solid for hours, no crackling sound from my PCI-E soundcard.

Currently running/testing VSOC 1.10v and 0.95v VDDG IOD, no issues so far. 

By the way, what about the "1.2V SB Voltage" in "Tweaker's Paradise"?


----------



## Gadfly

RHBH said:


> I haven't tried your suggestion yet, doing some testing.
> 
> Still testing, as the problem appear after some usage.
> 
> I had the issue with VSOC 1.05v and 0.95v VDDG IOD.
> 
> With VSOC 1.15v and 1.10v VDDG IOD, I was rock solid for hours, no crackling sound from my PCI-E soundcard.
> 
> Currently running/testing VSOC 1.10v and 0.95v VDDG IOD, no issues so far.
> 
> By the way, what about the "1.2V SB Voltage" in "Tweaker's Paradise"?


Give it a try, see if it helps. Leave the 1.2v SB, just change the 1.0V SB


----------



## Gadfly

Quick aida64 memory test results


----------



## artafinde

mrazster said:


> OK..so I´ve been following the discussion about the whole bios snafu..and as many others trying to get a stable system.
> 
> I´m using Arch Linux so I don´t have the same tools and options as you guys have.
> So AFAIK there is no way for me to check logs for WHEA and error code 41 (if memory serves correctly) since the logging and error reporting works differently.
> Relevant hardware as follow:
> _Crosshair 8 Formula
> Ryzen 7 3700X
> 32GB (4x8) Corsair Dominator Platinum 3200mhz (CMT32GX4M4Z3200C16, wich is QVL certified by asus)_
> 
> The problem I´ve been having is that as soon as I turn on the _PBO Fmax_, my system hangs/freezes randomly while ideling (mostly).
> Some times it could run prime 5 hours straight (small, large or blended FFTs, doesn´t matter) without a problem, rendering movies, looping game benchmarks and all other loads I throw at it without any problems. And then 15 mins after I stop the torture, while the rigg is ideling it just freezes up completely. And other times the rigg was on for 36hours days without any problems and all of a sudden while streaming a movie it freezes/hangs again. A couple of times it even froze during booting the os.
> 
> For me the problems have all been about the _Fmax "tool" by @The Stilt_. As soon as I turn *off* _Fmax_ it works as it should without any freezing.
> YEAH YEAH I KNOW !!  ....I could just have turn off the _Fmax_ and be done with it. But my cpu and system is responding really well to it performance wise, and I actually got really nice clocks out of my cpu. And also it bugged me that others could run just fine with _Fmax_ and my system wouldn´t.
> So I just had to figure out what it was and why.
> One thing I want to point out, don´t get me wrong here I´m not pointing any fingers or pinning any fault on @The Stilt or anyone else.
> Just pointing out that the _PBO Fmax_ was the source of my problems.
> 
> So I have tried all bios from 0039 up until the latest 2702.
> I have played around and tested almost every days since the 0039 bios was released.
> Trying out suggestions in this thread, high and low. Turning on and off "Global c-states", "DF c-states", playing around with diffirent "scalar" and and trying 0-200mhz, different LLC, different voltage settings (vcore, vsoc, vddg e.t.c) and trying different current limits e.t.c. I´ve also been trying out different kind of ram settings and even remove 2 of the sticks to eliminate the possibility of 4-stick ram incompatibility. I just couldn´t get it stable !
> 
> And then, a couple of days ago the 3003 bios was released, and ofcourse I had to try that one to, not actually thinking it would make any difference.
> But lo and behold, so far it´s still holding it´s own, no hangs, freezes or other hick-ups. Almost a bit scared I´m jinxing it by posting this.
> PBO Fmax on
> Scalar 3X
> 200mhz
> LLC 3
> vcore auto
> D.O.C.P
> vdim 1.36v
> vsoc 1.1v (according to posts on the ROG forum that should help with 4 dimms populated)
> vddg 1.05v (and the following 2 voltages, can´t remember on top of my head)
> 
> So far it´s been stable..holding my fingers crossed.
> As soon as i feel completely safe that my system is in fact stable, I´ll work on lowering some off the voltages.
> 
> So yeah bios 3003 did the trick for me at least !
> Unless I need to, due to cpu-upgrade, I won´t be touching the bios any time soon.


@mrazster I read this post and it is like someone is describing my situation. The hardward is slightly different but my experience match yours

Relevant hardware as follow:
_Crosshair 8 Formula (WiFi)
Ryzen 7 3959X
32GB G.Skill Flare X DDR4 3200MHz_ (F4-3200C14Q-32GFX Quad channel but working in Dual)

I also run Archlinux and I had issues with enabling FMax feature in all versions of BIOS so far. I had lost hope and didn't even bother with 3003 but since this post I'm thinking I will give it a go. Before I proceed, could you possibly answer if

The IRQ errors are still there in 3003 BIOS? (ROG Crosshair VIII Hero (WI-FI) BIOS 2XXX & Linux errors)
Can you please extract your BIOS settings in txt format



Code:


Put USB and enter BIOS.
Tools->Asus User Profile->Load/Save profile and hit Ctrl+F2


----------



## Kokin

Man the 02 code is a weird mystery. I installed the 3003 bios and it was fine on first boot, I then loaded optimized default and reset cmos. On the 2nd boot, I had the 02 post code. 

I tried swapping DP cables, reseating RAM, reseating all my PSU and power cables. Bios flashback to 2702. Different PSU. Nothing was working. 

The solution was to just boot up with a single HDMI cable and no DP cables connected. Kind of a strange and dumb solution. Based on Google search, it seems like other people had similar solutions with the 02 post code.


----------



## IM0001

Kokin said:


> Man the 02 code is a weird mystery. I installed the 3003 bios and it was fine on first boot, I then loaded optimized default and reset cmos. On the 2nd boot, I had the 02 post code.
> 
> I tried swapping DP cables, reseating RAM, reseating all my PSU and power cables. Bios flashback to 2702. Different PSU. Nothing was working.
> 
> The solution was to just boot up with a single HDMI cable and no DP cables connected. Kind of a strange and dumb solution. Based on Google search, it seems like other people had similar solutions with the 02 post code.


If it is anything similar to the issue I had with this build, try dropping the PCI-E 16x slot your GPU is in from Gen4/Auto to Gen3 and see if that fixes it for you? I had almost the same issue except mine was using a 3.0 certified Phanteks vertical gpu mount with a 4.0 GPU and Motherboard so it just defaults to 4 and no cable swapping got VGA to show at all. :/ 

Going to be fun as this is a client build and will have to practice and print out a writeup/screenshots on how to load the saved profiles blind just incase that clear cmos button ever gets accidentally pressed, or the bios update clears things. Ugh. 

Outside of that, I figured out my Memory OC issues for the most part, still a ton of learning on how to OC Ryzen systems from the old X79 Intel days. One thing is for sure, the latest 3003 bios really does push some performance improvements as even with PBO off, the 5950X is boosting up near 4.6/4.7 on its own under load in games like MSFS when before it was only thinking about 4.3/4.4. Still have some more tuning to do but I think I got this system to a good place for this client and I can put a lot of this experience into my own, someday.


----------



## koji

Firmware 3003 was a dud on my Dark Hero, took ages to get the thing to post, whereas 2601 posts super super fast and immediatly started throwing up weird error codes (stuff like 00 etc). Did a couple of benches but didn't notice any big improvements, was able to get IF @ 1900 and 4 banks of 3800C14 DOCP loaded as well without issues, but that also worked on 2601. Anyway, ended up rolling back to 2601 via flashback.


----------



## netman

skalinator said:


> That was it. Best scores so far with PBO, basically using your settings. Awesome, thanks!


what are the settings you used to squeeze this nice numbers out of you 5900x ? they are from gadfly if i understand but where can i fand them ?


----------



## koji

Guys anyone happen to have an idea what could be causing this massive drop in AVX performance, atleast I guess it's AVX?










I was messing with AI Suite to tune an auto OC, I disabled the AVX stresstest there but I think somehow something got messed up, removed AI Suite, upgraded my bios, did a couple of Bios clears but I think it's some registry setting in my windows?

Edit: formatting my windows did the trick... phew thought the chip was toast or something.


----------



## skalinator

netman said:


> what are the settings you used to squeeze this nice numbers out of you 5900x ? they are from gadfly if i understand but where can i fand them ?


I'll do a bios settings dump when i finish up with work and post


----------



## martyflat4

dyanikoglu said:


> Yes! Exactly same issue with Crosshair Hero. The new HP Reverb G2 VR headset is also suffering from this issue, and setting pcie to gen 3 mostly solves the problem


My usb has dropped out a couple of times but I haven


koji said:


> Guys anyone happen to have an idea what could be causing this massive drop in AVX performance, atleast I guess it's AVX?
> 
> View attachment 2468666
> 
> 
> I was messing with AI Suite to tune an auto OC, I disabled the AVX stresstest there but I think somehow something got messed up, removed AI Suite, upgraded my bios, did a couple of Bios clears but I think it's some registry setting in my windows?


By chance I discovered that AI Suite was tanking my whole system in various benchmarks, uninstalling it did not fix the problem, had to reinstall windows and everything was back to normal.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Finally done with the clockspeed tweaking, have stolen alot of information from *Gadfly, *so thanks for the help 

PBO used for everything.









*Cinebench r23:*


Singlethread = 1693
Multithread = 31124

*Cinebench r20:*


Singlethread = 661
Multithread = 12103

*Cinebench r15:*


Singlethread = 281
Multithread = 5262

*Geekbench 5* @ ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser


Singlethread = 1809
Multithread = 19615

Also some CPUZ scores in screenshot
Benching done on ~19-20 degrees ambiant.

Now i just need to wait for the MSI GeForce RTX 3090 SUPRIM X on its way in the mail, before i'm ready for cyberpunk 

_edit_

Memory settings:


----------



## Gadfly

domdtxdissar said:


> Finally done with the clockspeed tweaking, have stolen alot of information from *Gadfly, *so thanks for the help
> 
> PBO used for everything.
> View attachment 2468680
> 
> 
> *Cinebench r23:*
> 
> 
> Singlethread = 1693
> Multithread = 31124
> 
> *Cinebench r20:*
> 
> 
> Singlethread = 661
> Multithread = 12103
> 
> *Cinebench r15:*
> 
> 
> Singlethread = 281
> Multithread = 5262
> 
> *Geekbench 5* @ ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser
> 
> 
> Singlethread = 1809
> Multithread = 19615
> 
> Also some CPUZ scores in screenshot
> Benching done on ~19-20 degrees ambiant.
> 
> Now i just need to wait for the MSI GeForce RTX 3090 SUPRIM X on its way in the mail, before i'm ready for cyberpunk
> 
> _edit_
> 
> Memory settings:
> 
> View attachment 2468683


Looking good my friend! Few posts back i posted my daily 1.5v memory timings and settings if you want to tighten down a little


----------



## Gadfly

netman said:


> what are the settings you used to squeeze this nice numbers out of you 5900x ? they are from gadfly if i understand but where can i fand them ?


Search my resent posts in this thread.


----------



## slow4cyl

I have 4x16GB sticks of 3600C14. Seems like running more than 3666mhz is pretty hard with 4 of these in the board. Just wont POST. I am almost certain if I take out 2 sticks, I can reach a much higher 1:1:1 clock (3800mhz+). Latency isnt too bad. I run the sticks at 1.5v and this is roughly what I got working from just trial and error. If there is anything I can adjust to improve the latency or speeds, do let me know.


----------



## GRABibus

What’s your CPU cooling ?


----------



## GRABibus

domdtxdissar said:


> Finally done with the clockspeed tweaking, have stolen alot of information from *Gadfly, *so thanks for the help
> 
> PBO used for everything.
> View attachment 2468680
> 
> 
> *Cinebench r23:*
> 
> 
> Singlethread = 1693
> Multithread = 31124
> 
> *Cinebench r20:*
> 
> 
> Singlethread = 661
> Multithread = 12103
> 
> *Cinebench r15:*
> 
> 
> Singlethread = 281
> Multithread = 5262
> 
> *Geekbench 5* @ ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser
> 
> 
> Singlethread = 1809
> Multithread = 19615
> 
> Also some CPUZ scores in screenshot
> Benching done on ~19-20 degrees ambiant.
> 
> Now i just need to wait for the MSI GeForce RTX 3090 SUPRIM X on its way in the mail, before i'm ready for cyberpunk
> 
> _edit_
> 
> Memory settings:
> 
> View attachment 2468683


What’s your CPU cooling ?


----------



## domdtxdissar

GRABibus said:


> What’s your CPU cooling ?


EK custom water, waiting for new TechN waterblock in the mail also


----------



## mrazster

7lk said:


> Ask. Send BIOS dump txt? Please, thank you





X3NEIZE said:


> Do you mind taking a screenshot with these values? (specifically the volatges and the PBO screen)
> 
> Thanks bud.





artafinde said:


> The IRQ errors are still there in 3003 BIOS? (ROG Crosshair VIII Hero (WI-FI) BIOS 2XXX & Linux errors)
> Can you please extract your BIOS settings in txt format


Here you go guys both pictures and bios settings....hope it helps ! 
I attached the config files both as txt and .cmo but I couldn´t attach the .cmo file without adding .txt in the end, so just rename it by removing .txt in the end.
The quality of the images is not the best, hope it´s clear enough so you can read it.


----------



## rv8000

For those of you having weird errors on new bios, when you flash, are you flashing with all your manually tweaked settings with ocs?


----------



## martyflat4

Hello, wondering if you can help me.

Would like to know if 4 dimms of this kit will work with a ryzen 5950x and possibly make its way to 3800mhz, 1900mhz fclk.

Thankyou in advance.









Buy G.Skill Trident Z Neo 16GB (2x8GB) 3600Mhz CL14 DDR4 [F4-3600C14D-16GTZNB] | PC Case Gear Australia


G.Skill Trident Z Neo 16GB (2x8GB) 3600Mhz CL14 DDR4 available to buy online from PC Case Gear – Australia’s Premier Online PC Store.




www.pccasegear.com


----------



## jedi95

martyflat4 said:


> Hello, wondering if you can help me.
> 
> Would like to know if 4 dimms of this kit will work with a ryzen 5950x and possibly make its way to 3800mhz, 1900mhz fclk.
> 
> Thankyou in advance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buy G.Skill Trident Z Neo 16GB (2x8GB) 3600Mhz CL14 DDR4 [F4-3600C14D-16GTZNB] | PC Case Gear Australia
> 
> 
> G.Skill Trident Z Neo 16GB (2x8GB) 3600Mhz CL14 DDR4 available to buy online from PC Case Gear – Australia’s Premier Online PC Store.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.pccasegear.com


It's extremely unlikely.

4x16GB dual rank B-die hits IMC limits between 3600-3733 depending on CPU IMC quality.


----------



## martyflat4

jedi95 said:


> It's extremely unlikely.
> 
> 4x16GB dual rank B-die hits IMC limits between 3600-3733 depending on CPU IMC quality.


Thanks for the reply.

I'm scratching my head looking for the best kit.

I have 4 dimms of F4-4000C18D-16GTZRB at the moment, it will not post with 4 dimms installed, only with 2. I assumed this kit is not compatible with 4 dimms so I'm looking for a replacement.


----------



## Gadfly

slow4cyl said:


> View attachment 2468694
> 
> 
> I have 4x16GB sticks of 3600C14. Seems like running more than 3666mhz is pretty hard with 4 of these in the board. Just wont POST. I am almost certain if I take out 2 sticks, I can reach a much higher 1:1:1 clock (3800mhz+). Latency isnt too bad. I run the sticks at 1.5v and this is roughly what I got working from just trial and error. If there is anything I can adjust to improve the latency or speeds, do let me know.


- Turn down cldo_vddp to 0.9v to 0.95v.

- Then, try decreasing proc_odt a notch or two.

- Then turn the vddg's down to 0.945v - 0.955v

Put it back at 3800, 1:1. Then try 14-15-14-14-28, with trc at 42 and trfc at 280.


----------



## slow4cyl

Gadfly said:


> - Turn down cldo_vddp to 0.9v to 0.95v.
> 
> - Then, try decreasing proc_odt a notch or two.
> 
> - Then turn the vddg's down to 0.945v - 0.955v
> 
> Put it back at 3800, 1:1. Then try 14-15-14-14-28, with trc at 42 and trfc at 280.


Thank you. 

Ive tried 3800 1:1 at 20-20-20-20-80 or some crazy timing like that before. Spent like 30 minutes on that alone. Cant get it to post at that speed with 4x16gb sticks. 3666mhz is the max. Think its just a limitation of my IMC or BIOS or Topology or all three.

I will adjust the voltages, procodt and timings with what you provided. 4x8GB or 2x16gb is the ideal memory configuration I guess


----------



## kuutale

is the normal 5000 series if gaming temps goes 70-75 gaming, paste is kryonaut. i have conductnaut but that's kill cpu warranty? or my paste method is wrong? suggestion? not overlock only performance core boost enabled and memory is 3733cl16 flck 1866


----------



## pfinch

domdtxdissar said:


> Finally done with the clockspeed tweaking, have stolen alot of information from *Gadfly, *so thanks for the help


Could you share all of your non auto-settings

Thanks


----------



## greg_p

domdtxdissar said:


> Finally done with the clockspeed tweaking, have stolen alot of information from *Gadfly, *so thanks for the help
> 
> PBO used for everything.
> View attachment 2468680
> 
> 
> *Cinebench r23:*
> 
> 
> Singlethread = 1693
> Multithread = 31124
> 
> *Cinebench r20:*
> 
> 
> Singlethread = 661
> Multithread = 12103
> 
> *Cinebench r15:*
> 
> 
> Singlethread = 281
> Multithread = 5262
> 
> *Geekbench 5* @ ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser
> 
> 
> Singlethread = 1809
> Multithread = 19615
> 
> Also some CPUZ scores in screenshot
> Benching done on ~19-20 degrees ambiant.
> 
> Now i just need to wait for the MSI GeForce RTX 3090 SUPRIM X on its way in the mail, before i'm ready for cyberpunk
> 
> _edit_
> 
> Memory settings:
> 
> View attachment 2468683


Nice silicon you have man! Could you give some PBO setting for hittings these crazy scores?


----------



## 7lk

mrazster said:


> Here you go guys both pictures and bios settings....hope it helps !
> I attached the config files both as txt and .cmo but I couldn´t attach the .cmo file without adding .txt in the end, so just rename it by removing .txt in the end.
> The quality of the images is not the best, hope it´s clear enough so you can read it.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2468702
> 
> 
> View attachment 2468703


Thank you, the BIOS description is done by pressing F12. Obrzaovka is written to USB in a beautiful format.


----------



## netman

skalinator said:


> I'll do a bios settings dump when i finish up with work and post


that would be nice - thank you


----------



## koji

rv8000 said:


> For those of you having weird errors on new bios, when you flash, are you flashing with all your manually tweaked settings with ocs?


Yeah I think that was my problem upgrading to the latest bios indeed. It's running smooth now but it was an absolute ***** last time I tried. Throwing up nasty error codes, taking 30 seconds to post etc. Probably best procedure to do a CLRCMOS before upgrading I guess.


----------



## Gadfly

Here are My PBO settings that both @greg_p and I are using (5950X):

*In Extreme Tweaker:*


PBO: manual: 280/235/245
Overdrive: +50 mhz
CPU SoC voltage: Manual 1.08 -1.10v
CPU Core Voltage: Offset 0.01 -0.06v (You want the least amount of offset as possible. Most will be @ +0.05v)

*In Digi+*


Max all the current limits
Disable all the spread spectrums
SOC LLC: Level 3
CPU LLC: Level 1 or Level 2
_*Note:* You want the all core voltage to be as low as possible to get the highest all core boost that you can. My logic here is that I am using core voltage offset to maintain enough voltage for a stable single core boost, but the lowest LLC so that on all core loads the core voltage will droop and allow a higher all core boost clock. _

*In Advanced> AMD Overclocking > PBO*


Set to advanced
Set limits to "Motherboard"
Curve optimizer: All core, Negative, 25


If you have a 56/57/58/5900X You use the same settings but increase the overdrive setting from 50mhz to as high as your single core test will allow. Most CPU's will max out at a sustained 5050mhz and 5125mhz single core boost.

*To test single core boost clock:*


Open HWinfo64, make sure you have the "Effective Core clock" registers exposed.
Make a note of the top 4 ranked cores.
Open task manager and to to the "Details" tab.
Open CB R20, start a single core run
In Task manager's details, right click Cinebench.exe, click "Select Affinity", uncheck the top box to de-select all cores, put a check box next to core 0, then click ok. (You will have to re-select the affinity every run unless you have an application such as Process lasso that will automatically apply core affinity.)
In HWinfo, Look at the clock speed for core zero. It should be at your max boost + overdrive (for a 5950X using the settings above, that would be 5050mhz max boost + 50 mhz overdrive = 5100mhz).
In HWinfo, monitor the "Effective core speed" It should be very near reported core clock. For example, the core clock is at 5100mhz, the effective core clock should be 5085mhz or higher. Generally effective clock will be reported a bit lower than core clock because of how it is calculated. (which is why the effective core clock really needs a sustained load to be close to accurate).
Monitor Core voltage and effective core VID. Your core voltage should be 1.5v- 1.525v, and effective VID 1.485v - 1.506v. You really don't want core voltage to exceed 1.525v for sustained period (spikes are fine and normal) This is why your core voltage offset shouldn't exceed +0.05 - 0.07v.
You should be able to complete at least 5-6 back to back runs of CB R20 without crashing.
Once that is done, you move on to the next three of the top rated cores and make sure they are stable. Though it is likely that not all of the top four cores will boost as high at core 0.

Once that is complete move on to all core load stress testing. If an all core workload does not pass stress testing, increase core LLC to achieve stability.

Attached is a bios Settings dump of where I am at right now.


----------



## greg_p

I have these settings but they can't work on my cpu. with CPU voltage offset +0.03, -25 on all core but 0 and 2 that are my best. And even with that, they can spike at 5100 on partial load, but they will not reach it on continuous load. On CBR20, core 0 and 2 will reach 4.875 to 4900 at 1.475/1.488 but won't go higher. They need more volt... The issue if I increase LLC to 3 or 4, it decrease the multi core load (11400 currently - not that bad!)


----------



## Gadfly

greg_p said:


> I have these settings but they can't work on my cpu. with CPU voltage offset +0.03, -25 on all core but 0 and 2 that are my best. And even with that, they can spike at 5100 on partial load, but they will not reach it on continuous load. On CBR20, core 0 and 2 will reach 4.875 to 4900 at 1.475/1.488 but won't go higher. They need more volt... The issue if I increase LLC to 3 or 4, it decrease the multi core load (11400 currently - not that bad!)


Did you try to add more offset? Put LLC back to lvl 1, and up the core voltage offset to 0.05v or 0.06v?


----------



## CyrIng

So you are runing Arch as I do but I stick to 2206 for stability reasons.

Please let me know if BIOS version 3003 can *pass* my CoreFreq stress algorithms

* All Cores









* Best Boosted Core









* And of course the Idle state as low as 2 MHz , in relative frequency 











mrazster said:


> OK..so I´ve been following the discussion about the whole bios snafu..and as many others trying to get a stable system.
> 
> I´m using Arch Linux so I don´t have the same tools and options as you guys have.
> So AFAIK there is no way for me to check logs for WHEA and error code 41 (if memory serves correctly) since the logging and error reporting works differently.
> Relevant hardware as follow:
> _Crosshair 8 Formula
> Ryzen 7 3700X
> 32GB (4x8) Corsair Dominator Platinum 3200mhz (CMT32GX4M4Z3200C16, wich is QVL certified by asus)_
> 
> The problem I´ve been having is that as soon as I turn on the _PBO Fmax_, my system hangs/freezes randomly while ideling (mostly).
> Some times it could run prime 5 hours straight (small, large or blended FFTs, doesn´t matter) without a problem, rendering movies, looping game benchmarks and all other loads I throw at it without any problems. And then 15 mins after I stop the torture, while the rigg is ideling it just freezes up completely. And other times the rigg was on for 36hours days without any problems and all of a sudden while streaming a movie it freezes/hangs again. A couple of times it even froze during booting the os.
> 
> For me the problems have all been about the _Fmax "tool" by @The Stilt_. As soon as I turn *off* _Fmax_ it works as it should without any freezing.
> YEAH YEAH I KNOW !!  ....I could just have turn off the _Fmax_ and be done with it. But my cpu and system is responding really well to it performance wise, and I actually got really nice clocks out of my cpu. And also it bugged me that others could run just fine with _Fmax_ and my system wouldn´t.
> So I just had to figure out what it was and why.
> One thing I want to point out, don´t get me wrong here I´m not pointing any fingers or pinning any fault on @The Stilt or anyone else.
> Just pointing out that the _PBO Fmax_ was the source of my problems.
> 
> So I have tried all bios from 0039 up until the latest 2702.
> I have played around and tested almost every days since the 0039 bios was released.
> Trying out suggestions in this thread, high and low. Turning on and off "Global c-states", "DF c-states", playing around with diffirent "scalar" and and trying 0-200mhz, different LLC, different voltage settings (vcore, vsoc, vddg e.t.c) and trying different current limits e.t.c. I´ve also been trying out different kind of ram settings and even remove 2 of the sticks to eliminate the possibility of 4-stick ram incompatibility. I just couldn´t get it stable !
> 
> And then, a couple of days ago the 3003 bios was released, and ofcourse I had to try that one to, not actually thinking it would make any difference.
> But lo and behold, so far it´s still holding it´s own, no hangs, freezes or other hick-ups. Almost a bit scared I´m jinxing it by posting this.
> PBO Fmax on
> Scalar 3X
> 200mhz
> LLC 3
> vcore auto
> D.O.C.P
> vdim 1.36v
> vsoc 1.1v (according to posts on the ROG forum that should help with 4 dimms populated)
> vddg 1.05v (and the following 2 voltages, can´t remember on top of my head)
> 
> So far it´s been stable..holding my fingers crossed.
> As soon as i feel completely safe that my system is in fact stable, I´ll work on lowering some off the voltages.
> 
> So yeah bios 3003 did the trick for me at least !
> Unless I need to, due to cpu-upgrade, I won´t be touching the bios any time soon.


----------



## pfinch

Gadfly said:


> Here are My PBO settings that both @greg_p and I are using (5950X):
> 
> *In Extreme Tweaker:*
> 
> 
> PBO: manual: 280/235/245
> Overdrive: +50 mhz
> CPU SoC voltage: Manual 1.08 -1.10v
> CPU Core Voltage: Offset 0.01 -0.06v (You want the least amount of offset as possible. Most will be @ +0.05v)
> 
> *In Digi+*
> 
> 
> Max all the current limits
> Disable all the spread spectrums
> SOC LLC: Level 3
> CPU LLC: Level 1 or Level 2
> _*Note:* You want the all core voltage to be as low as possible to get the highest all core boost that you can. My logic here is that I am using core voltage offset to maintain enough voltage for a stable single core boost, but the lowest LLC so that on all core loads the core voltage will droop and allow a higher all core boost clock. _
> 
> *In Advanced> AMD Overclocking > PBO*
> 
> 
> Set to advanced
> Set limits to "Motherboard"
> Curve optimizer: All core, Negative, 25


Thank you
CPPC and global cstates on auto? even on bios 3003?


----------



## greg_p

Gadfly said:


> Did you try to add more offset? Put LLC back to lvl 1, and up the core voltage offset to 0.05v or 0.06v?


It helps around 50Mhz but crazy voltages... I had better effective clocks under 2502, here it"s 100 to 150 under boost clock.


----------



## PWn3R

Hi All - Installed 3003 on my C8H (non-wifi).

1866 FCLK works with 3733 RAM. 1900 FCLK does not work (the ram I have is not on the validated list, new ram arriving today that is). I am seeing that PBO is not boosting as high even with Gadfly's settings and Fmax turned on. I had multiple cores boosting to over 5.1Ghz on the old version of BIOS 2702. Now nothing is hitting more than 4.925Ghz.

Edit: 5950x CPU.


----------



## greg_p

By the way, if gadfly or someone knows, what is the difference between the max override clock setting in extreme tWeaker-pbo and amd overclock-pbo ? Seems that only the amd overclocking has an effect.


----------



## Gadfly

pfinch said:


> Thank you
> CPPC and global cstates on auto? even on bios 3003?


No, I am pretty sure cstates are disabled, and CPPC are enabled, have a look in the settings text file.


----------



## Gadfly

greg_p said:


> By the way, if gadfly or someone knows, what is the difference between the max override clock setting in extreme tWeaker-pbo and amd overclock-pbo ? Seems that only the amd overclocking has an effect.


Should be the opposite, you set amd overclocking to "motherboard" and do all your OC (other than curve optimizer) in extreme tweaker.


----------



## pfinch

Gadfly said:


> No, I am pretty sure cstates are disabled, and CPPC are enabled, have a look in the settings text file.


Standard x570 AMD BIOS settings aren't saved at ASUS profiles. (Curved optimizer etc. too) :-(


----------



## domdtxdissar

Gadfly said:


> Looking good my friend! Few posts back i posted my daily 1.5v memory timings and settings if you want to tighten down a little


Stage 2 memory tuning is done and i have dialed in my new 24/7 settings.
Happy with the results since this is a dual CCX cpu with 4 memory sticks 

Did a quick memtest 100% task scope run to make sure everything is stable.


----------



## GRABibus

Gadfly said:


> Here are My PBO settings that both @greg_p and I are using (5950X):
> 
> *In Extreme Tweaker:*
> 
> 
> PBO: manual: 280/235/245
> Overdrive: +50 mhz
> CPU SoC voltage: Manual 1.08 -1.10v
> CPU Core Voltage: Offset 0.01 -0.06v (You want the least amount of offset as possible. Most will be @ +0.05v)
> 
> *In Digi+*
> 
> 
> Max all the current limits
> Disable all the spread spectrums
> SOC LLC: Level 3
> CPU LLC: Level 1 or Level 2
> _*Note:* You want the all core voltage to be as low as possible to get the highest all core boost that you can. My logic here is that I am using core voltage offset to maintain enough voltage for a stable single core boost, but the lowest LLC so that on all core loads the core voltage will droop and allow a higher all core boost clock. _
> 
> *In Advanced> AMD Overclocking > PBO*
> 
> 
> Set to advanced
> Set limits to "Motherboard"
> Curve optimizer: All core, Negative, 25
> 
> 
> If you have a 56/57/58/5900X You use the same settings but increase the overdrive setting from 50mhz to as high as your single core test will allow. Most CPU's will max out at a sustained 5050mhz and 5125mhz single core boost.
> 
> *To test single core boost clock:*
> 
> 
> Open HWinfo64, make sure you have the "Effective Core clock" registers exposed.
> Make a note of the top 4 ranked cores.
> Open task manager and to to the "Details" tab.
> Open CB R20, start a single core run
> In Task manager's details, right click Cinebench.exe, click "Select Affinity", uncheck the top box to de-select all cores, put a check box next to core 0, then click ok. (You will have to re-select the affinity every run unless you have an application such as Process lasso that will automatically apply core affinity.)
> In HWinfo, Look at the clock speed for core zero. It should be at your max boost + overdrive (for a 5950X using the settings above, that would be 5050mhz max boost + 50 mhz overdrive = 5100mhz).
> In HWinfo, monitor the "Effective core speed" It should be very near reported core clock. For example, the core clock is at 5100mhz, the effective core clock should be 5085mhz or higher. Generally effective clock will be reported a bit lower than core clock because of how it is calculated. (which is why the effective core clock really needs a sustained load to be close to accurate).
> Monitor Core voltage and effective core VID. Your core voltage should be 1.5v- 1.525v, and effective VID 1.485v - 1.506v. You really don't want core voltage to exceed 1.525v for sustained period (spikes are fine and normal) This is why your core voltage offset shouldn't exceed +0.05 - 0.07v.
> You should be able to complete at least 5-6 back to back runs of CB R20 without crashing.
> Once that is done, you move on to the next three of the top rated cores and make sure they are stable. Though it is likely that not all of the top four cores will boost as high at core 0.
> 
> Once that is complete move on to all core load stress testing. If an all core workload does not pass stress testing, increase core LLC to achieve stability.
> 
> Attached is a bios Settings dump of where I am at right now.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2468767
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2468768


thanks !

concerning your procedure, how do you exactly proceed the step below :

« Once that is done, you move on to the next three of the top rated cores and make sure they are stable. «

I don’t really get what you mean and how to proceed here.

thank you.


----------



## akkuman

domdtxdissar said:


> Did a quick memtest 100% task scope run to make sure everything is stable.


Memtest needs 500%+ I had failed trys with 300%+


----------



## Alemancio

kuutale said:


> is the normal 5000 series if gaming temps goes 70-75 gaming, paste is kryonaut. i have conductnaut but that's kill cpu warranty? or my paste method is wrong? suggestion? not overlock only performance core boost enabled and memory is 3733cl16 flck 1866


if you're talking about the 5800x then yes. Otherwise no.


----------



## Gadfly

GRABibus said:


> thanks !
> 
> concerning your procedure, how do you exactly proceed the step below :
> 
> « Once that is done, you move on to the next three of the top rated cores and make sure they are stable. «
> 
> I don’t really get what you mean and how to proceed here.
> 
> thank you.


Instead of setting the cpu affinity to core 0, set it to the #2 rated core. For example, if core 7 is shown as the number 2 core in hwinfo / ryzen master; set your cpu affinity to core 14 in task manager.

(Core 0 is cpu 0 &1 in task manager, core 1 is cpu 2 & 3, core 2 is cpu 4 & 5, etc.)


----------



## Gadfly

akkuman said:


> Memtest needs 500%+ I had failed trys with 300%+


Hcimemtest needs 2000% for stability testing.


----------



## mrazster

CyrIng said:


> So you are runing Arch as I do but I stick to 2206 for stability reasons.
> 
> Please let me know if BIOS version 3003 can *pass* my CoreFreq stress algorithms


Yeah, I tried a couple of them and they ran just fine..no problems.
In the screenshot below it´s running _"Hyberboloid 2 Sheets"_.
Really nice tool...great work !


----------



## Alemancio

Gadfly said:


> Here are My PBO settings that both @greg_p and I are using (5950X):
> 
> *In Extreme Tweaker:*
> 
> 
> PBO: manual: 280/235/245
> Overdrive: +50 mhz
> CPU SoC voltage: Manual 1.08 -1.10v
> CPU Core Voltage: Offset 0.01 -0.06v (You want the least amount of offset as possible. Most will be @ +0.05


Thanks for your guide! Quick questions:

1. Why only +50MHz offset?
2. What PBO settings for other CPUs other than 5950X do you recommend?
3. What about the Scalar X's?

Thank you!


----------



## Gadfly

Alemancio said:


> Thanks for your guide! Quick questions:
> 
> 1. Why only +50MHz offset?
> 2. What PBO settings for other CPUs other than 5950X do you recommend?
> 3. What about the Scalar X's?
> 
> Thank you!


The target is 5100mhz, getting anything over 5100mhz requires too much voltage. the 5950X max boost clock is 5050mhz. So +50mhz.

If you have a different CPU, adjust max override to target 5100mhz (or whatever your CPU can sustain).

All other settings are the same.

Scaler is set to Auto.


----------



## dr.Rafi

Gadfly said:


> - Turn down cldo_vddp to 0.9v to 0.95v.
> 
> - Then, try decreasing proc_odt a notch or two.
> 
> - Then turn the vddg's down to 0.945v - 0.955v
> 
> Put it back at 3800, 1:1. Then try 14-15-14-14-28, with trc at 42 and trfc at 280.


You are the best, i try your setting with text file and offset mode on Asus x570 itx motherboard and works like magic no cold boots even with +100


----------



## dr.Rafi

Gadfly said:


> The target is 5100mhz, getting anything over 5100mhz requires too much voltage. the 5950X max boost clock is 5050mhz. So +50mhz.
> 
> If you have a different CPU, adjust max override to target 5100mhz (or whatever your CPU can sustain).
> 
> All other settings are the same.
> 
> Scaler is set to Auto.


The scaler helps with multi thread load boost is there any issue using it with your setting?


----------



## CyrIng

mrazster said:


> Yeah, I tried a couple of them and they ran just fine..no problems.
> In the screenshot below it´s running _"Hyberboloid 2 Sheets"_.
> Really nice tool...great work !
> 
> 
> View attachment 2468833


You're welcome. 

With BIOS 3003, do you still have the interrupt in the kernel early boot log ?


----------



## mrazster

CyrIng said:


> You're welcome.
> 
> With BIOS 3003, do you still have the interrupt in the kernel early boot log ?


Yes..unfortunately i does !
Been trying to figure it out...for me it goes away if I revert back to 1302.
So I choose to stay on 3003 and live with it..since everything seems to work as expected.

@artafinde
Sorry I forgott..you asked earlier about that irq errorcode in bios 3003.
Answer as above.


----------



## mrazster

Gadfly said:


> Here are My PBO settings that both @greg_p and I are using (5950X):
> 
> *In Extreme Tweaker:*
> 
> 
> PBO: manual: 280/235/245
> Overdrive: +50 mhz
> CPU SoC voltage: Manual 1.08 -1.10v
> CPU Core Voltage: Offset 0.01 -0.06v (You want the least amount of offset as possible. Most will be @ +0.05v)
> 
> *In Digi+*
> 
> 
> Max all the current limits
> Disable all the spread spectrums
> SOC LLC: Level 3
> CPU LLC: Level 1 or Level 2
> _*Note:* You want the all core voltage to be as low as possible to get the highest all core boost that you can. My logic here is that I am using core voltage offset to maintain enough voltage for a stable single core boost, but the lowest LLC so that on all core loads the core voltage will droop and allow a higher all core boost clock. _
> 
> *In Advanced> AMD Overclocking > PBO*
> 
> 
> Set to advanced
> Set limits to "Motherboard"
> Curve optimizer: All core, Negative, 25



I applied your settings to my 3700X and it actually made a difference for me to.
I got some extra mhz boost but more importantly the boost clocks got more stable and it shaved of a few degrees on my load temps.
So thnx for sharing !


----------



## Dawidowski

Alemancio said:


> if you're talking about the 5800x then yes. Otherwise no.


What? Like hundreds of people posting on reddit temps way in to deep 70s.. when gaming. 
Even mine is hitting 69-73 with Arctic freezer II 360..


----------



## Pr3t3nd3r

Hello guys.

After a long waiting for G.SKill Trident Zeo RAM stick (4x8GB, 3600 Mhz) I got them today. My timings are 14-15-15-15-35, 1.45V and so far 0 WHEA errors and no problems with the boot. I am on the 2302 BIOS. Scores are much higher in games and Cinebench R15 (got 50 more point in Multi core test and 2 more point on Single core test).

I am thinking if there is no need to update to the latest BIOS?


----------



## PWn3R

New RAM arrived. GSKILL 17-17-17-39 4000Mhz. Still no dice on 1900 FCLK. Interestingly, GSKILL told me that they have only two CPUS out of all their testing hardware that would boot at 1900 FCLK and only with 2 sticks of RAM, not 4. I cannot get Armoury crate to install, Intarwebs suggest reinstall of Windows is required, which I didn’t do after swapping from Intel hardware, maybe on Sunday.

I guess we shouldn’t feel too bad about not being able to get 1900 FCLK.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kuutale

Alemancio said:


> if you're talking about the 5800x then yes. Otherwise no.


5950x, maybe i try re paste my cpu if that helps


----------



## greg_p

PWn3R said:


> New RAM arrived. GSKILL 17-17-17-39 4000Mhz. Still no dice on 1900 FCLK. Interestingly, GSKILL told me that they have only two CPUS out of all their testing hardware that would boot at 1900 FCLK and only with 2 sticks of RAM, not 4. I cannot get Armoury crate to install, Intarwebs suggest reinstall of Windows is required, which I didn’t do after swapping from Intel hardware, maybe on Sunday.
> 
> I guess we shouldn’t feel too bad about not being able to get 1900 FCLK.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I could boot my 4133c19 ram up to 4333 but only on DDR, the if clk was 1866 and uclk 933, and only 2 rams... Throuput was nice but not the latencies. With 4 I keep up to 1866 in sync.


----------



## PWn3R

greg_p said:


> I could boot my 4133c19 ram up to 4333 but only on DDR, the if clk was 1866 and uclk 933... Throuput was nice but not the latencies.


Yes, my testing would agree. I'm running the ram at 3733, 1866 FCLK. I haven't played with tightening timings.


----------



## akkuman

Gadfly said:


> Hcimemtest needs 2000% for stability testing.


Over 9000!!!


----------



## tabbycph2

PWn3R said:


> New RAM arrived. GSKILL 17-17-17-39 4000Mhz. Still no dice on 1900 FCLK. Interestingly, GSKILL told me that they have only two CPUS out of all their testing hardware that would boot at 1900 FCLK and only with 2 sticks of RAM, not 4. I cannot get Armoury crate to install, Intarwebs suggest reinstall of Windows is required, which I didn’t do after swapping from Intel hardware, maybe on Sunday.
> 
> I guess we shouldn’t feel too bad about not being able to get 1900 FCLK.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hi, then I must be very lucky, I have two 5950X that can 2000 Mhz, the one can 2133 Mhz, im Running on a Hero dark and F4-3600C16-8GTZR X 2, I can run 1900 Mhz with 4 stick of my ram and the cpu that can do 2133 Mhz.


----------



## RHBH

greg_p said:


> I could boot my 4133c19 ram up to 4333 but only on DDR, the if clk was 1866 and uclk 933, and only 2 rams... Throuput was nice but not the latencies. With 4 I keep up to 1866 in sync.


I'm considering buying a 4x8GB kit 4133 19-19-19-39 1.35v from G.Skill.

Currently I'm running a 2x16GB 3600C16 (OC to 3800C16) with Micron E-Die ICs.

I want to run these b-die at low latencies such as 3800C14.

Do you think this is doable?


----------



## Baio73

RHBH said:


> I'm considering buying a 4x8GB kit 4133 19-19-19-39 1.35v from G.Skill.
> 
> Currently I'm running a 2x16GB 3600C16 (OC to 3800C16) with Micron E-Die ICs.
> 
> I want to run these b-die at low latencies such as 3800C14.
> 
> Do you think this is doable?


I don't have a Zen3 CPU (mine is a 3900XT) but I can post my experience... 4x8Gb is a hard configuration for those CPU, unless it's a NEO kit.
I have 2 4000 CAS17 kits by G.Skill (not NEO) and I can't make better than 3800 CAS16 with IF 1:1. With a single kit I can push them up to CAS14.

Baio


----------



## karmal

Hello everyone I ask you experts ... I have an ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Hero wi fi with ryzen 3950x and rtx 2080 ti, I state that as bios I have the 2702 all by default in docp and everything was stable, never a problem or a smooth shutdown for 6 months this with the 3000 mhz ram hiper x fury kit of 64 gb (4 modules of 16 gb), the problems arose when I changed this ram with a 128 gb kit always hyper x fury at 3600mhz (4 banks of 32gb) among other things certified in the vendor list asusu bios the same and always all by default in docp .. the problem that I have sporadic random reboots even two a day even just surfing the internet and sometimes the pc instead of restarting remains black screen due to it physically turn off with the power button then it restarts normally I did a test cycle of about 11 hours with memetest but it did not find any errors, do you have any solution? is it better to replace the ram modules I had before? ... gives me the idea that this motherboard does not support 128 gb of ram even under windows 10 pro


----------



## RHBH

Baio73 said:


> I don't have a Zen3 CPU (mine is a 3900XT) but I can post my experience... 4x8Gb is a hard configuration for those CPU, unless it's a NEO kit.
> I have 2 4000 CAS17 kits by G.Skill (not NEO) and I can't make better than 3800 CAS16 with IF 1:1. With a single kit I can push them up to CAS14.
> 
> Baio


So the better choice is a 2x16GB Trident Z NEO?


----------



## Stoke

Gadfly said:


> The target is 5100mhz, getting anything over 5100mhz requires too much voltage. the 5950X max boost clock is 5050mhz. So +50mhz.
> 
> If you have a different CPU, adjust max override to target 5100mhz (or whatever your CPU can sustain).
> 
> All other settings are the same.
> 
> Scaler is set to Auto.


Hi, have tried your settings in the text file with my 5900X, thank you for that. 
Used 50 mhz but xmp 3600/1800 instead of manual. Was stable at first with some cores reaching 5 GHz. But then (after closing a game) my pc restarted randomly. 
Do you think I need to adjust the voltage somewhere?


----------



## dr.Rafi

PWn3R said:


> New RAM arrived. GSKILL 17-17-17-39 4000Mhz. Still no dice on 1900 FCLK. Interestingly, GSKILL told me that they have only two CPUS out of all their testing hardware that would boot at 1900 FCLK and only with 2 sticks of RAM, not 4. I cannot get Armoury crate to install, Intarwebs suggest reinstall of Windows is required, which I didn’t do after swapping from Intel hardware, maybe on Sunday.
> 
> I guess we shouldn’t feel too bad about not being able to get 1900 FCLK.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Can do 2000 stable on my Asus strix x570 try to play with Soc LLC


----------



## mrazster

karmal said:


> Hello everyone I ask you experts ... I have an ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Hero wi fi with ryzen 3950x and rtx 2080 ti, I state that as bios I have the 2702 all by default in docp and everything was stable, never a problem or a smooth shutdown for 6 months this with the 3000 mhz ram hiper x fury kit of 64 gb (4 modules of 16 gb), the problems arose when I changed this ram with a 128 gb kit always hyper x fury at 3600mhz (4 banks of 32gb) among other things certified in the vendor list asusu bios the same and always all by default in docp .. the problem that I have sporadic random reboots even two a day even just surfing the internet and sometimes the pc instead of restarting remains black screen due to it physically turn off with the power button then it restarts normally I did a test cycle of about 11 hours with memetest but it did not find any errors, do you have any solution? is it better to replace the ram modules I had before? ... gives me the idea that this motherboard does not support 128 gb of ram even under windows 10 pro


I would start by raising the soc voltage to 1.1 and the vddg voltages to 1 or 1.05, and maybe raise the vdimm a little like 1.36 (if default is 1.35).
If that doesn´t help try flashing to latest bios.


----------



## karmal

[QUOTE = "mrazster, post: 28691202, membro: 386892"]
Comincerei alzando la tensione soc a 1.1 e le tensioni vddg a 1 o 1.05, e forse alzerei vdimm un po 'come 1.36 (se il valore predefinito è 1.35).
Se questo non aiuta, prova a eseguire il flashing al BIOS più recente.
[/ CITAZIONE]
ma è possibile tenerli a 3600mhz senza agire sui voltaggi sono poco pratici e non farei danni .. non esiste un ram da 128gb che sia stabile senza fare niente?


----------



## domdtxdissar

Done tweaking my final 24/7 PBO + curve optimizer settings.
Had to handtune the curve optimizer setting for each core on my cpu to make it 100% stable and boost like it should, and it took pretty much whole day, but it was worth it in the end 

Screenshot below show the curve optimizer offset for each of the corresponding cores in ryzen master.
Hwinfo's T0 effetive clock show what each core can *sustain* in cinebench r23 singlethread with these settings. (forced the thread around by affinity)









Also did a 1000% memtester run to make sure my memory settings are rock solid.









Pretty much done tweaking this platform now.. Just waiting for my RTX 3090 SUPRIM X to arrive next week so i can start playing around in 3dmark


----------



## dr.Rafi

domdtxdissar said:


> Done tweaking my final 24/7 PBO + curve optimizer settings.
> Had to handtune the curve optimizer setting for each core on my cpu to make it 100% stable and boost like it should, and it took pretty much whole day, but it was worth it in the end
> 
> Screenshot below show the curve optimizer offset for each of the corresponding cores in ryzen master.
> Hwinfo's T0 effetive clock show what each core can *sustain* in cinebench r23 singlethread with these settings. (forced the thread around by affinity)
> View attachment 2468948
> 
> 
> Also did a 1000% memtester run to make sure my memory settings are rock solid.
> View attachment 2468949
> 
> 
> Pretty much done tweaking this platform now.. Just waiting for my RTX 3090 SUPRIM X to arrive next week so i can start playing around in 3dmark


When you put 3090 in the whole tweaking story will change especially if you upgrading significantly .


----------



## mrazster

karmal said:


> ma è possibile tenerli a 3600mhz senza agire sui voltaggi sono poco pratici e non farei danni .. non esiste un ram da 128gb che sia stabile senza fare niente?


It would be alot easier if you used english...not sure if my translation is correct, my understanding Italian is somewhat limited.
But if I understand you correctly, you´re asking if it´s possible to get your 128GB of ram stable without changing your voltage ?

If so, my answer would be, most likely not.
It is a known fact that latest ryzen cpu with at least X570 asus boards have a hard time running stable with 4 dimms.
Updating the bios and maybe adding some extra "offset voltage" on the soc and vdimm would be my recommendation.
Which is what solved my problem. After bios 3003 (Corsshair 8 Formula) my instability went away.

Take a look at this video...they explain a little bit about memory and voltages, you can skip to about 5mins in to the video.
It is intended for 1 gen ryzens, but the memory settings still applies today.


----------



## Baio73

RHBH said:


> So the better choice is a 2x16GB Trident Z NEO?


Seems so.

Baio


----------



## Huseyinbaykal

I am searching for a Dark Hero almost two weeks. Cpu gpu ram case etc are all sitting in their boxes. Any one have an advice for me? Should I go for standard hero? Or formula? I am tired searching...


----------



## kuutale

domdtxdissar said:


> Done tweaking my final 24/7 PBO + curve optimizer settings.
> Had to handtune the curve optimizer setting for each core on my cpu to make it 100% stable and boost like it should, and it took pretty much whole day, but it was worth it in the end
> 
> Screenshot below show the curve optimizer offset for each of the corresponding cores in ryzen master.
> Hwinfo's T0 effetive clock show what each core can *sustain* in cinebench r23 singlethread with these settings. (forced the thread around by affinity)
> View attachment 2468948
> 
> 
> Also did a 1000% memtester run to make sure my memory settings are rock solid.
> View attachment 2468949
> 
> 
> Pretty much done tweaking this platform now.. Just waiting for my RTX 3090 SUPRIM X to arrive next week so i can start playing around in 3dmark


is bios 3003 better than 2702 ? worth upgrade ?


----------



## Alemancio

Huseyinbaykal said:


> I am searching for a Dark Hero almost two weeks. Cpu gpu ram case etc are all sitting in their boxes. Any one have an advice for me? Should I go for standard hero? Or formula? I am tired searching...


Just get the Crosshair Hero VIII dude


----------



## koji

Huseyinbaykal said:


> I am searching for a Dark Hero almost two weeks. Cpu gpu ram case etc are all sitting in their boxes. Any one have an advice for me? Should I go for standard hero? Or formula? I am tired searching...


I have one and I really really like it, I can't compare it to other CH8's out there though, probably not that big difference either but it's a sexy board...


----------



## karmal

mrazster said:


> It would be alot easier if you used english...not sure if my translation is correct, my understanding Italian is somewhat limited.
> But if I understand you correctly, you´re asking if it´s possible to get your 128GB of ram stable without changing your voltage ?
> 
> If so, my answer would be, most likely not.
> It is a known fact that latest ryzen cpu with at least X570 asus boards have a hard time running stable with 4 dimms.
> Updating the bios and maybe adding some extra "offset voltage" on the soc and vdimm would be my recommendation.
> Which is what solved my problem. After bios 3003 (Corsshair 8 Formula) my instability went away.
> 
> Take a look at this video...they explain a little bit about memory and voltages, you can skip to about 5mins in to the video.
> It is intended for 1 gen ryzens, but the memory settings still applies today.


Thank you I will try to update the bios and keep the ram at 3600 mhz without doing anything then if it is not stable I will put the old ones back as I repeat to you I would not do damage by forcing the system since everything is under warranty


----------



## Huseyinbaykal

Thanks for replies @koji @Alemancio


----------



## Dawidowski

koji said:


> I have one and I really really like it, I can't compare it to other CH8's out there though, probably not that big difference either but it's a sexy board...


Funny how I hate my CH8. 
Boosting has been ****e on my 3900x for over a year. While my wifes gigabyte master just booted with and old bios and had better scores then my tweaked CH8.

My 5900x doesnt work with Fmax. PBO just overloads with vcore and its just hot as hell.. 
Single thread Cr20 scores are ****e in regards to what other people get. 

No matter what you change in bios nothing happens except with PBO, it hits 80c in cr20 with better multithread score and same single thread score. I bet if I tested this 5900x on my wifes gigabyte it would beat the **** out of the CH8.


----------



## Gadfly

Dawidowski said:


> Funny how I hate my CH8.
> Boosting has been ****e on my 3900x for over a year. While my wifes gigabyte master just booted with and old bios and had better scores then my tweaked CH8.
> 
> My 5900x doesnt work with Fmax. PBO just overloads with vcore and its just hot as hell..
> Single thread Cr20 scores are ****e in regards to what other people get.
> 
> No matter what you change in bios nothing happens except with PBO, it hits 80c in cr20 with better multithread score and same single thread score. I bet if I tested this 5900x on my wifes gigabyte it would beat the **** out of the CH8.


I am sorry... but what?


Boost is **** on all 3x series, in any board, and has been since release, and remains so today. 
No 5000 series works with the Fmax thing; Let me guess, you see higher clocks, but CCD1 reports insanely low effective clock speeds and your CB R20 scores don't change? 
PBO's vcore curves is set by AMD, not Asus. I am guessing that you don't understand how AMD's voltage system works. The motherboards vcore is always 1.5v as it is just an input voltage.
Your single core is **** compared to others because they are either tuning it or have better cooling. All Ryzen's, first gen though current are thermally limited. AMD set's your max boost clock (you can view it in Ryzen Master), for a 5900X that is 5000mhz if I am not mistaken. To sustain that boost clock, or to raise it, requires manual tuning. 
Enabling PBO does not really push single core scores up, what you describe, 80'C with better multicore scores and no real change to single core is exactly what is expected, in any motherboard, when you just enable PBO; because that is how PBO works. 
And no, it will not run any better in your wife's Gigabyte board. The issue is you not understanding how AMD's boosting works, not understanding how PBO works, not understanding how Ryzen's voltage regulation works, and not understanding that AMD designed the 5x series to run in the mid-80s'C range. 

I am frustrated by the current state of things, but 95% of that is AMD's bios core, not Asus or Gigabyte. If you run AMD CPU's that is just part of the game. It has been this way since the 1st gen Ryzen's released. Updating my bios went from maybe a once a year thing with Intel to several times a month with AMD; for all my boards, of all brands.

If you want help to figure things out, Let me know, but please don't come into this thread just to ***** and moan when your biggest problem sits firmly between the keyboard and the chair.


----------



## Gadfly

domdtxdissar said:


> Done tweaking my final 24/7 PBO + curve optimizer settings.
> Had to handtune the curve optimizer setting for each core on my cpu to make it 100% stable and boost like it should, and it took pretty much whole day, but it was worth it in the end
> 
> Screenshot below show the curve optimizer offset for each of the corresponding cores in ryzen master.
> Hwinfo's T0 effetive clock show what each core can *sustain* in cinebench r23 singlethread with these settings. (forced the thread around by affinity)
> View attachment 2468948
> 
> 
> Also did a 1000% memtester run to make sure my memory settings are rock solid.
> View attachment 2468949
> 
> 
> Pretty much done tweaking this platform now.. Just waiting for my RTX 3090 SUPRIM X to arrive next week so i can start playing around in 3dmark


Nice can you post your CB R20 / R23 scores?


----------



## HyperC

Dawidowski said:


> Funny how I hate my CH8.
> Boosting has been ****e on my 3900x for over a year. While my wifes gigabyte master just booted with and old bios and had better scores then my tweaked CH8.
> 
> My 5900x doesnt work with Fmax. PBO just overloads with vcore and its just hot as hell..
> Single thread Cr20 scores are ****e in regards to what other people get.
> 
> No matter what you change in bios nothing happens except with PBO, it hits 80c in cr20 with better multithread score and same single thread score. I bet if I tested this 5900x on my wifes gigabyte it would beat the **** out of the CH8.


 I agree this board for me has been rough, my master did 2000 fclk no problems booting. this board if i go passed 1866 on ram forces me to CR2 or wont post maybe it just hates my viper 4400 ram?... But one thing good about CH8 if you are unstable posting you can get back into bios without pulling batteries are having to clear CMOS


----------



## karmal

mrazster said:


> It would be alot easier if you used english...not sure if my translation is correct, my understanding Italian is somewhat limited.
> But if I understand you correctly, you´re asking if it´s possible to get your 128GB of ram stable without changing your voltage ?
> 
> If so, my answer would be, most likely not.
> It is a known fact that latest ryzen cpu with at least X570 asus boards have a hard time running stable with 4 dimms.
> Updating the bios and maybe adding some extra "offset voltage" on the soc and vdimm would be my recommendation.
> Which is what solved my problem. After bios 3003 (Corsshair 8 Formula) my instability went away.
> 
> Take a look at this video...they explain a little bit about memory and voltages, you can skip to about 5mins in to the video.
> It is intended for 1 gen ryzens, but the memory settings still applies today.


can you explain to me how to increase these tensions I'm ignorant on the subject you have screenshots I can't change these parameters


----------



## karmal

[QUOTE = "mrazster, post: 28691202, membro: 386892"]
Comincerei aumentando la tensione soc a 1.1 e le tensioni vddg a 1 o 1.05, e forse alzerei vdimm un po 'come 1.36 (se il valore predefinito è 1.35).
Se questo non aiuta, prova a eseguire il flashing al BIOS più recente.
[/CITAZIONE]
quali sono i parametri da modificare per avere 128 GB di RAM stabile a 3600 mhz? Ho aggiornato alla versione 3003


----------



## domdtxdissar

Gadfly said:


> Nice can you post your CB R20 / R23 scores?












Notes: Passmark runs really hot, had 82max temp after cinebench r20 and r23 multicore with passmark upping it to 90 (!) 
Will do a real highscore run with everything pushed to the max next week when i get the new water block.


----------



## Dawidowski

HyperC said:


> I agree this board for me has been rough, my master did 2000 fclk no problems booting. this board if i go passed 1866 on ram forces me to CR2 or wont post maybe it just hates my viper 4400 ram?... But one thing good about CH8 if you are unstable posting you can get back into bios without pulling batteries are having to clear CMOS


Sorry to hear that mate, maybe just try to sell to board and get something else. 
Ontop of this, my motherboards LED just died on last bios update. 
The only way to get it to work is being forced to get Armorycrate....worst software to run on any pc. 

People posting CR20 scores that are 650+ with their 5950x. My 5900x only does 637 at best and it took me a weak to manage to get that score since it started at 610...


----------



## Jackalito

I hope you guys realize that silicon lottery is pretty much a thing with these new chips (as they've been for years on end). I know this is not rocket science and all of you are aware of it, but each chip is unique. Some of them will boost higher with lower temperatures because they will require less voltage; some of them will be the opposite. Just the nature of things. My 5800X is nothing to write home about, by the way.

But for me it boils down to AMD coming up with more refined AGESA code updates to better suit our needs in the coming months, more than anything else. I have had ASUS motherboards since Zen first gen, and even though it hasn't always been the smoothest of rides, I like coming here because I learn from a variety of enthusiasts who know way more than me about the technology behind these platforms.

For the time being I'm not tweaking that much. I keep thinking it's best for me to simply wait until a better AGESA-based UEFI BIOS is released to kick off the fun.

Cheers!


----------



## Pr3t3nd3r

I know this is somehow off the topic guys, but since you are very friendly here, can anyone tell me if Cyberpunk is working good with your CPU? I am having lots of problems with this game and it maxes out only 4 cores on my 5950X. Do you think this has to do anything with the old bios version (since I am still on the 2311). Thanks in advance guys!


----------



## Reica

Pr3t3nd3r said:


> I know this is somehow off the topic guys, but since you are very friendly here, can anyone tell me if Cyberpunk is working good with your CPU? I am having lots of problems with this game and it maxes out only 4 cores on my 5950X. Do you think this has to do anything with the old bios version (since I am still on the 2311). Thanks in advance guys!


Friend of mine linked me to this thread of reddit because he was also suffering from low performance in Cyberpunk. Seems the fix helped him utilize a few more cores. Does not seem to help a lot though.


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/kbp0np/_/gfjf1vo


----------



## domdtxdissar

Pr3t3nd3r said:


> I know this is somehow off the topic guys, but since you are very friendly here, can anyone tell me if Cyberpunk is working good with your CPU? I am having lots of problems with this game and it maxes out only 4 cores on my 5950X. Do you think this has to do anything with the old bios version (since I am still on the 2311). Thanks in advance guys!


*








Cyberpunk 2077 gets FPS boost with a patch for AMD Ryzen CPUs - VideoCardz.com


Cyberpunk 2077 appears not to support AMD SMT? Users and reviewers noticed that Cyberpunk 2077 has problems utilizing the full potential of the AMD Ryzen CPUs, in particular the SMT (Simultaneous Multi-Threading) technology. The issue can easily be observed in Windows Task Manager, where the...




videocardz.com




*
Step by Step:
Download HxD hex editor
1. Find your Cyberpunk2077.exe, i have GOG so mines was in Cyberpunk 2077binx64
2. Make a backup copy of Cyberpunk2077.exe just in case
3. Drag Cuberpunk2077.exe to HxD, a bunch of hex numbers should appear (like 01 FF 0D, etc)
4. Press CTRL+F, change column to Hex-Values
6. Put in “75 30 33 C9 B8 01 00 00 00 0F A2 8B C8 C1 F9 08” in the search string without quotes, those values should be highlighted
7. Copy “74 30 33 C9 B8 01 00 00 00 0F A2 8B C8 C1 F9 08” without quotes
8. Back in HxD right click the highlighted values and select “paste insert”
9. Now go to top bar and click the save icon logo

Done

I did this and my CPU usage went from 50% to 90% on high crowd density. My 3070 went from 75% to 90% I gain about 10 FPS, also FPS seems more stable and less random stutters.

Also, before DLSS was not doing **** because the CPU was getting bottlenecked. Enabling DLSS now with hex-edit boosted my FPS from 70 to 100 FPS. Still slightly bottlenecked since GPU isn’t fully 100% but i am running 1080p so that’s partially the issue.

There is also a video guide available here.


----------



## Pr3t3nd3r

domdtxdissar said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cyberpunk 2077 gets FPS boost with a patch for AMD Ryzen CPUs - VideoCardz.com
> 
> 
> Cyberpunk 2077 appears not to support AMD SMT? Users and reviewers noticed that Cyberpunk 2077 has problems utilizing the full potential of the AMD Ryzen CPUs, in particular the SMT (Simultaneous Multi-Threading) technology. The issue can easily be observed in Windows Task Manager, where the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> videocardz.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Step by Step:
> Download HxD hex editor
> 1. Find your Cyberpunk2077.exe, i have GOG so mines was in Cyberpunk 2077binx64
> 2. Make a backup copy of Cyberpunk2077.exe just in case
> 3. Drag Cuberpunk2077.exe to HxD, a bunch of hex numbers should appear (like 01 FF 0D, etc)
> 4. Press CTRL+F, change column to Hex-Values
> 6. Put in “75 30 33 C9 B8 01 00 00 00 0F A2 8B C8 C1 F9 08” in the search string without quotes, those values should be highlighted
> 7. Copy “74 30 33 C9 B8 01 00 00 00 0F A2 8B C8 C1 F9 08” without quotes
> 8. Back in HxD right click the highlighted values and select “paste insert”
> 9. Now go to top bar and click the save icon logo
> 
> Done
> 
> I did this and my CPU usage went from 50% to 90% on high crowd density. My 3070 went from 75% to 90% I gain about 10 FPS, also FPS seems more stable and less random stutters.
> 
> Also, before DLSS was not doing **** because the CPU was getting bottlenecked. Enabling DLSS now with hex-edit boosted my FPS from 70 to 100 FPS. Still slightly bottlenecked since GPU isn’t fully 100% but i am running 1080p so that’s partially the issue.
> 
> There is also a video guide available here.


Thank you, but I have already tried that and it did nothing in my case.


----------



## GRABibus

domdtxdissar said:


> View attachment 2469079
> 
> 
> Notes: Passmark runs really hot, had 82max temp after cinebench r20 and r23 multicore with passmark upping it to 90 (!)
> Will do a real highscore run with everything pushed to the max next week when i get the new water block.


what’s your current CPU cooling ?


----------



## dr.Rafi

domdtxdissar said:


> View attachment 2469079
> 
> 
> Notes: Passmark runs really hot, had 82max temp after cinebench r20 and r23 multicore with passmark upping it to 90 (!)
> Will do a real highscore run with everything pushed to the max next week when i get the new water block.


Just small Note not sure though, max vcore should be 1.5 volt but you passing that , with cpu boosting, and even be more unvisible spikes when using LLC ,is that safe for daily use ?thanks.


----------



## kuutale

Notice, if u flash bios 3003 u cant reverse 2702 anymore? My latency goes up 5ns with 3003 :/ and boost deacrease up to 100mhz, but i guess it is ok.


----------



## mrazster

kuutale said:


> Notice, if u flash bios 3003 u cant reverse 2702 anymore? My latency goes up 5ns with 3003 :/ and boost deacrease up to 100mhz, but i guess it is ok.


I have flashed back and forward between the bioses without any problem on my "C8F".
I have jumped even further back than 2702 from 3003.


----------



## greg_p

RHBH said:


> I'm considering buying a 4x8GB kit 4133 19-19-19-39 1.35v from G.Skill.
> 
> Currently I'm running a 2x16GB 3600C16 (OC to 3800C16) with Micron E-Die ICs.
> 
> I want to run these b-die at low latencies such as 3800C14.
> 
> Do you think this is doable?


sorry for late reply. I have gone up to this with my adata D60T kit:








but one could get a better mem read/wr perf with a better 5950x, mine could boot over [email protected]

Ad btw, it got really unstable since last windows update, bootlooping at interface bring up. I bet this is cpu low voltage cut because it goes better by reverting to PBO auto.


----------



## kuutale

mrazster said:


> I have flashed back and forward between the bioses without any problem on my "C8F".
> I have jumped even further back than 2702 from 3003.


i try use bios asus ez flash?

Maybe i try use behind motheboard usb stick and flashback tool? i affaraid it's gona brick my board, this is first time asus ez flash not work trought bios selection 

i try go 3003 -->2702 it says selected file is not proper bios! i download 2702 asus site and board is C8H basic version, i format my usb stick ntfs but not work, ****


----------



## mrazster

kuutale said:


> i try use bios asus ez flash?
> 
> Maybe i try use behind motheboard usb stick and flashback tool? i affaraid it's gona brick my board, this is first time asus ez flash not work trought bios selection
> 
> i try go 3003 -->2702 it says selected file is not proper bios! i download 2702 asus site and board is C8H basic version, i format my usb stick ntfs but not work, ****



I was under the impression that the usbstick had to be formatted with fat32 in order to make it readable in uefi, but maybe I´m wrong here.
Anyway mine is formatted with fat32, I put all my UEFI firmware files on it and flas it from within the UEFI, works perfectly every time for me.


----------



## greg_p

kuutale said:


> i try use bios asus ez flash?
> 
> Maybe i try use behind motheboard usb stick and flashback tool? i affaraid it's gona brick my board, this is first time asus ez flash not work trought bios selection
> 
> i try go 3003 -->2702 it says selected file is not proper bios! i download 2702 asus site and board is C8H basic version, i format my usb stick ntfs but not work, ****


I did 3003 to 2502 using bios flashback, update through bios doesn't recognize previous bioses once updated to 3003.


----------



## CJMitsuki

greg_p said:


> sorry for late reply. I have gone up to this with my adata D60T kit:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2469161
> 
> 
> 
> but one could get a better mem read/wr perf with a better 5950x, mine could boot over [email protected]
> 
> Ad btw, it got really unstable since last windows update, bootlooping at interface bring up. I bet this is cpu low voltage cut because it goes better by reverting to PBO auto.


Have you tested the memory for 4-6 hours with a reputable memory test? I say that bc many of those timings seem very odd and those symptoms also point toward memory errors and possible system file corruption.


----------



## CYoung234

Hello all. I am writing to ask if there is really any advantage to any of the newer BIOSes? I am running a 3900X on a Crosshait VIII WiFi and non-QVL memory. I am running 1302 at present. I need to test a configuration for at least a week to be sure I do not get any Windows 41 reboots. I have a very stable setup now, and get 18000+ scores in Cinebench R23. Because of the long test time, and the fact that this is a production system, I am very hesitant to test anything new. 

Convince me? Not a challenge, just a question. Thanks.


----------



## chaosweapon

Is the random reboots bug resolved in BIOS 3003?

@CYoung234 , sometimes you get faster boot times.


----------



## CYoung234

chaosweapon said:


> Is the random reboots bug resolved in BIOS 3003?
> 
> @CYoung234 , sometimes you get faster boot times.


Yes, it is true that the older BIOSes boot slower. But, I almost never reboot anyhow...


----------



## Gadfly

Quick first pass at a static OC, thus far I like it a lot better than PBO, and despite the lower single core clock speed gaming FPS does not appear to be decreased, even when I do a 1080p run. Best of all the CPU runs at a much lower voltage (1.24v), and at much lower temps. With my fully tuned PBO profile I would push mid-80's 'C during a CB R20 run, Now I see high 60's 'C.

PBO is nice for the single core boost clock, but honestly, it still can't top a static OC. 










I also did some voltage scaling tests to see how each of the CCD's overclocked compared to my my 3950X.. It is pretty interesting to see how big a jump there is from Zen2 to Zen3:

5950X (Red line on CCD1 = Did not pass) 










3950X:











What is clear is that AMD is still putting one Good CCD with one bottom bin CCD. I suspect that the CCD1 in the 5900X/5950X is below 5600X bin quality. This seriously limits the all core clocks. I believe that 4875mhz is possible at 1.325v on CCD0, but with the trash bin CCD1... well MAYBE 4750mhz, more likely 4725mhz; but I will give it a shot. I believe that the best daily settings will be 4850/4725 @1.306v; and hopefully thermals don't become too big of an issues during all core workloads.


----------



## EnJoY

Gadfly said:


> Quick first pass at a static OC, thus far I like it a lot better than PBO, and despite the lower single core clock speed gaming FPS does not appear to be decreased, even when I do a 1080p run. Best of all the CPU runs at a much lower voltage (1.24v), and at much lower temps. With my fully tuned PBO profile I would push mid-80's 'C during a CB R20 run, No I see high 60's 'C.
> 
> PBO is nice for the single core boost clock, but honestly, it still can't top a static OC.


Nice, is that 4.8GHz or 4.7GHz that you're running with? I just input your PBO settings last night on my 5800x (+200MHz vs +50MHz) and I'm seeing spikes of 5049MHz on multiple cores and most cores hotting 4949MHz, however under sustained load it's more like 4649Mhz. The curve optimizer settings that you provided caused my OS to boot loop, very strange.

My temps hit 91C in Prime95 Blend with the Arctic Freezer II 360 and I am unable to get any higher than 1866MHz FCLK. Exact same RAM that you have on BIOS 3003/C8H WIFI.


----------



## Gadfly

Pr3t3nd3r said:


> I know this is somehow off the topic guys, but since you are very friendly here, can anyone tell me if Cyberpunk is working good with your CPU? I am having lots of problems with this game and it maxes out only 4 cores on my 5950X. Do you think this has to do anything with the old bios version (since I am still on the 2311). Thanks in advance guys!


I am having no issues with the game.

The game is limited to 4 cores due to the way it is coded, there is nothing you can do about that.


----------



## Gadfly

EnJoY said:


> Nice, is that 4.8GHz or 4.7GHz that you're running with? I just input your PBO settings last night on my 5800x (+200MHz vs +50MHz) and I'm seeing spikes of 5049MHz on multiple cores and most cores hotting 4949MHz, however under sustained load it's more like 4649Mhz. The curve optimizer settings that you provided caused my OS to boot loop, very strange.
> 
> My temps hit 91C in Prime95 Blend with the Arctic Freezer II 360 and I am unable to get any higher than 1866MHz FCLK. Exact same RAM that you have on BIOS 3003/C8H WIFI.


Yes. Cores 0-7 @ 4.8ghz, and cores 8-15 @ 4.7ghz.

What does Ryzen master report as your CPU's max boost? 4.95ghz correct? You should only need +150mhz overdrive to hit 5.1ghz.

What do you have LLC set at? Make sure that SoC LLC is at level 3, CPU LLC lvl 1 or 2.

While testing settings I don't worry too much about stability testing until I have the system dialed in. When you start just use CB R20 for 2-3 back to back runs to get you 95% of the way there.

You can start with -15 on core optimizer with cpu voltage on auto, then work the negative curve offset down until you have all core instability, or until the all core boost clock stops increasing. There is no point in running the neg curve value beyond whatever gives you max all core boost..

Once you have your all core set to highest stable neg offset / highest all core boost clock, Move on to single core.

Open cinebench and open task manager. Start a single core run, then on task manager's details tab, find cinebench, right click and set cpu affinity. Leave only core zero checked.

In hwinfo, click the clock to reset the counters after the single core run starts, and after you set cpu affinity. Then monitor the core 0 effective clock. It should be very close or the same as core frequency.

If the run fails, Start adding positive cpu core voltage offset to get your single core stable.

Once done stability test with IBT linpack on very high/high for 10 passes, Blender Benchmark (all scenes), 1 hour of P95 blend with AVX disabled.

For the FCLK:

Post a Zentimings screen shot, you should have no problem hitting 1900fclk with a 5800X and bios 3003.


----------



## Gadfly

chaosweapon said:


> Is the random reboots bug resolved in BIOS 3003?
> 
> @CYoung234 , sometimes you get faster boot times.


I have not had any random reboots in 3003.


----------



## GRABibus

Gadfly said:


> I have not had any random reboots in 3003.


even at idle ?


----------



## Gadfly

GRABibus said:


> even at idle ?


At all. Not at idle, or under a load.


----------



## Gadfly

4825/4725 @ 1.27v:


----------



## GRABibus

Gadfly said:


> At all. Not at idle, or under a load.


that’s a good news


----------



## GRABibus

Gadfly said:


> 4825/4725 @ 1.27v:
> 
> View attachment 2469217


#80degrees on die with 1,275V, despite your custom loop.
Honestly, it doesn’t give any big hope and headroom for 5950X overclock for those who don’t have custom loop....


----------



## Pr3t3nd3r

Gadfly said:


> I am having no issues with the game.
> 
> The game is limited to 4 cores due to the way it is coded, there is nothing you can do about that.


Same processor as mine?


----------



## greg_p

Nice try withh all core OC, but isn't there any downclocking when core load in close to 0? or the scheduler just sleep cpus instead.
I am seeing huge drops in Vcore under CBR20 load, from 1.30 that I put, descend as low as 1.206V. You did mention 1.275, was that a setting or a watched value - edit, actually it's in your spreadsheet )


----------



## Muqeshem

Very nice results, I myself own an crosshair impact viii and I noticed with a static oc the temps are very tamed and well under control. I am currently running 4.7 all cores with 1.3 volt which seems high when I see @Gadfly oc. Did anyone try to oc their ryzen 9 5900x yet ? Also what is the best bios currently for ryzen 5000 series ?


----------



## Gadfly

GRABibus said:


> #80degrees on die with 1,275V, despite your custom loop.
> Honestly, it doesn’t give any big hope and headroom for 5950X overclock for those who don’t have custom loop....


And it is a massive custom loop. 4x 480mm rads, dual D5 pumps, and 30x120mm fans.... 

But, that is all Ryzen's. From the 1st gen to current gen; all have been thermally limited. Honestly, Ryzen's would see a massive benefit from some sub-ambient cooling. I have seriously been considering breaking out my old TEC's to see if I can knock 30-40'C off and pick up a few hundred mhz.

Hopefully AMD comes out with an active TEC cooler like Intel has done recently.


----------



## EnJoY

Gadfly said:


> For the FCLK:
> 
> Post a Zentimings screen shot, you should have no problem hitting 1900fclk with a 5800X and bios 3003.












Passes TM5, just working on getting Prime stable now. I'm finding VDDG IOD and CCD in increments are 0.005 are making a significant impact on stability, even when just tightening timings.

I was just working on 1866MHz prior to this and gave up after a few hours inching up VDDG, SOC and VDIMM, nothing seemed to be able to get it TM5 stable. To me this feels like silicon limitations.


----------



## Gadfly

greg_p said:


> Nice try withh all core OC, but isn't there any downclocking when core load in close to 0? or the scheduler just sleep cpus instead.
> I am seeing huge drops in Vcore under CBR20 load, from 1.30 that I put, descend as low as 1.206V. You did mention 1.275, was that a setting or a watched value - edit, actually it's in your spreadsheet )


SVI2 under load. input voltage is in the excel spread sheet, currently running LLC4 to keep the droop under control.


----------



## Gadfly

EnJoY said:


> View attachment 2469228
> 
> 
> Passes TM5, just working on getting Prime stable now. I'm finding VDDG IOD and CCD in increments are 0.005 are making a significant impact on stability, even when just tightening timings.
> 
> I was just working on 1866MHz prior to this and gave up after a few hours inching up VDDG, SOC and VDIMM, nothing seemed to be able to get it TM5 stable. To me this feels like silicon limitations.


Try this:

Load the timings from DRAM calc for 3800 Safe then:


Set VDDG's at 0.945v
Soc: 1.1v
DRAM voltage: 1.5v (This is important, set it to 1.5v with these RTT values)
CLDO_VDDP 0.9v
Memory speed: 2133
SoC LLC: lvl 3
CPU LLC: lvl1
Fclk: 1900mhz
ProcODT 40.0
RTTNom RZQ/7
RTTWR: OFF/0
RTTPark: RZQ/6
ClkDrvStr: 60ohm
All the other DrvStr: 20ohm
If that boots set your memory to 1900mhz, then see if you can pass TM5.

You can then start to tighten your timings from there.


----------



## GRABibus

Gadfly said:


> And it is a massive custom loop. 4x 480mm rads, dual D5 pumps, and 30x120mm fans....
> 
> But, that is all Ryzen's. From the 1st gen to current gen; all have been thermally limited. Honestly, Ryzen's would see a massive benefit from some sub-ambient cooling. I have seriously been considering breaking out my old TEC's to see if I can knock 30-40'C off and pick up a few hundred mhz.
> 
> Hopefully AMD comes out with an active TEC cooler like Intel has done recently.


what can I hope with my Corsair H115i RGB Platinum ? 1,2V max ? 😂


----------



## Gadfly

GRABibus said:


> what can I hope with my Corsair H115i RGB Platinum ? 1,2V max ? 😂


1.2 -1.25v depending on your fans.


----------



## GRABibus

Gadfly said:


> 1.2 -1.25v depending on your fans.


I will put them at 100% (I don’t care about noise, if it helps concerning temps) and will mount a push-pull config.
In case of it is not sufficient to at least hav acceptable temps during stress tests (Max 85degrees), I will switch to Artic Freezer II 360.

by the way, I will set an OC profile and test its stability with Realbench 2.56 and HCI Memtest.
To evaluate my cooling, I will make 10 minutes of Prime95 v26.6 Small FFT’s (Last version without AVX).
I don’t want to run Prime 95 last versions (my cooling won’t be able to run it by the way...) and for my rig (99% gaming) , it would unrealistic load and test..

would it be possible that you rapidly check which temps you get with Prime95 v26.6 Small FFT’s during 10 minutes and your all core clock OC and 1,3V?

thank you in advance.


----------



## shaolin95

Gadfly said:


> Quick first pass at a static OC, thus far I like it a lot better than PBO, and despite the lower single core clock speed gaming FPS does not appear to be decreased, even when I do a 1080p run. Best of all the CPU runs at a much lower voltage (1.24v), and at much lower temps. With my fully tuned PBO profile I would push mid-80's 'C during a CB R20 run, Now I see high 60's 'C.
> 
> PBO is nice for the single core boost clock, but honestly, it still can't top a static OC.
> 
> 
> 
> I also did some voltage scaling tests to see how each of the CCD's overclocked compared to my my 3950X.. It is pretty interesting to see how big a jump there is from Zen2 to Zen3:
> 
> 5950X (Red line on CCD1 = Did not pass)
> 
> 
> 
> 3950X:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is clear is that AMD is still putting one Good CCD with one bottom bin CCD. I suspect that the CCD1 in the 5900X/5950X is below 5600X bin quality. This seriously limits the all core clocks. I believe that 4875mhz is possible at 1.325v on CCD0, but with the trash bin CCD1... well MAYBE 4750mhz, more likely 4725mhz; but I will give it a shot. I believe that the best daily settings will be 4850/4725 @1.306v; and hopefully thermals don't become too big of an issues during all core workloads.


Would you mind sharing your settings as you did with your PBO one? I was about to try that config but rather try this new one with static OC first.
Thanks a lot for all the help you provide on this thread!!!


----------



## James Cole

[DELETE]


----------



## Gadfly

shaolin95 said:


> Would you mind sharing your settings as you did with your PBO one? I was about to try that config but rather try this new one with static OC first.
> Thanks a lot for all the help you provide on this thread!!!


sure next time I reboot I will do an export of the settings for you.


----------



## K4n4rd0

Gadfly said:


> I am having no issues with the game.
> 
> The game is limited to 4 cores due to the way it is coded, there is nothing you can do about that.


Try that, it worked on my 5900x.


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/kbp0np


----------



## CyrIng

Letting you know that BIOS 2206 is robust with 3950X + CH8-WiFi running Linux 5.9.14
_( despite the unfixed AMD+ASUS ? issue of __common_interrupt: 1.55 No irq handler for vector )_

Dual G.Skill Trident GTZN capable of 3733 MHz at 1.35V

Here passing the _CoreFreq_ atomic-burn tests with success:


----------



## greg_p

K4n4rd0 said:


> Try that, it worked on my 5900x.
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/kbp0np


720p with 3080, so funny


----------



## shaolin95

Gadfly said:


> sure next time I reboot I will do an export of the settings for you.


Thank you! Looking forward to testing those settings.


----------



## kuutale

can someone advice curved optimizer, i cant get it stable 5950x do i need vcore offset?or llc maybe both? i try -15 allcores and 20- is very bad bsod?


----------



## Gadfly

kuutale said:


> can someone advice curved optimizer, i cant get it stable 5950x do i need vcore offset?or llc maybe both? i try -15 allcores and 20- is very bad bsod?


Try this:


Curve optimizer -25 (all core)
PBO: 300/245/245
+50 Mhz 
scaler: Auto
CPU LLC level 1
SoC LLC level 3
CPU voltage offset +0.05v


----------



## greg_p

Gadfly said:


> Curve optimizer -25 (all core)
> PBO: 300/245/245
> +50 Mhz
> scaler: Auto
> CPU LLC level 1
> SoC LLC level 3
> CPU voltage offset +0.05v


And if it doesn't work like mine because you didn't won the silicon lottery game, you can try these with less expecations on performance - which depends on bios version, the best been the 2702, worse 3003.

Curve optimizer -25 on CCD2, -15 on CCD1 with -5 on you 2 best cores
PBO: 300/245/245
+50 Mhz
scaler: Auto
CPU LLC level 1
SoC LLC level 3
Cpu voltage auto.

Your cpu will top 5100 on CCD1 but will never keep it under full heavy load or AVX stuff suck like CBR20


----------



## Gadfly

greg_p said:


> And if it doesn't work like mine because you didn't won the silicon lottery game, you can try these with less expecations on performance - which depends on bios version, the best been the 2702, worse 3003.
> 
> Curve optimizer -25 on CCD2, -15 on CCD1 with -5 on you 2 best cores
> PBO: 300/245/245
> +50 Mhz
> scaler: Auto
> CPU LLC level 1
> SoC LLC level 3
> Cpu voltage auto.
> 
> Your cpu will top 5100 on CCD1 but will never keep it under full heavy load or AVX stuff suck like CBR20


So you are reducing / pulling more voltage on the "bad" ccd than the good one, and even less on the best cores?

Or am I reading that wrong?


----------



## greg_p

I could reduce voltage more on the bad CCD, but frequencies are lower, either in max or effective. Actually I could get max freq around 4600 to 4800 on CCD2 with -25, and 4975 to 5100 on CCD1 with -5 to -15, but effective clocks are another stories, very close to max on CCD2 but 4900 to 4975 on CCD1, still missing some volts.


----------



## Gadfly

greg_p said:


> I could reduce voltage more on the bad CCD, but frequencies are lower, either in max or effective. Actually I could get max freq around 4600 to 4800 on CCD2 with -25, and 4975 to 5100 on CCD1 with -5 to -15, but effective clocks are another stories, very close to max on CCD2 but 4900 to 4975 on CCD1, still missing some volts.


ugh... clock stretching strikes again


----------



## Bizkitcan

Ohhh boy, built my a new computer, last one was 6 years ago. Previous one was ASUS ROG Hero flavor too, but intel.

It seems I have some serious reading to do about manually fiddling with the RAM. I cannot get the ram to run @ sold as / advertised PC3600 without taking a dump.

Build:

5900X
Asus ROG Crossfire VIII x570, on 3003 bios, tried with 2702.
CORSAIR Vengeance RGB Pro 32GB (4 x 8GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3600 (PC4 28800) Intel XMP 2.0 Desktop Memory Model *CMW32GX4M4D3600C18*

Unicorn barf.









Rest of build: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/hnpgz7

Push-pull AIO for now, until I do more homework on watercooling hardline loops...


----------



## Bizkitcan

domdtxdissar said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cyberpunk 2077 gets FPS boost with a patch for AMD Ryzen CPUs - VideoCardz.com
> 
> 
> Cyberpunk 2077 appears not to support AMD SMT? Users and reviewers noticed that Cyberpunk 2077 has problems utilizing the full potential of the AMD Ryzen CPUs, in particular the SMT (Simultaneous Multi-Threading) technology. The issue can easily be observed in Windows Task Manager, where the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> videocardz.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Step by Step:
> Download HxD hex editor
> 1. Find your Cyberpunk2077.exe, i have GOG so mines was in Cyberpunk 2077binx64
> 2. Make a backup copy of Cyberpunk2077.exe just in case
> 3. Drag Cuberpunk2077.exe to HxD, a bunch of hex numbers should appear (like 01 FF 0D, etc)
> 4. Press CTRL+F, change column to Hex-Values
> 6. Put in “75 30 33 C9 B8 01 00 00 00 0F A2 8B C8 C1 F9 08” in the search string without quotes, those values should be highlighted
> 7. Copy “74 30 33 C9 B8 01 00 00 00 0F A2 8B C8 C1 F9 08” without quotes
> 8. Back in HxD right click the highlighted values and select “paste insert”
> 9. Now go to top bar and click the save icon logo
> 
> Done
> 
> I did this and my CPU usage went from 50% to 90% on high crowd density. My 3070 went from 75% to 90% I gain about 10 FPS, also FPS seems more stable and less random stutters.
> 
> Also, before DLSS was not doing **** because the CPU was getting bottlenecked. Enabling DLSS now with hex-edit boosted my FPS from 70 to 100 FPS. Still slightly bottlenecked since GPU isn’t fully 100% but i am running 1080p so that’s partially the issue.
> 
> There is also a video guide available here.


I will have to try this soon. I wonder what the gains would be with 5900X/3090... Stupid RAM is running 3200 vs 3600 atm, probably need to fix that first.


----------



## Kokin

Went from 2702 to 3003 for my 3900X + C8I and no errors or reboots in the past week. Single core scores have increased a little, multi is similar.

Single is still 4625-4675MHz for CCD0 and 4325-4400MHZ for CCD1, full multicore loads max out around 4200MHz for all 12 cores/24 threads.

PBO Fmax Enhancer = Enabled
PBO Scalar = 4x
PBO Override = 100Mhz
CPU Voltage/LLC = all Auto
DF C-states = Disabled

2x16GB (3200C14D-32GTZR) clocked to 3733MHz 16-15-15-32-48 1.45V










CPU-Z
2206 BIOS - 535.9 Single / 8184.5 Multi
0066 BIOS - 554.0 Single / 8489.0 Multi
2702 BIOS - 556.4 Single / 8619.5 Multi
*3003 BIOS - 559.0 Single / 8571.8 Multi








*

CBR20
2206 BIOS - 511 Single / 7254 Multi
0066 BIOS - 526 Single / 7473 Multi
2702 BIOS - 526 Single / 7529 Multi
*3003 BISO - 532 Single / 7556 Multi*










AIDA64 memory latency went from 63.9ns to 64.0ns and L3 latency from 9.7ns to 9.4ns, slightly lower read/write/copy throughout but within margin of error.


----------



## Kokin

Gadfly said:


> Try this:
> 
> Load the timings from DRAM calc for 3800 Safe then:
> 
> 
> Set VDDG's at 0.945v
> Soc: 1.1v
> DRAM voltage: 1.5v (This is important, set it to 1.5v with these RTT values)
> CLDO_VDDP 0.9v
> Memory speed: 2133
> SoC LLC: lvl 3
> CPU LLC: lvl1
> Fclk: 1900mhz
> ProcODT 40.0
> RTTNom RZQ/7
> RTTWR: OFF/0
> RTTPark: RZQ/6
> ClkDrvStr: 60ohm
> All the other DrvStr: 20ohm


Are these values mainly for the Ryzen 5000 series or does it apply towards 3000 series as well?


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

GRABibus said:


> I will put them at 100% (I don’t care about noise, if it helps concerning temps) and will mount a push-pull config.
> In case of it is not sufficient to at least hav acceptable temps during stress tests (Max 85degrees), I will switch to Artic Freezer II 360.
> 
> by the way, I will set an OC profile and test its stability with Realbench 2.56 and HCI Memtest.
> To evaluate my cooling, I will make 10 minutes of Prime95 v26.6 Small FFT’s (Last version without AVX).
> I don’t want to run Prime 95 last versions (my cooling won’t be able to run it by the way...) and for my rig (99% gaming) , it would unrealistic load and test..
> 
> would it be possible that you rapidly check which temps you get with Prime95 v26.6 Small FFT’s during 10 minutes and your all core clock OC and 1,3V?
> 
> thank you in advance.


Aren't you better off just running a AC in your room and keeping Ambient like at 18C?


----------



## dyanikoglu

New chipset drivers: Amd Chips Ryzen (3XX/4XX/5XX/TRX40) drivers Version 2.11.26.106 WHQL


----------



## artafinde

CyrIng said:


> Letting you know that BIOS 2206 is robust with 3950X + CH8-WiFi running Linux 5.9.14
> _( despite the unfixed AMD+ASUS ? issue of __common_interrupt: 1.55 No irq handler for vector )_
> 
> Dual G.Skill Trident GTZN capable of 3733 MHz at 1.35V
> 
> Here passing the _CoreFreq_ atomic-burn tests with success:
> 
> View attachment 2469323


@CyrIng can you please export your BIOS settings in txt and share them?

Thanks

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Reica

Bizkitcan said:


> View attachment 2469514


If you have not named your new build yet, I suggest Onlyfans.


----------



## Baio73

dyanikoglu said:


> New chipset drivers: Amd Chips Ryzen (3XX/4XX/5XX/TRX40) drivers Version 2.11.26.106 WHQL


Not official yet...

Baio


----------



## kuutale

Baio73 said:


> Not official yet...
> 
> Baio


Yes im wondering same thing? i download when it official, amd site or guru3d


----------



## Pr3t3nd3r

Baio73 said:


> Not official yet...
> 
> Baio


Why does it AsRock make official than? 





__





ASRock > Support







www.asrock.com


----------



## leoxtxt

There is a bug with latest BIOS (3003) (C8F)

I don't know if it happens with every processor (i have a 5950X) but when i set the PBO Limit (AMD Overclocking) from [Auto] to [Motherboard] it cripples the L3 Cache performance (AIDA64 benchmark), from 750GB/s to 350GB/s (give or take).

PBO Limit -> [Motherboard]










PBO Limit -> [Auto]


----------



## Krs457

leoxtxt said:


> There is a bug with latest BIOS (3003) (C8F)
> 
> I don't know if it happens with every processor (i have a 5950X) but when i set the PBO Limit (AMD Overclocking) from [Auto] to [Motherboard] it cripples the L3 Cache performance (AIDA64 benchmark), from 750GB/s to 350GB/s (give or take).
> 
> PBO Limit -> [Motherboard]
> 
> View attachment 2469573
> 
> 
> PBO Limit -> [Auto]
> 
> View attachment 2469574


Interesting.. I'm using motherboard limits and it looks ok.


----------



## Gadfly

shaolin95 said:


> Would you mind sharing your settings as you did with your PBO one? I was about to try that config but rather try this new one with static OC first.
> Thanks a lot for all the help you provide on this thread!!!


 Here you go


----------



## Gadfly

Kokin said:


> Are these values mainly for the Ryzen 5000 series or does it apply towards 3000 series as well?


5k series


----------



## GRABibus

greg_p said:


> And if it doesn't work like mine because you didn't won the silicon lottery game, you can try these with less expecations on performance - which depends on bios version, the best been the 2702, worse 3003.
> 
> Curve optimizer -25 on CCD2, -15 on CCD1 with -5 on you 2 best cores
> PBO: 300/245/245
> +50 Mhz
> scaler: Auto
> CPU LLC level 1
> SoC LLC level 3
> Cpu voltage auto.
> 
> Your cpu will top 5100 on CCD1 but will never keep it under full heavy load or AVX stuff suck like CBR20





KingEngineRevUp said:


> Aren't you better off just running a AC in your room and keeping Ambient like at 18C?


Why not 15degrees then ? 😊
Impossible to get a AC.


----------



## Gadfly

Reica said:


> If you have not named your new build yet, I suggest Onlyfans.


He can't... that's mine... 

2020build - Imgur 

Yep... 30 fans.


----------



## Muqeshem

Gadfly said:


> Quick first pass at a static OC, thus far I like it a lot better than PBO, and despite the lower single core clock speed gaming FPS does not appear to be decreased, even when I do a 1080p run. Best of all the CPU runs at a much lower voltage (1.24v), and at much lower temps. With my fully tuned PBO profile I would push mid-80's 'C during a CB R20 run, Now I see high 60's 'C.
> 
> PBO is nice for the single core boost clock, but honestly, it still can't top a static OC.
> 
> View attachment 2469197
> 
> 
> I also did some voltage scaling tests to see how each of the CCD's overclocked compared to my my 3950X.. It is pretty interesting to see how big a jump there is from Zen2 to Zen3:
> 
> 5950X (Red line on CCD1 = Did not pass)
> 
> View attachment 2469198
> 
> 
> 3950X:
> 
> View attachment 2469200
> 
> 
> 
> What is clear is that AMD is still putting one Good CCD with one bottom bin CCD. I suspect that the CCD1 in the 5900X/5950X is below 5600X bin quality. This seriously limits the all core clocks. I believe that 4875mhz is possible at 1.325v on CCD0, but with the trash bin CCD1... well MAYBE 4750mhz, more likely 4725mhz; but I will give it a shot. I believe that the best daily settings will be 4850/4725 @1.306v; and hopefully thermals don't become too big of an issues during all core workloads.


Hello 

Please everyone do not ignore and this is for everyone.

What is the best overclocking setting for the ryzen 9 5900 series ? with asus dynamic oc switching (curve optimizer) or ccx/allcore manual oc with llc and fixed voltage? or just run at stock?
What is considered to be safe voltage to run all core oc ? What are the temps are you using ? and Lastly, what bios is the best and is the threshold for fclk has been removed for dual rank memroy cause for the love of good I couldn't get 1900 fclk with 3800mhz to boot! Owner of the crosshair impact viii hero using the 2702 bios at the moment. How is the condition of the 3003 bios ?

Kindly I already commented in the previous pages with NO ONE RESPONDING! So please let's try to figure this out and maximze the amount of performance with our hardware.

Regards.


----------



## Reica

Gadfly said:


> He can't... that's mine...
> 
> 2020build - Imgur
> 
> Yep... 30 fans.


Very nice! I should take a serious look at a new case and better fans. 2x140mm in and 1x 140mm exhaust is not cutting it with this new hardware.
Kinda want to make a wind tunnel of 3x120 in and 3x120 out (or 140 preferably but good luck with that), but there's not many cases that support this.

Then I can maybe start bothering with overclocking the CPU. Kinda dreading it after reading this thread about the silicon lottery and the worse CCD 2's. xD


----------



## shaolin95

Gadfly said:


> Here you go


Thank you!
Unfortunately my CPU cannot handle that 4.825Mhz OC and fails to finish R20 plus my cooler is not able to keep it low either as quickly it goes to mid 85s


----------



## Baio73

Pr3t3nd3r said:


> Why does it AsRock make official than?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ASRock > Support
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.asrock.com


Don't know why, but I never trust driver downloaded from sites other than AMD.com...

Baio


----------



## Maloo-MF9

First post on the forum, but I've been reading this thread for a few weeks, and it's been a pretty big help to me, so I thought I'd return the favor by ceasing my lurking and sharing something.

I've got a 5900X and a Crosshair VIII Hero, and when I got started, I was seriously struggling with some odd benchmark results on Passmark's PerformanceTest 10. After a few days of pulling my hair out, I heard that disabling HPET might be a thing. So I tried it, got significantly better results, and didn't think much of it again, assuming it was just some combination issue between my Windows install and the hardware.

I did some more investigating today, and looked at the available benchmark baselines, and found a pattern. You can take a look at what I found here:


http://imgur.com/a/gETQaua


It would seem that all is not well in the land of ASUS motherboards... Nearly all of the low outliers on CPU Performance are ASUS boards. Going to post on ASUS's forum about it soon.

The good news is, disabling HPET might help. It certainly made the difference for my own results.


----------



## magnusavr

Update: Problem solved. Loaded bios defaults and put the settings back in manually. Whea errors is gone and L3 speed is back to normal.

I have the 5950x and a x570 viii hero motherboard. Was running stable with bios 2702 with PBO disabled and memory 3800/1900. No WHEA warnings. But had issues with noise/ground going from the usb ports to my usb dac. You could hear the static noise. Got worse when gaming with my RTX 3090. Solved that by using optical to my dac instead. Did not have this noise/ground problem with RTX 3090 when I used my previous cpu ryzen 3900x (same motherboard).

Thought I should try bios 3003 to see if that solved the nosie/ground problem. Saved my settings to a profile in the bios. Updated from 2702 to 3003. Loaded my settings from the saved profile.

*Now in windows I am getting WHEA 19 warnings in the system event log. 1-2 new WHEA 19 events every minute. *This did not happen with the 2702 bios. However everything seems to be working fine (not tested usb ground/noise yet though).

Is the solution for WHEA 19 to try and disable c states and maybe set idle voltages to typical? Not tested this yet.

I have also noticed that the L3 cache performance in Aida64 have been cut in half going from 2702 to 3003.

Here you can see the warnings started occurring right after bios update from 2702 to 3003.










See the L3 performance cut in half going from 2702 to 3003. *What is going on here? A default Auto setting been changed?*


----------



## magnusavr

leoxtxt said:


> There is a bug with latest BIOS (3003) (C8F)
> 
> I don't know if it happens with every processor (i have a 5950X) but when i set the PBO Limit (AMD Overclocking) from [Auto] to [Motherboard] it cripples the L3 Cache performance (AIDA64 benchmark), from 750GB/s to 350GB/s (give or take).
> 
> PBO Limit -> [Motherboard]
> 
> View attachment 2469573
> 
> 
> PBO Limit -> [Auto]
> 
> View attachment 2469574


Mine got the same bad result after upgrading from 2702 to 3003. Where did you change the PBO from motherboard to Auto? In Extreme Tweaker\Precision Boost Overdrive or under amd cpu settings? Atleast you have pinpointed me in the correct direction. Guessing getting this solved might fix my WHEA 19 errors who started at the same time. Going to test when I get home from work.

I Have PBO disabled on both places: Extreme Tweaker and AMD CPU overclocking options. Gonna try and set Extreme Tweaker to Auto and disable it in the AMD CPU options only.


----------



## Sam64

"Updated from 2702 to 3003. Loaded my settings from the saved profile. "

I recommend not to do that. Edit all values manually after a BIOS change and check, if it's still unstable.


----------



## magnusavr

Sam64 said:


> "Updated from 2702 to 3003. Loaded my settings from the saved profile. "
> 
> I recommend not to do that. Edit all values manually after a BIOS change and check, if it's still unstable.


Thanks it solved the problems. I loaded bios defaults then put settings back in manually. That fixed the L3 speed and WHEA 19 errors is all gone.


----------



## magnusavr

What is the correct way to disable PBO on this motherboard if I dont want to use it? Leave extreme tweaker to Auto and set it to disable in the cpu option or Just disable it in extreme tweaker?

Update: Not needed. PBO is disabled with default bios settings.


----------



## CyrIng

Maloo-MF9 said:


> First post on the forum, but I've been reading this thread for a few weeks, and it's been a pretty big help to me, so I thought I'd return the favor by ceasing my lurking and sharing something.
> 
> I've got a 5900X and a Crosshair VIII Hero, and when I got started, I was seriously struggling with some odd benchmark results on Passmark's PerformanceTest 10. After a few days of pulling my hair out, I heard that disabling HPET might be a thing. So I tried it, got significantly better results, and didn't think much of it again, assuming it was just some combination issue between my Windows install and the hardware.
> 
> I did some more investigating today, and looked at the available benchmark baselines, and found a pattern. You can take a look at what I found here:
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/gETQaua
> 
> 
> It would seem that all is not well in the land of ASUS motherboards... Nearly all of the low outliers on CPU Performance are ASUS boards. Going to post on ASUS's forum about it soon.
> 
> The good news is, disabling HPET might help. It certainly made the difference for my own results.


What will be the fallback clocksource ?


----------



## rawbitz

magnusavr said:


> I have the 5950x and a x570 viii hero motherboard. Was running stable with bios 2702 with PBO disabled and memory 3800/1900. No WHEA warnings. But had issues with noise/ground going from the usb ports to my usb dac. You could hear the static noise. Got worse when gaming with my RTX 3090. Solved that by using optical to my dac instead. Did not have this noise/ground problem with RTX 3090 when I used my previous cpu ryzen 3900x (same motherboard).
> 
> Thought I should try bios 3003 to see if that solved the nosie/ground problem. Saved my settings to a profile in the bios. Updated from 2702 to 3003. Loaded my settings from the saved profile.
> 
> *Now in windows I am getting WHEA 19 warnings in the system event log. 1-2 new WHEA 19 events every minute. *This did not happen with the 2702 bios. However everything seems to be working fine (not tested usb ground/noise yet though).
> 
> Is the solution for WHEA 19 to try and disable c states and maybe set idle voltages to typical? Not tested this yet.
> 
> I have also noticed that the L3 cache performance in Aida64 have been cut in half going from 2702 to 3003.
> 
> Here you can see the warnings started occurring right after bios update from 2702 to 3003.
> 
> View attachment 2469657
> 
> 
> See the L3 performance cut in half going from 2702 to 3003. *What is going on here? A default Auto setting been changed?*
> View attachment 2469659
> 
> 
> View attachment 2469660
> 
> 
> *Lol I asked my brother who also has a 5950x on the same motherboard for his aida64 result. But he runs an all core overclock. Now look at his L3 result. What is going on? He has no WHEA 19 errors either. But he has 4x16GB memory sticks I just use 2x16GB. Is that the reason for his L3 speed somehow?*
> View attachment 2469663


Hi @magnusavr,

I have similar results like you with my 5950x. 
The only way I can get L3-Cache-numbers like your brother is to enable pbo-fmax in the AI-Tweaker-PBO-Settings. 
But then my boost drops also similarly to around 4.5 and all other benchmarks are getting worse too.


----------



## magnusavr

rawbitz said:


> Hi @magnusavr,
> 
> I have similar results like you with my 5950x.
> The only way I can get L3-Cache-numbers like your brother is to enable pbo-fmax in the AI-Tweaker-PBO-Settings.
> But then my boost drops also similarly to around 4.5 and all other benchmarks are getting worse too.


Do you have 4 or 2 sticks?

I just solved my L3 speed problems and whea errors by loading bios defaults and putting all the settings back in manually . Aida64 after bios reset:









Still my brother with 4x16GB memory stick and manual OC has double the L3 result:


----------



## Spectre73

magnusavr said:


> Do you have 4 or 2 sticks?
> 
> I just solved my L3 speed problems and whea errors by loading bios defaults and putting all the settings back in manually . Aida64 after bios reset:
> View attachment 2469693
> 
> 
> Still my brother with 4x16GB memory stick and manual OC has double the L3 result:
> View attachment 2469694


His latency is awful, though. Wrong MCLK UCLK divider?


----------



## rawbitz

magnusavr said:


> Do you have 4 or 2 sticks?
> 
> I just solved my L3 speed problems and whea errors by loading bios defaults and putting all the settings back in manually . Aida64 after bios reset:
> View attachment 2469693
> 
> 
> Still my brother with 4x16GB memory stick and manual OC has double the L3 result:
> View attachment 2469694


@magnusavr Great! Loading defaults worked like a charm. TY!

Now it has correct values again:


----------



## greg_p

ROG Strix MB has a better bios I feel. Some guys on a french forum has this board and better results, just without much hassle we do have on the CH8. Bios will improve, but no for now.


----------



## AStaUK

Anyone have a rev3 of the Arctic Liquid Freezer II installed with this board using the new AM4 mounting brackets, do they fit okay or impede the capacitors/M.2 slot?


----------



## Muqeshem

Muqeshem said:


> Hello
> 
> Please everyone do not ignore and this is for everyone.
> 
> What is the best overclocking setting for the ryzen 9 5900 series ? with asus dynamic oc switching (curve optimizer) or ccx/allcore manual oc with llc and fixed voltage? or just run at stock?
> What is considered to be safe voltage to run all core oc ? What are the temps are you using ? and Lastly, what bios is the best and is the threshold for fclk has been removed for dual rank memroy cause for the love of good I couldn't get 1900 fclk with 3800mhz to boot! Owner of the crosshair impact viii hero using the 2702 bios at the moment. How is the condition of the 3003 bios ?
> 
> Kindly I already commented in the previous pages with NO ONE RESPONDING! So please let's try to figure this out and maximze the amount of performance with our hardware.
> 
> Regards.


guys what is going on ?!


----------



## Maloo-MF9

CyrIng said:


> What will be the fallback clocksource ?


TSC is what it defaults back to. I haven't noticed any adverse effects. It will reduce the accuracy of some timed events and performance metrics.


----------



## shaolin95

Hey guys is this normal? Coming form Intel seeing the latency kind of shocks me


----------



## taco9

Hi, newbie here with a Dark Hero x570 (BIOS 3003), 5900X, and 32GB (2x16gb) 3200MHz CL14 G Skill Trident Z Neo Ram. BIOS is optimized defaults with DOCP Enabled, FCLK @ 1600, PBO enabled. CBR20 multi is 8700 but CBR20 single core is only 605-610. Can anyone help me with the single core? I thought stock settings score should be ~631 based on AMD presentation from November. Thanks in advance.


----------



## PWn3R

taco9 said:


> Hi, newbie here with a Dark Hero x570 (BIOS 3003), 5900X, and 32GB (2x16gb) 3200MHz CL14 G Skill Trident Z Neo Ram. BIOS is optimized defaults with DOCP Enabled, FCLK @ 1600, PBO enabled. CBR20 multi is 8700 but CBR20 single core is only 605-610. Can anyone help me with the single core? I thought stock settings score should be ~631 based on AMD presentation from November. Thanks in advance.


Suspect it might be your ram making that difference. FCLK 1600 is 200 lower than what is normal, which would go 1:1 with 3600 ram at 1800fclk. That’s likely where your missing performance is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## taco9

PWn3R said:


> Suspect it might be your ram making that difference. FCLK 1600 is 200 lower than what is normal, which would go 1:1 with 3600 ram at 1800fclk. That’s likely where your missing performance is.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Ram is 3200MHz though


----------



## magnusavr

shaolin95 said:


> Hey guys is this normal? Coming form Intel seeing the latency kind of shocks me
> View attachment 2469716


You L3 speed is half of what it should be. You been messing with PBO? There is a bug it seems some fixed it by changing PBO limit from motherboard to Auto. I dont use PBO. I fixed mine by loading defaults in bios.


----------



## CyrIng

Maloo-MF9 said:


> TSC is what it defaults back to. I haven't noticed any adverse effects. It will reduce the accuracy of some timed events and performance metrics.


Are you booting Linux ? So TSC is always default clocksource
But for Windows, HPET has been since NT, the timer. Never verify if MS implemented TSC, thus it may fallback to the ACPI timer, worst the RTC (at least w/ NT) 

So if Linux is your kernel, disabling HPET is just confirming TSC

But Zen !
I've implemented an MWAIT idle loop and power is twice of HALT instruction ! 
Why ? 
MWAIT C6 c-state appears out of my OS governor control. Rules to trigger C6 looks hardware based only and engaged when idling with HALT only. 
One AMD kernel patch has leaked this information 

Still under R&D, my driver in the development branch offers new arguments to register 3 kinds of idle handlers: I/O-MWAIT (aka P_LVL) , HALT , MWAIT 

Project at github.com/cyring/CoreFreq/tree/develop


----------



## Gadfly

rawbitz said:


> Hi @magnusavr,
> 
> I have similar results like you with my 5950x.
> The only way I can get L3-Cache-numbers like your brother is to enable pbo-fmax in the AI-Tweaker-PBO-Settings.
> But then my boost drops also similarly to around 4.5 and all other benchmarks are getting worse too.


I have no whea errors, and no issues with L3 performance in 3003.

You need to disable c-states in AMD CBS, and leave PBO on auto in AMD Overclocking.


----------



## rawbitz

magnusavr said:


> Do you have 4 or 2 sticks?


Sorry, forgot to answer: I'm using two 32GB sticks



Gadfly said:


> I have no whea errors, and no issues with L3 performance in 3003.
> 
> You need to disable c-states in AMD CBS, and leave PBO on auto in AMD Overclocking.


Hm, I was getting +700Gb/s after resetting all to default and only enabling PBO and DOCP in AI-Tweaker.
Currently all AMD CBS settings are still untouched/default. The only thing I did was DIGI, AMD Overclocking > PBO Limits to Auto or Motherboard and messing with the Curve Optimizer. 
Now I'm back to around 300Gb/s L3 Cache:









Maybe I should try again resetting all to get a clue what setting is causing this.
Sometimes it looks to me that some AI-Tweaker settings aren't correctly set when switching from Auto > Some specific value > Back to Auto.


----------



## xProlific

Gadfly said:


> I have no whea errors, and no issues with L3 performance in 3003.
> 
> You need to disable c-states in AMD CBS, and leave PBO on auto in AMD Overclocking.


I have this Ram (F4-3800C14Q-32GTZN). I loaded DOCP and set FCLK to 1900 to match the rated speed. This system posts and appears to run fine, no issues running Karhu ram test. I noticed though that in HWinfo that I am accumulating CPU bus errors. I brought thee Ram speed down to 3666 and set FCLK to 1833 I no longer get the errors. I am a little disappointed I had to underclock my RAM. Do you this might be addressed in a future bios update?

Edit: Also to the person say to disable HPET... Don't

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/eoutjw


----------



## PWn3R

taco9 said:


> Ram is 3200MHz though


Yes, but the normal speed for 5000 series is 1800fclk and 3600mhz ram not 1600/3200.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## greg_p

I just solved a problem with Cyperpunk, actually Asus AI put a mess in the system, even if you uninstall it. I had to do a win10 in-line install to undo this mess. Before that, I had hardly 23 fps whatever the options and resultions. After that install, I could get 100% of my GPU on it.


----------



## PWn3R

Muqeshem said:


> guys what is going on ?!


There’s no nice way to say this, but your post is not well organized, based on the questions you asked you didn’t bother to do any research yourself, and that is why people aren’t responding. Making demands is not going to get you help. 

I came from an Intel system without having touched AMD in 15 years and was able to find all the information I needed by reading a few pages of this thread, searching on google, etc. if you don’t show an interest in helping yourself first, then asking clarifying questions, you are likely to continue to be ignored.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Spectre73

PWn3R said:


> Yes, but the normal speed for 5000 series is 1800fclk and 3600mhz ram not 1600/3200.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That is just not true. Please give evidence for that.


----------



## RHBH

PWn3R said:


> Yes, but the normal speed for 5000 series is 1800fclk and 3600mhz ram not 1600/3200.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I disagree with you. As AMD officially support 3200 for 5000 series. 

Whenever AMD changes the IMC support to 3600 I'll change my opinion.


----------



## PWn3R

Spectre73 said:


> That is just not true. Please give evidence for that.


I’m at work right now, but I remember reading that in multiple posts that the default FCLK was 1800, if that is not right, I apologize. I also remember seeing that in the slides from AMD on launch day or I’m remembering wrong. If it’s wrong, my bad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Maloo-MF9

xProlific said:


> I have this Ram (F4-3800C14Q-32GTZN). I loaded DOCP and set FCLK to 1900 to match the rated speed. This system posts and appears to run fine, no issues running Karhu ram test. I noticed though that in HWinfo that I am accumulating CPU bus errors. I brought thee Ram speed down to 3666 and set FCLK to 1833 I no longer get the errors. I am a little disappointed I had to underclock my RAM. Do you this might be addressed in a future bios update?
> 
> Edit: Also to the person say to disable HPET... Don't
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/eoutjw


I have indeed read that Reddit post, and several others, while doing my research. There's something else going on that's causing issues that can't be dismissed by claiming it's a simple measurement issue.
Can point to my own testing showing outliers on ASUS motherboards, but also other people's like this, also on an ASUS mobo: 



It's not just a framerate reporting error when it drops so far you can easily see the difference.


And to reply to your question specifically: Yes. Sometime in the new year. AMD has said that a future AGESA update will include improvements to fclk stability up in the 1900-2000 range. However, the engineers are currently busy working on the mobile releases, so it's a month or two out. My 5900X won't even post at fclk above 1867.


----------



## Gadfly

rawbitz said:


> AMD Overclocking > PBO Limits to Auto or Motherboard and messing with the Curve Optimizer.


Just leave it on auto.


----------



## Gadfly

Maloo-MF9 said:


> I have indeed read that Reddit post, and several others, while doing my research. There's something else going on that's causing issues that can't be dismissed by claiming it's a simple measurement issue.
> Can point to my own testing showing outliers on ASUS motherboards, but also other people's like this, also on an ASUS mobo:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just a framerate reporting error when it drops so far you can easily see the difference.
> 
> 
> And to reply to your question specifically: Yes. Sometime in the new year. AMD has said that a future AGESA update will include improvements to fclk stability up in the 1900-2000 range. However, the engineers are currently busy working on the mobile releases, so it's a month or two out. My 5900X won't even post at fclk above 1867.


1900 should be doable to everyone, you just can't leave things on auto and have it work.


----------



## aussie7

quick question:
Is anyone using the X570 crosshair VIII hero, able to get past FCLK 1900 on this board or is it locked at 1900 ?


----------



## K4n4rd0

Can boot at more but just boot in windows [emoji28]

Envoyé de mon ELE-L04 en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## domdtxdissar

Gadfly said:


> 4825/4725 @ 1.27v:
> 
> View attachment 2469217


Could you do a testrun with this static OC in this benchmark thread on the Anandtech forums ?
Handbrake 1.3.3 - Benchmark your System - New benchmark criteria

I'm really interested in how my PBO run would compare..


----------



## domdtxdissar

Have also been playing around with different settings for the curve optimizer.. 

Balanced PBO for both singlethread and multithread:









Geekbench 4 = ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser
Geekbench 5 = ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser

PBO settings for maximum multithread performance:


----------



## PWn3R

Gadfly said:


> 1900 should be doable to everyone, you just can't leave things on auto and have it work.


Have you seen this work with 4 sticks? I’ve seen most people saying they can only get 1900 with 2 sticks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Alemancio

PWn3R said:


> Have you seen this work with 4 sticks? I’ve seen most people saying they can only get 1900 with 2 sticks.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Crosshair VIII Hero is daisy chain topology, so it'd clock higher using only 2 dimms instead of 4.


----------



## kuutale

Curve optimizer question, if ryzen master shows c01 and c03 is first cdd best cores this means core 1 and core 3 ? like hwinfo show core 0 and core15, this is hard explain hopefully someone understand what i need to know.


5950x

pbo settings auto
override 50mhz
i can do all cores -17 but -18 is not stable, i try my best cores go -15 but its unstable and go black screen or bootloop. 
all voltages is auto ram and ccd voltage is manually because flck 1866. i think this is max curved optimizer?

but wondering why i cant do better undervolt my best cpu cores? 3 cores and second cdd 14 core, can some advice. thinking if im not understanding something?

it gives better single core boost and mt boost so its working. i think maybe my first cdd have very bad core and it pull handbrake alltime? if amd can show all cores how "bad" or "worse" they are this is much more easier.


----------



## Zaliandr

xProlific said:


> I have this Ram (F4-3800C14Q-32GTZN). I loaded DOCP and set FCLK to 1900 to match the rated speed. This system posts and appears to run fine, no issues running Karhu ram test. I noticed though that in HWinfo that I am accumulating CPU bus errors. I brought thee Ram speed down to 3666 and set FCLK to 1833 I no longer get the errors. I am a little disappointed I had to underclock my RAM. Do you this might be addressed in a future bios update?
> 
> Edit: Also to the person say to disable HPET... Don't
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/eoutjw


I am using similar memory - F4-3800C14D-16GTZN. 
If I use DOCP, then UCLK drops to 950 (FCLK 1900). Configured manually and got 1: 1: 1 (MCLK: FCLK: UCLK). Now 3800 14-15-15-30-48-304 1.5v


----------



## IwannaKnow

Hmmm,


gimme SAM for Zen2 please 









ASUS Enables AMD Smart Access Memory Support For 1st Gen Ryzen CPUs on B450 Motherboards, Testing Shows Mixed Results


ASUS seems to have enabled AMD Smart Access Memory on the first generation Ryzen CPUs on its B450 lineup of motherboards.




wccftech.com


----------



## LtMatt

domdtxdissar said:


> Have also been playing around with different settings for the curve optimizer..
> 
> Balanced PBO for both singlethread and multithread:
> View attachment 2469772
> 
> 
> Geekbench 4 = ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser
> Geekbench 5 = ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser
> 
> PBO settings for maximum multithread performance:
> View attachment 2469773


These scores are very good well done.

Curious to know what your Curve optimizer settings are?

Also, what did you use to test stability under various loads for each core?


----------



## Von Clausewitz

That's a 5% single core performance improvement compared to stock, that's indeed rather impressive. Can't get my 5950X up to that level at all, 2% is already a tad too much (not fully stable).


----------



## CYoung234

Based on recommendations, I decided to try 3003 in my CH8 WiFi with my 3900X. As I said earlier, this system was stable for over a month on BIOS 1302. My configuration largely came from the DRAM Calculator.

So, I flashed 3003, loaded optimized defaults, then manually duplicated my configuration from BIOS 1302. The text file of my config is attached.

I had an error 41 reboot within 4 hours, and am getting some WHEA errors as well. My DRAM voltage had been set to 1.36V, so I bumped it to 1.37 volts to see if that improves things.

Before I mess more with PBO or anything, I would like to make sure this configuration is stable. Do any of you have any suggestions for changes to my config?

I should add that I live in a hot country and am running air cooling. This is a production system as well, so I cannot afford a lot of downtime, or reboots. Thanks.


----------



## Veii

CYoung234 said:


> Based on recommendations, I decided to try 3003 in my CH8 WiFi with my 3900X. As I said earlier, this system was stable for over a month on BIOS 1302. My configuration largely came from the DRAM Calculator.
> 
> So, I flashed 3003, loaded optimized defaults, then manually duplicated my configuration from BIOS 1302. The text file of my config is attached.
> 
> I had an error 41 reboot within 4 hours, and am getting some WHEA errors as well. My DRAM voltage had been set to 1.36V, so I bumped it to 1.37 volts to see if that improves things.
> 
> Before I mess more with PBO or anything, I would like to make sure this configuration is stable. Do any of you have any suggestions for changes to my config?
> 
> I should add that I live in a hot country and am running air cooling. This is a production system as well, so I cannot afford a lot of downtime, or reboots. Thanks.


Hynix DJR/CJR can run tRRD_S as 3 ?
This would be a new thing
You waste 3tCK on tRC - should be 57 instead of 60. It's a cheating method to push only tRC for masking other "short" timings
EDIT:
tRC optimal = tRP+tRAS
tRC min = tRCD_WR + tCWL + 4 + tWR

And tRDWR 8 is a bit too low when tRCD_RD is 19/20. Should rather be 9 as lowest
Exceptions are only Micron kits (which go ((tRCD_RD / 2) - 2)
but Hynix doesn't usually behave that way
_Samsung IC goes for example ((tRCD_RD / 2) - 1) ~ IF tWRRD is used as X = < or = than (tRCD_WR/4)_

If you say this is stable, then i have to take your word
Nonthereless, push a ZenTimings screenshot ~ in order to check which voltages are actually applied








Releases · irusanov/ZenTimings


Contribute to irusanov/ZenTimings development by creating an account on GitHub.




github.com


----------



## petercar59

CYoung234 said:


> Based on recommendations, I decided to try 3003 in my CH8 WiFi with my 3900X. As I said earlier, this system was stable for over a month on BIOS 1302. My configuration largely came from the DRAM Calculator.
> 
> So, I flashed 3003, loaded optimized defaults, then manually duplicated my configuration from BIOS 1302. The text file of my config is attached.
> 
> I had an error 41 reboot within 4 hours, and am getting some WHEA errors as well. My DRAM voltage had been set to 1.36V, so I bumped it to 1.37 volts to see if that improves things.
> 
> Before I mess more with PBO or anything, I would like to make sure this configuration is stable. Do any of you have any suggestions for changes to my config?
> 
> I should add that I live in a hot country and am running air cooling. This is a production system as well, so I cannot afford a lot of downtime, or reboots. Thanks.


Have you tried DF Cstates DISABLED?

You might also want to set CPPC ENABLED and CPPC Preferred Cores ENABLED (might help performance).


----------



## greg_p

There is still some issues of stability for me, actually PBO works pretty well under full and light load, but after some high workload in time (1-2 hours), when going back to idle, I have reboots... my custom loops is around 28°C idle temps, goes to 35~36°C on load. It may seems voltage corrections on temperature are not correct.
5950X/CH8
PBO -5/-15 on CCD1, -25 CCD2, +50, 250/200/180


----------



## Reica

PWn3R said:


> Have you seen this work with 4 sticks? I’ve seen most people saying they can only get 1900 with 2 sticks.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I got FCLK 1900 with 4x8 DIMMs 3800 16-16-17-16-32-42 @1.42v. Have not really bothered finding tighter timings that work but it's rock stable.


----------



## CYoung234

Veii said:


> Hynix DJR/CJR can run tRRD_S as 3 ?
> This would be a new thing
> You waste 3tCK on tRC - should be 57 instead of 60. It's a cheating method to push only tRC for masking other "short" timings
> EDIT:
> tRC optimal = tRP+tRAS
> tRC min = tRCD_WR + tCWL + 4 + tWR
> 
> And tRDWR 8 is a bit too low when tRCD_RD is 19/20. Should rather be 9 as lowest
> Exceptions are only Micron kits (which go ((tRCD_RD / 2) - 2)
> but Hynix doesn't usually behave that way
> _Samsung IC goes for example ((tRCD_RD / 2) - 1) ~ IF tWRRD is used as X = < or = than (tRCD_WR/4)_
> 
> If you say this is stable, then i have to take your word
> Nonthereless, push a ZenTimings screenshot ~ in order to check which voltages are actually applied
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Releases · irusanov/ZenTimings
> 
> 
> Contribute to irusanov/ZenTimings development by creating an account on GitHub.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> github.com












Here is a screenshot from ZenTimings. Thanks for the suggestions so far. The timings used were pretty much all from 1usmus's DRAM Calculator. I am an idiot as far as memory goes! I do not know much at all about what these values mean.

As far as stable, how do you define stable? For me, this PC ran for an entire month or more without any crashes. The Error 41 crashes I had seen before almost always happen when the computer is idle. It is turned on 24 hours per day, usually, and is used for AutoCAD, Dialux Lighting models, etc. It also serves as our media computer for watching movies tv, etc. When I saved and cleared the event log prior to flashing BIOS 3003, there were NO critical messages at all in the log. No WHEA errors either. To me, that qualifies as stable.









This computer also will run any benchmark I have tried (CB20 / CB23, Userbenchmark, Memtest86, Prime95, etc. I use Aida64 Extreme stability test to check system stability, but I do not run it for hours, just 15-20 minutes or so.

Finally, thank you very much for these suggestions. I will implement them as well as any other suggestions you have. Once I can see that this is running well, I can try to add other overclocking or performance suggestions. But, as I said in an earlier post, I often need to let the computer run for at least a week to be sure I am not getting the Error 41 reboots. It is not just a matter of waiting a few hours to see. In hindsight, I made a very poor choice of memory for this system, but as long as I can get it running stable at 3600, it will be good enough for the work I do.


----------



## CYoung234

petercar59 said:


> Have you tried DF Cstates DISABLED?
> 
> You might also want to set CPPC ENABLED and CPPC Preferred Cores ENABLED (might help performance).


I have not messed with DF Cstates so far with 3003. I had tried it with some earlier BIOSes, and had no change to the random reboots. 1302 is the only BIOS I have used so far that I can use without these random reboots. As Veii noted earlier, some of my trouble could be the settings he noted as being too aggressive. We will see. Thanks for the suggestions. I will look at them once my basic setup is stable.


----------



## PWn3R

Reica said:


> I got FCLK 1900 with 4x8 DIMMs 3800 16-16-17-16-32-42 @1.42v. Have not really bothered finding tighter timings that work but it's rock stable.


Thanks for the information. I'm going to try harder to get mine to go 4x8. I have 2x the Trident Z 4000/17-17-17-37 kit now. Asus says this is fully validated. I don't mind if I can't get to 2000/4000. Was upping the voltage on the ram important to get booting to work? I saw one post on reddit last night of someone saying they couldn't get their 4 stick system to post without more voltage.

This kit is supposed to be 1.35v. I was going to try 1.4 and lower if it was successful.


----------



## rostock27

Hello, I have a question I have the BIOS 3003 on it but I restarted idle and that with every new BIOS the only BIOS that works is true 2206 but I cannot flash it back it is always shown to me the selected file is not a real BIOS like I come back to the 2206 BIOS asking for help.


----------



## Reica

PWn3R said:


> Thanks for the information. I'm going to try harder to get mine to go 4x8. I have 2x the Trident Z 4000/17-17-17-37 kit now. Asus says this is fully validated. I don't mind if I can't get to 2000/4000. Was upping the voltage on the ram important to get booting to work? I saw one post on reddit last night of someone saying they couldn't get their 4 stick system to post without more voltage.
> 
> This kit is supposed to be 1.35v. I was going to try 1.4 and lower if it was successful.


What did the trick for me was upping vSOC from 1.1 to 1.10625 and changing RTT_NOM from disabled to 7. But your mileage may vary.


----------



## PWn3R

Reica said:


> What did the trick for me was upping vSOC from 1.1 to 1.10625 and changing RTT_NOM from disabled to 7. But your mileage may vary.


Thanks, I tried 1.15 SOC voltage already, hopefully it's "close"


----------



## taco9

taco9 said:


> Hi, newbie here with a Dark Hero x570 (BIOS 3003), 5900X, and 32GB (2x16gb) 3200MHz CL14 G Skill Trident Z Neo Ram. BIOS is optimized defaults with DOCP Enabled, FCLK @ 1600, PBO enabled. CBR20 multi is 8700 but CBR20 single core is only 605-610. Can anyone help me with the single core? I thought stock settings score should be ~631 based on AMD presentation from November. Thanks in advance.


If anyone has any idea, would be greatly appreciated. I believe it has to do with boost clicks, as single core won’t go above 4.725-4.8GHz but temps are low around 68-70c


----------



## shaolin95

shaolin95 said:


> Hey guys is this normal? Coming form Intel seeing the latency kind of shocks me
> View attachment 2469716


Is my L3 more in line with expectations now?


----------



## domdtxdissar

LtMatt said:


> Curious to know what your Curve optimizer settings are?
> 
> Also, what did you use to test stability under various loads for each core?


You can find more information in these posts:









ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...


I could boot my 4133c19 ram up to 4333 but only on DDR, the if clk was 1866 and uclk 933, and only 2 rams... Throuput was nice but not the latencies. With 4 I keep up to 1866 in sync. I'm considering buying a 4x8GB kit 4133 19-19-19-39 1.35v from G.Skill. Currently I'm running a 2x16GB...




www.overclock.net













ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...


Done tweaking my final 24/7 PBO + curve optimizer settings. Had to handtune the curve optimizer setting for each core on my cpu to make it 100% stable and boost like it should, and it took pretty much whole day, but it was worth it in the end :) Screenshot below show the curve optimizer offset...




www.overclock.net


----------



## GRABibus

Hello,
Before receiving my new rig with 5950x, I am currently readings a lot of posts on web to learn about AMD CPU’s (I come from Intel) , AMD overclocking, etc.
But, I read a lot of threads in which it is described weird issues of reboots / crashes at idle or low loads (not during heavy loads or games).
Are you guys still experiencing these issues, even with 3003 Bios ?
Is it Bios related ? Cpu related ? Bios settings related ?

could you share some fixes (In case there are ) ?

Thank you in advance


----------



## PWn3R

Gadfly said:


> Try this:
> 
> Load the timings from DRAM calc for 3800 Safe then:
> 
> 
> Set VDDG's at 0.945v
> Soc: 1.1v
> DRAM voltage: 1.5v (This is important, set it to 1.5v with these RTT values)
> CLDO_VDDP 0.9v
> Memory speed: 2133
> SoC LLC: lvl 3
> CPU LLC: lvl1
> Fclk: 1900mhz
> ProcODT 40.0
> RTTNom RZQ/7
> RTTWR: OFF/0
> RTTPark: RZQ/6
> ClkDrvStr: 60ohm
> All the other DrvStr: 20ohm
> If that boots set your memory to 1900mhz, then see if you can pass TM5.
> 
> You can then start to tighten your timings from there.
> 
> View attachment 2469231


Hi,

I tried all the SOC and VDDG settings on my 5950x. Ram on all defaults, 2133 and I got it to boot one time with 1900fclk and 2 sticks of my 4 sticks. It froze in bios and was then hanging during post with 07, E1 or 04 codes.

Is it really possible my 5950x just has this bad of an SOC?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## magnusavr

rostock27 said:


> Hello, I have a question I have the BIOS 3003 on it but I restarted idle and that with every new BIOS the only BIOS that works is true 2206 but I cannot flash it back it is always shown to me the selected file is not a real BIOS like I come back to the 2206 BIOS asking for help.





GRABibus said:


> Hello,
> Before receiving my new rig with 5950x, I am currently readings a lot of posts on web to learn about AMD CPU’s (I come from Intel) , AMD overclocking, etc.
> But, I read a lot of threads in which it is described weird issues of reboots / crashes at idle or low loads (not during heavy loads or games).
> Are you guys still experiencing these issues, even with 3003 Bios ?
> Is it Bios related ? Cpu related ? Bios settings related ?
> 
> could you share some fixes (In case there are ) ?
> 
> Thank you in advance


To solve the idle reboots I've seen some post:
Under CPU options in the bios try and set power supply idle voltages to typical.
You can also try to disable global c states might solve this. Also in the bios under cpu options.


----------



## Gadfly

shaolin95 said:


> Is my L3 more in line with expectations now?
> View attachment 2469890


I don't think so? Here is my 5950X's Aida64:


----------



## Gadfly

PWn3R said:


> Hi,
> 
> I tried all the SOC and VDDG settings on my 5950x. Ram on all defaults, 2133 and I got it to boot one time with 1900fclk and 2 sticks of my 4 sticks. It froze in bios and was then hanging during post with 07, E1 or 04 codes.
> 
> Is it really possible my 5950x just has this bad of an SOC?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Set VDDG IOD to 1.05v, VDDG CCD to 0.950, and SB 1.0v to 1.05v.

does that make a difference?


----------



## greg_p

PWn3R said:


> Hi,
> 
> I tried all the SOC and VDDG settings on my 5950x. Ram on all defaults, 2133 and I got it to boot one time with 1900fclk and 2 sticks of my 4 sticks. It froze in bios and was then hanging during post with 07, E1 or 04 codes.
> 
> Is it really possible my 5950x just has this bad of an SOC?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Same problem for me. I can straignten timing at 1866, but 1900 refuses to boot, error 07 early in post.
I think this is a mix of 5950x quality and CH8 bios not at the point - hopefully yet.


----------



## TurboNym

magnusavr said:


> To solve the idle reboots I've seen some post:
> Under CPU options in the bios try and set power supply idle voltages to typical.
> You can also try to disable global c states might solve this. Also in the bios under cpu options.



So I've been having reboots ever since I've bought my crosshair 8 hero and 3950x combo.
I've been bashing my brains for months trying to figure out why my system shuts down and reboots on idle.









So the power supply idle voltages option is not present on this mobo.

I have put some power phase settings to "extreme" in the power+digi somehting section and disabled spread spectrum. Also bumped the sb voltage one notch up.
I manually set the Infinity clock to 1800 and my ram to 3600 and 1.35v. no XMP or DOCP or whatever it's called.
I ran memtest for about 4 hours with no errors.
I'm on the latest bios version 3003. I updated 3 days ago and haven't had a reboot yet. But it has been so random it's impossible to troubleshoot right. I went for almost a full month since my last reboot after which I updated the bios and did those power phase settings.

I want to mention that I don't overclock. I read a while back that this chip degrades fast so I'm just using things stock.
I have downloaded bios version 1302 as I have read that one is potentially reboot free for many people. In case I get reboots again I'm going to try to downgrade the bios to that.

If that still fails I'm going to RMA the stupid thing even though I really hope I don't have to.
So right now I'm basically asking you fine people if there's anything else I can try to fix this issue. I am working remotely during the pandemic and I need this thing to be reliable. Luckily so far I haven't had any issues at load but these stupid reboots can't be good for the hardware and storage.


----------



## Gadfly

TurboNym said:


> So I've been having reboots ever since I've bought my crosshair 8 hero and 3950x combo.
> I've been bashing my brains for months trying to figure out why my system shuts down and reboots on idle.
> View attachment 2469969
> 
> 
> So the power supply idle voltages option is not present on this mobo.
> 
> I have put some power phase settings to "extreme" in the power+digi somehting section and disabled spread spectrum. Also bumped the sb voltage one notch up.
> I manually set the Infinity clock to 1800 and my ram to 3600 and 1.35v. no XMP or DOCP or whatever it's called.
> I ran memtest for about 4 hours with no errors.
> I'm on the latest bios version 3003. I updated 3 days ago and haven't had a reboot yet. But it has been so random it's impossible to troubleshoot right. I went for almost a full month since my last reboot after which I updated the bios and did those power phase settings.
> 
> I want to mention that I don't overclock. I read a while back that this chip degrades fast so I'm just using things stock.
> I have downloaded bios version 1302 as I have read that one is potentially reboot free for many people. In case I get reboots again I'm going to try to downgrade the bios to that.
> 
> If that still fails I'm going to RMA the stupid thing even though I really hope I don't have to.
> So right now I'm basically asking you fine people if there's anything else I can try to fix this issue. I am working remotely during the pandemic and I need this thing to be reliable. Luckily so far I haven't had any issues at load but these stupid reboots can't be good for the hardware and storage.
> View attachment 2469969


If you have a 3950X roll back to bios 1302.


----------



## greg_p

I bet these reboots happen in idle, not during loads. I would think these problem comes from windows ryzen driver and motherboard not fast enough to raise voltage, or to an insufficient level when it's hot (after 1h more game session e.g.) and unload.
I Am getting a lot of these errors/kernel power/BSOD during these last days, and I have no idea what got different, except that I bought cyberpunk and played with it, but none of the issue did happen during the game. After 3 kernel power error this morning, I tried to reflash bios 3003 without much success, and finally testing manual OC with conservative values 46/44 1.3V, it will tell if this goes wild, but I suspect the power scheme to be not sufficiently tested, probably because there are a lot of variance in the ryzen prod today, and not many parts for testing in mobo's maker labs.

Edit: Even manual OC did through kernel power... I'll try to roll back on previous windows chipset driver.


----------



## TurboNym

can anyone point me to a correct bios downgrade procedure? the regular bios flash button or ez flash option do not work for downgrading.


----------



## greg_p

In your mobo's manual, called bios flashback. in short you download the bios package in which you have bios file and bios renamer utility.
You format a generic usb key in fat, copy the bios renamed by the utility in it, then you plug it in the appropriate usb port on the IO panel, then power down the computer. After all, just push the "bios flashback" button for 5 sec and see if the lights blink. It's all described in the manual.


----------



## TurboNym

greg_p said:


> In your mobo's manual, called bios flashback. in short you download the bios package in which you have bios file and bios renamer utility.
> You format a generic usb key in fat, copy the bios renamed by the utility in it, then you plug it in the appropriate usb port on the IO panel, then power down the computer. After all, just push the "bios flashback" button for 5 sec and see if the lights blink. It's all described in the manual.


Yes I tried doing that and it doesn't do anything. the light flashes a few times then goes solid, indicating it doesn't want to flash. I left it liek that for 10 minutes just in case. turned on the computer and I'm stil on 3003


----------



## kuutale

TurboNym said:


> So I've been having reboots ever since I've bought my crosshair 8 hero and 3950x combo.
> I've been bashing my brains for months trying to figure out why my system shuts down and reboots on idle.
> View attachment 2469969
> 
> 
> So the power supply idle voltages option is not present on this mobo.
> 
> I have put some power phase settings to "extreme" in the power+digi somehting section and disabled spread spectrum. Also bumped the sb voltage one notch up.
> I manually set the Infinity clock to 1800 and my ram to 3600 and 1.35v. no XMP or DOCP or whatever it's called.
> I ran memtest for about 4 hours with no errors.
> I'm on the latest bios version 3003. I updated 3 days ago and haven't had a reboot yet. But it has been so random it's impossible to troubleshoot right. I went for almost a full month since my last reboot after which I updated the bios and did those power phase settings.
> 
> I want to mention that I don't overclock. I read a while back that this chip degrades fast so I'm just using things stock.
> I have downloaded bios version 1302 as I have read that one is potentially reboot free for many people. In case I get reboots again I'm going to try to downgrade the bios to that.
> 
> If that still fails I'm going to RMA the stupid thing even though I really hope I don't have to.
> So right now I'm basically asking you fine people if there's anything else I can try to fix this issue. I am working remotely during the pandemic and I need this thing to be reliable. Luckily so far I haven't had any issues at load but these stupid reboots can't be good for the hardware and storage.
> View attachment 2469969


df-cstates disabled helped me my 3950x , i have random restarts mut not alltime i think bios 2206 and so on is working me i can enable cstate. cpu is very sensually wrong settings i think. i dont have chip detegration i run it 3773 cl16 memory , flck 1866, fmax on and override 75 and scalar x2, i need llc stabilize cpu idle crashes i think. TheStilt says he working this problem solved but 5000 series take all time right now. 5000 series have same problems like 3000 kernel power 41 idle crashes.


----------



## Sam64

@TurboNym: Had the same issue with newer sticks, they never worked with usb flashback. After i used a very old 2GB Stick, formatted it with FAT32, it worked.


----------



## TurboNym

Sam64 said:


> @TurboNym: Had the same issue with newer sticks, they never worked with usb flashback. After i used a very old 2GB Stick, formatted it with FAT32, it worked.


Thanks, I'm going to give this a try if I get any more reboots. Till then, I actually did find the power supply idle votage control and cstates option in the bios under advanced and common cpu settings. So I've put the powersupply on "Typical" and disabled Cstates. we'll see how it goes.


----------



## crnkoj

rostock27 said:


> Hello, I have a question I have the BIOS 3003 on it but I restarted idle and that with every new BIOS the only BIOS that works is true 2206 but I cannot flash it back it is always shown to me the selected file is not a real BIOS like I come back to the 2206 BIOS asking for help.


Hey i have the same issue. Have gotten the board new at some really nice discount, it has 2311 BIOS on it, wanted to Flashback it to the latest 3003 but nothing happened, so i tried it through bios, but i get the same error, t hat its not a real BIOS file. What i asw, is that the newer Bioses are being downloaded as BIOSNAME.ZIP, the older ones are being downloaded as biosname.zip. If i unzip the old ones with 7zip i get a warning, about payload after the archive, while with the older ones i dont get this warning. Im using the same USB 2.0 stick, that i use for my x370 Crosshair vi extreme and it always works. So it cant be the USB stick. Downloading with same pc that i do for the x370, so it cant be the pc or browser either. even tried unzipping with the built in windows 10 extractor, but same issue.
Anyone has an idea? To me it almost seems like the Bios files are somewhat corrupt on asus official page?? ROG Crosshair VIII Hero | ROG Crosshair | Gaming Motherboards｜ROG - Republic of Gamers｜ROG USA
any help would be appreciated as im having issues with the new build per se:
3900xt
Crossiahr viii wifi
2x16gb B-Die (tried two different sticks, 3000mhz cl14 and 3200 cl15), DOCP boots without an issue.
Corsair MP510 960gb ssd in the secondary m2 slot (was too lazy to screw off the primary heatsink...

The issues is, Windows always BSODs, tried an old install on the ssd (from the x370 and a 3900x), it booted, Rivatuner gave a memory mapping issue, hwinfo wouldnt load, stuck at thread 23, than ran multicore cinebench, worked, ran singlecore and it did BSOD, after that reboot and it came to the login page, with instant BSOD, after that constant BSOD during boot.
Formatted the partition, reinstalled windows 10 and it did BSOD during the first boot, each time.
Booted gentoo linux that i have on secondary partition on the same ssd, ran it the whole night with emerge (highly cpu and ram intensive tasks), rock solid/stable, no errors, slightly faster compile times than the 3900x before.
I first thought its the RAM, but with two known good working ram combos, it cant be the ram, than i thought the 3900xt is faulty, but than gentoo would crash instantly while compiling, which it didnt. So my last thought is that windows 10 cant handle the ssd on the secondary m2 slot through the pcie4 link from CPU to NB. I have a 2004 version of windows on my install USB.
I guess i could try with the latest windows usb boot media, or put the nvme ssd into the first m2 slot.

Anyone has an idea whats the issue?


----------



## genelecs

PWn3R said:


> I tried all the SOC and VDDG settings on my 5950x. Ram on all defaults, 2133 and I got it to boot one time with 1900fclk and 2 sticks of my 4 sticks. It froze in bios and was then hanging during post with 07, E1 or 04 codes.
> Is it really possible my 5950x just has this bad of an SOC?





greg_p said:


> Same problem for me. I can straignten timing at 1866, but 1900 refuses to boot, error 07 early in post.
> I think this is a mix of 5950x quality and CH8 bios not at the point - hopefully yet.


Hi, Just to add, I also have this exact issue with my 5950x and CH8 (non-WiFi) as well. Error 07- anything above 1866 FCLK.

Currently running FCLK at 1800 with RAM at 4000 (XMP) which isn't ideal, but it's TM5 stable for me.



Gadfly said:


> Set VDDG IOD to 1.05v, VDDG CCD to 0.950, and SB 1.0v to 1.05v.
> does that make a difference?


Sadly didn't work for me


----------



## artafinde

So I've been trying to get any of the BIOS > 2206 to utilize PBO properly. I understand that PBO is highly depending in thermals and silicon so I'm not looking for the Max theoretical as is probably unachievable.

I have tried several configurations but the one I found stable are:
RAM: XMP profile at 3200Mhz, FKCL 1600 locked , everything else Auto / recommended defaults which yields the below:
*Currently:*
_Single thread boost ~ 4190Mhz
Multi Boost: 4042Mhz_

Since the whole PBO FMax doesn't work at all on any BIOS it's OK if I stick to just PBO and reach:
*Ideally:*
_Single thread boost ~ 4.5Ghz - 4.6Ghz
Multi Boost: 4.1Ghz - 4.2Ghz_

For the PBO Fmax whenever I enable it (and everything else on Recommended defaults from UEFI) windows crash instantly when I start P95 so it's something to do with voltage (?).

Mobo:CH8W
CPU: AMD 3950X
Cooling: NZXT Kraken Z63
RAM: G.Skill FlareX 4x 8Ghz 3200Mhz CL 14
UEFI version: 3003

On attachments you can find my ZenTimings (as image) and the Thaiphoon Burner export from my memory (can't upload html files so just added the .txt extension at the end). 

Are the voltages for DRAM from "Auto" in motherboard setting these VSOC / VDDR and VDDCR correctly - to me they seem slightly over or under.


















Are my expectations reasonable?

What settings you'd recommend to try?

Thanks in advance


----------



## greg_p

I can run my adat memory until 4333 with async IF/UCLK, that are 2166 with pretty good throhghput on R/W but not great latencies - and only 2 sticks. With 4 stick, I couldn't get more than 4000.


----------



## RHBH

Does anyone know if there is an actual difference between these two kits beside aestethics? 









G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin PC RAM DDR4 3600 (PC4 28800) Desktop Memory Model F4-3600C16D-32GTZR - Newegg.com


Buy G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin PC RAM DDR4 3600 (PC4 28800) Desktop Memory Model F4-3600C16D-32GTZR with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!




www.newegg.com













G.SKILL Trident Z Neo (For AMD Ryzen) Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin RGB DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3600 (PC4 28800) Desktop Memory Model F4-3600C16D-32GTZN - Newegg.com


Buy G.SKILL Trident Z Neo (For AMD Ryzen) Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin RGB DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3600 (PC4 28800) Desktop Memory Model F4-3600C16D-32GTZN with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!




www.newegg.com


----------



## EnJoY

RHBH said:


> Does anyone know if there is an actual difference between these two kits beside aestethics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin PC RAM DDR4 3600 (PC4 28800) Desktop Memory Model F4-3600C16D-32GTZR - Newegg.com
> 
> 
> Buy G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin PC RAM DDR4 3600 (PC4 28800) Desktop Memory Model F4-3600C16D-32GTZR with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newegg.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.SKILL Trident Z Neo (For AMD Ryzen) Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin RGB DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3600 (PC4 28800) Desktop Memory Model F4-3600C16D-32GTZN - Newegg.com
> 
> 
> Buy G.SKILL Trident Z Neo (For AMD Ryzen) Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin RGB DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3600 (PC4 28800) Desktop Memory Model F4-3600C16D-32GTZN with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newegg.com


Yes, one is certified for AMD Ryzen platforms and therefore will be on the QVLs. For $5 extra it would be worth it if you require any support.


----------



## crnkoj

So i figured the first issue with the BIOS file, i have a Crosshair Viii hero wifi, was mistakenly trying to flash the non wifi bios.
But the BSOD is still there with windows, i moved the ssd to the first slot, but no difference, gonna try with 3003 bios now. Else id have to take the 3900x and crucial ram from my other board and see if that works.. Not sure if its a faulty cpu or mobo, the rest is known working... But i cant explain it, why linux works flawlessly.

EDIT:
so figured the issues. The CPU seems to be defective (weird as it was a new tray cpu directly from dealer). By disabling CCD2 in BIOS it boots normally into windows, everything works, again enabling it, fails to boot with bluescreen. Even trying to disable PBO, enabliing eco mode, diabling SMT or even reducing to 2+2 but letting CCD2 online, fails to boot.


----------



## HyperC

Does anyone have 4400mhz viper steel with this board? 4 dimms will not boot CR1 unless i only use 2 sticks, doesnt matter if i try FCLK 1200 1400 1600... Boots zero issues with CR2 truly believe this board hates the ram tried almost ever timing combo ohms etc...I can boot 2000 FLCK but not stable usb drops with 2 dimms


----------



## shaolin95

Gadfly said:


> I don't think so? Here is my 5950X's Aida64:
> 
> View attachment 2469961


ouch!
This is what mine looks like right noiw:








I am considering moving to the royal 3600 C14 kit next.


----------



## leandrolnh

TurboNym said:


> Yes I tried doing that and it doesn't do anything. the light flashes a few times then goes solid, indicating it doesn't want to flash. I left it liek that for 10 minutes just in case. turned on the computer and I'm stil on 3003


The flash drive must be partitioned with MBR, otherwise it won't be recognized.


----------



## Gadfly

shaolin95 said:


> ouch!
> This is what mine looks like right noiw:
> View attachment 2470012
> 
> I am considering moving to the royal 3600 C14 kit next.


Your L3 issues are not the memory, it is the bios. 

I attached my bios settings, find the C-states, power delivery settings, etc. and update your settings and it should get a lot better.


----------



## shaolin95

Gadfly said:


> Your L3 issues are not the memory, it is the bios.
> 
> I attached my bios settings, find the C-states, power delivery settings, etc. and update your settings and it should get a lot better.


Awesome, thank you!!!!!!


----------



## PWn3R

Gadfly said:


> Set VDDG IOD to 1.05v, VDDG CCD to 0.950, and SB 1.0v to 1.05v.
> 
> does that make a difference?


Made it to Windows with RAM @3800 and 1900FCLK and promptly rebooted. Not even stable in BIOS. I tried 1.4v RAM, and upping IOD to 1.075 and CCD to 0.975 no change. I didn’t get to Windows again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LtMatt

Gadfly said:


> Your L3 issues are not the memory, it is the bios.
> 
> I attached my bios settings, find the C-states, power delivery settings, etc. and update your settings and it should get a lot better.


My settings are virtually identical to yours, even the memory timings. However copying your BIOS settings did not fix my L3 issue.

What appears to cause it on my system is simply enabling PBO. I noticed on your screenshots it is on Auto.

Screenshot below with PBO on Auto, once enabled my L3 scores are halved.


----------



## greg_p

Gadfly said:


> Your L3 issues are not the memory, it is the bios.
> 
> I attached my bios settings, find the C-states, power delivery settings, etc. and update your settings and it should get a lot better.


Actually the 2 last days were full of instabilities, such as I revert to manual overclock 45/1.31 with mem settings.
I had a look at your, actually you trimmed the electrical part which is something I have no idea about. I just copy only the procODT, RTTxxx, and resistor value. I still don't understand why it boosted up the L3 settings .










Led by my good mood, I gave it another try at FCLK1900, but there is a hard wall. I could go down to VSOC1.12V for 1866 and works ok, but there is like a hard wall at 1900, it says F9, and then post in safe mod.


----------



## LtMatt

greg_p said:


> resistor


What is the resistor value you refer to?


----------



## greg_p

The 4 xxxxclkdrvstr values that were basically set to auto, but gadfly did manually change them. I just changes these 8 parameters from auto. I don't understand it but just observe it looks like it has an effect on Aida l3 cache test value, and some hundreds in cbr20


----------



## CyrIng

C-States are working fine. No reasons to disable them. 
Still 2206 BIOS, I'm measuring the TSC cycles spent whilst kernel is idling: most happen in deep C6, less in C2. 
HALT and IO-MWAIT instructions are preferred to MWAIT b/c less power consummed according to the RAPL counters. 
In short, C-STATES enabled does not improve nor reduce my 3950X single Core max boost frequency but it provides a better low Core voltage while idling. 

For Zen 1 & 2, Projet is available in the development branch of CoreFreq. 
* You have start my driver with a bunch of arguments : 
Idle_Route=1 
Override_SubCstate=1,1,1,1,1,1 
Register_CPU_Idle=1 
Register_Governor=1 
Register_ClockSource=1 

* Make with DELAY_TSC

* And fulfill the CoreFreq prerequisites: blacklist any cpufreq & cpuidle kernel default drivers


----------



## Alias

Got the Dark Hero paired with a 5900x and getting WHEA errors while gaming or when doing OCCT power test but not with TestMem5. So to trouble shoot this , I set my 3600 C16 Bdie Memory to 3800 with IF 1900 with 1.1 VSOC, 1.4v for RAM and Loosened timings (C18) but still keep getting the WHEA errors. 

Wondering if this is still a BIOS issue or am I missing something that is needed to achieve 3800 speeds? 3733 works fine.


----------



## HyperC

OFF TOPIC, So i got this motherboard around a week ago, been bored and decided to lap my CPU installed everything powered up pc... Receive message new cpu detected and locked all my hard drives backup keys don't work doesn't even let me select the drive so yeah very salty nothing better then formatting another 200+ gigs plus all my backups.. This option should not be enabled period be careful


----------



## genelecs

LtMatt said:


> My settings are virtually identical to yours, even the memory timings. However copying your BIOS settings did not fix my L3 issue.
> What appears to cause it on my system is simply enabling PBO. I noticed on your screenshots it is on Auto.
> Screenshot below with PBO on Auto, once enabled my L3 scores are halved.


I'm in a similar boat - curiously I get the following L3 cache (please ignore my horrible RAM timings.. its the only thing I can get stable for now)

PBO Off:









PBO Auto:









PBO On:











greg_p said:


> The 4 xxxxclkdrvstr values that were basically set to auto, but gadfly did manually change them. I just changes these 8 parameters from auto. I don't understand it but just observe it looks like it has an effect on Aida l3 cache test value, and some hundreds in cbr20


I tried experimenting with the Termination and CAD_BUS resistances (albeit only a little bit as this is my first time experimenting with these values) but couldn't seem to improve over my "PBO Auto" L3 benchmarks.


----------



## slow4cyl

Seems to be specific to 3003, I get the same issue with PBO. Any setting other than auto will cause the L3 cache to report half the speed. I am thinking of reverting back to 2702 as PBO really did give me a big boost in performance.


----------



## greg_p

I continue having kernel power reboot in specific use, typically xplane11 where GPU is 98% 350w and cpu 5 to 10% sharing load on best cores. I am in manual overclock 46/1,33V/CPU LLC4, resulting in 1.29 to 1,33V on the core.
Sometime, actually after around 30m played, system got a kernel error, often with a volmgr error.
In the meantime, the coolant went from 23 to 28° idle to 35°.
I have no problem with cyberpunk that is asking more to the cpu. Watching the last GN video about motherboard, I bet this is still a mix between crappy agesa, its implementation on the CH8 and the windows driver.


----------



## leoxtxt

leoxtxt said:


> There is a bug with latest BIOS (3003) (C8F)
> 
> I don't know if it happens with every processor (i have a 5950X) but when i set the PBO Limit (AMD Overclocking) from [Auto] to [Motherboard] it cripples the L3 Cache performance (AIDA64 benchmark), from 750GB/s to 350GB/s (give or take).
> 
> PBO Limit -> [Motherboard]
> 
> View attachment 2469573
> 
> 
> PBO Limit -> [Auto]
> 
> View attachment 2469574





slow4cyl said:


> Seems to be specific to 3003, I get the same issue with PBO. Any setting other than auto will cause the L3 cache to report half the speed. I am thinking of reverting back to 2702 as PBO really did give me a big boost in performance.


I've the same problem, i thought it was an isolated issue of my setup but clearly there is something wrong with the latest bios.


----------



## slow4cyl

leoxtxt said:


> I've the same problem, i thought it was an isolated issue of my setup but clearly there is something wrong with the latest bios.


Reverting back to 2702 fixes the issue. Can run PBO without halving theL3 cache speed. Oddly enough, I couldnt install 2702 over 3003 via BIOS. I had to rename it CH8W.CAP and toss it on a USB stick using that BIOS flashback function. Worked like a charm. Took the time to fix my memory stability in the BIOS as well. Stability was only wonky for booting up, was fine once the memory trained. I loosened the tertiary timings a little and the memory training F9 hangs are completely gone. 












Code:


[2020/12/20 12:06:30]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3666MHz]
FCLK Frequency [1833MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Core VID [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
Performance Bias [Auto]
PBO Fmax Enhancer [Disabled]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [Auto]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
Trcdrd [13]
Trcdwr [8]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [21]
Trc [29]
TrrdS [4]
TrrdL [6]
Tfaw [6]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [8]
Twr [10]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [2]
TwrwrScl [2]
Trfc [240]
Trfc2 [147]
Trfc4 [101]
Tcwl [16]
Trtp [10]
Trdwr [10]
Twrrd [6]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [6]
TwrwrDd [6]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [6]
TrdrdDd [6]
Tcke [1]
ProcODT [40 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [RZQ/7]
RttWr [RZQ/3]
RttPark [RZQ/1]
MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
MemCkeSetup [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [Auto]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
CPU Current Capability [140%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Auto]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Auto]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Auto]
DRAM Current Capability [100%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
CPU SOC Voltage [Auto]
DRAM Voltage [1.50000]
VDDG CCD Voltage Control [0.955]
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [0.955]
CLDO VDDP voltage [0.950]
1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Enabled]
PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
NX Mode [Enabled]
SVM Mode [Disabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
CCD Control [Auto]
SATA Port Enable [Disabled]
NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth [Auto Mode]
PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth [Auto Mode]
When system is in working state [All On]
Q-Code LED Function [Auto]
When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [All On]
Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Disabled]
Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Disabled]
Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_2 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
SB Link Mode [Auto]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Above 4G Decoding [Disabled]
SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
USB DISK 3.0 PMAP [Auto]
USB Device Enable [Enabled]
U32G2_2 [Enabled]
U32G2_3 [Enabled]
U32G2_4 [Enabled]
U32G1_10 [Enabled]
U32G1_11 [Enabled]
USB12 [Enabled]
USB13 [Enabled]
U32G2_7 [Enabled]
U32G2_8 [Enabled]
U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Device [N\A]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Ignore]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
PCH Fan Speed [Monitor]
Flow Rate [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Silent]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Silent]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
High Amp Fan Profile [Standard]
WATER PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
AIO PUMP Control [Disabled]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
Boot Logo Display [Auto]
Bootup NumLock State [On]
POST Delay Time [1 sec]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Disabled]
OS Type [Other OS]
AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
Flexkey [Reset]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [1]
Profile Name [works]
Save to Profile [1]
DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Enabled]
CPU Frequency [0]
CPU Voltage [0]
CCD Control [Auto]
Core control [Auto]
SMT Control [Auto]
Overclock [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
ECO Mode [Disable]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
PBO Limits [Motherboard]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Curve Optimizer [Disabled]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [50MHz]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
SoC Voltage [0]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
SMEE [Auto]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
Global C-state Control [Auto]
Power Supply Idle Control [Auto]
SEV ASID Count [Auto]
SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
Local APIC Mode [Auto]
ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
RdRand Speedup Disable [Enabled]
IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
DRAM scrub time [Auto]
Poison scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Memory interleaving [Auto]
Memory interleaving size [Auto]
1TB remap [Auto]
DRAM map inversion [Auto]
ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
GMI encryption control [Auto]
xGMI encryption control [Auto]
CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
PcsCG control [Auto]
Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
Memory Clear [Auto]
Overclock [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Data Poisoning [Auto]
DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
RCD Parity [Auto]
DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
Write CRC Enable [Auto]
DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
TSME [Auto]
Data Scramble [Auto]
DFE Read Training [Auto]
FFE Write Training [Auto]
PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
BankGroupSwap [Auto]
BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
Address Hash Bank [Auto]
Address Hash CS [Auto]
Address Hash Rm [Auto]
SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
MBIST Enable [Disabled]
Pattern Select [PRBS]
Pattern Length [6]
Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
IOMMU [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
FCLK Frequency [Auto]
SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
ACS Enable [Auto]
PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
cTDP Control [Auto]
EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
APBDIS [Auto]
DF Cstates [Auto]
CPPC [Auto]
CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
Early Link Speed [Auto]
Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
Preferred IO [Auto]
CV test [Auto]
Loopback Mode [Auto]
Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]


----------



## LtMatt

slow4cyl said:


> Seems to be specific to 3003, I get the same issue with PBO. Any setting other than auto will cause the L3 cache to report half the speed. I am thinking of reverting back to 2702 as PBO really did give me a big boost in performance.


Cheers, I will roll back to 2702 also and see if i can enable PBO without the L3 speed being affected. I also noticed that it caused some jittering in Call of Duty Modern Warfare with PBO enabled (no jittering once PBO disabled with 3003) so hoping that 2702 will fix that also.


----------



## Gadfly

PWn3R said:


> Made it to Windows with RAM @3800 and 1900FCLK and promptly rebooted. Not even stable in BIOS. I tried 1.4v RAM, and upping IOD to 1.075 and CCD to 0.975 no change. I didn’t get to Windows again.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Did you set the SB 1.0v to 1.05v? 

If so, force the southbridge to Gen3 instead of auto.


----------



## Gadfly

TurboNym said:


> So I've been having reboots ever since I've bought my crosshair 8 hero and 3950x combo.
> I've been bashing my brains for months trying to figure out why my system shuts down and reboots on idle.
> View attachment 2469969
> 
> 
> So the power supply idle voltages option is not present on this mobo.
> 
> I have put some power phase settings to "extreme" in the power+digi somehting section and disabled spread spectrum. Also bumped the sb voltage one notch up.
> I manually set the Infinity clock to 1800 and my ram to 3600 and 1.35v. no XMP or DOCP or whatever it's called.
> I ran memtest for about 4 hours with no errors.
> I'm on the latest bios version 3003. I updated 3 days ago and haven't had a reboot yet. But it has been so random it's impossible to troubleshoot right. I went for almost a full month since my last reboot after which I updated the bios and did those power phase settings.
> 
> I want to mention that I don't overclock. I read a while back that this chip degrades fast so I'm just using things stock.
> I have downloaded bios version 1302 as I have read that one is potentially reboot free for many people. In case I get reboots again I'm going to try to downgrade the bios to that.
> 
> If that still fails I'm going to RMA the stupid thing even though I really hope I don't have to.
> So right now I'm basically asking you fine people if there's anything else I can try to fix this issue. I am working remotely during the pandemic and I need this thing to be reliable. Luckily so far I haven't had any issues at load but these stupid reboots can't be good for the hardware and storage.
> View attachment 2469969


Flash bios 1302, don't mess with any of the Zen3 bios's.


----------



## Gadfly

genelecs said:


> I'm in a similar boat - curiously I get the following L3 cache (please ignore my horrible RAM timings.. its the only thing I can get stable for now)
> 
> PBO Off:
> View attachment 2470289
> 
> 
> PBO Auto:
> View attachment 2470290
> 
> 
> PBO On:
> View attachment 2470291
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tried experimenting with the Termination and CAD_BUS resistances (albeit only a little bit as this is my first time experimenting with these values) but couldn't seem to improve over my "PBO Auto" L3 benchmarks.


Now set a static Per CCX profile, up, don't have to do anything crazy, start with 4.0ghz @ 1.25v and re-run aida's L3 test. you will be around 1400GB/s


----------



## PWn3R

Gadfly said:


> Did you set the SB 1.0v to 1.05v?
> 
> If so, force the southbridge to Gen3 instead of auto.


I did. I’ll try that when I get home. Thanks for all the suggestions.

Should I be concerned that PBO is ramping voltages up to 1.5 on the cores?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## genelecs

Gadfly said:


> Now set a static Per CCX profile, up, don't have to do anything crazy, start with 4.0ghz @ 1.25v and re-run aida's L3 test. you will be around 1400GB/s


This worked for me L3 cache wise, thank you very much- but presumably and please excuse my ignorance on the matter but using Per CCX profile ties me in to all core clockspeed and removes the occasional 5.0 GHz burst on a few cores on stock + PBO? IE: I'll take a punishment on my SC performance for MC performance?



Gadfly said:


> Did you set the SB 1.0v to 1.05v?
> If so, force the southbridge to Gen3 instead of auto.


I also tried this to reach 1900 FCLK like previous poster but hit Error 07.


----------



## Gadfly

genelecs said:


> This worked for me L3 cache wise, thank you very much- but presumably and please excuse my ignorance on the matter but using Per CCX profile ties me in to all core clockspeed and removes the occasional 5.0 GHz burst on a few cores on stock + PBO? IE: I'll take a punishment on my SC performance for MC performance?
> 
> 
> 
> I also tried this to reach 1900 FCLK like previous poster but hit Error 07.


Very small hit, unless you have a true single threaded application you won't see any difference. If more than 1 thread is active it will down clock to 4.7-4.8.

Pbo @ 5.1 single thread i got cb R20 of 655, and static OC of 4825/4725 of single thread of 628.

In games I get higher fps static OC than did with pbo, so I am much happier static.


----------



## CyrIng

Here is my profile of BIOS 2206





















Code:


[2020/12/21 06:32:13]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
Performance Enhancer [Default]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3733MHz]
FCLK Frequency [1866MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Core VID [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
CCX1 Ratio [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
CCX1 Ratio [Auto]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
Performance Bias [None]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Manual]
PPT Limit [Auto]
TDC Limit [Auto]
EDC Limit [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Manual]
Customized Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [10X]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [75MHz]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [16]
Trcdrd [16]
Trcdwr [16]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [16]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [36]
Trc [52]
TrrdS [4]
TrrdL [9]
Tfaw [44]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr [Auto]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [Auto]
TwrwrScl [Auto]
Trfc [Auto]
Trfc2 [Auto]
Trfc4 [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
RttNom [Auto]
RttWr [Auto]
RttPark [Auto]
MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
MemCkeSetup [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [Auto]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
CPU Current Capability [Auto]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
Active Frequency Mode [Disabled]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Auto]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
VDDSOC Current Capability [Auto]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Auto]
DRAM Current Capability [100%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
CPU SOC Voltage [Auto]
DRAM Voltage [1.35000]
VDDG CCD Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [Auto]
CLDO VDDP voltage [Auto]
1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Enabled]
PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
NX Mode [Enabled]
SVM Mode [Enabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
CCD Control [Auto]
SATA Port Enable [Disabled]
NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth [Auto Mode]
PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth [Auto Mode]
When system is in working state [All On]
Q-Code LED Function [Auto]
When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [Aura Off]
Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Enabled]
Realtek PXE OPROM [Disabled]
Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Disabled]
Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_2 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
SB Link Mode [Auto]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
SR-IOV Support [Enabled]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
USB Device Enable [Enabled]
U32G2_2 [Enabled]
U32G2_3 [Enabled]
U32G2_4 [Enabled]
U32G1_10 [Enabled]
U32G1_11 [Enabled]
USB12 [Enabled]
USB13 [Enabled]
U32G2_7 [Enabled]
U32G2_8 [Enabled]
U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Device [N\A]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
PCH Fan Speed [Monitor]
Flow Rate [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Q-Fan Control [Auto]
CPU Fan Step Up [0 sec]
CPU Fan Step Down [0 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit [600 RPM]
CPU Fan Profile [Manual]
CPU Upper Temperature [70]
CPU Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
CPU Middle Temperature [43]
CPU Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [57]
CPU Lower Temperature [27]
CPU Fan Min. Duty Cycle (%) [20]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
High Amp Fan Profile [Standard]
WATER PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
AIO PUMP Control [Auto]
AIO PUMP Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
AIO PUMP Upper Temperature [70]
AIO PUMP Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
AIO PUMP Middle Temperature [45]
AIO PUMP Middle Duty Cycle(%) [100]
AIO PUMP Lower Temperature [40]
AIO PUMP Min. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Fast Boot [Disabled]
Boot Logo Display [Disabled]
Bootup NumLock State [On]
POST Report [5 sec]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Keep Current]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Enabled]
Boot Device Control [UEFI only]
Boot from Network Devices [Ignore]
Boot from Storage Devices [Ignore]
Boot from PCI-E/PCI Expansion Devices [Ignore]
OS Type [Other OS]
AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
Flexkey [Reset]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [1]
Profile Name [BCLK100DDR3733]
Save to Profile [1]
DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_B2]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Disabled]
CPU Frequency [0]
CPU Voltage [0]
CCD Control [Auto]
Core control [Auto]
SMT Control [Auto]
Overclock [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Disable]
SoC Voltage [0]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
Global C-state Control [Auto]
DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
Indirect Branch Prediction Speculation [Auto]
DRAM scrub time [Auto]
Poison scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Memory interleaving [Auto]
Memory interleaving size [Auto]
1TB remap [Auto]
DRAM map inversion [Auto]
ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
GMI encryption control [Auto]
xGMI encryption control [Auto]
CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
Memory Clear [Auto]
Overclock [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Data Poisoning [Auto]
DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
RCD Parity [Auto]
DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
Write CRC Enable [Auto]
DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
TSME [Auto]
Data Scramble [Auto]
DFE Read Training [Auto]
FFE Write Training [Auto]
PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
BankGroupSwap [Auto]
BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
Address Hash Bank [Auto]
Address Hash CS [Auto]
Address Hash Rm [Auto]
SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
MBIST Enable [Disabled]
Pattern Select [PRBS]
Pattern Length [3]
Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
IOMMU [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
FCLK Frequency [Auto]
SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Disabled]
ACS Enable [Enable]
PCIe ARI Support [Enable]
PCIe ARI Enumeration [Enable]
PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Enable]
Max Voltage Offset [Auto]
cTDP Control [Auto]
EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
APBDIS [Auto]
DF Cstates [Auto]
CPPC [Enabled]
CPPC Preferred Cores [Enabled]
NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
Early Link Speed [Auto]
Preferred IO [Auto]
CV test [Auto]
Loopback Mode [Auto]
Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]


----------



## LtMatt

LtMatt said:


> Cheers, I will roll back to 2702 also and see if i can enable PBO without the L3 speed being affected. I also noticed that it caused some jittering in Call of Duty Modern Warfare with PBO enabled (no jittering once PBO disabled with 3003) so hoping that 2702 will fix that also.


Got my L3 Cache scores back to normal on 2702 BIOS and no jitter in Call of Duty Modern Warfare now. 









Got a decent PBO enabled score on CB23 too.


----------



## Sindragosaa

Gadfly said:


> Very small hit, unless you have a true single threaded application you won't see any difference. If more than 1 thread is active it will down clock to 4.7-4.8.
> 
> Pbo @ 5.1 single thread i got cb R20 of 655, and static OC of 4825/4725 of single thread of 628.
> 
> In games I get higher fps static OC than did with pbo, so I am much happier static.


This. Thanks to Gadfly and other users on this forum I have been troubleshooting the random reboots on idle / event 41 WHEA errors and found the only 100% stable solution is a static OC currently (other than running optimised defaults and everything auto).

I'm running my Asus C8H + 5950x + 2 sets of G.Skill F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC (4x16gb) with the following settings. 

I have my 5950x set to a VID of 1.25V, CCDX0 @ 4.60GHz and CCDX1 @ 4.5GHz.

My four sticks of ram are running at 3600MHz with a dram voltage 1.36V soc 1.1V, manually set no DOCP, FCLK 1800.

Not only am I getting better multicore performance (obviously there is a single core performance penalty compared to PBO, but the best i was getting on CPUz was 650 single core, now I'm getting 635 with the OC, but 13000+ multicore opposed to 11500 with PBO).

I have not had one random reboot / WHEA event 41 since applying this manual OC running a week straight now. As it is my workstation / gaming rig it runs 24/7. 

So I am confident the issue is resolved, as otherwise it would reboot over night when not using it and spit a qCode 0d error as it did before, with PBO enabled.

It seems to me, there is some issue with power delivery and regulation when coming out of CPU intensive tasks or sitting at idle. 

Which explains why some people have moderate success with disabling power saving features or applying things like higher LLC levels.

Ill stick to a manual OC until there are further stable bios releases.


----------



## GRABibus

Sindragosaa said:


> This. Thanks to Gadfly and other users on this forum I have been troubleshooting the random reboots on idle / event 41 WHEA errors and found the only 100% stable solution is a static OC currently (other than running optimised defaults and everything auto).
> 
> I'm running my Asus C8H + 5950x + 2 sets of G.Skill F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC (4x16gb) with the following settings.
> 
> I have my 5950x set to a VID of 1.25V, CCDX0 @ 4.60GHz and CCDX1 @ 4.5GHz.
> 
> My four sticks of ram are running at 3600MHz with a dram voltage 1.36V soc 1.1V, manually set no DOCP, FCLK 1800.
> 
> Not only am I getting better multicore performance (obviously there is a single core performance penalty compared to PBO, but the best i was getting on CPUz was 650 single core, now I'm getting 635 with the OC, but 13000+ multicore opposed to 11500 with PBO).
> 
> I have not had one random reboot / WHEA event 41 since applying this manual OC running a week straight now. As it is my workstation / gaming rig it runs 24/7.
> 
> So I am confident the issue is resolved, as otherwise it would reboot over night when not using it and spit a qCode 0d error as it did before, with PBO enabled.
> 
> It seems to me, there is some issue with power delivery and regulation when coming out of CPU intensive tasks or sitting at idle.
> 
> Which explains why some people have moderate success with disabling power saving features or applying things like higher LLC levels.
> 
> Ill stick to a manual OC until there are further stable bios releases.


could you please provide all your Bios settings ?
Thank you.


----------



## Sindragosaa

GRABibus said:


> could you please provide all your Bios settings ?
> Thank you.


Done!

Edit: Stats


----------



## LtMatt

Sindragosaa said:


> Done!
> 
> Edit: Stats
> 
> View attachment 2470406
> View attachment 2470407


Those L3 Cache scores are very nice. 

Does this actually result in any benefit in games or benchmarks though? As i am using a tuned PBO with Curve Optimizer and although my L3 scores are significantly worse than yours, my CPU-Z scores and Aida Latency are better.

PBO Enabled
PBO Limits Motherboard
Scalar x10
Auto OC 50Mhz
Curve Optimizer enabled negative offsets on all cores individual


----------



## Sindragosaa

LtMatt said:


> Those L3 Cache scores are very nice.
> 
> Does this actually result in any benefit in games or benchmarks though? As i am using a tuned PBO with Curve Optimizer and although my L3 scores are significantly worse than yours, my CPU-Z scores and Aida Latency are better.
> 
> PBO Enabled
> PBO Limits Motherboard
> Scalar x10
> Auto OC 50Mhz
> Curve Optimizer enabled negative offsets on all cores individual
> 
> View attachment 2470415
> 
> 
> View attachment 2470416


IMO PBO is the better option, because of the dynamic nature of it. 

But for me, I have had garbage results with it and it is not stable. So a static OC has been the better option currently, with minimal effort and better thermals. 

My CPUID scores are not even close to yours, I get 650SC and 11500MC.

At so far the most stable I have had it is neg 13 all cores except neg 5 on my best two cores, using Gadflys bios dump as a ⁹template.

I can't boot on anything greater like neg15/25 all core. It may be a settings im not optimising, but ill have to keep experimenting or hope a bios update fixes it.

My understanding is you want to underclock the poorer quality bins with higher negative offsets so they clock higher ? And keep the best cores closer to 0 as you can ? Please correct me if I'm wrong, im new to this.

Ill try it again and see if I can get results similar to yours and compare.


----------



## LtMatt

Sindragosaa said:


> IMO PBO is the better option, because of the dynamic nature of it.
> 
> But for me, I have had garbage results with it and it is not stable. So a static OC has been the better option currently, with minimal effort and better thermals.
> 
> My CPUID scores are not even close to yours, I get 650SC and 11500MC.
> 
> At so far the most stable I have had it is neg 13 all cores except neg 5 on my best two cores, using Gadflys bios dump as a ⁹template.
> 
> I can't boot on anything greater like neg15/25 all core. It may be a settings im not optimising, but ill have to keep experimenting or hope a bios update fixes it.
> 
> My understanding is you want to underclock the poorer quality bins with higher negative offsets so they clock higher ? And keep the best cores closer to 0 as you can ? Please correct me if I'm wrong, im new to this.
> 
> Ill try it again and see if I can get results similar to yours and compare.


Yes i believe that is the right approach. What i will say is start with Auto OC at 50Mhz tops, as the higher you have it the less negative voltage offset you can apply. 

From my testing, the more negative offset, the higher all core boost frequency even with a lower Auto OC like 50Mhz.


----------



## rawbitz

Sindragosaa said:


> IMO PBO is the better option, because of the dynamic nature of it.
> 
> But for me, I have had garbage results with it and it is not stable. So a static OC has been the better option currently, with minimal effort and better thermals.
> 
> My CPUID scores are not even close to yours, I get 650SC and 11500MC.
> 
> At so far the most stable I have had it is neg 13 all cores except neg 5 on my best two cores, using Gadflys bios dump as a ⁹template.
> 
> I can't boot on anything greater like neg15/25 all core. It may be a settings im not optimising, but ill have to keep experimenting or hope a bios update fixes it.
> 
> My understanding is you want to underclock the poorer quality bins with higher negative offsets so they clock higher ? And keep the best cores closer to 0 as you can ? Please correct me if I'm wrong, im new to this.
> 
> Ill try it again and see if I can get results similar to yours and compare.


As far as i understood, the curve optimizer negative values are used to provide less voltage to better performing cores to give them more room to boost with less voltage => less temperature/more stable frequencies.
The poorer performing cores need more voltage to get higher clock speeds, so there you need to set a smaller negative offset for speed and stability.

Unfortunately my system gets unstable already with -5 offset in the curve-optimizer-settings. I've also tried a general vcore +offset as a baseline to have even more room to reduce the voltage via curve-optimizer. But never got to a stable system


----------



## Sindragosaa

LtMatt said:


> Yes i believe that is the right approach. What i will say is start with Auto OC at 50Mhz tops, as the higher you have it the less negative voltage offset you can apply.
> 
> From my testing, the more negative offset, the higher all core boost frequency even with a lower Auto OC like 50Mhz.


Do you only adjust the PBO settings in Advanced -> PBO or Extreme Tweaker ->PBO when adjusting the curve optimiser ?

So for example, do I only set the cpu boost clock to 50mhz in the advanced settings?

Or both potentially? I know you can manually set the ppt, tdc, edc in the Extreme Tweaker settings, but then setting the limits to motherboard in the advanced settings seems to conflict with that ?

Thanks for all the info !


----------



## LtMatt

Sindragosaa said:


> Do you only adjust the PBO settings in Advanced -> PBO or Extreme Tweaker ->PBO when adjusting the curve optimiser ?
> 
> So for example, do I only set the cpu boost clock to 50mhz in the advanced settings?
> 
> Or both potentially? I know you can manually set the ppt, tdc, edc in the Extreme Tweaker settings, but then setting the limits to motherboard in the advanced settings seems to conflict with that ?
> 
> Thanks for all the info !


I do it all in this menu. 









Using an Ultra Wide if the screenshot looks weird. 

My Curve Optimizer settings are -20 on my two best cores and 1 dire core on CCD1. 

All other cores are -22. 

I'm sure i can tune this further, but i was troubleshooting a random idle crash and these current Optimizer settings solved it. 

I subtracted -2 negative from each CPU core a total of two times until i stopped getting the idle crash. It took a few days between crashes to test as it really did happen every now and again.

I now need to find out which of the cores was causing the issue, as i suspect i can add more negative voltage to most of them, but it's tricky to figure out which core out of 16 was causing it Lol.


----------



## Sindragosaa

LtMatt said:


> I do it all in this menu.
> 
> 
> Using an Ultra Wide if the screenshot looks weird.
> 
> My Curve Optimizer settings are -20 on my two best cores and 1 dire core on CCD1.
> 
> All other cores are -22.
> 
> I'm sure i can tune this further, but i was troubleshooting a random idle crash and these current Optimizer settings solved it.
> 
> I subtracted -2 negative from each CPU core a total of two times until i stopped getting the idle crash. It took a few days between crashes to test as it really did happen every now and again.
> 
> I now need to find out which of the cores was causing the issue, as i suspect i can add more negative voltage to most of them, but it's tricky to figure out which core out of 16 was causing it Lol.


Ok sweet - let me run a few tests and report back.


----------



## Sindragosaa

Here are my results by experimenting with the PBO settings as advised by LtMatt - this may also help people who are experiencing low L2/L3 cache issues as you will see a setting below cuts it in half.

*Stable/Static OC 4600/4500: NO IDLE REBOOTS*
















The PBO settings for the following sets of results (except the last one) where as follows:
- *Extreme Tweaker -> PBO *​* PBO FMAX: Enabled​* PBO: Enabled​* PBO Scaler: 10x​* Boost: 50Mhz​- *Advanced -> PBO*​*PBO Limits: Motherboard​* PBO Scaler: 10x​* Boost: 50Mhz​​*Curve Optimiser: NO CURVE OPTIMISER (CO) OFFSET / UNSTABLE (IDLE REBOOTS)*
















*Curve Optimiser: Neg 10 CO offset all cores / UNSTABLE (IDLE REBOOTS)*


















*Curve Optimiser: neg15 CO offset on best two cores only / UNSTABLE (IDLE REBOOTS)*


















*Curve Optimiser: Neg15 best cores, Neg10 all other cores CO OFFSET / UNSTABLE (IDLE REBOOTS)*


















*Curve Optimiser: Neg15 best cores, Neg10 all other cores CO OFFSET / UNSTABLE (IDLE REBOOTS):*
PBO FMAX + PBO SCALAR are set to AUTO here, interestingly the CPUID scores get a big boost but the L1/L2 cache scores are down and the L3 cache scores get smashed to less than half.

*














*


So in conclusion, I will stick with the static OC until a better bios is released, as I can't be bothered tuning each cores CO setting and I get idle reboots with these settings. In fact, I would consistently get a reboot after saving the results and the benches finished  

Also how important are the L1/L2/L3 cache values? As you can see in the last result the MC performance in CPUID is approaching the static OC score, with much better single core performance. But comparing the Cache values its much lower.

Hope this helps someone!


----------



## AStaUK

I need to replace the thermal pads for my M.2 drives, does anyone know what thickness is required?


----------



## LtMatt

Sindragosaa said:


> Here are my results by experimenting with the PBO settings as advised by LtMatt - this may also help people who are experiencing low L2/L3 cache issues as you will see a setting below cuts it in half.
> 
> *Stable/Static OC 4600/4500: NO IDLE REBOOTS*
> View attachment 2470442
> View attachment 2470443
> 
> 
> The PBO settings for the following sets of results (except the last one) where as follows:
> - *Extreme Tweaker -> PBO *​* PBO FMAX: Enabled​* PBO: Enabled​* PBO Scaler: 10x​* Boost: 50Mhz​- *Advanced -> PBO*​*PBO Limits: Motherboard​* PBO Scaler: 10x​* Boost: 50Mhz​​*Curve Optimiser: NO CURVE OPTIMISER (CO) OFFSET / UNSTABLE (IDLE REBOOTS)*
> View attachment 2470444
> View attachment 2470445
> 
> 
> *Curve Optimiser: Neg 10 CO offset all cores / UNSTABLE (IDLE REBOOTS)*
> 
> 
> View attachment 2470446
> View attachment 2470447
> 
> 
> *Curve Optimiser: neg15 CO offset on best two cores only / UNSTABLE (IDLE REBOOTS)*
> 
> 
> View attachment 2470448
> View attachment 2470450
> 
> 
> *Curve Optimiser: Neg15 best cores, Neg10 all other cores CO OFFSET / UNSTABLE (IDLE REBOOTS)*
> 
> 
> View attachment 2470452
> View attachment 2470453
> 
> 
> *Curve Optimiser: Neg15 best cores, Neg10 all other cores CO OFFSET / UNSTABLE (IDLE REBOOTS):*
> PBO FMAX + PBO SCALAR are set to AUTO here, interestingly the CPUID scores get a big boost but the L1/L2 cache scores are down and the L3 cache scores get smashed to less than half.
> 
> *
> View attachment 2470454
> View attachment 2470455
> *
> 
> 
> So in conclusion, I will stick with the static OC until a better bios is released, as I can't be bothered tuning each cores CO setting and I get idle reboots with these settings. In fact, I would consistently get a reboot after saving the results and the benches finished
> 
> Also how important are the L1/L2/L3 cache values? As you can see in the last result the MC performance in CPUID is approaching the static OC score, with much better single core performance. But comparing the Cache values its much lower.
> 
> Hope this helps someone!


I would not use PBO FMax, that thing just ruins scores and causes instability. I keep it off. 

The L3 Cache scores are resolved by going back to 2702 BIOS, it's a bug in the 3003 BIOS when enabling PBO. 

Have you tried more conservative negative values like -4 to -8 to start with?


----------



## Gadfly

LtMatt said:


> Got my L3 Cache scores back to normal on 2702 BIOS and no jitter in Call of Duty Modern Warfare now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got a decent PBO enabled score on CB23 too.


Are you sure that is normal? Given that when you disable all the boosting and set a static ccx clock speed L3 speeds are over 1400Gbps, that L3 score looks really low, below half in fact. Is that because you only have one CCD, or is it because L3 speeds are still being cut down by PBO?

Can you set up a quick static ccx profile and test L3 again? Nothing crazy. Just do something like 4.0ghz @ 1.25v so you can test L3 performance? It would be really helpful to have static vs pbo results on a single ccd cpu and bios 2702.


----------



## LtMatt

Gadfly said:


> Are you sure that is normal? Given that when you disable all the boosting and set a static ccx clock speed L3 speeds are over 1400Gbps, that L3 score looks really low.
> 
> Can you set up a quick static ccx profile and test L3 again? Nothing crazy. Just do something like 4.0ghz @ 1.25v so you can test L3 performance.


I did a Google search for 5950x and Aida64 and it appears that my L3 cache above exceeds what a true stock 5950x produces, but not by a huge amount.

I'd be interested to see a few stock 5950x L3 cache scores with PBO off/auto and just memory tuned to whatever.


----------



## Gadfly

LtMatt said:


> I did a Google search for 5950x and Aida64 and it appears that my L3 cache above exceeds what a true stock 5950x produces, but not by a huge amount.
> 
> I'd be interested to see a few stock 5950x L3 cache scores with PBO off/auto and just memory tuned to whatever.


I think the issue is with with AMD's core boost system, not just PBO, and it appears to be present on all bios versions.

Can you set the static ccx profile and test it?

We are talking about a doubling of L3 cache performance by disabling core boosting. I think your claim that bios 2702 resolves the issue is incorrect, it might make it better (as far I can tell, it doesn't make any difference at all), but it doesn't fix it.. Here are my results on BIOS 3003, with the same memory profile.

PBO:










Static:


----------



## Von Clausewitz

5950 AIDA @stock:










3950 AIDA @stock, same board/bios/memory/os installation:










I understand the increased L3 latency of the 5000 because for each core the L3 cache effectively is double as deep as with the 3000, but I don't understand the lower L3 bandwidth. Since this last number seems to change depending on BIOS settings, I assume it is very hard to measure correctly.


----------



## genelecs

Gadfly said:


> Very small hit, unless you have a true single threaded application you won't see any difference. If more than 1 thread is active it will down clock to 4.7-4.8.
> 
> Pbo @ 5.1 single thread i got cb R20 of 655, and static OC of 4825/4725 of single thread of 628.
> 
> In games I get higher fps static OC than did with pbo, so I am much happier static.


Thank you - I think I've been chasing SC scores as I noticed my stock SC was better then PBO, but this makes alot of sense. Will experiment with this later.



Gadfly said:


> I think the issue is with with AMD's core boost system, not just PBO, and it appears to be present on all bios versions.


I can confirm that the L3 boost cache "bug" is apparent on both 3003 and 2702, creating a Static CCX profile as per your earlier suggestion fixes it on both versions that I tested today.

Still desperate to try and get an FCLK above 1866 now on my C8H, I really hope my 5950x isn't the culprit here but I've tried most of the suggested voltages with no luck, I'm hopeful a future AGESA will fix it for me or I'm just doing something stupid.


----------



## PWn3R

Gadfly said:


> I think the issue is with with AMD's core boost system, not just PBO, and it appears to be present on all bios versions.
> 
> Can you set the static ccx profile and test it?
> 
> We are talking about a doubling of L3 cache performance by disabling core boosting. I think your claim that bios 2702 resolves the issue is incorrect, it might make it better (as far I can tell, it doesn't make any difference at all), but it doesn't fix it.. Here are my results on BIOS 3003, with the same memory profile.
> 
> PBO:
> 
> View attachment 2470462
> 
> 
> Static:
> 
> View attachment 2470463


What do your peak core voltages look like with PBO enabled? I haven't tried setting a negative offset yet, and I'm seeing mine spiking all the way up to 1.5, sitting around 1.42-1.45 a lot of the time with PBO and FMAX turned on. The primary game I play benefits significantly from single threaded performance and I've seen almost a 40% increase in FPS jumping from a 7980xe with 4 cores at 5Ghz to this 5950x. I'm concerned about degradation obviously.


----------



## Gadfly

PWn3R said:


> What do your peak core voltages look like with PBO enabled? I haven't tried setting a negative offset yet, and I'm seeing mine spiking all the way up to 1.5, sitting around 1.42-1.45 a lot of the time with PBO and FMAX turned on. The primary game I play benefits significantly from single threaded performance and I've seen almost a 40% increase in FPS jumping from a 7980xe with 4 cores at 5Ghz to this 5950x. I'm concerned about degradation obviously.


I don't run the fmax on the 5000 series, as it doesn't work correctly. If you watch your effective clocks in HWinfo on an all core load you will notice that ccd2 is clock stretching like mad. 

PBO will always show peak voltages at, or even over, 1.5v; as thst is just how it works.

Single thread, in something like CB R20, I will see 1.5v SVI2 core voltage under load, all core it will be right up against FIT at 1.325v (SVI2).

What game is that? I am willing to bet it isn't a true single threaded application, and during game play it is down clocking from peak single thread speeds; even if due to other tasks coming alive in the background.

Try a tuned per ccx oc, and compare your fps.


----------



## Gadfly

genelecs said:


> Thank you - I think I've been chasing SC scores as I noticed my stock SC was better then PBO, but this makes alot of sense. Will experiment with this later.
> 
> 
> 
> I can confirm that the L3 boost cache "bug" is apparent on both 3003 and 2702, creating a Static CCX profile as per your earlier suggestion fixes it on both versions that I tested today.
> 
> Still desperate to try and get an FCLK above 1866 now on my C8H, I really hope my 5950x isn't the culprit here but I've tried most of the suggested voltages with no luck, I'm hopeful a future AGESA will fix it for me or I'm just doing something stupid.


Have you tried bumping your 1.8 PLL? In bios 2402 Asus was bumping the 1.8v PLL to get a higher fclk, when I booted at 2100mhz fclk PLL was set to an astounding 2.2v! At 1.95v PLL I could boot 2000mhz fclk, at the stock 1.8v I was hard capped at 1900mhz.

I have also noticed strangeness with PLL in bios 3003. If I leave it on "auto" it sets 1.8v, and everything is fine, if I set it to a static 1.8v I have trouble booting @ 1900mhz fclk. On the ROG forums there was a user thst reported that manually setting 1.8v PLL to 1.95v allowed him to boot 2000mhz fclk; he also stated that it was like a switch, below 1.95v he couldn't boot over 1900mhz fclk, at 1.95v he could. I have not tried it, as I am running 4x8gb and can't post over 1933mhz memclk anyway.

I am not clear on the connection between fclk and 1.8v PLL, but it is there. You might want to try 1.85v PLL and see if that gets you to 1900mhz fclk.... but I cannot explain the "why" behind it.


----------



## PWn3R

Gadfly said:


> I don't run the fmax on the 5000 series, as it doesn't work correctly. If you watch your effective clocks in HWinfo on an all core load you will notice that ccd2 is clock stretching like mad.
> 
> PBO will always show peak voltages at, or even over, 1.5v; as thst is just how it works.
> 
> Single thread, in something like CB R20, I will see 1.5v SVI2 core voltage under load, all core it will be right up against FIT at 1.325v (SVI2).
> 
> What game is that? I am willing to bet it isn't a true single threaded application, and during game play it is down clocking from peak single thread speeds; even if due to other tasks coming alive in the background.
> 
> Try a tuned per ccx oc, and compare your fps.


Yeah, I'm leaning that way towards a per CCX. I was hoping not to need to do that, but I had to do a per core on my 7980xe with individual voltage, offset for turbo, based on clock for that core, all from BIOS, all atleast 1 hour of testing per core change.

I am playing WoW. It is not solely single-threaded but there is a "world thread" that sticks to a single core typically.


----------



## Reica

Just for the sake of comparison here are my Aida scores. Still running an older bios because it's stable and I haven't really got time to mess with this.










PBO is turned off, no weird things done in the bios. Just set these timings and ran with it.

All of the cache scores seem to be even lower than 2702 though that could be some variance. It's still significantly lower than what people with static OC's post though. Interesting.

Anyone that can tell me how much of an impact it actually has on performance? I'm curious to see if I should fix this sooner rather than later.


----------



## Gadfly

Reica said:


> Just for the sake of comparison here are my Aida scores. Still running an older bios because it's stable and I haven't really got time to mess with this.
> 
> View attachment 2470469
> 
> 
> PBO is turned off, no weird things done in the bios. Just set these timings and ran with it.
> 
> All of the cache scores seem to be even lower than 2702 though that could be some variance. It's still significantly lower than what people with static OC's post though. Interesting.
> 
> Anyone that can tell me how much of an impact it actually has on performance? I'm curious to see if I should fix this sooner rather than later.


Personally, I get higher performance across the board with a static OC vs a fully tuned PBO profile, even on single thread limited games (such as X-Plane 11). 

Since you are on an older bios, would you be willing to test a static OC and post your Aida results?


----------



## Gadfly

PWn3R said:


> Yeah, I'm leaning that way towards a per CCX. I was hoping not to need to do that, but I had to do a per core on my 7980xe with individual voltage, offset for turbo, based on clock for that core, all from BIOS, all atleast 1 hour of testing per core change.
> 
> I am playing WoW. It is not solely single-threaded but there is a "world thread" that sticks to a single core typically.


Msfs 2020 is exactly the same way. There is a "main thread" thst sticks to a single core, but it is not a single threaded game. I never saw thst core hold max pbo boost, it would down clock to 4.8 or so, with small spikes to over 5.0ghz as it rolled from core to core.

I still picked up 10fps with the static oc.


----------



## GRABibus

It seems by reading your posts that Static OC solves the reboots idle issues.
Am I right ?
Beside static OC settings, are there other parameters to set in Bios to ensure this full stability (no more idle reboots) ? I think about cstates, Vsoc, DOCP or manual ram settings, etc....etc....

thank you


----------



## Reica

Okay apparently PBO was turned on by default. Turned it off and reran Aida. 










Slightly higher scores on L3 and the CPU clock seems to accurately report 5.050 now instead of 4.775 GHz.

Turning PBO off lowered my scores in R20 multi from 10047 to 9914. Single from 627 to 619. 

I'm willing to give a manual OC a try but I'd need to read up on which dials to turn.


----------



## jomama22

Gadfly said:


> I don't run the fmax on the 5000 series, as it doesn't work correctly. If you watch your effective clocks in HWinfo on an all core load you will notice that ccd2 is clock stretching like mad.
> 
> PBO will always show peak voltages at, or even over, 1.5v; as thst is just how it works.
> 
> Single thread, in something like CB R20, I will see 1.5v SVI2 core voltage under load, all core it will be right up against FIT at 1.325v (SVI2).
> 
> What game is that? I am willing to bet it isn't a true single threaded application, and during game play it is down clocking from peak single thread speeds; even if due to other tasks coming alive in the background.
> 
> Try a tuned per ccx oc, and compare your fps.


If you are running pbo with any sort of manual voltage changes (i.e. an offset) the second ccd will not act correctly. I have also noticed weird issues on my msi ace, but a reboot quickly fixes that and keeps the effective clocks nearly in sync on both ccds.

It is also important to remember that slight variations between ccds is to be expected. Each has their own voltage-frequenxy bins per core and per whole ccd, so keep that in mind.


----------



## Gadfly

Von Clausewitz said:


> 5950 AIDA @stock:
> 
> View attachment 2470460
> 
> 
> 3950 AIDA @stock, same board/bios/memory/os installation:
> 
> View attachment 2470461
> 
> 
> I understand the increased L3 latency of the 5000 because for each core the L3 cache effectively is double as deep as with the 3000, but I don't understand the lower L3 bandwidth. Since this last number seems to change depending on BIOS settings, I assume it is very hard to measure correctly.


Now set a static per ccx profile on the 5000 series and L3 cache speed will double. Precision Boost 2 (or whatever it is called) appears to be the culprit.


----------



## dr.Rafi

greg_p said:


> There is still some issues of stability for me, actually PBO works pretty well under full and light load, but after some high workload in time (1-2 hours), when going back to idle, I have reboots... my custom loops is around 28°C idle temps, goes to 35~36°C on load. It may seems voltage corrections on temperature are not correct.
> 5950X/CH8
> PBO -5/-15 on CCD1, -25 CCD2, +50, 250/200/180


I assume that too ,on bios defult never get reboots for many days, but any changes to cpu setting causes these idle reboots or sometimes when open light application like cpu z, AMD made this generation hyper complex dynamic sttructures interact with temp, power consumption, load, to get maximum boost and best multi thread performance, i think they will make it better with next AGESA release, even they not obligated to because on defult everything is working fine.
with static over clock ,i get better result single and multithread , even its not boosting to a clocks like PBO, but more power consumption on idle and is rock solid stable.


----------



## dr.Rafi

Veii said:


> Hynix DJR/CJR can run tRRD_S as 3 ?
> This would be a new thing
> You waste 3tCK on tRC - should be 57 instead of 60. It's a cheating method to push only tRC for masking other "short" timings
> EDIT:
> tRC optimal = tRP+tRAS
> tRC min = tRCD_WR + tCWL + 4 + tWR
> 
> And tRDWR 8 is a bit too low when tRCD_RD is 19/20. Should rather be 9 as lowest
> Exceptions are only Micron kits (which go ((tRCD_RD / 2) - 2)
> but Hynix doesn't usually behave that way
> _Samsung IC goes for example ((tRCD_RD / 2) - 1) ~ IF tWRRD is used as X = < or = than (tRCD_WR/4)_
> 
> If you say this is stable, then i have to take your word
> Nonthereless, push a ZenTimings screenshot ~ in order to check which voltages are actually applied
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Releases · irusanov/ZenTimings
> 
> 
> Contribute to irusanov/ZenTimings development by creating an account on GitHub.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> github.com


You are the memory🤴


----------



## jomama22

Reica said:


> Okay apparently PBO was turned on by default. Turned it off and reran Aida.
> 
> View attachment 2470471
> 
> 
> Slightly higher scores on L3 and the CPU clock seems to accurately report 5.050 now instead of 4.775 GHz.
> 
> Turning PBO off lowered my scores in R20 multi from 10047 to 9914. Single from 627 to 619.
> 
> I'm willing to give a manual OC a try but I'd need to read up on which dials to turn.


Set somthing like 1.375v, llc to 3 or 4 (depending what gets you down to 1.3 or so under load) and then pick some clocks. 4.7 should be good for 1.3 if your temps are under control (water-cooling and such). On air, I would make it so your load voltage is near 1.25 or so just to keep temps under control and set like 4.5/4.6.

Just mess around, nothing will blow up unless you really hammer the chip with voltage for some odd reason.


----------



## Sam64

Bios 3003, PBO on Auto, Curve Optimzer Allcore -5, +50 Mhz (no reboots or whea errors so far). For me, this is the way


----------



## jomama22

If you guys are getting idle reboots, you need to reduce your negative curve optimizer. Some core/cores arnt stable at the idle voltage given to them by pbo2. 

Remember, curve optimizer will further undervolt at idle compared to under any sort of load. So just because it's stable under load means nothing at idle.


----------



## dr.Rafi

Reica said:


> I got FCLK 1900 with 4x8 DIMMs 3800 16-16-17-16-32-42 @1.42v. Have not really bothered finding tighter timings that work but it's rock stable.


tighter timming only improve real life performance by 0.01% or some times 0% in this generation, i know Aida will show you nice numbers with tighter timing but do minimum effects.


----------



## Gadfly

Sam64 said:


> Bios 3003, PBO on Auto, Curve Optimzer Allcore -5, +50 Mhz (no reboots or whea errors so far). For me, this is the way


You have the half speed l3 cache as well....


----------



## Gadfly

dr.Rafi said:


> I assume that too ,on bios defult never get reboots for many days, but any changes to cpu setting causes these idle reboots or sometimes when open light application like cpu z, AMD made this generation hyper complex dynamic sttructures interact with temp, power consumption, load, to get maximum boost and best multi thread performance, i think they will make it better with next AGESA release, even they not obligated to because on defult everything is working fine.
> with static over clock ,i get better result single and multithread , even its not boosting to a clocks like PBO, but more power consumption on idle and is rock solid stable.


Too bad they totally failed. 

The all core performance in PBO is garbage, and the single core only works if the entire system is idle other than a single thread. As soon as any other thread fires up, even in a background process, thst single core throttles back to below all an all core OC.

Not to mention if you enable any boosting at all (even without PBO). L3 cache performance gets cut in half....


----------



## PWn3R

Gadfly said:


> Msfs 2020 is exactly the same way. There is a "main thread" thst sticks to a single core, but it is not a single threaded game. I never saw thst core hold max pbo boost, it would down clock to 4.8 or so, with small spikes to over 5.0ghz as it rolled from core to core.
> 
> I still picked up 10fps with the static oc.


I just tried setting to SB Gen3 with other settings still couldn’t post reliably and Windows froze during boot or on Logon screen with 1900/3800. I tried bumping PLL too, up to 1.9 in .025 increments nothing their either. Don’t know how these AMD chips are, but damaging the FIVR was a concern on Intel with high input voltage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jomama22

Gadfly said:


> Too bad they totally failed.
> 
> The all core performance in PBO is garbage, and the single core only works if the entire system is idle other than a single thread. As soon as any other thread fires up, even in a background process, thst single core throttles back to below all an all core OC.
> 
> Not to mention if you enable any boosting at all (even without PBO). L3 cache performance gets cut in half....


It's all cpu dependent, that's part of the lottery. Here is my 5950x using curve optimizer:










Highest single core I have achieved is 665 but that varies slightly run to run.

You can see my score of manual 4700, 4750, 4800 and 4825 in that shot as well. I was able to do a few suicide runs at 4900 that netted 12810 in r20. So curve optimizer is doing what it should for the most part.

I can do a per ccx of 4850/4825 stable all day @ 1.313v. could probably go slightly lower but havnt put the time in.

My settings for curve opt are -6 and -15 for my best two cores, -30 for all others. This is stable on my cpu but clearly isn't stable on everybody's.

That has the all core effective hanging around 4730-4710 during the run with a "reported" clock of 4700-4750. Single core boosts to 5115 - 5120 effective with a "reported" of 5175.

When running r20 with different thread counts, you get varying boost behaviors. With 2 -4 threads, I boost to 4825 or so, with every multiple of 4 chops about 25mhz off.

Honestly, a lot of how pbo works depends on the values you set for ppt, edc and what ever that other one is. Lowering edu to 210 from the MB value of 215 netted me higher boost all core boost and higher r20 score. You really need to play around with edc to get the max out of curve optimizer or pbo in general.


----------



## Sam64

Gadfly said:


> You have the half speed l3 cache as well....


Yes, the L3 cache performance measured by AIDA. As long as my other benches are fine, why should I bother?


----------



## genelecs

Gadfly said:


> Have you tried bumping your 1.8 PLL? In bios 2402 Asus was bumping the 1.8v PLL to get a higher fclk, when I booted at 2100mhz fclk PLL was set to an astounding 2.2v! At 1.95v PLL I could boot 2000mhz fclk, at the stock 1.8v I was hard capped at 1900mhz.
> 
> I have also noticed strangeness with PLL in bios 3003. If I leave it on "auto" it sets 1.8v, and everything is fine, if I set it to a static 1.8v I have trouble booting @ 1900mhz fclk. On the ROG forums there was a user thst reported that manually setting 1.8v PLL to 1.95v allowed him to boot 2000mhz fclk; he also stated that it was like a switch, below 1.95v he couldn't boot over 1900mhz fclk, at 1.95v he could. I have not tried it, as I am running 4x8gb and can't post over 1933mhz memclk anyway.
> 
> I am not clear on the connection between fclk and 1.8v PLL, but it is there. You might want to try 1.85v PLL and see if that gets you to 1900mhz fclk.... but I cannot explain the "why" behind it.


Thank you again for your input - I tried this but sadly always stuck on Q-Code 07 which I think is memory related, but frustrating since I've tried it at XMP (4000MHz) and also at 2133 with default auto timings so I'm guessing I just have a very weak IMC or something. :-(


----------



## Nizzen

Sam64 said:


> Bios 3003, PBO on Auto, Curve Optimzer Allcore -5, +50 Mhz (no reboots or whea errors so far). For me, this is the way


What other voltages in bios do you have?
SOC, "VDG", vdram etc....

I have Dark Hero and 5900x, and have a bit of problem getting over 3600 with 2x16 b-die  Even 3600mhz is hard. With 3900x 3800c14 was easy....
Strange


----------



## tabbycph2

jomama22 said:


> It's all cpu dependent, that's part of the lottery. Here is my 5950x using curve optimizer:
> 
> View attachment 2470509
> 
> 
> Highest single core I have achieved is 665 but that varies slightly run to run.
> 
> You can see my score of manual 4700, 4750, 4800 and 4825 in that shot as well. I was able to do a few suicide runs at 4900 that netted 12810 in r20. So curve optimizer is doing what it should for the most part.
> 
> I can do a per ccx of 4850/4825 stable all day @ 1.313v. could probably go slightly lower but havnt put the time in.
> 
> My settings for curve opt are -6 and -15 for my best two cores, -30 for all others. This is stable on my cpu but clearly isn't stable on everybody's.
> 
> That has the all core effective hanging around 4730-4710 during the run with a "reported" clock of 4700-4750. Single core boosts to 5115 - 5120 effective with a "reported" of 5175.
> 
> When running r20 with different thread counts, you get varying boost behaviors. With 2 -4 threads, I boost to 4825 or so, with every multiple of 4 chops about 25mhz off.
> 
> Honestly, a lot of how pbo works depends on the values you set for ppt, edc and what ever that other one is. Lowering edu to 210 from the MB value of 215 netted me higher boost all core boost and higher r20 score. You really need to play around with edc to get the max out of curve optimizer or pbo in general.


Wow, whats your settings for ppt, tdc and you mean edc at 215 and not edu..., whats you other pbo settings.. please.


----------



## Gadfly

jomama22 said:


> It's all cpu dependent, that's part of the lottery. Here is my 5950x using curve optimizer:
> 
> View attachment 2470509
> 
> 
> Highest single core I have achieved is 665 but that varies slightly run to run.
> 
> You can see my score of manual 4700, 4750, 4800 and 4825 in that shot as well. I was able to do a few suicide runs at 4900 that netted 12810 in r20. So curve optimizer is doing what it should for the most part.
> 
> I can do a per ccx of 4850/4825 stable all day @ 1.313v. could probably go slightly lower but havnt put the time in.
> 
> My settings for curve opt are -6 and -15 for my best two cores, -30 for all others. This is stable on my cpu but clearly isn't stable on everybody's.
> 
> That has the all core effective hanging around 4730-4710 during the run with a "reported" clock of 4700-4750. Single core boosts to 5115 - 5120 effective with a "reported" of 5175.
> 
> When running r20 with different thread counts, you get varying boost behaviors. With 2 -4 threads, I boost to 4825 or so, with every multiple of 4 chops about 25mhz off.
> 
> Honestly, a lot of how pbo works depends on the values you set for ppt, edc and what ever that other one is. Lowering edu to 210 from the MB value of 215 netted me higher boost all core boost and higher r20 score. You really need to play around with edc to get the max out of curve optimizer or pbo in general.


That is really intreasting, what are you PBO settings at (ppt/edc/etc) are you running +100mhz? + 150?

I'd love to see your full settings.

I can run 4825/4725 @ 1.27v, but my CCD1 is hot garbage. It can't run 4775mhz even at 1.325v.

I can run 4850/4750 @ 1.31v, but the temps (custom loop, 4x 480mm rads) start to bounce of 85'C.

My PBO settings were 280/235/250, +50mhz, -25 curve optimizer, +0.03v core offset. That got me a single core (sustained / effective clock) of 5.1 and all core of 4550.


----------



## Alemancio

Hi guys, could you help me review my scores on my 5800X? they seem very low... 3600MHz 14-14-14-28 1T (2x8GB)










Thanks!


----------



## GRABibus

jomama22 said:


> If you guys are getting idle reboots, you need to reduce your negative curve optimizer. Some core/cores arnt stable at the idle voltage given to them by pbo2.
> 
> Remember, curve optimizer will further undervolt at idle compared to under any sort of load. So just because it's stable under load means nothing at idle.


« To reduce negative curve », you mean -10 instead of -15 for example ?


----------



## jomama22

GRABibus said:


> « To reduce negative curve », you mean -10 instead of -15 for example ?


Yeah, sorry, didn't know how to word the oxymoron lol. From -15 to -10



Gadfly said:


> That is really intreasting, what are you PBO settings at (ppt/edc/etc) are you running +100mhz? + 150?
> 
> I'd love to see your full settings.
> 
> I can run 4825/4725 @ 1.27v, but my CCD1 is hot garbage. It can't run 4775mhz even at 1.325v.
> 
> I can run 4850/4750 @ 1.31v, but the temps (custom loop, 4x 480mm rads) start to bounce of 85'C.
> 
> My PBO settings were 280/235/250, +50mhz, -25 curve optimizer, +0.03v core offset. That got me a single core (sustained / effective clock) of 5.1 and all core of 4550.


I just broke down my build but from my head, ppt 550, tdc 275, edc 210. No voltage offset at all(really no point in using an offset honestly, just test curve optimizer 1 by 1). Scalar 10x (though I genuinely saw little or no difference compared to just 0 scalar), max freq +125, offsets as above, vddc, vddg iod and vddg ccd 1.0v, soc 1.0725(1.053 effective).

I run 32gb dual rank @ 3800 cl14-15-11-29, fclock 1900, mem==uclk
That's really it.

If you really want to test your best cores offset, run r20 with 2 threads, you'll find out quickly if they are set too low lol.

You can do the same for every two cores by just doing the above using affinity in task manager.

My ccd 1 isn't too much of a dog. Definitely got somewhat lucky with it being able to do 4825 at a relatively good voltage. But it definitely has 1 or 2 really crap cores on it (won't boost above 4950 when doing a single core run on them).


----------



## kingmob

Gadfly said:


> Too bad they totally failed.
> 
> The all core performance in PBO is garbage, and the single core only works if the entire system is idle other than a single thread. As soon as any other thread fires up, even in a background process, thst single core throttles back to below all an all core OC.
> 
> Not to mention if you enable any boosting at all (even without PBO). L3 cache performance gets cut in half....


I followed your settings and was able to get a decent all core oc. My question to you since you seem to be one of the more knowledgeable people in this thread. Is any of this crap worth it? I have an extended return policy on this hardware and I'm extremely tempted to just return this crap for a 10900k build and save myself some money and headache. My ram oc's worse than 3900x and that to me is just insane. Talk me off the ledge Gadfly or let me free.


----------



## Sindragosaa

GRABibus said:


> It seems by reading your posts that Static OC solves the reboots idle issues.
> Am I right ?
> Beside static OC settings, are there other parameters to set in Bios to ensure this full stability (no more idle reboots) ? I think about cstates, Vsoc, DOCP or manual ram settings, etc....etc....
> 
> thank you


It has for me at least - no idle reboots since running a static OC. I can't say its the definitive solution as there is not enough data, but I have been running a week straight with no reboot on a static OC. I only had idle reboots when testing PBO settings.

See my bios dump for the settings.


----------



## dr.Rafi

Gadfly said:


> You have the half speed l3 cache as well....


I dont understand how he have PBO auto and using CO in the same time ?


----------



## dr.Rafi

Gadfly said:


> Too bad they totally failed.
> 
> The all core performance in PBO is garbage, and the single core only works if the entire system is idle other than a single thread. As soon as any other thread fires up, even in a background process, thst single core throttles back to below all an all core OC.
> 
> Not to mention if you enable any boosting at all (even without PBO). L3 cache performance gets cut in half....


yes very true, what do you consider static OC controlled or safe temp. ?anything below 90 c.
And I think AMD pushed this generation too far in clocks to compete intel gaming performance, Also not sure why amd puts both CCD's on one side of chip why not placing them further away and the cash in middle, my thought will help with temp alot , not sure it might be the how the cpu is connecting to mainboard limit them ?


----------



## Alemancio

Alemancio said:


> Hi guys, could you help me review my scores on my 5800X? they seem very low... 3600MHz 14-14-14-28 1T (2x8GB)
> 
> View attachment 2470525
> 
> 
> Thanks!


Bump :-(


----------



## dr.Rafi

Alemancio said:


> Bump :-(


use 4 x8 gig mean 4 stick of ram or 2 x 16 dual rank ram and try to tune for 3800 / 1900 ram/fclk frequency will fix your scores.


----------



## dr.Rafi

Gadfly said:


> That is really intreasting, what are you PBO settings at (ppt/edc/etc) are you running +100mhz? + 150?
> 
> I'd love to see your full settings.
> 
> I can run 4825/4725 @ 1.27v, but my CCD1 is hot garbage. It can't run 4775mhz even at 1.325v.
> 
> I can run 4850/4750 @ 1.31v, but the temps (custom loop, 4x 480mm rads) start to bounce of 85'C.
> 
> My PBO settings were 280/235/250, +50mhz, -25 curve optimizer, +0.03v core offset. That got me a single core (sustained / effective clock) of 5.1 and all core of 4550.


I Might be he did static with CB20 and then run cpuz after back to defult (CO)using ryzen master not meaning offensive but something in his screen shoot telling me it is not right.


----------



## kuutale

where i see my bad cores and good cores? I think amd give windows advice how u se cores certain loads? or how i test cores one by one? someone advice?


----------



## genelecs

kuutale said:


> where i see my bad cores and good cores? I think amd give windows advice how u se cores certain loads? or how i test cores one by one? someone advice?


AMD Ryzen Master will show you what it thinks are your best cores in advanced mode, it puts a star next to them and will highlight the next best cores too.


----------



## koji

Been having an annoying problem on my 5900X paired with a Dark Hero lately, dabbling with a manual OC but once I even get close to 1.30vcore voltage (think it's around 1.28ish) I trigger my over temperature protection. Been monitoring my temps when it happens but all the monitors I have are temps around 70° when it happens. Maybe it's doing some insane spike or it's some other piece of hardware that I have no thermal info about. Kinda annoying cause it kills my messing about dead.

The thing just reboots mid load and spews: "cpu over temperature error"


----------



## kingmob

koji said:


> Been having an annoying problem on my 5900X paired with a Dark Hero lately, dabbling with a manual OC but once I even get close to 1.30vcore voltage (think it's around 1.28ish) I trigger my over temperature protection. Been monitoring my temps when it happens but all the monitors I have are temps around 70° when it happens. Maybe it's doing some insane spike or it's some other piece of hardware that I have no thermal info about. Kinda annoying cause it kills my messing about dead.
> 
> The thing just reboots mid load and spews: "cpu over temperature error"


I've been having a similar issue on manual oc. This cpu is just bugged. Wish intel would have gotten their **** together with pci gen 4 so this would be a no brainer to switch to intel.


----------



## Sindragosaa

koji said:


> Been having an annoying problem on my 5900X paired with a Dark Hero lately, dabbling with a manual OC but once I even get close to 1.30vcore voltage (think it's around 1.28ish) I trigger my over temperature protection. Been monitoring my temps when it happens but all the monitors I have are temps around 70° when it happens. Maybe it's doing some insane spike or it's some other piece of hardware that I have no thermal info about. Kinda annoying cause it kills my messing about dead.
> 
> The thing just reboots mid load and spews: "cpu over temperature error"


I have also had this happen a couple of times when pushing my manual OC. HWInfo shows temps <90 degrees but I'd get a CPU OverTemp error midway through stress testing.

I have also had this occur when OC my ram pushing the FCLK to 1866 and ram to 3733 using my stable and tested CPU OC settings (though I understand increasing the FCLK is also OCing the CPU).

Running my stable OC of 1.25V VID/4600/4500 and FCLK1800/ram3600 I do not have this issue at all as temps never push past 80 during Realbench or IBT runs.

I have added an additional fan to my NH-D15 which has dropped temps by a few degrees. At this point the next step is water cooling lol.


----------



## Sindragosaa

jomama22 said:


> It's all cpu dependent, that's part of the lottery. Here is my 5950x using curve optimizer:
> 
> View attachment 2470509
> 
> 
> Highest single core I have achieved is 665 but that varies slightly run to run.
> 
> You can see my score of manual 4700, 4750, 4800 and 4825 in that shot as well. I was able to do a few suicide runs at 4900 that netted 12810 in r20. So curve optimizer is doing what it should for the most part.
> 
> I can do a per ccx of 4850/4825 stable all day @ 1.313v. could probably go slightly lower but havnt put the time in.
> 
> My settings for curve opt are -6 and -15 for my best two cores, -30 for all others. This is stable on my cpu but clearly isn't stable on everybody's.
> 
> That has the all core effective hanging around 4730-4710 during the run with a "reported" clock of 4700-4750. Single core boosts to 5115 - 5120 effective with a "reported" of 5175.
> 
> When running r20 with different thread counts, you get varying boost behaviors. With 2 -4 threads, I boost to 4825 or so, with every multiple of 4 chops about 25mhz off.
> 
> Honestly, a lot of how pbo works depends on the values you set for ppt, edc and what ever that other one is. Lowering edu to 210 from the MB value of 215 netted me higher boost all core boost and higher r20 score. You really need to play around with edc to get the max out of curve optimizer or pbo in general.


It possible to get a bios dump of your settings? Thanks!


----------



## Sindragosaa

dr.Rafi said:


> I dont understand how he have PBO auto and using CO in the same time ?


You can set CO under the Advanced -> AMD Overclock -> PBO settings.

So you can set PBO auto in the extreme tweaker part then adjust the CO in the advanced settings.


----------



## quarx2k

koji said:


> Been having an annoying problem on my 5900X paired with a Dark Hero lately, dabbling with a manual OC but once I even get close to 1.30vcore voltage (think it's around 1.28ish) I trigger my over temperature protection. Been monitoring my temps when it happens but all the monitors I have are temps around 70° when it happens. Maybe it's doing some insane spike or it's some other piece of hardware that I have no thermal info about. Kinda annoying cause it kills my messing about dead.
> 
> The thing just reboots mid load and spews: "cpu over temperature error"


Сpu over temperature error: is false positive.
Almost always because not enough voltage. Try bump a bit voltage.


----------



## Sindragosaa

quarx2k said:


> Сpu over temperature error: is false positive.
> Almost always because not enough voltage. Try bump a bit voltage.


Does that include if you're OC your ram and trigger a CPU Over Temp error? So you increase the CPU voltage to resolve it?


----------



## Reica

Gadfly said:


> Personally, I get higher performance across the board with a static OC vs a fully tuned PBO profile, even on single thread limited games (such as X-Plane 11).
> 
> Since you are on an older bios, would you be willing to test a static OC and post your Aida results?


Set up a simple 45 multiplier at 1.3v just to see what I'd get.

New:










Old:









L1 and L2 values are higher than they were for Read and Copy by a fair bit. Write remained relatively the same.
L3 didn't see the major improvement I was expecting.
CPU did really get hot like this (on air, NH-D15) after running R20 for a minute looped.

Mind you all I did was just change both CCX multipliers to 45 and vcore to 1.3. Didn't change anything else.


----------



## Sindragosaa

Reica said:


> Set up a simple 45 multiplier at 1.3v just to see what I'd get.
> 
> New:
> View attachment 2470577
> 
> 
> 
> Old:
> View attachment 2470584
> 
> 
> L1 and L2 values are higher than they were for Read and Copy by a fair bit. Write remained relatively the same.
> L3 didn't see the major improvement I was expecting.
> CPU did really get hot like this (on air, NH-D15) after running R20 for a minute looped.
> 
> Mind you all I did was just change both CCX multipliers to 45 and vcore to 1.3. Didn't change anything else.
> 
> View attachment 2470582
> 
> 
> View attachment 2470583


Try loading optmized defaults then applying your DOCP/manual profile and then CCX multiplier/voltage values.

That may improve your L3 cache results, mine is nearly double yours with a similar static OC 4600/4500.


----------



## 7lk

Please, does anyone know the instructions? One NVMe disk Windows10 change to RAID 0. You don't have to do a new installation. Backup, recovery. How to deal with RAID drivers?


----------



## GRABibus

7lk said:


> Please, does anyone know the instructions? One NVMe disk Windows10 change to RAID 0. You don't have to do a new installation. Backup, recovery. How to deal with RAID drivers?


Raid0 requires 2 SSD’s.
Both must be identical.
If you use two 1TB SSD’s in Raid0 configuration, it will result in one virtual SSD’s of 2TB with higher speed access, R/W speeds.
In Windows you must install raid drivers of your motherboard.
In bios, you then have to set Raid0 configuration by selecting both SSD’s.

then, you can install windows on this «2TB » SSD made with two 1TB SSD’s.


----------



## LtMatt

7lk said:


> Please, does anyone know the instructions? One NVMe disk Windows10 change to RAID 0. You don't have to do a new installation. Backup, recovery. How to deal with RAID drivers?


I can probably help you with this, but i don't really understand what you are trying to do. 

Can you be a bit more specific? if so i can provide extract instructions on each step you take to setup either nVME or Sata Raid on the AM4 platform.


----------



## 7lk

LtMatt said:


> I can probably help you with this, but i don't really understand what you are trying to do.
> 
> Can you be a bit more specific? if so i can provide extract instructions on each step you take to setup either nVME or Sata Raid on the AM4 platform.


Status quo. One HD NVMe, no raid WIN10.
I want to install a second identical NVMe HD and keep installing Win10. Do not need to install again.

Question?: migrating win to another HD. Install the second NVMe. set up raid0 in the BIOS. Migrating from HD back to NVMe RAID?


----------



## RHBH

7lk said:


> Status quo. One HD NVMe, no raid WIN10.
> I want to install a second identical NVMe HD and keep installing Win10. Do not need to install again.
> 
> Question?: migrating win to another HD. Install the second NVMe. set up raid0 in the BIOS. Migrating from HD back to NVMe RAID?


You will need to reinstall the OS. 

When you create a raid array, all member disks are wiped.


----------



## greg_p

Here is mine at 45/1.3. It's nice to know that when we have a cpu overtemp, it's because is undervolted . I think this issue is fired when in high multithread load, I got these inly when doing CBR20.
Here is some score of mine with 45/45/1.3V and the max I could get is 47/46/1.33, i have max temps on CCDs at 87 and 88 respectively, CC2 is hotter as 100mhz less.
45/45








47/46


----------



## 7lk

RHBH said:


> You will need to reinstall the OS.
> 
> When you create a raid array, all member disks are wiped.


Yes, I know. Idea: restore backup on RAID?. Has anyone tried this procedure?


----------



## Sam64

Nizzen said:


> What other voltages in bios do you have?
> SOC, "VDG", vdram etc....
> 
> I have Dark Hero and 5900x, and have a bit of problem getting over 3600 with 2x16 b-die  Even 3600mhz is hard. With 3900x 3800c14 was easy....
> Strange


Still on normal C8Hero with a new 5950X, B-dies as well here running at 1.42v
SOC: 1.1125v
VDDG both: 1050
VDDP: 1000


----------



## majestynl

Sindragosaa said:


> Does that include if you're OC your ram and trigger a CPU Over Temp error? So you increase the CPU voltage to resolve it?


When you OC Ram your CPU gets heavily involved bc the Memory controller m8 

And certainly when you are playing on the edge while OC'ing!!

Give it a try and bump your vcore!


----------



## quarx2k

Sindragosaa said:


> Does that include if you're OC your ram and trigger a CPU Over Temp error? So you increase the CPU voltage to resolve it?


Only CPU OC.
On my 3950x, 4500(ccx1) 1.29v trigger overtemp error, but 1.32 works fine.


----------



## slow4cyl

Trying out PBO disabled. I set the CPU to 1.35v with LLC4. At full load it reports ~1.313v. My little AIO is a it limits at 46.5 multiplier it seems.

Edit, lowered the vcore to 1.24v and it hovers around 1.204v under full load. Clocks are only at 46.25x100 on both dies.

Edit 2. Lowered the vcore even more. Hovers around 1.200v at full load. Temps dropped a lot from 1.35v, but thats expected  The cpu temp is hovering around 65-66c in my case now. I can sleep a bit easier with those temps


----------



## PWn3R

@Gadfly - I decided to try a per CCX like you recommended. I set max vcore to 1.35v (this is in the main tweak menu not the per ccx menu maybe i'm setting in the wrong spot?) and took a few stabs - the highest I've been able to get to boot is 4700/4600 on this 5950x. Is the vcore limit too low? I'm concerned about degradation.

I didn't do any stability testing, just doing some testing of FPS, the FPS seems lower in CSGO noticeably than NO PBO, and lower by about 10-15 in a main city on WoW. I noticed with PBO off, this thing is still pinging 1.5 vcore which is insane to me.


----------



## Sindragosaa

majestynl said:


> When you OC Ram your CPU gets heavily involved bc the Memory controller m8
> 
> And certainly when you are playing on the edge while OC'ing!!
> 
> Give it a try and bump your vcore!


Thanks  I have it stable now with a ram overclock.

1.25VID @ CCX0 4600 + CCX0 4500 & 1866FCLK + 3733 Ram Speed @ 1.41V DRAM.

Passed realbench, IBT and running ramtest for 11 hours over night with temps never exceeding 80 degrees during all of the testing.

But at this point, I am at the limit of the NH-D15 (dual fan push/pull config) and air cooling I think, next step is water cooling 

Edit: grammar.


----------



## Sindragosaa

PWn3R said:


> @Gadfly - I decided to try a per CCX like you recommended. I set max vcore to 1.35v (this is in the main tweak menu not the per ccx menu maybe i'm setting in the wrong spot?) and took a few stabs - the highest I've been able to get to boot is 4700/4600 on this 5950x. Is the vcore limit too low? I'm concerned about degradation.
> 
> I didn't do any stability testing, just doing some testing of FPS, the FPS seems lower in CSGO noticeably than NO PBO, and lower by about 10-15 in a main city on WoW. I noticed with PBO off, this thing is still pinging 1.5 vcore which is insane to me.


When setting the CCX multipliers under Extreme Tweaker -> CPU Core Ration (Per CCX), adjust the VID voltage value in there.

Leave the CPU Core Voltage value to Auto.


----------



## LtMatt

7lk said:


> Status quo. One HD NVMe, no raid WIN10.
> I want to install a second identical NVMe HD and keep installing Win10. Do not need to install again.
> 
> Question?: migrating win to another HD. Install the second NVMe. set up raid0 in the BIOS. Migrating from HD back to NVMe RAID?


As mentioned above, you'll need a clean install of Win 10. 

You'll want to use Raidxpert2 in the BIOS to configure, CSM disabled. 
Initialise both nVME drives, then you can build the array in the BIOS. 
You'll want the raid drivers pre Windows install, download the package 3.5MB here > X570 Drivers & Support | AMD 
You'll want to load the raid drivers on the final screen before Windows install, you'll want the folder title NVMe_DID in the package above
Load drivers in this order, RCBottom, RcRaid, RcCfg. 
Once this is done, the two nVME drives will appear as one. Install Windows - job down. 
You can then install the UI to help manage the array going forward, for things like backups, etc. 
If you ever have to replace a failed drive, always initialise the new drive in the BIOS first, then you can do the rest via the UI. 
Recommend you familiarise yourself with the documentation, probably has answers you are looking for re backups etc.
Word of warning, it's a long read.  
AMD-RAIDXpert2 User Guide


----------



## greg_p

PWn3R said:


> @Gadfly - I decided to try a per CCX like you recommended. I set max vcore to 1.35v (this is in the main tweak menu not the per ccx menu maybe i'm setting in the wrong spot?) and took a few stabs - the highest I've been able to get to boot is 4700/4600 on this 5950x. Is the vcore limit too low? I'm concerned about degradation.
> 
> I didn't do any stability testing, just doing some testing of FPS, the FPS seems lower in CSGO noticeably than NO PBO, and lower by about 10-15 in a main city on WoW. I noticed with PBO off, this thing is still pinging 1.5 vcore which is insane to me.


You have to set voltage in the per ccx menu, and all other things on auto, except PBO disabled. Voltage should be fixed at what you have set, +or - the voltage drop due to power drawn. For 1.3V set, it should be not lower than 1.26V in CBR20 e.g., but under light load it should be 1.3V


----------



## Gadfly

PWn3R said:


> @Gadfly - I decided to try a per CCX like you recommended. I set max vcore to 1.35v (this is in the main tweak menu not the per ccx menu maybe i'm setting in the wrong spot?) and took a few stabs - the highest I've been able to get to boot is 4700/4600 on this 5950x. Is the vcore limit too low? I'm concerned about degradation.
> 
> I didn't do any stability testing, just doing some testing of FPS, the FPS seems lower in CSGO noticeably than NO PBO, and lower by about 10-15 in a main city on WoW. I noticed with PBO off, this thing is still pinging 1.5 vcore which is insane to me.


What is your llc setting? What does hwinfo report as your core voltage svi2? Did you just go straight to 1.35v vcore? 4700/4600 is really low for a 5950X.


----------



## koji

Right so my CPU Over Temperature Error seems to be the CPU going over temperature lol. AVX + All Core OC above 1.28 / 4.6ghz is just too much to handle for my Arctic Freezer 2 360. These bois sure run hot. (5900x)


----------



## greg_p

Gadfly said:


> What is your llc setting? What does hwinfo report as your core voltage svi2? Did you just go straight to 1.35v vcore? 4700/4600 is really low for a 5950X.


Not so sure, i'm currently running 46.5/45.5 safely at 1.31V to avoid any BSOD in manual overclock. I can go 47.5/46 at 1.33 but temps are going over 88°C in CBR20, and I still have BSOD on XP11 (5% average use...). ****ing buggy Agesa...


----------



## Gadfly

greg_p said:


> Not so sure, i'm currently running 46.5/45.5 safely at 1.31V to avoid any BSOD in manual overclock. I can go 47.5/46 at 1.33 but temps are going over 88°C in CBR20, and I still have BSOD on XP11 (5% average use...). ****ing buggy Agesa...


I too run xp11 and msfs.

Is that voltage what is set in the bios, or the svi2 voltage under load?


----------



## greg_p

Gadfly said:


> I too run xp11 and msfs.
> 
> Is that voltage what is set in the bios, or the svi2 voltage under load?


In the bios, but with 5% load, it's also what's in the svi2. It goes down to 1.27 in svi2 in LLC4. Actually I think the CCD (x?) 2 is limiting because it's 3 to 5° hotter than the CCD1 in load and idle. We have "very" different silicon quality


----------



## Gadfly

greg_p said:


> In the bios, but with 5% load, it's also what's in the svi2. It goes down to 1.27 in svi2 in LLC4. Actually I think the CCD (x?) 2 is limiting because it's 3 to 5° hotter than the CCD1 in load and idle. We have "very" different silicon quality


I think it is more about the cooling than the silicon quality TBH.


----------



## PWn3R

Gadfly said:


> What is your llc setting? What does hwinfo report as your core voltage svi2? Did you just go straight to 1.35v vcore? 4700/4600 is really low for a 5950X.


When I changed the vcore in the main menu, it was sitting solid at 1.35v under any load, sometimes dropping off to 1.33. When I changed the VID and put it back to "auto" on vcore, it's now doing what I expect. I had originally just gone straight to 1.35v because I was trying to find "safe" settings and work down from there. I am going to try bumping up the clocks on the CCXs today now that I switched to using the VID. My VID is 1.31 right now and I was able to do the same clocks as 1.35 on vcore. These clocks wouldn't even post with the voltage set on the vcore setting to 1.31, which seems weird.


----------



## greg_p

Gadfly said:


> I think it is more about the cooling than the silicon quality TBH.


I have a custom loop and coolant temp is 22 to 28 under light load and goes max to 34°C under xplane, and there is about 1l coolant with 3 radiator ( 1x120x45, 1x360x45 and 1x240x30), I don't think it's about cooling, or at least, not directly. I mean at 80° on package, it's a 50° difference on water block.


----------



## Reikoji

Hows that 3003 bios for Formula doing? they fix the crazyness that was happening with many Zen 2 processors?


----------



## Gadfly

greg_p said:


> I have a custom loop and coolant temp is 22 to 28 under light load and goes max to 34°C under xplane, and there is about 1l coolant with 3 radiator ( 1x120x45, 1x360x45 and 1x240x30), I don't think it's about cooling, or at least, not directly. I mean at 80° on package, it's a 50° difference on water block.


I had to use a liquid metal TIM to get the heat out of the IHS faster, even TG Kyro ran too hot. I think the heat density is just insane.

Also, Don't worry too much about voltage with light loads, you just need to worry about the high load core voltage.


----------



## koji

Any idea if you can couple curve optimizer with a manual OC? Or does PBO have to be activated for curve optimizer to work?


----------



## koji

Gadfly said:


> I had to use a liquid metal TIM to get the heat out of the IHS faster, even TG Kyro ran too hot. I think the heat density is just insane.
> 
> Also, Don't worry too much about voltage with light loads, you just need to worry about the high load core voltage.


Yeah I'm a bit disappointed about the heat output, started out with liquid metal too but thought the temps were wrong/dodgy, reseated it and applied kryonaut but I changed it back to LM. I get temps over 100° if I come across something AVX... (when I'm manually OC'ing)

Think I can run 4.6/4.7 @ around up to 1.28vcore before temps get completely out of control, granted it's no custom loop but it's a pretty decent AIO in a Dynamic XL...

(5900x)

Not even my old X58 Xeon runs this hot and that's also drawing 200W.


----------



## slow4cyl

So I got some free time to play with both PBO and Manual overclocking on my setup.
The memory is set at what this board seems to like. Every now and then it might hang on F9 during memory training, but it will auto reboot and usually train correctly to continue booting. Its completely stable otherwise. I will look into what DRAM timing to loosen to help alleviate that F9 memory training error. With BIOS 3003, I needed ProcODT raised from 40 to 43.6ohm to avoid the F9 memory training error. Below are my timings used in this testing.

Memory timings - With 4x16GB sticks, this is the fastest 1:1:1 ratio I can boot in. I can attain higher frequencies by taking 2 sticks out (3800+), but id lose half my memory capacity. Not ready to part ways with it yet. 










My processor is quite frankly nothing special. I think I actually got the short end of the stick on silicon lottery. But I tried to make due with what limited knowledge I have so far. I am cooling it with an AIO that utilizes a 360mm rad with the fans and pump at max speed.

These are my results when tuning using PBO. Notable mentions are- 

I have all my cores except my 2 fastest set at -30 on the curve optimizer. I haven't tested lower than 5 on them, but they generally idle crash when 5 or >.
FMAX is disabled.
500/206/206 (off the top of my head)
Voltages are mostly set to auto
+50Mhz
Average temperature under full CB load ~74c
Multi core sat around ~4.6
Single core reported 5.1 bursts, not sure of effective speed, didnt have hwinfo open.










These are my results with manual tuning. Notable mentions are -

46/46 multiplier
1.224v under full load
Cinebench shows consistent multi core improvement. ~2+%
CPU temps drop ~12+%

This processor throws errors on Cinebench when clocked higher than 46x multiplier on both dies. I tried turning up the Vcore, but it seems to make no difference. Tried tuning each die separately, neither wanted to really work above 46x without eventually throwing an error. It will eventually throw an error in CB letting me know that it is unstable. I decided to go the other way and lower the voltage instead. Voltage is ~1.248-1.256v at idle and with LLC4 it sits at 1.224v at full load in Cinebench. My CPU usually hovers ~66c under full load.










AIDA64. Notable mentions are-

The reported speed takes a nose dive with PBO enabled. 
Latency improves with PBO enabled. This observation is repeatable on this setup.


















Here is a breakdown of the results.



















Now just for a sanity check I loaded up 3dmark and ran a benchmark. I landed in 45th place. Not the best, but hey, top 50 in the world. That's not too bad. Scores just over 42000 in Firestrike. I am content with this especially considering I'm using a general AIO, air cooled GPU and its all inside a case with filters to keep it from getting dusty. Even with the AIO at max speed its barely louder than a whisper in either setting. 

My highest score was achieved using the manual configuration for some reason. It does make some sense, the cores are locked to 46x and doesn't fluctuate up and down like PBO (to try to account for for temp?).

Was a fun experience nonetheless.


----------



## greg_p

koji said:


> Any idea if you can couple curve optimizer with a manual OC? Or does PBO have to be activated for curve optimizer to work?


Only with the Dark Hero and DynOC feature. With standard CH8, you have to choose.

Actually I put conductonaut although I had kryonaut under the hood, but with IHS, I thought it wasn't worth. I don't really want to undo my loop for just a repast.


----------



## dr.Rafi

greg_p said:


> In the bios, but with 5% load, it's also what's in the svi2. It goes down to 1.27 in svi2 in LLC4. Actually I think the CCD (x?) 2 is limiting because it's 3 to 5° hotter than the CCD1 in load and idle. We have "very" different silicon quality


Try to flip your waterblock upside down or right to left if you using water cooling and check the temp. again ,if air cooler try to remount the heatsink and thermal paste and flip the cooler if possible and test ,never heared of ccd2 hotter on this generation.


----------



## Naeem

anyone else had this issue with their board viii hero ?

i am stuck with these volatrges and -1 temps i flashed diffreance bios no luck at all if i press f10 from here pc wont boot at all


this


----------



## greg_p

MAy be a ground issue, could you check power supply and cables? Seems all ADC are saturated.


----------



## Naeem

greg_p said:


> MAy be a ground issue, could you check power supply and cables? Seems all ADC are saturated.



added a first boot screen it says i only have one 4 pin cable but i have 4+8 connected 

Q led code reader is not working either


----------



## GRABibus

here are some infos about new MSI bioses :









MSI First To Roll Out AGESA 1.1.9.0 BIOS Firmware For X570 & B550 Motherboards, Intros AMD Curve Optimizer & Enables Resizable BAR For NVIDIA GPUs


MSI has started rolling out the latest AGESA 1.1.9.0 BIOS firmware for its AMD X570 & B550 chipset lineup of motherboards.




wccftech.com


----------



## Gadfly

Naeem said:


> View attachment 2470802
> 
> 
> 
> 
> added a first boot screen it says i only have one 4 pin cable but i have 4+8 connected
> 
> Q led code reader is not working either


Is anything grounding out behind the motherboard? Like touching the tray or an unused stand off?

If not, and all your power supply cables are properly hooked up (you didn't plug cpu power into pcie/ gpu power on power supply, etc) then you need to rma it and hope it isn't really feeding 2+ volta to the memory/cpu.


----------



## dr.Rafi

Naeem said:


> View attachment 2470802
> 
> 
> 
> 
> added a first boot screen it says i only have one 4 pin cable but i have 4+8 connected
> 
> Q led code reader is not working either


can you take off the cpu and inspect the pins if are dirty and the socket too if there is any thermal paste on cpu socket holes, there is safe electronic circut cleanear quick dry spary in Australia i usually use to wash the whole motherboard and cpu with, after removing all heatsinks, the other likely reason (and hope it is not culprit)is your voltage regulator chip is faulty or the super io which read every voltage and temp on board, but best wash and clean everything with electronic cleaner ,you can use ispropyl alcohole pure 99.99 % and use clean painter brush gently with cleanear to clean everthing even the sockets ,cpu,graphic, and ram, and let it dry well you can use hair dryer to make it quick, 
you can also test the poawer supply voltages by volt meter if you have access to one but it is unlikly power supply other wise your computer wont boot at all ,
also try to boot only with graphic, 1 ram and cpu connected, no fans ,no leds, no water pump, no hard disk etc..


----------



## Naeem

Issue is fixed by removing CMOS battery for 10 min it has some corrupted data saved that even CMOS clear butten and New bios flash was unable to fix


----------



## RHBH

Naeem said:


> Issue is fixed by removing CMOS battery for 10 min it has some corrupted data saved that even CMOS clear butten and New bios flash was unable to fix


Glad to know you got it working!


----------



## dyanikoglu

GRABibus said:


> here are some infos about new MSI bioses :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MSI First To Roll Out AGESA 1.1.9.0 BIOS Firmware For X570 & B550 Motherboards, Intros AMD Curve Optimizer & Enables Resizable BAR For NVIDIA GPUs
> 
> 
> MSI has started rolling out the latest AGESA 1.1.9.0 BIOS firmware for its AMD X570 & B550 chipset lineup of motherboards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wccftech.com


They're probably getting one of the most stable Curve Optimizer implementation out there, since MSI is known to release super stable bioses after lots of QA. Shame on Asus.


----------



## dr.Rafi

I got 5950x today, testing everthing seams great , the only strange thing I am getting is L3 cash read is too low with same system and setting using 5900x was getting over 720 read l3 cash, any help appretiated to what I can try to get better result with l3 read cash.


----------



## kuutale

dr.Rafi said:


> I got 5950x today, testing everthing seams great , the only strange thing I am getting is L3 cash read is too low with same system and setting using 5900x was getting over 720 read l3 cash, any help appretiated to what I can try to get better result with l3 read cash.


u have seems to good infinity fabric because u can go over 1866 flck )) what ram use?


----------



## Sindragosaa

dr.Rafi said:


> I got 5950x today, testing everthing seams great , the only strange thing I am getting is L3 cash read is too low with same system and setting using 5900x was getting over 720 read l3 cash, any help appretiated to what I can try to get better result with l3 read cash.


Enable/Disable PBO FMAX, leaving it on Auto seems to cut the L3 cache scores.


----------



## dr.Rafi

Sindragosaa said:


> Enable/Disable PBO FMAX, leaving it on Auto seems to cut the L3 cache scores.


You mean i have to enabled or disable fmax ? or leave it on Auto ?


----------



## GRABibus

dr.Rafi said:


> You mean i have to enabled or disable fmax ? or leave it on Auto ?


enable or disable


----------



## dr.Rafi

kuutale said:


> u have seems to good infinity fabric because u can go over 1866 flck )) what ram use?


Dual rank Gskill bdie 2x16 ,i can go over 2000 also stable but Whea errors


----------



## dr.Rafi

GRABibus said:


> enable or disable


Thanks


----------



## dr.Rafi

Thank you Guys it passed 5900x now also sharing my ram setting ,i test those setting on 3 memory kits all bdie but very different , and to boot with higher fclk you need to put both cpu and soc LLC on medium , use same vddg, vsoc, vddp showing on zen timing in the photo, ddr vlotage iam using 1.5 for many years never have issue , i chosed Fmax enabled now the cpu is boosting more to 5175.


----------



## kuutale

dr.Rafi said:


> Thank you Guys it passed 5900x now also sharing my ram setting ,i test those setting on 3 memory kits all bdie but very different , and to boot with higher fclk you need to put both cpu and soc LLC on medium , use same vddg, vsoc, vddp showing on zen timing in the photo, ddr vlotage iam using 1.5 for many years never have issue , i chosed Fmax enabled now the cpu is boosting more to 5175.
> View attachment 2471040


crosshair viii hero fmax thing is so ****ing broken, asus not want to fix it  i think all things is broken so i go default settings and avoid kernel power idle restarts too. maybe someday we get working bios like 3000 series, it need 6 months ;D


----------



## Riplex

[ASUS] X570 Beta BIOS Update (12/25/2020).
1. Improved System Compatibility
2. Update AMD AGESA ComboAM4 V2 PI 1.1.9.0
3. Update Graphical Firmware
4. Improve RAID Function
5. Improve System Performance

C8H: https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...II_HERO/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3101.ZIP
C8HW: https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...FI/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3101.ZIP
C8F: https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...MULA/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3101.ZIP
C8DH: https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...RO/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3101.ZIP


----------



## GRABibus

First thing to test with those new bios : stability at bios stock settings and wheas.


----------



## dyanikoglu

Riplex said:


> [ASUS] X570 Beta BIOS Update (12/25/2020).
> 1. Improved System Compatibility
> 2. Update AMD AGESA ComboAM4 V2 PI 1.1.9.0
> 3. Update Graphical Firmware
> 4. Improve RAID Function
> 5. Improve System Performance
> 
> C8H: https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...II_HERO/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3101.ZIP
> C8HW: https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...FI/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3101.ZIP
> C8F: https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...MULA/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3101.ZIP
> C8DH: https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...RO/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3101.ZIP


Best xmas present ever, lol


----------



## kx11

Riplex said:


> [ASUS] X570 Beta BIOS Update (12/25/2020).
> 1. Improved System Compatibility
> 2. Update AMD AGESA ComboAM4 V2 PI 1.1.9.0
> 3. Update Graphical Firmware
> 4. Improve RAID Function
> 5. Improve System Performance
> 
> C8H: https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...II_HERO/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3101.ZIP
> C8HW: https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...FI/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3101.ZIP
> C8F: https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...MULA/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3101.ZIP
> C8DH: https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...RO/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3101.ZIP


ran a TSE test with this cpu, it seems fine and dandy so far










I scored 10 082 in Time Spy Extreme


AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com


----------



## greg_p

It's indicated as a beta bios version.





ROG Crosshair VIII Hero | ROG Crosshair | Gaming Motherboards｜ROG - Republic of Gamers｜ROG USA


AMD Ryzen 3000 series ATX motherboard with Aura Sync, SupremeFX, ROG Audio, Dual M.2, Realtek LAN, Dual Lan , M.2 heatsink and USB 3.2 Gen 2



rog.asus.com




Well, we can't really say that previous was on a release quality, let's give it a try.


----------



## tabbycph2

Just tried the new beta and now I cant get my 5950X to boost over 5 Ghz single thread, I could get nearly 5.1 Ghz on 3003, now I want to go back to 2702, but how do I do that, I get "wrong bios" or similar in bios, when trying to update.


----------



## GRABibus

greg_p said:


> It's indicated as a beta bios version.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG Crosshair VIII Hero | ROG Crosshair | Gaming Motherboards｜ROG - Republic of Gamers｜ROG USA
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 3000 series ATX motherboard with Aura Sync, SupremeFX, ROG Audio, Dual M.2, Realtek LAN, Dual Lan , M.2 heatsink and USB 3.2 Gen 2
> 
> 
> 
> rog.asus.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we can't really say that previous was on a release quality, let's give it a try.


yes, they didn’t want to let MSI to take an advance in time...
We also should have been « happy » to read : « improve stability for 5000 CPU», as it is mentionned in MSI released note.

hey guys, tell us about stock stability 😊


----------



## greg_p

Temperature and voltage goes back to not-so crazy now, PBO seems much better managed. No progress on cache speed in PBO mode.


----------



## GRABibus

greg_p said:


> Temperature and voltage goes back to not-so crazy now, PBO seems much better managed. No progress on cache speed in PBO mode.


And stock stability at idle ?


----------



## greg_p

For a crappy silicon, so far so good. 1900 still not achievable.


----------



## kuutale

so far all good no whea or bsods, web browsing and play games. fmax is still broken


----------



## GRABibus

kuutale said:


> so far all good no whea or bsods, web browsing and play games. fmax is still broken


at stock ?


----------



## greg_p

At stock of course. Here i'm testing again PBO 10/15/20 +50 250/200/200 and so far so good, except that effectove clock is not higher than 4850 on my chip. Nothing new but pbo is worth here, i'm getting 250MHz better than manual OC at 46


----------



## dr.Rafi

kuutale said:


> crosshair viii hero fmax thing is so ****ing broken, asus not want to fix it  i think all things is broken so i go default settings and avoid kernel power idle restarts too. maybe someday we get working bios like 3000 series, it need 6 months ;D


Fmax is available on most Asus motherboards, mine is strix x570 i gaming itx motherbooard.


----------



## PWn3R

greg_p said:


> For a crappy silicon, so far so good. 1900 still not achievable.


Confirming tried voltages as recommended by Gadfly and still cannot get 1900 to post reliably, and didn't make it to windows. Also, turning on Resizable BAR makes my machine reboot during Windows Boot now (I am using 3090 + 5950x).

In other news, I have VID set to 1.32 and am running 48.5/47.5 multiplier on my CCXs, seems stable so far, passed multiple CBs and I've been gaming for about 30 minutes.

Edit: These settings were working yesterday on 3003 for over 6 hours of gaming and several close to 100% CPU loads including 7-zip of 100GB of files. They are NOT stable on the new version of the BIOS. I'm thinking I should roll back. No 1900 or 2000 fclk, worse overclocking. That's a NO for me dog.


----------



## dr.Rafi

Riplex said:


> [ASUS] X570 Beta BIOS Update (12/25/2020).
> 1. Improved System Compatibility
> 2. Update AMD AGESA ComboAM4 V2 PI 1.1.9.0
> 3. Update Graphical Firmware
> 4. Improve RAID Function
> 5. Improve System Performance
> 
> C8H: https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...II_HERO/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3101.ZIP
> C8HW: https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...FI/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3101.ZIP
> C8F: https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...MULA/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3101.ZIP
> C8DH: https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...RO/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3101.ZIP


Nothing for Strix x570 i gaming ?thanks


----------



## dr.Rafi

tabbycph2 said:


> Just tried the new beta and now I cant get my 5950X to boost over 5 Ghz single thread, I could get nearly 5.1 Ghz on 3003, now I want to go back to 2702, but how do I do that, I get "wrong bios" or similar in bios, when trying to update.


2702 is better than 3003?
Iam not sure but i read somewhere before how to flash on previous bios on Hero but difintly you can do it if you get flashrom , and I asume AMD is reducing the boost to solve Whea and idle boot issues.


----------



## dr.Rafi

PWn3R said:


> Confirming tried voltages as recommended by Gadfly and still cannot get 1900 to post reliably, and didn't make it to windows. Also, turning on Resizable BAR makes my machine reboot during Windows Boot now (I am using 3090 + 5950x).
> 
> In other news, I have VID set to 1.32 and am running 48.5/47.5 multiplier on my CCXs, seems stable so far, passed multiple CBs and I've been gaming for about 30 minutes.
> 
> Edit: These settings were working yesterday on 3003 for over 6 hours of gaming and several close to 100% CPU loads including 7-zip of 100GB of files. They are NOT stable on the new version of the BIOS. I'm thinking I should roll back. No 1900 or 2000 fclk, worse overclocking. That's a NO for me dog.


If you have Bdie Use those setting and use SOC and CPU LLC medium stable on 3 kits of ram and tested with 5900x/5800x/5950x ,and on 2 motherboards asus x570 strix and Gigabyte aorus master ,all my parts and cpus from different sources and different times,leave your cpu on defult no PBO or CO ,and if using PCIE riser for graphic use GEN3 setting in bios instead GEN 4 even if your cable is gen 4 ,(for test), and run your graphic on defult and try all those things metioned affect on how far ican push my FLck


----------



## PWn3R

dr.Rafi said:


> If you have Bdie Use those setting and use SOC and CPU LLC medium stable on 3 kits of ram and tested with 5900x/5800x/5950x ,and on 2 motherboards asus x570 strix and Gigabyte aorus master ,all my parts and cpus from different sources and different times,leave your cpu on defult no PBO or CO ,and if using PCIE riser for graphic use GEN3 instead GEN 4 even if your cable is gen 4 ,(for test), and run your graphic on defult and try all those things metioned affect on how far ican push my FLck


I just tried it again, my RAM is B-Die and I was already using those timings. I cannot post with 1900 even with gen3 forced and llc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## greg_p

Memory is not the guillty guy. My Ram can go up to 4333 dual stick and 4133 4 stick, but with a lower FCLK.


----------



## dr.Rafi

tabbycph2 said:


> Just tried the new beta and now I cant get my 5950X to boost over 5 Ghz single thread, I could get nearly 5.1 Ghz on 3003, now I want to go back to 2702, but how do I do that, I get "wrong bios" or similar in bios, when trying to update.


I find it but i never try it


----------



## GRABibus

Good news to hear that some of you are stable at stock and idle with this new bios and were not stable in same conditions with former bios


----------



## dr.Rafi

PWn3R said:


> I just tried it again, my RAM is B-Die and I was already using those timings. I cannot post with 1900 even with gen3 forced and llc
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


the vddg iod and soc voltage is also crusial to boot with higher fclk ,tried different voltages and system not booting , noticed also i have to boot first with auto timing but use these voltages first time (auto timing was stupid slow , 22,22,23,95 etc...)boot to window otherwise wont boot and then restart to inter all tight timing ,was kind of training Asus motherboard did not sure what to call it


----------



## greg_p

1900 was not booting with auto timing, 1900/3800 Vsoc 1.2, VDDG iod 1.15, all LLC to 3.


----------



## dr.Rafi

greg_p said:


> Memory is not the guillty guy. My Ram can go up to 4333 dual stick and 4133 4 stick, but with a lower FCLK.


I know mine do 4400 on intel 10900k, but asked for Bdie bcause other die memory have very different settings .


----------



## PWn3R

Yeah, I think I'm going to roll back to 3003. I added voltage to 1.33 and dropped clocks by 50mhz and STILL getting crashes after being stable for over 6 hours yesterday. New BIOS is poo poo IMO.

Edit: Did anyone test to see if PBO is still slapping 1.5 VCORE and ruining L3 bandwidth?


----------



## greg_p

Voltage seem lower but still achieving 1.5 sometime, and L3 speed on Aida are still lower than in manual oc, but I will keep PBO as it's much more stable. Multi is a bit lower than in manual OC, but single is quite higher, and temps lower. This L3 score in aida seems really strange. I wonder what we have with other mobos


----------



## Outcasst

Looking forward to see if this new beta improves overclocking stability on RAM


----------



## RHBH

BIOS 3101 so far working ok.

Enabling Fmax still increases L3 performance but I get lower all core boost on CCD2.


----------



## Gadfly

greg_p said:


> Voltage seem lower but still achieving 1.5 sometime, and L3 speed on Aida are still lower than in manual oc, but I will keep PBO as it's much more stable. Multi is a bit lower than in manual OC, but single is quite higher, and temps lower. This L3 score in aida seems really strange. I wonder what we have with other mobos


1.5v is normal for PBO, that is how it is designed to work.

The CPU gets 1.5v input voltage from the board, then PBO limits the current though the ppt/edc limits down to the fit voltages, for all core that is @1.325v.

For single core it will feed the active core the full 1.5v, you can lower that voltage with curve optimizer, but not by a significant amount.


----------



## Gadfly

RHBH said:


> BIOS 3101 so far working ok.
> 
> Enabling Fmax still increases L3 performance but I get lower all core boost on CCD2.


Fmax override / edc bug does not work correctly on the 5000 series (from what i can tell), especially if you enable any fmax override (+50mhz etc).


----------



## PWn3R

Gadfly said:


> 1.5v is normal for PBO, that is how it is designed to work.
> 
> The CPU gets 1.5v input voltage from the board, then PBO limits the current though the ppt/edc limits down to the fit voltages, for all core that is @1.325v.
> 
> For single core it will feed the active core the full 1.5v, you can lower that voltage with curve optimizer, but not by a significant amount.


I’m seeing 1.5v on stock with no PBO. I’ve had 3 more reboots down to 47.5 and 46.5 on overclock and just had to bump voltage to 1.34. This new bios is absolute trash. I’m going download 3003 and go back as soon as I get to windows.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gadfly

Outcasst said:


> Looking forward to see if this new beta improves overclocking stability on RAM


Were there issues on the other bios? 2501-3002 all were really stable, the only issue I saw was 4 sticks wouldn't post over 1966mhz.


----------



## Gadfly

PWn3R said:


> I’m seeing 1.5v on stock with no PBO. I’ve had 3 more reboots down to 47.5 and 46.5 on overclock and just had to bump voltage to 1.34. This new bios is absolute trash. I’m going download 3003 and go back as soon as I get to windows.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That is normal. Unless you are doing a static per ccx OC with the custom VID, you are always going to see input voltage of 1.5v.

Stock, with or without pbo enabled, the CPU will boost up and down and has it's own internal voltage and power regulation.


----------



## PWn3R

Gadfly said:


> That is normal. Unless you are doing a static per ccx OC with the custom VID, you are always going to see input voltage of 1.5v.


I can’t find anything from AMD saying it should go that high. I found two things from AMD recommending less than 1.35, including a video from a field trip MSI did and that is so old the 1.35 would’ve been on the 12Nm parts I think. I don’t want this thing to off itself, I'm not saying you are wrong about this being "normal" I'm just concerned.

I do also think something else is wrong because of the need to increase voltage and lower clock speeds on the per CCX I had setup.

EDIT: For giggles I did try one more time with only two sticks of RAM to get 1900 FCLK to boot. I put IOD and other voltage to 1.0, SOC to 1.15 and got halfway to Windows 1 time and immediately went back to post codes DF, 15 and 07 non stop.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GRABibus

PWn3R said:


> I can’t find anything from AMD saying it should go that high.


read this :


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cbls9g


----------



## koji

Spent a couple hours messing with the 3101 beta bios on my Dark Hero but I eventually rolled back to 3003. Wasn't able to get my OC'ed memory profile booted, those hoping for enhanced memory OC capability will probably be disappointed.


----------



## dr.Rafi

Gadfly said:


> Were there issues on the other bios? 2501-3002 all were really stable, the only issue I saw was 4 sticks wouldn't post over 1966mhz.


All what you say and post woks exacly for me and I can copy the issues you find but most others have different expreince , not sure why ..


----------



## kuutale

3101 working great, maybe i try 1900flck and ram 3800 i have new kit 3600 tridentz neo f3600c14-8gtzbnb i assume its b-die my old b-die 3200cl14 not go 1900flck and memoroy 3800 sadly.

No bsods idle or wheas.

any good ideas how try it?


----------



## greg_p

GRABibus said:


> read this :
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cbls9g


That seems to make a lot of sense. Actually when only running CPU-Z and nothing else, voltage descend pretty low for a 3.6Gz base clock, as low as 0.6V and runing well. Even Corsair link that I'm using for fan/pump do raise voltage up. I think I'm going to change the pump and fan mgmt to motherboard tools, but i'm not sure I can make the managament dependant on the coolant temperature.


----------



## genelecs

greg_p said:


> 1900 was not booting with auto timing, 1900/3800 Vsoc 1.2, VDDG iod 1.15, all LLC to 3.


Upgraded to 3101 and it's been the first time I've been able to get past Q-Code 07 and post - these settings worked for me, using very loose RAM timings at the minute but got 3800/1900 working 1:1:1 for the first time. Thank you!

Just need to makes sure 1.2vSOC is safe on Zen 3 now  I'm actually noaware of the safe voltage ranges for Zen 3, does anyone have a comprehensive list?


----------



## genelecs

genelecs said:


> Upgraded to 3101 and it's been the first time I've been able to get past Q-Code 07 and post - these settings worked for me, using very loose RAM timings at the minute but got 3800/1900 working 1:1:1 for the first time. Thank you!
> 
> Just need to makes sure 1.2vSOC is safe on Zen 3 now


So I've just dropped vSOC back down to 1.15v and it posted straight away - the only other thing I changed was VDDG IOD to 1.15 (but I tried this voltage on 3003 wouldn't get past memory training (07 Q-Code) so this BIOS looks like an improvement for me, it's either that or I just was doing something stupid on 2702 and 3003.

Now to get a decent set of 3800MHz timings and make sure everything is stable.

I had accepted the fact I just had a poor IMC on my 5950x and was never going to get above 1866FLCK, so this is huge for me - I wonder if 2000FCLK is now possible!


----------



## kuutale

this bios is better 2702,3003 i can do more curve optimizer tuning also and no bsod or idle reboots, tomorrow testing memory


----------



## GRABibus

kuutale said:


> this bios is better 2702,3003 i can do more curve optimizer tuning also and no bsod or idle reboots, tomorrow testing memory


You mean 3101 better for you than 2702 and 3003 ?

if yes, this is another Good news about idle reboots or Bsod that this new bios 3101 seems to solve 👍


----------



## PJVol

*@kuutale, 
genelecs*
Guys, would you mind to check, what SMU version this AGESA (1190) contains. It is shown in CPU info in bios or in ZenTimings utility. Thanks.


----------



## greg_p

SMU is 56.43.00 for bios 3101.


----------



## kuutale

GRABibus said:


> You mean 3101 better for you than 2702 and 3003 ?
> 
> if yes, this is another Good news about idle reboots or Bsod that this new bios 3101 seems to solve 👍


3101 is best, then is 2702, 3003 is worst and boost behaves weird that bios.


----------



## xeizo

I just ordered a C8H WiFi, will be fun to play with even if my C7H performs mint but lacks some I/O I need.


----------



## RHBH

PWn3R said:


> I can’t find anything from AMD saying it should go that high. I found two things from AMD recommending less than 1.35


1.50v is normal for Ryzen 5000 series and you shouldn't have problems.


















AMD answered the most common questions about the Ryzen 5000 series


AMD's Robert Hallock has answered questions about processor temperatures, voltages, BIOS versions, and lost power profile, among other things.AMD's new




tekdeeps.com


----------



## PWn3R

RHBH said:


> 1.50v is normal for Ryzen 5000 series and you shouldn't have problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD answered the most common questions about the Ryzen 5000 series
> 
> 
> AMD's Robert Hallock has answered questions about processor temperatures, voltages, BIOS versions, and lost power profile, among other things.AMD's new
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tekdeeps.com


Thank you and Grabibus for posting that information. I still don’t like it at all, and it seems like a risky way to try to compensate for clock changes. I feel like anyone who knows about this behavior could rightfully insist AMD RMA any chip even if they overclocked as long as they used less voltage because AMD is using so much, even if it is momentary.

That said, I went back to 3003 last night and was able to go back to 48.5/47.5 @ 1.32v static per CCX and have not had any crashes. That was not stable at 1.34v and 47.25/46.25 on 3101. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## clackersx

5950X stock, VIII Impact, 3800mhz RAM, 1900mhz fclk.

I was running 0.900V VDDG IOD on bios 3003.
I needed to increase it a little with bios 3101, getting WHEA ACPI errors, currently in the middle of testing but looks like +0.025V is alright, could probably go lower but CBF wasting time on it.
I was surprised I could run 0.900V to begin with.
(PS. I Flashed back to bios 3003 and confirmed old voltage setting works fine with no WHEA errors.)

SOC voltage offset seems to work different.
On 3003 if I did the smallest offset I would end up with around 1.00V SOC.
Exact same settings on 3101 and I get around 1.1V SOC.


----------



## Gadfly

genelecs said:


> So I've just dropped vSOC back down to 1.15v and it posted straight away - the only other thing I changed was VDDG IOD to 1.15 (but I tried this voltage on 3003 wouldn't get past memory training (07 Q-Code) so this BIOS looks like an improvement for me, it's either that or I just was doing something stupid on 2702 and 3003.
> 
> Now to get a decent set of 3800MHz timings and make sure everything is stable.
> 
> I had accepted the fact I just had a poor IMC on my 5950x and was never going to get above 1866FLCK, so this is huge for me - I wonder if 2000FCLK is now possible!


Try changing 1.8v pll to 1.9v i am able to run fclk at 1966 @ 1.9v and 2000 @ 1.95v.


----------



## Gadfly

PWn3R said:


> Thank you and Grabibus for posting that information. I still don’t like it at all, and it seems like a risky way to try to compensate for clock changes. I feel like anyone who knows about this behavior could rightfully insist AMD RMA any chip even if they overclocked as long as they used less voltage because AMD is using so much, even if it is momentary.
> 
> That said, I went back to 3003 last night and was able to go back to 48.5/47.5 @ 1.32v static per CCX and have not had any crashes. That was not stable at 1.34v and 47.25/46.25 on 3101.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


What don't you understand?

When you are running core performance boost (AMD's boosting system), the motherboards core voltage is just the input voltage. The internal voltage regulation system determines what voltage the cores gets, based on load, current, temps, etc. You can monitor what voltage the cores are requesting by watching VID.

Amd is not going to RMA a cpu for working exactly how it was designed to work.


----------



## PWn3R

Gadfly said:


> What don't you understand?
> 
> When you are running core performance boost (AMD's boosting system), the motherboards core voltage is just the input voltage. The internal voltage regulation system determines what voltage the cores gets, based on load, current, temps, etc. You can monitor what voltage the cores are requesting by watching VID.
> 
> Amd is not going to RMA a cpu for working exactly how it was designed to work.


I am seeing VID hit 1.5 without PBO on. THAT is why I am concerned. It is CONSISTENTLY sitting at 1.46-1.5v at idle. Now, I understand from the documentation above, that some of that may be caused by the monitoring tool. I just booted with PBO and everything else off. I am so uncomfortable with these voltages being applied at all and I'm convinced this thing is going to degrade and quickly from this. Maybe it's Intel bias having been using that for the last 10 years. What I don't understand is how Intel on a larger 14nm process can say that you shouldn't exceed 1.4v and have seen first hand degradation at that 1.4v range, and AMD on half the process size is slamming more voltage into their parts and it's "working as intended". I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I appreciate the information everyone has posted.

















I'm going to do my best to ignore it and hope AMD is right.


----------



## greg_p

Just stop any monitoring software except cpu-Z and watch core voltage, you'll see that when the proc doesn't have to display monotiring stuff, it's logically very low in voltage, I have consistently 0.5 to 1.1V.


----------



## zsoltmol

CPU-Z vs HWInfo64

Idle










Light load of constantly moving my mouse on the screen


----------



## greg_p

CPU-Z is less intrusive and polls hardware in a less stressing manner, so your voltage will "less" rise when using cpu-Z.

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cbls9g
(last page)


----------



## Gadfly

PWn3R said:


> I am seeing VID hit 1.5 without PBO on. THAT is why I am concerned. It is CONSISTENTLY sitting at 1.46-1.5v at idle. Now, I understand from the documentation above, that some of that may be caused by the monitoring tool. I just booted with PBO and everything else off. I am so uncomfortable with these voltages being applied at all and I'm convinced this thing is going to degrade and quickly from this. Maybe it's Intel bias having been using that for the last 10 years. What I don't understand is how Intel on a larger 14nm process can say that you shouldn't exceed 1.4v and have seen first hand degradation at that 1.4v range, and AMD on half the process size is slamming more voltage into their parts and it's "working as intended". I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I appreciate the information everyone has posted.
> View attachment 2471186
> 
> View attachment 2471187
> 
> 
> I'm going to do my best to ignore it and hope AMD is right.


Yep... that is normal with Zen2 and Zen3 CPU's.

Voltage is not really what causes degradation, it is a combination of current and tempature.

Which is why so many people degrade thier CPU's with PBO. They raise the current limits, and AMD's algorithm continues to stuff higher voltages into the CPU; the only saving grace is the FIT table. Even with higher PBO limits, and the 1.5v input voltage, the FIT table limits the high current draw voltage. For most CPU's it will be about 1.325v; but each CPU has it's own limit.

I personally don't like PBO. I have much better results with a manual OC. I run lower voltages, at lower currents, and much lower temps; all while maintaining higher CPU performance.

I know people like the 5ghz plus single threaded performance in synthetics, but in reality, while gaming (or running another workload), more than 1 thread will be active. As soon as a second thread fires up, pbo drops that single core down to below what you can run with a static OC anyway 

So unless you have a totally idle system, you are not running anything in the background (like steam etc), you are never going to get the sustained single threaded boost.

I run 4825/[email protected] as my 24/7 overclock, and I have been very happy with it thus far.


----------



## PWn3R

Gadfly said:


> Yep... that is normal with Zen2 and Zen3 CPU's.
> 
> Voltage is not really what causes degradation, it is a combination of current and tempature.
> 
> Which is why so many people degrade thier CPU's with PBO. They raise the current limits, and AMD's algorithm continues to stuff higher voltages into the CPU; the only saving grace is the FIT table. Even with higher PBO limits, and the 1.5v input voltage, the FIT table limits the high current draw voltage. For most CPU's it will be about 1.325v; but each CPU has it's own limit.
> 
> I personally don't like PBO. I have much better results with a manual OC. I run lower voltages, at lower currents, and much lower temps; all while maintaining higher CPU performance.
> 
> I know people like the 5ghz plus single threaded performance in synthetics, but in reality, while gaming (or running another workload), more than 1 thread will be active. As soon as a second thread fires up, pbo drops that single core down to below what you can run with a static OC anyway
> 
> So unless you have a totally idle system, you are not running anything in the background (like steam etc), you are never going to get the sustained single threaded boost.
> 
> I run 4825/[email protected] as my 24/7 overclock, and I have been very happy with it thus far.


Yeah, I hear you there. I’m going back to my per ccx and trying to work that for now it is not stable on 3101. Thank you for not taking my comments as an attack on you or anyone else. I could buy another one if something ent wrong assuming I could find one in stock, but I don’t want to need to do that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PJVol

Gadfly said:


> As soon as a second thread fires up, pbo drops that single core down to below what you can run with a static OC anyway


I think you probably oversimplify here. The way avfs behave in that case is subject to the same rules and restrictions regardless of number of cores involved, limited mostly by power and temp. It can be easily seen if you run light load and start setting affinity in task manager, successively increasing the number of cores.

PS: or even better, just set in CB R20 number of render threads, run and watch HWInfo.


----------



## Reica

Gadfly said:


> I run 4825/[email protected] as my 24/7 overclock, and I have been very happy with it thus far.


Which cooling solutions are you running again, aside of a custom loop?

I can run 4.5/4.5 at 1.225 with a NH-D15 and it creeps to 91C after a 3 minute loop of CB20.
If I try 4.6/4.6 it triggers the thermal protection and shuts itself down.

In games that aren't really CPU intensive it'll stay between 60 and 70 with the 4.6/4.6 , but I can't really test if it's stable because the stresstests will trigger thermal warnings almost instantly.

Also, does the CPU still clock back when you do a per CCX multiplier? Because CPU-Z and HWINFO keep reporting 4.5 or 4.6GHz with a 45 or 46 multiplier constantly with locked voltage at whatever I set it at minus vDroop. Effective clock does drop down a lot lower, but it seems voltage never really drops to the really low idle voltages I can see when I use just PBO.


----------



## Elfear

This is probably a dumb question, but after updating my bios I now have redundant menus. Under AI Tweaker I have PBO settings and DRAM/FCLK settings and I have similar menus under Advanced --> AMD Overclocking. Which menu should I be adjusting the settings?


----------



## Gadfly

Reica said:


> Which cooling solutions are you running again, aside of a custom loop?
> 
> I can run 4.5/4.5 at 1.225 with a NH-D15 and it creeps to 91C after a 3 minute loop of CB20.
> If I try 4.6/4.6 it triggers the thermal protection and shuts itself down.
> 
> In games that aren't really CPU intensive it'll stay between 60 and 70 with the 4.6/4.6 , but I can't really test if it's stable because the stresstests will trigger thermal warnings almost instantly.
> 
> Also, does the CPU still clock back when you do a per CCX multiplier? Because CPU-Z and HWINFO keep reporting 4.5 or 4.6GHz with a 45 or 46 multiplier constantly with locked voltage at whatever I set it at minus vDroop. Effective clock does drop down a lot lower, but it seems voltage never really drops to the really low idle voltages I can see when I use just PBO.


Static OC's don't roll back. They run what you set all the time.

Ekwb velocity block, 4x 480mm rads, dual d5s pumps, liquid metal tim.


----------



## Gadfly

Elfear said:


> This is probably a dumb question, but after updating my bios I now have redundant menus. Under AI Tweaker I have PBO settings and DRAM/FCLK settings and I have similar menus under Advanced --> AMD Overclocking. Which menu should I be adjusting the settings?


Extreme tweaker


----------



## PJVol

Reica said:


> but it seems voltage never really drops to the really low idle


because current does. I personally am not a big fan of static OC, simply because it partialy brakes the fundamental principles of zen2/3 power management via complex avfs algos. But it may be very usefull for certain type of workloads. What sensors you mainly should look at with ryzen are the effective clock group (not the peak ones) - they give you an idea of what the real performance of cpu is in certain conditions, and PPT which is the total power consumed, may watch for smu power values as well for per core basis. The later together with the first tells you how effective your cpu is either per core or as a whole, i.e. amount of work it does at a given power.


----------



## genelecs

Gadfly said:


> Try changing 1.8v pll to 1.9v i am able to run fclk at 1966 @ 1.9v and 2000 @ 1.95v.


*THANK YOU! *once again for your brilliant advice throughout this thread! I've finally got 2000 FCLK to post!!

I've found below 1.95v PLL would fail Q-Code 7 (like I had anything above 1866 FCLK on 3002 behaved)-
1.96v PLL gets me a POST but then my RAM at 1.35v (it's XMP rated voltage) would fail to boot windows, so stuck at 1.4v and happy to say first time in Windows at 2000 FCLK 1:1:1

Excuse the rubbish XMP times but so good to see! This was my target with my 5950x.....










Now to see if it's TM5/OCCT stable! 😂


----------



## PWn3R

genelecs said:


> *THANK YOU! *once again for your brilliant advice throughout this thread! I've finally got 2000 FCLK to post!!
> 
> I've found below 1.95v PLL would fail Q-Code 7 (like I had anything above 1866 FCLK on 3002 behaved)-
> 1.96v PLL gets me a POST but then my RAM at 1.35v (it's XMP rated voltage) would fail to boot windows, so stuck at 1.4v and happy to say first time in Windows at 2000 FCLK 1:1:1
> 
> Excuse the rubbish XMP times but so good to see! This was my target with my 5950x.....
> 
> View attachment 2471205
> 
> 
> Now to see if it's TM5/OCCT stable! [emoji23]


Do we know if having pll that high is safe? I haven’t seen anything saying yes or no. I tried 1.9 but didn’t want to go any higher without feedback. I know Intel XMP on some boards would default to 2.1, which was too high.

Edit: BTW congrats I want to try to get 1900, and have tried everything Gadfly suggested but the turd IMC just doesn’t wanna and apparently I’m not it’s real dad.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## genelecs

PWn3R said:


> Do we know if having pll that high is safe? I haven’t seen anything saying yes or no. I tried 1.9 but didn’t want to go any higher without feedback. I know Intel XMP on some boards would default to 2.1, which was too high.
> Edit: BTW congrats I want to try to get 1900, and have tried everything Gadfly suggested but the turd IMC just doesn’t wanna and apparently I’m not it’s real dad.
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Crashed hard after 10 mins of TM5 at FLCK 2000 so will need some more time to see if it's possible to stable it. I'm worried about the PLL volts aswell but think Gadfly mentioned he saw it autoing to 2v+ at some stage.

I'm personally quite happy with 3800/1900 FCLK for now with "sensible" voltages. I still wouldn't mind a list of what is deemed safe regarding VSOC/VDDP/IOD/CCD/PLL.

For 1900FCLK, I really recommend trying the new BIOS - I think I was in the same boat with you that I couldn't get it above 1866 FCLK no matter what.

After I upgraded the BIOS today, greg_p's earlier suggestion of vSOC 1.2, VDDG IOD 1.15, vSOC LLC to 3 and it posted straight away for the very first time at 1900 FCLK.
I think IOD 1.15 was the key for me to get the memory to train properly but it actually posted and I got it both TM5 and OCCT stable with CL16 3800. 

I'm just seeing if I can try it with slightly lower voltages now (1.1 on IOD/CCD)


----------



## Gadfly

PWn3R said:


> Do we know if having pll that high is safe? I haven’t seen anything saying yes or no. I tried 1.9 but didn’t want to go any higher without feedback. I know Intel XMP on some boards would default to 2.1, which was too high.
> 
> Edit: BTW congrats I want to try to get 1900, and have tried everything Gadfly suggested but the turd IMC just doesn’t wanna and apparently I’m not it’s real dad.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Upto 2.1v PLL should be "safe" for the board.

I am not too worried about 1.95v - 2.0v.

Here is what I found works well with this BIOS:


VDDG CCD: 0.985v
VDDG IOD: 1.05v
SB 1.0v: 1.05v
PLL 1.8v: 1.95v
Soc: 1.15v (highest vddg + 0.1v)

I am still working on a 2x8gb 4000 profile; but 16-16-10-12-32-48 seems to be working well, I can't get 4x8gb to run over 3966, no matter what I do.


----------



## PWn3R

Is the voltage regulator on the CPU on AMD or on the motherboard?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gadfly

PWn3R said:


> Is the voltage regulator on the CPU on AMD or on the motherboard?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Both.

The board will maintain the 1.5v core voltage, and the CPU will adjust VID. For example, start a 4 core workload and watch the core VID's change, and watch the SVI2 core voltage droop under the load.

As the load moves from core to core you will see the VID change. The cores can request a higher voltage, but they can never get more voltage than the SVI2 core voltage. So under an all core load, if SVI2 core droops to 1.32v and the cores are requesting 1.38v VID they only get 1.32v


----------



## t4t3r

zsoltmol said:


> CPU-Z vs HWInfo64
> 
> Idle
> View attachment 2471192
> 
> 
> 
> Light load of constantly moving my mouse on the screen
> View attachment 2471193


You need to be looking at SVI2 TFN which is the ACTUAL voltage going to the cpu.

Whether on Auto settings or PBO, shouldn't worry at all about what it's getting as it's being managed by the chip itself and it won't cause itself any harm. When on manual voltages, that's when it's on you to make sure you're set correctly with vcore, llc, etc. I constantly see specific vcore voltages referenced as "safe" which is many times not true - your specific chips FIT voltage is what determines safe operation and that's on each person individually when manually overclocking.


----------



## Gadfly

t4t3r said:


> You need to be looking at SVI2 TFN which is the ACTUAL voltage going to the cpu.


Yes, but not nessicarily what voltage is going to the cores.


----------



## dr.Rafi

PWn3R said:


> I can’t find anything from AMD saying it should go that high. I found two things from AMD recommending less than 1.35, including a video from a field trip MSI did and that is so old the 1.35 would’ve been on the 12Nm parts I think. I don’t want this thing to off itself, I'm not saying you are wrong about this being "normal" I'm just concerned.
> 
> I do also think something else is wrong because of the need to increase voltage and lower clock speeds on the per CCX I had setup.
> 
> EDIT: For giggles I did try one more time with only two sticks of RAM to get 1900 FCLK to boot. I put IOD and other voltage to 1.0, SOC to 1.15 and got halfway to Windows 1 time and immediately went back to post codes DF, 15 and 07 non stop.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


LLC medium or high both cpu and soc, and max all other setting in digi


genelecs said:


> *THANK YOU! *once again for your brilliant advice throughout this thread! I've finally got 2000 FCLK to post!!
> 
> I've found below 1.95v PLL would fail Q-Code 7 (like I had anything above 1866 FCLK on 3002 behaved)-
> 1.96v PLL gets me a POST but then my RAM at 1.35v (it's XMP rated voltage) would fail to boot windows, so stuck at 1.4v and happy to say first time in Windows at 2000 FCLK 1:1:1
> 
> Excuse the rubbish XMP times but so good to see! This was my target with my 5950x.....
> 
> View attachment 2471205
> 
> 
> Now to see if it's TM5/OCCT stable! 😂


I never had issue to boot 2000 and beyond had first 5800x sold it and now 5950x and 5900x and 3 kit of memory bdie and 2 motherboards asus strix 570 i gaming ,and aorus master x570 gigabyte any combination can boot 2000 and defult PLL 1.8 Auto.








Edit: only issue i have , memory performance scale to 1966 fclk but 2000 and beyond it start dropping even cpu only dependent tests


----------



## dr.Rafi

genelecs said:


> Crashed hard after 10 mins of TM5 at FLCK 2000 so will need some more time to see if it's possible to stable it. I'm worried about the PLL volts aswell but think Gadfly mentioned he saw it autoing to 2v+ at some stage.
> 
> I'm personally quite happy with 3800/1900 FCLK for now with "sensible" voltages. I still wouldn't mind a list of what is deemed safe regarding VSOC/VDDP/IOD/CCD/PLL.
> 
> For 1900FCLK, I really recommend trying the new BIOS - I think I was in the same boat with you that I couldn't get it above 1866 FCLK no matter what.
> 
> After I upgraded the BIOS today, greg_p's earlier suggestion of vSOC 1.2, VDDG IOD 1.15, vSOC LLC to 3 and it posted straight away for the very first time at 1900 FCLK.
> I think IOD 1.15 was the key for me to get the memory to train properly but it actually posted and I got it both TM5 and OCCT stable with CL16 3800.
> 
> I'm just seeing if I can try it with slightly lower voltages now (1.1 on IOD/CCD)


Sweet spot for me with VDDG iod is 1050 mv to 1060mv for 3800 to 3933 memory not for stability but less than that the performance of memory drop with AIDA bench .


----------



## lDevilDriverl

Gadfly said:


> I am still working on a 2x8gb 4000 profile; but 16-16-10-12-32-48 seems to be working well, I can't get 4x8gb to run over 3966, no matter what I do


use procodt 43.6 or try to use my settings. rdrds and wrwrs are working now and can affect ram overclocking
but whea errors are still there=(


----------



## GRABibus

Reica said:


> Which cooling solutions are you running again, aside of a custom loop?
> 
> I can run 4.5/4.5 at 1.225 with a NH-D15 and it creeps to 91C after a 3 minute loop of CB20.
> If I try 4.6/4.6 it triggers the thermal protection and shuts itself down.
> 
> In games that aren't really CPU intensive it'll stay between 60 and 70 with the 4.6/4.6 , but I can't really test if it's stable because the stresstests will trigger thermal warnings almost instantly.
> 
> Also, does the CPU still clock back when you do a per CCX multiplier? Because CPU-Z and HWINFO keep reporting 4.5 or 4.6GHz with a 45 or 46 multiplier constantly with locked voltage at whatever I set it at minus vDroop. Effective clock does drop down a lot lower, but it seems voltage never really drops to the really low idle voltages I can see when I use just PBO.


CBR20 is not a long term stability test.

your cooling doesn’t allow to test stability with P95.

Try realbench 2.56 stability test (full RAM test), for at least 4 hours.
Check temperatures if they are are below the one’s you get with CBR20.

realbench is a perfect stability Test and realistic also.


----------



## genelecs

Gadfly said:


> Upto 2.1v PLL should be "safe" for the board.
> I am not too worried about 1.95v - 2.0v.
> Here is what I found works well with this BIOS:
> 
> VDDG CCD: 0.985v
> VDDG IOD: 1.05v
> SB 1.0v: 1.05v
> PLL 1.8v: 1.95v
> Soc: 1.15v (highest vddg + 0.1v)





dr.Rafi said:


> Sweet spot for me with VDDG iod is 1050 mv to 1060mv for 3800 to 3933 memory not for stability but less than that the performance of memory drop with AIDA bench .


Before my C8H, I had a X570 Aorus Master but it had a fault where the PCIe slots ran at half speed so it was RMAd. It had the same limitation with my 5950x of anything above 1866 FCLK would not post, I tried a plethora of different voltage ranges on both boards especially regarding the CCD/IOD but it seems now on my C8H with 3101 as long as I have CCD of above 1.05v and above (still experimenting with this) I can post 1900 which is something I'm fairly certain I was limited in the past.



dr.Rafi said:


> 0x and 5900x and 3 kit of memory bdie and 2 motherboards asus strix 570 i gaming ,and aorus master x570 gigabyte any combination can boot 2000 and defult PLL 1.8 Auto.


Regarding PLL voltage at FLCK 2000, it seems my board will fail to post on memory training at anything at PLL 1.95v or below. 1.96v seems to be the trigger point, I remember Gadfly suggesting this a few threads back as another guy with a Asus board had a similar issue.



Gadfly said:


> Soc: 1.15v (highest vddg + 0.1v)


My only worry currently is my 3800/1900 1:1:1 TM5/OCCT daily stable setup is currently vSOC is 1.1250v and my IOD is 1.10v - I've always thought the IOD _should _always be below vSOC but I'm not sure by how much, some sources say 40mV - if so do i need to bump my vSOC to 1.14/1.15 to be on the safe side or better still lower the IOD?

Thank you for all your advice, it's been super helpful.


----------



## dr.Rafi

lDevilDriverl said:


> use procodt 43.6 or try to use my settings. rdrds and wrwrs are working now and can affect ram overclocking
> but whea errors are still there=(
> View attachment 2471243


How you increase testing time in TM5 ?


----------



## dr.Rafi

genelecs said:


> Before my C8H, I had a X570 Aorus Master but it had a fault where the PCIe slots ran at half speed so it was RMAd. It had the same limitation with my 5950x of anything above 1866 FCLK would not post, I tried a plethora of different voltage ranges on both boards especially regarding the CCD/IOD but it seems now on my C8H with 3101 as long as I have CCD of above 1.05v and above (still experimenting with this) I can post 1900 which is something I'm fairly certain I was limited in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding PLL voltage at FLCK 2000, it seems my board will fail to post on memory training at anything at PLL 1.95v or below. 1.96v seems to be the trigger point, I remember Gadfly suggesting this a few threads back as another guy with a Asus board had a similar issue.
> 
> 
> 
> My only worry currently is my 3800/1900 1:1:1 TM5/OCCT daily stable setup is currently vSOC is 1.1250v and my IOD is 1.10v - I've always thought the IOD _should _always be below vSOC but I'm not sure by how much, some sources say 40mV - if so do i need to bump my vSOC to 1.14/1.15 to be on the safe side or better still lower the IOD?
> 
> Thank you for all your advice, it's been super helpful.


not sure but as i follow up this forum, most of people who have issues to boot with high fclk 1866 or up using non Samsung bdie gskill memory, for me i never tried any other types of memory only Gskill Bdie so may be that is a key to boot with higher memory clocks .


----------



## kuutale

Anybody tested curved optimizer? 2702 my stable negative curve is -17. Now 3101 bios i can do -25 allcore without llc settings? but points not get better. I go testing core by core allthought cdd0 is better and focusing ccd1


----------



## greg_p

I have Samsung B die and cannot post over 1866, 1.5V on RAM, Vsoc 1.2, 1.15 IOD and CCD and 1.95 PLL. I have accepted it's due to silicon quality.
No problem with 2 sticks and/or 1/2 UCLK.


----------



## Reica

GRABibus said:


> CBR20 is not a long term stability test.
> 
> your cooling doesn’t allow to test stability with P95.
> 
> Try realbench 2.56 stability test (full RAM test), for at least 4 hours.
> Check temperatures if they are are below the one’s you get with CBR20.
> 
> realbench is a perfect stability Test and realistic also.


Yeah reading back my post I may have implied I was using CB20 as a stresstest, I did not. That was just to see how the cooler could handle the heat short term.
I was using P95 with AVX disabled as a stresser. But even that ran very hot. 

I'll check out Realbench tomorrow. See how it does. Thanks for the heads up.

--- 

@Gadfly

I did check out the PBO values you posted at some point (PBO: manual: 280/235/245, Overdrive +50MHz etc), but it resulted in very hard crashes. Unable to boot, windows recovery hanging/failing and I was just lucky enough to get back in the BIOS to load optimized defaults again. Could only get there after around 10 reboots. Was about to do a full re-flash. Whoops? 

Maybe I'll just wait and see what PBO 2 does. Probably still not as good as a manual OC. Saw in-game temps in the mid 80's yesterday at worse clocks & temps than a static 4.5GHz OC (which were mid 60's to mid 70's).


----------



## lDevilDriverl

dr.Rafi said:


> How you increase testing time in TM5 ?


it depends on ram capacity. also you can edit tm5 profile and change it


----------



## dr.Rafi

greg_p said:


> I have Samsung B die and cannot post over 1866, 1.5V on RAM, Vsoc 1.2, 1.15 IOD and CCD and 1.95 PLL. I have accepted it's due to silicon quality.
> No problem with 2 sticks and/or 1/2 UCLK.
> View attachment 2471257
> 
> View attachment 2471259


Did you tries 16 16 16 16 32 48and trfc over 300, Tfaw 16?


----------



## genelecs

greg_p said:


> I have Samsung B die and cannot post over 1866, 1.5V on RAM, Vsoc 1.2, 1.15 IOD and CCD and 1.95 PLL. I have accepted it's due to silicon quality.
> No problem with 2 sticks and/or 1/2 UCLK.





dr.Rafi said:


> Did you tries 16 16 16 16 32 48and trfc over 300, Tfaw 16?


@greg_p I suspect dr.Rafi's above suggestion will help you, ie relax your ram and start from there. I think you'll be able to get FCLK with 3101 now for sure. I suspect our IMCs aren't as bad as we think. I was shocked to get 1900+ FCLK since this BIOS update as I honestly couldn't get anything to post above 1866.

I have Samsung B-Die but they are A0 rev and aren't the best, but to be honest I haven't yet spent much time playing around with them, they are 4000 C18 XMP sticks which is what I've used on previous intel builds- so for now I've only set manually the primary timings on "FAST" preset on DRAM Calc plus tRFC and tFAW which is what setting the XMP profile did at 4000 anyway.

I know timing wise it's terrible compared to most peoples C14 3800 on here 😂 but its a start in the right direction for me regarding 1900+ FCLK. I couldn't boot at all with these settings on 3003.

DRAM 1.4
VSOC: 1.15
IOD: 1.1 (I can use 1.05v TM5 stable but I found audio dropout issues unless it was 1.1v)
CCD: 0.95
VDDP: Auto


----------



## Gadfly

dr.Rafi said:


> LLC medium or high both cpu and soc, and max all other setting in digi
> 
> I never had issue to boot 2000 and beyond had first 5800x sold it and now 5950x and 5900x and 3 kit of memory bdie and 2 motherboards asus strix 570 i gaming ,and aorus master x570 gigabyte any combination can boot 2000 and defult PLL 1.8 Auto.
> View attachment 2471232
> 
> Edit: only issue i have , memory performance scale to 1966 fclk but 2000 and beyond it start dropping even cpu only dependent tests


I am starting to wonder if it is just the bios on the hero's


----------



## t4t3r

genelecs said:


> @greg_p I suspect dr.Rafi's above suggestion will help you, ie relax your ram and start from there. I think you'll be able to get FCLK with 3101 now for sure. I suspect our IMCs aren't as bad as we think. I was shocked to get 1900+ FCLK since this BIOS update as I honestly couldn't get anything to post above 1866.
> 
> I have Samsung B-Die but they are A0 rev and aren't the best, but to be honest I haven't yet spent much time playing around with them, they are 4000 C18 XMP sticks which is what I've used on previous intel builds- so for now I've only set manually the primary timings on "FAST" preset on DRAM Calc plus tRFC and tFAW which is what setting the XMP profile did at 4000 anyway.
> 
> I know timing wise it's terrible compared to most peoples C14 3800 on here 😂 but its a start in the right direction for me regarding 1900+ FCLK. I couldn't boot at all with these settings on 3003.
> 
> DRAM 1.4
> VSOC: 1.15
> IOD: 1.1 (I can use 1.05v TM5 stable but I found audio dropout issues unless it was 1.1v)
> CCD: 0.95
> VDDP: Auto
> 
> View attachment 2471289


Probably just a matter of voltage. It's b-die so set 1.5v and forget it.  Not much of a reason to run anything less.


----------



## greg_p

Actually not, I have set 1.5V, very relaxed timing (actually 19-19-19...) and still no post at 1900/3800 with ghigh vsoc, vdd iog and Vpll. I'd better straighten timings at 1866.


----------



## genelecs

t4t3r said:


> Probably just a matter of voltage. It's b-die so set 1.5v and forget it.  Not much of a reason to run anything less.


I always thought having A0 sticks would have a influence, especially what is reflected in DRAM Calc but I'm hopeful - however my previous attempts at tightening have always ended up that I could never get TM5 stable. But now I'm happy with 3800/1900 will see what we can achieve. I'm a little wary about running 1.5v daily, I know B-Die is fine with it but less is more sometimes you know 😁




greg_p said:


> Actually not, I have set 1.5V, very relaxed timing (actually 19-19-19...) and still no post at 1900/3800 with ghigh vsoc, vdd iog and Vpll. I'd better straighten timings at 1866.


I just realised it was your own post of _"1900/3800 Vsoc 1.2, VDDG iod 1.15, all LLC to 3" _which is what got me to my very first 1900 FCLK on the new bios, perhaps you did get very unlucky :-(


----------



## greg_p

Actually I have very good results at 1866 . And PBO works fine in this 3101, with lower temps and no crash so far. I will test with later release.


----------



## uplink

greg_p said:


> I have Samsung B die and cannot post over 1866, 1.5V on RAM, Vsoc 1.2, 1.15 IOD and CCD and 1.95 PLL. I have accepted it's due to silicon quality.
> No problem with 2 sticks and/or 1/2 UCLK.
> View attachment 2471257
> 
> View attachment 2471259


 I totally don't get it, how do You all get to the benchmark barrier? I wasn't able to get over 10k with heavy OC. Is my CPU faulty? :/ I've tried like 10 BiOS-es and still the same results. Tried dozens of hours of memory clocking and settings and without no avail 

@greg_p would You be a honey and run a CPU benchmark in 3D Mark for me?









Result







www.3dmark.com





I was able to pump it up up to 15,1k in one run, that's nice since before 270x I wasn't able to go above 9-10k


----------



## genelecs

greg_p said:


> Actually I have very good results at 1866 . And PBO works fine in this 3101, with lower temps and no crash so far. I will test with later release.


Well that's true you have very nice RAM and benchmarks so I guess you won't be to upset


----------



## GRABibus

Reica said:


> I was using P95 with AVX disabled as a stresser. But even that too hot


Did you try P95 v26.6 ( last version without AVX) small FFT’s as a « efficiency cooling » tester ?
10 minutes is enough.


----------



## greg_p

Sure,




























Update aida memory


----------



## uplink

greg_p said:


> Sure,
> View attachment 2471320
> 
> 
> View attachment 2471321
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2471322


 You have the Power Level something in BiOS setting? I miss that one on my Formula  I dunno why :/. It's simply not there, in any version of the BiOS. You use PLL 3, right? Or that performance level enhancer level 3?

On my Formula, there's no Performance Enhancer 

I use these settings [snap is from older BiOS], do You have the Performance Enhancer in Extreme tweaker?

I don't


----------



## genelecs

uplink said:


> You have the Power Level something in BiOS setting? I miss that one on my Formula  I dunno why :/. It's simply not there, in any version of the BiOS. You use PLL 3, right? Or that performance level enhancer level 3?
> 
> On my Formula, there's no Performance Enhancer


I know it's a silly question but you do have PBO on right? Your Cinebench and GPU-Z MT scores look like its off.


----------



## uplink

genelecs said:


> I know it's a silly question but you do have PBO on right? Your Cinebench and GPU-Z MT scores look like its off.


 When I turn on the PBO [enable, instead of Auto, don't know how to set it, any hints?] it runs my CPU up to 81°C instead of 60°C and I gain like 11900 - 12100 pts in CPU-z MT :/. But I'm nowhere near Your score. And in Cinebench I have tops 10200 pts .

Can You help me set up the PBO? When I use Ryzen Master auto OC on PBO, it runs a bit better [e.g. 12600 pts for CPU-z MT and CB runs at almost 10500 pts] but it's like the limit of the CPU :/.


----------



## greg_p

uplink said:


> You have the Power Level something in BiOS setting? I miss that one on my Formula  I dunno why :/. It's simply not there, in any version of the BiOS. You use PLL 3, right? Or that performance level enhancer level 3?
> 
> On my Formula, there's no Performance Enhancer
> 
> I use these settings [snap is from older BiOS], do You have the Performance Enhancer in Extreme tweaker?
> 
> I don't


I don't have a formula but a standard CH8. Here my bios settings on 3101


----------



## greg_p

uplink said:


> When I turn on the PBO [enable, instead of Auto, don't know how to set it, any hints?] it runs my CPU up to 81°C instead of 60°C and I gain like 11900 - 12100 pts in CPU-z MT :/. But I'm nowhere near Your score. And in Cinebench I have tops 10200 pts .
> 
> Can You help me set up the PBO? When I use Ryzen Master auto OC on PBO, it runs a bit better [e.g. 12600 pts for CPU-z MT and CB runs at almost 10500 pts] but it's like the limit of the CPU :/.


Have a look in my pbo settings. The way PBO settings are organized in the current bios is a bit messy. PBO is good when :

you do use Curve optimizer to lower voltages at least on a all core basic, negative -5 at least. That is 'advanced-> AMD overclocking->PBO set to advanced, and just change curve optimzer value
Update the power limit, otherwise it will keep with standard 105w power enveloppe. It has to be done only in extrme tweaker -> PBO
leave ryzen master, it is polling hardware very often and in PBO mode, it raises vcore voltage crazy high. You can test values on RM, but set it in Bios so as to not use software to handle hardware.


----------



## LtMatt

I tried the new 3103 BIOS, but for me enabling PBO/Curve Optimizer still nerfs the L3 cache speed, so I've gone back to 2702 to get scores back up to 700mb ish.


----------



## greg_p

LtMatt said:


> I tried the new 3103 BIOS, but for me enabling PBO/Curve Optimizer still nerfs the L3 cache speed, so I've gone back to 2702 to get scores back up to 700mb ish.


This cache speed stuff is garbage, I don't see a difference except in bench, and bench in just useless if it's not related to a real use. Here there are benefit to PBO because I got at least 400Mhz improvement in single core operation.


----------



## LtMatt

greg_p said:


> This cache speed stuff is garbage, I don't see a difference except in bench, and bench in just useless if it's not related to a real use. Here there are benefit to PBO because I got at least 400Mhz improvement in single core operation.


Yeah you might be right Greg, i can't detect lower performance in other apps or games to be fair. That said, I'll stick with 2702 for a bit longer in the hope it gets fixed. I see no difference in either BIOS on my setup aside from the L3 cache scores.


----------



## greg_p

If you are using PBO, temperature are better on 3103. If you are in manual OC, I don't think it makes a difference.


----------



## LtMatt

greg_p said:


> If you are using PBO, temperature are better on 3103. If you are in manual OC, I don't think it makes a difference.


Yeah i am using PBO and Curve Optimizer. What do you mean temperature is better, how much lower?


----------



## Dawidowski

greg_p said:


> If you are using PBO, temperature are better on 3103. If you are in manual OC, I don't think it makes a difference.


How much of a difference? 
My 5900x bruns down my house with PBO on. 
Hitting like 85C with AVX in games...


----------



## greg_p

Did you set 15 negative in curve optimizer?
On 2708, I ws 85 to 87 with 4875 Max effective in PBO, now I can get to 4975 with 81 to 82. I have -7 on 2 best cores, -12 on others on CCX0, and -25 on CCX1.


----------



## uplink

greg_p said:


> I don't have a formula but a standard CH8. Here my bios settings on 3101


 Thank You. I'll have a look at Your settings and will set my board accordingly


----------



## Huseyinbaykal

Any one have complate settings stable for 5950x and dark hero? Mine resets bsods randomly even with 2133mhz stock ram settings. Using 4x8gb b die gskill 4266 19-19-19 rams. I hate what I bought 😥


----------



## GRABibus

Huseyinbaykal said:


> Any one have complate settings stable for 5950x and dark hero? Mine resets bsods randomly even with 2133mhz stock ram settings. Using 4x8gb b die gskill 4266 19-19-19 rams. I hate what I bought 😥


which Bios ?


----------



## Huseyinbaykal

3101 latest @GRABibus


----------



## Nizzen

greg_p said:


> Sure,
> View attachment 2471320
> 
> 
> View attachment 2471321
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2471322
> 
> 
> Update aida memory
> View attachment 2471324


This is my start with 64GB memory:
Stock cpu and sat c16-16-16-16-28-51 and trfc =320. Rest is stock.


----------



## Audioboxer

@The Stilt Sorry if this has been asked before, it likely has (I tried to have a quick look), when putting PBO Fmax Enhancer on you said you used it with Performance Enhancer on default? Will auto or level 1/2 conflict with PBO Fmax Enhancer?

If anyone else knows, thanks!


----------



## dr.Rafi

genelecs said:


> @greg_p I suspect dr.Rafi's above suggestion will help you, ie relax your ram and start from there. I think you'll be able to get FCLK with 3101 now for sure. I suspect our IMCs aren't as bad as we think. I was shocked to get 1900+ FCLK since this BIOS update as I honestly couldn't get anything to post above 1866.
> 
> I have Samsung B-Die but they are A0 rev and aren't the best, but to be honest I haven't yet spent much time playing around with them, they are 4000 C18 XMP sticks which is what I've used on previous intel builds- so for now I've only set manually the primary timings on "FAST" preset on DRAM Calc plus tRFC and tFAW which is what setting the XMP profile did at 4000 anyway.
> 
> I know timing wise it's terrible compared to most peoples C14 3800 on here 😂 but its a start in the right direction for me regarding 1900+ FCLK. I couldn't boot at all with these settings on 3003.
> 
> DRAM 1.4
> VSOC: 1.15
> IOD: 1.1 (I can use 1.05v TM5 stable but I found audio dropout issues unless it was 1.1v)
> CCD: 0.95
> VDDP: Auto
> 
> View attachment 2471289


Your voltages seams reasonable to me I didnt test sound dropping because i use tv sound with Nvidia audio, the best way to start testing fclk ,is use high frequency rated memory by factory or bdie and to be QVL of mainboard, for bdie iuse 1.5 volt with out trying anything less put the voltages similar to as you mentioned, cpu defult no pbo or CO only cpu and soc LLC on 3 or high depend on motherboard and start using higher flck and memory 1:1 later on start adjusting other features and setting, forget about Ryzen memory calculator ,and all my memory setting with previous generation ,they net working on 5000 series ,even the new generation memory and fclk issues,but really memory is faster than previous one especially the latency.
Another point to mention it might help not sure, i always use chipset slot for nvme drive of windows system ,never use cpu direct linked slot , though on gigabyte aorus master wont let me install windows unless the drive is in cpu linked slot but after installation put the drive on chipset slot , i know some will think is slower but at least i am reducing the load on cpu , and cant feel the difference in games anyways.


----------



## dr.Rafi

Gadfly said:


> I am starting to wonder if it is just the bios on the hero's


May be the Auto is not doing it is job on Hero but its changing PLL with out displaying the changed value on other motherboard, I expect everthing and each motherboard have different VRM controller and power chips .


----------



## dr.Rafi

greg_p said:


> Actually not, I have set 1.5V, very relaxed timing (actually 19-19-19...) and still no post at 1900/3800 with ghigh vsoc, vdd iog and Vpll. I'd better straighten timings at 1866.


try not put all voltages high ,it does not work that way try use Vddp ,best 0.900 v, vddgiod max 1.100 and min 1.00, vddgccd max 0.950 v , soc 1.150 max, SOC AND CPU LLC on level 3 first then you can reduce CPu LLC only and test again , ddr 1.5 v .


----------



## genelecs

dr.Rafi said:


> Your voltages seams reasonable to me I didnt test sound dropping because i use tv sound with Nvidia audio, the best way to start testing fclk ,is use high frequency rated memory by factory or bdie and to be QVL of mainboard, for bdie iuse 1.5 volt with out trying anything less put the voltages similar to as you mentioned, cpu defult no pbo or CO only cpu and soc LLC on 3 or high depend on motherboard and start using higher flck and memory 1:1 later on start adjusting other features and setting, forget about Ryzen memory calculator ,and all my memory setting with previous generation ,they net working on 5000 series ,even the new generation memory and fclk issues,but really memory is faster than previous one especially the latency.
> Another point to mention it might help not sure, i always use chipset slot for nvme drive of windows system ,never use cpu direct linked slot , though on gigabyte aorus master wont let me install windows unless the drive is in cpu linked slot but after installation put the drive on chipset slot , i know some will think is slower but at least i am reducing the load on cpu , and cant feel the difference in games anyways.


Yeah I use an external RME soundcard and with IOD at less then 1.1v the usb would drop out even though the system was both TM5 and OCCT Large Data stable - 1.1v seems to be the fix for me, at least at 1900 FCLK.

Some interesting thoughts/advice in this - thank you - I've got XMP (1.35v) 4000 B-die and its on QVL- I've never bothered playing with timings on my previous intel builds as the C18 XMP 4000MHz ran great on it but I'm finding for example just setting my ram to 1.45v at 3800MHz and trying something like 16-16-16-16-32-48 and tRFC 304 I'm always coming up with errors in TM5. The only thing I've got stable is DRAM calc FAST primary timings + tFAW + tRFC suggestion for my XMP profile which is a very average 16-17-18-17-36-56, but its rock solid stable. Guess i'll try some 1.5v runs to see where I can end up but I would have thought being able to do 3800 C16 on 1.45v if I can do 4000 C18 on 1.35v - the other thing I need to try is if its possible to get FCLK 2000 stable, i can get it to post which is a big first for me on this BIOS but haven't really been able to get it stable yet, crashes the system on TM5 for example.


----------



## kratosatlante

[QUOTE = "Huseyinbaykal, publicación: 28703348, miembro: 642378"]
¿Alguien tiene una configuración completa estable para 5950x y dark hero? El mío restablece los bsods aleatoriamente incluso con la configuración de memoria ram de 2133 mhz. Usando 4x8gb b muere gskill 4266 19-19-19 rams. Odio lo que compré 😥
[/CITAR]
[/ CITA]

Si en la nueva BIOS no funciona vender y comprar patrio viper 4400cl19, tengo 2 kits con ch7wi 5600x, ahora estable 4000cl16 4x8


----------



## PWn3R

dr.Rafi said:


> not sure but as i follow up this forum, most of people who have issues to boot with high fclk 1866 or up using non Samsung bdie gskill memory, for me i never tried any other types of memory only Gskill Bdie so may be that is a key to boot with higher memory clocks .


I have used two different sets of Samsung BDie and while I’ve not tried some of the high voltages listed above today, I cannot post with 1900 FCLK with any other settings I’ve tried, even with 1.9 pll. And I’m talking trying 1.35v on ram with it at 2100 not posting most of the time Non Bdie is not the only problem. Seems some of these chips just have garbage IMCs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Boldish

Is there anyway to set an offset of >30 for the curve optimizer?

I have the current values for my 5900x:

0-151-302-203-304-305-306-307-308-309-3010-3011-30

I seems like this is a good chip but I can't push it further as the latest bios for the dark hero doesn't allow values >30.


----------



## LtMatt

LtMatt said:


> I tried the new 3103 BIOS, but for me enabling PBO/Curve Optimizer still nerfs the L3 cache speed, so I've gone back to 2702 to get scores back up to 700mb ish.


I gave 3103 another try, only this time i cleared CMOS after updating the BIOS. 

I now have higher than expected L3 Cache scores with PBO and Curve Optimizer enabled, so happy with that!


----------



## LtMatt

I’ve discovered why temperatures are lower on 3103.
Under the exact same PBO and Curve Optimizer settings I am drawing 30W less power. 
previously I could see peaks of up to 245-250W, now I can’t exceed 220W it seems with the same settings.
Performance is similar, maybe a small amount less but the lower temperatures make it worth it I think.


----------



## dr.Rafi

genelecs said:


> Yeah I use an external RME soundcard and with IOD at less then 1.1v the usb would drop out even though the system was both TM5 and OCCT Large Data stable - 1.1v seems to be the fix for me, at least at 1900 FCLK.
> 
> Some interesting thoughts/advice in this - thank you - I've got XMP (1.35v) 4000 B-die and its on QVL- I've never bothered playing with timings on my previous intel builds as the C18 XMP 4000MHz ran great on it but I'm finding for example just setting my ram to 1.45v at 3800MHz and trying something like 16-16-16-16-32-48 and tRFC 304 I'm always coming up with errors in TM5. The only thing I've got stable is DRAM calc FAST primary timings + tFAW + tRFC suggestion for my XMP profile which is a very average 16-17-18-17-36-56, but its rock solid stable. Guess i'll try some 1.5v runs to see where I can end up but I would have thought being able to do 3800 C16 on 1.45v if I can do 4000 C18 on 1.35v - the other thing I need to try is if its possible to get FCLK 2000 stable, i can get it to post which is a big first for me on this BIOS but haven't really been able to get it stable yet, crashes the system on TM5 for example.


I am still not sure how configure TM5 when i start the app. it start testing and finish after 7 minutes no errors even on 2000 fclk but i want to make it last longer to check better.


----------



## dr.Rafi

Dawidowski said:


> How much of a difference?
> My 5900x bruns down my house with PBO on.
> Hitting like 85C with AVX in games...


----------



## dr.Rafi

Dawidowski said:


> How much of a difference?
> My 5900x bruns down my house with PBO on.
> Hitting like 85C with AVX in games...


You can reduce PPT you lose some performance 2 to 3 % but drop 10 c


----------



## genelecs

dr.Rafi said:


> I am still not sure how configure TM5 when i start the app. it start testing and finish after 7 minutes no errors even on 2000 fclk but i want to make it last longer to check better.


You can find most custom configs here and instructions on how to load them in.
I personally recommend and use [email protected] anta777.cfg but i know lots of other people use 1usmus_v3.cfg - both are good and run usually for about 1hr+


----------



## dr.Rafi

LtMatt said:


> I gave 3103 another try, only this time i cleared CMOS after updating the BIOS.
> 
> I now have higher than expected L3 Cache scores with PBO and Curve Optimizer enabled, so happy with that!
> View attachment 2471409


Why the cpu is not boosting at all ?


----------



## genelecs

PWn3R said:


> I have used two different sets of Samsung BDie and while I’ve not tried some of the high voltages listed above today, I cannot post with 1900 FCLK with any other settings I’ve tried, even with 1.9 pll. And I’m talking trying 1.35v on ram with it at 2100 not posting most of the time Non Bdie is not the only problem. Seems some of these chips just have garbage IMCs.


On my C8H with the new bios I tried _1900/3800 Vsoc 1.2, VDDG iod 1.15, VSOC LLC to 3_ and now since then I can even post 1900 FCLK with Auto voltage settings, I'm actually a little puzzled what has happened but it almost feels like the board has learnt how to train the RAM with FCLK of 1900 after I put those settings in - can't really explain it properly but I 100% could not post with any settings I put it on 3003/2702 with any voltage settings I put in.


----------



## LtMatt

dr.Rafi said:


> Why the cpu is not boosting at all ?


I was running the Windows Balanced Power Profile in Power saver mode so I think that causes it sometimes. Ran it again now at Balanced and got 51x.


----------



## greg_p

Gadfly said:


> I am starting to wonder if it is just the bios on the hero's


I feel more and more that you got a point. There are more and more testimonials that auto feature is not working that good, except for some voltages. Memory auto timings never shows the same... It has been this for POB and it may be the case for a lot of others.
I think a reflash + clearcmos will have to be the base for another tuning session.


----------



## dr.Rafi

genelecs said:


> You can find most custom configs here and instructions on how to load them in.
> I personally recommend and use [email protected] anta777.cfg but i know lots of other people use 1usmus_v3.cfg - both are good and run usually for about 1hr+


Thank you running now


----------



## genelecs

Well it looks I got a bit too excited about finally reaching 1900 FCLK

It seems even though I'm TM5 stable at 1900 FCLK and it seems to behaving after long gaming sessions, I've just noticed a ton of WHEA errors at anything above 1800 FCLK - I can trigger it very easily in OCCT Large Data Set literarlly within 20 seconds of running it - ironically it does actually "pass" a 1hr of OCCT (ie no actual OCCT related errors) but WHEA errors are plentyful. I've tried upping and downing all the VSOC related voltages to find if I'm either too high or too low but I can't seem to find the right settings. 

Curious to anyone running 1900 FCLK+ on the new bios if they can run OCCT large data without WHEA.


----------



## LtMatt

genelecs said:


> Well it looks I got a bit too excited about finally reaching 1900 FCLK
> 
> It seems even though I'm TM5 stable at 1900 FCLK and it seems to behaving after long gaming sessions, I've just noticed a ton of WHEA errors at anything above 1800 FCLK - I can trigger it very easily in OCCT Large Data Set literarlly within 20 seconds of running it - ironically it does actually "pass" a 1hr of OCCT (ie no actual OCCT related errors) but WHEA errors are plentyful. I've tried upping and downing all the VSOC related voltages to find if I'm either too high or too low but I can't seem to find the right settings.
> 
> Curious to anyone running 1900 FCLK+ on the new bios if they can run OCCT large data without WHEA.
> 
> View attachment 2471412


No issues here, ran it for a few minutes. 

Timings, voltages and frequencies in the screenshot. Running CCD and IOD at 0.900 and 0.975.


----------



## karmal

this is my ram ..kit 128 gb i tried 4 different bios also the last beta at 3600mhz in docp i restart this also happens at 3400mhz.. 5 bios came out within 2 months obviously there is something wrong with these motherboards


----------



## RHBH

karmal said:


> this is my ram ..kit 128 gb i tried 4 different bios also the last beta at 3600mhz in docp i restart this also happens at 3400mhz.. 5 bios came out within 2 months obviously there is something wrong with these motherboards
> 
> View attachment 2471431


You're pretty much in the worst case scenario for high memory clocks, so I wouldn't expect great results.


High Density DIMMs (more stress for the IMC)
4 DIMMs (daisy chain board)

There is a reason why AMD rates their IMC and board design for 3200mhz (higher = OC), even tho they encourage users to chase higher clocks.


----------



## S0V3R1N

dr.Rafi said:


> You can reduce PPT you lose some performance 2 to 3 % but drop 10 c


Hi!

I have PBO set on MANUAL (3700x here) the Settings are 300/230/230. So what i a good number to reduce temps?


----------



## karmal

[QUOTE = "RHBH, post: 28703818, membro: 194180"]
Sei praticamente nella peggiore delle ipotesi per clock ad alta memoria, quindi non mi aspetto grandi risultati.


DIMM ad alta densità (maggiore stress per l'IMC)
4 DIMM (scheda daisy chain)

C'è un motivo per cui AMD valuta il proprio IMC e il design della scheda a 3200 mhz (più alto = OC), anche se incoraggiano gli utenti a cercare clock più alti.
[/ CITAZIONE]
before that i had 4 banks of 16 gb always hyper x at 3000mhz no problem .. i need 128 gb for editing and rendering and i got this ram certified on the asus site ,,, but what do they certify if it doesn't work?so what would you recommend ... now i am testing them at 3333mhz, let's see if i will have a reboot


----------



## Naeem

anyone has this working on ther 3000 series cpu and RX 6800s ?










Benchmarking AMD Smart Access Memory on Intel's Z490 Chipset - Legit Reviews


ASUS has released support for Re-Size BAR in their latest BIOS for Intel Z490 motherboards. This means you can now enjoy AMD Smart Access Memory on Intel.




www.legitreviews.com


----------



## Cavanta

How is the idle rebooting on the new 3101 BIOS?

I would like to clock it for decent temps while maintaining good performance.
Hoping the new BIOS is a little bit more stable then the 3003!


----------



## greg_p

Boldish said:


> Is there anyway to set an offset of >30 for the curve optimizer?
> 
> I have the current values for my 5900x:
> 
> 0-151-302-203-304-305-306-307-308-309-3010-3011-30
> 
> I seems like this is a good chip but I can't push it further as the latest bios for the dark hero doesn't allow values >30.


Curve optimizer is a mean to offset the voltage/frequency curve by plus or minus a "count" value. This count value is a variable amount of voltage depending on if you are in a single thread or multithread application. In case of multi, a count unity is 3mv, and 5mv in single. And AMD did limit this to 30 unity max, which does between 90mv to 150mv.


----------



## Sindragosaa

Finally got my PBO CO settings working in 3103 and was able to match my manual OC settings, only downside is the PBO settings are running +10degC (from 80degC to 90degC) hotter than my manual OC under a avx load, albeit with better single core performance.

*3103 PBO Adjusted CO per core:

















3003 Static OC 4600/4500:















*

I think next, I'll see if I can get a better static OC with better thermals.


----------



## uplink

Hey there @greg_p. So I just spend around 4 hours with tweaking my BiOS [3101] according to Your settings. I'm confused AF . I mean I have Formula, which "should" be superior to Hero, but according to all I read is not, not even close. It's like Hero and Dark Hero have superior support due to wider spread among users.

Well anyway, I set everything as You had, ofc. I didn't even boot, I mean Your memory timings are super tight.

So I set everything as You have minus Your memory timings, I used my D.O.C.P. settings and it crashed.

So I subtracted manual curve optimizer for core load, and it worked.

My score is now even lower than when I'm on manual settings.

I'm super confused :/

Is there any chance that my mobo, or CPU is faulty? I mean I power them both with Asus ROG Strix Thor 1200P PSU, so that shouldn't be a problem. Memory also passed all MemTest when I time them correctly.

Please let me know what You think!

With best regards

uplink

P.S.: Here are my screens. I know that my mutlicore went up a bit, but single core went greatly down [650 - 680 pts down to 630] and the CPU is running at it's peak [ROG Ryujin 360 with sandwiched high pressure high airflow fans].


----------



## genelecs

@greg_p After I discovered WHEA errors on all my 1900FCLK+ I've discovered that the reason I believe it now POSTs is actually some old lingering settings from previous BIOS which I think suggests the defaults in 3103 have changed, and thus when using these settings it's either skipping memory training now on 3101, allowing me to get into windows with both 1900 and 2000 FCLK but introducing the WHEA errors, even though I'm actually TM5 stable on 1900FCLK my WHEA error list is huge. So I think what happened on my board is that when I upgraded to 3101 I believe these settings were still loaded from 3003 that when I put 1900 FCLK in allowed it to post.

Basically if I do a CMOS reset and put settings for 1900 FCLK manually* I still fail at Q-Code 07 like I did at 3003* which I think you also have the same - but if I load a save preset from 3003 (bad practice I know) I notice the following BIOS settings are different between 3003/3101 - settings on the right side are the "old" ones that allow 1900 FCLK post with WHEA errors but only on BIOS 3101.


















What's even stranger if I do a search for all these differences and go back to "old" settings manually as opposed to loading a present I still fail at Q-Code 07, so I wonder if there is something on my old 3003 presets that allows 3101 to post at higher FCLK even with our weak IMC.

Ah well! - I guess back to 1866/3733 for me now, without WHEA and stable. 😂


----------



## RHBH

Is there a guide to undervolt/increase boost clock while retaining stock temps? 

PBO limits really hurts my temps.


----------



## PWn3R

@genelecs That is very interesting. I don’t have any saved configurations, I’ve always re-entered all the settings by hand. I am guessing there is something around memory training that is being saved in the profile and being applied when you restore that is letting you boot/post. I may try some of the higher voltages that people posted in the last two days to see if I can get this thing to post 1900/3800 but am not holding my breath as even 1900/2100 is not working 95% of the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## greg_p

genelecs said:


> @greg_p After I discovered WHEA errors on all my 1900FCLK+ I've discovered that the reason I believe it now POSTs is actually some old lingering settings from previous BIOS which I think suggests the defaults in 3103 have changed, and thus when using these settings it's either skipping memory training now on 3101, allowing me to get into windows with both 1900 and 2000 FCLK but introducing the WHEA errors, even though I'm actually TM5 stable on 1900FCLK my WHEA error list is huge. So I think what happened on my board is that when I upgraded to 3101 I believe these settings were still loaded from 3101 that when I put 1900 FCLK in allowed it to post.
> 
> Basically if I do a CMOS reset and put settings for 1900 FCLK manually* I still fail at Q-Code 07 like I did at 3003* which I think you also have the same - but if I load a save preset from 3003 (bad practice I know) I notice the following BIOS settings are different between 3003/3101 - settings on the right side are the "old" ones that allow 1900 FCLK post with WHEA errors but only on BIOS 3101.
> 
> View attachment 2471471
> 
> View attachment 2471472
> 
> 
> What's even stranger if I do a search for all these differences and go back to "old" settings manually as opposed to loading a present I still fail at Q-Code 07, so I wonder if there is something on my old 3003 presets that allows 3101 to post at higher FCLK even with our weak IMC.
> 
> Ah well! - I guess back to 1866/3733 for me now, without WHEA and stable. 😂


That is really interesting. Is there any possibility that you could extract the whole bios settings with these ? (you can do that with a USB key and extract it in profile tool.)


----------



## genelecs

PWn3R said:


> @genelecs That is very interesting. I don’t have any saved configurations, I’ve always re-entered all the settings by hand. I am guessing there is something around memory training that is being saved in the profile and being applied when you restore that is letting you boot/post. I may try some of the higher voltages that people posted in the last two days to see if I can get this thing to post 1900/3800 but am not holding my breath as even 1900/2100 is not working 95% of the time.


It's really strange because I didn't reload any configs after flashing the BIOS to 3101, I just tried 1.2vSOC and 1.15v on IOD/CCD and bam! 1900 FCLK posted for the first time ever. I actually only loaded old 3003 configs later on to test what was going on and then i discovered if I actually CMOS reset and manually entered the exact same voltages I couldn't get past Q-Code 07, exactly like on 3003 so I'm really interested what exactly differs between 3003/3101 "defaults" that allowed me to post with higher FCLK alas with WHEA. What was also intresting was the fact it was TM5 stable and I used

Anyway I'm happy with 1866/3733 for now - still gets me sub 60ns latency and its rock solid.



greg_p said:


> That is really interesting. Is there any possibility that you could extract the whole bios settings with these ? (you can do that with a USB key and extract it in profile tool.)


Yes of course. Please find attached .txt export of my 1900 FCLK/3800 setup that posts for me, TM5 stable but WHEA errors (excuse my poor RAM timing  )
One thing of note, when memory training on boot I notice on Q-Code "EA" which I do not see using my manual 3101 <1866 FCLK setups.
I also have the .CMO file if you want incase there is anything "hidden".


----------



## Raulka

Nizzen said:


> This is my start with 64GB memory:
> Stock cpu and sat c16-16-16-16-28-51 and trfc =320. Rest is stock.
> View attachment 2471345


Wow, how is possible this memory latency with 1866/CL16? Could you share your BIOS settings please?
I can't get better memory latency value with PBO auto, like the picture above. G.Skill 32GB B-Die F4-3600C16Q-32GTZR CL16-16-16-36 1.35V 4x8GB, 5950x, C8F.
Whats the memory latency depends on?


----------



## Gadfly

uplink said:


> Hey there @greg_p. So I just spend around 4 hours with tweaking my BiOS [3101] according to Your settings. I'm confused AF . I mean I have Formula, which "should" be superior to Hero, but according to all I read is not, not even close. It's like Hero and Dark Hero have superior support due to wider spread among users.
> 
> Well anyway, I set everything as You had, ofc. I didn't even boot, I mean Your memory timings are super tight.
> 
> So I set everything as You have minus Your memory timings, I used my D.O.C.P. settings and it crashed.
> 
> So I subtracted manual curve optimizer for core load, and it worked.
> 
> My score is now even lower than when I'm on manual settings.
> 
> I'm super confused :/
> 
> Is there any chance that my mobo, or CPU is faulty? I mean I power them both with Asus ROG Strix Thor 1200P PSU, so that shouldn't be a problem. Memory also passed all MemTest when I time them correctly.
> 
> Please let me know what You think!
> 
> With best regards
> 
> uplink
> 
> P.S.: Here are my screens. I know that my mutlicore went up a bit, but single core went greatly down [650 - 680 pts down to 630] and the CPU is running at it's peak [ROG Ryujin 360 with sandwiched high pressure high airflow fans].
> 
> View attachment 2471464
> 
> View attachment 2471465


Something is off here...

Your 5950X isn't scoring much higher than my 3950X.

Even with just a stock PBO profile you should be over 11k, a tuned PBO profile at least 11.5k, and with curve optimizer 11.8k-12k.

What are you using for cooling again?


----------



## genelecs

Raulka said:


> Wow, how is possible this memory latency with 1866/CL16? Could you share your BIOS settings please?
> I can't get better memory latency value with PBO auto, like the picture above. G.Skill 32GB B-Die F4-3600C16Q-32GTZR CL16-16-16-36 1.35V 4x8GB, 5950x, C8F.
> Whats the memory latency depends on?


Can I see your secondary/tertiary timings on ZenTimings?
Something is off here - Even with my poor timings I get sub 60ns at 3733/1866


----------



## dr.Rafi

Sindragosaa said:


> Finally got my PBO CO settings working in 3103 and was able to match my manual OC settings, only downside is the PBO settings are running +10degC (from 80degC to 90degC) hotter than my manual OC under a avx load, albeit with better single core performance.
> 
> *3103 PBO Adjusted CO per core:
> 
> View attachment 2471457
> View attachment 2471458
> 
> 
> 3003 Static OC 4600/4500:
> 
> View attachment 2471460
> View attachment 2471461
> *
> 
> I think next, I'll see if I can get a better static OC with better thermals.


You have PPT of PBO limit set to 260 , if you manually set it to 200 your temp will drop quite alot.


----------



## Raulka

genelecs said:


> Can I see your secondary/tertiary timings on ZenTimings?
> Something is off here - Even with my poor timings I get sub 60ns at 3733/1866
> 
> View attachment 2471494


Wow... Your mem latency is super too!
Here is my actual ZenTimings shot. I didn't change the D.O.C.P 3603 settings, except the memory frequency (3733 Mhz) and the FCLK frequency (1866). Every other RAM settings came from the D.O.C.P.
What could be the reason for the poor mem latency value?


----------



## genelecs

Raulka said:


> Wow... Your mem latency is super too!
> Here is my actual ZenTimings shot. I didn't change the D.O.C.P 3603 settings, except the memory frequency (3733 Mhz) and the FCLK frequency (1866). Every other RAM settings came from the D.O.C.P.
> View attachment 2471495


I only manually tweaked primary timings (first 5 timings) + tRC + tFAW and tRFC -
I'm no expert on RAM timing, but to me your tRC and tRFC seem high - Recommend using DRAM Calculator to find lower values than your XMP profile.


----------



## greg_p

Sindragosaa said:


> Finally got my PBO CO settings working in 3103 and was able to match my manual OC settings, only downside is the PBO settings are running +10degC (from 80degC to 90degC) hotter than my manual OC under a avx load, albeit with better single core performance.
> 
> *3103 PBO Adjusted CO per core:
> 
> View attachment 2471457
> View attachment 2471458
> *


Is there a possibility so that you get us the bios setting extract in txt file? You are the only one with very good L3 performances in PBO mode.


----------



## greg_p

genelecs said:


> It's really strange because I didn't reload any configs after flashing the BIOS to 3101, I just tried 1.2vSOC and 1.15v on IOD/CCD and bam! 1900 FCLK posted for the first time ever. I actually only loaded old 3003 configs later on to test what was going on and then i discovered if I actually CMOS reset and manually entered the exact same voltages I couldn't get past Q-Code 07, exactly like on 3003 so I'm really interested what exactly differs between 3003/3101 "defaults" that allowed me to post with higher FCLK alas with WHEA. What was also intresting was the fact it was TM5 stable and I used
> 
> Anyway I'm happy with 1866/3733 for now - still gets me sub 60ns latency and its rock solid.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes of course. Please find attached .txt export of my 1900 FCLK/3800 setup that posts for me, TM5 stable but WHEA errors (excuse my poor RAM timing  )
> One thing of note, when memory training on boot I notice on Q-Code "EA" which I do not see using my manual 3101 <1866 FCLK setups.
> I also have the .CMO file if you want incase there is anything "hidden".


I hav tried many stuff but none get post, but I went at least until the backup settings, passing the 07 with some of your settings. One setting is not available with this bios indeed. In the compare, I can extract these things:
Global C-state Control [Disabled]
DRAM Maximum Activate Count [200 K]
FFE Write Training [Disable]
Pattern Length [1] (in Mbist but mbist is disable; value is anyway not achievable with this bios where it is 6)
CPPC Preferred Cores [Disabled]
Preferred IO [Manual]
Preferred IO Bus [ffff]
CV test [Disabled]
Loopback Mode [Disabled]
SRIS [Disable]

I don't know how, but with this it locked the IF/UCLK/uncore at 1900.


----------



## genelecs

greg_p said:


> I hav tried many stuff but none get post, but I went at least until the backup settings, passing the 07 with some of your settings. One setting is not available with this bios indeed. In the compare, I can extract these things:
> Global C-state Control [Disabled]
> DRAM Maximum Activate Count [200 K]
> FFE Write Training [Disable]
> Pattern Length [1] (in Mbist but mbist is disable; value is anyway not achievable with this bios where it is 6)
> CPPC Preferred Cores [Disabled]
> Preferred IO [Manual]
> Preferred IO Bus [ffff]
> CV test [Disabled]
> Loopback Mode [Disabled]
> SRIS [Disable]
> 
> I don't know how, but with this it locked the IF/UCLK/uncore at 1900.


Thank you for your work - I'd be very curious to see what happens if you tried loading the CMO backup of my settings to see if there was anything extra hidden in 3101/the profile that allows for FCLK 1900+


----------



## genelecs

greg_p said:


> I hav tried many stuff but none get post, but I went at least until the backup settings, passing the 07 with some of your settings. One setting is not available with this bios indeed. In the compare, I can extract these things:
> Global C-state Control [Disabled]
> DRAM Maximum Activate Count [200 K]
> FFE Write Training [Disable]
> Pattern Length [1] (in Mbist but mbist is disable; value is anyway not achievable with this bios where it is 6)
> CPPC Preferred Cores [Disabled]
> Preferred IO [Manual]
> Preferred IO Bus [ffff]
> CV test [Disabled]
> Loopback Mode [Disabled]
> SRIS [Disable]
> I don't know how, but with this it locked the IF/UCLK/uncore at 1900.


Wait sorry I think I misunderstood, are you saying you got 1900 FCLK to post?


----------



## greg_p

Not really, actually it tried several attempts then goes to backup mode, which is a progress, because usually it just sticks on code 07 with no other choice than power off and clearcmos. Voltage doesn't make anything, as well as timings. 
If you have the CMO, I would be curious to try .


----------



## genelecs

greg_p said:


> Not really, actually it tried several attempts then goes to backup mode, which is a progress, because usually it just sticks on code 07 with no other choice than power off and clearcmos. Voltage doesn't make anything, as well as timings.
> If you have the CMO, I would be curious to try .


CMO for you:




__





3800WHEA.zip







drive.google.com




i also ran it through virustotal just to give you peace of mind:




__





VirusTotal


VirusTotal




www.virustotal.com


----------



## PWn3R

genelecs said:


> CMO for you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3800WHEA.zip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i also ran it through virustotal just to give you peace of mind:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VirusTotal
> 
> 
> VirusTotal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.virustotal.com


Ahhh, he’s hackin muh FCLKs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## genelecs

PWn3R said:


> Ahhh, he’s hackin muh FCLKs


😂


----------



## c4sK

shamino1978 said:


> for the random reboots after 1302 crowd:
> there are some people saying it goes away with cstates disabled, and such.
> if you'all would follow the same procedure in conducting the experiment it will be easier to pin point the issue:
> 
> Step 1:
> jut defaults, no docp no oc nothing:
> pass/fail?
> Step 2:
> following from step 1, disable DF Cstates, data fabric cstate : amd cbs\nbio common options\smu common options
> disable dram power down enable: dram timings
> pass/fail?
> Step 3:
> following from step 2, disable global c states, amd cbs\cpu common options
> pass/fail?
> 
> report back like so
> Step 1: fail
> Step 2: fail
> Step 3: pass
> System specs:


Step 1: fail
Step 2: fail
Step 3: fail
System specs:
5900X
2 x 8GB G.Skill 3600 CL14-15-15-35

A fatal hardware error has occurred.
Reported by component: Processor Core
Error Source: Machine Check Exception
Error Type: Bus/Interconnect Error
Processor APIC ID: 25 (usually 24)

BIOS 3003


----------



## S0V3R1N

My experience with random reboots and idle hangs etc... is to set the power plan to RYZEN High Performance. No more nonsense.


----------



## CyrIng

Somehow I found a way to monitor my Ryzen idle states by hooking the Linux kernel entries. 
This one of the new CoreFreq features... 
Version 1.82.2 available at https://github.com/cyring/CoreFreq


----------



## Gadfly

genelecs said:


> @greg_p After I discovered WHEA errors on all my 1900FCLK+ I've discovered that the reason I believe it now POSTs is actually some old lingering settings from previous BIOS which I think suggests the defaults in 3103 have changed, and thus when using these settings it's either skipping memory training now on 3101, allowing me to get into windows with both 1900 and 2000 FCLK but introducing the WHEA errors, even though I'm actually TM5 stable on 1900FCLK my WHEA error list is huge. So I think what happened on my board is that when I upgraded to 3101 I believe these settings were still loaded from 3003 that when I put 1900 FCLK in allowed it to post.
> 
> Basically if I do a CMOS reset and put settings for 1900 FCLK manually* I still fail at Q-Code 07 like I did at 3003* which I think you also have the same - but if I load a save preset from 3003 (bad practice I know) I notice the following BIOS settings are different between 3003/3101 - settings on the right side are the "old" ones that allow 1900 FCLK post with WHEA errors but only on BIOS 3101.
> 
> View attachment 2471471
> 
> View attachment 2471472
> 
> 
> What's even stranger if I do a search for all these differences and go back to "old" settings manually as opposed to loading a present I still fail at Q-Code 07, so I wonder if there is something on my old 3003 presets that allows 3101 to post at higher FCLK even with our weak IMC.
> 
> Ah well! - I guess back to 1866/3733 for me now, without WHEA and stable. 😂


What are all those settings you are modifying there?

I can honestly say I have never changed any of those, and you absolutely do not want to use Auto overclocking....


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Long time out of the loop. Had a 2080ti which I sold prematurely and have since been waiting for a 3090 and a 5950x to arrive. Finally built my system. Quickly reading through I see there’s a problem with l3 cache? I’ve seen it’s related to Pbo being enabled? I’ve tried it both enabled and disabled and it’s poor on both. Is this related to the beta bios. Or is it the same on previous? Also I can get 2000 flk clock to boot but only with 3800mhz ram setting. If I change the ram speed to higher it won’t boot. I have 4x8gb. Thanks.


----------



## Gadfly

Badgerslayer7 said:


> Long time out of the loop. Had a 2080ti which I sold prematurely and have since been waiting for a 3090 and a 5950x to arrive. Finally built my system. Quickly reading through I see there’s a problem with l3 cache? I’ve seen it’s related to Pbo being enabled? I’ve tried it both enabled and disabled and it’s poor on both. Is this related to the beta bios. Or is it the same on previous? Also I can get 2000 flk clock to boot but only with 3800mhz ram setting. If I change the ram speed to higher it won’t boot. I have 4x8gb. Thanks.


The L3 issue may not really be an issue, it might just be Aida and Sandra's test (both show reduced L3 bandwidth), more to come on that front.

For the fclk/ memory can you post a Zen timings screen shot? That will include most of your relevant settings.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

I had to increase ppl to 1.9v to get to 2000 flk clock. I've tried ram voltage up to 1.5v. I get F9 error and reboot to bios.


----------



## Alemancio

Im confused, I thought 3101 was for 2000 FCLK? I cant even boot at 1900, what is this crap?

5800X & Gskill 4000Mhz CL17 kit. Tried up to 1.2v IO


----------



## Gadfly

Badgerslayer7 said:


> View attachment 2471530
> 
> 
> I had to increase ppl to 1.9v to get to 2000 flk clock. I've tried ram voltage up to 1.5v. I get F9 error and reboot to bios.


If you turn the fclk down to 1800mhz, I take it the memory will not post at 4000?

I have the same issue, I haven't found a way to get my 4x8gb to post at 4000mhz yet.


----------



## Gadfly

Alemancio said:


> Im confused, I thought 3101 was for 2000 FCLK? I cant even boot at 1900, what is this crap?
> 
> 5800X & Gskill 4000Mhz CL17 kit. Tried up to 1.2v IO


Post your zen timings screen shot


----------



## dr.Rafi

For me personally Iam using Strix x570 Asus , I Update to the latest bios for me is 3201 instead of 3101 which is released for my motherboard 2 days ago and basically have same changes that made in 3101 , was very curious to update though the previous was good for me and was able to boot over 2000 fclk with whea and 1966 whea free ,I download text bios setting before update , and after the update I reset bios by removing battery for 10 minuts and put my old setting manually it works fine everything work normally, the only change I noticed was the cpu is not boosting as high as before with 100 over boost and - 30 on most cores before update was boosting to 5125 now is only boosting like defult to 5050 and have less score with pbo and lower temp. still have to test and go to to 200 over boost and check if I can make it boost more.


----------



## Alemancio

Gadfly said:


> Post your zen timings screen shot


Thanks for having a look, I tried default 17-17-17-42 for 2000 FCLK


----------



## dr.Rafi

Alemancio said:


> Thanks for having a look, I tried default 17-17-17-42 for 2000 FCLK
> 
> View attachment 2471547


Try to relax your timing and try again


----------



## Nizzen

Alemancio said:


> Im confused, I thought 3101 was for 2000 FCLK? I cant even boot at 1900, what is this crap?
> 
> 5800X & Gskill 4000Mhz CL17 kit. Tried up to 1.2v IO


It's AMD 
I have peoblems with my 5900x and asus dark hero too. I got higher memoryoc on my old Asrock Taichi x570 with 3900x LOL.


----------



## domdtxdissar

dr.Rafi said:


> For me personally Iam using Strix x570 Asus , I Update to the latest bios for me is 3201 instead of 3101 which is released for my motherboard 2 days ago and basically have same changes that made in 3101 , was very curious to update though the previous was good for me and was able to boot over 2000 fclk with whea and 1966 whea free ,I download text bios setting before update , and after the update I reset bios by removing battery for 10 minuts and put my old setting manually it works fine everything work normally, the only change I noticed was the cpu is not boosting as high as before with 100 over boost and - 30 on most cores before update was boosting to 5125 now is only boosting like defult to 5050 and have less score with pbo and lower temp. still have to test and go to to 200 over boost and check if I can make it boost more.
> View attachment 2471543


Vsoc 1.3688 volt ? Trying to kill your cpu ?
The recommended 24/7 value is ~1.15 to 1.2volt volt as far as i know


----------



## dr.Rafi

domdtxdissar said:


> Vsoc 1.3688 volt ? Trying to kill your cpu ?
> The recommended 24/7 value is ~1.15 to 1.2volt volt as far as i know


Oh thank you was meant to be 1.136 that is may be why iam not boosting with new bios.
Edit: @ *domdtxdissar back to 1.136v and now the cpu is boosting exactly like previous bios, thank you again.







*


----------



## Nizzen

dr.Rafi said:


> Oh thank you was meant to be 1.136 that is may be why iam not boosting with new bios.
> Edit: @ *domdtxdissar back to 1.136v and now the cpu is boosting exactly like previous bios, thank you again.
> View attachment 2471565
> *


Nice result! 😍


----------



## Sindragosaa

Sindragosaa said:


> Finally got my PBO CO settings working in 3103 and was able to match my manual OC settings, only downside is the PBO settings are running +10degC (from 80degC to 90degC) hotter than my manual OC under a avx load, albeit with better single core performance.
> 
> *3103 PBO Adjusted CO per core:
> 
> View attachment 2471457
> View attachment 2471458
> 
> 
> 3003 Static OC 4600/4500:
> 
> View attachment 2471460
> View attachment 2471461
> *
> 
> I think next, I'll see if I can get a better static OC with better thermals.


Static OC running at CCX0 47.00/ CCX1 46.00 @ 1.31 VID / CPU LLC2 stable and outperforms the PBO settings I had (CO negative 30 all cores except the best two which ran at negative 5, 3103 is definitely an improvement for PBO, but still not 100% stable IMO).

The static OC is only 2.2% slower in the single core performance score in CPUID compared with PBO, but 2.6% faster in the Multi-Thread score.

Thermals are also about 5 degrees less @ CPU LLC2, maxing out 85/86 degC compared to 90/91degC with PBO (also spiking at 96degC with LLC3 enabled). 

AFAIC Intel Burn Test has been the best indicator for CPU stability and stable throughput, If it fails IBT it's not stable. No point even running RealBench or OCCT if IBT fails, as I have had it fail / reboot on me 3 hours into a 4 hour test  It's been a fun learning process.

I'll see how much further I can push it, but next is ram


----------



## Sindragosaa

greg_p said:


> Is there a possibility so that you get us the bios setting extract in txt file? You are the only one with very good L3 performances in PBO mode.


Yeah next reboot I can dump it for you - all I do is set optimized settings first then adjust and save one section of the bios at a time, as I have heard/experienced settings that do not properly get changed.


----------



## dr.Rafi

Nizzen said:


> Nice result! 😍


You Living in nice Country with best weather for Overclocking


----------



## genelecs

Gadfly said:


> What are all those settings you are modifying there?
> 
> I can honestly say I have never changed any of those, and you absolutely do not want to use Auto overclocking....


That's the point - those are the settings I didn't touch  but is what I found differed from a 1900 FCLK preset that I saved in 3003 compared to the default settings in 3101. The preset wouldn't post at all in 3003 but suddenly would post for me in 3101 (alas with WHEA errors), so I was trying to find why it suddenly posts in 3101 and doing so I found these settings differed from default settings in 3101 as if I entered just voltages and frequencies after a CMOS reset I couldn't post just like 3003.

The "Auto" overclocking was actually on the AMD submenus that allow for adjustment of RAM timings (again I hadn't touched these and just used the ASUS submenus).


----------



## dr.Rafi

greg_p said:


> Is there a possibility so that you get us the bios setting extract in txt file? You are the only one with very good L3 performances in PBO mode.


If you enable FMAX in PBO menu you get your cash doubled


----------



## LtMatt

dr.Rafi said:


> If you enable FMAX in PBO menu you get your cash doubled


Aye i noticed that, perf in everything else ****s the bed Lol. 

I think L3 Cache scores in Aida64 are fairly meaningless in real world games and benchmarks.


----------



## Sindragosaa

Sindragosaa said:


> Static OC running at CCX0 47.00/ CCX1 46.00 @ 1.31 VID / CPU LLC2 stable and outperforms the PBO settings I had (CO negative 30 all cores except the best two which ran at negative 5, 3103 is definitely an improvement for PBO, but still not 100% stable IMO).
> 
> The static OC is only 2.2% slower in the single core performance score in CPUID compared with PBO, but 2.6% faster in the Multi-Thread score.
> 
> Thermals are also about 5 degrees less @ CPU LLC2, maxing out 85/86 degC compared to 90/91degC with PBO (also spiking at 96degC with LLC3 enabled).
> 
> AFAIC Intel Burn Test has been the best indicator for CPU stability and stable throughput, If it fails IBT it's not stable. No point even running RealBench or OCCT if IBT fails, as I have had it fail / reboot on me 3 hours into a 4 hour test  It's been a fun learning process.
> 
> I'll see how much further I can push it, but next is ram
> 
> View attachment 2471567
> View attachment 2471568
> View attachment 2471569
> View attachment 2471570


Done until the next BIOS update.

Just FYI I had to raise VID from 1.31V to 1.34V with the RAM OC to get it stable under IBT, since I raised the IF to 1866MHz.

Higher thermals (matches PBO now), but that is the trade off for better performance at risk of burning the house down


----------



## genelecs

dr.Rafi said:


> If you enable FMAX in PBO menu you get your cash doubled


I've just found a big nasty on my system, turning FMAX on and going straight to L3 Cache Read in AIDA completely crashes my system - Q-Code 00 and I have to CMOS reset to get it back, does this even on defaults/auto which is worrying! 

It didn't use to do this on 3003.... 

Turning it off it seems fine again with or without PBO but still only at 700 GB/s. Really worried about the above though


----------



## kuutale

dr.Rafi said:


> If you enable FMAX in PBO menu you get your cash doubled


viii hero fmax not working ?? @Gadfly can confirm this


----------



## koji

K, after messing with my 5900x on a Dark Hero for a couple weeks now I'm really starting to appreciate the elegance of this board.

Right now I have set up a manual and a dynamic oc profile.

My manual settings are: ccx0 46.75 multi / ccx1 45.75 multi @ 1.230 vcore with lvl 3 LLC, this drops to 1.2ish on load and makes for a silent running system and smooth game performance.

The dynamic profile is just the settings from above + PBO activated with curve optimizer. PBO settings are pretty straightforward: +75mhz boost clock and a -15 negative offset with curve optimizer.

This all on the 3003 bios.

Dynamic Benchmark results:









Manual Benchmark results:









I'll probably end up running mostly the manual profile cause the temps and noise are not worth those extra couple percentages in single core but it's nice to just have that performance at the flick of a switch. I also really underestimated PBO in terms of extra heat, I can't say that I'm too big of a fan. For the manual tweaking I also hit a temp wall going any higher but I'm super happy with 4.65 / 4.57 @ 1.23 for 24/7 usage.


----------



## Sindragosaa

koji said:


> K, after messing with my 5900x on a Dark Hero for a couple weeks now I'm really starting to appreciate the elegance of this board.
> 
> Right now I have set up a manual and a dynamic oc profile.
> 
> My manual settings are: ccx0 46.75 multi / ccx1 45.75 multi @ 1.230 vcore with lvl 3 LLC, this drops to 1.2ish on load and makes for a silent running system and smooth game performance.
> 
> The dynamic profile is just the settings from above + PBO activated with curve optimizer. PBO settings are pretty straightforward: +75mhz boost clock and a -15 negative offset with curve optimizer.
> 
> This all on the 3003 bios.
> 
> Dynamic Benchmark results:
> 
> View attachment 2471584
> 
> 
> Manual Benchmark results:
> 
> View attachment 2471585
> 
> 
> I'll probably end up running mostly the manual profile cause the temps and noise are not worth those extra couple percentages in single core but it's nice to just have that performance at the flick of a switch. I also really underestimated PBO in terms of extra heat, I can't say that I'm too big of a fan. For the manual tweaking I also hit a temp wall going any higher but I'm super happy with 4.65 / 4.57 @ 1.23 for 24/7 usage.


Nice! How are your thermals with these settings?


----------



## dr.Rafi

genelecs said:


> I've just found a big nasty on my system, turning FMAX on and going straight to L3 Cache Read in AIDA completely crashes my system - Q-Code 00 and I have to CMOS reset to get it back, does this even on defaults/auto which is worrying!
> 
> It didn't use to do this on 3003....
> 
> Turning it off it seems fine again with or without PBO but still only at 700 GB/s. Really worried about the above though


I know Fmax is not stable for me too on cinebench 20 crash ,may be if i boot with lower fclk and less CO minus value will make it stable but not worring for it anyway, but I have 5900x too which give me 1200 + l3 cash score on same sytem with fmax disabled not sure why this 5950x is not doing same.


----------



## dr.Rafi

Sindragosaa said:


> Done until the next BIOS update.
> 
> Just FYI I had to raise VID from 1.31V to 1.34V with the RAM OC to get it stable under IBT, since I raised the IF to 1866MHz.
> 
> Higher thermals (matches PBO now), but that is the trade off for better performance at risk of burning the house down
> 
> View attachment 2471574
> View attachment 2471575
> View attachment 2471576
> View attachment 2471578
> View attachment 2471577


I thing you need better cooler for the cpu or wont last long.


----------



## koji

Sindragosaa said:


> Nice! How are your thermals with these settings?


That's an added benefit of that Dark Hero DOC. If I would just be running "pure" PBO my temps would go all the way up in whatever scenario, games around 70. Benchmarks high 80s. This is on an Arctic Freezer 2 360 with Liquid Metal in a Lian Li Dynamic XL so like 10 120mm fans going full bore. Now with that DOC I have it set to 75A, everything above triggers my manual profile. That's almost 20° difference in games and 10° in benchmarks. The manual is around 50° "normal load" and mid 70° in benchmarks max. Realbench with the manual settings was sub 70°. Realbench PBO only I didn't even dare to let that run for 8 hours... Mid and high 80s...


----------



## Sindragosaa

dr.Rafi said:


> I thing you need better cooler for the cpu or wont last long.


Why not? The CPU is rated at 90degC by AMD in its default settings.

The Noctua NH-D15 isn't doing too bad given that those max temps where under a 20 pass avx load, which is literally the worst case scenario.

Edit:








AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT Performance Has Increased by Up to 9% Since Launch: Faster than the RTX 3080 at 1080p and 1440p | Hardware Times


AMD’s Radeon RX 6000 graphics cards have seen their performance increase steadily relative to the GeForce RTX 30 series offerings. As per data compiled by 3DCenter, the GeForce RTX 3080 was up to 6.7% faster than the Radeon RX 6800 XT in December 2020 at 4K, and 3-4% faster at 1080p and 1440p...




www.hardwaretimes.com


----------



## Sindragosaa

koji said:


> That's an added benefit of that Dark Hero DOC. If I would just be running "pure" PBO my temps would go all the way up in whatever scenario, games around 70. Benchmarks high 80s. This is on an Arctic Freezer 2 360 with Liquid Metal in a Lian Li Dynamic XL so like 10 120mm fans going full bore. Now with that DOC I have it set to 75A, everything above triggers my manual profile. That's almost 20° difference in games and 10° in benchmarks. The manual is around 50° "normal load" and mid 70° in benchmarks max. Realbench with the manual settings was sub 70°. Realbench PBO only I didn't even dare to let that run for 8 hours... Mid and high 80s...


Very nice, I'm running a very similar setup except I'm using the Noctua nh-d15 dual fan setup with 10 fans in my lian li as well.

Temps are reasonable so far on my current OC, idle is 30-40, gaming is around 60-80 depending on the game.


----------



## c4sK

GRABibus said:


> First thing to test with those new bios : stability at bios stock settings and wheas.


Just so I understand this correctly, I should be testing with my ram at 2133 and not 3600?


----------



## koji

Sindragosaa said:


> Very nice, I'm running a very similar setup except I'm using the Noctua nh-d15 dual fan setup with 10 fans in my lian li as well.
> 
> Temps are reasonable so far on my current OC, idle is 30-40, gaming is around 60-80 depending on the game.


Those temps are fine!

How does it behave in a PBO OC with that cooler? I think you might actually be better off with something like a DH15 for a PBO OC due to the spiky nature of the temps, I have a feeling my AIO is sometimes too slow to soak the accidental temperature spike and that's the reason that I have thermal resets. (cpu over temperature error) And I'm not inclined to run the thing at 100% all the time for just a couple spikes.


----------



## Sindragosaa

c4sK said:


> Just so I understand this correctly, I should be testing with my ram at 2133 and not 3600?


Load optimised defaults and test.

So no D.O.C.P at first, then slowly introduce it as you test for stability.


----------



## Sindragosaa

koji said:


> Those temps are fine!
> 
> How does it behave in a PBO OC with that cooler? I think you might actually be better off with something like a DH15 for a PBO OC due to the spiky nature of the temps, I have a feeling my AIO is sometimes too slow to soak the accidental temperature spike and that's the reason that I have thermal resets. (cpu over temperature error) And I'm not inclined to run the thing at 100% all the time for just a couple spikes.


I found them to be very similar, when I posted earlier testing PBO with a per core curve optimiser profile, I was getting 90degC easy under an all core avx load with LLC3.

Idle temps where the same as my static OC.

Which is one of the reasons I stuck with a static OC and lower LLC2. Similar/better performance at the same thermal cost.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Gadfly said:


> If you turn the fclk down to 1800mhz, I take it the memory will not post at 4000?
> 
> I have the same issue, I haven't found a way to get my 4x8gb to post at 4000mhz yet.


I can’t get anything over 3866mhz to post with four sticks. Even with fclk at 1900. 3933 and 4000 are no go for me. Even with timings set to auto. I have four sticks of team group xtreem 3600 cl14. It should be good up to 4200hz cl16 105% chip quality according to dram calc.


----------



## Sindragosaa

Badgerslayer7 said:


> I can’t get anything over 3866mhz to post with four sticks. Even with fclk at 1900. 3933 and 4000 are no go for me. Even with timings set to auto. I have four sticks of team group xtreem 3600 cl14. It should be good up to 4200hz cl16 105% chip quality according to dram calc.





Gadfly said:


> Upto 2.1v PLL should be "safe" for the board.
> 
> I am not too worried about 1.95v - 2.0v.
> 
> Here is what I found works well with this BIOS:
> 
> 
> VDDG CCD: 0.985v
> VDDG IOD: 1.05v
> SB 1.0v: 1.05v
> PLL 1.8v: 1.95v
> Soc: 1.15v (highest vddg + 0.1v)
> 
> I am still working on a 2x8gb 4000 profile; but 16-16-10-12-32-48 seems to be working well, I can't get 4x8gb to run over 3966, no matter what I do.


Have you tried @Gadfly suggested voltages?

Specifically the higher PLL suggestion, I was able to boot and run 1900FCLK and 3800Mhz with a PLL of 1.98V.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Sindragosaa said:


> Have you tried @Gadfly suggested voltages?
> 
> Specifically the higher PLL suggestion, I was able to boot and run 1900FCLK and 3800Mhz with a PLL of 1.98V.


Yes I’ve tried Pll voltages. I can reach fclk of 2000 it’s just the four sticks of ram I’m having issues with above 3866mhz


----------



## genelecs

dr.Rafi said:


> I know Fmax is not stable for me too on cinebench 20 crash ,may be if i boot with lower fclk and less CO minus value will make it stable but not worring for it anyway, but I have 5900x too which give me 1200 + l3 cash score on same sytem with fmax disabled not sure why this 5950x is not doing same.


Yeah but this hard crashing for me even after a CMOS reset with defaults/2133 RAM + PBO - it used to work OK on 3003. Wonder if CPU isn't getting enough volts on this BIOS for FMax with auto volts. I guess this is a beta BIOS after all...

I'm starting to think I lost the lottery hard though with this and my lack of getting FCLK 1900+ - Ah well I'm still happy with it the performance even at stock to be fair especially 1866 1:1:1 and really I'm just happy to have the CPU! It still performs miles better then my 5.0GHz delidded 8700k - especially in audio workstation tasks.


----------



## CyrIng

Are those bad or good scores for a 3950X ?
Single = 521 pts
Multi = 9366 pts


----------



## c4sK

Still getting Kernel 41 (every Bios since 2502 when I bought my 5900x)

Reported by component: Processor Core
Error Source: Machine Check Exception
Error Type: Bus/Interconnect Error
Processor APIC ID: 25

This is at 2133 stock bios (optimised defaults).

2 x 8GB G.Skill 3600 CL14-15-15-35

Starting to think I have a dodgy processor.....


----------



## genelecs

c4sK said:


> Still getting Kernel 41 (every Bios since 2502 when I bought my 5900x)
> Reported by component: Processor Core
> Error Source: Machine Check Exception
> Error Type: Bus/Interconnect Error
> Processor APIC ID: 25
> 
> This is at 2133 stock bios (optimised defaults).
> 
> 2 x 8GB G.Skill 3600 CL14-15-15-35
> 
> Starting to think I have a dodgy processor.....


Did you see this thread? Replaced 3950X with 5950X = WHEA and reboots


----------



## kuutale

c4sK said:


> Still getting Kernel 41 (every Bios since 2502 when I bought my 5900x)
> 
> Reported by component: Processor Core
> Error Source: Machine Check Exception
> Error Type: Bus/Interconnect Error
> Processor APIC ID: 25
> 
> This is at 2133 stock bios (optimised defaults).
> 
> 2 x 8GB G.Skill 3600 CL14-15-15-35
> 
> Starting to think I have a dodgy processor.....


what bios u use right now? 3101?


----------



## quarx2k

CyrIng said:


> Are those bad or good scores for a 3950X ?
> Single = 521 pts
> Multi = 9366 pts
> View attachment 2471604


Yes
My results: Fmax (+100), PBO.


----------



## Gadfly

Alemancio said:


> Thanks for having a look, I tried default 17-17-17-42 for 2000 FCLK
> 
> View attachment 2471547


Those timings are not going to work for 2000, you will need GDM enabled and most likely CL18

Set fclk to 1800mhz, than get your memory working at 2000mhz (4000), once your memory is stable, then move on to the fclk.


----------



## koji

koji said:


> K, after messing with my 5900x on a Dark Hero for a couple weeks now I'm really starting to appreciate the elegance of this board.
> 
> Right now I have set up a manual and a dynamic oc profile.
> 
> My manual settings are: ccx0 46.75 multi / ccx1 45.75 multi @ 1.230 vcore with lvl 3 LLC, this drops to 1.2ish on load and makes for a silent running system and smooth game performance.
> 
> The dynamic profile is just the settings from above + PBO activated with curve optimizer. PBO settings are pretty straightforward: +75mhz boost clock and a -15 negative offset with curve optimizer.
> 
> This all on the 3003 bios.
> 
> Dynamic Benchmark results:
> 
> View attachment 2471584
> 
> 
> Manual Benchmark results:
> 
> View attachment 2471585
> 
> 
> I'll probably end up running mostly the manual profile cause the temps and noise are not worth those extra couple percentages in single core but it's nice to just have that performance at the flick of a switch. I also really underestimated PBO in terms of extra heat, I can't say that I'm too big of a fan. For the manual tweaking I also hit a temp wall going any higher but I'm super happy with 4.65 / 4.57 @ 1.23 for 24/7 usage.


Adding the bios profiles.


----------



## Gadfly

kuutale said:


> viii hero fmax not working ?? @Gadfly can confirm this


Not with a 5000 series CPU.


----------



## Gadfly

c4sK said:


> Still getting Kernel 41 (every Bios since 2502 when I bought my 5900x)
> 
> Reported by component: Processor Core
> Error Source: Machine Check Exception
> Error Type: Bus/Interconnect Error
> Processor APIC ID: 25
> 
> This is at 2133 stock bios (optimised defaults).
> 
> 2 x 8GB G.Skill 3600 CL14-15-15-35
> 
> Starting to think I have a dodgy processor.....


Rma the CPU.


----------



## dr.Rafi

Tried Fclk 2033 with memory 4066 and loose timing ,everything seams fine. but performance sucks.


----------



## Gadfly

dr.Rafi said:


> Tried Fclk 2033 with memory 4066 and loose timing ,everything seams fine. but performance sucks.


I bet you have a ton of whea 41 errors in the event log.


----------



## dr.Rafi

Gadfly said:


> I bet you have a ton of whea 41 errors in the event log.





Gadfly said:


> I bet you have a ton of whea 41 errors in the event log.


Not that bad as long as my knowldge
Edite: and worth to mention i have the cpu on -30 all cores PBO limits 200/275/210 and 125 over boost


----------



## Nizzen

Finally got some speed with Dark hero and 2x16GB memory.

Anyone got some tweaks to get read over 60GB/s?

For now 3800mhz looks impossible to get stable, so I need to go 3733mhz


----------



## CyrIng

quarx2k said:


> Yes
> My results: Fmax (+100), PBO.


Thanks. 
I Now have to close the gap


----------



## Sindragosaa

Badgerslayer7 said:


> Yes I’ve tried Pll voltages. I can reach fclk of 2000 it’s just the four sticks of ram I’m having issues with above 3866mhz


If your chip quality is 105%, doesn't that mean theoretically the max speed of your kit is 3600*1.05 = 3780MHz.

Which you have already surpassed @ 3866MHz, so that may be your issue.

In my dram calc it says my chip quality is 114% with my 3600MHz kit, so should theoretically be able to clock to 4100MHz.

Assuming, I have interpreted what chip quality implies correctly.


----------



## Alemancio

Gadfly said:


> Those timings are not going to work for 2000, you will need GDM enabled and most likely CL18
> 
> Set fclk to 1800mhz, than get your memory working at 2000mhz (4000), once your memory is stable, then move on to the fclk.


Thanks! Will try today


----------



## Sam64

Curve Optimizer -15 on CCX1, -20 on CCX2, PBO limits Motherboard, 0 boost. (PBO FMax Disabled).


----------



## dr.Rafi

Managed to make it stable and good results with 2033fclk/4066 ram VDDGIODand SOC is important to make all Auxillaries, nvme drive, sound and graphic card work in intended speed when use high Fclk.
PBO off


----------



## Gadfly

dr.Rafi said:


> Not that bad as long as my knowldge
> Edite: and worth to mention i have the cpu on -30 all cores PBO limits 200/275/210 and 125 over boost
> View attachment 2471675


That is why your performance dropped at 2000 fclk. I can run 2100mhz fclk but the performance tanks. It is all the whea errors. Funny enough they are almost all bus disconnect errors which appear to be issues with the x570 chipset 's fclk. Remember that the x570 is literally an IOD (same as the IOD in your cpu) which is why turning up the SB 1.0v helps with fclk stability, 1.05v to 1.1v seems to give the best results.

Forcing the SB, GPU, and Nvme's to Gen 3 seems to help a bit, as does moving all the usb devices to the cpu direct USB bus, and turning off all the other USB controllers.

I still am not clear on the connection between the 1.8v PLL and fclk, but at 2000mhz fclk I get rid of the whea errors at 1.98v PLL, 1.08v SB, 1.05v vddg IOD, and 0.985v vddg ccd; but I can still not run 32gb of ram over 1933mhz with any reliability.

So for now I am still running 1900mhz fclk 1:1 at auto PLL, 0.945v vddg ccd, 0.955v vddg iod, 1.05v SB. Which sucks as I do not belive any bios update is going to suddenly improve 4x8gb memory training.


----------



## dr.Rafi

Gadfly said:


> That is why your performance dropped at 2000 fclk. I can run 2100mhz fclk but the performance tanks. It is all the whea errors. Funny enough they are almost all bus disconnect errors which appear to be issues with the x570 chipset 's fclk. Remember that the x570 is literally an IOD (same as the IOD in your cpu) which is why turning up the SB 1.0v helps with fclk stability, 1.05v to 1.1v seems to give the best results.
> 
> Forcing the SB, GPU, and Nvme's to Gen 3 seems to help a bit, as does moving all the usb devices to the cpu direct USB bus, and turning off all the other USB controllers.
> 
> I still am not clear on the connection between the 1.8v PLL and fclk, but at 2000mhz fclk I get rid of the whea errors at 1.98v PLL, 1.08v SB, 1.05v vddg IOD, and 0.985v vddg ccd; but I can still not run 32gb of ram over 1933mhz with any reliability.
> 
> So for now I am still running 1900mhz fclk 1:1 at auto PLL, 0.945v vddg ccd, 0.955v vddg iod, 1.05v SB. Which sucks as I do not belive any bios update is going to suddenly improve 4x8gb memory training.


Thank you for information, so do you think B550 chipset will perform better ? with less Whea ?


----------



## Gadfly

dr.Rafi said:


> Thank you for information, so do you think B550 chipset will perform better ? with less Whea ?


I highly doubt it.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Can I please get some help with this issue? I've been telling myself to wait for the BIOs update, but I don't know if I can wait any longer.

*My computer always takes 2-5 retrains of certain Auto settings to post.* Once it does, everything is fine. Not getting any WHEA errors and pass ram test over night.

I guess there's a setting somewhere I need to set something too. I don't know much about "LLC" settings or what they do. But can that be it? I believe every boot up it tries different settings until it finds one that sticks.


----------



## Sindragosaa

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Can I please get some help with this issue? I've been telling myself to wait for the BIOs update, but I don't know if I can wait any longer.
> 
> *My computer always takes 2-5 retrains of certain Auto settings to post.* Once it does, everything is fine. Not getting any WHEA errors and pass ram test over night.
> 
> I guess there's a setting somewhere I need to set something too. I don't know much about "LLC" settings or what they do. But can that be it? I believe every boot up it tries different settings until it finds one that sticks.
> 
> View attachment 2471721


From what I have read, that is a part of the zen platform when over clocking ram (assuming your stock DOCP is 3600MHz and your OC is 3800Mhz from that screenshot).

I recall Jays2cents saying sometimes it may take multiple reboots for memory training to be successful. 

There is also a setting in the ram timings to adjust the number reboots for training, I believe the default is 3 times before it posts in safe bios mode.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Sindragosaa said:


> From what I have read, that is a part of the zen platform when over clocking ram (assuming your stock DOCP is 3600MHz and your OC is 3800Mhz from that screenshot).
> 
> I recall Jays2cents saying sometimes it may take multiple reboots for memory training to be successful.
> 
> There is also a setting in the ram timings to adjust the number reboots for training, I believe the default is 3 times before it posts in safe bios mode.


I set that ram training to 10 lol. It happens every few reboots, it's kind of annoying sitting next to it retrain multip times.

I know it eventually finds a setting it likes. I even set ram clearing to disabled but that doesn't work.


----------



## Sindragosaa

KingEngineRevUp said:


> I set that ram training to 10 lol. It happens every few reboots, it's kind of annoying sitting next to it retrain multip times.
> 
> I know it eventually finds a setting it likes. I even set ram clearing to disabled but that doesn't work.


Does it happen with default DOCP settings ? Or only the manual OC ram settings ?


----------



## Gadfly

KingEngineRevUp said:


> I set that ram training to 10 lol. It happens every few reboots, it's kind of annoying sitting next to it retrain multip times.
> 
> I know it eventually finds a setting it likes. I even set ram clearing to disabled but that doesn't work.


Change your cldo_vddp to 0.900v, and the "strns" to 40/20/24/24 or 60/20/24/24

What is your dram voltage? Is it over 1.48v? If so you might want to change your Rtt's to 7/off/6


----------



## Gadfly

Sindragosaa said:


> Does it happen with default DOCP settings ? Or only the manual OC ram settings ?


Never use docp on Ryzen, it sucks and never works right.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Sindragosaa said:


> Does it happen with default DOCP settings ? Or only the manual OC ram settings ?


It started to occur when I went from 2x8GB sticks to 4x8GB sticks. I enabled gear down mode and it was able to post and pass all the stress test I threw at it over night. But the retrains would occur now and then. It's just annoying because when it does happen, it takes a few boots.



Gadfly said:


> Change your cldo_vddp to 0.900v, and the "strns" to 40/20/24/24 or 60/20/24/24
> 
> What is your dram voltage? Is it over 1.48v? If so you might want to change your Rtt's to 7/off/6


Yes, my voltage is at 1.5V. Do you still recommend those same settings you recommended above? Also, for educational purposes, why do those RTT settings work better for the voltages if they're above 1.48V?


----------



## shaolin95

Silly question but where do I control the automatic voltage when using PBO..like an offset?


----------



## domdtxdissar

After wasting a few days on bios 3103 for the crosshair viii hero motherboard i'm back to the 3003 bios and have finalized my everyday 24/7 settings.

32gigabyte @ 1900MT/S 4x8gigabyte b-die gskill memory
Prettymuch all timings and voltages are handtuned/maximized/minimized.

Zero errors/WHEA after 1 hour in TestMeM5 with the 1usmus preset. (9 cycles for 32gig)










Screenshot show all settings and voltages, but i can write them also:
dram = 1.56 volt (warmest memorystick reached 44 degrees in TestMeM, normal temp is 32 degrees)
vsoc = 1.1188 volt
cldo vddp = 0.8796 volt
vddg iod = 1.0477 volt
vddg ccd = 0.8796 volt
ProcODT = 43.6

If anyone see something that can be improved/mistakes in the timings, please let me know


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Gadfly said:


> Change your cldo_vddp to 0.900v, and the "strns" to 40/20/24/24 or 60/20/24/24
> 
> What is your dram voltage? Is it over 1.48v? If so you might want to change your Rtt's to 7/off/6


No luck, memo still has to try and grab some auto setting before posting... 

Is there anyway for me to see what settings my bios booted up?


----------



## t4t3r

Why not just set your timings manually? Set them once, verify stability, and you’re done.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

t4t3r said:


> Why not just set your timings manually? Set them once, verify stability, and you’re done.


I am, I don't think you read the other post I'm having with Gadfly.


----------



## dr.Rafi

domdtxdissar said:


> After wasting a few days on bios 3103 for the crosshair viii hero motherboard i'm back to the 3003 bios and have finalized my everyday 24/7 settings.
> 
> 32gigabyte @ 1900MT/S 4x8gigabyte b-die gskill memory
> Prettymuch all timings and voltages are handtuned/maximized/minimized.
> 
> Zero errors/WHEA after 1 hour in TestMeM5 with the 1usmus preset. (9 cycles for 32gig)
> 
> View attachment 2471724
> 
> 
> Screenshot show all settings and voltages, but i can write them also:
> dram = 1.56 volt (warmest memorystick reached 44 degrees in TestMeM, normal temp is 32 degrees)
> vsoc = 1.1188 volt
> cldo vddp = 0.8796 volt
> vddg iod = 1.0477 volt
> vddg ccd = 0.8796 volt
> ProcODT = 46.3
> 
> If anyone see something that can be improved/mistakes in the timings, please let me know


Not sure what memory kit you have, 1.5 volt is not enough for those timming ?and the procODT you can go as low as 40 if Gsikill Bdie as my experince with many kits,but depend on other timming setting and the type of the kit.
And why you like previous bios , for me latest one performing better before i had best 3 cores - 15 and the rest -30 and i had idle reboots only with certain websites on google chrome only, with latest bios so far so good and now all my cpu cores are -30 both before and after the vcore on defult without offcet.
Oh my bad i just read you mentioned the kit in the text.


----------



## pfinch

Gadfly said:


> Not with a 5000 series CPU.


So FMAX or FAMX Enhancer is bugged?!
Thanks


----------



## genelecs

pfinch said:


> So FMAX or FAMX Enhancer is bugged?!
> Thanks


For me on BIOS 3101 and 5950x it will instantly crash my computer doing a AIDA64 L3 cache test even on default settings - others have reported very high instability using it.


----------



## kuutale

genelecs said:


> For me on BIOS 3101 and 5950x it will instantly crash my computer doing a AIDA64 L3 cache test even on default settings - others have reported very high instability using it.


and i get that stable performance is very poor


----------



## pfinch

So you guys mean FMAX Enhancer right?


----------



## genelecs

pfinch said:


> So you guys mean FMAX Enhancer right?


FMAX Enhancer yes


----------



## pfinch

Yeah...without FMAX Enhancer L3 Cache sucks and Core Performance oncreases by 10-20%


----------



## genelecs

pfinch said:


> Yeah...without FMAX Enhancer L3 Cache sucks and Core Performance oncreases by 10-20%


Are you using a 3000 series CPU? If so carry on, it's working as designed  - it just seems very bugged for 5000 series.


----------



## pfinch

5950x on hero wifi ;-)


----------



## genelecs

pfinch said:


> 5950x on hero wifi ;-)


Well I must admit it worked fine for me on 3003 BIOS - I didn't see 10-20% core increase but 3101 has broken FMAX for me completely.


----------



## koji

Anyone found a solution for the idle reboots / WHEAs when using PBO on the 5000 series? Thought I fixed it with switching "Power Supply Idle Control" to "Typical Current" in my bios but no dice. Some kind of C state thing I need to look at?



Gadfly said:


> So for now I am still running 1900mhz fclk 1:1 at auto PLL, 0.945v vddg ccd, 0.955v vddg iod, 1.05v SB. Which sucks as I do not belive any bios update is going to suddenly improve 4x8gb memory training.


Running the same kit of RAM as you are, 1900FCLK 1:1 on a 5900X. Do you think it matters a lot to get it to that 2000mhz FCLK, I've seen some early benches and it didn't really look worth it for the real world performance increase, could be that it just isn't stable though... This is the article.

I get that it's a moby dick kinda thing though but I'd love to see a real comparison.


----------



## magnusavr

koji said:


> Anyone found a solution for the idle reboots / WHEAs when using PBO on the 5000 series? Thought I fixed it with switching "Power Supply Idle Control" to "Typical Current" in my bios but no dice. Some kind of C state thing I need to look at?
> 
> 
> 
> Running the same kit of RAM as you are, 1900FCLK 1:1 on a 5900X. Do you think it matters a lot to get it to that 2000mhz FCLK, I've seen some early benches and it didn't really look worth it for the real world performance increase, could be that it just isn't stable though... This is the article.
> 
> I get that it's a moby dick kinda thing though but I'd love to see a real comparison.


I have two systems. One With the x570 hero wifi and the 5950x who does not suffer from anything. And i have a b550-i (asus itx) with the 5800x. The 5800x system did suffer from idle reboots. Tried everything including typical power supply setting. In the end the only setting that solved it for the 5800x system was disabling the global c-state thing under the cpu settings in the bios. After that 0 idle reboots.

Both systems are now using the following voltages: SOC 1.06, VDDG CCD 0.940, VDDG IOD 0.980. cLDO VDDP 0.900. Both system with B die memory.

The 5950x is stable at 3800/1900. No memory test errors at all.
The 5800x is only memory stable at 3600/1800. It posts and can do benchmars at 3800/1900 and 3733/1867 but it will not be memory stable. No matter voltages.


----------



## Sindragosaa

Cab co


genelecs said:


> For me on BIOS 3101 and 5950x it will instantly crash my computer doing a AIDA64 L3 cache test even on default settings - others have reported very high instability using it.


Can confirm this - just enabled Fmax Enhancer with stock pbo settings and ran L3 Cache test and my pc rebooted and posted with qcode 00.

Had to unplug it from the wall to get it to reboot


----------



## zsoltmol

Hi Guys,

Can you please help me what happened to my memory read and copy values after replacing my memory?

Old setup 4x8GB GSkill 3600CL16-16-16-32, Samsung B-die, single rank modules










New setup 2x16GB GSkill 3600CL14-15-15-32, Samsung B-die, dual rank modules


----------



## genelecs

Sindragosaa said:


> Cab co
> 
> Can confirm this - just enabled Fmax Enhancer with stock pbo settings and ran L3 Cache test and my pc rebooted and posted with qcode 00.
> 
> Had to unplug it from the wall to get it to reboot


Thanks mate! - mine is exactly the same, pretty scary when it happens - But that makes me feel a little better that it probably isn't "faulty"hardware. It's either that or we just got really bad chips


----------



## Chili195

I've just set up my first AMD build and this has been a very informative thread. Using some of the guidance in the last few pages here is where I have got to:

5900X (custom loop), Dark Hero, 2x16GB G-Skill 3600Mhz CL14

My Cinebench R20 score with everything stock and XMP enabled are around 625. Enabling PBO and leaving everything on Auto drops this down to 619, and then making the following tweaks brings it back up to 631: Everything stock/auto, except XMP enabled, PBO Enabled, Motherboard Limits, Scalar Auto, CO: -15 on top two cores and -10 on all other cores. Top two cores are not stable below -15.

My focus here with PBO is on single-threaded boost clocks rather than multicore as I'm planning to tackle that through Manual OC and then using DOS OC to switch between the two. But I'm really struggling to get it to boost much further. In fact, I hardly ever see it hit the 4.8Ghz and when it does its more blink and you'll miss it. I tinkered with some settings a few days ago and then did manage to get it up to a sustained 4.9Ghz and a score of 635 but using those same settings now that doesn't seem repeatable, which is worrying. The temperatures are never above 65 - 69 degrees. The peak voltage on R20 single-threaded load is 1.46v, but I've seen it touch 1.5v too so I'm not sure how much more I can squeeze out of it. Any ideas?


----------



## zsoltmol

This board is acting strange.
I'have replaced my 4 dimms to 2 dimms. No other change. It did not boot, so CMOS clear. Then manually entering all my bios settings again with proper settings for the new 2 dimms (Taiphoon Burner + Ryzen memory calc).

My memory read and copy figures are strange in AIDA, Taiphoon Burner sometimes gives CRC error during read. Even after numerous restarts and cold boots. Hmmmm

Sometimes in the bios memory clock automatically moves from 3666MHz down to 3600MHz. So I switched off DOCP and entered manually the memory timings. No boot at all.

Clear CMOS again, reload my settings from USB drive. Now memory read and copy is back to normal in AIDA (5xxxx values). However Zentimings is showing significantly higher TRFC values in Windows, then what my Bios shows. Taiphoon CRC errors gone.

What is happening??? What should I do? Reflash BIOS 2206 again?


----------



## stimpy88

zsoltmol said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> Can you please help me what happened to my memory read and copy values after replacing my memory?
> 
> Old setup 4x8GB GSkill 3600CL16-16-16-32, Samsung B-die, single rank modules
> View attachment 2471783
> 
> 
> 
> New setup 2x16GB GSkill 3600CL14-15-15-32, Samsung B-die, dual rank modules
> View attachment 2471784


I was looking at your numbers, and they are really strange. I can only think that you have some software doing something in the background causing this odd performance.

We have very comparable systems, and this is what I get, and always have gotten at this clock speed...















This is the best performance I can get out of a 1833MHz bus speed, any higher and the Infinity Bus causes memory errors and USB issues. I use x2 sticks of Dual Rank 16GB Samsung B-Die.

Have you run a memory test to check for errors?


----------



## genelecs

zsoltmol said:


> This board is acting strange.
> I'have replaced my 4 dimms to 2 dimms. No other change. It did not boot, so CMOS clear. Then manually entering all my bios settings again with proper settings for the new 2 dimms (Taiphoon Burner + Ryzen memory calc).
> 
> My memory read and copy figures are strange in AIDA, Taiphoon Burner sometimes gives CRC error during read. Even after numerous restarts and cold boots. Hmmmm
> 
> Sometimes in the bios memory clock automatically moves from 3666MHz down to 3600MHz. So I switched off DOCP and entered manually the memory timings. No boot at all.
> 
> Clear CMOS again, reload my settings from USB drive. Now memory read and copy is back to normal in AIDA (5xxxx values). However Zentimings is showing significantly higher TRFC values in Windows, then what my Bios shows. Taiphoon CRC errors gone.
> 
> What is happening??? What should I do? Reflash BIOS 2206 again?


I would try a TM5 run - to me it looks like your low scores are caused by errors, I be curious if you had any WHEA errors too.


----------



## lDevilDriverl

dr.Rafi said:


> For me personally Iam using Strix x570 Asus , I Update to the latest bios for me is 3201 instead of 3101 which is released for my motherboard 2 days ago and basically have same changes that made in 3101 , was very curious to update though the previous was good for me and was able to boot over 2000 fclk with whea and 1966 whea free ,I download text bios setting before update , and after the update I reset bios by removing battery for 10 minuts and put my old setting manually it works fine everything work normally, the only change I noticed was the cpu is not boosting as high as before with 100 over boost and - 30 on most cores before update was boosting to 5125 now is only boosting like defult to 5050 and have less score with pbo and lower temp. still have to test and go to to 200 over boost and check if I can make it boost more.
> View attachment 2471543


vsoc 1.3688 - it's too high.


----------



## zsoltmol

I did not get WHEA error while I had this strange behaviour. Reloaded bios settings again and it seems to be working ok now. Thanks for the ram settings suggestion.


----------



## koji

Chili195 said:


> I've just set up my first AMD build and this has been a very informative thread. Using some of the guidance in the last few pages here is where I have got to:
> 
> 5900X (custom loop), Dark Hero, 2x16GB G-Skill 3600Mhz CL14
> 
> My Cinebench R20 score with everything stock and XMP enabled are around 625. Enabling PBO and leaving everything on Auto drops this down to 619, and then making the following tweaks brings it back up to 631: Everything stock/auto, except XMP enabled, PBO Enabled, Motherboard Limits, Scalar Auto, CO: -15 on top two cores and -10 on all other cores. Top two cores are not stable below -15.
> 
> My focus here with PBO is on single-threaded boost clocks rather than multicore as I'm planning to tackle that through Manual OC and then using DOS OC to switch between the two. But I'm really struggling to get it to boost much further. In fact, I hardly ever see it hit the 4.8Ghz and when it does its more blink and you'll miss it. I tinkered with some settings a few days ago and then did manage to get it up to a sustained 4.9Ghz and a score of 635 but using those same settings now that doesn't seem repeatable, which is worrying. The temperatures are never above 65 - 69 degrees. The peak voltage on R20 single-threaded load is 1.46v, but I've seen it touch 1.5v too so I'm not sure how much more I can squeeze out of it. Any ideas?


Hey Chili, Think your best bet is going to do some digging in to what Gadfly was doing for his PBO boost, especially the digi+ settings. (I think)
I have the same behavior on my Dark Hero / 5900X btw. Still haven't got that "high" PBO boost to stick for longer than a couple ms. Usually it hovers around 4.9 sustained too. If you happen to be using the Dark Hero DOC profile I linked a couple pages back that's without those digi+ settings changed, that stuff is next on my list to tweak to get a more sustained higher boost clock. It might be the current capability but I'm not entirely sure if that counts for Single Threaded stuff.

Gadfly's post on PBO tweaking and his PBO profile.

Good luck!


----------



## Sam64

@zsoltmol I'm already running on Zen3, but here is a settings, that I used for my 3900X:


----------



## Sheldon_fr

Gadfly, can u share your OC Static bios profile.txt plz ?

Thx


----------



## Chili195

koji said:


> Hey Chili, Think your best bet is going to do some digging in to what Gadfly was doing for his PBO boost, especially the digi+ settings. (I think)
> I have the same behavior on my Dark Hero / 5900X btw. Still haven't got that "high" PBO boost to stick for longer than a couple ms. Usually it hovers around 4.9 sustained too. If you happen to be using the Dark Hero DOC profile I linked a couple pages back that's without those digi+ settings changed, that stuff is next on my list to tweak to get a more sustained higher boost clock. It might be the current capability but I'm not entirely sure if that counts for Single Threaded stuff.
> 
> Gadfly's post on PBO tweaking and his PBO profile.
> 
> Good luck!



Thanks Koji, you have some pretty good results there. Just been trying your settings and Gadfly's and I'm still hitting a wall around 630-635 in Cinebench R20. I've tried a range of voltage offsets, from -0.075 up to +0.05 and there doesn't seem to be any discernable difference in the results. I'm pretty disappointed but beginning to think either my chip is a dud or maybe a new BIOS might help (using the beta 3101 but did briefly try 3003 too, perhaps I'll give that one another go).


----------



## koji

Chili195 said:


> Thanks Koji, you have some pretty good results there. Just been trying your settings and Gadfly's and I'm still hitting a wall around 630-635 in Cinebench R20. I've tried a range of voltage offsets, from -0.075 up to +0.05 and there doesn't seem to be any discernable difference in the results. I'm pretty disappointed but beginning to think either my chip is a dud or maybe a new BIOS might help (using the beta 3101 but did briefly try 3003 too, perhaps I'll give that one another go).


The difference in our scores is probably just the memory OC / memory speed on my system man, that's probably those couple points difference right there. I wasn't too happy with the 3101 bios, rolled back to 3003. Couldn't get the memory OC loaded that I was running back then.

I'd avoid running any kind of vcore voltage offset if you don't really need to. (for PBO anyway) I'd focus more on messing with LLC, but not too high that it harms the PBO but high enough for your DOC manual overclock. (BTW I also set the switching current limit to what Asus recommends, 45A) Coming from years of Intel systems that whole balancing act is a pretty fun thing to mess with.


----------



## Sindragosaa

genelecs said:


> Thanks mate! - mine is exactly the same, pretty scary when it happens - But that makes me feel a little better that it probably isn't "faulty"hardware. It's either that or we just got really bad chips


Hopefully not the latter 😂

I do recall it working in 3003, as I had it enabled during my PBO testing. So im sure its just a bios issue, hopefully the non beta release fixes it.


----------



## greg_p

Finally had the PBO with CO working ok, although it never went good in the past, neither on 3101 except very lastly. The very difference is that I had 3101 bios reflash and had ClearCmos before and after flashing, and then I started to tweak.
Now running on -12/-20 on CCD0, -25 on CCD1 with 0 override, the 2 best cores are reaching 5G+ , the other around 4850/4950. the power settings are 260W/225A/225A and this is EDC which is my limit in CBR20. Perf are good so far, 645/11400 in CBR20, 680/13000 on CPUZ and good memory except 1866 on Mem.


----------



## sakete

For those of you who went from 39** to 59** CPUs, what have you been seeing in terms of temps? Do the 59** chips run even hotter than the 39** CPUs?


----------



## shaolin95

greg_p said:


> Finally had the PBO with CO working ok, although it never went good in the past, neither on 3101 except very lastly. The very difference is that I had 3101 bios reflash and had ClearCmos before and after flashing, and then I started to tweak.
> Now running on -12/-20 on CCD0, -25 on CCD1 with 0 override, the 2 best cores are reaching 5G+ , the other around 4850/4950. the power settings are 260W/225A/225A and this is EDC which is my limit in CBR20. Perf are good so far, 645/11400 in CBR20, 680/13000 on CPUZ and good memory except 1866 on Mem.


Do you mind exporting your settings?
Thanks!


----------



## GRABibus

greg_p said:


> Finally had the PBO with CO working ok, although it never went good in the past, neither on 3101 except very lastly. The very difference is that I had 3101 bios reflash and had ClearCmos before and after flashing, and then I started to tweak.
> Now running on -12/-20 on CCD0, -25 on CCD1 with 0 override, the 2 best cores are reaching 5G+ , the other around 4850/4950. the power settings are 260W/225A/225A and this is EDC which is my limit in CBR20. Perf are good so far, 645/11400 in CBR20, 680/13000 on CPUZ and good memory except 1866 on Mem.


Deleted


----------



## Chili195

koji said:


> The difference in our scores is probably just the memory OC / memory speed on my system man, that's probably those couple points difference right there. I wasn't too happy with the 3101 bios, rolled back to 3003. Couldn't get the memory OC loaded that I was running back then.
> 
> I'd avoid running any kind of vcore voltage offset if you don't really need to. (for PBO anyway) I'd focus more on messing with LLC, but not too high that it harms the PBO but high enough for your DOC manual overclock. (BTW I also set the switching current limit to what Asus recommends, 45A) Coming from years of Intel systems that whole balancing act is a pretty fun thing to mess with.


Thanks, yes I've gone back to auto-voltage for the time being and I've upped my RAM and FCLK to 3800/1900. I'm going to look at the Manual OC in a bit. Just out of interest, how did you decide on your voltage of 1.23v? I was reading up on FIT voltage, which I understand to be the safe voltage for my chip but after trying to calculate it (possibly incorrectly) it only came to 1.21v which doesn't feel like its going to get me very far.


----------



## Gadfly

Chili195 said:


> Thanks, yes I've gone back to auto-voltage for the time being and I've upped my RAM and FCLK to 3800/1900. I'm going to look at the Manual OC in a bit. Just out of interest, how did you decide on your voltage of 1.23v? I was reading up on FIT voltage, which I understand to be the safe voltage for my chip but after trying to calculate it (possibly incorrectly) it only came to 1.21v which doesn't feel like its going to get me very far.


How did you calculate that? Most CPU's have a fit voltage of @ 1.325v (yes, Zen 3).

Start with a low manual OC, say 4.6/4.5 and 1.25v (custom VID in bios) and start stability testing, remember to turn CPU LLC up to level 4.


----------



## Chili195

Gadfly said:


> How did you calculate that? Most CPU's have a fit voltage of @ 1.325v (yes, Zen 3).
> 
> Start with a low manual OC, say 4.6/4.5 and 1.25v (custom VID in bios) and start stability testing, remember to turn CPU LLC up to level 4.


I set PBO with default settings, and ran Prime95 small fft for five minutes and checked the SVI2 Voltage in HWInfo. I have no idea if that is the right way or not, it's just something I saw on a Reddit comment!


----------



## Gadfly

Chili195 said:


> I set PBO with default settings, and ran Prime95 small fft for five minutes and checked the SVI2 Voltage in HWInfo. I have no idea if that is the right way or not, it's just something I saw on a Reddit comment!


No, that will not expose fit voltage, as pbo will throttle due to the PPT/EDC/thermal limits.


----------



## koji

Chili195 said:


> I'm going to look at the Manual OC in a bit. Just out of interest, how did you decide on your voltage of 1.23v? I was reading up on FIT voltage, which I understand to be the safe voltage for my chip but after trying to calculate it (possibly incorrectly) it only came to 1.21v which doesn't feel like its going to get me very far.


That's just where I ended up with manual OC'ing. My cooling solution (Arctic Freezer 2 360) can't handle 1.3ish all core voltage and I need that for my first proper increase in speed. I start getting thermal protection shutdowns in Realbench once I close in on 1.28vcore. (and doing a proper pass there is my minimal stability requirement, whatever that means)

1.23vcore - 46.75 / 45.75 is just the sweet spot I landed on, didn't try calculating anything.

I think the best approach is first settling on a manual OC, that's probably the most work if you don't plan on going in the entire curve optimizer rabbit hole.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Have stabilized my curve optimizer settings at -30 on all cores with 100% stability, the trick for me was to turn off global c-stats (lose ~50-100mhz singlethread) and use the minimum required voltage to keep them from crashing the system into a reboot at low load/idle.
I use LLC1 (weakest on asus bios) and a voltage offset of +0.0125volt to do that, but i also think i have a better then average cpu, so would guesstimate LLC2 and + 0.025 volt to be more common settings.
I found Aida memory copy benchmark to be a good quick test to check CO stability as it pretty much always crashed my system when the cores didn't get enough volt.

In regards to the discussion about static OC vs curve optimizer PBO, i found the best settings for me to be CO PBO for 90% of the applications i use..
This is some data i have from my CO setup: 








"Effective clocks" from hwinfo with cinebench r23 running.
(one thread per core forced with taskmanager affinity)

1 thread/core load = 5025mhz
2 thread/core load = 4975+4975
3 thread/core load = 4855+4855+4855
4 thread/core load = 4829+4829+4829+4829
5 thread/core load = 4815+4815+4815+4815+4815
6 thread/core load = 4790 on all cores
7 thread/core load = 4755 on all cores
8 thread/core load = 4760 on all cores
9 thread/core load = 4714 on all cores
10 thread/core load = 4708 on all cores
11 thread/core load = 4692 on all cores
12 thread/core load = 4686 on all cores
13 thread/core load = 4678 on all cores
14 thread/core load = 4656 on all cores
15 thread/core load = 4652 on all cores
16 thread/core load = 4635 on all cores

16cores/32threads = 4600 on all cores -> 30655 points in r32 (warm waterloop after running cinebench for a long time)
(my highscore in r23 with CO netted me 31900 points)

My max static OC so far is 4700/4600 with 100% stability even in Prime95 and IBT.
Ofcorse PBO will clock lower in prime95 or IBT then static OC, but PBO will clock higher then Cinebench in games, and that is something which i actually use this computer for..
So for my cpu in my setup, curve optimizer PBO is the logical choice


----------



## Gadfly

domdtxdissar said:


> Have stabilized my curve optimizer settings at -30 on all cores with 100% stability, the trick for me was to turn off global c-stats (lose ~50-100mhz singlethread) and use the minimum required voltage to keep them from crashing the system into a reboot at low load/idle.
> I use LLC1 (weakest on asus bios) and a voltage offset of +0.0125volt to do that, but i also think i have a better then average cpu, so would guesstimate LLC2 and + 0.025 volt to be more common settings.
> I found Aida memory copy benchmark to be a good quick test to check CO stability as it pretty much always crashed my system when the cores didn't get enough volt.
> 
> In regards to the discussion about static OC vs curve optimizer PBO, i found the best settings for me to be CO PBO for 90% of the applications i use..
> This is some data i have from my CO setup:
> View attachment 2471891
> 
> "Effective clocks" from hwinfo with cinebench r23 running.
> (one thread per core forced with taskmanager affinity)
> 
> 1 thread/core load = 5025mhz
> 2 thread/core load = 4975+4975
> 3 thread/core load = 4855+4855+4855
> 4 thread/core load = 4829+4829+4829+4829
> 5 thread/core load = 4815+4815+4815+4815+4815
> 6 thread/core load = 4790 on all cores
> 7 thread/core load = 4755 on all cores
> 8 thread/core load = 4760 on all cores
> 9 thread/core load = 4714 on all cores
> 10 thread/core load = 4708 on all cores
> 11 thread/core load = 4692 on all cores
> 12 thread/core load = 4686 on all cores
> 13 thread/core load = 4678 on all cores
> 14 thread/core load = 4656 on all cores
> 15 thread/core load = 4652 on all cores
> 16 thread/core load = 4635 on all cores
> 
> 16cores/32threads = 4600 on all cores -> 30655 points in r32 (warm waterloop after running cinebench for a long time)
> (my highscore in r23 with CO netted me 31900 points)
> 
> My max static OC so far is 4700/4600 with 100% stability even in Prime95 and IBT.
> Ofcorse PBO will clock lower in prime95 or IBT then static OC, but PBO will clock higher then Cinebench in games, and that is something which i actually use this computer for..
> So for my cpu in my setup, curve optimizer PBO is the logical choice


Lol wat..... 

First of all, pbo will never clock higher in cinebench than a static OC and be stable, ever.

Second, Aida64 memory bench is not at all a stress test.

Run blender benchmark, or IBT set to high for 10 passes for a quick stresstest.


----------



## Chili195

Gadfly said:


> No, that will not expose fit voltage, as pbo will throttle due to the PPT/EDC/thermal limits.


Ah right, yes it does hit the EDC limit. Is it safe to raise that above 200a on the Dark Hero?

Edit: just saw that your settings used 250 so will try that, thanks.


----------



## GRABibus

koji said:


> That's just where I ended up with manual OC'ing. My cooling solution (Arctic Freezer 2 360) can't handle 1.3ish all core voltage and I need that for my first proper increase in speed. I start getting thermal protection shutdowns in Realbench once I close in on 1.28vcore. (and doing a proper pass there is my minimal stability requirement, whatever that means)
> 
> 1.23vcore - 46.75 / 45.75 is just the sweet spot I landed on, didn't try calculating anything.
> 
> I think the best approach is first settling on a manual OC, that's probably the most work if you don't plan on going in the entire curve optimizer rabbit hole.


your artic freezer 360 can’t handle 1,3v in Realbench for your 5900x ??

which temps do you get ? What is your ambient ?

Which temps do you get in CBR20 with your 1,3V and static OC ?


----------



## domdtxdissar

Gadfly said:


> Lol wat.....
> 
> First of all, pbo will never clock higher in cinebench than a static OC and be stable, ever.
> 
> Second, Aida64 memory bench is not at all a stress test.
> 
> Run blender benchmark, or IBT set to high for 10 passes for a quick stresstest.


Easy now, I think you misunderstood what iam trying to say here... Ofcourse a static OC will score higher in a allcore load.

In my case a allcore OC would be ~around 4700mhz maximum* in cinebench while i have around 4600mhz with CO PBO in Cinebench. (100mhz less then static OC)
* = can run upto 4700mhz average in cinebench but is not stable in IBT/prime95

In workloads up to 20 threads/10cores ~ my CO PBO will clock higher then my static OC.
In workloads over 20 threads/10cores ~ my CO PBO will clock lower then my static OC.

Most of the workload i use is below 20 threads -> i get better performance with CO PBS.

There is nothing to disagree on here.. And i didn't say Aida copy benchmark was a "stress test to check if your CO settings was 100% stable", but a quick test to see if you had any chance at all to run with those settings.

Btw where are your 32k Cinebench r23 and 12.5k Cinebench r20 runs with a static OC ?

_edit_

In regards to blender, 
I ask for your scores in a render benchmark with static OC many pages ago: (handbreak)



domdtxdissar said:


> Could you do a testrun with this static OC in this benchmark thread on the Anandtech forums ?
> Handbrake 1.3.3 - Benchmark your System - New benchmark criteria
> 
> I'm really interested in how my PBO run would compare..


----------



## koji

GRABibus said:


> your artic freezer 360 can’t handle 1,3v in Realbench for your 5900x ??
> 
> which temps do you get ? What is your ambient ?
> 
> Which temps do you get in CBR20 with your 1,3V and static OC ?


Yep, wasn't possible for me on bios 3003... I'd get these nasty spikes here and there and it would just shut down and throw a thermal error. Thermals seem to have improved on bios 3101, installed that a couple hours ago, I'm able to do RB now at 1.3vcore without hitting that thermal wall, ends up in de mid 80s now.

Ambient temp of 18C with liquid metal as TIM, reseated it 3 times already...


----------



## Sindragosaa

koji said:


> Yep, wasn't possible for me on bios 3003... I'd get these nasty spikes here and there and it would just shut down and throw a thermal error. Thermals seem to have improved on bios 3101, installed that a couple hours ago, I'm able to do RB now at 1.3vcore without hitting that thermal wall, ends up in de mid 80s now.
> 
> Ambient temp of 18C with liquid metal as TIM, reseated it 3 times already...


Yeah these bad boys run hot, especially with static OC.

I think the next upgrade will be a AIO for me.


----------



## Sindragosaa

Can anyone confirm if they have experienced some bios settings reverting to defaults after a idle reboot?

I have been experimenting with PBO and noticed after an idle reboot and loading my saved stable profile and hitting F10 some of the C-State settings reverted back to defaults.

So loading the saved profile disabled them again.


----------



## dr.Rafi

Gadfly said:


> Lol wat.....
> 
> First of all, pbo will never clock higher in cinebench than a static OC and be stable, ever.
> 
> Second, Aida64 memory bench is not at all a stress test.
> 
> Run blender benchmark, or IBT set to high for 10 passes for a quick stresstest.


I think he meant not a multicore stress test he is trying to find which test give him reboot in idle/light load when the cpu is trying to boost to max, for me the old bios was stable in everything only issue was reboot when iam on certain website on google chrome even if i open same site on microsoft edge i have no issue ,running defult bios setting the computer stop crashing even with google chrome and only happen when use CO on,but that too been fixed and i didnt encounter any reboots with the latest bios and Agessa 1190 with same setting


----------



## shaolin95

Hey guys, how do I turn off AURA when my computer is off? I found an option in BIOS but after I select OFF it reverts back to ON so not sure what is going on with that?
I always end up switching the PSU off when done for the day.


----------



## dr.Rafi

domdtxdissar said:


> Have stabilized my curve optimizer settings at -30 on all cores with 100% stability, the trick for me was to turn off global c-stats (lose ~50-100mhz singlethread) and use the minimum required voltage to keep them from crashing the system into a reboot at low load/idle.
> I use LLC1 (weakest on asus bios) and a voltage offset of +0.0125volt to do that, but i also think i have a better then average cpu, so would guesstimate LLC2 and + 0.025 volt to be more common settings.
> I found Aida memory copy benchmark to be a good quick test to check CO stability as it pretty much always crashed my system when the cores didn't get enough volt.
> 
> In regards to the discussion about static OC vs curve optimizer PBO, i found the best settings for me to be CO PBO for 90% of the applications i use..
> This is some data i have from my CO setup:
> View attachment 2471891
> 
> "Effective clocks" from hwinfo with cinebench r23 running.
> (one thread per core forced with taskmanager affinity)
> 
> 1 thread/core load = 5025mhz
> 2 thread/core load = 4975+4975
> 3 thread/core load = 4855+4855+4855
> 4 thread/core load = 4829+4829+4829+4829
> 5 thread/core load = 4815+4815+4815+4815+4815
> 6 thread/core load = 4790 on all cores
> 7 thread/core load = 4755 on all cores
> 8 thread/core load = 4760 on all cores
> 9 thread/core load = 4714 on all cores
> 10 thread/core load = 4708 on all cores
> 11 thread/core load = 4692 on all cores
> 12 thread/core load = 4686 on all cores
> 13 thread/core load = 4678 on all cores
> 14 thread/core load = 4656 on all cores
> 15 thread/core load = 4652 on all cores
> 16 thread/core load = 4635 on all cores
> 
> 16cores/32threads = 4600 on all cores -> 30655 points in r32 (warm waterloop after running cinebench for a long time)
> (my highscore in r23 with CO netted me 31900 points)
> 
> My max static OC so far is 4700/4600 with 100% stability even in Prime95 and IBT.
> Ofcorse PBO will clock lower in prime95 or IBT then static OC, but PBO will clock higher then Cinebench in games, and that is something which i actually use this computer for..
> So for my cpu in my setup, curve optimizer PBO is the logical choice


Figured that every minus setting (less or more )in CO need certain EDC setting tweaking to get best multi and single core performance my cpu is fully stable with all cores -30 CO if EDC is between 200 to 245 but if I use stock edc 190 the system crash ,with minus 20 all core is stable with EDC 190. and also C state disabled helped i put it off long time ago when @ Gadfly mentioned in his bios setting.


----------



## dr.Rafi

Sindragosaa said:


> Can anyone confirm if they have experienced some bios settings reverting to defaults after a idle reboot?
> 
> I have been experimenting with PBO and noticed after an idle reboot and loading my saved stable profile and hitting F10 some of the C-State settings reverted back to defaults.
> 
> So loading the saved profile disabled them again.


On Gigabyte X570 aorus master yes every time system crash revert to defult but Asus never even if the system load defult fail safe , but if I enter the bios the setting is there just need save and exit.


----------



## Sindragosaa

shaolin95 said:


> Hey guys, how do I turn off AURA when my computer is off? I found an option in BIOS but after I select OFF it reverts back to ON so not sure what is going on with that?
> I always end up switching the PSU off when done for the day.


If you turn it off in the Armoury Crate settings it will stay off until you turn it back on or unless your bios resets.


----------



## Sindragosaa

dr.Rafi said:


> On Gigabyte X570 aorus master yes every time system crash revert to defult but Asus never even if the system load defult fail safe , but if I enter the bios the setting is there just need save and exit.


Ok good to know - I'm wondering if this is why I have had unstable PBO settings in the past when optimising settings.

Since I never checked the C-State/DF C-state settings after I disabled them the first time. But they may have been reverting from disabled to auto after idle reboots all this time.

Currently with PBO (-20 CCX0 /-30 CCX1) no idle reboots after running for about 24 hours continuously with mixed loads.


----------



## LtMatt

domdtxdissar said:


> Have stabilized my curve optimizer settings at -30 on all cores with 100% stability, the trick for me was to turn off global c-stats (lose ~50-100mhz singlethread) and use the minimum required voltage to keep them from crashing the system into a reboot at low load/idle.
> I use LLC1 (weakest on asus bios) and a voltage offset of +0.0125volt to do that, but i also think i have a better then average cpu, so would guesstimate LLC2 and + 0.025 volt to be more common settings.
> I found Aida memory copy benchmark to be a good quick test to check CO stability as it pretty much always crashed my system when the cores didn't get enough volt.
> 
> In regards to the discussion about static OC vs curve optimizer PBO, i found the best settings for me to be CO PBO for 90% of the applications i use..
> This is some data i have from my CO setup:
> View attachment 2471891
> 
> "Effective clocks" from hwinfo with cinebench r23 running.
> (one thread per core forced with taskmanager affinity)
> 
> 1 thread/core load = 5025mhz
> 2 thread/core load = 4975+4975
> 3 thread/core load = 4855+4855+4855
> 4 thread/core load = 4829+4829+4829+4829
> 5 thread/core load = 4815+4815+4815+4815+4815
> 6 thread/core load = 4790 on all cores
> 7 thread/core load = 4755 on all cores
> 8 thread/core load = 4760 on all cores
> 9 thread/core load = 4714 on all cores
> 10 thread/core load = 4708 on all cores
> 11 thread/core load = 4692 on all cores
> 12 thread/core load = 4686 on all cores
> 13 thread/core load = 4678 on all cores
> 14 thread/core load = 4656 on all cores
> 15 thread/core load = 4652 on all cores
> 16 thread/core load = 4635 on all cores
> 
> 16cores/32threads = 4600 on all cores -> 30655 points in r32 (warm waterloop after running cinebench for a long time)
> (my highscore in r23 with CO netted me 31900 points)
> 
> My max static OC so far is 4700/4600 with 100% stability even in Prime95 and IBT.
> Ofcorse PBO will clock lower in prime95 or IBT then static OC, but PBO will clock higher then Cinebench in games, and that is something which i actually use this computer for..
> So for my cpu in my setup, curve optimizer PBO is the logical choice


Very nice results, well done. 

What BIOS version are you using?

Also, what are your exact PBO settings in regards to Auto OC etc?


----------



## lklem

domdtxdissar said:


> After wasting a few days on bios 3103 for the crosshair viii hero motherboard i'm back to the 3003 bios and have finalized my everyday 24/7 settings.
> 
> 32gigabyte @ 1900MT/S 4x8gigabyte b-die gskill memory
> Prettymuch all timings and voltages are handtuned/maximized/minimized.
> 
> Zero errors/WHEA after 1 hour in TestMeM5 with the 1usmus preset. (9 cycles for 32gig)
> 
> View attachment 2471724
> 
> 
> Screenshot show all settings and voltages, but i can write them also:
> dram = 1.56 volt (warmest memorystick reached 44 degrees in TestMeM, normal temp is 32 degrees)
> vsoc = 1.1188 volt
> cldo vddp = 0.8796 volt
> vddg iod = 1.0477 volt
> vddg ccd = 0.8796 volt
> ProcODT = 43.6
> 
> If anyone see something that can be improved/mistakes in the timings, please let me know


Mind to share your RAM timing setting?


----------



## Sindragosaa

Happy New Year! 

Current Stable PBO settings with Curve Optimiser (-20 CCX0 -30 CCX1) inc. bios dump for my 5950X 

I will update this post later with my values and settings, so you don't have to read the bios dump.


----------



## dr.Rafi

Sindragosaa said:


> Happy New Year!
> 
> Current Stable PBO settings with Curve Optimiser (-20 CCX0 -30 CCX1) inc. bios dump for my 5950X
> 
> I will update this post later with my values and settings, so you don't have to read the bios dump.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2472004
> View attachment 2472007
> View attachment 2472008
> View attachment 2472006
> View attachment 2472005


I update your bios dump file for setting will pump your performance and are completly safe to try if you like. except memory timing.


----------



## Naalja

shaolin95 said:


> Hey guys, how do I turn off AURA when my computer is off? I found an option in BIOS but after I select OFF it reverts back to ON so not sure what is going on with that?
> I always end up switching the PSU off when done for the day.


In the bios settings Advance>Onboard Devices Configuration there is a setting called "rgb led lighting" where you can then under "when system is in sleep,hibernate or soft off states" select stealth mode.
That will turn off all aura and functional leds on the board when you turn off your pc.

You can sure do it on armory crate too but that sometimes does not work for me.


----------



## greg_p

shaolin95 said:


> Hey guys, how do I turn off AURA when my computer is off? I found an option in BIOS but after I select OFF it reverts back to ON so not sure what is going on with that?
> I always end up switching the PSU off when done for the day.


Yes, this settings wasn't correctly saved until 3101.


----------



## domdtxdissar

LtMatt said:


> Very nice results, well done.
> 
> What BIOS version are you using?
> 
> Also, what are your exact PBO settings in regards to Auto OC etc?


I'm using bios 3003 as shown in this post:









ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...


Thank you for information, so do you think B550 chipset will perform better ? with less Whea ? I highly doubt it.




www.overclock.net





My pbo settings are 300/235/245, what do you mean with "auto oc" ?



lklem said:


> Mind to share your RAM timing setting?


All my ram timings are in the post you have quoted ?


https://www.overclock.net/attachments/mem-done-png.2471724/


----------



## domdtxdissar

This is my IBT very high numbers with CO PBO








Pushing upto 4650mhz effective average clocks with my current curve optimizer 24/7 settings in ~25 degrees ambient.
(restarted the timers and values in Hwinfo when i started IBT bench, so HWinfo numbers are from running IBT alone)


----------



## lklem

domdtxdissar said:


> _double post_


Thanks! Happy New Year!


----------



## t4t3r

KingEngineRevUp said:


> I am, I don't think you read the other post I'm having with Gadfly.


Your initial post said "*My computer always takes 2-5 retrains of certain Auto settings to post.* " Auto is not manual settings. Set ALL of your timings manually.


----------



## Sindragosaa

dr.Rafi said:


> I update your bios dump file for setting will pump your performance and are completly safe to try if you like. except memory timing.


Cheers ill try it out


----------



## Sam64

@domdtxdissar You can try also BoostTester to check your highest effective boost clocks:









Releases · jedi95/BoostTester


Simple tool for generating loads that should trigger maximum CPU boost clocks. - jedi95/BoostTester




github.com


----------



## Chili195

koji said:


> Yep, wasn't possible for me on bios 3003... I'd get these nasty spikes here and there and it would just shut down and throw a thermal error. Thermals seem to have improved on bios 3101, installed that a couple hours ago, I'm able to do RB now at 1.3vcore without hitting that thermal wall, ends up in de mid 80s now.
> 
> Ambient temp of 18C with liquid metal as TIM, reseated it 3 times already...


I've just been trying the manual OC and I also get the thermal error pretty about ten seconds or so into Prime 95, small FFT with AVX (without AVX seems to stress fine). Plugged in 1.237v which I believe to be my FIT voltage (low as it is) and a very gentle 45.5. The temperature doesn't actually seem to exceed 85 degrees per HWInfo so I'm not sure if there is just a sudden spike somewhere which causes it to shut down. It's on a custom loop, although might be limited in rad space (420mm shared with a 3080).

I'm just going to go back to PBO now and see what I can squeeze out of it. Pretty disappointed in the overclocking ability of my chip, given it should be under decent cooling and a shame I won't be able to make much use of the DOS OC feature.


----------



## slow4cyl

This is what I found to be stable for me on PBO. I can run the 2 fastest cores #'s (1 and 6) with curve optimizer as high as -27. But its only CB stable at -19 or below, so thats where I tend to keep it. My memory timings are all over the place, dont even look at them lol. I dont really know what I'm doing, but I am under the assumption that generally tighter is better.

Highest CB I got was something like 11990 with manual oc @ 4.625 or so. But the temps were n the 90s. I get about 11723 everytime now with PBO on and the processor generally stays between 70-80s temp wise. Single core with PBO on is something like 643 on R20 @ -19 for the 2 fastest cores.



Code:


[2020/12/31 12:17:00]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3666MHz]
FCLK Frequency [1833MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Core VID [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
Performance Bias [Auto]
PBO Fmax Enhancer [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Manual]
PPT Limit [280]
TDC Limit [230]
EDC Limit [250]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [50]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
Trcdrd [13]
Trcdwr [8]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [21]
Trc [35]
TrrdS [4]
TrrdL [4]
Tfaw [16]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [8]
Twr [10]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [2]
TwrwrScl [2]
Trfc [232]
Trfc2 [142]
Trfc4 [98]
Tcwl [16]
Trtp [11]
Trdwr [11]
Twrrd [6]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [6]
TwrwrDd [6]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [7]
TrdrdDd [7]
Tcke [1]
ProcODT [43.6 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [RZQ/7]
RttWr [RZQ/3]
RttPark [RZQ/1]
MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
MemCkeSetup [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [Auto]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 2]
CPU Current Capability [140%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
Active Frequency Mode [Disabled]
CPU Power Duty Control [Extreme]
CPU Power Phase Control [Optimized]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Auto]
DRAM Current Capability [130%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.10000]
DRAM Voltage [1.50000]
VDDG CCD Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [Auto]
CLDO VDDP voltage [Auto]
1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Enabled]
PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
NX Mode [Enabled]
SVM Mode [Disabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
CCD Control [Auto]
SATA Port Enable [Disabled]
NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
When system is in working state [All On]
Q-Code LED Function [Auto]
When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [All On]
Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Disabled]
Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Disabled]
Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_2 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
SB Link Mode [Auto]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Above 4G Decoding [Enabled]
Re-Size BAR Support [Auto]
SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
USB DISK 3.0 PMAP [Auto]
USB Device Enable [Enabled]
U32G2_2 [Enabled]
U32G2_3 [Enabled]
U32G2_4 [Enabled]
U32G1_10 [Enabled]
U32G1_11 [Enabled]
USB12 [Enabled]
USB13 [Enabled]
U32G2_7 [Enabled]
U32G2_8 [Enabled]
U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Device [N\A]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor Temperature [Ignore]
Water In T Sensor Temperature [Ignore]
Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Ignore]
CPU Fan Speed [Ignore]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Ignore]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Ignore]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
High Amp Fan Speed [Ignore]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Ignore]
AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
PCH Fan Speed [Monitor]
Flow Rate [Ignore]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Turbo]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Turbo]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
High Amp Fan Profile [Manual]
High Amp Fan Upper Temperature [70]
High Amp Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
High Amp Fan Middle Temperature [45]
High Amp Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [60]
High Amp Fan Lower Temperature [40]
High Amp Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Above 4GB MMIO Limit [39bit (512GB)]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
Boot Logo Display [Auto]
Bootup NumLock State [On]
POST Delay Time [1 sec]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Disabled]
OS Type [Other OS]
AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
Flexkey [Reset]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [7]
Profile Name [pboon]
Save to Profile [2]
DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Enabled]
CPU Frequency [0]
CPU Voltage [0]
CCD Control [Auto]
Core control [Auto]
SMT Control [Auto]
Overclock [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
ECO Mode [Disable]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
PBO Limits [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Curve Optimizer [Per Core]
Core 0 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [19]
Core 1 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 2 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 3 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 4 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 5 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 6 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [19]
Core 7 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 8 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 9 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 10 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 11 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 12 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 12 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 13 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 13 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 14 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 14 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 15 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 15 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [0MHz]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
SMEE [Auto]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
Global C-state Control [Auto]
Power Supply Idle Control [Auto]
SEV ASID Count [Auto]
SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
Local APIC Mode [Auto]
ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
DRAM scrub time [Auto]
Poison scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Memory interleaving [Auto]
Memory interleaving size [Auto]
1TB remap [Auto]
DRAM map inversion [Auto]
ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
GMI encryption control [Auto]
xGMI encryption control [Auto]
CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
PcsCG control [Auto]
Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
Memory Clear [Auto]
Overclock [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Data Poisoning [Auto]
DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
RCD Parity [Auto]
DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
Write CRC Enable [Auto]
DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
TSME [Auto]
Data Scramble [Auto]
DFE Read Training [Auto]
FFE Write Training [Auto]
PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
BankGroupSwap [Auto]
BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
Address Hash Bank [Auto]
Address Hash CS [Auto]
Address Hash Rm [Auto]
SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
MBIST Enable [Disabled]
Pattern Select [PRBS]
Pattern Length [6]
Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
IOMMU [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
FCLK Frequency [Auto]
SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
ACS Enable [Auto]
PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
cTDP Control [Auto]
EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
APBDIS [Auto]
DF Cstates [Auto]
CPPC [Auto]
CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
Early Link Speed [Auto]
Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
Preferred IO [Auto]
CV test [Auto]
Loopback Mode [Auto]
SRIS [Auto]
Data Link Feature Exchange [Enabled ]


----------



## koji

Chili195 said:


> I've just been trying the manual OC and I also get the thermal error pretty about ten seconds or so into Prime 95, small FFT with AVX (without AVX seems to stress fine). Plugged in 1.237v which I believe to be my FIT voltage (low as it is) and a very gentle 45.5. The temperature doesn't actually seem to exceed 85 degrees per HWInfo so I'm not sure if there is just a sudden spike somewhere which causes it to shut down. It's on a custom loop, although might be limited in rad space (420mm shared with a 3080).
> 
> I'm just going to go back to PBO now and see what I can squeeze out of it. Pretty disappointed in the overclocking ability of my chip, given it should be under decent cooling and a shame I won't be able to make much use of the DOS OC feature.


Hey Chili, I'd just avoid anything avx for stresstesting. Maybe try the custom h264 encoder loop or realbench. When I just had my system I let it run the aituner auto tuning to see where it ended up, I set it to stresstest with avx enabled. Not sure why my thermal protection didnt trigger that time but I first thought aituner was reporting dodgy readings, I opened up hwinfo and ccx0 was on a 106c max... That was around 4.5 all core as well.

Bloody thing almost fried my chip. (That and the thermal shutdown not triggering offcourse)


----------



## domdtxdissar

Sam64 said:


> @domdtxdissar You can try also BoostTester to check your highest effective boost clocks:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Releases · jedi95/BoostTester
> 
> 
> Simple tool for generating loads that should trigger maximum CPU boost clocks. - jedi95/BoostTester
> 
> 
> 
> 
> github.com


----------



## skalinator

greg_p said:


> I don't have a formula but a standard CH8. Here my bios settings on 3101


I have Crosshair VIII Formula, which enhancer are you talking about, the FMAX enhancer? it's there. Curve optimizer is there, it all should be the same. I am currently running 3800/1900 16-15-15-15-30-45, on latest beta bios 3101 and it's been rock solid. OC Curve Optimizer at -25 on all cores, -20 on 4 good cores. I was having WHEA, Black screen reboots, bluescreens before this constantly. Have not had one since. 4x8 gb bdie, 5900x, 360mm AIO, RTX 3080 FE


----------



## skalinator

Sindragosaa said:


> Finally got my PBO CO settings working in 3103 and was able to match my manual OC settings, only downside is the PBO settings are running +10degC (from 80degC to 90degC) hotter than my manual OC under a avx load, albeit with better single core performance.
> 
> *3103 PBO Adjusted CO per core:
> 
> View attachment 2471457
> View attachment 2471458
> 
> 
> 3003 Static OC 4600/4500:
> 
> View attachment 2471460
> View attachment 2471461
> *
> 
> I think next, I'll see if I can get a better static OC with better thermals.


How the heck did you get your l3 cache back to what it should be? i'm still at ~600ish, i am adjusted per core... only difference i can see is you are 5950x (shouldn't matter) and at 3600 im at 3800... u adjust anything else?


----------



## HyperC

skalinator said:


> How the heck did you get your l3 cache back to what it should be? i'm still at ~600ish, i am adjusted per core... only difference i can see is you are 5950x (shouldn't matter) and at 3600 im at 3800... u adjust anything else?


He is using a different version on the newest AIDA mine is mid 700's... Mine reported the same as his using that older version


----------



## skalinator

HyperC said:


> He is using a different version on the newest AIDA mine is mid 700's... Mine reported the same as his using that older version


I think I figured it out, flipping on the fmax enhancer in the pbo settings brought it back to 1000’s


----------



## shaolin95

skalinator said:


> I think I figured it out, flipping on the fmax enhancer in the pbo settings brought it back to 1000’s


yes but dont you lose real world performance when doing that?


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

t4t3r said:


> Your initial post said "*My computer always takes 2-5 retrains of certain Auto settings to post.* " Auto is not manual settings. Set ALL of your timings manually.


My friend, like I said there's a conversation where having before that post. I even posted a screenshot of my custom zen timings *from the same post you're quoting here.*

I understand you're tryin to help, but it's not helpful if you don't have all the details, someone asks you to check those details out and you choose again to not read those details.

If you're wondering about what "certain auto settings" (note I said certain), it's other settings that we don't touch, there are several settings in our Motherboard set to auto even if you fill out the "advanced" area of dram calculator.

Please have a nice New year's.


----------



## skalinator

shaolin95 said:


> yes but dont you lose real world performance when doing that?


Yup! Just figured that out, cinibench dropped 500 points. It basically murders ccx2, at first I was like was I was all core boosting to 4700+ ... on ccx1... ccx2, 4000mhz. I’m wondering if there is some cross ccx talk when it’s testing since 5900 x has two ccx but unified monolithic cache per ccx and Aida has not made changes to reflect that. I’m pondering because why would my ccx2 go down so much and at the same time the l3 cache go up. I don’t know how their tests work but maybe since windows see’s those all as the fastest cores by a huge margin it’s scheduling the test on that ccx exclusively. Why else would fmax fix it? So confused. Someone should test affinity on Aida with the first ccx cores only. I away from the computer now for the weekend


----------



## sweshi

Increasing EDC to something like 300 400 will boost AIDA64 L3 Cache, but core boost clock would be lower.


----------



## skalinator

sweshi said:


> Increasing EDC to something like 300 400 will boost AIDA64 L3 Cache, but core boost clock would be lower.


Interesting so it’s more related to power? Yeah my edc is the one value that is always pegged at 100. I have it set to mother board limits but I assume they were conservative. How do you figure out what your board is capable of doing?


----------



## dr.Rafi

skalinator said:


> Interesting so it’s more related to power? Yeah my edc is the one value that is always pegged at 100. I have it set to mother board limits but I assume they were conservative. How do you figure out what your board is capable of doing?


go to bios recision Boost Overdrive ---> Precision Boost Overdrive (choose enabled instead of manual ) boot to windows and check Ryzen master home screen top


----------



## skalinator

Yeah it’s set to enabled, I tried manual for a bit but just reverted back to enabled. Are you saying the same in the amd menu, take off motherboard and the custom oc curve?


----------



## Sheldon_fr

Good after having read the topic up and down and across, I start:

Sorry for my english, i'm french.

BOITIER FRACTAL MESHIFY 2 WHITE
ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VIII Bios 3101
AMD RYZEN 9 5900X
AIO ALPHACOOL EISBEAR 360LT
2 x 16GO TRIDENT Z NEO 3600MHZ (16-19-19-39)
ASUS RTX 3090 OC TUF
CORSAIR RM850X
SAMSUNG 970 EVO 500GO NVME
SSD CRUCIAL MX500 1TO
SSD SAMSUNG 980 PRO

All the settings have been made under the 3101 bios

Here are the precise settings: Ai Overclock Tuner D.O.C.P. BCLK... - TextUp

PPT Limit [W] [200]
TDC Limit [A] [150]
EDC Limit [A] [150]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Curve Optimizer [All Cores]
All Core Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
All Core Curve Optimizer Magnitude [15]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [50MHz]

1 / CINEBENCH R20










Monitoring durant le Multicore Bench










Monitoring durant le Singlecore Bench










2 / TIMESPY










3 / CPU-Z Bench










4 / Monitoring en Idle










These are my first steps in the world of OC, be kind I also appeal to owners of 5900x if they have any advice for me in order to refine my settings. I want to find the best compromise between performance and temperatures.

Guillaume


----------



## genelecs

Sindragosaa said:


> Happy New Year!
> 
> Current Stable PBO settings with Curve Optimiser (-20 CCX0 -30 CCX1) inc. bios dump for my 5950X
> 
> I will update this post later with my values and settings, so you don't have to read the bios dump.
> 
> View attachment 2472004


Happy New Year mate - Well apart from our fMax woes I'm in a similar zone.
(-10 on best 4 cores, -15 on rest) - this benchmark was with everything else closed but I'm very happy esp the ST - It passes TM5/OCCT Large (which I realise isn't the problem with CO) but I haven't had any idle crashses, 3101 has 100% improved CO for me as my previous experiments with it have always ended in instablity.

Temps aren't the best but they aren't too alarming - 87c max in Cinebench with a NZXT Z63 280mm AIO.


----------



## Sindragosaa

genelecs said:


> Happy New Year mate - Well apart from our fMax woes I'm in a similar zone.
> (-10 on best 4 cores, -15 on rest) - this benchmark was with everything else closed but I'm very happy esp the ST - It passes TM5/OCCT Large (which I realise isn't the problem with CO) but I haven't had any idle crashses, 3101 has 100% improved CO for me as my previous experiments with it have always ended in instablity.
> 
> Temps aren't the best but they aren't too alarming - 87c max in Cinebench with a NZXT Z63 280mm AIO.
> 
> View attachment 2472148


Mind sharing a bios dump of your settings


----------



## genelecs

Sindragosaa said:


> Mind sharing a bios dump of your settings


Yep of course - here you go.


----------



## slow4cyl

PBO on 
*704ST* 13437MT








AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @ 4573.93 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR


[zkt9sq] Validated Dump by Anonymous (2020-12-30 17:25:03) - MB: Asus ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO (WI-FI) - RAM: 65536 MB




valid.x86.fr





PBO off 
682ST *14309MT*








AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @ 4873.86 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR


[ee0aec] Validated Dump by Anonymous (2020-12-30 16:37:59) - MB: Asus ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO (WI-FI) - RAM: 65536 MB




valid.x86.fr


----------



## Chili195

koji said:


> Hey Chili, I'd just avoid anything avx for stresstesting. Maybe try the custom h264 encoder loop or realbench. When I just had my system I let it run the aituner auto tuning to see where it ended up, I set it to stresstest with avx enabled. Not sure why my thermal protection didnt trigger that time but I first thought aituner was reporting dodgy readings, I opened up hwinfo and ccx0 was on a 106c max... That was around 4.5 all core as well.
> 
> Bloody thing almost fried my chip. (That and the thermal shutdown not triggering offcourse)



Hi Koji, Happy New Year! I actually figured that this wasn't a thermal shutdown at all. It was just instability due to low voltage. The computer restarts and the motherboard detects high CPU residual temperature from the test during POST - hence the warning. 

But the restart itself I don't think was caused by heat as increasing the voltage gets further along in the test. I'm still cautious about increasing the voltage beyond what I'd set (1.237v), as I believe this to be the safe limit for my chip.

The problem is PBO downclocks from 4.5 to 4.3 when running P95 with AVX - that's what the Manual OC can't handle and stays at 4.5. I tried adding a temperature limit to the Dynamic OC to have it move from Manual OC to PBO when it detects > 85 degrees but it just doesn't happen quick enough to get through P95 with AVX. Other AVX tests seem fine though so I will continue to dial in the Manual OC and ignore Prime 95 with AVX for now.


----------



## shaolin95

slow4cyl said:


> PBO on
> *704ST* 13437MT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @ 4573.93 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR
> 
> 
> [zkt9sq] Validated Dump by Anonymous (2020-12-30 17:25:03) - MB: Asus ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO (WI-FI) - RAM: 65536 MB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> valid.x86.fr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PBO off
> 682ST *14309MT*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @ 4873.86 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR
> 
> 
> [ee0aec] Validated Dump by Anonymous (2020-12-30 16:37:59) - MB: Asus ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO (WI-FI) - RAM: 65536 MB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> valid.x86.fr


Nice breaking the 700pts barrier!
Mind sharing a bios dump?


----------



## shaolin95

Hey guys,
Any suggestions on how to get a bit more from my RAM timings?


----------



## Raulka

I was frustrated about the high memory latency (with D.O.C.P. >65ns), so I decided I will set my G.Skill F4-3600C16Q-32GTZR 4x8GB B-Die timings about the previous posts of this great topic.
My results without WHEA errors:
















DRAM Voltage: 1.370V
I welcome any suggestions!


----------



## Dawidowski

Sheldon_fr said:


> Good after having read the topic up and down and across, I start:
> 
> Sorry for my english, i'm french.
> 
> BOITIER FRACTAL MESHIFY 2 WHITE
> ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VIII Bios 3101
> AMD RYZEN 9 5900X
> AIO ALPHACOOL EISBEAR 360LT
> 2 x 16GO TRIDENT Z NEO 3600MHZ (16-19-19-39)
> ASUS RTX 3090 OC TUF
> CORSAIR RM850X
> SAMSUNG 970 EVO 500GO NVME
> SSD CRUCIAL MX500 1TO
> SSD SAMSUNG 980 PRO
> 
> All the settings have been made under the 3101 bios
> 
> Here are the precise settings: Ai Overclock Tuner D.O.C.P. BCLK... - TextUp
> 
> PPT Limit [W] [200]
> TDC Limit [A] [150]
> EDC Limit [A] [150]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> Curve Optimizer [All Cores]
> All Core Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> All Core Curve Optimizer Magnitude [15]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [50MHz]
> 
> 1 / CINEBENCH R20
> 
> View attachment 2472139
> 
> 
> Monitoring durant le Multicore Bench
> 
> View attachment 2472140
> 
> 
> Monitoring durant le Singlecore Bench
> 
> View attachment 2472141
> 
> 
> 2 / TIMESPY
> 
> View attachment 2472142
> 
> 
> 3 / CPU-Z Bench
> 
> View attachment 2472143
> 
> 
> 4 / Monitoring en Idle
> 
> View attachment 2472144
> 
> 
> These are my first steps in the world of OC, be kind I also appeal to owners of 5900x if they have any advice for me in order to refine my settings. I want to find the best compromise between performance and temperatures.
> 
> Guillaume


How on earth do people ge 80c only with PBO on...
Mine hits like 88-90c in one run.
Not sure how to manage this actic freezer 360.. It seems underpreforming by a lot compared to my h150i from corsair and 3900x.


----------



## PWn3R

Dawidowski said:


> How on earth do people ge 80c only with PBO on...
> Mine hits like 88-90c in one run.
> Not sure how to manage this actic freezer 360.. It seems underpreforming by a lot compared to my h150i from corsair and 3900x.


69 (nice) under CB with PBO and FMax here. Extra thick 360, 2x d5 and 480 with mag lev fans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sindragosaa

genelecs said:


> Yep of course - here you go.


Awesome - I tried out a few settings, including the ones @dr.Rafi suggested, but it seems for me the best performance is -20/-30 @ 220/230/250 - roughly getting similar performance to you with some variance. My sustained all core boost is pretty decent to under IBT between 4.525-4.550GHz which is netting me the same throughput as my static OC of 46/45GHz, though to be honest the thermals of the static OC where still a bit better since I capped my VID at 1.25V (which was around 200Wish all core). 

I have noticed though taking CCX0 to -30, only results in a slightly better ST performance, but the thermals increase a lot for some reason maxing out at 90 degrees with worse a worse all core boost. 



Dawidowski said:


> How on earth do people ge 80c only with PBO on...
> Mine hits like 88-90c in one run.
> Not sure how to manage this actic freezer 360.. It seems underpreforming by a lot compared to my h150i from corsair and 3900x.


I don't think its anything wrong with that tbh, 90 degrees is the target temp set by AMD under full core loads, so anything up to 90 degrees C should be OK.

I have noticed this also, as when I set the PPT limit>250 my chip will suck as much power as possible (which is around 250W in the CPU Package Power SMU) but the die & ccd1/2 temps all stabilise around 90 degrees under a full core load.

The only way I have successfully been able to reduce is to limit PPT to 220W or less, where the temps are typically 85 degrees C, with a minor dip in performance OR set a static OC with a fixed voltage, which is also limiting the maximum power draw of the CPU.









AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT Performance Has Increased by Up to 9% Since Launch: Faster than the RTX 3080 at 1080p and 1440p | Hardware Times


AMD’s Radeon RX 6000 graphics cards have seen their performance increase steadily relative to the GeForce RTX 30 series offerings. As per data compiled by 3DCenter, the GeForce RTX 3080 was up to 6.7% faster than the Radeon RX 6800 XT in December 2020 at 4K, and 3-4% faster at 1080p and 1440p...




www.hardwaretimes.com


----------



## Dawidowski

PWn3R said:


> 69 (nice) under CB with PBO and FMax here. Extra thick 360, 2x d5 and 480 with mag lev fans.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


But thats custom loop mate, hes using an AIO... a big difference in my opinion.


----------



## shaolin95

PWn3R said:


> 69 (nice) under CB with PBO and FMax here. Extra thick 360, 2x d5 and 480 with mag lev fans.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


no wonder 
Got any pics?


----------



## Dawidowski

Sindragosaa said:


> Awesome - I tried out a few settings, including the ones @dr.Rafi suggested, but it seems for me the best performance is -20/-30 @ 220/230/250 - roughly getting similar performance to you with some variance. My sustained all core boost is pretty decent to under IBT between 4.525-4.550GHz which is netting me the same throughput as my static OC of 46/45GHz, though to be honest the thermals of the static OC where still a bit better since I capped my VID at 1.25V (which was around 200Wish all core).
> 
> I have noticed though taking CCX0 to -30, only results in a slightly better ST performance, but the thermals increase a lot for some reason maxing out at 90 degrees with worse a worse all core boost.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think its anything wrong with that tbh, 90 degrees is the target temp set by AMD under full core loads, so anything up to 90 degrees C should be OK.
> 
> I have noticed this also, as when I set the PPT limit>250 my chip will suck as much power as possible (which is around 250W in the CPU Package Power SMU) but the die & ccd1/2 temps all stabilise around 90 degrees under a full core load.
> 
> The only way I have successfully been able to reduce is to limit PPT to 220W or less, where the temps are typically 85 degrees C, with a minor dip in performance OR set a static OC with a fixed voltage, which is also limiting the maximum power draw of the CPU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT Performance Has Increased by Up to 9% Since Launch: Faster than the RTX 3080 at 1080p and 1440p | Hardware Times
> 
> 
> AMD’s Radeon RX 6000 graphics cards have seen their performance increase steadily relative to the GeForce RTX 30 series offerings. As per data compiled by 3DCenter, the GeForce RTX 3080 was up to 6.7% faster than the Radeon RX 6800 XT in December 2020 at 4K, and 3-4% faster at 1080p and 1440p...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hardwaretimes.com


Currently using 
250,150, 150 - negative offset of 15 and +50hz.
In cr20 I hit like 88-90 with arctic freezer 360..

Still single core preformence is only 627.. but didnt close down anything upon boot. Just ran it. But I some people having 650 with their 5900x


----------



## shaolin95

Dawidowski said:


> But thats custom loop mate, hes using an AIO... a big difference in my opinion.


The big thing is that is not a simple custom loop either as that would be much less dramatic in temp differences.


----------



## Dawidowski

shaolin95 said:


> The big thing is that is not a simple custom loop either as that would be much less dramatic in temp differences.


So hard to compare to yours I guess. I meant the avarage person doesnt have a super custom loop ^^ Thats why I'm suprised how its a 10C difference with 2 decent AIO coolers.


----------



## shaolin95

Dawidowski said:


> So hard to compare to yours I guess. I meant the avarage person doesnt have a super custom loop ^^ Thats why I'm suprised how its a 10C difference with 2 decent AIO coolers.


Eh? I have a simple TT AIO..no super loop so kind of not understanding your comment. 
I thought about a loop but based on research the improvement wouldnt be as much as I would like unless I go BIG time or also water cool my GPU which I am not planning to do.
Maybe my next build in a few years


----------



## CyrIng

Dawidowski said:


> How on earth do people ge 80c only with PBO on...
> Mine hits like 88-90c in one run.
> Not sure how to manage this actic freezer 360.. It seems underpreforming by a lot compared to my h150i from corsair and 3900x.


Added to the temperature issue, the power consummed is also a problem. 
According to the RAPL measurement, my 3950X goes from max 145W to 180W ! when enabling PBO with scalar x10 and an additional frequency set to 100%
So far I'm not convinced that a [30-50] MHz gain brought by PBO is worth the power and temperature increase.


----------



## dr.Rafi

shaolin95 said:


> The big thing is that is not a simple custom loop either as that would be much less dramatic in temp differences.


The most important in custom loop use high effeciency water block, radiator size matter but for these dense heat source cpus need a good water block iam using Heat killer water block with thin 360 rad and cpu max at 82 in prime 95 small ftt avx2 and avx1 on.


----------



## stimpy88

PWn3R said:


> 69 (nice) under CB with PBO and FMax here. Extra thick 360, 2x d5 and 480 with mag lev fans.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Why post this? It's like me saying I have a 65" OLED when someone says they just bought a new 27" monitor...


----------



## arkantos91

Hi guys, has anyone tried 1usmus ClockTuner for Ryzen (aka CTR)?

So far I've been using my 3900X with a slight undervolt because at stock temperatures were pretty high for my likings. 

I've decided to give this thing a try since it claims it can reduce power consumption and heat finding balance between frequencies and voltages.

First thing I did was make sure I had the requested settings in BIOS (CPU load line calibration set to Level 3, CPU Power Phase Control to Standard, CPU Core Ratio to Auto, CPU Core Voltage to Auto, SVM Disabled) then I loaded factory default settings in BIOS and just enabled DOCP for ram to have them run at 3600 MHz as usual.

After the diagnostic step which told me my 3900X is a silver sample, I pressed start, it run Cinebench 20 and after a few automatic steps in which CTR tested stability tuning voltages and frequencies per CCX in each iteration, my PC rebooted itself. 

First thing I thought was unstable ram (even if I never had issues, maybe the stress test could have prove different) so I went again into BIOS and disabled DOCP, running now the memory at stock 2400 MHz. After all CTR tests the cpu, memory is irrelevant.

Unfortunately CTR had the same behavior. Diagnostic run fine, then after start it does a couple of tries testing some combination of voltages/frequencies per CCX and then my PC reboots.

I tried then updating the BIOS to the latest available which is now 3101 (beta)... but nothing changed. Last time I was pretty sure I saw for literally an instant a blue screen just before the monitor turned black because of the reboot. No chance of reading what was written. Windows Even Viewer reports WHEA Logger related stuff. 

A fatal hardware error has occurred.
Reported by component: Processor Core
Error Source: Machine Check Exception
Error Type: Cache Hierarchy Error

I really don't know what to do here.


----------



## Sindragosaa

Can someone impart some knowledge or point me in the right direction with ram overclocking stability.

My current frequency OC for my Hynix C/D JR dual rank 3600MHz kit (4x16GB) is currently running:

 3800MHz / 1900FCLK 
1.4V DRAM
1.15V SOC
LLC3 for SOC
16-19-19-19-39 stock timings with everything else auto, except geardown enabled and power saving disabled.
The above is running stable from the sense I get no BSODs or stability issues under load/gaming and 24/7 use.

However I get 1 error running karhu ram test up to about 5000%, sometimes higher.

So, naturally I understand this OC is not stable.

My question is, does increasing the voltage help with stability ? Or is more of a timing thing now since the frequency has been increased?

Any help would be great !
P.S runs 100% stable at 3733mhz passing over 11000% for 12 hrs straight, so should I just bump it down ?


----------



## GuMossad

Hi Guys!!

I feel like 3950X is getting less and less talked here 

Anyway, anyone is running 3101 with Hero (WiFi) and a 3950X? How is it in terms of Error 41 and WHEA? Is it stable? No random reboots and all that bullshit?

I've been trying to tweak my memory kit (G.Skill F4-3200C14-16GTZSW) 16x2, but 9 out of 10 I can't Post... funny enough if I load the 3600 1.45v preset from Asus it always posts and it's what I'm using, which let's me a bit angry...

Thanks for your help!


----------



## Karagra

well just installed the 3101 bios on my viii impact, 3900x I was lucky enough to never get the Error's people spoke of and everything seems stable. CPU offset -0.125 (no PBO because this is a SFF build with stock cooler) Soc 1.125 LLC3, and Ram 1.4v


----------



## shaolin95

dr.Rafi said:


> The most important in custom loop use high effeciency water block, radiator size matter but for these dense heat source cpus need a good water block iam using Heat killer water block with thin 360 rad and cpu max at 82 in prime 95 small ftt avx2 and avx1 on.


What do you get on a one loop stress-test of Real Bench? Also, we need to know your room temp as that is a BIG variable.


----------



## GuMossad

Karagra said:


> well just installed the 3101 bios on my viii impact, 3900x I was lucky enough to never get the Error's people spoke of and everything seems stable. CPU offset -0.125 (no PBO because this is a SFF build with stock cooler) Soc 1.125 LLC3, and Ram 1.4v


Good to know, I'm gonna try 3101... if not return to what I have... This is so messed up, it pisses me off quite a bit having a 800€ cpu and 350€ mobo behaving like this. :S


----------



## Karagra

GuMossad said:


> Good to know, I'm gonna try 3101... if not return to what I have... This is so messed up, it pisses me off quite a bit having a 800€ cpu and 350€ mobo behaving like this. :S


Do you use PBO? If so I would say don't


----------



## GuMossad

Karagra said:


> Do you use PBO? If so I would say don't


It's auto... so I should turn off all PBO options? Have you tested with both, and arrived to that conclusion?


----------



## GuMossad

Karagra said:


> Do you use PBO? If so I would say don't












Got this result from AIDA... is this good / bad? 
what pisses me off a bit is that I post and can keep 3600Mhz with B-Die Samsung only with the pre installed Asus Ram Presets for 3600, 1.45, 2x16 B-Die. 
Every time I try to load DRAM Calculator values, it doesn't post at all.


----------



## Dawidowski

shaolin95 said:


> Eh? I have a simple TT AIO..no super loop so kind of not understanding your comment.
> I thought about a loop but based on research the improvement wouldnt be as much as I would like unless I go BIG time or also water cool my GPU which I am not planning to do.
> Maybe my next build in a few years


Mixed you up with the other comment and his 69c custom loop 
I'm not about to custom loop either, its expensive as hell here in sweden.


----------



## PhenomUndertaker

Does anyone here use Argus Monitor? I have been having trouble with maintaining boost clocks on my mother board with a 5950X (it seems to mostly sit around 3.8ghz on the best two cores of CCX1, occasionally jumping to 4..7 and then back down again in seconds) I have been trying to find the problem, and then today I noticed Temp.7 and Temp.8 in this image. Last night Temp.7 was at 116c and Temp.8 was around mid 80's. They do fluctuate when gaming but I am not sure what they are. Wondering if they are part of the issue. When under load with fans ramped up to 100% CPU barely goes past 60.0c but still the issue persists








PC Link

Edit showing higher temps:


----------



## shaolin95

Dawidowski said:


> Mixed you up with the other comment and his 69c custom loop
> I'm not about to custom loop either, its expensive as hell here in sweden.


Sweden...my second favorite Eurovision country (after Lithuania LOL )


----------



## GuMossad

I can tell that 3101, VIII Hero Wifi 3950X, 16x2 DDR3200 to 3600mhz with 1usmus Fast Settings, 1.43v on my ram kit.... WORKS FLAWLESS! Even with PBO turned on and all.

This BIOS seems like it's running cool. No random reboots, no WHEA, no memory errors, extreme settings... Damn it feels good!


----------



## genelecs

Sindragosaa said:


> Awesome - I tried out a few settings, including the ones @dr.Rafi suggested, but it seems for me the best performance is -20/-30 @ 220/230/250 - roughly getting similar performance to you with some variance. My sustained all core boost is pretty decent to under IBT between 4.525-4.550GHz which is netting me the same throughput as my static OC of 46/45GHz, though to be honest the thermals of the static OC where still a bit better since I capped my VID at 1.25V (which was around 200Wish all core).


Tried -30 on all core and -20 on best 4 cores - on Auto PPT/TDC/EDC it hits 90c instantly on Cinebench but I tried your 220 PPT 230 TDC 250 EDC settings and that puts it back to around 78-81c in Cinebench, which I realise is still hot but pretty happy.









AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @ 4573.93 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR


[ywxrev] Validated Dump by genelecs (2021-01-02 18:46:58) - MB: Asus ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO - RAM: 16384 MB




valid.x86.fr





Consindering I don't have a custom loop just a standard 280mm AIO I'm quite happy.

Now just to hope it's stable - it seems with these CO OCs the key is idle/low usage stability as opposed to full load stability which is a bit trickier to test.


----------



## shaolin95

genelecs said:


> Tried -30 on all core and -20 on best 4 cores - on Auto PPT/TDC/EDC it hits 90c instantly on Cinebench but I tried your 220 PPT 230 TDC 250 EDC settings and that puts it back to around 78-81c in Cinebench, which I realise is still hot but pretty happy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @ 4573.93 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR
> 
> 
> [ywxrev] Validated Dump by genelecs (2021-01-02 18:46:58) - MB: Asus ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO - RAM: 16384 MB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> valid.x86.fr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consindering I don't have a custom loop just a standard 280mm AIO I'm quite happy.
> 
> Now just to hope it's stable - it seems with these CO OCs the key is idle/low usage stability as opposed to full load stability which is a bit trickier to test.


sorry but how do you find your best cores? Thanks!


----------



## genelecs

shaolin95 said:


> sorry but how do you find your best cores? Thanks!


In Ryzen Master it will show you - it will put a star next to the best core in that CCX and the circle is the next best - just remember in the BIOS the cores start at 0 so don't forget to minus one when entering CO.


----------



## shaolin95

genelecs said:


> In Ryzen Master it will show you - it will put a star next to the best core in that CCX and the circle is the next best - just remember in the BIOS the cores start at 0 so don't forget to minus one when entering CO.
> 
> View attachment 2472347


thanks for the tip!


----------



## bookingyo

GuMossad said:


> I can tell that 3101, VIII Hero Wifi 3950X, 16x2 DDR3200 to 3600mhz with 1usmus Fast Settings, 1.43v on my ram kit.... WORKS FLAWLESS! Even with PBO turned on and all.
> 
> This BIOS seems like it's running cool. No random reboots, no WHEA, no memory errors, extreme settings... Damn it feels good!


What memory kit do you have and could you kindly post a bios dump or your settings?

I also have a 3950x. Everything worked for about 1 day after the bios flash and then I had a reboot. Had to reduce my ram to 3200mhz from 3600mhz and now everything is stable.


----------



## shaolin95

genelecs said:


> Tried -30 on all core and -20 on best 4 cores - on Auto PPT/TDC/EDC it hits 90c instantly on Cinebench but I tried your 220 PPT 230 TDC 250 EDC settings and that puts it back to around 78-81c in Cinebench, which I realise is still hot but pretty happy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @ 4573.93 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR
> 
> 
> [ywxrev] Validated Dump by genelecs (2021-01-02 18:46:58) - MB: Asus ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO - RAM: 16384 MB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> valid.x86.fr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consindering I don't have a custom loop just a standard 280mm AIO I'm quite happy.
> 
> Now just to hope it's stable - it seems with these CO OCs the key is idle/low usage stability as opposed to full load stability which is a bit trickier to test.


That indeed drops the temps a lot. Sure I lost boosting power in CB20 but I still get over 11,100 which is where I like to be for peace of mind


----------



## Sindragosaa

genelecs said:


> Tried -30 on all core and -20 on best 4 cores - on Auto PPT/TDC/EDC it hits 90c instantly on Cinebench but I tried your 220 PPT 230 TDC 250 EDC settings and that puts it back to around 78-81c in Cinebench, which I realise is still hot but pretty happy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @ 4573.93 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR
> 
> 
> [ywxrev] Validated Dump by genelecs (2021-01-02 18:46:58) - MB: Asus ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO - RAM: 16384 MB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> valid.x86.fr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consindering I don't have a custom loop just a standard 280mm AIO I'm quite happy.
> 
> Now just to hope it's stable - it seems with these CO OCs the key is idle/low usage stability as opposed to full load stability which is a bit trickier to test.


Awesome 

200 PPT 235 TDC 275 EDC +50MHz Boost

-30 all cores except -20 on best two cores on ccx0 and -25 on best two on ccx1

According to HWINFO max TDC/EDC my mobo supplies is 143A/265A respectively, so these are the reasons I set the limits above. Just check your VRM & Chipset temps to make sure they're not getting too high. 

CPU temps have dropped below 80 degC now on my NH-D15 under full loads, on average ~77 degC.

Raise PPT to get a little better performance if you can remove the heat quick enough to justify the performance gain.

Overall, this seems to be my most optimised PBO settings so far in terms of single/multithread performance and power output. Setting anything higher for me seems to have no significant performance gains which could easily just be variance, and I believe this is definitely because of my cooling solution saturating after a certain limit (usually 220W). 


















AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @ 4523.95 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR


[swgwc5] Validated Dump by Anonymous (2021-01-03 02:18:33) - MB: Asus ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO (WI-FI) - RAM: 65536 MB




valid.x86.fr


----------



## kuutale

this my current bios 3101 pbo auto only curved optimizer and flck 1866 and ram 3733 cl16









AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @ 4373.98 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR


[lyysk3] Validated Dump by Anonymous (2021-01-03 12:19:01) - MB: Asus ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO - RAM: 16384 MB




valid.x86.fr


----------



## arkantos91

Can anyone explain to me how it is that my 3900X score on CB R20 is lower with default settings than when I apply a negative offset of 1 on the core voltage (which consequently automatically reduces core multipliers too)?

Score with default setting: around 6900
Score with negative offset: 7012

Also I still cannot use 1usmus CTR tool without my computer rebooting during its tests


----------



## kuutale

arkantos91 said:


> Can anyone explain to me how it is that my 3900X score on CB R20 is lower with default settings than when I apply a negative offset of 1 on the core voltage (which consequently automatically reduces core multipliers too)?
> 
> Score with default setting: around 6900
> Score with negative offset: 7012
> 
> Also I still cannot use 1usmus CTR tool without my computer rebooting during its tests


if u are temp limit stock?
when pushing negative voltage it's take care temp problem?

i guess only? what cooler u have? and temps?

set load line calibration llc3 if use usmus tool


----------



## CyrIng

I took the risk to flash the C8H (WiFi) with the *Beta* 3101

_CoreFreq_ 3950X stress cases

Idle










Full










Best










System is so far stable in all cases.


DIMM










By the way, I made the mistake to unbalance the MemClk and FCLK which produced instant reboots.
Now 3733/1866 MHz is my stable setting.


----------



## genelecs

Sindragosaa said:


> Awesome
> 200 PPT 235 TDC 275 EDC +50MHz Boost
> 
> -30 all cores except -20 on best two cores on ccx0 and -25 on best two on ccx1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @ 4523.95 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR
> 
> 
> [swgwc5] Validated Dump by Anonymous (2021-01-03 02:18:33) - MB: Asus ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO (WI-FI) - RAM: 65536 MB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> valid.x86.fr


These limit settings are fantastic - thanks mate - exactly what I needed - I get 74c in Cinebench now on my NZXT Z63 - I'm hugely more comfortable with these and the performance is still there. 11666 MT in R20 which is great consindering it's dropped 10-15c off the temps!

I did try putting -25 on the best two on ccx0 as opposed to ccx1, but I got the "CPU Temperature Error" the second a Cinebench MT run _finishes _- this Temperature Error is becoming quite clear to me to be an indicator for low usage/idle instability as my CPU temps are much cooler then they have been. So I've moved -25 to ccx1 best cores as you have done and I haven't crashed yet but will try some more things. It seems the big challange with CO is that you have to see if your CPU is happy idling with the voltage it is provided.

However delighted with the performance so far: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @ 4573.93 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR


----------



## arkantos91

kuutale said:


> if u are temp limit stock?
> when pushing negative voltage it's take care temp problem?
> 
> i guess only? what cooler u have? and temps?
> 
> set load line calibration llc3 if use usmus tool


I don't understand you very well.

My cooler is Corsair H150i RGB PRO XT 360mm radiator... 

usmus tool doesn't not work even if I set llc3 and the other requirements


----------



## kuutale

arkantos91 said:


> I don't understand you very well.
> 
> My cooler is Corsair H150i RGB PRO XT 360mm radiator...
> 
> usmus tool doesn't not work even if I set llc3 and the other requirements


 what temperatures cpu is? if is get too hot, cpu protect stepdown and its hold performance. if understand what i try to tell.


----------



## greg_p

genelecs said:


> These limit settings are fantastic - thanks mate - exactly what I needed - I get 74c in Cinebench now on my NZXT Z63 - I'm hugely more comfortable with these and the performance is still there. 11666 MT in R20 which is great consindering it's dropped 10-15c off the temps!
> 
> I did try putting -25 on the best two on ccx0 as opposed to ccx1, but I got the "CPU Temperature Error" the second a Cinebench MT run _finishes _- this Temperature Error is becoming quite clear to me to be an indicator for low usage/idle instability as my CPU temps are much cooler then they have been. So I've moved -25 to ccx1 best cores as you have done and I haven't crashed yet but will try some more things. It seems the big challange with CO is that you have to see if your CPU is happy idling with the voltage it is provided.
> 
> However delighted with the performance so far: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @ 4573.93 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR


These limits are 59 be set to your platform. PPT is what your CPU block can dissipate along with all system, TDC is the max current that VRM will send, without regards to vrm cooling, and EDC is current that you can sustain on the long run.
None of this settings do care about CPU, 5ha5 has a RDC of 105w 😀😃😃


----------



## genelecs

greg_p said:


> These limits are 59 be set to your platform.


I don't understand?


----------



## arkantos91

kuutale said:


> what temperatures cpu is? if is get too hot, cpu protect stepdown and its hold performance. if understand what i try to tell.


Temperatures are ok

This is result with offset - 0.1 on core voltage. Power Reporting Deviation red is ok?


----------



## greg_p

Sorry it was a typo. Actually my phone isn't the best for messaging. These limits has to be set accordingly to your platform.


----------



## greg_p

If it is around 100% when under load, no problem.


----------



## genelecs

greg_p said:


> If it is around 100% when under load, no problem.


Ah I understand, merci Greg! - yes 100% under load so quite happy.


----------



## genelecs

@*Sindragosaa*
My next target is stability with CO - Reddit /r/amd posts seem to suggest using OCCT Small Data Set, SSE Instructions on a single thread is a very quick method to catch CO instability and there was a further suggestion of going through each core using Task Mananger>Details and setting the core affinity before you start the test.

So because I'm really lazy (and more importantly, an idiot) I made a quick look up table of core ids. The window ones are if you have SMT on of course.









So using OCCT with these settings:









I went through each core(s) like this, so for example to test Core 1 in Ryzen Master I applied affinity to Core 0-1 in Task Manager so testing the logical cores and you should be able to see the load being applied to the relevant core in both Task Manager graphs and Ryzen Master.









The results were very interesting and were a great way to find the problematic cores
On my system Ryzen Master Core 4+10 were my best and 5+16 second best and thus coloured as such, like Ryzen Master does.










I ran the test for just 2.5 minutes per core and found that Core 5 and 14 would instantly reboot the system the second i started the test, easily fixed by decreasing the CO - though Core 14 needed further reduction to not crash the system.

Core 10, my best core on CCX1 didn't reboot the system but OCCT found thousands of errors within 30 seconds, so again decreased CO and then tested both the problem and preferred cores for 5 mins each and I'm hopeful that this is a right step in stability.

I appreciate that 2.5/5 minutes per core is probably not enough for 100% stability but interestingly before I tweaked the COs the system would pass OCCT Small & Large Data (spread across all the logical cores) without issues which does seems to fall in line with other people's experiences of that high load with CO seems to be stable and will pass stress tests but then the system would crash on either single thread applications or light loads/idles. I'm not too sure if this test captures the idle behaviour though which is probably something else that needs investigation but since playing with CO i've never had a idle type crash, infact playing games and music production I haven't had a crash at all so I was somewhat surprised when OCCT instantly crashed a few times!

Hopefully this sort of test can be automated as it's bit laborious using the above methodology - I might e-mail OCCT devs to see if they can implement something that does this automatically.
I'm no expert at this sort of thing so please feel free to poke holes in the method.


----------



## Zaliandr

PhenomUndertaker said:


> Does anyone here use Argus Monitor? I have been having trouble with maintaining boost clocks on my mother board with a 5950X (it seems to mostly sit around 3.8ghz on the best two cores of CCX1, occasionally jumping to 4..7 and then back down again in seconds) I have been trying to find the problem, and then today I noticed Temp.7 and Temp.8 in this image. Last night Temp.7 was at 116c and Temp.8 was around mid 80's. They do fluctuate when gaming but I am not sure what they are. Wondering if they are part of the issue. When under load with fans ramped up to 100% CPU barely goes past 60.0c but still the issue persists
> 
> 
> Spoiler: image
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2472341
> 
> PC Link
> 
> Edit showing higher temps:
> View attachment 2472437


I have a Crosshair VIII Hero without Wi-Fi.
I don't have temp.8 (Temp. 8 --) and temp.7 shows the temperature of the SSD m.2_1.
How many SSD m.2 do you have installed?


----------



## GRABibus

I have found an interesting guide for PBO/CO in which a guy explains how to test stability at low power loads or idle :
=> Using the Windows « diagnostic tool and repair » (Read his method at chapter *EVEN MORE IMPORTANT: STABILITY TESTING)* instead of waiting in front of the PC for Bsods or reboots :


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/khtx1o


----------



## Chili195

genelecs said:


> @*Sindragosaa*
> My next target is stability with CO - Reddit /r/amd posts seem to suggest using OCCT Small Data Set, SSE Instructions on a single thread is a very quick method to catch CO instability and there was a further suggestion of going through each core using Task Mananger>Details and setting the core affinity before you start the test.
> 
> So because I'm really lazy (and more importantly, an idiot) I made a quick look up table of core ids. The window ones are if you have SMT on of course.
> View attachment 2472488
> 
> 
> So using OCCT with these settings:
> View attachment 2472487
> 
> 
> I went through each core(s) like this, so for example to test Core 1 in Ryzen Master I applied affinity to Core 0-1 in Task Manager so testing the logical cores and you should be able to see the load being applied to the relevant core in both Task Manager graphs and Ryzen Master.
> View attachment 2472489
> 
> 
> The results were very interesting and were a great way to find the problematic cores
> On my system Ryzen Master Core 4+10 were my best and 5+16 second best and thus coloured as such, like Ryzen Master does.
> 
> View attachment 2472490
> 
> 
> I ran the test for just 2.5 minutes per core and found that Core 5 and 14 would instantly reboot the system the second i started the test, easily fixed by decreasing the CO - though Core 14 needed further reduction to not crash the system.
> 
> Core 10, my best core on CCX1 didn't reboot the system but OCCT found thousands of errors within 30 seconds, so again decreased CO and then tested both the problem and preferred cores for 5 mins each and I'm hopeful that this is a right step in stability.
> 
> I appreciate that 2.5/5 minutes per core is probably not enough for 100% stability but interestingly before I tweaked the COs the system would pass OCCT Small & Large Data (spread across all the logical cores) without issues which does seems to fall in line with other people's experiences of that high load with CO seems to be stable and will pass stress tests but then the system would crash on either single thread applications or light loads/idles. I'm not too sure if this test captures the idle behaviour though which is probably something else that needs investigation but since playing with CO i've never had a idle type crash, infact playing games and music production I haven't had a crash at all so I was somewhat surprised when OCCT instantly crashed a few times!
> 
> Hopefully this sort of test can be automated as it's bit laborious using the above methodology - I might e-mail OCCT devs to see if they can implement something that does this automatically.
> I'm no expert at this sort of thing so please feel free to poke holes in the method.


Thanks for this methodology, I'm going to give this a go combined with the Windows auto-repair suggestion above and see if I can further dial in my Curve Optimiser settings. I believe the newest version of ClockTuner for Ryzen (not yet released) will eventually have an automatic Curve Optimiser mode which might just be an automation of this sort of process, but it will be interesting to see how it looks for stability in low-load settings.


----------



## genelecs

GRABibus said:


> I have found an interesting guide for PBO/CO in which a guy explains how to test stability at low power loads or idle :
> => Using the Windows « diagnostic tool and repair » (Read his method at chapter *EVEN MORE IMPORTANT: STABILITY TESTING)* instead of waiting in front of the PC for Bsods or reboots :
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/khtx1o


I read this thread before posting my OCCT post above, it's really interesting but I don't like the idea of having to interupt a windows boot cycle continuously to do it - Additionally the OP found his settings were not stable using the OCCT method in my post above. I suspect OP has a motherboard that doesn't have the latest AGESA as the OP further complains about OCCT introducing WHEA errors even at stock, something which I haven't seen on this 3101 BIOS below 1900 FCLK.

Other methods have been mentioned in other posts for low load instability:

1) Kraken 1.1 browser benchmark in Firefox
2) Measuring Frame Times in CSGO (does involve having to use the -allow_third_party_software launch argument tho)
[Edit]
3) Aida64 Memory Copy Test suggested by @domdtxdissar



Chili195 said:


> Thanks for this methodology, I'm going to give this a go combined with the Windows auto-repair suggestion above and see if I can further dial in my Curve Optimiser settings. I believe the newest version of ClockTuner for Ryzen (not yet released) will eventually have an automatic Curve Optimiser mode which might just be an automation of this sort of process, but it will be interesting to see how it looks for stability in low-load settings.


Yeah hopeful - I've got no doubt clever people will be writing clever apps as we speak for this purpose.


----------



## domdtxdissar

genelecs said:


> Other methods have been mentioned in other posts for low load instability:
> 
> 1) Kraken 1.1 browser benchmark in Firefox
> 2) Measuring Frame Times in CSGO (does involve having to use the -allow_third_party_software launch argument tho)


Like i said a few pages back, i found the aida64 memory-copy test to do exactly this for my -30 allcore setup, reboot the computer if the cores weren't getting enough juice


----------



## GRABibus

Hello,
For a Crosshair VIII Hero, would you install chipset drivers from Asus site (2.09.28.509) or from AMD site (2.10.13.408) ?

thanks


----------



## genelecs

domdtxdissar said:


> Like i said a few pages back, i found the aida64 memory-copy test to do exactly this for my -30 allcore setup, reboot the computer if the cores weren't getting enough juice


Apologies I missed this one, will edit it to the list


----------



## Sindragosaa

genelecs said:


> @*Sindragosaa*
> My next target is stability with CO - Reddit /r/amd posts seem to suggest using OCCT Small Data Set, SSE Instructions on a single thread is a very quick method to catch CO instability and there was a further suggestion of going through each core using Task Mananger>Details and setting the core affinity before you start the test.
> 
> So because I'm really lazy (and more importantly, an idiot) I made a quick look up table of core ids. The window ones are if you have SMT on of course.
> View attachment 2472488
> 
> 
> So using OCCT with these settings:
> View attachment 2472487
> 
> 
> I went through each core(s) like this, so for example to test Core 1 in Ryzen Master I applied affinity to Core 0-1 in Task Manager so testing the logical cores and you should be able to see the load being applied to the relevant core in both Task Manager graphs and Ryzen Master.
> View attachment 2472489
> 
> 
> The results were very interesting and were a great way to find the problematic cores
> On my system Ryzen Master Core 4+10 were my best and 5+16 second best and thus coloured as such, like Ryzen Master does.
> 
> View attachment 2472490
> 
> 
> I ran the test for just 2.5 minutes per core and found that Core 5 and 14 would instantly reboot the system the second i started the test, easily fixed by decreasing the CO - though Core 14 needed further reduction to not crash the system.
> 
> Core 10, my best core on CCX1 didn't reboot the system but OCCT found thousands of errors within 30 seconds, so again decreased CO and then tested both the problem and preferred cores for 5 mins each and I'm hopeful that this is a right step in stability.
> 
> I appreciate that 2.5/5 minutes per core is probably not enough for 100% stability but interestingly before I tweaked the COs the system would pass OCCT Small & Large Data (spread across all the logical cores) without issues which does seems to fall in line with other people's experiences of that high load with CO seems to be stable and will pass stress tests but then the system would crash on either single thread applications or light loads/idles. I'm not too sure if this test captures the idle behaviour though which is probably something else that needs investigation but since playing with CO i've never had a idle type crash, infact playing games and music production I haven't had a crash at all so I was somewhat surprised when OCCT instantly crashed a few times!
> 
> Hopefully this sort of test can be automated as it's bit laborious using the above methodology - I might e-mail OCCT devs to see if they can implement something that does this automatically.
> I'm no expert at this sort of thing so please feel free to poke holes in the method.


Great write up @genelecs, I will give this a go when I get a chance to see if I can optimise the cores a bit more as you did. 

So far I am even lazier and my idle reboot stability test just has been leaving the PC on overnight (since I run it 24/7 for work) and see if I wake up to a black screen and a qCode error 0d .


----------



## Sindragosaa

GRABibus said:


> Hello,
> For a Crosshair VIII Hero, would you install chipset drivers from Asus site (2.09.28.509) or from AMD site (2.10.13.408) ?
> 
> thanks


Install whichever is the latest release by date, which ideally would have resolved bugs in the previous version.

I am running the chipset drivers from the AMD Site.


----------



## Sindragosaa

genelecs said:


> @*Sindragosaa*
> My next target is stability with CO - Reddit /r/amd posts seem to suggest using OCCT Small Data Set, SSE Instructions on a single thread is a very quick method to catch CO instability and there was a further suggestion of going through each core using Task Mananger>Details and setting the core affinity before you start the test.
> 
> So because I'm really lazy (and more importantly, an idiot) I made a quick look up table of core ids. The window ones are if you have SMT on of course.
> View attachment 2472488
> 
> 
> So using OCCT with these settings:
> View attachment 2472487
> 
> 
> I went through each core(s) like this, so for example to test Core 1 in Ryzen Master I applied affinity to Core 0-1 in Task Manager so testing the logical cores and you should be able to see the load being applied to the relevant core in both Task Manager graphs and Ryzen Master.
> View attachment 2472489
> 
> 
> The results were very interesting and were a great way to find the problematic cores
> On my system Ryzen Master Core 4+10 were my best and 5+16 second best and thus coloured as such, like Ryzen Master does.
> 
> View attachment 2472490
> 
> 
> I ran the test for just 2.5 minutes per core and found that Core 5 and 14 would instantly reboot the system the second i started the test, easily fixed by decreasing the CO - though Core 14 needed further reduction to not crash the system.
> 
> Core 10, my best core on CCX1 didn't reboot the system but OCCT found thousands of errors within 30 seconds, so again decreased CO and then tested both the problem and preferred cores for 5 mins each and I'm hopeful that this is a right step in stability.
> 
> I appreciate that 2.5/5 minutes per core is probably not enough for 100% stability but interestingly before I tweaked the COs the system would pass OCCT Small & Large Data (spread across all the logical cores) without issues which does seems to fall in line with other people's experiences of that high load with CO seems to be stable and will pass stress tests but then the system would crash on either single thread applications or light loads/idles. I'm not too sure if this test captures the idle behaviour though which is probably something else that needs investigation but since playing with CO i've never had a idle type crash, infact playing games and music production I haven't had a crash at all so I was somewhat surprised when OCCT instantly crashed a few times!
> 
> Hopefully this sort of test can be automated as it's bit laborious using the above methodology - I might e-mail OCCT devs to see if they can implement something that does this automatically.
> I'm no expert at this sort of thing so please feel free to poke holes in the method.


So interestingly, I just had a random idle reboot while I was working after running for about 1 week straight 24/7 with no issues, just before I was about to start testing in OCCT.

I have tried this method and luckily for me all my CO setting's seem to have passed a 2 & 5 min test on each core, with no error or reboot 
I'll run a 10 min test on each core, to make 100% sure the CO settings are stable, and if they are no clue why I had that idle reboot, maybe my ram OC is not stable.

I have semi-automated setting the core affinities if someone wants to write an actual GUI for it using Windows PowerShell, makes this process a lot more bearable.

*GET AFFINITY:*
get-process OCCT7.2.0 | Select-Object ProcessorAffinity

This will check the current processes affinity and output something like this to your PowerShell Console;
PS C:\WINDOWS\system32> get-process OCCT7.2.0 | Select-Object ProcessorAffinity

ProcessorAffinity
-----------------
192


*SET AFFINITY:*
$Process = Get-Process OCCT7.2.0; $Process.ProcessorAffinity=DEC

This will set the affinity of the process specified using the value of _DEC_ which is the decimal value of the affinity mask of the CPUs available.



> As an example of setting the affinity mask option, if processors 1, 2, and 5 are selected as available with bits in positions 1, 2, and 5 set to 1 and bits 0, 3, 4, 6, and 7 set to 0, a hexadecimal value of 0x26 or the decimal equivalent of 38 must be used. Number the bit positions from right to left.


For the 5950X (you get the point for other processors), we have 32 Logical Processors available from CPU0 - CPU31, so will have to set a 32-bit affinity mask. 

CORE#Bit MaskDecimal Value0-1001132-31100124-5
0011 0000
486-71100 00001928-90011 0000 000076810-111100 0000 0000307212-130011 0000 0000 00001228814-151100 0000 0000 00004915216-170011 0000 0000 0000 000019660818-191100 0000 0000 0000 000078643220-210011 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000314572822-231100 0000 0000 0000 0000 00001258291224-250011 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 00005033164826-271100 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 000020132659228-290011 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 000080530636830-311100 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 00003221225472



So follow the following process if you don't want to manually change the affinity each time in task manager:

Configure OCCT as per above;
Run PowerShell as an Admin;
Copy and paste into PowerShell "$Process = Get-Process OCCT7.2.0; $Process.ProcessorAffinity=DEC", where DEC is the cores you want to assign the affinity to for testing i.e. Core0+1, you set as "$Process = Get-Process OCCT7.2.0; $Process.ProcessorAffinity=3"
Copy and paste into PowerShell "get-process OCCT7.2.0 | Select-Object ProcessorAffinity" to confirm the affinity is set correctly.
Run OCCT;
Check HWInfo for the core you specified to see if its at 100% utilisation, making sure you didn't select the wrong cores. 
Repeat 3-6 for each core, and note you don't have to COPY AND PASTE each time, if you press the UP key, it will cycle through the history of commands, so you only have to change the _DEC _value each time.


----------



## Nizzen

Bitsum. Real-time CPU Optimization and Automation


Real-Time CPU Optimization and Automation. Keep your PC responsive during high CPU loads and automate process settings with rules. Apps run YOUR WAY!




bitsum.com


----------



## benbenkr

GRABibus said:


> Hello,
> For a Crosshair VIII Hero, would you install chipset drivers from Asus site (2.09.28.509) or from AMD site (2.10.13.408) ?
> 
> thanks


Always the one from the official AMD's site.


----------



## genelecs

Sindragosaa said:


> So interestingly, I just had a random idle reboot while I was working after running for about 1 week straight 24/7 with no issues, just before I was about to start testing in OCCT.
> 
> I have tried this method and luckily for me all my CO setting's seem to have passed a 2 & 5 min test on each core, with no error or reboot
> I'll run a 10 min test on each core, to make 100% sure the CO settings are stable, and if they are no clue why I had that idle reboot, maybe my ram OC is not stable.
> 
> I have semi-automated setting the core affinities if someone wants to write an actual GUI for it using Windows PowerShell, makes this process a lot more bearable.


Yes same, I also had a crash in the game Squad so I've lowered all my -30 to -25 for now.

Your powershell is very useful thank you! - it's a shame you have to stop OCCT and restart the test for it to accept the change in core affinity though cause it would be nice and easy to automate something in a timed loop if that was the case.


----------



## Chili195

I managed to pass the OCCT tests with -25 (top two)/-30 everything else but dialled it back to -20/-30. One area where I often get reboots is starting R20 single-core for a second or third run consecutively. Sometimes I get a reboot straight after restarting, but once it gets going its fine. It's difficult to figure out which core causes it though, as the affinity seems to reset each run.


----------



## genelecs

Been playing with this too:

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/koytwe

I couldn't get it to play ball with OCCT though, kept saying access denied but its working with p95


----------



## CyrIng

mce errors which lead to instant reboot.
Just boot Linux, rescue level, console mode, and tail the kernel log. In less than a minute mce errors will show up!
After a few like these, hardware will reset.

This is observed with latest beta BIOS + 3950X + dual DIMM 3600MHz cl16 & FCLK 1800MHz
Beside DRAM at 1.35V, no DOCP, no AI OC, other settings are left to AUTO

However, one DRAM voltage set at 100% by default is puzzled me: the help says that it should be increased Or system will reboot if VRM is not supplying an appropriated voltage ... ?


----------



## EnJoY

Looks like they pulled the 3101 beta bios as of this morning. This means we should see the non-beta version posted momentarily.


----------



## jfrob75

I updated to the beta bios 3101 about a week ago. For me I have not experienced any issues. However, I am able to run my quad dual rank memory kit at 3800MHz Mclk/1900MHz Fclk, which I was never able to get to boot at that frequency in any previous bios. One important voltage adjustment that I used this time, which may have worked in previous bios versions, is adjusting 1.8V PLL to above 1.9V. Currently I have set to 1.94V. My memory voltage is currently set to 1.52V. All other setting can be viewed in my Zen Timings below.


----------



## Jaeyger

EnJoY said:


> Looks like they pulled the 3101 beta bios as of this morning. This means we should see the non-beta version posted momentarily.
> View attachment 2472608


I still see the 3101 beta version up...


----------



## EnJoY

Jaeyger said:


> I still see the 3101 beta version up...
> 
> View attachment 2472612



Interesting, I do not.


----------



## Spawn32

Jaeyger said:


> I still see the 3101 beta version up...
> 
> View attachment 2472612


Do a refresh and the beta will be gone, was for me


----------



## Jaeyger

Still there even with a cache-less refresh 🤷‍♂️

Maybe it just hasn't been taken down in my region yet, idk.


----------



## shamino1978

EnJoY said:


> Interesting, I do not.
> View attachment 2472613





Spawn32 said:


> Do a refresh and the beta will be gone, was for me


so as not to cause a panic:
3101 is taken down because Some Matisse CPU 3300X that are with a certain CCX disabled can't power on with AGESA ComboV2 1190
and will be replaced a another bios that fixes this bug.


----------



## CyrIng

As a reference: boot with default BIOS 3101 settings.
So far, no mce errors in the kernel log.












CyrIng said:


> I took the risk to flash the C8H (WiFi) with the *Beta* 3101
> 
> _CoreFreq_ 3950X stress cases
> 
> Idle
> 
> View attachment 2472460
> 
> 
> Full
> 
> View attachment 2472461
> 
> 
> Best
> 
> View attachment 2472462
> 
> 
> System is so far stable in all cases.
> 
> 
> DIMM
> 
> View attachment 2472464
> 
> 
> By the way, I made the mistake to unbalance the MemClk and FCLK which produced instant reboots.
> Now 3733/1866 MHz is my stable setting.


----------



## xeizo

Thanks Shamino, any insight in the progress for getting rid of WHEA errors and sudden reboots?


----------



## shamino1978

no, this is like the most scattered problem out there with people reporting different results changing different settings.
some posts point toward voltage some toward fclk, some towards cstates, 
some with oc mem, some without
the closest ive seen personally is with manually setting high fmax and/or CO trimming
thats for the idle reboots, in this case it is definitely because of the high boost it attempts, with or without sufficient voltage , not with the fact that the idle voltage is too low, this does not seem to be the case.
for dram type of Wheas, ive seen it happen once or twice when the ambient temp became really low due to the weather. i just got it to retrain by changing any dram param for it to go away.
this it feels like dram/gmi link trained at a certain temp and running at a much different temp requires retraining.
for the first case, i dont know if users would be willing to try to negatively offset the boost clocks just to see if its a boost vs insufficient volt thing.


----------



## xeizo

It's strange, it didn't happen very often with Ryzen 3000, but now clocks are much higher and it's the same silicon process so possibly tolerances are lower. Also, I believe AMD said something about them having sped up the boost behavior with the latest Windows updates, if Ryzen 3000 behaved generally slower at it's prime it was probably less sensitive for things like this.
Identifying bad cores and give them less/no/positive offset in CO may be a thing.

The problem would probably go away if AMD binned harder, but that would give low yields. That's why Intel's 10nm hasn't been ready. Way too low yields.


----------



## CyrIng

CyrIng said:


> As a reference: boot with default BIOS 3101 settings.
> So far, no mce errors in the kernel log.
> 
> View attachment 2472615



DIMM set to 1.45V and no mce errors










I have give a chance to Memory auto tweaker which has raised the DRAM voltage but also lowered the timings.
Strange thing is that with previous 2206 BIOS, DIMM were at the advertised voltage of 1.35V at CAS 16-16-16-16-36
Thus I would say that the errors and instant reboot are linked to the DRAM voltage (but 1.45V is already the _magenta_ zone)


----------



## shamino1978

xeizo said:


> It's strange, it didn't happen very often with Ryzen 3000, but now clocks are much higher and it's the same silicon process so possibly tolerances are lower. Also, I believe AMD said something about them having sped up the boost behavior with the latest Windows updates, if Ryzen 3000 behaved generally slower at it's prime it was probably less sensitive for things like this.
> Identifying bad cores and give them less/no/positive offset in CO may be a thing.
> 
> The problem would probably go away if AMD binned harder, but that would give low yields. That's why Intel's 10nm hasn't been ready. Way too low yields.


if the idle reboots go away with positive it is very very likely a case of freq/vid not matched in an instant.
pretty much volt needs to climb from pretty low up to pretty high when u think about an idle state whereby a core gets woken up and needs to rise to work. question is if its actually the slew rate of the v climb being slower than expected or the actual v requested is actually too optimistic for the high boost clock.


----------



## PhenomUndertaker

Zaliandr said:


> I have a Crosshair VIII Hero without Wi-Fi.
> I don't have temp.8 (Temp. 8 --) and temp.7 shows the temperature of the SSD m.2_1.
> How many SSD m.2 do you have installed?


That is interesting indeed. To be fair my Temp 8 starts out as "--" at first boot and only starts reporting after a while of use. I noticed for me at least, HWINFO doesn't report the chipset fan RPM at all until the chipset goes above around 58c and then all of a sudden refreshes the view and shows it in the list (which is about when it starts to spin, lower than 56 or 58c and it is idle), I wonder if it is the same, or related somehow. Curious about the SSD Temp, I only have m.2_1 (the higher one on the board) filled with a samsung 980 pro 1TB but samsung magician reports an entirely different temp:


----------



## xeizo

shamino1978 said:


> if the idle reboots go away with positive it is very very likely a case of freq/vid not matched in an instant.
> pretty much volt needs to climb from pretty low up to pretty high when u think about an idle state whereby a core gets woken up and needs to rise to work. question is if its actually the slew rate of the v climb being slower than expected or the actual v requested is actually too optimistic for the high boost clock.


I haven't verified it yet, but I got a feeling it's more stable with a lower Boost Override. In example 100MHz instead of 200MHz. These boosts silly good, when I ran Fmax enabled and 200MHz I had FOUR cores boosting to 5150MHz. Now I run with Fmax disabled and overall less enthusiastic settings and have only two cores break 5GHz. 5050 and 5025. No sudden reboot yet, but it's only been a day since the swap from C7H to C8H WiFi. I've had one WHEA error though, I need to dive deeper into CO. Running 3101 with a 5900X, before that 4101 with the C7H.


----------



## xeizo

PhenomUndertaker said:


> That is interesting indeed. To be fair my Temp 8 starts out as "--" at first boot and only starts reporting after a while of use. I noticed for me at least, HWINFO doesn't report the chipset fan RPM at all until the chipset goes above around 58c and then all of a sudden refreshes the view and shows it in the list (which is about when it starts to spin, lower than 56 or 58c and it is idle), I wonder if it is the same, or related somehow. Curious about the SSD Temp, I only have m.2_1 (the higher one on the board) filled with a samsung 980 pro 1TB but samsung magician reports an entirely different temp:
> View attachment 2472638
> 
> View attachment 2472639


HWINFO64 warns about running ASUS EC, chances are most have choosen to turn it off. Running another monitor may be different.


----------



## Gadfly

shamino1978 said:


> no, this is like the most scattered problem out there with people reporting different results changing different settings.
> some posts point toward voltage some toward fclk, some towards cstates,
> some with oc mem, some without
> the closest ive seen personally is with manually setting high fmax and/or CO trimming
> thats for the idle reboots, in this case it is definitely because of the high boost it attempts, with or without sufficient voltage , not with the fact that the idle voltage is too low, this does not seem to be the case.
> for dram type of Wheas, ive seen it happen once or twice when the ambient temp became really low due to the weather. i just got it to retrain by changing any dram param for it to go away.
> this it feels like dram/gmi link trained at a certain temp and running at a much different temp requires retraining.
> for the first case, i dont know if users would be willing to try to negatively offset the boost clocks just to see if its a boost vs insufficient volt thing.


@shamino1978 I agree with you; I only encountered the Idle reboots when I was using a tuned PBO profile with raised FMAX that lead to core frequency boost spike with insufficient voltage. With a manual OC, or a slightly detuned PBO profile with less negative offset in the curve optimizer / lower FMAX, or a positive CPU core voltage offset the idle reboots were resolved. Cstates, bios version, and fclk frequency had no impact on idle reboots; I do not believe it is a bios issue but appears to be a PBO settings issue. Stock, with PBO and no manual setting changes I did not see any idle reboots for 2 days. 

The WHEA errors related to the fclk are harder to resolve; at or below 1900mhz fclk, I will only get WHEA errors is the vSOC or VDDG voltage is set too low; at or above 1933mhz fclk requires very high 1.8V PLL voltages. I require at least 1.95v to post at 2000mhz fclk. (Can you explain the connection between 1.8v PLL and Fclk?), To resolve the WHEA errors at 2000mhz fclk, i need to run 1.98v PLL, 1.05v set both VDDGs, and 1.05v set on the Southbridge 1.0v without WHEA's. 

My biggest issue remains 4x8GB memory training. I am unable to post with 4x8GB sticks at 4000 MT/s, despite having top end B-DIE (G.skill 3800C14 sticks) and very loose memory timings set in the profile. In fact I can not post at anything over 3866 MT/s (1933mhz) at all. These same sticks will run 4400C16 on my intel board is not a limitation of the memory; and I can run 3800C14 with very tight sub timings on the C8H/5950x, but training just seems to hit a wall at 3866 and nothing I do will get the memory to train. 

Do you have any suggestions?


----------



## shamino1978

hi
for pll to fclk, i see it, i cannot explain it, sorry.
im not much help with the 4x8GB as well, i see somewhat the same, i havent spent time on vermeer with this config, but from experience you can milk a bit more with signal related options, rtts/odts/cad bus
phy: dfe /ffe rd wr training en/dis tried?
pmu patterns something small vs max, 1 vs A for eg
map the 7bit MR6vrefDQ to page 23 of this A6:A0 :https://www.samsung.com/semiconduct.../11/DDR4_Device_Operations_Rev11_Oct_14-0.pdf
max 7F start with a 72.35% so hex '13'

on that topic, if you change settings then it is not reasonable to say that the idle reboots is a board/cpu/bios issue, that includes pbo enabling, CO adjustments and so on
that is why amd has this agreement u need to accept when u go into the oc menu where these are
it is a real issue only if these are left at defaults.


----------



## Gadfly

shamino1978 said:


> hi
> for pll to fclk, i see it, i cannot explain it, sorry.
> im not much help with the 4x8GB as well, i see somewhat the same, i havent spent time on vermeer with this config, but from experience you can milk a bit more with signal related options, rtts/odts/cad bus
> phy: dfe /ffe rd wr training en/dis tried?
> pmu patterns something small vs max, 1 vs A for eg
> map the 7bit MR6vrefDQ to page 23 of this A6:A0 :https://www.samsung.com/semiconduct.../11/DDR4_Device_Operations_Rev11_Oct_14-0.pdf
> max 7F start with a 72.35% so hex '13'
> 
> on that topic, if you change settings then it is not reasonable to say that the idle reboots is a board/cpu/bios issue, that includes pbo enabling, CO adjustments and so on
> that is why amd has this agreement u need to accept when u go into the oc menu where these are
> it is a real issue only if these are left at defaults.


With PBO and voltages left at defaults I saw no idle reboots on any bios (2502+).

I have not tried any of the dfe / ffe options, PMU, or the 7bit MR6vrefDQ; I will go have a look at report back what I find. 

I personally rolled back to 3003 from 3101 as I had to raise CPU voltage 100mv to maintain stability. After rolling back to 3003, I was able to resume using my old voltages.


----------



## Dawidowski

Anyone here enabeling something in bios to get a better ST score in CR20? My 5900x hits 630 at best now. Cant seem to get it to get higher.. 
With curve optimizer on I score 8975/630. 

Nothing else is changed, just curve optimizer and Docp on.


----------



## greg_p

shamino1978 said:


> hi
> for pll to fclk, i see it, i cannot explain it, sorry.
> im not much help with the 4x8GB as well, i see somewhat the same, i havent spent time on vermeer with this config, but from experience you can milk a bit more with signal related options, rtts/odts/cad bus
> phy: dfe /ffe rd wr training en/dis tried?
> pmu patterns something small vs max, 1 vs A for eg
> map the 7bit MR6vrefDQ to page 23 of this A6:A0 :https://www.samsung.com/semiconduct.../11/DDR4_Device_Operations_Rev11_Oct_14-0.pdf
> max 7F start with a 72.35% so hex '13'
> 
> on that topic, if you change settings then it is not reasonable to say that the idle reboots is a board/cpu/bios issue, that includes pbo enabling, CO adjustments and so on
> that is why amd has this agreement u need to accept when u go into the oc menu where these are
> it is a real issue only if these are left at defaults.


Dear Shamino, some of us have difficulties to lock IF over 1900/3800 whatever the timing, although memory works well over 4200 with FCLK/2. Do you know on which parameter we have to focus to have it working? my 5950X just stops post with 07 code, is it only due to silicon quality without mitigation possible on the CH8?


----------



## shamino1978

dear greg_p, this question has been beaten to death as u probably know, the same reply holds, soc, both VDDGs, and 1.8vpll


----------



## xeizo

shamino1978 said:


> dear greg_p, this question has been beaten to death as u probably know, the same reply holds, soc, both VDDGs, and 1.8vpll


I may add that I had to raise Proc ODT to boot 3800MHz on C8H vs C7H, looks rock stable now but wouldn't boot at all with the same Proc ODT as C7H has been running forever


----------



## CyrIng

Indeed that 3101 has been removed from Asus site. 
I'm not surprised ; what a pain this version 

But I can not downgrade to 2206


----------



## shamino1978

xeizo said:


> I may add that I had to raise Proc ODT to boot 3800MHz on C8H vs C7H, looks rock stable now but wouldn't boot at all with the same Proc ODT as C7H has been running forever


is that no boot "07" or "F9" though?
the post codes usually associate with different failures.


----------



## genelecs

shamino1978 said:


> dear greg_p, this question has been beaten to death as u probably know, the same reply holds, soc, both VDDGs, and 1.8vpll


Whilst I agree its been widely discussed, there are a few of us that have tried a wide range of voltages as you mention and many of us still face this 1900 FCLK wall that always seems to be Q-CODE 07 regardless of what we seem to try.

FCLK 1866 and below is 100% fine for us, it just seems very odd that it never gets past "07"... so I think Greg (and myself) are just looking for clarification that we've got poor silicon.


----------



## PWn3R

Gadfly said:


> With PBO and voltages left at defaults I saw no idle reboots on any bios (2502+).
> 
> I have not tried any of the dfe / ffe options, PMU, or the 7bit MR6vrefDQ; I will go have a look at report back what I find.
> 
> I personally rolled back to 3003 from 3101 as I had to raise CPU voltage 100mv to maintain stability. After rolling back to 3003, I was able to resume using my old voltages.


Confirming I had to raise voltages as well for per CCX and lower clocks to get stability on 3101, I rolled back to 3003 as well. Nothing I have tried as far as voltages has made 1900 FCLK work, even PLL 2.0, with SOC, IOD, turned up to as high as anyone else thought would help on 3101. I've flashed 3101 several times to try new settings. 5950x for quick reference with 4xGskill 17/17/17/[email protected] from QVL. I'm running 1866/3733 for now on 3003 with per CCX 4850/[email protected]


----------



## GRABibus

Gadfly said:


> @shamino1978 I agree with you; I only encountered the Idle reboots when I was using a tuned PBO profile with raised FMAX that lead to core frequency boost spike with insufficient voltage. With a manual OC, or a slightly detuned PBO profile with less negative offset in the curve optimizer / lower FMAX, or a positive CPU core voltage offset the idle reboots were resolved. Cstates, bios version, and fclk frequency had no impact on idle reboots; I do not believe it is a bios issue but appears to be a PBO settings issue. Stock, with PBO and no manual setting changes I did not see any idle reboots for 2 days.
> 
> The WHEA errors related to the fclk are harder to resolve; at or below 1900mhz fclk, I will only get WHEA errors is the vSOC or VDDG voltage is set too low; at or above 1933mhz fclk requires very high 1.8V PLL voltages. I require at least 1.95v to post at 2000mhz fclk. (Can you explain the connection between 1.8v PLL and Fclk?), To resolve the WHEA errors at 2000mhz fclk, i need to run 1.98v PLL, 1.05v set both VDDGs, and 1.05v set on the Southbridge 1.0v without WHEA's.
> 
> My biggest issue remains 4x8GB memory training. I am unable to post with 4x8GB sticks at 4000 MT/s, despite having top end B-DIE (G.skill 3800C14 sticks) and very loose memory timings set in the profile. In fact I can not post at anything over 3866 MT/s (1933mhz) at all. These same sticks will run 4400C16 on my intel board is not a limitation of the memory; and I can run 3800C14 with very tight sub timings on the C8H/5950x, but training just seems to hit a wall at 3866 and nothing I do will get the memory to train.
> 
> Do you have any suggestions?


but if you set everything at stock (F5 in bios), do you get idle reboots in this case ?


----------



## xeizo

shamino1978 said:


> is that no boot "07" or "F9" though?
> the post codes usually associate with different failures.


Good question, sadly I didn't notice was too busy testing settings to get it to boot, just booting was my error code 

Now I have been surfing all evening, I ran Firestrike and Time Spy, Geekbench and CB R20 + R23 and BoostTester.exe and installed some programs and drivers. Not a single WHEA error with settings that cap my boost at ca 5GHz. Too early to say anything, as the sudden reboot can come after several days, but less boosting looks to improve things.

Btw, the talk about "default settings", I can't run that if I want to use my fast memory so some messing with the bios is necessary.


----------



## Zaliandr

PhenomUndertaker said:


> That is interesting indeed. To be fair my Temp 8 starts out as "--" at first boot and only starts reporting after a while of use. I noticed for me at least, HWINFO doesn't report the chipset fan RPM at all until the chipset goes above around 58c and then all of a sudden refreshes the view and shows it in the list (which is about when it starts to spin, lower than 56 or 58c and it is idle), I wonder if it is the same, or related somehow. Curious about the SSD Temp, I only have m.2_1 (the higher one on the board) filled with a samsung 980 pro 1TB but samsung magician reports an entirely different temp:
> View attachment 2472638
> 
> View attachment 2472639


Maybe the problem is a conflict of programs from ASUS? I uninstalled all programs from ASUS and stopped some services (from ASUS) in Windows.


----------



## greg_p

shamino1978 said:


> is that no boot "07" or "F9" though?
> the post codes usually associate with different failures.


Looks like 07 is set before RAM is powered on, but i may be wrong. Actually doc says 07 is just before RAM initialisation (ùcode loading). F9 is well after and could be one of the latest in the post.


----------



## Chili195

Dawidowski said:


> Anyone here enabeling something in bios to get a better ST score in CR20? My 5900x hits 630 at best now. Cant seem to get it to get higher..
> With curve optimizer on I score 8975/630.
> 
> Nothing else is changed, just curve optimizer and Docp on.


These are my settings. For reference I was getting 626 at stock and 619 with PBO enabled. Tweaking of PBO and CO has gotten me up to 646/8960. My focus was on single-core performance.

I was able to push CO a lot more with 3101 over 3003.

In short, PBO limits set to 275/190/230. Two fastest cores set to -24 and the rest -30. Offset 50Mhz. Scalar Auto, Platform Thermal Limit Auto.

The EDC limits in particular produced interesting results - setting a limit of 180 seemed to improve my multithreaded scores for some reason but in the end I've opted to keep them all in the 70 - 95% range of use. 

10x scalar seemed to boost the results, particularly the multithreaded benchmarks but I was seeing a lot of sustained voltage during high load compared to default PBO behaviour (1.356v v 1.3v) so I've set that back to Auto.

I'm still dialling in the override, might reduce it to 25Mhz if I encounter any stability issues There is so much variance in results though it is pretty hard to figure out if changing things makes them better or worse!


----------



## shaolin95

In


CyrIng said:


> Indeed that 3101 has been removed from Asus site.
> I'm not surprised ; what a pain this version
> 
> But I can not downgrade to 2206


Still there for me


----------



## Chili195

Has anyone else had any odd experiences with their Hero/Dark Hero POSTing while their monitor is turning on or waking up from deep sleep mode?

I get this error:

"The VGA card is not supported by UEFI driver.
CSM (Compability Support Module) settings have been changed
For further adjustments, press [F1] to enter BIOS setup"

Upon a restart or turning on the PC when the monitor is "awake" the boot proceeds as normal, it only seems to happen as the monitor is initialising.

The BIOS kindly enables CSM for me, but as far as I'm aware this shouldn't be necessary and I'd like to keep it off. I'm using an Nvidia 3080 Founder's Edition, so it most definitely has a UEFI-compatible BIOS. The same card was fine on my previous Asus motherboard.

Edit: Further to that, just wondering if others can see information about the GOP/VBIOS in the motherboard UEFI? Mine just says nothing was detected (even when it boots correctly) but I'm pretty sure on my last board it had information in there about the card.


----------



## PWn3R

I've seen this, and also the "no video card" post code occasionally - usually while trying to get 1900 FCLK to post.


----------



## CyrIng

shaolin95 said:


> In
> 
> Still there for me



Not in France, neither Global and US











Meanwhile, I have flashback'd the board to version 2206
( which forced me to repair my Linux | Windows dual boot UEFI firmware entries  )
2206 and 3101, it's day and night


----------



## shaolin95

CyrIng said:


> Not in France, neither Global and US
> 
> View attachment 2472697
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, I have flashback'd the board to version 2206
> ( which forced me to repair my Linux | Windows dual boot UEFI firmware entries  )
> 2206 and 3101, it's day and night


I see the same under Drivers & Tools









But under Bios & Firmware I still see 3101. I am in the USA.


----------



## shamino1978

genelecs said:


> Whilst I agree its been widely discussed, there are a few of us that have tried a wide range of voltages as you mention and many of us still face this 1900 FCLK wall that always seems to be Q-CODE 07 regardless of what we seem to try.
> 
> FCLK 1866 and below is 100% fine for us, it just seems very odd that it never gets past "07"... so I think Greg (and myself) are just looking for clarification that we've got poor silicon.


or that 1900 fclk is great silicon, you may not want to hear this but cpu is only speced for 1600fclk


----------



## shamino1978

greg_p said:


> Looks like 07 is set before RAM is powered on, but i may be wrong. Actually doc says 07 is just before RAM initialisation (ùcode loading). F9 is well after and could be one of the latest in the post.


07 is fclk, i was just replying to xeizo's post about procodt improving fclk, the dram failure postcodes and fclk failure are different.


----------



## folklore11

shamino1978 said:


> 07 is fclk, i was just replying to xeizo's post about procodt improving fclk, the dram failure postcodes and fclk failure are different.



If I may... When will a new stable BIOS be available (3101 Non Beta perhaps?) I'm waiting to install my 59500X. I do not intent to OC with the exception of a very mild OC of my B-Die memory 3200 to 3400. Thank you.


----------



## genelecs

shamino1978 said:


> or that 1900 fclk is great silicon, you may not want to hear this but cpu is only speced for 1600fclk


No you are quite right in this regard  - I'm happy with my 1866 FCLK to be perfectly honest, I was just curious about the nature of the "wall" people are hitting and the mechanism behind it.


----------



## dyanikoglu

Now that 3101 is removed from official site, we're all using an unsupported bios right now? lmao.

Interestingly, that's most stable bios for me. My 5900x was rejecting to work with PBO II in previous bios. I can go to -20 curve with that one without any BSOD.


----------



## dr.Rafi

genelecs said:


> No you are quite right in this regard  - I'm happy with my 1866 FCLK to be perfectly honest, I was just curious about the nature of the "wall" people are hitting and the mechanism behind it.


The wall Is voltages each cpu need certain voltages to be able push fclk further , have a look my SOC voltage with 2033 fclk but with 2000 fclk is fully working, stable, tight timing, PBO etc.... with only 1.150 SOC voltages, still show whea but stable, 1900 fclk no whea.


----------



## xeizo

FYI, not a single WHEA on FCLK 1900 since I set PLL at 1.84V!  Bios 3101.

Multicore took a small hit, but single is as good as before

(looks like higher PLL in effect raises idle voltage, now lowest idle vcore is 0.994V, with PLL at Auto it could be down to 0.9V, possibly this prevents idle shutdown)


----------



## polyh3dron

dyanikoglu said:


> Now that 3101 is removed from official site, we're all using an unsupported bios right now? lmao.
> 
> Interestingly, that's most stable bios for me. My 5900x was rejecting to work with PBO II in previous bios. I can go to -20 curve with that one without any BSOD.


I rolled back to 3003, who knows why they pulled it.. Don't want to find out the hard way.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

polyh3dron said:


> I rolled back to 3003, who knows why they pulled it.. Don't want to find out the hard way.


there is a bug introduced on cold boot..its very random, where it fails to boot with your settings and will reset your bios settings to default..happened to me once..also sometimes on cold boot up it fails to boot up 1st time, will just work on 2nd reset for me..this is also being reported for some other OEM's as well..


----------



## koji

polyh3dron said:


> I rolled back to 3003, who knows why they pulled it.. Don't want to find out the hard way.


-->



shamino1978 said:


> so as not to cause a panic:
> 3101 is taken down because Some Matisse CPU 3300X that are with a certain CCX disabled can't power on with AGESA ComboV2 1190
> and will be replaced a another bios that fixes this bug.


----------



## greg_p

dr.Rafi said:


> The wall Is voltages each cpu need certain voltages to be able push fclk further , have a look my SOC voltage with 2033 fclk but with 2000 fclk is fully working, stable, tight timing, PBO etc.... with only 1.150 SOC voltages, still show whea but stable, 1900 fclk no whea.


actually i have tried 1.25 Vsoc, 1.15 vdds, 2V VPLL and it never goes beyond 1900/3800 no matter the timings, on my 5950x. there are walls but i would suggest other things like some analogic calibration not done correctly.
The first attempt of PBO didn't worked correctly for me, but I reflashed between 2 clearcmos and now it's working much better, I have no other clue.


----------



## 7lk

I had a lot of problems. See posts. I uninstalled chipsetdriver uploaded version 2.09.28.509. Turned on the power supply AMD Ryzen high performance. Uploaded bios 3101. He set the base to f5. Then only DOCP memory 3200 MHz. I've been stable for eight days.
I've been stable for eight days.


----------



## genelecs

greg_p said:


> actually i have tried 1.25 Vsoc, 1.15 vdds, 2V VPLL and it never goes beyond 1900/3800 no matter the timings, on my 5950x. there are walls but i would suggest other things like some analogic calibration not done correctly.
> The first attempt of PBO didn't worked correctly for me, but I reflashed between 2 clearcmos and now it's working much better, I have no other clue.


Yes exactly the same re: voltages.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Yeah I have that. Keep getting f9 when I start from a cold boot. Been stable as a rock at 3800/1900 apart from that.


----------



## arkantos91

I'll try again hoping for more luck this time in receiving any help 😅

My system:

Ryzen 3900X
Asus X570 Crosshair VIII Hero WiFi
2x8 GB Kingston HyperX Predator 4000 MHz B-die (HX440C19PB3K2_16)
EVGA SuperNOVA 650 P2
Corsair H150i RGB PRO XT
Rog 2080TI OC
My friend suggested me to try 1usmus Clock Tuner for Ryzen (CTR) to find the sweet spot but I can't make it work, while it does its testing my pc will reboot at some point.
All I did was restore BIOS settings at default and as required for CTR to work I set:

CPU load line calibration to Level 3
CPU Power Phase Control to Standard
CPU Current Capability to 100%
CPU Core Ratio to Auto
CPU Core Voltage to Auto
SVM Disabled
Diagnostic part works fine and it says my 3900X is a *silver* sample. But then when I start the actual test to find best combination for CCX frequencies and voltage, after a while my PC just reboots during the test.

I also tried with LLC to level 4 or even 5, still nothing changes. I even tried changing power plan (Ryzen or Windows Balanced), nothing changes.

Latest chipset and latest BIOS installed.


----------



## CyrIng

Hello,
I need some testers for the Zen3 architecture with Ryzen 5900

Can you plz give a try to the latest development code of _CoreFreq_ at github.com/cyring/CoreFreq/tree/develop

Thanks for your help.


----------



## Hale59

CyrIng said:


> Hello,
> I need some testers for the Zen3 architecture with Ryzen 5900
> 
> Can you plz give a try to the latest development code of _CoreFreq_ at github.com/cyring/CoreFreq/tree/develop
> 
> Thanks for your help.


Just with this mobo?


----------



## CyrIng

Hale59 said:


> Just with this mobo?


Any mobo should be fine, I'm just querying the Ryzen and its internal components (SMU, IF, UMC, etc.)


----------



## Hale59

CyrIng said:


> Any mobo should be fine, I'm just querying the Ryzen and its internal components (SMU, IF, UMC, etc.)


I suggest you make the same request in 'AMD CPUs'.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

arkantos91 said:


> I'll try again hoping for more luck this time in receiving any help 😅
> 
> My system:
> 
> Ryzen 3900X
> Asus X570 Crosshair VIII Hero WiFi
> 2x8 GB Kingston HyperX Predator 4000 MHz B-die (HX440C19PB3K2_16)
> EVGA SuperNOVA 650 P2
> Corsair H150i RGB PRO XT
> Rog 2080TI OC
> My friend suggested me to try 1usmus Clock Tuner for Ryzen (CTR) to find the sweet spot but I can't make it work, while it does its testing my pc will reboot at some point.
> All I did was restore BIOS settings at default and as required for CTR to work I set:
> 
> CPU load line calibration to Level 3
> CPU Power Phase Control to Standard
> CPU Current Capability to 100%
> CPU Core Ratio to Auto
> CPU Core Voltage to Auto
> SVM Disabled
> Diagnostic part works fine and it says my 3900X is a *silver* sample. But then when I start the actual test to find best combination for CCX frequencies and voltage, after a while my PC just reboots during the test.
> 
> I also tried with LLC to level 4 or even 5, still nothing changes. I even tried changing power plan (Ryzen or Windows Balanced), nothing changes.
> 
> Latest chipset and latest BIOS installed.


I’m not familiar with that version but I know CTR V2 beta restarts if a reboot occurs. It works quite well with my 5950x.
It might be available by the end of the month.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

I’ve gone back to 3003 bios they run my 5950x cooler than the beta one. Plus I was sick of getting f9 error every time I cold started my system.


----------



## shamino1978

greg_p said:


> actually i have tried 1.25 Vsoc, 1.15 vdds, 2V VPLL and it never goes beyond 1900/3800 no matter the timings, on my 5950x. there are walls but i would suggest other things like some analogic calibration not done correctly.
> The first attempt of PBO didn't worked correctly for me, but I reflashed between 2 clearcmos and now it's working much better, I have no other clue.


for the 2v pll, since it cannot be set until after the psp phase you should first set it then set the fclk.


----------



## dr.Rafi

koji said:


> -->


This is the major issue Amd facing now , keeping the same socket and motherboards for multiple generations of cpu with very different architecture, make it so hard to release bioses that make all cpu generations to run smoothly and happy.


----------



## dr.Rafi

greg_p said:


> actually i have tried 1.25 Vsoc, 1.15 vdds, 2V VPLL and it never goes beyond 1900/3800 no matter the timings, on my 5950x. there are walls but i would suggest other things like some analogic calibration not done correctly.
> The first attempt of PBO didn't worked correctly for me, but I reflashed between 2 clearcmos and now it's working much better, I have no other clue.


For me if the system turn off and start training and off and training again ,is mostly ram , but if system start and stuck in rundom Qcodes which most of them have no difintions, is mostly Fclk


----------



## arkantos91

Badgerslayer7 said:


> I’m not familiar with that version but I know CTR V2 beta restarts if a reboot occurs. It works quite well with my 5950x.
> It might be available by the end of the month.


I'm using CTR 1.1 beta 7, do you know any other version I can try?


----------



## PhenomUndertaker

Zaliandr said:


> Maybe the problem is a conflict of programs from ASUS? I uninstalled all programs from ASUS and stopped some services (from ASUS) in Windows.
> View attachment 2472685


Thanks again for the reply 

I just reformatted my machine with a fresh Windows 10 and no Armory Crate / AI Suite etc and got the following still:










So I am at a bit of a loss. I also tried playing games and installed one driver package/program at a time and nothing seemed to affect temps or performance so I am at a bit of a loss as to why it isn't boosting the way I had hoped and sitting mostly at 3.8ghz on the two CCX0 best cores and only occasionally jumping higher and almost immediately back down again.


----------



## Zaliandr

PhenomUndertaker said:


> Thanks again for the reply
> 
> I just reformatted my machine with a fresh Windows 10 and no Armory Crate / AI Suite etc and got the following still:
> 
> View attachment 2472854
> 
> 
> So I am at a bit of a loss. I also tried playing games and installed one driver package/program at a time and nothing seemed to affect temps or performance so I am at a bit of a loss as to why it isn't boosting the way I had hoped and sitting mostly at 3.8ghz on the two CCX0 best cores and only occasionally jumping higher and almost immediately back down again.


Got AIDA 64?


----------



## PhenomUndertaker

Zaliandr said:


> Got AIDA 64?
> View attachment 2472856












Sure, here. Curious I cannot see some of the temps like chipset.


----------



## Zaliandr

PhenomUndertaker said:


> View attachment 2472860
> 
> 
> Sure, here. Curious I cannot see some of the temps like chipset.


I think this is a program error. Check out the link.
Google search - high temp


----------



## PhenomUndertaker

Zaliandr said:


> I think this is a program error. Check out the link.
> Google search - high temp


Hmm will assume that is the case then. Is there any easy way to show a readout of how your CPU is boosting over time to see if it is behaving normal. I got this image but its a bit of a mess and not very useful. 🤣 I want to see what the core are doing when gaming. When I watched reviews of the 5900x (hardware canucks for instance) they say Overwatch should have a 1% low of around 340fps on ultra. Whilst I have a 5950x mine spends most of its time around 260fps on low settings, occasionally spending a second or two around 330. Serious First world problem to be at 260fps but I was expecting it to boost and maintain higher, and I have a 360hz monitor and wanted to stick close to that.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

arkantos91 said:


> I'm using CTR 1.1 beta 7, do you know any other version I can try?


I only know of the latest 2.0 beta. That’s only available for now if you subscribe to 1usmus patreon page.


----------



## CyrIng

PhenomUndertaker said:


> Thanks again for the reply
> 
> I just reformatted my machine with a fresh Windows 10 and no Armory Crate / AI Suite etc and got the following still:
> 
> View attachment 2472854
> 
> 
> So I am at a bit of a loss. I also tried playing games and installed one driver package/program at a time and nothing seemed to affect temps or performance so I am at a bit of a loss as to why it isn't boosting the way I had hoped and sitting mostly at 3.8ghz on the two CCX0 best cores and only occasionally jumping higher and almost immediately back down again.


Perhaps you may get another monitoring pov if booting Linux then run lm_sensors


Code:


$ sudo modprobe nct6775
$ sensors
nct6798-isa-0290
Adapter: ISA adapter
in0:                      336.00 mV (min =  +0.00 V, max =  +1.74 V)
in1:                        1.01 V  (min =  +0.00 V, max =  +0.00 V)  ALARM
in2:                        3.38 V  (min =  +0.00 V, max =  +0.00 V)  ALARM
in3:                        3.34 V  (min =  +0.00 V, max =  +0.00 V)  ALARM
in4:                        1.74 V  (min =  +0.00 V, max =  +0.00 V)  ALARM
in5:                      592.00 mV (min =  +0.00 V, max =  +0.00 V)  ALARM
in6:                        1.09 V  (min =  +0.00 V, max =  +0.00 V)  ALARM
in7:                        3.36 V  (min =  +0.00 V, max =  +0.00 V)  ALARM
in8:                        3.23 V  (min =  +0.00 V, max =  +0.00 V)  ALARM
in9:                      888.00 mV (min =  +0.00 V, max =  +0.00 V)  ALARM
in10:                       8.00 mV (min =  +0.00 V, max =  +0.00 V)  ALARM
in11:                      88.00 mV (min =  +0.00 V, max =  +0.00 V)  ALARM
in12:                       1.03 V  (min =  +0.00 V, max =  +0.00 V)  ALARM
in13:                       1.36 V  (min =  +0.00 V, max =  +0.00 V)  ALARM
in14:                     888.00 mV (min =  +0.00 V, max =  +0.00 V)  ALARM
fan1:                        0 RPM  (min =    0 RPM)
fan2:                     1584 RPM  (min =    0 RPM)
fan3:                        0 RPM  (min =    0 RPM)
fan4:                        0 RPM  (min =    0 RPM)
fan5:                        0 RPM  (min =    0 RPM)
fan6:                        0 RPM  (min =    0 RPM)
fan7:                        0 RPM  (min =    0 RPM)
SYSTIN:                    +34.0°C  (high = +80.0°C, hyst = +75.0°C)  sensor = thermistor
CPUTIN:                    +34.0°C  (high = +80.0°C, hyst = +75.0°C)  sensor = thermistor
AUXTIN0:                   +21.0°C    sensor = thermistor
AUXTIN1:                  +127.0°C    sensor = thermistor
AUXTIN2:                  +110.0°C    sensor = thermistor
AUXTIN3:                   +32.0°C    sensor = thermistor
PECI Agent 0 Calibration:  +35.0°C 
PCH_CHIP_CPU_MAX_TEMP:      +0.0°C 
PCH_CHIP_TEMP:              +0.0°C 
PCH_CPU_TEMP:               +0.0°C 
intrusion0:               ALARM
intrusion1:               ALARM
beep_enable:              disabled

nvme-pci-0100
Adapter: PCI adapter
Composite:    +42.9°C  (low  =  -0.1°C, high = +89.8°C)
                       (crit = +94.8°C)


----------



## PWn3R

Badgerslayer7 said:


> I only know of the latest 2.0 beta. That’s only available for now if you subscribe to 1usmus patreon page.


It does not support Ryzen 5000 series, correct? He mentioned that in two twitter posts I saw, and something on Guru3d. Just wanting confirmation as I would check it out if 5000 series is supported.


----------



## Hale59

arkantos91 said:


> I'm using CTR 1.1 beta 7, do you know any other version I can try?


Well, to the public at large there is CTR 1.1 beta 7, but if you join his patreon, I believe you can test and play around with CTR 2.0 RC 1








Yuri Bubliy | creating software for Ryzen community | Patreon


Become a patron of Yuri Bubliy today: Get access to exclusive content and experiences on the world’s largest membership platform for artists and creators.




www.patreon.com


----------



## shaolin95

Just curious..are you all using 2 x 8 pin cpu connectors or only one? From what buildzoid always says, we only really need one unless going extreme but still I am curious about people here is doing.


----------



## Elrick

shaolin95 said:


> Just curious..are you all using 2 x 8 pin cpu connectors or only one? From what buildzoid always says, we only really need one unless going extreme but still I am curious about people here is doing.


Have always used ONE 8 pin cpu connector.

Using 2 connectors is way over board, unless you're running 3 or 4 PCIe Video Cards at the same time. Then having two plugged in 8 Pin cpu connectors, makes sense.


----------



## shamino1978

3102 fixes 3300x:
ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3102.rar
ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3102.rar
ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-3102.rar
ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3102.rar


----------



## shaolin95

shamino1978 said:


> 3102 fixes 3300x:
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3102.rar
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3102.rar
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-3102.rar
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3102.rar


So 3101 was only an issue for users with the 3300x?


----------



## Sindragosaa

Good to know we are essentially beta testers.



> AMD claims that firmware updates with 1.1.9.0 should improve system stability in the FCLK 1800 MHz to 2000 MHz range.





> General stability improvements











AMD Announces AGESA 1.1.9.0 Firmware Updates, Improve FCLK OC Stability


AMD just revealed the top four changes with its new AGESA 1.1.9.0 microcode update, which motherboard manufacturers and OEMs will release via UEFI firmware updates in January and February, 2021. Beta firmware updates with 1.1.9.0 have already been floating around for the past couple of weeks. To...




www.techpowerup.com


----------



## Elrick

Sindragosaa said:


> Good to know we are essentially beta testers.


If you are running either an AMD or Intel setup, then welcome to the new ordeal of ALWAYS being a continuous BETA-Tester  .

There will never be a change of getting any reliable release of bios, until we start complaining about its failures. We are the perpetual 'Guinea Pigs' in a laboratory.


----------



## dr.Rafi

Elrick said:


> If you are running either an AMD or Intel setup, then welcome to the new ordeal of ALWAYS being a continuous BETA-Tester  .
> 
> There will never be a change of getting any reliable release of bios, until we start complaining about its failures. We are the perpetual 'Guinea Pigs' in a laboratory.


----------



## jinino

Need some advice...

Came across the following thread at Reddit before I decide the parts for my upgrade before Christmas (finally - last built was 10 years ago). Originally decide to have C8H Dark Hero, but long wait time in Canada so bought C8H WIFI instead (funny that today the retailer called me saying C8H Dark Hero arrives...)


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/j3847c

This meets my plan to have *64Gb RAM* AND some overclocking.

My spec:
3900XT
4 x 16Gb Crucial Ballistix Sport LT Red colour DDR4-3200 Micron E-die BLS4K16G4D32ASES
1000W Seasonic Prime Titanium PSU
Corsair H110i GT AIO cooler
AMD Radeon HD6470 512gb PCIE 2.0 GPU
Samsung 970 Pro 512Gb
C8H WIFI with BIOS 3003

I am able to boot with RAM 3733 with Reddit OP's timing, leaving anything else in BIOS AUTO. Also able to boot with RAM 3800 with the same timing BUT discover UCLK is just half of FCLK. Both the booting pass Prime95 test.

So I decide to test the CPU alone - boot 3200 with DOCP but change CPU ratio. Highest boot is 4.65 Ghz but cannot pass Prmie95. 4.525 Ghz is the highest ratio that can pass Prime95.

Do I miss any options in BIOS to make UCLK = FCLK, when RAM is at 3800? Is this the limit of C8H WIFI, and if so I am considering to get C8H Dark Hero and taking a loss to sell C8H WIFI - purchase on Dec 1 & not build the system until Christmas)

Here are some screen shots:

3733, pass Prime95









3800, pass Prime95 but UCLK is 50% of FCLK









3733 AIDA64









3800 AIDA64 - much higher memory latency due to decoupled speed between UCLK & FCLK


----------



## LtMatt

shamino1978 said:


> 3102 fixes 3300x:
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3102.rar
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3102.rar
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-3102.rar
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3102.rar


Is there any other fixes from the 3101 BIOS?


----------



## Zaliandr

PWn3R said:


> It does not support Ryzen 5000 series, correct? He mentioned that in two twitter posts I saw, and something on Guru3d. Just wanting confirmation as I would check it out if 5000 series is supported.


Beta 3 is limited to 1350mv.


----------



## djase45

AMD Releases AGESA 1.1.9.0 Firmware Updates, Improves FCLK OC Stability (guru3d.com)

"AMD is releasing the latest firmware microcode for its motherboards to manufacturers. The new revision update should become available to end-users this and next month.

Albeit Beta has been spotted several times, it is interesting to see that AMD actually now has officially made this release public through its social media account. AGESA enables support for the S0i3 power state of Windows 10 (Modern Standby).* The firmware also should improve system stability in the FCLK 1800 MHz to 2000 MHz range and adds support for "fanless X570 motherboards.*" "


----------



## stimpy88

Well, as nobody here found any extra stability with the previous beta BIOS, then this promise of FCLK stability is marketing BS, or ASUS screwing up the BIOS.

A question I have, is that do these new AGESA's do ANYTHING for the Zen2 range of CPUs?


----------



## lDevilDriverl

shamino1978 said:


> 3102 fixes 3300x:
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3102.rar
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3102.rar
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-3102.rar
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3102.rar


Difference between 3102 and 3101 only in 3300x support?


----------



## arkantos91

Hi, since I cannot use 1usmus CTR otherwise my PC will reboot while using it, I've resorted to Bullzoid OC guide 






I set:

Manual PBO
PPT limit to 300
TDC limit to 230
EDC limit to 230
Overdrive scalar to 2x
Of course my ram is a 3600 MHz and I also applied a -0.1 offset to voltage.

Score in Cinebench R20 is 7040. Shouldn't be much higher for an OC 3900X? Like 7200/7300? Around 7000 is stock score 

Temps and all the rest is ok as you can see in screenshot...

What do you think?


----------



## Sindragosaa

arkantos91 said:


> Hi, since I cannot use 1usmus CTR otherwise my PC will reboot while using it, I've resorted to Bullzoid OC guide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I set:
> 
> Manual PBO
> PPT limit to 300
> TDC limit to 230
> EDC limit to 230
> Overdrive scalar to 2x
> Of course my ram is a 3600 MHz and I also applied a -0.1 offset to voltage.
> 
> Score in Cinebench R20 is 7040. Shouldn't be much higher for an OC 3900X? Like 7200/7300? Around 7000 is stock score
> 
> Temps and all the rest is ok as you can see in screenshot...
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> View attachment 2472940


Set the scalar to Auto and see if it improves your score.


----------



## lDevilDriverl

greg_p said:


> actually i have tried 1.25 Vsoc, 1.15 vdds, 2V VPLL and it never goes beyond 1900/3800 no matter the timings, on my 5950x. there are walls but i would suggest other things like some analogic calibration not done correctly.
> The first attempt of PBO didn't worked correctly for me, but I reflashed between 2 clearcmos and now it's working much better, I have no other clue.


You can increase pll voltage for additional stability if you are using bclk overclocking. Fclk is not affected by pll, so there is no sense to increase pll voltage


----------



## CyrIng

Retweeting the AGESA 1.1.9.0 changes

Win10 s0i3 support
Stability tuning for 1800-2000MHz FCLK (OC)
Support for passive X570 motherboards
General stability improvements
Are those part of 3102 ?


----------



## lDevilDriverl

just want to show that pll do nothing for fclk.


----------



## greg_p

so funny! It doesn't do anything because 2000/4000 is working for you.


----------



## lDevilDriverl

greg_p said:


> so funny! It doesn't do anything because 2000/4000 is working for you.


whea errors.....


----------



## greg_p

Yes but still you are talking about your problem.


Zaliandr said:


> Beta 3 is limited to 1350mv.
> View attachment 2472924


Is there an easy way to access the beta?


----------



## greg_p

And by the way, Power reporting deviation seems high (107%) for CBR20, it then reduce real power at CPU level. Does anyone know how to tweak it? There is a parameter in the tweaker's paradise but there is no information on how to set it.


----------



## 7lk

stimpy88 said:


> Well, as nobody here found any extra stability with the previous beta BIOS, then this promise of FCLK stability is marketing BS, or ASUS screwing up the BIOS.
> 
> A question I have, is that do these new AGESA's do ANYTHING for the Zen2 range of CPUs?


I was writing. I'm stable for the ninth day. Version 3101


----------



## Badgerslayer7

greg_p said:


> Yes but still you are talking about your problem.
> 
> Is there an easy way to access the beta?


yeah subscribe to 1usmus patreon page


----------



## Zaliandr

greg_p said:


> Yes but still you are talking about your problem.
> 
> Is there an easy way to access the beta?


The only option is to support the master with a coin. 
Free DRAM calculator. Free CTR. All this is done by one person. I think he deserves it.


----------



## LtMatt

CyrIng said:


> Retweeting the AGESA 1.1.9.0 changes
> 
> Win10 s0i3 support
> Stability tuning for 1800-2000MHz FCLK (OC)
> Support for passive X570 motherboards
> General stability improvements
> Are those part of 3102 ?


Would like to know the answer to this also. @shamino1978


----------



## shamino1978

LtMatt said:


> Would like to know the answer to this also. @shamino1978


as far as i can tell same as 1190 for me.


----------



## greg_p

Zaliandr said:


> The only option is to support the master with a coin.
> Free DRAM calculator. Free CTR. All this is done by one person. I think he deserves it.


Sure, thanks for the tip!


----------



## koji

Zaliandr said:


> Beta 3 is limited to 1350mv.
> View attachment 2472924


Yeah I wouldn't want to run mine with a static OC over 1.35 Vcore anyway. That's a great result btw, is it stable?


----------



## Cavanta

Chili195 said:


> Has anyone else had any odd experiences with their Hero/Dark Hero POSTing while their monitor is turning on or waking up from deep sleep mode?
> 
> I get this error:
> 
> "The VGA card is not supported by UEFI driver.
> CSM (Compability Support Module) settings have been changed
> For further adjustments, press [F1] to enter BIOS setup"
> 
> Upon a restart or turning on the PC when the monitor is "awake" the boot proceeds as normal, it only seems to happen as the monitor is initialising.
> 
> The BIOS kindly enables CSM for me, but as far as I'm aware this shouldn't be necessary and I'd like to keep it off. I'm using an Nvidia 3080 Founder's Edition, so it most definitely has a UEFI-compatible BIOS. The same card was fine on my previous Asus motherboard.
> 
> Edit: Further to that, just wondering if others can see information about the GOP/VBIOS in the motherboard UEFI? Mine just says nothing was detected (even when it boots correctly) but I'm pretty sure on my last board it had information in there about the card.


I don`t have the Dark Hero but the X570 Formula.
But I also have these kinds of posts. When I have my monitor powered off the bios code gives VGA errors.
When the screen is on nomally it will boot perfectly again.


----------



## Cavanta

shamino1978 said:


> 3102 fixes 3300x:
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3102.rar
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3102.rar
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-3102.rar
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3102.rar


Thanks!

Any knowlegde when this version will be live for the Formula?


----------



## Gadfly

GRABibus said:


> but if you set everything at stock (F5 in bios), do you get idle reboots in this case ?


No.


----------



## Gadfly

Chili195 said:


> Has anyone else had any odd experiences with their Hero/Dark Hero POSTing while their monitor is turning on or waking up from deep sleep mode?
> 
> I get this error:
> 
> "The VGA card is not supported by UEFI driver.
> CSM (Compability Support Module) settings have been changed
> For further adjustments, press [F1] to enter BIOS setup"
> 
> Upon a restart or turning on the PC when the monitor is "awake" the boot proceeds as normal, it only seems to happen as the monitor is initialising.
> 
> The BIOS kindly enables CSM for me, but as far as I'm aware this shouldn't be necessary and I'd like to keep it off. I'm using an Nvidia 3080 Founder's Edition, so it most definitely has a UEFI-compatible BIOS. The same card was fine on my previous Asus motherboard.
> 
> Edit: Further to that, just wondering if others can see information about the GOP/VBIOS in the motherboard UEFI? Mine just says nothing was detected (even when it boots correctly) but I'm pretty sure on my last board it had information in there about the card.


Bump your VDDG IOD and your SB 1.0V up a bit if you are overclocking your fclk and using a pcie 4 GPU.


----------



## Gadfly

@shamino1978 

Hey, can you offer any guidance on safe 1.8V PLL voltages?

I am guessing up to about 2.1 or 2.2v should be safe, but is it safe to go higher? leaving the memory at 2133, I can push fclk to over 2100 at 2.2v PLL, with VDDG_IOD at 0.985v, VDDG_CCD at 1.06v, and I had to bump SB 1.0V to 1.07v to eliminate some bus drop out WHEA 41 errors (looked to be the USB controller dropping out). Bumping SB 1.0V also allowed me to keep the SB and the two M.2 slots locked at Gen 4. (This is BIOS 3003).

I have not had any luck getting 4x8GB B-die to train over 3866, even with your suggested changes to memory training. The memory is G.skill's 3800C14 4x8GB sticks. Even if I run a very slow CL20 profile, or even just "auto" timings, I just cannot get a 3933 or 4000 to post (F9, reboot, F9, Reboot, F9> 0d, safe mode); I will work on it some more later this week, but I think I am just hitting an good old fashioned DRAM training hole. 

Thanks


----------



## PWn3R

Gadfly said:


> @shamino1978
> 
> Hey, can you offer any guidance on safe 1.8V PLL voltages?
> 
> I am guessing up to about 2.1 or 2.2v should be safe, but is it safe to go higher? leaving the memory at 2133, I can push fclk to over 2100 at 2.2v PLL, with VDDG_IOD at 0.985v, VDDG_CCD at 1.06v, and I had to bump SB 1.0V to 1.07v to eliminate some bus drop out WHEA 41 errors (looked to be the USB controller dropping out). Bumping SB 1.0V also allowed me to keep the SB and the two M.2 slots locked at Gen 4. (This is BIOS 3003).
> 
> I have not had any luck getting 4x8GB B-die to train over 3866, even with your suggested changes to memory training. The memory is G.skill's 3800C14 4x8GB sticks. Even if I run a very slow CL20 profile, or even just "auto" timings, I just cannot get a 3933 or 4000 to post (F9, reboot, F9, Reboot, F9> 0d, safe mode); I will work on it some more later this week, but I think I am just hitting an good old fashioned DRAM training hole.
> 
> Thanks


It was very interesting - if I understood correctly from shamino's post yesterday - that the PLL voltage change doesn't take place until after FCLK gets set. I'm going to try changing PLL to like 2v and then see if changing FCLK works.


----------



## Gadfly

PWn3R said:


> It was very interesting - if I understood correctly from shamino's post yesterday - that the PLL voltage change doesn't take place until after FCLK gets set. I'm going to try changing PLL to like 2v and then see if changing FCLK works.


Correct, so set PLL, save and exit, change fclk


----------



## xeizo

lDevilDriverl said:


> whea errors.....


I seem to have completely got rid of the WHEA errors at FCLK 1900 by small increase of PLL from 1.8V to 1.84V. Always had at least one WHEA error within an hour before, now two and a half day without a single WHEA!


----------



## arkantos91

Sindragosaa said:


> Set the scalar to Auto and see if it improves your score.


No relevant change... however I had an epiphany of bullzoid suggesting to turn off ANY monitoring software which would otherwise impact the score and BAM










Highest score I've ever got... and even without touching PBO, leaving everything on auto. Except for v-core which is reduced with a negative offset of 0.075 or 0.1.

So far I've always had hw info in background to check voltages and temp during Cinebench. Go figure!


----------



## smbell1979

Just out of curiosity, in the BIOS screen, is anyone else's cpu voltage at ~1.45 just sitting there doing nothing?


----------



## xeizo

smbell1979 said:


> Just out of curiosity, in the BIOS screen, is anyone else's cpu voltage at ~1.45 just sitting there doing nothing?


It's normal Ryzen behavior, it has high vcore in idle and low under load. Why? Boost is faster if it doesn't have to ramp up voltage, but under load it has to reduce vcore to reduce heat. Idle doesn't get hot anyway.

This has been asked a million times, with Ryzen you should look at temps not voltages. Intel works different.


----------



## smbell1979

xeizo said:


> It's normal Ryzen behavior, it has high vcore in idle and low under load. Why? Boost is faster if it doesn't have to ramp up voltage, but under load it has to reduce vcore to reduce heat. Idle doesn't get hot anyway.
> 
> This has been asked a million times, with Ryzen you should look at temps not voltages. Intel works different.


Thanks, I'm familiar with the Ryzen concept, I was just curious about the voltage in the BIOS screen specifically. It's just much lower in windows at idle. No big deal.


----------



## 7lk

ROG Crosshair VIII Hero | ROG Crosshair | Gaming Motherboards｜ROG - Republic of Gamers｜ROG USA (asus.com) 
forr all


----------



## Fanu

are these good scores for 5800X - I just have PBO enabled and curve optimizer set to -10 for all cores (waiting for newer BIOSes to do more BIOS tweaking)

CPU is boosting to max 4850MHz (anything higher is unstable atm)

this is on a B550-E strix motherboard (there is no thread for it on this forum, hence I'm posting here):


----------



## CyrIng

Vcore is decreasing if the idle function is looping on one of those assembly instructions : 

MONITOR + MWAIT 
HALT
an I/O MWAIT address 
C-States have to be fully enabled if not default. 

Is the BIOS idleing that way ? 

Or does it loop actively arround any User interaction and other computations which keep the voltage high.


----------



## Chili195

Cavanta said:


> I don`t have the Dark Hero but the X570 Formula.
> But I also have these kinds of posts. When I have my monitor powered off the bios code gives VGA errors.
> When the screen is on nomally it will boot perfectly again.


Yeah, that's precisely my experience. I did some more troubleshooting yesterday and basically figured out this is related to the motherboard trying to use the Valve Index as a display when my primary monitor is in deep sleep mode (regardless of being turned off or on). It takes quite a long time to wake up this monitor, and with another I tried its fine. Solved by unplugging the Index, but never had this problem with my last motherboard (Maximum VIII Hero) and the exact same monitor, Index and graphics card.






"The VGA card is not supported by UEFI driver" on POST - Dark Hero - Page 2


I set up my new Dark Hero build a few days ago, and I occasionally get this error on POST. "The VGA card is not supported by UEFI driver. CSM (Compability Support Module) settings have been changed For further adjustments, press to enter BIOS setup The message only comes when the...



rog.asus.com








Gadfly said:


> Bump your VDDG IOD and your SB 1.0V up a bit if you are overclocking your fclk and using a pcie 4 GPU.


Thanks, will give this a go too. I've only just started looking at my FCLK, and this happens at stock settings too.

On that note, might as well throw my experiences using these DDR4-3600MHz CL14-15-15-35 1.45V 32GB (2x16GB) modules and a 5900X.

Everything works fine at XMP at 1.45v and 3600/1800 as expected.

I then copied all the suggested settings from the DRAM Calculator at 3800/1900 and the computer failed to POST.

Just upping to 3800/1900 and keeping the same primary timings results in memory allowed booting into Windows but Karhu failed pretty quickly. Loosened the timings to 16-19-19-19-39 and it runs for hours with no problem so I'll probably look to tighten them up further.

I loosened the timings further to 18-something or other (can't remember exactly) and attempted 4000/2000. Karhu worked fine for the 20 or so minutes that I tried it but the Event Viewer was flooded with the dreaded WHEA 19 errors. I did try and mess about with the various voltage options but wasn't really sure what I was doing and judging from the responses I've seen 4000/2000 looks impossible without WHEA errors anyway. Might try and focus on getting 3800/1900 tightened up.


----------



## jomama22

greg_p said:


> And by the way, Power reporting deviation seems high (107%) for CBR20, it then reduce real power at CPU level. Does anyone know how to tweak it? There is a parameter in the tweaker's paradise but there is no information on how to set it.


I'm the tweakers paradise, you can set a negative offset for cpu current reported, in mW. A setting of 5000 seems to bring it pretty close to 100% but I didn't notice and performance changes.

You can try for yourself, maybe you will get better results.


----------



## jomama22

@shamino1978 
I have a question about EDC/current limits of the dark hero if you have any input on the manner.

Is there a reason the motherboard limits for a 5950x are stuck at 200 edc with such a vrm? 

I have both an MSI ace and the dark hero. Doing all core pbo tests with both results in much better scores with the ACE, which has an edc limit of 215.

And example is all core r20 runs, where on the dark hero, I'd be lucky to break 12100 @ an effective clock of ~4710. On the ace, r20 will score ~12390 @ effective of ~4725.

I'm guessing this slight difference in edc is causing the difference between the two motherboards and their all core pbo abilities, but it could also be down to other settings as well.

If you have any suggestions as to try and improve all core pbo on the dark hero, I'm all ears.

Thanks!


----------



## Zaliandr

koji said:


> Yeah I wouldn't want to run mine with a static OC over 1.35 Vcore anyway. That's a great result btw, is it stable?


WHEA = 0
BSOD = 0
Restart = 0


Spoiler: screenshots







































This is the maximum that I have succeeded. But unstable.


----------



## domdtxdissar

jomama22 said:


> @shamino1978
> I have a question about EDC/current limits of the dark hero if you have any input on the manner.
> 
> Is there a reason the motherboard limits for a 5950x are stuck at 200 edc with such a vrm?
> 
> I have both an MSI ace and the dark hero. Doing all core pbo tests with both results in much better scores with the ACE, which has an edc limit of 215.
> 
> And example is all core r20 runs, where on the dark hero, I'd be lucky to break 12100 @ an effective clock of ~4710. On the ace, r20 will score ~12390 @ effective of ~4725.
> 
> I'm guessing this slight difference in edc is causing the difference between the two motherboards and their all core pbo abilities, but it could also be down to other settings as well.
> 
> If you have any suggestions as to try and improve all core pbo on the dark hero, I'm all ears.
> 
> Thanks!


Have you tried 300/235/245 ?








Screenshot above are from crosshair viii hero wifi + 5950x
This setup is pulling upwards to 240-250 watts..


----------



## jomama22

domdtxdissar said:


> Have you tried 300/235/245 ?
> View attachment 2473000
> 
> Screenshot above are from crosshair viii hero wifi + 5950x
> This setup is pulling upwards to 240-250 watts..
> View attachment 2473002


I'll have to give it a try. What bios is this using?

You're mem is also almost bang on the same as mine with very slight differences.









This was taken on my msi ace, but on the dark hero it is exactly the same except for having to lower twrwrsd from 4 to 6.

Also imagine you are using curve optimizer with that? Definatly curious as to what bios you are on.


----------



## shaolin95

domdtxdissar said:


> Have you tried 300/235/245 ?
> View attachment 2473000
> 
> Screenshot above are from crosshair viii hero wifi + 5950x
> This setup is pulling upwards to 240-250 watts..
> View attachment 2473002


Impressive scores. 
Do you mind sharing a bios dump?
Thanks!


----------



## shamino1978

jomama22 said:


> @shamino1978
> I have a question about EDC/current limits of the dark hero if you have any input on the manner.
> 
> Is there a reason the motherboard limits for a 5950x are stuck at 200 edc with such a vrm?
> 
> I have both an MSI ace and the dark hero. Doing all core pbo tests with both results in much better scores with the ACE, which has an edc limit of 215.
> 
> And example is all core r20 runs, where on the dark hero, I'd be lucky to break 12100 @ an effective clock of ~4710. On the ace, r20 will score ~12390 @ effective of ~4725.
> 
> I'm guessing this slight difference in edc is causing the difference between the two motherboards and their all core pbo abilities, but it could also be down to other settings as well.
> 
> If you have any suggestions as to try and improve all core pbo on the dark hero, I'm all ears.
> 
> Thanks!


It was much higher previously but some matisse back then boosted lower instead so it was lowered to 200 , nothing to do with capability of board


----------



## CYoung234

CYoung234 said:


> I have not messed with DF Cstates so far with 3003. I had tried it with some earlier BIOSes, and had no change to the random reboots. 1302 is the only BIOS I have used so far that I can use without these random reboots. As Veii noted earlier, some of my trouble could be the settings he noted as being too aggressive. We will see. Thanks for the suggestions. I will look at them once my basic setup is stable.


Hi again. I went back to BIOS 1302 after these posts. In reviewing my logs on 1302 for a month, I found that I had no random reboots (Error 41) of any type, but I was having some WHEA error messages. I made the following changes to my settings: I set tRC to 57 instead of 60, and I set both of the spread spectrum settings to disabled. I also ENABLED PBO. I now have no WHEA errors and no reboots. I am attaching my current settings, and am toying with trying out the latest BIOS. I will try disabling SF-CStates and setting CPPC ENABLED and CPPC Preferred Cores ENABLED to see how it affects things. Any other suggestions for tuning?


----------



## Audioboxer

Sorry for slightly offtopic question, but given Fmax Enhancer sort of _originated_ in this topic, can anyone give me a quick tldr on the best ways to troubleshoot PC reboots when on desktop/idle/web browsing? When my cores are fired up/in use/gaming its rock stable. But I keep getting random reboots on desktop.

Tried to do my due diligence reading, but it's in case I've missed anything. Cstates off, LLC tweaking and setting a custom scalar rather than leaving on auto are what I'm trying. Voltage is on auto, reluctant to add a positive offset, but I have tried 0.025.

The EDC "bug" works rock solid for me, but it pushes much more voltage/current through my chip (3900xt) than Fmax Enhancer for similar clocks (edc bug maybe pushes a little higher on multicore processes like gaming). Which is why I would really like to try one last hurrah with it before giving in, I like a cooler running chip even if the top end speed is a bit lower. Especially as it seems its idle/low workload boosting causing the reboots.


----------



## Hale59

@shamino1978, what do you have to say about this?


----------



## GRABibus

Audioboxer said:


> Sorry for slightly offtopic question, but given Fmax Enhancer sort of _originated_ in this topic, can anyone give me a quick tldr on the best ways to troubleshoot PC reboots when on desktop/idle/web browsing? When my cores are fired up/in use/gaming its rock stable. But I keep getting random reboots on desktop.
> 
> Tried to do my due diligence reading, but it's in case I've missed anything. Cstates off, LLC tweaking and setting a custom scalar rather than leaving on auto are what I'm trying. Voltage is on auto, reluctant to add a positive offset, but I have tried 0.025.
> 
> The EDC "bug" works rock solid for me, but it pushes much more voltage/current through my chip (3900xt) than Fmax Enhancer for similar clocks (edc bug maybe pushes a little higher on multicore processes like gaming). Which is why I would really like to try one last hurrah with it before giving in, I like a cooler running chip even if the top end speed is a bit lower. Especially as it seems its idle/low workload boosting causing the reboots.


with reboots a idle, from my side, In would RMA the CPU. Looks at below link :









Replaced 3950X with 5950X = WHEA and reboots


all these problems are showing maybe a fast CPU degradation. Because , even at stock, it can peak at 1,5V at idle due a simple background task. guys, it is time to stop AMD builds and wait for 11900k Up to 1.5v is within specs




www.overclock.net


----------



## Audioboxer

GRABibus said:


> with reboots a idle, from my side, In would RMA the CPU. Looks at below link :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Replaced 3950X with 5950X = WHEA and reboots
> 
> 
> all these problems are showing maybe a fast CPU degradation. Because , even at stock, it can peak at 1,5V at idle due a simple background task. guys, it is time to stop AMD builds and wait for 11900k Up to 1.5v is within specs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


The Stilt has suggested some processors just won't take Fmax Enhancer, so I don't think RMA is suitable for me. I'm just trying to figure out if anything can stop idle reboots before giving up on it. When Fmax enhancer is turned off I don't get reboots with PBO as "normal", so that is within AMD spec. Chip isn't faulty I just think I have a weak core that if boosted when idle/on desktop, has a chance to cause a reboot. As I believe Fmax tries to sustain higher clock speeds without increasing the voltage curve, it's likely causing my reboots if a single core boost hits my bad core(s). With most single core boosts coming during idle/desktop and webpage browsing.

Setting my scalar to 10x with Fmax Enhancer enabled seems to have stabilised things a bit. But again The Stilt recommended against scalar over 5x with Fmax. I guess if I'm seeing any increased idle stability with the scalar at 10x its because background single core boosting voltage is going higher/remaining boosted longer?

I was running edc bug with 10x scalar OK, but as I said in my post I'm having one last go at Fmax enhancer as it runs things noticeably cooler than edc bug which seems to go all out. Hitting my cores with a big voltage/current spike is obviously enough to keep stability, but I worry about edc bug longer term punishment to chip.

I'll try some more scalar tweaking, maybe 4~6x before relying on 10x. I will also try LLC4 with the scalar a bit higher. Again, I was reluctant to go above LLC3. My Asus bios maxes out at LLC5.


----------



## domdtxdissar

jomama22 said:


> I'll have to give it a try. What bios is this using?
> 
> You're mem is also almost bang on the same as mine with very slight differences.
> View attachment 2473030
> 
> 
> This was taken on my msi ace, but on the dark hero it is exactly the same except for having to lower twrwrsd from 4 to 6.
> 
> Also imagine you are using curve optimizer with that? Definatly curious as to what bios you are on.


Using bios 3003, didn't like 3103.
EDC upto 265 works, but my cpu gets unstable above 255 in IBT high. (getting ~232-234 in this benchmark)

My curve optimizer settings are -25 on the 4 best cores, and -30 on the rest.
No reboots/crashes/WHEA erros.



shaolin95 said:


> Impressive scores.
> Do you mind sharing a bios dump?
> Thanks!





> [2021/01/07 16:19:34]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3800MHz]
> FCLK Frequency [1900MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Enabled]
> CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> Core VID [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> Performance Bias [Auto]
> PBO Fmax Enhancer [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Manual]
> PPT Limit [300]
> TDC Limit [235]
> EDC Limit [255]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [50]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> Trcdrd [15]
> Trcdwr [8]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [12]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [24]
> Trc [36]
> TrrdS [4]
> TrrdL [4]
> Tfaw [16]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [8]
> Twr [10]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [3]
> TwrwrScl [3]
> Trfc [232]
> Trfc2 [172]
> Trfc4 [106]
> Tcwl [12]
> Trtp [10]
> Trdwr [10]
> Twrrd [1]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [6]
> TwrwrDd [6]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [4]
> TrdrdDd [4]
> Tcke [1]
> ProcODT [40 ohm]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [RZQ/7]
> RttWr [RZQ/3]
> RttPark [RZQ/1]
> MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
> Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 1]
> CPU Current Capability [140%]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed CPU VRM Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Current Capability [130%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
> CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
> Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CPU Core Voltage [Offset mode]
> 
> Offset Mode Sign [+]
> CPU Core Voltage Offset [0.01250]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.12500]
> DRAM Voltage [1.56500]
> VDDG CCD Voltage Control [0.880]
> VDDG IOD Voltage Control [Auto]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [0.880]
> 1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
> PSS Support [Enabled]
> PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
> NX Mode [Enabled]
> SVM Mode [Disabled]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
> SMART Self Test [Enabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
> PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
> When system is in working state [All On]
> Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
> When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [All On]
> Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Enabled]
> Realtek PXE OPROM [Disabled]
> Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
> Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
> ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
> Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Enabled]
> Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
> USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX16_2 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX16_3 Mode [Auto]
> M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
> M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
> SB Link Mode [Auto]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> Above 4G Decoding [Enabled]
> Re-Size BAR Support [Auto]
> SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
> Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> Corsair Voyager GTX 0 [Auto]
> USB Device Enable [Enabled]
> U32G2_2 [Enabled]
> U32G2_3 [Enabled]
> U32G2_4 [Enabled]
> U32G1_10 [Enabled]
> U32G1_11 [Enabled]
> USB12 [Enabled]
> USB13 [Enabled]
> U32G2_7 [Enabled]
> U32G2_8 [Enabled]
> U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Device [SATA6G_7: Samsung SSD 850 PRO 1TB]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> VRM Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> PCH Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Flow Rate [Monitor]
> CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> CPU Fan Step Up [2.1 sec]
> CPU Fan Step Down [0 sec]
> CPU Fan Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> CPU Fan Profile [Manual]
> CPU Fan Upper Temperature [65]
> CPU Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> CPU Fan Middle Temperature [40]
> CPU Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> CPU Fan Lower Temperature [30]
> CPU Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [50]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Manual]
> Chassis Fan 1 Upper Temperature [60]
> Chassis Fan 1 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 1 Middle Temperature [40]
> Chassis Fan 1 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [90]
> Chassis Fan 1 Lower Temperature [20]
> Chassis Fan 1 Min Duty Cycle (%) [85]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Manual]
> Chassis Fan 2 Upper Temperature [65]
> Chassis Fan 2 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 2 Middle Temperature [45]
> Chassis Fan 2 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Chassis Fan 2 Lower Temperature [40]
> Chassis Fan 2 Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Manual]
> Chassis Fan 3 Upper Temperature [70]
> Chassis Fan 3 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 3 Middle Temperature [45]
> Chassis Fan 3 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 3 Lower Temperature [40]
> Chassis Fan 3 Min Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
> High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
> High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> High Amp Fan Profile [Manual]
> High Amp Fan Upper Temperature [70]
> High Amp Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> High Amp Fan Middle Temperature [60]
> High Amp Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [70]
> High Amp Fan Lower Temperature [30]
> High Amp Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Water Pump+ Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Water Pump+ Upper Temperature [70]
> Water Pump+ Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Water Pump+ Middle Temperature [45]
> Water Pump+ Middle Duty Cycle (%) [70]
> Water Pump+ Lower Temperature [35]
> Water Pump+ Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> AIO Pump Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> AIO Pump Upper Temperature [60]
> AIO Pump Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> AIO Pump Middle Temperature [45]
> AIO Pump Middle Duty Cycle (%) [80]
> AIO Pump Lower Temperature [30]
> AIO Pump Min Duty Cycle (%) [70]
> Above 4GB MMIO Limit [39bit (512GB)]
> Fast Boot [Enabled]
> Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
> Boot Logo Display [Disabled]
> Bootup NumLock State [On]
> POST Report [5 sec]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
> Launch CSM [Disabled]
> OS Type [Other OS]
> AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
> Flexkey [Reset]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> Load from Profile [5]
> Profile Name [bruk meg]
> Save to Profile [1]
> DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
> Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Disabled]
> CPU Frequency [0]
> CPU Voltage [0]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> Core control [Auto]
> SMT Control [Auto]
> Overclock [Enabled ]
> Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
> Tcl [Auto]
> Trcdrd [Auto]
> Trcdwr [Auto]
> Trp [Auto]
> Tras [Auto]
> Trc Ctrl [Auto]
> TrrdS [Auto]
> TrrdL [Auto]
> Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
> TwtrS [Auto]
> TwtrL [Auto]
> Twr Ctrl [Auto]
> Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
> TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
> TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
> Tcwl [Auto]
> Trtp [Auto]
> Tcke [Auto]
> Trdwr [Auto]
> Twrrd [Auto]
> TwrwrSc [Auto]
> TwrwrSd [Auto]
> TwrwrDd [Auto]
> TrdrdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSd [Auto]
> TrdrdDd [Auto]
> ProcODT [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
> ECO Mode [Disable]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
> PBO Limits [Motherboard]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> Curve Optimizer [Per Core]
> Core 0 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [25]
> Core 1 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 2 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 3 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 4 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [25]
> Core 5 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 6 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 7 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 8 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 9 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 10 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 11 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [25]
> Core 12 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 12 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 13 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 13 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 14 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 14 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [25]
> Core 15 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 15 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [0MHz]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
> LN2 Mode [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
> L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
> SMEE [Auto]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> Global C-state Control [Disabled]
> Power Supply Idle Control [Typical Current Idle]
> SEV ASID Count [Auto]
> SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
> Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
> Local APIC Mode [Auto]
> ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
> MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
> PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
> Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
> Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
> RdRand Speedup Disable [Enabled]
> IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
> DRAM scrub time [Auto]
> Poison scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> Memory interleaving [Auto]
> Memory interleaving size [Auto]
> 1TB remap [Auto]
> DRAM map inversion [Auto]
> ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
> GMI encryption control [Auto]
> xGMI encryption control [Auto]
> CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
> 4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> 3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
> PcsCG control [Auto]
> Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
> Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
> CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
> Memory Clear [Auto]
> Overclock [Enabled]
> Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
> Tcl [Auto]
> Trcdrd [Auto]
> Trcdwr [Auto]
> Trp [Auto]
> Tras [Auto]
> Trc Ctrl [Auto]
> TrrdS [Auto]
> TrrdL [Auto]
> Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
> TwtrS [Auto]
> TwtrL [Auto]
> Twr Ctrl [Auto]
> Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
> TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
> TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
> Tcwl [Auto]
> Trtp [Auto]
> Tcke [Auto]
> Trdwr [Auto]
> Twrrd [Auto]
> TwrwrSc [Auto]
> TwrwrSd [Auto]
> TwrwrDd [Auto]
> TrdrdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSd [Auto]
> TrdrdDd [Auto]
> ProcODT [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
> DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Data Poisoning [Auto]
> DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
> RCD Parity [Auto]
> DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
> Write CRC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
> Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
> DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
> DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
> TSME [Auto]
> Data Scramble [Auto]
> DFE Read Training [Auto]
> FFE Write Training [Auto]
> PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
> MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
> CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
> Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
> BankGroupSwap [Auto]
> BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
> Address Hash Bank [Auto]
> Address Hash CS [Auto]
> Address Hash Rm [Auto]
> SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
> MBIST Enable [Disabled]
> Pattern Select [PRBS]
> Pattern Length [6]
> Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
> Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
> Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> IOMMU [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> FCLK Frequency [Auto]
> SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
> UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
> LN2 Mode [Auto]
> ACS Enable [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
> PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
> cTDP Control [Auto]
> EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
> Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
> APBDIS [Auto]
> DF Cstates [Auto]
> CPPC [Auto]
> CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
> NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
> Early Link Speed [Auto]
> Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
> Preferred IO [Auto]
> CV test [Auto]
> Loopback Mode [Auto]
> Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]


----------



## shaolin95

domdtxdissar said:


> Using bios 3003, didn't like 3103.
> EDC upto 265 works, but my cpu gets unstable above 255 in IBT high. (getting ~232-234 in this benchmark)
> 
> My curve optimizer settings are -25 on the 4 best cores, and -30 on the rest.
> No reboots/crashes/WHEA erros.


I may go back to 3003 then. Mind posting the bios dump?
Thanks!


----------



## domdtxdissar

shaolin95 said:


> I may go back to 3003 then. Mind posting the bios dump?
> Thanks!


Bios settings are above your post


----------



## shaolin95

domdtxdissar said:


> Bios settings are above your post


I am blind


----------



## Alemancio

domdtxdissar said:


> Have you tried 300/235/245 ?
> View attachment 2473000
> 
> Screenshot above are from crosshair viii hero wifi + 5950x
> This setup is pulling upwards to 240-250 watts..
> View attachment 2473002


Was there any trick to do 1900 FCLK on your VIII Hero?



domdtxdissar said:


> My curve optimizer settings are -25 on the 4 best cores, and -30 on the rest.
> No reboots/crashes/WHEA erros.


So you're giving your best cores more volts? Wasnt it supposed to be the way around? (higher negative offset to best cores)


----------



## coelacanth

smbell1979 said:


> Just out of curiosity, in the BIOS screen, is anyone else's cpu voltage at ~1.45 just sitting there doing nothing?


Same. Mine sits at ~1.47 in BIOS (5900X in C8DH).


----------



## HoloWS

Audioboxer said:


> The Stilt has suggested some processors just won't take Fmax Enhancer, so I don't think RMA is suitable for me. I'm just trying to figure out if anything can stop idle reboots before giving up on it. When Fmax enhancer is turned off I don't get reboots with PBO as "normal", so that is within AMD spec. Chip isn't faulty I just think I have a weak core that if boosted when idle/on desktop, has a chance to cause a reboot. As I believe Fmax tries to sustain higher clock speeds without increasing the voltage curve, it's likely causing my reboots if a single core boost hits my bad core(s). With most single core boosts coming during idle/desktop and webpage browsing.
> 
> Setting my scalar to 10x with Fmax Enhancer enabled seems to have stabilised things a bit. But again The Stilt recommended against scalar over 5x with Fmax. I guess if I'm seeing any increased idle stability with the scalar at 10x its because background single core boosting voltage is going higher/remaining boosted longer?
> 
> I was running edc bug with 10x scalar OK, but as I said in my post I'm having one last go at Fmax enhancer as it runs things noticeably cooler than edc bug which seems to go all out. Hitting my cores with a big voltage/current spike is obviously enough to keep stability, but I worry about edc bug longer term punishment to chip.
> 
> I'll try some more scalar tweaking, maybe 4~6x before relying on 10x. I will also try LLC4 with the scalar a bit higher. Again, I was reluctant to go above LLC3. My Asus bios maxes out at LLC5.


I was also getting random restarts with Fmax Enhancer enabled _and _disabled while using Scalar 10x / Asus' OC level 3. The only thing that fixed it for me was manually setting CPU SOC Voltage to 1.0 instead of Auto. Haven't had a random restart since. Though I personally keep Fmax off now because it brings instability with applications randomly closing or crashing.

I can only assume in my case the board doesn't like 64GB of memory with DOCP enabled (4 sticks, dual ranked - F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC).


----------



## Audioboxer

HoloWS said:


> I was also getting random restarts with Fmax Enhancer enabled _and _disabled while using Scalar 10x / Asus' OC level 3. The only thing that fixed it for me was manually setting CPU SOC Voltage to 1.0 instead of Auto. Haven't had a random restart since. Though I personally keep Fmax off now because it brings instability with applications randomly closing or crashing.
> 
> I can only assume in my case the board doesn't like 64GB of memory with DOCP enabled (4 sticks, dual ranked - F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC).


I only seem to get them with Fmax Enhancer enabled. I guess my journey with that setting ends here, tried everything possible to get it stable. Upping my scalar seemed to help a bit, but got a few browser crashes instead of reboots now (chrome webpage access violation errors). All gaming is rock stable for hours, as are stability tests/prime95. It's just when single core work is presumably getting done browsing websites/using desktop the crashes or reboots come.

My SOC voltage is at 1.05 as per the DRAM calculator safe settings for my RAM at 1800/3600.

Wish AMD would allow the multicore performance to be pumped up a bit more, my chip is clearly capable on the normal voltage curve. It seems to just be struggling if some single cores get hit with boosting presumably caused by Fmax pushing them a little harder/more consistently.

Only thing I haven't tried is turning off c-states, but I don't want to do that. Defeats the purpose of having these effecient chips. I only turned off the one cstate setting The Stilt recommended (df something I think).

I'm using the 1usmus Ryzen Universal power plan but I don't think it alone would cause instability. More likely its ability to make cores sleep a bit quicker ends up showing my instabilities from sleep -> wake -> boost more frequently.

Guess it's edc bug or normal PBO tuning for me lol.


----------



## Spartoi

domdtxdissar said:


> Using bios 3003, didn't like 3103.
> EDC upto 265 works, but my cpu gets unstable above 255 in IBT high. (getting ~232-234 in this benchmark)
> 
> My curve optimizer settings are -25 on the 4 best cores, and -30 on the rest.
> No reboots/crashes/WHEA erros.


By 4 best cores, do you mean the top 2 per CCD or top 4 overall (regardless of CCD)?


----------



## Gadfly

HoloWS said:


> I was also getting random restarts with Fmax Enhancer enabled _and _disabled while using Scalar 10x / Asus' OC level 3. The only thing that fixed it for me was manually setting CPU SOC Voltage to 1.0 instead of Auto. Haven't had a random restart since. Though I personally keep Fmax off now because it brings instability with applications randomly closing or crashing.
> 
> I can only assume in my case the board doesn't like 64GB of memory with DOCP enabled (4 sticks, dual ranked - F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC).


Lol.... scaler 10x, docp, auto OC 3, That is the instability trio. 

It isn't 64gb of memory, it is the settings you are messing with in the bios.


----------



## PainKiller89

Does the above look right? I am using DOCP with SOC voltage to be 1.1 and Ram Voltage to be 1.4. I have not configured anything else. Please Advise. I am using Asus ROG hero viii with bios 3102.


----------



## shaolin95

Gadfly said:


> Lol.... scaler 10x, docp, auto OC 3, That is the instability trio.
> 
> It isn't 64gb of memory, it is the settings you are messing with in the bios.


I am also running 64GB RAM and it seems I always fail ocing it. Any suggestions on timings to tighten this?


----------



## Gadfly

PainKiller89 said:


> View attachment 2473158
> 
> 
> Does the above look right? I am using DOCP with SOC voltage to be 1.1 and Ram Voltage to be 1.4. I have not configured anything else. Please Advise. I am using Asus ROG hero viii with bios 3102.


Well... it is typical of a docp profile, but those timings are really loose for only 3600, and you are running 2T for some weird reason?

You should have no issues running 1T gear down disabled at 3600C14 with those sticks. Up the proc_odt to 40/43/48 ohm, ClkDrvStr to 40ohm or 60ohm.


----------



## PainKiller89

Gadfly said:


> Well... it is typical of a docp profile, but those timings are really loose for only 3600, and you are running 2T for some weird reason?
> 
> You should have no issues running 1T gear down disabled at 3600C14 with those sticks. Up the proc_odt to 40/43/48 ohm, ClkDrvStr to 40ohm or 60ohm.


This is my default with DOCP












Whenever i change it to 3600 with fclk 1800 with the settings above. I save the changes to the bios. PC turns off and then turns off twice and then it posts failed oc at the bios screen. Any suggestions?


----------



## PJVol

Gadfly said:


> It isn't 64gb of memory, it is the settings you are messing with in the bios.


No, it's not settings. If to what is now set, add lowest Curve offsets and set Boost override to +500, (one may add CPU fan silent mode as well), then it would be settings, but its the board and cpu and 64gb of memory, they all together don't like the owner.


----------



## PJVol

PainKiller89 said:


> am using DOCP


The best what comes to mind - don't ever use it. Assuming your ram chips are b-die, just set all fields in bios to the values from fast preset 3600 in DRAM Calculator and save profile.


----------



## PainKiller89

PJVol said:


> The best what comes to mind - don't ever use it. Assuming your ram chips are b-die, just set all fields in bios to the values from fast preset 3600 in DRAM Calculator and save profile.


I did that as well. Machine does not boot using fast preset 3600 settings.


----------



## PJVol

PainKiller89 said:


> Machine does not boot


What it means "not boot", no POST debug code ? And what cpu settings are?


----------



## PainKiller89

PJVol said:


> What it means "not boot", no POST debug code ? And what cpu settings are?


I have a 5900x with a 3080. ASUS ROG Hero VIII using the bios 3102. Everything default beside DOCP. I went through and set freq to 3600 and fclk to 1800. DRAM Timings i followed all the settings and then set the SOC to be 1.05 and DRam voltage to 1.38. I saved the settings and the screen went black and pc did not restart. Forced turned off and turn back on nothing, i had to clear cmos in order for it to boot again. What am i doing wrong?


----------



## PJVol

Idk, something's seem off with that DOCP, RC should be 48, post your Thaiphoon screen pls.
And try ProcODT 40 at least

Just saw some dude posted what you look for: MSI MEG X570 Unify Overclocking & Discussion Thread


----------



## benbenkr

So for the remaining 3900x owners, how is BIOS 3101/3102 for it?

Stability and performance specifically.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

PainKiller89 said:


> This is my default with DOCP
> 
> View attachment 2473173
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever i change it to 3600 with fclk 1800 with the settings above. I save the changes to the bios. PC turns off and then turns off twice and then it posts failed oc at the bios screen. Any suggestions?


Have you increased your dram voltage? That might be your problem if you haven’t.


----------



## IwannaKnow

benbenkr said:


> So for the remaining 3900x owners, how is BIOS 3101/3102 for it?
> 
> Stability and performance specifically.


Good question, I would also like to know if there is any improvement in the agesa as in the bios for zen2 except the additional Resize bar SAM feature.


----------



## Spartoi

Anyone know where I can find the PPT, TDC, and EDC limits of my motherboard (Crosshair VIII Impact)?


----------



## Gadfly

PJVol said:


> No, it's not settings. If to what is now set, add lowest Curve offsets and set Boost override to +500, (one may add CPU fan silent mode as well), then it would be settings, but its the board and cpu and 64gb of memory, they all together don't like the owner.


No, it is the monkey on the keyboard. 

First you are applying XMP, then you are setter scalar of 10x, and Auto OC level 3.

All three are cause instability and are bad ideas individually, combine all three and it would be shocking if it even posted. Do you even understand what those things do?

Reset you bios to defaults, and go read and understand how memory over clocking works; because if you want to overclock 64gb of ram on AMD you are going to have to do it manually. 

If you want easy and reliable XMP memory overclocking, build an intel system, because you are not going to get it on any current AMD system. Further if you want fast and tight 64gb memory overclocking, you really should look at threadripper so you can run one 16gb dimm per channel; but i would wait for the Zen3 threadripper personally.


----------



## Gadfly

IwannaKnow said:


> Good question, I would also like to know if there is any improvement in the agesa as in the bios for zen2 except the additional Resize bar SAM feature.


If you are running any Zen 2 you should be on bios 1302 and stay there. It is stable and there is zero benefit moving to the Zen 3 bios.


----------



## Gadfly

PainKiller89 said:


> I have a 5900x with a 3080. ASUS ROG Hero VIII using the bios 3102. Everything default beside DOCP. I went through and set freq to 3600 and fclk to 1800. DRAM Timings i followed all the settings and then set the SOC to be 1.05 and DRam voltage to 1.38. I saved the settings and the screen went black and pc did not restart. Forced turned off and turn back on nothing, i had to clear cmos in order for it to boot again. What am i doing wrong?


Set soc at 1.1v, for 3600 MT/s memory, leave fclk on auto.

Can't help much more than that because we don't know what memory kit you have, but most likely you need to set your timings and settings manually.

Don't use docp and ryzen.


----------



## PainKiller89

Gadfly said:


> Set soc at 1.1v, for 3600 MT/s memory, leave fclk on auto.
> 
> Can't help much more than that because we don't know what memory kit you have, but most likely you need to set your timings and settings manually.
> 
> Don't use docp and ryzen.












F4-3200C14-8GFX. Total 4 sticks with total memory of 32GB. Use everything auto and just set the ram stuff?


----------



## Gadfly

PainKiller89 said:


> This is my default with DOCP
> 
> View attachment 2473173
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever i change it to 3600 with fclk 1800 with the settings above. I save the changes to the bios. PC turns off and then turns off twice and then it posts failed oc at the bios screen. Any suggestions?


To run 3600C14 with that kit you will need at least 1.45v dram voltage, which is fine as it is b-die memory.

So set soc at 1.1v, dram voltage at 1.45v, cldo_vddp at .9v, proc_odt at 40 ohm.


----------



## PainKiller89

PJVol said:


> Idk, something's seem off with that DOCP, RC should be 48, post your Thaiphoon screen pls.
> And try ProcODT 40 at least
> 
> Just saw some dude posted what you look for: MSI MEG X570 Unify Overclocking & Discussion Thread


----------



## PainKiller89

Gadfly said:


> To run 3600C14 with that kit you will need at least 1.45v dram voltage, which is fine as it is b-die memory.
> 
> So set soc at 1.1v, dram voltage at 1.45v, cldo_vddp at .9v, proc_odt at 40 ohm.


Leave all other settings the same on DOCP? Just raise the freq to 3600, fclk to 1800 and then set soc at 1.1v, dram voltage at 1.45v, cldo_vddp at .9v, proc_odt at 40 ohm?


----------



## benbenkr

Gadfly said:


> If you are running any Zen 2 you should be on bios 1302 and stay there. It is stable and there is zero benefit moving to the Zen 3 bios.


Well eventually resizable BAR is going to entice 1302 users to upgrade.... no?


----------



## IwannaKnow

benbenkr said:


> Well eventually resizable BAR is going to entice 1302 users to upgrade.... no?


Yeah this was also the reason why I finally updated to a newer Bios than 1302 and with 1302 I got issues with PCIE-4 (soundbugs) got fixed after 1302.
So I´m using now ReSizeBar and it works flawless with Zen2 and 6800XT.

May I know, is it still necessary to activate CPPC and CPPC Preferred Cores manually from AUTO to ENABLED, or is AUTO already enabled with the newest BIOS?
Kind regards


----------



## xeizo

Regarding CPPC, I get better scores when all the CPPC options are enabled, particularly single core. I guess it helps Windows scheduler to find the right cores.


----------



## IwannaKnow

xeizo said:


> Regarding CPPC, I get better scores when all the CPPC options are enabled, particularly single core. I guess it helps Windows scheduler to find the right cores.


So also apdis 1 (=amd cool and quiet = dfcstates enabled and p0 set)
And global cstates too and low current idle, right?
So this still all counts for Zen2 and in my case for 3900x?


----------



## HoloWS

Gadfly said:


> Lol.... scaler 10x, docp, auto OC 3, That is the instability trio.
> 
> It isn't 64gb of memory, it is the settings you are messing with in the bios.


🤷‍♀️ If you say so.

Auto OC 3 sets the scalar to 10x automatically. The C8H motherboard's QVL list has very similar memory to mine on the supported list (64GB across 4 dimms, same speed of 3600hz, same timings) and G.Skill even tested the memory for the rated DOCP speed. My memory OC isn't even on the extreme end to stress the FCLK. I'm even able to do a negative offset of -0.05v on my 3950x's cpu voltage and keep stability with DOCP/OC3.

When SOC is left on Auto, it sets itself below 1.0V according to the bios, which was leading to my random restarts. Since taking advice from someone on this thread to set it to 1.0, it fixed my issue. And it's funny because the random restarts only started to happen after a certain 2xxx bios forward - earlier ones and release bios was fine.

Fmax Enhancer being enabled causing instability is reported all over these forums too, with it crashing browser tabs and random programs. I was getting better results from doing the EDC bug manually instead of using Fmax.

For personal convenience since I like testing bios versions, I'm just using everything default on Auto settings (default pbo enabled), OC3 profile, DOCP enabled, and a forced SOC voltage to fix the random restarts.


----------



## PWn3R

PainKiller89 said:


> Leave all other settings the same on DOCP? Just raise the freq to 3600, fclk to 1800 and then set soc at 1.1v, dram voltage at 1.45v, cldo_vddp at .9v, proc_odt at 40 ohm?


I would suggest you run the Ryzen DRAM Calculator - DRAM Calculator for Ryzen (v1.7.3) Download and find out what settings you need to set using that calculator. Use the excellent guidance from Gadfly for your base settings and tweak from there. I can tell you that I have NOT had success with setting all the timings manually on my specific ram/board. I have set some of the timings and left others on AUTO to get it to post. This is not the advised method, but after 3 hours of messing with nothing but RAM settings and not getting it to post, I have left it there for the time being.

You certainly can set the main timings and other settings outlined by Gadfly and leave the rest on "AUTO" but it's not going to be optimal to be sure. YMMV


----------



## PWn3R

benbenkr said:


> Well eventually resizable BAR is going to entice 1302 users to upgrade.... no?


Resizeable BAR is currently only working with the 5000 series CPUs and 6000 series graphics cards (unless I missed something very recently, which is possible). I'm sure eventually Nvidia will make it work in general based on their commentary, assuming the motherboard manufacturers make it happen.


----------



## Gadfly

I have a request; Is anyone running 2x16GB sticks at 4000 MT/s with Zen3? If so could you share your Zen timings?


----------



## IwannaKnow

PWn3R said:


> Resizeable BAR is currently only working with the 5000 series CPUs and 6000 series graphics cards (unless I missed something very recently, which is possible). I'm sure eventually Nvidia will make it work in general based on their commentary, assuming the motherboard manufacturers make it happen.


Its working with my Zen2 3900x and the latest Beta Bios.


----------



## CyrIng

IwannaKnow said:


> So also apdis 1 (=amd cool and quiet = dfcstates enabled and p0 set)
> And global cstates too and low current idle, right?
> So this still all counts for Zen2 and in my case for 3900x?


apdis is CnQ ? 
Full BIOS name of apdis ? 

Because I'm still looking for the register bit which states the Cool and Quiet feature in Zen.


----------



## DarkrReign2049

Gadfly said:


> I have a request; Is anyone running 2x16GB sticks at 4000 MT/s with Zen3? If so could you share your Zen timings?


Here's mine on a Dark Hero and a 5950x.


----------



## IwannaKnow

CyrIng said:


> apdis is CnQ ?
> Full BIOS name of apdis ?
> 
> Because I'm still looking for the register bit which states the Cool and Quiet feature in Zen.


As for the information I got then yes. U need to set APDIS to 1 then DF-Cstates appear and and a row with P0 State.
Should be also under SMU.


----------



## Gadfly

benbenkr said:


> Well eventually resizable BAR is going to entice 1302 users to upgrade.... no?


Maybe after AMD fixes the bios, until then the 0.02% performance gain you might get in some games isn't really worth it.


----------



## koji

Chili195 said:


> Ah right, yes it does hit the EDC limit. Is it safe to raise that above 200a on the Dark Hero?
> 
> Edit: just saw that your settings used 250 so will try that, thanks.


Hey Chili, just getting back to you on that single core / single thread sustained boost. I've had great succes in the ST area with using the PBO limits a guy linked on reddit. Getting sustained 5.025ghz boosts now, sometimes a drop to 5ghz.

Link

TL;DR: 200/200/130, YMMV


----------



## pclausen

I have a Formula with a 5950X and my rig won't post whenever I try to do any kind of OC'ing. I had the same issue before I upgraded from a 5600X.

I'm on the latest 3101 BIOS.

I start by doing a BIOS reset by pulling the battery and shorting the 2 pins next to the battery holder for about 30 seconds . I then apply these:










After applying the settings and restarting, all I get is the following on the OLED display:

Code E0
BIOS Setup Mode

According to the manual, E0 is "S3 Resume is stared (S3 Resume PPO is called by the DXE IPL)"

The only way to recover at this point, it to pull the battery again. Neither the "Safe Boot" nor the "Retry" buttons lets me post. 

I get the same thing if I drop memory to 3200 and/or change CPU Core Ratio to 45. Playing with different CPU Load-line Calibration levels doesn't help either.

If I just set Ai Overclock Tuner to Auto, I get the following error on the OLED display:

LOAD VGA BIOS

If I set the Ai Overclock Tuner to D.O.C.P. Default, the board is rock stable.

Is my formula defective, or am I missing something obvious?


----------



## jfrob75

Hay guys/gals,
I'm having a weird issue with my computer and want your thoughts on what the issue might be. Out of the blue the computer will just shut down. When this happens the only way to power it back on id by switching the power off at the PS. It does not always turn back on, sometimes there is momentary power then it powers off. Have to repeat until it eventually powers on and stays on. I'm thinking it is the MB but the more I think about it I'm leaning toward a PS issue. Any ideas?


----------



## Outcasst

Having to power cycle the PSU itself before it will turn on the system again is a sign that the OCP has tripped.


----------



## CyrIng

Got this Power, Electrical and Thermal limits code achieved today.

_Still wishing your Ryzen 5900 screenshots (even previous Zen1, TR and EPYC)_


----------



## greg_p

Outcasst said:


> Having to power cycle the PSU itself before it will turn on the system again is a sign that the OCP has tripped.


Could you elaborate on what is OCP?


----------



## jfrob75

Outcasst said:


> Having to power cycle the PSU itself before it will turn on the system again is a sign that the OCP has tripped.


Yea, that is what I was thinking as well. It has become worst so, I swapped changed out the power supply but the issues still persists. My suspicion of the issue being caused by the MB seems to be correct. Have another MB on the way. Prior to this particular issue I occasionally would have the computer stay powered on after initiating a windows shutdown. The only to get it powered down was via the power switch on the PS.

OCP = over current protection.


----------



## greg_p

Thx. Very strange with such VRM stage. I would definitely clearcmos before and after flash because I think this bios is still missing some calibration step as I have very different results on performance with the same bios between 2 flash of the same.


----------



## xeizo

jfrob75 said:


> Yea, that is what I was thinking as well. It has become worst so, I swapped changed out the power supply but the issues still persists. My suspicion of the issue being caused by the MB seems to be correct. Have another MB on the way. Prior to this particular issue I occasionally would have the computer stay powered on after initiating a windows shutdown. The only to get it powered down was via the power switch on the PS.
> 
> OCP = over current protection.


I don't think there is anything wrong with your motherboard, these issues in various form started for like all from the AGESA 1.1.1.0 and onwards on all motherboards and all vendors and both Ryzen 5000 and Ryzen 3000. But Ryzen 5000 problems are more common. In large it can be circumvented by creative settings in bios, but it would be nice if default wasn't unstable hmmm

Much of the problems looks to come from Ryzen boost behavior and current draw limits, AMD seem to have been more generous with later AGESAS to reach performance targets with instability as a result. Older bioses where much more stable, but they didn't extract the last ounce of performance.

edit. I had a similar boot problem with my B550-F today and the latest bios(had to use PSU power button), turned out the bios was stuck at CPU fan warning and I run water cooling. Never happened before. I just turned of CPU fan check("disabled") and now it boots normal. These bioses are pretty buggy still.


----------



## coelacanth

I am having trouble getting Fclk to 1900. I am new to this platform and have been reading this thread, the 24/7 RAM stability thread, and looking through the Google spreadsheet at Zen RAM settings.

Here is what I'm working with:
Asus X570 Crosshair VIII Dark Hero (BIOS 3101 beta)
32GB (2x 16GB) G.Skill Trident Z Neo F4-3800C16D-32GTZN slotted into A2 and B2 per the motherboard manual
Ryzen 9 5900X cooled by Noctua NH-D15S with 2 fans, temps max out around 75C.

Here's what I have done so far:

Entered BIOS, loaded optimized defaults
Reboot
Set DOCP
Set recommended voltages / settings from DRAM Calculator FAST (or RAM overclocking spreadsheet)
VSOC 1.1V
VDIMM set to 1.42V
VDDP 0.95V
VDDG IOD 1.05V
VDDG CCD 1.05V
ProcODT 43.6
CLKDrvStr 24
AddCmdDrvStr 24
CsOdtDrvStr 24
CKEDDrvStr 24
Power Down Mode Disabled
Gear Down Mode Enabled
Command rate 1T
BGS Disabled
BGS Alt Enabled
CPU LLC Level 3
SOC LLC Level 3
PLL 1.8V

Boots into Windows just fine.

Restart, go into BIOS and set FCLK to 1900.

Restart, and I get a black screen.

So far the system has been stable (also with PBO enabled), but when I set Fclk to 1900 and restart, all I get is a black screen and have to clear CMOS to get back up and running. With Fclk at 1800 (default with DOCP Enabled) everything is fine.

I am going to keep reading and fiddling, but any help is appreciated. Part of the problem is that I don't know which settings stabilize Fclk.


----------



## Nizzen

coelacanth said:


> I am having trouble getting Fclk to 1900. I am new to this platform and have been reading this thread, the 24/7 RAM stability thread, and looking through the Google spreadsheet at Zen RAM settings.
> 
> Here is what I'm working with:
> Asus X570 Crosshair VIII Dark Hero (BIOS 3101 beta)
> 32GB (2x 16GB) G.Skill Trident Z Neo F4-3800C16D-32GTZN slotted into A2 and B2 per the motherboard manual
> Ryzen 9 5900X cooled by Noctua NH-D15S with 2 fans, temps max out around 75C.
> 
> Here's what I have done so far:
> 
> Entered BIOS, loaded optimized defaults
> Reboot
> Set DOCP
> Set recommended voltages / settings from DRAM Calculator FAST (or RAM overclocking spreadsheet)
> VSOC 1.05V
> VDIMM set by DOCP to 1.4V
> VDDP 0.9V
> VDDG IOD 1.05V
> VDDG CCD 1.05V
> ProcODT 40
> CLKDrvStr 24
> AddCmdDrvStr 20
> CsOdtDrvStr 24
> CKEDDrvStr 24
> Power Down Mode Disabled
> Gear Down Mode Enabled
> Command rate 1T
> BGS Disabled
> BGS Alt Enabled
> SOC LLC Level 3
> 
> Boots into Windows just fine.
> 
> Restart, go into BIOS and set FCLK to 1900.
> 
> Restart, and I get a black screen.
> 
> So far the system has been stable (also with PBO enabled), but when I set Fclk to 1900 and restart, all I get is a black screen and have to clear CMOS to get back up and running. With Fclk at 1800 (default with DOCP Enabled) everything is fine.
> 
> I am going to keep reading and fiddling, but any help is appreciated. Part of the problem is that I don't know which settings stabilize Fclk.


My 5900x and dark hero hates 3800mhz fclk. I need to use 3733 to get it stable. No matter voltages on SOC, VDDG, "1.8v" etc... It is what it is  I can boot 2000mhz, but it's not even close to be stable.
Even my old 3900x had no problem to get 3800mhz fclk stable, but it looks like either my 5900x sux, or the bios sux  Or both 

I think 5950x has more chance to get 3800mhz+ stable than 5900x due to bins.


----------



## coelacanth

Nizzen said:


> My 5900x and dark hero hates 3800mhz fclk. I need to use 3733 to get it stable. No matter voltages on SOC, VDDG, "1.8v" etc... It is what it is  I can boot 2000mhz, but it's not even close to be stable.
> Even my old 3900x had no problem to get 3800mhz fclk stable, but it looks like either my 5900x sux, or the bios sux  Or both
> 
> I think 5950x has more chance to get 3800mhz+ stable than 5900x due to bins.


Edit: 1866 works but 1900 is still a no go.

Good to know. I will keep trying. on the Zen RAM Overclocking spreadsheet there are 11 16GBx2 entries with with B-Die kits at 1900+ Fclk and 6 of them are 5900X.

I'm not even trying for tight timings yet, so I thought 1900 Fclk wouldn't be that hard. I think I was wrong.


----------



## geekdll

coelacanth said:


> I am having trouble getting Fclk to 1900. I am new to this platform and have been reading this thread, the 24/7 RAM stability thread, and looking through the Google spreadsheet at Zen RAM settings.
> 
> Here is what I'm working with:
> Asus X570 Crosshair VIII Dark Hero (BIOS 3101 beta)
> 32GB (2x 16GB) G.Skill Trident Z Neo F4-3800C16D-32GTZN slotted into A2 and B2 per the motherboard manual
> Ryzen 9 5900X cooled by Noctua NH-D15S with 2 fans, temps max out around 75C.
> 
> Here's what I have done so far:
> 
> Entered BIOS, loaded optimized defaults
> Reboot
> Set DOCP
> Set recommended voltages / settings from DRAM Calculator FAST (or RAM overclocking spreadsheet)
> VSOC 1.05V
> VDIMM set by DOCP to 1.4V
> VDDP 0.9V
> VDDG IOD 1.05V
> VDDG CCD 1.05V
> ProcODT 40
> CLKDrvStr 24
> AddCmdDrvStr 20
> CsOdtDrvStr 24
> CKEDDrvStr 24
> Power Down Mode Disabled
> Gear Down Mode Enabled
> Command rate 1T
> BGS Disabled
> BGS Alt Enabled
> SOC LLC Level 3
> 
> Boots into Windows just fine.
> 
> Restart, go into BIOS and set FCLK to 1900.
> 
> Restart, and I get a black screen.
> 
> So far the system has been stable (also with PBO enabled), but when I set Fclk to 1900 and restart, all I get is a black screen and have to clear CMOS to get back up and running. With Fclk at 1800 (default with DOCP Enabled) everything is fine.
> 
> I am going to keep reading and fiddling, but any help is appreciated. Part of the problem is that I don't know which settings stabilize Fclk.


One thing to keep in mind is that the 5800x is one CCD and the 5900x uses 2. That could play a role with memory. I just check there a beta bios version 3102 that has the updated AGESA 1.1.9.0 which AMD has been claiming will help get stable 1800mhz -1900mhz FCLK. Try it out. Gigabyte has not released this so I cant try it on my Aorus Master and 5900x. But I hope this updated AGESA helps us 5900x owners. Let us know


----------



## RHBH

coelacanth said:


> I am having trouble getting Fclk to 1900. I am new to this platform and have been reading this thread, the 24/7 RAM stability thread, and looking through the Google spreadsheet at Zen RAM settings.
> 
> Here is what I'm working with:
> Asus X570 Crosshair VIII Dark Hero (BIOS 3101 beta)
> 32GB (2x 16GB) G.Skill Trident Z Neo F4-3800C16D-32GTZN slotted into A2 and B2 per the motherboard manual
> Ryzen 9 5900X cooled by Noctua NH-D15S with 2 fans, temps max out around 75C.
> 
> Here's what I have done so far:
> 
> Entered BIOS, loaded optimized defaults
> Reboot
> Set DOCP
> Set recommended voltages / settings from DRAM Calculator FAST (or RAM overclocking spreadsheet)
> VSOC 1.05V
> VDIMM set by DOCP to 1.4V
> VDDP 0.9V
> VDDG IOD 1.05V
> VDDG CCD 1.05V
> ProcODT 40
> CLKDrvStr 24
> AddCmdDrvStr 20
> CsOdtDrvStr 24
> CKEDDrvStr 24
> Power Down Mode Disabled
> Gear Down Mode Enabled
> Command rate 1T
> BGS Disabled
> BGS Alt Enabled
> SOC LLC Level 3
> 
> Boots into Windows just fine.
> 
> Restart, go into BIOS and set FCLK to 1900.
> 
> Restart, and I get a black screen.
> 
> So far the system has been stable (also with PBO enabled), but when I set Fclk to 1900 and restart, all I get is a black screen and have to clear CMOS to get back up and running. With Fclk at 1800 (default with DOCP Enabled) everything is fine.
> 
> I am going to keep reading and fiddling, but any help is appreciated. Part of the problem is that I don't know which settings stabilize Fclk.


I believe it is not recommended to use VSOC = VDDG.

You should keep VSOC at least a 10mV higher than VDDG.


----------



## Elrick

Nizzen said:


> Even my old 3900x had no problem to get 3800mhz fclk stable, but it looks like either my 5900x sux, or the bios sux  Or both


Geez, a newly released 5900X and you're crying on how much you can reliably overclock newly released hardware?

It's going to take multiple bios updates for the specified memory to be used at those speeds, the same with every other motherboard manufacturer.

The old 3800X that I have is great, 100% reliable and of course completely overclockable without any problems. BUT it's an old cpu that has been around for years so doesn't that tell you about the length of time needed to make new hardware reliable?


----------



## LtMatt

domdtxdissar said:


> Bios settings are above your post


Cheers. I went back to 3003 and saw a improvement to my latency vs 3102, not a huge amount but 0.6ns or so.

I am running PBO enabled, PPT, TDC and EDC set to 500.
Scalar x10
Auto OC 50Mhz
Curve Optimizer -24 on two best cores and -30 0n the rest.


----------



## Chili195

koji said:


> Hey Chili, just getting back to you on that single core / single thread sustained boost. I've had great succes in the ST area with using the PBO limits a guy linked on reddit. Getting sustained 5.025ghz boosts now, sometimes a drop to 5ghz.
> 
> Link
> 
> TL;DR: 200/200/130, YMMV


Thanks Koji, I will continue to play around with the EDC limit. I did notice it made some difference to my results but there was a lot of variance so I wasn't sure if it was making things better or worse. I think I managed to get my R20 result up to 646 which I'm broadly happy with. 

I did manage to finalise my Manual OC at 47/46.5 at 1.265v. I'm now trying to nail down my memory overclock which I'm struggling to keep stable at 3800/1900 CL14 but once I figure that out I'll be able to combine it all and hopefully leave things alone 😅


----------



## jfrob75

xeizo said:


> I don't think there is anything wrong with your motherboard, these issues in various form started for like all from the AGESA 1.1.1.0 and onwards on all motherboards and all vendors and both Ryzen 5000 and Ryzen 3000. But Ryzen 5000 problems are more common. In large it can be circumvented by creative settings in bios, but it would be nice if default wasn't unstable hmmm
> 
> Much of the problems looks to come from Ryzen boost behavior and current draw limits, AMD seem to have been more generous with later AGESAS to reach performance targets with instability as a result. Older bioses where much more stable, but they didn't extract the last ounce of performance.
> 
> edit. I had a similar boot problem with my B550-F today and the latest bios(had to use PSU power button), turned out the bios was stuck at CPU fan warning and I run water cooling. Never happened before. I just turned of CPU fan check("disabled") and now it boots normal. These bioses are pretty buggy still.


Yesterday I swapped PS which resulted in the same issue. So I changed out my MB with my GB Extreme which resulted in the same issue. So, I started disconnecting my peripherals and found an issue with the SATA power cable and the devices connected to it was causing the power up issue. The peripherals connected to the SATA cable are one solid state 1TB hard drive and 3 corsair devices used to control fans and RGB. I did determine that my solid state HD is not working. I determined that by using my other PS and just powering the SATA devices from it and they all work, by that I mean it does not trip the PS. However with the SS HD connected the external PS and connected to the computer it is not recognized. I am baffled that the Seasonic it put in the computer is having some weird with SATA powered devices. My D5 water pump is running fine with power via a molex cable from this PS. Anyway, I at least have the computer back up and running.


----------



## Dr Mad

Hello,

This morning, my Asus X570 DH could not boot, it's stuck to Code 98 and I can't enter the bios either.

I tried Clear CMOS but at reboot, same problem.

So I tried to use Bios Flashback (bios renamed to a FAT32 usb stick) and when I press the button, the blue led starts blinking but turns constant blue instead of continuing to blink until the bios flash is complete.

Do you have any idea?

Thanks


----------



## PWn3R

Elrick said:


> Geez, a newly released 5900X and you're crying on how much you can reliably overclock newly released hardware?
> 
> It's going to take multiple bios updates for the specified memory to be used at those speeds, the same with every other motherboard manufacturer.
> 
> The old 3800X that I have is great, 100% reliable and of course completely overclockable without any problems. BUT it's an old cpu that has been around for years so doesn't that tell you about the length of time needed to make new hardware reliable?


Well, to be fair AMD raised prices and started doing the premium for our products thing Intel used to do. I've never seen issues with Intel like ones described in this thread. You want to charge a premium, everything better be bulletproof out the box. Just saying.


----------



## PWn3R

Dr Mad said:


> Hello,
> 
> This morning, my Asus X570 DH could not boot, it's stuck to Code 98 and I can't enter the bios either.
> 
> I tried Clear CMOS but at reboot, same problem.
> 
> So I tried to use Bios Flashback (bios renamed to a FAT32 usb stick) and when I press the button, the blue led starts blinking but turns constant blue instead of continuing to blink until the bios flash is complete.
> 
> Do you have any idea?
> 
> Thanks


Make sure you have the right BIOS and that the file was renamed. It also has to be in the root of the drive.


----------



## PWn3R

Played with this a bit this morning. PLL up to 2.1 and VDDGs to 1.05 with SB 1.05 and SOC 1.15 still will not boot 1900 FCLK on 3102. Some of these 5950s must’ve just got trash IMCs, or whatever controls FCLK. I tried only 2 sticks of ram at 2100 and no reliable post even @1900. 1866 with tight timings works fine even with no voltages changed all on auto except memory set to 1.35


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Elrick

PWn3R said:


> Well, to be fair AMD raised prices and started doing the premium for our products thing Intel used to do. I've never seen issues with Intel like ones described in this thread. You want to charge a premium, everything better be bulletproof out the box. Just saying.


Yeah, Intel are more indeed ready for full operation from the get go, whilst AMD relies upon firmware upgrades on older hardware chipsets. Which has always been a thing with AMD.

With Intel, they introduce a new chipset that runs with their latest releases. Hence, no probs in waiting for updated firmware to run their latest hardware.

Only overclocking memory becomes their final hurdle which is easier within the Intel realm (from what I've seen and heard).


----------



## benbenkr

PWn3R said:


> Well, to be fair AMD raised prices and started doing the premium for our products thing Intel used to do. I've never seen issues with Intel like ones described in this thread. You want to charge a premium, everything better be bulletproof out the box. Just saying.


That's because Intel's current platform is like what now, nearly 6 years old? They haven't changed anything meaningful since skylake. If a 6 year old platform isn't mature enough to "just work", then Intel should just close shop. We'll see how they fare with Rocket Lake, which is then a big reset button for them.

Furthermore, Intel's BIOS codes are very well detailed unlike AMD, this allows motherboard manufacturers to follow basics according to the book. AMD OTOH, their AGESA are full of flaws and band aid solutions. They are never clear about what one parameter does over the other, how one setting is related to another.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Is anything one else seen a jump in temperatures from the 3003 bios - 3102 bios? That’s with a 5950x. Seeing a 10c increase at idle and under load.


----------



## Anulu

Badgerslayer7 said:


> Is anything one else seen a jump in temperatures from the 3003 bios - 3102 bios? That’s with a 5950x. Seeing a 10c increase at idle and under load.


Yes my Temps are a bit higher with Bios 3102 on the CH8 Impact.Just flashed from 3003 last Night.


----------



## kuutale

i use 3101 and 5950x and temps are good like allways


----------



## Fanu

I'm on a 5800X (and strix B550-E with latest 1.1.9.0 agesa)

First I've set curve optimizer to -25 for all cores (-10 for 2 fastest ones), then PBO +100MHz (highest stable)
no loss in performance so far

then I went lowering PPT/TDC/EDC - but as soon as I lowered EDC (its at 100%), AIDA64 memory bench reports much much lower L3 cache speeds (like 50% lower, 200~ instead of 400+) - I've tried with higher EDC values but there was still a performance hit..

Is lower L3 cache speed an issue?

I'm trying to lower PPT/TDC/EDC so I hit lower max temps (below 80C, instead of 90C)


----------



## greg_p

Do not lower current, lower power if you want to lower the temperature.


----------



## coelacanth

PWn3R said:


> Played with this a bit this morning. PLL up to 2.1 and VDDGs to 1.05 with SB 1.05 and SOC 1.15 still will not boot 1900 FCLK on 3102. Some of these 5950s must’ve just got trash IMCs, or whatever controls FCLK. I tried only 2 sticks of ram at 2100 and no reliable post even @1900. 1866 with tight timings works fine even with no voltages changed all on auto except memory set to 1.35
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


My 5900X is the same. I see other people with the same motherboard, same BIOS, same RAM, and same CPU hitting 1900+ Fclk. Mine does 1866 with everything on Auto but I get a black screen no matter how much I tweak when I set it to 1900. So I'm thinking it's down to silicon quality, though I'm definitely not ruling out user error.


----------



## genelecs

coelacanth said:


> My 5900X is the same. I see other people with the same motherboard, same BIOS, same RAM, and same CPU hitting 1900+ Fclk. Mine does 1866 with everything on Auto but I get a black screen no matter how much I tweak when I set it to 1900. So I'm thinking it's down to silicon quality, though I'm definitely not ruling out user error.


I think you, me, @greg_p and @PWn3R are all in the same 1866 FCLK Max club here. 

I presume you get 07 Q-Code when trying 1900 FCLK? Ah well!


----------



## shm0

Hi!
I had random reboots at idle too.
The problem was the Power Supply Idle Control setting.
Setting this to Low Current Idle causes random system reboot at idle (The PSU must support this feature? Some PSUs shutdown power if the current power draw drops below a certain threshold)

Also setting APBDIS = 1 and a fixed SOC P-State disables Clock/P-State switching for the SOC (Disables Cool and Quiet)?
So for low power usage it is better to set APBDIS = 0 ?

Is PBO broken for 3000er CPUs? (B550-E BIOS 1602)
My CPU has a wattage Limit of 105W.
No matter what settings I try, it never pulls more then 105W.
Temps are fine.
Max Boost is below 100 MHz of the max advertised clock.

Only with Fmax enhancer enabled, the CPU actually boosts to its advertised max boost clock.
It also seems to use less power (lower voltage) but I think it is clock stretching because I get weird FPS drops in games with Fmax enabled.

Some older BIOS (cant remember which one ) actually gave me a better boost, around 100 Mhz above the advertised max boost clock. (Single: ~4725, Multi: ~4200)

Also why is the vCore voltage so high in the bios (~1.4V)?
For example, on gigabyte boards, the voltage is around 1V?


----------



## PWn3R

genelecs said:


> I think you, me, @greg_p and @PWn3R are all in the same 1866 FCLK Max club here.
> 
> I presume you get 07 Q-Code when trying 1900 FCLK? Ah well!


So, I either get 07 or the ¿F9? code for memory training. But yes, NOTHING I have tried works, even though Gadfly and others have tried to help. I can run 1866 with no voltage changes at all, no WHEA or anything else, with 4 sticks of ram at 3733. I cannot get 1900 FCLK to boot with 2 sticks of RAM @ 2100 on all auto with any voltage configuration I've tried.


----------



## Chili195

coelacanth said:


> I am having trouble getting Fclk to 1900. I am new to this platform and have been reading this thread, the 24/7 RAM stability thread, and looking through the Google spreadsheet at Zen RAM settings.
> 
> Here is what I'm working with:
> Asus X570 Crosshair VIII Dark Hero (BIOS 3101 beta)
> 32GB (2x 16GB) G.Skill Trident Z Neo F4-3800C16D-32GTZN slotted into A2 and B2 per the motherboard manual
> Ryzen 9 5900X cooled by Noctua NH-D15S with 2 fans, temps max out around 75C.
> 
> Here's what I have done so far:
> 
> Entered BIOS, loaded optimized defaults
> Reboot
> Set DOCP
> Set recommended voltages / settings from DRAM Calculator FAST (or RAM overclocking spreadsheet)
> VSOC 1.1V
> VDIMM set to 1.42V
> VDDP 0.95V
> VDDG IOD 1.05V
> VDDG CCD 1.05V
> ProcODT 43.6
> CLKDrvStr 24
> AddCmdDrvStr 24
> CsOdtDrvStr 24
> CKEDDrvStr 24
> Power Down Mode Disabled
> Gear Down Mode Enabled
> Command rate 1T
> BGS Disabled
> BGS Alt Enabled
> CPU LLC Level 3
> SOC LLC Level 3
> PLL 1.8V
> 
> Boots into Windows just fine.
> 
> Restart, go into BIOS and set FCLK to 1900.
> 
> Restart, and I get a black screen.
> 
> So far the system has been stable (also with PBO enabled), but when I set Fclk to 1900 and restart, all I get is a black screen and have to clear CMOS to get back up and running. With Fclk at 1800 (default with DOCP Enabled) everything is fine.
> 
> I am going to keep reading and fiddling, but any help is appreciated. Part of the problem is that I don't know which settings stabilize Fclk.


I have a similar kit to you (F4-3600-C14 2x16GB) and struggled to get it stress test stable. After much playing around with voltages and timings this is where I have ended up and seems to give me the best runs. In the end setting it all to Auto gave me the following voltages which actually worked, which I then set manually:

VSOC 1.1v
CLDO VDDP 1v
VDDG IOD 1.05v
VDDG CCD 1v










It is tested at 1.5v on the memory but I'd like to reduce the voltages a bit as I'm testing with a fan pointed at the memory as it gets pretty toasty while being tested (over 45 degrees) and I think temperature may have had a say in some of the instability I was getting.


----------



## Chili195

koji said:


> Hey Chili, just getting back to you on that single core / single thread sustained boost. I've had great succes in the ST area with using the PBO limits a guy linked on reddit. Getting sustained 5.025ghz boosts now, sometimes a drop to 5ghz.
> 
> Link
> 
> TL;DR: 200/200/130, YMMV



Okay after a fair bit of playing around these my R20 scores (average of three runs) with different EDC settings:

130 - 644/8800
150 - 645/8948
180 - 644/9050
200 - 645/9035
220 - 643/9042

PPT - 230, TDC - 200, Offset - 50Mhz, CO -21/-23/the rest -30

My conclusion is for single-threaded performance it doesn't have a huge impact for me. I'm pretty happy with 645 though. Only other way I have managed to increase it is by manually setting a higher scalar but I'm not sure about the long-term impact of that so have left it on Auto for now.

Edit: Forgot to mention that lowering EDC did indeed make quite a large impact on L3 cache. EDC at 150 on the left:


----------



## BulletSponge

What is currently considered the most stable BIOS for the CHVIII WiFi at the moment? The last few updates leave me with a black screen at the desktop after BIOS. 

Edit-2602 is getting me back into the desktop fairly consistently now.


----------



## coelacanth

Chili195 said:


> I have a similar kit to you (F4-3600-C14 2x16GB) and struggled to get it stress test stable. After much playing around with voltages and timings this is where I have ended up and seems to give me the best runs. In the end setting it all to Auto gave me the following voltages which actually worked, which I then set manually:
> 
> VSOC 1.1v
> CLDO VDDP 1v
> VDDG IOD 1.05v
> VDDG CCD 1v
> 
> It is tested at 1.5v on the memory but I'd like to reduce the voltages a bit as I'm testing with a fan pointed at the memory as it gets pretty toasty while being tested (over 45 degrees) and I think temperature may have had a say in some of the instability I was getting.


Thank you, I'll give it a try, and check my RAM temps.


----------



## iambkm01

PainKiller89 said:


> This is my default with DOCP
> 
> View attachment 2473173
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever i change it to 3600 with fclk 1800 with the settings above. I save the changes to the bios. PC turns off and then turns off twice and then it posts failed oc at the bios screen. Any suggestions?



Bro I have the SAME ISSUE . I am on 5950x Dark Hero + Latest Beta Bios, I have 3800 CL 14 G Skills, I cannot even be stable at 3733 or 3600, forget about 3800, BSOD plus more. 

I dont know what to do anymore . Can anyone assist me ?


----------



## CyrIng

Any idea why I'm getting the same TDP of 105 W reading at 2 different SMU offsets in bits 24-16 ?



Code:


# ./zencli smu 0x5d2bc
0x005f0023 (6225955)
   60   56   52   48   44   40   36   32   28   24   20   16   12   08   04   00
 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0101 1111 0000 0000 0010 0011

./zencli smu 0x5d2be
0x005f0023 (6225955)
   60   56   52   48   44   40   36   32   28   24   20   16   12   08   04   00
 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0101 1111 0000 0000 0010 0011

Not a Ryzen Master, here's Linux: is there some kind of _Configurable TDP_ ?


----------



## iambkm01

Hi Guys,

I am a beginner, Just got all my parts recently. I attached Zen photos with default / xmp profiles loaded. XMP gives me BSOD, I tried to underclock to 3733 and 3600 and changing frequency to 3600, FCLK to 1800 and timings to 14-15-15-15-35, DRAM voltage to 1.45 - failed.

I tried 3600 with everything else untouched same it crashed. The only setup not crashing is the default / underclocked mode. I am a newbie and do not know what to do. Could someone help me?


----------



## Sindragosaa

Chili195 said:


> Okay after a fair bit of playing around these my R20 scores (average of three runs) with different EDC settings:
> 
> 130 - 644/8800
> 150 - 645/8948
> 180 - 644/9050
> 200 - 645/9035
> 220 - 643/9042
> 
> PPT - 230, TDC - 200, Offset - 50Mhz, CO -21/-23/the rest -30
> 
> My conclusion is for single-threaded performance it doesn't have a huge impact for me. I'm pretty happy with 645 though. Only other way I have managed to increase it is by manually setting a higher scalar but I'm not sure about the long-term impact of that so have left it on Auto for now.
> 
> Edit: Forgot to mention that lowering EDC did indeed make quite a large impact on L3 cache. EDC at 150 on the left:


From my tinkering on the 5950X (200 / 235 / 275) on PBO2 with the follow CO settings -20 best two cores on the first bin and -30 for the remainder.

EDC improved the multi-threaded performance, the higher I set the limit increased the sustained boost clock on multi-threaded loads. Eventually, I was able to get a decent sustained 4.5GHz by increasing EDC, while keeping PPT low at 200 to reduce thermals. 

However, I wasn't sure of the long term impacts of driving such high currents into the CPU over the short term, as the mobo seems to max it out for whatever setting I used, but I found no marginal improvements over a limit of 275A at a PPT of 200W. 

I noticed zero impact of adjusting TDC over the stock value, even though I set mine at 235A, it never utilises more than 50-60%.

So what I would suggest doing to optimise these settings is, find the PPT value which gives you the thermals you are looking for, then raise EDC until you stop getting significant performance gains.


----------



## coelacanth

iambkm01 said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> I am a beginner, Just got all my parts recently. I attached Zen photos with default / xmp profiles loaded. XMP gives me BSOD, I tried to underclock to 3733 and 3600 and changing frequency to 3600, FCLK to 1800 and timings to 14-15-15-15-35, DRAM voltage to 1.45 - failed.
> 
> I tried 3600 with everything else untouched same it crashed. The only setup not crashing is the default / underclocked mode. I am a newbie and do not know what to do. Could someone help me?
> 
> 
> View attachment 2473678
> View attachment 2473680


May be a good idea to update to the latest BIOS then try again.


----------



## iambkm01

coelacanth said:


> May be a good idea to update to the latest BIOS then try again.


Ive been trying since 9am...its 7pm now. Many methods and combinations. Even 3600 isnt stable..


----------



## iambkm01

iambkm01 said:


> Ive been trying since 9am...its 7pm now. Many methods and combinations. Even 3600 isnt stable..


ordered 3600 CL `16 36 gskills to see if that fixes it.


----------



## iambkm01

LtMatt said:


> Cheers. I went back to 3003 and saw a improvement to my latency vs 3102, not a huge amount but 0.6ns or so.
> 
> I am running PBO enabled, PPT, TDC and EDC set to 500.
> Scalar x10
> Auto OC 50Mhz
> Curve Optimizer -24 on two best cores and -30 0n the rest.
> View attachment 2473482
> 
> 
> View attachment 2473483


hi i have the same exact build and i cannot get my pc ot be stable. would it be safe if i copied every single option you have into mine?

Asus Dark Hero, 5950x, latest beta bios, gskills 3800 cl 14,


----------



## LtMatt

iambkm01 said:


> hi i have the same exact build and i cannot get my pc ot be stable. would it be safe if i copied every single option you have into mine?
> 
> Asus Dark Hero, 5950x, latest beta bios, gskills 3800 cl 14,


Unlikely my soc voltage is lower than everyone else’s I’ve seen at 1.000v.

I'm also only using two Dual rank dimns, my CPU does not like 4, so using two was the only way I could get 3800 CL14 stable.


----------



## koji

So, anyone figured out a workaround for still using PBO with limits and maintaining L3 cache speed on agesa 1.1.9.0? Thought I had it solved but it was just my dark hero going in to manual OC mode while AIDA was running...


----------



## koji

Chili195 said:


> Okay after a fair bit of playing around these my R20 scores (average of three runs) with different EDC settings:
> 
> 130 - 644/8800
> 150 - 645/8948
> 180 - 644/9050
> 200 - 645/9035
> 220 - 643/9042
> 
> PPT - 230, TDC - 200, Offset - 50Mhz, CO -21/-23/the rest -30
> 
> My conclusion is for single-threaded performance it doesn't have a huge impact for me. I'm pretty happy with 645 though. Only other way I have managed to increase it is by manually setting a higher scalar but I'm not sure about the long-term impact of that so have left it on Auto for now.
> 
> Edit: Forgot to mention that lowering EDC did indeed make quite a large impact on L3 cache. EDC at 150 on the left:


Hey man, I have very similar results, landed on these myself:

200/200/140 * +75mhz offset * CO All cores -22 (on bios 3102)

CB20: 9009 multi / 644 Single

Dynamic OC has been causing me a lot of headaches, it's a ***** to get stable cause you are basically messing with two different things at the same time. I have a 8 hour realbench stable manual profile, just dialing in those settings and enabling DOC and I can't even pass a couple realbench runs. Not even using PBO or anything, just the stock boost, no CO shenanigans or whatever. I've also noticed that it doesn't properly drop out of DOC too. When I'm playing wow eventually it just gets stuck in the doc/manual OC. The whole thing feels pretty buggy, hope they manage to iron it out a bit more. You can configure some stuff like how fast it should switch between stock and doc, maybe I should try messing with that but that doesn't solve the stability issues. It's stable in regular day to day usage though but crapping out in stresstests and it's been driving me crazy. 

Anyway, tl;dr, I went back to just a tweaked PBO profile but now I have this stupid busted L3 cache thing due to my PBO limits... I'd just run a static profile but I don't want to sacrifice that nice single thread speed, which is the stuff I really need for my day to day use... It's always something isn't it. My manual OC landed on 1.230vcore / llc3 / 46.75 & 45.75. (but I can't get that to pass 8hours Realbench on anything else like bios 3003 and with bios 3003 I have ****ty results with PBO... Man I can just keep bitching really 

Going to try and wait for a while and hope some more stable/consistent bios versions get released. That DOC + stock boost not being stable is worrysome though, well, unstable in stresstests anyway.

Quite the rant, sorry.


----------



## CyrIng

CyrIng said:


> Any idea why I'm getting the same TDP of 105 W reading at 2 different SMU offsets in bits 24-16 ?
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> # ./zencli smu 0x5d2bc
> 0x005f0023 (6225955)
> 60   56   52   48   44   40   36   32   28   24   20   16   12   08   04   00
> 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0101 1111 0000 0000 0010 0011
> 
> ./zencli smu 0x5d2be
> 0x005f0023 (6225955)
> 60   56   52   48   44   40   36   32   28   24   20   16   12   08   04   00
> 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0101 1111 0000 0000 0010 0011
> 
> Not a Ryzen Master, here's Linux: is there some kind of _Configurable TDP_ ?


Investigation on 3950X reveals that 4 consecutive offsets report the same SMU register value. 
This lets me think that the base address is somehow cluster modulo: l bet the CCX topology, in addition to CCD at _large_ offset. 

Any Temperature , Voltage, Power tests from Ryzen, Threadripper and EPYC will be helpful : development at github.com/cyring/CoreFreq/tree/develop


----------



## xeizo

koji said:


> So, anyone figured out a workaround for still using PBO with limits and maintaining L3 cache speed on agesa 1.1.9.0? Thought I had it solved but it was just my dark hero going in to manual OC mode while AIDA was running...


No, I tried a lot of settings yesterday, looks like Motherboard Limits is the best compromise between ST/MT/Power/L3 which I'm sure Asus knows. L3 is pegged at 500 with MB Limits, lower limits tanks it down to 300, higher limits tanks ST/MT. At EDC 500 it is indeed 1100, but ST/MT is way bad and powerlimit tanks.


----------



## metalshark

iambkm01 said:


> Bro I have the SAME ISSUE . I am on 5950x Dark Hero + Latest Beta Bios, I have 3800 CL 14 G Skills, I cannot even be stable at 3733 or 3600, forget about 3800, BSOD plus more.
> 
> I dont know what to do anymore . Can anyone assist me ?


On the Formula had to set DRAM R1-R4 Tune to 47 with Gear Down Mode enabled to get things stable (4000MHz CL15 G-Skill kit running at 3800MHz C14).


----------



## koji

xeizo said:


> No, I tried a lot of settings yesterday, looks like Motherboard Limits is the best compromise between ST/MT/Power/L3 which I'm sure Asus knows. L3 is pegged at 500 with MB Limits, lower limits tanks it down to 300, higher limits tanks ST/MT. At EDC 500 it is indeed 1100, but ST/MT is way bad and powerlimit tanks.


Thanks for the reply xeizo, yeah I really need to keep EDC in check to keep my temps under control. But I end up with a L3 cache speed of 300something indeed. I wonder about the real world effects of this though but I would rather see a bigger number there anyway.


----------



## metalshark

If it helps anyone here are my max stable scalars on a 5950X using a Crosshair VIII Formula. The negative voltage offset is on the left, the negative all core curve is along right. I've not populated every setting because stability testing takes a LONG time. Green are 10X scalars with yellow being lower scalars

I am getting best results with TDC at 230A, then found my best core, set it to -30 curve magnitude, finding the most negative voltage offset, then tuning the max negative magnitude for the remaining cores.

Over 230A TDC I can start to hit the 140% current capability limit and am in no mood to deal with LN2 mode (it changes too much).

BIOS 3102 has let me reach 1900IF/3800DRAM, whereas was stuck on 1866IF/3733DRAM prior.

*230A TDC*









*270A TDC*


----------



## greg_p

deleted


----------



## greg_p

koji said:


> Thanks for the reply xeizo, yeah I really need to keep EDC in check to keep my temps under control. But I end up with a L3 cache speed of 300something indeed. I wonder about the real world effects of this though but I would rather see a bigger number there anyway.


The solution is to stop using aida test, as the issue may be the way aida test is done. I mean real world performanc is a mix of all cache and memory and loosing stability for 0.1% or the real performance because is a nice figure to show, is a loss of time.


----------



## xeizo

greg_p said:


> The solution is to stop using aida test, as the issue may be the way aida test is done. I mean real world performanc is a mix of all cache and memory and loosing stability for 0.1% or the real performance because is a nice figure to show, is a loss of time.


Motherboard Limits gives me the best Geekbench ST at 1755, MT is hurt a little but less important imho.


----------



## Blizzard518

Hello guys, my latest home build is with 5900x and CH8H, AIO Arctic Freezer II 360mm and using last bios 3102 Beta i found some problems with my previous Bios 3003.
I'll try to explain you but I'm not sure would be clear for everyone.
In Bios my temp are too high around 50 degree (with room temps around 22) also after that when windows loading, I'm waiting in next 5-10 mins in idle, my temps are too high around 44-50 degree. Reading with Hwinfo64 CPU Tdie. VRM temps are low during high load are under 30 degree.

Now I'm trying to optimize the curve but can't reach any benefits from there (attached below are my current bios settings). Max Tdie during CB20 MT is 81+ degree.
CB20 ST 644 MT 9005. Core boost still can't touch 5000mhz in heavy load under ST CB20, during this benchmark stay around 4950 and my effective clock speed is around 4940mhz.
I have made many different curve settings, voltage offset from +0.0125 till +0.050 but the score never change and temps still stay too high for me.
Curve generally behaves as follows:
-5 All core (Vcore Auto) - zero benefits
-10 All core (Vcore Auto) - zero benefits
-15 All Core (Vcore offset + 0.0125 or raise CPU LLC) - zero benefits
-20 per core best core -5 / -10 rest -20 (Vcore offset + 0.0250) - zero benefits
-25 per core best core -10 / -15 rest -25 (Vcore offset +0.0375) - zero benefits
-30 All core - it doesn't work, I have to put Vcore offset +0.05 and increasing of LLC Lvl 3- but I haven't tested in depth what happened, but there will hardly be any benefit, respectively to the previous experience. Made fast checking of temps and CB20 score are the same.
-30 Per Core - can be seen below.
Doesn't matter these settings because effective clock speed don't exceed more than 4940. Even when increasing Max Boost clock speed with 50, CPU clock speed touch 5000mhz during browsing, but never in CB20 ST there is again 4950 , effective clock speed is the same 4940mhz. With Max Boost 100, CPU spd touching 5050mhz during browsing but in heavy loads is again 4950 and respectively effective clock speed is 4940.
Maybe somewhere I wrong, but 3 days in testing with curve and I can't see any benefits. I'm open for any suggestions. Maybe the key is near another bios settings like CPPC, PPC, DF C state, C-state etc., i don't know.
Forgot to specify about RAM settings: Gskill Trident Z F4-3200C14D-16GTZRX B-die with 3800C16 16 16 and tight sub timings is a rock solid this setup never seen any errors of course fully tested after every new bios. 

With my previous bios 3003 - Bios, without curve, temps were in idle 25-26, in CB20 MT 62-3 degree. There didn't played a lot with the curve because any changes made my system unstable.
CB20 ST 641 MT 8500 - can be compared with this famous "Curve Optimizer"
I saw that if have any score differences, are when my effective clock speed is close or the same like CPU clock speed.


----------



## koji

Blizzard518 said:


> Hello guys, my latest home build is with 5900x and CH8H, AIO Arctic Freezer II 360mm and using last bios 3102 Beta i found some problems with my previous Bios 3003.
> I'll try to explain you but I'm not sure would be clear for everyone.
> In Bios my temp are too high around 50 degree (with room temps around 22) also after that when windows loading, I'm waiting in next 5-10 mins in idle, my temps are too high around 44-50 degree. Reading with Hwinfo64 CPU Tdie. VRM temps are low during high load are under 30 degree.
> 
> Now I'm trying to optimize the curve but can't reach any benefits from there (attached below are my current bios settings). Max Tdie during CB20 MT is 81+ degree.
> CB20 ST 644 MT 9005. Core boost still can't touch 5000mhz in heavy load under ST CB20, during this benchmark stay around 4950 and my effective clock speed is around 4940mhz.
> I have made many different curve settings, voltage offset from +0.0125 till +0.050 but the score never change and temps still stay too high for me.
> Curve generally behaves as follows:
> -5 All core (Vcore Auto) - zero benefits
> -10 All core (Vcore Auto) - zero benefits
> -15 All Core (Vcore offset + 0.0125 or raise CPU LLC) - zero benefits
> -20 per core best core -5 / -10 rest -20 (Vcore offset + 0.0250) - zero benefits
> -25 per core best core -10 / -15 rest -25 (Vcore offset +0.0375) - zero benefits
> -30 All core - it doesn't work, I have to put Vcore offset +0.05 and increasing of LLC Lvl 3- but I haven't tested in depth what happened, but there will hardly be any benefit, respectively to the previous experience. Made fast checking of temps and CB20 score are the same.
> -30 Per Core - can be seen below.
> Doesn't matter these settings because effective clock speed don't exceed more than 4940. Even when increasing Max Boost clock speed with 50, CPU clock speed touch 5000mhz during browsing, but never in CB20 ST there is again 4950 , effective clock speed is the same 4940mhz. With Max Boost 100, CPU spd touching 5050mhz during browsing but in heavy loads is again 4950 and respectively effective clock speed is 4940.
> Maybe somewhere I wrong, but 3 days in testing with curve and I can't see any benefits. I'm open for any suggestions. Maybe the key is near another bios settings like CPPC, PPC, DF C state, C-state etc., i don't know.
> Forgot to specify about RAM settings: Gskill Trident Z F4-3200C14D-16GTZRX B-die with 3800C16 16 16 and tight sub timings is a rock solid this setup never seen any errors of course fully tested after every new bios.
> 
> With my previous bios 3003 - Bios, without curve, temps were in idle 25-26, in CB20 MT 62-3 degree. There didn't played a lot with the curve because any changes made my system unstable.
> CB20 ST 641 MT 8500 - can be compared with this famous "Curve Optimizer"
> I saw that if have any score differences, are when my effective clock speed is close or the same like CPU clock speed.


Hey man, those CB20 scores are perfectly normal/fine for a 5900x.

Keep in mind that when you start messing with LLC and + vcore offsets you are also impacting your Curve Optimizer, I'd try to run without LLC and certainly without any kind of voltage offset. Enabling any kind of LLC will result in higher voltages which you have to offset again with CO, it's useless basically for stability testing / finding the low points of your CO.

I also have an arctic freezer 2 360mm and have similar temps in the bios btw. You could try setting some manual limits for PBO, I had some luck regarding temps and sustained single core boost (following those temps) with capping EDC a bit but honestly, getting more than 645/9000 cinebench20 without going in the real deep end of manually optimizing every core with CO is normal/good man.


----------



## greg_p

Blizzard518 said:


> Hello guys, my latest home build is with 5900x and CH8H, AIO Arctic Freezer II 360mm and using last bios 3102 Beta i found some problems with my previous Bios 3003.
> I'll try to explain you but I'm not sure would be clear for everyone.
> In Bios my temp are too high around 50 degree (with room temps around 22) also after that when windows loading, I'm waiting in next 5-10 mins in idle, my temps are too high around 44-50 degree. Reading with Hwinfo64 CPU Tdie. VRM temps are low during high load are under 30 degree.
> 
> Now I'm trying to optimize the curve but can't reach any benefits from there (attached below are my current bios settings). Max Tdie during CB20 MT is 81+ degree.
> CB20 ST 644 MT 9005. Core boost still can't touch 5000mhz in heavy load under ST CB20, during this benchmark stay around 4950 and my effective clock speed is around 4940mhz.
> I have made many different curve settings, voltage offset from +0.0125 till +0.050 but the score never change and temps still stay too high for me.
> Curve generally behaves as follows:
> -5 All core (Vcore Auto) - zero benefits
> -10 All core (Vcore Auto) - zero benefits
> -15 All Core (Vcore offset + 0.0125 or raise CPU LLC) - zero benefits
> -20 per core best core -5 / -10 rest -20 (Vcore offset + 0.0250) - zero benefits
> -25 per core best core -10 / -15 rest -25 (Vcore offset +0.0375) - zero benefits
> -30 All core - it doesn't work, I have to put Vcore offset +0.05 and increasing of LLC Lvl 3- but I haven't tested in depth what happened, but there will hardly be any benefit, respectively to the previous experience. Made fast checking of temps and CB20 score are the same.
> -30 Per Core - can be seen below.
> Doesn't matter these settings because effective clock speed don't exceed more than 4940. Even when increasing Max Boost clock speed with 50, CPU clock speed touch 5000mhz during browsing, but never in CB20 ST there is again 4950 , effective clock speed is the same 4940mhz. With Max Boost 100, CPU spd touching 5050mhz during browsing but in heavy loads is again 4950 and respectively effective clock speed is 4940.
> Maybe somewhere I wrong, but 3 days in testing with curve and I can't see any benefits. I'm open for any suggestions. Maybe the key is near another bios settings like CPPC, PPC, DF C state, C-state etc., i don't know.
> Forgot to specify about RAM settings: Gskill Trident Z F4-3200C14D-16GTZRX B-die with 3800C16 16 16 and tight sub timings is a rock solid this setup never seen any errors of course fully tested after every new bios.
> 
> With my previous bios 3003 - Bios, without curve, temps were in idle 25-26, in CB20 MT 62-3 degree. There didn't played a lot with the curve because any changes made my system unstable.
> CB20 ST 641 MT 8500 - can be compared with this famous "Curve Optimizer"
> I saw that if have any score differences, are when my effective clock speed is close or the same like CPU clock speed.


These are good scores for a 5900x.


----------



## Blizzard518

koji said:


> Hey man, those CB20 scores are perfectly normal/fine for a 5900x.
> 
> Keep in mind that when you start messing with LLC and + vcore offsets you are also impacting your Curve Optimizer, I'd try to run without LLC and certainly without any kind of voltage offset. Enabling any kind of LLC will result in higher voltages which you have to offset again with CO, it's useless basically for stability testing / finding the low points of your CO.
> 
> I also have an arctic freezer 2 360mm and have similar temps in the bios btw. You could try setting some manual limits for PBO, I had some luck regarding temps and sustained single core boost (following those temps) with capping EDC a bit but honestly, getting more than 645/9000 cinebench20 without going in the real deep end of manually optimizing every core with CO is normal/good man.


At the moment PBO settings are manual with: 
PBO Limits [Manual]
PPT Limit [W] [200]
TDC Limit [A] [200]
EDC Limit [A] [130]
I found somewhere advice to investigate sweet spot for EDC limits and mine s 130, at the moment PBO during CB20 MT is the next:
PPT Limit [W] [200] - 200W
TDC Limit [A] [200] - 129A
EDC Limit [A] [130] - 130A
Тhe only thing that comes to my mind for reducing the temps is to put PPT on standard limits and I'll see how reflect on the effective clock speed. 
Also I'll set LLC and Vcore offset on Auto and reduce current curve because is too aggressive maybe because over -15 i need to add Vcore offset between 0.025 and 0.05. 
The problems using curve in my case is that i have a high temps in Idle and Full load and same result in CB20 compared with Bios 3003 were didn't used curve because were unstable.
BIOS 3003 without curve CB20 ST 641, About MT don't care me there isn't important. Temps min in Idle 25, max 63 in CB 20 MT bench
BIOS 3102 with curve CB20 ST 644, About MT don't care me there isn't important. Temps in Idle 48, max 83 in CB20 MT bench. Absolutely no sense to use it this curve, until find where I wrong, 20 degree increasing in temp for 3 point difference in ST, i think isn't reasonable. Also this 50 degree in BIOS without to use PC are even no comment.


----------



## koji

Blizzard518 said:


> At the moment PBO settings are manual with:
> PBO Limits [Manual]
> PPT Limit [W] [200]
> TDC Limit [A] [200]
> EDC Limit [A] [130]
> I found somewhere advice to investigate sweet spot for EDC limits and mine s 130, at the moment PBO during CB20 MT is the next:
> PPT Limit [W] [200] - 200W
> TDC Limit [A] [200] - 129A
> EDC Limit [A] [130] - 130A
> Тhe only thing that comes to my mind for reducing the temps is to put PPT on standard limits and I'll see how reflect on the effective clock speed.
> Also I'll set LLC and Vcore offset on Auto and reduce current curve because is too aggressive maybe because over -15 i need to add Vcore offset between 0.025 and 0.05.
> The problems using curve in my case is that i have a high temps in Idle and Full load and same result in CB20 compared with Bios 3003 were didn't used curve because were unstable.
> BIOS 3003 without curve CB20 ST 641, About MT don't care me there isn't important. Temps min in Idle 25, max 63 in CB 20 MT bench
> BIOS 3102 with curve CB20 ST 644, About MT don't care me there isn't important. Temps in Idle 48, max 83 in CB20 MT bench. Absolutely no sense to use it this curve, until find where I wrong, 20 degree increasing in temp for 3 point difference in ST, i think isn't reasonable. Also this 50 degree in BIOS without to use PC are even no comment.


Your idle temps should properly drop down once in windows though. Did you mess with your C-states? What power plan do you have in windows? Maybe you have something constantly keeping the CPU in boost mode? (piece of software?)


----------



## Blizzard518

koji said:


> Your idle temps should properly drop down once in windows though. Did you mess with your C-states? What power plan do you have in windows? Maybe you have something constantly keeping the CPU in boost mode? (piece of software?)


Global C-State control - Disable
PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
DF Cstates [Disabled]
CPPC [Enabled]
CPPC Preferred Cores [Enabled]
PBO Fmax Enhancer [Disabled]
Power supply Idle control - Auto

Windows PwrPlan- High performance


----------



## Chili195

Blizzard518 said:


> At the moment PBO settings are manual with:
> PBO Limits [Manual]
> PPT Limit [W] [200]
> TDC Limit [A] [200]
> EDC Limit [A] [130]
> I found somewhere advice to investigate sweet spot for EDC limits and mine s 130, at the moment PBO during CB20 MT is the next:
> PPT Limit [W] [200] - 200W
> TDC Limit [A] [200] - 129A
> EDC Limit [A] [130] - 130A
> Тhe only thing that comes to my mind for reducing the temps is to put PPT on standard limits and I'll see how reflect on the effective clock speed.
> Also I'll set LLC and Vcore offset on Auto and reduce current curve because is too aggressive maybe because over -15 i need to add Vcore offset between 0.025 and 0.05.
> The problems using curve in my case is that i have a high temps in Idle and Full load and same result in CB20 compared with Bios 3003 were didn't used curve because were unstable.
> BIOS 3003 without curve CB20 ST 641, About MT don't care me there isn't important. Temps min in Idle 25, max 63 in CB 20 MT bench
> BIOS 3102 with curve CB20 ST 644, About MT don't care me there isn't important. Temps in Idle 48, max 83 in CB20 MT bench. Absolutely no sense to use it this curve, until find where I wrong, 20 degree increasing in temp for 3 point difference in ST, i think isn't reasonable. Also this 50 degree in BIOS without to use PC are even no comment.


I think your results are pretty good, this is the most I've squeezed out of the 5900x too. Your temps are similar to mine too, and I had the same observations about temps in the BIOS. I find PBO in MT work gets pretty toasty compared to a Manual OC. Adding a vCore offset probably doesn't help with the temps though.


----------



## Chili195

koji said:


> Hey man, I have very similar results, landed on these myself:
> 
> 200/200/140 * +75mhz offset * CO All cores -22 (on bios 3102)
> 
> CB20: 9009 multi / 644 Single
> 
> Dynamic OC has been causing me a lot of headaches, it's a *** to get stable cause you are basically messing with two different things at the same time. I have a 8 hour realbench stable manual profile, just dialing in those settings and enabling DOC and I can't even pass a couple realbench runs. Not even using PBO or anything, just the stock boost, no CO shenanigans or whatever. I've also noticed that it doesn't properly drop out of DOC too. When I'm playing wow eventually it just gets stuck in the doc/manual OC. The whole thing feels pretty buggy, hope they manage to iron it out a bit more. You can configure some stuff like how fast it should switch between stock and doc, maybe I should try messing with that but that doesn't solve the stability issues. It's stable in regular day to day usage though but crapping out in stresstests and it's been driving me crazy.
> 
> Anyway, tl;dr, I went back to just a tweaked PBO profile but now I have this stupid busted L3 cache thing due to my PBO limits... I'd just run a static profile but I don't want to sacrifice that nice single thread speed, which is the stuff I really need for my day to day use... It's always something isn't it. My manual OC landed on 1.230vcore / llc3 / 46.75 & 45.75. (but I can't get that to pass 8hours Realbench on anything else like bios 3003 and with bios 3003 I have ****ty results with PBO... Man I can just keep bitching really
> 
> Going to try and wait for a while and hope some more stable/consistent bios versions get released. That DOC + stock boost not being stable is worrysome though, well, unstable in stresstests anyway.
> 
> Quite the rant, sorry.



Ah this sucks. I will hopefully be able to finalise my RAM this week and then will combine it all together with DOC and let you know how it goes.

If it is buggy I'd probably be just happy sticking with PBO. With the curve optimiser especially now the gap between PBO and Manual OC for all core work seems to be getting smaller and smaller.


----------



## Gadfly

Any word on the ComboPI 1.2.0.0 bios yet? MSI dropped them today.


----------



## Sindragosaa

*5950X - BIOS 3102 - Curve Optimiser (CO) Results with negative VCORE offset.*

PBO Offset +0MHz
PBO Limits [Manual]
PPT Limit [W] - 200
TDC Limit [A] - 255
EDC Limit [A] - 275

CO Offsets = -20 best two cores on CCD0, -30 all other cores on CCD0 & CCD1

*CPU Power Settings:*
VCORE Voltage Offset = negative 0.01250V (-0.0125) 
CPU LLC = AUTO
VDDSOC LLC = LLC 3
CPU CURRENT = MAX
DRAM CURRENT = MAX
CPU / DRAM Power Phase Control = Extreme

*Results: *


CPUID: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @ 4548.94 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR
achieving over 5GHz on all cores in CCD0, max boost is 5.05GHz
achieving over 4.9Ghz on all cores in CCD1, max boost is 4.975GHz
Sustained effective all core boost is 4.525-533GHz under multi-threaded stress tests (which is very close to my manual OC of 46/45). 
Temps are <80 degC 
So far it is stable, with an uptime of nearly 18 hours with mixed loads and being left on over night doing nothing.


----------



## PWn3R

Gadfly said:


> Any word on the ComboPI 1.2.0.0 bios yet? MSI dropped them today.


Is that the one that is supposed to help with IF overclocking? I see people saying 1.1.9.0 and others saying 1.2.0.0.


----------



## shamino1978

Gadfly said:


> Any word on the ComboPI 1.2.0.0 bios yet? MSI dropped them today.











ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-3201.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com












ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3201.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com












ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3201.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com












ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3201.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com












ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3201.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com


----------



## metalshark

Sindragosaa said:


> *5950X - BIOS 3102 - Curve Optimiser (CO) Results with negative VCORE offset.*
> 
> PBO Offset +0MHz
> PBO Limits [Manual]
> PPT Limit [W] - 200
> TDC Limit [A] - 255
> EDC Limit [A] - 275
> 
> CO Offsets = -20 best two cores on CCD0, -30 all other cores on CCD0 & CCD1
> 
> *CPU Power Settings:*
> VCORE Voltage Offset = negative 0.01250V (-0.0125)
> CPU LLC = AUTO
> VDDSOC LLC = LLC 3
> CPU CURRENT = MAX
> DRAM CURRENT = MAX
> CPU / DRAM Power Phase Control = Extreme
> 
> *Results: *
> 
> 
> CPUID: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @ 4548.94 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR
> achieving over 5GHz on all cores in CCD0, max boost is 5.05GHz
> achieving over 4.9Ghz on all cores in CCD1, max boost is 4.975GHz
> Sustained effective all core boost is 4.525-533GHz under multi-threaded stress tests (which is very close to my manual OC of 46/45).
> Temps are <80 degC
> So far it is stable, with an uptime of nearly 18 hours with mixed loads and being left on over night doing nothing.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2473852


Great looking numbers. If possible it would be great to know the actual max TDC you’re hitting and what the all core speeds are under Prime95 Small Torture test please.


----------



## xeizo

shamino1978 said:


> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-3201.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3201.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3201.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3201.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3201.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


Thanks! Will be interesting indeed, any changelog?


----------



## xeizo

The new bios 3201 works fine so far, running 3800MHz ram booted at first try. Performance looks to be exactly in line with previous bios and same settings. No regression. I'm regularly getting over 1750p ST in Geekbench 5 now, which should be good.

One things that bugs me about the WHEA error thing, I haven't had any sudden reboot for days now using the previous bios and this and I only get 1 WHEA error per session. It's when running CPUZ the first time, I always get 1 WHEA. Running CPUZ multiple times doesn't generate any more WHEA. No other application generates any WHEA. One wonders, what's so strange about running CPUZ?

L3 is about the same as always at EDC 200, it goes up by raising EDC but then ST goes down. I believe ST is more important. Latency is improved by ca 0.5ns and almost back to the first 5000 bioses.


----------



## metalshark

New 3201 BIOS, up from 1900IF to 2000IF finally!!! RAM stability is all over the shop above 3800 though (could hit 4000 easy with 1900IF on previous BIOS). Having to up SoC and CCD voltages to get to 2000IF.


----------



## kuutale

metalshark said:


> New 3201 BIOS, up from 1900IF to 2000IF finally!!! RAM stability is all over the shop above 3800 though (could hit 4000 easy with 1900IF on previous BIOS). Having to up SoC and CCD voltages to get to 2000IF.


what voltages u need 1900flck, i cant get it working its allways 07 postcode and need do cmos clear and try again? Any advice?


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

shamino1978 said:


> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-3201.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3201.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3201.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3201.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3201.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


Thanks Shamino! Is this BIOs a beta also?


----------



## metalshark

kuutale said:


> what voltages u need 1900flck, i cant get it working its allways 07 postcode and need do cmos clear and try again? Any advice?


For 1900IF/3800MHz on BIOS 3103 I used:
SoC 1.10625
DRAM 1.5
VDDG CCD 0.915
VDDG IOD 0.995
CLDO VDDP 0.975

For 2000IF on BIOS 3201 I am using (not tuned just played this morning):
SoC 1.2
DRAM 1.5
VDDG CCD 1.05
VDDG IOD 1.05
CLDO VDDP 1

Both with SoC on 500khz manual switching with an ultra fast phase response and an LLC of 3.

I only CMOS clear if known good results aren't booting or it doesn't go into recovery on a bad combo of settings. With profiles its not too long to recover.

Setting DRAM R1-4 Tune values in the Tweaker's Paradise menu (default is 63) was the real game changer for DRAM stability at better timings/higher speeds. The advice is to set it to 40. I get better results in the high 40's personally.


----------



## HoloWS

CyrIng said:


> apdis is CnQ ?
> Full BIOS name of apdis ?
> 
> Because I'm still looking for the register bit which states the Cool and Quiet feature in Zen.





IwannaKnow said:


> As for the information I got then yes. U need to set APDIS to 1 then DF-Cstates appear and and a row with P0 State.
> Should be also under SMU.


This is wrong. The setting is called APBDIS and setting it to 1 forces a fixed infinity fabric p-state control. It "unlocks" the fixed SOC P-State option with it defaulting to P0 - Highest-performing SOC P-state. Probably best not to touch it / keep it on Auto so it dynamically switches SOC P-states based on link usage if you care about downclocking / power usage. If you care about performance, you could maybe consider forcing it to never leave P0 state, but I don't know how beneficial it actually would be.

DF C-State option is available regardless of this setting being toggled (on C8H anyways) and can probably be set to Enabled with Global C-State Control if you don't want to use Auto.

Source: https://developer.amd.com/wp-content/resources/56745_0.75.pdf

Cool'n'Quiet (CnQ) does not exist anywhere in the bios. It was deprecated / replaced by C-State controls entirely in newer bios versions and made part of the PSS Support option (default Enabled)?

Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cu4r08/has_cool_and_quiet_been_removed_from_ryzen_3000/





[SOLVED] - AMD Cool n' Quiet feature not in BIOS


Hi, I am new to PC building and had a few questions regarding my CPU, Ryzen 5 2600X. I noticed that it boosts to about 4.2 GHz on idle, which causes idle temps to be around 50 degrees Celsius. I did some research and found out that the Cool n' Quiet feature in the bios will prevent the cpu...




forums.tomshardware.com






https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/ACPI_6_3_final_Jan30.pdf


----------



## CyrIng

HoloWS said:


> This is wrong. The setting is called APBDIS and setting it to 1 forces a fixed infinity fabric p-state control. It "unlocks" the fixed SOC P-State option with it defaulting to P0 - Highest-performing SOC P-state. Probably best not to touch it / keep it on Auto so it dynamically switches SOC P-states based on link usage if you care about downclocking / power usage. If you care about performance, you could maybe consider forcing it to never leave P0 state, but I don't know how beneficial it actually would be.
> 
> DF C-State option is available regardless of this setting being toggled (on C8H anyways) and can probably be set to Enabled with Global C-State Control if you don't want to use Auto.
> 
> Source: https://developer.amd.com/wp-content/resources/56745_0.75.pdf
> 
> Cool'n'Quiet (CnQ) does not exist anywhere in the bios. It was deprecated / replaced by C-State controls entirely in newer bios versions and made part of the PSS Support option (default Enabled)?
> 
> Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cu4r08/has_cool_and_quiet_been_removed_from_ryzen_3000/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [SOLVED] - AMD Cool n' Quiet feature not in BIOS
> 
> 
> Hi, I am new to PC building and had a few questions regarding my CPU, Ryzen 5 2600X. I noticed that it boosts to about 4.2 GHz on idle, which causes idle temps to be around 50 degrees Celsius. I did some research and found out that the Cool n' Quiet feature in the bios will prevent the cpu...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forums.tomshardware.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/ACPI_6_3_final_Jan30.pdf


I share your conclusions about APBDIS
CnQ seems to be deprecated but I wonder why some MSI X570 Users are still mentioned it among BIOS options ?


----------



## koji

Yo guys, can anyone pitch in on these voltages if they are safe for 24/7?

VDDSOC Voltage Override 1.106
VDDG CCD Voltage Control: 1.05
VDDG IOD Voltage Control: 1.05
CLDO VDDP voltage: 0.9
CPU PLL: 1.86

They seem what I need to get rid of WHEA errors in OCCT large for 4 dimms @ 3800mhz/1900fclk

Also, **** another bios, back to the drawing board


----------



## Jonas Larsson

i need some help. i have a 5950x with viii hero, F4-3600C14D-32GTRG ram and 2080ti strix oc. my games crashes. firefox, discord, razer synapse crashing random, i have tryed to change ram with and manualy enter timings from dram cal with same result. also i have tested bioses from 2311-3201, and this is a clean instal of windows. i have no clue what to try next. If i put my old 3800x back everything works normal


----------



## metalshark

@shamino1978 is there any way to get access to current capabilities above 140% without LN2 mode? Can hit it with over 231A TDC on a 5950X using a C8F.


----------



## LtMatt

shamino1978 said:


> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-3201.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3201.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3201.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3201.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3201.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


@domdtxdissar interested to know your opinion on the new version.


----------



## shamino1978

metalshark said:


> @shamino1978 is there any way to get access to current capabilities above 140% without LN2 mode? Can hit it with over 231A TDC on a 5950X using a C8F.


u have over 500A with 140% dont think you will hit that


----------



## metalshark

shamino1978 said:


> u have over 500A with 140% dont think you will hit that


Odd then - if I lower to 130% I can hit the thing where the screen turns off, the fans go on full and have to use the PSU off/on to get it to turn back on much lower. If that's not the current capability cap then I'll need to look elsewhere (am using an AX1600i with each 12 rail set to 40A max which its nowhere near).
Max I've seen in HWinfo before that happens on 140% is ~299A EDC, ~229A TDC and ~303.4W PPT, with the CPU current not going above ~235A. So if it's 235A/500A any idea what does the screen off, fans on full and needing a PSU off/on to restart?
Here's an example HWinfo where upping the limits will result in that behaviour. Upping the TDC limit to 232A, then applying load to the CPU will trigger it.


----------



## genelecs

I cannot get higher then 1866 FCLK on 3201 (which has been the case on every BIOS for me with my 5950x) but everything else seems nice and stable so far!


----------



## kuutale

genelecs said:


> I cannot get higher then 1866 FCLK on 3201 (which has been the case on every BIOS for me with my 5950x) but everything else seems nice and stable so far!


we are same boat my friend  i have same problem 07 q-code .. but bios working same like 3101


----------



## genelecs

kuutale said:


> we are same boat my friend  i have same problem 07 q-code .. but bios working same like 3101


Yes there seems to be a few of us stuck trying to get to 1900 FCLK and above> with 07 q-code regardless of voltages set.

I suspect we just lost the lottery but I'm personally happy with 3733 MHz/1866 FCLK performance and it has been pointed out there is never a guarantee on these things, just makes me a little sad seeing so many people on 1900. Ah well


----------



## GRABibus

genelecs said:


> Yes there seems to be a few of us stuck trying to get to 1900 FCLK and above> with 07 q-code regardless of voltages set.
> 
> I suspect we just lost the lottery but I'm personally happy with 3733 MHz/1866 FCLK performance and it has been pointed out there is never a guarantee on these things, just makes me a little sad seeing so many people on 1900. Ah well


be happy.
You have people who even can’t use their PC with those Ryzen 5000 (idle reboots, Bsods, wheas, etc....)

😊


----------



## genelecs

GRABibus said:


> be happy.
> You have people who even can’t use their PC with those Ryzen 5000 (idle reboots, Bsods, wheas, etc....)
> 😊


100% - also it's very hard to buy 5950x in the UK so I'm just thankful I have one and it works fine.


----------



## GRABibus

genelecs said:


> 100% - also it's very hard to buy 5950x in the UK so I'm just thankful I have one and it works fine.


we have some in France :
AMD Ryzen™ 9 5950X AMD Ryzen™ 9 5950X: Amazon.fr: Informatique









grosbill.com - achat PC portable, PC gamer, matériel informatique


Ordinateurs de bureau,PC Portable,PC Gamer,Périphériques informatiques à prix Discount pour Particuliers et Professionnels!




www.grosbill.com













Cdiscount.com


Achat sur Internet a prix discount de DVD et de produits culturels (livre et musique), informatiques et high Tech (image et son, televiseur LCD, ecran plasma, telephone portable, camescope, developpement photo numerique). Achat d electromenager et de petit electromenager. Vente de pret-a-porter...



www.cdiscount.com


----------



## metalshark

genelecs said:


> Yes there seems to be a few of us stuck trying to get to 1900 FCLK and above> with 07 q-code regardless of voltages set.
> 
> I suspect we just lost the lottery but I'm personally happy with 3733 MHz/1866 FCLK performance and it has been pointed out there is never a guarantee on these things, just makes me a little sad seeing so many people on 1900. Ah well


Out of interest can you boot with 1900IF or 3800MHz RAM on their own (with the other set to 1866IF/3733MHz)? If the IF gets to 1900, but the RAM doesn't then would recommend looking at R1-4 Tune in Tweaker's Paradise as that was my issue.


----------



## genelecs

metalshark said:


> Out of interest can you boot with 1900IF or 3800MHz RAM on their own (with the other set to 1866IF/3733MHz)? If the IF gets to 1900, but the RAM doesn't then would recommend looking at R1-4 Tune in Tweaker's Paradise as that was my issue.


I've got 2x8GB TEAMGROUP-UD4-4000 and I can happily boot the RAM at 4000MHz using DOCP and the FCLK Auto'd to 1800 - TM5 stable but I prefer to run 1:1:1, so I'm fairly sure my IF is the weak point.


----------



## xeizo

I played with my X470 Prime Pro with 3700X /AGESA 1.1.9.0 and 3200MHz RAM today, not a single WHEA error neither under torture nor idle. Looks to be mostly a 5000-series thing. Yes, 1.2.0.0/CH8 did throw a WHEA, but only using CPUZ. Strange.


----------



## RHBH

Guys, is 4.200MHz boost normal for a 5900X running CB R20 MT?


----------



## Anulu

New Bios works IF1900 with relaitve low Soc,Vddg,Vddp Voltages but 2000 does not work even with higher Voltage.5950x + CH8 Impact.
Strange this Cpu had no Problem to boot 2000fclk on my old Asrock Fatalityx370itx but WHEA19 Errors >1600/3200.

1900 works perfect on the Impact no WHEAs maybe i have to tweak more Options in Bios to get higher IF.

Really love that Mainboard,offers anything i need for my mITX custom Watercool Build.


Only thing i dont like is the Chipset Temp.Its 60c idle and goes up to 70c load.Fan Speed doesnt help much.
Is this normal Temp for x570?


----------



## LtMatt

LtMatt said:


> @domdtxdissar interested to know your opinion on the new version.


Aida64 latency climbed with 3201, so i rolled back to 3003 for now.


----------



## RHBH

Anulu said:


> New Bios works IF1900 with relaitve low Soc,Vddg,Vddp Voltages but 2000 does not work even with higher Voltage.5950x + CH8 Impact.
> Strange this Cpu had no Problem to boot 2000fclk on my old Asrock Fatalityx370itx but WHEA19 Errors >1600/3200.
> 
> 1900 works perfect on the Impact no WHEAs maybe i have to tweak more Options in Bios to get higher IF.
> 
> Really love that Mainboard,offers anything i need for my mITX custom Watercool Build.
> 
> 
> Only thing i dont like is the Chipset Temp.Its 60c idle and goes up to 70c load.Fan Speed doesnt help much.
> Is this normal Temp for x570?


If you have an open graphics card blowing air above the chipset fan, increasing the graphics card fan speed can help to reduce the chipset temperature.

This is particularly effective if you experience high chipset temps when your graphics card is at zero rpm mode.


----------



## Jaeyger

Probably a noob question, but why is there two different places to input ram settings in bios? Should I be editing in Extreme Tweaker, Advanced > AMD Overclocking, or both?


----------



## Blizzard518

RHBH said:


> Guys, is 4.200MHz boost normal for a 5900X running CB R20 MT?


In order to tell you, we have to see your bios settings .
But if i remember well on Auto and PBO Off is around 4200 All core.
Also pay attention of your CPU effective clock speed is more indicative.


----------



## Blizzard518

Jaeyger said:


> Probably a noob question, but why is there two different places to input ram settings in bios? Should I be editing in Extreme Tweaker, Advanced > AMD Overclocking, or both?


Extreme Tweaker only.


----------



## metalshark

Jaeyger said:


> Probably a noob question, but why is there two different places to input ram settings in bios? Should I be editing in Extreme Tweaker, Advanced > AMD Overclocking, or both?


AFAIK Extreme Tweaker overrides what's set in the AMD Overclocking menu. I keep frequently used settings in the early menus (like Extreme Tweaker) and set the rest in the more buried menus, keeping it on auto in the earlier settings. Can only guess why there are two or more places to enter settings.


----------



## Sam64

Jep, imagine it as 2 layer: Extreme Tweaker ist the highest. I guess, the idea is separation: Provide(&hide) mostly all AMD AGESA settings on a lower layer and provide a subset of that plus mainboard specific settings on a higher layer, e.g Tweaker. It's maybe also seperated because of warranty (AMD Overclocking->No warranty).


----------



## greg_p

LtMatt said:


> Aida64 latency climbed with 3201, so i rolled back to 3003 for now.


I don't play Aida64 so don't care.


----------



## xeizo

greg_p said:


> I don't play Aida64 so don't care.


Me neither, but also, I got lower latency with the new bios


----------



## LtMatt

greg_p said:


> I don't play Aida64 so don't care.


Aida64? Completed it mate.


----------



## greg_p

Lol! So latest bios 3201 tested, and what was working on 3102 and all previous one is not working, code 07 on 1866/3733. With 1800/3600, it started but boot in 1333 :/. Damn good one.


----------



## metalshark

greg_p said:


> Lol! So latest bios 3201 tested, and what was working on 3102 and all previous one is not working, code 07 on 1866/3733. With 1800/3600, it started but boot in 1333 :/. Damn good one.


If you have manual timings look at tRDWR/tWRRD. Had to slacken them off with the latest, setting them to auto also worked.


----------



## shm0

HoloWS said:


> This is wrong. The setting is called APBDIS and setting it to 1 forces a fixed infinity fabric p-state control. It "unlocks" the fixed SOC P-State option with it defaulting to P0 - Highest-performing SOC P-state. Probably best not to touch it / keep it on Auto so it dynamically switches SOC P-states based on link usage if you care about downclocking / power usage. If you care about performance, you could maybe consider forcing it to never leave P0 state, but I don't know how beneficial it actually would be.
> 
> DF C-State option is available regardless of this setting being toggled (on C8H anyways) and can probably be set to Enabled with Global C-State Control if you don't want to use Auto.
> 
> Source: https://developer.amd.com/wp-content/resources/56745_0.75.pdf
> 
> Cool'n'Quiet (CnQ) does not exist anywhere in the bios. It was deprecated / replaced by C-State controls entirely in newer bios versions and made part of the PSS Support option (default Enabled)?
> 
> Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cu4r08/has_cool_and_quiet_been_removed_from_ryzen_3000/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [SOLVED] - AMD Cool n' Quiet feature not in BIOS
> 
> 
> Hi, I am new to PC building and had a few questions regarding my CPU, Ryzen 5 2600X. I noticed that it boosts to about 4.2 GHz on idle, which causes idle temps to be around 50 degrees Celsius. I did some research and found out that the Cool n' Quiet feature in the bios will prevent the cpu...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forums.tomshardware.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/ACPI_6_3_final_Jan30.pdf


I guess people use the term Cool and Quiet because it switches P-States in regards of load.
P-States = Frequency and voltage scaling
C-States = Allows the CPU (or in this case the data fabric (SOC)) to disable/reduce certain functions.


----------



## Krisztias

Jaeyger said:


> Probably a noob question, but why is there two different places to input ram settings in bios? Should I be editing in Extreme Tweaker, Advanced > AMD Overclocking, or both?


Elmor told us long time ago in the C6H thread, that under AMD CBS are the settings from AGESA, and they can't hide them. You should set everything (what possible) under the ASUS menus, and only once. Never set something twice, the BIOS doesn' likes that. Neither profile's from another version. With every BIOS set everything from scratch or you can face problems.

For thoose who can't reach IF 1900: AI OC Tuner: manual with 100 BCLK, disable spread spectrum, SOC 1.1V/LLC2 Phase mode fast, cldo vddp min 0.9, vddp 0.9, vpp mem 2.5, vtt ddr half of vdimm and set everything you can in extreme tweaker and tweakers paradise to manual or default value, like R1-R4 tune to 63 etc. Try not leaving things to auto, if you set in description the default values.


----------



## Jaeyger

Krisztias said:


> Elmor told us long time ago in the C6H thread, that under AMD CBS are the settings from AGESA, and they can't hide them. You should set everything (what possible) under the ASUS menus, and only once. Never set something twice, the BIOS doesn' likes that. Neither profile's from another version. With every BIOS set everything from scratch or you can face problems.
> 
> For thoose who can't reach IF 1900: AI OC Tuner: manual with 100 BCLK, disable spread spectrum, SOC 1.1V/LLC2 Phase mode fast, cldo vddp min 0.9, vddp 0.9, vpp mem 2.5, vtt ddr half of vdimm and set everything you can in extreme tweaker and tweakers paradise to manual or default value, like R1-R4 tune to 63 etc. Try not leaving things to auto, if you set in description the default values.


Thanks for the explanation. I'm just leaving everything in Auto under the Asus Overclocking tab.


----------



## Anulu

RHBH said:


> If you have an open graphics card blowing air above the chipset fan, increasing the graphics card fan speed can help to reduce the chipset temperature.
> 
> This is particularly effective if you experience high chipset temps when your graphics card is at zero rpm mode.


Chipset is not in the same Place on the Crosshair VIII Impact,its near the VRM and there are 2 small Fans.I took the Shield off because there is not much Airflow behind the Radiator.









I was testing a Asus 570-E Gaming for a Friend today and Chipset Temps werent much lower so i think its not that bad.
Maybe replace the Thermal Pad next Time i clean the Loop in a few Month or so


----------



## CyrIng

Just played today with the CPU voltage offset.
Coming from an AUTO = 1.449V , an offset of -0.075V resulted to 1.361V (according to BIOS 2206)

Stress tests shows that the Cores power envelop is surprisingly proportionally increasing, in the opposite direction of voltage: the less voltage, the more power. Does it sound right ?










All Cores (see bottom ruler) were previously limited to 132W, now almost 150W , although EDC=140A and TDC=95A , TjMax , TDP and so on remain the same in all cases.


----------



## xeizo

greg_p said:


> Lol! So latest bios 3201 tested, and what was working on 3102 and all previous one is not working, code 07 on 1866/3733. With 1800/3600, it started but boot in 1333 :/. Damn good one.


3800MHz booted first time for me, been running all day, benchmarks and games and long idles between. Not a single WHEA, no reboot. Looks good to me.


----------



## greg_p

xeizo said:


> 3800MHz booted first time for me, been running all day, benchmarks and games and long idles between. Not a single WHEA, no reboot. Looks good to me.


Actually it's working now but I gad to redo everything from scratch. I will give a try with :


Krisztias said:


> For thoose who can't reach IF 1900: AI OC Tuner: manual with 100 BCLK, disable spread spectrum, SOC 1.1V/LLC2 Phase mode fast, cldo vddp min 0.9, vddp 0.9, vpp mem 2.5, vtt ddr half of vdimm and set everything you can in extreme tweaker and tweakers paradise to manual or default value, like R1-R4 tune to 63 etc. Try not leaving things to auto, if you set in description the default values.


----------



## genelecs

Krisztias said:


> For thoose who can't reach IF 1900: AI OC Tuner: manual with 100 BCLK, disable spread spectrum, SOC 1.1V/LLC2 Phase mode fast, cldo vddp min 0.9, vddp 0.9, vpp mem 2.5, vtt ddr half of vdimm and set everything you can in extreme tweaker and tweakers paradise to manual or default value, like R1-R4 tune to 63 etc. Try not leaving things to auto, if you set in description the default values.


Thank you (and everyone else in previous posts) for their suggestions, still stuck on Q-Code 07 at 1900FCLK.


----------



## Gadfly

genelecs said:


> Thank you (and everyone else in previous posts) for their suggestions, still stuck on Q-Code 07 at 1900FCLK.


That is with memory at 2133? Just doing fclk stand alone at first right?

Have you tried more SOC voltage?

Are you walking up vddg voltages, or just hitting it with a hammer at 1.05v?


----------



## PWn3R

metalshark said:


> Out of interest can you boot with 1900IF or 3800MHz RAM on their own (with the other set to 1866IF/3733MHz)? If the IF gets to 1900, but the RAM doesn't then would recommend looking at R1-4 Tune in Tweaker's Paradise as that was my issue.


I think we are all in the same boat. Usually 07 post code with IF set to anything beyond 1866 which works with default voltages. Nothing I’ve tried has changed this. Two sticks of ram with 1.2 soc and 1.05 on other voltages posts about 20 percent of the time with a bald and reboot during windows boot. This is 1900 IF and ram at default loose timings with 1.45v and 2100mhz. I got ram to boot with IF 1866 and 4200Mhz and riggers timings than listed at 1.35v. This seems to be directly related to a wall at 1900mhz fclk on some of these 5950s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PWn3R

Gadfly said:


> That is with memory at 2133? Just doing fclk stand alone at first right?
> 
> Have you tried more SOC voltage?
> 
> Are you walking up vddg voltages, or just hitting it with a hammer at 1.05v?


I have walked up starting at .9250 and going up by .125 each time. Nothing helped. I tried PLL of .125 higher now set separately and a reboot before increasing FCLK increasing from 1.8 to 1.975 now. This testing on PLL was done with vsoc 1.15 and VDDG at 1.05


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sleepycat

Hi all, just updated to 3201 from 3102. I noticed in Cinebench R20, the single core benchmark now uses any CCD or CCX it prefers, and not the fastest one in CCD0. Cinebench R23 does not exhibit this behaviour and correctly utilises the fastest or second fastest core.

As a result, I've gone from

31023201R20 Single627613R20 Multi89178889R23 Single16091605R23 Multi2301423021


----------



## sieepiestangel

shamino1978 said:


> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-3201.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3201.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3201.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3201.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3201.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


Just updated to 3201 for the Dark Hero, unable to post at fclk 2000 when compared to prior bios 3102. Been trying to revert back to either 3102 or 3003 with the EZ flash utility and I keep encountering the, selected file is not the proper bios error. Anyone else having the same issue?


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

sieepiestangel said:


> Just updated to 3201 for the Dark Hero, unable to post at fclk 2000 when compared to prior bios 3102. Been trying to revert back to either 3102 or 3003 with the EZ flash utility and I keep encountering the, selected file is not the proper bios error. Anyone else having the same issue?


Clear your CMOS battery with the CMOS button behind your board with power shut off. Then try and boot up again. If anything, you might have a bad flash.


----------



## Sindragosaa

metalshark said:


> Great looking numbers. If possible it would be great to know the actual max TDC you’re hitting and what the all core speeds are under Prime95 Small Torture test please.


From HWINFO the max currents are TDC 134A / EDC 270A / SVI2 TFN 137A under Intel Burn Test - Very High. 

But also keep in mind I have limited PPT to 200W to reduce thermals, which would most likely also be limiting max currents. 

I can run Prime95 later this week


----------



## RHBH

Blizzard518 said:


> In order to tell you, we have to see your bios settings .
> But if i remember well on Auto and PBO Off is around 4200 All core.
> Also pay attention of your CPU effective clock speed is more indicative.


How do I extract these bios dumps?

I'm asking because at stock I'm getting arround 8000 points in CB R20 where I see multiple reviews showing 8400 points.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Think i have found my new 24/7 settings again, with fans on auto etc, 24 degrees ambient. 


> [2021/01/14 04:22:38]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3800MHz]
> FCLK Frequency [1900MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Enabled]
> CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> Core VID [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> Performance Bias [Auto]
> PBO Fmax Enhancer [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Manual]
> PPT Limit [300]
> TDC Limit [235]
> EDC Limit [245]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [50]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> Trcdrd [15]
> Trcdwr [8]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [12]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [24]
> Trc [36]
> TrrdS [4]
> TrrdL [4]
> Tfaw [16]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [10]
> Twr [12]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [2]
> TwrwrScl [2]
> Trfc [252]
> Trfc2 [187]
> Trfc4 [115]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [6]
> Trdwr [9]
> Twrrd [2]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [6]
> TwrwrDd [6]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [5]
> TrdrdDd [5]
> Tcke [Auto]
> ProcODT [40 ohm]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [RZQ/7]
> RttWr [RZQ/3]
> RttPark [RZQ/1]
> MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
> Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 1]
> CPU Current Capability [140%]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed CPU VRM Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Current Capability [130%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
> CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
> Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CPU Core Voltage [Offset mode]
> 
> Offset Mode Sign [+]
> CPU Core Voltage Offset [0.02500]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.10625]
> DRAM Voltage [1.54500]
> VDDG CCD Voltage Control [0.890]
> VDDG IOD Voltage Control [Auto]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [0.880]
> 1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
> PSS Support [Enabled]
> PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
> NX Mode [Enabled]
> SVM Mode [Disabled]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
> SMART Self Test [Enabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
> PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
> When system is in working state [All On]
> Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
> When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [All On]
> Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Enabled]
> Realtek PXE OPROM [Disabled]
> Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
> Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
> ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
> Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Enabled]
> Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
> USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX16_2 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX16_3 Mode [Auto]
> M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
> M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
> SB Link Mode [Auto]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> Above 4G Decoding [Enabled]
> Re-Size BAR Support [Auto]
> SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
> Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> Corsair Voyager GTX 0 [Auto]
> USB Device Enable [Enabled]
> U32G2_2 [Enabled]
> U32G2_3 [Enabled]
> U32G2_4 [Enabled]
> U32G1_10 [Enabled]
> U32G1_11 [Enabled]
> USB12 [Enabled]
> USB13 [Enabled]
> U32G2_7 [Enabled]
> U32G2_8 [Enabled]
> U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Device [SATA6G_7: Samsung SSD 850 PRO 1TB]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> VRM Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> PCH Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Flow Rate [Monitor]
> CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> CPU Fan Step Up [2.1 sec]
> CPU Fan Step Down [0 sec]
> CPU Fan Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> CPU Fan Profile [Manual]
> CPU Fan Upper Temperature [70]
> CPU Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> CPU Fan Middle Temperature [40]
> CPU Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> CPU Fan Lower Temperature [30]
> CPU Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [50]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Manual]
> Chassis Fan 1 Upper Temperature [60]
> Chassis Fan 1 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 1 Middle Temperature [40]
> Chassis Fan 1 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [90]
> Chassis Fan 1 Lower Temperature [20]
> Chassis Fan 1 Min Duty Cycle (%) [85]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Manual]
> Chassis Fan 2 Upper Temperature [65]
> Chassis Fan 2 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 2 Middle Temperature [45]
> Chassis Fan 2 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Chassis Fan 2 Lower Temperature [40]
> Chassis Fan 2 Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Manual]
> Chassis Fan 3 Upper Temperature [70]
> Chassis Fan 3 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 3 Middle Temperature [45]
> Chassis Fan 3 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 3 Lower Temperature [40]
> Chassis Fan 3 Min Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
> High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
> High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> High Amp Fan Profile [Manual]
> High Amp Fan Upper Temperature [70]
> High Amp Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> High Amp Fan Middle Temperature [60]
> High Amp Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [70]
> High Amp Fan Lower Temperature [30]
> High Amp Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Water Pump+ Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Water Pump+ Upper Temperature [70]
> Water Pump+ Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Water Pump+ Middle Temperature [45]
> Water Pump+ Middle Duty Cycle (%) [70]
> Water Pump+ Lower Temperature [35]
> Water Pump+ Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> AIO Pump Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> AIO Pump Upper Temperature [70]
> AIO Pump Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> AIO Pump Middle Temperature [45]
> AIO Pump Middle Duty Cycle (%) [80]
> AIO Pump Lower Temperature [30]
> AIO Pump Min Duty Cycle (%) [70]
> Above 4GB MMIO Limit [39bit (512GB)]
> Fast Boot [Enabled]
> Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
> Boot Logo Display [Disabled]
> Bootup NumLock State [On]
> POST Report [5 sec]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
> Launch CSM [Disabled]
> OS Type [Other OS]
> AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
> Flexkey [Reset]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> Load from Profile [6]
> Profile Name [12.01.21 done]
> Save to Profile [1]
> DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
> Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Enabled]
> CPU Frequency [0]
> CPU Voltage [0]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> Core control [Auto]
> SMT Control [Auto]
> Overclock [Enabled ]
> Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
> Tcl [Auto]
> Trcdrd [Auto]
> Trcdwr [Auto]
> Trp [Auto]
> Tras [Auto]
> Trc Ctrl [Auto]
> TrrdS [Auto]
> TrrdL [Auto]
> Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
> TwtrS [Auto]
> TwtrL [Auto]
> Twr Ctrl [Auto]
> Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
> TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
> TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
> Tcwl [Auto]
> Trtp [Auto]
> Tcke [Auto]
> Trdwr [Auto]
> Twrrd [Auto]
> TwrwrSc [Auto]
> TwrwrSd [Auto]
> TwrwrDd [Auto]
> TrdrdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSd [Auto]
> TrdrdDd [Auto]
> ProcODT [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
> ECO Mode [Disable]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
> PBO Limits [Motherboard]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> Curve Optimizer [Per Core]
> Core 0 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 1 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 2 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 3 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 4 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 5 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 6 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 7 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 8 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 9 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 10 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 11 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 12 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 12 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 13 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 13 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 14 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 14 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 15 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 15 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [0MHz]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
> LN2 Mode [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
> L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
> SMEE [Auto]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> Global C-state Control [Disabled]
> Power Supply Idle Control [Typical Current Idle]
> SEV ASID Count [Auto]
> SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
> Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
> Local APIC Mode [Auto]
> ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
> MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
> PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
> Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
> Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
> RdRand Speedup Disable [Enabled]
> IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
> DRAM scrub time [Auto]
> Poison scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> Memory interleaving [Auto]
> Memory interleaving size [Auto]
> 1TB remap [Auto]
> DRAM map inversion [Auto]
> ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
> GMI encryption control [Auto]
> xGMI encryption control [Auto]
> CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
> 4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> 3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
> PcsCG control [Auto]
> Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
> Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
> CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
> Memory Clear [Auto]
> Overclock [Enabled]
> Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
> Tcl [Auto]
> Trcdrd [Auto]
> Trcdwr [Auto]
> Trp [Auto]
> Tras [Auto]
> Trc Ctrl [Auto]
> TrrdS [Auto]
> TrrdL [Auto]
> Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
> TwtrS [Auto]
> TwtrL [Auto]
> Twr Ctrl [Auto]
> Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
> TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
> TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
> Tcwl [Auto]
> Trtp [Auto]
> Tcke [Auto]
> Trdwr [Auto]
> Twrrd [Auto]
> TwrwrSc [Auto]
> TwrwrSd [Auto]
> TwrwrDd [Auto]
> TrdrdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSd [Auto]
> TrdrdDd [Auto]
> ProcODT [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
> DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Data Poisoning [Auto]
> DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
> RCD Parity [Auto]
> DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
> Write CRC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
> Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
> DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
> DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
> TSME [Auto]
> Data Scramble [Auto]
> DFE Read Training [Auto]
> FFE Write Training [Auto]
> PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
> MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
> CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
> Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
> BankGroupSwap [Auto]
> BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
> Address Hash Bank [Auto]
> Address Hash CS [Auto]
> Address Hash Rm [Auto]
> SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
> MBIST Enable [Disabled]
> Pattern Select [PRBS]
> Pattern Length [6]
> Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
> Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
> Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> IOMMU [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> FCLK Frequency [Auto]
> SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
> UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
> LN2 Mode [Auto]
> ACS Enable [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
> PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
> cTDP Control [Auto]
> EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
> Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
> APBDIS [Auto]
> DF Cstates [Auto]
> CPPC [Auto]
> CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
> NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
> Early Link Speed [Auto]
> Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
> Preferred IO [Auto]
> CV test [Auto]
> Loopback Mode [Auto]
> Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]












And some heavier y-cruncher benchmarks, do note the 295 watt usage.. Good cooling is required with these settings


----------



## sieepiestangel

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Clear your CMOS battery with the CMOS button behind your board with power shut off. Then try and boot up again. If anything, you might have a bad flash.


Still unable to boot at fclk 2000 with 3201. Still cannot flash back via ez flash to either 3102 or 3003. I keep getting the "selected files is not a proper bios" error when I attempt to flash 3102 or 3003, but it works if I load up 3201. Anyone else running into this issue?


----------



## koji

sieepiestangel said:


> Still unable to boot at fclk 2000 with 3201. Still cannot flash back via ez flash to either 3102 or 3003. I keep getting the "selected files is not a proper bios" error when I attempt to flash 3102 or 3003, but it works if I load up 3201. Anyone else running into this issue?


You'll have to use the bios flashback feature. Put renamed bios for your motherboard on stick and plug the stick in the flashback port at the back. Press the flashback button next to clrcmos button on the back. That should work. Google for the correct procedure / or motherboard manual.


----------



## dr.Rafi

sieepiestangel said:


> Still unable to boot at fclk 2000 with 3201. Still cannot flash back via ez flash to either 3102 or 3003. I keep getting the "selected files is not a proper bios" error when I attempt to flash 3102 or 3003, but it works if I load up 3201. Anyone else running into this issue?






you can use the method inthis video ,you can flash anything.


----------



## LtMatt

Does anyone know which is the first BIOS that has SAM and Curve Optimizer enabled?

Wondering if the early BIOS (assuming no other issues) might be offering the best performance.

EDIT looks like it was 2502. 3003 still seems the best for me overall.


----------



## sieepiestangel

Perfect, thanks for the help koji and dr.Rafi, I was able to flash back.


----------



## metalshark

Sindragosaa said:


> From HWINFO the max currents are TDC 134A / EDC 270A / SVI2 TFN 137A under Intel Burn Test - Very High.
> 
> But also keep in mind I have limited PPT to 200W to reduce thermals, which would most likely also be limiting max currents.
> 
> I can run Prime95 later this week


Thanks for that, no need to run Prime95, that gives me a ball park.


----------



## genelecs

Gadfly said:


> That is with memory at 2133? Just doing fclk stand alone at first right?
> Have you tried more SOC voltage?
> Are you walking up vddg voltages, or just hitting it with a hammer at 1.05v?


Yes I've tried almost 3 hours of playing with yours and others suggested settings, I've tried both walking up and hammer approaches. I've pretty much followed PWn3R's below process as well.



PWn3R said:


> I have walked up starting at .9250 and going up by .125 each time. Nothing helped. I tried PLL of .125 higher now set separately and a reboot before increasing FCLK increasing from 1.8 to 1.975 now. This testing on PLL was done with vsoc 1.15 and VDDG at 1.05





PWn3R said:


> I think we are all in the same boat. Usually 07 post code with IF set to anything beyond 1866 which works with default voltages.This is 1900 IF and ram at default loose timings with 1.45v and 2100mhz. I got ram to boot with IF 1866 and 4200Mhz and riggers timings than listed at 1.35v. This seems to be directly related to a wall at 1900mhz fclk on some of these 5950s.


This describes my experience perfectly.


----------



## metalshark

domdtxdissar said:


> Think i have found my new 24/7 settings again, with fans on auto etc, 24 degrees ambient.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2474072
> 
> 
> And some heavier y-cruncher benchmarks, do note the 295 watt usage.. Good cooling is required with these settings
> View attachment 2474073


Is 1.54v 24/7 OK for DRAM?


https://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/global.semi/file/resource/2018/05/DDR4_8Gb_B_die_Unbuffered_DIMM_Rev2.4_Apr.18.pdf


Tend not to exceed 1.5v on B-Die personally.

EDIT:
Thanks for the info, so it would appear 1.74v is the max (be careful with LLC that it's not bouncing above that).


----------



## greg_p

metalshark said:


> Is 1.54v 24/7 OK for DRAM?
> 
> 
> https://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/global.semi/file/resource/2018/05/DDR4_8Gb_B_die_Unbuffered_DIMM_Rev2.4_Apr.18.pdf
> 
> 
> Tend not to exceed 1.5v on B-Die personally.


They specify overshoot is supported until +0.24


----------



## Nizzen

metalshark said:


> Is 1.54v 24/7 OK for DRAM?
> 
> 
> https://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/global.semi/file/resource/2018/05/DDR4_8Gb_B_die_Unbuffered_DIMM_Rev2.4_Apr.18.pdf
> 
> 
> Tend not to exceed 1.5v on B-Die personally.


For b-die the temperature is the key. Under 45c even 1.65v is ok


----------



## RHBH

My 5900X is now able to boot and load OS with 2000 FLCK. Using BIOS 3201 and increasing 1.8v PLL to 2.1v.

Not really stable, tons of WHEA errors in Windows (even at 1933 FLCK and 2.1v PLL).

1900 FLCK with 1.8v PLL I get no WHEA errors.


----------



## tchabada

Are Prime95 rounding errors caused by negative CO? My 5900x clocks much higher with all cores -25(also best cores clock higher) but after 5h Prime95 Small FFTs on 1 thread and thread_switcher I've got rounding error.


----------



## CyrIng

metalshark said:


> Is 1.54v 24/7 OK for DRAM?
> 
> 
> https://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/global.semi/file/resource/2018/05/DDR4_8Gb_B_die_Unbuffered_DIMM_Rev2.4_Apr.18.pdf
> 
> 
> Tend not to exceed 1.5v on B-Die personally.


Do you have other specs for DDR4 16384MB @ 3600 MHz 2xRanks ?


----------



## metalshark

CyrIng said:


> Do you have other specs for DDR4 16384MB @ 3600 MHz 2xRanks ?


This is for the chips themselves, not the configuration for a whole stick. @greg_p thanks for that, good point. So making sure with LLC it doesn't go over 1.74v (and observing temps) is the real max.


----------



## domdtxdissar

metalshark said:


> Is 1.54v 24/7 OK for DRAM?
> 
> 
> https://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/global.semi/file/resource/2018/05/DDR4_8Gb_B_die_Unbuffered_DIMM_Rev2.4_Apr.18.pdf
> 
> 
> Tend not to exceed 1.5v on B-Die personally.


I have been running my memory at or above 1.5volt for over 1 year now, no problems yet.
But i also have a fan blowing directly on my ram sticks, max temp is ~46 degrees after hours stresstesting with MEMtest, Karhu or Y-cruncher.

It is fine


----------



## metalshark

Just finished validating timing stability in Memtest86 so comparing the minimum timings from BIOS version 3102 -> 3201 on a C8F 1900IF/3800RAM using a G.Skill F4-4000C15Q-32GTZR kit at 1.5v.

tRP let me drop by 1 and tRC let me drop by 4, however tWRRD had to increase considerably (have tried many combos of tRDWR/tWRRD). Also of note the R1-4 Tune is working better for me in the mid 50's now whereas it was better in the mid/high 40's on 3102.

tCL: 14
tRCDWR: 15
tRCDRD: 11
tRP: *14 -> 13*
tRAS: 23
tRC: *40 -> 36*
tRRDS: 4
tRRDL: 6
tFAW: 16
tWRTS: 3
tWRTL: 8
tWR: 13
tRDRDSCL: 3
tWRWRSCL: 3
tRFC: 268
tCWL: 14
tRTP: 8
tRDWR: 8
tWRRD: *2 -> 7*
tWRWRSC: 1
tWRWRSD: 5
tWRWRDD: 6
tRDRDSC: 1
tRDRDSD: 3
tRDRDDD: 4
tCKE: 1


----------



## xeizo

Well,
I was practically speaking stable, no WHEA or reboots during normal use. BUT, I could still provoke WHEA by running CPUZ Bench, CB R20 Multi or CB R23 Multi all with realtime priority.

Cancelling WHEA from CPUZ was the easiest, just some extra voltage here and there. But cancelling WHEA from the Cinebenches with realtime priority was harder. It was doable, it is done. Now I don't think I have anything provoking a WHEA even with 3800MHz memory.

But it took a rather large performance hit to get there, mainly multi. Single is still ok, 670 vs 682 in CPUZ and still over 1600 in CB R23. And no 5GHz boost anymore. But it sure looks stable, which is more important. Still a whole lot faster than a 3900X but maybe not chocking faster anymore.
PBO and Curve Optimzer are disabled. Looks to be parts of the issue.

It's sad to loose a lot of performance, but on the flip side so does the CPU never go up to or above 70C now and fans are more quiet.

These settings looks stable and indeed WHEA free:

(btw, my 3900X and 3700X also on the latest bioses on my other boards doesn't have any WHEA, this looks to be mainly a 5000-series issue)



Spoiler: [2021/01/14 15:01:16] Ai Overclock Tuner [Auto] Memory Frequency [DDR4-3800MHz] FCLK Frequency [1900MHz] Core Performance Boost [Enabled] CPU Core Ratio [Auto] Core VID [Auto] CCX0 Ratio [Auto] CCX0 Ratio [Auto] TPU [Keep Current Settings]



[2021/01/14 15:01:16]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Auto]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3800MHz]
FCLK Frequency [1900MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Enabled]
CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Core VID [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
Performance Bias [Auto]
PBO Fmax Enhancer [Disabled]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Disabled]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [50]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [16]
Trcdrd [16]
Trcdwr [16]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [16]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [30]
Trc [42]
TrrdS [6]
TrrdL [8]
Tfaw [35]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [12]
Twr [12]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [4]
TwrwrScl [4]
Trfc [298]
Trfc2 [Auto]
Trfc4 [Auto]
Tcwl [16]
Trtp [8]
Trdwr [8]
Twrrd [5]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [7]
TwrwrDd [7]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [5]
TrdrdDd [5]
Tcke [1]
ProcODT [43.6 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [Rtt_Nom Disable]
RttWr [RZQ/3]
RttPark [RZQ/1]
MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
MemCkeSetup [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [3]
Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
CPU Current Capability [130%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed CPU VRM Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed VDDSOC Switching Frequency(KHz) [600]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
DRAM Current Capability [130%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]
CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
VTTDDR Voltage [0.72500]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [0.96000]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CPU Core Voltage [Offset mode]

Offset Mode Sign [+]
CPU Core Voltage Offset [0.00625]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.12500]
DRAM Voltage [1.38000]
VDDG CCD Voltage Control [1.050]
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [1.050]
CLDO VDDP voltage [0.950]
1.00V SB Voltage [1.05000]
1.8V PLL Voltage [1.81000]
TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Enabled]
PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
NX Mode [Enabled]
SVM Mode [Enabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
CCD Control [Auto]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
SMART Self Test [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
When system is in working state [All On]
Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [All On]
Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Enabled]
Realtek PXE OPROM [Disabled]
Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Enabled]
Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_2 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
SB Link Mode [Auto]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Above 4G Decoding [Enabled]
Re-Size BAR Support [Auto]
SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
KingstonDataTraveler 2.0PMAP [Auto]
Seagate Expansion Desk 070B [Auto]
USB Device Enable [Enabled]
U32G2_2 [Enabled]
U32G2_3 [Enabled]
U32G2_4 [Enabled]
U32G1_10 [Enabled]
U32G1_11 [Enabled]
USB12 [Enabled]
USB13 [Enabled]
U32G2_7 [Enabled]
U32G2_8 [Enabled]
U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Device [SATA6G_6: ST4000DM000-1F2168]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
PCH Fan Speed [Monitor]
Flow Rate [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
CPU Fan Step Up [0 sec]
CPU Fan Step Down [0 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [400 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [400 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [400 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [400 RPM]
High Amp Fan Profile [Standard]
Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Above 4GB MMIO Limit [39bit (512GB)]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
Boot Logo Display [Auto]
Bootup NumLock State [On]
POST Delay Time [1 sec]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Disabled]
OS Type [Other OS]
AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
Flexkey [Reset]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Profile Name []
Save to Profile [1]
DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A2]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Disabled]
CPU Frequency [0]
CPU Voltage [0]
CCD Control [Auto]
Core control [Auto]
SMT Control [Auto]
Overclock [Enabled ]
Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
Tcl [Auto]
Trcdrd [Auto]
Trcdwr [Auto]
Trp [Auto]
Tras [Auto]
Trc Ctrl [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr Ctrl [Auto]
Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Enabled ]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [1900MHz]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Disable]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
SoC Voltage [0]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Enabled ]
VDDP Voltage Control [Manual]
VDDP Voltage Control [960]
VDDG Voltage Control [Manual]
VDDG CCD Voltage Control [1050]
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [1050]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
SMEE [Auto]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
Global C-state Control [Enabled]
Power Supply Idle Control [Auto]
SEV ASID Count [Auto]
SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
Local APIC Mode [Auto]
ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
DRAM scrub time [Auto]
Poison scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Memory interleaving [Auto]
Memory interleaving size [Auto]
1TB remap [Auto]
DRAM map inversion [Auto]
ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
GMI encryption control [Auto]
xGMI encryption control [Auto]
CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
PcsCG control [Auto]
Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
Memory Clear [Auto]
Overclock [Enabled]
Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
Tcl [Auto]
Trcdrd [Auto]
Trcdwr [Auto]
Trp [Auto]
Tras [Auto]
Trc Ctrl [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr Ctrl [Auto]
Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Data Poisoning [Auto]
DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
RCD Parity [Auto]
DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
Write CRC Enable [Auto]
DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
TSME [Auto]
Data Scramble [Auto]
DFE Read Training [Auto]
FFE Write Training [Auto]
PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
BankGroupSwap [Auto]
BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
Address Hash Bank [Auto]
Address Hash CS [Auto]
Address Hash Rm [Auto]
SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
MBIST Enable [Disabled]
Pattern Select [PRBS]
Pattern Length(VMR) [6]
Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
IOMMU [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Enable]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Manual]
customized Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [10X]
FCLK Frequency [1900MHz]
SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
UCLK DIV1 MODE [UCLK==MEMCLK]
VDDP Voltage Control [Manual]
VDDP Voltage [960]
VDDG Voltage Control [Manual]
VDDG Voltage [1050]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Enabled]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
ACS Enable [Auto]
PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Disable]
cTDP Control [Auto]
EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
APBDIS [Auto]
DF Cstates [Enabled]
CPPC [Enabled]
CPPC Preferred Cores [Enabled]
NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
Early Link Speed [Auto]
Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
Preferred IO [Auto]
CV test [Auto]
Loopback Mode [Auto]
SRIS [Auto]
Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]





















Boost is pretty bad, but as said, no WHEA! And 10C cooler than "high performance"


----------



## No-one-no1

I can run my 5800X with 1966fclk stable. (tested all the way up to 2100, but error correction or something eats all the performance)
However, I can't get it to boot (F9) on 4x8GB b-die at anything above 1866MHz on the ram. Had to drop back to 2x8GB to run synced 1966MHz on the ram also.

Might be really bad at finding the info, but has anyone got any better ram frequency on 4-stick config? If so, please post your settings, or point me to a link


----------



## xeizo

New beta bios



https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_HERO_WI-FI/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3202.ZIP


----------



## metalshark

xeizo said:


> New beta bios
> 
> 
> 
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_HERO_WI-FI/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3202.ZIP


Sweet looks like the other boards got their's too:
https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...MPACT/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-3202.ZIP
https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...II_HERO/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3202.ZIP
https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...FI/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3202.ZIP
https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...RO/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3202.ZIP
https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...MULA/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3202.ZIP


----------



## xeizo

The new bios allowed me use -3 CO without WHEA, -5 gave WHEA. Minor performance improvement, single core is now always above 670 in CPUZ bench. Less than when running free, but stable is stable. The important thing is to disable power limits completely in the AMD PBO menu, so the CPU default limits takes over(142/95/140), otherwise WHEA will be back using CO.


----------



## Gadfly

PWn3R said:


> I think we are all in the same boat. Usually 07 post code with IF set to anything beyond 1866 which works with default voltages. Nothing I’ve tried has changed this. Two sticks of ram with 1.2 soc and 1.05 on other voltages posts about 20 percent of the time with a bald and reboot during windows boot. This is 1900 IF and ram at default loose timings with 1.45v and 2100mhz. I got ram to boot with IF 1866 and 4200Mhz and riggers timings than listed at 1.35v. This seems to be directly related to a wall at 1900mhz fclk on some of these 5950s.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Turn up you SB 1.0v to 1.05v.


----------



## greg_p

Any idea of the changelog of the 3202 versus 3201?


----------



## greg_p

xeizo said:


> The new bios allowed me use -3 CO without WHEA, -5 gave WHEA. Minor performance improvement, single core is now always above 670 in CPUZ bench. Less than when running free, but stable is stable. The important thing is to disable power limits completely in the AMD PBO menu, so the CPU default limits takes over(142/95/140), otherwise WHEA will be back using CO.


Ok for the 5900x but for 5950x this power settings are not enough for multicore application.

One interesting things I noticed over the 3201 is that we can use boosttester to validate a PBO config, I had no BSOD/reboots as soon as I set CO so as to run on boost tester.
I had 3hours run of xplane 11 (100% use of 2080ti and 5% on cpu) as well as heavier use.


----------



## xeizo

greg_p said:


> Ok for the 5900x but for 5950x this power settings are not enough for multicore application.
> 
> One interesting things I noticed over the 3201 is that we can use boosttester to validate a PBO config, I had no BSOD/reboots as soon as I set CO so as to run on boost tester.
> I had 3hours run of xplane 11 (100% use of 2080ti and 5% on cpu) as well as heavier use.


Yes, I've used boosttester a lot it's great, but as I said I was stable during all normal use cases. Haven't had a reboot for over a week, but I could still provoke those WHEAs and that's disturbing. Now it looks like they're gone, taking performance with them, but so be it. With CO -3 not even CB R23 multi heats up the CPU over 65C, that's a pro.

Btw, my last stability testing with -3 was done on todays bios 3202


----------



## greg_p

Rapid testing, I confirm improvement! 
Xeizo: I have no issue with memory subsystem, apart that it doesn't boot at 1900, But I never had issue at 1866 with my timings, so I can't judge on the memory part.
On the multi thread, with same PBO settings, I jumped from 12500 to 13200 on CPU-Z multithread. On CBR20, it does'nt change. 688 versus 670 on 1T test on CPUZ, better scores on superpi too. 
It seems that there is no difference on AVX workload as soon as it was working, but lighter load are better managed.
I ma also sub 80°C on CBR20 although I went at 85 with previous bioses.


----------



## WaXmAn

Now for the none beta version.


----------



## greg_p

I still can download them at the link of previous page or ROG Crosshair VIII Hero | ROG Crosshair | Gaming Motherboards｜ROG - Republic of Gamers｜ROG USA


----------



## Jackalito

AGESA 1.2.0.0 is a no-go for my system.

I cannot use Curve Optimizer with 3201, and even without it and after having flashed 3202, this is what I get while just browsing the web:










So, back to 3102 for me for the time being.


----------



## xeizo

Jackalito said:


> AGESA 1.2.0.0 is a no-go for my system.
> 
> I cannot use Curve Optimizer with 3201, and even without it and after having flashed 3202, this is what I get while just browsing the web:
> View attachment 2474177
> 
> 
> 
> So, back to 3102 for me for the time being.


Works fine for me, even managed to lower VDDG IOD/CCD to 1.030/1.005V no WHEA in CB20/23/CPUZ realtime with CO -3. Will keep tinkering.


----------



## genelecs

Working fine for me -15 CO (-5 on best cores).


----------



## Sam64

3202 works fine for me as well with same settings as of 3003. Still not more than 1900 FCLK possible with my 5950X though. (1933 instant WHEAs coming).


----------



## greg_p

Jackalito said:


> AGESA 1.2.0.0 is a no-go for my system.
> 
> I cannot use Curve Optimizer with 3201, and even without it and after having flashed 3202, this is what I get while just browsing the web:
> View attachment 2474177
> 
> 
> 
> So, back to 3102 for me for the time being.


May be you can do positive value in curve optimizer? It's a tool to help adapting silicon performance


----------



## metalshark

Finally able to boot at 1933IF/3866MHz on the C8F using 3202 and a 5950X.

Getting RAM to 4000MHz with IF on 1900MHz is easy. Getting IF to 2000MHz with RAM on 3800MHz is easy. Getting both at the same time above 1900/3800 has been a nightmare.

Have needed to push PLL up to 1.9v (1900/4000 and 2000/3800 only need 1.8v). Can boot at 1.88v PLL but memtest86 shows the memory bandwidth is slower (multiple boots at different voltage settings to confirm the behaviour).

SoC is up to 1.15, with IOD on 1.075 and CCD on 1.08.

"Seems" stable (have not had enough time to confirm 100% stability).


----------



## Sleepycat

Wanted to get your opinion on my CO settings. I am using very extreme settings but I have not gotten a single WHEA yet (touch wood!). I've tried more conservative CO settings, but they result in POST errors or lowered scores.

I lowered the temperature limit to 85 ºC and a PPT of 220, TDC of 200A and EDC of 160A. During multicore loads, I hit the 85 ºC limit and single core hits about 72 ºC. With these settings I have 2 limits being hit, first with with temperature and second is with EDC which shows it at 100% on multicore loads. I've tried increasing EDC limits to 200A, and it still hits 100% eventhough scores are the same and temperature still reaches 85 ºC. The CPU power being used is the same for both EDC at 160A and at 200A, so does this mean it is not using any more power or doing any more work eventhough it is using 25% more current?


Core 0: -20Core 6: -30Core 1: -20Core 7: -30Core 2: -15Core 8: -30Core 3: -15Core 9: -30Core 4: -20Core 10: -30Core 5: -20Core 11: -30

Running 4x 16GB quad rank B-die on a Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi, so it is not letting me go beyond 3600MHz CL16-15-15-33

I'm getting CB R23 single core of 1618 and multi core of 23174.


----------



## RHBH

I see some people with unstable systems while using negative values in curve optimizer.

I gotta say, 3202 is running ok here, I've been able to run -30 (negative) on all cores since 3101 with 0 errors.

The main adjustment, I had to set LLC1 to CPU power phase or I get crash during idle / light workloads.

I did a benchmark in CPUZ, my CPU is boosting to 4.6 all core and 4.93 singe core.

For CB R20 all core my CPU is boosting to 4.5 all core.

These clocks are with stock behavior, curve optimizer only, PBO disabled.

This is my CPU-Z bench result, 686 points in single core, I'm kinda impressed with curve optimizer gains.









AMD Ryzen 9 5900X @ 4598.93 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR


[jcfvvu] Validated Dump by Anonymous (2021-01-13 02:57:55) - MB: Asus ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO (WI-FI) - RAM: 32768 MB




valid.x86.fr


----------



## PWn3R

Gadfly said:


> Turn up you SB 1.0v to 1.05v.


I have tried that as well as running Gen 3 instead of Gen 4


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tchabada

RHBH said:


> I see some people with unstable systems while using negative values in curve optimizer.
> 
> I gotta say, 3202 is running ok here, I've been able to run -30 (negative) on all cores since 3101 with 0 errors.
> 
> The main adjustment, I had to set LLC1 to CPU power phase or I get crash during idle / light workloads.
> 
> I did a benchmark in CPUZ, my CPU is boosting to 4.6 all core and 4.93 singe core.
> 
> For CB R20 all core my CPU is boosting to 4.5 all core.
> 
> These clocks are with stock behavior, curve optimizer only, PBO disabled.
> 
> This is my CPU-Z bench result, 686 points in single core, I'm kinda impressed with curve optimizer gains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 9 5900X @ 4598.93 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR
> 
> 
> [jcfvvu] Validated Dump by Anonymous (2021-01-13 02:57:55) - MB: Asus ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO (WI-FI) - RAM: 32768 MB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> valid.x86.fr


Could you test your stability with Prime95 Small FFTs(without AVX)
on 1 thread and thread_switcher please? I've got rounding error after hours with such aggressive CO.


----------



## RHBH

tchabada said:


> Could you test your stability with Prime95 Small FFTs(without AVX)
> on 1 thread and thread_switcher please? I've got rounding error after hours with such aggressive CO.


I guess CDD 0 is good, most cores reaching 4.9GHz. While CDD 1 is average, cores reaching 4.7~4.8GHz.

Gonna sleep a few hours and check it later.


----------



## tchabada

RHBH said:


> I guess CDD 0 is good, most cores reaching 4.9GHz. While CDD 1 is average, cores reaching 4.7~4.8GHz.
> 
> Gonna sleep a few hours and check it later.


Seems you have far better silicon than mine.


----------



## Fanu

Whats with all the BETA bioses for several months now? Why are these being pushed to the end consumers, don't AMD/ASUS/Gigabyte/MSI/ASRock have their own staff that gets paid to test these things out?

How many BIOSes has ASUS published recently only to remove them from download pages? Ridiculous

I guess part of the problem is that AMD is trying to push new features (PBO2, curve optimizer, per CCX OC, itd) after CPUs have already been released to the market - I just find it fascinating that its now 4th gen CPU release on the same socket yet AMD apparently learned nothing on how to do CPU launches and work with its board partners in advance to avoid issues


----------



## greg_p

Fanu said:


> Whats with all the BETA bioses for several months now? Why are these being pushed to the end consumers, don't AMD/ASUS/Gigabyte/MSI/ASRock have their own staff that gets paid to test these things out?
> 
> How many BIOSes has ASUS published recently only to remove them from download pages? Ridiculous
> 
> I guess part of the problem is that AMD is trying to push new features (PBO2, curve optimizer, per CCX OC, itd) after CPUs have already been released to the market - I just find it fascinating that its now 4th gen CPU release on the same socket yet AMD apparently learned nothing on how to do CPU launches and work with its board partners in advance to avoid issues


Hey no problem. You may also have waited for the Zen3 to be mature. This is not a push button technology, but yes there are over selling this, much before it's well finished. But we all know that.
By the way there has been tons of officiel non-beta bioses for Zen2.


----------



## Fanu

greg_p said:


> Hey no problem. You may also have waited for the Zen3 to be mature.


That should be AMDs marketing slogan: "wait for our tech to mature, even tho we are selling it already"

I mean, part of me likes to tinker with hardware so I don't mind all of the bugs as much, but there are plenty of people that just like their hardware to be plug'n'play - and as much reputation as AMD has been gaining by releasing class leading CPUs, they've also been losing reputation due to all the issues, even several months after product launch



greg_p said:


> This is not a push button technology, but yes there are over selling this, much before it's well finished. But we all know that.


No I did not know that 4th gen of AM4 CPU would have so much issues (WHEA errors, BSODs, USB 2.0 losing connectivity, etc)

Not even my 2700X (which I bought 2 months after launch) had so many issues (if any at all, only with poor RAM OCing, but that was due to ****ty memory controller in my CPU)

I expected AMD, after 4 years of socket AM4, not to have CPU/Chipset release day issues that continue on for months 

Did they learn nothing from past launches? Guess not



greg_p said:


> By the way there has been tons of officiel non-beta bioses for Zen2.


Did any of them had stable AGESA?


----------



## RHBH

tchabada said:


> Seems you have far better silicon than mine.


I got an error after 2 hours and the stress test stopped. 

Should this be an issue?


----------



## domdtxdissar

tchabada said:


> Could you test your stability with Prime95 Small FFTs(without AVX)
> on 1 thread and thread_switcher please? I've got rounding error after hours with such aggressive CO.


Have been running prime 26.6 smallFFT's (without AVX) for 20+ mins with threadswitcher now.










I changed the config file to 16 cores, but there seems to be problem as it never loads "core 15 thread 2" but spends twice the time on "core 15 thread 1" instead (?)
Anyway this are my boost numbers with -30 on all cores with CO

Same settings as i posted in this thread:



domdtxdissar said:


> Think i have found my new 24/7 settings again, with fans on auto etc, 24 degrees ambient.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2474072
> 
> 
> And some heavier y-cruncher benchmarks, do note the 295 watt usage.. Good cooling is required with these settings
> View attachment 2474073


----------



## tchabada

RHBH said:


> I got an error after 2 hours and the stress test stopped.
> 
> Should this be an issue?





domdtxdissar said:


> Have been running prime 26.6 (without AVX) for 20+ mins with threadswitcher now.
> 
> View attachment 2474312
> 
> 
> I changed the config file to 16 cores, but there seems to be problem as it never loads "core 15 thread 2" but spends twice the time on "core 15 thread 1" instead (?)
> Anyway this are my boost numbers with -30 on all cores with CO
> 
> Same settings as i posted in this thread:


I've got error after 5h using latest version of Prime95. I am testing all cores -20 at the moment for 8h without any errors.


----------



## Blizzard518

Fanu said:


> Did any of them had stable AGESA?


I never had a problems  from Zen2 with Asrock MB or now with 5900 and CH8H. Are you really thinking only the forum members are AMD owners? The question is rhetoric. Just we’re in OC forum and not using the PC on Auto settings


----------



## xeizo

Blizzard518 said:


> I never had a problems  from Zen2 with Asrock MB or now with 5900 and CH8H. Are you really thinking only the forum members are AMD owners? The question is rhetoric. Just we’re in OC forum and not using the PC on Auto settings


True that, for myself anything less than 3800MHz memory is undoable. So tinker it is.


----------



## dr.Rafi

Fanu said:


> Whats with all the BETA bioses for several months now? Why are these being pushed to the end consumers, don't AMD/ASUS/Gigabyte/MSI/ASRock have their own staff that gets paid to test these things out?
> 
> How many BIOSes has ASUS published recently only to remove them from download pages? Ridiculous
> 
> I guess part of the problem is that AMD is trying to push new features (PBO2, curve optimizer, per CCX OC, itd) after CPUs have already been released to the market - I just find it fascinating that its now 4th gen CPU release on the same socket yet AMD apparently learned nothing on how to do CPU launches and work with its board partners in advance to avoid issues


I know Customers do not need to deal with testing these beta bios, but in the same time is very easy and quick way to adress all the issues with them by costumer testing with 100 or 1000 of peoples testing in the same time with thousand of different system configurations and software used in short time if you do not like to test you simply can download the latest non beta only and use it.


----------



## dmbrio

GRABibus said:


> be happy.
> You have people who even can’t use their PC with those Ryzen 5000 (idle reboots, Bsods, wheas, etc....)
> 
> 😊


Hi bud, we have the exact same setup but with a C8H Wi-fi and 3080 strix.

Are you experiencing stutters/crashes on Black Ops Cold War?

Also, do you experience slow boot times and when windows loads the task bar doesn't work until you click on it?

Video of the issue:


----------



## Sindragosaa

Not sure what the difference is between 3102 and 3202 is other than the AGESA, but my system was completely unstable with 3202 with the same PBO/CO settings I had in 3102.

I was getting idle reboots as soon as I logged into Windows. I have had 3102 running for 40hrs+ continuously without a reboot.

So flashed back to 3102 and we're stable


----------



## xeizo

Regarding WHEA, I can get complete WHEA free, but not with any extra performance. It's only close to stock performance that is WHEA free with 3800MHz memory. I can get plenty better performance, but always with random WHEA. The only thing I've gained with tweaking is said 3800MHz memory and much lower temps. More quiet of course, fans never speed up much. It looks like my sample is very tightly binned, there's almost zero extra performance built in. Suppose I can be happy as long as there's no WHEA or sudden reboots, but no win in the silicon lottery.

Look, no WHEA, but mediocre performance


----------



## dr.Rafi

Sindragosaa said:


> Not sure what the difference is between 3102 and 3202 is other than the AGESA, but my system was completely unstable with 3202 with the same PBO/CO settings I had in 3102.
> 
> I was getting idle reboots as soon as I logged into Windows. I have had 3102 running for 40hrs+ continuously without a reboot.
> 
> So flashed back to 3102 and we're stable


Did you disabled the global C-state in the 3202 bios ?


----------



## Sindragosaa

dr.Rafi said:


> Did you disabled the global C-state in the 3202 bios ?


Yeah - After the flash, I loaded optimised defaults then saved and exited, to make sure the defaults where primed.

Then I went into the bios and configured the settings to mirror my settings in 3102. This included disabling all the C state settings.

To be clear, I can get the system stable under 3202, but not with the same PBO/CO settings which nets worse performance.

I didn't feel wasting a couple hours and going through and optimising each setting again. 

I'll just wait for a non-beta bios, before I consider doing that.


----------



## dr.Rafi

Sindragosaa said:


> Yeah - After the flash, I loaded optimised defaults then saved and exited, to make sure the defaults where primed.
> 
> Then I went into the bios and configured the settings to mirror my settings in 3102. This included disabling all the C state settings.
> 
> To be clear, I can get the system stable under 3202, but not with the same PBO/CO settings which nets worse performance.
> 
> I didn't feel wasting a couple hours and going through and optimising each setting again.
> 
> I'll just wait for a non-beta bios, before I consider doing that.


Honstly even non beta can be worse, they keep releasing those firmwares, if they fix one thing they miss others.
I think the reason is AMd 5000 series cpus have abig variance in the memory controller quality and the good ones are minority, so they going to release non X desktop cpu which have lower base and boost frquency, so they can sell also what is failing manifacturing to be X cpus.


----------



## greg_p

What is sure is that calibration of pbo has changed on 3202. I could go deeper in pbo voltage reduction with my CPU (which is a bronze looser on the lottery) with a bit higher effective clock, but a hard barrier at 0 overdrive. Anything higher and it bsoded. 
This is not really a problem for me as even if clock is high, effective clock is not reaching on a sustained or avx load.


----------



## koji

Did some more messing with my manual OC, turns out my 1900FCLK/3800mhz RAM wasn't OCCT Large stable at all. Had to bump a couple voltages up and it's purring like a kitten now. That also lead to finally getting consistent stresstest results so I was able to tune in my "final" manual OC. Think I'll also just stick with a manual or I'd need to get my Dark Hero DOC stable but that's a different beast.

Anyway, the key bits for the manual profile:

Bios: 3102
CCXs: 47.25 / 46.00
CPU Core Voltage: 1.31875 with LLC3, this idles in windows @ 1.325, droops to 1.30 in OCCT

CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.10600] (VSOC LLC3)
DRAM Voltage [1.50000]
VDDG CCD Voltage Control [0.965] (had to bump up from 0.95)
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [0.965] (had to bump up from 0.95
CLDO VDDP voltage [0.900]
1.00V SB Voltage [1.00000]
1.8V PLL Voltage [1.86] (bump from 1.80)







































Had to sacrifice a decent chunk of single core speed but I'll take the trade off for better temps / less noise while gaming. Might go back to honing in on my DOC profile now that I know this is "stable".


----------



## dr.Rafi

greg_p said:


> What is sure is that calibration of pbo has changed on 3202. I could go deeper in pbo voltage reduction with my CPU (which is a bronze looser on the lottery) with a bit higher effective clock, but a hard barrier at 0 overdrive. Anything higher and it bsoded.
> This is not really a problem for me as even if clock is high, effective clock is not reaching on a sustained or avx load.


With my experince with many 5000 series cpu i have and many motherboards, blue screen always indicative of memory overclock failure, while Curve Optimizer fail always reboot the computer without Bluescreen,but after couple fail reboots then windows boot in to repair mode.


----------



## greg_p

You are right, actually my issues was reboot and not BSOD. I was just typing too fast and on the phone 








I'm actually satisfied. CO -30 CCX2, -17 cores CCX1 c0 c2 c6, -25 for the other. Fmax disabled, overdrive 0 and custom loop.


----------



## dr.Rafi

greg_p said:


> You are right, actually my issues was reboot and not BSOD. I was just typing too fast and on the phone
> View attachment 2474419
> 
> I'm actually satisfied. CO -30 CCX2, -17 cores CCX1 c0 c2 c6, -25 for the other. Fmax disabled, overdrive 0 and custom loop.


You can try disable global C-state that help to go higher with overdrive for me i can -30 all cores and overdrive 175 if global c-state is disabled,rock stable and better performance than enabled and tuned CO with less overdrive and on Asus motherborad usually keep the LLC for cpu on 2 or 1 with C-state disabled and 3 to 4 when enabled ,but in Gigabyte ican use Auto LLC when c-state is disabled and i use 280/175/250 ppt/tdc/edc.


----------



## greg_p

I don't really care about multi thread, and would prefer C state to be active as it reduces global power consumption and temps. will trey anyway.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Fanu said:


> Whats with all the BETA bioses for several months now? Why are these being pushed to the end consumers, don't AMD/ASUS/Gigabyte/MSI/ASRock have their own staff that gets paid to test these things out?
> 
> How many BIOSes has ASUS published recently only to remove them from download pages? Ridiculous
> 
> I guess part of the problem is that AMD is trying to push new features (PBO2, curve optimizer, per CCX OC, itd) after CPUs have already been released to the market - I just find it fascinating that its now 4th gen CPU release on the same socket yet AMD apparently learned nothing on how to do CPU launches and work with its board partners in advance to avoid issues


We were sold on a CPU based off of benchmarks that they shared months ago. When we chose to purchase Zen 3 CPUs, we did so knowing the performance it had in many different real world applications and synthetic benchmarks. None of that has changed. 

Anything new being introduced into these BIOs for us are just bonuses on top of that. *No need to come off as entitled. *Your CPU is still performing as it was promised since day one.


----------



## Outcasst

I was getting a load of WHEA errors after updating to 3202 and reloading my previous 1900FCLK profile. However I tried a complete wipe of settings back to default and putting in the settings from scratch and it looks like I'm completely stable again. Might be worth a try for those who are having issues getting their 3102 profiles to work on 3202.


----------



## greg_p

For Sure, using 3102 saved profile on 3202 is not working, I had to redo every setting 1 by one.


----------



## Krisztias

Outcasst said:


> I was getting a load of WHEA errors after updating to 3202 and reloading my previous 1900FCLK profile. However I tried a complete wipe of settings back to default and putting in the settings from scratch and it looks like I'm completely stable again. Might be worth a try for those who are having issues getting their 3102 profiles to work on 3202.


Never, ever load profiles from another BIOS version.This can cause errors and weird behaviour of the system.


----------



## RHBH

Is it ok to use LLC1?

I found that this setting prevent my system to idle crash with aggressive curve optimizer undervolt.

Does anyone know what is the main difference between "Standard" and "Optimized" Power Phase Control?


----------



## LionAlonso

RHBH said:


> Is it ok to use LLC1?
> 
> I found that this setting prevent my system to idle crash with aggressive curve optimizer undervolt.
> 
> Does anyone know what is the main difference between "Standard" and "Optimized" Power Phase Control?


I think in Asus thats the LLC with more Vdroop, if u run good with that is the optimal settings where CPU suffers less


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Krisztias said:


> Never, ever load profiles from another BIOS version.This can cause errors and weird behaviour of the system.


I've done it 30+ times without any issues.


----------



## GRABibus

Hi,
received my PC on Thursday.

5900X
C8H
Corsair H115i RGB Platinum
4x8GB 3600MHz CL14 (With DOCP) (Team Group)
EVGA FTW3 RTX3090 Ultra
SSD Seagate FireCuda 520 2TB NVMe

I received the PC with Bios 2502.
I tried some CBR20.
Conditions : DOCP enabled + PBO enabled + Fans H115i and pump speed at max + 21°C room temperature
=> MT Score : 8750
=> ST score : 630
Max CPU temp = 79°C (Tdie CCD1 in HWInfo is the highest temp)

What I could see in that some games as Cold War or Modern Warfare, with same confditions above, is that it only boost at 4.65GHz; with quite this 4.65GHz on all cores.
Despite my cooling which is mid range for this CPU and not to bad honestly, my feeling is that it is a low boost in games (At least those 2 games).
It boosts a littlme higher (Until 4.85Ghz) in Overwatch.

I decided to flash to 3202.

Results :
=> Temps have increased a little bit
=> Boost is lower that with 2502

My first conclusion is that I didn't win the Silicon lottery clearly.

What would be the best Bios is terms of performances (Higher boost) ?
As I won't change my cooling for now and as i don't yet to play with CO because I am still discovering first the way how those Ryzen works and how and I want to bee sure that my rig hasn't big issues in next days, what would be the best Bios then ?

Thjank you in advance.


----------



## GRABibus

dmbrio said:


> Hi bud, we have the exact same setup but with a C8H Wi-fi and 3080 strix.
> 
> Are you experiencing stutters/crashes on Black Ops Cold War?
> 
> Also, do you experience slow boot times and when windows loads the task bar doesn't work until you click on it?
> 
> Video of the issue:


no stutters and no crashes.
No issues at windows boot. It boots in 10 seconds max from the power "on" and it loads very fast.

But, what I can see, is that the CPU doesn't boost so much in this game..4.65GHz with PBO enabled. As written in my post above, this is probably due to my Silicon which is not Golden for sure.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

GRABibus said:


> Hi,
> received my PC on Thursday.
> 
> 5900X
> C8H
> Corsair H115i RGB Platinum
> 4x8GB 3600MHz CL14 (With DOCP) (Team Group)
> EVGA FTW3 RTX3090 Ultra
> SSD Seagate FireCuda 520 2TB NVMe
> 
> I received the PC with Bios 2502.
> I tried some CBR20.
> Conditions : DOCP enabled + PBO enabled + Fans H115i and pump speed at max + 21°C room temperature
> => MT Score : 8750
> => ST score : 630
> Max CPU temp = 79°C (Tdie CCD1 in HWInfo is the highest temp)
> 
> What I could see in that some games as Cold War or Modern Warfare, with same confditions above, is that it only boost at 4.65GHz; with quite this 4.65GHz on all cores.
> Despite my cooling which is mid range for this CPU and not to bad honestly, my feeling is that it is a low boost in games (At least those 2 games).
> It boosts a littlme higher (Until 4.85Ghz) in Overwatch.
> 
> I decided to flash to 3202.
> 
> Results :
> => Temps have increased a little bit
> => Boost is lower that with 2502
> 
> My first conclusion is that I didn't win the Silicon lottery clearly.
> 
> What would be the best Bios is terms of performances (Higher boost) ?
> As I won't change my cooling for now and as i don't yet to play with CO because I am still discovering first the way how those Ryzen works and how and I want to bee sure that my rig hasn't big issues in next days, what would be the best Bios then ?
> 
> Thjank you in advance.


COD doesn't play well with Zen CPUs


----------



## RHBH

tchabada said:


> Could you test your stability with Prime95 Small FFTs(without AVX)
> on 1 thread and thread_switcher please? I've got rounding error after hours with such aggressive CO.


Testing for 4 hours without errors.

C01: -25
C02: -30
C03: -25
C04: -30
C05: -12
C06: -30
C07: -30
C08: -30
C09: -30
C10: -25
C11: -30
C12: -25

Update:

Stable for 8 hours with these settings, no errors.


----------



## GRABibus

KingEngineRevUp said:


> COD doesn't play well with Zen CPUs


thanks.
I saw some people with 4,9Ghz boost with 5900x on BOCW


----------



## LionAlonso

GRABibus said:


> no stutters and no crashes.
> No issues at windows boot. It boots in 10 seconds max from the power "on" and it loads very fast.
> 
> But, what I can see, is that the CPU doesn't boost so much in this game..4.65GHz with PBO enabled. As written in my post above, this is probably due to my Silicon which is not Golden for sure.


For me in cold war with Curve Optimizer fine tuning i get 4,8.
Have u tried to tune it?


----------



## GRABibus

LionAlonso said:


> For me in cold war with Curve Optimizer fine tuning i get 4,8.
> Have u tried to tune it?


not yet as I wrote.
But now with PBO enabled, I get 83 degrees on CBR20 MT.
With 2502, it was 78degrees and higher score.

let’s see 😊


----------



## LionAlonso

GRABibus said:


> not yet as I wrote.
> But now with PBO enabled, I get 83 degrees on CBR20 MT.
> With 2502, it was 78degrees and higher score.
> 
> let’s see 😊


Im sure with CO tuning u will get better results, star low and keep going up till u found instability.


----------



## GRABibus

Let’s keep in contact, we have same cooling and same cpu and same cooling


----------



## LionAlonso

GRABibus said:


> Let’s keep in contact, we have same cooling and same cpu and same cooling


Sure, I let u here my settings with AGESA 1.2.0.0:
PBO: 150-105-150
50Mhz boost override
Curve Optimizer:
-25 first CCD and -20 second CCD
Auto LLC for Vcore and Medium for SOC
1.055Vsoc, 950 IOD, 900 CCD and VDPP
1900FCLK with Ram CL16
Some scores for baseline:
CB20 MT: 8760
CB20 ST: 642
Geekbench5:
Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. X570 AORUS MASTER - Geekbench Browser 
Max temps in benchmarks: 65-67
Temps gaming in warzone (it has a lot of cpu usage): Around 70 
If u have any questions feel free to ask me.


----------



## dr.Rafi

KingEngineRevUp said:


> I've done it 30+ times without any issues.


I too I done it many times with no issues but with one Asus ubdate to bios after loading my old bios profile all the ram timing setting shift down so each item was facing with value of previous item and i get system stuck in memory error post code.


----------



## GRABibus

LionAlonso said:


> Sure, I let u here my settings with AGESA 1.2.0.0:
> PBO: 150-105-150
> 50Mhz boost override
> Curve Optimizer:
> -25 first CCD and -20 second CCD
> Auto LLC for Vcore and Medium for SOC
> 1.055Vsoc, 950 IOD, 900 CCD and VDPP
> 1900FCLK with Ram CL16
> Some scores for baseline:
> CB20 MT: 8760
> CB20 ST: 642
> Geekbench5:
> Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. X570 AORUS MASTER - Geekbench Browser
> Max temps in benchmarks: 65-67
> Temps gaming in warzone (it has a lot of cpu usage): Around 70
> If u have any questions feel free to ask me.


thanks.
In cold war, I can see some peaks at 85 degrees but rarely.
Average is between 70 and 80’degrees which is already hot....
It was lower with. 2502


----------



## Fanu

KingEngineRevUp said:


> We were sold on a CPU based off of benchmarks that they shared months ago. When we chose to purchase Zen 3 CPUs, we did so knowing the performance it had in many different real world applications and synthetic benchmarks. None of that has changed.
> 
> Anything new being introduced into these BIOs for us are just bonuses on top of that. *No need to come off as entitled. *Your CPU is still performing as it was promised since day one.


I am not complaining about lack of performance, I am complaining about all the bugs that are present on every AMD CPU launch - unacceptable for 4th CPU (not counting 3xxx XT series) launch on the same socket
basic issues, such as USB devices disconnecting when connected to USB 2 ports, system stability issues and other reported stuff which still has not been fixed, months after launch

and the burden of beta testing everything falls on end consumers

Its like AMD has no cooperation with board partners, and they don't work in advance of CPU launches..


----------



## LionAlonso

GRABibus said:


> thanks.
> In cold war, I can see some peaks at 85 degrees but rarely.
> Average is between 70 and 80’degrees which is already hot....
> It was lower with. 2502


If you have PBO auto and no CO its normal, the limits are very high.


----------



## GRABibus

LionAlonso said:


> If you have PBO auto and no CO its normal, the limits are very high.


Thansk.
I opened my case and could decrease the temps by 5 to 10 degrees . But no real improvement in boost due to the fact that the 3202 increased my heat.
I am learning about my new rig and Ryzen 😊


----------



## Sheldon_fr

koji said:


> Did some more messing with my manual OC, turns out my 1900FCLK/3800mhz RAM wasn't OCCT Large stable at all. Had to bump a couple voltages up and it's purring like a kitten now. That also lead to finally getting consistent stresstest results so I was able to tune in my "final" manual OC. Think I'll also just stick with a manual or I'd need to get my Dark Hero DOC stable but that's a different beast.
> 
> Anyway, the key bits for the manual profile:
> 
> Bios: 3102
> CCXs: 47.25 / 46.00
> CPU Core Voltage: 1.31875 with LLC3, this idles in windows @ 1.325, droops to 1.30 in OCCT
> 
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.10600] (VSOC LLC3)
> DRAM Voltage [1.50000]
> VDDG CCD Voltage Control [0.965] (had to bump up from 0.95)
> VDDG IOD Voltage Control [0.965] (had to bump up from 0.95
> CLDO VDDP voltage [0.900]
> 1.00V SB Voltage [1.00000]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [1.86] (bump from 1.80)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had to sacrifice a decent chunk of single core speed but I'll take the trade off for better temps / less noise while gaming. Might go back to honing in on my DOC profile now that I know this is "stable".



It is safer to carry out a manual OC with this kind of values? Is maintaining a voltage of 1.3 dangerous for the processor? I think I will try to do a manual oc while the bios are a little more stable.


----------



## GRABibus

LionAlonso said:


> If you have PBO auto and no CO its normal, the limits are very high.


I have PBO enabled.
Auto means enabled ?


----------



## LionAlonso

GRABibus said:


> Thansk.
> I opened my case and could decrease the temps by 5 to 10 degrees . But no real improvement in boost due to the fact that the 3202 increased my heat.
> I am learning about my new rig and Ryzen 😊





GRABibus said:


> I have PBO enabled.
> Auto means enabled ?


yeah, just lower the limits, try to put my limits and see how it goes with curve optimizer.


----------



## GRABibus

LionAlonso said:


> yeah, just lower the limits, try to put my limits and see how it goes with curve optimizer.


with PBO auto, I get 300points less than with PBO enabled in CBR20 MT


----------



## LionAlonso

GRABibus said:


> with PBO auto, I get 300points less than with PBO enabled in CBR20 MT


Auto and enabled are bad IMO, You need to fine tune this settings.


----------



## GRABibus

LionAlonso said:


> Auto and enabled are bad IMO, You need to fine tune this settings.


Which part of the bios menu ?
« AMD overclocking » where there is the message for the warranty ?


----------



## LionAlonso

GRABibus said:


> Which part of the bios menu ?
> « AMD overclocking » where there is the message for the warranty ?


Ye, there
Btw if u wanna follow it try to PM me in order not to mess up the thread.


----------



## GRABibus

I try to downgrade bios from 3202 to 3102.
but in flash tool in bios, it says that the bios 3202 is not a « proper file ».
I use the same USB key than when I upgraded from 2502 to 3202.
It seems then than downgrading doesn’t work ? Strange.


----------



## koji

Sheldon_fr said:


> It is safer to carry out a manual OC with this kind of values? Is maintaining a voltage of 1.3 dangerous for the processor? I think I will try to do a manual oc while the bios are a little more stable.


I would keep it at 1.3 max for sustained loads (stresstests etc)










From an MSI stream.


----------



## koji

GRABibus said:


> I try to downgrade bios from 3202 to 3102.
> but in flash tool in bios, it says that the bios 3202 is not a « proper file ».
> I use the same USB key than when I upgraded from 2502 to 3202.
> It seems then than downgrading doesn’t work ? Strange.


You'll have to use the bios flashback feature. Best if you Google it / check manual.


----------



## GRABibus

koji said:


> You'll have to use the bios flashback feature. Best if you Google it / check manual.


Yes, sorrry. just saw on the Asus site that the 3202 can only be reversed by bios flashback


----------



## dyanikoglu

After latest bios update, my max temperature under load got dropped from 83 to 76. Definitely an improvement.


----------



## Gadfly

dyanikoglu said:


> After latest bios update, my max temperature under load got dropped from 83 to 76. Definitely an improvement.


Something other than the bios version is different.

Is this static OC or PBO? If PBO are you sure PBO is enable and not on "auto" (Auto = disabled).


----------



## Gadfly

LionAlonso said:


> Auto and enabled are bad IMO, You need to fine tune this settings.


PBO Auto = disabled.
PBO Enabled = AMD defaults (150/95/140, 1x scalar, +0 fmax).

Neither is "bad", or dangerous, you will just have lower performance than a manually tuned profile with higher limits, higher LLC, and higher fmax.


----------



## LarryHope

Sleepycat said:


> Wanted to get your opinion on my CO settings. I am using very extreme settings but I have not gotten a single WHEA yet (touch wood!). I've tried more conservative CO settings, but they result in POST errors or lowered scores.
> 
> I lowered the temperature limit to 85 ºC and a PPT of 220, TDC of 200A and EDC of 160A. During multicore loads, I hit the 85 ºC limit and single core hits about 72 ºC. With these settings I have 2 limits being hit, first with with temperature and second is with EDC which shows it at 100% on multicore loads. I've tried increasing EDC limits to 200A, and it still hits 100% eventhough scores are the same and temperature still reaches 85 ºC. The CPU power being used is the same for both EDC at 160A and at 200A, so does this mean it is not using any more power or doing any more work eventhough it is using 25% more current?
> 
> 
> Core 0: -20Core 6: -30Core 1: -20Core 7: -30Core 2: -15Core 8: -30Core 3: -15Core 9: -30Core 4: -20Core 10: -30Core 5: -20Core 11: -30
> 
> Running 4x 16GB quad rank B-die on a Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi, so it is not letting me go beyond 3600MHz CL16-15-15-33
> 
> I'm getting CB R23 single core of 1618 and multi core of 23174.
> 
> View attachment 2474231


"

Running 4x 16GB quad rank B-die on a Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi,

"

I am finding 16G x 4 DRAM module Samsung B die for a long time. Could you let me know what DRAM you use here?


----------



## dr.Rafi

GRABibus said:


> I try to downgrade bios from 3202 to 3102.
> but in flash tool in bios, it says that the bios 3202 is not a « proper file ».
> I use the same USB key than when I upgraded from 2502 to 3202.
> It seems then than downgrading doesn’t work ? Strange.






I use this method or you can use no cpu method


----------



## PWn3R

Ok, so after 4.5 hours of putting with voltages, I was able to get 1900 FCLK to boot to password screen on windows before it rebooted. That was 2.0v pll, 1.15 vsoc, memory termination voltage set to .6 dram voltage at 1.45 and ram at 2100mhz. Vddg ccd and iOD set to 1.05 and vddp set to 1.05 an voltage set to 1.05. I am unwilling to set the vsoc higher but did find two posts on Reddit of people needing 1.25v to get 1900 to boot. I’m back to stock cpu settings ram oc at 3733 and 1866 FCLK with voltages on auto.

This bios seems to have not made a difference on my 5950x this is 3202 I’m talking about. Does anyone know when we are getting PBO2?

Edit:I just had a reboot from opening CSGO, and now I'm get F9 with the old 1866/3733 that used to work and the bootloop. Reverting back to 3003.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## uplink

Wow, now I'm in so much agony. Switched my Asus ROG Maximus VIII Formula for Asus ROG Maximus VIII Dark Hero, installation took me a day [physical] and software installation today whole day...

And guess what. I still have the same crappy performance on my 5950X.

Is there any chance, that the CPU is simply performing sub par? Like it's faulty?

[my CPU-Z score is 630 - 650 pts single core/thread and 11500 - 11700 pts multithread, Cinebench R20 is at 9400 - 9600 pts and I didn't even bother with single core, I mean, what's the point? :/].

Are there any reports on weak performance of the CPU, due to CPU?


----------



## Gadfly

uplink said:


> Wow, now I'm in so much agony. Switched my Asus ROG Maximus VIII Formula for Asus ROG Maximus VIII Dark Hero, installation took me a day [physical] and software installation today whole day...
> 
> And guess what. I still have the same crappy performance on my 5950X.
> 
> Is there any chance, that the CPU is simply performing sub par? Like it's faulty?
> 
> [my CPU-Z score is 630 - 650 pts single core/thread and 11500 - 11700 pts multithread, Cinebench R20 is at 9400 - 9600 pts and I didn't even bother with single core, I mean, what's the point? :/].
> 
> Are there any reports on weak performance of the CPU, due to CPU?


Thise CB R20 scores are normal for a 5950X with PBO enabled and no manual tuning.

My 5950X, on a custom loop, with PBO enabled and auto settings (3800C14 memory/1900 mhz fclk) is right at 9650 all core.

If I tune my PBO profile I can score 12k CB R20 all core and 650 single core.

Does not sound like anything is faulty, just running defaults. What is your cooling setup?


----------



## uplink

Gadfly said:


> Thise CB R20 scores are normal for a 5950X with PBO enabled and no manual tuning.
> 
> My 5950X, on a custom loop, with PBO enabled and auto settings (3800C14 memory/1900 mhz fclk) is right at 9650 all core.
> 
> If I tune my PBO profile I can score 12k CB R20 all core and 650 single core.
> 
> Does not sound like anything is faulty.


 From what I've read reviews, reviewers were able to achieve 12k multicore [I can do barely 10900 pts at this moment, with full OC] and I don't know yet single-core, it's still running.

I'm short of 50 pts in CB R20 in single core and 1000 - 1500 pts in multi-core :/ I don't think that's "normal", or? :?


----------



## Gadfly

uplink said:


> From what I've read reviews, reviewers were able to achieve 12k multicore [I can do barely 10900 pts at this moment, with full OC] and I don't know yet single-core, it's still running.
> 
> I'm short of 50 pts in CB R20 in single core and 1000 - 1500 pts in multi-core :/ I don't think that's "normal", or? :?


12k all core with a tuned profile, just PBO at stock limits will never score 12k all core in CB R20. You need at least 4675mhz effective clock on all 16 core to break 12k, no way in hell you are doing that at 95 TDC and 120 PPT (stock limits).


----------



## uplink

Gadfly said:


> 12k all core with a tuned profile, just PBO at stock limits will never score 12k all core in CB R20. You need at least 4675mhz effective clock on all 16 core to break 12k, no way in hell you are doing that at 95 TDC and 120 PPT (stock limits).


 Do I need this extreme measure of OC even for single core 650 pts? I mean I'm able to get 602 - 604 pts at max .


----------



## Gadfly

uplink said:


> Do I need this extreme measure of OC even for single core 650 pts? I mean I'm able to get 602 - 604 pts at max .


Yes. Single core 650 points single core is 5075mhz effective; 630 points is 4825mhz effective. 

What kind of cooling do you have?


----------



## Gadfly

kaefers said:


> IF that is really so, it would a very slow clap for Asus. And I would hope Gamers Nexus of Buildzoid commenting on that. - There is zero information on the Dark Hero's product page with respect to those changes, unless I missed something. VRM may be a litter nicer, but that cannot be reason enough, since other Crosshair VIII boards don't exactly have bad VRMs at all.


I hit 4675mhz (effective, no stretching) on PBO with my C8H (12k CBR20); As far as I can tell the board offers no greater overclocking room. What it does do is allow a dynamic switch between PBO and a static overclocking profile. 

So you can get the higher PBO 1-2 core boost clocks, and then still revert to a manual all core clock when you start a heavy all core workload.


----------



## dr.Rafi

PWn3R said:


> Ok, so after 4.5 hours of putting with voltages, I was able to get 1900 FCLK to boot to password screen on windows before it rebooted. That was 2.0v pll, 1.15 vsoc, memory termination voltage set to .6 dram voltage at 1.45 and ram at 2100mhz. Vddg ccd and iOD set to 1.05 and vddp set to 1.05 an voltage set to 1.05. I am unwilling to set the vsoc higher but did find two posts on Reddit of people needing 1.25v to get 1900 to boot. I’m back to stock cpu settings ram oc at 3733 and 1866 FCLK with voltages on auto.
> 
> This bios seems to have not made a difference on my 5950x this is 3202 I’m talking about. Does anyone know when we are getting PBO2?
> 
> Edit:I just had a reboot from opening CSGO, and now I'm get F9 with the old 1866/3733 that used to work and the bootloop. Reverting back to 3003.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Regarding fclk 1900 did you try to keep cpu defult with PBO disabled, and all ram timing on Auto, and soc LLC 4 with the same voltage setting you mentioned ? i think it should work then unless you using high density ram of 64 gig or higher, or bad bin ram kit.


----------



## genelecs

PWn3R said:


> Ok, so after 4.5 hours of putting with voltages, I was able to get 1900 FCLK to boot to password screen on windows before it rebooted. That was 2.0v pll, 1.15 vsoc, memory termination voltage set to .6 dram voltage at 1.45 and ram at 2100mhz. Vddg ccd and iOD set to 1.05 and vddp set to 1.05 an voltage set to 1.05. I am unwilling to set the vsoc higher but did find two posts on Reddit of people needing 1.25v to get 1900 to boot. I’m back to stock cpu settings ram oc at 3733 and 1866 FCLK with voltages on auto.
> 
> This bios seems to have not made a difference on my 5950x this is 3202 I’m talking about. Does anyone know when we are getting PBO2?
> 
> Edit:I just had a reboot from opening CSGO, and now I'm get F9 with the old 1866/3733 that used to work and the bootloop. Reverting back to 3003.


I had a very quick 30 second blast at 1.25vSOC (personally this is *waaay *too much voltage for me to even feel comfortable so I hope I didn't break anything 😂) , 2.0v PLL. I then let it reboot to take set voltages _then _set FCLK to 1900 with RAM at 2100 and I still got my best friend Q-Code 07. Interesting it worked you got it to POST though.

Just incase it helps @PWn3R - I've been rock solid stable on all 3xxx BIOSes without WHEA/crashing at 1866/3733 with
1.11250v vsoc (w/ vsoc LLC 3)
1.05v VDDG IOD/CCD
0.950 VDDP.

I'd appreciate if anyone can confirm to me that the above are safe 24/7 voltages because I'm very happy where I am now.

I'm only running a very conservative -15 all core CO (-5 on best cores) and my RAM is some very poor clocking 2x8GB SR A0 B-Die which I have at very medium loose timings at 3733MHz @ 16-16-17-16-34 with 1.4v.
But the system passes +8hr p95 small FFT with threadswitcher and also it passes +8 hours of OCCT large data. No WHEA errors whatsoever. I've also not had a single idle or load crash with this config on any of the 3xxx BIOSes.


----------



## PWn3R

dr.Rafi said:


> Regarding fclk 1900 did you try to keep cpu defult with PBO disabled, and all ram timing on Auto, and soc LLC 4 with the same voltage setting you mentioned ? i think it should work then unless you using high density ram of 64 gig or higher, or bad bin ram kit.


Yes, I did try LLC up to 5. PBO was disabled, everything I didn't mention was on "Auto".


----------



## PWn3R

genelecs said:


> I had a very quick 30 second blast at 1.25vSOC (personally this is *waaay *too much voltage so I hope I didn't break anything 😂) , 2.0v PLL. I then let it reboot to take set voltages _then _set FCLK to 1900 with RAM at 2100 and I still got my best friend Q-Code 07. Interesting it worked you got it to POST though.
> 
> Just incase it helps @PWn3R - I've been rock solid stable on all 3xxx BIOSes without WHEA/crashing at 1866/3733 with
> 1.11250v vsoc (w/ vsoc LLC 3)
> 1.05v VDDG IOD/CCD
> 0.950 VDDP.
> 
> I'd appreciate if anyone can confirm to me that the above are safe 24/7 voltages because I'm very happy where I am now.
> 
> I'm only running a very conservative -15 all core CO (-5 on best cores) and my RAM is some very poor clocking 2x8GB SR A0 B-Die which I have at very medium loose timings at 16-16-17-16-34
> But the system passes +8hr p95 small FFT with threadswitcher and also it passes +8 hours of OCCT large data. I've also not had a single idle or load crash with this config on any of the 3xxx BIOSes.


I rolled back to 3003 and am stable with all voltages on AUTO with 1866/3733. I have 4 sticks of the QVL 17/17/17/37 @4000Mhz ram that I'm using. I am running it 16/16/16/32 right now on 1866/3733.


----------



## genelecs

PWn3R said:


> I rolled back to 3003 and am stable with all voltages on AUTO with 1866/3733. I have 4 sticks of the QVL 17/17/17/37 @4000Mhz ram that I'm using. I am running it 16/16/16/32 right now on 1866/3733.


Could I see a Zen Timings dump, curious about the voltages + timings you've got


----------



## dr.Rafi

Gadfly said:


> I hit 4675mhz (effective, no stretching) on PBO with my C8H (12k CBR20); As far as I can tell the board offers no greater overclocking room. What it does do is allow a dynamic switch between PBO and a static overclocking profile.
> 
> So you can get the higher PBO 1-2 core boost clocks, and then still revert to a manual all core clock when you start a heavy all core workload.


I think this feature can be included in any others motherboards if the vendors want to include it, it is only bios programing feature.


----------



## dr.Rafi

genelecs said:


> I had a very quick 30 second blast at 1.25vSOC (personally this is *waaay *too much voltage for me to even feel comfortable so I hope I didn't break anything 😂) , 2.0v PLL. I then let it reboot to take set voltages _then _set FCLK to 1900 with RAM at 2100 and I still got my best friend Q-Code 07. Interesting it worked you got it to POST though.
> 
> Just incase it helps @PWn3R - I've been rock solid stable on all 3xxx BIOSes without WHEA/crashing at 1866/3733 with
> 1.11250v vsoc (w/ vsoc LLC 3)
> 1.05v VDDG IOD/CCD
> 0.950 VDDP.
> 
> I'd appreciate if anyone can confirm to me that the above are safe 24/7 voltages because I'm very happy where I am now.
> 
> I'm only running a very conservative -15 all core CO (-5 on best cores) and my RAM is some very poor clocking 2x8GB SR A0 B-Die which I have at very medium loose timings at 3733MHz @ 16-16-17-16-34 with 1.4v.
> But the system passes +8hr p95 small FFT with threadswitcher and also it passes +8 hours of OCCT large data. No WHEA errors whatsoever. I've also not had a single idle or load crash with this config on any of the 3xxx BIOSes.


For me one time i used Soc voltage of 1.35 by mistake instead of 1.135 for whole day benchmarking and the cpu is still doing great same as first day.


----------



## dr.Rafi

PWn3R said:


> Yes, I did try LLC up to 5. PBO was disabled, everything I didn't mention was on "Auto".


Ram kit you using?


----------



## PWn3R

dr.Rafi said:


> Ram kit you using?


2 of F4-4000C17D-16GTZR. GSKILL. The ram sticks have sequential serials so they are definitely from the same batch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dyanikoglu

Gadfly said:


> Something other than the bios version is different.
> 
> Is this static OC or PBO? If PBO are you sure PBO is enable and not on "auto" (Auto = disabled).


I'm using my exact same PBO settings with previous BIOS.


----------



## koji

dyanikoglu said:


> After latest bios update, my max temperature under load got dropped from 83 to 76. Definitely an improvement.


Yep noticed that as well, improved thermals, same performance! (For pbo)


----------



## domdtxdissar

In preparation for the zen3 cpu overclocking google doc i have made a run 








Key points:

Custom EK watercooling with TechN zen3 waterblock, fans on 100%

Allcore -30 curve optimizer
PBO limit = 300PPT, 225TDC and 245EDC
Scalar = 4

C-state disabled, no WHEA errors.

LLC 3 with +0.018v core offset

Cinebench singlethread effective clock = 5099mhz -> 658 points
Cinebench average multithread effective clock = 4640mhz -> 12119 points
cpu-z singlethread = 709.9points
cpu-z multithread = 13688.2 points 

Prime95 Version 30.3 build 6 with AVX, SMALL FFT's, 60min run.
Sustained ~300 watt usage

Prime95 average multtithread effective clock = ~4440mhz after 30min runtime
Prime95 average multtithread effective clock = ~4440mhz after 60min runtime


----------



## GRABibus

Hi,
so, got my new PC on Thursday.

5900X
CH8 Bios 3202
Team Group 4x8GB 3600MHz CL14
EVGA FTW3 Ultra RTX 3090
Corsair H115i RGB Platinum.

I played night and day since with PBO, Static OC and per CCX OC.
Not yet CO, as I don't want yet to do it for the warrantee of the PC. I will test in next days or week when I am sure my Pc has no major issues.

Currently, here are my settings and CBR20 MT, CBR20 ST and AIDA Cache and Memory perf with per CCX OC :
































This OC is not stable, just to see how the temps and the scores were.


----------



## GRABibus

koji said:


> Yep noticed that as well, improved thermals, same performance! (For pbo)


for me thermals are worst with 3202 than with 2502 (2502 was the Bios installed on the PC I bought).


----------



## uplink

Gadfly said:


> Yes. Single core 650 points single core is 5075mhz effective; 630 points is 4825mhz effective.
> 
> What kind of cooling do you have?


 Asus ROG Ryujin 360, and at stock settings I never surpass 60°C in single/multithread and when using auto OC from Ryzen Master, I never go above 85°C.

What should I do to maximize single core performance? That's not PBO, right? What is it? Please advise, thank You!


----------



## dmbrio

GRABibus said:


> no stutters and no crashes.
> No issues at windows boot. It boots in 10 seconds max from the power "on" and it loads very fast.
> 
> But, what I can see, is that the CPU doesn't boost so much in this game..4.65GHz with PBO enabled. As written in my post above, this is probably due to my Silicon which is not Golden for sure.


Btw, my MB is C8H Wi-fi

What Windows Version are you running?

Any idea of what could be the source of my issues? I've tried everything already and simply cannot succeed on solving the issue with BOCW and the slow boot.

I've tried (for the slow boot issue:

Clean Windows Install
GPU Driver reinstallation w/ DDU
GPU Driver rollback to an earlier version (460.89 - which used to work with my previous setup)
Disable Game Mode / Graphics acceleration
Disable fast boot in both Windows and Bios
Changing Windows powerplan to high performance
Register Cleanup
Clear CMOS
Clean boot without non-microsoft services (solves the issue initially but then it comes back)
Uninstall Armoury Crate

For the BOCW issue:

Driver reinstallation w/ DDU
Disable Game Mode / Graphics acceleration
Changing Windows powerplan to high performance
Changing config file memory scale to 0.55 and 0.65 (this seems to minimize stutter a little, but ends up crashing anyways)
Downclocking GPU
Game full reinstall
Deleting Settings folder on Documents
Register Cleanup
Clear CMOS
Change PCI-E mode from auto to 4.0 & 3.0


----------



## ZeNch

uplink said:


> Asus ROG Ryujin 360, and at stock settings I never surpass 60°C in single/multithread and when using auto OC from Ryzen Master, I never go above 85°C.
> 
> What should I do to maximize single core performance? That's not PBO, right? What is it? Please advise, thank You!


85c is the max temperature (default) for autoOC (PBO) i think (not throttling, only not go fast with OC parameters with 85c)
I think the best way is PBO + curve optimizer, i dont try much with it (i cant shutdown my minecraft server for my friends XD).
i wait for CTR 2.0 (ClockTuner of 1Usmus) this 30th or 31st of this month.


----------



## xeizo

Ok, I've been tinkering with both free of WHEA and no sudden reboot settings. This takes lowering performance quite a bit, I see many posting fantasy scores. I know, I did too. But those are the settings that usually gives a sudden reboot in idle after 15 min, or after a day, or after three days. 
I've tried to be VERY conservative with CO as it looks to be the biggest reason behind sudden reboots. This is my current compromise to be stable, with CO -3 all core, but still have 3800MHz memory. It's almost exactly stock performance, but stock doesn't run my memory in 3800MHz so this is that. At least there is no regression from stock.

Max temp after CB R20 and GB5 is 76.8C and fan speed tops out at 1100 rpm up from 500 rpm(can do 1700 rpm), hardly makes any sound. This is no benchmark setup with maxed out fans etc, but an effort for normal 24/7 stable use.


----------



## shaolin95

domdtxdissar said:


> In preparation for the zen3 cpu overclocking google doc i have made a run
> View attachment 2474540
> 
> Key points:
> 
> Custom EK watercooling with TechN zen3 waterblock, fans on 100%
> 
> Allcore -30 curve optimizer
> PBO limit = 300PPT, 225TDC and 245EDC
> Scalar = 4
> 
> C-state disabled, no WHEA errors.
> 
> LLC 3 with +0.018v core offset
> 
> Cinebench singlethread effective clock = 5099mhz -> 658 points
> Cinebench average multithread effective clock = 4640mhz -> 12119 points
> cpu-z singlethread = 709.9points
> cpu-z multithread = 13688.2 points
> 
> Prime95 Version 30.3 build 6 with AVX, SMALL FFT's, 60min run.
> Sustained ~300 watt usage
> 
> Prime95 average multtithread effective clock = ~4440mhz after 30min runtime
> Prime95 average multtithread effective clock = ~4440mhz after 60min runtime


Nice!
Do you mind sharing a bios dump?I assume is the latest bios?
Thanks


----------



## domdtxdissar

shaolin95 said:


> Nice!
> Do you mind sharing a bios dump?I assume is the latest bios?
> Thanks


No i'm sticking to bios 3003, don't try fix what ain't broken 
Everything is working as it should for me, 4x memory sticks at 1900/3800 with tight timings and no WHEA error, and no reboots/crashes with allcore CO -30. 

My full bios dump can be found a few pages back, just check history


----------



## GRABibus

Guys,
When I was on bios 2502 ( my former version), voltages boosted to 1,5V.
Now, with 3202, all cores boost max at 1,488V (Hwinfo values).
I speak here about defaults’ bios settings (with PBO enabled or not).

‘do you also see the same ?
Is it normal ?

also, I get better score in CBR20 with default bios settings (PBO disabled) than with PBO enabled....
Normal also ?


----------



## genelecs

Sorry if it has been asked before - but I couldn't find an answer:

Does anyone known the difference between 3201 and 3202 BIOS?


----------



## shaolin95

domdtxdissar said:


> No i'm sticking to bios 3003, don't try fix what ain't broken
> Everything is working as it should for me, 4x memory sticks at 1900/3800 with tight timings and no WHEA error, and no reboots/crashes with allcore CO -30.
> 
> My full bios dump can be found a few pages back, just check history


I found one 4 days ago


[2021/01/14 04:22:38]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3800MHz]
FCLK Frequency [1900MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Enabled]
CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Core VID [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
Performance Bias [Auto]
PBO Fmax Enhancer [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Manual]
PPT Limit [300]
TDC Limit [235]
EDC Limit [245]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [50]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14] 

So looks like you changed the Scalar and the TDC to 225 but those are the ones you were referring to?
Thanks


----------



## GRABibus

dmbrio said:


> Hi bud, we have the exact same setup but with a C8H Wi-fi and 3080 strix.
> 
> Are you experiencing stutters/crashes on Black Ops Cold War?
> 
> Also, do you experience slow boot times and when windows loads the task bar doesn't work until you click on it?
> 
> Video of the issue:


for thé Windows loading time, I don’t know.
It did it since you started your PC for the first time ?
Fir Cold War, do you overclock your GPU ?
Is it the only game with such issues ?
What are your graphics settings ?
Maybe we can keep on by PM to not polluate the thread.


----------



## metalshark

genelecs said:


> Sorry if it has been asked before - but I couldn't find an answer:
> 
> Does anyone known the difference between 3201 and 3202 BIOS?


tWRRD can be lowered again to its normal value for me going from 3201->3202 so from 7 back to 2. Otherwise haven't spotted any other changes.


----------



## Von Clausewitz

xeizo said:


> Ok, I've been tinkering with both free of WHEA and no sudden reboot settings. This takes lowering performance quite a bit, I see many posting fantasy scores. I know, I did too. But those are the settings that usually gives a sudden reboot in idle after 15 min, or after a day, or after three days.
> I've tried to be VERY conservative with CO as it looks to be the biggest reason behind sudden reboots.
> 
> ...


For some weeks I'm having the same approach - conservative tuning but 100% stable. Because at a certain moment I was sure everything was stable but after 2, 3 weeks all of a sudden a reboot when idle, so I used a more conservative tuning (curve optimizer of -6 on both fastest 5950X-cores. This leads to just 2.5% lower single core scores than the fastest I see in this thread). It is fun to play around with, but a fully stable system is more important to me. And yes, the reboot was due to curve optimizer settings.
If I get another reboot I'll disable curve optimizer completely because these handful of percents are not worth it. However, so far so good.

By the way, I've never encountered WHEA errors with my Crosshair 8 Hero, but my clocks and ram are 'only' running 1800/3600 (I have four dual-rank DIMMs, so I'm already glad that these run without issues at this out of spec speed).


----------



## xeizo

Von Clausewitz said:


> By the way, I've never encountered WHEA errors with my Crosshair 8 Hero, but my clocks and ram are 'only' running 1800/3600 (I have four dual-rank DIMMs, so I'm already glad that these run without issues at this out of spec speed).


Many can't run 1900 fclk at all, like I do, I guess I can be happy if I have it stable. I could probably boost the CPU more and error free if I lowered the fclk/memory speed, but it's a principle to not go down in memory speed LoL


----------



## koji

I'm really digging 3202 but I did have to dial back my CO negative offset and my PBO + boost. I went from all cores -21 to All cores -10 and the best ones -15 and a +50 boost instead of +75. 

-21 / + 75 crashed like a mofo in games.


----------



## GRABibus

Hi,
could tweak manually RAM OC instead of DOCP.
I finally could boot at 3800MHz/Fclk=1900MHz and perform several Aida Cache and Memory tests.










My settings :
Bios 3202
CCX : 4.75GHz/4.6GHz
Vid=1.24 / LLC3
RAM : Team Group TF10DF48G3600HC14CBK : [email protected] Fclk=1900MHz 14-15-15-35-1T
Just pass 1 hour Realbench and 30minutes HCI MemTest. Of course this is not enough long test for stability, but was just to see if no major instability in fist minutes of those tests.
Vdimm = 1.49V
Vsoc = 1.15V
PLL=2V


----------



## metalshark

GRABibus said:


> Hi,
> could tweak manually RAM OC instead of DOCP.
> I finally could boot at 3800MHz/Fclk=1900MHz and perform several Aida Cache and Memory tests.
> 
> View attachment 2474645
> 
> 
> My settings :
> Bios 3202
> CCX : 4.75GHz/4.6GHz
> Vid=1.24 / LLC3
> RAM : Team Group TF10DF48G3600HC14CBK : [email protected] Fclk=1900MHz 14-15-15-35-1T
> Just pass 1 hour Realbench and 30minutes HCI MemTest. Of course this is not enough long test for stability, but was just to see if no major instability in fist minutes of those tests.
> Vdimm = 1.49V
> Vsoc = 1.15V
> PLL=2V


Vdimm/Vsoc looks about right - wowsers though you need 2v PLL for 1900? Am north of 1.9v for 1966/3933 and need 1.9v for 1933/3866. For 1900/3800 and around 1.81/1.82v PLL. Are you able to lower the PLL down at all? Vsoc might work as well lower at 1.10625v, although 1.125v is more common for 1900/3800 from what I've seen. Interested to know if these higher values were required.


----------



## GRABibus

These values reduced a lot my cold boots. I also had some failed bios boots with values below mines.
All PC’s are different and will require different settings. A lot of people can’t even boot at 3800MHz with higher values.
But I will try your suggestions. Thanks.


----------



## RHBH

I am a little concerned about long term effects by using higher PLL voltage.

I know it says "1.8v PLL" in the interface for a reason.


----------



## xeizo

RHBH said:


> I am a little concerned about long term effects by using higher PLL voltage.
> 
> I know it says "1.8v PLL" in the interface for a reason.


I run 1.81V perfectly stable, so yes 2.0V looks a lot


----------



## GRABibus

I could boot in bios and windows by coming back to :
PLL=1,8V
Vsoc=auto (=1,07V in bios)
Vdimm=1,49V.

I have cold boots again (I don’t like them 😊).

I will see if those settings do not create some failed boot in bios.
And if not, I will perform some memtest.

i just ordered a kit of skill trident Z neo 2x16GB 3800MHz CL14


----------



## metalshark

RHBH said:


> I am a little concerned about long term effects by using higher PLL voltage.
> 
> I know it says "1.8v PLL" in the interface for a reason.


Asked Buildzoid who suggested 1.9v PLL was fine - so haven't ventured above that.


GRABibus said:


> I could boot in bios and windows by coming back to :
> PLL=1,8V
> Vsoc=auto (=1,07V in bios)
> Vdimm=1,49V.
> 
> I have cold boots again (I don’t like them 😊).
> 
> I will see if those settings do not create some failed boot in bios.
> And if not, I will perform some memtest.
> 
> i just ordered a kit of skill trident Z neo 2x16GB 3800MHz CL14


1.07 SoC seems very low for 1900/3800. Lowest stable I've seen is 1.1. Am running 1.10625 and often see 1.125v.


----------



## GRABibus

metalshark said:


> Asked Buildzoid who suggested 1.9v PLL was fine - so haven't ventured above that.
> 
> 1.07 SoC seems very low for 1900/3800. Lowest stable I've seen is 1.1. Am running 1.10625 and often see 1.125v.


this 1,07 is my value at stock.
If I enter manually « 1,1V », it is also 1,07V reported value.

if I would be unstable, I would play with LLC Vsoc. But currently, Memtest is running with :
Vdimm=1,48V
Vsoc=1,07V
PLL=Auto (1,8V)
3800MHz/1900Mhz. 14-15-15-35-1T

let’s see in some hours 😊


----------



## PWn3R

genelecs said:


> Could I see a Zen Timings dump, curious about the voltages + timings you've got


I don't have ZenTimings downloaded and the main download page is just spinning and timing out right now. Here's the settings I have set:









I have not set anything with the termination block or cad bus on 3003. I can't get the computer to boot, even with the "worst case" settings from those areas and higher voltages, tried 1.4 and 1.45.


----------



## shaolin95

When you have issues with BSOD booting up but no crashes with anything else, is it because too low negative values for Curve optimizer?


----------



## xeizo

shaolin95 said:


> When you have issues with BSOD booting up but no crashes with anything else, is it because too low negative values for Curve optimizer?


Sounds like it could be a potential candidate, could be a lot of things but too much CO makes things not being load unstable


----------



## dr.Rafi

GRABibus said:


> Hi,
> could tweak manually RAM OC instead of DOCP.
> I finally could boot at 3800MHz/Fclk=1900MHz and perform several Aida Cache and Memory tests.
> 
> View attachment 2474645
> 
> 
> My settings :
> Bios 3202
> CCX : 4.75GHz/4.6GHz
> Vid=1.24 / LLC3
> RAM : Team Group TF10DF48G3600HC14CBK : [email protected] Fclk=1900MHz 14-15-15-35-1T
> Just pass 1 hour Realbench and 30minutes HCI MemTest. Of course this is not enough long test for stability, but was just to see if no major instability in fist minutes of those tests.
> Vdimm = 1.49V
> Vsoc = 1.15V
> PLL=2V


How About scores and performance, did you lost or gained performance with 1900 fclk? (i mean for example CB20, GEEK bench etc..).


----------



## dr.Rafi

GRABibus said:


> I could boot in bios and windows by coming back to :
> PLL=1,8V
> Vsoc=auto (=1,07V in bios)
> Vdimm=1,49V.
> 
> I have cold boots again (I don’t like them 😊).
> 
> I will see if those settings do not create some failed boot in bios.
> And if not, I will perform some memtest.
> 
> i just ordered a kit of skill trident Z neo 2x16GB 3800MHz CL14


With cold boot try higher (mostly) or lower ProcODT value in ram setting.


----------



## Nizzen

GRABibus said:


> Hi,
> could tweak manually RAM OC instead of DOCP.
> I finally could boot at 3800MHz/Fclk=1900MHz and perform several Aida Cache and Memory tests.
> 
> View attachment 2474645
> 
> 
> My settings :
> Bios 3202
> CCX : 4.75GHz/4.6GHz
> Vid=1.24 / LLC3
> RAM : Team Group TF10DF48G3600HC14CBK : [email protected] Fclk=1900MHz 14-15-15-35-1T
> Just pass 1 hour Realbench and 30minutes HCI MemTest. Of course this is not enough long test for stability, but was just to see if no major instability in fist minutes of those tests.
> Vdimm = 1.49V
> Vsoc = 1.15V
> PLL=2V


Tested the new bios today. Impossible too boot 3800/1900 but 3866/1933 was easy LOL.
Cpu= auto


3866 c14-14-14-28-trfc 280, rest is auto:










Next step is to actual tweak memorysettings.


----------



## GRABibus

dr.Rafi said:


> With cold boot try higher (mostly) or lower ProcODT value in ram setting.


Thanks.. I could see some threads on the web on this also.
But didn’t help.


----------



## GRABibus

dr.Rafi said:


> How About scores and performance, did you lost or gained performance with 1900 fclk? (i mean for example CB20, GEEK bench etc..).


In fact, errors in MemTest. So I stopped to bench this OC.
And even I don’t know how I could boot because I couldn’t boot again with those settings...

my Ram is 3600cl14 4x8GB. 1,45V
I tested new settings with which I could boot without any cold boots :
3800MHz/1900MHz
16-15-15-35-1T
Soc =1,07V (default value in bios and hwinfo)
Vdimm=1,49V
PLL=1,8V

why CL16 ?
I can’t set CLin the bios.
If I enter 14 , I have 14
If I enter 15, I have 16
If I enter 16, I have 17
Etc....

I tried to disabled Gear_down setting but by doing this, I don’t post anymore...***.

if you have any tips so that I could set the CL15, I would be interested 😊 

I am currently doing memtest overnight.

‘I only made a Aida cache and memory bench to compare with 3600Mhz cl14.
But I assume you want to know more than this Aida test.

what I could see by testing some kits with 2 sticks is that cache L3 perf in Aida are lower than with 4 sticks, even if the memory speed is higher with 2 sticks and same timings.


----------



## dr.Rafi

GRABibus said:


> In fact, errors in MemTest. So I stopped to bench this OC.
> And even I don’t know how I could boot because I couldn’t boot again with those settings...
> 
> my Ram is 3600cl14 4x8GB. 1,45V
> I tested new settings with which I could boot without any cold boots :
> 3800MHz/1900MHz
> 16-15-15-35-1T
> Soc =1,07V (default value in bios and hwinfo)
> Vdimm=1,49V
> PLL=1,8V
> 
> why CL16 ?
> I can’t set CLin the bios.
> If I enter 14 , I have 14
> If I enter 15, I have 16
> If I enter 16, I have 17
> Etc....
> 
> I tried to disabled Gear_down setting but by doing this, I don’t post anymore...***.
> 
> if you have any tips so that I could set the CL15, I would be interested 😊
> 
> I am currently doing memtest overnight.
> 
> ‘I only made a Aida cache and memory bench to compare with 3600Mhz cl14.
> But I assume you want to know more than this Aida test.
> 
> what I could see by testing some kits with 2 sticks is that cache L3 perf in Aida are lower than with 4 sticks, even if the memory speed is higher with 2 sticks and same timings.


Me either always cl jump one unmber over what i set in bios not sure why with single rank memory wont do it only with dual rank.
For cash I noticed that too even your memory copy speed will be better with 4 sticks than 2.


----------



## GRABibus

dr.Rafi said:


> Me either always cl jump one unmber over what i set in bios not sure why with single rank memory wont do it only with dual rank.
> For cash I noticed that too even your memory copy speed will be better with 4 sticks than 2.


yes, I have dual rank memory.
I didn’t know that this happened only with dual rank memory.

did you try disable Gear_down setting ?


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

In terms of curve optimizer settings, did you guys select the Motherboard or AMD settings to govern the boost criteria for power, etc.


----------



## shaolin95

Hey guys,
Code 07 what is it related to? I was trying some settings from a previous bios (not loading them) and I keep getting 07stuck. Had to reset CMOS to get back


----------



## Dawidowski

3202 didnt work well at all for me.
Temps went up like 5-7c in idle.
CR20 scores dropped by like 400 points with the same settings.

Right now I'm running 3102:
PBO on / Advanced
200
150
150
Curve optimizer on
Negative offset
All core -15

Temps - 86-88C with a Arctic freezer II 360 with super low rpm, gota get a fan controller becuase bios sucks.

Ram - D.O.C.P
3600mhzcl14 - just changed Trfc to 312 and set my first 5 timings to 14-15-15-35-48.



http://imgur.com/a/mbxNkh9


----------



## GRABibus

shaolin95 said:


> Hey guys,
> Code 07 what is it related to? I was trying some settings from a previous bios (not loading them) and I keep getting 07stuck. Had to reset CMOS to get back


Hi,
Usually, to fclk and ram failed post


----------



## greg_p

Actually With 07, it stops before ram can train.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Dawidowski said:


> PBO on / Advanced
> 200
> 150
> 150


How did you determine these are safe to use? I'm still learning about this.


----------



## koji

Dawidowski said:


> 3202 didnt work well at all for me.
> Temps went up like 5-7c in idle.
> CR20 scores dropped by like 400 points with the same settings.
> 
> Right now I'm running 3102:
> PBO on / Advanced
> 200
> 150
> 150
> Curve optimizer on
> Negative offset
> All core -15
> 
> Temps - 86-88C with a Arctic freezer II 360 with super low rpm, gota get a fan controller becuase bios sucks.
> 
> Ram - D.O.C.P
> 3600mhzcl14 - just changed Trfc to 312 and set my first 5 timings to 14-15-15-35-48.
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/mbxNkh9


Did you do a CLRCMOS after installing? Also enter all your settings manually for a new bios version, don't load an existing profile.

So flash -> CLRCMOS -> Load optimized defaults / F5 (reboot) -> dial in all your settings.


----------



## metalshark

GRABibus said:


> In fact, errors in MemTest. So I stopped to bench this OC.
> And even I don’t know how I could boot because I couldn’t boot again with those settings...
> 
> my Ram is 3600cl14 4x8GB. 1,45V
> I tested new settings with which I could boot without any cold boots :
> 3800MHz/1900MHz
> 16-15-15-35-1T
> Soc =1,07V (default value in bios and hwinfo)
> Vdimm=1,49V
> PLL=1,8V
> 
> why CL16 ?
> I can’t set CLin the bios.
> If I enter 14 , I have 14
> If I enter 15, I have 16
> If I enter 16, I have 17
> Etc....
> 
> I tried to disabled Gear_down setting but by doing this, I don’t post anymore...***.
> 
> if you have any tips so that I could set the CL15, I would be interested 😊
> 
> I am currently doing memtest overnight.
> 
> ‘I only made a Aida cache and memory bench to compare with 3600Mhz cl14.
> But I assume you want to know more than this Aida test.
> 
> what I could see by testing some kits with 2 sticks is that cache L3 perf in Aida are lower than with 4 sticks, even if the memory speed is higher with 2 sticks and same timings.


Gear down mode forces even CAS latency values.


----------



## koji

KingEngineRevUp said:


> How did you determine these are safe to use? I'm still learning about this.












The settings he is using are pretty conservative = safe. I think the stock PBO without manual tweaking is 200/200/200. You can't really do much wrong with those settings, too high and you'll run in to a thermal wall.


----------



## metalshark

koji said:


> View attachment 2474771
> 
> 
> The settings he is using are pretty conservative = safe. I think the stock PBO without manual tweaking is 200/200/200. You can't really do much wrong with those settings, too high and you'll run in to a thermal wall.


On the C8F the default limits are 395W PPT, 205A TDC and 210A EDC.
With PPT of 320W and EDC of 320A the max TDC I can hit is 230A, above that it shuts down with fans on max and needs a PSU restart which I'm told is not Over Current Protection, but goes away if you use LN2 mode and set current capability to 200% instead of 140%.
So at 140% current capability, the highest I've seen in HWinfo on a 5950X is ~304W PPT, 299A EDC and 229A TDC which ran fine overnight hitting 100% on all 3 at once.
Regarding long term safety of any max PPT/TDC/EDC I am not sure.
You tend to want to be under the max unless you're using a lapped IHS, with liquid metal and something like a Optimus PC water block or even more exotic cooling, that way there is thermal headroom for single core boosting. So lowering those limits may make things faster.


----------



## greg_p

I could finally boot my ****ty bronze 5950x to 1933/3866 as per what Nizzen said further up on this page.
Actually I find very strange that he could post at 1933 but not at 1900 and indeed observe the same behaviour.

How I proceed:
Clear cmos
load optimized and set all voltage needed: Vsoc 1.25, Vram 1.5, Vpll 1.95, and digi+ at max.
Reboot
Set CPU in manual overclock, 1.33/46.5/45.5 (a known good profile)
reboot
Set 1933IF/3866DDR
--> boot like a charm
work a bit on windows, run a bench with ****ty ddr settings, ok!
Restart
--> set reworked settings as per my 1866/3733 (I did an excel sheet for that that calculate roughly the same latency traduced in bios settings)
work!

Not sure it won't last long, something goes wrong in prime 95.
What can be learned from this is :

Set all the voltage and analogic setting once in safe frequency first, save and reboot once to confirm voltage has been set.
Then apply frequencies.
Pay attention to safe reboot, when the training didn't conclude, as the motherboard is rebooting in safe mode. You can't apply frequencies and voltage/analogic on the same, otherwise you'll get a code 07.


----------



## GRABibus

greg_p said:


> I could finally boot my ****ty bronze 5950x to 1933/3866 as per what Nizzen said further up on this page.
> Actually I find very strange that he could post at 1933 but not at 1900 and indeed observe the same behaviour.
> 
> How I proceed:
> Clear cmos
> load optimized and set all voltage needed: Vsoc 1.25, Vram 1.5, Vpll 1.95, and digi+ at max.
> Reboot
> Set CPU in manual overclock, 1.33/46.5/45.5 (a known good profile)
> reboot
> Set 1933IF/3866DDR
> --> boot like a charm
> work a bit on windows, run a bench with ****ty ddr settings, ok!
> Restart
> --> set reworked settings as per my 1866/3733 (I did an excel sheet for that that calculate roughly the same latency traduced in bios settings)
> work!
> 
> Not sure it won't last long, something goes wrong in prime 95.
> What can be learned from this is :
> 
> Set all the voltage and analogic setting once in safe frequency first, save and reboot once to confirm voltage has been set.
> Then apply frequencies.
> Pay attention to safe reboot, when the training didn't conclude, as the motherboard is rebooting in safe mode. You can't apply frequencies and voltage/analogic on the same, otherwise you'll get a code 07.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2474773


I will try this method. Thanks.
Your soc value is very high and also the PLL....


----------



## greg_p

Voltage min and max are relatives ti frequency and size of transistor. If you can put 1.5 and 5g to ccx0, you can put 1.25v and 1933 to ccd. And for pll, I have never read it as a bad value. Bios has also safer and more aggressive value signaled as yellow, magenta and red. 1.25 is yellow on Vsoc, so not so bad.


----------



## Karagra

All this time I have been sitting with my 3900x just thinking it never liked 1900 fclk.. Turned off spread spectrum and it instantly booted.. Is it stable? Not sure yet but never knew this.


----------



## xeizo

Regarding the latest bios 3202, I practically can't use CO. Anything below -1 All Core CO throws a WHEA at some point when benchmarking. Tried a lot of settings. -1 looks to be stable. Possibly a couple of cores even needs positive offset, I haven't tried ALL yet.

With this bios so far I can't get ANY extra performance from my 5900X, performance is at stock levels no matter what settings - if I want to have no WHEA. Only good thing really, is I can run 3800MHz memory.

Also, it looks like the smallest positive offset for vcore is required on all these 1.2.0.0 bioses, to gain extra stability. Kills some performance. I have turned to positive offset on CH8, B550-F and X470-Prime Pro, all with the same AGESA. All are stable now, the Zen 2:s performs good for what they are but the 5900X is disappointing.


----------



## polyh3dron

So this is my current RAM setup at XMP on my Dark Hero. The moment I try changing CMD2T to 1T it doesn't post. I'm wondering if I should even bother trying to OC this kit to get a 1900 FCLK and what kind of timings I might need to sacrifice to do it.

I was so used to having the Ryzen DRAM calculator basically do all my work for me with Zen 2 and now it seems to not work for me at all with this kit and Zen 3.

For reference, this is my RAM kit.


----------



## xeizo

polyh3dron said:


> View attachment 2474787
> View attachment 2474788
> 
> 
> So this is my current RAM setup at XMP on my Dark Hero. The moment I try changing CMD2T to 1T it doesn't post. I'm wondering if I should even bother trying to OC this kit to get a 1900 FCLK and what kind of timings I might need to sacrifice to do it.
> 
> I was so used to having the Ryzen DRAM calculator basically do all my work for me with Zen 2 and now it seems to not work for me at all with this kit and Zen 3.


You will have to enable Gear Down Mode to get it stable, it's like cas 1.5 and makes a lot of difference for stability on a Ryzen system


----------



## polyh3dron

xeizo said:


> You will have to enable Gear Down Mode to get it stable, it's like cas 1.5 and makes a lot of difference for stability on a Ryzen system


So enabling GDM and setting CMD2T to 1T to effectively get 1.5T is in fact better than my current setup, awesome. Thanks.

How should I then go about trying to get a 1900 FCLK?


----------



## greg_p

xeizo said:


> Regarding the latest bios 3202, I practically can't use CO. Anything below -1 All Core CO throws a WHEA at some point when benchmarking. Tried a lot of settings. -1 looks to be stable. Possibly a couple of cores even needs positive offset, I haven't tried ALL yet.
> 
> With this bios so far I can't get ANY extra performance from my 5900X, performance is at stock levels no matter what settings - if I want to have no WHEA. Only good thing really, is I can run 3800MHz memory.
> 
> Also, it looks like the smallest positive offset for vcore is required on all these 1.2.0.0 bioses, to gain extra stability. Kills some performance. I have turned to positive offset on CH8, B550-F and X470-Prime Pro, all with the same AGESA. All are stable now, the Zen 2:s performs good for what they are but the 5900X is disappointing.


This is strange. I would suggest to reflash with a clearcmos before and after flash...


----------



## koji

xeizo said:


> Regarding the latest bios 3202, I practically can't use CO. Anything below -1 All Core CO throws a WHEA at some point when benchmarking. Tried a lot of settings. -1 looks to be stable. Possibly a couple of cores even needs positive offset, I haven't tried ALL yet.
> 
> With this bios so far I can't get ANY extra performance from my 5900X, performance is at stock levels no matter what settings - if I want to have no WHEA. Only good thing really, is I can run 3800MHz memory.
> 
> Also, it looks like the smallest positive offset for vcore is required on all these 1.2.0.0 bioses, to gain extra stability. Kills some performance. I have turned to positive offset on CH8, B550-F and X470-Prime Pro, all with the same AGESA. All are stable now, the Zen 2:s performs good for what they are but the 5900X is disappointing.


I had to dial back my negative offset a lot to get it stable but not like on your system. I was running -21 up to 3202 bios, now on 3202 I'm running -10 on all but my two best cores, those are -15 and that seems to be stable. Only being able to run -1 sounds like something broken man. I'm also not running any LLC and no vcore offset.


----------



## butt_yodel

Hi everyone,

I'm a new Ryzen 5000 user on a Crosshair VIII Hero. Wondering if any of you had ever had a board lose its memory training profile overnight? The past few mornings, I've been clearing CMOS to get the board to POST previously stable memory settings. I grabbed BIOS v 3202 because it allowed me to raise my FCLK to 1900, and my DDR4 is running 3800 16-18-18-36. The board has no problem training these settings when I first apply them, but somehow the profile is unable to POST after a short time and the board goes into Safe Mode. 

Is this symptomatic of a buggy BIOS (or a non-QVL memory kit), or more of an unstable settings sort of thing? The kit did fine overnight in MemTest, my only issue with stability seems to be POSTing the damn thing each morning. 

Thanks for any and all help!


----------



## xeizo

butt_yodel said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> I'm a new Ryzen 5000 user on a Crosshair VIII Hero. Wondering if any of you had ever had a board lose its memory training profile overnight? The past few mornings, I've been clearing CMOS to get the board to POST previously stable memory settings. I grabbed BIOS v 3202 because it allowed me to raise my FCLK to 1900, and my DDR4 is running 3800 16-18-18-36. The board has no problem training these settings when I first apply them, but somehow the profile is unable to POST after a short time and the board goes into Safe Mode.
> 
> Is this symptomatic of a buggy BIOS (or a non-QVL memory kit), or more of an unstable settings sort of thing? The kit did fine overnight in MemTest, my only issue with stability seems to be POSTing the damn thing each morning.
> 
> Thanks for any and all help!


After a successful training, I write down EVERY subtiming the board has choosen. Then I input the numbers in every position so there's no Auto left. That way I have been running the same memory settings for over a year on four different motherboards and countless bioses.


----------



## butt_yodel

xeizo said:


> After a successful training, I write down EVERY subtiming the board has choosen. Then I input the numbers in every position so there's no Auto left. That way I have been running the same memory settings for over a year on four different motherboards and countless bioses.


That may be worth a shot. I've only manually put in the main timings (16-18-18-36), DDR voltage, FCLK and Mem frequency. Thanks for the tip!


----------



## Dawidowski

koji said:


> Did you do a CLRCMOS after installing? Also enter all your settings manually for a new bios version, don't load an existing profile.
> 
> So flash -> CLRCMOS -> Load optimized defaults / F5 (reboot) -> dial in all your settings.


I sure did, but it was the same with 2702 and 2502... where 2502 just worked better. My RGB Lights died on my mobo from 2702-3202 as well, first now it started to work. 

In regards to settings, I memorize everything so I never save profiles. I enter everything manually every single time.


----------



## shaolin95

greg_p said:


> Actually With 07, it stops before ram can train.


mmm I wonder why this is happening? Maybe 3202 does not allow for the same amount of CO negative value as previous versions?


----------



## Sam64

Code 07: Usually i press the onboard reset button and then it's booting up normal without Code 07.


----------



## Altimax98

polyh3dron said:


> View attachment 2474787
> View attachment 2474788
> 
> 
> So this is my current RAM setup at XMP on my Dark Hero. The moment I try changing CMD2T to 1T it doesn't post. I'm wondering if I should even bother trying to OC this kit to get a 1900 FCLK and what kind of timings I might need to sacrifice to do it.
> 
> I was so used to having the Ryzen DRAM calculator basically do all my work for me with Zen 2 and now it seems to not work for me at all with this kit and Zen 3.
> 
> For reference, this is my RAM kit.


You need to get your FCLK and Memory speed to 1:1. You are taking a massive latency hit for them being out of sync.


----------



## xeizo

koji said:


> I had to dial back my negative offset a lot to get it stable but not like on your system. I was running -21 up to 3202 bios, now on 3202 I'm running -10 on all but my two best cores, those are -15 and that seems to be stable. Only being able to run -1 sounds like something broken man. I'm also not running any LLC and no vcore offset.


I'm not doing anything until next bios, this one looks to still have bugs.

Btw, I found lowering EDC, which helps single core in CB and CPUZ actually worsens CPU performance in game benchmarks like Firestrike and Time Spy. Also some of the multis in GB5 tanks a lot with lower EDC. Possibly because L3 tanks with lower EDC. And EDC has to be 200 to consistently stay over 15000 CPU points in Time Spy, but that in turn tanks single core in CB. Choose your poison 

What's more important is real games, but that's harder to measure, but if all the benches are stable and not overly castrated it's a good foundation.

Memory still looks good though


----------



## genelecs

@greg_p and @Nizzen - THANK YOU! I too have posted at 3866/1933 FCLK! Haven't fully tested stability just yet but I've also got 1933/1966/2000 FCLK to post!

I've spent a while playing around this and so hopefully the below is useful to anyone who can't get 1900+ FCLK to post:


*No matter what I do* 1900 FCLK will _always_ throw up Q-Code 07 - 1933/1966/2000 FCLK will post no problem. 3800MHz RAM will post no problem on any other FCLK so fairly sure there is some odd behaviour around 1900 FCLK which a few of us seem to have.
As mentioned previously by @Gadfly (thank you!) *PLL voltage is critical *- For example after CMOS clear leaving all on auto, 1933 will not post until PLL is 1.9v is set on my C8H
It will happily post with vSOC/IOD/CCD/VDDP on Auto if PLL is 1.9v at 1933 FCLK but fairly sure not stable at these settings.
Setting vSOC 1.1, IOD/CCD 1.05, VDDP 0.950 (which are my go to values atm) - system seems happy *HOWEVER* my USB RME audio interface crackles at 1933 FCLK
The only solution for this crackling it seems is to raise PLL, 2v improves it but still audio drops - but it seems 2.05v completely fixes crackling audio. I've tried other voltages, but PLL did seem to be the culprit in this instance.

Please note all of the above was done with these VERY loose auto RAM timings 😂 - RAM is my next port of call but I see usmus DRAM calc doesn't do 1933 yet!









So I guess my ultimate question is (and I know it has been asked before) is +2v PLL safe 24/7 use?


----------



## greg_p

I'm afraid this information is in the data manual of rizen CPU, but I'm not sur it has been disclosed to public. Any Asus engineer working in the board could answer that.
Anyway this is good to know because then we know this behaviour can be work around and even fixed in a futur release.
1933 is hard to maintain for me and doesn't support prime95 for too long. But that may be fixed in the DDR settings or some magi in the amd part...


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> I'm not doing anything until next bios, this one looks to still have bugs.
> 
> Btw, I found lowering EDC, which helps single core in CB and CPUZ actually worsens CPU performance in game benchmarks like Firestrike and Time Spy. Also some of the multis in GB5 tanks a lot with lower EDC. Possibly because L3 tanks with lower EDC. And EDC has to be 200 to consistently stay over 15000 CPU points in Time Spy, but that in turn tanks single core in CB. Choose your poison
> 
> What's more important is real games, but that's harder to measure, but if all the benches are stable and not overly castrated it's a good foundation.
> 
> Memory still looks good though
> 
> View attachment 2474827


your L3cache values seem low.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

koji said:


> View attachment 2474771
> 
> 
> The settings he is using are pretty conservative = safe. I think the stock PBO without manual tweaking is 200/200/200. You can't really do much wrong with those settings, too high and you'll run in to a thermal wall.


Thank you. So I applied my motherboard limits, is that safe? CH8 mobo.



metalshark said:


> On the C8F the default limits are 395W PPT, 205A TDC and 210A EDC.
> With PPT of 320W and EDC of 320A the max TDC I can hit is 230A, above that it shuts down with fans on max and needs a PSU restart which I'm told is not Over Current Protection, but goes away if you use LN2 mode and set current capability to 200% instead of 140%.
> So at 140% current capability, the highest I've seen in HWinfo on a 5950X is ~304W PPT, 299A EDC and 229A TDC which ran fine overnight hitting 100% on all 3 at once.
> Regarding long term safety of any max PPT/TDC/EDC I am not sure.
> You tend to want to be under the max unless you're using a lapped IHS, with liquid metal and something like a Optimus PC water block or even more exotic cooling, that way there is thermal headroom for single core boosting. So lowering those limits may make things faster.


Holy crap, that sounds like a lot of power. But I'm sure it is only doing that in a tortured test benchmark?


----------



## polyh3dron

Altimax98 said:


> You need to get your FCLK and Memory speed to 1:1. You are taking a massive latency hit for them being out of sync.


So wait... My RAM speed from XMP is 3600 and my FCLK is 1800 and that's not 1:1? What gave you the idea that my FCLK and RAM speed were desynced? Here's my AIDA64 bench after enabling GDM and going to 1T:


----------



## Anthos

GRABibus said:


> your L3cache values seem low.


Mine are even worse. My L3 Read is like 320GB/s...


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> your L3cache values seem low.


Yes, it goes down with TDC/EDC I'm running 140/200 now, I can get it all the way up to 1100 if I choose very high TDC/EDC but then single core completely tanks.
Sustained single core boost is now 4875MHz all the time in both CB20 and CB23, it newer dips, and it sustains at 4893MHz in Time Spy during load.
I can't do much about CPUZ as core 0 and 1 are quite bad on my CPU, cores 2 and 4 are very good.
CB20 looks "normal" anyway, CB23 is 1609/22000 with current settings, but yes I would like to raise L3 without killing single core:










edit. changed TDC/EDC to 150/210, a little better L3:










As expected single core in CPUZ tanks, but in Geekbench 5 it actually got better. I'm at 1723p now which is as much as I've gotten with settings without WHEA. Being slight unstable I have been at 1755p. Multi is now 15.5k+ in GB5 which is ok, 15.8k is my record.

But more interesting, I isolated core 0 and 1 in Curve Optimizer per core and gave them both -1 while the rest of CCD0 got -10 and CCD1 got -5. And it is still stable, no WHEA. So, it looks like I've got myself two buggy cores which no bios in the world can heal. Still, they work at -1 so I guess they are not within warranty. Too bad core 0 is one of the bad cores, it means I will never see nice CPUZ single core scores while still being stable Hmmm.


----------



## dlbsyst

I installed the new 3202 Beta on my Hero wifi and 3950x yesterday and for me it's a keeper. I get the same awesome performance and my temps seem a lot more stable and no longer shoot up for no reason when I am doing simple things like surfing the net or starting up software like 3dmark.


----------



## GRABibus

I could make 500% MemTest with this :










RAM => Team Group 4x8GB 3600MHz 14-15-15--35

Overclock :
3800MHz/1900MHz
16-15-16-35-1T
Vdimm=1.49V
Vsoc=1.07V (Reported value with 1.1V entered in Bios)
PLL=1.8V

It seems that even increasing those voltages donb't help to have lower timings. No boots, 3 cold boots, etc..
By Disabling GDM or increasing Prodoct => no boots....(3 cold boots and failed).

Currently I keep those setiings and will go deeply in this OC afterwards. It is only 5 days I have my PC 

Concerning CPU :
I am testing current "Per CCX" OC :
CCX0 = 4.7GHz
CCX1 = 4.6GHz
Vid = 1.23V
LLC3 => Vcore Load = 1.2V

I could pass 2 hours Realbench.
For OC validation, I do 8 hours Realbench.

Is it a good OC for that voltage ?

If it passes 8hours Realbench, ok.
Otherwise, I will have to decrease CCCX0 frequency, as with my H115i RGB Platinum, I will get around 82°C max temp at 22°C after this Realbench test. I don't want more °C during stress test, so no possbilility to increase Vid.
Those beast defintely require at least a high-end 360mm AIO.


----------



## metalshark

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Thank you. So I applied my motherboard limits, is that safe? CH8 mobo.
> 
> 
> 
> Holy crap, that sounds like a lot of power. But I'm sure it is only doing that in a tortured test benchmark?


Yup that’s in a torture test, here’s an example screenshot.


----------



## xeizo

SO, I have finally pinned down where all my WHEA errors came from. It's ONE not very good core, core 1. At first I believed core 0 was bad too, but it looks like it's fine, it's core 1 which spits out WHEA errors.

Now I have isolated it in Curve Optimizer per core with a offset of only -1 which it seem to handle. Core 0 is happy with -15, rest of CCD0 is -10 for now(still testing) and ALL of CCD1 is -15! Running PPT/TDC/EDC 180/200/220 at the moment. Absolute max temp under torture is 78.5C, so still good. No WHEA, NO whea! It was that damned core 1. When will I ever get great silicon 

These are not groundbreaking but finally OK scores, which was my goal, to maintain performance while overclocking RAM to 3800MHz. Usually base performance takes a hit with very high FCLK and from trying to make it stable. I could get better scores in these benchmarks if I lowered RAM clock, but I say no to that


----------



## PWn3R

genelecs said:


> @greg_p and @Nizzen - THANK YOU! I too have posted at 3866/1933 FCLK! Haven't fully tested stability just yet but I've also got 1933/1966/2000 FCLK to post!
> 
> I've spent a while playing around this and so hopefully the below is useful to anyone who can't get 1900+ FCLK to post:
> 
> 
> *No matter what I do* 1900 FCLK will _always_ throw up Q-Code 07 - 1933/1966/2000 FCLK will post no problem. 3800MHz RAM will post no problem on any other FCLK so fairly sure there is some odd behaviour around 1900 FCLK which a few of us seem to have.
> As mentioned previously by @Gadfly (thank you!) *PLL voltage is critical *- For example after CMOS clear leaving all on auto, 1933 will not post until PLL is 1.9v is set on my C8H
> It will happily post with vSOC/IOD/CCD/VDDP on Auto if PLL is 1.9v at 1933 FCLK but fairly sure not stable at these settings.
> Setting vSOC 1.1, IOD/CCD 1.05, VDDP 0.950 (which are my go to values atm) - system seems happy *HOWEVER* my USB RME audio interface crackles at 1933 FCLK
> The only solution for this crackling it seems is to raise PLL, 2v improves it but still audio drops - but it seems 2.05v completely fixes crackling audio. I've tried other voltages, but PLL did seem to be the culprit in this instance.
> 
> Please note all of the above was done with these VERY loose auto RAM timings 😂 - RAM is my next port of call but I see usmus DRAM calc doesn't do 1933 yet!
> View attachment 2474839
> 
> 
> So I guess my ultimate question is (and I know it has been asked before) is +2v PLL safe 24/7 use?


This is really weird. I'm going to try to test this tonight. I wonder if there is something hardware/firmware related that is just screwing us at 1900... Thank you all for posting this information.


----------



## Sindragosaa

I know everyone's still working with finding there stable CO settings getting FCLK stable over 1800MHz.

But I have been playing around with a negative VCORE offset and been experiencing very good performance and thermal gains when combined with PBO/CO and my poor NH-D15. 

This may be the next step once you find your daily and stable settings. 

I know my chip is capable of running 4600/4500 @ 1.23V VID, through manual per CCX overclocking. So I thought of experimenting with a negative voltage offset and so far have this as stable running over 40hrs continuously. 

BIOS: 3102 
PBO: PPT 200 / TDC 300 / EDC 300
OFFSET: +0 MHZ
CO: -20 best two cores as shown in Ryzen Master / -30 all other cores 
VCORE OFFSET: -0.10000V
FCLK/UCLK: 1866 MHz

These by far are the best results I have achieved with PBO with MAX temps reaching only ~80 degrees C, slightly under.









AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @ 4573.93 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR


[7kbe0g] Validated Dump by MASTER-PC (2021-01-18 13:43:06) - MB: Asus ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO (WI-FI) - RAM: 65536 MB




valid.x86.fr


----------



## GeekyD

New to this forum (and overclocking Ryzens). Experience with Intel overclocking several years ago, but nothing recent.

Hopefully an easy question...

The torture/stress tests are not what is limiting my OC'ing. It's my Windows 10 environment (or my Ubuntu environment) failing to sleep/suspend.
When a sleep (w10) or suspend (ubuntu), S3 power state works, my power light flashes. The PC can then be woken by a tap on the keyboard. If I push my overclocking (to even a moderate amount) the system locks when I sleep/suspend. The power light goes completely off. The PC will not wake unless the PSU is power cycled.

I have:
5800x (+Noctua NH-D15S air cooler with a second fan)
C8H wifi
32GB (2x16) of DRAM (F4-4000C17D-32GTZRB)
Radeon 6800
750W Corsair RM750X PSU

I can run 3600/1800 with PBO off, and it's stable (And sleeps fine).
Everything else auto except VDRAM which I set to 1.4V. All memory timings currently auto.
If I turn PBO on it fails to sleep/suspend - it locks up
I've tried upping the PLL, VSOC and related voltages to levels used by many of you here, and it doesn't help.
I've tried disabling C-States - no help
I'm using 3202, but was same on all prev versions
New installs of Win10 and Ubuntu (dual boot on diff NVMe cards).
If I lower DRAM frequency and FCLK, I can enable PBO (on auto) and it is sleep stable. E.g. 3200/1600

Any suggestions if what I can do to get it it sleep stable at 3600/1800 (or higher) with PBO enabled?
I don't understand what's going on with the sleep failure. Voltage/memory I guess, but I'm not familiar enough to know what to push. Thanks.


----------



## xeizo

GeekyD said:


> New to this forum (and overclocking Ryzens). Experience with Intel overclocking several years ago, but nothing recent.
> 
> Hopefully an easy question...
> 
> The torture/stress tests are not what is limiting my OC'ing. It's my Windows 10 environment (or my Ubuntu environment) failing to sleep/suspend.
> When a sleep (w10) or suspend (ubuntu), S3 power state works, my power light flashes. The PC can then be woken by a tap on the keyboard. If I push my overclocking (to even a moderate amount) the system locks when I sleep/suspend. The power light goes completely off. The PC will not wake unless the PSU is power cycled.
> 
> I have:
> 5800x (+Noctua NH-D15S air cooler with a second fan)
> C8H wifi
> 32GB (2x16) of DRAM (F4-4000C17D-32GTZRB)
> Radeon 6800
> 750W Corsair RM750X PSU
> 
> I can run 3600/1800 with PBO off, and it's stable (And sleeps fine).
> Everything else auto except VDRAM which I set to 1.4V. All memory timings currently auto.
> If I turn PBO on it fails to sleep/suspend - it locks up
> I've tried upping the PLL, VSOC and related voltages to levels used by many of you here, and it doesn't help.
> I've tried disabling C-States - no help
> I'm using 3202, but was same on all prev versions
> New installs of Win10 and Ubuntu (dual boot on diff NVMe cards).
> If I lower DRAM frequency and FCLK, I can enable PBO (on auto) and it is sleep stable. E.g. 3200/1600
> 
> Any suggestions if what I can do to get it it sleep stable at 3600/1800 (or higher) with PBO enabled?
> I don't understand what's going on with the sleep failure. Voltage/memory I guess, but I'm not familiar enough to know what to push. Thanks.


I gave up on sleep with Ryzens back when 2700X was new and hot, it has always been a problem AFAIK and now I've become used to just turn off the PC. It starts very fast anyway, and is rather silent if idle, the ventilation in the room sounds about the same. I now habitually turn off all hibernate options etc in Windows to not be stuck like you.


----------



## koji

Did some more messing around and landed on this, think this is going to be my end game, for now anyway...










L3 Cache is still ok, not like a manual OC but at least it's not in the 300 range + decent single core scores.

Only thing I'm still doing atm is undervolting with CO, PBO is on Auto in extreme tweaker, in AMD OC menu PBO is on advanced, limits = Auto and in CO I have my manual negative offsets loaded, -10 on everything but the two best cores, those are on -15. The moment you start with anything PBO Limits your L3 cache speed gets wrecked or you have to offset that with higher limits and they wreck my temps / single core boost.

Also no LLC or vcore offsets, all very basic and stock stuff, besides the couple tweaks for the 1900FCLK and my memory timings.

Pretty happy with these for my 24/7 setup.


----------



## RHBH

genelecs said:


> @greg_p and @Nizzen - THANK YOU! I too have posted at 3866/1933 FCLK! Haven't fully tested stability just yet but I've also got 1933/1966/2000 FCLK to post!
> 
> I've spent a while playing around this and so hopefully the below is useful to anyone who can't get 1900+ FCLK to post:
> 
> 
> *No matter what I do* 1900 FCLK will _always_ throw up Q-Code 07 - 1933/1966/2000 FCLK will post no problem. 3800MHz RAM will post no problem on any other FCLK so fairly sure there is some odd behaviour around 1900 FCLK which a few of us seem to have.
> As mentioned previously by @Gadfly (thank you!) *PLL voltage is critical *- For example after CMOS clear leaving all on auto, 1933 will not post until PLL is 1.9v is set on my C8H
> It will happily post with vSOC/IOD/CCD/VDDP on Auto if PLL is 1.9v at 1933 FCLK but fairly sure not stable at these settings.
> Setting vSOC 1.1, IOD/CCD 1.05, VDDP 0.950 (which are my go to values atm) - system seems happy *HOWEVER* my USB RME audio interface crackles at 1933 FCLK
> The only solution for this crackling it seems is to raise PLL, 2v improves it but still audio drops - but it seems 2.05v completely fixes crackling audio. I've tried other voltages, but PLL did seem to be the culprit in this instance.
> 
> Please note all of the above was done with these VERY loose auto RAM timings 😂 - RAM is my next port of call but I see usmus DRAM calc doesn't do 1933 yet!
> View attachment 2474839
> 
> 
> So I guess my ultimate question is (and I know it has been asked before) is +2v PLL safe 24/7 use?


For POST testing/validation I would set the secondary/tertiary timings on AUTO. I would manually set only the first 5 timings.

tCWL needs to be equal tCL or tCL minus 1.


----------



## RHBH

I've been playing with PBO and Curve Optimizer.

Here are some results for my 5900X:


----------



## CyrIng

GeekyD said:


> New to this forum (and overclocking Ryzens). Experience with Intel overclocking several years ago, but nothing recent.
> 
> Hopefully an easy question...
> 
> The torture/stress tests are not what is limiting my OC'ing. It's my Windows 10 environment (or my Ubuntu environment) failing to sleep/suspend.
> When a sleep (w10) or suspend (ubuntu), S3 power state works, my power light flashes. The PC can then be woken by a tap on the keyboard. If I push my overclocking (to even a moderate amount) the system locks when I sleep/suspend. The power light goes completely off. The PC will not wake unless the PSU is power cycled.
> 
> I have:
> 5800x (+Noctua NH-D15S air cooler with a second fan)
> C8H wifi
> 32GB (2x16) of DRAM (F4-4000C17D-32GTZRB)
> Radeon 6800
> 750W Corsair RM750X PSU
> 
> I can run 3600/1800 with PBO off, and it's stable (And sleeps fine).
> Everything else auto except VDRAM which I set to 1.4V. All memory timings currently auto.
> If I turn PBO on it fails to sleep/suspend - it locks up
> I've tried upping the PLL, VSOC and related voltages to levels used by many of you here, and it doesn't help.
> I've tried disabling C-States - no help
> I'm using 3202, but was same on all prev versions
> New installs of Win10 and Ubuntu (dual boot on diff NVMe cards).
> If I lower DRAM frequency and FCLK, I can enable PBO (on auto) and it is sleep stable. E.g. 3200/1600
> 
> Any suggestions if what I can do to get it it sleep stable at 3600/1800 (or higher) with PBO enabled?
> I don't understand what's going on with the sleep failure. Voltage/memory I guess, but I'm not familiar enough to know what to push. Thanks.


Arch Linux here, 3950X never failed to Suspend to RAM, and later Resume from S3
Standard BIOS with DDR set manually.
BIOS says that if SMT is disabled then S3 won't be available. Of course Kernel is not aware and will fail to enter S3 properly.


----------



## GeekyD

CyrIng said:


> Arch Linux here, 3950X never failed to Suspend to RAM, and later Resume from S3
> Standard BIOS with DDR set manually.
> BIOS says that if SMT is disabled then S3 won't be available. Of course Kernel is not aware and will fail to enter S3 properly.


Thanks. Are you suggesting that the failure of sleep/wake related to SMT not working properly? I have it switched on (default).
Your system is not overclocked? Mine is stable if I leave PBO switched off and Ieave it at 3600/1800. Any higher and it fails to sleep/wake.
It seems I may have to decide between a slow system that sleeps or a faster system that doesn't.
Thanks @xeizo also for you reply.

I'd be very interested to know if many of the rest of you also disable sleep, as it doesn't work when a Ryzen is overclocked, or do you not find the same issue?


----------



## CyrIng

GeekyD said:


> Thanks. Are you suggesting that the failure of sleep/wake related to SMT not working properly? I have it switched on (default).
> Your system is not overclocked? Mine is stable if I leave PBO switched off and Ieave it at 3600/1800. Any higher and it fails to sleep/wake.
> It seems I may have to decide between a slow system that sleeps or a faster system that doesn't.
> Thanks @xeizo also for you reply.
> 
> I'd be very interested to know if many of the rest of you also disable sleep, as it doesn't work when a Ryzen is overclocked, or do you not find the same issue?


_Nop. Just if SMT is off. _
PBO on or off make no difference in my case. 
Same with DDR frequency raised to 3733, it works. 

STR is a chain of registered kernel modules which must not failed during the sleep event callback function. 
I suggest you boot your kernel bare-metal, blacklisting most drivers, especially those out of kernel tree source code.
If that minimal case is still failing to S3, then hardware is in question.


----------



## genelecs

Sindragosaa said:


> But I have been playing around with a negative VCORE offset and been experiencing very good performance and thermal gains when combined with PBO/CO and my poor NH-D15.
> 
> BIOS: 3102
> PBO: PPT 200 / TDC 300 / EDC 300
> OFFSET: +0 MHZ
> CO: -20 best two cores as shown in Ryzen Master / -30 all other cores
> VCORE OFFSET: -0.10000V
> FCLK/UCLK: 1866 MHz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @ 4573.93 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR
> 
> 
> [7kbe0g] Validated Dump by MASTER-PC (2021-01-18 13:43:06) - MB: Asus ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO (WI-FI) - RAM: 65536 MB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> valid.x86.fr


I have very very similar results, infact my CPU-Z freq is identical to yours but I'm getting slightly higher single core. Not sure if it's just down to my temperatures are slightly cooler (its 19c in the room currently - I imagine its slightly warmer during the day in Aus then it here is Pom land!) and I have very little apps running when benchmarking. Still interesting none the less.

BIOS: 3102
PBO: PPT 200/TDC 200/EDC 130
OFFSET: 50+
CO: -5 on best 4 cores (2x per CCX) / -15 on all other
VCORE: Auto
FCLK/UCL: 1866MHZ









AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @ 4573.93 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR


[tky33b] Validated Dump by genelecs (2021-01-20 05:52:42) - MB: Asus ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO - RAM: 16384 MB




valid.x86.fr


----------



## dr.Rafi

polyh3dron said:


> So wait... My RAM speed from XMP is 3600 and my FCLK is 1800 and that's not 1:1? What gave you the idea that my FCLK and RAM speed were desynced? Here's my AIDA64 bench after enabling GDM and going to 1T:
> 
> View attachment 2474855
> View attachment 2474857


You really need to fix your base clock frequency in bios to 100.00 even if auto is showing 100.00 assinged to 100.00 manually, so your total speed will be 3600 now is showing less.


----------



## dr.Rafi

xeizo said:


> SO, I have finally pinned down where all my WHEA errors came from. It's ONE not very good core, core 1. At first I believed core 0 was bad too, but it looks like it's fine, it's core 1 which spits out WHEA errors.
> 
> Now I have isolated it in Curve Optimizer per core with a offset of only -1 which it seem to handle. Core 0 is happy with -15, rest of CCD0 is -10 for now(still testing) and ALL of CCD1 is -15! Running PPT/TDC/EDC 180/200/220 at the moment. Absolute max temp under torture is 78.5C, so still good. No WHEA, NO whea! It was that damned core 1. When will I ever get great silicon
> 
> These are not groundbreaking but finally OK scores, which was my goal, to maintain performance while overclocking RAM to 3800MHz. Usually base performance takes a hit with very high FCLK and from trying to make it stable. I could get better scores in these benchmarks if I lowered RAM clock, but I say no to that
> 
> View attachment 2474871
> 
> 
> View attachment 2474872
> 
> View attachment 2474873
> 
> View attachment 2474874


That is a great finding, that some of the cores are responsible for Whea and reduce the undervolting by curve optimizer solved your problem,
So in theory if we apply positive digits in CO to increase some cores voltages instead of decreasing should solve the WHEA problem in higher Fclk frequencies like 1966 to 2133 , I hope many can try it and let us know if it is helping to reduce or remove Whea.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

This is what I did for the curve optimizer, I'm not sure if I did this right for a 5900X.


I looked at my best cores. From 0-11, Core 1 and 7 are Gold, Core 2 and 11 are Silver
For these cores I applied -10

The remainder I applied -20
Left is my CPU and Right is what a stock 5900X should be getting


----------



## dr.Rafi

KingEngineRevUp said:


> This is what I did for the curve optimizer, I'm not sure if I did this right for a 5900X.
> 
> 
> I looked at my best cores. From 0-11, Core 1 and 7 are Gold, Core 2 and 11 are Silver
> For these cores I applied -10
> 
> The remainder I applied -20
> Right is my CPU and left is what a stock 5900X should be getting
> 
> View attachment 2474917
> 
> View attachment 2474918
> View attachment 2474919


Your fclk and memory speed is fine but your cpu score are low, what cooler you using ? if you using Air cooler so i expect your scores are fine, but you can improve by disabling global c- state and then you can use more minus in CO (mean instead of -10 you can use -30) only if you disable c-state, and boost ovride around 125 or even more , and also with c-state disabled you can put LLC for cpu on Auto or LLC1 ,so more multi core speed, and use 350/200/215 for ppt/tdc/edc and update here your results with cpuz and cinebench 20.
Edit: and another thing ,geekbench score drope quit alot if your windows power plan is on power saver.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

dr.Rafi said:


> Your fclk and memory speed is fine but your cpu score are low, what cooler you using ? if you using Air cooler so i expect your scores are fine, but you can improve by disabling global c- state and then you can use more minus in CO (mean instead of -10 you can use -30) only if you disable c-state, and boost ovride around 125 or even more , and also with c-state disabled you can put LLC for cpu on Auto or LLC1 ,so more multi core speed, and use 350/200/215 for ppt/tdc/edc and update here your results with cpuz and cinebench 20.
> Edit: and another thing ,geekbench score drope quit alot if your windows power plan is on power saver.


I realized I fudged that post up... The left scores is my system, the right scores are a stock 5900X... My original post, I had it stating the opposite. 

I have a Corsair H150i cooling it.

I'll look into all the other stuff you recommended. I just wanted to get above stock, not sure how safe or more extreme messing with all the other settings will be or go.

Did I at least do the right thing not lowering the gold and silver rated cores? Or should you get those low as possible as well? Should I have just went with a -20 all core? Or would that lower my single core speeds?


----------



## polyh3dron

dr.Rafi said:


> You really need to fix your base clock frequency in bios to 100.00 even if auto is showing 100.00 assinged to 100.00 manually, so your total speed will be 3600 now is showing less.
> View attachment 2474915


My BCLK Frequency was already set to 100 before doing this benchmark. Did some googling and apparently this is by design, and it’s the VRM Spread Spectrum setting that is causing the BCLK to fluctuate. It’s supposed to be something that maintains stability of the system and reduces electromagnetic interference. Is that really something I should be disabling for daily PC use? Will it really negatively impact performance? If I’m understanding what the base clock is correctly, I would assume it is causing the clocks of the entire system to fluctuate in unison, therefore leaving the DRAM clock and FCLK in sync.

EDIT: I found the hidden "SB Spread Spectrum" setting in my Dark Hero's BIOS, disabled that as well as the VRM Spread Spectrum setting, confirmed that my BCLK was still set to 100, and got this after booting into Windows:


----------



## tchabada

polyh3dron said:


> My BCLK Frequency was already set to 100 before doing this benchmark. Did some googling and apparently this is by design, and it’s the VRM Spread Spectrum setting that is causing the BCLK to fluctuate. It’s supposed to be something that maintains stability of the system and reduces electromagnetic interference. Is that really something I should be disabling for daily PC use? Will it really negatively impact performance? If I’m understanding what the base clock is correctly, I would assume it is causing the clocks of the entire system to fluctuate in unison, therefore leaving the DRAM clock and FCLK in sync.
> 
> EDIT: I found the hidden "SB Spread Spectrum" setting in my Dark Hero's BIOS, disabled that as well as the VRM Spread Spectrum setting, confirmed that my BCLK was still set to 100, and got this after booting into Windows:
> 
> View attachment 2474941


Did you enable SVM(virtualization)?


----------



## xeizo

KingEngineRevUp said:


> This is what I did for the curve optimizer, I'm not sure if I did this right for a 5900X.
> 
> 
> I looked at my best cores. From 0-11, Core 1 and 7 are Gold, Core 2 and 11 are Silver
> For these cores I applied -10
> 
> The remainder I applied -20
> Left is my CPU and Right is what a stock 5900X should be getting
> 
> View attachment 2474917
> 
> View attachment 2474918
> View attachment 2474919


Looks good!

Yes, you can get more multi by more CO, but as you say single will probably take a hit. It is hard to find the right balance, but those are great scores from you. 5900X usually won't get as good single as 5950X as CCD0 is a good deal worse silicon than on the 5950X.

I always run with SVM on as I use it on the desktop, pointless to benchmark settings I wont use imho


----------



## xeizo

Boost looks healthy now in synthetic game benchmark, sustained 4.9GHz, I can tweak this to get better now that I've found my bad core. But I will relax with it for a couple of days, just be happy it is stable.


----------



## stimpy88

tchabada said:


> Did you enable SVM(virtualization)?


What's the issue with SVM?


----------



## RHBH

xeizo said:


> Looks good!
> 
> Yes, you can get more multi by more CO, but as you say single will probably take a hit. It is hard to find the right balance, but those are great scores from you. 5900X usually won't get as good single as 5950X as CCD0 is a good deal worse silicon than on the 5950X.
> 
> I always run with SVM on as I use it on the desktop, pointless to benchmark settings I wont use imho


I have a 5900X and I found that my CCD0 is better than CDD1.

Most of my CCD0 cores can boost up to 4.90, while CCD1 cores will boost up to 4.80.

I'm using curve optimizer at -25 for my best cores (stability tested for 8 hours with prime 95 small fft).

My best CCD0 core is boosting to 4.95GHz

My best CCD1 core is boosting to 4.85GHz.

I'm am not using boost override or PBO. I'm not sure why but Ryzen Master shows 4.9GHz as max boost for my 5900X, shouldn't it be 4.8GHz?


----------



## polyh3dron

tchabada said:


> Did you enable SVM(virtualization)?


Yes, because I use WSL2.

Does SVM really negatively impact a Ryzen system that badly?


----------



## GRABibus

RHBH said:


> I have a 5900X and I found that my CCD0 is better than CDD1.
> 
> Most of my CCD0 cores can boost up to 4.90, while CCD1 cores will boost up to 4.80.
> 
> I'm using curve optimizer at -25 for my best cores (stability tested for 8 hours with prime 95 small fft).
> 
> My best CCD0 core is boosting to 4.95GHz
> 
> My best CCD1 core is boosting to 4.85GHz.
> 
> I'm am not using boost override or PBO. I'm not sure why but Ryzen Master shows 4.9GHz as max boost for my 5900X, shouldn't it be 4.8GHz?


What are your temps on P95 small FFT’s and Corsair H150i ? Which version of AVX ?

from my side, on « Per CCX » OC 4,7GHz/4,6GHz with Vcore =1,23V under realbench, I get max 88degrees at 23degrees ambient with H115i RGB Platinum => this would mean 100 degrees in P95 Small FTT’s 😊


----------



## RHBH

GRABibus said:


> What are your temps on P95 small FFT’s and Corsair H150i ? Which version of AVX ?
> 
> from my side, on « Per CCX » OC 4,7GHz/4,6GHz with Vcore =1,23V under realbench, I get max 88degrees at 23degrees ambient with H115i RGB Platinum => this would mean 100 degrees in P95 Small FTT’s 😊


I tested my curve optimizer stability for 8hrs without AVX in 1T (thread switcher every 5min).

Temps around 72 degrees.

I'm not using PBO, just curve optimizer to increase 1T and nT max frequency.


----------



## dlbsyst

xeizo said:


> Boost looks healthy now in synthetic game benchmark, sustained 4.9GHz, I can tweak this to get better now that I've found my bad core. But I will relax with it for a couple of days, just be happy it is stable.
> 
> View attachment 2474946


Here's my best Time Spy score so far. I have a 3950X and EVGA RTX 3070 FTW3.


----------



## Dawidowski

Any one with ideas why I get DSP Watch Dog Error only while playing Call of duty black ops?

I mean everything else runs just fine. It's freaking wierd...
Also, getting my XFX6800 XT MERC on friday, selling my 3080 Zotac!


----------



## Alemancio

*What's the best way to stress test 5000s series?*

My 5900X is at:

200/200/200 PPT/TDC/EDC
+200Mhz
-15 CO (best cores) & -25 (rest)
FCLK 1800Mhz
3202 Bios

CB20 8650/630

I've passed 4 hrs Prime95 on Small and Blend and currently running LinPack Xtreme (20 passes at 10GB)


----------



## domdtxdissar

Alemancio said:


> *What's the best way to stress test 5000s series?*
> 
> My 5900X is at:
> 
> 200/200/200 PPT/TDC/EDC
> +200Mhz
> -15 CO (best cores) & -25 (rest)
> FCLK 1800Mhz
> 3202 Bios
> 
> CB20 8650/630
> 
> I've passed 4 hrs Prime95 on Small and Blend and currently running LinPack Xtreme (20 passes at 10GB)


You can try stresstest y-cruncher with FFT+N32+N64 if you wanna test your memory settings


y-cruncher - A Multi-Threaded Pi Program


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Alemancio said:


> *What's the best way to stress test 5000s series?*
> 
> My 5900X is at:
> 
> 200/200/200 PPT/TDC/EDC
> +200Mhz
> -15 CO (best cores) & -25 (rest)
> FCLK 1800Mhz
> 3202 Bios
> 
> CB20 8650/630
> 
> I've passed 4 hrs Prime95 on Small and Blend and currently running LinPack Xtreme (20 passes at 10GB)


Honestly, I think you should clock in hours playing COD Warzone. After you've clocked in 8 hours, you should be golden. At least you'll have fun while stressing the GPU


----------



## polyh3dron

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Honestly, I think you should clock in hours playing COD Warzone. After you've clocked in 8 hours, you should be golden. At least you'll have fun while stressing the GPU


Black Ops Cold War multiplayer stresses it way harder than Warzone does. I overclocked my 3090 and it survived WZ easily for hours and then crapped the proverbial bed in Cold War. Dialed it back 15MHz and was golden.


----------



## Alemancio

Thanks for the reply but I doubt Warzone stresses further than Prime95, LinPack and RealBench altogether. For a GPU sure! 3dmark is not THAT good for instabilities.


----------



## flyinion

How is 3202 treating you guys? I'm still stuck on 2206 since I kept hearing the newer ones (and even 2206) were causing issues. Would like to update for newer AGESA etc but also seeing "beta" on the Asus site is kind hmmm. At some point I'm going to have to update though since I'm keeping an eye out for a 5950X to replace my 3700X. (yeah I know I'm not going to find one soon, but I can hope)


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Alemancio said:


> Thanks for the reply but I doubt Warzone stresses further than Prime95, LinPack and RealBench altogether. For a GPU sure! 3dmark is not THAT good for instabilities.


People are crashing when certain cores are atnlow loads.

The voltage curve affects the bottom and high end of our frequencies. Testing out your cores at the high end of your voltage cores doesn't test stability on lightly loaded cores.

That's why besides just running torture test, we got to give it real world work loads. Warzone is a game that does push the CPU pretty well, and random low loads will be applied throughout to test the bottom left of the voltage curve of our settings.


----------



## Dawidowski

I have a question, how do I determine my cores in ryzen master and my bios? 

Bios cores 0-11 / Ryzen 1-12 / HW Perf cores are all over the place. 
Lastly, seems people seem to give more juice to first CCD and less to the second?Whys that? 

So far, all core negative offset of -20 gave me the best score of 637/9049 in CR 20. CPUz 10040/680


----------



## Sindragosaa

Dawidowski said:


> I have a question, how do I determine my cores in ryzen master and my bios?
> 
> Bios cores 0-11 / Ryzen 1-12 / HW Perf cores are all over the place.
> Lastly, seems people seem to give more juice to first CCD and less to the second?Whys that?
> 
> So far, all core negative offset of -20 gave me the best score of 637/9049 in CR 20. CPUz 10040/680


Core count starts from 0, so subtract one from the core count in Ryzen Master. So if your best core in Ryzen Master is 10, it will be Core 9 in the Bios and HWmonitor. 

You can confirm this in HWinfo as it will show 1/1 & 8/9 for the best cores on each ccd.


----------



## xeizo

flyinion said:


> How is 3202 treating you guys? I'm still stuck on 2206 since I kept hearing the newer ones (and even 2206) were causing issues. Would like to update for newer AGESA etc but also seeing "beta" on the Asus site is kind hmmm. At some point I'm going to have to update though since I'm keeping an eye out for a 5950X to replace my 3700X. (yeah I know I'm not going to find one soon, but I can hope)


The new bios looks perfectly fine, my idle crashes and WHEA was from ONE bad core not from a bad bios. Using Curve Optimizer I use less offset on that core(Core 1) and everything is stable, idle and load.

You should all test the quality of your respective cores, they look to vary a lot, good thing we have Curve Optimizer. Otherwise it wouldn't be possible to fix. Maybe AMD knew this when they introduced the new feature, who knows.


----------



## stimpy88

polyh3dron said:


> Yes, because I use WSL2.
> 
> Does SVM really negatively impact a Ryzen system that badly?


I think this SVM being detrimental to performance when enabled is an urban myth. Total BS. Can anyone prove otherwise?


----------



## xeizo

stimpy88 said:


> I think this SVM being detrimental to performance when enabled is an urban myth. Total BS. Can anyone prove otherwise?


I have SVM enabled on all four of my Ryzen systems, works great!(5900X,3900X,3700X,2700X)


----------



## metalshark

stimpy88 said:


> I think this SVM being detrimental to performance when enabled is an urban myth. Total BS. Can anyone prove otherwise?


I didn't think SVM on its own did much outside of a <1% decrease in IPC speeds, but if you've enabled "Core Isolation" or "Memory Integrity" in Windows then the performance difference (and security) is more pronounced in benchmarks at least.


----------



## rawbitz

Sindragosaa said:


> BIOS: 3102
> PBO: PPT 200 / TDC 300 / EDC 300
> OFFSET: +0 MHZ
> CO: -20 best two cores as shown in Ryzen Master / -30 all other cores
> VCORE OFFSET: -0.10000V
> FCLK/UCLK: 1866 MHz
> 
> These by far are the best results I have achieved with PBO with MAX temps reaching only ~80 degrees C, slightly under.


This vcore offset -0.1 setting helped me to get the first time all core CO -30 working. 
Before nothing I tried was stable below -5 CO. 
Also the temps are really appealing right now as you already said.

Strangely I needed to adjust the pbo settings inside the ai-tweaker settings, because the amd/advanced menu wasn't picking up these values until a certain threshold (e.g. max 190 for EDC).
Thanks a lot @Sindragosaa


----------



## sieepiestangel

Is anyone on a C8DH and 5950x and able to post at fclk 1900? I can run error free at 1866, I can not post at 1900. At 1933, 1966 and 2000, I can post, but I throw a lot of WHEA errors, with it being unstable at 2000. This is all with just changing the infinity fabric setting without any other changes. Is this down to bios vs silicon lottery or is this a defective chip that people have being going through the RMA process with?

This is all being done on BIOS 3202


----------



## shaolin95

Sindragosaa said:


> Core count starts from 0, so subtract one from the core count in Ryzen Master. So if your best core in Ryzen Master is 10, it will be Core 9 in the Bios and HWmonitor.
> 
> You can confirm this in HWinfo as it will show 1/1 & 8/9 for the best cores on each ccd.


Hello.
Would you mind posting a Bios dump? I may be going back to my previous Bios as 3202 seem to allow less CO but wanted to try your setting into 3202 just to see what I get.


----------



## metalshark

@sieepiestangel would compare the success rate on the ASUS boards vs the Gigabyte boards where 2000 FCLK/RAM seems to be very common to achieve.


----------



## sieepiestangel

metalshark said:


> @sieepiestangel would compare the success rate on the ASUS boards vs the Gigabyte boards where 2000 FCLK/RAM seems to be very common to achieve.


Not sure what the success rates are, but again, 2000 fclk/ram is not an issue for me, I just get a lot of WHEA errors, all event 19 errors. My issue is this weird 1900 fclk that will not boot.


----------



## stimpy88

metalshark said:


> I didn't think SVM on its own did much outside of a <1% decrease in IPC speeds, but if you've enabled "Core Isolation" or "Memory Integrity" in Windows then the performance difference (and security) is more pronounced in benchmarks at least.


So this performance impact of SVM is a myth. Enabling those other features in the OS would certainly come with a performance cost, but SVM on it's own does not. Thanks for the info.


----------



## polyh3dron

xeizo said:


> I have SVM enabled on all four of my Ryzen systems, works great!(5900X,3900X,3700X,2700X)


So wait... How are you getting a solid 100MHz on your BCLK on a Crosshair VIII Hero while running SVM? You saw what I had to do just to get around 98.8 on my Dark Hero.


----------



## enforcer3399

Sorry this might be a dumb question but im think of switching to a NH-D15 cooler and moving the GPU to the PCIE 2 Slot
Im using a AMD 5950x and 2 m2 drives in PCI 4 mode

Will moving the GPU to PCIe 2 Slot decrease the m2 drives and cut down the GPU to x8 pci 3 ?
The manual says this is unsupported ?


----------



## xeizo

polyh3dron said:


> So wait... How are you getting a solid 100MHz on your BCLK on a Crosshair VIII Hero while running SVM? You saw what I had to do just to get around 98.8 on my Dark Hero.


I don't know exactly what has done it, but here are my complete current settings, very stable btw



Spoiler



[2021/01/21 18:41:14]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Auto]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3800MHz]
FCLK Frequency [1900MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Enabled]
CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Core VID [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
Performance Bias [None]
PBO Fmax Enhancer [Disabled]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Manual]
PPT Limit [180]
TDC Limit [200]
EDC Limit [220]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [50]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Manual]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [85]
DRAM CAS# Latency [16]
Trcdrd [16]
Trcdwr [16]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [16]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [30]
Trc [42]
TrrdS [6]
TrrdL [8]
Tfaw [35]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [12]
Twr [12]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [4]
TwrwrScl [4]
Trfc [298]
Trfc2 [Auto]
Trfc4 [Auto]
Tcwl [16]
Trtp [8]
Trdwr [8]
Twrrd [5]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [7]
TwrwrDd [7]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [5]
TrdrdDd [5]
Tcke [1]
ProcODT [43.6 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [Rtt_Nom Disable]
RttWr [RZQ/3]
RttPark [RZQ/1]
MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
MemCkeSetup [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [3]
Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
CPU Current Capability [130%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed CPU VRM Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed VDDSOC Switching Frequency(KHz) [600]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
DRAM Current Capability [130%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]
CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
VTTDDR Voltage [0.72500]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [0.93000]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.10000]
DRAM Voltage [1.38000]
VDDG CCD Voltage Control [1.010]
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [1.035]
CLDO VDDP voltage [0.925]
1.00V SB Voltage [1.05000]
1.8V PLL Voltage [1.81000]
TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Enabled]
PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
NX Mode [Enabled]
SVM Mode [Enabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
CCD Control [Auto]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
SMART Self Test [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
When system is in working state [All On]
Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [All On]
Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Enabled]
Realtek PXE OPROM [Disabled]
Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Enabled]
Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_2 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
SB Link Mode [Auto]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Above 4G Decoding [Enabled]
Re-Size BAR Support [Auto]
SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
KingstonDataTraveler 2.0PMAP [Auto]
Seagate Expansion Desk 070B [Auto]
USB Device Enable [Enabled]
U32G2_2 [Enabled]
U32G2_3 [Enabled]
U32G2_4 [Enabled]
U32G1_10 [Enabled]
U32G1_11 [Enabled]
USB12 [Enabled]
USB13 [Enabled]
U32G2_7 [Enabled]
U32G2_8 [Enabled]
U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Device [SATA6G_6: ST4000DM000-1F2168]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
PCH Fan Speed [Monitor]
Flow Rate [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
CPU Fan Step Up [0 sec]
CPU Fan Step Down [0 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [400 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [400 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [400 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [400 RPM]
High Amp Fan Profile [Standard]
Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Above 4GB MMIO Limit [39bit (512GB)]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
Boot Logo Display [Auto]
Bootup NumLock State [On]
POST Delay Time [1 sec]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Disabled]
OS Type [Other OS]
AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
Flexkey [Reset]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Profile Name []
Save to Profile [1]
DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A2]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Disabled]
CPU Frequency [0]
CPU Voltage [0]
CCD Control [Auto]
Core control [Auto]
SMT Control [Auto]
Overclock [Enabled ]
Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
Tcl [Auto]
Trcdrd [Auto]
Trcdwr [Auto]
Trp [Auto]
Tras [Auto]
Trc Ctrl [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr Ctrl [Auto]
Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Enabled ]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [1900MHz]
ECO Mode [Disable]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
PBO Limits [Manual]
PPT Limit [W] [180]
TDC Limit [A] [200]
EDC Limit [A] [220]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Curve Optimizer [Per Core]
Core 0 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [15]
Core 1 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [1]
Core 2 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [10]
Core 3 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [10]
Core 4 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [10]
Core 5 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [10]
Core 6 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [15]
Core 7 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [15]
Core 8 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [15]
Core 9 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [15]
Core 10 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [15]
Core 11 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [15]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [50MHz]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Manual]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [85]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
SoC Voltage [0]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Enabled ]
VDDP Voltage Control [Manual]
VDDP Voltage Control [925]
VDDG Voltage Control [Manual]
VDDG CCD Voltage Control [1010]
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [1035]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
SMEE [Auto]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
Global C-state Control [Enabled]
Power Supply Idle Control [Auto]
SEV ASID Count [Auto]
SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
Local APIC Mode [Auto]
ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
DRAM scrub time [Auto]
Poison scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Memory interleaving [Auto]
Memory interleaving size [Auto]
1TB remap [Auto]
DRAM map inversion [Auto]
ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
GMI encryption control [Auto]
xGMI encryption control [Auto]
CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
PcsCG control [Auto]
Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
Memory Clear [Auto]
Overclock [Enabled]
Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
Tcl [Auto]
Trcdrd [Auto]
Trcdwr [Auto]
Trp [Auto]
Tras [Auto]
Trc Ctrl [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr Ctrl [Auto]
Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Data Poisoning [Auto]
DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
RCD Parity [Auto]
DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
Write CRC Enable [Auto]
DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
TSME [Auto]
Data Scramble [Auto]
DFE Read Training [Auto]
FFE Write Training [Auto]
PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
BankGroupSwap [Auto]
BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
Address Hash Bank [Auto]
Address Hash CS [Auto]
Address Hash Rm [Auto]
SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
MBIST Enable [Disabled]
Pattern Select [PRBS]
Pattern Length(VMR) [6]
Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
IOMMU [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Enable]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
FCLK Frequency [1900MHz]
SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
UCLK DIV1 MODE [UCLK==MEMCLK]
VDDP Voltage Control [Manual]
VDDP Voltage [925]
VDDG Voltage Control [Manual]
VDDG Voltage [1035]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Enabled]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
ACS Enable [Auto]
PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Disable]
cTDP Control [Auto]
EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
APBDIS [Auto]
DF Cstates [Enabled]
CPPC [Enabled]
CPPC Preferred Cores [Enabled]
NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
Early Link Speed [Auto]
Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
Preferred IO [Auto]
CV test [Auto]
Loopback Mode [Auto]
SRIS [Auto]
Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

enforcer3399 said:


> Sorry this might be a dumb question but im think of switching to a NH-D15 cooler and moving the GPU to the PCIE 2 Slot
> Im using a AMD 5950x and 2 m2 drives in PCI 4 mode
> 
> Will moving the GPU to PCIe 2 Slot decrease the m2 drives and cut down the GPU to x8 pci 3 ?
> The manual says this is unsupported ?
> 
> 
> View attachment 2475159


This chart only explains the difference between 1 to 3 GPUs on the mobo.


----------



## xeizo

enforcer3399 said:


> Sorry this might be a dumb question but im think of switching to a NH-D15 cooler and moving the GPU to the PCIE 2 Slot
> Im using a AMD 5950x and 2 m2 drives in PCI 4 mode
> 
> Will moving the GPU to PCIe 2 Slot decrease the m2 drives and cut down the GPU to x8 pci 3 ?
> The manual says this is unsupported ?
> 
> 
> View attachment 2475159


Why would you move the GPU? I have NH-D15 and have my GPU in the normal place. Works well, you just have to mount the fans on each outer side of the cooler to get them even(estetic) because of the I/O shround and my large Trident Z ram.
I have a rather large case though, NZXT H700, may not work in a smaller case. But it looks great. And cooling is great.


----------



## coelacanth

sieepiestangel said:


> Not sure what the success rates are, but again, 2000 fclk/ram is not an issue for me, I just get a lot of WHEA errors, all event 19 errors. My issue is this weird 1900 fclk that will not boot.


I noticed that a lot of people with the Dark Hero have the same issue. For whatever reason 1900 FCLK doesn't work. I can run 1866 on auto everything but the second I change it to 1900 I just got a black screen and have to clear CMOS.


----------



## sieepiestangel

coelacanth said:


> I noticed that a lot of people with the Dark Hero have the same issue. For whatever reason 1900 FCLK doesn't work. I can run 1866 on auto everything but the second I change it to 1900 I just got a black screen and have to clear CMOS.


Yeah, thats what it seems like from the other posts I'm seeing on other forums. My friend has a Dark Hero with a 5900x that is running 1900 FCLK just fine. I wonder if this issue is specific to the 5950x. It's frustrating because anything over 1900 is unstable with WHEA errors, even 1933 isn't complete stable.


----------



## dmbrio

Hey Guys,

I'm currently in the process of RMAing my Crosshair VIII Hero Wi-fi

My system presents a severe issue with Windows Retail Versions (20H2 & 2004 were tried), in any of the BIOS versions 3003 / 3102 / 3202.

The first issue is an extremely slow boot with explorer.exe hanging on startup: 




I see another person with the exact same issue: ...

Initially I thought it could be driver related but I excluded that possibility: This issue occurs even without any drivers installed (clean w10 retail installation with PC offline), it starts after the first restart after Windows installation (after first boot).

The only thing that fixes it is using LTSC Enterprise Edition 1809.

I have another issue with Cold War where the game stutters like crazy and then results into a fatal error. Tried everything humanly possible.

Can anyone give me some light?


----------



## genelecs

sieepiestangel said:


> Is anyone on a C8DH and 5950x and able to post at fclk 1900? I can run error free at 1866, I can not post at 1900. At 1933, 1966 and 2000, I can post, but I throw a lot of WHEA errors, with it being unstable at 2000. This is all with just changing the infinity fabric setting without any other changes. Is this down to bios vs silicon lottery or is this a defective chip that people have being going through the RMA process with?
> This is all being done on BIOS 3202





coelacanth said:


> I noticed that a lot of people with the Dark Hero have the same issue. For whatever reason 1900 FCLK doesn't work. I can run 1866 on auto everything but the second I change it to 1900 I just got a black screen and have to clear CMOS.


Interesting to see the same behaviour on the C8DH (I'm on a C8H (non-Wifi) - I presume you both get Q-Code 07? - there does seem a few of us now that are stuck getting 1900 FCLK to POST . Are you both running 5950x? I'm happy with just accepting it as weak CPU IMC, but it seems really odd that we can POST at 1933 and above but just not 1900!

After testing, 1933-1966-2000 FCLK is WHEA city for me - though I haven't played with voltages enough to see if I can solve it.

I'm 100% rock solid and WHEA free at at 1866, TM5 (1usmus+anta777), P95 + OCCT Large tested with threadswitcher so as previously mentioned happy with where I am at, I've got a nice CO dialed in now and I haven't had any reboots on idle or anything like that.

Just wouldn't mind some theories/suggestions on what is blocking our systems posting at 1900 FCLK - seems very odd to me.


----------



## Chili195

sieepiestangel said:


> Yeah, thats what it seems like from the other posts I'm seeing on other forums. My friend has a Dark Hero with a 5900x that is running 1900 FCLK just fine. I wonder if this issue is specific to the 5950x. It's frustrating because anything over 1900 is unstable with WHEA errors, even 1933 isn't complete stable.


My Dark Hero has always been happy to boot at 1900 with a 5900X. I get WHEA errors at 2000 but I haven't tried the last couple of BIOSes.

I just moved over to my new case with an extra radiator and immediately noticed an improvement in my benchmarks without making any other changes to my PBO and CO settings (230/190/200 and -21/-23 on top two, -30 remainder).
*







*

I'm now at the point where I have matched my previous Manual OC result on multi-core so have decided that I will definitely be forgetting about Manual OC and DOS OC now. As great as the feature is, CO closes the gap hugely for multicore performance.


----------



## sweshi

5950X + C8DH(2601,3003,3101) is running 1900 FCLK. VSOC/IOD/CCD/VDDP on Auto.


----------



## bushd0c

genelecs said:


> Interesting to see the same behaviour on the C8DH (I'm on a C8H (non-Wifi) - I presume you both get Q-Code 07? - there does seem a few of us now that are stuck getting 1900 FCLK to POST . Are you both running 5950x? I'm happy with just accepting it as weak CPU IMC, but it seems really odd that we can POST at 1933 and above but just not 1900!
> 
> After testing, 1933-1966-2000 FCLK is WHEA city for me - though I haven't played with voltages enough to see if I can solve it.
> 
> I'm 100% rock solid and WHEA free at at 1866, TM5 (1usmus+anta777), P95 + OCCT Large tested with threadswitcher so as previously mentioned happy with where I am at, I've got a nice CO dialed in now and I haven't had any reboots on idle or anything like that.
> 
> Just wouldn't mind some theories/suggestions on what is blocking our systems posting at 1900 FCLK - seems very odd to me.


Have the same problem on my C7H (x470) w/5950x (Bios: 4007), nothing I did changed anything. 1866 = everything is fine, 1900 = black screen, 1933 = WHEA galore. I tried uppin' the PLL to 1.84v & 1.9v. to no avail.


----------



## 1ah1

Guys i have a 5800x ,C8HW and neo 3800mhz cl14 4x8gb

When i put 1900 fclk it boot fine and all the voltages are in auto
the issue appeared when i choose 3800mhz it will fail to boot
And if i put them in 3800mhz but 1866 fclk it boot fine

In AGESA V2 PI 1.1.9.0 
i can boot with this
SOC 1.125
vddg ccd 0.980
vddg iod 0.980
clod vddp 0.850 
is it fine


----------



## CyrIng

dmbrio said:


> Hey Guys,
> 
> I'm currently in the process of RMAing my Crosshair VIII Hero Wi-fi
> 
> My system presents a severe issue with Windows Retail Versions (20H2 & 2004 were tried), in any of the BIOS versions 3003 / 3102 / 3202.
> 
> The first issue is an extremely slow boot with explorer.exe hanging on startup:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see another person with the exact same issue: ...
> 
> Initially I thought it could be driver related but I excluded that possibility: This issue occurs even without any drivers installed (clean w10 retail installation with PC offline), it starts after the first restart after Windows installation (after first boot).
> 
> The only thing that fixes it is using LTSC Enterprise Edition 1809.
> 
> I have another issue with Cold War where the game stutters like crazy and then results into a fatal error. Tried everything humanly possible.
> 
> Can anyone give me some light?


But why don't you boot Linux from an USB Key ?
Just download an ISO Desktop distribution image on put that on the flash.
If Linux gets slow then you can worry. The contrary will be obviously that Windows OS.


----------



## Dawidowski

Sindragosaa said:


> Core count starts from 0, so subtract one from the core count in Ryzen Master. So if your best core in Ryzen Master is 10, it will be Core 9 in the Bios and HWmonitor.
> 
> You can confirm this in HWinfo as it will show 1/1 & 8/9 for the best cores on each ccd.


Thanks!


All core negative curve of -15, disbled PBO, it ran fine until I got Whea uncorretable error.


----------



## dmbrio

CyrIng said:


> But why don't you boot Linux from an USB Key ?
> Just download an ISO Desktop distribution image on put that on the flash.
> If Linux gets slow then you can worry. The contrary will be obviously that Windows OS.


I took my PC to a friend's house today and the same clean offline W10 installation which caused me problems (no drivers or updates installed) just worked like a charm, even in BOCW.

As my PC presented this issue with an offline installation, I believe it is Windows messing up something really hard when it assigns a driver to the device. The issues are absolutely gone when I'm not using a Razer peripheral. I installed my external devices and drivers one by one to identify what was the issue. By elimination it could be only Razer or my external DAC/AMP. Synapse was already installed but the peripherals were not yet plugged to the new installation, as soon as I plugged the M & KB Synapse installed the drivers and I restarted the PC, guess what, slow boot, explorer hanging (did not test BOCW), uninstalling Synapse solved the issue only on the first restart, on the sequent one the issue came back. Then I reinstalled W10 in the same way but without Razer peripherals, guess what, perfect boot, BOCW buttery smooth.

I'm in the process of reporting this to both Razer and ASUS. Hopefully this will get fixed soon.


----------



## Nizzen

bushd0c said:


> Have the same problem on my C7H (x470) w/5950x (Bios: 4007), nothing I did changed anything. 1866 = everything is fine, 1900 = black screen, 1933 = WHEA galore. I tried uppin' the PLL to 1.84v & 1.9v. to no avail.


We need new generation Ryzen with new memorycontroller. Stuck under 2000fclk sux. Boring too 😆


----------



## xeizo

I tested some more with my 5900X, looks like CCD0 doesn't like CO at all, the lowest I can get without WHEA so far is -15, -1(faulty core), -10, -10, -10, -10. CCD1 does -20 happy all day.

Very uneven quality.


----------



## CyrIng

dmbrio said:


> I took my PC to a friend's house today and the same clean offline W10 installation which caused me problems (no drivers or updates installed) just worked like a charm, even in BOCW.
> 
> As my PC presented this issue with an offline installation, I believe it is Windows messing up something really hard when it assigns a driver to the device. The issues are absolutely gone when I'm not using a Razer peripheral. I installed my external devices and drivers one by one to identify what was the issue. By elimination it could be only Razer or my external DAC/AMP. Synapse was already installed but the peripherals were not yet plugged to the new installation, as soon as I plugged the M & KB Synapse installed the drivers and I restarted the PC, guess what, slow boot, explorer hanging (did not test BOCW), uninstalling Synapse solved the issue only on the first restart, on the sequent one the issue came back. Then I reinstalled W10 in the same way but without Razer peripherals, guess what, perfect boot, BOCW buttery smooth.
> 
> I'm in the process of reporting this to both Razer and ASUS. Hopefully this will get fixed soon.


Bad Driver !


----------



## jfrob75

Recently installed a 5950X on my new ASUS Crosshair VIII Formula. Prior to installing the 5950X I tested the MB with a 3950X and had no issue with disabling spread spectrum and gettingmthe buss clock(BClk) to stay/report at 100MHz. I also tested the 5950X on my GB Aurus Extreme and was able to disable spread spectrum resulting the BClk to stay/report at 100MHz. Since installing the 5950X and Crosshair Formula I am unable to get the BClk to 100MHz by disabling spread spectrum. I have tried on BIOS 3102 and now on 3201. Is this a common issue for those with similar config? What else is there to do to get the BClk to 100MHz?


----------



## xeizo

jfrob75 said:


> Recently installed a 5950X on my new ASUS Crosshair VIII Formula. Prior to installing the 5950X I tested the MB with a 3950X and had no issue with disabling spread spectrum and gettingmthe buss clock(BClk) to stay/report at 100MHz. I also tested the 5950X on my GB Aurus Extreme and was able to disable spread spectrum resulting the BClk to stay/report at 100MHz. Since installing the 5950X and Crosshair Formula I am unable to get the BClk to 100MHz by disabling spread spectrum. I have tried on BIOS 3102 and now on 3201. Is this a common issue for those with similar config? What else is there to do to get the BClk to 100MHz?


I have it at 100.0 on the CH8, but I don't know exactly what did it because I didn't even try it just became right


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Has anyone ever got 3800mhz with 4 dimms to boot and be stable with gdm disabled with a crosshair hero WiFi? If so what settings did you use?


----------



## polyh3dron

jfrob75 said:


> Recently installed a 5950X on my new ASUS Crosshair VIII Formula. Prior to installing the 5950X I tested the MB with a 3950X and had no issue with disabling spread spectrum and gettingmthe buss clock(BClk) to stay/report at 100MHz. I also tested the 5950X on my GB Aurus Extreme and was able to disable spread spectrum resulting the BClk to stay/report at 100MHz. Since installing the 5950X and Crosshair Formula I am unable to get the BClk to 100MHz by disabling spread spectrum. I have tried on BIOS 3102 and now on 3201. Is this a common issue for those with similar config? What else is there to do to get the BClk to 100MHz?


Maybe this is a 5950X issue. I'm experiencing the same thing on the Dark Hero with my 5950X on BIOS 3202.


----------



## genelecs

Curious to what are you checking the BCLK with? CPU-Z claims 99.98 and AIDA64 100 on my 5950x.


----------



## xeizo

genelecs said:


> Curious to what are you checking the BCLK with? CPU-Z claims 99.98 and AIDA64 100 on my 5950x.
> 
> View attachment 2475303


Yes, spot on, everything but CPUZ reports 100MHz for me. But CPUZ do indeed report 99.98MHz. But that is 100MHz, right? I think those unhappy have 99.80 reported, but I don't know


----------



## jfrob75

genelecs said:


> Curious to what are you checking the BCLK with? CPU-Z claims 99.98 and AIDA64 100 on my 5950x.
> 
> View attachment 2475303


I am using HWInfo64, AIDA64, CPUID CPU-Z. They all are reporting 99.8MHz. Plus the reported core frequencies are reflective of a non 100MHz BClk. As I said in my original post it works correctly with my 3950X on my Formula and it works correctly on my GB Aurus Extreme with my 5950X. To me it just weird that making the same BIOS changes that it does not work with the 5950X on the Formula.


----------



## menko2

Help please...

I just installed my Dark Hero with a 5800x and I I can't read the temps with any program.

I tried Hwinfo and others that I use normally with no luck.

Any idea what it can be?


----------



## Dawidowski

Got my 6800XT today! 
Running with the 5900x and CH8 like it should! 

Question though, how on earth do people score 15000k + in cpu score on time spy? 
All core OC?


----------



## JohnnyFlash

menko2 said:


> Help please...
> 
> I just installed my Dark Hero with a 5800x and I I can't read the temps with any program.
> 
> I tried Hwinfo and others that I use normally with no luck.
> 
> Any idea what it can be?


There's a seperate Dark Hero thread in here. You might have better luck.


----------



## xeizo

Dawidowski said:


> Question though, how on earth do people score 15000k + in cpu score on time spy?
> All core OC?


No, not necessary, PBO enabled and some Curve Optimizer minus offset and it trickles over 15.000


----------



## Dawidowski

xeizo said:


> No, not necessary, PBO enabled and some Curve Optimizer minus offset and it trickles over 15.000


PBO - 200/150/150 
+100 mhz
Curve optimizer - All core negative 15
Then I hit the timespy and tada.. 14k on cpu  im 1000+ short


----------



## xeizo

Dawidowski said:


> PBO - 200/150/150
> +100 mhz
> Curve optimizer - All core negative 15
> Then I hit the timespy and tada.. 14k on cpu  im 1000+ short


I would guess EDC is too low, raise it to at least 200 and lower PPT instead to tame max temp. Low EDC kills L3 which presumably is important for game related things, also you can set max temp in PBO to 85C and you are safe anyways. I run 180/200/220.


----------



## jfrob75

BClk issue update: So decided to try and see if I can get my 4 sticks of 16GB memory to run at 1900MHz. When I changed my BIOS settings for doing this in addition to changing FClk and Infinity fabric Clk I also adjusted SB voltage to 1.02 and PLL 1.8 to 1.94 volts. Rebooted successfully and now my BClk is reading 100.00MHz. Not sure if it was the change to SB voltage but at least it is reading correctly. Now to test the memory for stability.

Edit: Switched back to my 3600MHz memory bios settings and noticed BClk was be reported correctly. Tried changing SB voltage to 1.025 as before, no change. Next increased PLL1.8 voltage setting to 1.83, no change. Finally changed my memory frequency to 3733MHz with appropriate VDIMM of 1.47 for the tight timings, rebooted successfully and BClk now being reported as 100.00 MHz.


----------



## domdtxdissar

One last hurrah for bios 3003 before i update to a bios with AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.0 and support for Nvidia smart access memory.
Cold air benching with EK custom waterloop+TechN Zen3 waterblock 
Curve optimizer = -30 allcore
Stable in everything i throw at it, and no WHEA errors. 








Cinebench r23 multithread = 32229 points
Cinebench r23 singlethread = 1729 points

Cinebench r20 multithread = 12441 points
Cinebench r20 singlethread = 674 points

Cinebench r15 multithread = 5404 points
Cinebench r15 multithread = 288 points

CPU-Z validator @ AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @ 4798.88 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR

Some Asus realbench + Passmark performancetest numbers @ PassMark Software - Display Baseline ID# 1359214 (This machine is ranked #36 out of 156355 results globally) 









Geekbench 4 @ ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser
Singlethread = 8215 points
Multithread = 74733 points

Geekbench5 @ ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser
Singlethread = 1844 points
Multithread = 20054 points

Some heavy IBT high+very high and Y-Cruncher numbers:









Did also run a full sweep of all 3dmarks, but i will post that in one other thread 



Spoiler: Bios dump



[2021/01/20 16:26:21]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3800MHz]
FCLK Frequency [1900MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Enabled]
CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Core VID [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
Performance Bias [Auto]
PBO Fmax Enhancer [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Manual]
PPT Limit [300]
TDC Limit [235]
EDC Limit [245]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Manual]
Customized Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [4X]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [50]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
Trcdrd [15]
Trcdwr [8]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [12]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [24]
Trc [36]
TrrdS [4]
TrrdL [4]
Tfaw [16]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [10]
Twr [12]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [2]
TwrwrScl [2]
Trfc [252]
Trfc2 [187]
Trfc4 [115]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [6]
Trdwr [9]
Twrrd [2]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [6]
TwrwrDd [6]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [5]
TrdrdDd [5]
Tcke [Auto]
ProcODT [40 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [RZQ/7]
RttWr [RZQ/3]
RttPark [RZQ/1]
MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
MemCkeSetup [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
CPU Current Capability [140%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed CPU VRM Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Current Capability [130%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CPU Core Voltage [Offset mode]

Offset Mode Sign [+]
CPU Core Voltage Offset [0.01250]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.11875]
DRAM Voltage [1.54500]
VDDG CCD Voltage Control [0.890]
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [Auto]
CLDO VDDP voltage [0.880]
1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Enabled]
PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
NX Mode [Enabled]
SVM Mode [Disabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
CCD Control [Auto]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
SMART Self Test [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
When system is in working state [All On]
Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [All On]
Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Enabled]
Realtek PXE OPROM [Disabled]
Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Disabled]
Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_2 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
SB Link Mode [Auto]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Above 4G Decoding [Enabled]
Re-Size BAR Support [Auto]
SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
Corsair Voyager GTX 0 [Auto]
USB Device Enable [Enabled]
U32G2_2 [Enabled]
U32G2_3 [Enabled]
U32G2_4 [Enabled]
U32G1_10 [Enabled]
U32G1_11 [Enabled]
USB12 [Enabled]
USB13 [Enabled]
U32G2_7 [Enabled]
U32G2_8 [Enabled]
U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Device [SATA6G_7: Samsung SSD 850 PRO 1TB]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
PCH Fan Speed [Monitor]
Flow Rate [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
CPU Fan Step Up [2.1 sec]
CPU Fan Step Down [0 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
CPU Fan Profile [Manual]
CPU Fan Upper Temperature [70]
CPU Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
CPU Fan Middle Temperature [50]
CPU Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [50]
CPU Fan Lower Temperature [30]
CPU Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [40]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Manual]
Chassis Fan 1 Upper Temperature [70]
Chassis Fan 1 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 1 Middle Temperature [50]
Chassis Fan 1 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [65]
Chassis Fan 1 Lower Temperature [20]
Chassis Fan 1 Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Manual]
Chassis Fan 2 Upper Temperature [65]
Chassis Fan 2 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 2 Middle Temperature [45]
Chassis Fan 2 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Chassis Fan 2 Lower Temperature [40]
Chassis Fan 2 Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Manual]
Chassis Fan 3 Upper Temperature [70]
Chassis Fan 3 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 3 Middle Temperature [45]
Chassis Fan 3 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 3 Lower Temperature [40]
Chassis Fan 3 Min Duty Cycle (%) [100]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
High Amp Fan Profile [Manual]
High Amp Fan Upper Temperature [70]
High Amp Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
High Amp Fan Middle Temperature [45]
High Amp Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [70]
High Amp Fan Lower Temperature [30]
High Amp Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Water Pump+ Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Water Pump+ Upper Temperature [70]
Water Pump+ Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Water Pump+ Middle Temperature [50]
Water Pump+ Middle Duty Cycle (%) [65]
Water Pump+ Lower Temperature [30]
Water Pump+ Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Auto]
AIO Pump Q-Fan Source [CPU]
AIO Pump Upper Temperature [70]
AIO Pump Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
AIO Pump Middle Temperature [50]
AIO Pump Middle Duty Cycle (%) [65]
AIO Pump Lower Temperature [30]
AIO Pump Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Above 4GB MMIO Limit [39bit (512GB)]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
Boot Logo Display [Disabled]
Bootup NumLock State [On]
POST Report [5 sec]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Disabled]
OS Type [Other OS]
AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
Flexkey [Reset]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [5]
Profile Name [20.01 minus 30]
Save to Profile [5]
DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Enabled]
CPU Frequency [0]
CPU Voltage [0]
CCD Control [Auto]
Core control [Auto]
SMT Control [Auto]
Overclock [Enabled ]
Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
Tcl [Auto]
Trcdrd [Auto]
Trcdwr [Auto]
Trp [Auto]
Tras [Auto]
Trc Ctrl [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr Ctrl [Auto]
Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
ECO Mode [Disable]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
PBO Limits [Motherboard]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Curve Optimizer [Per Core]
Core 0 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 1 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 2 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 3 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 4 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 5 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 6 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 7 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 8 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 9 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 10 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 11 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 12 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 12 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 13 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 13 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 14 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 14 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 15 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 15 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [0MHz]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
SMEE [Auto]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
Global C-state Control [Disabled]
Power Supply Idle Control [Typical Current Idle]
SEV ASID Count [Auto]
SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
Local APIC Mode [Auto]
ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
RdRand Speedup Disable [Enabled]
IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
DRAM scrub time [Auto]
Poison scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Memory interleaving [Auto]
Memory interleaving size [Auto]
1TB remap [Auto]
DRAM map inversion [Auto]
ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
GMI encryption control [Auto]
xGMI encryption control [Auto]
CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
PcsCG control [Auto]
Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
Memory Clear [Auto]
Overclock [Enabled]
Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
Tcl [Auto]
Trcdrd [Auto]
Trcdwr [Auto]
Trp [Auto]
Tras [Auto]
Trc Ctrl [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr Ctrl [Auto]
Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Data Poisoning [Auto]
DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
RCD Parity [Auto]
DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
Write CRC Enable [Auto]
DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
TSME [Auto]
Data Scramble [Auto]
DFE Read Training [Auto]
FFE Write Training [Auto]
PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
BankGroupSwap [Auto]
BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
Address Hash Bank [Auto]
Address Hash CS [Auto]
Address Hash Rm [Auto]
SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
MBIST Enable [Disabled]
Pattern Select [PRBS]
Pattern Length [6]
Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
IOMMU [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
FCLK Frequency [Auto]
SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
ACS Enable [Auto]
PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
cTDP Control [Auto]
EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
APBDIS [Auto]
DF Cstates [Auto]
CPPC [Auto]
CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
Early Link Speed [Auto]
Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
Preferred IO [Auto]
CV test [Auto]
Loopback Mode [Auto]
Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]


----------



## shaolin95

domdtxdissar said:


> One last hurrah for bios 3003 before i update to a bios with AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.0 and support for Nvidia smart access memory.
> Cold air benching with EK custom waterloop+TechN Zen3 waterblock
> Curve optimizer = -30 allcore
> Stable in everything i throw at it, and no WHEA errors.
> View attachment 2475341
> 
> Cinebench r23 multithread = 32229 points
> Cinebench r23 singlethread = 1729 points
> 
> Cinebench r20 multithread = 12441 points
> Cinebench r20 singlethread = 674 points
> 
> Cinebench r15 multithread = 5404 points
> Cinebench r15 multithread = 288 points
> 
> CPU-Z validator @ AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @ 4798.88 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR
> 
> Some Asus realbench + Passmark performancetest numbers @ PassMark Software - Display Baseline ID# 1359214 (This machine is ranked #36 out of 156355 results globally)
> View attachment 2475342
> 
> 
> Geekbench 4 @ ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser
> Singlethread = 8215 points
> Multithread = 74733 points
> 
> Geekbench5 @ ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser
> Singlethread = 1844 points
> Multithread = 20054 points
> 
> Some heavy IBT high+very high and Y-Cruncher numbers:
> View attachment 2475343
> 
> 
> Did also run a full sweep of all 3dmarks, but i will post that in one other thread
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Bios dump
> 
> 
> 
> [2021/01/20 16:26:21]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3800MHz]
> FCLK Frequency [1900MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Enabled]
> CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> Core VID [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> Performance Bias [Auto]
> PBO Fmax Enhancer [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Manual]
> PPT Limit [300]
> TDC Limit [235]
> EDC Limit [245]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Manual]
> Customized Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [4X]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [50]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> Trcdrd [15]
> Trcdwr [8]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [12]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [24]
> Trc [36]
> TrrdS [4]
> TrrdL [4]
> Tfaw [16]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [10]
> Twr [12]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [2]
> TwrwrScl [2]
> Trfc [252]
> Trfc2 [187]
> Trfc4 [115]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [6]
> Trdwr [9]
> Twrrd [2]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [6]
> TwrwrDd [6]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [5]
> TrdrdDd [5]
> Tcke [Auto]
> ProcODT [40 ohm]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [RZQ/7]
> RttWr [RZQ/3]
> RttPark [RZQ/1]
> MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
> Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> CPU Current Capability [140%]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed CPU VRM Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Current Capability [130%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
> CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
> Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CPU Core Voltage [Offset mode]
> 
> Offset Mode Sign [+]
> CPU Core Voltage Offset [0.01250]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.11875]
> DRAM Voltage [1.54500]
> VDDG CCD Voltage Control [0.890]
> VDDG IOD Voltage Control [Auto]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [0.880]
> 1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
> PSS Support [Enabled]
> PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
> NX Mode [Enabled]
> SVM Mode [Disabled]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
> SMART Self Test [Enabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
> PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
> When system is in working state [All On]
> Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
> When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [All On]
> Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Enabled]
> Realtek PXE OPROM [Disabled]
> Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
> Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
> ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
> Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Disabled]
> Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
> USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX16_2 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX16_3 Mode [Auto]
> M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
> M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
> SB Link Mode [Auto]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> Above 4G Decoding [Enabled]
> Re-Size BAR Support [Auto]
> SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
> Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> Corsair Voyager GTX 0 [Auto]
> USB Device Enable [Enabled]
> U32G2_2 [Enabled]
> U32G2_3 [Enabled]
> U32G2_4 [Enabled]
> U32G1_10 [Enabled]
> U32G1_11 [Enabled]
> USB12 [Enabled]
> USB13 [Enabled]
> U32G2_7 [Enabled]
> U32G2_8 [Enabled]
> U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Device [SATA6G_7: Samsung SSD 850 PRO 1TB]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> VRM Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> PCH Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Flow Rate [Monitor]
> CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> CPU Fan Step Up [2.1 sec]
> CPU Fan Step Down [0 sec]
> CPU Fan Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> CPU Fan Profile [Manual]
> CPU Fan Upper Temperature [70]
> CPU Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> CPU Fan Middle Temperature [50]
> CPU Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [50]
> CPU Fan Lower Temperature [30]
> CPU Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [40]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Manual]
> Chassis Fan 1 Upper Temperature [70]
> Chassis Fan 1 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 1 Middle Temperature [50]
> Chassis Fan 1 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [65]
> Chassis Fan 1 Lower Temperature [20]
> Chassis Fan 1 Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Manual]
> Chassis Fan 2 Upper Temperature [65]
> Chassis Fan 2 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 2 Middle Temperature [45]
> Chassis Fan 2 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Chassis Fan 2 Lower Temperature [40]
> Chassis Fan 2 Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Manual]
> Chassis Fan 3 Upper Temperature [70]
> Chassis Fan 3 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 3 Middle Temperature [45]
> Chassis Fan 3 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 3 Lower Temperature [40]
> Chassis Fan 3 Min Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
> High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
> High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> High Amp Fan Profile [Manual]
> High Amp Fan Upper Temperature [70]
> High Amp Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> High Amp Fan Middle Temperature [45]
> High Amp Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [70]
> High Amp Fan Lower Temperature [30]
> High Amp Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Water Pump+ Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Water Pump+ Upper Temperature [70]
> Water Pump+ Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Water Pump+ Middle Temperature [50]
> Water Pump+ Middle Duty Cycle (%) [65]
> Water Pump+ Lower Temperature [30]
> Water Pump+ Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> AIO Pump Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> AIO Pump Upper Temperature [70]
> AIO Pump Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> AIO Pump Middle Temperature [50]
> AIO Pump Middle Duty Cycle (%) [65]
> AIO Pump Lower Temperature [30]
> AIO Pump Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Above 4GB MMIO Limit [39bit (512GB)]
> Fast Boot [Enabled]
> Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
> Boot Logo Display [Disabled]
> Bootup NumLock State [On]
> POST Report [5 sec]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
> Launch CSM [Disabled]
> OS Type [Other OS]
> AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
> Flexkey [Reset]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> Load from Profile [5]
> Profile Name [20.01 minus 30]
> Save to Profile [5]
> DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
> Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Enabled]
> CPU Frequency [0]
> CPU Voltage [0]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> Core control [Auto]
> SMT Control [Auto]
> Overclock [Enabled ]
> Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
> Tcl [Auto]
> Trcdrd [Auto]
> Trcdwr [Auto]
> Trp [Auto]
> Tras [Auto]
> Trc Ctrl [Auto]
> TrrdS [Auto]
> TrrdL [Auto]
> Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
> TwtrS [Auto]
> TwtrL [Auto]
> Twr Ctrl [Auto]
> Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
> TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
> TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
> Tcwl [Auto]
> Trtp [Auto]
> Tcke [Auto]
> Trdwr [Auto]
> Twrrd [Auto]
> TwrwrSc [Auto]
> TwrwrSd [Auto]
> TwrwrDd [Auto]
> TrdrdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSd [Auto]
> TrdrdDd [Auto]
> ProcODT [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
> ECO Mode [Disable]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
> PBO Limits [Motherboard]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> Curve Optimizer [Per Core]
> Core 0 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 1 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 2 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 3 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 4 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 5 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 6 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 7 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 8 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 9 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 10 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 11 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 12 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 12 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 13 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 13 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 14 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 14 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 15 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 15 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [0MHz]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
> LN2 Mode [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
> L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
> SMEE [Auto]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> Global C-state Control [Disabled]
> Power Supply Idle Control [Typical Current Idle]
> SEV ASID Count [Auto]
> SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
> Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
> Local APIC Mode [Auto]
> ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
> MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
> PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
> Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
> Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
> RdRand Speedup Disable [Enabled]
> IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
> DRAM scrub time [Auto]
> Poison scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> Memory interleaving [Auto]
> Memory interleaving size [Auto]
> 1TB remap [Auto]
> DRAM map inversion [Auto]
> ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
> GMI encryption control [Auto]
> xGMI encryption control [Auto]
> CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
> 4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> 3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
> PcsCG control [Auto]
> Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
> Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
> CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
> Memory Clear [Auto]
> Overclock [Enabled]
> Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
> Tcl [Auto]
> Trcdrd [Auto]
> Trcdwr [Auto]
> Trp [Auto]
> Tras [Auto]
> Trc Ctrl [Auto]
> TrrdS [Auto]
> TrrdL [Auto]
> Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
> TwtrS [Auto]
> TwtrL [Auto]
> Twr Ctrl [Auto]
> Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
> TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
> TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
> Tcwl [Auto]
> Trtp [Auto]
> Tcke [Auto]
> Trdwr [Auto]
> Twrrd [Auto]
> TwrwrSc [Auto]
> TwrwrSd [Auto]
> TwrwrDd [Auto]
> TrdrdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSd [Auto]
> TrdrdDd [Auto]
> ProcODT [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
> DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Data Poisoning [Auto]
> DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
> RCD Parity [Auto]
> DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
> Write CRC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
> Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
> DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
> DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
> TSME [Auto]
> Data Scramble [Auto]
> DFE Read Training [Auto]
> FFE Write Training [Auto]
> PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
> MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
> CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
> Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
> BankGroupSwap [Auto]
> BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
> Address Hash Bank [Auto]
> Address Hash CS [Auto]
> Address Hash Rm [Auto]
> SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
> MBIST Enable [Disabled]
> Pattern Select [PRBS]
> Pattern Length [6]
> Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
> Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
> Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> IOMMU [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> FCLK Frequency [Auto]
> SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
> UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
> LN2 Mode [Auto]
> ACS Enable [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
> PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
> cTDP Control [Auto]
> EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
> Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
> APBDIS [Auto]
> DF Cstates [Auto]
> CPPC [Auto]
> CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
> NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
> Early Link Speed [Auto]
> Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
> Preferred IO [Auto]
> CV test [Auto]
> Loopback Mode [Auto]
> Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]


Those are awesome results. Are you moving to 3202? I have been struggling with my CO and performance on it so was about to move back to something else but will wait to see what you get (if you are moving to it),


----------



## Sindragosaa

shaolin95 said:


> Hello.
> Would you mind posting a Bios dump? I may be going back to my previous Bios as 3202 seem to allow less CO but wanted to try your setting into 3202 just to see what I get.





Code:


[2021/01/23 12:27:42]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3733MHz]
FCLK Frequency [1866MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Core VID [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
Performance Bias [Auto]
PBO Fmax Enhancer [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Manual]
PPT Limit [200]
TDC Limit [300]
EDC Limit [300]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [Auto]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [16]
Trcdrd [19]
Trcdwr [19]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [19]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [39]
Trc [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr [Auto]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [Auto]
TwrwrScl [Auto]
Trfc [Auto]
Trfc2 [Auto]
Trfc4 [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [Auto]
RttWr [Auto]
RttPark [Auto]
MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
MemCkeSetup [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [Auto]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
CPU Current Capability [140%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
Active Frequency Mode [Disabled]
CPU Power Duty Control [Extreme]
CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
CPU Power Thermal Control [136]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Current Capability [130%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CPU Core Voltage [Offset mode]
- Offset Mode Sign [-]
- CPU Core Voltage Offset [0.10000]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.15000]
DRAM Voltage [1.36000]
VDDG CCD Voltage Control [0.985]
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [1.050]
CLDO VDDP voltage [0.900]
1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Enabled]
PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
NX Mode [Enabled]
SVM Mode [Disabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
CCD Control [Auto]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
SMART Self Test [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
When system is in working state [All On]
Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [All On]
Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Enabled]
Realtek PXE OPROM [Disabled]
Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Enabled]
Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_2 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
SB Link Mode [Auto]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Above 4G Decoding [Disabled]
SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
USB Device Enable [Enabled]
U32G2_2 [Enabled]
U32G2_3 [Enabled]
U32G2_4 [Enabled]
U32G1_10 [Enabled]
U32G1_11 [Enabled]
USB12 [Enabled]
USB13 [Enabled]
U32G2_7 [Enabled]
U32G2_8 [Enabled]
U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Device [SATA6G_4: Samsung SSD 870 QVO 2TB]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
PCH Fan Speed [Monitor]
Flow Rate [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
CPU Fan Step Up [0 sec]
CPU Fan Step Down [0 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
High Amp Fan Profile [Standard]
Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
Boot Logo Display [Auto]
Bootup NumLock State [On]
POST Delay Time [1 sec]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Disabled]
OS Type [Other OS]
AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
Flexkey [Reset]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [1]
Profile Name [PBO_3102]
Save to Profile [1]
DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Enabled]
CPU Frequency [0]
CPU Voltage [0]
CCD Control [Auto]
Core control [Auto]
SMT Control [Auto]
Overclock [Enabled ]
Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
Tcl [Auto]
Trcdrd [Auto]
Trcdwr [Auto]
Trp [Auto]
Tras [Auto]
Trc Ctrl [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr Ctrl [Auto]
Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
ECO Mode [Disable]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
PBO Limits [Motherboard]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Curve Optimizer [Per Core]
Core 0 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 1 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 2 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 3 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 4 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 5 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 6 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 7 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [20]
Core 8 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 9 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 10 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 11 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [20]
Core 12 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 12 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 13 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 13 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 14 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 14 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 15 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 15 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [0MHz]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
SMEE [Auto]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
Global C-state Control [Disabled]
Power Supply Idle Control [Auto]
SEV ASID Count [Auto]
SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
Local APIC Mode [Auto]
ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
DRAM scrub time [Auto]
Poison scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Memory interleaving [Auto]
Memory interleaving size [Auto]
1TB remap [Auto]
DRAM map inversion [Auto]
ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
GMI encryption control [Auto]
xGMI encryption control [Auto]
CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
PcsCG control [Auto]
Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
Memory Clear [Auto]
Overclock [Enabled]
Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
Tcl [Auto]
Trcdrd [Auto]
Trcdwr [Auto]
Trp [Auto]
Tras [Auto]
Trc Ctrl [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr Ctrl [Auto]
Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Data Poisoning [Auto]
DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
RCD Parity [Auto]
DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
Write CRC Enable [Auto]
DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
TSME [Auto]
Data Scramble [Auto]
DFE Read Training [Auto]
FFE Write Training [Auto]
PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
BankGroupSwap [Auto]
BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
Address Hash Bank [Auto]
Address Hash CS [Auto]
Address Hash Rm [Auto]
SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
MBIST Enable [Disabled]
Pattern Select [PRBS]
Pattern Length [6]
Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
IOMMU [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
FCLK Frequency [Auto]
SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
ACS Enable [Auto]
PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
cTDP Control [Auto]
EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
APBDIS [Auto]
DF Cstates [Disabled]
CPPC [Enabled]
CPPC Preferred Cores [Enabled]
NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
Early Link Speed [Auto]
Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
Preferred IO [Auto]
CV test [Auto]
Loopback Mode [Auto]
SRIS [Auto]
Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]


----------



## CyrIng

jfrob75 said:


> Recently installed a 5950X on my new ASUS Crosshair VIII Formula. Prior to installing the 5950X I tested the MB with a 3950X and had no issue with disabling spread spectrum and gettingmthe buss clock(BClk) to stay/report at 100MHz. I also tested the 5950X on my GB Aurus Extreme and was able to disable spread spectrum resulting the BClk to stay/report at 100MHz. Since installing the 5950X and Crosshair Formula I am unable to get the BClk to 100MHz by disabling spread spectrum. I have tried on BIOS 3102 and now on 3201. Is this a common issue for those with similar config? What else is there to do to get the BClk to 100MHz?


Measuring the Base Clock is a sampling algorithm of the TSC over an interval of one second, like such pseudo-code:


Code:


RDTSC -> CTR0
WAIT 1
RDTSC -> CTR1
BCLK = (CTR1 - CTR0) / RATIO

Project: _*CoreFreq*_









each Core has its own TimeStampCounter
TSC drifts between Cores
TSC must be read on the same Core
Instructions have their inherent cycles of execution


----------



## dr.Rafi

domdtxdissar said:


> One last hurrah for bios 3003 before i update to a bios with AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.0 and support for Nvidia smart access memory.
> Cold air benching with EK custom waterloop+TechN Zen3 waterblock
> Curve optimizer = -30 allcore
> Stable in everything i throw at it, and no WHEA errors.
> View attachment 2475341
> 
> Cinebench r23 multithread = 32229 points
> Cinebench r23 singlethread = 1729 points
> 
> Cinebench r20 multithread = 12441 points
> Cinebench r20 singlethread = 674 points
> 
> Cinebench r15 multithread = 5404 points
> Cinebench r15 multithread = 288 points
> 
> CPU-Z validator @ AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @ 4798.88 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR
> 
> Some Asus realbench + Passmark performancetest numbers @ PassMark Software - Display Baseline ID# 1359214 (This machine is ranked #36 out of 156355 results globally)
> View attachment 2475342
> 
> 
> Geekbench 4 @ ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser
> Singlethread = 8215 points
> Multithread = 74733 points
> 
> Geekbench5 @ ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser
> Singlethread = 1844 points
> Multithread = 20054 points
> 
> Some heavy IBT high+very high and Y-Cruncher numbers:
> View attachment 2475343
> 
> 
> Did also run a full sweep of all 3dmarks, but i will post that in one other thread
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Bios dump
> 
> 
> 
> [2021/01/20 16:26:21]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3800MHz]
> FCLK Frequency [1900MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Enabled]
> CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> Core VID [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> Performance Bias [Auto]
> PBO Fmax Enhancer [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Manual]
> PPT Limit [300]
> TDC Limit [235]
> EDC Limit [245]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Manual]
> Customized Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [4X]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [50]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> Trcdrd [15]
> Trcdwr [8]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [12]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [24]
> Trc [36]
> TrrdS [4]
> TrrdL [4]
> Tfaw [16]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [10]
> Twr [12]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [2]
> TwrwrScl [2]
> Trfc [252]
> Trfc2 [187]
> Trfc4 [115]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [6]
> Trdwr [9]
> Twrrd [2]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [6]
> TwrwrDd [6]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [5]
> TrdrdDd [5]
> Tcke [Auto]
> ProcODT [40 ohm]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [RZQ/7]
> RttWr [RZQ/3]
> RttPark [RZQ/1]
> MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
> Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> CPU Current Capability [140%]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed CPU VRM Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Current Capability [130%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
> CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
> Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CPU Core Voltage [Offset mode]
> 
> Offset Mode Sign [+]
> CPU Core Voltage Offset [0.01250]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.11875]
> DRAM Voltage [1.54500]
> VDDG CCD Voltage Control [0.890]
> VDDG IOD Voltage Control [Auto]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [0.880]
> 1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
> PSS Support [Enabled]
> PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
> NX Mode [Enabled]
> SVM Mode [Disabled]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
> SMART Self Test [Enabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
> PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
> When system is in working state [All On]
> Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
> When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [All On]
> Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Enabled]
> Realtek PXE OPROM [Disabled]
> Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
> Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
> ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
> Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Disabled]
> Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
> USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX16_2 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX16_3 Mode [Auto]
> M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
> M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
> SB Link Mode [Auto]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> Above 4G Decoding [Enabled]
> Re-Size BAR Support [Auto]
> SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
> Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> Corsair Voyager GTX 0 [Auto]
> USB Device Enable [Enabled]
> U32G2_2 [Enabled]
> U32G2_3 [Enabled]
> U32G2_4 [Enabled]
> U32G1_10 [Enabled]
> U32G1_11 [Enabled]
> USB12 [Enabled]
> USB13 [Enabled]
> U32G2_7 [Enabled]
> U32G2_8 [Enabled]
> U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Device [SATA6G_7: Samsung SSD 850 PRO 1TB]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> VRM Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> PCH Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Flow Rate [Monitor]
> CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> CPU Fan Step Up [2.1 sec]
> CPU Fan Step Down [0 sec]
> CPU Fan Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> CPU Fan Profile [Manual]
> CPU Fan Upper Temperature [70]
> CPU Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> CPU Fan Middle Temperature [50]
> CPU Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [50]
> CPU Fan Lower Temperature [30]
> CPU Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [40]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Manual]
> Chassis Fan 1 Upper Temperature [70]
> Chassis Fan 1 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 1 Middle Temperature [50]
> Chassis Fan 1 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [65]
> Chassis Fan 1 Lower Temperature [20]
> Chassis Fan 1 Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Manual]
> Chassis Fan 2 Upper Temperature [65]
> Chassis Fan 2 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 2 Middle Temperature [45]
> Chassis Fan 2 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Chassis Fan 2 Lower Temperature [40]
> Chassis Fan 2 Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Manual]
> Chassis Fan 3 Upper Temperature [70]
> Chassis Fan 3 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 3 Middle Temperature [45]
> Chassis Fan 3 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 3 Lower Temperature [40]
> Chassis Fan 3 Min Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
> High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
> High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> High Amp Fan Profile [Manual]
> High Amp Fan Upper Temperature [70]
> High Amp Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> High Amp Fan Middle Temperature [45]
> High Amp Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [70]
> High Amp Fan Lower Temperature [30]
> High Amp Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Water Pump+ Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Water Pump+ Upper Temperature [70]
> Water Pump+ Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Water Pump+ Middle Temperature [50]
> Water Pump+ Middle Duty Cycle (%) [65]
> Water Pump+ Lower Temperature [30]
> Water Pump+ Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> AIO Pump Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> AIO Pump Upper Temperature [70]
> AIO Pump Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> AIO Pump Middle Temperature [50]
> AIO Pump Middle Duty Cycle (%) [65]
> AIO Pump Lower Temperature [30]
> AIO Pump Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Above 4GB MMIO Limit [39bit (512GB)]
> Fast Boot [Enabled]
> Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
> Boot Logo Display [Disabled]
> Bootup NumLock State [On]
> POST Report [5 sec]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
> Launch CSM [Disabled]
> OS Type [Other OS]
> AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
> Flexkey [Reset]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> Load from Profile [5]
> Profile Name [20.01 minus 30]
> Save to Profile [5]
> DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
> Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Enabled]
> CPU Frequency [0]
> CPU Voltage [0]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> Core control [Auto]
> SMT Control [Auto]
> Overclock [Enabled ]
> Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
> Tcl [Auto]
> Trcdrd [Auto]
> Trcdwr [Auto]
> Trp [Auto]
> Tras [Auto]
> Trc Ctrl [Auto]
> TrrdS [Auto]
> TrrdL [Auto]
> Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
> TwtrS [Auto]
> TwtrL [Auto]
> Twr Ctrl [Auto]
> Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
> TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
> TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
> Tcwl [Auto]
> Trtp [Auto]
> Tcke [Auto]
> Trdwr [Auto]
> Twrrd [Auto]
> TwrwrSc [Auto]
> TwrwrSd [Auto]
> TwrwrDd [Auto]
> TrdrdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSd [Auto]
> TrdrdDd [Auto]
> ProcODT [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
> ECO Mode [Disable]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
> PBO Limits [Motherboard]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> Curve Optimizer [Per Core]
> Core 0 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 1 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 2 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 3 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 4 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 5 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 6 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 7 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 8 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 9 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 10 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 11 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 12 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 12 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 13 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 13 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 14 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 14 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 15 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 15 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [0MHz]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
> LN2 Mode [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
> L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
> SMEE [Auto]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> Global C-state Control [Disabled]
> Power Supply Idle Control [Typical Current Idle]
> SEV ASID Count [Auto]
> SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
> Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
> Local APIC Mode [Auto]
> ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
> MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
> PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
> Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
> Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
> RdRand Speedup Disable [Enabled]
> IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
> DRAM scrub time [Auto]
> Poison scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> Memory interleaving [Auto]
> Memory interleaving size [Auto]
> 1TB remap [Auto]
> DRAM map inversion [Auto]
> ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
> GMI encryption control [Auto]
> xGMI encryption control [Auto]
> CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
> 4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> 3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
> PcsCG control [Auto]
> Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
> Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
> CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
> Memory Clear [Auto]
> Overclock [Enabled]
> Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
> Tcl [Auto]
> Trcdrd [Auto]
> Trcdwr [Auto]
> Trp [Auto]
> Tras [Auto]
> Trc Ctrl [Auto]
> TrrdS [Auto]
> TrrdL [Auto]
> Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
> TwtrS [Auto]
> TwtrL [Auto]
> Twr Ctrl [Auto]
> Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
> TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
> TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
> Tcwl [Auto]
> Trtp [Auto]
> Tcke [Auto]
> Trdwr [Auto]
> Twrrd [Auto]
> TwrwrSc [Auto]
> TwrwrSd [Auto]
> TwrwrDd [Auto]
> TrdrdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSd [Auto]
> TrdrdDd [Auto]
> ProcODT [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
> DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Data Poisoning [Auto]
> DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
> RCD Parity [Auto]
> DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
> Write CRC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
> Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
> DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
> DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
> TSME [Auto]
> Data Scramble [Auto]
> DFE Read Training [Auto]
> FFE Write Training [Auto]
> PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
> MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
> CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
> Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
> BankGroupSwap [Auto]
> BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
> Address Hash Bank [Auto]
> Address Hash CS [Auto]
> Address Hash Rm [Auto]
> SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
> MBIST Enable [Disabled]
> Pattern Select [PRBS]
> Pattern Length [6]
> Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
> Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
> Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> IOMMU [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> FCLK Frequency [Auto]
> SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
> UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
> LN2 Mode [Auto]
> ACS Enable [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
> PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
> cTDP Control [Auto]
> EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
> Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
> APBDIS [Auto]
> DF Cstates [Auto]
> CPPC [Auto]
> CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
> NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
> Early Link Speed [Auto]
> Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
> Preferred IO [Auto]
> CV test [Auto]
> Loopback Mode [Auto]
> Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]


Your bios dump don't match your screen shoots of hwinfo noway a 5950x can boost 5150 or 5200 with only 50 boost ovride even with liquid nitrogen, 5050 +50 =5100


----------



## Sindragosaa

domdtxdissar said:


> One last hurrah for bios 3003 before i update to a bios with AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.0 and support for Nvidia smart access memory.
> Cold air benching with EK custom waterloop+TechN Zen3 waterblock
> Curve optimizer = -30 allcore
> Stable in everything i throw at it, and no WHEA errors.
> View attachment 2475341
> 
> Cinebench r23 multithread = 32229 points
> Cinebench r23 singlethread = 1729 points
> 
> Cinebench r20 multithread = 12441 points
> Cinebench r20 singlethread = 674 points
> 
> Cinebench r15 multithread = 5404 points
> Cinebench r15 multithread = 288 points
> 
> CPU-Z validator @ AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @ 4798.88 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR
> 
> Some Asus realbench + Passmark performancetest numbers @ PassMark Software - Display Baseline ID# 1359214 (This machine is ranked #36 out of 156355 results globally)
> View attachment 2475342
> 
> 
> Geekbench 4 @ ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser
> Singlethread = 8215 points
> Multithread = 74733 points
> 
> Geekbench5 @ ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser
> Singlethread = 1844 points
> Multithread = 20054 points
> 
> Some heavy IBT high+very high and Y-Cruncher numbers:
> View attachment 2475343
> 
> 
> Did also run a full sweep of all 3dmarks, but i will post that in one other thread
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Bios dump
> 
> 
> 
> [2021/01/20 16:26:21]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3800MHz]
> FCLK Frequency [1900MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Enabled]
> CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> Core VID [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> Performance Bias [Auto]
> PBO Fmax Enhancer [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Manual]
> PPT Limit [300]
> TDC Limit [235]
> EDC Limit [245]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Manual]
> Customized Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [4X]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [50]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> Trcdrd [15]
> Trcdwr [8]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [12]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [24]
> Trc [36]
> TrrdS [4]
> TrrdL [4]
> Tfaw [16]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [10]
> Twr [12]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [2]
> TwrwrScl [2]
> Trfc [252]
> Trfc2 [187]
> Trfc4 [115]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [6]
> Trdwr [9]
> Twrrd [2]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [6]
> TwrwrDd [6]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [5]
> TrdrdDd [5]
> Tcke [Auto]
> ProcODT [40 ohm]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [RZQ/7]
> RttWr [RZQ/3]
> RttPark [RZQ/1]
> MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
> Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> CPU Current Capability [140%]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed CPU VRM Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Current Capability [130%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
> CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
> Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CPU Core Voltage [Offset mode]
> 
> Offset Mode Sign [+]
> CPU Core Voltage Offset [0.01250]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.11875]
> DRAM Voltage [1.54500]
> VDDG CCD Voltage Control [0.890]
> VDDG IOD Voltage Control [Auto]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [0.880]
> 1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
> PSS Support [Enabled]
> PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
> NX Mode [Enabled]
> SVM Mode [Disabled]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
> SMART Self Test [Enabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
> PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
> When system is in working state [All On]
> Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
> When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [All On]
> Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Enabled]
> Realtek PXE OPROM [Disabled]
> Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
> Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
> ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
> Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Disabled]
> Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
> USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX16_2 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX16_3 Mode [Auto]
> M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
> M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
> SB Link Mode [Auto]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> Above 4G Decoding [Enabled]
> Re-Size BAR Support [Auto]
> SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
> Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> Corsair Voyager GTX 0 [Auto]
> USB Device Enable [Enabled]
> U32G2_2 [Enabled]
> U32G2_3 [Enabled]
> U32G2_4 [Enabled]
> U32G1_10 [Enabled]
> U32G1_11 [Enabled]
> USB12 [Enabled]
> USB13 [Enabled]
> U32G2_7 [Enabled]
> U32G2_8 [Enabled]
> U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Device [SATA6G_7: Samsung SSD 850 PRO 1TB]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> VRM Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> PCH Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Flow Rate [Monitor]
> CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> CPU Fan Step Up [2.1 sec]
> CPU Fan Step Down [0 sec]
> CPU Fan Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> CPU Fan Profile [Manual]
> CPU Fan Upper Temperature [70]
> CPU Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> CPU Fan Middle Temperature [50]
> CPU Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [50]
> CPU Fan Lower Temperature [30]
> CPU Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [40]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Manual]
> Chassis Fan 1 Upper Temperature [70]
> Chassis Fan 1 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 1 Middle Temperature [50]
> Chassis Fan 1 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [65]
> Chassis Fan 1 Lower Temperature [20]
> Chassis Fan 1 Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Manual]
> Chassis Fan 2 Upper Temperature [65]
> Chassis Fan 2 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 2 Middle Temperature [45]
> Chassis Fan 2 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Chassis Fan 2 Lower Temperature [40]
> Chassis Fan 2 Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Manual]
> Chassis Fan 3 Upper Temperature [70]
> Chassis Fan 3 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 3 Middle Temperature [45]
> Chassis Fan 3 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 3 Lower Temperature [40]
> Chassis Fan 3 Min Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
> High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
> High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> High Amp Fan Profile [Manual]
> High Amp Fan Upper Temperature [70]
> High Amp Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> High Amp Fan Middle Temperature [45]
> High Amp Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [70]
> High Amp Fan Lower Temperature [30]
> High Amp Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Water Pump+ Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Water Pump+ Upper Temperature [70]
> Water Pump+ Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Water Pump+ Middle Temperature [50]
> Water Pump+ Middle Duty Cycle (%) [65]
> Water Pump+ Lower Temperature [30]
> Water Pump+ Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> AIO Pump Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> AIO Pump Upper Temperature [70]
> AIO Pump Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> AIO Pump Middle Temperature [50]
> AIO Pump Middle Duty Cycle (%) [65]
> AIO Pump Lower Temperature [30]
> AIO Pump Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Above 4GB MMIO Limit [39bit (512GB)]
> Fast Boot [Enabled]
> Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
> Boot Logo Display [Disabled]
> Bootup NumLock State [On]
> POST Report [5 sec]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
> Launch CSM [Disabled]
> OS Type [Other OS]
> AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
> Flexkey [Reset]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> Load from Profile [5]
> Profile Name [20.01 minus 30]
> Save to Profile [5]
> DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
> Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Enabled]
> CPU Frequency [0]
> CPU Voltage [0]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> Core control [Auto]
> SMT Control [Auto]
> Overclock [Enabled ]
> Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
> Tcl [Auto]
> Trcdrd [Auto]
> Trcdwr [Auto]
> Trp [Auto]
> Tras [Auto]
> Trc Ctrl [Auto]
> TrrdS [Auto]
> TrrdL [Auto]
> Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
> TwtrS [Auto]
> TwtrL [Auto]
> Twr Ctrl [Auto]
> Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
> TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
> TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
> Tcwl [Auto]
> Trtp [Auto]
> Tcke [Auto]
> Trdwr [Auto]
> Twrrd [Auto]
> TwrwrSc [Auto]
> TwrwrSd [Auto]
> TwrwrDd [Auto]
> TrdrdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSd [Auto]
> TrdrdDd [Auto]
> ProcODT [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
> ECO Mode [Disable]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
> PBO Limits [Motherboard]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> Curve Optimizer [Per Core]
> Core 0 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 1 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 2 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 3 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 4 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 5 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 6 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 7 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 8 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 9 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 10 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 11 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 12 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 12 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 13 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 13 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 14 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 14 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 15 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 15 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [0MHz]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
> LN2 Mode [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
> L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
> SMEE [Auto]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> Global C-state Control [Disabled]
> Power Supply Idle Control [Typical Current Idle]
> SEV ASID Count [Auto]
> SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
> Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
> Local APIC Mode [Auto]
> ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
> MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
> PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
> Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
> Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
> RdRand Speedup Disable [Enabled]
> IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
> DRAM scrub time [Auto]
> Poison scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> Memory interleaving [Auto]
> Memory interleaving size [Auto]
> 1TB remap [Auto]
> DRAM map inversion [Auto]
> ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
> GMI encryption control [Auto]
> xGMI encryption control [Auto]
> CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
> 4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> 3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
> PcsCG control [Auto]
> Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
> Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
> CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
> Memory Clear [Auto]
> Overclock [Enabled]
> Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
> Tcl [Auto]
> Trcdrd [Auto]
> Trcdwr [Auto]
> Trp [Auto]
> Tras [Auto]
> Trc Ctrl [Auto]
> TrrdS [Auto]
> TrrdL [Auto]
> Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
> TwtrS [Auto]
> TwtrL [Auto]
> Twr Ctrl [Auto]
> Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
> TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
> TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
> Tcwl [Auto]
> Trtp [Auto]
> Tcke [Auto]
> Trdwr [Auto]
> Twrrd [Auto]
> TwrwrSc [Auto]
> TwrwrSd [Auto]
> TwrwrDd [Auto]
> TrdrdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSd [Auto]
> TrdrdDd [Auto]
> ProcODT [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
> DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Data Poisoning [Auto]
> DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
> RCD Parity [Auto]
> DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
> Write CRC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
> Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
> DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
> DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
> TSME [Auto]
> Data Scramble [Auto]
> DFE Read Training [Auto]
> FFE Write Training [Auto]
> PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
> MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
> CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
> Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
> BankGroupSwap [Auto]
> BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
> Address Hash Bank [Auto]
> Address Hash CS [Auto]
> Address Hash Rm [Auto]
> SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
> MBIST Enable [Disabled]
> Pattern Select [PRBS]
> Pattern Length [6]
> Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
> Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
> Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> IOMMU [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> FCLK Frequency [Auto]
> SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
> UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
> LN2 Mode [Auto]
> ACS Enable [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
> PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
> cTDP Control [Auto]
> EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
> Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
> APBDIS [Auto]
> DF Cstates [Auto]
> CPPC [Auto]
> CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
> NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
> Early Link Speed [Auto]
> Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
> Preferred IO [Auto]
> CV test [Auto]
> Loopback Mode [Auto]
> Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]


Can someone explain the benefits of a positive vcore offset with CO?

The way I understand it is negative CO values shift the curve, so you request the same frequency at a lower voltage.

So adding a positive offset to that requested voltage negates that benefit ?


----------



## xeizo

Sindragosaa said:


> Can someone explain the benefits of a positive vcore offset with CO?
> 
> The way I understand it is negative CO values shift the curve, so you request the same frequency at a lower voltage.
> 
> So adding a positive offset to that requested voltage negates that benefit ?


More stable, that is it


----------



## domdtxdissar

dr.Rafi said:


> Your bios dump don't match your screen shoots of hwinfo noway a 5950x can boost 5150 or 5200 with only 50 boost ovride even with liquid nitrogen, 5050 +50 =5100


Ofcourse, cold air benching was done with +150 and fans @ 100%.
Bios dump show my general 24/7 settings..

The log also says it was taken [2021/01/20 16:26:21] while i was benching 22.01 and 23/01.


----------



## menko2

Any way to revert back from last beta bios to the last stable one? Having lots of problems with beta Agesa 1.2.0.0 bios.

I tried with ezupdate and flashback bios (back port).


----------



## pantsoftime

rawbitz said:


> This vcore offset -0.1 setting helped me to get the first time all core CO -30 working.
> Before nothing I tried was stable below -5 CO.
> Also the temps are really appealing right now as you already said.
> 
> Strangely I needed to adjust the pbo settings inside the ai-tweaker settings, because the amd/advanced menu wasn't picking up these values until a certain threshold (e.g. max 190 for EDC).
> Thanks a lot @Sindragosaa


This is really exciting ... I also have a chip that isn't stable below -5. Until now it seemed like I needed to do positive offset as it seems unstable otherwise. I'm going to experiment with this fix shortly.

Edit: Definitely works! I'm shocked that a negative offset so substantial could have such a useful effect. It took me a while to dial things in but I'm stable now with -0.100 offset, LLC1, and offsets between -12 and -20.


----------



## dr.Rafi

Sindragosaa said:


> Can someone explain the benefits of a positive vcore offset with CO?
> 
> The way I understand it is negative CO values shift the curve, so you request the same frequency at a lower voltage.
> 
> So adding a positive offset to that requested voltage negates that benefit ?


in "X" CO negative offset and "X" override boost value if the system is not stable is better reduce "X" CO Value for the cores that are not stables or even adding postive CO value for certain cores or reduce the "X"for override boost rather than adding positive vcore offset in vcore section which is affecting all cores together not individually.


----------



## Warsteiner

Hello,
I have an issue with any bios beyond 1302. I have a 3800X with a 16 GB G Skill dual channel 3600 CL16 kit installed. Everything is fine on 1302. But if I go to any newer bios my computer will just start randomly power cycling. No blue screen in windows and it does it even when I am in the UEFI interface. The only thing I am changing in the UEFI is to enable my DOCP profile and to turn on RAID for SATA. I am not changing any other settings. I have cleared CMOS and tried 3 different UEFI included the latest 3202. 3003 did seem to be worse than the others.


----------



## Dawidowski

xeizo said:


> I would guess EDC is too low, raise it to at least 200 and lower PPT instead to tame max temp. Low EDC kills L3 which presumably is important for game related things, also you can set max temp in PBO to 85C and you are safe anyways. I run 180/200/220.


Dont get more then like 14000~ 
I dont get this motherboard at all.. had same issues getting my 3900x to do decent single score on CR20..
Put it in my wifes gigabyte motherboard and I hit 520+ on the first try.
Think for the first half year I didnt even get past 510 on this CH8..


----------



## xeizo

Dawidowski said:


> Dont get more then like 14000~
> I dont get this motherboard at all.. had same issues getting my 3900x to do decent single score on CR20..
> Put it in my wifes gigabyte motherboard and I hit 520+ on the first try.
> Think for the first half year I didnt even get past 510 on this CH8..


A lot of voltages are usually too high on Asus motherboards, you have to set like every single voltage manual, and also important to turn off all the Asus "performance enhancement" and "performance bias" stuff. Just disable it. It burns watts for no extra performance. If you do the above, it performs as it should.


----------



## criznit

Is anyone else seeing strange symbols and words in bios with release 3202? When I save a profile, a chinese character is displayed in a field, and then it disappears when I arrow down to it. Also, when using the fan controls in bios, I had a red hand briefly pop up.


----------



## xeizo

criznit said:


> Is anyone else seeing strange symbols and words in bios with release 3202? When I save a profile, a chinese character is displayed in a field, and then it disappears when I arrow down to it. Also, when using the fan controls in bios, I had a red hand briefly pop up.


Not seen it, but now we all have to look! Asus is Taiwanese so no big surprise if there is some Chinese symbol having been overlooked


----------



## robiatti

criznit said:


> Is anyone else seeing strange symbols and words in bios with release 3202? When I save a profile, a chinese character is displayed in a field, and then it disappears when I arrow down to it. Also, when using the fan controls in bios, I had a red hand briefly pop up.


I have seen this happen usually from a unstable OC across several bios revisions, on both my CH8 formula and on the CH8 Dark.


----------



## genelecs

criznit said:


> Is anyone else seeing strange symbols and words in bios with release 3202? When I save a profile, a chinese character is displayed in a field, and then it disappears when I arrow down to it. Also, when using the fan controls in bios, I had a red hand briefly pop up.





robiatti said:


> I have seen this happen usually from a unstable OC across several bios revisions, on both my CH8 formula and on the CH8 Dark.


I get the same  fairly sure I'm stable!!


----------



## criznit

Ok I got nervous for a moment. Im pretty sure my memory oc is stable (2 days of testing) and thought this was something lefted over from the discord trojan the other day.


----------



## dr.Rafi

genelecs said:


> I get the same  fairly sure I'm stable!!


Seams the failing to release a stable bios to work with 5000 series cpus so they start using Ancient black magic to make it work.


----------



## polyh3dron

menko2 said:


> Any way to revert back from last beta bios to the last stable one? Having lots of problems with beta Agesa 1.2.0.0 bios.
> 
> I tried with ezupdate and flashback bios (back port).


Why didn't the BIOS flashback port work? You just put the BIOS file on there, and follow the directions.


----------



## pantsoftime

criznit said:


> Is anyone else seeing strange symbols and words in bios with release 3202? When I save a profile, a chinese character is displayed in a field, and then it disappears when I arrow down to it. Also, when using the fan controls in bios, I had a red hand briefly pop up.


I see random characters in the User Profile tool sometimes ... off to the right in the text box where you would enter a profile name for saving. I don't recall seeing them elsewhere.


----------



## menko2

polyh3dron said:


> Why didn't the BIOS flashback port work? You just put the BIOS file on there, and follow the directions.


I have tried with many different USB drives, formats,..etc. Doesn't downgrade the Bios. I know I'm doing it wright cause it's not the first time but the bios flashback doesn't work. Don't know what else to do. Latest beta bios is not good in my system.


----------



## leandrolnh

menko2 said:


> I have tried with many different USB drives, formats,..etc. Doesn't downgrade the Bios. I know I'm doing it wright cause it's not the first time but the bios flashback doesn't work. Don't know what else to do. Latest beta bios is not good in my system.


Are you sure you formatted the flash drive with MBR partition (the old style before GPT)? The Flashback tool will recognize the BIOS file in MBR partition only.


----------



## menko2

leandrolnh said:


> Are you sure you formatted the flash drive with MBR partition (the old style before GPT)? The Flashback tool will recognize the BIOS file in MBR partition only.


I'm going to check this tomorrow... I can't believe that probably thats the problem.


----------



## anr11

menko2 said:


> I'm going to check this tomorrow... I can't believe that probably thats the problem.


Hopefully that's all it is that's causing the problem. I have never had flashback fail and have used for every BIOS update on C6H, C8H and now C8DH. Just out of curiosity, what was happening exactly when you made the attempts? Specifically the behavior of the flashback button at the back of the board.


----------



## menko2

anr11 said:


> Hopefully that's all it is that's causing the problem. I have never had flashback fail and have used for every BIOS update on C6H, C8H and now C8DH. Just out of curiosity, what was happening exactly when you made the attempts? Specifically the behavior of the flashback button at the back of the board.


It worked! It was the MBR partition...thank you very much. 

Small detailed that I couldn't find.


----------



## Raulka

Could anyone suggest a PBO2 CO undervolting settings with PPT/TDC/EDC that is not for the maximum performace, but rather a temperature optimized for 5950X with at least average CPU performace and safe voltages? 
5950X - CH8F 3202


----------



## xeizo

Raulka said:


> Could anyone suggest a PBO2 CO undervolting settings with PPT/TDC/EDC that is not for the maximum performace, but rather a temperature optimized for 5950X with at least average CPU performace and safe voltages?
> 5950X - CH8F 3202


Set PPT at 165W to not draw too much power, safeguard with max temp 85C for throttling, TDC/EDC in the 200-220 range any lower and L3 get's hurt. Regarding CO, it's impossible to advice any numbers as it is 100% sample dependent but go as low(minus) as you can per core without getting WHEA and/or sudden reboot. All cores can not use the same settings as they are very different from each other. Sadly requires a lot of testing. The safe setting is to disable CO, but usually you at least knows that CCD0 is a lot better than CCD1. Don't put too much CO on CCD0 anyway as it will kill single core. Scalar can be on Auto. Boost Override use max 50MHz as higher settings seem to trigger WHEA.

Vcore on Auto, SOC 1.1V, PLL on 1.81V, VDDP 950mV, VDDG IOD 1.035V, VDDG CCD 1.010V. LLC on Auto, VRMs on Phase Response. Disable PE and Performance bias.


----------



## Raulka

xeizo said:


> Set PPT at 165W to not draw too much power, safeguard with max temp 85C for throttling, TDC/EDC in the 200-220 range any lower and L3 get's hurt. Regarding CO, it's impossible to advice any numbers as it is 100% sample dependent but go as low(minus) as you can per core without getting WHEA and/or sudden reboot. All cores can not use the same settings as they are very different from each other. Sadly requires a lot of testing. The safe setting is to disable CO, but usually you at least knows that CCD0 is a lot better than CCD1. Don't put too much CO on CCD0 anyway as it will kill single core. Scalar can be on Auto. Boost Override use max 50MHz as higher settings seem to trigger WHEA.
> 
> Vcore on Auto, SOC 1.1V, PLL on 1.81V, VDDP 950mV, VDDG IOD 1.035V, VDDG CCD 1.010V. LLC on Auto, VRMs on Phase Response. Disable PE and Performance bias.


Thank you very much!  Today evening I'll testing!
Just two questions: 

CCD (1.010) & VDDP (0.950) voltages are not unnecessarily high?
I saw your current PPT/TDC/EDC is 180/200/220 for your 5900X, so the suggested 165/200-220/200-220 can it really be good for a temp optimized *5950X*?


----------



## xeizo

Raulka said:


> Thank you very much!  Today evening I'll testing!
> Just two questions:
> 
> CCD (1.010) & VDDP (0.950) voltages are not unnecessarily high?
> I saw your current PPT/TDC/EDC is 180/200/220 for your 5900X, so the suggested 165/200-220/200-220 can it really be good for a temp optimized *5950X*?


It's rated at 105 W and the fused value is 142W, setting 165W means you are setting a small OC. I used 180W for benchmarking but have gone down to 165W now, to keep max temp under full load below 75C. If you want to be conservative you should set PPT/TDC/EDC as disabled which means the fused values are automatically set. It punishes multi scores, but single core actually improves.

My recommended CCD and VDDP is for handling high FCLK(1900MHz), if you are using 3200MHz memory or below you can set them lower, but too low VDDP causes USB issues.

As long as you don't get instabilities you should set every voltage as low as you can, temps will be lower, but there is a limit how low.


----------



## PWn3R

I wish there was an @HERE or something. Someone should pin the post from @genelecs.

*There is something wrong with some of the 5950s possibly other CPUs or the Motherboards. They will not post at 1900 FCLK no matter WHAT you do. CONFIRMING this.*

I was able to boot using these settings:

CCD/IOD 1.05
vSOC 1.1
CDDG .950
PLL 1.9v
*WITH FCLK 1933. *

Please don't look at the timings too closely, this was a YOLO, can we boot. I have been playing games for 2 hours without issue and did ~30 minutes of Cinebench. I'm going to try to bump this up to 1966 or 2000 at some point, but just so thrilled that we found "what's wrong". 1866 worked with stock voltages across the board, 1900 wouldn't boot with any voltages.









Shimano might be interested in looking into this from the Asus side.


----------



## genelecs

PWn3R said:


> I wish there was an @HERE or something. Someone should pin the post from @genelecs.
> 
> *There is something wrong with some of the 5950s possibly other CPUs or the Motherboards. They will not post at 1900 FCLK no matter WHAT you do. CONFIRMING this.*
> 
> I was able to boot using these settings:
> 
> CCD/IOD 1.05
> vSOC 1.1
> CDDG .950
> PLL 1.9v
> *WITH FCLK 1933. *
> 
> Please don't look at the timings too closely, this was a YOLO, can we boot. I have been playing games for 2 hours without issue and did ~30 minutes of Cinebench. I'm going to try to bump this up to 1966 or 2000 at some point, but just so thrilled that we found "what's wrong". 1866 worked with stock voltages across the board, 1900 wouldn't boot with any voltages.
> View attachment 2475606
> 
> 
> Shimano might be interested in looking into this from the Asus side.


It certaintly is a strange one -

Are you WHEA free at 1933? OCCT Large is a good test to get this as it looks for WHEA in the test - I've had a small play around with voltages (especially VDDG+VSOC+PLL) but could never get 1933/1966/2000 WHEA free - I always get audio crackling as the first sign - PLL voltage seems the most important here for me as it does seem to to reduce but not remove the audio crackling at 2v PLL, but I'm too scared to go over 2v to see if its culprit!


----------



## PWn3R

genelecs said:


> It certaintly is a strange one -
> 
> Are you WHEA free at 1933? OCCT Large is a good test to get this as it looks for WHEA in the test - I've had a small play around with voltages (especially VDDG+VSOC+PLL) but could never get 1933/1966/2000 WHEA free - I always get audio crackling as the first sign - PLL voltage seems the most important here for me as it does seem to to reduce but not remove the audio crackling at 2v PLL, but I'm too scared to go over 2v to see if its culprit!


I haven't been able to stop the WHEAs. Bumping vSOC to 1.15 didn't fix it, and I know we shouldn't go higher. I do have 4 sticks of RAM, which also could be hurting. I tried bumping RAM to 1.45v that seemed to help some, but I don't think I'm going to get 1933 stable unfortunately. Some games seem to be fine and not trigger WHEA errors, but CSGO seems to slap it super hard with WHEA messages. My computer is hitting me with F9 post code when I try increasing the PLL voltage (which seems weird). It does this and then boots at 2133 FCLK after two power cycles. I don't understand why INCREASING PLL from 1.9 to 1.925 or 1.95 would cause it to give F9 code.

Edit: I was able to get it to stop F9'ing by increasing RAM voltage to 1.475 (it's Samsung b-die, and I've seen people saying 1.5 is safe). I bumped PLL to 1.975, still seeing WHEA errors. I'm going to try to lower FCLK back to 1900 (which I'm guessing will freeze) going to go back to 1866 I guess.

Edit2: Wanna see something that will make you want to rip your motherboard out and huck it down the street @genelecs ?








Getting a WHEA every 5 or 6 minutes. Going to bump voltages up a bit. The real question is, why do we have to make it boot at 1933 FIRST to get it to work at 1900. WHAT IN THE ACTUAL $&%^?


----------



## Audioboxer

I know a lot of people have moved on (using new Ryzen chips), but I finally found out what was needed to make Fmax Enhancer stable with my 3900xt when idling, + 0.05v manual adjustment  Might be able to come down a bit with further testing, 0.05 is rock solid just now.

I'm laughing because I spent hours troubleshooting from LLC, to changing power phase control to messing about with power plans and other bios settings. Every time benchmarking/gaming was fine, but I'd get web browser crashes or straight up reboots over time. Sometimes taking an hour or so till it happening making me think I'd cracked it lol.

I totally misunderstood that LLC tends to help with multicore workload instability, but a positive or negative voltage offset seems to be more about single core/idle/low thread workloads. I know The Stilt mentioned adding one or two notches of positive voltage, but again, I misread that as being to help with heavy workload BSODs/benchmarking.






That video is what made me understand positive voltage to help with idle/low workload reboots, as I was having a go at the EDC bug again earlier today/last night. Which I've now got working good as well, but I prefer running Fmax Enhancer now that I have it stable. 

Anyway, maybe if anyone else is as dumb as me and comes across this topic from googling Fmax enhancer they'll learn from my mistake!


----------



## genelecs

PWn3R said:


> Edit2: Wanna see something that will make you want to rip your motherboard out and huck it down the street @genelecs ?
> View attachment 2475616
> 
> Getting a WHEA every 5 or 6 minutes. Going to bump voltages up a bit. The real question is, why do we have to make it boot at 1933 FIRST to get it to work at 1900. WHAT IN THE ACTUAL $&%^?


Haha what on earth! - So you just POST 1933 then 1900?


----------



## Dawidowski

xeizo said:


> A lot of voltages are usually too high on Asus motherboards, you have to set like every single voltage manual, and also important to turn off all the Asus "performance enhancement" and "performance bias" stuff. Just disable it. It burns watts for no extra performance. If you do the above, it performs as it should.


The question is what voltages? 
I mean its not like I know exactly what to put in except ppl and Vsoc.. thats about it. 

Theres not only a single booster feature I know now, its core boost performence that I dont even use.


----------



## greg_p

If you want to post over 1900 knowing that it's not working in auto, you need to first boot, go to bios and set Vsoc and VPLL higher than usual. I need 1.20 Vsoc and 1.95 Vpll to get 1933 and 1966, but voltage have to be set once, reboot without touching frequencies, and after reboot, go to bios and set frequencies.


----------



## PWn3R

genelecs said:


> Haha what on earth! - So you just POST 1933 then 1900?


Yes, posted 1933, couldn’t get stable, lowered a bunch of voltages, not to auto, but lower, then said F it I’m gonna try it. Hit 1900 FCLK, rebooted and came up like a champ with only a single WHEA with Cinebench running every 5 minutes or so. I just bumped a couple voltages a small amount and then spent 3 hours snow blowing between storm fronts. Going to check out the handiwork in a few. If this works /rage

Edit: Bumped voltages back up some, still not stable at 1900 still getting WHEAs. Interestingly, more often from CSGO than from Cinebench which I think is weird. I'm going to put the voltages back up to what I had setup for 1933 and see if it will play nice.

Did anyone ever find out what "safe" PLL is for long term use?

Edit 2: I'm at 1.95PLL 1.45v RAM 1.15 vSOC 1.05 IOD/CCD 1v CDDG still getting a few WHEAs. I'm going to go back to 1866. I'm not comfortable going higher on PLL, as I still find the voltage at 1.95 slightly disturbing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PWn3R

greg_p said:


> If you want to post over 1900 knowing that it's not working in auto, you need to first boot, go to bios and set Vsoc and VPLL higher than usual. I need 1.20 Vsoc and 1.95 Vpll to get 1933 and 1966, but voltage have to be set once, reboot without touching frequencies, and after reboot, go to bios and set frequencies.


Yeah, I had already tried setting voltages to 2.0 PLL and 1.15 vSOC to try to boot 1900 and then set 1900 FCLK after rebooting. It didn't work. That's why I was floored when AFTER getting 1933 to boot at lower voltages than that, I was able to get 1900 to just "work" by flipping back to it. I don't think is is going to be non WHEA stable.


----------



## jfrob75

I have been able to push my ram speed to 4000 MT/s and boot into windows but, as other have noted, I am encountering a bunch of correctable WHEA errors , CPU Bus/Interconnect Errors. These errors are occuring just idling with HWiNFO64 open. What are the suggested things to try to eliminate the errors?
My zentiming results.


----------



## genelecs

PWn3R said:


> Yeah, I had already tried setting voltages to 2.0 PLL and 1.15 vSOC to try to boot 1900 and then set 1900 FCLK after rebooting. It didn't work. That's why I was floored when AFTER getting 1933 to boot at lower voltages than that, I was able to get 1900 to just "work" by flipping back to it. I don't think is is going to be non WHEA stable.


Didn't work for me posting 1933 then to 1900 sadly :-( Q-Code 07 no matter what I do. I too noticed similar behaviour in CSGO by the way with regards to 1933+ WHEA.

Going back to stable 1866 for now.


----------



## PWn3R

genelecs said:


> Didn't work for me posting 1933 then to 1900 sadly :-( Q-Code 07 no matter what I do. I too noticed similar behaviour in CSGO by the way with regards to 1933+ WHEA.
> 
> Going back to stable 1866 for now.


Same, but of a bummer. Oh well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Karagra

what do you guys think would be faster for gaming? 3733cl14 or 3800cl16?


----------



## thigobr

I have been reading MB sub forums hoping to get new information about FCLK behavior. I have similar no boot (07 post code) when trying anything above 1900MHz. 1900MHz actually works. I just tried increasing PLL18 to 1.90V and I was able to boot until 1967MHz but only after booting first at 1900MHz and setting the voltages accordingly: 
vSOC 1.10V
vDDP 0.95V
DDG CCD 1.00V
IOG 1.05V, PLL 1.90V

Going straight to 1933MHz or 1967MHz doesn't work. It's a strange behavior maybe AGESA related as different MB are having the same issues?
All these results are 1:1:1


----------



## D0MINUS

sieepiestangel said:


> Is anyone on a C8DH and 5950x and able to post at fclk 1900? I can run error free at 1866, I can not post at 1900. At 1933, 1966 and 2000, I can post, but I throw a lot of WHEA errors, with it being unstable at 2000. This is all with just changing the infinity fabric setting without any other changes. Is this down to bios vs silicon lottery or is this a defective chip that people have being going through the RMA process with?
> 
> This is all being done on BIOS 3202


I'm late to the party, but that's how my setup is running: C8DH and 5950X with FCLK 1900 and DRAM 3800 CL16. BIOS is 3101 though. No WHEA errors at all.
The DRAM kit is G.Skill F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC. Manual OC with only main timings entered (16-16-16-16-36) and 1.4V DRAM Voltage, no other settings touched.


----------



## benbenkr

Karagra said:


> what do you guys think would be faster for gaming? 3733cl14 or 3800cl16?


Difference between them is next to zero, especially at 1440p and above. Pick whichever is more stable on your system.


----------



## Sam64

Agree to @benbenkr. I couldn't even find a real difference between 3800CL14 and 3800CL16. Anyhow I would go for the stable settings as well and if it's 3800CL16, i would use that.


----------



## xeizo

3800c16 has worked for me since 3700X was released way back, and on three motherboards and three CPU:s, looks like a great setting. I believe it's much harder to get to c14 stable.


----------



## Jaeyger

I've been running 3800c16 for a while on my 5900x, which is rock solid. I tried getting c14 stable this weekend. I can boot just fine but DRAM voltage is up 1.47 and ram temps are getting above 50 during stress tests.


----------



## shaolin95

Is anyone else running 4x16GB 3200 C14 memory? Just trying to figure out how limited the options are for OCing such configuration


----------



## GRABibus

Hi,
since 11 days I have my new Pc now (See in Signature).

5900X => "Per CCX" OC
[email protected]
[email protected]
Vid=1.27V/LLC3 => 1.23V full load Vcore

RAM 4x8GB 3600CL14 @ 3733MHz 14-15-16-35-1T
Vdimm=1.49V
Vsoc=1.07V (Manual value in Bios = 1.1V)
PLL=1.8V

I could set this OC according to my stable criterias :

=> 8 hours stress test Realbench "Full RAM" (32GB) : Test at 22°C-23°C
H115i : Extreme pump / 100% fans, PC open case.










=> 1000% HCI MemTest :










=> 4 hours Cache Stress test Aida64 : Test at 22°C
H115i : Extreme pump / 100% fans, PC open case.









Clearly, my next upgrade will be the cooler.

Please, note also that Aida64 cache stress test is a really good test to detect "Hardware failure errors".

I could pass 500% HCI MemTest with 3800MHz 16-15-15-35-1T, and i conclude that I was perfect with this 3800MHz.
BUT, by launching Aida64 cache stress test => "Hardware failure error" within 1 hour.

As I didn't want to increase Vsoc, PLL, etc...., I just drop down from 3800MHz to 3733MHZ and no more errors yet in Aida64 Cache stress test.

So, I should advise for those who have set up a RAM OC for 3800MHz and higher, to check stability by at least 2 hours Aida64 Cache stress test.


----------



## Ov3rdos3

Hello Guys,

I am trying to boot 4x16GB on my CHFVIII but impossible I get the Code 0D : Detect HDD each and everytime. As soon as I get rid of the 4th stick everything boots with no problem. The stick in question is working properly tried it before.

What can I do to at least boot to bios and tweak settings? Is there a problem with 4x16gb with this motherboard?

Thanks


----------



## sieepiestangel

D0MINUS said:


> I'm late to the party, but that's how my setup is running: C8DH and 5950X with FCLK 1900 and DRAM 3800 CL16. BIOS is 3101 though. No WHEA errors at all.
> The DRAM kit is G.Skill F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC. Manual OC with only main timings entered (16-16-16-16-36) and 1.4V DRAM Voltage, no other settings touched.


 This is so frustrating. I wonder why there are 5950x that can boot and 5950x that can't boot with fclk 1900. You would think that being unable to post at 1900 would mean that 1933, 1966 and 2000 would be impossible, but the fact that I can post in those makes no sense.


----------



## Dawidowski

Do people OC ram with DOCP on or manual ?


----------



## bkrieger

I just purchase a 5800X and I am on the latest bets bios 3202. When I tried to set up PBO 2 and curve optimizer in the bios, no matter what I set it at I was getting crashes and BSOD in games. I read online there was an issue with the latest bios and PBO and to set the voltage to static 1.35 v and 4400 MHZ and to disable PBO and curve optimizer. I did that and it is now stable.

My question is is the only way to use PBO 2 and curve optimizer to wait for the next bios update and hope the issue is fixed or is there a current fix?

Thanks


----------



## Jaeyger

Dawidowski said:


> Do people OC ram with DOCP on or manual ?


DOCP is for using the XMP profiles. Manual for anything else


----------



## xeizo

bkrieger said:


> I just purchase a 5800X and I am on the latest bets bios 3202. When I tried to set up PBO 2 and curve optimizer in the bios, no matter what I set it at I was getting crashes and BSOD in games. I read online there was an issue with the latest bios and PBO and to set the voltage to static 1.35 v and 4400 MHZ and to disable PBO and curve optimizer. I did that and it is now stable.
> 
> My question is is the only way to use PBO 2 and curve optimizer to wait for the next bios update and hope the issue is fixed or is there a current fix?
> 
> Thanks


You can't just "set" PBO2 and Curve Optimizer, it has to be fine tuned as it is dependent on the quality of each individual sample, that won't be fixed with any new bios

There will be soon be aid for those not willing to deep dive in settings when "Clock Tuner for Ryzen" for Zen3 releases, it's already available for Zen2. Just follow the instructions and it will work, manual tuning will still have the edge but if not wanting to learn everything


----------



## coelacanth

I have been using the 5900X for a few weeks with no problems at all except for a single Port Royal run that didn't finish.

I have a C8DH (BIOS 3202) and G.Skill Trident Z Neo F4-3800C16D-32GTZN (16-19-19-19-39 1.4V).

My 5900X won't do 1900 Fclk no matter what I try, so all I have done is enable DOCP, clock RAM down to 3733 MHz, enable PBO, and set Fclk to 1866.

As I mentioned system has been working fine for gaming + 3D Mark, but I opened up Event Viewer and saw this:



















All voltages other than RAM at 1.4V are Auto. Does anyone know what this error is and how to fix it? Thanks.


----------



## shaolin95

Ov3rdos3 said:


> Hello Guys,
> 
> I am trying to boot 4x16GB on my CHFVIII but impossible I get the Code 0D : Detect HDD each and everytime. As soon as I get rid of the 4th stick everything boots with no problem. The stick in question is working properly tried it before.
> 
> What can I do to at least boot to bios and tweak settings? Is there a problem with 4x16gb with this motherboard?
> 
> Thanks


I am running 4x16gb G.Skill 3200 C14 on mine without issues aside from trying to OC and realizing is not easy with such config.
Hopefully someone else has an idea of what is going on with your RAM


----------



## xeizo

coelacanth said:


> I have been using the 5900X for a few weeks with no problems at all except for a single Port Royal run that didn't finish.
> 
> I have a C8DH (BIOS 3202) and G.Skill Trident Z Neo F4-3800C16D-32GTZN (16-19-19-19-39 1.4V).
> 
> My 5900X won't do 1900 Fclk no matter what I try, so all I have done is enable DOCP, clock RAM down to 3733 MHz, enable PBO, and set Fclk to 1866.
> 
> As I mentioned system has been working fine for gaming + 3D Mark, but I opened up Event Viewer and saw this:
> 
> View attachment 2475757
> 
> 
> View attachment 2475758
> 
> 
> All voltages other than RAM at 1.4V are Auto. Does anyone know what this error is and how to fix it? Thanks.


VDDP is way too high, go down to the 0.95V range, also ProcODT should be lowered to 36.9.

VDDG CCD is too low, it should be in the 1.0V range, to not get WHEA, and you can lower VDDG IOD to 1.02-1.04V.

Only voltage being OK-ish is VSOC, but that one could actually be raised to 1.09-1.12V

As you're voltages are so off, I guess you have much too high PLL 1.8V as well, set it at 1.8-1.82V in the bios. And set southbridge to 1.05V.

Also, a common fault is VTT is set much too low by the motherboard, usually it's at 0.6V. You need to go up to at least 0.725V for FCLK 1900 to work. That is if VDIMM is no more than 1.38V. If you have higher VDIMM you may even have to go up to 0.745V.

The above is "Anti-WHEA" settings for FCLK 1900. Too much Curve Optimizer also gives WHEA.

edit. one common reason "good" settings doesn't boot is VBOOT DRAM has to be set, to like 1.42V, otherwise it's too low to even boot with OC RAM. I think it's hidden in the new bioses but can be found with F9 search function in bios, just type VBOOT in the search box


----------



## PWn3R

coelacanth said:


> I have been using the 5900X for a few weeks with no problems at all except for a single Port Royal run that didn't finish.
> 
> I have a C8DH (BIOS 3202) and G.Skill Trident Z Neo F4-3800C16D-32GTZN (16-19-19-19-39 1.4V).
> 
> My 5900X won't do 1900 Fclk no matter what I try, so all I have done is enable DOCP, clock RAM down to 3733 MHz, enable PBO, and set Fclk to 1866.
> 
> As I mentioned system has been working fine for gaming + 3D Mark, but I opened up Event Viewer and saw this:
> 
> View attachment 2475757
> 
> 
> View attachment 2475758
> 
> 
> All voltages other than RAM at 1.4V are Auto. Does anyone know what this error is and how to fix it? Thanks.


The interconnect WHEA errors mean that your performance is adversely affected. I would recommended reading some information about CCD/IOD/VDDP, vSOC, VDDG and adjusting these voltages a bit manually in BIOS. If your can't get rid of these messages, I can guarantee you are seeing intermittent frame rate drops in games as a result, and you will notice a difference if you fix it.


----------



## coelacanth

xeizo said:


> VDDP is way too high, go down to the 0.95V range, also ProcODT should be lowered to 36.9.
> 
> VDDG CCD is too low, it should be in the 1.0V range, to not get WHEA, and you can lower VDDG IOD to 1.02-1.04V.
> 
> Only voltage being OK-ish is VSOC, but that one could actually be raised to 1.09-1.12V
> 
> As you're voltages are so off, I guess you have much too high PLL 1.8V as well, set it at 1.8-1.82V in the bios. And set southbridge to 1.05V.
> 
> Also, a common fault is VTT is set much too low by the motherboard, usually it's at 0.6V. You need to go up to at least 0.725V for FCLK 1900 to work. That is if VDIMM is no more than 1.38V. If you have higher VDIMM you may even have to go up to 0.745V.
> 
> The above is "Anti-WHEA" settings for FCLK 1900. Too much Curve Optimizer also gives WHEA.
> 
> edit. one common reason "good" settings doesn't boot is VBOOT DRAM has to be set, to like 1.42V, otherwise it's too low to even boot with OC RAM. I think it's hidden in the new bioses but can be found with F9 search function in bios, just type VBOOT in the search box


Interesting that the Auto voltages seem to be so far off from what would be more stable.


----------



## xeizo

coelacanth said:


> Interesting that the Auto voltages seem to be so far off from what would be more stable.


Auto voltages are for max 3200MHz RAM, not as finicky as when trying to run faster RAM, but yes Asus always has a little too high voltages. Burning Rom.


----------



## shaolin95

So I think my scores are kind of on the low side here:









Any suggestions on how to improve the performance?
BIOS 3202:



Spoiler: PBO Settings



[2021/01/25 12:02:20]
Ai Overclock Tuner [D.O.C.P. Standard]
D.O.C.P. [D.O.C.P DDR4-3200 14-14-14-34-1.35V]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3200MHz]
FCLK Frequency [Auto]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Core VID [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
Performance Bias [Auto]
PBO Fmax Enhancer [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Manual]
PPT Limit [200]
TDC Limit [300]
EDC Limit [300]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [50]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
Trcdrd [14]
Trcdwr [14]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [34]
Trc [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr [Auto]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [Auto]
TwrwrScl [Auto]
Trfc [Auto]
Trfc2 [Auto]
Trfc4 [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
RttNom [Auto]
RttWr [Auto]
RttPark [Auto]
MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
MemCkeSetup [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [Auto]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
CPU Current Capability [140%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
Active Frequency Mode [Disabled]
CPU Power Duty Control [Extreme]
CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
CPU Power Thermal Control [136]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Current Capability [130%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CPU Core Voltage [Offset mode]

Offset Mode Sign [-]
CPU Core Voltage Offset [0.10000]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.15000]
DRAM Voltage [1.36000]
VDDG CCD Voltage Control [0.985]
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [1.050]
CLDO VDDP voltage [0.900]
1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Enabled]
PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
NX Mode [Enabled]
SVM Mode [Disabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
CCD Control [Auto]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
SMART Self Test [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Disabled]
PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
When system is in working state [All On]
Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [All On]
Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Enabled]
Realtek PXE OPROM [Disabled]
Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Enabled]
Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_2 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
SB Link Mode [Auto]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Above 4G Decoding [Disabled]
SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
Generic STORAGE DEVICE 1202 [Auto]
Generic-SD/MMC/MS/MSPRO 1.00 [Auto]
USB Device Enable [Enabled]
U32G2_2 [Enabled]
U32G2_3 [Enabled]
U32G2_4 [Enabled]
U32G1_10 [Enabled]
U32G1_11 [Enabled]
USB12 [Enabled]
USB13 [Enabled]
U32G2_7 [Enabled]
U32G2_8 [Enabled]
U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Device [SATA6G_7: WDC WD40EZRZ-00GXCB0]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
PCH Fan Speed [Monitor]
Flow Rate [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
High Amp Fan Profile [Standard]
Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
Boot Logo Display [Auto]
Bootup NumLock State [On]
POST Delay Time [1 sec]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Disabled]
OS Type [Other OS]
AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
Flexkey [Reset]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [1]
Profile Name [3202Sindragosa]
Save to Profile [5]
DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Enabled]
CPU Frequency [0]
CPU Voltage [0]
CCD Control [Auto]
Core control [Auto]
SMT Control [Auto]
Overclock [Enabled ]
Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
Tcl [Auto]
Trcdrd [Auto]
Trcdwr [Auto]
Trp [Auto]
Tras [Auto]
Trc Ctrl [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr Ctrl [Auto]
Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
ECO Mode [Disable]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
PBO Limits [Motherboard]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Curve Optimizer [Per Core]
Core 0 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 1 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [20]
Core 2 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 3 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 4 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 5 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 6 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 7 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 8 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 9 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 10 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 11 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [20]
Core 12 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 12 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 13 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 13 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 14 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 14 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 15 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 15 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [0MHz]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
SMEE [Auto]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
Global C-state Control [Disabled]
Power Supply Idle Control [Auto]
SEV ASID Count [Auto]
SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
Local APIC Mode [Auto]
ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
DRAM scrub time [Auto]
Poison scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Memory interleaving [Auto]
Memory interleaving size [Auto]
1TB remap [Auto]
DRAM map inversion [Auto]
ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
GMI encryption control [Auto]
xGMI encryption control [Auto]
CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
PcsCG control [Auto]
Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
Memory Clear [Auto]
Overclock [Enabled]
Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
Tcl [Auto]
Trcdrd [Auto]
Trcdwr [Auto]
Trp [Auto]
Tras [Auto]
Trc Ctrl [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr Ctrl [Auto]
Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Data Poisoning [Auto]
DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
RCD Parity [Auto]
DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
Write CRC Enable [Auto]
DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
TSME [Auto]
Data Scramble [Auto]
DFE Read Training [Auto]
FFE Write Training [Auto]
PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
BankGroupSwap [Auto]
BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
Address Hash Bank [Auto]
Address Hash CS [Auto]
Address Hash Rm [Auto]
SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
MBIST Enable [Disabled]
Pattern Select [PRBS]
Pattern Length(VMR) [6]
Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
IOMMU [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
FCLK Frequency [Auto]
SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
ACS Enable [Auto]
PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
cTDP Control [Auto]
EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
APBDIS [Auto]
DF Cstates [Auto]
CPPC [Auto]
CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
Early Link Speed [Auto]
Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
Preferred IO [Auto]
CV test [Auto]
Loopback Mode [Auto]
SRIS [Auto]
Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]


----------



## DavyDee

I see some folks have tried latest Beta BIOS versions - do you guys see any big differences (especially performance improvements vs. stability issues) e.g. versus v3003?

For me, it's been a bit weird since Nov/Dev where initially with the 5950x I got pretty good scores out of the box in various benchmarks, and then with the Beta versions it felt pretty unstable, after which I flashed-back v3003. However even with the exact same settings as before (mostly "optimized defaults"), I can't seem to reach the original scores anymore, even though I followed all your recent tricks & tips including CO making almost all cores now boost in the very range of 5 GHz and no WHEAs at FCLK 1900, with quite good temps as well (Idle 35-37°C).


----------



## Ov3rdos3

Hello Guys,

I am trying to boot 4x16GB on my CHFVIII but impossible I get the Code 0D : Detect HDD each and everytime. As soon as I get rid of the 4th stick everything boots with no problem. The stick in question is working properly tried it before.

What can I do to at least boot to bios and tweak settings? Is there a problem with 4x16gb with this motherboard?

Thanks


----------



## DavyDee

domdtxdissar said:


> One last hurrah for bios 3003 before i update to a bios with AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.0 and support for Nvidia smart access memory.
> Cold air benching with EK custom waterloop+TechN Zen3 waterblock
> Curve optimizer = -30 allcore
> Stable in everything i throw at it, and no WHEA errors.


This looks crazy - while the Cinebench scores look somewhat in reach, the PassMark PT10 ones are just out of any bounds.
What the heck else do you have in your system ?


----------



## DavyDee

Ov3rdos3 said:


> I am trying to boot 4x16GB on my CHFVIII but impossible I get the Code 0D : Detect HDD each and everytime. As soon as I get rid of the 4th stick everything boots with no problem. The stick in question is working properly tried it before.


What happens if you put them in a different order?


----------



## DavyDee

Dawidowski said:


> Do people OC ram with DOCP on or manual ?


Initially started with XMP as the right profile (if modules are certified) is being shown, from there you get an idea what stable settings are, and if you're more daring you can go manual with same settings and improve step by step.


----------



## Ov3rdos3

DavyDee said:


> What happens if you put them in a different order?


Actually there's only one Order let's say I have two F4-3200C16D-32GTZA and two F4-3300C16D-32GTZ plugging 3 sticks works perfectly A2 B2 A1 as soon as I add the latest stick code 0D.

the stick in question is working but don't know why booting with of these sticks doesn't work.


----------



## Sleepycat

bkrieger said:


> I just purchase a 5800X and I am on the latest bets bios 3202. When I tried to set up PBO 2 and curve optimizer in the bios, no matter what I set it at I was getting crashes and BSOD in games. I read online there was an issue with the latest bios and PBO and to set the voltage to static 1.35 v and 4400 MHZ and to disable PBO and curve optimizer. I did that and it is now stable.
> 
> My question is is the only way to use PBO 2 and curve optimizer to wait for the next bios update and hope the issue is fixed or is there a current fix?
> 
> Thanks


Turn off PBO Fmax Enhancer, and make sure PBO in the Extreme Tweaker menus are set to Auto. Use only the overclocking menu in the Advanced tab.


----------



## Sleepycat

Ov3rdos3 said:


> Actually there's only one Order let's say I have two F4-3200C16D-32GTZA and two F4-3300C16D-32GTZ plugging 3 sticks works perfectly A2 B2 A1 as soon as I add the latest stick code 0D.
> 
> the stick in question is working but don't know why booting with of these sticks doesn't work.


What voltages and timings is it set at when you add in the 4th stick?


----------



## JohnnyFlash

coelacanth said:


> I have been using the 5900X for a few weeks with no problems at all except for a single Port Royal run that didn't finish.
> 
> I have a C8DH (BIOS 3202) and G.Skill Trident Z Neo F4-3800C16D-32GTZN (16-19-19-19-39 1.4V).
> 
> My 5900X won't do 1900 Fclk no matter what I try, so all I have done is enable DOCP, clock RAM down to 3733 MHz, enable PBO, and set Fclk to 1866.
> 
> As I mentioned system has been working fine for gaming + 3D Mark, but I opened up Event Viewer and saw this:
> 
> All voltages other than RAM at 1.4V are Auto. Does anyone know what this error is and how to fix it? Thanks.


Read through the WHEA error thread that is in this sub forum if you want to fully understand what is happening. It's very common.


----------



## bkrieger

xeizo said:


> You can't just "set" PBO2 and Curve Optimizer, it has to be fine tuned as it is dependent on the quality of each individual sample, that won't be fixed with any new bios
> 
> There will be soon be aid for those not willing to deep dive in settings when "Clock Tuner for Ryzen" for Zen3 releases, it's already available for Zen2. Just follow the instructions and it will work, manual tuning will still have the edge but if not wanting to learn everything


I did set up PBO based on tutorials and videos I saw online as well as curve optimizer. I basically set the curve optimizer to negative 5 and most of the PBO settings on auto. I would like to find a guide on how to fine tune it more effectively.

While I was able to do tests and benchmarks without crashes, the second I started a gameI would get crashes and BSOD. The only thing that fixed it was following advice of someone on a forum to set the volts to static 1.35 and multiplier 44.

Thanks


----------



## bkrieger

Sleepycat said:


> Turn off PBO Fmax Enhancer, and make sure PBO in the Extreme Tweaker menus are set to Auto. Use only the overclocking menu in the Advanced tab.


Ok, I will try that.

Thank You


----------



## 1ah1

i just dropped all the pbo 2 tuning in the amd overclocking menu in the Advanced tab 
i had enough of curve optimization from bosd to restart . my cpu 5800X is doing amazing with default settings .
but today i asked my self if i just use the pbo2 in ai tuning ASUS X570 C8HW, i sett the fmax to disable , pbo enable, 125+ mhz and f10 restart and for the first time r20 score 6200 with 79c max that what i need.
So guys just try the pbo2 in the ai tuning tab maybe you will have a great result.
(Version 3202)


----------



## Ov3rdos3

Sleepycat said:


> What voltages and timings is it set at when you add in the 4th stick?


Normal mémory timing, I mean Spec timing 1.35V and CL16 which is the stock Timing. Tried increasing DRAM Voltage to 1.40 but wasn't successful...


----------



## Sleepycat

Ov3rdos3 said:


> Normal mémory timing, I mean Spec timing 1.35V and CL16 which is the stock Timing. Tried increasing DRAM Voltage to 1.40 but wasn't successful...


Did you try setting your VDDSOC voltage to 1.08 V instead of leaving it to Auto?

I am running 4x16GB, G.Skill 3200 CL14. To get to this (I am currently running 3600 CL14), I had to set CPU SOC voltage to manual and VDDSOC to 1.08 V.

Even with this setting, I still get VDROOP down to 1.062V on the SOC when under Aida64 benchmark, so I needed to use LLC for the SOC at Level 2 to keep the voltage constant.


----------



## GRABibus

After having found my stable OC "Per CCX", here is my first trial PBO/CO :










In AMD overclocking menu :
PBO : 150-105-150
-30 on all cores

In Extreme Overclocking menu :
RAM 3733MHz 14-15-16-35-50-1T
LLC CPU = Auto
LLC Vsoc= LLC3
Vsoc=1.1V
PLL=1.8V
Vdimm=1.49V

Max CPU temp = 69°C at 21°C ambient.

i will go deeper in this.

Are these results good start ?


----------



## jfrob75

bkrieger said:


> I did set up PBO based on tutorials and videos I saw online as well as curve optimizer. I basically set the curve optimizer to negative 5 and most of the PBO settings on auto. I would like to find a guide on how to fine tune it more effectively.
> 
> While I was able to do tests and benchmarks without crashes, the second I started a gameI would get crashes and BSOD. The only thing that fixed it was following advice of someone on a forum to set the volts to static 1.35 and multiplier 44.
> 
> Thanks


So here is a guide I found thru a google search.


Spoiler: Curve Optimizer Guide





__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/khtx1o


----------



## metalshark

jfrob75 said:


> So here is a guide I found thru a google search.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Curve Optimizer Guide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/khtx1o


I flat out ignore that guide when it starts out by saying PBO has hard limits, especially that low (220W?!?). For instance, here's me pulling 318W and have gone higher:








IMO this is a good 5 part series I've recommended others look into when getting started 



 although the presenter's voice grates.

It's also worth getting a good benchmark appropriate to your workload. Can get great Cinebench scores for instance, but terrible performance in the apps I use (where a much higher EDC is required). The guide above focuses on Cinebench, so would swap this out as appropriate.


----------



## Sam64

I guess, it's ok, when I ignore guides based on ryzen master.


----------



## metalshark

Sam64 said:


> I guess, it's ok, when I ignore guides based on ryzen master.


Absolutely. Links to TurboV can be found here instead ROG Crosshair VIII Hero / Formula / IMPACT / DARK HERO LN2 OC Guide


----------



## Karagra

Anyone have a link to a replacement 30mm fan for the VIII Impact? I have one that failed and just don't want to send in the Mobo for replacement over a tiny fan. Also to note I have a Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280mm coming in, would the chipset cooler fan on this technically make it so I shouldnt even worry about replacing the 30mm fan? the 30mm fan that failed is at the top not the one directly over the chipset.


----------



## Dawidowski

Anyone getting some restarts, machine core error when you come back to the pc after its been just ideling?
Could Vsoc be the problem? I had like 1.025 but bumped it up a little to see if that was the cause.

Maybe LLC missing? 
Or to much negative offset in curve? 

It runs like gold when using.. only had like 2 reboots upon idle.


----------



## Jaeyger

Sam64 said:


> I guess, it's ok, when I ignore guides based on ryzen master.


I haven't really messed around with my cpu yet, just been doing ram oc. But I downloaded ryzen master cuz i've seen it mentioned here, just to mess with it a bit. It feels way less intuitive than just going through the bios menu. Is that just me?


----------



## GRABibus

Guys,
To disable c states, you disable PSS option ?


----------



## GRABibus

Jaeyger said:


> I haven't really messed around with my cpu yet, just been doing ram oc. But I downloaded ryzen master cuz i've seen it mentioned here, just to mess with it a bit. It feels way less intuitive than just going through the bios menu. Is that just me?


Same for me 😊


----------



## Chili195

Dawidowski said:


> Anyone getting some restarts, machine core error when you come back to the pc after its been just ideling?
> Could Vsoc be the problem? I had like 1.025 but bumped it up a little to see if that was the cause.
> 
> Maybe LLC missing?
> Or to much negative offset in curve?
> 
> It runs like gold when using.. only had like 2 reboots upon idle.


If you check in Event Viewer, does it list a particular processor ID as causing the problem? Every time this happened to me I dialled the CO back by 1 on the core mentioned and now its super-stable. 










In this example, it was my third core (APIC ID 0 & 1 = Core 0. 2 & 3 = Core 1 and so on).


----------



## GRABibus

Chili195 said:


> If you check in Event Viewer, does it list a particular processor ID as causing the problem? Every time this happened to me I dialled the CO back by 1 on the core mentioned and now its super-stable.
> 
> View attachment 2476021
> 
> 
> In this example, it was my third core (APIC ID 0 & 1 = Core 0. 2 & 3 = Core 1 and so on).


Did you try to add an offset on Vcore ?


----------



## Sleepycat

metalshark said:


> I flat out ignore that guide when it starts out by saying PBO has hard limits, especially that low (220W?!?). For instance, here's me pulling 318W and have gone higher:


How did you get your CPU EDC to hit 289A? On my Crosshair VIII, the highest limit that I can set for EDC is 200A and it is the limiting factor in my OC.


----------



## Chili195

GRABibus said:


> Did you try to add an offset on Vcore ?


Yes, I tried various Vcore offsets ranging from -0.05 to +0.05 but in the end settled on Auto and just made sure the rest of the PBO and CO settings were optimised per core. I'm not a massive expert in this (also new to the AMD world) but adding a Vcore offset would undermine the adaptive nature of CO undervolting. It can help with stability but I find its easier just not to push CO too far on the faster cores.


----------



## GRABibus

I am new to AMD also 😊
I am currently tweaking a PBO/CO with -30 on all cores
150/105/150.

I have idle reboots and try to solve first with offset.

Let’s see


----------



## Sleepycat

GRABibus said:


> I am new to AMD also 😊
> I am currently tweaking a PBO/CO with -30 on all cores
> 150/105/150.
> 
> I have idle reboots and try to solve first with offset.
> 
> Let’s see


Take your 2 fastest cores, give them a +5 offset. See if the additional voltage helps keep the PC from idle reboots, which is caused by too low a voltage, causing the CPU to error out.

The other bandaid fix is to turn off DF C state, which prevents the CPU from going into the deepest sleep and hence does not experience the lowest voltage. As a result, it doesn't idle reboot.


----------



## GRABibus

Sleepycat said:


> Take your 2 fastest cores, give them a +5 offset. See if the additional voltage helps keep the PC from idle reboots, which is caused by too low a voltage, causing the CPU to error out.
> 
> The other bandaid fix is to turn off DF C state, which prevents the CPU from going into the deepest sleep and hence does not experience the lowest voltage. As a result, it doesn't idle reboot.


Thanks.
I am probably stupid but I can’t find the c states option in bios....


----------



## Sleepycat

GRABibus said:


> Thanks.
> I am probably stupid but I can’t find the c states option in bios....


No you're not stupid, it's because ASUS hid it in the deepest depths of the bios. Took me some time to look for it eventhough I knew which menu it was roughly in!

It's in Advanced, AMD CBS, NBIO Common Options, SMU Common Options, DF Cstates


----------



## GRABibus

Sleepycat said:


> No you're not stupid, it's because ASUS hid it in the deepest depths of the bios. Took me some time to look for it eventhough I knew which menu it was roughly in!
> 
> It's in Advanced, AMD CBS, NBIO Common Options, SMU Common Options, DF Cstates


Thanks ! 
I am gonna try


----------



## Sleepycat

After 3 weeks of figuring out CPU and DRAM overclocking (Crystaldiskinfo shows that my brand new NVMe drive has been restarted 660 times since then, so that's a lot of OC testing), I've settled on the following for my 5900x. Thought I'd share my settings with others so that they can use it as a rough starting point and not have to guess all the settings.

My system is air-cooled with a Noctua NH-U12A and in an old-school 12 year old PC case, the Lian-Li PC-7FNW which has a 140mm intake and 120mm exhaust. No possibility for water cooling as there is no where to mount the radiator.

PBO Advanced and Curve Optimizer have been a very nice way to approach OC. I've set it to a lower EDC limit of 160A which seems to decreases my L3 cache performance in Aida64 but also reduces heat generation slightly so that I can maintain higher core speeds for longer in CB R23. It starts out nice and high at 4.7GHz all-core, and keeps it at above 4.6 GHz until the end of CB R23. Single core starts at 4.9 GHz and it does maintain it quite well all the way through when it is running single core. It is set so that it keeps running as fast as it can up to my set temperature limit of 85 ºC.

CPU core voltage: Auto
CPU core LLC: Auto
VDDSOC voltage: 1.09 V
VDDSOC LLC: Level 2
Power limits: 220W / 220A / 160A
Thermal throttle limit: Manual, 85 ºC
Curve Optimizer: CCD0: -20 / -20 / -15 / -15 / -20 / -20
CCD1: -30 / -30 / -30 / -30 / -30 / -30
DRAM: 4x16GB Samsung B-die @ 3600 MHz, CL14-15-14-28 @ 1.46V

My observations is that I probably got a good bin with regards to the CPU cores, as I am able to run without errors at such low curve optimizer settings and high clock speeds. However, my SOC is probably a bad bin as I can't go any higher than 3600 MHz (IF 1:1). Setting to 3666 MHz causes it to not post, even at CL18, 1.5V and SOC 1.15V.

I've attached the bios settings txt file and some of the screenshots.


----------



## Jaeyger

Sleepycat said:


> After 3 weeks of figuring out CPU and DRAM overclocking (Crystaldiskinfo shows that my brand new NVMe drive has been restarted 660 times since then, so that's a lot of OC testing), I've settled on the following for my 5900x. Thought I'd share my settings with others so that they can use it as a rough starting point and not have to guess all the settings.
> 
> My system is air-cooled with a Noctua NH-U12A and in an old-school 12 year old PC case, the Lian-Li PC-7FNW which has a 140mm intake and 120mm exhaust. No possibility for water cooling as there is no where to mount the radiator.
> 
> PBO Advanced and Curve Optimizer have been a very nice way to approach OC. I've set it to a lower EDC limit of 160A which seems to decreases my L3 cache performance in Aida64 but also reduces heat generation slightly so that I can maintain higher core speeds for longer in CB R23. It starts out nice and high at 4.7GHz all-core, and keeps it at above 4.6 GHz until the end of CB R23. Single core starts at 4.9 GHz and it does maintain it quite well all the way through when it is running single core. It is set so that it keeps running as fast as it can up to my set temperature limit of 85 ºC.
> 
> CPU core voltage: Auto
> CPU core LLC: Auto
> VDDSOC voltage: 1.09 V
> VDDSOC LLC: Level 2
> Power limits: 220W / 220A / 160A
> Thermal throttle limit: Manual, 85 ºC
> Curve Optimizer: CCD0: -20 / -20 / -15 / -15 / -20 / -20
> CCD1: -30 / -30 / -30 / -30 / -30 / -30
> DRAM: 4x16GB Samsung B-die @ 3600 MHz, CL14-15-14-28 @ 1.46V
> 
> My observations is that I probably got a good bin with regards to the CPU cores, as I am able to run without errors at such low curve optimizer settings and high clock speeds. However, my SOC is probably a bad bin as I can't go any higher than 3600 MHz (IF 1:1). Setting to 3666 MHz causes it to not post, even at CL18, 1.5V and SOC 1.15V.
> 
> I've attached the bios settings txt file and some of the screenshots.


Have u tried ram OC with only 2 sticks? 4 dual ranks sticks is a lot for the memory controller


----------



## dr.Rafi

PWn3R said:


> I wish there was an @HERE or something. Someone should pin the post from @genelecs.
> 
> *There is something wrong with some of the 5950s possibly other CPUs or the Motherboards. They will not post at 1900 FCLK no matter WHAT you do. CONFIRMING this.*
> 
> I was able to boot using these settings:
> 
> CCD/IOD 1.05
> vSOC 1.1
> CDDG .950
> PLL 1.9v
> *WITH FCLK 1933. *
> 
> Please don't look at the timings too closely, this was a YOLO, can we boot. I have been playing games for 2 hours without issue and did ~30 minutes of Cinebench. I'm going to try to bump this up to 1966 or 2000 at some point, but just so thrilled that we found "what's wrong". 1866 worked with stock voltages across the board, 1900 wouldn't boot with any voltages.
> View attachment 2475606
> 
> 
> Shimano might be interested in looking into this from the Asus side.


What Q-code you getting when not booting 1900?


----------



## PWn3R

dr.Rafi said:


> What Q-code you getting when not booting 1900?


I was getting 07 booting 1900. 1933 booted with settings that didn’t work, on the first try. I put PLL as high as 1.98 on 1900 and I was still getting wheas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## metalshark

Sleepycat said:


> How did you get your CPU EDC to hit 289A? On my Crosshair VIII, the highest limit that I can set for EDC is 200A and it is the limiting factor in my OC.


Can get it to hit 299A. Just need a high memory bandwidth workload. To simulate this you can cheat and use Prime95 with a large FFT. Be advised it’s wasteful if that’s not the kind of workload you run. So going over around 250A of EDC hurts Cinebench scores for instance.

if you put PBO on manual can you not overtype the values?

For reference this is as high as I can get for TDC at 140% Current Capability before having to put it in LN2 mode (I’m on water) and select 200% Current Capability due to what looks like current overprotection kicking in, but am told it’s not. Regardless 200% current capability removes the limit.


----------



## dr.Rafi

genelecs said:


> Didn't work for me posting 1933 then to 1900 sadly :-( Q-Code 07 no matter what I do. I too noticed similar behaviour in CSGO by the way with regards to 1933+ WHEA.
> 
> Going back to stable 1866 for now.


07 indicate too high Vddgccd and VDDP voltages, try lower both and you will boot to 1900 in first time.


----------



## dr.Rafi

D0MINUS said:


> I'm late to the party, but that's how my setup is running: C8DH and 5950X with FCLK 1900 and DRAM 3800 CL16. BIOS is 3101 though. No WHEA errors at all.
> The DRAM kit is G.Skill F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC. Manual OC with only main timings entered (16-16-16-16-36) and 1.4V DRAM Voltage, no other settings touched.


It Seams most of 5000 series cpu come to Australia are good one, I tested plenty of them all good boot easy 1900 whea free and till 4033 with whea.


----------



## dr.Rafi

PWn3R said:


> Yes, posted 1933, couldn’t get stable, lowered a bunch of voltages, not to auto, but lower, then said F it I’m gonna try it. Hit 1900 FCLK, rebooted and came up like a champ with only a single WHEA with Cinebench running every 5 minutes or so. I just bumped a couple voltages a small amount and then spent 3 hours snow blowing between storm fronts. Going to check out the handiwork in a few. If this works /rage
> 
> Edit: Bumped voltages back up some, still not stable at 1900 still getting WHEAs. Interestingly, more often from CSGO than from Cinebench which I think is weird. I'm going to put the voltages back up to what I had setup for 1933 and see if it will play nice.
> 
> Did anyone ever find out what "safe" PLL is for long term use?
> 
> Edit 2: I'm at 1.95PLL 1.45v RAM 1.15 vSOC 1.05 IOD/CCD 1v CDDG still getting a few WHEAs. I'm going to go back to 1866. I'm not comfortable going higher on PLL, as I still find the voltage at 1.95 slightly disturbing.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


VDDP and VDDGCCD voltages are very crusial for booting with certain fclk, some cpus have a sweet spot with them if you dont set the sweet spot first time it wont boot, and these 2 voltages are acting very mysterious they stuck in certain value even if you change them in bios unless you reset the bios and drain the power, too high it wont boot and too low wont boot too, in other hand vsoc and VDDGIOD also have sweet spot on performance but too high wont stop system booting but you get less performance, but too low the system wont boot or you loose performance with certain fclk.


----------



## metalshark

Sleepycat said:


> Take your 2 fastest cores, give them a +5 offset. See if the additional voltage helps keep the PC from idle reboots, which is caused by too low a voltage, causing the CPU to error out.
> 
> The other bandaid fix is to turn off DF C state, which prevents the CPU from going into the deepest sleep and hence does not experience the lowest voltage. As a result, it doesn't idle reboot.


You can also add a negative Vcore offset and tone down the Curve Optimiser instead. Each step of Vcore on these ASUS boards is 6.25mv, with each step of curve optimiser being 5mv at low clocks and 3mv at high clocks. So let's say you wanted to remove 30mv, you could apply 5x Vcore offset giving you -31.25mv, or you could apply a -10 curve optimiser giving you -30mv at high speeds. The trouble with curve optimiser is that is -50mv at idle which may be too low and cause the machine to restart. The best results I've got involve a balancing act between Vcore offset, curve optimiser, scalar and TDC.

On an earlier BIOS did some WHEA-free stress testing to try and plot out the performance of my CPU. Due to the time it takes to test each setting not all cells are populated. Negative vcore offset is on the left y-axis and all core curve optimiser is on the top x-axis, with each cell filled in with the max scalar (green for 10, orange for 1-9 and red for failed).

230A TDC









270A TDC









Am now seeing best results by finding the core which works at lowest voltage, setting that to -30 in curve optimiser, finding the lowest vcore offset, then turning the other cores as low as they can go one by one. Then can increase the offset by one step and dial down the curve optimiser until you stop gaining performance.


----------



## Sleepycat

Jaeyger said:


> Have u tried ram OC with only 2 sticks? 4 dual ranks sticks is a lot for the memory controller


I built my PC based on 64GB, but I did test with only 2 sticks. I could only hit 3866 MHz CL16-16-16-16-32. This was also a hard wall as there was nothing I could do to hit 3900 MHz.

While the memory bandwidth was significantly higher, memory latency took a big hit, increasing to 67.2 ns. This was with similar settings to 3600 MHz CL14 with 4 sticks. CB R23 results were similar too, the only one that had a significant improvement was Membench, but would most likely not translate into real world performance. So I went back to 4 sticks 3600 CL14 instead.



http://imgur.com/a/TQGhszw


----------



## Sleepycat

PWn3R said:


> Edit: Bumped voltages back up some, still not stable at 1900 still getting WHEAs. Interestingly, more often from CSGO than from Cinebench which I think is weird. I'm going to put the voltages back up to what I had setup for 1933 and see if it will play nice.
> 
> Did anyone ever find out what "safe" PLL is for long term use?
> 
> Edit 2: I'm at 1.95PLL 1.45v RAM 1.15 vSOC 1.05 IOD/CCD 1v CDDG still getting a few WHEAs. I'm going to go back to 1866. I'm not comfortable going higher on PLL, as I still find the voltage at 1.95 slightly disturbing.


I'm of the opinion that I prefer to stick to 1.8V. It is just an old habit from the old Intel days where you couldn't really damage the CPU except through high PLL voltages. If you would like, you can try my settings to see if it helps with WHEA. I used 1.8 V PLL, 1.09 V SOC, and 1.42 V RAM. IOD/CCD would have been 1.02V, but in the screenshot below I had left it at auto which was less than ideal.



http://imgur.com/Et2dbjh


----------



## metalshark

Sleepycat said:


> I built my PC based on 64GB, but I did test with only 2 sticks. I could only hit 3866 MHz CL16-16-16-16-32. This was also a hard wall as there was nothing I could do to hit 3900 MHz.
> 
> While the memory bandwidth was significantly higher, memory latency took a big hit, increasing to 67.2 ns. This was with similar settings to 3600 MHz CL14 with 4 sticks. CB R23 results were similar too, the only one that had a significant improvement was Membench, but would most likely not translate into real world performance. So I went back to 4 sticks 3600 CL14 instead.
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/TQGhszw


Were you able to increase the FCLK to 1933 at 3866Mhz RAM speed to get rid of the memory latency? Ideally those 3 clock speeds in the top right of ZenTimings really want to match, but you might need more VDDG IOD voltage to reach it (like 1.09v) and most likely at least 1.9v of PLL.


----------



## Sleepycat

metalshark said:


> You can also add a negative Vcore offset and tone down the Curve Optimiser instead. Each step of Vcore on these ASUS boards is 6.25mv, with each step of curve optimiser being 5mv at low clocks and 3mv at high clocks. So let's say you wanted to remove 30mv, you could apply 5x Vcore offset giving you -31.25mv, or you could apply a -10 curve optimiser giving you -30mv at high speeds. The trouble with curve optimiser is that is -50mv at idle which may be too low and cause the machine to restart. The best results I've got involve a balancing act between Vcore offset, curve optimiser, scalar and


Doesn't the Vcore offset just govern the maximum Vcore you could attain? It doesn't lower the Vcore curve for the particular core frequency like Curve Optimizer does. This was my understanding. 

I had tried to combine negative Vcore offset with curve optimiser to further reduce the heat generated for all-core loads, but did not get the desired effect which you described.


----------



## metalshark

Sleepycat said:


> Doesn't the Vcore offset just govern the maximum Vcore you could attain? It doesn't lower the Vcore curve for the particular core frequency like Curve Optimizer does. This was my understanding.
> 
> I had tried to combine negative Vcore offset with curve optimiser to further reduce the heat generated for all-core loads, but did not get the desired effect which you described.


Both seem to combine (provably through stability and what's reported in HWinfo). So it's not an either/or it's a both.

Vcore offset is for all points along the curve (not just a reduction in the maximum) whereas curve optimiser depends on which point for how much.


----------



## Sleepycat

metalshark said:


> if you put PBO on manual can you not overtype the values?


I did do that and typed in 300A, but it still shows up at 200A in Ryzen Master and when I load it up with memory benchmarks, it hits the 200A limit in HWinfo and Ryzen Master.



metalshark said:


> For reference this is as high as I can get for TDC at 140% Current Capability before having to put it in LN2 mode (I’m on water) and select 200% Current Capability due to what looks like current overprotection kicking in, but am told it’s not. Regardless 200% current capability removes the limit.


My TDC is fine, I can set it to 255A and it works. I can't get anywhere near 255A though as it his the 200A EDC limit first. The only other limit would be temperature as I am already at 85 ºC when running Cinebench at 4.65-4.7GHz all core. But on memory benchmarks like Aida64, I don't hit the temperature limit, but do hit the EDC limit instead.


----------



## Sleepycat

metalshark said:


> Were you able to increase the FCLK to 1933 at 3866Mhz RAM speed to get rid of the memory latency? Ideally those 3 clock speeds in the top right of ZenTimings really want to match, but you might need more VDDG IOD voltage to reach it (like 1.09v) and most likely at least 1.9v of PLL.


Yes, I managed to reach 1933 FCLK to get 3866 CL16-16-16-32. No WHEA (I'm one of the fortunate ones not to have encountered it even during heavy loads and long idle periods. My PC runs 24/7, and idles quite a bit due to my bad habit but have not had idle reboots and WHEAs.

However, the latency is still there. Very odd, as I expect 3866 MHz, 1933 FCLK and CL16 to match 3600 MHz CL14 in terms of latency.


----------



## metalshark

Sleepycat said:


> I did do that and typed in 300A, but it still shows up at 200A in Ryzen Master and when I load it up with memory benchmarks, it hits the 200A limit in HWinfo and Ryzen Master.
> 
> 
> My TDC is fine, I can set it to 255A and it works. I can't get anywhere near 255A though as it his the 200A EDC limit first. The only other limit would be temperature as I am already at 85 ºC when running Cinebench at 4.65-4.7GHz all core. But on memory benchmarks like Aida64, I don't hit the temperature limit, but do hit the EDC limit instead.


Ah there's two places to enter the PBO limits. Personally in the Advanced > AMD Overclocking I set PBO to "Advanced" using "Motherboard" as the limits. Then in the ASUS menus (3rd along, the AI ones) I set PBO limits to manual and enter them there which take hold. The ASUS ones (AI Menu) should override the AMD ones (Advanced > AMD). Also make sure no software like CTR 2.0, Ryzen Master, etc is applying a "profile" at launch and overriding what you've set.


----------



## Sleepycat

I noticed many on this forum still run Cinebench R20, whereas I tend to run R23. Here are my R20 scores, surprisingly, I have a lower single-core score but much higher multi-core score. I hit 4.65 GHz all-core, keeping it above 4.6 throughout the whole benchmark and single core is always above 4.9GHz when it does not switch to 2 cores which pulls the clock down.



http://imgur.com/05A6L0C


----------



## Sleepycat

metalshark said:


> Ah there's two places to enter the PBO limits. Personally in the Advanced > AMD Overclocking I set PBO to "Advanced" using "Motherboard" as the limits. Then in the ASUS menus (3rd along, the AI ones) I set PBO limits to manual and enter them there which take hold. The ASUS ones (AI Menu) should override the AMD ones (Advanced > AMD). Also make sure no software like CTR 2.0, Ryzen Master, etc is applying a "profile" at launch and overriding what you've set.


I'll give that a go. I had done it in Advanced, AMD Overclocking and then set the PBO limits manually. The one in AI Menu was left as is stock. I don't have any profiles loaded in Windows, everything is bios based (confirmed as I have my PBO limits set in bios to 220W/200A/160A and it reflects with what is shown in Ryzen Master when I load it up).


----------



## metalshark

Sleepycat said:


> I'll give that a go. I had done it in Advanced, AMD Overclocking and then set the PBO limits manually. The one in AI Menu was left as is stock. I don't have any profiles loaded in Windows, everything is bios based (confirmed as I have my PBO limits set in bios to 220W/200A/160A and it reflects with what is shown in Ryzen Master when I load it up).


There's probably some combo of options to let you keep it there (most likely the ASUS AI values are overriding the Advanced > AMD ones). I only do it that way round so there's fewer keystrokes to get into the curve optimiser settings (pressing the down key fewer times) and quicker to get to the PBO limits as these are frequent settings to go into.


----------



## genelecs

dr.Rafi said:


> VDDP and VDDGCCD voltages are very crusial for booting with certain fclk, some cpus have a sweet spot with them if you dont set the sweet spot first time it wont boot, and these 2 voltages are acting very mysterious they stuck in certain value even if you change them in bios unless you reset the bios and drain the power, too high it wont boot and too low wont boot too, in other hand vsoc and VDDGIOD also have sweet spot on performance but too high wont stop system booting but you get less performance, but too low the system wont boot or you loose performance with certain fclk.


At the minute i'm using:
0.950v VDDP and 1.05 VDDG CCD (+IOD) for 1866 FCLK - what do you recommend in terms of stepping to lower to get 1900 to boot?


----------



## metalshark

genelecs said:


> At the minute i'm using:
> 0.950v VDDP and 1.05 VDDG CCD (+IOD) for 1866 FCLK - what do you recommend in terms of stepping to lower to get 1900 to boot?


If it helps at all on a 5950X at 1900IF/3800MHz I need:
SoC of 1.05v
VDDG CCD of 0.88v
VDDG IOD of 0.944v (less produced WHEAs)
VDDP of 0.975 (can probably get this lower, haven't tried)
PLL of 1.82v (less works error-free but reduces reported GB/s in Memtest)
DRAM of 1.48v (run it at 1.5v for the timings, am on Samsung B-Die 4x8GB SR)

For the timings I'm using (so it'll work with different values but looser timings)
Gear Down Mode on
ProcODT on 43.6
RTT NOM of RZQ/7
RTT WR of RZQ/2
RTT Park of RTZ/5
R1 Tune of 40
R2 Tune of 45
R3 Tune of 40
R4 Tune of 45

This is for BIOS 3202. I've had lower voltages and different R1-R4 tune values on prior BIOS versions.


----------



## genelecs

metalshark said:


> If it helps at all on a 5950X at 1900IF/3800MHz I need:
> SoC of 1.05v
> VDDG CCD of 0.88v
> VDDG IOD of 0.944v (less produced WHEAs)
> VDDP of 0.975 (can probably get this lower, haven't tried)
> PLL of 1.82v (less works error-free but reduces reported GB/s in Memtest)
> DRAM of 1.48v (run it at 1.5v for the timings, am on Samsung B-Die 4x8GB SR)
> 
> This is for BIOS 3202. I've had lower voltages and different R1-R4 tune values on prior BIOS versions.


See it's strange, I'm 100% WHEA free at 1866 and with the my "stable" voltages (1.1VSOC/1.05 VDDG/0.950 VDDP) I can still happily boot 1933-1966-2000 FCLK (alas w/ WHEA and PLL needs to be raised to 1.95v) but 1900 is a stone cold wall with Q-Code 07.
I've tried a plethora of voltages/settings up and down now including yours and 1900 will just not POST for me.

@dr.Rafi when you mention about draining power - are we talking physical CMOS removal or remove PSU power and hold down power button?


----------



## PWn3R

genelecs said:


> See it's strange, I'm 100% WHEA free at 1866 and with the my "stable" voltages (1.1VSOC/1.05 VDDG/0.950 VDDP) I can still happily boot 1933-1966-2000 FCLK (alas w/ WHEA and PLL needs to be raised to 1.95v) but 1900 is a stone cold wall with Q-Code 07.
> I've tried a plethora of voltages/settings up and down now including yours and 1900 will just not POST for me.
> 
> @dr.Rafi when you mention about draining power - are we talking physical CMOS removal or remove PSU power and hold down power button?


Yeah, when I have a minute I can try with like .85 on some voltages but I started at .9 and walked it up having to reset cmos and reconfigure then reboot and then set FCLK nothing would work for 1900 until I had booted 1933. I never got 1900 or 1933 to stop throwing wheas 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> After 3 weeks of figuring out CPU and DRAM overclocking (Crystaldiskinfo shows that my brand new NVMe drive has been restarted 660 times since then, so that's a lot of OC testing), I've settled on the following for my 5900x. Thought I'd share my settings with others so that they can use it as a rough starting point and not have to guess all the settings.
> 
> My system is air-cooled with a Noctua NH-U12A and in an old-school 12 year old PC case, the Lian-Li PC-7FNW which has a 140mm intake and 120mm exhaust. No possibility for water cooling as there is no where to mount the radiator.
> 
> PBO Advanced and Curve Optimizer have been a very nice way to approach OC. I've set it to a lower EDC limit of 160A which seems to decreases my L3 cache performance in Aida64 but also reduces heat generation slightly so that I can maintain higher core speeds for longer in CB R23. It starts out nice and high at 4.7GHz all-core, and keeps it at above 4.6 GHz until the end of CB R23. Single core starts at 4.9 GHz and it does maintain it quite well all the way through when it is running single core. It is set so that it keeps running as fast as it can up to my set temperature limit of 85 ºC.
> 
> CPU core voltage: Auto
> CPU core LLC: Auto
> VDDSOC voltage: 1.09 V
> VDDSOC LLC: Level 2
> Power limits: 220W / 220A / 160A
> Thermal throttle limit: Manual, 85 ºC
> Curve Optimizer: CCD0: -20 / -20 / -15 / -15 / -20 / -20
> CCD1: -30 / -30 / -30 / -30 / -30 / -30
> DRAM: 4x16GB Samsung B-die @ 3600 MHz, CL14-15-14-28 @ 1.46V
> 
> My observations is that I probably got a good bin with regards to the CPU cores, as I am able to run without errors at such low curve optimizer settings and high clock speeds. However, my SOC is probably a bad bin as I can't go any higher than 3600 MHz (IF 1:1). Setting to 3666 MHz causes it to not post, even at CL18, 1.5V and SOC 1.15V.
> 
> I've attached the bios settings txt file and some of the screenshots.


Would you mind posting a BIOS dump? You are one of the few also running 4x16GB 3200C14 memory so I would like to try your settings to see if I can push mine a little.
Thanks!


----------



## bkrieger

Sleepycat said:


> Turn off PBO Fmax Enhancer, and make sure PBO in the Extreme Tweaker menus are set to Auto. Use only the overclocking menu in the Advanced tab.


So I lowered the CPU Boost clock over ride from 200 to 100, and it is now stable.

I currently have my 5800x set to negative 5 allcore in curve optimizer and thermals are set as follows:
PPT 125
EDC 125
TDC 85

Should I leave these settings or should it be raised?

Also, I would like to tweak the curve optimizer per core. Is there a proper way to determine what these should be set at?

Thank You


----------



## bhoot

Sindragosaa said:


> *5950X - BIOS 3102 - Curve Optimiser (CO) Results with negative VCORE offset.*
> 
> PBO Offset +0MHz
> PBO Limits [Manual]
> PPT Limit [W] - 200
> TDC Limit [A] - 255
> EDC Limit [A] - 275
> 
> CO Offsets = -20 best two cores on CCD0, -30 all other cores on CCD0 & CCD1
> 
> *CPU Power Settings:*
> VCORE Voltage Offset = negative 0.01250V (-0.0125)
> CPU LLC = AUTO
> VDDSOC LLC = LLC 3
> CPU CURRENT = MAX
> DRAM CURRENT = MAX
> CPU / DRAM Power Phase Control = Extreme
> 
> *Results: *
> 
> 
> CPUID: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @ 4548.94 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR
> achieving over 5GHz on all cores in CCD0, max boost is 5.05GHz
> achieving over 4.9Ghz on all cores in CCD1, max boost is 4.975GHz
> Sustained effective all core boost is 4.525-533GHz under multi-threaded stress tests (which is very close to my manual OC of 46/45).
> Temps are <80 degC
> So far it is stable, with an uptime of nearly 18 hours with mixed loads and being left on over night doing nothing.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2473852


Sin - can you please post up a BIOS extract/text settings for you profile. Also have DH + 5950X and not getting much in way of advice/help on how to tweak the performance.


----------



## shaolin95

bhoot said:


> Sin - can you please post up a BIOS extract/text settings for you profile. Also have DH + 5950X and not getting much in way of advice/help on how to tweak the performance.


He did here:








ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...


Help please... I just installed my Dark Hero with a 5800x and I I can't read the temps with any program. I tried Hwinfo and others that I use normally with no luck. Any idea what it can be?




www.overclock.net


----------



## Dawidowski

Chili195 said:


> If you check in Event Viewer, does it list a particular processor ID as causing the problem? Every time this happened to me I dialled the CO back by 1 on the core mentioned and now its super-stable.
> 
> View attachment 2476021
> 
> 
> In this example, it was my third core (APIC ID 0 & 1 = Core 0. 2 & 3 = Core 1 and so on).


Man it sure does! 
Didnt know exactly which core it was so maybe I need to check that out ;D 
So core 0,2,3 and so on in windows are 1,2,3 in bios?


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> Would you mind posting a BIOS dump? You are one of the few also running 4x16GB 3200C14 memory so I would like to try your settings to see if I can push mine a little.
> Thanks!


Yup, it is in my post, there should be a text file which was a dump of all the bios settings.
Here is the link: https://www.overclock.net/attachments/ddr3600cl14-latest_setting-txt.2476039/

My specific RAM kits are 2x G.Skill F4-3200C14D-32GTSK

One thing I want to point out is that at 3600 MHz CL14, I needed to set tRCDRD to 15. Leaving it at 14 will still get into Windows allow you to game with no issues or crashing. But if you were to run a memory test such as TM5 and play Youtube at the same time, you'll notice the video getting stuck once in a while which I suspect were correctable errors. Run those 2 long enough and TM5 picks up the errors.


----------



## Sleepycat

Sindragosaa said:


> achieving over 5GHz on all cores in CCD0, max boost is 5.05GHz
> achieving over 4.9Ghz on all cores in CCD1, max boost is 4.975GHz
> Sustained effective all core boost is 4.525-533GHz under multi-threaded stress tests (which is very close to my manual OC of 46/45).
> Temps are <80 degC
> So far it is stable, with an uptime of nearly 18 hours with mixed loads and being left on over night doing nothing.


NIce! What cooling do you have to be able to sustain those speeds with a 5950x?


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> Yup, it is in my post, there should be a text file which was a dump of all the bios settings.
> Here is the link: https://www.overclock.net/attachments/ddr3600cl14-latest_setting-txt.2476039/
> 
> My specific RAM kits are 2x G.Skill F4-3200C14D-32GTSK
> 
> One thing I want to point out is that at 3600 MHz CL14, I needed to set tRCDRD to 15. Leaving it at 14 will still get into Windows allow you to game with no issues or crashing. But if you were to run a memory test such as TM5 and play Youtube at the same time, you'll notice the video getting stuck once in a while which I suspect were correctable errors. Run those 2 long enough and TM5 picks up the errors.


Thanks a lot! Will try them shortly.


----------



## Chili195

Dawidowski said:


> Man it sure does!
> Didnt know exactly which core it was so maybe I need to check that out ;D
> So core 0,2,3 and so on in windows are 1,2,3 in bios?


I believe the Processor ID here refers to the thread rather than the core so it works like this assuming you have hyperthreading enabled:

0/1 in Windows = Core 0 in the BIOS = Core 1 in Ryzen Master
2/3 in Windows = Core 1 in the BIOS = Core 2 in Ryzen Master
4/5 in Windows = Core 2 in the BIOS = Core 3 in Ryzen Master
6/7 in Windows = Core 3 in the BIOS = Core 4 in Ryzen Master
8/9 in Windows = Core 4 in the BIOS = Core 5 in Ryzen Master

And so on.


----------



## Sleepycat

bkrieger said:


> So I lowered the CPU Boost clock over ride from 200 to 100, and it is now stable.


What clock speeds were you getting when CPU boost was at 200 MHz? I hit single core 4.9 GHz and all-core 4.65 GHz if I set it to 200. Was yours not stable at 4.9 GHz? If it crashes in single core loads, then I would give those specific cores a positive value in curve optimiser.



bkrieger said:


> I currently have my 5800x set to negative 5 allcore in curve optimizer and thermals are set as follows:
> PPT 125
> EDC 125
> TDC 85
> 
> Should I leave these settings or should it be raised?


I can't recall exactly, but the stock PPT is 142 W, TDC is 95 A and EDC is 140A from memory. So you are limiting yourself with PPT and TDC at the moment. Mine are set to PPT 220 W, TDC 200A and EDC 160A.




bkrieger said:


> Also, I would like to tweak the curve optimizer per core. Is there a proper way to determine what these should be set at?
> 
> Thank You


From what I've been told, curve optimiser is similar to voltage offset, except that you can apply it to a core by core basis.

So the more negative you go, the less heat you generate and thus are able to maintain the clock speed for longer without it slowing down. However, you also introduce more instability because you are using less voltage. Do you are looking for the lowest setting that you can go without becoming unstable.

It's tedious, but you set a setting and then test for core stability. I didn't do it one by one, instead grouping by fastest 2 cores in CCD0, the remaining cores in the CCD and then repeat it for CCD1. So it was 4 groups of testing.


----------



## dr.Rafi

genelecs said:


> At the minute i'm using:
> 0.950v VDDP and 1.05 VDDG CCD (+IOD) for 1866 FCLK - what do you recommend in terms of stepping to lower to get 1900 to boot?


It is not only the voltages can you post Zen timing screen shoot to show bios version, cpu, ram kit used and ram timing.


----------



## genelecs

dr.Rafi said:


> It is not only the voltages can you post Zen timing screen shoot to show bios version, cpu, ram kit used and ram timing.


Of course. VDIMM voltage is 1.4v, VTT auto (presumably 1/2 at 0.7v)


----------



## MultiDoc

I’d be grateful if anyone using a Crosshair VIII Impact and a 5950x could post a BIOS settings dump.
My system consists of the above and the RAM is a Crucial Ballistix 2x32Gb CL16 kit and a watercooled 3090 GPU. I have enabled DOCP and PBO and the system is rock stable and passes all stress tests and benches I’ve tried (cpu-z, karhu ramtest, Cinebench R20 and R23, Heaven, Aida64 etc), however my bench scores aren’t near as good as slthose I see in this thread from other members with similar systems.
Again I’d be grateful for a bios dump file from anyone with the same (or similar) cpu and motherboard so I could try my hands on. My primary goal is best possible performance while keeping thermals at bay. My cooling consists of 2 x 240 rads (an EK and a slim XSPC) and an iceman reservoir with an EK VTX pump (in an Ncase M1).

Thanks in advance for any help and suggestions!


----------



## GRABibus

MultiDoc said:


> I’d be grateful if anyone using a Crosshair VIII Impact and a 5950x could post a BIOS settings dump.
> My system consists of the above and the RAM is a Crucial Ballistix 2x32Gb CL16 kit and a watercooled 3090 GPU. I have enabled DOCP and PBO and the system is rock stable and passes all stress tests and benches I’ve tried (cpu-z, karhu ramtest, Cinebench R20 and R23, Heaven, Aida64 etc), however my bench scores aren’t near as good as slthose I see in this thread from other members with similar systems.
> Again I’d be grateful for a bios dump file from anyone with the same (or similar) cpu and motherboard so I could try my hands on. My primary goal is best possible performance while keeping thermals at bay. My cooling consists of 2 x 240 rads (an EK and a slim XSPC) and an iceman reservoir with an EK VTX pump (in an Ncase M1).
> 
> Thanks in advance for any help and suggestions!


Hi,
Maybe it would be useful that you post your benchmarks and more details about your spec (bios, bios settings, detailed rig, etc..)
👍


----------



## greg_p

MultiDoc said:


> I’d be grateful if anyone using a Crosshair VIII Impact and a 5950x could post a BIOS settings dump.
> My system consists of the above and the RAM is a Crucial Ballistix 2x32Gb CL16 kit and a watercooled 3090 GPU. I have enabled DOCP and PBO and the system is rock stable and passes all stress tests and benches I’ve tried (cpu-z, karhu ramtest, Cinebench R20 and R23, Heaven, Aida64 etc), however my bench scores aren’t near as good as slthose I see in this thread from other members with similar systems.
> Again I’d be grateful for a bios dump file from anyone with the same (or similar) cpu and motherboard so I could try my hands on. My primary goal is best possible performance while keeping thermals at bay. My cooling consists of 2 x 240 rads (an EK and a slim XSPC) and an iceman reservoir with an EK VTX pump (in an Ncase M1).
> 
> Thanks in advance for any help and suggestions!


Hi 
Hard to tell but with a 5950x and a RTX3090, your colling may not be enough for sustain load.
My config (5950x + RTX2080ti) is custom watercooled and soem demaning games such as CBP2077 makes water temp getting as hish as 40 degress, versus 20° ambiant. I have a 360x45 front, a 240x30 top and an 120x45 back. CPU produces 60 to 90w on games, and the GPU 350W. I bet you have 500w vbios...
5950x need good cooling, and if you are watercooled, you need good waterblock.

If you are gaming, enable PBO auto to increase single thread ops.
Set PBO power settings correctly (EDC, TDC and PPT) to help multithrad apps.
Enable curve optimiser to reduce processor voltage to keep cores for getting too much heat, but not too much as it will getting unstable.


----------



## GRABibus

greg_p said:


> Hi
> Hard to tell but with a 5950x and a RTX3090, your colling may not be enough for sustain load.
> My config (5950x + RTX2080ti) is custom watercooled and soem demaning games such as CBP2077 makes water temp getting as hish as 40 degress, versus 20° ambiant. I have a 360x45 front, a 240x30 top and an 120x45 back. CPU produces 60 to 90w on games, and the GPU 350W. I bet you have 500w vbios...
> 5950x need good cooling, and if you are watercooled, you need good waterblock.
> 
> If you are gaming, enable PBO auto to increase single thread ops.
> Set PBO power settings correctly (EDC, TDC and PPT) to help multithrad apps.
> Enable curve optimiser to reduce processor voltage to keep cores for getting too much heat, but not too much as it will getting unstable.


Hi Greg,
I am currently finalizing my best overclocks : one is « Per ccx » OC (In signature) and the other one (currently under stress test), is PBO/CO tweaking.
It seems that I have a very good chip because for the PBO/CO, I set -30 all cores, +200MHz, all voltages on Auto and 150/105/150.
I am currently passing HCI memtest 1000%, Aida cache stress test 4 hours. I will do 8 hours Realbench to finalize.

I got some idle reboots ( only during PBO/CO tweaking) that it seems I could solve by disabling C-states (To be confirmed).

My bottleneck for Higher boost is my cooling H115i RGB Platinum. It is a very good cooler, but clearly, a high end 360mm is a minimum for overclocking those beast.

Concerning gaming, you said that PBO is the best option.
From what I tested until now, especially in multithreaded games as Modern Warfare or Cold War, with a cooling as mine, with Static OC, temps are lower than with PBO/CO and are more stable.
With PBO/CO, I have sudden peaks to 80degrees (22degrees ambient), which I don’t get With Per ccx.
maybe those peaks are due to third party background processes (MSI Afterburner, HWINfo, etc...), but it is a fact.

In Overwatch for example, which is more single thread, I have better boost and less high peaks temps with PBO/CO than in MW or CW.

So for gaming, in my opinion, the choice between PBO/CO or Static OC depends on cooling, headroom for the CPU overclock (Silicon) and if the game is a more single thread or is more multi thread.


----------



## bhoot

Sindragosaa said:


> *5950X - BIOS 3102 - Curve Optimiser (CO) Results with negative VCORE offset.*
> 
> PBO Offset +0MHz
> PBO Limits [Manual]
> PPT Limit [W] - 200
> TDC Limit [A] - 255
> EDC Limit [A] - 275
> 
> CO Offsets = -20 best two cores on CCD0, -30 all other cores on CCD0 & CCD1
> 
> *CPU Power Settings:*
> VCORE Voltage Offset = negative 0.01250V (-0.0125)
> CPU LLC = AUTO
> VDDSOC LLC = LLC 3
> CPU CURRENT = MAX
> DRAM CURRENT = MAX
> CPU / DRAM Power Phase Control = Extreme
> 
> *Results: *
> 
> 
> CPUID: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @ 4548.94 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR
> achieving over 5GHz on all cores in CCD0, max boost is 5.05GHz
> achieving over 4.9Ghz on all cores in CCD1, max boost is 4.975GHz
> Sustained effective all core boost is 4.525-533GHz under multi-threaded stress tests (which is very close to my manual OC of 46/45).
> Temps are <80 degC
> So far it is stable, with an uptime of nearly 18 hours with mixed loads and being left on over night doing nothing.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2473852


Hello Sin. Can you post up for BIOS extract for the above quoted post. Previously you posted the BIOS extract, link below, which has different settings to the ones quoted above. Interested in the above BIOS extract.








ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...


Help please... I just installed my Dark Hero with a 5800x and I I can't read the temps with any program. I tried Hwinfo and others that I use normally with no luck. Any idea what it can be?




www.overclock.net


----------



## MultiDoc

GRABibus said:


> Hi,
> Maybe it would be useful that you post your benchmarks and more details about your spec (bios, bios settings, detailed rig, etc..)
> 👍


See attached screenshots and current (very basic) BIOS dump please.
















The BIOS settings file is attached below.




greg_p said:


> Hi
> Hard to tell but with a 5950x and a RTX3090, your colling may not be enough for sustain load.
> My config (5950x + RTX2080ti) is custom watercooled and soem demaning games such as CBP2077 makes water temp getting as hish as 40 degress, versus 20° ambiant. I have a 360x45 front, a 240x30 top and an 120x45 back. CPU produces 60 to 90w on games, and the GPU 350W. I bet you have 500w vbios...
> 5950x need good cooling, and if you are watercooled, you need good waterblock.
> 
> If you are gaming, enable PBO auto to increase single thread ops.
> Set PBO power settings correctly (EDC, TDC and PPT) to help multithrad apps.
> Enable curve optimiser to reduce processor voltage to keep cores for getting too much heat, but not too much as it will getting unstable.


I know, my GPU is limited to 350W and it does indeed go up to a max of 356W (under the heaviest possible load). Cooling is the best i could do for an ITX system in a 12L case like Ncase, I know the limitations and I accept them. Temps so far have been within specs and never had any throttling, but you are correct and the temps are quite high compared to a midi or full tower case. The workaround is (which i have tested) is to keep the panels off and also the dust filters off, then max temps are 56C for the GPU, 77C for the CPU and water goes up to max 53C (ambient temp is stable 24C), can keep them lower even if i max the fans and the pump, but then i'd be missing the whole point of small/quiet and powerfull.

Any advise on ballpark numbers that EDC. TDC and PPT should i try please ? (I have no idea)

If there's any specific screenshot you'd like to see let me know.

Thnanks for taking the time to help!

Edit: uploaded the old bios aida64 mem bench, here's the current one with bios 3202


----------



## superchad

I am getting very frustrated with Asus and the lack of a Non-Beta BIOS with newer AGESA versions, it's been 3 weeks since 3102 and 2 weeks since 3202

does anyone have any Idea when an Agesa 1.2.0.0 Non-beta BIOS will be availible? It looks Like Gigabyte has BIOSs for there X570 boards, so what is taking so long?


----------



## xeizo

superchad said:


> I am getting very frustrated with Asus and the lack of a Non-Beta BIOS with newer AGESA versions, it's been 3 weeks since 3102 and 2 weeks since 3202
> 
> does anyone have any Idea when an Agesa 1.2.0.0 Non-beta BIOS will be availible? It looks Like Gigabyte has BIOSs for there X570 boards, so what is taking so long?


Squash all bugs? Can't set a exact time for that. I'm happy we at least gets beta bioses with the latest AGESA code.


----------



## dr.Rafi

genelecs said:


> Of course. VDIMM voltage is 1.4v, VTT auto (presumably 1/2 at 0.7v)
> 
> View attachment 2476241


I have no experince with other brand ram kits all my kits i use is gskill bdie , and so far most peoples who have issue booting to 1900+ using non gskill kits, your timing look fine to me but is hard to boot with trfc less than 300 with with ram voltage 1.4 , minimum should be 1.48 volt, for bdie is safe to use up to 1.5 volt. and the VDDGCCD look bit high try 1000 and VSOC start with 1.2 volt if it boot normally then try to reduce vsoc by 0.020 volt every time and test latency aida 64 (try 3 times every test, closing all background programs), VSOC too high affect cpu boost and reduce memory performance all together, sweat spot you get the best performance ,reducing more will start increase memory latency and reduce performance .or booting issues.
Edit: and for my knowledge ASUS usually have the biggest vdroop among the other brands, start SOC LLC 4 or 5.


----------



## genelecs

dr.Rafi said:


> I have no experince with other brand ram kits all my kits i use is gskill bdie , and so far most peoples who have issue booting to 1900+ using non gskill kits, your timing look fine to me but is hard to boot with trfc less than 300 with with ram voltage 1.4 , minimum should be 1.48 volt, for bdie is safe to use up to 1.5 volt. and the VDDGCCD look bit high try 1000 and VSOC start with 1.2 volt if it boot normally then try to reduce vsoc by 0.020 volt every time and test latency aida 64 (try 3 times every test, closing all background programs), VSOC too high affect cpu boost and reduce memory performance all together, sweat spot you get the best performance ,reducing more will start increase memory latency and reduce performance .or booting issues.
> Edit: and for my knowledge ASUS usually have the biggest vdroop among the other brands, start SOC LLC 4 or 5.


Just to make a point, I have no issue booting/posting 1866 with these timings (TM5 stable) also 1933-1966-2000 FCLK posts no problem if I raise PLL and relax memory timings at 3866/3933/4000 respectively (1933+ FCLK is not stable for me though, WHEA etc) - it's strictly an issue with 1900 FCLK - It will not post regardless of what I do.

This kit is a b-die.

I will try the above though thank you.


----------



## dr.Rafi

genelecs said:


> Just to make a point, I have no issue booting/posting 1866 with these timings (TM5 stable) also 1933-1966-2000 FCLK posts no problem if I raise PLL. (1933+ FCLK is not stable for me though, WHEA etc) - it's strictly an issue with 1900 FCLK - It will not post regardless of what I do.
> 
> This kit is a b-die.
> 
> I will try the above though thank you.


If you able to boot 1933 or above i assume is ram kit issue. and try higher or lower procodt that might help. gskill bin there bdie well but other brands not sure ,you can start with bios defult, keep cpu .PBO,CO setting all defult and ram timing defult just adjust ram voltage /FCLK/ram speed , SOC LLC, and vddp,vddgs,soc voltages and try.


----------



## genelecs

dr.Rafi said:


> If you able to boot 1933 or above i assume is ram kit issue. and try higher or lower procodt that might help. gskill bin there bdie well but other brands not sure ,you can start with bios defult, keep cpu .PBO,CO setting all defult and ram timing defult just adjust ram voltage /FCLK/ram speed , SOC LLC, and vddp,vddgs,soc voltages and try.


Fairly confident its not a kit issue but happy to be corrected- I've tried at all kinds of RAM frequency and timings (ranging from 2133MHz all the way to 3800MHz mostly using either auto or DRAM calc "safe" presets) My RAM will happily post 3800MHz at any other FCLK other then 1900. It's XMP/DOCP for 4000MHz which again will happily post at any FCLK other then 1900.

I'm led to believe that Q-Code 07 (the error I always get with 1900 FCLK) is related to IF and before DRAM training. I've tried almost 50 different variants on voltages/resistances and no luck and came to the conclusion that I just had a poor IMC/IF on my 5950x. I could accept that as my performance is fine at 3733/1866 FCLK.

However, others with 5950x reported same 1900 FCLK issue in this thread, we discovered by raising PLL voltage we could post 1933/1966/2000!!, it was WHEA unstable but it did POST and booted to Windows no problem. So I conclude (and I apologise for going on and on about this in this thread) that something either on our mobo or CPUs is stopping us post 1900FCLK exactly.
It gets stranger... @PWn3R for example had same issue but he can actually get to 1900 to post but only AFTER after he posts 1933 first. Mine will not (tried this now 20x with different settings), but in both our cases 1933-2000 FCLK is WHEA and not suitable.


----------



## Anulu

This is my 24/7 Setup on the Impact with offset VCore -100mv ,PBO off and Curve Optimizer is -20 on the 2 best Cores of each CCX and -30 on Others.
Bios 3003.I can get 11500+ CB20 Score with PBO and Boost Override but its not worth the higher Temps and Noise with Cpu and Gpu in the Watercooling Loop 240&120 Radiator in NZXT H200i.
Never had WHEAs @1900fclk but i cant get it to work stable 1933+ no matter what i set in Bios.







Edit:
Quick Test with PBO Mainboard Limit,Vcore=Auto and +100 BoostOverride allcore [email protected]
Didnt Change Soc/VDDG Voltages and same CO -20 best 4 Cores -30 other Cores


----------



## Akele

MultiDoc said:


> I’d be grateful if anyone using a Crosshair VIII Impact and a 5950x could post a BIOS settings dump.
> My system consists of the above and the RAM is a Crucial Ballistix 2x32Gb CL16 kit and a watercooled 3090 GPU. I have enabled DOCP and PBO and the system is rock stable and passes all stress tests and benches I’ve tried (cpu-z, karhu ramtest, Cinebench R20 and R23, Heaven, Aida64 etc), however my bench scores aren’t near as good as slthose I see in this thread from other members with similar systems.
> Again I’d be grateful for a bios dump file from anyone with the same (or similar) cpu and motherboard so I could try my hands on. My primary goal is best possible performance while keeping thermals at bay. My cooling consists of 2 x 240 rads (an EK and a slim XSPC) and an iceman reservoir with an EK VTX pump (in an Ncase M1).
> 
> Thanks in advance for any help and suggestions!


Here's the BIOS dump for my Crosshair VIII Formula in case it's of any use to you. I'm using a 5950x with a custom water loop and a RTX 3090 (currently air cooled as my water block hasn't arrived yet). Looking at your your BIOS dump, I think you'd definitely benefit from tuning your secondary RAM timings and utilising the curve optimiser to set a negative offset on the different cores of your CPU. Both made a notable difference to my benchmark scores.

My RAM timings probably aren't as tight as they could be, but they're perfectly stable. Likewise my curve optimiser settings aren't as aggressive as they could be, but I don't want my CPU to be getting too hot while gaming, so I scaled them back a bit.

I used the DRAM Calculator for Ryzen as a starting point for my RAM timings, but the settings it suggested weren't stable, so I tweaked them based on looking at other people's timings on this spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1dsu9K1Nt_7apHBdiy0MWVPcYjf6nOlr9CtkkfN78tSo/htmlview#

I read various guides to figure out the curve optimiser settings, but this one is a decent enough starting point:


Spoiler





__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/khtx1o




I hope this helps a bit. As mentioned my settings could probably be more finely tuned, but I think they're decent and my system is stable. I can run the RAM at 3733MHz with the same timings and pass TM5 and Memtest, but then my system doesn't always boot, so I've just left it at 3600MHz for the moment.


----------



## Sleepycat

MultiDoc said:


> Edit: uploaded the old bios aida64 mem bench, here's the current one with bios 3202
> View attachment 2476281


I don't see anything wrong with your Aida64 memory benchmarks results. They are in line with a 3600 MHz CL16-18-18-38 CR1 timings. The only thing that seems odd is your very low CPU L3 cache results. It is likely because your EDC is set too low.


----------



## Sleepycat

superchad said:


> I am getting very frustrated with Asus and the lack of a Non-Beta BIOS with newer AGESA versions, it's been 3 weeks since 3102 and 2 weeks since 3202
> 
> does anyone have any Idea when an Agesa 1.2.0.0 Non-beta BIOS will be availible? It looks Like Gigabyte has BIOSs for there X570 boards, so what is taking so long?


I found the 3202 beta bios to be more stable than even the official 3003 release. I'm happy to stay on 3202 beta if this was the last bios Asus was ever releasing with regards to performance and stability. I do hope that Asus do release a bios which fixes the USB ports disconnecting with the Reverb G2 though.


----------



## MultiDoc

Sleepycat said:


> I don't see anything wrong with your Aida64 memory benchmarks results. They are in line with a 3600 MHz CL16-18-18-38 CR1 timings. The only thing that seems odd is your very low CPU L3 cache results. It is likely because your EDC is set too low.


Thanks for taking the time to look at this. I currently have EDC, TDC and PPT on Auto, what values would you suggest me to set them to ?


----------



## Spartoi

MultiDoc said:


> Thanks for taking the time to look at this. I currently have EDC, TDC and PPT on Auto, what values would you suggest me to set them to ?


I was also unsure what values to use so what I did was enable PBO and set it to use Motherboard Limits. Install Ryzen Master and check the EDC, TDC, and PPT values. Then use those values as a baseline to not exceed. 

We have the same motherboard and CPU and from my experience as mentioned by another earlier in the thread, adjusting PPT and EDC will have the biggest effect on clock speeds so you will want to find a balance that yields the best performance. I was having some instability so I reset everything to debug the issue, but prior to that I think I was using 190 PPT and 200 EDC. Along with the curve optimizer, I was getting around 4500 - 4550 Mhz all-core clocks with temps maxing around 80C.


----------



## GRABibus

New Bios for C8H :









ROG Crosshair VIII Hero


ROG Crosshair VIII Hero - Carte mère gaming AMD X570 au format ATX avec slot PCIe 4.0, 16 phases d´alimentation, OptiMem III, LAN 2,5 Gb/s, USB 3.2, SATA, M.2 et éclairage Aura Sync



rog.asus.com


----------



## Spawn32

Also for Wifi, seems only to be up on the French site:

ROG Crosshair VIII Hero (WI-FI) (asus.com)


----------



## metalshark

Spawn32 said:


> Also for Wifi, seems only to be up on the French site:
> 
> ROG Crosshair VIII Hero (WI-FI) (asus.com)


It's for all of them - just change 3202 to 3204 in the URL if you can still only see 3202 on the download page.


----------



## GRABibus

Spawn32 said:


> Also for Wifi, seems only to be up on the French site:
> 
> ROG Crosshair VIII Hero (WI-FI) (asus.com)


yes, in France we are always in advance, except for vaccins, masks, Covid tests...😂


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Same for the Dark Hero.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> I found the 3202 beta bios to be more stable than even the official 3003 release. I'm happy to stay on 3202 beta if this was the last bios Asus was ever releasing with regards to performance and stability. I do hope that Asus do release a bios which fixes the USB ports disconnecting with the Reverb G2 though.


ah so I wonder if those are my issues with disconnects sometimes with the Quest 2 as well...


----------



## xeizo

The dl link can just be changed to 3204 from 3202 at the end and it downloads from all sites

edit. someone was faster


----------



## folklore11

xeizo said:


> The dl link can just be changed to 3204 from 3202 at the end and it downloads from all sites


Is it a BETA or official BIOS?


----------



## xeizo

folklore11 said:


> Is the an BETA or official BIOS?


Official


----------



## shaolin95

So this release comes right on time since it seems CTR 2.0 RC3 release date is tomorrow or the 31st for the public


----------



## Chili195

shaolin95 said:


> ah so I wonder if those are my issues with disconnects sometimes with the Quest 2 as well...


Same issue with my Index, but it seems okay in some ports (top four red ones).


----------



## No-one-no1

superchad said:


> I am getting very frustrated with Asus and the lack of a Non-Beta BIOS with newer AGESA versions, it's been 3 weeks since 3102 and 2 weeks since 3202
> 
> does anyone have any Idea when an Agesa 1.2.0.0 Non-beta BIOS will be availible? It looks Like Gigabyte has BIOSs for there X570 boards, so what is taking so long?


I think it's the newer agesa versions with curve optimizer that itself is "beta", and therefore have to mark the bios as beta.


----------



## folklore11

Running new BIOS 3204. No problems so far -5 hrs now-. Mem at 3200, No OC. Here is a screen


----------



## folklore11




----------



## xeizo

Ok, I noticed two things, otherwise the same looks stable.

1. Chipset is raised all the way to 1.184V, even though I set SB at 1.05V, meaning SB is hovering around 66-69C instead of 60C before. Presumably this is to kill the USB-issues, also meaning the X570 chipset is too optimistic specced from the factory. I guess these are the worst I/O chips that becomes X570 chipsets. Ouch.

2. Each core consumes less power under load with same settings, now always below 11W on all cores, before over 11W for all cores. The best boosting ones was up to 14W. Lost 400p in Time Spy CPU benchmark.

Memory looks good:










edit. I lowered SOC to 1.085V and made three small per core adjustments on CO and Time Spy CPU went back to normal. Can't really complain as I'm at the highest percentile in the world for 5900X/RTX3070 so much better is rather impossible. In particular as I'm all on air, no water at all in this rig 










Only nag really is the high chipset voltage, but if that is what it takes to have zero USB issues I guess it is worth it. Just hope the fan is a long life one ....


----------



## Anulu

xeizo said:


> 1. Chipset is raised all the way to 1.184V, even though I set SB at 1.05V, meaning SB is hovering around 66-69C instead of 60C before. Presumably this is to kill the USB-issues, also meaning the X570 chipset is too optimistic specced from the factory. I guess these are the worst I/O chips that becomes X570 chipsets. Ouch.


Chipset Voltage in HWinfo is not the same as SB Voltage in AI Suite my Chipset Voltage Shows 1.184V in HWInfo with Bios 3003 too SB in AI Suite shows 0.994V


----------



## xeizo

Anulu said:


> Chipset Voltage in HWinfo is not the same as SB Voltage in AI Suite my Chipset Voltage Shows 1.184V in HWInfo with Bios 3003 too SB in AI Suite shows 0.994V


Thanks! So I guess HWINFO64 isn't fully compatible with this board yet. Chipset temps are higher so something has changed. I refuse to install AI Suite, we will never know what it shows on my system.

Anyway, bios looks good performance wise, and I have had no WHEA as of yet.


----------



## Anulu

I dont really like Software like AI Suite too but i need it for PumpControl and to read WaterTemp Sensor.I think im gonna uninstall AI Suite and Armory Crate before the Bios Update.


----------



## xeizo

Anulu said:


> I dont really like Software like AI Suite too but i need it for PumpControl and to read WaterTemp Sensor.I think im gonna uninstall AI Suite and Armory Crate before the Bios Update.


There is pump control in Q-fan in the bios, at the bottom of the monitor page are all the fan settings.

Depends on which water rig you have, I use H150i Pro RGB AIO in another rig and there isn't much out there to control it in any logical way. It much lives it's own life. I had to settle for iCue to best keep noise levels kinda low and have some readout.


----------



## PWn3R

dr.Rafi said:


> 07 indicate too high Vddgccd and VDDP voltages, try lower both and you will boot to 1900 in first time.


I just tried this starting at .85 on both and moving up. Nothing I tried will boot 1900. This information about 07 being from voltages too high has to be incorrect.


----------



## genelecs

PWn3R said:


> I just tried this starting at .85 on both and moving up. Nothing I tried will boot 1900. This information about 07 being from voltages too high has to be incorrect.


3204 all working fine for me- it now stops me posting 1933-2000 FCLK at all, so I imagine whatever function was checking IF stability is working properly and the Q-Code 07 which I've always got for 1900 is basically the motherboard saying your IMC is no go. Ah well


----------



## Anulu

xeizo said:


> There is pump control in Q-fan in the bios, at the bottom of the monitor page are all the fan settings.
> 
> Depends on which water rig you have, I use H150i Pro RGB AIO in another rig and there isn't much out there to control it in any logical way. It much lives it's own life. I had to settle for iCue to best keep noise levels kinda low and have some readout.


I have a DDC Pump and rewired the Cable to 3Pin Molex now i can control the Pump on the Pumpconnector with 36w/3A.
If i set QFan in Bios its a Risk the Pump may not start with 63% so i leave it at 100% and let Ai Suite do the Stuff in Windows.

Ai Suite doesnt have to run in the Background the Fan/Pump Curves still work.
For Security i set Alert with Shutdown in HWInfo if Pump fails 

Btw im on the new Bios for CH8 Impact now and looks good so far at 1900fclk same Curve Optimizer and Ram Settings i used before


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Lost a few points in Cinebench.
Top 2 scores were run with the default 2601 BIOS, new score is with 3204.
Same setup, all I did was set DOCP on my 3600Mhz 16-19-19-39 GSkill ram (4x8GB).
Cleared CMOS with BIOS update.

I leave it like that until I get the system completely setup, I always run Cinebench with the first Windows install, just happen to finish building the new machine 30 minutes before the new BIOS dropped.


----------



## PWn3R

genelecs said:


> 3204 all working fine for me- it now stops me posting 1933-2000 FCLK at all, so I imagine whatever function was checking IF stability is working properly and the Q-Code 07 which I've always got for 1900 is basically the motherboard saying your IMC is no go. Ah well


I can post 1933 then switch to 1900 and boot to Windows - it crashes on the desktop. Voltages required to get 1933 to post 1.15 VSOC, 1.075 CCD/IOD 1v VDDP and 1.98 PLL. I had to raise RAM voltage to 1.475 to get it to boot reliably and post on 1900 FCLK. Nothing I tried would get it stable to the point of even being able to open a game. It crashed and reboot long before that on this BIOS version, 3204. For grins to test @dr.Rafi theory, I started at .75 and worked up .025 trying to get 1900 to post directly, all the way up to 1.075. I tried reducing CCD/IOD and VDDP with 1900 booting after booting 1933, down to .950CCD/IOD and .9 VDDP. The system failed to boot with code 07 every time as soon as I started lowering them, it would reboot 3 times (usually) and boot in safemode. In a few cases I got in loops where it would just post code and loop repeatedly requiring hard power cycle. 

I spent 4 hours messing with this on 3204. My summary judgement is it probably didn't hurt anything for those of us that can't boot 1900/1933 (but it probably made it significantly less stable). It does look like this version as a new, different AGESA than the previous BIOS release.


----------



## genelecs

PWn3R said:


> I can post 1933 then switch to 1900 and boot to Windows - it crashes on the desktop. Voltages required to get 1933 to post 1.15 VSOC, 1.075 CCD/IOD 1v VDDP and 1.98 PLL. I had to raise RAM voltage to 1.475 to get it to boot reliably and post on 1900 FCLK. Nothing I tried would get it stable to the point of even being able to open a game. It crashed and reboot long before that on this BIOS version, 3204. For grins to test @dr.Rafi theory, I started at .75 and worked up .025 trying to get 1900 to post directly, all the way up to 1.075. I tried reducing CCD/IOD and VDDP with 1900 booting after booting 1933, down to .950CCD/IOD and .9 VDDP. The system failed to boot with code 07 every time as soon as I started lowering them, it would reboot 3 times (usually) and boot in safemode. In a few cases I got in loops where it would just post code and loop repeatedly requiring hard power cycle.
> 
> I spent 4 hours messing with this on 3204. My summary judgement is it probably didn't hurt anything for those of us that can't boot 1900/1933 (but it probably made it significantly less stable). It does look like this version as a new, different AGESA than the previous BIOS release.


Using your voltages I can actually get 1933 to boot (still think the PLL is key for us here), but its like you super unstable (much more then previously) audio driver crashes the second windows boots... Ah well


----------



## Sindragosaa

bhoot said:


> Hello Sin. Can you post up for BIOS extract for the above quoted post. Previously you posted the BIOS extract, link below, which has different settings to the ones quoted above. Interested in the above BIOS extract.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...
> 
> 
> Help please... I just installed my Dark Hero with a 5800x and I I can't read the temps with any program. I tried Hwinfo and others that I use normally with no luck. Any idea what it can be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


Hi mate; the settings are the same except in the bios dump I just increased the TDC/EDC values to 300 and VCore offset to -0.1V.

Otherwise the rest is the same. This is the setup I've been running stable since that post.


----------



## benbenkr

3204 BIOS is gucci so far?


----------



## metalshark

Had some really aggressive undervolting up until 3202 but have had to dial it back with 3204 to a -0.08125 undervolt, same curve optimiser offsets, as the thread switcher + Prime95 failed (errors on all 32 workers). Seems to be running fine so far (not up to 24 hours) then can see if the curves can get more aggressive. On 3202 the following was stable (5950X) with 0 and 13 being starred, then 1 and 12 being the second best cores.

Offset: -0.100
0: -12
1: -22
2: -27
3: -25
4: -22
5: -21
6: -22
7: -23
8: -26
9: -16
10: -23
11: -26
12: -22
13: -30
14: -20
15: -20


----------



## Sindragosaa

benbenkr said:


> 3204 BIOS is gucci so far?


I tried it, was unable to maintain the same PBO/CO settings that I have in 3102.

I was getting a weird issue , it would not set the EDC value and would always just show as 0 in Ryzen Master and get terrible performance.

So I noped out at that point and went back to 3102 and running my previous settings with an aggressive undervolt. Ill wait for the next one👍

Edit: to be clear, the EDC issue was in conjunction with the PBO/CO settings. @metalshark has posted the fix below for EDC.


----------



## metalshark

Sindragosaa said:


> I tried it, was unable to maintain the same PBO/CO settings that I have in 3102.
> 
> I was getting a weird issue , it would not set the EDC value and would always just show as 0 in Ryzen Master and get terrible performance.
> 
> So I noped out at that point and went back to 3102 and running my previous settings with an aggressive undervolt. Ill wait for the next one👍


Disable Fmax Enhancer under the ASUS PBO settings to fix EDC.


----------



## MultiDoc

I’ve also updated to 3204 bios. The problem I’m having is that when I try to set the PPT, TDC and EDC values under AMD Overclocking in the bios, although I can set the values, in reality they do not change and remain unaltered (checked with Ryzen Master in windows). But If I set them under Extreme tweaker they do stick, but then the performance is far worse.
What is the best way to set PBO on ? In AMD Overclocking or in Asus menu in BIOS? Any way to fix this so when I set POT/TDC/EDC in AMD Overclocking they will actually work?

P.S: the advice you gave me earlier about L3 memory being hit by low EDC was spot on, went to 700+ when I raised the EDC. Stock/Default values that I found are: PPT: 395, TDC: 255, EDC: 200. And was hitting max 53% PPT, 59% TDC and 100% EDC (HWInfo), so I’m trying to decrease PPT and TDC and raise EDC


----------



## Anthos

MultiDoc said:


> I’ve also updated to 3204 bios. The problem I’m having is that when I try to set the PPT, TDC and EDC values under AMD Overclocking in the bios, although I can set the values, in reality they do not change and remain unaltered (checked with Ryzen Master in windows). But If I set them under Extreme tweaker they do stick, but then the performance is far worse.
> What is the best way to set PBO on ? In AMD Overclocking or in Asus menu in BIOS? Any way to fix this so when I set POT/TDC/EDC in AMD Overclocking they will actually work?
> 
> P.S: the advice you gave me earlier about L3 memory being hit by low EDC was spot on, went to 700+ when I raised the EDC. Stock/Default values that I found are: PPT: 395, TDC: 255, EDC: 200. And was hitting max 53% PPT, 59% TDC and 100% EDC (HWInfo), so I’m trying to decrease PPT and TDC and raise ESC


Extreme tweaker takes precedence over the AMD overclocking bios settings.


----------



## MultiDoc

Anthos said:


> Extreme tweaker takes precedence over the AMD overclocking bios settings.


I suspected that, however if I leave AMD oveclocking at defaults and apply the same setting via the extreme tweaked, performance is worse (lower max clocks, about 1000 points less in R23 for example) and also I can’t find Curve Optimizer in Extreme Tweaker, do I miss something ?


----------



## Anthos

MultiDoc said:


> I suspected that, however if I leave AMD oveclocking at defaults and apply the same setting via the extreme tweaked, performance is worse (lower max clocks, about 1000 points less in R23 for example) and also I can’t find Curve Optimizer in Extreme Tweaker, do I miss something ?


The curve does not exist in extreme tweaker so that has to be changed in the AMD bios settings. I am not 100% how it works either to be honest. For example for PBO the motherboard limits does not exist in extreme tweaker so if I set it so in the AMD overclocking part does it get acknowledged? Not sure. For the rest it's a bit similar to my case. With default PBO settings I get the best score. If I manually change the EDC/PPT/TDC I always get worse scores. Increase them and Temp goes up and boosts less. Decrease them and they just boost less.


----------



## Sam64

Anthos said:


> For example for PBO the motherboard limits does not exist in extreme tweaker so if I set it so in the AMD overclocking part does it get acknowledged?


It definitely does. If I leave the PBO Limits in AMD Overclocking to Auto, the AMD default is set for my 5950X (max ~142W PPT). If I set it it to "Mainboard" PPT goes up to ~220W, which results in my best scores.



Anthos said:


> Increase them and Temp goes up and boosts less.


It only boosts less, because your cooling is limiting it. With higher PBO Limits it's all about cooling. Same for me as well: My 240 AiO does a good job as long as I stay inside the mainboard limits and even then i could get better scores with a better cooling solution.


----------



## Anthos

Sam64 said:


> It definitely does. If I leave the PBO Limits in AMD Overclocking to Auto, the AMD default is set for my 5950X (max ~142W PPT). If I set it it to "Mainboard" PPT goes up to ~220W, which results in my best scores.
> 
> 
> 
> It only boosts less, because your cooling is limiting it. With higher PBO Limits it's all about cooling. Same for me as well: My 240 AiO does a good job as long as a stay inside the mainboard limits and even then i could get better scores with a better cooling solution.


Yeah it does get thermally throttled quite easily however I do have it paired up wth a Kraken Z63 which is a 280mm so I don't know what else I can do to it. Unfortunately my 5950x seems to be a very **** overclocker and on top of that I suffer from occassional WHEA 18 / Idle reboot issues so I am trying to prioritise stability over getting as much speed out of it as possible at the moment until I see what's up.

EDIT: I did some playing around with manual PBO settings and I find this quite confusing. Going on manual values even if I increase compared to my mb values temp doesn't get really higher than 79c yet the clocks remain low. Something else must be the limiting factor and I ain't sure what. I'll play with it some more at some point in the future. Only upside with increasing the EDC was able to increase by 2x-3x my L3 cache but it's not really worth the trade off (on mb values I get a pitiful 350~GB/s read).


----------



## arkantos91

shaolin95 said:


> So this release comes right on time since it seems CTR 2.0 RC3 release date is tomorrow or the 31st for the public


Where did you read that? 1usmus on Twitter said february 3rd


----------



## Bostonjunk

Is something up with 3204?

I've not had an issue with a BIOS update before, but I'm getting constant lock-ups with it.
It even locks up in BIOS with default settings loaded, never known anything like this.

EDIT: Now reapplied my BIOS settings and seems stable for now, weirdly.
Also, I used to have my SoC set to 1.050 as it wasn't stable at the default (seems to sit around 1.081) but now it's set to default as I forgot to set it, and it seems stable.
Also, memory latency improved a little - was at 64.9 now at 63.9 - this is on a 3900X.


----------



## GRABibus

Huuuumm...I will stay with 3202 beta currently.


----------



## MultiDoc

Anthos said:


> The curve does not exist in extreme tweaker so that has to be changed in the AMD bios settings. I am not 100% how it works either to be honest. For example for PBO the motherboard limits does not exist in extreme tweaker so if I set it so in the AMD overclocking part does it get acknowledged? Not sure. For the rest it's a bit similar to my case. With default PBO settings I get the best score. If I manually change the EDC/PPT/TDC I always get worse scores. Increase them and Temp goes up and boosts less. Decrease them and they just boost less.


Exactly the same for me. I’ve been tinkering with different bios settings all morning today (change setting go into windows bench and repeat) and the best I got is with PBO on auto.
No matter what (sensible of course) settings I’ve used, never got thermal throttling so that’s not the limiting factor. As you also said, there’s something interfering that as soon as you deviate from auto on PBO and change the PPT/TDC/EDC values the cpu boosts lower, and scores much worse overall. 
In an ideal scenario I’d like to have PBO on auto but just increase the EDC so my L3 scores improve.
I’m at a loss how to do this...

As for stability and WHEA etc, no issues at all. So currently I’ve left PBO on (in Asus menu, not in AMD) and DOCP on manual.

I’d be grateful if someone can shed some light on why we get this behaviour as soon as we touch manually the PPT/TDC/EDC values (which by the was as stock for the Impact board at least are 395/255/200)


----------



## Gadfly

MultiDoc said:


> Exactly the same for me. I’ve been tinkering with different bios settings all morning today (change setting go into windows bench and repeat) and the best I got is with PBO on auto.
> No matter what (sensible of course) settings I’ve used, never got thermal throttling so that’s not the limiting factor. As you also said, there’s something interfering that as soon as you deviate from auto on PBO and change the PPT/TDC/EDC values the cpu boosts lower, and scores much worse overall.
> In an ideal scenario I’d like to have PBO on auto but just increase the EDC so my L3 scores improve.
> I’m at a loss how to do this...
> 
> As for stability and WHEA etc, no issues at all. So currently I’ve left PBO on (in Asus menu, not in AMD) and DOCP on manual.
> 
> I’d be grateful if someone can shed some light on why we get this behaviour as soon as we touch manually the PPT/TDC/EDC values (which by the was as stock for the Impact board at least are 395/255/200)


Candidly, you have no idea what you are doing, and should stop before you degrade the hell out of your CPU (Yes, PBO will kill a CPU if you mess with the limits).

You are massive thermally limited, even if you are not hard throttling. What are your tdie temps when you run CB R20, and what are your scores.


----------



## MultiDoc

Gadfly said:


> Candidly, you have no idea what you are doing, and should stop before you degrade the hell out of your CPU (Yes, PBO will kill a CPU if you mess with the limits).
> 
> You are massive thermally limited, even if you are not hard throttling. What are your tdie temps when you run CB R20, and what are your scores.


I would agree if my temps were out of place, and more importantly if the temps were higher when messing with manual values of PPT/TDC/EDC, but instead temps are lower and boost clocks are lower too.

R23 averages around 27400-27600 and max Tdie temp is 81.6c as per HWInfo 
The score drops to 24600 approximately and temp to 72c with manual PBO 
Also there’s no obvious thermal throttling that I can see via HWInfo either.
Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate your input but this sounds strange to me


----------



## robiatti

Well so far with bios 3204 the results are not to shabby. I still need to work on the voltage though as the idle volts are a bit higher than 3202.


----------



## Anthos

robiatti said:


> Well so far with bios 3204 the results are not to shabby. I still need to work on the voltage though as the idle volts are a bit higher than 3202.
> 
> View attachment 2476518


I am quite new into the whole ZEN architecture but I fail to understand how the L3 scores go. I also have a 5950x and a dark hero and with motherboard limits etc I get a score of like 300-400GB/s L3 read and 400-500GB/s write and copy. The highest I've managed to make it go was around ~800-900GB/s by completely unleashing EDC. From what I see your EDC value is around 200. How is there so much disparity between our results. What obvious thing am I missing?


----------



## robiatti

Anthos said:


> I am quite new into the whole ZEN architecture but I fail to understand how the L3 scores go. I also have a 5950x and a dark hero and with motherboard limits etc I get a score of like 300-400GB/s L3 read and 400-500GB/s write and copy. The highest I've managed to make it go was around ~800-900GB/s by completely unleashing EDC. From what I see your EDC value is around 200. How is there so much disparity between our results. What obvious thing am I missing?


I believe what's happening is when the L3 test is being performed it is switching from PBO to the all core OC hence why the L3 scores are higher. I have noticed if all I am using is straight PBO it tanks down to under 500GB/S.

Now It's just a theory as I do not know for certain.

Additionally,
below is my current OC settings.

Core Performance Boost [Auto]
CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Core VID [1.250]
CCX0 Ratio [46.50]
CCX0 Ratio [46.00]
Dynamic OC Switcher [Enabled]
Current Threshold to Switch to OC Mode [65]
Calibrated Temperature Threshold to switch back [75]
Hysteresis [0]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
Performance Bias [Auto]
PBO Fmax Enhancer [Disabled]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Manual]
PPT Limit [200]
TDC Limit [137]
EDC Limit [145]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Manual]
Customized Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [10X]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [300]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
CPU Core Voltage [Offset mode]

Offset Mode Sign [+]
CPU Core Voltage Offset [0.05000]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.10000]
DRAM Voltage [1.39500]
VDDG CCD Voltage Control [0.950]
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [0.950]
CLDO VDDP voltage [Auto]
1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
CO voltage is -15 across all core


----------



## CyrIng

Is BIOS 3204 fixing those nasty boot errors in Linux ?


----------



## Anulu

MultiDoc said:


> I would agree if my temps were out of place, and more importantly if the temps were higher when messing with manual values of PPT/TDC/EDC, but instead temps are lower and boost clocks are lower too.
> 
> R23 averages around 27400-27600 and max Tdie temp is 81.6c as per HWInfo
> The score drops to 24600 approximately and temp to 72c with manual PBO
> Also there’s no obvious thermal throttling that I can see via HWInfo either.
> Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate your input but this sounds strange to me


Yesterday i played around with PBO Manual Limits on my [email protected] and this was the Result with 170EDC/150TDC/200PPT Offset-50mv +200Boost and Curve Optimizer -20 on the best Cores all Other Cores -30.

Cb20&Cb23








AIDA Stress Test









Updated Bios last Night but i dont like the newer AGESA Version.All Bios Updates after 3003 felt strange and Temps were higher especially Idle.
Always had the Feeling something was going on in the Background,maybe some of my Software or maybe im just crazy i dont know  
Back at Bios 3003 again with USB Flashback.


----------



## Anthos

robiatti said:


> I believe what's happening is when the L3 test is being performed it is switching from PBO to the all core OC hence why the L3 scores are higher. I have noticed if all I am using is straight PBO it tanks down to under 500GB/S.
> 
> Now It's just a theory as I do not know for certain.
> 
> Additionally,
> below is my current OC settings.
> 
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> Core VID [1.250]
> CCX0 Ratio [46.50]
> CCX0 Ratio [46.00]
> Dynamic OC Switcher [Enabled]
> Current Threshold to Switch to OC Mode [65]
> Calibrated Temperature Threshold to switch back [75]
> Hysteresis [0]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> Performance Bias [Auto]
> PBO Fmax Enhancer [Disabled]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Manual]
> PPT Limit [200]
> TDC Limit [137]
> EDC Limit [145]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Manual]
> Customized Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [10X]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [300]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
> CPU Core Voltage [Offset mode]
> 
> Offset Mode Sign [+]
> CPU Core Voltage Offset [0.05000]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.10000]
> DRAM Voltage [1.39500]
> VDDG CCD Voltage Control [0.950]
> VDDG IOD Voltage Control [0.950]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [Auto]
> 1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> CO voltage is -15 across all core


I actually replicated most of your PBO settings and I got my highest ever in CPU-Z for ST. 673, which I know that it ain't really high which is why I really think my CPU barely managed to get binned as a 5950x (CB R20 was 623) [Edit: Took the core voltage to auto and Cpuz went up to 683 never thought I'd see that value with my cpu]. It did however made me realize that obviously with a dark hero you want your PBO values to be low as you are targeting a single core and then using the all core for the rest. I got stuck in the mentality of trying to balance everything just with the PBO. I do think there's a wall into how far I can go though as I've only ever seen I think 2 or 3 of my cores pass 5Ghz. And my best one that windows prefers will occassionally throw a WHEA cache hierarchy error so curving it is a bit of a *****.


----------



## metalshark

arkantos91 said:


> Where did you read that? 1usmus on Twitter said february 3rd


It’s available to Patrons now


----------



## shaolin95

metalshark said:


> It’s available to Patrons now


I was going to do the Patron stuff now BUT it seems that if I do it today, I will be paying the $15 again on February 1st so may as well wait to do it on the 1st


----------



## metalshark

shaolin95 said:


> I was going to do the Patron stuff now BUT it seems that if I do it today, I will be paying the $15 again on February 1st so may as well wait to do it on the 1st


If you’re tempted, 2.1 goes to Patrons tomorrow with curve optimiser support.


----------



## shaolin95

metalshark said:


> If you’re tempted, 2.1 goes to Patrons tomorrow with curve optimiser support.


I am just that it makes more sense to do it on the 1st that way I get the whole month in case of any updates instead of having to pay again on the 1st (if I read that correctly).


----------



## jfrob75

Just updated to new official BIOS 3204. After completing the update, loading optimized defaults, setting DOCP and enabling PBO I booted into windows. Launched HWiNFO64 and noticed the CPU frequency for all cores was sitting at 3400MHz. Ran a CB MT test and the CPU frequency for all cores did not change nor was the CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN). So no boost from PBO2. I was able to manual OC. Very strange behavior. I went to perform a clear CMOS but instead pushed the BIOS button and since the flash drive was still in place it flashed the BIOS again. This time, going thru the same steps PBO2 was now working. Whew!!!! As of right now everything appears to be behaving as it was on BIOS 3201.


----------



## crash_ice

metalshark said:


> It’s available to Patrons now


What is Patrons? 
Thanks


----------



## Sleepycat

crash_ice said:


> What is Patrons?
> Thanks


Patreon, they are subscribers to his Patreon channel. Yuri Bubliy is creating software for Ryzen community | Patreon


----------



## dr.Rafi

Any help how to downgrade bios on asus x570 motherboard with no flash back utility(no special usb or button).


----------



## metalshark

shaolin95 said:


> I am just that it makes more sense to do it on the 1st that way I get the whole month in case of any updates instead of having to pay again on the 1st (if I read that correctly).


You get public access to 2.0 without curve optimiser on the 1st (not 2.1 with it). Patron is to support 1usmus and get early access by about a month.


----------



## metalshark

jfrob75 said:


> Just updated to new official BIOS 3204. After completing the update, loading optimized defaults, setting DOCP and enabling PBO I booted into windows. Launched HWiNFO64 and noticed the CPU frequency for all cores was sitting at 3400MHz. Ran a CB MT test and the CPU frequency for all cores did not change nor was the CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN). So no boost from PBO2. I was able to manual OC. Very strange behavior. I went to perform a clear CMOS but instead pushed the BIOS button and since the flash drive was still in place it flashed the BIOS again. This time, going thru the same steps PBO2 was now working. Whew!!!! As of right now everything appears to be behaving as it was on BIOS 3201.


Sounds like Precision Boost (without the overdrive) was off. If you get that again look for Core Optimiser in the AI options for the base Precision Boost.


----------



## Bostonjunk

3204 still being dodgy for me - after yesterday's initial drama it seemed to settle down and be stable, until it suddenly just switched off out of the blue and switched itself back on again.

Then it was stable again. Then this morning I turned it on, and it wouldn't POST - was stopping with random CPU codes. After about 3 or 4 power cycles it kept stopping at F9 and restarting itself.
Then it POSTed after loading into safe mode. I set the SoC back to 1.050, and it's booted and seems to be stable again.
It's all very odd. I can only assume this BIOS is doing something weird with some voltages somewhere as everything has been fine through many versions - even the 3201 Beta was fine which was using the same AGESA version.


----------



## CyrIng

Such a great board


----------



## Sleepycat

Bostonjunk said:


> 3204 still being dodgy for me - after yesterday's initial drama it seemed to settle down and be stable, until it suddenly just switched off out of the blue and switched itself back on again.


Don't think it's the bios itself, but your settings that you have. Why don't you post the bios settings txt file for us to have a look?


----------



## Bostonjunk

Sleepycat said:


> Don't think it's the bios itself, but your settings that you have. Why don't you post the bios settings txt file for us to have a look?


It's exactly the same settings that have been perfectly stable for about 5 or 6 BIOS versions.
However, it's worth noting it even froze in the BIOS menu at default settings at one point.


----------



## Sleepycat

Just updated my C8H to 3204. Stability with the 5900X seems the same. Scores did go up a little bit. The sustained all-core clock speed throughout CB R23 did improve, staying at above 4.6 GHz from start to end, which I had not seen before. You can see in my screenshot below, CB R23 multi core was almost completed, but the CPU was still at 4.64 GHz! Single core clock in CB R23 was the same as with 3202.

No change in Aida64. But CPU-Z did go up a bit.


----------



## Bostonjunk

I just went back to 3202 and the same settings are solid as a rock.

On 3204, I couldn't even finish a run of Cinebench or the AIDA64 memory bench without the machine restarting itself suddenly.
Identical settings to below. Went back to 3202 and managed to run the benchmarks.
Settings in attached .txt file


----------



## Jesaul

Welcome me to the 5800x club. On 3202 here is my memory overclock.
G.Skill Trident-Z 2x8GB 4000MHz CL17 F4-4000C17D-16GTZR
3800 -14-13-13-13-26-40, Tfaw is 7 1.49v


----------



## metalshark

Jesaul said:


> Welcome me to the 5800x club. On 3202 here is my memory overclock.
> G.Skill Trident-Z 2x8GB 4000MHz CL17 F4-4000C17D-16GTZR
> 3800 -14-13-13-13-26-40, Tfaw is 7 1.49v


I thought the tFAW option was a minimum between that and 4xtRRDS? Is there a speed/latency difference between tFAW 7 and tFAW 16?


----------



## Jesaul

metalshark said:


> I thought the tFAW option was a minimum between that and 4xtRRDS? Is there a speed/latency difference between tFAW 7 and tFAW 16?


Nothing, but.. I could get a screenshot with 52.3ns instead of usual 52.6ns.


----------



## PWn3R

dr.Rafi said:


> Any help how to downgrade bios on asus x570 motherboard with no flash back utility(no special usb or button).


All downgraded on Asus boards requires flashback.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## metalshark

Jesaul said:


> Nothing, but.. I could get a screenshot with 52.3ns instead of usual 52.6ns.


The reason I ask is chances are 6 will work with tFAW. Am pretty sure any numbers under 4x tRRDS are changing to be 4x tRRDS, but you can put in a higher number and it’ll accept it.


----------



## Ov3rdos3

Starting to lose hope here so I decided to talk to the most tech-savvy people on the internet.

I have a CrossHair Formula 8 since a year now coupled with a 3700x and a G.Skill Trident z 2x16GB b-die 3300 CL16 which was running 3733mhz fine for more than a year.

A friend of mine offered me another 2x16gb 3300 CL16 not exactly the same reference F4-3200C16-16GTZA while the one I already own are F4-3200C16-16GTZ, they are exactly the same But new gen chip on GTZA. Here are the specs :



http://imgur.com/a/zPzvrsP


Long Story short I can run 3 sticks but I get WHEA and some BSOD but impossible to boot with 4 sticks or ram. What should I dot to at least get in bios with 4 sticks? I understand that they are not 100% same but everything in the specs is exactly the same.

I can run 3 rams no problem hours playing red dead redemption but I get some random restarts. I am now running everything on stock tried increasing voltage a little bit.

However impossible to even access bios with 4 sticks plugged to MB I get "Code 0D" and sometimes "Code 0D: check HDD" or "Code 0D: bios Menu".

I am running the 3204 bios and before all this mess I was running the 1304 no problem at all.

I will be more than grateful is someone could help.


----------



## Jesaul

Ov3rdos3 said:


> I will be more than grateful is someone could help.


I had some time ago a problem which was bent pin... I did not notice. It led to similar problem with memory


----------



## metalshark

Ov3rdos3 said:


> Starting to lose hope here so I decided to talk to the most tech-savvy people on the internet.
> 
> I have a CrossHair Formula 8 since a year now coupled with a 3700x and a G.Skill Trident z 2x16GB b-die 3300 CL16 which was running 3733mhz fine for more than a year.
> 
> A friend of mine offered me another 2x16gb 3300 CL16 not exactly the same reference F4-3200C16-16GTZA while the one I already own are F4-3200C16-16GTZ, they are exactly the same But new gen chip on GTZA. Here are the specs :
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/zPzvrsP
> 
> 
> Long Story short I can run 3 sticks but I get WHEA and some BSOD but impossible to boot with 4 sticks or ram. What should I dot to at least get in bios with 4 sticks? I understand that they are not 100% same but everything in the specs is exactly the same.
> 
> I can run 3 rams no problem hours playing red dead redemption but I get some random restarts. I am now running everything on stock tried increasing voltage a little bit.
> 
> However impossible to even access bios with 4 sticks plugged to MB I get "Code 0D" and sometimes "Code 0D: check HDD" or "Code 0D: bios Menu".
> 
> I am running the 3204 bios and before all this mess I was running the 1304 no problem at all.
> 
> I will be more than grateful is someone could help.


Also worth checking if each stick on their own works. Can also try a CMOS wipe in case the saved settings got corrupted when under bad RAM timings


----------



## Ov3rdos3

Jesaul said:


> I had some time ago a problem which was bent pin... I did not notice. It led to similar problem with memory


And how did you fix it?




metalshark said:


> Also worth checking if each stick on their own works. Can also try a CMOS wipe in case the saved settings got corrupted when under bad RAM timings


Each ram is functioning correctly


----------



## Jesaul

Ov3rdos3 said:


> And how did you fix it?


I've bought 5800x


----------



## Ov3rdos3

Jesaul said:


> I've bought 5800x


You mean that my cpu is busted?


----------



## Jesaul

Ov3rdos3 said:


> You mean that my cpu is busted?


Look in the motherboard compatibility chart for your memory and number of dimms to answer that question.


----------



## GRABibus

Hi,
still trying to find my best PBO/CO overclock ( See in sig for main settings concerning PBO/CO OC).

other settings are :
Vsoc=1.07V
Vdimm=1.49V
PLL=1.8V
LCC auto CPU and Vsod
CPU and Memory 130% current
CPU and Memory phase on "Optimised"
Cstates disabled
SVM enabled
CPU Spread spectrum disabled

Until now, I had dle rebbots with POB/CO tweakings I tried until now). I was on al cores at -30mV for CO.
I could reduce their number by disabling Cstates, but still idel reboots randomly.

I come back to -20mW 2 best cores and -30mV all other cores and let's see.
The first stability tests I wil do is to use the computer at least for a week and check if no rebbots ar no WHEA's 

If ,no WHEA's and no reboots, then, I will start HCI MemTest "1000% coverage", Realbench "8hours full RAM test" and Aida64 "4 hours cache stress test" (This test is reaalllyyyyy "skilled" to generate WHEA'S as of fclk=1900MHz !)

Here are my CBR20 and Aida64 memory and cache benches currently with my PBO/CO target (21°C-22°C ambient temperature, PC open case, H115i pump on "Extreme" and H115i fans @ 100%) :
























Nice boost at 5150MHz for the Aida64 test


----------



## GRABibus

Arrrgghhh....idle reboot 2 minute ago.

Tweaking and tweaking again


----------



## Chili195

GRABibus said:


> I come back to -20mW 2 best cores and -30mV all other cores and let's see.


Just a note here that in CO the numbers don't represent mV. They are "counts" and each one is equivalent to roughly 3-5mV and adaptive depending on where on the curve you are. So your -20 setting is actually -60mV to -100mV.

Edit: Also +200Mhz boost in addition to running -20/-30 seems pretty ambitious. I would probably consider lowering that first if you are getting instability. I run similar CO settings and my offset is set to +50Mhz. R20 is 647/9250.


----------



## GRABibus

Chili195 said:


> Just a note here that in CO the numbers don't represent mV. They are "counts" and each one is equivalent to roughly 3-5mV and adaptive depending on where on the curve you are. So your -20 setting is actually -60mV to -100mV.
> 
> Edit: Also +200Mhz boost in addition to running -20/-30 seems pretty ambitious. I would probably consider lowering that first if you are getting instability. I run similar CO settings and my offset is set to +50Mhz. R20 is 647/9250.


Ok thanks.

I came back to all cores -30 and +100MHz. Let's see.

I get 646/8879.

Which cooling do you have ?


----------



## dlbsyst

Guys, I have the Beta 3102 for my Hero wifi and 3950x and love it. Do you think I would benefit in any way with the new 3104? Anyone notice and real difference between the two?


----------



## xProlific

Bostonjunk said:


> I just went back to 3202 and the same settings are solid as a rock.
> 
> On 3204, I couldn't even finish a run of Cinebench or the AIDA64 memory bench without the machine restarting itself suddenly.
> Identical settings to below. Went back to 3202 and managed to run the benchmarks.
> Settings in attached .txt file


I was also having trouble with restarts. Solution is to set "Power Supply Idle Control" in the bios to "Typical Current Idle". This fixed it for me.


----------



## Sleepycat

Ov3rdos3 said:


> You mean that my cpu is busted?


Don't think so. I run 4 sticks of B-die and the fastest I can get it to go is 3600. Nothing I do will allow it to boot at 3666. So lower your memory speed to 3600 as a first step.


----------



## No-one-no1

Sleepycat said:


> Don't think so. I run 4 sticks of B-die and the fastest I can get it to go is 3600. Nothing I do will allow it to boot at 3666. So lower your memory speed to 3600 as a first step.


My 5800X will do 4 sticks of b-die at 1900. But that took some serious tweaking to get it to boot, and be stable. (stability is required for it to be fast)


----------



## Sleepycat

No-one-no1 said:


> My 5800X will do 4 sticks of b-die at 1900. But that took some serious tweaking to get it to boot, and be stable. (stability is required for it to be fast)


Wow, I always suspected my SOC was a Friday special. With 2 sticks, it will only reach 3866 CL16 (with WHEAs occurring). With 4 sticks, 3600 CL14 (no WHEAs at all even through benchmark, stability testing or idle). It's not the RAM because if I set it to 3666 CL18, which should work, it still won't even post. I think it is either the memory controller or the IF. That's why I settled with 3600 CL14 instead (no memory errors, no software crashing, no WHEA).


----------



## Ov3rdos3

Sleepycat said:


> Don't think so. I run 4 sticks of B-die and the fastest I can get it to go is 3600. Nothing I do will allow it to boot at 3666. So lower your memory speed to 3600 as a first step.


I would love to just go to bios with 4 sticks I cant even get to the bios. I get error code 0D. I can run 3 sticks fine but 4 is a no.


----------



## Sleepycat

Ov3rdos3 said:


> I would love to just go to bios with 4 sticks I cant even get to the bios. I get error code 0D. I can run 3 sticks fine but 4 is a no.


You have to boot with 2 sticks, turn on DOCP, set it to the standard 3300 CL16 1.35V and the SOC VTT to 1.08V. Save settings, reboot to confirm it works and then turn it off. Put in all your sticks, turn the PC on and keep your fingers crossed. It should boot like this.

With some RAM, you get issues booting with DOCP off when running 4 sticks because DRAM voltage is a little too low due to the daisy chain and hence losing some voltage by the time it reaches the 4th stick. It is probably why you can boot with 3 sticks and not 4.

Once it boots successfully, you can lower your SOC VTT down to about 1.05V but keep in mind that if it doesn't boot successfully at 1.05V, you will need to pull out a RAM stick, go into bios and set it back up to a higher voltage.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Ov3rdos3 said:


> I would love to just go to bios with 4 sticks I cant even get to the bios. I get error code 0D. I can run 3 sticks fine but 4 is a no.





Sleepycat said:


> You have to boot with 2 sticks, turn on DOCP, set it to the standard 3300 CL16 1.35V and the SOC VTT to 1.08V. Save settings, reboot to confirm it works and then turn it off. Put in all your sticks, turn the PC on and keep your fingers crossed. It should boot like this.
> 
> With some RAM, you get issues booting with DOCP off when running 4 sticks because DRAM voltage is a little too low due to the daisy chain and hence losing some voltage by the time it reaches the 4th stick. It is probably why you can boot with 3 sticks and not 4.
> 
> Once it boots successfully, you can lower your SOC VTT down to about 1.05V but keep in mind that if it doesn't boot successfully at 1.05V, you will need to pull out a RAM stick, go into bios and set it back up to a higher voltage.


Can he just hit the "safe mode" power on button on the motherboard and it'll boot the bios with 2133 MHz memory times which almost always posts.


----------



## Sleepycat

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Can he just hit the "safe mode" power on button on the motherboard and it'll boot the bios with 2133 MHz memory times which almost always posts.


Normally yes. But if 1.25V if not enough to get the 4th stick working at 2133 due to voltage drop or weak signal in that 4th slot, it won't post.


----------



## Sleepycat

Gah, my butterfingers caused me to set my SOC VTT to 1.7V instead of 1.07V. At least I saw it when I rebooted and went straight back into bios. Glad I double checked.

I also found that VDDG CDD and VDDG IOD were important to get my PC to post successfully the first time and not take 2 tries. I have them now at 1.06V.


----------



## No-one-no1

Sleepycat said:


> Wow, I always suspected my SOC was a Friday special. With 2 sticks, it will only reach 3866 CL16 (with WHEAs occurring). With 4 sticks, 3600 CL14 (no WHEAs at all even through benchmark, stability testing or idle). It's not the RAM because if I set it to 3666 CL18, which should work, it still won't even post. I think it is either the memory controller or the IF. That's why I settled with 3600 CL14 instead (no memory errors, no software crashing, no WHEA).


Sounds about what mine did on auto settings on the earlier bioses. 3202b has much better auto settings, but still needed a lot of tweaking and testing to get 4x to 1900.
Did 2x 1966 relatively easily, but with the same amount of tweaking might get 2x to 2000.
With very bad performance it would happily run windows even up to 2x 2100 on one of the newer bioses/agesas (don't remember which).


----------



## LtMatt

I've updated from 3003 to 3204 and noticed that Windows Scheduler has started assigning workloads to core 11 of CCD1 of my 5950X. It is not even the second best core on CCD1. CPPC etc is enabled in the BIOS, though Auto behaved the same. My best cores are 1 and 7 and these used to share the light workloads. Now it is shared between 1 and 11 more often than not. However, if i run Cinebench ST then the workload is split between 1 and 7. Very odd, has anyone noticed this behaviour? Gonna try disabling CPPC and see what happens.


----------



## Sleepycat

LtMatt said:


> I've updated from 3003 to 3204 and noticed that Windows Scheduler has started assigning workloads to core 11 of CCD1 of my 5950X. It is not even the second best core on CCD1. CPPC etc is enabled in the BIOS, though Auto behaved the same. My best cores are 1 and 7 and these used to share the light workloads. Now it is shared between 1 and 11 more often than not. However, if i run Cinebench ST then the workload is split between 1 and 7. Very odd, has anyone noticed this behaviour? Gonna try disabling CPPC and see what happens.


I had this problem with 3202. Try flashing 3204 again over your existing 3204.


----------



## LtMatt

Sleepycat said:


> I had this problem with 3202. Try flashing 3204 again over your existing 3204.


Will give it a go, cheers.


----------



## EnJoY

No-one-no1 said:


> My 5800X will do 4 sticks of b-die at 1900. But that took some serious tweaking to get it to boot, and be stable. (stability is required for it to be fast)


I just passed 11+ hours of Prime Blend (after passing TM5) at 1866 with 4x sticks on my 5800x. However, when I rebooted it failed to post and even after various minor tweaks, I still can't get it to post again.

Additionally, I am able to get 1900MHz FCLK stable no problem now on 3204, but I can't get my RAM to run 1:1.

Any suggestions?


----------



## LtMatt

Sleepycat said:


> I had this problem with 3202. Try flashing 3204 again over your existing 3204.


No change unfortunately. Even cleared CMOS after updating. Oh well it seems to use the correct cores in games and benchmarks, just not during Windows usage like idle and browsing.








EDIT
Rolled back to 3003 and that is doing the same. Must be OS side i guess. Using Balanced Windows Power Profile, might try a clean OS install next.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Try VDDP 0.900. 



EnJoY said:


> I just passed 11+ hours of Prime Blend (after passing TM5) at 1866 with 4x sticks on my 5800x. However, when I rebooted it failed to post and even after various minor tweaks, I still can't get it to post again.
> 
> Additionally, I am able to get 1900MHz FCLK stable no problem now on 3204, but I can't get my RAM to run 1:1.
> 
> Any suggestions?
> 
> View attachment 2476823


----------



## jfrob75

I am able to boot into windows with my RAM running at 2000MT/s and IF at 2000 as well as UClk. However, as others have noted, I am getting a bunch WHEA correctable errors. 
Has anyone running their memory at 2000MT/s been able to eliminate the errors? If so how did you do it?
I have my VDIMM at 1.47, PLL_1.8 at 1.9 volts, SOC at 1.1, VDDG CCD at 1.025, VDDG IOD at 1.050 and CLDO VDDP at 0.075.
Except for the WHEA correctable errors everything seems to be performing normally. I am going to be doing some stress testing but curious what others are doing that are able run their memory at this speed.


----------



## EnJoY

Badgerslayer7 said:


> Try VDDP 0.900.


I had it at auto (which is interesting that the board thinks it needs to be that high), but setting it static to .9 makes no difference for boot. vdimm is 1.525v, I may try 1.55v again although it only introduced more errors in my prior testing.

PLL at 1.9v (vs 1.85 as I currently have it) makes no difference, nor does increasing SB voltage to 1.05v.

It's mind boggling that I could boot, run TM5, run Prime Blend for 11+ hours and then reboot and suddenly not be able to boot again at the same settings (or variants there of). I don't understand this board.


----------



## Alemancio

jfrob75 said:


> I am able to boot into windows with my RAM running at 2000MT/s and IF at 2000 as well as UClk. However, as others have noted, I am getting a bunch WHEA correctable errors.
> Has anyone running their memory at 2000MT/s been able to eliminate the errors? If so how did you do it?
> I have my VDIMM at 1.47, PLL_1.8 at 1.9 volts, SOC at 1.1, VDDG CCD at 1.025, VDDG IOD at 1.050 and CLDO VDDP at 0.075.
> Except for the WHEA correctable errors everything seems to be performing normally. I am going to be doing some stress testing but curious what others are doing that are able run their memory at this speed.


People have tried PLL up to 2.1v (not that I suggest it) and SOC 1.15v so you could give that a try.


----------



## Hale59

EnJoY said:


> I had it at auto (which is interesting that the board thinks it needs to be that high), but setting it static to .9 makes no difference for boot. vdimm is 1.525v, I may try 1.55v again although it only introduced more errors in my prior testing.
> 
> PLL at 1.9v (vs 1.85 as I currently have it) makes no difference, nor does increasing SB voltage to 1.05v.
> 
> It's mind boggling that I could boot, run TM5, run Prime Blend for 11+ hours and then reboot and suddenly not be able to boot again at the same settings (or variants there of). I don't understand this board.











MSI MEG X570 Unify Overclocking & Discussion Thread


finally got 2000IF stable :p 1hr pass no WHEA errors




www.overclock.net


----------



## metalshark

Hale59 said:


> MSI MEG X570 Unify Overclocking & Discussion Thread
> 
> 
> finally got 2000IF stable :p 1hr pass no WHEA errors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


People have been getting good results with the MSI/Gigabyte boards. Think we're limited this time round with the ASUS boards. That was even with GDM disabled hitting 2000IF/4000RAM.


----------



## xeizo

metalshark said:


> People have been getting good results with the MSI/Gigabyte boards. Think we're limited this time round with the ASUS boards. That was even with GDM disabled hitting 2000IF/4000RAM.


It shouldn't be the board, Ryzen is a SOC and the Asus boards can run 4400MHz memory all day if it's unlinked. It has to be what settings the bios applies, Asus is often at the high end of different voltages, and silicon lottery.

At the sunny side of things so does the Asus boards have the lowest DPC latency of all the boards, great for multimedia, but it could be a factor limiting max OC of course if Asus has tighter latencies.


----------



## GRABibus

Could someone provide me by PM the 3202 beta bios for the Crosshair VIII Hero (The non-Wifi one) ?
We can’t download it anymore from Asus site.

thank you in advance.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

EnJoY said:


> I had it at auto (which is interesting that the board thinks it needs to be that high), but setting it static to .9 makes no difference for boot. vdimm is 1.525v, I may try 1.55v again although it only introduced more errors in my prior testing.
> 
> PLL at 1.9v (vs 1.85 as I currently have it) makes no difference, nor does increasing SB voltage to 1.05v.
> 
> It's mind boggling that I could boot, run TM5, run Prime Blend for 11+ hours and then reboot and suddenly not be able to boot again at the same settings (or variants there of). I don't understand this board.


What about VRM spread spectrum do you have that disabled?


----------



## EnJoY

Hale59 said:


> MSI MEG X570 Unify Overclocking & Discussion Thread
> 
> 
> finally got 2000IF stable :p 1hr pass no WHEA errors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


Unfortunately, this user has only 2x8GB while I'm running 4x8GB like Gadfly and some other members. Gadfly's exact settings don't work for me despite the fact that I have the same RAM.



Badgerslayer7 said:


> What about VRM spread spectrum do you have that disabled?


I have not disabled this as I wasn't sure what it did - I'll try that next. What is this feature's purpose?


----------



## GRABibus

EnJoY said:


> Unfortunately, this user has only 2x8GB while I'm running 4x8GB like Gadfly and some other members. Gadfly's exact settings don't work for me despite the fact that I have the same RAM.
> 
> 
> 
> I have not disabled this as I wasn't sure what it did - I'll try that next. What is this feature's purpose?


this is a feature to reduce High frequency emitted signals in order to be compliant with EMC (ElectroMagnetic Compatibility) international standards.

it is highly recommended to disable this feature when Overclocking.


----------



## Stoke

Hi, got 2 questions, hope you can help me. 
HWInfo isn't showing the speed of my chipset fan, can't find it in BIOS (3204) either. 
At the same time, I was wondering if, my Chipset temps are too high. 74 C during gaming, 65 C in idle. 
Guess during summer it will go up to 80+ C


----------



## GRABibus

Stoke said:


> Hi, got 2 questions, hope you can help me.
> HWInfo isn't showing the speed of my chipset fan, can't find it in BIOS (3204) either.
> At the same time, I was wondering if, my Chipset temps are too high. 74 C during gaming, 65 C in idle.
> Guess during summer it will go up to 80+ C
> View attachment 2476841


I get between 60degrees and 65degrees on chipset in Cold War for example, with my 3090 fully overclocked.
As I set my GPU fans at 100% in gaming, I wonder if it has as consequence to cool the chipset, as it is just below the big heatsink of the EVGA 3090.

Is your GPU on first PCIe slot ?
Maybe trying with the GPU in the other GPU slot so that the fan of the chipset is not covered by the card ?

it is just an idea, just to check.,,,


----------



## mismatchedyes

LtMatt said:


> I've updated from 3003 to 3204 and noticed that Windows Scheduler has started assigning workloads to core 11 of CCD1 of my 5950X. It is not even the second best core on CCD1. CPPC etc is enabled in the BIOS, though Auto behaved the same. My best cores are 1 and 7 and these used to share the light workloads. Now it is shared between 1 and 11 more often than not. However, if i run Cinebench ST then the workload is split between 1 and 7. Very odd, has anyone noticed this behaviour? Gonna try disabling CPPC and see what happens.


I had the same problem. Toggling Cool and Quiet ( PSS Support) to disabled then booting to Windows before going back into the BIOS and reenabling Cool and Quiet and booting back into Windows fixed it for me.


----------



## xeizo

Stoke said:


> Hi, got 2 questions, hope you can help me.
> HWInfo isn't showing the speed of my chipset fan, can't find it in BIOS (3204) either.
> At the same time, I was wondering if, my Chipset temps are too high. 74 C during gaming, 65 C in idle.
> Guess during summer it will go up to 80+ C
> View attachment 2476841


It's the same chip as the I/O-die in the CPU, and the CPU is rated for 90C constant operation, I suppose the chipset can do 90C just as good meaning up to 80C should be safe. Would be nice if it was cooler though.


----------



## Alemancio

Stoke said:


> g the speed of my chipset fan, can't find it in BIOS (3204) either.
> At the same time, I was wondering if, my Chipset temps are too high. 74 C during gaming, 65 C in idl


Is it a 5800X? because they run considerably hotter than other Zen3


----------



## D0MINUS

GRABibus said:


> Could someone provide me by PM the 3202 beta bios for the Crosshair VIII Hero (The non-Wifi one) ?
> We can’t download it anymore from Asus site.
> 
> thank you in advance.


It's still there, but you need to edit the link:

https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...II_HERO/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3202.ZIP


----------



## GRABibus

D0MINUS said:


> It's still there, but you need to edit the link:
> 
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...II_HERO/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3202.ZIP


thanks !


----------



## crash_ice

i have a C8HD and my Chipset are at 76 .
i don't know why .
5900X and 6900xt and all my system is WC whit Ek Custom cooling whit EK AMD Kit.
I don't know why it's so hot


----------



## Badgerslayer7

EnJoY said:


> Unfortunately, this user has only 2x8GB while I'm running 4x8GB like Gadfly and some other members. Gadfly's exact settings don't work for me despite the fact that I have the same RAM.
> 
> 
> 
> I have not disabled this as I wasn't sure what it did - I'll try that next. What is this feature's purpose?


Not sure entirely but it’s recommended to be disabled if your overclocking and my system won’t boot either without it being disabled. Although I do have four dimms of ram at 3800mhz.


----------



## CyrIng

mismatchedyes said:


> I had the same problem. Toggling Cool and Quiet ( PSS Support) to disabled then booting to Windows before going back into the BIOS and reenabling Cool and Quiet and booting back into Windows fixed it for me.


Are you saying that the PSS option in BIOS is in fact the legacy Cool and Quiet feature ?


----------



## EnJoY

mismatchedyes said:


> I had the same problem. Toggling Cool and Quiet ( PSS Support) to disabled then booting to Windows before going back into the BIOS and reenabling Cool and Quiet and booting back into Windows fixed it for me.


This did not work for me. I'm still seeing higher utilization on physical core 5 (logical cores 10 and 11).


----------



## EnJoY

Well, well, well...it seems the tables have turned Asus. Behold 1900MHz 1:1 at last!

I disabled VRM spread spectrum, kept trying things and couldn't get it to boot at 1866MHz 1:1 again. Reloaded my super stable 1733mhz 1:1 profile, then set some of the final secondary timings to static values rather than leaving them auto. Set the recommended voltages, disabled spread spectrum and also set PLL to 1.85v and SB to 1.05v.

Finally booted at 1866MHz at 1.5v vdimm and ran TM5. Rebooted again, bumped to 1900MHz 1:1 and booted! Ran TM5 and system crashed. Increased vdimm to 1.525, booted and just finished a successful run of TM5.

Going to try prime blend overnight now and see what happens. It's amazing how finicky these boards are as it pertains to training the settings. You have to be so methodical, and really ensure the proper order to get stability. The settings order matters just as much as the settings themselves.


----------



## LtMatt

mismatchedyes said:


> I had the same problem. Toggling Cool and Quiet ( PSS Support) to disabled then booting to Windows before going back into the BIOS and reenabling Cool and Quiet and booting back into Windows fixed it for me.


Thanks I will give this a go.


----------



## LtMatt

CyrIng said:


> Are you saying that the PSS option in BIOS is in fact the legacy Cool and Quiet feature ?


Where is this PSS option? I thought it was the C States option.


----------



## Sleepycat

Stoke said:


> Hi, got 2 questions, hope you can help me.
> HWInfo isn't showing the speed of my chipset fan, can't find it in BIOS (3204) either.
> At the same time, I was wondering if, my Chipset temps are too high. 74 C during gaming, 65 C in idle.
> Guess during summer it will go up to 80+ C
> View attachment 2476841


Are you using the latest version of HWInfo?

My chipset temperature also idles at 67 ºC.


----------



## genelecs

LtMatt said:


> Where is this PSS option? I thought it was the C States option.


Advanced>CPU Options> It should be the first option.


----------



## LtMatt

genelecs said:


> Advanced>CPU Options> It should be the first option.


Thanks will try it.


----------



## LtMatt

genelecs said:


> Advanced>CPU Options> It should be the first option.


Made no difference for me unfortunately with it disabled, save boot into Windows then re-enable it.


----------



## Metarom

Hi, I would like to get help on the behavior of my system that I cannot seem to explain or correct (5950X, C8H en bios 3202, DRR4-3600-C16).
Whatever the settings I use in the Bios, I systematically end up with a BCLK lower than 99 Mhz and very poor L3 performance.
The L3 performance raises a little when I setup a higher EDC but it never reaches the values I see here and there. And a higher EDC value hits my cores speed.
Would anyone care to explain ?


----------



## Stoke

Sleepycat said:


> Are you using the latest version of HWInfo?
> 
> My chipset temperature also idles at 67 ºC.


HWInfo Version 6.42. Found the PCH Fan via Asus Suite now. Idle RPM ~3000. Guess the main "problem" is the 3090 FE, blocking most of the airflow of the chipset fan.


----------



## Sleepycat

Stoke said:


> HWInfo Version 6.42. Found the PCH Fan via Asus Suite now. Idle RPM ~3000. Guess the main "problem" is the 3090 FE, blocking most of the airflow of the chipset fan.


That's odd, I'm also using 6.42 but I can see all the information which is missing from yours. My fan spins at roughly 2780 rpm, with idle chipset temperatures of 67 ºC. I have an EVGA 3080 XC3 with the card sitting right over the inlet of the chipset fan. I tried increasing the speed of the 3rd GPU fan that sits over the chipset fan intake and temperatures dropped very slightly by 1 ºC. Not really worth the higher fan RPM that I set it to.


----------



## Sleepycat

Metarom said:


> Hi, I would like to get help on the behavior of my system that I cannot seem to explain or correct (5950X, C8H en bios 3202, DRR4-3600-C16).
> Whatever the settings I use in the Bios, I systematically end up with a BCLK lower than 99 Mhz and very poor L3 performance.
> The L3 performance raises a little when I setup a higher EDC but it never reaches the values I see here and there. And a higher EDC value hits my cores speed.
> Would anyone care to explain ?


Something else might be causing it. Can you use the settings export function in the bios to export the settings text file?


----------



## GRABibus

Stoke said:


> HWInfo Version 6.42. Found the PCH Fan via Asus Suite now. Idle RPM ~3000. Guess the main "problem" is the 3090 FE, blocking most of the airflow of the chipset fan.


yes this is what I suggested in a post yesterday.
Wilth my EVGA 3090 ultra FTW3, it has a big heatsink which is in front of the chipset fan.
When I set my GPU fans at 100% in gaming, I get lower than 60 degrees in chipset while gaming (22degrees ambient.)
I idle at less than 60 degrees also.

maybe a try by switching the GPU on the other PCIe slot...?


----------



## LtMatt

Metarom said:


> Hi, I would like to get help on the behavior of my system that I cannot seem to explain or correct (5950X, C8H en bios 3202, DRR4-3600-C16).
> Whatever the settings I use in the Bios, I systematically end up with a BCLK lower than 99 Mhz and very poor L3 performance.
> The L3 performance raises a little when I setup a higher EDC but it never reaches the values I see here and there. And a higher EDC value hits my cores speed.
> Would anyone care to explain ?
> View attachment 2476908
> 
> View attachment 2476909


Under the tweakers menu, disable Spread Spectrum.

I think you can ignore the L3 cache speeds. That said, If you go into the first PBO menu on the Extreme Tweaker page and set it to Manual, and put EDC to 500, you should have silly high L3 cache speeds similar to a all core manual overclock. Leave the other PBO menu at default/advanced for Curve Optimizer changes only. 
L3 high cache in games and benchmarks does not appear to make any difference outside of Aida64.


----------



## Metarom

Thanks for your replies, here is the Bios Dump.
Spread Spectrum is already disabled. It didn't make any difference. You mention I shouldn't worry about that L3 cache speed in the end, I agree : the important result is the global performance score in the benchmark tools. But it is still an indicator of something potentially to improve. I'll test with your suggestion and report back.
With the enclosed settings, I get 664 pts in single and 12715 in multi with CPUZ, and 1575 pts in single and 27500 in multi with R23. I know I can improve those scores, working on it.


----------



## tchabada

Metarom said:


> Thanks for your replies, here is the Bios Dump.
> Spread Spectrum is already disabled. It didn't make any difference. You mention I shouldn't worry about that L3 cache speed in the end, I agree : the important result is the global performance score in the benchmark tools. But it is still an indicator of something potentially to improve. I'll test with your suggestion and report back.
> With the enclosed settings, I get 664 pts in single and 12715 in multi with CPUZ, and 1575 pts in single and 27500 in multi with R23. I know I can improve those scores, working on it.


You have enabled SVM(virtualization). There is known problem reporting correct BCLK when virtualization is enabled.


----------



## LtMatt

tchabada said:


> You have enabled SVM(virtualization). There is known problem reporting correct BCLK when virtualization is enabled.


Do you have any more information on this?


----------



## Metarom

OK. I'll try to disable SVM, I use virtual machines on my PC, so I will need it but it is worth a shot.


----------



## metalshark

Metarom said:


> OK. I'll try to disable SVM, I use virtual machines on my PC, so I will need it but it is worth a shot.


If there's no difference, the only time I've seen ~98.5MHz BCLK is with spread spectrum enabled (check the CPU VRM options).


----------



## Metarom

OK, so SVM was the main reason --> when disabled (and Spread Spectrum still disabled) --> back to 100 Mhz.
THANKS !









I will go back to testing global performance to see if it improves, but first look at HWINFO during the Aida test shows a effective clock at 4,9 on one core without CO settings.
Thanks again !


----------



## domdtxdissar

domdtxdissar said:


> One last hurrah for bios 3003 before i update to a bios with AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.0 and support for Nvidia smart access memory.
> Cold air benching with EK custom waterloop+TechN Zen3 waterblock
> Curve optimizer = -30 allcore
> Stable in everything i throw at it, and no WHEA errors.
> View attachment 2475341
> 
> Cinebench r23 multithread = 32229 points
> Cinebench r23 singlethread = 1729 points
> 
> Cinebench r20 multithread = 12441 points
> Cinebench r20 singlethread = 674 points
> 
> Cinebench r15 multithread = 5404 points
> Cinebench r15 multithread = 288 points
> 
> CPU-Z validator @ AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @ 4798.88 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR
> 
> Some Asus realbench + Passmark performancetest numbers @ PassMark Software - Display Baseline ID# 1359214 (This machine is ranked #36 out of 156355 results globally)
> View attachment 2475342
> 
> 
> Geekbench 4 @ ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser
> Singlethread = 8215 points
> Multithread = 74733 points
> 
> Geekbench5 @ ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser
> Singlethread = 1844 points
> Multithread = 20054 points
> 
> Some heavy IBT high+very high and Y-Cruncher numbers:
> View attachment 2475343
> 
> 
> Did also run a full sweep of all 3dmarks, but i will post that in one other thread
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Bios dump
> 
> 
> 
> [2021/01/20 16:26:21]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3800MHz]
> FCLK Frequency [1900MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Enabled]
> CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> Core VID [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> Performance Bias [Auto]
> PBO Fmax Enhancer [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Manual]
> PPT Limit [300]
> TDC Limit [235]
> EDC Limit [245]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Manual]
> Customized Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [4X]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [50]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> Trcdrd [15]
> Trcdwr [8]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [12]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [24]
> Trc [36]
> TrrdS [4]
> TrrdL [4]
> Tfaw [16]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [10]
> Twr [12]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [2]
> TwrwrScl [2]
> Trfc [252]
> Trfc2 [187]
> Trfc4 [115]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [6]
> Trdwr [9]
> Twrrd [2]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [6]
> TwrwrDd [6]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [5]
> TrdrdDd [5]
> Tcke [Auto]
> ProcODT [40 ohm]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [RZQ/7]
> RttWr [RZQ/3]
> RttPark [RZQ/1]
> MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
> Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> CPU Current Capability [140%]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed CPU VRM Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Current Capability [130%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
> CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
> Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CPU Core Voltage [Offset mode]
> 
> Offset Mode Sign [+]
> CPU Core Voltage Offset [0.01250]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.11875]
> DRAM Voltage [1.54500]
> VDDG CCD Voltage Control [0.890]
> VDDG IOD Voltage Control [Auto]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [0.880]
> 1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
> PSS Support [Enabled]
> PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
> NX Mode [Enabled]
> SVM Mode [Disabled]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
> SMART Self Test [Enabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
> PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
> When system is in working state [All On]
> Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
> When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [All On]
> Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Enabled]
> Realtek PXE OPROM [Disabled]
> Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
> Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
> ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
> Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Disabled]
> Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
> USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX16_2 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX16_3 Mode [Auto]
> M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
> M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
> SB Link Mode [Auto]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> Above 4G Decoding [Enabled]
> Re-Size BAR Support [Auto]
> SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
> Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> Corsair Voyager GTX 0 [Auto]
> USB Device Enable [Enabled]
> U32G2_2 [Enabled]
> U32G2_3 [Enabled]
> U32G2_4 [Enabled]
> U32G1_10 [Enabled]
> U32G1_11 [Enabled]
> USB12 [Enabled]
> USB13 [Enabled]
> U32G2_7 [Enabled]
> U32G2_8 [Enabled]
> U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Device [SATA6G_7: Samsung SSD 850 PRO 1TB]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> VRM Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> PCH Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Flow Rate [Monitor]
> CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> CPU Fan Step Up [2.1 sec]
> CPU Fan Step Down [0 sec]
> CPU Fan Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> CPU Fan Profile [Manual]
> CPU Fan Upper Temperature [70]
> CPU Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> CPU Fan Middle Temperature [50]
> CPU Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [50]
> CPU Fan Lower Temperature [30]
> CPU Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [40]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Manual]
> Chassis Fan 1 Upper Temperature [70]
> Chassis Fan 1 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 1 Middle Temperature [50]
> Chassis Fan 1 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [65]
> Chassis Fan 1 Lower Temperature [20]
> Chassis Fan 1 Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Manual]
> Chassis Fan 2 Upper Temperature [65]
> Chassis Fan 2 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 2 Middle Temperature [45]
> Chassis Fan 2 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Chassis Fan 2 Lower Temperature [40]
> Chassis Fan 2 Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Manual]
> Chassis Fan 3 Upper Temperature [70]
> Chassis Fan 3 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 3 Middle Temperature [45]
> Chassis Fan 3 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 3 Lower Temperature [40]
> Chassis Fan 3 Min Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
> High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
> High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> High Amp Fan Profile [Manual]
> High Amp Fan Upper Temperature [70]
> High Amp Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> High Amp Fan Middle Temperature [45]
> High Amp Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [70]
> High Amp Fan Lower Temperature [30]
> High Amp Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Water Pump+ Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Water Pump+ Upper Temperature [70]
> Water Pump+ Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Water Pump+ Middle Temperature [50]
> Water Pump+ Middle Duty Cycle (%) [65]
> Water Pump+ Lower Temperature [30]
> Water Pump+ Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> AIO Pump Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> AIO Pump Upper Temperature [70]
> AIO Pump Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> AIO Pump Middle Temperature [50]
> AIO Pump Middle Duty Cycle (%) [65]
> AIO Pump Lower Temperature [30]
> AIO Pump Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Above 4GB MMIO Limit [39bit (512GB)]
> Fast Boot [Enabled]
> Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
> Boot Logo Display [Disabled]
> Bootup NumLock State [On]
> POST Report [5 sec]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
> Launch CSM [Disabled]
> OS Type [Other OS]
> AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
> Flexkey [Reset]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> Load from Profile [5]
> Profile Name [20.01 minus 30]
> Save to Profile [5]
> DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
> Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Enabled]
> CPU Frequency [0]
> CPU Voltage [0]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> Core control [Auto]
> SMT Control [Auto]
> Overclock [Enabled ]
> Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
> Tcl [Auto]
> Trcdrd [Auto]
> Trcdwr [Auto]
> Trp [Auto]
> Tras [Auto]
> Trc Ctrl [Auto]
> TrrdS [Auto]
> TrrdL [Auto]
> Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
> TwtrS [Auto]
> TwtrL [Auto]
> Twr Ctrl [Auto]
> Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
> TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
> TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
> Tcwl [Auto]
> Trtp [Auto]
> Tcke [Auto]
> Trdwr [Auto]
> Twrrd [Auto]
> TwrwrSc [Auto]
> TwrwrSd [Auto]
> TwrwrDd [Auto]
> TrdrdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSd [Auto]
> TrdrdDd [Auto]
> ProcODT [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
> ECO Mode [Disable]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
> PBO Limits [Motherboard]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> Curve Optimizer [Per Core]
> Core 0 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 1 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 2 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 3 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 4 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 5 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 6 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 7 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 8 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 9 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 10 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 11 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 12 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 12 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 13 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 13 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 14 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 14 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 15 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 15 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [0MHz]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
> LN2 Mode [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
> L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
> SMEE [Auto]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> Global C-state Control [Disabled]
> Power Supply Idle Control [Typical Current Idle]
> SEV ASID Count [Auto]
> SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
> Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
> Local APIC Mode [Auto]
> ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
> MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
> PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
> Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
> Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
> RdRand Speedup Disable [Enabled]
> IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
> DRAM scrub time [Auto]
> Poison scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> Memory interleaving [Auto]
> Memory interleaving size [Auto]
> 1TB remap [Auto]
> DRAM map inversion [Auto]
> ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
> GMI encryption control [Auto]
> xGMI encryption control [Auto]
> CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
> 4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> 3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
> PcsCG control [Auto]
> Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
> Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
> CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
> Memory Clear [Auto]
> Overclock [Enabled]
> Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
> Tcl [Auto]
> Trcdrd [Auto]
> Trcdwr [Auto]
> Trp [Auto]
> Tras [Auto]
> Trc Ctrl [Auto]
> TrrdS [Auto]
> TrrdL [Auto]
> Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
> TwtrS [Auto]
> TwtrL [Auto]
> Twr Ctrl [Auto]
> Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
> TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
> TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
> Tcwl [Auto]
> Trtp [Auto]
> Tcke [Auto]
> Trdwr [Auto]
> Twrrd [Auto]
> TwrwrSc [Auto]
> TwrwrSd [Auto]
> TwrwrDd [Auto]
> TrdrdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSd [Auto]
> TrdrdDd [Auto]
> ProcODT [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
> DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Data Poisoning [Auto]
> DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
> RCD Parity [Auto]
> DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
> Write CRC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
> Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
> DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
> DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
> TSME [Auto]
> Data Scramble [Auto]
> DFE Read Training [Auto]
> FFE Write Training [Auto]
> PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
> MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
> CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
> Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
> BankGroupSwap [Auto]
> BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
> Address Hash Bank [Auto]
> Address Hash CS [Auto]
> Address Hash Rm [Auto]
> SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
> MBIST Enable [Disabled]
> Pattern Select [PRBS]
> Pattern Length [6]
> Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
> Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
> Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> IOMMU [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> FCLK Frequency [Auto]
> SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
> UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
> LN2 Mode [Auto]
> ACS Enable [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
> PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
> cTDP Control [Auto]
> EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
> Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
> APBDIS [Auto]
> DF Cstates [Auto]
> CPPC [Auto]
> CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
> NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
> Early Link Speed [Auto]
> Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
> Preferred IO [Auto]
> CV test [Auto]
> Loopback Mode [Auto]
> Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]


So i have finally updated my crosshair viii hero to bios 3204.
No major changes compared to bios 3003 other than i don't need to run with cpu +voltage offset anymore and UBS ports are alittle less buggy with the hp reverb g2 vr headset.

Have seen alot of talk about the OCCT "large data set" stresstest in regards to WHEA errors and how hard it was to run error-free, so i decided to give it a 1 hour run 
















Completed without any errors on my 24/7 settings, which are: (fans on auto)

-30 allcore curve optimizer
4x8gigabyte samsung b-die @ 1900/3800mhz 1:1 with the infinity fabric.
This is my bloaty gaming windows, so latency are alittle on the high side.


----------



## Stoke

Sleepycat said:


> That's odd, I'm also using 6.42 but I can see all the information which is missing from yours. My fan spins at roughly 2780 rpm, with idle chipset temperatures of 67 ºC. I have an EVGA 3080 XC3 with the card sitting right over the inlet of the chipset fan. I tried increasing the speed of the 3rd GPU fan that sits over the chipset fan intake and temperatures dropped very slightly by 1 ºC. Not really worth the higher fan RPM that I set it to.


Update: Within HWInfo I had to select the Asus EC Sensor Monitoring option. I now have the GPU in the 2nd PCI-E slot, and the chipset is almost 15 degrees cooler under load.


----------



## Metarom

No improvement on my benchmark scores (and no drop) but I feel much more confident to continue to play around and try to raise them.
Having setup the EDC to 200A, the L3 cache perf was now capable of going beyond 500 Gb/s, so disabling SVM might have some other interesting effects that I need to test.


----------



## Anthosm

Metarom said:


> Thanks for your replies, here is the Bios Dump.
> Spread Spectrum is already disabled. It didn't make any difference. You mention I shouldn't worry about that L3 cache speed in the end, I agree : the important result is *real world performance* . But it is still an indicator of something potentially to improve. I'll test with your suggestion and report back.
> With the enclosed settings, I get 664 pts in single and 12715 in multi with CPUZ, and 1575 pts in single and 27500 in multi with R23. I know I can improve those scores, working on it.


Fixed it for you


----------



## shaolin95

domdtxdissar said:


> So i have finally updated my crosshair viii hero to bios 3204.
> No major changes compared to bios 3003 other than i don't need to run with cpu +voltage offset anymore and UBS ports are alittle less buggy with the hp reverb g2 vr headset.
> 
> Have seen alot of talk about the OCCT "large data set" stresstest in regards to WHEA errors and how hard it was to run error-free, so i decided to give it a 1 hour run
> View attachment 2476943
> 
> View attachment 2476944
> 
> Completed without any errors on my 24/7 settings, which are: (fans on auto)
> 
> -30 allcore curve optimizer
> 4x8gigabyte samsung b-die @ 1900/3800mhz 1:1 with the infinity fabric.
> This is my bloaty gaming windows, so latency are alittle on the high side.


I have never been able to hit 12K in CB20...heck I dont think I have seen 11800 yet. Guess my CPU may not be a gem or cooling not allowing to boost enough.


----------



## MainSource

shaolin95 said:


> I have never been able to hit 12K in CB20...heck I dont think I have seen 11800 yet. Guess my CPU may not be a gem or cooling not allowing to boost enough.


To all who are interested, I have been using the new bios 3204 with the crosshair viii hero wifi(agesa 1.2), yet stuck with the (2.10.13.408) chipset from back in october. I checked the amd page today and still no new chipset, however on the asus crosshair bios/drivers page a new chipset has arrived as of today , 2.11.26.106, apparently this has been in the wild for a while now. Anyone have any intel on it and why is it not on amds official page yet?


----------



## EnJoY

MainSource said:


> To all who are interested, I have been using the new bios 3204 with the crosshair viii hero wifi(agesa 1.2), yet stuck with the (2.10.13.408) chipset from back in october. I checked the amd page today and still no new chipset, however on the asus crosshair bios/drivers page a new chipset has arrived as of today , 2.11.26.106, apparently this has been in the wild for a while now. Anyone have any intel on it and why is it not on amds official page yet?


I've been wondering the same since these first popped up a few months back. I would not install anything that is not on AMD's website directly as it pertains to their product drivers.

With that said, strange that with a new product they haven't released any updates officially since October, especially with the rapid updates to the AGESA.


----------



## xeizo

MainSource said:


> To all who are interested, I have been using the new bios 3204 with the crosshair viii hero wifi(agesa 1.2), yet stuck with the (2.10.13.408) chipset from back in october. I checked the amd page today and still no new chipset, however on the asus crosshair bios/drivers page a new chipset has arrived as of today , 2.11.26.106, apparently this has been in the wild for a while now. Anyone have any intel on it and why is it not on amds official page yet?


You're late, 2.11.26 is up on the Dark Hero page as of today

edit. you had seen it


----------



## EnJoY

xeizo said:


> You're late, 2.11.26 is up on the Dark Hero page as of today
> 
> edit. you had seen it


Interesting...I take back what I just said. Looks like all components within this driver are updated from the previous version. I'll try this after work.


----------



## Chili195

MainSource said:


> To all who are interested, I have been using the new bios 3204 with the crosshair viii hero wifi(agesa 1.2), yet stuck with the (2.10.13.408) chipset from back in october. I checked the amd page today and still no new chipset, however on the asus crosshair bios/drivers page a new chipset has arrived as of today , 2.11.26.106, apparently this has been in the wild for a while now. Anyone have any intel on it and why is it not on amds official page yet?


I had a quick flick through the listed driver versions in the release notes and couldn't see any difference in driver versions from what was installed previously with 2.10.13.408 from the AMD site on Windows 10. There were a few I couldn't locate on my computer though.


----------



## Cavanta

MainSource said:


> To all who are interested, I have been using the new bios 3204 with the crosshair viii hero wifi(agesa 1.2), yet stuck with the (2.10.13.408) chipset from back in october. I checked the amd page today and still no new chipset, however on the asus crosshair bios/drivers page a new chipset has arrived as of today , 2.11.26.106, apparently this has been in the wild for a while now. Anyone have any intel on it and why is it not on amds official page yet?


Just installed it! Will check if I notice anything.
I am currently running PBO on Auto with 1800 1:1 just for being lazy.

Can`t find anything on the changes tho. In thechangelog is no info on this either.


----------



## Cavanta

Hhhmm, after installing it and updating the HAL software in Armory crate I can now finally control my VIII Formula from Armory crate.
Before this kept being reset after setting it in the BIOS itself.


----------



## domdtxdissar

shaolin95 said:


> I have never been able to hit 12K in CB20...heck I dont think I have seen 11800 yet. Guess my CPU may not be a gem or cooling not allowing to boost enough.


i can tell you getting above 10k with a PBO Fmax 3950x was much harder then passing 12k with a CO 5950x








Luck of the draw in regards to silicon quality also i guess..


----------



## MainSource

xeizo said:


> You're late, 2.11.26 is up on the Dark Hero page as of today
> 
> edit. you had seen it


yeah i was just curious why its not on the official ryzen x570 page, usually they are the first to post these things, maybe its not stable on every x570 board yet


----------



## shaolin95

domdtxdissar said:


> i can tell you getting above 10k with a PBO Fmax 3950x was much harder then passing 12k with a CO 5950x
> 
> Luck of the draw in regards to silicon quality also i guess..


Do you mind posting your BIOS dump just to see what I get? 
thanks!


----------



## domdtxdissar

shaolin95 said:


> Do you mind posting your BIOS dump just to see what I get?
> thanks!


I don't think you can just copy my settings, but here you go 


Spoiler: bios settings



[2021/02/02 20:57:04]
Ai Overclock Tuner [D.O.C.P. Standard]
D.O.C.P. [D.O.C.P DDR4-3603 16-16-16-36-1.35V]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3800MHz]
FCLK Frequency [1900MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Core VID [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
Performance Bias [Auto]
PBO Fmax Enhancer [Disabled]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Manual]
PPT Limit [300]
TDC Limit [235]
EDC Limit [245]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [50]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
Trcdrd [15]
Trcdwr [8]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [12]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [24]
Trc [36]
TrrdS [4]
TrrdL [4]
Tfaw [16]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [10]
Twr [12]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [2]
TwrwrScl [2]
Trfc [252]
Trfc2 [187]
Trfc4 [115]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [6]
Trdwr [9]
Twrrd [2]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [6]
TwrwrDd [6]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [5]
TrdrdDd [5]
Tcke [Auto]
ProcODT [40 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [Auto]
RttWr [Auto]
RttPark [Auto]
MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
MemCkeSetup [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [Auto]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
CPU Current Capability [140%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
Active Frequency Mode [Disabled]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Current Capability [130%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.18125]
DRAM Voltage [1.54500]
VDDG CCD Voltage Control [0.890]
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [Auto]
CLDO VDDP voltage [0.880]
1.00V SB Voltage [1.05000]
1.8V PLL Voltage [1.85000]
TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Enabled]
PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
NX Mode [Enabled]
SVM Mode [Disabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
CCD Control [Auto]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
SMART Self Test [Auto]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
When system is in working state [All On]
Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [All On]
Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Auto]
Realtek PXE OPROM [Setup]
Intel LAN Controller [Auto]
Intel LAN OPROM [Setup]
ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Disabled]
Bluetooth Controller [Disabled]
USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_2 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
SB Link Mode [Auto]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Above 4G Decoding [Enabled]
Re-Size BAR Support [Auto]
SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
Corsair Voyager GTX 0 [Auto]
USB Device Enable [Enabled]
U32G2_2 [Enabled]
U32G2_3 [Enabled]
U32G2_4 [Enabled]
U32G1_10 [Enabled]
U32G1_11 [Enabled]
USB12 [Enabled]
USB13 [Enabled]
U32G2_7 [Enabled]
U32G2_8 [Enabled]
U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Device [SATA6G_7: Samsung SSD 850 PRO 1TB]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
PCH Fan Speed [Monitor]
Flow Rate [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
CPU Fan Step Up [2.1 sec]
CPU Fan Step Down [0 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Low Limit [Ignore]
CPU Fan Profile [Manual]
CPU Fan Upper Temperature [70]
CPU Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
CPU Fan Middle Temperature [50]
CPU Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [50]
CPU Fan Lower Temperature [30]
CPU Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [40]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [Ignore]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Manual]
Chassis Fan 1 Upper Temperature [70]
Chassis Fan 1 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 1 Middle Temperature [50]
Chassis Fan 1 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Chassis Fan 1 Lower Temperature [20]
Chassis Fan 1 Min Duty Cycle (%) [50]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [Ignore]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Manual]
Chassis Fan 2 Upper Temperature [65]
Chassis Fan 2 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 2 Middle Temperature [45]
Chassis Fan 2 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [75]
Chassis Fan 2 Lower Temperature [40]
Chassis Fan 2 Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [Ignore]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Manual]
Chassis Fan 3 Upper Temperature [70]
Chassis Fan 3 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 3 Middle Temperature [45]
Chassis Fan 3 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 3 Lower Temperature [40]
Chassis Fan 3 Min Duty Cycle (%) [100]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [Ignore]
High Amp Fan Profile [Manual]
High Amp Fan Upper Temperature [70]
High Amp Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
High Amp Fan Middle Temperature [45]
High Amp Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [100]
High Amp Fan Lower Temperature [40]
High Amp Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Water Pump+ Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Water Pump+ Upper Temperature [70]
Water Pump+ Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Water Pump+ Middle Temperature [50]
Water Pump+ Middle Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Water Pump+ Lower Temperature [40]
Water Pump+ Min Duty Cycle (%) [100]
AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Auto]
AIO Pump Q-Fan Source [CPU]
AIO Pump Upper Temperature [70]
AIO Pump Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
AIO Pump Middle Temperature [45]
AIO Pump Middle Duty Cycle (%) [65]
AIO Pump Lower Temperature [40]
AIO Pump Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Above 4GB MMIO Limit [39bit (512GB)]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
Boot Logo Display [Disabled]
Bootup NumLock State [On]
POST Report [5 sec]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Disabled]
OS Type [Other OS]
AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
Flexkey [Reset]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [5]
Profile Name [3204 bios done]
Save to Profile [5]
DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Disabled]
CPU Frequency [0]
CPU Voltage [0]
CCD Control [Auto]
Core control [Auto]
SMT Control [Auto]
Overclock [Enabled ]
Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
Tcl [Auto]
Trcdrd [Auto]
Trcdwr [Auto]
Trp [Auto]
Tras [Auto]
Trc Ctrl [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr Ctrl [Auto]
Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
ECO Mode [Disable]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
PBO Limits [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Curve Optimizer [Per Core]
Core 0 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 1 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 2 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 3 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 4 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 5 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 6 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 7 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 8 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 9 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 10 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 11 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 12 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 12 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 13 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 13 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 14 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 14 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 15 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 15 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [0MHz]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
SMEE [Auto]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
Global C-state Control [Disabled]
Power Supply Idle Control [Auto]
SEV ASID Count [Auto]
SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
Local APIC Mode [Auto]
ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
DRAM scrub time [Auto]
Poison scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Memory interleaving [Auto]
Memory interleaving size [Auto]
1TB remap [Auto]
DRAM map inversion [Auto]
ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
GMI encryption control [Auto]
xGMI encryption control [Auto]
CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
PcsCG control [Auto]
Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
Memory Clear [Auto]
Overclock [Enabled]
Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
Tcl [Auto]
Trcdrd [Auto]
Trcdwr [Auto]
Trp [Auto]
Tras [Auto]
Trc Ctrl [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr Ctrl [Auto]
Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Data Poisoning [Auto]
DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
RCD Parity [Auto]
DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
Write CRC Enable [Auto]
DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
TSME [Auto]
Data Scramble [Auto]
DFE Read Training [Auto]
FFE Write Training [Auto]
PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
BankGroupSwap [Auto]
BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
Address Hash Bank [Auto]
Address Hash CS [Auto]
Address Hash Rm [Auto]
SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
MBIST Enable [Disabled]
Pattern Select [PRBS]
Pattern Length(VMR) [6]
Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
IOMMU [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
FCLK Frequency [Auto]
SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
ACS Enable [Auto]
PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
cTDP Control [Auto]
EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
APBDIS [Auto]
DF Cstates [Auto]
CPPC [Auto]
CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
Early Link Speed [Auto]
Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
Preferred IO [Auto]
CV test [Auto]
Loopback Mode [Auto]
SRIS [Auto]
Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]


----------



## MainSource

Cavanta said:


> Hhhmm, after installing it and updating the HAL software in Armory crate I can now finally control my VIII Formula from Armory crate.
> Before this kept being reset after setting it in the BIOS itself.


same settings except i have PBO at advanced , scalar at 4, oc at 200, no limits, curve at -22 except -12 for the 2 top cores, now on my 5900x i always see clocks at 5150 , or 5024 constantly, all core is 4.7 i believe, temp never go's over 70, cept a little when i do cb20 all core


----------



## PWn3R

I haven't tested PBO recently to see if turning it on still slaps you with a cache performance hit on the 3204 bios. Did anyone else test that yet?


----------



## shaolin95

PWn3R said:


> I haven't tested PBO recently to see if turning it on still slaps you with a cache performance hit on the 3204 bios. Did anyone else test that yet?


It does.


----------



## Sleepycat

Metarom said:


> Thanks for your replies, here is the Bios Dump.
> Spread Spectrum is already disabled. It didn't make any difference. You mention I shouldn't worry about that L3 cache speed in the end, I agree : the important result is the global performance score in the benchmark tools. But it is still an indicator of something potentially to improve. I'll test with your suggestion and report back.
> With the enclosed settings, I get 664 pts in single and 12715 in multi with CPUZ, and 1575 pts in single and 27500 in multi with R23. I know I can improve those scores, working on it.


The single core score is just slightly lower than a 5900x, but not too bad, so it is not a clock speed issue. The multicore being much lower indicates that it is being limited either by power/current.

I saw that you have these settings set, manually. Were they set for troubleshooting purposes?
CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
CPU Current Capability [130%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed CPU VRM Switching Frequency(KHz) [300]
CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed VDDSOC Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
DRAM Current Capability [120%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [300]

While you have the above set to allow more current than standard, your actual PBO limits are still conservative and limit the total current that the CPU can draw under multicore loads.:
Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
PBO Limits [Manual]
PPT Limit [W] [215]
TDC Limit [A] [150]
EDC Limit [A] [135]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Curve Optimizer [Disabled]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [0MHz]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]

You can try these settings as a starting point to increase the current that your CPU can draw, given you had already increased the motherboard's current supply potential. This should be able to help your CB R23 scores improve:
Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
PBO Limits [Manual]
PPT Limit [W] [220]
TDC Limit [A] [200]
EDC Limit [A] [160]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [200MHz]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Manual]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [85]


----------



## Sleepycat

Metarom said:


> I will go back to testing global performance to see if it improves, but first look at HWINFO during the Aida test shows a effective clock at 4,9 on one core without CO settings.


I'd use Ryzen Master or HWInfo to check what core speeds it hits when running CB R23 single and multi core. The reason being I have had Aida report clockspeeds from 4.8 to 4.975 GHz depending on luck and randomness when it takes its reading. So I have stopped relying on that as an indicator of top clocks and just use Ryzen Master or HWinfo.


----------



## Sleepycat

MainSource said:


> To all who are interested, I have been using the new bios 3204 with the crosshair viii hero wifi(agesa 1.2), yet stuck with the (2.10.13.408) chipset from back in october. I checked the amd page today and still no new chipset, however on the asus crosshair bios/drivers page a new chipset has arrived as of today , 2.11.26.106, apparently this has been in the wild for a while now. Anyone have any intel on it and why is it not on amds official page yet?


Is that chipset driver for Dark Hero or Hero? I am looking at the regular Hero Wifi page and only seeing 2.09.28.509 from October 2020.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Sleepycat said:


> Is that chipset driver for Dark Hero or Hero? I am looking at the regular Hero Wifi page and only seeing 2.09.28.509 from October 2020.


Eu site there dated for today. Just installing now. Thanks @MainSource fir the heads up.


----------



## xProlific

The speed of my Ram 3800MHz but I can't run FCLK above1833 without getting WHEA errors even on the latest Bios so I have it underclocked to 3666MHz with tight timings that I have tested to be stable in karhu ram test for several hours.

For my settings I turned on Dynamic OC Switcher in the Bios I set Core VID to 1.3 and CCX0 ratio to 46.5 for both CCDs and set current threshold to switch to OC mode to 75 amps. For PBO I set Limits to Motherboard, I left the scalar at Auto (maybe I'll play with this later), set an all core curve of -10, and a Max CPU Boost Override of 100MHz (I tried 200 but that gave me system reboots).

Thoughts? Multi seems good but but maybe single core can be improved.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Just a headups from a post i made in a other thread in regards to the newest bios:



> I can confirm this, lost ~100mhz singlethread updating crosshair viii hero wifi bios 3003 to 3204 (non beta,final bios) with AGESA 1.2.00.
> Went from effective clocks ~5100mhz to 5000mhz on my 5950x in cinebench r20 singlethread. (highly optimized 24/7 tuned settings with c-state disable for -30 allcore CO stable)
> 
> Multithread is the same or a smidge better.
> 
> Only reason for my upgrade to AGESA 1.2.00 is SAM support for Nvidia.. Otherwise i was perfectly fine on 3003 bios.











Replaced 3950X with 5950X = WHEA and reboots


Hey again, so, my 5900X 2037SUS that i couldn't even make stable went to rma last week and and a new 2052SUS came back last friday as a replacement from AMD. It is certainly at least a bit better than the 37 was, in way that it doesn't reboot as fast as the old one lol but I've got a couple...




www.overclock.net


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

MainSource said:


> To all who are interested, I have been using the new bios 3204 with the crosshair viii hero wifi(agesa 1.2), yet stuck with the (2.10.13.408) chipset from back in october. I checked the amd page today and still no new chipset, however on the asus crosshair bios/drivers page a new chipset has arrived as of today , 2.11.26.106, apparently this has been in the wild for a while now. Anyone have any intel on it and why is it not on amds official page yet?


The number might not correlate to one another, AMD website vs ASUS website. When you initiate the install, it should list to you what chipset drivers will actually be installed. Does it still say "2.11.26.106?"


----------



## Badgerslayer7

KingEngineRevUp said:


> The number might not correlate to one another, AMD website vs ASUS website. When you initiate the install, it should list to you what chipset drivers will actually be installed. Does it still say "2.11.26.106?"


It’s here ROG Crosshair VIII Hero | ROG Crosshair | Gaming Motherboards｜ROG - Republic of Gamers｜ROG United Kingdom


----------



## dlbsyst

KingEngineRevUp said:


> The number might not correlate to one another, AMD website vs ASUS website. When you initiate the install, it should list to you what chipset drivers will actually be installed. Does it still say "2.11.26.106?"


I installed it and compared. It is newer but the only thing that has changed is it has a new AMD Ryzen Power plan. I'm still deciding which I like better.

Edit: Oh, I'm running the latest 3204 BIOS.


----------



## GRABibus

dlbsyst said:


> I installed it and compared. It is newer but the only thing that has changed is it has a new AMD Ryzen Power plan. I'm still deciding which I like better.
> 
> Edit: Oh, I'm running the latest 3204 BIOS.


i have installed it and I don't see any AMD power plan in Power Windows option....


----------



## dlbsyst

GRABibus said:


> i have installed it and I don't see any AMD power plan in Power Windows option....


Its under Control Panel > Hardware and Sound > Power Options. You should see AMD Ryzen Balanced and AMD Ryzen High Performance as options. I recommend AMD Ryzen Balanced with some changes to your liking.


----------



## GRABibus

dlbsyst said:


> Its under Control Panel > Hardware and Sound > Power Options. You should see AMD Ryzen Balanced and AMD Ryzen High Performance as options. I recommend AMD Ryzen Balanced with some changes to your liking.


no sorry, under control panel => power options, I don’t see any AMD power plan. This has been removed for Ryzen 5000.

whixh CPU do you have?


----------



## dlbsyst

GRABibus said:


> no sorry, under control panel => power options, I don’t see any AMD power plan. This has been removed for Ryzen 5000.
> 
> whixh CPU do you have?


I have a 3950X GRABibus. I didn't know they removed it for the 5000 series cpu's. That's very interesting.


----------



## GRABibus

Yes they did 😊


----------



## Elrick

dlbsyst said:


> I have a 3950X GRABibus. I didn't know they removed it for the 5000 series cpu's. That's very interesting.


Interesting to see if they indeed improve upon efficiency in power usage or simply become another 'Gas-Guzzler' with Power Consumption, that Intel has supplied for many years now.

Maybe even 'Biden' might pass new laws concerning efficient CPUs being the norm and crippling the electrical "Gas-Guzzlers' from ever functioning within the Market. That I would love to see if he decides to become serious about cutting back incentives for companies to continue making power consuming PC hardware.

Of course that would only be my predilection towards using a very efficient PC that functions 24/7, using about the same power as a 7w led bulb per hour but be able to process full videos, 3D rendering and real time modelling, using that type of hardware.


----------



## Metarom

Thank you Sleepycat, I'll look into your suggestions today.


----------



## Metarom

Sleepycat said:


> The single core score is just slightly lower than a 5900x, but not too bad, so it is not a clock speed issue. The multicore being much lower indicates that it is being limited either by power/current.
> 
> I saw that you have these settings set, manually. Were they set for troubleshooting purposes?
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> CPU Current Capability [130%]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed CPU VRM Switching Frequency(KHz) [300]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed VDDSOC Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
> DRAM Current Capability [120%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [300]
> 
> While you have the above set to allow more current than standard, your actual PBO limits are still conservative and limit the total current that the CPU can draw under multicore loads.:
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
> PBO Limits [Manual]
> PPT Limit [W] [215]
> TDC Limit [A] [150]
> EDC Limit [A] [135]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> Curve Optimizer [Disabled]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [0MHz]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
> 
> You can try these settings as a starting point to increase the current that your CPU can draw, given you had already increased the motherboard's current supply potential. This should be able to help your CB R23 scores improve:
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
> PBO Limits [Manual]
> PPT Limit [W] [220]
> TDC Limit [A] [200]
> EDC Limit [A] [160]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [200MHz]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Manual]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [85]


I used some info I gathered to setup the board at its best current potential (for instance given by DRAM calculator under the power tab). I know I don't use this full potential (yet ?), and maybe I never will, but the board is able to do it and as such I know the limitations won't be there.
The PBO limits that I chose are based on testing with CB R23 and happen to maximize my CPU frequencies while limiting the temp at 83°C. But I'm still learning and I'll test with your suggestions. And I confim that I use either Ryzen master or HWINFO for clock speed readings.


----------



## CyrIng

LtMatt said:


> Where is this PSS option? I thought it was the C States option.


Just use the BIOS integrated search tab.

Original question is : PSS (an ACPI structure) is or not the so called Cool & Quiet ?


----------



## genelecs

CTR 2.0 is now out - wonder if anyone has had any sucess with it!


----------



## GRABibus

genelecs said:


> CTR 2.0 is now out - wonder if anyone has had any sucess with it!


what is the aim of it ?


----------



## genelecs

GRABibus said:


> what is the aim of it ?


Worth a read - Clock Tuner for Ryzen 2.0 Tutorial and Download - New version with support for Ryzen 5000, Hybrid OC and Phoenix Mode | igor´sLAB


----------



## arkantos91

So for ctr 2.0 it says to set performance enhancer to disabled. In bios I only have auto, default, level 1/2/3. What of these corresponds to disabled? Why the heck motherboard makers do not use the same names for the same damn things?


----------



## xeizo

I've heard critiscism that it only improves multi which isn't that impressive, it's sustained single core that is hard to optimize for


----------



## custom90gt

Maybe someone here can help me before I dump this Asus Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi for a Gigabyte board.

I'm having issues getting my ram to run at basically any speed at or above 3200mhz. I can get it to post fine but rebooting or going to sleep causes me to have to clear cmos and load the profile again.

System:
CPU - 5900x (also tried my 5800x but same issues)
RAM - GSkill F4-3600C16D-32GTZN (also tried the cheap F4-3600C18D-32GTZN from my server).
BIOS - Tried 3202 and 3204.

I've tried the following things:
Loaded XMP
Manually input XMP values or more loose settings
Tried a variety of ram timings at 3200mhz, 3400mhz, and 3600mhz
Increased dram voltage to 1.4, 1.45, and 1.5v
Set SOC voltage to 1.0, 1.05, and 1.1v
Disabled Gear down and power down settings
Disabled VRM spread spectrum
Disabled SVM
Set VDDG voltages to 1.06
I've even tried bad bin settings from DRAM calculator

None of this has worked. What really ticks me off is that my Gigabyte x570 Aorus Pro Wifi works without a hitch with both sets of ram. I'm pretty much at wits' end here. Thanks for reading all of this btw.


----------



## Sam64

GRABibus said:


> what is the aim of it ?


Afaik it basically runs automated curve optimizations for each core, that's it. Done that already manually and learned many things, which i would've not learned using CTR...


----------



## Chili195

I think I've already tweaked out my overclock but I gave CTR 2.0 a go and it seems like a really nifty piece of software with great presentation. Ran a diagnostic on my CPU and it initially received a Silver rating. After adjusting LLC as it suggested and changing my CPU Phase Power Control to Extreme it achieved a "Golden" rating with an energy coefficient of 4.12. The recommended frequency and voltage (4.65 @ 1.275v) seemed pretty much exactly what I found when manually finding my all-core overclock before I decided to stick with PBO+CO. 

I think the next version will have the killer feature of figuring out the optimisation per core for Curve Optimiser, which is a total pain to do manually although I'm not sure how it will test for stability there which remains the challenge.


----------



## shaolin95

Sam64 said:


> Afaik it basically runs automated curve optimizations for each core, that's it. Done that already manually and learned many things, which i would've not learned using CTR...


Auto CO is not out yet.
My main goal for trying it was so thought it could do like the dark hero and offer the dynamic oc feature but i can't figure it out so far (if it's even there).


----------



## xeizo

custom90gt said:


> Maybe someone here can help me before I dump this Asus Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi for a Gigabyte board.
> 
> I'm having issues getting my ram to run at basically any speed at or above 3200mhz. I can get it to post fine but rebooting or going to sleep causes me to have to clear cmos and load the profile again.
> 
> System:
> CPU - 5900x (also tried my 5800x but same issues)
> RAM - GSkill F4-3600C16D-32GTZN (also tried the cheap F4-3600C18D-32GTZN from my server).
> BIOS - Tried 3202 and 3204.
> 
> I've tried the following things:
> Loaded XMP
> Manually input XMP values or more loose settings
> Tried a variety of ram timings at 3200mhz, 3400mhz, and 3600mhz
> Increased dram voltage to 1.4, 1.45, and 1.5v
> Set SOC voltage to 1.0, 1.05, and 1.1v
> Disabled Gear down and power down settings
> Disabled VRM spread spectrum
> Disabled SVM
> Set VDDG voltages to 1.06
> I've even tried bad bin settings from DRAM calculator
> 
> None of this has worked. What really ticks me off is that my Gigabyte x570 Aorus Pro Wifi works without a hitch with both sets of ram. I'm pretty much at wits' end here. Thanks for reading all of this btw.


You have gone lost in all the settings, just saying, I use the less than top bin TridentZ 3600c17 32 GTRZ RGB and had 3800MHz c16 running from first boot using same settings I had on CH7.

Has worked fine on all the recent bioses.

XMP settings are far from right, go back in the thread and look at what we have posted in the form of settings. Also, GDM better be enabled. And B-die works fine with much lower VDIMM, 1.35-1.38V is good for 3800MHz.

If you have Hynix DJR or Micron E instead of B-die the same is doable, but you may have to use c18 as base. I have cheap Hynix DJR running 3800MHz in my B550-F.


----------



## metalshark

xeizo said:


> I've heard critiscism that it only improves multi which isn't that impressive, it's sustained single core that is hard to optimize for


The newer builds of 2.1 solves that, or at least will.


----------



## xeizo

metalshark said:


> The newer builds of 2.1 solves that, or at least will.
> View attachment 2477092


Looks great if it is true, the highest sustained boost i have now is 4923MHz, 100MHz more would be a treat.


----------



## Sam64

shaolin95 said:


> Auto CO is not out yet.
> My main goal for trying it was so thought it could do like the dark hero and offer the dynamic oc feature but i can't figure it out so far (if it's even there).


Ah ok, thanks. Well, let's see.

Anyhow i can recommend to give it a try with CO. Yes, it's pain in the ass, but now I know, what every single core is capable off. For example: It's useless to set a -30 value, if the core already reaches it's max boost at -10.


----------



## custom90gt

xeizo said:


> You have gone lost in all the settings, just saying, I use the less than top bin TridentZ 3600c17 32 GTRZ RGB and had 3800MHz c16 running from first boot using same settings I had on CH7.
> 
> Has worked fine on all the recent bioses.
> 
> XMP settings are far from right, go back in the thread and look at what we have posted in the form of settings. Also, GDM better be enabled. And B-die works fine with much lower VDIMM, 1.35-1.38V is good for 3800MHz.
> 
> If you have Hynix DJR or Micron E instead of B-die the same is doable, but you may have to use c18 as base. I have cheap Hynix DJR running 3800MHz in my B550-F.


Maybe my board is just bad then. All of those settings were individually changed to see if it would increase stability but no luck. Neither my B-die's or my Hynix work at 3200mhz or above in this board. Again, I've tried manually entering timings as well as XMP but nothing makes a difference. GDM on or off doesn't increase stability in my system. Again these settings work perfect in my gigabyte board. 

I'm open to any other suggestions before dumping this board...


----------



## xeizo

@custom90gt : Attached are the settings I've been running the last week with no issues, take a look!


----------



## Sleepycat

custom90gt said:


> Maybe someone here can help me before I dump this Asus Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi for a Gigabyte board.
> 
> I'm having issues getting my ram to run at basically any speed at or above 3200mhz. I can get it to post fine but rebooting or going to sleep causes me to have to clear cmos and load the profile again.


Post your bios settings txt file which you can save from the bios.


----------



## Sleepycat

Metarom said:


> I used some info I gathered to setup the board at its best current potential (for instance given by DRAM calculator under the power tab). I know I don't use this full potential (yet ?), and maybe I never will, but the board is able to do it and as such I know the limitations won't be there.
> The PBO limits that I chose are based on testing with CB R23 and happen to maximize my CPU frequencies while limiting the temp at 83°C. But I'm still learning and I'll test with your suggestions. And I confim that I use either Ryzen master or HWINFO for clock speed readings.


All the best and hope it helps with your set up. If you want, you can set the Platform Thermal Throttle Limit to 83. That will hard limit your CPU to 83 ºC, without you having to worry about having too high PBO limits. There will be some workloads where you hit the temperature limit first, and others where you hit the current limits first. So we are looking for the highest possible current setting that generates a level of heat that your cooling can remove, so that the CPU does not have to pull the plug to protect the CPU, but instead ride the wave of 83 ºC. The Platform Thermal Throttle Limit is your safety net to hold back the current if it hits 83 ºC, but I can tell you that if you do hit 95, the PC will spontaneously reboot and at post, you will get a message saying it has done so to protect from overheating. It's quite a nifty motherboard.


----------



## 1ah1

Chili195 said:


> I think I've already tweaked out my overclock but I gave CTR 2.0 a go and it seems like a really nifty piece of software with great presentation. Ran a diagnostic on my CPU and it initially received a Silver rating. After adjusting LLC as it suggested and changing my CPU Phase Power Control to Extreme it achieved a "Golden" rating with an energy coefficient of 4.12. The recommended frequency and voltage (4.65 @ 1.275v) seemed pretty much exactly what I found when manually finding my all-core overclock before I decided to stick with PBO+CO.
> 
> I think the next version will have the killer feature of figuring out the optimisation per core for Curve Optimiser, which is a total pain to do manually although I'm not sure how it will test for stability there which remains the challenge.


What they suggested 🤔 for LLC ? 
and i did changed my power phase to extreme as you said.


----------



## Chili195

1ah1 said:


> What they suggested 🤔 for LLC ?
> and i did changed my power phase to extreme as you said.



I had it set to auto and it recommended increasing it, although didn't give a specific recommendation. I then set it to LLC 3 and the message went away.


----------



## mikecoscia

Hi new to the site! Saw Optimum Tech's video on PBO2 and was hoping to try undervolting on my 5900x. I just updated my board to the new Bios 3204 with AGESA 1.2.0.0. and could not find any options under options for PBO's curve optimizer. Nor could I find anything that I could set to negative under a different name. All I see under Extreme Tweaker\PBO is PBO Fmax Enhancer, PBO, PBO Scalar, Max CPU Clock Overdrive, and Platform Thermal Throttle Limit. I did a few google searched and wound up here on this board. Am I looking in the wrong spot or is Asus just calling it something different? I using a Kraken x53 in an NCase and just trying to bring my temps down a little. I max out around 89-90F on Prime95. Appreciate the help!


----------



## Kezanian

mikecoscia said:


> Hi new to the site! Saw Optimum Tech's video on PBO2 and was hoping to try undervolting on my 5900x. I just updated my board to the new Bios 3204 with AGESA 1.2.0.0. and could not find any options under options for PBO's curve optimizer. Nor could I find anything that I could set to negative under a different name. All I see under Extreme Tweaker\PBO is PBO Fmax Enhancer, PBO, PBO Scalar, Max CPU Clock Overdrive, and Platform Thermal Throttle Limit. I did a few google searched and wound up here on this board. Am I looking in the wrong spot or is Asus just calling it something different? I using a Kraken x53 in an NCase and just trying to bring my temps down a little. I max out around 89-90F on Prime95. Appreciate the help!


I can't reboot my computer right now to check exact names, but it's under advanced, then AMD overclock or AMD CPU, a warning message appears, after that click precision boost overdrive.


----------



## butt_yodel

mikecoscia said:


> Hi new to the site! Saw Optimum Tech's video on PBO2 and was hoping to try undervolting on my 5900x. I just updated my board to the new Bios 3204 with AGESA 1.2.0.0. and could not find any options under options for PBO's curve optimizer. Nor could I find anything that I could set to negative under a different name. All I see under Extreme Tweaker\PBO is PBO Fmax Enhancer, PBO, PBO Scalar, Max CPU Clock Overdrive, and Platform Thermal Throttle Limit. I did a few google searched and wound up here on this board. Am I looking in the wrong spot or is Asus just calling it something different? I using a Kraken x53 in an NCase and just trying to bring my temps down a little. I max out around 89-90F on Prime95. Appreciate the help!


Curve optimizer is under Advanced -> AMD Overclocking -> Precision Boost Overdrive (set this to manual).


----------



## mikecoscia

Kezanian said:


> I can't reboot my computer right now to check exact names, but it's under advanced, then AMD overclock or AMD CPU, a warning message appears, after that click precision boost overdrive.





butt_yodel said:


> Curve optimizer is under Advanced -> AMD Overclocking -> Precision Boost Overdrive (set this to manual).


Thanks! Any good safe number to start with to drop voltage without dropping my clocks?


----------



## xeizo

I think I've found a good compromise, restraining multi a little for the benefit of single


----------



## Sleepycat

butt_yodel said:


> Curve optimizer is under Advanced -> AMD Overclocking -> Precision Boost Overdrive (set this to manual).


Depends on your CPU. I dropped mine to -20 for CCX1 except for my 2 fastest cores, which are -15. Then for CCX2, every core is -30. I have it set to OC by 200 MHz and to thermal throttle at 85ºC. Even with these settings, the voltages are high. I get 1.369V under Cinebench R23 all core @ 4.65GHz. 

I'm using CTR2.0 now to get voltages down. It is doing 4.55 @ 1.2 V and 4.45 @ 1.15 V. I'm now testing 4.675 @ 1.275 V. Hope it is stable.


----------



## metalshark

mikecoscia said:


> Hi new to the site! Saw Optimum Tech's video on PBO2 and was hoping to try undervolting on my 5900x. I just updated my board to the new Bios 3204 with AGESA 1.2.0.0. and could not find any options under options for PBO's curve optimizer. Nor could I find anything that I could set to negative under a different name. All I see under Extreme Tweaker\PBO is PBO Fmax Enhancer, PBO, PBO Scalar, Max CPU Clock Overdrive, and Platform Thermal Throttle Limit. I did a few google searched and wound up here on this board. Am I looking in the wrong spot or is Asus just calling it something different? I using a Kraken x53 in an NCase and just trying to bring my temps down a little. I max out around 89-90F on Prime95. Appreciate the help!


Would strongly suggest ignoring his video if you have an AIO or better. He constrains the PBO limits of PPT, EDC and TDC to the stock AMD limits. When he sets the limits to “Disabled”, changing that to “Enabled” will use the stock ASUS motherboard limits or setting it to “Manual” allows you to define your own (if water cooling for instance). Also remember you can use a CPU offset voltage (applied throughout the curve) so if your curve is limited to say -25, you may with to try a positive offset of +0.013v to get them to -30. Equally if you can hit -30 you may want to apply a negative offset.

You’ll also want to run Prime95 small FFT with AVX off using fhoekstra/thread_switcher when using CO to check the stability of each core (meanwhile sleeping cores may cause a reset if the CO is too low) to ensure stability over a long period of time (8-24 hours).


----------



## Sleepycat

5900X on Asus Crosshair VIII Hero.
DIAGNOSTIC RESULTS
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X 12-Core Processor
Max temperature: 65.6°
Energy efficient: 4.04
Your CPU is SILVER SAMPLE
Recomended CCX delta: 125
Theoretical maximum CCX delta: 150
Recomended values for overclocking (P1 profile):
Reference voltage: 1175 mV
Reference frequency: 4475 MHz
Recomended values for overclocking (P2 profile):
Reference voltage: 1275 mV
Reference frequency: 4600 MHz
Recomended values for undervolting:
Reference voltage: 1000 mV
Reference frequency: 4125 MHz

Doing the tuning now and it is settling at:
CCX1 (158): 4600 MHz, 1194 mV OC=
CCX2 (133): 4575 MHz, 1194 mV OC=
Temperatures are 57.6 °C
Compared to PBO2 and curve optimiser, CTR2 is getting almost the same clocks at a lower voltage and hence lower temperature. It was previously 4.64 GHz @ 1369 mV and 85 °C.
My final results with CB R20 and R23 were the same score with CTR2 compared to PBO2/CO. The difference being that CTR hit a temperature of 75ºC, where as PBO2/CO hit 85 ºC. Very nice. I still haven't messed with single core clocks using P2 profile. Will do that next.


----------



## pfinch

So...what is the general suggestion about CTR 2.0 and ASUS Crosshair VIII?
1st RAM stability means: VSOC, CLDO, VDDG CCD, VDDG IOD voltages and RAM-Timings
2nd all auto except:
Fmax disabled; all other PBO auto
CPU LLC3
Max CPU Current 100%
CPU Power Phase Extreme
Spread spectrums disabled

both CPPC enabled
Glocal C-States enabled


....and goooo?


----------



## Anthos

I tried to run CTR2 last night and a couple of times I had a hard crash (without restart, screen went black, fans stopped spinning but their rgb was still on) and an error of 00. At first I thought it was solely because of CTR but then it happened even when not running when I was just browsing windows (same crash but a bit worse, my kraken Z63 screen completely turned off, radiator fans went into a full mode, restarted and went into windows and cam software still wouldn't pick up the AIO, had to clear cmos to get it to light up again). So then I assume likely the bios changes I made to run the CTR. However of all the things I changed I am a bit at a loss at what could have caused that.
I followed the guide from guru3d which states:

PBO/PBO2 - Auto mode only.
AGESA 1.2.0.0 and newer only for Zen 3 and APU Renoir processors. For Zen 2, it does not matter.
Core voltage / CPU voltage - Auto only. Offset is also not allowed.
CPU multiplier - Auto only.
Performance Enhancer - Disabled only. (didn't change this as I am not sure to what it correlates to in the asus bios)
CPU Virtualization - not important.
CPPC - Enabled.
CPPC Preferred Cores - Enabled.
Global C-State - Enabled.
Power Profile - irrelevant.
And also changed phase control to extreme and vrm switching to 500khz (also mentioned at some point in the guide). Aside from that the only other thing I had enabled was just docp.
Is core performance boost supposed to be enabled or disabled for this?
Any ideas?


----------



## Dawidowski

Removed. Double post


----------



## Sleepycat

pfinch said:


> So...what is the general suggestion about CTR 2.0 and ASUS Crosshair VIII?
> 1st RAM stability means: VSOC, CLDO, VDDG CCD, VDDG IOD voltages and RAM-Timings


I set RAM back to DOCP. Ran CTR 2.0, then after I had all my CPU settings set, I set RAM back to my original OC settings.


pfinch said:


> 2nd all auto except:
> Fmax disabled; all other PBO auto


You can set PBO limits to what you wish. I set PPT 220W, TDC 200A, EDC 180A.


pfinch said:


> CPU LLC3


I didn't like LLC3 as it brought the voltages up too high when not under heavy load. Auto LLC had a Vdroop of 4.3%, which I was happy with.



pfinch said:


> ....and goooo?
> View attachment 2477181


Yup!


----------



## arkantos91

What is your understanding of the profiles switching in CTR 2.0?

Enabling Hybrid OC mode should allow CTR to dinamically switch between P1 and P2 profiles.

If I understood correctly from the guide P1 is more of a multithreaded workload profile, while P2 is a gaming profile with sligthly more aggressive voltages and frequencies,

For my 3900X CTR suggested 1.25 V/4.3 something GHZ for P1 and 1.35 V/4.4 GHZ for P2.

Profile management in CTR shows that P1 is enabled only when CPU reaches 75% load. The question is: let's say I only have save profile 1... this profile will turn on only when cpu load reaches 75% (meaning that, I think, until that treshold P2 is used, if existing)... .what happens if I don't have any P2 profile? What values are used under 75% load?


----------



## Dawidowski

Anthos said:


> I tried to run CTR2 last night and a couple of times I had a hard crash (without restart, screen went black, fans stopped spinning but their rgb was still on) and an error of 00. At first I thought it was solely because of CTR but then it happened even when not running when I was just browsing windows (same crash but a bit worse, my kraken Z63 screen completely turned off, radiator fans went into a full mode, restarted and went into windows and cam software still wouldn't pick up the AIO, had to clear cmos to get it to light up again). So then I assume likely the bios changes I made to run the CTR. However of all the things I changed I am a bit at a loss at what could have caused that.
> I followed the guide from guru3d which states:
> 
> PBO/PBO2 - Auto mode only.
> AGESA 1.2.0.0 and newer only for Zen 3 and APU Renoir processors. For Zen 2, it does not matter.
> Core voltage / CPU voltage - Auto only. Offset is also not allowed.
> CPU multiplier - Auto only.
> Performance Enhancer - Disabled only. (didn't change this as I am not sure to what it correlates to in the asus bios)
> CPU Virtualization - not important.
> CPPC - Enabled.
> CPPC Preferred Cores - Enabled.
> Global C-State - Enabled.
> Power Profile - irrelevant.
> And also changed phase control to extreme and vrm switching to 500khz (also mentioned at some point in the guide). Aside from that the only other thing I had enabled was just docp.
> Is core performance boost supposed to be enabled or disabled for this?
> Any ideas?


I just got a hard reboot saying temperature overreached during CTR2.0 ... at 58c during the test. Lmao not sure if this program is even working correctly or what.


----------



## metalshark

Dawidowski said:


> I just got a hard reboot saying temperature overreached during CTR2.0 ... at 58c during the test. Lmao not sure if this program is even working correctly or what.


The die temp can spike up quickly if it goes far past 90'C you get a quick trip to the UEFI POST screen with a temperature over-limit error. The program is just revealing that. It has phoenix mode so it carries on where it last got to.


----------



## custom90gt

Sleepycat said:


> Post your bios settings txt file which you can save from the bios.


Here are the most recent settings that I've tried. It still won't wake up from sleep and only reboots properly probably every 3rd time. If I leave the ram settings at their default (2133mhz) it sleeps/reboots without any issue. The only changes I've made to this system recently have been the Hero motherboard and my EVGA 3080FTW3, everything else is the same. Also thanks everyone for looking at this stuff.


----------



## metalshark

arkantos91 said:


> What is your understanding of the profiles switching in CTR 2.0?
> 
> Enabling Hybrid OC mode should allow CTR to dinamically switch between P1 and P2 profiles.
> 
> If I understood correctly from the guide P1 is more of a multithreaded workload profile, while P2 is a gaming profile with sligthly more aggressive voltages and frequencies,
> 
> For my 3900X CTR suggested 1.25 V/4.3 something GHZ for P1 and 1.35 V/4.4 GHZ for P2.
> 
> Profile management in CTR shows that P1 is enabled only when CPU reaches 75% load. The question is: let's say I only have save profile 1... this profile will turn on only when cpu load reaches 75% (meaning that, I think, until that treshold P2 is used, if existing)... .what happens if I don't have any P2 profile? What values are used under 75% load?


P0 is your PBO settings and where curve optimiser is used. This is the profile that comes after P2 (or is used where a P2 does not exist).


----------



## Dawidowski

metalshark said:


> The die temp can spike up quickly if it goes far past 90'C you get a quick trip to the UEFI POST screen with a temperature over-limit error. The program is just revealing that. It has phoenix mode so it carries on where it last got to.


Max temp was recorded to be lower then 75c. In the software itself, no spikes recorded. And not sure how it could spike during a p2 phase full load on all cores and suddently hit above 95c max tempthat the treshold was set at. 
During inital boost yes but during a full load? Yeah no.

Considering I've run everything imaginable with PBO2/PBO without any reboots and suddenly here get multiple crashes with under 70c load on all cores. 
Its just easier to run PBO2 as of now. Atleast for me.


----------



## arkantos91

metalshark said:


> P0 is your PBO settings and where curve optimiser is used. This is the profile that comes after P2 (or is used where a P2 does not exist).


P0 is not available in CTR 2.0

Let's say I want to use one profile only.... which should I use? It can't be P1 because it triggers only with 75% cpu usage.

Should I just save those settings in P2 which I assume it's active until CPU usage is below 75% (and where P1 then triggers)?


----------



## butt_yodel

mikecoscia said:


> Thanks! Any good safe number to start with to drop voltage without dropping my clocks?


I used these two links to get started on my PBO curve optimizer. Worth the read to understand what's going on. They aren't all-inclusive, but they helped me get started. Still learning more every day.
1) Albert Herd Blog
2) katalysis Reddit post


----------



## Sleepycat

custom90gt said:


> Here are the most recent settings that I've tried. It still won't wake up from sleep and only reboots properly probably every 3rd time. If I leave the ram settings at their default (2133mhz) it sleeps/reboots without any issue. The only changes I've made to this system recently have been the Hero motherboard and my EVGA 3080FTW3, everything else is the same. Also thanks everyone for looking at this stuff.


Firstly, I would try setting Performance Boost Overdrive to disable in the Extreme Tweakers menu first to see if it resolves the wake from sleep issue.

If it doesn't work, I would change the following too:
DF C-states [Disabled]

Finally if the two above don't work
VDDG CCD Voltage Control [1.00]
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [1.00]
CLDO VDDP voltage [0.950]


----------



## EnJoY

New official chipset driver posted: https://www.amd.com/en/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570


----------



## Sir Beregond

Was deciding between an MSI Unify or Gigabyte AORUS Master when my local Micro Center got a stock in of X570 Dark Hero boards so I snagged one of those. Looking forward to playing with it.


----------



## domdtxdissar

EnJoY said:


> New official chipset driver posted: https://www.amd.com/en/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570


Seem to scoring the same as normal with 24/7 clocks so they didnt nerf the boost algorithm in the powerplan at least.







Maybe this update will help those struggling with WHEA errors (?)


----------



## mikecoscia

metalshark said:


> Also remember you can use a CPU offset voltage (applied throughout the curve) so if your curve is limited to say -25, you may with to try a positive offset of +0.013v to get them to -30. Equally if you can hit -30 you may want to apply a negative offset.


Not sure I understand this...I thought to adjust the curve downward (undervolt) I simply had to set it to negative and pick a number. What that number represents I do not know, a percentage of the curve? I haven't attempted to overclock a CPU in close to 10 years, so please forgive my ignorance...lol. 



Sleepycat said:


> Depends on your CPU. I dropped mine to -20 for CCX1 except for my 2 fastest cores, which are -15. Then for CCX2, every core is -30. I have it set to OC by 200 MHz and to thermal throttle at 85ºC. Even with these settings, the voltages are high. I get 1.369V under Cinebench R23 all core @ 4.65GHz.
> 
> I'm using CTR2.0 now to get voltages down. It is doing 4.55 @ 1.2 V and 4.45 @ 1.15 V. I'm now testing 4.675 @ 1.275 V. Hope it is stable.


Thanks, the only thing I have changed was the AI Overclock to DOCP Standard to pick up my ram's settings. I am getting voltages of up to 1.449.


----------



## kubalnn

Can someone confirm if the ROG Crosshair VIII Hero allows for BCLK overclocking?


----------



## metalshark

mikecoscia said:


> Not sure I understand this...I thought to adjust the curve downward (undervolt) I simply had to set it to negative and pick a number. What that number represents I do not know, a percentage of the curve? I haven't attempted to overclock a CPU in close to 10 years, so please forgive my ignorance...lol.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, the only thing I have changed was the AI Overclock to DOCP Standard to pick up my ram's settings. I am getting voltages of up to 1.449.


The curve optimiser is a number between -30 and +30. At low clocks each step represents 5mv, at high clocks it represents 5mv. The exact mv is on a curve. This can be defined per core, with some cores losing the silicon lottery and your main boosting cores often needing more juice (less negative offset) too.

You then have a processor offset which adds/removes voltage regardless of frequency, this can be done in 6.25mv steps on these ASUS boards.

So let’s say you applied a -30 curve for all cores, that’s taking away 90-150mv (3x30 at the high end and 5x30 at the low end). If your processor needed it to be 65-125mv instead you could add a +25mv offset. If your processor could run at 115-175mv less power then you can add a -25mv offset.


----------



## Jesaul

So I've finished testing curve values on 5800x. I have -30, -30, -30, -30, -30, -30, -30, -19.
PBO is +200, limits are 250, 250, 250
All core temperature is 85 and it is limited on 4600MHz.
Single core jumps up to 5050 or 5025 in hwinfo max freq.
CB r20 SC is 629, MC is 6086


----------



## GRABibus

domdtxdissar said:


> Seem to scoring the same as normal with 24/7 clocks so they didnt nerf the boost algorithm in the powerplan at least.
> View attachment 2477280
> 
> Maybe this update will help those struggling with WHEA errors (?)
> View attachment 2477281
> 
> [/QUOTE





domdtxdissar said:


> Seem to scoring the same as normal with 24/7 clocks so they didnt nerf the boost algorithm in the powerplan at least.
> View attachment 2477280
> 
> Maybe this update will help those struggling with WHEA errors (?)
> View attachment 2477281


I didn’t get any idle reboot (with associated Whea in event viewer) with my PBO/CO overclock (in sig) since I installed this new driver set yesterday.

let’s wait for more times to conclude if those new drivers help, as this is so random....


----------



## Jesaul

I'm getting a limit of 4600 MHz all core on my 5800x. Is it because of overheat problems or wrong limits? Or what is it connected with?


----------



## metalshark

Jesaul said:


> I'm getting a limit of 4600 MHz all core on my 5800x. Is it because of overheat problems or wrong limits? Or what is it connected with?


Depends on the workload, might be perfect. Would look to see if your PPT, EDC, TDC or 90'C thermal limits are being hit. HWinfo64 shows you this, alternatively Ryzen Master puts it at the top like a dashboard to show you the limit being hit.


----------



## Jesaul

metalshark said:


> Depends on the workload, might be perfect. Would look to see if your PPT, EDC, TDC or 90'C thermal limits are being hit. HWinfo64 shows you this, alternatively Ryzen Master puts it at the top like a dashboard to show you the limit being hit.


No, limits are not being hit. Also disabling pbo does not change anything.
In the beginning of the run temperature is like 85 of 90 max and it's still 4600. Well, that looks like the limits of crappy water (I have 2 water systems in the case).
I'm more than happy, because hwinfo shows 5050 and 5025 as max frequencies for all cores. And there is room to decrease temperature.


----------



## metalshark

Jesaul said:


> No, limits are not being hit. Also disabling pbo does not change anything.
> In the beginning of the run temperature is like 85 of 90 max and it's still 4600. Well, that looks like the limits of crappy water (I have 2 water systems in the case).
> I'm more than happy, because hwinfo shows 5050 and 5025 as max frequencies for all cores. And there is room to decrease temperature.


How much PPT/EDC/TDC or core amps are being used?


----------



## Jesaul

metalshark said:


> How much PPT/EDC/TDC or core amps are being used?


Here are the values.


----------



## metalshark

Jesaul said:


> Here are the values.


That's looking like it won't boost further until temps are dropped for that workload to me. Some workloads don't seem to boost past 85'C and you're just under that.


----------



## Jesaul

metalshark said:


> That's looking like it won't boost further until temps are dropped for that workload to me. Some workloads don't seem to boost past 85'C and you're just under that.


Yes, it was my guess. I'll get new noctua fans tomorrow to lube the water.


----------



## dlbsyst

EnJoY said:


> New official chipset driver posted: https://www.amd.com/en/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570


Very cool. I wonder if it's the same as the one just posted on the Asus website? I'll check it when I get home from work.


----------



## Jesaul

I've connected 2 water loops together to cool cpu additionally. Temperatures went down to 82 and all core went up to 4660 (+60). Now, this 5800x is a hot one, like it's been told.


----------



## dlbsyst

dlbsyst said:


> Very cool. I wonder if it's the same as the one just posted on the Asus website? I'll check it when I get home from work.


Definitely a newer driver package. Well, at least the PCI Device Driver was newer at least.


----------



## shaolin95

Sup guys.
Sometimes I get stuck on the Asus logo with the spinning icon with my current settings.
Just wondering what needs to be tweaked. I am hitting anywhere from 11100-11350pts in CB20 and around 669 and 12950 in CPU-Z. My Single core CB20 is pretty low like 620.


I attached my settings here:


----------



## mikecoscia

metalshark said:


> The curve optimiser is a number between -30 and +30. At low clocks each step represents 5mv, at high clocks it represents 5mv. The exact mv is on a curve. This can be defined per core, with some cores losing the silicon lottery and your main boosting cores often needing more juice (less negative offset) too.
> 
> You then have a processor offset which adds/removes voltage regardless of frequency, this can be done in 6.25mv steps on these ASUS boards.
> 
> So let’s say you applied a -30 curve for all cores, that’s taking away 90-150mv (3x30 at the high end and 5x30 at the low end). If your processor needed it to be 65-125mv instead you could add a +25mv offset. If your processor could run at 115-175mv less power then you can add a -25mv offset.


Thanks for the explanation! Makes more sense now. I played with it a little last night and set it to -20. Ran default prime for close to 12 hours and no issues. Max core speed was around 4,650 and a voltage no higher than 3.38. However, I am still getting a max temp of 89C. I figured it would be lower, with the lower voltage.


----------



## Jesaul

mikecoscia said:


> Thanks for the explanation! Makes more sense now. I played with it a little last night and set it to -20. Ran default prime for close to 12 hours and no issues. Max core speed was around 4,650 and a voltage no higher than 3.38. However, I am still getting a max temp of 89C. I figured it would be lower, with the lower voltage.


 To add to the reply above.
It will be lower if you limit EDC to lower value than current usage. Or if you have a decent water.


----------



## renecapo

question, in Turbo vcore cpu 3.3V AUX show me 3.6V 
in Bios i have it on auto 
Can anybody check that thank you


----------



## Chili195

shaolin95 said:


> Sup guys.
> Sometimes I get stuck on the Asus logo with the spinning icon with my current settings.
> Just wondering what needs to be tweaked. I am hitting anywhere from 11100-11350pts in CB20 and around 669 and 12950 in CPU-Z. My Single core CB20 is pretty low like 620.
> 
> 
> I attached my settings here:


On the spinning logo suggests that it is a problem with Windows booting. Is there anything in the event viewer?


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> Sup guys.
> Sometimes I get stuck on the Asus logo with the spinning icon with my current settings.
> Just wondering what needs to be tweaked. I am hitting anywhere from 11100-11350pts in CB20 and around 669 and 12950 in CPU-Z. My Single core CB20 is pretty low like 620.
> 
> 
> I attached my settings here:


Your settings seem reasonable except for VDDSOC. You have it at 1.15V eventhough you are not driving your memory hard at 3600 CL14, VDDSOC is one of those where more is not better. I have reduced mine to 1.08V.

I am running a similar G.Skill 3200 CL14 64GB kit also at 3600 CL14-14-15-14-28. I only need 1.08V with my 5900x. DRAM voltage that I have to use is identical to yours at 1.46V.

I recommend changing VDDG CCD voltage to 1.05V as well and CLDO VDDP voltage to 0.95V too.


----------



## xeizo

Yes, Ryzen 5000 likes to keep a lot of voltages rather low even with high speed RAM, do not overdo the voltages.


----------



## arkantos91

I've tried CTR 2.0 but I don't like very much that you can set only profiles for light multi-threaded loads (i.e. gaming) and heavy multi-threaded loads (productivity)... this means that when idling or almost idling like for example web browsing or watching videos, the default BIOS settings are used... therefore voltage often ramps up to even 1.45 V and then goes down all the time.

So I asked myself: why not manually apply in BIOS some CCX overclock based on the values proposed by CTR?

I set v-core at 1.35 V and all four CCX at 4.4 GHz. Cinebench gave me the highest score I've ever seen, 7693. But the problem here is that all cores are stuck to 4.4 GHz all the time, same goes for the voltage. Even if energy savings are active. Isn't there a way to keep this OC with 1.35 V / 4.4 GHz all cores while also allowing the cpu to downclock/downvolt when not necessary (i.e. low load, idling)?

Can 1.35 V / 4.4 GHz at all times be harmful to the cpu? Excluding risks, does it even make sense to do something like this? The alternative being just using auto v-core with -1 offset: this means that voltage will never go over 1.35 (in the case of my 3900X/motherboard) but also that when idling voltage will drop and not stay to a fixed value all the time.


----------



## MultiDoc

arkantos91 said:


> I've tried CTR 2.0 but I don't like very much that you can set only profiles for light multi-threaded loads (i.e. gaming) and heavy multi-threaded loads (productivity)... this means that when idling or almost idling like for example web browsing or watching videos, the default BIOS settings are used... therefore voltage often ramps up to even 1.45 V and then goes down all the time.


When neither P1 or P2 profiles are used then it goes to the default one. Next version that is due to be released soon (CTR 2.1) is supposed to bring the ability to set a third profile (P0) for general/default use or even undervolting


----------



## custom90gt

Sleepycat said:


> Firstly, I would try setting Performance Boost Overdrive to disable in the Extreme Tweakers menu first to see if it resolves the wake from sleep issue.
> 
> If it doesn't work, I would change the following too:
> DF C-states [Disabled]
> 
> Finally if the two above don't work
> VDDG CCD Voltage Control [1.00]
> VDDG IOD Voltage Control [1.00]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [0.950]


I appreciate the help but sadly it still doesn't work. I'm going to RMA this board. In the mean time I bought a Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master and it works out of the box with XMP and tighter timings.


----------



## greg_p

At the moment CTR hybrid do use P1 and P2 depending on the load, but on light load you keep the bios setting, which can be PBO with curve optimizer.
CTR setting is nice with pbo as it's a less aggressive multithread. I set 46/45/1.25 and it's better than 4.5 effective With 1.35v in pbo.
We will see with the p0 setting of CTR 2.1, probably promising but will not gain that much I think.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> Your settings seem reasonable except for VDDSOC. You have it at 1.15V eventhough you are not driving your memory hard at 3600 CL14, VDDSOC is one of those where more is not better. I have reduced mine to 1.08V.
> 
> I am running a similar G.Skill 3200 CL14 64GB kit also at 3600 CL14-14-15-14-28. I only need 1.08V with my 5900x. DRAM voltage that I have to use is identical to yours at 1.46V.
> 
> I recommend changing VDDG CCD voltage to 1.05V as well and CLDO VDDP voltage to 0.95V too.


Thanks for the tips and INFO! 

This looks better?


----------



## xeizo

shaolin95 said:


> Thanks for the tips and INFO!
> 
> This looks better?


Mostly, but you shouldn't use Vcore offset on a 5000-series CPU, AMD said at launch it wasn't recommended. And certainly not that much offset, -0.1V! If you had like -0.00625V if would be more in line. I suspect your setting will cause a lot of instability, and kill single core boost.


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> Mostly, but you shouldn't use Vcore offset on a 5000-series CPU, AMD said at launch it wasn't recommended. And certainly not that much offset, -0.1V! If you had like -0.00625V if would be more in line. I suspect your setting will cause a lot of instability, and kill single core boost.


you mean -0,0625 ?


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> you mean -0,0625 ?


NO, -0.00625! -0.0625 is way too much


----------



## Karagra

I am on 3204 and this is the first time I was able to memtest 3800cl15/fclk1900 without any errors... Also does not require me to boot 3733 then 3800mhz to have a successful boot into windows.


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> NO, -0.00625! -0.0625 is way too much


I use this value -0,0625 to cool more the CPU under load.
I see better temps but not better CBR20 ST score.

look at my sig please. What would you advise for me to try to improve ST performance ?

my bottleneck is my cooling


----------



## Pr3t3nd3r

Hi guys!

Is there any gain with the PBO 2.0 if I don't tend to overclock? Does it still make a sense to upgrade BIOS just if I run on stock settings?

Thank you for your answers and wish you best!


----------



## HyperC

GRABibus said:


> I use this value -0,0625 to cool more the CPU under load.
> I see better temps but not better CBR20 ST score.
> 
> look at my sig please. What would you advise for me to try to improve ST performance ?
> 
> my bottleneck is my cooling


if you are doing ccx oc you really cant improve the single core, PBO and CO is the only way


----------



## GRABibus

HyperC said:


> if you are doing ccx oc you really cant improve the single core, PBO and CO is the only way


I did both (in sig).
I use negative offset in addition to CO to
cool as much as I can my cores during PBO


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> I did both (in sig).
> I use negative offset in addition to CO to
> cool as much as I can my cores during PBO


Yes, but that nets you max multicore, however single core needs some voltage. It's a balance, you can't have booth at max. I prefer to give priority to single core as these CPU:s have massive multi performance anyway. SO how do you raise single? The answer was in you previous question, you need to remove that rather large offset of yours.

edit. I suppose you don't mean both _at the same time, _because PBO gets inactivated when you use per CCX.


----------



## shaolin95

xeizo said:


> Mostly, but you shouldn't use Vcore offset on a 5000-series CPU, AMD said at launch it wasn't recommended. And certainly not that much offset, -0.1V! If you had like -0.00625V if would be more in line. I suspect your setting will cause a lot of instability, and kill single core boost.


I tried that but all I got was slightly hotter temps (around 83 peaks) and slightly slower multi and single scores oddly enough.


----------



## Sleepycat

GRABibus said:


> you mean -0,0625 ?


You can just leave Vcore at auto while you troubleshoot the windows loading issue. You don't want to introduce any CPU instability while you figure out what is causing it to get stuck at the rotating ring, which is windows loading its drivers and software.


----------



## Sleepycat

GRABibus said:


> I use this value -0,0625 to cool more the CPU under load.
> I see better temps but not better CBR20 ST score.
> 
> look at my sig please. What would you advise for me to try to improve ST performance ?
> 
> my bottleneck is my cooling


The way 5000 series works, is that voltage is tied to clock speed. So if you use -0.0625, you essentially lower the maximum single core clock speed by 0.0625V's worth. If you want to keep the same clock speed but run it at a lower voltage, you should use the Curve Optimiser instead, which sets it to use a lower voltage for the same clock speed.

If your bottleneck is cooling (mine is too with a small case and air cooler), I use PBO Advanced, set Curve Optimiser -15 for my 2 fastest cores on CCD0 and -20 for the remaining cores on CCD0. For CCD1, those cores get -30 for everything. I also set the clock increase to 200 MHz, and thermal limits to 85 ºC. Then I tweak the PBO power limits to get a balance between ST performance, MT performance and temperature limits.


----------



## GRABibus

thank you all for your answers.
With this offset, I get less temps.
-30 all cores.
+100MHz.
Full stable Realbench 8 hours

I will try to tweak more deeply by coming back to Vcore auto and increase voltage on my 2 best cores.

this will increase my temps and maybe will not help for CBR20 scores.


----------



## Sleepycat

custom90gt said:


> I appreciate the help but sadly it still doesn't work. I'm going to RMA this board. In the mean time I bought a Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master and it works out of the box with XMP and tighter timings.


Cool, at least you've tried everything and know that something is wrong with the board. I would be interested to hear your feedback on the Aorus Master. I was about to buy that, but needed 8 SATA ports due to my HDDs, SATA SSDs and optical drives, hence ended up with the Crosshair 8 Hero instead.


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> edit. I suppose you don't mean both _at the same time, _because PBO gets inactivated when you use per CCX.


yes of course, these are my both different overclocks 😊


----------



## Sleepycat

GRABibus said:


> thank you all for your answers.
> With this offset, I get less temps.
> -30 all cores.
> +100MHz.
> Full stable Realbench 8 hours
> 
> I will try to tweak more deeply by coming back to Vcore auto and increase voltage on my 2 best cores.
> 
> this will increase my temps and maybe will not help for CBR20 scores.


I don't use CB R20 much, instead use R23 because I can cancel a single core run using the stop button. But with my PBO Advanced 4.9 GHz / 4.65 GHz @ 85 ºC, I get:
CB R20 Multi: 9199 / Single: 634
CB R23 Multi: 23659 / Single: 1632
CPU-Z: Multi: 10265 / Single: 681

I have moved to CTR2.0 now, because with PBO Advanced, my all core voltage was 1.369V! My setup essentially jumps to 85 ºC instantly in multi-core, meaning it exceeds my heatsink's capabilities.

CTR 2.0's set up is more gentle, only hitting a max of 74 ºC after 3 repeated cycles of R23 due to the lower voltage of 1.20V and clocks at 4.525 GHz instead. CB R23 scores are lower at 22789 but this is what I'll run for everyday use (i.e. not benchmarking). It's only a -3.8% performance decrease, but it uses 142W instead of about 170W previously with PBO Advanced.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> I don't use CB R20 much, instead use R23 because I can cancel a single core run using the stop button. But with my PBO Advanced 4.9 GHz / 4.65 GHz @ 85 ºC, I get:
> CB R20 Multi: 9199 / Single: 634
> CB R23 Multi: 23659 / Single: 1632
> CPU-Z: Multi: 10265 / Single: 681
> 
> I have moved to CTR2.0 now, because with PBO Advanced, my all core voltage was 1.369V! My setup essentially jumps to 85 ºC instantly in multi-core, meaning it exceeds my heatsink's capabilities.
> 
> CTR 2.0's set up is more gentle, only hitting a max of 74 ºC after 3 repeated cycles of R23 due to the lower voltage of 1.20V and clocks at 4.525 GHz instead. CB R23 scores are lower at 22789 but this is what I'll run for everyday use (i.e. not benchmarking). It's only a -3.8% performance decrease, but it uses 142W instead of about 170W previously with PBO Advanced.


Do you understand how to setup the "dynamic oc" like the dark hero feature using CTR 2.0? At least my understanding was that it allows to do that which is why I did the patron thing to get the latest beta for it but can't figure it out.

Also, i am trying to improve my single score as it is rather slow IMO at 619 last time I tried CB20 with my current settings.
Thanks


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> Also, i am trying to improve my single score as it is rather slow IMO at 619 last time I tried CB20 with my current settings.
> Thanks


619 is alright for a 5900X, not sure how much higher should it be for your 5950X since your single core clocks are meant to be 100MHz higher than mine. I just quickly tested single core and got 628 with my 12 chrome tabs still open in the background, so you should be able to improve on it.


shaolin95 said:


> Do you understand how to setup the "dynamic oc" like the dark hero feature using CTR 2.0? At least my understanding was that it allows to do that which is why I did the patron thing to get the latest beta for it but can't figure it out.


Yes, the feature is Hybrid OC. It supports 2 profiles for now, and an upcoming update will have a 3rd profile, which is used for single core. With the current 2 profiles, it only affects medium load multi-core and heavy load medium-core. Have you been able to get the scores you need in CB20? What is your multi-core and what are your current settings?

In simple terms, you just need to go into Profile Management under the Tuner tab. Then fill in for P1 and P2 profiles the VID (mV), CCX1 (MHz) and CCX2 (MHz). So 6 entries. Hit apply for both profiles and go back to the tuner tab. Turn on Hybrid OC and you're done. The time consuming part is running tuning to find out what these 3 values are meant to be. Has the Patreon Beta enabled the P0 Profile? That is what you need for single core clocks.

Without CTR2.0, you can use PBO Advanced. For single core performance, you basically need highest clock speeds at the voltages required for stability. Temperature is not too bad since it is single core, so your AIO will handle it fine as long as you have good thermal paste. Easiest way to get the highest single core clock speed is using PBO Advanced. Set it to +200 MHz for OC, set your Curve Optimizer if you need to. I have my 2 fastest cores at -15 to get them to hit 4.95GHz. Then run CB R20 single core while Ryzen Master is open and note down which of the PPT, TDC and EDC values are being maxed out. Then go back to bios and adjust the PBO power limits to give it more space in PPT, TDC and EDC as required. Run CB R20 single core again. You might notice at some point, that the clock speed decreases as the benchmark runs to the end. If it does, then the core might be heating up beyond the thermal limit and is getting throttled. Ryzen Master's refresh rate is too slow to capture these peak temperatures. Just adjust PPT, TDC or EDC downwards until you can sustain the same peak clock speed throughout the entire single core benchmark.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> 619 is alright for a 5900X, not sure how much higher should it be for your 5950X since your single core clocks are meant to be 100MHz higher than mine. I just quickly tested single core and got 628 with my 12 chrome tabs still open in the background, so you should be able to improve on it.
> 
> Yes, the feature is Hybrid OC. It supports 2 profiles for now, and an upcoming update will have a 3rd profile, which is used for single core. With the current 2 profiles, it only affects medium load multi-core and heavy load medium-core. Have you been able to get the scores you need in CB20? What is your multi-core and what are your current settings?
> 
> In simple terms, you just need to go into Profile Management under the Tuner tab. Then fill in for P1 and P2 profiles the VID (mV), CCX1 (MHz) and CCX2 (MHz). So 6 entries. Hit apply for both profiles and go back to the tuner tab. Turn on Hybrid OC and you're done. The time consuming part is running tuning to find out what these 3 values are meant to be. Has the Patreon Beta enabled the P0 Profile? That is what you need for single core clocks.
> 
> Without CTR2.0, you can use PBO Advanced. For single core performance, you basically need highest clock speeds at the voltages required for stability. Temperature is not too bad since it is single core, so your AIO will handle it fine as long as you have good thermal paste. Easiest way to get the highest single core clock speed is using PBO Advanced. Set it to +200 MHz for OC, set your Curve Optimizer if you need to. I have my 2 fastest cores at -15 to get them to hit 4.95GHz. Then run CB R20 single core while Ryzen Master is open and note down which of the PPT, TDC and EDC values are being maxed out. Then go back to bios and adjust the PBO power limits to give it more space in PPT, TDC and EDC as required. Run CB R20 single core again. You might notice at some point, that the clock speed decreases as the benchmark runs to the end. If it does, then the core might be heating up beyond the thermal limit and is getting throttled. Ryzen Master's refresh rate is too slow to capture these peak temperatures. Just adjust PPT, TDC or EDC downwards until you can sustain the same peak clock speed throughout the entire single core benchmark.


So I decided to use your settings mostly as my base and things are looking much better now









Finally breaking the 13K CPUZ mark and got to 680 as well.
Plus 635 in CB20 and solid runs of over 11k are making me feel much better 


That Ryzen Master tip was really cool. I did NOT see anything even close to maxing out with single core CB20 BUTwith multi I did see PPT and EDC maxed out as you can see on the attached photo.I still have temperature headroom (I set mine to 87C) for my temps so I can maybe increase one or the other...not sure which one you think is best to try, and see if I cans queeze a bit more performance.


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> That Ryzen Master tip was really cool. I did NOT see anything even close to maxing out with single core CB20 BUTwith multi I did see PPT and EDC maxed out as you can see on the attached photo.I still have temperature headroom (I set mine to 87C) for my temps so I can maybe increase one or the other...not sure which one you think is best to try, and see if I cans queeze a bit more performance.


Nice to see you are getting towards what your 5950x can do. I think you can get a bit more multi-core performance through higher clock speed, however, cooling will be the limit since you are already at 82 ºC. What thermal paste are you using? I'm surprised your temperatures are that high, considering it is winter over there. It is summer where I am and I'm running mine using air cooling. (mine is 12 cores though)










EDC always maxes out, but it covers both the core draw and the SOC draw. I'm not sure how the CPU prioritises, but I actually got the highest clock speeds and highest CB R23 scores using EDC of 140A, probably because of reduced heat. If you want to try, you can lower EDC to 140A but keep in mind other types of benchmarks which are more memory intensive might have lower scores. Keep an eye on the temperatures and clock speed. If the clock speed increases to 4.6GHz throughout the whole CB all core run, then that is good. If the temperature stays at 82 ºC and you want some more clock speed, then you can increase PPT to 240W, keeping TDC at 200A and EDC at 140A.

Eventhough the clock speed will increase more at the start, if it does drop back down to below 4.6GHz mid way through, then you are better off lowering PPT back to 220W. Cinebench scores are higher if you can maintain a higher average clock speed instead of a super high peak speed and a lower overall speed because of overheating.

You can also reduce heat generation by lowering voltage a bit more using Curve Optimizer from -15 to -20 or -25. But look at your CB R20 scores too. If you find you are getting a higher clock speed, but lower scores, that means your system is not stable at those settings and you have to go back to the higher Curve optimiser voltage settings.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> Nice to see you are getting towards what your 5950x can do. I think you can get a bit more multi-core performance through higher clock speed, however, cooling will be the limit since you are already at 82 ºC. What thermal paste are you using? I'm surprised your temperatures are that high, considering it is winter over there. It is summer where I am and I'm running mine using air cooling. (mine is 12 cores though)
> 
> View attachment 2477652
> 
> 
> EDC always maxes out, but it covers both the core draw and the SOC draw. I'm not sure how the CPU prioritises, but I actually got the highest clock speeds and highest CB R23 scores using EDC of 140A, probably because of reduced heat. If you want to try, you can lower EDC to 140A but keep in mind other types of benchmarks which are more memory intensive might have lower scores. Keep an eye on the temperatures and clock speed. If the clock speed increases to 4.6GHz throughout the whole CB all core run, then that is good. If the temperature stays at 82 ºC and you want some more clock speed, then you can increase PPT to 240W, keeping TDC at 200A and EDC at 140A.
> 
> Eventhough the clock speed will increase more at the start, if it does drop back down to below 4.6GHz mid way through, then you are better off lowering PPT back to 220W. Cinebench scores are higher if you can maintain a higher average clock speed instead of a super high peak speed and a lower overall speed because of overheating.
> 
> You can also reduce heat generation by lowering voltage a bit more using Curve Optimizer from -15 to -20 or -25. But look at your CB R20 scores too. If you find you are getting a higher clock speed, but lower scores, that means your system is not stable at those settings and you have to go back to the higher Curve optimiser voltage settings.


Ok looks like 220 and 160 are doing the best combo for me so far. I will test some more.
For CO I got my main 2 cores in CCD0 at -15 and the others at -20. On CDD 1 I got my best 2 cores at -20 and the others at -30
Here is how my cores look after a single core CB20 run:









I am using Thermal Grizzly cryo on this one. Maybe my cooler is not as good as I wish it was for this CPU but then again, it is 16 cores so probably is a big hungry and toasty


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> Ok looks like 220 and 160 are doing the best combo for me so far. I will test some more.
> For CO I got my main 2 cores in CCD0 at -15 and the others at -20. On CDD 1 I got my best 2 cores at -20 and the others at -30
> Here is how my cores look after a single core CB20 run:
> View attachment 2477655


Nice, that is higher than mine. I get a maximum of 4950 on my best core. No higher.



shaolin95 said:


> I am using Thermal Grizzly cryo on this one. Maybe my cooler is not as good as I wish it was for this CPU but then again, it is 16 cores so probably is a big hungry and toasty


Probably the 16 cores! I'd love to try an AIO one day, but my case is so old that it just doesn't have the mounting points for the radiator.


----------



## Nizzen

arkantos91 said:


> I've tried CTR 2.0 but I don't like very much that you can set only profiles for light multi-threaded loads (i.e. gaming) and heavy multi-threaded loads (productivity)... this means that when idling or almost idling like for example web browsing or watching videos, the default BIOS settings are used... therefore voltage often ramps up to even 1.45 V and then goes down all the time.
> 
> So I asked myself: why not manually apply in BIOS some CCX overclock based on the values proposed by CTR?
> 
> I set v-core at 1.35 V and all four CCX at 4.4 GHz. Cinebench gave me the highest score I've ever seen, 7693. But the problem here is that all cores are stuck to 4.4 GHz all the time, same goes for the voltage. Even if energy savings are active. Isn't there a way to keep this OC with 1.35 V / 4.4 GHz all cores while also allowing the cpu to downclock/downvolt when not necessary (i.e. low load, idling)?
> 
> Can 1.35 V / 4.4 GHz at all times be harmful to the cpu? Excluding risks, does it even make sense to do something like this? The alternative being just using auto v-core with -1 offset: this means that voltage will never go over 1.35 (in the case of my 3900X/motherboard) but also that when idling voltage will drop and not stay to a fixed value all the time.


I'm getting better gaming performance with allcore oc 4600mhz on 5900x vs "pbo" oc and a couple of cores reaching 5150mhz for a couple of miliseconds.

Too bad the computer is drawing 260-270w on idle with all core oc and a 3090 🤣

Maybe I'm doing sonething wrong, but for me all core oc is the performance winner in most scenarioes.

I'm even getting stuttering in some games with "auto oc" with Asus Dark Hero, none with All core OC.

Pleace tell me I'm wrong  I'm noob on this plattform 😅


----------



## pfinch

shaolin95 said:


> Ok looks like 220 and 160 are doing the best combo for me so far. I will test some more.
> For CO I got my main 2 cores in CCD0 at -15 and the others at -20. On CDD 1 I got my best 2 cores at -20 and the others at -30
> Here is how my cores look after a single core CB20 run:
> View attachment 2477655
> 
> 
> I am using Thermal Grizzly cryo on this one. Maybe my cooler is not as good as I wish it was for this CPU but then again, it is 16 cores so probably is a big hungry and toasty


 Hey,
could you share your BIOS settings. Thanks


----------



## rostock27

Hello, I have the BIOS 3204 and the PC just goes off while idling and then starts again. What do I have to set in the BIOS so that this doesn't happen again?


----------



## Sleepycat

rostock27 said:


> Hello, I have the BIOS 3204 and the PC just goes off while idling and then starts again. What do I have to set in the BIOS so that this doesn't happen again?


Disable DF C-states, or use curve optimiser and add +5 or +10 to your cores (not sure which ones though)


----------



## Anthos

rostock27 said:


> Hello, I have the BIOS 3204 and the PC just goes off while idling and then starts again. What do I have to set in the BIOS so that this doesn't happen again?


have you changed any bios settings since you installed everything?


----------



## rostock27

Anthos said:


> have you changed any bios settings since you installed everything?


only docp is switched on, the rest is on default settings


----------



## ArtemFH

rostock27 said:


> only docp is switched on, the rest is on default settings


if you have Zen 2, try to remove fmax to the disabled position and also check the memory for errors
P.s.and check the SoC voltage value


----------



## rostock27

ArtemFH said:


> if you have Zen 2, try to remove fmax to the disabled position and also check the memory for errors
> P.s.and check the SoC voltage value


yes have a 3950x


----------



## Sam64

@rostock27 Additionally you can try setting Power Supply Idle Control to "Typical Current Idle" (Advanced/AMD CBS/CPU Common Options).


----------



## weleh

Hello guys,

Does this board suffers from a max boost override hardcap no matter what you set?

See:









Asus ROG Strix B550-F Gaming/(WiFi) thread


Diagnostic:




www.overclock.net


----------



## xeizo

weleh said:


> Hello guys,
> 
> Does this board suffers from a max boost override hardcap no matter what you set?
> 
> See:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asus ROG Strix B550-F Gaming/(WiFi) thread
> 
> 
> Diagnostic:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


No, I have had 5 cores hitting 5150MHz, not WHEA stable but it boosts alright. I now use 50MHz offset being stable, and three cores hits 5000MHz. Sustained single core boost is 4950MHz.

I have the B550-F too, but use a 3900X on it, it boosts nice as a 3900X should. 6 cores over 4500MHz and two cores hits 4625MHz. I have no idea how a 5000-series behave on B550-F, but judging from how good the 3900X works I wouldn't expect any problems. Anyway, B550-F now has the oldest bios of the Asus boards and it's only a Beta. I'm sure there will be a new bios soon, possibly with some fixes.


----------



## shaolin95

pfinch said:


> Hey,
> could you share your BIOS settings. Thanks


Sure 


BTW anyone else has issues running CB23? It just crashes at launch and it happens even at stock settings.

From the log I see

ExceptionNumber = 0xC0000005
ExceptionText = "ACCESS_VIOLATION"
Address = 0x00007FFF185B89AD
Thread = 0x00000000000007AC
Last_Error = 0x00000000

No other app has issues and I have done CB20, Realbnench, Adobe Rendering, gaming, etc


----------



## GRABibus

rostock27 said:


> yes have a 3950x


which chipset driver do you have ?
The latest one’s from AMD site removed idle reboots for me.
I have also « DF Cstates » disabled and « typical idle current »enabled.


----------



## Ov3rdos3

Hello Guys,

I hope everyone is doing ok.

I recently started tweaking my 3700X on my CHF8 tried the new Fmax feature which is really great. When enable the 3700 can be pushed to 4.35ghz boost nearly all the time. However this is not stable at all, I can manage to run CB R23 but not play Red Dead Redemption 2 for instance the game crashed as soon as I get in game. This happened to me in the past when I did the EDC bug frequency was 4.3ghz all cores but crashes ingame in battlefield 1 and apex legend.

There's no temperature problem I am running 2x360 rads with a gpu and cpu loop cpu max temp while boosting at 4.3ghz is 82 degrees max.

Performance Enhancer at Level 3 (OC)
VRM at max

For those who are able to run FMAX stable or who had crashes, what did you do to solve the issue?


Many thanks.


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> Sure
> 
> 
> BTW anyone else has issues running CB23? It just crashes at launch and it happens even at stock settings.
> 
> From the log I see
> 
> ExceptionNumber = 0xC0000005
> ExceptionText = "ACCESS_VIOLATION"
> Address = 0x00007FFF185B89AD
> Thread = 0x00000000000007AC
> Last_Error = 0x00000000
> 
> No other app has issues and I have done CB20, Realbnench, Adobe Rendering, gaming, etc


Try turning off PBO Advanced and then retry running CB R23. See if it removes the issue. If it does, then the curve optimiser settings is too aggressive for your cores.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> Try turning off PBO Advanced and then retry running CB R23. See if it removes the issue. If it does, then the curve optimiser settings is too aggressive for your cores.


Yeah I have tried all that, even loading defaults and turning PBO all to disabled just be sure it is as slow and stable as possible. Something is odd as it is the only thing that does not work and it is only opening it not even runnning it. Other more demanding apps run fine through the rendering or benchmarking while OCed so make no sense that this one will crash just opening due to stability when running at stock speeds. Odd for sure.


----------



## quarx2k

Ov3rdos3 said:


> Hello Guys,
> 
> I hope everyone is doing ok.
> 
> I recently started tweaking my 3700X on my CHF8 tried the new Fmax feature which is really great. When enable the 3700 can be pushed to 4.35ghz boost nearly all the time. However this is not stable at all, I can manage to run CB R23 but not play Red Dead Redemption 2 for instance the game crashed as soon as I get in game. This happened to me in the past when I did the EDC bug frequency was 4.3ghz all cores but crashes ingame in battlefield 1 and apex legend.
> 
> There's no temperature problem I am running 2x360 rads with a gpu and cpu loop cpu max temp while boosting at 4.3ghz is 82 degrees max.
> 
> Performance Enhancer at Level 3 (OC)
> VRM at max
> 
> For those who are able to run FMAX stable or who had crashes, what did you do to solve the issue?
> 
> 
> Many thanks.


Reboot caused by one bad core. On My 3950 core 4 (in first CCX) can't handle any load on 4.7 even at 1.45V and instantly reboot the PC. Thats why there are random reboots.


----------



## Jesaul

With curve optimization I've been able to reduce latency from 52.3 to 51.5!!!


----------



## shaolin95

Jesaul said:


> With curve optimization I've been able to reduce latency from 52.3 to 51.5!!!


Nice! 
I need to work a bit more on my RAM but with 4x16GB it seems hard to tighten seems to much and I rather stay at 1.45v or at closer to that than to 1.5v


----------



## shaolin95

I think I am staying with these BIOS settings as I lost a bit of multi but boosted my single (I do a lof of photoshop where many things are NOT multithreaded).








First time breaking the 690 barrier while keeping over 13200 in multi.
Now waiting for the new CTR to see what I get.


----------



## Jesaul

shaolin95 said:


> Nice!
> I need to work a bit more on my RAM but with 4x16GB it seems hard to tighten seems to much and I rather stay at 1.45v or at closer to that than to 1.5v


That is exactly the reason why I've sold 32gb and bought 16gb...
I'm at 1.49v with low memory temp.


----------



## shaolin95

Jesaul said:


> That is exactly the reason why I've sold 32gb and bought 16gb...
> I'm at 1.49v with low memory temp.


Yeah but for my needs that will make no sense since the timings are mostly for benchmarks and the amount of RAM is actually one I DO need for my work so I am happy where I am now.


----------



## Jesaul

shaolin95 said:


> Yeah but for my needs that will make no sense since the timings are mostly for benchmarks and the amount of RAM is actually one I DO need for my work so I am happy where I am now.


For the applications that use 32 gb I've got two 1tb WD SN850 in raid mode for swap 
The rest is gaming and low latency does make a lot of difference, compared to old 3600


----------



## shaolin95

Jesaul said:


> For the applications that use 32 gb I've got two 1tb WD SN850 in raid mode for swap
> The rest is gaming and low latency does make a lot of difference, compared to old 3600


I have yet to see any real tests where the small differences latency actually makes a difference but to each its own. 
Regards


----------



## MultiDoc

shaolin95 said:


> I think I am staying with these BIOS settings as I lost a bit of multi but boosted my single (I do a lof of photoshop where a lot is less multithreaded).
> View attachment 2477891
> 
> First time breaking the 690 barrier while keeping over 13200 in multi.
> Now waiting for the new CTR to see what I get.


that’s a great result! I’d be grateful if you wouldn’t mind sharing a bios dump with your settings please


----------



## shaolin95

MultiDoc said:


> that’s a great result! I’d be grateful if you wouldn’t mind sharing a bios dump with your settings please


Thanks and sure thing. Here it is


----------



## Ov3rdos3

quarx2k said:


> Reboot caused by one bad core. On My 3950 core 4 (in first CCX) can't handle any load on 4.7 even at 1.45V and instantly reboot the PC. Thats why there are random reboots.


Thank you for your answer actually I dont get any reboot but a crash in desktop.


----------



## CyrIng

Pr3t3nd3r said:


> Hi guys!
> 
> Is there any gain with the PBO 2.0 if I don't tend to overclock? Does it still make a sense to upgrade BIOS just if I run on stock settings?
> 
> Thank you for your answers and wish you best!


3950X Linux developper: PBO as auto, keeping the most stable BIOS 2206. Only DDR tweaked for perf improvement.
Nominal single Core at 4.7 , All 4.2 GHz, with lots of stability for heavy builds at max 70°C
All power savings, c-states, AMD-V + IOMMU enabled. Spread spectrum disabled. 
NVME PCI 4.0 makes also the whole perf difference.

No need to upgrade BIOS beside ruining your day!


----------



## Alemancio

shaolin95 said:


> I have yet to see any real tests where the small differences latency actually makes a difference but to each its own.
> Regards


You'd mainly see it in your 1% FPS, not so much on AVG


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> Yeah I have tried all that, even loading defaults and turning PBO all to disabled just be sure it is as slow and stable as possible. Something is odd as it is the only thing that does not work and it is only opening it not even runnning it. Other more demanding apps run fine through the rendering or benchmarking while OCed so make no sense that this one will crash just opening due to stability when running at stock speeds. Odd for sure.


Using CTR2.0, does your PC pass its stability test? If it does pass, then the issue is likely CB R23. If you have not downloaded a new copy and run it totally off the new one, can try that too.


----------



## Jesaul

That's the last 5800x results with curve optimizations.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> Using CTR2.0, does your PC pass its stability test?


Yes it passes that just fine. I just didnt like that the results were slower (but colder running) than my own plus what I really want is the one he is dropping this week.


----------



## 1ah1

Jesaul said:


> That's the last 5800x results with curve optimizations.


I have 5800x what the settings for pbo


----------



## Jesaul

1ah1 said:


> I have 5800x what the settings for pbo


Limits are 250. max cpu boost clock override is 200Mhz 
Advanced overclocking uses curve set to negative values per core: -30, -30, -30, -30, -30, -30,-25,-19 (everything else is auto)
External digi+ power control has been tweaked to extreme settings.
And water with 5 sections


----------



## 1ah1

Jesaul said:


> Limits are 250. max cpu boost clock override is 200Mhz
> Advanced overclocking uses curve set to negative values per core: -30, -30, -30, -30, -30, -30,-25,-19 (everything else is auto)
> External digi+ power control has been tweaked to extreme settings.
> And water with 5 sections


Do you use Fmax or just Auto


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> Yes it passes that just fine. I just didnt like that the results were slower (but colder running) than my own plus what I really want is the one he is dropping this week.


Then I reckon the issue is CB R23 and not your PC.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> Then I reckon the issue is CB R23 and not your PC.


There must be some dependency that is corrupt I suppose but I cannot find out what. Anyways, I wont kill myself about it since everything else..and more importantly what I use for my work (and gaming) are fine 
Thanks though. Did you ever try pushing your 64GB to 3800? Just curious.


----------



## Akele

shaolin95 said:


> Sure
> 
> 
> BTW anyone else has issues running CB23? It just crashes at launch and it happens even at stock settings.
> 
> From the log I see
> 
> ExceptionNumber = 0xC0000005
> ExceptionText = "ACCESS_VIOLATION"
> Address = 0x00007FFF185B89AD
> Thread = 0x00000000000007AC
> Last_Error = 0x00000000
> 
> No other app has issues and I have done CB20, Realbnench, Adobe Rendering, gaming, etc


Yes, I had the same problem with CB23 crashing. I had to relax my RAM timings and that fixed it. Try setting your primary timings to 14-15-15-15-32-48 to see if that resolves the issue.


----------



## shaolin95

Akele said:


> Yes, I had the same problem with CB23 crashing. I had to relax my RAM timings and that fixed it. Try setting your primary timings to 14-15-15-15-32-48 to see if that resolves the issue.


It's crashing trying to open the actual app so I dont get to even try to start the benchmark, even with all at default. Makes zero sense that any other benchmark runs without issue, all my apps rendering without issue all while heavily OCed.


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> Did you ever try pushing your 64GB to 3800? Just curious.


I did try pushing and failed! Nothing worked for my 64GB. Even 3666 @ CL18, 1.5V, SOC VDD 1.15V did not want to post at all. 

Taking out 32GB, I could get 3866 @ CL16-16-16-36 CR1 easily with 1.4V, VDD SOC 1.09V.


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> Is crashing to start the actual app so I dont get to even try to start the benchmark, even with all at default so is not even running. Makes zero sense that any other benchmark runs without issue, all my apps rendering without issue all while heavily OCed.


Personally, I'd delete the entire CB R23 folder / Uninstall. Then download a new package (I use the ZIP files, not the installer). CTR's stability test picked out errors which I did not detect previously. My settings also passed memory testing and games like Cyberpunk2077 and FS2020 did not crash at all. 

So if yours is passing stability, it should be something else that is wrong. The CB R23 program itself does not use up much memory and yours is crashing at the start, which is before the memory even gets loaded up in preparation for rendering.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> Personally, I'd delete the entire CB R23 folder / Uninstall. Then download a new package (I use the ZIP files, not the installer). CTR's stability test picked out errors which I did not detect previously. My settings also passed memory testing and games like Cyberpunk2077 and FS2020 did not crash at all.
> 
> So if yours is passing stability, it should be something else that is wrong. The CB R23 program itself does not use up much memory and yours is crashing at the start, which is before the memory even gets loaded up in preparation for rendering.


Yep that is the odd part, it crashes just to open lol
Really cant wait for that new CTR..he said he is dropping it this week.


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> Really cant wait for that new CTR..he said he is dropping it this week.


Yeah, looking forward to it. I'm all set up with my P1 profile at 4.325 / 4.25 @ 1.1V and P2 @ 4.625 / 4.575 @ 1.275V. The P0 will be that final piece of the puzzle.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> Yeah, looking forward to it. I'm all set up with my P1 profile at 4.325 / 4.25 @ 1.1V and P2 @ 4.625 / 4.575 @ 1.275V. The P0 will be that final piece of the puzzle.


Did you get those from the automatic test from the app or you used your own manual ones? I did not like that it was too mild in its testing but not sure if I can tell it to be more risky or use more voltage to get me closer to my manual settings.


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> Did you get those from the automatic test from the app or you used your own manual ones? I did not like that it was too mild in its testing but not sure if I can tell it to be more risky or use more voltage to get me closer to my manual settings.


I set the starting points (reference voltage and reference clock speed) myself and let CTR fine tune the stability. You can rely on the diagnostic recommendations as the starting point, but they seemed conservative.

My starting points were:
4.2 @ 1.1 V (it tested upwards quite a bit to 4.375 / 4.225 @ 1.094V)
4.45 @ 1.2 V (it settled at 4.525 / 4.475 @ 1.2V)
4.575 @ 1.275V (settled at 4.625 / 4.575 @ 1.275V)

I let it run its tuning until it found a stable setting.


----------



## Jesaul

1ah1 said:


> Do you use Fmax or just Auto


No, it is on auto.


----------



## LtMatt

Jesaul said:


> With curve optimization I've been able to reduce latency from 52.3 to 51.5!!!


Impressive! However i believe that particular version of the benchmark allows for lower latency scores. 

I would be interested to see what latency score you get on the latest version attached.


----------



## pfinch

Sleepycat said:


> I set the starting points (reference voltage and reference clock speed) myself and let CTR fine tune the stability. You can rely on the diagnostic recommendations as the starting point, but they seemed conservative.
> 
> My starting points were:
> 4.2 @ 1.1 V (it tested upwards quite a bit to 4.375 / 4.225 @ 1.094V)
> 4.45 @ 1.2 V (it settled at 4.525 / 4.475 @ 1.2V)
> 4.575 @ 1.275V (settled at 4.625 / 4.575 @ 1.275V)
> 
> I let it run its tuning until it found a stable setting.


Could you please explain what you exactly did with CTR? What should be tweaked at the BIOS?! 
My CTR performance is extremely bad.

Thanks


----------



## greg_p

There is nothing to do in the bios. CTR is finding profile relative to the quality of the silicon, with good margin. I have a bronze sample and the P1 and P2 profiles are not over 4.4Ghz, which you could find bad. I am actually runing without CTR at 4.6/4.5 manual overclock.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

I managed to get my 5950x from bronze to gold with CTR just by finding a sweet spot with my soc voltage.


----------



## Sleepycat

pfinch said:


> Could you please explain what you exactly did with CTR? What should be tweaked at the BIOS?!
> My CTR performance is extremely bad.
> 
> Thanks


In the bios, leave all the OC settings and CPU core voltage at Auto. This allows CTR to take control. The only thing you should change is PBO power limits if you want to increase power/current allowance of the motherboard, and the voltages that are not CPU core. You can have your memory overclocked as CTR does not change those. But keep in mind that it is using Prime95 to test for stability, so if your memory overclock is unstable, it will affect the results. I did mine with my memory overclocked anyway.

Then go into Windows, start up CTR. Go to the Tuner tab, then click on Default (the drop down box) and choose advanced. Next you click Diagnostics and it will test your CPU at stock settings and make some recommendations for P1, P2 and Undervolt. You take the P1 recommendation and enter the clock speed and voltage into the Reference Voltage and Reference Frequency entries. That is your starting point. Then click Tune and it will test. If you want a higher voltage, then take the P2 recommendation and do the same thing. After it determines a suitable and stable setting, you enter it into the Profile Management page. Note that it will tell you a setting which says penalty for P2. I just ignore that and apply the last passed setting in the output window.

You can keep doing this a few times to test various voltages and CPU fan speeds too. I just copy the results into a text file, so that I can enter them into Profile Management if I want to change it. Saves having to retune if I forgot the settings.


----------



## Sleepycat

Badgerslayer7 said:


> I managed to get my 5950x from bronze to gold with CTR just by finding a sweet spot with my soc voltage.


What SOC voltage were you using with bronze and gold? Mine is at 1.09V and it shows up as Silver. I can't really change it as I require 1.09V to get my 64GB to overclock with stability.


----------



## Jesaul

LtMatt said:


> Impressive! However i believe that particular version of the benchmark allows for lower latency scores.
> 
> I would be interested to see what latency score you get on the latest version attached.


I've got your message, dude. (Memory is 4000CL 17 running at 3800cl13)
Here is the last version:


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Sleepycat said:


> What SOC voltage were you using with bronze and gold? Mine is at 1.09V and it shows up as Silver. I can't really change it as I require 1.09V to get my 64GB to overclock with stability.


Edit yes soc @1.11875. Any higher voltage than that it goes back down to silver any lower than a few steps in voltage then it becomes a bronze.


----------



## jomama22

Jesaul said:


> I've got your message, dude. (Memory is 4000CL 17 running at 3800cl13)
> Here is the last version:


Can you post a zentimings shot?


----------



## GRABibus

I could finally reach 650 at CBR20 ST.
Three weeks that I try 



















20°C to 21°C ambient


----------



## Jesaul

jomama22 said:


> Can you post a zentimings shot?


Here. Don't look at tfaw


----------



## GRABibus

Jesaul said:


> I've got your message, dude. (Memory is 4000CL 17 running at 3800cl13)
> Here is the last version:


nice for the latency !

your « write value « seems low.
It it usual ?


----------



## Jesaul

GRABibus said:


> your « write value « seems low.
> It it usual ?


Yes, because 5800x has one chiplet  It is the power of the 1 chiplet force.
The same is for copy. On 5900x it would be 55-56k.


----------



## GRABibus

Ok ! 😊


----------



## PWn3R

Is anyone who is getting 1900+ FCLK running 4 sticks of RAM, or is it only 2 that's working for people?


----------



## drnilly007

Hey what are you guys using for software fan controls speedfan doesnt seem to be working. Im using a Dark Hero


----------



## drnilly007

PWn3R said:


> Is anyone who is getting 1900+ FCLK running 4 sticks of RAM, or is it only 2 that's working for people?


Try 1933 ive read theres an issue with 1900


----------



## PWn3R

drnilly007 said:


> Try 1933 ive read theres an issue with 1900


Yes, I'm aware of that issue, several of us have been fighting with it for a while now. I can boot 1933 and 1966. After booting one of those I can change to 1900, but I can't get it stable on any of them over 1866 (WHEA Correctables on the IF in logs).


----------



## smbell1979

drnilly007 said:


> Hey what are you guys using for software fan controls speedfan doesnt seem to be working. Im using a Dark Hero


 Fan Control is great!









GitHub - Rem0o/FanControl.Releases: This is the release repository for Fan Control, a highly customizable fan controlling software for Windows.


This is the release repository for Fan Control, a highly customizable fan controlling software for Windows. - GitHub - Rem0o/FanControl.Releases: This is the release repository for Fan Control, a h...




github.com


----------



## Badgerslayer7

PWn3R said:


> Is anyone who is getting 1900+ FCLK running 4 sticks of RAM, or is it only 2 that's working for people?


I’m running 1900 with 4 sticks of 8GB ram at 3800mhz. I found I would only boot if the vddp voltage was 0.900v any higher then I would just get f9.


----------



## LtMatt

Jesaul said:


> I've got your message, dude. (Memory is 4000CL 17 running at 3800cl13)
> Here is the last version:


Wow, fair play. Great latency result!!
Could you share your Biosesettings?


----------



## MultiDoc

drnilly007 said:


> Hey what are you guys using for software fan controls speedfan doesnt seem to be working. Im using a Dark Hero


I use Fan Expert 4 from AI Suite, works fine (at least for me), I use a water temp sensor to base the fan curves on.


----------



## Jesaul

LtMatt said:


> Wow, fair play. Great latency result!!
> Could you share your Biosesettings?


Here


----------



## Alemancio

Hi guys, I've followed this thread closely and I'm still confused on that's the FlowChart to achieve 1900 FCLK or higher. Does anybody have a quick'n'dirty guide to do so?


----------



## PWn3R

Badgerslayer7 said:


> I’m running 1900 with 4 sticks of 8GB ram at 3800mhz. I found I would only boot if the vddp voltage was 0.900v any higher then I would just get f9.


That is interesting - I'm going to try to reboot and see if that helps me at all - I suspect not, because I had to have it at 1V to get it to boot previously, but I wasn't modifying that voltage specifically. 

Edit: no post, increasing to 1.0 VDDP makes it boot, but stil whea central.

Edit2: tried VDDP/CCD/IOD @ 1.075 and vSOC @ 1.125. Won’t boot with ram @ 3800 and FCLK @ 1900. 1933 works with these voltages but whea central. I am starting to think some of these settings just don’t apply until you hard power off sometimes.


----------



## Alemancio

PWn3R said:


> Edit2: tried VDDP/CCD/IOD @ 1.075 and vSOC @ 1.125. Won’t boot with ram @ 3800 and FCLK @ 1900. 1933 works with these voltages but whea central. I am starting to think some of these settings just don’t apply until you hard power off sometimes.


This is what I dont get about this motherboard.........


----------



## 1ah1

Alemancio said:


> Hi guys, I've followed this thread closely and I'm still confused on that's the FlowChart to achieve 1900 FCLK or higher. Does anybody have a quick'n'dirty guide to do so?


Man i wanna hug you
It did boot with 1900 FCLK 4x8gb cl14 neo
this is what i did 
1.080 soc stuck voltage
CLDO VDDG CCD 0.900
CLDO VDDG IOD 0.900
CLDO VDDP 0.950
and boom start like easy

I was going too high 1.15 soc and 1.050 for ccd , iod and 1.030 for vddp it did boot without any problems
but if go like this 1.15 soc and 0.950 for ccd , iod and 0.900 for vddp it will not boot 
I missed that if lower all the voltages i must lower the soc


----------



## Alemancio

Was able to boot FCLK 1900 / 3800 (RAM) with SOC 1.15v, CCD/IOD 1.05v. Saved the profile, tried 2000, no luck, loaded saved profile, no boot...... OKEY.......


----------



## Badgerslayer7

My voltages for 5950x @1900 IF

Soc 1.11875v
CCD 1.00v 
IOD 1.050v
VDDP 0.900v 
PLL 1.8 1.82v


----------



## Gadfly

PWn3R said:


> Is anyone who is getting 1900+ FCLK running 4 sticks of RAM, or is it only 2 that's working for people?


I am


----------



## pfinch

Do you use LLC 3 for CTR2.0?


----------



## Gadfly

GRABibus said:


> nice for the latency !
> 
> your « write value « seems low.
> It it usual ?





Jesaul said:


> I've got your message, dude. (Memory is 4000CL 17 running at 3800cl13)
> Here is the last version:


You are running C14 because Gear down mode is enabled. Even if you set C13 in the bios, it will bump up to an even value.


----------



## Gadfly

pfinch said:


> Do you use LLC 3 for CTR2.0?


 I do, yes


----------



## Jesaul

Gadfly said:


> You are running C14 because Gear down mode is enabled. Even if you set C13 in the bios, it will bump up to an even value.


I know. By disabling it I cannot boot at 13. I've tried already.


----------



## pfinch

Gadfly said:


> I do, yes


Thanks, and Global C States?


----------



## Sleepycat

pfinch said:


> Do you use LLC 3 for CTR2.0?


You can if you want. CTR2.0 lets you know how many percent is the voltage sag when it does its testing. So you can set LLC to the level you want. I was getting about 3.4 to 4% sag/droop with my C8H on auto, so I left it on Auto.


----------



## pfinch

Do you recommend to set PBO limits (PPT, EDC, TDC, Thermal) before or after fine tuning P1 and P2 with CTR2.0?


----------



## Jesaul

pfinch said:


> Do you recommend to set PBO limits (PPT, EDC, TDC, Thermal) before or after fine tuning P1 and P2 with CTR2.0?


Before. You can get reboots if you do it after.


----------



## metalshark

Monday 15th for the latest CTR 2.1. Didn't realise the all core 5025MHz mentioned was on a 5900X running Cinebench R20 so should be interesting.


----------



## Dawidowski

Any guides for CTR 2.1? 
2.0 for me just didnt want to work at all...


----------



## pfinch

Does SOC voltage have an impact on core OC limits?!
I thought it's only relevant for MEM/FCLK OC?!


----------



## CyrIng

Today, 3950X crashed b/c of an aggressive negative offset to Vcore.
Just restored the voltage to Auto, but Processor was still crashing during the Idle States. It should not.

Until I switched off and on the PSU. Now Processor is stable again.

Conclusion: something is reset with PSU


----------



## Sleepycat

pfinch said:


> Does SOC voltage have an impact on core OC limits?!
> I thought it's only relevant for MEM/FCLK OC?!


Yes, because with a higher SOC voltage, you generate more heat on the CPU in the SOC die, which can affect how quickly the heat can be drawn away from the Core dies as they share the same heat spreader. So essentially, you will notice that the temperature can be slightly higher with a higher SOC voltage, which causes the CPU to limit its peak OC.


----------



## Kernel-Debugger

My new build on the: -Dark Hero -5950X -6900XT has been working well for a few weeks but now suffers from code 00 while in windows. Screen goes black randomly with code 00 on board. I've checked the 24pin and 8pin from PSU, swapped memory modules (gskill 3200CL14 16x2), loaded optimized defaults, and reset cmos battery. Any other ideas?
This happens randomly while loaded into windows with PBO enabled. There seems to be no issue when i turn off PBO and auto core options, and go with an all core manual overclock.


----------



## Sleepycat

Kernel-Debugger said:


> My new build on the: -Dark Hero -5950X -6900XT has been working well for a few weeks but now suffers from code 00 while in windows. Screen goes black randomly with code 00 on board. I've checked the 24pin and 8pin from PSU, swapped memory modules (gskill 3200CL14 16x2), loaded optimized defaults, and reset cmos battery. Any other ideas?
> This happens randomly while loaded into windows with PBO enabled. There seems to be no issue when i turn off PBO and auto core options, and go with an all core manual overclock.


Can you export the bios settings in txt and post it here?


----------



## Kernel-Debugger

Sleepycat said:


> Can you export the bios settings in txt and post it here?


I just ran through a cpu removal to inspect pins and ek water block seat/paste. Removed cmos batt shorted pins etc and reset everything in bios to default. Again same thing with Auto/PBO but only in windows, absolutely no issue getting into windows, but randomly crashes just sitting in desktop: light load crash to qcode 00 (Bios 3204 and cleared/flashed to 3204)

If i set all core and PBO disabled there is no issues. I was running a Dynamic OC for several weeks with no issue; It's like there is something in windows that is shutting it down. I could send a bios export but it's just auto default settings. I'm running an all core 46.50 @ 1.281v with no issues and could probably go down more in voltage. The only thing of note is that this machine randomly went down to 8 core without me disabling anything about a week ago, since fixed. Keep in mind that my CPU never goes beyond 60C under load, but when this qcode 00 error kicks in screen goes black and fans usually ramp up; very strange. I'm most likely going to need to reinstall windows but was hoping someone had an idea of what to look for, it's like windows doesn't see it or there is a corruption that sfc and DISM is not able to detect and or fix. And reliability monitor gives me no crash log other than to tell me my score is #%@$!


----------



## Sleepycat

Kernel-Debugger said:


> I just ran through a cpu removal to inspect pins and ek water block seat/paste. Removed cmos batt shorted pins etc and reset everything in bios to default. Again same thing with Auto/PBO but only in windows, absolutely no issue getting into windows, but randomly crashes just sitting in desktop: light load crash to qcode 00 (Bios 3204 and cleared/flashed to 3204)
> 
> If i set all core and PBO disabled there is no issues. I was running a Dynamic OC for several weeks with no issue; It's like there is something in windows that is shutting it down. I could send a bios export but it's just auto default settings. I'm running an all core 46.50 @ 1.281v with no issues and could probably go down more in voltage. The only thing of note is that this machine randomly went down to 8 core without me disabling anything about a week ago, since fixed. Keep in mind that my CPU never goes beyond 60C under load, but when this qcode 00 error kicks in screen goes black and fans usually ramp up; very strange. I'm most likely going to need to reinstall windows but was hoping someone had an idea of what to look for, it's like windows doesn't see it or there is a corruption that sfc and DISM is not able to detect and or fix. And reliability monitor gives me no crash log other than to tell me my score is #%@$!


I am interested in your settings when you have PBO on. There are different locations to turn PBO on, the various versions of PBO that you can select and other supporting PBO settings, which make a difference to stability. Since you are having issues when PBO on, I would like to see what other settings are selected with PBO on. Is your Fmax PBO Enhancer also off? 5000 series goes nuts with stability if you have Fmax on.


----------



## metalshark

Kernel-Debugger said:


> I just ran through a cpu removal to inspect pins and ek water block seat/paste. Removed cmos batt shorted pins etc and reset everything in bios to default. Again same thing with Auto/PBO but only in windows, absolutely no issue getting into windows, but randomly crashes just sitting in desktop: light load crash to qcode 00 (Bios 3204 and cleared/flashed to 3204)
> 
> If i set all core and PBO disabled there is no issues. I was running a Dynamic OC for several weeks with no issue; It's like there is something in windows that is shutting it down. I could send a bios export but it's just auto default settings. I'm running an all core 46.50 @ 1.281v with no issues and could probably go down more in voltage. The only thing of note is that this machine randomly went down to 8 core without me disabling anything about a week ago, since fixed. Keep in mind that my CPU never goes beyond 60C under load, but when this qcode 00 error kicks in screen goes black and fans usually ramp up; very strange. I'm most likely going to need to reinstall windows but was hoping someone had an idea of what to look for, it's like windows doesn't see it or there is a corruption that sfc and DISM is not able to detect and or fix. And reliability monitor gives me no crash log other than to tell me my score is #%@$!


Screen goes black and fans ramp up? I’m told officially this isn’t over current protection, yet strangely if you increase the CPU Current Capability it doesn’t happen anymore.


----------



## Kernel-Debugger

Sleepycat said:


> I am interested in your settings when you have PBO on. There are different locations to turn PBO on, the various versions of PBO that you can select and other supporting PBO settings, which make a difference to stability. Since you are having issues when PBO on, I would like to see what other settings are selected with PBO on. Is your Fmax PBO Enhancer also off? 5000 series goes nuts with stability if you have Fmax on.


Here is the output with just Auto PBO


----------



## Sleepycat

Kernel-Debugger said:


> Here is the output with just Auto PBO


And in this setting with Auto PBO (essentially bios defaults except with DOCP, CR1, GDM on) you don't have problems. What are the settings when you do have problems?


----------



## romilius

Having absolutely the same issue with 00 code. Dark Hero + 5900x. BIOS 3204. But i've found some workaround to avoid thig bug. I've disabled C-States. After that i applied CO -26, manual PBO limits, +50Mhz. Guess its BIOS/AGESA problem.


----------



## mismatchedyes

I think I have found a bug with PBO power limits. I am using the Dark hero so not sure if it will affect the Crosshair VIII or not but it would be interesting to see if it does.

What I have found is that when using PBO the EDC and TDC power limits must be exactly 40 of each other or there is a loss of performance.

If anyone could test and report back it would be good.

To test this

Enable PBO and set limits to disabled in the BIOS. Then run a benchmark like Geekbench 5 or CPUz or a CPU limited game like Tomb Raider on 720p

Then set the power limits manually to 142W PPT, 140A EDC, 95A TDC in the BIOS.
Re run the benchmark and see if the score goes down. In theory it should be identical but my results always show a decrease.

Finally go back to the BIOS and set the limits to exactly 40 of each other, for example 95A/135A or 90A/130A or 100A/140A and re run the benchmark. This always puts me back in the same ballpark as the 'disabled' setting on power limits.

If anyone could try this it would be much appreciated.


----------



## Chili195

I was getting that problem too when everything turns off and the fans ramp up to 100% after setting CPU Phase Power to Extreme. No reboot, it just stays like that with the 00 code. I then changed the CPU Power Phase back to Auto and it hasn't happened since.


----------



## Kernel-Debugger

Sleepycat said:


> And in this setting with Auto PBO (essentially bios defaults except with DOCP, CR1, GDM on) you don't have problems. What are the settings when you do have problems?


after an all night "try everything possible" phase of testing... *Disabling global c-state was the fix*. Again this is running Bios 3204, latest AMD released chipset drivers and Win 10 release: 19042.804

I also only have: Balanced, High Performance, and Power Saver as power plan options in windows. Thanks, back to my Dynamic OC mode that i was running prior to 3204

_I remember back in the day we could just pm elmor to bring this to their attention.. can this be done now with someone still in the department?_


----------



## Alemancio

mismatchedyes said:


> Finally go back to the BIOS and set the limits to exactly 40 of each other, for example 95A/135A or 90A/130A or 100A/140A and re run the benchmark. This always puts me back in the same ballpark as the 'disabled' setting on power limits.


Quite interesting. How many tests have you performed?


----------



## mismatchedyes

Quite a lot of tests as I was trying to figure out optimum EDC and tdc values and things weren't making sense. 

I know that too high EDC results in decreased boost in single and mutli and that going too high on tdc casues slight multi performance reduction if hitting the point of throttling but if keeping one value static and adjusting the other there was always a performance reduction if the values become too far from each other.

I then looked and checked what happened if they were closer to each other and again the same performance reduction.

I looked back at the benchmark scores I had written down and noticed every single time a score was a high score it was always with the values exactly 40 apart.

It's not a massive difference but it does seem to be consistent

I thought this was strange as stock values are 45 apart, not 40 so did some testing with the power limits adjustment set to disabled and the results were always better.

Then I manually entered exactly the same limits as disabled would have been using and results were always worse. It was only possible to go back to original performance of the values were manually set with a 40 delta from each other.


----------



## No-one-no1

PWn3R said:


> Is anyone who is getting 1900+ FCLK running 4 sticks of RAM, or is it only 2 that's working for people?


I'm "dailying" 4x8GB at 1900, works great. I don't think it will do 1933 though on 4x. The margins are so narrow on the ohms and volts to get 1900 to work already. (1933 might be possible, but don't think it's very likely)
Easily does 1966 on 2x though, would probably do 2000 with tweaking and info learned from the 4x work.
By "working" I mean actually has good performance, and also passes stress tests.


----------



## shaolin95

Adjusted my EDC and TDC a little which brought down temps a little but also somehow helped my boost stability so for now I found my perfect spot until I try the latest CTR version.


----------



## kriaz

hello, 

since bios 3204 I have very particular random crashes. I have a crash every 2-3 days then each reboot of the machine I crash every 5-10 mins on windows unless I change the edc tdc parameter on the bios, which gives me another 3 days of respite then that come back ...

I specify I carried out several tests 2h occt large date set stable, 1h occt small data set stable, 1500% hci memtest stable bios @ stock execpt edc, tdc on motherboard .

my config 5950x, crosshair 8 hero bios 3402
good température ram and cpu

error crash 161 volgmr and 41 error kernel with artifac or blue screen .

sorry for my English ..


----------



## Alemancio

kriaz said:


> hello,
> 
> since bios 3204 I have very particular random crashes. I have a crash every 2-3 days then each reboot of the machine I crash every 5-10 mins on windows unless I change the edc tdc parameter on the bios, which gives me another 3 days of respite then that come back ...
> 
> I specify I carried out several tests 2h occt large date set stable, 1h occt small data set stable, 1500% hci memtest stable bios @ stock execpt edc, tdc on motherboard .
> 
> my config 5950x, crosshair 8 hero bios 3402
> good température ram and cpu
> 
> error crash 161 volgmr and 41 error kernel with artifac or blue screen .
> 
> sorry for my English ..


Try Disabling Global C-States. Id also try loading default bios values and start fresh.


----------



## mismatchedyes

This is about the best I can do with my 5950x The CB20 single score is weird as it skips between the two best cores. When I had a fresh install it stuck to the best core and the score was a bit better, by about 10 points I think.


----------



## genelecs

shaolin95 said:


> Adjusted my EDC and TDC a little which brought down temps a little but also somehow helped my boost stability so for now I found my perfect spot until I try the latest CTR version.





mismatchedyes said:


> This is about the best I can do with my 5950x


Curious on both your [edit: order] PPT/TDC/EDC values


----------



## shaolin95

genelecs said:


> Curious on both your PPT/EDC/TDC values


PPT 280
TDC 190
EDC 150


----------



## xeizo

shaolin95 said:


> 280/190/150


Genelecs said it in the "wrong" order, PPT/EDC/TDC instead of PPT/TDC/EDC as AMD has put them. I think we need a clarification of which value is which


----------



## genelecs

xeizo said:


> Genelecs said it in the "wrong" order, PPT/EDC/TDC instead of PPT/TDC/EDC as AMD has put them. I think we need a clarification of which value is which


Apologies I did of course mean in in the correct order - PPT/EDC/TDC (will edit my post)
I suspect @shaolin95 is in the correct order though.


----------



## shaolin95

genelecs said:


> Apologies I did of course mean in in the correct order - PPT/EDC/TDC (will edit my post)
> I suspect @shaolin95 is in the correct order though.


PPT 280
TDC 190
EDC 150


----------



## kriaz

Alemancio said:


> Try Disabling Global C-States. Id also try loading default bios values and start fresh.


always crash ... 
I deactivated the pbo on the motherboard
I applied the pbo on the cpu

I will see if it still crashes


----------



## mismatchedyes

PPT 300
TDC 193
EDC 153

Same as shaolin really. The ppt doesn't make any difference I don't think as it's capped to 230w using the AMD overclocking menu and that's likely more than I can cool anyway so I just leave that on full and control heat with EDC. Might have to have a look though just to be sure as I never really investigated that.


----------



## lmfodor

The last months I went crazy with some WHEA errors when I played any game, FH4, CP2077 .. Build a PC with a CH8 wifi (the Dark was not yet released) with an EVGA 850G3, a 5900x with a classic Noctua D15, two NVME drives, a SN750 Firecuda and a WDBlack. Then a TUF RTX 3080 OC and until then everything was fine except the memory. As I got one of the first 5900x I thought that AMD was going to handle memory> 4000mhz well and I decided to buy a kit of a HyperX Predator that is in the QVL hx440c19pb3ak2 / 16. As it came with two XMP profiles, one of 4000 and the other of 3600 I thought it would work very well. However, after a month of troubleshooting and erasing SW eg, Afterburner, disabling PBO, Reinstalling Windows or thinking that they were the games, I did what had to be done and uninstalled everything and reinstalled, but I changed the memories for ones that I had as backup, a cheap ADATA XPG and everything was solved! No more WHEA.



















After this I spent a while playing with all the default values, zero OC, no PBO, only the XMP profile and the Fan optimization. Later I found and read a lot around here about using CO. I tested with 200/200/160 and everything in -10 .. then I took out the -10 .. I tried -15 in the best core of the CCD0, -20 in the rest and -30 in the CCD1 .. and then I discovered the CTR 2.0 I don't really know how it works but it gave me better results (although I don't understand how it works, does it override the BIOS values?) .. with the CO I achieved 8800 from CB20 but with almost 82 degrees. too high for my taste . With the CTR 2 I got 8600 at 60.. very good really. In conclusion I wanted to ask you 3 tips: 

1. Would you like to invest in more better memories, What would be the best KIT you would buy? I say low latency and more bandwidth, with room for OC .. now everything works fine but without OC I have a latency of 74 .. very high, CL19 .. 

2. I’m thinking of changing the Noctua D15 for some AIO 360. I think it would gain some space to improve the OC, how do you see it? If you had to choose the best AIO KIT, which one would you recommend? 

3. At last, I don't know how reliable the CTR 2.0 is. I tried doing the OC without hybrid mode and it seems to work fine. when I did the tests with the PBO enabled and the PPT TDC EDC values active the app crashed. I would like to continue testing with the CO w/o the CTR. (I’m using the latest BIOS version 3204). What values do you recommend? Am I ok with 200/200/160? and what else could you test in negative values? with -15 in the 6 core of the CCD0, -20 in the rest and -30 in CCD1 I have WHEA logs ... I don't know how stable it is. any suggestion?

Thanks!!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Elrick

lmfodor said:


> 2. I’m thinking of changing the Noctua D15 for some AIO 360. I think it would gain some space to improve the OC, how do you see it? If you had to choose the best AIO KIT, which one would you recommend?


Acrtic AIO here;









ARCTIC Liquid Freezer II 360 - Sistema di Raffreddamento ad Acqua per CPU All-in-One (AIO) Multi-Compatibile, Compatibile con Intel & AMD, Pompa Controllata tramite PWM, Ventola: 200-1800 RPM - Nero : Amazon.com.au: Computers


ARCTIC Liquid Freezer II 360 - Sistema di Raffreddamento ad Acqua per CPU All-in-One (AIO) Multi-Compatibile, Compatibile con Intel & AMD, Pompa Controllata tramite PWM, Ventola: 200-1800 RPM - Nero : Amazon.com.au: Computers



www.amazon.com.au





or this one, which I use with my ancient 10900K;









ARCTIC Liquid Freezer II 280 - Sistema di Raffreddamento ad Acqua per CPU All-in-One (AIO) Multi-Compatibile, Compatibile con Intel & AMD, Pompa Controllata tramite PWM, Ventola: 200-1700 RPM - Nero : Amazon.com.au: Computers


ARCTIC Liquid Freezer II 280 - Sistema di Raffreddamento ad Acqua per CPU All-in-One (AIO) Multi-Compatibile, Compatibile con Intel & AMD, Pompa Controllata tramite PWM, Ventola: 200-1700 RPM - Nero : Amazon.com.au: Computers



www.amazon.com.au





The BEST coolers to keep your cpu way icy under a number of heavy tasks. Plus all the Arctic AIOs are quiet, unbelievably quiet.


----------



## lmfodor

Thanks Elrick! I saw reviews on Amazon. It seems to be the best in cooling. I was looking some Corsair and even the ROG but maybe they hace more marketing .. I will pull the trigger for the ARTIC. I want to low the 80 degrees that I have with the noctua... maybe around 70 would be great with the ARTIC 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lmfodor

Jesaul said:


> I've got your message, dude. (Memory is 4000CL 17 running at 3800cl13)
> Here is the last version:


Impressive numbers. I’m about to change my memory. What brand or model are you using? Thanks . 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## metalshark

mismatchedyes said:


> PPT 300
> TDC 193
> EDC 153
> 
> Same as shaolin really. The ppt doesn't make any difference I don't think as it's capped to 230w using the AMD overclocking menu and that's likely more than I can cool anyway so I just leave that on full and control heat with EDC. Might have to have a look though just to be sure as I never really investigated that.


PPT isn't capped to 230W - have hit 304W (not just set, actually hit it under load).


----------



## metalshark

Jesaul said:


> I've got your message, dude. (Memory is 4000CL 17 running at 3800cl13)
> Here is the last version:


CL13! You got it working at 3800 with gear down mode disabled?


----------



## Kha

Hey guys, a moment if I may.

I am tempted to buy a B550-XE, which seemt to share memory trace design and a big chunk of it's VRM with the Dark Hero, however there are a ton of reports on forums, Reddit and so on about Asus having issues with memory OC. Can you please englihten me a bit on this matter ?

Thanks.


----------



## metalshark

Kha said:


> Hey guys, a moment if I may.
> 
> I am tempted to buy a B550-XE, which seemt to share memory trace design and a big chunk of it's VRM with the Dark Hero, however there are a ton of reports on forums, Reddit and so on about Asus having issues with memory OC. Can you please englihten me a bit on this matter ?
> 
> Thanks.


Haven't seen any testing of using the exact same CPU/RAM on two different boards and getting different results which would be great. Only know that 4x8GB RAM kits are hitting 4000MHz WHEA-free with 5950X's on Gigabyte boards and am yet to see the same on ASUS boards. Am told that there shouldn't be a difference so this could literally be silicon lottery difference in processors used so take it with a pinch of salt and no directly comparable evidence (that I'm aware of at least).


----------



## CyrIng

CoreFreq in the development branch offers new switches to disable/enable the BIOS called L1 L2 HW stream prefetchers.


----------



## Sam64

lmfodor said:


> I would like to continue testing with the CO w/o the CTR


For me it was worth doing it. Found a nice setting with CO only:


----------



## mismatchedyes

metalshark said:


> PPT isn't capped to 230W - have hit 304W (not just set, actually hit it under load).


Thank you must be my settings or cooling then as I see a limit of 230w. I notice the same with EDC as well it's limited to 200a if using the AMD overclocking menu but goes higher if you use the other pbo menu.


----------



## metalshark

mismatchedyes said:


> Thank you must be my settings or cooling then as I see a limit of 230w. I notice the same with EDC as well it's limited to 200a if using the AMD overclocking menu but goes higher if you use the other pbo menu.


Had to lap the IHS and move to liquid metal with the Optimus PC waterblock to get the delta's anywhere - think I'm hitting the limit without removing the IHS entirely and am not skilled enough for that with the solder. Here's a quick example screenshot with a high EDC and PPT.

To go above this I need to enable LN2 mode on the board to get access to 200% CPU Current Capability otherwise the thing I'm told is not over current protection turns off the PC with the fans on full with the normal 140% CPU Current Capability.


----------



## lmfodor

I keep trying different settings with CO. With 200/200/160 and CO -30 and -20 on best cores with a +50 clock override I reached 9100 in CB20. However my temps go almost 85.. the follow some guidelines I lowered the PPT to 185, TDC to 130 and EDC 160/170 and lowering a little the curve settings the best cores to -10 or -15 and the remaining on -20 I got 8890 with temps Barely above 80C. 

I have to admit that I’m little confused with the rational or the curve and even with the PBO limits. I’d like the performance obtained from my first test or 200/200/170 and values between -30 and -20 or -15. But I don’t have much headroom in my cooling. For that reason I’m thinking to replace my D15 for a AIO 360 like de ARTIC or the EK. 

But let me understand if I’m in the right way. The objective is to get the lower negative value for all cores. For the best on CCD1 -5/-10/-15? Right? And the remaining of CCD1 and all cores of CCD2 a highest value right? Ligue -20 or -30?

Then applies the scalar that a left in Auto and the the Max Clock Override that I set to 50 or 100. It suppose that the best cores reaches +5000 right? 

At last, how can I test if it’s a stable setting? I read about the windows repartir diagnostic .. in games or prime 95 I’ve been more that 5 hours and nothing strange nor whea logs in Even Viewer. 

Pls give me some advises to try.. and also with the PBO limits. I don’t know if to set higher values like 220/200 and 200 or a lower. And the same with the curve. It is better to have -20 of -30 in the non-best cores? And what about the boost Override (auto OC I guess).. I’m fine with +50 or should pout to 200? I read about compensate the curve with the extra boost

Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## GRABibus

shaolin95 said:


> Adjusted my EDC and TDC a little which brought down temps a little but also somehow helped my boost stability so for now I found my perfect spot until I try the latest CTR version.
> View attachment 2478947


Finally you reached 640pts single score


----------



## shaolin95

GRABibus said:


> Finally you reached 640pts single score


Yep so finally I got all I wanted...for now


----------



## jomama22

lmfodor said:


> I keep trying different settings with CO. With 200/200/160 and CO -30 and -20 on best cores with a +50 clock override I reached 9100 in CB20. However my temps go almost 85.. the follow some guidelines I lowered the PPT to 185, TDC to 130 and EDC 160/170 and lowering a little the curve settings the best cores to -10 or -15 and the remaining on -20 I got 8890 with temps Barely above 80C.
> 
> I have to admit that I’m little confused with the rational or the curve and even with the PBO limits. I’d like the performance obtained from my first test or 200/200/170 and values between -30 and -20 or -15. But I don’t have much headroom in my cooling. For that reason I’m thinking to replace my D15 for a AIO 360 like de ARTIC or the EK.
> 
> But let me understand if I’m in the right way. The objective is to get the lower negative value for all cores. For the best on CCD1 -5/-10/-15? Right? And the remaining of CCD1 and all cores of CCD2 a highest value right? Ligue -20 or -30?
> 
> Then applies the scalar that a left in Auto and the the Max Clock Override that I set to 50 or 100. It suppose that the best cores reaches +5000 right?
> 
> At last, how can I test if it’s a stable setting? I read about the windows repartir diagnostic .. in games or prime 95 I’ve been more that 5 hours and nothing strange nor whea logs in Even Viewer.
> 
> Pls give me some advises to try.. and also with the PBO limits. I don’t know if to set higher values like 220/200 and 200 or a lower. And the same with the curve. It is better to have -20 of -30 in the non-best cores? And what about the boost Override (auto OC I guess).. I’m fine with +50 or should pout to 200? I read about compensate the curve with the extra boost
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


You want your non-best cores as low as possible so they use a little power as possible. This will give more headroom for pbo to use when boosting. Your two best cores will be used in single thread scenarios where pbo will attempt to boot them as high as possible. When it is trying to do this, those best cores will reach much higher on the voltage/freqency curve under load which needs to be stabilzed, hence why the best cores have 'higher' negative values (-10 as opposed to -20 or -30). The non-best core will never be boosted to that part of the voltage/frequency curve so it is easier to stabilize them at lower negative values. 

The goal of curve optimizer is to reduce the power any core uses at a given frequency, this is done by lowering the operating voltage (the negative part of the curve) at a given frequency. Curve optimizer uses a non-linear method of reducing the voltage at every given frequency point along this curve.


----------



## shaolin95

Any CTR experts here?
I am using 2.1 Beta 3 and I cant figure out how to push the Diagnostic.



DIAGNOSTIC RESULTS
AMD Ryzen 9 5950X 16-Core Processor
Max temperature: 55.8°
Energy efficient: 3.86
Your CPU is SILVER SAMPLE
Recomended CCX delta: 100
Theoretical maximum CCX delta: 125
Recomended values for overclocking (P1 profile):
Reference voltage: 1100 mV
Reference frequency: 4225 MHz
Recomended values for overclocking (P2 profile):
Reference voltage: 1250 mV
Reference frequency: 4450 MHz
Recomended values for undervolting:
Reference voltage: 1000 mV
Reference frequency: 4025 MHz



As you can see max temp was very low so its not pushing my CPU anywhere near as hard as I want but I even tried entering manual settings for the test









Am I missing something?

My goal would be to get the highest static overclock I can get with that new Px profile which if I understand correctly, will give me a Dark Hero like switch between max all cores and top "single" core based on load.
But correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> Any CTR experts here?
> I am using 2.1 Beta 3 and I cant figure out how to push the Diagnostic.
> 
> 
> 
> DIAGNOSTIC RESULTS
> AMD Ryzen 9 5950X 16-Core Processor
> Max temperature: 55.8°
> Energy efficient: 3.86
> Your CPU is SILVER SAMPLE
> Recomended CCX delta: 100
> Theoretical maximum CCX delta: 125
> Recomended values for overclocking (P1 profile):
> Reference voltage: 1100 mV
> Reference frequency: 4225 MHz
> Recomended values for overclocking (P2 profile):
> Reference voltage: 1250 mV
> Reference frequency: 4450 MHz
> Recomended values for undervolting:
> Reference voltage: 1000 mV
> Reference frequency: 4025 MHz
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see max temp was very low so its not pushing my CPU anywhere near as hard as I want but I even tried entering manual settings for the test
> View attachment 2479149
> 
> 
> Am I missing something?
> 
> My goal would be to get the highest static overclock I can get with that new Px profile which if I understand correctly, will give me a Dark Hero like switch between max all cores and top "single" core based on load.
> But correct me if I am wrong.


After diagnostic, you put the recommended values into the reference voltage and reference frequency entries, and then click Tune. CTR will start at the reference points you entered and push the CPU as fast as it can go until it gets an error. Then it adjusts voltages to get it stable. I recommend you enter the reference voltage close to your intended target.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> After diagnostic, you put the recommended values into the reference voltage and reference frequency entries, and then click Tune. CTR will start at the reference points you entered and push the CPU as fast as it can go until it gets an error. Then it adjusts voltages to get it stable. I recommend you enter the reference voltage close to your intended target.


Ok so I still want to keep pushing more but after using your tips I got a similar result to my manual OC but the kicker is that my temps dropped over 10ºC which is nice!









Also getting about 693 in CPUz

PS bummer..this is not good now. Blender reboots my computer just starting the car benchmark. :/


----------



## Snoopy69

What is the best BIOS at this moment for my C8H?


----------



## pfinch

shaolin95 said:


> Ok so I still want to keep pushing more but after using your tips I got a similar result to my manual OC but the kicker is that my temps dropped over 10ºC which is nice!
> View attachment 2479153
> 
> 
> Also getting about 693 in CPUz
> 
> PS bummer..this is not good now. Blender reboots my computer just starting the car benchmark. :/


Could you share your settings w/o CTR 2.1 (PBO+CO) and with CTTR2.1?


----------



## mismatchedyes

metalshark said:


> Had to lap the IHS and move to liquid metal with the Optimus PC waterblock to get the delta's anywhere - think I'm hitting the limit without removing the IHS entirely and am not skilled enough for that with the solder. Here's a quick example screenshot with a high EDC and PPT.
> 
> To go above this I need to enable LN2 mode on the board to get access to 200% CPU Current Capability otherwise the thing I'm told is not over current protection turns off the PC with the fans on full with the normal 140% CPU Current Capability.
> View attachment 2479075


Wow that's pretty insane. Are you seeing performance scaling with that amount of power? I assume your cinebench scores are through the roof?


----------



## metalshark

mismatchedyes said:


> Wow that's pretty insane. Are you seeing performance scaling with that amount of power? I assume your cinebench scores are through the roof?


With Cinebench you need to reduce that power down a lot to get good scores, for CB20/23 you won't want to go much over 240A EDC. I'm seeing performance scaling with my AI workloads though at higher PBO limits. I also set the power limits even further down, like 175A EDC/155A TDC for gaming at the weekends (haven't benchmarked heavily but it feels snappier).

Also for Cinebench R20/23 (but not R15) it uses AVX so you've got to reduce the undervolt (increase voltages) a lot to get good core boosting. Thankfully it's rare I run AVX workloads.


----------



## shaolin95

pfinch said:


> Could you share your settings w/o CTR 2.1 (PBO+CO) and with CTTR2.1?


This is my PBO+CO one. The CTR is still WIP


----------



## Belcebuu

jomama22 said:


> You want your non-best cores as low as possible so they use a little power as possible. This will give more headroom for pbo to use when boosting. Your two best cores will be used in single thread scenarios where pbo will attempt to boot them as high as possible. When it is trying to do this, those best cores will reach much higher on the voltage/freqency curve under load which needs to be stabilzed, hence why the best cores have 'higher' negative values (-10 as opposed to -20 or -30). The non-best core will never be boosted to that part of the voltage/frequency curve so it is easier to stabilize them at lower negative values.
> 
> The goal of curve optimizer is to reduce the power any core uses at a given frequency, this is done by lowering the operating voltage (the negative part of the curve) at a given frequency. Curve optimizer uses a non-linear method of reducing the voltage at every given frequency point along this curve.


When you say higher negative value you mean less value in the co? It's a bit confusing tbh.
Then my best cores should have -10 and the rest as higher as possible -20,-30?

I think i have them the other way round, better -30 worst -20 lol

Thanks


----------



## domdtxdissar

metalshark said:


> Had to lap the IHS and move to liquid metal with the Optimus PC waterblock to get the delta's anywhere - think I'm hitting the limit without removing the IHS entirely and am not skilled enough for that with the solder. Here's a quick example screenshot with a high EDC and PPT.
> 
> To go above this I need to enable LN2 mode on the board to get access to 200% CPU Current Capability otherwise the thing I'm told is not over current protection turns off the PC with the fans on full with the normal 140% CPU Current Capability.
> View attachment 2479075


Try to run 300watt sustaind for 1 hour straight 


http://imgur.com/a/6PvB7b7


----------



## lmfodor

Belcebuu said:


> When you say higher negative value you mean less value in the co? It's a bit confusing tbh.
> Then my best cores should have -10 and the rest as higher as possible -20,-30?
> 
> I think i have them the other way round, better -30 worst -20 lol
> 
> Thanks


Same doubts here.. I have better results settings my best cores and the remaining cores near -30/-20 Than -5/-10 and the remaining in -20.. is confused. 

With my current configuración in CB20 I reach 80C, however when gaining ej Forza Horizon 4.. Hwinfo shows me near 90c!! I should reduce TDP (actually 185/145/170)..

I will swap the noctua for one EK or ARTIC Feeze expecting to lower 10C degrees. I this this is a must for an Overclocked 5900x 

Besides. Anyone can recommend me what would be the best memory for gaining? I mean, I know a Trident X NEO 3600 CL16 would not fail but, it is worth the model 3800 with CL14? It’s so much expensive. Another options are the ripjawls. What memory do you suggest?

Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> PS bummer..this is not good now. Blender reboots my computer just starting the car benchmark. :/


Sounds like when Blender starts, it trips the CPU over temperature protection. What is your thermal protection limit set to? It should be in the PBO menu in the bios.


----------



## Sleepycat

Snoopy69 said:


> What is the best BIOS at this moment for my C8H?


I'm using the official 3204 without issues.


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> Besides. Anyone can recommend me what would be the best memory for gaining? I mean, I know a Trident X NEO 3600 CL16 would not fail but, it is worth the model 3800 with CL14? It’s so much expensive. Another options are the ripjawls. What memory do you suggest?


The difference between the 3600 CL16 and 3800 CL14 would be a very small in terms of fps in game. The difference is more obvious in benchmarks, or in programs that rely on memory bandwidth. Not much difference in gaming.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> Sounds like when Blender starts, it trips the CPU over temperature protection. What is your thermal protection limit set to? It should be in the PBO menu in the bios.


Not a thermal issue, it actually runs cooler with CTR but it seems blender is not the load that CTR is testing for according to Yuri so I need to tweak it if I want it blender stable. Odd to me that it does not go for more "real" stability than light AVS but I think I can work from there 
Just got my best ever single while keeping in the 11k multi

Anyway, I am back to my BIOS OC as I get full stability and performance is not a whole lot different. For the stuff I do, the CTR profile is not usable at least not yet. We shall see as it evolves.


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> The difference between the 3600 CL16 and 3800 CL14 would be a very small in terms of fps in game. The difference is more obvious in benchmarks, or in programs that rely on memory bandwidth. Not much difference in gaming.


So regarding brands, would you consider a best bet a GSKILL Trident Z NEO? I already bought a HyperX 4000 CL 18 with dual XMP profiles listed in the QVL but no matter what settings you've always put in cause WHEA BSOD

I saw a lot of reviews but most of them are publicity

I'm between:: 

*G.Skill+Ripjaws -4000+CL16
Crucial Ballistix 16GB DDR4-3600 CL16
G.Skill Trident Z Neo 32GB DDR4-3600 CL16*

I just want to lower the latency near 50ns with a higher bandwidth. Any recommendation or some experiences about your kits? 

Thanks


----------



## lmfodor

shaolin95 said:


> This is my PBO+CO one. The CTR is still WIP


I just finished to test with your settings and it got a BSOD when iddle after passing this test..
Event 1001 The computer has rebooted from a bugcheck. The bugcheck was: 0x00000124 (0x0000000000000000, 0xffffab01b7f22028, 0x00000000fc800800, 0x00000000060c0859). A dump was saved in: C:\Windows\MEMORY.DMP. Report Id: ad4a0cf5-1e00-4280-9d53-b9d2d673fb55.

Look at the temps..









Then I lowered the PPT from 280 to *200* and lowered the Clock override from +200 to *+50.*. and for now it seems to be fine. But look at the temps.. for that reason I'm thinking to change my noctua D15 for an AIO. 

Will the PPT be very high, or will the clock override be that being above 200 with -30 0 -20 does not compensate and is passed?









And with CB23. See my cores.. the 4th and 5th are my best cores for CCD1 and 9 and 11 of the CCD2...









I would keep those settings just to try the stability. What is the best method to try? Is there any better way that the Windows Repair Diagnostic after 3 reboots?
For load test I will try gaming like Cyberpunk2077 or Forza Horizon 4.. Any other recommendation?


----------



## Alemancio

Sleepycat said:


> The difference between the 3600 CL16 and 3800 CL14 would be a very small in terms of fps in game. The difference is more obvious in benchmarks, or in programs that rely on memory bandwidth. Not much difference in gaming.


3800 CL14 is to 3600 ~CL12 as is 3200 ~CL10. Then saying from 3600 CL16 not seeing a difference to 3800 CL14 is not true.

Having said that, usually lower latency + higher Mhz really helps the 1% FPS's, which also helps AVG but not that much. 1% is much more important than Avg thus I also always strive to obtain the lowest latency at the highest mhz possible.


----------



## shaolin95

Alemancio said:


> 3800 CL14 is to 3600 ~CL12 as is 3200 ~CL10. Then saying from 3600 CL16 not seeing a difference to 3800 CL14 is not true.
> 
> Having said that, usually lower latency + higher Mhz really helps the 1% FPS's, which also helps AVG but not that much. 1% is much more important than Avg thus I also always strive to obtain the lowest latency at the highest mhz possible.


I would love to see some tests showing important differences other than for benchmarks. I do run 3600c14 just because my RAM can do it and it looks good on my tablet displaying my pc stats inside my computer 😁👍


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> Not a thermal issue, it actually runs cooler with CTR but it seems blender is not the load that CTR is testing for according to Yuri so I need to tweak it if I want it blender stable. Odd to me that it does not go for more "real" stability than light AVS but I think I can work from there
> Just got my best ever single while keeping in the 11k multi
> 
> Anyway, I am back to my BIOS OC as I get full stability and performance is not a whole lot different. For the stuff I do, the CTR profile is not usable at least not yet. We shall see as it evolves.


I actually had a similar issue. My bios OC was set to hard limit throttle at 85 ºC with 4.65 GHz / 1.39 V all core. No problems and the system was stable and hot under load.

But when I started using using CTR to tune (successfully), running even Cinebench multi-core, it would do a hard reboot and give me an error message saying it had gone over temperature. But the voltage was only 1.25V and it was only reaching 4.55 GHz and a temperature of 75 ºC. Something really odd was happening as the temperature should have been lower than my bios OC which did not trip overtemperature protection.

In the end, I wrote down my CTR settings, deleted the CTR folder, unzipped a fresh one from the download and the reboots stopped happening. I suspect the Phoenix feature that saves your settings when you get a crash/reboot during testing was writing something into the config file which was incompatible with my motherboard's overtemperature protection.


----------



## Alemancio

shaolin95 said:


> I do run 3600c14 just because my RAM can do it and it looks good on my tablet displaying my pc stats inside my computer 😁👍


I've done my own testing with F1 2019 and other games - try it out for yourself.


----------



## shaolin95

Alemancio said:


> I've done my own testing with F1 2019 and other games - try it out for yourself.


lol I was expecting that...


----------



## shaolin95

lmfodor said:


> I just finished to test with your settings and it got a BSOD when iddle after passing this test..
> Event 1001 The computer has rebooted from a bugcheck. The bugcheck was: 0x00000124 (0x0000000000000000, 0xffffab01b7f22028, 0x00000000fc800800, 0x00000000060c0859). A dump was saved in: C:\Windows\MEMORY.DMP. Report Id: ad4a0cf5-1e00-4280-9d53-b9d2d673fb55.
> 
> Look at the temps..
> View attachment 2479312
> 
> 
> Then I lowered the PPT from 280 to *200* and lowered the Clock override from +200 to *+50.*. and for now it seems to be fine. But look at the temps.. for that reason I'm thinking to change my noctua D15 for an AIO.
> 
> Will the PPT be very high, or will the clock override be that being above 200 with -30 0 -20 does not compensate and is passed?
> 
> View attachment 2479313
> 
> And with CB23. See my cores.. the 4th and 5th are my best cores for CCD1 and 9 and 11 of the CCD2...
> View attachment 2479314
> 
> 
> I would keep those settings just to try the stability. What is the best method to try? Is there any better way that the Windows Repair Diagnostic after 3 reboots?
> For load test I will try gaming like Cyberpunk2077 or Forza Horizon 4.. Any other recommendation?


Oh yes those temps are surely not helping you. 
Honestly for stability there are many schools of thought. I used to be in the 24hr prime or nothing camp but not any more. I do Realbench, some rendering and video encoding and 3DMark and if that is good, I continue with my life using it normally. If something comes up, I will re-tweak but for what I do, that has been working perfectly. 
If you have Ryzen master open,how much is it using for PPT and the other 2?
With the heat you are generating you will likely need to lower settings down plus of course, not all CPUs are the same, some respond to some settings better than others so that is the hard part about sharing settings :/


----------



## domdtxdissar

shaolin95 said:


> I would love to see some tests showing important differences other than for benchmarks. I do run 3600c14 just because my RAM can do it and it looks good on my tablet displaying my pc stats inside my computer 😁👍


I realize you dont speak Norwegian, but you can look at the pictures and/or use googletranslate.

In this thread we are using the "Shadow of the tomb raider" benchmark purely as a CPU+memory benchmark. Its free to download from steam. Yesterday i got myself a new highscore of 257fps CPU Game average numbers. 

https://translate.google.com/transl...]"]Shadow of the tomb raider benchmark-tråden
You can try this benchmark out yourself if you want to compare cpu+memory speed in something "reallife".


----------



## lmfodor

shaolin95 said:


> Oh yes those temps are surely not helping you.
> Honestly for stability there are many schools of thought. I used to be in the 24hr prime or nothing camp but not any more. I do Realbench, some rendering and video encoding and 3DMark and if that is good, I continue with my life using it normally. If something comes up, I will re-tweak but for what I do, that has been working perfectly.
> If you have Ryzen master open,how much is it using for PPT and the other 2?
> With the heat you are generating you will likely need to lower settings down plus of course, not all CPUs are the same, some respond to some settings better than others so that is the hard part about sharing settings :/


I just play couple of hours and In games are above 70C.. the thing is on benchmarks like CB20/23. But if it’s stable I’ll keep these settings (same as you with the exception of PPT and Clock Override) and will install a AIO 360. I expect to lower at least 10C so it will be fine. What do you think? The other thing is a better airflow cabinet but I don’t really want to change it. Worst case I open the side glass door in the meanwhile 

For now I’ll keep it testing on this values and waiting for the AIO.. and the memory, other thing I need to change ..

Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## metalshark

domdtxdissar said:


> Try to run 300watt sustaind for 1 hour straight
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/6PvB7b7


Done for quite a few days running multi-hour workloads. Credit where credit’s due you’ve got 2 timings tighter than me on the RAM and your settings beat mine hands down at Cinebench (tried yours and they rock at CB20/23).


----------



## Jesaul

Sleepycat said:


> The difference between the 3600 CL16 and 3800 CL14 would be a very small in terms of fps in game. The difference is more obvious in benchmarks, or in programs that rely on memory bandwidth. Not much difference in gaming.


I disagree. If shooters in really heavy situations there is a difference in smoothness when there are fps drops. You do have a bit more of read/write and less delays, and I've had some situations in PVP where there is a tonne of effects on the screen and mini lags have disappeared after I've changed to faster memory.


----------



## mismatchedyes

For me the difference is small between my fastest settings with 3800 1:1 56.9ns where the best I could achieve was 259 fps. With 3600 cl18 64ns the best was 244 fps. Ok the faster memory is more but in this benchmark for me it is only 6 percent different. Maybe with b die there will be more of a difference.

I was testing with 720p high though otherwise it becomes GPU limited at times with 3090. Not sure if that makes a big difference or not.






domdtxdissar said:


> You can try this benchmark out yourself if you want to compare cpu+memo


----------



## metalshark

mismatchedyes said:


> For me the difference is small between my fastest settings with 3800 1:1 56.9ns where the best I could achieve was 259 fps. With 3600 cl18 64ns the best was 244 fps. Ok the faster memory is more but in this benchmark for me it is only 6 percent different. Maybe with b die there will be more of a difference.
> 
> I was testing with 720p high though otherwise it becomes GPU limited at times with 3090. Not sure if that makes a big difference or not.


Are you seeing a bigger difference in 0.1% and 1% lows though? Normally with memory at this kind of variance, you'll notice it more there than in overall averages.


----------



## Nizzen

lmfodor said:


> Impressive numbers. I’m about to change my memory. What brand or model are you using? Thanks .
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Under 60GB/s read is far from impressive 

Latency is on par with an overclocked 7980xe 😆

Pretty good latency on the Amd cpu though


----------



## Sleepycat

Overclocking using CTR2.0 and using everything auto for PBO gives me an interesting L1, L2 amd L3 cache results.


----------



## pfinch

Sleepycat said:


> Overclocking using CTR2.0 and using everything auto for PBO gives me an interesting L1, L2 amd L3 cache results.
> View attachment 2479388


So this was without adjusting PBO limits? I think that will only work safe with PBO limits etc. and voltages on auto (LLC Auto-lvl3).
I'm getting very strange results with adjusted PBO limits.


----------



## mismatchedyes

metalshark said:


> Are you seeing a bigger difference in 0.1% and 1% lows though? Normally with memory at this kind of variance, you'll notice it more there than in overall averages.


According to the Tomb Raider and Forza benchmarks there is not much difference. I do have GDM off and tuned subtimings on both though so maybe that's why they are quite similar.


----------



## shaolin95

lmfodor said:


> I just play couple of hours and In games are above 70C.. the thing is on benchmarks like CB20/23. But if it’s stable I’ll keep these settings (same as you with the exception of PPT and Clock Override) and will install a AIO 360. I expect to lower at least 10C so it will be fine. What do you think? The other thing is a better airflow cabinet but I don’t really want to change it. Worst case I open the side glass door in the meanwhile
> 
> For now I’ll keep it testing on this values and waiting for the AIO.. and the memory, other thing I need to change ..
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Sounds like a good plan to me. And yes, games normally run cooler so in that case you should be fine


----------



## shaolin95

metalshark said:


> Done for quite a few days running multi-hour workloads. Credit where credit’s due you’ve got 2 timings tighter than me on the RAM and your settings beat mine hands down at Cinebench (tried yours and they rock at CB20/23).


Did you get similar scores? I have never been able to get to 12k with mine.


----------



## Sleepycat

pfinch said:


> So this was without adjusting PBO limits? I think that will only work safe with PBO limits etc. and voltages on auto (LLC Auto-lvl3).
> I'm getting very strange results with adjusted PBO limits.


It was load optimised defaults, then set DOCP, associated RAM timings, SOC and DRAM voltages. So everything to do with core clocks and core voltages/power limits were left in default.

When I adjusted PBO power limits, the L1, L2 and L3 cache speed came back down to normal.


----------



## metalshark

shaolin95 said:


> Did you get similar scores? I have never been able to get to 12k with mine.


I can only hit 12k+ score in CB20 with very high voltages, so -30 CO but positive offset by 0.0315v and just over 240A EDC. However I don’t run Cinema 4D, so only used this whilst figuring out the processor and how to get the best out of it. I use much lower voltages (-0.093 offset and negative CO but tuned per core) and higher PPT/EDC/TDC, giving better results for my workloads. Also lower EDC/TDC is giving me a better feeling in games.

Negative CO where 0 and 13 are gold star and 1 and 12 are silver star:
0: 12
1: 27
2: 28
3: 26
4: 27
5: 26
6: 28
7: 27
8: 27
9: 19
10: 27
11: 27
12: 27
13: 30
14: 24
15: 20

Domdtxdissar seems to have done the best at getting Cinebench scores (took the settings from them and modified). With regards to RAM I got some better tRFC settings but they aced tRP and tRTP, even at higher voltages I can’t get it to do test 10 of memtest86 (the hold written RAM for 5 minutes test) with tRP set below 13 or tRP below 8 (well I can set it to 7 but that really means 8 and can’t set it to 6).


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> I actually had a similar issue. My bios OC was set to hard limit throttle at 85 ºC with 4.65 GHz / 1.39 V all core. No problems and the system was stable and hot under load.
> 
> But when I started using using CTR to tune (successfully), running even Cinebench multi-core, it would do a hard reboot and give me an error message saying it had gone over temperature. But the voltage was only 1.25V and it was only reaching 4.55 GHz and a temperature of 75 ºC. Something really odd was happening as the temperature should have been lower than my bios OC which did not trip overtemperature protection.
> 
> In the end, I wrote down my CTR settings, deleted the CTR folder, unzipped a fresh one from the download and the reboots stopped happening. I suspect the Phoenix feature that saves your settings when you get a crash/reboot during testing was writing something into the config file which was incompatible with my motherboard's overtemperature protection.


Where did you have that 85C limit ? Where is the BIOS I mean.
I am testing the Beta 5 now.


----------



## The Sandman

renecapo said:


> question, in Turbo vcore cpu 3.3V AUX show me 3.6V
> in Bios i have it on auto
> Can anybody check that thank you


This was noticed way back on the C6H.
When left on auto 3.6 is typical. Manually enter 3.3v and forget.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> I actually had a similar issue. My bios OC was set to hard limit throttle at 85 ºC with 4.65 GHz / 1.39 V all core. No problems and the system was stable and hot under load.
> 
> But when I started using using CTR to tune (successfully), running even Cinebench multi-core, it would do a hard reboot and give me an error message saying it had gone over temperature. But the voltage was only 1.25V and it was only reaching 4.55 GHz and a temperature of 75 ºC. Something really odd was happening as the temperature should have been lower than my bios OC which did not trip overtemperature protection.
> 
> In the end, I wrote down my CTR settings, deleted the CTR folder, unzipped a fresh one from the download and the reboots stopped happening. I suspect the Phoenix feature that saves your settings when you get a crash/reboot during testing was writing something into the config file which was incompatible with my motherboard's overtemperature protection.


So I just ran BETA 5 and got this:



DIAGNOSTIC RESULTS
AMD Ryzen 9 5950X 16-Core Processor
Max temperature: 50.4°
Energy efficient: 3.94
Your CPU is SILVER SAMPLE
Recomended CCX delta: 25
Theoretical maximum CCX delta: 50
Recomended values for overclocking (P1 profile):
Reference voltage: 1100 mV
Reference frequency: 4300 MHz
Recomended values for overclocking (P2 profile):
Reference voltage: 1250 mV
Reference frequency: 4550 MHz
Recomended values for undervolting:
Reference voltage: 1000 mV
Reference frequency: 4100 MHz


and this TUNE:

Penalties for the final profile: level 1
5:16:59 PM: CCX1 (185): 4625 MHz, 1250 mV OC+
5:16:59 PM: CCX2 (149): 4525 MHz, 1250 mV OC=

So now I am trying to figure out how to make this stable for other things that are not just CB20. 
Are you able to use yours settings with everything without reboots any more like I had?


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> Where did you have that 85C limit ? Where is the BIOS I mean.
> I am testing the Beta 5 now.


It's under PBO. Option is called Platform Thermal Throttle Limits.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> It's under PBO. Option is called Platform Thermal Throttle Limits.





Sleepycat said:


> It's under PBO. Option is called Platform Thermal Throttle Limits.


I went back to my BIOS settings...just works for everything. I will keep an eye as CTR continues to evolve though.


----------



## folklore11

Settinga based on 3700X, and TUF, but interesting to you proc pushers ? Maybe?


----------



## 1ah1

*Ryzen Master 2.6.1.1797 Update*









AMD Ryzen™ Master Utility for Overclocking Control | AMD
Dual-CCD 5600X and 5800X are now supported.
Release notes: AMD Ryzen™ Master Release Notes (2.6.1.1797) | AMD


----------



## smbell1979

Has anyone been able to get the graphing function shown in this image to work? I don't seem to have that feature.



https://www.amd.com/system/files/2019-07/238593-ryzen-master-ui-system-monitoring-1260_0.jpg


----------



## Drawshot

smbell1979 said:


> Has anyone been able to get the graphing function shown in this image to work? I don't seem to have that feature.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.amd.com/system/files/2019-07/238593-ryzen-master-ui-system-monitoring-1260_0.jpg


In the Ryzen Master settings, there is an option to turn the histogram on.


----------



## lmfodor

I'm still looking for the best OC memory kit, and I always look at the QVL for Rayzen 5000 (I have a 5900x) but it seems out of date. for example I can't find any new Gskill models. 

After looking a lot, I'm in doubt whether to buy a 3600 CL16 (2x8) instead of a 3800 or 4000 with CL14 or 17 depending on the model. I see the Ripjaws in 3600 with low CAS but it is an old model and despite being in the QVL they do not inspire me as much confidence as the Neo Z or similar. What do you advise me? I'm going to 16 so that the OC is more stable and that they are Samsung Bdie

So thank you for your guidance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Alemancio

lmfodor said:


> I'm still looking for the best OC memory kit, and I always look at the QVL for Rayzen 5000 (I have a 5900x) but it seems out of date. for example I can't find any new Gskill models.
> 
> After looking a lot, I'm in doubt whether to buy a 3600 CL16 (2x8) instead of a 3800 or 4000 with CL14 or 17 depending on the model. I see the Ripjaws in 3600 with low CAS but it is an old model and despite being in the QVL they do not inspire me as much confidence as the Neo Z or similar. What do you advise me? I'm going to 16 so that the OC is more stable and that they are Samsung Bdie
> 
> So thank you for your guidance.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


What models are you looking at? I rarely look at the motherboard QVL, I look at the RAM Website QVL.


----------



## lmfodor

Alemancio said:


> What models are you looking at? I rarely look at the motherboard QVL, I look at the RAM Website QVL.


Yes, I usually look at the QVL but last time I bough 2 kits of 2x8 of HyperX predator and since I installed it started to generate BSOD. It took me more than a month to realize that are the new memories. Now I’m using a cheap ADATa XPG of 3600 CL19 and I want to improve bandwidth and get better latency. 

So I’m looking some GSkill... but a good kit, I’m not interested in a extreme low cas and yo pay US 380 for a 2z8 kit. 

Could be one of this: G.SKILL Updates Trident Z Neo DDR4 Specs Up To DDR4-4000 CL16 16GBx2 for AMD Ryzen 5000 CPUs-G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.

Maybe this F4-3800C14D-32GTZN but I didn’t found a good reviews in Amazon nor If it’s compatible with our CH8 wifi

Or more cheaper the Ripjaws V 3600 CL16 .. a 2x16 kit.
What do you think? 

Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Chili195

lmfodor said:


> Yes, I usually look at the QVL but last time I bough 2 kits of 2x8 of HyperX predator and since I installed it started to generate BSOD. It took me more than a month to realize that are the new memories. Now I’m using a cheap ADATa XPG of 3600 CL19 and I want to improve bandwidth and get better latency.
> 
> So I’m looking some GSkill... but a good kit, I’m not interested in a extreme low cas and yo pay US 380 for a 2z8 kit.
> 
> Could be one of this: G.SKILL Updates Trident Z Neo DDR4 Specs Up To DDR4-4000 CL16 16GBx2 for AMD Ryzen 5000 CPUs-G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.
> 
> Maybe this F4-3800C14D-32GTZN but I didn’t found a good reviews in Amazon nor If it’s compatible with our CH8 wifi
> 
> Or more cheaper the Ripjaws V 3600 CL16 .. a 2x16 kit.
> What do you think?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


The QVL for the F4-3800C14D-32GTZN on the G-Skill site does have the Crosshair VIII Wi-Fi on there. I'm using the F4-3600C14D-32GTZN (3600Mhz equivalent of that) on the Dark Hero (also on the QVL) and my experience has been pretty smooth.


----------



## lmfodor

Chili195 said:


> The QVL for the F4-3800C14D-32GTZN on the G-Skill site does have the Crosshair VIII Wi-Fi on there. I'm using the F4-3600C14D-32GTZN (3600Mhz equivalent of that) on the Dark Hero (also on the QVL) and my experience has been pretty smooth.
> 
> View attachment 2479696
> View attachment 2479698


That’s what I looking for! I will pull the trigger for the 3600 CL14 so! have you overclocked it? Or just are using the DOCH profile?

Thanks!!


----------



## Kernel-Debugger

As a follow up to qcode 00 issues

Any instance of a crash that includes an "F1" to restart will bring global c-states back to an "Auto" setting! Just need to remember to disable that again.


----------



## Alemancio

lmfodor said:


> That’s what I looking for! I will pull the trigger for the 3600 CL14 so! have you overclocked it? Or just are using the DOCH profile?
> 
> Thanks!!


Its not that you should/shouldnt pull the trigger... you just cant go and buy the kits you listed. They've been out of stock for months! *There are NO decent 2x16GB DR 3600MHz B-Die kits for sale, none.*


----------



## polyh3dron

Yeah I bought the 64GB F4-3600C14Q-64GTZN kit back in December... Not having much success getting it past the DOCP settings on my Dark Hero. Tried the Ryzen DRAM Calculator Fast and Safe settings and couldn't post.


----------



## Alemancio

polyh3dron said:


> Yeah I bought the 64GB F4-3600C14Q-64GTZN kit back in December... Not having much success getting it past the DOCP settings on my Dark Hero. Tried the Ryzen DRAM Calculator Fast and Safe settings and couldn't post.


Most likely your IMC sucks. Have you tried 2x16GB?


----------



## polyh3dron

Alemancio said:


> Most likely your IMC sucks. Have you tried 2x16GB?


Nope, wouldn't help me because I need 64GB.


----------



## Alemancio

polyh3dron said:


> Nope, wouldn't help me because I need 64GB.


There are some voltages that could help you stabilize your IMC + memory kit. Not sure which ones they are, google is your friend. I think that'll do it.


----------



## polyh3dron

Alemancio said:


> There are some voltages that could help you stabilize your IMC + memory kit. Not sure which ones they are, google is your friend. I think that'll do it.


I'll be honest with you I don't even know what words to google for something that specific. If I was putting in my DRAM Calculator Fast settings and it had my recommended DRAM voltage setting at 1.37 even though the DOCP profile even puts the kit at 1.45v, should I raise the DRAM voltage up? Is 1.5v safe for day-to-day? Do I need to up the other voltages too like the SOC, VDDG CCD, IOD and VDDP?


----------



## Alemancio

polyh3dron said:


> I'll be honest with you I don't even know what words to google for something that specific. If I was putting in my DRAM Calculator Fast settings and it had my recommended DRAM voltage setting at 1.37 even though the DOCP profile even puts the kit at 1.45v, should I raise the DRAM voltage up? Is 1.5v safe for day-to-day? Do I need to up the other voltages too like the SOC, VDDG CCD, IOD and VDDP?


I dont think you need higher DRAM speeds because the toll is using 4 dimms of DR on the IMC. Try the following thread (TL;DR VSOC to 1.1v).

Also, for Samsung BDie 1.5V vDimm is the limit for 24/7 and its fine.


----------



## Nizzen

Alemancio said:


> Its not that you should/shouldnt pull the trigger... you just cant go and buy the kits you listed. They've been out of stock for months! *There are NO decent 2x16GB DR 3600MHz B-Die kits for sale, none.*


Stock here in norway:





__





G.SKILL RipjawsV 32GB (2-KIT) DDR4 3600MHz CL14 Black (F4-3600C14D-32GVK)


G.SKILL RipjawsV 32GB (2-KIT) DDR4 3600MHz CL14 Black (F4-3600C14D-32GVK) - ECC: Nei - Registrert: Nei - Formfaktor: DIMM - Minnestørrelse: 32GB - Type: DDR4 - Sett: Ja - Hastighet MHz: 3.6GHz




deal.no













G.SKILL Ripjaws V 32GB 3600MHz 2x 16GB - CL14-15-15-35 (F4-3600C14D-32GVK)


G.SKILL Ripjaws V 32GB 3600MHz 2x 16GB - CL14-15-15-35 (F4-3600C14D-32GVK)




www.multicom.no













G.Skill Ripjaws V - DDR4 - sett - 32 GB: 2 x 16 GB - DIMM 288-pin - 3600 MHz / PC4-28800 - CL14 - 1.45 V - ikke-bufret - ikke-ECC - klassisk svart


Produktbeskrivelse er ikke tilgjengelig.




www.computersalg.no





This is just one kit. 

Looks like you are living in the wrong country


----------



## polyh3dron

Alemancio said:


> I dont think you need higher DRAM speeds because the toll is using 4 dimms of DR on the IMC. Try the following thread (TL;DR VSOC to 1.1v).
> 
> Also, for Samsung BDie 1.5V vDimm is the limit for 24/7 and its fine.


Thank you! This made my manual timings work.


----------



## Nizzen

polyh3dron said:


> Yeah I bought the 64GB F4-3600C14Q-64GTZN kit back in December... Not having much success getting it past the DOCP settings on my Dark Hero. Tried the Ryzen DRAM Calculator Fast and Safe settings and couldn't post.












4x 16GB 4266c17 @ 3733mhz c16

Soc is 1.1v and vddg is 1.05


----------



## Alemancio

polyh3dron said:


> Thank you! This made my manual timings work.


Nice! Keep at it, you'll make it work. Contact Gskill if you cant, they have it under their QVL list for a reason.


----------



## polyh3dron

Nizzen said:


> View attachment 2479734
> 
> 
> 4x 16GB 4266c17 @ 3733mhz c16
> 
> Soc is 1.1v and vddg is 1.05


I am jealous of your 100MHz FSB. Can't get mine anywhere past 98.4 MHz.


----------



## lmfodor

Alemancio said:


> Its not that you should/shouldnt pull the trigger... you just cant go and buy the kits you listed. They've been out of stock for months! *There are NO decent 2x16GB DR 3600MHz B-Die kits for sale, none.*


Yes your are right. There are a lots of models and what I found in Amazon was a CL16 instead of 14

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## CyrIng

polyh3dron said:


> I am jealous of your 100MHz FSB. Can't get mine anywhere past 98.4 MHz.


Even after disabling any SPREAD SPECTRUM BIOS features, you don't reach a 100 MHz Baseclock ?


----------



## Nizzen

polyh3dron said:


> I am jealous of your 100MHz FSB. Can't get mine anywhere past 98.4 MHz.


68.7ns latency?

Wors I ever seen with those memorysettings. Bloated windows an a lot of "viruses" in the background? 😅


----------



## polyh3dron

CyrIng said:


> Even after disabling any SPREAD SPECTRUM BIOS features, you don't reach a 100 MHz Baseclock ?


Correct. Disabled Spread Spectrum (not the VRM one but the other one) and my BCLK can't get to 100 MHz. and no @Nizzen , no bloated windows or "viruses" in the background.


----------



## Sleepycat

polyh3dron said:


> I am jealous of your 100MHz FSB. Can't get mine anywhere past 98.4 MHz.


Your RAM clock is at 3543 MHz, while your IF is at 3600 MHz. Just change your RAM clock to 3600 MHz as well to match and your latency will drop.

I think the FSB stays at 98-ish MHz if virtualization is on. You can test by turning that off.


----------



## polyh3dron

Sleepycat said:


> Your RAM clock is at 3543 MHz, while your IF is at 3600 MHz. Just change your RAM clock to 3600 MHz as well to match and your latency will drop.


Wrong. My RAM clock is set to 3600 MHz in my BIOS, and my FCLK (Infinity Fabric) is set to 1800, and the fact that my BCLK (aka FSB), which is actually set to 100, with Spread Spectrum turned off, can't actually get to 100 according to AIDA64, means that my RAM is actually running a tad slower in reality because its frequency (and the FCLK) appear to both be dependent on the BCLK.

Why in the world would I do manual timings on my 3600MHz RAM and intentionally set it to 3543MHz, even if I could set it to that number?


----------



## Chili195

lmfodor said:


> That’s what I looking for! I will pull the trigger for the 3600 CL14 so! have you overclocked it? Or just are using the DOCH profile?
> 
> Thanks!!


Yep, I have it overclocked to 3800 CL14 @ 1.47v - rest of the timings are in my post.


----------



## shaolin95

Nizzen said:


> View attachment 2479734
> 
> 
> 4x 16GB 4266c17 @ 3733mhz c16
> 
> Soc is 1.1v and vddg is 1.05


Hi!
Would you mind sharing a bios dump? I would love to push my 64GB kit the way you did!
Thanks!


----------



## shaolin95

..


----------



## Sleepycat

polyh3dron said:


> Wrong. My RAM clock is set to 3600 MHz in my BIOS, and my FCLK (Infinity Fabric) is set to 1800, and the fact that my BCLK (aka FSB), which is actually set to 100, with Spread Spectrum turned off, can't actually get to 100 according to AIDA64, means that my RAM is actually running a tad slower in reality because its frequency (and the FCLK) appear to both be dependent on the BCLK.
> 
> Why in the world would I do manual timings on my 3600MHz RAM and intentionally set it to 3543MHz, even if I could set it to that number?


Did you try turning virtualization off?


----------



## polyh3dron

Sleepycat said:


> Did you try turning virtualization off?


Yes. Doesn't make a lick of difference.


----------



## Nizzen

shaolin95 said:


> Hi!
> Would you mind sharing a bios dump? I would love to push my 64GB kit the way you did!
> Thanks!


Sorry, Im on winter vaccation.

This result is pretty much stock bios with a few adjustments.

Soc= 1.1v
Vddg =1.05v

Manual timings on what you see, and trfc around 280. Don't remember now.

Auto settings on dark hero is pretty good.


----------



## polyh3dron

So with my BCLK issue, do I have a bad motherboard or a bad CPU?


----------



## Nizzen

polyh3dron said:


> So with my BCLK issue, do I have a bad motherboard or a bad CPU?


Try another bios just for fun?


----------



## polyh3dron

Nizzen said:


> Try another bios just for fun?


----------



## CyrIng

polyh3dron said:


> Correct. Disabled Spread Spectrum (not the VRM one but the other one) and my BCLK can't get to 100 MHz. and no @Nizzen , no bloated windows or "viruses" in the background.


I'm disabling both: South-bridge and VRM.
It may also be a function of the estimation algorithm: read TSC every period of one second, then substract the number of cycles of the RDTSC instruction and the delay function.
Do about 4 loops of estimation and retain the best baseclock.
See my project at cyring/CoreFreq


----------



## Alemancio

Nizzen said:


> Stock here in norway:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.SKILL RipjawsV 32GB (2-KIT) DDR4 3600MHz CL14 Black (F4-3600C14D-32GVK)
> 
> 
> G.SKILL RipjawsV 32GB (2-KIT) DDR4 3600MHz CL14 Black (F4-3600C14D-32GVK) - ECC: Nei - Registrert: Nei - Formfaktor: DIMM - Minnestørrelse: 32GB - Type: DDR4 - Sett: Ja - Hastighet MHz: 3.6GHz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deal.no
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.SKILL Ripjaws V 32GB 3600MHz 2x 16GB - CL14-15-15-35 (F4-3600C14D-32GVK)
> 
> 
> G.SKILL Ripjaws V 32GB 3600MHz 2x 16GB - CL14-15-15-35 (F4-3600C14D-32GVK)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.multicom.no
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.Skill Ripjaws V - DDR4 - sett - 32 GB: 2 x 16 GB - DIMM 288-pin - 3600 MHz / PC4-28800 - CL14 - 1.45 V - ikke-bufret - ikke-ECC - klassisk svart
> 
> 
> Produktbeskrivelse er ikke tilgjengelig.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.computersalg.no
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is just one kit.
> 
> Looks like you are living in the wrong country


😂😂😂😂 500 DLLS for a 2x16GB Kit


----------



## shaolin95

Is anyone else experiencing annoying usb disconnections randomly (even running defaults)?


NVM just saw the GM youtube video about AMD accepting there is an issue.


----------



## shaolin95

Nizzen said:


> Sorry, Im on winter vaccation.
> 
> This result is pretty much stock bios with a few adjustments.
> 
> Soc= 1.1v
> Vddg =1.05v
> 
> Manual timings on what you see, and trfc around 280. Don't remember now.
> 
> Auto settings on dark hero is pretty good.





Nizzen said:


> Sorry, Im on winter vaccation.
> 
> This result is pretty much stock bios with a few adjustments.
> 
> Soc= 1.1v
> Vddg =1.05v
> 
> Manual timings on what you see, and trfc around 280. Don't remember now.
> 
> Auto settings on dark hero is pretty good.


1.45v ?

Thanks


----------



## Sleepycat

polyh3dron said:


> So with my BCLK issue, do I have a bad motherboard or a bad CPU?


Do you have your bios settings txt export available for us to go through?


----------



## frellingfahrbot

polyh3dron said:


> Yes. Doesn't make a lick of difference.


Sounds like you probably already tried this but just in case because it's not very obvious, Windows can run hypervisor by default and leaving it to even "auto" will result in the fluctuating BCLK .

I get stable BCLK as soon as I run



Code:


bcdedit /set hypervisorlaunchtype off

Of course all hypervisor features will break like Windows Sandbox.


----------



## polyh3dron

Sleepycat said:


> Do you have your bios settings txt export available for us to go through?


I'll export those in a minute, but it seems that turning off SVM THIS time did the trick for whatever reason even though turning it off in the past did not. Multiple AIDA64 tests and getting a 100MHz BCLK reading every time now. Guess I need to find some alternative linux bash terminal that doesn't require it like WSL2 does? My RAM latency does still seem high with the SVM off now, however. So yeah I'm about to export my BIOS settings and share them.










Here are my current BIOS settings:



Code:


[2021/02/21 19:45:01]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3600MHz]
FCLK Frequency [1800MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Core VID [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
Dynamic OC Switcher [Auto]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
Performance Bias [Auto]
PBO Fmax Enhancer [Disabled]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Enabled]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [Auto]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
Trcdrd [14]
Trcdwr [14]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
Trc [44]
TrrdS [4]
TrrdL [7]
Tfaw [12]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [14]
Twr [14]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [3]
TwrwrScl [3]
Trfc [288]
Trfc2 [352]
Trfc4 [Auto]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [8]
Trdwr [8]
Twrrd [4]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [7]
TwrwrDd [7]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [5]
TrdrdDd [5]
Tcke [1]
ProcODT [43.6 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [RZQ/7]
RttWr [RZQ/3]
RttPark [RZQ/1]
MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
MemCkeSetup [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
CPU Current Capability [Auto]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
Active Frequency Mode [Disabled]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Optimized]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Optimized]
DRAM Current Capability [100%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.10000]
DRAM Voltage [1.50000]
VDDG CCD Voltage Control [1.050]
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [1.050]
CLDO VDDP voltage [1.050]
1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [1.80000]
TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Enabled]
PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
NX Mode [Enabled]
SVM Mode [Disabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
CCD Control [Auto]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
NVMe RAID mode [Enabled]
SMART Self Test [Auto]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
When system is in working state [All On]
Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [All On]
Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Auto]
Realtek PXE OPROM [Setup]
Intel LAN Controller [Auto]
Intel LAN OPROM [Setup]
ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Enabled]
Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_2 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
SB Link Mode [Auto]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Above 4G Decoding [Enabled]
Re-Size BAR Support [Auto]
SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
Lexar USB Flash Drive 1100 [Auto]
USB Device Enable [Enabled]
U32G2_2 [Enabled]
U32G2_3 [Enabled]
U32G2_4 [Enabled]
U32G1_10 [Enabled]
U32G1_11 [Enabled]
USB12 [Enabled]
USB13 [Enabled]
U32G2_7 [Enabled]
U32G2_8 [Enabled]
U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Device [SATA6G_1: WDC WD6003FZBX-00K5WB0]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Ignore]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
Flow Rate [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Silent]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
AIO Pump Q-Fan Source [CPU]
AIO Pump Upper Temperature [70]
AIO Pump Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
AIO Pump Middle Temperature [25]
AIO Pump Middle Duty Cycle (%) [100]
AIO Pump Lower Temperature [20]
AIO Pump Min Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Above 4GB MMIO Limit [39bit (512GB)]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
Boot Logo Display [Auto]
Bootup NumLock State [On]
POST Delay Time [1 sec]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Disabled]
OS Type [Other OS]
AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
Flexkey [Reset]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [2]
Profile Name [3600 Calc Fast]
Save to Profile [2]
DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Enabled]
CPU Frequency [0]
CPU Voltage [0]
CCD Control [Auto]
Core control [Auto]
SMT Control [Auto]
Overclock [Enabled ]
Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
Tcl [Auto]
Trcdrd [Auto]
Trcdwr [Auto]
Trp [Auto]
Tras [Auto]
Trc Ctrl [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr Ctrl [Auto]
Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
ECO Mode [Disable]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
SMEE [Auto]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
Global C-state Control [Auto]
Power Supply Idle Control [Auto]
SEV ASID Count [Auto]
SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
Local APIC Mode [Auto]
ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
DRAM scrub time [Auto]
Poison scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Memory interleaving [Auto]
Memory interleaving size [Auto]
1TB remap [Auto]
DRAM map inversion [Auto]
ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
GMI encryption control [Auto]
xGMI encryption control [Auto]
CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
PcsCG control [Auto]
Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
Memory Clear [Auto]
Overclock [Enabled]
Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
Tcl [Auto]
Trcdrd [Auto]
Trcdwr [Auto]
Trp [Auto]
Tras [Auto]
Trc Ctrl [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr Ctrl [Auto]
Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Data Poisoning [Auto]
DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
RCD Parity [Auto]
DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
Write CRC Enable [Auto]
DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
TSME [Auto]
Data Scramble [Auto]
DFE Read Training [Auto]
FFE Write Training [Auto]
PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
BankGroupSwap [Auto]
BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
Address Hash Bank [Auto]
Address Hash CS [Auto]
Address Hash Rm [Auto]
SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
MBIST Enable [Disabled]
Pattern Select [PRBS]
Pattern Length(VMR) [6]
Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
IOMMU [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
FCLK Frequency [Auto]
SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
ACS Enable [Auto]
PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
cTDP Control [Auto]
EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
APBDIS [Auto]
DF Cstates [Auto]
CPPC [Auto]
CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
Early Link Speed [Auto]
Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
Preferred IO [Auto]
CV test [Auto]
Loopback Mode [Auto]
SRIS [Auto]
Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]


----------



## CyrIng

polyh3dron said:


> I'll export those in a minute, but it seems that turning off SVM THIS time did the trick for whatever reason even though turning it off in the past did not. Multiple AIDA64 tests and getting a 100MHz BCLK reading every time now. Guess I need to find some alternative linux bash terminal that doesn't require it like WSL2 does? My RAM latency does still seem high with the SVM off now, however. So yeah I'm about to export my BIOS settings and share them.
> 
> View attachment 2479856
> 
> 
> Here are my current BIOS settings:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> [2021/02/21 19:45:01]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3600MHz]
> FCLK Frequency [1800MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> Core VID [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> Dynamic OC Switcher [Auto]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> Performance Bias [Auto]
> PBO Fmax Enhancer [Disabled]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Enabled]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [Auto]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> Trcdrd [14]
> Trcdwr [14]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
> Trc [44]
> TrrdS [4]
> TrrdL [7]
> Tfaw [12]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [14]
> Twr [14]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [3]
> TwrwrScl [3]
> Trfc [288]
> Trfc2 [352]
> Trfc4 [Auto]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [8]
> Trdwr [8]
> Twrrd [4]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [7]
> TwrwrDd [7]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [5]
> TrdrdDd [5]
> Tcke [1]
> ProcODT [43.6 ohm]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [RZQ/7]
> RttWr [RZQ/3]
> RttPark [RZQ/1]
> MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
> Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
> CPU Current Capability [Auto]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
> Active Frequency Mode [Disabled]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Optimized]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Optimized]
> DRAM Current Capability [100%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
> CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
> Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.10000]
> DRAM Voltage [1.50000]
> VDDG CCD Voltage Control [1.050]
> VDDG IOD Voltage Control [1.050]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [1.050]
> 1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [1.80000]
> TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
> PSS Support [Enabled]
> PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
> NX Mode [Enabled]
> SVM Mode [Disabled]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> NVMe RAID mode [Enabled]
> SMART Self Test [Auto]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
> PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
> When system is in working state [All On]
> Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
> When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [All On]
> Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Auto]
> Realtek PXE OPROM [Setup]
> Intel LAN Controller [Auto]
> Intel LAN OPROM [Setup]
> ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
> Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Enabled]
> Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
> USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX16_2 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX16_3 Mode [Auto]
> M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
> M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
> SB Link Mode [Auto]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> Above 4G Decoding [Enabled]
> Re-Size BAR Support [Auto]
> SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
> Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> Lexar USB Flash Drive 1100 [Auto]
> USB Device Enable [Enabled]
> U32G2_2 [Enabled]
> U32G2_3 [Enabled]
> U32G2_4 [Enabled]
> U32G1_10 [Enabled]
> U32G1_11 [Enabled]
> USB12 [Enabled]
> USB13 [Enabled]
> U32G2_7 [Enabled]
> U32G2_8 [Enabled]
> U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Device [SATA6G_1: WDC WD6003FZBX-00K5WB0]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> VRM Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Ignore]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> Flow Rate [Monitor]
> CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Silent]
> High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
> AIO Pump Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> AIO Pump Upper Temperature [70]
> AIO Pump Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> AIO Pump Middle Temperature [25]
> AIO Pump Middle Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> AIO Pump Lower Temperature [20]
> AIO Pump Min Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Above 4GB MMIO Limit [39bit (512GB)]
> Fast Boot [Enabled]
> Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
> Boot Logo Display [Auto]
> Bootup NumLock State [On]
> POST Delay Time [1 sec]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
> Launch CSM [Disabled]
> OS Type [Other OS]
> AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
> Flexkey [Reset]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> Load from Profile [2]
> Profile Name [3600 Calc Fast]
> Save to Profile [2]
> DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
> Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Enabled]
> CPU Frequency [0]
> CPU Voltage [0]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> Core control [Auto]
> SMT Control [Auto]
> Overclock [Enabled ]
> Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
> Tcl [Auto]
> Trcdrd [Auto]
> Trcdwr [Auto]
> Trp [Auto]
> Tras [Auto]
> Trc Ctrl [Auto]
> TrrdS [Auto]
> TrrdL [Auto]
> Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
> TwtrS [Auto]
> TwtrL [Auto]
> Twr Ctrl [Auto]
> Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
> TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
> TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
> Tcwl [Auto]
> Trtp [Auto]
> Tcke [Auto]
> Trdwr [Auto]
> Twrrd [Auto]
> TwrwrSc [Auto]
> TwrwrSd [Auto]
> TwrwrDd [Auto]
> TrdrdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSd [Auto]
> TrdrdDd [Auto]
> ProcODT [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
> ECO Mode [Disable]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> LN2 Mode [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
> L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
> SMEE [Auto]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> Global C-state Control [Auto]
> Power Supply Idle Control [Auto]
> SEV ASID Count [Auto]
> SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
> Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
> Local APIC Mode [Auto]
> ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
> MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
> PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
> Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
> Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
> IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
> DRAM scrub time [Auto]
> Poison scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> Memory interleaving [Auto]
> Memory interleaving size [Auto]
> 1TB remap [Auto]
> DRAM map inversion [Auto]
> ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
> GMI encryption control [Auto]
> xGMI encryption control [Auto]
> CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
> 4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> 3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
> PcsCG control [Auto]
> Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
> Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
> CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
> Memory Clear [Auto]
> Overclock [Enabled]
> Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
> Tcl [Auto]
> Trcdrd [Auto]
> Trcdwr [Auto]
> Trp [Auto]
> Tras [Auto]
> Trc Ctrl [Auto]
> TrrdS [Auto]
> TrrdL [Auto]
> Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
> TwtrS [Auto]
> TwtrL [Auto]
> Twr Ctrl [Auto]
> Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
> TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
> TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
> Tcwl [Auto]
> Trtp [Auto]
> Tcke [Auto]
> Trdwr [Auto]
> Twrrd [Auto]
> TwrwrSc [Auto]
> TwrwrSd [Auto]
> TwrwrDd [Auto]
> TrdrdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSd [Auto]
> TrdrdDd [Auto]
> ProcODT [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
> DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Data Poisoning [Auto]
> DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
> RCD Parity [Auto]
> DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
> Write CRC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
> Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
> DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
> DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
> TSME [Auto]
> Data Scramble [Auto]
> DFE Read Training [Auto]
> FFE Write Training [Auto]
> PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
> MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
> CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
> Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
> BankGroupSwap [Auto]
> BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
> Address Hash Bank [Auto]
> Address Hash CS [Auto]
> Address Hash Rm [Auto]
> SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
> MBIST Enable [Disabled]
> Pattern Select [PRBS]
> Pattern Length(VMR) [6]
> Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
> Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
> Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> IOMMU [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> FCLK Frequency [Auto]
> SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
> UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
> LN2 Mode [Auto]
> ACS Enable [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
> PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
> cTDP Control [Auto]
> EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
> Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
> APBDIS [Auto]
> DF Cstates [Auto]
> CPPC [Auto]
> CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
> NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
> Early Link Speed [Auto]
> Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
> Preferred IO [Auto]
> CV test [Auto]
> Loopback Mode [Auto]
> SRIS [Auto]
> Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]


Reason could be a virtualized clock. SVM can stay on/auto but Windows HyperV disabled


----------



## butt_yodel

Hey guys,

I'm having trouble POSTing my system at 1900 FCLK / 3800 Mhz memory. No issues at all at lower fclk and memories. I can get the system to POST with enough attempts, and even power off for short periods of time before bringing the system back up successfully. However, if I leave the system off for more than a few minutes (overnight), the board spits out an F9 and power cycles trying to find a viable setting to try; it is usually not successful and returns to previous settings. I have tested the settings I am trying to run inside of Windows extensively - memory is rock solid and I'm not having any stability issues with the CPU inside of the stress tests I've run so far. I tried manually setting SoC to 1.2v and VDDG voltages to 1.15v - no luck. Should I just add more voltage here? Anyone else seen this behavior? Seems to be silly board behavior that can be stabilized with some sort of manual tuning, given that POST is the only hiccup I'm having right now.

Thank you!

5900X / Crosshair VIII Hero
4x8 GB 3800 Mhz 14-19-19-38 @ 1.5v


----------



## lmfodor

Alemancio said:


> Its not that you should/shouldnt pull the trigger... you just cant go and buy the kits you listed. They've been out of stock for months! *There are NO decent 2x16GB DR 3600MHz B-Die kits for sale, none.*


I think this would be fine, right?

G.SKILL 16GB (2 x 8GB) Trident Z Neo Series DDR4 PC4-28800 3600 MHz 288-Pin Desktop Memory Model F4-3600C14D-16GTZNB G.SKILL 16GB (2 x 8GB) Trident Z Neo Series DDR4 PC4-28800 3600 MHz 288-Pin Desktop Memory Model F4-3600C14D-16GTZNB at Amazon.com


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## domdtxdissar

butt_yodel said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I'm having trouble POSTing my system at 1900 FCLK / 3800 Mhz memory. No issues at all at lower fclk and memories. I can get the system to POST with enough attempts, and even power off for short periods of time before bringing the system back up successfully. However, if I leave the system off for more than a few minutes (overnight), the board spits out an F9 and power cycles trying to find a viable setting to try; it is usually not successful and returns to previous settings. I have tested the settings I am trying to run inside of Windows extensively - memory is rock solid and I'm not having any stability issues with the CPU inside of the stress tests I've run so far. I tried manually setting SoC to 1.2v and VDDG voltages to 1.15v - no luck. Should I just add more voltage here? Anyone else seen this behavior? Seems to be silly board behavior that can be stabilized with some sort of manual tuning, given that POST is the only hiccup I'm having right now.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> 5900X / Crosshair VIII Hero
> 4x8 GB 3800 Mhz 14-19-19-38 @ 1.5v


You can try and see if proc 40 helps


----------



## butt_yodel

domdtxdissar said:


> You can try and see if proc 40 helps


Haven’t messed with procodt yet — looks like an avenue of troubleshooting worth checking out. Thanks!


----------



## Belcebuu

Guys quick question, my 5900x 16GB 4400CL19 x570 Hero viii can post with if1900 and 2000 but I am always getting some error with Kardhu memory test, is that fixable by a new BIOS ? is my memory controller that is ****?


----------



## Alemancio

butt_yodel said:


> Haven’t messed with procodt yet — looks like an avenue of troubleshooting worth checking out. Thanks!


4x8GB is much harder than 2x8GB, try that too.


----------



## Sleepycat

butt_yodel said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I'm having trouble POSTing my system at 1900 FCLK / 3800 Mhz memory. No issues at all at lower fclk and memories. I can get the system to POST with enough attempts, and even power off for short periods of time before bringing the system back up successfully. However, if I leave the system off for more than a few minutes (overnight), the board spits out an F9 and power cycles trying to find a viable setting to try; it is usually not successful and returns to previous settings. I have tested the settings I am trying to run inside of Windows extensively - memory is rock solid and I'm not having any stability issues with the CPU inside of the stress tests I've run so far. I tried manually setting SoC to 1.2v and VDDG voltages to 1.15v - no luck. Should I just add more voltage here? Anyone else seen this behavior? Seems to be silly board behavior that can be stabilized with some sort of manual tuning, given that POST is the only hiccup I'm having right now.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> 5900X / Crosshair VIII Hero
> 4x8 GB 3800 Mhz 14-19-19-38 @ 1.5v


Might be counterintuitive, but have you tried 3866 MHz / 1933 FCLK? A number of people reported that 1900 FCLK wouldn't work no matter what, but they could POST with 1933.


----------



## Sleepycat

polyh3dron said:


> Trfc [288]
> Trfc2 [352]
> Trfc4 [Auto]
> 
> CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.10000]
> DRAM Voltage [1.50000]
> VDDG CCD Voltage Control [1.050]
> VDDG IOD Voltage Control [1.050]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [1.050]
> 1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [1.80000]


I found that tRFC, tRFC2 and tRFC4 all affected latency in my system (I run at 3600 MHz / 1800 FCLK too). The 3 settings have a relationship together and are calculated based on DRAM frequency, tCL and tRC.
Try tRFC [308], tRFC2 [229] and tRFC4 [141], which is meant for 3600 CL16, tRC 44.

If this boots and improves your memory latency, you can further lower your VDDSOC and DRAM voltages.

Since you have B-die running at 3600 MHz / 1800 FCLK (is your kit a 3200 CL14?), you should be able to run VCCDOC at 1.09 or 1.08V, and DRAM at 1.46V or lower. CLDO VRRP can also decrease to 0.95V if the tRFC settings above improve your latency.


----------



## polyh3dron

Sleepycat said:


> I found that tRFC, tRFC2 and tRFC4 all affected latency in my system (I run at 3600 MHz / 1800 FCLK too). The 3 settings have a relationship together and are calculated based on DRAM frequency, tCL and tRC.
> Try tRFC [308], tRFC2 [229] and tRFC4 [141], which is meant for 3600 CL16, tRC 44.
> 
> If this boots and improves your memory latency, you can further lower your VDDSOC and DRAM voltages.
> 
> Since you have B-die running at 3600 MHz / 1800 FCLK (is your kit a 3200 CL14?), you should be able to run VCCDOC at 1.09 or 1.08V, and DRAM at 1.46V or lower. CLDO VRRP can also decrease to 0.95V if the tRFC settings above improve your latency.


This is my RAM kit: G.SKILL Announces Extreme Low Latency DDR4-3600 CL14 64GB (16GBx4) Memory Kit-G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.

"Extreme Low Latency" lol not at XMP according to my system.

Will try these settings, thanks!


----------



## jomama22

Sleepycat said:


> I actually had a similar issue. My bios OC was set to hard limit throttle at 85 ºC with 4.65 GHz / 1.39 V all core. No problems and the system was stable and hot under load.
> 
> But when I started using using CTR to tune (successfully), running even Cinebench multi-core, it would do a hard reboot and give me an error message saying it had gone over temperature. But the voltage was only 1.25V and it was only reaching 4.55 GHz and a temperature of 75 ºC. Something really odd was happening as the temperature should have been lower than my bios OC which did not trip overtemperature protection.
> 
> In the end, I wrote down my CTR settings, deleted the CTR folder, unzipped a fresh one from the download and the reboots stopped happening. I suspect the Phoenix feature that saves your settings when you get a crash/reboot during testing was writing something into the config file which was incompatible with my motherboard's overtemperature protection.


It's a bug with the bios. You're rebooting due to too low of voltage.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> I found that tRFC, tRFC2 and tRFC4 all affected latency in my system (I run at 3600 MHz / 1800 FCLK too). The 3 settings have a relationship together and are calculated based on DRAM frequency, tCL and tRC.
> Try tRFC [308], tRFC2 [229] and tRFC4 [141], which is meant for 3600 CL16, tRC 44.
> 
> If this boots and improves your memory latency, you can further lower your VDDSOC and DRAM voltages.
> 
> Since you have B-die running at 3600 MHz / 1800 FCLK (is your kit a 3200 CL14?), you should be able to run VCCDOC at 1.09 or 1.08V, and DRAM at 1.46V or lower. CLDO VRRP can also decrease to 0.95V if the tRFC settings above improve your latency.


Do you see anything I can tweak to try to get me lower latency? I am at around 61 according to AIDA. I am handicapped by running 64GB I know but just in case. I just wanted to see 50s even if its 59.9 LOL


----------



## butt_yodel

domdtxdissar said:


> You can try and see if proc 40 helps





Sleepycat said:


> Might be counterintuitive, but have you tried 3866 MHz / 1933 FCLK? A number of people reported that 1900 FCLK wouldn't work no matter what, but they could POST with 1933.


No luck with either of these unfortunately. The board will still train occasionally and POST - but a cold boot is still giving me the most trouble. I tried 40, 53.3, and 60 for PROCODT.


----------



## Sleepycat

polyh3dron said:


> This is my RAM kit: G.SKILL Announces Extreme Low Latency DDR4-3600 CL14 64GB (16GBx4) Memory Kit-G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.
> 
> "Extreme Low Latency" lol not at XMP according to my system.
> 
> Will try these settings, thanks!


Nice kit! I have the slightly cheaper version, G.Skill 3200 CL14, also 16GBx4. Once you get your latency down, you can push your kit a bit harder in timings. 

My 3200 CL14 kit is running at 3600 CL14-15-14-28 @ 1.46V. So you can most likely go tighter as yours is a much better binned kit. My CPU is limiting the memory to 3600 MHz. I can't run 3666 MHz, even at CL18 or CL20 with 1.5V. I believe it is a limitation when running 16GBx4 B-die on Ryzen as each stick is dual rank.


----------



## polyh3dron

Sleepycat said:


> Nice kit! I have the slightly cheaper version, G.Skill 3200 CL14, also 16GBx4. Once you get your latency down, you can push your kit a bit harder in timings.
> 
> My 3200 CL14 kit is running at 3600 CL14-15-14-28 @ 1.46V. So you can most likely go tighter as yours is a much better binned kit. My CPU is limiting the memory to 3600 MHz. I can't run 3666 MHz, even at CL18 or CL20 with 1.5V. I believe it is a limitation when running 16GBx4 B-die on Ryzen as each stick is dual rank.


Thanks! Looks like your suggested settings did improve my latency a bit:


----------



## Sleepycat

polyh3dron said:


> Thanks! Looks like your suggested settings did improve my latency a bit:
> 
> View attachment 2479980


Your latency should be able to reach 59 ns. I'll have to grab my latest Zentimings screenshot for you when I get home.


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> Do you see anything I can tweak to try to get me lower latency? I am at around 61 according to AIDA. I am handicapped by running 64GB I know but just in case. I just wanted to see 50s even if its 59.9 LOL
> View attachment 2479973


Try setting in the calculator: your processor to Zen2, motherboard to x570, DIMM modules to the right number (4 for 64GB?) and PCB revision to A3/A2/B2. Then calculate the fast settings to see if it is tighter than your current settings.


----------



## polyh3dron

shaolin95 said:


> Do you see anything I can tweak to try to get me lower latency? I am at around 61 according to AIDA. I am handicapped by running 64GB I know but just in case. I just wanted to see 50s even if its 59.9 LOL
> View attachment 2479973


To add to what @Sleepycat replied, for the DRAM Calculator to work well, you need to export a Complete HTML Report from Thaiphoon Burner while showing your delays in nanoseconds, and then import that into the DRAM calculator.

Hardware Unboxed has a good guide on how to do this.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> Try setting in the calculator: your processor to Zen2, motherboard to x570, DIMM modules to the right number (4 for 64GB?) and PCB revision to A3/A2/B2. Then calculate the fast settings to see if it is tighter than your current settings.


Sweet that did the trick!
I only found two things different but while one of them was actually going from 14 to 15, I still did it just in case. Then I adjusted the other to 288 and boom..59!


----------



## Sleepycat

Nice! Very similar to mine now, also 64GB of G.Skill 3200 CL14 @ 3600 CL 14


----------



## Sleepycat

polyh3dron said:


> Thanks! Looks like your suggested settings did improve my latency a bit:
> 
> View attachment 2479980


Finally managed to get home and save my settings. Compare this to yours to see if anything stands out. I get 59 ns with this as per screenshot above, and running CTR2.0 for overclocking. My PCIe slots are set to Gen3 for compatibility reasons to get my Reverb G2 to work with the USB ports.



Code:


[2021/02/24 17:49:57]
Ai Overclock Tuner [D.O.C.P. Standard]
D.O.C.P. [D.O.C.P DDR4-3200 14-14-14-34-1.35V]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3600MHz]
FCLK Frequency [1800MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Core VID [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
Performance Bias [Auto]
PBO Fmax Enhancer [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Manual]
PPT Limit [200]
TDC Limit [120]
EDC Limit [160]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [Auto]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Manual]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [85]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
Trcdrd [15]
Trcdwr [14]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
Trc [42]
TrrdS [4]
TrrdL [6]
Tfaw [16]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [12]
Twr [12]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [4]
TwrwrScl [4]
Trfc [294]
Trfc2 [218]
Trfc4 [134]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [8]
Trdwr [8]
Twrrd [4]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [7]
TwrwrDd [7]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [5]
TrdrdDd [5]
Tcke [1]
ProcODT [53.3 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
RttNom [Auto]
RttWr [Auto]
RttPark [Auto]
MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
MemCkeSetup [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
CPU Current Capability [100%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed CPU VRM Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 2]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Current Capability [100%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.09375]
DRAM Voltage [1.46000]
VDDG CCD Voltage Control [1.050]
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [1.050]
CLDO VDDP voltage [0.950]
1.00V SB Voltage [1.00000]
1.8V PLL Voltage [1.80000]
TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Enabled]
PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
NX Mode [Enabled]
SVM Mode [Disabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
CCD Control [Auto]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
SMART Self Test [Auto]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
When system is in working state [All On]
Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [All On]
Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Auto]
Realtek PXE OPROM [Setup]
Intel LAN Controller [Auto]
Intel LAN OPROM [Setup]
ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Enabled]
Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Mode [GEN 3]
PCIEX16_2 Mode [GEN 3]
PCIEX1 Mode [GEN 3]
PCIEX16_3 Mode [GEN 3]
M.2_1 Link Mode [GEN 3]
M.2_2 Link Mode [GEN 3]
SB Link Mode [GEN 3]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Above 4G Decoding [Disabled]
SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
SanDisk uSD SDDR-289 1.00 [Auto]
SanDisk MS SDDR-289 1.00 [Auto]
SanDisk SD SDDR-289 1.00 [Auto]
SanDisk CF SDDR-289 1.00 [Auto]
USB Device Enable [Enabled]
U32G2_2 [Enabled]
U32G2_3 [Enabled]
U32G2_4 [Enabled]
U32G1_10 [Enabled]
U32G1_11 [Enabled]
USB12 [Enabled]
USB13 [Enabled]
U32G2_7 [Enabled]
U32G2_8 [Enabled]
U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Device [SATA6G_1: WDC WD80EFZX-68UW8N0]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
PCH Fan Speed [Monitor]
Flow Rate [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
CPU Fan Step Up [0 sec]
CPU Fan Step Down [0 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
High Amp Fan Profile [Manual]
High Amp Fan Upper Temperature [70]
High Amp Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
High Amp Fan Middle Temperature [50]
High Amp Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [42]
High Amp Fan Lower Temperature [30]
High Amp Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [20]
Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
Boot Logo Display [Auto]
Bootup NumLock State [On]
POST Delay Time [1 sec]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Disabled]
OS Type [Other OS]
AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
Flexkey [Reset]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [2]
Profile Name [DDR3600C14CTR]
Save to Profile [1]
DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Enabled]
CPU Frequency [0]
CPU Voltage [0]
CCD Control [Auto]
Core control [Auto]
SMT Control [Auto]
Overclock [Enabled ]
Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
Tcl [Auto]
Trcdrd [Auto]
Trcdwr [Auto]
Trp [Auto]
Tras [Auto]
Trc Ctrl [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr Ctrl [Auto]
Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
ECO Mode [Disable]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
SoC Voltage [0]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Enabled ]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
SMEE [Auto]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
Global C-state Control [Auto]
Power Supply Idle Control [Auto]
SEV ASID Count [Auto]
SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
Local APIC Mode [Auto]
ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
DRAM scrub time [Auto]
Poison scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Memory interleaving [Auto]
Memory interleaving size [Auto]
1TB remap [Auto]
DRAM map inversion [Auto]
ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
GMI encryption control [Auto]
xGMI encryption control [Auto]
CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
PcsCG control [Auto]
Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
Memory Clear [Auto]
Overclock [Enabled]
Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
Tcl [Auto]
Trcdrd [Auto]
Trcdwr [Auto]
Trp [Auto]
Tras [Auto]
Trc Ctrl [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr Ctrl [Auto]
Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Data Poisoning [Auto]
DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
RCD Parity [Auto]
DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
Write CRC Enable [Auto]
DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
TSME [Auto]
Data Scramble [Auto]
DFE Read Training [Auto]
FFE Write Training [Auto]
PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
BankGroupSwap [Auto]
BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
Address Hash Bank [Auto]
Address Hash CS [Auto]
Address Hash Rm [Auto]
SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
MBIST Enable [Disabled]
Pattern Select [PRBS]
Pattern Length(VMR) [6]
Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
IOMMU [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
FCLK Frequency [Auto]
SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
ACS Enable [Auto]
PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
cTDP Control [Auto]
EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
APBDIS [Auto]
DF Cstates [Auto]
CPPC [Auto]
CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
Early Link Speed [Auto]
Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
Preferred IO [Auto]
CV test [Auto]
Loopback Mode [Auto]
SRIS [Auto]
Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]


----------



## sechsterangriff

Sleepycat said:


> Nice! Very similar to mine now, also 64GB of G.Skill 3200 CL14 @ 3600 CL 14
> 
> View attachment 2480093


I'm not in any way an expert, but those L3 cache values are kind of insane. 
Are you sure you're not putting your processor in some kind of unsustainable stress?


----------



## koji

sechsterangriff said:


> I'm not in any way an expert, but those L3 cache values are kind of insane.
> Are you sure you're not putting your processor in some kind of unsustainable stress?


They're actually what they are supposed to be on a dual CCD Ryzen 5 series. Should be around 1200 L3 Read but due to some Agesa bug or Aida readout bug you only see those numbers in static/manual OCs or Fmax enabled / EDC limit at 500 or something silly like that.

5600 and 5800 = 600 L3 read
5900 and 5950 = 1200 L3 read

But in reality we land on half those values, and even less once you start messing with manual PBO limits. Jury is still out on it actually having a performance impact.


----------



## lmfodor

I keep looking for a good low latency memory for the CH8. I found this in the QVL, 4000 MHZ at 17-17-17. I know they aren’t the latest version released for Rayzen 5000. 

However they are under QVL Rayzen 5000, and are Bdie. What do you think, should you buy it?

F4-4000C17D-16GTZR

Thanks!
Martín 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Jesaul

lmfodor said:


> I keep looking for a good low latency memory for the CH8. I found this in the QVL, 4000 MHZ at 17-17-17. I know they aren’t the latest version released for Rayzen 5000.
> 
> However they are under QVL Rayzen 5000, and are Bdie. What do you think, should you buy it?
> 
> F4-4000C17D-16GTZR
> 
> Thanks!
> Martín
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I have this one running at 3800 14-13-13-13 1.49v. And the latency is 51.6ns
It's literally top memory.


----------



## lmfodor

Jesaul said:


> I have this one running at 3800 14-13-13-13 1.49v. And the latency is 51.6ns
> It's literally top memory.


Ok! That’s great. Ordering right now!! 

Thanks 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Jesaul

lmfodor said:


> Ok! That’s great. Ordering right now!!
> 
> Thanks


Just ask later if you need config, etc. I've posted the results some time ago.


----------



## lmfodor

Jesaul said:


> Just ask later if you need config, etc. I've posted the results some time ago.


Yes, I just sent you a PM! Thanks 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## 1ah1

AGESA 1201 Fix L3 cache performance


----------



## CyrIng

Anyone can report the status of latest BIOS with 3950X : does it fix all issues ?

Like:


Code:


Linux version 5.11.1-arch1-1
smp: Bringing up secondary CPUs ...
x86: Booting SMP configuration:
.... node  #0, CPUs:        #1
__common_interrupt: 1.55 No irq handler for vector
  #2
__common_interrupt: 2.55 No irq handler for vector
  #3
...
__common_interrupt: 9.55 No irq handler for vector
 #10


----------



## Sleepycat

sechsterangriff said:


> I'm not in any way an expert, but those L3 cache values are kind of insane.
> Are you sure you're not putting your processor in some kind of unsustainable stress?


It is actually higher like this if you don't overclock in bios. When I load defaults, turn on DOCP and then run Aida64, I get those high L3 scores. If I start messing with PBO Advanced etc, it drops to about 700GB/s.

For some reason, overclocking using CTR2.0 maintains these high L3 scores. Not sure why.


----------



## tchabada

CyrIng said:


> View attachment 2480145
> 
> 
> Anyone can report the status of latest BIOS with 3950X : does it fix all issues ?
> 
> Like:
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Linux version 5.11.1-arch1-1
> smp: Bringing up secondary CPUs ...
> x86: Booting SMP configuration:
> .... node  #0, CPUs:        #1
> __common_interrupt: 1.55 No irq handler for vector
> #2
> __common_interrupt: 2.55 No irq handler for vector
> #3
> ...
> __common_interrupt: 9.55 No irq handler for vector
> #10


Still same on 5900x, bios 3204, kernel 5.11


----------



## bookingyo

tchabada said:


> Still same on 5900x, bios 3204, kernel 5.11


I'm getting the same on startup with kernel 5.11 on Arch.


----------



## koji

1ah1 said:


> AGESA 1201 Fix L3 cache performance
> 
> View attachment 2480125


Thanks for the news, did some googling and found this:









AMD working on Firmware Fix to Improve L3 Cache Performance on Ryzen 5000 CPUs | Hardware Times


AMD is working on a firmware (AGESA) update for its newly launched Ryzen 5000 CPUs aimed at improving the L3 cache bandwidth and latency by as much as 25%. The AGESA version 1.2.0.1 will roll out with this patch, following 1.2.0.0 which quashed multiple bugs and improved the overclocking...




www.hardwaretimes.com





Looks like you still have to manually raise the EDC limit? That's not really a fix to what we have now though, speeds look to be improved.


----------



## CyrIng

tchabada said:


> Still same on 5900x, bios 3204, kernel 5.11


What I'm sure of is that no such issue with original BIOS version 1201
So it appears like a regression but Manufacturer does not care about Linux


----------



## 1ah1

AGESA 1.2.0.1 now arriving in public BIOSes for Ryzen 5000 Series!

1) Fix: False SMART errors on Hynix NVMe 

2) Fix: Intermittent SSD detection for M.2 SATA devices 

3) Improve L3$ bandwidth in AIDA64 

4) Improve stability if user disables cores on 5600X/5800X with AMD Ryzen Master


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1364971430337740804


----------



## J7SC

Hello -

1.) I recently switched an oldie Asus Rampage X99 / 5960X setup for a X570 / 3950X Asus Crosshair VIII wifi and really like it (the X99 is going back to other duties). I initially installed a fresh copy of Win 10 Pro on a WD Blue 1 tb SSD...but a few days later, I saw a really good deal on a WD Black SN750 (PCCIe 3) NVMe 1 tb and installed that in the bottom slot (M.2_2) of the crosshair mobo, reason being the 3090 Strix OC with a backplate covering the double-sided VRAM that puts out a lot of heat (near the M.2_1) top slot.

I'm switching the GPU to custom cooling soon, so I'm wondering whether I can then simply take the NVMe from M.2_2 and move it to M.2_1, make appropriate bios adjustments and be done with it ? Tx  ...*EDIT: *...just tried the switch from slot M.2_2 > M.2_1 ...worked fine. FYI, this is my first AM4 and NVMe drive (usually work with U.2s or M.2 SSDs, TRs)

2.) I really, really like this Asus Crosshair mobo...running stock RAM_v and soc_v w/ a good 32GB kit of Samsung-B I had left over...still fine-tuning the RAM a bit, but close to being finished for now. No PBO, undervolting, per-CCX or CTR yet until custom loops are built up


----------



## the_real_7

Jesaul said:


> I have this one running at 3800 14-13-13-13 1.49v. And the latency is 51.6ns
> It's literally top memory.


Hello Jesaul could use some help if possible I also had the same set from my 9900KS done alot of different configs with them solid , but havent been able to get them setup on this Dark Hero with anything under 62.5ns at 3600 16 16 16 36


----------



## J7SC

...small update below for the 3950X, 32GB (4x 8GB Sammy-B GTZR) after disabling spectrum. Also, waiting with mobo Bios update after resizable BAR /Nvidia update has proven to be stable


----------



## Jesaul

the_real_7 said:


> Hello Jesaul could use some help if possible I also had the same set from my 9900KS done alot of different configs with them solid , but havent been able to get them setup on this Dark Hero with anything under 62.5ns at 3600 16 16 16 36


Set memory related settings to auto, Soc to 1.15v, memory voltage to 1.5, cldo vddp, vddg ccd and vddg iod to 1.05v and try to set 3800 after that. That's step 1.
If you fail, try to update bios, disable spectrum.


----------



## pantsoftime

1ah1 said:


> AGESA 1.2.0.1 now arriving in public BIOSes for Ryzen 5000 Series!
> 
> 1) Fix: False SMART errors on Hynix NVMe
> 
> 2) Fix: Intermittent SSD detection for M.2 SATA devices
> 
> 3) Improve L3$ bandwidth in AIDA64
> 
> 4) Improve stability if user disables cores on 5600X/5800X with AMD Ryzen Master


Maybe we can get a quick turn beta of this bad Larry to see if it solves some issues. Shamino any chance for that?


----------



## Sleepycat

the_real_7 said:


> Hello Jesaul could use some help if possible I also had the same set from my 9900KS done alot of different configs with them solid , but havent been able to get them setup on this Dark Hero with anything under 62.5ns at 3600 16 16 16 36
> View attachment 2480229


Save your existing profile. Then load optimized defaults. Turn on DOCP and then set Memory clock to 3866 and FCLK to 1933. 
DRAM voltage to 1.45V
SOC to 1.1V
CLDO VDPP to 0.95V
VDGG CCD to 1.05V
VDDG IOD to 1.05V.

If this boots, then go into memory timings, then turn the timings down from the 17-17-17-37 to 16-16-16-36. Keep testing until you get down to CL14. If it passes CL14 stability, then you can lower DRAM voltage by 0.1V increments and keep testing stability between steps.


----------



## the_real_7

Sleepycat said:


> Save your existing profile. Then load optimized defaults. Turn on DOCP and then set Memory clock to 3866 and FCLK to 1933.
> DRAM voltage to 1.45V
> SOC to 1.1V
> CLDO VDPP to 0.95V
> VDGG CCD to 1.05V
> VDDG IOD to 1.05V.
> 
> If this boots, then go into memory timings, then turn the timings down from the 17-17-17-37 to 16-16-16-36. Keep testing until you get down to CL14. If it passes CL14 stability, then you can lower DRAM voltage by 0.1V increments and keep testing stability between steps.


Thanks ! ! ! going to work on this set of f4-3600c16-16gtzn for a few more days not as promising as the as that set for sure. but have managed to tweak it a bit was at cl16 got down to cl14 with just basic settings tweaks , still working my way around Ryzen , but good things is Ryzen is way less sensitive than intel is , bad thing is you have to work harder lol.


----------



## Sleepycat

the_real_7 said:


> View attachment 2480383


Nice! Looking at your ZenTimings screenshot, you can push a bit more. Try your existing settings but set:
tRFC = 308
tRFC2 = 229
tRFC4 = 141 

See if this improves your latency in Aida64 from your current 61.9 ns


----------



## J7SC

Sleepycat said:


> Nice! Looking at your ZenTimings screenshot, you can push a bit more. Try your existing settings but set:
> tRFC = 308
> tRFC2 = 229
> tRFC4 = 141
> 
> See if this improves your latency in Aida64 from your current 61.9 ns


I wonder if I could get your feedback on the summary screens below re. the 3950X / IF 1900 / 4x8GB 3800. I am not new to oc'ing (various Intel or AMD Threadripper 29xx series) but _very new_ to AM4. A couple of quick points: ...I'm aware that Geardown is enabled but it won't make a difference on Tcas with this RAM as long as I'm in DOCP with manual overrides on some parameters, instead of full manual. I will try manual later once custom-loop cooled. Re. latency, I'm running this chip in UMA, not NUMA mode as this is both a productivity and fun build. RAM related voltages seem ok to me in ZenTimings (V_SOC swings between 1.075 and and 1.081 depending on load) but I just used that app for the first time, so I have no feel for it yet. The Asus Crosshair ViIII wifi bios will be updated soon per earlier post re. resizable BAR updates for NVidia GPU.

The 'nominal XMP/DOCP' RAM speed of the 32GB 'GSkill GTZR' kit is 3866 MHz...with the 3950X, I run it at a slight bump to 1.36V. It's a Samsung-B kit which is not AMD-specific but I have used an identical kit in my AMD Threadripper / 4-channel for years w/o issue, on the contrary, never mind various Intel builds. The settings below have passed extended memtest. The setup booted at IF 1900 / DDR 3800, 3800 / 4 sticks on the first try w/ 16-16-16 after mounting the CPU. 3800 is fine for me, but if anything, I'll try to tighten timings a bit more once on full manual. On the other hand, it is a nominal 3866 kit which has run as high as 4133 w/ decent timings on stock voltage on machines with an IMC that can support it. Now, how likely is it on a Ryzen 3950X (or even 5960X) to reach IF 1933 or even 2000 and corresponding 1:1 RAM w/o giving up a whole bunch on timings or go beyond, say, 1.4v on RAM_v, or push up V_SOC ? Do the ZenTimings' values look ok to you ? Are the more recent bios for this motherboard 'better' re. overall memory performance ? Thank you  for any advice and answers you folks might have.


----------



## Sleepycat

J7SC said:


> RAM related voltages seem ok to me in ZenTimings (V_SOC swings between 1.075 and and 1.81x depending on load) but I just used that app for the first time, so I have no feel for it yet.


Just wanted to confirm, your V_SOC actually reaches 1.081x, right? Because 1.81 is extremely high, we keep it below 1.2 V as much as possible so we don't damage the memory controller.



J7SC said:


> The 'nominal XMP/DOCP' RAM speed of the 32GB 'GSkill GTZR' kit is 3866 MHz...with the 3950X, I run it at a slight bump to 1.36V.


That kit since it is B-die will also happily live at 1.5V day to day. I have mine running at 1.46V as I have 4x16GB and need the extra memory voltage to get it to reach my timings.



J7SC said:


> Now, how likely is it on a Ryzen 3950X (or even 5960X) to reach IF 1933 or even 2000 and corresponding 1:1 RAM w/o giving up a whole bunch on timings or go beyond, say, 1.4v on RAM_v, or push up V_SOC ?


Whether you can reach IF 1933 or 2000 is not dependent on the memory if it can reach 3866 or 4000 MHz. Instead, it depends on your IF and also memory controller (in the SOC section). Depending on your luck, you 3950x might hit 1933 if it is a very good bin. My 5900x will only do IF 1900. It doesn't really like 1933 or higher. My RAM on the other hand easily hits 3966 CL16 with 1.5V.



J7SC said:


> Do the ZenTimings' values look ok to you ? Are the more recent bios for this motherboard 'better' re. overall memory performance ? Thank you  for any advice and answers you folks might have.


Your timings can probably go tighter. The 3000 and 5000 series supposedly have very similar memory controllers. So you can certainly tighten things up in the sub timings, tRFC2 and tRFC4


----------



## GRABibus

Nice guide :


----------



## J7SC

Sleepycat said:


> Just wanted to confirm, your V_SOC actually reaches 1.081x, right? Because 1.81 is extremely high, we keep it below 1.2 V as much as possible so we don't damage the memory controller.
> 
> 
> That kit since it is B-die will also happily live at 1.5V day to day. I have mine running at 1.46V as I have 4x16GB and need the extra memory voltage to get it to reach my timings.
> 
> 
> Whether you can reach IF 1933 or 2000 is not dependent on the memory if it can reach 3866 or 4000 MHz. Instead, it depends on your IF and also memory controller (in the SOC section). Depending on your luck, you 3950x might hit 1933 if it is a very good bin. My 5900x will only do IF 1900. It doesn't really like 1933 or higher. My RAM on the other hand easily hits 3966 CL16 with 1.5V.
> 
> 
> Your timings can probably go tighter. The 3000 and 5000 series supposedly have very similar memory controllers. So you can certainly tighten things up in the sub timings, tRFC2 and tRFC4


Thank you for the info ! 

-- on V_SOC, yes that was a typo I just fixed in my earlier post...V_SOC swings a bit from 1.071v to 1.081v. I would not want to go over 1.12v max as my personal limit for this particular setup > this system is also used for productivity, so it is not an outright bencher/gamer.

-- The setup only ever has run IF 1900 / DDR 3800, or a touch more via 'old-school bclk'  since first boot. I can also boot w/ 1933 / 3866 but only with more relaxed timings - too high an 'overall' loss though when compared to 1900 / 3800 settings which seems to be the sweet-spot so far for this IMC and DDR. Given what I know about this specific DDR kit (up to 4133 on stock voltage / timings in other systems with an IMC that can run it), the 'work' clearly would have to focus on the 3950X's memory controller. I will give V_SOC 1.12v a shot (so far, I've only used stock voltage values) - and I presume the VDDx voltages might have to shift a bit with ? it to give 1933 / 3866 a shot.

-- I tried tRFC2 and tRFC4 values you had shared earlier  ...works well and the latency came down by 0.1ns. However, there seem to be a slightly higher variance in repeated AIDA memory and cache results...still, so minor that I probably just keep those values. Once the custom-loops are built (I'm keeping the 3090 Stix OC ' 500W 'oven' on a separate loop), I plan to push PBO with this 3950X a bit within reason and also might switch to an all-core oc. That's what I have been doing w/my TR 2950X and an identical RAM kit (spoiler, w/NUMA mode, 3466 14-14-14 ended up being the 'daily' preference). Alternatively, I will have to learn more, much more, about per-CCX oc'ing for the 3950X


Spoiler


----------



## metalshark

If anyone else is using thread_switcher for stability testing curve optimiser and wants to help identify the core which needs more voltage I've butchered the main function so you can line up the hh:mm (hours and minutes) reported by a Prime95 worker failing with the thread_switcher log file when leaving it unattended. This now switches once per minute (the granularity of logging in Prime95) but helps identify the core which failed.



Python:


def main(cfg: dict):
    thread_num = (cfg["hyper_threading"] + 1) * cfg["core_num"]
    thread_list = [Thread(thread_num, index=n,
                          hyper_threading=cfg["hyper_threading"])
                   for n in range(thread_num)]

    try:
        for thread in get_infinite_iterator(thread_list):
            sleeptime = 60 - (dt.utcnow().second + (dt.utcnow().microsecond/1000000))
            print('Waiting ' + str(sleeptime) + ' seconds till next minute')
            time.sleep(sleeptime)
            log_starting_thread(thread)
            run('Powershell "ForEach($PROCESS in'
                + f' GET-PROCESS {cfg["process_to_switch"]})'
                + ' { $PROCESS.ProcessorAffinity=' + thread.affinity_mask
                + '}"')
    except KeyboardInterrupt as e:
        print("Stopped")
        raise(e)
        quit()

So if one or more workers fail, look at the time they failed and identify which core was running in the thread_switcher log. Also as thread_switcher is using one core at a time you can have this on in the background when doing less taxing tasks or leave it unattended overnight.


----------



## the_real_7

Sleepycat said:


> Nice! Looking at your ZenTimings screenshot, you can push a bit more. Try your existing settings but set:
> tRFC = 308
> tRFC2 = 229
> tRFC4 = 141
> 
> See if this improves your latency in Aida64 from your current 61.9 ns


thanks man going to try tRFC = 308 first and run some test then work each down


----------



## Jesaul

lmfodor said:


> I keep looking for a good low latency memory for the CH8. I found this in the QVL, 4000 MHZ at 17-17-17. I know they aren’t the latest version released for Rayzen 5000.
> 
> However they are under QVL Rayzen 5000, and are Bdie. What do you think, should you buy it?
> 
> F4-4000C17D-16GTZR


Here are my current timings


----------



## Sleepycat

the_real_7 said:


> thanks man going to try tRFC = 308 first and run some test then work each down


There is a calculation where tRFC2 and tRFC4 are derived from tRFC (actually calculated from tCL and tRC). So it is not trial and error to work down these 3 values. They are calculated and hence you can go straight to those values I recommended which were based on your tCL and tRC.


----------



## jeremy.b

metalshark said:


> If anyone else is using thread_switcher for stability testing curve optimiser and wants to help identify the core which needs more voltage I've butchered the main function so you can line up the hh:mm (hours and minutes) reported by a Prime95 worker failing with the thread_switcher log file when leaving it unattended. This now switches once per minute (the granularity of logging in Prime95) but helps identify the core which failed.
> 
> 
> 
> Python:
> 
> 
> def main(cfg: dict):
> thread_num = (cfg["hyper_threading"] + 1) * cfg["core_num"]
> thread_list = [Thread(thread_num, index=n,
> hyper_threading=cfg["hyper_threading"])
> for n in range(thread_num)]
> 
> try:
> for thread in get_infinite_iterator(thread_list):
> sleeptime = 60 - (dt.utcnow().second + (dt.utcnow().microsecond/1000000))
> print('Waiting ' + str(sleeptime) + ' seconds till next minute')
> time.sleep(sleeptime)
> log_starting_thread(thread)
> run('Powershell "ForEach($PROCESS in'
> + f' GET-PROCESS {cfg["process_to_switch"]})'
> + ' { $PROCESS.ProcessorAffinity=' + thread.affinity_mask
> + '}"')
> except KeyboardInterrupt as e:
> print("Stopped")
> raise(e)
> quit()
> 
> So if one or more workers fail, look at the time they failed and identify which core was running in the thread_switcher log. Also as thread_switcher is using one core at a time you can have this on in the background when doing less taxing tasks or leave it unattended overnight.


There is a powershell option too that is easier to use: Single core Prime95 test script for Zen 3 curve offset...


----------



## Nizzen

Any AGESA 1.2.0.1 for Dark Hero yet? Bios 3301 is in the wild....



https://www.mobile01.com/topicdetail.php?f=296&t=6312914


----------



## Nizzen

shamino1978 said:


> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-3201.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3201.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3201.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3201.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3201.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


 AGESA 1.2.0.1 for Dark Hero yet? Bios 3301


----------



## metalshark

Nizzen said:


> AGESA 1.2.0.1 for Dark Hero yet? Bios 3301


Alas that's 3201 from 2 months ago.


----------



## GRABibus

Nizzen said:


> AGESA 1.2.0.1 for Dark Hero yet? Bios 3301


We are on 3204 already for C8H


----------



## Nizzen

GRABibus said:


> We are on 3204 already for C8H


I know


----------



## 1ah1

GRABibus said:


> We are on 3204 already for C8H


He said 3301 not 3201


----------



## GRABibus

1ah1 said:


> He said 3301 not 3201


I know.
I was just referring to the enclosed files to downloads which are 3201 related.

Sorry Nizzen 😊


----------



## Nizzen

GRABibus said:


> I know.
> I was just referring to the enclosed files to downloads which are 3201 related.
> 
> Sorry Nizzen 😊


Love from Norway <3


----------



## GRABibus

The same from France 😊


----------



## 1ah1

Nizzen said:


> Love from Norway <3





GRABibus said:


> The same from France 😊


Love you both from Saudi Arabia


----------



## shaolin95

Latest CTR seems to be working much more stable at least for me. Now I can do blender, AIDA mem test, etc without crashing









My best SingleCore and Multi combination ever.
Temp during blender maxed out exactly at 80C which is fine by me.


----------



## the_real_7

Sleepycat said:


> There is a calculation where tRFC2 and tRFC4 are derived from tRFC (actually calculated from tCL and tRC). So it is not trial and error to work down these 3 values. They are calculated and hence you can go straight to those values I recommended which were based on your tCL and tRC.


Thanks Sleepycat Did your settings and i came down some more no changes in voltages passed mem test pro 1000% pass , the trfc calculation worked great


----------



## 1ah1

the_real_7 said:


> Thanks Sleepycat Did your settings and i came down some more no changes in voltages passed mem test pro 1000% pass , the trfc calculation worked great
> View attachment 2480815
> View attachment 2480816


You can try lower your tFAW 
for me it was 46 i did lower it to 16 which is good
i am using NEO 4*8 3800mhz c14 but i use 3733mhz


----------



## shamino1978

1201 preview








ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3301.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com












ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3301.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com












ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3301.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com












ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3301.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com


----------



## 1ah1

shamino1978 said:


> 1201 preview
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3301.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3301.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3301.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3301.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


AGESA 1.2.0.1 Update successfully
Thank you


----------



## Karagra

shamino1978 said:


> 1201 preview
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3301.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3301.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3301.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3301.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


Where is the Asus Impact VIII? no love for us weird shaped motherboard peoples xD


----------



## shamino1978

ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-3301.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com


----------



## J7SC

...glad to see the new bios out - I take it that it has the resizable BAR additions ? 

The Asus Rog Crosshair VIII wifi is an excellent motherboard, and easy to oc, especially re. memory. Because the new 3950X only had an AIO, I haven't been pushing too hard...all voltage, multis etc are still on auto, as is PBO and everything else, apart from the 4x8 GB.of Samsung-B. As posted before, it booted right away after CPU mounting w/ IF 1900 / DDR 3800. 

Per below, I have gone as far as I can with the current cooling, including extensive memtests. I just ordered parts for an extensive custom loop for this CPU setup (separate from the GPU loop, given the Asus Strix 3090 OC's 'heat generator habits') ...640x64 rads and dual D5s ought to keep this CPU happy...the 3090 gets a similar treatment in its loop.

Once it is all updated on the cooling front, I will update the bios as well.


----------



## stimpy88

J7SC said:


> ...glad to see the new bios out - I take it that it has the resizable BAR additions ?
> 
> The Asus Rog Crosshair VIII wifi is an excellent motherboard, and easy to oc, especially re. memory. Because the new 3950X only had an AIO, I haven't been pushing too hard...all voltage, multis etc are still on auto, as is PBO and everything else, apart from the 4x8 GB.of Samsung-B. As posted before, it booted right away after CPU mounting w/ IF 1900 / DDR 3800.
> 
> Per below, I have gone as far as I can with the current cooling, including extensive memtests. I just ordered parts for an extensive custom loop for this CPU setup (separate from the GPU loop, given the Asus Strix 3090 OC's 'heat generator habits') ...640x64 rads and dual D5s ought to keep this CPU happy...the 3090 gets a similar treatment in its loop.
> 
> Once it is all updated on the cooling front, I will update the bios as well.
> 
> View attachment 2480852


Very nice! Any chance of showing a ZenTimings screenshot?


----------



## dr.Rafi

shamino1978 said:


> 1201 preview
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3301.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3301.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3301.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3301.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


Thank you, nothing for strix itx x570?


----------



## xeizo

shamino1978 said:


> 1201 preview
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3301.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3301.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3301.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3301.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


Thanks! Will try ASAP, 1200 works well, we'll see if there's any difference(L3?)

1200:


----------



## Raiden85

shamino1978 said:


> 1201 preview
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3301.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3301.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3301.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3301.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


Thanks, updated my Formula X570 and all is working great so far, can't see any issues. Nice little performance jump in the L3 benchmark


----------



## xeizo

Up and running, L3 looks fixed indeed, below is with EDC = 160 which used to be 2-300:ish










CPU-Z looks to be about the same as previous bios, multi limited by cooling(NH-D15 standard fan speed)










And doing a baseline in Geekbench nets about identical performance to 3204, variance is within ambient temp/background tasks










Booted at first try, using the exact same settings as I used on 3204 and the exact same Windows config, bios settings also worked at first try

All and all it looks to perform identical to 3204, but the AIDA L3-bug is fixed, doesn't seem to affect anything besides AIDA though 

Thanks for the fast preview!


----------



## J7SC

stimpy88 said:


> Very nice! Any chance of showing a ZenTimings screenshot?


...here you go


----------



## the_real_7

1ah1 said:


> You can try lower your tFAW
> for me it was 46 i did lower it to 16 which is good
> i am using NEO 4*8 3800mhz c14 but i use 3733mhz


Thanks for recommendations , trying to get down the latency , love to get it to 55ns but heard that's hard on a 5900x.

Im put in settings to the bios and run some memtest


----------



## xeizo

The preview bios doesn't regress anyway, best CPU score in TimeSpy I ever had:


----------



## J7SC

xeizo said:


> The preview bios doesn't regress anyway, best CPU score in TimeSpy I ever had:
> 
> 
> View attachment 2480894


Good to know that the new bios doesn't regress performance wise - I'm still on the bios the Asus Crosshair VIII Hero wifi came with, 2502 🥴 , going to update soon, per above. Here is the best it could do on TS / CPU w/ 3950X 'stock' on the old bios


----------



## GRABibus

shamino1978 said:


> 1201 preview
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3301.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3301.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3301.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3301.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


still not updated on Asus French site.
The last bios is still 3204.


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> still not updated on Asus French site.
> The last bios is still 3204.


It will not be on ANY site, its a preview bios, the links goes to Shaminos private Dropbox 

Thanks again Shamino!


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> It will not be on ANY site, its a preview bios, the links goes to Shaminos private Dropbox
> 
> Thanks again Shamino!


ok ! thanks to you and Shamino 😊


----------



## shaolin95

I am starting from scratch tweaking my system PBO and CO but L3 is looking good at least during this part of my testing just using PPT 142, TDC 95 and EDC 140 with CO -30 all cores except -20 on my Best core and -25 on the 2nd best. Just need to tweak that latency to 59 at least to be happy. Got it once but it went up now.


----------



## kx11

Testing the new bios for Formula, i think it's really good n stable












I scored 19 232 in Time Spy


AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com


----------



## Tmfs

Any love for TuF Gaming X570 Plus Wifi?


----------



## aussie7

Need help, is it worth the upgrade from the Asus Gaming E B550 to the Asus Hero VIII X570 ?
My specs are 5800x and GSkill 16gb 4000Mhz and I want to get to 2000IF stable at 1900IF atm.
TIA


----------



## the_real_7

aussie7 said:


> Need help, is it worth the upgrade from the Asus Gaming E B550 to the Asus Hero VIII X570 ?
> My specs are 5800x and GSkill 16gb 4000Mhz and I want to get to 2000IF stable at 1900IF atm.
> TIA


the board and memory just get you halfway there , even as great as the Asus Hero VIII X570 , your imc on your processor is what matters the most , but yes the chances would be good but not guaranteed


----------



## the_real_7

ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero L3 Cache fixed with news Bios , Thanks Shamino for the download


----------



## tchabada

Could someone test this benchmark please? I've got half score compared to reference 5900x.


----------



## xeizo

tchabada said:


> Could someone test this benchmark please? I've got half score compared to reference 5900x.
> View attachment 2481004
> View attachment 2481005


Yes, something is wrong with your config, could be Windows bellying up too, here's mine right now with the preview bios:


----------



## metalshark

tchabada said:


> Could someone test this benchmark please? I've got half score compared to reference 5900x.
> View attachment 2481004
> View attachment 2481005


Your bus is at 98.5MHz and RAM is on 3744MHz (is it meant to be at 3800MHz?) with a 57:3 ratio. Would check that spread spectrum is disabled and you're using 100MHz as a bus speed. If it's still locked at 98.5MHz you may have to disable virtualisation.


----------



## dyanikoglu

I wonder how people are still able to use old bioses. They were a complete mess, I can confirm the latest preview version shared a few pages before works like a charm. I recommend everyone to get rid of their old bios versions asap.


----------



## jcpq

I have the asus crosshair VIII impact with 3700x
I wanted to buy the 5800x
What is the probability of getting a 1900 or more fclk stable without errors?


----------



## Jesaul

dyanikoglu said:


> I wonder how people are still able to use old bioses. They were a complete mess, I can confirm the latest preview version shared a few pages before works like a charm. I recommend everyone to get rid of their old bios versions asap.


AMD frequently changes algorithms and voltages, that usually leads to less performance in more recent bioses. With Ryzen 3xxx it was too aggressive boost that has been nerfed (and back) in different motherboards and bioses


----------



## Jesaul

jcpq said:


> What is the probability of getting a 1900 or more fclk stable without errors?


More than 90% I would say on latest bios.


----------



## Belcebuu

Jesaul said:


> More than 90% I would say on latest bios.


I am getting mem errors always with Kardhu memory test at 1900 with my 5900x with both memories patriot 4400cl19 and neo 3600cl16


----------



## Jesaul

Belcebuu said:


> I am getting mem errors always with Kardhu memory test at 1900 with my 5900x with both memories patriot 4400cl19 and neo 3600cl16


Set SOC to 1.15, DRAM to 1.5V, VDDP, CCD and IOD to 1.05V, VSOC to 1V with one cooler on the top of the memory for tests and try.


----------



## PWn3R

I continued to waste hours this weekend fighting to try to get 1900 FCLK to be stable. Nothing I do seems to work 100%, I can get close, and even to the point where some games run without WHEA Correctables. However, I cannot get rid of them entirely. Certain games like CSGO seem to pull them out of thin air, even when Cinebench and other tests don't. I started looking for information about "safe" PLL voltage. I know I've seen someone say they ran up to 2.1 before (this seems to make impact on stability of IF overclock and reduce WHEAs). I found this guide on the ASUS forums:





AMD OC guide thread


The first of our OC guides is now live. This one is aimed primarily at extreme overclocking, but has some good info for normal usage, too. Expectations for overclocking frequencies and voltage requirements are all defined, as well as handy hints for troubleshooting via motherboard POST codes. A...



rog.asus.com




It has the following table in it:








I know that the "recommended" max for vSOC is 1.15, while this says up to 1.30 on ambient. That makes me question the PLL voltage of course. I've tried up to 1.98 already, but only for a few minutes. Has anyone else found a newer guide? And to be clear, I'm not asking for what is "benchmark safe" for a few minutes, I'm talking set it and leave it safe.


----------



## jcpq

Belcebuu said:


> I am getting mem errors always with Kardhu memory test at 1900 with my 5900x with both memories patriot 4400cl19 and neo 3600cl16


Most of the 5000, unfortunately gives 1800 stable fclk.


----------



## J7SC

dyanikoglu said:


> I wonder how people are still able to use old bioses. They were a complete mess, I can confirm the latest preview version shared a few pages before works like a charm. I recommend everyone to get rid of their old bios versions asap.


...what's your definition of old (re bios model#) ? I got the x570 Crosshair VIII wifi about ten days ago, with bios # 2502 on board (November 2020, then-new Agesa patch)...absolutely no issues so far, including IF1900/DDR 3800. I certainly will update once the new resizable BAR options appears in the next regular bios update...but until then, I prefer not to fix what isn't broken


----------



## metalshark

PWn3R said:


> I continued to waste hours this weekend fighting to try to get 1900 FCLK to be stable. Nothing I do seems to work 100%, I can get close, and even to the point where some games run without WHEA Correctables. However, I cannot get rid of them entirely. Certain games like CSGO seem to pull them out of thin air, even when Cinebench and other tests don't. I started looking for information about "safe" PLL voltage. I know I've seen someone say they ran up to 2.1 before (this seems to make impact on stability of IF overclock and reduce WHEAs). I found this guide on the ASUS forums:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD OC guide thread
> 
> 
> The first of our OC guides is now live. This one is aimed primarily at extreme overclocking, but has some good info for normal usage, too. Expectations for overclocking frequencies and voltage requirements are all defined, as well as handy hints for troubleshooting via motherboard POST codes. A...
> 
> 
> 
> rog.asus.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has the following table in it:
> View attachment 2481028
> 
> I know that the "recommended" max for vSOC is 1.15, while this says up to 1.30 on ambient. That makes me question the PLL voltage of course. I've tried up to 1.98 already, but only for a few minutes. Has anyone else found a newer guide? And to be clear, I'm not asking for what is "benchmark safe" for a few minutes, I'm talking set it and leave it safe.


Would be good to know if it's the RAM speed or the IF speed causing issues. Can run IF only up to 1900MHz personally then no amount of voltage prevents issues. The RAM can go much higher (4000MHz) without issues. Currently running 1900/3800, this is passing every test you can throw at it including memtest86. Running 1.87v PLL as this is as low as I can take it without issues at that speed.


----------



## PWn3R

metalshark said:


> Would be good to know if it's the RAM speed or the IF speed causing issues. Can run IF only up to 1900MHz personally then no amount of voltage prevents issues. The RAM can go much higher (4000MHz) without issues. Currently running 1900/3800, this is passing every test you can throw at it including memtest86. Running 1.87v PLL as this is as low as I can take it without issues at that speed.


The RAM will run 4000/17/17/17/37 @ 1.35v. The machine doesn't even like to boot with 1900 IF. I have to boot at 1933 first then change it to 1900. There are several of us with "holes" at 1900 on 5950x chips. We seem to be completely unable or in my case I have to do this hack to get it to boot. When I just set voltage, reboot and then set 1900 it just doesn't boot, almost always code 15 or code 07. I have to boot on 1933, then reboot and change to 1900. 1933 doesn't go stable either, lots more WHEA Correctables. Sometimes as many as 500 a minute at 1933.


----------



## GRABibus

PWn3R said:


> I continued to waste hours this weekend fighting to try to get 1900 FCLK to be stable. Nothing I do seems to work 100%, I can get close, and even to the point where some games run without WHEA Correctables. However, I cannot get rid of them entirely. Certain games like CSGO seem to pull them out of thin air, even when Cinebench and other tests don't. I started looking for information about "safe" PLL voltage. I know I've seen someone say they ran up to 2.1 before (this seems to make impact on stability of IF overclock and reduce WHEAs). I found this guide on the ASUS forums:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD OC guide thread
> 
> 
> The first of our OC guides is now live. This one is aimed primarily at extreme overclocking, but has some good info for normal usage, too. Expectations for overclocking frequencies and voltage requirements are all defined, as well as handy hints for troubleshooting via motherboard POST codes. A...
> 
> 
> 
> rog.asus.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has the following table in it:
> View attachment 2481028
> 
> I know that the "recommended" max for vSOC is 1.15, while this says up to 1.30 on ambient. That makes me question the PLL voltage of course. I've tried up to 1.98 already, but only for a few minutes. Has anyone else found a newer guide? And to be clear, I'm not asking for what is "benchmark safe" for a few minutes, I'm talking set it and leave it safe.


Did you try to tweak voltages as VDDG CCD/IOD, VDDP and VTTDDR (VDDP and VTTDDR are in "Tweaker's paradise" menu) ?

They helped me a lot and now I didn't get any Whea's since 2 hours of Cold War (I got more than 300 hundreds without tweaking those voltages after 30mns of Cold War)

Look at my values in sig.

Here is my Aida64 mem and cache bench (Bios 3204) :


----------



## tchabada

metalshark said:


> If it's still locked at 98.5MHz you may have to disable virtualisation.


I know that virtualization mess with FSB clock, but it hasn't had any impact on benchmarks. All other benchmarks are good except this AES.


----------



## J7SC

...does anyone know how/where to set 'Game vs Creator' mode in the Asus bios, rather than use AMD's RyzenMaster software ? I prefer to do such adjustments in the bios, but can't find it. Thanks


----------



## PWn3R

GRABibus said:


> Did you try to tweak voltages as VDDG CCD/IOD, VDDP and VTTDDR (VDDP and VTTDDR are in "Tweaker's paradise" menu) ?
> 
> They helped me a lot and now I didn't get any Whea's since 2 hours of Cold War (I got more than 300 hundreds without tweaking those voltages after 30mns of Cold War)
> 
> Look at my values in sig.
> 
> Here is my Aida64 mem and cache bench (Bios 3204) :
> 
> View attachment 2481040


I tried messing with VDDP and VTTDR previously but didn't mess with it when they made no difference in booting 1900. Any suggestions you want me to try there?


----------



## jomama22

J7SC said:


> ...does anyone know how/where to set 'Game vs Creator' mode in the Asus bios, rather than use AMD's RyzenMaster software ? I prefer to do such adjustments in the bios, but can't find it. Thanks


You just need to disable on of the ccd's as that is what game mode does as far as I understand. Should be under advanced->cpu stuff (if I remember correctly)


----------



## GRABibus

PWn3R said:


> I tried messing with VDDP and VTTDR previously but didn't mess with it when they made no difference in booting 1900. Any suggestions you want me to try there?


=> is your Vdimm increased sufficiently ? 1.5V ? I assume yes....
=> Try SB voltage at 1.03V and ProcODT at 36.9Ohms


----------



## CyrIng

Latest BIOS preview : can someone post the Linux boot log ?


----------



## Nizzen

Jesaul said:


> More than 90% I would say on latest bios.


Maybe with 5950x, but not with 5900x. 90% without WHEA is no chance.

My opinion


----------



## J7SC

jomama22 said:


> You just need to disable on of the ccd's as that is what game mode does as far as I understand. Should be under advanced->cpu stuff (if I remember correctly)


Thanks


----------



## Anulu

New Bios looks good so far.Old Profile from 3204 Bios still working


----------



## Alemancio

GRABibus said:


> Did you try to tweak voltages as VDDG CCD/IOD, VDDP and VTTDDR (VDDP and VTTDDR are in "Tweaker's paradise" menu) ?
> 
> They helped me a lot and now I didn't get any Whea's since 2 hours of Cold War (I got more than 300 hundreds without tweaking those voltages after 30mns of Cold War)
> 
> Look at my values in sig.
> 
> Here is my Aida64 mem and cache bench (Bios 3204) :
> 
> View attachment 2481040


Nice 58ns latency, can you share your ZenTimmings? Thanks!


----------



## GRABibus

Alemancio said:


> Nice 58ns latency, can you share your ZenTimmings? Thanks!












I only set primary one's (16-16-16-36-50) and 1T for Command rate and ProcDOT at 36.6Ohms.
I didn't tweak the secondary's.

If you have any advices to imprtove my secondary and then Aida bench, thanks !

My previous Aida screenshot with 58ns was done without any optimisation (closing processes, etc.....).
Maybe I can do better or maybe I won't reproduce this 58ns...


----------



## Belcebuu

jcpq said:


> Most of the 5000, unfortunately gives 1800 stable fclk.


The weird thing is that I can boot at any IF speed even at 2000 but then the Kardhu mem test gives errors, maybe is the memory training of the bios?


----------



## flyinion

So I just realized I'm on 2206 BIOS still. I downloaded the latest official today, but also the beta from a few pages back. Debating which to install or just wait a bit for a new official one as I assume one is on the way with the beta one floating around now. I always try to put off BIOS updates since I have to go back in and reconfigure fan curves and pump speeds for my loop and I just hate dealing with that. Not to mention all the other settings.


----------



## xeizo

flyinion said:


> So I just realized I'm on 2206 BIOS still. I downloaded the latest official today, but also the beta from a few pages back. Debating which to install or just wait a bit for a new official one as I assume one is on the way with the beta one floating around now. I always try to put off BIOS updates since I have to go back in and reconfigure fan curves and pump speeds for my loop and I just hate dealing with that. Not to mention all the other settings.


Do as the most of us, save your bios settings as a user profile on a USB stick and upgrading bios is fast and easy. I always have a USB stick in the flashback port.

Best bios so far is the preview bios 3301 that Shamino posted a couple of posts back, I can recommend it.


----------



## flyinion

xeizo said:


> Do as the most of us, save your bios settings as a user profile on a USB stick and upgrading bios is fast and easy. I always have a USB stick in the flashback port.
> 
> Best bios so far is the preview bios 3301 that Shamino posted a couple of posts back, I can recommend it.


Oh hmm, so saving the settings on a stick doesn't cause problems? I know in the past flashing new BIOS versions and trying to load a saved profile usually resulted in some really weird stuff. I remember some of the early BIOS's like going from an 0xxx version to the 1xxx versions and trying to load a saved settings from within the BIOS saves resulted in a bunch of empty parameters listed as changed when you went to save and restart.


----------



## xeizo

flyinion said:


> Oh hmm, so saving the settings on a stick doesn't cause problems? I know in the past flashing new BIOS versions and trying to load a saved profile usually resulted in some really weird stuff. I remember some of the early BIOS's like going from an 0xxx version to the 1xxx versions and trying to load a saved settings from within the BIOS saves resulted in a bunch of empty parameters listed as changed when you went to save and restart.


I always go through the whole bios before save and reset, the point is not having to write down a lot of stuff and replicate it also it's great for learning all the settings. Never had a problem doing it like this, I have four Ryzen rigs up and running.

Doing things like "in the past" is not the right way, one has to adapt and evolve and Ryzen OC is a lot different than say Intel OC, also Asus probably has the most consistent bios. I have a Gigabyte AM4 board, there was never a profile that worked between two bios versions. Real confusing bios in other regards as well. But Asus user profiles do work, use it.


----------



## GRABibus

Update Aida with Bios 3301.

Bios 3204 :










Bios 3301 :


----------



## GRABibus

flyinion said:


> Oh hmm, so saving the settings on a stick doesn't cause problems? I know in the past flashing new BIOS versions and trying to load a saved profile usually resulted in some really weird stuff. I remember some of the early BIOS's like going from an 0xxx version to the 1xxx versions and trying to load a saved settings from within the BIOS saves resulted in a bunch of empty parameters listed as changed when you went to save and restart.


When I update to a new Bios, saved profiles are not erased.
So you can load them from Bios after the update. No issues so far.


----------



## Sleepycat

flyinion said:


> Oh hmm, so saving the settings on a stick doesn't cause problems? I know in the past flashing new BIOS versions and trying to load a saved profile usually resulted in some really weird stuff. I remember some of the early BIOS's like going from an 0xxx version to the 1xxx versions and trying to load a saved settings from within the BIOS saves resulted in a bunch of empty parameters listed as changed when you went to save and restart.


Current bios versions 3xxx leave the existing settings same as defaults when you load your older saved profiles which are missing parameters. So there isn't any empty parameters anymore. They are just not changed (typically left on Auto).


----------



## Sleepycat

GRABibus said:


> When I update to a new Bios, saved profiles are not erased.
> So you can load them from Bios after the update. No issues so far.


The only time I lost saved profiles was when using Qflash through the USB stick.


----------



## GRABibus

Sleepycat said:


> The only time I lost saved profiles was when using Qflash through the USB stick.


I flash with ez flash in bios (with usb stick of course).


----------



## shaolin95

GRABibus said:


> I flash with ez flash in bios (with usb stick of course).


I use the bios ez flash but I just do it from the root of C


----------



## GRABibus

shaolin95 said:


> I use the bios ez flash but I just do it from the root of C


and you do not loose your saved profiles after an update ?


----------



## Sleepycat

GRABibus said:


> I flash with ez flash in bios (with usb stick of course).


Oops, sorry, I meant to say bios flashback (not Qflash), which is the hardware flashing using the stick on the back port and pressing the bios flashback button.


----------



## GRABibus

Sleepycat said:


> Oops, sorry, I meant to say bios flashback (not Qflash), which is the hardware flashing using the stick on the back port and pressing the bios flashback button.


yes because I wondered if you changed to a Gigabyte motherboard 😊


----------



## shaolin95

GRABibus said:


> and you do not loose your saved profiles after an update ?


I dont BUT I actually never liked the idea of using saved presets from a previous BIOS version so i always start over and enter them manually. Old school!


----------



## GRABibus

I launched DRAM calcultor and entered in Bios all proposed values for all timings.

Results are really interesting :

Aida64 with only primary timings tweaked :











Aida64 with all primary + secondaty timings entered according to DRAM Calculator :










As you can see, huge increase of "read memory" value and alos of "copy memory" value.

My latency is now 56.4 ns !

i will try some stability tests now. if it is stable, so happy with those results


----------



## Sleepycat

Just flashed 3301 from 3204. Odd thing I get now is that if I set PBO power limits manually as per my previous settings, it doesn't POST. If I set PBO limits to Auto, it posts fine.

Interestingly, even with lower auto power limits of PPT 142, TDC 95, EDC 140 (was PPT 200, TDC 120, EDC 160 previously), I am getting better CBR23 scores, same Aida64 benches and slightly lower CPU-Z scores. Overall, I'll stick to 3301 even with its odd quirk that I am experiencing.


----------



## shaolin95

Nic


Sleepycat said:


> Just flashed 3301 from 3204. Odd thing I get now is that if I set PBO power limits manually as per my previous settings, it doesn't POST. If I set PBO limits to Auto, it posts fine.
> 
> Interestingly, even with lower auto power limits of PPT 142, TDC 95, EDC 140 (was PPT 200, TDC 120, EDC 160 previously), I am getting better CBR23 scores, same Aida64 benches and slightly lower CPU-Z scores. Overall, I'll stick to 3301 even with its odd quirk that I am experiencing.
> 
> View attachment 2481177
> 
> 
> View attachment 2481176
> 
> 
> View attachment 2481175


Nice. I kind of started my way from default limits too and was getting good results although not as good as with my previous "tweaked" power limits though. Is like all these systems behave differently somehow from other similar ones. Makes it hard to share settings lol


----------



## J7SC

...tightened some, loosened other RAM values re. optimizing for GPU performance...AIDA bench hardly changed though...











...also, you may already have seen this, but good news for Ryzen3K


----------



## the_real_7

GRABibus said:


> I launched DRAM calcultor and entered in Bios all proposed values for all timings.
> 
> Results are really interesting :
> 
> Aida64 with only primary timings tweaked :
> 
> View attachment 2481172
> 
> 
> 
> Aida64 with all primary + secondaty timings entered according to DRAM Calculator :
> 
> View attachment 2481174
> 
> 
> As you can see, huge increase of "read memory" value and alos of "copy memory" value.
> 
> My latency is now 56.4 ns !
> 
> i will try some stability tests now. if it is stable, so happy with those results


Dang that's really good , mine sharing a zen timing shot


----------



## GRABibus

the_real_7 said:


> Dang that's really good , mine sharing a zen timing shot


Here it is :


----------



## flyinion

GRABibus said:


> When I update to a new Bios, saved profiles are not erased.
> So you can load them from Bios after the update. No issues so far.


Sorry I might not have been clear. I know they don’t get erased but older BIOS versions the saved settings sometimes were buggy when trying to use in newer versions. Sound like that’s fixed now so that’s nice. Definitely going to update.


----------



## Jesaul

It has happened - the boost has been nerfed.

Just flashed 3301 from 3202.
I've lost 0.4ns in latency.
And my curve values are much better out of a sudden (all -3 - all of them!). I have to find them again, but they are much more lower.
I suppose it is less aggressive boost in this bios.

CB 23 single, multi
before: 1658 16118
after: 1642 15790

So this patch is a no go.


----------



## xeizo

Jesaul said:


> It has happened - the boost has been nerfed.
> 
> Just flashed 3301 from 3202.
> I've lost 0.4ns in latency.
> And my curve values are much better out of a sudden (all -3 - all of them!). I have to find them again, but they are much more lower.
> I suppose it is less aggressive boost in this bios.
> 
> CB 23 single, multi
> before: 1658 16118
> after: 1642 15790
> 
> So this patch is a no go.


That is if you use CB23 for daily production, however in TimeSpy I got the best performance so far hinting at real world performance may not be nerfed at all


----------



## Jesaul

xeizo said:


> That is if you use CB23 for daily production, however in TimeSpy I got the best performance so far hinting at real world performance may not be nerfed at all


My curve of 3202 was -28, -30, -30, -24,-30,-26,-29,-22. And now it is -30, -30, -30, -30,-30,-30,-30,-26.
That's a big change


----------



## jamie1073

With the new BIOS I am now able to get my RAM to 3800 with almost the exact same timings as my 3900X had with it, just had to lower my tRFC values a hair. I would like to see my latency drop more though.


----------



## GRABibus

Jesaul said:


> My curve of 3202 was -28, -30, -30, -24,-30,-26,-29,-22. And now it is -30, -30, -30, -30,-30,-30,-30,-26.
> That's a big change


how did you test idle/low power stability ?


----------



## Jesaul

GRABibus said:


> how did you test idle/low power stability ?


with thread switcher


----------



## GRABibus

GRABibus said:


> I launched DRAM calcultor and entered in Bios all proposed values for all timings.
> 
> Results are really interesting :
> 
> Aida64 with only primary timings tweaked :
> 
> View attachment 2481172
> 
> 
> 
> Aida64 with all primary + secondaty timings entered according to DRAM Calculator :
> 
> View attachment 2481174
> 
> 
> As you can see, huge increase of "read memory" value and alos of "copy memory" value.
> 
> My latency is now 56.4 ns !
> 
> i will try some stability tests now. if it is stable, so happy with those results


1 error HCI memtest during 9 hours tests.
I saw that Dram calculator gives 17 and not 16 for the second timing for read value.

I will test then now 16-17-16-32


----------



## GRABibus

Jesaul said:


> with thread switcher


On Bios 3204, I was with -28 on core 4, -25 on core 8 and -30 all other cores.

I will launch now this thread switcher with -30 all cores.

question : for idle reboots, how this test does highlight idle reboots ?
Or the only method is still to let the computer idle for some days ?


----------



## Jesaul

GRABibus said:


> question : for idle reboots, how this test does highlight idle reboots ?
> Or the only method is still to let the computer idle for some days ?


You can get information about which one fails in whea logs in windows.
so you run it untill you get no reboots for like 1 hour. And later you will fix occasional windows reboots in a couple of days.


----------



## GRABibus

Jesaul said:


> You can get information about which one fails in whea logs in windows.
> so you run it untill you get no reboots for like 1 hour. And later you will fix occasional windows reboots in a couple of days.


I started it.
After each pass, it asks if we want to launch the new pass. Initial duration for all pass in CBR23 is 30 minutes.

right ?

I just ask you this to see if I do this test correctly.


----------



## Jesaul

GRABibus said:


> I started it.
> After each pass, it asks if we want to launch the new pass. Initial duration for all pass in CBR23 is 30 minutes.
> 
> right ?
> 
> I just ask you this to see if I do this test correctly.


Yes, that's correct behaviour.


----------



## jamie1073

This is what I got this morning for mem. One run with iCue and the other without. I have CO set to -10 all core because that is as low as I can set it and not get a hard crash WHEA error. I have tried to run CO with setting on every core, such as say -5 on the first 6 and -10 on the other 6 or -15 on the second CCD and -10 on the first with -5 on the 2 best but the results in something like R23 or R20 stay pretty much the same with no improvement on single core performance. I have to run PBO pretty much at max to get higher MC scores, EDC at 245. If I drop EDC to 180 the system crashes, 150=crash, 160 is stable by lower all core scores. I just use R23 to test the changes from the baseline of PBO Auto and PBO enabled and PBO tweaked. Best single core scores are of course with PBO in Auto mode but way lower MC scores.


----------



## GRABibus

Jesaul said:


> Yes, that's correct behaviour.


it made 2 passes (15 minutes test) and the test stops by itself.
No errors apparently.

should I relaunch the test again to test ne 2 passes ?


----------



## Jesaul

GRABibus said:


> should I relaunch the test again to test ne 2 passes ?


When it does not fail, I usually try to launch some avx test at the same time (start Acronis True image backup )
But if it does not fail for 30 minutes, it means you are almost fine. Just stop it and wait for occasional windows reboots


----------



## GRABibus

Jesaul said:


> When it does not fail, I usually try to launch some avx test at the same time (start Acronis True image backup )
> But if it does not fail for 30 minutes, it means you are almost fine. Just stop it and wait for occasional windows reboots


thanks man.


----------



## GRABibus

-30 all cores (Idle reboots with Bios 3204).
Vcore offset = -0.04375V.
Max CPU Boost Clock Override = +200MHz
PPT~TDC~EDC = 150~105~150
RAM : 3800MHz 16-17-16-32-1T
Fclk=1900MHz

Ambient temperature = 21°C-22°C



















Let's see now if I get also idle reboots with Bios 3301 and -30 all cores.

PS : I succeeded 2 passes of AMD Curve optimizer Test.


----------



## matthiasm4

GRABibus said:


> -30 all cores (Idle reboots with Bios 3204).
> Vcore offset = -0.04375V.
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override = +200MHz
> PPT~TDC~EDC = 150~105~150
> RAM : 3800MHz 16-17-16-32-1T
> Fclk=1900MHz
> 
> Ambient temperature = 21°C-22°C
> 
> View attachment 2481283
> 
> 
> View attachment 2481285
> 
> 
> Let's see now if I get also idle reboots with Bios 3301 and -30 all cores.
> 
> PS : I succeeded 2 passes of AMD Curve optimizer Test.


Try Prime95, 1 Thread, Small FFTs. If you pass 10 minutes, run a Blend test with 24 threads.
If you pass after 10 minutes, run OCCT CPU > 2 Threads > SSE instructions. Errors in OCCT @ this test come up at around 52 minutes remaining.
If all these run fine, you're fine. If you get a WHEA spam on the other hand, reduce the negative vcore offset. If you get WHEA for infinity fabric alone (ID 0), you gotta mess around with SOC, VDDG, CLDO and DRAM voltage. If you get WHEA for a single core, bump up its voltage by a notch, around 5 should be fine.
Running -30 all core + a negative offset is right on the edge.


----------



## Jesaul

matthiasm4 said:


> If all these run fine, you're fine.


Well, there is another option - run only the programs you run on a daily basis.
I don't care about prime95 as long as my video editing software works fine.
Trying extreme tests is not the best idea with curve optimizations. It gives negative benefit.


----------



## matthiasm4

Jesaul said:


> Well, there is another option - run only the programs you run on a daily basis.
> I don't care about prime95 as long as my video editing software works fine.
> Trying extreme tests is not the best idea with curve optimizations. It gives negative benefit.


True, it's about daily stability after all. However, I found that the low load crashes occur at highly unpredictable times and I would not like MS Teams to crash my PC when I'm in a 1:1 with my boss or a client. Again. Hence my preference to just allow myself to run tests for 30 minutes and call it a day.


----------



## GRABibus

Yeah,


matthiasm4 said:


> True, it's about daily stability after all. However, I found that the low load crashes occur at highly unpredictable times and I would not like MS Teams to crash my PC when I'm in a 1:1 with my boss or a client. Again. Hence my preference to just allow myself to run tests for 30 minutes and call it a day.


This is why before sensible operations like GPU bios flash or Motherboard Bios flash, I always perform them with stock bios settings 😊


----------



## tchabada

Single core Prime95 test script for Zen 3 curve offset... with MinTortureFFT=128 was best test to catch instabilities for me


----------



## donnieyeen

Hi guys, I am new on this forum, but have quite some experience with zen3. If you really want to test curve optimizer stability, I found that OCCT latest beta with Large + AVX2 + advance setup to particular single cores is something that very quickly shows errors. Try that and go through all the cores individually, sometimes errors will pop up in matter of seconds. -30 all core is almost never stable for 5900x.

Also to the ones setting 1T with GDM on, that's useless. GDM will ignore your command rate and setup half timings, hence why your latency will be worse. Try getting the ram stable without GDM mode, or work on tightening your primaries\subs with GDM on a lot more.

One of my tightening's, primaries not even that tight:









Btw @shamino1978 any chance to get the 1.2.0.1 agesa bios for B550-E gaming? Would love to test it.


----------



## karlram

Hello,

I notice that the Asus PBO Max Boost Clock Override is limited to +200 MHz. Any values above +200 (e.g. +300) will result in +200. 
This behavior is in bios 3204 and also 3301. can someone confirm this?
Is there any trick since 3204 to go above +200 max boost clock?

With kind regards
Karlram


----------



## shamino1978

no its blocked by agesa


----------



## Sleepycat

xeizo said:


> That is if you use CB23 for daily production, however in TimeSpy I got the best performance so far hinting at real world performance may not be nerfed at all


With 3301, I re-tested using CTR2.0

3204: 4.525 / 4.500 @ 1.200V
3301: 4.575 / 4.425 @ 1.225V

At the usual steps of 25MHz @ 0.025V, it seems that CCX1 clocks benefit significantly (+50MHz @ +0.025V) more with 3301, but CCX2 is set to be more conservative instead (-75 MHz @ +0.025V). So I gained an okay amount with CCX1 but lost a lot more with CCX2. I'm going to retest it again.

It could explain why some observed that software which uses both CCX1 and CCX2 such as Cinebench multi have a lower score, but others which use just CCX1, such as Time Spy have a higher score.


----------



## xeizo

Sleepycat said:


> With 3301, I re-tested using CTR2.0
> 
> 3204: 4.525 / 4.500 @ 1.200V
> 3301: 4.575 / 4.425 @ 1.225V
> 
> At the usual steps of 25MHz @ 0.025V, it seems that CCX1 clocks benefit significantly (+50MHz @ +0.025V) more with 3301, but CCX2 is set to be more conservative instead (-75 MHz @ +0.025V). So I gained an okay amount with CCX1 but lost a lot more with CCX2. I'm going to retest it again.
> 
> It could explain why some observed that software which uses both CCX1 and CCX2 such as Cinebench multi have a lower score, but others which use just CCX1, such as Time Spy have a higher score.


Sounds plausible, CCX1 is the only supposed good silicon onboard, CCX2 is trash bin it would be dumb to not consider this in the AGESA and total power draw has to be considered as well


----------



## cstkl1

found a bug running default

5900x 
Asus Dark Hero Bios 3204
Rtx 3090 strix WC

long term session game crash
check event log gpu ejected

went to bios
noticed this rebar was auto
so 4g decoding option was not there
disable rebar 4g option showed and it was disabled. renabled it. 

all good now.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Today i found out how much latency difference there really is between a 1CCD and 2CCD Zen3 CPU 
(5600x + 5800x VS 5900x + 5950x)

I disabled one CCD on my 5950x to simulate a 5800x
1 CCD = 51.7 ns in aida64
2 CCD = 54.2 ns in aida64 








Running 4x8gigs bdie memory and PBO CO 24/7 settings


----------



## GRABibus

L3 cache and write values are lower with 5800x


----------



## domdtxdissar

GRABibus said:


> L3 cache and write values are lower with 5800x


Up clockspeed and PBO limits and they are not, or run a static.

A 5950x with one disabled CCD is a 5800x.. A very good binned 5800x that is 
From a other testrun yesterday:








CCD 0 @ 4900 mhz static allcore OC


----------



## GRABibus

domdtxdissar said:


> Up clockspeed and PBO limits and they are not, or run a static.


yes, if it remains stable 😊


----------



## matthiasm4

GRABibus said:


> Yeah,
> 
> 
> This is why before sensible operations like GPU bios flash or Motherboard Bios flash, I always perform them with stock bios settings 😊





cstkl1 said:


> found a bug running default
> 
> 5900x
> Asus Dark Hero Bios 3204
> Rtx 3090 strix WC
> 
> long term session game crash
> check event log gpu ejected
> 
> went to bios
> noticed this rebar was auto
> so 4g decoding option was not there
> disable rebar 4g option showed and it was disabled. renabled it.
> 
> all good now.


I don't think that is actually a bug in the AGESA, it seems to be rather an unstable GPU OC or SOC voltage.


----------



## matthiasm4

genelecs said:


> Whilst I agree its been widely discussed, there are a few of us that have tried a wide range of voltages as you mention and many of us still face this 1900 FCLK wall that always seems to be Q-CODE 07 regardless of what we seem to try.
> 
> FCLK 1866 and below is 100% fine for us, it just seems very odd that it never gets past "07"... so I think Greg (and myself) are just looking for clarification that we've got poor silicon.


Even if you manage to boot 1900FCLK it's still not going to help much, as you'll be flooded with APIC0 interconnect WHEAs. So it will still not be stable.
Still, it would be really sweet if ASUS would be able to improve the Auto algorithm so that the DRAM voltage, SOC, VDDG and 1.8pll would scale efficiently by themselves. After a certain point, at around 3733mhz, you need to bump the hell outta the SOC and DRAM voltage in order to even boot, so stabilizing it becomes mission impossible on some chips.


----------



## cstkl1

matthiasm4 said:


> I don't think that is actually a bug in the AGESA, it seems to be rather an unstable GPU OC or SOC voltage.


its not agesa. 
so happen when rebar driver was launched for testimg back in nov for z490 i noticed similar issue. gpu eject. 

then one asrock x570 dude tested rebar with 6800xt. 

he mentioned for rebar/sma to work 4g decoding had to be enable .. so..


----------



## Tmfs

shamino1978 said:


> no its blocked by agesa


This is sad.


----------



## matthiasm4

cstkl1 said:


> its not agesa.
> so happen when rebar driver was launched for testimg back in nov for z490 i noticed similar issue. gpu eject.
> 
> then one asrock x570 dude tested rebar with 6800xt.
> 
> he mentioned for rebar/sma to work 4g decoding had to be enable .. so..


Well, indeed, 4g decoding has to be enabled. AMD states it clearly in the SAM documentation. However, this is a symptom of the GPU getting dismounted, which in turn is a symptom of another issue.


----------



## cstkl1

matthiasm4 said:


> Well, indeed, 4g decoding has to be enabled. AMD states it clearly in the SAM documentation. However, this is a symptom of the GPU getting dismounted, which in turn is a symptom of another issue.


its not ejecting anymore bro.. so..


----------



## Alemancio

GRABibus said:


> I succeeded 2 passes of AMD Curve optimizer Test.


Doesnt that "AMD curve optimizer" just run CB23? That doesnt seem like a valid test to conclude your OC is stable...


----------



## donnieyeen

Alemancio said:


> Doesnt that "AMD curve optimizer" just run CB23? That doesnt seem like a valid test to conclude your OC is stable...


Exactly, cinebench is not really a good test of curve stability. The best way is doing OCCT per core affinity, with either small \ SSE or large AVX2, and going over all cores with 30min+


----------



## Alemancio

donnieyeen said:


> Exactly, cinebench is not really a good test of curve stability. The best way is doing OCCT per core affinity, with either small \ SSE or large AVX2, and going over all cores with 30min+


Thats how I do it too. 3301 seems more stable with more negative curve values too


----------



## donnieyeen

Alemancio said:


> Thats how I do it too. 3301 seems more stable with more negative curve values too


Most likely the VID table has been tweaked. it is possible that bigger numbers now do similar undervolt. It doesn't hurt to check how much undervolt does the certain values actually do by monitoring the SVI TFN2 in hwinfo.


----------



## Alemancio

donnieyeen said:


> Most likely the VID table has been tweaked. it is possible that bigger numbers now do similar undervolt. It doesn't hurt to check how much undervolt does the certain values actually do by monitoring the SVI TFN2 in hwinfo.


Didnt check it but boosts higher with more negative values. As long as stability and performance increases, im happy.


----------



## Sleepycat

Okay, after a bit of tinkering, I got PBO power limits to work on 3301. Instead of changing it in Extreme Tweaker menu, I did it in Advanced, AMD Overclocking, PBO Advanced. I also tightened up my memory timings a tiny bit. The interesting thing now is that I can run OCCT Large data set, Extreme, AVX2 without errors (so far). Previously on 3204, it would start throwing errors about 2 minutes into the test, even when I loaded bios optimised defaults and turned on DOCP with my 3200CL14 64GB B-die. 

I'm currently at 10 minutes with no errors. Will keep running it until the hour is up. The one other thing I did was to add a small fan to cool my memory. So it runs at 43 ºC during the OCCT instead of 55 ºC.

Just based on how I can run OCCT extreme without errors for 10 minutes, I'll stick to 3301 over 3204.


----------



## Alemancio

Sleepycat said:


> Okay, after a bit of tinkering, I got PBO power limits to work on 3301. Instead of changing it in Extreme Tweaker menu, I did it in Advanced, AMD Overclocking, PBO Advanced. I also tightened up my memory timings a tiny bit. The interesting thing now is that I can run OCCT Large data set, Extreme, AVX2 without errors (so far). Previously on 3204, it would start throwing errors about 2 minutes into the test, even when I loaded bios optimised defaults and turned on DOCP with my 3200CL14 64GB B-die.
> 
> I'm currently at 10 minutes with no errors. Will keep running it until the hour is up. The one other thing I did was to add a small fan to cool my memory. So it runs at 43 ºC during the OCCT instead of 55 ºC.
> 
> Just based on how I can run OCCT extreme without errors for 10 minutes, I'll stick to 3301 over 3204.
> 
> View attachment 2481522
> View attachment 2481523
> View attachment 2481526


Congrats!

Try disabling GDM


----------



## Sleepycat

Alemancio said:


> Congrats!
> 
> Try disabling GDM


Passed the 1 hour test. Going to try disabling GDM, but not hopeful since I am running 4x16 GB B-die.


----------



## Sleepycat

Nope, it does not like GDM off with CR1. It posts, but when loading windows, it reboots as it is getting to the login screen. Subsequently, it reboots while in bios.

Testing with GDM off and CR2 now.

Update: No errors with OCCT large data set, Extreme wiht CR2 + GDM off. Happy!


----------



## Alemancio

Sleepycat said:


> Testing with GDM off and CR2 now.


I think (correct me if im wrong) CR2 is the same as GDM off.

Edit: or more like 1.5T (forced when GDM on)


----------



## Sleepycat

Alemancio said:


> I think (correct me if im wrong) CR2 is the same as GDM off.
> 
> Edit: or more like 1.5T (forced when GDM on)


For me, it felt closer to CR1 + GDM on = CR2 + GDM off. Both give me very similar AIDA64 results, with CR1 GDM on having slightly higher memory read scores. The rest are almost the same.


----------



## Karagra

Has anyone managed to get over 1900 FCLK with the C8 boards? I am stable at 1900 FCLK 3800cl15 53.1ns... I can boot 1933-2100 but testing shows like 150+ns and bios screen is in slow motion lol. I am on the Beta bios 3301


----------



## xeizo

I think Geekbench looks quite ok now, not under performing anyway, yes I know some scores over 1800 single but likely not using air cooling. This is with the preview bios.


----------



## metalshark

Karagra said:


> Has anyone managed to get over 1900 FCLK with the C8 boards? I am stable at 1900 FCLK 3800cl15 53.1ns... I can boot 1933-2100 but testing shows like 150+ns and bios screen is in slow motion lol. I am on the Beta bios 3301
> View attachment 2481564


Chances are in Event Viewer you'll be get a load of WHEA's. Can't do more than 1900 FCLK personally either.


----------



## GRABibus

Alemancio said:


> Doesnt that "AMD curve optimizer" just run CB23? That doesnt seem like a valid test to conclude your OC is stable...


no tests can help to conclude that an overclock is stable, because all overclock are unstable.....

also, the main concerns is idle stability, which is much more difficulty to catch and so random.


----------



## LorDClockaN

I have issues with 3301 preview bios on Dark Hero

PC should go to sleep, but it doesn't, RGB stays ON and you can't turn on the screen anymore.. I need to power off and on

Any ideas?


----------



## Sam64

GRABibus said:


> no tests can help to conclude that an overclock is stable, because all overclock are unstable.....
> 
> also, the main concerns is idle stability, which is much more difficulty to catch and so random.


I can confirm this. And btw. @Alemancio "AMD curve optimizier" is a bios feauture, not a tool, that runs CB23. I guess, you meant CTR. Anyhow for me the challenge with CO is getting stability in idle to middle/high load and vice versa.


----------



## Bostonjunk

For some weird reason, anything past 3202 is unstable for me.
Seems to be unstable with everything at default too.
3204 would randomly reboot constantly - can't even get through an Aida64 memory benchmark without it rebooting.
3301 is the same.
No idea what's changed between 3202 and 3204 to cause this.


----------



## matthiasm4

Bostonjunk said:


> For some weird reason, anything past 3202 is unstable for me.
> Seems to be unstable with everything at default too.
> 3204 would randomly reboot constantly - can't even get through an Aida64 memory benchmark without it rebooting.
> 3301 is the same.
> No idea what's changed between 3202 and 3204 to cause this.


I noticed that on my 2x16gb 3600 16-16-16-32 b-die kit (Trident-z NEO) which should run XMP @ 1.35, I gotta push the voltage close to 1.39 in order to achieve stability. Also soc under 1.1 or CAS 14 is a no boot by default lmao. Regardless of BIOS version. I feel like I should've bought Intel lol.


----------



## Bostonjunk

matthiasm4 said:


> I noticed that on my 2x16gb 3600 16-16-16-32 b-die kit (Trident-z NEO) which should run XMP @ 1.35, I gotta push the voltage close to 1.39 in order to achieve stability. Also soc under 1.1 or CAS 14 is a no boot by default lmao. Regardless of BIOS version. I feel like I should've bought Intel lol.


I've had my SOC at 1.068v for a while, and it's been fine. I had to lower it for stability before.
I figured I'd give this another go and see what's causing my issues on these BIOSes once and for all.
I disabled PSS, Globcal C-States and set my SOC back to Auto (seems to run at 1.088v at default) and I finally managed to finish an Aida64 run.
Maybe it's OK now (fingers crossed)


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> Nope, it does not like GDM off with CR1. It posts, but when loading windows, it reboots as it is getting to the login screen. Subsequently, it reboots while in bios.
> 
> Testing with GDM off and CR2 now.
> 
> Update: No errors with OCCT large data set, Extreme wiht CR2 + GDM off. Happy!
> View attachment 2481536


Any other changes in bios from previous settings? I always like to try your settings success we share the same memory config pretty much.
Thanks


----------



## bt1

My results, L3 cache throughput really improved with new beta.
SOC: 1.05, DRAM 1.34, PBO: motherboard limits
CO-18 all cores, no visible changes here after 3204->3301.
Set PBO boost freq to 75 MHz, there's no _effective_ clock improvement if I set it higher.
IF1900/MEM3800 always gives 07 POST code no mater timings/voltages (this motherboard worked just fine with a 3900X @IF1900),
IF1933/MEM3866 gives hundreds of "CPU interconnect" WHEA errors, found no way to fix those.
Successful boots at 1966 but even worse WHEA errors, system gets luggy.
No luck @3733 with GDM disabled on any bios.


----------



## matthiasm4

bt1 said:


> My results, L3 cache throughput really improved with new beta.
> SOC: 1.05, DRAM 1.34, PBO: motherboard limits
> CO-18 all cores, no visible changes here after 3204->3301.
> Set PBO boost freq to 75 MHz, there's no _effective_ clock improvement if I set it higher.
> IF1900/MEM3800 always gives 07 POST code no mater timings/voltages (this motherboard worked just fine with a 3900X @IF1900),
> IF1933/MEM3866 gives hundreds of "CPU interconnect" WHEA errors, found no way to fix those.
> Successful boots at 1966 but even worse WHEA errors, system gets luggy.
> No luck @3733 with GDM disabled on any bios.
> 
> View attachment 2481586


I tried fixing the Interconnect WHEAs with SOC LLC and extreme power phase control, boltage boost, loosen timings, higher or lower SOC, VDDG and CLDO, to no avail. Can't find a way to stabilize 1900FCLK.


----------



## Bruizer

matthiasm4 said:


> I noticed that on my 2x16gb 3600 16-16-16-32 b-die kit (Trident-z NEO) which should run XMP @ 1.35, I gotta push the voltage close to 1.39 in order to achieve stability. Also soc under 1.1 or CAS 14 is a no boot by default lmao. Regardless of BIOS version. I feel like I should've bought Intel lol.


So I had the same issue but with the non-neo version kit: G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3600 (PC4 28800) Desktop Memory Model F4-3600C16D-32GTZR - Newegg.com. Flipped on XMP and had had to push my voltage to 1.4vdimm with everything else auto. I almost returned them and started to think I was one of the unlucky ppl that maybe got a trash IMC, but I got some help from the 24/7 stability thread and am currently at this. 1T/GDM On just wasn't happening hence the required extra voltage at XMP. I dropped 2T/GDM Off which allowed me to lower my vsoc and tighten my timings. I'm currently at 1.45vdimm (may could go lower but haven't felt the need to since I keep tightening). Waiting for the new bios on the Dark Hero as I see some people here have seen a reduction in latency.


----------



## GRABibus

matthiasm4 said:


> I tried fixing the Interconnect WHEAs with SOC LLC and extreme power phase control, boltage boost, loosen timings, higher or lower SOC, VDDG and CLDO, to no avail. Can't find a way to stabilize 1900FCLK.


Here is a post I found in OCN :


« VDDP is way too high, go down to the 0.95V range, also ProcODT should be lowered to 36.9.

VDDG CCD is too low, it should be in the 1.0V range, to not get WHEA, and you can lower VDDG IOD to 1.02-1.04V.

Only voltage being OK-ish is VSOC, but that one could actually be raised to 1.09-1.12V

As you're voltages are so off, I guess you have much too high PLL 1.8V as well, set it at 1.8-1.82V in the bios. And set southbridge to 1.05V.

Also, a common fault is VTT is set much too low by the motherboard, usually it's at 0.6V. You need to go up to at least 0.725V for FCLK 1900 to work. That is if VDIMM is no more than 1.38V. If you have higher VDIMM you may even have to go up to 0.745V.

The above is "Anti-WHEA" settings for FCLK 1900. Too much Curve Optimizer also gives WHEA »

applying this, no more Wheas for me at 1900fclk and 3800 ram speed.
I could even tweak more deeply and set PLL at 1,8V, VDDG CCD/IOD at 1V and SB at 1V.


----------



## PWn3R

GRABibus said:


> increasing PLL and VTTDDR ?


I tried this, as you suggested a few pages back for several hours today. I was able to get the board to BOOT from cold with everything on auto except DDR voltage with 1900/3800 on this new Beta bios. However, WHEAs sitting at desktop. I don't think this chip can do it with 4 sticks of ram.


----------



## GRABibus

PWn3R said:


> I tried this, as you suggested a few pages back for several hours today. I was able to get the board to BOOT from cold with everything on auto except DDR voltage with 1900/3800 on this new Beta bios. However, WHEAs sitting at desktop. I don't think this chip can do it with 4 sticks of ram.


try what I posted just before your post.
What is your RAM original speed ?


----------



## PWn3R

GRABibus said:


> try what I posted just before your post.
> What is your RAM original speed ?


I just tried the settings you posted. It won't boot to windows without PLL over 1.92. Constant WHEAs. The ram I have is 17/17/17/37 @ 4000Mhz @ 1.35. It's a GSKILL kit on the QVL.


----------



## GRABibus

PWn3R said:


> I just tried the settings you posted. It won't boot to windows without PLL over 1.92. Constant WHEAs. The ram I have is 17/17/17/37 @ 4000Mhz @ 1.35. It's a GSKILL kit on the QVL.


bad silicon then or RAM kit not adapted.

it is a waste of money to get 4000 RAM as you are not sure it will even work at 3800Mhz on Zen3 plateform.

try other Kit, 3600cl14 for example.

I have xtreem 4x8GB 3600 CL14 (2 kits *TF10D416G3600HC14CDC01).*


----------



## PWn3R

GRABibus said:


> bad silicon then or RAM kit not adapted.
> 
> it is a waste of money to get 4000 RAM as you are not sure it will even work at 3800Mhz on Zen3 plateform.
> 
> try other Kit, 3600cl14 for example.
> 
> I have xtreem 4x8GB 3600 CL14 (2 kits *TF10D416G3600HC14CDC01).*


3733 @ 16/16/16/32 works on full auto everything except 1.35v on RAM. I'm pretty sure this 5950x just has a 0 percentile IMC like absolute dog crap.


----------



## 1ah1

GRABibus said:


> Here is a post I found in OCN :
> 
> 
> « VDDP is way too high, go down to the 0.95V range, also ProcODT should be lowered to 36.9.
> 
> VDDG CCD is too low, it should be in the 1.0V range, to not get WHEA, and you can lower VDDG IOD to 1.02-1.04V.


This is my voltages with just XMP enable everything is in auto










I dont know why my VDDP is too high

I have NEO 3800c14 4*8gb but i use 1866mhz flck and 3733 mem


----------



## PWn3R

1ah1 said:


> This is my voltages with just XMP enable everything is in auto
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know why my VDDP is too high
> 
> I have NEO 3800c14 4*8gb but i use 1866mhz flck and 3733 mem


FYI, my VDDP on auto is EXACTLY the same value as yours.


----------



## Sleepycat

matthiasm4 said:


> I noticed that on my 2x16gb 3600 16-16-16-32 b-die kit (Trident-z NEO) which should run XMP @ 1.35, I gotta push the voltage close to 1.39 in order to achieve stability. Also soc under 1.1 or CAS 14 is a no boot by default lmao. Regardless of BIOS version. I feel like I should've bought Intel lol.


Usually it is a sub-timing that is too aggressive which causes this. Takes a lot of time to adjust it, but eventually you find the sweet spot.


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> Any other changes in bios from previous settings? I always like to try your settings success we share the same memory config pretty much.
> Thanks


No major changes, I actually set tRCDWR to 8 now (was 14 previously) and was surprised that it passed OCCT Extreme. Previously, my PC would throw errors even with defaults and DOCP on (all sub timings and voltages at auto).

In my previous post, I actually had an issue posting successully when I manually set PBO power limits in the Extreme Tweaker menu (which worked in 3204). So now with 3301, I leave PBO power limits at Auto in Extreme Tweaker and instead set it in Advanced, AMD Overclocking, PBO Advanced.

Here are my settings. This one is with CR2 and GDM off, but I can set it to CR1 with GDM on and it still passes without errors. Even with the new bios and CR2, I can't get my 64GB memory to run at 3666 MHz / 1833 IF. I guess this is the limit of my SOC with 4 sticks.



Code:


[2021/03/07 21:35:40]
Ai Overclock Tuner [D.O.C.P. Standard]
D.O.C.P. [D.O.C.P DDR4-3200 14-14-14-34-1.35V]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3600MHz]
FCLK Frequency [1800MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Core VID [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
Performance Bias [Auto]
PBO Fmax Enhancer [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [Auto]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Manual]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [85]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
Trcdrd [15]
Trcdwr [8]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
Trc [42]
TrrdS [4]
TrrdL [6]
Tfaw [16]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [12]
Twr [12]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [4]
TwrwrScl [4]
Trfc [294]
Trfc2 [218]
Trfc4 [134]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [8]
Trdwr [8]
Twrrd [4]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [7]
TwrwrDd [7]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [5]
TrdrdDd [5]
Tcke [1]
ProcODT [53.3 ohm]
Cmd2T [2T]
Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
RttNom [Auto]
RttWr [Auto]
RttPark [Auto]
MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
MemCkeSetup [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
CPU Current Capability [100%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed CPU VRM Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 2]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Current Capability [100%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.09375]
DRAM Voltage [1.46000]
VDDG CCD Voltage Control [1.050]
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [1.050]
CLDO VDDP voltage [0.950]
1.00V SB Voltage [1.00000]
1.8V PLL Voltage [1.80000]
TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Enabled]
PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
NX Mode [Enabled]
SVM Mode [Disabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
CCD Control [Auto]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
SMART Self Test [Auto]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
When system is in working state [All On]
Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [All On]
Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Auto]
Realtek PXE OPROM [Setup]
Intel LAN Controller [Auto]
Intel LAN OPROM [Setup]
ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Enabled]
Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Mode [GEN 3]
PCIEX16_2 Mode [GEN 3]
PCIEX1 Mode [GEN 3]
PCIEX16_3 Mode [GEN 3]
M.2_1 Link Mode [GEN 3]
M.2_2 Link Mode [GEN 3]
SB Link Mode [GEN 3]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Above 4G Decoding [Disabled]
SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
SanDisk uSD SDDR-289 1.00 [Auto]
SanDisk MS SDDR-289 1.00 [Auto]
SanDisk SD SDDR-289 1.00 [Auto]
SanDisk CF SDDR-289 1.00 [Auto]
USB Device Enable [Enabled]
U32G2_2 [Enabled]
U32G2_3 [Enabled]
U32G2_4 [Enabled]
U32G1_10 [Enabled]
U32G1_11 [Enabled]
USB12 [Enabled]
USB13 [Enabled]
U32G2_7 [Enabled]
U32G2_8 [Enabled]
U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Device [SATA6G_7: Samsung SSD 860 EVO 4TB]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
PCH Fan Speed [Monitor]
Flow Rate [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
CPU Fan Step Up [0 sec]
CPU Fan Step Down [0 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
High Amp Fan Profile [Manual]
High Amp Fan Upper Temperature [70]
High Amp Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
High Amp Fan Middle Temperature [50]
High Amp Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [42]
High Amp Fan Lower Temperature [30]
High Amp Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [20]
Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
Boot Logo Display [Auto]
Bootup NumLock State [On]
POST Delay Time [1 sec]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Disabled]
OS Type [Other OS]
AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
Flexkey [Reset]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [2]
Profile Name [DDR3600C14CTR2]
Save to Profile [3]
DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Enabled]
CPU Frequency [0]
CPU Voltage [0]
CCD Control [Auto]
Core control [Auto]
SMT Control [Auto]
Overclock [Enabled ]
Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
Tcl [Auto]
Trcdrd [Auto]
Trcdwr [Auto]
Trp [Auto]
Tras [Auto]
Trc Ctrl [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr Ctrl [Auto]
Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
ECO Mode [Disable]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
PBO Limits [Manual]
PPT Limit [W] [180]
TDC Limit [A] [120]
EDC Limit [A] [160]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Curve Optimizer [Per Core]
Core 0 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [15]
Core 1 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [15]
Core 2 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [15]
Core 3 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [15]
Core 4 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [15]
Core 5 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [15]
Core 6 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [0]
Core 7 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [0]
Core 8 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [0]
Core 9 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [0]
Core 10 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [0]
Core 11 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [0]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [200MHz]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Manual]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [85]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
SoC Voltage [0]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Enabled ]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
SMEE [Auto]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
Global C-state Control [Auto]
Power Supply Idle Control [Auto]
SEV ASID Count [Auto]
SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
Local APIC Mode [Auto]
ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
DRAM scrub time [Auto]
Poison scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Memory interleaving [Auto]
Memory interleaving size [Auto]
1TB remap [Auto]
DRAM map inversion [Auto]
ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
GMI encryption control [Auto]
xGMI encryption control [Auto]
CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
PcsCG control [Auto]
Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
Memory Clear [Auto]
Overclock [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Data Poisoning [Auto]
DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
RCD Parity [Auto]
DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
Write CRC Enable [Auto]
DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
TSME [Auto]
Data Scramble [Auto]
DFE Read Training [Auto]
FFE Write Training [Auto]
PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
BankGroupSwap [Auto]
BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
Address Hash Bank [Auto]
Address Hash CS [Auto]
Address Hash Rm [Auto]
SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
MBIST Enable [Disabled]
Pattern Select [PRBS]
Pattern Length(VMR) [6]
Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
IOMMU [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
FCLK Frequency [Auto]
SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
ACS Enable [Auto]
PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
cTDP Control [Auto]
EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
APBDIS [Auto]
DF Cstates [Auto]
CPPC [Auto]
CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
Early Link Speed [Auto]
Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
Preferred IO [Auto]
CV test [Auto]
Loopback Mode [Auto]
SRIS [Auto]
Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]


----------



## Sleepycat

1ah1 said:


> This is my voltages with just XMP enable everything is in auto
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know why my VDDP is too high
> 
> I have NEO 3800c14 4*8gb but i use 1866mhz flck and 3733 mem


Because Auto settings are left to the motherboard to decide what to run them at. It may not be the ideal for the CPU but it will work okayish.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> No major changes, I actually set tRCDWR to 8 now (was 14 previously) and was surprised that it passed OCCT Extreme. Previously, my PC would throw errors even with defaults and DOCP on (all sub timings and voltages at auto).
> 
> In my previous post, I actually had an issue posting successully when I manually set PBO power limits in the Extreme Tweaker menu (which worked in 3204). So now with 3301, I leave PBO power limits at Auto in Extreme Tweaker and instead set it in Advanced, AMD Overclocking, PBO Advanced.
> 
> Here are my settings. This one is with CR2 and GDM off, but I can set it to CR1 with GDM on and it still passes without errors. Even with the new bios and CR2, I can't get my 64GB memory to run at 3666 MHz / 1833 IF. I guess this is the limit of my SOC with 4 sticks.
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> [2021/03/07 21:35:40]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [D.O.C.P. Standard]
> D.O.C.P. [D.O.C.P DDR4-3200 14-14-14-34-1.35V]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3600MHz]
> FCLK Frequency [1800MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> Core VID [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> Performance Bias [Auto]
> PBO Fmax Enhancer [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [Auto]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Manual]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [85]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> Trcdrd [15]
> Trcdwr [8]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
> Trc [42]
> TrrdS [4]
> TrrdL [6]
> Tfaw [16]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [12]
> Twr [12]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [4]
> TwrwrScl [4]
> Trfc [294]
> Trfc2 [218]
> Trfc4 [134]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [8]
> Trdwr [8]
> Twrrd [4]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [7]
> TwrwrDd [7]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [5]
> TrdrdDd [5]
> Tcke [1]
> ProcODT [53.3 ohm]
> Cmd2T [2T]
> Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> RttNom [Auto]
> RttWr [Auto]
> RttPark [Auto]
> MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
> Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> CPU Current Capability [100%]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed CPU VRM Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 2]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Current Capability [100%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
> CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
> Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.09375]
> DRAM Voltage [1.46000]
> VDDG CCD Voltage Control [1.050]
> VDDG IOD Voltage Control [1.050]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [0.950]
> 1.00V SB Voltage [1.00000]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [1.80000]
> TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
> PSS Support [Enabled]
> PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
> NX Mode [Enabled]
> SVM Mode [Disabled]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
> SMART Self Test [Auto]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
> PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
> When system is in working state [All On]
> Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
> When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [All On]
> Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Auto]
> Realtek PXE OPROM [Setup]
> Intel LAN Controller [Auto]
> Intel LAN OPROM [Setup]
> ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
> Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Enabled]
> Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
> USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Mode [GEN 3]
> PCIEX16_2 Mode [GEN 3]
> PCIEX1 Mode [GEN 3]
> PCIEX16_3 Mode [GEN 3]
> M.2_1 Link Mode [GEN 3]
> M.2_2 Link Mode [GEN 3]
> SB Link Mode [GEN 3]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> Above 4G Decoding [Disabled]
> SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
> Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> SanDisk uSD SDDR-289 1.00 [Auto]
> SanDisk MS SDDR-289 1.00 [Auto]
> SanDisk SD SDDR-289 1.00 [Auto]
> SanDisk CF SDDR-289 1.00 [Auto]
> USB Device Enable [Enabled]
> U32G2_2 [Enabled]
> U32G2_3 [Enabled]
> U32G2_4 [Enabled]
> U32G1_10 [Enabled]
> U32G1_11 [Enabled]
> USB12 [Enabled]
> USB13 [Enabled]
> U32G2_7 [Enabled]
> U32G2_8 [Enabled]
> U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Device [SATA6G_7: Samsung SSD 860 EVO 4TB]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> VRM Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> PCH Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Flow Rate [Monitor]
> CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
> CPU Fan Step Up [0 sec]
> CPU Fan Step Down [0 sec]
> CPU Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
> High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
> High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
> High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
> High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> High Amp Fan Profile [Manual]
> High Amp Fan Upper Temperature [70]
> High Amp Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> High Amp Fan Middle Temperature [50]
> High Amp Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [42]
> High Amp Fan Lower Temperature [30]
> High Amp Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [20]
> Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> Fast Boot [Enabled]
> Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
> Boot Logo Display [Auto]
> Bootup NumLock State [On]
> POST Delay Time [1 sec]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
> Launch CSM [Disabled]
> OS Type [Other OS]
> AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
> Flexkey [Reset]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> Load from Profile [2]
> Profile Name [DDR3600C14CTR2]
> Save to Profile [3]
> DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
> Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Enabled]
> CPU Frequency [0]
> CPU Voltage [0]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> Core control [Auto]
> SMT Control [Auto]
> Overclock [Enabled ]
> Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
> Tcl [Auto]
> Trcdrd [Auto]
> Trcdwr [Auto]
> Trp [Auto]
> Tras [Auto]
> Trc Ctrl [Auto]
> TrrdS [Auto]
> TrrdL [Auto]
> Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
> TwtrS [Auto]
> TwtrL [Auto]
> Twr Ctrl [Auto]
> Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
> TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
> TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
> Tcwl [Auto]
> Trtp [Auto]
> Tcke [Auto]
> Trdwr [Auto]
> Twrrd [Auto]
> TwrwrSc [Auto]
> TwrwrSd [Auto]
> TwrwrDd [Auto]
> TrdrdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSd [Auto]
> TrdrdDd [Auto]
> ProcODT [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
> ECO Mode [Disable]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
> PBO Limits [Manual]
> PPT Limit [W] [180]
> TDC Limit [A] [120]
> EDC Limit [A] [160]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> Curve Optimizer [Per Core]
> Core 0 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [15]
> Core 1 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [15]
> Core 2 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [15]
> Core 3 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [15]
> Core 4 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [15]
> Core 5 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [15]
> Core 6 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [0]
> Core 7 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [0]
> Core 8 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [0]
> Core 9 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [0]
> Core 10 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [0]
> Core 11 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [0]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [200MHz]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Manual]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [85]
> LN2 Mode [Auto]
> SoC Voltage [0]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Enabled ]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
> L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
> SMEE [Auto]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> Global C-state Control [Auto]
> Power Supply Idle Control [Auto]
> SEV ASID Count [Auto]
> SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
> Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
> Local APIC Mode [Auto]
> ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
> MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
> PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
> Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
> Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
> IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
> DRAM scrub time [Auto]
> Poison scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> Memory interleaving [Auto]
> Memory interleaving size [Auto]
> 1TB remap [Auto]
> DRAM map inversion [Auto]
> ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
> GMI encryption control [Auto]
> xGMI encryption control [Auto]
> CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
> 4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> 3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
> PcsCG control [Auto]
> Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
> Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
> CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
> Memory Clear [Auto]
> Overclock [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
> DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Data Poisoning [Auto]
> DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
> RCD Parity [Auto]
> DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
> Write CRC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
> Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
> DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
> DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
> TSME [Auto]
> Data Scramble [Auto]
> DFE Read Training [Auto]
> FFE Write Training [Auto]
> PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
> MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
> CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
> Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
> BankGroupSwap [Auto]
> BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
> Address Hash Bank [Auto]
> Address Hash CS [Auto]
> Address Hash Rm [Auto]
> SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
> MBIST Enable [Disabled]
> Pattern Select [PRBS]
> Pattern Length(VMR) [6]
> Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
> Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
> Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> IOMMU [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> FCLK Frequency [Auto]
> SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
> UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
> LN2 Mode [Auto]
> ACS Enable [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
> PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
> cTDP Control [Auto]
> EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
> Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
> APBDIS [Auto]
> DF Cstates [Auto]
> CPPC [Auto]
> CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
> NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
> Early Link Speed [Auto]
> Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
> Preferred IO [Auto]
> CV test [Auto]
> Loopback Mode [Auto]
> SRIS [Auto]
> Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]


Thanks!!!
First time I ever post at over 1800Mhz  Still have issues going under 60 latency 90% of the time


----------



## jamie1073

To get mine stable at 3800 I had to set it to 1.54V, 1.1V SoC and 1.050 VDDG CCD and IOD as well as .95 VDDP.


----------



## Alemancio

shaolin95 said:


> Thanks!!!
> First time I ever post at over 1800Mhz  Still have issues going under 60 latency 90% of the time
> View attachment 2481659
> 
> View attachment 2481660


I mean it IS 64GB but you can try:
Disabling GDM (maintaining 1T)
tRFC 260
Lowering ProcODT < seems high but you also have 64gb...


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> Thanks!!!
> First time I ever post at over 1800Mhz  Still have issues going under 60 latency 90% of the time
> View attachment 2481659
> 
> View attachment 2481660


Nice! What is the secret to booting at 3667 MHz? Was it the 1.13V SOC?


----------



## LarryHope

Karagra said:


> Has anyone managed to get over 1900 FCLK with the C8 boards? I am stable at 1900 FCLK 3800cl15 53.1ns... I can boot 1933-2100 but testing shows like 150+ns and bios screen is in slow motion lol. I am on the Beta bios 3301
> View attachment 2481564


Yes. I could get 4000 MHz (2000 MHz) running stable with a decent Latency. Sometimes result could lower than 53.2ns if I clean background program.
And 3301 indeed improve L3 quite a bit.

But still NOT as good as my current 3800MHz and 3733 MHz. Both of these could reach 1400 GB/s in L3 Cache.


----------



## LarryHope

matthiasm4 said:


> I tried fixing the Interconnect WHEAs with SOC LLC and extreme power phase control, boltage boost, loosen timings, higher or lower SOC, VDDG and CLDO, to no avail. Can't find a way to stabilize 1900FCLK.


The hard part is to find the right balance between different factors. 1900 MHz vs 2000 MHz and 1800MHz/1866 MHz. For my board, 1900 MHz is not a sweet spot. 1866 MHz is. Or directly jump to 2000 MHz. If C8DH is your board and you have Samsung B-Die. Go 2000 MHz directly! ;-)


----------



## metalshark

GRABibus said:


> Here is a post I found in OCN :
> 
> 
> « VDDP is way too high, go down to the 0.95V range, also ProcODT should be lowered to 36.9.
> 
> VDDG CCD is too low, it should be in the 1.0V range, to not get WHEA, and you can lower VDDG IOD to 1.02-1.04V.
> 
> Only voltage being OK-ish is VSOC, but that one could actually be raised to 1.09-1.12V
> 
> As you're voltages are so off, I guess you have much too high PLL 1.8V as well, set it at 1.8-1.82V in the bios. And set southbridge to 1.05V.
> 
> Also, a common fault is VTT is set much too low by the motherboard, usually it's at 0.6V. You need to go up to at least 0.725V for FCLK 1900 to work. That is if VDIMM is no more than 1.38V. If you have higher VDIMM you may even have to go up to 0.745V.
> 
> The above is "Anti-WHEA" settings for FCLK 1900. Too much Curve Optimizer also gives WHEA »
> 
> applying this, no more Wheas for me at 1900fclk and 3800 ram speed.
> I could even tweak more deeply and set PLL at 1,8V, VDDG CCD/IOD at 1V and SB at 1V.


Presumably, ProcODT is kit dependant. Can push my RAM timings, latency and throughput much more at 53.3 Ohm (using F4-4000C15D-16GTZR).


----------



## psychomantium

LarryHope said:


> Yes. I could get 4000 MHz (2000 MHz) running stable with a decent Latency. Sometimes result could lower than 53.2ns if I clean background program.
> And 3301 indeed improve L3 quite a bit.
> 
> But still NOT as good as my current 3800MHz and 3733 MHz. Both of these could reach 1400 GB/s in L3 Cache.
> View attachment 2481690
> View attachment 2481691


Hey, Could you show off your Zentimings?


----------



## Jesaul

LarryHope said:


> Yes. I could get 4000 MHz (2000 MHz) running stable with a decent Latency. Sometimes result could lower than 53.2ns if I clean background program.
> And 3301 indeed improve L3 quite a bit.


I've got 51.5 ns on 3800 CL13  
But latest bios has added 0.4ns more


----------



## shamino1978

better late than never, the linux irq error message shd be fixed:








ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-3302.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com












ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3302.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com












ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3302.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com












ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3302.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com












ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3302.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com


----------



## jomama22

Jesaul said:


> I've got 51.5 ns on 3800 CL13
> But latest bios has added 0.4ns more


What cpu? It's known that single ccd chips will drop latency by about 2ns or so. Having don't testing with 1 and 2 ccd's enabled on my 5950x shows this (get 53ns with 2, 51.3 with 1 at 3800 cl14)


----------



## Karagra

shamino1978 said:


> better late than never, the linux irq error message shd be fixed:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-3302.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


Oh nice I will give this a try!


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> Nice! What is the secret to booting at 3667 MHz? Was it the 1.13V SOC?


For me at least I used your settings (except I kept the new change you did at 14 not 8) then moved SOC to 1.15 and voltage for RAM to 1.48
I didnt try less yet as I just picked some random higher (but safe?) values to see if it will boot. Couldnt do any higher nor 1t + GDM disable though.
I dont want to try more voltage even though most people say up to 1.5 is fine for Bdie
BTW if I wanted to lower trfc , I recall you mentioned the other 2 values there is a calculator for that...you got a link?


----------



## metalshark

shamino1978 said:


> better late than never, the linux irq error message shd be fixed:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-3302.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3302.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3302.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3302.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3302.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


Reported memory bandwidth in Memtest86 has dropped by ~2GB/s compared to 3301 and earlier (where it's been consistent). Don't know if this is related to the Linux IRQ fix. Windows based programs are reporting the same memory bandwidth.


----------



## LorDClockaN

Was getting NO wake when pc turns wants to go to sleep, also random reboots since updated to 3301 (same was on 3204) and just loadinf bios defaults and setting back normal values (no OC, using CTR for now), there are no reboots or freezes.. the worst one was not waking up from sleep

EDIT:
So not updating to 3302 until something major happens in the changelog, also I was getting IRQ error while booting manjaro and mint long before 3301, so I guess they fixed this for good now


----------



## Jesaul

jomama22 said:


> What cpu? It's known that single ccd chips will drop latency by about 2ns or so. Having don't testing with 1 and 2 ccd's enabled on my 5950x shows this (get 53ns with 2, 51.3 with 1 at 3800 cl14)


On 5800x with curve set to mostly -30.


----------



## flyinion

Sleepycat said:


> Current bios versions 3xxx leave the existing settings same as defaults when you load your older saved profiles which are missing parameters. So there isn't any empty parameters anymore. They are just not changed (typically left on Auto).


Finally got around to flashing 3301 today (and now I see there's 3302, doh!). Anyway, stuck a USB stick in the flashback port and saved the profiile to it first. Glad I did. Not sure if it's because I was from a 2xxx to a 3xxx BIOS but loading the internally saved settings resulted in a whole bunch of blank settings in the list of changes when going to save and restart. Instead tried the settings file from the USB stick and it was perfect. Loaded just the stuff that I actually had changed and worked perfectly. Can't believe I never tried the USB save for profiles before. That makes it soooo easy. /facepalm


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> For me at least I used your settings (except I kept the new change you did at 14 not 8) then moved SOC to 1.15 and voltage for RAM to 1.48
> I didnt try less yet as I just picked some random higher (but safe?) values to see if it will boot. Couldnt do any higher nor 1t + GDM disable though.
> I dont want to try more voltage even though most people say up to 1.5 is fine for Bdie
> BTW if I wanted to lower trfc , I recall you mentioned the other 2 values there is a calculator for that...you got a link?


Nice! I'm happy to push my DRAM voltage higher, but not my SOC. I'm sitting at 3600 with 1.09V, so will probably stick to it since I can't get 3666 to work even with 1.12V.
Here's the tRFC calculator. tRFC Calculator (mini) - Google Drive


----------



## Gadfly

Sleepycat said:


> Nice! I'm happy to push my DRAM voltage higher, but not my SOC. I'm sitting at 3600 with 1.09V, so will probably stick to it since I can't get 3666 to work even with 1.12V.
> Here's the tRFC calculator. tRFC Calculator (mini) - Google Drive


SOC at 1.15 - 1.2v is perfectly safely


----------



## Gadfly

PWn3R said:


> I just tried the settings you posted. It won't boot to windows without PLL over 1.92. Constant WHEAs. The ram I have is 17/17/17/37 @ 4000Mhz @ 1.35. It's a GSKILL kit on the QVL.


More than likely it isn't the memory, your IMC in your cpu just isn't capable of running 2000 fclk. PLL is safe upto 2.1v, 1.95v for 2000 fclk is common.

Sadly, in every case I have seen a cpu either runs 2000 fclk error free pretty effortlessly at sub-1V vddg's, sub 1.15v soc, and auto PLL, or nothing you do will get it to run without WHEA's.

For my cpu 1900 fclk, runs at soc 1.1, auto vddg, auto PLL. 1933mhz requires 0.985v ccd and 0.995 iod, and 1.13v soc. Anything over that will not run error free at any voltage.


----------



## CyrIng

Can someone post the Linux kernel boot log with latest BIOS (fixing IRQ) ?


----------



## Goodwin Ti

shamino1978 said:


> better late than never, the linux irq error message shd be fixed:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-3302.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3302.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3302.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3302.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3302.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


Tell me, how did it happen that the size of the BIOS file 3204 from the ASUS website is the same byte to byte as in versions 3301 and 3302. How can this be if a lot of changes have been made?


----------



## metalshark

Goodwin Ti said:


> Tell me, how did it happen that the size of the BIOS file 3204 from the ASUS website is the same byte to byte as in versions 3301 and 3302. How can this be if a lot of changes have been made?


Because the EEPROM chip on your motherboard hasn't changed in size.


----------



## finas

shamino1978 said:


> better late than never, the linux irq error message shd be fixed:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-3302.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3302.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3302.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3302.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3302.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


Can you please fix the fsb clock on the next version? On my 3950x, the fsb is at 98.x ( on auto ) or 99 ( on manual, 100mhz set ) instead of being 100. This happens even with clock spread spectrum disabled.


----------



## dyanikoglu

Since L3 cache is fixed now with latest preview bios shared here, is it safe to enable fmax again?


----------



## CyrIng

finas said:


> Can you please fix the fsb clock on the next version? On my 3950x, the fsb is at 98.x ( on auto ) or 99 ( on manual, 100mhz set ) instead of being 100. This happens even with clock spread spectrum disabled.


But, please don't ask for a hard coded 100 MHz value, as we found in many other brands.
BCLK frequency estimation should rather be improved in future BIOS versions.


----------



## tabbycph2

What the best bios on hero and 3900x, right now im on the lastest official, but my computer aint stable, random reboots, the reboots result in a computer that I need to turn off and on again.


----------



## GRABibus

Jesaul said:


> I've got 51.5 ns on 3800 CL13
> But latest bios has added 0.4ns more


happy man 😉


----------



## Pr3t3nd3r

HI guys! Is BIOS 3302 a beta BIOS?


----------



## Xdrqgol

Jesaul said:


> I've got 51.5 ns on 3800 CL13
> But latest bios has added 0.4ns more


What motherboard
Bios settings 
Are we talking about 2x 16 gb / 4x8gb sticks?
Ram voltage

Zen timings that could be super appreciated!

Would be interesting if you could share how you managed to get that !


----------



## Jesaul

Xdrqgol said:


> What motherboard
> Bios settings
> Are we talking about 2x 16 gb / 4x8gb sticks?
> Ram voltage
> 
> Zen timings that could be super appreciated!
> 
> Would be interesting if you could share how you managed to get that !


You can see my config in the profile
Jesaul
It's 2x8GB 4000CL17 memory running at 3800 CL13 with tight timings at 1.49v.
c8h motherboard.
And curve is mostly -30.


----------



## LarryHope

psychomantium said:


> Hey, Could you show off your Zentimings?


Here you go. The right now the only issue is how to remove the WHEA in 4000MHz mode. The rest frequency setting is perfect. 
I'm pretty sure this WHEA (CPU PC bus error) is nothing to do with RAM. Don't know if new BIOS or anyone knows how to remove these WHEA bugs.


----------



## LarryHope

Jesaul said:


> I've got 51.5 ns on 3800 CL13
> But latest bios has added 0.4ns more


Wow. This latency is really low. What RAM module are you using? 16G per bar x 2? Quite interested.


----------



## Lobstar

I'm going to swap out my Crosshair 8 Hero EK Monoblock for an Optimus Foundation AM4 block. I still have the old VRM heatsink but not the thermal pads. Does anyone know what thickness I should use when reinstalling the heatsink? Thanks in advance


----------



## jomama22

LarryHope said:


> Wow. This latency is really low. What RAM module are you using? 16G per bar x 2? Quite interested.


You can get there with a 1ccd chip (such as the 5600x or 5800x) or disabling 1 cdd on the 5900/5950. My 5950x with 1ccd disabled hits 51.3 @ 3800 cl14 2x16. If you can hit 53ns with the 5900/5950, you can hit sub 51.5


----------



## Jesaul

LarryHope said:


> Wow. This latency is really low. What RAM module are you using? 16G per bar x 2? Quite interested.


I have 5800x and
G.Skill Trident-Z 2x8GB 4000MHz CL17 F4-4000C17D-16GTZR (3800 14-13-13-13-26-37, TRC 245)


----------



## metalshark

Jesaul said:


> You can see my config in the profile
> Jesaul
> It's 2x8GB 4000CL17 memory running at 3800 CL13 with tight timings at 1.49v.
> c8h motherboard.
> And curve is mostly -30.


FYI with Gear Down Mode enabled it'll only accept an even CAS Latency, so CL13 with GDM Enabled is CL14. You'll see this reflected in Zen Timings, etc regardless of what's configured in the UEFI.


----------



## Jesaul

metalshark said:


> FYI with Gear Down Mode enabled it'll only accept an even CAS Latency, so CL13 with GDM Enabled is CL14. You'll see this reflected in Zen Timings, etc regardless of what's configured in the UEFI.


Yeah, I know, but it fails to boot if I change GDM on cl13


----------



## metalshark

LarryHope said:


> Here you go. The right now the only issue is how to remove the WHEA in 4000MHz mode. The rest frequency setting is perfect.
> I'm pretty sure this WHEA (CPU PC bus error) is nothing to do with RAM. Don't know if new BIOS or anyone knows how to remove these WHEA bugs.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2481916


Some people have had good results increasing AddrCmdSetup, CsOdtSetup and CkeSetup to 3. Out of interest is it WHEA-free at 1933? Also the VDDG IOD looks low for that speed, do you get a speed increase by upping it (don't think I've seen it below 1.09v at that speed).


----------



## LarryHope

Jesaul said:


> Yeah, I know, but it fails to boot if I change GDM on cl13


I have hard time to turn off the GDM too. It boots up and with normal use seems fine. But always failed on tm5 memory test. So I still put the GDM back to enable.


----------



## xeizo

3302 seems to perform on par with 3301, no big difference, I got the best AIDA latency ever though. 55.1 was my record, now it's 55.0


----------



## Theo164

At first wasn't able to boot @3800/1900, My 5900x doesn't like vsoc, iod, vddp, ccd high voltages, setting them low solved the problem but lots of WHEA...
I had to play around with Cad_Bus settings to run whea free
After 2 months of testing finally it can run stable and error free pretty much everything i throw on it without whea like prime95, occt, aida and SOTTR for 4-6 hours nonstop, no idle reboots!
Still can't boot higher than 3800/1900 4x8gb g skill b die

Final settings are:
PPT=220 TDC=120 EDC=160
+150MHz
Curve settings: Core0 -16 Core4 -24 all other cores @ -30
G Skill F4-3600C16-32GTZR (4X8GB) @1.4v


----------



## Goodwin Ti

Hello friends! Tell me. I have a Ryzen 9 5950x, 4000mhz CL18 memory. At 3733 it works stably, at 3800 the computer does not turn on, at 3933 it turns on, but there are many WHEA errors. At 4000 it turns on, but it slows down terribly, the memory latency is more than 300-400ns. Motherboard ASUS VIII Formula. BIOS 3301 and also on 3204. 

What can I check on the power supply? And why does it not turn on at 3800?


----------



## metalshark

Goodwin Ti said:


> Hello friends! Tell me. I have a Ryzen 9 5950x, 4000mhz CL18 memory. At 3733 it works stably, at 3800 the computer does not turn on, at 3933 it turns on, but there are many WHEA errors. At 4000 it turns on, but it slows down terribly, the memory latency is more than 300-400ns. Motherboard ASUS VIII Formula. BIOS 3301 and also on 3204.
> 
> What can I check on the power supply? And why does it not turn on at 3800?


Am using the Formula and 4000MHz CL15 memory (at 3800MHz CL14). Have it set to LLC3, 500khz switching on the CPU and Ultra Fast response (if you're going to watercool the VRM might as well make the most of it). Same settings for the SoC but 600khz switching.
With 3302 Memtest86's results aren't consistent any more so will give you the AIDA64 results (not keen on measuring in Windows due to the variance, L3 can swing ~200GB/s either way even with 3302):








That's using 4x8GB with these timings:








Upping the DRAM Voltage to 1.51v lets you reduce the tRFC to 249, tRFC2 to 185 and tRFC4 to 114 on my kit (prefer the lower temps though).

With UEFI 3301 and below Memtest86 reports a 46.23ns memory latency and 53.8GB/s memory speed consistently with the above.


----------



## GRABibus

Theo164 said:


> At first wasn't able to boot @3800/1900, My 5900x doesn't like vsoc, iod, vddp, ccd high voltages, setting them low solved the problem but lots of WHEA...
> I had to play around with Cad_Bus settings to run whea free
> After 2 months of testing finally it can run stable and error free pretty much everything i throw on it without whea like prime95, occt, aida and SOTTR for 4-6 hours nonstop, no idle reboots!
> Still can't boot higher than 3800/1900 4x8gb g skill b die
> 
> Final settings are:
> PPT=220 TDC=120 EDC=160
> +150MHz
> Curve settings: Core0 -16 Core4 -24 all other cores @ -30
> G Skill F4-3600C16-32GTZR (4X8GB) @1.4v


your CBR20 tests are great 👍


----------



## Jonnykiv

I've run the 3204 and the 3302 BIOS and run Aida64. Still have the same L3 cache performance, with PBO and all the necessary adjustment made in the BIOS. Also seen Asus have now pulled the 3302 bios off the website. What's the crack? Was the fix not implemented in the final build?


----------



## xeizo

Theo164 said:


> At first wasn't able to boot @3800/1900, My 5900x doesn't like vsoc, iod, vddp, ccd high voltages, setting them low solved the problem but lots of WHEA...
> I had to play around with Cad_Bus settings to run whea free
> After 2 months of testing finally it can run stable and error free pretty much everything i throw on it without whea like prime95, occt, aida and SOTTR for 4-6 hours nonstop, no idle reboots!
> Still can't boot higher than 3800/1900 4x8gb g skill b die
> 
> Final settings are:
> PPT=220 TDC=120 EDC=160
> +150MHz
> Curve settings: Core0 -16 Core4 -24 all other cores @ -30
> G Skill F4-3600C16-32GTZR (4X8GB) @1.4v


I tried some of your settings, I can't run near as much CO so scores are lower than yours, also I couldn't go down quite as much in voltages. But some, and at least temps became better which is always welcome and lowers fan speed under load. And I finally was able to do under 55ns in AIDA:









My version of your settings, I have two sticks of dual rank RAM which will behave slightly different, I'm also able to keep VDIMM at only 1.38V:










TimeSpy looks good, general performance didn't take a hit from the lower voltages:

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 video card benchmark result - AMD Ryzen 9 5900X,ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO (WI-FI) (3dmark.com)

And CPU-Z looks good, 685 single is ok










Cinebench is also ok, 1645 is a nice single score, in particular because I cant run more than -20 CO on only a couple of cores. If I was able to do -30 scores would have improved.










I run 220/120/160 +75 , and a NH-D15, a high end AIO may improve scores but it feels nice and secure being on air.

I'm aiming only for good single core, as multi is pretty good anyways on these CPU:s.


----------



## xeizo

Jonnykiv said:


> I've run the 3204 and the 3302 BIOS and run Aida64. Still have the same L3 cache performance, with PBO and all the necessary adjustment made in the BIOS. Also seen Asus have now pulled the 3302 bios off the website. What's the crack? Was the fix not implemented in the final build?


I see 3302 on the Asus site now, and was able to download it:
( https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...FI/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3204.ZIP ). 

Don't know about perfomance though. I run the 3302 from Shaminos Dropbox and it looks OK to me:


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> I see 3302 on the Asus site now


On French site, still 3204.
By the way, as I am currently making stability tests on 3301, I won’t upgrade for now to 3302.


----------



## Jonnykiv

I don't seem to be able to upload my image.

My share link for my results is here:






0 new items by Rampage







photos.app.goo.gl


----------



## xeizo

Geekbench runs well on 3302 too, using the lower voltages inspired by Theo164("undervolting" if possible is always good)


----------



## xeizo

Jonnykiv said:


> I don't seem to be able to upload my image.
> 
> My share link for my results is here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0 new items by Rampage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> photos.app.goo.gl


You do not have the ultra low L3 though, it used to be in the 2-300 range, I guess you have EDC set rather high. With high EDC there is no particular difference in L3, it only shows with lower EDC. Why run lower EDC you may ask? It's because single core performance improves with lower EDC values.

Anyways, your scores should be lower overall as you run lower frequencies.


----------



## shaolin95

xeizo said:


> You do not have the ultra low L3 though, it used to be in the 2-300 range, I guess you have EDC set rather high. With high EDC there is no particular difference in L3, it only shows with lower EDC. Why run lower EDC you may ask? It's because single core performance improves with lower EDC values.
> 
> Anyways, your scores should be lower overall as you run lower frequencies.


So I could get higher single dropping my EDC which is currently 170? I am running 220, 160, 170


----------



## CyrIng

GRABibus said:


> On French site, still 3204.
> By the way, as I am currently making stability tests on 3301, I won’t upgrade for now to 3302.


I'm seeing 3302 in: 

Driver & Tools
Not in:

BIOS & FIRMWARE


----------



## Theo164

My cooler is an Arctic freezer II 360 with an extra set of 3 fans for push/pull set @ silent from bios for every day and turbo for benchmarks 
Max temp is about 76 - 78c at 22c ambient.
Tempetures bellow 80c is the way to go for high frequency and no errors for my sample at least.

For my CPU and cooling combo EDC more than 160amps = lower all core boost frequency 
TDC more than 120amps = whea interconnect errors after 20 minutes of p95 stress testing

PPT 220W is just a high enough value to reach around 90% @ load it doesn't make any difference as long as it doesn't hit the 100% limit


----------



## GRABibus

CyrIng said:


> I'm seeing 3302 in:
> 
> Driver & Tools
> Not in:
> 
> BIOS & FIRMWARE


still 3204 for C8H....


----------



## xeizo

shaolin95 said:


> So I could get higher single dropping my EDC which is currently 170? I am running 220, 160, 170
> View attachment 2481972


Yes, you can, prior to bios 3301/3302 that meant L3 would take a serious hit. Not anymore, feel free to lower it, for most apps single core is more important.


----------



## xeizo

Theo164 said:


> My cooler is an Arctic freezer II 360 with an extra set of 3 fans for push/pull set @ silent from bios for every day and turbo for benchmarks
> Max temp is about 76 - 78c at 22c ambient.
> Tempetures bellow 80c is the way to go for high frequency and no errors for my sample at least.
> 
> For my CPU and cooling combo EDC more than 160amps = lower all core boost frequency
> TDC more than 120amps = whea interconnect errors after 20 minutes of p95 stress testing
> 
> PPT 220W is just a high enough value to reach around 90% @ load it doesn't make any difference as long as it doesn't hit the 100% limit


Good reasoning there, I agree! I'm running on Air which mostly explains why I can't reach your scores. If I leave the windows in the room open I get higher scores, I could benefit from better cooling.


----------



## CyrIng

GRABibus said:


> still 3204 for C8H....


Probably International only @ ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO (WI-FI) - Support


----------



## LorDClockaN

GRABibus said:


> still 3204 for C8H....


Shamino posted beta bioses few pages back for all


----------



## xeizo

LorDClockaN said:


> Shamino posted beta bioses few pages back for all


It's on Asus sites as a non beta now, but the various national sites updates out of sync



https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_HERO_WI-FI/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3302.ZIP


----------



## LorDClockaN

xeizo said:


> It's on Asus sites as a non beta now, but the various national sites updates out of sync
> 
> 
> 
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_HERO_WI-FI/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3302.ZIP


yeah.. they just added it to the us asus site


----------



## GRABibus

Some if you tested stability/performance versus 3301 ?


----------



## LorDClockaN

GRABibus said:


> Some if you tested stability/performance versus 3301 ?


yes, about all last 10 pages, but 3302 is officially out


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> Some if you tested stability/performance versus 3301 ?


Well, I was able to lower voltages and it still looks stable. 

I tried to lower voltages on my 3900X in the same fashion and it didn't take it(I could lower only a little), after all the 5900X shows to have a slightly better I/O-die than the 3900X. 

I would say the bios(3302) is good.


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> Well, I was able to lower voltages and it still looks stable.
> 
> I tried to lower voltages on my 3900X in the same fashion and it didn't take it(I could lower only a little), after all the 5900X shows to have a slightly better I/O-die than the 3900X.
> 
> I would say the bios(3302) is good.


Thanks 😊


----------



## metalshark

GRABibus said:


> Some if you tested stability/performance versus 3301 ?


Only real difference I’ve had is a regression in memtest86’s reported speeds with 3302 vs 3301. Everything else seems the same. It was apparently a fix for IRQ’s in Linux.


----------



## xeizo

Xdrqgol said:


> What motherboard
> Bios settings
> Are we talking about 2x 16 gb / 4x8gb sticks?
> Ram voltage
> 
> Zen timings that could be super appreciated!
> 
> Would be interesting if you could share how you managed to get that !


Two sticks, single rank, cl13, not unlikely

I get 55.0ns with two sticks, dual rank and cl16


----------



## Xdrqgol

xeizo said:


> Two sticks, single rank, cl13, not unlikely
> 
> I get 55.0ns with two sticks, dual rank and cl16


Yes I was curios  that is all! 

I am getting 54ns with 4x8gb cl16 , if I disabled one ccd on my 5900x i can probably go lower.Although I haven’t really optimized the timings just primary and trfc ones (which I think I can push a bit more / still trying to understand more about each one) great read over here anyway based on your shared info!

Still trying to surpass my 696 single core in CPUZ ...but I think I reached the limit . What are your results? See you run 5900x also! 🇸🇪


----------



## xeizo

Xdrqgol said:


> Yes I was curios  that is all!
> 
> I am getting 54ns with 4x8gb cl16 , if I disabled one ccd on my 5900x i can probably go lower.Although I haven’t really optimized the timings just primary and trfc ones (which I think I can push a bit more / still trying to understand more about each one) great read over here anyway based on your shared info!
> 
> Still trying to surpass my 696 single core in CPUZ ...but I think I reached the limit . What are your results? See you run 5900x also! 🇸🇪


685, and it's with 24/7 settings and normal background processes, but I'm on air. It would be better if I froze the room with wide open windows. Ryzen loves low temps.

I got 54.9ns once


----------



## Xdrqgol

xeizo said:


> 685, and it's with 24/7 settings and normal background processes, but I'm on air. It would be better if I froze the room with wide open windows. Ryzen loves low temps.
> 
> I got 54.9ns once


That is great , I run a 360 EK-AIO - my result is also 24/7 stable - but haven’t exploited all remaining options in Bios! It requires soo much time for testing . Although some super useful tips got them from here!


----------



## KanyT

Any idea what is the problem?


----------



## xeizo

KanyT said:


> View attachment 2482099
> View attachment 2482100
> 
> View attachment 2482101
> View attachment 2482102
> 
> 
> Any idea what is the problem?


Something demanding running in the background? A virus?


----------



## Jesaul

KanyT said:


> Any idea what is the problem?


Run in Windows safe mode


----------



## GRABibus

Yes, something in background is destroying performances apparently


----------



## KanyT

xeizo said:


> Something demanding running in the background? A virus?


The OS is clean and fresh. Rolling back to old BIOS resolves the issue. But I want to have new SAM Bar feature...


Jesaul said:


> Run in Windows safe mode


For what?


----------



## Jesaul

KanyT said:


> For what?


To make sure no fancy stuff in background destroys the results of latency benchmark.


----------



## trespot

I've upgraded BIOS from 2702 to 3302, saved BIOS profile from 2702 worked just fine when imported in 3302. So far every stress test passed, I was expecting some trouble but things seem just fine so far.
AIDA results: 2702, 3302 respectively.

















Test results 










Timings for anyone who wonders:


----------



## Jonnykiv

Minimal change in L3 cache performance for a 5600X, however for a 5950X the results were quite surprising for only a BIOS change.


----------



## 1ah1

Big news AGESA 1.2.0.2
the update addresses a range of reported symptoms, including (but not limited to): USB port dropout, USB 2.0 audio crackling (e.g. DAC/AMP combos), and USB/PCIe Gen 4 exclusion. and we plan to distribute 1.2.0.2 to our motherboard partners for integration in about a week.

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/m2wqkf


----------



## jedi95

1ah1 said:


> Big news AGESA 1.2.0.2
> the update addresses a range of reported symptoms, including (but not limited to): USB port dropout, USB 2.0 audio crackling (e.g. DAC/AMP combos), and USB/PCIe Gen 4 exclusion. and we plan to distribute 1.2.0.2 to our motherboard partners for integration in about a week.
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/m2wqkf


There are some reports that 3302 (1.2.0.1 based) may also fix the issue for some people:

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/m2fper


----------



## finas

@shamino1978

So this is super interesting. You have the same motherboard ( impact VIII ), the same CPU ( 3950x ), the same ram ( F4-4000C19-16GTZR ), the same FSB set in bios ( 1900mhz ) and the same bios ( 3302 ) as I have, yet, your fsb is shown as 100mhz in AIDA64 and in mine it is 98mhz. The only difference is that you loaded a bios save from version 2702.

I would like to ask @shamino1978 to have a look into this bug, I think this is useful information, and would like to ask you two things:

to share your bios settings file with me so that I can try to load it and see if I can get the fsb back to 100mhz.
to try to load setup defaults ( reset on the back button ) and boot windows to see if the fsb is still 100mhz or if it now reads 98.9 like mine.

On another note, I am sharing my memory settings with you, I was able to lower timmings a bit more. ( my vdimm is 1.55 on bios. ).
























trespot said:


> I've upgraded BIOS from 2702 to 3302, saved BIOS profile from 2702 worked just fine when imported in 3302. So far every stress test passed, I was expecting some trouble but things seem just fine so far.
> AIDA results: 2702, 3302 respectively.
> 
> View attachment 2482124
> View attachment 2482123
> 
> 
> Test results
> 
> View attachment 2482126
> 
> 
> Timings for anyone who wonders:
> View attachment 2482127


----------



## J7SC

finas said:


> @shamino1978
> 
> So this is super interesting. You have the same motherboard ( impact VIII ), the same CPU ( 3950x ), the same ram ( F4-4000C19-16GTZR ), the same FSB set in bios ( 1900mhz ) and the same bios ( 3302 ) as I have, yet, your fsb is shown as 100mhz in AIDA64 and in mine it is 98mhz. The only difference is that you loaded a bios save from version 2702.
> 
> I would like to ask @shamino1978 to have a look into this bug, I think this is useful information, and would like to ask you two things:
> 
> to share your bios settings file with me so that I can try to load it and see if I can get the fsb back to 100mhz.
> to try to load setup defaults ( reset on the back button ) and boot windows to see if the fsb is still 100mhz or if it now reads 98.9 like mine.
> 
> On another note, I am sharing my memory settings with you, I was able to lower timmings a bit more. ( my vdimm is 1.55 on bios. ).
> 
> View attachment 2482170
> View attachment 2482171


Have you disabled spectrum ? That did it on my setup...don't mind bios 2502 and all-auto settings...setting up custom-loop this weekend, then it's time to get serious...


----------



## finas

Yep, spread spectrum is disabled.



J7SC said:


> Have you disabled spectrum ? That did it on my setup...don't mind bios 2502 and all-auto settings...setting up custom-loop this weekend, then it's time to get serious...
> 
> View attachment 2482179


----------



## Theo164

Testing new 3302 bios for memory stability and lower voltages, everything is fine no memory errors, no whea
BIOS @ VSOC 1.0125v VDDP 0.85v CCD 0.9v IOD 0.95










CPUZ benchmark 3301 bios


----------



## Sleepycat

finas said:


> So this is super interesting. You have the same motherboard ( impact VIII ), the same CPU ( 3950x ), the same ram ( F4-4000C19-16GTZR ), the same FSB set in bios ( 1900mhz ) and the same bios ( 3302 ) as I have, yet, your fsb is shown as 100mhz in AIDA64 and in mine it is 98mhz. The only difference is that you loaded a bios save from version 2702.


Check if your SVM is set to enabled or Auto. If you don't need virtualisation, then test by disabling SVM to see if FSB goes back to 100.


----------



## frellingfahrbot

finas said:


> @shamino1978
> So this is super interesting. You have the same motherboard ( impact VIII ), the same CPU ( 3950x ), the same ram ( F4-4000C19-16GTZR ), the same FSB set in bios ( 1900mhz ) and the same bios ( 3302 ) as I have, yet, your fsb is shown as 100mhz in AIDA64 and in mine it is 98mhz. The only difference is that you loaded a bios save from version 2702.


If you have virtualization enabled in BIOS and haven't disabled Hyper-V in Windows that will cause the FSB display issue.

If you don't use Hypervisor features you could run "bcdedit /set hypervisorlaunchtype off" to turn it off.


----------



## CyrIng

So ROG VIII WiFi has been flashed to 3302 (coming from a previous 2206)

Good things is that Linux kernel does not dump the IRQ mapping issues up.

Bad things are that an instant reboot happened while system was idling.

Don't ask me to disable C-states, they were working perfectly fine in previous 2206

Still investigating issues b/c I *want* C-states

Edit: btw, BIOS UI froze right after flashing. First reboot, with default settings. It happened after a quarter of minutes while browsing UI
...

FYI, 3950X setup in signature


----------



## dyanikoglu

I wish we could get another preview for that upcoming usb fix agesa patch. @shamino1978 any chance for another preview soon? 

Those USB issues are driving me crazy, and my VR headset is currently unusable because of those problems..


----------



## stimpy88

frellingfahrbot said:


> If you have virtualization enabled in BIOS and haven't disabled Hyper-V in Windows that will cause the FSB display issue.
> 
> If you don't use Hypervisor features you could run "bcdedit /set hypervisorlaunchtype off" to turn it off.


Where exactly has this BS come from? I have always used virtualization, and have NEVER had an issue with ANY program reporting the FSB clock, unless I enable Spread Spectrum. It's always 100, or 99.9. It's been this way with multiple versions of Windows 10, 2 different computers with different ASUS motherboards and memory, and it has been this way for the more than 2 years I've ran with a Ryzen 3900x.


----------



## metalshark

Has anyone got any deep experience with tRFC2/tRFC4?

Keep seeing the rule that:
tRFC2 = tRFC / 1.346
tRFC4 = tRFC2 / 1.625

But I can push
tRFC2 = tRFC / 1.415 (with an improvement in performance over tRFC2 = tRFC / 1.346)
and tRFC4 seems to be ignored (can set it to the minimum 60 or as high as I like with no difference).

Using 4x8GB on C8F with a 5950X.

Appreciate the general knowledge seems to be tRFC2/tRFC4 is not used on AMD, however altering tRFC2 has a difference in performance and going too low results in memory errors, so that can't be right? tRFC4 though does look to be completely ignored.


----------



## finas

@trespot @shamino1978 @J7SC @Sleepycat @stimpy88


@frellingfahrbot you where right on spot. I always had svm enabled in bios as I use VMWare Workstation to run a Linux VM inside my windows OS. This was never an issue. I can now see that the issues with fsb not being 100mhz probably started when I enabled "windows Sandbox" one month ago because that makes use of Hyper-V. 

What I did:
- I disabled svm in bios. fsb went back to 100mhz.
- I re-enabled svm in bios. fsb went to around 98.9mhz.
- I disabled Hyper-V in windows ( while maintaining svm enabled ). fsb went back to 100mhz.

So it seems that what causes the fsb to lower and flutter around 98.8 - 99.2 is indeed enabling Hyper-V in windows.

@shamino1978 I hope this can be solved as windows sandbox is an amazing tool to try software safely without jeopardizing the OS and I want to keep it.














frellingfahrbot said:


> If you have virtualization enabled in BIOS and haven't disabled Hyper-V in Windows that will cause the FSB display issue.
> 
> If you don't use Hypervisor features you could run "bcdedit /set hypervisorlaunchtype off" to turn it off.


----------



## stimpy88

finas said:


> @trespot @shamino1978 @J7SC @Sleepycat @stimpy88
> 
> 
> @frellingfahrbot you where right on spot. I always had svm enabled in bios as I use VMWare Workstation to run a Linux VM inside my windows OS. This was never an issue. I can now see that the issues with fsb not being 100mhz probably started when I enabled "windows Sandbox" one month ago because that makes use of Hyper-V.
> 
> What I did:
> 
> I disabled svm in bios. fsb went back to 100mhz.
> I re-enabled svm in bios. fsb went to around 98.9mhz.
> I disabled Hyper-V in windows ( while maintaining svm enabled ). fsb went back to 100mhz.
> 
> So it seems that what causes the fsb to lower and flutter around 98.8 - 99.2 is indeed enabling Hyper-V in windows.
> 
> @shamino1978 I hope this can be solved as windows sandbox is an amazing tool to try software safely without jeopardizing the OS and I want to keep it.
> 
> View attachment 2482233


Wow OK, so it's actually a Windows/Aida bug! Really nice work, as I have the BIOS option on, but have not enabled Windows Sandbox the last few times of installing a new version of Windows.

My sincere apologies to @frellingfahrbot. Nice catch!


----------



## trespot

When I clear CMOS BUS clock is less than hundred somewhere around 98.9.
However disabling Spread Spectrum allows it to go 100. I've attached the BIOS settings.


As for timings, thank you, I will try to use it as a baseline for weekend OC project  
Though for daily usage I'm content with the current timings and I won't go with high voltage as I don't want to have an active cooling on RAM sticks and I don't have an airflow case. 
Currently at 1.38 VDIMM temperatures of the ram sticks rise to 55 during stress test, and I know for a fact that around 60 these sticks starts to throw errors.



finas said:


> @shamino1978
> 
> So this is super interesting. You have the same motherboard ( impact VIII ), the same CPU ( 3950x ), the same ram ( F4-4000C19-16GTZR ), the same FSB set in bios ( 1900mhz ) and the same bios ( 3302 ) as I have, yet, your fsb is shown as 100mhz in AIDA64 and in mine it is 98mhz. The only difference is that you loaded a bios save from version 2702.
> 
> I would like to ask @shamino1978 to have a look into this bug, I think this is useful information, and would like to ask you two things:
> 
> to share your bios settings file with me so that I can try to load it and see if I can get the fsb back to 100mhz.
> to try to load setup defaults ( reset on the back button ) and boot windows to see if the fsb is still 100mhz or if it now reads 98.9 like mine.
> 
> On another note, I am sharing my memory settings with you, I was able to lower timmings a bit more. ( my vdimm is 1.55 on bios. ).
> 
> View attachment 2482170
> View attachment 2482171


----------



## finas

Many thanks!

So, regarding vdimm, I have been running them since january 2020 at 1.55v inside a very small ncase case with zero airflow on them and they are still alive. I know this is not the most reassuring message that you would like to hear, but it is what it is. In my case, running them for more than one year 24/7 with no airflow hasn't caused any perceptible degradation on them.





trespot said:


> When I clear CMOS BUS clock is less than hundred somewhere around 98.9.
> However disabling Spread Spectrum allows it to go 100. I've attached the BIOS settings.
> 
> 
> As for timings, thank you, I will try to use it as a baseline for weekend OC project
> Though for daily usage I'm content with the current timings and I won't go with high voltage as I don't want to have an active cooling on RAM sticks and I don't have an airflow case.
> Currently at 1.38 VDIMM temperatures of the ram sticks rise to 55 during stress test, and I know for a fact that around 60 these sticks starts to throw errors.


----------



## finas

It's not really AIDA specific, it happens also with CPUID or HWInfo or any software of that kind. It does indeed appear directly related to Hyper-V stuff.





stimpy88 said:


> Wow OK, so it's actually a Windows/Aida bug! Really nice work, as I have the BIOS option on, but have not enabled Windows Sandbox the last few times of installing a new version of Windows.
> 
> My sincere apologies to @frellingfahrbot. Nice catch!


----------



## metalshark

finas said:


> Many thanks!
> 
> So, regarding vdimm, I have been running them since january 2020 at 1.55v inside a very small ncase case with zero airflow on them and they are still alive. I know this is not the most reassuring message that you would like to hear, but it is what it is. In my case, running them for more than one year 24/7 with no airflow hasn't caused any perceptible degradation on then.


Is that Samsung B-Die? Knowing what temperature they report (from HWinfo) would be nice for comparisons.


----------



## finas

yes, it is Samsung B-Die. Temps righ now are at 41C, outside temp is around 23C. But you can see that inside the case there is stuff that is a bit hot like the chipset at 77C.












metalshark said:


> Is that Samsung B-Die? Knowing what temperature they report (from HWinfo) would be nice for comparisons.


----------



## metalshark

finas said:


> yes, it is Samsung B-Die. Temps righ now are at 41C, outside temp is around 23C. But you can see that inside the case there is stuff that is a bit hot like the chipset at 77C.
> 
> View attachment 2482243
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2482244


Nice! Mine range at 45'C-50'C (11'C outside in the UK) with airflow (9 Noctua fans @ 50% minimum in an O11-D XL) at 1.5v. F4-4000C15Q-32GTZR. 41'C is brilliant!


----------



## finas

I'm actually doing zero to improve mem temp. I actually never paid attention to it. Just now that you asked for temps is that I went to see what it was like.
I was a bit worried about running them at 1.55v but after tuning them to what they are now I just couldn't accept anything slower 😂 so I was like, well, wft, lets see how much they last. And surprisingly, or maybe not, they are holding fine. And when I say that I have run it 24/7 since jan 2020 this is 99.999% true. I did reboot many times but never actually turned it off for more than a couple of seconds at a time.





metalshark said:


> Nice! Mine range at 45'C-50'C (11'C outside in the UK) with airflow (9 Noctua fans @ 50% minimum in an O11-D XL) at 1.5v. F4-4000C15Q-32GTZR. 41'C is brilliant!


----------



## metalshark

finas said:


> I'm actually doing zero to improve mem temp. I actually never paid attention to it. Just now that you asked for temps is that I went to see what it was like.
> I was a bit worried about running them at 1.55v but after tuning them to what they are now I just couldn't accept anything slower 😂 so I was like, well, wft, lets see how much they last. And surprisingly, or maybe not, they are holding fine. And when I say that I have run it 24/7 since jan 2020 this is 99.999% true. I did reboot many times but never actually turned it off for more than a couple of seconds at a time.


Keeping them under 45'C is meant to be the trick for a long life. Max theoretical for 24/7 (from datasheet) is 1.74v (1.5v + 0.24 overshoot). So wouldn't be worried if I were you. Having only two sticks lets them cool more and looks like you're at good temps.


----------



## LorDClockaN

where to disable this Spred Spectrum you all are talking about?
I found VRM Spread spectrum only in bios


----------



## shaolin95

domdtxdissar said:


> Using bios 3003, didn't like 3103.
> EDC upto 265 works, but my cpu gets unstable above 255 in IBT high. (getting ~232-234 in this benchmark)
> 
> My curve optimizer settings are -25 on the 4 best cores, and -30 on the rest.
> No reboots/crashes/WHEA erros.


Hello!
I was trying your settings that scored you those insane 12k and 660+ CB20 scores but for some reason my single score is suffering compared to my own settings. 
I wasn't expecting to be close to yours a seem to have a gem but i was not prepared to lose single performance. 
Any ideas what triggers better single vs multi?
I hit about 11800k multi with your settings and max temp peaked at 84C. Single was barely 640 though
Thanks!!!


----------



## LorDClockaN

can't even get to pass Aida bench hm...


----------



## finas

in tweakers paradise menu



LorDClockaN said:


> where to disable this Spred Spectrum you all are talking about?
> I found VRM Spread spectrum only in bios


----------



## domdtxdissar

shaolin95 said:


> Hello!
> I was trying your settings that scored you those insane 12k and 660+ CB20 scores but for some reason my single score is suffering compared to my own settings.
> I wasn't expecting to be close to yours a seem to have a gem but i was not prepared to lose single performance.
> Any ideas what triggers better single vs multi?
> I hit about 11800k multi with your settings and max temp peaked at 84C. Single was barely 640 though
> Thanks!!!


Bios (ageisa) is the key

The newer ageisa's is getting worse and worse performancewise, with more and more clockstreeching and even worse latency all in the name of user friendliness, with hidden autocorrection for everything...
Before you could tweak everything right up to the maximum, but if you crossed that line your computer would crashed.
Nowadays with newer ageisa its no problem to cross this line, you just get (hidden) reduced performance, and no real way to tell without investing days and weeks into finetuning and finding the sweepspot.. But you will never get as good boosting as in the old ageisa's. ((check L3 latency in aida64 which is a good indicator for ST performance)newer ageisa is never close to 10ns)

I've permanently switched back to bios 3003 from 3302 for this very reason  (yesterday infact)
Its much harder to tune and there is some memory training funkynes which takes some time getting used to, (need to coldboot on failed/new memory training) but when you get the hang of it, ageisa 1.0.8.0 have much better performance. (PBO CO tuning is also a different beast compared to todays newer easymode bios)

Last night i had this very discussion on a other norwegian forum where it ended with me flashing back to 3003 and showcasing what true singlethread 5050 mhz *without clockstreeching* looks like.















Tuning the memory atm, this is how far ive come as of now with everything i have learned over this past few months:








In the next few days i will upload my new personal best aida results on the google doc: Zen RAM Overclocking
Have already been below 51.3ns which is not bad considering 4 memory sticks on a dual CCD cpu (5950x) 😎

Ageisa 1.2.00 onwards is like riding a bike with training wheels.. Its pretty slow, but its safe (autocorrection) and you wont fall over (crash)
(even started to hide the WHEA errors in windows.. but OCCT is one of the few programs that still find and reports them.. That's why many people find it very hard to run the 1 hour large dataset error-free)


----------



## Alemancio

How many people here actually measure the impact of different latencies? It's really becoming a d*ck measurement contest of who can get lowest ns on their memory without:
a) actual stability proof
b) actual (gaming?) impact

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Xdrqgol

domdtxdissar said:


> Bios (ageisa) is the key
> 
> The newer ageisa's is getting worse and worse performancewise, with more and more clockstreeching and even worse latency all in the name of user friendliness, with hidden autocorrection for everything...
> Before you could tweak everything right up to the maximum, but if you crossed that line your computer would crashed.
> Nowadays with newer ageisa its no problem to cross this line, you just get (hidden) reduced performance, and no real way to tell without investing days and weeks into finetuning and finding the sweepspot.. But you will never get as good boosting as in the old ageisa's. ((check L3 latency in aida64 which is a good indicator for ST performance)newer ageisa is never close to 10ns)
> 
> I've permanently switched back to bios 3003 from 3302 for this very reason  (yesterday infact)
> Its much harder to tune and there is some memory training funkynes which takes some time getting used to, (need to coldboot on failed/new memory training) but when you get the hang of it, ageisa 1.0.8.0 have much better performance. (PBO CO tuning is also a different beast compared to todays newer easymode bios)
> 
> Last night i had this very discussion on a other norwegian forum where it ended with me flashing back to 3003 and showcasing what true singlethread 5050 mhz *without clockstreeching* looks like.
> View attachment 2482301
> 
> View attachment 2482302
> 
> Tuning the memory atm, this is how far ive come as of now with everything i have learned over this past few months:
> View attachment 2482303
> 
> In the next few days i will upload my new personal best aida results on the google doc: Zen RAM Overclocking
> Have already been below 51.3ns which is not bad considering 4 memory sticks on a dual CCD cpu (5950x) 😎
> 
> Ageisa 1.2.00 onwards is like riding a bike with training wheels.. Its pretty slow, but its safe (autocorrection) and you wont fall over (crash)
> (even started to hide the WHEA errors in windows.. but OCCT is one of the few programs that still find and reports them.. That's why many people find it very hard to run the 1 hour large dataset error-free)


Show some stability proof, otherwise why even bother...
As well if you do not bring any value, why bother commenting and show off ...nobody cares on this forum!
Many users here shared information that helped other achieved better performance or helped many other understand how various tweaks improve your OC...


----------



## Sleepycat

CyrIng said:


> So ROG VIII WiFi has been flashed to 3302 (coming from a previous 2206)
> 
> Good things is that Linux kernel does not dump the IRQ mapping issues up.
> 
> Bad things are that an instant reboot happened while system was idling.
> 
> Don't ask me to disable C-states, they were working perfectly fine in previous 2206
> 
> Still investigating issues b/c I *want* C-states
> 
> Edit: btw, BIOS UI froze right after flashing. First reboot, with default settings. It happened after a quarter of minutes while browsing UI
> ...
> 
> FYI, 3950X setup in signature


Thought the idle reboot thing was a 5000 series CPU feature. I'd recommend checking which core triggered the idle reboot in Event Viewer and then going into Curve Optimiser and to give that core a +5 to begin with. If it resolves the idle reboot, then that's great. If it doesn't, go back into Curve Optimiser and give every core +5.


----------



## Sleepycat

trespot said:


> Though for daily usage I'm content with the current timings and I won't go with high voltage as I don't want to have an active cooling on RAM sticks and I don't have an airflow case.
> Currently at 1.38 VDIMM temperatures of the ram sticks rise to 55 during stress test, and I know for a fact that around 60 these sticks starts to throw errors.


I had a similar issue as I run 4 sticks of 16GB B-die, which require 1.46V to hit 3600 CL14-15-14-28. As a result my DIMM temperature exceeds 57 ºC, and can throw errors in OCCT. I bought a 60mm fan and have it over my DIMM slots. Temperature is now 45 ºC maximum and in combination with the latest 3301/3302 bios, it passes OCCT Large Extreme too.


----------



## jamie1073

This is my G-Skill finally working nicely with my 5900X.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Alemancio said:


> How many people here actually measure the impact of different latencies? It's really becoming a d*ck measurement contest of who can get lowest ns on their memory without:
> a) actual stability proof
> b) actual (gaming?) impact
> 
> Just my 2 cents.


I do, hence [Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread

Also








Memory performance actually matter in some games..


----------



## domdtxdissar

Xdrqgol said:


> If they are 24/7 stable yes, you can show off ! *Otherwise it is more an embarrassment , like the fellow Norwegian!*
> Show some stability proof, otherwise why even bother...
> As well if you do not bring any value, why bother commenting and show off ...nobody cares on this forum!
> Many users here shared information that helped other achieved better performance or helped many other understand how various tweaks improve your OC...


What stability proof do you want,1 hour sustained 300watt Prime95 ?








Maybe some IBT+Y-cruncher ?








Handbreak?








Maybe 1 hour OCCT with zero errors ?













BTW, where are your screenshots of "something something" or is there any contribution to this thread from you at all ?
And this is why i pretty much stopped posting in this thread 3 months ago, too many scrubs as usual dont know what they are talking about... embarrassment indeed


----------



## shaolin95

domdtxdissar said:


> Bios (ageisa) is the key
> 
> The newer ageisa's is getting worse and worse performancewise, with more and more clockstreeching and even worse latency all in the name of user friendliness, with hidden autocorrection for everything...
> Before you could tweak everything right up to the maximum, but if you crossed that line your computer would crashed.
> Nowadays with newer ageisa its no problem to cross this line, you just get (hidden) reduced performance, and no real way to tell without investing days and weeks into finetuning and finding the sweepspot.. But you will never get as good boosting as in the old ageisa's. ((check L3 latency in aida64 which is a good indicator for ST performance)newer ageisa is never close to 10ns)
> 
> I've permanently switched back to bios 3003 from 3302 for this very reason  (yesterday infact)
> Its much harder to tune and there is some memory training funkynes which takes some time getting used to, (need to coldboot on failed/new memory training) but when you get the hang of it, ageisa 1.0.8.0 have much better performance. (PBO CO tuning is also a different beast compared to todays newer easymode bios)
> 
> Last night i had this very discussion on a other norwegian forum where it ended with me flashing back to 3003 and showcasing what true singlethread 5050 mhz *without clockstreeching* looks like.
> View attachment 2482301
> 
> View attachment 2482302
> 
> Tuning the memory atm, this is how far ive come as of now with everything i have learned over this past few months:
> View attachment 2482303
> 
> In the next few days i will upload my new personal best aida results on the google doc: Zen RAM Overclocking
> Have already been below 51.3ns which is not bad considering 4 memory sticks on a dual CCD cpu (5950x) 😎
> 
> Ageisa 1.2.00 onwards is like riding a bike with training wheels.. Its pretty slow, but its safe (autocorrection) and you wont fall over (crash)
> (even started to hide the WHEA errors in windows.. but OCCT is one of the few programs that still find and reports them.. That's why many people find it very hard to run the 1 hour large dataset error-free)


Looking forward to your new settings and that is sad to read about the degraded performance for sure :/


----------



## shaolin95

Ok this is not a HUGE score compared to others but finally I broke the 60ns barrier and got my best ever sc for CB20 

























Max temp after several runs never passed 74ºC so that is also nice for my preference.
On 3302 Bios


----------



## CyrIng

Sleepycat said:


> Thought the idle reboot thing was a 5000 series CPU feature. I'd recommend checking which core triggered the idle reboot in Event Viewer and then going into Curve Optimiser and to give that core a +5 to begin with. If it resolves the idle reboot, then that's great. If it doesn't, go back into Curve Optimiser and give every core +5.


Thank you for your suggestions.
Meanwhile I guess I have found the culprit: instant reboot is a sign of DDR issues.

After resetting to the default optimized BIOS values, system is stable, with basic DDR timings, voltage, frequency...

Next, raising to the XMP profile, manually or DOCP, is just rebooting system.

BIOS v2206 lets me push DDR to the G.Skill profile and even beyond: up to 3733MHz 16-16-16-16-36 @ 1.35V

Latest BIOS is fixing IRQ for the Linux kernel, and I'm thankful to ASUS for taking that into consideration.

But I still have to find settings to get the best from my DRAM for a 24/24-7/7 usage, at least 3600 MHz as those GTZN b-die kit is advertised.

As a programmer and I can't loose my codes editing b/c of instabilities. So far, I'm seeing this BIOS version as a memory *OC* stability regression.


----------



## jomama22

domdtxdissar said:


> What stability proof do you want,1 hour sustained 300watt Prime95 ?
> View attachment 2482317
> 
> Maybe some IBT+Y-cruncher ?
> View attachment 2482318
> 
> Handbreak?
> View attachment 2482319
> 
> Maybe 1 hour OCCT with zero errors ?
> View attachment 2482320
> View attachment 2482321
> 
> BTW, where are your screenshots of "something something" or is there any contribution to this thread from you at all ?
> And this is why i pretty much stopped posting in this thread 3 months ago, too many scrubs as usual dont know what they are talking about... embarrassment indeed


You may want to clarify that some of those score are from cold benching/stressing. Specifically the 723 single core cpu-z run as well as the 673 r20 run. Also, your 284 tomb raider run was run with unstable memory timings as stated yourself in the past as well.

660-664 r20 and 710-715 cpuz, as you yourself have shown in other threads, including this one, are what daily usage numbers you are going to get with a nice bin and good cooling on a 5950x.

I can see both points but it is a bit misleading and disingenuous to mix daily scores and cold air benching scores to try and show what the chip can do when you know people are expecting our daily stable usage.


----------



## Xdrqgol

jomama22 said:


> You may want to clarify that some of those score are from cold benching/stressing. Specifically the 723 single core cpu-z run as well as the 673 r20 run. Also, your 284 tomb raider run was run with unstable memory timings as stated yourself in the past as well.
> 
> 660-664 r20 and 710-715 cpuz, as you yourself have shown in other threads, including this one, are what daily usage numbers you are going to get with a nice bin and good cooling on a 5950x.
> 
> I can see both points but it is a bit misleading and disingenuous to mix daily scores and cold air benching scores to try and show what the chip can do when you know people are expecting our daily stable usage.


Couldn’t have said it better. 

Although his chip is running super good, no doubt about that! Would be interested to know his cooling solution 🤔.


----------



## CyrIng

For some reasons, BIOS *3302* is now stable under Linux (kernel 5.11.6)
Had reset several times and raised progressively DDR voltage from 1.2 up to 1.35V 

Here is a boot log diff between 3302 (left) and 2206 (right):










CoreFreq Stress test and UMC timings doing OK:



















* Crossing fingers, it won't crash again.



CyrIng said:


> Thank you for your suggestions.
> Meanwhile I guess I have found the culprit: instant reboot is a sign of DDR issues.
> 
> After resetting to the default optimized BIOS values, system is stable, with basic DDR timings, voltage, frequency...
> 
> Next, raising to the XMP profile, manually or DOCP, is just rebooting system.
> 
> BIOS v2206 lets me push DDR to the G.Skill profile and even beyond: up to 3733MHz 16-16-16-16-36 @ 1.35V
> 
> Latest BIOS is fixing IRQ for the Linux kernel, and I'm thankful to ASUS for taking that into consideration.
> 
> But I still have to find settings to get the best from my DRAM for a 24/24-7/7 usage, at least 3600 MHz as those GTZN b-die kit is advertised.
> 
> As a programmer and I can't loose my codes editing b/c of instabilities. So far, I'm seeing this BIOS version as a memory *OC* stability regression.


----------



## Nizzen

domdtxdissar said:


> What stability proof do you want,1 hour sustained 300watt Prime95 ?
> View attachment 2482317
> 
> Maybe some IBT+Y-cruncher ?
> View attachment 2482318
> 
> Handbreak?
> View attachment 2482319
> 
> Maybe 1 hour OCCT with zero errors ?
> View attachment 2482320
> View attachment 2482321
> 
> BTW, where are your screenshots of "something something" or is there any contribution to this thread from you at all ?
> And this is why i pretty much stopped posting in this thread 3 months ago, too many scrubs as usual dont know what they are talking about... embarrassment indeed


Norway ftw 😎🤙


----------



## Nizzen

Xdrqgol said:


> If they are 24/7 stable yes, you can show off ! Otherwise it is more an embarrassment , like the fellow Norwegian!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show some stability proof, otherwise why even bother...
> As well if you do not bring any value, why bother commenting and show off ...nobody cares on this forum!
> Many users here shared information that helped other achieved better performance or helped many other understand how various tweaks improve your OC...


Why so toxic?

Love from Norway ♡


----------



## CyrIng

Hard to catch one just before an instant reboot


Code:


mce: [Hardware Error]: Machine check events logged
[Hardware Error]: Corrected error, no action required.
[Hardware Error]: CPU:0 (17:71:0) MC25_STATUS[-|CE|MiscV|-|-|-|-|CECC|-|-|-]: 0x98004000003e0000
[Hardware Error]: IPID: 0x000100ff03830400
[Hardware Error]: Platform Security Processor Ext. Error Code: 62
[Hardware Error]: cache level: RESV, tx: INSN


----------



## CyrIng

CyrIng said:


> Hard to catch one just before an instant reboot
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> mce: [Hardware Error]: Machine check events logged
> [Hardware Error]: Corrected error, no action required.
> [Hardware Error]: CPU:0 (17:71:0) MC25_STATUS[-|CE|MiscV|-|-|-|-|CECC|-|-|-]: 0x98004000003e0000
> [Hardware Error]: IPID: 0x000100ff03830400
> [Hardware Error]: Platform Security Processor Ext. Error Code: 62
> [Hardware Error]: cache level: RESV, tx: INSN


*TPM Vulnerability - Non orderly shutdown failed tries (CVE-2020 12926)*

So far no reboot by doing the opposite: *Enable TPM firmware *


----------



## lmfodor

I need your help since I cannot have a stable configuration with the CO and the PBO limits. The only thing that I am not touching is the memory since I have temporary Adata XPGs that are slow 3600CL18 but at least I do not have BSOD as I had with a HyperX of 4000CL18 .. I finish buying the new Gskill TridentZ Neo 2x16CL14 that came out in November of 2020 with XMP profile optimized for Rayzen 5000. Waiting for them to arrive. 

My mobo is a CH8 Wifi with BIOS 3204, a Rayzen 5900x, an EK AIO 360, a TUF OC 3080 and a EVGA Gold 850, with a P500A Case for good airflow, pretty standard HW

Meanwhile I need your advice since each configuration that I copy from you, both of PBO limits from PPT> 200 TDC 120/150 and EDC 150/170 added to find the smallest value for the best core of CCD1 eg -5 -10 or - 15 and then the rest at -15 or -20 I have constant reboots. No WHEA logs, only BSDM or reboots and the error 41 in the event viewer. I also tried some PPT tutorials lower than 160 and the rest 120 or 150 for EDC plus -10 or -15 curves for the best core and then the rest at -20 and the same. The scalar always in Auto and the Clock override varied between low values + 25 / + 50 until others with - + 200. 

Discarding the memory that I do not touch anything in timings, I only activate the profile in DOCH, which would be the method to test a stable configuration. I want to understand the rationale, starting with PBO limits until putting together a good stable curve. Copying the values that I see here I am not succeeding and I always disable the PBO2 again.

Just saw that the 3302 came out that has not yet updated. Help me with some tips like how to start and then optimize? I want to understand well the relationship of the PBO limits with the curve and the clock override. I can't quite understand if values closer to -30 for the rest of the cores are more stable or if it would be -20 and look for the lowest value tending to zero for the best core. I read the two main tutorials posted here, however again, copying values is not working. I'd like to have a method or tips to test until I get a stable configuration. Could you pls help me? 

Thanks a lot!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## domdtxdissar

jomama22 said:


> You may want to clarify that some of those score are from cold benching/stressing. Specifically the 723 single core cpu-z run as well as the 673 r20 run. Also, your 284 tomb raider run was run with unstable memory timings as stated yourself in the past as well.
> 
> 660-664 r20 and 710-715 cpuz, as you yourself have shown in other threads, including this one, are what daily usage numbers you are going to get with a nice bin and good cooling on a 5950x.
> 
> I can see both points but it is a bit misleading and disingenuous to mix daily scores and cold air benching scores to try and show what the chip can do when you know people are expecting our daily stable usage.


Ah yes touché

Since you bring up PM's in regards to the tomb raider runs, I have been trying to help you and have answered all the questions you have been sending me i private about how to benchmark SotTR, but since you seemingly want to be a wiseguy and comment on this personal attack i got out of nowhere, i also have a question for you.


Could you share some screenshots from 1 hour Prime95 small FFT's / 1 hour OCCT large dataset / IBT @ very high and/or Y-cruncher with your daily settings as you put it, with that static 4.8ghz allcore overclock ? (temperature included)

A requirement for me calling anything 24/7 or daily settings is that they dont crash as soon as i start to run something heavy 



jomama22 said:


> My daily 5950x settings on the dark hero, no safe mode, just normal desktop:





jomama22 said:


> Mine above are just pbo for single thread (probably around 5070-5105 during the run) and the all core is a fixed 4.8ghz.


This whole thing started with shaolin95 asking me about specifically ST scores (months after i have posted the results of max boosting) and me responding about different ageisa's affecting boosting behavior.. Then this toxic swede shows up and seemingly could not belive these everyday 24/7 ST scores in Cinebench (1673/652 poins), and then start demanding "stability proof" for scores that both you and me are normal for a optimized system. (i had even limited the boost to +0mhz / 5050mhz stock) When he then have the audacity to call me a "embarrassment" for showing off (?), only after that i finally post all those other runs..

Check the timeline



Xdrqgol said:


> If they are 24/7 stable yes, you can show off ! *Otherwise it is more an embarrassment , like the fellow Norwegian!*
> Show some stability proof, otherwise why even bother...
> As well if you do not bring any value, why bother commenting and show off ...nobody cares on this forum!
> Many users here shared information that helped other achieved better performance or helped many other understand how various tweaks improve your OC...


Then we have this clown, after i have spent hours upon hours benchmarking, collecting and sharing numbers in the "AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread" in regards performance differences between settings/latencies and/or Veii bus-timings here:








[Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread


I have done some testing on a Norwegian forum in regards to T1 GDM vs T2, and Veii bus timings vs standard bus timings. Guess i can share them here also, make of them what you want. https://www.diskusjon.no/topic/1887693-amd-zen-3-ryzen-5xxx/page/89/#comments (Since iam lazy i have just used a...




www.overclock.net






Alemancio said:


> How many people here actually measure the impact of different latencies? It's really becoming a d*ck measurement contest of who can get lowest ns on their memory without:
> a) actual stability proof
> b) actual (gaming?) impact
> 
> Just my 2 cents.


No good deed goes unpunished


----------



## Xdrqgol

Nizzen said:


> Why so toxic?
> 
> Love from Norway ♡


Love from Sweden ♡

My comment was not intended to be toxic, sorry if that was the case!


----------



## shaolin95

domdtxdissar said:


> Ah yes touché
> 
> Since you bring up PM's in regards to the tomb raider runs, I have been trying to help you and have answered all the questions you have been sending me i private about how to benchmark SotTR, but since you seemingly want to be a wiseguy and comment on this personal attack i got out of nowhere, i also have a question for you.
> 
> 
> Could you share some screenshots from 1 hour Prime95 small FFT's / 1 hour OCCT large dataset / IBT @ very high and/or Y-cruncher with your daily settings as you put it, with that static 4.8ghz allcore overclock ? (temperature included)
> 
> A requirement for me calling anything 24/7 or daily settings is that they dont crash as soon as i start to run something heavy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This whole thing started with shaolin95 asking me about specifically ST scores (months after i have posted the results of max boosting) and me responding about different ageisa's affecting boosting behavior.. Then this toxic swede shows up and seemingly could not belive these everyday 24/7 ST scores in Cinebench (1673/652 poins), and then start demanding "stability proof" for scores that both you and me are normal for a optimized system. (i had even limited the boost to +0mhz / 5050mhz stock) When he then have the audacity to call me a "embarrassment" for showing off (?), i finally post all those other runs..
> 
> Check the timeline
> 
> 
> 
> Then we have this clown, after i have spent hours upon hours benchmarking, collecting and sharing numbers in the "AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread" in regards performance differences between settings/latencies and/or Veii bus-timings here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread
> 
> 
> I have done some testing on a Norwegian forum in regards to T1 GDM vs T2, and Veii bus timings vs standard bus timings. Guess i can share them here also, make of them what you want. https://www.diskusjon.no/topic/1887693-amd-zen-3-ryzen-5xxx/page/89/#comments (Since iam lazy i have just used a...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No good deed goes unpunished


Mate, best way is to report those useless trolls who are normally the ones that do NOT provide any help to anyone ever, and then mark them IGNORED. That is what I do. Wasting time over their insecure posts is letting them win. You keep doing your thing and let them hurt of jealousy


----------



## lmfodor

lmfodor said:


> I need your help since I cannot have a stable configuration with the CO and the PBO limits. The only thing that I am not touching is the memory since I have temporary Adata XPGs that are slow 3600CL18 but at least I do not have BSOD as I had with a HyperX of 4000CL18 .. I finish buying the new Gskill TridentZ Neo 2x16CL14 that came out in November of 2020 with XMP profile optimized for Rayzen 5000. Waiting for them to arrive.
> 
> My mobo is a CH8 Wifi with BIOS 3204, a Rayzen 5900x, an EK AIO 360, a TUF OC 3080 and a EVGA Gold 850, with a P500A Case for good airflow, pretty standard HW
> 
> Meanwhile I need your advice since each configuration that I copy from you, both of PBO limits from PPT> 200 TDC 120/150 and EDC 150/170 added to find the smallest value for the best core of CCD1 eg -5 -10 or - 15 and then the rest at -15 or -20 I have constant reboots. No WHEA logs, only BSDM or reboots and the error 41 in the event viewer. I also tried some PPT tutorials lower than 160 and the rest 120 or 150 for EDC plus -10 or -15 curves for the best core and then the rest at -20 and the same. The scalar always in Auto and the Clock override varied between low values + 25 / + 50 until others with - + 200.
> 
> Discarding the memory that I do not touch anything in timings, I only activate the profile in DOCH, which would be the method to test a stable configuration. I want to understand the rationale, starting with PBO limits until putting together a good stable curve. Copying the values that I see here I am not succeeding and I always disable the PBO2 again.
> 
> Just saw that the 3302 came out that has not yet updated. Help me with some tips like how to start and then optimize? I want to understand well the relationship of the PBO limits with the curve and the clock override. I can't quite understand if values closer to -30 for the rest of the cores are more stable or if it would be -20 and look for the lowest value tending to zero for the best core. I read the two main tutorials posted here, however again, copying values is not working. I'd like to have a method or tips to test until I get a stable configuration. Could you pls help me?
> 
> Thanks a lot!
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro



Anyone who wants to spend a few minutes to teach me some tips or first steps? because evidently copying values without applying a logic to it I do not achieve result. I see many of you that achieved stable settings. In my case, it lasts a day playing there, but then in another game it restarts or doing some task ... mostly in games it restarts. I read a lot, but I don't know how to start. 

Could you give me two or three steps or any suggestions, for example, start with PPT TDC EDC at x value and then look for a curve with these values and a clock override x, and then raise the TDP .. something like that? Someone who wants to teach or share experiences. 

I really appreciated



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## jomama22

domdtxdissar said:


> Ah yes touché
> 
> Since you bring up PM's in regards to the tomb raider runs, I have been trying to help you and have answered all the questions you have been sending me i private about how to benchmark SotTR, but since you seemingly want to be a wiseguy and comment on this personal attack i got out of nowhere, i also have a question for you.
> 
> 
> Could you share some screenshots from 1 hour Prime95 small FFT's / 1 hour OCCT large dataset / IBT @ very high and/or Y-cruncher with your daily settings as you put it, with that static 4.8ghz allcore overclock ? (temperature included)
> 
> A requirement for me calling anything 24/7 or daily settings is that they dont crash as soon as i start to run something heavy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This whole thing started with shaolin95 asking me about specifically ST scores (months after i have posted the results of max boosting) and me responding about different ageisa's affecting boosting behavior.. Then this toxic swede shows up and seemingly could not belive these everyday 24/7 ST scores in Cinebench (1673/652 poins), and then start demanding "stability proof" for scores that both you and me are normal for a optimized system. (i had even limited the boost to +0mhz / 5050mhz stock) When he then have the audacity to call me a "embarrassment" for showing off (?), only after that i finally post all those other runs..
> 
> Check the timeline
> 
> 
> 
> Then we have this clown, after i have spent hours upon hours benchmarking, collecting and sharing numbers in the "AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread" in regards performance differences between settings/latencies and/or Veii bus-timings here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread
> 
> 
> I have done some testing on a Norwegian forum in regards to T1 GDM vs T2, and Veii bus timings vs standard bus timings. Guess i can share them here also, make of them what you want. https://www.diskusjon.no/topic/1887693-amd-zen-3-ryzen-5xxx/page/89/#comments (Since iam lazy i have just used a...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No good deed goes unpunished


Wasn't a personal attack, was merely about expectations/assumptions most readers of this thread are going to have when they read posts with scores and stability on them.


----------



## pilotter

guys, question new in the overclocking stuff but had my share with PBO etc.

the thing is;
Would I benefit from asus Dark hero dynamic overclock switcher and CTR2.0? I am mainly using my rig for MSFS2020, have a 5900x with 6900 XT. CTR is running in background would it be possible to put the resulsts from CTR in bios?


----------



## CyrIng

I'm giving up with BIOS 3302. Too many instant reboots at my targeted DDR settings 3600MHz @ 1.32V
I won't say it's a bad version: it fixes the IRQ issues under Linux, but it is not a version made for my 3950X setup.

Board is back to version 2206 which is rock stable with DDR at 3733 MHz, bus 1866 MHz, voltage 1.32V, CAS:16



CyrIng said:


> For some reasons, BIOS *3302* is now stable under Linux (kernel 5.11.6)
> Had reset several times and raised progressively DDR voltage from 1.2 up to 1.35V
> 
> Here is a boot log diff between 3302 (left) and 2206 (right):
> 
> View attachment 2482364
> 
> 
> CoreFreq Stress test and UMC timings doing OK:
> 
> View attachment 2482365
> 
> 
> View attachment 2482366
> 
> 
> * Crossing fingers, it won't crash again.


----------



## Kernel-Debugger

Still forced to keep Global C-States: Disabled in the latest Bios (Dark Hero) If it were a minor issue it really wouldn't be a concern, but if you don't disable; the PC will not function for more than a few minutes. Really would like to get this sorted out, has there been any acknowledgement by AMD?


----------



## GRABibus

Hi,
on 3302 since it is official :

















150-105-150
- 30 all cores
+200MHz override
-0.025V Vcore Offset
1.49Vdimm
1.07Vsoc
1.8V PLL
Open case for the PC
All fans at 100%
20°C-21°c ambient

I had idle reboots on 3204 with -30 all cores. and +200MHz override.
I had to increase offset to -25 for Core8 and -28 for Core4.

With 3302, no idle reboots yet with -30 all cores.

But I didn't let the PC idling enough. Let's see in the next days


----------



## CyrIng

GRABibus said:


> Hi,
> on 3302 since it is official :
> 
> View attachment 2482475
> View attachment 2482476
> 
> 
> 150-105-150
> - 30 all cores
> +200MHz override
> -0.025V Offset
> 1.49Vdimm
> 1.07Vsoc
> 1.8V PLL
> Open case for the PC
> All fans at 100%
> 20°C-21°c ambient
> 
> I had idle reboots on 3204 with -30 all cores. and +200MHz override.
> i had to increase offset to -25 for Core8 and -28 for Core4.
> 
> With 3302, no idle reboots yet with -30 all cores.
> 
> But I didn't let the Pc idling enough. Let's see in the next days


Nice to see 3302 is doing fine with 5900X. But I wonder if you'll get the same stability booting a lightweight Linux ?


----------



## GRABibus

CyrIng said:


> Nice to see 3302 is doing fine with 5900X. But I wonder if you'll get the same stability booting a lightweight Linux ?


I will never know


----------



## jomama22

pilotter said:


> guys, question new in the overclocking stuff but had my share with PBO etc.
> 
> the thing is;
> Would I benefit from asus Dark hero dynamic overclock switcher and CTR2.0? I am mainly using my rig for MSFS2020, have a 5900x with 6900 XT. CTR is running in background would it be possible to put the resulsts from CTR in bios?


Yes, absolutely use the dynamic oc switcher. Gives you the best of both worlds. You'll also find that loads using up to 80A or so still see advantages in scores using pbo over an all core oc. 

For me, my all core is set to 4.8, with the switch limit set at 80A as up to that point, pbo will still boost higher. You can still use curve optimizer with dynamic oc switcher as well. You can always set the switch limit lower if you like (which is a workaround for the aida cache bandwidth thing if you use earlier bios' than 1.2.0.1).

This also gives you the advantage of being able to lower your edc to get higher single/(limited)multicore boost levels. As an example, on the 5950x using r20, using up to 10 threads still boosts me higher than 4.8ghz. 

Do remember that gaming workloads will almost always be gpu limited, so the power usage of the cpu will usually be low anyhow so you will want the pbo clock range.

Honestly, you're better off just doing your own all core boost testing than what ctr is going to give you. Ctr doesn't really stability test beyond cinabench which really isn't stable for even gaming. It does give you a rough idea of what your ccd's can do, but you will need more voltage. 

I leave llc on auto (gives about a .13-.14v droop for r20 loads) as I find it messes with pbo when changed on the dark hero, but you can change it to what you want, just know that your curve optimizer setters will have to change.


----------



## CyrIng

GRABibus said:


> I will never know


Those Linux live images you put on an usb key. Ubuntu is the easiest. And rufus software for Windows makes that copy in a few minutes.
I guess you know the rest: press F8 to boot that key.


----------



## J7SC

jomama22 said:


> Wasn't a personal attack, was merely about expectations/assumptions most readers of this thread are going to have when they read posts with scores and stability on them.


...not to get involved in someone else's bar fight (we all know how that usually ends), but I for one appreciated your help and advice before.



GRABibus said:


> I will never know


...now look what you have done !


----------



## xeizo

J7SC said:


> ...not to get involved in someone else's bar fight (we all know how that usually ends), but I for one appreciated your help and advice before.
> 
> 
> 
> ...now look what you have done !
> 
> View attachment 2482478


Linux is nice, I run pure Linux on two rigs, but Windows on three rigs and the laptop. I use a lot of DAW software and Linux is really a PITA for productive DAW work. But really good for other stuff.


----------



## lmfodor

GRABibus said:


> Hi,
> on 3302 since it is official :
> 
> View attachment 2482475
> View attachment 2482476
> 
> 
> 150-105-150
> - 30 all cores
> +200MHz override
> -0.025V Vcore Offset
> 1.49Vdimm
> 1.07Vsoc
> 1.8V PLL
> Open case for the PC
> All fans at 100%
> 20°C-21°c ambient
> 
> I had idle reboots on 3204 with -30 all cores. and +200MHz override.
> I had to increase offset to -25 for Core8 and -28 for Core4.
> 
> With 3302, no idle reboots yet with -30 all cores.
> 
> But I didn't let the PC idling enough. Let's see in the next days


I tried these exact values once I upgraded to 3302 and couldn't even get boot Windows. It was so fast that it automatically reset and went to Windows Automaric Repair. Of all the settings I tried, this was by far the most unstable with my Rayzen 5900x. It is assumed that all cores at -30 with the exception of the best core at -25 and +200 override should be more unstable in idle than eg -20 in all cores and -15 in the best? or better yet -10 / -5 on the best core of the CCD1? If I understand correctly, with -30 we are dropping more mv and the curve is more aggressive? Should I try a clock override of 100 or 50 instead of 200? Do low TDC and EDC values tend to be seen?

How about setting the CPU Voltage? Could it be that some level 1 in LLC has to be selected instead of 3?

The Global C states should I force them to disable?

Can you see that it works better with a clock override of 100 instead of 200?

some other value to try

Thanks a lot!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## GRABibus

lmfodor said:


> I tried these exact values once I upgraded to 3302 and couldn't even get boot Windows. It was so fast that it automatically reset and went to Windows Automaric Repair. Of all the settings I tried, this was by far the most unstable with my Rayzen 5900x. It is assumed that all cores at -30 with the exception of the best core at -25 and +200 override should be more unstable in idle than eg -20 in all cores and -15 in the best? or better yet -10 / -5 on the best core of the CCD1? If I understand correctly, with -30 we are dropping more mv and the curve is more aggressive? Should I try a clock override of 100 or 50 instead of 200? Do low TDC and EDC values tend to be seen?
> 
> How about setting the CPU Voltage? Could it be that some level 1 in LLC has to be selected instead of 3?
> 
> The Global C states should I force them to disable?
> 
> Can you see that it works better with a clock override of 100 instead of 200?
> 
> some other value to try
> 
> Thanks a lot!!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


If you don't boot is that eitehr your settings are not stable for yoru CPU and set up (Silicon lottery usually).
What is your set up and Bios ?
What is your cooling ?

Dropping -30 is the more agressive negative offset and then will help in reducing voltage, heat, and then result in higher boost.
The counterpart is stability, especially at idle or low loads.

Try first medium settings until you can boot in windows :
PPT~TDC~EDC = 150-105-150.
CO => -10 all cores
LLC auto
Vcore offset auto
Boost override +50MHz
From my side I dissable DStates (Not global Cstates) and I set Power supply idle option at "''Typical current idle". I read it can help in case of idle reboots.

Update also the AMD X570 drivers as the latest version on AMD site solved my low loads reboots !

Then, see if you have some idle reboots or low loads reboots (While browsing for example). Some days of tests required because these reboots are erratic.

If you have reboots, then check in Windows Event viewer the Whea code error : the APID ID reported in event viewer for the whea error should have a number which is in relation with a particular thread of your CPU :

For example, error "APIC ID1" is for Thread 1, and thread 1 is linked to Core0. See the enclosed file for my 5900X.
You can get it with CPU-Z => "About" section => "Tools" => Save txt report.

In case of an APIC ID error with whea (Producing idle rebootsd ort low load reboots), check the number, then check which core is unstable for your CPU.
For this core, you will have then to add some voltage in CO curve (Means instead of -10, set -5).

Etc....

It takes a long time.

Hopefully, there are some softs to test single thread stability and then load low stability. I use AMD Curve optimiser test.
Other in this thread s uses other softs as OCCT, P95.

But for idle reboots, from my point of view, there is no other way that letting idling the PC for some days in order to see if you can catch these reboots or not.


----------



## lmfodor

GRABibus said:


> If you don't boot is that eitehr your settings are not stable for yoru CPU and set up (Silicon lottery usually).
> What is your set up and Bios ?
> What is your cooling ?
> 
> Dropping -30 is the more agressive negative offset and then will help in reducing voltage, heat, and then result in higher boost.
> The counterpart is stability, especially at idle or low loads.
> 
> Try first medium settings until you can boot in windows :
> PPT~TDC~EDC = 150-105-150.
> CO => -10 all cores
> LLC auto
> Vcore offset auto
> Boost override +50MHz
> From my side I dissable DStates (Not global Cstates) and I set Power supply idle option at "''Typical current idle". I read it can help in case of idle reboots.
> 
> Update also the AMD X570 drivers as the latest version on AMD site solved my low loads reboots !
> 
> Then, see if you have some idle reboots or low loads reboots (While browsing for example). Some days of tests required because these reboots are erratic.
> 
> If you have reboots, then check in Windows Event viewer the Whea code error : the APID ID reported in event viewer for the whea error should have a number which is in relation with a particular thread of your CPU :
> 
> For example, error "APIC ID1" is for Thread 1, and thread 1 is linked to Core0. See the enclosed file for my 5900X.
> You can get it with CPU-Z => "About" section => "Tools" => Save txt report.
> 
> In case of an APIC ID error with whea (Producing idle rebootsd ort low load reboots), check the number, then check which core is unstable for your CPU.
> For this core, you will have then to add some voltage in CO curve (Means instead of -10, set -5).
> 
> Etc....
> 
> It takes a long time.
> 
> Hopefully, there are some softs to test single thread stability and then load low stability. I use AMD Curve optimiser test.
> Other in this thread s uses other softs as OCCT, P95.
> 
> But for idle reboots, from my point of view, there is no other way that letting idling the PC for some days in order to see if you can catch these reboots or not.


Hi, I have a CH8 Wifi with the latest BIOS 3302. My processor is a 5900x with an EK AIO 360 which its seems to be one the the most performer from the segmentI. I also have an EVGA 850w with an Asus TUF OC 3080 and a Phanteks P500A for good air cooling 

I will try this settings:

Try first medium settings until you can boot in windows :
PPT~TDC~EDC = 150-105-150.
CO => -10 all cores
LLC auto
Vcore offset auto
Boost override +50MHz
From my side I dissable DStates (Not global Cstates) and I set Power supply idle option at "''Typical current idle". I read it can help in case of idle reboots.

When you say fiable DStates (not global), it’s form Advanced settings - CPU - power management or in another place? Regarding the power supply idle is in the same place?

Any another settings that should be a must for PBO2? I’m not tweaking anything about memory. Just standard DOCH until I receive a new kit of GSkill 3800CL14 that was released for Raizen 5000 and the end or 2020. I hope with these I’d have a good performance. By now just an standard XPG very slow 3600 CL19

I had already tried other configurations that were shared here by the forum, with PPT values above 200, TDCs higher and EDC also high. I could boot normally and I even achieved 9100 a score on CB20, however in some games it gave me BSOD or it directly restarted. That is, this is the first time that I cannot boot windows. I’m confused why! 

In my case, when I had reboots I didn’t get WHEA errors, only critical 41. I know that if the event viewer logs this error I could find the core failing. 

I also know that is a batch program to try in idle .. I don’t remember the link.. I don’t know what to do but it seems to test process with low load ..

Thanks for you help!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Reikoji

Prior to getting Zen 3, upgrading to one of the new zen 3 bios/agesa Netted me a blue/green screen loop. It still happened with Zen 3, but I found the culprit.... the latest driver for the _Intel_ WIFI module. Yet more Intel Sabotage. Safe mode disabled it in windows, then in bios.

So, Finally Got meh 5800x running properly on 3302. Took a bit of manual voltage CCD/IOD/SOC manipulation, since they decided to ruin the auto rules prior to zen 3...

















This is with 2 sticks tho. I still haven't been able to use 4 since upgrading passed the pre-zen 3 1302 Bios. I end up being locked on Code 22 or 07, ever since the first post 1302 bios. What settings/voltage would I have to modify to make it passed this?


----------



## BulletSponge

I am currently on bios 2606. Can I update straight to the newest bios or do I need to update sequentially?


----------



## Reikoji

BulletSponge said:


> I am currently on bios 2606. Can I update straight to the newest bios or do I need to update sequentially?


can go streight to the latest


----------



## jcpq

Hello,
I have a CH8 Impact with the latest BIOS 3302. My processor is a 5800x with an Artic freezer II 280.
In my case I can get 4550Mhz / 4600Mhz all core on CB20.
My settings
LLC = Level 3
PBO Limits = Motherbaord
-28 on all cores, -22 on two best cores
CPU Override 50Mhz
Is it possible to improve?


----------



## GRABibus

lmfodor said:


> Hi, I have a CH8 Wifi with the latest BIOS 3302. My processor is a 5900x with an EK AIO 360 which its seems to be one the the most performer from the segmentI. I also have an EVGA 850w with an Asus TUF OC 3080 and a Phanteks P500A for good air cooling
> 
> I will try this settings:
> 
> Try first medium settings until you can boot in windows :
> PPT~TDC~EDC = 150-105-150.
> CO => -10 all cores
> LLC auto
> Vcore offset auto
> Boost override +50MHz
> From my side I dissable DStates (Not global Cstates) and I set Power supply idle option at "''Typical current idle". I read it can help in case of idle reboots.
> 
> When you say fiable DStates (not global), it’s form Advanced settings - CPU - power management or in another place? Regarding the power supply idle is in the same place?
> 
> Any another settings that should be a must for PBO2? I’m not tweaking anything about memory. Just standard DOCH until I receive a new kit of GSkill 3800CL14 that was released for Raizen 5000 and the end or 2020. I hope with these I’d have a good performance. By now just an standard XPG very slow 3600 CL19
> 
> I had already tried other configurations that were shared here by the forum, with PPT values above 200, TDCs higher and EDC also high. I could boot normally and I even achieved 9100 a score on CB20, however in some games it gave me BSOD or it directly restarted. That is, this is the first time that I cannot boot windows. I’m confused why!
> 
> In my case, when I had reboots I didn’t get WHEA errors, only critical 41. I know that if the event viewer logs this error I could find the core failing.
> 
> I also know that is a batch program to try in idle .. I don’t remember the link.. I don’t know what to do but it seems to test process with low load ..
> 
> Thanks for you help!!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


as I mentionned, I would suggest first that you find bootable settings (As the one I proposed).
With these settings, then check low loads stability (with single thread stress tests as AMD curve optimiser test for example).
Then, check also idle stability (this takes time...).


----------



## domdtxdissar

After spending a few days finetuning i have now found my new 24/7 memory settings which iam pretty happy with, considering i'm running 4x8GB sticks and my 5950x wont run WHEA-free above 1900/3800 

Included some numbers for MLC for those interested.
(have to say its much easier to get low latency with single CCD CPU like 5600x or 5800x) 









Both CCD's enabled (5900x/5950x) 









Stability testing in my bloaty windows install (lost 0.2ns compared to safemode)
Could have run 50 cycles or more with 1usmus cfg as these settings are 24/7 safe settings and dont fail. 









No WHEA-errors on any of the runs.
Think this is also the fastest L3 latency i have seen, all thanks to the much better singlecore boosting in agesa 1.1.8.0


----------



## lmfodor

GRABibus said:


> as I mentionned, I would suggest first that you find bootable settings (As the one I proposed).
> With these settings, then check low loads stability (with single thread stress tests as AMD curve optimiser test for example).
> Then, check also idle stability (this takes time...).


Well, the test was fine! All day of normal usage, browsing gaming .. CB20 scored 8450.. temps very low..

What would be the next step? Increasing PBO limits and instead of -10 try -20 and 15 best core?

Thanks!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## metalshark

domdtxdissar said:


> After spending a few days finetuning i have now found my new 24/7 memory settings which iam pretty happy with, considering i'm running 4x8GB sticks and my 5950x wont run WHEA-free above 1900/3800
> 
> Included some numbers for MLC for those interested.
> (have to say its much easier to get low latency with single CCD CPU like 5600x or 5800x)
> View attachment 2482687
> 
> 
> Both CCD's enabled (5900x/5950x)
> View attachment 2482688
> 
> 
> Stability testing in my bloaty windows install (lost 0.2ns compared to safemode)
> Could have run 50 cycles or more with 1usmus cfg as these settings are 24/7 safe settings and dont fail.
> View attachment 2482689
> 
> 
> No WHEA-errors on any of the runs.
> Think this is also the fastest L3 latency i have seen, all thanks to the much better singlecore boosting in agesa 1.1.8.0


Still super jealous of your RAM kit doing 12 tRP (mine is stubborn on 13 as a minimum no matter the voltage or drive strength).

53.5ns final latency is very tasty.

You seem to be having a lot of joy (as are many) with these low VDDG CCD voltages, I can't go below 0.95v without USB Audio devices dropping out. Hoping AGESA 1.2.0.2 addresses that. Do you use a USB audio device out of curiosity?

With the SoC voltage, is it a performance or stability issue when dropping from your current value?


----------



## PowerK

Perhaps, this thread is better place for my question.

I got X570 ROG Dark Hero yesterday.
The Dark Hero replaced Gigabyte X570 AORUS Extreme. Everything else being equal,
I see a quite a bit of drop in Cinebench R20 score.

This was the typical score I got with X570 Aorus Extreme.











Now, with the Dark Hero, typical score I get is:











The only hardware difference between them are motherboard.
Both running on the latest BIOS F33f for Gigabyte and 3303 for Asus.

FWIW, RAM timings don't really affect Cinebench score but here's mine. (The same ram timings I used on Aorus Extreme)










Any advice ?


----------



## domdtxdissar

metalshark said:


> You seem to be having a lot of joy (as are many) with these low VDDG CCD voltages, I can't go below 0.95v without USB Audio devices dropping out. Hoping AGESA 1.2.0.2 addresses that. Do you use a USB audio device out of curiosity?


Iam using this USB headset: Arctis 5 Gaming Headset
No issues with sound/connection dropping out

But i having problems with HP Reverb G2 + PCIE Gen 4, but that have nothing to do with my memory overclock and is a separate issue..
And as long as i lower to PCIE Gen 3 when i wanna use it, there is no problems



metalshark said:


> With the SoC voltage, is it a performance or stability issue when dropping from your current value?


Iam not sure if i understand the question, but you want to run as low as possible Vsoc without a decline in performance (can be tested i Aida).
Higher voltage also eat powerbuget from cores boosting with PBO.
If i lower Vsoc more i get unstable performance (latency differ alot run to run. +-0.4 ns)
If i lower Vsoc even more i get WHEA errors.


----------



## metalshark

domdtxdissar said:


> Iam using this USB headset: Arctis 5 Gaming Headset
> No issues with sound/connection dropping out
> 
> But i having problems with HP Reverb G2 + PCIE Gen 4, but that have nothing to do with my memory overclock and is a separate issue..
> And as long as i lower to PCIE Gen 3 when i wanna use it, there is no problems
> 
> 
> Iam not sure if i understand the question, but you want to run as low as possible Vsoc without a decline in performance (can be tested i Aida).
> Higher voltage also eat powerbuget from cores boosting with PBO.
> If i lower Vsoc more i get unstable performance (latency differ alot run to run. +-0.4 ns)
> If i lower Vsoc even more i get WHEA errors.


Sweet - am getting lower performance with lower vSoC too so that's consistent. Thanks for confirming the lack of USB issues with your VDDG CCD.

I need to keep PCIe gen 4 going for speed to do the day job, but lowering to gen 3 also stops the USB disconnect (so just have the higher VDDG CCD for now).

Also, only just noticed how low you got your 1.8v PLL.


----------



## CyrIng

Hello,

Can someone reports about BIOS 3302 with Crosshair and Ryzen 3000 processors ?

Using 3950X, and 2 x 16GB G.Skill GTZN set at 3600 MHz voltage 1.35V as specified by extended XMP values, FCLK=1800MHz, no DOCP, all remaining settings to AUTO, BIOS 3302 leads to the following issues:

Linux (5.11)
several instant reboots: right after kernel boot or during idle
mce error:




Code:


mce: [Hardware Error]: Machine check events logged
[Hardware Error]: Corrected error, no action required.
[Hardware Error]: CPU:0 (17:71:0) MC25_STATUS[-|CE|MiscV|-|-|-|-|CECC|-|-|-]: 0x98004000003e0000
[Hardware Error]: IPID: 0x000100ff03830400
[Hardware Error]: Platform Security Processor Ext. Error Code: 62
[Hardware Error]: cache level: RESV, tx: INSN




Windows (10)
WHEA error:











Thank you.


----------



## Baio73

CyrIng said:


> Hello,
> 
> Can someone reports about BIOS 3302 with Crosshair and Ryzen 3000 processors ?
> 
> Using 3950X, and 2 x 16GB G.Skill GTZN set at 3600 MHz voltage 1.35V as specified by extended XMP values, FCLK=1800MHz, no DOCP, all remaining settings to AUTO, BIOS 3302 leads to the following issues:
> 
> Linux (5.11)
> several instant reboots: right after kernel boot or during idle
> mce error:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> mce: [Hardware Error]: Machine check events logged
> [Hardware Error]: Corrected error, no action required.
> [Hardware Error]: CPU:0 (17:71:0) MC25_STATUS[-|CE|MiscV|-|-|-|-|CECC|-|-|-]: 0x98004000003e0000
> [Hardware Error]: IPID: 0x000100ff03830400
> [Hardware Error]: Platform Security Processor Ext. Error Code: 62
> [Hardware Error]: cache level: RESV, tx: INSN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windows (10)
> WHEA error:
> 
> View attachment 2482703
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.


Everything fine here with CrossHair VIII Formula and 3900XT with BIOS v3302.
RAM 2x8Gb 1:1 @3800 CAS16.

Baio


----------



## S0V3R1N

Hi all!. I have the latest bios update for my CHVIII Hero which is running a 3700x. I seem to have seen some performance drop in CB20 but not in real life usage. Is this ok? Is there a specific bios version which is best suitable for Ryzen 3000 series.

Thanks for any assistance.


----------



## CyrIng

Thanks a lot for your confirmation.

EDIT: btw, mine is a Crosshair VIII Wi-Fi edition and I have flashed ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3302.CAP

Did you have to set some PSU option from Auto to "Typical current idle" ?



Baio73 said:


> Everything fine here with CrossHair VIII Formula and 3900XT with BIOS v3302.
> RAM 2x8Gb 1:1 @3800 CAS16.
> 
> Baio


----------



## Goodwin Ti

PowerK said:


> Perhaps, this thread is better place for my question.
> 
> I got X570 ROG Dark Hero yesterday.
> The Dark Hero replaced Gigabyte X570 AORUS Extreme. Everything else being equal,
> I see a quite a bit of drop in Cinebench R20 score.
> 
> This was the typical score I got with X570 Aorus Extreme.
> 
> View attachment 2482700
> 
> 
> 
> Now, with the Dark Hero, typical score I get is:
> 
> View attachment 2482701
> 
> 
> 
> The only hardware difference between them are motherboard.
> Both running on the latest BIOS F33f for Gigabyte and 3303 for Asus.
> 
> FWIW, RAM timings don't really affect Cinebench score but here's mine. (The same ram timings I used on Aorus Extreme)
> 
> View attachment 2482699
> 
> 
> Any advice ?


I did not have another motherboard, on my CH VIII Formula the same result as on your dark hero.

I also have a strong CPU heating (up to 90 degrees in tests) with custom cooling with two radiators. I can't figure out how to lower the temperature. The water temperature in the system is 37 degrees while Who has a lower temperature? What kind of water blocks do you use for the processor?


----------



## finas

CyrIng said:


> Hello,
> 
> Can someone reports about BIOS 3302 with Crosshair and Ryzen 3000 processors ?
> 
> Using 3950X, and 2 x 16GB G.Skill GTZN set at 3600 MHz voltage 1.35V as specified by extended XMP values, FCLK=1800MHz, no DOCP, all remaining settings to AUTO, BIOS 3302 leads to the following issues:
> 
> Linux (5.11)
> several instant reboots: right after kernel boot or during idle
> mce error:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> mce: [Hardware Error]: Machine check events logged
> [Hardware Error]: Corrected error, no action required.
> [Hardware Error]: CPU:0 (17:71:0) MC25_STATUS[-|CE|MiscV|-|-|-|-|CECC|-|-|-]: 0x98004000003e0000
> [Hardware Error]: IPID: 0x000100ff03830400
> [Hardware Error]: Platform Security Processor Ext. Error Code: 62
> [Hardware Error]: cache level: RESV, tx: INSN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windows (10)
> WHEA error:
> 
> View attachment 2482703
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.


export your bios config so that I can load it on my machine and I will try out booting a linux live distro.


----------



## CyrIng

finas said:


> export your bios config so that I can load it on my machine and I will try out booting a linux live distro.


OK, I will provide you this dump this WE, b/c I rollback to 2206 for my work.
Meanwhile can you confirm your setup is running fine with Linux ?


----------



## PowerK

Goodwin Ti said:


> I did not have another motherboard, on my CH VIII Formula the same result as on your dark hero.
> 
> I also have a strong CPU heating (up to 90 degrees in tests) with custom cooling with two radiators. I can't figure out how to lower the temperature. The water temperature in the system is 37 degrees while Who has a lower temperature? What kind of water blocks do you use for the processor?


90C sounds awfully high. What's your ambient temp? Also what range of voltage are you feeding your 5950X?
I think you should undervolt, too.
With CO, I have set every core to negative 30, except for the two best cores (one in each CCD) are at negative 25. And I further downvolted using Vcore offset with negative 0.1V. During y-cruncher torture test temps stay below 75C. (Room temp 25C). I'm using NZXT Kraken Z73 AIO cooler.


----------



## finas

I'm not using linux on this machine, but I will live boot a distro of you choice with bios 3302 and your settings and let it run overnight.
I have a 3950x, impact VIII, and 2x16gb g.skill DDR4000-CL19 memory sticks.





CyrIng said:


> OK, I will provide you this dump this WE, b/c I rollback to 2206 for my work.
> Meanwhile can you confirm your setup is running fine with Linux ?


----------



## xeizo

I ordered a Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360 AIO, the most powerful AIO according to Gamers Nexus and more. Much because it's way thicker radiator than the Asetek OEM:s, and it's original design pumphouse(not Asetek). It will be interesting to see how it compares to my NH-D15, thankfully the Liquid Freezer II is also renowned for being silent. I will run it with six fans, the included very high quality fans and three Noctua NF-A12 Chromax.black. Exciting, will there be any difference, regression or enhancement?

Typical CB score right now with NH-D15 silent fan profile(yes, very silent during normal use)


----------



## CyrIng

finas said:


> I'm not using linux on this machine, but I will live boot a distro of you choice with bios 3302 and your settings and let it run overnight.
> I have a 3950x, impact VIII, and 2x16gb g.skill DDR4000-CL19 memory sticks.


I'm booting ArchLinux.





__





Arch Linux - Downloads







archlinux.org





This installer will give you the option to switch to a simple console terminal.
Because Arch is a lightweight distribution, the processor idle states should be trigger pretty fastly.

Last WE, when I had tested 3302, instant reboot could happen as soon as the login is prompted.
In other cases, it could happen while I was editing source codes with nano or vi.

I had toggled global and DF c-states to Auto, Enable, Disable; but also any BAR remap and any OC options I could suspect as a source of instabilities ; but that made any difference.

Only leaving DDR @ standard 2 GHz provides a stable working state.

Among the tiny differences I had observed with version 3302 is the Auto 1.8V source voltage which was reduced to a 1.7V , compared to BIOS 2206 which displays a perfect 1.8V


----------



## Goodwin Ti

PowerK said:


> 90C sounds awfully high. What's your ambient temp? Also what range of voltage are you feeding your 5950X?
> I think you should undervolt, too.
> With CO, I have set every core to negative 30, except for the two best cores (one in each CCD) are at negative 25. And I further downvolted using Vcore offset with negative 0.1V. During y-cruncher torture test temps stay below 75C. (Room temp 25C). I'm using NZXT Kraken Z73 AIO cooler.


Ambient temperature around 25-27. The voltage is automatic. PBO negative 25. One core -15. -30 is no longer stable.


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> I ordered a Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360 AIO, the most powerful AIO according to Gamers Nexus and more. Much because it's way thicker radiator than the Asetek OEM:s, and it's original design pumphouse(not Asetek). It will be interesting to see how it compares to my NH-D15, thankfully the Liquid Freezer II is also renowned for being silent. I will run it with six fans, the included very high quality fans and three Noctua NF-A12 Chromax.black. Exciting, will there be any difference, regression or enhancement?
> 
> Typical CB score right now with NH-D15 silent fan profile(yes, very silent during normal use)


what is your max temp CCD1 Tdie and ambient during those tests ?.
These scores are very good for air cooling...

is your PC in a fridge or NH-D15 is THE air cooler for Ryzen 5000 ? 

Some with high end 360mm AIO even don't get these scores.


----------



## shaolin95

domdtxdissar said:


> Iam using this USB headset: Arctis 5 Gaming Headset
> No issues with sound/connection dropping out
> 
> But i having problems with HP Reverb G2 + PCIE Gen 4, but that have nothing to do with my memory overclock and is a separate issue..
> And as long as i lower to PCIE Gen 3 when i wanna use it, there is no problems
> 
> 
> Iam not sure if i understand the question, but you want to run as low as possible Vsoc without a decline in performance (can be tested i Aida).
> Higher voltage also eat powerbuget from cores boosting with PBO.
> If i lower Vsoc more i get unstable performance (latency differ alot run to run. +-0.4 ns)
> If i lower Vsoc even more i get WHEA errors.


By any chance, do you use CTR too or only doing PBO+CO?


----------



## domdtxdissar

shaolin95 said:


> By any chance, do you use CTR too or only doing PBO+CO?


My daily 24/7 settings which i linked on last page is PBO CO only


----------



## pilotter

jomama22 said:


> Yes, absolutely use the dynamic oc switcher. Gives you the best of both worlds. You'll also find that loads using up to 80A or so still see advantages in scores using pbo over an all core oc.
> 
> For me, my all core is set to 4.8, with the switch limit set at 80A as up to that point, pbo will still boost higher. You can still use curve optimizer with dynamic oc switcher as well. You can always set the switch limit lower if you like (which is a workaround for the aida cache bandwidth thing if you use earlier bios' than 1.2.0.1).
> 
> This also gives you the advantage of being able to lower your edc to get higher single/(limited)multicore boost levels. As an example, on the 5950x using r20, using up to 10 threads still boosts me higher than 4.8ghz.
> 
> Do remember that gaming workloads will almost always be gpu limited, so the power usage of the cpu will usually be low anyhow so you will want the pbo clock range.
> 
> Honestly, you're better off just doing your own all core boost testing than what ctr is going to give you. Ctr doesn't really stability test beyond cinabench which really isn't stable for even gaming. It does give you a rough idea of what your ccd's can do, but you will need more voltage.
> 
> I leave llc on auto (gives about a .13-.14v droop for r20 loads) as I find it messes with pbo when changed on the dark hero, but you can change it to what you want, just know that your curve optimizer setters will have to change.


thanks man will definitely test this when back from work. MSFS really likes raw cpu power, and I am still looking how to adjust this specific for this Sim.


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> what is your max temp CCD1 Tdie and ambient during those tests ?.
> These scores are very good for air cooling...
> 
> is your PC in a fridge or NH-D15 is THE air cooler for Ryzen 5000 ?
> 
> Some with high end 360mm AIO even don't get these scores.


Temps are good, max 75-80C Tdie CB R20/23

And yes, NH-D15 _is_ THE aircooler  (did I mention it is silent?)


----------



## shaolin95

domdtxdissar said:


> My daily 24/7 settings which i linked on last page is PBO CO only


I must be blind cause I cant seem to find your post with settings..was it a BIOD dump or just a comment?


----------



## domdtxdissar

shaolin95 said:


> I must be blind cause I cant seem to find your post with settings..was it a BIOD dump or just a comment?


Just comments and screenshots i mean


----------



## Sleepycat

CyrIng said:


> Last WE, when I had tested 3302, instant reboot could happen as soon as the login is prompted.
> In other cases, it could happen while I was editing source codes with nano or vi.
> 
> I had toggled global and DF c-states to Auto, Enable, Disable; but also any BAR remap and any OC options I could suspect as a source of instabilities ; but that made any difference.
> 
> Only leaving DDR @ standard 2 GHz provides a stable working state.
> 
> Among the tiny differences I had observed with version 3302 is the Auto 1.8V source voltage which was reduced to a 1.7V , compared to BIOS 2206 which displays a perfect 1.8V


If your instant reboot is during normal use and not when you have left the PC idle for a while, then changing DF C-states won't make a difference.

At least you have narrowed it down to RAM timings. Are you setting your RAM speed manually by selecting DDR 3600? Or are you turning DOCP on?

I also set my PLL manually to 1.8V, same for SB to 1.0V. Auto just selects odd voltages sometimes.


----------



## Sleepycat

domdtxdissar said:


> But i having problems with HP Reverb G2 + PCIE Gen 4, but that have nothing to do with my memory overclock and is a separate issue..
> And as long as i lower to PCIE Gen 3 when i wanna use it, there is no problems


Same issue for me too. I get dropouts during Elite Dangerous in about 15 minutes on bios 3301. With bios 3302, I get partial disconnects where the G2 loses tracking for a few seconds, then it continues to work fine for a longer period. Similarly, setting the SB to PCIe 3.0 prevented this issue.


----------



## CyrIng

Sleepycat said:


> If your instant reboot is during normal use and not when you have left the PC idle for a while, then changing DF C-states won't make a difference.
> 
> At least you have narrowed it down to RAM timings. Are you setting your RAM speed manually by selecting DDR 3600? Or are you turning DOCP on?
> 
> I also set my PLL manually to 1.8V, same for SB to 1.0V. Auto just selects odd voltages sometimes.


I set DDR timings manually (no DOCP), exactly the same values, frequency and voltage than BIOS version 2206 where those are working perfectly fine:

16-16-16-36
3600/1800 MHz or 3733/1866 MHz
1.35V

In facts, all BIOS options are set the same as 2206, beside the new ones appearing in 3302 that I left in AUTO.

Edit: once flashed, the board did not post , at second or third boot, and stop at code 8d. It had been the first time I met such code. According to ROG forum it could be linked with a new option for PSU=AUTO or Typical Idle

My PSU is a SeaSonic Focus GX-850 PSU


----------



## Sleepycat

CyrIng said:


> In facts, all BIOS options are set the same as 2206, beside the new ones appearing in 3302 that I left in AUTO.


Yeah, the AGESA versions would be so different between 2206 and 3302, I wouldn't be surprised if the same settings would not work. When I upgraded from AGESA 1.1.x.x to 1.2.x.x, I loaded system defaults and then reoptimised settings all over again. Was a pain but I managed to get it stable, no WHEA in event viewer and passes OCCT Extreme Large. Was worth the effort for me, but if you are happy with 2206, nothing wrong with sticking to it.


----------



## CyrIng

Sleepycat said:


> Yeah, the AGESA versions would be so different between 2206 and 3302, I wouldn't be surprised if the same settings would not work. When I upgraded from AGESA 1.1.x.x to 1.2.x.x, I loaded system defaults and then reoptimised settings all over again. Was a pain but I managed to get it stable, no WHEA in event viewer and passes OCCT Extreme Large. Was worth the effort for me, but if you are happy with 2206, nothing wrong with sticking to it.


I will give another chance to 3302. There are some new options which help me to validate my code, such as choosing [x2APIC]


----------



## JoneKone

CyrIng said:


> Those Linux live images you put on an usb key. Ubuntu is the easiest. And rufus software for Windows makes that copy in a few minutes.
> I guess you know the rest: press F8 to boot that key.


I would test it for you but unfortunatelly i'm on another mobo.  I didn't have 300€ extra to spend on "fancier bios updates" (read faster) =D i'm on. ROG Strix X570-E Gaming

Anyways on my mobo the Random reboots stopped at some point. I'm currently on AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.0 BIOS 3405

Ububtu 20.10 user, kernel 5.11.x

2000/4000Mhz 25cl currently.


----------



## CyrIng

JoneKone said:


> I would test it for you but unfortunatelly i'm on another mobo.  I didn't have 300€ extra to spend on "fancier bios updates" =D i'm on. ROG Strix X570-E Gaming
> 
> Anyways on my mobo the Random reboots stopped at some point. I'm currently on AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.0 BIOS 3405
> 
> Ububtu 20.10 user, kernel 5.11.x
> 
> 2000/4000Mhz 25cl currently.


Nice.
Was the BIOS upgrade immediately stable or did you have to tweak some new options, especially voltage concerning ?


----------



## JoneKone

CyrIng said:


> Nice.
> Was the BIOS upgrade immediately stable or did you have to tweak some new options, especially voltage concerning ?


In my original (just a hunch) opinion, it was ddr that was instable, Now i'm pushing 1.43v to my ddr, cpu should be more or less stock. I haven't really touched that. 



 Rene has some good observations, he obviously is more professional than me, and knows what he is talking about. If I where you I would check he's video.


----------



## CyrIng

JoneKone said:


> In my original (just a hunch) opinion, it was ddr that was instable, Now i'm pushing 1.43v to my ddr, cpu should be more or less stock. I haven't really touched that.
> 
> 
> 
> Rene has some good observations, he obviously is more professional than me, and knows what he is talking about. If I where you I would check he's video.


Just a last question. Sorry to bother. Do you mean you had to increase the DRAM voltage from old BIOS version to the new version ?


----------



## Baio73

CyrIng said:


> Thanks a lot for your confirmation.
> 
> EDIT: btw, mine is a Crosshair VIII Wi-Fi edition and I have flashed ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3302.CAP
> 
> Did you have to set some PSU option from Auto to "Typical current idle" ?


I didn't touch any PSU-related BIOS setting.
Tried several kits of RAM and Calculator combinations (including the Power section) and finally discovered my CPU works @ IF 1900 with quite everything set on Auto. Maybe my last kit of Corsair 4000 CAS 19 helped.

Baio


----------



## gabian

Hi
3302 on Dark Hero is unstable on my rig. Was stable before on FLCK 1900 with PBO / co tuned. on 3302, it is Instant BSOD after logon (whea core 0 and 15). Try to remove the curve, still BSOD on web browsing. Then i remove custom timings on DDR, go to DCOP standard, and now it is working. I would need to test again the curve without the custom timing...

Do you think i need to rework timing and PBO again or is it bios related ? What is your feedback ?


----------



## Reikoji

gabian said:


> Hi
> 3302 on Dark Hero is unstable on my rig. Was stable before on FLCK 1900 with PBO / co tuned. on 3302, it is Instant BSOD after logon (whea core 0 and 15). Try to remove the curve, still BSOD on web browsing. Then i remove custom timings on DDR, go to DCOP standard, and now it is working. I would need to test again the curve without the custom timing...
> 
> Do you think i need to rework timing and PBO again or is it bios related ? What is your feedback ?


What is your SOC, IOD and CCD voltages at?


----------



## gabian

Reikoji said:


> What is your SOC, IOD and CCD voltages at?


 I am on AUTO on this settings.


----------



## Reikoji

gabian said:


> I am on AUTO on this settings.


You might need to increase/manually set these for fclk stability. I am currently doing 1.1875 SOC and 1.065 CCD and IOD. I suffer the same instability and reboots leaving those on auto. Back in the day prior to 1302 on Zen 2 I could leave those on auto too, but the auto rules changes ruined that.


----------



## gabian

Reikoji said:


> You might need to increase/manually set these for fclk stability. I am currently doing 1.1875 SOC and 1.065 CCD and IOD. I suffer the same instability and reboots leaving those on auto. Back in the day prior to 1302 on Zen 2 I could leave those on auto too, but the auto rules changes ruined that.


nice idea, i will test this, thanks for your answer


----------



## gabian

Reikoji said:


> You might need to increase/manually set these for fclk stability. I am currently doing 1.1875 SOC and 1.065 CCD and IOD. I suffer the same instability and reboots leaving those on auto. Back in the day prior to 1302 on Zen 2 I could leave those on auto too, but the auto rules changes ruined that.


 You talk about "the latest driver for the _Intel_ WIFI module " previously, is there anything more to do on this ?


----------



## finas

CyrIng said:


> I'm booting ArchLinux.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arch Linux - Downloads
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> archlinux.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This installer will give you the option to switch to a simple console terminal.
> Because Arch is a lightweight distribution, the processor idle states should be trigger pretty fastly.
> 
> Last WE, when I had tested 3302, instant reboot could happen as soon as the login is prompted.
> In other cases, it could happen while I was editing source codes with nano or vi.
> 
> I had toggled global and DF c-states to Auto, Enable, Disable; but also any BAR remap and any OC options I could suspect as a source of instabilities ; but that made any difference.
> 
> Only leaving DDR @ standard 2 GHz provides a stable working state.
> 
> Among the tiny differences I had observed with version 3302 is the Auto 1.8V source voltage which was reduced to a 1.7V , compared to BIOS 2206 which displays a perfect 1.8V



So, with bios 3302, reset to defaults, and only change fclk to 1800 and ram to 3600, no problems at all in windows and arch. Arch ran all night. Tonight I will change timmings to 16-16-16 and mem to 1.38? and whatever else you want me to try.

I am attaching the timmings that defaults use with 1800fclk and 3800ram and also some log outputs from arch.


----------



## Reikoji

gabian said:


> You talk about "the latest driver for the _Intel_ WIFI module " previously, is there anything more to do on this ?


There is an optional windows update that has drivers for the Intel Wifi and Intel Bluetooth modules that was causing BSOD for me after bios update. Ive since reinstalled windows and avoid updating to it. On a windows install on a different drive, I had to safe mode and disable the devices in device manager, as just disabling them in bios doesnt do the trick. Then I was able to get out of the BSOD loop and boot into windows normally. The older driver that is installed by default doesn't BSOD.

The Specific stop code for the BSOD was "System_Thread_Exception_Not_Handled" and one time and one time only did it list the file responsible, which was Netwtw10.sys, the intel wifi driver. I wouldnt be surprised if it were responsible for more than just new bios BSOD's. Sneaky intel....


----------



## CyrIng

finas said:


> So, with bios 3302, reset to defaults, and only change fclk to 1800 and ram to 3600, no problems at all in windows and arch. Arch ran all night. Tonight I will change timmings to 16-16-16 and mem to 1.38? and whatever else you want me to try.
> 
> I am attaching the timmings that defaults use with 1800fclk and 3800ram and also some log outputs from arch.
> 
> View attachment 2482833


Thanks a lot.
I will take the time to study your dump files, but it's very encouraging to try again.

I believe I can't trust some AUTO values.

Let's see if your CAS latency at 16 is stable or not ?

Code 8d I had encountered is presumed to be linked to memory issues. Strange, only version 3302 is doing that.

Pure speculation, but I can imagine that ASUS or AMD within AGESA is changing the "rules" among versions. What about their non-regression tests ...


----------



## koji

xeizo said:


> I ordered a Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360 AIO, the most powerful AIO according to Gamers Nexus and more. Much because it's way thicker radiator than the Asetek OEM:s, and it's original design pumphouse(not Asetek). It will be interesting to see how it compares to my NH-D15, thankfully the Liquid Freezer II is also renowned for being silent. I will run it with six fans, the included very high quality fans and three Noctua NF-A12 Chromax.black. Exciting, will there be any difference, regression or enhancement?
> 
> Typical CB score right now with NH-D15 silent fan profile(yes, very silent during normal use)
> 
> View attachment 2482713


Xeizo, be sure to get the latest AM4 mount, message Arctic if you don't get it in the box. I was on the rev 2 AM4 mount and just swapping to the latest, rev 4 mount with the offset mounting knocked of 7/8°C in max temps and 4/5° on average. Arctic support was kind enough to send it to me, also you need rev 4 to fit on our motherboards, rev 3 will collide with the nvme top cooler/plate.

If you're a bit handy and got the gear you can use the rev 3 as well though, friend just adjusted the bottom mount thing a bit.










Temps with CPU fan at 100% after 5minutes CB20 multicore loop. Also with a Freezer 2 360 using the new offset mount. (pbo on with pretty modest limits 185/125/170 + CO)


----------



## shaolin95

koji said:


> Xeizo, be sure to get the latest AM4 mount, message Arctic if you don't get it in the box. I was on the rev 2 AM4 mount and just swapping to the latest, rev 4 mount with the offset mounting knocked of 7/8°C in max temps and 4/5° on average. Arctic support was kind enough to send it to me, also you need rev 4 to fit on our motherboards, rev 3 will collide with the nvme top cooler/plate.
> 
> If you're a bit handy and got the gear you can use the rev 3 as well though, friend just adjusted the bottom mount thing a bit.
> 
> View attachment 2482860
> Temps with CPU fan at 100% after 5minutes CB20 multicore loop. Also with a Freezer 2 360 using the new offset mount. (pbo on with pretty modest limits 185/125/170 + CO)


This offset you mentioned...I wonder if I can get one for my Thermaltake and if it will make a difference for me. I wouldn't mind cooler temps but not sure if this is just an Artic issue


----------



## GRABibus

koji said:


> Xeizo, be sure to get the latest AM4 mount, message Arctic if you don't get it in the box. I was on the rev 2 AM4 mount and just swapping to the latest, rev 4 mount with the offset mounting knocked of 7/8°C in max temps and 4/5° on average. Arctic support was kind enough to send it to me, also you need rev 4 to fit on our motherboards, rev 3 will collide with the nvme top cooler/plate.
> 
> If you're a bit handy and got the gear you can use the rev 3 as well though, friend just adjusted the bottom mount thing a bit.
> 
> View attachment 2482860
> 
> 
> Temps with CPU fan at 100% after 5minutes CB20 multicore loop. Also with a Freezer 2 360 using the new offset mount. (pbo on with pretty modest limits 185/125/170 + CO)


I am sure he has better results with NH-D15


----------



## koji

GRABibus said:


> I am sure he has better results with NH-D15


As much as I love my D15 I doubt it.


----------



## Goodwin Ti

Friends, tell me please, when whea error shows ID 2, for example, what is this physical core? And when for example shows ID 4? 

Is the ID a core number or a thread number? 

Example: an error in ID 4 is an error in the 5th physical core (counting from 0) or an error in the 4th thread, then this is the 3rd physical core?


----------



## CyrIng

Goodwin Ti said:


> Friends, tell me please, when whea error shows ID 2, for example, what is this physical core? And when for example shows ID 4?
> 
> Is the ID a core number or a thread number?
> 
> Example: an error in ID 4 is an error in the 5th physical core (counting from 0) or an error in the 4th thread, then this is the 3rd physical core?


I think one should refer the APIC id because it is unique


----------



## Goodwin Ti

CyrIng said:


> I think one should refer the APIC id because it is unique


I'm just asking about APIC ID. Does it show the core number or thread number that crashed?


----------



## jamie1073

Goodwin Ti said:


> Friends, tell me please, when whea error shows ID 2, for example, what is this physical core? And when for example shows ID 4?
> 
> Is the ID a core number or a thread number?
> 
> Example: an error in ID 4 is an error in the 5th physical core (counting from 0) or an error in the 4th thread, then this is the 3rd physical core?


Open up CPUz and then hit TOOLS Dropdown Arrow and Save Report as HTML. Then open the report and it will tell you what each cores threads are what.


----------



## CyrIng

Goodwin Ti said:


> I'm just asking about APIC ID. Does it show the core number or thread number that crashed?


You need the CPU topology.
Various Windows tools can provide such map: 

APID={Core; Thread}

My software for Linux CoreFreq also.

APIC topology is queried from the CPUID instruction


----------



## finas

So, I changed timmings to 16-16-16 and nothing else ( didn't touch the voltage setting ) and ran arch all night. no issues.

Tonight I will set voltage to 1.38 but I am starting to think that there may be some kind of issue with your particular setup. One interesting thing would be ( I'm not sure if it is possible ) for you to burn the spd info of my memory modules onto your memory modules.. who knows...

spd dump of my memory:








G.Skill F4-4000C19-16GTZR DDR4-2133 with XMP.thp


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com








CyrIng said:


> Thanks a lot.
> I will take the time to study your dump files, but it's very encouraging to try again.
> 
> I believe I can't trust some AUTO values.
> 
> Let's see if your CAS latency at 16 is stable or not ?
> 
> Code 8d I had encountered is presumed to be linked to memory issues. Strange, only version 3302 is doing that.
> 
> Pure speculation, but I can imagine that ASUS or AMD within AGESA is changing the "rules" among versions. What about their non-regression tests ...


----------



## Gadfly

Man... the level of knowledge in this thread has dropped substantially as of late.

Reading the last few pages was beyond painful.

General observations:

1.) Never use docp.
2.) Manually setting timings means all of the timings, not just the primaries, nothing should be "auto".
3.) If you raise fclk, you are going to need to set vddg and vsoc manually.
4.) If you are running PBO and CO, and are unstable, it's you not the bios
5.) Search before you ask dumb questions.
6.) Manual OC or CTR OC is always better then PBO+CO.
7.) If you have a 8 core+ Ryzen 5000 cpu, you are thermally limited, even with a massive custom loop.


----------



## jomama22

Gadfly said:


> Man... the level of knowledge in this thread has dropped substantially as of late.
> 
> Reading the last few pages was beyond painful.
> 
> General observations:
> 
> 1.) Never use docp.
> 2.) Manually setting timings means all of the timings, not just the primaries, nothing should be "auto".
> 3.) If you raise fclk, you are going to need to set vddg and vsoc manually.
> 4.) If you are running PBO and CO, and are unstable, it's you not the bios
> 5.) Search before you ask dumb questions.
> 6.) Manual OC or CTR OC is always better then PBO+CO.
> 7.) If you have a 8 core+ Ryzen 5000 cpu, you are thermally limited, even with a massive custom loop.


Get off your high horse and chill out. No need to be snarky and throw out insults. I can only imagine how far back your eyes rolled into your head.

For 5: The search here absolutely sucks, you know this. Repetitive questions can be annoying, but how exactly is it affecting you? Because you don't want to read them? You are under 0 obligation to read this thread, but if you must, then just scroll on by the question.

For 6: This is only true when you are using high wattage pulling applications/large multi core programs/avx loads. As an example, my 5950x pbo and co will beat out my 4.8 all core from 1-16 threads of usage in r20. If you are gaming and gpu bottlenecked (which you most likely are on any 5xxx series), in no way is an all core better than using pbo and co. The game could use 12 threads but since you are gpu limited, the actual power pulled by the cpu isn't very high, which allows boosting behavior beyond what a stable all core is going to net you. RDR2 and sottr are good examples of this. In these high thread usage games, you're primary threads (render and game) will utilize the highest boost they can achieve (always beyond your all core stable) while the secondary threads (physics, sound, etc) don't even need the extra cycles of an all core oc and will run at quite low effective clocks. You can do your own testing with sottr in game benchmark and compare your cpu results for all core vs pbo+co.

You need to benchmark what you use and determine what makes sense.

I imagine on lower core count cpu's, the threads in pbo+co that will perform better than an all core is smaller (as pbo limits shrink) but it still comes down to the actual power used by the cpu during certain applications. It's important to actually look at your usage.

For 7: Also untrue. I have the 5950x on its own loop with 2x360 rads. Can run r20 in a loop @ 4.8/1.3v get for hours and never break 85C. What's also interesting here is I can run pbo+co and never break 78C in the same test while only loosing 200 pts (12600(4.8) 12400(pbo+co around 4.725)) in the all core r20 bench.

Yes, AIOs and straight forward warterloops will have trouble, but it doesn't take a crazy loop to tame it (I don't consider 2x360 rads just for the cpu as all that crazy, most could do the same in many, many cases now).


----------



## shaolin95

jomama22 said:


> For 5: The search here absolutely sucks, you know this. Repetitive questions can be annoying, but how exactly is it affecting you? Because you don't want to read them? You are under 0 obligation to read this thread, but if you must, then just scroll on by the question.
> For 6: This is only true when you are using high wattage pulling applications/large multi core programs/avx loads. As an example, my 5950x pbo and co will beat out my 4.8 all core from 1-16 threads of usage in r20. If you are gaming and gpu bottlenecked (which you most likely are on any 5xxx series), in no way is an all core better than using pbo and co. The game could use 12 threads but since you are gpu limited, the actual power pulled by the cpu isn't very high, which allows boosting behavior beyond what a stable all core is going to net you. RDR2 and sottr are good examples of this. In these high thread usage games, you're primary threads (render and game) will utilize the highest boost they can achieve (always beyond your all core stable) while the secondary threads (physics, sound, etc) don't even need the extra cycles of an all core oc and will run at quite low effective clocks. You can do your own testing with sottr in game benchmark and compare your cpu results for all core vs pbo+co.
> 
> You need to benchmark what you use and determine what makes sense.
> 
> I imagine on lower core count cpu's, the threads in pbo+co that will perform better than an all core is smaller (as pbo limits shrink) but it still comes down to the actual power used by the cpu during certain applications. It's important to actually look at your usage.
> 
> For 7: Also untrue. I have the 5950x on its own loop with 2x360 rads. Can run r20 in a loop @ 4.8/1.3v get for hours and never break 85C. What's also interesting here is I can run pbo+co and never break 78C in the same test while only loosing 200 pts (12600(4.8) 12400(pbo+co around 4.725)) in the all core r20 bench.
> 
> Yes, AIOs and straight forward warterloops will have trouble, but it doesn't take a crazy loop to tame it (I don't consider 2x360 rads just for the cpu as all that crazy, most could do the same in many, many cases now).


Would you mind sharing your BIos dump (the one with PBO+CO) for reference?
Thank you!


----------



## shaolin95

GRABibus said:


> I am sure he has better results with NH-D15


Yeah not gonna happen.


----------



## GRABibus

koji said:


> As much as I love my D15 I doubt it.


Yes, for sure.
I was just joking, but he has really good results


----------



## shaolin95

GRABibus said:


> Yes, for sure.
> I was just joking, but he has really good results


Indeed not sure how much more an AIO is going to give him in terms of extra speed, probably not a lot. My dream is a chiller unit build


----------



## jomama22

shaolin95 said:


> Would you mind sharing your BIos dump (the one with PBO+CO) for reference?
> Thank you!


I'm on a dark hero, so keep that in mind, I use dynamic oc switcher, I'll just list the relevant stuff here:
Bios 3003
Global C-states/df states disabled (get idle 00 hardlock otherwise, never had to do this on the msi ace I have...) this will screw with pbo/CO values which can be fixed below.
DOC switcher: 4.8 for ccd0 and ccd1, 1.43v, amp limit 80, temp limit 99
LLC: auto (seems best for pbo+co for me, all core droop in r20 nets 1.294-1.3v)
Pbo/co: 315/235/140. The 140 negates the behavior that c-states disabled brings about. If you don't need c-states disabled, set edc to 220-245. Two best cores -15 and -21. All others -30. Scaler 10x (though see no difference with 1x), max boost +75 (nets max of 5125), temp limit 99.
Mem: 3800cl14/1900 fclock 2x16gb. Vsoc 1.075(nets 1.056 get, I leave llc at auto) vddg's 1.0v, clod-vddp 1.0v, vdimm 1.45v (1.44 get). The vddg's and vddp can be lowered but didn't find any advantage in doing so, for me.
Timings: 








Ignore all the voltages here as they are before lowering. Twrwrsd is 6 on the dark hero, not 4.


----------



## J7SC

shaolin95 said:


> Indeed not sure how much more an AIO is going to give him in terms of extra speed, probably not a lot. My dream is a chiller unit build


I've been using a 360mm AIO on my Crosshair Viii / 3950X combo until most all the custom-loop parts arrived (related question on that below). The first point to underscore is in the upper left pic...a typical 120mm 'AIO' rad vs a 480mm rad - it's not just the length but the width (volume) and fpis etc that matters. The custom 480 is 64mm thick, the AIO 360 is less than 28mm...

Re. the AIO and temps, just moving that temporary setup below an open window got about 550 extra points in CineR23 / multi and about 15 extra points in CineR23 / single...everything was on stock / auto, so yeah, better temp control works great with 3950X and I would suspect at least the same for the Ryzen 5ks.

Hopefully, I can finish the new 'computer-mini-desk' build below over the next few days (2x 480/64s, 2x GTX M160/60s all in push-pull)...it's got to take care of the 3950X with real OC tuning instead of 'stock' and a 3090 Strix OC (around 500W). I've been building dual loops for nearly a decade now, with each loop always carrying two D5s in series (coz, 'reasons'). But on this build, I only have two extra D5s available until I get more delivered next month. How much 'loss' should I expect with a 3950X and a custom PCB 3090 in the same loop with the rad config above and two D5s in series vs. dual loop vs single D5 for the time being ?


----------



## CyrIng

Dear Friend

Here is so far what makes things better.

C8H (WiFi) is flashed again to version 3302

Until the Windows WHEA disappeared from the events mgr, I have raised the following voltages:

DRAM @ 1.355 (from G.Skill specs 1.35)
PLL @ 1.82 (from AUTO reported 1.79 !)
Running Linux is so far stable.
A PLL of 1.81V was not enough and leads to sudden reboots. Thus, trying a 1.82V PLL

Below forcing sleeping states:

Setting Cores to P-State P2 which have a lowest Vcore than P0
The Kernel Idle handler is redirected to my _CoreFreq_ driver where I'm calling MWAIT
Leaving system with barely no CPU activity (see a max 1Mhz)










I will also boot FreeBSD for a stability check.

See U



finas said:


> So, I changed timmings to 16-16-16 and nothing else ( didn't touch the voltage setting ) and ran arch all night. no issues.
> 
> Tonight I will set voltage to 1.38 but I am starting to think that there may be some kind of issue with your particular setup. One interesting thing would be ( I'm not sure if it is possible ) for you to burn the spd info of my memory modules onto your memory modules.. who knows...
> 
> spd dump of my memory:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.Skill F4-4000C19-16GTZR DDR4-2133 with XMP.thp
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


----------



## smbell1979

Has anyone been able to get the Resize BAR working?

I wanted to test it out, so I converted my MBR windows to UEFI, disabled CSM, set 4G decoding to ON and Resize BAR to Auto as well as ON in the top shortcut and no dice... the Nvidia control panel still says OFF


----------



## Reikoji

smbell1979 said:


> Has anyone been able to get the Resize BAR working?
> 
> I wanted to test it out, so I converted my MBR windows to UEFI, disabled CSM, set 4G decoding to ON and Resize BAR to Auto as well as ON in the top shortcut and no dice... the Nvidia control panel still says OFF


The only nvidia gpu with rebar is the 3060 i believe. the rest need bios updates


----------



## smbell1979

Reikoji said:


> The only nvidia gpu with rebar is the 3060 i believe. the rest need bios updates


Ahh, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks!


----------



## xeizo

shaolin95 said:


> Indeed not sure how much more an AIO is going to give him in terms of extra speed, probably not a lot. My dream is a chiller unit build


I don't think it will be much, if anything, but it is fun to try and the Freezer II is really cheap


----------



## xeizo

J7SC said:


> I've been using a 360mm AIO on my Crosshair Viii / 3950X combo until most all the custom-loop parts arrived (related question on that below). The first point to underscore is in the upper left pic...a typical 120mm 'AIO' rad vs a 480mm rad - it's not just the length but the width (volume) and fpis etc that matters. The custom 480 is 64mm thick, the AIO 360 is less than 28mm...
> 
> Re. the AIO and temps, just moving that temporary setup below an open window got about 550 extra points in CineR23 / multi and about 15 extra points in CineR23 / single...everything was on stock / auto, so yeah, better temp control works great with 3950X and I would suspect at least the same for the Ryzen 5ks.
> 
> Hopefully, I can finish the new 'computer-mini-desk' build below over the next few days (2x 480/64s, 2x GTX M160/60s all in push-pull)...it's got to take care of the 3950X with real OC tuning instead of 'stock' and a 3090 Strix OC (around 500W). I've been building dual loops for nearly a decade now, with each loop always carrying two D5s in series (coz, 'reasons'). But on this build, I only have two extra D5s available until I get more delivered next month. How much 'loss' should I expect with a 3950X and a custom PCB 3090 in the same loop with the rad config above and two D5s in series vs. dual loop vs single D5 for the time being ?
> 
> View attachment 2482982


The Freezer II has a extra thick radiator, halfway between yours, possibly results are also halfway between. And it is not Asetek as 99% of the other AIO, it's a original Arctic design even the pumphouse. That's why I'm interested, not ready for custom loop yet.


----------



## J7SC

xeizo said:


> The Freezer II has a extra thick radiator, halfway between yours, possibly results are also halfway between. And it is not Asetek as 99% of the other AIO, it's a original Arctic design even the pumphouse. That's why I'm interested, not ready for custom loop yet.


...yeah, Arctic Liquid Freezer II would be my choice, too if I were to buy a new AIO - the bigger (incl. volume), the better...are you talking about their new 420 (3x 140mm) or the still very good 360 (3x 120mm) ?


----------



## xeizo

J7SC said:


> ...yeah, Arctic Liquid Freezer II would be my choice, too if I were to buy a new AIO - the bigger (incl. volume), the better...are you talking about their new 420 (3x 140mm) or the still very good 360 (3x 120mm) ?


I'm going for the 360 as I have read the test of the 420 where it performs identical to the 360, only difference should be it will take a little longer for the water to heat up. Could be worth it for 24/7 load, but as this is a gaming rig the difference won't probably even be measurable.

And, I guess it will be easier to run six fans in push-pull on the 360, which could be a pro.


----------



## shaolin95

xeizo said:


> I'm going for the 360 as I have read the test of the 420 where it performs identical to the 360, only difference should be it will take a little longer for the water to heat up. Could be worth it for 24/7 load, but as this is a gaming rig the difference won't probably even be measurable.
> 
> And, I guess it will be easier to run six fans in push-pull on the 360, which could be a pro.


The Artic seems to be the best out there right now. If I were to switch and could find a way to "beautify it", the 360 or 420mm would be my choice for sure.


----------



## J7SC

xeizo said:


> I'm going for the 360 as I have read the test of the 420 where it performs identical to the 360, only difference should be it will take a little longer for the water to heat up. Could be worth it for 24/7 load, but as this is a gaming rig the difference won't probably even be measurable.
> 
> And, I guess it will be easier to run six fans in push-pull on the 360, which could be a pro.


...agree. As you can tell per earlier posted-pic, I'm 'quite fond' of the Arctic P12s pwm pst in push/pull after trying a few out replacing powerful but much louder fans (such as 3K GTs, 5K Sunons) ...no more 5-fan Arctic P12 value packs left locally (at a better price than Amazon) coz... 

...same setup, 360 'thin' AIO w/ 6x Arctic P12s in push pull...ambient temp 'open window' change impacts:


----------



## xeizo

J7SC said:


> ...agree. As you can tell per earlier posted-pic, I'm 'quite fond' of the Arctic P12s pwm pst in push/pull after trying a few out replacing powerful but much louder fans (such as 3K GTs, 5K Sunons) ...no more 5-fan Arctic P12 value packs left locally (at a better price than Amazon) coz...
> 
> ...same setup, 360 'thin' AIO w/ 6x Arctic P12s in push pull...ambient temp 'open window' change impacts:
> 
> View attachment 2482991


Yes, ambient is a factor for sure, have to get used to lower scores during summer but it's ok


----------



## GRABibus

shaolin95 said:


> The Artic seems to be the best out there right now. If I were to switch and could find a way to "beautify it", the 360 or 420mm would be my choice for sure.


Don't forget that AIO's act differently if it is an AMD CPU or INTEL CPU.
A 360mm very performing on an INTEL CPU can be a disappointed on a Ryzen , and Vice versa.
I am currently on Corsair H115i RGB Platinum (280mmm) which is not sufficient to push my 5900X at his very best (And i have a "silver +" CPU I think).
if I had to change to 360mm, i would first deeply check some tests comparisons.

Master Liquid 360R, kraken X72 or H150i Capellix would be my choice.


----------



## shaolin95

GRABibus said:


> Don't forget that AIO's act differently if it is an AMD CPU or INTEL CPU.
> A 360mm very performing on an INTEL CPU can be a disappointed on a Ryzen , and Vice versa.
> I am currently on Corsair H115i RGB Platinum (280mmm) which is not sufficient to push my 5900X at his very best (And i have a "silver +" CPU I think).
> if I had to change to 360mm, i would first deeply check some tests comparisons.
> 
> Master Liquid 360R, kraken X72 or H150i Capellix would be my choice.


The Capellix looks nice and I considered it but I will have to see more reports of the Artic ii on Ryzen 5000. Those would be my only options from where I currently have a and even them, mine is doing just fine so this is more in a future upgrade which in a way, would make more sense to custom loop. But THAT is a whole different ballgame and not sure I want to deal with that lol
So for now, I went back to my old days and using my cold air duct to my radiator which works really nice. 
Plus when I move, I plan to have a vent to push the hot air out of my room.


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> Don't forget that AIO's act differently if it is an AMD CPU or INTEL CPU.
> A 360mm very performing on an INTEL CPU can be a disappointed on a Ryzen , and Vice versa.
> I am currently on Corsair H115i RGB Platinum (280mmm) which is not sufficient to push my 5900X at his very best (And i have a "silver +" CPU I think).
> if I had to change to 360mm, i would first deeply check some tests comparisons.
> 
> Master Liquid 360R, kraken X72 or H150i Capellix would be my choice.


Those are all Asetek, which was explained in previous posts why not so great.

Regarding the Capellix, I've read a few tests on it as it _looks_ cool, however it doesn't perform even a tiny bit better than the old H150i Pro only difference is higher rpm fans(louder) which isn't exactly a desirable difference.

And, I have the H150i Pro RGB already, it's on my 3900X. While it cools well, it isn't better than NH-D15(I've run 3900X on both). Nice cooler though, I use it with Be Quiet! PWM fans which are indeed very quiet. The original maglev fans sounded a lot when they revved up high(and they will sound plenty more on Capellix as it has much higher rpm fans), I now use them as low rpm top outtake fans on one of my boxes.


----------



## domdtxdissar

J7SC said:


> ...agree. As you can tell per earlier posted-pic, I'm 'quite fond' of the Arctic P12s pwm pst in push/pull after trying a few out replacing powerful but much louder fans (such as 3K GTs, 5K Sunons) ...no more 5-fan Arctic P12 value packs left locally (at a better price than Amazon) coz...
> 
> ...same setup, 360 'thin' AIO w/ 6x Arctic P12s in push pull...ambient temp 'open window' change impacts:
> 
> View attachment 2482991


This is my 3950x without cold ambient. 








Was running this setup before i got my 5950x


----------



## PowerK

jomama22 said:


> I'm on a dark hero, so keep that in mind, I use dynamic oc switcher, I'll just list the relevant stuff here:
> Bios 3003
> Global C-states/df states disabled (get idle 00 hardlock otherwise, never had to do this on the msi ace I have...) this will screw with pbo/CO values which can be fixed below.
> DOC switcher: 4.8 for ccd0 and ccd1, 1.43v, amp limit 80, temp limit 99.


Whoa, is that voltage ok for 24/7?
I have mine set at 1.315V with 45A for 4.7GHz in Dynamic OC Switcher and I thought I was pushing it.


----------



## jomama22

PowerK said:


> Whoa, is that voltage ok for 24/7?
> I have mine set at 1.315V with 45A for 4.7GHz in Dynamic OC Switcher and I thought I was pushing it.


1.43v is just the voltage before llc (auto is a pretty heavy droop). Under load it drops too 1.294-1.3 for r20 and further for heavy avx loads. It is what is fully stable for y-cruncher and other intensive avx/mixed work loads.

And yes, those types of voltages are completely safe. They are typical voltages for the chip under pbo conditions. r20 voltages for pbo all core will hover around 1.281v-1.313v sustained. All core pbo for y-cruncher is 1.275-1.3v. Light load pbo will peak at upwards of 1.5v for any given core and sustain 1.45v for longer durations.

You can see the voltage used by pbo by just running different thread count runs of r20. From single up to your max threads, it will sustain anywhere from 1.281-1.45v+ (ignoring CO).


----------



## RonLazer

What software do people use to dump their BIOS configs?


----------



## lmfodor

GRABibus said:


> Don't forget that AIO's act differently if it is an AMD CPU or INTEL CPU.
> A 360mm very performing on an INTEL CPU can be a disappointed on a Ryzen , and Vice versa.
> I am currently on Corsair H115i RGB Platinum (280mmm) which is not sufficient to push my 5900X at his very best (And i have a "silver +" CPU I think).
> if I had to change to 360mm, i would first deeply check some tests comparisons.
> 
> Master Liquid 360R, kraken X72 or H150i Capellix would be my choice.


The EK AIO is performing very well on my 5900x which is also a silver. What are your temps under a benchmark? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## GRABibus

lmfodor said:


> The EK AIO is performing very well on my 5900x which is also a silver. What are your temps under a benchmark?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


With my settings in signature for PBO/CO overclock, with all fans at 100%, 21degrees ambient, Case PC open, H115i pump at 100% with push-pull fans, I get 73degrees after 3 or 4 rounds of CBR20 multithread test on TDie CCD1.

in Realbench, same configuration as beyond, 86degrees max on Tdie CCD1 after 8 hours stress test. This 86degrees is a single peak, average temp on TDie CCD1 is around 77degrees.

too much efforts to decrease temps....

I really need to change to 360mm high end AIO.


----------



## stimpy88

RonLazer said:


> What software do people use to dump their BIOS configs?


You do it from inside the BIOS itself. You save the settings to a USB stick.

There are two options, one is to save as a .txt file, and that's the one where you can see the settings listed in plain text. The other option is a file that the BIOS itself can import.


----------



## finas

I set the voltage to 1.38v and ran arch overnight. No issues again. :/

If there is something else that you want me to try let me know and I will do it tonight.






CyrIng said:


> Dear Friend
> 
> Here is so far what makes things better.
> 
> C8H (WiFi) is flashed again to version 3302
> 
> Until the Windows WHEA disappeared from the events mgr, I have raised the following voltages:
> 
> DRAM @ 1.355 (from G.Skill specs 1.35)
> PLL @ 1.82 (from AUTO reported 1.79 !)
> Running Linux is so far stable.
> A PLL of 1.81V was not enough and leads to sudden reboots. Thus, trying a 1.82V PLL
> 
> Below forcing sleeping states:
> 
> Setting Cores to P-State P2 which have a lowest Vcore than P0
> The Kernel Idle handler is redirected to my _CoreFreq_ driver where I'm calling MWAIT
> Leaving system with barely no CPU activity (see a max 1Mhz)
> 
> View attachment 2482981
> 
> 
> I will also boot FreeBSD for a stability check.
> 
> See U


----------



## lmfodor

GRABibus said:


> With my settings in signature for PBO/CO overclock, with all fans at 100%, 21degrees ambient, Case PC open, H115i pump at 100% with push-pull fans, I get 73degrees after 3 or 4 rounds of CBR20 multithread test on TDie CCD1.
> 
> in Realbench, same configuration as beyond, 86degrees max on Tdie CCD1 after 8 hours stress test. This 86degrees is a single peak, average temp on TDie CCD1 is around 77degrees.
> 
> too much efforts to decrease temps....
> 
> I really need to change to 360mm high end AIO.


I'm going to try to emulate your configuration to see what temperatures I get with the EK. Today with a stable configuration I did not exceed 65/67 degrees in CR20, clocks at 5000.. 

I am really surprised by its good performance and more so with the 5900 that heats up a lot with OC. I saw many reviews about the last generations of AIO and I was between the Artic and this one. What happened to me with Artic is that it does not send the components well, there are missing brackets, screws ... and there is not much stock.

. I’ll tell you how it goes 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## GRABibus

lmfodor said:


> I'm going to try to emulate your configuration to see what temperatures I get with the EK. Today with a stable configuration I did not exceed 65/67 degrees in CR20, clocks at 5000..
> 
> I am really surprised by its good performance and more so with the 5900 that heats up a lot with OC. I saw many reviews about the last generations of AIO and I was between the Artic and this one. What happened to me with Artic is that it does not send the components well, there are missing brackets, screws ... and there is not much stock.
> 
> . I’ll tell you how it goes
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I sale one Arctic 360 😊.
It is new.
But in Argentina, not easy and expensive to send 😊


----------



## GRABibus

In fact I will keep it and will mount probably in next future to replace H115i


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> In fact I will keep it and will mount probably in next future to replace H115i


Waiting for impressions, my order was pushed back to the middle of April, doesn't matter hopefully I get the latest revision with the right brackets included


----------



## GRABibus

I am not sure to have the right brackets. i wil have to check. In several weeks now, due to work.

Thank you.


----------



## lmfodor

GRABibus said:


> I sale one Arctic 360 [emoji4].
> It is new.
> But in Argentina, not easy and expensive to send [emoji4]


Oops! If I knew I would have bought it

It’s no so expensive the shipment by DHL. The expensive part are the customs taxes, a 50% above of the declared price. However if it’s used, the sender can declare any value .. so it’s more ease. 

In my case, the last generation of products (always the latest tech) that not arrives to Argentina i have to pay 50% on top. I just bought an expensive memory kit of 2x16 trident Z Neo 3800 CL14, which cost 500 usd in Amazon and I have to add the taxes to 750 usd. It’s the price to get the latest technology. 

But if the product is imported, believe it or not, the products cost much less than in the United States. because we import at an “official” dollar which is half the spot market price. A few months ago I was about to buy a second EVGA FTW3 3090, you know at what price? 1600 usd. And I didn’t buy it because the EVGA forum scared me with all the RMA problems and different faults. But it would have been a great deal, because in December the whole issue of mining had not yet exploded and prices were still achieved at or near msrp in the US. I would like to change my CH8 for the Dark model. I am waiting for them to import it, and in that case instead of being 70 usd I will get it for less than 500 usd. Strangers things that happen in second world countries


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Karagra

xeizo said:


> I'm going for the 360 as I have read the test of the 420 where it performs identical to the 360, only difference should be it will take a little longer for the water to heat up. Could be worth it for 24/7 load, but as this is a gaming rig the difference won't probably even be measurable.
> 
> And, I guess it will be easier to run six fans in push-pull on the 360, which could be a pro.


Yeah I am running the 280mm Freezer II in a SFF build with a 5800x.. my temps never go over 83c and thats a lucky run in Cinebench on PBO.. but I now use 4.6ghz 1.2v for streaming/gaming since I see higher fps in the game I stream (BDO) with a all core overclock+ higher scores in cinebench and also never go over 65c


----------



## CyrIng

No and thank you very much for your help.

Chasing the Hardware Error events, I have increased step by step the following voltages up to a stable system.


Code:


CPU SOC Voltage [Offset mode]
VDDCR SOC Offset Mode Sign [+]
- VDDSOC Voltage Offset [0.02500]
DRAM Voltage [1.37000]
1.8V PLL Voltage [1.81000]












Code:


Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
Performance Enhancer [Auto]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3600MHz]
FCLK Frequency [1800MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Enabled]
CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Core VID [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
CCX1 Ratio [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
CCX1 Ratio [Auto]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
Performance Bias [None]
PBO Fmax Enhancer [Disabled]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [Auto]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [16]
Trcdrd [16]
Trcdwr [16]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [16]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [36]
Trc [52]
TrrdS [4]
TrrdL [9]
Tfaw [44]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr [Auto]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [Auto]
TwrwrScl [Auto]
Trfc [Auto]
Trfc2 [Auto]
Trfc4 [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
RttNom [Auto]
RttWr [Auto]
RttPark [Auto]
MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
MemCkeSetup [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [Auto]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
CPU Current Capability [Auto]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
Active Frequency Mode [Disabled]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Auto]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Auto]
DRAM Current Capability [100%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
CPU SOC Voltage [Offset mode]
VDDCR SOC Offset Mode Sign [+]
- VDDSOC Voltage Offset [0.02500]
DRAM Voltage [1.37000]
VDDG CCD Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [Auto]
CLDO VDDP voltage [Auto]
1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [1.81000]
Security Device Support [Enable]
SHA-1 PCR Bank [Enabled]
SHA256 PCR Bank [Enabled]
Pending operation [None]
Platform Hierarchy [Enabled]
Storage Hierarchy [Enabled]
Endorsement Hierarchy [Enabled]
TPM 2.0 UEFI Spec Version [TCG_2]
Physical Presence Spec Version [1.3]
Disable Block Sid [Disabled]
TPM Device Selection [Firmware TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Disabled]
PSS Support [Enabled]
PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
NX Mode [Enabled]
SVM Mode [Enabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
CCD Control [Auto]
SATA Port Enable [Disabled]
NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
When system is in working state [All On]
Q-Code LED Function [Auto]
When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [Aura Off]
Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Auto]
Realtek PXE OPROM [Setup]
Intel LAN Controller [Auto]
Intel LAN OPROM [Setup]
ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Disabled]
Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Disabled]
PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_2 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
SB Link Mode [Auto]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Above 4G Decoding [Disabled]
SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
USB DISK 2.0 PMAP [Auto]
USB Device Enable [Enabled]
U32G2_2 [Enabled]
U32G2_3 [Enabled]
U32G2_4 [Enabled]
U32G1_10 [Enabled]
U32G1_11 [Enabled]
USB12 [Enabled]
USB13 [Enabled]
U32G2_7 [Enabled]
U32G2_8 [Enabled]
U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Device [N\A]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
PCH Fan Speed [Monitor]
Flow Rate [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
CPU Fan Step Up [0 sec]
CPU Fan Step Down [0 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
CPU Fan Profile [Manual]
CPU Fan Upper Temperature [70]
CPU Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
CPU Fan Middle Temperature [42]
CPU Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [50]
CPU Fan Lower Temperature [27]
CPU Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [20]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
High Amp Fan Profile [Standard]
Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Fast Boot [Disabled]
Boot Logo Display [Disabled]
Bootup NumLock State [On]
POST Report [5 sec]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Enabled]
Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
Boot from Network Devices [Legacy only]
Boot from Storage Devices [Legacy only]
Boot from PCI-E/PCI Expansion Devices [Legacy only]
OS Type [Other OS]
AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
Flexkey [Reset]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Profile Name []
Save to Profile [1]
DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A2]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Disabled]
CPU Frequency [0]
CPU Voltage [0]
CCD Control [Auto]
Core control [Auto]
SMT Control [Auto]
Overclock [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
ECO Mode [Disable]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Disable]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
Global C-state Control [Enabled]
Power Supply Idle Control [Auto]
SEV ASID Count [Auto]
SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
Local APIC Mode [x2APIC]
ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Enabled]
MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
PPIN Opt-in [Enabled]
Indirect Branch Prediction Speculation [Auto]
DRAM scrub time [Auto]
Poison scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Memory interleaving [Auto]
Memory interleaving size [Auto]
1TB remap [Auto]
DRAM map inversion [Auto]
ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Enabled]
ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
GMI encryption control [Auto]
xGMI encryption control [Auto]
CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
PcsCG control [Auto]
Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
Memory Clear [Auto]
Overclock [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Data Poisoning [Auto]
DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
RCD Parity [Auto]
DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
Write CRC Enable [Auto]
DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
TSME [Auto]
Data Scramble [Auto]
DFE Read Training [Auto]
FFE Write Training [Auto]
PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
BankGroupSwap [Auto]
BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
Address Hash Bank [Auto]
Address Hash CS [Auto]
Address Hash Rm [Auto]
SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
MBIST Enable [Disabled]
Pattern Select [PRBS]
Pattern Length(MTS) [3]
Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
IOMMU [Enabled]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
FCLK Frequency [Auto]
SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Disabled]
ACS Enable [Auto]
PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
Max Voltage Offset [Auto]
cTDP Control [Auto]
EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
APBDIS [Auto]
DF Cstates [Auto]
CPPC [Enabled]
CPPC Preferred Cores [Enabled]
NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
Early Link Speed [Auto]
Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
Preferred IO [Auto]
CV test [Auto]
Loopback Mode [Auto]
SRIS [Auto]
Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]




finas said:


> I set the voltage to 1.38v and ran arch overnight. No issues again. :/
> 
> If there is something else that you want me to try let me know and I will do it tonight.


----------



## CyrIng

DRAM voltage needs 1.38 V , PLL can remain AUTO and SoC >= 1.1 V












CyrIng said:


> No and thank you very much for your help.
> 
> Chasing the Hardware Error events, I have increased step by step the following voltages up to a stable system.
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> CPU SOC Voltage [Offset mode]
> VDDCR SOC Offset Mode Sign [+]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Offset [0.02500]
> DRAM Voltage [1.37000]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [1.81000]
> 
> 
> View attachment 2483078
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> Performance Enhancer [Auto]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3600MHz]
> FCLK Frequency [1800MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Enabled]
> CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> Core VID [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> CCX1 Ratio [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> CCX1 Ratio [Auto]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> Performance Bias [None]
> PBO Fmax Enhancer [Disabled]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [Auto]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [16]
> Trcdrd [16]
> Trcdwr [16]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [16]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [36]
> Trc [52]
> TrrdS [4]
> TrrdL [9]
> Tfaw [44]
> TwtrS [Auto]
> TwtrL [Auto]
> Twr [Auto]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [Auto]
> TwrwrScl [Auto]
> Trfc [Auto]
> Trfc2 [Auto]
> Trfc4 [Auto]
> Tcwl [Auto]
> Trtp [Auto]
> Trdwr [Auto]
> Twrrd [Auto]
> TwrwrSc [Auto]
> TwrwrSd [Auto]
> TwrwrDd [Auto]
> TrdrdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSd [Auto]
> TrdrdDd [Auto]
> Tcke [Auto]
> ProcODT [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> RttNom [Auto]
> RttWr [Auto]
> RttPark [Auto]
> MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren [Auto]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [Auto]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [Auto]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [Auto]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
> Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
> CPU Current Capability [Auto]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
> Active Frequency Mode [Disabled]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Auto]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Auto]
> DRAM Current Capability [100%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
> CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
> Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Offset mode]
> VDDCR SOC Offset Mode Sign [+]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Offset [0.02500]
> DRAM Voltage [1.37000]
> VDDG CCD Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG IOD Voltage Control [Auto]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [Auto]
> 1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [1.81000]
> Security Device Support [Enable]
> SHA-1 PCR Bank [Enabled]
> SHA256 PCR Bank [Enabled]
> Pending operation [None]
> Platform Hierarchy [Enabled]
> Storage Hierarchy [Enabled]
> Endorsement Hierarchy [Enabled]
> TPM 2.0 UEFI Spec Version [TCG_2]
> Physical Presence Spec Version [1.3]
> Disable Block Sid [Disabled]
> TPM Device Selection [Firmware TPM]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Disabled]
> PSS Support [Enabled]
> PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
> NX Mode [Enabled]
> SVM Mode [Enabled]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> SATA Port Enable [Disabled]
> NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
> PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
> When system is in working state [All On]
> Q-Code LED Function [Auto]
> When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [Aura Off]
> Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Auto]
> Realtek PXE OPROM [Setup]
> Intel LAN Controller [Auto]
> Intel LAN OPROM [Setup]
> ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
> Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Disabled]
> Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
> USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Disabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX16_2 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX16_3 Mode [Auto]
> M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
> M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
> SB Link Mode [Auto]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> Above 4G Decoding [Disabled]
> SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
> Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> USB DISK 2.0 PMAP [Auto]
> USB Device Enable [Enabled]
> U32G2_2 [Enabled]
> U32G2_3 [Enabled]
> U32G2_4 [Enabled]
> U32G1_10 [Enabled]
> U32G1_11 [Enabled]
> USB12 [Enabled]
> USB13 [Enabled]
> U32G2_7 [Enabled]
> U32G2_8 [Enabled]
> U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Device [N\A]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> VRM Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> PCH Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Flow Rate [Monitor]
> CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> CPU Fan Step Up [0 sec]
> CPU Fan Step Down [0 sec]
> CPU Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> CPU Fan Profile [Manual]
> CPU Fan Upper Temperature [70]
> CPU Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> CPU Fan Middle Temperature [42]
> CPU Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [50]
> CPU Fan Lower Temperature [27]
> CPU Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [20]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
> High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
> High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
> High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> High Amp Fan Profile [Standard]
> Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> Fast Boot [Disabled]
> Boot Logo Display [Disabled]
> Bootup NumLock State [On]
> POST Report [5 sec]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
> Launch CSM [Enabled]
> Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
> Boot from Network Devices [Legacy only]
> Boot from Storage Devices [Legacy only]
> Boot from PCI-E/PCI Expansion Devices [Legacy only]
> OS Type [Other OS]
> AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
> Flexkey [Reset]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> Profile Name []
> Save to Profile [1]
> DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A2]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
> Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Disabled]
> CPU Frequency [0]
> CPU Voltage [0]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> Core control [Auto]
> SMT Control [Auto]
> Overclock [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
> ECO Mode [Disable]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> LN2 Mode [Disable]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
> L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> Global C-state Control [Enabled]
> Power Supply Idle Control [Auto]
> SEV ASID Count [Auto]
> SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
> Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
> Local APIC Mode [x2APIC]
> ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Enabled]
> MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
> PPIN Opt-in [Enabled]
> Indirect Branch Prediction Speculation [Auto]
> DRAM scrub time [Auto]
> Poison scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> Memory interleaving [Auto]
> Memory interleaving size [Auto]
> 1TB remap [Auto]
> DRAM map inversion [Auto]
> ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Enabled]
> ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
> GMI encryption control [Auto]
> xGMI encryption control [Auto]
> CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
> 4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> 3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
> PcsCG control [Auto]
> Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
> Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
> CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
> Memory Clear [Auto]
> Overclock [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
> DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Data Poisoning [Auto]
> DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
> RCD Parity [Auto]
> DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
> Write CRC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
> Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
> DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
> DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
> TSME [Auto]
> Data Scramble [Auto]
> DFE Read Training [Auto]
> FFE Write Training [Auto]
> PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
> MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
> CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
> Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
> BankGroupSwap [Auto]
> BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
> Address Hash Bank [Auto]
> Address Hash CS [Auto]
> Address Hash Rm [Auto]
> SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
> MBIST Enable [Disabled]
> Pattern Select [PRBS]
> Pattern Length(MTS) [3]
> Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
> Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
> Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> IOMMU [Enabled]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> FCLK Frequency [Auto]
> SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
> UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
> LN2 Mode [Disabled]
> ACS Enable [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
> PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
> Max Voltage Offset [Auto]
> cTDP Control [Auto]
> EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
> Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
> APBDIS [Auto]
> DF Cstates [Auto]
> CPPC [Enabled]
> CPPC Preferred Cores [Enabled]
> NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
> Early Link Speed [Auto]
> Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
> Preferred IO [Auto]
> CV test [Auto]
> Loopback Mode [Auto]
> SRIS [Auto]
> Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]


----------



## CyrIng

If the Kernel log is flooded with those errors; up to a system crash ...


Code:


kernel: [Hardware Error]: Corrected error, no action required.
kernel: [Hardware Error]: CPU:0 (17:71:0) MC25_STATUS[-|CE|MiscV|-|-|-|-|CECC|-|-|-]: 0x98004000003e0000
kernel: [Hardware Error]: IPID: 0x000100ff03830400
kernel: [Hardware Error]: Platform Security Processor Ext. Error Code: 62
kernel: [Hardware Error]: cache level: RESV, tx: INSN

... then try the BIOS option *Power Supply Idle Control* = _Typical Current Idle_


----------



## lmfodor

Hi, I wonder if anyone upgraded a CH8 Wifi for the new Dark Hero. It's worth it? I know that it has mosfets bigger from 60 to 90A and most interesting is the Dynamic OC Sw. I don't know if it changes something in the memory management. I just bought the new TridentZ optimized for Rayzen 5000 from 3800CL14 which theoretically with their new XMP profile should work without problems at 1900 IF. I receive them next Monday and since I see Dark Hero available at a good price (400 usd), I’d like to know if it is really worth it or not. Do you have any improvement in how you handle the IF?

Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## koji

lmfodor said:


> Hi, I wonder if anyone upgraded a CH8 Wifi for the new Dark Hero. It's worth it? I know that it has mosfets bigger from 60 to 90A and most interesting is the Dynamic OC Sw. I don't know if it changes something in the memory management. I just bought the new TridentZ optimized for Rayzen 5000 from 3800CL14 which theoretically with their new XMP profile should work without problems at 1900 IF. I receive them next Monday and since I see Dark Hero available at a good price (400 usd), I’d like to know if it is really worth it or not. Do you have any improvement in how you handle the IF?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I'm running that kit of ram on a dark hero @ 1900mhz fclk without issues.

I wouldn't upgrade for the Dynamic OC switch, it's a great feature but you can close in on that performance with a well configured CO + PBO. Sometimes my board would get stuck in Dynamic/manual OC mode and not drop back down to auto/pbo. It's also a bit harder to get stable. (cause you ideally want to avoid running any kind of LLC not to hamper your PBO so you'll have to do your manual OC just based on the VID and calculate the droop, droop is dependent on the kind of load though, it's quite the balancing act)

I've also always thought it felt "slow" to switch between the two but that's probably just in my head.

It's great for big numbers in synthetic benchmarks though, you can get the best numbers there but real world, whatever. (my 2c)


----------



## lmfodor

koji said:


> I'm running that kit of ram on a dark hero @ 1900mhz fclk without issues.
> 
> I wouldn't upgrade for the Dynamic OC switch, it's a great feature but you can close in on that performance with a well configured CO + PBO. Sometimes my board would get stuck in Dynamic/manual OC mode and not drop back down to auto/pbo. It's also a bit harder to get stable. (cause you ideally want to avoid running any kind of LLC not to hamper your PBO so you'll have to do your manual OC just based on the VID and calculate the droop, droop is dependent on the kind of load though, it's quite the balancing act)
> 
> I've also always thought it felt "slow" to switch between the two but that's probably just in my head.
> 
> It's great for big numbers in synthetic benchmarks though, you can get the best numbers there but real world, whatever. (my 2c)



Very good advise!

I'm currently working on the curve, testing different combinations to get the best performance and stability. In fact I am testing the CoreCycler (which takes many days to complete the test) and the OOCT. I thought that with the Dynamic OC Switcher it would be easier. 

I’m also eager to see how the new memories 
F4-3800C14D-32GTZN that will come to me this Monday behave. I had a lot of WHEA BSOD .. but no Whea Logs .. and I spent a lot of time reinstalling windows, testing configurations, I thought it was the processor, until I removed all the components, installed everything again and as I had bought a HyperX of 4000CL18 that are in the QVL I never thought that the issue could be the memories. Well, I changed them for an old Adata XPG and everything was solved. Then I'll let you how the new Tridenz behave, I could never have a POST selecting 1900 from IF. Let's see what happens! thank you for your advice



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Stoke

Can someone confirm CTR not working anymore after flashing BIOS 3401?


----------



## Chili195

koji said:


> I'm running that kit of ram on a dark hero @ 1900mhz fclk without issues.
> 
> I wouldn't upgrade for the Dynamic OC switch, it's a great feature but you can close in on that performance with a well configured CO + PBO. Sometimes my board would get stuck in Dynamic/manual OC mode and not drop back down to auto/pbo. It's also a bit harder to get stable. (cause you ideally want to avoid running any kind of LLC not to hamper your PBO so you'll have to do your manual OC just based on the VID and calculate the droop, droop is dependent on the kind of load though, it's quite the balancing act)
> 
> I've also always thought it felt "slow" to switch between the two but that's probably just in my head.
> 
> It's great for big numbers in synthetic benchmarks though, you can get the best numbers there but real world, whatever. (my 2c)


+1 this was my experience too. A well optimised PBO and CO pretty much matched Dynamic OC without any of the quirks or potential stability issues.


----------



## xeizo

Didn't even know there was a new bios, but it's under "other OS" on the support pages. And YES, it has the long awaited USB fix!

About CTR, I have no intention of trying it.


----------



## shaolin95

xeizo said:


> Didn't even know there was a new bios, but it's under "other OS" on the support pages. And YES, it has the long awaited USB fix!
> 
> About CTR, I have no intention of trying it.


I am not seeing a new one for the Hero Wifi.



PS Oh you save to select OS as OTHERS then it shows. Cool!


----------



## CyrIng

3401 can't be worth than 3302, isn't it ?

Let's see for those Hardware Errors


----------



## lmfodor

Does anybody tried CoreCycler? to test the CO values? I also saw that the new version of OOCT 8 brings a Cycler option. What happens to me with the Core Cycler is it requires 144 hours to finalize the test, crazy and imposible at least form me! On the other hand, the OOCT one could detect the error faster, but I still don't know how these tests check the stability in iddle. At least that's the goal.









CoreCycler - tool for testing Curve Optimizer settings


Over the last couple of days resp. weeks I've been working with the Curve Optimizer for Ryzen processors a bit more, but I hadn't found a good way to test the settings for stability. CineBench single threaded almost always worked fine, and getting Prime95 stable with load on all cores was also...




www.overclock.net





And this is the thread where are discussing about the test with the OOCT 8. I don’t understand why he is unselecting all physical cores but #0 and how is the cycle working..


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/m6eesg
OCCT 8.x.x
CPU test
Data set: Large
Mode: Extreme
Load type: Variable
Instructions set: Auto
Threads: Advanced
Then click on the Advanced Thread Settings button and in that page:
Unselect all Physical Cores but Core #0
Virtual Cores: Physical Only,
Core Cycle: Cycle Active Core every 5s,
Swap Active/Inactive Cores: Disabled

what do you think? Which one would you choose to test the CO?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## xeizo

It looks like the sudden idle single core peak boosts are ca 100MHz lower with 3401, exact same settings, could that be the USB-fix? Maybe it _was_ the very aggressive boost behavior that was behind glitches in USB. Possibly it has been toned down a little. And that was why Zen 2 hardly suffered, as it boosts like a snail in comparison to Zen 3.


----------



## LorDClockaN

Where did you guys got 3401 bios?


----------



## GRABibus

I don’t see it on French site for C8H


----------



## xeizo

It's on Asus page, under "other OS"



https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_HERO_WI-FI/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3401.ZIP



Anyway, confirmed it boosts "not as high" in HWINFO64, but actual performance is within the margin of error. I did a baseline in Geekbench 5 compared to 3301:

ASUS System Product Name vs ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser

Performs about the same really, if it means more stable USB it is clearly worth it.


----------



## GRABibus

My feeling is that they are decreasing performances bios by bios to solve issues.


----------



## GRABibus

delete


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> My feeling is that they are decreasing performances bios by bios to solve issues.


Yes, they are at least decreasing boost, but general performance looks to not have decreased at all. I can go back back and look at old benchmarks and differences are in fact really small.


----------



## xeizo

It looks like the new bios is only released for WiFi and Dark Hero so far


----------



## LorDClockaN

It wasn't available for dark hero when I asked but now it is and only new thing it is - Fix USB connectivity issue


----------



## GRABibus

I don’t have any USB issues from my side.
Should be nice to know which USB issues they solve with this Bios release.


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> I don’t have any USB issues from my side.
> Should be nice to know which USB issues they solve with this Bios release.


The USB issues where the worst with the first V2 bioses, even I had dropouts, but it has been ok since a couple of bioses back. Those who are the worst affected are the VR crowd with Reverb G2 who have had a lot of issues.


----------



## lmfodor

xeizo said:


> It looks like the new bios is only released for WiFi and Dark Hero so far


.. and I just wondering whether to change the Mobo to Dark Hero! I hope the BIOS reaches the old Wifi version quickly. I do not know what the error is with the USB, I read that it happens when many copies are made


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## LorDClockaN

It's well known issue with Ryzen 5000








AMD Suggests Possible Fixes for Ryzen USB Connectivity Issues


Here, give this a shot




www.tomshardware.com


----------



## xeizo

Performance in TimeSpy is also on par with previous bioses using this new 3401. No regression is visible, result is within tolerances for different ambient temps:


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> Performance in TimeSpy is also on par with previous bioses using this new 3401. No regression is visible, result is within tolerances for different ambient temps:
> 
> View attachment 2483168


good news


----------



## jomama22

koji said:


> I'm running that kit of ram on a dark hero @ 1900mhz fclk without issues.
> 
> I wouldn't upgrade for the Dynamic OC switch, it's a great feature but you can close in on that performance with a well configured CO + PBO. Sometimes my board would get stuck in Dynamic/manual OC mode and not drop back down to auto/pbo. It's also a bit harder to get stable. (cause you ideally want to avoid running any kind of LLC not to hamper your PBO so you'll have to do your manual OC just based on the VID and calculate the droop, droop is dependent on the kind of load though, it's quite the balancing act)
> 
> I've also always thought it felt "slow" to switch between the two but that's probably just in my head.
> 
> It's great for big numbers in synthetic benchmarks though, you can get the best numbers there but real world, whatever. (my 2c)


Personally havn't had dos hang up on me or have issues switching quickly, comparing all core oc vs dos all core runs result in the same scores. 

Using dos with auto llc is how I run it as well. Since you are already setting an amperage line for when it switches, the vid set will never be touched by an all core load anyway. Best just to test an all core oc by itself with auto llc to find where you're stable and the vid needed and then just apply that when using dos.

Depending on the number of cores you have, pbo will beat out the all core a lot of the time. For my 5950x, r20 runs will result in better scores for pbo up to 12 threads used (using a 4.8 all core oc). So I have the amp limit set quite high in dos.


----------



## xProlific

I used Corecycler to dial in Core Optimizer. It made it very easy to find instabilities.


----------



## Reikoji

LorDClockaN said:


> It's well known issue with Ryzen 5000
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD Suggests Possible Fixes for Ryzen USB Connectivity Issues
> 
> 
> Here, give this a shot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.tomshardware.com


Amd acknowledge everything that props up on reddit. Never had it with my 3900x or my 5800x. not on AMDs side, anyway. Logitech put out a ghub update last month that dropout issues as well, tho i didnt have anyhthjng noticeable on my system.

Tho, i would wager to guess it will have something to do with inadequate voltage settings. As people have stated earlier, soc/iod/ccd voltage being too low for stability caused choppy music and usb dropouts. This did also occur with me until fixed those voltages when i was first setting up my 5800x. leaving those on auto and trying to do 1900fclk is often no dice. They might end up adjusting those on their end.


----------



## xeizo

Reikoji said:


> Amd acknowledge everything that props up on reddit. Never had it with my 3900x or my 5800x.


Because you haven't had it, it is not unreal. I had those issues myself, but only with older bioses(the first V2:s for Zen 3). Steinberg UR22C was unusable for a while. But has been good for several bios revisions now.

But worst problems looks to have been with VR headsets, and are current, hopefully this will fix it for those users.


----------



## Reikoji

xeizo said:


> Because you haven't had it, it is not unreal. I had those issues myself, but only with older bioses(the first V2:s for Zen 3). Steinberg UR22C was unusable for a while. But has been good for several bios revisions now.
> 
> But worst problems looks to have been with VR headsets, and are current, hopefully this will fix it for those users.


And increasing 3 specific voltages is gonna be the fix, as my long edits suggests. auto volts too low for most. If it somehow narrowed down to a specific device then it cant really be called a global usb issue boardside. what redditors are good at is rushing to reddit the very moment something happens and complains without attempting to diagnose anything. AMD take what gets posted seriously because it would just look bad on them if they didnt, but as with your bios updates before any specific usb fix agesa, the problems mostly work themsekves out for anyone that has a clue.


----------



## xeizo

Reikoji said:


> And increasing 3 specific voltages is gonna be the fix, as my long edits suggests. auto volts too low for most. If it somehow narrowed down to a specific device then it cant really be called a global usb issue boardside. what redditors are good at is rushing to reddit the very moment something happens and complains without attempting to diagnose anything. AMD take what gets posted seriously because it would just look bad on them if they didnt, but as with your bios updates before any specific usb fix agesa, the problems mostly work themsekves out for anyone that has a clue.


It's hard to know the exact issue, as the AGESA is a Black Box which even the board partners can't look into. It's true setting different stuff manual can circumvent a lot of issues, but all settings are not exposed in the bios and can thus not be set manual.

Of those settings there are, I pretty much knows what every setting does to my rig by now and wouldn't need to save or write down any configs anymore. But that can't be expected for the average user, the average user doesn't even know what a bios is and will need professional help to fix issues.


----------



## Chili195

For those that installed 3401 I take it that it's still AGESA 1.2.0.1 in the BIOS as per the download page? I thought the actual USB fix was coming with 1.2.0.2.


----------



## LorDClockaN

Reikoji said:


> Amd acknowledge everything that props up on reddit. Never had it with my 3900x or my 5800x. not on AMDs side, anyway. Logitech put out a ghub update last month that dropout issues as well, tho i didnt have anyhthjng noticeable on my system.
> 
> Tho, i would wager to guess it will have something to do with inadequate voltage settings. As people have stated earlier, soc/iod/ccd voltage being too low for stability caused choppy music and usb dropouts. This did also occur with me until fixed those voltages when i was first setting up my 5800x. leaving those on auto and trying to do 1900fclk is often no dice. They might end up adjusting those on their end.


I didn't mean literally an issue from reddit. 
I just googled amd usb issue and that was the first result. Forums are full of those issues but I'm same as you, haven't experienced it


----------



## Tom Base

I hope you dont mind if I ask this question here, since I did not get any answer anywhere else. At least I did not found something explaining this.
how do the values of *T0 Effective Clock* and *T1 Effective Clock* correlate to each other (for each Core) ? The meaning of *Effective Clock *is clear to me.


----------



## GRABibus

T0 and T1 are both threads from 1 core.
Then you can see each thread clock for 1 core.

you have 5,7GHz ??


----------



## dyanikoglu

Do we have link for HERO (NON-WIFI) 3401 bios?


----------



## Reikoji

Tom Base said:


> I hope you dont mind if I ask this question here, since I did not get any answer anywhere else. At least I did not found something explaining this.
> how do the values of *T0 Effective Clock* and *T1 Effective Clock* correlate to each other (for each Core) ? The meaning of *Effective Clock *is clear to me.
> 
> View attachment 2483207


Its Thread 0 and Thread 1


----------



## Sleepycat

Reikoji said:


> And increasing 3 specific voltages is gonna be the fix, as my long edits suggests. auto volts too low for most. If it somehow narrowed down to a specific device then it cant really be called a global usb issue boardside. what redditors are good at is rushing to reddit the very moment something happens and complains without attempting to diagnose anything. AMD take what gets posted seriously because it would just look bad on them if they didnt, but as with your bios updates before any specific usb fix agesa, the problems mostly work themsekves out for anyone that has a clue.


I have the USB issue, which manifests as USB partial and full disconnects of my Reverb G2. It happens when you have loud audio playing through the headset too. My issue is resolved when I set all slots and SB to PCIe 3.0. My CCD/IOD are already at 1.05V and SOC at 1.09V eventhough I am only running 1800 IF. 

Going to test this new beta bios. The odd thing is that the USB fix was meant to come with AGESA 1.2.0.2. But this is still using 1.2.0.1 (abeit, Patch A).


----------



## Karagra

Where does one find the beta bioses for the VIII boards? I saw someone was posting them before but I wasn't sure if there is a direct site to check frequently to find them.


----------



## Sleepycat

Karagra said:


> Where does one find the beta bioses for the VIII boards? I saw someone was posting them before but I wasn't sure if there is a direct site to check frequently to find them.


Check the ASUS UK site. They tend to put up beta bioses first.


----------



## Sleepycat

Just tested 3401 with my Reverb G2. So I changed everything back to PCIe 4.0, which in the past would have frequent full disconnects, which would kick me out of Elite Dangerous when using bios 3302. Furthermore, the G2 would only be recognised by one of the chipset USB ports and not with any of the other ports.

With 3401, I tested for about 30 minutes, and it was only towards the end when I had one partial disconnect, which appeared as a headset re-centering on its own. The other USB problem I had with the G2 not working on any of the other USB ports is still there. 

So it improves upon the USB issue that I had and it is a very big improvement over my previous situation where the headset was not usable with PCIe 4.0. I will stick to 3401, but I am still hoping that AGESA 1.2.0.2 fixes the remaining USB issues.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> Just tested 3401 with my Reverb G2. So I changed everything back to PCIe 4.0, which in the past would have frequent full disconnects, which would kick me out of Elite Dangerous when using bios 3302. Furthermore, the G2 would only be recognised by one of the chipset USB ports and not with any of the other ports.
> 
> With 3401, I tested for about 30 minutes, and it was only towards the end when I had one partial disconnect, which appeared as a headset re-centering on its own. The other USB problem I had with the G2 not working on any of the other USB ports is still there.
> 
> So it improves upon the USB issue that I had and it is a very big improvement over my previous situation where the headset was not usable with PCIe 4.0. I will stick to 3401, but I am still hoping that AGESA 1.2.0.2 fixes the remaining USB issues.


Did you try CTR? Someone reported that he had issues with it and this new BIOS


----------



## Tom Base

GRABibus said:


> T0 and T1 are both threads from 1 core.
> Then you can see each thread clock for 1 core.
> 
> you have 5,7GHz ??


Under rare conditions I see even 5,8GHz and that lead me to my previouse question. Thank you for answering.
Just wondering if I can trust this values in HWinfo. I never reached this clocks by using CTR v2RC5. just by tweaking the OC manually (i.e Curve Optimizing).


----------



## flyinion

Hi guys have a couple basic OC questions now that I've got my cooling sorted out (underpowered loop originally for CPU and GPU combined). I finally tried out some "easy Asus OC Ryzen 3000" settings from AHC that was done quite a while ago of turning on PBO to manual, setting PPT to 300, the TDC and EDC to 230, and scalar to manual & 2. I'm wondering if this is actually a good starting point now on these newer BIOS's or not (I'm on the latest 3302 now). I definitely saw a performance boost at least in CB20 but there are now extra parameters like FMax and such and that mentions something about not working with an EDC hack. Not sure what that is though I doubt it's related to the settings above? Basically trying to squeeze some extra CPU performance out for the new MS flightsim especially with it's stupidly buggy recent update that is causing stupid amounts of CPU usage with lower performance (lots of cores with higher than normal usage).

Unfortunately the AHC tweaks didn't actually help that situation really. Maybe 1FPS if that in a problem area, but just trying to see if it's a valid base to start from as I know the BIOS has had so many new options added and I haven't been able to keep up very well.


----------



## GRABibus

Tom Base said:


> Under rare conditions I see even 5,8GHz and that lead me to my previouse question. Thank you for answering.
> Just wondering if I can trust this values in HWinfo. I never reached this clocks by using CTR v2RC5. just by tweaking the OC manually (i.e Curve Optimizing).


what is your CInebench R20 scores single thread ?


----------



## lmfodor

xProlific said:


> I used Corecycler to dial in Core Optimizer. It made it very easy to find instabilities.


How long did you run CoreCycler? I just started again but 144 hours continuous is too much, I wonder who executed the complete test and then modify some value and try again. There should be some easier tool

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## shaolin95

Well not groundbreaking but finally got to 650 CB20 single and now trying to get to the 12k multi with CTR


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> Did you try CTR? Someone reported that he had issues with it and this new BIOS


Yes, I did and CTR is still running fine and passes stability testing. The new P1 and P2 profiles are in my signature, and it passed OCCT Large Extreme too.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> Yes, I did and CTR is still running fine and passes stability testing. The new P1 and P2 profiles are in my signature, and it passed OCCT Large Extreme too.
> 
> View attachment 2483264


Thanks for the confirmation. You don't use Px? I ask cause i only see p1 and p2 settings (which i plan to try as well).
Also, what percentage are you using for p1 and p2?
Thanks


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> Thanks for the confirmation. You don't use Px? I ask cause i only see p1 and p2 settings (which i plan to try as well).
> Also, what percentage are you using for p1 and p2?
> Thanks


I just noticed something with CTR2.0. I exceed the EDC limit quite easily now, which causes CTR to disable hybrid OC. I need to check what is wrong.

I'm not using Px because the Px beta release is for patreons of 1usmus.

Edit: Ahhh, they are right, CTR has an issue with 3401. I have cores 1 to 3 stuck at 4.6 GHz.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> I just noticed something with CTR2.0. I exceed the EDC limit quite easily now, which causes CTR to disable hybrid OC. I need to check what is wrong.
> 
> I'm not using Px because the Px beta release is for patreons of 1usmus.
> 
> Edit: Ahhh, they are right, CTR has an issue with 3401. I have cores 1 to 3 stuck at 4.6 GHz.


Thanks for the confirmation!


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> Thanks for the confirmation!


I quickly flashed back to 3302 and the issue went away.

For your CB R20 score of 650, what clock speed and voltage was your core running at?


----------



## Tom Base

GRABibus said:


> what is your CInebench R20 scores single thread ?



Well, the values are not overwhelming in R20 SC i reach 622 while in MC the max is currently 11490. I guess the core can't keeep the high clocks.


----------



## lmfodor

After trying a lot, I managed to have a stable curve, at least I tested where each core failed and is stable both in idle and under load Basically my settings are: 

PBO Limits 180 125 170
Scalar Auto 
Boost +50 
All cores -30 except the best two of the CCD1 at -20. Those last ones I think I can optimize a little more. 

With this I got an score on CB20 of 8900 almost 9000 and temperatures around 70 maximum. 

What could optimize? 

I know that if I increase the PPT the temperature rises but I do not know if the performance increase.. TDC and EDC seem fine to me. I see that some put high values +200, but I don't know if it makes sense. And on the core boost it could go to +100. I don't know if the increase in clock would produce instability. I am in almost all between 4900 and 5000 the best 

Any suggestion? for now running the CoreCycle that is eternal .. to see if with a day or two running I notice an error. I am not going to leave it for 144 hours!

Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> After trying a lot, I managed to have a stable curve, at least I tested where each core failed and is stable both in idle and under load Basically my settings are:
> 
> PBO Limits 180 125 170
> Scalar Auto
> Boost +50
> All cores -30 except the best two of the CCD1 at -20. Those last ones I think I can optimize a little more.
> 
> With this I got an score on CB20 of 8900 almost 9000 and temperatures around 70 maximum.
> 
> What could optimize?


Assuming that you have a 5900X. You can push even harder beyond a score of 9000. The trick is now to increase the boost to +100, +150 and eventually +200, while keeping your temperature still below the cut off point. Note that the temperatures we see are the average and then there will be tiny spikes very often which can trigger throttling. I'd say keep pushing boost up, while trying to keep your temperature below 80 ºC.

This was when I was using +200, -15 for CCX1, and -20 for CCX2.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> I quickly flashed back to 3302 and the issue went away.
> 
> For your CB R20 score of 650, what clock speed and voltage was your core running at?


Here is a screenshot


----------



## dyanikoglu

Is there any reason non-wifi version of Hero didn't get new beta bios? :/ I need it so bad for my VR headset.


----------



## GRABibus

Tom Base said:


> Well, the values are not overwhelming in R20 SC i reach 622 while in MC the max is currently 11490. I guess the core can't keeep the high clocks.


622 is a stock score.
But this 5,7 GHz boost is surprising.


----------



## GRABibus

lmfodor said:


> After trying a lot, I managed to have a stable curve, at least I tested where each core failed and is stable both in idle and under load Basically my settings are:
> 
> PBO Limits 180 125 170
> Scalar Auto
> Boost +50
> All cores -30 except the best two of the CCD1 at -20. Those last ones I think I can optimize a little more.
> 
> With this I got an score on CB20 of 8900 almost 9000 and temperatures around 70 maximum.
> 
> What could optimize?
> 
> I know that if I increase the PPT the temperature rises but I do not know if the performance increase.. TDC and EDC seem fine to me. I see that some put high values +200, but I don't know if it makes sense. And on the core boost it could go to +100. I don't know if the increase in clock would produce instability. I am in almost all between 4900 and 5000 the best
> 
> Any suggestion? for now running the CoreCycle that is eternal .. to see if with a day or two running I notice an error. I am not going to leave it for 144 hours!
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


try +200MHz and see if your boost clocks increase, if your CBR20 scores increase and if also you are stable at idle and low loads.

with 170-114-155 and +200MHz and an offset of -0,03125V on Vcore, I get :
CBR20 single thread => 649
CBR20 multithread => 9030.

all fans at 100%, PC case open and 21degrees ambient.

try also to decrease TDC and PPT a little bit in order to see if it decreases heat and then increase your scores.

what is your CBR20 single thread score ?

trying to get a high single thread score is a key as the CPU has already huge multithreaded performances.


----------



## CyrIng

Fyi, tried Beta BIOS *3401* which is still unstable with dual F4-3600C16D-32GTZN DRAM kit whenever DDR and FCLK frequencies are set above than 3200 / 1600 MHz

Fyi Machine Check trapped by Kernel.

Whereas BIOS 2206 allows RAM to reach 3733 MHz with no effort.


----------



## CyrIng

CyrIng said:


> If the Kernel log is flooded with those errors; up to a system crash ...
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> kernel: [Hardware Error]: Corrected error, no action required.
> kernel: [Hardware Error]: CPU:0 (17:71:0) MC25_STATUS[-|CE|MiscV|-|-|-|-|CECC|-|-|-]: 0x98004000003e0000
> kernel: [Hardware Error]: IPID: 0x000100ff03830400
> kernel: [Hardware Error]: Platform Security Processor Ext. Error Code: 62
> kernel: [Hardware Error]: cache level: RESV, tx: INSN
> 
> ... then try the BIOS option *Power Supply Idle Control* = _Typical Current Idle_
> 
> View attachment 2483106


In fact this option had made no difference.


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> View attachment 2483277
> 
> Here is a screenshot


Wow, such low voltages too. That's like a golden sample!


----------



## stimpy88

CyrIng said:


> Fyi, tried Beta BIOS *3401* which is still unstable with dual F4-3600C16D-32GTZN DRAM kit whenever DDR and FCLK frequencies are set above than 3200 / 1600 MHz
> 
> Fyi Machine Check trapped by Kernel.
> 
> Whereas BIOS 2206 allows RAM to reach 3733 MHz with no effort.


We seem to have the same kit, I'm limited by fclk, but the RAM seems to be fine...


----------



## lmfodor

GRABibus said:


> try +200MHz and see if your boost clocks increase, if your CBR20 scores increase and if also you are stable at idle and low loads.
> 
> with 170-114-155 and +200MHz and an offset of -0,03125V on Vcore, I get :
> CBR20 single thread => 649
> CBR20 multithread => 9030.
> 
> all fans at 100%, PC case open and 21degrees ambient.
> 
> try also to decrease TDC and PPT a little bit in order to see if it decreases heat and then increase your scores.
> 
> what is your CBR20 single thread score ?
> 
> trying to get a high single thread score is a key as the CPU has already huge multithreaded performances.


That’s a good point. I see a lot of post rising PBO values.. but I want a good performance and trying to keep this temp or a little above, not reaching 75+ degrees that for a 5900x is not than easy. I will try your values. 

Tell me something, why you put a negative Vcore offset? Do yo also have -30 and the most core right? Just to understand the rationale

I note that you are running in an open case and fans at full speed. I found a good match with a PA500d, which has very good airflow and is roomy. I'm not at full speed but I do make a good fans curve and it is rare that it exceeds 72 degrees

Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> Wow, such low voltages too. That's like a golden sample!


I think my temps were pretty good as shown on my score screenshot thanks to my gettho airduct cooling enhancement mod. 😁👍


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> Assuming that you have a 5900X. You can push even harder beyond a score of 9000. The trick is now to increase the boost to +100, +150 and eventually +200, while keeping your temperature still below the cut off point. Note that the temperatures we see are the average and then there will be tiny spikes very often which can trigger throttling. I'd say keep pushing boost up, while trying to keep your temperature below 80 ºC.
> 
> This was when I was using +200, -15 for CCX1, and -20 for CCX2.
> View attachment 2483274


Wow amazing scores. What values are using in PBO and In the curve? I will try rising the boost. I did not expect to obtain such high values in CB20 without raising the PBO limits


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## GRABibus

lmfodor said:


> That’s a good point. I see a lot of post rising PBO values.. but I want a good performance and trying to keep this temp or a little above, not reaching 75+ degrees that for a 5900x is not than easy. I will try your values.
> 
> Tell me something, why you put a negative Vcore offset? Do yo also have -30 and the most core right? Just to understand the rationale
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


look at my sig.
These are my 24/7 current settings.

-25 core 8
-30 all other cores.

with this negative offset, I get lower temps and better boost (for example in Cold War).
But too much negative offset would make crash in CBR20 multithread scores or realbench (which is my stability reference test).

I get 649 CBR20 single thread score and 9030 multithreaded score (fans at 100%, OC case open and push-pull fans for thé H115i.


----------



## lmfodor

GRABibus said:


> look at my sig.
> These are my 24/7 current settings.
> 
> -25 core 8
> -30 all other cores.
> 
> with this negative offset, I get lower temps and better boost (for example in Cold War).
> But too much negative offset would make crash in CBR20 multithread scores or realbench (which is my stability reference test).
> 
> I get 649 CBR20 single thread score and 9030 multithreaded score (fans at 100%, OC case open and push-pull fans for thé H115i.


Yes, that’s the trade off, I think that my mistake is the treat the two best core or CCD1 with the same negative values. The 2nd best cores crash at -25 and -23.. I will try leaving at -20 and rise the 1st best core to -25 to see if it works. Regarding the offset, would be my next step.. thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## GRABibus

lmfodor said:


> Yes, that’s the trade off, I think that my mistake is the treat the two best core or CCD1 with the same negative values. The 2nd best cores crash at -25 and -23.. I will try leaving at -20 and rise the 1st best core to -25 to see if it works. Regarding the offset, would be my next step.. thanks!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I put -25 on Core8 because with -30, I get reboots at low loads (browsing, etc...).
Whea Apic Id code is « 20 », which is my core8


----------



## CyrIng

stimpy88 said:


> We seem to have the same kit, I'm limited by fclk, but the RAM seems to be fine...
> View attachment 2483285


Last attempt I had set DRAM voltage to 1.38 V, and SoC voltage to 1.1 V for an almost stable system.
I wonder what would happened if I had done the reverse: decrease the SoC voltage rather than a positive offset ?

So far SoC is doing fine at 1.08 V and DRAM at 1.35 V in BIOS version 2206


----------



## xProlific

lmfodor said:


> How long did you run CoreCycler? I just started again but 144 hours continuous is too much, I wonder who executed the complete test and then modify some value and try again. There should be some easier tool
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I ran it a few times for one run (72 minutes on a 5900x) to find the worst instabilities. Once I tuned those out I ran it overnight for several nights in a row. Also if it keeps failing on one or a couple cores you can just run the script on a few cores to until you get those cores settled so you don't have to waste your time with a full run through.


----------



## lmfodor

xProlific said:


> I ran it a few times for one run (72 minutes on a 5900x) to find the worst instabilities. Once I tuned those out I ran it overnight for several nights in a row. Also if it keeps failing on one or a couple cores you can just run the script on a few cores to until you get those cores settled so you don't have to waste your time with a full run through.


Yes, if it fails, it should be in the first iteration and then test for stability. Now I'm running it since last night, it should be in the 8th iteration. Now I want to touch a value on the curve and the PBO limits so I should start from scratch

It should have some kind of scheduler to test iterations over night ... at least 12hs per core and not cycle. Because that way we can never have 12 hours of stability per core ... they are fulfilled in several days of continuous execution. The method is good .. I have my doubts about whether this test proves what happens in iddle. because for loads I consider the OOCT 8 better ... that I could buy the paid version and leave it overnight, now that it has core cycle function

Any recommendations on the core cycler for testing keeping the same values and continuing at night? or does that break the logic of the test?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## shaolin95

Finally hit 12K and 650s..now I can tune this more but my goal has been achieved


----------



## lmfodor

Ok, still playing with the CO I rise the core boost to +200 but it was not so linear, still getting almost 8600 in CB..

Curve -30 all cores -25 best and -17 2nd best.. If I rise the last one it crash. 

These results are with an clock boost or+ 100.. but if I put +200 I don’t notice much difference. I don’t know if the PPT or TDC are limiting..










Some months ago when I started to play with CO I’ve got this results, but you can see the temps were so higher because I had it a Noctua. The PBO was 200-200-160










In conclusion, should I rise PPT and TDP, leaving TCD 160 or 170? Would I leave +50 in the core boost? Why I don’t notice so much difference? Could be the algorithm of PBO that with more headroom with -30 and -25 it increase more clock speed?

The curve seems to be fine. The two best cores of the CCD1 are the only one when I’m still playing to understand when it crash

The other thing that would impact in the result could be the memory.. as you can see are extremely slow. Tomorrow I’ll get the new tridentZ so perhaps this results increase. 

What do you think? Any other suggestion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> Wow amazing scores. What values are using in PBO and In the curve? I will try rising the boost. I did not expect to obtain such high values in CB20 without raising the PBO limits


PBO was 200/140/160 from memory, but EDC was stuck at 160A during the run anyway. Curve optimiser was -15 for CCX1, and -20 for CCX2. 

You can see my single core score is nothing special, and with all core, it was only at 4.65GHz, but I kept the CPU temperature as low as possible using Curve Optimiser (I am using only air cooling). Clock speed is essentially just 1 factor, the amount of work done at the clock speed is the other and it can be limited if your temperature is too high.


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> Ok, still playing with the CO I rise the core boost to +200 but it was not so linear, still getting almost 8600 in CB..
> 
> Curve -30 all cores -25 best and -17 2nd best.. If I rise the last one it crash.
> 
> These results are with an clock boost or+ 100.. but if I put +200 I don’t notice much difference. I don’t know if the PPT or TDC are limiting..
> 
> View attachment 2483318
> 
> 
> Some months ago when I started to play with CO I’ve got this results, but you can see the temps were so higher because I had it a Noctua. The PBO was 200-200-160
> 
> View attachment 2483322
> 
> 
> In conclusion, should I rise PPT and TDP, leaving TCD 160 or 170? Would I leave +50 in the core boost? Why I don’t notice so much difference? Could be the algorithm of PBO that with more headroom with -30 and -25 it increase more clock speed?
> 
> The curve seems to be fine. The two best cores of the CCD1 are the only one when I’m still playing to understand when it crash
> 
> The other thing that would impact in the result could be the memory.. as you can see are extremely slow. Tomorrow I’ll get the new tridentZ so perhaps this results increase.
> 
> What do you think? Any other suggestion?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Your CPU voltage seems very high for all core @ 4.6GHz effective. I noticed your core clock in the first picture reads 4.9 - 5.0 GHz across all cores with 1.469V. Is this correct? That would be so hot and the CPU would just throttle itself when running R20 multi-core.

Instead of going for extreme negative values, set your 2 best cores on CCX1 to -15, remainder of CCX1 to -20 and all of CCX2 to -30.


----------



## Alemancio

I have a weird one for you guys (C8H, 5900X, 3080 FTW).

*Was playing some game when computer shut down and smelled a little like electronic fumes.* Visual inspection nothing, turned it back on and its running OCCT Small and/or Heaven Benchmark flawlessly (over 20min heavy benchmarking)

Any idea to what to look out for? Kinda hard to troubleshoot if its all working.


----------



## Sleepycat

Alemancio said:


> I have a weird one for you guys (C8H, 5900X, 3080 FTW).
> 
> *Was playing some game when computer shut down and smelled a little like electronic fumes.* Visual inspection nothing, turned it back on and its running OCCT Small and/or Heaven Benchmark flawlessly (over 20min heavy benchmarking)
> 
> Any idea to what to look out for? Kinda hard to troubleshoot if its all working.


You can record the log using HWInfo to see if it was a high CPU, GPU, chipset or DIMM temperature. If if was none of those, then check your PSU.


----------



## Alemancio

Sleepycat said:


> You can record the log using HWInfo to see if it was a high CPU, GPU, chipset or DIMM temperature. If if was none of those, then check your PSU.


I actually think that maybe it was a cat's hair that shorted? Not sure if that'd even make sense (I do have 2 cats). 

Hard to read a log if I cant recreate the issue but thanks for the tip! I thought MAYBE HwInfo auto-logs (I did had it open)


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> Your CPU voltage seems very high for all core @ 4.6GHz effective. I noticed your core clock in the first picture reads 4.9 - 5.0 GHz across all cores with 1.469V. Is this correct? That would be so hot and the CPU would just throttle itself when running R20 multi-core.
> 
> Instead of going for extreme negative values, set your 2 best cores on CCX1 to -15, remainder of CCX1 to -20 and all of CCX2 to -30.


Hi! Yes, I need to fix something. After 8hs running core cycler without any error I stoped and then.. about a minute after I ran CB20 and the computer reboot. So, yes, it seems too extreme to set all cores -to 30. 

I’m going to change to your values right now y let the test running all night. 

Regarding voltages values, I don’t know much about it, should I set some kind of VCORE offset? What voltage value do you suggest?

Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> Hi! Yes, I need to fix something. After 8hs running core cycler without any error I stoped and then.. about a minute after I ran CB20 and the computer reboot. So, yes, it seems too extreme to set all cores -to 30.
> 
> I’m going to change to your values right now y let the test running all night.
> 
> Regarding voltages values, I don’t know much about it, should I set some kind of VCORE offset? What voltage value do you suggest?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


If it spontaneously rebooted in CB20, then it is either an instability, or it exceeded the safety temperature. My motherboard reboots itself if the temperature hits 95 ºC and gives a warning message before the bios page, eventhough I have set the limits to 85 ºC

I left my Vcore offset to 0 at the moment. If the voltage is too high when running all core CB20, you can reduce it using Vcore offset. At 4.62GHz during CB20, HWInfo reports 1.275V.


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> If it spontaneously rebooted in CB20, then it is either an instability, or it exceeded the safety temperature. My motherboard reboots itself if the temperature hits 95 ºC and gives a warning message before the bios page, eventhough I have set the limits to 85 ºC
> 
> I left my Vcore offset to 0 at the moment. If the voltage is too high when running all core CB20, you can reduce it using Vcore offset. At 4.62GHz during CB20, HWInfo reports 1.275V.


I just ran a multi core test and yes, the running values are 1.238 (Im the picture below) but the maximum is 1.488. Is that the value that should I change?

I see now on idle that HWinfo oscillate from 1425/1394 and goes down to 0.956. So I should change that maximum value? If I leave on auto this is what happens. 

What do you suggest?










Those are the results using -15 for the two best cores of CCD1, -20 for the remaining Cores of CCD1 and -30 for all cores in CCD2. PBO 185/125/160 +200 Boost Clock. You would see the voltage, the PBO values under load .. and the results. I don’t know why you and other get better results with the same curve and clock override. I think that my limits are 1) PPT and TDC values what I should rise, 2) the memory could be affecting. Tomorrow I will try with a net low latency memory I hope it supports 1900 IF and 3) the silicon lottery!









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> I just ran a multi core test and yes, the running values are 1.238 (Im the picture below) but the maximum is 1.488. Is that the value that should I change?
> 
> I see now on idle that HWinfo oscillate from 1425/1394 and goes down to 0.956. So I should change that maximum value? If I leave on auto this is what happens.
> 
> What do you suggest?
> 
> View attachment 2483367
> 
> 
> Those are the results using -15 for the two best cores of CCD1, -20 for the remaining Cores of CCD1 and -30 for all cores in CCD2. PBO 185/125/160 +200 Boost Clock. You would see the voltage, the PBO values under load .. and the results. I don’t know why you and other get better results with the same curve and clock override. I think that my limits are 1) PPT and TDC values what I should rise, 2) the memory could be affecting. Tomorrow I will try with a net low latency memory I hope it supports 1900 IF and 3) the silicon lottery!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


The PPT is certainly limiting your score, but it is also the reason why you hit a maximum of 73 ºC and not higher. If you want a higher score, set it to 220/200/160, but you might see your temperatures go up more.


----------



## Alemancio

Alemancio said:


> I have a weird one for you guys (C8H, 5900X, 3080 FTW).
> 
> *Was playing some game when computer shut down and smelled a little like electronic fumes.* Visual inspection nothing, turned it back on and its running OCCT Small and/or Heaven Benchmark flawlessly (over 20min heavy benchmarking)
> 
> Any idea to what to look out for? Kinda hard to troubleshoot if its all working.


No further crash nor weird smell... now that was veryyyy odd!


----------



## trespot

I just would like to say thanks for the addition of PCIE bifurcation feature on Impact BIOS (3302).
I don't know if this feature was added before 3302, since I upgraded from 2702 to directly 3302, nevertheless it's a welcome feature that I've been looking for.


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> The PPT is certainly limiting your score, but it is also the reason why you hit a maximum of 73 ºC and not higher. If you want a higher score, set it to 220/200/160, but you might see your temperatures go up more.


Ok, so increasing PBO values don’t impact in the curve right? Regarding the CPU voltage at 1.48/1.41v as you see en the screenshot, should I change it with at a little offset, what do you think?

I bet the score will improve with the new memories..

Thanks for your help!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Kokin

trespot said:


> I just would like to say thanks for the addition of PCIE bifurcation feature on Impact BIOS (3302).
> I don't know if this feature was added before 3302, since I upgraded from 2702 to directly 3302, nevertheless it's a welcome feature that I've been looking for.


I didn't think they would add that function. Very nice that we got it.

Any issues with BIOS 3302 for the Impact? Been rock solid on 3003 with a 3900X for a few months now.


----------



## Baio73

trespot said:


> I just would like to say thanks for the addition of PCIE bifurcation feature on Impact BIOS (3302).
> I don't know if this feature was added before 3302, since I upgraded from 2702 to directly 3302, nevertheless it's a welcome feature that I've been looking for.


How this option can be useful?
I have no idea of what it does... thanks!

Baio


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> Ok, so increasing PBO values don’t impact in the curve right? Regarding the CPU voltage at 1.48/1.41v as you see en the screenshot, should I change it with at a little offset, what do you think?
> 
> I bet the score will improve with the new memories..
> 
> Thanks for your help!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


PBO limits are just power limits. It allows the PC to use more power if required by supplying more current. The curve controls voltage at a certain clockspeed, so PBO limits won't impact the curve optimiser. PBO will allow your CPU to heat up more and reach the thermal limit quicker, after which you'll see your benchmark scores decrease even at the same or higher clock speed due to throttling.

I wouldn't change the voltage based on what HWInfo is reporting. To reach the maximum clock speeds, the CPU needs those maximum voltages. It does not reflect the voltage used in all core loads.


----------



## Nizzen

Does anyone with *X570 Crosshair*
actually do something else than playing Cinebench? Looks like "everyone" her is playing Cinebench 24/7 😆


----------



## shaolin95

Nizzen said:


> Does anyone with *X570 Crosshair*
> actually do something else than playing Cinebench? Looks like "everyone" her is playing Cinebench 24/7 😆


Cause its easier to provide some relative performance that others can compare to instead of some random game or feedback like "it's way smoother with this PBO setting vs that one"


----------



## Tom Base

Nizzen said:


> Does anyone with *X570 Crosshair*
> actually do something else than playing Cinebench? Looks like "everyone" her is playing Cinebench 24/7 [emoji38]


Sometimes I play Time Spy Extreme [emoji23]


----------



## Nizzen

shaolin95 said:


> Cause its easier to provide some relative performance that others can compare to instead of some random game or feedback like "it's way smoother with this PBO setting vs that one"


I found all core OC on my 5900x "smoother" in some games over "PBO" OC. I Ended up running 4600mhz all core with 5900x, and called it the day


----------



## trespot

Kokin said:


> I didn't think they would add that function. Very nice that we got it.
> 
> Any issues with BIOS 3302 for the Impact? Been rock solid on 3003 with a 3900X for a few months now.


I did not expect them to implement it as well, I even sent an email months ago asking if this would be possible but the answer was negative, but it's here now. 🤷‍♂️

About the stability of 3302: No issues so far, no blue screen, no WHEA, no idle reboots/shutdowns, no sleep problems.



Baio73 said:


> How this option can be useful?
> I have no idea of what it does... thanks!
> 
> Baio


With this feature I can split a single 16x PCIE lane slot into two 8x PCIE slots. I can use one for graphics card, and other one for m.2 storage expansion or capture card, or a 10 gig network card, or any other PCIE device.
Previously I could still get some PCIE lanes through M.2, but it is limited to 4x PCIE lanes and there are no Gen 4 M.2 to PCIE risers, last but not least these lanes would be provided through chipset as I my boot drive utilizes the remaining 4 PCIE lanes from CPU.


----------



## shaolin95

Nizzen said:


> I found all core OC on my 5900x "smoother" in some games over "PBO" OC. I Ended up running 4600mhz all core with 5900x, and called it the day


Cool. now you can unfollow this thread


----------



## J7SC

trespot said:


> I did not expect them to implement it as well, I even sent an email months ago asking if this would be possible but the answer was negative, but it's here now. 🤷‍♂️
> 
> About the stability of 3302: No issues so far, no blue screen, no WHEA, no idle reboots/shutdowns, no sleep problems.
> 
> 
> With this feature I can split a single 16x PCIE lane slot into two 8x PCIE slots. I can use one for graphics card, and other one for m.2 storage expansion or capture card, or a 10 gig network card, or any other PCIE device.
> Previously I could still get some PCIE lanes through M.2, but it is limited to 4x PCIE lanes and there are no Gen 4 M.2 to PCIE risers, last but not least these lanes would be provided through chipset as I my boot drive utilizes the remaining 4 PCIE lanes from CPU.


Cool re. bifurcation...I wonder if it works on the Crosshair VIII Hero wifi as well w/ latest bios (I'm still waiting w/ bios updates). I'm using my mobo / 3950x / 3090 setup for part work / part play and have an extra PCIe card with four M.2 slots on it I like to use


----------



## Reikoji

lmfodor said:


> I just ran a multi core test and yes, the running values are 1.238 (Im the picture below) but the maximum is 1.488. Is that the value that should I change?
> 
> I see now on idle that HWinfo oscillate from 1425/1394 and goes down to 0.956. So I should change that maximum value? If I leave on auto this is what happens.
> 
> What do you suggest?
> 
> View attachment 2483367
> 
> 
> Those are the results using -15 for the two best cores of CCD1, -20 for the remaining Cores of CCD1 and -30 for all cores in CCD2. PBO 185/125/160 +200 Boost Clock. You would see the voltage, the PBO values under load .. and the results. I don’t know why you and other get better results with the same curve and clock override. I think that my limits are 1) PPT and TDC values what I should rise, 2) the memory could be affecting. Tomorrow I will try with a net low latency memory I hope it supports 1900 IF and 3) the silicon lottery!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


the max voltage reading shown on hwinfo isnt the volrage used during heavy all core loads such as cenebench 20. to know what voltage is requested by the cpu and set for the load, look at the current value for CPU core VID (Effective) (during the benchmark run). The current value of CPU core voltage (SVI2 TFN) would show the load dropped voltage.


----------



## PWn3R

Has anyone here noticed that your machine doesn't connect to internet on the Windows lock screen, and takes about 15-20 seconds after you log in to get network up? I'm wondering if there is a way to fix that. I kind of need that to not be a thing.


----------



## Kokin

PWn3R said:


> Has anyone here noticed that your machine doesn't connect to internet on the Windows lock screen, and takes about 15-20 seconds after you log in to get network up? I'm wondering if there is a way to fix that. I kind of need that to not be a thing.


Not an issue on my CH8 Impact, lock screen shows Ethernet and Wifi connections on the bottom right corner. Might be a Windows setting or security option that's causing it?


----------



## GRABibus

PWn3R said:


> Has anyone here noticed that your machine doesn't connect to internet on the Windows lock screen, and takes about 15-20 seconds after you log in to get network up? I'm wondering if there is a way to fix that. I kind of need that to not be a thing.


No issue on my C8H.
LAN drivers are installed ?


----------



## lmfodor

Continuing with my story of low performance with the CO (compared to the one I saw here in the forum) I tell you that I finally received the new low latency memories. I just activated the XMP profile and set the IF to 1900. I was able to boot without any problem. Although I expected latencies below 60ns .. 

















Going back to performance, I increased the PBO values to 220/200/160, +200 core boost and the -15 for two best cores, -20 for the 4 remaining cores of CCD1 and -30 CCD2 curve I don't know why I can't exceed the 9000 CB20 nor the 630. 

Before when I had the Noctua I achieved 9100 and temperatures of 89% !! now with 220/200/160 and +200 I don't exceed 76 degrees but I don't get a better score. Is it the curve that isn’t so optimized? What else could I try? 








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## PWn3R

GRABibus said:


> No issue on my C8H.
> LAN drivers are installed ?


Yes, but I am using the 2.5GBe port. I also notice that when it drops connection, it takes about 30 seconds to come back (like after a driver update).


----------



## Sleepycat

J7SC said:


> Cool re. bifurcation...I wonder if it works on the Crosshair VIII Hero wifi as well w/ latest bios (I'm still waiting w/ bios updates). I'm using my mobo / 3950x / 3090 setup for part work / part play and have an extra PCIe card with four M.2 slots on it I like to use


Bifurcation is a feature of the C8H Wifi from the start. The downside is the limited number of PCIe lanes on the CPU side means that when you plug in a GPU and want to use bifurcation, you have only 8 lanes remaining in the 2nd PCIe slot. So you only have options of 8x (default) or two 4x (bifurcation). So the NVMe card that you have should in theory work with only 2 M.2 slots active. I didn't see an option to set bifurcation to four 2x, which would be great if Asus were able to do this.


----------



## Tom Base

PWn3R said:


> Yes, but I am using the 2.5GBe port. I also notice that when it drops connection, it takes about 30 seconds to come back (like after a driver update).


I discovered the same issue on a newly installed CH8 formula. The other NIC worked flawless, therefore I ignored the 2.5G NIC.


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> Going back to performance, I increased the PBO values to 220/200/160, +200 core boost and the -15 for two best cores, -20 for the 4 remaining cores of CCD1 and -30 CCD2 curve I don't know why I can't exceed the 9000 CB20 nor the 630.
> 
> Before when I had the Noctua I achieved 9100 and temperatures of 89% !! now with 220/200/160 and +200 I don't exceed 76 degrees but I don't get a better score. Is it the curve that isn’t so optimized? What else could I try?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Looking at your 2nd HWInfo screenshot, your effective core clocks are mixed. Probably good to reset the HWinfo log, run a CB20 benchmark and then screenshot straight away so that you can see the actual maximum clocks during the bench.

If you are hitting high all-core clock speeds but not getting the benchmark scores and you are sure your memory settings are stable and good, then there is either current or thermal throttling, or correctable errors happening (too low voltage for the clock speed, although CB20 will still complete and give you a high score but OCCT Extreme Large will have errors).

If you are limited by current, you can adjust PBO limits for that, thermal throttling means you can put more negative values in Curve Optimiser, and correctable errors, you put values closer to 0 or positive into Curve Optimiser.

Here are some CB20 scores from my system when I was trying to find the limits where I would have a lower score even with a high clock speed. I had set the thermal limit to 85 ºC in the bios to protect my CPU, but it also helps show the impact of thermal throttling. Screenshots of CB20 and HWInfo are also attached if you want to see it.

No throttling: 4.675 / 4.65 @ 1.3V LLC2, 82 ºC = 9017
Thermal throttle: 4.7 / 4.675 @ 1.35V LLC2, 88 ºC = 8864
Everyday setup: 4.65 / 4.625 @ 1.275V LLC2, 81 ºC = 8979


----------



## Sleepycat

PWn3R said:


> Yes, but I am using the 2.5GBe port. I also notice that when it drops connection, it takes about 30 seconds to come back (like after a driver update).


On the C8H, I remember reading issues with the 2.5GB LAN as well. I too use only the Intel 1GB port.


----------



## Sleepycat

Nizzen said:


> Does anyone with *X570 Crosshair*
> actually do something else than playing Cinebench? Looks like "everyone" her is playing Cinebench 24/7 😆


I play so much Cinebench that I can visually see the difference between 100 points.


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> Continuing with my story of low performance with the CO (compared to the one I saw here in the forum) I tell you that I finally received the new low latency memories. I just activated the XMP profile and set the IF to 1900. I was able to boot without any problem. Although I expected latencies below 60ns ..


What is your SoC and DIMM voltage? They might need a small boost.


----------



## CyrIng

PWn3R said:


> Yes, but I am using the 2.5GBe port. I also notice that when it drops connection, it takes about 30 seconds to come back (like after a driver update).


2.5GBe with ArchLinux, no such issue. I'm always keep an eye on kernel log.

Windows, you should monitor the hardware events during that issue.


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> What is your SoC and DIMM voltage? They might need a small boost.


Here’s the values:








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> Looking at your 2nd HWInfo screenshot, your effective core clocks are mixed. Probably good to reset the HWinfo log, run a CB20 benchmark and then screenshot straight away so that you can see the actual maximum clocks during the bench.
> 
> If you are hitting high all-core clock speeds but not getting the benchmark scores and you are sure your memory settings are stable and good, then there is either current or thermal throttling, or correctable errors happening (too low voltage for the clock speed, although CB20 will still complete and give you a high score but OCCT Extreme Large will have errors).
> 
> If you are limited by current, you can adjust PBO limits for that, thermal throttling means you can put more negative values in Curve Optimiser, and correctable errors, you put values closer to 0 or positive into Curve Optimiser.
> 
> Here are some CB20 scores from my system when I was trying to find the limits where I would have a lower score even with a high clock speed. I had set the thermal limit to 85 ºC in the bios to protect my CPU, but it also helps show the impact of thermal throttling. Screenshots of CB20 and HWInfo are also attached if you want to see it.
> 
> No throttling: 4.675 / 4.65 @ 1.3V LLC2, 82 ºC = 9017
> Thermal throttle: 4.7 / 4.675 @ 1.35V LLC2, 88 ºC = 8864
> Everyday setup: 4.65 / 4.625 @ 1.275V LLC2, 81 ºC = 8979


Ok, yes, the screenshot wasn’t taken under load. Again, the curve -20 best cores, -25 CCD1 and -30 CCD2 +200 and set the scalar x 8 (I never knew if this setting really works).. al also have the thermal limit at 85. Here’s CB20 running:









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## PJVol

lmfodor said:


> Although I expected latencies below 60ns ..


Check out for secondary timings - you'll see below 60's after tuning.
And post ZenTimings screenshot.
And switch HWInfo to snapshot mode first.











lmfodor said:


> and set the scalar x 8 (I never knew if this setting really works)..


And set scalar back to Auto


----------



## shaolin95

2.5GB here and no issues (knock on wood)


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> Here’s the values:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


From memory, you are running 2x 8GB sticks? If so, try this out to see if it helps with your stability. 
SOC voltage: 1.1V
DRAM voltage: 1.4V
VDDG CCD Voltage Control: 1.050 V
VDDG IOD Voltage Control: 1.050 V
CLDO VDDP voltage: 0.950 V

I can't remember if you posted your bios settings txt file. I can have a look through to see if anything stands out. I'm running 3600 CL14 and getting 59.3ns. So yours should be even lower.


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> From memory, you are running 2x 8GB sticks? If so, try this out to see if it helps with your stability.
> SOC voltage: 1.1V
> DRAM voltage: 1.4V
> VDDG CCD Voltage Control: 1.050 V
> VDDG IOD Voltage Control: 1.050 V
> CLDO VDDP voltage: 0.950 V
> 
> I can't remember if you posted your bios settings txt file. I can have a look through to see if anything stands out. I'm running 3600 CL14 and getting 59.3ns. So yours should be even lower.


Sorry, I didn’t mention the memory specs: 2x16 3800CL14.









Should I try with your values? I’m really a noob with memory overclocking...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> Ok, yes, the screenshot wasn’t taken under load. Again, the curve -20 best cores, -25 CCD1 and -30 CCD2 +200 and set the scalar x 8 (I never knew if this setting really works).. al also have the thermal limit at 85. Here’s CB20 running:


I leave scalar on Auto for mine. Your scores are not bad, 8849 at 4.65 GHz if you have other software running in the background is reasonable.


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> Sorry, I didn’t mention the memory specs: 2x16 3800CL14.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should I try with your values? I’m really a noob with memory overclocking...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Ah, I see. Looks like it does require 1.5V. What are your DIMM temperatures in HWInfo? I found that I would get rare errors once in a while at over 57ºC, but works great at 45 ºC


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> Ah, I see. Looks like it does require 1.5V. What are your DIMM temperatures in HWInfo? I found that I would get rare errors once in a while at over 57ºC, but works great at 45 ºC


I'm just running another test with AIDA64 to see the temperatures the DIMMS are at 39 and 40 degrees. I hope the temperature sensor is reliable. The new test gave me a latency of 64ns ... 

Could the change in PBO values affect memory latency/performance? while I was looking at the HWinfo values I had a BSOD and I see a Kernel Power 41 error in the event viewer and then I generate a bugchek error 1001. So I went back to the previous curve that you had suggested of -15 -20 and -30 for CCD2 ..

Should I change some voltage values?
Thanks!!


----------



## lmfodor

PJVol said:


> Check out for secondary timings - you'll see below 60's after tuning.
> And post ZenTimings screenshot.
> And switch HWInfo to snapshot mode first.
> View attachment 2483458
> 
> 
> And set scalar back to Auto


Hi PJVol, I enabled the secondary timings, but I don’t know where to see it.. can you show me? In the memory section I see the same info. These are the values while running CB:


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> Hi PJVol, I enabled the secondary timings, but I don’t know where to see it.. can you show me? In the memory section I see the same info. These are the values while running CB:


Use Zentimings to view it. You'll have to download it.


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> I'm just running another test with AIDA64 to see the temperatures the DIMMS are at 39 and 40 degrees. I hope the temperature sensor is reliable. The new test gave me a latency of 64ns ...
> 
> Could the change in PBO values affect memory latency/performance? while I was looking at the HWinfo values I had a BSOD and I see a Kernel Power 41 error in the event viewer and then I generate a bugchek error 1001. So I went back to the previous curve that you had suggested of -15 -20 and -30 for CCD2 ..
> 
> Should I change some voltage values?
> Thanks!!


PBO limits shouldn't affect memory latency. Look at the current subtimings using Zentimings.


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> PBO limits shouldn't affect memory latency. Look at the current subtimings using Zentimings.











If I’m stable with this values I think I’m fine. I have acceptable temps, an score of 8900/630 single core in CB20 with PBO 220/200/160 +200 clock override and the curve mentioned before 
The thing is to test the stability. With OOCT I never had an error..Core Cycler is not to test the idle issue .. I don’t know .. maybe just playing games and browsing for a days.. I never had a WHEA Log.. just a few reboot playing with the curve. With your recommendation of the curve and rising the PBO I think I’m fine.. if I’m stable!

Maybe I expected a lower latency for this memory optimized for Rayzen 5000 “low latency”. I’m sure I can tune a little but I would need other suggestions. I’m really a noob with memory OC..

Thanks!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## flyinion

Can someone explain FMax enhancer to me? 

I was trying a "quick PBO guide" type thing I found that mentions enabling FMax which is new to me as I only moved to a 3xxx series BIOS a couple weeks ago (3302). I had PBO set to "advanced", limits set to mobo, boost clock override I tried 200, 150, and even 0 with FMax enabled. Running OCCT large CPU with normal or extreme both bomb out within less than a minute with an error. Turned FMax off and no issues at least not immediately (still running) with boost override back at 200. Seems like maybe at this point I need to go learn about and try the core tuner tool instead maybe. This is an Aug. 2019 3700X on a non-wifi Hero.


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> I'm just running another test with AIDA64 to see the temperatures the DIMMS are at 39 and 40 degrees. I hope the temperature sensor is reliable. The new test gave me a latency of 64ns ...
> 
> Could the change in PBO values affect memory latency/performance? while I was looking at the HWinfo values I had a BSOD and I see a Kernel Power 41 error in the event viewer and then I generate a bugchek error 1001. So I went back to the previous curve that you had suggested of -15 -20 and -30 for CCD2 ..
> 
> Should I change some voltage values?
> Thanks!!


You are already adjusting voltage values using curve optimiser. Looks like CCX1 required more voltage as -20 and -25 did not work, but -15 and -20 stops the Kernel Power 41 error? If so, then that is a good start.


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> Maybe I expected a lower latency for this memory optimized for Rayzen 5000 “low latency”. I’m sure I can tune a little but I would need other suggestions. I’m really a noob with memory OC..


Your Zentimings show that your memory settings are not yet optimised. Lots of areas to reduce the latency. 
Save your current bios settings profile, then try these settings. You might need to increase your SOC voltage from 1.08V to 1.09V if the settings below don't POST, but stick to your current voltages first.
tRAS - 30
tRC - 46
tRRDS - 6
tRRDL - 8
tFAW - 24
tWR - 14
tRFC - 322
tRFC2 - 239
tRFC4 - 147
tRTP - 8
tRDWR - 8
tRDRDDD - 5


----------



## Kokin

PWn3R said:


> Yes, but I am using the 2.5GBe port. I also notice that when it drops connection, it takes about 30 seconds to come back (like after a driver update).


Is the cable confirmed to be good? I used to think my wife's X570i Strix had a faulty 1GBe port as it would disconnect every so often and would take 10-30 seconds to reconnect. Ended up being a defective ethernet cable (2 of them at that) and now works flawlessly with a cheap Amazon Basics cable.


----------



## Kokin

flyinion said:


> Can someone explain FMax enhancer to me?
> 
> I was trying a "quick PBO guide" type thing I found that mentions enabling FMax which is new to me as I only moved to a 3xxx series BIOS a couple weeks ago (3302). I had PBO set to "advanced", limits set to mobo, boost clock override I tried 200, 150, and even 0 with FMax enabled. Running OCCT large CPU with normal or extreme both bomb out within less than a minute with an error. Turned FMax off and no issues at least not immediately (still running) with boost override back at 200. Seems like maybe at this point I need to go learn about and try the core tuner tool instead maybe. This is an Aug. 2019 3700X on a non-wifi Hero.


You'll want to set your LLC and CPU voltage to Auto, FMax Enhancer will attempt to reach higher clocks while using the same or lower voltages, but boost is still largely dependent on your cooling.

For example, my 3900X struggled to hit single core peaks of 4450-4500 before, but enabling FMax allowed CCD0 to hit 4625-4675 and CCD1 to hit 4325-4400, while multi-core jumped from 4000 to 4200.


----------



## flyinion

Kokin said:


> You'll want to set your LLC and CPU voltage to Auto, FMax Enhancer will attempt to reach higher clocks while using the same or lower voltages, but boost is still largely dependent on your cooling.
> 
> For example, my 3900X struggled to hit single core peaks of 4450-4500 before, but enabling FMax allowed CCD0 to hit 4625-4675 and CCD1 to hit 4325-4400, while multi-core jumped from 4000 to 4200.


Thanks. I’ll check them but pretty sure they already are. Maybe it’s just an OCCT thing in this case then? It ran 20 minutes of CB20 with no issues. Cooling is definitely good. Water with a aquacomputer Kryos NEXT with the AM4 zen2 offset bracket.

edit: Checked and LLC and CPU voltage were already in Auto. I think my CPU just doesn't like FMax Enhancer then as whether I tried the 0 or up to 200Mhz boost settings all of them cause errors in OCCT. This last attempt to turn it back on double checking LLC etc resulted in a blue screen during OCCT not just OCCT detecting an error and stopping.


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> You are already adjusting voltage values using curve optimiser. Looks like CCX1 required more voltage as -20 and -25 did not work, but -15 and -20 stops the Kernel Power 41 error? If so, then that is a good start.


Yes! That the case. When I set the two best cores above 20 the instability begins.. I think I’m fine this vale. Any advise to test the idle issue? I read that you had to restart windows three times to enter a recovery mode and if it passed ten times it should be stable. There is nothing better? or just spend time?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> Your Zentimings show that your memory settings are not yet optimised. Lots of areas to reduce the latency.
> Save your current bios settings profile, then try these settings. You might need to increase your SOC voltage from 1.08V to 1.09V if the settings below don't POST, but stick to your current voltages first.
> tRAS - 30
> tRC - 46
> tRRDS - 6
> tRRDL - 8
> tFAW - 24
> tWR - 14
> tRFC - 322
> tRFC2 - 239
> tRFC4 - 147
> tRTP - 8
> tRDWR - 8
> tRDRDDD - 5


Done! Much better! I didn’t change the SOC value... 


















I must admit that many times I tried to OC the memory but could not get POST .. clearly the TridentZ are good .. at least this is the first time that it worked and improved. I know that we don’t have to see only the latency but the bandwith. Thanks a lot!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> Yes! That the case. When I set the two best cores above 20 the instability begins.. I think I’m fine this vale. Any advise to test the idle issue? I read that you had to restart windows three times to enter a recovery mode and if it passed ten times it should be stable. There is nothing better? or just spend time?


Just leave your PC on, turn off the lockscreen when returning from screen saver function, and allow it to idle while you have your lunch or dinner. If you come back it is showing a login screen, then you know the idle issue has just occurred. It may not happen all the time, but if you do this for every meal in a week, it will eventually show up if you have the problem. I didn't, but was able to replicate it by putting too much negative to my curve optimiser, but not enough to make it blue screen. It instantly rebooted after it sat in Windows for about 2 minutes.


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> Done! Much better! I didn’t change the SOC value...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must admit that many times I tried to OC the memory but could not get POST .. clearly the TridentZ are good .. at least this is the first time that it worked and improved. I know that we don’t have to see only the latency but the bandwith. Thanks a lot!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Excellent! Glad to help. The settings I recommended are based on Ryzen calculator and tRFC spreadsheets. They are a good place to begin and if you want to go even tighter, you still can but I prefer stability over outright memory benchmark scores.


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> Excellent! Glad to help. The settings I recommended are based on Ryzen calculator and tRFC spreadsheets. They are a good place to begin and if you want to go even tighter, you still can but I prefer stability over outright memory benchmark scores.


Yes, thank you very much. I tried before with the Ryzen Calculator but the memories didn’t support it. I never managed the post and even less put the IF in 1900 .. well these memories are the most expensive, in fact theoretically they have an XMP profile optimized for Rayzen 5000 ... I also prefer stability, a good balance. Now I have to see if I am stable with the curve ... I'm going to try this to leave it on and see if it restarts ... thanks again!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## 1ah1

Guys did you tried Bios 3401
ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO(WI-FI) BIOS 3401 
"- Update AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.1 Patch A
- Fix USB connectivity issue 
ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO(WI-FI) BIOS 3401


----------



## Sleepycat

1ah1 said:


> Guys did you tried Bios 3401
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO(WI-FI) BIOS 3401
> "- Update AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.1 Patch A
> - Fix USB connectivity issue
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO(WI-FI) BIOS 3401


Yes I did, there is some feedback a few pages back in this thread. It behaves a bit odd with regards to the cores. USB connectivity is significantly improved with my Reverb G2, but not fully fixed. In the end, the problems with the core clocks made me go back to 3302.


----------



## dyanikoglu

1ah1 said:


> Guys did you tried Bios 3401
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO(WI-FI) BIOS 3401
> "- Update AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.1 Patch A
> - Fix USB connectivity issue
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO(WI-FI) BIOS 3401


Still not released for non-wifi version


----------



## metalshark

dyanikoglu said:


> Still not released for non-wifi version


3401 isn't, but 3402 is.



https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_HERO/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3402.ZIP



same with on the Formula:



https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_FORMULA/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3402.ZIP



It's only AGESA 1.2.0.1 Patch A and not AGESA 1.2.0.2 so you might want to sit this one out. Am hearing so many mixed reports/statements about 1.2.0.1 Patch A, but seems like 1.2.0.2 will still be coming out.


----------



## GRABibus

On French site, for the « non wifi », still 3302.


----------



## finas

link for the impact


https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_IMPACT/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-3402.ZIP



A trick to see if these bios are out are to replace the version with your own board version, for instance replace "IMPACT" with "FORMULA" on the link and also replace the bios version for the version you want, in this case it is 3402


----------



## metalshark

GRABibus said:


> On French site, for the « non wifi », still 3302.


Doesn't really matter, it's not listed on the English site either, if you want 3402 for the Hero non-wifi here's the link:
https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/...II_HERO/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3402.ZIP


----------



## dyanikoglu

metalshark said:


> 3401 isn't, but 3402 is.
> 
> 
> 
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_HERO/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3402.ZIP
> 
> 
> 
> same with on the Formula:
> 
> 
> 
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_FORMULA/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3402.ZIP
> 
> 
> 
> It's only AGESA 1.2.0.1 Patch A and not AGESA 1.2.0.2 so you might want to sit this one out. Am hearing so many mixed reports/statements about 1.2.0.1 Patch A, but seems like 1.2.0.2 will still be coming out.


Thank you so much. I'm finally able to use my HP Reverb G2 without any disconnection issues!


----------



## CyrIng

metalshark said:


> 3401 isn't, but 3402 is.
> 
> 
> 
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_HERO/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3402.ZIP
> 
> 
> 
> same with on the Formula:
> 
> 
> 
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_FORMULA/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3402.ZIP
> 
> 
> 
> It's only AGESA 1.2.0.1 Patch A and not AGESA 1.2.0.2 so you might want to sit this one out. Am hearing so many mixed reports/statements about 1.2.0.1 Patch A, but seems like 1.2.0.2 will still be coming out.


Wahoo the WE test of a new release


----------



## Sheldon_fr

Can a static oc of 1.27 damage the processor for H24?


----------



## flyinion

Ok not sure what I'm doing wrong here. Turning on Fmax Enhancer in BIOS results in errors or even BSOD's in OCCT regardless of other PBO settings. RAM is on it's DDR4-3600 DOCP profile, LLC and CPU voltage on Auto. No issues or errors etc with Fmax off and anywhere from 0-200Mhz boost in the PBO settings, but turning on Fmax causes issues at least in OCCT either on its CPU test or a Linpack test. I can run 20+ minutes of CB20, heavy games like the new MSFS which also currently has a bug causing higher than normal CPU usage and there doesn't seem to be an issue. Not sure if I should just label this as an OCCT issue and go turn it back on, or just decide that my early days (Aug 2019) 3700X is not able to handle anything like that and just keep trying to get a hold of a 5xxx series to replace it.


----------



## Gadfly

jomama22 said:


> Get off your high horse and chill out. No need to be snarky and throw out insults. I can only imagine how far back your eyes rolled into your head.
> 
> For 5: The search here absolutely sucks, you know this. Repetitive questions can be annoying, but how exactly is it affecting you? Because you don't want to read them? You are under 0 obligation to read this thread, but if you must, then just scroll on by the question.
> 
> For 6: This is only true when you are using high wattage pulling applications/large multi core programs/avx loads. As an example, my 5950x pbo and co will beat out my 4.8 all core from 1-16 threads of usage in r20. If you are gaming and gpu bottlenecked (which you most likely are on any 5xxx series), in no way is an all core better than using pbo and co. The game could use 12 threads but since you are gpu limited, the actual power pulled by the cpu isn't very high, which allows boosting behavior beyond what a stable all core is going to net you. RDR2 and sottr are good examples of this. In these high thread usage games, you're primary threads (render and game) will utilize the highest boost they can achieve (always beyond your all core stable) while the secondary threads (physics, sound, etc) don't even need the extra cycles of an all core oc and will run at quite low effective clocks. You can do your own testing with sottr in game benchmark and compare your cpu results for all core vs pbo+co.
> 
> You need to benchmark what you use and determine what makes sense.
> 
> I imagine on lower core count cpu's, the threads in pbo+co that will perform better than an all core is smaller (as pbo limits shrink) but it still comes down to the actual power used by the cpu during certain applications. It's important to actually look at your usage.
> 
> For 7: Also untrue. I have the 5950x on its own loop with 2x360 rads. Can run r20 in a loop @ 4.8/1.3v get for hours and never break 85C. What's also interesting here is I can run pbo+co and never break 78C in the same test while only loosing 200 pts (12600(4.8) 12400(pbo+co around 4.725)) in the all core r20 bench.
> 
> Yes, AIOs and straight forward warterloops will have trouble, but it doesn't take a crazy loop to tame it (I don't consider 2x360 rads just for the cpu as all that crazy, most could do the same in many, many cases now).



5.) Yes it does, but it works well enough to avoid 99% of the noob questions.

6.) Literally everything you wrote is dead wrong. No, pbo + CO will never beat out ctr / manual overclocks, in any workload. If you disagree, name your workload and let's test it. Me vs you.

7.) Yes true. 85'C is thermally limited. Pbo starts throttling at 85'C. 2x360's isn't enough cooling to push a 5950X before thermal limits.


----------



## jomama22

Gadfly said:


> 5.) Yes it does, but it works well enough to avoid 99% of the noob questions.
> 
> 6.) Literally everything you wrote is dead wrong. No, pbo + CO will never beat out ctr / manual overclocks, in any workload. If you disagree, name your workload and let's test it. Me vs you.
> 
> 7.) Yes true. 85'C is thermally limited. Pbo starts throttling at 85'C. 2x360's isn't enough cooling to push a 5950X before thermal limits.


Ok, let's do 1-12 thread r20 runs, as I said. I'll post my runs whenever you're ready.

I should have clarified, those temps with just ccd0 (just the hottest part of the whole chip), package temperature only hits 73c under pbo and cpu temp of 70.

Iv never been throttled by temperature using PBO with this setup.


----------



## Kokin

It's a public forum, expecting repeated questions to not be asked is asking for the impossible. It doesn't help that the search function got seriously gimped 2 site overhauls ago. 



Gadfly said:


> Man... the level of knowledge in this thread has dropped substantially as of late.
> 
> Reading the last few pages was beyond painful.


I get you're trying to be helpful with everything else you said afterward but maybe consider that this part sounds particularly taunting? I don't know what kind of reaction you were expecting to get when typing something like this to the general public; definitely not kindness lol


----------



## domdtxdissar

Gadfly said:


> 5.) Yes it does, but it works well enough to avoid 99% of the noob questions.
> 
> 6.) Literally everything you wrote is dead wrong. No, pbo + CO will never beat out ctr / manual overclocks, in any workload. If you disagree, name your workload and let's test it. Me vs you.
> 
> 7.) Yes true. 85'C is thermally limited. Pbo starts throttling at 85'C. 2x360's isn't enough cooling to push a 5950X before thermal limits.


6.) 
Even 1usmus himself know that CTR dont perform any better than a properly optimized PBO CO setup..
This is from the CTR patreon page.









Also the reason why *Gadfly *doing this propaganda for CTR in this thread is because he is invested in the CTR program..










I will end with that iam a paying subscriber for the patreon program, eventho i dont use the software i like to support the effort. And we will maybe get a new dram calculator for zen3 in the next few months..


----------



## CyrIng

flyinion said:


> Ok not sure what I'm doing wrong here. Turning on Fmax Enhancer in BIOS results in errors or even BSOD's in OCCT regardless of other PBO settings. RAM is on it's DDR4-3600 DOCP profile, LLC and CPU voltage on Auto. No issues or errors etc with Fmax off and anywhere from 0-200Mhz boost in the PBO settings, but turning on Fmax causes issues at least in OCCT either on its CPU test or a Linpack test. I can run 20+ minutes of CB20, heavy games like the new MSFS which also currently has a bug causing higher than normal CPU usage and there doesn't seem to be an issue. Not sure if I should just label this as an OCCT issue and go turn it back on, or just decide that my early days (Aug 2019) 3700X is not able to handle anything like that and just keep trying to get a hold of a 5xxx series to replace it.


Leave OCCT alone, this software is working fine.
FMAX is apparently not made for stability.


----------



## Sleepycat

domdtxdissar said:


> 6.)
> Even 1usmus himself know that CTR dont perform any better than a properly optimized PBO CO setup..
> This is from the CTR patreon page.
> View attachment 2483585


1usmus says that CTR will have the same or better performance when compared to PBO+CO. He doesn't say that PBO+CO outperforms CTR.

In the end, it is not how you overclock your CPU, but the maximum frequency that you can sustain without thermal throttling and without creating calculation errors that determines your benchmark score. CTR looks for calculation errors during tuning, so you don't have to worry about clock stretching and lower scores in benchmarks at the same clock speed.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Sleepycat said:


> 1usmus says that CTR will have the same or better performance when compared to PBO+CO. He doesn't say that PBO+CO outperforms CTR.
> 
> In the end, it is not how you overclock your CPU, but the maximum frequency that you can sustain without thermal throttling and without creating calculation errors that determines your benchmark score. CTR looks for calculation errors during tuning, so you don't have to worry about clock stretching and lower scores in benchmarks at the same clock speed.


1usmus = Yuri which i was talking with on screenshot above.

Its Gadfly that actually claim CTR will perform better than PBO CO.


> Literally everything you wrote is dead wrong. No, pbo + CO will never beat out ctr / manual overclocks, in any workload. If you disagree, name your workload and let's test it. Me vs you.


Both 1usmus and the other guys/admins say CTR perform the ~same as a optimized PBO CO setup.

I say this is even not correct if you wanna run a stable CTR setting which dont crash as soon as you start prime95 or something else heavy on 1-16 cores.. ((CTR stability testing is for "medium loads")cinebench+light prime settings)

In medium loads (cinebench to handbreak etc) CTR matches or beat PBO CO by a small margin. In light loads (like many games are) PBO CO beat CTR, as long as you dont have multiple different CTR profiles for all the different programs you use.. (which would need manual adjusting and enabling each time)

Shadow of the Tomb Raider is a real example for this, where PBO CO is faster than "stable CTR settings"

Like the text from my screenshot above, allcore effective clock at 4750mhz in TestMEM with PBO CO. (This is a substitute for a light load "game" which use all cores)
I can never run a CTR P1 profile at 4750mhz and expect stability in anything other then testmem, and that's the problem with CTR vs PBO CO

PBO CO boost higher in light loads, and if you set your CTR profiles to match the high boosting in light loads, CTR will crash in heavy loads while PBO simply clock further down.

This is my CTR settings:








Not stabil in the heaviest loads and slower than PBO CO in light loads.
If i increase the CTR mhz numbers to match the "light PBO CO mhz numbers" it wont even be stable in medium workloads anymore.
PBO CO adjust automatically to the different workloads.

Hence CTR < PBO CO for a gaming computer in my eyes


----------



## kuutale

Hello

is my l3 speeds normal? both bios 3302 and 3402 seems get this l3 speeds? can someone confirm this is ok?


----------



## Sleepycat

domdtxdissar said:


> 1usmus = Yuri which i was talking with on screenshot above.


I know that 1usmus = But I. He is saying that CTR matches or outperforms PBO+CO in your screenshot. So it is not just Gadfly, but also Yuri saying it as well.


----------



## xeizo

kuutale said:


> Hello
> 
> is my l3 speeds normal? both bios 3302 and 3402 seems get this l3 speeds? can someone confirm this is ok?
> 
> 
> View attachment 2483601


It is very slow L3 speed, should be at least 7-900GB/s, but it could be a Windows bug as well. That exact thing happened to me when running Windows Insider later builds, for that reason I quit running Windows Insider and only use official builds from now on. The official builds don't have that problem as far as I have encountered, I have four Ryzen rigs running so I have had the possibility to do some comparisons.

Here, tested right now with official 19042.870, looks normal with 3401


----------



## kuutale

y


xeizo said:


> It is very slow L3 speed, should be at least 7-900GB/s, but it could be a Windows bug as well. That exact thing happened to me when running Windows Insider later builds, for that reason I quit running Windows Insider and only use official builds from now on. The official builds don't have that problem as far as I have encountered, I have four Ryzen rigs running so I have had the possibility to do some comparisons.
> 
> Here, tested right now with official 19042.870, looks normal with 3401
> 
> View attachment 2483612


yes i upload week ago insider previev thing my computer :/ and if i want remove insider thing i need format c ? i t can be bug , but is there my 3dmark test indicates my performance is drop .


----------



## dyanikoglu

domdtxdissar said:


> 6.)
> Even 1usmus himself know that CTR dont perform any better than a properly optimized PBO CO setup..
> This is from the CTR patreon page.
> View attachment 2483585
> 
> 
> Also the reason why *Gadfly *doing this propaganda for CTR in this thread is because he is invested in the CTR program..
> 
> View attachment 2483586
> 
> 
> I will end with that iam a paying subscriber for the patreon program, eventho i dont use the software i like to support the effort. And we will maybe get a new dram calculator for zen3 in the next few months..


Stop spreading false information, 1usmus never told something like that.


----------



## domdtxdissar

dyanikoglu said:


> Stop spreading false information, 1usmus never told something like that


Start reading and understanding what written right infront of you ?









..with "recommended voltages" (since CTR is static) you will have *better or same performance as PBO CO*.

= in light load scenarios PBO CO can run higher voltage and higher effective clock (safely) than a static voltage because it adjust itself after the workload

In a power/cooling limited setting i can very well see CTR being faster overall, but we are talking about maximum performance for high-end watercooling setups for 24/7 usage here.


----------



## PowerK

Goodwin Ti said:


> I'm just asking about APIC ID. Does it show the core number or thread number that crashed?


Thread.
Core 0 = APIC ID 0, 1
Core 1 = APIC ID 2, 3
Core 2 = APIC ID 4, 5 and so on.


----------



## Sam64

domdtxdissar said:


> *better or same performance as PBO CO*.


Where's the problem? So everyone has a choice. I still prefer manual PBO/CO over CTR, because I like to know, what's going on.


----------



## xeizo

kuutale said:


> y
> yes i upload week ago insider previev thing my computer :/ and if i want remove insider thing i need format c ? i t can be bug , but is there my 3dmark test indicates my performance is drop .


Yes, a fresh install is the advice


----------



## metalshark

PowerK said:


> Thread.
> Core 0 = APIC ID 0, 1
> Core 1 = APIC ID 2, 3
> Core 2 = APIC ID 4, 5 and so on.


Genuine question, is that always the case? Isn't it best to do a lookup to make sure it's that way round (which the vast majority of the time it is)? Can CPPC, etc flip the APIC order?


----------



## PowerK

metalshark said:


> Genuine question, is that always the case? Isn't it best to do a lookup to make sure it's that way round (which the vast majority of the time it is)? Can CPPC, etc flip the APIC order?


No. It's my understanding that this is not always the case. You need to see topology to be certain. However, for Ryzen CPUs, that's the case.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> I know that 1usmus = But I. He is saying that CTR matches or outperforms PBO+CO in your screenshot. So it is not just Gadfly, but also Yuri saying it as well.


Agree and in fact the screenshot posted clearly says this









That is using RECOMMENDED voltages but you can tweak those manually and in my case easily do better with CTR than I was ever able to do with all sorts of PBO+CO configurations.


----------



## domdtxdissar

PowerK said:


> Thread.
> Core 0 = APIC ID 0, 1
> Core 1 = APIC ID 2, 3
> Core 2 = APIC ID 4, 5 and so on.


CPU-Z -> about -> save report = What cores have what ID



Spoiler: example


----------



## PowerK

domdtxdissar said:


> CPU-Z -> about -> save report = What cores have what ID
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: example
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2483640


No. That's not it.
You need to scroll down more to see APIC IDs for each thread and core.


----------



## metalshark

PowerK said:


> No. That's not it.
> You need to scroll down more to see APIC IDs for each thread and core.


That's the concise list of APIC IDs. The Thread Dumps show this info + more.









Thanks for clarifying it's always in order on Ryzen, I'd have thought CPPC or a stronger 2nd CCD would've changed it in some cases.


----------



## PowerK

metalshark said:


> That's the concise list of APIC IDs. The Thread Dumps show this info + more.
> View attachment 2483642
> 
> 
> Thanks for clarifying it's always in order on Ryzen, I'd have thought CPPC or a stronger 2nd's CCD would've changed it in some cases.


Ah, you're right. I was only looking at:


----------



## Gadfly

domdtxdissar said:


> 1usmus = Yuri which i was talking with on screenshot above.
> 
> Its Gadfly that actually claim CTR will perform better than PBO CO.
> 
> Both 1usmus and the other guys/admins say CTR perform the ~same as a optimized PBO CO setup.
> 
> I say this is even not correct if you wanna run a stable CTR setting which dont crash as soon as you start prime95 or something else heavy on 1-16 cores.. ((CTR stability testing is for "medium loads")cinebench+light prime settings)
> 
> In medium loads (cinebench to handbreak etc) CTR matches or beat PBO CO by a small margin. In light loads (like many games are) PBO CO beat CTR, as long as you dont have multiple different CTR profiles for all the different programs you use.. (which would need manual adjusting and enabling each time)
> 
> Shadow of the Tomb Raider is a real example for this, where PBO CO is faster than "stable CTR settings"
> 
> Like the text from my screenshot above, allcore effective clock at 4750mhz in TestMEM with PBO CO. (This is a substitute for a light load "game" which use all cores)
> I can never run a CTR P1 profile at 4750mhz and expect stability in anything other then testmem, and that's the problem with CTR vs PBO CO
> 
> PBO CO boost higher in light loads, and if you set your CTR profiles to match the high boosting in light loads, CTR will crash in heavy loads while PBO simply clock further down.
> 
> This is my CTR settings:
> View attachment 2483610
> 
> Not stabil in the heaviest loads and slower than PBO CO in light loads.
> If i increase the CTR mhz numbers to match the "light PBO CO mhz numbers" it wont even be stable in medium workloads anymore.
> PBO CO adjust automatically to the different workloads.
> 
> Hence CTR < PBO CO for a gaming computer in my eyes


Yes CTR will outperform PBO+CO, it will also run at lower temps and lower voltages. 

I have yet to see any gaming workload where PBO+CO will beat out CTR, PBO will only allow the highest single core boost if there are no other active cores (Which never is the case in any game), as soon as any other core goes active, PBO will drop the clocks. With CTR you can sustain a full load on the top two cores (PX High). In my case I am running 5025mhz effective PX High. With PBO+CO moving from single thread load, to two thread load results in the PBO dropping from 5015-5050mhz effective, to 4975-5015 effective. CTR > PBO for gaming. 

Clearly you are struggling with stability, but that is a issue specific to your setup (likley lack of cooling), I have no idea what is wrong with your setup, but if "If i increase the CTR mhz numbers to match the "light PBO CO mhz numbers" it wont even be stable in medium workloads anymore." is true, you are doing something incorrectly. 

You also don't seem to grasp the concept behind the profiles. Your P1 profile should be tuned for heavy all core stability, and it should be slightly faster at a lower voltage than what you would see with PBO+CO. Your P2 profile can be whatever you want. I built my P2 as a "Gaming profile" as I tuned it for 8 fast cores. (4825/4400 @ 1.263v). Just about every gaming workload will land on P, though a few will land on PX Low. You want to be sure you tune and stability test PX high for TWO fully loaded cores (not one). 

Here is a simple break down of voltages, power draw, clocks, and temps between Core boost, Core Boost overdrive, and CTR profiles:


----------



## Gadfly

jomama22 said:


> Ok, let's do 1-12 thread r20 runs, as I said. I'll post my runs whenever you're ready.
> 
> I should have clarified, those temps with just ccd0 (just the hottest part of the whole chip), package temperature only hits 73c under pbo and cpu temp of 70.
> 
> Iv never been throttled by temperature using PBO with this setup.


Posted

All runs were made on Windows 10 as it boots (steam, MSI afterburner, etc.), running HWinfo, no process priority / CPU affinity changes. 










ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...


1usmus says that CTR will have the same or better performance when compared to PBO+CO. He doesn't say that PBO+CO outperforms CTR. In the end, it is not how you overclock your CPU, but the maximum frequency that you can sustain without thermal throttling and without creating calculation errors...




www.overclock.net


----------



## domdtxdissar

Gadfly said:


> Posted
> 
> All runs were made on Windows 10 as it boots (steam, MSI afterburner, etc.), running HWinfo, no process priority / CPU affinity changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...
> 
> 
> 1usmus says that CTR will have the same or better performance when compared to PBO+CO. He doesn't say that PBO+CO outperforms CTR. In the end, it is not how you overclock your CPU, but the maximum frequency that you can sustain without thermal throttling and without creating calculation errors...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


Touche

Something is clearly wrong with your PBO CO settings if you cant sustain atleast 5050mhz in cinebench, your scoring way to low singlethreaded scores for a high-end watercooled rig with power/cooling headroom.. 646 points for PBO+CO ? Cleary not a optimized setup.. Should be around 655 points @ stock boostclock at 5050mhz for a PBO CO overclock

No wonder you get higher results with CTR if this is your maximum PBO CO optimized settings lol


----------



## Gadfly

domdtxdissar said:


> Touche
> 
> Something is clearly wrong with your PBO CO settings if you cant sustain atleast 5050mhz in cinebench, your scoring way to low singlethreaded scores for a high-end watercooled rig with power/cooling headroom.. 646 points for PBO+CO ? Cleary not a optimized setup.. Should be around 655 points @ stock boostclock at 5050mhz for a PBO CO overclock
> 
> No wonder you get higher results with CTR if this is your maximum PBO CO optimized settings lol


The only way to get 5050mhz sustained single core with PBO is to pull -25+ curve and resort to core voltage offsets that will push VID over 1.5v then manually lock the CPU affinity with high or real time priority to the strongest core; even then it isn't stable. All the values above are all stable values. Also keep in mind this is running windows as it boots, (MSI afterburner, HWinfo running etc.) with no priority or CPU affinity tweaks. I absolutely *can* score 655 single core (see below), but it won't pass stability testing / random reboots. Not to mention to break 12k all core, I had to up EDC to 245, vs. in CTR I run EDC limit at 180a.

No one scores 655 single thread unless they pushing it the point of instability, without CPU affinity and priority tweaks, on a clean system with nothing else running.

This is the most my "golden" 5950X on a 4x 480mm rad water loop will run, *and* pass stability testing. Running unstable profiles wouldn't provide a fair comparison. I mean if you really want unstable kill mode benches, I can run 5050mhz x8 cores with CTR and pass a benchmark, in fact that is what I did to get the #1 Superposition 720P bench:

720p Low (Single GPU) - Superposition 1.x Top 50 Leaderboards | UNIGINE Benchmarks


----------



## domdtxdissar

Gadfly said:


> The only way to get 5050mhz sustained single core is to pull -25+ curve and resort to core voltage offsets that will push VID over 1.5v, and manually lock the CPU affinity with high or real time priority; but even then it isn't stable. These are all stable values. I absolutely *can* score 655 single core (see below), but it won't pass stability testing / random reboots. Not to mention to break 12k all core, I had to up EDC to 245, vs. in CTR I run EDC limit at 180a. Also keep in mind this is running windows as it boots, (MSI afterburner, HWinfo running etc.) with no priority or CPU affinity tweaks.
> 
> no one scores 655 single thread unless they pushing it the point of instability, without CPU affinity and priority tweaks, on a clean system with nothing else running.
> 
> This is the most my "golden" 5950X on a 4x 480mm rad water loop will run, *and* pass stability testing. Running unstable profiles wouldn't provide a fair comparison. I mean if you want unstable kill mode benches, I can run 5050mhz x8 cores and pass a benchmark, in fact that is what I did to get the #1 Superposition 720P bench:
> 
> 720p Low (Single GPU) - Superposition 1.x Top 50 Leaderboards | UNIGINE Benchmarks
> 
> View attachment 2483655


What the heck are you talking about ? You clearly dont have a optimized PBO CO overclock if you think this is the case, no wonder you like CTR then.

This is my daily 24/7 settings with fans and everything on auto, c-states off and a old bloaty windows install:
No voltage offset, no random reboots.
No CPU affinity changes and no priority tweaks.









This is how my PBO CO overclock looks when its pushed to the point of instability as you put it:










PS, i would like to see your P1 4700/4650 run prime95 v303b6 (with AVX).

_edit_

Why are we even comparing in Cinebench which is a "medium load" ? This is a best case for CTR as i've said in my previous posts..
You can try to compare CTR VS PBO CO in something like SotTR, hopefully even your curve optimizer settings should score higher in CPU Game than CTR.

Its in the "light workloads" and/or games PBO CO is faster than a CTR overclock in my findings. But you need a properly optimized PBO CO overclock without power/temperature restraints for it to be true, something clearly you dont have *Gadfly*


----------



## smbell1979

I seem to be in the same boat as Gadfly with my "lead sample" 5950x. I've spent hours and hours using all the info I've gathered from this thread working on my CO and PBO settings to get as high clock and as much stability as I can get and I never break 4.95Ghz on cinebench.

When I first built this machine, I was getting 5050 - 5075 just doing regular stuff like browsing the internet and doing vfx work, it seems like every successive BIOS release, my max boost goes lower and lower. I haven't seen 5000+ in weeks during regular use. BoostTester will always get them there, but I don't really count that.


----------



## domdtxdissar

smbell1979 said:


> When I first built this machine, I was getting 5050 - 5075 just doing regular stuff like browsing the internet and doing vfx work, it seems like every successive BIOS release, my max boost goes lower and lower. I haven't seen 5000+ in weeks during regular use. BoostTester will always get them there, but I don't really count that.


Thats a bios (agesa) problem i talked about a few pages back..









ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...


Has anyone got any deep experience with tRFC2/tRFC4? Keep seeing the rule that: tRFC2 = tRFC / 1.346 tRFC4 = tRFC2 / 1.625 But I can push tRFC2 = tRFC / 1.415 (with an improvement in performance over tRFC2 = tRFC / 1.346) and tRFC4 seems to be ignored (can set it to the minimum 60 or as high...




www.overclock.net


----------



## jomama22

Gadfly said:


> Yes CTR will outperform PBO+CO, it will also run at lower temps and lower voltages.
> 
> I have yet to see any gaming workload where PBO+CO will beat out CTR, PBO will only allow the highest single core boost if there are no other active cores (Which never is the case in any game), as soon as any other core goes active, PBO will drop the clocks. With CTR you can sustain a full load on the top two cores (PX High). In my case I am running 5025mhz effective PX High. With PBO+CO moving from single thread load, to two thread load results in the PBO dropping from 5015-5050mhz effective, to 4975-5015 effective. CTR > PBO for gaming.
> 
> Clearly you are struggling with stability, but that is a issue specific to your setup (likley lack of cooling), I have no idea what is wrong with your setup, but if "If i increase the CTR mhz numbers to match the "light PBO CO mhz numbers" it wont even be stable in medium workloads anymore." is true, you are doing something incorrectly.
> 
> You also don't seem to grasp the concept behind the profiles. Your P1 profile should be tuned for heavy all core stability, and it should be slightly faster at a lower voltage than what you would see with PBO+CO. Your P2 profile can be whatever you want. I built my P2 as a "Gaming profile" as I tuned it for 8 fast cores. (4825/4400 @ 1.263v). Just about every gaming workload will land on P, though a few will land on PX Low. You want to be sure you tune and stability test PX high for TWO fully loaded cores (not one).
> 
> Here is a simple break down of voltages, power draw, clocks, and temps between Core boost, Core Boost overdrive, and CTR profiles:
> 
> View attachment 2483647


Here we go, I added the pictures of the runs as attachments. Can you rerun you ctr 6 thread run? Seems like a typo as it deviates quite drastically from every other score. 3996/6 threads = 666 single core score for each thread, which clearly isn't happening lol. Running a 4.9 all core with that doesn't yield nearly that same score. Please post a picture when you do of the clocks and r20.

This is my daily stable setup. No fresh install or messing about with priorities. Have all my start up stuff running as well. As I said, I have a dark hero so I use dos when the 4.8 begins to beat out pbo. I tested all of these using p95 and y cruncher, occt and realbench. What is interesting is the fact that the hero boards run pbo quite worse when compared to my msi ace. Not sure what is going on but it is considerably lower in scores using the same stability. Ill have to put that board back in and test this again at some point. As an example, this is the ace using pure pbo, you can see how the score compares to other all cores as well in the picture. The 4.8 all core on the dark hero produces ~12550 all core though:










It should also be noted I have to leave c states disabled on the dark hero as I get the dreaded 00 hard lock/crash at idle otherwise. The msi ace does not have this issue.

pbo/co
1 thread: 659
2 threads 1299
4 threads 2510
6 threads 3747
8 threads 4899
12 threads 7116


----------



## jomama22

domdtxdissar said:


> What the heck are you talking about ? You clearly dont have a optimized PBO CO overclock if you think this is the case, no wonder you like CTR then.
> 
> This is my daily 24/7 settings with fans and everything on auto, c-states off and a old bloaty windows install:
> No voltage offset, no random reboots.
> No CPU affinity changes and no priority tweaks.
> View attachment 2483657
> 
> 
> This is how my PBO CO overclock looks when its pushed to the point of instability as you put it:
> View attachment 2483658
> 
> 
> 
> PS, i would like to see your P1 4700/4650 run prime95 v303b6 (with AVX).
> 
> _edit_
> 
> Why are we even comparing in Cinebench which is a "medium load" ? This is a best case for CTR as i've said in my previous posts..
> You can try to compare CTR VS PBO CO in something like SotTR, hopefully even your curve optimizer settings should score higher in CPU Game than CTR.
> 
> Its in the "light workloads" and/or games PBO CO is faster than a CTR overclock in my findings. But you need a properly optimized PBO CO overclock without power/temperature restraints for it to be true, something clearly you dont have *Gadfly*


I only recommend r20 as it was the easiest way to do a quick fixed thread limit that showes some sort of performance metric to compare. If he has sottr we can do that as well as I already have my score up for that anyway.

And honestly, I'd rather give ctr the advantage just to have a worst case scenario comparison.


----------



## criznit

domdtxdissar said:


> What the heck are you talking about ? You clearly dont have a optimized PBO CO overclock if you think this is the case, no wonder you like CTR then.
> 
> This is my daily 24/7 settings with fans and everything on auto, c-states off and a old bloaty windows install:
> No voltage offset, no random reboots.
> No CPU affinity changes and no priority tweaks.
> View attachment 2483657
> 
> 
> This is how my PBO CO overclock looks when its pushed to the point of instability as you put it:
> View attachment 2483658
> 
> 
> 
> PS, i would like to see your P1 4700/4650 run prime95 v303b6 (with AVX).
> 
> _edit_
> 
> Why are we even comparing in Cinebench which is a "medium load" ? This is a best case for CTR as i've said in my previous posts..
> You can try to compare CTR VS PBO CO in something like SotTR, hopefully even your curve optimizer settings should score higher in CPU Game than CTR.
> 
> Its in the "light workloads" and/or games PBO CO is faster than a CTR overclock in my findings. But you need a properly optimized PBO CO overclock without power/temperature restraints for it to be true, something clearly you dont have *Gadfly*


What settings are you using?


----------



## domdtxdissar

jomama22 said:


> I only recommend r20 as it was the easiest way to do a quick fixed thread limit that showes some sort of performance metric to compare. If he has sottr we can do that as well as I already have my score up for that anyway.
> 
> And honestly, I'd rather give ctr the advantage just to have a worst case scenario comparison.


I did also give this a try, one reboot later and back to my old tried and true offset settings, without 30 chrome tabs open 

1 thread = 662 points
2 threads = 1303 points
4 threads = 2444 points
6 threads = 3706 points
8 threads = 4887 points
10 threads = 5974 points
12 threads = 7022 points
14 threads = 7906 points
16 threads = 8645 points
20 threads = 9583 points
...seems like i didn't save 24 thread screenshot, but 105xx score
32 threads = 12238 points


----------



## gabian

Hi
I have a question.
On the Dark hero, there is 2 bios menu for playing with PBO. One Asus, and One AMD. Which values are use ? For example, i put PPT 200 on Asus and ppt 140 on AMD, which one will be use ? Same question with the +Freq.
Thanks


----------



## Sleepycat

gabian said:


> Hi
> I have a question.
> On the Dark hero, there is 2 bios menu for playing with PBO. One Asus, and One AMD. Which values are use ? For example, i put PPT 200 on Asus and ppt 140 on AMD, which one will be use ? Same question with the +Freq.
> Thanks


You just put it in one area, and leave the other on Auto. I used the one under the Advanced menu.


----------



## lmfodor

Hi! I finally found a tool to check the stability of the curve. I was surprised because I had no problems with reboots or passing stress tests like P95, OCCT with cycling, CoreCycler .. I was with this configuration: -15 for the two best cores -20 for the rest of CCD1 -30 for all of the CCD2 Boost goes from +200 to 50 and then to 0 Scalar Auto Thermal Limit 85 scores on CB20 8900/632 and very good with temperatures in 220/200/160 

As I changed the memories I started testing with TM5, which I can't get through, but then I tried y-cruncher with options 1 - 8 - 14 and 0 which are the FFT tests and there I started to get errors. They all occurred in the CCD2 cores, so I went down to -25 and it failed, I went down to -20 and I also failed and then at -15 I did not fail. In conclusion, now I am with -15 best CCD1 cores (which could test a little less voltage) -20 for the rest of CCD1 and -15 for all of the CCD2. 










What do you think? I was surprised that it was so good and fundamentally so fast at detecting instability errors. Anyone else tried this tool to test your curve?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> Your Zentimings show that your memory settings are not yet optimised. Lots of areas to reduce the latency.
> Save your current bios settings profile, then try these settings. You might need to increase your SOC voltage from 1.08V to 1.09V if the settings below don't POST, but stick to your current voltages first.
> tRAS - 30
> tRC - 46
> tRRDS - 6
> tRRDL - 8
> tFAW - 24
> tWR - 14
> tRFC - 322
> tRFC2 - 239
> tRFC4 - 147
> tRTP - 8
> tRDWR - 8
> tRDRDDD - 5


Hi Sleepycat

I have been using the configuration that you gave me and the only thing I found after performing several tests is that I cannot pass the TM5 tests .. at least with two configurations .. if, as I put in the previous post, I managed to pass the stability test of y -cruncher. I consulted about the timings in the thread the 7/24 memory stability and they jumped with two alerts that in the end it was not clear to me if they are so serious. First, the VDDP was very high at 1.08, almost at the value of vSOC, which they suggested to lower to 0.9, which I did, and then the RTTPark, which was at 1, recommended 3 to me ... and here it is not clear if for this memory model with A theoretical profile optimized for Rayzen 5000 and with high voltage values are good from the factory. Then I found a review of these memories where even the one who tests them I see that it puts more aggressive values of OC, or at least a little. 

This is the review with the timings in te note:  https://www.igorslab.de/en/does-th...r4-3800-cl14-2x-16gb-put-through-its-paces/3/ this is the tester “safe” OC timings







These are my actual timings:







and this my TM5 errors









Then load the profile in Thipoon and with the Rayzen Calculator I see that there are some small differences on the values that you gave me, but what surprises me is that it suggests a lower voltage, it may be that these apps have been outdated for certain types of memory? In fact Tiphoon cannot read the Trident model, he puts them as unknown







What could improve? Could I copy the values from the review? they seem tighter. In fact my only concern besides not passing the TM5 test is that while I run the test the temperature of the minorities rises to 51 .. they do not pass there, I am at the limit, right? I do not have a WHEA error or anything weird ..




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## PowerK

lmfodor said:


> Hi! I finally found a tool to check the stability of the curve. I was surprised because I had no problems with reboots or passing stress tests like P95, OCCT with cycling, CoreCycler .. I was with this configuration: -15 for the two best cores -20 for the rest of CCD1 -30 for all of the CCD2 Boost goes from +200 to 50 and then to 0 Scalar Auto Thermal Limit 85 scores on CB20 8900/632 and very good with temperatures in 220/200/160
> 
> As I changed the memories I started testing with TM5, which I can't get through, but then I tried y-cruncher with options 1 - 8 - 14 and 0 which are the FFT tests and there I started to get errors. They all occurred in the CCD2 cores, so I went down to -25 and it failed, I went down to -20 and I also failed and then at -15 I did not fail. In conclusion, now I am with -15 best CCD1 cores (which could test a little less voltage) -20 for the rest of CCD1 and -15 for all of the CCD2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think? I was surprised that it was so good and fundamentally so fast at detecting instability errors. Anyone else tried this tool to test your curve?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Yes. But I'm surprised that you see that much of CO curve delta between P95 and y-cruncher. Are you sure you used P95 properly for stress testing?
Y-cruncher is an extremely good CPU stress test tool (perhaps the best/hardest there is).
It's also good for memory test (if you use memtest.cfg). I use both TM5 and y-cruncher for memory stability test.


----------



## lmfodor

PowerK said:


> Yes. Y-cruncher is an extremely good CPU stress test tool (perhaps the best/hardest there is).
> It's also good for memory test (if you use memtest.cfg). I use both TM5 and y-cruncher for memory stability test.


Yes, I discovered that. I could pass the y-cruncher but I don’t know what to do to pass TM5...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> Hi Sleepycat
> 
> I have been using the configuration that you gave me and the only thing I found after performing several tests is that I cannot pass the TM5 tests .. at least with two configurations .. if, as I put in the previous post, I managed to pass the stability test of y -cruncher. I consulted about the timings in the thread the 7/24 memory stability and they jumped with two alerts that in the end it was not clear to me if they are so serious. First, the VDDP was very high at 1.08, almost at the value of vSOC, which they suggested to lower to 0.9, which I did, and then the RTTPark, which was at 1, recommended 3 to me ... and here it is not clear if for this memory model with A theoretical profile optimized for Rayzen 5000 and with high voltage values are good from the factory. Then I found a review of these memories where even the one who tests them I see that it puts more aggressive values of OC, or at least a little.


I run VDDP of 0.95V. So yeah, yours at 1.08V seems high. You can always lower each voltage and then test stability. It takes a long time, but it is good to achieve stability. I don't leave my settings on Auto, I set them all manually so that they use voltages that I want.



lmfodor said:


> This is the review with the timings in te note:  https://www.igorslab.de/en/does-the-new-high-end-ram-for-ryzen-5000-live-up-to-its-promise-gskill-trident-z-neo-ddr4-3800-cl14-2x-16gb-put-through-its-paces/3/ this is the tester “safe” OC timings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are my actual timings:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and this my TM5 errors


You can try the settings used by igor's lab review, but don't set your voltages to what they used straight away. To me VDDG IOD and VSOC of 1.175V and VDDP of 1.1V is too high, so I would never run it on my system. Your current voltages are a good starting point, but be aware that you may need to increase them to get the same timings as Igor. Also make sure you set all voltages manually so that it doesn't go to high on Auto. Start with your current voltages and then adjust them up step by step until you overcome POST issues and errors.

Also keep in mind that with review sites that are testing components sent by the manufacturer are very likely to receive golden samples (best of the best).

Before you use the timings from Igor's lab, make sure you save your current profile on thumbdrive. If it hard locks and you have to clear settings or force reflash, you might lose the existing profile saves in your BIOs memory.



lmfodor said:


> Then load the profile in Thipoon and with the Rayzen Calculator I see that there are some small differences on the values that you gave me, but what surprises me is that it suggests a lower voltage, it may be that these apps have been outdated for certain types of memory? In fact Tiphoon cannot read the Trident model, he puts them as unknown


Ryzen calculator is just a calculator. It does not take into account your CPU, SOC and motherboard quality. So don't worry if the voltages recommended are lower because very often you do need more than they recommended. For example, Ryzen calculators recommends a DIMM voltage maximum of 1.4V for my 4x16GB setup. But I can't boot at 1.45 or lower, only 1.46V. So I use what works, as long as it is within the safe limits of my memory.




lmfodor said:


> What could improve? Could I copy the values from the review? they seem tighter. In fact my only concern besides not passing the TM5 test is that while I run the test the temperature of the minorities rises to 51 .. they do not pass there, I am at the limit, right? I do not have a WHEA error or anything weird ..


The first thing I would do is to solve your TM5 errors. Once you fix that, then I would look at putting in tighter timings from the review. No point using tighter timings now when you are having TM5 errors. You can test the following safe settings to see if it resolves TM5 Error 14 and 15.
tRFC: 460
tRFC2: 342
tRFC4: 210


----------



## PowerK

Guys, when you talk about VDDP, I assume you mean CLDO VDDP. That being said, there's CPU VDDP which hardly anyone talks about.
I confess I have it at Auto. Does anyone know the default/stock CPU VDDP for Ryzen 5000 series?
I have set CLDO VDDP at 850mV which I believe is the default/stock.


----------



## metalshark

PowerK said:


> Guys, when you talk about VDDP, I assume you mean CLDO VDDP. That being said, there's CPU VDDP which hardly anyone talks about.
> I confess I have it at Auto. Does anyone know the default/stock CPU VDDP for Ryzen 5000 series?
> I have set CLDO VDDP at 850mV which I believe is the default/stock.


Have the VDDP under Tweaker's Paradise (CPU VDDP) set to 0.72, at 0.705 (the minimum) I get errors.


----------



## metalshark

@Gadfly @domdtxdissar surely once CTR gets its promised CO support, a piece of software that adjusts profiles based on usage and has the ability to change all the settings will always win (well once fully optimised/configured)?

For right now having a voltage curve per core may work better than cruder per CCX steps (profiles) in places and visa-versa, but with CTR getting CO support in future it would seem in the end that's going to be the best approach, even if there are cases it loses in right now due to curve support not being available.

FWIW am getting better results with PBO+CO than CTR right now, but when CTR gets the ability to set my PBO+CO as merely a profile and offers other profiles for other workloads it's the best of all worlds.

Also don't think anyone's fussed by the size/quantity of rads as much as the thermal transfer from the IHS to the loop as you can roast the chip at 90'C without the loop temp hitting 30'C with an EKWB block and normal thermal compound, add 8x560mm rads and it'll still be 90'C on the CPU. Likewise, you're not needing more than 2-3x360mm rads with decent thermal transfer (a much better block, some lapping, liquid metal) at ~304W constant.


----------



## PJVol

del


----------



## stimpy88

metalshark said:


> Have the VDDP under Tweaker's Paradise (CPU VDDP) set to 0.72, at 0.705 (the minimum) I get errors.


Does anyone actually know what this voltage is for, and what it's supposed to do? Is there a benefit for altering it?


----------



## jomama22

stimpy88 said:


> Does anyone actually know what this voltage is for, and what it's supposed to do? Is there a benefit for altering it?


It can actually help with fclock stabilization if you need it. .885-.850 seems to be the sweet spot for higher fclocks if needed, but depends on the chip. Auto usually runs around .900-.930 at 1900 fclock.


----------



## jomama22

metalshark said:


> @Gadfly @domdtxdissar surely once CTR gets its promised CO support, a piece of software that adjusts profiles based on usage and has the ability to change all the settings will always win (well once fully optimised/configured)?
> 
> For right now having a voltage curve per core may work better than cruder per CCX steps (profiles) in places and visa-versa, but with CTR getting CO support in future it would seem in the end that's going to be the best approach, even if there are cases it loses in right now due to curve support not being available.
> 
> FWIW am getting better results with PBO+CO than CTR right now, but when CTR gets the ability to set my PBO+CO as merely a profile and offers other profiles for other workloads it's the best of all worlds.
> 
> Also don't think anyone's fussed by the size/quantity of rads as much as the thermal transfer from the IHS to the loop as you can roast the chip at 90'C without the loop temp hitting 30'C with an EKWB block and normal thermal compound, add 8x560mm rads and it'll still be 90'C on the CPU. Likewise, you're not needing more than 2-3x360mm rads with decent thermal transfer (a much better block, some lapping, liquid metal) at ~304W constant.


I use a optimus foundation but also tested a aqua computer next and got nearly the same results. Those ek blocks aren't the greatest on the 3000 series and up. I'm just using kryonaut atm but have tried liquid metal and saw about a 2 degree drop in ccd temps.

The cpu itself plays a large role, whether it's the ihs flatness or the chips themselves. No two chips will output the same heat profile given the same usage. Derbaur has done good tests on this subject and found swings of up to 10c under the same exact load, with only different chips (of the same product line) being the change.


----------



## metalshark

jomama22 said:


> I use a optimus foundation but also tested a aqua computer next and got nearly the same results. Those ek blocks aren't the greatest on the 3000 series and up. I'm just using kryonaut atm but have tried liquid metal and saw about a 2 degree drop in ccd temps.
> 
> The cpu itself plays a large role, whether it's the ihs flatness or the chips themselves. No two chips will output the same heat profile given the same usage. Derbaur has done good tests on this subject and found swings of up to 10c under the same exact load, with only different chips (of the same product line) being the change.


Snap with the Optimus. The point I was trying to make is there's a lot of talk of rad capacity in isolation, but it's pretty meaningless without knowing the delta between fluid temp and core temps as well.


----------



## jomama22

metalshark said:


> Snap with the Optimus. The point I was trying to make is there's a lot of talk of rad capacity in isolation, but it's pretty meaningless without knowing the delta between fluid temp and core temps as well.


Yeah, absolutely. Gotta get the heat to the water in the first place.


----------



## PowerK

jomama22 said:


> It can actually help with fclock stabilization if you need it. .885-.850 seems to be the sweet spot for higher fclocks if needed, but depends on the chip. Auto usually runs around .900-.930 at 1900 fclock.


How do you see what voltage CPU VDDP is at?
I can't find them in AIDA64 and HWiNFO.


----------



## jomama22

PowerK said:


> How do you see what voltage CPU VDDP is at?
> I can't find them in AIDA64 and HWiNFO.


Asus turboV for their motherboards shows it.


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> I run VDDP of 0.95V. So yeah, yours at 1.08V seems high. You can always lower each voltage and then test stability. It takes a long time, but it is good to achieve stability. I don't leave my settings on Auto, I set them all manually so that they use voltages that I want.
> 
> 
> 
> You can try the settings used by igor's lab review, but don't set your voltages to what they used straight away. To me VDDG IOD and VSOC of 1.175V and VDDP of 1.1V is too high, so I would never run it on my system. Your current voltages are a good starting point, but be aware that you may need to increase them to get the same timings as Igor. Also make sure you set all voltages manually so that it doesn't go to high on Auto. Start with your current voltages and then adjust them up step by step until you overcome POST issues and errors.
> 
> Also keep in mind that with review sites that are testing components sent by the manufacturer are very likely to receive golden samples (best of the best).
> 
> Before you use the timings from Igor's lab, make sure you save your current profile on thumbdrive. If it hard locks and you have to clear settings or force reflash, you might lose the existing profile saves in your BIOs memory.
> 
> 
> Ryzen calculator is just a calculator. It does not take into account your CPU, SOC and motherboard quality. So don't worry if the voltages recommended are lower because very often you do need more than they recommended. For example, Ryzen calculators recommends a DIMM voltage maximum of 1.4V for my 4x16GB setup. But I can't boot at 1.45 or lower, only 1.46V. So I use what works, as long as it is within the safe limits of my memory.
> 
> The first thing I would do is to solve your TM5 errors. Once you fix that, then I would look at putting in tighter timings from the review. No point using tighter timings now when you are having TM5 errors. You can test the following safe settings to see if it resolves TM5 Error 14 and 15.
> tRFC: 460
> tRFC2: 342
> tRFC4: 210


I'll tell you what I did ... I went back to the XMP configuration to see if it passed the TM5 test ... what I noticed are two things, first that it gave me an error in TM5 unlike the previous values where it had 3 or 4 errors. But I was surprised by the temperature, running the test it reached the same temperatures (50/51) as with the values adjusted with OC. Then add the tRFC values that you suggested and I put the fans to the maximum, and without exceeding 45 degrees I passed the test without any problems! With which I would be encouraged to return to the previous values of tRFC and would run with fans to the fullest to see if it happened that way too. Here I share the result with the current timings










I wonder if I should also change VDDG values, because I only lower the VDDP but one VDDG value is high and as I read I should be 500vmv below VSOC that I have in Auto

Anything else to optimize? Id back the previous tRFC and try again the test with fans at maximum speed



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## shaolin95

So regarding the PBO vs CTR topic, i have been trying all sorts of settings tweaking my pbo and while decent, i cannot achieve what i can with CTR and surely not with nearly as low temps.
I do NOT have a dark hero unfortunately. If anyone wants to share some settings to get me into the 12k or close to that in cb20 and singles of 648-650 using PBO, i will be more than happy to try them out.


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> I'll tell you what I did ... I went back to the XMP configuration to see if it passed the TM5 test ... what I noticed are two things, first that it gave me an error in TM5 unlike the previous values where it had 3 or 4 errors. But I was surprised by the temperature, running the test it reached the same temperatures (50/51) as with the values adjusted with OC. Then add the tRFC values that you suggested and I put the fans to the maximum, and without exceeding 45 degrees I passed the test without any problems! With which I would be encouraged to return to the previous values of tRFC and would run with fans to the fullest to see if it happened that way too. Here I share the result with the current timings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if I should also change VDDG values, because I only lower the VDDP but one VDDG value is high and as I read I should be 500vmv below VSOC that I have in Auto
> 
> Anything else to optimize? Id back the previous tRFC and try again the test with fans at maximum speed
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


That's good progress. I agree, go back to your previous tRFC values and test again with your additional DRAM cooling.
If you want to change your VDDG voltages, here are mine. Other people may say it has to be within a certain range to the VSOC, but I wouldn't take that as a strict rule. Mine are:
VSOC: 1.09V
CLDO VDDP: 0.95
VDDG CCD: 1.05
VDDG IOD: 1.05


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> That's good progress. I agree, go back to your previous tRFC values and test again with your additional DRAM cooling.
> If you want to change your VDDG voltages, here are mine:
> CLDO VDDP: 0.95
> VDDG CCD: 1.05
> VDDG IOD: 1.05


That’s great! I go back with tRFC and I try with those VDDG value. Thanks!!.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> So regarding the PBO vs CTR topic, i have been trying all sorts of settings tweaking my pbo and while decent, i cannot achieve what i can with CTR and surely not with nearly as low temps.
> I do NOT have a dark hero unfortunately. If anyone wants to share some settings to get me into the 12k or close to that in cb20 and singles of 648-650 using PBO, i will be more than happy to try them out.


To increase the single core score, you need to be able to boost beyond the +200 which PBO+CO allows you to do. With the C8H, the higher currents, voltages and clocks are available in LN2 mode, but you have to be very careful as a lot of the safety locks are removed when you go into LN2 mode.


----------



## lmfodor

Another question, what about Gear Down Mode, ProcODT, power down and the RTT? I have all in AUTO. Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> To increase the single core score, you need to be able to boost beyond the +200 which PBO+CO allows you to do. With the C8H, the higher currents, voltages and clocks are available in LN2 mode, but you have to be very careful as a lot of the safety locks are removed when you go into LN2 mode.


So it will get even hotter than with the normal PBO options using that extra current? It seems that I will need a Dark Hero if I want to get into CTR territory without running an extra app. :/


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> So it will get even hotter than with the normal PBO options using that extra current? It seems that I will need a Dark Hero if I want to get into CTR territory without running an extra app. :/


It's not the extra current that you need, but the ability to set PBO to go higher than the limit of +200. What is Dark Hero's limit for PBO?


----------



## PowerK

jomama22 said:


> Asus turboV for their motherboards shows it.


The Asus Turbo V seems to be discontinued. I've found the latest one (v1.02.34) I could and it throws this error.


----------



## jomama22

PowerK said:


> The Asus Turbo V seems to be discontinued. I've found the latest one (v1.02.34) I could and it throws this error.
> 
> View attachment 2483847


TurboV_Core_1.10.07.zip try this one.


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> Another question, what about Gear Down Mode, ProcODT, power down and the RTT? I have all in AUTO. Thanks!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I set Gear Down Mode (GDM) based on my Command Rate (CR). Because of my weaker memory controller, I turn on GDM when using CR 1T. 

I am now using CR 2T, and I turn GDM off. I don't leave them at auto.

ProcODT is the processor's on tie termination. There was a video where AMD recommended 40-60 for overclocking. On mine, I found 53.3 to be required for stability. You can probably use 40 or 48.

I have Power Down left at auto, which is disabled in Zentimings and Rtt's are all same as default, which are 7, 3 and 1. Here is my screenshot:


----------



## PowerK

jomama22 said:


> TurboV_Core_1.10.07.zip try this one.


Thanks! That installed all right.

However, I don't see CPU VDDP. I see only CLDO VDDP (just like ZenTimings).

Turbo V Core









ZenTimings









As you can see only CLDO VDDP is visible.

While we're at it, taking a look at HWiNFO, the only VDDP I could find was this:









That's the only VDDP I can see in HWiNFO. It looks awfully low for CLDO VDDP. Perhaps, this is CPU VDDP?


----------



## PowerK

Sleepycat said:


> I set Gear Down Mode (GDM) based on my Command Rate (CR). Because of my weaker memory controller, I turn on GDM when using CR 1T.
> 
> I am now using CR 2T, and I turn GDM off. I don't leave them at auto.
> 
> ProcODT is the processor's on tie termination. There was a video where AMD recommended 40-60 for overclocking. On mine, I found 53.3 to be required for stability. You can probably use 40 or 48.
> 
> I have Power Down left at auto, which is disabled in Zentimings and Rtt's are all same as default, which are 7, 3 and 1. Here is my screenshot:
> 
> View attachment 2483861


That's looks quite impressive for 4 sticks of 16GB!
Is there any particular reason for tRCDWR at 8 rather than 15 to align with tRCDRD? I understand tRCDWR can go as low as 8 on b-dies. However, I have not seen any data/evidence where having tRCDWR lower than tRCDRD provides any performance advantage. This is a genuine question because I may be missing something.


----------



## jomama22

PowerK said:


> Thanks! That installed all right.
> 
> However, I don't see CPU VDDP. I see only CLDO VDDP (just like ZenTimings).
> 
> Turbo V Core
> View attachment 2483863
> 
> 
> ZenTimings
> View attachment 2483864
> 
> 
> As you can see only CLDO VDDP is visible.
> 
> While we're at it, taking a look at HWiNFO, the only VDDP I could find was this:
> View attachment 2483865
> 
> 
> That's the only VDDP I can see in HWiNFO. It looks awfully low for CLDO VDDP. Perhaps, this is CPU VDDP?


You should change you cldo vddp on bios and compare what it says in turboV


----------



## PowerK

Good idea. Just did that and change in CLDO VDDP within BIOS does not reflect on Turbo V.
Then, what the hell is VDDP shown in HWiNFO?


----------



## lmfodor

Hi! I finally understood why TM5 gave me errors, it was because of the temperatures. I set the radiator and all fans at Max speed and the temps don’t exceed 45 degrees. So, I think I’m fine. What would you improve? These are my timings now 








I put a fixed value in VDDP and VDDG
And these are my results








What do you think I can improve? 

My concern are the temps. When I run any memory test the temperatures rise above 48 degrees and up to 51 ... the only way is to put all the fans to the maximum which becomes extremely noisy. Out there in games this does not happen ... I would have to try .. I also read that RGB can be turned off, which are beautiful, but if temperatures rise I will have to do it instead of noise.

Thanks for your help!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lmfodor

lmfodor said:


> Hi! I finally understood why TM5 gave me errors, it was because of the temperatures. I set the radiator and all fans at Max speed and the temps don’t exceed 45 degrees. So, I think I’m fine. What would you improve? These are my timings now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I put a fixed value in VDDP and VDDG
> And these are my results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think I can improve?
> 
> My concern are the temps. When I run any memory test the temperatures rise above 48 degrees and up to 51 ... the only way is to put all the fans to the maximum which becomes extremely noisy. Out there in games this does not happen ... I would have to try .. I also read that RGB can be turned off, which are beautiful, but if temperatures rise I will have to do it instead of noise.
> 
> Thanks for your help!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Sleepycat

PowerK said:


> That's looks quite impressive for 4 sticks of 16GB!
> Is there any particular reason for tRCDWR at 8 rather than 15 to align with tRCDRD? I understand tRCDWR can go as low as 8 on b-dies. However, I have not seen any data/evidence where having tRCDWR lower than tRCDRD provides any performance advantage. This is a genuine question because I may be missing something.


Thanks! There is actually no reason for it to be at 8, other than the mentality that lower is supposedly better. It worked fine at 14 and at 8. I had to change tRCDRD to 15 (originally was 14) in order to get stability.

With these settings, I pass TM5, OCCT Extreme large and Prime95. Been running this on a number of bios revisions and haven't had errors yet, so I'm sticking to it for now.


----------



## PowerK

Sleepycat said:


> Thanks! There is actually no reason for it to be at 8, other than the mentality that lower is supposedly better. It worked fine at 14 and at 8. I had to change tRCDRD to 15 (originally was 14) in order to get stability.
> 
> With these settings, I pass TM5, OCCT Extreme large and Prime95. Been running this on a number of bios revisions and haven't had errors yet, so I'm sticking to it for now.


That's no problem. Running tRCDWR at 8 just because I can, is a good enough reason.


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> Hi! I finally understood why TM5 gave me errors, it was because of the temperatures. I set the radiator and all fans at Max speed and the temps don’t exceed 45 degrees. So, I think I’m fine. What would you improve? These are my timings now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I put a fixed value in VDDP and VDDG
> And these are my results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think I can improve?
> 
> My concern are the temps. When I run any memory test the temperatures rise above 48 degrees and up to 51 ... the only way is to put all the fans to the maximum which becomes extremely noisy. Out there in games this does not happen ... I would have to try .. I also read that RGB can be turned off, which are beautiful, but if temperatures rise I will have to do it instead of noise.
> 
> Thanks for your help!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I can't really see the results as they are really small. if Aida64 is giving you good memory bandwidth and latency, then it is fine to leave it as is.

If you do want to push harder (benchmark gains will be minimal), then next is probably work on tightening the timings more and being prepared to adjust some voltages again.


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> If you do want to push harder (benchmark gains will be minimal), then next is probably work on tightening the timings more and being prepared to adjust some voltages again.


That’s what I like to do! Tightening the timings. Could you help me on this? 

Sorry, put many images together and they cannot be seen now. Later I send them again



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## PWn3R

Asking for some feedback here: Right now I am running a XSPC Raystorm v1 on my board. I have a 5950x, and a 3090. Since I added the 3090 and my loop goes from pump to 3090 to CPU to 480 to res to double thick 360 to pump, my temps went up on the CPU by 5-8c (pushing me into mid to upper 70s under full load).

Being that the old raystorm is just copper, I bought a new block that is nickel plated, a Corsair XC7 RGB. I am planning on re-arranging the loop so that it goes from the GPU to the 480 then to CPU, then to the res, then to 360.

What I'm wondering is, am I better off using Conductonaut LM between the block and CPU, or should I lap the CPU IHS and use normal paste? I could also lap and use LM, but I know that will mess up the copper IHS and require repasting with LM probably in 6-12 months.

Edit: I can post pictures of the loop setup if you want.


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> That’s what I like to do! Tightening the timings. Could you help me on this?
> 
> Sorry, put many images together and they cannot be seen now. Later I send them again
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Next step is trying for CL14-14-14-24. Try it out and if it becomes unstable, you can increase the DIMM voltage. For now, I'd recommend staying below 1.5V


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> Next step is trying for CL14-14-14-24. Try it out and if it becomes unstable, you can increase the DIMM voltage. For now, I'd recommend staying below 1.5V


Yes? A flat curve without touching any other timming value? 14 14 14 24? Just that? What about the TRFC and others values .: any other to support this increase. As I see in the igor’s review he couldn’t do it, indeed he could but TM5 gave a lot of errors. So he suggested to increase the RCD 1 or 2 ticks 

So the timing would be 14 14 16 14 (or 24) then TRAS 28 and TRC 42?










This is that it works for him, but he suggested to increase 1 tick or RCD










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lmfodor

Delete


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> Yes? A flat curve without touching any other timming value? 14 14 14 24? Just that? What about the TRFC and others values .: any other to support this increase. As I see in the igor’s review he couldn’t do it, indeed he could but TM5 gave a lot of errors. So he suggested to increase the RCD 1 or 2 ticks
> 
> So the timing would be 14 14 16 14 (or 24) then TRAS 28 and TRC 42?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is that it works for him, but he suggested to increase 1 tick or RCD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Try it out and see how your system behaves. When you are at the starting point for memory overclocking, our settings can be used with each other's system. But when you start getting to the end point of tightening up, our systems start behaving differently. On my system, I would set tRCDRD to 15 as it won't work at 14. But I can run tRDCWR of 8.


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> Try it out and see how your system behaves. When you are at the starting point for memory overclocking, our settings can be used with each other's system. But when you start getting to the end point of tightening up, our systems start behaving differently. On my system, I would set tRCDRD to 15 as it won't work at 14. But I can run tRDCWR of 8.


Ok! I will follow your values

Regarding staying below 1.5v, does this memory support it? I mean the undervolt. I would like to stay below 1.5 but is the standard in the XMP profile. Would it work fine a lower voltage with this timings? Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> Ok! I will follow your values
> 
> Regarding staying below 1.5v, does this memory support it? I mean the undervolt. I would like to stay below 1.5 but is the standard in the XMP profile. Would it work fine a lower voltage with this timings? Thanks!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Ah, I keep forgetting your XMP is 1.5V. Back when B-die was released with an XMP voltage of 1.35V, the guidance was to keep to a maximum of 1.5V and cool it sufficiently (about 50ºC) for daily use. For your kit, the standard is 1.5V, so try tightening at that voltage first. If it doesn't go tighter and you decide to use 1.52 or 1.54V, then you need keep checking your cooling to ensure that it is sufficient. 

This is my set up, the DIMM cooler cost US$16.50 off Aliexpress. It keeps my memory at under 45 ºC with the case closed and 39 ºC open when stressing all 64GB in Prime95.


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> Ah, I keep forgetting your XMP is 1.5V. Back when B-die was released with an XMP voltage of 1.35V, the guidance was to keep to a maximum of 1.5V and cool it sufficiently (about 50ºC) for daily use. For your kit, the standard is 1.5V, so try tightening at that voltage first. If it doesn't go tighter and you decide to use 1.52 or 1.54V, then you need keep checking your cooling to ensure that it is sufficient.
> 
> This is my set up, the DIMM cooler cost US$16.50 off Aliexpress. It keeps my memory at under 45 ºC with the case closed and 39 ºC open when stressing all 64GB in Prime95.
> 
> View attachment 2483963


That’s nice! I wasn’t aware of this DIMM cooler. I was thinking of putting a Noctua fan at 1800 rpm that hits the memories directly like a front fan close to the memories or finding a way to make a pull by putting the Noctua fan between the memories and the radiator fans. (as in the photo). While the GPU pulls heat upwards, I actually have two other noctua slim ones that push the heat upwards, the RTX's heatsink doesn't hit the memory directly because it's further forward. I'm going to try this Noctua fan to see if I can cool them a little more without putting another cooler. The truth is that the errors appear only in MemTest as in TM5, but that is not daily use, I am going to try with games to see how much memory reaches now that I adjust the times more










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## slayer6288

lmfodor said:


> Hi! I finally understood why TM5 gave me errors, it was because of the temperatures. I set the radiator and all fans at Max speed and the temps don’t exceed 45 degrees. So, I think I’m fine. What would you improve? These are my timings now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I put a fixed value in VDDP and VDDG
> And these are my results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think I can improve?
> 
> My concern are the temps. When I run any memory test the temperatures rise above 48 degrees and up to 51 ... the only way is to put all the fans to the maximum which becomes extremely noisy. Out there in games this does not happen ... I would have to try .. I also read that RGB can be turned off, which are beautiful, but if temperatures rise I will have to do it instead of noise.
> 
> Thanks for your help!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


 if you are erroring at 48 u are so borderline stable it is not even funny. try lossening a few timings u shouldnt be erroring at 48 c on b die 55+ sure


----------



## lmfodor

slayer6288 said:


> if you are erroring at 48 u are so borderline stable it is not even funny. try lossening a few timings u shouldnt be erroring at 48 c on b die 55+ sure


Hello! So it would seem that I am fine. The problem occurs to me in the tests that the temperature rises a lot. The memories are new, I received them this week and I am beginning to touch the values with the help they gave me here. The temperature error occurs even when I load the standard XMP profile, not so many, only 1. The key is to put the fans to the maximum. However, this only happens in memory tests. For example with OOCT, Realbench or Y-Cruncher I don't have that much temperature. I only adjust some values, I have the reference of this same memory kit that Igors Lab made in the review that I shared here, but those are too tight, in fact they were the only ones with which I did not have a post. So playing little by little with the help of here I am achieving acceptable values. What values do you suggest me to loosen?

This is how TM5 Anta777 is running now (look at the RPM of CPU fan, extremely noisy!)















Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Nizzen

slayer6288 said:


> if you are erroring at 48 u are so borderline stable it is not even funny. try lossening a few timings u shouldnt be erroring at 48 c on b die 55+ sure


Nope, many b-die throw errors at high frequency at ~48c

It's a reason some of us here use watercooling on the dimms 

Cooler is always better 0


----------



## lmfodor

Nizzen said:


> Nope, many b-die throw errors at high frequency at ~48c
> 
> It's a reason some of us here use watercooling on the dimms
> 
> Cooler is always better 0


Ah yes, that's what I noticed, that's when I start with errors even with the XMP profile. I'm going to test under normal use, games all in ultra at 4k or 1440 which is how I usually test to see if the memory gets too hot. The 3080 that I have rarely exceeds 67 and I am not doing OC beyond the factory of 1815. It works very well and I have no errors in any games. And yes, you can see the temps. Pretty good but extremely noisy!! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> Next step is trying for CL14-14-14-24. Try it out and if it becomes unstable, you can increase the DIMM voltage. For now, I'd recommend staying below 1.5V


I must admit that when I read 14 14 14 24 I don't know which parameter each value corresponds to. I know that the first one is the CAS, but then it would be the TRCDWR and tRCDWD, right? So the 24 you suggested would be the TRP, right? and the RAS left it the same at 30 and the TRC at 46? and what TRFC do I keep them like now? I Test with 14 14 14 24 without touching the RAS and the TRC and notice that the latency was higher and the reading/writing and copying slower. That is why I think that I should adjust more values before the voltage, either the tRFCs / 2/4 or those that I do not know that continue below the TRC (tRRDS / DL, tFAW, tWTRS / TRL / TWR) is that right? I feel like they are all related. maybe it's a mistake of mine due to ignorance


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## GRABibus

Google can also help you sometimes 😊


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> I must admit that when I read 14 14 14 24 I don't know which parameter each value corresponds to. I know that the first one is the CAS, but then it would be the TRCDWR and tRCDWD, right? So the 24 you suggested would be the TRP, right? and the RAS left it the same at 30 and the TRC at 46? and what TRFC do I keep them like now? I Test with 14 14 14 24 without touching the RAS and the TRC and notice that the latency was higher and the reading/writing and copying slower. That is why I think that I should adjust more values before the voltage, either the tRFCs / 2/4 or those that I do not know that continue below the TRC (tRRDS / DL, tFAW, tWTRS / TRL / TWR) is that right? I feel like they are all related. maybe it's a mistake of mine due to ignorance


Normally it is tCL - tRCDRD - tRP - tRAS, based on Zentimings naming/nomenclature. Some people say that tRC should be calculated by tRP + tRAS, but if find that you can go lower without memory errors or stability issues, why not? 

You can calculate tRFC/2/4 using Ryzen DRAM Calculator or one of the many tRFC calculator spreadsheets that are online (I use the one made by Veii). For the other subtimings, I use Ryzen DRAM calculator to calculate the recommended FAST settings, use those and then continue testing to see which ones cause my system not to POST at all.

The challenge is that now you have reached this point, it is highly likely that a sub timing that I use might cause instability in your system and vice versa. This is mostly due to the fact that my DRAM kit is 4x16GB 3200CL14 @ 3600 14-15-14-28 So it is difficult to make a recommendation on what timing to set to for your system, because it is now going to be a case of adjust and test for each of the parameters. But as you go through this part of testing, you start to learn a lot of what affects your system and what works well, which in turn lets you help others in their early stages of memory overclocking.


----------



## bt1

Managed to tight the timings @ 1,49V, 500% stable.
didnt try lower tRCDWR yet)
if a go 1.5V, RAM temps go up to 60/65 and errors occure.


----------



## stimpy88

bt1 said:


> View attachment 2484023
> 
> 
> Managed to tight the timings @ 1,49V, 500% stable.
> didnt try lower tRCDWR yet)
> if a go 1.5V, RAM temps go up to 60/65 and errors occure.


Nice timings! Could you please post an AIDA bandwidth test result?

Also, keep us updated on how far you can push this RAM!


----------



## domdtxdissar

bt1 said:


> View attachment 2484023
> 
> 
> Managed to tight the timings @ 1,49V, 500% stable.
> didnt try lower tRCDWR yet)
> if a go 1.5V, RAM temps go up to 60/65 and errors occure.


GDM and odd timings dont mix well.. Half of them are +1


----------



## bt1

domdtxdissar said:


> GDM and odd timings dont mix well.. Half of them are +1


As far as I know, tCL, tRTP and tCWL only. Each and every timing is consistent to the settings in UEFI setup.



stimpy88 said:


> Nice timings! Could you please post an AIDA bandwidth test result?
> 
> Also, keep us updated on how far you can push this RAM!












Noticed that 3402 for VIII Hero is longer marked as beta


----------



## shaolin95

domdtxdissar said:


> What the heck are you talking about ? You clearly dont have a optimized PBO CO overclock if you think this is the case, no wonder you like CTR then.
> 
> This is my daily 24/7 settings with fans and everything on auto, c-states off and a old bloaty windows install:
> No voltage offset, no random reboots.
> No CPU affinity changes and no priority tweaks.
> View attachment 2483657
> 
> 
> This is how my PBO CO overclock looks when its pushed to the point of instability as you put it:
> View attachment 2483658
> 
> 
> 
> PS, i would like to see your P1 4700/4650 run prime95 v303b6 (with AVX).
> 
> _edit_
> 
> Why are we even comparing in Cinebench which is a "medium load" ? This is a best case for CTR as i've said in my previous posts..
> You can try to compare CTR VS PBO CO in something like SotTR, hopefully even your curve optimizer settings should score higher in CPU Game than CTR.
> 
> Its in the "light workloads" and/or games PBO CO is faster than a CTR overclock in my findings. But you need a properly optimized PBO CO overclock without power/temperature restraints for it to be true, something clearly you dont have *Gadfly*


Your results have me hunting for a Dark Hero now!


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> Normally it is tCL - tRCDRD - tRP - tRAS, based on Zentimings naming/nomenclature. Some people say that tRC should be calculated by tRP + tRAS, but if find that you can go lower without memory errors or stability issues, why not?
> 
> You can calculate tRFC/2/4 using Ryzen DRAM Calculator or one of the many tRFC calculator spreadsheets that are online (I use the one made by Veii). For the other subtimings, I use Ryzen DRAM calculator to calculate the recommended FAST settings, use those and then continue testing to see which ones cause my system not to POST at all.
> 
> The challenge is that now you have reached this point, it is highly likely that a sub timing that I use might cause instability in your system and vice versa. This is mostly due to the fact that my DRAM kit is 4x16GB 3200CL14 @ 3600 14-15-14-28 So it is difficult to make a recommendation on what timing to set to for your system, because it is now going to be a case of adjust and test for each of the parameters. But as you go through this part of testing, you start to learn a lot of what affects your system and what works well, which in turn lets you help others in their early stages of memory overclocking.


Yes, for now it’s stable and finde. I’d like to lower the latency.. 

I am willing to adjust and test, what I don’t know is how to start with the subtimings. Is there any rule that you can recommend me to adjust, fundamentally what parameters are related. For example, the change that you recommended to TRFCs / 2/4 was very good. Something like that, to start testing, if you can help me, I’m trying to change some values, what do you think? Thanks a lot!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## J7SC

...went from a decent 360 AIO to full extensive custom loop for the CPU and GPU...3950X temps at full load dropped another 13 C - 15 C and now stay in the mid-to-high 60 C range max (ie looped CineR23)...so it is finally time to start really oc'ing this setup ratehr than run it stock. 

Before I do, quick question about bios 3401. I downloaded it but have not yet installed it: Per lower part of the screenshot, it talks about "Update AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.1 Patch A" - is there another update expected soon from what you folks have seen and read, i.e. a 'AGESA xx Patch B" ? I like to have a bios for iterative oc'ing steps which doesn't get replaced again soon...


----------



## finas

next one will be agesa 1.2.0.2 most likely to be released next month.





J7SC said:


> ...went from a decent 360 AIO to full extensive custom loop for the CPU and GPU...3950X temps at full load dropped another 13 C - 15 C and now stay in the mid-to-high 60 C range max (ie looped CineR23)...so it is finally time to start really oc'ing this setup ratehr than run it stock.
> 
> Before I do, quick question about bios 3401. I downloaded it but have not yet installed it: Per lower part of the screenshot, it talks about "Update AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.1 Patch A" - is there another update expected soon from what you folks have seen and read, i.e. a 'AGESA xx Patch B" ? I like to have a bios for iterative oc'ing steps which doesn't get replaced again soon...
> 
> View attachment 2484100


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> Yes, for now it’s stable and finde. I’d like to lower the latency..
> 
> I am willing to adjust and test, what I don’t know is how to start with the subtimings. Is there any rule that you can recommend me to adjust, fundamentally what parameters are related. For example, the change that you recommended to TRFCs / 2/4 was very good. Something like that, to start testing, if you can help me, I’m trying to change some values, what do you think? Thanks a lot!


The only thing had a rule that I followed was tRFC/2/4. I used this: tRFC Calculator (mini)

The other would be that CR of 2T with GDM off is not necessarily worse than 1T with GDM on. Hence I am using 2T now.

For the rest, I changed each setting one by one, tested stability quickly with TM5, and then after getting a setting I was satisfied with that passed TM5, I then tested using all the other test utilities like OCCT Extreme Large, Prime95, etc...


----------



## Vital-uK

There are OC instructions and general comparison of new CTR 2.1, PBO curve and fixed OC 4850/4825Mhz on 5950x. games and some benchmarks like cinebench, blender.
Crosshair VIII Formula, custom loop. PBO with 5130+ MHz single core and sometimes 5225MHz. CTR with 5125MHz single 1,375V. Its russian but you can use youtube translation for subtitles.


----------



## flyinion

CyrIng said:


> Leave OCCT alone, this software is working fine.
> FMAX is apparently not made for stability.


Yeah so FMax is not working fine for me, OCCT is right in this case. Turned it back on today, passed an hour of cinebench R20 without issue, left the system alone just idling, came back to a login screen a while later. Guess I'll be reading up on the core tuner stuff.


----------



## J7SC

...turned on Fmax in PBO for the first time, the rest of PBO is still on auto ...3950X picked up 125 MHz single core to 4725 MHz  ...I've even seen 4850 (briefly) in other apps.

As a result of the Fmax change, Aida bandwidth is about the same, but latency improved a bit


----------



## zGunBLADEz

guys question...

i have a asus b550-itx and i noticed bios 1803 pbo works fine as intended in conjunction with a fully updated windows 10... i have some custom profiles i made myself that i was working on it.... one of them which park every core of the 5900x except the first 2 cores which are the golden & silver 1/5 on ccx1 and it will wake and use the rest of the cores in order of sillicon quality as needed.. Also it will use the ultimate porwer plan as well as core quality.. The latest 2 bioses 2003&2007 broke this and it only use core 0&1 on my power plan profile... instead of 1/5 which are my best cores of that ccx... Windows will throw the load to wherever it pleases after that bios and on my power table would use core0 as main core..


Spoiler















this is what latest 2 bios is doing now it thinks core 0 is the fastest now instead of core golden&silver 1&5 to be active this also affect how low loads gets picked by the os on low loads where pbo gets his benefict on boosting.


Spoiler















Rolling back to bios 1803 fix this issue do not need to touch nothing else on the os side. But L3 cache readings on aida are affected (unless you enable & play with the stilt tweak which you will need to mess around to get pbo working correctly on an all core load and get all cores to the same multi) and the usb connective issues come back...

Do you guys get this on the x570 as well?


----------



## CyrIng

J7SC said:


> ...turned on Fmax in PBO for the first time, the rest of PBO is still on auto ...3950X picked up 125 MHz single core to 4725 MHz  ...I've even seen 4850 (briefly) in other apps.
> 
> As a result of the Fmax change, Aida bandwidth is about the same, but latency improved a bit
> 
> View attachment 2484188


4850 MHz with 3950X, that's amazing. How did you measure that frequency ?


----------



## Cavanta

Hhhmm, just flashed to 3402 from 3204.
It should fix some usb2.0 problems, but instead i got usb2.0 problems with lagg and stuttering.
Flashed it back to 3204 and the problems are gone again...

This is on a VIII Formula.


----------



## stimpy88

J7SC said:


> ...went from a decent 360 AIO to full extensive custom loop for the CPU and GPU...3950X temps at full load dropped another 13 C - 15 C and now stay in the mid-to-high 60 C range max (ie looped CineR23)...so it is finally time to start really oc'ing this setup ratehr than run it stock.
> 
> Before I do, quick question about bios 3401. I downloaded it but have not yet installed it: Per lower part of the screenshot, it talks about "Update AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.1 Patch A" - is there another update expected soon from what you folks have seen and read, i.e. a 'AGESA xx Patch B" ? I like to have a bios for iterative oc'ing steps which doesn't get replaced again soon...
> 
> View attachment 2484100


Odd that you get such memory bandwidth scores considering the very loose timings your using... Are these really the settings which gave you those numbers, or a mistake?


----------



## J7SC

CyrIng said:


> 4850 MHz with 3950X, that's amazing. How did you measure that frequency ?


...briefly came up in Core Temp during a single-core Cine R23



stimpy88 said:


> Odd that you get such memory bandwidth scores considering the very loose timings your using... Are these really the settings which gave you those numbers, or a mistake?


_...' Are these really the settings which gave you those numbers, or a mistake?' -_ Really  ? These are my daily settings, and if you check all my posts in this thread since February, the bandwidth numbers are incredibly consistent. I am using a non-AMD-specific binned Samsung-B 4x8GB 3866 RAM set - an identical set for my TR 2950X (NUMA) in Aida:


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> The only thing had a rule that I followed was tRFC/2/4. I used this: tRFC Calculator (mini)
> 
> The other would be that CR of 2T with GDM off is not necessarily worse than 1T with GDM on. Hence I am using 2T now.
> 
> For the rest, I changed each setting one by one, tested stability quickly with TM5, and then after getting a setting I was satisfied with that passed TM5, I then tested using all the other test utilities like OCCT Extreme Large, Prime95, etc...


Well I’m running very stable, I changed to 2T in BIOS however zentimins is not showing it. Very weird. And I left GDM on Auto and I see it enabled. I don’t know why is not taken or I should do something else. I will try disabling GDM

At last, why 2T, is better than 1T I read several articles where they show that 1T is a little bit better than 2T can you explain me to understand ? Thanks!!
AMD Ryzen RAM scaling - performance effect in games


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## CyrIng

Dual G.Skill F4-3600C16D-32GTZN DRAM / FCLK @ 3800 / 1900 MHz is stable with BIOS v2206


----------



## Sheldon_fr

Good evening everyone, it's been several times now that I ask if using an oc static @ 1.27 (5900x) for H24 will be dangerous for my processor and I can't find anyone to answer me with certitude :/


----------



## arcanexvi

So my system has been stable until the last couple BIOS betas for crosshair VIII (non-wifi) paired with my 3900x. Something introduced in the last couple builds has brought my kernel power 41 reboots back.


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> Well I’m running very stable, I changed to 2T in BIOS however zentimins is not showing it. Very weird. And I left GDM on Auto and I see it enabled. I don’t know why is not taken or I should do something else. I will try disabling GDM


You need to set it to disabled. Don't leave it on Auto.



lmfodor said:


> At last, why 2T, is better than 1T I read several articles where they show that 1T is a little bit better than 2T can you explain me to understand ? Thanks!!
> AMD Ryzen RAM scaling - performance effect in games


That link compares 1T and 2T with GDM off as they ran at 3200 CL14-14-14-34. If you can run 1T with GDM off, then that is the ideal choice. If you need GDM on for 1T, then I prefer 2T with GDM off..


----------



## zGunBLADEz

arcanexvi said:


> So my system has been stable until the last couple BIOS betas for crosshair VIII (non-wifi) paired with my 3900x. Something introduced in the last couple builds has brought my kernel power 41 reboots back.


Same over here b550-i 5900x

It random reboots. I thought it was first c states bcuz of my agreesive I've pbo curve -30 that was idling all cores to low. Then I turned it off.
But I rolled back the bios as well to 1803 pre l3 cache & usb fixes.

Idc how good perf on this system is on benchmarks.... is jam-packed full of bugs which is typical of amd. I feel like a beta tester every time i touch amd stuff. They lucky i like tinkering with hardware, bcuz a regular user and i are not in the same bracket. lets not start how bad asus support is.. I was there from the beginning as well have multile mobos between 1&2nd series... Also, Im not forgetting how asus/ former rep which still around "yeah you going to get blame" "as a spokesman" left the chvi users hanging with their broken bios etc.. chvi wifi that one got the best of it lol... Not even the fan control issue they managed to resolve btw they resolved that issue? I abandoned that topic lol.. When 2000 series ryzen got out.. they gifted a few vii boards to some users for support on the new topic and freaking disappeared out of the chvi topic... For the looks of it still an ongoing issue. And amd want to charge premium coin for this crap??? like :rollseyes: put your crap together. What about that "asus" tax? Want to be like apple don't you? Asus, your stuff "stank" as bad or worst as the rest of the other company's hardware seriously, and charging the asus "tax" aint helping you... You aint backing it up with support or warranty...

I dont even want to touch the rma issues with asus boards. Like have close acquaintances where asus wants to charge full premium to repair boards still on warranty. You better ditch the board and buy a new one like honestly.


----------



## Kokin

Sheldon_fr said:


> Good evening everyone, it's been several times now that I ask if using an oc static @ 1.27 (5900x) for H24 will be dangerous for my processor and I can't find anyone to answer me with certitude :/


I suggest making your own thread next time as your post is probably getting drowned out by others. You could also just do a google search for "max safe voltage for ryzen 3000/5000 static oc" and you can find your answer from various threads. 

1.27V is an acceptable voltage for high core loads. As long as your temps are below 90C, I don't see any issues running this long term. 1.3-1.35V should be considered max safe voltage for 24/7 usage as long as the cooling is sufficient, although some say anything over 1.3V is too high. If it helps ease your mind, your motherboard and CPU are designed to throttle (or reboot) accordingly if you surpass a dangerous threshold for power and/or temperature.


----------



## metalshark

Sleepycat said:


> You need to set it to disabled. Don't leave it on Auto.
> 
> 
> That link compares 1T and 2T with GDM off as they ran at 3200 CL14-14-14-34. If you can run 1T with GDM off, then that is the ideal choice. If you need GDM on for 1T, then I prefer 2T with GDM off..


Isn't GDM on 2.5T regardless of you setting 1T/2T for command rate? With 2T outperforming and requiring looser timings than 2.5T (1T/GDM or 2T/GDM)?


----------



## stimpy88

J7SC said:


> _...' Are these really the settings which gave you those numbers, or a mistake?' -_ Really  ? These are my daily settings, and if you check all my posts in this thread since February, the bandwidth numbers are incredibly consistent. I am using a non-AMD-specific binned Samsung-B 4x8GB 3866 RAM.


Please don't take offence, It's just odd because I have never seen anyone else with bandwidth numbers like yours, with such loose memory timings. I have almost the same setup as you, with much tighter timings, but the next lower fclk than you 1866 versus yours at 1900. In my experience that speed difference is not worth more than 8GB/s higher bandwidth, also your L1 & L2 results are way higher than any other Zen2 I've ever seen...

I can't help but think there is something very strange with your results.

My Timings and Bandwidth...
















And now yours...


----------



## zGunBLADEz

stimpy88 said:


> It's odd because I have never seen anyone else with bandwidth numbers like yours, with such loose memory timings. I have almost the same setup as you, with much tighter timings, but the next lower fclk than you 1866 v yours at 1900. In my experience that speed difference is not worth 8GB/s more bandwidth, also your L1 & L2 results are higher than any other Zen2 I've ever seen, buy a long way...
> 
> View attachment 2484275
> View attachment 2484276
> 
> 
> And now yours...
> View attachment 2484278



Hes using a thread ripper (2950x) brother xD that's why


----------



## stimpy88

zGunBLADEz said:


> Hes using a thread ripper (2950x) brother xD that's why


Look at the screenshot in my post where it says "And now yours". That's from his original post, to which I'm responding, a few posts back.

It's clearly a 3950x.


----------



## jamie1073

stimpy88 said:


> Please don't take offence, It's just odd because I have never seen anyone else with bandwidth numbers like yours, with such loose memory timings. I have almost the same setup as you, with much tighter timings, but the next lower fclk than you 1866 versus yours at 1900. In my experience that speed difference is not worth more than 8GB/s higher bandwidth, also your L1 & L2 results are way higher than any other Zen2 I've ever seen...
> 
> I can't help but think there is something very strange with your results.
> 
> My Timings and Bandwidth...
> View attachment 2484276
> View attachment 2484275
> 
> 
> And now yours...
> View attachment 2484278


I was thinking the same thing. Those numbers are way off for what his timings are set to. These are mine.


----------



## zGunBLADEz

Idk thats not what i saw and read lol i saw the aida it says threadripper on it 2950x even the cpu was type it on to the msg.. reads were over 100k thats why i looked at the aida cpu part xD 100% sure


----------



## stimpy88

zGunBLADEz said:


> Idk thats not what i saw and read lol i saw the aida it says threadripper on it 2950x even the cpu was type it on to the msg.. reads were over 100k thats why i looked at the aida cpu part xD 100% sure


*Read my post, and look at the pictures dude. Then go to page 331, and look at the post from him which matches the picture in my post. Hell, read his own answer to me and he himself explains why there is a picture showing a Threadripper!

Granted, I have no idea why he posted that Threadripper result, I can only assume it's some kind of e-peen logic going on, along with his use of potentially fake/bugged benchmark results for his 3950x.*

*I really don't know how to put it any clearer or simpler than that.*


----------



## zGunBLADEz

I know what i saw tho. I saw a aida screen with 100k some reads on it and a 2950x xD


----------



## stimpy88

zGunBLADEz said:


> I know what i saw tho. I saw a aida screen with 100k some reads on it and a 2950x xD


Oh my God. *CLICK THIS FFS! **AND THIS*


----------



## zGunBLADEz

stimpy88 said:


> Oh my God. *CLICK THIS FFS! **AND THIS*


Im going with the pic tr2950x even so it was a mistake thats what i saw here .. anyway... Mem aidas on ryzen are so similar almost identical that aint funny xD.

Theres ppl running like extremely low timings on their rigs stress testing and what not and my [email protected] are in the same type of performance.. ram "overclocking" on ryzen is like non existent if fclk dont go up above ... XD why bother
In another words is o easy to catch a mistake.


----------



## stimpy88

jamie1073 said:


> I was thinking the same thing. Those numbers are way off for what his timings are set to. These are mine.
> 
> View attachment 2484282
> View attachment 2484283


Your numbers are totally what I would expect for the timings and speeds.

His cache bandwidth is much higher too, I'm worried I'm missing something here, as the numbers seem to be unexplainable.


----------



## zGunBLADEz

jamie1073 said:


> I was thinking the same thing. Those numbers are way off for what his timings are set to. These are mine.
> 
> View attachment 2484282
> View attachment 2484283




so that mean mine are bad/fake? :rollseyes:











problem relays on how infinite cache works/limit like* i previously mention*.. all you need to do is double tap each box and every time you get different results pbo or not..









welcome to amds sorcery/randomless XD

this is a little extra
on the new bioses but but  just got one doing the aida mem bench lol


Spoiler















inb4 comments on my ram aint stable..
bios 1803


Spoiler


----------



## jcpq

Hello
For a patriot viper ([email protected]) in [email protected] CH VIII impact, what is the best configuration for ProcODT, CAD BUS, cad bus setup and RTT?
This for 3800Mhz @ 14-14-14-28-42?


----------



## xeizo

zGunBLADEz said:


> so that mean mine are bad/fake? :rollseyes:
> 
> View attachment 2484295
> 
> 
> 
> problem relays on how infinite cache works/limit like* i previously mention*.. all you need to do is double tap each box and every time you get different results pbo or not..
> View attachment 2484297
> 
> 
> welcome to amds sorcery/randomless XD
> 
> this is a little extra
> on the new bioses but but  just got one doing the aida mem bench lol
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2484298
> 
> 
> 
> 
> inb4 comments on my ram aint stable..
> bios 1803
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2484299


You have the same model RAM sticks as myself, and pretty much the same numbers. So, NO, no fake!


----------



## metalshark

jcpq said:


> Hello
> For a patriot viper ([email protected]) in [email protected] CH VIII impact, what is the best configuration for ProcODT, CAD BUS, cad bus setup and RTT?
> This for 3800Mhz @ 14-14-14-28-42?


In an ideal world a ProcODT of 32 or lower and CAD BUS of 20-20-20-20 with no RTT. However, you'll likely need to do CAD-BUS of 20-20-24-20 to prevent issues booting each time and 24-20-24-20/24-20-24-24 to get it performing at 3800 or above. For 2x sticks 7/3/1 on RTT or 6/3/3 on 4x sticks. Then ProcODT might need to be 36.9/40/48/53 (don't go above 53), but the lower the better as long as it's stable. When testing memory, try to use something that does a hold test like test 10 of memtest86 to catch errors as it'll show you problems with keeping the same value in memory for a prolonged period of time which tm5, etc don't show.


----------



## jomama22

zGunBLADEz said:


> so that mean mine are bad/fake? :rollseyes:
> 
> View attachment 2484295
> 
> 
> 
> problem relays on how infinite cache works/limit like* i previously mention*.. all you need to do is double tap each box and every time you get different results pbo or not..
> View attachment 2484297
> 
> 
> welcome to amds sorcery/randomless XD
> 
> this is a little extra
> on the new bioses but but  just got one doing the aida mem bench lol
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2484298
> 
> 
> 
> 
> inb4 comments on my ram aint stable..
> bios 1803
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2484299


error 41 is a core voltage issue.

Using a static all core overclock will improve latency by about .7-.9 ns compared to pbo runs.

If you have variation between consecutive runs of aida greater than .2/.3 ns, you are getting memory corrections done. Usually can be fixed with vddg/vddp/soc voltage. May need to tweak timings but I haven't had seen this, voltages usually do the trick.

Beyond that, nothing really weird going on. 3800cl14 here does 53.0ns for all core overclock and 53.8ns for pbo.


----------



## jomama22

jamie1073 said:


> I was thinking the same thing. Those numbers are way off for what his timings are set to. These are mine.
> 
> View attachment 2484282
> View attachment 2484283


Your write bandwidth is low because of your tWR and tWTRL. 

Your latency is oddly high as well. Something not meshing correctly with your timings it seems.


----------



## J7SC

@stimpy88 , @zGunBLADEz & others...

First, have a look at this post > here at the "post-your-aida64-memory-and-cache-benchmark-score" thread and also check elsewhere in that thread - there are two-chiplet Ryzen3K (3900, 3950) which beat my score by just a bit because they run slightly tighter timings. Nothing unusual here. The one I linked runs the same mobo and same bios as I do...no magic, no trickery - and btw, folks don't like to start a new conversation by being asked 'have you stopped beating your wife yet...'

Second, I added the post about the TR (quad-channel) 2950X as it runs the identical memory kit (I have four sets of that TridentZ GTZR). That Samsung-B is a bit older and not AMD-specific (ie not NEO) but instead marketed for Intel. But it obviously works great on AMD, whether TR or AM4, once optimized. Pretty much every post I've made on Aida / 3950X in this thread since I settled on 16-15-15 / 3800 / IF1900 and did the memtest stress tests is in that same same range...here's an earlier one I did from over a month ago:


Spoiler














...so I don't know why yours is slower, but to automatically assume because it is a 'mistake' (or worse) is not the right way to go about it, IMO. I have tuned memory for over 1 1/2 decades now, be it on our commercial or my private systems...


----------



## zGunBLADEz

jomama22 said:


> error 41 is a core voltage issue.
> 
> Using a static all core overclock will improve latency by about .7-.9 ns compared to pbo runs.
> 
> If you have variation between consecutive runs of aida greater than .2/.3 ns, you are getting memory corrections done. Usually can be fixed with vddg/vddp/soc voltage. May need to tweak timings but I haven't had seen this, voltages usually do the trick.
> 
> Beyond that, nothing really weird going on. 3800cl14 here does 53.0ns for all core overclock and 53.8ns for pbo.


In my case im currently isolating my kernel issues and for the looks of it they related to static overclocks. Im running pbo right now and testing so far. I managed to duplicate this error myself bombarding aida l3 cache reads with infinite runs even at 44x both ccx it will crash...my 5900x so far is stable at 48/47x on bios 1803..funny tho all the issues are not present on bios 1803.
Even altering stilts tweak to get proper aida l3 readings on 1803 wouldn't do the crash..

After this im going to let it idle to see.. all day until tomorrow to see if it does the same.

That also dont answer why windows are not choosing the right cores on low loads like 1803 bios and low loads with any windows power plan.. This will affect any type of quick benchmarks like aida/geekbench etc... It will get random readings everytime.. doesn't happen on bios 1803.


----------



## jomama22

stimpy88 said:


> Please don't take offence, It's just odd because I have never seen anyone else with bandwidth numbers like yours, with such loose memory timings. I have almost the same setup as you, with much tighter timings, but the next lower fclk than you 1866 versus yours at 1900. In my experience that speed difference is not worth more than 8GB/s higher bandwidth, also your L1 & L2 results are way higher than any other Zen2 I've ever seen...
> 
> I can't help but think there is something very strange with your results.
> 
> My Timings and Bandwidth...
> View attachment 2484276
> View attachment 2484275
> 
> 
> And now yours...
> View attachment 2484278


It's the aida version number giving odd results most likely. Happened a few times in the past. Newest aida would fix that for him.


----------



## jomama22

zGunBLADEz said:


> In my case im currently isolating my kernel issues and for the looks of it they related to static overclocks. Im running pbo right now and testing so far. I managed to duplicate this error myself bombarding aida l3 cache reads with infinite runs even at 44x both ccx it will crash...my 5900x so far is stable at 48/47x on bios 1803..funny tho all the issues are not present on bios 1803.
> Even altering stilts tweak to get proper aida l3 readings on 1803 wouldn't do the crash..
> 
> After this im going to let it idle to see.. all day until tomorrow to see if it does the same.
> 
> That also dont answer why windows are not choosing the right cores on low loads like 1803 bios and low loads with any windows power plan.. This will affect any type of quick benchmarks like aida/geekbench etc... It will get random readings everytime.. doesn't happen on bios 1803.


Manually set cppc and preferred cores in bios to enable, under advance>amd cbs>nbio I believe. May only have the cppc option, can't remember off the top of my head.

I would make sure fmax enhance is disabled during pbo runs. Doesn't do anything curve optimizer won't already do for you (for the most part).

Also, that's a pretty old bios to be using with vermeer yeah? Not sure when that was released but may be worth upgrading to a different bios.


----------



## zGunBLADEz

jomama22 said:


> Manually set cppc and preferred cores in bios to enable, under advance>amd cbs>nbio I believe. May only have the cppc option, can't remember off the top of my head.
> 
> I would make sure fmax enhance is disabled during pbo runs. Doesn't do anything curve optimizer won't already do for you (for the most part).
> 
> Also, that's a pretty old bios to be using with vermeer yeah? Not sure when that was released but may be worth upgrading to a different bios.



Its on auto by default why it would change and do wathever thx for the reminder i forgot all about that option . Now is working properly with it enable... It should behave as such on auto. i guess.... asus take notes lol auto its not working lol

1803 was the bios its from february i used for the board the other 2 are brand-new just a week apart .

I dont use stilt because the way it handles the all core but in 1803 will throw bad pbo so you have to tinker with the llc voltag etc to get the all core boost the same. And fix the l3 caches on aida on that particular bios 1803.. asus released a fix for that in the next bios.

Still should be properly recognize on auto as that setting is way hidden on asus bios and it will mess pbo on windows. I even forgot about it lol.

Now whats left to figure out those kernel panicks


----------



## jomama22

zGunBLADEz said:


> Its on auto by default why it would change and do wathever thx for the reminder i forgot all about that option . Now is working properly with it enable... It should behave as such on auto. i guess.... asus take notes lol auto its not working lol
> 
> 1803 was the bios its from february i used for the board the other 2 are brand-new just a week apart .
> 
> I dont use stilt because the way it handles the all core but in 1803 will throw bad pbo so you have to tinker with the llc voltag etc to get the all core boost the same. And fix the l3 caches on aida on that particular bios 1803.. asus released a fix for that in the next bios.
> 
> Still should be properly recognize on auto as that setting is way hidden on asus bios and it will mess pbo on windows. I even forgot about it lol.
> 
> Now whats left to figure out those kernel panicks


Yeah, weird issue I have seen pop up in the past.

Sorry about the bios info, bit out of the loop on what's recent and not lmao. I had thought 1xxx were from September/October.

If you don't care about resizable bar, I'm using 3003 on the dark hero without much issue, may be worth a flashback and trying different bios'. Doesn't fix the aida l3 issue for bandwidth but honestly, w.e., it's only a fix for that specific benchmark and doesn't affect other applications.

What was stilts fix for l3? Havnt heard it before.

Also, I just tried your issue with hammering the l3 stuff on aida without any issues.


----------



## Belcebuu

jcpq said:


> Hello
> For a patriot viper ([email protected]) in [email protected] CH VIII impact, what is the best configuration for ProcODT, CAD BUS, cad bus setup and RTT?
> This for 3800Mhz @ 14-14-14-28-42?


I have that memory and I always got errors.

I had a spare 3600cl16 one that is officially supported and had 0 problems..


----------



## zGunBLADEz

The hammering the l3 cache? Is to trigger my kernel panicks issue. Like i mention i get no wheas with that error. So im trying to figure out where it relies... the issue. I managed to trigger it with hammering non stop the aida l3 reads non stop lol.. so is easy for me to dulicate it at will now..

Found so far i can duplicate it on static overclock no pbo no matter what multiplier it will go down. Is not doing it on pbo on bios 2007.

Now bios 1803 dont have any of this issues.

Theres a bios fix for aida l3 reads on asus website for this board. If i do a aida l3 cache read on bios 1803 it will give reads like 300 instead of over 1000 on the l3. Using stilt tweak will fix that but you have to play with the llc/vcore so all the cores boot at the same speed instead of lets say 48x ccx1 and 43x on ccx2
That would fix that particular aida reads on l caches. It requires more tinkering to get the voltages to work with pbo and get the same core x multi on an all load...


----------



## J7SC

jomama22 said:


> It's the aida version number giving odd results most likely. Happened a few times in the past. Newest aida would fix that for him.


...I think you are right at least in part - AIDA specifically states that results between versions are not directly comparable. I'm using a slightly older one as we have a company license for it and the older version allows me to compare this build to other ones here, such as various AMD HEDT & Intel HEDT.(this is my first AM4)..

...I did look around for a trial version result I could compare to another (but _even older Aida)_ version I used when first booting this AM4 up. The only thing I could find is the collage below...mem read from the new version as 'write and copy' are not covered by trial. This would have been after the initial boot-up (at IF 1900) w/ less tight timings and no FMax...still, not too far off - also compare to the other 3950X and 5900X depicted by Aida in the table there.


----------



## jomama22

J7SC said:


> ...I think you are right at least in part - AIDA specifically states that results between versions are not directly comparable. I'm using a slightly older one as we have a company license for it and the older version allows me to compare this build to other ones here, such as various AMD HEDT & Intel HEDT.(this is my first AM4)..
> 
> ...I did look around for a trial version result I could compare to another (but _even older Aida)_ version I used when first booting this AM4 up. The only thing I could find is the collage below...mem read from the new version as 'write and copy' are not covered by trial. This would have been after the initial boot-up (at IF 1900) w/ less tight timings and no FMax...still, not too far off - also compare to the other 3950X and 5900X depicted by Aida in the table there.
> View attachment 2484347


I mean, just download the newest one. Gives you the read and latency which really is what matters anyway. If you really want, there are keys for the newer ones out there in the ether.


----------



## J7SC

jomama22 said:


> I mean, just download the newest one. Gives you the read and latency which really is what matters anyway. If you really want, there are keys for the newer ones out there in the ether.


I did exactly that already - the read on the left in my post above is from the latest Aida version...both parts of the pic in the post have the respective Aida version number on it..


----------



## finas

metalshark said:


> In an ideal world a ProcODT of 32 or lower and CAD BUS of 20-20-20-20 with no RTT. However, you'll likely need to do CAD-BUS of 20-20-24-20 to prevent issues booting each time and 24-20-24-20/24-20-24-24 to get it performing at 3800 or above. For 2x sticks 7/3/1 on RTT or 6/3/3 on 4x sticks. Then ProcODT might need to be 36.9/40/48/53 (don't go above 53), but the lower the better as long as it's stable. When testing memory, try to use something that does a hold test like test 10 of memtest86 to catch errors as it'll show you problems with keeping the same value in memory for a prolonged period of time which tm5, etc don't show.


What is the reason behind this ( that a lower ProcODT is better ) and that lower CAD BUS is better and no RTT is better. And better at what? I have always wondered about this but never found an answer for it.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

metalshark said:


> In an ideal world a ProcODT of 32 or lower and CAD BUS of 20-20-20-20 with no RTT. However, you'll likely need to do CAD-BUS of 20-20-24-20 to prevent issues booting each time and 24-20-24-20/24-20-24-24 to get it performing at 3800 or above. For 2x sticks 7/3/1 on RTT or 6/3/3 on 4x sticks. Then ProcODT might need to be 36.9/40/48/53 (don't go above 53), but the lower the better as long as it's stable. When testing memory, try to use something that does a hold test like test 10 of memtest86 to catch errors as it'll show you problems with keeping the same value in memory for a prolonged period of time which tm5, etc don't show.


This is the type of advice I'm also looking for. I had this kit: Are you a human?

It is running quite nicely:


http://imgur.com/a/SFpXLtG


I just purchased a 4X version of the kit: Are you a human?

What I am worried about. Originally, I purchased a second pair for 4X, and although it worked fine, it was annoying because my computer would have to boot 5 times before it would stick. Then I could past several different stability test. *What can I do to avoid this bootloop issue? *

I'm hoping that since these 4 sticks were QCd together, they should have better compatibility with one another. 

Here are the original 4X8GB stick settings I had, any changes I should make?


----------



## Kokin

KingEngineRevUp said:


> What I am worried about. Originally, I purchased a second pair for 4X, and although it worked fine, it was annoying because my computer would have to boot 5 times before it would stick. Then I could past several different stability test. *What can I do to avoid this bootloop issue? *


Likely going from 2 to 4 DIMMS is causing a bit of instability with the same settings, even if the memory is stable once you're booted. I'd recommend increasing DRAM voltage and SOC voltage a few ticks to see if it helps stabilize the memory training during cold boot.

Otherwise you can keep your system on 24/7 or put it to sleep instead of a full shutdown to avoid the memory training.


----------



## J7SC

KingEngineRevUp said:


> This is the type of advice I'm also looking for. I had this kit: Are you a human?
> 
> It is running quite nicely:
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/SFpXLtG
> 
> 
> I just purchased a 4X version of the kit: Are you a human?
> 
> What I am worried about. Originally, I purchased a second pair for 4X, and although it worked fine, it was annoying because my computer would have to boot 5 times before it would stick. Then I could past several different stability test. *What can I do to avoid this bootloop issue? *


As per @Kokin 's post, 4 sticks, while advantageous in other ways, can be a bit trickier re. stability. I run 4x8 GSkill GTZR (3866 native) also made for Z170/270/370/X299 without issue in my AM4 at 3800. I run slightly tighter primaries but slightly looser secondaries compared to your ZenTimings screenie. You might want to change tRFC from 288 to s.th. like 304 or so - the only time I had multi loop issues during training at start-up was with tRFC too tight, even if it all worked great after...you can always change back if that's not it.


----------



## zGunBLADEz

J7SC said:


> As per @Kokin 's post, 4 sticks, while advantageous in other ways, can be a bit trickier re. stability. I run 4x8 GSkill GTZR (3866 native) also made for Z170/270/370/X299 without issue in my AM4 at 3800. I run slightly tighter primaries but slightly looser secondaries compared to your ZenTimings screenie. You might want to change tRFC from 288 to s.th. like 304 or so - the only time I had multi loop issues during training at start-up was with tRFC too tight, even if it all worked great after...you can always change back if that's not it.


That's what im saying they tighting the timings with not gains at all. IF is holding the perf on the sticks wathever low or over that threshold can create stability issues specially on this system the way it works.


----------



## metalshark

finas said:


> What is the reason behind this ( that a lower ProcODT is better ) and that lower CAD BUS is better and no RTT is better. And better at what? I have always wondered about this but never found an answer for it.


Less power being used. Fewer amps, etc. If you increase voltages you'll want to up the RTT to compensate - think of them as a gate and you're trying to get the signal to bounce through the right hole. The best is no RTT and the voltage low enough to pass straight through as there's no loss to heat, signals are pure, etc but in reality, you're not going to get that. If you're running ProcODT at 53 to get it stable it likely means you're at the ragged edge of stability and run the risk of capacitors, etc on the RAM burning out if there's excess heat (you're most likely going to be having a lot of heat at 53).

CAD BUS signals are the cleanest at 20-20-20-20 but at any kind of speed you'll have boot issues a lot of times if not run at least 20-20-24-20.

Also reason for mentioning test 10 of memtest86 is that I've seen so many people with stable 4 hour runs of tm5 still having memory corruption issues where it fails on test 10 of memtest86, so thought I'd pass it on.


----------



## stimpy88

J7SC said:


> @stimpy88 , @zGunBLADEz & others...
> 
> First, have a look at this post > here at the "post-your-aida64-memory-and-cache-benchmark-score" thread and also check elsewhere in that thread - there are two-chiplet Ryzen3K (3900, 3950) which beat my score by just a bit because they run slightly tighter timings. Nothing unusual here. The one I linked runs the same mobo and same bios as I do...no magic, no trickery - and btw, folks don't like to start a new conversation by being asked 'have you stopped beating your wife yet...'
> 
> Second, I added the post about the TR (quad-channel) 2950X as it runs the identical memory kit (I have four sets of that TridentZ GTZR). That Samsung-B is a bit older and not AMD-specific (ie not NEO) but instead marketed for Intel. But it obviously works great on AMD, whether TR or AM4, once optimized. Pretty much every post I've made on Aida / 3950X in this thread since I settled on 16-15-15 / 3800 / IF1900 and did the memtest stress tests is in that same same range...here's an earlier one I did from over a month ago:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2484312
> 
> 
> 
> ...so I don't know why yours is slower, but to automatically assume because it is a 'mistake' (or worse) is not the right way to go about it, IMO. I have tuned memory for over 1 1/2 decades now, be it on our commercial or my private systems...


I asked because I have never seen numbers as high as yours, and wanted to understand why, and possibly learn from you, as that's what we do here, but the timings you posted would simply not yield those bandwidth numbers. I hope I don't need to take you out to dinner to ask you such a routine question on an enthusiast hardware OC forum, that is literally all about this kind of thing.

After looking into your results, and doing some testing, I have come to the conclusion that the AIDA version your using is simply too old. So, your version is 2 years old, nobody else here is using that today, so your numbers simply do not compare. AIDA have changed the benchmark over the years to reflect more realistic real-world numbers. I also find it odd that you download yet another old version and run that, when AIDA is posted on just about every PC enthusiast tech/hardware site, and is also available via a menu option in AIDA itself.

*A new version (6.33.5700) literally just came out today, and they offer a free trial*... I fully expect your numbers to go down to what the rest of us get from our Ryzens.

You state that you have lots of experience, well so do I, and I think I can see what is happening here, I'm just not understanding why. Post a shot from the latest version, and we will see who is right.

For reference, I have downloaded and run the same version you have, from May 21, 2019, and I got some very nice numbers too!









And now for something slightly more up to date, from todays release version of AIDA...


----------



## PowerK

Indeed. Less impedence, cleaner signal integrity. Except for ClkDrvStren. If I'm not mistaken, higher the value, cleaner signal integrity.


----------



## zGunBLADEz

amd downgrading ala intel 
i noticed some lower boosting behavior and lower l cache readings in my end on the new bioses

That explains my method to trigger the kernel panics/crashing bombarding aida l3 cache reads it only happens on ccx static 48/47x (higher l3 readings bcuz of the clocks vs pbo) (on the new bioses) overclock what was stable before it aint now lol jeez thx amd


----------



## xeizo

If you do not have enough of bioses, now you can update EVGA cards to Resizable Bar support. Leaked on EVGA forums:



https://www.evga.com/EVGA/GeneralDownloading.aspx?file=EVGA_Precision_X1_1.1.8.0.zip



I did it, worked fine:










No improvement in Time Spy, I guess Resizable Bar will be of limited use, nevertheless nice to have it


----------



## Sleepycat

xeizo said:


> If you do not have enough of bioses, now you can update EVGA cards to Resizable Bar support. Leaked on EVGA forums:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.evga.com/EVGA/GeneralDownloading.aspx?file=EVGA_Precision_X1_1.1.8.0.zip
> 
> 
> 
> I did it, worked fine:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No improvement in Time Spy, I guess Resizable Bar will be of limited use, nevertheless nice to have it
> 
> View attachment 2484417


Resizable bar is only supported on software that the GPU drivers have been optimised for. This version of Nvidia drivers enables resizable bar only for: 
Assassin's Creed Valhalla
Battlefield V
Borderlands 3
Control
Cyberpunk 2077
Death Stranding
DIRT 5
F1 2020
Forza Horizon 4
Gears 5
Godfall
Hitman 2
Hitman 3
Horizon Zero Dawn
Metro Exodus
Red Dead Redemption 2
Watch Dogs Legion


----------



## Sleepycat

stimpy88 said:


> For reference, I have downloaded and run the same version you have, from May 21, 2019, and I got some very nice numbers too!
> View attachment 2484401


This version looks like it gives odd results. The memory copy benchmark should be equal or lower than the memory read benchmark. It is also usually equal or slightly lower than the memory write benchmark.


----------



## J7SC

stimpy88 said:


> I asked because I have never seen numbers as high as yours, and wanted to understand why, and possibly learn from you, as that's what we do here, but the timings you posted would simply not yield those bandwidth numbers. *I hope I don't need to take you out to dinner *to ask you such a routine question on an enthusiast hardware OC forum, that is literally all about this kind of thing. (...)


I am getting a bit tired of your tone and find it harassing - you should stop that. Well before your post above, @jomama22 already got to the bottom of it by suggesting it is the Aida version number and I agreed, as much as I still beat your results in either version you posted...overall, you seem a bit obsessive about this, not least as every single post I made about it has the Aida version number on it. I add that the dedicated_ 'Post your AIDA64 memory and c(a)che benchmark scores' _where I post from time to time also has various different versions used by different folks. Most of us know that there is only limited cross comparability of results - because the Aida software opens with that advisory...

For the record, I am in management of a business SaaS company and as such use only licensed software, no keys 'obtained from the ether' for obvious legal and opportunity cost reasons. I had downloaded the then-latest Aida version in February but only got trial numbers...prior to that, I noticed that the licensed version we had from early '19 wasn't working right (per above post), so went through iterations of Aida versions I could update to with the existing license we have. I ended up using the latest one of that genre which worked w/o the warning of the earlier ones and also compared it to other systems' results in our office _which is what is most important to me_. We are getting a new licensed version via purchasing, but it will be the 'Aida business' version with 10 nodes.

I have put up with your various nonsensical insinuations, and also comments about e-peen (re. 2950X) when in fact it was relevant. Most other machines we have are HEDT & + (quad and eight channel RAM) and I wanted to learn more about the 16c/32t AM4s as we are debating to purchase several of them for workstations, given the unique niche it occupies. With that I am done with this exchange.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Dont know if this is any help, but here are my aida numbers for the 3950x i was running until i got my 5950x
Maximum stable fclk was 1833
4x8GB bdie


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Kokin said:


> Likely going from 2 to 4 DIMMS is causing a bit of instability with the same settings, even if the memory is stable once you're booted. I'd recommend increasing DRAM voltage and SOC voltage a few ticks to see if it helps stabilize the memory training during cold boot.
> 
> Otherwise you can keep your system on 24/7 or put it to sleep instead of a full shutdown to avoid the memory training.





J7SC said:


> As per @Kokin 's post, 4 sticks, while advantageous in other ways, can be a bit trickier re. stability. I run 4x8 GSkill GTZR (3866 native) also made for Z170/270/370/X299 without issue in my AM4 at 3800. I run slightly tighter primaries but slightly looser secondaries compared to your ZenTimings screenie. You might want to change tRFC from 288 to s.th. like 304 or so - the only time I had multi loop issues during training at start-up was with tRFC too tight, even if it all worked great after...you can always change back if that's not it.


No boot problems at all, these settings started my system right away. So far so good. Thanks for the help guys.


----------



## CyrIng

CyrIng said:


> Dual G.Skill F4-3600C16D-32GTZN DRAM / FCLK @ 3800 / 1900 MHz is stable with BIOS v2206
> 
> View attachment 2484235


I have been enjoying DRAM @ 3800 MHz for more than two days until a MCE showed up (after a few S3 STR and some builds stress):


Code:


[Hardware Error]: Corrected error, no action required.
[Hardware Error]: CPU:0 (17:71:0) MC27_STATUS[-|CE|-|-|-|-|SyndV|-|-|-]: 0x902000000002080b
[Hardware Error]: IPID: 0x0001002e00000500, Syndrome: 0x000000005a020001
[Hardware Error]: Power, Interrupts, etc. Ext. Error Code: 2, Link Error.
[Hardware Error]: cache level: L3/GEN, mem/io: IO, mem-tx: GEN, part-proc: SRC (no timeout)

DDR is set back to 3733 & FCLK at 1866 MHz


----------



## TurricanM3

Does anyone have sudden shutdowns? Power supply is not the cause.


----------



## WereCat

TurricanM3 said:


> Does anyone have sudden shutdowns? Power supply is not the cause.


I have sudden random shutdowns if I populate all 4 slots of RAM. The fix for me is to increase the DRAM Current Capability in BIOS from the default 100% to 120%. After that I can even do a massive OC and I'm fine. Shutdowns happen even at 2133MHz if all 4 slots of RAM are populated with the default DRAM Current Capability, it's really odd. But I do run 4x16GB (Dual Rank sticks) so maybe it's just way too much current requirement for the motherboard? Not sure. But give it a try.


----------



## domdtxdissar

@ *jomama22 *and* Gadfly*



domdtxdissar said:


> I did also give this a try, one reboot later and back to my old tried and true offset settings, without 30 chrome tabs open
> 
> 1 thread = 662 points
> 2 threads = 1303 points
> 4 threads = 2444 points
> 6 threads = 3706 points
> 8 threads = 4887 points
> 10 threads = 5974 points
> 12 threads = 7022 points
> 14 threads = 7906 points
> 16 threads = 8645 points
> 20 threads = 9583 points
> ...seems like i didn't save 24 thread screenshot, but 105xx score
> 32 threads = 12238 points


So CTR 2.04 RC got released today, so i thought i could try to maximize a gaming profile in CTR, these are my results: (comparison for my PBO CO results in quote above)

1 thread = 656 points
2 threads = 1301 points
4 threads = 2557 points
6 threads = 3789 points
8 threads = 5023 points
10 threads = 6042 points
12 threads = 7184 points
14 threads = 8316 points
16 threads = 8894 points
20 threads = 9637 points
24 threads = 10474 points
28 threads = 11176 points
32 threads = 12111 points

CTR settings:









Could theoretically optimized this alittle further by settings a higher P1 "CPU min usage (88%)" as the P2 profile have to cover quite alot of ground, all the way from ~10 threads to ~26 threads in Cinebench. If i limit P2 state to something like 22 threads i could hypnotically run P2 @ ~4875/4725 mhz.

Next release when CTR will upclock/downclock depending on workload i could see CTR being the clear winner in pretty much all workloads, included gaming.


----------



## jomama22

domdtxdissar said:


> @ *jomama22 *and* Gadfly*
> 
> 
> So CTR 2.04 RC got released today, so i thought i could try to maximize a gaming profile in CTR, these are my results: (comparison for my PBO CO results in quote above)
> 
> 1 thread = 656 points
> 2 threads = 1301 points
> 4 threads = 2557 points
> 6 threads = 3789 points
> 8 threads = 5023 points
> 10 threads = 6042 points
> 12 threads = 7184 points
> 14 threads = 8316 points
> 16 threads = 8894 points
> 20 threads = 9637 points
> 24 threads = 10474 points
> 28 threads = 11176 points
> 32 threads = 12111 points
> 
> CTR settings:
> View attachment 2484663
> 
> 
> Could theoretically optimized this alittle further by settings a higher P1 "CPU min usage (88%)" as the P2 profile have to cover quite alot of ground, all the way from ~10 threads to ~26 threads in Cinebench. If i limit P2 state to something like 22 threads i could hypnotically run P2 @ ~4875/4725 mhz.
> 
> Next release when CTR will upclock/downclock depending on workload i could see CTR being the clear winner in pretty much all workloads, included gaming.
> 
> View attachment 2484664
> View attachment 2484665
> View attachment 2484666
> View attachment 2484667
> View attachment 2484668
> View attachment 2484669
> View attachment 2484670
> View attachment 2484671
> View attachment 2484672
> View attachment 2484673
> View attachment 2484674
> View attachment 2484675


Yeah, the concept is there to having great performance using ctr. 

One question I do have for the Px stuff is whether that boost applies to each individual core or some pre selected ones? Reason for asking is because of the way windows will offload tasks to threads not of the highest quality, yet those threads will still be able to boost upwards of 5050 effective. 

It's hard to see/test those types of scenarios either way. 

Curious as to what your svi2 core voltage is under full 32 thread load as well. What llc are you running with the 1.35vid?


----------



## Sleepycat

jomama22 said:


> One question I do have for the Px stuff is whether that boost applies to each individual core or some pre selected ones? Reason for asking is because of the way windows will offload tasks to threads not of the highest quality, yet those threads will still be able to boost upwards of 5050 effective.


Does this happen even when you set in the bios to prefer the best performing cores?


----------



## J7SC

I've spent some more time optimizing and stress-testing sub-timings, with good gains on the single-core performance. As this is a work-play evaluation build, I won't go full hog on all-core (not yet anyway) and most of the bios is on auto, including PBO, with only FMax kicked in. I could lower tFAW to 16 but that seems to adversely affect some video apps. I've run tRFC2 and tRFC4 higher / lower than what you see below but don't find any significant variance.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

We're still getting that new BIOs update around this time right? Agesa 1.2.0.2?


----------



## shaolin95

Hey guys is anyone NOT running a dark hero able to hit 12k and 650s in CB R20 or close to those numbers with pbo and co and if so, can you share your bios for reference?
Thanks


----------



## criznit

shaolin95 said:


> Hey guys is anyone NOT running a dark hero able to hit 12k and 650s in CB R20 or close to those numbers with pbo and co and if so, can you share your bios for reference?
> Thanks


This so much!


----------



## lmfodor

I’m happy to share this impressive results at least for me as a noob with the new memories that bought last week. This would not have been possible without the great daily help of RosaPanteren who was guiding me step by step with each value .. I know that there is still some sub-timing to go down but I am super satisfied and maintaining the normal voltage for these memories of 1.5, not really I wanted to take them to 1.55v
























Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## gabian

domdtxdissar said:


> What the heck are you talking about ? You clearly dont have a optimized PBO CO overclock if you think this is the case, no wonder you like CTR then.
> 
> This is my daily 24/7 settings with fans and everything on auto, c-states off and a old bloaty windows install:
> No voltage offset, no random reboots.
> No CPU affinity changes and no priority tweaks.
> View attachment 2483657
> 
> 
> This is how my PBO CO overclock looks when its pushed to the point of instability as you put it:
> View attachment 2483658
> 
> 
> 
> PS, i would like to see your P1 4700/4650 run prime95 v303b6 (with AVX).
> 
> _edit_
> 
> Why are we even comparing in Cinebench which is a "medium load" ? This is a best case for CTR as i've said in my previous posts..
> You can try to compare CTR VS PBO CO in something like SotTR, hopefully even your curve optimizer settings should score higher in CPU Game than CTR.
> 
> Its in the "light workloads" and/or games PBO CO is faster than a CTR overclock in my findings. But you need a properly optimized PBO CO overclock without power/temperature restraints for it to be true, something clearly you dont have *Gadfly*


How do you get past 700 on cpuZ ? What’s your settings ? What is your h24 score ?


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Which program is this? Nice that it lists the max boost and max PBO possible.


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> Which program is this? Nice that it lists the max boost and max PBO possible.


Hi! This is the standard HWInfo.. we always run the sensor windows only.. but if you uncheck the sensor, the main windows appears!


----------



## J7SC

lmfodor said:


> Hi! This is the standard HWInfo.. we always run the sensor windows only.. but if you uncheck the sensor, the main windows appears!


...thought that green font looked familiar  though I usually just run HWI sensors


----------



## Sleepycat

WereCat said:


> I have sudden random shutdowns if I populate all 4 slots of RAM. The fix for me is to increase the DRAM Current Capability in BIOS from the default 100% to 120%. After that I can even do a massive OC and I'm fine. Shutdowns happen even at 2133MHz if all 4 slots of RAM are populated with the default DRAM Current Capability, it's really odd. But I do run 4x16GB (Dual Rank sticks) so maybe it's just way too much current requirement for the motherboard? Not sure. But give it a try.


I'm running 4x16GB B-die, at 3600 CL14-15-14-28. It's the hard wall for me as I can't increase to 3666 / 1833 IF regardless of voltage. I tried increasing the DRAM current capability, but unfortunately, it did not help me reach 3666.


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> Hi! This is the standard HWInfo.. we always run the sensor windows only.. but if you uncheck the sensor, the main windows appears!


Ahh, I see, it's been so long since I ever used the main window! Thanks!
Mine does say PBO max of 5100, but I've never seen those speeds. Highest was 4.95 GHz, even though my CPU temperature was only in the 60's.


----------



## J7SC

Sleepycat said:


> Ahh, I see, it's been so long since I ever used the main window! Thanks!
> Mine does say PBO max of 5100, but I've never seen those speeds. Highest was 4.95 GHz, even though my CPU temperature was only in the 60's.
> 
> View attachment 2484848


 ...nice storage capacity !


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Sleepycat said:


> Ahh, I see, it's been so long since I ever used the main window! Thanks!
> Mine does say PBO max of 5100, but I've never seen those speeds. Highest was 4.95 GHz, even though my CPU temperature was only in the 60's.
> 
> View attachment 2484848


Remember it's a triangle. Current, Power and temperature can be a limit. Whichever you hit first is what will stop you from fully boosting.


----------



## Sleepycat

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Remember it's a triangle. Current, Power and temperature can be a limit. Whichever you hit first is what will stop you from fully boosting.


During single core loads none of those limits are reached. Maybe it's a poorly binned core where 1.46V only gets me to 4.93 GHz, even with CO at -15.


----------



## Sleepycat

J7SC said:


> ...nice storage capacity !


Thanks, it's an old system from 2008 which I recently upgraded to a 5900X over Christmas. So all the old drives came along with it, plus a few additional SSDs due to the recent Ebay 20% off and Samsung SSD cashback.


----------



## MemorexKid

So when is CTR 2.1 going to be released? I thought it was end of Q1.


----------



## PJVol

Sleepycat said:


> Highest was 4.95 GHz, even though my CPU temperature was only in the 60's.


60's is too hot to let SC reach 5100


----------



## Gadfly

Any word on AGESA 1.2.0.2?


----------



## pilotter

stupid question....how far should you go negative curve? I am now all cores -30 testing with prime, OCCT and cinebench still ok. Scalar on auto and no boost yet. Motherboard limits.

can't go more negative


----------



## jomama22

pilotter said:


> stupid question....how far should you go negative curve? I am now all cores -30 testing with prime, OCCT and cinebench still ok. Scalar on auto and no boost yet. Motherboard limits.
> 
> can't go more negative


Yeah, newer bios' have limited how much the curve optimizer actually reduces voltage, hence lower performance in pbo than early bios'. If you want, you can throw on some 1.1.0.0 or 1.1.8.0 agesa bios' and test them out yourself. 

Beyond that, not much else you can really do.


----------



## J7SC

...finished fine-tuning the IF1900 / DDR4 3800 RAM...16/15/14/14/33/46 might seem a bit unusual (this being an older 4x8 set of Samsung-B for Intel), but it yields best results and is stress-tested.

Now, with AGESA V2 PI 1.1.0.0 Patch C and PBO on auto (but FMax enabled), I started to undervolt the 3950X a bit and getting good gains in CBr20, 23, 3DM TS, TSX. So far, using a negative offset of 0.025 V to 0.03125 V seems to work best with this system (has great cooling)... Is that the range folks with a similar proc gen have been settling on as well ?


----------



## domdtxdissar

jomama22 said:


> Yeah, the concept is there to having great performance using ctr.
> 
> One question I do have for the Px stuff is whether that boost applies to each individual core or some pre selected ones? Reason for asking is because of the way windows will offload tasks to threads not of the highest quality, yet those threads will still be able to boost upwards of 5050 effective.


My understanding is that CTR test what cores windows assign work to in the different threadcounts, so it only boost those pre selected ones in PX mode "HIGH STATE" and "MID STATE" (upto 4 threads) and the whole CCD for "LOW STATE" (from ~5 to ~9 threads with my settings)



jomama22 said:


> Curious as to what your svi2 core voltage is under full 32 thread load as well. What llc are you running with the 1.35vid?


Had to relax the settings alittle to get them 24/7 daily stable. This is my everyday gaming profile settings: (normal ~24 degrees ambient temp)
LLC4 = upto 2% vdroop

PX high = from 1 to 2 threads @ 5050mhz
PX mid = from 3 to 4 threads @ 4950mhz
PX low = from 5 to 9 threads @ 4900mhz
P2 = from 10 to 20 threads @ 4800/4675mhz
P1 = from 21 to 32 threads @ 4700/4600mhz

1 thread @ 5050mhz -> 1475mv set = 1475mv get -> ~58 Tctl/Tdie temp
2 thread @ 5050mhz -> 1475mv set = 1475mv get -> ~63 Tctl/Tdie temp
4 thread @ 4950mhz -> 1450mv set = 1444mv get -> ~74 Tctl/Tdie temp
6 thread @ 4900mhz-> 1435mv set = 1431mv get -> ~72 Tctl/Tdie temp
8 thread @ 4900mhz -> 1435mv set = 1425mv get -> ~74 Tctl/Tdie temp
10 threads @ 4800/4675mhz -> 1350mv set = 1337mv get -> ~65 Tctl/Tdie temp
12 threads @ 4800/4675mhz -> 1350mv set = 1331mv get -> ~67 Tctl/Tdie temp
14 threads @ 4800/4675mhz -> 1350mv set = 1331mv get -> ~68 Tctl/Tdie temp
16 threads @ 4800/4675mhz -> 1350mv set = 1331mv get -> ~71 Tctl/Tdie temp
20 threads @ 4800/4675mhz -> 1350mv set = 1325mv get -> ~76 Tctl/Tdie temp
24 threads @ 4700/4600mhz -> 1275mv set = 1256mv get -> ~70 Tctl/Tdie temp
28 threads @ 4700/4600mhz -> 1275mv set = 1250mv get -> ~71 Tctl/Tdie temp
32 threads @ 4700/4600mhz -> 1275mv set = 1250mv get -> ~72 Tctl/Tdie temp










Did run all the threadcounts back to back without closing background apps etc.

1 thread = 652 points
2 threads = 1295 points
4 threads = 2525 points
6 threads = 3752 points
8 threads = 4979 points
10 threads = 6016 points
12 threads = 7171 points
14 threads = 8287 points
16 threads = 8831 points
20 threads = 9539 points
24 threads = 10217 points
28 threads = 11117 points
32 threads = 12032 points


----------



## jomama22

domdtxdissar said:


> My understanding is that CTR test what cores windows assign work to in the different threadcounts, so it only boost those pre selected ones in PX mode "HIGH STATE" and "MID STATE" (upto 4 threads) and the whole CCD for "LOW STATE" (from ~5 to ~9 threads with my settings)
> 
> 
> 
> Had to relax the settings alittle to get them 24/7 daily stable. This is my everyday gaming profile settings: (normal ~24 degrees ambient temp)
> LLC4 = upto 2% vdroop
> 
> PX high = from 1 to 2 threads @ 5050mhz
> PX mid = from 3 to 4 threads @ 4950mhz
> PX low = from 5 to 9 threads @ 4900mhz
> P2 = from 10 to 20 threads @ 4800/4675mhz
> P1 = from 21 to 32 threads @ 4700/4600mhz
> 
> 1 thread @ 5050mhz -> 1475mv set = 1475mv get -> ~58 Tctl/Tdie temp
> 2 thread @ 5050mhz -> 1475mv set = 1475mv get -> ~63 Tctl/Tdie temp
> 4 thread @ 4950mhz -> 1450mv set = 1444mv get -> ~74 Tctl/Tdie temp
> 6 thread @ 4900mhz-> 1435mv set = 1431mv get -> ~72 Tctl/Tdie temp
> 8 thread @ 4900mhz -> 1435mv set = 1425mv get -> ~74 Tctl/Tdie temp
> 10 threads @ 4800/4675mhz -> 1350mv set = 1337mv get -> ~65 Tctl/Tdie temp
> 12 threads @ 4800/4675mhz -> 1350mv set = 1331mv get -> ~67 Tctl/Tdie temp
> 14 threads @ 4800/4675mhz -> 1350mv set = 1331mv get -> ~68 Tctl/Tdie temp
> 16 threads @ 4800/4675mhz -> 1350mv set = 1331mv get -> ~71 Tctl/Tdie temp
> 20 threads @ 4800/4675mhz -> 1350mv set = 1325mv get -> ~76 Tctl/Tdie temp
> 24 threads @ 4700/4600mhz -> 1275mv set = 1256mv get -> ~70 Tctl/Tdie temp
> 28 threads @ 4700/4600mhz -> 1275mv set = 1250mv get -> ~71 Tctl/Tdie temp
> 32 threads @ 4700/4600mhz -> 1275mv set = 1250mv get -> ~72 Tctl/Tdie temp
> 
> View attachment 2484996
> 
> 
> Did run all the threadcounts back to back without closing background apps etc.
> 
> 1 thread = 652 points
> 2 threads = 1295 points
> 4 threads = 2525 points
> 6 threads = 3752 points
> 8 threads = 4979 points
> 10 threads = 6016 points
> 12 threads = 7171 points
> 14 threads = 8287 points
> 16 threads = 8831 points
> 20 threads = 9539 points
> 24 threads = 10217 points
> 28 threads = 11117 points
> 32 threads = 12032 points
> 
> View attachment 2484997
> View attachment 2484998
> View attachment 2484999
> View attachment 2485000
> View attachment 2485001
> View attachment 2485002
> View attachment 2485003
> View attachment 2485004
> View attachment 2485005
> View attachment 2485006
> View attachment 2485007
> View attachment 2485008


Gotcha, thanks for the info!

You should run a test with sottr or other game benches and see how it goes.


----------



## J7SC

FYI Zen 3 owners, saw > this referenced earlier today; could lead to a micro-code update affecting performance


----------



## domdtxdissar

jomama22 said:


> Gotcha, thanks for the info!
> 
> You should run a test with sottr or other game benches and see how it goes.


Getting pretty good CPU Game numbers for what is daily 24/7 settings.. 

















PS: Nvidia rebar lowers the average CPU Game by ~10-15fps, best to turn it off.


----------



## WereCat

Sleepycat said:


> I'm running 4x16GB B-die, at 3600 CL14-15-14-28. It's the hard wall for me as I can't increase to 3666 / 1833 IF regardless of voltage. I tried increasing the DRAM current capability, but unfortunately, it did not help me reach 3666.


I've heard that Micron E-die is easier on the IMC or maybe I have won the IMC lottery but I can go up to 3800MHzCL16 just fine.
My issue is that my FLCK is hard capped at 1866MHz even if I run just 1 stick of RAM so no matter what, it's not worth it for me to run more than 3733MHz on the DRAM.

My sticks are 3200MHzCL16 by default and I can run them at 3733CL14 stable but at 1.48V which I find quite high (I know up to 1.5V should be fine but I would rather get a cooling fan for my DRAM first) so I settled for 3666MHzCL16 as I haven't really seen a big performance impact for my use cases.

Either way, I think the reason why I don't see much of a performance difference between 3733CL14 and 3666CL16 is the rather high tRFC on the E-Die which ranges between 550 to mid 650 depending on the DRAM speed I use which is way higher than what you get on the Samsung B-die.
So my latencies tend to stick to around 67ns to 69ns but my bandwidth stays high.










old version of Aida64 from old screen shot, different results now with the new version.


----------



## shaolin95

criznit said:


> This so much!


Well I got this result now so I can share if it you like to give it a shot.
This is with PBO+CO.
This is my best Single ever and close to the 11.5k on multi, which is more than enough for me at this time. Cant wait to get a chiller cooling setup to see where I can take this!










Also happy with the just below 60latency since I am running 64GB












And my best PCMark so far.











Oh and look at my "AWESOME" Core 1...don't I wish it was real


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Gadfly said:


> Any word on AGESA 1.2.0.2?


Same question here, I skipped 3401 because 1.2.0.2 is supposed to be out end of March or early April.


----------



## GRABibus

PJVol said:


> 60's is too hot to let SC reach 5100


I reach 5100MHz (I got 5150MHz one time) on my Core0 and 5,05GHz effective clock (on both threads) during CBR20 single core test at 20degrees (PBO/CO settings in signature).
Max Tdie CCD1 temp is 62 degrees.


----------



## GRABibus

shaolin95 said:


> Well I got this result now so I can share if it you like to give it a shot.
> This is with PBO+CO.
> This is my best Single ever and close to the 11.5k on multi, which is more than enough for me at this time. Cant wait to get a chiller cooling setup to see where I can take this!
> 
> View attachment 2485082
> 
> 
> Also happy with the just below 60latency since I am running 64GB
> View attachment 2485086
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And my best PCMark so far.
> View attachment 2485088
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and look at my "AWESOME" Core 1...don't I wish it was real
> View attachment 2485090


what are your settings, temps ?


----------



## shaolin95

GRABibus said:


> what are your settings, temps ?


Room is hot right now so a few runs of CB20 so I was hitting about 75 F max. Anything over that and I was boosting less and getting more like 644-648 single


----------



## criznit

shaolin95 said:


> Well I got this result now so I can share if it you like to give it a shot.
> This is with PBO+CO.
> This is my best Single ever and close to the 11.5k on multi, which is more than enough for me at this time. Cant wait to get a chiller cooling setup to see where I can take this!
> 
> View attachment 2485082
> 
> 
> Also happy with the just below 60latency since I am running 64GB
> View attachment 2485086
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And my best PCMark so far.
> View attachment 2485088
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and look at my "AWESOME" Core 1...don't I wish it was real
> View attachment 2485090


Thank you!!


----------



## shaolin95

criznit said:


> Thank you!!


You are welcome. Let me know how they work for you. I am curious.


----------



## arkantos91

Hi guys, for a Corsair H150i RGB Pro XT what motherboard header would you recommend using?

At the moment I'm connecting it to the cpu fan header, but on the mobo there is also one AIO header. 

What is the difference in terms of control on the fans?

Would unplugging it from the cpu_fan header and plugging it to the aio_header prevent the system boot cause of no cpu fan detected?


----------



## bt1

arkantos91 said:


> Would unplugging it from the cpu_fan header and plugging it to the aio_header prevent the system boot cause of no cpu fan detected?


You just set CPU Fan RPM sensor to [ignore] on Monitor tab in BIOS


----------



## arkantos91

bt1 said:


> You just set CPU Fan RPM sensor to [ignore] on Monitor tab in BIOS


I assumed so, however I couldn't tell what difference would make switching up from cpu fan header to aio fan header given they both are 4 pin headers but the connector itself has only 3


----------



## bt1

arkantos91 said:


> I assumed so, however I couldn't tell what difference would make switching up from cpu fan header to aio fan header given they both are 4 pin headers but the connector itself has only 3


CPU Fan connectors are fixed to source temps from CPU, but for AIO header you can set water temperature sensor or multiple sensors


----------



## J7SC

...I finally got down to some more thorough benching for the 3950X / Asus Crosshair VIII Hero wi-fi for the first time....did a few runs to max single core, but then switched to all-core (no 'per-CCX', no CTR, PBO auto, just basic all-c multi set in bios at fixed voltage / old school). There wasn't a single crash, and even with 1.312v, I probably could have gone beyond 4.45 giggles, but there's always next weekend  I really like this chip and mobo. The system does have extensive w-cooling (2x480x64 and 2x160x60, 2xD5s). CineR23 at 4.45 and 1.312v peaked at just over 200 W CPU package power per HWinfo.

...I also ran some Aida with the latest version released last week and posted best single-c and best multi-c results...the latter is preferable in spite of slightly lower read bandwidth, given the lower latency and much better L2 and L3 cache.

I also re-ran the TR 2950X with the latest Aida version. Obviously it is a quad-channel instead of dual channel, but otherwise identical memory kits. For a pure workstation environment, TR HEDT still make a bit more sense, given the RAM bandwidth (there's even a TR Pro 16c/32t w/ 8-channel RAM out now) but especially the much higher PCIe lane number, and mobos like the one used with U.2 connections. Still, the 3950X / RTX 3090 combo is hard to beat re. general price-performance and its speed advantage in the majority of apps, never mind gaming and entertainment.

EDIT -added a quick run at all-core 4500 / 1.312v at the end







































CPUz 4500


----------



## Sepulchre_GB

Hi guys, I recently upgraded to bios 3204 to try out the resizable bar, all seemed ok until today when I had a couple of crashes, then real issues trying to reboot. Reset CMOS and booted into windows fine once I’d dealt with cpu fan errors (custom water. loop). I then went back into the bios changed the memory to XMP same way I had before (DOCP Standard) but the PC will then get stuck at various stages of the bios, rebooting after f9 and then sticking with different codes.

ive spent this evening trying different things ending with 120%, 1.45v where I’m stuck at Q-code 22 which requires a CMOS reset to get back into the bios. 

DRAM Current capability 100% - 110% - 120%
DRAM voltage - 1.35V - 1.40V - 1.45V

I’m running C8HW, 3900x, 3090FE, 4 x 8GB Samsung b-die rated at 3600 16-16-16-36 which I appreciate can be tricky but worked fine until the bios update. 

I’d really appreciate it if someone could give me a few pointers on what to try next, apologies in advance for daft questions as I don’t venture into the bios unless necessary


----------



## Sepulchre_GB

Sepulchre_GB said:


> Hi guys...


Resolved - 1 stick of ran died coincidentally at the same time as I was trying the new bias’s


----------



## J7SC

Sepulchre_GB said:


> Resolved - 1 stick of ran died coincidentally at the same time as I was trying the new bias’s


...glad you resolved it, but the term 'coincidentally' makes me a bit nervous with a Sammy-B stick dying right after a bios update. I run 4x sticks of Sammy-B (nominal 3866, actual 3800) at 16-15-14-14-32 but keep voltage no higher than 1.375v...I know they can take more, but it won't make much of a difference in my setup. Just out of interest, what were your typical RAM temps before the incident, and with up to 1.45V ?


----------



## JoneKone

J7SC said:


> ...glad you resolved it, but the term 'coincidentally' makes me a bit nervous with a Sammy-B stick dying right after a bios update. I run 4x sticks of Sammy-B (nominal 3866, actual 3800) at 16-15-14-14-32 but keep voltage no higher than 1.375v...I know they can take more, but it won't make much of a difference in my setup. Just out of interest, what were your typical RAM temps before the incident, and with up to 1.45V ?


I just watched a video that said. "WARNING: Asus / AMD AGESA burned my Ryzen 5950x RAM channel A !!!" after updating to agesa 1.2.0.1 Patch A ... Soo coincidentally ram channel and stick are burning out?


----------



## GRABibus

JoneKone said:


> I just watched a video that said. "WARNING: Asus / AMD AGESA burned my Ryzen 5950x RAM channel A !!!" after updating to agesa 1.2.0.1 Patch A ... Soo coincidentally ram channel and stick are burning out?


where is this video ?


----------



## Nizzen

JoneKone said:


> I just watched a video that said. "WARNING: Asus / AMD AGESA burned my Ryzen 5950x RAM channel A !!!" after updating to agesa 1.2.0.1 Patch A ... Soo coincidentally ram channel and stick are burning out?


I call clickbait


----------



## domdtxdissar

Very sad he burned one memory lane, but i dont think the biosupdate is to blame.
When he shows this on public video when he thinking about RMAing the cpu, one have to wonder what other voltages he have tried (?)
1.5375 Vcore is simply too much for 7nm with the heatdensity of a 5950x








Maybe he was running negative voltage offset ? But what would the point be, you only get clock throttling..
What offset was he running on Vsoc ?

Missing lots of information here


----------



## Sleepycat

domdtxdissar said:


> Very sad he burned one memory lane, but i dont think the biosupdate is to blame.
> When he shows this on public video when he thinking about RMAing the cpu, one have to wonder what other voltages he have tried (?)
> 1.5375 Vcore is simply too much for 7nm with the heatdensity of a 5950x
> View attachment 2485410
> 
> Maybe he was running negative voltage offset ? But what would the point be, you only get clock throttling..
> What offset was he running on Vsoc ?
> 
> Missing lots of information here


I'm interested in what his SoC voltage offset was prior to this and what SoC LLC was used. A dangerous combo if he had SoC offset and LLC on together. It would be a matter of time before his IMC degraded to the point of failure.


----------



## Sleepycat

J7SC said:


> ...glad you resolved it, but the term 'coincidentally' makes me a bit nervous with a Sammy-B stick dying right after a bios update. I run 4x sticks of Sammy-B (nominal 3866, actual 3800) at 16-15-14-14-32 but keep voltage no higher than 1.375v...I know they can take more, but it won't make much of a difference in my setup. Just out of interest, what were your typical RAM temps before the incident, and with up to 1.45V ?


I'll be one of the first to report failure if it happens. I'm running 4x16GB B-die at 1.46V. My vSoC is only at 1.09V with LLC2 though.


----------



## J7SC

Sleepycat said:


> I'll be one of the first to report failure if it happens. I'm running 4x16GB B-die at 1.46V. My vSoC is only at 1.09V with LLC2 though.


...fingers crossed. Re. RAM voltages, though I was also thinking about RAM temps as well...speaking of which, I wonder how hot these DDR4 5333 / *1.6*v sticks get (probably not Samsung-B though)

per Anandtech


----------



## lmfodor

shaolin95 said:


> Well I got this result now so I can share if it you like to give it a shot.
> This is with PBO+CO.
> This is my best Single ever and close to the 11.5k on multi, which is more than enough for me at this time. Cant wait to get a chiller cooling setup to see where I can take this!
> 
> View attachment 2485082
> 
> 
> Also happy with the just below 60latency since I am running 64GB
> View attachment 2485086
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And my best PCMark so far.
> View attachment 2485088
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and look at my "AWESOME" Core 1...don't I wish it was real
> View attachment 2485090


Impressive results. Almost all core set to -30. How did you achieved that? Is just silicon lottery? And how did you come to the conclusion to rise a little the Vcore offset?
Thanks 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Sleepycat

J7SC said:


> ...fingers crossed. Re. RAM voltages, though I was also thinking about RAM temps as well...speaking of which, I wonder how hot these DDR4 5333 / *1.6*v sticks get (probably not Samsung-B though)
> 
> per Anandtech
> 
> View attachment 2485415


At least with mine at only 3600 CL14, 1.46V, I was already hitting 57-59 ºC when running benchmarks consecutively. I added a cheap RAM cooler and now it sits at a max of 45 ºC under a few hours of benchmarks/memory testing and much lower with gaming. This is with air cooling, so even the fan on the CPU heatsink was insufficient, it would be much worse with an AIO and the RTX 3080's flow through coolers dumping hot air onto the DIMM slots.

With 1.6V and 5333, I'd say those water cooling RAM kits will be worth their weight in gold!


----------



## J7SC

Sleepycat said:


> At least with mine at only 3600 CL14, 1.46V, I was already hitting 57-59 ºC when running benchmarks consecutively. I added a cheap RAM cooler and now it sits at a max of 45 ºC under a few hours of benchmarks/memory testing and much lower with gaming. This is with air cooling, so even the fan on the CPU heatsink was insufficient, it would be much worse with an AIO and the RTX 3080's flow through coolers dumping hot air onto the DIMM slots.
> 
> With 1.6V and 5333, I'd say those water cooling RAM kits will be worth their weight in gold!


There's a certain irony here: When DDR4 first came out to replace DDR3, one advantage touted was the lower heat and voltage (1.2v/1.35v compared to 1.5v/1.65v). Now DDR4 is hitting as much as 1.6v...the cycle and message will likely repeat when DDR5 will come out en masse 'at 1.1v'


----------



## jomama22

domdtxdissar said:


> Very sad he burned one memory lane, but i dont think the biosupdate is to blame.
> When he shows this on public video when he thinking about RMAing the cpu, one have to wonder what other voltages he have tried (?)
> 1.5375 Vcore is simply too much for 7nm with the heatdensity of a 5950x
> View attachment 2485410
> 
> Maybe he was running negative voltage offset ? But what would the point be, you only get clock throttling..
> What offset was he running on Vsoc ?
> 
> Missing lots of information here


So this guy had posted another video a few days ago it looks like where he complains about how the new bios ****ed a bunch of stuff up.

Well, watching that previous video, it is clear he loaded a bios profile he had saved to usb from an earlier version and it changed a whole crap ton of other random settings in the bios that he had no clue about what they were.

So basically, makes video complaining of new bios and how it messed up his stuff when really it was him loading an old profile for an older bios (we all know this can really muck with stuff). And now he says his channel died.

I am guessing somewhere in that profile load it screwed up some voltages or whatnot.


----------



## Sleepycat

jomama22 said:


> So this guy had posted another video a few days ago it looks like where he complains about how the new bios ****ed a bunch of stuff up.
> 
> Well, watching that previous video, it is clear he loaded a bios profile he had saved to usb from an earlier version and it changed a whole crap ton of other random settings in the bios that he had no clue about what they were.
> 
> So basically, makes video complaining of new bios and how it messed up his stuff when really it was him loading an old profile for an older bios (we all know this can really muck with stuff). And now he says his channel died.
> 
> I am guessing somewhere in that profile load it screwed up some voltages or whatnot.


I do the same thing too though. After each bios update, I load optimised defaults and then load my bios settings profile from the previous version. Fingers crossed!

I didn't quite like 3401 as it was doing weird things with CTR 2.0, so I went back to 3302 after a few hours.


----------



## J7SC

...unless absolutely necessary (ie. for security issues such as side channel vulnerabilities), I prefer not to update a well-matured bios at all if everything works fine. In any case, rather than loading a profile, I just take screenshots of the previous values and manually input them into the new bios in segments. Especially with a new Agesa, that strikes me as safe(r). Case in point - with the r_BAR new mobo and vBios, I am definitely going to be a laggard again, not least as it seems to be more trouble than it's worth, at least for now judging from what I've read.

...as to running 1.5375 Vcore on a 7nm, that's certainly asking for trouble, unless you're on sub-ambient / sub-zero. With 12nm and 14nm CPUs, I would be ok with up to 1.35v as long as it has extensive custom w-cooling and not exceed 80 C under load...Not entirely sure about the daily 'max' for 7nm yet, but 1.325v is my self-imposed limit for now.


----------



## JoneKone

domdtxdissar said:


> Very sad he burned one memory lane, but i dont think the biosupdate is to blame.
> When he shows this on public video when he thinking about RMAing the cpu, one have to wonder what other voltages he have tried (?)
> 1.5375 Vcore is simply too much for 7nm with the heatdensity of a 5950x
> View attachment 2485410
> 
> Maybe he was running negative voltage offset ? But what would the point be, you only get clock throttling..
> What offset was he running on Vsoc ?
> 
> Missing lots of information here


Isn't that Minus offset? "- CPU Core voltage Offset" How is it +1.5375v


----------



## JoneKone

jomama22 said:


> So this guy had posted another video a few days ago it looks like where he complains about how the new bios ****ed a bunch of stuff up.
> 
> Well, watching that previous video, it is clear he loaded a bios profile he had saved to usb from an earlier version and it changed a whole crap ton of other random settings in the bios that he had no clue about what they were.
> 
> So basically, makes video complaining of new bios and how it messed up his stuff when really it was him loading an old profile for an older bios (we all know this can really muck with stuff). And now he says his channel died.
> 
> I am guessing somewhere in that profile load it screwed up some voltages or whatnot.


I totally missed the part where he loaded old stuff from USB? Can you point me to the video spot? Also he has constantly complained how in 2021 you have to take pictures off your bios settings and only then you can update bios. Why would he suddenly load from usb? The picture that @domdtxdissar posted is at point where he says hey look at this I had to take pictures of my old bios settings, cause I cannot load them from USB.


----------



## Sepulchre_GB

No dead ram channel here, other sticks work fine in the slots so it’s certainly only a dead stick. To answer the question regarding voltages, max that was applied in my case was as per the xmp profile - 1.35v (I upped to 1.4 and 1.45v for a brief period to see if it would then boot but the stick must have been dead by that point). I can’t comment on ram temps as I didn’t check these although I’d expect them to be potentially high as my PC is configured for water cooling, not airflow and currently has the 3090FE chucking a lot of heat into the case.

I think this stick has possibly always been problematic as when I first built the PC I couldn’t get any tighter sub timings than default but put that down to my poor ram clocking skills and gave up, looking back on it I now wonder if there was more to it than just my lack of skill lol. I’ll find out in a weeks time once my RMA goes through.


----------



## jomama22

Sleepycat said:


> I do the same thing too though. After each bios update, I load optimised defaults and then load my bios settings profile from the previous version. Fingers crossed!
> 
> I didn't quite like 3401 as it was doing weird things with CTR 2.0, so I went back to 3302 after a few hours.


It's just not a good idea when there are large changes made (e.g. an agesa update)

The reason is that those saved profiles don't save settings in the way of "setting x = auto", they are saved as in "hex ab198 = hex 0", so what inevitably ends up happening is when you get large changes, the hex value of a setting could be changed and/or reused for a different setting. It's also possible that the setts all get shifted a few hex values because of the additions/removals.

Most times it's nbd, you check to make sure what's being changed is what you want, but at the end of the day, it's easy enough to manually enter them in.


----------



## Sleepycat

jomama22 said:


> It's just not a good idea when there are large changes made (e.g. an agesa update)
> 
> The reason is that those saved profiles don't save settings in the way of "setting x = auto", they are saved as in "hex ab198 = hex 0", so what inevitably ends up happening is when you get large changes, the hex value of a setting could be changed and/or reused for a different setting. It's also possible that the setts all get shifted a few hex values because of the additions/removals.
> 
> Most times it's nbd, you check to make sure what's being changed is what you want, but at the end of the day, it's easy enough to manually enter them in.


I do check what the changes are being applied to the new bios when I load the old profile. So far, the listed changes are only the ones which I have set manually. There hasn't been any settings where it says it is setting it to Auto again. 

So essentially, I am using the load optimize defaults to ensure all of the settings in the new bios is set using the correct hex for the AGESA version, and then applying only the changes which I made manually which are saved in the old profile file.


----------



## Ultradeadly

Did I miss something??? 

*ASUS ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME

HWINFO Version History...*


----------



## shamino1978

preview








ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-3501.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com












ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3501.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com












ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3501.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com












ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3501.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com


----------



## kuutale

shamino1978 said:


> preview
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-3501.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3501.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3501.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3501.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


is there preview bios Crosshair viii hero non wifi version?


----------



## stimpy88

shamino1978 said:


> preview
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-3501.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3501.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3501.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3501.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


Thank you very much for posting these! Can we have a clue as to what the changes are? Or is it a preview of the new AGESA (v1.2.0.2) AMD was talking about a few weeks ago?


----------



## Sleepycat

shamino1978 said:


> preview
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-3501.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3501.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3501.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3501.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


Thanks Shamino! Looking forward to testing this out on my C8H Wifi. Do you know if this version uses the correct best cores when running CTR2.0? 3401 was picking the wrong cores for single threaded loads.


----------



## xeizo

Thanks Shamino, will test ASAP, 3401 has been pretty stable for me so things going in the right direction


----------



## GRABibus

Any inputs from ASUS on improvments with this Bios ?


----------



## dyanikoglu

Non-wifi crosshair is again not on the list 

Can't wait for the official release tho, definitely each bios on last months made the system more and more stable.


----------



## xeizo

Yes, it's the REAL AGESA 1.2.0.2!

Works fine so far, was able to lower SB voltage to under 1.0V without any noticeable impact










Cache bandwidth looks better, while latency is a little worse










Geekbench is within variance for run-to-run/ambient temps, direct comparison with 3401 exact same settings PBO 220/120/160 +75MHz and slight CO between -10-20 per core and -1 on single worst core










Overall, looks promising but after just a few minutes 

edit. same performance in TimeSpy, but look at the CPU graph, it was VERY choppy before, it looks like boost is much more relaxed and consistent now while it was nervously always boosting with the earlier bioses


----------



## arcanexvi

kuutale said:


> is there preview bios Crosshair viii hero non wifi version?


Seconded. I've been having Event 41 crashes galore again on 3402. @shamino1978


----------



## shamino1978

yes








ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3501.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com


----------



## GRABibus

shamino1978 said:


> yes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3501.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


Thanks Shamino.
I will wait for feedbacks and final release.


----------



## dyanikoglu

shamino1978 said:


> yes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3501.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


You're awesome!


----------



## Sleepycat

Unfortunately, I'm seeing the same core speed issue with 3501, which I also experienced in 3401. You can see in the screenshot below during a CB R23 multi core run that some cores are clocked lower than others, eventhough it has been set to 4.65GHz for CCX1 and 4.575 GHz for CCX2 using CTR2.0. I tested loading bios optimized defaults and this issue also occurs. Looks like I'll have to go back to 3302.


----------



## xeizo

Sleepycat said:


> Unfortunately, I'm seeing the same core speed issue with 3501, which I also experienced in 3401. You can see in the screenshot below during a CB R23 multi core run that some cores are clocked lower than others, eventhough it has been set to 4.65GHz for CCX1 and 4.575 GHz for CCX2 using CTR2.0. I tested loading bios optimized defaults and this issue also occurs. Looks like I'll have to go back to 3302.
> 
> View attachment 2485573


You can't run benchmarks in HWINFO, look at real benchmark scores instead, also CTR is probably bugged with newer AGESA as it was tuned for older AGESA. Don't use CTR if you want to use the new bios.


----------



## Sleepycat

xeizo said:


> You can't run benchmarks in HWINFO, look at real benchmark scores instead, also CTR is probably bugged with newer AGESA as it was tuned for older AGESA. Don't use CTR if you want to use the new bios.


The scores show the impact as well. In CB R23, I was getting 23300 with 3302, then 21300 with 3502 with CTR2.0, confirming the odd core clocks. I went back to traditional PBO overclocking to get 4.5 GHz, and scores are now 22500. So yes, CTR2.0 is not working with AGESA 1.2.0.1 Patch A and 1.2.0.2. But, it works fine with 1.2.0.1. So something in Patch A broke compatibility and it has been carried over to 1.2.0.2.

Ryzen Master shows the odd core clocks. Core 5, 7, 10 and 12 are affected when using CTR2.0.


----------



## xeizo

Sleepycat said:


> The scores show the impact as well. In CB R23, I was getting 23300 with 3302, then 21300 with 3502 with CTR2.0, confirming the odd core clocks. I went back to traditional PBO overclocking to get 4.5 GHz, and scores are now 22500. So yes, CTR2.0 is not working with AGESA 1.2.0.1 Patch A and 1.2.0.2. But, it works fine with 1.2.0.1. So something in Patch A broke compatibility and it has been carried over to 1.2.0.2.
> 
> Ryzen Master shows the odd core clocks. Core 5, 7, 10 and 12 are affected when using CTR2.0.
> 
> View attachment 2485577


Yes, CTR obviously must be matched against the right AGESA

edit. performance of the bios itself is good though, just ran it, on air cooler and I haven't done any "tuning "


----------



## BulletSponge

I have been having random black screens at the desktop for several months now with my 3700x/CHVIII WiFi/RTX 3080 rig. 50% of the time when booting I get the bios splash screen followed by a black screen at the desktop. Prior to this week I would just hit the case reset button as many times as it took to get into Windows but Monday I discovered something strange. I changed what the power button does in Windows to put the rig to sleep and have found out that if I put the rig (in a black screen after boot state) to sleep and then wake the rig by pressing the space bar I am at the log in screen every time. I still have no idea what is causing the issue but at least I can get to my desktop reliably now.


----------



## CyrIng

BulletSponge said:


> I have been having random black screens at the desktop for several months now with my 3700x/CHVIII WiFi/RTX 3080 rig. 50% of the time when booting I get the bios splash screen followed by a black screen at the desktop. Prior to this week I would just hit the case reset button as many times as it took to get into Windows but Monday I discovered something strange. I changed what the power button does in Windows to put the rig to sleep and have found out that if I put the rig (in a black screen after boot state) to sleep and then wake the rig by pressing the space bar I am at the log in screen every time. I still have no idea what is causing the issue but at least I can get to my desktop reliably now.


Very odd. Usually, Suspend To RAM|disk, aka S3, S4, are more source of issues, because of non compliant drivers.
I would suggest to disable in BIOS the Asus logo splash screen; increase the countdown timer before booting to have a chance to read any devices issue.
Using another OS with more diagnostic log can also confirm or not the issue. Try to boot Linux


----------



## Reica

Hey all,

Do any of the newer bioses have more control over the chipset fan? Because mine started rattling when it's between 2000 and 2400 RPM, so I kinda wanna nudge it to run at 2500 RPM minimum. But I either can't find it, or it's just not in the old version I'm running yet.

Did find some reddit posts about certain software being able to control the PCH fan, but it doesn't work for me. It just does whatever it wants to depending on the chipset temp.

Could go through all the trouble of RMA'ing the board, but the board itself runs just fine and I need the PC for work too so I don't want too much downtime. That's why I haven't really updated the bios from 2702. Needs to "just work" for now. :/


----------



## 1ah1

I am using 4*8gb 3800c14 but i cant boot with 1:1 so i use 3733 with 1866 but with lower ddr4 voltage 1.45
so it fine
but Why is my voltages are high in VDDG and VDDP all of them are in auto


----------



## xeizo

1ah1 said:


> but Why is my voltages are high in VDDG and VDDP all of them are in auto


Adjust them manual:










Re ran CB23 this time with single core benchmark, score looks normal or as it should or what to say, all good


----------



## shaolin95

Strange but my system is not liking this new bios. Same settings that have been stable on my previous one (entered manually) are crashing and bsod. Even tried relaxing things a bit but same issue. 
I flashed back to 3401


----------



## xeizo

shaolin95 said:


> Strange but my system is not liking this new bios. Same settings that have been stable on my previous one (entered manually) are crashing and bsod. Even tried relaxing things a bit but same issue.
> I flashed back to 3401


I have been using my system the whole day since Shamino posted the bios, not a single glitch everything runs fine booted at first try with fclk 1900, I may run settings which are more kind to this bios in the first place. Maybe you should go through your settings rather than reverting to a old bios? Just a thought, the general advice is to stick with whatever bios runs fine(I can't do that LoL).


----------



## shaolin95

xeizo said:


> I have been using my system the whole day since Shamino posted the bios, not a single glitch everything runs fine booted at first try with fclk 1900, I may run settings which are more kind to this bios in the first place. Maybe you should go through your settings rather than reverting to a old bios? Just a thought, the general advice is to stick with whatever bios runs fine(I can't do that LoL).


I entered things manually and it is not working as well. Even relaxing my settings and still had issues. For reference yes I am pushing my system though not sure how "hardcore" it will be considered. For example I get around 650s single in CB20 and around 11400-600 multi.
At this point I dont see a point of keeping if just to lose performance. I will wait for a newer one to come out. First BIOS for this mobo that actually was not as good or better than the previous one for my system. It happens


----------



## xeizo

shaolin95 said:


> I entered things manually and it is not working as well. Even relaxing my settings and still had issues. For reference yes I am pushing my system though not sure how "hardcore" it will be considered. For example I get around 650s single in CB20 and around 11600-700 multi.
> At this point I dont see a point of keeping if just to lose performance. I will wait for a newer one to come out. First BIOS for this mobo that actually was not as good or better than the previous one for my system. It happens


I don't think this bios is bad, I only have a 5900X. Which by AMD definition should be worse than yours out of the box. And I only run a air cooler, this is what I get:


----------



## GRABibus

Sleepycat said:


> Unfortunately, I'm seeing the same core speed issue with 3501, which I also experienced in 3401. You can see in the screenshot below during a CB R23 multi core run that some cores are clocked lower than others, eventhough it has been set to 4.65GHz for CCX1 and 4.575 GHz for CCX2 using CTR2.0. I tested loading bios optimized defaults and this issue also occurs. Looks like I'll have to go back to 3302.
> 
> View attachment 2485573


Strange...

Do you have the same issue when setting Core ratio to 46 for exemple ? (Not using Per CCX OC)


----------



## shaolin95

xeizo said:


> I don't think this bios is bad, I only have a 5900X. Which by AMD definition should be worse than yours out of the box. And I only run a air cooler, this is what I get:


It is good for yours but is bad for my system. Not sure what are we arguing it about here. Glad it is working for you but for MY system is NOT good.








3401 results (650s)


----------



## xeizo

shaolin95 said:


> It is good for yours but is bad for my system. Not sure what are we arguing it about here. Glad it is working for you but for MY system is NOT good.
> View attachment 2485616
> 
> 3401 results (650s)


Maybe, but that is considering you only run Cinebench all day, 3501 may be better in a multitude of other tasks. I already saw memory bandwidth was better, which should be beneficial for many games. Just saying.


----------



## shaolin95

xeizo said:


> Maybe, but that is considering you only run Cinebench all day, 3501 may be better in a multitude of other tasks. I already saw memory bandwidth was better, which should be beneficial for many games. Just saying.


So you were here with me while I was testing it and saw me ONLY running CB? So you were here with me seeing my computer BSOD even booting at lower settings with the new BIOS? 
Cant you just understand that not ALL systems are the same or are you new to computers? I have been working with computers since my C64 and Tandy CoCos..this is not my first rodeo.

I am done with you...time to add you to the exclusive ignored club.


----------



## xeizo

shaolin95 said:


> So you were here with me while I was testing it and saw me ONLY running CB? So you were here with me seeing my computer BSOD even booting at lower settings with the new BIOS?
> Cant you just understand that not ALL systems are the same or are you new to computers? I have been working with computers since my C64 and Tandy CoCos..this is not my first rodeo.
> 
> I am done with you...time to add you to the exclusive ignored club.


Just trying to be helpful and make you consider options, but I was talking to a wall. More fool me. I wont miss the aggressive part.


----------



## bastian

shamino1978 said:


> preview
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-3501.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3501.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3501.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3501.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


Thanks shamino. I still see the occasion issue with usb on Dark Hero with 3501 :/

Looks like AMD still hasn't ironed it out.


----------



## metalshark

bastian said:


> Thanks shamino. I still see the occasion issue with usb on Dark Hero with 3501 :/
> 
> Looks like AMD still hasn't ironed it out.


May I ask your USB issue please? Can’t solve it, but would be good to know what people are still experiencing. Also AMD are actively asking for bug reports to get to the bottom of it, so would be good to submit one.


----------



## bastian

metalshark said:


> May I ask your USB issue please? Can’t solve it, but would be good to know what people are still experiencing. Also AMD are actively asking for bug reports to get to the bottom of it, so would be good to submit one.


In my case, I will randomly see audio drop out and/or usb flickers. Disabling PCIe Gen4 still seems to be the solution.


----------



## xeizo

bastian said:


> In my case, I will randomly see audio drop out and/or usb flickers. Disabling PCIe Gen4 still seems to be the solution.


What audio Interface är you using? I had USB issues disappear a long time ago when I upgraded the firmware on two of my USB interfaces. USB in itself is wonky, it's not only AMD.


----------



## cevad

bastian said:


> In my case, I will randomly see audio drop out and/or usb flickers. Disabling PCIe Gen4 still seems to be the solution.


I've not seen any of that at all, and PCIe Gen4 has been enabled since I built the system last month. I have Steelseries Arctis Wireless with the USB DAC, and have had no dropouts, and I often use them for 2-3hrs at a time. Not had any issues with mouse/keyboard/USB drive issues, either.


----------



## xeizo

cevad said:


> I've not seen any of that at all, and PCIe Gen4 has been enabled since I built the system last month. I have Steelseries Arctis Wireless with the USB DAC, and have had no dropouts, and I often use them for 2-3hrs at a time. Not had any issues with mouse/keyboard/USB drive issues, either.


Ditto. In my case, as I said above I did have USB audio issues a long time ago. USB audio firmware upgrades took care of that. I use two audio interfaces, one USB mixer, a USB keyboard from Roland, Logitech G710+ keyboard, Steelseries mouse, a USB drive, a USB keyboard/mouse switch and I use to upgrade firmwares on my guitar gear(Helix, Morningstar, L6 Relay etc) without problems. So, NO USB issues. And I run PCIE 4.0(RTX3070).


----------



## metalshark

xeizo said:


> Ditto. In my case, as I said above I did have USB audio issues a long time ago. USB audio firmware upgrades took care of that. I use two audio interfaces, one USB mixer, a USB keyboard from Roland, Logitech G710+ keyboard, Steelseries mouse, a USB drive, a USB keyboard/mouse switch and I use to upgrade firmwares on my guitar gear(Helix, Morningstar, L6 Relay etc) without problems. So, NO USB issues. And I run PCIE 4.0(RTX3070).


I can run at VDDG CCD 0.88v but get USB issues with Gen 4 devices running at Gen 4 (graphics and storage both gen 4) without at least 0.95v. Having not a single issue since 1.2.0.1 Patch A (am now running 1.2.0.2) also the background hiss went as well, so quite happy. Sure would like to reduce VDDG CCD down to 0.88v without USB drop-outs, but it's a small price to pay for rock-solid stability. Appreciate many can run 0.88v (or lower) with Gen 4 + no USB issues.


----------



## xeizo

metalshark said:


> I can run at VDDG CCD 0.88v but get USB issues with Gen 4 devices running at Gen 4 (graphics and storage both gen 4) without at least 0.95v. Having not a single issue since 1.2.0.1 Patch A (am now running 1.2.0.2) also the background hiss went as well, so quite happy. Sure would like to reduce VDDG CCD down to 0.88v without USB drop-outs, but it's a small price to pay for rock-solid stability. Appreciate many can run 0.88v (or lower) with Gen 4 + no USB issues.


I run 0.96V, and it has been rock solid for months now, yes I rather take stable than record benchmarks. I always try to find settings that works 24/7 and without noise.


----------



## Alberto_It

@shamino1978 you have got a DM


----------



## bastian

cevad said:


> I've not seen any of that at all, and PCIe Gen4 has been enabled since I built the system last month. I have Steelseries Arctis Wireless with the USB DAC, and have had no dropouts, and I often use them for 2-3hrs at a time. Not had any issues with mouse/keyboard/USB drive issues, either.


What do you want me to say? That what I am seeing doesn't exist? It does. All the devices I have connected are the same ones that were connected to my Z490 Intel build and there were no issues there.

You have to remember some people prior to AMD discovering the issue also said they had not seen the issue. It took months for AMD to admit and discover there was a problem.

Meanwhile even with the Patch A and now the official release you can still see other people on reddit also saying the issue still persists. Here are some:

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/mm6nao

So yes, with these events and the fact AMD isn't the greatest at fixing issues quickly, its not surprising there are still issues.


----------



## cevad

bastian said:


> What do you want me to say? That what I am seeing doesn't exist?


No, I'm not saying that at all, I'm just offering my experience that I have not had any issues. It's obviously not an easy issue to track down, otherwise it would have been sorted by now, hopefully it's resolved for you soon.


----------



## bastian

cevad said:


> No, I'm not saying that at all, I'm just offering my experience that I have not had any issues. It's obviously not an easy issue to track down, otherwise it would have been sorted by now, hopefully it's resolved for you soon.


Well like I said it seems to go away with dropping Gen 4 to Gen 3 on my 3090. Which is not really a big problem for me, as I don't use Gen 4 SSDs. And Gen 4 for GPUs really has no benefits.

It really shouldn't be happening though. Its a pretty backwards problem. AMD really needs to get their act together. Great products brought down by stupid issues.


----------



## bt1

bastian said:


> Well like I said it seems to go away with dropping Gen 4 to Gen 3 on my 3090. Which is not really a big problem for me, as I don't use Gen 4 SSDs. And Gen 4 for GPUs really has no benefits.
> 
> It really shouldn't be happening though. Its a pretty backwards problem. AMD really needs to get their act together. Great products brought down by stupid issues.


there are some new settings in 3501, have you tried changing them without switching to PCI-E Gen3?


----------



## jomama22

bastian said:


> What do you want me to say? That what I am seeing doesn't exist? It does. All the devices I have connected are the same ones that were connected to my Z490 Intel build and there were no issues there.
> 
> You have to remember some people prior to AMD discovering the issue also said they had not seen the issue. It took months for AMD to admit and discover there was a problem.
> 
> Meanwhile even with the Patch A and now the official release you can still see other people on reddit also saying the issue still persists. Here are some:
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/mm6nao
> 
> So yes, with these events and the fact AMD isn't the greatest at fixing issues quickly, its not surprising there are still issues.


Seems the only person with issues is someone trying to jailbreak their iphone, which has been a known issue on amd cpus anyway. Whether it actually has somthing to do with the usb issue isn't know. I'm willing to be it doesn't tbh.


----------



## bastian

jomama22 said:


> Seems the only person with issues is someone trying to jailbreak their iphone, which has been a known issue on amd cpus anyway. Whether it actually has somthing to do with the usb issue isn't know. I'm willing to be it doesn't tbh.


Still complaints on Corsairs forums too.

BIOS is still considered BETA. Issue is not 100% fixed.


----------



## Alberto_It

Asus Crosshair VIII Hero, Hero Wi-Fi and Dark Hero bios are up on their own support bios page


----------



## 1ah1

xeizo said:


> Adjust them manual:
> 
> View attachment 2485610












What do think about the voltages with [email protected] test.


----------



## jomama22

bastian said:


> Still complaints on Corsairs forums too.
> 
> BIOS is still considered BETA. Issue is not 100% fixed.


Need more time for the bios to get out to see it's affects.

There is only 1 thread on corsair concerning this issue and 1 post since this new bios came out, not even clear is they are using it...


----------



## xeizo

1ah1 said:


> What do think about the voltages with [email protected] test.


The problem with Zen 3 and voltages are usually not during extreme bench, but during idle where sudden reboot can happen, also too low VDDG CCD gives USB glitches. But if it works for you I see nothing wrong, all CPU:s are different. You could lower TFAW to 24 if you raise TRRDS to 6, and TRFC could be about half of what you use. You could probably lower TRC as well. Raising ProcODT to 40 Ohm could possibly get you to fclk 1900 but maybe not with TCL 14. Also raising the three upper DrvStr to 30 Ohm gives extra stability. But higher temps, depends on how high VDIMM you use. Under 1.4V there should be no problems with temps in a well ventilated case.


----------



## xeizo

bastian said:


> BIOS is still considered BETA. Issue is not 100% fixed.


For some, it may never be fixed. Some configs are tricky. Personally USB has been good since several bios versions, and with both 3401 and 3501 I haven't had a single WHEA/Reboot/program fail. If not perfect for all, much better than early bios versions which boosted as * but where pretty unstable.


----------



## bastian

jomama22 said:


> Need more time for the bios to get out to see it's affects.
> 
> There is only 1 thread on corsair concerning this issue and 1 post since this new bios came out, not even clear is they are using it...


Yes, BIOS just came out. Just wait till more people start using it. You will see more reports. It may be fixed for some but not others still. Remember, some people said before they didn't notice any issues.

This is not a simple fix. Or else it wouldn't have taken months. Doesn't help AMD is not revealing why its happening.


----------



## bastian

xeizo said:


> For some, it may never be fixed. Some configs are tricky. Personally USB has been good since several bios versions, and with both 3401 and 3501 I haven't had a single WHEA/Reboot/program fail. If not perfect for all, much better than early bios versions which boosted as * but where pretty unstable.


I have no WHEA errors or reboots. My system is stable, except for the USB bug


----------



## xeizo

bastian said:


> I have no WHEA errors or reboots. My system is stable, except for the USB bug


Have you tried raising VDDG?


----------



## 1ah1

xeizo said:


> The problem with Zen 3 and voltages are usually not during extreme bench, but during idle where sudden reboot can happen, also too low VDDG CCD gives USB glitches. But if it works for you I see nothing wrong, all CPU:s are different. You could lower TFAW to 24 if you raise TRRDS to 6, and TRFC could be about half of what you use. You could probably lower TRC as well. Raising ProcODT to 40 Ohm could possibly get you to fclk 1900 but maybe not with TCL 14. Also raising the three upper DrvStr to 30 Ohm gives extra stability. But higher temps, depends on how high VDIMM you use. Under 1.4V there should be no problems with temps in a well ventilated case.


Thank you
My 5800x didnt have any sudden reboot sense i bought it in first day release and without WHEA.
I post my screenshot because my vddg and vddp are high in AUTO and change it manual like what you said.
I have 4*8 b-die samsung (G.SKILL Neo 3800cl14) so the VDIMM in xmp is v1.5 but right now i use 1.45 for 3733










What do you recommend for DrvStr and ProcODT

If i restart and i put 1900fclk and 3800mem i can boot and the test will pass without errors but i cant do coldboot it will fail.


----------



## bastian

jomama22 said:


> Need more time for the bios to get out to see it's affects.
> 
> There is only 1 thread on corsair concerning this issue and 1 post since this new bios came out, not even clear is they are using it...


More negative reports here too:


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/mmo525


----------



## jomama22

bastian said:


> More negative reports here too:
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/mmo525


Lol again, just wait and see. 2 users have actually reported back.


----------



## bastian

jomama22 said:


> Lol again, just wait and see. 2 users have actually reported back.


Still seeing more reports. More than people saying its 100% fixed. Not sure why you are deflecting. It is NOT fixed.


----------



## jomama22

bastian said:


> Still seeing more reports. More than people saying its 100% fixed. Not sure why you are deflecting. It is NOT fixed.


Lol I'm not deflecting. I have no idea if 1.2.0.2 will fix their issues. Just merely stating that it makes sense to just wait and see what happens.

But thank you for the hourly updates.


----------



## xeizo

1ah1 said:


> Thank you
> My 5800x didnt have any sudden reboot sense i bought it in first day release and without WHEA.
> I post my screenshot because my vddg and vddp are high in AUTO and change it manual like what you said.
> I have 4*8 b-die samsung (G.SKILL Neo 3800cl14) so the VDIMM in xmp is v1.5 but right now i use 1.45 for 3733
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you recommend for DrvStr and ProcODT
> 
> If i restart and i put 1900fclk and 3800mem i can boot and the test will pass without errors but i cant do coldboot it will fail.


Those must be pretty binned memory, usually 1.5V and B-die risks lots of errors because of high temps unless using active cooling on the RAM. I think you did right to lower to 1.45V, but maybe those are so well binned they can take 1.5V with no problems. I don't know.
Cold boot issue could be 14T in itself, maybe you need 16T to hit higher FCLK, it could be too low VTT(should be slight above half of VDIMM), it could be that BOOT voltage for VDIMM needs to be set to 1.45V, it could be ProcODT and DrvStrn, try 30/30/30/24 and see if cold boot issues disappear. Check RAM temps during load in HWINFO64, if B-die RAM starts getting above 50C it usually throws errors.


----------



## J7SC

xeizo said:


> Those must be pretty binned memory, usually 1.5V and B-die risks lots of errors because of high temps unless using active cooling on the RAM. I think you did right to lower to 1.45V, but maybe those are so well binned they can take 1.5V with no problems. I don't know.
> Cold boot issue could be 14T in itself, maybe you need 16T to hit higher FCLK, it could be too low VTT(should be slight above half of VDIMM), it could be that BOOT voltage for VDIMM needs to be set to 1.45V, it could be ProcODT and DrvStrn, try 30/30/30/24 and see if cold boot issues disappear. *Check RAM temps during load in HWINFO64, if B-die RAM starts getting above 50C it usually throws errors.*


...that's good advice. Decent fans are cheap these days in value packs (spoiler). I never had an open or closed system I didn't add a RAM fan to, keeping RAM temps in the low to mid 30 C range...currently, that is Samsung B-die I run at DDR4 3800/IF1900, below speed spec (3866), but with just a touch extra voltage w/ 1.375v given the tight timings.



Spoiler


----------



## Alberto_It

All Crosshair motherboards bios 3501 are up on official Asus website except for the Formula! 

Some examples 






ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero | ROG Crosshair | Gaming Motherboards｜ROG - Republic of Gamers｜ROG Global


AMD Ryzen 3000 series ATX motherboard with Aura Sync, SupremeFX, ROG Audio, Dual M.2, Realtek LAN, Wifi , M.2 heatsink and USB 3.2 Gen 2



rog.asus.com










ROG Crosshair VIII Hero (WI-FI) | ROG Crosshair | Gaming Motherboards｜ROG - Republic of Gamers｜ROG Global


ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO(WI-FI)



rog.asus.com





Why not for the Formula?


----------



## Alberto_It

shamino1978 said:


> preview
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-3501.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3501.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3501.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3501.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


On official Asus support website they are now availables for the download. 

Lack only the Crosshair VIII Formula X570 bios version that still on 3402 patch A and AGESA version 1.2.0.1


----------



## arcanexvi

Updated to 3501 but I seem to have lost BAR support even though it's enabled?


----------



## Q Tech

Hi Guys,

I've recently discovered that, for me at least, Windows 10 versions 2004 and onwards have significantly lower WHEA-free FCLK overclocking headroom compared to 1909. I can run a 2000Mhz FCLK on 1909, but have to drop down to 1900Mhz on 2004 or 2009.

Since I don't think this is likely to be specific to the Crosshair VIII, I've created a separate thread (warning: long read) for the issue, so please try and keep discussion over there if possible.

I'm posting here as I've been following this thread for a few months now and there's clearly some very knowledgeable people here, so I'd be interested to hear everyone's thoughts.


----------



## jomama22

Q Tech said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> I've recently discovered that, for me at least, Windows 10 versions 2004 and onwards have significantly lower WHEA-free FCLK overclocking headroom compared to 1909. I can run a 2000Mhz FCLK on 1909, but have to drop down to 1900Mhz on 2004 or 2009.
> 
> Since I don't think this is likely to be specific to the Crosshair VIII, I've created a separate thread (warning: long read) for the issue, so please try and keep discussion over there if possible.
> 
> I'm posting here as I've been following this thread for a few months now and there's clearly some very knowledgeable people here, so I'd be interested to hear everyone's thoughts.
> 
> Edit: Looks like the thread is awaiting mod approval, hopefully will be up soon


Believe this has to do with windows spectra and meltdown mitigations introduced a bit after 1909.

Search google for it and you'll find lots of issues.

I had contemplated doing this but have just been too lazy lmao.

Edit: so the mitigation issues were from 18xx, so not that. But I now remember the reason if why I didn't test 1909:


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/elb7v1

May want to test what the comments say to. Seems cppc was broken in 1909


----------



## Q Tech

jomama22 said:


> Believe this has to do with windows spectra and meltdown mitigations introduced a bit after 1909.
> 
> Search google for it and you'll find lots of issues.
> 
> I had contemplated doing this but have just been too lazy lmao.
> 
> Edit: so the mitigation issues were from 18xx, so not that. But I now remember the reason if why I didn't test 1909:
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/elb7v1
> 
> May want to test what the comments say to. Seems cppc was broken in 1909


Thanks, I should clarify though, I'm not using 1909 on my primary Windows install. I was lazily using my old 1909 install as an overclocking testing ground. I'd dialed in an overclock I was happy with and went to test it on my primary install (20H2/2009) and discovered the huge difference in stability.

The hope is that if this gets enough attention perhaps AMD can identify the cause and possibly fix it in a future update.

The thread is now live by the way.


----------



## J7SC

Alberto_It said:


> On official Asus support website they are now availables for the download.
> 
> Lack only the Crosshair VIII Formula X570 bios version that still on 3402 patch A and AGESA version 1.2.0.1





arcanexvi said:


> Updated to 3501 but I seem to have lost BAR support even though it's enabled?


...3501 is still tagged as 'beta version', though, on the Asus site...they'll be collecting more feedback and then either update bios again, or remove beta tag when it's deemed 'final'


----------



## Alberto_It

J7SC said:


> ...3501 is still tagged as 'beta version', though, on the Asus site...they'll be collecting more feedback and then either update bios again, or remove beta tag when it's deemed 'final'
> 
> View attachment 2485868


Ok, but for my Crosshair VIII Formula X570, there isn't not even the beta version


----------



## J7SC

Alberto_It said:


> Ok, but for my Crosshair VIII Formula X570, there isn't not even the beta version


...wouldn't that just be what Shamino had already shared a few posts back ?


----------



## bastian

jomama22 said:


> Lol I'm not deflecting. I have no idea if 1.2.0.2 will fix their issues. Just merely stating that it makes sense to just wait and see what happens.
> 
> But thank you for the hourly updates.


No problem, there is now even more 

And here is a video too! https://sergal.feen.us/6mu8lp.mp4

Looks like AMD has more work to do and it'll probably take months.


----------



## Nizzen

bastian said:


> No problem, there is now even more
> 
> And here is a video too! https://sergal.feen.us/6mu8lp.mp4
> 
> Looks like AMD has more work to do and it'll probably take months.


Looks like the host of the file has 14.4k modem speed....
Taking months to load...


----------



## xeizo

bastian said:


> No problem, there is now even more
> 
> And here is a video too! https://sergal.feen.us/6mu8lp.mp4
> 
> Looks like AMD has more work to do and it'll probably take months.


Considering you are a 10900K user you know remarkably much about the negatives in the AMD user experience, and are sure to point out. Fanboi much LoL


----------



## bastian

xeizo said:


> Considering you are a 10900K user you know remarkably much about the negatives in the AMD user experience, and are sure to point out. Fanboi much LoL


I'm a 10900k user and a 5950x user. You are allowed to own both and be critical of issues on both. And I think the 5950x is superior obviously, but the USB/sound issues on AMD are pretty STOOOPID lol


----------



## Karagra

Using new 3501 and everything is solid.. glad to see since agesa 1.2.0.1 everything has been stable was worried a usb issue might resurface lol. Also Gigabyte users reporting the same since 1.2.0.1.


----------



## Karagra

bastian said:


> I'm a 10900k user and a 5950x user. You are allowed to own both and be critical of issues on both. And I think the 5950x is superior obviously, but the USB/sound issues on AMD are pretty STOOOPID lol


I am 100% not saying it is a instability problem with your ram or cpu, but with the new fixes it almost seems like that is something you should really look into.. Still could be a one off though of a specific board/specific chip with specific issues.


----------



## bastian

Karagra said:


> I am 100% not saying it is a instability problem with your ram or cpu, but with the new fixes it almost seems like that is something you should really look into.. Still could be a one off though of a specific board/specific chip with specific issues.


I can push heavy AVX workloads on this thing and its rock solid. I literally have not had a single reboot or bluescreen.


----------



## Karagra

bastian said:


> I can push heavy AVX workloads on this thing and its rock solid. I literally have not had a single reboot or bluescreen.


I mean I have pushed hard benchmarks on my systems each time I built my pcs and still had sound issues ingame before.. I also have run hours upon hours of tests on systems and had reboots within a hour of apex legends or streaming on obs. Once I messed around with my ram and cpu more it usually always fixed itself (These systems were all old amd coming from FX series all the way through my current 5800x. Again doesn't mean this is your issue but most of the time when a fix comes out and someone says it didnt work it comes down to user error.


----------



## Sleepycat

arcanexvi said:


> Updated to 3501 but I seem to have lost BAR support even though it's enabled?


Check your bios settings again. I am on 3501 and resizable Bar is still enabled.


----------



## Sleepycat

bastian said:


> I have no WHEA errors or reboots. My system is stable, except for the USB bug


I tested all the previous bios versions with my Reverb G2, which gets USB disconnects when running PCIe 4.0. I have to set everything to PCIe 3.0 to get it to work. With bios 3401 and 3501, the disconnects have become very rare in PCIe 4.0. So it is a big improvement, but it still happens after a few hours. It is better than previously (3302 and earlier) where it would happen every 5 minutes or so.


----------



## J7SC

...love my optimized Crosshair VIII / 3950X combo, but 'had an unexpected offer I couldn't refuse' this afternoon....5950X and ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Dark _not only actually available_, but at a _great price _where we also buy a lot of our commercial computer stuff...keep the regular Crosshair VIII Hero wi-fi / 3950X for other related duties, or sell it...?











EDIT - just noticed that the mobo came with Bios 3501 (store got the delivery today)...so far no issues whatsoever re. USB etc.

...still working on optimizing memory, then will focus on unique 'Crosshair Dark' oc features


----------



## gabian

J7SC said:


> ...love my optimized Crosshair VIII / 3950X combo, but 'had an unexpected offer I couldn't refuse' this afternoon....5950X and ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Dark _not only actually available_, but at a _great price _where we also buy a lot of our commercial computer stuff...keep the regular Crosshair VIII Hero wi-fi / 3950X for other related duties, or sell it...?
> 
> View attachment 2485943
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT - just noticed that the mobo came with Bios 3501 (store got the delivery today)...so far no issues whatsoever re. USB etc.
> 
> ...still working on optimizing memory, then will focus on unique 'Crosshair Dark' oc features
> 
> View attachment 2485968


Can you post your timings ? (And mobo settings)


----------



## J7SC

gabian said:


> Can you post your timings ? (And mobo settings)


...just updated to this mobo/CPU this afternoon, so not yet finalized...using the same RAM and settings from my 3950X (ZenTimings below). Mobo settings are on 'auto', PBO & FMax enabled but no custom values yet; apart from RAM everything else in bios stock...going to try 'Dynamic OC switcher' later on the weekend. CPU seems fairly low voltage and several cores hit 5050


----------



## Alberto_It

J7SC said:


> ...just updated to this mobo/CPU this afternoon, so not yet finalized...using the same RAM and settings from my 3950X (ZenTimings below). Mobo settings are on 'auto', PBO & FMax enabled but no custom values yet; apart from RAM everything else in bios stock...going to try 'Dynamic OC switcher' later on the weekend. CPU seems fairly low voltage and several cores hit 5050
> 
> View attachment 2485970


I have some doubts that everything is @ stock. Multiplier on Aida would not be @ 59.5x


----------



## J7SC

Alberto_It said:


> I have some doubts that everything is @ stock. Multiplier on Aida would not be @ 59.5x


...doesn't say 59.5, but 50.5. Also note my comment that FMax is enabled


----------



## Kokin

Reica said:


> Hey all,
> 
> Do any of the newer bioses have more control over the chipset fan? Because mine started rattling when it's between 2000 and 2400 RPM, so I kinda wanna nudge it to run at 2500 RPM minimum. But I either can't find it, or it's just not in the old version I'm running yet.
> 
> Did find some reddit posts about certain software being able to control the PCH fan, but it doesn't work for me. It just does whatever it wants to depending on the chipset temp.
> 
> Could go through all the trouble of RMA'ing the board, but the board itself runs just fine and I need the PC for work too so I don't want too much downtime. That's why I haven't really updated the bios from 2702. Needs to "just work" for now. :/


You should be able to access the chipset fan speed control in the "Monitor" section of the BIOS, likely called "PCH fan". Adjust the temp thresholds to higher temps to keep the fan running in your desired speeds.

I have the CH8 Impact, which comes with both a VRM fan and chipset fan and have always been able to control both fans using the BIOS but also the Ai Suite software from Asus. Both fans run at around 20-30% speed to stay silent. Same settings used for both VRM and chipset fans in my wife's X570i Strix board.


----------



## bastian

J7SC said:


> FMax enabled


Disable this if you want better performance.


----------



## xeizo

bastian said:


> Disable this if you want better performance.


Not only that, FMax enabled introduces _lots_ of instability, I would never use it


----------



## jomama22

J7SC said:


> ...doesn't say 59.5, but 50.5. Also note my comment that FMax is enabled


Yeah, get that fmax outta here, just doesn't work well with zen 3.

5950x will auto boost to 5050 even without pbo. 

Have fun setting it up. May want to do comparisons between that bios and 3003 for performance's sake. Get much better clocks and lower memory latencies on 3003 compared to anything after 3204 and later.


----------



## J7SC

jomama22 said:


> Yeah, get that fmax outta here, just doesn't work well with zen 3.
> 
> 5950x will auto boost to 5050 even without pbo.
> 
> Have fun setting it up. May want to do comparisons between that bios and 3003 for performance's sake. Get much better clocks and lower memory latencies on 3003 compared to anything after 3204 and later.


...poor FMax is getting no love  ...tx for the tip re. Bios 3003, I might try that later. I only booted this new combo up 16 hrs ago for the first time, so lot's of learning left to do...typically, I lock in and test RAM first, then establish a 'daily' and a 'bench' profile (the latter I tend to fiddle with on and on and on...but that's fun, at least most of the time)

Right now, I have been following DerBauer's setup vid for the 5950X/Dark (spoiler), though I'm limiting both chiplets to 4650 for now, plus FMax...some early results below. Getting over 30k in Cinebench_R23 was fun. I know I can go higher as load CPUv is restricted to 1.2v for all-c 4650. HWInfo suggests that cores 0,1,4,7 hit 5050. Don't have that much time this weekend, but did want to ascertain what that 'Dynamic OC' mode was all about - and I like it, a lot  ...sort of like having your cake and eating it, too





















Spoiler: DerBauer 5950X Asus X570 Dark


----------



## GRABibus

bastian said:


> And I think the 5950x is superior


even the 5900X is superior 😊😊


----------



## lmfodor

Hi! I’m running 3501 and I want to downgrade the to SMU 56.45, anyone knows what BIOS versions belongs to this SMU?

Another question, I need to change SOC EDC and SOC TDC to 90A to test my memory OC. But I never seen that option. Only on PBO limits. Anyone knows for there a such option? 

Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## shaolin95

J7SC said:


> ...poor FMax is getting no love  ...tx for the tip re. Bios 3003, I might try that later. I only booted this new combo up 16 hrs ago for the first time, so lot's of learning left to do...typically, I lock in and test RAM first, then establish a 'daily' and a 'bench' profile (the latter I tend to fiddle with on and on and on...but that's fun, at least most of the time)
> 
> Right now, I have been following DerBauer's setup vid for the 5950X/Dark (spoiler), though I'm limiting both chiplets to 4650 for now, plus FMax...some early results below. Getting over 30k in Cinebench_R23 was fun. I know I can go higher as load CPUv is restricted to 1.2v for all-c 4650. HWInfo suggests that cores 0,1,4,7 hit 5050. Don't have that much time this weekend, but did want to ascertain what that 'Dynamic OC' mode was all about - and I like it, a lot  ...sort of like having your cake and eating it, too
> 
> View attachment 2486019
> 
> 
> View attachment 2486020
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: DerBauer 5950X Asus X570 Dark


I REALLY want a Dark Hero to be able to max out both single and multi speeds. Great stuff already with your setup


----------



## jomama22

J7SC said:


> ...poor FMax is getting no love  ...tx for the tip re. Bios 3003, I might try that later. I only booted this new combo up 16 hrs ago for the first time, so lot's of learning left to do...typically, I lock in and test RAM first, then establish a 'daily' and a 'bench' profile (the latter I tend to fiddle with on and on and on...but that's fun, at least most of the time)
> 
> Right now, I have been following DerBauer's setup vid for the 5950X/Dark (spoiler), though I'm limiting both chiplets to 4650 for now, plus FMax...some early results below. Getting over 30k in Cinebench_R23 was fun. I know I can go higher as load CPUv is restricted to 1.2v for all-c 4650. HWInfo suggests that cores 0,1,4,7 hit 5050. Don't have that much time this weekend, but did want to ascertain what that 'Dynamic OC' mode was all about - and I like it, a lot  ...sort of like having your cake and eating it, too
> 
> View attachment 2486019
> 
> 
> View attachment 2486020
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: DerBauer 5950X Asus X570 Dark


You'll be better off using the latest hwinfo and turning on amd polling within settings so it only shows effective clocks, will give you a better idea of what clocks you are actually hitting when boosting. That way you don't run into situations where you end up just clock stretching a toma dn wondering why you are getting lower scores with high clocks. Really only matters for pbo though.

Pbo on the dark hero will act slightly strange with effective clocks on pbo when using dynamic oc. It has a tendency to stretch the clocks if edc is too low and shrink the clocks (meaning effective clocks are actually lower than they actually are) if edc is too high.

When using dynamic oc, leave llc to auto, will keep pbo running as best as possible. 

Aren't really too many other quirks I can think of off the top of my head. You'll find it makes more sense to leave dynamic oc at around 75-85 amps maybe even as high as 100. Just depends on how well pbo does against your all core you end up at. Just gotta run some tests and find the line that works best.


----------



## J7SC

shaolin95 said:


> I REALLY want a Dark Hero to be able to max out both single and multi speeds. Great stuff already with your setup


Thanks - that mobo and also the chip make it easy...still have some ways to go to figure out all the ins and outs



jomama22 said:


> You'll be better off using the latest hwinfo and turning on amd polling within settings so it only shows effective clocks, will give you a better idea of what clocks you are actually hitting when boosting. That way you don't run into situations where you end up just clock stretching a toma dn wondering why you are getting lower scores with high clocks. Really only matters for pbo though.
> 
> Pbo on the dark hero will act slightly strange with effective clocks on pbo when using dynamic oc. It has a tendency to stretch the clocks if edc is too low and shrink the clocks (meaning effective clocks are actually lower than they actually are) if edc is too high.
> 
> When using dynamic oc, leave llc to auto, will keep pbo running as best as possible.
> 
> Aren't really too many other quirks I can think of off the top of my head. You'll find it makes more sense to leave dynamic oc at around 75-85 amps maybe even as high as 100. Just depends on how well pbo does against your all core you end up at. Just gotta run some tests and find the line that works best.


Thanks...my initial dynamic oc was set to 4625 (instead of 2nd run / 4650 in post above) and for that one, I did have effective clocks open in HWInfo...looked like no clock stretching, and temps were in the low 60s C / big w-cooling; and load CPUv was at 1.2v so I kicked it up a notch . The 4625 run is depicted in the left part of the pic. The right part was actually the first CineR20 single run (no dynamic oc, just PBO and FMax enabled)...those clocks were the 'regular' ones depicted, not effective. Will do more runs over the course of next week and thinking that 4675 all-c plus dynamic oc for both chiplets should be possible with reasonably load voltskies, then start focusing on maxing the best chiplet


----------



## HoloWS

Does anyone else have an issue with DOCP setting the Bank Cycle Time (tRC) to an incorrect value? Trying to figure out why my latency is so high (72ns). 










I found this old optimization guide from 2017 that describes the same issue being present. Which leaves me wondering if there is a valid reason for it and if AMD's agesa / Asus's bios devs know about it.
AMD Ryzen memory optimisation - The effect of tRC timings | Introduction | CPU & Mainboard | OC3D Review (overclock3d.net)

Using the beta bios 3501 (AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.2) but first noticed it a couple versions ago. All bios settings are default / Auto except DOCP being enabled, Asus' FMAX Enhancer disabled, and Asus auto-OC level 3 set.

I was also digging around in the bios and noticed Advanced\AMD CBS\UMC Common Options\Memory MBIST\DataEye Aggressor Channel is set to "1 Aggressor Channel" when the description says the default is set to disabled. Not sure if it should be disabled or if the text needs updating.


----------



## pantsoftime

I was watching the der8auer content recommended here and I noticed that when he's in CCX OC mode the CPU will still throttle back the frequency when it hits 90C. Does that feature work on non-dark hero boards (I have a C8F)? I seem to remember in the past it would just crash/reboot on me with an over temperature error - but maybe I was missing a setting?


----------



## Alberto_It

HoloWS said:


> Does anyone else have an issue with DOCP setting the Bank Cycle Time (tRC) to an incorrect value? Trying to figure out why my latency is so high (72ns).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I found this old optimization guide from 2017 that describes the same issue being present. Which leaves me wondering if there is a valid reason for it and if AMD's agesa / Asus's bios devs know about it.
> AMD Ryzen memory optimisation - The effect of tRC timings | Introduction | CPU & Mainboard | OC3D Review (overclock3d.net)
> 
> Using the beta bios 3501 (AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.2) but first noticed it a couple versions ago. All bios settings are default / Auto except DOCP being enabled, Asus' FMAX Enhancer disabled, and Asus auto-OC level 3 set.
> 
> I was also digging around in the bios and noticed Advanced\AMD CBS\UMC Common Options\Memory MBIST\DataEye Aggressor Channel is set to "1 Aggressor Channel" when the description says the default is set to disabled. Not sure if it should be disabled or if the text needs updating.


The Crosshair VIII Formula download link of new bios 3501 it is not working. Please check your self.






ROG... - Support







www.asus.com





404 Not Found



https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/m...-ASUS-3501.ZIP



I can't try it and give you a feedback


----------



## Sleepycat

pantsoftime said:


> I was watching the der8auer content recommended here and I noticed that when he's in CCX OC mode the CPU will still throttle back the frequency when it hits 90C. Does that feature work on non-dark hero boards (I have a C8F)? I seem to remember in the past it would just crash/reboot on me with an over temperature error - but maybe I was missing a setting?


I'm using a C8H non-dark. When I set the thermal limits manually, the CPU throttles at whatever temperature I set it to do so. The setting is in the PBO menu.


----------



## J7SC

Sleepycat said:


> I'm using a C8H non-dark. When I set the thermal limits manually, the CPU throttles at whatever temperature I set it to do so. The setting is in the PBO menu.


...setting max value in PBO works on my setups, but would likely still be overridden by the processor's boost protection functions if temps go high ie. 90 C, where it would start to down-clock, and more aggressively so the closer you get to 'tjmax' ?


----------



## Theo164

lmfodor said:


> Hi! I’m running 3501 and I want to downgrade the to SMU 56.45, anyone knows what BIOS versions belongs to this SMU?
> 
> Another question, I need to change SOC EDC and SOC TDC to 90A to test my memory OC. But I never seen that option. Only on PBO limits. Anyone knows for there a such option?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


SMU 56.45.0 = _ AGESA_ 1.2.0.0 bios version 3204


----------



## lmfodor

Theo164 said:


> SMU 56.45.0 = _ AGESA_ 1.2.0.0 bios version 3204


Thanks!! I don’t recall if this version include the ReBAR.. but it seems it allows IPC bump and cache boost. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lmfodor

Anyone knows if our mobo has the option to set SOC TDC and SOC EDC? I want to set them to 90A but I didn’t find the option

Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## HoloWS

Alberto_It said:


> The Crosshair VIII Formula download link of new bios 3501 it is not working. Please check your self.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG... - Support
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.asus.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 404 Not Found
> 
> 
> 
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/m...-ASUS-3501.ZIP
> 
> 
> 
> I can't try it and give you a feedback


You can check on 3402 if you have DOCP enabled, as I also noticed tRC being set wrong on that version too. Or just use the 3501 bios uploaded by shamino here.









ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...


Very sad he burned one memory lane, but i dont think the biosupdate is to blame. When he shows this on public video when he thinking about RMAing the cpu, one have to wonder what other voltages he have tried (?) 1.5375 Vcore is simply too much for 7nm with the heatdensity of a 5950x Maybe he...




www.overclock.net


----------



## ChillyRide

With new beta bios cant OC my ram at all on C8H. Got 4x16gb b-die 3600 cl16. Was stable on 3733. Now nothing help to stabilise it. Prime95 always error on 1536K. Cpu in stock. WIth new bios can boot with 3800 but prime95 errors. Tiimings auto and manually to the moon, still errors. Ram 1.65v still erros on auto timings. Is it bios or my board or wth? cleared cmos several times. Any advise would be great.


----------



## Sleepycat

J7SC said:


> ...setting max value in PBO works on my setups, but would likely still be overridden by the processor's boost protection functions if temps go high ie. 90 C, where it would start to down-clock, and more aggressively so the closer you get to 'tjmax' ?


So far from my experience, it obeys the thermal limits very well, I don't exceed the 80ºC that I set. However, if you do run other software on top to OC, such as Ryzen Master or CTR, the temperature can creep up slightly above 80 ºC.

The worst scenario I have seen is Prime95 small FFT. With PBO2, it runs fine, sticking to the 80ºC limit by throttling the amount of work (clock still goes high, but load is slightly lower). But if I run the same Prime95 small FFT with CTR or Ryzen Master OC, I get the forced restart and the over temperature protection error message at POST.

The clock that is allowed based on temperature should be a hardcoded table. So it should clock down if the temperature goes up. The thermal limit protection in PBO settings doesn't affect the actual clock speed, but the amount of work done (and hence the score).


----------



## lmfodor

ChillyRide said:


> With new beta bios cant OC my ram at all on C8H. Got 4x16gb b-die 3600 cl16. Was stable on 3733. Now nothing help to stabilise it. Prime95 always error on 1536K. Cpu in stock. WIth new bios can boot with 3800 but prime95 errors. Tiimings auto and manually to the moon, still errors. Ram 1.65v still erros on auto timings. Is it bios or my board or wth? cleared cmos several times. Any advise would be great.


Hi, pls give us a little more information, what memory brand are you using? What is the standard XMP profile? I mean frequency and primaries. Why did you increase VDIMM to 1.65V? What are your SOC, VDDP, CCD, IOD values? Have you set PBO limits? If you can pls share your zentimmings screenshot


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Alberto_It

HoloWS said:


> You can check on 3402 if you have DOCP enabled, as I also noticed tRC being set wrong on that version too. Or just use the 3501 bios uploaded by shamino here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...
> 
> 
> Very sad he burned one memory lane, but i dont think the biosupdate is to blame. When he shows this on public video when he thinking about RMAing the cpu, one have to wonder what other voltages he have tried (?) 1.5375 Vcore is simply too much for 7nm with the heatdensity of a 5950x Maybe he...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


I don't use preview bios found on a forum with a 550€ or 650$ motherboard . If something goes wrong, my warranty fly away


----------



## dyanikoglu

Alberto_It said:


> I don't use preview bios found on a forum with a 550€ or 650$ motherboard . If something goes wrong, my warranty fly away


The bios is already shared on asus website.


----------



## J7SC

dyanikoglu said:


> The bios is already shared on asus website.


...my 'Dark Hero' came with it (3501) from the retailer (who just took delivery of a shipment of those). Absolutely no USB issues, even with five USB continuously connected, and 4x8 GB tight IF1900/DDR4 3800 RAM settings matched 3950X / Bios 2502 of the CH8 wi-fi w/o issue


----------



## xeizo

Several days later, I have had no glitch with 3501, nice bios so far.


----------



## Alberto_It

dyanikoglu said:


> The bios is already shared on asus website.


 Download link please for Crosshair VIII Formula


----------



## metalshark

Alberto_It said:


> Download link please for Crosshair VIII Formula











ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3501.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com


----------



## Alberto_It

metalshark said:


> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3501.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


 I download only from the official Asus website. Due to the warranty


----------



## metalshark

Alberto_It said:


> I download only from the official Asus website. Due to the warranty


According to ASUS's warranty Motherboard Limited Hardware Warranty Terms it would only apply if:

There is damage from third party software or from virus(es);
You do know who Shamino is right? This is a first-party UEFI. You can wait for it to be arbitrarily listed on the website of your region if you wish, or just download and use it.


----------



## J7SC

metalshark said:


> According to ASUS's warranty Motherboard Limited Hardware Warranty Terms it would only apply if:
> 
> There is damage from third party software or from virus(es);
> *You do know who Shamino is right?* This is a first-party UEFI. You can wait for it to be arbitrarily listed on the website of your region if you wish, or just download and use it.


...


----------



## shaolin95

Well not a big deal for most but finally broke (barely) 30k in R23


----------



## bastian

Why are more of you not setting 1T? With decent memory and Ryzen 5000 you should have no issues. Especially at 3600-4000


----------



## J7SC

shaolin95 said:


> Well not a big deal for most but finally broke (barely) 30k in R23
> 
> View attachment 2486262


Extra kudos for 64 GB


----------



## shaolin95

bastian said:


> Why are more of you not setting 1T? With decent memory and Ryzen 5000 you should have no issues. Especially at 3600-4000


Is not about having issues to run 1T but it seems a lot of users prefer to keep GDM disabled with 2T vs enabled with 1T


----------



## shaolin95

J7SC said:


> Extra kudos for 64 GB


Thanks, that is always my limitation when pushing the RAM. I can get to 1833 but that is about all I can get without trying to push much higher voltages.


----------



## bastian

shaolin95 said:


> Is not about having issues to run 1T but it seems a lot of users prefer to keep GDM disabled with 2T vs enabled with 1T


Why? GDM disabled and 1T will be better performance than GDM disabled and 2T.


----------



## shaolin95

bastian said:


> Why? GDM disabled and 1T will be better performance than GDM disabled and 2T.


That is your opinion, and many people disagree about a properly tuned GDM disabled 2T not beating a GDM on 1T. Pick what works for you and be happy


----------



## metalshark

bastian said:


> Why? GDM disabled and 1T will be better performance than GDM disabled and 2T.


Alas not for me and a fair few others. I used to think GDM + 1T = 1.5T. At least on my 5950X it’s more like GDM + 1T = 2.5T and GDM + 2T = 2.5T (e.g the same and both slower than GDM off + 2T). YMMV.


----------



## Kokin

Alberto_It said:


> I download only from the official Asus website. Due to the warranty


Please educate yourself on Shamino! He is a legend in the overclocking community and is part of the Asus team, not some random outsider.


----------



## BulletSponge

Well I updated to 3501, enabled resizable BAR in the BIOS and booted in fine with it showing as enabled in Precision X. After powering on the rig this morning though it is now disabled in Precision X. Has anyone else seen this?


----------



## arcanexvi

BulletSponge said:


> Well I updated to 3501, enabled resizable BAR in the BIOS and booted in fine with it showing as enabled in Precision X. After powering on the rig this morning though it is now disabled in Precision X. Has anyone else seen this?


Known issue with the current version of Precision X1. Look at GPU-Z. If it shows enabled there you're good.


----------



## Sleepycat

Alberto_It said:


> I download only from the official Asus website. Due to the warranty


That's fine, then you will have to wait longer for the firmware. So far we have found what Shamino posts eventually goes up on the official Asus website. You just have to wait an extra 1-2 weeks.


----------



## Gadfly

metalshark said:


> Alas not for me and a fair few others. I used to think GDM + 1T = 1.5T. At least on my 5950X it’s more like GDM + 1T = 2.5T and GDM + 2T = 2.5T (e.g the same and both slower than GDM off + 2T). YMMV.



GDM only works with 1T. You can run 1T, 1T + GDM, or 2T. There is no 2T + GDM. 

GDM sets the command pins at 1/2 the clock of the data pins, hense each command is is sent every two data pin clocks, just like 2T.

The big advantage if GDM is you might be able to run a higher Memclk, or more specifically train at a higher memclk. The disadvantage is you cannot run an odd Cas. 

2T and 1T + GDM will have nearly identical performance at the same clock's and timings. 

So if you can run say 3800C16 1T + GDM, but not 3800C14, you might be able to run 3800C15 2T and have better memory performance. 

But if you are unable to train at say 4000C16 on 2T, you might be able to train at 4000C16 at 1T GDM. 

1T (no GDM), is faster than both 2T and 1T + GDM, but really 2T/1T +GDM is a wash. It just comes down to which allows the lowest timings / highest clocks on your system.


----------



## Gadfly

shaolin95 said:


> I REALLY want a Dark Hero to be able to max out both single and multi speeds. Great stuff already with your setup


Use CTR, it works better and works on your existing motherboard.


----------



## PowerK

shaolin95 said:


> That is your opinion, and many people disagree about a properly tuned GDM disabled 2T not beating a GDM on 1T. Pick what works for you and be happy





metalshark said:


> Alas not for me and a fair few others. I used to think GDM + 1T = 1.5T. At least on my 5950X it’s more like GDM + 1T = 2.5T and GDM + 2T = 2.5T (e.g the same and both slower than GDM off + 2T). YMMV.


I think you guys read him wrong. He meant GDM off 1T.
I run two 5950X systems at home. One with 4x8GB and the other with 2x8GB.
The one with 16GB is so easy to run at 1T GDM off. It's almost like a plug & play.










Another system with 4x8GB, not as easy as the one with two sticks. I settled for 2T GDM off for now.


----------



## shaolin95

PowerK said:


> I think you guys read him wrong. He meant GDM off 1T.
> I run two 5950X systems at home. One with 4x8GB and the other with 2x8GB.
> The one with 16GB is so easy to run at 1T GDM off. It's almost like a plug & play.
> 
> 
> 
> Another system with 4x8GB, not as easy as the one with two sticks. I settled for 2T GDM off for now.


Sure but running GDM off 1T with 4x16GB...I would like to see that happen


----------



## metalshark

PowerK said:


> I think you guys read him wrong. He meant GDM off 1T.
> I run two 5950X systems at home. One with 4x8GB and the other with 2x8GB.
> The one with 16GB is so easy to run at 1T GDM off. It's almost like a plug & play.
> View attachment 2486355
> 
> 
> 
> Another system with 4x8GB, not as easy as the one with two sticks. I settled for 2T GDM off for now.
> View attachment 2486356


Aha that looks like the Gigabyte board where you can do 3800 1T with GDM off. Have been told repeatedly it’s down to the processor and not the board, but have only seen results like that on the AORUS. Same with 2000MHz FCLK on a 5950X.


----------



## lmfodor

Gadfly said:


> GDM only works with 1T. You can run 1T, 1T + GDM, or 2T. There is no 2T + GDM.
> 
> GDM sets the command pins at 1/2 the clock of the data pins, hense each command is is sent every two data pin clocks, just like 2T.
> 
> The big advantage if GDM is you might be able to run a higher Memclk, or more specifically train at a higher memclk. The disadvantage is you cannot run an odd Cas.
> 
> 2T and 1T + GDM will have nearly identical performance at the same clock's and timings.
> 
> So if you can run say 3800C16 1T + GDM, but not 3800C14, you might be able to run 3800C15 2T and have better memory performance.
> 
> But if you are unable to train at say 4000C16 on 2T, you might be able to train at 4000C16 at 1T GDM.
> 
> 1T (no GDM), is faster than both 2T and 1T + GDM, but really 2T/1T +GDM is a wash. It just comes down to which allows the lowest timings / highest clocks on your system.


This is a very good explanation. A couple of weeks ago I bought one of the latest Gskill models optimized for Rayzen 5000. (Igor's Lab review: (Does the new high-end RAM for Ryzen 5000 live up to its promise? - G.SKILL DDR4-3800 CL14 2x 16GB kit put through its paces | Page 3 | igor´sLAB) I am a newbie but learning fast about memory OC. There are many concepts, however with the help of several members of OCN I managed to achieve a good profile that for a first OC seems very good compared to the "optimized" XMP profile.

The point is, that when I tried to activate 1T and disabled GDM I managed to get the POST but then I had instability or BSOD. I found a Techpowerup user who with the same kit, 2x8 instead of 2x16 like mine, achieved with 1.7V (yes, crazy) not only 1T but to take it from 3800/1900 to 4000/2000 with an incredible bandwidth . I don't aspire to that, but if I would like to get the 1T with GDM off, and I know that it is a matter of knowledge and not of PCB. Maybe at first glance you can tell me what values might be preventing me from enabling 1T. Otherwise, I think I should copy the values of Igor's... I. just to want a little more gain from the investment, they were quite expensive and with much less I was able to achieve 1T










Spoiler: Igosr's Lab Timings

















Spoiler: Same Memory but 2x8GB - 1.7V!














Thanks!


----------



## metalshark

Gadfly said:


> GDM only works with 1T. You can run 1T, 1T + GDM, or 2T. There is no 2T + GDM.
> 
> GDM sets the command pins at 1/2 the clock of the data pins, hense each command is is sent every two data pin clocks, just like 2T.
> 
> The big advantage if GDM is you might be able to run a higher Memclk, or more specifically train at a higher memclk. The disadvantage is you cannot run an odd Cas.
> 
> 2T and 1T + GDM will have nearly identical performance at the same clock's and timings.
> 
> So if you can run say 3800C16 1T + GDM, but not 3800C14, you might be able to run 3800C15 2T and have better memory performance.
> 
> But if you are unable to train at say 4000C16 on 2T, you might be able to train at 4000C16 at 1T GDM.
> 
> 1T (no GDM), is faster than both 2T and 1T + GDM, but really 2T/1T +GDM is a wash. It just comes down to which allows the lowest timings / highest clocks on your system.


Thanks, that'd explain why 1T + GDM and 2T + GDM gave the same results (e.g. 2T + GDM not really existing).


----------



## PowerK

lmfodor said:


> This is a very good explanation. A couple of weeks ago I bought one of the latest Gskill models optimized for Rayzen 5000. (Igor's Lab review: (Does the new high-end RAM for Ryzen 5000 live up to its promise? - G.SKILL DDR4-3800 CL14 2x 16GB kit put through its paces | Page 3 | igor´sLAB) I am a newbie but learning fast about memory OC. There are many concepts, however with the help of several members of OCN I managed to achieve a good profile that for a first OC seems very good compared to the "optimized" XMP profile.
> 
> The point is, that when I tried to activate 1T and disabled GDM I managed to get the POST but then I had instability or BSOD. I found a Techpowerup user who with the same kit, 2x8 instead of 2x16 like mine, achieved with 1.7V (yes, crazy) not only 1T but to take it from 3800/1900 to 4000/2000 with an incredible bandwidth . I don't aspire to that, but if I would like to get the 1T with GDM off, and I know that it is a matter of knowledge and not of PCB. Maybe at first glance you can tell me what values might be preventing me from enabling 1T. Otherwise, I think I should copy the values of Igor's... I. just to want a little more gain from the investment, they were quite expensive and with much less I was able to achieve 1T
> View attachment 2486359
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Igosr's Lab Timings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2486360
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Same Memory but 2x8GB - 1.7V!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2486361
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!


My 2 cents.
1. tWR = tRRDS x tWTRS
2. tCKE at 9 for 3800MHz and 11 for 2000MHz
3. tRTP = tWR / 2
4. tRRDL = tRRDS + 2
5. No point in having tRCDWR lower than tRCDRD. I have not seen any evidence lower tRCDWR provides better performance. What matters is tRCDRD.
6. Be careful with RttPark at RZQ/1 + high vDIMM.
7. Try to lower ProcODT. Lower provides better/cleaner signal integrity which helps in overclocking.


----------



## metalshark

PowerK said:


> My 2 cents.
> 1. tWR = tRRDS x tWTRS
> 2. tCKE at 9 for 3800MHz and 11 for 2000MHz
> 3. tRTP = tWR / 2
> 4. tRRDL = tRRDS + 2
> 5. No point in having tRCDWR lower than tRCDRD. I have not seen any evidence lower tRCDWR provides better performance. What matters is tRCDRD.
> 6. Be careful with RttPark at RZQ/1 + high vDIMM.
> 7. Try to lower ProcODT. Lower provides better/cleaner signal integrity which helps in overclocking.


Why the high tCKE? Currently at 3800MHz with tCKE set to 1. Haven't experimented with it, just curious.


----------



## lmfodor

PowerK said:


> My 2 cents.
> 1. tWR = tRRDS x tWTRS
> 2. tCKE at 9 for 3800MHz and 11 for 2000MHz
> 3. tRTP = tWR / 2
> 4. tRRDL = tRRDS + 2
> 5. No point in having tRCDWR lower than tRCDRD. I have not seen any evidence lower tRCDWR provides better performance. What matters is tRCDRD.
> 6. Be careful with RttPark at RZQ/1 + high vDIMM.
> 7. Try to lower ProcODT. Lower provides better/cleaner signal integrity which helps in overclocking.


Hi, thanks for the tips. As a mentioned I followed some step by step from Veii and other guys from the [Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread

Regarding tWR and tRP was a value suggested to achieve. At first, I try lowering the primaries, and the first unwritten rule was to get tRCDWR + tRCDRD /2
Then, a lowered to the floor both tRRDs and tWTR, and fix TFAW, tCWL, tRTP and tRDWR. I also tried with weaker RTTs 5/2/4 and increased the voltage to 1.58 to try POST. This was part of several test to reduce latency. I couldn't break the 56ns.. and also had problems with my curve and now is fixed, the L3 showing 10.4ns is in line with my clock so I don't have stretching.
Then, I loose some subtiminigs, I rise tRRD and tWTR to increase speed, and then lowered the RTTs, where you are right. This memories came with a standard XMP profile running 1.5V. So for me this is the baseline. I bump to 1.55 and then lowering to 1.53 and now back to 1.5v.
Regarding tCKE I tried 9, but it increase the latencies. So following the DRAM calculator I decided to leave it as 1
And the hardest part for me is understanding the RTT and CADBUS.. I mean the target ohms. As you can see I tried a lot of combinations. Following your suggestion I rise RTT_Park to 3, but I'm running 1.5, it should be dangerous if I leave in 1?
And also have doubts about CAD BUS, I guess I should try 40/20/24/24 or 40/20/20/24 just thinking to leave a high ClkDrvStr.










Spoiler: DRAM Calculator

















Spoiler: Stress Test



I ran OOCT, RealBenck, Y-CFTT Test and also 4 iterations of all test..TM5 1usmusv3 25 cycles..so far it seems to be fine. The bandwidth and latencies achieved are very good for me










I don't know if to modify primaries and subs, maybe the SD and DD, and also the CadBUS. I tried to copy the Igor's timing but I don't get POST, maybe his VDIMM is higher.. and also he could enable 1T and I couldn't
PS: In the Igor's review, we mentioned that lowering tRCDRD to 14 was unstable and he had errors because the temps. The tried with 15 and in the note he say that rising +1 do the trick for a 7/24 mem stability. So 16 is the magic number. I also tried 15 flat.. but I had a lot of errors:


Spoiler: 15 Flat primaries


----------



## PowerK

metalshark said:


> Why the high tCKE? Currently at 3800MHz with tCKE set to 1. Haven't experimented with it, just curious.


It's just a formula that I learnt.
Each step of 200MT/s = +2 tCKE
3600 = 6
3800 = 9
4000 = 11
4200 = 13

tCKE at 1 works fine, too. But for me, 9 (for 3800MHz) shows lower, albeit very small, latency. And the results were pretty consistent, too. My speculation is that tCKE at 1 gets auto-correction resulting in higher latency.


----------



## PowerK

lmfodor said:


> And also have doubts about CAD BUS, I guess I should try 40/20/24/24 or 40/20/20/24 just thinking to leave a high ClkDrvStr.


High ClkDrvStr is perfectly fine. As a matter of fact, my understanding is that ClkDrvStr is the only exception where higher ohm = better/cleaner signal integrity. I run it at 60ohm on the Gigabyte X570 Aorus Xtreme board.
Dark Hero won't post with 60ohm.


----------



## lmfodor

PowerK said:


> It's just a formula that I learnt.
> Each step of 200MT/s = +2 tCKE
> 3600 = 6
> 3800 = 9
> 4000 = 11
> 4200 = 13
> 
> tCKE at 1 works fine, too. But for me, 9 (for 3800MHz) shows lower, albeit very small, latency. And the results were pretty consistent, too. My speculation is that tCKE at 1 gets auto-correction resulting in higher latency.


Yes, you can see my latencies. I tried with tCKE =9.. and then set back to 1 and the reduction in latency is notable. I would like to keep tweaking. We have pretty similar values .. I wonder why toy disable the two RTTs and leave only RTTPark. What’s the benefit?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## PowerK

lmfodor said:


> I wonder why toy disable the two RTTs and leave only RTTPark. What’s the benefit?


If possible, no RTT at all is the best for signal integrity.


----------



## metalshark

Alberto_It said:


> I download only from the official Asus website. Due to the warranty


Arbitrary link time:


https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/SocketAM4/ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_FORMULA/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3501.ZIP


----------



## PJVol

Guys, why not just use 1T, 2T and GDM terms. Why those weird "1t+" , "2t-" ))


----------



## xeizo

PowerK said:


> It's just a formula that I learnt.
> Each step of 200MT/s = +2 tCKE
> 3600 = 6
> 3800 = 9
> 4000 = 11
> 4200 = 13
> 
> tCKE at 1 works fine, too. But for me, 9 (for 3800MHz) shows lower, albeit very small, latency. And the results were pretty consistent, too. My speculation is that tCKE at 1 gets auto-correction resulting in higher latency.


Thanks for the discussion in this thread, TCKE did shave off a bit of latency, changed a couple of other settings after your advice. Will take a while before I deem it stable though, my old settings where very stable never had a glitch. I run only c16 as I don't think my 3600c17 memory will do c14 at these speeds, at least not with ok voltage, so I don't think I will be able to do under 55ns. 55.1 is pretty good for c16 though 



















Old settings:


----------



## BulletSponge

arcanexvi said:


> Known issue with the current version of Precision X1. Look at GPU-Z. If it shows enabled there you're good.


Thank you, GPU-Z does in fact show it as enabled.


----------



## jomama22

PJVol said:


> Guys, why not just use 1T, 2T and GDM terms. Why those weird "1t+" , "2t-" ))


It's just to attempt at giving context to their performance relative to each other.


----------



## Gadfly

lmfodor said:


> This is a very good explanation. A couple of weeks ago I bought one of the latest Gskill models optimized for Rayzen 5000. (Igor's Lab review: (Does the new high-end RAM for Ryzen 5000 live up to its promise? - G.SKILL DDR4-3800 CL14 2x 16GB kit put through its paces | Page 3 | igor´sLAB) I am a newbie but learning fast about memory OC. There are many concepts, however with the help of several members of OCN I managed to achieve a good profile that for a first OC seems very good compared to the "optimized" XMP profile.
> 
> The point is, that when I tried to activate 1T and disabled GDM I managed to get the POST but then I had instability or BSOD. I found a Techpowerup user who with the same kit, 2x8 instead of 2x16 like mine, achieved with 1.7V (yes, crazy) not only 1T but to take it from 3800/1900 to 4000/2000 with an incredible bandwidth . I don't aspire to that, but if I would like to get the 1T with GDM off, and I know that it is a matter of knowledge and not of PCB. Maybe at first glance you can tell me what values might be preventing me from enabling 1T. Otherwise, I think I should copy the values of Igor's... I. just to want a little more gain from the investment, they were quite expensive and with much less I was able to achieve 1T
> View attachment 2486359
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Igosr's Lab Timings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2486360
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Same Memory but 2x8GB - 1.7V!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2486361
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!


Set ClkDrvStr to 60ohm


----------



## lmfodor

Gadfly said:


> Set ClkDrvStr to 60ohm


Ok! And should I leave the renaming values as they are now? Any other suggestion about SC DD, RTT’s, procODT?

Thanks! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lmfodor

Gadfly said:


> Set ClkDrvStr to 60ohm


What I can't understand is because I can't enable 1T, with GDM Disable . I tried to copy the values of Igor's review but I can't get the post. I do not know if they are running a VDIMM of 1.6 or more something, that data I do not have it. Actually I would like to enable 1T with my current configuration. and although I have succeeded, when I start windows I always have BSOD. If it weren't because Igor's lab uses these same memories for CTR and other tests, I would think that I cannot achieve 1T because it is 2x16GB or because it is Dual Rank. But it is possible and I cannot identify what is causing the utmost instability. Any ideas? Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Danny.ns

lmfodor said:


> What I can't understand is because I can't enable 1T, with GDM Disable . I tried to copy the values of Igor's review but I can't get the post. I do not know if they are running a VDIMM of 1.6 or more something, that data I do not have it. Actually I would like to enable 1T with my current configuration. and although I have succeeded, when I start windows I always have BSOD. If it weren't because Igor's lab uses these same memories for CTR and other tests, I would think that I cannot achieve 1T because it is 2x16GB or because it is Dual Rank. But it is possible and I cannot identify what is causing the utmost instability. Any ideas? Thanks!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I have dual rank b-die and I cant use 1T without GDM even at XMP speeds (3600c16).I can POST but i BSOD before reaching windows.


----------



## lmfodor

Danny.ns said:


> I have dual rank b-die and I cant use 1T without GDM even at XMP speeds (3600c16).I can POST but i BSOD before reaching windows.


Oh, maybe that’s would be the limitation. Thanks 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> What I can't understand is because I can't enable 1T, with GDM Disable . I tried to copy the values of Igor's review but I can't get the post. I do not know if they are running a VDIMM of 1.6 or more something, that data I do not have it. Actually I would like to enable 1T with my current configuration. and although I have succeeded, when I start windows I always have BSOD. If it weren't because Igor's lab uses these same memories for CTR and other tests, I would think that I cannot achieve 1T because it is 2x16GB or because it is Dual Rank. But it is possible and I cannot identify what is causing the utmost instability. Any ideas? Thanks!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


The memory controller on Igor's CPU is also a factor. His 5950X is a golden sample, based on his CTR2.0 guide, so I wouldn't be surprised if AMD gave him one of those special binned 5950X at launch for review and hence his memory controller would be better binned too.

Plus, he's running high voltages for vSoC, CLDO VDDP and VDDG IOD. I have not tried such high voltages on my system, so be careful if you do.


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> The memory controller on Igor's CPU is also a factor. His 5950X is a golden sample, based on his CTR2.0 guide, so I wouldn't be surprised if AMD gave him one of those special binned 5950X at launch for review and hence his memory controller would be better binned too.
> 
> Plus, he's running high voltages for vSoC, CLDO VDDP and VDDG IOD. I have not tried such high voltages on my system, so be careful if you do.


Thanks! Actually I have vSOC set to 1,14 and the other values are low the only exception I s the VDIM. I found two user with the same memory kit that could enable it. I confuse what parameter would be limiting. I’ve copied Igor’s values but his VDIMM is unknown. I tried with 1.57 with I don’t get POST. I consider my bandwidth and latency results very good
This is my actual results 








This is other user with the same memory Kit with 1T enabled 








Another user with same mobo but 1T+GDM on








And this my AIDA64 results that I considered very good. What do you thing about results?


Spoiler














This is my analysis comparing the timings 


At first sight I see all of us use the same latest BIOS/AGESA
I’m more conservative with the tRCDRD in 16. I know as per Igor’s review this will impact in a higher temps. However as I have an active cooling I should try to flat the primaries instead of use tRCDRD/2 to set the tRCDWR
My tRAS is the lower set in 24, and I even tried 22
My tRRD and tWRD are set more looser to get more read write performance 
My TWR is higher, they set it to 12 and I 14
My tRFC2 is wrong. Should be lower 
For me my SCL’s set them to 4 are fine and also the tCWL at 14
My tRP and TRDWR are tight, I know there is a rule to set then. I don’t know if I should rise them to 10
My Sd/Dd seems to be fine at 1-4-4-1-6-6 for a dual rank 
All we share the same tCKE to 1
My VSOC is the higher in 1.14 but my VDDP is the lowest at 0.9 which for me seems to be fine, also de CCD 0.95 and IOD 1.05
My prodOTC is the the lowest and I wondering if I should set back to 40 instead of 36. I know there’s a relation with VDIMM, I indeed I have a high VDIMM starting at 1.5 and I’d will rise if I need to lower primaries 
My RTT with Park set as 3 is weaker to support a higher VDIMM. Previous to this 7-3-3 I was tried 5-2-4, very weaker with the objetive of lowering primaries 
And CADBUD I guess I should set to 60-20-20-20 or similar


----------



## Mastakony

GDM Enabled vs GDM Disable
Long time I don't really care about it......


----------



## jcpq

I am trying to lower the L3 latency, but without success.
Any suggestion?


----------



## lmfodor

jcpq said:


> I am trying to lower the L3 latency, but without success.
> Any suggestion?
> View attachment 2486565


Yes, the latency difference is due to having a lot of boost override or not having an optimized curve, or a very low EDC. That is, it is indicating the clock stretching Here are the values that Veii shared with me in the 7/24 Mem Stability thread

10.9ns L3 = 4.65ghz applied during the cache test
10.7ns = 4.75Ghz
10.5ns = 4.85Ghz 
10.3ns = 4.95Ghz and so on

I’m between 10.4 and 10.5ns and I have a very tight curve with a little BO..



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lmfodor

Mastakony said:


> GDM Enabled vs GDM Disable
> Long time I don't really care about it......
> 
> 
> View attachment 2486556
> View attachment 2486557
> 
> View attachment 2486558
> View attachment 2486559
> 
> 
> View attachment 2486562


We have quite similar results. I found that enabling 1T GDM on 2x16GB DR is not easy and almost impossible. I like your times ... I wonder why your copy speed is a bit slower, having lower and better primaries. What is your VDIMM value? 
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## dlbsyst

Guys, I need some help please. I just purchased a 5950x and got it installed on Tuesday into my Crosshair VIII Hero wifi. My previous CPU was the 3950x. The 5950x is really fast and stable but I am having an issue. It seems like doing simple things causes it to heat up and cause my radiators fans to ramp up. For example I was just updating my GPU drivers and that caused the fans to ramp up. LoL My 3950x doesn't do this and I am using pretty much the same bios settings with the exception of my ram settings. Anyone know what might be causing this behavior and a solution. Oh, I'm running the bios posted before the current beta. Thanks for any help.🙂


----------



## xeizo

dlbsyst said:


> Guys, I need some help please. I just purchased a 5950x and got it installed on Tuesday into my Crosshair VIII Hero wifi. My previous CPU was the 3950x. The 5950x is really fast and stable but I am having an issue. It seems like doing simple things causes it to heat up and cause my radiators fans to ramp up. For example I was just updating my GPU drivers and that caused the fans to ramp up. LoL My 3950x doesn't do this and I am using pretty much the same bios settings with the exception of my ram settings. Anyone know what might be causing this behavior and a solution. Oh, I'm running the bios posted before the current beta. Thanks for any help.🙂


Run the radiator fans off water temp instead of CPU temp = problem solved


----------



## dlbsyst

xeizo said:


> Run the radiator fans off water temp instead of CPU temp = problem solved


Thanks but I'm trying to understand what is causing my fans to ramp up while doing simple things like installing drivers. It shouldn't do this. I will install the newest beta and see If I get the same behavior.


----------



## jomama22

dlbsyst said:


> Thanks but I'm trying to understand what is causing my fans to ramp up while doing simple things like installing drivers. It shouldn't do this. I will install the newest beta and see If I get the same behavior.


You can also just change the fan curve in bios. It's not all that intuitive but it gets the job done.


----------



## Sleepycat

dlbsyst said:


> Thanks but I'm trying to understand what is causing my fans to ramp up while doing simple things like installing drivers. It shouldn't do this. I will install the newest beta and see If I get the same behavior.


The CPU gets high temperature spikes quicker than can be transferred to your waterblock. It can be 2 things, the fan spinning up is because it is tied to the wrong parameter or the thermal paste application is not as good as it could be compared to your 3950x


----------



## dlbsyst

Sleepycat said:


> The CPU gets high temperature spikes quicker than can be transferred to your waterblock. It can be 2 things, the fan spinning up is because it is tied to the wrong parameter or the thermal paste application is not as good as it could be compared to your 3950x


Thanks, I think you are on to something with my thermal paste. I don't think it's the application but the paste itself. I actually used Kryonaut with my 3950x but sadly didn't have any left when I installed my 5950x. I had to use what I had which was mx-4. I am definitely ordering some more Kryonaut and doing a repast asap.🙂 Oh, can you explain what you mean by "tied to the wrong parameter" please?


----------



## J7SC

dlbsyst said:


> Thanks, I think you are on to something with my thermal paste. I don't think it's the application but the paste itself. I actually used Kryonaut with my 3950x but sadly didn't have any left when I installed my 5950x. I had to use what I had which was mx-4. I am definitely ordering some more Kryonaut and doing a repast asap.🙂 Oh, can you explain what you mean by "tied to the wrong parameter" please?


I don't mind MX4 as it was my go-to for years and is still 'pretty good', but both my 3950X and 5950X (and Ampere GPU) got the Kryonaut treatment...I just wish Kryonaut would come in bigger tubes, like 20g. On my 5950X, peak temps / registered spikes are now in the low to mid 60s C, mind you with an extensive w-cooling system.


----------



## dlbsyst

J7SC said:


> I don't mind MX4 as it was my go-to for years and is still 'pretty good', but both my 3950X and 5950X (and Ampere GPU) got the Kryonaut treatment...I just wish Kryonaut would come in bigger tubes, like 20g. On my 5950X, peak temps / registered spikes are now in the low to mid 60s C, mind you with an extensive w-cooling system.


Yeah, mx-4 isn't a bad paste. It's actually quite good and I love that it's easy to spread. 🙂 Kryonaut is definitely better though. Do you have your fan curve set identically with your 3950x and 5950x? I'm using the same fan curve I had set for my 3950x. I was getting spikes to about 60c with my 3950x so I set my curve to ramp up my fans starting then. My 5950x spikes higher so maybe I should set my curve higher. What do you think? Does the 5950x run hotter?


----------



## J7SC

dlbsyst said:


> Yeah, mx-4 isn't a bad paste. It's actually quite good and I love that it's easy to spread. 🙂 Kryonaut is definitely better though. Do you have your fan curve set identically with your 3950x and 5950x? I'm using the same fan curve I had set for my 3950x. I was getting spikes to about 60c with my 3950x so I set my curve to ramp up my fans starting then. My 5950x spikes higher so maybe I should set my curve higher. What do you think? Does the 5950x run hotter?


...my 3950X and 5950X have about the same heat profile. I don't use fan curves as such, but per spoiler (pic during build-up), there's plenty of cooling capacity as everything is push/pull (24 fans, via 3 fan hubs). Don't run the fans on full tilt, but don't have to with push/pull, instead I mostly hear the actual air whooshing through (the rads are 64mm thick). Dual XSPC D5s keep things flowing, mind you there's also a 500 W Ampere 'heater' in that loop...



Spoiler


----------



## Mastakony

lmfodor said:


> We have quite similar results. I found that enabling 1T GDM on 2x16GB DR is not easy and almost impossible. I like your times ... I wonder why your copy speed is a bit slower, having lower and better primaries. What is your VDIMM value?
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I got 1.5v (AUTO with DOCP enabled)



dlbsyst said:


> Guys, I need some help please. I just purchased a 5950x and got it installed on Tuesday into my Crosshair VIII Hero wifi. My previous CPU was the 3950x. The 5950x is really fast and stable but I am having an issue. It seems like doing simple things causes it to heat up and cause my radiators fans to ramp up. For example I was just updating my GPU drivers and that caused the fans to ramp up. LoL My 3950x doesn't do this and I am using pretty much the same bios settings with the exception of my ram settings. Anyone know what might be causing this behavior and a solution. Oh, I'm running the bios posted before the current beta. Thanks for any help.🙂


Real question :
Did you make a clean or dirty install?
Clean : Uninstall Drivers (AMD and all things connected with your 3950X) and reinstall AMD drivers
Very clean (my method when I change CPU) : format system
Dirty : install new CPU on old system drivers

In any case
Don't forget to install AMD drivers
Calibrate your fans and optimize the curve in bios or fanXpert or any good fan controller (argus monitor for example)

WORST CASE : problem with cooler installation or thermal paste...

Enjoy


----------



## Sleepycat

dlbsyst said:


> Thanks, I think you are on to something with my thermal paste. I don't think it's the application but the paste itself. I actually used Kryonaut with my 3950x but sadly didn't have any left when I installed my 5950x. I had to use what I had which was mx-4. I am definitely ordering some more Kryonaut and doing a repast asap.🙂 Oh, can you explain what you mean by "tied to the wrong parameter" please?


If you plug your radiator fans to the motherboard header that is controlled by temperature, then you need to specify what temperature is being monitored to control fan speed. You should not tie radiator fan speed to CPU temperature, because within a matter of seconds, your CPU can go from 30 to 80 and then back down again to 40. This will cause your radiator fans to keep spinning up and down. Instead, you can set a fixed radiator fan speed, or use a 6 or 12 second delay in fan speed control if you are using the included Asus fan software. Personally, I'd start with 50% radiator fan speed, see if the noise level is acceptable and also monitor the water temperature.


----------



## dlbsyst

Mastakony said:


> I got 1.5v (AUTO with DOCP enabled)
> 
> 
> Real question :
> Did you make a clean or dirty install?
> Clean : Uninstall Drivers (AMD and all things connected with your 3950X) and reinstall AMD drivers
> Very clean (my method when I change CPU) : format system
> Dirty : install new CPU on old system drivers
> 
> In any case
> Don't forget to install AMD drivers
> Calibrate your fans and optimize the curve in bios or fanXpert or any good fan controller (argus monitor for example)
> 
> WORST CASE : problem with cooler installation or thermal paste...
> 
> Enjoy


Thanks. I did remove and reinstall my AMD chipset drivers and I do plan to repast and reinstall my cooler soon. Also will redo my fan curve.


----------



## dlbsyst

Sleepycat said:


> If you plug your radiator fans to the motherboard header that is controlled by temperature, then you need to specify what temperature is being monitored to control fan speed. You should not tie radiator fan speed to CPU temperature, because within a matter of seconds, your CPU can go from 30 to 80 and then back down again to 40. This will cause your radiator fans to keep spinning up and down. Instead, you can set a fixed radiator fan speed, or use a 6 or 12 second delay in fan speed control if you are using the included Asus fan software. Personally, I'd start with 50% radiator fan speed, see if the noise level is acceptable and also monitor the water temperature.


Thanks for the suggestions. I set my fan curve in the bios but will try and see if I can improve things with a new curve. Is it possible to set a delay in the bios? I prefer not installing software for controlling the fans.


----------



## Sleepycat

dlbsyst said:


> Thanks for the suggestions. I set my fan curve in the bios but will try and see if I can improve things with a new curve. Is it possible to set a delay in the bios? I prefer not installing software for controlling the fans.


I did not see a setting to set a fan delay in the bios. So it will have to be through Asus AI Suite 3. Why don't you just set it to 50% fixed in bios and see how it impacts your CPU temperatures?


----------



## AStaUK

dlbsyst said:


> Thanks for the suggestions. I set my fan curve in the bios but will try and see if I can improve things with a new curve. Is it possible to set a delay in the bios? I prefer not installing software for controlling the fans.


i”m not in front of my computer at the moment, but if you go into the Monitoring section of your BIOS you can set Fan Step Up/Down delay for each of the fan headers. I normally set the Step Up delay to a few seconds and then have a longer delay on Step Down.


----------



## xeizo

AStaUK said:


> i”m not in front of my computer at the moment, but if you go into the Monitoring section of your BIOS you can set Fan Step Up/Down delay for each of the fan headers. I normally set the Step Up delay to a few seconds and then have a longer delay on Step Down.


Yes, it's at the bottom of the monitoring page, delay is possible on all fans.

However, as I said before it's even better to have a fan controller controlling the radiator fans according to water temp as the water temp is what matters. The pump can go full throttle all the time. It will be a very comfortable sound profile. I have the benefit of a fan controller built in the H150i in my second rig and can set it up in iCue with a custom curve following water temp. Very silent and calm. My main rig on air with only Noctua fans is even more quiet, but it's not that far off. It's mainly the pump making a difference. The main rig do have the X570 chipset fan though, which can cut through late at night when everything else is silent.


----------



## Chili195

dlbsyst said:


> Thanks but I'm trying to understand what is causing my fans to ramp up while doing simple things like installing drivers. It shouldn't do this. I will install the newest beta and see If I get the same behavior.


In addition to the above suggestions I would advise getting a water temperature sensor in your loop, there should be a header for it on the motherboard. You can then bind the radiator fans to the water temp which will make a much nicer sounding and more effective profile for water-cooling without external controllers or software.


----------



## AStaUK

xeizo said:


> Yes, it's at the bottom of the monitoring page, delay is possible on all fans.
> 
> However, as I said before it's even better to have a fan controller controlling the radiator fans according to water temp as the water temp is what matters. The pump can go full throttle all the time. It will be a very comfortable sound profile. I have the benefit of a fan controller built in the H150i in my second rig and can set it up in iCue with a custom curve following water temp. Very silent and calm. My main rig on air with only Noctua fans is even more quiet, but it's not that far off. It's mainly the pump making a difference. The main rig do have the X570 chipset fan though, which can cut through late at night when everything else is silent.


I can see how that would be better, but wouldn't that only apply to custom water loops? In my case I only have a AIO and as far as I'm aware I can't monitor the temp of the water, so I set mine at a fan speed I'm comfortable with and one that keeps the CPU at a reasonable temperature. The only thing I want to change with my rig is the case fans, currently they use the controller built in to the case, I'd like to move them a fan hub which is connected to the board so I can control speeds. **My Asus case has an annoying hum at default fan speeds.


----------



## xeizo

AStaUK said:


> I can see how that would be better, but wouldn't that only apply to custom water loops? In my case I only have a AIO and as far as I'm aware I can't monitor the temp of the water, so I set mine at a fan speed I'm comfortable with and one that keeps the CPU at a reasonable temperature. The only thing I want to change with my rig is the case fans, currently they use the controller built in to the case, I'd like to move them a fan hub which is connected to the board so I can control speeds. **My Asus case has an annoying hum at default fan speeds.


Depends on which AIO, Corsair can monitor water temp and I have a Corsair, kudos to Corsair


----------



## CyrIng

Any stability confirmation about BIOS beta 3501 with 3950X + Crosshair VIII (WiFi) ?
No WHEA or Linux Machine Check errors during the idle states ?
Good support of G.Skill GTZN 3600 MHz CAS16 @ specs 1.35V ?


----------



## bastian

Can someone explain why my latency is so high? I know many run 3800/1900 but I've seen people running 3600/1800 and their latency is like in the mid 50s.


----------



## dlbsyst

Sleepycat said:


> I did not see a setting to set a fan delay in the bios. So it will have to be through Asus AI Suite 3. Why don't you just set it to 50% fixed in bios and see how it impacts your CPU temperatures?


Because my fans will be too loud at 50% fixed. Also it won't be enough when I push my processor to the Max. I like my fans to run at minimum speed when it's idling or doing things like surfing the net. I only want it to boost up when it needs too.🙂 That was working great for my 3950x. I just need to get it dialed in for my 5950x.


----------



## dlbsyst

AStaUK said:


> i”m not in front of my computer at the moment, but if you go into the Monitoring section of your BIOS you can set Fan Step Up/Down delay for each of the fan headers. I normally set the Step Up delay to a few seconds and then have a longer delay on Step Down.


Thanks. I will definitely be checking that out.🙂 What exactly do you have your delays set to on both?


----------



## PJVol

bastian said:


> Can someone explain why my latency is so high?


Too loose secondaries.
Are these b-die based?


----------



## dlbsyst

Guys, I just want to say I may return my 5950x to Best Buy or try to sell it because I was already pretty happy with my 3950x. I will probably re-buy it later. Thanks for the help and suggestions.🙂


----------



## AStaUK

dlbsyst said:


> Thanks. I will definitely be checking that out.🙂 What exactly do you have your delays set to on both?


Fan Up is set to 2.8sec and Fan Down is set to 6.3sec. **On a side note, does anyone know why they aren't round numbers?



dlbsyst said:


> Guys, I just want to say I may return my 5950x to Best Buy or try to sell it because I was already pretty happy with my 3950x. I will probably re-buy it later. Thanks for the help and suggestions.🙂


Selling it privately may net you more, at least in the UK the 5950X is still fairly hard to get hold of.


----------



## dlbsyst

AStaUK said:


> Fan Up is set to 2.8sec and Fan Down is set to 6.3sec. **On a side note, does anyone know why they aren't round numbers?
> 
> 
> 
> Selling it privately may net you more, at least in the UK the 5950X is still fairly hard to get hold of.


Thanks 👍 Yeah, I'm selling one of the processors, either the 3950x or 5950x. I'll play around with my 5950x a few more days and then decide.🙂


----------



## bastian

PJVol said:


> Too loose secondaries.
> Are these b-die based?


Yes, B-DIE. Wait, for some reason the BIOS is not listening to the Auto TRFC settings. They are suppose to be 312, 192, 132. Once I manually set those latency dropped by 6


----------



## petercar59

CyrIng said:


> Any stability confirmation about BIOS beta 3501 with 3950X + Crosshair VIII (WiFi) ?
> No WHEA or Linux Machine Check errors during the idle states ?
> Good support of G.Skill GTZN 3600 MHz CAS16 @ specs 1.35V ?


I've got a 3900X and the same MB, but different, Patriot Viper non-QVL B-Die (4x8GB) running 1:1 @3600 which has been finicky in the past, but is fine at 16-15-15-15-31. YMMV:


----------



## Mastakony

bastian said:


> View attachment 2487027
> 
> 
> Can someone explain why my latency is so high? I know many run 3800/1900 but I've seen people running 3600/1800 and their latency is like in the mid 50s.


TRFC 350 is very very very too high lol
160 170 is a good spot to start having good performance


----------



## bastian

Mastakony said:


> TRFC 350 is very very very too high lol
> 160 170 is a good spot to start having good performance


Yes I had not noticed that the Auto settings on the Dark Hero are setting wrong values for some reason.


----------



## CyrIng

petercar59 said:


> I've got a 3900X and the same MB, but different, Patriot Viper non-QVL B-Die (4x8GB) running 1:1 @3600 which has been finicky in the past, but is fine at 16-15-15-15-31. YMMV:
> 
> View attachment 2487169


Nice.
Can you tell about the DIMM voltage ? Do you have to go above specs ?


----------



## petercar59

CyrIng said:


> Nice.
> Can you tell about the DIMM voltage ? Do you have to go above specs ?


Yes, currently 1.47V. I've always had to use 1.46V/1.47V for stability.


----------



## Sleepycat

Recently I've been getting spontaneous reboots while testing my single cores using core cycler and once in a while getting idle reboots as well. The reboots occurred randomly when different cores were being tested in core cycler too.

The only thing I had changed in my bios voltages from my initial set up where I had zero idle reboots to getting idle reboots was reducing VDDG CCD from 1.05V to 0.95V. I've changed it back to 1.05V, and it has seemed to stopped the idle reboots. If this is the case, then it is different to low idle core voltages that I thought was the cause previously.

Anyone noticed this or observed something similar?


----------



## CyrIng

petercar59 said:


> Yes, currently 1.47V. I've always had to use 1.46V/1.47V for stability.


Thanks
That's pretty high voltage to my taste. 
I hope to keep my G.Skill 3600 MHz @ 1.35V as set in BIOS 2206


----------



## xeizo

Sleepycat said:


> Recently I've been getting spontaneous reboots while testing my single cores using core cycler and once in a while getting idle reboots as well. The reboots occurred randomly when different cores were being tested in core cycler too.
> 
> The only thing I had changed in my bios voltages from my initial set up where I had zero idle reboots to getting idle reboots was reducing VDDG CCD from 1.05V to 0.95V. I've changed it back to 1.05V, and it has seemed to stopped the idle reboots. If this is the case, then it is different to low idle core voltages that I thought was the cause previously.
> 
> Anyone noticed this or observed something similar?


Yes, that is exactly what happens, I settled att 0.96V and haven't had a reboot in over a month.


----------



## metalshark

xeizo said:


> Yes, that is exactly what happens, I settled att 0.96V and haven't had a reboot in over a month.


Yup am also at 0.96v for the VDDG CCD. Can run it at 0.88v but still get USB issues anywhere below 0.96v.


----------



## PWn3R

Did anyone try to go higher on FCLK and RAM with the 3501 version? I didn't even attempt it as there was nothing saying there should've been improvements.


----------



## Sleepycat

xeizo said:


> Yes, that is exactly what happens, I settled att 0.96V and haven't had a reboot in over a month.


No more reboots with VDDG CCD back to 1.05V. Going to stick with this.


----------



## cevad

Sleepycat said:


> I did not see a setting to set a fan delay in the bios. So it will have to be through Asus AI Suite 3. Why don't you just set it to 50% fixed in bios and see how it impacts your CPU temperatures?


It's definitely there in the CH8DH, I just went and set mine, it's in the monitoring section, and then in a submenu under there (which I can't remember the name of...), set step up time to 2.7sec, and the step down to 6 something.


----------



## butt_yodel

PWn3R said:


> Did anyone try to go higher on FCLK and RAM with the 3501 version? I didn't even attempt it as there was nothing saying there should've been improvements.


I had cold boot issues over 1800FCLK on every bios before 3501. Happy to report that I've been running 1900FCLK 3800Mhz RAM on 3501 for over a week now and have not had any issues. 😁


----------



## lmfodor

Hi! I want to share my experiences with my mem OC. I tried a lot to lower my primaries with my 3800CL14 DR 2x16GB. Even if I could reach a very sable configuration with good bandwidth and low latency I tried to have a 3800-14 flat configuration, but the amount of errors that I had in TM5 were very many, almost 100 per minute and it canceled, mostly they were 6, 12 and 2. I read about the errors, they seem to be voltage or resistance. I really was lost. 

So I decided to try 4000/2000-14-16-16-16 (which gave me the same errors as 4000-16-16-16) What puzzles me about these 3800CL14 DR memories is that they seem to run fine with 1.5V, at least in a few cases I know. What I did see are many 2x8GB SRs that they achieve the result much easier, with 1T and much tighter subtimings. I just realized that each TM5 test gives its own error, I did not know that, as now the errors are slower I realized and there are no more errors 6 than they were where they always failed .








In this link below is the screenshot with high quality.. I don’t know why doesn’t uploaded well the picture as image. Maybe it’s because I’m using the phone
View attachment 2487397

It would seem that I am closer to stabilizing this configuration than 3800 14-14-14. Regarding the CAD BUS I left it at 24-24-24-24 because they are the values that come by default XMP Profile and that I saw in the review, with 53ohms of ProctODT (which could go down since it comes standard with 43) and RTTs like this, RttNom Disabled, WR in 2 .. 3 it costs a little to get POST, and Park at 5 to be more consistent with the voltage

Regarding vSOC, I've seen everything, I don't know if Single Rank or Dual Rank have a difference, but I see from 1.12V, 1.14V, 1.16V and 1.22V where I think Veii leads the podium. IOD and CCD some I see matching them, others trying to put the CCD at 0.94 or at least close to 1V and the IOD 0.5mV below vSOC. And the VDDP as a rule I think it is convenient in 0.9 to 0.85 .. but I see several configurations with VDDP above 1.1. So I'm a bit lost, I already read all the TM5 errors. What I lack is a test procedure, that is, look for a baseline and go playing one by one, otherwise it is like it is lost. There are several rules that I try to follow, for example I know that SC DDs at 1-4-4-1-6-6 go well for DR. TWRCD has to be +2 because it's DR, that's why it's at 10. SCLs at 4 also seem to be fine. Maybe the TWR can lower it a bit. At this point I prefer an advice from you or a calculator to guide me. I think DRAM Calculator is old enough to calculate such fine values. I saw a Veii calculator but it seems broken, or at least I am missing data, I wish I could download it. I hope you can help me or guide me. I think I have a lot of room to improve, the temperatures are good and I want to continue advancing little by little. This is the calculator that I found but some values are broken:Ryzen Google Calculator
I just downgraded mi BIOS for the latest version to the SMU 56.45 and the L3 cache it's more real and consistent. 
And yes, the configuration I am looking for is 7/24. And now for the first time I'm getting a lots of WHEA logs and one reboot, so I went back to my stabilized profile to continue tomorrow.

I would much appreciate any help or guidance!!
View attachment 2487335



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Alberto_It

Hi to everyone! I need your help for enabling on my ASUS Crosshair VIII Formula the PB02 OC Curve with my Ryzen 9 5950x.

I'm a very newbie, so if you can write me the settings or through Asus's Bios screen shot would be greatly appreciated.

The bios version on my board is the latest beta

Thank you in advance for your help


----------



## GRABibus

Alberto_It said:


> Hi to everyone! I need your help for enabling on my ASUS Crosshair VIII Formula the PB02 OC Curve with my Ryzen 9 5950x.
> 
> I'm a very newbie, so if you can write me the settings or through Asus's Bios screen shot would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> The bios version on my board is the latest beta
> 
> Thank you in advance for your help


Hi ,
Settings depend on each CPU and configuration.

I should advise first you get familiar with PBO and CO. Here is a very good video :






Arrivederci !


----------



## Alberto_It

GRABibus said:


> Hi ,
> Settings depend on each CPU and configuration.
> 
> I should advise first you get familiar with PBO and CO. Here is a very good video :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arrivederci !


 On the video the guy explains it a little fast. Anyway thanks for the answer


----------



## Alberto_It

GRABibus said:


> Hi ,
> Settings depend on each CPU and configuration.
> 
> I should advise first you get familiar with PBO and CO. Here is a very good video :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arrivederci !


You have got a pc configuration very similar to mine. Crosshair VIII Hero bios is the same of Crosshair VIII Formula. Only difference are the numbers of cores


----------



## HoloWS

bastian said:


> Yes, B-DIE. Wait, for some reason the BIOS is not listening to the Auto TRFC settings. They are suppose to be 312, 192, 132. Once I manually set those latency dropped by 6


I reported the same anomaly I noticed back here.
ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking & Discussion Thread | Page 342 | Overclock.net

Hopefully it's just an AGESA bug that'll get fixed or an asus bios bug that someone from the bios team on these forums will notice and fix. 










You can see some values not correctly getting set from the XMP profile.










I use to get around ~54ns latency with early bios versions when the 3950x just came out, now I'm stuck around ~72.


----------



## GRABibus

Sleepycat said:


> No more reboots with VDDG CCD back to 1.05V. Going to stick with this.


I am still on Bios 3302.
I didn’t test again stability 3800/1900 since I am on this bios.
Yesterday, I tried again with :
Soc = 1,1V
PLL=1,9
All vddg voltages at 1,05V
VTT at 0,74V 
Vdimm =1,49V
Relaxed timings 16-16-16-28-1T instead of 14-15-15-28-1T with 3733 which is my 24/7 current stable setting.


Surprisingly, I didn’t get any cold boot and any boot issues with these settings.
I couldn’t even boot with my former Bios and those settings (I don’t remember which one it was).

If I get wheas with those settings, which voltage in priority should I increase ?
Is 1,9PLL not too high and should I test first 1,85V ?

Thanks.


----------



## bastian

HoloWS said:


> I reported the same anomaly I noticed back here.
> ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking & Discussion Thread | Page 342 | Overclock.net
> 
> Hopefully it's just an AGESA bug that'll get fixed or an asus bios bug that someone from the bios team on these forums will notice and fix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can see some values not correctly getting set from the XMP profile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I use to get around ~54ns latency with early bios versions when the 3950x just came out, now I'm stuck around ~72.


Well I reported to @shamino1978 so hopefully the reports will help


----------



## xeizo

bastian said:


> I use to get around ~54ns latency with early bios versions when the 3950x just came out, now I'm stuck around ~72.


edit, this reply is to HoloWS and not bastian, hard with nested quotes.

It's a typo from you I suppose, 54ns latency is near impossible on a Zen 2, I grant you mean 64ns which is extreme good as well. I was at 64.8ns as best with B-die at 3800MHz. Now with Hynix DJR(more loose timings than B-die) on the Zen 2 I get 67.5ns at 3800MHz. I have a 3700X with 3200MHz Hynix AFR, it lands at 74.5ns so 72ns do look relative normal for 3600MHz, even if more tight timings could better that(hint, you have awful high trfc and would creep under 70ns with more normal trfc).


----------



## J7SC

^^...may be this helps, a direct comparison of the same memory kit (4x8 GB GSkill GTZR) installed on a Crosshair VIII Hero / 3950X and a Crosshair VIII Dark Hero / 5950X...both with identical RAM and IF settings.


----------



## HoloWS

xeizo said:


> edit, this reply is to HoloWS and not bastian, hard with nested quotes.
> 
> It's a typo from you I suppose, 54ns latency is near impossible on a Zen 2, I grant you mean 64ns which is extreme good as well. I was at 64.8ns as best with B-die at 3800MHz. Now with Hynix DJR(more loose timings than B-die) on the Zen 2 I get 67.5ns at 3800MHz. I have a 3700X with 3200MHz Hynix AFR, it lands at 74.5ns so 72ns do look relative normal for 3600MHz, even if more tight timings could better that(hint, you have awful high trfc and would creep under 70ns with more normal trfc).


Yes, sorry. I did mean ~64ns. I use to just enable DOCP and leave everything else on Auto / Default to get that on a 3950x with release year bios versions. I can only assume newer memory features / security implementations increased the latency.

Manually setting tRC, tRRDS, & tRRDL to the XMP profile's specified values did seem to reduce latency a bit. I didn't touch tFAW since the XMP profile was actually specified higher than what auto sets. If the bios can be changed to read / use the XMP profile's sub-timing values correctly (assuming lower than auto and auto not setting more optimized values like tFAW), that would probably be a nice optimization "fix" for asus to do.


















I tried optimizing tRFC a bit per your advise but I just run into memory instability and crashing with various applications. Not even that extreme, tried a value such as 480. So I just stick to what my kit's profile is tested to work with.



bastian said:


> Well I reported to @shamino1978 so hopefully the reports will help


Thanks. Be sure to mention the DataEye Aggressor Channel memory setting inconsistency too! Where the description text says default is off but it isn't actually. Not sure if just set by default wrong or if the text needs updating.


----------



## panni

metalshark said:


> Yup am also at 0.96v for the VDDG CCD. Can run it at 0.88v but still get USB issues anywhere below 0.96v.


What are the remaining voltages set to in this case?

I'm currently running VDDP 900, VDDG CCD 940, VDDG IOD 1020, SOC 1060 at 3733.

Considering VDDP 900, VDDG CCD 960, VDDG IOD 1000, SOC 1040 right now. Would VDDP 880 be more reasonable in this case, to honor the 40mV distance?

Thanks!


----------



## PWn3R

butt_yodel said:


> I had cold boot issues over 1800FCLK on every bios before 3501. Happy to report that I've been running 1900FCLK 3800Mhz RAM on 3501 for over a week now and have not had any issues.


I tried several iterations of voltages across the ranges including mirroring the auto settings on 1900/3800, but no dice. WHEAs coming out of my ears, but 1900 cold boot auto settings did make it to Windows before rebooting at the desktop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Alberto_It

Hi to everyone again, I don't want to get off the rules of the forum, but I need your help for to do a oc curve PB02 profiles for my ASUS Crosshair VIII Formula with Ryzen 9 5950x.

My PC specs are :
ASUS Crosshair VIII Formula X570 bios 3501
RYZEN 9 5950X @ Stock settings
4x8gb F4-3800C14D-16GTZN @ Docp settings
ASUS STRIX RTX 3090 O24G

Please write me the basic steps settings to obtain a light OC curve profile on my system.

Any help would be welcome! With bios screen shot setting if possible.

We are a community, so please help me ASAP

Note: I have searched around the web before to write this request @shamino1978


----------



## metalshark

panni said:


> What are the remaining voltages set to in this case?
> 
> I'm currently running VDDP 900, VDDG CCD 940, VDDG IOD 1020, SOC 1060 at 3733.
> 
> Considering VDDP 900, VDDG CCD 960, VDDG IOD 1000, SOC 1040 right now. Would VDDP 880 be more reasonable in this case, to honor the 40mV distance?
> 
> Thanks!


CLDO VDDP of 0.88v
VDDP of 720mv
VDDG IOD of 1.05v
SoC of 1.1v

Thought VDDG IOD/CCD at to be at least 50mv lower than SoC. That seems to happen naturally. SoC for instance I can have lower, same with VDDG IOD, but even one nudge lower for either decreases performance.


----------



## Kokin

Been trying the 3501 BIOS for a few days now and it has been much more stable than 3402, which in a span of 2 weeks, had 2-3 idle reboots and my keyboard would freeze a few times everyday. No such behaviors on 3501 _so far._ 

I have a 3900X on a CH8 Impact and 2x16GB B-die set to 3733 16-15-15-15 @ 1.47V. Re:BAR has been working on my 3070 for both 3402 and 3501 BIOS versions. Slight performance regression compared to older BIOS versions from last year, BIOS 3003 had rock solid stability and good performance numbers for 3+ months. I do have FMAX Enhancer and PBO set to On. 


3501 BIOS3402 BIOS3003 BIOS2702 BIOSCPU-Z 
Single: 556.6 
Multi: 8507.3CPU-Z
Single:553.8 
Multi: 8430.6CPU-Z
Single: 559.0 
Multi: 8561.8CPU-Z
Single: 556.4 
Multi: 8619.5AIDA latency: 64.3nsAIDA latency: 64.5nsAIDA latency: 64.0nsAIDA latency: 63.9nsCB20 
Single: 527 
Multi: 7451CB20 
Single: 526 
Multi: 7448CB20 
Single: 532 
Multi: 7556CB20
Single: 526 
Multi: 7529

Memory settings are slightly different for 3501, I used 36.9 ProcODT and RttNom RZQ/7 with lower voltages. Might revert to my old settings for a better comparison.









These were the settings for every previous BIOS:











Spoiler: Benchmarks for 3501


----------



## lmfodor

Hi, anybody knows what BIOS version have the SMU 56.46? Now I’m using the 3204 with the SMU 56.45 and I want to try the next version. I see in that in the Asus Download Page goes from 3204 from January to 3401 or March 20th. Could it be that the 3401 has the SMU 56.46?
Thanks!


----------



## Danny.ns

lmfodor said:


> Hi, anybody knows what BIOS version have the SMU 56.46? Now I’m using the 3204 with the SMU 56.45 and I want to try the next version. I see in that in the Asus Download Page goes from 3204 from January to 3401 or March 20th. Could it be that the 3401 has the SMU 56.46?
> Thanks!


Hi,
I have BIOS 3401 atm and it has SMU 56.50.


----------



## lmfodor

Danny.ns said:


> Hi,
> I have BIOS 3401 atm and it has SMU 56.50.


Yes, I don’t know if asus removes the BIOS between January and March but the 56.5 has the issue with the IMC that is broken. 

I suspect that asus remove BIOS from the 3204 to 3401. Anybody knows if there are some place to download all bios? I know a guy that publish a pre release of BIOS here. Maybe he has some repository to download. 

Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Reous

lmfodor said:


> Hi, anybody knows what BIOS version have the SMU 56.46?


Bios 3302


----------



## lmfodor

Reous said:


> Bios 3302
> 
> View attachment 2487837


That’s great! Now the big question, from where can I download it? on the Asus page is not available

Thanks 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Reous

I still see it on the support page.

Just download it from here:








[Übersicht] - Ultimative AM4 UEFI/BIOS/AGESA Übersicht


Inhaltsverzeichnis: UEFI Collection | Hersteller Support Links | UEFI Mods | Weiterführende Links Keine weiteren Updates mehr geplant! AM5 UEFI/BIOS/AGESA Übersicht ASRock ASUS Biostar Gigabyte MSI EVGA NZXT B350 B450 B550 X370 X470 X570 B350 B450 B550 X370 X470 X570 B350 B450...




www.hardwareluxx.de


----------



## lmfodor

Reous said:


> I still see it on the support page.
> 
> Just download it from here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Übersicht] - Ultimative AM4 UEFI/BIOS/AGESA Übersicht
> 
> 
> Inhaltsverzeichnis: UEFI Collection | Hersteller Support Links | UEFI Mods | Weiterführende Links Keine weiteren Updates mehr geplant! AM5 UEFI/BIOS/AGESA Übersicht ASRock ASUS Biostar Gigabyte MSI EVGA NZXT B350 B450 B550 X370 X470 X570 B350 B450 B550 X370 X470 X570 B350 B450...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hardwareluxx.de


Thanks a lot!! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> That’s great! Now the big question, from where can I download it? on the Asus page is not available
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I have 3204, 3301, 3302 still saved on my PC. Let me know if you can't find it from hardwareluxx and I can dropbox it to you.


----------



## lmfodor

Hi, I just check it and it seems that Asus didn't release a BIOS with the SMU 56.46. I just installed the 3302 and it has the SMU 56.50. I go back to the 3204, it's amazing how broken are the newer versions. I hope they can fix it in next releases..


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> I have 3204, 3301, 3302 still saved on my PC. Let me know if you can't find it from hardwareluxx and I can dropbox it to you.


Thanks Sleepycat! I'm just downgrading my BIOS to 3204.. the IMC (L3 cache) it's broken. And also compared the PBO basic, I mean just enabling without any parameter, and CB20 gave me an score of 8900 when with the new one 8600.. same settings with default values.

This is my current stable settings.. look at the L3 cache, not only plain but real.. I don't know what AMD are doing. I think it's already been treated here.









Thanks for your help!


----------



## Reous

As i know Zentimings reads the wmi from windows. This can result in false report sometimes. 3302 definitely have SMU 56.46.0. You can try to install 3204 to 3302 via EZ Flash in the bios.

Edit: Btw none of your screens show bios 3302. Maybe you just have flashed the wrong bios


----------



## domdtxdissar

So ive done with my initial testing for CTR 2.1 RC5 build 15 with *automatic up and downclocking on the fly* (just like PBO) 

Comparing threadscaling in Cinebench R20 just like i did last time.
These were my previous results:



> PBO CO benchmode: (ambient ~ 20 degrees)
> Bios 3003, which have the best PBO CO boosting behavior of all asus bioses
> 
> 1 thread = 662 points
> 2 threads = 1303 points
> 4 threads = 2444 points
> 6 threads = 3706 points
> 8 threads = 4887 points
> 10 threads = 5974 points
> 12 threads = 7022 points
> 14 threads = 7906 points
> 16 threads = 8645 points
> 20 threads = 9583 points
> ...seems like i didn't save 24 thread screenshot, but 105xx score
> 32 threads = 12238 points
> CTR 2.04 hotfix: (ambient ~ 24 degrees)
> Bios 3003, but dont matter since using CTR
> 
> 1 thread = 652 points
> 2 threads = 1295 points
> 4 threads = 2525 points
> 6 threads = 3752 points
> 8 threads = 4979 points
> 10 threads = 6016 points
> 12 threads = 7171 points
> 14 threads = 8287 points
> 16 threads = 8831 points
> 20 threads = 9539 points
> 24 threads = 10217 points
> 28 threads = 11117 points
> 32 threads = 12032 points
> LLC4 = upto 2% vdroop
> 
> PX high = from 1 to 2 threads @ 5050mhz
> PX mid = from 3 to 4 threads @ 4950mhz
> PX low = from 5 to 9 threads @ 4900mhz
> P2 = from 10 to 20 threads @ 4800/4675mhz
> P1 = from 21 to 32 threads @ 4700/4600mhz


Results from CTR 2.1 RC5
Latest bios 3501 for these runs, which i did all back-to-back (could gain a few points with restarts between runs)

1 thread = 668 points
2 threads = 1302 points
4 threads = 2528 points
6 threads = 3800 points
8 threads = 4999 points
10 threads = 6081 points
12 threads = 7187 points
14 threads = 8185 points
16 threads = 8963 points
20 threads = 9540 points
24 threads = 10031 points
28 threads = 11044 points
32 threads = 12064 points
LLC4 = upto 2% vdroop

PX high = from 1 to 2 threads @ 5050mhz
PX mid = from 3 to 4 threads @ 4950mhz
PX low = from 5 to 9 threads @ 4900mhz
P2 = from 10 to 20 threads @ 4775/4650mhz
P1 = from 21 to 32 threads @ 4700/4600mhz

Settings: (noteworthy: L3 latency is only 9.8ms and these settings survived 5 iteration of IBT very high which is a 270watt load at these speeds)









Full set of screenshots can be found here:


http://imgur.com/a/JmgrHWm


CTR 2.1 RC5 seems indeed to be working nicely even in a "medium-workload" as Cinebench, but it is in the "light-workloads" / games that will benefit the most from this update with autoclocking.


----------



## lmfodor

Reous said:


> As i know Zentimings reads the wmi from windows. This can result in false report sometimes. 3302 definitely have SMU 56.46.0. You can try to install 3204 to 3302 via EZ Flash in the bios.
> 
> Edit: Btw none of your screens show bios 3302. Maybe you just have flashed the wrong bios


Good point! You are right. I downloaded from asus the 3302 but when I load my previous values the mem timings were all broken! For that reason I just leave the header of the Zentiming. But I notice that the 3302 was bad looking for two things, one a loaded details values as always and just set PBO enable, DOCH and 3800/1900 and disabling the DF states and CPPC and preferred cores. Then I ran CB20 and I note the decrease in score but the main issue is with the IMC, the L3 cache are above 1000g/s and not aligned .. I was reading something in forum about some internal thing on AMD and the supposed reason to cap the boost and something with the memories. But i don’t know. I hope AMD fixed.. this version 3204 is very good. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lmfodor

Hi, I want to share some weird experience with mi CH8 Wifi Some time ago I had asked here if it’s worth to updating or rather change a CH8 Wifi for a Dark Hero, not for DOS, but for the new VRMs. I bought these new memories Gskill 3800-14 2x16DR, and I can‘t make them work with the values of the Igor's Lab review and also from the member @gabian who has the same memories and gave me his BIOS configuration. I copied it exactly and I had no way to make it work. I mean, it is the same mobo, processor, same memories but I cannot achieve 3800-14-14-14 or similar with 1.5V without errors which is what they achieved. The truth is that although the gain is not so much compared to my benchs that you can see in my previous post, they are very good, but it does bother me that I spent weeks trying to synchronize the timings and the voltage and I couldn’t . 

So I started to see whether to change it for the Dark Hero or buy the MSI B550 unify-x that only has two ram slots and for now it seems to be that it have the best VRMs. It happens to me with the MSI that is not only smaller, it has fewer functions such as the internal retry, start and safe switches ... but it has fewer USB ports and well the BIOS is not very nice. But the truth frustrated me quite a bit. I didn't think there would be a difference with the wifi version and Dark versions, but there is something.

What do you thing? To much obsessed with my new memories [emoji4]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## shaolin95

double post


----------



## shaolin95

domdtxdissar said:


> So ive done with my initial testing for CTR 2.1 RC5 build 15 with *automatic up and downclocking on the fly* (just like PBO)
> 
> Comparing threadscaling in Cinebench R20 just like i did last time.
> These were my previous results:
> 
> 
> 
> Results from CTR 2.1 RC5
> Latest bios 3501 for these runs, which i did all back-to-back (could gain a few points with restarts between runs)
> 
> 1 thread = 668 points
> 2 threads = 1302 points
> 4 threads = 2528 points
> 6 threads = 3800 points
> 8 threads = 4999 points
> 10 threads = 6081 points
> 12 threads = 7187 points
> 14 threads = 8185 points
> 16 threads = 8963 points
> 20 threads = 9540 points
> 24 threads = 10031 points
> 28 threads = 11044 points
> 32 threads = 12064 points
> LLC4 = upto 2% vdroop
> 
> PX high = from 1 to 2 threads @ 5050mhz
> PX mid = from 3 to 4 threads @ 4950mhz
> PX low = from 5 to 9 threads @ 4900mhz
> P2 = from 10 to 20 threads @ 4775/4650mhz
> P1 = from 21 to 32 threads @ 4700/4600mhz
> 
> Settings: (noteworthy: L3 latency is only 9.8ms and these settings survived 5 iteration of IBT very high which is a 270watt load at these speeds)
> View attachment 2487848
> 
> 
> Full set of screenshots can be found here:
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/JmgrHWm
> 
> 
> CTR 2.1 RC5 seems indeed to be working nicely even in a "medium-workload" as Cinebench, but it is in the "light-workloads" / games that will benefit the most from this update with autoclocking.





domdtxdissar said:


> So ive done with my initial testing for CTR 2.1 RC5 build 15 with *automatic up and downclocking on the fly* (just like PBO)
> 
> Comparing threadscaling in Cinebench R20 just like i did last time.
> These were my previous results:
> 
> 
> 
> Results from CTR 2.1 RC5
> Latest bios 3501 for these runs, which i did all back-to-back (could gain a few points with restarts between runs)
> 
> 1 thread = 668 points
> 2 threads = 1302 points
> 4 threads = 2528 points
> 6 threads = 3800 points
> 8 threads = 4999 points
> 10 threads = 6081 points
> 12 threads = 7187 points
> 14 threads = 8185 points
> 16 threads = 8963 points
> 20 threads = 9540 points
> 24 threads = 10031 points
> 28 threads = 11044 points
> 32 threads = 12064 points
> LLC4 = upto 2% vdroop
> 
> PX high = from 1 to 2 threads @ 5050mhz
> PX mid = from 3 to 4 threads @ 4950mhz
> PX low = from 5 to 9 threads @ 4900mhz
> P2 = from 10 to 20 threads @ 4775/4650mhz
> P1 = from 21 to 32 threads @ 4700/4600mhz
> 
> Settings: (noteworthy: L3 latency is only 9.8ms and these settings survived 5 iteration of IBT very high which is a 270watt load at these speeds)
> 
> 
> Full set of screenshots can be found here:
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/JmgrHWm
> 
> 
> CTR 2.1 RC5 seems indeed to be working nicely even in a "medium-workload" as Cinebench, but it is in the "light-workloads" / games that will benefit the most from this update with autoclocking.


Awesome results!
Do you mind sharing your BIOS settings for CTR please? I am going to give it a shot now that RC5 is able to perform as I wanted.
Thank you!


----------



## domdtxdissar

shaolin95 said:


> Awesome results!
> Do you mind sharing your BIOS settings for CTR please? I am going to give it a shot now that RC5 is able to perform as I wanted.
> Thank you!


----------



## shaolin95

domdtxdissar said:


> View attachment 2487874


I used that before but always ended up tweaking a bit to help. But if you are going exactly as above, I will give it a shot.
Thanks


----------



## domdtxdissar

shaolin95 said:


> I used that before but always ended up tweaking a bit to help. But if you are going exactly as above, I will give it a shot.
> Thanks


No i use other settings, every setup is different.. Above is just recommended startingpoint.

I use my own memory + soc/IOdie settings/voltages, the main thing that's important is that they are stable.
Current capability = 140%
LLC level 4
Power phase control = extreme
PBO enabled with following limits = 300watt 235 TDC 245 EDC

Eveyone have to find their own settings that works best for them..


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> Thanks Sleepycat! I'm just downgrading my BIOS to 3204.. the IMC (L3 cache) it's broken. And also compared the PBO basic, I mean just enabling without any parameter, and CB20 gave me an score of 8900 when with the new one 8600.. same settings with default values.
> 
> This is my current stable settings.. look at the L3 cache, not only plain but real.. I don't know what AMD are doing. I think it's already been treated here.
> View attachment 2487844
> 
> 
> Thanks for your help!


L3 cache performance, or at least the reported score in Aida64 was only fixed in 3301 onwards. You can improve it in 3204 by limiting your EDC to only 120 - 140A.


----------



## jomama22

Rc


domdtxdissar said:


> No i use other settings, every setup is different.. Above is just recommended startingpoint.
> 
> I use my own memory + soc/IOdie settings/voltages, the main thing that's important is that they are stable.
> Current capability = 140%
> LLC level 4
> Power phase control = extreme
> PBO enabled with following limits = 300watt 235 TDC 245 EDC
> 
> Eveyone have to find their own settings that works best for them..


Wait, what's the point of using pbo enabled with ctr? Bit confused there.


----------



## dlbsyst

dlbsyst said:


> Thanks 👍 Yeah, I'm selling one of the processors, either the 3950x or 5950x. I'll play around with my 5950x a few more days and then decide.🙂


Well, I decided to sell one of my processors. I have it listed in the classified section if anyone's interested.🙂


----------



## pantsoftime

domdtxdissar said:


> View attachment 2487874


I tried RC4 a week or so ago. I spent several hours going through the "long guide", doing all of the extra steps to tune everything the way he wants... but just like some of the other overclocking guides out there, none of it works well with my particular 5950x sample. With RC4 running I got acceptable multi-core performance, but the single threaded / PX mode was clock gating something fierce... my single threaded score in CPU-Z was like 570 points. I tried boosting voltage in a couple of different ways but it didn't really help by more than a couple %. (Stock PBO I get around 670).

I think I have one or two "bum cores" in my chip that make CO unstable also with typical numbers. Either that or there's another voltage that needs to be boosted to get any of this stuff working right. With regular PBO I get average scores. With CO I have to use ranges between -2 and -6 or else it crashes. 

Do you think RC5 has improved anything to help users like me?


----------



## shaolin95

pantsoftime said:


> . my single threaded score in CPU-Z was like 570 points. I


CPUZ does NOT play well with CTR.You need to do CB20 or other. Yuri has explained why before but I don't recall the details


----------



## domdtxdissar

shaolin95 said:


> CPUZ does NOT play well with CTR.You need to do CB20 or other. Yuri has explained why before but I don't recall the details


The latest CTR RC5 finally have no problems with CPU-Z bench as my screenshot shows, did get 715 ST
Before i used to get ~680 ST with CTR and ~700-710 with PBO CO depending on temp..



pantsoftime said:


> Do you think RC5 has improved anything to help users like me?


If you are getting 570 ST in CPU-Z with a 5950x + CTR something is clearly wrong.. How are your scores in Cinebench ?
Do you by any chance have fmax enabled in bios ? this tweak should only be used with Zen2 (3000 series)


----------



## shaolin95

I am finally playing with RC5. So far so good.


----------



## PJVol

jomama22 said:


> Wait, what's the point of using pbo enabled with ctr? Bit confused there.


I wonder too, if СTR Tuner or diagnostic tool has control over PBO limits, does it mean ctr set them when profile applies? (or user should set them manually)


----------



## Sleepycat

PJVol said:


> I wonder too, if СTR Tuner or diagnostic tool has control over PBO limits, does it mean ctr set them when profile applies? (or user should set them manually)


I don't think CTR has control over PBO limits. It can disable Hybrid OC (or shut down CB R20) if the set PBO limits in CTR are exceeded, but it doesn't override the bios PBO limits.

On mine (CTR 2.0 RC5), I have PBO limits set in bios.


----------



## shaolin95

Well one thing is for sure, the new CTR RC5 is giving me the best latency ever


----------



## Moutsatsos

Hello everyone.I m waiting for my mobo to arive as soon as they stock cpus so I still can cancel the order.I was wondering have they given access to tunning the chipset fan yet or they still dont bother with that?Also do they still use the same old crappy fan controler they used on the CHVI or they actually changed it?


----------



## Sleepycat

Moutsatsos said:


> Hello everyone.I m waiting for my mobo to arive as soon as they stock cpus so I still can cancel the order.I was wondering have they given access to tunning the chipset fan yet or they still dont bother with that?Also do they still use the same old crappy fan controler they used on the CHVI or they actually changed it?


I didn't find chipset fan control, but since the Dark Hero is available now, why not go for that instead?


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> Well one thing is for sure, the new CTR RC5 is giving me the best latency ever
> View attachment 2488065


Hi shaolin95, just wanted to confirm whether CTR 2.1 RC5 is working properly with 3401 in your system and not picking the wrong cores for single threaded loads? I had that issue with CTR 2.0 RC5 and 3401,which made me go back to the 3302 bios. I'm not on Yuri's Patreon, so have not been getting news on CTR 2.1's development.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> Hi shaolin95, just wanted to confirm whether CTR 2.1 RC5 is working properly with 3401 in your system and not picking the wrong cores for single threaded loads? I had that issue with CTR 2.0 RC5 and 3401,which made me go back to the 3302 bios. I'm not on Yuri's Patreon, so have not been getting news on CTR 2.1's development.


Hello.
I didn't notice anything but if there is any específic test you would like me to do, let me know and i will try it t now.


----------



## Moutsatsos

Sleepycat said:


> I didn't find chipset fan control, but since the Dark Hero is available now, why not go for that instead?


----------



## dyanikoglu

I have no idea why people keep recommending dark hero. It's super over priced in my opinion.


----------



## xeizo

I bought the CH8 WiFi for 370€ brand new, I thought that was much, 800€ is ridiculous


----------



## J7SC

dyanikoglu said:


> I have no idea why people keep recommending dark hero. It's super over priced in my opinion.





xeizo said:


> I bought the CH8 WiFi for 370€ brand new, I thought that was much, 800€ is ridiculous


Wow, you folks are obviously in a different market or are looking at the wrong sites. Over the last 40 days I bought BOTH a Crosshair VIII Hero Wi-Fi / 3950X and a Crosshair VIII Dark Hero / 5950X, (...for different apps).

Here are today's prices for those, noting that it excludes tax unlike some of the European listings and pricing is in Canadian dollars (1 C$ is about 0.67 EURO).

IMO, the Dark Hero is clearly the better mobo given some of the HW and Bios differences, but they still are very close together overall..Dark Hero also seems to be in excess demand in Europe, with a bigger price differential than what we enjoy here.


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> Hello.
> I didn't notice anything but if there is any específic test you would like me to do, let me know and i will try it t now.


I used to have cores stuck at 3.9 GHz and when I had single loads, the fastest cores were not being chosen for it. This appeared when I ran CB R20, single core.


----------



## Sleepycat

AU pricing is so stupid! Good to see the regular C8H drop in price slightly. I paid AU$530 for mine back when they were AU$600. But the Dark Hero certainly is not meant to be that much more expensive than the C8H. I reckon it's price gouging!


----------



## jomama22

Sleepycat said:


> I don't think CTR has control over PBO limits. It can disable Hybrid OC (or shut down CB R20) if the set PBO limits in CTR are exceeded, but it doesn't override the bios PBO limits.
> 
> On mine (CTR 2.0 RC5), I have PBO limits set in bios.


When you have the pbo limits set in bios, are you also enabling pbo or just leaving it at auto? Is the 'd overclocking'emu pbo set to disable or auto as well?


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> I used to have cores stuck at 3.9 GHz and when I had single loads, the fastest cores were not being chosen for it. This appeared when I ran CB R20, single core.


My 2 best cores seem to be working as intended in my runs.


----------



## buffalofloyd

So, been using a CORSAIR Hydro Series H105 in conjunction with a 2700X for a couple years or so. I also have a CH8 Hero. I recently upgraded to a 5900X and on full load I get around 4.20ghz on all cores at 90-91c (PBO enabled), which is pretty hot. I haven't not been able to comb through the whole thread so I was hoping for some recommendations on upgrading my cooler.

I've heard good things about the ARCTIC Liquid Freezer II 240 and Noctua NH-U12A. Would it be an upgrade, or enough of an upgrade from my current cooler? I can only fit a max 240 rad at the top of my case, which is a Cooler Master HAF 932 I bought back in 2010. RAM clearance seems to be a concern with air coolers. I've only been using AIO coolers and have no experience with air coolers in my own system. If it matters I am using G.Skill 16GB (2 x 8GB) TridentZ Series DDR4 PC4-28800 3600MHz Intel Z170 Platform Desktop Memory F4-3600C15D-16GTZ.

Thank you in advance for any advice regarding these coolers.


----------



## Moutsatsos

Yea prices here are stupid.When Dark was announced I was happy because finally there was a board that had everything I wanted.You can understand my disappointment as soon as I saw the pricing.I used to have CHVI and my only concern with asus boards is that if they still use the same fan controler your fans get stuck at max rpm once you pass a certain thermal threshold.I know that most people dont have this issue but I am running Noctua Industrials so with this problem there was a helicopter landing on my pc once I stressed it.


----------



## shaolin95

Still tweaking with 2.1 RC5 but with the much lower temps already, I am very happy.
I plan to max out each speed but is a slow process to make sure all I use is stable before I push more. Already at a great point so I can take my time


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> View attachment 2488133
> 
> My 2 best cores seem to be working as intended in my runs.


Could you have a look at the Effective Clocks instead? I don't trust just the Core Clocks logging in HWInfo.


----------



## Sleepycat

jomama22 said:


> When you have the pbo limits set in bios, are you also enabling pbo or just leaving it at auto? Is the 'd overclocking'emu pbo set to disable or auto as well?


I have PBO Advanced enabled in bios, thus allowing me to set the PBO limits. The actual clock speed that you achieve once in Windows is controlled by CTR and not PBO, but the TDC, PPT and EDC limits still apply.


----------



## Sleepycat

Moutsatsos said:


> Yea prices here are stupid.When Dark was announced I was happy because finally there was a board that had everything I wanted.You can understand my disappointment as soon as I saw the pricing.I used to have CHVI and my only concern with asus boards is that if they still use the same fan controler your fans get stuck at max rpm once you pass a certain thermal threshold.I know that most people dont have this issue but I am running Noctua Industrials so with this problem there was a helicopter landing on my pc once I stressed it.


Mine has the chipset temperature hovering at 62-66 C, but the chipset fan seems to be always at about 4000rpm. Never seen it slow down or speed up within that 62-66 C range.

My front intake fan is the Noctua NF-A14 PPC3000, so might be the same industrial one that you have. I have it running off the high current header (HAMP), and the RPM is controlled fine based on my Asus temperature probe temperature. If you tie it to the CPU temperature, yes, it will keep ramping up and down due to the way Ryzen seems to jump in temperatures even with simple single thread loads. So a solution will probably to grab a 2 pin temperature probe which is compatible with Asus. I bought mine on eBay, from a UK seller. Alternatively, set the industrial fan to a constant 1500 rpm. It is loud at above 2000rpm.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> Could you have a look at the Effective Clocks instead? I don't trust just the Core Clocks logging in HWInfo.


I wouldn't score 648-651 is I were not getting real speeds


----------



## Sleepycat

buffalofloyd said:


> So, been using a CORSAIR Hydro Series H105 in conjunction with a 2700X for a couple years or so. I also have a CH8 Hero. I recently upgraded to a 5900X and on full load I get around 4.20ghz on all cores at 90-91c (PBO enabled), which is pretty hot. I haven't not been able to comb through the whole thread so I was hoping for some recommendations on upgrading my cooler.
> 
> I've heard good things about the ARCTIC Liquid Freezer II 240 and Noctua NH-U12A. Would it be an upgrade, or enough of an upgrade from my current cooler? I can only fit a max 240 rad at the top of my case, which is a Cooler Master HAF 932 I bought back in 2010. RAM clearance seems to be a concern with air coolers. I've only been using AIO coolers and have no experience with air coolers in my own system. If it matters I am using G.Skill 16GB (2 x 8GB) TridentZ Series DDR4 PC4-28800 3600MHz Intel Z170 Platform Desktop Memory F4-3600C15D-16GTZ.
> 
> Thank you in advance for any advice regarding these coolers.


Temperatures depend significantly on cpu core voltage. You can either optimize core voltage using curve optimizer or vcore offset, or instead, set the thermal limit to 85 C. You might find your benchmark scores stay almost the same as at 91 C.


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> I wouldn't score 648-651 is I were not getting real speeds
> View attachment 2488325


Cool! How has the impact to temperature been? I'm on 2.0, but wanting to subscribe to Yuri's Patreon if 2.1 RC5 works fine with the 3501 bios.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> Cool! How has the impact to temperature been? I'm on 2.0, but wanting to subscribe to Yuri's Patreon if 2.1 RC5 works fine with the 3501 bios.


Compared to my most recent and more extreme PBO+CO settings that scored similar to this CTR settings, I dropped almost 20C..yep, a huge difference but from previous less ambitious settings, around 12-15C so still big savings for me 
Of course if your PBO settings are more tuned for temps, your temp drop could be less dramatic.


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> Compared to my most recent and more extreme PBO+CO settings that scored similar to this CTR settings, I dropped almost 20C..yep, a huge difference but from previous less ambitious settings, around 12-15C so still big savings for me
> Of course if your PBO settings are more tuned for temps, your temp drop could be less dramatic.


Nice! I'm currently on TDC 200, PPT 140 and EDC 140 on PBO OC, I was already hitting whatever thermal limit I set (highest I've been is 95 C, but now on 85 C). I went back to PBO OC when I had issues with 3501, but I could not achieve what I had with CTR 2.0 RC5, both the clocks were lower and temperature was also higher with PBO OC.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> Nice! I'm currently on TDC 200, PPT 140 and EDC 140 on PBO OC, I was already hitting whatever thermal limit I set (highest I've been is 95 C, but now on 85 C). I went back to PBO OC when I had issues with 3501, but I could not achieve what I had with CTR 2.0 RC5, both the clocks were lower and temperature was also higher with PBO OC.


My issue with previous CTR until 2.1 RC5 was that I could achieve higher single and multi CB20s,for example, but real-world stuff would not be as good as with my PBO+CO. RC5 has changed that


----------



## Daniel Haynes

Hey guys... dumb question, but someone might know off the top of their head.

Did some changes to my system over the weekend which runs a big hardline custom loop. While upgrading my GPU I took the chance to add a thermal probe to my water loop which connects to the Water_In temp sensor point on the mobo. The idea being is that I wanted to control my case fan curves from the water temp rather than cpu temp.
Water_in temp shows up perfectly fine in bios.

However I'm using 9x corsair fans all controlled with a corsair commander pro fan controller. within iCue it lists a bunch of motherboard temps but just numbers them 1-6 or so (cant remember exactly how many are on there)... all the temps are very similar apart from the obvious CPU one which jumps around the most. .... ok so the question. Does anyone know what number the Water_in sensor would be showing as? anyone using icue to control their fans in the same way?


----------



## Sleepycat

Daniel Haynes said:


> Hey guys... dumb question, but someone might know off the top of their head.
> 
> Did some changes to my system over the weekend which runs a big hardline custom loop. While upgrading my GPU I took the chance to add a thermal probe to my water loop which connects to the Water_In temp sensor point on the mobo. The idea being is that I wanted to control my case fan curves from the water temp rather than cpu temp.
> Water_in temp shows up perfectly fine in bios.
> 
> However I'm using 9x corsair fans all controlled with a corsair commander pro fan controller. within iCue it lists a bunch of motherboard temps but just numbers them 1-6 or so (cant remember exactly how many are on there)... all the temps are very similar apart from the obvious CPU one which jumps around the most. .... ok so the question. Does anyone know what number the Water_in sensor would be showing as? anyone using icue to control their fans in the same way?


Surely at idle the water temp would show in the 30's ºC. Chipset would be 60, CPU would be jumping between 35 to 60 ºC. So look for the one that is stable in the 30's and that should be your water in temp.


----------



## Daniel Haynes

Sleepycat said:


> Surely at idle the water temp would show in the 30's ºC. Chipset would be 60, CPU would be jumping between 35 to 60 ºC. So look for the one that is stable in the 30's and that should be your water in temp.


Yes exactly.. however there are about 4+ other temps sensors showing similar numbers. I cant work out which one is actually the water_in temp only. The only obvious one is cpu which is number 2


----------



## Daniel Haynes

Just remote logged in to double check. 
Temp #2 is CPU
Temp #1 #3 and #4- are always about 39-42oC no idea what they correspond to.
Im thinking maybe Temp #5 might be water as its the lowest at 22oC - annoying I cant remember if that was there before i fitted the probe. Maybe i should just disconnect the temp probe and see if it changes (just super hard to get to the plug behind my vertical gpu and all the tubing. pair of tweezers will be required.


----------



## metalshark

Daniel Haynes said:


> Hey guys... dumb question, but someone might know off the top of their head.
> 
> Did some changes to my system over the weekend which runs a big hardline custom loop. While upgrading my GPU I took the chance to add a thermal probe to my water loop which connects to the Water_In temp sensor point on the mobo. The idea being is that I wanted to control my case fan curves from the water temp rather than cpu temp.
> Water_in temp shows up perfectly fine in bios.
> 
> However I'm using 9x corsair fans all controlled with a corsair commander pro fan controller. within iCue it lists a bunch of motherboard temps but just numbers them 1-6 or so (cant remember exactly how many are on there)... all the temps are very similar apart from the obvious CPU one which jumps around the most. .... ok so the question. Does anyone know what number the Water_in sensor would be showing as? anyone using icue to control their fans in the same way?


Personally use the onboard option and daisy chain the PWM signal between all fans. If you get stuck that works well and comes on at boot without requiring Windows software. If it helps I set fans to 50% at 32'C, 75% at 34'C and 100% at 36'C (temps for water).


----------



## Sleepycat

Daniel Haynes said:


> Just remote logged in to double check.
> Temp #2 is CPU
> Temp #1 #3 and #4- are always about 39-42oC no idea what they correspond to.
> Im thinking maybe Temp #5 might be water as its the lowest at 22oC - annoying I cant remember if that was there before i fitted the probe. Maybe i should just disconnect the temp probe and see if it changes (just super hard to get to the plug behind my vertical gpu and all the tubing. pair of tweezers will be required.


Another way is to put a constant multi-core full load on the CPU so that the water temp increases. I'm guessing 1, 3 and 4 might have something to do with your memory. Have you fired up HWInfo64 to see which parameter matches in reading to which temperature?


----------



## cloudconnected

Im right before burnout.

I ve got this kit 2 times








G.Skill Trident Z silber/rot DIMM Kit 16GB, DDR4-3200, CL14-14-14-34 ab € 103,90 (2023) | Preisvergleich Geizhals Deutschland


✔ Preisvergleich für G.Skill Trident Z silber/rot DIMM Kit 16GB, DDR4-3200, CL14-14-14-34 ✔ Bewertungen ✔ Produktinfo ⇒ Typ: DDR4 DIMM 288-Pin • Takt: 3200MHz • Module: 2x 8GB • JEDEC: PC4-25600U… ✔ Speicher ✔ Testberichte ✔ Günstig kaufen




geizhals.de





Till yester ive got an 5900x + hero wifi
I couldnt get them karhu stable with docp. 2 sticks either 4 it doesnt matter
i ve exchange kit through rma so there is no physical error.

The Sticks works perfectly on my fathers mobo msi tomahawk 450 b max with 4 sticks and docp.
But they are much cooler on his board 35°C

in my case they go up to 53°C .


Yesterday i upgraded to an 5950x and dark hero.

the error still exists.

Anyone some suggestions? would be very appreciated


----------



## Zogge

Same for me, docp does not work formula, 5950x and 4x8gb g.skill 4400 cl18. I can run them at 3800 cl 16 or 3600 cl 14, but 4000 wont boot in manual either. Docp and if I set them at 3200 still wont boot. For me docp looks broken.


----------



## Sleepycat

cloudconnected said:


> Im right before burnout.
> 
> I ve got this kit 2 times
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.Skill Trident Z silber/rot DIMM Kit 16GB, DDR4-3200, CL14-14-14-34 ab € 103,90 (2023) | Preisvergleich Geizhals Deutschland
> 
> 
> ✔ Preisvergleich für G.Skill Trident Z silber/rot DIMM Kit 16GB, DDR4-3200, CL14-14-14-34 ✔ Bewertungen ✔ Produktinfo ⇒ Typ: DDR4 DIMM 288-Pin • Takt: 3200MHz • Module: 2x 8GB • JEDEC: PC4-25600U… ✔ Speicher ✔ Testberichte ✔ Günstig kaufen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geizhals.de
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Till yester ive got an 5900x + hero wifi
> I couldnt get them karhu stable with docp. 2 sticks either 4 it doesnt matter
> i ve exchange kit through rma so there is no physical error.
> 
> The Sticks works perfectly on my fathers mobo msi tomahawk 450 b max with 4 sticks and docp.
> But they are much cooler on his board 35°C
> 
> in my case they go up to 53°C .
> 
> 
> Yesterday i upgraded to an 5950x and dark hero.
> 
> the error still exists.
> 
> Anyone some suggestions? would be very appreciated


Try blowing a fan at the RAM to see if lower temperatures solve the Karhu error. If it does, then you need to look at an additional fan. With a RAM slot cooler, I brought my temperatures down from 57 to 44C, and pass OCCT.


----------



## J7SC

I was doing a spot of Microsoft FS2020 (which uses several cores but always hammers one very hard) and was pleasantly surprised at the HWInfo below...Dark Hero is on stock settings, PBO enabled / auto (no custom values), with FMax.


----------



## bastian

Seriously stop using FMax with the new Ryzen CPUs. It makes your performance worse.


----------



## dyanikoglu

Imagine still using fmax in 2021..


----------



## J7SC

bastian said:


> Seriously stop using FMax with the new Ryzen CPUs. It makes your performance worse.





dyanikoglu said:


> Imagine still using fmax in 2021..


...'brilliant contributions'  . Really though, I just posted some per-core numbers in HWInfo for FS2020 and thought I lay out the bios settings used. I don't mind FMax on or off, but it was on in this case because I reverted back to an older bios profile after testing out some shiny new 4GHz memory sticks...


----------



## blunden

Has anyone else had trouble successfully POSTing with Power Down Mode disabled on the Dark Hero? Leaving it enabled I can boot just fine, but disabling it consistantly makes it fail to post. I would have expected posting with it disabled to be easier, not harder. 

The reason I'm messing with the setting is that my computer powered off and rebooted while idle last night, then apparently did it again soon after (which I noticed this morning). I found some people who had a similar problem where that ended up being the solution, and it would make sense since it seems to run perfectly fine during heavy load. Memory testing with TM5 using 1usmus's v2 config hasn't revealed anything so far, although I admittedly need to run it some more just to be sure. The reason why I didn't run it for longer is that my timings are still relatively loose (see screenshot below) and they worked perfectly fine with the same exact CPU and ram kit on my old Strix X370-F Gaming motherboard.


----------



## cloudconnected

The temperatures are not the Problem.
Of Friend of mine got the bdies on benchtable working 60°C +


----------



## jamie1073

Daniel Haynes said:


> Just remote logged in to double check.
> Temp #2 is CPU
> Temp #1 #3 and #4- are always about 39-42oC no idea what they correspond to.
> Im thinking maybe Temp #5 might be water as its the lowest at 22oC - annoying I cant remember if that was there before i fitted the probe. Maybe i should just disconnect the temp probe and see if it changes (just super hard to get to the plug behind my vertical gpu and all the tubing. pair of tweezers will be required.


Why not plug the temp sensor into the Commander Pro, say port 1. That is what I have mine in and then the commander pro controls the fans based on coolant temp. If coolant temp raises above a set level then the fans increase speed. Mine is set to 30c before the fans speed up. My coolant sits around 22-24c for now since the CPU is all that is in my loop. Waiting to get a new graphics card before I water cool the GPU, I can not get a block for my current one.


----------



## Sleepycat

blunden said:


> Has anyone else had trouble successfully POSTing with Power Down Mode disabled on the Dark Hero? Leaving it enabled I can boot just fine, but disabling it consistantly makes it fail to post. I would have expected posting with it disabled to be easier, not harder.
> 
> The reason I'm messing with the setting is that my computer powered off and rebooted while idle last night, then apparently did it again soon after (which I noticed this morning). I found some people who had a similar problem where that ended up being the solution, and it would make sense since it seems to run perfectly fine during heavy load. Memory testing with TM5 using 1usmus's v2 config hasn't revealed anything so far, although I admittedly need to run it some more just to be sure. The reason why I didn't run it for longer is that my timings are still relatively loose (see screenshot below) and they worked perfectly fine with the same exact CPU and ram kit on my old Strix X370-F Gaming motherboard.
> 
> View attachment 2488542


Idle reboots are because your CPU cores are not getting enough voltage when idle. You can fix it by either disabling DF C-states or by using a more positive curve optimiser value. 

You should be able to POST with Power Down mode disabled. Otherwise, some other setting is causing failures and power down mode seems to the little bit it needs to overcome the issue at POST.


----------



## blunden

Sleepycat said:


> Idle reboots are because your CPU cores are not getting enough voltage when idle. You can fix it by either disabling DF C-states or by using a more positive curve optimiser value.
> 
> You should be able to POST with Power Down mode disabled. Otherwise, some other setting is causing failures and power down mode seems to the little bit it needs to overcome the issue at POST.


 Yeah, that could be the issue I suppose. I should investigate that angle for sure. I'll start by adjusting the DF C-State as you suggested. It sounds like the difference in power consumption by disabling it should be minimal anyway.

I should probably clarify that this CPU is currently running completely stock, unless ASUS changed the default values for some of the settings compared to my old board. Also, note that this is a 3900X, which doesn't have curve optimizer support, but it still shouldn't be needed at stock unless ASUS messed up the default settings.  "Shouldn't" is not the same as "can't" though. 

Yes, that's what I figured too. I didn't think power down mode would make any difference during post or memory training though, especially not something that would improve stability.

EDIT: I disabled DF C-State and had just about opened up chrome after boot when it happened again. Instead, I tried changing the "Power Supply Idle Control" to "Typical current idle" to see if that will make a difference. I wonder why I never had to do that for my 1800X and current 3900X on the old motherboard though, if this setting turns out to make a difference.


----------



## GRABibus

blunden said:


> Yeah, that could be the issue I suppose. I should investigate that angle for sure. I'll start by adjusting the DF C-State as you suggested. It sounds like the difference in power consumption by disabling it should be minimal anyway.
> 
> I should probably clarify that this CPU is currently running completely stock, unless ASUS changed the default values for some of the settings compared to my old board. Also, note that this is a 3900X, which doesn't have curve optimizer support, but it still shouldn't be needed at stock unless ASUS messed up the default settings.  "Shouldn't" is not the same as "can't" though.
> 
> Yes, that's what I figured too. I didn't think power down mode would make any difference during post or memory training though, especially not something that would improve stability.
> 
> EDIT: I disabled DF C-State and had just about opened up chrome after boot when it happened again. Instead, I tried changing the "Power Supply Idle Control" to "Typical current idle" to see if that will make a difference. I wonder why I never had to do that for my 1800X and current 3900X on the old motherboard though, if this setting turns out to make a difference.


if those reboots occur at stock and if you have clear anything else (RAM, motherboard, etc....), then it means your CPU could be defective.









 Replaced 3950X with 5950X = WHEA and reboots


Since they "fixed it", it is clear now that AMD will never speak about this publicly. It doesn't mean that the AMD's customers that invested in early Zen3 samples bought a decent cpu!!! Once one will start to overclock the cpu, one will come to the rapid conclusion that the cpu is dull and...




www.overclock.net





You should check in windows event viewer (at system folder) which kind of error you get.

it should be WHEA with red alert.
You should see An « APIC ID » code number for the error.
This code number indicates which thread (and then which core) has failed.


----------



## blunden

GRABibus said:


> if those reboots occur at stock and if you have clear anything else (RAM, motherboard, etc....), then it means your CPU could be defective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Replaced 3950X with 5950X = WHEA and reboots
> 
> 
> Since they "fixed it", it is clear now that AMD will never speak about this publicly. It doesn't mean that the AMD's customers that invested in early Zen3 samples bought a decent cpu!!! Once one will start to overclock the cpu, one will come to the rapid conclusion that the cpu is dull and...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should check in windows event viewer (at system folder) which kind of error you get.
> 
> it should be WHEA with red alert.
> You should see An « APIC ID » code number for the error.
> This code number indicates which thread (and then which core) has failed.


 This CPU has been rock solid in my X370-F Gaming motherboard with the same RAM sticks since November 2019 so I highly doubt that the CPU is defective. You had no way of knowing that though. 

The only things I've upgraded are the motherboard and my GPU (RTX 3080 TUF OC). I don't see any WHEA errors in event viewer, only Kernel-Power events when the reboot happens (always when idling, never under load). It's worth noting that I normally let this computer run as a home server 24/7 apart from reboots due to OS updates. This is an entirely new issue, which leads me to believe it's a motherboard issue (either BIOS firmware or configuration).

It had rebooted again this morning btw. 

I am running a beta BIOS to get AGESA 1.2.0.2 though. I could try downgrading back to the previous one as AGESA 1.2.0.1 Patch A likely is good enough for now. Maybe they updated the SMU firmware or something in this latest beta release. Because I only upgraded to this motherboard last Sunday (I found myself needing more PCI-E bandwidth), I don't have any experience with earlier BIOS versions on this particular board or BIOSes for X570 in general.


----------



## Zogge

Another question. I have a m.2 4 drive card with active splitter from supermicro. In slot 1 and slot 3 it is found and working. Even with a converter I can find them in the x1 slot but pcie slot 2 refuse to find them. 
Gpu, lan card etc is found in slot 2. 

Anyone else seen anything or experienced something around this ? On latest beta bios also.

I have tried changing gen to 3.0 for the slot, setting it as hyper m.2 card raid etc but no luck for that slot to find the m.2 quad card.


----------



## Sleepycat

blunden said:


> EDIT: I disabled DF C-State and had just about opened up chrome after boot when it happened again. Instead, I tried changing the "Power Supply Idle Control" to "Typical current idle" to see if that will make a difference. I wonder why I never had to do that for my 1800X and current 3900X on the old motherboard though, if this setting turns out to make a difference.


If it spontaneously rebooted when you are trying to start Chrome immediately after booting, then your issue is not an idle reboot because you were not idle. 

What PSU are you using? Some models don't play nice with the RTX 3080.


----------



## Sleepycat

Zogge said:


> Another question. I have a m.2 4 drive card with active splitter from supermicro. In slot 1 and slot 3 it is found and working. Even with a converter I can find them in the x1 slot but pcie slot 2 refuse to find them.
> Gpu, lan card etc is found in slot 2.
> 
> Anyone else seen anything or experienced something around this ? On latest beta bios also.
> 
> I have tried changing gen to 3.0 for the slot, setting it as hyper m.2 card raid etc but no luck for that slot to find the m.2 quad card.


Edit: Oops, mistook that your card needed bifurcation. What is the minimum number of PCIe lanes that the card requires? It might be one that does not work if it does not see the minimum of lanes available to it.


----------



## blunden

Sleepycat said:


> If it spontaneously rebooted when you are trying to start Chrome immediately after booting, then your issue is not an idle reboot because you were not idle.
> 
> What PSU are you using? Some models don't play nice with the RTX 3080.


 It was not when starting Chrome, it was after everything had loaded and it was back down at idle or very low load.

Several of the reboots have happened at night when I'm asleep when the computer is definitely idle. Others have all happened during very low load scenarios.

It's a Corsair RM750x (the slightly longer v1 revision). I saw some forum thread where others reported success with this model and RTX 3080. I'm running two separate 8-pin cables from the PSU too, just in case. Were you thinking of the high power demand spikes that can trip the over-current protection etc. on some power supplies? I was under the impression that those generally happened under a heavier load.


----------



## Sleepycat

blunden said:


> It was not when starting Chrome, it was after everything had loaded and it was back down at idle or very low load.


The idle reboot should happen only when the PC goes to its low or lowest power state. That means not doing anything, likely not even moving the mouse. So observe what scenarios trigger the reboot.



blunden said:


> Several of the reboots have happened at night when I'm asleep when the computer is definitely idle. Others have all happened during very low load scenarios.


In my system, I previously did not experience any idle reboots, no WHEAs, even when I was getting errors with OCCT Extreme large. Then as part of my overclocking, I changed a setting which then caused idle reboots multiple times a day. This was changing my VDDG CCD from 1.05V down to 0.95V. Once I changed it back up to 1.05V, the idle reboots that I was experiencing stopped. My VDDG IOD is also at 1.05V. You could give this voltage a go to see if it helps.



blunden said:


> It's a Corsair RM750x (the slightly longer v1 revision). I saw some forum thread where others reported success with this model and RTX 3080. I'm running two separate 8-pin cables from the PSU too, just in case. Were you thinking of the high power demand spikes that can trip the over-current protection etc. on some power supplies? I was under the impression that those generally happened under a heavier load.


The RM750x is not one of those that have issues with the RTX3080. Was trying to think what could trigger your issues, given that the only changes you had were the RTX 3080 and the new bios. Do you run any RGB software like Corsair iCue?


----------



## Zogge

Sleepycat said:


> Edit: Oops, mistook that your card needed bifurcation. What is the minimum number of PCIe lanes that the card requires? It might be one that does not work if it does not see the minimum of lanes available to it.


It is a PCI 8x 3.0 but it worked in the PCI 1x slot with a converter (but with low throughput of course). I think it is more something with that slot. Why would it work in slot 1 in 8x mode when I put the GPU in PCI 2 otherwise ? 
I did mail asus too but usually forums like ours here is better to get help.

It is just so strange.


----------



## blunden

Sleepycat said:


> The idle reboot should happen only when the PC goes to its low or lowest power state. That means not doing anything, likely not even moving the mouse. So observe what scenarios trigger the reboot.


 Yes, I'll try to document what I'm doing when it reboots if I happen to be at the computer at the time. My thinking was that it could still drop to idle quickly, even just a split second when mouse movement stops because I'm reading something etc. It might also be a different issue though.



Sleepycat said:


> In my system, I previously did not experience any idle reboots, no WHEAs, even when I was getting errors with OCCT Extreme large. Then as part of my overclocking, I changed a setting which then caused idle reboots multiple times a day. This was changing my VDDG CCD from 1.05V down to 0.95V. Once I changed it back up to 1.05V, the idle reboots that I was experiencing stopped. My VDDG IOD is also at 1.05V. You could give this voltage a go to see if it helps.


 Interesting. According to ZenTimings, my VDDG IOD is at 1.0477V but I don't see a measurement for VDDG CCD. I haven't changed it from Auto yet but I can check in the BIOS what the motherboard has set it to. I'm not at home currently though but I can remote in to it to check software readings if necessary.



Sleepycat said:


> The RM750x is not one of those that have issues with the RTX3080. Was trying to think what could trigger your issues, given that the only changes you had were the RTX 3080 and the new bios. Do you run any RGB software like Corsair iCue?


 Yeah, it was reasonable to ask. The motherboard is also new. Motherboard and RTX 3080. I've only tried the latest BIOS on it. I suppose actual use of PCI-E 4.0 is also new.

No, no RGB software installed or running.


----------



## Timur Born

"Power Supply Idle Control" to "Typical current idle" is said to have fixed Ryzen idle stability problems in the past. Does the Asus board allow to disable the C6 (six) C-state or only disable C-states globally (like my MSI board does)?


----------



## Sleepycat

Timur Born said:


> "Power Supply Idle Control" to "Typical current idle" is said to have fixed Ryzen idle stability problems in the past. Does the Asus board allow to disable the C6 (six) C-state or only disable C-states globally (like my MSI board does)?


Yes, there are two settings. First is Global C-states, and second is DF Cstates. The second one should disable the lowest power state.


----------



## domdtxdissar

New CTR release and new clocks, these are hopefully my new 24/7 settings, atleast 5x IBT very high AVX workload stable.
Playing around with the overboost now, behaving just like PBO CO.. Too high value and the cpu is not stable in idle/light workloads

Threadscaling in Cinebench r20

CTR 2.1 RC5 v18.
Latest bios 3501 for these runs, which i did all back-to-back (could gain a few points with restarts between runs)

1 thread = 662 points
2 threads = 1309 points
4 threads = 2544 points
6 threads = 3796 points
8 threads = 4991 points
10 threads = 6083 points
12 threads = 7212 points
14 threads = 8139 points
16 threads = 8708 points
20 threads = 9400 points
24 threads = 10183 points
28 threads = 11123 points
32 threads = 12158 points
LLC4 = upto 2% vdroop

PX high = from 1 to 2 threads @ 5025mhz
PX mid = from 3 to 4 threads @ 4900mhz
PX low = from 5 to 9 threads @ 4825mhz
P2 = from 10 to 24 threads @ 4800/4675mhz
P1 = from 25 to 32 threads @ 4750/4625mhz



> PBO CO benchmode: (ambient ~ 20 degrees)
> Bios 3003, which have the best PBO CO boosting behavior of all asus bioses
> 
> 1 thread = 662 points
> 2 threads = 1303 points
> 4 threads = 2444 points
> 6 threads = 3706 points
> 8 threads = 4887 points
> 10 threads = 5974 points
> 12 threads = 7022 points
> 14 threads = 7906 points
> 16 threads = 8645 points
> 20 threads = 9583 points
> ...seems like i didn't save 24 thread screenshot, but 105xx score
> 32 threads = 12238 points
> CTR 2.04 hotfix: (ambient ~ 24 degrees)
> Bios 3003, but dont matter since using CTR
> 
> 1 thread = 652 points
> 2 threads = 1295 points
> 4 threads = 2525 points
> 6 threads = 3752 points
> 8 threads = 4979 points
> 10 threads = 6016 points
> 12 threads = 7171 points
> 14 threads = 8287 points
> 16 threads = 8831 points
> 20 threads = 9539 points
> 24 threads = 10217 points
> 28 threads = 11117 points
> 32 threads = 12032 points
> Results from CTR 2.1 RC5
> Latest bios 3501 for these runs, which i did all back-to-back (could gain a few points with restarts between runs)
> 
> 1 thread = 668 points
> 2 threads = 1302 points
> 4 threads = 2528 points
> 6 threads = 3800 points
> 8 threads = 4999 points
> 10 threads = 6081 points
> 12 threads = 7187 points
> 14 threads = 8185 points
> 16 threads = 8963 points
> 20 threads = 9540 points
> 24 threads = 10031 points
> 28 threads = 11044 points
> 32 threads = 12064 points













Screenshots @


http://imgur.com/a/rIDGapf


----------



## blunden

Timur Born said:


> "Power Supply Idle Control" to "Typical current idle" is said to have fixed Ryzen idle stability problems in the past. Does the Asus board allow to disable the C6 (six) C-state or only disable C-states globally (like my MSI board does)?


 Yes. Neither Power Supply Idle Control nor DF Cstates seems to have made any difference in my case though, sadly.

@Sleepycat Do you have a good way to read the VDDG CCD voltage via software on your board? I would assume it would be similar to the Dark Hero in that regard. I didn't see it in hwinfo or Ryzen Master either (unless it's called something else), although I haven't checked if I'm actually running the latest version of Ryzen Master.


----------



## PJVol

Sleepycat said:


> Yes, there are two settings. First is Global C-states, and second is DF Cstates. The second one should disable the lowest power state.


Afaik, DF C-states is Data Fabric c-states, and based on my little experience turning it off have a little sense.

@blunden
I've got those idle reboots with first zen2/zen3 combo agesa bios (something like 1.0.0.2 or 8) . In my case, raising vddg to 1.06 helped, though it didn't happen anymore since 1.1.0.0 patch D


----------



## blunden

PJVol said:


> Afaik, DF C-states is Data Fabric c-states, and based on my little experience turning it off have a little sense.
> 
> @blunden
> I've got those idle reboots with first zen2/zen3 combo agesa bios (something like 1.0.0.2 or 8) . In my case, raising vddg to 1.06 helped, though it didn't happen anymore since 1.1.0.0 patch D


 Interesting. Are you talking about VDDG CCD, VDDG IOD or CLDO VDDG? 

This is with AGESA 1.2.0.2. I'm considering downgrading to the latest stable BIOS which is based on AGESA 1.2.0.1 Patch A, if people think there might be a noticable difference in stability?


----------



## PJVol

blunden said:


> Are you talking about VDDG CCD, VDDG IOD or CLDO VDDG?


Yeah, sorry, omitted IOD  The funny thing is I first encountered this issue with 3600x on b550, which was rock stable on x370 taichi before. I'm 100% sure this was related to 3rd gen transition code changes. After it was somehow fixed, reboots no longer occured even on freshly installed 5600x.
As for bios, considering there may be board specific issues, 1.2.0.2 is worth updating for me.


----------



## lmfodor

Hi , I would like to know if any of you are using any High Performance Plan by BIOS. Some time ago I read a post from 1Usmus that recommended certain parameters in the BIOS and since I am optimizing my memory overclocking I would like to know if any of these parameters could help. Among them I had set these options:


*Global C-state Control = Enabled* (Advanced\AMD CBS). I set ti to disable to prevent Reboots under idle. However I was reading that rising IOD Voltage above 1.05V would prevent reboots. Is that right? 
*DF CStates = Disabled* (Advanced\AMD CBS\NBIO Common Options\SMU Common Options\DF Cstates = Disabled)
This setting does not allow for Infinity Fabric to go to a low-power state when the processor has entered Cx states..
*PPC Adjustment = PState 0*. Two settings below:
(Advanced\AMD CBS\NBIO Common Options\SMU Common Options\*APBDIS = 1
AND*
(Advanced\AMD CBS\NBIO Common Options\SMU Common Options\*Fixed SOC Pstate = P0*)
4. *CPPC = Enabled* (Advanced\AMD CBS\NBIO Common Options\SMU Common Options)
5. C*PPC Preferred Cores = Enabled* (Advanced\AMD CBS\NBIO Common Options\SMU Common Options)
6. P*ower Supply Idle Control = Low Current Idle* (Advanced\AMD CBS\CPU Common Options) Here I had set it to "Typical Power Idle" however it suggest Low Current, do you know what would be better?
PBO: *Enable Precision Boost Overdrive* in UEFI BIOS. Allow it to run from the BIOS/Motherboard control. This is much easier than setting in AMD Ryzen Master manually in Windows; just enable these BIOS Options and don't mess with Ryzen Master in Windows except to experiment. PBO: Ai Tweaker or Extreme Tweaker on Asus mobo's\Precision Boost Overdrive, Accept\Precision Boost Overdrive = Enabled; Advanced\AMD Overclocking, Accept\Precision Boost Overdrive = Enabled, . PBO: Advanced\AMD CBS\NBIO Common Options, Accept\XFR Enhancement, Accept\ Precision Boost Overdrive = Enabled. Does it necessary to enable in all of the BIOS options? I only set it on Advanced Overclokng. All the rest values I leave in AUTO
 *PBO FMax Enhancer:* Ai Tweaker or Extreme Tweaker on Asus mobo's\Precision Boost Overdrive, Accept\PBO Fmax Enhancer = Enabled ****Many people report they get better results with this option set it to DISABLED. Try it both ways to see which gives the better score It appears to not be needed (set to Disable) on Ryzen 5000/Zen 3 CPU's and effects scores negatively.. (I set to Disable) *
And also enable to improve L3 Cache, but it is not improving it much, it should be above 650GB / s flat with 10.4 sec latency

"SOC Uncore = Enable"
cTDP = 400
Package Power Liimit 400 (CBS-SMU)
Then DPM LCLK to 2-1-1-1-2-1-1-1
And also Enabled PMU Training until Phy Configuration (CBS\DDR4 Common Options); DFE, FFE both enabled ad PMU Pattern Bits Control to "A"
And also disable SB Clock Spread Spectrum, and set VTTDDR Voltage = VDIMM /2 . What I dont know what is VPP_MEM

All of this to have a @high performance power plan. Maybe some settings would be an overkill.

And I take the opportunity to validate if my External DIGI + Power Control are fine, I set it to:

Voltage Monitor = Die Sense
CPU LLC Auto (I know Level 3 woud be better, but If I leave to Auto I got a better CB Score, maybe it rise automatically to Level 4
CPU Current Capabiliy to 120%
CPU VRM Switching Freq to Manual and I set 500 KHz
CPU Power Duty Control = T. Probe
CPU: Pwer Phase Control to Optimizd
CPU Power thermal Control to 120
VDDSOC LLC = Level 4
VDDSCO Switching Freq to 500 also
VDDSOC: Power Phase Response and Manual Adjustment to FAST and
DRAM Current Capability 110%
DRAM Power Phase Control = Leave it as Extreme
DRAM Switching Freq Manual Fix it to 300.
Would it be right for MEM OC?

For some reason my CH8 Wifi can´t achieve a good memory OC as the Dark Hero. I had de opportunity to test a member settings, exact sae values, with almost the same processor (I have a 5900x and he has 5950x), and the same Memory Kit GSkill Tridenz Neo 3800CL14 2x16 Dual Rank. For some reason the new mobos seems to be more easy to get a mem OC that mine. I was try it almost all settings, back to default values, starting from scratch, leave several settings on AUTO.. So, instead of swaping the board for te Dark I wonder I some of this settings might be affecting my mem OC.

Could my PBO Settings + Curve Optimizer impact in Mem OC? I also set to default, just enable it, and other test was to set only PBO Limits to motherboard.. and then I left with my best tight value that is *300/235/400* with CO* -28 -26 -26 -28 -25* (my best 1st core), *-24 *(my 2nd best core), then CCD2, *-28, -25- 24 -28 - 30 -30* with +100 Boost Clock Override.. I´m not using scalar. I read that it might degrade the CPU with some spikes.. and Platform Thermal Throttle Limit to 85. I think I would try set to All Core negative to -24 that is my lowest curve value, maybe the PBO algorithm perform better that setting per core values, and perhaps I should add a little + VCore Offset. My default CPU Core Voltage is around 1.425~1457.

I hope you can advise me if these values are you using , if some would be overkill or I should adjust some of them, and if you have any other recommendation about the values of my PBO, maybe I could try All Cores but my question is how much the Offset value would be. I know that much voltage is not good.

Thanks!


----------



## butt_yodel

Hi guys,

I can't get Ryzen CTR to work properly. When I hit the "Diagnostic" button, CB20 runs in the foreground, finishes & closes, but doesn't send the score to CTR. CTR gets stuck at "running CB20". Anyone else?
Maybe related: Cannot close CTR without acknowledging a long error code (unhandled exception).


----------



## lmfodor

butt_yodel said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> I can't get Ryzen CTR to work properly. When I hit the "Diagnostic" button, CB20 runs in the foreground, finishes & closes, but doesn't send the score to CTR. CTR gets stuck at "running CB20". Anyone else?
> Maybe related: Cannot close CTR without acknowledging a long error code (unhandled exception).


Yes, the same thing happened to me. Although I do not use it, I tried it last night to see what result it gave me and I started from scratch. In addition to enabling CPPC, Preferred Cores, and the rest in settings in Auto. In downloaded CTR again, lower CB20 and paste the content into the CB20 folder, and execute CTR with run as administrator. Select dignostics and the first time it run CB20 and then it asked me for permission to run the application as admin .. I chose yes and do not aska agai. The error, in my case, was not having executed CTR with Run As Admin ... and it worked perfect. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## butt_yodel

lmfodor said:


> Yes, the same thing happened to me. Although I do not use it, I tried it last night to see what result it gave me and I started from scratch. In addition to enabling CPPC, Preferred Cores, and the rest in settings in Auto. In downloaded CTR again, lower CB20 and paste the content into the CB20 folder, and execute CTR with run as administrator. Select dignostics and the first time it run CB20 and then it asked me for permission to run the application as admin .. I chose yes and do not aska agai. The error, in my case, was not having executed CTR with Run As Admin ... and it worked perfect.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


 No luck for me with setting CTR and CB to run as administrator. Blaming new BIOS/AGESA version for now


----------



## Lobstar

domdtxdissar said:


> <Voodoo Magic>


So, are you just putting **** into CTR or did you run Diagnostics and have it actually spit that out? Because I've used the last I-don't-even-know how many versions and it's always spitting out useless **** like this: (5950x, Dark Hero, 2.1 Ver 18, all bios settings set according to the Big Guide)


----------



## jomama22

Lobstar said:


> So, are you just putting *** into CTR or did you run Diagnostics and have it actually spit that out? Because I've used the last I-don't-even-know how many versions and it's always spitting out useless *** like this: (5950x, Dark Hero, 2.1 Ver 18, all bios settings set according to the Big Guide)
> View attachment 2488836


Just diagnostic first (I would disable OB calc for now in the tuner) then it will put the bs in your profiles. Then you can change your profiles to whatever you want. Save them, then activate them in order p1->p2->px.

Im just messing with it now and use it as an oc tool. Ignore all the auto oc crap. 

You can use the OB stuff yourself after you set the clocks and voltages you want. Just easier that way.


----------



## Darokka

shaolin95 said:


> Still tweaking with 2.1 RC5 but with the much lower temps already, I am very happy.
> I plan to max out each speed but is a slow process to make sure all I use is stable before I push more. Already at a great point so I can take my time
> View attachment 2488241


Hello fellow Patreon 😊
I was wondering if you mind sharing your bios settings if you changed anything else apart from Yuris guide.

Thanks and keep on tweaking 👍


----------



## Sleepycat

Lobstar said:


> So, are you just putting *** into CTR or did you run Diagnostics and have it actually spit that out? Because I've used the last I-don't-even-know how many versions and it's always spitting out useless *** like this: (5950x, Dark Hero, 2.1 Ver 18, all bios settings set according to the Big Guide)
> View attachment 2488836


I just use diagnostics as a starting point. It is all about tune button. The tune button will give you a value with some penalty, I look at that and compare to the last highest test achieved without failing. Here is my 5900X set for lower temperature:


----------



## domdtxdissar

Lobstar said:


> So, are you just putting *** into CTR or did you run Diagnostics and have it actually spit that out? Because I've used the last I-don't-even-know how many versions and it's always spitting out useless *** like this: (5950x, Dark Hero, 2.1 Ver 18, all bios settings set according to the Big Guide)
> View attachment 2488836


I input the voltages and run diagnostics first to check what CTR thinks, before i start tweaking/upping the values by myself..
Do notice that i run much higher voltages than you since i dont care all that much about performance/watt and my cooling can handle sustained 300 watt workloads.

You can try to input these values and run diagnostics again:
PX high = 1450-1475 (default is 1500)
PX mid = 1400-1450 (good cooling is needed)
PX low = 1425-1375 (good cooling is needed)
PX2 = 1300-1350
PX1 = 1250-1275

These are some data i record like 1 month ago that you can use for comparison:


> 1 thread @ 5050mhz -> 1475mv set = 1475mv get -> ~58 Tctl/Tdie temp
> 2 thread @ 5050mhz -> 1475mv set = 1475mv get -> ~63 Tctl/Tdie temp
> 4 thread @ 4950mhz -> 1450mv set = 1444mv get -> ~74 Tctl/Tdie temp
> 6 thread @ 4900mhz-> 1435mv set = 1431mv get -> ~72 Tctl/Tdie temp
> 8 thread @ 4900mhz -> 1435mv set = 1425mv get -> ~74 Tctl/Tdie temp
> 10 threads @ 4800/4675mhz -> 1350mv set = 1337mv get -> ~65 Tctl/Tdie temp
> 12 threads @ 4800/4675mhz -> 1350mv set = 1331mv get -> ~67 Tctl/Tdie temp
> 14 threads @ 4800/4675mhz -> 1350mv set = 1331mv get -> ~68 Tctl/Tdie temp
> 16 threads @ 4800/4675mhz -> 1350mv set = 1331mv get -> ~71 Tctl/Tdie temp
> 20 threads @ 4800/4675mhz -> 1350mv set = 1325mv get -> ~76 Tctl/Tdie temp
> 24 threads @ 4700/4600mhz -> 1275mv set = 1256mv get -> ~70 Tctl/Tdie temp
> 28 threads @ 4700/4600mhz -> 1275mv set = 1250mv get -> ~71 Tctl/Tdie temp
> 32 threads @ 4700/4600mhz -> 1275mv set = 1250mv get -> ~72 Tctl/Tdie temp


@ *jomama22








*
That was 100% maxed with cold air and lots of runs before i managed to reach that 300 CPU game fps @ lowest


----------



## blunden

Sleepycat said:


> Then as part of my overclocking, I changed a setting which then caused idle reboots multiple times a day. This was changing my VDDG CCD from 1.05V down to 0.95V. Once I changed it back up to 1.05V, the idle reboots that I was experiencing stopped. My VDDG IOD is also at 1.05V. You could give this voltage a go to see if it helps.


 I had a chance to try setting VDDG CCD and VDDG IOD to 1.05V (and SOC voltage set to 1.1V as I read that you generally want those VDDG values 50mV below the SOC voltage) but that caused the board to fail to post. It wouldn't even boot to safe mode when I pushed that button unless I flipped the switch on the power supply off and on again. I did however manage to boot with Power Down mode disabled but the computer rebooted soon after.

Something that might be interesting is that I managed to get the computer to work all weekend while I was away by looping an mp3 constantly (speaker off, of course). As soon as I was back to tinkering with BIOS values I got a reboot again within a few minutes. This is starting to become really frustrating.


----------



## J7SC

...ran locked multi-core only once before (at 4650) on this 5960X / Dark Hero combo, but had another go at it today after watching the number of 5 GHz natural core settings recently  ...this is straight forward 'old school' oc for now: Simple bios m-core multiplier and v-core settings, nothing else (no differential CCX yet, no curve, no CTR). All other bios settings on 'default', apart from VRAM / IF and relevant v-core....ambient temp was around 18 C.

...so I did all-core 4675, 4700 and 4750 for Cine today (and one CPUz stress). Given the number of cores that go to 5 GHz and beyond on their own in this setup, there's more headroom, but today, I was really trying to find the min v-core. 1.31250 for up to 4700 MHz 16c/32t, 1.331 for 4750 MHz 16c/32t (all before droop). Also, as you all know, as v-core and amps go up, temps go up also and boost algorithms get all cranky, so I don't expect a linear relationship when I approach the higher GHz down the line for the next session...


----------



## Sleepycat

blunden said:


> I had a chance to try setting VDDG CCD and VDDG IOD to 1.05V (and SOC voltage set to 1.1V as I read that you generally want those VDDG values 50mV below the SOC voltage) but that caused the board to fail to post. It wouldn't even boot to safe mode when I pushed that button unless I flipped the switch on the power supply off and on again. I did however manage to boot with Power Down mode disabled but the computer rebooted soon after.
> 
> Something that might be interesting is that I managed to get the computer to work all weekend while I was away by looping an mp3 constantly (speaker off, of course). As soon as I was back to tinkering with BIOS values I got a reboot again within a few minutes. This is starting to become really frustrating.


Can you check event viewer when you have a reboot on what type of error occurred. There is another type which also causes an idle reboot, which is the WHEA 18 Cache Hierarchy Error. That will also give you an APIC ID, which is the thread number, indicating a core which has triggered the error. You can use to adjust the right core in curve optimiser.


----------



## blunden

Sleepycat said:


> Can you check event viewer when you have a reboot on what type of error occurred. There is another type which also causes an idle reboot, which is the WHEA 18 Cache Hierarchy Error. That will also give you an APIC ID, which is the thread number, indicating a core which has triggered the error. You can use to adjust the right core in curve optimiser.


 What I'm consistently getting in Event Viewer is a Kernel-Power event 41 with all the event data being zeros and false. I've also just found some WHEA event 19 warnings, although these don't seem to be generated at the same time as the Kernel-Power events (it can be 25 minutes or more before the reboot).



Code:


A corrected hardware error has occurred.
Reported by component: Processor Core
Error Source: Unknown Error Source
Error Type: Bus/Interconnect Error
Processor APIC ID: 0

ErrorSource 0
  ApicId 0
  MCABank 25
  MciStat 0x98004000003e0000
  MciAddr 0x0
  MciMisc 0xd01a0ffe00000000
  ErrorType 0
  TransactionType 256
  Participation 256
  RequestType 256
  MemorIO 256
  MemHierarchyLvl 256
  Timeout 256
  OperationType 256
  Channel 256
  Length 872

Note that I'm using a 3900X without Curve Optimizer support (as far as I know).


----------



## Sleepycat

blunden said:


> What I'm consistently getting in Event Viewer is a Kernel-Power event 41 with all the event data being zeros and false. I've also just found some WHEA event 19 warnings, although these don't seem to be generated at the same time as the Kernel-Power events (it can be 25 minutes or more before the reboot).
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> A corrected hardware error has occurred.
> Reported by component: Processor Core
> Error Source: Unknown Error Source
> Error Type: Bus/Interconnect Error
> Processor APIC ID: 0
> 
> ErrorSource 0
> ApicId 0
> MCABank 25
> MciStat 0x98004000003e0000
> MciAddr 0x0
> MciMisc 0xd01a0ffe00000000
> ErrorType 0
> TransactionType 256
> Participation 256
> RequestType 256
> MemorIO 256
> MemHierarchyLvl 256
> Timeout 256
> OperationType 256
> Channel 256
> Length 872
> 
> Note that I'm using a 3900X without Curve Optimizer support (as far as I know).


The Kernel 41's timestamp will be when your computer restarts, but check maybe 10 seconds after the Event 41 in the event viewer to see if there is a retrospective Event 18 logged as well.


----------



## Lobstar

domdtxdissar said:


> <buncha posty stuff>


Ah, I think you misunderstood. I keep hearing that this CTR is an excellent tool for evaluating an overclock but the only way people seem to use it is as a fancy way to adjust voltages for their specified overclock. I keep trying to point this out in the discord since it's advertised the way I'm expecting it but all the nerds keep telling me I'm just not doing it right. Like you, I couldn't care less what my power efficiency is so I'm just living with normal-assed PBO and my manual overclock using the tools our lord and savior Asus hath provided in the Darkest of Heroes.


----------



## Moutsatsos

I just got the goods.Which bios do you recommend to flash to the mobo?The latest on site is 3501.Is it buggy or I better use another?


----------



## Sam64

3501 is still Beta, but runs fine and has got newest Agesa (1202). It's running here for weeks without any issues.


----------



## Sleepycat

Lobstar said:


> So, are you just putting *** into CTR or did you run Diagnostics and have it actually spit that out? Because I've used the last I-don't-even-know how many versions and it's always spitting out useless *** like this: (5950x, Dark Hero, 2.1 Ver 18, all bios settings set according to the Big Guide)
> View attachment 2488836


Also, CTR is giving you crappy recommendations because it doesn't really explain that you have to enter your own reference voltage. I don't think many guides explain this. I start by entering a reference voltage of 1275 mV and reference frequency of 4600 MHz. This starts the tuning in the 1275 mV range. If you leave it at 1100 mV, then it doesn't calculate in the right range.


----------



## jomama22

domdtxdissar said:


> I input the voltages and run diagnostics first to check what CTR thinks, before i start tweaking/upping the values by myself..
> Do notice that i run much higher voltages than you since i dont care all that much about performance/watt and my cooling can handle sustained 300 watt workloads.
> 
> You can try to input these values and run diagnostics again:
> PX high = 1450-1475 (default is 1500)
> PX mid = 1400-1450 (good cooling is needed)
> PX low = 1425-1375 (good cooling is needed)
> PX2 = 1300-1350
> PX1 = 1250-1275
> 
> These are some data i record like 1 month ago that you can use for comparison:
> 
> 
> @ *jomama22
> View attachment 2488994
> 
> *
> That was 100% maxed with cold air and lots of runs before i managed to reach that 300 CPU game fps @ lowest


Yeah, I had heard you talk about it in the past! What all core clocks are you running for that 300? I can get up to 290 with 4.8ghz but havnt really been messing with it since then, just been playing RDR2 constantly lmao.

Also, I'll have to post scores for the short time I messed with ctr, have them saved on the pc but not there atm. I didn't take screenshots so you'll have to take my word for them lol. Couldn't really get single core to cooperate that well for me for whatever reason, though it more or less matched pbo. All other thread counts were 1-3% higher than pbo though (with more heat obviously lol).

For games, I just didn't really see any advantage at all. Seems any game that actually knows how to use lots of threads just doesn't work well at all with ctr. Granted, you can just lock P2 to be used, but here's a screenshot of when leaving the 'cpu usage' at 27% and 81% for p2 and p1 (with px enabled):









You can see how jagged those cpu curves are compared to the smoothness of PBO. I actually got better results with pbo as well (with the same ctr settings that beat PBO by 1-3% in r20). The profile switching just murders the consistency.

Also noticed quite the increase in aida memory latency by about .7-.8 ns using ctr as well.

I guess it's fun for messing about with but if you have the cooling, don't care about power consumption, and can set up PBO/CO well, then It's really just not worth it to me.


----------



## jomama22

Lobstar said:


> Ah, I think you misunderstood. I keep hearing that this CTR is an excellent tool for evaluating an overclock but the only way people seem to use it is as a fancy way to adjust voltages for their specified overclock. I keep trying to point this out in the discord since it's advertised the way I'm expecting it but all the nerds keep telling me I'm just not doing it right. Like you, I couldn't care less what my power efficiency is so I'm just living with normal-assed PBO and my manual overclock using the tools our lord and savior Asus hath provided in the Darkest of Heroes.
> View attachment 2489018


Again, just read my post. You HAVE TO run a diagnostic for it to allow you to actually create your own custom profiles. So in the tuner tab select 'advanced' from the drop down menu, set ppt/tdc/edc to like 400 or w.e, run a diagnostic (switch off OB testing or w.e. it's called in the 'tuner' menu) , it will put it's w.e. values into the profiles, then you can put in w.e. voltages and clocks you want into each profile, save them, then activate them in order p1>p2>p3.

You don't have to use 'tune' or any crap like that, you can use it just as a bare bones OC tool where you set the voltages and clocks you want for whatever cpu usage you want. Px profiles for the 5950x will be: high =1-2 cores, mid =3-4 cores, low = 5-8/9 cores (depends what cpu usage% you set p2 activate on).

Any change you make to the profiles, you will have to deactivate, save, then reactive it to take effect.

That's it.


----------



## domdtxdissar

jomama22 said:


> Yeah, I had heard you talk about it in the past! What all core clocks are you running for that 300? I can get up to 290 with 4.8ghz but havnt really been messing with it since then, just been playing RDR2 constantly lmao.
> 
> Also, I'll have to post scores for the short time I messed with ctr, have them saved on the pc but not there atm. I didn't take screenshots so you'll have to take my word for them lol. Couldn't really get single core to cooperate that well for me for whatever reason, though it more or less matched pbo. All other thread counts were 1-3% higher than pbo though (with more heat obviously lol).
> 
> For games, I just didn't really see any advantage at all. Seems any game that actually knows how to use lots of threads just doesn't work well at all with ctr. Granted, you can just lock P2 to be used, but here's a screenshot of when leaving the 'cpu usage' at 27% and 81% for p2 and p1 (with px enabled):
> View attachment 2489040
> 
> 
> You can see how jagged those cpu curves are compared to the smoothness of PBO. I actually got better results with pbo as well (with the same ctr settings that beat PBO by 1-3% in r20). The profile switching just murders the consistency.
> 
> Also noticed quite the increase in aida memory latency by about .7-.8 ns using ctr as well.
> 
> I guess it's fun for messing about with but if you have the cooling, don't care about power consumption, and can set up PBO/CO well, then It's really just not worth it to me.


I have noticed this problem before, but with the build19 alpha i'm currently using it dont seem to happen.
Screenshot below is taken after almost 48 hours uptime without closing other programs and with everyday CTR settings. (taken while writing this post)






















_edit_
This is from a earlier CTR build (2.1 rc5 build18) where it did happen:


----------



## shaolin95

jomama22 said:


> Also noticed quite the increase in aida memory latency by about .7-.8 ns using ctr as well.


Interesting, for me 2.1 RC5 did the opposite, dropped my latency which was normally 60.x to 61 down to 57-58


----------



## J7SC

For those folks who run the Asus Dark and a 5950X with auto PBO and dynamic OC, what LLC do you recommend ? I'm currently on auto LLC after testing whether this was an acceptable setting re. voltage (Asus in the past had some pretty crazy voltages on other gen boards). I'm up to 4750 MHz all-core and w/ droop it ends up around an indicated 1.28x v +- though w/o voltage probes can't really be sure.

A somewhat related question concerns the Amps setting in Dark Hero / dynamic OC for the switch over...I started with 45, which is what DerBauer had in his demo on this, but now moved it up to 55 with the latest 4750 all-core (both CCX). What's a safe max Amps setting for a system that has very good cooling for heavy loads such as CineR20/23 ?


----------



## Lobstar

jomama22 said:


> Again, just read my post. You HAVE TO run a diagnostic for it to allow you to actually create your own custom profiles.


You miss my point. Yuri advertises this snake oil as THE tool to find your overclock. Not an alternate to PBO. All of the instructions and big guide continue this mind set. Then you discuss it with people ACTUALLY trying to use it and they are all "yeah, forget that **** it doesn't work".


----------



## shaolin95

deleted


----------



## blunden

Sleepycat said:


> The Kernel 41's timestamp will be when your computer restarts, but check maybe 10 seconds after the Event 41 in the event viewer to see if there is a retrospective Event 18 logged as well.


 Hmm, I don't see any WHEA event 18 warnings in the log surrounding the Kernel-Power event 41. I'll dig around some more later when I'm at the computer. I didn't see any when remotely accessing it from my phone though.

Not to jinx it, but I made some changes to drive strength values (from 24, 20, 20, 24 to Auto which resulted in 24, 24, 24, 24), raised the tRFC from 345 to 351 and let the board calculate tRFC2 and tRFC4 last night. I also set vSOC and the VDDG voltages back to Auto (in order to get it to reliably boot at least). So far, it hasn't rebooted during the night or during the day today.  I'm still keeping my expectations low though and won't consider it fixed until at least a week of mixed use (mostly low load or idle) without any reboots, and then scaling up from there.

Your help has been much appreciated so far btw. I'll still dig through the logs when I have a chance to follow up your suggestions. 

EDIT: No new WHEA event 18 events and no new reboots so far. I'm still evaluating though, keeping my expectation purposefully low.


----------



## jomama22

Lobstar said:


> You miss my point. Yuri advertises this snake oil as THE tool to find your overclock. Not an alternate to PBO. All of the instructions and big guide continue this mind set. Then you discuss it with people ACTUALLY trying to use it and they are all "yeah, forget that **** it doesn't work".


I mean, just ignore that chatter then? What people claim about it doesn't really matter. It's aimed at those that really aren't exactly used to do much overclocking and it gives them some sort of ballpark overclock that can be run at some predefined voltages.

If people want to drink the koolaid, let them, has no barring on you.

Whether you get good OCs or not out of it really doesn't matter if you are just looking to use it as a manual OC tool anyway.



domdtxdissar said:


> I have noticed this problem before, but with the build19 alpha i'm currently using it dont seem to happen.
> Screenshot below is taken after almost 48 hours uptime without closing other programs and with everyday CTR settings. (taken while writing this post)
> View attachment 2489047
> 
> View attachment 2489048
> View attachment 2489050
> 
> 
> _edit_
> This is from a earlier CTR build (2.1 rc5 build18) where it did happen:
> View attachment 2489051


Maybe I'll give it another go down the line. I was testing using v17. I have also been staying on bios 3003 so I suppose that may have somthing to do with it. Who knows. 

With the newest bios, you still get that memory latency drop in aida compared to 3003? Ever since that (and the nurfed pbo) I haven't moved from 3003.


----------



## domdtxdissar

jomama22 said:


> With the newest bios, you still get that memory latency drop in aida compared to 3003? Ever since that (and the nurfed pbo) I haven't moved from 3003.


Newest bios have like +0.8ns compared to 3003.


----------



## Gryzor

Hi,
I would like to know what bios version is recommended, specially thinking about performance and stability. I have problems with curve values with 3003 version (most of them, I cannot put more than -5 in some cores). Are these settings improved with newer bioses? Do you know some benchmarks between bios updates / aegesa patch?

Currently with 3003 I don´t have wheas errores, rebootings, etc... and mimal usb problems (only with my VR I recieve some "signal loss", time to time, so I have to put PCI settings on V3).

Many thanks.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Gryzor said:


> Hi,
> I would like to know what bios version is recommended, specially thinking about performance and stability. I have problems with curve values with 3003 version (most of them, I cannot put more than -5 in some cores). Are these settings improved with newer bioses? Do you know some benchmarks between bios updates / aegesa patch?
> 
> Currently with 3003 I don´t have wheas errores, rebootings, etc... and mimal usb problems (only with my VR I recieve some "signal loss", time to time, so I have to put PCI settings on V3).
> 
> Many thanks.


If you dont want to spend many hours maximizing the performance and finetune everything for PBO CO, the newest bios is much "easier" for average Joes. (its pretty much plug and play at this point)
3501 is also alot better on memory training (easier to get to boot), but like i say above, the tradeoff is ~0.8ns worse latency

If you want to keep using 3003, turn off c-states in bios

Bios 3003 = Best PBO CO boosting and lowest memory latency, hardest to finetune everything and get it 100% stable.
Bios 3501 = Everything work from the get-go and is stable, for those who dont want to spend hours upon hours stresstesting.


----------



## J7SC

domdtxdissar said:


> If you dont want to spend many hours maximizing the performance and finetune everything for PBO CO, the newest bios is much "easier" for average Joes. (its pretty much plug and play at this point)
> 3501 is also alot better on memory training (easier to get to boot), but like i say above, the tradeoff is ~0.8ns worse latency
> 
> If you want to keep using 3003, turn off c-states in bios
> 
> Bios 3003 = Best PBO CO boosting and lowest memory latency, hardest to finetune everything and get it 100% stable.
> Bios 3501 = Everything work from the get-go and is stable, for those who dont want to spend hours upon hours stresstesting.


..3501 does seem to be more 'foolproof', especially around memory training...that said, I can only do a partial comparison as I run both a 3950X / CH8 wifi and a 5950X / CH8 Dark for work & play...the former on bios 2502 and the latter on bios 3501 (it came preinstalled on the CH8 Dark mobo). The memory kit from the 3950X / CH8 is the same as in the 5950X / Ch8 Dark, with identical settings, with an Aida comp chart between the two below.

The CH8 wifi / 3950X is getting a new w-cooling setup soon, then I will update that bios to 3501 as well for a direct comparison, but during earlier setup work, CH8 wifi / 3950X was a lot more finicky re. memory training and subsequent memory testing. Overall, I find the CH8 Dark / bios 3501 doesn't have any real drawbacks - in fact, it has never cycled or failed to boot, and latency is decent, if potentially slower than earlier bios (which I never had on that specific board...).


----------



## jomama22

J7SC said:


> ..3501 does seem to be more 'foolproof', especially around memory training...that said, I can only do a partial comparison as I run both a 3950X / CH8 wifi and a 5950X / CH8 Dark for work & play...the former on bios 2502 and the latter on bios 3501 (it came preinstalled on the CH8 Dark mobo). The memory kit from the 3950X / CH8 is the same as in the 5950X / Ch8 Dark, with identical settings, with an Aida comp chart between the two below.
> 
> The CH8 wifi / 3950X is getting a new w-cooling setup soon, then I will update that bios to 3501 as well for a direct comparison, but during earlier setup work, CH8 wifi / 3950X was a lot more finicky re. memory training and subsequent memory testing. Overall, I find the CH8 Dark / bios 3501 doesn't have any real drawbacks - in fact, it has never cycled or failed to boot, and latency is decent, if potentially slower than earlier bios (which I never had on that specific board...).
> 
> View attachment 2489296


I'd be interested in seeing a zentimings shot of the 5950x on the DH.


----------



## J7SC

jomama22 said:


> I'd be interested in seeing a zentimings shot of the 5950x on the DH.


...already posted it > here


----------



## jomama22

J7SC said:


> ...already posted it > here


I imagine you are using dynamic oc switcher for those all-core results?

Rather, the shots of aida from that post are using PBO or just at stock with no PBO?


----------



## Gryzor

domdtxdissar said:


> If you dont want to spend many hours maximizing the performance and finetune everything for PBO CO, the newest bios is much "easier" for average Joes. (its pretty much plug and play at this point)
> 3501 is also alot better on memory training (easier to get to boot), but like i say above, the tradeoff is ~0.8ns worse latency
> 
> If you want to keep using 3003, turn off c-states in bios
> 
> Bios 3003 = Best PBO CO boosting and lowest memory latency, hardest to finetune everything and get it 100% stable.
> Bios 3501 = Everything work from the get-go and is stable, for those who dont want to spend hours upon hours stresstesting.


Please can you tell me where in the BIOS I can disable C states? I don´t find that option (570x rog crosshair wifi).
And why to disable it (what does C-States?)
And my last question... There is some performance hit with c-states disabled?


----------



## J7SC

jomama22 said:


> I imagine you are using dynamic oc switcher for those all-core results?
> 
> Rather, the shots of aida from that post are using PBO or just at stock with no PBO?


...yeah, for the above it was w/ dynamic oc...below is one w/o it...usually similar in Aida, w/the exception of L3 cache read speed and marginal diff in latency. I'm waiting for a w-cooling RMA to come in so that I can get serious about finalizing this build after all the other changes.

...I usually run with PBO 'enabled' but with auto/default values such as TDC/EDC etc..I do know that at least ten different cores can hit 5 GHz or above according to HWinfo (posted earlier), and I had some settings yesterday (PBO, extra MHz) where several cores hit 5125 and a few 5175 (briefly, max). But at the end of the day, it seems to be a bit of a zero-sum game re. scores in CPUz etc, at least until I change the PL values. I really look forward to sink my teeth into PBO custom values and may be 'curve' as well, though as I suggested before, this build is also used for work so I tend not to disable a CCD or SMT.


----------



## jomama22

J7SC said:


> ...yeah, for the above it was w/ dynamic oc...below is one w/o it...usually similar in Aida, w/the exception of L3 cache read speed and marginal diff in latency. I'm waiting for a w-cooling RMA to come in so that I can get serious about finalizing this build after all the other changes.
> 
> ...I usually run with PBO 'enabled' but with auto/default values such as TDC/EDC etc..I do know that at least ten different cores can hit 5 GHz or above according to HWinfo (posted earlier), and I had some settings yesterday (PBO, extra MHz) where several cores hit 5125 and a few 5175 (briefly, max). But at the end of the day, it seems to be a bit of a zero-sum game re. scores in CPUz etc, at least until I change the PL values. I really look forward to sink my teeth into PBO custom values and may be 'curve' as well, though as I suggested before, this build is also used for work so I tend not to disable a CCD or SMT.
> 
> View attachment 2489397


All good. Was just trying to make sense of the aida numbers is all.

Probably want to start using effective clock readings in hwinfo when you start adjusting just to confirm what's going on when changing stuff up.


----------



## J7SC

jomama22 said:


> All good. Was just trying to make sense of the aida numbers is all.
> 
> Probably want to start using effective clock readings in hwinfo when you start adjusting just to confirm what's going on when changing stuff up.


...sure thing, though I noticed that the most recent HWinfo-s don't give you a per-core clock breakout anymore (unless it is some setting I haven't clicked on). I think I have at least five different HWinfo versions installed, lots of updates...


----------



## domdtxdissar

Gryzor said:


> Please can you tell me where in the BIOS I can disable C states? I don´t find that option (570x rog crosshair wifi).


F9 in bios = search (advanced->amd cbs if i remember correct)



Gryzor said:


> And why to disable it (what does C-States?)


You can run a higher PBO CO offset without crashing.. Maybe something like from -5 to -15 on your worst core
(this is only valid for 3003 bios)



Gryzor said:


> And my last question... There is some performance hit with c-states disabled?


Yes, you lose some singlethread performance, but higher PBO CO offset more than make up for it.

Think its maybe better for you to update to the newest bios 3501 ?


----------



## jomama22

J7SC said:


> ...sure thing, though I noticed that the most recent HWinfo-s don't give you a per-core clock breakout anymore (unless it is some setting I haven't clicked on). I think I have at least five different HWinfo versions installed, lots of updates...


Should just be able to enable snapshot polling in the settings menu (setting in the main window, not the sensors window). Will give you effective clock of each core as well as the actual requested clock from the smu (or some average there of from it).

Really, the core clocks given in your screenshot (their the same shown in somthing like cpuz or aida) is just the instantaneous core clock request. The effective will give you some average over a period of time. That instantaneous request really means nothing as whether it is actually applied/used or not isn't known. Also, it makes it more difficult to acertain whether you are improving or degrading in performance (obviously, actual results from benchmarks should be the main driving factor, but atleast the effective clocks can give you some insight).


----------



## J7SC

jomama22 said:


> Should just be able to enable snapshot polling in the settings menu (setting in the main window, not the sensors window). Will give you effective clock of each core as well as the actual requested clock from the smu (or some average there of from it).
> 
> Really, the core clocks given in your screenshot (their the same shown in somthing like cpuz or aida) is just the instantaneous core clock request. The effective will give you some average over a period of time. That instantaneous request really means nothing as whether it is actually applied/used or not isn't known. Also, it makes it more difficult to acertain whether you are improving or degrading in performance (obviously, actual results from benchmarks should be the main driving factor, but atleast the effective clocks can give you some insight).


...I know about effective vs displayed clocks, it's just that HWInfo keeps on having a lot of updates and I can't always spent as much time on it. Be that as it may, 'displayed' clocks are just an indicator whether the latest bios changes have taken hold, as much as other apps such as Aida also show '5100' etc at times. _What really matters to me though is the multi-core sustainable performance_, and benches such as Cinebench R20/23 tell me how things are progressing also re. rendering and compile...as posted before, my best CineR20 is 12424, and CineR23 is 32109 with dynamic oc and all-c 4750 at ambient. I plan to try out 4775 and 4800 all-c within a week or so but even with big cooling on this, that is probably is 'too much' for longer-run compiles and rendering.


----------



## lmfodor

Hi, Does anyone knows her Asus will release the final version or AGESA 1.2.0.2? I know MSI and ASRock released it a few weeks ago. It’s weird that it only fix the USB issues, AMD should fix the IF. Anyone are running at 4000 or above without WHEAs? I could boot it, keeping 1:1 Freq/FCLK but I got a lot of WHEAs 

Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Biscottoman

Guys any suggestions on ppt tdc edc for a watercooled 5950x? I almost completed stability test for my co curve, but i dont't know what could be a good range for these values


----------



## J7SC

After updating to HWInfo /4460, I noticed this newish-to-me entry for 'frequency limit -global' and referring to the _'current frequency limit as the result applied by the most restrictive infrastructure limit'_...

...does this refer to nominal bios / PBO settings ?


----------



## Timur Born

This is the maximum frequency that the CPU can achieve at a given moment in time. You will notice how it keeps changing depending on how many cores are in deep sleep, temps, current, voltage and whatnot.


----------



## Zogge

You guys talk about Infinity Fabric 2000 mhz and I cannot even get 5950x working without WHEAs over 1833 Mhz ? Is my CPU really that bad of a sample or do you have any tricks to share on settings ? Memory is 4 x 4400mhz G.Skill CL 18 (can clock them down to 3800 CL14 even but I now have it at 3666 CL 16 for max stability as the IF cannot go over 1833 without WHEAs.)

2x8GB boots D.O.C.P. 4400mhz perfectly, but with 4x8GB I have to manually clock it to 4000mhz. Over 4000mhz will not boot with 4 sticks, regardless of CL settings and voltage up to 1.5V.

Or shall I go with 4000mhz CL 16 on RAM and IF 1833 mhz and call it a day ? Or will it be slower than the 1:1 at 1833/3666 ?


----------



## CyrIng

Zogge said:


> You guys talk about Infinity Fabric 2000 mhz and I cannot even get 5950x working without WHEAs over 1833 Mhz ? Is my CPU really that bad of a sample or do you have any tricks to share on settings ? Memory is 4 x 4400mhz G.Skill CL 18 (can clock them down to 3800 CL14 even but I now have it at 3666 CL 16 for max stability as the IF cannot go over 1833 without WHEAs.)
> 
> 2x8GB boots D.O.C.P. 4400mhz perfectly, but with 4x8GB I have to manually clock it to 4000mhz. Over 4000mhz will not boot with 4 sticks, regardless of CL settings and voltage up to 1.5V.
> 
> Or shall I go with 4000mhz CL 16 on RAM and IF 1833 mhz and call it a day ? Or will it be slower than the 1:1 at 1833/3666 ?


and I presumed all these issues with BIOS beta version 3501 ?


----------



## Zogge

True, I have not tried to downgrade. Shall I do so ?


----------



## Gondar

Do you guys still have usb problems with newest bios update?


----------



## lmfodor

Gondar said:


> Do you guys still have usb problems with newest bios update?


Hi! What version? I´m still seeing 3501 Beta. Is the new version available in some other place?


----------



## Gondar

lmfodor said:


> Hi! What version? I´m still seeing 3501 Beta. Is the new version available in some other place?


Yes beta version, if anyone experimented.


----------



## Zogge

No USB issues for me on 3501.


----------



## Gondar

Zogge said:


> No USB issues for me on 3501.


Did you had problems on previous versions?


----------



## blunden

Gondar said:


> Do you guys still have usb problems with newest bios update?


 None so far, no. I have a creative sound card which was supposedly also affected by this. No issues so far there either as far as I can tell.


----------



## Zogge

Bought it ~3 weeks ago and went straight to 3501 so I never tried any other bios.


----------



## CyrIng

Zogge said:


> True, I have not tried to downgrade. Shall I do so ?


I'm sticking with 2206 b/c of its stability with 3950X. No WHEA. FCLK 1833 MHz Dimm 3666 MHz @ 1.35V CL 16-16-16-36; but 2206 is already old. It misses fixes and features. Bad IRQ mapping encountered in Linux.

But you have Zen3, look at BIOS history at ASUS and its processor QVL list for potential downgrade.


----------



## Gondar

blunden said:


> None so far, no. I have a creative sound card which was supposedly also affected by this. No issues so far there either as far as I can tell.


I have problems with external hdd disconnects and not recognized sometimes.


----------



## J7SC

Timur Born said:


> This is the maximum frequency that the CPU can achieve at a given moment in time. You will notice how it keeps changing depending on how many cores are in deep sleep, temps, current, voltage and whatnot.


Thanks


----------



## ttang

BIOS 3501 C8I, 5800x, RTX 3090
Not 100% fixed, I still get usb drop outs.
6 months since purchase and not been able to use my system.
I have zero faith AMD will fix this, probably will need a new chipset as it looks like a design flaw in the chipset.


----------



## Sleepycat

Gondar said:


> Do you guys still have usb problems with newest bios update?


Bios 3501 resolved my USB problems which I had with my Reverb G2 VR headset.


----------



## Sleepycat

Zogge said:


> You guys talk about Infinity Fabric 2000 mhz and I cannot even get 5950x working without WHEAs over 1833 Mhz ? Is my CPU really that bad of a sample or do you have any tricks to share on settings ? Memory is 4 x 4400mhz G.Skill CL 18 (can clock them down to 3800 CL14 even but I now have it at 3666 CL 16 for max stability as the IF cannot go over 1833 without WHEAs.)
> 
> 2x8GB boots D.O.C.P. 4400mhz perfectly, but with 4x8GB I have to manually clock it to 4000mhz. Over 4000mhz will not boot with 4 sticks, regardless of CL settings and voltage up to 1.5V.
> 
> Or shall I go with 4000mhz CL 16 on RAM and IF 1833 mhz and call it a day ? Or will it be slower than the 1:1 at 1833/3666 ?


With 4 sticks of RAM, especially B-die, I find that the CPU and motherboard struggles going on higher infinity fabric. I run 4x16GB B-die, and I can't go above 1800MHz, regardless of voltage or timings.


----------



## dymONE

Sleepycat said:


> With 4 sticks of RAM, especially B-die, I find that the CPU and motherboard struggles going on higher infinity fabric. I run 4x16GB B-die, and I can't go above 1800MHz, regardless of voltage or timings.


Not 4 sticks are limitation here, but 64GB (4x16GB). 4x8GB running fine 1900/3800 CL14.


----------



## GRABibus

dymONE said:


> Not 4 sticks are limitation here, but 64GB (4x16GB). 4x8GB running fine 1900/3800 CL14.


Which sticks are you running ?

I see a lot of people saying « I can do IF=1900MHz or 2000MHz », but rarely mentionning which are the frequencies and timings of the original sticks.

from my side, I am full stable (1000% HCI memtest) with 4x8GB team group xtreem 3600MHz 14-15-15-35 raised at 3800MHz 16-16-16-28-1T (IF=1900MHz)

Vdimm=1,5V
Vsoc=1,15V
PLL=1,9V

if I raised to 1933/3866, no boot (Qcode 07)


----------



## dymONE

GRABibus said:


> Which sticks are you running ?


They are maybe the cheapest B-die's sticks on the market: Patriot Viper Steel 3800/4000MHz

4x8GB
VDDG CCD: 0.85V
VDIMM: 1.53V
watercooled


----------



## Belcebuu

I am getting 1887 fclk in CPU Info even if I set 1900 and 3800 the ram in the bios with the latest bios, are you getting the same problem?


----------



## Zogge

Belcebuu said:


> m getting 1887 fclk in CPU Info even if I set 1900 and 3800 the ram in the bios with the latest bios, are you getting the same prob


No it works, also I can boot and go into windows up to 1966 but with WHEAs showering me. They are occasional on 1866 and gone on 1833.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Guess i can copy over here also since iam running this motherboard:

The deed is done, have gotten this fully stable 
4 memory sticks + flat CL14 + T1 with GDM disabled is very rare with Ryzen.. Could only run this after i had binned all my ram sticks for the different memory channels on the motherboard

BIOS 3501 with AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.2
dual CCD 5950x
4x8GB gskill 3600 CL16
1900:3800 @ flat CL14 + T1 GDM-OFF
Screenshot of TM 1umus 25 cycle + Memtest 20000% stable (do notice this is my old bloaty windows install with lots of stuff running in background) 









Newest OCCT 8.1.3 1 hour large dataset extreme + 4 iteration in y-cruncher with all tests (same boot as above) 









Some performance number:
The SiSoftSandra v2021.31.12 (from Mar 5th, 2021). Not sure this is a good match with CTR..
Intel latency checker 









Next we have dram calc easy + normal bench together with cinebench r23 









And lastly we have SotTR @ 1080p lowest as a gamebench running on my new 24/7 settings =288 CPU average fps 









Very happy with these results and my new 24/7 settings 
Maybe i will try to push for higher fclk now 😎


----------



## CyrIng

domdtxdissar said:


> Guess i can copy over here also since iam running this motherboard:
> 
> The deed is done, have gotten this fully stable
> 4 memory sticks + flat CL14 + T1 with GDM disabled is very rare with Ryzen.. Could only run this after i had binned all my ram sticks for the different memory channels on the motherboard
> 
> BIOS 3501 with AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.2
> dual CCD 5950x
> 4x8GB gskill 3600 CL16
> 1900:3800 @ flat CL14 + T1 GDM-OFF
> Screenshot of TM 1umus 25 cycle + Memtest 20000% stable (do notice this is my old bloaty windows install with lots of stuff running in background)
> View attachment 2490200
> 
> 
> Newest OCCT 8.1.3 1 hour large dataset extreme + 4 iteration in y-cruncher with all tests (same boot as above)
> View attachment 2490201
> 
> 
> Some performance number:
> The SiSoftSandra v2021.31.12 (from Mar 5th, 2021). Not sure this is a good match with CTR..
> Intel latency checker
> View attachment 2490202
> 
> 
> Next we have dram calc easy + normal bench together with cinebench r23
> View attachment 2490203
> 
> 
> And lastly we have SotTR @ 1080p lowest as a gamebench running on my new 24/7 settings =288 CPU average fps
> View attachment 2490204
> 
> 
> Very happy with these results and my new 24/7 settings
> Maybe i will try to push for higher fclk now 😎


Impressive!
Have you boot a bare minimum Linux kernel with all c-states CC6 PC6 enabled and wait for idle ?


----------



## domdtxdissar

CyrIng said:


> Impressive!
> Have you boot a bare minimum Linux kernel with all c-states CC6 PC6 enabled and wait for idle ?


Do you mean if i can (in the future) or if i have done so in the past ? I'm not sure what you mean.

I have no clue about linux so i haven't done anything with it..


----------



## CyrIng

domdtxdissar said:


> Do you mean if i can (in the future) or if i have done so in the past ? I'm not sure what you mean.
> 
> I have no clue about linux so i haven't done anything with it..


I mean whenever you can try to boot a low overhead kernel with those agressive, but excellent DRAM settings


----------



## drnilly007

Anyone else have an issue with their cpu dying. My 5900x has died


----------



## Moutsatsos

drnilly007 said:


> Anyone else have an issue with their cpu dying. My 5900x has died


Do you have any idea as to what the reason is?Over voltage?Bad silicon?


----------



## drnilly007

Moutsatsos said:


> Do you have any idea as to what the reason is?Over voltage?Bad silicon?


Well Im actually using a Dark Hero but owners thread seems to be dead. The PC was working until one day I restarted the computer only to get a no boot and error code 07 which seems to point to RAM which is not the case most likely though the memory controller. I had the cpu since Feb and earlier bioses had some default CLDO of 1.15 which is apparently very high and which I believe damaged the cpu I did keep up to date with all newer bioses. I had to set everything to auto/stock a few weeks ago just using DOCP everything on auto. I did have LLC of 2 set and set ASUS Optimized calibrations for everything else.

I am using some bdie dual rank 3200 cas 14 ram, which the cpu should be able to handle no problem.
I have a 5600x in now and noticed much better desktop responsiveness. Getting crashes in tarkov though so must be some sort of issue somewhere.


----------



## Alberto_It

How can I find which are the best Cores to make the curve with pbo2? 

Tips on which software to use and how to find them?


----------



## Kokin

3900X + CH8 Impact

Been a few weeks with 3501 and my keyboard still freezes occasionally (Drop Shift keyboard). It wasn't as frequent as 3402, but had no dropouts with the older 3003 and previous BIOS since launch. I had previously thought setting GPU PCIe speeds to 3.0 would reduce/prevent the keyboard freezing, but it still happens once every day or two. I have to unplug/replug to get it to work again. 

I thought the USB issues were just related to the 5000 series CPUs, but I guess it has affected the 3000 series CPUs for BIOS versions released in 2021.


----------



## stimpy88

Kokin said:


> 3900X + CH8 Impact
> 
> Been a few weeks with 3501 and my keyboard still freezes occasionally (Drop Shift keyboard). It wasn't as frequent as 3402, but had no dropouts with the older 3003 and previous BIOS since launch. I had previously thought setting GPU PCIe speeds to 3.0 would reduce/prevent the keyboard freezing, but it still happens once every day or two. I have to unplug/replug to get it to work again.
> 
> I thought the USB issues were just related to the 5000 series CPUs, but I guess it has affected the 3000 series CPUs for BIOS versions released in 2021.


I too am having a terrible time with USB dropouts/disconnections. I'm on the latest beta BIOS, and also have a 3900x. I have also noticed that this has got a lot worse with the new BIOS/AGESA.

One thing I have noticed, is that if I plug my USB stick in to a USB 3.0 hub I've used for years, the drive constantly disconnects, and it's data transfer rate is all over the place. If I take that same USB stick, and plug it directly in to the computer, it seems to work properly.

I'm wondering if this is more of a compatibility thing between USB controllers, than a chipset/AGESA problem...


----------



## finas

I still have the same issues with my Impact and 3950x on 3501 with usb devices specifically with my Reverb G2. It keeps dropping the link. Even with stock bios settings. The 3501 lowered the amount of disconnects I get, but it's still like more than once a minute.


----------



## CyrIng

Damn I don't feel like flashing that 3501 !
Here, 3950X + C8H WiFi + BIOS 2206: no USB issue at all. (but I just do basic USB things)


----------



## ChillyRide

3501 is a complete mess. After flashback cant post with stable (tested for a month) DDR OC. 2 sticks or 4 Dual rank give random post codes 22, 0d, 98. Back to 3402 everything working like charm.


----------



## Zogge

I changed to 3402. Running 1866/3733 cl14 now with 4x8gb and a good cpu pbo oc. No usb issues so far and I have a lot of devices.


----------



## stimpy88

Do any of you guys have a problem with Windows saying a critical file is corrupted at boot? I keep getting it, and cant figure out why it happens. I run every memory test I can find, it passes overnight testing with no errors. If I simply reboot the computer, it will boot Windows fine, but I might have to do it a few times.

It started a few days ago, and I've made no changes to the computer. I have just done a clean install of Windows, and still the problem randomly shows up on boot. The computer is totally fine once it's in Windows, and runs for days without issue, this only happens if I have to boot/reboot.

Any ideas?


----------



## xeizo

stimpy88 said:


> Do any of you guys have a problem with Windows saying a critical file is corrupted at boot? I keep getting it, and cant figure out why it happens. I run every memory test I can find, it passes overnight testing with no errors. If I simply reboot the computer, it will boot Windows fine, but I might have to do it a few times.
> 
> It started a few days ago, and I've made no changes to the computer. I have just done a clean install of Windows, and still the problem randomly shows up on boot. The computer is totally fine once it's in Windows, and runs for days without issue, this only happens if I have to boot/reboot.
> 
> Any ideas?


Things are a little random if using the Samsung NVMe drivers, I use Windows built in NVMe drivers and haven't had a problem.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

stimpy88 said:


> Do any of you guys have a problem with Windows saying a critical file is corrupted at boot? I keep getting it, and cant figure out why it happens. I run every memory test I can find, it passes overnight testing with no errors. If I simply reboot the computer, it will boot Windows fine, but I might have to do it a few times.
> 
> It started a few days ago, and I've made no changes to the computer. I have just done a clean install of Windows, and still the problem randomly shows up on boot. The computer is totally fine once it's in Windows, and runs for days without issue, this only happens if I have to boot/reboot.
> 
> Any ideas?


Have you disabled the hibernation/Fast Startup?? it has been explained that by default when hibernation is enabled, shutdown isn't really a "shutdown/power down/power off" process at all..I am using the samsung NVME drivers as well for my 980Pro and 970Evo+ (those damn SSD's are hot) and I have not gotten any issues, except for that dreaded "Quality Updates" from MS..so I reformatted and started anew..


----------



## BambusBlaster

Hi Guys,

I am having the suspicion that a high DRAM voltage 1.5v may be responsible for killing the IMC on the CPU. My understanding with DDR4 is, that you can crank up the voltage but you need to have proper air- or watercooling for the RAM. I have a 80mm fan and even tinkered a small casing, so that my RAM is properly cooled. Memory temperature never went above 32°C with stock settings for 16-16-16-36, 3600MHz @ 1.35V.

My components:

Asus Crosshair VIII Hero (BIOS Version 3402)
Ryzen 7 5800X
2x G.Skill Trident Z Royal 16 GB DDR4-3600 DIMM CL16
Custom Water Loop (5x 140mm)

Since the system was stable for 3 month I wanted to start overclocking the RAM. All the settings are on AUTO except for:


AI Overclock Tuner: Manual
Memory Frequency: DDR4-3600MHz
FCLK Frequency: 1800MHz


DRAM Voltage: 1.35
VTTDDR Voltage: 0.675

I changed the Memory Frequency to DDR-4000 and lowered the FCLK to 1600MHz to make sure it is just the RAM that is being pushed to the limits. I upped the DRAM Voltage to "1.4" and VTTDDR to "0.7". The changes have been saved, computer attempts to reboot and BAM goes straight to RAM training, resets itself three times and halts after POST "your computer has been started in safe mode, press F1 to go to BIOS". OK, maybe the timings are way to tight, I will loosen them.

I changed them from "16-16-16-16-36-52" to "18-18-18-18-42-60"

Again, computer restarts three times in a row and stops right after POST. "Press F1 to go to BIOS".

Ok, maybe more voltage needed for 4000Mhz. So I upped the DRAM voltage to 1.45 and VTTDDR to 0.725.
Still no success. Loosening the timings even more?! Ok, lets give it a try
20-20-20-48-70, just to see whats happening.
Stuck at POST...
Maybe 4000MHz requires much more Voltage than I thought. I changed the DRAM Voltage to 1.5 and VTTDDR to 0.75
Still nothing. RAM training, computer started in safe mode once again and asks to press F1 to amend the settings.
Ok I will change everything back to what was working fine: FCLK 1800MHz, DRAM 3600MHz, 16-16-16-16-36-52, DRAM Voltage 1.35 and VTTDDR to 0.675.

*COMPUTER IS GETTING STUCK IN RAM TRAINING AND REBOOTS THREE TIMES IN A ROW! Oh no! OH NO! Why? what?! how?!?*

I cannot run the computer with the settings that have been stable for three month. I booted into Windows and AIDA stress test almost instantly shows an error message that the memory is unstable.
Now I have to run FCLK 1600 and DRAM at 3200, everything above that no matter what, will not run an AIDA Memory Stress Test. Error message within two minutes...

I thought I fried my memory. So I tried another couple of RAM and switched the 2x 16 GB against 4x 8GB (G.Skill Trident Z 16 GB DDR4-3600 DIMM CL15 Dual Kit (F4-3600C15D-16GTZ))
The problem remains the same. The computer wont do a proper POST when I set the Memory Frequency above 3200 and the FCLK Frequency above 1600.

Even a BIOS update to the most recent beta bios 3501 did not help or change anything.

I remember from the x58 platform, that there is a problem with the QPI/VTT and DRAM Voltage. It has to be within 0.5 range, otherwise it floods the gates of the CPU and kills it instantly.

Does something similar apply to a Ryzen CPU as well?
Was I wrong about the temperature and high DRAM voltage kills the IMC instantly, no matter how good the memory/CPU is being cooled?
Is there something I did not know when upping the voltage that much?
Have you ever come across this problem?

I appreciate any feedback or sugestions what to do, what to try. In case you need more info, just let me know and I can run some more tests or post screenshots.

Many thanks in advance


----------



## xeizo

If I have VDIMM above 1.35V I need to have VTT over 0.7V to boot and be stable. Been running 1.38/0.725V since Zen 2 was new. Haven't noticed any regression of performance. I don't think X58 wisdom fully applies to Ryzen.


----------



## Kokin

BambusBlaster said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> I am having the suspicion that a high DRAM voltage 1.5v may be responsible for killing the IMC on the CPU. My understanding with DDR4 is, that you can crank up the voltage but you need to have proper air- or watercooling for the RAM. I have a 80mm fan and even tinkered a small casing, so that my RAM is properly cooled. Memory temperature never went above 32°C with stock settings for 16-16-16-36, 3600MHz @ 1.35V.
> 
> My components:
> 
> Asus Crosshair VIII Hero (BIOS Version 3402)
> Ryzen 7 5800X
> 2x G.Skill Trident Z Royal 16 GB DDR4-3600 DIMM CL16
> Custom Water Loop (5x 140mm)
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: rest of post
> 
> 
> 
> Since the system was stable for 3 month I wanted to start overclocking the RAM. All the settings are on AUTO except for:
> 
> 
> AI Overclock Tuner: Manual
> Memory Frequency: DDR4-3600MHz
> FCLK Frequency: 1800MHz
> 
> 
> DRAM Voltage: 1.35
> VTTDDR Voltage: 0.675
> 
> I changed the Memory Frequency to DDR-4000 and lowered the FCLK to 1600MHz to make sure it is just the RAM that is being pushed to the limits. I upped the DRAM Voltage to "1.4" and VTTDDR to "0.7". The changes have been saved, computer attempts to reboot and BAM goes straight to RAM training, resets itself three times and halts after POST "your computer has been started in safe mode, press F1 to go to BIOS". OK, maybe the timings are way to tight, I will loosen them.
> 
> I changed them from "16-16-16-16-36-52" to "18-18-18-18-42-60"
> 
> Again, computer restarts three times in a row and stops right after POST. "Press F1 to go to BIOS".
> 
> Ok, maybe more voltage needed for 4000Mhz. So I upped the DRAM voltage to 1.45 and VTTDDR to 0.725.
> Still no success. Loosening the timings even more?! Ok, lets give it a try
> 20-20-20-48-70, just to see whats happening.
> Stuck at POST...
> Maybe 4000MHz requires much more Voltage than I thought. I changed the DRAM Voltage to 1.5 and VTTDDR to 0.75
> Still nothing. RAM training, computer started in safe mode once again and asks to press F1 to amend the settings.
> Ok I will change everything back to what was working fine: FCLK 1800MHz, DRAM 3600MHz, 16-16-16-16-36-52, DRAM Voltage 1.35 and VTTDDR to 0.675.
> 
> *COMPUTER IS GETTING STUCK IN RAM TRAINING AND REBOOTS THREE TIMES IN A ROW! Oh no! OH NO! Why? what?! how?!?*
> 
> I cannot run the computer with the settings that have been stable for three month. I booted into Windows and AIDA stress test almost instantly shows an error message that the memory is unstable.
> Now I have to run FCLK 1600 and DRAM at 3200, everything above that no matter what, will not run an AIDA Memory Stress Test. Error message within two minutes...
> 
> I thought I fried my memory. So I tried another couple of RAM and switched the 2x 16 GB against 4x 8GB (G.Skill Trident Z 16 GB DDR4-3600 DIMM CL15 Dual Kit (F4-3600C15D-16GTZ))
> The problem remains the same. The computer wont do a proper POST when I set the Memory Frequency above 3200 and the FCLK Frequency above 1600.
> 
> Even a BIOS update to the most recent beta bios 3501 did not help or change anything.
> 
> I remember from the x58 platform, that there is a problem with the QPI/VTT and DRAM Voltage. It has to be within 0.5 range, otherwise it floods the gates of the CPU and kills it instantly.
> 
> Does something similar apply to a Ryzen CPU as well?
> Was I wrong about the temperature and high DRAM voltage kills the IMC instantly, no matter how good the memory/CPU is being cooled?
> Is there something I did not know when upping the voltage that much?
> Have you ever come across this problem?
> 
> I appreciate any feedback or sugestions what to do, what to try. In case you need more info, just let me know and I can run some more tests or post screenshots.
> 
> Many thanks in advance


It can't have been related to temperature. I'm on a custom watercooled setup and have no active cooling on my RAM. Zero issues with my RAM at 3600MHz 16-15-15 @ 1.4v or 3733 16-15-15 @1.47V. It idles around 35-40C and will reach 55-60C during load. Similar G.Skill TridentZ b-die RAM but 2x16GB and 3200MHZ CL14 overclocked higher.

If you haven't already, try setting optimized defaults in BIOS, boot up, and then manually tweak everything again. Also try leaving VTTDDR to "Auto" for now.


----------



## rbys

So the last BIOS update is over a month old. Not sure what is taking so long.


----------



## Sleepycat

I'm testing CTR2.1 now with my 5900X and C8H. Really happy with it so far with the following profiles:
Px High: 4.90 @ 1.45V
Px Mid: 4.80 @ 1.40V
Px Low: 4.725 @ 1.325V
29-70% load: 4.65/4.575 @ 1.25V
71-100% load: 4.575/4.252 @ 1.20V


----------



## Sleepycat

rbys said:


> So the last BIOS update is over a month old. Not sure what is taking so long.


Because AMD has not released a new AGESA?


----------



## Sleepycat

BambusBlaster said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> I am having the suspicion that a high DRAM voltage 1.5v may be responsible for killing the IMC on the CPU. My understanding with DDR4 is, that you can crank up the voltage but you need to have proper air- or watercooling for the RAM. I have a 80mm fan and even tinkered a small casing, so that my RAM is properly cooled. Memory temperature never went above 32°C with stock settings for 16-16-16-36, 3600MHz @ 1.35V.
> 
> My components:
> 
> Asus Crosshair VIII Hero (BIOS Version 3402)
> Ryzen 7 5800X
> 2x G.Skill Trident Z Royal 16 GB DDR4-3600 DIMM CL16
> Custom Water Loop (5x 140mm)
> 
> Since the system was stable for 3 month I wanted to start overclocking the RAM. All the settings are on AUTO except for:
> 
> 
> AI Overclock Tuner: Manual
> Memory Frequency: DDR4-3600MHz
> FCLK Frequency: 1800MHz
> 
> 
> DRAM Voltage: 1.35
> VTTDDR Voltage: 0.675
> 
> I changed the Memory Frequency to DDR-4000 and lowered the FCLK to 1600MHz to make sure it is just the RAM that is being pushed to the limits. I upped the DRAM Voltage to "1.4" and VTTDDR to "0.7". The changes have been saved, computer attempts to reboot and BAM goes straight to RAM training, resets itself three times and halts after POST "your computer has been started in safe mode, press F1 to go to BIOS". OK, maybe the timings are way to tight, I will loosen them.
> 
> I changed them from "16-16-16-16-36-52" to "18-18-18-18-42-60"
> 
> Again, computer restarts three times in a row and stops right after POST. "Press F1 to go to BIOS".
> 
> Ok, maybe more voltage needed for 4000Mhz. So I upped the DRAM voltage to 1.45 and VTTDDR to 0.725.
> Still no success. Loosening the timings even more?! Ok, lets give it a try
> 20-20-20-48-70, just to see whats happening.
> Stuck at POST...
> Maybe 4000MHz requires much more Voltage than I thought. I changed the DRAM Voltage to 1.5 and VTTDDR to 0.75
> Still nothing. RAM training, computer started in safe mode once again and asks to press F1 to amend the settings.
> Ok I will change everything back to what was working fine: FCLK 1800MHz, DRAM 3600MHz, 16-16-16-16-36-52, DRAM Voltage 1.35 and VTTDDR to 0.675.
> 
> *COMPUTER IS GETTING STUCK IN RAM TRAINING AND REBOOTS THREE TIMES IN A ROW! Oh no! OH NO! Why? what?! how?!?*
> 
> I cannot run the computer with the settings that have been stable for three month. I booted into Windows and AIDA stress test almost instantly shows an error message that the memory is unstable.
> Now I have to run FCLK 1600 and DRAM at 3200, everything above that no matter what, will not run an AIDA Memory Stress Test. Error message within two minutes...
> 
> I thought I fried my memory. So I tried another couple of RAM and switched the 2x 16 GB against 4x 8GB (G.Skill Trident Z 16 GB DDR4-3600 DIMM CL15 Dual Kit (F4-3600C15D-16GTZ))
> The problem remains the same. The computer wont do a proper POST when I set the Memory Frequency above 3200 and the FCLK Frequency above 1600.
> 
> Even a BIOS update to the most recent beta bios 3501 did not help or change anything.
> 
> I remember from the x58 platform, that there is a problem with the QPI/VTT and DRAM Voltage. It has to be within 0.5 range, otherwise it floods the gates of the CPU and kills it instantly.
> 
> Does something similar apply to a Ryzen CPU as well?
> Was I wrong about the temperature and high DRAM voltage kills the IMC instantly, no matter how good the memory/CPU is being cooled?
> Is there something I did not know when upping the voltage that much?
> Have you ever come across this problem?
> 
> I appreciate any feedback or sugestions what to do, what to try. In case you need more info, just let me know and I can run some more tests or post screenshots.
> 
> Many thanks in advance


VTTDDR is not the only voltage you need to adjust when overclocking your memory. VTT SOC, CLDO VDDP, VDDG CCD and VDDG IOD should not be left on Auto if you are overclocking and adjusting other voltages. If you can get into bios, set 
VTT SOC: 1.09V
CLDO VDDP: 0.98V
VDDG CCD 1.05V
VDDG IOD 1.05V

Hopefully this gets you back to your stable settings again.


----------



## Sleepycat

stimpy88 said:


> Do any of you guys have a problem with Windows saying a critical file is corrupted at boot? I keep getting it, and cant figure out why it happens. I run every memory test I can find, it passes overnight testing with no errors. If I simply reboot the computer, it will boot Windows fine, but I might have to do it a few times.
> 
> It started a few days ago, and I've made no changes to the computer. I have just done a clean install of Windows, and still the problem randomly shows up on boot. The computer is totally fine once it's in Windows, and runs for days without issue, this only happens if I have to boot/reboot.
> 
> Any ideas?


You need to run a CPU stability test. Your options are CoreCycler, Prime95 small FFT or OCCT small, extreme AVX.


----------



## rbys

Sleepycat said:


> Because AMD has not released a new AGESA?


1.2.0.2 beta


----------



## Sleepycat

rbys said:


> 1.2.0.2 beta


AMD released 1.2.0.2 last month and it is considered a non-beta AGESA (I believe the patch A version was beta). Asus already released 3501 with 1.2.0.2. Eventhough 3501 is beta, the final release is likely to be the same as the beta as was the case for 3401. I did a bit by bit comparison of 3401 beta and 3401 final. Both files were identical. So I'm using 3501 now and treating it as the final version. We'll see a new bios from Asus if AMD releases AGESA 1.2.0.3.


----------



## J7SC

What kind of peak Watts are you reaching w/ 5950X CPU package power ? I'm usually between 249 and 257 W for max loads (below for CineR23). This is on X570 CH Dark, PBO enabled but stock, no custom values for EDC, TDC, no all-c or dynamic oc, no curve (for this run). FYI, system does have 1280x64 total rad space. Bios is 3501 (no issues).


----------



## BambusBlaster

First of all, many thanks for your feedback. I have tried several things now but it still doesn't work as it did before....



xeizo said:


> If I have VDIMM above 1.35V I need to have VTT over 0.7V to boot and be stable. Been running 1.38/0.725V since Zen 2 was new. Haven't noticed any regression of performance. I don't think X58 wisdom fully applies to Ryzen.


I have tried the settings you suggested for DRAM 3600 / FCLK 1800: wont boot. It just resets three times, goes to safe mode and I have to enter BIOS by pressing F1
I need to have DRAM 3200 / FCLK 1600 in order to complete the POST and boot into windows.




Kokin said:


> It can't have been related to temperature. I'm on a custom watercooled setup and have no active cooling on my RAM. Zero issues with my RAM at 3600MHz 16-15-15 @ 1.4v or 3733 16-15-15 @1.47V. It idles around 35-40C and will reach 55-60C during load. Similar G.Skill TridentZ b-die RAM but 2x16GB and 3200MHZ CL14 overclocked higher.
> 
> If you haven't already, try setting optimized defaults in BIOS, boot up, and then manually tweak everything again. Also try leaving VTTDDR to "Auto" for now.


I did load the optimized defaults when I updated the BIOS to 3501, did not change a thing.
VTTDDR on auto also does not change anything. As soon as I have DRAM 3600 / FCLK 1800, the computer wont complete the POST process.




Sleepycat said:


> VTTDDR is not the only voltage you need to adjust when overclocking your memory. VTT SOC, CLDO VDDP, VDDG CCD and VDDG IOD should not be left on Auto if you are overclocking and adjusting other voltages. If you can get into bios, set
> VTT SOC: 1.09V
> CLDO VDDP: 0.98V
> VDDG CCD 1.05V
> VDDG IOD 1.05V
> 
> Hopefully this gets you back to your stable settings again.


This alone did not complete the POST process. I had to change VDIMM and VTT as well (1.38, 0.725). It seems the combination of these two suggestions are kind of working, but only kind of.
The system isn't stable. POST completed and I was able to boot into windows, but it crashed within 5 minutes after I started Prime95.

So I had to lower the DRAM/FCLK MHz. At the moment I am using these settings for the following configuration DRAM 3533 / FCLK 1766 / 14-14-14-14-34-48:

VTT SOC: 1.09V
CLDO VDDP: 0.98V
VDDG CCD 1.05V
VDDG IOD 1.05V
DRAM Voltage: 1.38
VTTDDR Voltage 0.725

Is there anything else I can do?


----------



## Sleepycat

BambusBlaster said:


> First of all, many thanks for your feedback. I have tried several things now but it still doesn't work as it did before....
> 
> 
> 
> I have tried the settings you suggested for DRAM 3600 / FCLK 1800: wont boot. It just resets three times, goes to safe mode and I have to enter BIOS by pressing F1
> I need to have DRAM 3200 / FCLK 1600 in order to complete the POST and boot into windows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did load the optimized defaults when I updated the BIOS to 3501, did not change a thing.
> VTTDDR on auto also does not change anything. As soon as I have DRAM 3600 / FCLK 1800, the computer wont complete the POST process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This alone did not complete the POST process. I had to change VDIMM and VTT as well (1.38, 0.725). It seems the combination of these two suggestions are kind of working, but only kind of.
> The system isn't stable. POST completed and I was able to boot into windows, but it crashed within 5 minutes after I started Prime95.
> 
> So I had to lower the DRAM/FCLK MHz. At the moment I am using these settings for the following configuration DRAM 3533 / FCLK 1766 / 14-14-14-14-34-48:
> 
> VTT SOC: 1.09V
> CLDO VDDP: 0.98V
> VDDG CCD 1.05V
> VDDG IOD 1.05V
> DRAM Voltage: 1.38
> VTTDDR Voltage 0.725
> 
> Is there anything else I can do?


Can you post a Zentimings screenshot here? Also, try setting tRCDRD to 15.


----------



## BambusBlaster

Sleepycat said:


> Can you post a Zentimings screenshot here? Also, try setting tRCDRD to 15.


just changed it...

here you go










I read a lot here and I remember that the Ryzen CPU seems to favour even before odd timings. Or is this tRCDRD 15 just to give it some "freedom"?


----------



## CyrIng

BambusBlaster said:


> just changed it...
> 
> here you go
> 
> View attachment 2490542
> 
> 
> I read a lot here and I remember that the Ryzen CPU seems to favour even before odd timings. Or is this tRCDRD 15 just to give it some "freedom"?


Although I have a 3950X, it's very odd b/c it looks like the same troubles I had with my dual G.Skill F4-3600C16D-32GTZN

Whenever I had tried any BIOS release of versions of 3XXX, system encountered lots of Linux Machine Checks or Windows WHEA. DRAM OC was only stable only between 3200 and 3533 MHz, despite any Voltages tunings.

Back to 2206. So far very stable, even with a slight DDR OC to 3666 MHz at recommended 1.35V










Can it be that some DRAM compatibility tables not being ported among BIOS versions ?


----------



## BambusBlaster

CyrIng said:


> Although I have a 3950X, it's very odd b/c it looks like the same troubles I had with my dual G.Skill F4-3600C16D-32GTZN
> 
> Whenever I had tried any BIOS release of versions of 3XXX, system encountered lots of Linux Machine Checks or Windows WHEA. DRAM OC was only stable only between 3200 and 3533 MHz, despite any Voltages tunings.
> 
> Back to 2206. So far very stable, even with a slight DDR OC to 3666 MHz at recommended 1.35V
> 
> View attachment 2490550
> 
> 
> Can it be that some DRAM compatibility tables not being ported among BIOS versions ?


it was stable for me for about three month, until I decided to give it a try and crank up the voltage and go for 4000MHz. That's when s**t hits the fan. Ever since I cannot go to 3600 which was working perfectly fine before. Thus my question "does a high DRAM voltage kill the IMC?"


----------



## jomama22

So wanted to do some testing with new memory timings and PBO settings on the 5950x. Prior, PBO would lag slightly behind a strong all core oc in sottr "cpu game" results but I have figured out a way to boost them quite a bit.

All core 4.825 all-core oc:









New PBO settings:









New memory settings used for both:









New PBO setting also improve things like r20 and such scores but havnt gotten around to it atm.


----------



## J7SC

jomama22 said:


> So wanted to do some testing with new memory timings and PBO settings on the 5950x. Prior, PBO would lag slightly behind a strong all core oc in sottr "cpu game" results but I have figured out a way to boost them quite a bit.
> 
> All core 4.825 all-core oc:
> View attachment 2490573
> 
> 
> New PBO settings:
> View attachment 2490574
> 
> 
> New memory settings used for both:
> View attachment 2490575
> 
> 
> New PBO setting also improve things like r20 and such scores but havnt gotten around to it atm.


 ...nice ! Do you know by any chance what the CPU package peak power consumption was for both all-c 4.825 as well as updated PBO ? Temps ?


----------



## jomama22

J7SC said:


> ...nice ! Do you know by any chance what the CPU package peak power consumption was for both all-c 4.825 as well as updated PBO ? Temps ?


Couldn't have been all that high as I have dynamic oc switcher set at 75A crossover and it doesn't trigger. EDC was around only 30-40 amps or so. Temps are very low because of that, ccd1 @ 50 or so and ccd2 @ 35 or so.

I genuinely have never really paid much attention to total package power but it's surly over 250w when going full bore through an all-core r20 run or somthing when doing 4.825 @ 1.33v. Temps for that are right around 80* for ccd1 and 75* for ccd2. Ambiant around 21*.

4.8 @ 1.3v nets around 77* for ccd1 and 72* for ccd2.


----------



## J7SC

jomama22 said:


> Couldn't have been all that high as I have dynamic oc switcher set at 75A crossover and it doesn't trigger. EDC was around only 30-40 amps or so. Temps are very low because of that, ccd1 @ 50 or so and ccd2 @ 35 or so.
> 
> I genuinely have never really paid much attention to total package power but it's surly over 250w when going full bore through an all-core r20 run or somthing when doing 4.825 @ 1.33v. Temps for that are right around 80* for ccd1 and 75* for ccd2. Ambiant around 21*.
> 
> 4.8 @ 1.3v nets around 77* for ccd1 and 72* for ccd2.


Thanks ! I'm starting to hit EDC 100% 'default 100%' of 200 A in CineR23 on mostly 'stock' (non all-c) settings, per above post. Temps around 72 C for that. Plan is to up EDC to 250 A in PBO, which still should be ok. VRM temps only go up to the mid-50s on the Dark Hero


----------



## jomama22

J7SC said:


> Thanks ! I'm starting to hit EDC 100% 'default 100%' of 200 A in CineR23 on mostly 'stock' (non all-c) settings, per above post. Temps around 72 C for that. Plan is to up EDC to 250 A in PBO, which still should be ok. VRM temps only go up to the mid-50s on the Dark Hero


Yeah, when using pbo for all core stuff I would never see it go over 72 on a ccd. With CO, that would be using around 1.3v @4.7 all core benches.


----------



## J7SC

...with all-core and dynamic OC (55 A crossover), I worked my way up to 4750 a couple of weeks ago; temps were 77 C +- afair. Getting ready to update cooling and 'stuff' the whole thing into a TT Core P8 I picked up last week, along w/ a second mobo, then try out for 4775, 4800 on the Dark Hero...4750 was at 1.29-1.31 v under load for CineR20, R23 (spoiler, re-post)



Spoiler: 5950X all-c 4750 dynOC


----------



## CyrIng

BambusBlaster said:


> it was stable for me for about three month, until I decided to give it a try and crank up the voltage and go for 4000MHz. That's when s**t hits the fan. Ever since I cannot go to 3600 which was working perfectly fine before. Thus my question "does a high DRAM voltage kill the IMC?"


Without killing the whole processor ... It's integrated.
I guess you have G.Skill DIMMs ? 
I would suggest you ask them for RMA.


----------



## Moutsatsos

To my knowledge nothing gets killed unless its way way more voltage than specked and not properly cooled.It does degrade though so be very careful.


----------



## domdtxdissar

jomama22 said:


> So wanted to do some testing with new memory timings and PBO settings on the 5950x. Prior, PBO would lag slightly behind a strong all core oc in sottr "cpu game" results but I have figured out a way to boost them quite a bit.
> 
> All core 4.825 all-core oc:
> View attachment 2490573
> 
> 
> New PBO settings:
> View attachment 2490574
> 
> 
> New memory settings used for both:
> View attachment 2490575
> 
> 
> New PBO setting also improve things like r20 and such scores but havnt gotten around to it atm.


Nicely done, veii's powerplan right ?
Do you get your system stable with it, or is it bench only ?


----------



## jomama22

domdtxdissar said:


> Nicely done, veii's powerplan right ?
> Do you get your system stable with it, or is it bench only ?


Nope, just regular windows high performance. Haven't really tried anyone's powerplan tbh.

And that is my fully stable daily now.


----------



## J7SC

jomama22 said:


> Nope, just regular windows high performance. Haven't really tried anyone's powerplan tbh.
> 
> And that is my fully stable daily now.


Nice ! On powerplans, I'm running Win High Performance on one CH8, and AMD High Performance on the other (Ch8 Dark) - haven't seen dramatic differences per setting per mobo.

While I run mostly 'stock' voltages for daily work and play, I did decide to lower CLDO VDDP to 0.9v from 1.097 v 'stock / bios 3501'...so far, no issues whatsoever resulting from the change (including memory stress re-tests). I left VSOC at 1.08 v, which is not in the danger zone and fine for IF1900/DDR4 3800 'tightish', IMO.


----------



## domdtxdissar

jomama22 said:


> Nope, just regular windows high performance. Haven't really tried anyone's powerplan tbh.
> 
> And that is my fully stable daily now.


If you dont mind me asking, what did you change to make the PBO CO boost higher then ?

I have been testing the difference between PBO CO and CTR on my current setup.

Getting ~290 in SotTR with everyday CTR
Getting ~285 in SotTR with -30 allcore PBO CO (powerlimits at 300/235/245 in bios 3501)

Iam nowhere near your 5ghz allcore in TestMEM with -30 allcore.










> I have figured out a way to boost them quite a bit.


Spill the beans, or is the difference all down to bios 3003 boosting again ?
1000edc limit ?


----------



## jomama22

domdtxdissar said:


> If you dont mind me asking, what did you change to make the PBO CO boost higher then ?
> 
> I have been testing the difference between PBO CO and CTR on my current setup.
> 
> Getting ~290 in SotTR with everyday CTR
> Getting ~285 in SotTR with -30 allcore PBO CO (powerlimits at 300/235/245 in bios 3501)
> 
> Iam nowhere near your 5ghz allcore in TestMEM with -30 allcore.
> View attachment 2490727
> 
> 
> Spill the beans, or is the difference all down to bios 3003 boosting again ?
> 1000edc limit ?


Not sure if it would work on the plain CHVIII or only the dark hero (depends on your settings I imagine).

But basically, I have always kept c-states off for the latency advantage it gives. The issue when you do this is it kills how well CO will actually work (kinda like going from 3003 to a newer bios, where on 3003, you get a larger benefit from each reduction, as you noticed). To combat this, you can reduce edc to 140 (Below this starts to induce clock stretching, above this reduces performance and reduces you boost). The issue with this is, if you don't have a DH, you can't make up for the huge drop you will get in any workload over 140A (well really, below that since 4.8, for example, starts to beat out pbo around 120A or so).

So those number I had posted a few months ago when comparing to ctr was done using the method above.

A few days ago I decided to look into fmax enhancer again. Yeah, everyone hates it on the 5000 series because unstable/clock stretching/w.e. So with the settings above I decided to give it a try and wouldn't you know, because of all the weirdness of c-states disabled, the lower edc and using dynamic OC switcher, it reeled in all of those issues. It's like this hilarious balancing act.

Enabling fmax enhancer basically brought CO #s to act even more aggressive than with c-states enabled on 3003 and even more finicky to tune properly. What's more or less clear now is yes, fmax enhancer is essentially the edc 0 bug (if you open ctr, for example, edc will read 0 lol).

What I found is, if I do not have DOS enabled with everything else set as I do above, it does not work like this at all. I haven't fully tested it, but atleast setting 140 like I do and not having DOS enabled just kills everything, and I mean absolutely ruins scores. 

Why this works when everything is set up? I have no idea. It's clear my edc setting is either completely ignored or it is only used for some part of the requested or reported clock. I have come to this conclusion because even if I set DOS crossover amperage to 250A (aka, nothing is going to make it cross) pbo will happily boost for all core r20 runs and cpuz runs. 

I'm not at the house but I was getting 12490 r20 all core scores and 14070 cpuz all cores from this method.

1T and 2T does lag slightly behind my normal pbo, but it's because of how hairy it is to dial in with CO. Beyond 2T, I have seen 1-3% improvements across the board in r20 compared to my previous pbo. 

As you saw in the sottr screen shot, this means that for games, it really is quite a game changer. It really takes advantage of the fact that each core can boost independently and only rely on power, not cpu usage, and not per ccx.

Have fun experimenting. It is a pain in the butt to dial in lmao.


----------



## domdtxdissar

jomama22 said:


> Not sure if it would work on the plain CHVIII or only the dark hero (depends on your settings I imagine).
> 
> But basically, I have always kept c-states off for the latency advantage it gives. The issue when you do this is it kills how well CO will actually work (kinda like going from 3003 to a newer bios, where on 3003, you get a larger benefit from each reduction, as you noticed). To combat this, you can reduce edc to 140 (Below this starts to induce clock stretching, above this reduces performance and reduces you boost). The issue with this is, if you don't have a DH, you can't make up for the huge drop you will get in any workload over 140A (well really, below that since 4.8, for example, starts to beat out pbo around 120A or so).
> 
> So those number I had posted a few months ago when comparing to ctr was done using the method above.
> 
> A few days ago I decided to look into fmax enhancer again. Yeah, everyone hates it on the 5000 series because unstable/clock stretching/w.e. So with the settings above I decided to give it a try and wouldn't you know, because of all the weirdness of c-states disabled, the lower edc and using dynamic OC switcher, it reeled in all of those issues. It's like this hilarious balancing act.
> 
> Enabling fmax enhancer basically brought CO #s to act even more aggressive than with c-states enabled on 3003 and even more finicky to tune properly. What's more or less clear now is yes, fmax enhancer is essentially the edc 0 bug (if you open ctr, for example, edc will read 0 lol).
> 
> What I found is, if I do not have DOS enabled with everything else set as I do above, it does not work like this at all. I haven't fully tested it, but atleast setting 140 like I do and not having DOS enabled just kills everything, and I mean absolutely ruins scores.
> 
> Why this works when everything is set up? I have no idea. It's clear my edc setting is either completely ignored or it is only used for some part of the requested or reported clock. I have come to this conclusion because even if I set DOS crossover amperage to 250A (aka, nothing is going to make it cross) pbo will happily boost for all core r20 runs and cpuz runs.
> 
> I'm not at the house but I was getting 12490 r20 all core scores and 14070 cpuz all cores from this method.
> 
> 1T and 2T does lag slightly behind my normal pbo, but it's because of how hairy it is to dial in with CO. Beyond 2T, I have seen 1-3% improvements across the board in r20 compared to my previous pbo.
> 
> As you saw in the sottr screen shot, this means that for games, it really is quite a game changer. It really takes advantage of the fact that each core can boost independently and only rely on power, not cpu usage, and not per ccx.
> 
> Have fun experimenting. It is a pain in the butt to dial in lmao.


KK, thanks for the thurley explanation 
Seems like im out of luck with the regular CHVIII then, but its good the more expensive darkhero have some special sauce to justify the price difference  
If i wanna reach these boost levels in TM5 ill have to do it with old fashioned static OC in CTR.


----------



## BambusBlaster

CyrIng said:


> Without killing the whole processor ... It's integrated.
> I guess you have G.Skill DIMMs ?
> I would suggest you ask them for RMA.


The thing is, that I tried to overclock these: G.Skill Trident Z Royal 32 GB (2x 16GB) DDR4-3600 DIMM CL16 (F4-3600C16D-32GTRS).
When the computer did not boot anymore, I thought I fried them and switched over to these: G.Skill Trident Z 16 GB (4x 8GB) DDR4-3600 DIMM CL15 (F4-3600C15D-16GTZ)
The second set was never overclocked, but suddenly also did not want to work with 3600 anymore, which was working perfectly fine before. That's why I think it is not the RAM that is causing the problem, but I don't know what is.


----------



## stimpy88

BambusBlaster said:


> The thing is, that I tried to overclock these: G.Skill Trident Z Royal 32 GB (2x 16GB) DDR4-3600 DIMM CL16 (F4-3600C16D-32GTRS).
> When the computer did not boot anymore, I thought I fried them and switched over to these: G.Skill Trident Z 16 GB (4x 8GB) DDR4-3600 DIMM CL15 (F4-3600C15D-16GTZ)
> The second set was never overclocked, but suddenly also did not want to work with 3600 anymore, which was working perfectly fine before. That's why I think it is not the RAM that is causing the problem, but I don't know what is.


I have to admit that this issue I started having over the last 10 days has me wondering if your on to something. My system is completely stable in all stress tests, but as soon as I have to reboot, all hell breaks loose with corrupted BIOS warnings telling me to reflash the BIOS, another BIOS warning that the secure boot feature is disabled due to corruption, and Windows saying the same thing.

Power the system down a couple of times, and the computer is fine, and can stress test for days on end... Scan Windows, and it reports no errors or corrupted files, scan the disk, and it reports no problems... I also have no WHEA errors, after curing that back in the day with voltage tweaks.

I ended up reflashing the BIOS to 3401 and turning the FCLK down to 3666MHz, down from 3733MHz. The computer has been stable at 3733MHz for 6 months, now it wont boot unless I keep resetting it until the BIOS stops warning about it being corrupted. So far, turning it down a notch has made it completely stable again.

I wonder if AMD has done something in the latest AGESA or BIOS that starts this off for some people...

UPDATE:
Well this is fun...NOT! I have been able to figure out that my problem is due to memory. Now the issue is that my system passes all tests and benchmarks for hours and hours, overnight even. The problem (blue screen upon boot in to Windows), only happens if I select restart in Windows. The system is fine if it's a cold boot, or even a boot after just going on to the BIOS and making no changes. The computer runs fine for days, no issues, but if I have to restart for any reason, I get an instant blue screen as soon as Windows starts to boot, complaining about corrupted boot files. If I turn the computer off and do a cold boot, it runs perfectly fine.

I have fresh installed Windows, and even tried the new Insider preview version, to rule out a bug in a particular build. Still the problem persists.


----------



## Kokin

stimpy88 said:


> UPDATE:
> Well this is fun...NOT! I have been able to figure out that my problem is due to memory. Now the issue is that my system passes all tests and benchmarks for hours and hours, overnight even. The problem (blue screen upon boot in to Windows), only happens if I select restart in Windows. The system is fine if it's a cold boot, or even a boot after just going on to the BIOS and making no changes. The computer runs fine for days, no issues, but if I have to restart for any reason, I get an instant blue screen as soon as Windows starts to boot, complaining about corrupted boot files. If I turn the computer off and do a cold boot, it runs perfectly fine.
> 
> I have fresh installed Windows, and even tried the new Insider preview version, to rule out a bug in a particular build. Still the problem persists.


That's kind of worrying. You think BIOS 3501 has some setting that is causing the memory to go bad or degrade?


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Funnily enough I’ve just had a set a ram sticks go bad. Pc freezing when gaming. Never put it down to bios though. I suppose it’s worth considering though.


----------



## jomama22

stimpy88 said:


> I have to admit that this issue I started having over the last 10 days has me wondering if your on to something. My system is completely stable in all stress tests, but as soon as I have to reboot, all hell breaks loose with corrupted BIOS warnings telling me to reflash the BIOS, another BIOS warning that the secure boot feature is disabled due to corruption, and Windows saying the same thing.
> 
> Power the system down a couple of times, and the computer is fine, and can stress test for days on end... Scan Windows, and it reports no errors or corrupted files, scan the disk, and it reports no problems... I also have no WHEA errors, after curing that back in the day with voltage tweaks.
> 
> I ended up reflashing the BIOS to 3401 and turning the FCLK down to 3666MHz, down from 3733MHz. The computer has been stable at 3733MHz for 6 months, now it wont boot unless I keep resetting it until the BIOS stops warning about it being corrupted. So far, turning it down a notch has made it completely stable again.
> 
> I wonder if AMD has done something in the latest AGESA or BIOS that starts this off for some people...
> 
> UPDATE:
> Well this is fun...NOT! I have been able to figure out that my problem is due to memory. Now the issue is that my system passes all tests and benchmarks for hours and hours, overnight even. The problem (blue screen upon boot in to Windows), only happens if I select restart in Windows. The system is fine if it's a cold boot, or even a boot after just going on to the BIOS and making no changes. The computer runs fine for days, no issues, but if I have to restart for any reason, I get an instant blue screen as soon as Windows starts to boot, complaining about corrupted boot files. If I turn the computer off and do a cold boot, it runs perfectly fine.
> 
> I have fresh installed Windows, and even tried the new Insider preview version, to rule out a bug in a particular build. Still the problem persists.


Are you running any sort of cpu oc? Also, the most recent smu(part of 1.2.0.2) version has changed memory voltage/timing requirements quite a bit. It's entirely possible your ram just isn't stable anymore.

Install tm5 and run 1usmus's profile for like 20 cycles a little over 2 hours) Instructions here: Memory Testing with TestMem5 TM5 with custom configs

Doubt anything is damaged unless you were blasting away at some voltages. What's vddg_ccd, IOD, vddp and soc set at? A failed restart is usually memory or CO/cpu oc related.


----------



## xeizo

jomama22 said:


> Are you running any sort of cpu oc? Also, the most recent smu(part of 1.2.0.2) version has changed memory voltage/timing requirements quite a bit. It's entirely possible your ram just isn't stable anymore.
> 
> Install tm5 and run 1usmus's profile for like 20 cycles a little over 2 hours) Instructions here: Memory Testing with TestMem5 TM5 with custom configs
> 
> Doubt anything is damaged unless you were blasting away at some voltages. What's vddg_ccd, IOD, vddp and soc set at? A failed restart is usually memory or CO/cpu oc related.


 +1 on this. On my two boards with AGESA 1.2.0.2 I had to change settings quite a bit to get back to essentially the same performance. Both 5900X/X570 and 3900X/B550. Both has been very stable after that, not a single problem on any of them.


----------



## stimpy88

jomama22 said:


> Are you running any sort of cpu oc? Also, the most recent smu(part of 1.2.0.2) version has changed memory voltage/timing requirements quite a bit. It's entirely possible your ram just isn't stable anymore.
> 
> Install tm5 and run 1usmus's profile for like 20 cycles a little over 2 hours) Instructions here: Memory Testing with TestMem5 TM5 with custom configs
> 
> Doubt anything is damaged unless you were blasting away at some voltages. What's vddg_ccd, IOD, vddp and soc set at? A failed restart is usually memory or CO/cpu oc related.


Nope, never OC'd this CPU.

The memory is stable in all memtests I do on it. Overnight.

I already used TM5 with that profile, I can run it all day long.

VSOC 1.0250v
VDDG_IOD 0.980v
VDDG_CCD 0.980v
CLDO_VDDP 0.890v

I would understand it if I had instabilities in tests, but I don't. Only when restarting Windows... It's weird.

Does anyone know if there there any voltages on Ryzen that are not applied a boot time? This feels almost like the BIOS is not applying a voltage randomly at boot.









Normally, this is running at 3733/1866FCLK - same settings and voltages


----------



## stimpy88

Kokin said:


> That's kind of worrying. You think BIOS 3501 has some setting that is causing the memory to go bad or degrade?


I really don't know. Nothing would surprise me with AMD or ASUS to be honest, but I would like to think they had some kind of quality control for BIOS releases. It's a shame that neither company documents what exactly they change when they release a new BIOS or AGESA.


----------



## J7SC

I have had no problems whatsoever with Bios 3501 and latest Agesa on the CH8 Dark. The only voltage I changed apart from v-Core for all-core is VDDP; it was a bit high with stock '3501' settings at 1.0979 V. Lowering it to below 1 V has had no negative effects re. stress-testing.

I've done a few all-c 4750 / dynamic OC for fun (scores posted before), but below is my new 'daily': 4650 all-core with dynamic OC and crossover at 45 amp, noting that this setup also does some productivity. Load voltage is 1.21 V, though this is, for now, without CO (started to test that out for next steps). Temps with this at Cinebench R23 is 63 C, and RAM is 4x8 GB at 1.38 V

Within a few weeks, I'll also update the CH8 wi-fi / 3950X combo (productivity) to bios 3501 from 2502 - that should be telling re. the bios memory and Agesa changes...


----------



## Sleepycat

stimpy88 said:


> Nope, never OC'd this CPU.
> 
> The memory is stable in all memtests I do on it. Overnight.
> 
> I already used TM5 with that profile, I can run it all day long.
> 
> VSOC 1.0250v
> VDDG_IOD 0.980v
> VDDG_CCD 0.980v
> CLDO_VDDP 0.890v
> 
> I would understand it if I had instabilities in tests, but I don't. Only when restarting Windows... It's weird.
> 
> Does anyone know if there there any voltages on Ryzen that are not applied a boot time? This feels almost like the BIOS is not applying a voltage randomly at boot.
> 
> View attachment 2511381
> 
> Normally, this is running at 3733/1866FCLK - same settings and voltages


I would recommend testing 3733 memory, but desynchronise FCLK to 1833 to test. If it becomes stable without the reboot errors, then you know it is the FCLK. If it still has errors, then it is the memory settings.

What vDIMM are you running? Your ClkDrvStr is very high for such conservative memory clock and sub timings, even if it was 3733

Have you tried these settings with the 3501 bios? 
DIMM Freq: 3733
VSoc 1.09
CLDO VDDP: 0.98
VDDG CCD: 1.05
VDDG IOD: 1.05
ProcODT: 43.6
ClkDrvStr: 24.0
AddrCmdDrvStr: 20.0
tRFC: 294
tRFC2:218
tRFC4: 134


----------



## Kokin

With BIOS 3501, I get less USB issues (keyboard freezing) when I set PCIE speeds to gen 3.

Gen 3: keyboard freezes 1-2 times per day
Gen 4: keyboard freezes 5-10 times per day

No other USB devices have issues and the keyboard seems to freeze regardless of the port used. BIOS 3003 and older did not cause the keyboard to freeze. The keyboard itself works fine on other systems, so it isn't a faulty keyboard. 

I am using a Lian Li O11 Mini PCIE 4.0 riser cable, but that didn't affect the keyboard when using BIOS 3003 and it works flawlessly with my RTX 3070 on both Gen 3/Gen 4 speeds.


----------



## GRABibus

Bios 3501 is a joke.
They have decreased performances in order to solve idle or low load reboot issues.
With 3501, boost is much lower than former bioses.

maybe it is a bios to increase their quality score card and have less RMA….🤨


----------



## domdtxdissar

GRABibus said:


> Bios 3501 is a joke.
> They have decreased performances in order to solve idle or low load reboot issues.
> With 3501, boost is much lower than former bioses.
> 
> maybe it is a bios to increase their quality score card and have less RMA….🤨


That's why you use CTR if you want to use 3501...


----------



## GRABibus

domdtxdissar said:


> That's why you use CTR if you want to use 3501...


I have to dig into this soft.
I have made diagnostic , it has created profiles.
PBO auto in bios.
Vcore auto in bios
Only docp enabled and some increases voltages for ram stability (3800/1900)
LLC at 3 level.

Then, when I launch for example a cbr20 test with my profile 2, instant reboot….


----------



## Sleepycat

GRABibus said:


> I have to dig into this soft.
> I have made diagnostic , it has created profiles.
> PBO auto in bios.
> Vcore auto in bios
> Only docp enabled and some increases voltages for ram stability (3800/1900)
> LLC at 3 level.
> 
> Then, when I launch for example a cbr20 test with my profile 2, instant reboot….


I found I still needed to tune with 2.1. This is what I have for my 5900X.

P2 Profile: 4650 / 4575 @ 1.250V
P1 Profile: 4575 / 4525 @ 1.200V
Px Low: 4725 @ 1.325V
Px Mid: 4800 @ 1.400V
Px High: 4900 @ 1.450V

How are you doing Profile 2 with CB R20? It should be running Profile 1 as that is an all core load.


----------



## jomama22

jomama22 said:


> Not sure if it would work on the plain CHVIII or only the dark hero (depends on your settings I imagine).
> 
> But basically, I have always kept c-states off for the latency advantage it gives. The issue when you do this is it kills how well CO will actually work (kinda like going from 3003 to a newer bios, where on 3003, you get a larger benefit from each reduction, as you noticed). To combat this, you can reduce edc to 140 (Below this starts to induce clock stretching, above this reduces performance and reduces you boost). The issue with this is, if you don't have a DH, you can't make up for the huge drop you will get in any workload over 140A (well really, below that since 4.8, for example, starts to beat out pbo around 120A or so).
> 
> So those number I had posted a few months ago when comparing to ctr was done using the method above.
> 
> A few days ago I decided to look into fmax enhancer again. Yeah, everyone hates it on the 5000 series because unstable/clock stretching/w.e. So with the settings above I decided to give it a try and wouldn't you know, because of all the weirdness of c-states disabled, the lower edc and using dynamic OC switcher, it reeled in all of those issues. It's like this hilarious balancing act.
> 
> Enabling fmax enhancer basically brought CO #s to act even more aggressive than with c-states enabled on 3003 and even more finicky to tune properly. What's more or less clear now is yes, fmax enhancer is essentially the edc 0 bug (if you open ctr, for example, edc will read 0 lol).
> 
> What I found is, if I do not have DOS enabled with everything else set as I do above, it does not work like this at all. I haven't fully tested it, but atleast setting 140 like I do and not having DOS enabled just kills everything, and I mean absolutely ruins scores.
> 
> Why this works when everything is set up? I have no idea. It's clear my edc setting is either completely ignored or it is only used for some part of the requested or reported clock. I have come to this conclusion because even if I set DOS crossover amperage to 250A (aka, nothing is going to make it cross) pbo will happily boost for all core r20 runs and cpuz runs.
> 
> I'm not at the house but I was getting 12490 r20 all core scores and 14070 cpuz all cores from this method.
> 
> 1T and 2T does lag slightly behind my normal pbo, but it's because of how hairy it is to dial in with CO. Beyond 2T, I have seen 1-3% improvements across the board in r20 compared to my previous pbo.
> 
> As you saw in the sottr screen shot, this means that for games, it really is quite a game changer. It really takes advantage of the fact that each core can boost independently and only rely on power, not cpu usage, and not per ccx.
> 
> Have fun experimenting. It is a pain in the butt to dial in lmao.


I am replying to myself as I suggest everyone using pbo try the above on your DH (and maybe CH8's) with 5000 series chips as it will infact increase PBO performance as stated above and will actually net you even more in gaming like scenarios. For how to do this on the DH, read my first post. I tested using bios 3003 so I do not know how effective it is on other bios' but I would imagine it would react the same.

I no longer am just bottomed out at -30 and my best 2 cores are higher (i.e. -10 to -5). It basically gives each CO value even more impact and thus, more potential max performance.

There is also possibly a way to do the above on regular CH8's but I have not tested it. Set PBO as described below(enable pbo) and turn on fmax enhancer. Here's where it gets strange but bare with me, shamino suggested this: "to trigger the same without enabling DOS, i think you can set any oc freq / vid and then enable the "force disable oc mode" option in tweakers para, kinda oxymoronic i know." Not sure if VID/oc freq here is the manual voltage/clocks in the main extreme menu or if it is the one in the amd overclocking section within advanced, I would assume the latter, but you can just try both and see what happens.

A few things to add:

Whatever you have CO set as now, raise (as in -30 to -20) every core by 10 and work your way back down. The settings for your two best cores, raise to 5 or less and again, work your way back lower. These will be the most difficult to nail down.
Reduce you fmax offset to begin with, it will make life easier during the process and you can always raise it back and check for stability afterwards.
Using LLC 2 will help smooth out/ease the twitchiness of CO when using this method. You can try LLC auto first and see how it works for you.
I have not tested with c-states on but I would imagine it would make CO even more difficult if it is.
you can add a positive voltage offset to help stabilize as well. I used just the minimum +6mv after tuning CO for an extra bit of stability (will also help your heavy 1T/2T loads).
Scalar has a much larger effect on stability doing this. 1x will be easier to modify CO, 10x will be the hardest. Again, just try for yourself. I tuned the CO for 6x.
Because you aren't bottoming out at -30 for everything, you will eventually hit a stability wall where any lower CO of any value/any core will affect the whole chip (not just that core) as an all core workload will attempt to boost higher than some core can't handle. So it opens the door for deciding what cores you want to maximize individual boost for. I.E. if on a 5950x, it probably makes sense to lower CO values more on CCD0 than CCD1 as the first 8 cores will be the first to be used by windows scheduler.
Funny enough, your all core temps will actually go down a smidge. Not much, but a smidge.

I have a custom loop just for the cpu (2x360 rads) so ymmv with other cooling setups.

Read my first post for other details if needed.

Good luck!

As an example of the improvements, went from avg game fps in sottr on lowest from 280 to 294:








And a run of r20 right after:









Edit: ran sottr again, 297:


----------



## Re-lar-Kvothe

jomama22 said:


> I am replying to myself as I suggest everyone using pbo try the above on your DH (and maybe CH8's) with 5000 series chips as it will infact increase PBO performance as stated above and will actually net you even more in gaming like scenarios. For how to do this on the DH, read my first post. I tested using bios 3003 so I do not know how effective it is on other bios' but I would imagine it would react the same.
> 
> I no longer am just bottomed out at -30 and my best 2 cores are higher (i.e. -10 to -5). It basically gives each CO value even more impact and thus, more potential max performance.
> 
> There is also possibly a way to do the above on regular CH8's but I have not tested it. Set PBO as described below(enable pbo) and turn on fmax enhancer. Here's where it gets strange but bare with me, shamino suggested this: "to trigger the same without enabling DOS, i think you can set any oc freq / vid and then enable the "force disable oc mode" option in tweakers para, kinda oxymoronic i know." Not sure if VID/oc freq here is the manual voltage/clocks in the main extreme menu or if it is the one in the amd overclocking section within advanced, I would assume the latter, but you can just try both and see what happens.
> 
> A few things to add:
> 
> Whatever you have CO set as now, raise (as in -30 to -20) every core by 10 and work your way back down. The settings for your two best cores, raise to 5 or less and again, work your way back lower. These will be the most difficult to nail down.
> Reduce you fmax offset to begin with, it will make life easier during the process and you can always raise it back and check for stability afterwards.
> Using LLC 2 will help smooth out/ease the twitchiness of CO when using this method. You can try LLC auto first and see how it works for you.
> I have not tested with c-states on but I would imagine it would make CO even more difficult if it is.
> you can add a positive voltage offset to help stabilize as well. I used just the minimum +6mv after tuning CO for an extra bit of stability (will also help your heavy 1T/2T loads).
> Scalar has a much larger effect on stability doing this. 1x will be easier to modify CO, 10x will be the hardest. Again, just try for yourself. I tuned the CO for 6x.
> Because you aren't bottoming out at -30 for everything, you will eventually hit a stability wall where any lower CO of any value/any core will affect the whole chip (not just that core) as an all core workload will attempt to boost higher than some core can't handle. So it opens the door for deciding what cores you want to maximize individual boost for. I.E. if on a 5950x, it probably makes sense to lower CO values more on CCD0 than CCD1 as the first 8 cores will be the first to be used by windows scheduler.
> Funny enough, your all core temps will actually go down a smidge. Not much, but a smidge.
> 
> I have a custom loop just for the cpu (2x360 rads) so ymmv with other cooling setups.
> 
> Read my first post for other details if needed.
> 
> Good luck!
> 
> As an example of the improvements, went from avg game fps in sottr on lowest from 280 to 294:


I turned C-States off on a HERO using 3501 bios. The PBO limits are 190/130/140. My numbers all went up. I have 8 0f 12 cores boosting at 5GHz or above, 2 are at 5150. CO is -30, all cores. In some tests a 4.85GHz all core condition is maintained. CPU temp is hovering at 77C. This is with a 5900x. Using CB20 my all core frequency is 4.625. I am still working on bringing that up.I assume it has something to do with the PBO limits.I am finishing a build with a Dark Hero and 5950x combination. I am anxious to try out the same techniques on that system.


----------



## jomama22

Re-lar-Kvothe said:


> I turned C-States off on a HERO using 3501 bios. The PBO limits are 190/130/140. My numbers all went up. I have 8 0f 12 cores boosting at 5GHz or above, 2 are at 5150. CO is -30, all cores. In some tests a 4.85GHz all core condition is maintained. CPU temp is hovering at 77C. This is with a 5900x. Using CB20 my all core frequency is 4.625. I am still working on bringing that up.I assume it has something to do with the PBO limits.I am finishing a build with a Dark Hero and 5950x combination. I am anxious to try out the same techniques on that system.


Do benchmarks to confirm improvement in scores and not just getting clock stretched. I did not have that issue except for 1T heavy loads but it's minimal. I actually encounter clock shrinking(reports less than it is) on heavy allcore loads, but again, only slightly.

Using this method, edc value doesn't matter at all, it is completely ignored. With my cooling, I just set 1000ppt/500tdc because it's fine.


----------



## CyrIng

What I read within Matisse registers is that C-states BIOS option is actually toggling the address availability of the I/O wait port. Port you will trigger with an IN assembly instruction.

That option seems not to be the C-States triggered by MONITOR-MWAIT, like I'm familiar with, in Intel architectures.

However, redirecting kernel to idle by the use of MWAIT is still feasible but my 3950X is consuming twice the sleeping power required than the HALT or I/O instructions use cases.


----------



## lmfodor

jomama22 said:


> I am replying to myself as I suggest everyone using pbo try the above on your DH (and maybe CH8's) with 5000 series chips as it will infact increase PBO performance as stated above and will actually net you even more in gaming like scenarios. For how to do this on the DH, read my first post. I tested using bios 3003 so I do not know how effective it is on other bios' but I would imagine it would react the same.
> 
> I no longer am just bottomed out at -30 and my best 2 cores are higher (i.e. -10 to -5). It basically gives each CO value even more impact and thus, more potential max performance.
> 
> There is also possibly a way to do the above on regular CH8's but I have not tested it. Set PBO as described below(enable pbo) and turn on fmax enhancer. Here's where it gets strange but bare with me, shamino suggested this: "to trigger the same without enabling DOS, i think you can set any oc freq / vid and then enable the "force disable oc mode" option in tweakers para, kinda oxymoronic i know." Not sure if VID/oc freq here is the manual voltage/clocks in the main extreme menu or if it is the one in the amd overclocking section within advanced, I would assume the latter, but you can just try both and see what happens.
> 
> A few things to add:
> 
> Whatever you have CO set as now, raise (as in -30 to -20) every core by 10 and work your way back down. The settings for your two best cores, raise to 5 or less and again, work your way back lower. These will be the most difficult to nail down.
> Reduce you fmax offset to begin with, it will make life easier during the process and you can always raise it back and check for stability afterwards.
> Using LLC 2 will help smooth out/ease the twitchiness of CO when using this method. You can try LLC auto first and see how it works for you.
> I have not tested with c-states on but I would imagine it would make CO even more difficult if it is.
> you can add a positive voltage offset to help stabilize as well. I used just the minimum +6mv after tuning CO for an extra bit of stability (will also help your heavy 1T/2T loads).
> Scalar has a much larger effect on stability doing this. 1x will be easier to modify CO, 10x will be the hardest. Again, just try for yourself. I tuned the CO for 6x.
> Because you aren't bottoming out at -30 for everything, you will eventually hit a stability wall where any lower CO of any value/any core will affect the whole chip (not just that core) as an all core workload will attempt to boost higher than some core can't handle. So it opens the door for deciding what cores you want to maximize individual boost for. I.E. if on a 5950x, it probably makes sense to lower CO values more on CCD0 than CCD1 as the first 8 cores will be the first to be used by windows scheduler.
> Funny enough, your all core temps will actually go down a smidge. Not much, but a smidge.
> 
> I have a custom loop just for the cpu (2x360 rads) so ymmv with other cooling setups.
> 
> Read my first post for other details if needed.
> 
> Good luck!
> 
> As an example of the improvements, went from avg game fps in sottr on lowest from 280 to 294:
> View attachment 2511665
> 
> And a run of r20 right after:
> View attachment 2511666
> 
> 
> Edit: ran sottr again, 297:
> View attachment 2511667


Hi, I just finished changing my CH8 Wifi for the Dark Hero and I am also using the original BIOS 3003. It had an "optimized" curve with curve optimizer starting from -30 each core until each one stopped failing, I’ve a 5900, and I go from -30 to -24. My best Core is precisely the one at -24, less voltage than that and it fails, and the second best core at -26. With this suggestion should for example take all cores from -30 to -26 to for example -20 and the best two to -10? would that give more efficiency? Did you test with SiSandra if the inter-core improves? the two best cores of the CCD2 also do not support -30 .. I'm at -25 and -26 .. so I don't know whether to equalize them along with the rest at -20 following your recommendation or look for an intermediate point. 

Another data that catches my attention about my cores is that the Core 0 has -28 and is the one that has the most boost .. sometimes, in the tests of SC Windows it selects it .. and switches between my best corr (4), the second best (5) and 0. 

Regarding DOS, it doesn't make sense to use it, right? I am in 4620 all cores .. approximately. I have an AIO 360 from EK and have high PPT values without problems. But I don't think the OC Manual with DOS is more efficient vs the curve optimizer, right? my main use is games. 

Finally, can you share your LLC settings with me? I mean all, not just CPU. I currently have CPU LLC in Auto, with SW Freq at 500 and extreme, then vSOC LLC4 also with SW Freq 500 and optimized and memories at Extreme and SW Freq 300 I always had doubts with the LLC2, since with the tight curve I feared a lot of undervolt. Perhaps with this method a positive offset is not necessary, do you recommend +0.06 of vCore? did you try the vdroop? 

Thank you for your advice!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## MemorexKid

So I was getting ready to try CTR 2.1 RC5, I have BIOS v2702 installed, never upgraded beyond this version. I also have the 5950x. What is the best BIOS version to be on to run this right now? If it matters I'm also running 64gb 3600 ram and not over clocking it. Thanks.


----------



## Sleepycat

MemorexKid said:


> So I was getting ready to try CTR 2.1 RC5, I have BIOS v2702 installed, never upgraded beyond this version. I also have the 5950x. What is the best BIOS version to be on to run this right now? If it matters I'm also running 64gb 3600 ram and not over clocking it. Thanks.


Why not try running CTR2.1 RC5 with 2702 if it is not currently giving you problems?

If you do want a newer bios, I'd say either 3302 or 3501. Note that you might have some USB issues with 3302, so do test it first before you run CTR2.1. Personally, I am now running 3501 with CTR2.1 and having very good results with it. With your 64GB ram, when you say you are not overclocking it, does that mean you are running it with DOCP off?


----------



## domdtxdissar

jomama22 said:


> I am replying to myself as I suggest everyone using pbo try the above on your DH (and maybe CH8's) with 5000 series chips as it will infact increase PBO performance as stated above and will actually net you even more in gaming like scenarios. For how to do this on the DH, read my first post. I tested using bios 3003 so I do not know how effective it is on other bios' but I would imagine it would react the same.
> 
> I no longer am just bottomed out at -30 and my best 2 cores are higher (i.e. -10 to -5). It basically gives each CO value even more impact and thus, more potential max performance.
> 
> There is also possibly a way to do the above on regular CH8's but I have not tested it. Set PBO as described below(enable pbo) and turn on fmax enhancer. Here's where it gets strange but bare with me, shamino suggested this: "to trigger the same without enabling DOS, i think you can set any oc freq / vid and then enable the "force disable oc mode" option in tweakers para, kinda oxymoronic i know." Not sure if VID/oc freq here is the manual voltage/clocks in the main extreme menu or if it is the one in the amd overclocking section within advanced, I would assume the latter, but you can just try both and see what happens.
> 
> A few things to add:
> 
> Whatever you have CO set as now, raise (as in -30 to -20) every core by 10 and work your way back down. The settings for your two best cores, raise to 5 or less and again, work your way back lower. These will be the most difficult to nail down.
> Reduce you fmax offset to begin with, it will make life easier during the process and you can always raise it back and check for stability afterwards.
> Using LLC 2 will help smooth out/ease the twitchiness of CO when using this method. You can try LLC auto first and see how it works for you.
> I have not tested with c-states on but I would imagine it would make CO even more difficult if it is.
> you can add a positive voltage offset to help stabilize as well. I used just the minimum +6mv after tuning CO for an extra bit of stability (will also help your heavy 1T/2T loads).
> Scalar has a much larger effect on stability doing this. 1x will be easier to modify CO, 10x will be the hardest. Again, just try for yourself. I tuned the CO for 6x.
> Because you aren't bottoming out at -30 for everything, you will eventually hit a stability wall where any lower CO of any value/any core will affect the whole chip (not just that core) as an all core workload will attempt to boost higher than some core can't handle. So it opens the door for deciding what cores you want to maximize individual boost for. I.E. if on a 5950x, it probably makes sense to lower CO values more on CCD0 than CCD1 as the first 8 cores will be the first to be used by windows scheduler.
> Funny enough, your all core temps will actually go down a smidge. Not much, but a smidge.
> 
> I have a custom loop just for the cpu (2x360 rads) so ymmv with other cooling setups.
> 
> Read my first post for other details if needed.
> 
> Good luck!
> 
> As an example of the improvements, went from avg game fps in sottr on lowest from 280 to 294:
> View attachment 2511665
> 
> And a run of r20 right after:
> View attachment 2511666
> 
> 
> Edit: ran sottr again, 297:
> View attachment 2511667


This dont seem to work with either reguler CH8 and/or bios 3501. (i dont plan to flash back 3003 for a try)

Did a quick test but the 3501 boosting scores are not good compared to normal 3003 PBO CO boosting, settings used:

PBO CO -30 allcore
Tested with C-states both enabled and disabled (makes little difference)
fmax enhancer enabled
Powerlimits tested @ 400/auto/140, 400/250/140 and 400/250/180 (makes no difference)
Static oc freq / vid tested in both main extreme menu and amd overclocking section @ 4700/1.3volt (no difference where input)
"force disable oc mode" enabled
fmax +50 (5100)
LLC @ auto
Scalar @ auto (2)

Worse actual performance in CPU-Z and Cinebench r20, but high boosting/clock-stretching in TM5


















_edit_
tested with 1000ppt and 500tdc + 6 scalar = made no difference









Want something else tested before i go back to CTR ?


----------



## jomama22

domdtxdissar said:


> This dont seem to work with either reguler CH8 and/or bios 3501. (i dont plan to flash back 3003 to try)
> 
> Did a quick test but the 3501 boosting scores are not good compared to normal 3003 PBO CO boosting, settings used:
> 
> PBO CO -30 allcore
> Tested with C-states both enabled and disabled (makes little difference)
> fmax enhancer enabled
> Powerlimits tested @ 400/auto/140, 400/250/140 and 400/250/180 (makes no difference)
> Static oc freq / vid tested in both main extreme menu and amd overclocking section @ 4700/1.3volt (no difference where input)
> "force disable oc mode" enabled
> fmax +50 (5100)
> LLC @ auto
> Scalar @ auto (2)
> 
> Worse actual performance in CPU-Z and Cinebench r20, but high boosting/clock-stretching in TM5
> View attachment 2511714
> 
> View attachment 2511715
> 
> 
> 
> _edit_
> tested with 1000ppt and 500tdc + 6 scalar = made no difference
> View attachment 2511716
> 
> 
> Want something else tested before i go back to CTR ?


Not sure then. Was just somthing shamino had theorized as a possibility to get it to trigger. Not sure if the above poster was able to get it to work correctly or not and I haven't tried that method on the DH.

I think a sure fire way to see if it worked is opening ctr and looking at what the edc value reads in the tuner section. Reads 0 for me when doing so. Edit: I see you used RM and it shows the same. So it's definitely in "oc mode" while using pbo. I do have df states disabled as well but not sure that would matter.

I would actually get those same scores in cpuz (usually followed by a crash) when CO was just completely unstable using this method.

Possible the older bios' helps, but again, not really sure. Maybe make sure pbo is enabled in both places? Really could just be a thing that works only do the DH and no other motherboard. I have a sneaking suspicion though that msi used to do somthing somewhat similar on their older bios' as the pbo scores I would get with my ace are quite similar to what I get now using this exploit. Can't be certain or anything but that board was a good 1-3% faster than the DH in traditional pbo/co.

If you feel like it you could always try 3003 and see what happens. Perhaps somthing got changed in a recent agesa or smu version.


----------



## Re-lar-Kvothe

jomama22 said:


> Do benchmarks to confirm improvement in scores and not just getting clock stretched. I did not have that issue except for 1T heavy loads but it's minimal. I actually encounter clock shrinking(reports less than it is) on heavy allcore loads, but again, only slightly.
> 
> Using this method, edc value doesn't matter at all, it is completely ignored. With my cooling, I just set 1000ppt/500tdc because it's fine.


I realized a 400 pt increase in CB20 multi-thread by turning CO on. Also a 400 point increase in CPU-Z multi-thread, 22 single thread. In CB23 Multi thread I realized an 875 pt increase. I believe I am not clock stretching my system.


----------



## Sleepycat

Re-lar-Kvothe said:


> I realized a 400 pt increase in CB20 multi-thread by turning CO on. Also a 400 point increase in CPU-Z multi-thread, 22 single thread. In CB23 Multi thread I realized an 875 pt increase. I believe I am not clock stretching my system.
> View attachment 2511739


Unfortunately, I think you are getting some clock stretching as my 5900X gets a score of 23581 but only needing to clock at 4.700 / 4.650 @ 1.300V. My PPT/TDC/EDC is set to 200/140/160


----------



## J7SC

...yeah, clocks by themselves don't really mean that much...never mind clock stretching...I've seen 'global frequency limit' at beyond 5200 MHz' on my 5950X, though that is likely a theoretical value to begin with....

...just ordered 32 GB of SammyB GTZR 4000 / CL15 for the dual AM4 mobo work-and-play build. I didn't really want to invest in new DDR4 at this stage, but I do need it and since all my other kits are also GTZR, so mix-and-match is possible for later configs...I should be set until DDR5 has matured. If the IMC runs this new kit at 4000 so be it, but more likely, I will run it at 3800/CL14 instead


----------



## MemorexKid

Sleepycat said:


> Why not try running CTR2.1 RC5 with 2702 if it is not currently giving you problems?
> 
> If you do want a newer bios, I'd say either 3302 or 3501. Note that you might have some USB issues with 3302, so do test it first before you run CTR2.1. Personally, I am now running 3501 with CTR2.1 and having very good results with it. With your 64GB ram, when you say you are not overclocking it, does that mean you are running it with DOCP off?


As far as my memory, Its rated at 3600 and I do use DOCP if I don't it defaults to 3200 when off. I'll give 2702 a try first, thanks.


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> I will run it at 3800/CL14 instead


If it works and if it is stable 😉


----------



## evilhf

This is very good


----------



## GRABibus

evilhf said:


> This is very good
> View attachment 2511876


nice.
Is this stable ?


----------



## [email protected]

Ok system is up and running.I haven't overclocked since the first ryzen release so even though i ve read and watch everything to keep up I would really appreciate some input or a guide for oc with all those new features.Cpu is 5900X mobo CH8 ram Gskill 3600 16 BDie.I want to start with the cpu first and from what I read curve optimizer is the one that suits me best.Pc is mainly for gaming and encoding/transcoding.What do you use for stability testing?


----------



## Sleepycat

[email protected] said:


> Ok system is up and running.I haven't overclocked since the first ryzen release so even though i ve read and watch everything to keep up I would really appreciate some input or a guide for oc with all those new features.Cpu is 5900X mobo CH8 ram Gskill 3600 16 BDie.I want to start with the cpu first and from what I read curve optimizer is the one that suits me best.Pc is mainly for gaming and encoding/transcoding.What do you use for stability testing?


Lots of info in this thread. I use OCCT Extreme Large AVX2 for multicore stability and Corecycler for single core stability. I've moved from PBO2 and CO to CTR 2.1. It better suits my needs.


----------



## Zogge

The only way to mitigate some WHEAs for me to be stable is to increase voltages. SOC to 1.175 even 1.2 and others to 1.075. Is this too high and it is my CPU that has a bad memory/IF controller and I have to live with it ? (this is for 1900/3800, over this will not work on 3403) What do you recommend ?


----------



## Moutsatsos

Does anyone use the onboard wifi?I am trying to get it working with the drivers from asus but I get This device cannot start. (Code 10) on manager


----------



## Zogge

Works for me, Win 10.


----------



## GRABibus

I tested 3501.

I am back to 3302.

3501 has making my memory settings unstable (HCI MemTest stress test errors) and also I had to remove my negative offset on Vcore to be stable, which means to increase voltage (Realbench stress test errors handbrake and blender)


----------



## Zogge

Are you able to get higher memory and if clocks on 3302 ?


----------



## GRABibus

Zogge said:


> Are you able to get higher memory and if clocks on 3302 ?


I can be stable 1000% HCI MemTest at 3800/1900 CL16 and with voltages settings in my signature.
This is not the case with 3501.
And even 3733/1866 is not stable anymore with 3501....

As i don't want to rework all voltages and OC, I stay with 3302 currently.


----------



## Zogge

...


----------



## GRABibus

Zogge said:


> ...


Here are my Bios settings 3800/1900 with 3302 (Whea Free)


----------



## Zogge

Thanks !! I will try


----------



## Sleepycat

Moutsatsos said:


> Does anyone use the onboard wifi?I am trying to get it working with the drivers from asus but I get This device cannot start. (Code 10) on manager


I do. I just use the drivers from Asus website and it works fine. I don't get the Code 10. Have you plugged in the antenna? Another thing to try is to reseat the module. It is a PCIe 1x card.


----------



## Moutsatsos

Sleepycat said:


> I do. I just use the drivers from Asus website and it works fine. I don't get the Code 10. Have you plugged in the antenna? Another thing to try is to reseat the module. It is a PCIe 1x card.


Yea antenna is connected.The module must be under the aio shield right?


----------



## chris719

Has anyone seen false BSOD followed by the BIOS stopping at POST with "CPU Overtemperature Error"? I have a 5950X with CH8 3302 BIOS. I have had this happen twice in two days with the CPU. I have been running for a year with a 3950X with not a single issue. Total stock settings other than DOCP enabled (DDR4-3600). 

This happens only under light load like web browsing and the temps seem to be around/below 60C.


----------



## GRABibus

chris719 said:


> Has anyone seen false BSOD followed by the BIOS stopping at POST with "CPU Overtemperature Error"? I have a 5950X with CH8 3302 BIOS. I have had this happen twice in two days with the CPU. I have been running for a year with a 3950X with not a single issue. Total stock settings other than DOCP enabled (DDR4-3600).
> 
> This happens only under light load like web browsing and the temps seem to be around/below 60C.


I got that, but during Stress tests


----------



## GRABibus

domdtxdissar said:


> If you dont want to spend many hours maximizing the performance and finetune everything for PBO CO, the newest bios is much "easier" for average Joes. (its pretty much plug and play at this point)
> 3501 is also alot better on memory training (easier to get to boot), but like i say above, the tradeoff is ~0.8ns worse latency
> 
> If you want to keep using 3003, turn off c-states in bios
> 
> Bios 3003 = Best PBO CO boosting and lowest memory latency, hardest to finetune everything and get it 100% stable.
> Bios 3501 = Everything work from the get-go and is stable, for those who dont want to spend hours upon hours stresstesting.


Bios 3501 has introduced memory instability for me and I am not stable anymore with HCI memtest on my 3800/1900 settings profile, and also on my 3733/1866 settings profile (which is the first bios which makes this….)

Went back to 3302.


----------



## J7SC

...had a go at all-core 4800  ...bios on the CH8 Dark is my trusty 3501 ...dynamic oc crossover at 60 amps, no per-CCX or CO, PBO on auto w/ FMax enabled - so just old-school. These are not my best results, but I am about to tear the system down for an update build that includes w-cooling and RAM upgrades, then I'll get back to it, including w/ CO...current cooling is 1280 mm x64 mm w/push-pull Arctic p12s.

CCX0 still has some in the tank (4825, 4850?) but CCX1 seems to have hit max at 4800 within the voltage limits I use as 'max / daily'.


----------



## Re-lar-Kvothe

I guess I settled on Ryzen Master to manually OC my system. Here is my first attempt at 4.85/4.75GHz. Will do some tweaking in the future. Finally, Ryzen is becoming fun.










Here is my latest (and perhaps my last) SS from PBO/CO.


----------



## jomama22

chris719 said:


> Has anyone seen false BSOD followed by the BIOS stopping at POST with "CPU Overtemperature Error"? I have a 5950X with CH8 3302 BIOS. I have had this happen twice in two days with the CPU. I have been running for a year with a 3950X with not a single issue. Total stock settings other than DOCP enabled (DDR4-3600).
> 
> This happens only under light load like web browsing and the temps seem to be around/below 60C.


It's a bug. Usually means too low of voltage but in this case, I would attribute it to docp not being stable. Check what it's using for vddg_ccd, vddg_iod, clod_vddp and vsoc. Can probably just set them to .95v, 1.0v, 0.9v, 1.05-1.1v in that order.


----------



## ESRCJ

jomama22 said:


> It's a bug. Usually means too low of voltage but in this case, I would attribute it to docp not being stable. Check what it's using for vddg_ccd, vddg_iod, clod_vddp and vsoc. Can probably just set them to .95v, 1.0v, 0.9v, 1.05-1.1v in that order.


I also get the "CPU over temperature error" whenever my CPU is clocked at 4.8GHz. I seem to have gotten quite "unlucky" in a sense because I run mine at 4.7GHz all cores at 1.21V daily (stress tested with a variety of workloads), yet 4.8GHz is basically a no-go for me. I've run 4.8GHz at 1.23V for a handful of Cinebench R15 runs, only to get that Over Temperature Error eventually. I've upped the voltage all the way up to 1.32V and it'll still give me the CPU over temperature error a lot of the time or CB will just fail to finish. It seems like my 5950X just falls apart past 4.7GHz and it's not a voltage issue. It's also unfortunate because I have a decent amount of temperature headroom. I'm just capped by issues beyond my control it seems.


----------



## Sleepycat

Moutsatsos said:


> Yea antenna is connected.The module must be under the aio shield right?


Yes, it is under the I/O shield. Be careful with removing it.


----------



## Kokin

Moutsatsos said:


> Yea antenna is connected.The module must be under the aio shield right?


Before you do that, check your BIOS settings to see if your WiFi is set to ON. You can set the Wifi and Bluetooth to On/Off in the Onboard Devices Configuration section.


----------



## Moutsatsos

So I am playing with CTR to check whats going on.My 5900X on defaults runs 4.7 all core at about 1.4V.With CTR it runs 4.7 on 1.175.Is this real or if I start testing heavy loads its gona fail?


----------



## Sleepycat

Moutsatsos said:


> So I am playing with CTR to check whats going on.My 5900X on defaults runs 4.7 all core at about 1.4V.With CTR it runs 4.7 on 1.175.Is this real or if I start testing heavy loads its gona fail?


My experience was similar to yours. PBO gave me a clock speed of 4.69 GHz @ 1.409V (hitting above 90+ºC) during all core loads in CB R23. CTR 2.1 gave me 4.7 GHz @ 1.300V (73 ºC) It was a big reduction in power use and temperatures. Now I use 4.575 GHz @ 1.225V (70ºC) as it doesn't give up any performance in my everyday use.

Do test it for stability using OCCT Extreme Large as well. You can select SSE, AVX or AVX2 loads. Depending on the type of loads, such as AVX, you might need a slightly higher voltage for the same clock. 

I found that for example, CTR will test up to say 4.7 GHz @ 1.169V, but then will recommend a conservative P1 setting of 4.65 GHz @ 1.175V. At first I thought it was just being too conservative and instead used the last passed settings during tuning, but turns out the conservative setting actually matches what was actually required to pass AVX stability loads when I tested manually


----------



## Moutsatsos

I havent seen yet co and pbo results but ctr according to what i ve seen so far is the perfect,just the perfect tool we ve been dreaming about this since the first ryzen.Musmus finally made it.It behaves exactly as auto but you can input the values you know to be stable for low,max load and boost.Unless other methods have better results for boost I dont see a reason to use them.Do you know most common or official max voltage values for the above states?


----------



## criznit

The latest CTR is extremely buggy on my system. When I run the Diagnostics, it shows a recommended delta of 25 but doesn't fill p1 or the px values. When I try to tune with the recommended values, I get a restart and then my clocks get stuck at 3.9. The system is 100% stable and this was tested with no overclock and just the values 1usmus suggested. I really loved the previous version, but this one seems off.


----------



## Moutsatsos

So we got 80W 40C max load and 80W 40C low load thats insane,there's a lot of room for improvement here.I saw videos and benchmarks saying that Vermeer was good but I didnt expect it to be that good and they certainly did not say anything about those numbers.I just need to figure out how to set more voltage and speeds.


Spoiler: CTR


----------



## lmfodor

Anyone knows what is happened with ASIS that is not releasing any BIOS update since the last beta? All brands are improving his BIOS, MSI Asrock and other ones. MSI is leading the change with several improvements. Mostly knows that why WHEA 19 was triggered for I/o and all auspicios are related to the realteks NICs. However i worried about ASIS, being one of the main OC development companies that is not move forward to fix this issues. Any of this thread has contact with Asus product developer to see it they can tell us anything about mew updates?

Thanks!. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## arcanexvi

lmfodor said:


> Anyone knows what is happened with ASIS that is not releasing any BIOS update since the last beta? All brands are improving his BIOS, MSI Asrock and other ones. MSI is leading the change with several improvements. Mostly knows that why WHEA 19 was triggered for I/o and all auspicios are related to the realteks NICs. However i worried about ASIS, being one of the main OC development companies that is not move forward to fix this issues. Any of this thread has contact with Asus product developer to see it they can tell us anything about mew updates?
> 
> Thanks!.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Since @shamino1978 is probably the only one over there that does anything, he might be on vacation


----------



## safedisk

*ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 3601 Beta Bios*

1. Improve system performance
2. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1203_PatchA

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO 3601 BETA BIOS
ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3601.7z

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WI-FI 3601 BETA BIOS
ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3601.7z

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA 3601 BETA BIOS
ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3601.7z

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT 3601 BETA BIOS
ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-3601.7z

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO 3601 BETA BIOS
ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3601.7z


----------



## Sleepycat

Moutsatsos said:


> So we got 80W 40C max load and 80W 40C low load thats insane,there's a lot of room for improvement here.I saw videos and benchmarks saying that Vermeer was good but I didnt expect it to be that good and they certainly did not say anything about those numbers.I just need to figure out how to set more voltage and speeds.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: CTR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2512121


Wow, is your CPU a platinum one? Mine only gets 4.600 / 4.550 @ 1.250V for P1


----------



## Alberto_It

safedisk said:


> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 3601 Beta Bios*
> 
> 1. Improve system performance
> 2. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1203_PatchA
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO 3601 BETA BIOS
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3601.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WI-FI 3601 BETA BIOS
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3601.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA 3601 BETA BIOS
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3601.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT 3601 BETA BIOS
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-3601.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO 3601 BETA BIOS
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3601.7z


Another further beta bios? No thanks


----------



## Sleepycat

Alberto_It said:


> Another further beta bios? No thanks


Beta has been the same as final when you do a bit by bit check. I'll be flashing this later this afternoon and let you all know if my system still works or if it is on fire.


----------



## Alberto_It

Sleepycat said:


> Beta has been the same as final when you do a bit by bit check. I'll be flashing this later this afternoon and let you all know if my system still works or if it is on fire.


Which final version should it be? 3501 is beta since early of April


----------



## lmfodor

Thanks! Great news!


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> Beta has been the same as final when you do a bit by bit check. I'll be flashing this later this afternoon and let you all know if my system still works or if it is on fire.


Let’s see how the new AGESA works with the boost and the C-States / DF-States generation that were broken in previos version, and also we should check if there’s something new about the WHEA 19 above 1909 FCLK. To much expectations for a beta version!


----------



## lmfodor

Alberto_It said:


> Which final version should it be? 3501 is beta since early of April


I guess the only reason that ASUS continue to launch Betas is that they are covered against any type of claims or errors. Now they implement a new Agesa 1203 but Beta. It is true, they should release a stable version. They have been breaking everything for a long time, covering errors rather, and not only Asus, all manufacturers. Someday we will find out, a lot of NDA in between. We will see if indeed the Realteks are causing the I/O problems triggered by the WHEA19 errors, or the broken powerplans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Alberto_It

lmfodor said:


> I guess the only reason that ASUS continue to launch Betas is that they are covered against any type of claims or errors. Now they implement a new Agesa 1203 but Beta. It is true, they should release a stable version. They have been breaking everything for a long time, covering errors rather, and not only Asus, all manufacturers. Someday we will find out, a lot of NDA in between. We will see if indeed the Realteks are causing the I/O problems triggered by the WHEA19 errors, or the broken powerplans.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


MSI has released the stable Bios version of the AGESA 1.2.0.2 the 17th of this month.

Check the MSI MEG X570 Unify support page, so before to release a new beta version could be fine to release the stable version first


----------



## ESRCJ

I gave 3601 a shot. 1900MHz FCLK still won't boot for me (Code 07). 1933 and above boot, but still have WHEA errors and perform poorly. Again, I have no idea if this is a silicon issue or BIOS-related. I genuinely hate this platform for overclocking though.


----------



## safedisk

ESRCJ said:


> I gave 3601 a shot. 1900MHz FCLK still won't boot for me (Code 07). 1933 and above boot, but still have WHEA errors and perform poorly. Again, I have no idea if this is a silicon issue or BIOS-related. I genuinely hate this platform for overclocking though.


Hey It's a CPU problem if the voltage setting doesn't solve the WHEA problem
need a cpu that can run the fclk 1900


----------



## ESRCJ

safedisk said:


> Hey It's a CPU problem if the voltage setting doesn't solve the WHEA problem
> need a cpu that can run the fclk 1900


How do you explain not being able to boot 1900MHz FCLK, but being able to boot 1933-2066MHz FCLK (with WHEA errors)? This FCLK "hole" at 1900MHz is just strange.


----------



## safedisk

ESRCJ said:


> How do you explain not being able to boot 1900MHz FCLK, but being able to boot 1933-2066MHz FCLK (with WHEA errors)? This FCLK "hole" at 1900MHz is just strange.


I have the same problem as you
I tested 3 5950x cpu 2 CPU 1900 cant boot code 07 problem
FCLK 1933+ can boot but there is a WHEA ERROR problem
only 1 cpu FCLK 1900 fine


----------



## Alberto_It

safedisk said:


> I have the same problem as you
> 5950x 3 cpu test 2 CPU 1900 cant boot code 07 problem
> FCLK 1933+ can boot but there is a WHEA ERROR problem.
> only 1 cpu FCLK 1900 fine


 Regarding the new beta bios, why did asus not release a stable version of 3501 and AGESA 1.2.0.2 first?


----------



## Kokin

ESRCJ said:


> How do you explain not being able to boot 1900MHz FCLK, but being able to boot 1933-2066MHz FCLK (with WHEA errors)? This FCLK "hole" at 1900MHz is just strange.


Aren't you just at your limit for 1866 FCLK then? WHEA errors already mean you're already pushing past your hardware limits. 

It's not like the 5000 series chips improved the I/O die or Infinity Fabric, it still has similar limitations as the 3000 series.


----------



## lmfodor

Alberto_It said:


> MSI has released the stable Bios version of the AGESA 1.2.0.2 the 17th of this month.
> 
> Check the MSI MEG X570 Unify support page, so before to release a new beta version could be fine to release the stable version first


Yes, I knew it. I almost bought a B550 Unify-X for better OC memory, however it is also affected by WHEAs. I'm in that thread that's why I asked before why Asus still didn't release a new version knowing that Asrock and MSI did it a while ago. Anyway so far no new version has managed to solve the WHEA 19, there are only some Mobos that are not affected such as the Taichi B550, the Formula VIII, an MSI creator, and anyone who does not have a realtek NIC. If you see the list of all available mothers you would be surprised to see that there are very few who didn’t put a dual card with a Realteck NIC. Now asus released ProArt which has no problem with WHEA 19 and has an Intel NIC. In regard to MSI BIOS with its "stable" version, still have the powerplan issues, the broken C states ... the DF that doesn’t work. I hope this Beta version will be published as final on the Asus portal, but honestly I don't have much faith in solving so many problems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## ESRCJ

safedisk said:


> I have the same problem as you
> I tested 3 5950x cpu 2 CPU 1900 cant boot code 07 problem
> FCLK 1933+ can boot but there is a WHEA ERROR problem
> only 1 cpu FCLK 1900 fine


How were those 5950Xs in terms of all-core frequency? I can run mine at 4.7GHz at 1.21V stable in my stress testing suite and relevant workloads, but 4.8GHz is a no-go regardless of voltage. I've never had a CPU hit a wall quite like this. I'm used to being able to push my CPUs as far as my cooling will allow me to. That isn't the case with my 5950X.


----------



## J7SC

^^I've got an older Intel 5960X HEDT that hits a hard wall like that, no matter what mobo and bios version - I call it 'nemesis' for that reason...never experienced anything like it with oc'ing. That said, it has a great IMC and can run 4-channel DDR4 at 3400, which is a lot for that genre of CPU. While the Ryzen 5000 is a different beast re. design, you can still have a great CPU re. clocks / voltage, but the IF / IMC might not want to play, and vice versa.

Both my 5950X (CH8 Dark) and 3950X (CH8 wi-fi) run IF1900 w/o issue, no matter what bios...the 5950X also does 4.8 all-core per post a page or so back. I'm expecting a 4x8 GSkill 4000 GTZR CL15 kit on the weekend for the 5950X and wonder how different it will be from the current GTZR kit (which will move over to the 3950X). If it runs IF 2000/ DDR 4000, great - but more likely I will just tighten some more timings at IF1900 / DDR4 3800


----------



## safedisk

Alberto_It said:


> Regarding the new beta bios, why did asus not release a stable version of 3501 and AGESA 1.2.0.2 first?


Don't think that the beta bios will be unstable unconditionally
We are working hard to ensure there are no problems. As an example, beta bios are often changed to official bios.
hope you can understand this
Thanks


----------



## safedisk

ESRCJ said:


> How were those 5950Xs in terms of all-core frequency? I can run mine at 4.7GHz at 1.21V stable in my stress testing suite and relevant workloads, but 4.8GHz is a no-go regardless of voltage. I've never had a CPU hit a wall quite like this. I'm used to being able to push my CPUs as far as my cooling will allow me to. That isn't the case with my 5950X.


I will upload the results soon Please wait


----------



## Moutsatsos

Sleepycat said:


> Wow, is your CPU a platinum one? Mine only gets 4.600 / 4.550 @ 1.250V for P1


It's a gold.What is the process for increasing the voltage and speeds on CTR?I still cant get that to work.


----------



## safedisk

ESRCJ said:


> How were those 5950Xs in terms of all-core frequency? I can run mine at 4.7GHz at 1.21V stable in my stress testing suite and relevant workloads, but 4.8GHz is a no-go regardless of voltage. I've never had a CPU hit a wall quite like this. I'm used to being able to push my CPUs as far as my cooling will allow me to. That isn't the case with my 5950X.






















5950X / ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO 3601 BIOS

Water temp 24c
CCX0 4800
CCX1 4700

VCORE 1.3v LLC5
DRAM 1.52v
SOC 1.05
CCD 1.050
IOD 1.050
VDDP 0.950

This cpu has no WHEA error on FCLK 1900


----------



## ChillyRide

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2512244
> 
> 
> View attachment 2512245
> 
> 
> 
> 5950X / ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO 3601 BIOS
> 
> Water temp 24c
> CCX0 4800
> CCX1 4700
> 
> VCORE 1.3v LLC5
> DRAM 1.52v
> SOC 1.05
> CCD 1.050
> IOD 1.050
> VDDP 0.950
> 
> This cpu has no WHEA error on FCLK 1900


95% of people stable and no whea at 1900, evewryting 1900+ 95% have Whea issues.


----------



## safedisk

ChillyRide said:


> 95% of people stable and no whea at 1900, evewryting 1900+ 95% have Whea issues.


yep I know
This cpu is 1933+ cant boot but 1900 is very stable.
depends on cpu


----------



## ChillyRide

My 5900x, crosshair vIII and g.skill 3600 cl16 dual ranks can run in quad rank with 3800:1900 fclk 4x16 64gb but cant dual rank 2x16 32gb more than 3800:1900+ fclk -_- , damn amd.


----------



## arcanexvi

safedisk said:


> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 3601 Beta Bios*
> 
> 1. Improve system performance
> 2. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1203_PatchA
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO 3601 BETA BIOS
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3601.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WI-FI 3601 BETA BIOS
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3601.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA 3601 BETA BIOS
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3601.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT 3601 BETA BIOS
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-3601.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO 3601 BETA BIOS
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3601.7z


Man, all I had to do was call you guys out? Lol. 

Thanks for the fresh builds! Maybe I can get more than 3633 out of my 4000mhz ram...


----------



## Sleepycat

Moutsatsos said:


> It's a gold.What is the process for increasing the voltage and speeds on CTR?I still cant get that to work.


Just type the values into the profile page, click save. Then activate the profile. If you are increasing all core load speeds, then use profile P1.


----------



## Moutsatsos

Thanks.I mainly wanna test boost speed and maybe check how far 1.25 can reach at p1


----------



## Sleepycat

Just flashed 3601. I noticed that my saved profile from 3501 is not compatible with 3601. Loading the profile results in settings all over the place. So you will have to reinput every setting manually. Save the settings txt file on your phone before you flash.

Other than that, all my previous DRAM and OC settings work. Now I'll test for stability and benchmarks.


----------



## GRABibus

Sleepycat said:


> Beta has been the same as final when you do a bit by bit check. I'll be flashing this later this afternoon and let you all know if my system still works or if it is on fire.


I just flashed with 3501 and I am performing stability tests…and now 3601 is released….
I am fed up with testing stability and performances after each bios flash (hours of realbench, HCI memtest, etc…)


----------



## jomama22

GRABibus said:


> I just flashed with 3501 and I am performing stability tests…and now 3601 is released….
> I am fed up with testing stability and performances after each bios flash (hours of realbench, HCI memtest, etc…)


Then don't update? Lol


----------



## GRABibus

jomama22 said:


> Then don't update? Lol


You have the bios some posts ago


----------



## lmfodor

safedisk said:


> yep I know
> This cpu is 1933+ cant boot but 1900 is very stable.
> depends on cpu


Hi @safedisk, when you say depend or CPU, do you mean that the WHEA 19 are related to CPU and not to I/O? I don’t think the fix here is to RMA and to change the CPU. You should be aware about the Realteks NICs that for some reason triggers a lots of DPC calls and the flooding of WHEA 19… it’s not related to CPU. I know several case herein OCN that switched to a mobos without Realtek and they don’t have any issues with WHEAs 19. Are you ok with this? Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## J7SC

jomama22 said:


> Then don't update? Lol


...good advice ! I don't quite understand what all the fuzz is about - if you don't like beta bios, don't use them. That said, 3501 came pre-installed on my CH8 Dark and the 5950X from the vendor, and I haven't had a single problem with it. As mentioned, I'm expecting a delivery of another GSkill GTZR / Sammy ram kit, and for a direct apples-to-apples comparison, I'll need to keep the same bios anyway.

...the one thing I wish Asus (and for that matter most other vendors) would do is add more 'meat' the the explanation for a new bios (beta or otherwise) on their download page..."improve stability or compatibility' isn't really saying much; ditto for new Agesa patches.


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> .the one thing I wish Asus (and for that matter most other vendors) would do is add more 'meat' the the explanation for a new bios (beta or otherwise) on their download page..."improve stability or compatibility' isn't really saying much; ditto for new Agesa patches.


They never did and will never do I think


----------



## jomama22

GRABibus said:


> You have the bios some posts ago


Hm? Iv been using 3003 since December as it gives the best pbo and memory performance for me. I don't have any interest in any recent bios' and if I did, I would wait to see how they perform for others than just jumping on it.


----------



## jamesmca

Hi Everyone, Trying to get my memory oc stable, any good places to read up on to help with this?
I am on the DH8 3401 bios, with a 5900x, and 4xGskill trident 8gb (F4-3200C14D-16GTZR). Trying to run them at 3600c16.
I am to the point where I can boot into windows, pass cb20 benches, but its not stable in games. I feel I am very close! 

Thanks!


----------



## stimpy88

This needs deleting, wrong reply...


----------



## Sleepycat

J7SC said:


> ...the one thing I wish Asus (and for that matter most other vendors) would do is add more 'meat' the the explanation for a new bios (beta or otherwise) on their download page..."improve stability or compatibility' isn't really saying much; ditto for new Agesa patches.


For the recent ones, it might be the case that Asus did not make any changes, other than add in the new Agesa.


----------



## Sleepycat

jamesmca said:


> Hi Everyone, Trying to get my memory oc stable, any good places to read up on to help with this?
> I am on the DH8 3401 bios, with a 5900x, and 4xGskill trident 8gb (F4-3200C14D-16GTZR). Trying to run them at 3600c16.
> I am to the point where I can boot into windows, pass cb20 benches, but its not stable in games. I feel I am very close!
> 
> Thanks!


Post your Zentimings screenshot and let us know what VDIMM you are running.


----------



## Sleepycat

GRABibus said:


> I just flashed with 3501 and I am performing stability tests…and now 3601 is released….
> I am fed up with testing stability and performances after each bios flash (hours of realbench, HCI memtest, etc…)


It's a plot to keep us having something new with our system and to have us keep testing and benching! If I didn't test for stability, my CPU would probably have double the lifespan and last for 20 years? LOL


----------



## ESRCJ

safedisk said:


> 5950X / ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO 3601 BIOS
> 
> Water temp 24c
> CCX0 4800
> CCX1 4700
> 
> VCORE 1.3v LLC5
> DRAM 1.52v
> SOC 1.05
> CCD 1.050
> IOD 1.050
> VDDP 0.950
> 
> This cpu has no WHEA error on FCLK 1900


I can do runs of R20 and R23 with an all-core of 4.8GHz at 1.24V, but it'll eventually crash after enough runs. Increasing vcore doesn't help stabilize things either. It just makes the CPU draw more power and run hotter. With LLC 5, I can do 4.7GHz stable at 1.21V. With LLC 3, I can get it to pass my stress test suite at 1.19V when under load. My temps are in the upper 60s, lower 70s throughout. You'd think I'd be able to manage 4.8GHz at *some* voltage and maintain stability. I guess my CPU is a "dud" in this regard.


----------



## jamesmca

Sleepycat said:


> Post your Zentimings screenshot and let us know what VDIMM you are running.


Here is the screenshot, Vdimm is at 1.48v


----------



## Sleepycat

jamesmca said:


> Here is the screenshot, Vdimm is at 1.48v


The subtimings are pretty loose, so shouldn't be the issue. I'd try the following:

1) If your VSOC is set to 1.08V, try increasing VSOC to 1.09V, and turn on LLC2 for VSOC as well.
2) If that doesn't work, then keep VSOC at 1.09V and LLC2, but also increase ProcODT to 43.6.
3) If it still doesn't work, then in addition to #2, also increase ClkDrvStr to 30.0.

If all this still doesn't work, then maybe it needs GDM on to run at 1T due to the 4 sticks. It should be possible to get it to run at 3600 CL16 without errors, even with 1T GDM off. Because I am running 4x16GB B-die at 3600 CL14 (1T GDM on, or 2T GDM off).

Here are my settings, with VDIMM of 1.45V. My VSOC is actually set to 1.09V, but due to Vdroop with the demand due to the 4 sticks of 16GB, I get voltage droop down to 1.075V as per my Zentimings below. On some systems, the SOC draws a lot of power even at idle. Mine idles drawing 19W, which is about double of other people with the same motherboard (but probably 2 sticks instead of 4).


----------



## kx11

Using the newest BETA 3401 w/3900xt, runs stable with 3600mhz ram, CPU is set to Auto OC which reaches 4300mhz in gaming stable with spikes to 4700mhz here and there


good enough for me since i game only @ 4k so the CPU won't do much


----------



## jamesmca

Sleepycat said:


> The subtimings are pretty loose, so shouldn't be the issue. I'd try the following:
> 
> 1) If your VSOC is set to 1.08V, try increasing VSOC to 1.09V, and turn on LLC2 for VSOC as well.
> 2) If that doesn't work, then keep VSOC at 1.09V and LLC2, but also increase ProcODT to 43.6.
> 3) If it still doesn't work, then in addition to #2, also increase ClkDrvStr to 30.0.
> 
> If all this still doesn't work, then maybe it needs GDM on to run at 1T due to the 4 sticks. It should be possible to get it to run at 3600 CL16 without errors, even with 1T GDM off. Because I am running 4x16GB B-die at 3600 CL14 (1T GDM on, or 2T GDM off).
> 
> Here are my settings, with VDIMM of 1.45V. My VSOC is actually set to 1.09V, but due to Vdroop with the demand due to the 4 sticks of 16GB, I get voltage droop down to 1.075V as per my Zentimings below. On some systems, the SOC draws a lot of power even at idle. Mine idles drawing 19W, which is about double of other people with the same motherboard (but probably 2 sticks instead of 4).
> 
> View attachment 2512287


Ok, thanks for the tips, I think its better! 
VSOC was 1.09, I set llc2, crash,
Bumped procodt to 43.6 crash,
set clkdrvstr to 30 crash,
GDM on, Seems stable for now! 

Any other tips to tighten up the timings at all? Not going for any records or anything.


----------



## safedisk

ESRCJ said:


> I can do runs of R20 and R23 with an all-core of 4.8GHz at 1.24V, but it'll eventually crash after enough runs. Increasing vcore doesn't help stabilize things either. It just makes the CPU draw more power and run hotter. With LLC 5, I can do 4.7GHz stable at 1.21V. With LLC 3, I can get it to pass my stress test suite at 1.19V when under load. My temps are in the upper 60s, lower 70s throughout. You'd think I'd be able to manage 4.8GHz at *some* voltage and maintain stability. I guess my CPU is a "dud" in this regard.












If the motherboard is a dark hero
I think it is efficient to use the PBO and Dynamic OC features
Depending on the CPU and settings, a high single frequency can be obtained My setting single 5250 run


----------



## ESRCJ

safedisk said:


> If the motherboard is a dark hero
> I think it is efficient to use the PBO and Dynamic OC features
> Depending on the CPU and settings, a high single frequency can be obtained My setting single 5250 run


Nice results. Yeah I'm using a Dark Hero. With PBO, I can't seem to go further than 5050MHz, even with a negative CO offset of -30 on all cores and +200MHz, the latter of which doesn't seem to do anything in my case. I basically just get capped at 5050MHz, but at lower voltages. I ended up using CTR 2.1 instead of DOS to maximize single and multi threaded performance for benchmarking. For daily use I really don't benefit all that much from having a few fast cores anyways, so I just run my 4.7GHz all core manual OC.


----------



## Sleepycat

jamesmca said:


> Ok, thanks for the tips, I think its better!
> VSOC was 1.09, I set llc2, crash,
> Bumped procodt to 43.6 crash,
> set clkdrvstr to 30 crash,
> GDM on, Seems stable for now!
> 
> Any other tips to tighten up the timings at all? Not going for any records or anything.


Have you tried turning off LLC2 now that you have GDM on? You can try copying my settings. My kit is 4x16GB (dual rank sticks), so if mine will run my timings, yours should be able to as well. I actually hit a hard wall at 3600. I can't post at 3666, regardless of timing or voltage.


----------



## lmfodor

I must say that this new beta version of BIOS triggers much less WHEA 19 errors than before, at least in 1933 of FCLK. Before, as soon as Windows booted the event viewer was filled with errors. Now I even get the following ACPI error in the middle










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## stimpy88

Sleepycat said:


> For the recent ones, it might be the case that Asus did not make any changes, other than add in the new Agesa.


But what is annoying about that, is that AMD must provide a changelog to ASUS... No way do AMD just email a new AGESA patch, and say "here you are".


----------



## domdtxdissar

safedisk said:


> If the motherboard is a dark hero
> I think it is efficient to use the PBO and Dynamic OC features
> Depending on the CPU and settings, a high single frequency can be obtained My setting single 5250 run


Only 704 points in CPU-Z ST @ "5250mhz" seems very much like clock stretching to me.. (effective clock should be around is ~5050mhz for that score)
Think iam getting ~715 points @ around 5100-5150 mhz

For Reference:


domdtxdissar said:


> Guess i can copy over here also since iam running this motherboard:
> 
> The deed is done, have gotten this fully stable
> 4 memory sticks + flat CL14 + T1 with GDM disabled is very rare with Ryzen.. Could only run this after i had binned all my ram sticks for the different memory channels on the motherboard
> 
> BIOS 3501 with AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.2
> dual CCD 5950x
> 4x8GB gskill 3600 CL16
> 1900:3800 @ flat CL14 + T1 GDM-OFF
> Screenshot of TM 1umus 25 cycle + Memtest 20000% stable (do notice this is my old bloaty windows install with lots of stuff running in background)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newest OCCT 8.1.3 1 hour large dataset extreme + 4 iteration in y-cruncher with all tests (same boot as above)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some performance number:
> The SiSoftSandra v2021.31.12 (from Mar 5th, 2021). Not sure this is a good match with CTR..
> Intel latency checker
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next we have dram calc easy + normal bench together with cinebench r23
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And lastly we have SotTR @ 1080p lowest as a gamebench running on my new 24/7 settings =288 CPU average fps
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very happy with these results and my new 24/7 settings
> Maybe i will try to push for higher fclk now 😎


Also think your Aida numbers seem alittle strange in quote below, "low" bandwidth for those settings, but also lower latency compared to normal for a dual CCD cpu (?)
Ref: Zen3 ram overclocking
It could also be down to you running a static OC i guess, but still, something seems off..
Bios 3003 give ~0.8ns lower latency compared to every newer bios up and until 3501.. Have you guys reverted this with bios 3601 to get this score?



safedisk said:


> 5950X / ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO 3601 BIOS
> 
> Water temp 24c
> CCX0 4800
> CCX1 4700
> 
> VCORE 1.3v LLC5
> DRAM 1.52v
> SOC 1.05
> CCD 1.050
> IOD 1.050
> VDDP 0.950
> 
> This cpu has no WHEA error on FCLK 1900


----------



## safedisk

lmfodor said:


> Hi @safedisk, when you say depend or CPU, do you mean that the WHEA 19 are related to CPU and not to I/O? I don’t think the fix here is to RMA and to change the CPU. You should be aware about the Realteks NICs that for some reason triggers a lots of DPC calls and the flooding of WHEA 19… it’s not related to CPU. I know several case herein OCN that switched to a mobos without Realtek and they don’t have any issues with WHEAs 19. Are you ok with this? Thanks!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Hi lmfodor
I've seen it before. However, there are many cases where the WHEA error is resolved after changing only the CPU to a different one on the same PC
Thanks for the advice


----------



## safedisk

domdtxdissar said:


> Only 704 points in CPU-Z ST @ "5250mhz" seems very much like clock stretching to me.. (effective clock should be around is ~5050mhz for that score)
> Think iam getting ~715 points @ around 5100-5150 mhz
> 
> For Reference:
> 
> 
> Also think your Aida numbers seem alittle strange in quote below, "low" bandwidth for those settings, but also lower latency compared to normal for a dual CCD cpu (?)
> Ref: Zen3 ram overclocking
> It could also be down to you running a static OC i guess, but still, something seems off..
> Bios 3003 give ~0.8ns lower latency compared to every newer bios up and until 3501.. Have you guys reverted this with bios 3601 to get this score?


Nice Run
In my setting, cpuz single core scores are all the same (boost 5050~5250)
So I am looking for a better setting You can try 3601 bios
I will refer to your settings
Thank you


----------



## lmfodor

safedisk said:


> Hey It's a CPU problem if the voltage setting doesn't solve the WHEA problem
> need a cpu that can run the fclk 1900


Hi @safedisk, what would be good voltage settings to try with my 5900? I managed to boot with FCLK 1933, 1966, and I tried until 2000. I read that maybe and increase of voltage or CCD or IOD can reduce the WHEA 19.. I’m using a vSOC of 1.14 V, LLC4 for VSOC and 500 sw frequency. I set VDDP 0.9 and I play with CCD from 0.95 to 1V, and IOD 0,5/0,75v below VSOC. I could run a lower VSOC, however for my mem OC I feel like a little increase help for the stability. I’m using a GSkill 3800CL14 2x16 dual rank that runs 1.5V with his standard XMP profile. So, what would suggested me to try to reduce the WHEA above 1900? I mean, with voltages

PS: the Beta seems to work very well. I will try SiSandra to see if the Inter core latency improves. 

Ps2: having a DH would you recommend to try DOS instead of Curve Optimizer? I’m looking for stability really. I use my PC for gaining . What are the safest values of vcore, CCX1 and 2, and the AMP to trigger the switching in a 5900?

Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## ChillyRide

lmfodor said:


> Hi @safedisk, what would be good voltage settings to try with my 5900? I managed to boot with FCLK 1933, 1966, and I tried until 2000. I read that maybe and increase of voltage or CCD or IOD can reduce the WHEA 19.. I’m using a vSOC of 1.14 V, LLC4 for VSOC and 500 sw frequency. I set VDDP 0.9 and I play with CCD from 0.95 to 1V, and IOD 0,5/0,75v below VSOC. I could run a lower VSOC, however for my mem OC I feel like a little increase help for the stability. I’m using a GSkill 3800CL14 2x16 dual rank that runs 1.5V with his standard XMP profile. So, what would suggested me to try to reduce the WHEA above 1900? I mean, with voltages
> 
> PS: the Beta seems to work very well. I will try SiSandra to see if the Inter core latency improves.
> 
> Ps2: having a DH would you recommend to try DOS instead of Curve Optimizer? I’m looking for stability really. I use my PC for gaining . What are the safest values of vcore, CCX1 and 2, and the AMP to trigger the switching in a 5900?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


5900X, can boot at 4100+, increasing voltage only gives better boot time. Inside Windows always WHEA 19 no matter what voltage. Lower than 1v triple boot time and system very unresponsive.


----------



## arcanexvi

Is the Dark Hero just that much better than the standard CH8? I can't get my system to post my 4000Mhz CL15 memory anywhere higher than 3600...


----------



## Reikoji

Whats with this Agesa 1.2.0.3 Patch A beta bios?









ASUS Offers AMD AGESA 1.2.0.3 BETA BIOS Firmware For ROG Crosshair VIII Series Motherboards, Improved Ryzen CPU & System Performance


ASUS has started rolling out its latest BIOS update for the ROG Crosshair VIII motherboards based on the AMD AGESA 1.2.0.3 PatchA firmware.




wccftech.com





I cant seem to download from the links they provide. Are there some other links?


----------



## D_BRASCO

Reikoji said:


> Whats with this Agesa 1.2.0.3 Patch A beta bios?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ASUS Offers AMD AGESA 1.2.0.3 BETA BIOS Firmware For ROG Crosshair VIII Series Motherboards, Improved Ryzen CPU & System Performance
> 
> 
> ASUS has started rolling out its latest BIOS update for the ROG Crosshair VIII motherboards based on the AMD AGESA 1.2.0.3 PatchA firmware.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wccftech.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cant seem to download from the links they provide. Are there some other links?


You can find it over on the ASUS ROG forum. It's in the AMD 400 & 500 Series motherboards


----------



## smbell1979

We'll be back.


----------



## dyanikoglu

Can confirm 3601 boots without issue on Crosshair Hero VIII.

Also bios menu seems like a bit changed, now we have curve optimizer settings under ASUS' own OC tab. I have no idea what we're going to do with 2 duplicate settings in the bios.


----------



## ChillyRide

dyanikoglu said:


> Can confirm 3601 boots without issue on Crosshair Hero VIII.
> 
> Also bios menu seems like a bit changed, now we have curve optimizer settings under ASUS' own OC tab. I have no idea what we're going to do with 2 duplicate settings in the bios.


Yep, but why there is no motherboard power limit option for pbo2 and scalar there.... still need to go to pbo2 advanced section. Its like ASUS devs: we do smth but we dont know what and why. Only Agesa patches impelemented. Still WHEA 19 at 1800+ fclk -_-.


----------



## asavah

dyanikoglu said:


> Can confirm 3601 boots without issue on Crosshair Hero VIII.
> 
> Also bios menu seems like a bit changed, now we have curve optimizer settings under ASUS' own OC tab. I have no idea what we're going to do with 2 duplicate settings in the bios.


New CO settings in the PBO menu didn't work for me. I had stock frequencies.
I've had to dial in the same CO settings in the old good AMD Overclocking menu.


----------



## bt1

Curve


ChillyRide said:


> Yep, but why there is no motherboard power limit option for pbo2 and scalar there.... still need to go to pbo2 advanced section.


Are you sure? Read the description at the bottom of screen, "Enabled" = Motherboard Limit











asavah said:


> New CO settings in the PBO menu didn't work for me. I had stock frequencies.
> I've had to dial in the same CO settings in the old good AMD Overclocking menu.


Same for me


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> Hi @safedisk, what would be good voltage settings to try with my 5900? I managed to boot with FCLK 1933, 1966, and I tried until 2000. I read that maybe and increase of voltage or CCD or IOD can reduce the WHEA 19.. I’m using a vSOC of 1.14 V, LLC4 for VSOC and 500 sw frequency. I set VDDP 0.9 and I play with CCD from 0.95 to 1V, and IOD 0,5/0,75v below VSOC. I could run a lower VSOC, however for my mem OC I feel like a little increase help for the stability. I’m using a GSkill 3800CL14 2x16 dual rank that runs 1.5V with his standard XMP profile. So, what would suggested me to try to reduce the WHEA above 1900? I mean, with voltages
> 
> PS: the Beta seems to work very well. I will try SiSandra to see if the Inter core latency improves.
> 
> Ps2: having a DH would you recommend to try DOS instead of Curve Optimizer? I’m looking for stability really. I use my PC for gaining . What are the safest values of vcore, CCX1 and 2, and the AMP to trigger the switching in a 5900?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


A while back I was messing with VDDG CCD and VDDG IOD, and managed to start getting WHEAs... From memory, I changed VDDG CCD from 1.05V that I normally used down to 0.95V and started getting WHEAs. Now, I run VDDG CCD 1.05V and VDDG IOD 1.05V and don't have WHEAs. My CLDO VDDP is at 0.98V, but I'm going to test reducing it to 0.95V to see if it triggers WHEA too.

Update: CLDO VDDP of 0.95V doesn't cause WHEAs in my system, but once in a while I get odd USB lagging which manifests as a mouse cursor with slightly lower sensitivity or the keypresses on my keyboard has a slight delay. I'm setting it back to 0.98V.


----------



## Sleepycat

arcanexvi said:


> Is the Dark Hero just that much better than the standard CH8? I can't get my system to post my 4000Mhz CL15 memory anywhere higher than 3600...


What memory do you have, what capacity and how many sticks? On mine, I found I can't POST any higher than 3600 if I ran 4x16GB B-die, but can post and get into windows at 3933 with 2x16GB.


----------



## Sleepycat

dyanikoglu said:


> Can confirm 3601 boots without issue on Crosshair Hero VIII.
> 
> Also bios menu seems like a bit changed, now we have curve optimizer settings under ASUS' own OC tab. I have no idea what we're going to do with 2 duplicate settings in the bios.


There has always been 2 duplicate settings in the bios, under Extreme Tweaker (Precision Boost Overdrive) and in Advanced (PBO Overclocking). I believe the Extreme Tweaker menu takes priority, but what I do now is set one and leave the other to Auto.


----------



## Sleepycat

asavah said:


> New CO settings in the PBO menu didn't work for me. I had stock frequencies.
> I've had to dial in the same CO settings in the old good AMD Overclocking menu.


If you are entering settings in one menu, you need to leave the duplicate settings in the other menu as Auto. If you set it to Disabled, it doesn't work.


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> A while back I was messing with VDDG CCD and VDDG IOD, and managed to start getting WHEAs... From memory, I changed VDDG CCD from 1.05V that I normally used down to 0.95V and started getting WHEAs. Now, I run VDDG CCD 1.05V and VDDG IOD 1.05V and don't have WHEAs. My CLDO VDDP is at 0.98V, but I'm going to test reducing it to 0.95V to see if it triggers WHEA too.


Hi @Sleeplycat, thanks, good info. I will try it. What about you VSOC? I’m at 1.14 and my SOC LLC is in 4 however I don’t know it it’s necessary to have a high LLC in SOC voltage. 

I also wonder if it would be better to use DOS instead of CO. I’m a little bit tired with the reboots when leaving c-states enabled. They should be work..I know the DF seems to be broken. But the C—states have to work. Maybe is something with my curve, or giving a little positive vcore offset or try for instance 1.3 Vcore and CCX multiplier or 4.7 and a trigger for the single thread. Tired to try so many thinks for the past five months
Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> Hi @Sleeplycat, thanks, good info. I will try it. What about you VSOC? I’m at 1.14 and my SOC LLC is in 4 however I don’t know it it’s necessary to have a high LLC in SOC voltage.
> 
> I also wonder if it would be better to use DOS instead of CO. I’m a little bit tired with the reboots when leaving c-states enabled. They should be work..I know the DF seems to be broken. But the C—states have to work. Maybe is something with my curve, or giving a little positive vcore offset or try for instance 1.3 Vcore and CCX multiplier or 4.7 and a trigger for the single thread. Tired to try so many thinks for the past five months
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I'm running VSOC 1.09V with LLC2. I am only running 4x16GB RAM @ 3600 CL14, so IF is only at 1800MHz. This voltage has been enough, but it does still cause vdroop so VSOC in Windows shows as 1.075V in Zentimings.

An option I'm considering is using 1.075V and LLC3. I'm just worried about loading up my SOC further with more voltage if there is overshoot since it already has to deal with 4x16GB B-die.


----------



## Reikoji

Dont seem to have any issues with 3601, except 3501 user profile loading caused almsot every option on the extreme tweaker screen to disappear. Had to re-input everything. Same Dram Settings work tho. Gonna see if i can do 4-sticks again, probably not.


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> I'm running VSOC 1.09V with LLC2. I am only running 4x16GB RAM @ 3600 CL14, so IF is only at 1800MHz. This voltage has been enough, but it does still cause vdroop so VSOC in Windows shows as 1.075V in Zentimings.
> 
> An option I'm considering is using 1.075V and LLC3. I'm just worried about loading up my SOC further with more voltage if there is overshoot since it already has to deal with 4x16GB B-die.


What would be the issue with and increase of the VSOC LLC, as far as I know the memories are no so sensitive to the spikes as the CPUs.. there are a lot of people running higher VSOC values with higher LLC. I’m not an expert, just wondering if keeping LLC4 is safe or if should I have to reduce it to 3.. in fact I could lower my VSOC to 1.2 or 1.1. What would be a good way to prove stability? Y-cruncher FFT? 14 and 16 test? With different voltage settings I pass all OOCT, TM5 extreme and 1usmus for more Thant 30 cycles several times, and also the old HCI Memtest deluxe with more than 600 of coverage. I always had the doubt how to really test the mem stability.. so far y-cruncher would be the best, but,no all test .

Thanks for you help!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> What would be the issue with and increase of the VSOC LLC, as far as I know the memories are no so sensitive to the spikes as the CPUs.. there are a lot of people running higher VSOC values with higher LLC. I’m not an expert, just wondering if keeping LLC4 is safe or if should I have to reduce it to 3.. in fact I could lower my VSOC to 1.2 or 1.1. What would be a good way to prove stability? Y-cruncher FFT? 14 and 16 test? With different voltage settings I pass all OOCT, TM5 extreme and 1usmus for more Thant 30 cycles several times, and also the old HCI Memtest deluxe with more than 600 of coverage. I always had the doubt how to really test the mem stability.. so far y-cruncher would be the best, but,no all test .
> 
> Thanks for you help!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


The SOC sits in your CPU. So if the SOC gets damaged, you have a dead CPU anyway. The CPU cores can take a good amount of voltage, 1.45V is no problem in single core with enough cooling. However, the SOC seems to have a much lower voltage limit and some anecdotal reports indicate that it can wear with high voltage, heat and time, resulting in lower and lower memory clocks.

The best stability test method that I have used is CoreCycler for single cores, and OCCT Large Extreme for all cores and memory.


----------



## Zogge

So what is that max soc safe voltage again ... 1.2V ?


----------



## Zogge

3601 works great btw but whea still present like before on 1900+ fclk


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> The SOC sits in your CPU. So if the SOC gets damaged, you have a dead CPU anyway. The CPU cores can take a good amount of voltage, 1.45V is no problem in single core with enough cooling. However, the SOC seems to have a much lower voltage limit and some anecdotal reports indicate that it can wear with high voltage, heat and time, resulting in lower and lower memory clocks.
> 
> The best stability test method that I have used is CoreCycler for single cores, and OCCT Large Extreme for all cores and memory.


Good point! I never had a single error with OOCT no matter what test I ran. Cycling cores or all cores, maybe because I only run a one hour test? I passed all core cycler tests ... so far the only tool that fails but with a long time test (+8 hours) is Y-C. Running all the tests ... before it only ran only 4 iterations but it didn't have any errors, but letting it run for a long time, some tests finally failed.

I always end up thinking that what degrades the processor is the amount of stress tests we perform! [emoji4] I think it's almost like I'm mining BTCs! Between core cycler, OOCT and y-cruncher, or even other memory tests (which don’t consume so much CPU), I think they are the only task that I execute that takes the CPU to 85 degrees as maximum, even for a few periods of time. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> Good point! I never had a single error with OOCT no matter what test I ran. Cycling cores or all cores, maybe because I only run a one hour test? I passed all core cycler tests ... so far the only tool that fails but with a long time test (+8 hours) is Y-C. Running all the tests ... before it only ran only 4 iterations but it didn't have any errors, but letting it run for a long time, some tests finally failed.
> 
> I always end up thinking that what degrades the processor is the amount of stress tests we perform! [emoji4] I think it's almost like I'm mining BTCs! Between core cycler, OOCT and y-cruncher, or even other memory tests (which don’t consume so much CPU), I think they are the only task that I execute that takes the CPU to 85 degrees as maximum, even for a few periods of time.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Yeah, I did experience some degradation where after many many hours of corecycler (I think about 15 hours), CTR 2.1 gave me a lower clock speed for the same voltage. I remember it was a decrease of about 50 MHz. So in the end, I just run Corecycler and other stability tests only when I start getting crashes in games or the display driver. So far is is alright, but I am now running for example 4.90 @ 1.45V for single core compared to when my 5900X was new and could easily do 4.95 GHz @ 1.45V.

BTW, I'm now using VSOC LLC of 3. So in Windows, my 1.09V is showing as 1.0875V for 1800 IF. I'll keep running like this to see if there is any difference in game stability and WHEA, but won't be running corecycler anytime soon.


----------



## AStaUK

After a quick reality check on my temps. I have a 5950X running stock, paired with 3800Mhz/CL14 (1.5v) memory set by D.O.C.P, idle the CPU is around mid-30's, low 40's and whilst gaming it's typically around the mid-60's, but whilst games are loading I'm spiking into the low to mid-80's before it eventually settles back down. Does this sound about right, I presume it's because of the load on the memory/PCIe storage (980 Pro's), just that I don't recall it getting to that sort of temp when I was running 3600/CL16 memory with my 970's?


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> Yeah, I did experience some degradation where after many many hours of corecycler (I think about 15 hours), CTR 2.1 gave me a lower clock speed for the same voltage. I remember it was a decrease of about 50 MHz. So in the end, I just run Corecycler and other stability tests only when I start getting crashes in games or the display driver. So far is is alright, but I am now running for example 4.90 @ 1.45V for single core compared to when my 5900X was new and could easily do 4.95 GHz @ 1.45V.
> 
> BTW, I'm now using VSOC LLC of 3. So in Windows, my 1.09V is showing as 1.0875V for 1800 IF. I'll keep running like this to see if there is any difference in game stability and WHEA, but won't be running corecycler anytime soon.


Do you think you have a CPU degradation because of running Core Cycler for 15 hours? I think it happens when processor works steadily with high temperatures, for example hours above 90 degrees. 

Of course, with so many stability tests, I will have used around 60 hours of core cycler, around 24 hours of OOCT, and around 50 hours of cruncher test, as an estimate. But the question is if it is worth it, my PC only use it to play games, so the CPU OC is not required at all. In fact, if I only enable PBO without any parameters but upload only the PPT, TDC and EDC values, I have almost 8800 CB20 points. With the GPU the same thing happens to me, I can raise the FPS a bit, but when I play optimized games (which are not that many), in case CP2077 I gain some FPS at the cost of stability. In general with the basic OC, it is more than enough for now. Where I do need a lot of stress and stability testing is in memories. There, unfortunately, it is not so simple, to touch the voltages, the timings, everything is related in another way. Not to mention trying to stabilize 4000/2000 with the WHEA 19 suppressor. It seems to me that AMD rushed with the PBO2, the curve optimizer works fine, but having broken the powerplans, disabling the C-States to avoid random reboots, having problems with USB, IMC, I / O (Realtek?). It ends up getting tired. It is without a doubt the best technology. But they were rushed with the announcements. And this can be summed up in the amount of people complaining about BSOD, in doing RMA of the CPU (not in all parts of the world it is as easy as in the US) I'm not going to run performance monitor to measure the threads running and monitoring the hibernation modes of the cores and seeing the spikes when moving the mouse. They have to improve this platform but everything seems to be resolved in the new generation or in the X570S. We are in 2021 and we have problems with the USB? it will be that I am a little older !!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Gadfly

Zogge said:


> 3601 works great btw but whea still present like before on 1900+ fclk


That isn't a bios issue, that is your CPU not being capable of running 1900+ fclk.


----------



## Gadfly

Sleepycat said:


> Yeah, I did experience some degradation where after many many hours of corecycler (I think about 15 hours), CTR 2.1 gave me a lower clock speed for the same voltage. I remember it was a decrease of about 50 MHz. So in the end, I just run Corecycler and other stability tests only when I start getting crashes in games or the display driver. So far is is alright, but I am now running for example 4.90 @ 1.45V for single core compared to when my 5900X was new and could easily do 4.95 GHz @ 1.45V.
> 
> BTW, I'm now using VSOC LLC of 3. So in Windows, my 1.09V is showing as 1.0875V for 1800 IF. I'll keep running like this to see if there is any difference in game stability and WHEA, but won't be running corecycler anytime soon.


That shouldn't degrade your CPU. 1 core at 1.45v is FAR lower than what the CPU runs stock. 

If you suffered degradation, it wasn't from that.


----------



## Gadfly

ChillyRide said:


> Yep, but why there is no motherboard power limit option for pbo2 and scalar there.... still need to go to pbo2 advanced section. Its like ASUS devs: we do smth but we dont know what and why. Only Agesa patches impelemented. Still WHEA 19 at 1800+ fclk -_-.


Because you shouldn't be running "Motherboard" power limits with this board. It doesn't work right.


----------



## asavah

Sleepycat said:


> If you are entering settings in one menu, you need to leave the duplicate settings in the other menu as Auto. If you set it to Disabled, it doesn't work.


That's exactly what I had.
All the setting were entered in the PBO menu.
AMD Overclocking tab had everything on Auto.

CO did NOT work.


----------



## Gadfly

asavah said:


> That's exactly what I had.
> All the setting were entered in the PBO menu.
> AMD Overclocking tab had everything on Auto.
> 
> CO did NOT work.


Works for me.


----------



## Kokin

BIOS 3601 has been better than 3402/3501 for me. I've gotten a few idle reboots for the first time in a long time, but changing "low current idle" to "typical current idle" has fixed the reboots for now.

My keyboard isn't freezing quite as often, but still does occur. I also updated the AMD chipset drivers from Oct 2020 to Feb 2021. Not sure if that helps with the USB issue, but it wasn't happening until I upgraded from BIOS 3003 to 3402/3501/3601.

In terms of performance, it is similar to 3501/3402 and still a regression from BIOS 3003. 

3601 BIOS3501 BIOS3402 BIOS3003 BIOS2702 BIOSCPU-Z
Single: 557.3
Multi: 8506.1CPU-Z
Single: 556.6
Multi: 8507.3CPU-Z
Single:553.8
Multi: 8430.6CPU-Z
Single: 559.0
Multi: 8561.8 CPU-Z
Single: 556.4
Multi: 8619.5 AIDA latency: 64.5nsAIDA latency: 64.3nsAIDA latency: 64.5nsAIDA latency: 64.0nsAIDA latency: 63.9nsCB20
Single: 524
Multi: 7448 CB20
Single: 527
Multi: 7451 CB20
Single: 526
Multi: 7448 CB20
Single: 532
Multi: 7556 CB20
Single: 526
Multi: 7529 

Most settings are the same as before, just dropped SoC/VDDP/VDDG by 0.05V (1.1V/1.0V/1.05V respectively) and DRAM voltage has gone up from 1.47 to 1.5V as it now fails memory training at 1.47V. 











Spoiler: Benchmarks


----------



## GRABibus

Kokin said:


> BIOS 3601 has been better than 3402/3501 for me. I've gotten a few idle reboots for the first time in a long time, but changing "low current idle" to "typical current idle" has fixed the reboots for now.
> 
> My keyboard isn't freezing quite as often, but still does occur. I also updated the AMD chipset drivers from Oct 2020 to Feb 2021. Not sure if that helps with the USB issue, but it wasn't happening until I upgraded from BIOS 3003 to 3402/3501/3601.
> 
> In terms of performance, it is similar to 3501/3402 and still a regression from BIOS 3003.
> 
> 3601 BIOS3501 BIOS3402 BIOS3003 BIOS2702 BIOSCPU-Z
> Single: 557.3
> Multi: 8506.1CPU-Z
> Single: 556.6
> Multi: 8507.3CPU-Z
> Single:553.8
> Multi: 8430.6CPU-Z
> Single: 559.0
> Multi: 8561.8 CPU-Z
> Single: 556.4
> Multi: 8619.5 AIDA latency: 64.5nsAIDA latency: 64.3nsAIDA latency: 64.5nsAIDA latency: 64.0nsAIDA latency: 63.9nsCB20
> Single: 524
> Multi: 7448 CB20
> Single: 527
> Multi: 7451 CB20
> Single: 526
> Multi: 7448 CB20
> Single: 532
> Multi: 7556 CB20
> Single: 526
> Multi: 7529
> 
> Most settings are the same as before, just dropped SoC/VDDP/VDDG by 0.05V (1.1V/1.0V/1.05V respectively) and DRAM voltage has gone up from 1.47 to 1.5V as it now fails memory training at 1.47V.
> 
> View attachment 2512472
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Benchmarks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2512473
> 
> View attachment 2512474
> View attachment 2512476


Try to tweak secondary timings to improve memory performances and latency.


----------



## J7SC

The 4x8 GSkill DDR 4000 CL15 kit arrived today for the CH Dark. As hoped for, undervolting it and setting it to IF1900/DDR3800 got me tight 14-14-14-14s and tight subtimings all around...first stress tests done (no issues) and when the update-build is finished, I might even see about 1933 or 2000. 14s across the board / 3800 was what I was hoping for though, anything beyond it is gravy.

The 'old' 4x8 3866 kit is going back into the CH8 wifi / 3950X, and both mobos will get integrated into a work-play setup, along with a 4790K for Linux...


----------



## AStaUK

Looks like some good timings, what voltage are you running the RAM at?


----------



## J7SC

AStaUK said:


> Looks like some good timings, what voltage are you running the RAM at?


...'native' voltage of this Samsung-B kit is 1.5 V, but I'm running it at 1.45 V. More testing to do to see if I can lower it a bit more.


----------



## Sleepycat

Gadfly said:


> That shouldn't degrade your CPU. 1 core at 1.45v is FAR lower than what the CPU runs stock.
> 
> If you suffered degradation, it wasn't from that.


Except that in real life, your loads are not constantly running for 15 hours non stop on a single core. I looked at my old single core benchmark screenshots when leaving it to the stock CPU and it ran at 1.461V, so not much higher than 1.45V.

In the end, using the same CTR 2.0 RC5 back then, the tuning tool started giving me lower results. What triggered me to re-run tuning was because I started getting GPU driver and game crashes, which were not there previously before I got onto that binge of Corecycler.


----------



## AStaUK

J7SC said:


> ...'native' voltage of this Samsung-B kit is 1.5 V, but I'm running it at 1.45 V. More testing to do to see if I can lower it a bit more.


Out of curiosity I tried you're timings with my G.Skill 3800/CL14 kit to see if it would post, my one and only attempt to tighten timings failed. System posted first time, so time to run a few bench marks and see what, if any difference it makes.  I'll probably reset to defaults, but interesting to see the difference.


----------



## DeadSec

Does anyone have a link to the new Beta-BIOS 3601?


----------



## PWn3R

AStaUK said:


> After a quick reality check on my temps. I have a 5950X running stock, paired with 3800Mhz/CL14 (1.5v) memory set by D.O.C.P, idle the CPU is around mid-30's, low 40's and whilst gaming it's typically around the mid-60's, but whilst games are loading I'm spiking into the low to mid-80's before it eventually settles back down. Does this sound about right, I presume it's because of the load on the memory/PCIe storage (980 Pro's), just that I don't recall it getting to that sort of temp when I was running 3600/CL16 memory with my 970's?


Yes, I have. 480mm, 360mm and 560mm rad with two pumps and the water goes from GPU (3090) to the 560 and back to CPU. My temps are low 30s idle, high 50s to low 60s under load. The 5950xs just run hot. I was cooking a 7980xe that drew almost 800w from the wall under full load with similar temps without the 560mm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PWn3R

Gadfly said:


> That isn't a bios issue, that is your CPU not being capable of running 1900+ fclk.


Edit there were sarcasm tags around this. Dammit forums!

Can’t they just fix that? 

There are a lot of code 07 no booters @1900 5950s in this thread. Seems like a hardware “limit”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## J7SC

AStaUK said:


> Out of curiosity I tried you're timings with my G.Skill 3800/CL14 kit to see if it would post, my one and only attempt to tighten timings failed. System posted first time, so time to run a few bench marks and see what, if any difference it makes. I'll probably reset to defaults, but interesting to see the difference.


...sometimes, it takes a few tries / boots for changes to really 'adopt and settle' hw changes in Windows 10, even when cold-booting. When I first installed this new kit which replaced a 4x8 3866 GTZR kit running at 16-15-14-14, ZenTimings etc still showed the old kit id etc.Now, after a couple of extra cold boots, everything is as it should be. So far, no WHEA errors at all at the speed, timings and voltages I showed.

...re. 5950X CPU temps, I'm running 1280mm x 60+mm rads and dual D5s...temps are great (rarely peak above mid-60s at _max load_ w/normal CPU settings), but the system also contains a 520W RTX 3090 'heater'. I will add another 360x55 rad I have available after updating another build. While not absolutely necessary, both Ryzen and RTX3K are so temp dependent now via boost algorithms that 'the more the merrier' when it gets to cooling...


----------



## Zogge

PWn3R said:


> Edit there were sarcasm tags around this. Dammit forums!
> 
> Can’t they just fix that?
> 
> There are a lot of code 07 no booters @1900 5950s in this thread. Seems like a hardware “limit”
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So you guys are saying it is BIOS related and not just CPU related ? I am confused now...

I can run 1866 FCLK and 4400 on RAM with 2 sticks but 4 sticks limit me to 4000 on RAM so no gains to de-sync them. 1900 FCLK gives me a WHEA or two per hour.
For higher FCLK I can boot and run windows up 1966 (2000 no post) and 3933 on RAM but then lots of WHEA hardware errors constantly. It gets a bit better with higher SOC at 1.175 V and the others at 1.075 V or so but still like 50 errors every hour or so. I really hope they can be fixed with BIOS but if it can't I have to live with 1866/3733.

I can run my processor at -30 all core which is good though, no idle resets. 250/140/140 for CPU settings, +200, no pfmax, 90 max temp as throttling. (I have solid cooling so with these settings it does not go over 73 C when pushing it). Boosts to 5250 Mhz on 2 cores and 5150 Mhz on 4, the rest top out at 5050 Mhz.


----------



## Nizzen

DeadSec said:


> Does anyone have a link to the new Beta-BIOS 3601?


ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 3601 Beta Bios

1. Improve system performance
2. AGESA 1.2.0.3 Patch A


ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO 3601 BETA BIOS
ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WI-FI 3601 BETA BIOS
ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA 3601 BETA BIOS
ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT 3601 BETA BIOS
ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO 3601 BETA BIOS


----------



## AStaUK

J7SC said:


> ...sometimes, it takes a few tries / boots for changes to really 'adopt and settle' hw changes in Windows 10, even when cold-booting. When I first installed this new kit which replaced a 4x8 3866 GTZR kit running at 16-15-14-14, ZenTimings etc still showed the old kit id etc.Now, after a couple of extra cold boots, everything is as it should be. So far, no WHEA errors at all at the speed, timings and voltages I showed.
> 
> ...re. 5950X CPU temps, I'm running 1280mm x 60+mm rads and dual D5s...temps are great (rarely peak above mid-60s at _max load_ w/normal CPU settings), but the system also contains a 520W RTX 3090 'heater'. I will add another 360x55 rad I have available after updating another build. While not absolutely necessary, both Ryzen and RTX3K are so temp dependent now via boost algorithms that 'the more the merrier' when it gets to cooling...


I'm using 32GB (2x16 Dual Rank) Trident Z Neo 3800/CL14 and your timing's worked without any tweaks which was nice/surprising. On the downside, made no difference to the couple of benchmarks I tried, Cinebench, Div2 and Rise of the Tomb Raider, but then to be fair I wasn't really expecting it to make much difference. I also tried running lower voltages, but my PC wouldn't boot so I reverted to D.O.C.P.

If I want to see better performance I guess my only real option is to tweak the CPU settings and optimise single/multicore, but I'll leave that for another time, my PC is fast and stable as it is.

**seems my temps are more less where they should be, might tweak the fan curve a little more towards quiet. Was hoping to keep temps well under 80c, but doesn't look like I can do it with 3800 memory and gen4 NVMe's, but I'm okay with spikes into the 80's if gaming temps are mid-60's to low 70's.


----------



## J7SC

AStaUK said:


> I'm using 32GB (2x16 Dual Rank) Trident Z Neo 3800/CL14 and your timing's worked without any tweaks which was nice/surprising. On the downside, made no difference to the couple of benchmarks I tried, Cinebench, Div2 and Rise of the Tomb Raider, but then to be fair I wasn't really expecting it to make much difference. I also tried running lower voltages, but my PC wouldn't boot so I reverted to D.O.C.P.
> 
> If I want to see better performance I guess my only real option is to tweak the CPU settings and optimise single/multicore, but I'll leave that for another time, my PC is fast and stable as it is.
> 
> **seems my temps are more less where they should be, might tweak the fan curve a little more towards quiet. Was hoping to keep temps well under 80c, but doesn't look like I can do it with 3800 memory and gen4 NVMe's, but I'm okay with spikes into the 80's if gaming temps are mid-60's to low 70's.


...glad the timings worked for you. Cinebench & Co don't really react too much to minor changes in RAM speed and timings (usually within margin of error per run). Some games and also GPU benchmarks (ie. TimeSpy and PortRoyal) do benefit more, depending on how dramatic the changes were. At the end of the day, it really is just finding the outer limits re. the new RAM kit, then just dial it back a bit, for example by undervolting, for 24-7 productivity-and-entertainment settings.


----------



## Kokin

GRABibus said:


> Try to tweak secondary timings to improve memory performances and latency.


Do you have a suggestion for improving timings? I've tried 3600 14-14-14 and it will boot, but fails any stability tests and causes games to crash even at 1.5V for RAM voltage.

My RAM kit is G.Skill F4-3200C14-32GTZR (2x16GB dual rank 3200 14-14-14 1.35V b-die).


----------



## lmfodor

AStaUK said:


> I'm using 32GB (2x16 Dual Rank) Trident Z Neo 3800/CL14 and your timing's worked without any tweaks which was nice/surprising. On the downside, made no difference to the couple of benchmarks I tried, Cinebench, Div2 and Rise of the Tomb Raider, but then to be fair I wasn't really expecting it to make much difference. I also tried running lower voltages, but my PC wouldn't boot so I reverted to D.O.C.P.
> 
> If I want to see better performance I guess my only real option is to tweak the CPU settings and optimise single/multicore, but I'll leave that for another time, my PC is fast and stable as it is.
> 
> **seems my temps are more less where they should be, might tweak the fan curve a little more towards quiet. Was hoping to keep temps well under 80c, but doesn't look like I can do it with 3800 memory and gen4 NVMe's, but I'm okay with spikes into the 80's if gaming temps are mid-60's to low 70's.


Hi! I have the same memories, as far this is my best stable timings. Maybe it works for you. Actually I have a Dark Hero with the 5900x. My VDIMM is 1.5 and the procOTC could be 40. With the CADBUS setup you can enable 1T GDM off. 











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## GRABibus

Kokin said:


> Do you have a suggestion for improving timings? I've tried 3600 14-14-14 and it will boot, but fails any stability tests and causes games to crash even at 1.5V for RAM voltage.
> 
> My RAM kit is G.Skill F4-3200C14-32GTZR (2x16GB dual rank 3200 14-14-14 1.35V b-die).


Try DRAM calculator and see which timings are proposed for your set up.
Then make one hour Karuh’s ram tester to see if you have instability.
If not, then try decreasing trfc1, trfc2 and trfc4 step by step by checking stability at each step.
You also can tweak primary timings.
Check also performances with aida64

When you are satisfied with performances and with optimised stable settings, then you can validate with your usual RAM stability test.

From my side I validate RAM stability with 1000% coverage HCI MemTest.


----------



## WINTENDOX

Estable


----------



## lmfodor

WINTENDOX said:


> Estable
> 
> View attachment 2512746


Yes, the formula is the only model that doesn’t have the Realtek NIC. I assume you don’t have any WHEA 19 right?

Thanks 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> Yes, the formula is the only model that doesn’t have the Realtek NIC. I assume you don’t have any WHEA 19 right?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I have the C8H like you, don't have WHEA 19, but...... I use the Intel NIC. I actually disable the Realtek because I don't need it. Have you tried disabling it in bios (and use the Intel NIC) to see if your WHEA stops?


----------



## Sleepycat

WINTENDOX said:


> Estable
> 
> View attachment 2512746


Something is odd with your memory and L3 latencies. They are too high for your 4000MHz and CL16 memory, and high CPU clock speeds. It should be much lower given your aggressive clock and timing.

This is mine at 3600 and CL14.


----------



## Reikoji

Sleepycat said:


> Something is odd with your memory and L3 latencies. They are too high for your 4000MHz and CL16 memory, and high CPU clock speeds. It should be much lower given your aggressive clock and timing.
> 
> This is mine at 3600 and CL14.
> 
> View attachment 2512810


From the zen timings it looks like his sub timings are mostly auto. Especially high tRFC's and tCKE is 16 instead of 1. Probably the cause.




Zogge said:


> So you guys are saying it is BIOS related and not just CPU related ? I am confused now...
> 
> I can run 1866 FCLK and 4400 on RAM with 2 sticks but 4 sticks limit me to 4000 on RAM so no gains to de-sync them. 1900 FCLK gives me a WHEA or two per hour.
> For higher FCLK I can boot and run windows up 1966 (2000 no post) and 3933 on RAM but then lots of WHEA hardware errors constantly. It gets a bit better with higher SOC at 1.175 V and the others at 1.075 V or so but still like 50 errors every hour or so. I really hope they can be fixed with BIOS but if it can't I have to live with 1866/3733.
> 
> I can run my processor at -30 all core which is good though, no idle resets. 250/140/140 for CPU settings, +200, no pfmax, 90 max temp as throttling. (I have solid cooling so with these settings it does not go over 73 C when pushing it). Boosts to 5250 Mhz on 2 cores and 5150 Mhz on 4, the rest top out at 5050 Mhz.


I was having this issue trying to run 4 sticks of ram. Sometimes it was code 22 or just check CPU tho. 3601 seems to be letting me use 4 sticks of Ram again, back to 32gb. Hadn't been able to since the 1st Zen 3 beta bios way back when. Had to make some voltage changes too to stop the WHEA 19s. Unlike my 3900x, my 5800x wants more for 1900fclk, but now its stable....ish. I still get a whea error periodically. I'll probably just drop down to 1866 and be done with it. I just didnt get a good one.

The older 4000CL17 Gskill Royals


----------



## Reikoji

seeing if increasing clo vddp does anything. always just left it auto, which is always 1.1v. set it to 1.125


----------



## T[]RK

safedisk said:


> It's a CPU problem if the voltage setting doesn't solve the WHEA problem


Hey... @safedisk i have got question for you. I have got ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero, still in box and never powered. My 5800X in GIGABYTE's B450M DS3H v2 motherboard and i can run memory [email protected] FCLK with no WHEA (in Event viewer). CPU always in undervolt (4425 [email protected] mV). If i transfer this CPU in Dark Hero and run it "full speed" (no UV) it will have WHEA? Or if there is no WHEA on B450M - so it's no WHEA at all?


----------



## WINTENDOX

Sleepycat said:


> Something is odd with your memory and L3 latencies. They are too high for your 4000MHz and CL16 memory, and high CPU clock speeds. It should be much lower given your aggressive clock and timing.
> 
> This is mine at 3600 and CL14.
> 
> View attachment 2512810


the memories are not compatible. this may be the cause. it is these memories that I have.









Amazon.com: G.SKILL TridentZ Serie RGB de 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 4266 (PC4 34100) Intel Z270 / Z370 / X299 Modelo de memoria de escritorio F4-4266C19D-16GTZR : Electrónica


Amazon.com: G.SKILL TridentZ Serie RGB de 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 4266 (PC4 34100) Intel Z270 / Z370 / X299 Modelo de memoria de escritorio F4-4266C19D-16GTZR : Electrónica



www.amazon.com





I should opt for compatible memory, which one do you recommend?


----------



## J7SC

WINTENDOX said:


> the memories are not compatible. this may be the cause. it is these memories that I have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazon.com: G.SKILL TridentZ Serie RGB de 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 4266 (PC4 34100) Intel Z270 / Z370 / X299 Modelo de memoria de escritorio F4-4266C19D-16GTZR : Electrónica
> 
> 
> Amazon.com: G.SKILL TridentZ Serie RGB de 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 4266 (PC4 34100) Intel Z270 / Z370 / X299 Modelo de memoria de escritorio F4-4266C19D-16GTZR : Electrónica
> 
> 
> 
> www.amazon.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I should opt for compatible memory, which one do you recommend?


That shouldn't really be the issue...I use GSkill GTZR 8 GB modules (albeit w/ tighter nominal timings) in my 5950X, 3950X and 2950X setups.


----------



## WINTENDOX

J7SC said:


> That shouldn't really be the issue...I use GSkill GTZR 8 GB modules (albeit w/ tighter nominal timings) in my 5950X, 3950X and 2950X setups.


can you show me your configuration to guide me, additional a curve for the processor I can't find your highest performance.


----------



## J7SC

WINTENDOX said:


> can you show me your configuration to guide me, additional a curve for the processor I can't find your highest performance.


...on proc curve, I rarely use it and others are better suited to advise you. On RAM timings start with > this, probably with 'safe' settings and work your way to 'fast' via lots of testing. GSkill GTZR is Samsung-B die, btw.

...below is an older 'medium' one I did w/the 3950X (also works with 5950X) and GSkill GTZR. I run a faster GTZR kit these days but this should help


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> I have the C8H like you, don't have WHEA 19, but...... I use the Intel NIC. I actually disable the Realtek because I don't need it. Have you tried disabling it in bios (and use the Intel NIC) to see if your WHEA stops?


Hi!! Yes, I already tried disabling the Realtek NIC in bios, but just increase from 1900 to 1933 and above I got some WHEAs. With the last beta version I had less quantity or WHEAs. I should try first disabling in windows and then in BIOS. For some unknown reason with the last beta version I had a lot of ACPI errors, like some components doesn’t communicate well with the BIOS. Finally I downgraded to the 3303

Are you running 2000 FCLK without WHEA 19 in your CH? I checked with three CH8, two Wifi and the Dark that I have now. The only mobos that undoubtedly are whea free are the ones that doesn’t have the Realtek’s NICs. The most expensive MSI, the creator version, the formula in asus, the B550XE, the Taichi and the new Asus ProArt. All tested above 2000 and working fine.. some have WHEA 18, but this is related to voltage. I hope the mobos manufacturer follow the AMD schematics.. so far, I’m running almost to the Max theoretical bandwidth with 3800 and with 54ns of latency that for a dual CCD processor is most than enough. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## safedisk

T[]RK said:


> Hey... @safedisk i have got question for you. I have got ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero, still in box and never powered. My 5800X in GIGABYTE's B450M DS3H v2 motherboard and i can run memory [email protected] FCLK with no WHEA (in Event viewer). CPU always in undervolt (4425 [email protected] mV). If i transfer this CPU in Dark Hero and run it "full speed" (no UV) it will have WHEA? Or if there is no WHEA on B450M - so it's no WHEA at all?


No one knows until you try it yourself So you need to try it yourself good luck
This user has no WHEA problems at all He uses the FCLK 2100









쿨엔조이,쿨앤조이 coolenjoy, cooln, 쿨엔, 검은동네






coolenjoy.net


----------



## safedisk

lmfodor said:


> Hi @safedisk, what would be good voltage settings to try with my 5900? I managed to boot with FCLK 1933, 1966, and I tried until 2000. I read that maybe and increase of voltage or CCD or IOD can reduce the WHEA 19.. I’m using a vSOC of 1.14 V, LLC4 for VSOC and 500 sw frequency. I set VDDP 0.9 and I play with CCD from 0.95 to 1V, and IOD 0,5/0,75v below VSOC. I could run a lower VSOC, however for my mem OC I feel like a little increase help for the stability. I’m using a GSkill 3800CL14 2x16 dual rank that runs 1.5V with his standard XMP profile. So, what would suggested me to try to reduce the WHEA above 1900? I mean, with voltages
> 
> PS: the Beta seems to work very well. I will try SiSandra to see if the Inter core latency improves.
> 
> Ps2: having a DH would you recommend to try DOS instead of Curve Optimizer? I’m looking for stability really. I use my PC for gaining . What are the safest values of vcore, CCX1 and 2, and the AMP to trigger the switching in a 5900?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Hey
If the WHEA problem is not resolved by changing the SOC, CCD , IOD , and VDDP voltage settings,
have no choice but to lower the FCLK clock. I use ccd 1.05 , iod 1.05 , VDDP 0.950
This is CPU dependent I will share the settings with you when I test the 5900x later
Thanks


----------



## T[]RK

safedisk said:


> This user has no WHEA problems at all He uses the FCLK 2100


OMG, 4200 MHz 1:1... Is this even legal?
vSOC 1.3v!
IOD - 1.15v!


----------



## J7SC

safedisk said:


> No one knows until you try it yourself So you need to try it yourself good luck
> This user has no WHEA problems at all He uses the FCLK 2100
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 쿨엔조이,쿨앤조이 coolenjoy, cooln, 쿨엔, 검은동네
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> coolenjoy.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2512890


..very impressive no matter what  ; just worth keeping in mind that it looks like a single CCD 5800X w/ 16GB for those with a dual CCD 12C 5900X or 16C 5950X and 32GB or even 64GB who are now madly trying to hit DDR4 2100. Also, SoC at 1.3 v.


----------



## PWn3R

J7SC said:


> ..very impressive no matter what  ; just worth keeping in mind that it looks like a single CCD 5800X w/ 16GB for those with a dual CCD 12C 5900X or 16C 5950X and 32GB or even 64GB who are now madly trying to hit DDR4 2100. Also, SoC at 1.3 v.


I’m sure you know this, but posting in case someone new looks at this. vSOC at 1.3 not recommended. Keep it below 1.15 from everything I’ve read and heard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## J7SC

PWn3R said:


> I’m sure you know this, but posting in case someone new looks at this. vSOC at 1.3 not recommended. Keep it below 1.15 from everything I’ve read and heard.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


...yeah, that's why I flagged it  ...here's my current (4 sticks) setup, w/ some undervolting on RAM and related controller voltages.


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> Hi!! Yes, I already tried disabling the Realtek NIC in bios, but just increase from 1900 to 1933 and above I got some WHEAs. With the last beta version I had less quantity or WHEAs. I should try first disabling in windows and then in BIOS. For some unknown reason with the last beta version I had a lot of ACPI errors, like some components doesn’t communicate well with the BIOS. Finally I downgraded to the 3303
> 
> Are you running 2000 FCLK without WHEA 19 in your CH? I checked with three CH8, two Wifi and the Dark that I have now. The only mobos that undoubtedly are whea free are the ones that doesn’t have the Realtek’s NICs. The most expensive MSI, the creator version, the formula in asus, the B550XE, the Taichi and the new Asus ProArt. All tested above 2000 and working fine.. some have WHEA 18, but this is related to voltage. I hope the mobos manufacturer follow the AMD schematics.. so far, I’m running almost to the Max theoretical bandwidth with 3800 and with 54ns of latency that for a dual CCD processor is most than enough.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


No, I don't run 2000 FCLK, only 1800 because of my 64GB of RAM. My CPU binning is also not that good as per my other posts in the thread.

You have to check if WHEA is being caused by Realtek or by FCLK. Since you have already disabled the Realtek, I would believe that your WHEA is FCLK based, and hence triggered by your CPU SOC. So I would focus on voltage control to determine which one reduces the frequency of WHEA.


----------



## arcanexvi

You guys all pushing 1900+ trying for 2000+ and my 5950x will not post anything higher than 1800 on 2000 ram


----------



## PWn3R

arcanexvi said:


> You guys all pushing 1900+ trying for 2000+ and my 5950x will not post anything higher than 1800 on 2000 ram


I have a 5950x and I can get it to boot @1933 and 1900, but no amount of safe voltage is enough to stop dozens of wheas per second in games like CSGO and COD


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Daylight_Invader

safedisk said:


> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 3601 Beta Bios*
> 
> 1. Improve system performance
> 2. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1203_PatchA
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO 3601 BETA BIOS
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3601.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WI-FI 3601 BETA BIOS
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3601.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA 3601 BETA BIOS
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-3601.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT 3601 BETA BIOS
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-3601.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO 3601 BETA BIOS
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3601.7z


Unfortunately this BIOS (3601) might be the worst I have yet experienced. Multiple resets and it is impossible to run at DOCP (3600) despite never having had a problem before.

FWIW, 3501 was pretty stable, although I was unable to get my computer to sleep except by manually forcing this.


----------



## shaolin95

Are you guys using StoreMI?
Feedback please.


----------



## Nizzen

T[]RK said:


> OMG, 4200 MHz 1:1... Is this even legal?
> vSOC 1.3v!
> IOD - 1.15v!


Go High or go Home


----------



## T[]RK

Nizzen said:


> Go High or go Home


More "Go High or RMA", but i hear you! =)

P.S. I tested today 4000 MHz (2000 MHz FCLK) with DS3H v2 and... 200 WHEA #19, a lot freeze at start... poor cheap MoBo...


----------



## butt_yodel

Cold boot behavior is so strange. Hard to get 1900 to take and POST properly in BIOS, but when it finally does, it's fine for _weeks_ before I have to go through it again. Any improvements noted in 3601?


----------



## Sleepycat

Daylight_Invader said:


> Unfortunately this BIOS (3601) might be the worst I have yet experienced. Multiple resets and it is impossible to run at DOCP (3600) despite never having had a problem before.
> 
> FWIW, 3501 was pretty stable, although I was unable to get my computer to sleep except by manually forcing this.


Keep trying, maybe flash it again and enter all settings into bios manually once more. I managed to run 4 x 16GB dual rank B-die sticks at CL14, using 1.45V.


----------



## Daylight_Invader

Sleepycat said:


> Keep trying, maybe flash it again and enter all settings into bios manually once more. I managed to run 4 x 16GB dual rank B-die sticks at CL14, using 1.45V.
> 
> View attachment 2513067


it’s definitely the bios. Never experienced any issues and my overclocks when I can be bothered are relatively minor compared to you guys. I’m fairly happy just using CO (which was not engaged with this latest version).

In my case, this latest bios just refuses to post at DOCP, something I’ve not seen with any other bios versions - it would only post with stock settings. Nothing else was tweaked in the settings, so this does not bode well.

I’ve downgraded to previous version which works well minus the broken power profiles which causes my machine to not sleep automatically (I can however sleep manually).


----------



## GRABibus

Daylight_Invader said:


> it’s definitely the bios. Never experienced any issues and my overclocks when I can be bothered are relatively minor compared to you guys. I’m fairly happy just using CO (which was not engaged with this latest version).
> 
> In my case, this latest bios just refuses to post at DOCP, something I’ve not seen with any other bios versions - it would only post with stock settings. Nothing else was tweaked in the settings, so this does not bode well.
> 
> I’ve downgraded to previous version which works well minus the broken power profiles which causes my machine to not sleep automatically (I can however sleep manually).


Did you try this :
Clear cmos
Then start PC and go into bios
Then bios flashing
Then entering all setting manually 
F10 and Reboot and enter in Bios 
Save setting bios profile 
Clear cmos
Then start PC and go into bios
Apply saved bios profile 
Restart.

Does it work ?


----------



## Daylight_Invader

GRABibus said:


> Did you try this :
> Clear cmos
> Then start PC and go into bios
> Then bios flashing
> Then entering all setting manually
> F10 and Reboot and enter in Bios
> Save setting bios profile
> Clear cmos
> Then start PC and go into bios
> Apply saved bios profile
> Restart.
> 
> Does it work ?


already tried all that plus flashback. For me, this version seems to not like my components. I’ve not had a BIOS work as badly as this version!


----------



## Kokin

Daylight_Invader said:


> already tried all that plus flashback. For me, this version seems to not like my components. I’ve not had a BIOS work as badly as this version!


Are your reboots during low load/idle conditions? If so, in BIOS try setting Power Supply Control to "Typical Current Idle" instead of Auto or Low Current Idle.

I've also noticed 3501 and 3601 requiring slightly more memory voltage than past BIOS versions, otherwise I would have instability using the same exact settings from previous BIOS.


----------



## Daylight_Invader

Kokin said:


> Are your reboots during low load/idle conditions? If so, in BIOS try setting Power Supply Control to "Typical Current Idle" instead of Auto or Low Current Idle.
> 
> I've also noticed 3501 and 3601 requiring slightly more memory voltage than past BIOS versions, otherwise I would have instability using the same exact settings from previous BIOS.


I think you might have missed part of my post above.

If I keep all stock settings but enable DOCP, I can't even post. This is thankfully not about spontaneous reboots, WHEA errors and the like.

FWIW, I actually originally had a 5950X which I kept getting WHEAs even at stock which AMD replaced. The new replacement 5950X has had zero issues - no strange reboots or WHEAs.

What I have found is that 3501 is actually a pretty decent BIOS version with the exception of the totally broken power profiles causing my Windows 10 install not to ever go to sleep (except manually). Bios 3601 on the other hand only seems to work at stock. Setting DOCP (XMP) causes the machine not to post.


----------



## GRABibus

Daylight_Invader said:


> I think you might have missed part of my post above.
> 
> If I keep all stock settings but enable DOCP, I can't even post. This is thankfully not about spontaneous reboots, WHEA errors and the like.
> 
> FWIW, I actually originally had a 5950X which I kept getting WHEAs even at stock which AMD replaced. The new replacement 5950X has had zero issues - no strange reboots or WHEAs.
> 
> What I have found is that 3501 is actually a pretty decent BIOS version with the exception of the totally broken power profiles causing my Windows 10 install not to ever go to sleep (except manually). Bios 3601 on the other hand only seems to work at stock. Setting DOCP (XMP) causes the machine not to post.


That is strange.

Did you try RAM manual settings instead of DOCP ?


----------



## Daylight_Invader

GRABibus said:


> That is strange.
> 
> Did you try RAM manual settings instead of DOCP ?


I have not, and if I’m being honest I probably should have. I strongly suspect some of the default settings DOCP is using might be messed up in this version, specifically either a timing or voltage value.The thing is, as these settings should be pretty much standard, it’s still a bug and not something caused specifically by my setup. When I have a little more time over the weekend I might try this version again, but with all the settings manually inputted for my RAM setup (3600 CL16).


----------



## GRABibus

Me too, since I upgraded to 3601 (from 3202), my former ram oc are not stable anymore.

Even when coming back to 3202, it is not stable anymore.

So I assume it is not due to bios problem….

It is 4 days now that I try many timings and voltage settings with no success (HCI memtest and karhu’s ram test errors).

My CPU stability is ok (realbench).

….


----------



## Daylight_Invader

GRABibus said:


> Me too, since I upgraded to 3601 (from 3202), my former ram oc are not stable anymore.
> 
> Even when coming back to 3202, it is not stable anymore.
> 
> So I assume it is not due to bios problem….
> 
> It is 4 days now that I try many timings and voltage settings with no success (HCI memtest and karhu’s ram test errors).
> 
> My CPU stability is ok (realbench).
> 
> ….


I used the ASUS flashback to return to the older version 3501 and everything was back to normal. The failure to post only happens with version 3601 and with DOCP enabled. I get a failure with the amber light on the motherboard which indicates RAM issue. Doing a CMOS reset allows me to post again, but re-enabling DOCP causes a fault.

In your case I would suggest clearing CMOS, then use flashback to go back.

As mentioned above, at a guess, the BIOS development team over at ASUS have probably put in a few wrong values, and that is causing these failures.

For the moment I will stick to 3501 as the main issue for me with that version really is just the broken power profile stopping sleep (I suspect all the c-states are messed up on reality as we know AMD were playing with these as part of the USB fix).


----------



## skalinator

Daylight_Invader said:


> Unfortunately this BIOS (3601) might be the worst I have yet experienced. Multiple resets and it is impossible to run at DOCP (3600) despite never having had a problem before.
> 
> FWIW, 3501 was pretty stable, although I was unable to get my computer to sleep except by manually forcing this.


I'll echo this. For me however, I am on Dark Hero, When I setup my Dynamic OC, PBO+CO i spent all day trying to get the boost to what i have on 3401. I can boost to 5000 on most of my cores, no matter what I did, i could only get my single best core to boost to 5000, all of the rest regressed by almost 200 mhz. Rolled back to 3401, it's been decent for me.


----------



## Daylight_Invader

skalinator said:


> I'll echo this. For me however, I am on Dark Hero, When I setup my Dynamic OC, PBO+CO i spent all day trying to get the boost to what i have on 3401. I can boost to 5000 on most of my cores, no matter what I did, i could only get my single best core to boost to 5000, all of the rest regressed by almost 200 mhz. Rolled back to 3401, it's been decent for me.


Personally I think it's better to have all cores sustained at a high clock rather than these microsecond boosts to over 5Ghz, but that is me.


----------



## WINTENDOX

it took me a while to get it stable. the 3601 bios consumes more voltage on the cpu vs the 3501 but i think i improved the latencies on my ram or improved the settings 

-cpu cx0 4750 cx1 4650 volt 1.3625 all auto setting "What do you recommend to have a more optimal oc?" 
- ram 1.47v setting manual timing


----------



## skalinator

shaolin95 said:


> Are you guys using StoreMI?
> Feedback please.


nope


----------



## skalinator

Daylight_Invader said:


> Personally I think it's better to have all cores sustained at a high clock rather than these microsecond boosts to over 5Ghz, but that is me.


well, the point of dynamic oc is to have both. My all core oc was fine it seemed when dynamic oc kicked in, but uhhh ok i could just do a manual OC and be done with it? who does that on these chips? the gold is in PBO+CO, i don't get microsecond 5000+ on single, lightly or lightly threaded workloads, it's sustained. that makes a huge difference in games


----------



## GuMossad

Hey! So guys, CH8 Wifi owner here.... Changed from 3950X to 5950X, and C20 increased 200 points (8900 to 9100) ahahahah! Of course something is not properly set. 

I tried to use the same settings as the video from CRT2.1, to use CRT2.1 but no POST even. So I went to my old settings (introduce them manually of course) and booted right away (on the picture). My memories are 2 x 16gb Dual Rank B-Die 1.35V 3200Mhz CL14 (Gskills TridentZ). BIOS 3501, no USB issues (dunno how), seems okish. 

What suggestion do you have to try and milk the max out of it before it goes all WHEA on me? Does it suffer from memory training still :S ?


----------



## shaolin95

GuMossad said:


> Hey! So guys, CH8 Wifi owner here.... Changed from 3950X to 5950X, and C20 increased 200 points (8900 to 9100) ahahahah! Of course something is not properly set.
> 
> I tried to use the same settings as the video from CRT2.1, to use CRT2.1 but no POST even. So I went to my old settings (introduce them manually of course) and booted right away (on the picture). My memories are 2 x 16gb Dual Rank B-Die 1.35V 3200Mhz CL14 (Gskills TridentZ). BIOS 3501, no USB issues (dunno how), seems okish.
> 
> What suggestion do you have to try and milk the max out of it before it goes all WHEA on me? Does it suffer from memory training still :S ?
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2513130


Are you looking to increase your CB20 or fine tuning your RAM first? Surely your CB20 should be easily in the 10ks and more in the mid 11.5k with some extra CTR tweaks depending cooling etc


----------



## GuMossad

shaolin95 said:


> Are you looking to increase your CB20 or fine tuning your RAM first? Surely your CB20 should be easily in the 10ks and more in the mid 11.5k with some extra CTR tweaks depending cooling etc


Ram Fine Tune 1st, which for sure will improve CB20 (CB20 as a performance indicator  )
Those Values were calculated by 1usmus Ryzen DRAM btw


----------



## shaolin95

GuMossad said:


> Ram Fine Tune 1st, which for sure will improve CB20 (CB20 as a performance indicator  )
> Those Values were calculated by 1usmus Ryzen DRAM btw


Not as huge a difference from my own testing, especially since your current performance is way lower than it should be.
I run4x16GB so my settings will be too conservative for you 
My currenty CTR settings, trying to keep temps under control, score me about 11500K multi for your reference


----------



## GuMossad

shaolin95 said:


> Not as huge a difference from my own testing, especially since your current performance is way lower than it should be.
> I run4x16GB so my settings will be too conservative for you
> My currenty CTR settings, trying to keep temps under control, score me about 11500K multi for your reference


Yeah thought so as well... So Shaolin, any idea where to start? Despite you having 4 x 16 that could be a start actually, I see on your signature that we don't have that of a different mem kit (just size)!


----------



## shaolin95

GuMossad said:


> Yeah thought so as well... So Shaolin, any idea where to start? Despite you having 4 x 16 that could be a start actually, I see on your signature that we don't have that of a different mem kit (just size)!


These are my settings:









If you are using CTR (I am using RC6 v13) I can share my bios and ctr settings too.


----------



## GRABibus

new chipset drivers : 2.17.25.506



https://www.amd.com/fr/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> new chipset drivers : 2.17.25.506
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.amd.com/fr/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570


...seem ok w/o issue, at least on a new X570 build w/6900 XT I just finished today; new chipset driver installed fine in fresh Win 10 pro


----------



## GuMossad

shaolin95 said:


> These are my settings:
> 
> 
> If you are using CTR (I am using RC6 v13) I can share my bios and ctr settings too.


So Shaolin I managed to pump out 3800/1900 out of my 3200 CL14 
After CTR2.1 (RC5 here) I went up to CD20 11641 at average 67-70º on 100% CPU LOAD  Of course following Yuri's recommendations out of the video.

My question is, would I benefit much more keeping on 3800 CL16 for performance / temps, or go 3600 CL14 which presumably would stress less and improve performance as it's faster CL?


----------



## GRABibus

Daylight_Invader said:


> I used the ASUS flashback to return to the older version 3501 and everything was back to normal. The failure to post only happens with version 3601 and with DOCP enabled. I get a failure with the amber light on the motherboard which indicates RAM issue. Doing a CMOS reset allows me to post again, but re-enabling DOCP causes a fault.
> 
> In your case I would suggest clearing CMOS, then use flashback to go back.
> 
> As mentioned above, at a guess, the BIOS development team over at ASUS have probably put in a few wrong values, and that is causing these failures.
> 
> For the moment I will stick to 3501 as the main issue for me with that version really is just the broken power profile stopping sleep (I suspect all the c-states are messed up on reality as we know AMD were playing with these as part of the USB fix).


After so many issues with RAM and cache stability with 3601, I rolled back to 3302 with Bios Flashback.
No more RAM and no more Cache stability issues with 3302 !

The only USB issue I have is that my Logitech mouse lags in Bios.

I will stick to 3302 until a better Bios will be realeased....

Here are my RAM settings :


----------



## shaolin95

GuMossad said:


> So Shaolin I managed to pump out 3800/1900 out of my 3200 CL14
> After CTR2.1 (RC5 here) I went up to CD20 11641 at average 67-70º on 100% CPU LOAD  Of course following Yuri's recommendations out of the video.
> 
> My question is, would I benefit much more keeping on 3800 CL16 for performance / temps, or go 3600 CL14 which presumably would stress less and improve performance as it's faster CL?
> 
> View attachment 2513182


Honestly not sure as I cannot get that high with my kit but at least from what I have seen during research unless you are looking for top memory benchmark numbers, I rather run CL14 3600 since real world will be hard to tell apart IMO 
Your CB20 is surely inline with a good OC now. Sure you can push to 12k but I can only do that when Winter is back or when I get my chiller one day lol


----------



## GuMossad

shaolin95 said:


> Honestly not sure as I cannot get that high with my kit but at least from what I have seen during research unless you are looking for top memory benchmark numbers, I rather run CL14 3600 since real world will be hard to tell apart IMO
> Your CB20 is surely inline with a good OC now. Sure you can push to 12k but I can only do that when Winter is back or when I get my chiller one day lol


nah  leave it at 11  i'm in Portugal, and when it's hot it's hot... 

I guess i'll go to 3600 CL14 as well, I remember reading that there wasn't that huge of a difference.... And 3600 CL14 for sure i'll even be more efficient on consumption when needed and temps, etc, etc  What I'm glad is that for the first time I was able to boot this at 3800 / 1900, no WHEA, nothing, solid running! And at 1.36V  So easy easy that I can go 3600 CL14  

Cheers mate!


----------



## Undesirable

So are the USB issues really fixed on 1501 / 1601? I mean, logic follows that it is either FIXED or it ISN'T, because it sounds like people are still having dropouts, like the guy with Schiit hardware. I've got a Schiit USB DAC myself, and a Dark Hero + 5950 ready to build.

Unless it's just Intel shills sewing Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.


----------



## ChillyRide

Undesirable said:


> So are the USB issues really fixed on 1501 / 1601? I mean, logic follows that it is either FIXED or it ISN'T, because it sounds like people are still having dropouts, like the guy with Schiit hardware. I've got a Schiit USB DAC myself, and a Dark Hero + 5950 ready to build.
> 
> Unless it's just Intel shills sewing Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.


Never had any usb issues from day 1 after buying mobo.



GuMossad said:


> nah  leave it at 11  i'm in Portugal, and when it's hot it's hot...
> 
> I guess i'll go to 3600 CL14 as well, I remember reading that there wasn't that huge of a difference.... And 3600 CL14 for sure i'll even be more efficient on consumption when needed and temps, etc, etc  What I'm glad is that for the first time I was able to boot this at 3800 / 1900, no WHEA, nothing, solid running! And at 1.36V  So easy easy that I can go 3600 CL14
> 
> Cheers mate!


pfff, 3600, temps, voltages... boring  CL13, CR 1T, Dual Ranks.


----------



## J7SC

...have been tuning _two_ systems simultaneously (5950X / CH8 Dark Hero / 3090; 3950X / CH8 / Hero WiFi / 6900 XT) for a complete re-build of my home-office work-and-play systems. Both run 3800 / 1900 with tight 4x8 Samsung-B GTZR RAM and undervolting, along with r_BAR and RAGE Mode respectively, but at the end of this marathon tuning session, I had some fun w/ the 5950X's RAM... 

...unlike my daily which is 4650 all-core + Dynamic OC, I left bios at stock other than RAM speed, PO & FMax enabled. Then I tried for IF1933 / 3866 and also IF2000 / 4000. RAM, VDDP and SOC are a bit undervolted even at IF2000 / DDR 4000...at the end of the day, I'll leave it at IF 1900 / DDR 3800 CL14 for 'normal use'...though will definitely get back to the IF 2000 / DDR 4000 by playing with sub-timings when I have more time. Right now, I don't want to see any more bios screens, especially not 'in stereo'


----------



## GuMossad

ChillyRide said:


> Never had any usb issues from day 1 after buying mobo.
> 
> 
> 
> pfff, 3600, temps, voltages... boring  CL13, CR 1T, Dual Ranks.



Ahaha man I highly doubt I manage to get 3800 CL13, out of my 3200 CL14... What DRAM V are you using for your 3600 at 3800 CL13  ?


----------



## Robostyle

Any.."insiders" here? What's up with these forever beta BIOSes? Waiting for 3501 or even something newer for my C8DH, hope that will solve whea errors with high fclk... 
2 months from purchase - and it's still there. 

Heard that it's AMD's fault that they slowpoke agesa - is that true?


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> ...have been tuning _two_ systems simultaneously (5950X / CH8 Dark Hero / 3090; 3950X / CH8 / Hero WiFi / 6900 XT) for a complete re-build of my home-office work-and-play systems. Both run 3800 / 1900 with tight 4x8 Samsung-B GTZR RAM and undervolting, along with r_BAR and RAGE Mode respectively, but at the end of this marathon tuning session, I had some fun w/ the 5950X's RAM...
> 
> ...unlike my daily which is 4650 all-core + Dynamic OC, I left bios at stock other than RAM speed, PO & FMax enabled. Then I tried for IF1933 / 3866 and also IF2000 / 4000. RAM, VDDP and SOC are a bit undervolted even at IF2000 / DDR 4000...at the end of the day, I'll leave it at IF 1900 / DDR 3800 CL14 for 'normal use'...though will definitely get back to the IF 2000 / DDR 4000 by playing with sub-timings when I have more time. Right now, I don't want to see any more bios screens, especially not 'in stereo'
> 
> View attachment 2513298


Did you make long term stability tests with this ?

HCI MemTest 1000% or Karhu’s RAM test 10000% for example.


----------



## ChillyRide

GuMossad said:


> Ahaha man I highly doubt I manage to get 3800 CL13, out of my 3200 CL14... What DRAM V are you using for your 3600 at 3800 CL13  ?


Max my IC was stable at 1.59v everything higher = tons of errors  I managed my Ram cooling and they stable at 40-43C, in games <38C. Im playing with 64gb now, quad rank need 1.63v+ to boot system at 3800:1900, always 45+C, need to manage timings.


----------



## GRABibus

ChillyRide said:


> Max my IC was stable at 1.59v everything higher = tons of errors  I managed my Ram cooling and they stable at 40-43C, in games <38C. Im playing with 64gb now, quad rank need 1.63v+ to boot system at 3800:1900, always 45+C, need to manage timings.


1,63V ????
That’s crazy too high.

Did you tweak voltages as PLL, VDDP, VDDG,SOC ?
They help to boot at fclk 1900.
You could then reduce Vdimm to reasonable value as 1,5V for example.









AMD Ryzen Memory Tweaking & Overclocking Guide


Memory overclocking has a significant impact on performance of AMD Ryzen-powered machines, but the alleged complexity of memory tweaking on this platform, largely fueled by misinformation and lack of documentation, has kept some enthusiasts away from it. We want to change this.




www.techpowerup.com


----------



## shaolin95

Undesirable said:


> So are the USB issues really fixed on 1501 / 1601? I mean, logic follows that it is either FIXED or it ISN'T, because it sounds like people are still having dropouts, like the guy with Schiit hardware. I've got a Schiit USB DAC myself, and a Dark Hero + 5950 ready to build.
> 
> Unless it's just Intel shills sewing Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.


The USB issues are real. I haven't tried the latest bios for USB issues because it was not stable for me so i went back. My current one is better but still not perfect for USB issues. Such a shame .
Anyway, it depends on your USB usage wether you will experience issues or not


----------



## Sleepycat

Undesirable said:


> So are the USB issues really fixed on 1501 / 1601? I mean, logic follows that it is either FIXED or it ISN'T, because it sounds like people are still having dropouts, like the guy with Schiit hardware. I've got a Schiit USB DAC myself, and a Dark Hero + 5950 ready to build.
> 
> Unless it's just Intel shills sewing Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.


USB issues are also device dependent. I didn't have any issues, until I got my Reverb G2 headset, which did not work properly with any slot set to PCIe 4.0. With 3601, the headset works fine with PCIe 4.0, which is great. Otherwise, just setting all slots and SB to PCIe 3.0 resolved it for me even on previous versions.


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> Did you make long term stability tests with this ?
> 
> HCI MemTest 1000% or Karhu’s RAM test 10000% for example.


...I find posts like this very telling  

Anyway, the IF1900/DDR 4 CL14 3800 has never thrown a single WHEA error, ever ...even when undervolting the kit and related CPU parameters. As mentioned before, these systems are also used for productivity and I've been memory testing for a decade plus...that includes stress testing for server apps on the one hand, and HWBot 'on the thin margin' on the other. 

For DDR4 4000 CL15 - the native kit speed, btw, I didn't see any errors but only did a few Aida, CPUz etc...I just wanted to know if it would boot up, run Windows 10 fine and do so while the CL15 kit was _undervolted_ and set to CL16, along with constrained SOCv and VDDP for that speed. That tells me that down the line, it is worth spending an afternoon or two with correct voltages on DDR4 4000. Still, IF 1900 / DDR 3800 4x8 GB at CL14-14-14-14 and tight subtimings was the real goal for daily apps


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> ...I find posts like this very telling
> 
> Anyway, the IF1900/DDR 4 CL14 3800 has never thrown a single WHEA error, ever ...even when undervolting the kit and related CPU parameters. As mentioned before, these systems are also used for productivity and I've been memory testing for a decade plus...that includes stress testing for server apps on the one hand, and HWBot 'on the thin margin' on the other.
> 
> For DDR4 4000 CL15 - the native kit speed, btw, I didn't see any errors but only did a few Aida, CPUz etc...I just wanted to know if it would boot up, run Windows 10 fine and do so while the CL15 kit was _undervolted_ and set to CL16, along with constrained SOCv and VDDP for that speed. That tells me that down the line, it is worth spending an afternoon or two with correct voltages on DDR4 4000. Still, IF 1900 / DDR 3800 4x8 GB at CL14-14-14-14 and tight subtimings was the real goal for daily apps


I find this post very telling also


----------



## Kokin

Undesirable said:


> So are the USB issues really fixed on 1501 / 1601? I mean, logic follows that it is either FIXED or it ISN'T, because it sounds like people are still having dropouts, like the guy with Schiit hardware. I've got a Schiit USB DAC myself, and a Dark Hero + 5950 ready to build.
> 
> Unless it's just Intel shills sewing Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.


Definitely still an issue even with my 3900X + CH8 Impact, which wasn't affected by the initial reports of USB dropouts. My keyboard drops out now and then with 3601, but has been less frequent than 3402 and 3501. Back when I used 3003 (and any previous BIOS since launch), I had zero drop outs.

It's the only USB component that drops out and the keyboard isn't dropping out when connected to other PCs and a laptop. 

I'm also observing that the keyboard only drops out when I run my Android emulators (BlueStacks 4.28) to play games on the PC. I do run them with CPU Virtualization turned on, but I don't think that should affect a keyboard in any way. When the emulators are off, the PC can idle overnight without the keyboard freezing.


----------



## Sleepycat

Kokin said:


> I'm also observing that the keyboard only drops out when I run my Android emulators (BlueStacks 4.28) to play games on the PC. I do run them with CPU Virtualization turned on, but I don't think that should affect a keyboard in any way. When the emulators are off, the PC can idle overnight without the keyboard freezing.


Does the keyboard drop outs disappear when you turn virtualization off?


----------



## musician

About the USB issues, I've never had a problem with that on Dark Hero + 5800X. However, I only use a keyboard + a mouse, nothing else. Oh actually sometimes I use a USB flash - again, no problem at all.


----------



## Kokin

Sleepycat said:


> Does the keyboard drop outs disappear when you turn virtualization off?


Haven't tried that as turning it off makes the emulators sluggish, but it's worth a shot. I'll try it out this week and see if it changes anything.


----------



## Robostyle

Anyone? Any gossip about why BETAs take so long?


----------



## GRABibus

Robostyle said:


> Anyone? Any gossip about why BETAs take so long?


Only ASUS can answer I think….


----------



## Robostyle

Yea, I guess..

Did anyone try 3601 BETA for Crosshairs? Dark hero especially? I have this weird whea errors in HWInfo popping up when running fclk 1900 and higher, and perf degradation at 2000, while WHEA 1000% stable and no BSoDs. Wonder if it is hardware handicap or BIOS glitch.


----------



## finas

@shamino1978
I've been testing the 3601 bios on my impact motherboard and an 3950x and I will have problems with my reverb g2. It is simply unusable. It really doesn't matter if the system is overclocked or bios stock.


----------



## sonixmon

I find it interesting that so many people hit the flck 1866 mark, have a black hole at 1900 and then be able to post 1933 but not stable. I am in the same boat with my 5800x as well unfortunately. My GSkill 3600Mhz ram is stable up to 3866 maintaining CL16 but I have to run at 3733 because of the flck issue. I was hoping it was fw related but now I see several people hitting 1900 and even 2000+ on the same fw it must be the chip. I am happy with a 133mhz OC and definitely notice the difference. I tightened secondary timings and with the OC went from about 75ns to right at 62ns with improved throughput.

I would love to run at 3800+ that the memory supports but might have to settle for trying to reduce the overall timings (though I have Hynix so not likely). Planning to one day get a 5900x or XT down the road so maybe I will be able to get a good one.


----------



## Daylight_Invader

To be fair to AMD, their recommended speeds really only cover to 3600, so anything over is a bonus.


----------



## CyrIng

True. I'm getting a stable bonus of DRAM/FCLK 3666/1833 MHz using specs voltage of 1.35V. 
But my 3950X and dual F4-3600C16D-32GTZN are giving their best with old BIOS 2206


----------



## Daylight_Invader

CyrIng said:


> True. I'm getting a stable bonus of DRAM/FCLK 3666/1833 MHz using specs voltage of 1.35V.
> But my 3950X and dual F4-3600C16D-32GTZN are giving their best with old BIOS 2206
> 
> 
> View attachment 2513479


Which is a good result, especially as things are heating up in Europe thanks to the warmer weather than has finally arrived.


----------



## Daylight_Invader

CyrIng said:


> True. I'm getting a stable bonus of DRAM/FCLK 3666/1833 MHz using specs voltage of 1.35V.
> But my 3950X and dual F4-3600C16D-32GTZN are giving their best with old BIOS 2206
> 
> 
> View attachment 2513479


Just realised you are on Zen 2 rather than 3. That means anything over 3200 is a bonus!


----------



## zsoltmol

Hi Guys,

After 1 year together with my 3900X and C8H, I plan to move to 5900X with same C8H. What is considered to be the best bios for the new setup? I will use PBO. Do not plan to use CTR based tuning. I use now 2206 bios.

Thanks


----------



## GRABibus

zsoltmol said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> After 1 year together with my 3900X and C8H, I plan to move to 5900X with same C8H. What is considered to be the best bios for the new setup? I will use PBO. Do not plan to use CTR based tuning. I use now 2206 bios.
> 
> Thanks


I currently use the 3302.
The best for me until now.


----------



## Anulu

Tested 3601 last Night, does not work with my RAM Oc had to go back to 3501 CH8 Impact


----------



## GRABibus

Anulu said:


> Tested 3601 last Night, does not work with my RAM Oc had to go back to 3501 CH8 Impact


I tested also 3601 and it killed my RAM overclock…
But, flashing back to 3302 didn’t solve and my RAM overclock doesn’t work anymore…
Even at stock !!
So, my RAM has an issue (Xtreem ram in sig).

Of course, I highly doubt that 3601 damaged my RAM and probably my RAM had already an issue before flashing to 3601.

So, did you retest your RAM OC with 3501 ?

I had on stock this kit :








F4-4133C17D-16GTZR - G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.


Trident Z RGB DDR4-4133 CL17-17-17-37 1.40V 16GB (2x8GB) Featuring the award-winning Trident Z heatspreader design, the Trident Z RGB memory series combines vivid RGB lighting with awesome DDR4 DRAM performance.




www.gskill.com





Currently testing with Kharu RAM test and stable at 3800/1900 14-15-15-31-1T (35000% coverage with no errors).
Trying to push at 3800 14-15-14-29-1T.
Currently 7000% with no errors .
Seems to be a very good set.

i will receive another one ordered at Amazon to build a 4x8GB configuration.


----------



## Daylight_Invader

Anulu said:


> Tested 3601 last Night, does not work with my RAM Oc had to go back to 3501 CH8 Impact


3601 clearly does something to ram, and at a guess I have a feeling it’s undervolting it and misreporting/misinterpreting timing values.


----------



## J7SC

Daylight_Invader said:


> 3601 clearly does something to ram, and at a guess I have a feeling it’s undervolting it and misreporting/misinterpreting timing values.


...good to get confirmation. I'm still on 3501 for the 5960X and 3302 for the 3950X (both with r_BAR/ SAM support)....no issues on RAM or USB, so why fix it if it ain't broke...here are my 24/7 'daily' settings for both


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> ...good to get confirmation. I'm still on 3501 for the 5960X and 3302 for the 3950X (both with r_BAR/ SAM support)....no issues on RAM or USB, so why fix it if it ain't broke...here are my 24/7 'daily' settings for both
> 
> View attachment 2513514
> 
> 
> View attachment 2513515


Keep it currently.
I rolled back to 3302.


----------



## Moutsatsos

I have a problem with nahimic.exe crushing every time i connect a usb or when i turn on the 2nd monitor.I hope this is just asus crap so i uninstalled the audio drivers installed the ones from realtek and so far no issues but still to be tested.I also have an issue with switch usb (dont know *** that is I assume was installed with one of the lan drivers) hangs up the system when I turn it off.Lastly how do you guys control the lights on the board?I tried aura but it resets at cold boot.I dont even want to touch armory cause I m pretty sure its gona be a royal ****up,so I ended up using aura to set everything up and then uninstall it.


----------



## CyrIng

J7SC said:


> ...good to get confirmation. I'm still on 3501 for the 5960X and 3302 for the 3950X (both with r_BAR/ SAM support)....no issues on RAM or USB, so why fix it if it ain't broke...here are my 24/7 'daily' settings for both
> 
> View attachment 2513514
> 
> 
> View attachment 2513515


About the 3950X setup, what are the voltages for DRAM and SoC applied in BIOS 3302 ?


----------



## J7SC

CyrIng said:


> About the 3950X setup, what are the voltages for DRAM and SoC applied in BIOS 3302 ?


Bios: DRAM = 1.35v (stock, 4x8 GB 3866 kit), SoC 1.065 (small under-v), VDDP = 1 v (small under-v)


----------



## CyrIng

J7SC said:


> Bios: DRAM = 1.35v (stock, 4x8 GB 3866 kit), SoC 1.065 (small under-v), VDDP = 1 v (small under-v)


Impressive kit. 4 sticks at 1.35V

However, I'm still wondering the benefit of lowering the voltage SoC ?
Mine is the default, auto, voltage at ~ 1.08V and altering it ... never made a difference with DRAM/FCLK OC. But changing it ... can lead to instabilities.









_Voltage SoC measured in the bottom-right_


----------



## Moutsatsos

Lower voltage leads to lower temps (and longer lifetime in some cases).The point is to find the lowest stable voltage required for the frequency that you are going for.On 1800X i was running 1V soc just for that reason.


Spoiler: Soc=1


----------



## Moutsatsos

Does the chipset fun go idle at some point?I was checking mine and it doesnt spin most of the time.Does it start spinning after a certain temp thresold?


----------



## GRABibus

So, after flashing to 3601, big issues on my RAM.
No more RAM stability even at stock with my TEAM GROUP Xtreem 4x8GB 3600MHZ CL14

Thinking it was 3601 which had killed my overclokc, ii came back to 3302. And same issue, my former OC was not stable anymore....Even at stock.

Degradations ?...in only 4 months without any dangerous voltages...Strange.

I then mounted a kit I have since last December (New) :

2x8GB 4133MHz CL17









F4-4133C17D-16GTZR - G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.


Trident Z RGB DDR4-4133 CL17-17-17-37 1.40V 16GB (2x8GB) Featuring the award-winning Trident Z heatspreader design, the Trident Z RGB memory series combines vivid RGB lighting with awesome DDR4 DRAM performance.




www.gskill.com





This kit is very good.

I have found my best OC with it :











Stability tests for RAM and Cache (Ambient temperature = 27°C to 29°C !!!)


















Very happy wityh this kit.

i receive tomorrow a new one to try building a 4x8GB OC in the same way.

BUT, in QVL of CH8, this kit is only marked working with 2 dimms and not 4...

Let's see.


----------



## J7SC

Moutsatsos said:


> Does the chipset fun go idle at some point?I was checking mine and it doesnt spin most of the time.Does it start spinning after a certain temp thresold?


AFAIK, it's related to temp threshold. The only time mine has come on the CH8 WiFi was during 3DM TSE benching on a testbench when the GPU still had its 2.9 slot air-cooler (now w-cooled). NV RTX3k and AMD 6X GPUs are 'big' and cover the heatsink above the chipset area and fan intake almost completely....not ideal as the air they pump either escapes out the top (opposite from the chipset) or out of the side, or both...


----------



## CyrIng

GRABibus said:


> So, after flashing to 3601, big issues on my RAM.
> No more RAM stability even at stock with my TEAM GROUP Xtreem 4x8GB 3600MHZ CL14
> 
> Thinking it was 3601 which had killed my overclokc, ii came back to 3302. And same issue, my former OC was not stable anymore....Even at stock.
> 
> Degradations ?...in only 4 months without any dangerous voltages...Strange.
> 
> I then mounted a kit I have since last December (New) :
> 
> 2x8GB 4133MHz CL17
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F4-4133C17D-16GTZR - G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.
> 
> 
> Trident Z RGB DDR4-4133 CL17-17-17-37 1.40V 16GB (2x8GB) Featuring the award-winning Trident Z heatspreader design, the Trident Z RGB memory series combines vivid RGB lighting with awesome DDR4 DRAM performance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.gskill.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This kit is very good.
> 
> I have found my best OC with it :
> 
> View attachment 2513586
> 
> 
> 
> Stability tests for RAM and Cache (Ambient temperature = 27°C to 29°C !!!)
> View attachment 2513587
> 
> 
> View attachment 2513588
> 
> 
> Very happy wityh this kit.
> 
> i receive tomorrow a new one to try building a 4x8GB OC in the same way.
> 
> BUT, in QVL of CH8, this kit is only marked working with 2 dimms and not 4...
> 
> Let's see.


Even at stock !

If I remember you are the second one in this thread with DRAM "degradation" using unofficial BIOS 3601

Can we trust the source of this BIOS ? Files were not coming from ASUS.


----------



## GRABibus

CyrIng said:


> Even at stock !
> 
> If I remember you are the second one in this thread with DRAM "degradation" using unofficial BIOS 3601
> 
> Can we trust the source of this BIOS ? Files were not coming from ASUS.


….That’s quite strange….


----------



## CyrIng

GRABibus said:


> ….That’s quite strange….


Did you notice some out of specs values ? Any DDR relative voltage or others ?


----------



## GRABibus

CyrIng said:


> Did you notice some out of specs values ? Any DDR relative voltage or others ?





CyrIng said:


> Even at stock !
> 
> If I remember you are the second one in this thread with DRAM "degradation" using unofficial BIOS 3601
> 
> Can we trust the source of this BIOS ? Files were not coming from ASUS.


I didn’t check.

But in my opinion, you should avoid this Bios.


----------



## shaolin95

CyrIng said:


> Even at stock !
> 
> If I remember you are the second one in this thread with DRAM "degradation" using unofficial BIOS 3601
> 
> Can we trust the source of this BIOS ? Files were not coming from ASUS.


I had issues too so I went back


----------



## Kokin

For BIOS 3601, I didn't see a "degradation" per se, but my settings for 3600 and 3733 did need a few extra ticks of voltage compared to previous versions. I also tried having CPU Virtualization turned off and keyboard still freezes (had it on for my Android Emulators). 

We can use BIOS Flashback to go back to much older versions right? I want to go back to 3003 since it had the best performance and no keyboard freezing. Re:BAR is cool and all, but doesn't see much benefit for what I usually play.


----------



## musician

CyrIng said:


> Even at stock !
> 
> If I remember you are the second one in this thread with DRAM "degradation" using unofficial BIOS 3601
> 
> Can we trust the source of this BIOS ? Files were not coming from ASUS.


SafeDisk is very important manager of ASUS, so 100% trust. I have the 3601, running daily 3800 CL14, rockstable, and there really is not any degradation at all. Like, don´t use beta bios if you are unsure. It´s called beta for a reason. The problem is, AGESA is in beta state for ages, is hard to make something useful of it...


----------



## Moutsatsos

The bios cannot degrade your memmory or the memmory controler on the cpu.The effect of electromigration is what the name says and happens with the passing of time.Higher voltage will shorten this time.Much higher voltage will fasten the process.For any chip to degrade you will need to run it at much higher voltage than the "factory default".If you are running your soc at 2 or your memmory at 1.5 you will see memmory degratation and again that depents on the exact chemical composition of the spesific parts.So dont worry about that.


----------



## xeizo

3601 has been working just fine for me, 3800c16, not a single glitch


----------



## Zogge

Same here on 3601. 3733 cl 14.


----------



## Sleepycat

GRABibus said:


> So, after flashing to 3601, big issues on my RAM.
> No more RAM stability even at stock with my TEAM GROUP Xtreem 4x8GB 3600MHZ CL14
> 
> Thinking it was 3601 which had killed my overclokc, ii came back to 3302. And same issue, my former OC was not stable anymore....Even at stock.
> 
> Degradations ?...in only 4 months without any dangerous voltages...Strange.
> 
> I then mounted a kit I have since last December (New) :
> 
> 2x8GB 4133MHz CL17
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F4-4133C17D-16GTZR - G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.
> 
> 
> Trident Z RGB DDR4-4133 CL17-17-17-37 1.40V 16GB (2x8GB) Featuring the award-winning Trident Z heatspreader design, the Trident Z RGB memory series combines vivid RGB lighting with awesome DDR4 DRAM performance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.gskill.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This kit is very good.
> 
> I have found my best OC with it :
> 
> View attachment 2513586
> 
> 
> 
> Stability tests for RAM and Cache (Ambient temperature = 27°C to 29°C !!!)
> View attachment 2513587
> 
> 
> View attachment 2513588
> 
> 
> Very happy wityh this kit.
> 
> i receive tomorrow a new one to try building a 4x8GB OC in the same way.
> 
> BUT, in QVL of CH8, this kit is only marked working with 2 dimms and not 4...
> 
> Let's see.


After seeing your post, I checked my VDIMM, as I had originally set it to 1.46V and it showed 1.464V in HWInfo when running 3302 and 3301. After flashing 3601, I noticed that when VDIMM is set to 1.46V in bios, it shows as 1.472 in HWInfo! I now have set it to 1.45V in bios, which was previously not bootable on 3302, now posts fine, gets into Windows and shows 1.464V in HWInfo!


----------



## lmfodor

I’d like to ask you, haven't them been taking a long time since asus to release a "stable" public version? We have the beta from the beginning of April and the 3601 that I had several errors and went back to 3303. Whenever some users share a beta here, it soon appears on the ASUS portal, but this is not happening. What is going on with Asus?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## musician

lmfodor said:


> I’d like to ask you, haven't them been taking a long time since asus to release a "stable" public version? We have the beta from the beginning of April and the 3601 that I had several errors and went back to 3303. Whenever some users share a beta here, it soon appears on the ASUS portal, but this is not happening. What is going on with Asus?


It´s more like what is going on with AMD sadly. We have at least the latest AGESA 1.2.0.3A, but there is no point to make it live as it´s still buggy, board vendors are waiting for AGESA 1.3.0.0. We may only hope that AMD will release a decent AGESA soon...


----------



## Robostyle

Is it just mine C8DH has a problem with safe boot button? It just resets the PC without "safe" settings - can't fine-tune my mem cause every time I have to clrcmos instead of sb.


----------



## sonixmon

Robostyle said:


> Is it just mine C8DH has a problem with safe boot button? It just resets the PC without "safe" settings - can't fine-tune my mem cause every time I have to clrcmos instead of sb.


I have the same issue, SB never worked for me. I just save current known profiles and reload after clr CMOS each time.


----------



## RHBH

musician said:


> It´s more like what is going on with AMD sadly. We have at least the latest AGESA 1.2.0.3A, but there is no point to make it live as it´s still buggy, board vendors are waiting for AGESA 1.3.0.0. We may only hope that AMD will release a decent AGESA soon...


AMD is busy updating their code to support the Zen 3D Cache.


----------



## Anulu

GRABibus said:


> I tested also 3601 and it killed my RAM overclock…
> But, flashing back to 3302 didn’t solve and my RAM overclock doesn’t work anymore…
> Even at stock !!
> So, my RAM has an issue (Xtreem ram in sig).
> 
> Of course, I highly doubt that 3601 damaged my RAM and probably my RAM had already an issue before flashing to 3601.
> 
> So, did you retest your RAM OC with 3501 ?


i did not run Stresstests again just flashed the 3501 Bios and used my old Ram OC Profile.
Its 2x16gb Gskill 3200C15 i bought second Hand for 110$ two Years ago.Not the best B-die but 1900/[email protected] GD Mode enabled 1.41vDimm does the Job.

I have tested all Beta Bios since January and all of them worked fine with the same Ram/Voltage Settings. 3601 didnt even boot with the same Settings i put manually not loaded Profile so i went right back to 3501.
Im gonna run some Testmem again but im pretty sure its still Errorfree.BFV was running perfect for Hours


----------



## Daylight_Invader

Anulu said:


> i did not run Stresstests again just flashed the 3501 Bios and used my old Ram OC Profile.
> Its 2x16gb Gskill 3200C15 i bought second Hand for 110$ two Years ago.Not the best B-die but 1900/[email protected] GD Mode enabled 1.41vDimm does the Job.
> 
> I have tested all Beta Bios since January and all of them worked fine with the same Ram/Voltage Settings. 3601 didnt even boot with the same Settings i put manually not loaded Profile so i went right back to 3501.
> Im gonna run some Testmem again but im pretty sure its still Errorfree.BFV was running perfect for Hours


I'm pretty certain some voltages in the 3601 BIOS are totally nerfed. It's the only way to explain some of the behaviours.

Some people were worried here about the fact these BIOSes were coming out from people based in Taiwan using gmail accounts - those who have read this forum for a while will know this is actually how Asus has worked with people on this forum over the years.


----------



## GRABibus

Daylight_Invader said:


> I'm pretty certain some voltages in the 3601 BIOS are totally nerfed. It's the only way to explain some of the behaviours.
> 
> Some people were worried here about the fact these BIOSes were coming out from people based in Taiwan using gmail accounts - those who have read this forum for a while will know this is actually how Asus has worked with people on this forum over the years.


And it is strange that 3601 is not on downloadable on Asus sites for each concerned Motherboard….
Still 3501 on C8H website


----------



## xeizo

The only thing I had to change with 3601 was DrvStr, raise it some, but that started already with 3501. Earlier bioses all had 20-20-20-20. All other settings are the same.

Btw, same behavior with B550-F


----------



## pipeclock

GRABibus said:


> And it is strange that 3601 is not on downloadable on Asus sites for each concerned Motherboard….
> Still 3501 on C8H website


This is how it works for years already. We get unofficial BIOS here and if you want, you may try it.


----------



## RHBH

GRABibus said:


> And it is strange that 3601 is not on downloadable on Asus sites for each concerned Motherboard….
> Still 3501 on C8H website


I only download BIOS and drivers from the manufacturers website. 

I had problems in the past with "outside mirrors".


----------



## leandrolnh

Robostyle said:


> Is it just mine C8DH has a problem with safe boot button? It just resets the PC without "safe" settings - can't fine-tune my mem cause every time I have to clrcmos instead of sb.


Me too, the "safe button" of my C8H just reboots but keeps unsafe configs. Worthless button.


----------



## pantsoftime

RHBH said:


> I only download BIOS and drivers from the manufacturers website.
> 
> I had problems in the past with "outside mirrors".


It's been part of a sticky post on the Asus ROG forums for over a week now:


We'll be back.



You can pretty much bet it would have been removed if there was an authenticity issue.


----------



## rbys

leandrolnh said:


> Me too, the "safe button" of my C8H just reboots but keeps unsafe configs. Worthless button.


Same! The "safe boot" button never worked for me.


----------



## 72kos

safedisk said:


> Ehi, è un problema della CPU se l'impostazione della tensione non risolve il problema WHEA
> bisogno di una CPU in grado di eseguire fclk 1900
> [/CITAZIONE]


----------



## 72kos

safedisk said:


> Ehi, è un problema della CPU se l'impostazione della tensione non risolve il problema WHEA
> bisogno di una CPU in grado di eseguire fclk 1900
> [/CITAZIONE]


----------



## shamino1978

rbys said:


> Same! The "safe boot" button never worked for me.


Unfortunately on amd platforms , bios can only revert to safe settings after psp which means memory training it has no chance to 
On older boards we used to do the "akways" boot safe and reset into actual but it costs boot time to train memory twice


----------



## CyrIng

shamino1978 said:


> Unfortunately on amd platforms , bios can only revert to safe settings after psp which means memory training it has no chance to
> On older boards we used to do the "akways" boot safe and reset into actual but it costs boot time to train memory twice


Thanks but if it is a matter of a few cycles to train twice, why not ?


----------



## GRABibus

Deleted post


----------



## shamino1978

Tghe time cost is dependant on mem size, could add over >5 secs. Amds answer for safe mode is tge f9. Fail count recovery but we all knoe it hangs at different spots especially fclk


----------



## Theo164

For my system bios 3302 was fully stable 3800/1900
3402 and 3501 bios throws some random whea here and there while stress testing fpu, cache and ram for stability but not a single one for normal use and gaming
3601 is a whea party with reboots after some minutes of stress testing or gaming... voltages or any other setting didn't help. @3733/1866 is 100% stable with some settings close to the edge like 24-20-20-20, [email protected] & [email protected], ProcODT 34.3... 

5900X
4x8Gb b-die
C8H


----------



## GRABibus

Does someone has found a way to « remove» WHEA logger 19 with fclk > 1900MHz ?

I get those WHEA's whatever the voltages, as of fclk=1933MHz.
It's a pity because despite those WHEA's, everything seems stable at 3933/1966


----------



## Zogge

Same for me. Stable but lots of WHEA 19 in 1900+ fclk


----------



## GRABibus

Zogge said:


> Same for me. Stable but lots of WHEA 19 in 1900+ fclk


No weird issues due to these Wheas ?


----------



## Zogge

At 1966/2000 fclk it starts to mess with usb devices turning them on/off with short system freezes.

1900/1933 just list errors but no freezes or usb issues. Just wheas in the 1000s per 30 min range.


----------



## Kokin

Kokin said:


> Definitely still an issue even with my 3900X + CH8 Impact, which wasn't affected by the initial reports of USB dropouts. My keyboard drops out now and then with 3601, but has been less frequent than 3402 and 3501. Back when I used 3003 (and any previous BIOS since launch), I had zero drop outs.
> 
> It's the only USB component that drops out and the keyboard isn't dropping out when connected to other PCs and a laptop.
> 
> I'm also observing that the keyboard only drops out when I run my Android emulators (BlueStacks 4.28) to play games on the PC. I do run them with CPU Virtualization turned on, but I don't think that should affect a keyboard in any way. When the emulators are off, the PC can idle overnight without the keyboard freezing.


I've since updated my Android emulator from BlueStacks 4.28 to 5.0.200 (separate brand new application) and haven't seen any keyboard dropouts in the past 3 days.

I'm still on BIOS 3601 and haven't changed any BIOS settings, so my previous hunch on the emulators causing the keyboard to freeze/drop out may have been right after all. I don't really understand why or how an emulator could cause a keyboard to drop out, but I'll continue to test out BlueStacks 5 for now. I'll also check to see if BS 4 would cause the drop outs to occur again.

I'm just happy not having to unplug and replug the keyboard everyday. It gets old after months of doing it and is especially annoying when the drop out occurs in the middle of a gun fight in an FPS game.


----------



## leandrolnh

BIOS 3601 now on the ASUS website.



https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3601.zip


----------



## GRABibus

leandrolnh said:


> BIOS 3601 now on the ASUS website.
> 
> 
> 
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3601.zip


If it is the same as the beta we got here, I will never install it. Too much stability issues.


----------



## leandrolnh

GRABibus said:


> If it is the same as the beta we got here, I will never install it. Too much stability issues.


Comparing the checksums of the .cap files, they seem to be equal.


----------



## GRABibus

leandrolnh said:


> Comparing the checksums of the .cap files, they seem to be equal.


Then no way 😊

I currently keep the 3302


----------



## J7SC

...I'm on 3501 with one CH8 system (mobo actually came w/ that bios), and 3302 on the other...r_BAR on both etc etc, and no issues - and I like to keep it that way


----------



## djase45

https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3601.zip


----------



## xeizo

Can Shamino confirm if they are exactly the same? The Test-bios working fine here, would be nice to not have the urge to "upgrade"


----------



## T[]RK

Look the same.


----------



## leandrolnh

xeizo said:


> Can Shamino confirm if they are exactly the same? The Test-bios working fine here, would be nice to not have the urge to "upgrade"


#7444:


leandrolnh said:


> Comparing the checksums of the .cap files, they seem to be equal.


----------



## xeizo

I guess that's enough, I'll keep the Test-bios


----------



## Kokin

Kokin said:


> I've since updated my Android emulator from BlueStacks 4.28 to 5.0.200 (separate brand new application) and haven't seen any keyboard dropouts in the past 3 days.
> 
> I'm still on BIOS 3601 and haven't changed any BIOS settings, so my previous hunch on the emulators causing the keyboard to freeze/drop out may have been right after all. I don't really understand why or how an emulator could cause a keyboard to drop out, but I'll continue to test out BlueStacks 5 for now. I'll also check to see if BS 4 would cause the drop outs to occur again.
> 
> I'm just happy not having to unplug and replug the keyboard everyday. It gets old after months of doing it and is especially annoying when the drop out occurs in the middle of a gun fight in an FPS game.


After testing out BlueStacks 4, it seems like I was completely wrong about the emulators causing the keyboard to freeze. I just noticed my Windows 10 went from 20H2 to 21H1 a few days ago, so that likely fixed whatever was causing my keyboard to freeze in the last few months.

For anyone having USB dropouts, it might be worth a try updating your Windows version. There is also a recent update to the AMD chipset drivers.

Edit: welp BS4 finally triggered one instance of the keyboard dropping out after almost 2 days. Still better than multiple times a day. Back to BS5 and hopefully the issue is gone for good.


----------



## escoltajuver

usb latency with the new bios is very high, at this point i no longer know which one to blame, amd or asus


----------



## arcanexvi

escoltajuver said:


> usb latency with the new bios is very high, at this point i no longer know which one to blame, amd or asus
> 
> View attachment 2514339


That's almost certainly a windows bug in reporting. Your USB latency can't be literally a minute unless it literally lost connection, is failing or something similar.


----------



## escoltajuver

arcanexvi said:


> That's almost certainly a windows bug in reporting. Your USB latency can't be literally a minute unless it literally lost connection, is failing or something similar.


with previous bios it will just disconnects now it wont but will leave explorer so unresponsive


----------



## RHBH

escoltajuver said:


> usb latency with the new bios is very high, at this point i no longer know which one to blame, amd or asus
> 
> View attachment 2514339


One of AMD platform perks.


----------



## Sleepycat

escoltajuver said:


> with previous bios it will just disconnects now it wont but will leave explorer so unresponsive


Test by temporarily setting all PCIe, NVMe and SB modes to PCIe 3.0. If it reduces the reported latency significantly, then it is still the USB issue.


----------



## sonixmon

So are the USB dropouts people are experiencing only with PCIE4.0 video cards? I have a PCIE4.0 NVMe drive but a 3.0 graphics card. I have read that 4.0 doesn't impact current gen GPUs and setting to 3.0 would not make a difference?

Every once in a while I get a USB connect sound on windows right after logging in but assume that is one of the bloatwares for one of my devices or RGB, no issues while gaming etc.


----------



## pipeclock

sonixmon said:


> So are the USB dropouts people are experiencing only with PCIE4.0 video cards? I have a PCIE4.0 NVMe drive but a 3.0 graphics card. I have read that 4.0 doesn't impact current gen GPUs and setting to 3.0 would not make a difference?
> 
> Every once in a while I get a USB connect sound on windows right after logging in but assume that is one of the bloatwares for one of my devices or RGB, no issues while gaming etc.


I have PCIe 4 VGA (3070) and SSD (Samsung 980 Pro), BIOS 3601, plus I use an USB soundbar. I have no problems overall.


----------



## T[]RK

pipeclock said:


> I have no problems overall.


CPU Model?


----------



## stimpy88

sonixmon said:


> So are the USB dropouts people are experiencing only with PCIE4.0 video cards? I have a PCIE4.0 NVMe drive but a 3.0 graphics card. I have read that 4.0 doesn't impact current gen GPUs and setting to 3.0 would not make a difference?
> 
> Every once in a while I get a USB connect sound on windows right after logging in but assume that is one of the bloatwares for one of my devices or RGB, no issues while gaming etc.


No


----------



## Daylight_Invader

Definitely the same bad bios. For me, this definitely does not work. As mentioned before, with my config I suspect the voltages being set for RAM etc are all wrong.

I’m actually annoyed ASUS even bothered to post 3601. It’s the worst release in many months. Almost as bad as the releases from late last year when the 5000 series processors were released.


----------



## Theo164

It's not Asus fault. Agesa / SMU code is provided by AMD

Although i agree, it's the worst bios ever...
For my system 3601 bios voltages are a mess in general...
cldo_vddp > 0.900 = no boot
vddg iod > 1.050 = no boot
vddg ccd < 0.975 = no boot
Dram @ 1.43v as always = no boot, @ 1.45v stable up to 17500% Karhu test

3302 can boot and is stable without any performance penalty with lower voltages


----------



## pipeclock

T[]RK said:


> CPU Model?


5800X, Dark Hero, 3200C14 @ 3800C16 tight timings.


----------



## trespot

Daylight_Invader said:


> Definitely the same bad bios. For me, this definitely does not work. As mentioned before, with my config I suspect the voltages being set for RAM etc are all wrong.
> 
> I’m actually annoyed ASUS even bothered to post 3601. It’s the worst release in many months. Almost as bad as the releases from late last year when the 5000 series processors were released.


I've updated BIOS 2 days ago and it has been flawless so far, occasional mouse freezes are gone also, so I'm glad they bothered to publish it.


----------



## Daylight_Invader

Seems Asus has removed 3501 from their website.


----------



## Daylight_Invader

trespot said:


> I've updated BIOS 2 days ago and it has been flawless so far, occasional mouse freezes are gone also, so I'm glad they bothered to publish it.


What are your RAM settings? Looking at the voltages, I can see that despite the correct target voltage, I can see my RAM voltages are low suggesting this release simply does not work with my RAM in the appropriate way.


----------



## T[]RK

pipeclock said:


> 5800X, Dark Hero, 3200C14 @ 3800C16 tight timings.


Can you post ZenTimings screenshot with you timings? Also you don't have WHEA errors?

I have got almost IDENTICAL hardware (except GPU, cry).


----------



## Daylight_Invader

Just checked my RAM voltages as I am back on the older bios and can definitely confirm the auto-voltages are totally wrong with this new bios. For whatever reason even though the settings show it is aiming for 1.35V, with the new 3601 bios it seems to actually push out only close to 1.2V. This is definitely the reason in my case for the boot failures at DOCP.


----------



## sonixmon

I'm using 3601 still because I have noticed the mouse micro stutter is gone as well. I have manual ram voltage at 1.4 for my OC (3733 up from 3600). Confirmed stability with tests and gamming, now plan to back it down to stock 1.35v and test again. BTW the ram voltage has been spot on for me with the manual setting.


----------



## trespot

Daylight_Invader said:


> What are your RAM settings? Looking at the voltages, I can see that despite the correct target voltage, I can see my RAM voltages are low suggesting this release simply does not work with my RAM in the appropriate way.


See the attached BIOS settings.

Edit: added ZenTimings screenshot:


----------



## pipeclock

T[]RK said:


> Can you post ZenTimings screenshot with you timings? Also you don't have WHEA errors?
> 
> I have got almost IDENTICAL hardware (except GPU, cry).


My BIOS voltage settings:
VDRAM 1.38V
SOC 1.05V
CCD 0.95V
IOD 1.00V
VDDP 0.9V


----------



## T[]RK

pipeclock said:


> My BIOS voltage settings:
> VDRAM 1.38V
> SOC 1.05V
> CCD 0.95V
> IOD 1.00V
> VDDP 0.9V


Thanks!
I don't see any excessive voltage, ram timings also acceptable (some look strange), but overall - good system. And it's stable. Interesting. I will save screen for later comparison when i complete my system.


----------



## Reikoji

They put up 3602 yesterday. gonna try it out when i get home.

Also managed to snag a 5950x order yesterday, which is out of stock again already.


----------



## GRABibus

Reikoji said:


> They put up 3602 yesterday. gonna try it out when i get home.
> 
> Also managed to snag a 5950x order yesterday, which is out of stock again already.


3602 ?


----------



## Reikoji

GRABibus said:


> 3602 ?


yea, for the formula at least. dunno if they numbered it different for other boards. im on the beta 3601 right now


----------



## blunden

Reikoji said:


> yea, for the formula at least. dunno if they numbered it different for other boards. im on the beta 3601 right now


 Did they mention any notable changes compared to 3601?


----------



## Reikoji

blunden said:


> Did they mention any notable changes compared to 3601?


No, and it doesnt seem to be too different. just official release number i suppose.


----------



## blunden

Reikoji said:


> No, and it doesnt seem to be too different. just official release number i suppose.


 Yeah, maybe they found some small bug that only affected that particular motherboard.

Either way, I'll be staying on 3501 for now.


----------



## zadood

blunden said:


> Yeah, maybe they found some small bug that only affected that particular motherboard.
> 
> Either way, I'll be staying on 3501 for now.


You are staying on the 3501 beta bios? There is no difference with the 3501 beta with this 3601? I am on 3501 beta but am not sure if I need to update to 3601 or not.


----------



## GRABibus

zadood said:


> You are staying on the 3501 beta bios? There is no difference with the 3501 beta with this 3601? I am on 3501 beta but am not sure if I need to update to 3601 or not.


If you don’t need to update (no issues, satisfying stability and performances), don’t update.


----------



## zadood

GRABibus said:


> If you don’t need to update (no issues, satisfying stability and performances), don’t update.


Ok, thanks. I guess I'll just stick with this unless I run into any noticeable issues.


----------



## blunden

zadood said:


> You are staying on the 3501 beta bios? There is no difference with the 3501 beta with this 3601? I am on 3501 beta but am not sure if I need to update to 3601 or not.


 3601 is based on a newer AGESA so it's certainly different. People's feedback for it in this thread seems very negative overall though, so I'll wait for a future update instead.


----------



## pipeclock

blunden said:


> 3601 is based on a newer AGESA so it's certainly different. People's feedback for it in this thread seems very negative overall though, so I'll wait for a future update instead.


3601 is sweet, it´s the keeper for me. People are negative because they have no idea how to flash a new BIOS, doing it wrong, or copy exactly the same settings from an old BIOS to a new one etc. And they then whine about stability. Many people use the flashback tool for a BIOS update, which is plain wrong, because it updates only some blocks of a BIOS. It should be used only if there is a CPU incompatibility (when unable to boot up with a new CPU), or for try to repair a corrupted BIOS. Next thing for example, AMD changed some voltages behavior in the new AGESA, so copy all the voltage settings from a previous BIOS may lead to unstable system! They need to tune the settings again - only then they will be rewarded with a fast, rock solid and flawless system. Besides, there is a reason why AMD asked all AIBs to withdraw all BIOS builds on AGESA 1.2.0.2!


----------



## Sleepycat

pipeclock said:


> Many people use the flashback tool for a BIOS update, which is plain wrong, because it updates only some blocks of a BIOS.


This is incorrect. Bios flashback is a full wipe of the eeprom and force write of the new bios in. That's why you lose all your settings that you have saved in your profiles. It does not update only some blocks.



pipeclock said:


> Next thing for example, AMD changed some voltages behavior in the new AGESA, so copy all the voltage settings from a previous BIOS may lead to unstable system!


This is true. The vdroop for VDIMM is very different on the 3601 compared to 3501. But it should be more stable, unless you are at the upper end of voltages.

More importantly, I've come across some saved profile incompatibilities between older and newer AGESA versions. So you can't load a saved profile from USB, but should manually enter all of the settings back in again.


----------



## J7SC

Sleepycat said:


> This is incorrect. Bios flashback is a full wipe of the eeprom and force write of the new bios in. That's why you lose all your settings that you have saved in your profiles. It does not update only some blocks.
> 
> 
> This is true. The vdroop for VDIMM is very different on the 3601 compared to 3501. But it should be more stable, unless you are at the upper end of voltages.
> 
> More importantly, I've come across some saved profile incompatibilities between older and newer AGESA versions. So you can't load a saved profile from USB, but manually enter all of the settings back in again.


Thanks for pointing out that _"the vdroop for VDIMM is very different on the 3601 compared to 3501"_...can you be a bit more specific on this - more vdropp for VDIMM or less ? I'm still on 3501 ( happy w/ it), but and have done some preliminary IF2000 / DDR4 4000. But before I test that out in much more detail, I might consider 3601 Thanks


----------



## pipeclock

Sleepycat said:


> This is incorrect. Bios flashback is a full wipe of the eeprom and force write of the new bios in. That's why you lose all your settings that you have saved in your profiles. It does not update only some blocks.
> 
> 
> This is true. The vdroop for VDIMM is very different on the 3601 compared to 3501. But it should be more stable, unless you are at the upper end of voltages.
> 
> More importantly, I've come across some saved profile incompatibilities between older and newer AGESA versions. So you can't load a saved profile from USB, but manually enter all of the settings back in again.


Thank you for the correction. The point is that there has recently been a problem with BIOS flashback on an 11th generation Intel processor, flashback has not updated the microcode because it has not updated all areas of the BIOS. That's why I'm a little skeptical about this tool. Anyway, it's good to know that at least on AMD boards works flawlessly.


----------



## Sleepycat

J7SC said:


> Thanks for pointing out that _"the vdroop for VDIMM is very different on the 3601 compared to 3501"_...can you be a bit more specific on this - more vdropp for VDIMM or less ? I'm still on 3501 ( happy w/ it), but and have done some preliminary IF2000 / DDR4 4000. But before I test that out in much more detail, I might consider 3601 Thanks


I've been running 1.46V on bios versions from 3102 to 3501. I would set it to 1.46V, and I would get 1.46V. However, with 3601, when I set it to 1.46V, I get 1.472V. I thought it was an issue with HWinfo, but the voltage reported in bios is also 1.472V. So it's as if 3601 is boosting more VDIMM to improve memory stability.


----------



## J7SC

Sleepycat said:


> I've been running 1.46V on bios versions from 3102 to 3501. I would set it to 1.46V, and I would get 1.46V. However, with 3601, when I set it to 1.46V, I get 1.472V. I thought it was an issue with HWinfo, but the voltage reported in bios is also 1.472V. So it's as if 3601 is boosting more VDIMM to improve memory stability.


...appreciated !


----------



## Daylight_Invader

Sleepycat said:


> I've been running 1.46V on bios versions from 3102 to 3501. I would set it to 1.46V, and I would get 1.46V. However, with 3601, when I set it to 1.46V, I get 1.472V. I thought it was an issue with HWinfo, but the voltage reported in bios is also 1.472V. So it's as if 3601 is boosting more VDIMM to improve memory stability.


Which is effectively the opposite of what is happening with me.

Something tells me that when ASUS reads the DRAM specs from your DIMMS, they are misinterpreting the values, and the manual override is not working correctly. For you it's going up, and for me, the value seems to be pushed too low.

All in all this is very odd and really needs to be investigated by ASUS and potentially AMD if some of this is caused by changes in the AGESA code.


----------



## shm0

Hi,
this is kinda off topic...
I'm sorry for hijacking this thread.
But maybe someone can answer my questions here?

Some ASUS boards have a load line calibration setting range from level 1-5 (and others have like 8?)
Some ASrock boards have the same level range 1-5 but the levels are inverted.
So my question is:
Is the ASUS load line setting 3 equivalent to the Asrock setting of 3? (Comparing the B550 boards)
Is the ASUS setting 1 the same as the ASrock level 5?

Why do ASrock boards come with a default load line setting of 3 and ASUS boards do not? (CPU and SOC)

Some other not related questions:
Why is the PBO Scalar Auto setting 7x ?
Why is the auto soc voltage increase so high when going from 1500 to 1600 fclk? (1.025 vs 1.1)
Some guides say that VDDG IOD/CCD can reach but not exceed SOC voltage and there is atleast a 40mv difference.
On my board auto voltages are:
SOC: 1.1v
VDDG IOD/CCD: 0.9504v
Is the VDDG voltage 0.9504v or 1.06v ? (1.1v - 0.04v)


----------



## pipeclock

shm0 said:


> Is the ASUS load line setting 3 equivalent to the Asrock setting of 3? (Comparing the B550 boards)
> Is the ASUS setting 1 the same as the ASrock level 5?


Hello, I am afraid I am unable to answer all your questions, but I can certainly answer those two:
No, and no.
Each board manufacturer uses its own settings. And to make matters worse, different manufacturers often have the same settings at different values.


----------



## zadood

blunden said:


> 3601 is based on a newer AGESA so it's certainly different. People's feedback for it in this thread seems very negative overall though, so I'll wait for a future update instead.


I went ahead and updated to 3601 anyways. I'd rather not remain on a recent beta and I don't overlock currently.


----------



## Sleepycat

Daylight_Invader said:


> Which is effectively the opposite of what is happening with me.
> 
> Something tells me that when ASUS reads the DRAM specs from your DIMMS, they are misinterpreting the values, and the manual override is not working correctly. For you it's going up, and for me, the value seems to be pushed too low.
> 
> All in all this is very odd and really needs to be investigated by ASUS and potentially AMD if some of this is caused by changes in the AGESA code.


I would understand that if I was running auto settings. But I'm running everything on manual voltages and timings. So I would expect my motherboard to give me the voltage that I set, unless there is a reason for voltage drops such as droop under load.


----------



## Sleepycat

shm0 said:


> Hi,
> this is kinda off topic...
> I'm sorry for hijacking this thread.
> But maybe someone can answer my questions here?
> 
> Some ASUS boards have a load line calibration setting range from level 1-5 (and others have like 8?)
> Some ASrock boards have the same level range 1-5 but the levels are inverted.
> So my question is:
> Is the ASUS load line setting 3 equivalent to the Asrock setting of 3? (Comparing the B550 boards)
> Is the ASUS setting 1 the same as the ASrock level 5?


The answer is no. Eventhough they have the same number of levels and inverted, the algorithm for LLC voltage boosting should be different across all the different brands of motherboards.



shm0 said:


> Why do ASrock boards come with a default load line setting of 3 and ASUS boards do not? (CPU and SOC)


Because they both don't have equivalent or comparable LLC steps.



shm0 said:


> Some other not related questions:
> Why is the PBO Scalar Auto setting 7x ?
> Why is the auto soc voltage increase so high when going from 1500 to 1600 fclk? (1.025 vs 1.1)
> Some guides say that VDDG IOD/CCD can reach but not exceed SOC voltage and there is atleast a 40mv difference.
> On my board auto voltages are:
> SOC: 1.1v
> VDDG IOD/CCD: 0.9504v
> Is the VDDG voltage 0.9504v or 1.06v ? (1.1v - 0.04v)


I don't trust the auto settings. That's why I set everything to manual.
You need to find the voltages that suit what you are trying to achieve. I run 4x16GB B-die at 3600 / 1800 FCLK. So I needed the following voltages:
vSOC - 1.09V
CLDO VDDP - 0.98V
VDDG CCD - 1.05V
VDDG IOD - 1.05V


----------



## shm0

Sleepycat said:


> Because they both don't have equivalent or comparable LLC steps.


Maybe my question wasn't clear enough.
Why doesn't ASUS use any load line calibration at all but ASrock does?

I have this very strange problem, that my entire system stutters for around ~1sec once a week or so.
When setting a load line of 3 for both CPU and SOC, this problem seems fixed.

Why is it recommend to disable spread spectrum?
Some say it improves stability while overclocking ...
And that it reduces EMI.
I guess, the reason is because this keeps the clocks more stable. (when disabled)
Assuming a multi of 44 and a bclk of 100.
Spread spectrum modulates the (bclk) frequency from 99.8 to 100.2 MHz (or so?)
That's a difference of ~ 9 MHz up and down.

But by enabling spread spectrum... doesn't this also protect from external EMI?
Like some FM radio waves? 
In my country there are a bunch of radio stations broadcasting around ~ 100 MHz....

What about VRM Spread spectrum?
ASUS writes on their website that it does improve system stability.
(By reducing EMI from the VRM to the CPU?)


----------



## Kokin

Sleepycat said:


> I've been running 1.46V on bios versions from 3102 to 3501. I would set it to 1.46V, and I would get 1.46V. However, with 3601, when I set it to 1.46V, I get 1.472V. I thought it was an issue with HWinfo, but the voltage reported in bios is also 1.472V. So it's as if 3601 is boosting more VDIMM to improve memory stability.


For me, memory stability went down due to needing more voltage.

I'm seeing the same increase in DRAM voltage reporting from HWinfo, but 3601 is the first BIOS requiring me to run higher DRAM voltage on top of the reported increase. So to get stability using the same memory settings, DRAM voltage needed to go up a whopping 0.05V.

3600MHz = 1.41V now (reports 1.432V), only needed 1.38V before
3733MHz = 1.5V now (reports 1.52V), 1.47V before


----------



## Sleepycat

shm0 said:


> Maybe my question wasn't clear enough.
> Why doesn't ASUS use any load line calibration at all but ASrock does?


ASUS does have LLC even by default. It is set to Auto (there is no Disable), so there is some level of LLC happening, just that we prefer to select and lock in the LLC voltage curve that we prefer.



shm0 said:


> I have this very strange problem, that my entire system stutters for around ~1sec once a week or so.
> When setting a load line of 3 for both CPU and SOC, this problem seems fixed.


Sounds like a type of load where your current voltage is insufficient. I found that for normal use, where I have just regular loads, I can run 4.575 @ 1.225V. However, when I start running heavy loads such as AVX2, I need to decrease the clock speed to 4.450 @ 1.225V to avoid errors or crashing. Yours could be a similar case. Could it be during Windows Update?



shm0 said:


> Why is it recommend to disable spread spectrum?
> Some say it improves stability while overclocking ...
> And that it reduces EMI.
> I guess, the reason is because this keeps the clocks more stable. (when disabled)
> Assuming a multi of 44 and a bclk of 100.
> Spread spectrum modulates the (bclk) frequency from 99.8 to 100.2 MHz (or so?)
> That's a difference of ~ 9 MHz up and down.
> 
> But by enabling spread spectrum... doesn't this also protect from external EMI?
> Like some FM radio waves?
> In my country there are a bunch of radio stations broadcasting around ~ 100 MHz....
> 
> What about VRM Spread spectrum?
> ASUS writes on their website that it does improve system stability.
> (By reducing EMI from the VRM to the CPU?)


I leave Spread Spectrum on. I didn't see any difference for my set up. Maybe it can benefit if running extreme clocks or voltages, but it has no benefit for my set up and settings.


----------



## shm0

Sleepycat said:


> ASUS does have LLC even by default. It is set to Auto (there is no Disable), so there is some level of LLC happening, just that we prefer to select and lock in the LLC voltage curve that we prefer.


Auto seems to default to level 1?



Sleepycat said:


> Sounds like a type of load where your current voltage is insufficient. I found that for normal use, where I have just regular loads, I can run 4.575 @ 1.225V. However, when I start running heavy loads such as AVX2, I need to decrease the clock speed to 4.450 @ 1.225V to avoid errors or crashing. Yours could be a similar case. Could it be during Windows Update?


Sorry, I forgot to mention that almost everything is stock.
Expect for:
RAM Speed and FCLK (3200/1600)
And Ram voltage, 1.36v
No PBO.

System is stable. OCCT, Prime etc.

Idk, it is a bit hard to reproduce.
I can happend during almost idle (video playback) or during gaming.
There are also no WHEA Errors in the windows event log.


Does the Fan Step Up/Down time work on the x570?


----------



## Sleepycat

Kokin said:


> For me, memory stability went down due to needing more voltage.
> 
> I'm seeing the same increase in DRAM voltage reporting from HWinfo, but 3601 is the first BIOS requiring me to run higher DRAM voltage on top of the reported increase. So to get stability using the same memory settings, DRAM voltage needed to go up a whopping 0.05V.
> 
> 3600MHz = 1.41V now (reports 1.432V), only needed 1.38V before
> 3733MHz = 1.5V now (reports 1.52V), 1.47V before
> 
> View attachment 2514676
> View attachment 2514677


I wonder if in their race to make improvements for the 5000 series (both AMD and Asus), that they created new issues with the 3000 series as a result.


----------



## xeizo

I have no problems with RAM, been running 3601 since Shamino posted it and 3501 before that. Not a single glitch the whole time. I run memory at 3800MHz 1:1 with 1.38V which gives 1.376V in HWINFO64, pretty close no overvolt.

edit. With 5900X that is


----------



## Daylight_Invader

Has anyone managed to get their Crosshair Impact (or similar board) to sleep automatically with Windows 10 either with any of the recent BIOS versions? If so, what did you do?

If I do a powercfg /requests, I get nothing coming back from the command response which is stopping the sleep from happening, yet if I wait for 10 mins, the monitor never turns off, nor does the machine ever fully sleep. That said, I am able to manually put the machine into sleep mode without any issues, so it is just the automatic sleep based on no keyboard/mouse inputs which seem to be broken. Keen to hear other people's thoughts on this.


----------



## Daylight_Invader

Sleepycat said:


> I wonder if in their race to make improvements for the 5000 series (both AMD and Asus), that they created new issues with the 3000 series as a result.


I have a 5950x, so the RAM issue some of us refer to is nothing to do with a 3000 series processor.


----------



## sonixmon

Looks like it is out of Beta so it will probably be a bit before anything else is released. I haven't noticed any negative impacts other than the Bios profiles are not compatible. Document all your settings before flashing and enter manually. Some say voltages need to be retuned but mine were ok as is.


----------



## D_BRASCO

Daylight_Invader said:


> Has anyone managed to get their Crosshair Impact (or similar board) to sleep automatically with Windows 10 either with any of the recent BIOS versions? If so, what did you do?
> 
> If I do a powercfg /requests, I get nothing coming back from the command response which is stopping the sleep from happening, yet if I wait for 10 mins, the monitor never turns off, nor does the machine ever fully sleep. That said, I am able to manually put the machine into sleep mode without any issues, so it is just the automatic sleep based on no keyboard/mouse inputs which seem to be broken. Keen to hear other people's thoughts on this.


I have a CH8DH and have no trouble getting my 5950x to manually or automatically set to 3 hours of idle to go to sleep. Pretty much stock bios except memory set to 3800MHz and DOC switcher set 1.3 Core VID CCX ratio -47/45 w/threshold of 55. I disabled PBO Fmax Enhancer PBO enabled Max boost 100. I also have used the high-performance and balanced power/sleep setting with no issue. Hope this helps.


----------



## Reikoji

My new 5950x needs less voltage to run 1900fclk than my 5800x, runs cooler with ~200mhz slower for all-core and less voltage required, and scores higher in everything  640 on single


----------



## Reikoji

After fiddling with curve optimizer for the 1st time. Have to use the Settings found in the AMD overclock setting tho. Tweaker page settings did nothing.









Also tWRRD needed to be 4 for me, 3 caused massive instability, and the 1 that Ryzen Timing Calculator suggested prevented post altogether


----------



## Daylight_Invader

D_BRASCO said:


> I have a CH8DH and have no trouble getting my 5950x to manually or automatically set to 3 hours of idle to go to sleep. Pretty much stock bios except memory set to 3800MHz and DOC switcher set 1.3 Core VID CCX ratio -47/45 w/threshold of 55. I disabled PBO Fmax Enhancer PBO enabled Max boost 100. I also have used the high-performance and balanced power/sleep setting with no issue. Hope this helps.


Managed to solve my sleep problem. Seems whatever settings were saved to the Microsoft Cloud re lock/screen saver were causing issues with the sleep settings. Strangely I’ve never set anything here and I think it was from a previous rebuild which I had a lot of issues with. At least I now finally solved the mystery. Shame none of the help guides on MS website or anywhere else suggested checking that setting!

I still have the voltage issue with 3601, but I’ve opened a support ticket with ASUS.


----------



## Reikoji

Gave R23 a 3hr run Not a bad peak temp.


----------



## sonixmon

Reikoji said:


> My new 5950x needs less voltage to run 1900fclk than my 5800x, runs cooler with ~200mhz slower for all-core and less voltage required, and scores higher in everything  640 on single


I am seriously considering getting a 5900x now that they are showing up close to retail then selling my 5800x for $300-350 just to get a better mem controller (hopefully). My 5800x is one of the two CCX units which means it failed as a 5900x and they disabled one. It is a decent performer and I have seen it hit 4.9 a few times and 4.850 regularly (a little less since 3601 though not much).


----------



## WINTENDOX

any suggestions


----------



## shm0

Sleepycat said:


> wonder if in their race to make improvements for the 5000 series (both AMD and Asus), that they created new issues with the 3000 series as a result.


Maybe?
Boosts are lower and the voltages are higher.
I actually remember that my all core boost voltage was somewhere in the 1.2x range.
It is in the 1.3x range now.

My CPU was boosting all core 4.1 GHz and above.
Now it is boosting around ~4 GHz.

Temps are also higher, from mid/high 70s to low/mid 80.

This was tested with load line setting on auto. (ofc load line 3 increases temps a little bit)

When I enable Fmax Enhancer, it behaves like I remember it.
Lower voltage, lower temps, higher boosts...

But Fmax Enhancer decreases single core performance.
CPU boosts higher, but scores are lower. (Clock Stretching?)

But multi core scores increase by almost 200+ points and voltage decrease from ~1.35v to ~1.28v.
This also decreases temps by a nice amount.

And I think there is a bug with PBO scalar values greater than 1x in combination with Fmax Enhancer.
Setting a a scalar value larger than 1x causes over-volting, if I remember correctly.

//edit
also HWinfo power reporting deviation shows 90% under full load at stock settings.
Board is B550 STRIX-E


----------



## Reikoji

shm0 said:


> Maybe?
> Boosts are lower and the voltages are higher.
> I actually remember that my all core boost voltage was somewhere in the 1.2x range.
> It is in the 1.3x range now.
> 
> My CPU was boosting all core 4.1 GHz and above.
> Now it is boosting around ~4 GHz.
> 
> Temps are also higher, from mid/high 70s to low/mid 80.
> 
> This was tested with load line setting on auto. (ofc load line 3 increases temps a little bit)
> 
> When I enable Fmax Enhancer, it behaves like I remember it.
> Lower voltage, lower temps, higher boosts...
> 
> But Fmax Enhancer decreases single core performance.
> CPU boosts higher, but scores are lower. (Clock Stretching?)
> 
> But multi core scores increase by almost 200+ points and voltage decrease from ~1.35v to ~1.28v.
> This also decreases temps by a nice amount.
> 
> And I think there is a bug with PBO scalar values greater than 1x in combination with Fmax Enhancer.
> Setting a a scalar value larger than 1x causes over-volting, if I remember correctly.
> 
> //edit
> also HWinfo power reporting deviation shows 90% under full load at stock settings.
> Board is B550 STRIX-E


Fmax Enhancer does some weird things with both my 5800x and new 5950x that did nothing but lower performance scores. Sure, its operating at less power, but i dont think its stable power.

Enabling Fmax enhancer on the 5950x Reduced power consumtion during Cenebench R20 from 200w to ~174 watts, but also cut the score down by around 700 points. Both on and off had it running at the same all core frequency. I think Fmax on has them operating at the border of low power instability. I also once tried with my 5800x but the PC just rebooted when I started the run.

I leave it off. Curve Optimizer is doing a good job of giving my 5950x more frequency while giving it the power it needs for it. just setting -15 on top performer cores and -25 all others (tho I will try other settings later) all-core runs at up to 4550mhz and single core is seeing up to 5250, both from the Core Perf reading and the Frequency limit - Global reading.









Tho, none of the effective clocks went thight high, the processor was at least thinking about it :3 I dont think it will so long as I'm leaving HWinfo running tho. Processor hog.


----------



## shm0

Reikoji said:


> Fmax Enhancer does some weird things with both my 5800x and new 5950x


As I understand this, Fmax Enhancer should not be used with Ryzen 5000 CPUs.


----------



## Reikoji

shm0 said:


> As I understand this, Fmax Enhancer should not be used with Ryzen 5000 CPUs.


Actually, it didnt do much different with my 3900x when i first tried it out, then promptly reverted to the pre-zen3 bios. Now that i remember, it was with the 3900x that the system was just not stable with fmax enhancer on for me. I Immediately disabled it with 5800x cuz i assumed the worst.

The frequency and power draw would constantly fluctuate until it rebooted during cenebench tests. TBO I think it just did the same thing it did to my 5950x: brought it down to the border of low power stability, but even breached it.


----------



## shm0

As I wrote in my previous post.
On my system it does work, it increases performance but only in multi core load.
I tried different load line settings, voltage offsets.
Multi core performance can be increased with these, but single core performance never changes.
The CPU hits higher single core boost but there is no performance increase.
But I think the trade off is worth it.
Around 200-300 score increase + 10 degrees lower temps.
And temps are quite important for boosting? 
My temps a hovering around 70 degrees.
When the temps exceed 70 degrees the CPU slowly decreases the boost clocks. (Down from 4.1 GHz)

Which brings me to another "problem".
The default Standard Fan Profile sets a 100% fan speed at 70 degrees.
But the problem is the board reference CPU temperature is not the same temperature as shown in Ryzen Master.
(CPU temperature sensor near socket (?) vs CPU Die temperature sensor)
There is actually a 5-10 degree difference.
So when the board decides to speed the fans to 100% the CPU is already hitting 80 degrees (instead of the expected 70 degrees)

I suffered from the random reboot issue too but only at idle.
I think the reason was/is that Fmax Enhancer under-volted a bit too much.
Setting a load line of 2/3 fixed this for me.
But I haven't tested this with the new BIOS(es). (if the load line increase is still needed)


----------



## Sleepycat

sonixmon said:


> I am seriously considering getting a 5900x now that they are showing up close to retail then selling my 5800x for $300-350 just to get a better mem controller (hopefully). My 5800x is one of the two CCX units which means it failed as a 5900x and they disabled one. It is a decent performer and I have seen it hit 4.9 a few times and 4.850 regularly (a little less since 3601 though not much).


It really depends you you tend to run single or 2 core loads (gaming), or if you run 8 core loads (video rendering etc).

For single and 2 core loads, I expect the 5800X would have similar thermals as a 5900X. My 5900X hits 4.85-4.9 if single core just like your 5800X and I expect temperatures to be similar too. But when it comes to loading up all cores, your 8 cores would likely generate higher temperatures than my 12 cores spread across two CCXs, and I would still have up to 50% more performance than your 5800X. 

So yes, upgrade if you do a lot of all core loads. Not much point if you are mostly gaming.


----------



## sonixmon

Sleepycat said:


> It really depends you you tend to run single or 2 core loads (gaming), or if you run 8 core loads (video rendering etc).
> 
> For single and 2 core loads, I expect the 5800X would have similar thermals as a 5900X. My 5900X hits 4.85-4.9 if single core just like your 5800X and I expect temperatures to be similar too. But when it comes to loading up all cores, your 8 cores would likely generate higher temperatures than my 12 cores spread across two CCXs, and I would still have up to 50% more performance than your 5800X.
> 
> So yes, upgrade if you do a lot of all core loads. Not much point if you are mostly gaming.


That is really my dilemma, mostly gaming but some newer games will use 8 cores and future games will definitely use 8+. This 5800x runs hot even with a 360 rad (gaming 60-65, CB20 80 and will hit high 80s under AIDA64 stress test). It was a bit lower (-5) prior to 3601 but overall runs better on this bios.

My plan was to get a 5900x in a year or two as a stop gap while the new AMD/Intel platform kinks are worked out and prices drop. Now I am thinking if I wait then it will be harder to sell my 5800x and will get less, 5900x may or may not be cheaper as other people trying to upgrade from 5600-5800 try to get them as well. 

The main reason I am really wanting to is to hit 3800mhz/1900mhz mark, my CPU will only hit 1866 IF or unstable @ 1933 with a blackhole at 1900. My ram is stable to 3866 with stock timings if I unlock IF for testing ( up from 3600). I do realize it doesn't make much difference and I have even seen some benchmarks showing better results at 3600 vs 3800-4000 with same timings which has people scratching their heads. I wonder if it is the overall heat difference that affects boost.

For me I feel the PC is snappier with ram at 3733 and the latency benchmark is lower. Maybe it is a placebo affect but it has helped my gaming. I should just be happy and stick with it, but it is tempting.


----------



## Danny.ns

sonixmon said:


> That is really my dilemma, mostly gaming but some newer games will use 8 cores and future games will definitely use 8+. This 5800x runs hot even with a 360 rad (gaming 60-65, CB20 80 and will hit high 80s under AIDA64 stress test). It was a bit lower (-5) prior to 3601 but overall runs better on this bios.
> 
> My plan was to get a 5900x in a year or two as a stop gap while the new AMD/Intel platform kinks are worked out and prices drop. Now I am thinking if I wait then it will be harder to sell my 5800x and will get less, 5900x may or may not be cheaper as other people trying to upgrade from 5600-5800 try to get them as well.
> 
> The main reason I am really wanting to is to hit 3800mhz/1900mhz mark, my CPU will only hit 1866 IF or unstable @ 1933 with a blackhole at 1900. My ram is stable to 3866 with stock timings if I unlock IF for testing ( up from 3600). I do realize it doesn't make much difference and I have even seen some benchmarks showing better results at 3600 vs 3800-4000 with same timings which has people scratching their heads. I wonder if it is the overall heat difference that affects boost.
> 
> For me I feel the PC is snappier with ram at 3733 and the latency benchmark is lower. Maybe it is a placebo affect but it has helped my gaming. I should just be happy and stick with it, but it is tempting.


You could end up like me, with a 5900x and a 1900FCLK blackhole. 

To be honest if I were you I'd try my luck with the updated 5900x (with more cache) coming later. Even if you loose a bit of resale value for your 5800x, you will at least be upgrading to something that is indeed faster in gaming.


----------



## sonixmon

Danny.ns said:


> You could end up like me, with a 5900x and a 1900FCLK blackhole.
> 
> To be honest if I were you I'd try my luck with the updated 5900x (with more cache) coming later. Even if you loose a bit of resale value for your 5800x, you will at least be upgrading to something that is indeed faster in gaming.


Yea that is also a concern as well and could be a waste of the $2-300 difference, I have thought about waiting for the new processors with 3D cache too but I know the demand will be crazy again and who knows how they will price them.

3rd world problems.


----------



## gymleader91

Can anyone do me a favor who has 3600 RAM. Enable XMP/DOCP and then take a screenshot of ZenTimings and Ryzen Master. I want to check something and getting these pictures is harder than you would think.


----------



## ttang

Daylight_Invader said:


> Has anyone managed to get their Crosshair Impact (or similar board) to sleep automatically with Windows 10 either with any of the recent BIOS versions? If so, what did you do?
> 
> If I do a powercfg /requests, I get nothing coming back from the command response which is stopping the sleep from happening, yet if I wait for 10 mins, the monitor never turns off, nor does the machine ever fully sleep. That said, I am able to manually put the machine into sleep mode without any issues, so it is just the automatic sleep based on no keyboard/mouse inputs which seem to be broken. Keen to hear other people's thoughts on this.


C8I, 5800X, 3090 FE

Sleep works under Windows 10, monitor is set to sleep after 10 minutes and PC at 30 minutes.

Just tested it, am on BIOS 3601.


----------



## jlodvo

what program do you guys use to check mem stability?


----------



## Sleepycat

I'm not sure when this happened, but I just noticed that 3601 now has settings to enable bifurcation on PCIe slot #1. Previously it was only for slot #2, which meant it could only switch between 8x and 4x/4x.

In 3601, there are settings for slot #1 to be in Auto, or in x4/x4/x4/x4. Slot #2 is Auto or x4/x4.

I wonder if it is possible to have use all x16 lanes in slot 1 for 4x M.2 NVMe drives, leave M.2.1 empty and have those unused 4 lanes applied to PCIe slot #2. If not, will Asus ever give us this flexibility through bios updates like they just did with slot #1?


----------



## GRABibus

jlodvo said:


> what program do you guys use to check mem stability?


Karhu’s RAM tester or HCI Memtest.


----------



## shm0

Hmm using Load Line 4/5 on my Strix-E gets rid of the weird stutter I have in some games in some situations.
(Both stock and Fmax + PBO)
Like it was when I first got the system a few months ago.


----------



## Danny.ns

gymleader91 said:


> Can anyone do me a favor who has 3600 RAM. Enable XMP/DOCP and then take a screenshot of ZenTimings and Ryzen Master. I want to check something and getting these pictures is harder than you would think.


I have the kit F4-3600C16D-32GTZN. I am not at home atm but I had a pic of ZenTimings on my phone that I had taken. I have loaded XMP, however since tRRDS, tRRDL, tFAW, tRFC, tRFC2, tRFC4 are not set according to XMP despite loading it, I have *manually* set them accordingly in this picture. Everything else is left as is, PC in this pic is "stock" - I havent touched PBO or anything else. I do not use Ryzen Master though, so if you wanted to compare something between the two programs I cannot help sadly.


----------



## Theo164

gymleader91 said:


> Can anyone do me a favor who has 3600 RAM. Enable XMP/DOCP and then take a screenshot of ZenTimings and Ryzen Master. I want to check something and getting these pictures is harder than you would think.


Optimized defaults + DOCP enabled


----------



## flyinion

Looks like I’ll have a new project to play with soon. Been trying to get a 5950x to replace my August 2019 era 3700x. Just checked Amazon to see what the resellers were at today and instead they have shipped/sold by Amazon ones in stock for MSRP.


----------



## trespot

jlodvo said:


> what program do you guys use to check mem stability?


MemTestPro, Prime95, ycruncher, IntelBurnTest


----------



## CyrIng

gymleader91 said:


> Can anyone do me a favor who has 3600 RAM. Enable XMP/DOCP and then take a screenshot of ZenTimings and Ryzen Master. I want to check something and getting these pictures is harder than you would think.












Slightly OCed but same kit with extended SPD set


----------



## gymleader91

Thanks everyone. I just wanted to make sure the boards aren't doing anything funky at common stock settings. Most brands I have considered have such weird issues with ZenTimings/Ryzen Master.

Gigabyte: Have 3600 RAM = automatic 1.2v on vsoc which just feels weird
MSI: Changes voltages based on what xmp profile you choose even if they are the same exact timings. Voltages supplied in ZenTimings also don't match Ryzen Master. Also vdimm voltage value is shown on MSI but always higher than what is actually being supplied (e.g. 1.35v xmp kit will show 1.36v).

Oh actually while I have some able people can anyone run hwinfo64 and tell me what dram voltage the board supplies? It should be something like 1.358v for a 1.35v xmp.


----------



## Danny.ns

gymleader91 said:


> Thanks everyone. I just wanted to make sure the boards aren't doing anything funky at common stock settings. Most brands I have considered have such weird issues with ZenTimings/Ryzen Master.
> 
> Gigabyte: Have 3600 RAM = automatic 1.2v on vsoc which just feels weird
> MSI: Changes voltages based on what xmp profile you choose even if they are the same exact timings. Voltages supplied in ZenTimings also don't match Ryzen Master. Also vdimm voltage value is shown on MSI but always higher than what is actually being supplied (e.g. 1.35v xmp kit will show 1.36v).
> 
> Oh actually while I have some able people can anyone run hwinfo64 and tell me what dram voltage the board supplies? It should be something like 1.358v for a 1.35v xmp.


Heres a hwinfo pic (DRAM 1.352V)


----------



## domdtxdissar

New "CPU profile benchmark" from UL 3dmark out, dont know if scores are affected by memory speed/latency or only clockspeed, this is my results with CTR: I scored 0 in CPU Profile
Download from here: 3DMark - The Gamer's Benchmark


----------



## kx11

Tested the new CPU benchmark, i think i'm alright 










I scored 0 in CPU Profile


AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com


----------



## sonixmon

flyinion said:


> Looks like I’ll have a new project to play with soon. Been trying to get a 5950x to replace my August 2019 era 3700x. Just checked Amazon to see what the resellers were at today and instead they have shipped/sold by Amazon ones in stock for MSRP.


So tempting, wife would kill me. It is a want and not a need. :..-(


----------



## flyinion

sonixmon said:


> So tempting, wife would kill me. It is a want and not a need. :..-(



HAHA yeah I fessed up when she came home a bit ago. We have our own little personal $$$ stashes to use for stuff like this though and I've been hanging onto mine for a bit so it's all good. I don't regret pushing the Buy button either as now Amazon is out of stock again. B&H did still have them as of a couple hours ago though. Although for 829 instead of 799 but technically would have been cheaper by $30 as B&H doesn't charge tax.

I originally wanted a 3900X when I built in Aug 2019, but they were impossible to find. I "settled" for a 3700X intending to drop what became the 5000 series in when they launched and do it with a high core count chip like I originally wanted, but then Covid happened and trashed the ability to make enough to keep in stock. I had debated a few times buying one of the "sold by X shipped by Amazon" ones for 950-1000 but then saw last night's in stock by Amazon ones and had to do it.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

gymleader91 said:


> Can anyone do me a favor who has 3600 RAM. Enable XMP/DOCP and then take a screenshot of ZenTimings and Ryzen Master. I want to check something and getting these pictures is harder than you would think.


XMP only sets the primary timings from what I understand, all other settings are set to auto for the motherboard to figure out. So the training can be different from different motherboards, cpu configurations and even board to board.


----------



## GRABibus

Danny.ns said:


> I have the kit F4-3600C16D-32GTZN. I am not at home atm but I had a pic of ZenTimings on my phone that I had taken. I have loaded XMP, however since tRRDS, tRRDL, tFAW, tRFC, tRFC2, tRFC4 are not set according to XMP despite loading it, I have *manually* set them accordingly in this picture. Everything else is left as is, PC in this pic is "stock" - I havent touched PBO or anything else. I do not use Ryzen Master though, so if you wanted to compare something between the two programs I cannot help sadly.
> 
> View attachment 2515102


You have to tweak trfc, trfc2 and trfc4.

They are linked together by a formula which is integrated in DRAM Calculator and also you have to use the enclosed table to calculate trfc in nanoseconds :

Example here, for 3600MHz and trfc = 120ns => you enter them in DRAM Calculator and it gives trfc1, trfc2 and trfc4 :


----------



## Re-lar-Kvothe

Daylight_Invader said:


> Managed to solve my sleep problem. Seems whatever settings were saved to the Microsoft Cloud re lock/screen saver were causing issues with the sleep settings. Strangely I’ve never set anything here and I think it was from a previous rebuild which I had a lot of issues with. At least I now finally solved the mystery. Shame none of the help guides on MS website or anywhere else suggested checking that setting!
> 
> I still have the voltage issue with 3601, but I’ve opened a support ticket with ASUS.


Finally, someone with the same problem I have/had. I went as far as re-imaging my HD back to when I first set the system up. When I checked my event viewer I found an error "Cloud Files Diagnostic Event Listener" failed to start." I uninstalled cloud. Now it's wait and see.

edit: All good. PC went to sleep just like a good boy 😁


----------



## sonixmon

flyinion said:


> HAHA yeah I fessed up when she came home a bit ago. We have our own little personal $$$ stashes to use for stuff like this though and I've been hanging onto mine for a bit so it's all good. I don't regret pushing the Buy button either as now Amazon is out of stock again. B&H did still have them as of a couple hours ago though. Although for 829 instead of 799 but technically would have been cheaper by $30 as B&H doesn't charge tax.
> 
> I originally wanted a 3900X when I built in Aug 2019, but they were impossible to find. I "settled" for a 3700X intending to drop what became the 5000 series in when they launched and do it with a high core count chip like I originally wanted, but then Covid happened and trashed the ability to make enough to keep in stock. I had debated a few times buying one of the "sold by X shipped by Amazon" ones for 950-1000 but then saw last night's in stock by Amazon ones and had to do it.


Good for you, glad you pulled the trigger. Keep us posted on how it runs! Yea I have some CC points (close to $300) so that's really tempting. If I knew for sure I would get one that would hit 1900 fclk I wouldn't be as undecided but its a crap shoot. 

Hopefully things will continue to calm down and maybe we will start to see some discounts like we have on 5600x-5800x. Otherwise I will just hold out until the 3d cache versions come available and grab one of them or 5900x if prices really drop.


----------



## jlodvo

what do you guys think the max safe voltage for daily use on

soc =
cldo =
ccd =
iod =

how about those other voltage?

sb voltage =
PLL voltage =


----------



## Sleepycat

jlodvo said:


> what do you guys think the max safe voltage for daily use on


Not max safe voltage, but this what I run daily.

soc = 1.1 V
cldo = 0.99 V
ccd = 1.05 V
iod = 1.05 V
DRAM = 1.46V

sb voltage = 1.01 V
PLL voltage = 1.81 V


----------



## J7SC

jlodvo said:


> what do you guys think the max safe voltage for daily use on
> 
> soc =
> cldo =
> ccd =
> iod =
> 
> how about those other voltage?
> 
> sb voltage =
> PLL voltage =


Here's what I run on daily settings...voltages are at or below bios stock values and I consider them pretty safe for a well-cooled CPU


----------



## Danny.ns

GRABibus said:


> You have to tweak trfc, trfc2 and trfc4.
> 
> They are linked together by a formula which is integrated in DRAM Calculator and also you have to use the enclosed table to calculate trfc in nanoseconds :
> 
> Example here, for 3600MHz and trfc = 120ns => you enter them in DRAM Calculator and it gives trfc1, trfc2 and trfc4 :


Yeah I do something about them when i run my overclocked settings. But when I just run my system stock/XMP, I use trfc1,2,4 according to SPD. For example:


----------



## GRABibus

jlodvo said:


> what do you guys think the max safe voltage for daily use on
> 
> soc =
> cldo =
> ccd =
> iod =
> 
> how about those other voltage?
> 
> sb voltage =
> PLL voltage =


I run daily :

soc =1.12V
cldo =1V
ccd =1.05V
iod =1.05V
DRAM=1.49V
sb voltage =1V
PLL voltage = 1.89V
VDDP=0.96V
VTT=0.7435V

3800MHz/1900MHz , 4x8GB, 16-15-15-31-1T (G.skill Trident Z RGB), Whea Free


----------



## GRABibus

Deleted


----------



## Portly_III

Just finished build with 5950x and Dark hero. Booted into bios and enable docp. Getting 100+WHEA at startup. Anyone have any suggestions on how to fix this? I can provide whatever information is needed.


----------



## xeizo

Portly_III said:


> Just finished build with 5950x and Dark hero. Booted into bios and enable docp. Getting 100+WHEA at startup. Anyone have any suggestions on how to fix this? I can provide whatever information is needed.


DOCP usually doesn't work well, I can't even boot using DOCP but is WHEA free at 3800MHz using manual settings

edit. I see you have 4000MHz RAM, you do know most Ryzens can't run 4000 at least not in sync with fclk


----------



## Danny.ns

Portly_III said:


> Just finished build with 5950x and Dark hero. Booted into bios and enable docp. Getting 100+WHEA at startup. Anyone have any suggestions on how to fix this? I can provide whatever information is needed.


Like xeizo already replied, Ryzens cannot handle FCLK above 1900 - so max RAM speed is 3800 in 1:1 ratio. Some CPUs also cannot POST at 1900, in such case 3733mhz RAM is fastest possible RAM in 1:1.


----------



## Reikoji

Portly_III said:


> Just finished build with 5950x and Dark hero. Booted into bios and enable docp. Getting 100+WHEA at startup. Anyone have any suggestions on how to fix this? I can provide whatever information is needed.





Danny.ns said:


> Like xeizo already replied, Ryzens cannot handle FCLK above 1900 - so max RAM speed is 3800 in 1:1 ratio. Some CPUs also cannot POST at 1900, in such case 3733mhz RAM is fastest possible RAM in 1:1.


Well, they CAN, but in order to do so youll likely need more than the desired .95v ccd and 1.05v iod to do it. some will need more than that for 1900fclk and be whea free. I know 1 person thats doing 2033fclk without whea but voltage is higher by default even on his board.


----------



## Portly_III

Reikoji said:


> Well, they CAN, but in order to do so youll likely need more than the desired .95v ccd and 1.05v iod to do it. some will need more than that for 1900fclk and be whea free. I know 1 person thats doing 2033fclk without whea but voltage is higher by default even on his board.


It has no issues posting and seems to run fine except for the whea errors. Any suggestions on what I can do to get rid of the errors?


----------



## Reikoji

Portly_III said:


> It has no issues posting and seems to run fine except for the whea errors. Any suggestions on what I can do to get rid of the errors?


Increase ccd and iod voltage each in increments of 10mv (0.010v) until it stops, also ensuring Soc voltage stays above iod voltage.

If you still have whea by 1.19v iod just drop down in fclk speed unless you wanna yolo


----------



## Portly_III

Reikoji said:


> Increase ccd and iod voltage each in increments of 10mv (0.010v) until it stops, also ensuring Soc voltage stays above iod voltage.
> 
> If you still have whea by 1.19v iod just drop down in fclk speed unless you wanna yolo


What about CLDO?


----------



## Reikoji

Portly_III said:


> What about CLDO?


I dont know what that one controls, so i leave it at auto. Doesnt seem to affect fckl stabiity by imcreasing it. Someone should have insight on it.


----------



## J7SC

Portly_III said:


> What about CLDO?


...check out 1usmus' article / guide on that at TPU > here


----------



## Portly_III

Also meant to ask what settings should I enable/disable in the bios for best stability/performance? CPPC Prefferedcores, CPPC, Power Supply Idle Control, CnQ, etc. Any help will be greatly appreciated


----------



## CYoung234

Hello all. I have not looked through this forum for a while, but wondered if the consensus is still that the newer BIOSes (3501, 3601) are not the best choice for Zen 2? I am still using BIOS 1302 with my 3900X and CH8 Hero Wifi. I also use 4 sticks of 3600 DDR. My setup is very stable for a long time now. No WHEA errors or reboots.

Also, any thoughts on enabling TPM for Windows 11 support? Mine is set to Discrete TPM now. My boot drive is an Intel NVME drive.


----------



## AStaUK

CYoung234 said:


> Also, any thoughts on enabling TPM for Windows 11 support? Mine is set to Discrete TPM now. My boot drive is an Intel NVME drive.


Re, the latter part of your question. You can either change the setting to fTPM and use the software based TPM which is available through your CPU or purchase a seperate TPM module which you place on the TPM header for your board. The advantage of the dTPM is that the keys etc will persist through firmware updates. Personally I will be purchasing a dTPM purely for convenience.

**edit. If you look to purchase a dTPM watch the price, they should only be £/$10 or there abouts, prices on ebay are going silly at the moment.


----------



## stimpy88

CYoung234 said:


> Hello all. I have not looked through this forum for a while, but wondered if the consensus is still that the newer BIOSes (3501, 3601) are not the best choice for Zen 2? I am still using BIOS 1302 with my 3900X and CH8 Hero Wifi. I also use 4 sticks of 3600 DDR. My setup is very stable for a long time now. No WHEA errors or reboots.
> 
> Also, any thoughts on enabling TPM for Windows 11 support? Mine is set to Discrete TPM now. My boot drive is an Intel NVME drive.


If you're happy with your system, stick to your existing BIOS. The later ones can be various shades of crapshows. For some, they are stable, for others, they are nightmares.


----------



## Muqeshem

Guys what is the issue with latest Crosshair Impact VIII??? That is a **** bios.


----------



## GRABibus

Muqeshem said:


> Guys what is the issue with latest Crosshair Impact VIII??? That is a **** bios.


Good question….
What is the issue ?


----------



## Daylight_Invader

Muqeshem said:


> Guys what is the issue with latest Crosshair Impact VIII??? That is a **** bios.


If referring to 3601, it’s a mixed bag.

Some people find it works perfectly and fixes USB issues that plagued some. It even is said to resolve heat issues at idle etc.

For others (like myself), it’s dreadful. Seems to hate my RAM and means I am unable to boot except at stock memory frequency and timings. Personally I’ve opened a support ticket with ASUS and left it at that, but this is the first BIOS I have been unable to use.


----------



## criznit

So far, 3601 has been great to me (5950x, C8H, 32gb GTZR @ 3800). I only installed it after Asus published it on their site, but I doubt that would make a difference.


----------



## CyrIng

Muqeshem said:


> Guys what is the issue with latest Crosshair Impact VIII??? That is a **** bios.


I don't see your setup with components reference ?
I've not jump to this version but 2206 is stable with my 3950X
I just miss the new features of 3xxx versions that I would like to incorporate in my developments.


----------



## Reikoji

Daylight_Invader said:


> If referring to 3601, it’s a mixed bag.
> 
> Some people find it works perfectly and fixes USB issues that plagued some. It even is said to resolve heat issues at idle etc.
> 
> For others (like myself), it’s dreadful. Seems to hate my RAM and means I am unable to boot except at stock memory frequency and timings. Personally I’ve opened a support ticket with ASUS and left it at that, but this is the first BIOS I have been unable to use.


Is it locking up at a post code or failing memory training?


----------



## Sleepycat

Daylight_Invader said:


> For others (like myself), it’s dreadful. Seems to hate my RAM and means I am unable to boot except at stock memory frequency and timings. Personally I’ve opened a support ticket with ASUS and left it at that, but this is the first BIOS I have been unable to use.


Have you tried flashing the same 3601 over 3601 again and re-entering all your settings manually?

3601 was the first bios where I experienced the settings all set wrongly when I loaded my saved profiles from 3501.


----------



## flyinion

sonixmon said:


> Good for you, glad you pulled the trigger. Keep us posted on how it runs! Yea I have some CC points (close to $300) so that's really tempting. If I knew for sure I would get one that would hit 1900 fclk I wouldn't be as undecided but its a crap shoot.
> 
> Hopefully things will continue to calm down and maybe we will start to see some discounts like we have on 5600x-5800x. Otherwise I will just hold out until the 3d cache versions come available and grab one of them or 5900x if prices really drop.


Well I’m hopeful so far. Temp wise I’m shocked. I run a custom loop and all I did was swap the cpu (soft tube so no draining or anything). And new coat or kryonaut using the spread method. I was worried since I actually ran out and ended with not a smooth even coat like on my 3700X. Max stress with OCCT small, extreme, steady it’s 10C cooler. 

Even on large and variable for stability testing which ramped all cores to 4.5 it was still cooler. Now I’m off to read about 5000 series overclocking. I know there’s definitely differences and new features for them.


----------



## Daylight_Invader

Reikoji said:


> Is it locking up at a post code or failing memory training?


It’s fails post with code 07 in my case. The thing is that I’ve never failed memory except with this bios version.

Using Crucial Ballistix 3600 CL16. Only fails when I set XMP/DOCP. I’ve tried manual AMD auto settings. I suspect villages are all wrong and some values are being misinterpreted.


----------



## arcanexvi

3601 isn't friendly to me as far as ram OC but everything else seems fine. Trying to get my 4000mhz memory to run anything over 3600 will cause post to fail on my end.


----------



## Alemancio

arcanexvi said:


> 3601 isn't friendly to me as far as ram OC but everything else seems fine. Trying to get my 4000mhz memory to run anything over 3600 will cause post to fail on my end.


Check ProcODTs


----------



## jlodvo

still a little confused how to properly set my timings to tighten it down, any link to a guide how to set timmings for ryzen 5000?


----------



## GRABibus

jlodvo said:


> still a little confused how to properly set my timings to tighten it down, any link to a guide how to set timmings for ryzen 5000?


you should try DRAM calculator.


----------



## Reikoji

Daylight_Invader said:


> It’s fails post with code 07 in my case. The thing is that I’ve never failed memory except with this bios version.
> 
> Using Crucial Ballistix 3600 CL16. Only fails when I set XMP/DOCP. I’ve tried manual AMD auto settings. I suspect villages are all wrong and some values are being misinterpreted.


Ahhh that. Have you tried increasing the soc? These newer versions dont hate soc like the rest. I had to set higher to get passed that post code lock while trying to use 4 ram sticks, and settled with leaving it at 1.2v as its defaulted to when first loading a bios. It was all good with 2 ram sticks tho. I first avoided the post-Zen 3 bios because of that when I was still on my 3900x. Figured moving to Zen 3 would have fixed it, but it did not. Only making sure the soc was higher fixed it.


----------



## PWn3R

So I ran across something aggravating and stupid today. You must run your CPU in legacy compatibility mode to play any of the Dawn of War 2 games which makes it an 8 core. They will not launch without this mode turned on. So stupid…. 16 core down to 8


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CyrIng

PWn3R said:


> So I ran across something aggravating and stupid today. You must run your CPU in legacy compatibility mode to play any of the Dawn of War 2 games which makes it an 8 core. They will not launch without this mode turned on. So stupid…. 16 core down to 8
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Probably you could alter the CPUID leaves this software is relying on. The AMD Zen PPR specifies MSR to toggle them ON and OFF


----------



## Robostyle

Guys, need advice with CO.

I was running corecycler recently and found out that my 5800X (C8DH) SC/semi-SC doesn't like curve offset being too aggressive, while allcore is okay even at -20 offset.
Thus, the only stable option at this time is weak CO offset at around -10 allcore + 10X Curve so I get massive SC boost (645 CB20), single-core hitting 5050MHz more often, but awful MC performance (~5900 CB20).
While huge CO offset, at about -20 -30 allcore, gives me stable MC boost at 4700 Mhz all core, ~6300 CB20, and that is STABLE 24H in ycruncher - but just I stop stresstesting, I get random reboots when any single core faces this awful -30 offset - like corecycler, single-core CB or random browsing.

Anything I'm loosing here?

P.S. Leaving -20 CO offset for "bad" cores and setting -10 CO offset for "best ones" - could that help?


----------



## PJVol

Robostyle said:


> P.S. Leaving -20 CO offset for "bad" cores and setting -10 CO offset for "best ones" - could that help?


You may try the following:

first evaluate the minimal stable offsets for 2 best cores (prime or OCCT will help with that).
then run any modest allcore workload, such as CB R23,
based on the average requested VIDs during the test, enter CO values for the remainder cores, such as to align their VIDs with the highest VID of two best cores.
Basically thats it. No need to extensively test other cores, since they most likely need higher voltage to reach the same frequency, as 2 best, or to set them too low, as in multicore scenario, the allcore voltage will be based on the highest requested VID of all cores.

Of course, -20, or even -10 can be too aggressive. My current CO setup for 2 best cores is -5 and -12.


----------



## Reikoji

Ive read going beyond -10 typically needs some increase in voltage offset to stay stable. it turned into the case for me. but, some people will be freaked out if they see greater than 1.5v on the max listings. ive yet to go back and try more things


----------



## Reikoji

I had a nice uninhibited run with -25 good cores, -15 all others, and those scores are on page 376 xD but, my PC doesnt let me do that anymore. Windows bluescreens on NTSF.sys at startup too.

Backed down to -14 good, -8 others with a +0.01825 volt offset


----------



## PJVol

Reikoji said:


> Backed down to -14 good, -8 others


What's the point setting CO magnitude for the good cores lower than the rest?


----------



## Reikoji

PJVol said:


> What's the point setting CO magnitude for the good cores lower than the rest?


The "good" cores are determined by seeing which cores Windows choses for single core tasks. the lower the negative, the higher expected clock frequency. The good ones are the most likely to get the higher clock frequency without needing or needing an excessive voltage offset increase.

HWinfo does a decent job of showing which ones those are in the Core Clocks section. The (perf #1/1) and (perf #1/2) are typically the good ones. Can also give special attention to the ones marked as 2/3, 3/4, 4/5 and so on. Just setting -8 to all others is just me being lazy.


----------



## PJVol

Reikoji said:


> The good ones are the most likely to get the higher clock frequency without needing or needing an excessive voltage offset increase.


That's right, and your allcore boost is limited by the worst core capability, which might be higher, had you set bigger negative magnitude for it. Instead, you doing the opposite...


----------



## Daylight_Invader

PJVol said:


> You may try the following:
> 
> first evaluate the minimal stable offsets for 2 best cores (prime or OCCT will help with that).
> then run any modest allcore workload, such as CB R23,
> based on the average requested VIDs during the test, enter CO values for the remainder cores, such as to align their VIDs with the highest VID of two best cores.
> Basically thats it. No need to extensively test other cores, since they most likely need higher voltage to reach the same frequency, as 2 best, or to set them too low, as in multicore scenario, the allcore voltage will be based on the highest requested VID of all cores.
> 
> Of course, -20, or even -10 can be too aggressive. My current CO setup for 2 best cores is -5 and -12.


It’s worth remembering the other core, so treating the top 2 cores of both CCDs. Generally because of leakage etc and performance needs, the two best cores on both dies tends to want a smaller offset value, and the rest can usually go a lot lower.

I found not dealing with the other die meant some weird errors would come up, eg video errors etc.

In my case I’ve settled on -13, -3, (general cores, high performance cores) but I’ve only spent so much time on it. At these values I have full stability. I suspect I could do a little more tweaking but the time required to do a greater analysis takes exponentially longer.


----------



## PJVol

Daylight_Invader said:


> It’s worth remembering the other *core*, so treating the top 2 cores of both CCD


Perhaps you meant ccd here... ^^^
Yeah, I forgot to address 2CCD CPU owners )), as was replying to the one with 5800X.

Regarding twin-CCD CPUs, I think one should take into account, that each CCD has its own frequency domain (they still share the same VDD plane), and cores from low-bin CCD usually endures higher magnitude values than that of performant one.


----------



## maxrealliti

Good afternoon, who has any opinions about such memory measurements, the tested Windows 11 channel is a developer, the response and work have improved, but the longevity has grown at times, I continue to test until I see only pluses in Windows, but the values of L2 and L3 have significantly increased in speed, but latency increased by 2-3 times, the basis is in the order of error and only the latency increased by 5ns


----------



## Robostyle

PJVol said:


> You may try the following:
> 
> first evaluate the minimal stable offsets for 2 best cores (prime or OCCT will help with that).
> then run any modest allcore workload, such as CB R23,
> based on the average requested VIDs during the test, enter CO values for the remainder cores, such as to align their VIDs with the highest VID of two best cores.
> Basically thats it. No need to extensively test other cores, since they most likely need higher voltage to reach the same frequency, as 2 best, or to set them too low, as in multicore scenario, the allcore voltage will be based on the highest requested VID of all cores.
> 
> Of course, -20, or even -10 can be too aggressive. My current CO setup for 2 best cores is -5 and -12.


Exactly what Reikoji said 👍
Moreover, I could be wrong, but my die might be “flattened” from what I see. Thus, “bad“ cores need more aggressive CO for higher allcore sustained frequency - and they DO handle it, while “best” cores already maxed out on their curve, thus requiring mild CO offset for 5Ghz. Or even for 4.85, and if it happens so, then Id better go with ccd OC..


----------



## Robostyle

Reikoji said:


> I had a nice uninhibited run with -25 good cores, -15 all others, and those scores are on page 376 xD but, my PC doesnt let me do that anymore. Windows bluescreens on NTSF.sys at startup too.
> 
> Backed down to -14 good, -8 others with a +0.01825 volt offset


degradation?


----------



## PJVol

Robostyle said:


> Exactly what Reikoji said


Rather the opposite... I saw many ryzen 5000 owners here and there were caught in that misconception trap, regarding CO.



Robostyle said:


> Thus, “bad“ cores need more aggressive CO for higher allcore sustained frequency - and they DO handle it, while “best” cores already maxed out on their curve, thus requiring mild CO offset for 5Ghz


This is how most of high-binned zen3 CCD's behave (and the way they should).
For example my CO magnitude looks like that:
-12 4 -16 3 -20 5 -12** 2 -7* 1 -22 6
* - best core (Core 4)
** - 2nd best core (Core 3)
n - core's CPO rating
You may see, that Core 3, despite being "2nd best", actually is most problematic one, since in all-core-load, it still request more voltage, even with magnitude of 12, than the "best core" with magnitude of 7, for the same frequency, and below -12 it starts crashing.
Also take note of Core 0 that may look kinda strange with its -12 value at first glance.
But the trick lies in CPU topology. Here is the layout:


​
-​Core1​Core3​Core5​L3​L3​L3​L3​Core0​-​Core2​Core4​
................................................................................................................................................................

You may see now, why Core 0 has such low CO count.
Thats the issue with per-core CO tuning based on just per-core testing with scripts or OCCT. It doesn't take into account core's thermal interaction.
Due to a "special" Core0 position, it almost completely isolated thermally from other 5 cores, thus having least of all operating temperature in all core scenario.
Take a look also at the VIDs with disabled CO and boost +200, and take note of core0 temp. Here is CB R23 Multicore run snapshot:










So the point is, taking into account core's thermal interaction and CPU topology, the oder of "goodness" is changes significantly. That's because (i think) core ratings are assigned as to isolated cores, hence the discrepancies in higher workload when tuned based on CPO rating and actual perf. rating considering therm. influencing.


----------



## xeizo

maxrealliti said:


> Good afternoon, who has any opinions about such memory measurements, the tested Windows 11 channel is a developer, the response and work have improved, but the longevity has grown at times, I continue to test until I see only pluses in Windows, but the values of L2 and L3 have significantly increased in speed, but latency increased by 2-3 times, the basis is in the order of error and only the latency increased by 5ns
> View attachment 2515830


Windows 11 has terrible L3-performance on Ryzen, 3 times higher latency and 8-10 times lower bandwidth. It was seen on late Windows 10 Insider builds as well. Something is very wrong with the Windows Insider kernel for AMD processors.

I have reported the issue multiple times in the Feedback Hub, so far no response. On Reddit it is told Insider uses a old outdated and buggy for AMD kernel tree while Windows 10 retail builds uses a much newer and better kernel.

Basically, on Windows 11 a 3700X performs worse than a 2700X on Windows 10.


----------



## Robostyle

PJVol said:


> Rather the opposite... I saw many ryzen 5000 owners here and there were caught in that misconception trap, regarding CO.
> 
> 
> This is how most of high-binned zen3 CCD's behave (and the way they should).
> For example my CO magnitude looks like that:
> -12 4 -16 3 -20 5 -12** 2 -7* 1 -22 6
> * - best core (Core 4)
> ** - 2nd best core (Core 3)
> n - core's CPO rating
> You may see, that Core 3, despite being "2nd best", actually is most problematic one, since in all-core-load, it still request more voltage, even with magnitude of 12, than the "best core" with magnitude of 7, for the same frequency, and below -12 it starts crashing.
> Also take note of Core 0 that may look kinda strange with its -12 value at first glance.
> But the trick lies in CPU topology. Here is the layout:
> 
> 
> ​
> -​Core1​Core3​Core5​L3​L3​L3​L3​Core0​-​Core2​Core4​
> ................................................................................................................................................................
> 
> You may see now, why Core 0 has such low CO count.
> Thats the issue with per-core CO tuning based on just per-core testing with scripts or OCCT. It doesn't take into account core's thermal interaction.
> Due to a "special" Core0 position, it almost completely isolated thermally from other 5 cores, thus having least of all operating temperature in all core scenario.
> Take a look also at the VIDs with disabled CO and boost +200, and take note of core0 temp. Here is CB R23 Multicore run snapshot:
> 
> View attachment 2515831
> 
> 
> So the point is, taking into account core's thermal interaction and CPU topology, the oder of "goodness" is changes significantly. That's because (i think) core ratings are assigned as to isolated cores, hence the discrepancies in higher workload when tuned based on CPO rating and actual perf. rating considering therm. influencing.


Wow, I don't have a per-core temp sensor, HWinfo 7.04

Anyway, I don't have isolated cores since I have all 8 of them.
Regarding 2nd best core being the fussiest - yeah, noticed that already. Thus I've made a conclusion that my fastest cores should do with less aggressive CO


----------



## heptilion

PJVol said:


> You may try the following:
> 
> first evaluate the minimal stable offsets for 2 best cores (prime or OCCT will help with that).
> then run any modest allcore workload, such as CB R23,
> based on the average requested VIDs during the test, enter CO values for the remainder cores, such as to align their VIDs with the highest VID of two best cores.
> Basically thats it. No need to extensively test other cores, since they most likely need higher voltage to reach the same frequency, as 2 best, or to set them too low, as in multicore scenario, the allcore voltage will be based on the highest requested VID of all cores.
> 
> Of course, -20, or even -10 can be too aggressive. My current CO setup for 2 best cores is -5 and -12.


Could you please explain this to me a bit more in detail. I have a 5950x. 

What do you mean by stabe offsets? offsets meant voltage or co counts? should i be doing this with default ppt tdc edc values? what test should i run on prime/occt to test for stability?


----------



## PJVol

heptilion said:


> What do you mean by stabe offsets? offsets meant voltage or co counts? should i be doing this with default ppt tdc edc values? what test should i run on prime/occt to test for stability?


1. Minimal stable CO counts/magnitude
2. see 1 )
3. Worthy note. Better to set limits in such a way that while running CB R23, none were reached. And dont forget to reset sensors right after 3-5 sec the bench started, and PrtScr them 3-5 sec before it finished.
4. Its on you to decide. For me, OCCT with AVX2/large/extereme preset, cycling through cores was enough to expose instabilities in 2 best cores. When finish, you should test final config anyway, with blender scene "koro", for example, or run 4-5 times in a row 3dmark CPU profile bench.

I'll post more detailed approach later, may be in @mongoled pbo guide thread, since for the 5900/5950 owners some deviations posiible. Just gonna post it in DDR4 stability thread yesterday, but it turned out to be on vacation ))


----------



## mongoled

@PJVol
post in my thread, hopefully peeps will start posting in threads that are more relevant to the discussion !

Would like an answer to a question based on something you guys are discussing, I would like a straight answer, dont over think, just give the answer.

As per HWInfo64, per core VID measurements i.e. "Core 0 VID", "Core 1 VID" etc etc

Do you expect the VID of a core that has had its CO increased to be higher or lower ??


----------



## Robostyle

I guess I was near when wrote that last post - having the CO offset at -20 for all bad cores, and only -10 for two best cores, I have a stable corecycler cruncher running for 3 hours, with only core 01 excluded at the beggining cause it actually did stumble. Thus only one problematic curve left. And I think core 1 is kind of a "third" best core, making all that headache with second best, core 5.

Corecycler gave this message for Core 1:


Code:


The y-Cruncher process doesn't use enough CPU power anymore (only 0% instead of the expected 6.25%)

It lacks a mere milivolt to be stable, am I right? Or is it smth different?


----------



## PJVol

mongoled said:


> Do you expect the VID of a core that has had its CO increased to be higher or lower ??


Why expect, lol.
It do increase as count increases (not an abs(count) but a number with a sign). That's the essence of my post where I tried to explain, why its enough in most cases to determine stable counts just for cores that scheduler use when cpu is in certain power envelope defined internally for the light loads.
Of course, provided that said conditions are not restricted other way, i.e. thermally, or power limited.

btw, raised the bar in our 3dmark 5600X Hall of fame. Now one should work hard to beat it, though 2nd place is honorable as well


----------



## bastian

There is a new AGESA 1.2.0.3b to help fix more USB issues. Never ending it seems.

I have asked the great @shamino1978 if he can make a beta BIOS available for ASUS X570 Dark Hero and Crosshair owners


----------



## mongoled

PJVol said:


> What you mean expect, lol. It do increase as count increases (not an abs(count) but a number with a sign). That's the essence of my post where I tried to explain, why its enough in most cases to determine stable counts just for cores that scheduler use when cpu is in certain power envelope defined internally for the light loads.


See thats the logical assumption !

But its not as straight forward as that, well at least for my CPU/Motherboard combo and that is where the issue lays when attempting to get a method that all people can use to tweak their cores to have best multi/single core performance.

I do my best to make this as simple as possible.

When I use the following CO values and test with CB23 multicore these are the VID values.

Everything is inline with what we expect (core1 is a little strange), increasing the CO on the two "best" cores results in a higher VID and vis versu, lower the CO results in lower VID

*CO Disabled *

Core0 (1st)Core1 (3rd)Core2 (5th)Core3 (4th)Core4 (2nd)Core5 (6th)CO*0*000*0*0VID1.2021.2291.2421.2561.2071.242

*CO "Optimised"*

Core0 (1st)Core1 (3rd)Core2 (5th)Core3 (4th)Core4 (2nd)Core5 (6th)CO*+5*-3-7-6*+6*-9VID1.2491.2361.2281.2481.2611.217

Now we do the same thing but for single core using the "p95_core_cycle" script

*CO Disabled*

Core0 (1st)Core1 (3rd)Core2 (5th)Core3 (4th)Core4 (2nd)Core5 (6th)CO*0*000*0*0VID1.3361.3061.3001.3031.3371.279Frequency481247354712471948204656

*CO "Optimised"*

Core0 (1st)Core1 (3rd)Core2 (5th)Core3 (4th)Core4 (2nd)Core5 (6th)CO*+5*-3-7-6*+6*-9VID1.3301.3151.3191.3191.3301.328Frequency477147654777477347604755

In a single core scenario, the cores that have a positive offset VID goes down!

Not to mention that cores with negative offset also have a higher VID ...

Can you see why I asked the question in the manner I did, asking you for a black/white answer, it was not a trick question, just wanted to see if your logical thinking matches mine

 

Do others see this same thing happening ?

I did follow your logic quoted below



> You may try the following:
> 
> first evaluate the minimal stable offsets for 2 best cores (prime or OCCT will help with that).
> then run any modest allcore workload, such as CB R23,
> based on the average requested VIDs during the test, enter CO values for the remainder cores, such as to align their VIDs with the highest VID of two best cores.
> Basically thats it. No need to extensively test other cores, since they most likely need higher voltage to reach the same frequency, as 2 best, or to set them too low, as in multicore scenario, the allcore voltage will be based on the highest requested VID of all cores.


But before looking into it I wanted to see how the cores acted when CO was adjusted with regards to VID changes/frequency and came across the strange scenario I described above ...


----------



## Robostyle

I've noticed that not only 2 top cores can achieve 5GHz mark, but mediocre ones too.


Spoiler: 5ghz














Results after 7hours of corecycler-cruncher testing. Stock vCore (0.006mv offset) + LLC3. Two of my best are 5 and 7
I wonder does it mean cpu could handle 5GHz 6core or even allcore...


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Question regarding M.2 drives in a Crosshair Hero VIII.

I understand some motherboards, the top M.2 slot is fastest as it uses the CPU lanes. But I'm reading for ASUS, it doesn't matter if you use the top or bottom, they're going to be equal?

Can anyone validate or invalidate this? Thank you! I'm going to upgrade and clone over my old SSD to a new one.


----------



## Reikoji

Robostyle said:


> degradation?


Not likely. Changing the curve alone alone negative causes frequencies to go up, but voltage to go down slightly. When i had them all at -25/-15, my 5950x all-core frequency was a good 4550mhz with a single core breaking 5ghz, but this was all at borderline stable voltage. ~1.43 for single and ~1.25 for all core wasnt enough for the clocks it wanted to reach. HWInfo had a Frequency Limit - Global max of over 5250 at one point. Im just surprised it was all holding as long as it was, but it was actually causing a ton of errors not showing up as whea, but I saw them when i checked the event viewer. I'm sure its windows itself that is just saying nope to those speeds.

It would help if it were a more visual curve we see from GPU frequency curve in Radeon Software or similar.



PJVol said:


> That's right, and your allcore boost is limited by the worst core capability, which might be higher, had you set bigger negative magnitude for it. Instead, you doing the opposite...


There are a number of curve optimizer guides that show negative magnitudes increase frequencies, and thats what I was going for. What I am using now also sees an increase in single core and all core frequencies over CO off. Its just 24/7 stable now rather than yolo stable.


----------



## PJVol

Reikoji said:


> There are a number of curve optimizer guides that show negative magnitudes increase frequencies, and thats what I was going for. What I am using now also sees an increase in single core and all core frequencies over CO off. Its just 24/7 stable now rather than yolo stable.


I just saying that without questioning "negative magnitudes increase frequencies" claim, you could have drawn the wrong conclusion, regarding which cores need what count values, despite the fact that "increase in single core and all core frequencies over CO off".
Whatever, you always can check it with test and see.


----------



## PJVol

mongoled said:


> But its not as straight forward as that, well at least for my CPU/Motherboard combo and that is where the issue lays when attempting to get a method that all people can use to tweak their cores to have best multi/single core performance


I see what you're about.
It doesn't matter will it be lower or higher, tbh, when tuned CO used, they just should be as close as possible to each other to be most effective overall.
I meant higher CO value gives higher precalculated VID for each core, but not nessessarily higher in actual all-core run. It may be even lower, after final allcore VID and frequency were defined by SMU.
Here is my calculations:


----------



## mongoled

PJVol said:


> Unfortunately, just looking at your CB R23 results, I see it's absolutely not inline with expected behavior. Something is tamper the normal behavior, don't know what exactly, be it either power/thermal limits or any other restrictions. Are you sure
> 
> there were no background tasks that could mess the things up, or
> at least minimal necessary conditions were met, namely a) no power limits have reached, b) CPU core/llc set to auto, c) no telemetry faking
> you correctly measured those values, I mean reset sensors right after start and make snapshot right before the end, and then took AVERAGE values, i.e. 4th column data ?
> In proper conditions your CO per-core counts in CB R23 should almost perfectly match VID changes, which obviously is not the case.
> Here are your counts and corresponding VID changes (in mv):
> +5 : +47
> -3 : +7 ??!!
> -7 : -14
> -6 : -8
> +6 : +54
> -9 : -27
> I tend to think its the measurement error. Here are what measurements looked like with CO disabled+200 boost, then with tuned CO:
> Redacted on request of @PJVol
> 
> View attachment 2515877


As I said, ive understood that the behaivoir is not following what one would expect.

All your points above are covered, tomorrow I will re-run the same tests to triple check the validity of the data.

OS is less than a month old 21H1, only Windows Defender is disabled with no other tweaks.

If the results are identical I will reflash the BIOS with the AFU windows utility as directd by Veii, for the record the current BIOS was also flashed with the AFU windows utility.

Will do a clean profile as I have been switching between saved profiles so maybe that may be the cause.


----------



## PJVol

Sorry, the quoted above was not correct in that certain context, for the reasons I provide in the edited post. (still you managed to caught it, lol, delete it pls, not to confuse you and other people here)
But still something was not right with your data, needs further investigations.


----------



## Robostyle

Did anyone try setting OC headroom to lower values, like 150mhz vs 200, with a 10X curve? Any improvements in keeping high frequency for a longer period?


----------



## sonixmon

So I played around some more this past weekend with the 1900mhz issue. Still not change @1900 but 1933 posts with errors etc.1966 is way more stable but my Ram starts to become the issue, Latency way up and not quite stable. 

I bit the bullet and got a 5900x coming, it may or may not make a difference (silicone lottery) but it was what I was originally trying to get back in Dec./Jan but only could find a 5800x which I will sell for what I can get. Hopefully I get lucky with this one!


----------



## Robostyle

Vcore staying at the same level even with -30 CO offset - is it due to cores only getting individually offset, while on-die voltage stays the same? Or is it just software monitoring?


----------



## PJVol

Robostyle said:


> Vcore staying at the same level even with -30 CO offset - is it due to cores only getting individually offset, while on-die voltage stays the same? Or is it just software monitoring?


CO offset(count/magnitude) is not the same as vcore offset in OC menu. CO count is, what we here have come to, and how I see it, just a smart modifier of the built-in v/f curve, that characterizes the core's quality (smart in a way, that actual modifier value depends on the power consumed by the core - from x3 in low power task, to x5 in higher). So, changing its "offset" is "transparent" for the dfs logic and being in equal thermal and power restrictive conditions, smu choose the boosted p-state with the VID that met said conditions.
Whereas vcore offset applied post-dfs logic, and to the shared by all cores vdd plane, i.e. to all cores simultaneously, regardless of number of cores actually involved in current task.


----------



## Robostyle

PJVol said:


> Whereas vcore offset applied post-dfs logic, and to the shared by all cores vdd plane, i.e. to all cores simultaneously, regardless of number of cores actually involved in current task.


I see. Yup, thought that way. Just want to be sure I'm not doing something wrong when applying +50mV offset, and see Vcore going way above 1.5V afterwards.


----------



## munternet

Updated from 3501 to 3601 BIOS on my ROG Crosshair x570 Hero Wifi 5950x and have dropped from 4550 load to 4450 with the same PBO settings
Do I need to go through the whole process again or should I change back to the 3501 BIOS (which is not on the website)
Is there a better BIOS I should be using?
Cheers


----------



## Robostyle

PJVol said:


> CO offset(count/magnitude) is not the same as vcore offset in OC menu.


Now I'm totally confused. While I've seen spikes of increased Vcore reported via software, I can clearly see now that Vcore stays the same, both for single and all core load, as in stock, as with -30 CO offset and +100mV Vcore offset. ~1.3V for all core and 1.44-1.48 for single core.

Guess I confused 1.55V spike with ordinary max that zen 3 can achieve.


----------



## i9forever

Anyone here with C8 Impact? Is it good for memory overclocking?


----------



## Hale59

i9forever said:


> Anyone here with C8 Impact? Is it good for memory overclocking?


Have a look:




__





Memory Frequency overclocking records @ HWBOT


Overclocking records




hwbot.org


----------



## stimpy88

I just picked up a new Qnap 2.5Gb switch, and have connected it to the Realtek 2.5Gb adaptor of the motherboard... Jeez what a pandoras box this has opened! The adaptor is total garbage, and randomly resets whenever it feels like it. Sometimes it gets so bad that I have to totally power down the MB at the wall to make the network adaptor work again! I have tried many different driver versions, and no change.

Do any of you have any experience with the built-in Realtek adaptor on these boards? Any tricks to make it work?


----------



## i9forever

Hale59 said:


> Have a look:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Memory Frequency overclocking records @ HWBOT
> 
> 
> Overclocking records
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hwbot.org


Thanks a lot! Looks like the Impact is a beast! Now, considering the B550 Unify-X costs the same, which one to choose, hmm.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

stimpy88 said:


> I just picked up a new Qnap 2.5Gb switch, and have connected it to the Realtek 2.5Gb adaptor of the motherboard... Jeez what a pandoras box this has opened! The adaptor is total garbage, and randomly resets whenever it feels like it. Sometimes it gets so bad that I have to totally power down the MB at the wall to make the network adaptor work again! I have tried many different driver versions, and no change.
> 
> Do any of you have any experience with the built-in Realtek adaptor on these boards? Any tricks to make it work?


I have my Asus ax11000 connected to mine through the 2.5G gaming port of my router. I also have the port set to 2.5G full duplex in the adapter settings. Never ever had an issue with mine on any bios. Maybe it’s the switch which is causing your issue?


----------



## Robostyle

Is there any means to visualize v/f curve my cpu have? best would be afterburner like, worse if numbers only but its smth at least.


----------



## Re-lar-Kvothe

munternet said:


> Updated from 3501 to 3601 BIOS on my ROG Crosshair x570 Hero Wifi 5950x and have dropped from 4550 load to 4450 with the same PBO settings
> Do I need to go through the whole process again or should I change back to the 3501 BIOS (which is not on the website)
> Is there a better BIOS I should be using?
> Cheers


If you selected your favorite bios settings from the bios loading page on the tool tab after the 3601 update you need to go back to the extreme tweaker and advanced pages to make sure the settings are still as they were on 3501. There are some subtle changes between the two bios' which will change some settings between them.


----------



## stimpy88

Badgerslayer7 said:


> I have my Asus ax11000 connected to mine through the 2.5G gaming port of my router. I also have the port set to 2.5G full duplex in the adapter settings. Never ever had an issue with mine on any bios. Maybe it’s the switch which is causing your issue?


I had the same thought, but out of all my other devices, this computer is the only one that acts like this. I googled it, and there are so many complaints about this Realtek adaptor, its unreal. There is no cure from Realtek as yet.

I have found that turning the system off at the wall is the only way to get it working again. This is also an issue on early Intel 2.5Gb network chips, almost as if the two companies are selling the same chip...Strange.


----------



## flameb1rd

stimpy88 said:


> I just picked up a new Qnap 2.5Gb switch, and have connected it to the Realtek 2.5Gb adaptor of the motherboard... Jeez what a pandoras box this has opened! The adaptor is total garbage, and randomly resets whenever it feels like it. Sometimes it gets so bad that I have to totally power down the MB at the wall to make the network adaptor work again! I have tried many different driver versions, and no change.
> 
> Do any of you have any experience with the built-in Realtek adaptor on these boards? Any tricks to make it work?


This may or may not help you.

Download the latest version from here if you haven't already.
Disconnect from internet.
Uninstall and delete the existing driver from Device Manager.
Restart OS.
Install driver and disable any energy efficient/power saving modes in Advanced tab of driver properties.
Test and see if stable.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> Have you tried flashing the same 3601 over 3601 again and re-entering all your settings manually?
> 
> 3601 was the first bios where I experienced the settings all set wrongly when I loaded my saved profiles from 3501.


Hey amigo.
Do you mind posting your 3601 settings? I just moved to that BIOS and kind of having issues with my previous settings ( manually entered).
Thanks!


----------



## AStaUK

stimpy88 said:


> I just picked up a new Qnap 2.5Gb switch, and have connected it to the Realtek 2.5Gb adaptor of the motherboard... Jeez what a pandoras box this has opened! The adaptor is total garbage, and randomly resets whenever it feels like it. Sometimes it gets so bad that I have to totally power down the MB at the wall to make the network adaptor work again! I have tried many different driver versions, and no change.
> 
> Do any of you have any experience with the built-in Realtek adaptor on these boards? Any tricks to make it work?


I had something similar with my original CH8 on the Realtek port. I resolved it by downloading the latest drivers, removing the network cable, uninstalling and deleting the software for the network adapter and restarting. I then performed a reset of the adapter in settings and restarting, then finally installing the new drivers and connecting the network cable.

Back on the Intel adapter now, I found the drivers use slightly less resources than the Realtek ones.


----------



## kx11

Is it possible to fix Win11 TPM2 error?! i have the formula CHVIII


----------



## PWn3R

kx11 said:


> Is it possible to fix Win11 TPM2 error?! i have the formula CHVIII


Yes, turn on fTPM in UEFI


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> Hey amigo.
> Do you mind posting your 3601 settings? I just moved to that BIOS and kind of having issues with my previous settings ( manually entered).
> Thanks!


Hi Shaolin, here are my current 3601 settings.



Code:


[2021/07/04 15:10:04]
Ai Overclock Tuner [D.O.C.P. Standard]
D.O.C.P. [D.O.C.P DDR4-3200 14-14-14-34-1.35V]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3600MHz]
FCLK Frequency [1800MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Core VID [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
Performance Bias [Auto]
PBO Fmax Enhancer [Disabled]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Curve Optimizer [Auto]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [Auto]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
Trcdrd [15]
Trcdwr [8]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
Trc [42]
TrrdS [4]
TrrdL [6]
Tfaw [16]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [12]
Twr [12]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [4]
TwrwrScl [4]
Trfc [294]
Trfc2 [218]
Trfc4 [134]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [8]
Trdwr [8]
Twrrd [4]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [7]
TwrwrDd [7]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [5]
TrdrdDd [5]
Tcke [1]
ProcODT [43.6 ohm]
Cmd2T [2T]
Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
RttNom [RZQ/6]
RttWr [RZQ/3]
RttPark [RZQ/3]
MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
MemCkeSetup [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 2]
CPU Current Capability [120%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed CPU VRM Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Current Capability [100%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.09375]
DRAM Voltage [1.46000]
VDDG CCD Voltage Control [1.050]
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [1.050]
CLDO VDDP Voltage [0.980]
1.00V SB Voltage [1.01250]
1.8V PLL Voltage [1.80000]
TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Enabled]
PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
NX Mode [Enabled]
SVM Mode [Disabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
CCD Control [Auto]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
SMART Self Test [Auto]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
When system is in working state [All On]
Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [Stealth Mode]
Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Setup]
Intel LAN Controller [Auto]
ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Enabled]
Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Mode [GEN 4]
PCIEX16_2 Mode [GEN 3]
PCIEX1 Mode [GEN 3]
PCIEX16_3 Mode [GEN 3]
M.2_1 Link Mode [GEN 3]
M.2_2 Link Mode [GEN 3]
SB Link Mode [GEN 4]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Above 4G Decoding [Enabled]
Resize BAR Support [Auto]
SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
USB Flash Disk 1100 [Auto]
SanDisk uSD SDDR-289 1.00 [Auto]
SanDisk MS SDDR-289 1.00 [Auto]
SanDisk SD SDDR-289 1.00 [Auto]
SanDisk CF SDDR-289 1.00 [Auto]
USB Device Enable [Enabled]
U32G2_2 [Enabled]
U32G2_3 [Enabled]
U32G2_4 [Enabled]
U32G1_10 [Enabled]
U32G1_11 [Enabled]
USB12 [Enabled]
USB13 [Enabled]
U32G2_7 [Enabled]
U32G2_8 [Enabled]
U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Device [SATA6G_7: Samsung SSD 860 EVO 4TB]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
PCH Fan Speed [Monitor]
Flow Rate [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
CPU Fan Step Up [0 sec]
CPU Fan Step Down [0 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
High Amp Fan Profile [Manual]
High Amp Fan Upper Temperature [70]
High Amp Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
High Amp Fan Middle Temperature [50]
High Amp Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [42]
High Amp Fan Lower Temperature [30]
High Amp Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [20]
Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Above 4GB MMIO Limit [39bit (512GB)]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
Boot Logo Display [Auto]
Bootup NumLock State [On]
POST Delay Time [1 sec]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Disabled]
OS Type [Other OS]
AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
Flexkey [Reset]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [1]
Profile Name [Bios3601comp]
Save to Profile [6]
DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Enabled]
CPU Frequency [0]
CPU Voltage [0]
CCD Control [Auto]
Core control [Auto]
SMT Control [Auto]
Overclock [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
ECO Mode [Disable]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
PBO Limits [Manual]
PPT Limit [W] [200]
TDC Limit [A] [140]
EDC Limit [A] [160]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Curve Optimizer [Per Core]
Core 0 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [25]
Core 1 Curve Optimizer Sign [Positive]
Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [10]
Core 2 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [15]
Core 3 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [0]
Core 4 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [25]
Core 5 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [25]
Core 6 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 7 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [25]
Core 8 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [15]
Core 9 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [25]
Core 10 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 11 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [15]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [200MHz]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Manual]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [80]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
LCLK DPM [Auto]
LCLK DPM Enhanced PCIe Detection [Auto]
Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
Global C-state Control [Auto]
Power Supply Idle Control [Auto]
SEV ASID Count [Auto]
SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
Local APIC Mode [Auto]
ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
DRAM scrub time [Auto]
Poison scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Memory interleaving [Auto]
Memory interleaving size [Auto]
1TB remap [Auto]
DRAM map inversion [Auto]
ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
GMI encryption control [Auto]
xGMI encryption control [Auto]
CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
PcsCG control [Auto]
Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
Memory Clear [Auto]
Overclock [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Data Poisoning [Auto]
DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
RCD Parity [Auto]
DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
Write CRC Enable [Auto]
DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
TSME [Auto]
Data Scramble [Auto]
DFE Read Training [Auto]
FFE Write Training [Auto]
PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
BankGroupSwap [Auto]
BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
Address Hash Bank [Auto]
Address Hash CS [Auto]
Address Hash Rm [Auto]
SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
MBIST Enable [Disabled]
Pattern Select [PRBS]
Pattern Length(VMR) [6]
Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
IOMMU [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
FCLK Frequency [Auto]
SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
ACS Enable [Auto]
PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
cTDP Control [Auto]
EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
APBDIS [Auto]
DF Cstates [Auto]
CPPC [Auto]
CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
Early Link Speed [Auto]
Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
Preferred IO [Auto]
CV test [Auto]
Loopback Mode [Auto]
SRIS [Auto]
Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> Hi Shaolin, here are my current 3601 settings.
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> [2021/07/04 15:10:04]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [D.O.C.P. Standard]
> D.O.C.P. [D.O.C.P DDR4-3200 14-14-14-34-1.35V]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3600MHz]
> FCLK Frequency [1800MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> Core VID [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> Performance Bias [Auto]
> PBO Fmax Enhancer [Disabled]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> Curve Optimizer [Auto]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [Auto]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> Trcdrd [15]
> Trcdwr [8]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
> Trc [42]
> TrrdS [4]
> TrrdL [6]
> Tfaw [16]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [12]
> Twr [12]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [4]
> TwrwrScl [4]
> Trfc [294]
> Trfc2 [218]
> Trfc4 [134]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [8]
> Trdwr [8]
> Twrrd [4]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [7]
> TwrwrDd [7]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [5]
> TrdrdDd [5]
> Tcke [1]
> ProcODT [43.6 ohm]
> Cmd2T [2T]
> Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> RttNom [RZQ/6]
> RttWr [RZQ/3]
> RttPark [RZQ/3]
> MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
> Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 2]
> CPU Current Capability [120%]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed CPU VRM Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Current Capability [100%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
> CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
> Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.09375]
> DRAM Voltage [1.46000]
> VDDG CCD Voltage Control [1.050]
> VDDG IOD Voltage Control [1.050]
> CLDO VDDP Voltage [0.980]
> 1.00V SB Voltage [1.01250]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [1.80000]
> TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
> PSS Support [Enabled]
> PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
> NX Mode [Enabled]
> SVM Mode [Disabled]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
> SMART Self Test [Auto]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
> PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
> When system is in working state [All On]
> Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
> When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [Stealth Mode]
> Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Setup]
> Intel LAN Controller [Auto]
> ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
> Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Enabled]
> Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
> USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Mode [GEN 4]
> PCIEX16_2 Mode [GEN 3]
> PCIEX1 Mode [GEN 3]
> PCIEX16_3 Mode [GEN 3]
> M.2_1 Link Mode [GEN 3]
> M.2_2 Link Mode [GEN 3]
> SB Link Mode [GEN 4]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> Above 4G Decoding [Enabled]
> Resize BAR Support [Auto]
> SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
> Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> USB Flash Disk 1100 [Auto]
> SanDisk uSD SDDR-289 1.00 [Auto]
> SanDisk MS SDDR-289 1.00 [Auto]
> SanDisk SD SDDR-289 1.00 [Auto]
> SanDisk CF SDDR-289 1.00 [Auto]
> USB Device Enable [Enabled]
> U32G2_2 [Enabled]
> U32G2_3 [Enabled]
> U32G2_4 [Enabled]
> U32G1_10 [Enabled]
> U32G1_11 [Enabled]
> USB12 [Enabled]
> USB13 [Enabled]
> U32G2_7 [Enabled]
> U32G2_8 [Enabled]
> U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Device [SATA6G_7: Samsung SSD 860 EVO 4TB]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> VRM Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> PCH Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Flow Rate [Monitor]
> CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
> CPU Fan Step Up [0 sec]
> CPU Fan Step Down [0 sec]
> CPU Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
> High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
> High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
> High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
> High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> High Amp Fan Profile [Manual]
> High Amp Fan Upper Temperature [70]
> High Amp Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> High Amp Fan Middle Temperature [50]
> High Amp Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [42]
> High Amp Fan Lower Temperature [30]
> High Amp Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [20]
> Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> Above 4GB MMIO Limit [39bit (512GB)]
> Fast Boot [Enabled]
> Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
> Boot Logo Display [Auto]
> Bootup NumLock State [On]
> POST Delay Time [1 sec]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
> Launch CSM [Disabled]
> OS Type [Other OS]
> AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
> Flexkey [Reset]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> Load from Profile [1]
> Profile Name [Bios3601comp]
> Save to Profile [6]
> DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
> Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Enabled]
> CPU Frequency [0]
> CPU Voltage [0]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> Core control [Auto]
> SMT Control [Auto]
> Overclock [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
> ECO Mode [Disable]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
> PBO Limits [Manual]
> PPT Limit [W] [200]
> TDC Limit [A] [140]
> EDC Limit [A] [160]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> Curve Optimizer [Per Core]
> Core 0 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [25]
> Core 1 Curve Optimizer Sign [Positive]
> Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [10]
> Core 2 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [15]
> Core 3 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [0]
> Core 4 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [25]
> Core 5 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [25]
> Core 6 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 7 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [25]
> Core 8 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [15]
> Core 9 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [25]
> Core 10 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 11 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [15]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [200MHz]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Manual]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [80]
> LN2 Mode [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> LCLK DPM [Auto]
> LCLK DPM Enhanced PCIe Detection [Auto]
> Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
> L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> Global C-state Control [Auto]
> Power Supply Idle Control [Auto]
> SEV ASID Count [Auto]
> SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
> Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
> Local APIC Mode [Auto]
> ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
> MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
> PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
> Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
> Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
> IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
> DRAM scrub time [Auto]
> Poison scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> Memory interleaving [Auto]
> Memory interleaving size [Auto]
> 1TB remap [Auto]
> DRAM map inversion [Auto]
> ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
> GMI encryption control [Auto]
> xGMI encryption control [Auto]
> CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
> 4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> 3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
> PcsCG control [Auto]
> Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
> Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
> CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
> Memory Clear [Auto]
> Overclock [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
> DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Data Poisoning [Auto]
> DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
> RCD Parity [Auto]
> DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
> Write CRC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
> Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
> DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
> DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
> TSME [Auto]
> Data Scramble [Auto]
> DFE Read Training [Auto]
> FFE Write Training [Auto]
> PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
> MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
> CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
> Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
> BankGroupSwap [Auto]
> BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
> Address Hash Bank [Auto]
> Address Hash CS [Auto]
> Address Hash Rm [Auto]
> SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
> MBIST Enable [Disabled]
> Pattern Select [PRBS]
> Pattern Length(VMR) [6]
> Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
> Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
> Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> IOMMU [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> FCLK Frequency [Auto]
> SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
> UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
> LN2 Mode [Auto]
> ACS Enable [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
> PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
> cTDP Control [Auto]
> EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
> Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
> APBDIS [Auto]
> DF Cstates [Auto]
> CPPC [Auto]
> CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
> NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
> Early Link Speed [Auto]
> Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
> Preferred IO [Auto]
> CV test [Auto]
> Loopback Mode [Auto]
> SRIS [Auto]
> Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]


Thanks a ton, will try them now!


----------



## pounced

Hey guys, I have a Asus Crosshair Hero VIII Wifi with a 5900x. Using an EK 360MM AIO and running Motherboard PBO limits, 200 MHZ max boost and curve optimizer of -10 on all cores my CCD1 Temp hits 90C when using CB R23, My PPT hits 200W~ and my EDC will also hit 200 and TTP will stay 130. 

I'm adjusting the PBO settings under the AMD overclocking PBO tab and not the Extreme Tweaker PBO page. 

For a 5900x hitting 200 Watts of power usage is 90C on CCD1 too hot when using a 360mm AIO? 

Should I be modifying my PBO settings under the Extreme Tweaker tab or under the AMD Overclocking tab in the advanced settings?

And what is generally a good set of PBO limits to use, PPT/TTP/EDC?

Is -10 all core curve safe or should I start somewhere else?


----------



## CentroX

My 5800X is hitting 79C in R23 on a 240mm AIO (corsair h100i8,


----------



## munternet

I have reverted to 3501 again from 3601 BIOS on my ROG Crosshair x570 Hero Wifi 5950x and have recovered the 100MHz I lost with the same PBO settings.
I am wondering if they removed the 3501 from the official repository because of potential errors because of the different core power requirements?
My manual PBO core offsets range from -30 all the way to +05 on one core so that particular core may have errored on auto at stock with bios 3501 bios


----------



## Sleepycat

pounced said:


> Hey guys, I have a Asus Crosshair Hero VIII Wifi with a 5900x. Using an EK 360MM AIO and running Motherboard PBO limits, 200 MHZ max boost and curve optimizer of -10 on all cores my CCD1 Temp hits 90C when using CB R23, My PPT hits 200W~ and my EDC will also hit 200 and TTP will stay 130.
> 
> I'm adjusting the PBO settings under the AMD overclocking PBO tab and not the Extreme Tweaker PBO page.
> 
> For a 5900x hitting 200 Watts of power usage is 90C on CCD1 too hot when using a 360mm AIO?
> 
> Should I be modifying my PBO settings under the Extreme Tweaker tab or under the AMD Overclocking tab in the advanced settings?
> 
> And what is generally a good set of PBO limits to use, PPT/TTP/EDC?


I would recommend you try manual limits instead of motherboard limits. I'm using PPT 200W, TDC 140A and EDC 160A. Try these settings and see how much of a decrease you get with CB R23, and how much lower the temperature is.



> Is -10 all core curve safe or should I start somewhere else?


That's fine, but to get the most stable result, you want to test for the lowest stable curve you can achieve with AVX2 instructions using Corecycler.


----------



## pounced

Sleepycat said:


> I would recommend you try manual limits instead of motherboard limits. I'm using PPT 200W, TDC 140A and EDC 160A. Try these settings and see how much of a decrease you get with CB R23, and how much lower the temperature is.
> 
> 
> That's fine, but to get the most stable result, you want to test for the lowest stable curve you can achieve with AVX2 instructions using Corecycler.


Thanks for the advice! My max temp is now 85.4c after a 10 min stress and I scored 22554 which is about 500 more than my old score, getting clocks at 4600-4650 all core now.

Messed with my curves a little too after watching a few videos. best cores are on a -10 offset, my next 4 best are -15 and the others are -20 which is all of em on my second ccx.

I was kinda worried that my temps were hitting 90c under full load but I guess the EDC didn't need to be as high and also increasing the curves.

Also what cooler are you using to get all core 4.65 GHZ at 85c?


----------



## Sleepycat

pounced said:


> Thanks for the advice! My max temp is now 85.4c after a 10 min stress and I scored 22554 which is about 500 more than my old score, getting clocks at 4600-4650 all core now.
> 
> Messed with my curves a little too after watching a few videos. best cores are on a -10 offset, my next 4 best are -15 and the others are -20 which is all of em on my second ccx.
> 
> I was kinda worried that my temps were hitting 90c under full load but I guess the EDC didn't need to be as high and also increasing the curves.
> 
> Also what cooler are you using to get all core 4.65 GHZ at 85c?


Great to hear! Your score seems in line with mine at 4.575 GHz, so the temperature is still probably triggering some minor throttling here and there. 

For curve optimizer, just keep in mind that unless you run corecycler in AVX2 mode, it will be difficult to find a stable setting. Most of the time your games and software will run fine, but those that use more complex code can causes crashes. My system was WHEA free, and passed OCCT Extreme etc, but still crashed in FS2020. After adjusting curve optimizer based on Corecycler results, my crashes in FS2020 stopped.

My initial curve optimizer settings were as below, with cores 3 and 4 being my best. While this gave good benchmark results, passed OCCT extreme, passed Intelburntest, Testmem5, it still caused crashes under certain situations (FS2020, Nvidia driver crashes in Destiny 2).
-15, -15, [-10], [-10], -15, -15, -20, -20, -20, -20, -20, -20

After corecycler, these are my stable settings with AVX2, which has stopped all crashes and issues with my system.
-25, +10, [-15], [0], -25, -25, -30, -25, -15, -25, -30, -15

As you can see, there is a very big difference once you test for stability with corecycler.


----------



## Daylight_Invader

munternet said:


> I have reverted to 3501 again from 3601 BIOS on my ROG Crosshair x570 Hero Wifi 5950x and have recovered the 100MHz I lost with the same PBO settings.
> I am wondering if they removed the 3501 from the official repository because of potential errors because of the different core power requirements?
> My manual PBO core offsets range from -30 all the way to +05 on one core so that particular core may have errored on auto at stock with bios 3501 bios


I have wondered about this too. I think I might go back to 3402 as to be honest I did not see a huge change between 3402 and 3501. 3501 has totally broken power profiles for sleep etc, so maybe 3402 is best for me at this stage.


----------



## heptilion

Sleepycat said:


> Great to hear! Your score seems in line with mine at 4.575 GHz, so the temperature is still probably triggering some minor throttling here and there.
> 
> For curve optimizer, just keep in mind that unless you run corecycler in AVX2 mode, it will be difficult to find a stable setting. Most of the time your games and software will run fine, but those that use more complex code can causes crashes. My system was WHEA free, and passed OCCT Extreme etc, but still crashed in FS2020. After adjusting curve optimizer based on Corecycler results, my crashes in FS2020 stopped.
> 
> My initial curve optimizer settings were as below, with cores 3 and 4 being my best. While this gave good benchmark results, passed OCCT extreme, passed Intelburntest, Testmem5, it still caused crashes under certain situations (FS2020, Nvidia driver crashes in Destiny 2).
> -15, -15, [-10], [-10], -15, -15, -20, -20, -20, -20, -20, -20
> 
> After corecycler, these are my stable settings with AVX2, which has stopped all crashes and issues with my system.
> -25, +10, [-15], [0], -25, -25, -30, -25, -15, -25, -30, -15
> 
> As you can see, there is a very big difference once you test for stability with corecycler.


In corecycler AVX2 which one did you test? Small , large, Huge etc.. and how many minutes per core?


----------



## Sleepycat

heptilion said:


> In corecycler AVX2 which one did you test? Small , large, Huge etc.. and how many minutes per core?


I used small, as that tends to isolate the test to the CPU cache and not muddle the results with memory stability.

Default is 6 minutes, but you can edit the config file to start with shorter time per core to weed out gross instabilities. Once you pass the shorter test, my recommendation is to set it back to default to let it test for longer.


----------



## munternet

I'm currently part way through setting up PBO and testing with Corecycler. 5950x Hardware in my sig
There seems to be a big difference between my best and worst cores as far as voltage offset goes. Is this normal?

So far this is what I have

Scalar = 1
Boost clock = 0
0 = -15
1 = -12
2 = -10
3 = *+05*
4 = -15
5 = -02
6 = -25
7 = -20
8 = -22
9 = -27
10 = -27
11 = -22
12 = *-30*
13 = *-30*
14 = -27
15 = -25

Screenshot of HWinfo is with Cinebench running















It has been running like clockwork at these settings with no WHEA errors, reboots or BFV dropouts (played daily for a few hours) or any problems at all for the past few weeks
Being new to AMD I'm trying to get familiar with the processes and limits
Is there something obvious I'm doing wrong or something I can improve on?
Cheers


----------



## Daylight_Invader

Sleepycat said:


> Great to hear! Your score seems in line with mine at 4.575 GHz, so the temperature is still probably triggering some minor throttling here and there.
> 
> For curve optimizer, just keep in mind that unless you run corecycler in AVX2 mode, it will be difficult to find a stable setting. Most of the time your games and software will run fine, but those that use more complex code can causes crashes. My system was WHEA free, and passed OCCT Extreme etc, but still crashed in FS2020. After adjusting curve optimizer based on Corecycler results, my crashes in FS2020 stopped.
> 
> My initial curve optimizer settings were as below, with cores 3 and 4 being my best. While this gave good benchmark results, passed OCCT extreme, passed Intelburntest, Testmem5, it still caused crashes under certain situations (FS2020, Nvidia driver crashes in Destiny 2).
> -15, -15, [-10], [-10], -15, -15, -20, -20, -20, -20, -20, -20
> 
> After corecycler, these are my stable settings with AVX2, which has stopped all crashes and issues with my system.
> -25, +10, [-15], [0], -25, -25, -30, -25, -15, -25, -30, -15
> 
> As you can see, there is a very big difference once you test for stability with corecycler.


Very interesting.

Do you have a full guide on how to go about doing testing and optimising, as I don't think I have seen anything perfect out there using OCCT for this (I do own a copy of OCCT). I largely just played around and chose a negative offset for most cores where I had full stability and with a bit of tweaking worked out that I needed less of a negative offset for the cores that were doing more of the heavy lifting.


----------



## maxrealliti

kx11 said:


> Is it possible to fix Win11 TPM2 error?! i have the formula CHVIII


everything is solved in bios and there is no problem, at least 2000 of the ryzen line


----------



## Sleepycat

munternet said:


> I'm currently part way through setting up PBO and testing with Corecycler. 5950x Hardware in my sig
> There seems to be a big difference between my best and worst cores as far as voltage offset goes. Is this normal?
> 
> So far this is what I have
> 
> Scalar = 1
> Boost clock = 0
> 0 = -15
> 1 = -12
> 2 = -10
> 3 = *+05*
> 4 = -15
> 5 = -02
> 6 = -25
> 7 = -20
> 8 = -22
> 9 = -27
> 10 = -27
> 11 = -22
> 12 = *-30*
> 13 = *-30*
> 14 = -27
> 15 = -25
> 
> Screenshot of HWinfo is with Cinebench running
> View attachment 2516952
> 
> View attachment 2516953
> 
> 
> It has been running like clockwork at these settings with no WHEA errors, reboots or BFV dropouts (played daily for a few hours) or any problems at all for the past few weeks
> Being new to AMD I'm trying to get familiar with the processes and limits
> Is there something obvious I'm doing wrong or something I can improve on?
> Cheers


The difference in Curve Optimizer settings is normal. From what I understand, CCX1 is selected based on the highest clock achievable, and usually with much higher voltages. CCX2 is selected based on a lower voltage level to achieve moderate clock speeds. You can see mine in the post above is similar to yours. I have a CCX1 core needing positive offset, whereas CCX2 has cores stable with even -30.

As a result, CCX2 can run the same moderate clock speeds as CCX1 and sometimes with a lower voltage than CCX1. On my CPU, this would be about 4.55 to 4.6GHz (single and all core loads). But when you start to push upper clock limits (I tested 4.9 to 4.95GHz single cores), then CCX1 achieves them with higher voltages, whereas CCX2 can't reach them with stability, even with high voltages.


----------



## Sleepycat

Daylight_Invader said:


> Very interesting.
> 
> Do you have a full guide on how to go about doing testing and optimising, as I don't think I have seen anything perfect out there using OCCT for this (I do own a copy of OCCT). I largely just played around and chose a negative offset for most cores where I had full stability and with a bit of tweaking worked out that I needed less of a negative offset for the cores that were doing more of the heavy lifting.


I followed the guide that the creator of Corecycler provided. CoreCycler - tool for testing Curve Optimizer settings

I didn't find OCCT reliable enough to pick out the instabilities, eventhough it has a single core test mode. I used corecycler, running it with small, AVX2 and time cycle of 3 minutes. There is a setting in it which skips cores that have failed the easier early cycles so it saves time. You let it run for a few hours and then adjust your curve offset based on the cores that failed. Rinse and repeat.

Once you reach a stable curve optimiser setting, you set it to run a cycle time of 6 minutes and then let it go about its work one last time. It might or might not find a failure, but at least you can reduce the time taken with the initial 3 minute cycles.


----------



## Reikoji

So I decided to test out my 5950x with just 200 on the boost clock override, and found changing AMD overclocking Precision boost overdrive from Advanced back to Auto doesnt actually change Curve optimizer settings back to auto as well. Blue screening on windows boot until i re-enabled it, changed CO back to auto, and saved. Settings application from that menu needs some work.

After getting it all back to auto, 200 on the boost clock override had the Frequency Limit - Global showing increases, the there wasn't any change in effective frequency. I've noticed with the 5950x, it doesnt even change the voltage used. With my 5800x, voltage for both single and allcore increase along with the effective frequencies gained, without resorting to CO or voltage offsets. I wonder is it functioning properly with the 5950x and not just causing problems?

Just setting boost override back to 0 now, and CO to -20 for now, its increased the effective clock to peak at 4991mhz. Having the Boost override at 50 didn't even make a change in effective frequency, voltage, or single core score of R20.


----------



## Deluxe1

Can anyone with a SN850 run a crystaldiskmark benchmark and post their results please, I've got 2 1TB's one in the slot under the cpu and other in the pcie slot. I just can't get the 4k scores as high as when I first got the drives or as high as I see others with.


----------



## dymONE

SN850 1TB - direct CPU slot


----------



## Deluxe1

dymONE said:


> View attachment 2517178
> 
> 
> SN850 1TB - direct CPU slot


Thanks, I'm running the latest firmware on them, the latest bios and latest drivers but at a loss as to why.

Do I need any specific setting in my bios?


----------



## shaolin95

Deluxe1 said:


> Thanks, I'm running the latest firmware on them, the latest bios and latest drivers but at a loss as to why.
> 
> Do I need any specific setting in my bios?


oh wow so glad you brought this up cause if you think yours is bad, mine is pathetic. What happened to my drive??


----------



## Deluxe1

shaolin95 said:


> oh wow so glad you brought this up cause if you think yours is bad, mine is pathetic. What happened to my drive??
> View attachment 2517195


I have a 980 Pro 1TB and the 4k results are well low on that too. I don't think the drives are faulty just something is holding them back.



Try yours on the same setting I'm using, default profile read&write+mix. In the settings tab click on nvme.


----------



## shaolin95

Deluxe1 said:


> I have a 980 Pro 1TB and the 4k results are well low on that too. I don't think the drives are faulty just something is holding them back.
> 
> 
> 
> Try yours on the same setting I'm using, default profile read&write+mix. In the settings tab click on nvme.


I am looking at the WD Dashboard app for this drive. Dont see that profile setting option so far.
Thanks


----------



## Deluxe1

shaolin95 said:


> I am looking at the WD Dashboard app for this drive. Dont see that profile setting option so far.
> Thanks


The profile setting in the crystaldiskmark.


----------



## shaolin95

Deluxe1 said:


> The profile setting in the crystaldiskmark.


Well it is better but still low though :/








This is the WD_BLACK SN850 1TB


----------



## Deluxe1

shaolin95 said:


> Well it is better but still low though :/
> View attachment 2517202
> 
> This is the WD_BLACK SN850 1TB


Did you update to the latest firmware from the wd dashboard which was released yesterday?


----------



## shaolin95

Deluxe1 said:


> Did you update to the latest firmware from the wd dashboard which was released yesterday?


Yep did that before running the tests today and did a TRIM as well just in case.
Wonder if its something else in my system.


----------



## shaolin95

shaolin95 said:


> Yep did that before running the tests today and did a TRIM as well just in case.
> Wonder if its something else in my system.


My old

INLAND 1TB I PREMIUM NVME


Scores low too:








Not sure if that is normal for THAT drive though. But make some wonder if its some BIOS setting or windows...


----------



## Deluxe1

shaolin95 said:


> My old
> 
> INLAND 1TB I PREMIUM NVME
> 
> 
> Scores low too:
> View attachment 2517205
> 
> Not sure if that is normal for THAT drive though. But make some wonder if its some BIOS setting or windows...


This was a benchmark from last december with the same drives and the 4k scores are fine here so no idea what's happened since...


----------



## mongoled

How are you peeps getting rediculously high RND4K Q32T16 scores ????

These are far far higher than what is shown in the majority of online reviews.

Below is from my workstation OS that is running AV and many background tasks.

When I run from a "clean" OS read is around 880-900 and write 580-600










** EDIT **
OK, now I follow, didnt understand that there is an "nvme" mode


----------



## Deluxe1

mongoled said:


> How are you peeps getting rediculously high RND4K Q32T16 scores ????
> 
> These are far far higher than what is shown in the majority of online reviews.
> 
> Below is from my workstation OS that is running AV and many background tasks.
> 
> When I run from a "clean" OS read is around 880-900 and write 580-600
> 
> View attachment 2517210


Change to default profile read&write+mix. In the settings tab click on nvme then run it again.


----------



## asavah

c8h (3601), 5900x, samsung 980 pro 1TB (pcie 4.0)
read/write + mix, nvme ssd


----------



## kx11

Sabrent SB-RKT4P-2TB connected to a PCI4 slot using HIGHPOINT ssd7505















Edit: updated to 8.0.4


----------



## Daylight_Invader

I also have an SN850. Using the NVME settings I get the following results:


----------



## PWn3R

Deluxe1 said:


> I have a 980 Pro 1TB and the 4k results are well low on that too. I don't think the drives are faulty just something is holding them back.
> 
> 
> 
> Try yours on the same setting I'm using, default profile read&write+mix. In the settings tab click on nvme.


These are roughly what I got on my 2TB 980 pro. I think something is slowing it down.


----------



## mongoled

Deluxe1 said:


> Change to default profile read&write+mix. In the settings tab click on nvme then run it again.


Thanks for that, I was not aware of "nvme" mode 

Here are my results, first one is my work OS which you can consider "dirty" and the second is from my bench OS which also has AV disabled.

Work OS is installed on the SN850, while bench OS is installed on a different nvme

Work OS









Bench OS


----------



## safedisk

*ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series BETA BIOS 3702 UPDATE*

1. ComboPIv2_1203_PatchA (Before ver same)
2. Some bug fixes

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 3702

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 3702

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 3702

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 3702

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 3702


----------



## JoneKone

Nice change log... again nobody will know what it means. And the frantic reverse engineering can start.


----------



## Daylight_Invader

JoneKone said:


> Nice change log... again nobody will know what it means. And the frantic reverse engineering can start.





JoneKone said:


> Nice change log... again nobody will know what it means. And the frantic reverse engineering can start.


I don't think we will ever get more than that. None of the MB vendors ever give much away.


----------



## Daylight_Invader

safedisk said:


> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series BETA BIOS 3702 UPDATE*
> 
> 1. ComboPIv2_1203_PatchA (Before ver same)
> 2. Some bug fixes
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 3702
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 3702
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 3702
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 3702
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 3702


Thanks Safedisk. Sadly this is yet another version which refuses to boot when I enable DOCP. Every single version of your BIOS versions work except 3702 and 3601. Seem to hate my Crucial Ballistix 3600 CL16 memory (2 x 32GB DIMMS).

Previous bios (3601) used to end the post attempt on code 07. This (3702) seems more random, but often ends on code 64. Very odd!

I should finally add that whilst I realise my memory is not on the QVL, I've never had a problem until 3601.


----------



## jlodvo




----------



## JoneKone

Daylight_Invader said:


> I don't think we will ever get more than that. None of the MB vendors ever give much away.


I agree and know, but I was shaming them, and to be honest shaming them is the right thing to do here. Even if it results them not posting new biosses here to test. I mean who are we to test their random changes and then quessing what happened. We don't ow them anything they ow us, we bought the boards.


----------



## Daylight_Invader

JoneKone said:


> I agree and know, but I was shaming them, and to be honest shaming them is the right thing to do here. Even if it results them not posting new biosses here to test. I mean who are we to test their random changes and then quessing what happened. We don't ow them anything they ow us, we bought the boards.


To be fair to safedisk, at least he is one of the good guys that actually posts pre-release betas here from the Asus BIOS development team. I'd prefer not to alienate these guys as we are lucky to get this level of access.


----------



## bastian

safedisk said:


> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series BETA BIOS 3702 UPDATE*
> 
> 1. ComboPIv2_1203_PatchA (Before ver same)
> 2. Some bug fixes
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 3702
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 3702
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 3702
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 3702
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 3702


Why no AGESA 1.2.0.3b ?


----------



## GRABibus

safedisk said:


> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series BETA BIOS 3702 UPDATE*
> 
> 1. ComboPIv2_1203_PatchA (Before ver same)
> 2. Some bug fixes
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 3702
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 3702
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 3702
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 3702
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 3702


I currently keep the 3302


----------



## shaolin95

JoneKone said:


> Nice change log... again nobody will know what it means. And the frantic reverse engineering can start.


He is doing us a big favor posting these betas early for us so instead of whining about change logs, just do NOT use them if that is your choice.


----------



## shaolin95

mongoled said:


> Thanks for that, I was not aware of "nvme" mode
> 
> Here are my results, first one is my work OS which you can consider "dirty" and the second is from my bench OS which also has AV disabled.
> 
> Work OS is installed on the SN850, while bench OS is installed on a different nvme
> 
> Work OS
> View attachment 2517274
> 
> 
> Bench OS
> View attachment 2517275


Dang, I need to find out what is going on with my system then :/


----------



## bastian

I don't care about beta status, but what does kinda raise a question mark for me is why we are being given old AGESA patches. Both MSI and Gigabyte are weeks ahead of ASUS with the latest patches from AMD.


----------



## RHBH

bastian said:


> I don't care about beta status, but what does kinda raise a question mark for me is why we are being given old AGESA patches. Both MSI and Gigabyte are weeks ahead of ASUS with the latest patches from AMD.


They might be focusing work hours for new products bios.


----------



## bastian

RHBH said:


> They might be focusing work hours for new products bios.


I realize they have a lot of products to support and not a big team, but as I understand it the AGESA patches should be easy to implement in BIOS updates.


----------



## shaolin95

jlodvo said:


> View attachment 2517286


Not sure if it matters but which Chipset drivers are you running? I am trying to figure out why the big discrepancy between some of us


----------



## Deluxe1

shaolin95 said:


> Not sure if it matters but which Chipset drivers are you running? I am trying to figure out why the big discrepancy between some of us


I just tried some older drivers from late last year when I was getting the correct scores but it just gave me the lower scores...


----------



## xeizo

Bios 3702, performance seems OK! Boost is as good as before, and it's a _very_ hot summer here.

Great is, this is the first bios that "remembered" the right Curve Optimizer settings from a saved 3601 profile on a USB stick. Can be a time saver.

However, every new bios lately have had memory different configured, I had to change RttNomm, ClkDrvStr and VDIMM to even boot at 3800MHz memory. And the previous setting hadn't had a single glitch since 3601 was previewed, now it wouldn't boot. Anyway, I kinda expected this behavior and was able to work around it.

Now lets see how this bios holds up during the coming days. Thanks for the preview!


----------



## Reikoji

I think one of the bug fixes might be related to cpu voltage. 3602 my single core voltage liked to be below more around 1.45, usually below before setting a voltage offset. all-core liked to be 1.25v before offset. Offset never really increased the set voltage by the desired offsert either, always slightly less.

with 3702, single core voltage is just below 1.47v while all core has bumped up to 1.3v before any offsets. partucularly handy for curve optimizer stability. Tho i am positive about the all core voltage increase, i will double check the single core by flashing back to 3602 when i get home. fairly sure theres been a slight increase tho.

5950x, Formula


----------



## xeizo

Reikoji said:


> I think one of the bug fixes might be related to cpu voltage. 3602 my single core voltage liked to be below more around 1.45, usually below before setting a voltage offset. all-core liked to be 1.25v before offset. Offset never really increased the set voltage by the desired offsert either, always slightly less.
> 
> with 3702, single core voltage is just below 1.47v while all core has bumped up to 1.3v before any offsets. partucularly handy for curve optimizer stability.
> 
> 5950x, Formula


Maybe not so stable, just had my first idle reboot in _several_months_! Judging from that, 3501/3601 was more stable, also booth booted with a more wide selection of memory settings. This one was finicky.

Same Curve Optimizer, only thing I changed was the three aforementioned memory settings


----------



## asavah

For me 3702 is more stable so far, I was able to push my crappy bronze 5900x from CO -15, -15, -30* to -20, -20, -30* without any issues.
3601 was prone to idle reboots at -20, -20, -30* with this CPU.
2hrs of corecycler (small, avx2) + OCCT + normal usage - rock solid so far, time will tell.
However I get slightly lower CB20 mt score 8611 (3702) vs 8639 (3601) with the same settings, all the settings were dialed in manually just in case.


----------



## Reikoji

xeizo said:


> Maybe not so stable, just had my first idle reboot in _several_months_! Judging from that, 3501/3601 was more stable, also booth booted with a more wide selection of memory settings. This one was finicky.
> 
> Same Curve Optimizer, only thing I changed was the three aforementioned memory settings


This one accepted all my prior settings.



asavah said:


> For me 3702 is more stable so far, I was able to push my crappy bronze 5900x from CO -15, -15, -30* to -20, -20, -30* without any issues.
> 3601 was prone to idle reboots at -20, -20, -30* with this CPU.
> 2hrs of corecycler (small, avx2) + OCCT + normal usage - rock solid so far, time will tell.
> However I get slightly lower CB20 mt score 8611 (3702) vs 8639 (3601) with the same settings, all the settings were dialed in manually just in case.


For me, for now, i went from -10 all to -15 all. Increased all core effective frequency from ~ 4450 to ~ 4550. Single core to ~ 4965. This is currently bringing me to 11413 multi and 639 single in R20 (with some background tasks running)


On a side note, ive noticed the act of setting just PBO to enabled or manual reduces single core effective frequencies until you bring them back up with CO. i believe that was the case with 3602 as well, tho i didnt pinpoint the cause then. With the system totally default, single core effective frequency with 3602 maxxed just at 4899mhz (grr), but with 3702, it has reached 4913mhz. the act of enabling pbo for either stripped off roughly 100mhz from the single core boost effective frequency.

Boost clock override still doest do anything, and its likely because the 5950x is already floating at the max set voltage for single core. My 5800x ran single core with less set voltage, roughly 1.43v. enabling a 200mhz overide brought that uo to the 1.48 i expected, anlong with the effective frequency increases. That one sucked at fclk tho.


----------



## asavah

Reikoji said:


> Boost clock override still doest do anything, and its likely because the 5950x is already floating at the max set voltage for single core.


Same here. 0, 200 or anything in between doesn't seem to matter. Best cores just won't go past ~4900 effective clock.
Temp stays at 60C when running CB20 single threaded with pinned affinity.


----------



## Robostyle

I‘ve just removed aourmory, aura and iCUE from the os cause this apps caused….COIL WHINE, somewhere in socket/lower vrm shoulder; rythmical I might say, and I would easily hear it even with all my fans. 
So much for the trash rgb utility…

Like, *** was that? I know leds and rgb is trash of the trash of DIY PC, but to cause coil whine?


----------



## Sleepycat

bastian said:


> I don't care about beta status, but what does kinda raise a question mark for me is why we are being given old AGESA patches. Both MSI and Gigabyte are weeks ahead of ASUS with the latest patches from AMD.


Gigabyte is still on AGESA 1.2.0.2. So not sure where you are getting your view on "weeks ahead on the latest AMD patches" from.

MSI is ahead as they are say that they are using 1.2.0.3.b compared to Asus on 1.2.0.3a. But after flashing, when you check the version in Aida64, it still shows as 1.2.0.3.a! So who knows if this patch b is actually implemented in the MSI firmware, but I don't think Asus is behind the other motherboard vendors.

Edit: The claimed USB fixes with 1.2.0.3.b on the MSI bios do not work:


Code:


https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/o4or1w/msi_releases_agesa_1203b_bios_for_x570b550_boards/


----------



## Sleepycat

Daylight_Invader said:


> Thanks Safedisk. Sadly this is yet another version which refuses to boot when I enable DOCP. Every single version of your BIOS versions work except 3702 and 3601. Seem to hate my Crucial Ballistix 3600 CL16 memory (2 x 32GB DIMMS).
> 
> Previous bios (3601) used to end the post attempt on code 07. This (3702) seems more random, but often ends on code 64. Very odd!
> 
> I should finally add that whilst I realise my memory is not on the QVL, I've never had a problem until 3601.


There might be a DRAM timing setting which is marginal and does not stabilize with additional voltage. Do you have a copy of your Zentimings to share?


----------



## Sleepycat

Reikoji said:


> I think one of the bug fixes might be related to cpu voltage. 3602 my single core voltage liked to be below more around 1.45, usually below before setting a voltage offset. all-core liked to be 1.25v before offset. Offset never really increased the set voltage by the desired offsert either, always slightly less.
> 
> with 3702, single core voltage is just below 1.47v while all core has bumped up to 1.3v before any offsets. partucularly handy for curve optimizer stability. Tho i am positive about the all core voltage increase, i will double check the single core by flashing back to 3602 when i get home. fairly sure theres been a slight increase tho.
> 
> 5950x, Formula


It sounds like the new bios increases core voltages to address instabilities with AVX2 code. It should help really well with those crash to desktop reports with software like FS2020, Doom etc.


----------



## xeizo

Sleepycat said:


> Gigabyte is still on AGESA 1.2.0.2. So not sure where you are getting your view on "weeks ahead on the latest AMD patches" from.
> 
> MSI is ahead as they are say that they are using 1.2.0.3.b compared to Asus on 1.2.0.3a. But after flashing, when you check the version in Aida64, it still shows as 1.2.0.3.a! So who knows if this patch b is actually implemented in the MSI firmware, but I don't think Asus is behind the other motherboard vendors.


Asus do use 1.2.0.3b though, I have it on my B550-F, has been very stable but with a 3900X


----------



## Sleepycat

xeizo said:


> Maybe not so stable, just had my first idle reboot in _several_months_! Judging from that, 3501/3601 was more stable, also booth booted with a more wide selection of memory settings. This one was finicky.
> 
> Same Curve Optimizer, only thing I changed was the three aforementioned memory settings


Idle reboot is triggered by idle voltage though. It can be due to the CPU idle voltage being too low, or the PSU going to sleep mode due to the ATX power draw being too low. One thing you can test is the Power Supply Idle Control setting in bios, which can help prevent your PSU from going to sleep when it shouldn't. Otherwise, I've also used Corecycler to detect AVX2 failures and set using Curve Optimizer, which results in a higher voltage (compared to SSE tests) and also avoid idle reboots.




xeizo said:


> Asus do use 1.2.0.3b though, I have it on my B550-F, has been very stable but with a 3900X


Cool, any USB issues with your B550-F system?


----------



## Sleepycat

safedisk said:


> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series BETA BIOS 3702 UPDATE*
> 
> 1. ComboPIv2_1203_PatchA (Before ver same)
> 2. Some bug fixes
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 3702
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 3702
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 3702
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 3702
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 3702


Thanks safedisk! I just flashed it in. Running fine, about to start stability testing. I noticed at first reboot, it needed to retrain memory once. So there is something in 3702 that is more sensitive to timings (mine is tight for 4x16GB B-die)


----------



## kx11

Tested the 3702 bios with 3dmark cpu benchmark










I scored 0 in CPU Profile


AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com





runs fine


----------



## Theo164

I need some help, just got a new WD SN850 1TB @ M.2_1 socket
Interface speed is only gen4 x 2lanes @ about 50% performance


----------



## xeizo

Sleepycat said:


> any USB issues with your B550-F system?


No, I have not had USB issues with any of my AM4 systems, I have four systems all running on at least AGESA 1.2.0.3A

I use USB keyboard, mouse, midi controllers, USB mixer, audio interfaces, usb switch etc everything works fine


----------



## Daylight_Invader

Theo164 said:


> I need some help, just got a new WD SN850 1TB @ M.2_1 socket
> Interface speed is only gen4 x 2lanes @ about 50% performance


Move to other slot and compare. I don’t know your specific board, but one slot is via chipset and the other direct. Initially I had them around the wrong way round and strangely on my board the slots were in the opposite configuration than I expected.


----------



## Theo164

Board is C8H, NVMe is on the top slot close to the CPU


----------



## Daylight_Invader

Theo164 said:


> Board is C8H, NVMe is on the top slot close to the CPU


On my impact, the top slot is actually the chipset and bottom the direct. Did not realise until I tested and then read up in the manual.

I cannot speak for all other C8H boards.


----------



## Theo164

For C8H top slot is the cpu direct lines and bottom is the X570 chipset



http://imgur.com/wbXtOYP


----------



## Daylight_Invader

Theo164 said:


> For C8H top slot is the cpu direct lines and bottom is the X570 chipset
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/wbXtOYP


You have a different setup as mine are in a SODIMM slot. 

On the Impact boards, the M2_1 is the chipset slot and M2_2 the processor slot. Yes, it’s totally counterintuitive!


----------



## jomama22

JoneKone said:


> I agree and know, but I was shaming them, and to be honest shaming them is the right thing to do here. Even if it results them not posting new biosses here to test. I mean who are we to test their random changes and then quessing what happened. We don't ow them anything they ow us, we bought the boards.


You realize how naive of logic that is yeah? You don't want to test it, don't d/l it, end of story.

You can just stick to d/l from their website, which is still on 3601. 

An no, they don't owe you anything either. Grow up.


----------



## jlodvo

shaolin95 said:


> Not sure if it matters but which Chipset drivers are you running? I am trying to figure out why the big discrepancy between some of us


i donloaded the chipset drivers from amd site not the one from asus, its the latest


----------



## anr11

Theo164 said:


> I need some help, just got a new WD SN850 1TB @ M.2_1 socket
> Interface speed is only gen4 x 2lanes @ about 50% performance


I had an article pop up in my news feed recently that stated WD is aware of the problem and will be releasing a firmware to fix it soon. It's a problem with these specific drives when running on x570 boards. I don't have a link but is probably easy enough to find if you Google it.


----------



## Daylight_Invader

anr11 said:


> I had an article pop up in my news feed recently that stated WD is aware of the problem and will be releasing a firmware to fix it soon. It's a problem with these specific drives when running on x570 boards. I don't have a link but is probably easy enough to find if you Google it.


That firmware has already been released.

Regardless, one should always put their highest performance drive connected to the processor PCIE lanes rather than chipset. The chipset is of course shared bandwidth and won't necessarily be able to always reach highest performance in comparison to the dedicated link.


----------



## sonixmon

sonixmon said:


> So I played around some more this past weekend with the 1900mhz issue. Still not change @1900 but 1933 posts with errors etc.1966 is way more stable but my Ram starts to become the issue, Latency way up and not quite stable.
> 
> I bit the bullet and got a 5900x coming, it may or may not make a difference (silicone lottery) but it was what I was originally trying to get back in Dec./Jan but only could find a 5800x which I will sell for what I can get. Hopefully I get lucky with this one!


Well my 5900x came in late last week but I had company until this afternoon so I couldn't get it installed until today. Now I am glad I did for sure, I loaded my old profile and immediately changed to 3800 and 1900 flck, with all CPU voltages on auto, posted right away and booted into windows fine! Now to run some tests etc but very happy with this so far! Might try to push to my memory max of 3866 for fun! Latency is just 2 ns slower than the fastest I have seen 62.7 but not sure if Bloatware affecting that.


----------



## xeizo

sonixmon said:


> Well my 5900x came in late last week but I had company until this afternoon so I couldn't get it installed until today. Now I am glad I did for sure, I loaded my old profile and immediately changed to 3800 and 1900 flck, with all CPU voltages on auto, posted right away and booted into windows fine! Now to run some tests etc but very happy with this so far! Might try to push to my memory max of 3866 for fun! Latency is just 2 ns slower than the fastest I have seen 62.7 but not sure if Bloatware affecting that.
> View attachment 2517428


Nice rig, but "the fastest"? I have 55ns latency in AIDA64 at the same frequency, and afaik 55ns is nothing special. B-Die, granted, but shouldn't be such large difference.


----------



## Pastrami King

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2512302
> 
> 
> If the motherboard is a dark hero
> I think it is efficient to use the PBO and Dynamic OC features
> Depending on the CPU and settings, a high single frequency can be obtained My setting single 5250 run


First and foremost: thank you, safedisk.

Too much hate for a gentleman who low-key shared the recipe for fast single-core boost clocks using the Dark Hero or any other iteration of the Crosshair VIII, though no one noticed (or at least appeared to notice).

A once-dismissed feature is now working properly. This feature (a) likely works properly in BIOS version 3601 and (b) currently works properly in BIOS version 3701 (Beta). You can infer which feature is now working from Safedisk's HWiNFO screenshot.

Though I am still tuning, here are some screenshots of my own machine's recent/current performance using what I believe to be safedisk's recipe:


----------



## sonixmon

xeizo said:


> Nice rig, but "the fastest"? I have 55ns latency in AIDA64 at the same frequency, and afaik 55ns is nothing special. B-Die, granted, but shouldn't be such large difference.


Thank you and correction, I meant the fastest I have seen on my Rig with various configurations. I still believe it to be some of the Bloatware, I am forced to use Armoury Crate for RGB and iCUE for my headphones. Both are pretty bad and probably something to do with my occasional lag spikes though they are better since getting 3601.

Definitely a noticeable difference in smoothness with the little bump in fclk and new CPU.


----------



## GRABibus

sonixmon said:


> Well my 5900x came in late last week but I had company until this afternoon so I couldn't get it installed until today. Now I am glad I did for sure, I loaded my old profile and immediately changed to 3800 and 1900 flck, with all CPU voltages on auto, posted right away and booted into windows fine! Now to run some tests etc but very happy with this so far! Might try to push to my memory max of 3866 for fun! Latency is just 2 ns slower than the fastest I have seen 62.7 but not sure if Bloatware affecting that.
> View attachment 2517428


take a look at windows event viewer if you don’t get « WHEA 19 » warnings with 3800/1900 and voltages on auto
Also at 3866…


----------



## xeizo

I think I understand now why I got a idle reboot with 3702 and never had one on 3501/3601, minimum vcore voltage using PBO is now lower than I have ever seen before. All the way down to 0.248V! Earlier bioses was 0.8-0.9V at the lowest as far as I recall. No wonder the PC could suddenly shut off. I haven't tried the PSU Idle Current setting in the bios yet, it's still on Auto. Possibly it could affect things. I have a Corsair RM850x 2019.

I have a distant memory of early bioses had the same ultra low idle voltage, but it went away after a few updates.

I've only had one reboot thus far though.

The two CCD:s now idles at 2.5W, very low, I guess Asus implemented some sort of Energy saver that was absent before. As said, I use the same settings cross bios. The SOC still draws 16W and the full package 28W in idle, so maybe not that big of a saver, but still a saver.


----------



## RHBH

Samsung 980 PRO 2TB (M2_1, PCI-E 4.0 x4, 5900X)











ADATA XPG SX8200 Pro 1TB (M2_2, PCI-E 3.0 x4, X570)










The chipset M2_2 slot is so bad, SX8200 Pro is suposed to be 3.500/3.000MB/s drive.


----------



## T[]RK

RHBH said:


> The chipset M2_2 slot is so bad, SX8200 Pro is suposed to be 3.500/3.000MB/s drive.


ADATA not really reliable. Linus got video about it. ADATA swap it's components and there a lot revisions of one drive.

Video:


----------



## sonixmon

GRABibus said:


> take a look at windows event viewer if you don’t get « WHEA 19 » warnings with 3800/1900 and voltages on auto
> Also at 3866…


Been stable gaming @3800mhz, last WHEA error was 3/9/2021. Tried 3866 and post errors during memory training (not cpu locks like before). Tweaked ram voltage a little, posted and booted ok, quick stability test, whea errors crash etc. 

Don't have time to tweak voltages right now so will have to do more tweaking later. Will be happy at 3800mhz I don't think it is worth the cost to get faster ram. I might get something with better timings (with Samsung B Die) down the road but happy for now. I need to apply a little more voltage for true stability so I will play around this weekend.


----------



## ChillyRide

xeizo said:


> Nice rig, but "the fastest"? I have 55ns latency in AIDA64 at the same frequency, and afaik 55ns is nothing special. B-Die, granted, but shouldn't be such large difference.


What did u expect with crap timings and bloated Windows?


----------



## GRABibus

SEAGATE FireCuda 520 2TB (M2_1, PCI-E 4.0 x4, 5900X)










Write values Q8T1 and Q32T1 should be more closed to 4400MB/s.


----------



## CyrIng

xeizo said:


> I think I understand now why I got a idle reboot with 3702 and never had one on 3501/3601, minimum vcore voltage using PBO is now lower than I have ever seen before. All the way down to 0.248V! Earlier bioses was 0.8-0.9V at the lowest as far as I recall. No wonder the PC could suddenly shut off. I haven't tried the PSU Idle Current setting in the bios yet, it's still on Auto. Possibly it could affect things. I have a Corsair RM850x 2019.
> 
> I have a distant memory of early bioses had the same ultra low idle voltage, but it went away after a few updates.
> 
> I've only had one reboot thus far though.
> 
> The two CCD:s now idles at 2.5W, very low, I guess Asus implemented some sort of Energy saver that was absent before. As said, I use the same settings cross bios. The SOC still draws 16W and the full package 28W in idle, so maybe not that big of a saver, but still a saver.


0.2V is indeed the lowest Vcore I have measured so far.








Voltage value is read from undocumented Boosted P-State SMU register of 3950X with BIOS 2206


----------



## J7SC

RHBH said:


> Samsung 980 PRO 2TB (M2_1, PCI-E 4.0 x4, 5900X)
> 
> View attachment 2517545
> 
> 
> 
> ADATA XPG SX8200 Pro 1TB (M2_2, PCI-E 3.0 x4, X570)
> 
> View attachment 2517546
> 
> 
> The chipset M2_2 slot is so bad, SX8200 Pro is suposed to be 3.500/3.000MB/s drive.


...not sure if this helps, but I had my PCIe. 3.0 WD SN750 NVME in both M.2_1 and M.2_2 w/o significant differences (X570 Dark Hero). Presumably it also comes down to what else you're running in terms of PCIe etc re. lane count etc.


----------



## RHBH

T[]RK said:


> ADATA not really reliable. Linus got video about it. ADATA swap it's components and there a lot revisions of one drive.
> 
> Video:


Curiously mine has Micron 64-layer flash, which supposedly is the original release of the drive, I validated this by looking at the drive, the Micron logo and number "64" is clearly visible.

Source:








ADATA Explains Changes with XPG SX8200 Pro SSD


ADATA has recently been in a spot of controversy when it comes to their XPG SX8200 Pro solid-state drive (SSD). The company has reportedly shipped many different configurations of the SSD with different drive controller clock speeds and different NAND flash. According to the original report...




www.techpowerup.com





Edit: This is the report I got from "smi nvme flash id"



Code:


v0.24a
OS: 10.0 build 19043 
Drive     : 1(NVME)
Scsi      : 1
Driver    : W10
Model     : ADATA SX8200PNP                         
Fw        : 32A0T54A
Size      : 976762 MB [1024.2 GB]
LBA Size  : 512
AdminCmd  : 0x00 0x01 0x02 0x04 0x05 0x06 0x08 0x09 0x0A 0x0C 0x10 0x11 0x14 0x80 0x81 0x82 0x84 0xC0 0xC1 0xC2 0xE0 0xE4 0xE5 0xE6
I/O Cmd   : 0x00 0x01 0x02 0x04 0x05 0x08 0x09
Controller: SM2262 [SM2262AB] 
FW revision: 32A0T54A
ROM version: 2262ROM:SVN00235
Bank00: 0x2c,0xc4,0x8,0x32,0xa6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Micron 64L(B17A) TLC 512Gb/CE 512Gb/die
Bank01: 0x2c,0xc4,0x8,0x32,0xa6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Micron 64L(B17A) TLC 512Gb/CE 512Gb/die
Bank02: 0x2c,0xc4,0x8,0x32,0xa6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Micron 64L(B17A) TLC 512Gb/CE 512Gb/die
Bank03: 0x2c,0xc4,0x8,0x32,0xa6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Micron 64L(B17A) TLC 512Gb/CE 512Gb/die
Bank04: 0x2c,0xc4,0x8,0x32,0xa6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Micron 64L(B17A) TLC 512Gb/CE 512Gb/die
Bank05: 0x2c,0xc4,0x8,0x32,0xa6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Micron 64L(B17A) TLC 512Gb/CE 512Gb/die
Bank06: 0x2c,0xc4,0x8,0x32,0xa6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Micron 64L(B17A) TLC 512Gb/CE 512Gb/die
Bank07: 0x2c,0xc4,0x8,0x32,0xa6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Micron 64L(B17A) TLC 512Gb/CE 512Gb/die
Bank08: 0x2c,0xc4,0x8,0x32,0xa6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Micron 64L(B17A) TLC 512Gb/CE 512Gb/die
Bank09: 0x2c,0xc4,0x8,0x32,0xa6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Micron 64L(B17A) TLC 512Gb/CE 512Gb/die
Bank10: 0x2c,0xc4,0x8,0x32,0xa6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Micron 64L(B17A) TLC 512Gb/CE 512Gb/die
Bank11: 0x2c,0xc4,0x8,0x32,0xa6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Micron 64L(B17A) TLC 512Gb/CE 512Gb/die
Bank12: 0x2c,0xc4,0x8,0x32,0xa6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Micron 64L(B17A) TLC 512Gb/CE 512Gb/die
Bank13: 0x2c,0xc4,0x8,0x32,0xa6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Micron 64L(B17A) TLC 512Gb/CE 512Gb/die
Bank14: 0x2c,0xc4,0x8,0x32,0xa6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Micron 64L(B17A) TLC 512Gb/CE 512Gb/die
Bank15: 0x2c,0xc4,0x8,0x32,0xa6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Micron 64L(B17A) TLC 512Gb/CE 512Gb/die
--- Experimental ---
FlashID : 0x2c,0xc4,0x8,0x32,0xa6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Micron 64L(B17A) TLC 512Gb/CE 512Gb/die
Channel               : 8
Ch map                : 0xFF
CE map                : 0x03
Pages/Block           : 2304
First Fblock          : 1
Total Fblock          : 504
Bad Block From Pretest: 12
Start TLC/MLC Fblock  : 29
DRAM Info             : [0x4F 0x52]
DRAM Size,MB          : 1024 (possible incorrect)
DRAM Bus,bit          : 32
DRAM Type             : DDR3
DRAM Vendor           : Samsung
UEFI OROM             : Disable


----------



## trespot

anr11 said:


> I had an article pop up in my news feed recently that stated WD is aware of the problem and will be releasing a firmware to fix it soon. It's a problem with these specific drives when running on x570 boards. I don't have a link but is probably easy enough to find if you Google it.


Yeap this is accurate:



> ... Western Digital localized the problem to certain X570 motherboards that have their PCIe maximum payload size (MPS) value set at 128 bytes. This dictates the maximum transaction layer packet (TLP) that goes through the PCIe controller, and a low MPS value cripples performance. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Western Digital Readies WD Black SN850 Firmware Update Restoring AMD X570 Performance
> 
> 
> Western Digital is reportedly preparing a firmware update for its WD Black SN850 M.2 NVMe SSD that restores the drive's write performance levels on PCs based on the AMD X570 platform. This problem is localized to X570, specifically to when the drive is installed on an M.2 NVMe slot that is wired...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.techpowerup.com


----------



## Baio73

GRABibus said:


> SEAGATE FireCuda 520 2TB (M2_1, PCI-E 4.0 x4, 5900X)
> 
> View attachment 2517557
> 
> 
> Write values Q8T1 and Q32T1 should be more closed to 4400MB/s.





J7SC said:


> ...not sure if this helps, but I had my PCIe. 3.0 WD SN750 NVME in both M.2_1 and M.2_2 w/o significant differences (X570 Dark Hero). Presumably it also comes down to what else you're running in terms of PCIe etc re. lane count etc.
> 
> View attachment 2517565





trespot said:


> Yeap this is accurate:


This is my WD BLACK SN850 2 Tb (2 partitions) with the latest firmware (613200WD):



I think I have some problem...

Baio


----------



## Theo164

Baio73 said:


> This is my WD BLACK SN850 2 Tb (2 partitions) with the latest firmware (613200WD):
> 
> 
> 
> I think I have some problem...
> 
> Baio


Mine is ~ half speed and i cant find a solution,C8H brand new SN850 1Tb with the latest firmware & latest amd chipset drivers installed


----------



## GRABibus

Deleted


----------



## Azazil1190

Ηi Guys!
Did you notice lower scores after flashing to the 3601 bios.
Im on 5800x and hero wifi.
So far im stable at my 24/7 profile like before but the cpu scores are lowers on every cpu bench.


----------



## AdiSImpson

Looks like there is a higher default vcore clocktable in this AGESA. I have also with higher negative CO Settings higher Temperatures and lower Scores than with 1.1.0.0.


----------



## Azazil1190

AdiSImpson said:


> Looks like there is a higher default vcore clocktable in this AGESA. I have also with higher negative CO Settings higher Temperatures and lower Scores than with 1.1.0.0.


Yes maybe its the last agesa.


----------



## GRABibus

I keep the 3302.
3601 had made my RAM and CPU OC unstable.


----------



## Azazil1190

GRABibus said:


> I keep the 3302.
> 3601 had made my RAM and CPU OC unstable.


I was perfect with 3501 .
The only issue with the 3601 its the lower cpu scores 
Rams are stable like before same voltages subs and settings
Anyway we will see the newest bios when it comes out


----------



## JoneKone

jomama22 said:


> You realize how naive of logic that is yeah? You don't want to test it, don't d/l it, end of story.
> 
> You can just stick to d/l from their website, which is still on 3601.
> 
> An no, they don't owe you anything either. Grow up.


I strongly disagree, and will stop this conversation now. As it has run it course and I have said my peace.


----------



## Nizzen

Deluxe1 said:


> Can anyone with a SN850 run a crystaldiskmark benchmark and post their results please, I've got 2 1TB's one in the slot under the cpu and other in the pcie slot. I just can't get the 4k scores as high as when I first got the drives or as high as I see others with.


What cpu and motherboard?
Higher 4k with Intel 
Want even higher 4k rr @ qd=1?
Buy Optane 900p/905p/dc5800x 😎 300++ MB/s 4k


----------



## sonixmon

So I did some more testing this weekend @ 3800mhz and tried beyond, had to push voltages a little to be 100% stable under stress test. Not stable for me beyond 3800 and don't want to push voltages anymore. Getting a free 200mhz upgrade is fine with me.  The fclk issue was definitely CPU related. It is surprising how much it can vary per chip. Thankfully this time I got one that will support 1900 +.

Just installed 3702 bios because I was bored  Will see how it compares to 3601 after running some benchmarks etc.


----------



## jlodvo

let us know how 3702 runs vs 3601
3601 was buggier for me vs the 3501


----------



## Robostyle

sonixmon said:


> The fclk issue was definitely CPU related. s etc.


So you guess no mass available 2000fclk then? Pure IOD lottery, that's all?


----------



## Sam64

Could be wrong, but based on my readings, my own and my buddies CPUs I would guess roughly about 40-50% can reach 1900, 10% can reach 1900+, the rest is happy with 1800 or 1866.

3702 runs fine btw. on my rig (5950X, C8HW), no issues so far. I could even catch a modded version with PCH Fan options activated


----------



## GRABibus

Sam64 said:


> Could I could even catch a modded version with PCH Fan options activated


happy for you 🤔


----------



## Sam64

Sry Got it from here, it's german. Download Links are always the latest.








[MOD BIOS ASUS X570] ROG Crosshair VIII Hero (WI-FI) & Formula - PCH Fan control


Hallo zusammen, ich biete Euch ein von mir gemoddetes BIOS an. Damit könnt ihr den nervigen Chipsatz-Lüfter steuern. Nur Kompatibel mit o.g. Mainboards in Verbindung mit Ryzen 3000/5000. From HERO to ZERO :o Die Modifikation selbst erfolgt nach bestem Gewissen. Per HEX Editor wird ein Teil...




www.hardwareluxx.de


----------



## GRABibus

Some of you want to try those modded bios ? 









[MOD BIOS ASUS X570] ROG Crosshair VIII Hero (WI-FI) & Formula - PCH Fan control


Hallo zusammen, ich biete Euch ein von mir gemoddetes BIOS an. Damit könnt ihr den nervigen Chipsatz-Lüfter steuern. Nur Kompatibel mit o.g. Mainboards in Verbindung mit Ryzen 3000/5000. From HERO to ZERO :o Die Modifikation selbst erfolgt nach bestem Gewissen. Per HEX Editor wird ein Teil...




www.hardwareluxx.de


----------



## GRABibus

Sam64 said:


> Sry Got it from here, it's german. Download Links are always the latest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [MOD BIOS ASUS X570] ROG Crosshair VIII Hero (WI-FI) & Formula - PCH Fan control
> 
> 
> Hallo zusammen, ich biete Euch ein von mir gemoddetes BIOS an. Damit könnt ihr den nervigen Chipsatz-Lüfter steuern. Nur Kompatibel mit o.g. Mainboards in Verbindung mit Ryzen 3000/5000. From HERO to ZERO :o Die Modifikation selbst erfolgt nach bestem Gewissen. Per HEX Editor wird ein Teil...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hardwareluxx.de


is there the 3302 version of this modded bios ?


----------



## sonixmon

Robostyle said:


> So you guess no mass available 2000fclk then? Pure IOD lottery, that's all?


Yes it looks that way, I didn't change anything but the CPU. I actually loaded the profile I was testing 1900/1933 fclk with on 5800x that wouldn't post or would be unstable (1933). Not only did it post, it booted fine and ran basic tests no issues. I had to tweak the secondary CPU voltages for full stability but other than that works perfectly. My ram wont run clean past 3800 at stock timings so I don't plan to push it anymore. I might try to boot 3800 with 2000 flck for fun just to see. If it did I could consider faster ram down the road but I don't think it is worth it for the cost. I would rather have faster timings at 3800 honestly.

My 5900x is between silver and gold according to CTR 2.1 but it will usually crash/reboot during testing which never happened with my 5800x so I think I have a better mem controller but not as good of a CPU. My 5800x would hit 4.9 regularly just on PBO and constantly ran at 4.8 but nothing past 1833 fclk. Thankfully it sold for a decent price so the 5900x only cost me additional $200. Probably not worth it but it is a hobby.


----------



## sonixmon

Sam64 said:


> Could be wrong, but based on my readings, my own and my buddies CPUs I would guess roughly about 40-50% can reach 1900, 10% can reach 1900+, the rest is happy with 1800 or 1866.
> 
> 3702 runs fine btw. on my rig (5950X, C8HW), no issues so far. I could even catch a modded version with PCH Fan options activated


So is PCH fan noise an issue for any of you? I never hear it, actually ran HWINFO to see if it was actually spinning since it is under my graphics card. The only issue I have with it is placement because it is buried under card. It will peak at 65-70 but within spec. Considered going to a vertical GPU but then card will suffer because fans so close to glass.


----------



## sonixmon

Robostyle said:


> So you guess no mass available 2000fclk then? Pure IOD lottery, that's all?


Update, just tried 2000 flck, booted to windows but very sluggish (like my old CPU with 1933+). 1966 would not post and 1933 was wonky (guess it wasn't my ram after all). So it looks like my fclk limit is now 1900 vs 1833. Amazes me how much the Ram controller varies between CPUs. Thankful I lucked out to get 1900 or upgrade wouldn't have been worth it.


----------



## Sam64

PCHFan is runnin


sonixmon said:


> So is PCH fan noise an issue for any of you? I


Honestly it's no issue as well for me, but it's fun to set the pchfan-speed to zero while the chipset temp still tops at max 70°


----------



## sonixmon

Sam64 said:


> PCHFan is runnin
> 
> 
> Honestly it's no issue as well for me, but it's fun to set the pchfan-speed to zero while the chipset temp still tops at max 70°


That makes sense, not sure why it isn't standard like all the other ASUS fan control options. It would be nice to monitor and control on a software level too.


----------



## xProlific

Booting into windows at 3800Mhz doesn't mean anything if you are getting WHEA errors. You will be experiencing worse performance despite the higher number.
Event Viewer>Application and Service Logs>Microsoft>Windows >Kernel-WHEA


----------



## sonixmon

xProlific said:


> Booting into windows at 3800Mhz doesn't mean anything if you are getting WHEA errors. You will be experiencing worse performance despite the higher number.
> Event Viewer>Application and Service Logs>Microsoft>Windows >Kernel-WHEA


Not sure if you are referring to my post but as I mentioned, all tests good @3800/1900 with no WHEA errors. Above 1900 regardless of Ram speed, WHEA errors and instability.


----------



## UnchiuNarcis

Hi everyone, I got my 5900x almost two weeks ago and since then I'm trying to tune and test it with corecycler, cinebench, occt memtest + sse and so on

So basically the thing is that I managed to optimize its voltage/frequency curve but I am not getting past 8350 sometimes 8390 score in cinebench and in AIDA64 I get 65-67 ns latency but the read/write digits are higher than with 3600 or 3800 mhz for example. I overclocked my crucial ballistix E Die ram dual rank from 3200cl16 to 4000 mhz cl16 1.45v SOC 1.175 LLC 4 ( with lower SOC LLC I get vdroop and I want it to be always as set in bios, didn't saw overshoot) + CPU LLC 2 and other adjustments in my motherboard's BIOS/ extreme tweaker ( the motherboard is a crosshair viii formula ) PSU is a Silverstone ST1500 so we've got plenty of power for the cpu to draw 
The infinity fabric looks stable as I do not have audio dropouts anymore or audio stuttering, channel imbalance and so on.

I'm looking forward to your replies


----------



## asavah

UnchiuNarcis said:


> So basically the thing is that I managed to optimize its voltage/frequency curve but I am not getting past 8350 sometimes 8390 score in cinebench


I'm not an expert but your CB20 mt score is way too low.
Event my crappy 5900x does 8675 C20 with 3702 , PBO 200/130/200 , CO -20, -20, -30 (rest of cores).
Our CPU-Z scores are mostly the same tho.
Your memory read speeds are better but surprisingly latency is not.
My memory kit is hyperx 3600 17-21-21-38 slightly tightened to 16-19-21-36
Cooler is a Liquid Freezer II 360 rev.4 with offset mount.

What kind of cooling do you have?
What are your PBO/CO settings?


----------



## UnchiuNarcis

asavah said:


> I'm not an expert but your CB20 mt score is way too low.
> Event my crappy 5900x does 8675 C20 with 3702 , PBO 200/130/200 , CO -20, -20, -30 (rest of cores).
> Our CPU-Z scores are mostly the same tho.
> Your memory read speeds are better but surprisingly latency is not.
> My memory kit is hyperx 3600 17-21-21-38 slightly tightened to 16-19-21-36
> Cooler is a Liquid Freezer II 360 rev.4 with offset mount.
> 
> What kind of cooling do you have?
> What are your PBO/CO settings?
> 
> View attachment 2518332


Hi, the cooling is Cooler Master ML360R with Corsair ML 120 PRO fans. Thermal paste is Thermal Grizzly kryonaut
PBO settings are PPT 230 TDC 160 EDC 170 / +200 mhz / fmax enhancher is turned off during cinebench 20 I have a constant speed of 4.5-4.75 Ghz at 88 degrees celsius
Curve Optimizer is set to negative 21 on the secondary best core in CCX1 and negative 23 on the best one, negative 25 on the secondary and negative 26 on the best CCX2 and all others are at negative 30. I tried to use 3800 mhz/ infinity fabric 1900 but then the latency is even higher at 75-77 ns


----------



## asavah

UnchiuNarcis said:


> PBO settings are PPT 230 TDC 160 EDC 170 / +200 mhz / fmax enhancher is turned off during cinebench 20 I have a constant speed of 4.5-4.75 Ghz at 88 degrees celsius


Hmm that temperature is IMO too high, I get 4.500-4550 all cores (effective freq) at 80C with room temperature around 27C.
All chips are different but I found that for me EDC 200 was the sweet spot for good mt scores without tanking L3 cache transfer rates too much.
I was getting around 90C with my old cooler which is a Fractal Design Celsius+ S36 Prisma, swapping it for a LF2 made an actual difference here.


----------



## rdr09

UnchiuNarcis said:


> Hi, the cooling is Cooler Master ML360R with Corsair ML 120 PRO fans. Thermal paste is Thermal Grizzly kryonaut
> PBO settings are PPT 230 TDC 160 EDC 170 / +200 mhz / fmax enhancher is turned off during cinebench 20 I have a constant speed of 4.5-4.75 Ghz at 88 degrees celsius
> Curve Optimizer is set to negative 21 on the secondary best core in CCX1 and negative 23 on the best one, negative 25 on the secondary and negative 26 on the best CCX2 and all others are at negative 30. I tried to use 3800 mhz/ infinity fabric 1900 but then the latency is even higher at 75-77 ns


Can you start from Optimized default but first save your setting into a profile. After setting optimized default, set your RAM to XMP profile, then run Cinebench.

I got 3600 CL16 ram and i have set at XMP 3600 CL16 @ 1.36v. In Aida i get a tad lower than 60. Not sure what set of RAM you have but you can start at 3600 CL16. 

Also, if you can disable PowerDown without affecting stability, then do so.

Note: Save a profile for your current settings.


----------



## sonixmon

UnchiuNarcis said:


> Hi everyone, I got my 5900x almost two weeks ago and since then I'm trying to tune and test it with corecycler, cinebench, occt memtest + sse and so on



I would go with your best speed with GDM disabled, that might help your latency. Have you checked for WHEA errors with fclk at 2000? It seems to be only the top 10% of chips run at that speed. Took me two cpus to get to 1900! If you you one the lottery for sure.


----------



## UnchiuNarcis

sonixmon said:


> I would go with your best speed with GDM disabled, that might help your latency. Have you checked for WHEA errors with fclk at 2000? It seems to be only the top 10% of chips run at that speed. Took me two cpus to get to 1900! If you you one the lottery for sure.


got no WHEA errors at all, no audio clipping, no channel imbalance or anything. if I disable GDM my system won't post anymore and I have to reset the bios... most likely I have to re-enter manually the timings but I don't know them. If I set the secondary timings on auto the latency is even higher

I used OCCT memtest with SSE and I get memory errors even with SOC 1.2v and DRAM 1.5v but no whea errorst, the system is very stable even for hours and hours of running corecycler/prime 95


----------



## UnchiuNarcis

rdr09 said:


> Can you start from Optimized default but first save your setting into a profile. After setting optimized default, set your RAM to XMP profile, then run Cinebench.
> 
> I got 3600 CL16 ram and i have set at XMP 3600 CL16 @ 1.36v. In Aida i get a tad lower than 60. Not sure what set of RAM you have but you can start at 3600 CL16.
> 
> Also, if you can disable PowerDown without affecting stability, then do so.
> 
> Note: Save a profile for your current settings.


I tried as you did, optimized defaults and nothing changed to anything, not even PBO enabled, only ram DOCP and manually disabled GDM


----------



## rdr09

UnchiuNarcis said:


> I tried as you did, optimized defaults and nothing changed to anything, not even PBO enabled, only ram DOCP and manually disabled GDM


So your ram is 3200 MHz. Try raising it to 3600 MHz (using DOCP settings) and bump the DRAM voltage a bit to 1.37v.

What Windows Power setting are you using? Got mine set at Balance with minimum processor at 5%. Recently i found out about setting CPU priority and affinity for Cinebench.









What is Processor Affinity & how to set Processor Affinity on Windows 11/10


Learn how to set Processor Affinity in Windows 11/10. We have also explained what Processor Affinity, and if it is useful to improve performance.




www.thewindowsclub.com





EDIT: I just want to make sure. Your RAM sticks are in A2 and B2 slots, right?

If i set my sticks to 3200MHz i get 66ns. At 3600 it is at 59ns. Here is a ss of Zen.

EDIT 2: At 3600MHz i get 8500 in CR20. At 3200 i get 8300. This is at Stock with a -0.03v under volt and FSB at 101.

Your motherboard is for oc'ing, tho, so after you figured out your ram next step is oc'ing the cpu.


----------



## toxicnerve

Is CH8 3601 BIOS bugged? For some reason, I get some weird behaviour when setting PPT / TDC / EDC. Sometimes it works, from Extreme Tweaker >> PBO, and some times it doesn't, in so much as Ryzen Master does not show the settings etc. The most common scenario being the EDC reports as 0% of 0A.

If I leave Extreme Tweaker alone (which raises the question should that "Auto" or "Disabled"?) and use Advanced >> AMD Overlocking >> PBO, and set limits to "Motherboard" I see 142 / 95 / 140. 

If I set them manually, they don't take.

What gives?


----------



## sonixmon

UnchiuNarcis said:


> got no WHEA errors at all, no audio clipping, no channel imbalance or anything. if I disable GDM my system won't post anymore and I have to reset the bios... most likely I have to re-enter manually the timings but I don't know them. If I set the secondary timings on auto the latency is even higher
> 
> I used OCCT memtest with SSE and I get memory errors even with SOC 1.2v and DRAM 1.5v but no whea errorst, the system is very stable even for hours and hours of running corecycler/prime 95


Try finding the fastest speed you can get with GDM disabled. 3600? I've heard sometimes it helps sometimes it hurts. I am able to run disabled thankfully at 3800 but ram stock was 3600 so it wasn't as big of an OC.


----------



## UnchiuNarcis

rdr09 said:


> So your ram is 3200 MHz. Try raising it to 3600 MHz (using DOCP settings) and bump the DRAM voltage a bit to 1.37v.
> 
> What Windows Power setting are you using? Got mine set at Balance with minimum processor at 5%. Recently i found out about setting CPU priority and affinity for Cinebench.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is Processor Affinity & how to set Processor Affinity on Windows 11/10
> 
> 
> Learn how to set Processor Affinity in Windows 11/10. We have also explained what Processor Affinity, and if it is useful to improve performance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thewindowsclub.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: I just want to make sure. Your RAM sticks are in A2 and B2 slots, right?
> 
> If i set my sticks to 3200MHz i get 66ns. At 3600 it is at 59ns. Here is a ss of Zen.
> 
> EDIT 2: At 3600MHz i get 8500 in CR20. At 3200 i get 8300. This is at Stock with a -0.03v under volt and FSB at 101.
> 
> Your motherboard is for oc'ing, tho, so after you figured out your ram next step is oc'ing the cpu.


windows power plan setting: Balanced with stock settings
performance and energy power mode: best performance
my ram sticks are in slots A2 B2 as recommended in my motherboard's manual ( please see paragraph 1.1.4 ) E15393_ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_FORMULA_UM_WEB.pdf (asus.com)
I have higher read/write/copy values than you, isn't this making a difference in real world tasks or gaming? or is latency more important than this?
I tried now stock DOCP but went from my standard 3200 speed to 3600 manually with FCLK set to 1800 and the multicore speed went down by 200 mhz now during cb20 test, scores also went down with 100 points, also I am reaching max 84 degrees on the CPU ( I did not changed any CPU Settings except for SOC voltage that I put now at 1.10) I also attached a screenshot.
Maybe because my ram sticks are dual rank, they have more bandwidth but also higher latency???


----------



## rdr09

UnchiuNarcis said:


> windows power plan setting: Balanced with stock settings
> performance and energy power mode: best performance
> my ram sticks are in slots A2 B2 as recommended in my motherboard's manual ( please see paragraph 1.1.4 ) E15393_ROG_CROSSHAIR_VIII_FORMULA_UM_WEB.pdf (asus.com)
> I have higher read/write/copy values than you, isn't this making a difference in real world tasks or gaming? or is latency more important than this?


It would be ideal for all the readings be high ( i mean low for the latency) but for Ryzen, it is vital that the latency (60 or lower) be set as low as possible. I saw in your ss that the sticks are indeed in A2,B2.

Did you use the DRAM Calculator? I used it on my FlareX B-die kit since my R7 2700 really needs that low latency. I was going to suggest you copy the numbers off my Zen timings but you might risk breaking something.


----------



## UnchiuNarcis

rdr09 said:


> It would be ideal for all the readings be high ( i mean low for the latency) but for Ryzen, it is vital that the latency be set as low as possible. I saw in your ss that the sticks are indeed in A2,B2.
> 
> Did you use the DRAM Calculator? I used it on my FlareX B-die kit since my R7 2700 really needs that low latency. I was going to suggest you copy the numbers off my Zen timings but you might risk breaking something.


Please see my updated post that I just edited now situated above yours
DRAM calculator says that my ram sticks can go up to 3800 mhz cl16 but when I use 3800 cl16 with the exact same settings that are in the dram calculator or even higher votages, I get errors and the latency is even greater, at 75 ns


----------



## rdr09

UnchiuNarcis said:


> Please see my updated post that I just edited now situated above yours
> DRAM calculator says that my ram sticks can go up to 3800 mhz cl16 but when I use 3800 cl16 with the exact same settings that are in the dram calculator or even higher votages, I get errors and the latency is even greater, at 75 ns


That could very well be it. Dual rank. But your score is pretty much the normal score our cpu gets in this bench. 

The DRAM calc works but it will take a lot of effort and time using it to tune the RAM. Plus the testing. @Veii and others, in the DRAM Calc thread will help you if you ask.


----------



## slayer6288

@shamino1978 is there a reason why b550 boards are getting the latest agesa with patch b yet the more expensive boards are still on patch a?


----------



## Krisztias

Hi Folks!

I got after the last service run on my system Post code 4d.

-C8H WiFi
-3800x - tried with a new 5800x, same error code. I tried the classic things too (reseat CPU, RAM, cleaned CPU and Socket...)

I must admit, before the maintanence was everything fine, but when I cleaned the cooler it came off with the CPU with it. I didnt opened the socket, it was "glued" to the cooler. Can it be, that the motherboard is off since then?
Anybody with error code 4d?

Please help.
Thank you.


----------



## xeizo

slayer6288 said:


> @shamino1978 is there a reason why b550 boards are getting the latest agesa with patch b yet the more expensive boards are still on patch a?


Don't worry, the B550:s are back on Patch A with the latest bios, maybe something was off with Patch B?


----------



## MainSource

UnchiuNarcis said:


> Hi everyone, I got my 5900x almost two weeks ago and since then I'm trying to tune and test it with corecycler, cinebench, occt memtest + sse and so on
> 
> So basically the thing is that I managed to optimize its voltage/frequency curve but I am not getting past 8350 sometimes 8390 score in cinebench and in AIDA64 I get 65-67 ns latency but the read/write digits are higher than with 3600 or 3800 mhz for example. I overclocked my crucial ballistix E Die ram dual rank from 3200cl16 to 4000 mhz cl16 1.45v SOC 1.175 LLC 4 ( with lower SOC LLC I get vdroop and I want it to be always as set in bios, didn't saw overshoot) + CPU LLC 2 and other adjustments in my motherboard's BIOS/ extreme tweaker ( the motherboard is a crosshair viii formula ) PSU is a Silverstone ST1500 so we've got plenty of power for the cpu to draw
> The infinity fabric looks stable as I do not have audio dropouts anymore or audio stuttering, channel imbalance and so on.
> 
> I'm looking forward to your replies


My CB20 scores are in line with yours, i have 5900x crosshair viii hero wifi 3601, but my temps never go above 71 degrees, with a kraken z73 and kryonaut, you may want to reseat your heatsink and check the kryonaut application


----------



## UnchiuNarcis

MainSource said:


> My CB20 scores are in line with yours, i have 5900x crosshair viii hero wifi 3601, but my temps never go above 71 degrees, with a kraken z73 and kryonaut, you may want to reseat your heatsink and check the kryonaut application


hi, what are your precision boost overdrive settings? what speed is your CPU reaching during cb20 multicore test and what is the power draw shown in ryzen master while testing this?


----------



## Moutsatsos

I was looking at my event log and it seems I am having usb drop outs on 3501.I confirmed it using a g930 headset i got but rarely use.Sound was literally dropping out and coming back in as if it was loosing the connection(its wireless).It doesnt happen every time but it does happen often enough to irritate me.Was looing at bios logs and 3501 is missing from asus site plus 3401 was supossed to fix that.Anyone else having that issue?


----------



## GRABibus

UnchiuNarcis said:


> Please see my updated post that I just edited now situated above yours
> DRAM calculator says that my ram sticks can go up to 3800 mhz cl16 but when I use 3800 cl16 with the exact same settings that are in the dram calculator or even higher votages, I get errors and the latency is even greater, at 75 ns


Did you try to reduce trfc, trfc2 and trfc4 values ?

Mines are :
Trfc [247]
Trfc2 [184]
Trfc4 [113]

Here are my main CPU settings : 5900X / C8H / Bios 3302
-25 Core4/Core8, -28 Core0/Core7, -30 all other cores
PPT~TDC~EDC=170~115~155
Max CPU Boost Clock Override = +200MHz
CPU Core Voltage Offset = -0.025V.

CBR20 ST = 647pts at 24°C
CBR20 MT = 9070pts at 24°C


----------



## UnchiuNarcis

GRABibus said:


> Did you try to reduce trfc, trfc2 and trfc4 values ?
> 
> Mines are :
> Trfc [247]
> Trfc2 [184]
> Trfc4 [113]
> 
> Here are my main CPU settings : 5900X / C8H / Bios 3302
> -25 Core4/Core8, -28 Core0/Core7, -30 all other cores
> PPT~TDC~EDC=170~115~155
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override = +200MHz
> CPU Core Voltage Offset = -0.025V.
> 
> CBR20 ST = 647pts at 24°C
> CBR20 MT = 9070pts at 24°C


your scores are way too low, also I see lots of clock stretching, you should run multiple corecycler iterations, maybe +200 mhz offset isn't suitable for your CPU.
What I mean by clock stretching is: your maximum effective clocks as shown in hwinfo are way less than the core clocks shown above.
Also, you shouldn't use cpu core voltage offset together with curve optimizer. 

Also, after long hours of tweaking and tinkering I think that I reached the pinnacle performance of my chip.


----------



## ChillyRide

GRABibus said:


> Did you try to reduce trfc, trfc2 and trfc4 values ?
> 
> Mines are :
> Trfc [247]
> Trfc2 [184]
> Trfc4 [113]
> 
> Here are my main CPU settings : 5900X / C8H / Bios 3302
> -25 Core4/Core8, -28 Core0/Core7, -30 all other cores
> PPT~TDC~EDC=170~115~155
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override = +200MHz
> CPU Core Voltage Offset = -0.025V.
> 
> CBR20 ST = 647pts at 24°C
> CBR20 MT = 9070pts at 24°C


RFC 2-4 Dont DO anything on Ryzen!!!


----------



## GRABibus

UnchiuNarcis said:


> your scores are way too low, also I see lots of clock stretching, you should run multiple corecycler iterations, maybe +200 mhz offset isn't suitable for your CPU.
> What I mean by clock stretching is: your maximum effective clocks as shown in hwinfo are way less than the core clocks shown above.
> Also, you shouldn't use cpu core voltage offset together with curve optimizer.
> 
> Also, after long hours of tweaking and tinkering I think that I reached the pinnacle performance of my chip.


My scores at too low ???

I don't really get what you mean about clock stretching in my case.

My average effective clock during CBR20 multi is 4.58GHz


----------



## GRABibus

ChillyRide said:


> RFC 2-4 Dont DO anything on Ryzen!!!


i set these values as they are the one's calculated by DRAM calculator


----------



## UnchiuNarcis

GRABibus said:


> My scores at too low ???
> 
> I don't really get what you mean about clock stretching in my case.
> 
> My average effective clock during CBR20 multi is 4.58GHz


sorry I read 8070 instead of 9070


----------



## ChillyRide

UnchiuNarcis said:


> got no WHEA errors at all, no audio clipping, no channel imbalance or anything. if I disable GDM my system won't post anymore and I have to reset the bios... most likely I have to re-enter manually the timings but I don't know them. If I set the secondary timings on auto the latency is even higher
> 
> I used OCCT memtest with SSE and I get memory errors even with SOC 1.2v and DRAM 1.5v but no whea errorst, the system is very stable even for hours and hours of running corecycler/prime 95


For GDM off and CR 1T use AddrCMDSetup 50+ and try untill u post and TM5 anta777 go without errors. Soc 1.175 is MAX On Ryzens!!! PBO is trash, best scrores and latency when cores are static, my is CCX1 48.00 and CCX2 47.5 1,382v. Tight every timing on ram and test TM5 Anta777, make proper cooling for ram, B-Die above 40+C gives errors! Debloat windows, close apps in tray and task manager and U ll get lower Aida memory latency. CB20 Multicore 9347 and HWinfo screen.


----------



## UnchiuNarcis

ChillyRide said:


> For GDM off and CR 1T use AddrCMDSetup 50+ and try untill u post and TM5 anta777 go without errors. Soc 1.175 is MAX On Ryzens!!! PBO is trash, best scrores and latency when cores are static, my is CCX1 48.00 and CCX2 47.5 1,382v. Tight every timing on ram and test TM5 Anta777, make proper cooling for ram, B-Die above 40+C gives errors! Debloat windows, close apps in tray and task manager and U ll get lower Aida memory latency.


okay but I got 2x 16 gb micron e die dual rank


----------



## GRABibus

ChillyRide said:


> For GDM off and CR 1T use AddrCMDSetup 50+ and try untill u post and TM5 anta777 go without errors. Soc 1.175 is MAX On Ryzens!!! PBO is trash, best scrores and latency when cores are static, my is CCX1 48.00 and CCX2 47.5 1,382v. Tight every timing on ram and test TM5 Anta777, make proper cooling for ram, B-Die above 40+C gives errors! Debloat windows, close apps in tray and task manager and U ll get lower Aida memory latency. CB20 Multicore 9347 and HWinfo screen.


PBO is not trash at all, especially considering single thread performances.
What's your CBR20 ST score ?


----------



## ChillyRide

GRABibus said:


> PBO is not trash at all, especially considering single thread performances.
> What's your CBR20 ST score ?


Did U measure ur ST perfomance and CPU clocks not in syntetics? Its fluctuate like hell depending on task and temperature. PBO is good for AVX workloads, it will not fry ur cpu and give u decent perfomance but everything else is meh. Here is CB20 ST screen.


----------



## GRABibus

ChillyRide said:


> Did U measure ur ST perfomance and CPU clocks not in syntetics? Its fluctuate like hell depending on task and temperature. PBO is good for AVX workloads, it will not fry ur cpu and give u decent perfomance but everything else is meh. Here is CB20 ST screen.


yes, the fluctuation is the PBO concept.

You can see my score in post above (at 24degrees).
647 ST
9070 MT.

as I have an AIO, I can’t set a static OC at 4,8Ghz with Vcore 1,35V+ as you because in stability tests my temps are much too high.
Then, my best static OC per CCX with acceptable temps is 4,65GHz/4,55GHz at 1,27V core (LLC3).
This provides 9150 MT CBR20,so not so far than my PBO MT CBR20 score (9070).
But of course, single thread performances is much better.


----------



## xProlific

I get about 900 point lower multi core performance when using the PBO on the Extreme Tweaker page as opposed to the PBO on the Advanced AMD Overclocking page with the exact same settings. Anyone know why this is? Wonder if this is just a bug.


----------



## kuutale

ASUS Rolls Out AMD AGESA 1.2.0.3 Patch C BETA BIOS Firmware For X570 ROG Motherboards, Improves Ryzen 5000G APU Compatibility


ASUS has rolled out the AMD AGESA 1.2.0.3 Patch C BETA BIOS firmware for its X570 ROG lineup, offering improved Ryzen 5000G APU support.




wccftech.com


----------



## th30d0r3

I have this new issue that started a week ago. Whenever I start up a game mainly DX12 games, the SSD the game is running from suddenly drops off the system and is no longer accessible. The only way to resolve it is to reboot.
I can replicate the issue on any drive by moving the game files to another SSD.
I have rebuild the OS 10 times from versions 1909 all the way to the current version, tried multiple AMD drivers and Nvidia drivers (including the windows native ones) and the problem persists.
Memtest runs 500% no issues, can run any CPU test for hours without errors, nothing is overclocked.

Running a C8 Dark Hero and a 5950x, 2 x 16gb Gskill 4000 running at 3200 auto. CPU is not overclocked everything is set to auto in the bios as a control. 3090 founders edition.
Disks are M2.1 SN850 1tb, M2.2 Rocket Q 8TB, PCIE3 (bottom slot) Samsung PM961 256gb.
Corsair AX1500i PSU

Tested bios 3501, 3601 & 3702, this was done as a precaution but have bene running 3501 for months when the problem started.

Tried pulling RAM sticks, but no joy.
I think it's a CPU issue since the problem persists on all SSDs and they are all connected differently, hence not the board but the CPU is the common denominator.

Can anyone suggest anything I might have missed?


----------



## maxrealliti

Asus Crosshair VIII DARK Hero.... Official Thread!? new bios


----------



## CyrIng

Asus Crosshair VIII DARK Hero.... Official Thread!?


Is it normal for this MOBO to record PLL 1.8+ = 1.766v~




www.overclock.net





Are they the same as latest unofficials ?


----------



## trespot

Anyone had any WHEA BSOD issue where after reboot PCIe Gen 4 NVMe boot drive that's connected to the CPU lanes not recognized until a complete power cycle is done?

This is something happens rarely, like maybe once a month.
Usually happens under light load, not completely idle, PC has no problem waking up from sleep etc.
I've tried 2 different sets of RAMs, 2x16 Hynix DJR and 2x16 b-die, 2 different 3950x CPU, BIOS version and RAM speed does not seem to make a difference. I've tried following ram speeds 3200, 3600, 3733, 3800.
System is fine under any stress test I could throw at it prime95, linpack, ycruncher, memtest86, memtestpro, occt, intelburntest you name it, and I've ran these during summer heat wave so temperature is out of the equation.
CPU itself is not overclocked, I'm only running memory at higher speeds. I've tried enabling/disabling c-states, tweaking load line calibration, manually setting SOC, VDDG and VDDP voltages but nothing seems to help so far, also rarity of the problem makes it hard to see which settings actually help.


----------



## xeizo

3703 looks to work fine, had to change DrvStr once again, back to what it was in 3501 or it wouldn't boot. 3702 was a anomaly. Latency is a little worse, but not much. At least not a single WHEA in 45 minutes of various desktop and benchmarking. I did a comparison in Geekbench with the best benching bios, which was 3301, 3703 is 4.2% slower in single core but only 0.5% behind in multi core. BUT 3301 was benchmarked in winter with a pretty cold room, now it's tropical heat here so ambience is much worse, which should affect benchmarks scores. In particular as I'm on Air cooling. There was a couple of new options in the bios, for APU I guess.


----------



## asavah

Interesting, 3703 is even better than 3702 here.

Got my absolute cb20 record without changing anything, updated to 3703, loaded profile, ..., profit.










The most interesting thing is lower ram latency, same settings 3702 vs 3703

















I need to figure out and tighten tRFC yet, been lazy lately


----------



## Reikoji

asavah said:


> Interesting, 3703 is even better than 3702 here.
> 
> Got my absolute cb20 record without changing anything, updated to 3703, loaded profile, ..., profit.
> 
> View attachment 2519062
> 
> 
> The most interesting thing is lower ram latency, same settings 3702 vs 3703
> 
> View attachment 2519063
> View attachment 2519064
> 
> 
> I need to figure out and tighten tRFC yet, been lazy lately



Same. I approve of this Agesa


----------



## GRABibus

Tested 3703 in CBR20 and Aida64 Mem and Cache performances versus Bios 3302 :


*Bios 3302 @ 24°C ambient:*


















*Bios 3703 @ 27°C ambient : *

















seems promising as I did test for 3703 with 3°C more than with 3302, which is a great performer bios.

I will keep 3703 currently to see if I don't get weird idle/low loads reboots or « WHEA 19 » warning errors.
I also come back to "-30 all cores" for CO as a test.


----------



## asavah

GRABibus said:


> seems promising as I did test for 3703 with 2°C more than with 3302, which is a great performer bios.


Whats your max temp when doing cb20 mt?
You seem to have a much better chip than I do.


----------



## GRABibus

asavah said:


> Whats your max temp when doing cb20 mt?
> You seem to have a much better chip than I do.


with bios 3302 (24°C ambient) :


----------



## GRABibus

deleted


----------



## sonixmon

CTR 2.1 question. I haven't had the time to do manual OC using curve optimizer etc. With my 5800x I had good results with CTR 2.1 but couldn't hit 1900 fclk. I have since tried CTR with my 5900x but it usually ends with a black screen/reboot. I did not have this issue with the 5800x. I have also experienced this issue with AIDAI64 Stress test once and resume from standby. I am beginning to wonder if its an issue with the CPU.


----------



## Sleepycat

ChillyRide said:


> Did U measure ur ST perfomance and CPU clocks not in syntetics? Its fluctuate like hell depending on task and temperature. PBO is good for AVX workloads, it will not fry ur cpu and give u decent perfomance but everything else is meh. Here is CB20 ST screen.


Something is not right with your ST. Mine is set very conservatively to keep under 4.875 MHz @ 1.425V to minimize heat, and my ST score is still higher than yours.


----------



## Sleepycat

sonixmon said:


> CTR 2.1 question. I haven't had the time to do manual OC using curve optimizer etc. With my 5800x I had good results with CTR 2.1 but couldn't hit 1900 fclk. I have since tried CTR with my 5900x but it usually ends with a black screen/reboot. I did not have this issue with the 5800x. I have also experienced this issue with AIDAI64 Stress test once and resume from standby. I am beginning to wonder if its an issue with the CPU.


You may need more voltage on the 5900X compared to your 5800X. Some of my cores even need a positive offset in Curve Optimizer. For CTR2.1, I'm running 1.225V for 4.55/4.50 GHz for P1 to avoid AVX errors. If all I cared about was SSE, I can run at 4.6GHz @ 1.225V


----------



## GRABibus

Sleepycat said:


> Something is not right with your ST. Mine is set very conservatively to keep under 4.875 MHz @ 1.425V to minimize heat, and my ST score is still higher than yours.


He has a static OC, so I am not surprised about its ST score.
You have a static OC ?


----------



## sonixmon

Sleepycat said:


> You may need more voltage on the 5900X compared to your 5800X. Some of my cores even need a positive offset in Curve Optimizer. For CTR2.1, I'm running 1.225V for 4.55/4.50 GHz for P1 to avoid AVX errors. If all I cared about was SSE, I can run at 4.6GHz @ 1.225V


Will yours complete the diagnostic without crashing? I never experienced this with 5800x, profiles seem to be ok gaming and light testing. Hoping to get into manual OC down the road or maybe try Project Hyrda when it is released.


----------



## Sleepycat

GRABibus said:


> He has a static OC, so I am not surprised about its ST score.
> You have a static OC ?


I'm running profiles. My ST is 4.875 @ 1.425V, all core is 4.650 @ 1.300V


----------



## Sleepycat

sonixmon said:


> Will yours complete the diagnostic without crashing? I never experienced this with 5800x, profiles seem to be ok gaming and light testing. Hoping to get into manual OC down the road or maybe try Project Hyrda when it is released.


Yes, mine completes diagnostics without issue. If I have the voltage too low for a certain clockspeed, I can force a spontaneous reboot using check stability. On the profile page, set your PX Preset to AVX too.

I run Diagnostic only once, and then go onto corecycler to set my Px High, Mid and Low, then use Prime95 Small AVX2 with 12 threads to set my P2, and 24 threads to set P1.


----------



## sonixmon

Sleepycat said:


> Yes, mine completes diagnostics without issue. If I have the voltage too low for a certain clockspeed, I can force a spontaneous reboot using check stability. On the profile page, set your PX Preset to AVX too.
> 
> I run Diagnostic only once, and then go onto corecycler to set my Px High, Mid and Low, then use Prime95 Small AVX2 with 12 threads to set my P2, and 24 threads to set P1.


Interesting, I think out of the five or six times I have tried Diagnostic on 5900x it might have actually finished once without a crash. Not sure what else it could be other than the cpu itself. Same ram etc. and even tried it at stock ram profile. Thanks for the FB.


----------



## Sleepycat

I just flashed 3703 beta. Not bad, I'm able to increase the clock speeds a bit higher with the associated voltage without spontaneous reboots under benchmarking. My 5900X now scores 9309 in CB 20 and 24064 in CB R23 under air cooling.


----------



## Sleepycat

sonixmon said:


> Interesting, I think out of the five or six times I have tried Diagnostic on 5900x it might have actually finished once without a crash. Not sure what else it could be other than the cpu itself. Same ram etc. and even tried it at stock ram profile. Thanks for the FB.


You can set your starting diagnostic voltage a bit higher to avoid crashing. I think default is 1187 mV, but you can set it to 1250 mV and let it go downwards on its own in the test.


----------



## Robostyle

Any good news with patch C in fclk >2000 range for those who never heard of wheas before agesa 1.2.?


----------



## GRABibus

Still no WHEA 19 after roughly one day installation.
Could run 1h45 Karhu's RAM Test with no issue (Not enough, but just a short test to eliminate major RAM potential instability issues).

I went back to "-30 all cores" in CO
CBR20 tests are the same as the one's with BIOS 3302 and with -28 Core0/Core7, -25 Core4/Core8 and -30 all other cores.
Still no idle/low loads reboots with "-30 all cores".

Let's see in the next days, but currently I like this Bios 3703 !!!


----------



## sonixmon

Sleepycat said:


> You can set your starting diagnostic voltage a bit higher to avoid crashing. I think default is 1187 mV, but you can set it to 1250 mV and let it go downwards on its own in the test.


Got a chance at lunch to play with this. 1st time it completed successfully but lower score *forgot to kill all background apps and services". 2nd & 4rd tried lower diag voltage 1200 and 1225 but no good. 1250 again but it crashed, rand one more time and it passed. Always saying bronze sample now where used to say silver or gold (once). I don't put a lot in the sample value though it could be accurate.

Anyway it finished last time and scored 8603 CB20, close to my highest of 8663. I may see what I can do with a fully manual OC one day if I end up with a few days to waste. Overall happy with system performance.

Also running bios 3703 now.


----------



## GRABibus

Now on official website :






ROG Crosshair VIII Hero


ROG Crosshair VIII Hero - Carte mère gaming AMD X570 au format ATX avec slot PCIe 4.0, 16 phases d´alimentation, OptiMem III, LAN 2,5 Gb/s, USB 3.2, SATA, M.2 et éclairage Aura Sync



rog.asus.com


----------



## Alberto_It

GRABibus said:


> Now on official website :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG Crosshair VIII Hero
> 
> 
> ROG Crosshair VIII Hero - Carte mère gaming AMD X570 au format ATX avec slot PCIe 4.0, 16 phases d´alimentation, OptiMem III, LAN 2,5 Gb/s, USB 3.2, SATA, M.2 et éclairage Aura Sync
> 
> 
> 
> rog.asus.com


It's available since midnight


----------



## Robostyle

Nope, still tons of whea at 2000fclk, going back to 1900.


----------



## GRABibus

Alberto_It said:


> It's available since midnight


Not on french site


----------



## Alberto_It

GRABibus said:


> Not on french site


Sorry, I search always on Global. Fingers crossed


----------



## xeizo

sonixmon said:


> Got a chance at lunch to play with this. 1st time it completed successfully but lower score *forgot to kill all background apps and services". 2nd & 4rd tried lower diag voltage 1200 and 1225 but no good. 1250 again but it crashed, rand one more time and it passed. Always saying bronze sample now where used to say silver or gold (once). I don't put a lot in the sample value though it could be accurate.
> 
> Anyway it finished last time and scored 8603 CB20, close to my highest of 8663. I may see what I can do with a fully manual OC one day if I end up with a few days to waste. Overall happy with system performance.
> 
> Also running bios 3703 now.


I got 8670, about 100 below 3301, but it's hot here


----------



## jomama22

xeizo said:


> 3703 looks to work fine, had to change DrvStr once again, back to what it was in 3501 or it wouldn't boot. 3702 was a anomaly. Latency is a little worse, but not much. At least not a single WHEA in 45 minutes of various desktop and benchmarking. I did a comparison in Geekbench with the best benching bios, which was 3301, 3703 is 4.2% slower in single core but only 0.5% behind in multi core. BUT 3301 was benchmarked in winter with a pretty cold room, now it's tropical heat here so ambience is much worse, which should affect benchmarks scores. In particular as I'm on Air cooling. There was a couple of new options in the bios, for APU I guess.
> 
> View attachment 2519057


Just a heads up. The best pbo bios is 3003, you should give it a try.

Honestly, for anyone without USB issues (aka, don't need anything 1.2.0.x to not have drop outs) and using pbo, 3003 is the best bios for both memory and pbo


----------



## Sleepycat

Back when I updated to 3702, I noticed that it had to memory train once (single post error, reboot and then normal post). Now with 3703, I get 2 post errors, so that means it is rebooting twice to memory train. 

Still no memory errors in TM5, so might look at adjusting memory voltages again to see if it brings my system back to a successful post the first time.


----------



## CyrIng

R8H (WiFi) BIOS 3703 3950X - 32GB GTZN @ specs 3600/1800MHz 1.35V

Linux - CoreFreq monitoring: stress & idle testings










DOCP is doing wrong -> instant reboot

DIMM timing and voltage were set manually based on SPD values -> Stable


----------



## Cllaymenn

LarryHope said:


> "
> 
> Running 4x 16GB quad rank B-die on a Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi,
> 
> "
> 
> I am finding 16G x 4 DRAM module Samsung B die for a long time. Could you let me know what DRAM you use here?



Hi Larry, are you still here? I saw your results on GeekBench 5 .. and I have some questions! Please let me know if you read this


----------



## ChillyRide

Sleepycat said:


> Something is not right with your ST. Mine is set very conservatively to keep under 4.875 MHz @ 1.425V to minimize heat, and my ST score is still higher than yours.


What u mean not right? show yours and I'll look what can I do.


----------



## Theo164

Testing CTR 2.1 RC6 ver.24, 3703 is better than 3702.
Bios update and load profile
CB20 +176pts MT +7pts ST
Aida64 -1.5 to -2.0 ms memory latency


----------



## Robostyle

jomama22 said:


> Just a heads up. The best pbo bios is 3003, you should give it a try.
> 
> Honestly, for anyone without USB issues (aka, don't need anything 1.2.0.x to not have drop outs) and using pbo, 3003 is the best bios for both memory and pbo


And how do you revert to 1.1.x.x bioses?


----------



## sapphire112

GRABibus said:


> Tested 3703 in CBR20 and Aida64 Mem and Cache performances versus Bios 3302 :
> 
> 
> *Bios 3302 @ 24°C ambient:*
> 
> View attachment 2519085
> View attachment 2519086
> 
> 
> 
> *Bios 3703 @ 27°C ambient : *
> 
> View attachment 2519087
> View attachment 2519088
> 
> 
> seems promising as I did test for 3703 with 3°C more than with 3302, which is a great performer bios.
> 
> I will keep 3703 currently to see if I don't get weird idle/low loads reboots or « WHEA 19 » warning errors.
> I also come back to "-30 all cores" for CO as a test.


hello could you provide the 3703 bios cmos file with the overclock parameters that I can test on my machine thank you


----------



## GRABibus

sapphire112 said:


> hello could you provide the 3703 bios cmos file with the overclock parameters that I can test on my machine thank you


The Bios is downloadable here :






ROG Crosshair VIII Hero


ROG Crosshair VIII Hero - Carte mère gaming AMD X570 au format ATX avec slot PCIe 4.0, 16 phases d´alimentation, OptiMem III, LAN 2,5 Gb/s, USB 3.2, SATA, M.2 et éclairage Aura Sync



rog.asus.com





Here are my current settings :


----------



## GRABibus

Robostyle said:


> And how do you revert to 1.1.x.x bioses?


You can use USB Bios flashback tool


----------



## GRABibus

Theo164 said:


> Testing CTR 2.1 RC6 ver.24, 3703 is better than 3702.
> Bios update and load profile
> CB20 +176pts MT +7pts ST
> Aida64 -1.5 to -2.0 ms memory latency


Nice to hear for latency.
From my side, I didn't see any Aida latency improvments from Bios 3302 to Bios 3703.


----------



## Robostyle

GRABibus said:


> You can use USB Bios flashback tool


Nope, it says smth like “not bios file” or “file is corrupt”.
Tried both 2601 and 3003.


----------



## asavah

Theo164 said:


> Testing CTR 2.1 RC6 ver.24, 3703 is better than 3702.
> Bios update and load profile
> CB20 +176pts MT +7pts ST
> Aida64 -1.5 to -2.0 ms memory latency


Yep, got identical latency decrease, was able to shave 3ms total with 3703 and trfc tightening.
My memory kit is suboptimal tho, HyperX Fury HX436C17FB3AK2/32 , at the moment I was building the rig it was the best thing available for purchase in this ****ing country.


----------



## GRABibus

Robostyle said:


> Nope, it says smth like “not bios file” or “file is corrupt”.
> Tried both 2601 and 3003.


During the USB BIOS flashbak process you have this issue ??


----------



## Robostyle

GRABibus said:


> During the USB BIOS flashbak process you have this issue ??


Only when trying to install older bioses, like 2601 and 3003. It rejects dem files with message error *“Selected file is not a proper BIOS"*
Going back and forward between different 12.x.x agesa bioses, starting from 3204 is easy though.


----------



## domdtxdissar

jomama22 said:


> Just a heads up. The best pbo bios is 3003, you should give it a try.
> 
> Honestly, for anyone without USB issues (aka, don't need anything 1.2.0.x to not have drop outs) and using pbo, 3003 is the best bios for both memory and pbo


For a PBO CO setup i agree, bios 3003 have the best boosting, but i have to disagree about the memory part, i found the memory training to be very twitchy..

I think any of the newer bioses are both easier and better to tweak memory with..
Haven't bothered to update my bios in a while, but this is what i'm getting with bios 3501, which is something i never could come close to when i was running 3003 

Windows10









Fake "6 core 5600XT" in windows10









Windows11: Do notice the 51.1ns memory latency @ 1900:3800















Have some more windows11 benchmarks here(slower outdated mem settings), but have switched back to windows10 again because i didn't like the new layout

My main point with this post is that if you are using something like CTR or Hydra (alpha out today btw) you would be better served by using a newer bios with better memory support.
If you want to run stockish settings (low power) it don't really matter all that much, pick newer bios for easier memory training.
But only If you want to maximize your PBO CO overclock/boosting and have no USB problems = bios 3003 is the best option. (but know you have to use a few tricks and watt will be high when maxed out)


----------



## domdtxdissar

Robostyle said:


> Nope, it says smth like “not bios file” or “file is corrupt”.
> Tried both 2601 and 3003.


Worked for me going from 3501 to 3003 to test something a few months ago: [Motherboard] How to use USB BIOS FlashBack™?


----------



## Robostyle

domdtxdissar said:


> Worked for me going from 3501 to 3003 to test something a few months ago: [Motherboard] How to use USB BIOS FlashBack™?


I'll try that out, thx.

Meanwhile running patch C bios now.
And again, they've messed up between extreme tweaker and advanced tab 
CO optimize totally useless for singlecore but flawless if You do it from AMD overclocking - I get 4.75GHz allcore 5800X, CB stable (16100 pt CB23) with -30 allcore CO, totally ignores clock override.
And totally useless for multicore but good for singlecore if you use it from tweaker - silly 4.5Ghz allcore even with -30 allcore CO, but frequency override does work. But its not stable.


P.S. Lol, 3703 + curve -30 - and that makes 5800x twice as fast as 1700x, and the same as threadripper 1950X in multicore CB23.


----------



## sonixmon

domdtxdissar said:


> My main point with this post is that if you are using something like CTR or Hydra (alpha out today btw) you would be better served by using a newer bios with better memory support.
> If you want to run stockish settings (low power) it don't really matter all that much, pick newer bios for easier memory training.
> But only If you want to maximize your PBO CO overclock/boosting and have no USB problems = bios 3003 is the best option. (but know you have to use a few tricks and watt will be high when maxed out)


What are your thoughts on CTR 2.1 RC6? I am thinking of becoming a supporter (to support his work and for early access) but waiting for Hydra Beta at least. Is it worth getting 2.1 RC6?


----------



## jomama22

domdtxdissar said:


> For a PBO CO setup i agree, bios 3003 have the best boosting, but i have to disagree about the memory part, i found the memory training to be very twitchy..
> 
> I think any of the newer bioses are both easier and better to tweak memory with..
> Haven't bothered to update my bios in a while, but this is what i'm getting with bios 3501, which is something i never could come close to when i was running 3003
> 
> Windows10
> View attachment 2519335
> 
> 
> Fake "6 core 5600XT" in windows10
> View attachment 2519336
> 
> 
> Windows11: Do notice the 51.1ns memory latency @ 1900:3800
> View attachment 2519337
> 
> View attachment 2519338
> 
> Have some more windows11 benchmarks here(slower outdated mem settings), but have switched back to windows10 again because i didn't like the new layout
> 
> My main point with this post is that if you are using something like CTR or Hydra (alpha out today btw) you would be better served by using a newer bios with better memory support.
> If you want to run stockish settings (low power) it don't really matter all that much, pick newer bios for easier memory training.
> But only If you want to maximize your PBO CO overclock/boosting and have no USB problems = bios 3003 is the best option. (but know you have to use a few tricks and watt will be high when maxed out)


I'm aware of what win11 provides, not sure how that is relevant.

I am just recently doing testing of the newer bios' so my experience in mainly down to shifting from the older to the newer. Havn't spent nearly as much time with the newer ones to really have any say one way or another. Memory latency from aida was always lower on 3003 when compared to most newer agesa' but that may have changed recently, I don't know for sure. My stable memory from 3003 to Asus' 1.2.0.3A is the exact same though latency wise, so I'm guessing either the agesa or Asus changed where that was affected from.

My post was specifically in response to someone talking about pbo, hence why I phrased my response as such. Ctr/hydra/w.e. isn't relevant. Clock speed will always be king when you are already at the limits of memory tweaking. A few lower sub-timings here and there with a new agesa or bios isn't going to overcome the difference in performance that the older PBO provides.

I will note that anyone with a DH board should use the dos/fmax enabled trick when using PBO, as that will provide a massive boost in performance, especially loads such as gaming where 10% is obtained in CPU bound scenarios.


----------



## Theo164

Robostyle said:


> Nope, it says smth like “not bios file” or “file is corrupt”.
> Tried both 2601 and 3003.


Try to format your bios flashback usb stick like FAT32 file system *16kb* allocation unit size


----------



## CyrIng

Old daemon is back with 3703


Code:


kernel: mce: [Hardware Error]: Machine check events logged
kernel: [Hardware Error]: Corrected error, no action required.
kernel: [Hardware Error]: CPU:0 (17:71:0) MC25_STATUS[-|CE|MiscV|-|-|-|-|CECC|-|-|-]: 0x98004000003e0000
kernel: [Hardware Error]: IPID: 0x000100ff03830400
kernel: [Hardware Error]: Platform Security Processor Ext. Error Code: 62
kernel: [Hardware Error]: cache level: RESV, tx: INSN


----------



## Reikoji

Robostyle said:


> Only when trying to install older bioses, like 2601 and 3003. It rejects dem files with message error *“Selected file is not a proper BIOS"*
> Going back and forward between different 12.x.x agesa bioses, starting from 3204 is easy though.


BIOS Flashback is used by first renaming the bios file specific to your motherboard model (C8F.CAP in my case for Formula). Official Bios come with a Bios file renamer that does it automatically for you. You place that file in the root directory of a USB flash drive, make sure the flash drive is inserted in the slot on the back of the motherboard labeled BIOS, and while the PC is shut down, press and hold the bios flashback button that is next to the CMOS reset button for 3(or 5?) seconds to start the flashing process. A blue light will flash repeatedly to let you know the process is underway and will stop once its finished flashing the bios. The led display on the Motherboard may also have the status displayed on it as well.

The instructions and filename for the bios are also in your motherboard manual.


----------



## GRABibus

New benches with 3703 and 2degrees less in my room than with former benches : 

25°C ambient :
















I had a low load reboot with -30 all cores.
I then came back to my CO settings I had with 3302 Bios :

-25 Core4/Core8, -28 Core0/Core7, -30 all other cores

Currently very happy with the 3703.


----------



## sonixmon

Hade some time to run Timespy today and results have definitely improved a little with 3703 now best @11071 with the best reported result online being 12110 with my CPU/GPU. Included several AIDA64 benchmarks as well (notice slight latency improvement with 3703).


----------



## Mol3culeZ

sonixmon said:


> What are your thoughts on CTR 2.1 RC6? I am thinking of becoming a supporter (to support his work and for early access) but waiting for Hydra Beta at least. Is it worth getting 2.1 RC6?


Hydra is just awesome!! I've been a patron since ctr2.1 came out. Hydra was a surprise to all of us. And Yuri really took the time to listen to the community and design a tool that is just unrivaled. Just from testing the alpha release I would say it's light years ahead of ctr. Even if you don't plan to use the dynamic profile settings it is useful for finding the voltage curve and what each core can do beyond its default curve.


----------



## Mol3culeZ

Has anyone noticed the if you enable the new watercooled profile thing in the beta bios that it sets an all core OC and also sets a -15 all core curve? I can only guess they made the feature to work on the dark hero variant and It got left that way when it made it into the ch8 hero. When I saw that upon saving and exiting the Bios I wondered if they added dynamic oc feature to the hero. Nope, just a dummy mode switch which enables 2 incompatible settings at once I guess.


----------



## Robostyle

How to use CO and dynamic OC simultaneously? Is there any sense to do that if cpu hits 4.6-4.7 allcore in CB by itself?


----------



## Sam64

Mol3culeZ said:


> I can only guess they made the feature to work on the dark hero variant and It got left that way when it made it into the ch8 hero.


I would guess so as well. I tried it with my C8HW and it's completely useless, since there is no DOC. plus it sets a fixed Vcore to 1.35v AND yes, activates PBO with CO-15 allcore. Well, it's maybe beta for a reason


----------



## sonixmon

Mol3culeZ said:


> Hydra is just awesome!! I've been a patron since ctr2.1 came out. Hydra was a surprise to all of us. And Yuri really took the time to listen to the community and design a tool that is just unrivaled. Just from testing the alpha release I would say it's light years ahead of ctr. Even if you don't plan to use the dynamic profile settings it is useful for finding the voltage curve and what each core can do beyond its default curve.


Cool I think I am going to pull the trigger then. Looking forward to checking it out!


----------



## J7SC

...seems like 3703 w/ new Agesa might be the one to upgrade both my Asus X570 to; I'm still on 3501


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> ...seems like 3703 w/ new Agesa might be the one to upgrade both my Asus X570 to; I'm still on 3501


Currently a great bios. I come from 3302.


----------



## safedisk

*ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 3801 BETA BIOS*

1. Improve system performance
2. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1203 PatchC (3703 Same Ver)

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 3801

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 3801

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 3801

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 3801

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 3801

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0401


----------



## J7SC

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2519627
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 3801 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Improve system performance
> 2. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1203 PatchC (3703 Same Ver)
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0401


Thanks ! Also, interesting-looking mobo


----------



## Reikoji

Windows always ends up borking after one or more windows culmative updates :| Just reinstalled and now have even better results than ever































CO -10, PPT 300, EDC 200, TDC Auto.

Wondering what I can change to get my memory latency down to where my 5800X was, or is it just not a possibility for a 5950x?


----------



## Alberto_It

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2519627
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 3801 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Improve system performance
> 2. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1203 PatchC (3703 Same Ver)
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0401


Could you explain to me better the improvements added?


----------



## Reikoji

Alberto_It said:


> Could you explain to me better the improvements added?


it just works (tm)


----------



## Alberto_It

Reikoji said:


> it just works (tm)


You are the developer?


----------



## Reikoji

Alberto_It said:


> You are the developer?


im not but know that they never answer that. If they didnt specify what in the note, Bug fixes, improved system performance, improved system stability are the generic lines for "it should be better in this way". Roll with it or stick with what you got.


----------



## AStaUK

J7SC said:


> Thanks ! Also, interesting-looking mobo


Found it on the Asus website, not sure I like the 2nd M.2 cover, looks a pain to remove/reseat. And what's that in the top right, looks almost as if there's another PCB upright on the board?

ROG Crosshair VIII Extreme


----------



## Reikoji

AStaUK said:


> Found it on the Asus website, not sure I like the 2nd M.2 cover, looks a pain to remove/reseat. And what's that in the top right, looks almost as if there's another PCB upright on the board?
> 
> ROG Crosshair VIII Extreme


Thats the dimm.2 that is present on all their Extreme class boards. It fits 2 m.2 drives, giving the board a total of 5 m.2 slots.


----------



## J7SC

AStaUK said:


> Found it on the Asus website, not sure I like the 2nd M.2 cover, looks a pain to remove/reseat. And what's that in the top right, looks almost as if there's another PCB upright on the board?
> 
> ROG Crosshair VIII Extreme


...Tom's Hardware has the PR on it > here ...I wouldn't be $urprised if it is priced to compete with the Gigabyte X570 Aorus Extreme


----------



## xeizo

Bios 3801 looks to be a improvement over 3703, benchmarks scores are back to 3301-level and RttNom/DrvStr is back to same settings as 3501/3601. 3703 was a strange fish with those settings. Thanks!

Now, I only wish to have the latest beta for B550-F, and not just B550-F WiFi which I don't own


----------



## GRABibus

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2519627
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 3801 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Improve system performance
> 2. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1203 PatchC (3703 Same Ver)
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0401


Thanks !
´should we flash or wait for 3901 tomorrow ? 😂


----------



## kx11

safedisk said:


> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 3801 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Improve system performance
> 2. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1203 PatchC (3703 Same Ver)
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0401



So far so good, using Formula Bios


----------



## CyrIng

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2519627
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 3801 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Improve system performance
> 2. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1203 PatchC (3703 Same Ver)
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0401


(Far from RIG: C8HW+3950X)
Can someone tell if MCE errors are still showing up with Linux ?


----------



## shaolin95

GRABibus said:


> Thanks !
> ´should we flash or wait for 3901 tomorrow ? 😂


Nobody forces anyone to flash  
Let's be happy that he keeps posting them as soon as available instead of us waiting months for new releases. Even as a "joke", I would reconsider posting them if it was me due to some of the reactions from some members lately. 
Regards


----------



## GRABibus

shaolin95 said:


> Nobody forces anyone to flash
> Let's be happy that he keeps posting them as soon as available instead of us waiting months for new releases. Even as a "joke", I would reconsider posting them if it was me due to some of the reactions from some members lately.
> Regards


it is just a joke…..
See my posts above on 3703.

is it still allowed to joke here ?


----------



## GRABibus

shaolin95 said:


> Nobody forces anyone to flash
> Let's be happy that he keeps posting them as soon as available instead of us waiting months for new releases. Even as a "joke", I would reconsider posting them if it was me due to some of the reactions from some members lately.
> Regards


Waiting for your feedback you too on these new bioses


----------



## shaolin95

GRABibus said:


> it is just a joke…..
> See my posts above on 3703.
> 
> is it still allowed to joke here ?


A "joke" with the recent events regarding whiners about the beta bios sharing here, is not a smart idea. Like I said, if I were the poster, I would double think about sharing anymore


----------



## shaolin95

GRABibus said:


> Waiting for your feedback you too on these new bioses


3703 has been solid so far but I will be testing this be one today to see what it can do for performance and USB stability


----------



## GRABibus

shaolin95 said:


> A "joke" with the recent events regarding whiners about the beta bios sharing here, is not a smart idea. Like I said, if I were the poster, I would double think about sharing anymore


I don’t care about whiners…..
I share a lot here.
And you are not a moderator ? 😊


----------



## sonixmon

Mol3culeZ said:


> Hydra is just awesome!! I've been a patron since ctr2.1 came out. Hydra was a surprise to all of us. And Yuri really took the time to listen to the community and design a tool that is just unrivaled. Just from testing the alpha release I would say it's light years ahead of ctr. Even if you don't plan to use the dynamic profile settings it is useful for finding the voltage curve and what each core can do beyond its default curve.


I just signed up. I started with CTR 2.1 RC6 since I am familiar with it. Diagnostic ran flawlessly, said Gold sample and jumped 400 points in CB20 after tuning! I will play with Hydra soon but will probably do a full system backup first since this is the best OC I have had yet. 

Looking forward to what level Hydra takes it to!


----------



## sonixmon

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2519627
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 3801 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Improve system performance
> 2. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1203 PatchC (3703 Same Ver)
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0401


Thank you, ASUS killing it lately! 

So this is the same as 3703 and no need to re-flash right?


----------



## shaolin95

GRABibus said:


> I don’t care about whiners…..
> I share a lot here.
> And you are not a moderator ? 😊


then by all mean keep sharing you "awesome" jokes and ruin it for everyone else. I don't need to be a moderator to notice useless comments like that one. And if you think POSTING a lot = quality posting...then I cant help you there. 
Welcome to my ignored list.
Regards


----------



## shaolin95

sonixmon said:


> Thank you, ASUS killing it lately!
> 
> So this is the same as 3703 and no need to re-flash right?


Well looks like the same AGESA but with some performance improvements? I will be testing shortly to see if I can notice anything.


----------



## shaolin95

sonixmon said:


> I just signed up. I started with CTR 2.1 RC6 since I am familiar with it. Diagnostic ran flawlessly, said Gold sample and jumped 400 points in CB20 after tuning! I will play with Hydra soon but will probably do a full system backup first since this is the best OC I have had yet.
> 
> Looking forward to what level Hydra takes it to!


I haven't tried CTR for a while. I would love your feedback on Hydra


----------



## GRABibus

shaolin95 said:


> then by all mean keep sharing you "awesome" jokes and ruin it for everyone else. I don't need to be a moderator to notice useless comments like that one. And if you think POSTING a lot = quality posting...then I cant help you there.
> Welcome to my ignored list.
> Regards


who are you to judge post quality ?
I read a lot of yours in the recent weeks/months and honestly…. Quality is really relative judgement !

with pleasure on your ignored list 👍


----------



## xeizo

sonixmon said:


> Thank you, ASUS killing it lately!
> 
> So this is the same as 3703 and no need to re-flash right?


I don't think it's the same, I had to change some settings and performance is higher


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> who are you to judge post quality ?
> I read a lot of yours in the recent weeks/months and honestly…. Quality is really relative judgement !
> 
> with pleasure on your ignored list 👍


I'm on his ignore list too, he is umm sensitive LoL


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> I'm on his ignore list too, he is umm sensitive LoL


😊


----------



## Danny.ns

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2519627
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 3801 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Improve system performance
> 2. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1203 PatchC (3703 Same Ver)
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0401


Many thanks for sharing BETA!


----------



## sonixmon

xeizo said:


> I don't think it's the same, I had to change some settings and performance is higher


Ah ok sweet. I thought his comment said same as 3703 but I was half asleep I guess and missed the BETA.


----------



## xeizo

sonixmon said:


> Ah ok sweet. I thought his comment said same as 3703 but I was half asleep I guess and missed the BETA.


Yes, same version AGESA, but I suppose the Asus portion has changed


----------



## asavah

Anyone tested 3801 yet? I'm getting around half RAM read speed in AIDA with the same settings as 3702 (should be around 55000 MB/s)


Scratch that, fat-fingers issue, trdrdsc was 7 instead of 1, everything is good now.
Benchmark scores are mostly identical to 3703.


----------



## Sheldon_fr

Hello everyone

While browsing many forums, I saw that a lot of people were confronted with the same problem of "CPU OVER TEMPERATURE" although they are correct. Can tell me if there is a solution? I have random reboots coming out of games most of the time.

My config:

5900x
570 CROSSHAIR HERO VIII
850w CORSAIR RMX
3090 TUF OC


----------



## Sleepycat

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2519627
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 3801 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Improve system performance
> 2. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1203 PatchC (3703 Same Ver)
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 3801
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0401


Thanks Safedisk! I just flashed it on my C8H, works great and no more memory training issues. It posts successfully in the first go now!


----------



## Sleepycat

J7SC said:


> ...Tom's Hardware has the PR on it > here ...I wouldn't be $urprised if it is priced to compete with the Gigabyte X570 Aorus Extreme


Quite odd that the 3x M.2 slots are connected to the CPU. That means it takes up 12 lanes while leaving 4 lanes to connect to the chipset and 8 lanes for the GPU?!?!


----------



## criznit

Sheldon_fr said:


> Hello everyone
> 
> While browsing many forums, I saw that a lot of people were confronted with the same problem of "CPU OVER TEMPERATURE" although they are correct. Can tell me if there is a solution? I have random reboots coming out of games most of the time.
> 
> My config:
> 
> 5900x
> 570 CROSSHAIR HERO VIII
> 850w CORSAIR RMX
> 3090 TUF OC


I just started having this same issue with 3703 and now 3801.


----------



## xeizo

criznit said:


> I just started having this same issue with 3703 and now 3801.


Never had it even once, but I'm using PBO and have set throttling to 85C which means it shouldn't be able to overheat


----------



## Sheldon_fr

My temps are goods 80° on Cbr20 with 360 Alphacool and Meshify 2.
The problem is here :/


----------



## criznit

I'm using the offset brackets on the arctic 360 and was getting 75C with heavy gaming. It just started when I swapped to 3701 and continues with 3801. I'm running my machine now and it hasn't restarted at all in the past 3 hrs, so I have no clue what is going on.


----------



## GRABibus

Tested 3801 versus 3703 in CBR20 and Aida64 memory and cache perfs.

3703 [email protected]°C :











3801 [email protected]°C :










Lost 5 pts in CBR20 Single thread and lost 50points in CBR20 multithread.

In Aida64 memory and cache perfs, same results for 3703 and 3801.

In my case, I go back to 3703 currently.

*EDIT : in fact, I have exactly same results CBR20 between 3703 and 3801*


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> Tested 3801 versus 3703 in CBR20 and Aida64 memory and cache perfs.
> 
> 3703 [email protected]°C :
> 
> View attachment 2519756
> 
> 
> 
> 3801 [email protected]°C :
> 
> View attachment 2519757
> 
> 
> Lost 5 pts in CBR20 Single thread and lost 50points in CBR20 multithread.
> 
> In Aida64 memory and cache perfs, same results for 3703 and 3801.
> 
> In my case, I go back to 3703 currently.


No need to go back, it's within the variance between different runs, you have 0.5-0.78% performance difference.


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> No need to go back, it's within the variance between different runs, you have 0.5-0.78% performance difference.


you are right and in fact I remade tests today with both bios. 
results are the same !

In my former post, test with 3703 was done with with probably lower temp than today…

So, all, forget my post just above


----------



## xeizo

Here is mine on 3801, computer has been on all day so everything is heated up which will remove some points, it's a bit below my best scores. But enough small difference that I will gladly take it over USB-issues and WHEA! I use much less Curve Optimizer than you and only 75MHz override, so scores has to be lower.


----------



## Robostyle

xeizo said:


> I will gladly take it over USB-issues and WHEA!


Do you mean new bios solved whea problem? Cause I see no progress here, 3703 and 1933/2000 fclk is still out of reach.


----------



## CyrIng

Part of the SMU HSMP mailbox protocol is the HOTPROC bit status.
CoreFreq in its development version is querying that status every second.
HOT will turn RED in footer when PROCHOT happens.









GitHub - cyring/CoreFreq at develop


CoreFreq is a CPU monitoring software designed for the 64-bits Processors. - GitHub - cyring/CoreFreq at develop




github.com


----------



## xeizo

Robostyle said:


> Do you mean new bios solved whea problem? Cause I see no progress here, 3703 and 1933/2000 fclk is still out of reach.


It's getting better, btw it's 3801 we are talking about. And everything above 1800MHz fclk is mostly IMC and not the motherboard. The chip lottery.


----------



## xeizo

CyrIng said:


> Part of the SMU HSMP mailbox protocol is the HOTPROC bit status.
> CoreFreq in its development version is querying that status every second.
> HOT will turn RED in footer when PROCHOT happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GitHub - cyring/CoreFreq at develop
> 
> 
> CoreFreq is a CPU monitoring software designed for the 64-bits Processors. - GitHub - cyring/CoreFreq at develop
> 
> 
> 
> 
> github.com


Interesting find!


----------



## Reikoji

Using my current settings my Temps haven't gotten too far over 70c










I haven't gotten any random CPU overtemp warnings out of 3703 or 3801.


----------



## sonixmon

xeizo said:


> It's getting better, btw it's 3801 we are talking about. And everything above 1800MHz fclk is mostly IMC and not the motherboard. The chip lottery.


No change for me above 1900Mhz, probably IMC limited as you said. My previous CPU (5800x) wouldn't get past 1866 so I am thankful I can at least hit 1900 now.
My ram seems to operate fine up to 3866 with stock timings but CPU just can't rock that hard.


----------



## Reikoji

part of the improvements may have been allowing me main timing freedom. didnt think anything below cl14 would pass training, but cl13 did and hasnt failed testing after over 1hr/3 passes.

but i wonder if it will help my latency or be a placebo.


----------



## Reikoji

Actually it was a lie. shoulda checked before commiting to testing but CL was still set to 14 :|










bios just auto adjusted it.


----------



## sonixmon

Reikoji said:


> Actually it was a lie. shoulda checked before commiting to testing but CL was still set to 14 :|
> 
> View attachment 2519805
> 
> 
> bios just auto adjusted it.


GMD on?


----------



## Reikoji

sonixmon said:


> GMD on?


yea its on. has to be for my setup or nothing works


----------



## sonixmon

Reikoji said:


> yea its on. has to be for my setup or nothing works


That's why it rounded up I think.


----------



## arcanexvi

We all going to just ignore the fact that there's a beta bios for the new Extreme there? @safedisk Happy to buy one early and test! lol


----------



## Reikoji

sonixmon said:


> That's why it rounded up I think.


Last I heard Geardown Mode needed to be on to use odd CL for AMD. I guess it may have been about rounding it vs failing the timing. I think I prefer it just failing if it cant actually set it.


----------



## CyrIng

xeizo said:


> Interesting find!


Command ID here:








CoreFreq/amdmsr.h at d5b8ff7c3fe566b94704b9568c39251727ba7ef6 · cyring/CoreFreq


CoreFreq is a CPU monitoring software designed for the 64-bits Processors. - CoreFreq/amdmsr.h at d5b8ff7c3fe566b94704b9568c39251727ba7ef6 · cyring/CoreFreq




github.com





Compiling and running my zencli for such HSMP arg, you may observe a value change when temperature exceeds limit.








Tips/zencli.c at master · cyring/Tips


Contribute to cyring/Tips development by creating an account on GitHub.




github.com


----------



## blunden

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Question regarding M.2 drives in a Crosshair Hero VIII.
> 
> I understand some motherboards, the top M.2 slot is fastest as it uses the CPU lanes. But I'm reading for ASUS, it doesn't matter if you use the top or bottom, they're going to be equal?
> 
> Can anyone validate or invalidate this? Thank you! I'm going to upgrade and clone over my old SSD to a new one.


 Not sure where you found that it doesn't matter? The top slot is connected to the CPU lanes, the bottom slot to the chipset, as you can see in the manual. Depending on the amount of chipset lanes you use, you may bottleneck the lower M.2 slot.



xeizo said:


> Bios 3801 looks to be a improvement over 3703, benchmarks scores are back to 3301-level and RttNom/DrvStr is back to same settings as 3501/3601. 3703 was a strange fish with those settings. Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I only wish to have the latest beta for B550-F, and not just B550-F WiFi which I don't own


 So no idle reboot issues so far? Any particular settings you noticed needed to be changed in these later BIOS versions to address the issue? I'm guessing your process was basically to check the values 3501 set for all settings related to ram and then manually set those same values with 3801?


----------



## sonixmon

Reikoji said:


> Last I heard Geardown Mode needed to be on to use odd CL for AMD. I guess it may have been about rounding it vs failing the timing. I think I prefer it just failing if it cant actually set it.


Yes I would recommending finding your best timings with GDM off and see compare your performance. I have seen reviews that show mixed results with it on vs off which I thought was interesting.


----------



## exitrade

Soory maybe it's out of topic.
I'm not overclocker at all.
But I'm concern how to reduce core VIDs (it's always 1.4v) Ryzen 5900x in hwinfo or HWMonitor Pro.
I use Bios version 2702 not official latest 3601(when i update to 3601) temp just reach 5c more.
My cooler is nzxt z63 and temperature on hot days are about 80c 
I think i'ts to much. 
Soo how to reduce voltage or .. ?
Thx anyone in advance.

Motherboard: Asus Rog Crosshair VIII Hero
Ram: 2x8GB G SkillTrident Z RGB DDR4-_3200MHz CL14_-14-14-34 1.35V


----------



## sonixmon

exitrade said:


> Soory maybe it's out of topic.
> I'm not overclocker at all.
> But I'm concern how to reduce core VIDs (it's always 1.4v) Ryzen 5900x in hwinfo or HWMonitor Pro.
> I use Bios version 2702 not official latest 3601(when i update to 3601) temp just reach 5c more.
> My cooler is nzxt z63 and temperature on hot days are about 80c
> I think i'ts to much.
> Soo how to reduce voltage or .. ?
> Thx anyone in advance.
> 
> Motherboard: Asus Rog Crosshair VIII Hero
> Ram: 2x8GB G SkillTrident Z RGB DDR4-_3200MHz CL14_-14-14-34 1.35V


Your voltage should be on auto and handle by your motherboard. Some MB overvolt and you can try CO -10-30 per core or all core but that requires testing. Are you saying your idle, gaming or stress temps are 80? Under load 80-90 is normal and by design. The CPU/MB will push as far as it can within spec (under 90).


----------



## Alemancio

sonixmon said:


> Your voltage should be on auto and handle by your motherboard. Some MB overvolt and you can try CO -10-30 per core or all core but that requires testing. Are you saying your idle, gaming or stress temps are 80? Under load 80-90 is normal and by design. The CPU/MB will push as far as it can within spec (under 90).


+1. Voltage is nothing if you dont consider load (amps). I some times idle at 1.48v and thats perfectly normal since under load it comes down to 1.38v (and at 160W thus 115Amps).

Now you can try a VID negative offset, but as Sonixmon mentioned you'd be better off by offsetting your Cores with Curve Optimizer, because this allows you to push for more MHz / Volts.


----------



## Sleepycat

exitrade said:


> Soory maybe it's out of topic.
> I'm not overclocker at all.
> But I'm concern how to reduce core VIDs (it's always 1.4v) Ryzen 5900x in hwinfo or HWMonitor Pro.
> I use Bios version 2702 not official latest 3601(when i update to 3601) temp just reach 5c more.
> My cooler is nzxt z63 and temperature on hot days are about 80c
> I think i'ts to much.
> Soo how to reduce voltage or .. ?
> Thx anyone in advance.
> 
> Motherboard: Asus Rog Crosshair VIII Hero
> Ram: 2x8GB G SkillTrident Z RGB DDR4-_3200MHz CL14_-14-14-34 1.35V


Easiest way I found to reduce voltage was to use Curve Optimizer. You should use Corecycler to find stable settings though so you don't compromise stability on any of your cores. Another way is to use CTR2.1, where you can input your clockspeed and voltage for different load situations.


----------



## Sleepycat

Comparing 3703 and 3801 when pushing my 5900X as hard as possible on air cooling and SSE-based stability, my CB R20 scores dropped from 9309 (bios 3703) to 9154 (bios 3801). Trying to figure out what happened, but it is likely that my CPU temperatures are hitting my upper limit and it then falls back to more conservative clock speeds halfway through the bench.


----------



## Theo164

Reikoji said:


> Last I heard Geardown Mode needed to be on to use odd CL for AMD. I guess it may have been about rounding it vs failing the timing. I think I prefer it just failing if it cant actually set it.


For my system Geardown Mode on or off does not affect the use of odd cl timings. There is no way to boot - train memory @ cl 15
Maybe because I'm running 4x sr bdie?... don't know, although I've seen screenshots of other zen3 & x570 systems over time running stable cl15


----------



## trespot

exitrade said:


> Soory maybe it's out of topic.
> I'm not overclocker at all.
> But I'm concern how to reduce core VIDs (it's always 1.4v) Ryzen 5900x in hwinfo or HWMonitor Pro.
> I use Bios version 2702 not official latest 3601(when i update to 3601) temp just reach 5c more.
> My cooler is nzxt z63 and temperature on hot days are about 80c
> I think i'ts to much.
> Soo how to reduce voltage or .. ?
> Thx anyone in advance.
> 
> Motherboard: Asus Rog Crosshair VIII Hero
> Ram: 2x8GB G SkillTrident Z RGB DDR4-_3200MHz CL14_-14-14-34 1.35V


First thing is VID is not the the voltage supplied to the CPU, it's what requested. Check VCore SVI2 TFN for more accurate voltage reading.
Second: Voltage does not do anything by itself and voltage alone won't cause degradation current does. Think of voltage as how hard you push the current.

P = V * I
P being power, I being current, V being voltage. If current is low high voltage won't cause any issue. That's why you can see 1,5V when idling.
Unless you are going for static overclock CPUs won't let you damage them easily. 
80 Celcius degrees if it's a heavy workload, looks amazing to me  
I increase power limits and run my CPUs run as high as 95 degrees, otherwise I feel like I dont utilize them enough  



Theo164 said:


> For my system Geardown Mode on or off does not affect the use of odd cl timings. There is no way to boot - train memory @ cl 15
> Maybe because I'm running 4x sr bdie?... don't know, although I've seen screenshots of other zen3 & x570 systems over time running stable cl15


From what I know geardown mode will kick in, in case of instability if CL15 is already stable it wouldn't do anything.


----------



## JoneKone

trespot said:


> First thing is VID is not the the voltage supplied to the CPU, it's what requested. Check VCore SVI2 TFN for more accurate voltage reading.
> Second: Voltage does not do anything by itself and voltage alone won't cause degradation current does. Think of voltage as how hard you push the current.
> 
> P = V * I
> P being power, I being current, V being voltage. If current is low high voltage won't cause any issue. That's why you can see 1,5V when idling.
> Unless you are going for static overclock CPUs won't let you damage them easily.
> 80 Celcius degrees if it's a heavy workload, looks amazing to me
> I increase power limits and run my CPUs run as high as 95 degrees, otherwise I feel like I dont utilize them enough
> 
> 
> From what I know geardown mode will kick in, in case of instability if CL15 is already stable it wouldn't do anything.


Hi Voltage is what degrades the silicon. You can push as much current as you want true it, makes no difference.


----------



## neikosr0x

criznit said:


> I just started having this same issue with 3703 and now 3801.


Been using 3703 since it came out and never got this issue, Dark hero.


----------



## criznit

neikosr0x said:


> Been using 3703 since it came out and never got this issue, Dark hero.


I'm at a lost now. I started my pc up this morning and bam, another BSOD. I keep getting kernal 41 errors even at 100% stock. I will check my drivers and the OS and will check back in later.


----------



## Sleepycat

criznit said:


> I'm at a lost now. I started my pc up this morning and bam, another BSOD. I keep getting kernal 41 errors even at 100% stock. I will check my drivers and the OS and will check back in later.


Try setting curve optimizer to +10 for all cores and see if kernel 41 still happens.


----------



## neikosr0x

criznit said:


> I'm at a lost now. I started my pc up this morning and bam, another BSOD. I keep getting kernal 41 errors even at 100% stock. I will check my drivers and the OS and will check back in later.


I had some weird issues like random reboots, so I started using Asus chipset drivers from their website and the issue went away check it out.


----------



## criznit

Ok, I've found the culprit. Apparently path of exile's newest update is causing BSOD with certain systems. The BSOD only happen when I play that game. Thanks everyone for the tips and tricks!

Edit: Nvm, it's with any game


----------



## PWn3R

Not that it was expected to help, but I tried 1900/3800 with 4 sticks and 2 sticks of my RAM with 3801. Still no go, stuck at 1866/3733 forever it seems with this CPU. No other issues with this BIOS, although it does seem interesting that I get different post codes on this one when it fails to boot at 1900/3800. I may try 1933/3866 at some point just for grins as I used to be able to get that to boot, but it was WHEA central.


----------



## Sleepycat

criznit said:


> Ok, I've found the culprit. Apparently path of exile's newest update is causing BSOD with certain systems. The BSOD only happen when I play that game. Thanks everyone for the tips and tricks!
> 
> Edit: Nvm, it's with any game


Have you tried giving all your cores a +10 offset in Curve Optimizer?


----------



## sonixmon

PWn3R said:


> Not that it was expected to help, but I tried 1900/3800 with 4 sticks and 2 sticks of my RAM with 3801. Still no go, stuck at 1866/3733 forever it seems with this CPU. No other issues with this BIOS, although it does seem interesting that I get different post codes on this one when it fails to boot at 1900/3800. I may try 1933/3866 at some point just for grins as I used to be able to get that to boot, but it was WHEA central.


Its probably your CPU, I had a 5800x that hit the same limits, got a 5900x at retail and thankfully it hits 1900 fine but 1933 is WHEA city.


----------



## GRABibus

ASUS,
Next bioses should be great if they can focus on fclk > 1900MHz stability and wheas 19.

I am sure this is a global expectation on X570 CH owners.
Thanks !


----------



## criznit

Sleepycat said:


> Have you tried giving all your cores a +10 offset in Curve Optimizer?


I haven't tried that yet, but I made a breakthrough! EVGA X1 1.2.3 seems to have caused the software issues. I've uninstalled it and reinstalled afterburner and have yet to BSOD. I will keep you updated after letting this run for a few more hours.


----------



## xProlific

If you can't hit 1900 fclk by this point I think it is safe to day the issue is not the bios but the memory controller on your chip.


----------



## xeizo

xProlific said:


> If you can't hit 1900 fclk by this point I think it is safe to day the issue is not the bios but the memory controller on your chip.


Agree, I have three Ryzen CPU:s that can do 1900, on four different motherboards with two different sets of RAM. It's not the bios.


----------



## Danny.ns

But you guys have to admit its weird that a memory controller can POST at 1933, 1966, 2000 MHz no problem. But 1900 is impossible.

I literallly played Call of Duty Black ops for one hour at FCLK 1966MHz. I got like a billion WHEAs but I cannot even POST at 1900MHz. If its the memory controller, it has nothing to do with how high of a MHz the memory controller can reach as higher than 1900 is possible. It is something very specific with 1900 that makes some CPUs not POST that does not affect 1933MHz, 1966Mhz and even higher.


----------



## bt1

My build does not POST with 1900 FCLK either, and 1933 gives a lot of WHEA and awful performance.
However, I experimented with BCLK on 1866 multiplier (BCLK*56/3): WHEA starts showing when FCLK reaches 1880MHz (100.75*56/3), performance drops significantly.
So POSTing at 1900 is not a loss for me - it would WHEA badly too.


----------



## GRABibus

Danny.ns said:


> But you guys have to admit its weird that a memory controller can POST at 1933, 1966, 2000 MHz no problem. But 1900 is impossible.
> 
> I literallly played Call of Duty Black ops for one hour at FCLK 1966MHz. I got like a billion WHEAs but I cannot even POST at 1900MHz. If its the memory controller, it has nothing to do with how high of a MHz the memory controller can reach as higher than 1900 is possible. It is something very specific with 1900 that makes some CPUs not POST that does not affect 1933MHz, 1966Mhz and even higher.


I post without any issues and no wheas at 1900. I even don’t have to tweak so much voltages for it.
But, at 1933MHz, impossible to post 90% of the time , even with tweaking voltages.
And when I can boot, tons of wheas 19.
2000MHz is a no go for me.


----------



## Robostyle

xProlific said:


> If you can't hit 1900 fclk by this point I think it is safe to day the issue is not the bios but the memory controller on your chip.


I don't know..... I mean, my example: I'm posting easy, too easy I might say, up to 4000MEM:2000FCLK, I might post even higher, but I have 2x16 dualranks, and that can take some tinkering which I didn't since its out of QVL for C8DH. And while its obviously not enough to "just post" - I'm 99.9% stable in all mem benches and stresstests even while WHEA hammer my system.

But then, the fact that I can stabilize and get rid of WHEA by pushing SOC over 1.2v and IO to 1.1v tells me that it IS actually chip quality...
Me guess it's both.


----------



## RHBH

Regarding this 1900 FLCK "hole" issue and WHEA errors for 1933+ FLCK (even if it's stable). 

This should be a combination of multiple factors, chip quality, motherboard, ram setup and BIOS. 

No company will ever openly speak up about it, AMD will only guarantee DDR4-3200 in their platform. 

This is one of the hidden perks that you get in AMD platform, if it annoys you, you should go to a Intel platform which tends to be more reliable in this area.


----------



## Syldon

RHBH said:


> Regarding this 1900 FLCK "hole" issue and WHEA errors for 1933+ FLCK (even if it's stable).
> 
> This should be a combination of multiple factors, chip quality, motherboard, ram setup and BIOS.
> 
> No company will ever openly speak up about it, AMD will only guarantee DDR4-3200 in their platform.
> 
> This is one of the hidden perks that you get in AMD platform, if it annoys you, you should go to a Intel platform which tends to be more reliable in this area.


There is a major problem with this though. I just returned memory that was quoted as 4000mhz (16,16,16,36 single rank) for AMD systems. People don't understand the importance of the fclk.

I currently run with 3 year old memory at 1900/3800. I wanted to move from 16gb to 32gb. I have had quite a bit of experience on Ryzen from 1800x and a 2700x and now a 5950. I have owned all the crosshair boards for Ryzen with the exception of the dark CH8, so that is a CH6, CH7 and now a CH8. I started it up on xmp settings. The memory ran like dog poop. I know they say you cannot tell the difference without measuring tools, but to me it was very evident something was amiss. The fclk was stuck at 1600. Any attempt to move it to fclk 2000 resulted in a bios loop. I thought I expected as much since I can't get my own to hit 2000/4000. I would accept 1900/3800, but nope, 1800/3600, or even 1700/3400 was not happening. So I decided to run at base 1600/3200. It would only do this at CL16. and it failed stability very early on. Anyone with low knowledge of how bad latencies can affect a Ryzen system would have just accepted this.

Memory needs a dual standard with advertising these days. One that will work ok with intel and one that gives the correct optimum for AMD. AMD should really be pushing on this and protecting the community who buys their kit. It is one thing saying we only support 3200mhz, but if someone is advertising AMD compatible, then it needs to hit the fclk also.


----------



## sonixmon

Syldon said:


> There is a major problem with this though. I just returned memory that was quoted as 4000mhz (16,16,16,36 single rank) for AMD systems. People don't understand the importance of the fclk.
> 
> I currently run with 3 year old memory at 1900/3800. I wanted to move from 16gb to 32gb. I have had quite a bit of experience on Ryzen from 1800x and a 2700x and now a 5950. I have owned all the crosshair boards for Ryzen with the exception of the dark CH8, so that is a CH6, CH7 and now a CH8. I started it up on xmp settings. The memory ran like dog poop. I know they say you cannot tell the difference without measuring tools, but to me it was very evident something was amiss. The fclk was stuck at 1600. Any attempt to move it to fclk 2000 resulted in a bios loop. I thought I expected as much since I can't get my own to hit 2000/4000. I would accept 1900/3800, but nope, 1800/3600, or even 1700/3400 was not happening. So I decided to run at base 1600/3200. It would only do this at CL16. and it failed stability very early on. Anyone with low knowledge of how bad latencies can affect a Ryzen system would have just accepted this.
> 
> Memory needs a dual standard with advertising these days. One that will work ok with intel and one that gives the correct optimum for AMD. AMD should really be pushing on this and protecting the community who buys their kit. It is one thing saying we only support 3200mhz, but if someone is advertising AMD compatible, then it needs to hit the fclk also.


The problem is the CPUs and the memory controller not the ram itself. I could not hit 1900/3800 with my ram and 5800x, switched to a 5900x and works perfectly at 1900. I do not know why there is so much inconsistency in the quality/ability of the mem controller between CPUs. This is something hopefully AMD will improve on in the future. At this point their stance is anything over 3200 is an OC.

They will have to improve this on their next gen because DDR5 will force them to!


----------



## Alemancio

sonixmon said:


> The problem is the CPUs and the memory controller not the ram itself. I could not hit 1900/3800 with my ram and 5800x, switched to a 5900x and works perfectly at 1900. I do not know why there is so much inconsistency in the quality/ability of the mem controller between CPUs. This is something hopefully AMD will improve on in the future. At this point their stance is anything over 3200 is an OC.
> 
> They will have to improve this on their next gen because DDR5 will force them to!


Its not really AMD's Stance that anything >3200Mhz is an OC, its a JEDEC Spec and is valid for Intel as well.

Furthermore, say you got a RTX 3080 and are mad you can barely hit 1915MHz? Tough luck, they're rated for 17xxMHz! Anything above, is a OC.


----------



## Sleepycat

sonixmon said:


> The problem is the CPUs and the memory controller not the ram itself. I could not hit 1900/3800 with my ram and 5800x, switched to a 5900x and works perfectly at 1900. I do not know why there is so much inconsistency in the quality/ability of the mem controller between CPUs. This is something hopefully AMD will improve on in the future. At this point their stance is anything over 3200 is an OC.
> 
> They will have to improve this on their next gen because DDR5 will force them to!


It's probably binning. At launch, when there was a limited number of parts available, I wouldn't be surprised if better components are reserved for the higher end models. My launch 5900X runs at both 1900 and 1933 FCLK with 2 sticks with a Vsoc of 1.09V.


----------



## Syldon

sonixmon said:


> The problem is the CPUs and the memory controller not the ram itself. I could not hit 1900/3800 with my ram and 5800x, switched to a 5900x and works perfectly at 1900. I do not know why there is so much inconsistency in the quality/ability of the mem controller between CPUs. This is something hopefully AMD will improve on in the future. At this point their stance is anything over 3200 is an OC.
> 
> They will have to improve this on their next gen because DDR5 will force them to!


It is down to binning quality across the board, Controller and memory. A bad PSU can interfere also. The biggest problem of all though is that people push Ryzen to its limits more than any other CPU. CPU generally have a wide tolerance to aim for. Aiming for top 10% is always going to limit your options and success rate.


----------



## sonixmon

I get that it is a silicone lottery issue and that it is really a JEDEC spec not AMD, however I am not sure if people run into this on the Intel side as much with the memory controller. I know they handle memory clocks differently and seem to benefit from a high mem OC more than AMD (at least in my experience and from what I have seen reviewers post). It really isn't a complaint just everyone hopes to get the most out of their expensive memory right? Doing a little more research before hand is a smart idea. I am thankful that I only went for the 3600 (since I read it was said to be the sweet spot) it is a bonus that I can hit 3800 with stock timings (CL16) so I am happy with that!


----------



## reddify

sonixmon said:


> I get that it is a silicone lottery issue and that it is really a JEDEC spec not AMD, however I am not sure if people run into this on the Intel side as much with the memory controller. I know they handle memory clocks differently and seem to benefit from a high mem OC more than AMD (at least in my experience and from what I have seen reviewers post). It really isn't a complaint just everyone hopes to get the most out of their expensive memory right? Doing a little more research before hand is a smart idea. I am thankful that I only went for the 3600 (since I read it was said to be the sweet spot) it is a bonus that I can hit 3800 with stock timings (CL16) so I am happy with that!


Intel memory controller is stronger, and you can, up to a certain point, more easily brute force some things on the Intel platform. However AMD is not so dependant on high memory speeds because of the large comfortable cache. For me, overclocking memory on Intel is a bit easier, while on AMD it´s much more interesting and more fun.


----------



## shaolin95

reddify said:


> Intel memory controller is stronger, and you can, up to a certain point, more easily brute force some things on the Intel platform. However AMD is not so dependant on high memory speeds because of the large comfortable cache. For me, overclocking memory on Intel is a bit easier, while on AMD it´s much more interesting and more fun.


Interestingly enough, my 9900K struggled to get me anything from my 4x16GB kit at all. I had to run 3200 C14 as anything above will require looser timings making it worthless. The 5950x on the other hand I can get up to 3666 still at C14 so for me, the AMD one has been a lot better with RAM overclocking. Of course, YMMV


----------



## reddify

shaolin95 said:


> Interestingly enough, my 9900K struggled to get me anything from my 4x16GB kit at all. I had to run 3200 C14 as anything above will require looser timings making it worthless. The 5950x on the other hand I can get up to 3666 still at C14 so for me, the AMD one has been a lot better with RAM overclocking. Of course, YMMV


1st - 4x16GB is nasty, I would not OC this above the officially supported speed on any platform, as I suppose this is PC for work. Anyway overclocking 4x16GB is more about luck and silicon lottery.
2nd - 9900K officially supports DDR4 2666, wile 5950X supports DDR4 3200. If you consider this fact, you actually overclocked your 4x16GB better on the Intel - 534 above officially supported speed, while only 466 above the officially supported speed on the AMD. You can hardly compare product 2 generations different. I am talking about comparable generations and comparable motherboards.


----------



## shaolin95

reddify said:


> 1st - 4x16GB is nasty, I would not OC this above the officially supported speed on any platform, as I suppose this is PC for work. Anyway overclocking 4x16GB is more about luck and silicon lottery.
> 2nd - 9900K officially supports DDR4 2666, wile 5950X supports DDR4 3200. If you consider this fact, you actually overclocked your 4x16GB better on the Intel - 534 above officially supported speed, while only 466 above the officially supported speed on the AMD. You can hardly compare product 2 generations different. I am talking about comparable generations and comparable motherboards.


1st- not many of us are doing 4x16GB but at least from the other poster here, we BOTH must be lucky at getting at least 3600 without going crazy with voltage and keeping the C14. ALL overclocking is really about luck and silicon lottery when you come down to it.
2nd- Oh I can surely compare them since you made a blanket statement about Intel being superior to AMD in terms of overclocking RAM which is clearly not correct depending on the gear being compared.
That clearly shows that is it NOT black or white, it is a matter of specific configurations.
I came from MANY MANY MANY years using intel and not finding anything from AMD that made me feel is was worth it. To the point that some will call me an Intel fanboy (the usual nonsense). Now I guess they will call me an AMD fanboy....but in reality, I buy what works for my needs, no matter who makes it since neither AMD nor INTEL give me free gear.
So, when I make a comment is based on my actual experiences with the gear.
Regards


----------



## Sleepycat

reddify said:


> 1st - 4x16GB is nasty, I would not OC this above the officially supported speed on any platform, as I suppose this is PC for work. Anyway overclocking 4x16GB is more about luck and silicon lottery.
> 2nd - 9900K officially supports DDR4 2666, wile 5950X supports DDR4 3200. If you consider this fact, you actually overclocked your 4x16GB better on the Intel - 534 above officially supported speed, while only 466 above the officially supported speed on the AMD. You can hardly compare product 2 generations different. I am talking about comparable generations and comparable motherboards.


As soon as you go above 3200 MHz, nothing is officially supported, whether it is 2 or 4 sticks. But 4x16GB does push the limits of the memory controller and infinity fabric. 4x16GB can be OC'd fine, I have mine at 3600 CL14, and I know of others who go slightly higher.


----------



## reddify

shaolin95 said:


> 2nd- Oh I can surely compare them since you made a blanket statement about Intel being superior to AMD in terms of overclocking RAM which is clearly not correct depending on the gear being compared.


Well, then IMC on ZEN was absolute crap, ZEN+ a bit less crap, but you got it wrong. Memory OC is not only about the CPU, motherboards play a certain role too. Every generation motherboards manufacturers improving the memory OC capability. Either better memory traces, more optimized BIOS, etc. I have no idea what board you had with your 9900K and how good memory overclocker you are. I am almost 30 years in the business. 30 years of building PC for customers, started with 386. Anyway. Intel IMC is stronger, AMD could not compete with Intel till Zen 3000. Since the 3000 AMD IMC were improved, but still, Intel is stronger. Overclocking memory on the AMD is still like a fragile game and much more complicated. And as i said, for me, it´s more fun to to an overclock on the AMD. The only bad thing is that it takes more time than on the Intel, which matters if you are building PC for customers as a job lol. But you can´t deny the fact that overclocking Intel CPU is faster and more simple. Especially 11th gen, when you don´t need to hassle with pesky RTL.


----------



## xProlific

I don't understand how high speed 3800+ ram is on the qvl of many x570 motherboards when many CPUs cannot run 1900+ fclk. It is very misleading and anti-consumer in my opinion.


----------



## shaolin95

reddify said:


> Well, then IMC on ZEN was absolute crap, ZEN+ a bit less crap, but you got it wrong. Memory OC is not only about the CPU, motherboards play a certain role too. Every generation motherboards manufacturers improving the memory OC capability. Either better memory traces, more optimized BIOS, etc. I have no idea what board you had with your 9900K and how good memory overclocker you are. I am almost 30 years in the business. 30 years of building PC for customers, started with 386. Anyway. Intel IMC is stronger, AMD could not compete with Intel till Zen 3000. Since the 3000 AMD IMC were improved, but still, Intel is stronger. Overclocking memory on the AMD is still like a fragile game and much more complicated. And as i said, for me, it´s more fun to to an overclock on the AMD. The only bad thing is that it takes more time than on the Intel, which matters if you are building PC for customers as a job lol. But you can´t deny the fact that overclocking Intel CPU is faster and more simple. Especially 11th gen, when you don´t need to hassle with pesky RTL.


Dude I have been working with computers since a C64 and a Tandy CoCo so throwing your 30 years of experience at me is not going to impress me 
As far as the memory controller, like I said, from my experience this AMD is doing things my 9900k could never do and that CPU is not some ancient piece of crap.
Yes overclocking my 9900k was indeed faster since I just ran all at 5Ghz and under my control. I don't like so much the whole AMD overclocking in terms of never feeling I have full control of where my CPU will end up at BUT performance is better than anything Intel at this point so that makes it just a minor "issue" after all.

I have been on this forum for too many years now vs your 1 month..so I am not going to keep arguing about nonsense Intel vs AMD stuff so, I am done with you and this conversation and welcome to my exclusive club...
Regards


----------



## GRABibus

reddify said:


> Well, then IMC on ZEN was absolute crap, ZEN+ a bit less crap, but you got it wrong. Memory OC is not only about the CPU, motherboards play a certain role too. Every generation motherboards manufacturers improving the memory OC capability. Either better memory traces, more optimized BIOS, etc. I have no idea what board you had with your 9900K and how good memory overclocker you are. I am almost 30 years in the business. 30 years of building PC for customers, started with 386. Anyway. Intel IMC is stronger, AMD could not compete with Intel till Zen 3000. Since the 3000 AMD IMC were improved, but still, Intel is stronger. Overclocking memory on the AMD is still like a fragile game and much more complicated. And as i said, for me, it´s more fun to to an overclock on the AMD. The only bad thing is that it takes more time than on the Intel, which matters if you are building PC for customers as a job lol. But you can´t deny the fact that overclocking Intel CPU is faster and more simple. Especially 11th gen, when you don´t need to hassle with pesky RTL.


This guy is messing with a lot of people on this forum and have more people in his "Black list" than I have contacts on Linkedin


----------



## reddify

GRABibus said:


> This guy is messing with a lot of people on this forum and have more people in his "Black list" than I have contacts on Linkedin


Lol


----------



## Sleepycat

xProlific said:


> I don't understand how high speed 3800+ ram is on the qvl of many x570 motherboards when many CPUs cannot run 1900+ fclk. It is very misleading and anti-consumer in my opinion.


That's why I don't see any value in QVL. Instead, I buy good memory, and then put the effort in to get it working better than stock. Not everyone has the time and interest to do this, for those, QVL and reasonable XMP profiles are useful. 

You're right though, putting 4000 on QVL kits is crazy. Maybe that's why a motherboard manufacturer's QVL list is shorter than a memory manufacturer's.


----------



## Nizzen

Sleepycat said:


> That's why I don't see any value in QVL. Instead, I buy good memory, and then put the effort in to get it working better than stock. Not everyone has the time and interest to do this, for those, QVL and reasonable XMP profiles are useful.
> 
> You're right though, putting 4000 on QVL kits is crazy. Maybe that's why a motherboard manufacturer's QVL list is shorter than a memory manufacturer's.


4000+ 1:2 mode is easy on Amd LOL
Too bad the latency is very high.


----------



## Sleepycat

Nizzen said:


> 4000+ 1:2 mode is easy on Amd LOL
> Too bad the latency is very high.


You raise a good point. Technically, if you had bios defaults and turned on XMP for 4000 MHz RAM, the FCLK would be left at Auto and hence it should choose a lower ratio than 1:1 and allow it to work. But somehow many people report that this isn't the case. I guess FCLK Auto behaviour might be motherboard dependent.


----------



## GRABibus

Reikoji said:


> Windows always ends up borking after one or more windows culmative updates :| Just reinstalled and now have even better results than ever
> 
> View attachment 2519629
> View attachment 2519630
> View attachment 2519631
> View attachment 2519632
> 
> 
> CO -10, PPT 300, EDC 200, TDC Auto.
> 
> Wondering what I can change to get my memory latency down to where my 5800X was, or is it just not a possibility for a 5950x?
> 
> View attachment 2519633


Nice results.
You can drop down tras and trc respectively to 29 and 43 (trc=Trp + tras).

You also can tweak trfc, trfc2 and trfc4 as shown in my screenshot in my link :









ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...


During the USB BIOS flashbak process you have this issue ?? Only when trying to install older bioses, like 2601 and 3003. It rejects dem files with message error “Selected file is not a proper BIOS" Going back and forward between different 12.x.x agesa bioses, starting from 3204 is easy though.




www.overclock.net


----------



## Zogge

2x8 gb can boot and run perfect at 4400mhz cl 17 but fclk is limited to 1866 without WHEAs. With 4x8 gb I am forced to go 3766 cl 14 at best or up to 3966 cl 16. Anything higher or tighter won't boot.
Fclk 1900,1966,1933 all gives me WHEAs regardless of voltages. 
I can run -30 all core and +200 mhz so it reach 5250 mhz on several cores (~4-6) quite often so a good cpu oc but less good imc I guess.
5950x on CH8F, 4x8gb 4400cl18 sticks trident z rgb, AX1600i.


----------



## GRABibus

Reikoji said:


> Windows always ends up borking after one or more windows culmative updates :| Just reinstalled and now have even better results than ever
> 
> View attachment 2519629
> View attachment 2519630
> View attachment 2519631
> View attachment 2519632
> 
> 
> CO -10, PPT 300, EDC 200, TDC Auto.
> 
> Wondering what I can change to get my memory latency down to where my 5800X was, or is it just not a possibility for a 5950x?
> 
> View attachment 2519633


What’s your RAM brand and reference ?


----------



## PWn3R

My post about 1900 was not meant to start a flame war. I just thought I’d post that I had tried it again. I have easily spent at least 40 hours working on trying to get 1900 or higher working.

There is a documented “hole” with no post at 1900 for enough people to say it’s a thing, but not everyone has this problem. I can post 1933 or 1966 and they boot on “auto” but even with boosted manual voltages both are whea city. 

I can also post 1900 after booting 1933, but reconfiguring to 1900 doesn’t boot from stock or 1866. I’m not complaining I know it’s luck. I also have 4x8 RAM. I may buy 2x16 at some point but my testing with 2x8 was not successful either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Theo164

My 5900x can boot no problem 4x8gb bdie 3800/1900 every single time with a big range of voltages, termination block and cad bus settings but its always a whea party…
I've spent countless hours since Dec 2020 trying multiple bios versions, settings and stress testing but no luck
Ram tested up to 4000 cl16 with no errors but cpu maximum stable flc is 1866


----------



## RHBH

How is BIOS 3801 behavior compared to 3703?

Worth updating or avoid?


----------



## GRABibus

RHBH said:


> How is BIOS 3801 behavior compared to 3703?
> 
> Worth updating or avoid?


I didn’t see any differences in synthetic benchmarks (CBR20) and Aida cache and memory benchmark.
Currently, I stick on 3703 and wait for final release on official Asus website


----------



## sonixmon

Theo164 said:


> My 5900x can boot no problem 4x8gb bdie 3800/1900 every single time with a big range of voltages, termination block and cad bus settings but its always a whea party…
> I've spent countless hours since Dec 2020 trying multiple bios versions, settings and stress testing but no luck
> Ram tested up to 4000 cl16 with no errors but cpu maximum stable flc is 1866


I had the same issue with my 5800x (max 1866), moved to a 5900x and hit 1900 fine but 1933+ whea errors. Its a lottery like they say. I am glad I kind of one the 2nd time and could sell my 5800x for 80% of what it costed me. When I changed CPUs I loaded previous profile and did not change firmware or any settings except ram to 3800 and fclk 1900.


----------



## asavah

RHBH said:


> How is BIOS 3801 behavior compared to 3703?
> 
> Worth updating or avoid?


It's identical here, no differences in benchmarks, the system has been rock solid so far (/me knocks wood)


----------



## Sleepycat

Theo164 said:


> My 5900x can boot no problem 4x8gb bdie 3800/1900 every single time with a big range of voltages, termination block and cad bus settings but its always a whea party…
> I've spent countless hours since Dec 2020 trying multiple bios versions, settings and stress testing but no luck
> Ram tested up to 4000 cl16 with no errors but cpu maximum stable flc is 1866


Then it is likely not your memory, but your CPU cores. Try giving a +10 in curve optimizer.


----------



## MickJones

Hey guys - I've got the Dark Hero board and I was curious if it is worth upgrading to 3801 from 3601. I'm not particularly having any issues on this bios - things are solid. But was mainly curious if anyone has had any better luck with RAM OC on this bios - or better yet if there's been any additional success in hitting 2000+ fclk without whea 19?

Thanks in advance for any input!


----------



## GRABibus

3801 on official French website since today :






ROG Crosshair VIII Hero


ROG Crosshair VIII Hero - Carte mère gaming AMD X570 au format ATX avec slot PCIe 4.0, 16 phases d´alimentation, OptiMem III, LAN 2,5 Gb/s, USB 3.2, SATA, M.2 et éclairage Aura Sync



rog.asus.com





There is an official 3702 version, supporting W11….


----------



## LorDClockaN

Just saw that 3802 was posted for dark hero: ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero | ROG Crosshair | Gaming Motherboards｜ROG - Republic of Gamers｜ROG USA

Is it the same as it was posted as a beta few days ago?


----------



## noxious89123

LorDClockaN said:


> Just saw that 3802 was posted for dark hero: ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero | ROG Crosshair | Gaming Motherboards｜ROG - Republic of Gamers｜ROG USA
> 
> Is it the same as it was posted as a beta few days ago?


3801, not 3802 

It's the same number, so I'd assume it's the same version but no longer beta. I'm still on 3401, and I'm thinking I might try out 3801. If I do I'll post an update.


----------



## xxela

Hi guys,
since the last bios update (3601) I cant do the update process via USB BIOS FlashBack (the bios update button remains lit like is something wrong with the USB or bios file) so I have to use ASUS EZ Flash 3 Utility method from the bios witch works fine. Do you think is something happened with the motherboard or something else?


----------



## sonixmon

noxious89123 said:


> 3801, not 3802
> 
> It's the same number, so I'd assume it's the same version but no longer beta. I'm still on 3401, and I'm thinking I might try out 3801. If I do I'll post an update.


Yep, I can't wait to see what Safedisk brings us next!  

3801 has been very solid for me so far!


----------



## GRABibus

I finally received the kit I wanted for my 5900X build :

F4-3800C14D-32GTZN
16GBx2 *Dual-Ranked* 3800MHz 14-16-16-36 1,5V








F4-3800C14D-32GTZN - G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.


Trident Z Neo DDR4-3800 CL14-16-16-36 1.50V 32GB (2x16GB) Engineered and optimized for full compatibility on the latest AMD Ryzen platforms, Trident Z Neo brings unparalleled DRAM memory performance and vibrant RGB lighting to any gaming PC or workstation with latest AMD Ryzen CPUs and AMD DDR4...




gskill.com





Nice review from Igor's lab :








Does the new high-end RAM for Ryzen 5000 live up to its promise? - G.SKILL DDR4-3800 CL14 2x 16GB kit put through its paces | igor'sLAB


The Trident Z RGB and Neo series from G.SKILL have been around almost as long as DDR4. However, for the new Ryzen 5000 CPUs, G.SKILL has refreshed their SKUs and added new XMP variants specifically…




www.igorslab.de







I could tweak it at 3800MHz 14-13-13-27 with same voltage 1.5V 

*Stable 20000% Karhu's RAM test :*










*Aida64 Benchmark and Zen Timings :*










My latency is not really improved by the way and remains at 55ns+. I already had this value with 3800MHz CL16.
I am on bios 3703.

Really happy with this kit which can take very low timings and remain stable ! (And no Whea 19)


----------



## domdtxdissar

GRABibus said:


> I finally received the kit I wanted for my 5900X build :
> 
> F4-3800C14D-32GTZN
> 16GBx2 *Dual-Ranked* 3800MHz 14-16-16-36 1,5V
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F4-3800C14D-32GTZN - G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.
> 
> 
> Trident Z Neo DDR4-3800 CL14-16-16-36 1.50V 32GB (2x16GB) Engineered and optimized for full compatibility on the latest AMD Ryzen platforms, Trident Z Neo brings unparalleled DRAM memory performance and vibrant RGB lighting to any gaming PC or workstation with latest AMD Ryzen CPUs and AMD DDR4...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gskill.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice review from Igor's lab :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the new high-end RAM for Ryzen 5000 live up to its promise? - G.SKILL DDR4-3800 CL14 2x 16GB kit put through its paces | igor'sLAB
> 
> 
> The Trident Z RGB and Neo series from G.SKILL have been around almost as long as DDR4. However, for the new Ryzen 5000 CPUs, G.SKILL has refreshed their SKUs and added new XMP variants specifically…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.igorslab.de
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could tweak it at 3800MHz 14-13-13-27 with same voltage 1.5V
> 
> *Stable 20000% Karhu's RAM test :*
> View attachment 2520919
> 
> 
> 
> *Aida64 Benchmark and Zen Timings :*
> View attachment 2520920
> 
> 
> 
> My latency is not really improved by the way and remains at 55ns+. I already had this value with 3800MHz CL16.
> I am on bios 3703.
> 
> Really happy with this kit which can take very low timings and remain stable !


Its a nice kit, but you need to turn off GDM to run odd timings.. and i kinda fear you wont be able to boot anymore if you try to run those timings when you turn off GDM.. But good luck


----------



## GRABibus

domdtxdissar said:


> Its a nice kit, but you need to turn off GDM to run odd timings.. and i kinda fear you wont be able to boot anymore if you try to run those timings when you turn off GDM.. But good luck


You are right 

Even with safe settings as : 3800MHz 13-17-17- 30-47 and all other timings on Auto and with GDM off and Vram=1.55V, i don't boot

I will remain with GDM enabled


----------



## sonixmon

GRABibus said:


> You are right
> 
> Even with safe settings as : 3800MHz 13-17-17- 30-47 and all other timings on Auto and with GDM off and Vram=1.55V, i don't boot
> 
> I will remain with GDM enabled


Awesome, ironically I was looking at the same kit, I settled for the 3600 CL14 kit which I believe is just a different BIN of the same kit and I am hoping to push it to 3800 with stock timings. I read several reviews that said they were able to get it to 3800mhz. I guess I will find out next week. Probably wont have much performance difference but it is the kit I really wanted but couldnt find when I settled for my current kit (I was able to OC my kit but timings are a no go because it isn't B-Die).

Have you considered trying Even timings and GDM off to see if the latency and benchmarks improve? I have seen reviews that show it both ways with GDM so I am not sure how important it really is.


----------



## AStaUK

GRABibus said:


> I finally received the kit I wanted for my 5900X build :
> 
> F4-3800C14D-32GTZN
> 16GBx2 *Dual-Ranked* 3800MHz 14-16-16-36 1,5V
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F4-3800C14D-32GTZN - G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.
> 
> 
> Trident Z Neo DDR4-3800 CL14-16-16-36 1.50V 32GB (2x16GB) Engineered and optimized for full compatibility on the latest AMD Ryzen platforms, Trident Z Neo brings unparalleled DRAM memory performance and vibrant RGB lighting to any gaming PC or workstation with latest AMD Ryzen CPUs and AMD DDR4...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gskill.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice review from Igor's lab :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the new high-end RAM for Ryzen 5000 live up to its promise? - G.SKILL DDR4-3800 CL14 2x 16GB kit put through its paces | igor'sLAB
> 
> 
> The Trident Z RGB and Neo series from G.SKILL have been around almost as long as DDR4. However, for the new Ryzen 5000 CPUs, G.SKILL has refreshed their SKUs and added new XMP variants specifically…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.igorslab.de
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could tweak it at 3800MHz 14-13-13-27 with same voltage 1.5V


I‘ve been running this kit for a couple of months, it’s a great set of RAM and been rock solid at stock XMP settings.


----------



## GRABibus

sonixmon said:


> Awesome, ironically I was looking at the same kit, I settled for the 3600 CL14 kit which I believe is just a different BIN of the same kit and I am hoping to push it to 3800 with stock timings. I read several reviews that said they were able to get it to 3800mhz. I guess I will find out next week. Probably wont have much performance difference but it is the kit I really wanted but couldnt find when I settled for my current kit (I was able to OC my kit but timings are a no go because it isn't B-Die).
> 
> Have you considered trying Even timings and GDM off to see if the latency and benchmarks improve? I have seen reviews that show it both ways with GDM so I am not sure how important it really is.


I have tried several combinations wirth safe settings with GDM disabled, no way.
Impossible to boot 95% of the time.


----------



## Syldon

GRABibus said:


> I finally received the kit I wanted for my 5900X build :
> 
> F4-3800C14D-32GTZN
> 16GBx2 *Dual-Ranked* 3800MHz 14-16-16-36 1,5V
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F4-3800C14D-32GTZN - G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.
> 
> 
> Trident Z Neo DDR4-3800 CL14-16-16-36 1.50V 32GB (2x16GB) Engineered and optimized for full compatibility on the latest AMD Ryzen platforms, Trident Z Neo brings unparalleled DRAM memory performance and vibrant RGB lighting to any gaming PC or workstation with latest AMD Ryzen CPUs and AMD DDR4...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gskill.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice review from Igor's lab :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the new high-end RAM for Ryzen 5000 live up to its promise? - G.SKILL DDR4-3800 CL14 2x 16GB kit put through its paces | igor'sLAB
> 
> 
> The Trident Z RGB and Neo series from G.SKILL have been around almost as long as DDR4. However, for the new Ryzen 5000 CPUs, G.SKILL has refreshed their SKUs and added new XMP variants specifically…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.igorslab.de
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could tweak it at 3800MHz 14-13-13-27 with same voltage 1.5V
> 
> *Stable 20000% Karhu's RAM test :*
> View attachment 2520919
> 
> 
> 
> *Aida64 Benchmark and Zen Timings :*
> View attachment 2520920
> 
> 
> 
> My latency is not really improved by the way and remains at 55ns+. I already had this value with 3800MHz CL16.
> I am on bios 3703.
> 
> Really happy with this kit which can take very low timings and remain stable ! (And no Whea 19)


Thanks for taking the time with stability shots . Not enough do this these days. I don't think I have ever ran karhu for 10 hours.


----------



## Sleepycat

GRABibus said:


> You are right
> 
> Even with safe settings as : 3800MHz 13-17-17- 30-47 and all other timings on Auto and with GDM off and Vram=1.55V, i don't boot
> 
> I will remain with GDM enabled


With GDM on, wouldn't that be equivalent to 3800 CL14-17-17-30-47 in terms of Aida64 results instead?


----------



## GRABibus

Sleepycat said:


> With GDM on, wouldn't that be equivalent to 3800 CL14-17-17-30-47 in terms of Aida64 results instead?


Yes, with GDM enabled, if I enter CL13, It is CL14 which is in fact set up by the system.
With GDM disabled, CL13 is taken as CL13....But no boot


----------



## GRABibus

I flashed from 3703 to 3801.
As said several days ago, same resulst as for Aida64 Cache and Memory and same results also for CBR20.

I will now use the 3801 and report if some issues, but it seems ok right now.


----------



## sonixmon

GRABibus said:


> I have tried several combinations wirth safe settings with GDM disabled, no way.
> Impossible to boot 95% of the time.


Interesting, I have GDM Disabled with 1T and @3800 CL16 with Hynix C ram. I will have new kit Monday and hoping to hit 3800 CL14. Will post my results when I get them in.


----------



## lDevilDriverl

GRABibus said:


> You are right
> 
> Even with safe settings as : 3800MHz 13-17-17- 30-47 and all other timings on Auto and with GDM off and Vram=1.55V, i don't boot
> 
> I will remain with GDM enabled


Try to increase rdwr(10-18) and wrrd(4-8) to boot with GDM off. 1.55 is to low for 3800CL13, try to go upto 1.7 and do not tighten rfc too much


----------



## GRABibus

Nothing seems to work with GDM disabled. Maybe due to sticks or my IMC....

I made a new Aida64 this morning with Bios 3801 :









I could get < 55ns for the first time.

It seems in fact, that with Bios 3801, latency is a little bit beter on my rig than with Bios 3703.

Maybe some of you can give feedback on this for your rig


----------



## GRABibus

When booting into Windows with 3801, I don't have "AA" Q code as usual, but "9E".

Don't you have this ?


----------



## GRABibus

GRABibus said:


> When booting into Windows with 3801, I don't have "AA" Q code as usual, but "9E".
> 
> Don't you have this ?


OK, find the tip.
Just have to disable TMP2.0 in Bios and Q code comes back to "AA".
All these things are related to W11 compatibility.


----------



## noxious89123

GRABibus said:


> It seems in fact, that with Bios 3801, latency is a little bit beter on my rig than with Bios 3703.
> 
> Maybe some of you can give feedback on this for your rig


I plan to test this out this weekend, so I will report back with my findings 

Edit: With that said, it's worth noting that I'm currently on 3401, so it might not tell us anything about the difference between 3703 and 3801


----------



## RHBH

GRABibus said:


> Nothing seems to work with GDM disabled. Maybe due to sticks or my IMC....
> 
> I made a new Aida64 this morning with Bios 3801 :
> View attachment 2520978
> 
> 
> I could get < 55ns for the first time.
> 
> It seems in fact, that with Bios 3801, latency is a little bit beter on my rig than with Bios 3703.
> 
> Maybe some of you can give feedback on this for your rig


High clock with true 1T is very stressful for the IMC when using Samsung B-die.

I have 4x8GB B-die and cannot use true 1T, I have to use either 2T or GDM.

With 2x8GB I can use true 1T (regardless of sticks combination).

I also have a 2x16GB kit of Micron Rev.E which puts way less stress in the IMC, I can even boot it with true 1T at 4000MHz.

I believe your scenario is more IMC quality related.


----------



## Theo164

GRABibus said:


> Nothing seems to work with GDM disabled. Maybe due to sticks or my IMC....
> 
> I made a new Aida64 this morning with Bios 3801 :
> View attachment 2520978
> 
> 
> I could get < 55ns for the first time.
> 
> It seems in fact, that with Bios 3801, latency is a little bit beter on my rig than with Bios 3703.
> 
> Maybe some of you can give feedback on this for your rig


Try to set AddrCmdSetup, CsOdtSetup, CkeSetup to 32, 56, 64 or whatever value works for your system.
For my system i had to set the AddrCmdSetup @ 54 to be able to boot GDM off &1T every time no problem, i add +2 for headroom. At 52 two or three times out of ten it could not boot.
I replicate the same timing to CsOdtSetup, CkeSetup too, although i don't know if it is necessary or not.
Maybe someone with a better knowledge about ram tuning can give us more info about those timings.


----------



## xProlific

Sometimes I see these off colored squares in the bios. Is this a symptom of a problem or is this normal?


http://imgur.com/a/BQxZHcn


----------



## GRABibus

Theo164 said:


> Try to set AddrCmdSetup, CsOdtSetup, CkeSetup to 32, 56, 64 or whatever value works for your system.
> For my system i had to set the AddrCmdSetup @ 54 to be able to boot GDM off &1T every time no problem, i add +2 for headroom. At 52 two or three times out of ten it could not boot.
> I replicate the same timing to CsOdtSetup, CkeSetup too, although i don't know if it is necessary or not.
> Maybe someone with a better knowledge about ram tuning can give us more info about those timings.


Thanks.
I will try but honestly, I think this is my IMC.


----------



## asavah

GRABibus said:


> When booting into Windows with 3801, I don't have "AA" Q code as usual, but "9E".
> 
> Don't you have this ?


Yep, same here.


----------



## noxious89123

So I flashed from 3401 to 3801 tonight, and then manually reentered all of my settings.

I have been setting my RAM timings through the Extreme Tweaker part of BIOS instead of through the AMD Overclocking part, and thought I'd try entering them through there instead.... And most of my Tcl options are shown in hexidecimal.

So I don't see 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. I see 8, 9, 0Ah, 0Bh, 0Ch, 0Dh.
Not sure what to make of it to be honest. Everything seems to work fine and run stable.


----------



## sonixmon

noxious89123 said:


> So I flashed from 3401 to 3801 tonight, and then manually reentered all of my settings.
> 
> I have been setting my RAM timings through the Extreme Tweaker part of BIOS instead of through the AMD Overclocking part, and thought I'd try entering them through there instead.... And most of my Tcl options are shown in hexidecimal.
> 
> So I don't see 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. I see 8, 9, 0Ah, 0Bh, 0Ch, 0Dh.
> Not sure what to make of it to be honest. Everything seems to work fine and run stable.


I will have to check mine and see if it is the same. There is a bug in the code for sure. It is counting properly though (0A=10, 0B=11, etc.). They also posted it on the site no longer beta LOL.

Edit: Confirmed same issue on my system. Probably no abnormal effect.


----------



## Alemancio

Thoughts on this? Karhu 5000% Stable @ 1.50V on 5900X.

Read 59400
Write 58400
Copy 56200
Latency: 55.5ns


----------



## sonixmon

Alemancio said:


> Thoughts on this? Karhu 5000% Stable @ 1.50V on 5900X.
> 
> Read 59400
> Write 58400
> Copy 56200
> Latency: 55.5ns
> 
> View attachment 2521044


These are similar settings I am hoping to accomplish with the same kit (coming Monday) maybe without GDM but not sure from what others have posted here.


----------



## Sleepycat

xProlific said:


> Sometimes I see these off colored squares in the bios. Is this a symptom of a problem or is this normal?
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/BQxZHcn


Never seen this before. Do they disappear if you exit that particular menu and go back in again? Or do they move around different locations? If they do, then I suspect something might be up with your video card's low clock voltage. It could be slightly too low.


----------



## Sleepycat

Wait.... what.... the.... fruit!?!?!?
4x16GB B-die, 1T GDM off. Was never possible before. Now possible with AddrCmdSetup, CsOdtSetup and CkeSetup at 56??


----------



## Reikoji

GRABibus said:


> Nice results.
> You can drop down tras and trc respectively to 29 and 43 (trc=Trp + tras).
> 
> You also can tweak trfc, trfc2 and trfc4 as shown in my screenshot in my link :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...
> 
> 
> During the USB BIOS flashbak process you have this issue ?? Only when trying to install older bioses, like 2601 and 3003. It rejects dem files with message error “Selected file is not a proper BIOS" Going back and forward between different 12.x.x agesa bioses, starting from 3204 is easy though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net





GRABibus said:


> What’s your RAM brand and reference ?


Gskin Trident Royals 4000-17-17-17-37's. set tras and trc to those values, but also trying some things based on experiences shared by others.

Gear down off but AddrCmd, CsOdt and Cke setups at 56, along with some Single rank specific settings from ryzen calculator. i may have just had some things all wrong. memtesting settings now. maybe try to see if those can be lower or at 0 as they were before if it works out.

I also feel dum. forgot/didnt expect Insta-gif in radeon settings to reduce benchmark performance so much. Windows wasnt ar fault for my suddenly reduced performance. Make sure to turn off for benchmarking 

Also played around with Curve optimizer some more. instead of a lazy -10 all cores, set a per core ranging from -10 for best cores to -22 for las/ccd1 cores. nets 4.55ghz effective clock in all core so far with 11570 cbr20. i can probably stretch and get the all core to 4.6.


----------



## Danny.ns

Sleepycat said:


> Wait.... what.... the.... fruit!?!?!?
> 4x16GB B-die, 1T GDM off. Was never possible before. Now possible with AddrCmdSetup, CsOdtSetup and CkeSetup at 56??
> 
> View attachment 2521092


Make sure to do some benchmarks. I had the same experience, GDM Disabled/1T was never possible unless i used those Setup-timings but my performance turned out worse than just using GDM..


----------



## lmfodor

Sleepycat said:


> Wait.... what.... the.... fruit!?!?!?
> 4x16GB B-die, 1T GDM off. Was never possible before. Now possible with AddrCmdSetup, CsOdtSetup and CkeSetup at 56??
> 
> View attachment 2521092


Hi! Yes, it’s the “magic”.. but it’s there’s no need to set all setup values to 56, just the AddrCmdSetup and play with tCKE to find the lower latency


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## noxious89123

sonixmon said:


> I will have to check mine and see if it is the same. There is a bug in the code for sure. It is counting properly though (0A=10, 0B=11, etc.). They also posted it on the site no longer beta LOL.
> 
> Edit: Confirmed same issue on my system. Probably no abnormal effect.


Thanks for checking this! I was a little worried that I may have some corruption from flashing.


----------



## JoneKone

noxious89123 said:


> So I flashed from 3401 to 3801 tonight, and then manually reentered all of my settings.
> 
> I have been setting my RAM timings through the Extreme Tweaker part of BIOS instead of through the AMD Overclocking part, and thought I'd try entering them through there instead.... And most of my Tcl options are shown in hexidecimal.
> 
> So I don't see 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. I see 8, 9, 0Ah, 0Bh, 0Ch, 0Dh.
> Not sure what to make of it to be honest. Everything seems to work fine and run stable.


My motherboard has the same issue.. yeah.. such a good coding. beta.. =D more like alpha,


----------



## GRABibus

I got a Cinebench R20 multithreaded crash with same OC settings for bios 3703 applied to bios 3801.
This makes me think that a little bump in voltage is necessary for bios 3801 in my case.


----------



## lmfodor

GRABibus said:


> Thanks.
> I will try but honestly, I think this is my IMC.


Hi @GRABibus, I have the same memories that you have for several months, I progress a lot with all kinds of configurations. I also have a 5900x and a Dark Hero. 

These are my best timings, with a lot of help from Veii and Mannix-ITA from the 7/24 memory stability thread. I have to confess that the 3600CL14 single rank ones are better, at least for achieving 14 flat primaries. This model is expensive, good but with much less money we could achieve the same or even better performance. Regarding the +1900, yes, it is the IMC. There are many suspicions that the WHEA 19 conflict is due to mobos with Realtek NICs (96% of mobos have a Realtek NIC). However, even playing all the IOD and CCD voltage values, I can't avoid the WHEA 19 above 1933FCLK. . Around this setting I played a lot, I mean, SCL at 4, tRDWR and tWRTR at 8 -4 / 9-3. I have this extremely stable setup for two months. I've seen everything. Very few of those who are on the list of best "timing" spreadsheet manage to pass a y-cruncher all test for 12 hours. I was frustrated trying to lower the TRCDRD to 15 or 14. If you see Igor's lab test, you may find that they achieve a flat 14 but with a 5950. 

Hopefully you can improve some value so we could tested.











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lmfodor

Alemancio said:


> Thoughts on this? Karhu 5000% Stable @ 1.50V on 5900X.
> 
> Read 59400
> Write 58400
> Copy 56200
> Latency: 55.5ns
> 
> View attachment 2521044


Very good timings. I guess you can lower the latency to 54 easy reducing your startup program. Try Autorun to disable startup services to see it, or, boot in safe mode. Also you can try disabling GDM on 1T with the setup 56-0-0 or 56-0-12 ane tCKE 12/16. But your read write values are great. We are almost in the max theoretical bandwidth for 3900 around 60MB/s. The trick would be to rise the FCLK to 1933 or 1966 or 4000 better, but without WHEAs. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## GRABibus

lmfodor said:


> Hi @GRABibus, I have the same memories that you have for several months, I progress a lot with all kinds of configurations. I also have a 5900x and a Dark Hero.
> 
> These are my best timings, with a lot of help from Veii and Mannix-ITA from the 7/24 memory stability thread. I have to confess that the 3600CL14 single rank ones are better, at least for achieving 14 flat primaries. This model is expensive, good but with much less money we could achieve the same or even better performance. Regarding the +1900, yes, it is the IMC. There are many suspicions that the WHEA 19 conflict is due to mobos with Realtek NICs (96% of mobos have a Realtek NIC). However, even playing all the IOD and CCD voltage values, I can't avoid the WHEA 19 above 1933FCLK. . Around this setting I played a lot, I mean, SCL at 4, tRDWR and tWRTR at 8 -4 / 9-3. I have this extremely stable setup for two months. I've seen everything. Very few of those who are on the list of best "timing" spreadsheet manage to pass a y-cruncher all test for 12 hours. I was frustrated trying to lower the TRCDRD to 15 or 14. If you see Igor's lab test, you may find that they achieve a flat 14 but with a 5950.
> 
> Hopefully you can improve some value so we could tested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Thanks.
If you look at my zen timing some post above , I don’t really see what I can improve, except to work on GDM disabled in order to work on CL13.

Do you have Aida64 benchmarks with those timings ?
I will try when back home


----------



## RHBH

Sleepycat said:


> Wait.... what.... the.... fruit!?!?!?
> 4x16GB B-die, 1T GDM off. Was never possible before. Now possible with AddrCmdSetup, CsOdtSetup and CkeSetup at 56??
> 
> View attachment 2521092


Have you compared the latency between GDM and true 1T?

As far as I know the value range for this is 0 to 63.

63 meaning you're adding delay for a 1T mode in practice work as 2T.

56 is close enough from 63, so any improvements you got from GDM on to GDM off in this case, should be marginal.


----------



## lmfodor

GRABibus said:


> Thanks.
> If you look at my zen timing some post above , I don’t really see what I can improve, except to work on GDM disabled in order to work on CL13.
> 
> Do you have Aida64 benchmarks with those timings ?
> I will try when back home


Yes! I’ll send you later. Are quite similar. You bandwidth are very good, however GDM ON is rounding up some values. In fact, your tRCDRD is very low even with GDM ON.. I guess if you work with GDM off you should have to rise some values or you’ll have several error. Are you testing timings with TM5 1usmus at least 20 to 25 pass?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Reikoji

I still get memory errors in tests trying GDM off settings. Its my fate to leave it on...

But I have good results from Curve optimizer. -28 on CCD1 cores. -30 should solidify 4.6 effective


----------



## noxious89123

GRABibus said:


> I finally received the kit I wanted for my 5900X build :
> 
> F4-3800C14D-32GTZN
> 16GBx2 *Dual-Ranked* 3800MHz 14-16-16-36 1,5V
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F4-3800C14D-32GTZN - G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.
> 
> 
> Trident Z Neo DDR4-3800 CL14-16-16-36 1.50V 32GB (2x16GB) Engineered and optimized for full compatibility on the latest AMD Ryzen platforms, Trident Z Neo brings unparalleled DRAM memory performance and vibrant RGB lighting to any gaming PC or workstation with latest AMD Ryzen CPUs and AMD DDR4...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gskill.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice review from Igor's lab :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the new high-end RAM for Ryzen 5000 live up to its promise? - G.SKILL DDR4-3800 CL14 2x 16GB kit put through its paces | igor'sLAB
> 
> 
> The Trident Z RGB and Neo series from G.SKILL have been around almost as long as DDR4. However, for the new Ryzen 5000 CPUs, G.SKILL has refreshed their SKUs and added new XMP variants specifically…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.igorslab.de
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could tweak it at 3800MHz 14-13-13-27 with same voltage 1.5V
> 
> *Stable 20000% Karhu's RAM test :*
> View attachment 2520919
> 
> 
> 
> *Aida64 Benchmark and Zen Timings :*
> View attachment 2520920
> 
> 
> 
> My latency is not really improved by the way and remains at 55ns+. I already had this value with 3800MHz CL16.
> I am on bios 3703.
> 
> Really happy with this kit which can take very low timings and remain stable ! (And no Whea 19)


Just looking back other the last few pages of the thread and something here caught my eye.

Do you actually require such a relatively "high" CLDO VDDP voltage for your settings to work? I have mine set to 0.9001v, but in my earlier testing at lower speeds and looser timings, that I could lower it substantially and remain stable. I simply set mine manually to the same as the motherboards AUTO setting to elimate a variable when testing. I have yet to discover any or benefit from altering it from this default value.

Have you tried tRRDL at 4 and tRDRDSCL and tWRWRSCL both at 2? A user on Reddit suggested those changes to me, and that with a couple of other minor tweaks knocked off a full 1.0ns from my memory latency, bringing it down to 54.6ns. I also have tWRRD at 1.


----------



## GRABibus

noxious89123 said:


> Just looking back other the last few pages of the thread and something here caught my eye.
> 
> Do you actually require such a relatively "high" CLDO VDDP voltage for your settings to work? I have mine set to 0.9001v, but in my earlier testing at lower speeds and looser timings, that I could lower it substantially and remain stable. I simply set mine manually to the same as the motherboards AUTO setting to elimate a variable when testing. I have yet to discover any or benefit from altering it from this default value.
> 
> Have you tried tRRDL at 4 and tRDRDSCL and tWRWRSCL both at 2? A user on Reddit suggested those changes to me, and that with a couple of other minor tweaks knocked off a full 1.0ns from my memory latency, bringing it down to 54.6ns. I also have tWRRD at 1.


yes I need 1V, otherwise I get some Whea 19.

For timings I will check, thanks,
But I really optimised them as if I decrease one of them by only « 1 », I don’t boot 😊


----------



## noxious89123

GRABibus said:


> I got a Cinebench R20 multithreaded crash with same OC settings for bios 3703 applied to bios 3801.
> *This makes me think that a little bump in voltage is necessary for bios 3801 in my case.*


Yeah, I had a crash earlier in 3DMark, with event viewer pointing to Core0 as the cause. Core0 is my fastest core which I've had set at -30 in CO for a few weeks now, with no problems. Have bumped it back to -28 instead for further testing.



lmfodor said:


> I was frustrated trying to lower the TRCDRD to 15 or 14. If you see Igor's lab test, you may find that they achieve a flat 14 but with a 5950.
> 
> Hopefully you can improve some value so we could tested.


I've been able to tighten up a lot of my timings, but absolutely cannot go below tRCDRD at 16. Massively unstable and sometimes fails to boot.



GRABibus said:


> yes I need 1V, otherwise I get some Whea 19.
> 
> For timings I will check, thanks,
> But I really optimised them as if I decrease one of them by only « 1 », I don’t boot 😊


Interesting! Seems that there's quite a lot of variance between CPUs / IMCs and what they are capable of.


Out of curiosity, how many of you guys are using active cooling on your RAM? I was getting rather disappointing results from my B-Die kit, but an IR thermometer revealed my modules were reaching 60°C, and cooling them gained me huge amounts of headroom in terms of reducing timings.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Sleepycat said:


> Wait.... what.... the.... fruit!?!?!?
> 4x16GB B-die, 1T GDM off. Was never possible before. Now possible with AddrCmdSetup, CsOdtSetup and CkeSetup at 56??
> 
> View attachment 2521092


Have you been living under a rock ?  Granted only 4x8GB but i have been posting with these 56 setup-timings for months now, even in this very thread..
This are my last numbers for that setup before i switched over to my new memory sticks











RHBH said:


> Have you compared the latency between GDM and true 1T?
> 
> As far as I know the value range for this is 0 to 63.
> 
> 63 meaning you're adding delay for a 1T mode in practice work as 2T.
> 
> 56 is close enough from 63, so any improvements you got from GDM on to GDM off in this case, should be marginal.


Don't use AIDA to compare real memory performance.. Even dram-calc's "easy" memory-benchmark is much better for that, if you care about "real performance" 
To have some other numbers to compare i have done some other comparisons in heavy memory-intensive benchmarks between the different Cmt modes

Benchmark numbers when comparing T1 setup-time vs T2 vs T1 GDM in linpack xtreme (new 2x16GB set)

Pure T2 is not all that much faster then T1 GDM, difference is 1 and 5 gigaflops. (but GDM takes longer to "stabilize" the score)
T1 setup-time is suprisling much faster than T1 GDM, difference is 10 and 15 gigaflops
T1 setup-time is also faster then pure T2 by 9 and 10 gigaflops

Benchmark numbers when comparing T1 setup-time vs T2 vs T1 GDM in Monero RandomX Miner (old 4x8GB set)

19413 / 19151 = T2 is ~1.3% faster than T1 GDM in this benchmark
19723 / 19413 = T1 setup-time is ~1.6% faster than T2 in this benchmark
19723 / 19151 = *T1 setup-time is ~2.9% faster than T1 GDM in this benchmark*

This is also a very good post from RonLazer which i would recommend reading in regards to fclk speeds above 1900:3800.. To this date i haven't seen anyone show scaling at high (>1900) flck.

And this are what my new memory timings currently looks like this, but they are work in progress


----------



## noxious89123

Haha, I've just made the adjustment to AddrCmdSetup earlier today, setting to 56 as you said. Disabled GDM, set 1T command rate, and it's working flawlessly.

My memory latency hasn't changed and is still at 54.6ns, but when testing with IBT the GFlops result has increased from 176GFlops to 180GFlops, which is a relatively big jump for changing one setting. I don't use this as a performance benchmark persé, rather I just keep an eye on it and add it to my notes when tweaking, as an increase in the GFlops result here is a reliable indicator that my changes are moving me in the right direction.


----------



## CyrIng

Using Beta 3703, the most stable DIMM settings I'm getting is DCLK:3466/FCLK:1733 MHz at G.Skill B-die timings 16-16-16-16-36-52
Still an OC regression compared to 3600/1800 MHz achieved by BIOS 22xx










What should I tune ?


----------



## GRABibus

CyrIng said:


> Using Beta 3703, the most stable DIMM settings I'm getting is DCLK:3466/FCLK:1733 MHz at G.Skill B-die timings 16-16-16-16-36-52
> Still an OC regression compared to 3600/1800 MHz achieved by BIOS 22xx
> 
> View attachment 2521140
> 
> 
> What should I tune ?


it is a long time you complain about RAM.
Did you try other kits ?


----------



## xProlific

Sleepycat said:


> Never seen this before. Do they disappear if you exit that particular menu and go back in again? Or do they move around different locations? If they do, then I suspect something might be up with your video card's low clock voltage. It could be slightly too low.


Yes they disappear and pop up as I navigate the screens. It doesn't happen all the time but enough that I have noticed it when going into the bios. My graphics card is a 3080 Strix. I have another issue were my computer will black screen at idle unless I set power supply idle control to typical current idle in the bios. I wonder if the issue is related to that.


----------



## noxious89123

GRABibus said:


> it is a long time you complain about RAM.
> Did you try other kits ?


Don't forget that CyrIng is using a 3950X, not Ryzen 5000!


----------



## CyrIng

GRABibus said:


> it is a long time you complain about RAM.
> Did you try other kits ?


Indeed I can't enjoy any 3xxx BIOS versions. Changing DIMM may help but this expensive (450€) is certified on C8HW QVL list and offers all its potential up to BIOS 2206. I have downgrade/upgrade many times to locate changes in default values like voltage DIMM, SoC and so on, but could find a obvious change among ASUS releases. Something has been deeply modified in firmware which doesn't please my 3950X platform.

Why do I need to upgrade if 2206 is doing fine ? 
Because I want to keep my CoreFreq driver aligned with AGESA changes. For exemple, around 3307, a new power limiter PL2 is now showing up from the SMU. And various other bits are brought by AGESA releases.


----------



## CyrIng

GRABibus said:


> it is a long time you complain about RAM.
> Did you try other kits ?


Solved with Ryzen Master and *not* using the BIOS _Extreme Tweaker_ which is left to AUTO for all except the DIMM voltage @ 1.35V

RM is writing DRAM timings and other Fabric values into BIOS/AMD Overclocking.
( could be neat to to the same w/ CoreFreq. However most official RSMU commands are still published read only )


OC in Ryzen Master











Results in CoreFreq for Linux










So far, platform is stable at FCLK 1800 MHz.
RdWr (tRDWR) and WrRd (tWRRD) are left unbalanced ! (EDIT: b/c left as AUTO)

I'm giving up with Extreme Tweaker which is doing such bad OC.


----------



## learner-gr

Is there any problem if someone use the lower slot of m.2 for a nvme or its better to use the upper slot?


----------



## neikosr0x

learner-gr said:


> Is there any problem if someone use the lower slot of m.2 for a nvme or its better to use the upper slot?


In my experience with the Dark hero the top one which is the CPU one does run better.


----------



## Daylight_Invader

learner-gr said:


> Is there any problem if someone use the lower slot of m.2 for a nvme or its better to use the upper slot?


depending on which C8H board you have, one will be CPU and other via chipset. Ideally your main drive should be on the CPU direct lanes.


----------



## Sleepycat

xProlific said:


> Yes they disappear and pop up as I navigate the screens. It doesn't happen all the time but enough that I have noticed it when going into the bios. My graphics card is a 3080 Strix. I have another issue were my computer will black screen at idle unless I set power supply idle control to typical current idle in the bios. I wonder if the issue is related to that.


I'm surprised it would happen in the bios. I would check if your DP cable has good proper contact both on the GPU and the monitor ends.


----------



## learner-gr

Daylight_Invader said:


> depending on which C8H board you have, one will be CPU and other via chipset. Ideally your main drive should be on the CPU direct lanes.


CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WI-FI
so better use the upper ?


----------



## lmfodor

noxious89123 said:


> Just looking back other the last few pages of the thread and something here caught my eye.
> 
> Do you actually require such a relatively "high" CLDO VDDP voltage for your settings to work? I have mine set to 0.9001v, but in my earlier testing at lower speeds and looser timings, that I could lower it substantially and remain stable. I simply set mine manually to the same as the motherboards AUTO setting to elimate a variable when testing. I have yet to discover any or benefit from altering it from this default value.
> 
> Have you tried tRRDL at 4 and tRDRDSCL and tWRWRSCL both at 2? A user on Reddit suggested those changes to me, and that with a couple of other minor tweaks knocked off a full 1.0ns from my memory latency, bringing it down to 54.6ns. I also have tWRRD at 1.


Hi, I have this memories for several months and tried everything even with several mothers. VDDP should not pass 0.9V. CCD you can play between 0.95 and 1 or even a little higher. IOD -.75 VSoc. VSOC no higher than 1.2V. In my case SCL 2 works better than 4. The key is running 1T GDM Off with addrsetup to 56. And it’s hard to lower tRDCRD to 15 o even 14.. I didn’t find the parameters yet. Indeed I was tired and leave as I have it now. Works very well. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## stimpy88

learner-gr said:


> CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WI-FI
> so better use the upper ?


Yep


----------



## learner-gr

stimpy88 said:


> Yep


Thanks !


----------



## Daylight_Invader

learner-gr said:


> CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WI-FI
> so better use the upper ?


I think on hero yes. On mine (impact) it’s the lower.


----------



## rbys

New stable BIOS update:



Code:


 Version 3801
2021/08/12 20.57 MBytes

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO(WI-FI) BIOS 3801
"1. Update AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.3 Patch C
2. Improve system performance

Btw, can someone share their EDC / TDC and PPT limits? I'm using motherboard PBO settings but that is a bit too toasty on my 5900X.


----------



## xeizo

rbys said:


> New stable BIOS update:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Version 3801
> 2021/08/12 20.57 MBytes
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO(WI-FI) BIOS 3801
> "1. Update AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.3 Patch C
> 2. Improve system performance
> 
> Btw, can someone share their EDC / TDC and PPT limits? I'm using motherboard PBO settings but that is a bit too toasty on my 5900X.


It seem like exact same as the previous provided(in this thread) 3801 Beta, but it was created two days prior, maybe a older compile of the same code?

Regarding EDC/TDC/PPT, it's when Ryzen Master can be useful as it has meters for those, set each so that it reaches almost full load on each meter when running Cinebench. It's not necessary to use higher values, EDC affects heat output the most, too low EDC will kill L3 performance though. Possibly L3 is a large power hog. PPT is sort of a TDP limiter, can be useful, TDC does the least for heat/performance and can be kept as low as possible but too low and Cinebench will tank. Balance this with your cooling solution, Zen 3 can take 90C+ without problems, but I feel more comfortable with 85C as absolute max. For that purpose I have set 85C as the limit for starting throttling in the PBO menu.


----------



## xProlific

The difference is that Firmware TPM is enabled by default on 3801. Also 3703 had some useless extra trailing settings in the text export of the bios settings.


----------



## GRABibus

rbys said:


> New stable BIOS update:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Version 3801
> 2021/08/12 20.57 MBytes
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO(WI-FI) BIOS 3801
> "1. Update AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.3 Patch C
> 2. Improve system performance
> 
> Btw, can someone share their EDC / TDC and PPT limits? I'm using motherboard PBO settings but that is a bit too toasty on my 5900X.


mine are in my sig.
CPU Cooled with Corsair H115i RGB Platinum.


----------



## noxious89123

rbys said:


> New stable BIOS update:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Version 3801
> 2021/08/12 20.57 MBytes
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO(WI-FI) BIOS 3801
> "1. Update AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.3 Patch C
> 2. Improve system performance
> 
> Btw, can someone share their EDC / TDC and PPT limits? I'm using motherboard PBO settings but that is a bit too toasty on my 5900X.


You're about 4 days late to the party on that BIOS update, if you go back a few pages, you'll see a few of us are already running 3801 

395W PPT, 255A TDC and 200A EDC here. It's the "motherboard" setting for PBO on the Dark Hero, which is what it uses if left on "AUTO" as well.

Never gets close to 100% of PPT, rarely get's much about 65% use or so for TDC, and sits at 100% of EDC frequently when under heavy load. Reducing EDC does bring my temps down, but also hurts performance.


----------



## GRABibus

xProlific said:


> Sometimes I see these off colored squares in the bios. Is this a symptom of a problem or is this normal?
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/BQxZHcn


I got this with fclk > 1900MHz and Memory freq > 3800MHz (1:1).
My mouse lags in Bios and it is WHEA 19 fest under windows


----------



## xProlific

GRABibus said:


> I got this with fclk > 1900MHz and Memory freq > 3800MHz (1:1).
> My mouse lags in Bios and it is WHEA 19 fest under windows


Interesting cause I have gotten the square effect at stock with no overclock. Wondering if the issue is power related to psu, cpu, or motherboard or even possibly gpu. I am skeptical of the PSU because I have to set power supply idle control in the bios to typical current idle otherwise my system black screens. I heard the black screen issue is related to bad CPUs so I may eventually try to RMA my chip If I don't find a solution elsewhere. 

On the the PSU end, I have an EVGA Supernova 1000W T2 that I am using with custom cablemod cables. I wonder if I were to switch back to the stock cables specifically the GPU cables if that would resolve the issue. Any thoughts are appreciated.


----------



## xeizo

xProlific said:


> Interesting cause I have gotten the square effect at stock with no overclock. Wondering if the issue is power related to psu, cpu, or motherboard or even possibly gpu. I am skeptical of the PSU because I have to set power supply idle control in the bios to typical current idle otherwise my system black screens. I heard the black screen issue is related to bad CPUs so I may eventually try to RMA my chip If I don't find a solution elsewhere.
> 
> On the the PSU end, I have an EVGA Supernova 1000W T2 that I am using with custom cablemod cables. I wonder if I were to switch back to the stock cables specifically the GPU cables if that would resolve the issue. Any thoughts are appreciated.


I saw on EVGA forums that several people had solved gpu problems by switching to stock cables, sounds like a good idea

I've never had any black screens except when curve optimizer had too much minus on some core, curve optimizer do indeed cause black screens if you play mindlessly with it, some bad cpu:s can even be "fixed" by applying positive CO on the bad core/cores.


----------



## xProlific

xeizo said:


> I saw on EVGA forums that several people had solved gpu problems by switching to stock cables, sounds like a good idea
> 
> I've never had any black screens except when curve optimizer had too much minus on some core, curve optimizer do indeed cause black screens if you play mindlessly with it, some bad cpu:s can even be "fixed" by applying positive CO on the bad core/cores.


Yes, I understand that however my CPU backscreens while idling even at stock with no curve optimizer or even docp applied.


----------



## sonixmon

I got my new kit today (F4-3600C14D-32GTZN) and loaded XMP, no bueno with GDM disabled (even at 3600). Set AddrCmdSetup to 56 and worked no problem, ran some tests and higher latency than before (expected at 3600) but stable. Pushed to 3800 and again needed GDM enabled to boot, but after a few hours of reviewing others settings here and trying several, I managed to get it semi-stable (meaning full on stress test fails). Will need some additional tweaking but ran some benches and latency only dropped 2ns to 55 but throughput jumped up and highest 3DMark score I have hit so far (11,278 from 11,085).

In the end not worth the upgrade but sometimes we do these things anyway, hopefully my existing ram brings in 50% of the cost for me.


----------



## GRABibus

sonixmon said:


> I got my new kit today (F4-3600C14D-32GTZN) and loaded XMP, no bueno with GDM disabled (even at 3600). Set AddrCmdSetup to 56 and worked no problem, ran some tests and higher latency than before (expected at 3600) but stable. Pushed to 3800 and again needed GDM enabled to boot, but after a few hours of reviewing others settings here and trying several, I managed to get it semi-stable (meaning full on stress test fails). Will need some additional tweaking but ran some benches and latency only dropped 2ns to 55 but throughput jumped up and highest 3DMark score I have hit so far (11,278 from 11,085).
> 
> In the end not worth the upgrade but sometimes we do these things anyway, hopefully my existing ram brings in 50% of the cost for me.


benchmark means nothing if not stable 😊
Good luck and post results 👍


----------



## sonixmon

GRABibus said:


> benchmark means nothing if not stable 😊
> Good luck and post results 👍


Absolutely, I just ran out of time so will continue tomorrow.

Thanks!


----------



## xeizo

xProlific said:


> Yes, I understand that however my CPU backscreens while idling even at stock with no curve optimizer or even docp applied.


Then you probably has one of those "bad" cores, there are strategies for finding out which, try using curve optimizer to give that/those cores a positive offset

I have no black screens and I even have power supply idle on auto, I have one really bad core not as bad as positive offset but much worse than the rest. My curve is per core(minus) 20-1-20-10-15-10-14-10-14-20-15-15. It was a year since I nailed it so I don't remember exactly how I did, but it was a lot of testing and it has been stable since, with all bios versions.


----------



## Requiem4u

sonixmon said:


> I got my new kit today (F4-3600C14D-32GTZN) and loaded XMP, no bueno with GDM disabled (even at 3600). Set AddrCmdSetup to 56 and worked no problem, ran some tests and higher latency than before (expected at 3600) but stable. Pushed to 3800 and again needed GDM enabled to boot, but after a few hours of reviewing others settings here and trying several, I managed to get it semi-stable (meaning full on stress test fails). Will need some additional tweaking but ran some benches and latency only dropped 2ns to 55 but throughput jumped up and highest 3DMark score I have hit so far (11,278 from 11,085).
> 
> In the end not worth the upgrade but sometimes we do these things anyway, hopefully my existing ram brings in 50% of the cost for me.


Did you try GDM disabled 2T? That should work without any changes if your timings are not bad and it is faster than GDM 1T.


----------



## GRABibus

Requiem4u said:


> Did you try GDM disabled 2T? That should work without any changes if your timings are not bad and it is faster than GDM 1T.


and if IMC is not weak 😊


----------



## noxious89123

sonixmon said:


> I got my new kit today (F4-3600C14D-32GTZN) and loaded XMP, no bueno with GDM disabled (even at 3600). Set AddrCmdSetup to 56 and worked no problem, ran some tests and higher latency than before (expected at 3600) but stable. Pushed to 3800 and again needed GDM enabled to boot, but after a few hours of reviewing others settings here and trying several, I managed to get it semi-stable (meaning full on stress test fails). Will need some additional tweaking but ran some benches and latency only dropped 2ns to 55 but throughput jumped up and highest 3DMark score I have hit so far (11,278 from 11,085).
> 
> In the end not worth the upgrade but sometimes we do these things anyway, hopefully my existing ram brings in 50% of the cost for me.


What settings are you using currently?


----------



## GRABibus

My last and final timings + Aida benchmark with my kit F4-3800C14D-32GTZN :

Measured at 27°C ambient :










Stable 20000% Kahru's at DRAM Voltage 1.48V (Instead of 1.5V DOCP profile) :









GDM disabled is a full NO GO for me.


----------



## noxious89123

Looks like some good results to me! Do your G.Skill modules have temperature sensors in them, and if so what sort of temperature are they running at when being stress tested? What sort of cooling do you have on them, if any?

Also, are you aware that a few of your settings, which are set to odd numbers, will functionally be rounded up? So your tRCDRD being set to 13 for example doesn't gain you anything vs being set at 14.
Similarly, your tFAW appears to be rather low. By my understanding, it cannot be lower than 4x tRRDS, so even if you set it _below_ 16, it will run _at_ 16.
Thoughts?



GRABibus said:


> GDM disabled is a full NO GO for me.


Have you tried setting tRCDRD to 15 and setting MemAddrCmdSetup to 56, with 1T and GDM disabled?

Also, have you played with ProcODT or ClkDrvStr / AddrCmdDrvStr / CsOdtDrvStr / CkeDrvStr ? There seems to be some variance between what individual CPUs "like" regarding those settings, with there being no "optimal" value to use across every CPU. Another user advised me that I could dial those in by changing each one of them one at a time, by one increment, and then performing a few runs of the AIDA64 latency test. As you move towards your CPUs "sweet spot" for those settings, the memory latency should become a little lower and also more consistent. I was quite skeptical of this initially, but I spent some time testing with ProcODT and could see it definitely had an effect on performance even when I wasn't changing any other settings alongside it. I still need to do more testing with the latter four settings.

Aaaaand another thing; the top of your ZenTimings window looks weird, with the minimise / maximise / close buttons missing. Does it do weird stuff when you move the cursor over the top of the window? Mine was doing some weird stuff, but I fixed it by stopping the "Nahimic" service running; it appears to be related to some of the audio related software that comes from Asus.

I also found that my AIDA64 test results were better and more consistent when stopping all of the Asus software related services from running in the background. The ones I stop before testing are;
ARMOURY CRATE Service
ASUS Com Service
ASUS Update Service (asus)
ASUS Update Service (asusm)
AsusCertService
AsusFanControlService
AsusROGLSLService Download ROGLSLoader
LightingService
ROG Live Service

I also use Corsair iCue, and that runs a load of crap in the background that substantially affects my latency numbers too, so I shut that and its services down too.


----------



## GRABibus

noxious89123 said:


> Looks like some good results to me! Do your G.Skill modules have temperature sensors in them, and if so what sort of temperature are they running at when being stress tested? What sort of cooling do you have on them, if any?
> 
> Also, are you aware that a few of your settings, which are set to odd numbers, will functionally be rounded up? So your tRCDRD being set to 13 for example doesn't gain you anything vs being set at 14.
> Similarly, your tFAW appears to be rather low. By my understanding, it cannot be lower than 4x tRRDS, so even if you set it _below_ 16, it will run _at_ 16.
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> Have you tried setting tRCDRD to 15 and setting MemAddrCmdSetup to 56, with 1T and GDM disabled?
> 
> Also, have you played with ProcODT or ClkDrvStr / AddrCmdDrvStr / CsOdtDrvStr / CkeDrvStr ? There seems to be some variance between what individual CPUs "like" regarding those settings, with there being no "optimal" value to use across every CPU. Another user advised me that I could dial those in by changing each one of them one at a time, by one increment, and then performing a few runs of the AIDA64 latency test. As you move towards your CPUs "sweet spot" for those settings, the memory latency should become a little lower and also more consistent. I was quite skeptical of this initially, but I spent some time testing with ProcODT and could see it definitely had an effect on performance even when I wasn't changing any other settings alongside it. I still need to do more testing with the latter four settings.
> 
> Aaaaand another thing; the top of your ZenTimings window looks weird, with the minimise / maximise / close buttons missing. Does it do weird stuff when you move the cursor over the top of the window? Mine was doing some weird stuff, but I fixed it by stopping the "Nahimic" service running; it appears to be related to some of the audio related software that comes from Asus.
> 
> I also found that my AIDA64 test results were better and more consistent when stopping all of the Asus software related services from running in the background. The ones I stop before testing are;
> ARMOURY CRATE Service
> ASUS Com Service
> ASUS Update Service (asus)
> ASUS Update Service (asusm)
> AsusCertService
> AsusFanControlService
> AsusROGLSLService Download ROGLSLoader
> LightingService
> ROG Live Service
> 
> I also use Corsair iCue, and that runs a load of crap in the background that substantially affects my latency numbers too, so I shut that and its services down too.


tRCDRD is not rounded apparently and when I set it at 13, it is taken into account at 13 by the system.
If I set it at 14, its is 14.
I know that Tcl is rounded to pair value (14,16, 18....) when GDM is enabled.

Do I miss something ?

I have no partricular cooling on the sticks and I didn't check temps. I don't have any errors at 28°C ambient during 11hours of Karhu's and it is B Die, so I assuime temps are ok.
They are at 35°C at idle with 26°C in the room.

Yes, i tried everything you say => NO GO for GDM disabled definitely.

And yes, i have this weird looking while mloving cursor


----------



## Nizzen

GRABibus said:


> benchmark means nothing if not stable 😊
> Good luck and post results 👍


If it's stable, you haven't overclocked far enough 😎🤓


----------



## GRABibus

Nizzen said:


> If it's stable, you haven't overclocked far enough 😎🤓


I like your jokes 

if i reduce by "1" one timing only of my settings, don't boot, even at Vram=1.55V


----------



## noxious89123

GRABibus said:


> tRCDRD is not rounded apparently and when I set it at 13, it is taken into account at 13 by the system.
> If I set it at 14, its is 14.
> I know that Tcl is rounded to pair value (14,16, 18....) when GDM is enabled.
> 
> Do I miss something ?


Ah, I was not aware of this!



GRABibus said:


> I have no partricular cooling on the sticks and I didn't check temps. I don't have any errors at 28°C ambient during 11hours and it is B Die, I assuime temps are ok.
> They are at 35°C at idle with 26°C in the room.
> 
> Yes, i tried everything you say => NO GO for GDM disabled definitely.
> 
> And yes, i have this weird looking while mloving cursor


Temperature seems good! You must have good case airflow 

It's unfortunate that you can't get GDM disabled to work, nothing I tried worked until I tried setting MemAddrCmdSetup to 56. Maybe there is some other setting that might give you that extra stability needed to manage 1T. Possible playing with your Rtt's? Who knows. I'm still learning and testing as I go. Best of luck!


----------



## sonixmon

noxious89123 said:


> What settings are you using currently?


Here are current settings, copied from a few folks here. I tried to push voltage slightly farther 1.51v and got post loops (ram did not like it) so I actually dropped it down to 1.48v and the stress test runs a little longer (30s). Obviously not stable but no issue gaming or daily use so far. I may drop voltage a little more and try again or just throw in the towel and go 2T or 1T GDM (after benching both). Thinking this is a slightly lower binned set (hence the 3600 stock and not 3800) but it was hard to justify another $75 for the 3800 CL14.

Edit: I realize the timings don't match on the two screenshots, ignore that I haven't run the AIDA64 as I am still tweaking timings.


----------



## CyrIng

Improvements in latest BIOS with Linux: Duplicate WMI gone


Previous Beta 3703



Code:


Aug 18 06:11:35 kernel: Linux version 5.13.10-arch1-1 ([email protected]) (gcc (GCC) 11.1.0, GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.36.1) #1 >
Aug 18 06:11:35 kernel: efi: EFI v2.70 by American Megatrends
Aug 18 06:11:35 kernel: SMBIOS 3.3.0 present.
Aug 18 06:11:35 kernel: DMI: ASUS System Product Name/ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO (WI-FI), BIOS 3703 07/27/2021
Aug 18 06:11:35 kernel: ACPI: [Firmware Bug]: BIOS _OSI(Linux) query ignored
Aug 18 06:11:36 kernel: acpi PNP0C14:02: duplicate WMI GUID 05901221-D566-11D1-B2F0-00A0C9062910 (first instance was on PNP0>
Aug 18 06:11:36 kernel: acpi PNP0C14:03: duplicate WMI GUID 05901221-D566-11D1-B2F0-00A0C9062910 (first instance was on PNP0>
Aug 18 06:11:36 kernel: acpi PNP0C14:04: duplicate WMI GUID 05901221-D566-11D1-B2F0-00A0C9062910 (first instance was on PNP0>
Aug 18 06:11:36 kernel: acpi PNP0C14:05: duplicate WMI GUID 05901221-D566-11D1-B2F0-00A0C9062910 (first instance was on PNP0>
Aug 18 06:11:36 kernel: ccp 0000:09:00.1: ccp: unable to access the device: you might be running a broken BIOS.


Current Official 3801



Code:


Aug 18 08:52:19 kernel: Linux version 5.13.10-arch1-1 ([email protected]) (gcc (GCC) 11.1.0, GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.36.1) #1 >
Aug 18 08:52:19 kernel: efi: EFI v2.70 by American Megatrends
Aug 18 08:52:19 kernel: SMBIOS 3.3.0 present.
Aug 18 08:52:19 kernel: DMI: ASUS System Product Name/ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO (WI-FI), BIOS 3801 07/30/2021
Aug 18 08:52:19 kernel: ACPI: 9 ACPI AML tables successfully acquired and loaded
Aug 18 08:52:19 kernel: ACPI: [Firmware Bug]: BIOS _OSI(Linux) query ignored
Aug 18 08:52:20 kernel: ccp 0000:09:00.1: ccp: unable to access the device: you might be running a broken BIOS.


----------



## tomzyka

GRABibus said:


> tRCDRD is not rounded apparently and when I set it at 13, it is taken into account at 13 by the system.
> If I set it at 14, its is 14.
> I know that Tcl is rounded to pair value (14,16, 18....) when GDM is enabled.
> 
> Do I miss something ?
> 
> I have no partricular cooling on the sticks and I didn't check temps. I don't have any errors at 28°C ambient during 11hours of Karhu's and it is B Die, so I assuime temps are ok.
> They are at 35°C at idle with 26°C in the room.
> 
> Yes, i tried everything you say => NO GO for GDM disabled definitely.
> 
> And yes, i have this weird looking while mloving cursor


Did you try raising tRDWR? I wasted a couple of days trying to boot gdm off with hundreds of different procODT / RTT / CAD combinations until I raised tRDWR to 10 and tWRRD to 4 (I'm on 9-4 now but anything lower results in boot failure) and it worked flawlessly. (You might need to raise it even further to 12-5 etc.)


----------



## GRABibus

tomzyka said:


> Did you try raising tRDWR? I wasted a couple of days trying to boot gdm off with hundreds of different procODT / RTT / CAD combinations until I raised tRDWR to 10 and tWRRD to 4 (I'm on 9-4 now but anything lower results in boot failure) and it worked flawlessly. (You might need to raise it even further to 12-5 etc.)


thanks.
I will try.
what about benchs ?
What is the real advantage of GDM off ?


----------



## Syldon

Deleted


----------



## Gondar

Guys do you still have usb problems with latest bios?


----------



## GRABibus

Gondar said:


> Guys do you still have usb problems with latest bios?


I never had…
Only a mouse (Logitech) and a Keyboard (Corsair).


----------



## Gondar

GRABibus said:


> I never had…
> Only a mouse (Logitech) and a Keyboard (Corsair).


You could had fault usb ports, but mouse and keyboard aren't that demanding. Webcams, dacs etc are devices that can show problems.


----------



## GRABibus

Gondar said:


> You could had fault usb ports, but mouse and keyboard aren't that demanding. Webcams, dacs etc are devices that can show problems.


Webcam is also ok


----------



## Gondar

99% of problems are with dacs,webcams and vr devices, those require good bandwitdh and signal, some people have problems with keyboards and mouse but not majority. I guess it is some design flaw so lets see how much damage they can fix with software patches.


----------



## noxious89123

sonixmon said:


> Here are current settings, copied from a few folks here. I tried to push voltage slightly farther 1.51v and got post loops (ram did not like it) so I actually dropped it down to 1.48v and the stress test runs a little longer (30s). Obviously not stable but no issue gaming or daily use so far. I may drop voltage a little more and try again or just throw in the towel and go 2T or 1T GDM (after benching both). Thinking this is a slightly lower binned set (hence the 3600 stock and not 3800) but it was hard to justify another $75 for the 3800 CL14.
> 
> Edit: I realize the timings don't match on the two screenshots, ignore that I haven't run the AIDA64 as I am still tweaking timings.
> View attachment 2521503
> 
> View attachment 2521500


Looks pretty tight! If I had to pick out a culprit for your instability, I would start by looking at tRFC. 126ns on tRFC is (as far as I can tell) really fast, especially if you compare it to what non-B-Die can do. Here's a pretty table that someone shared;








This is why I have my tRFC set to 266, tRFC2 set to 198 and tRFC4 set to 122.
I've even been told by others that my tRFC should be looser, to allow me to tighten other timings more. Might be worth playing with?
Oh, and have you tried tRDRDSCL and tWRWRSCL lower? I was able to set mine to 2 and go faster with no effort. Maybe I just got lucky!


----------



## Bizkitcan

Ignoring the USB issues, is performance in the new released 3801 BIOS equal or better than on 2702 or 3003?

I have seen less than advertised speeds from the 500gb and 1TB NVME Samsung 980 Pro M.2. and USB issues galore on my current BIOS.

5900x
Crucial Ballistix MAX RGB 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR4-4000 CL18 Memory - Running @ 3800Mhz CL16 , MCLK:FCKL:UCLK = 1900
RTX 3090 FTW3 Ultra


----------



## Badgerslayer7

I’m still getting random usb disconnects on my Xbox elite controller using the Xbox wireless dongle. Won’t work at all with a Bluetooth dongle.


----------



## noxious89123

Bizkitcan said:


> I have seen less than advertised speeds from the 500gb and 1TB NVME Samsung 980 Pro M.2


I'm using a 1TB 980 Pro. From the reading I've done, I'd say it's definitely a shortcoming of the drive itself, and not BIOS related. Samsung made some odd choices when making the 980 Pro. If I'd done a bit more homework before purchasing an SSD, I probably would have chosen the WD SN850 instead.


----------



## GRABibus

noxious89123 said:


> I'm using a 1TB 980 Pro. From the reading I've done, I'd say it's definitely a shortcoming of the drive itself, and not BIOS related. Samsung made some odd choices when making the 980 Pro. If I'd done a bit more homework before purchasing an SSD, I probably would have chosen the WD SN850 instead.


Yep.
Seagate Firecuda 520 2TB very good also (This is my system drive on M2_1).


----------



## Bizkitcan

noxious89123 said:


> I'm using a 1TB 980 Pro. From the reading I've done, I'd say it's definitely a shortcoming of the drive itself, and not BIOS related. Samsung made some odd choices when making the 980 Pro. If I'd done a bit more homework before purchasing an SSD, I probably would have chosen the WD SN850 instead.


Good to know, I read that the top M.2 slot gets direct CX to CPU and the lower slot is ... I forget. 
I wonder if that is why I have asymmetrical performance?


----------



## rbys

Welp, I'm getting bad performance on anything else than motherboard limits. Like 21.5k pnts with EDC at 180A in Cinebench R23.

Also for some reason the Razer Orochi V2 is not usable in the BIOS but it works fine on the Windows desktop. Hopefully ASUS will fix this.


----------



## sonixmon

noxious89123 said:


> Looks pretty tight! If I had to pick out a culprit for your instability, I would start by looking at tRFC. 126ns on tRFC is (as far as I can tell) really fast, especially if you compare it to what non-B-Die can do. Here's a pretty table that someone shared;
> 
> This is why I have my tRFC set to 266, tRFC2 set to 198 and tRFC4 set to 122.
> I've even been told by others that my tRFC should be looser, to allow me to tighten other timings more. Might be worth playing with?
> Oh, and have you tried tRDRDSCL and tWRWRSCL lower? I was able to set mine to 2 and go faster with no effort. Maybe I just got lucky!


Appreciate the info, I tried loosening trfc settings as you mentioned and that didn't help but I appreciate the insight. I ended up finding my main instability issue. I forgot I had manually set the DDR termination voltage when I had my old ram so it was still lower, not 50% of voltage. As soon as I corrected that I could run much longer stress tests. Next I believe the limiting factor was temps. I noticed Igor's Lab review of the 32GB 3800CL14 version of this ram and he said they had to loosen timings a little due to temps. I followed his timings but not completely stable, I have also been working with the Dram Calc manual mode though I am not sure I have all the ram ns settings correct (copied most from another user with similar ram).

I have used a combination of these primary (14-15-14-28) and secondary from Dram Calc, have very good results so far. Did some quick testing and over 20 mins with no errors. Will need to do longer tests soon and see if secondary timings can be tightened but way better than before. A small hit to latency about 3.3ns but in line otherwise.


----------



## Sleepycat

Gondar said:


> Guys do you still have usb problems with latest bios?


Nope, it fixed the USB disconnect issue that I had with my Reverb G2. The last 2 bios versions 3703 and 3801 were good for me.


----------



## Sleepycat

rbys said:


> Welp, I'm getting bad performance on anything else than motherboard limits. Like 21.5k pnts with EDC at 180A in Cinebench R23.
> 
> Also for some reason the Razer Orochi V2 is not usable in the BIOS but it works fine on the Windows desktop. Hopefully ASUS will fix this.


You have a settings txt file of your bios?

I'm getting 23k in CB R23 using PPT: 200A, TDC: 140A, EDC: 160A

The way to get a higher core in multi-core CB R23 is to clock both the CCD1 and CCD2 high enough, but keep heat generation as low as possible. My 23k score came from 4.70 / 4.65 GHz @ 1.300V. The peak temperature was 76.9 ºC.

I've also reached 24k, by using 4.775 / 4.725 GHz @ 1.375V, but it was hot and touch and go. I had to crank up the fans full blast to cool it down as much as possible before starting CB R23 on its "golden run".


----------



## asavah

Badgerslayer7 said:


> I’m still getting random usb disconnects on my Xbox elite controller using the Xbox wireless dongle. Won’t work at all with a Bluetooth dongle.


No issues here at all, I have mouse, keyboard, Corsair Void Pro USB headset, xbox series gamepad with wireless dongle and a pendrive connected at all times.


----------



## denizg

GRABibus said:


> My last and final timings + Aida benchmark with my kit F4-3800C14D-32GTZN :
> 
> Measured at 27°C ambient :
> View attachment 2521473
> 
> 
> 
> Stable 20000% Kahru's at DRAM Voltage 1.48V (Instead of 1.5V DOCP profile) :
> View attachment 2521474
> 
> 
> GDM disabled is a full NO GO for me.



Hi, my kit is F4-3600C16D-32GTZN (2x16GB samsung b-die) and these are my results (%100 stable)
Almost exactly the same read/write/copy values to what you guys got there with your much more expensive kits so I'm wondering if just 4-5ns better latency justifies the upgrade for anything?
I like your kit @GRABibus more than I like @sonixmon 's.
Is my kit overperforming or your kits are underperforming or what's going on here? I'm not a huge tech guy so if there is a bigger picture here I don't see I would love to know. Would help me a lot if i wanna upgrade or not


----------



## GRABibus

sonixmon said:


> Appreciate the info, I tried loosening trfc settings as you mentioned and that didn't help but I appreciate the insight. I ended up finding my main instability issue. I forgot I had manually set the DDR termination voltage when I had my old ram so it was still lower, not 50% of voltage. As soon as I corrected that I could run much longer stress tests. Next I believe the limiting factor was temps. I noticed Igor's Lab review of the 32GB 3800CL14 version of this ram and he said they had to loosen timings a little due to temps. I followed his timings but not completely stable, I have also been working with the Dram Calc manual mode though I am not sure I have all the ram ns settings correct (copied most from another user with similar ram).
> 
> I have used a combination of these primary (14-15-14-28) and secondary from Dram Calc, have very good results so far. Did some quick testing and over 20 mins with no errors. Will need to do longer tests soon and see if secondary timings can be tightened but way better than before. A small hit to latency about 3.3ns but in line otherwise.
> 
> View attachment 2521586
> View attachment 2521587
> View attachment 2521595


these are single ranked kits ?
I ask you this because you should be around 55-56ns for latency with those settings


----------



## CyrIng

denizg said:


> Hi, my kit is F4-3600C16D-32GTZN (2x16GB samsung b-die) and these are my results (%100 stable)
> Almost exactly the same read/write/copy values to what you guys got there with your much more expensive kits so I'm wondering if just 4-5ns better latency justifies the upgrade for anything?
> I like your kit @GRABibus more than I like @sonixmon 's.
> Is my kit overperforming or your kits are underperforming or what's going on here? I'm not a huge tech guy so if there is a bigger picture here I don't see I would love to know. Would help me a lot if i wanna upgrade or not
> View attachment 2521667
> View attachment 2521668


How much do F4-3600C16D-32GTZN cost ?
Because more than 400€ in 2020 were not that cheap!
10 years a go, low latency DDR3 were at the half.


----------



## ChillyRide

With previous and latest bios quad rank cant be overcloked at all =\ Thats sucks.


----------



## sonixmon

denizg said:


> Hi, my kit is F4-3600C16D-32GTZN (2x16GB samsung b-die) and these are my results (%100 stable)
> Almost exactly the same read/write/copy values to what you guys got there with your much more expensive kits so I'm wondering if just 4-5ns better latency justifies the upgrade for anything?
> I like your kit @GRABibus more than I like @sonixmon 's.
> Is my kit overperforming or your kits are underperforming or what's going on here? I'm not a huge tech guy so if there is a bigger picture here I don't see I would love to know. Would help me a lot if i wanna upgrade or not
> View attachment 2521667
> View attachment 2521668


Hi There,

In my opinion, not really worth it. I was running a non B-Die kit of 3600 CL16 that I overclocked to 3800 CL16. I decided to get a CL14 kit and was between the 3800CL14 and 3600CL14. From my understanding these are all really the same kits but some bin betters than others so they sell for more and most of the time you can overclock them. So I took a chance and got the 3600CL14. With a little bit of effort (especially because of a setting mistake on my part) I was able to hit 3800CL14. I had to losen a few timings to get there and really need to spend some time working with it to dial it a little better.

Thankfully I sold my previous kit for 50% of the cost so it only cost me $140 or so in the end. If I had to do it over again I would get 3800CL16 and save a few bucks.


----------



## sonixmon

GRABibus said:


> these are single ranked kits ?
> I ask you this because you should be around 55-56ns for latency with those settings


These are dual rank (16GB x 2) B-Die sticks. I had lower (55ns) when timings were a little tighter. I think some of it is bloatware, I try to kill as many services as possible but miss some occasionally and its a PITA. I wish I could boot to safe mode and run or something?

I am hoping to tweak a little more this weekend. Probably going to make a spreadsheet for logging. Really wish I knew how to determine the ns settings for each section of DRAM Calc for manual mode, that helped me get where I am now.


----------



## rbys

Sleepycat said:


> You have a settings txt file of your bios?
> 
> I'm getting 23k in CB R23 using PPT: 200A, TDC: 140A, EDC: 160A
> 
> The way to get a higher core in multi-core CB R23 is to clock both the CCD1 and CCD2 high enough, but keep heat generation as low as possible. My 23k score came from 4.70 / 4.65 GHz @ 1.300V. The peak temperature was 76.9 ºC.


Okay I tried your PPT, TDC and EDC settings with -20 curve optimizer and I broke the 23k pnts barrier in Cinebench R23 which isn't bad.










EDC and PPT are at 100% but it's fine since my CPU temp limit is set to 85C.










Happy with the CPU-Z results as well:










Thanks


----------



## GRABibus

sonixmon said:


> These are dual rank (16GB x 2) B-Die sticks. I had lower (55ns) when timings were a little tighter. I think some of it is bloatware, I try to kill as many services as possible but miss some occasionally and its a PITA. I wish I could boot to safe mode and run or something?
> 
> I am hoping to tweak a little more this weekend. Probably going to make a spreadsheet for logging. Really wish I knew how to determine the ns settings for each section of DRAM Calc for manual mode, that helped me get where I am now.


 I never ran in safe mode. I will try.
I Reboot and I only close a lot of process in task manager and that’s it


----------



## Sleepycat

denizg said:


> I like your kit @GRABibus more than I like @sonixmon 's.
> Is my kit overperforming or your kits are underperforming or what's going on here? I'm not a huge tech guy so if there is a bigger picture here I don't see I would love to know. Would help me a lot if i wanna upgrade or not


One thing you have to keep in mind with memory kits is that for the same settings, two kits should perform the same. The memory kit itself doesn't contribute to performance results, but instead enable the use of tighter timings which give you the better AIDA64 results.

So if you are hitting a limit with timings and subtimings, and getting errors as you go tighter, then do upgrade your kit. But if you have not yet pushed tighter, then there is no point upgrading your kit. Looking at your Zentimings, you have room to go tighter, especially since you are running 2x16GB.

I would look at tightening your tRCDWR, tRAS, tRC a bit further. What voltage are you running? Are you hitting 1.5V for DRAM yet?


----------



## sonixmon

GRABibus said:


> I never ran in safe mode. I will try.
> I Reboot and I only close a lot of process in task manager and that’s it


Just got back and tried this out, brought it down quite a bit to 54.8ns. I am planning a new barebones install this fall (I found a video on how to install Win10 in a minimal configuration). I do need some bloatware for fan and rgb control but I can end the services as needed.

Interested to see your results.


----------



## rbys

.


----------



## ChillyRide

sonixmon said:


> Just got back and tried this out, brought it down quite a bit to 54.8ns. I am planning a new barebones install this fall (I found a video on how to install Win10 in a minimal configuration). I do need some bloatware for fan and rgb control but I can end the services as needed.
> 
> Interested to see your results.
> 
> View attachment 2521732





















Still have some room for improvement but have no time. Planning to water cool my Rig and than make some adjustments.


----------



## sonixmon

ChillyRide said:


> View attachment 2521735
> 
> 
> View attachment 2521736
> 
> 
> Still have some room for improvement but have no time. Planning to water cool my Rig and than make some adjustments.


Wow those timings are insane, nice OC if it is truly stable.

I finally got Thaiphoon Report to import to DRAM Calc (couldn't get this to work with my old set). It is recommending slightly looser timings s I am running this for now until I can really dive in and test to see what I can push it to. My enemy now is temps, over 50 and tighter timings fail. I verified by running AC higher and fans harder it wont fail as fast, but always over 50.


----------



## sonixmon

rbys said:


> .


There is a ton of information here you can search through but seems for most if you want GDM mode off below CL16 you need AddrCmdSetup 56 or similar.


----------



## denizg

Sleepycat said:


> One thing you have to keep in mind with memory kits is that for the same settings, two kits should perform the same. The memory kit itself doesn't contribute to performance results, but instead enable the use of tighter timings which give you the better AIDA64 results.
> 
> So if you are hitting a limit with timings and subtimings, and getting errors as you go tighter, then do upgrade your kit. But if you have not yet pushed tighter, then there is no point upgrading your kit. Looking at your Zentimings, you have room to go tighter, especially since you are running 2x16GB.
> 
> I would look at tightening your tRCDWR, tRAS, tRC a bit further. What voltage are you running? Are you hitting 1.5V for DRAM yet?


Yeah, absolutely, that makes sense.
My previous 3900x wouldn't post at 1900fclk so after i upgrading to 5900x I just set it to 1900 from 1833 without touching the timings which i worked on for weeks to tighten when i was with the 3900x.
I really didn't think I may be able to to tighten them even more but I'll try! Much appreciate the suggestion, that gave me excitement for the new adventures ahead! 
Btw, no, not hitting 1.5V. My kits are rated at 1.35V and im running 1.43V right now. Heard 1.45V is the highest I should go.




sonixmon said:


> Hi There,
> 
> In my opinion, not really worth it. I was running a non B-Die kit of 3600 CL16 that I overclocked to 3800 CL16. I decided to get a CL14 kit and was between the 3800CL14 and 3600CL14. From my understanding these are all really the same kits but some bin betters than others so they sell for more and most of the time you can overclock them. So I took a chance and got the 3600CL14. With a little bit of effort (especially because of a setting mistake on my part) I was able to hit 3800CL14. I had to losen a few timings to get there and really need to spend some time working with it to dial it a little better.
> 
> Thankfully I sold my previous kit for 50% of the cost so it only cost me $140 or so in the end. If I had to do it over again I would get 3800CL16 and save a few bucks.


I see, I'll probably not upgrade then. Actually I'd expect to see much better results from a 3800CL14 rated kits and maybe better FCLK than 1900 but probably zen4 can't really do that even though our kits can. And after reading your other posts I closed apps on my system tray and got 2ns less latency! so 57.8ns for me now but I wont bother disabling even more services which would probably show even 2ns lesser latency. Anyways good luck on your oc


----------



## lmfodor

noxious89123 said:


> Yeah, I had a crash earlier in 3DMark, with event viewer pointing to Core0 as the cause. Core0 is my fastest core which I've had set at -30 in CO for a few weeks now, with no problems. Have bumped it back to -28 instead for further testing.
> 
> 
> I've been able to tighten up a lot of my timings, but absolutely cannot go below tRCDRD at 16. Massively unstable and sometimes fails to boot.
> 
> 
> Interesting! Seems that there's quite a lot of variance between CPUs / IMCs and what they are capable of.
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity, how many of you guys are using active cooling on your RAM? I was getting rather disappointing results from my B-Die kit, but an IR thermometer revealed my modules were reaching 60°C, and cooling them gained me huge amounts of headroom in terms of reducing timings.


Yes, active cooling it’s a must for the new bdies (1.5V and above) at least for the TridentZ. I have a Noctua 3000 RPM heavy duty hitting the memories at 1800/2000 RPM and the temps don’t go above 40 degrees. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lmfodor

GRABibus said:


> My last and final timings + Aida benchmark with my kit F4-3800C14D-32GTZN :
> 
> Measured at 27°C ambient :
> View attachment 2521473
> 
> 
> 
> Stable 20000% Kahru's at DRAM Voltage 1.48V (Instead of 1.5V DOCP profile) :
> View attachment 2521474
> 
> 
> GDM disabled is a full NO GO for me.


I’m really impressed by your bench’s, moreover your the low that are your primaries. GDM on is masking a lot of values. I guess you can barely low to tRCDRD to 15 with GDM off. Would you post this results in the 7/24 memory stability thread? I wonder what Veii suggest about your timings, I mean, carrying them to 1T GDM off. It would be an interesting exercise 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Chili195

I point a Noctua 120mm fan (can't remember the specs but it's a pretty old one) at my memory but even then I really struggle to keep temps under control, and that's just at 1.47v ([email protected]). It will creep well into the 50s during stability testing with full fans and cover off.

I also turn off the LEDs using the G Skill software to save a few degrees. I wish there was a way to disable them entirely without software.


----------



## GRABibus

lmfodor said:


> I’m really impressed by your bench’s, moreover your the low that are your primaries. GDM on is masking a lot of values. I guess you can barely low to tRCDRD to 15 with GDM off. Would you post this results in the 7/24 memory stability thread? I wonder what Veii suggest about your timings, I mean, carrying them to 1T GDM off. It would be an interesting exercise
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


As mentioned several times, No way for GDM disabled for me.
I stick to current settings which are more than satisfying for me 😊


----------



## Requiem4u

Chili195 said:


> I point a Noctua 120mm fan (can't remember the specs but it's a pretty old one) at my memory but even then I really struggle to keep temps under control, and that's just at 1.47v ([email protected]). It will creep well into the 50s during stability testing with full fans and cover off.
> 
> I also turn off the LEDs using the G Skill software to save a few degrees. I wish there was a way to disable them entirely without software.


I use scheduled tasks and taskkill to automatically kill that software at startup, after RGB is off.


----------



## sonixmon

denizg said:


> Yeah, absolutely, that makes sense.
> My previous 3900x wouldn't post at 1900fclk so after i upgrading to 5900x I just set it to 1900 from 1833 without touching the timings which i worked on for weeks to tighten when i was with the 3900x.
> I really didn't think I may be able to to tighten them even more but I'll try! Much appreciate the suggestion, that gave me excitement for the new adventures ahead!
> Btw, no, not hitting 1.5V. My kits are rated at 1.35V and im running 1.43V right now. Heard 1.45V is the highest I should go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, I'll probably not upgrade then. Actually I'd expect to see much better results from a 3800CL14 rated kits and maybe better FCLK than 1900 but probably zen4 can't really do that even though our kits can. And after reading your other posts I closed apps on my system tray and got 2ns less latency! so 57.8ns for me now but I wont bother disabling even more services which would probably show even 2ns lesser latency. Anyways good luck on your oc


I was expecting to see more as well and have some more fine tuning to do but like a lot of the reviewers state it really isn't worth the cost difference unless you are a competitive gamer. For some of us we have to see for ourselves LOL. My problem is I like to tinker and I get bored when there is nothing to tweak. At this point I will wait for the hopefully to be released 3D cache Zen3 chips. After that I will probably try to get a 30 series next year when 40s come out *Unless 40s aren't stupid expensive. Then I will wait a year or so for 2nd generation of big/little chips in the next gen.

BTW my ram is rated at 1.45v but the 3800 version is rated 1.5v so that is what I run (I have heard these are really all the same kits binned differently with different stock voltages and B-Die is safe to 1.5v but causes heat which affects stability). Of course be careful and do your own research though.

I don't want to cover the RGB with a fan so I will just push as far as I can with current cooling and see how it goes. GL to you as well!


----------



## GRABibus

sonixmon said:


> I was expecting to see more as well and have some more fine tuning to do but like a lot of the reviewers state it really isn't worth the cost difference unless you are a competitive gamer. For some of us we have to see for ourselves LOL. My problem is I like to tinker and I get bored when there is nothing to tweak. At this point I will wait for the hopefully to be released 3D cache Zen3 chips. After that I will probably try to get a 30 series next year when 40s come out *Unless 40s aren't stupid expensive. Then I will wait a year or so for 2nd generation of big/little chips in the next gen.
> 
> BTW my ram is rated at 1.45v but the 3800 version is rated 1.5v so that is what I run (I have heard these are really all the same kits binned differently with different stock voltages and B-Die is safe to 1.5v but causes heat which affects stability). Of course be careful and do your own research though.
> 
> I don't want to cover the RGB with a fan so I will just push as far as I can with current cooling and see how it goes. GL to you as well!


tweaking addiction….well known disease here….😊


----------



## sonixmon

GRABibus said:


> As mentioned several times, No way for GDM disabled for me.
> I stick to current settings which are more than satisfying for me 😊


When I get time I plan to run benches both ways (fastest stable GDM off and fastest stable GDM on, maybe copy your settings). I will post update when I finish (hopefully this weekend).


----------



## GRABibus

sonixmon said:


> Interested to see your results.
> 
> View attachment 2521732


Here are my results :









ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...


New stable BIOS update: Version 3801 2021/08/12 20.57 MBytes ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO(WI-FI) BIOS 3801 "1. Update AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.3 Patch C 2. Improve system performance Btw, can someone share their EDC / TDC and PPT limits? I'm using motherboard PBO settings but that is a bit too...




www.overclock.net





Done at 27degeees, with no particular attention to close all services, etc….

also, it is done with my 24/7 PBO settings ( in sig).
If I run the test with a static OC, my RAM latency is improved (decreased), but the cache 1, 2 and 3 latencies degrade a little bit.


----------



## denizg

Sleepycat said:


> I would look at tightening your tRCDWR, tRAS, tRC a bit further. What voltage are you running? Are you hitting 1.5V for DRAM yet?


Took your advice
My new timings with F4-3600C16D-32GTZN @1.45V
Ran few hours of MemTestPro and seems stable although temps hover around 44C daily tasks, 50C gaming and 55C during memtest

















(didn't kill any background processes, just cleared the system tray)
Feels like time its to upgrade the kit 😜jk


----------



## GRABibus

In my stability test (2000% Karhu's), you can see alos my max DIMM's temps :












=> Max #45°C, at 27°C ambient. Open PC case.


----------



## GRABibus

deleted


----------



## noxious89123

denizg said:


> Took your advice
> My new timings with F4-3600C16D-32GTZN @1.45V
> Ran few hours of MemTestPro and seems stable although temps hover around 44C daily tasks, 50C gaming and 55C during memtest
> 
> 
> View attachment 2521775
> View attachment 2521776
> 
> (didn't kill any background processes, just cleared the system tray)
> Feels like time its to upgrade the kit 😜jk


Maybe my SOC voltages are unusually low, but to me yours appear to be very high. I'm only at 1.08v VSOC and 0.9001v CLDO VDDP.

Have you been unable to get them tighter, or is this just where you chose to stop for now? Based on lots of other peoples settings and my own, I reckon you could probably drop tRCDWR right down to 8 and tRDRDSCL + tWRWRSCL both down to 2. Your tRFC is a tad on the spicy side, so you may be able to tighten other timings if you back it of a teeny bit.

With that said, maybe I could gain some performance if I back off my timings and tighten my tRFC! More testing and tweaking required


----------



## denizg

noxious89123 said:


> Maybe my SOC voltages are unusually low, but to me yours appear to be very high. I'm only at 1.08v VSOC and 0.9001v CLDO VDDP.
> 
> Have you been unable to get them tighter, or is this just where you chose to stop for now? Based on lots of other peoples settings and my own, I reckon you could probably drop tRCDWR right down to 8 and tRDRDSCL + tWRWRSCL both down to 2. Your tRFC is a tad on the spicy side, so you may be able to tighten other timings if you back it of a teeny bit.
> 
> With that said, maybe I could gain some performance if I back off my timings and tighten my tRFC! More testing and tweaking required


My SOC voltage is actually even 1125 but ZenTimings show 1100 for some reason. 1125 is the max value Dram Calculator gives. Also my CLDO VDDP is at 1100 instead of the max value Dram Calculator says which is 1050. I think I've read 1100 VDDP is ok and helps a lot.

Just tried bringing tRDRDSCL and tWRWRSCL down to 2 and tRFC to 280 for the first time and that seemed to do nothing for me for now.

I've spent so much time and figured out tighter tRFC gives the most performance for me and 260 is the absolute minimum i can go. I leave tRFC2 and tRFC4 on Auto. Tried manual settings for them too but leaving them auto seems to be working the best. ZenTimings shows them lower than they actually are (see the RyzenMaster screenshot)

My kit needs all this juice i give it to because otherwise my latency goes higher or even I get stability issues with these timings.

Judging from the screenshots people post here with their 3800C16s and 3800C14s, they can get slightly better performance with lower voltages and lower temps. Maybe I can do a bit better with voltages but I'm really just chasing that lower latency


----------



## Requiem4u

denizg said:


> Took your advice
> My new timings with F4-3600C16D-32GTZN @1.45V
> Ran few hours of MemTestPro and seems stable although temps hover around 44C daily tasks, 50C gaming and 55C during memtest
> 
> 
> View attachment 2521775
> View attachment 2521776
> 
> (didn't kill any background processes, just cleared the system tray)
> Feels like time its to upgrade the kit 😜jk


Try GDM disable 2T. Then 15-15-15-15-30-45, tCWL 14, tRDWR 9, tWRRD 2, tRTP 6 and tRFC 270. If not doable. then vDIMM --> 1.47 and/or tRCDRD 16.
Maybe you should lower ProcODT and try RTTPark 3 or more to get lower temps with more vDIMM.
DRAM Calculator is not for Ryzen 3 (5000 series). You can rise your VSOC, but VDDP is too high. Mine is 0.85. Lower is better normally. And 0.04V gap between voltages.
My 24/7 settings, vDIMM 1.47 V.


----------



## GRABibus

Requiem4u said:


> Try GDM disable 2T. Then 15-15-15-15-30-45, tCWL 14, tRDWR 9, tWRRD 2, tRTP 6 and tRFC 270. If not doable. then vDIMM --> 1.47 and/or tRCDRD 16.
> Maybe you should lower ProcODT and try RTTPark 3 or more to get lower temps with more vDIMM.
> DRAM Calculator is not for Ryzen 3 (5000 series). You can rise your VSOC, but VDDP is too high. Mine is 0.85. Lower is better normally. And 0.4V gap between voltages.
> My 24/7 settings, vDIMM 1.47 V.
> View attachment 2521796


he is running 3800MHz and lowering too much VDDP can generate WHEA 19 errors.

Your frequency is 3751MHz ? 🤔

nice latency.


----------



## Requiem4u

GRABibus said:


> he is running 3800MHz and lowering too much VDDP can generate WHEA 19 errors.
> 
> Your frequency is 3751MHz ? 🤔
> 
> nice latency.


I tested my voltages one by one and these are the best ones for 3733 - 3866 MT/s. For my setup. FCLK 1900 does not work with this BIOS/CPU and 1933 is not WHEA-free.
So it is 3751 with 100.5 FSB. I can rise it little bit.
But so high VDDP is not normal so I would ask him to try lower ones. Should be same that VDDG CCD or lower.
I could lower latency but with cost of lot more voltage/heat. I can not use 1T, not yet maybe never with this CPU. I mean I can but it is not faster.
Edit: It is 0.04V gap between voltages, not 0.4V of course.


----------



## sonixmon

Interesting development with my Ram testing. For grins I was trying everything to get 1T GDM off without AddrCmdSetup 56. No go even at CL16! My old kit worked at 3800 CL16 no issues. It must just be the bin of the kit? I don't think it is memory controller related since old kit didn't have this issue.

Don't want to push voltage anymore since it is running hot during testing. I tightened things a little and copied someone who had AddrCmdSetup 52. 

It could be in my head but I made 2 profiles, one GDM on with AddrCmdSetup 0 and GDMOff AddrCmdSetup56/52(testing). To me it feels snapier with GDMOff, bench tests tomorrow to try to confirm.

Running great and this may be the best the kit will do. I need to run some extended stability tests tomorrow to be sure.


----------



## noxious89123

sonixmon said:


> Interesting development with my Ram testing. For grins I was trying everything to get 1T GDM off without AddrCmdSetup 56. No go even at CL16! My old kit worked at 3800 CL16 no issues. It must just be the bin of the kit? I don't think it is memory controller related since old kit didn't have this issue.
> 
> Don't want to push voltage anymore since it is running hot during testing. I tightened things a little and copied someone who had AddrCmdSetup 52.
> 
> It could be in my head but I made 2 profiles, one GDM on with AddrCmdSetup 0 and GDMOff AddrCmdSetup56/52(testing). To me it feels snapier with GDMOff, bench tests tomorrow to try to confirm.
> 
> Running great and this may be the best the kit will do. I need to run some extended stability tests tomorrow to be sure.


When trying to get 1T GDM disabled working before, I went so far as to try 3600*CL24.* Still wouldn't work!


----------



## sonixmon

noxious89123 said:


> When trying to get 1T GDM disabled working before, I went so far as to try 3600*CL24.* Still wouldn't work!


That's crazy, so maybe it is ram specific and frequency.


----------



## GRABibus

sonixmon said:


> That's crazy, so maybe it is ram specific and frequency.


or IMC…


----------



## GRABibus

Deleted


----------



## sonixmon

GRABibus said:


> or IMC…


I don't think IMC at least in my case, my previous ram modules ran 3800mhz CL16 1T GDM Off.


----------



## rbys

I tried to tighten tRP, tRCDRD but my system wouldn't POST even @ 1.38-1.45VDIMM, any idea what I'm doing wrong? On BIOS 3401 I could get to the Windows desktop w/ FCLK 2000mhz 1:1 but now it fails to boot on BIOS 3801. Mem is Micron Rev B single rank 16GB x 2

It's a bit annoying to try diff mem settings because safe boot doesn't work on this board. I have to clear the CMOS each time.


----------



## CyrIng

Dual 16GB G.Skill GTZN @ 3600 MHz CL[16-16-16-16-36] @ 1.35V (F4-3600C16D-32GTZN)

Tried without success to set Command Rate=2T, GDM=disabled, Power Down=disabled from BIOS 3801 screen tab AMD/Overclocking








I can remember than disabling GDM was possible in previous BIOS version. At least 2206.


----------



## RHBH

rbys said:


> I tried to tighten tRP, tRCDRD but my system wouldn't POST even @ 1.38-1.45VDIMM, any idea what I'm doing wrong? On BIOS 3401 I could get to the Windows desktop w/ FCLK 2000mhz 1:1 but now it fails to boot on BIOS 3801. Mem is Micron Rev B single rank 16GB x 2
> 
> It's a bit annoying to try diff mem settings because safe boot doesn't work on this board. I have to clear the CMOS each time.
> 
> View attachment 2521864


Micron Rev.B and Rev.E are unable to do tRCDRD below 18 as far I know, no matter how much voltage you throw at it.


----------



## GRABibus

My best Aida 64 run !


----------



## Nizzen

GRABibus said:


> My best Aida 64 run !
> 
> View attachment 2521892


Under 60GB/s read. Feels bad man 😘
I need to run 3866 c14, because my brain need over 60GB/s


----------



## GRABibus

Nizzen said:


> Under 60GB/s read. Feels bad man 😘
> I need to run 3866 c14, because my brain need over 60GB/s


eheh 
with Static OC, maybe I can go over 60GB/s at 3800MHz (Here it is PBO).

I'd like to be able to run 3866MHz !!


----------



## Nizzen

GRABibus said:


> eheh
> with Static OC, maybe I can go over 60GB/s at 3800MHz (Here it is PBO).
> 
> I'd like to be able to run 3866MHz !!


I had the WORST 5900x imc in the world before I got 5950x. The 5900x could do max 3600mhz without whea. 3733mhz was impossible.
My 5950x does 3866 easy. Lucky me some guy wanted to buy it, and he just wanted to run stock 3600 xmp, so he didn't care. He was just happy to get a 5900x 😅


----------



## GRABibus

Nizzen said:


> I had the WORST 5900x imc in the world before I got 5950x. The 5900x could do max 3600mhz without whea. 3733mhz was impossible.
> My 5950x does 3866 easy. Lucky me some guy wanted to buy it, and he just wanted to run stock 3600 xmp, so he didn't care. He was just happy to get a 5900x 😅


Really, some people want to buy you some components ? 😂


----------



## Krhthkos

GRABibus said:


> Really, some people want to buy you some components ? 😂


I have the same memory like yours but i get error with all of them then i change from this settings only the tRCDRD from 13 to 15 and seems until now anta777 without error .how i can squize a little bit more ?


----------



## Nizzen

Krhthkos said:


> I have the same memory like yours but i get error with all of them then i change from this settings only the tRCDRD from 13 to 15 and seems until now anta777 without error .how i can squize a little bit more ?


Show us Aida64, then we see something about performance


----------



## Krhthkos

Here is it 1 run


----------



## Krhthkos

Here is second run but i change some settings to bios at extreme DIGI + to Auto. I will upload my settings on bios


----------



## Krhthkos

Here is my settings on BIOS


----------



## Nizzen

Krhthkos said:


> Here is second run but i change some settings to bios at extreme DIGI + to Auto. I will upload my settings on bios


Looks great to me 
If it's stable, there is almost no reason to tweak it more for 0.1% more performance (my opinion) 
Even this is OCN


----------



## Krhthkos

Nizzen said:


> Looks great to me
> If it's stable, there is almost no reason to tweak it more for 0.1% more performance (my opinion)
> Even this is OCN


the point is that i have try for fclk 2000 and it works but i get many errors thats why i got back the fclk 1900, for sure i want to take more juice from the ram my max temps is 40 degrees to ram. what about settings from bios ?


----------



## noxious89123

sonixmon said:


> I don't think IMC at least in my case, my previous ram modules ran 3800mhz CL16 1T GDM Off.


What ICs are used no your current RAM modules vs. your previous ones? It could be a Single Rank vs Dual Rank thing?

Micron do make some 16Gb DRAM ICs, so with those you can have 16GB modules that are Single Rank, where most use 8Gb DRAM ICs so "most" 16GB modules are Dual Rank.



Nizzen said:


> Under 60GB/s read. Feels bad man 😘
> I need to run 3866 c14, because my brain need over 60GB/s


I don't think it's even possible to hit 60GB/s at 3800? I'm sure we'd all do 3866+ if we could 



Krhthkos said:


> Here is second run but i change some settings to bios at extreme DIGI + to Auto. I will upload my settings on bios


That's an absolutely colossal difference, and just from changing some of the VRM settings!? Very interesting! Are you sure that your testing method was accurate with minimal variables between runs? Even just closing HWInfo, iCue and my antivirus will knock off 2ns for my latency, so it's important to run the test multiple times to make sure you're getting consistent results.

Fclk 2000 seems unlikely, and only very few people are able to achieve that; it's the silicon lottery and luck if your IMC can do it. The only other option is to use stupid amounts of VSOC >1.2v, but that will kill it in the long term, and I'd strongly recommend against it.

I can do 1900 Flck stable on entirely auto settings, but 1933 is loads of WHEAs and no tweaking helps. I can even boot at 2000, but WHEAs out the wazooo, lol.


----------



## sonixmon

rbys said:


> I tried to tighten tRP, tRCDRD but my system wouldn't POST even @ 1.38-1.45VDIMM, any idea what I'm doing wrong? On BIOS 3401 I could get to the Windows desktop w/ FCLK 2000mhz 1:1 but now it fails to boot on BIOS 3801. Mem is Micron Rev B single rank 16GB x 2
> 
> It's a bit annoying to try diff mem settings because safe boot doesn't work on this board. I have to clear the CMOS each time.


When I am testing different settings I use profiles to test. I have made several profiles some with GDM off, some on etc. When am trying to tighten timings I save additional profile for testing, then each time it has errors or doesn't post I can reload profile and adjust a little to try again. I save profile each time before saving and restarting, so I know where I left off. If you have to clear CMOS the profiles should stay.

I also keep my best profiles stored on a USB just in case all is lost.


----------



## GRABibus

noxious89123 said:


> I don't think it's even possible to hit 60GB/s at 3800? I'm sure we'd all do 3866+ if we could


look at my score in my last post.
I am not so far away from 60B/s at 3800MHz.
I will break 60GB/s 😊


----------



## Requiem4u

GRABibus said:


> look at my score in my last post.
> I am not so far away from 60B/s at 3800MHz.
> I will break 60GB/s 😊


Just little bit more FSB. 100.3 should do it? It is not 3800 but could be free of WHEA


----------



## rbys

sonixmon said:


> When I am testing different settings I use profiles to test. I have made several profiles some with GDM off, some on etc. When am trying to tighten timings I save additional profile for testing, then each time it has errors or doesn't post I can reload profile and adjust a little to try again. I save profile each time before saving and restarting, so I know where I left off. If you have to clear CMOS the profiles should stay.
> 
> I also keep my best profiles stored on a USB just in case all is lost.


This is also what I'm doing. I just meant that it's a little time consuming to clear the CMOS each time (memory training / re-initialization etc.)


----------



## rbys

RHBH said:


> Micron Rev.B and Rev.E are unable to do tRCDRD below 18 as far I know, no matter how much voltage you throw at it.


Good to know, thanks!

weird restarting aida64 fixed the problem.

Do you guys have any idea on what might be affecting the L3 Cache write speed? It should be in the 800-900GB/s range. ran aida64 a few times with the same result:


----------



## sonixmon

rbys said:


> Good to know, thanks!
> 
> Do you guys have any idea on what might be affecting the L3 Cache write speed? It should be in the 800-900GB/s range. ran aida64 a few times with the same result:
> View attachment 2521931


I am not familiar with Micron RevB but have you tried GDM disabled? You might need AddrCmdSetup 52-56 if GMDOff doesnt post.

Also TRFC seems a high but maybe ram imitation? Saw a post online talking about trfc 260ns that would put you at about 494.

Seen L3 jump with back to back tests myself, not sure what causes that.


----------



## sonixmon

Ended up going down a rabbit hole today but it worked out for quicker testing. I have a lot of processes that I need to stop each time so I was looking for a way to do this with a script. Found someone who made "Gaming mode" script for PowerShell and modified it for my testing. They had it also kill explorer so I took that out and made my own files for processes to stop. Took a few hours to implement but now I can run it to end all the processes needed for testing. It doesn't work well for me to disable gaming mode as designed as some processes hang on restarting so I just reboot when done.

Gaming Mode Powershell Script: Timer resolution, suspend processes, kill/restore explorer, stop/start services etc | Overclock.net


----------



## Mach3.2

sonixmon said:


> I am not familiar with Micron RevB but have you tried GDM disabled? You might need AddrCmdSetup 52-56 if GMDOff doesnt post.
> 
> Also TRFC seems a high but maybe ram imitation? Saw a post online talking about trfc 260ns that would put you at about 494.
> 
> Seen L3 jump with back to back tests myself, not sure what causes that.


Micron Rev. B/Rev. E tops out at around 290ns for tRFC, you might be able to get closer to 280ns if you're lucky.


----------



## rbys

sonixmon said:


> I am not familiar with Micron RevB but have you tried GDM disabled? You might need AddrCmdSetup 52-56 if GMDOff doesnt post.
> 
> Also TRFC seems a high but maybe ram imitation? Saw a post online talking about trfc 260ns that would put you at about 494.
> 
> Seen L3 jump with back to back tests myself, not sure what causes that.


280-300ns is what you can expect from micron rev b


----------



## sonixmon

After completing the script setup I ran two tests, currently I have two profiles (one is GDM off and the other is on but same otherwise, except AddrCmd 52). Below are the results, much better with it off, but I could probably tighten timings when it is on (I need to try that next). Definitely a noticeable difference in Latency and bench (look at CPU scores on 3D Mark).

Off:
















On:


----------



## Baio73

Requiem4u said:


> Try GDM disable 2T. Then 15-15-15-15-30-45, tCWL 14, tRDWR 9, tWRRD 2, tRTP 6 and tRFC 270. If not doable. then vDIMM --> 1.47 and/or tRCDRD 16.
> Maybe you should lower ProcODT and try RTTPark 3 or more to get lower temps with more vDIMM.
> DRAM Calculator is not for Ryzen 3 (5000 series). You can rise your VSOC, but VDDP is too high. Mine is 0.85. Lower is better normally. *And 0.04V gap between voltages.*
> My 24/7 settings, vDIMM 1.47 V.
> View attachment 2521796


I'm starting my RAM OC and was trying to fix my voltages first... but was wondering if the quoted bold part was an error or I'm missing something.
The ZenTimings image above shows VSOC 1.13 and CLDO VDDO & VDDG CCD 0.85, but the difference between those 2 values is 0.28... so the difference should be 0.4 and not 0.04, right?

Other question is, when we talk about voltages, do we refer to what is set in the BIOS, to what the BIOS reads or what ZenTimings reads?
Just to make an example, if I set VDIMM to1.47, BIOS reads 1.456. If I set VSOC to 1.13125, BIOS reads 1.104 and ZenTimings 1.1125.

Generally speaking I'm trying to follow GitHub guide to reach 3800 CAS 14 goal, this are my Corsair RAM:



And this the best result I can get without touching any voltage:



Following GitHub guide I'm finding many problems mostly with secondary and tertiary timings as I can't use any of the Safe Preset values.

Any help would be appreciated!

Baio


----------



## Requiem4u

Baio73 said:


> I'm starting my RAM OC and was trying to fix my voltages first... but was wondering if the quoted bold part was an error or I'm missing something.
> The ZenTimings image above shows VSOC 1.13 and CLDO VDDO & VDDG CCD 0.85, but the difference between those 2 values is 0.28... so the difference should be 0.4 and not 0.04, right?
> 
> Other question is, when we talk about voltages, do we refer to what is set in the BIOS, to what the BIOS reads or what ZenTimings reads?
> Just to make an example, if I set VDIMM to1.47, BIOS reads 1.456. If I set VSOC to 1.13125, BIOS reads 1.104 and ZenTimings 1.1125.
> 
> Generally speaking I'm trying to follow GitHub guide to reach 3800 CAS 14 goal, this are my Corsair RAM:
> 
> 
> 
> And this the best result I can get without touching any voltage:
> 
> 
> 
> Following GitHub guide I'm finding many problems mostly with secondary and tertiary timings as I can't use any of the Safe Preset values.
> 
> Any help would be appreciated!
> 
> Baio


At least 0.04V or multiple and it is recommendation for 5000 series, for 3000 it is 0.05 if I remember right. VDDP < IOD < VSOC. Your VDDP is too high. Lower is better. VDDP and IOD is what you set. VSOC is what you get.
And finally it is what performs best.


----------



## Baio73

Requiem4u said:


> At least 0.04V or multiple and it is recommendation for 5000 series, for 3000 it is 0.05 if I remember right. VDDP < IOD < VSOC. Your VDDP is too high. Lower is better. VDDP and IOD is what you set. VSOC is what you get.
> And finally it is what performs best.


Thanks for you replay.
The ZenTimings pic I posted is with every voltage left to Auto.
So are you saying that I first need to try to lower VDDP ad IOD the max I can? Or just set VSOC to 1.1 and then VDDP to -0.04 (that should be 1.06)?
I straterd form VSOC as I've read it needs to stay the nearest possible to 1.1 for 1900 IF. That's why I've set it to 1.13125 in BIOS, as if I leave it to Auto, my motherboard set it a little lower.

So you confirm voltages readings from ZenTimings are the one to use?

Baio


----------



## Requiem4u

Baio73 said:


> Thanks for you replay.
> The ZenTimings pic I posted is with every voltage left to Auto.
> So are you saying that I first need to try to lower VDDP ad IOD the max I can? Or just set VSOC to 1.1 and then VDDP to -0.04 (that should be 1.06)?
> I straterd form VSOC as I've read it needs to stay the nearest possible to 1.1 for 1900 IF. That's why I've set it to 1.13125 in BIOS, as if I leave it to Auto, my motherboard set it a little lower.
> 
> So you confirm voltages readings from ZenTimings are the one to use?
> 
> Baio


No. VDDP and VDDG:s are what you have set in BIOS. VSOC is from Zen Timings.
You have 3900XT, Matisse.
[Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread


----------



## noxious89123

GRABibus said:


> look at my score in my last post.
> I am not so far away from 60B/s at 3800MHz.
> I will break 60GB/s 😊


I sincerely wish you the best of luck, however as far as I can see, it isn't possible at 3800.



https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1dsu9K1Nt_7apHBdiy0MWVPcYjf6nOlr9CtkkfN78tSo/htmlview#



I know it's only one source and it's not representative of every overclock, however there's a lot of results on there, and _no one_ has broken into 60GB/s territory at 3800 memory speed / 1900 Fclk.



sonixmon said:


> On:
> View attachment 2521981
> View attachment 2521982


This looks to me as if there is something wrong, and not just a matter of GDM on or off. You should see a difference in your Memory latency between GDM on/off, but your L1, L2 and L3 latencies are all significantly slower in those test results too, and it also should your CPU only at 3700MHz. CPU speed will have an impact on all of the test results.

Higher core speeds will reduce all of your latency test results in AIDA64.



Baio73 said:


> I'm starting my RAM OC and was trying to fix my voltages first... but was wondering if the quoted bold part was an error or I'm missing something.
> The ZenTimings image above shows VSOC 1.13 and CLDO VDDO & VDDG CCD 0.85, but the difference between those 2 values is 0.28... so the difference should be 0.4 and not 0.04, right?
> 
> Other question is, when we talk about voltages, do we refer to what is set in the BIOS, to what the BIOS reads or what ZenTimings reads?
> Just to make an example, if I set VDIMM to1.47, BIOS reads 1.456. If I set VSOC to 1.13125, BIOS reads 1.104 and ZenTimings 1.1125.
> 
> Generally speaking I'm trying to follow GitHub guide to reach 3800 CAS 14 goal, this are my Corsair RAM:
> 
> 
> 
> And this the best result I can get without touching any voltage:
> 
> 
> 
> Following GitHub guide I'm finding many problems mostly with secondary and tertiary timings as I can't use any of the Safe Preset values.
> 
> Any help would be appreciated!
> 
> Baio


What is your VDIMM set to? The kits spec'd 1.35v?

Fwiw, it's worth checking the stick on Corsair RAM for all the the details and revision numbers etc. From those you can determine what memory ICs are on the module. I maybe be mistaken, but I believe that Thaiphoon burner is unable to tell the difference between Samsung B-Die and Samsing C-Die, and often incorrectly reports C-Die as B-Die. C-Die will not be able to achieve the same tight timings that are expected from B-Die. Corsair have a habit of using many different memory ICs for the same part number, so you really need to scrutinise the "revision" number and other details that are on the labels on the modules.


----------



## sonixmon

noxious89123 said:


> This looks to me as if there is something wrong, and not just a matter of GDM on or off. You should see a difference in your Memory latency between GDM on/off, but your L1, L2 and L3 latencies are all significantly slower in those test results too, and it also should your CPU only at 3700MHz. CPU speed will have an impact on all of the test results.
> 
> Higher core speeds will reduce all of your latency test results in AIDA64.


I noticed this today as well reading the new forum posts, I need to run that test again and see what might have happened to cause CPU drop.

Just tested again and this time CPU was correct freq and was still a little lower but only 50 points down in 3DMark. Tightened timings a little and stability testing so far ok, will bench again tomorrow if stable.


----------



## Sleepycat

I just noticed on 3801 that my 5900X now idles at 1.1V. Going back through my old HWinfo screenshots, I can see that it was also 1.1V in 3601 and 3703 too. 

Digging through, I found a screenshot with 3302, and it shows idle voltage at 0.912V.

So I guess this was probably changed to address the old idle reboot problem. Has anyone ever suffered the idle reboot after 3601?


----------



## Krhthkos

noxious89123 said:


> What ICs are used no your current RAM modules vs. your previous ones? It could be a Single Rank vs Dual Rank thing?
> 
> Micron do make some 16Gb DRAM ICs, so with those you can have 16GB modules that are Single Rank, where most use 8Gb DRAM ICs so "most" 16GB modules are Dual Rank.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's even possible to hit 60GB/s at 3800? I'm sure we'd all do 3866+ if we could
> 
> 
> That's an absolutely colossal difference, and just from changing some of the VRM settings!? Very interesting! Are you sure that your testing method was accurate with minimal variables between runs? Even just closing HWInfo, iCue and my antivirus will knock off 2ns for my latency, so it's important to run the test multiple times to make sure you're getting consistent results.
> 
> Fclk 2000 seems unlikely, and only very few people are able to achieve that; it's the silicon lottery and luck if your IMC can do it. The only other option is to use stupid amounts of VSOC >1.2v, but that will kill it in the long term, and I'd strongly recommend against it.
> 
> I can do 1900 Flck stable on entirely auto settings, but 1933 is loads of WHEAs and no tweaking helps. I can even boot at 2000, but WHEAs out the wazooo, lol.


I have change my settings to this now seems to be interesting but i can not go so far like the *GRABibus *here is the new settings


----------



## Baio73

Requiem4u said:


> No. VDDP and VDDG:s are what you have set in BIOS. VSOC is from Zen Timings.
> You have 3900XT, Matisse.
> [Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread


Sorry, my bad... I posted a ZenTimings pic from my previous rig (you can see it's an old software release), my current rig is in sign (5900X).

I still don't get what voltages to set in BIOS... as far I'm trying VIDMM 1.47 (1.456 read from BIOS), VSOC 1.13125 (1.104 from BIOS, 1.1125 from ZenTimings with no load, 1.106 from ZenTimings under load), CLDO VDDP and VDDG CCD 0.9 (0.89 read from ZenTimings).
Is that ok to start with?


----------



## Baio73

noxious89123 said:


> What is your VDIMM set to? The kits spec'd 1.35v?
> 
> Fwiw, it's worth checking the stick on Corsair RAM for all the the details and revision numbers etc. From those you can determine what memory ICs are on the module. I maybe be mistaken, but I believe that Thaiphoon burner is unable to tell the difference between Samsung B-Die and Samsing C-Die, and often incorrectly reports C-Die as B-Die. C-Die will not be able to achieve the same tight timings that are expected from B-Die. Corsair have a habit of using many different memory ICs for the same part number, so you really need to scrutinise the "revision" number and other details that are on the labels on the modules.


I'm gonna check the label ASAP, if I remember good, they are rev. 4.31, which should be Samsung-BDie... maybe not the better one, but BDie anyway.
As I wrote above, I'm trying to improve my current OC from 3800 CAS16 to CAS14, that's why I've started with [email protected] with this voltage I'm able to pass 5000x Kharu RAM Test with no errors @CAS14, but I've found errors trying to set secondary and tertiary timings (TRFC in particular is awfully high), so I've started a new OC beginning firstly setting the less important timings, as GitHub guide suggests. Now it's testing WRDRSCL and TWRWRSCL, if it's ok, I'm gonna try to lower CAS to 14.

Any advice is welcomed!

Baio


----------



## CyrIng

Sleepycat said:


> I just noticed on 3801 that my 5900X now idles at 1.1V. Going back through my old HWinfo screenshots, I can see that it was also 1.1V in 3601 and 3703 too.
> 
> Digging through, I found a screenshot with 3302, and it shows idle voltage at 0.912V.
> 
> So I guess this was probably changed to address the old idle reboot problem. Has anyone ever suffered the idle reboot after 3601?


With Linux it depends on the Target P-state governed by the kernel

P0 at 1.1V
P1 at 0.97V
P2 at 0.91V

Those kind of Vcore I'm showing in realtime w/ CoreFreq

There's a MSR register you can program to set the Target among 0 or 1 or 2


----------



## RHBH

noxious89123 said:


> I sincerely wish you the best of luck, however as far as I can see, it isn't possible at 3800.
> 
> 
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1dsu9K1Nt_7apHBdiy0MWVPcYjf6nOlr9CtkkfN78tSo/htmlview#
> 
> 
> 
> I know it's only one source and it's not representative of every overclock, however there's a lot of results on there, and _no one_ has broken into 60GB/s territory at 3800 memory speed / 1900 Fclk.
> 
> 
> This looks to me as if there is something wrong, and not just a matter of GDM on or off. You should see a difference in your Memory latency between GDM on/off, but your L1, L2 and L3 latencies are all significantly slower in those test results too, and it also should your CPU only at 3700MHz. CPU speed will have an impact on all of the test results.
> 
> Higher core speeds will reduce all of your latency test results in AIDA64.
> 
> 
> What is your VDIMM set to? The kits spec'd 1.35v?
> 
> Fwiw, it's worth checking the stick on Corsair RAM for all the the details and revision numbers etc. From those you can determine what memory ICs are on the module. I maybe be mistaken, but I believe that Thaiphoon burner is unable to tell the difference between Samsung B-Die and Samsing C-Die, and often incorrectly reports C-Die as B-Die. C-Die will not be able to achieve the same tight timings that are expected from B-Die. Corsair have a habit of using many different memory ICs for the same part number, so you really need to scrutinise the "revision" number and other details that are on the labels on the modules.


Corsair version 4.31 = Samsung B-die
Corsair version 4.32 = Samsung C-die


----------



## sonixmon

Baio73 said:


> I'm gonna check the label ASAP, if I remember good, they are rev. 4.31, which should be Samsung-BDie... maybe not the better one, but BDie anyway.
> As I wrote above, I'm trying to improve my current OC from 3800 CAS16 to CAS14, that's why I've started with [email protected] with this voltage I'm able to pass 5000x Kharu RAM Test with no errors @CAS14, but I've found errors trying to set secondary and tertiary timings (TRFC in particular is awfully high), so I've started a new OC beginning firstly setting the less important timings, as GitHub guide suggests. Now it's testing WRDRSCL and TWRWRSCL, if it's ok, I'm gonna try to lower CAS to 14.
> 
> Any advice is welcomed!
> 
> Baio


The GSkill 3800CL14 are B-Die and stock voltage is 1.5v. That is what I am running to get 3800CL14 on a 3600mhz CL14 version which was stock at 1.45. My issue is heat, this set was probably not binned as well as the 3800CL14 which was $75 more so took a chance on it. It paid off for the most part but requires GDM on or AddrCmdSetup 52-56 for me.

I am considering adding a fan to the ram but debating if I want to go with that look and cover the built in RGB. Probably not worth it but tempting. I might do a temp generic fan to see if I can keep temps down on OC to provide full stability.


----------



## noxious89123

Baio73 said:


> TRFC in particular is awfully high
> 
> Any advice is welcomed!
> 
> Baio


Your tRFC at 130ns is quite tight! Not awfully high at all! I've seen some people hit 120ns, but that is with like 1.6v. Bare in mind that when people discuss tRFC they will sometimes be talking about the setting you put in BIOS which is counted in cycles, or they could be talking about the absolute value in nanoseconds, which will appear much lower. It's important to remember that like all timings, they're set by a number of cycles and not time, so tRFC 249 at 3800 is 131ns but tRFC 249 at 3200 is 155ns. You should be able to use the same speed in ns and just adjust the tRFC timing depending on what RAM speed you're setting. So for 130ns you'd set tRFC 208 @ 3200 or tRFC 247 @ 3800 - but they're both the same "speed"!

It might be worth experimenting with a looser tRFC setting to stabilise lower timings elsewhere, however tRFC itself will reduce latency a lot, so it might be worth keeping tRFC as tight as possible at the expense of looser settings elsewhere.



sonixmon said:


> I am considering adding a fan to the ram but debating if I want to go with that look and cover the built in RGB. Probably not worth it but tempting. I might do a temp generic fan to see if I can keep temps down on OC to provide full stability.


If I hadn't watercooled mine, my plan would have been to get a small noctua fan and sit it on the upper end of the RAM sticks, blowing air down from the top of the case along the length of the modules towards the centre of the board. This may not be ideal, but I think it would be more subtle aesthetically and it'd be far better than nothing it terms of cooling.


----------



## GRABibus

noxious89123 said:


> I sincerely wish you the best of luck, however as far as I can see, it isn't possible at 3800.
> 
> 
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1dsu9K1Nt_7apHBdiy0MWVPcYjf6nOlr9CtkkfN78tSo/htmlview#
> 
> 
> 
> I know it's only one source and it's not representative of every overclock, however there's a lot of results on there, and _no one_ has broken into 60GB/s territory at 3800 memory speed / 1900 Fclk.












60GB/s Read value broken at 3800MHz !!!! 😜😜
Latency reduced to 52.1ns


----------



## Requiem4u

Baio73 said:


> Sorry, my bad... I posted a ZenTimings pic from my previous rig (you can see it's an old software release), my current rig is in sign (5900X).
> 
> I still don't get what voltages to set in BIOS... as far I'm trying VIDMM 1.47 (1.456 read from BIOS), VSOC 1.13125 (1.104 from BIOS, 1.1125 from ZenTimings with no load, 1.106 from ZenTimings under load), CLDO VDDP and VDDG CCD 0.9 (0.89 read from ZenTimings).
> Is that ok to start with?


Thats ok to start.
Some basic rule to follow if you can, don't have to and there is others. Flat 16-16-16-16 is better, tRAS = tRP+ tRCDRD (or tRP+tRCD:s average or maybe maxxed tRCDRD+tRTP). tRC = tRAS + tRP. tRTP = tWR/2. tRFC = tRTP * tRC. tCCD_L (found in BIOS/SDP) * tRRD_S = tFAW.
tRDWR and tWRRD depends on your tWCL and tCL. And tWCL depends on your tCL.
GDM hides problems with your timings, so dont use that, start GDM = disabled, Cmd2T = 2T, if you can. GDM disabled 1T is the best one but hardest to reach.
And I'm newbie with AMD platform, dont take everything as absolute truth.
All of this. [Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread


----------



## noxious89123

GRABibus said:


> View attachment 2522139
> 
> 
> 60GB/s Read value broken at 3800MHz !!!! 😜😜
> Latency reduced to 52.1ns


Dayum! NICE. What did you change to get the extra bandwidth? Knocking off 3ns is pretty significant too! Good job!

Btw, I see a lot of people posting pictures like this, but why doesn't AIDA64 populate all fields? I'm using the same version but it still displays CPU FSB / Multiplier / North Bridge clock etc.


----------



## GRABibus

noxious89123 said:


> Dayum! NICE. What did you change to get the extra bandwidth? Knocking off 3ns is pretty significant too! Good job!
> 
> Btw, I see a lot of people posting pictures like this, but why doesn't AIDA64 populate all fields? I'm using the same version but it still displays CPU FSB / Multiplier / North Bridge clock etc.


Safe mode run


----------



## noxious89123

GRABibus said:


> Safe mode run


Ah! I just managed to hit 53.7ns in safe mode, the lowest I've seen; I hadn't tried that before. Bandwidth didn't budge though. I think I need to start playing with VDDP and see if that gains me some headroom to go faster


----------



## sonixmon

GRABibus said:


> Safe mode run


Nice run! I have been doing some in safe mode and some after running script to end processes. Still about 2ns gain in safe mode. Have not had time to try a fan on ram and tweak some more but hope to next few days.


----------



## Reikoji

GRABibus said:


> Safe mode run


Confirms my suspicion that windows is doin a lot to ruin latency in the background, even on fresh install :3.

A few days ago without making any changes my latency dropped down as low as 54.9ns, but it was after windows had been running for days. as soon as i restart PC it wont drop below 57.1ns.

maybe after a week runtime it will be back to ~55ns again... Other than waiting for windows to stop doing whatever its doing behind my back, Idk what I did to get it to 55ns.


----------



## Naeem

My C8H and 3700X won't turn on after it just turn off when playing the game i tried resetting bios as well as removed cmos cell nothing i see rgb lights turn on but power button or start does not do anything it was working fine from past 10 months or so


----------



## anr11

Naeem said:


> My C8H and 3700X won't turn on after it just turn off when playing the game i tried resetting bios as well as removed cmos cell nothing i see rgb lights turn on but power button or start does not do anything it was working fine from past 10 months or so


I had a similar problem recently. In my case it turned out to be the PSU. If I completely disconnected everything, it would turn one fine every time, run as long as I let it and restart as many times as I wanted but after switching off, the system refused to switch back on. I tried the PSU in 2 other systems and the behaved exactly the same. New PSU solved the problem.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Naeem said:


> My C8H and 3700X won't turn on after it just turn off when playing the game i tried resetting bios as well as removed cmos cell nothing i see rgb lights turn on but power button or start does not do anything it was working fine from past 10 months or so


Just had the same thing when gaming
. Try disconnecting power from the gpu and see if it boots then. In my case the gpu had failed.


----------



## Requiem4u

Reikoji said:


> Confirms my suspicion that windows is doin a lot to ruin latency in the background, even on fresh install :3.
> 
> A few days ago without making any changes my latency dropped down as low as 54.9ns, but it was after windows had been running for days. as soon as i restart PC it wont drop below 57.1ns.
> 
> maybe after a week runtime it will be back to ~55ns again... Other than waiting for windows to stop doing whatever its doing behind my back, Idk what I did to get it to 55ns.


 I installed my windows ten years ago, originally that was windows 7. About 0.2 - 0.3 ns gain in safe mode. 
Autoruns for Windows - Windows Sysinternals
Keep it clean.


----------



## noxious89123

anr11 said:


> I had a similar problem recently. In my case it turned out to be the PSU. If I completely disconnected everything, it would turn one fine every time, run as long as I let it and restart as many times as I wanted but after switching off, the system refused to switch back on. I tried the PSU in 2 other systems and the behaved exactly the same. New PSU solved the problem.


Wasn't an HX1200i was it?



Badgerslayer7 said:


> Try disconnecting power from the gpu and see if it boots then. In my case the gpu had failed.


Best to remove the whole card. You shouldn't power it on without the PCIe power cables connected.


----------



## jlodvo

when windows start and load on the desktop i have a few seconds where i cant use it and mouse is not present and i hear usb disconnect and reconnect everytime i turn the pc on or restart the pc, anyone having this issue? any fix on this one?


----------



## noxious89123

jlodvo said:


> i hear usb disconnect and reconnect everytime i turn the pc on or restart the pc


Are you using Corsair iCue? I have been having the USB disconnect/reconnect for a while, but for me it's not an AMD issue, it's a Corsair iCue issue.


----------



## GRABibus

Naeem said:


> My C8H and 3700X won't turn on after it just turn off when playing the game i tried resetting bios as well as removed cmos cell nothing i see rgb lights turn on but power button or start does not do anything it was working fine from past 10 months or so


It sounds like PSU issue or Motherboard.


noxious89123 said:


> Are you using Corsair iCue? I have been having the USB disconnect/reconnect for a while, but for me it's not an AMD issue, it's a Corsair iCue issue.


Agreed.


----------



## Reikoji

Requiem4u said:


> I installed my windows ten years ago, originally that was windows 7. About 0.2 - 0.3 ns gain in safe mode.
> Autoruns for Windows - Windows Sysinternals
> Keep it clean.


Its obviosuly not normal to 'keep it clean', at least not that clean, if likely many others can stand to have more latency shaved off in safe mode. Maybe if my system was dedicated to benchmarking and I didn't install dozens of things on it, like normal folk. Also SS or it didnt happen


----------



## Naeem

one of these SMD thingi blow up on mine i cleaned it with spirit and it boots and works but my ram does not hold 3200mhz oc i have to go back to 3000 now ( my ram base speed was 3000mhz 4x8Gb g skills from 2017 ) anyone has idea about this what this does or is it mission criticle ?



http://imgur.com/rogLeUp


----------



## Requiem4u

Reikoji said:


> Its obviosuly not normal to 'keep it clean', at least not that clean, if likely many others can stand to have more latency shaved off in safe mode. Maybe if my system was dedicated to benchmarking and I didn't install dozens of things on it, like normal folk. Also SS or it didnt happen


I am old school overclocker.









I keep my windows clean. Still I can do and play anything I want. I just have to be sure what I want. 99 % of programs that need some crap to be installed and executed at startup are not needed or not has to be in your machine. I dont like RGB lights. I dont miss any Google or Razer software and have no issues with my logitech mouse.











Almost best I can do in windows and safe mode, in Windows I got 52,7 first but maybe it was accident.


----------



## Reikoji

Requiem4u said:


> I am old school overclocker.
> View attachment 2522288
> 
> 
> I keep my windows clean. Still I can do and play anything I want. I just have to be sure what I want. 99 % of programs that need some crap to be installed and executed at startup are not needed or not has to be in your machine. I dont like RGB lights. I dont miss any Google or Razer software and have no issues with my logitech mouse.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2522289
> 
> 
> Almost best I can do in windows and safe mode, in Windows I got 52,7 first but maybe it was accident.












I've gotten that low with my 5800x with a older windows install too, but the thing is once you're that low theres not really much more to gain.

Actually, I forgot I was going to try some more things with my memory modules and retest to see if I can get my 5950x back to this, but I doubt it will be successful. Alls I know is I had 55ns before one fateful restart put it back to 57ns. I blame Windows.


----------



## sonixmon

noxious89123 said:


> Are you using Corsair iCue? I have been having the USB disconnect/reconnect for a while, but for me it's not an AMD issue, it's a Corsair iCue issue.


I had this issue with Corsair iCue when I had a Corsair AIO and running Aida64. I switched to Asus AIO (mainly for integrated Asus RGB) and that issue went away (but the Asus doesnt have water temp sensor). I bought a set of ASUS external temp sensors and put one inside case and one on rad for water temp. 

I still have to use CrapCue I mean ICue for their headphones but no more usb issue.


----------



## Reikoji

I think if you have a device connected to a usb header you will hear the device connection when starting windows. i have a pcie wifi card that needs to be connected to a usb header to use the bluetooth portion and i, too, have usb device connected sound when starting windows.


----------



## DodgyTech

Naeem said:


> one of these SMD thingi blow up on mine i cleaned it with spirit and it boots and works but my ram does not hold 3200mhz oc i have to go back to 3000 now ( my ram base speed ws 3000mhz 4x80Gb g skills from 2017 ) anyone has idea about this what this does or is it mission criticle ?


Hello Naeem,
I've just signed up here (but have been lurking for years) to react to your comment. 
I've got the same board with 4 x 16 G-Skill Ripjaws ram (Samsung C-die) and on my board, exactly the same SMD capacitor blew. 
It was shorted out so I had to remove it. 
Apart from that, another component was shorted out. It is PQ4522, a P-channel mosfet F44P02BLE, 20 volt 5 amps. It sits between the dimm slots and the start button. 

As a repair tech, I could replace the mosfet with a similar type. However, I did not know the value of the capacitor and left it out, like you did.
And now I have also the same issue, my ram clocks now at 3000Mhz, but it is XMP 3200mhz.

I'll try to replace the SMD cap to see if it solves the ram speed issue. Maybe my comment helps others.

Cheers.


----------



## Alemancio

I wasnt able to stabilize this setting. Any tips? I used up to 1.52V, tried other ProcODTs and CLDO VPP 1V (BIOS 3703)



GRABibus said:


> View attachment 2522139
> 
> 
> 60GB/s Read value broken at 3800MHz !!!! 😜😜
> Latency reduced to 52.1ns


----------



## GRABibus

Alemancio said:


> I wasnt able to stabilize this setting. Any tips? I used up to 1.52V, tried other ProcODTs and CLDO VPP 1V (BIOS 3703)


I will post my bios settings when back home.
But, I think I have a very good binned kit, despite my IMC is weak (unable to boot at 3866MHz and unable to boot at GDM disabled).


----------



## Badgerslayer7

People with the usb disconnects/reconnects sound do you have a Corsair commander pro?


----------



## GRABibus

Badgerslayer7 said:


> People with the usb disconnects/reconnects sound do you have a Corsair commander pro?


no.
AIO H115i RGB Platinum


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Is it plugged in to the motherboard internal usb and if it is have you tried it without it being plugged in? I only say this as Corsair products have an issue with Asus x570 usb motherboards. Corsair recommended to me to get an internal usb hub to solve the issue.


----------



## GRABibus

Badgerslayer7 said:


> Is it plugged in to the motherboard internal usb and if it is have you tried it without it being plugged in? I only say this as Corsair products have an issue with Asus x570 usb motherboards. Corsair recommended to me to get an internal usb hub to solve the issue.


Plugged into the motherboard.
Thanks for the advise. I will add a hub.


----------



## Baio73

GRABibus said:


> Plugged into the motherboard.
> Thanks for the advise. I will add a hub.


In my personal experience, the USB hub from NZXT is the best for Corsair's devices.

Baio


----------



## noxious89123

sonixmon said:


> I had this issue with Corsair iCue when I had a Corsair AIO and running Aida64


There are some programs that will try to pull the same data that iCue uses, and it often causes problems. I disable those features in HWInfo for example.



DodgyTech said:


> Hello Naeem,
> I've just signed up here (but have been lurking for years) to react to your comment.
> I've got the same board with 4 x 16 G-Skill Ripjaws ram (Samsung C-die) and on my board, exactly the same SMD capacitor blew.
> It was shorted out so I had to remove it.
> Apart from that, another component was shorted out. It is PQ4522, a P-channel mosfet F44P02BLE, 20 volt 5 amps. It sits between the dimm slots and the start button.
> 
> As a repair tech, I could replace the mosfet with a similar type. However, I did not know the value of the capacitor and left it out, like you did.
> And now I have also the same issue, my ram clocks now at 3000Mhz, but it is XMP 3200mhz.
> 
> I'll try to replace the SMD cap to see if it solves the ram speed issue. Maybe my comment helps others.
> 
> Cheers.


Is that Nuvoton part that Naeem picture an SMD? I expected it to be some sort of controller. Are the part numbers still legible?



Badgerslayer7 said:


> People with the usb disconnects/reconnects sound do you have a Corsair commander pro?


Yes, but it's an iCue issue, not an issue with the Commander Pro. Not sure why X570 should be an issue? Given how buggy iCue is and has been for years, I'd still give AMD the benefit of the doubt on this one.


----------



## sonixmon

GRABibus said:


> I will post my bios settings when back home.
> But, I think I have a very good binned kit, despite my IMC is weak (unable to boot at 3866MHz and unable to boot at GDM disabled).


I am not sure GDM issue is IMC related, my last kit was fine @3800CL16 GDM disabled, new kit 3600CL14 won't work even at 3600CL16 (or looser). Actually just tried all the way down to 3200 with everything but voltage at Auto! Full auto (including speed) boots at 2133mhz but nothing above 3000! I guess I lost lottery on this kit. Some people are saying GDM enabled required for dual rank but my last kit was dual rank too so that is confusing. I have read only .5ms difference not sure how true that is.



GRABibus said:


> Plugged into the motherboard.
> Thanks for the advise. I will add a hub.


Interesting, let us know if this actually works.


----------



## Naeem

Nuvoton is ok it's the ceramic capacitor that blew up



noxious89123 said:


> There are some programs that will try to pull the same data that iCue uses, and it often causes problems. I disable those features in HWInfo for example.
> 
> 
> Is that Nuvoton part that Naeem picture an SMD? I expected it to be some sort of controller. Are the part numbers still legible?
> 
> 
> Yes, but it's an iCue issue, not an issue with the Commander Pro. Not sure why X570 should be an issue? Given how buggy iCue is and has been for years, I'd still give AMD the benefit of the doubt on this one.


----------



## sonixmon

Audioboxer said:


> Looking like things are going to be OK with y-cruncher as well
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll try your above settings for the TM5 run tonight and see how I get on!


I added a temporary fan copied and my manual OC (almost identical to above) is definitely more stable (temp peaked at 40c and 60 mins no errors). I know it isn't the full stability test but until I have time to do that this will have to do. Might be able to push a little farther but can't post to GRABibus timings.

Didn't gain much so I have to decide if it is worth it to me. to add a ram cooler and totally change the look.

















Any suggestions on things to try to tighten or think I've found min this kit will do?


----------



## Alemancio

GRABibus said:


> I will post my bios settings when back home.
> But, I think I have a very good binned kit, despite my IMC is weak (unable to boot at 3866MHz and unable to boot at GDM disabled).


merci beaucoup


----------



## bl4ckdot

Might as well share some pics of the C8E here since I got one :


----------



## learner-gr

bl4ckdot said:


> Might as well share some pics of the C8E here since I got one :
> View attachment 2522411
> 
> View attachment 2522412
> 
> View attachment 2522413
> 
> View attachment 2522414


Already got your extreme motherboard? 
Here in Greece is not available. 
Is the dark hero going for sale? 😁


----------



## Sleepycat

bl4ckdot said:


> Might as well share some pics of the C8E here since I got one :
> 
> View attachment 2522414


Nice. Has anyone compared the C8DH to the C8H to see if the passive heatsink can be used on it?


----------



## Badgerslayer7

noxious89123 said:


> There are some programs that will try to pull the same data that iCue uses, and it often causes problems. I disable those features in HWInfo for example.
> 
> 
> Is that Nuvoton part that Naeem picture an SMD? I expected it to be some sort of controller. Are the part numbers still legible?
> 
> 
> Yes, but it's an iCue issue, not an issue with the Commander Pro. Not sure why X570 should be an issue? Given how buggy iCue is and has been for years, I'd still give AMD the benefit of the doubt on this one.


I can assure you now that the commander pro has an issue with crosshair hero viii motherboard. No reason not to doubt that the problem follows the entire range of Asus x570 motherboards except maybe the dark hair hero.


----------



## xeizo

bl4ckdot said:


> Might as well share some pics of the C8E here since I got one :


Nice, I have one incoming, will be fun to test out what extra performance can be had over the C8H. There's some new features to the voltage regulation which will be interesting to examine.


----------



## xeizo

Badgerslayer7 said:


> I can assure you now that the commander pro has an issue with crosshair hero viii motherboard. No reason not to doubt that the problem follows the entire range of Asus x570 motherboards except maybe the dark hair hero.


FYI I've never ran commander pro but I run the very latest iCUE on my B550-F and it has been pretty much trouble free, was able to set a very good fan curve for my radiator using be quiet! fans. It is quiet.


----------



## xeizo

Looking very much forward to the new cpus with the stacked cache, I wonder if they will improve the I/O-die or if it's still the same old from Global foundries. The IMC in the G processors looks much improved, it would be great if some of that was inherited to the new cpus. Also, I wonder how much of a power hog the new cache will be.

I suspect AMD will have to shoehorn out every extra performance they can to go up against Alder Lake.


----------



## bl4ckdot

xeizo said:


> Nice, I have one incoming, will be fun to test out what extra performance can be had over the C8H. There's some new features to the voltage regulation which will be interesting to examine.


Compared to my C8DH, I still get WHEA at 1933, but I haven't touched PLL. I'll probably daily 3800c14


----------



## AStaUK

bl4ckdot said:


> Might as well share some pics of the C8E here since I got one :


Looks like a really nices setup, I'm guessing you wanted to C8E for the edge mounted ports etc? Seeing your build really makes me want to consider an open bench for my next build, how practical is it with dust build up?


----------



## bl4ckdot

AStaUK said:


> Looks like a really nices setup, I'm guessing you wanted to C8E for the edge mounted ports etc? Seeing your build really makes me want to consider an open bench for my next build, how practical is it with dust build up?


Just wanted the C8E because I have the habit to get the "best" (to my eyes) board for every socket generation for collection purpose. Open bench is practical and I dont have too much dust. You however dont want to be lazy with some cleaning here and there


----------



## GRABibus

bl4ckdot said:


> Might as well share some pics of the C8E here since I got one :
> View attachment 2522411
> 
> View attachment 2522412
> 
> View attachment 2522413
> 
> View attachment 2522414


nice set up 😊


----------



## jlodvo

noxious89123 said:


> Are you using Corsair iCue? I have been having the USB disconnect/reconnect for a while, but for me it's not an AMD issue, it's a Corsair iCue issue.


yes i have, i'll try to uninstall it and observe thanks


----------



## rbys

Sort of a noob question, sorry. I've set vSOC to 1.1V but ZenTimings is reporting 1.07V to 1.08V @ idle. Is it normal?


----------



## GRABibus

rbys said:


> Sort of a noob question, sorry. I've set vSOC to 1.1V but ZenTimings is reporting 1.07V to 1.08V @ idle. Is it normal?


I have this also.


----------



## Baio73

rbys said:


> Sort of a noob question, sorry. I've set vSOC to 1.1V but ZenTimings is reporting 1.07V to 1.08V @ idle. Is it normal?


Probably it's something related to LoadLine Calibration BIOS settings.

Baio


----------



## GRABibus

Alemancio said:


> merci beaucoup


my 24/7 stable RAM timings and settings :










Here are my 24/7 Bios PBO stable settings :


----------



## rbys

Baio73 said:


> Probably it's something related to LoadLine Calibration BIOS settings.


Yeah that is what I thought (had it set to auto before so I wasn't sure, tried 1.08V and it dipped to 1.06V). Will mess with the SOC LLC settings or set it a bit higher tonight. Thanks

took the number 1 spot at 55.8ns using micron rev b on a 3200 C16 kit Zen RAM Overclocking


----------



## xProlific

Is it preferable to raise LLC or VSOC when you experience vdroop. Are there advantages or disadvantages of going one way or the other?

Edit: I guess since the number that comes through Zen Timings and HW info is not a true measure of VSOC voltage and therefore not the best measure of vdroop, the better question is...
Is it recommended to use a different LLC than auto on this board? Understanding obviously as you go up a level in LLC the safe VSOC voltage goes down. A table comparing LLC and actual voltages measured at the back of the board would be nice.

@rbys & @GRABibus I would recommend this video. It is normal and it explains why it happens, tldr those are not actual voltages, the numbers are measured after resistance see 12:24 in the video.


----------



## CyrIng

rbys said:


> Sort of a noob question, sorry. I've set vSOC to 1.1V but ZenTimings is reporting 1.07V to 1.08V @ idle. Is it normal?


Voltage formula from VID:








CoreFreq/corefreq.h at 8d81912c5bc63112dc321157f9d23301731086b7 · cyring/CoreFreq


CoreFreq is a CPU monitoring software designed for the 64-bits Processors. - CoreFreq/corefreq.h at 8d81912c5bc63112dc321157f9d23301731086b7 · cyring/CoreFreq




github.com




For AMD family 17h up to 19h. Same maths for Vcore and SoC, according to specs.


----------



## asavah

I haven't seen it being mentioned here yet, so just FYI:
there is a new AMD chipset driver release version 3.08.17.735 , release date 23th of August.


https://www.amd.com/en/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570



Changelog doesn't contain anything useful at all, as always.
Supposedly this release contains a bunch of PSP security fixes (citation needed)


----------



## sonixmon

So I decided to order a ram cooler, wth right? Still have temp fan in place but decided to see what I could accomplish with heat issue out of the way. Figured out I could push a little farther and then I found a similar OC with just a little more voltage (1.56). I was able to match their settings and made a little more difference. Tried with GDM on and GDM Off (AddrCmdSetup 55) was better.

First time I hit 59x MB/s write and 57x MB/s Copy I believe.


----------



## Sleepycat

xProlific said:


> Is it preferable to raise LLC or VSOC when you experience vdroop. Are there advantages or disadvantages of going one way or the other?
> 
> Edit: I guess since the number that comes through Zen Timings and HW info is not a true measure of VSOC voltage and therefore not the best measure of vdroop, the better question is...
> Is it recommended to use a different LLC than auto on this board? Understanding obviously as you go up a level in LLC the safe VSOC voltage goes down. A table comparing LLC and actual voltages measured at the back of the board would be nice.


I use LLC3 for my vSOC. It helps with the voltage droop.


----------



## tolis626

Hey guys. It's been a while since I was in this thread, so forgive me if I'm missing anything obvious.

So here's the thing. Ever since I bought my 5900x, I haven't bothered messing with my RAM and left it at XMP. It's ok, it's a B-die 3600CL16 kit from G.Skill, but I've seen 5900x's doing much better than mine with the only difference being the memory, so I decided to go down the rabbit hole of memory overclocking again. I used to run 3800MHz CL16 on my 3800x, but I decided to push this kit a bit, see what it's capable of. 3600MHz CL14 works like a charm at 1.45V in BIOS (more like 1.425V read in OS), so I decided to bump it up a notch to 3800MHz. Without messing with anything else, it failed to boot at 1.475V and 1.5V. I had to set it to either 1.51 or 1.52V in BIOS for it to boot (can't remember which one it was). I also bumped procODT to 43.6Ω and loosened tRAS and tRC a bit. It booted and seemed to run fine, but I got an error about 1 hour into testing with Karhu RAM test. As I don't feel very comfortable going higher in voltage, I'd appreciate some pointers as to where I can go next. FYI, this is at 1T and GDM off, but I'm trying to avoid 2T and GDM on if I can and, given that it's a single rank kit, I think I can. Below is a screenshot of the failed attempt. Any advice is welcome! Thanks!

PS : These DIMMs do get a bit toasty at 1.5V. What's the max temp I should look out for?

EDIT : I've tried changing some stuff. Tried up to 1.52V (In BIOS), tried procODTs of 36.9Ω, 40Ω and 43.6Ω, tried increasing tRFC, tRAS and tRC a tad, tried increasing primary timings other than tCL a bit, tried different RttWr, RttNom and RttPark options, yada yada yada, nothing works. It will pop an error at some point within the first hour, usually within the first 10 minutes. I am confused. I also tried disabling the RGB lights on my RAM and that helped with temperatures, but not stability. I hope you'll excuse me, but I'll be copy pasting this whole thing to the DDR4 Zen overclocking thread, just to widen my reach.


----------



## sonixmon

tolis626 said:


> Hey guys. It's been a while since I was in this thread, so forgive me if I'm missing anything obvious.
> 
> So here's the thing. Ever since I bought my 5900x, I haven't bothered messing with my RAM and left it at XMP. It's ok, it's a B-die 3600CL16 kit from G.Skill, but I've seen 5900x's doing much better than mine with the only difference being the memory, so I decided to go down the rabbit hole of memory overclocking again. I used to run 3800MHz CL16 on my 3800x, but I decided to push this kit a bit, see what it's capable of. 3600MHz CL14 works like a charm at 1.45V in BIOS (more like 1.425V read in OS), so I decided to bump it up a notch to 3800MHz. Without messing with anything else, it failed to boot at 1.475V and 1.5V. I had to set it to either 1.51 or 1.52V in BIOS for it to boot (can't remember which one it was). I also bumped procODT to 43.6Ω and loosened tRAS and tRC a bit. It booted and seemed to run fine, but I got an error about 1 hour into testing with Karhu RAM test. As I don't feel very comfortable going higher in voltage, I'd appreciate some pointers as to where I can go next. FYI, this is at 1T and GDM off, but I'm trying to avoid 2T and GDM on if I can and, given that it's a single rank kit, I think I can. Below is a screenshot of the failed attempt. Any advice is welcome! Thanks!
> 
> PS : These DIMMs do get a bit toasty at 1.5V. What's the max temp I should look out for?
> 
> EDIT : I've tried changing some stuff. Tried up to 1.52V (In BIOS), tried procODTs of 36.9Ω, 40Ω and 43.6Ω, tried increasing tRFC, tRAS and tRC a tad, tried increasing primary timings other than tCL a bit, tried different RttWr, RttNom and RttPark options, yada yada yada, nothing works. It will pop an error at some point within the first hour, usually within the first 10 minutes. I am confused. I also tried disabling the RGB lights on my RAM and that helped with temperatures, but not stability. I hope you'll excuse me, but I'll be copy pasting this whole thing to the DDR4 Zen overclocking thread, just to widen my reach.
> 
> View attachment 2522553


I had similar issues and found for my kit the heat (even though safe levels) causes instability with extreme timings. I added active cooling (using a test fan) and have been able to push the kit much farther (see my post above). I am having to run either GDM on or AddrCmdSetup 55 because of dual rank and limits of my specific kit though. Temps would cause me to error out within minutes and depending on how tight timings were but two levels I found (40-43 and 47-50 depending on timings). It was pretty much like clockwork when those temps hit.

If you have a spare fan you can even prop up by ram (like I did for testing) see if that makes a difference you appear to hit over 50 in your screenshot.


----------



## noxious89123

tolis626 said:


> Hey guys. It's been a while since I was in this thread, so forgive me if I'm missing anything obvious.
> 
> So here's the thing. Ever since I bought my 5900x, I haven't bothered messing with my RAM and left it at XMP. It's ok, it's a B-die 3600CL16 kit from G.Skill, but I've seen 5900x's doing much better than mine with the only difference being the memory, so I decided to go down the rabbit hole of memory overclocking again. I used to run 3800MHz CL16 on my 3800x, but I decided to push this kit a bit, see what it's capable of. 3600MHz CL14 works like a charm at 1.45V in BIOS (more like 1.425V read in OS), so I decided to bump it up a notch to 3800MHz. Without messing with anything else, it failed to boot at 1.475V and 1.5V. I had to set it to either 1.51 or 1.52V in BIOS for it to boot (can't remember which one it was). I also bumped procODT to 43.6Ω and loosened tRAS and tRC a bit. It booted and seemed to run fine, but I got an error about 1 hour into testing with Karhu RAM test. As I don't feel very comfortable going higher in voltage, I'd appreciate some pointers as to where I can go next. FYI, this is at 1T and GDM off, but I'm trying to avoid 2T and GDM on if I can and, given that it's a single rank kit, I think I can. Below is a screenshot of the failed attempt. Any advice is welcome! Thanks!
> 
> PS : These DIMMs do get a bit toasty at 1.5V. What's the max temp I should look out for?
> 
> EDIT : I've tried changing some stuff. Tried up to 1.52V (In BIOS), tried procODTs of 36.9Ω, 40Ω and 43.6Ω, tried increasing tRFC, tRAS and tRC a tad, tried increasing primary timings other than tCL a bit, tried different RttWr, RttNom and RttPark options, yada yada yada, nothing works. It will pop an error at some point within the first hour, usually within the first 10 minutes. I am confused. I also tried disabling the RGB lights on my RAM and that helped with temperatures, but not stability. I hope you'll excuse me, but I'll be copy pasting this whole thing to the DDR4 Zen overclocking thread, just to widen my reach.
> 
> View attachment 2522553


Have you ever run your CPU with the Infinity Fabric at 1900MHz? As well as normal testing, you need to constantly check for WHEA errors. You can run programs like Prime95 with no errors, whilst your IMC is producing hundreds of WHEA errors quietly in the background. HWInfo64 can display a count WHEA errors, which I find very useful; i keep it displayed in the systemtray so itm will notify me if it detects WHEA Errors >0

If not, I'd do some testing to get that stable and the voltages correct first. I did this by setting my RAM to a low, known stable speed, and then ramping the Flck up and running stress tests. I did this separately with my Flck and memory speed, and once I knew what each could do, I set them to the same speed and started tightening timings.

At first glance, your VDDG voltages and your VDDP voltage appear to be a little on the low end, so it might be that your IMC won't do 1900 without more voltage. You shouldn't need to go much over ~1.1vSOC though, and definitely stay below 1.2v on vSOC.

TL;DR do some research on SOC voltages and how to set them


----------



## tolis626

First off, thank you both for your replies. Much appreciated!


sonixmon said:


> I had similar issues and found for my kit the heat (even though safe levels) causes instability with extreme timings. I added active cooling (using a test fan) and have been able to push the kit much farther (see my post above). I am having to run either GDM on or AddrCmdSetup 55 because of dual rank and limits of my specific kit though. Temps would cause me to error out within minutes and depending on how tight timings were but two levels I found (40-43 and 47-50 depending on timings). It was pretty much like clockwork when those temps hit.
> 
> If you have a spare fan you can even prop up by ram (like I did for testing) see if that makes a difference you appear to hit over 50 in your screenshot.


I'm starting to lean towards heat being an issue (maybe not THE issue, but an issue nonetheless) too. For whatever reason, my RAM runs hot. I hadn't bothered to check, I thought the 40s were normal, but I see people here whose RAM is pushed and is still in the 30s. Why my kit is running so hot, I have no idea. Airflow in my case isn't terrific, but it's good enough to pull away the heat of a 6900XT running at 350W in full tilt. I'd guess that'd be enough, but apparently it isn't. And I have no idea how I'd go about mounting a fan in there to directly cool the RAM. Least not without it looking so ugly that I'd take the performance hit over having to look at it. Maybe I'll get a small 80mm fan or whatever and try to cram it in somehow. But still, I can't for the life of me figure out why it's running so hot in the first place. Last time I got serious about overclocking RAM was in the late DDR3 era, and then I had no issues with heat even up to 1.75V.

(Another question would be, ok, say I manage the heat when testing for errors. How would that translate to 24/7 operation? Would it need active cooling? Would it be just fine and only overheats under the stress of 100% memory utilization 100% of the time?)

Still, I'll mess around a bit more and I'll also try your suggestions! Thanks!


noxious89123 said:


> Have you ever run your CPU with the Infinity Fabric at 1900MHz? As well as normal testing, you need to constantly check for WHEA errors. You can run programs like Prime95 with no errors, whilst your IMC is producing hundreds of WHEA errors quietly in the background. HWInfo64 can display a count WHEA errors, which I find very useful; i keep it displayed in the systemtray so itm will notify me if it detects WHEA Errors >0
> 
> If not, I'd do some testing to get that stable and the voltages correct first. I did this by setting my RAM to a low, known stable speed, and then ramping the Flck up and running stress tests. I did this separately with my Flck and memory speed, and once I knew what each could do, I set them to the same speed and started tightening timings.
> 
> At first glance, your VDDG voltages and your VDDP voltage appear to be a little on the low end, so it might be that your IMC won't do 1900 without more voltage. You shouldn't need to go much over ~1.1vSOC though, and definitely stay below 1.2v on vSOC.
> 
> TL;DR do some research on SOC voltages and how to set them


Yes I have, actually. I did test it at some point by just going into XMP and then forcing 3800/1900MHz with XMP/auto timings. Worked like a charm at 1.075V SoC (in BIOS), 0.9V CLDO VDDP and 0.95V VDDG/IOD. I didn't even bother checking those, it just worked so I didn't bother. I also always have HWiNFO64 monitoring everything, including WHEA errors, so I always know if I'm getting those. I've only seen WHEA errors once when testing 4000MHz with the same voltages for fun. Any lower, no WHEA errors whatsoever no matter what.

Still, I'm not one to dismiss good advice when such is given, so I'll try leaving the RAM itself alone and playing with these voltages. Maybe I'm just spoiled by my 3800x. That little guy could run up to 1900MHz fclk at any combination of voltages, but failed above that at anything no matter what. But 1900MHz would run all day every day at 1.05V SoC, 0.9V VDDP and 0.95V VDDG/IOD. So I never bothered checking further with it. Will do some more testing and get back to you! Thanks!

EDIT : I increased vSoC to 1.125V, VDDG to 0.975 and IOD to 1.025V (VDDP kept at 0.9V). I also cranked my case and GPU fans to get some more air flowing in there, resulting in a "not great not terrible" 46ish C temp instead of creeping into the 50s. So far, it's been running Karhu for 1 hour 15 minutes with no errors, so we're getting somewhere. But I was stupid to not test those individually and now I don't know which one or if both helped. Oh well, the thing is the situation improved. I'll stop on the 2-3 hour mark, if all goes well and I don't have any errors, game a bit and then let it run overnight (Although with Karhu, I've always got errors in the first hour or two, never had it error out after that, even at over 10 hours). Hoping it'll all go well.


----------



## noxious89123

Good stuff! 

Regarding RAM temperature, I was similarly confused by peoples low temperatures when I was looking into the subject myself. My modules don't have built in temp sensors, but did have nice black heatspreaders and I have an IR thermometer.
Mine were getting upto nearly 60°C at 1.4v! I don't consider my case airflow to be bad, but I do tend to run my fans low~ish, as my system is watercooled and I like it quiet.

My solution was to just stick a waterblock on my RAM, so now I get to enjoy the benefits of 35°C RAM and any voltage I dare run it at, whilst ignoring the small crater in my wallet... IMO, it totally worth it.


----------



## sonixmon

I suspect ram temps, there was even a reviewer of similar kit that noted over 47 degrees one of the timings would fail. If they put a fan on them it would not error out. They decided to go with slightly lower timing and they ran for 2 hours hitting 50 degrees and no errors since most people wont want to put a fan on them. I did a similar test and could repetitively get errors at specific temps with specific timings. With fan it ran two hours no errors and temp steady 39-40 the entire time.

I ended up getting a Corsair RGB fan, it isn't the best looking thing and I may decide not to keep it but honestly my PC is not as much about looks as performance so I might be able to live with it. Will see how it looks once installed.


----------



## tolis626

noxious89123 said:


> Good stuff!
> 
> Regarding RAM temperature, I was similarly confused by peoples low temperatures when I was looking into the subject myself. My modules don't have built in temp sensors, but did have nice black heatspreaders and I have an IR thermometer.
> Mine were getting upto nearly 60°C at 1.4v! I don't consider my case airflow to be bad, but I do tend to run my fans low~ish, as my system is watercooled and I like it quiet.
> 
> My solution was to just stick a waterblock on my RAM, so now I get to enjoy the benefits of 35°C RAM and any voltage I dare run it at, whilst ignoring the small crater in my wallet... IMO, it totally worth it.


60C for DDR4? Oof, that's rough. Water cooling RAM has always seemed rather wasteful (both in time and money) to me, but there are for sure cases where it is helpful.


sonixmon said:


> I suspect ram temps, there was even a reviewer of similar kit that noted over 47 degrees one of the timings would fail. If they put a fan on them it would not error out. They decided to go with slightly lower timing and they ran for 2 hours hitting 50 degrees and no errors since most people wont want to put a fan on them. I did a similar test and could repetitively get errors at specific temps with specific timings. With fan it ran two hours no errors and temp steady 39-40 the entire time.
> 
> I ended up getting a Corsair RGB fan, it isn't the best looking thing and I may decide not to keep it but honestly my PC is not as much about looks as performance so I might be able to live with it. Will see how it looks once installed.


Yeah, I dunno what it is, but ever since I "validated" my overclock, I get a lot of crashes during gaming. I don't know why, I get no errors etc, but RAM did hit 50C, so that may be it. I may try turning the fans on my AIO around so that they act as intakes. Maybe the air they'll blow in will somewhat cool the RAM modules. But I'm a bit disheartened. TimeSpy has seen a pretty big improvement by overclocking my RAM, but gaming not so much. I guess unless I go dual rank there isn't much point stressing about it. 3600 CL14 should be good enough. I just want more, you know?


----------



## WINTENDOX

what power plan do you recommend in windows 10 for ryzen 5900x???


----------



## Sleepycat

WINTENDOX said:


> what power plan do you recommend in windows 10 for ryzen 5900x???


Balanced. I still get reasonable scores in CB R20 and R23.


----------



## noxious89123

tolis626 said:


> 60C for DDR4? Oof, that's rough. Water cooling RAM has always seemed rather wasteful (both in time and money) to me, but there are for sure cases where it is helpful.
> 
> Yeah, I dunno what it is, but ever since I "validated" my overclock, I get a lot of crashes during gaming. I don't know why, I get no errors etc, but RAM did hit 50C, so that may be it. I may try turning the fans on my AIO around so that they act as intakes. Maybe the air they'll blow in will somewhat cool the RAM modules. But I'm a bit disheartened. TimeSpy has seen a pretty big improvement by overclocking my RAM, but gaming not so much. I guess unless I go dual rank there isn't much point stressing about it. 3600 CL14 should be good enough. I just want more, you know?


Yeah, I've generally been one myself to think "watercooling RAM is dumb", but here we are X)

I consider this to be an exception, not the rule, because most RAM in most cases doesn't give a ****. Heck, if I run this RAM kit at it's rated spec it works fine and temperature isn't an issue. But then I'm not running it at 3200CL14 1.35v, I'm running it at 3800CL14 1.51v, so it's not unreasonable to need some extra cooling. Especially as it otherwise would get no direct air flow due to the low fan speeds and fan placement in my system. Attached a fan to the RAM would have been enough, but it already have a custom loop and I like how it looks, soo..... here we are


----------



## Syldon

Ram temps were a known issue in early Ryzen days. This caused a lot to move on to memory coolers. You can buy them from anywhere between $30 and $70. This the one I have used for about 3 years now. It used to be as low as 40c where people were having issues. This is in Ryzen 1800 and 2700 era. I guess Ryzen is a tad more resilient against temp variations.


----------



## sonixmon

noxious89123 said:


> Yeah, I've generally been one myself to think "watercooling RAM is dumb", but here we are X)
> 
> I consider this to be an exception, not the rule, because most RAM in most cases doesn't give a ****. Heck, if I run this RAM kit at it's rated spec it works fine and temperature isn't an issue. But then I'm not running it at 3200CL14 1.35v, I'm running it at 3800CL14 1.51v, so it's not unreasonable to need some extra cooling. Especially as it otherwise would get no direct air flow due to the low fan speeds and fan placement in my system. Attached a fan to the RAM would have been enough, but it already have a custom loop and I like how it looks, soo..... here we are


Thats an amazing setup and bragging rights for one of the few water cooled ram setups out there! Very well put together too.

Might consider getting some blue and black CableMod cables for power that would look amazing!


----------



## Nizzen

Syldon said:


> Ram temps were a known issue in early Ryzen days. This caused a lot to move on to memory coolers. You can buy them from anywhere between $30 and $70. This the one I have used for about 3 years now. It used to be as low as 40c where people were having issues. This is in Ryzen 1800 and 2700 era. I guess Ryzen is a tad more resilient against temp variations.


Ram temps aren't spesific du Ryzen. It's normal for every pc with b-die. 1.5v+ with b-die, and temps are going easy over 45c. Some sticks don't like over 45c, so active cooling is needed.

I'm running 4700c17 1t on 10900k, and that isn't possible without watercooling or direct fan on the memory.


----------



## Syldon

Nizzen said:


> Ram temps aren't spesific du Ryzen. It's normal for every pc with b-die. 1.5v+ with b-die, and temps are going easy over 45c. Some sticks don't like over 45c, so active cooling is needed.
> 
> I'm running 4700c17 1t on 10900k, and that isn't possible without watercooling or direct fan on the memory.


I have honestly never looked at Intel set ups since a 6700 chip I had before my first Ryzen (1800x). I also have never looked into OCing on an Intel with any sort of perseverance. So couldn't comment on how the temps are featured on Intel. I know that hitting 40c was a marker that reduced my system's stability That was at the low end of people stating issues here. The majority were around the 42c+ marker. Atm my DIMM temps never go above 38c, and that is at 3800. On earlier Ryzen system 3433 was a struggle for most to reach. Considering this 3433 brought temp issues with, just goes to show much better Ryzen 3 is now by comparison.


----------



## rbys

I'm happy with the multi but the single core score is a little bit low. It should be around 1640.

PPT Limit [W]: [200] 
TDC Limit [A]: [140] 
EDC Limit [A]: [160]

Doing -15 CO on my two best cores in CCX0 and -20 on the rest, +50Mhz (so 5GHz).

Any advice?


----------



## GRABibus

rbys said:


> View attachment 2522678
> 
> 
> I'm happy with the multi but the single core score is a little bit low. It should be around 1640.
> 
> PPT Limit [W]: [200]
> TDC Limit [A]: [140]
> EDC Limit [A]: [160]
> 
> Doing -15 CO on my two best cores in CCX0 and -20 on the rest, +50Mhz (so 5GHz).
> 
> Any advice?


is there such a big difference between 1616 and 1640 ??


----------



## noxious89123

sonixmon said:


> Thats an amazing setup and bragging rights for one of the few water cooled ram setups out there! Very well put together too.
> 
> Might consider getting some blue and black CableMod cables for power that would look amazing!


Thank you for the kind words, they are appreciated ^_^

Fancy cables and some phanteks halos for the top radiator fans are the only changes I have in mind, but they're not something I'm in a hurry to change. I don't need a gpu upgrade just yet as the 980Ti still fulfils my needs, but I am looking towards the future so that I can plan my next upgrade as effectively as possible. I was waiting to upgrade CPU/RAM/Mobo since around the time Ryzen 3000 launched, but it wasn't quite the big step up I was hoping for. Ryzen 5000 was that big step up, but poor availabiltiy delayed me a long time.

RTX4000 maybe? 


rbys said:


> View attachment 2522678
> 
> 
> I'm happy with the multi but the single core score is a little bit low. It should be around 1640.
> 
> PPT Limit [W]: [200]
> TDC Limit [A]: [140]
> EDC Limit [A]: [160]
> 
> Doing -15 CO on my two best cores in CCX0 and -20 on the rest, +50Mhz (so 5GHz).
> 
> Any advice?


I have my PPT/TDC/EDC at 230W/255A/200A and I'm hitting 1653 single core in R23 and 23378 multi core.
CO settings range from -14 to -30 across the cores, and +250MHz on offset (although this is in the Asus part of the OC bios, not the AMD part. Not entirely sure yet if it's doing anything when I set it above +200MHz).

The fact that some of my cores are stable at -30, leaves me wondering if I should try appling a small increment of negative offset to vCore elsewhere in the BIOS, and then fine tune with CO to get them even lower. May also test setting less negative offset and see if more voltage lets those cores achieve higher speeds.

Curve Optimiser is a very odd way to overclock, coming from an i7-2600K!


----------



## tolis626

noxious89123 said:


> Yeah, I've generally been one myself to think "watercooling RAM is dumb", but here we are X)
> 
> I consider this to be an exception, not the rule, because most RAM in most cases doesn't give a ****. Heck, if I run this RAM kit at it's rated spec it works fine and temperature isn't an issue. But then I'm not running it at 3200CL14 1.35v, I'm running it at 3800CL14 1.51v, so it's not unreasonable to need some extra cooling. Especially as it otherwise would get no direct air flow due to the low fan speeds and fan placement in my system. Attached a fan to the RAM would have been enough, but it already have a custom loop and I like how it looks, soo..... here we are


Yeah, I wanted to say stupid too, but I was holding my words just in case. 

That's a nice system, man! I haven't had the budget to go all out (I mean, I splurged on an upgrade to 5900x+6900XT, but won't be able to buy them again any time soon should they break), so no custom water cooling for me. YET.

As for my RAM OC ventures, everything failed. I tried and I tried and I tried, to no avail. 3800MHz just doesn't wanna work for me for some reason with tight timings. And it's not just temps, the thing is working perfectly fine right now with 3600MHz 14-14-15-30-44 1T at 1.45V and it still hit 52-53C during the RAM test, but it didn't bat an eye, so it's not just the temps as I thought they were. For now, I'll be staying with this until I feel mazochistic again. Maybe I'll see for an upgrade to 32GB and dual rank, but that's a ways off.


----------



## sonixmon

tolis626 said:


> Yeah, I wanted to say stupid too, but I was holding my words just in case.
> 
> That's a nice system, man! I haven't had the budget to go all out (I mean, I splurged on an upgrade to 5900x+6900XT, but won't be able to buy them again any time soon should they break), so no custom water cooling for me. YET.
> 
> As for my RAM OC ventures, everything failed. I tried and I tried and I tried, to no avail. 3800MHz just doesn't wanna work for me for some reason with tight timings. And it's not just temps, the thing is working perfectly fine right now with 3600MHz 14-14-15-30-44 1T at 1.45V and it still hit 52-53C during the RAM test, but it didn't bat an eye, so it's not just the temps as I thought they were. For now, I'll be staying with this until I feel mazochistic again. Maybe I'll see for an upgrade to 32GB and dual rank, but that's a ways off.


Have you tried 3733mhz or unlinking the fabric clock (just for testing) to confirm it isnt your IMC? My previous 5800x would not do 3800 but maxed at 3733 (1866 fclk). When I was finally able to get a 5900x it thankfully runs at 1900 fclk but no more.


----------



## Sleepycat

rbys said:


> View attachment 2522678
> 
> 
> I'm happy with the multi but the single core score is a little bit low. It should be around 1640.
> 
> PPT Limit [W]: [200]
> TDC Limit [A]: [140]
> EDC Limit [A]: [160]
> 
> Doing -15 CO on my two best cores in CCX0 and -20 on the rest, +50Mhz (so 5GHz).
> 
> Any advice?


Don't set CO generically. I'd run corecycler to test for stability of your single cores with your current CO, and adjust the CO offset as Corecycler finds failures. With more stability, you can get higher single core scores as I've noticed that when I clock too high without sufficient voltage, the score drops eventhough the effective clock reported in HWInfo is high.

I get 1620 for 4.9GHz @ 1.475V.


----------



## noxious89123

tolis626 said:


> Yeah, I wanted to say stupid too, but I was holding my words just in case.
> 
> That's a nice system, man! I haven't had the budget to go all out (I mean, I splurged on an upgrade to 5900x+6900XT, but won't be able to buy them again any time soon should they break), so no custom water cooling for me. YET.
> 
> As for my RAM OC ventures, everything failed. I tried and I tried and I tried, to no avail. 3800MHz just doesn't wanna work for me for some reason with tight timings. And it's not just temps, the thing is working perfectly fine right now with 3600MHz 14-14-15-30-44 1T at 1.45V and it still hit 52-53C during the RAM test, but it didn't bat an eye, so it's not just the temps as I thought they were. For now, I'll be staying with this until I feel mazochistic again. Maybe I'll see for an upgrade to 32GB and dual rank, but that's a ways off.


 For what it's worth, the cost to add the RAM to the loop was about £76, + an extra fitting and trimming some tubing. Not pocket change, but when the whole loop cost ~£600 (iirc) and those Corsair fan ram coolers are like £60, it doesn't look so bad. Removing the heatspreaders from the RAM was by far the most nerve wracking part of the change.

As sonixmon suggested, try running 3800 on the memory delinked from the Fclk first, to see if it's RAM or the IMC stopping you being stable at that speed. I'd also try 2T or using Gear Down Mode. 1T can be tough to do. My RAM wouldn't do 1T even at 3600*CL24.* I managed to get 1T with GDM off working eventually; the trick was setting MemAddrCmdSetup to 56 (shout out to the user on OCN that suggested that clever change!) and it was instantly stable. I've since been able to bring that down to 53, but I had to tweak RZQ numbers to do it.


----------



## tolis626

sonixmon said:


> Have you tried 3733mhz or unlinking the fabric clock (just for testing) to confirm it isnt your IMC? My previous 5800x would not do 3800 but maxed at 3733 (1866 fclk). When I was finally able to get a 5900x it thankfully runs at 1900 fclk but no more.


Well, no, not this time. But I have run this CPU at 3800/1900 in the past already with no problems. It was just using XMP timings, bumped the voltage to like 1.45V to be on the safe side and just entered 3800/1900. I was just testing that, if the CPU is stable at 1900MHz fclk. It was fine, didn't even need high SoC/VDDP/IOD. Something else was failing me all these days, and it wasn't the CPU. I might have found the culprit, though. I don't know exactly what it is, but I think I'm onto something. See below.

(And of course, thanks for the suggestion)


noxious89123 said:


> For what it's worth, the cost to add the RAM to the loop was about £76, + an extra fitting and trimming some tubing. Not pocket change, but when the whole loop cost ~£600 (iirc) and those Corsair fan ram coolers are like £60, it doesn't look so bad. Removing the heatspreaders from the RAM was by far the most nerve wracking part of the change.
> 
> As sonixmon suggested, try running 3800 on the memory delinked from the Fclk first, to see if it's RAM or the IMC stopping you being stable at that speed. I'd also try 2T or using Gear Down Mode. 1T can be tough to do. My RAM wouldn't do 1T even at 3600*CL24.* I managed to get 1T with GDM off working eventually; the trick was setting MemAddrCmdSetup to 56 (shout out to the user on OCN that suggested that clever change!) and it was instantly stable. I've since been able to bring that down to 53, but I had to tweak RZQ numbers to do it.


Well, I was always of the mindset that even 1€ spent on watercooling RAM was wasted, because it didn't need the cooling. But it seems I've been stuck on DDR3 mentally. I always thought it was more of an aesthetics thing. Oh well, happy to be proven wrong I guess, if I ever do a custom loop, RAM's probably going in there too!

So, as I said above, I think I'm onto something. Yesterday night my insomnia kicked into high gear and I felt especially self punishing, so I went back to overclocking my RAM. I looked at the settings of another member of the forums using the same RAM as me, just in a dual rank 2x16GB config. So I looked at his stable settings, then looked at mine and compared. I went through the whole timing stack noting what I had not messed with. I ended up diverting my attention to tRCDRD and tCKE. So, rather stupidly, I tightened some other timings I thought I could tighten and increased tRCDRD to 16 from 15 and tCKE to 3 from 1. It did get an error eventually, but instead of going 10 minutes, it popped up in the 1 hour mark. I went back into BIOS and just increased tCKE to 4 and bumped VDIMM to 1.51V in BIOS (so that in the OS I get 1.504V instead of 1.49V). Aaaand it worked. I just left it there testing and it went on and on and on. What surprised me was that the DIMMs were heating up considerably, reaching up to 55C. I thought they'd fail due to temperatures, but no, they just kept going without a care. So I think this is it. Below is a screenshot of testing in the 1 hour mark. I didn't take further screenshots, but when I shut off the AC temps did increase slightly to the aforementioned 55C, but nothing else changed.








I think I can call it a day. For now. Thank you both for your suggestions! You've been awesome!



Sleepycat said:


> Balanced. I still get reasonable scores in CB R20 and R23.
> View attachment 2522634
> 
> View attachment 2522635


What kind of voodoo are you up to with these scores? I have just finished (hopefully) overclocking my RAM and I also pushed my CPU with 200W PPT/180A TDC/160A EDC (I also tried 230W PPT/200A TDC/ 180A EDC and scores were only marginally higher, but temps reached over 90C) and set -20 to all cores and -12 to the 2 best ones in CO. I'm still "only" in the 8800-8900 range multi core in R20 and 622 single core (probably need to run Corecycler, that SC score looks rather low).


----------



## GRABibus

Could finally tweak my best timings with GDM off !!
I just add "1" to Twtrl and to twrrd and Addrcmdsetup to "56"

Nice improvments of performances :

GDM off, PBO/CO (In sig) :










I am now going to start stability tests 


*EDIT : instant crash Aida64 cache stress test.*

Have to work on timings and voltages.
Curently too lazy for such "RAM" efforts. Let's see in some days/weeks


----------



## Alemancio

AFAIK, Buildzoid recommends 4/6/4/8 for TRRD and TWTR. Try playing around with tWR (12?) and RttNom (unsure about this one but Ive seen 7 and 6 a lot in the DDR4 thread). I also cannot run your low voltages... I have to run CCD and IOD at 1.05V

Another thing, wasnt the Addrcmdsetup magic number 55?

Finally, word of advice. I was also using Karhu, up to 5000%, but noticed TM5 gave errors errors within 30mins...



GRABibus said:


> Could finally tweak my best timings with GDM off !!
> I just add "1" to Twtrl and to twrrd and Addrcmdsetup to "56"
> 
> Nice improvments of performances :
> 
> GDM off, PBO/CO (In sig) :
> 
> View attachment 2522769
> 
> 
> I am now going to start stability tests
> 
> 
> *EDIT : instant crash Aida64 cache stress test.*
> 
> Have to work on timings and voltages.
> Curently too lazy for such "RAM" efforts. Let's see in some days/weeks


----------



## Sleepycat

tolis626 said:


> What kind of voodoo are you up to with these scores? I have just finished (hopefully) overclocking my RAM and I also pushed my CPU with 200W PPT/180A TDC/160A EDC (I also tried 230W PPT/200A TDC/ 180A EDC and scores were only marginally higher, but temps reached over 90C) and set -20 to all cores and -12 to the 2 best ones in CO. I'm still "only" in the 8800-8900 range multi core in R20 and 622 single core (probably need to run Corecycler, that SC score looks rather low).
> View attachment 2522766


I found that you can increase your CB multi-core scores in 2 ways. First is with higher clock speeds (brute force) and the second is by slightly reducing the overall power consumption of the CPU (you are hitting 90+ºC), in order to maintain a higher average clock speed, similar to what we do with our GPUs in benchmarks.

To lower the power consumption, I recommend you try PPT 200W, TDC 140A, EDC 160A. It should help reduce your temperatures a bit and increase the average clock.

My 9309 score in CB R20 is at 4.775 GHz @ 1.375V (set through CTR2.1, for benchmarks only, it is not stable in AVX2). Temperatures were at 85-90 ºC from memory. So monitor your clock and voltage to see how what PBO gives you. If you can't get to the clock and voltage that you need through PBO, then you can try CTR to enter your specific clock you are targeting.


----------



## Sleepycat

Alemancio said:


> AFAIK, Buildzoid recommends 4/6/4/8 for TRRD and TWTR. Try playing around with tWR (12?) and RttNom (unsure about this one but Ive seen 7 and 6 a lot in the DDR4 thread). I also cannot run your low voltages... I have to run CCD and IOD at 1.05V


Nothing wrong with running VDDG CCD and IOD at 1.05V, it's not that high at all.


----------



## Alemancio

Sleepycat said:


> Nothing wrong with running VDDG CCD and IOD at 1.05V, it's not that high at all.


Yes, just saying GRABiBus can play with that, too


----------



## xProlific

Has anyone experienced this visual glitch with Karhu Ram Test ? It is triggered by hoovering my mouse over any of the tabs at the top of the program I don't even have to run the program or stress my system and it does this. Dragging the program on my desktop corrects the visual issue.


http://imgur.com/99YtpH7


----------



## GRABibus

xProlific said:


> Has anyone experienced this visual glitch with Karhu Ram Test ? It is triggered by hoovering my mouse over any of the tabs at the top of the program I don't even have to run the program or stress my system and it does this. Dragging the program on my desktop corrects the visual issue.
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/99YtpH7


Yes I expérience this.
Also with Zentiming. Not you ?


----------



## xProlific

GRABibus said:


> Yes I expérience this.
> Also with Zentiming. Not you ?


Yeah I see in in Zen timings as well usually with VSOC becoming blurry. I am not sure if this is a program bug or caused by an instability. Karhu Ram test has not been updated in ages so I was leaning toward it being a bug but I just wanted to confirm with others.


----------



## sonixmon

GRABibus said:


> Could finally tweak my best timings with GDM off !!
> I just add "1" to Twtrl and to twrrd and Addrcmdsetup to "56"
> 
> Nice improvments of performances :
> 
> GDM off, PBO/CO (In sig) :
> 
> View attachment 2522769
> 
> 
> I am now going to start stability tests
> 
> 
> *EDIT : instant crash Aida64 cache stress test.*
> 
> Have to work on timings and voltages.
> Curently too lazy for such "RAM" efforts. Let's see in some days/weeks


Several of us have been screaming at everyone to try the Addrcmdsetup 52-56 to get GDM Off! Where have you been??


----------



## GRABibus

sonixmon said:


> Several of us have been screaming at everyone to try the Addrcmdsetup 52-56 to get GDM Off! Where have you been??


this setting was not sufficient to boot.
I had to raise 2 timings by « 1 ».

but this is fully unstable, aida64 cache stress test crashes after 1 minute maximum.

I will post on stability Ryzen RAM thread and see which advices I can get to stabilize.


----------



## sonixmon

GRABibus said:


> this setting was not sufficient to boot.
> I had to raise 2 timings by « 1 ».
> 
> but this is fully unstable, aida64 cache stress test crashes after 1 minute maximum.
> 
> I will post on stability Ryzen RAM thread and see which advices I can get to stabilize.


Gotcha, keep us posted on your progress. I'm dealing with issues related to temps with new fan which I will post in other thread as well.


----------



## noxious89123

tolis626 said:


> Well, no, not this time. But I have run this CPU at 3800/1900 in the past already with no problems. It was just using XMP timings, bumped the voltage to like 1.45V to be on the safe side and just entered 3800/1900. I was just testing that, if the CPU is stable at 1900MHz fclk. It was fine, didn't even need high SoC/VDDP/IOD. Something else was failing me all these days, and it wasn't the CPU. I might have found the culprit, though. I don't know exactly what it is, but I think I'm onto something. See below.
> 
> (And of course, thanks for the suggestion)
> 
> Well, I was always of the mindset that even 1€ spent on watercooling RAM was wasted, because it didn't need the cooling. But it seems I've been stuck on DDR3 mentally. I always thought it was more of an aesthetics thing. Oh well, happy to be proven wrong I guess, if I ever do a custom loop, RAM's probably going in there too!
> 
> So, as I said above, I think I'm onto something. Yesterday night my insomnia kicked into high gear and I felt especially self punishing, so I went back to overclocking my RAM. I looked at the settings of another member of the forums using the same RAM as me, just in a dual rank 2x16GB config. So I looked at his stable settings, then looked at mine and compared. I went through the whole timing stack noting what I had not messed with. I ended up diverting my attention to tRCDRD and tCKE. So, rather stupidly, I tightened some other timings I thought I could tighten and increased tRCDRD to 16 from 15 and tCKE to 3 from 1. It did get an error eventually, but instead of going 10 minutes, it popped up in the 1 hour mark. I went back into BIOS and just increased tCKE to 4 and bumped VDIMM to 1.51V in BIOS (so that in the OS I get 1.504V instead of 1.49V). Aaaand it worked. I just left it there testing and it went on and on and on. What surprised me was that the DIMMs were heating up considerably, reaching up to 55C. I thought they'd fail due to temperatures, but no, they just kept going without a care. So I think this is it. Below is a screenshot of testing in the 1 hour mark. I didn't take further screenshots, but when I shut off the AC temps did increase slightly to the aforementioned 55C, but nothing else changed.
> View attachment 2522764
> 
> I think I can call it a day. For now. Thank you both for your suggestions! You've been awesome!
> 
> 
> What kind of voodoo are you up to with these scores? I have just finished (hopefully) overclocking my RAM and I also pushed my CPU with 200W PPT/180A TDC/160A EDC (I also tried 230W PPT/200A TDC/ 180A EDC and scores were only marginally higher, but temps reached over 90C) and set -20 to all cores and -12 to the 2 best ones in CO. I'm still "only" in the 8800-8900 range multi core in R20 and 622 single core (probably need to run Corecycler, that SC score looks rather low).
> View attachment 2522766


I don't think it's even a DDR3 vs DDR4 thing, I think my use case is just rather niche. It's the combination of using Samsung B-Die which is temperature sensitive, running it at higher speed than spec, lower latency than spec, higher voltage than spec, and having no directed airflow over the RAM. If I'd left it at it's specified speeds and timings it wouldn't care about being a little warm. Most other DDR4 won't achieve timings as tight as Samsung B-Die at the same speeds, and also doesn't like as much voltage either. The fact that Samsung B-Die scales so well with voltage and temperature is what makes it great for overclocking, but being sensitive to both temperature and voltage means that this memory is the exception to the rule that "RAM doesn't need cooling".

In CB R20 I'm getting 9066 mc and 646 sc, but I've spent a lot of time trying to dial in my CO settings; it seems that you haven't? I tried does -5 / -10 / -15 on all cores and everything seemed fine with that, with no immediately obvious instability, so then I just saved time by jumping to -30 all core, and running CoreCycler overnight.

I'm now at;
Core 0 -28
Core 1 -14
Core 2 -30
Core 3 -18
Core 4 -30
Core 5 -30
Core 6 -26
Core 7 -20
Core 8 -20
Core 9 -26
Core 10 -30
Core 11 -30



GRABibus said:


> Could finally tweak my best timings with GDM off !!
> I just add "1" to Twtrl and to twrrd and Addrcmdsetup to "56"
> 
> Nice improvments of performances :
> 
> GDM off, PBO/CO (In sig) :
> 
> View attachment 2522769
> 
> 
> I am now going to start stability tests
> 
> 
> *EDIT : instant crash Aida64 cache stress test.*
> 
> Have to work on timings and voltages.
> Curently too lazy for such "RAM" efforts. Let's see in some days/weeks


Try setting;
RttNom [RZQ/6]
RttWr [RZQ/3]
RttPark [RZQ/3]
This gained me stability when I was trying to get 1T working with MemAddrCmdSetup. I didn't need to change my Rtts when setting it to 56, but they helped when I reduced it to 53.



xProlific said:


> Has anyone experienced this visual glitch with Karhu Ram Test ? It is triggered by hoovering my mouse over any of the tabs at the top of the program I don't even have to run the program or stress my system and it does this. Dragging the program on my desktop corrects the visual issue.
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/99YtpH7





GRABibus said:


> Yes I expérience this.
> Also with Zentiming. Not you ?





xProlific said:


> Yeah I see in in Zen timings as well usually with VSOC becoming blurry. I am not sure if this is a program bug or caused by an instability. Karhu Ram test has not been updated in ages so I was leaning toward it being a bug but I just wanted to confirm with others.


I had this, and resolved it. It's caused by "nahimic service". I think it's part of Asus' software. I've noticed no ill effects from disabling it in.

Press Win + R, and type in services.msc to access the services window.
Sort alphabetically and scroll down to "nahimic service"
Right click it -> stop
Right click it -> properties
Change automatic to manual -> apply -> ok

Close and restart Zentimings / Karhu and the problem should be gone.


----------



## GRABibus

noxious89123 said:


> Try setting;
> RttNom [RZQ/6]
> RttWr [RZQ/3]
> RttPark [RZQ/3]
> This gained me stability when I was trying to get 1T working with MemAddrCmdSetup. I didn't need to change my Rtts when setting it to 56, but they helped when I reduced it to 53.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had this, and resolved it. It's caused by "nahimic service". I think it's part of Asus' software. I've noticed no ill effects from disabling it in.
> 
> Press Win + R, and type in services.msc to access the services window.
> Sort alphabetically and scroll down to "nahimic service"
> Right click it -> stop
> Right click it -> properties
> Change automatic to manual -> apply -> ok
> 
> Close and restart Zentimings / Karhu and the problem should be gone.


Even with RttNom set as you say, I have instant crash in Aida6 stress test.
I have raised all my timings by "2" a,nd set Vdimm at 1.53V, Vsoc at 1.2V, PLL at 1.9V and VTT at 0.75V, no way, still crash.

It will take some days/weeks before success...At the same time, if I am obliged to raise timings a lot, I will loose performances versus GDM enabled....



noxious89123 said:


> I had this, and resolved it. It's caused by "nahimic service". I think it's part of Asus' software. I've noticed no ill effects from disabling it in.
> 
> Press Win + R, and type in services.msc to access the services window.
> Sort alphabetically and scroll down to "nahimic service"
> Right click it -> stop
> Right click it -> properties
> Change automatic to manual -> apply -> ok
> 
> Close and restart Zentimings / Karhu and the problem should be gone.


It works ! Thanks.


----------



## xProlific

noxious89123 said:


> I had this, and resolved it. It's caused by "nahimic service". I think it's part of Asus' software. I've noticed no ill effects from disabling it in.
> 
> Press Win + R, and type in services.msc to access the services window.
> Sort alphabetically and scroll down to "nahimic service"
> Right click it -> stop
> Right click it -> properties
> Change automatic to manual -> apply -> ok
> 
> Close and restart Zentimings / Karhu and the problem should be gone.


Thanks, that fixed it for me as well.


----------



## Baio73

Hi there Overclockers
Just finished to squeeze my RAM following GitHub guide, but results don't seem to be satisfying...

This is the starting situation (all voltages @default):

 


Here's what I changed:

VDIMM 1.49 (read 1.48 from BIOS)
VSOC 1.13125 (1.112 from BIOS, 1.1125 from ZenTimings in idle, 1.106 under stress test)
CLDO VDDP & VDDG CCD 0.9 (0.89 from ZenTimings)

And here are the results:

 

So, what's the next step? Trying to siwtch GDM off? Any tips for that?

Any suggestion about lowering latency? AIDA benchmark was made in my normal Windows installation, no Safe Mode.

Thanks guys!

Baio


----------



## flyinion

noxious89123 said:


> I had this, and resolved it. It's caused by "nahimic service". I think it's part of Asus' software. I've noticed no ill effects from disabling it in.



Oh man thanks for the tip off on that. I think updating it through Windows Update optional updates fixed a similar issue I had with another app for a flight sim I use. The mfr. was trying to blame my video card being bad!

edit: Also I did find what happens if you disable the service. The Sonic Studio app can't talk to the audio hardware so you can't control the various sound stuff other than just volume from the windows volume control in the taskbar. So no bass/treble boost, reverb, different sound modes like music, game, etc.


----------



## noxious89123

flyinion said:


> Oh man thanks for the tip off on that. I think updating it through Windows Update optional updates fixed a similar issue I had with another app for a flight sim I use. The mfr. was trying to blame my video card being bad!
> 
> edit: Also I did find what happens if you disable the service. The Sonic Studio app can't talk to the audio hardware so you can't control the various sound stuff other than just volume from the windows volume control in the taskbar. So no bass/treble boost, reverb, different sound modes like music, game, etc.


Ah, good to know what it does! Thanks. I don't use any of the SonicStudio / SonicRadar stuff anyway, and have it disabled. It's all just bloatware imo.


----------



## flyinion

noxious89123 said:


> Ah, good to know what it does! Thanks. I don't use any of the SonicStudio / SonicRadar stuff anyway, and have it disabled. It's all just bloatware imo.


Yeah I use sonic studio just to tweak the bass etc on the sound but it’s in basic mode and the virtual mixer is disabled etc.


----------



## sonixmon

I disable onboard audio in Bios and removed all the software (I use USB 7.1 headphones) guess that's why I didn't see this.


----------



## lmfodor

GRABibus said:


> Could finally tweak my best timings with GDM off !!
> I just add "1" to Twtrl and to twrrd and Addrcmdsetup to "56"
> 
> Nice improvments of performances :
> 
> GDM off, PBO/CO (In sig) :
> 
> View attachment 2522769
> 
> 
> I am now going to start stability tests
> 
> 
> *EDIT : instant crash Aida64 cache stress test.*
> 
> Have to work on timings and voltages.
> Curently too lazy for such "RAM" efforts. Let's see in some days/weeks


Hi! That’s unbelievable!! Amazing I mean. Having the same memory kits for 6 months and also a 5900x with a Dark Hero I couldn’t lower tRCDRD from 16.. in fact my goal was to set 14-14-14-14 but it never worked. Could you share all your voltage information? And if it’s possible the BIOS output in Txt tiles? I would try your timings. No matter what I did, every time I tried to lowe RD to 15 or 14 a receive an spam or error or all kinds in TM5 1usmus. 6. 9. 0, 11. All of it until crash. So perhaps my voltages are no ok, or maybe some parameters or perhaps my IMC. But I would like to lower the primaries with this expensive memories to get a better bandwidth. 

Thanks!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## tolis626

Hey guys, quick question. Someone at the memory overclocking thread mentioned that there is a free code for Aida64 included with the Crosshair VII Hero after I said that I wasn't keen on throwing 50$ at FinalWire for a license just to run a benchmark. Thing is, I can't find it. Not only that, but the only mention I've found of such a thing online is a forum post in the ROG forums that says one can get it through the "Featured" tab in Armory Crate, under "Redeem". Thing is, there is no "Redeem" section on my Armory Crate. Any ideas? Is there even such a thing for this particular mobo?


----------



## Alemancio

Baio73 said:


> RAM following GitHub guide, but results don't seem to be satisfying...


Try: tFAW 16, tRTP 8, tRDWR 8, tWRRD 4. You should be getting 55ns


----------



## th30d0r3

bl4ckdot said:


> Might as well share some pics of the C8E here since I got one :
> View attachment 2522411
> 
> View attachment 2522412
> 
> View attachment 2522413
> 
> View attachment 2522414


Niice!!! Where did you source that?? I cannot find it anywhere.


----------



## bl4ckdot

th30d0r3 said:


> Niice!!! Where did you source that?? I cannot find it anywhere.


Alternate


----------



## kot0005

5900x CH 8 Formula here.

Cant go above 1866fclk without whea errors.

And i have to use like 1.14v soc

1900mhz boots but whea errors even with 1.16v soc

Am just running 1833 with 1.08soc and 3666 cl14 and get 57ns latency

My cpu overclocks well tho. 4 cores xan do -30 in CO

Running CTR 2.1 Gave my cpu gold sample


----------



## th30d0r3

Damn, none in stock. I wonder if the Dark Hero Nickel monoblock will fit this thing.


----------



## noxious89123

lmfodor said:


> Hi! That’s unbelievable!! Amazing I mean. Having the same memory kits for 6 months and also a 5900x with a Dark Hero I couldn’t lower tRCDRD from 16.. in fact my goal was to set 14-14-14-14 but it never worked. Could you share all your voltage information? And if it’s possible the BIOS output in Txt tiles? I would try your timings. No matter what I did, every time I tried to lowe RD to 15 or 14 a receive an spam or error or all kinds in TM5 1usmus. 6. 9. 0, 11. All of it until crash. So perhaps my voltages are no ok, or maybe some parameters or perhaps my IMC. But I would like to lower the primaries with this expensive memories to get a better bandwidth.
> 
> Thanks!!!


I am also unable to make tRCDRD work at anything below 16, although I have read that using Dual Rank modules makes it very hard on the IMC to do tRCDRD faster than that. Not sure how much truth is in that, as many people seem to be able to get it down to 14; not sure how many of those are on SR or DR though. I am using 2x16GB dual rank modules.


kot0005 said:


> 5900x CH 8 Formula here.
> 
> Cant go above 1866fclk without whea errors.
> 
> And i have to use like 1.14v soc
> 
> 1900mhz boots but whea errors even with 1.16v soc
> 
> Am just running 1833 with 1.08soc and 3666 cl14 and get 57ns latency
> 
> My cpu overclocks well tho. 4 cores xan do -30 in CO
> 
> Running CTR 2.1 Gave my cpu gold sample


Maybe you just got unlucky on the silicon lottery, not all Ryzen 5000 CPUs will manage 1900MHz Flck, it is an overclock after all and spec is only 1600MHz Fclk.


----------



## GRABibus

lmfodor said:


> Hi! That’s unbelievable!! Amazing I mean. Having the same memory kits for 6 months and also a 5900x with a Dark Hero I couldn’t lower tRCDRD from 16.. in fact my goal was to set 14-14-14-14 but it never worked. Could you share all your voltage information? And if it’s possible the BIOS output in Txt tiles? I would try your timings. No matter what I did, every time I tried to lowe RD to 15 or 14 a receive an spam or error or all kinds in TM5 1usmus. 6. 9. 0, 11. All of it until crash. So perhaps my voltages are no ok, or maybe some parameters or perhaps my IMC. But I would like to lower the primaries with this expensive memories to get a better bandwidth.
> 
> Thanks!!!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I will post my bios settings this evening.
But please note that despite I can boot and bench, this is fully unstable.


----------



## Baio73

Alemancio said:


> Try: tFAW 16, tRTP 8, tRDWR 8, tWRRD 4. You should be getting 55ns


Unfortunately those settings don't work for my RAM, I get error after 16 minutes:



And if I try an AIDA test, the result is way far from 55ns, it's quite the same as previous:



It seems like something is braking inside my RAM...

Baio


----------



## Requiem4u

Baio73 said:


> Unfortunately those settings don't work for my RAM, I get error after 16 minutes:
> 
> 
> 
> And if I try an AIDA test, the result is way far from 55ns, it's quite the same as previous:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like something is braking inside my RAM...
> 
> Baio


Seems like you have lot of crap installed. Try safe mode so you know where you really are. L3 latency should be something like 10.3. All latencies are too high.


----------



## noxious89123

Baio73 said:


> Unfortunately those settings don't work for my RAM, I get error after 16 minutes:
> 
> 
> 
> And if I try an AIDA test, the result is way far from 55ns, it's quite the same as previous:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like something is braking inside my RAM...
> 
> Baio


Your tRFC is rather low, it may be wise to increase it significantly whilst you're testing getting other timings lower. I've had atleast three other users tell me that I should increase mine before I try to lower other settings, and I'm "only" at 140ns, and you're at nearly 130ns!


Requiem4u said:


> Seems like you have lot of crap installed. Try safe mode so you know where you really are. L3 latency should be something like 10.3. All latencies are too high.


+1 to this. The fact that all your cache latencies are oddly high would point towards the CPU being busy whilst you're running AIDA64. I'd expect to see 0.8ns / 2.4ns / 10.1ns. My L2 and L3 might change by .1 or .2 between runs / how many background services I've closed down / CPU overclock. L1 cache is *always* 0.8ns in my tests.

How hot is your RAM getting when stress testing?


----------



## sonixmon

noxious89123 said:


> Your tRFC is rather low, it may be wise to increase it significantly whilst you're testing getting other timings lower. I've had atleast three other users tell me that I should increase mine before I try to lower other settings, and I'm "only" at 140ns, and you're at nearly 130ns!
> 
> +1 to this. The fact that all your cache latencies are oddly high would point towards the CPU being busy whilst you're running AIDA64. I'd expect to see 0.8ns / 2.4ns / 10.1ns. My L2 and L3 might change by .1 or .2 between runs / how many background services I've closed down / CPU overclock. L1 cache is *always* 0.8ns in my tests.
> 
> How hot is your RAM getting when stress testing?


+1 to check temps, I have the issue of heat affecting primaries and trfc. I have done some testing using fan and controlling my room AC. Depending on how tight I set these I will get errors between 42-45 degrees.Right now I can run stable to 48 anything over gets errors but my current OC keeps it to 45 during stress as long as my AC is on!


----------



## metalshark

kot0005 said:


> 5900x CH 8 Formula here.
> 
> Cant go above 1866fclk without whea errors.
> 
> And i have to use like 1.14v soc
> 
> 1900mhz boots but whea errors even with 1.16v soc
> 
> Am just running 1833 with 1.08soc and 3666 cl14 and get 57ns latency
> 
> My cpu overclocks well tho. 4 cores xan do -30 in CO
> 
> Running CTR 2.1 Gave my cpu gold sample


How much PLL? At least 1.87?


----------



## noxious89123

metalshark said:


> How much PLL? At least 1.87?


I've not heard or read anything about people adjusting PLL voltage, does it make a difference when trying to stabilise a high Fclk? Any sources on that info?


----------



## CyrIng

More Zen timings in CoreFreq new version 1.87.1








If you don't have Linux, CoreFreq comes with its auto-build ISO image to write on USB flash key.
In BIOS, you will have to disable SECURE BOOT, known mode CSM, to let UEFI boot that key.








Just sit and wait until CoreFreq shows up.

Any option surrounded by < > can be modified on the fly, such as P-State frequencies, Core Performance Boost, PL1, and so on.


----------



## metalshark

noxious89123 said:


> I've not heard or read anything about people adjusting PLL voltage, does it make a difference when trying to stabilise a high Fclk? Any sources on that info?


Yes it does, consider me a source.


----------



## xProlific

Has anyone not stable at 3800 tried removing the optional 4 Pin CPU Power connector. I read one experience of someone claiming that removing the extra power connector allowed them to achieve FCLK stability at 3800. Maybe worth a shot?


----------



## WINTENDOX

something wrong?


----------



## sonixmon

xProlific said:


> Has anyone not stable at 3800 tried removing the optional 4 Pin CPU Power connector. I read one experience of someone claiming that removing the extra power connector allowed them to achieve FCLK stability at 3800. Maybe worth a shot?


Interesting, not sure if or why this would make a difference but would also like to know if this worked for someone. Some of us would of course try to push to 1933+ then.


----------



## noxious89123

xProlific said:


> Has anyone not stable at 3800 tried removing the optional 4 Pin CPU Power connector. I read one experience of someone claiming that removing the extra power connector allowed them to achieve FCLK stability at 3800. Maybe worth a shot?


I'd love to know more about this, because logically it makes no sense, unless I'm missing something? I'm 100% not trying it, because my CPU power cables / sockets are the biggest PITA to get to. Definitely the worst part of my build, especially with this Corsair cables with capacitors near the ends. They're basically rigid and it makes routing cables a nightmare.


WINTENDOX said:


> something wrong?
> 
> View attachment 2523265


Assuming that this is stable, the only thing I see "wrong" is that your memory latency is higher than I'd expect. Closing down all your background tasks and unneccesary services can make a big difference to the results here. An easier way to get more reliable and consistent results is to run the AIDA64 test whilst booted in safe mode.

Your voltages also seem pretty wacky to me, but then I've felt that way about a lot of other users' ZenTimings screenshots, so maybe me setttings are the ones which are weird!



metalshark said:


> Yes it does, consider me a source.


It's definitely something I'll look in to, however I'd want to see corroborating data before I was comfortable knowing that this is both safe as well as beneficial. If you know of any other sources that corroborate your findings I'd love to see them.
The only info I've been able to find so far suggests either than PLL should be locked at 1.8v or can be increased to help stabilise a Bclk overclock. I will do further digging!
EDIT: I did find a post on the ROG forums, where a user talks about increasing PLL voltage substantially to achieve 2000 Fclk. They mention increasing it to 2.25v! Which honestly to me sounds dangerous.




__





We'll be back.






rog.asus.com


----------



## Akex

Hello, 
When I put my computer in sleeping mode, after a while it gets out of the sleeping mode without me doing anything. Has any of you encountered a similar situation in this thread and has a solution been found? 
Thank you


----------



## GRABibus

Akex said:


> Hello,
> When I put my computer in sleeping mode, after a while it gets out of the sleeping mode without me doing anything. Has any of you encountered a similar situation in this thread and has a solution been found?
> Thank you


an exorcist maybe ? 😊


----------



## noxious89123

Akex said:


> Hello,
> When I put my computer in sleeping mode, after a while it gets out of the sleeping mode without me doing anything. Has any of you encountered a similar situation in this thread and has a solution been found?
> Thank you


I don't use any sleep modes, sorry!

What hardware are you using, what BIOS version, operating system etc?


----------



## metalshark

noxious89123 said:


> I'd love to know more about this, because logically it makes no sense, unless I'm missing something? I'm 100% not trying it, because my CPU power cables / sockets are the biggest PITA to get to. Definitely the worst part of my build, especially with this Corsair cables with capacitors near the ends. They're basically rigid and it makes routing cables a nightmare.
> 
> Assuming that this is stable, the only thing I see "wrong" is that your memory latency is higher than I'd expect. Closing down all your background tasks and unneccesary services can make a big difference to the results here. An easier way to get more reliable and consistent results is to run the AIDA64 test whilst booted in safe mode.
> 
> Your voltages also seem pretty wacky to me, but then I've felt that way about a lot of other users' ZenTimings screenshots, so maybe me setttings are the ones which are weird!
> 
> 
> It's definitely something I'll look in to, however I'd want to see corroborating data before I was comfortable knowing that this is both safe as well as beneficial. If you know of any other sources that corroborate your findings I'd love to see them.
> The only info I've been able to find so far suggests either than PLL should be locked at 1.8v or can be increased to help stabilise a Bclk overclock. I will do further digging!
> EDIT: I did find a post on the ROG forums, where a user talks about increasing PLL voltage substantially to achieve 2000 Fclk. They mention increasing it to 2.25v! Which honestly to me sounds dangerous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We'll be back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rog.asus.com


Buildzoid said up to 1.9v was fine for 24/7 on Discord (questions-and-video-topics-suggestions channel on 15th Jan 2021). I don't know what "source" you want? Personally can't get to a decent speed at 1900/3800 without at least 1.87v on my chip, your mileage may vary and haven't heard of people getting decent speeds at 1900/3800 and beyond without tweaking PLL. Can drop the RAM timings with PLL on 1.8v though but no point in doing so. Even on this thread, it's been discussed a load.


----------



## Baio73

Requiem4u said:


> Seems like you have lot of crap installed. Try safe mode so you know where you really are. L3 latency should be something like 10.3. All latencies are too high.


The test in Windows Safe Mode is slightly better:



I'll try to figure out if I can disable something in Windows Startup... but the point is choosing between 3800 CAS16 @def voltage and 3800 CAS14 @1.49v is a no go if the perfomarmance improvement is so low... I need all the installed crap, otherwise I would not install it!  
Baio


----------



## Baio73

noxious89123 said:


> Your tRFC is rather low, it may be wise to increase it significantly whilst you're testing getting other timings lower. I've had atleast three other users tell me that I should increase mine before I try to lower other settings, and I'm "only" at 140ns, and you're at nearly 130ns!
> 
> +1 to this. The fact that all your cache latencies are oddly high would point towards the CPU being busy whilst you're running AIDA64. I'd expect to see 0.8ns / 2.4ns / 10.1ns. My L2 and L3 might change by .1 or .2 between runs / how many background services I've closed down / CPU overclock. L1 cache is *always* 0.8ns in my tests.
> 
> How hot is your RAM getting when stress testing?


I'd give a try to raising tRFC, but I'm thinking all this work has a so little return in terms of performance that it's not worth of.
RAM temperature under stress goes up to 62-65C, 45C in idle/normal usage.

Baio


----------



## Baio73

sonixmon said:


> +1 to check temps, I have the issue of heat affecting primaries and trfc. I have done some testing using fan and controlling my room AC. Depending on how tight I set these I will get errors between 42-45 degrees.Right now I can run stable to 48 anything over gets errors but my current OC keeps it to 45 during stress as long as my AC is on!


RAM temperature has in above post... any tip for trying GDM off?
I'm thinking of leaving my RAM @def voltage and 3800 CAS 16 but trying to set GDM off... maybe I have a better performance improvement.

Baio


----------



## Sleepycat

Akex said:


> Hello,
> When I put my computer in sleeping mode, after a while it gets out of the sleeping mode without me doing anything. Has any of you encountered a similar situation in this thread and has a solution been found?
> Thank you


You have a joystick or game controller connected? Is your PC set to take up on mouse movement?


----------



## GRABibus

metalshark said:


> Buildzoid said up to 1.9v was fine for 24/7 on Discord (questions-and-video-topics-suggestions channel on 15th Jan 2021). I don't know what "source" you want? Personally can't get to a decent speed at 1900/3800 without at least 1.87v on my chip, your mileage may vary and haven't heard of people getting decent speeds at 1900/3800 and beyond without tweaking PLL. Can drop the RAM timings with PLL on 1.8v though but no point in doing so. Even on this thread, it's been discussed a load.


I am fully stable 3800/1900 with no tweak on PLL (1.8V).
Problem for me is beyond, 3866/1933. => Whatever the voltages, no boot. I will try again by relaxing my timings ....


----------



## WINTENDOX

safe mode is very different.


----------



## sonixmon

Baio73 said:


> RAM temperature has in above post... any tip for trying GDM off?
> I'm thinking of leaving my RAM @def voltage and 3800 CAS 16 but trying to set GDM off... maybe I have a better performance improvement.
> 
> Baio


The temps could be your issue, from what I read and my personal experience B-Die very sensitive to temps over 50. My particular set doesn't like anything over 44-48 depending on how tight I set the timings. For the record going from 3800 16 to 14 has not made that much real world difference for me but I like to push things as far as they can safely go and remain stable. If you aren't able to improve temps or timings I would not sweat it.

For GMD off have you tried AddrCmdSetup56?



GRABibus said:


> I am fully stable 3800/1900 with no tweak on PLL (1.8V).
> Problem for me is beyond, 3866/1933. => Whatever the voltages, no boot. I will try again by relaxing my timings ....


I am going to try this too, when testing fclk I usually go auto on ram timings to eliminate ram OC issues.


----------



## butt_yodel

New with BIOS 3801 - frequent (every couple of boots) d0 POST codes, clearable with the CLEAR CMOS button, and nothing else. After clearing CMOS, I can reload the problematic profile again without any issues. Anyone else?


----------



## noxious89123

metalshark said:


> Buildzoid said up to 1.9v was fine for 24/7 on Discord (questions-and-video-topics-suggestions channel on 15th Jan 2021). I don't know what "source" you want?


I get the impression that you're offended? It wasn't my intention to cause offence. Usually if there is something that works well, many people discuss it / post about it etc, and so it's widely corroborated information; such as setting vSOC to 1.1v.

I spend a decent amount of time on r/overclocking and on OCN, and on other tech websites, watching YouTube videos etc, and your post is the first suggestion I have seen regarding a link between PLL voltage and Infinity Fabric stability, so I hope you can understand my skepticism. If we all just adjusted voltages simply based on the word of a single unknown individual online, then I expect we'd see a lot more damaged components from overclocking. Not to imply that you are wrong, or have malicious intent etc, but over the years there have been many claims from many users of "safe voltages", often with no further evidence offered.

So I asked a prudent question. I hope you understand. Buildzoid is a well known and respected figure in the overclocking community, so I do consider that a good bit of back-up to your information. I do appreciate you sharing it! 



metalshark said:


> haven't heard of people getting decent speeds at 1900/3800 and beyond without tweaking PLL


Conversely, I haven't heard of _anyone_ having to touch PLL to achieve those speeds!



metalshark said:


> Even on this thread, it's been discussed a load.


I was quite late to the party with Ryzen 5000, so I hope you can forgive me for not reading all 400+ pages of this topic. Generally if I get stuck with a certain part of an overclock I'll Google it and speak with other users on Reddit; again, at no point has adjusting PLL voltage came up during my research, so I do hope you can understand my skepticism and that you haven't taken my doubt personally.

I will definitely look in to it!




Baio73 said:


> I'm thinking all this work has a so little return in terms of performance that it's not worth of.


I mean, that's really the name of the game with overclocking. It's pretty rare these days to get big performance gains for minimal effort. Everything is so efficiently tuned out of the box that there's isn't huge amount to be gained; not like back in the Sandy Bridge era where you could a >+1GHz overclock on your CPU and run 2133 memory on an IMC spec'd for only upto 1333. I spend lots of time tweaking because I enjoy it 

By the way, if you click the "Quote+" button on multiple comments, you can then click "Insert quotes" when writing a reply. This way you can reply to many quotes (like in this post) without having to multi-post 



sonixmon said:


> when testing fclk I usually go auto on ram timings to eliminate ram OC issues.


On my Dark Hero I found that at times, the auto set RAM timings have been absolute dog poop, without coming close to stability. Often failing to even pass POST at relatively low speeds. Manually setting loose timings is what got me up and running. With that said, I think my RAM is _not_ on the QVL list.


----------



## sonixmon

Interesting development with PLL voltage on my setup. I played around with this and results below. Keep in mind previous attempts to go past 1900 on fclk resulted in sluggish bios, slow windows boot and WHEA city. 2000 would not post.

[email protected] will post at 1933/66 and bios seems fine. Boots to windows normally but WHEA errors.
[email protected] will actually post @2000 fclk but of course WHEA errors. Windows actually boots normally etc. 1933 runs better but WHEA errors during stress test.

I did not attempt to adjust SOC voltage etc. which might be required however I would not feel comfortable past 1.9 on PLL so not going to try anything else.


----------



## noxious89123

sonixmon said:


> Interesting development with PLL voltage on my setup. I played around with this and results below. Keep in mind previous attempts to go past 1900 on fclk resulted in sluggish bios, slow windows boot and WHEA city. 2000 would not post.
> 
> [email protected] will post at 1933/66 and bios seems fine. Boots to windows normally but WHEA errors.
> [email protected] will actually post @2000 fclk but of course WHEA errors. Windows actually boots normally etc. 1933 runs better but WHEA errors during stress test.
> 
> I did not attempt to adjust SOC voltage etc. which might be required however I would not feel comfortable past 1.9 on PLL so not going to try anything else.
> 
> View attachment 2523430


Interesting stuff, it definitely sounds like it's worth looking at! I'm glad that metalshark mentioned it!

I was able to boot 2000Fclk from day one with everything on AUTO settings (but RAM unlinked and set to 3200, for testing Fclk only). Most stress tests make it look stable, but once I started looking out for and monitoring WHEA's I realised that it was far from stable.

Will be exciting to see if tweaking PLL will get me to 1933 or beyond, although I'll have to start RAM overclocking from the beginning if I go to 3866 ;_;

To clarify, default PLL voltage is 1.8v? Do we know what is a safe maximum, what parts it will increase the temperature of etc? Is it a part of the motherboard, or is it on the CPU / IO die etc?


----------



## GRABibus

Did some of you try this ?









WHEAService, WHEA errors suppressor - unleash Ryzen...


Doesn't work with Windows 11 Either it's a bug, I have reported it, or Microsoft decided for you that is better you always get WHEA whatever you like it or not (more likely this one) Due to the high number of WHEA errors clogging the system, running a Ryzen with high FCLK incurs in a...




www.overclock.net


----------



## sonixmon

noxious89123 said:


> Interesting stuff, it definitely sounds like it's worth looking at! I'm glad that metalshark mentioned it!
> 
> I was able to boot 2000Fclk from day one with everything on AUTO settings (but RAM unlinked and set to 3200, for testing Fclk only). Most stress tests make it look stable, but once I started looking out for and monitoring WHEA's I realised that it was far from stable.
> 
> Will be exciting to see if tweaking PLL will get me to 1933 or beyond, although I'll have to start RAM overclocking from the beginning if I go to 3866 ;_;
> 
> To clarify, default PLL voltage is 1.8v? Do we know what is a safe maximum, what parts it will increase the temperature of etc? Is it a part of the motherboard, or is it on the CPU / IO die etc?


1.8v is default. From what I can find online most say 1.9v safe for daily, some said 2.1v but I am not willing to test that. For me 1.9-1.995 was yellow in bios so I didn't go past that. It is fed to CPU and does add a little heat (some say 3-5c).


----------



## Akex

GRABibus said:


> Did some of you try this ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHEAService, WHEA errors suppressor - unleash Ryzen...
> 
> 
> Doesn't work with Windows 11 Either it's a bug, I have reported it, or Microsoft decided for you that is better you always get WHEA whatever you like it or not (more likely this one) Due to the high number of WHEA errors clogging the system, running a Ryzen with high FCLK incurs in a...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


Yes, bad idea in my opinion, masks a real problem. Used only for benchmarking.


----------



## sonixmon

Akex said:


> Yes, bad idea in my opinion, masks a real problem. Used only for benchmarking.


Agree, I wouldn't run Daily knowing there's errors happening in the background even if it is autocorrecting etc. I might try some other voltages they talk about along with the PLL though for grins.


----------



## kx11

All PCi slots are busy  i hope the bandwidth isn't harmed


----------



## noxious89123

GRABibus said:


> Did some of you try this ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHEAService, WHEA errors suppressor - unleash Ryzen...
> 
> 
> Doesn't work with Windows 11 Either it's a bug, I have reported it, or Microsoft decided for you that is better you always get WHEA whatever you like it or not (more likely this one) Due to the high number of WHEA errors clogging the system, running a Ryzen with high FCLK incurs in a...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


I've seen it, but I have a dim view of it tbh. It's not fixing WHEA errors, merely hiding them and preventing them from creating a performance penalty by spamming log files. It might be good for attempting record setting benchmark scores, but I would expect it to corrupt and ruin files in the long term.


Akex said:


> Yes, bad idea in my opinion, masks a real problem. Used only for benchmarking.





sonixmon said:


> Agree, I wouldn't run Daily knowing there's errors happening in the background even if it is autocorrecting etc. I might try some other voltages they talk about along with the PLL though for grins.


+1


----------



## xeizo

Crosshair 8 Extreme is doing good, mostly besting my C8H WiFi using the same old launch day CPU. The hard thing is to balance the voltage curve against getting idle black screen. This has been stable for a couple of hours, touch wood ....


















































3D Mark Time Spy is good, CPU mostly stays at 4.8GHz flat throughout the run!


----------



## Requiem4u

xeizo said:


> Crosshair 8 Extreme is doing good, mostly besting my C8H WiFi using the same old launch day CPU. The hard thing is to balance the voltage curve against getting idle black screen. This has been stable for a couple of hours, touch wood ....
> 
> View attachment 2523501
> 
> View attachment 2523502
> 
> View attachment 2523503
> 
> View attachment 2523504
> 
> View attachment 2523505
> 
> View attachment 2523506
> 
> 
> 3D Mark Time Spy is good, CPU mostly stays at 4.8GHz flat throughout the run!
> 
> View attachment 2523509


Have you tryed Dynamic OC Switcher?


----------



## xeizo

Requiem4u said:


> Have you tryed Dynamic OC Switcher?


Just briefly, I could easily keep single core perf while limiting multi core power output to a desired level. Must be great for silent rigs and things like that. I haven't dug deep into it, as I have ok cooling, the cpu can consume 190W package power while being under 80C with some margin.

In the examples above I used V-Latch which is also a new feature.

There are some other features, for controlling voltage curves, looks esoteric to me but I will dive into it. It's a very advanced mobo. In the right hands, with a good cpu sample and some exotic cooling this is bound for breaking records.

edit. V-Latch has allowed me to have boost up to 5075MHz on three cores and 4900MHz boost on the worst cores, without getting black screen, not fully confirmed as I haven't tried for more than five hours straight. But looks promising. Without V-Latch I couldn't allow over 5025MHz on any core without getting black screen, and worst cores was 4700-4800MHz boost. Looks like a clear improvement already, and I have barely started testing.

edit 2. Not a single WHEA so far.


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> Crosshair 8 Extreme is doing good, mostly besting my C8H WiFi using the same old launch day CPU. The hard thing is to balance the voltage curve against getting idle black screen. This has been stable for a couple of hours, touch wood ....
> 
> View attachment 2523501
> 
> View attachment 2523502
> 
> View attachment 2523503
> 
> View attachment 2523504
> 
> View attachment 2523505
> 
> View attachment 2523506
> 
> 
> 3D Mark Time Spy is good, CPU mostly stays at 4.8GHz flat throughout the run!
> 
> View attachment 2523509


I get roughly same scores as you in CBR20 with my C8H.

But in TimeSpy, I make between 15700 and 16100 CPU score depending on ambient temps.
I am sure you should score in this range too.









I scored 21 230 in Time Spy


AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




 www.3dmark.com


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> I get roughly same scores as you in CBR20 with my C8H.
> 
> But in TimeSpy, I make between 15700 and 16100 CPU score depending on ambient temps.
> I am sure you should score in this range too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 21 230 in Time Spy
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2523558


Fantastic score! Possibly I could get there, but I'm doubtful as my particular cpu is a bit of a lemon with one really bad core. Of course I'll try to better my scores, but the real comparison for me is with my own cpu against itself and not some other presumably much better sample  Btw, I run with full a blown Windows install and don't shut down any services etc, could be a couple of hundred points just doing that but I'm interested in real world performance using my daily driver config.

I see we have different PBO settings, I could win some there I guess, I run 220-140-160 +125MHz. It looks like your 170-115-155 +200MHz is better, but I don't think my cpu can do +200 without black screening. As I said, it's a lemon. I will try your settings though!


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> Fantastic score! Possibly I could get there, but I'm doubtful as my particular cpu is a bit of a lemon with one really bad core. Of course I'll try to better my scores, but the real comparison for me is with my own cpu against itself and not some other presumably much better sample  Btw, I run with full a blown Windows install and don't shut down any services etc, could be a couple of hundred points just doing that but I'm interested in real world performance using my daily driver config.


Try this score 









I scored 21 201 in Time Spy


AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> Try this score
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 21 201 in Time Spy
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com


Very nice, your gpu is only 1MHz higher average though(2063 vs 2062)  But has a lot more sps of course. As to cpu, I run 5074MHz max and you run 5149MHz max, I guess that's the bulk of the cpu points.


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> Fantastic score! Possibly I could get there, but I'm doubtful as my particular cpu is a bit of a lemon with one really bad core. Of course I'll try to better my scores, but the real comparison for me is with my own cpu against itself and not some other presumably much better sample  Btw, I run with full a blown Windows install and don't shut down any services etc, could be a couple of hundred points just doing that but I'm interested in real world performance using my daily driver config.
> 
> I see we have different PBO settings, I could win some there I guess, I run 220-140-160 +125MHz. It looks like your 170-115-155 +200MHz is better, but I don't think my cpu can do +200 without black screening. As I said, it's a lemon. I will try your settings though!


I run170-115-155 because anything higher makes me crash in Realbench.
Maybe my cooling is not sufficient to get higher voltage headroom during stress test, then I crash…


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> Very nice, your gpu is only 1MHz higher average though(2063 vs 2062)


I don’t understand what you mean…? 😊


----------



## xeizo

I tried your PBO settings, almost identical score(to my old), so there is something else going on. I'll figure it out, eventually ...

I reverted to my own settings, as they have been stable for over six hours now, but not stable as in stable of course only looking promising


----------



## sonixmon

sonixmon said:


> Interesting, not sure if or why this would make a difference but would also like to know if this worked for someone. Some of us would of course try to push to 1933+ then.


So I played around with this a little more today, removed 4-pin after initial voltage testing and it seamed like it actually helped (1st time booting into Windows without any WHEA) and I could get closer with less WHEA while testing but could not eliminate them. Tried various voltages for fclk and PLL to levels I would not run daily just briefly but wouldn't go past a certain safe level (only a few to red level in bios). Not worth the risk or the heat or CPU damage so I will be content at 3800 even though the ram didn't seem to mind it at all (testing at CL16 anyway). With the last test my score crossed 60 on read but Copy still suffered as well as latency (expected with WHEA errors).


----------



## xProlific

sonixmon said:


> So I played around with this a little more today, removed 4-pin after initial voltage testing and it seamed like it actually helped (1st time booting into Windows without any WHEA) and I could get closer with less WHEA while testing but could not eliminate them. Tried various voltages for fclk and PLL to levels I would not run daily just briefly but wouldn't go past a certain safe level (only a few to red level in bios). Not worth the risk or the heat or CPU damage so I will be content at 3800 even though the ram didn't seem to mind it at all (testing at CL16 anyway). With the last test my score crossed 60 on read but Copy still suffered as well as latency (expected with WHEA errors).


Interesting, I may try testing with the 4 pin removed when I have time to see if it helps eliminate WHEA errors for me. I cannot run over 3666 without getting WHEA errors...really bad luck on the IMC lottery.


----------



## sonixmon

xProlific said:


> Interesting, I may try testing with the 4 pin removed when I have time to see if it helps eliminate WHEA errors for me. I cannot run over 3666 without getting WHEA errors...really bad luck on the IMC lottery.


Play will PLL 1.9+ as well, that helps me with WHEA but unfortunately doesn't eliminate them.


----------



## xProlific

Here are my current settings. Around as far as I can push. Pushing the infinity fabric higher to 1866 results in a few WHEA errors 1900 is a constant flow of errors. I haven't messed with PLL so I'll keep that in mind next time I try for increased speeds.


----------



## tolis626

xProlific said:


> Here are my current settings. Around as far as I can push. Pushing the infinity fabric higher to 1866 results in a few WHEA errors 1900 is a constant flow of errors. I haven't messed with PLL so I'll keep that in mind next time I try for increased speeds.
> View attachment 2523611


Hey man, maybe you wanna try increasing your SoC and CCD voltages. 1.0875V for SoC is rather on the low side for 1900MHz (although mine can do it, I still run it at 1.125V just to be safe). Also, 0.95V on the CCD leaves you with a lot of headroom. Here's my settings for comparison.









Start from like 1.0V on the CCD votlage and work your way from there, maybe?


----------



## Sleepycat

Been messing around with the new Hydra after joining 1usmus' Patreon. Really enjoying what it brings over CTR2.1. It has a lot more control, and finding the right settings is currently done in just 1 single button press (Diagnostic). Very happy with it. For those who have had success with CTR2.1 and want more from it, I do recommend giving it a go.

Screenshot of my PC running CB R23. You can see that there is an algorithm so that Hydra can differentiate between SSE/Game, AVX and AVX2 loads, switching the voltages/clocks appropriately to maintain stability. 2nd screenshot shows that you can adjust Hydra's Curve Optimizer settings while in OS (leave CO in bios to Auto). There are 2 banks of CO, one for lower thread loads and another for heavy thread loads.

The other amazing thing is that after finishing diagnostics and activating the profile with minimal further adjustments (unlike CTR 2.1), I could pass OCCT Small Extreme AVX2! This normally causes issues with CTR 2.1 settings unless subtract 100MHz from the all core load clocks to accomodate AVX2 code.


----------



## xProlific

tolis626 said:


> Hey man, maybe you wanna try increasing your SoC and CCD voltages. 1.0875V for SoC is rather on the low side for 1900MHz (although mine can do it, I still run it at 1.125V just to be safe). Also, 0.95V on the CCD leaves you with a lot of headroom. Here's my settings for comparison.
> Start from like 1.0V on the CCD votlage and work your way from there, maybe?


My SOC voltage is set to 1.11875 in the bios but I have tried as high as 1.15 but I still still get WHEA errors at 1866MHz and 1900MHz. I have also run as high as 1.05 for CCD and IOD with no luck as well. I have not touched PLL or tried disabling DF cStates if those settings make any difference. If you have any other suggestions of things to try let me know, I am so close to infinity fabric stability at1866MHz, that might be achievable with the right combination of settings.


----------



## xeizo

I run Vsoc at 1.05V, droops to 1.043V, has been running fine for over a year on three different motherboards. Maybe too high ain't that good.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> Been messing around with the new Hydra after joining 1usmus' Patreon. Really enjoying what it brings over CTR2.1. It has a lot more control, and finding the right settings is currently done in just 1 single button press (Diagnostic). Very happy with it. For those who have had success with CTR2.1 and want more from it, I do recommend giving it a go.
> 
> Screenshot of my PC running CB R23. You can see that there is an algorithm so that Hydra can differentiate between SSE/Game, AVX and AVX2 loads, switching the voltages/clocks appropriately to maintain stability. 2nd screenshot shows that you can adjust Hydra's Curve Optimizer settings while in OS (leave CO in bios to Auto). There are 2 banks of CO, one for lower thread loads and another for heavy thread loads.
> 
> The other amazing thing is that after finishing diagnostics and activating the profile with minimal further adjustments (unlike CTR 2.1), I could pass OCCT Small Extreme AVX2! This normally causes issues with CTR 2.1 settings unless subtract 100MHz from the all core load clocks to accomodate AVX2 code.


Thanks for sharing this!
I honestly gave up on CTR after testing a LOT of versions and alway finding it to be less stable and less performance in REAL WORLD than my PBO settings but based on your feedback looks like it is time for me totry this new Hydra one!


----------



## sonixmon

Sleepycat said:


> Been messing around with the new Hydra after joining 1usmus' Patreon. Really enjoying what it brings over CTR2.1. It has a lot more control, and finding the right settings is currently done in just 1 single button press (Diagnostic). Very happy with it. For those who have had success with CTR2.1 and want more from it, I do recommend giving it a go.
> 
> Screenshot of my PC running CB R23. You can see that there is an algorithm so that Hydra can differentiate between SSE/Game, AVX and AVX2 loads, switching the voltages/clocks appropriately to maintain stability. 2nd screenshot shows that you can adjust Hydra's Curve Optimizer settings while in OS (leave CO in bios to Auto). There are 2 banks of CO, one for lower thread loads and another for heavy thread loads.
> 
> The other amazing thing is that after finishing diagnostics and activating the profile with minimal further adjustments (unlike CTR 2.1), I could pass OCCT Small Extreme AVX2! This normally causes issues with CTR 2.1 settings unless subtract 100MHz from the all core load clocks to accomodate AVX2 code.
> 
> View attachment 2523632
> 
> View attachment 2523633


+1

I also subscribed, it helped my temps and OC/Bench. I have not done any manual tweaking yet and am waiting to see new versions (how far they he can take auto).


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> Been messing around with the new Hydra after joining 1usmus' Patreon. Really enjoying what it brings over CTR2.1. It has a lot more control, and finding the right settings is currently done in just 1 single button press (Diagnostic). Very happy with it. For those who have had success with CTR2.1 and want more from it, I do recommend giving it a go.
> 
> Screenshot of my PC running CB R23. You can see that there is an algorithm so that Hydra can differentiate between SSE/Game, AVX and AVX2 loads, switching the voltages/clocks appropriately to maintain stability. 2nd screenshot shows that you can adjust Hydra's Curve Optimizer settings while in OS (leave CO in bios to Auto). There are 2 banks of CO, one for lower thread loads and another for heavy thread loads.
> 
> The other amazing thing is that after finishing diagnostics and activating the profile with minimal further adjustments (unlike CTR 2.1), I could pass OCCT Small Extreme AVX2! This normally causes issues with CTR 2.1 settings unless subtract 100MHz from the all core load clocks to accomodate AVX2 code.





Sleepycat said:


> Been messing around with the new Hydra after joining 1usmus' Patreon. Really enjoying what it brings over CTR2.1. It has a lot more control, and finding the right settings is currently done in just 1 single button press (Diagnostic). Very happy with it. For those who have had success with CTR2.1 and want more from it, I do recommend giving it a go.
> 
> Screenshot of my PC running CB R23. You can see that there is an algorithm so that Hydra can differentiate between SSE/Game, AVX and AVX2 loads, switching the voltages/clocks appropriately to maintain stability. 2nd screenshot shows that you can adjust Hydra's Curve Optimizer settings while in OS (leave CO in bios to Auto). There are 2 banks of CO, one for lower thread loads and another for heavy thread loads.
> 
> The other amazing thing is that after finishing diagnostics and activating the profile with minimal further adjustments (unlike CTR 2.1), I could pass OCCT Small Extreme AVX2! This normally causes issues with CTR 2.1 settings unless subtract 100MHz from the all core load clocks to accomodate AVX2 code.


Did you tweak the BIOS other than RAM and the LCC level suggested on the PDF that came with Hydra? Or did you tweak voltages, PBO voltages etc?


----------



## Requiem4u

xProlific said:


> Here are my current settings. Around as far as I can push. Pushing the infinity fabric higher to 1866 results in a few WHEA errors 1900 is a constant flow of errors. I haven't messed with PLL so I'll keep that in mind next time I try for increased speeds.
> View attachment 2523611


I had same issue and have same motherboard. Try VSOC 1.14, IOD 1.05, CCD 0.85 and VDDP 0.85. Those are best for me.
Then you can run Aida64 mem and cache test FCLK1900 and count WHEA errors. If errors exist, change one voltage at a time and run Aida again to see if it is better.


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> Did you tweak the BIOS other than RAM and the LCC level suggested on the PDF that came with Hydra? Or did you tweak voltages, PBO voltages etc?


I am using my exact same settings as before. The only thing I changed was setting CO offset to Auto. My previous settings did already have CPU LLC at 3.

For reference, PPT 200W, TDC 140A, EDC 170A, thermal platform limit 85°C, CPU and SOC are LLC 3.


----------



## noxious89123

sonixmon said:


> So I played around with this a little more today, removed 4-pin after initial voltage testing and it seamed like it actually helped (1st time booting into Windows without any WHEA) and I could get closer with less WHEA while testing but could not eliminate them. Tried various voltages for fclk and PLL to levels I would not run daily just briefly but wouldn't go past a certain safe level (only a few to red level in bios). Not worth the risk or the heat or CPU damage so I will be content at 3800 even though the ram didn't seem to mind it at all (testing at CL16 anyway). With the last test my score crossed 60 on read but Copy still suffered as well as latency (expected with WHEA errors).
> 
> View attachment 2523589
> View attachment 2523590


It might be worth contacting Asus about this, as I can't imagine it is expected or desired behaviour.


----------



## sonixmon

noxious89123 said:


> It might be worth contacting Asus about this, as I can't imagine it is expected or desired behaviour.


I am not sure if it really made a difference, was coincidental or related to recent improvements in my voltage and ohm settings (though I tried it before and after unplugging). It seemed to be different but I still have it unplugged with my 3800 profile. I did save a 4000 profile for testing so I might test again without 4-pin and then plug back in for a run to see if there is really a difference.

Not sure Asus would care since it is an OC issue.


----------



## xeizo

sonixmon said:


> Not sure Asus would care since it is an OC issue.


Of course they care, since they make OC motherboards. Even extreme ones. And have been doing for a long time.


----------



## WINTENDOX

I had a hard time downloading it but I'm getting there little by little.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> I am using my exact same settings as before. The only thing I changed was setting CO offset to Auto. My previous settings did already have CPU LLC at 3.
> 
> For reference, PPT 200W, TDC 140A, EDC 170A, thermal platform limit 85°C, CPU and SOC are LLC 3.


I tried it but once again I cannot beat my own PBO and CO settings. One thing I notice is I cannot add higher than 1.475 to the 1t-2t cores. I am pretty sure by default the 5950x can hit up to 1.5 so by having that limitation in Hydra I cannot get 5ghz stable thus I lose performance in real world applications and even CB20 for example. Trying to push 5ghz witht he max voltage allowed in Hydra ends up getting reboots eventually. :/


----------



## sonixmon

xeizo said:


> Of course they care, since they make OC motherboards. Even extreme ones. And have been doing for a long time.


If I thought it was a MB issue I would check with them but did more testing.

I tested this morning before I changed anything I loaded my 4000mhz profile I made the other day. It had a hard time posting and finally did after some minor tweaks. It ran super sluggish way worse than over the weekend when I first tested it.

Nothing I did seem to improve it so I plugged the 4 pin back in (PITA of course). At first I got the 0D error code, then reset and it booted. Maybe even more sluggish but no way to really tell for sure. Went back to bios to load stable profile and bios locked up (this wasn't happening without 4 pin but could be coincidental) So I would say it is inconclusive at best.


----------



## noxious89123

sonixmon said:


> Not sure Asus would care since it is an OC issue.


I think they would (to an extent), as we're the people buying their high end OC motherboards!


----------



## sonixmon

Some new AGESA coming, MSI released some FW already. Looks like FW mostly to do with W11 and new CPUs though. Will be interesting to see if it affects anything else.

MSI First To Release AMD AGESA 1.2.0.4 BIOS Firmware For B550 & B450 Motherboards (wccftech.com)


----------



## sc32valve

sonixmon said:


> Some new AGESA coming, MSI released some FW already. Looks like FW mostly to do with W11 and new CPUs though. Will be interesting to see if it affects anything else.
> 
> MSI First To Release AMD AGESA 1.2.0.4 BIOS Firmware For B550 & B450 Motherboards (wccftech.com)


Cool thank you. I was just looking for what firmware was in the update pipeline. Hopefully it makes it to the C8H reasonably soon. Then again, we're still only on a Beta for AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.3 Patch C. I feel like AMD is releasing new AGESA version so quickly that the manufacturers don't even bother finishing most BIOS versions out of beta before they just start incorporating the next AGESA version and posting a new beta.


----------



## Sleepycat

sc32valve said:


> Cool thank you. I was just looking for what firmware was in the update pipeline. Hopefully it makes it to the C8H reasonably soon. Then again, we're still only on a Beta for AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.3 Patch C. I feel like AMD is releasing new AGESA version so quickly that the manufacturers don't even bother finishing most BIOS versions out of beta before they just start incorporating the next AGESA version and posting a new beta.


I wouldn't worry about it being beta. I've compared beta to final versions of the same firmware revision and they are the same files. And the last number of beta's didn't really introduce breaking bugs into the firmware. I just run it as is, not really caring if it is beta or final, what is more important is the AGESA version.


----------



## noxious89123

sc32valve said:


> Cool thank you. I was just looking for what firmware was in the update pipeline. Hopefully it makes it to the C8H reasonably soon. Then again, we're still only on a Beta for AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.3 Patch C. I feel like AMD is releasing new AGESA version so quickly that the manufacturers don't even bother finishing most BIOS versions out of beta before they just start incorporating the next AGESA version and posting a new beta.


3801 with AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.3 Patch C has been out of BETA for nearly a month; since August 12th.


----------



## noxious89123

metalshark said:


> Buildzoid said up to 1.9v was fine for 24/7 on Discord (questions-and-video-topics-suggestions channel on 15th Jan 2021). I don't know what "source" you want? Personally can't get to a decent speed at 1900/3800 without at least 1.87v on my chip, your mileage may vary and haven't heard of people getting decent speeds at 1900/3800 and beyond without tweaking PLL. Can drop the RAM timings with PLL on 1.8v though but no point in doing so. Even on this thread, it's been discussed a load.


Just seen this video from Buildzoid; 



 (Looking at around 13:00 onwards)

Is this what you were talking about? Is this even the same thing as PLL voltage?


----------



## PWn3R

xProlific said:


> Has anyone not stable at 3800 tried removing the optional 4 Pin CPU Power connector. I read one experience of someone claiming that removing the extra power connector allowed them to achieve FCLK stability at 3800. Maybe worth a shot?


I’ll try it. 1900 no go 1933 boots but whea city.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sonixmon

PWn3R said:


> I’ll try it. 1900 no go 1933 boots but whea city.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Try additional PLL too.


----------



## sonixmon

noxious89123 said:


> Just seen this video from Buildzoid;
> 
> 
> 
> (Looking at around 13:00 onwards)
> 
> Is this what you were talking about? Is this even the same thing as PLL voltage?


Yes, I guess that is how Gigabyte labels it. 

Also interesting things I noticed:

18:10 ProcODT40 for most Gigabyte?
7:50 Limiting memory usage for Benching (cheap IMO) explains a lot of crazy scores!


----------



## PWn3R

sonixmon said:


> Try additional PLL too.


I have gone as high as 1.975 to no avail previously.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sonixmon

PWn3R said:


> I have gone as high as 1.975 to no avail previously.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Did you notice any change, less WHEA etc? My last cpu 5800x refused to post at 1900, WHEA 1933-1966 and wouldn't post 2000+. Current 5900x 1900 max stable, PLL will reduce errors but not eliminate them.


----------



## PWn3R

sonixmon said:


> Did you notice any change, less WHEA etc? My last cpu 5800x refused to post at 1900, WHEA 1933-1966 and wouldn't post 2000+. Current 5900x 1900 max stable, PLL will reduce errors but not eliminate them.


It reduced wheas but not noticeably until over 1.92


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GRABibus

All cases are different.
I boot with no problem and am 100% stable at 3800/1900 with my 5900X, Whea free.
=> PLL=1,8V
=> soc = 1,08V

and I can’t boot neither 3866/1933, nor 3933/1966….


----------



## mongoled

GRABibus said:


> All cases are different.
> I boot with no problem and am 100% stable at 3800/1900 with my 5900X, Whea free.
> => PLL=1,8V
> => soc = 1,08V
> 
> and I can’t boot neither 3866/1933, nor 3933/1966….


Aim higher


----------



## sonixmon

GRABibus said:


> All cases are different.
> I boot with no problem and am 100% stable at 3800/1900 with my 5900X, Whea free.
> => PLL=1,8V
> => soc = 1,08V
> 
> and I can’t boot neither 3866/1933, nor 3933/1966….


Can you at least boot higher if you push PLL or have you tried that?


----------



## GRABibus

I have tried at 2V 😊.
Sometimes I boot, sometimes not.
Completely erratic.


----------



## safedisk

*ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 3901 BETA BIOS*

1. Improve system performance
2. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1204

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 3901

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 3901

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 3901

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 3901

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 3901

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0501


----------



## GRABibus

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2524174
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 3901 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Improve system performance
> 2. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1204
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0501


thanks 😊


----------



## xeizo

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2524174
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 3901 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Improve system performance
> 2. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1204
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0501


Thanks! Will be fun!


----------



## sonixmon

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2524174
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 3901 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Improve system performance
> 2. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1204
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0501


Thank you!!

Any volunteers?


----------



## GRABibus

sonixmon said:


> Thank you!!
> 
> Any volunteers?


All folks here 😊


----------



## xeizo

sonixmon said:


> Thank you!!
> 
> Any volunteers?


I will wait a few days, because 

But I will be happy to read what you experience from this new bios!


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> I will wait a few days, because
> 
> But I will be happy to read what you experience from this new bios!


no no, do your own experience 😜


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> no no, do your own experience 😜


I will, but first in a few days


----------



## Sleepycat

I want to flash it now, but I'm still in the middle of my AI/ML processing, which should finish in 3.5 more days...


----------



## noxious89123

I _may_ give 3901 a look at the weekend, if I do I will report my findings 
(No promises though)


----------



## asavah

Just flashed 3901, nothing to report.
The most notable feature - fTPM is now enabled by default after flashing.
Dialed all the setting manually, same scores, same latency, everything is within run to run variance.
Haven't had time to do a proper stability test but I don't think it will be necessary.


----------



## coelacanth

Has the FCLK hole at 1900 been fixed? I haven't paid too much attention since BIOS 3204.


----------



## noxious89123

asavah said:


> Just flashed 3901...
> ...fTPM is now enabled by default after flashing.


I thought that was a change made in 3801?


----------



## asavah

noxious89123 said:


> I thought that was a change made in 3801?


Maybe you are right, I haven't noticed it when setting up 3801.


----------



## sonixmon

I was bored so I updated. Basically one difference noted, IOD voltage. 

Cheated and loaded my fast CL14 profile I have been using. Ran a few benchmarks (within run variance). Did a quick stability test everything seems the same with limited testing. 
IOD voltage did drop slightly, this was also reported on another forum in regards to MSI. This could be an AGESA thing? I have not tried to increase but it I loaded the same profile as seen in first screenshots, all settings are the same but results/reading different IOD.



Spoiler: Screenshots






































coelacanth said:


> Has the FCLK hole at 1900 been fixed? I haven't paid too much attention since BIOS 3204.


Unfortunately this seems to be an IMC issue not FW, I am running 1900 fclk but anything over has WHEA errors.

On a side note I did try my 2000 fclk profile and of course still WHEA, but I decided to put back to 3800 with same voltage settings. I managed to post Pure 1T at 3800 CL16 but it was not stable, even bios locked up. Gives me something else to play with though. This is the first time I ever posted 1TP and assume it was one or more of the high voltage settings for the 2000 fclk profile.


----------



## xeizo

coelacanth said:


> Has the FCLK hole at 1900 been fixed? I haven't paid too much attention since BIOS 3204.


Why are you repeating the "fclk hole" all the time(not you personally, but you as in many people)? There is no hole as far as I can tell, at least not in any bios. I have been running fclk 1900 on three Ryzen Zen 2/3 cpus using five AM4 motherboards. All of them has done it, and with all the bioses, from the first bioses, all the test bioses and to the current bioses. It looks more like your cpu doesn't cut it, as it has been reported from numerous sources that only a certain percentage of cpus will do 1900. My only Ryzen which can't do 1900 is my Zen+, but none of them did.

I wouldn't hold my breath for any "magical" bios.


----------



## kx11

The 3901 bios works fine with my OC settings which are not that much (3600mhz on 4 sticks of ram and Auto CPU with OC level 3)


however typical Asus mobo behavior the Creative sound card AE-9 was almost dead until i changed the PCi slot from the 2nd small black one to the 3rd big one and it worked fine again, Asus really hates sound cards even their own Xonar ones bcause they want you to use the Mobo's noisy sound card


----------



## xeizo

kx11 said:


> The 3901 bios works fine with my OC settings which are not that much (3600mhz on 4 sticks of ram and Auto CPU with OC level 3)
> 
> 
> however typical Asus mobo behavior the Creative sound card AE-9 was almost dead until i changed the PCi slot from the 2nd small black one to the 3rd big one and it worked fine again, Asus really hates sound cards even their own Xonar ones bcause they want you to use the Mobo's noisy sound card


I wouldn't say Asus has such elaborate coy scheme, there's a known bug with Ryzen and many pcie sound cards. And there's a setting for that in the bios: "PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Disable]". In some cases it makes the sound cards work again, I don't know if it works for all though.

The higher end Asus boards has really good onboard sound btw.


----------



## sonixmon

xeizo said:


> Why are you repeating the "fclk hole" all the time(not you personally, but you as in many people)? There is no hole as far as I can tell, at least not in any bios. I have been running fclk 1900 on three Ryzen Zen 2/3 cpus using five AM4 motherboards. All of them has done it, and with all the bioses, from the first bioses, all the test bioses and to the current bioses. It looks more like your cpu doesn't cut it, as it has been reported from numerous sources that only a certain percentage of cpus will do 1900. My only Ryzen which can't do 1900 is my Zen+, but none of them did.
> 
> I wouldn't hold my breath for any "magical" bios.


There is a hole with some cpu's, like my former 5800x I could only run 1866 max. 1900 Would not post, 1933 and 1966 would post with WHEA. Some say older FW didn't have this issue but I have not seen proof of that and from my experience it was 100% CPU.


----------



## sonixmon

Hey smart friends, I made a new post about an unrelated PC I am having if any of you would like to check it out and provide feedback.

(2) Weird PC lag after 1-2 days | Overclock.net


----------



## PWn3R

xeizo said:


> Why are you repeating the "fclk hole" all the time(not you personally, but you as in many people)? There is no hole as far as I can tell, at least not in any bios. I have been running fclk 1900 on three Ryzen Zen 2/3 cpus using five AM4 motherboards. All of them has done it, and with all the bioses, from the first bioses, all the test bioses and to the current bioses. It looks more like your cpu doesn't cut it, as it has been reported from numerous sources that only a certain percentage of cpus will do 1900. My only Ryzen which can't do 1900 is my Zen+, but none of them did.
> 
> I wouldn't hold my breath for any "magical" bios.


You’ve missed it then. There are at least a dozen people who have posted over the time since 5000 series were released on multiple cpu models that CANNOT post at 1900. They can post 1933, the “hole” IS a thing. Most people aren’t seeing that, but there is something weird there. For me and several others, 1866 works with no WHEAs on default settings for voltage, 1900 doesn’t post at all, and 1933 boots but has dozens or hundreds of WHEA correctable errors per minute.

I agree that most likely a bios isn’t going to fix that, but there was an interesting post about unplugging the 4pin CPU power cable making it post for some people. I intend to try that this weekend.


----------



## renecapo

Bios 3901 VDDG CCD and VDDG IOD always 0.99V wen i set 1,05V Zentimins say 0,99v i get wehas


----------



## LtMatt

renecapo said:


> Bios 3901 VDDG CCD and VDDG IOD always 0.99V wen i set 1,05V Zentimins say 0,99v i get wehas


Is 3901 available for the Crosshair non Wifi?


----------



## GRABibus

LtMatt said:


> Is 3901 available for the Crosshair non Wifi?











ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...


All cases are different. I boot with no problem and am 100% stable at 3800/1900 with my 5900X, Whea free. => PLL=1,8V => soc = 1,08V and I can’t boot neither 3866/1933, nor 3933/1966…. Can you at least boot higher if you push PLL or have you tried that?




www.overclock.net


----------



## metalshark

noxious89123 said:


> Just seen this video from Buildzoid;
> 
> 
> 
> (Looking at around 13:00 onwards)
> 
> Is this what you were talking about? Is this even the same thing as PLL voltage?


Yeah that's the PLL voltage. Here he's overclocking to 2000Mhz Fclk so would be pushing it real high. Even at 2.15v PLL it won't fix errors for me when you hit the natural limit, so him clarifying that 2.12 wont start fixing random errors that start occurring lines up. At the lower end for 24/7 though you'll see people running 1.82-.1.95v quite often.






Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities


Discord is the easiest way to communicate over voice, video, and text. Chat, hang out, and stay close with your friends and communities.




discord.com


----------



## metalshark

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2524174
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 3901 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Improve system performance
> 2. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1204
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0501


BIOS 3901 is the first one I've had problems with on the Formula (have tried every version since 2702). Even using Load Optimised Defaults I'm getting WHEAs on a 5950X in Windows:









Always APIC ID: 0.

Have gone back to 3801 without any issues.


----------



## GRABibus

metalshark said:


> BIOS 3901 is the first one I've had problems with on the Formula (have tried every version since 2702). Even using Load Optimised Defaults I'm getting WHEAs on a 5950X in Windows:
> View attachment 2524251
> 
> 
> Always APIC ID: 0.
> 
> Have gone back to 3801 without any issues.


did you try to increase dedicated voltages ?

whea 19 at default settings….🤔


----------



## metalshark

GRABibus said:


> did you try to increase dedicated voltages ?
> 
> whea 19 at default settings….🤔


Yeah at defaults and on my usual settings (with increased voltages). Am I being extremely unlucky here or is it bugged on the Formula? Has anyone else tried 3901 on the Formula with a 5950X?


----------



## noxious89123

xeizo said:


> Why are you repeating the "fclk hole" all the time(not you personally, but you as in many people)? There is no hole as far as I can tell, at least not in any bios. I have been running fclk 1900 on three Ryzen Zen 2/3 cpus using five AM4 motherboards. All of them has done it, and with all the bioses, from the first bioses, all the test bioses and to the current bioses. It looks more like your cpu doesn't cut it, as it has been reported from numerous sources that only a certain percentage of cpus will do 1900. My only Ryzen which can't do 1900 is my Zen+, but none of them did.
> 
> I wouldn't hold my breath for any "magical" bios.


It's definitely weird though, that some people can't even POST 1900, but they _can_ POST 1933 and higher. I've not had this problem myself, though I've read about plenty of others having the issue.


metalshark said:


> Yeah that's the PLL voltage. Here he's overclocking to 2000Mhz Fclk so would be pushing it real high. Even at 2.15v PLL it won't fix errors for me when you hit the natural limit, so him clarifying that 2.12 wont start fixing random errors that start occurring lines up. At the lower end for 24/7 though you'll see people running 1.82-.1.95v quite often.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities
> 
> 
> Discord is the easiest way to communicate over voice, video, and text. Chat, hang out, and stay close with your friends and communities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> discord.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2524248


Thanks for the follow up, I appreciate it!


----------



## coelacanth

sonixmon said:


> Unfortunately this seems to be an IMC issue not FW, I am running 1900 fclk but anything over has WHEA errors.
> 
> On a side note I did try my 2000 fclk profile and of course still WHEA, but I decided to put back to 3800 with same voltage settings. I managed to post Pure 1T at 3800 CL16 but it was not stable, even bios locked up. Gives me something else to play with though. This is the first time I ever posted 1TP and assume it was one or more of the high voltage settings for the 2000 fclk profile.





xeizo said:


> Why are you repeating the "fclk hole" all the time(not you personally, but you as in many people)? There is no hole as far as I can tell, at least not in any bios. I have been running fclk 1900 on three Ryzen Zen 2/3 cpus using five AM4 motherboards. All of them has done it, and with all the bioses, from the first bioses, all the test bioses and to the current bioses. It looks more like your cpu doesn't cut it, as it has been reported from numerous sources that only a certain percentage of cpus will do 1900. My only Ryzen which can't do 1900 is my Zen+, but none of them did.
> 
> I wouldn't hold my breath for any "magical" bios.


OK thanks for the info. Like I said I haven't looked into the issue for a long time now. I have one of the earlier 5900X. Makes sense that it is a CPU issue and not a BIOS issue. For me I can run 1866 easily, but the second I key in 1900 and reboot the entire system just goes dark. No post. Can't get into BIOS. Nothing. Just a black screen. I have to clear CMOS to get it working again from there.

Out of curiosity, what % of 5900X / Ryzen 5000 CPUs can do 1900?


----------



## coelacanth

noxious89123 said:


> It's definitely weird though, that some people can't even POST 1900, but they _can_ POST 1933 and higher. I've not had this problem myself, though I've read about plenty of others having the issue.
> 
> Thanks for the follow up, I appreciate it!


I have this exact same issue.


----------



## Zogge

I can post up to FCLK 2000 but WHEAs from 1866. Ram can run 3800 CL14 up to 4400 CL17. (5950X, Rampage VIII Formula 3801)


----------



## noxious89123

I guess I've been quite fortunate; I can POST at 2000 (haven't tried any higher) and have no WHEAs at 1900.

1933 or higher is WHEAs out the wazoo, but I haven't spent that much time trying to stabilise it, beyond testing vSOC at 1.2v.


----------



## Kelutrel

metalshark said:


> BIOS 3901 is the first one I've had problems with on the Formula (have tried every version since 2702). Even using Load Optimised Defaults I'm getting WHEAs on a 5950X in Windows:


I also have a C8F and got hundreds of WHEA errors on my most stable configuration as soon as I flashed 3901.

*[UPDATE]*
In my case the WHEA errors were described as "Bus/Interconnect Error" on Processor APIC ID: 0
Tried to increase by 50mv VDD SOC and VDDG CCD/IOD but no difference.
Solved the WHEA errors by going from 1900/3800 to 1833/3666 , all rest kept the same.
Some long running test would be needed to validate complete absence though.


----------



## Danny.ns

My early (december 2020) 5900x has the same 1900 hole. I can post and boot into windows with any FCLK - 1800mhz, 1833, 1866, *1933*, *1966*, *2000*, *2033* etc using default voltages.

I can NOT, no matter what I try, POST (/reach BIOS) at FCLK 1900MHz - the board simply refuses to try (something fails instantly). I have tried up to 2.0V PLL, 1.4Vsoc, 1.2V CLDO VDDP, 1.3V VDDG CCD, 1.3V VDDG IOD, dance 6 times around the christmas tree, pray to Intel for forgiveness for trying AMD, threaten PC with trash can but alas, from december 2020 to september 2021, FCLK 1900MHz refuses to even POST a single time.


----------



## noxious89123

Kelutrel said:


> I also have a C8F and got hundreds of WHEA errors on my most stable configuration as soon as I flashed 3901.
> 
> *[UPDATE]*
> In my case the WHEA errors were described as "Bus/Interconnect Error" on Processor APIC ID: 0
> Tried to increase by 50mv VDD SOC and VDDG CCD/IOD but no difference.
> Solved the WHEA errors by going from 1900/3800 to 1833/3666 , all rest kept the same.
> Some long running test would be needed to validate complete absence though.


That's quite a big hit to the IF speed, I wonder what the heck they changed to screw that up


----------



## sonixmon

noxious89123 said:


> That's quite a bit hit to the IF speed, I wonder what the heck they changed to screw that up


Could this be related to the IOD voltage drop some of us have noticed? Could this mean a future FW improves the issue even more? We wish...

I have also noticed micro stutter occasionally gaming, not sure if related. Will run a few days and may go back and see if it clears up.


----------



## Lockian

metalshark said:


> BIOS 3901 is the first one I've had problems with on the Formula (have tried every version since 2702). Even using Load Optimised Defaults I'm getting WHEAs on a 5950X in Windows:


I'm also seeing this on the Dark Hero with a 5950x with IF @1900 (Stable on 3801). Not only WHEAs but also instability with the ram testing in OCCT. Reverted to 3801 for now.


----------



## metalshark

Kelutrel said:


> I also have a C8F and got hundreds of WHEA errors on my most stable configuration as soon as I flashed 3901.
> 
> *[UPDATE]*
> In my case the WHEA errors were described as "Bus/Interconnect Error" on Processor APIC ID: 0
> Tried to increase by 50mv VDD SOC and VDDG CCD/IOD but no difference.
> Solved the WHEA errors by going from 1900/3800 to 1833/3666 , all rest kept the same.
> Some long running test would be needed to validate complete absence though.


Also saw those. Nice you got it working at 1833/3666. I only tried 1900/3800 and defaults both with issues. Either it’s a bug or this is what’ll need targeted going forward.


----------



## mongoled

xeizo said:


> Why are you repeating the "fclk hole" all the time(not you personally, but you as in many people)? There is no hole as far as I can tell, at least not in any bios. I have been running fclk 1900 on three Ryzen Zen 2/3 cpus using five AM4 motherboards. All of them has done it, and with all the bioses, from the first bioses, all the test bioses and to the current bioses. It looks more like your cpu doesn't cut it, as it has been reported from numerous sources that only a certain percentage of cpus will do 1900. My only Ryzen which can't do 1900 is my Zen+, but none of them did.
> 
> I wouldn't hold my breath for any "magical" bios.


because its real "issue" as can be seen by the number of people who reacted to your post

😀 

If you ever get the opportunity to test several Ryzen CPUs you could see this for yourself.

For the record my CPU has the following FCLK characteristics (anything above 1900 results in WHEA 19s)

1900 (and below) and 2067 post reliably
1933 and 2033 post unreliably
1966 and 2000 never post (error code 07, need to reset BIOS).

If these are not "holes" then dont know what else someone would call them


----------



## metalshark

mongoled said:


> because its real "issue" as can be seen by the number of people who reacted to your post
> 
> 😀
> 
> If you ever get the opportunity to test several Ryzen CPUs you could see this for yourself.
> 
> For the record my CPU has the following FCLK characteristics (anything above 1900 results in WHEA 19s)
> 
> 1900 (and below) and 2067 post reliably
> 1933 and 2033 post unreliably
> 1966 and 2000 never post (error code 07, need to reset BIOS).
> 
> If these are not "holes" then dont know what else someone would call them


Canyons, craters, voids, expanses or gaps? Personally prefer calling them holes.


----------



## Kelutrel

noxious89123 said:


> That's quite a bit hit to the IF speed, I wonder what the heck they changed to screw that up


Yes, and it hurts, but I hope to survive a 3.5% decrease in latency and memory throughput until the next bios version


----------



## GRABibus

Huumm..Seems a lot of issues with this Bios.


----------



## Audioboxer

GRABibus said:


> Huumm..Seems a lot of issues with this Bios.


AGESA 1.2.0.4 is a dud, I thought it was just MSI at first, but seen Asus owners having same issues, main one being VDDG voltages capped at 1.0v. That itself may be causing instability for some on their IF.


----------



## GRABibus

Audioboxer said:


> AGESA 1.2.0.4 is a dud, I thought it was just MSI at first, but seen Asus owners having same issues, main one being VDDG voltages capped at 1.0v. That itself may be causing instability for some on their IF.


I wanted to updrage this week end.
I will stick currently to 3801.


----------



## Kelutrel

Audioboxer said:


> AGESA 1.2.0.4 is a dud, I thought it was just MSI at first, but seen Asus owners having same issues, main one being VDDG voltages capped at 1.0v. That itself may be causing instability for some on their IF.


Just a thought as the issue with this BIOS is not just the locked (not capped) VDDG voltages.
I was stable at 1900/3800 with VDDG CCD and IOD both set at 1.0v in v3801, it was my default configuration.
But in v3901 I am not stable on those same locked voltages, and can't be tuned anyway.


----------



## metalshark

Audioboxer said:


> AGESA 1.2.0.4 is a dud, I thought it was just MSI at first, but seen Asus owners having same issues, main one being VDDG voltages capped at 1.0v. That itself may be causing instability for some on their IF.


Am getting WHEAs on "Load Optimised Defaults" with 3901. So doesn't even like defaults.


----------



## Audioboxer

Kelutrel said:


> Just a thought as the issue with this BIOS is not just the locked (not capped) VDDG voltages.
> I was stable at 1900/3800 with VDDG CCD and IOD both set at 1.0v in v3801, it was my default configuration.
> But in v3901 I am not stable on those same locked voltages, and can't be tuned anyway.





metalshark said:


> Am getting WHEAs on "Load Optimised Defaults" with 3901. So doesn't even like defaults.


Yup, thanks for also adding these, didn't mean to imply that was the only issue.

What I can add even there is I had one WHEA warning at 1900 on this BIOS with MSI on voltage settings I had stable on the prior BIOS. Admittedly my VDDG voltages were quite low, so I wasn't overly worried if they needed to go up a notch, but it did crop up.

Now that I see wider spread WHEA issues its clear it wasn't just a case of me being on the edge of stability and it being caught in a new AGESA version, but probably a dud of a BIOS causing WHEA errors for many people.


----------



## noxious89123

Sounds like I won't be messing with 3901 over the weekend then, I've got some games I want to play and I don't want to be fighting instability.


----------



## Yumraaj

Does the Dark Hero VIII Wifi Version uses the same BIOS file as the The Dark Hero VIII?
Thank you


----------



## GRABibus

I am curious what they mean by '"Increase performances" with 3901....


----------



## sonixmon

GRABibus said:


> I am curious what they mean by '"Increase performances" with 3901....


I think this is a token release note to motivate us to get the FW! LOL

I will be going back to 3801 tonight.


----------



## sonixmon

sonixmon said:


> I think this is a token release note to motivate us to get the FW! LOL
> 
> I will be going back to 3801 tonight.


Reverted and confirm microstutters gone!


----------



## blunden

Yumraaj said:


> Does the Dark Hero VIII Wifi Version uses the same BIOS file as the The Dark Hero VIII?
> Thank you


 There is no version of the Dark Hero without WiFi.


----------



## xProlific

Yumraaj said:


> Does the Dark Hero VIII Wifi Version uses the same BIOS file as the The Dark Hero VIII?
> Thank you


It does not use the same bios, you need to download the bios for your specific motherboard.


----------



## metalshark

xProlific said:


> It does not use the same bios, you need to download the bios for your specific motherboard.


I believe you’re (understandably) confusing the Hero, which has wifi and non-wifi versions with different UEFIs (BIOSs) and the Dark Hero which only has one version, with wifi.


----------



## noxious89123

Yumraaj said:


> Does the Dark Hero VIII Wifi Version uses the same BIOS file as the The Dark Hero VIII?
> Thank you


The Crosshair VIII Dark Hero uses a different BIOS file from the Crosshair VIII Hero WiFi. The two motherboards are very very similar, but there are some key differences.


blunden said:


> There is no version of the Dark Hero without WiFi.


+1


metalshark said:


> I believe you’re (understandably) confusing the Hero, which has wifi and non-wifi versions with different UEFIs (BIOSs) and the Dark Hero which only has one version, with wifi.


+1


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

noxious89123 said:


> The two motherboards are very very similar, but there are some key differences.


the Circuitry is different, that is why it has the DOC(Dynamic OC) feature..

so in general, the new Agesa firmware update is crap? or Asus just botched it up??


----------



## Zdenal

kairi_zeroblade said:


> the new Agesa firmware update is crap


this


----------



## Kelutrel

kairi_zeroblade said:


> so in general, the new Agesa firmware update is crap? or Asus just botched it up??


New AGESA fw is bad, or Asus and MSI bios developers are the same person.


----------



## Sleepycat

It's not about bad or crap... With the new AGESA, which comes from AMD, they seem to be trying to improve something, maybe stability or to reduce the ability to control parameters that may cause issues. However, we are seeing a regression in this bios version, which takes away performance and stability from us who have experienced every bios iteration throughout the months. Frankly, we are not a normal user, we are more like power users, wanting to try the latest and hopefully greatest all the time and we are able to find flaws and weaknesses in any new bios versions. I hope that Asus takes our feedback on board and have some discussion with AMD to determine what has gone wrong.

Since this bios is worse, and it is worse for Asus, MSI and possibly other brands of x570 boards, then I'd be looking at whatever AMD did with AGESA 1.2.0.4 and not the bios developers at Asus/MSI.


----------



## noxious89123

kairi_zeroblade said:


> the Circuitry is different, that is why it has the DOC(Dynamic OC) feature..
> 
> so in general, the new Agesa firmware update is crap? or Asus just botched it up??


That's why I said "very very similar" and not "identical" 

Apart from DOC, and different components in the VRM (90A instead of 60A iirc) the rest of the board design is the same.


----------



## Alberto_It

Asus Crosshair VIII Dark Hero with 3501 bios will work with Windows 11 or I must upgrade to 3801? 
Thank you in advance


----------



## xeizo

Alberto_It said:


> Asus Crosshair VIII Dark Hero with 3501 bios will work with Windows 11 or I must upgrade to 3801?
> Thank you in advance


Just activate firmware TPM in the bios, that's it. The newer bios has it activated by default.


----------



## AStaUK

Alberto_It said:


> Asus Crosshair VIII Dark Hero with 3501 bios will work with Windows 11 or I must upgrade to 3801?
> Thank you in advance


Win 11 will work fine with 3501, just remember to enable fTPM and Secure Boot. Although I wouldn‘t be in a rush to move to 11 it currently doesn't offer anything over 10 and will likely need a number of updates after release to quash the inevitable bugs.


----------



## kx11

Man this 3901 bios is crap, powered up my completely fine PC and got busy on my phne for 2 minutes while my PC was in login pass screen then it restarted itself almost 4 times in row then gave me a 0c HDD error, not to mention randomly shutting off the AE-9 sound card power forcing me to remove it from my PC and settling with the Mobo sound card


----------



## LocoDiceGR

safedisk said:


> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 3901 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Improve system performance
> 2. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1204
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0501


Any ETA for ASUS B550 series?


----------



## Nizzen

Kelutrel said:


> New AGESA fw is bad, or Asus and MSI bios developers are the same person.


AMD is 😅


----------



## metalshark

AStaUK said:


> Win 11 will work fine with 3501, just remember to enable fTPM and Secure Boot. Although I wouldn‘t be in a rush to move to 11 it currently doesn't offer anything over 10 and will likely need a number of updates after release to quash the inevitable bugs.


Currently offers a new processor scheduler, although otherwise agree with your points. Also that scheduler seems to not be aware of CCXs increasing infinity fabric usage.


----------



## sonixmon

LocoDiceGR said:


> Any ETA for ASUS B550 series?


You are going to want to hold out for the next version IMO.



metalshark said:


> Currently offers a new processor scheduler, although otherwise agree with your points. Also that scheduler seems to not be aware of CCXs increasing infinity fabric usage.


Makes you wonder if this will change in the near future? At this point I am not planning to install other than on a spare SSD if I have time.


----------



## duarte36

15 years later i tried amd again. maybe in 10 years i can try it again. amd got us this time.
my 8700k with ddr4 4000 cl16 working better and with out a little problem. anything new from amd it's a nightmare , and never solved, because in months a new hardware came out , even without resolving the old one problems. my poor 5900x side by side with the 8700k...


----------



## Zogge

It is much easier and fun to OC Intel systems, I give you that. Also much less issues. Hence I tend to agree. My 10980xe was running 4000 memory on all 8 sticks cl 16 with a click. 5950x..issues at 3800 due to sync with FCLK.

Same with OC. 5ghz all core was just 1.4V and go on 10980xe. Here... issues with pbo, curves, cycle tests etc, infinity fabric etc.

I will not go AMD again either but I am stuck here for a while now due to the investment.


----------



## AStaUK

metalshark said:


> Currently offers a new processor scheduler, although otherwise agree with your points. Also that scheduler seems to not be aware of CCXs increasing infinity fabric usage.


As far as I've read (which isn't much to be honest) the scheduler in Win11 is tweaked for Adler Lake and doesn't currently offer anything for AMD, but that could change, I imagine they will contine to work with AMD and could improve the scheduler for Ryzen CPU's assuming there is an improvement to be had.


----------



## lmfodor

Zogge said:


> It is much easier and fun to OC Intel systems, I give you that. Also much less issues. Hence I tend to agree. My 10980xe was running 4000 memory on all 8 sticks cl 16 with a click. 5950x..issues at 3800 due to sync with FCLK.
> 
> Same with OC. 5ghz all core was just 1.4V and go on 10980xe. Here... issues with pbo, curves, cycle tests etc, infinity fabric etc.
> 
> I will not go AMD again either but I am stuck here for a while now due to the investment.


Hey, I’m like you tired of AMD. I regret to have bought a 5900x and a several mobos to try to work above 3800MT/s. I’m tired of having BSOD, learning all combination of voltages to handle the IF / IMC. The hibernation modes broken, and other lot of think. With each new BIOS it’s seems that the AMD engineers are masking something.. like to lower the boost and even the cache L3.. then the USB thing (yes, in 2021 having issues with USB!), and wasting a lot of time with a PBO2 with true curve, core cycler, ycruncher, OOCT, and a lot of tools for memory and system stability. Even having a expensive memory of 500 usd “low latency” designed for the new AMD series, I can’t go above FCLK 1900.. 1933 and the typical WHEAs spam. And yes, I had three mobos and almost bought a 4th to try with a formula or with a ProArt due to this models doesn’t have Realtek NICs that seems to have some conflict between I:O and the IMC. At the end I realized that the issue are the processor, not the motherboards as was discussed in other thread. For instance, with my memory kit and a dark hero but with a a 5950x some user can get a 14 flat memory timings in a dual rank dimms. Having the same components but with a 5900 I couldn’t make it. Now, with a “relative stable” system since a few months ago, I’m still having a few BSOD per month. So, I’m waiting the next gen of Intel to switch the mobo and the processor. The dark hero was my last attempt with AMD .. intel is more easy.. and in my case, I’m using it only for gaming, even having a strix 3090.. sorry I’m frustrated with this generation. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## metalshark

AStaUK said:


> As far as I've read (which isn't much to be honest) the scheduler in Win11 is tweaked for Adler Lake and doesn't currently offer anything for AMD, but that could change, I imagine they will contine to work with AMD and could improve the scheduler for Ryzen CPU's assuming there is an improvement to be had.


For a simple demo LTT have done a video showing worse performance on AMD.


----------



## noxious89123

duarte36 said:


> 15 years later i tried amd again. maybe in 10 years i can try it again. amd got us this time.
> my 8700k with ddr4 4000 cl16 working better and with out a little problem. anything new from amd it's a nightmare , and never solved, because in months a new hardware came out , even without resolving the old one problems. my poor 5900x side by side with the 8700k...


I've had no problems with my Ryzen 5000 system at all.


Zogge said:


> It is much easier and fun to OC Intel systems, I give you that. Also much less issues. Hence I tend to agree. My 10980xe was running 4000 memory on all 8 sticks cl 16 with a click. 5950x..issues at 3800 due to sync with FCLK.
> 
> Same with OC. 5ghz all core was just 1.4V and go on 10980xe. Here... issues with pbo, curves, cycle tests etc, infinity fabric etc.
> 
> I will not go AMD again either but I am stuck here for a while now due to the investment.


But is is fair to judge a system based on how easy it is to overclock? The manufacturer promise nothing beyond the specification of the part, so people being upset they can't hit 1900Fclk is sort of silly. AMD don't even claim that it will do that speed.

It's a shame that you're unhappy with your hardware, better luck next time I guess?


----------



## sonixmon

While I will admit my last system (Intel 4790k) was easier to OC, there was less to it (basically set CPU core voltage and find best all core OC). Ram was a challenge for me but might have been the ram itself. AMD has not been unstable for me though it has proved more challenging to OC and the fclk issue did affect me on my 5800x. This system runs much better and has been very reliable (no BSOD etc.). 

Hindsight I could have saved a few dollars and stuck with Intel line but I wanted PCI-e 4.0, didn't want to wait for Rocket Lake and didn't like their offerings so I went AMD. I have been happy with the system overall and plan to keep it for 3-4 years (will probably get a 3D cache CPU at some point).

Once the CPU scheduling is sorted out and both Intel and AMD have offerings in the class I will re-evaluate the situation and decide. I really want DDR5 to mature and prices to come down before I make that move as well.


----------



## Zogge

noxious89123 said:


> I've had no problems with my Ryzen 5000 system at all.
> 
> But is is fair to judge a system based on how easy it is to overclock? The manufacturer promise nothing beyond the specification of the part, so people being upset they can't hit 1900Fclk is sort of silly. AMD don't even claim that it will do that speed.
> 
> It's a shame that you're unhappy with your hardware, better luck next time I guess?


True but it is so much smoother and easier on Intel platform to tweak things. It is more hit and miss and endless tests on AMD and also more complex.
Stock I haven't had any problem with any system over the decades so I think just expecting things to work as they are from the shelf isn't the best measurement either.

I am much happier with the heat situation though, the 10980XE was 500W on all cores when overclocked to 5 ghz. This one (as far as I can clock it) stops at 240W. The watt itself isn't a big deal but easier to transport away with lower value.

I have a rocket lake system with I7, X299 system with 10980XE, B550 with 5800x, Dual Xeon E5 system with C602 and X570 with 5950X also a mix of 6900 XT, 6800XT, 3090, 3080. I do think the 3090 with the 10980XE was easiest to manage and best platform overall. Though it was only PCIE 3.0 and that's why I went with the 5950X for my workstation with PCIE4.0. (regret)


----------



## OCmember

Just gonna wait till 3D cache support rolls out.. still on F33 for my board.


----------



## Reikoji

Welp, glad I was late to the flash on this one. Locked VDDG voltages needs to be fixed before I flash, need increased voltage for 1900fclk stability for my processor.

Actually I think I will guinea pig and see if the locked 1000mv vddg doesnt magically result in "improved system performance" for me


----------



## Reikoji

Yep, cant even post with prior settings. Locks at Post code 07, even when reducing Fclock and Memory speed. Dud.


----------



## Sleepycat

I just flashed 3901 after a bit of a delay. Same thing with CLDO VDDP locked to 0.98V (I normally run 0.95V), and VDDG CCD & IOD locked to 1.0V (normally run 1.05V). So it is not much of a big difference in voltages and I run only 3600/1800, so it shouldn't be enough to impact my RAM stability anyway.

Passed Corecycler, OCCT, TM5. So overall, I haven't seen any difference for me, but the inability to adjust those voltages mean that I might go back to 3801 at the first sign of any new issues.


----------



## noxious89123

I'm pretty surprised that they didn't catch that before they released 3901, pretty stupid to remove functionality, unless AMD have discovered increased voltages are killing CPUs? Seems unlikely though.


----------



## rexbinary

Where did 3901 come from? It's not on Asus site for me. Is it some kind of interal beta that was leaked?


----------



## fluidwire

rexbinary said:


> Where did 3901 come from? It's not on Asus site for me. Is it some kind of interal beta that was leaked?


? Nope. As always, quite long time, our friendly manager of the Asus gives you opportunity to try beta BIOS. Take it or leave it.
ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking & Discussion Thread | Page 417 | Overclock.net


----------



## rexbinary

fluidwire said:


> ? Nope. As always, quite long time, our friendly manager of the Asus gives you opportunity to try beta BIOS. Take it or leave it.
> ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking & Discussion Thread | Page 417 | Overclock.net


Ah I see, very nice of them. Thank you for clarifying.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

I think AMD is dictating these options to be locked out/limited it seems they have been doing damage control everywhere, seems most people are having that "high expectation" on overclocking the Infinity Fabric beyond what is guaranteed to work, and if things don't work out (the way you want that high memory and IF clock) you can simply return it to AMD and tell them it has WHEA issues and you get a new one again you can fry/try out..

Though I am still much against it..(changes)


----------



## GRABibus

@shamino1978 
@safedisk

What is the aim of those locked voltages ? (CLDO VDDP, VDDG CCD and IOD).


----------



## Mach3.2

GRABibus said:


> @shamino1978
> @safedisk
> 
> What is the aim of those locked voltages ? (CLDO VDDP, VDDG CCD and IOD).


The same exact bug exist on MSI's BIOS, this should be in AMD's court, so go gentle on them.


----------



## GRABibus

Mach3.2 said:


> The same exact bug exist on MSI's BIOS, this should be in AMD's court, so go gentle on them.


Maybe it is not a bug...
This is why I ask.


----------



## Reous

Maybe the new Agesa hast changed offsets in the power table and ZenTimings just need a update? Has someone already checked this?


----------



## noxious89123

rexbinary said:


> Where did 3901 come from? It's not on Asus site for me. Is it some kind of interal beta that was leaked?


As far as I am aware, Safedisk is Asus staff and also an extreme overclocker. They have a bunch of world records on HWBot too.






Overclocking, overclocking, and much more! Like overclocking.


HWBOT is a site dedicated to overclocking. We promote overclocking achievements and competitions for professionals as well as enthousiasts with rankings and a huge hardware database.




hwbot.org


----------



## trespot

noxious89123 said:


> I've had no problems with my Ryzen 5000 system at all.
> 
> But is is fair to judge a system based on how easy it is to overclock? The manufacturer promise nothing beyond the specification of the part, so people being upset they can't hit 1900Fclk is sort of silly. AMD don't even claim that it will do that speed.
> 
> It's a shame that you're unhappy with your hardware, better luck next time I guess?


Good for you honestly, I had 2 stock running 3950X CPUs that would just underclock every cores speed to 500MHz. This wouldn't be much of an issue if I didn't use my computer for work purposes and constantly run batch processes but I do. 
To AMDs credit here RMA requests have been smooth in case of these CPUs and replacements work better (yes, issue still persists but significantly less often), but every time I go through the RMA process I'm losing processing power and have to resort to some external solution, which costs money.
Also if we are gonna judge by what manufacturer promises let's not forget that AMDs Ryzen 3000 boost clock fiasco. Good thing they learned from it and improved in that regard with 5000 series.


----------



## kx11

AMD Ryzen Chipset Drivers (4.11.15.342) Download


This driver package contains the chipset drivers for AMD Ryzen processors for best performance and energy-efficient operation on Microsoft Windows.




www.techpowerup.com


----------



## PJVol

Reous said:


> Maybe the new Agesa hast changed offsets in the power table and ZenTimings


It would be nice if someone care to post pm_table version used in newest smu fw (56.58) from zentimings debug log.
Though I can assure you, starting from 40-00-05 (family 19h, 50, Cezanne, FW 64.44), the location of entries differs a lot from 38-(09/08)-05.

(atm I'm half way in searching for lacking lables and figuring out the designation of some new entries, but some assistance won't hurt)


----------



## safedisk

GRABibus said:


> @shamino1978
> @safedisk
> 
> What is the aim of those locked voltages ? (CLDO VDDP, VDDG CCD and IOD).


Hey
I think it's an issue with the AGESA 1204 version
Sorry 😂


----------



## GRABibus

safedisk said:


> Hey
> I think it's an issue with the AGESA 1204 version
> Sorry 😂


Thank you for your answer.
So lets' wait for the fix


----------



## quarx2k

Just flashed 3901. No problems with 3950x 3800 cl14. VDDG/Soc in Auto.


----------



## fluidwire

quarx2k said:


> Just flashed 3901. No problems with 3950x 3800 cl14. VDDG/Soc in Auto.
> View attachment 2524883


VDDP at 1.1V? That´s crazy!


----------



## sonixmon

safedisk said:


> Hey
> I think it's an issue with the AGESA 1204 version
> Sorry 😂


So 1204 b coming I guess! 



fluidwire said:


> VDDP at 1.1V? That´s crazy!


Clearly its only 1.09 🤣


----------



## Sleepycat

Odd that when you set VDDP manually, it forces it to 0.98V. So why would auto allow it to increase to 1.09V? Really needs to be fixed.


----------



## Mach3.2

Sleepycat said:


> Odd that when you set VDDP manually, it forces it to 0.98V. So why would auto allow it to increase to 1.09V? Really needs to be fixed.


Afaik the SMU version for Zen 2 didn't change, so that could explain why his CLDO VDDP and VDDG CCD/IOD isn't bugged like on Zen 3.


----------



## Abnormalia

Hi could not installed the latest AMD chipset drivers 3.08 and 3.09. Tried everything, reinstalled .Net framework, driver cleaner, AMD Clean Tool, reboot at every step. Still fails with "Installation success or error status: 1603". Any tips ?


----------



## Zogge

It worked for me for all except for the security/trusted driver, that one I had to manually update in device manager by select folder with driver and update.
Have you checked the report ? Not the detailed but the other one, was it just one that failed as for me or was it everything ?


----------



## Abnormalia

Zogge said:


> It worked for me for all except for the security/trusted driver, that one I had to manually update in device manager by select folder with driver and update.
> Have you checked the report ? Not the detailed but the other one, was it just one that failed as for me or was it everything ?


It said failed on every driver. Old (2.x) drivers still install fine


----------



## Chili195

What's a "safe" VDDP voltage given it auto selects 1.1v? I run CDDP at 1.05v, which I've heard might be too high? VDDG CCD is 1.05 and IOD is 0.95v. SOC at 1.1v. This is on a 5900x.


----------



## GRABibus

Chili195 said:


> What's a "safe" VDDP voltage given it auto selects 1.1v? I run CDDP at 1.05v, which I've heard might be too high? VDDG CCD is 1.05 and IOD is 0.95v. SOC at 1.1v. This is on a 5900x.


I don’t really get why those auto values are so high.
Try to tune them by lowering them and check if you don’t get Whea 19 errors due to too low voltages.


----------



## Chili195

GRABibus said:


> I don’t really get why those auto values are so high.
> Try to tune them by lowering them and check if you don’t get Whea 19 errors due to too low voltages.


Those are the manual voltages. From my recollection, anything lower resulted in errors over longer memory tests, no WHEA errors that I can recall. That was a while ago though, I'll try again with lower voltages.


----------



## GRABibus

Chili195 said:


> Those are the manual voltages. From my recollection, anything lower resulted in errors over longer memory tests, no WHEA errors that I can recall. That was a while ago though, I'll try again with lower voltages.
> View attachment 2524958


Those values are not dangerous anyway


----------



## blunden

Abnormalia said:


> It said failed on every driver. Old (2.x) drivers still install fine


 AMD's driver installers used for the chipset drivers have been buggy for a long time for me. In my case it's because my system drive has a different drive letter than C: so it sometimes end up looking for the files in the wrong place. I've contacted them about this in the past but never got them to fix it (although they did suggest a workaround that did work until very recently). In the last driver release before the one adding Windows 11 support, I've noticed other apparent bugs with the installer too that seem unrelated to my somewhat unusual setup.


----------



## Chili195

GRABibus said:


> Those values are not dangerous anyway


Cheers, dropped it down to 0.901v in bios to match the 0.9002v in that shows at default DOCP settings and it now passes Karhu 7000% and HCI Memtest 400% so I'll leave it there.


----------



## GRABibus

GRABibus said:


> I don’t really get why those auto values are so high.
> Try to tune them by lowering them and check if you don’t get Whea 19 errors due to too low voltages.





GRABibus said:


> Those values are not dangerous anyway





GRABibus said:


> Those values are not dangerous anyway





Chili195 said:


> Cheers, dropped it down to 0.901v in bios to match the 0.9002v in that shows at default DOCP settings and it now passes Karhu 7000% and HCI Memtest 400% so I'll leave it there.


No wheas 19 in event viewer ?


----------



## Chili195

GRABibus said:


> No wheas 19 in event viewer ?


Nope, I've only encountered WHEA-19s when trying 4000/2000.


----------



## quarx2k

fluidwire said:


> VDDP at 1.1V? That´s crazy!


Yep crazy Lowered them down manually. No wheas or errors.
VDDP - 0.800
VDDG_CCD - 0.95,
VDDG_IOD - 0.82
VSOC - 0.96
I can set almost any voltages for VDDP/VDDG for any fclk <=1900.
VDDG_CCD < 0.9 cause random freezes.
VDDP < 0.780 and VDDG_IOD < 0.8 - memory can't post.

In previous bios versions VDDG in auto was 1.14v 😂


----------



## sonixmon

quarx2k said:


> Yep crazy Lowered them down manually. No wheas or errors.
> VDDP - 0.800
> VDDG_CCD - 0.95,
> VDDG_IOD - 0.82
> VSOC - 0.96
> I can set almost any voltages for VDDP/VDDG for any fclk <=1900.
> VDDG_CCD < 0.9 cause random freezes.
> VDDP < 0.780 and VDDG_IOD < 0.8 - memory can't post.
> 
> In previous bios versions VDDG in auto was 1.14v 😂


So what version are you running?


----------



## Enferlain

Has this update done anything beneficial?


----------



## xeizo

Enferlain said:


> Has this update done anything beneficial?


Not on 5000X-series cpu, looks buggy from this thread. Possibly it has some benefit for those running 5700G, which I suppose the new AGESA is mostly aimed for


----------



## quarx2k

sonixmon said:


> So what version are you running?


C8H Wifi Bios 3901


----------



## Sleepycat

quarx2k said:


> C8H Wifi Bios 3901


Use Zentimings to see what voltage it is giving you. 3901 locks the CLDO VDDP, VDDG CCD and VDDG IOD voltages.


----------



## CyrIng

Matisse: at most +25 MHz single core gain with PBO for 12°C heat more
Does it worth it ?


----------



## quarx2k

Sleepycat said:


> Use Zentimings to see what voltage it is giving you. 3901 locks the CLDO VDDP, VDDG CCD and VDDG IOD voltages.


It's not for Zen2. In Bios 0.950


----------



## Alberto_It

I'm a owner of brand new Crosshair VIII Dark Hero and Ryzen 9 5950x. 
The Dark Hero have got the default fabric bios. 

What version of Bios do you recommend? 
3501 or 3801?

More stable version for Cpu overclocking? 

I think that i'll perform PB02 or manual OC


----------



## AStaUK

Alberto_It said:


> I'm a owner of brand new Crosshair VIII Dark Hero and Ryzen 9 5950x.
> The Dark Hero have got the default fabric bios.
> 
> What version of Bios do you recommend?
> 3501 or 3801?
> 
> More stable version for Cpu overclocking?
> 
> I think that i'll perform PB02 or manual OC


Go with 3801 and clear the CMOS, I've been running it since release without issues as have a number of others on this forum.


----------



## Alberto_It

AStaUK said:


> Go with 3801 and clear the CMOS, I've been running it since release without issues as have a number of others on this forum.


Thank you very much!


----------



## Price

Hi guys,

A quick question regarding bios update, do you disconnect your storage drive(s) when flashing new bios? I had an instance with an Asus Z490 board doesn't recognise the SSD drive after bios update, took a bit of fiddling to get it back. Don't want to risk the same for my c8h.


----------



## Alberto_It

Price said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> A quick question regarding bios update, do you disconnect your storage drive(s) when flashing new bios? I had an instance with an Asus Z490 board doesn't recognise the SSD drive after bios update, took a bit of fiddling to get it back. Don't want to risk the same for my c8h.


Flash the Bios with the PC off and the power supply on. Use flash button on your motherboard with renamed bios inside a USB Fat32 drive. 

Remember to perform a F5 and CMOS before flashing


----------



## tolis626

Price said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> A quick question regarding bios update, do you disconnect your storage drive(s) when flashing new bios? I had an instance with an Asus Z490 board doesn't recognise the SSD drive after bios update, took a bit of fiddling to get it back. Don't want to risk the same for my c8h.


Honestly, due to laziness I've been using the EZFlash utility in the BIOS for years now, both with the C8H and my previous motherboard, a Z97 Maximus VII Formula. Never had any issues whatsoever. Just locate the BIOS file, confirm your selection and let it do its thing. It even prevented me from flashing the wrong BIOS once (I'd downloaded the non-WiFi version's BIOS, while I have the one with WiFi). Don't sweat about it.


----------



## MoroKiel

Hi, does anyone have some random freezes (1 or 2 seconds) with bios 3801?


----------



## Alberto_It

Hi guys!
*PBO 2 Settings for my ASUS Crosshair VIII Dark Hero paired with one Ryzen 9 5950x and Corsair H150i Capellix as Aio? 

Please help me, because yesterday I have obtained only 10350 pts on CB20

MY ram are 3600 fclk 1800

Thank you in advance *


----------



## metalshark

Alberto_It said:


> Hi guys!
> *PBO 2 Settings for my ASUS Crosshair VIII Dark Hero paired with one Ryzen 9 5950x and Corsair H150i Capellix as Aio?
> 
> Please help me, because yesterday I have obtained only 10350 pts on CB20
> 
> MY ram are 3600 fclk 1800
> 
> Thank you in advance *


Used to do it all manually, now just use Hydra. So finding the offset +/- for the CPU Voltage, then applying CO on top to tweak per core, always in a negative direction. Then using scripts to load Prime95 core per core. It typically crashes (whole PC) if underpowered so look at the logs for the last core to go from 100% load back to 0% load. If it errors in Prime95 that's normally pushing it too far. Check performance rather than reported MHz as the reported vs effective MHz is quite misleading (you can see bigger numbers with less voltage + heat which perform worse and have lower effective speed). Again though, now Hydra does it all for you instead of the pain of doing this manually.


----------



## sonixmon

metalshark said:


> Used to do it all manually, now just use Hydra. So finding the offset +/- for the CPU Voltage, then applying CO on top to tweak per core, always in a negative direction. Then using scripts to load Prime95 core per core. It typically crashes (whole PC) if underpowered so look at the logs for the last core to go from 100% load back to 0% load. If it errors in Prime95 that's normally pushing it too far. Check performance rather than reported MHz as the reported vs effective MHz is quite misleading (you can see bigger numbers with less voltage + heat which perform worse and have lower effective speed). Again though, now Hydra does it all for you instead of the pain of doing this manually.


Hydra 1.0a eminent!


----------



## Sleepycat

Alberto_It said:


> Hi guys!
> *PBO 2 Settings for my ASUS Crosshair VIII Dark Hero paired with one Ryzen 9 5950x and Corsair H150i Capellix as Aio?
> 
> Please help me, because yesterday I have obtained only 10350 pts on CB20
> 
> MY ram are 3600 fclk 1800
> 
> Thank you in advance *


You need to determine if the low Cinebench scores are due to low clocks, high heat, or a power limit. What is your HWinfo64 min and max for all 3 of those after a Cinebench run?


----------



## Alberto_It

Sleepycat said:


> You need to determine if the low Cinebench scores are due to low clocks, high heat, or a power limit. What is your HWinfo64 min and max for all 3 of those after a Cinebench run?


It is not due to high temperature (max 69 C), so if I have asked for suggestions on pbo2 settings could be for low clocks or power limit or other factors. 

On my Crosshair VIII Dark Hero everything is stock except Docp standard 3600 with fclk 1800 and Precision Bost Override section


----------



## noxious89123

Alberto_It said:


> On my Crosshair VIII Dark Hero everything is stock *except *Docp standard 3600 with fclk 1800 and* Precision Bost Override section*


Hmm. "Except PBO" is a pretty massive exception.

That's basically saying "all of my settings are stock *except all of the really important ones that will make a huge difference to the exact issue I'm having*".

Help us to help you! We can't do anything for you with "maybe's". If you go in to the BIOS on the Dark Hero there is an option somewhere (in the user profiles area I think) where at the bottom of the screen it tells you to press CTRL+F2 to save settings. This will save a list of every single BIOS setting and what it is set to, in a .txt file.

If you could copy and paste the contents of that .txt file, that would help loads.

If you could run cinebench with HWInfo64 open in the background, and then share a screenshot of all the read outs from HWInfo64 from during the cinebench run, that would be a huge help too.

Without this information, the best I can offer you is "Huh weird, your performance sucks". Which you've already figured out for yourself.


----------



## Kelutrel

Alberto_It said:


> It is not due to high temperature (max 69 C), so if I have asked for suggestions on pbo2 settings could be for low clocks or power limit or other factors.
> 
> On my Crosshair VIII Dark Hero everything is stock except Docp standard 3600 with fclk 1800 and Precision Bost Override section


Is it possible that you have all your PBO CO values set to Positive 30 instead of Negative ? That would explain...


----------



## dlbsyst

Alberto_It said:


> Hi guys!
> *PBO 2 Settings for my ASUS Crosshair VIII Dark Hero paired with one Ryzen 9 5950x and Corsair H150i Capellix as Aio?
> 
> Please help me, because yesterday I have obtained only 10350 pts on CB20
> 
> MY ram are 3600 fclk 1800
> 
> Thank you in advance *


Alberto, I have PBO Fmax Enhancer set to Auto, Precision Boost Overdrive set to Enabled and everything else set to Auto and get 11169 multi and 640 single core Cinebench R20. I have a Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi with the 3801 bios.


----------



## Alberto_It

dlbsyst said:


> Alberto, I have PBO Fmax Enhancer set to Auto, Precision Boost Overdrive set to Enabled and everything else set to Auto and get 11169 multi and 640 single core Cinebench R20. I have a Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi with the 3801 bios.


Thank you very much for your help!


----------



## Alberto_It

Hi to everyone! Tomorrow I will try to perform a pbo as described by @dlbsyst and Dynamic OC with CCX 0 and 1 to 46 with core vid on 1.35 and we will see how my Cpu perform on CB20


----------



## dlbsyst

Alberto_It said:


> Thank you very much for your help!


You're welcome. Let me know if you need any more help. I can post a .txt file of all my Bios settings if you like.


----------



## Alberto_It

dlbsyst said:


> You're welcome. Let me know if you need any more help. I can post a .txt file of all my Bios settings if you like.


If you can yes, could be appreciated 😌


----------



## dlbsyst

Alberto_It said:


> If you can yes, could be appreciated 😌


Here you go Alberto and webwilli. Please use responsibly.

[2021/09/24 19:52:44]
[5950X 3801 Bios Settings]
Ai Overclock Tuner [D.O.C.P. Standard]
D.O.C.P. [D.O.C.P DDR4-3603 16-16-16-36-1.35V]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3733MHz]
FCLK Frequency [1866MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Core VID [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
Performance Bias [Auto]
PBO Fmax Enhancer [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Enabled]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Curve Optimizer [Auto]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [Auto]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [16]
Trcdrd [16]
Trcdwr [16]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [16]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [32]
Trc [50]
TrrdS [4]
TrrdL [8]
Tfaw [12]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [14]
Twr [14]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [4]
TwrwrScl [4]
Trfc [298]
Trfc2 [400]
Trfc4 [400]
Tcwl [16]
Trtp [8]
Trdwr [8]
Twrrd [4]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [7]
TwrwrDd [7]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [5]
TrdrdDd [5]
Tcke [1]
ProcODT [43.6 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [Rtt_Nom Disable]
RttWr [RZQ/3]
RttPark [RZQ/1]
MemAddrCmdSetup [0]
MemCsOdtSetup [0]
MemCkeSetup [0]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
CPU Current Capability [Auto]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
Active Frequency Mode [Disabled]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Auto]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Auto]
DRAM Current Capability [100%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
VTTDDR Voltage [0.68750]
VPP_MEM Voltage [2.50000]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [0.90000]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [0]
DRAM R2 Tune [0]
DRAM R3 Tune [0]
DRAM R4 Tune [0]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Enabled]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.10000]
DRAM Voltage [1.37500]
VDDG CCD Voltage Control [1.050]
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [1.050]
CLDO VDDP Voltage [0.950]
1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
Security Device Support [Enable]
SHA-1 PCR Bank [Enabled]
SHA256 PCR Bank [Enabled]
Pending operation [None]
Platform Hierarchy [Enabled]
Storage Hierarchy [Enabled]
Endorsement Hierarchy [Enabled]
TPM 2.0 UEFI Spec Version [TCG_2]
Physical Presence Spec Version [1.3]
Disable Block Sid [Disabled]
Selects TPM device [Enable Firmware TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Enabled]
PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
NX Mode [Enabled]
SVM Mode [Disabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
CCD Control [Auto]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
SMART Self Test [Auto]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
When system is in working state [All On]
Q-Code LED Function [Auto]
When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [Stealth Mode]
Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Auto]
Intel LAN Controller [Auto]
ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Enabled]
Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_2 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
SB Link Mode [Auto]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Above 4G Decoding [Enabled]
Resize BAR Support [Auto]
SR-IOV Support [Enabled]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
SanDisk U3 Cruzer Micro 4.04 [Auto]
SanDisk U3 Cruzer Micro 4.04 [Auto]
USB Device Enable [Enabled]
U32G2_2 [Enabled]
U32G2_3 [Enabled]
U32G2_4 [Enabled]
U32G1_10 [Enabled]
U32G1_11 [Enabled]
USB12 [Enabled]
USB13 [Enabled]
U32G2_7 [Enabled]
U32G2_8 [Enabled]
U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Device [SATA6G_8: Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
PCH Fan Speed [Monitor]
Flow Rate [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
CPU Fan Step Up [0 sec]
CPU Fan Step Down [0 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
CPU Fan Profile [Manual]
CPU Fan Upper Temperature [75]
CPU Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
CPU Fan Middle Temperature [65]
CPU Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [60]
CPU Fan Lower Temperature [54]
CPU Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [29]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Manual]
Chassis Fan 1 Upper Temperature [75]
Chassis Fan 1 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 1 Middle Temperature [65]
Chassis Fan 1 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Chassis Fan 1 Lower Temperature [54]
Chassis Fan 1 Min Duty Cycle (%) [28]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Manual]
Chassis Fan 2 Upper Temperature [75]
Chassis Fan 2 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 2 Middle Temperature [65]
Chassis Fan 2 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Chassis Fan 2 Lower Temperature [54]
Chassis Fan 2 Min Duty Cycle (%) [29]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Manual]
Chassis Fan 3 Upper Temperature [75]
Chassis Fan 3 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 3 Middle Temperature [65]
Chassis Fan 3 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [61]
Chassis Fan 3 Lower Temperature [54]
Chassis Fan 3 Min Duty Cycle (%) [29]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
High Amp Fan Profile [Manual]
High Amp Fan Upper Temperature [75]
High Amp Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
High Amp Fan Middle Temperature [65]
High Amp Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [60]
High Amp Fan Lower Temperature [54]
High Amp Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [30]
Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Above 4GB MMIO Limit [39bit (512GB)]
Fast Boot [Disabled]
Boot Logo Display [Auto]
Bootup NumLock State [On]
POST Delay Time [0 sec]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Disabled]
OS Type [Windows UEFI mode]
AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
Flexkey [Reset]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [1]
Profile Name [5950x settings]
Save to Profile [1]
DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A2]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Disabled]
CPU Frequency [0]
CPU Voltage [0]
CCD Control [Auto]
Core control [Auto]
SMT Control [Auto]
Overclock [Enabled ]
Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
Tcl [Auto]
Trcdrd [Auto]
Trcdwr [Auto]
Trp [Auto]
Tras [Auto]
Trc Ctrl [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr Ctrl [Auto]
Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
ECO Mode [Disable]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
LCLK DPM [Auto]
LCLK DPM Enhanced PCIe Detection [Auto]
Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
Global C-state Control [Auto]
Power Supply Idle Control [Auto]
SEV ASID Count [Auto]
SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
Local APIC Mode [Auto]
ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
DRAM scrub time [Auto]
Poison scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Memory interleaving [Auto]
Memory interleaving size [Auto]
1TB remap [Auto]
DRAM map inversion [Auto]
ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
GMI encryption control [Auto]
xGMI encryption control [Auto]
CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
PcsCG control [Auto]
Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
Memory Clear [Auto]
Overclock [Enabled]
Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
Tcl [Auto]
Trcdrd [Auto]
Trcdwr [Auto]
Trp [Auto]
Tras [Auto]
Trc Ctrl [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr Ctrl [Auto]
Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Data Poisoning [Auto]
DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
RCD Parity [Auto]
DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
Write CRC Enable [Auto]
DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
TSME [Auto]
Data Scramble [Auto]
DFE Read Training [Auto]
FFE Write Training [Auto]
PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
BankGroupSwap [Auto]
BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
Address Hash Bank [Auto]
Address Hash CS [Auto]
Address Hash Rm [Auto]
SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
MBIST Enable [Disabled]
Pattern Select [PRBS]
Pattern Length(VMR) [6]
Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
IOMMU [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
FCLK Frequency [Auto]
SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
ACS Enable [Auto]
PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
cTDP Control [Auto]
EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
APBDIS [Auto]
DF Cstates [Auto]
CPPC [Auto]
CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
Early Link Speed [Auto]
Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
Preferred IO [Auto]
CV test [Auto]
Loopback Mode [Auto]
SRIS [Auto]
Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]


----------



## Reikoji

safedisk said:


> Hey
> I think it's an issue with the AGESA 1204 version
> Sorry 😂


Since there isn't a fix to the latest beta bios yet, imma guess that its AMD's fault this time? xD

No worries tho, this one wasnt nearly as 'fun' as 1501, I think it was from Zen 1 days. Wanted to make a shirt out of that one.


----------



## Alberto_It

dlbsyst said:


> Here you go Alberto and webwilli. Please use responsibly.


Thank you my friend 😉


----------



## LocoDiceGR

Im still here waiting for 1.2.0.4 for B550-i model. 😁😁

Maybe this week before w11 launch?!


----------



## noxious89123

dlbsyst said:


> Here you go Alberto and webwilli. Please use responsibly.


If you copy and paste the contents instead of uploading the file, there is less chance of the information being lost. We've all seen decade old forum posts where the links and uploads are dead.
Pasting the text in also makes it more easily searchable online, and more easily readable as a file isn't required to be downloaded 



LocoDiceGR said:


> Im still here waiting for 1.2.0.4 for B550-i model. 😁😁
> 
> Maybe this week before w11 launch?!


You're not really missing anything, AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.4 seems to have been no better than AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.3 Patch C at best, and at worst has been a bit weird and locked some voltages for some users.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

LocoDiceGR said:


> Im still here waiting for 1.2.0.4 for B550-i model. 😁😁
> 
> Maybe this week before w11 launch?!


If you're after Windows 11 support its just as easy as enabling the TPM on the BIOS menu..


----------



## Enferlain

What would cause cb score fluctuations between 8800 and 9300 in the same exact scenario? Some days I run cb I get 9300, and on a different day it's like 8800 or something. Literally running the same things too, same temps and everything. Is win 11 just that ****?

Also, does anyone use the absolute dog **** that is armory crate? If not is there an established way to control mobo ram gpu rbg without a lot of hassle? I'm about to do a system restore from the perpetual aneurysm it's causing me.


----------



## Nizzen

Enferlain said:


> What would cause cb score fluctuations between 8800 and 9300 in the same exact scenario? Some days I run cb I get 9300, and on a different day it's like 8800 or something. Literally running the same things too, same temps and everything. Is win 11 just that ****?


Amd just doing Amd things. Normal 🤣


----------



## dlbsyst

Alberto_It said:


> Thank you my friend 😉


You're welcome.


----------



## dlbsyst

noxious89123 said:


> If you copy and paste the contents instead of uploading the file, there is less chance of the information being lost. We've all seen decade old forum posts where the links and uploads are dead.
> Pasting the text in also makes it more easily searchable online, and more easily readable as a file isn't required to be downloaded
> 
> 
> You're not really missing anything, AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.4 seems to have been no better than AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.3 Patch C at best, and at worst has been a bit weird and locked some voltages for some users.


Done. Thanks for the suggestion. I also left the .txt file for those that want it.


----------



## dlbsyst

Enferlain said:


> What would cause cb score fluctuations between 8800 and 9300 in the same exact scenario? Some days I run cb I get 9300, and on a different day it's like 8800 or something. Literally running the same things too, same temps and everything. Is win 11 just that ****?
> 
> Also, does anyone use the absolute dog **** that is armory crate? If not is there an established way to control mobo ram gpu rbg without a lot of hassle? I'm about to do a system restore from the perpetual aneurysm it's causing me.


Definitely not normal. Sounds like something is running in the background and chewing up resources. Ctrl-Alt-Delete and check your CPU % before running the test. It should show 0%. Yeah, armory crate is a resource hog. I would uninstall it if I was you. Check the manufacturer of your devices for software to control rgb.


----------



## Alberto_It

dlbsyst said:


> You're welcome.


Ok, I've performed a light OC profile putting on the bios the following settings :

Extreme Tweaker
*Extreme Tweaker /Cpu Core Ratio per CCX *
Core Vid : 1.35
CCD0 CCX0 Ratio: 45.50
CCD1 CCX0 Ratio: 45.50
Dynamic OC Switcher : Enabled
Curent Threshold to Switch to Oc Mode: 70A

Next two settings on Auto

*PBO 2 Settings :*

PBO Fmax Enhancer [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Enabled]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Curve Optimizer [Auto]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [+100]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]

CB20: 11800pts (Screenshot will be made tomorrow)

CPU Z Validation : AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @ 4548.94 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR

I can get more, but now I have an ambient temperature of about 24 C degrees and my Aio can't do better at the moment


----------



## Enferlain

dlbsyst said:


> Definitely not normal. Sounds like something is running in the background and chewing up resources. Ctrl-Alt-Delete and check your CPU % before running the test. It should show 0%. Yeah, armory crate is a resource hog. I would uninstall it if I was you. Check the manufacturer of your devices for software to control rgb.


CPU usage itself is always single digit, the background apps like icue and cam use 0.1-3% usually, asus services show 0.0 but I dunno how realistic that is. For what it's worth, I had the same thing even when armory ****crate wasn't installed. Going to have to try closing out every background app 1 by one maybe I can find what exactly is the culprit if it really is background ****


----------



## dlbsyst

Enferlain said:


> CPU usage itself is always single digit, the background apps like icue and cam use 0.1-3% usually, asus services show 0.0 but I dunno how realistic that is. For what it's worth, I had the same thing even when armory ***_crate wasn't installed._* Going to have to try closing out every background app 1 by one maybe I can find what exactly is the culprit if it really is background **


Good idea.


----------



## dlbsyst

Enferlain said:


> CPU usage itself is always single digit, the background apps like icue and cam use 0.1-3% usually, asus services show 0.0 but I dunno how realistic that is. For what it's worth, I had the same thing even when armory *_crate wasn't installed. Going to have to try closing out every background app 1 by one maybe I can find what exactly is the culprit if it really is background *_


Be sure and enable PBO Fmax Enhancer in your Bios if using an AIO. Your 3950x loves it and it will improve your performance. Here is my score using it with my 3950x that I used to have.


----------



## plazing

Enferlain said:


> What would cause cb score fluctuations between 8800 and 9300 in the same exact scenario? Some days I run cb I get 9300, and on a different day it's like 8800 or something. Literally running the same things too, same temps and everything. Is win 11 just that ****?
> 
> Also, does anyone use the absolute dog **** that is armory crate? If not is there an established way to control mobo ram gpu rbg without a lot of hassle? I'm about to do a system restore from the perpetual aneurysm it's causing me.


OpenRGB


----------



## dlbsyst

plazing said:


> OpenRGB


This sounds very interesting and if it can truly sync all RGB and use virtually no resources it's a dream come true.


----------



## noxious89123

Alberto_It said:


> *Curve Optimizer [Auto]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [+100]*


You'll see better results with PBO if you set negative offsets for your cores using Curve Optimiser. Setting a higher clock override doesn't always work as you may expect, as the CPU is likely limiting how high it will boost using its FIT algorithm and monitoring things like voltage / current / heat etc.

The most effective way to make your CPU go faster with PBO is to undervolt the cores. Ryzen is weird. If you set an undervolt using Curve Optimiser, the result is basically that the CPU will still use the voltage it was before, but it will do so at a higher clock speed.

The only issue with using Curve Optimiser is that it's tricky to stability test, and is unlike any other system for stability testing. You'll likely be able to set all cores to -30 and run tests like Prime95 for as long as you like with no errors, but then at idle you'll get random crashes. Basically, the system is far more sensitive to the undervolt at low load than it is at high load.

Someone on OCN made a handy tool called Core Cycler, which only loads single cores at a time, and also frequently makes them transition between load and idle, to try and find this instability. I have found this tool very useful, and would recommend it.

You'll need to play with CO and max overide to see which combination gives you the best results, as from my understanding, setting the override too high can leave you unable to reach those speeds, and so _lose_ performance.

As an example, here are my settings;


> Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
> PBO Limits [Motherboard]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> Curve Optimizer [Per Core]
> Core 0 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [28]
> Core 1 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [14]
> Core 2 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 3 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [20]
> Core 4 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 5 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 6 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [28]
> Core 7 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [24]
> Core 8 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [20]
> Core 9 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [28]
> Core 10 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 11 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [200MHz]


(IMPORTANT NOTE: The "sign" for all of these values is *negative *_not_ positive.)

It's worth noting though that whilst I am stable, I still have further testing to do. I may be able to maintain higher clocks with a lower override.

TL;DR Curve Optimiser changes the Frequency : Voltage curve.


----------



## dlbsyst

noxious89123 said:


> You'll see better results with PBO if you set negative offsets for your cores using Curve Optimiser. Setting a higher clock override doesn't always work as you may expect, as the CPU is likely limiting how high it will boost using its FIT algorithm and monitoring things like voltage / current / heat etc.
> 
> The most effective way to make your CPU go faster with PBO is to undervolt the cores. Ryzen is weird. If you set an undervolt using Curve Optimiser, the result is basically that the CPU will still use the voltage it was before, but it will do so at a higher clock speed.
> 
> The only issue with using Curve Optimiser is that it's tricky to stability test, and is unlike any other system for stability testing. You'll likely be able to set all cores to -30 and run tests like Prime95 for as long as you like with no errors, but then at idle you'll get random crashes. Basically, the system is far more sensitive to the undervolt at low load than it is at high load.
> 
> Someone on OCN made a handy tool called Core Cycler, which only loads single cores at a time, and also frequently makes them transition between load and idle, to try and find this instability. I have found this tool very useful, and would recommend it.
> 
> You'll need to play with CO and max overide to see which combination gives you the best results, as from my understanding, setting the override too high can leave you unable to reach those speeds, and so _lose_ performance.
> 
> As an example, here are my settings;
> 
> (IMPORTANT NOTE: The "sign" for all of these values is *negative *_not_ positive.)
> 
> It's worth noting though that whilst I am stable, I still have further testing to do. I may be able to maintain higher clocks with a lower override.
> 
> TL;DR Curve Optimiser changes the Frequency : Voltage curve.


Excellent post noxious89123. Can you please post your CB R20 and R23 scores for both single and multi core? I'd like to see how those settings affect your scores.


----------



## noxious89123

dlbsyst said:


> Excellent post noxious89123. Can you please post your CB R20 and R23 scores for both single and multi core? I'd like to see how those settings affect your scores.


I don't have screenshots, so I'm afraid I don't have "proof", but the best figures I've achieved so far are as follows;

CB R20 multi core 9066 (repeatable and consistent)
CB R20 single core 646 (repeatable and consistent)

CPU-Z single thread 691.1 (averaged from 3~5 runs)
CPU-Z multi thread 10109.1 (averaged from 3~5 runs)

CB R23 multi core 23378 (repeatable and consistent)
CB R23 single core 1653 (repeatable and consistent)

PPT 230W / TDC 255A / EDC 200A

It's also worth noting that I've put a lot more time in to memory overclocking on Ryzen 5000 than I have in to CPU overclocking, so I've no idea what I could achieve with manual OC or using the Dynamic OC Switcher. Based on the posts from other users, I expect I could increase my scores by reducing my PPT/TDC/EDC settings, to hold higher all core clocks for longer, as this setup gets rather hot even with watercooling. I do have some doubt about my thermalpaste spread, but have also read information that implies that some of these CPU have hugely concave IHS'

I gained around 550 points in CB R20 mc between my current settings are running at -20 on all cores. Unfortunately I don't have CB figures from earlier testing.

Some of my cores are maxed out at -30, so I've been thinking about setting a small negative vcore offset increment elsewhere in the BIOS and then backing off my CO settings by say 5 or so, and then retesting and seeing if I can get more of an undervolt on those cores which are maxed at -30.


----------



## Alberto_It

noxious89123 said:


> You'll see better results with PBO if you set negative offsets for your cores using Curve Optimiser. Setting a higher clock override doesn't always work as you may expect, as the CPU is likely limiting how high it will boost using its FIT algorithm and monitoring things like voltage / current / heat etc.
> 
> The most effective way to make your CPU go faster with PBO is to undervolt the cores. Ryzen is weird. If you set an undervolt using Curve Optimiser, the result is basically that the CPU will still use the voltage it was before, but it will do so at a higher clock speed.
> 
> The only issue with using Curve Optimiser is that it's tricky to stability test, and is unlike any other system for stability testing. You'll likely be able to set all cores to -30 and run tests like Prime95 for as long as you like with no errors, but then at idle you'll get random crashes. Basically, the system is far more sensitive to the undervolt at low load than it is at high load.
> 
> Someone on OCN made a handy tool called Core Cycler, which only loads single cores at a time, and also frequently makes them transition between load and idle, to try and find this instability. I have found this tool very useful, and would recommend it.
> 
> You'll need to play with CO and max overide to see which combination gives you the best results, as from my understanding, setting the override too high can leave you unable to reach those speeds, and so _lose_ performance.
> 
> As an example, here are my settings;
> 
> (IMPORTANT NOTE: The "sign" for all of these values is *negative *_not_ positive.)
> 
> It's worth noting though that whilst I am stable, I still have further testing to do. I may be able to maintain higher clocks with a lower override.
> 
> TL;DR Curve Optimiser changes the Frequency : Voltage curve.


Thank you for your suggestions! But I have set up a combination between Switch OC features for multi thread performance and PBO for higher single thread performance.

*On Cinebench R20 I got 11800 pts and CPU-Z over 13000 multi thread performance and 656 on single with idle temperature of 34C and maximum temperature of 72 C. Cpu package no more of 82 C. 

With my pc I play games and sometimes I perform some benchmarks. Why touch my settings? *


----------



## Kelutrel

noxious89123 said:


> I don't have screenshots, so I'm afraid I don't have "proof", but the best figures I've achieved so far are as follows;
> 
> CB R20 multi core 9066 (repeatable and consistent)
> CB R20 single core 646 (repeatable and consistent)
> 
> CPU-Z single thread 691.1 (averaged from 3~5 runs)
> CPU-Z multi thread 10109.1 (averaged from 3~5 runs)
> 
> CB R23 multi core 23378 (repeatable and consistent)
> CB R23 single core 1653 (repeatable and consistent)
> 
> PPT 230W / TDC 255A / EDC 200A
> 
> It's also worth noting that I've put a lot more time in to memory overclocking on Ryzen 5000 than I have in to CPU overclocking, so I've no idea what I could achieve with manual OC or using the Dynamic OC Switcher. Based on the posts from other users, I expect I could increase my scores by reducing my PPT/TDC/EDC settings, to hold higher all core clocks for longer, as this setup gets rather hot even with watercooling. I do have some doubt about my thermalpaste spread, but have also read information that implies that some of these CPU have hugely concave IHS'
> 
> I gained around 550 points in CB R20 mc between my current settings are running at -20 on all cores. Unfortunately I don't have CB figures from earlier testing.
> 
> Some of my cores are maxed out at -30, so I've been thinking about setting a small negative vcore offset increment elsewhere in the BIOS and then backing off my CO settings by say 5 or so, and then retesting and seeing if I can get more of an undervolt on those cores which are maxed at -30.


I appreciated your last posts. I have a 5900X cpu sample that is particularly undervolting friendly. I usually keep all PBO2 CO offsets at -30 but the two faster cores at -16.

Before AGESA 1.2.0.3 I used to do like you suggest above, undervolting my vcore by -0.05v and slightly increasing the PBO2 CO offsets in the -20 range to compensate, and used to get better temperatures and higher MT benchmark scores with slightly lower ST scores.
From AGESA 1.2.0.3 onward that is no more the case and, even when undervolting the vcore by the same, the PBO2 CO offsets don't need to be raised to keep stability, and also the benchmark scores don't change as much as before (less than 1% now), and the temperatures are only marginally improved. It seems to me that from that agesa version the cpu is able to automatically compensate the vcore undervolting.

Currently I use BIOS 3801 (AGESA 1.2.0.3c) and with PBO limits set to Motherboard I get:
- VCore Auto
CBR20 MT: 9085
CBR23 MT: 23303
CPUZ: 688/10157
Geekbench5: 1758/16255

- VCore -0.05v offset
CBR20 MT: 9107
CBR23 MT: 23367
CPUZ: 688/10210
Geekbench5: 1761/16201

I also get slightly better MT scores and slightly worse ST scores by setting CPU LLC 1 , but nothing like the improvements I got when undervolting the cpu pre-1.2.0.3 .

One less known setting, if you have PCIe4 devices, to slightly improve your PCIe4/NVME performances you may want to set both "AMD PBS/Data Link Feature Exchange" and "AMD CBS/NBIO Options/PCIe Ten Bit Tag support" to Enabled (some soundcards and older PCIe3 devices may be incompatible with this) as those are disabled by default.


----------



## dlbsyst

Alberto_It said:


> Thank you for your suggestions! But I have set up a combination between Switch OC features for multi thread performance and PBO for higher single thread performance.
> 
> *On Cinebench R20 I got 11800 pts and CPU-Z over 13000 multi thread performance and 656 on single with idle temperature of 34C and maximum temperature of 72 C. Cpu package no more of 82 C.
> 
> With my pc I play games and sometimes I perform some benchmarks. Why touch my settings? *


Those are excellent scores Alberto. I know I would never be able to achieve those with my regular Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi. I'd have to get the Dark Hero. Oh, well. I'm actually pretty happy with my performance.


----------



## Alberto_It

dlbsyst said:


> Those are excellent scores Alberto. I know I would never be able to achieve those with my regular Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi. I'd have to get the Dark Hero. Oh, well. I'm actually pretty happy with my performance.


Thank you very much buddy! I'm also happy with my scores.

I can get more performance and results with my CPU and motherboard but at the moment the ambient temperatures are around 24C degrees.
My Corsair ICue Capellix H150i is a good 360mm Aio but higher clocks are a risk for the stability.

Last January I arrived at 12150 pts on Cinebench R20, but the ambient temperature was around 17 C degrees.

Now I'm "only" 300pst below with CCX @45.50 instead of CCX @ 4.7 all Cores of last January without pbo and Switcher OC benefits.


----------



## dlbsyst

Alberto_It said:


> Thank you very much buddy! I'm also happy with my scores.
> 
> I can get more performance and results with my CPU and motherboard but at the moment the ambient temperatures are around 24C degrees.
> My Corsair ICue Capellix H150i is a good 360mm Aio but higher clocks are a risk for the stability.
> 
> Last January I arrived at 12150 pts on Cinebench R20, but the ambient temperature was around 17 C degrees.
> 
> Now I'm "only" 300pst below with CCX @45.50 instead of CCX @ 4.7 all Cores of last January without pbo and Switcher OC benefits.


Nice! So when you say ambient temperature your talking about your room temperature, correct? My room temperature is 23C.


----------



## Alberto_It

dlbsyst said:


> Nice! So when you say ambient temperature your talking about your room temperature, correct? My room temperature is 23C.


Yes my bed room


----------



## Alberto_It

Few months ago with manual OC with same CPU, ram and same Aio but with different gpu (one Rtx 3090 now inside to another pc) and the Formula.


----------



## Enferlain

plazing said:


> OpenRGB


I tried it before but I think I stopped because I was lazy to find out how to have the options apply even after rebooting



dlbsyst said:


> Be sure and enable PBO Fmax Enhancer in your Bios if using an AIO. Your 3950x loves it and it will improve your performance. Here is my score using it with my 3950x that I used to have.


I actually turned it off/left on auto because some other forums said it does the opposite? I'll give it a whirl and see how it goes


----------



## xeizo

Fmax Enhancer works with Zen 2, not so much with Zen 3


----------



## Alberto_It

xeizo said:


> Fmax Enhancer works with Zen 2, not so much with Zen 3


You suggest to disable it? Performance gains?


----------



## GRABibus

With my 5900X, Fmax Enhancer increases peak frequencies (I boost much higher in CBR20 ST and MT), but for ST score, I loose 10pts to 15points.
MT score is not improved also.
Try it.


----------



## webwilli

Enferlain said:


> I tried it before but I think I stopped because I was lazy to find out how to have the options apply even after rebooting


Autostart:

Just put a link to the openrgb.exe to "%APPDATA%\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Startup\"


----------



## dlbsyst

Enferlain said:


> I tried it before but I think I stopped because I was lazy to find out how to have the options apply even after rebooting
> 
> 
> 
> I actually turned it off/left on auto because some other forums said it does the opposite? I'll give it a whirl and see how it goes


I definitely recommend it for your 3950x, it works wonders. If you get a 5950x you're going to want to leave it set to Auto. Enabling it keeps the CPU from boosting correctly. Maybe one day it can be Improved to work properly with the 5000 series chips.


----------



## dlbsyst

GRABibus said:


> With my 5900X, Fmax Enhancer increases peak frequencies (I boost much higher in CBR20 ST and MT), but for ST score, I loose 10pts to 15points.
> MT score is not improved also.
> Try it.


With my 5950x it seems to kill my performance. I get over 1000 more points in CB R20 Multi core with it left on Auto vs Enabled. Never tried to see how it affects single core.


----------



## GRABibus

dlbsyst said:


> With my 5950x it seems to kill my performance. I get over 1000 more points in CB R20 Multi core. Never tried to see how it affects single core.


If you get 1000points more with Fmax enhancer, then it doesn’t kill your performance, it improves it !


----------



## dlbsyst

Alberto_It said:


> You suggest to disable it? Performance gains?


Try it on Auto and disabled. See which gives you more performance. I suspect you'll get the same performance either way. I keep mine on Auto Alberto.


----------



## dlbsyst

GRABibus said:


> If you get 1000points more with Fmax enhancer, then it doesn’t kill your performance, it improves it !


Sorry, I clarified that post. I meant to say I get over 1000 points higher in CB R20 Multi core with it left on Auto vs Enabled.


----------



## noxious89123

Alberto_It said:


> *Why touch my settings?*


Huh? I'm thoroughly bamboozled by this.

This is *Overclock*.net. That's the whole point of the forum? Unless you're in the off topic area? And you asked how to get higher scores???



Enferlain said:


> I tried it before but I think I stopped because I was lazy to find out how to have the options apply even after rebooting
> 
> I actually turned it off/left on auto because some other forums said it does the opposite? I'll give it a whirl and see how it goes


Fmax enhancer should work well for Ryzen 3000, but it does weird stuff that loses performance with Ryzen 5000.



GRABibus said:


> With my 5900X, Fmax Enhancer increases peak frequencies (I boost much higher in CBR20 ST and MT), but for ST score, I loose 10pts to 15points.
> MT score is not improved also.
> Try it.


This is my experience too, clocks appear higher but scores are lower.


----------



## metalshark

dlbsyst said:


> Those are excellent scores Alberto. I know I would never be able to achieve those with my regular Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi. I'd have to get the Dark Hero. Oh, well. I'm actually pretty happy with my performance.


I wouldn’t be so certain, it’s worth playing with Hydra.


----------



## dlbsyst

metalshark said:


> I wouldn’t be so certain, it’s worth playing with Hydra.


I assumed Hydra was only for the Dark Hero. I'll play around with it then. Thanks 👍


----------



## SpeedyIV

Hydra is for Zen 3 and Zen 3+ processors. It is not specific to any motherboard or manufacturer. The author (Yuri Bubliy (@1usmus) has a Patreon site where he releases the beta versions of Hydra. He just released Hydra 1.0A though he has already stated that Hydra 1.0B will be released in a few days. The predecessor to Hydra was Clock Tuner (CTR). Development stopped at CTR2.1 RC6 ver25. I don't think he plans to continue development of CTR.

Here is the link for Hydra. I think you have to sign up on Patreon to access the beta versions of Hydra. He has a Discord channel too.

Hydra Link


----------



## dlbsyst

SpeedyIV said:


> Hydra is for Zen 3 and Zen 3+ processors. It is not specific to any motherboard or manufacturer. The author (Yuri Bubliy (@1usmus) has a Patreon site where he releases the beta versions of Hydra. He just released Hydra 1.0A though he has already stated that Hydra 1.0B will be released in a few days. The predecessor to Hydra was Clock Tuner (CTR). Development stopped at CTR2.1 RC6 ver25. I don't think he plans to continue development of CTR.
> 
> Here is the link for Hydra. I think you have to sign up on Patreon to access the beta versions of Hydra. He has a Discord channel too.
> 
> Hydra Link


Thanks. So I have to pay $10 a month and become a Patreon to access this software. Do you think it's worth it?


----------



## Alemancio

dlbsyst said:


> Thanks. So I have to pay $10 a month and become a Patreon to access this software. Do you think it's worth it?


CTR has been compared throughly vs PBO and it did not boost gaming at all. In my honest opinion, I'd pay the $10 for a ONE TIME payment, but $10 a month? f* no bro hahaha.


----------



## SpeedyIV

Some people swore CTR was the greatest thing ever. Others felt that they could do better setting things manually. I have paid for 3 months but am thinking about stopping. I figured there would be a few more betas of CTR and then it would basically be done. Instead, he seems to have abandoned it and moved on to Hydra, which is now going through beta cycles. I have not tried Hydra yet but I do keep an eye on the comments on Patreon. I was going to give Hydra 1.0A a try but people are reporting crashes and now 1.0B is coming out any day. You could wait a bit longer for Hydra to settle down and maybe pay for a month when he releases a stable version. I can't see continuing to pay $10 per month for more than 3 or 4 months, tops.


----------



## metalshark

dlbsyst said:


> Thanks. So I have to pay $10 a month and become a Patreon to access this software. Do you think it's worth it?


CTR is publicly available, am unsure if Hydra “Pro” will be publicly available or a cut down non-pro version. Regarding value, paying that much for a piece of software to give you functionality above and beyond the Dark Hero on most boards might be hard to swallow. Viewing it as funding the development work of 1usmus pushing the Ryzen platform’s capabIlity (they made the DRAM Calculator, etc) I see it as good value.


----------



## bl4ckdot

I wouldn't fall for this "scam"


----------



## stimpy88

bl4ckdot said:


> I wouldn't fall for this "scam"


I agree. He used to release great tools to the community, but always moved on to a new things before fixing what he already released. So I would not pay a monthly subscription for potential abandonware.

Yes, he puts a lot of work in, and yes, he should be compensated for his time, but what he is doing now does not sit well with me. I will not pay $10 per month for something you simply cannot rely upon to give you a TANGIABLE performance increase outside of niche benchmarks, beyond the usual 3-5%, which most people here can get by tweaking their settings for free.

But if you insist on throwing money at your computer to increase performance, upgrade your CPU cooling and get more than this software could ever offer - With no monthly subscription to worry about.


----------



## Enferlain

noxious89123 said:


> Huh? I'm thoroughly bamboozled by this.
> 
> This is *Overclock*.net. That's the whole point of the forum? Unless you're in the off topic area? And you asked how to get higher scores???
> 
> 
> Fmax enhancer should work well for Ryzen 3000, but it does weird stuff that loses performance with Ryzen 5000.
> 
> 
> This is my experience too, clocks appear higher but scores are lower.


I enabled fmax enhancer and like 2 minutes into boot I got a dpc watchdog violation when trying to close a folder. I didn't get any blue screens for a month before that. Kinda sus. Either that or armory crate was really the one doing all the bluescreen spamming before I did a clean install without it, gonna need more time to figure this out too. I have a restoration point to before I installed it so at least there's that

Yeah ggs I just got 2 dpc watchdog violations in 2 boots within 10 minutes. I'll put it back on auto and see if it happens again

These are my pbo settings right now, just changed fmax back to auto










This **** is so awkward. I'm literally on the same settings as before I tried enabling fmax and now my cb multi max temp went up by like 7C


----------



## xeizo

Enferlain said:


> I enabled fmax enhancer and like 2 minutes into boot I got a dpc watchdog violation when trying to close a folder. I didn't get any blue screens for a month before that. Kinda sus. Either that or armory crate was really the one doing all the bluescreen spamming before I did a clean install without it, gonna need more time to figure this out too. I have a restoration point to before I installed it so at least there's that
> 
> Yeah ggs I just got 2 dpc watchdog violations in 2 boots within 10 minutes. I'll put it back on auto and see if it happens again
> 
> These are my pbo settings right now, just changed fmax back to auto
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This **** is so awkward. I'm literally on the same settings as before I tried enabling fmax and now my cb multi max temp went up by like 7C


Yes, Fmax Enhancer gets much hotter and more close to instability, only benefit is better CB-scores with Zen 2. I don't use FE on any of my four Ryzen systems.


----------



## Sleepycat

Enferlain said:


> I enabled fmax enhancer and like 2 minutes into boot I got a dpc watchdog violation when trying to close a folder. I didn't get any blue screens for a month before that. Kinda sus. Either that or armory crate was really the one doing all the bluescreen spamming before I did a clean install without it, gonna need more time to figure this out too. I have a restoration point to before I installed it so at least there's that
> 
> Yeah ggs I just got 2 dpc watchdog violations in 2 boots within 10 minutes. I'll put it back on auto and see if it happens again
> 
> These are my pbo settings right now, just changed fmax back to auto
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This **** is so awkward. I'm literally on the same settings as before I tried enabling fmax and now my cb multi max temp went up by like 7C


Yes, in this thread, we keep advising not to turn on PBO Fmax Enhancer if you have Zen3. It is somehow not compatible.


----------



## Sleepycat

stimpy88 said:


> I agree. He used to release great tools to the community, but always moved on to a new things before fixing what he already released. So I would not pay a monthly subscription for potential abandonware.
> 
> Yes, he puts a lot of work in, and yes, he should be compensated for his time, but what he is doing now does not sit well with me. I will not pay $10 per month for something you simply cannot rely upon to give you a TANGIABLE performance increase outside of niche benchmarks, beyond the usual 3-5%, which most people here can get by tweaking their settings for free.
> 
> But if you insist on throwing money at your computer to increase performance, upgrade your CPU cooling and get more than this software could ever offer - With no monthly subscription to worry about.


At least the public versions are free. I was on the free CTR 2.1 for a very long time. It got what I needed. It was lower scores in CB R20/23 compared to PBO Advanced, but the temperatures were much lower. I use it to lower temperatures as I am on air cooling and not chasing benchmark scores now. 

But in the end, there are a number of different ways of increasing your performance by paying for parts or software, so as long as we have the choice to decide on where to spend our money, then that is good.


----------



## Chili195

I'm not sure the technicalities of how it works but I would never personally allow a third party, closed source, unofficial software to govern anything related to my CPU or voltage.


----------



## Sleepycat

Chili195 said:


> I'm not sure the technicalities of how it works but I would never personally allow a third party, closed source, unofficial software to govern anything related to my CPU or voltage.


That's fine, we all have the choice of what we allow to run on our systems. That is what's good about today's world.


----------



## Alberto_It

*Disclaimer : After two hours of playing with Metro Exodus. 

How is this score? 







*


----------



## dlbsyst

Alberto_It said:


> *Disclaimer : After two hours of playing with Metro Exodus.
> 
> How is this score?
> 
> View attachment 2526468
> *


Really good mult core score there Alberto You got me beat but I got you beat on single core.


----------



## Alberto_It

dlbsyst said:


> Really good mult core score there Alberto You got me beat but I got you beat on single core.


Could it be because I applied a negative curve of -10 on all Cores? Or because before I have played 2 hours with Metro Exodus and the chip was hot?


----------



## dlbsyst

Thanks guys for chiming in about Hydra and offering your opinions on its value. I'm going to hold off on it until it's further along in it's development.


----------



## metalshark

dlbsyst said:


> Thanks guys for chiming in about Hydra and offering your opinions on its value. I'm going to hold off on it until it's further along in it's development.


Sounds good. The points about it being potentially abandoned and the high cost to fund development not being good value are undeniable. Those who've tried it, especially with high-end loops have seen the benefits. The Dark Hero and the Extreme have a fair few of the benefits Hydra offers (the Extreme more-so).


----------



## dlbsyst

Alberto_It said:


> Could it be because I applied a negative curve of -10 on all Cores? Or because before I have played 2 hours with Metro Exodus and the chip was hot?


I'm not sure but it looks like you have more tweaking to do.


----------



## Alberto_It

dlbsyst said:


> I'm not sure but it looks like you have more tweaking to do.


Of course , when Africa goes away from my bedroom 😅

Do you have a custom loop as cooling system?


----------



## dlbsyst

Alberto_It said:


> Of course , when Africa goes away from my bedroom 😅
> 
> Do you have a custom loop as cooling system?


I wish I had a custom loop. I have this AIO. It's pretty good.


----------



## noxious89123

Sleepycat said:


> Yes, in this thread, we keep advising not to turn on PBO Fmax Enhancer if you have Zen3. It is somehow not compatible.


The user you responded to is using a 3950X 

Alberto; -10 across all cores is reasonably conservative, I'd be surprised if you couldn't go further!

Take a look at the Core Cycler thread, it's probably the best tool available right now for testing Curve Optimiser settings, as it is very tricky to test low load / idle stability.








CoreCycler - tool for testing Curve Optimizer settings


Over the last couple of days resp. weeks I've been working with the Curve Optimizer for Ryzen processors a bit more, but I hadn't found a good way to test the settings for stability. CineBench single threaded almost always worked fine, and getting Prime95 stable with load on all cores was also...




www.overclock.net


----------



## Enferlain

Sleepycat said:


> Yes, in this thread, we keep advising not to turn on PBO Fmax Enhancer if you have Zen3. It is somehow not compatible.


I have a 3950x. I didn't have higher temps, I just bsoded out within like 2 minutes of using the pc twice in a row. Turned it off and no bsod


----------



## dlbsyst

Enferlain said:


> I have a 3950x. I didn't have higher temps, I just bsoded out within like 2 minutes of using the pc twice in a row. Turned it off and no bsod


Enferlain, PBO Fmax Enhancer is probably only good if you keep all your other PBO settings on enabled and Auto.


----------



## GRABibus

3D v_cache next AMD CPU’s will be compatible with current x570 motherboards?


----------



## dlbsyst

GRABibus said:


> 3D v_cache next AMD CPU’s will be compatible with current x570 motherboards?


I think so but not sure it's been confirmed by AMD?


----------



## tolis626

Hello boys. I've been catching up with this thread and saw your comments about Fmax enhancer. Coming from a 3800X, I used to keep it enabled, so I never bothered to check with my 5900x and my brain defaulted to enabling it. Curiously enough, this is my CB R20 score with FE enabled.








And here's how it does with it on Auto.








I'd say that's a pretty noticeable difference in favor of enabling Fmax enhancer in my case. Reported frequencies are higher, performance is higher, I get no istability... I mean, it looks like it works? At least with all else being untouched. I have my PBO at 180 PPT/140 TDC/160 EDC, +200MHz, 2x scalar, -20mV on most cores in CO with -12mV on the two best ones (can go lower, but going balls to the wall did cause some instabilities at idle) and a -0.01V global offset for VCore (This last bit I've been testing lately and it either made no difference whatsoever, or it very slightly improved scores).

That said, I continue getting the feeling that I'm getting lower scores than I should. I see you guys getting over 9000 points mc and over 650 points sc in R20. Best I've done is barely 9000, but that was with a PPT of 230W and with my chip reaching 90C during testing. At 180W it's still toasty at 80+C, but more manageable. And at this point I have no idea whether my AIO is crap, or if my mounting is crap or if my CPU just can't do better.

PS : I was stupid and didn't keep notes about temps with Fmax enhancer disabled, so I have no idea what it was doing.


----------



## GRABibus

tolis626 said:


> Hello boys. I've been catching up with this thread and saw your comments about Fmax enhancer. Coming from a 3800X, I used to keep it enabled, so I never bothered to check with my 5900x and my brain defaulted to enabling it. Curiously enough, this is my CB R20 score with FE enabled.
> View attachment 2526610
> 
> And here's how it does with it on Auto.
> View attachment 2526611
> 
> I'd say that's a pretty noticeable difference in favor of enabling Fmax enhancer in my case. Reported frequencies are higher, performance is higher, I get no istability... I mean, it looks like it works? At least with all else being untouched. I have my PBO at 180 PPT/140 TDC/160 EDC, +200MHz, 2x scalar, -20mV on most cores in CO with -12mV on the two best ones (can go lower, but going balls to the wall did cause some instabilities at idle) and a -0.01V global offset for VCore (This last bit I've been testing lately and it either made no difference whatsoever, or it very slightly improved scores).
> 
> That said, I continue getting the feeling that I'm getting lower scores than I should. I see you guys getting over 9000 points mc and over 650 points sc in R20. Best I've done is barely 9000, but that was with a PPT of 230W and with my chip reaching 90C during testing. At 180W it's still toasty at 80+C, but more manageable. And at this point I have no idea whether my AIO is crap, or if my mounting is crap or if my CPU just can't do better.
> 
> PS : I was stupid and didn't keep notes about temps with Fmax enhancer disabled, so I have no idea what it was doing.


You can see my rig is signature and PBO settings. I have also an AIO.

I reach roughly 9000pts in MT and 640 in ST at 23 degrees ambient.
I think I have better ST score because of my negative offsets which are higher.

But, some weeks ago, I could reach 9060 MT and 645 ST in same conditions….

So your scores seem ok.
We are temperature bound with our AIO.


----------



## tolis626

GRABibus said:


> You can see my rig is signature and PBO settings. I have also an AIO.
> 
> I reach roughly 9000pts in MT and 640 in ST at 23 degrees ambient.
> I think I have better ST score because of my negative offsets which are higher.
> 
> But, some weeks ago, I could reach 9060 MT and 645 ST in same conditions….
> 
> So your scores seem ok.
> We are temperature bound with our AIO.


Well, your scores are consistently better than mine, with a similar but smaller AIO (I have an H150i), and with lower limits. So something's up. I tried moving somewhat closer to your settings, so I went with -20 on my 2 best cores, -25 on the rest of the cores of CCD1 (where all my better cores reside) and -30 on all CCD2 cores. I also decreased my PBO limits to 170W PPT/140A TDC/160A EDC. Aaaaaand here's the results.








That's not good, if I may say so. It's not terrible, but it's not what it should be. Temps peaked at just under 80C for this one. I don't know what is going on at this point. Is it LLC or something?


----------



## Enferlain

With the exact same settings I have in bios right now I can get 64c max and 9300 in CB, instead it throws out runs like this









This is everything I have changed:

Xmp 3200 Fclk 1600 Soc 1.025 Ccd .9 Iod .9 Vddp .9
Svm on 
pbo enabled manual 740 480 650 
Apbdis 1 
Df cstates enabled 
Cppc enabled 
Cppc preferred cores enabled
Global c states enabled 
Power supply idle control low current idle

After posting this I'm going to disable all of them except RAM stuff and see what happens, but I don't see what would cause fluctuations of 700 points and 10c with nothing changed.


----------



## Sleepycat

tolis626 said:


> Well, your scores are consistently better than mine, with a similar but smaller AIO (I have an H150i), and with lower limits. So something's up. I tried moving somewhat closer to your settings, so I went with -20 on my 2 best cores, -25 on the rest of the cores of CCD1 (where all my better cores reside) and -30 on all CCD2 cores. I also decreased my PBO limits to 170W PPT/140A TDC/160A EDC. Aaaaaand here's the results.
> View attachment 2526614
> 
> That's not good, if I may say so. It's not terrible, but it's not what it should be. Temps peaked at just under 80C for this one. I don't know what is going on at this point. Is it LLC or something?


You can't just set core optimizer like that without testing your cores using Corecycler. Here is mine, after testing, where I ended up with:
CCX1: -25, +10, -20, 0, -30, -25,
CCX2: -30, -25, -15, -25, -30, -15

The clock speeds were about 4.725-4.775 GHz @ 1.35V, only for benchmarking. For normal daily use, I would run at lower clocks of about 4.65GHz multicore. I am using PPT 200W, TDC 140A, EDC 160A.


----------



## Kelutrel

I have a 5900X and a C8F and I also am in the 9100-9200 CBR20 MT score range with PBO limits set to Motherboard in the bios.

If it helps, I have noticed a difference between when setting PBO2 values from the Asus "Extreme Tweaker/Precision Boost Override" bios page or from the AMD "Advanced/AMD Overclocking/AMD Overclocking/Precision Boost Override" bios page. With the AMD page producing consistently better and more reliable results, even at the exact same settings (I usually leave the Asus bios page settings on Auto). So that may be the root cause of the score differences some people with the same cpu are mentioning.

Also, I have an Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280 and have not seen CPU Package temperatures past 80-81C even when stress testing single core or multicore. But when I first installed this cpu/mb I got the same issue that @tolis626 mentioned, and was getting 90C+ temperatures when using the higher PPT/TDC/EDC limits like the Motherboard ones. In my case, it turned out to be the thermal paste batch (tried both Kryonaut and Kryonaut Extreme) that may have been defective and was drying out very quickly in a day or two and stopped conducting heat so the cpu temperature was easily spiking like that under load. Anyway since when I use a different (TF8) thermal paste and re-seated the AIO I have not seen those high temperatures again. So @tolis626 may want to give this a try.

I attach my most current BIOS settings for reference, just in case.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> I have a 5900X and a C8F and I also am in the 9100-9200 CBR20 MT score range with PBO limits set to Motherboard in the bios.
> 
> If it helps, I have noticed a difference between when setting PBO2 values from the Asus "Extreme Tweaker/Precision Boost Override" bios page or from the AMD "Advanced/AMD Overclocking/AMD Overclocking/Precision Boost Override" bios page. With the AMD page producing consistently better and more reliable results, even at the exact same settings (I usually leave the Asus bios page settings on Auto). So that may be the root cause of the score differences some people with the same cpu are mentioning.
> 
> Also, I have an Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280 and have not seen CPU Package temperatures past 80-81C even when stress testing single core or multicore. But when I first installed this cpu/mb I got the same issue that @tolis626 mentioned, and was getting 90C+ temperatures when using the higher PPT/TDC/EDC limits like the Motherboard ones. In my case, it turned out to be the thermal paste batch (tried both Kryonaut and Kryonaut Extreme) that may have been defective and was drying out very quickly in a day or two and stopped conducting heat so the cpu temperature was easily spiking like that under load. Anyway since when I use a different (TF8) thermal paste and re-seated the AIO I have not seen those high temperatures again. So @tolis626 may want to give this a try.
> 
> I attach my most current BIOS settings for reference, just in case.


What are your temps in heavy stress test as Realbench for example ?
This is the one I use to validate my OC’s

And what is your CBR ST score ?


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> What are your temps in heavy stress test as Realbench for example ?
> This is the one I use to validate my OC’s
> 
> And what is your CBR ST score ?


I ran a CBR20 ST just now and got 645 the first time and 643 the second time.
I also ran RealBench for 10 minutes and the CPU package temperature peaked at 84C (highest CCD peaked 85.8), no throttling was involved though.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> I ran a CBR20 ST just now and got 645 the first time and 643 the second time.
> I also ran RealBench for 10 minutes and the CPU package temperature peaked at 84C (highest CCD peaked 85.8), no throttling was involved though.


Thanks.

Realbench keeps on heating even after 4 hours.
So you would probably reach 90degrees.

What’s your cooling ?


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Realbench keeps on heating even after 4 hours.
> So you would probably reach 90degrees.
> 
> What’s your cooling ?


I wrote just above that I am using an Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280 with TF8 thermal paste. 
Note that I am also using the "AMD Ryzen Ultimate Performance" power profile from this thread here: HERE


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> I wrote just above that I am using an Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280 with TF8 thermal paste.
> Note that I am also using the "AMD Ryzen Ultimate Performance" power profile from this thread here: HERE


Sorry didn’t see that you mentionned that Arctic.

I will try the ultimate performance profile.

Thank you.


----------



## noxious89123

9002 mc + 641 sc


> [2021/09/03 10:01:41]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3800MHz]
> FCLK Frequency [1900MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> Core VID [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> Dynamic OC Switcher [Auto]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> Performance Bias [Auto]
> PBO Fmax Enhancer [Disabled]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Manual]
> PPT Limit [230]
> TDC Limit [255]
> EDC Limit [200]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> Curve Optimizer [Per Core]
> Core 0 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [27]
> Core 1 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [14]
> Core 2 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 3 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [20]
> Core 4 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 5 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 6 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [26]
> Core 7 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [20]
> Core 8 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [20]
> Core 9 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [26]
> Core 10 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 11 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [225]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> Trcdrd [16]
> Trcdwr [8]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
> Trc [42]
> TrrdS [4]
> TrrdL [4]
> Tfaw [16]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [12]
> Twr [12]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [2]
> TwrwrScl [2]
> Trfc [266]
> Trfc2 [198]
> Trfc4 [122]
> Tcwl [12]
> Trtp [6]
> Trdwr [10]
> Twrrd [1]
> TwrwrSc [Auto]
> TwrwrSd [7]
> TwrwrDd [6]
> TrdrdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSd [4]
> TrdrdDd [4]
> Tcke [1]
> ProcODT [36.9 ohm]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [RZQ/6]
> RttWr [RZQ/3]
> RttPark [RZQ/3]
> MemAddrCmdSetup [53]
> MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
> Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
> CPU Current Capability [Auto]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VRM Spread Spectrum [Auto]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Auto]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Auto]
> DRAM Current Capability [100%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
> CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
> Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.10000]
> DRAM Voltage [1.51000]
> VDDG CCD Voltage Control [0.950]
> VDDG IOD Voltage Control [1.050]
> CLDO VDDP Voltage [1.000]
> 1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [1.80000]
> Security Device Support [Enable]
> SHA-1 PCR Bank [Disabled]
> SHA256 PCR Bank [Enabled]
> Pending operation [None]
> Platform Hierarchy [Enabled]
> Storage Hierarchy [Enabled]
> Endorsement Hierarchy [Enabled]
> TPM 2.0 UEFI Spec Version [TCG_2]
> Physical Presence Spec Version [1.3]
> Disable Block Sid [Disabled]
> Selects TPM device [Enable Firmware TPM]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
> PSS Support [Enabled]
> PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
> NX Mode [Enabled]
> SVM Mode [Disabled]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
> SMART Self Test [Auto]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
> PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
> When system is in working state [All On]
> Q-Code LED Function [Auto]
> When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [Aura Off]
> Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Setup]
> Intel LAN Controller [Setup]
> ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
> Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Enabled]
> Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
> USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX16_2 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX16_3 Mode [Auto]
> M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
> M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
> SB Link Mode [Auto]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> Above 4G Decoding [Disabled]
> SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
> Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> Patriot Memory PMAP [Auto]
> USB Device Enable [Enabled]
> U32G2_2 [Enabled]
> U32G2_3 [Enabled]
> U32G2_4 [Enabled]
> U32G1_10 [Enabled]
> U32G1_11 [Enabled]
> USB12 [Enabled]
> USB13 [Enabled]
> U32G2_7 [Enabled]
> U32G2_8 [Enabled]
> U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Device [SATA6G_1: Samsung SSD 850 EVO 1TB]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> VRM Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> Flow Rate [Monitor]
> CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
> High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
> High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
> High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> High Amp Fan Profile [Standard]
> Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> Fast Boot [Enabled]
> Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
> Boot Logo Display [Auto]
> Bootup NumLock State [On]
> POST Delay Time [1 sec]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
> Launch CSM [Disabled]
> OS Type [Other OS]
> AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
> Flexkey [Reset]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> Load from Profile [4]
> Profile Name [27.08.2021]
> Save to Profile [2]
> DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A2]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
> Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Disabled]
> CPU Frequency [0]
> CPU Voltage [0]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> Core control [Auto]
> SMT Control [Auto]
> Overclock [Enabled ]
> Memory Clock Speed [1900MHz]
> Tcl [Auto]
> Trcdrd [Auto]
> Trcdwr [Auto]
> Trp [Auto]
> Tras [Auto]
> Trc Ctrl [Auto]
> TrrdS [Auto]
> TrrdL [Auto]
> Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
> TwtrS [Auto]
> TwtrL [Auto]
> Twr Ctrl [Auto]
> Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
> TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
> TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
> Tcwl [Auto]
> Trtp [Auto]
> Tcke [Auto]
> Trdwr [Auto]
> Twrrd [Auto]
> TwrwrSc [Auto]
> TwrwrSd [Auto]
> TwrwrDd [Auto]
> TrdrdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSd [Auto]
> TrdrdDd [Auto]
> ProcODT [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
> ECO Mode [Disable]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> LN2 Mode [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> LCLK DPM [Auto]
> LCLK DPM Enhanced PCIe Detection [Auto]
> Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
> L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> Global C-state Control [Auto]
> Power Supply Idle Control [Auto]
> SEV ASID Count [Auto]
> SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
> Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
> Local APIC Mode [Auto]
> ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
> MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
> PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
> Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
> Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
> IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
> DRAM scrub time [Auto]
> Poison scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> Memory interleaving [Auto]
> Memory interleaving size [Auto]
> 1TB remap [Auto]
> DRAM map inversion [Auto]
> ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
> GMI encryption control [Auto]
> xGMI encryption control [Auto]
> CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
> 4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> 3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
> PcsCG control [Auto]
> Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
> Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
> CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
> Memory Clear [Auto]
> Overclock [Enabled]
> Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
> Tcl [Auto]
> Trcdrd [Auto]
> Trcdwr [Auto]
> Trp [Auto]
> Tras [Auto]
> Trc Ctrl [Auto]
> TrrdS [Auto]
> TrrdL [Auto]
> Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
> TwtrS [Auto]
> TwtrL [Auto]
> Twr Ctrl [Auto]
> Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
> TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
> TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
> Tcwl [Auto]
> Trtp [Auto]
> Tcke [Auto]
> Trdwr [Auto]
> Twrrd [Auto]
> TwrwrSc [Auto]
> TwrwrSd [Auto]
> TwrwrDd [Auto]
> TrdrdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSd [Auto]
> TrdrdDd [Auto]
> ProcODT [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
> DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Data Poisoning [Auto]
> DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
> RCD Parity [Auto]
> DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
> Write CRC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
> Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
> DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
> DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
> TSME [Auto]
> Data Scramble [Auto]
> DFE Read Training [Auto]
> FFE Write Training [Auto]
> PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
> MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
> CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
> Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
> BankGroupSwap [Auto]
> BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
> Address Hash Bank [Auto]
> Address Hash CS [Auto]
> Address Hash Rm [Auto]
> SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
> MBIST Enable [Disabled]
> Pattern Select [PRBS]
> Pattern Length(VMR) [6]
> Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
> Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
> Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> IOMMU [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> FCLK Frequency [Auto]
> SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
> UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
> LN2 Mode [Auto]
> ACS Enable [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
> PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
> cTDP Control [Auto]
> EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
> Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
> APBDIS [Auto]
> DF Cstates [Auto]
> CPPC [Auto]
> CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
> NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
> Early Link Speed [Auto]
> Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
> Preferred IO [Auto]
> CV test [Auto]
> Loopback Mode [Auto]
> SRIS [Auto]
> Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]


Those runs were done with my room at 20°C and the PC only just booted up (with excess services and programs closed, <1% CPU usage before test started). Running a full custom loop with dual 360mm HWLabs GTS'

My CPU still regularly hits 90°C in tests. Using Kryonaut paste, but honestly I'm not confident in the "spread". I always use the single blob in the middle method, but this stuff is thick and viscous, and instructs to spread it like icing a cake, *which I did*.

Cba to tear down the loop, but will definitely be interested to see what the spread was like when it next comes apart for cleaning.

EDIT: With my room and loop as cool as it is right now, it'm averaging about 75°C core temps in CB R20. I've just run the test with other stuff running in the background (like you'd do for normal everyday use) and did a 8668 mc. Also worth noting that I've got literally a few months worth of tinkering with my RAM overclock, so far from a quick "set and forget" DOCP type setup.


----------



## Kelutrel

I just did another test leaving RealBench on for 15 minutes and I can see the CCD increasing the temperatures but the cpu package still tops at 85C max and no throttle occurs.
For this test I set the PBO scalar to 3x and max boost to 50MHz only, the rest is exactly like the BIOS file I uploaded above. I also got 9148/643 in CBR20 MT/ST.
I may think that the differences in scores we are seeing at this point may just be related to cpu binning.
I still have no idea how @Sleepycat was able to reach 9300+ with a 5900X and PBO2, but I suspect a human sacrifice to some unknown god may have been involved so I prefer not to ask...


----------



## noxious89123

Kelutrel said:


> PBO scalar to 3x


This should make a measurable difference, but it's a setting I not eager to change.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that adjust the way the FIT algorithm manages voltage / current / frequency / heat? So changing this could impact the lifespan of the CPU?


----------



## Kelutrel

noxious89123 said:


> This should make a measurable difference, but it's a setting I not eager to change.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that adjust the way the FIT algorithm manages voltage / current / frequency / heat? So changing this could impact the lifespan of the CPU?


What you said is correct, but AMD recommends to keep it on Auto or 1-3x, and from my tests it is set to 3X when running on Auto on my motherboard as the scores are identical. I believe the lifespan may be impacted from 4x onward.
I lowered it to 1x before to see if it was better to keep it at 1x with max boost at 100MHz, or have it on 3x with max boost at 50Mhz, as my cpu sample seems to not be stable at 3x with max boost 100MHz.









This is the same test with PBO scalar set to auto.


----------



## noxious89123

Kelutrel said:


> AMD recommends to keep it on Auto or 1-3x


Ooh, interesting. Source?

I hadn't actually considered that the motherboard might alter it by default, which in hindsight is stupid. I suppose it's basically the same as how the "AUTO" limits for PPT/TDC/EDC are significantly increased.


----------



## Enferlain

I've done like 8 runs now with different settings. Almost same results every time. It's like I have psychosis at this point, I don't remember how what I did when I got 9000+ scores, and if I do doing the same things as then doesn't give me the same results, further leading me to think I'm braindead.


> 1
> fmax auto
> pbo auto
> =
> 60c on boot
> 46c idle
> cb 8312 max temp 64
> 
> 2
> fmax enabled
> pbo enabled
> =
> Bsod
> 
> 3
> fmax disabled
> pbo enabled
> =
> 60c boot
> 45c idle
> cb 8600 max temp 83
> 
> 4
> fmax disabled
> pbo manual 780 460 650
> =
> 55c boot
> 42c idle
> cb 8550 max temp 74
> 
> 5
> fmax disabled
> pbo manual 200 140 160 +200 offset
> =
> 60c boot
> 48c idle
> cb stopped max temp80c
> 
> 6
> fmax disabled
> pbo manual 780 460 650 +200 offset
> =
> 50c boot
> 41c idle
> cb 8507 max temp 74


Gonna reset to default and then try again.

Edit: didn't help, still 8500 after reset. And it's worse if I keep it on default either way, I get like 8300. Gonna roll back to before I installed armory crate.

Edit 2: Uninstalled armory crate, got 9009 in cb. Could be a coincidence but kinda weird. Granted it's still not 9300 which I used to get but at least it's not as bad as before

Edit 3: Nope, wasn't it. Thought it would be dumb to lose that much from a program anyways. Back to 8500 after another reboot. Only other option is win 11 thrash, or this motherboard/bios just can't give a stable performance. I'll try installing the beta bios for the mobo, otherwise done with it for another month probably.


----------



## Kelutrel

noxious89123 said:


> Ooh, interesting. Source?
> 
> I hadn't actually considered that the motherboard might alter it by default, which in hindsight is stupid. I suppose it's basically the same as how the "AUTO" limits for PPT/TDC/EDC are significantly increased.


My source is reddit, like the first post from TomLube here , but I have no official source. Anyway now I got scared for the health of my cpu and will keep just the PBO scalar on Auto for the foreseeable future, not much difference anyway.
I agree with what you said about different motherboards offering different power limits.


----------



## Sleepycat

noxious89123 said:


> View attachment 2526652
> View attachment 2526653
> 
> 9002 mc + 641 sc
> 
> 
> Those runs were done with my room at 20°C and the PC only just booted up (with excess services and programs closed, <1% CPU usage before test started). Running a full custom loop with dual 360mm HWLabs GTS'
> 
> My CPU still regularly hits 90°C in tests. Using Kryonaut paste, but honestly I'm not confident in the "spread". I always use the single blob in the middle method, but this stuff is thick and viscous, and instructs to spread it like icing a cake, *which I did*.
> 
> Cba to tear down the loop, but will definitely be interested to see what the spread was like when it next comes apart for cleaning.
> 
> EDIT: With my room and loop as cool as it is right now, it'm averaging about 75°C core temps in CB R20. I've just run the test with other stuff running in the background (like you'd do for normal everyday use) and did a 8668 mc. Also worth noting that I've got literally a few months worth of tinkering with my RAM overclock, so far from a quick "set and forget" DOCP type setup.


Have you tried reducing your power limits to 200/140/160 to see if the temperatures reduce during tests? With lower temperatures, the CPU will try to boost higher for longer.


----------



## Sleepycat

Enferlain said:


> I've done like 8 runs now with different settings. Almost same results every time. It's like I have psychosis at this point, I don't remember how what I did when I got 9000+ scores, and if I do doing the same things as then doesn't give me the same results, further leading me to think I'm braindead.
> 
> 
> Gonna reset to default and then try again.
> 
> Edit: didn't help, still 8500 after reset. And it's worse if I keep it on default either way, I get like 8300. Gonna roll back to before I installed armory crate.
> 
> Edit 2: Uninstalled armory crate, got 9009 in cb. Could be a coincidence but kinda weird. Granted it's still not 9300 which I used to get but at least it's not as bad as before
> 
> Edit 3: Nope, wasn't it. Thought it would be dumb to lose that much from a program anyways. Back to 8500 after another reboot. Only other option is win 11 thrash, or this motherboard/bios just can't give a stable performance. I'll try installing the beta bios for the mobo, otherwise done with it for another month probably.


What are your temperatures, core effective clocks, CPU power draw and SOC power draw during the benchmarks? One of those factors are probably limiting the effective clocks, resulting an inconsistent score. Sometimes the factor is major, sometimes the same factor is too small to make a difference. Once you can identify which it is and control it, then you will start getting consistently high scores and it will decrease when your AIO/heatsink cold plate starts to heat up.


----------



## GRABibus

I wonder if the last AMD chipset drivers are not responsible of lower scores CBR20.
Since I installed them, I can’t get 9000-9050 MT score as before and can’t get 645 ST.

I am now in the range of 8950 and 640, even with lower temps.


----------



## Sleepycat

GRABibus said:


> I wonder if the last AMD chipset drivers are not responsible of lower scores CBR20.
> Since I installed them, I can’t get 9000-9050 MT score as before and can’t get 645 ST.
> 
> I am now in the range of 8950 and 640, even with lower temps.


Yes, I also noticed something similar with the latest chipset drivers. Gone from 9300's to about 9000.


----------



## Baio73

noxious89123 said:


> Are you using Corsair iCue? I have been having the USB disconnect/reconnect for a while, but for me it's not an AMD issue, it's a Corsair iCue issue.


Chipset 570X has been prooved to have many USB issues, recent AGESA updates have improved the situation but not 100% solved.
Most likely Corsair products are always pointed to be the culprit as they are quite spread over customers and almost everything is on USB bus... but the problem is in AMD hose, no doubt about that.
And I'm talking as a user that never had a single USB issue on my C8F.

Baio


----------



## Enferlain

Sleepycat said:


> What are your temperatures, core effective clocks, CPU power draw and SOC power draw during the benchmarks? One of those factors are probably limiting the effective clocks, resulting an inconsistent score. Sometimes the factor is major, sometimes the same factor is too small to make a difference. Once you can identify which it is and control it, then you will start getting consistently high scores and it will decrease when your AIO/heatsink cold plate starts to heat up.


Currently this









Run resulted in around 8500. If I change pbo limits to 0 I top out at around 62-3c and scores are between 8300-9000 (got 9000 once, rest is around 8300-8600). Can't reproduce these results with the same settings again.

From the behavior of PBO I've seen across 2 mobos and cpus I have a feeling that I'd need to play around with the limit values for a while to find the best spot. Just doesn't seem to be a straightforward setting, every value gives a different result and behavior is weird as ****.

Only constant thing I've noticed is having pbo disabled gives higher idle temps, both with x370 taichi and x570 dark hero and 1800x and 3950x I've noticed the same thing, so that's one thing for sure that I experienced, but everything is making me second guess myself at this point.

On the taichi I never had fluctuations in score or behavior with the motherboard pbo limits (which were 740 480 650), but now on the dark hero I get random results with every reboot and option changed, even if I reuse the same ones. I've yet to get a good result on this motherboard, or if I did I forgot about them and they don't matter because I can't reproduce them. The closest was maybe when I used 0 0 0 for limits in xfr/amd overclocking and had asus pbo on auto, but even then the temps were 10c higher



http://imgur.com/a/cROkdAc

 examples of the type of runs I've had


----------



## GRABibus

Enferlain said:


> Currently this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Run resulted in around 8500. If I change pbo limits to 0 I top out at around 62-3c and scores are between 8300-9000 (got 9000 once, rest is around 8300-8600)


Do you have last AMD chipset drivers ?
If yes, did you try with former version to see if this last driver have negative impact ?


----------



## Enferlain

GRABibus said:


> Do you have last AMD chipset drivers ?
> If yes, did you try with former version to see if this last driver have negative impact ?


I'm not 100% sure. I've had these problems since I started using this motherboard. I'll see if I updated to the latest chipset driver.

Also did some tinkering and got this result. Tried to get all pbo limits to 100%. I'm not satisfied with the score, but maybe if I increase them little by little it will give some better results.










Edit: Installed 9/13 chipset drivers. Results are identical to previous ones, 8900 with 57-58c. But at least now I can replicate a score with my current pbo settings, which is great.

I'm still going to try to get to around 9200 70c~ and if I managed to do that I can move on to finding out why idle temps are 5-10 higher, but for today I think this is the best I got.


----------



## noxious89123

Enferlain said:


> I've done like 8 runs now with different settings. Almost same results every time. It's like I have psychosis at this point, I don't remember how what I did when I got 9000+ scores, and if I do doing the same things as then doesn't give me the same results, further leading me to think I'm braindead.
> 
> 
> Gonna reset to default and then try again.
> 
> Edit: didn't help, still 8500 after reset. And it's worse if I keep it on default either way, I get like 8300. Gonna roll back to before I installed armory crate.
> 
> Edit 2: Uninstalled armory crate, got 9009 in cb. Could be a coincidence but kinda weird. Granted it's still not 9300 which I used to get but at least it's not as bad as before
> 
> Edit 3: Nope, wasn't it. Thought it would be dumb to lose that much from a program anyways. Back to 8500 after another reboot. Only other option is win 11 thrash, or this motherboard/bios just can't give a stable performance. I'll try installing the beta bios for the mobo, otherwise done with it for another month probably.


The problem is that Windows likes to do its own thing, and just that by itself can influence benchmark results significantly. The other factor is temperature. Change your room temperature by a couple of degrees and scores will go up or down accordingly.



Kelutrel said:


> My source is reddit, like the first post from TomLube here , but I have no official source. Anyway now I got scared for the health of my cpu and will keep just the PBO scalar on Auto for the foreseeable future, not much difference anyway.
> I agree with what you said about different motherboards offering different power limits.


A good discussion there, thanks for sharing it. It definitely warrants more looking in to, I just need to find the time 



Sleepycat said:


> Have you tried reducing your power limits to 200/140/160 to see if the temperatures reduce during tests? With lower temperatures, the CPU will try to boost higher for longer.


This is my plan, at some point I will need to try some different combinations and test them all. Very time consuming X)



GRABibus said:


> I wonder if the last AMD chipset drivers are not responsible of lower scores CBR20.
> Since I installed them, I can’t get 9000-9050 MT score as before and can’t get 645 ST.
> 
> I am now in the range of 8950 and 640, even with lower temps.


A fair observation, I did a run yesterday, and my scores were down a bit, and I am on the new chipset drivers.


----------



## Kelutrel

Enferlain said:


> I'm not 100% sure. I've had these problems since I started using this motherboard. I'll see if I updated to the latest chipset driver.
> 
> Also did some tinkering and got this result. Tried to get all pbo limits to 100%. I'm not satisfied with the score, but maybe if I increase them little by little it will give some better results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: Installed 9/13 chipset drivers. Results are identical to previous ones, 8900 with 57-58c. But at least now I can replicate a score with my current pbo settings, which is great.
> 
> I'm still going to try to get to around 9200 70c~ and if I managed to do that I can move on to finding out why idle temps are 5-10 higher, but for today I think this is the best I got.


Can you attach your current bios settings as a text file to a message ?


----------



## dlbsyst

Guys, as you know Windows 11 is coming out officially next Tuesday. I downloaded a copy about a week ago and found that the L3 Cache performance on my 5950X was rather poor so I went back to Windows 10. Before I upgrade to Windows 11 I want to confirm this issue is resolved with the release version. Please post here if you install the final release and can test the L3 Cache performance on your 5950X. Thanks.


----------



## xeizo

22000.194 is the release version, I use it on my Prime Pro and yes L3 is still borked, not in a hurry on my better rigs


----------



## GRABibus

I stick to Windows 10 from my side


----------



## Chili195

Baio73 said:


> Chipset 570X has been prooved to have many USB issues, recent AGESA updates have improved the situation but not 100% solved.
> Most likely Corsair products are always pointed to be the culprit as they are quite spread over customers and almost everything is on USB bus... but the problem is in AMD hose, no doubt about that.
> And I'm talking as a user that never had a single USB issue on my C8F.
> 
> Baio


I only have one USB issue remaining now with the Dark Hero. The front panel USB 2.0 has USB disconnects with some devices but weirdly it only happens when I use my Fractal front panel USB header. If I use some other module it works fine. Fractal have sent me another and it's the same problem. I'm not sure it's specifically a Fractal problem but it seems to be a combination of the mobo header and that USB module, similar to how it is specific to the Corsair device that issues happen.


----------



## dlbsyst

xeizo said:


> 22000.194 is the release version, I use it on my Prime Pro and yes L3 is still borked, not in a hurry on my better rigs


Thanks, yeah I'm going to hold off until this issue is fixed. I'm hoping AMD releases a chipset driver for Windows 11 on release day.


----------



## rexbinary

xeizo said:


> 22000.194 is the release version, I use it on my Prime Pro and yes L3 is still borked, not in a hurry on my better rigs


Yes, it is still a problem as @xeizo says. EDIT: I edited my post, I noticed the dev build they claimed that fixed the issue is older than the release build.


----------



## GRABibus

rexbinary said:


> Yes, it is still a problem as @xeizo says. I have read it's fixed in dev build 22000.100 and also found a pic that supposedly shows it is fixed, but I can't confirm it.


The fix will be Ryzen 3D Vcache 😊


----------



## noxious89123

Chili195 said:


> I only have one USB issue remaining now with the Dark Hero. The front panel USB 2.0 has USB disconnects with some devices but weirdly it only happens when I use my Fractal front panel USB header. If I use some other module it works fine. Fractal have sent me another and it's the same problem. I'm not sure it's specifically a Fractal problem but it seems to be a combination of the mobo header and that USB module, similar to how it is specific to the Corsair device that issues happen.


I'm using a Fractal Design Define R6, and have had no problems with the front panel USB at all, although I only use it for flash drives.

Personally I'm convinced that issues with Corsair devices is a separate but similar issue, which is more likely to be an issue with iCue (seeing as most Corsair products integrate with iCue). I had issues with iCue and random USB disconnects for a long time on my old P67 motherboard! If you look at the Corsair forums you'll see it has been an issue for _years_, before X570 was even a thing.

I've no doubt that X570 _has_ USB issues, but Corsair definitely has their own separate non-X570 related issue.

I probably won't move to Windows 11 until I absolutely have to; I hate change X) Unless it turns out to be wonderful!


----------



## PWn3R

dlbsyst said:


> Guys, as you know Windows 11 is coming out officially next Tuesday. I downloaded a copy about a week ago and found that the L3 Cache performance on my 5950X was rather poor so I went back to Windows 10. Before I upgrade to Windows 11 I want to confirm this issue is resolved with the release version. Please post here if you install the final release and can test the L3 Cache performance on your 5950X. Thanks.


It is not fixed on the pre release version.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## stimpy88

PWn3R said:


> It is not fixed on the pre release version.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It is fixed, and will be part of the million fixes that will be released via a CU on the 5th. The 22000.xxx builds that are out now do not contain many fixes, apart from minor language related fixes. The real stuff is being tested on the 224xx.1000 branch, and is the testing ground for all the 22000.xxx fixes until the 5th.


----------



## Baio73

Chili195 said:


> I only have one USB issue remaining now with the Dark Hero. The front panel USB 2.0 has USB disconnects with some devices but weirdly it only happens when I use my Fractal front panel USB header. If I use some other module it works fine. Fractal have sent me another and it's the same problem. I'm not sure it's specifically a Fractal problem but it seems to be a combination of the mobo header and that USB module, similar to how it is specific to the Corsair device that issues happen.


Do you use a cable extention to connect front USB ports?

Baio


----------



## Enferlain

Kelutrel said:


> Can you attach your current bios settings as a text file to a message ?


How would I do that? Tools->Asus User Profile->Load/Save profile and hit Ctrl+F2 <- if it's this I'll try it in a bit

I updated to the beta bios, 3901. I applied every setting from the previous bios except soc vdd something voltages, and left pbo on stock settings (ryzen master says default so I assume it's off), got a score of 9124 and 60c temps during first run like that. It's a huge stepup compared to previous f*ckingarounds so I'm happy as long as the results stay consistent. I'm going to try turning on pbo during the day and see what happens.


----------



## PWn3R

stimpy88 said:


> It is fixed, and will be part of the million fixes that will be released via a CU on the 5th. The 22000.xxx builds that are out now do not contain many fixes, apart from minor language related fixes. The real stuff is being tested on the 224xx.1000 branch, and is the testing ground for all the 22000.xxx fixes until the 5th.


Interesting - I can confirm it is not fixed on 22463.100 the information that was shared by our MS TAM suggested that version was what they were going to push out on Oct 5.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Luggage

Enferlain said:


> I'm not 100% sure. I've had these problems since I started using this motherboard. I'll see if I updated to the latest chipset driver.
> 
> Also did some tinkering and got this result. Tried to get all pbo limits to 100%. I'm not satisfied with the score, but maybe if I increase them little by little it will give some better results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: Installed 9/13 chipset drivers. Results are identical to previous ones, 8900 with 57-58c. But at least now I can replicate a score with my current pbo settings, which is great.
> 
> I'm still going to try to get to around 9200 70c~ and if I managed to do that I can move on to finding out why idle temps are 5-10 higher, but for today I think this is the best I got.


Try to get 97-99% on the limits.


----------



## GRABibus

My best CBR20 run since last AMD Chipset drivers (PBO settings in sig)

@22°C ambient
Power plan on "Balanced"

*Frequencies :*










*Temperatures :







*


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> My best CBR20 run since last AMD Chipset drivers (PBO settings in sig)
> 
> @22°C ambient
> Power plan on "Balanced"
> 
> *Frequencies :*
> View attachment 2526934
> 
> 
> 
> *Temperatures :
> View attachment 2526935
> *


Wow! This is quite exceptional with those PPT/TDC/EDC . It may be that you have a platinum cpu sample, would you please give me the bios settings of that configuration in txt format ?


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Wow! This is quite exceptional with those PPT/TDC/EDC . It may be that you have a platinum cpu sample, would you please give me the bios settings of that configuration in txt format ?


When I increase those PPT/TDC/EDC , I don't see real score improvments. Maybe I am temperature bound with h115i RGB Platinum.
If you have some advices for some PPT/TDC/EDC combinbation to try, don't hesitate. I gave up 

Here are my 24/7 stable settings :


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> When I increase those PPT/TDC/EDC , I don't see real score improvments. Maybe I am temperature bound with h115i RGB Platinum.
> If you have some advices for some PPT/TDC/EDC combinbation to try, don't hesitate. I gave up
> 
> Here are my 24/7 stable settings :


Thank you Sir, this is very interesting to me. Also congrats for the nice RAM overclock


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Thank you Sir, this is very interesting to me. Also congrats for the nice RAM overclock


Thanks.
Here is one of my Aida64 run (in safe mode 😜 )


----------



## GRABibus

With 200/120/150
23°C ambient
Power plan "Balanced" :

*Frequencies :*










*Temperatures :*









I am pretty sure it is unstable.
Will try some hours of Realbench stress tests and will also check temperatures


----------



## GRABibus

=> Instant crash in Realbench...
170W-180W is my max power for stability


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> Thanks.
> Here is one of my Aida64 run (in safe mode 😜 )
> View attachment 2526943


Do you know why your L3 cache in AIDA64 is so fast ?
I also have a 5900X but I do like 1000/850/1000 in AIDA64 L3 cache benchmark. Is it because of your OC on the ram or do you know any BIOS configuration that increased that ?


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Do you know why your L3 cache in AIDA64 is so fast ?
> I also have a 5900X but I do like 1000/850/1000 in AIDA64 L3 cache benchmark. Is it because of your OC on the ram or do you know any BIOS configuration that increased that ?


The run was done in safe mode.
This is the reason why.
Otherwise, I get things like you, even less sometimes.


----------



## GRABibus

GRABibus said:


> The run was done in safe mode.
> This is the reason why.
> Otherwise, I get things like you, even less sometimes.


Here is a normal run ( not in safe mode) :









[Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread


@Veii I tried your settings with two changes per what @mongoled told me That being if I left tRP at 14 I should put tRC to 43 and I also went for tRDWR 8. As for where I go from here I guess this is a slightly more relaxed profile than my other tCL14 one and maybe I'll have a look at 1T...




www.overclock.net


----------



## GRABibus

Test this morning after one night idling PC :

With 170/115/155
23°C ambient
Power plan "Balanced" 

*Frequencies :*










*Températures : *


----------



## Theo164

This is mine 220/130/160 +175 26c ambient AIO
-17 -30 -30 -30 -20 -30
-30 -30 -30 -30 -30 -30
5-6 months ago using older bios max frequency used to be about 5025 -5050 now can't reach 5000
Back then core0 max negative stable CO used to be -14 a couple of weeks now at -17 seems to be stable


----------



## GRABibus

Theo164 said:


> This is mine 220/130/160 +175 26c ambient AIO
> -17 -30 -30 -30 -20 -30
> -30 -30 -30 -30 -30 -30
> 5-6 months ago using older bios max frequency used to be about 5025 -5050 now can't reach 5000
> Back then core0 max negative stable CO used to be -14 a couple of weeks now at -17 seems to be stable


I don't get why I am unstable with powers above 180W....

You are fully stable with these settings ? Did you try realbench ?
Which AIO do you have ?

Your multi score is crazy


----------



## Theo164

GRABibus said:


> I don't get why I am unstable with powers above 180W....
> 
> You are fully stable with these settings ? Did you try realbench ?
> Which AIO do you have ?
> 
> Your multi score is crazy


It used to be, ill test it and post back
Arctic freezer II 360 with rev 3.0 offset mounting & 3x ARCTIC BioniX P120 A-RGB fans

*EDIT*
It's stable but hot because of the GPU... this thing at full throttle is a power hog










Spoiler: .


----------



## Sleepycat

GRABibus said:


> I don't get why I am unstable with powers above 180W....


I noticed your CPU core and SOC LLCs are left to Auto. Any reason for that? At higher power draw, there is some voltage sag, which contributes to instability. I run both LLCs at level 3, while leaving my vCore to auto and vSOC to 1.09V.


----------



## GRABibus

Sleepycat said:


> I noticed your CPU core and SOC LLCs are left to Auto. Any reason for that? At higher power draw, there is some voltage sag, which contributes to instability. I run both LLCs at level 3, while leaving my vCore to auto and vSOC to 1.09V.


My Vcore is on auto and [email protected],1V entered value in bios.

You mean I should try LLC3 on both ?


----------



## Enferlain

Kelutrel said:


> Can you attach your current bios settings as a text file to a message ?


Got the settings.

I tried to turn on pbo, got a lower score, then I went back to same settings as yesterday and now the score got even lower. Right now this is what I get, dunno what it will be after I reboot lmao


>


After thinking a bit. Does auto for ram timings change them whenever it feels like to different values?

Reboot on 3600/1800 and timings manually set



>


Doesn't seem like ram speed has an effect on my scores considering the best one I had so far was on 2133.


----------



## 1devomer

GRABibus said:


> My Vcore is on auto and [email protected],1V entered value in bios.
> 
> You mean I should try LLC3 on both ?


To be honest, dunno if the VRM controller would be bothered to run different LLC, PWM frequency values, for the cpu and the SOC power delivery.

But since the VRM controller power delivery regulation, is split between the cpu phases and the SOC phases.

I would avoid potential controller internal synchronization issues, so i like to keep both LLC and PWM frequency the same, for both the cpu and the SOC voltage.

Keeping the overall VRM power delivery uniform.


----------



## Kelutrel

Enferlain said:


> Got the settings.
> 
> I tried to turn on pbo, got a lower score, then I went back to same settings as yesterday and now the score got even lower. Right now this is what I get, dunno what it will be after I reboot lmao
> 
> 
> After thinking a bit. Does auto for ram timings change them whenever it feels like to different values?
> 
> Reboot on 3600/1800 and timings manually set
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't seem like ram speed has an effect on my scores considering the best one I had so far was on 2133.


Stop using the Asus "Extreme Tweaker/Precision Boost Override" bios page, leave *everything* on Auto there. It causes a performance regression to me too.

Use the AMD "Advanced/AMD Overclocking/AMD Overclocking/Precision Boost Override" bios page instead to set your PBO limits and stuff, set there the same PBO values you had before and you'll get back your speed.


----------



## Enferlain

Kelutrel said:


> Stop using the Asus "Extreme Tweaker/Precision Boost Override" bios page, leave *everything* on Auto there. It causes a performance regression to me too.
> 
> Use the AMD "Advanced/AMD Overclocking/AMD Overclocking/Precision Boost Override" bios page instead to set your PBO limits and stuff, set there the same PBO values you had before and you'll get back your speed.


Seems like it doesn't want to take in my limits of 740 480 640 and defaults back to the motherboard(?) limits which ends up in getting 78c. Score was decent, around 9165. Need more testing and checking other limit values. 

Also EDC got up way higher than previous attempts.


----------



## Kelutrel

Enferlain said:


> Seems like it doesn't want to take in my limits of 740 480 640 and defaults back to the motherboard(?) limits which ends up in getting 78c. Score was decent, around 9165. Need more testing and checking other limit values.
> 
> Also EDC got up way higher than previous attempts.
> 
> View attachment 2527063


If it helps, my understanding is that PBO limits will never go over the motherboard max limits, independently from any value that you may be able to input.
You really don't want to put 740W into your cpu.


----------



## Enferlain

Kelutrel said:


> If it helps, my understanding is that PBO limits will never go over the motherboard max limits, independently from any value that you may be able to input.
> You really don't want to put 740W into your cpu.


Oh yeah that wasn't the plan lmao, these are just the values that I got from my previous motherboard when it was set to 0 0 0 which was my best setting there.

Setting 0 0 0 in amd overclocking in this mobo seems to turn off pbo altogether, at least according to ryzen master which says oc: default in this state. Also the limit values seem to behave completely differently here than in the asus oc tab so I'm going to need to find the best values.

Right now I seem to be getting 9150 at 77-78c with 300 230 230, basically same as the previous results with motherboard limits. This cpu can do 9300 at 73, so that's my goal. Gonna try 200 135 200 now

Another thing that concerns me is that my idle temps seem higher than when I was tinkering in the asus oc tab but we'll see whether or not that's valid. Are there any settings that that I could enable to lower temps potentially?


----------



## metalshark

Kelutrel said:


> If it helps, my understanding is that PBO limits will never go over the motherboard max limits, independently from any value that you may be able to input.
> You really don't want to put 740W into your cpu.


That's not true if you mean the motherboard's default limits (e.g. PBO Enabled ones). Doubt I could get 740W into the CPU though, but certainly have gone way beyond the PBO Enabled limits (actually hit usage, not just entered the number for the limit and sat underneath it).


----------



## Kelutrel

metalshark said:


> That's not true if you mean the motherboard's default limits (e.g. PBO Enabled ones). Doubt I could get 740W into the CPU though, but certainly have gone way beyond the PBO Enabled limits (actually hit usage, not just entered the number for the limit and sat underneath it).


I meant the motherboard max limits. Those are the limits reached when configuring "Motherboard" in the "PBO Limits" field of the AMD "Precision Boost Override" bios page.
The Asus PBO bios page in the "Extreme Tweaker" section looks bugged, or at least unreliable, on my motherboard and bios version so I would not consider whatever limit it defines when changing the options there.


----------



## metalshark

Kelutrel said:


> I meant the motherboard max limits. Those are the limits reached when configuring "Motherboard" in the "PBO Limits" field of the AMD "Precision Boost Override" bios page.
> The Asus PBO bios page in the "Extreme Tweaker" section looks bugged, or at least unreliable, on my motherboard and bios version so I would not consider whatever limit it defines when changing the options there.


On that, the auto settings when enabling are easy to hit. For instance hitting 225A TDC when the default motherboard limit is under 200A.


----------



## Kelutrel

metalshark said:


> On that, the auto settings when enabling are easy to hit. For instance hitting 225A TDC when the default motherboard limit is under 200A.


I made a test just now. I have a C8F and using BIOS v3801.
By setting PBO limits to Motherboard, I read on HwInfo the limits being 395W/255A/200A for PPT/TDC/EDC .
By setting PBO limits to manual 600/600/600, I still read on HwInfo the limits being 395W/255A/200A for PPT/TDC/EDC .
It doesn't seem to be able to surpass those limits, so I stand on my statement being correct in my case.


----------



## metalshark

Kelutrel said:


> I made a test just now. I have a C8F and using BIOS v3801.
> By setting PBO limits to Motherboard, I read on HwInfo the limits being 395W/255A/200A for PPT/TDC/EDC .
> By setting PBO limits to manual 600/600/600, I still read on HwInfo the limits being 395W/255A/200A for PPT/TDC/EDC .
> It doesn't seem to be able to surpass those limits, so I stand on my statement being correct in my case.


Think you'll find the TDC/EDC are the other way round. Have for instance gone way above 300A on EDC.


----------



## Kelutrel

metalshark said:


> Think you'll find the TDC/EDC are the other way round. Have for instance gone way above 300A on EDC.


No, doesn't look like that on my motherboard, the values I gave above look right at least as reported by HwInfo.
If you know of a way to change the PBO limits in a way that would show 300A as EDC limit on HwInfo on my motherboard please let me know.


----------



## metalshark

Kelutrel said:


> No, doesn't look like that on my motherboard, the values I gave above look right at least as reported by HwInfo.
> If you know of a way to change the PBO limits in a way that would show 300A as EDC limit on HwInfo on my motherboard please let me know.


Would need to reboot with Hydra disabled to show you in hwinfo (it takes over the monitoring) but go back through this thread ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp... for instance for when we were doing it manually. That's the first I found and is 296A. Think 304A was the top I hit before Hydra. Using the Formula board.


----------



## Kelutrel

metalshark said:


> Would need to reboot with Hydra disabled to show you in hwinfo (it takes over the monitoring) but go back through this thread ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp... for instance for when we were doing it manually. That's the first I found and is 296A. Think 304A was the top I hit before Hydra. Using the Formula board.


Looks pretty old. Maybe it was a bug in an older bios version, or maybe you got that by increasing the cpu current capability setting instead of using the PBO limits.
Anyway I'll give it a try this weekend and will post here any update.


----------



## metalshark

Kelutrel said:


> Looks pretty old. Maybe it was a bug in an older bios version, or maybe you got that by increasing the cpu current capability setting instead of using the PBO limits.
> Anyway I'll give it a try this weekend and will post here any update.


LOL - same with 3801 - don't worry you'll find many pushing beyond the default limits on the motherboard. Maybe not PPT but EDC/TDC most definitely. Checkout Buildzoid, etc


----------



## Sleepycat

GRABibus said:


> My Vcore is on auto and [email protected],1V entered value in bios.
> 
> You mean I should try LLC3 on both ?


Yes, I currently use:
Vcore: Auto
Vcore LLC: 3
VSOC: 1.09V
VSOC LLC: 3

I recommend setting both Vcore LLC and VSOC LLC to 3. It doesn't seem to overshoot much when under all core loads. I also don't notice problems with single core voltage since the load is probably much lower and the effect of LLC is much less than all core.


----------



## GRABibus

Theo164 said:


> It used to be, ill test it and post back
> Arctic freezer II 360 with rev 3.0 offset mounting & 3x ARCTIC BioniX P120 A-RGB fans
> 
> *EDIT*
> It's stable but hot because of the GPU... this thing at full throttle is a power hog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: .





Sleepycat said:


> Yes, I currently use:
> Vcore: Auto
> Vcore LLC: 3
> VSOC: 1.09V
> VSOC LLC: 3
> 
> I recommend setting both Vcore LLC and VSOC LLC to 3. It doesn't seem to overshoot much when under all core loads. I also don't notice problems with single core voltage since the load is probably much lower and the effect of LLC is much less than all core.


Sorry but it is unstable.
I crash in Realbench in minutes.

Either CPU silicon limitation or not enough voltage delivered to CPU when it boosts high.
In this last case, a much beter colling would maybe help.


----------



## Enferlain

Kelutrel said:


> I made a test just now. I have a C8F and using BIOS v3801.
> By setting PBO limits to Motherboard, I read on HwInfo the limits being 395W/255A/200A for PPT/TDC/EDC .
> By setting PBO limits to manual 600/600/600, I still read on HwInfo the limits being 395W/255A/200A for PPT/TDC/EDC .
> It doesn't seem to be able to surpass those limits, so I stand on my statement being correct in my case.


It gets overwritten when you use asus oc for pbo. That's where I set 740 480 650. Which unfortunately I'll probably have to do again. I'm not really satisfied with the scores I get but having lower temps is better than higher scores for me, I'm not trying to push for a world record or anything. Kinda annoying considering everything worked properly on a x370 board.

Anything other than the above 3 limits results in 38-41 idle temps and 60 spikes for my use case, when before I was able to run an emulator, a game, chrome, and a lot of background apps wit the cpu keeping at 44c without issues and would idle at low to mid 30s. I've even seen below 30c when the room temp was really low. Some weird **** going on. Maybe I'll try undervolting.


----------



## Kelutrel

Enferlain said:


> It gets overwritten when you use asus oc for pbo. That's where I set 740 480 650. Which unfortunately I'll probably have to do again. I'm not really satisfied with the scores I get but having lower temps is better than higher scores for me, I'm not trying to push for a world record or anything. Kinda annoying considering everything worked properly on a x370 board.
> 
> Anything other than the above 3 limits results in 38-41 idle temps and 60 spikes for my use case, when before I was able to run an emulator, a game, chrome, and a lot of background apps wit the cpu keeping at 44c without issues and would idle at low to mid 30s. I've even seen below 30c when the room temp was really low. Some weird **** going on. Maybe I'll try undervolting.


Sir, the Asus PBO bios page doesn't work, it doesn't do what you tell it to do.
When you set any manual limit it leaves your cpu at stock pbo/co limits, that is why you see the cpu having lower temperature and having lower performances than expected.


----------



## Enferlain

Kelutrel said:


> Sir, the Asus PBO bios page doesn't work, it doesn't do what you tell it to do.
> When you set any manual limit it leaves your cpu at stock pbo/co limits, that is why you see the cpu having lower temperature and having lower performances than expected.


The results with asus pbo are different than stock pbo though. Asus tab is the only one that correctly sets the limits I type in. Amd tab just defaults to motherboard values


>












I'm trying my best to replicate these results but it seems really hard even with ambient temps being like 10c down compared to when it was made.


----------



## Kelutrel

Enferlain said:


> The results with asus pbo are different than stock pbo though. Asus tab is the only one that correctly sets the limits I type in. Amd tab just defaults to motherboard values
> 
> 
> View attachment 2527130
> 
> 
> I'm trying my best to replicate these results but it seems really hard even with ambient temps being like 10c down compared to when it was made.


Are all these 5 results from the same motherboard and Windows 10 ?


----------



## Enferlain

Kelutrel said:


> Are these results all on the same motherboard and Windows 10 ?


Same motherboard, yes, and no it's Win 11, which is pretty much my fallback excuse if I don't end up being able to get the results I want.

Edit: The screenshot outside of the quotes is on my previous motherboard, x370 taichi


----------



## Kelutrel

Enferlain said:


> Same motherboard, yes, and no it's Win 11, which is pretty much my fallback excuse if I don't end up being able to get the results I want.


The 9234 result you are trying to match, was it also taken on Windows 11 ?

I ask this because there is a known L3 cache issue in Windows 11 with AMD cpus that may make that result unmatchable until that issue is fixed. You can see the problem by running the AIDA64 cache benchmark on Windows 11.


----------



## sonixmon

Sleepycat said:


> At least the public versions are free. I was on the free CTR 2.1 for a very long time. It got what I needed. It was lower scores in CB R20/23 compared to PBO Advanced, but the temperatures were much lower. I use it to lower temperatures as I am on air cooling and not chasing benchmark scores now.
> 
> But in the end, there are a number of different ways of increasing your performance by paying for parts or software, so as long as we have the choice to decide on where to spend our money, then that is good.


Agree, I have been supporting his work for two months and have been happy with Hydra. Since I could not find a Dark Hero version available when I was purchasing I settled for the original CH8. Hydra actually mimics the DH hybrid OC and works well for me. It provided me an improvement in scores and cooler temps (especially while gaming). I went from mid to high 50s while Gaming to low to mid 40s. My idle temp also dropped a few degrees. CTR helped me some to lower my temps some but didn't improve scores much.
He has added several features and I am still on 1.0a even though b was just released I haven't grabbed it yet. I figure another month or so and public version should be out. Or if I get a good beta version then I will stop there until official release. Worth it to me to give him a few bucks for his work.


----------



## NotReadyYet

I'm getting much better TimeSpy scores with CTR than Hydra. Is there a way to import CTR values into Hydra?


----------



## Sleepycat

NotReadyYet said:


> I'm getting much better TimeSpy scores with CTR than Hydra. Is there a way to import CTR values into Hydra?


There are situations where CTR is easier and more straightforward than Hydra. You can think of CTR as a multi-profile static OC which changes based on load. Hydra is more of a multi-profile PBO which changes based on load, triggers and allows you to set a per core CO to slow areas down in case of instability.

For benchmark results, CTR gave me better scores and lower temperatures because I could easily just enter the clocks I wanted for benchmarks.

For normal usage, Hydra seems to give me lower power consumption, lower temperatures and an easy way to quickly make a curve compensation when something crashes. So based on what I have used for my own PC, I can't say that one is better than the other. I'm probably more comfortable with CTR, but do appreciate not having to guess if I need to adjust Px High, Px Mid, Px Low, P2 or P1 when I have a game or display driver crash.


----------



## noxious89123

Kelutrel said:


> If it helps, my understanding is that PBO limits will never go over the motherboard max limits, independently from any value that you may be able to input.





Kelutrel said:


> I made a test just now. I have a C8F and using BIOS v3801.
> By setting PBO limits to Motherboard, I read on HwInfo the limits being 395W/255A/200A for PPT/TDC/EDC .
> By setting PBO limits to manual 600/600/600, I still read on HwInfo the limits being 395W/255A/200A for PPT/TDC/EDC .
> It doesn't seem to be able to surpass those limits, so I stand on my statement being correct in my case.


On my CH8DH, I can go above 395W PPT / 255A TDC / 200A EDC but only if I input the values in the Asus PBO section of the BIOS, but not if I set it through the AMD section of the BIOS. I can set it higher in the AMD section, but it won't actually go above those limits. It behaved this way on earlier BIOS and on 3801 which I am using now.

With that said, increasing them above the values I stated does not improve performance. I've not tested it so I can't say for certainty, but I expect higher values may actually hurt performance. Plenty of users on OCN have reported higher CB R20 multi core scores when using _lower_ values. I think this is due to lower temperatures allowing higher sustained clock speeds.



metalshark said:


> Think you'll find the TDC/EDC are the other way round. Have for instance gone way above 300A on EDC.


My experience aligns with Kelutrels, although I'm using a CH8DH not the CH8F. For some reason the standard motherboard limit for TDC (255A) is higher than the limit for EDC (200A), which does seem backwards.

As above though, this can be surpassed by setting the limits in Asus' own PBO section of the BIOS instead of the AMD Overclocking section.


----------



## Enferlain

Kelutrel said:


> The 9234 result you are trying to match, was it also taken on Windows 11 ?
> 
> I ask this because there is a known L3 cache issue in Windows 11 with AMD cpus that may make that result unmatchable until that issue is fixed. You can see the problem by running the AIDA64 cache benchmark on Windows 11.


No, it was win 10 from a year ago. The L3 cache issue I have been thinking about, but some people are saying it's only an aida readout issue so I wasn't sure. Either way I don't really want to go through another reinstall at this point so I'll just wait until it gets fixed and see if it's better then and maybe try out a - offset and some other options meanwhile. Still haven't found the best pbo limits either and have to test ram so got things to do.


----------



## NotReadyYet

Sleepycat said:


> There are situations where CTR is easier and more straightforward than Hydra. You can think of CTR as a multi-profile static OC which changes based on load. Hydra is more of a multi-profile PBO which changes based on load, triggers and allows you to set a per core CO to slow areas down in case of instability.
> 
> For benchmark results, CTR gave me better scores and lower temperatures because I could easily just enter the clocks I wanted for benchmarks.
> 
> For normal usage, Hydra seems to give me lower power consumption, lower temperatures and an easy way to quickly make a curve compensation when something crashes. So based on what I have used for my own PC, I can't say that one is better than the other. I'm probably more comfortable with CTR, but do appreciate not having to guess if I need to adjust Px High, Px Mid, Px Low, P2 or P1 when I have a game or display driver crash.



This is a great summary - thank you. Do you have an idea as to how I could possibly put in my Game Profiles clocks and voltages into Hydra from CTR? Even maybe manually?


----------



## Nizzen

Sleepycat said:


> There are situations where CTR is easier and more straightforward than Hydra. You can think of CTR as a multi-profile static OC which changes based on load. Hydra is more of a multi-profile PBO which changes based on load, triggers and allows you to set a per core CO to slow areas down in case of instability.
> 
> For benchmark results, CTR gave me better scores and lower temperatures because I could easily just enter the clocks I wanted for benchmarks.
> 
> For normal usage, Hydra seems to give me lower power consumption, lower temperatures and an easy way to quickly make a curve compensation when something crashes. So based on what I have used for my own PC, I can't say that one is better than the other. I'm probably more comfortable with CTR, but do appreciate not having to guess if I need to adjust Px High, Px Mid, Px Low, P2 or P1 when I have a game or display driver crash.


So Hydra doesn't help for better performance over CTR?
Looks like Hydra is messing up read and write numbers on Aida64. Numbers are WAY higher than theoretical possible. What does Hydra actual do?


----------



## pantsoftime

I found some value in using Hydra to identify usable CO settings. I have one of those CPUs that doesn't really run well with a negative offset on hardly any cores at all, and it was quite useful for dialing things in. If anyone decides to try this you have to take the numbers that Hydra gives you for CO and divide by 6 for BIOS values.


----------



## SpeedyIV

pantsoftime said:


> I found some value in using Hydra to identify usable CO settings. I have one of those CPUs that doesn't really run well with a negative offset on hardly any cores at all, and it was quite useful for dialing things in. If anyone decides to try this you have to take the numbers that Hydra gives you for CO and divide by 6 for BIOS values.


I don't recall the Hydra PDF manual saying to divide Hydra CO numbers by 6 to calculate what to type into the BIOS. Is that "official" or something that you discovered?


----------



## pantsoftime

SpeedyIV said:


> I don't recall the Hydra PDF manual saying to divide Hydra CO numbers by 6 to calculate what to type into the BIOS. Is that "official" or something that you discovered?


I didn't discover it myself. One of the senior members of the 1usmus Discord mentions it frequently when people ask. I tried it and it did seem to work.


----------



## Sleepycat

GRABibus said:


> Sorry but it is unstable.
> I crash in Realbench in minutes.
> 
> Either CPU silicon limitation or not enough voltage delivered to CPU when it boosts high.
> In this last case, a much beter colling would maybe help.


That's odd since LLC increases voltage to the CPU, not decrease. So it shouldn't crash if you increase LLC for the Vcore.


----------



## Sleepycat

NotReadyYet said:


> This is a great summary - thank you. Do you have an idea as to how I could possibly put in my Game Profiles clocks and voltages into Hydra from CTR? Even maybe manually?


A lot of trial and error, to the point where I have given up on trying to transfer my CTR settings over. This is because of the different profiles of CO offset that Hydra has for each load type, and the 8 different clock and voltage profiles which is switches between every time the load changes. So if I put 4.650 GHz and 1.25V in Hydra, it doesn't give me that. The Hydra CO offset gives me 4.700 or 4.725 depending on the CCX and it can vary depending on the load too as it switches between the 8 profiles. 

This means, Hydra does not do manual. It is all about dynamic changes. So if you need manual settings like we have in CTR, it is better to use CTR.

If I am after the highest benchmark scores, I switch to CTR. For everyday use, I prefer Hydra as I can just quickly change the game global CO offset if I have a crash to desktop or other issue during a game. The benchmark performance difference is huge. In CB R20, I can get 9309 in all-core with CTR and 4.775 GHz. Trying the same in Hydra by changing the core clocks by trial and error to get 4.775 GHz only gives me 8900. It could be a combination of the new 3901 bios as well, but this is a big gap and I am limited by thermals even with the 8900 score.


----------



## Sleepycat

Nizzen said:


> So Hydra doesn't help for better performance over CTR?
> Looks like Hydra is messing up read and write numbers on Aida64. Numbers are WAY higher than theoretical possible. What does Hydra actual do?


I haven't had Aida64 result differences between Hydra, CTR and PBO. They all seem very consistent on my system. One thing you need to also take into account is the stability of your system. If you run Aida64 on an unstable system, maybe too low a Vcore for the clocks that the CPU uses during Aida64, it can affect the results, usually downwards.


----------



## Sleepycat

pantsoftime said:


> I found some value in using Hydra to identify usable CO settings. I have one of those CPUs that doesn't really run well with a negative offset on hardly any cores at all, and it was quite useful for dialing things in. If anyone decides to try this you have to take the numbers that Hydra gives you for CO and divide by 6 for BIOS values.


Interesting approach. But Hydra uses 2 CO tables, one for low thread load and another for high thread load. When I divide my low thread load CO table by 6, I get numbers within 30, but they are totally off though. Doesn't match up and some positive values are negative.

For the multi-thread load CO table, nothing correlates, The one thing I don't like about Hydra's CO table, is that I can't tell how much of a clock increase I get when I increase the CO.

It is likely because the bios CO offset controls how much lower or higher the Vcore needs to be for a given clock, whereas the Hydra CO controls how much lower or higher the frequency can go for a given Vcore. Two very different approaches as Hydra uses "CO" to change clock speeds, whereas PBO uses clock offset (up to +200MHz on C8H) to change clock speeds, while the CO offset is used to control the voltage.


----------



## Enferlain

Alright there is definitely some win 11 ****ery with these cb scores. I tried 120 90 120 as pbo limits, got 8973 for score, changed to 120 90 125 got 8703 for score, changed back to 120 90 120 and still got 8705. Just makes no sense to throw out different results for same values unless something does not work properly.

Edit: Went back to 740 480 650 in asus tweaker and got the best result so far on this board, 9122 with 67c max and 35c on idle. Gonna leave pbo at that since I couldn't figure out a better setup in the amd oc tab. Now I only need to mess around with - offset and ram stability and wait for windows to patch that L3 bug.


----------



## GRABibus

Sleepycat said:


> That's odd since LLC increases voltage to the CPU, not decrease. So it shouldn't crash if you increase LLC for the Vcore.





Sleepycat said:


> That's odd since LLC increases voltage to the CPU, not decrease. So it shouldn't crash if you increase LLC for the Vcore.


I have decreased GPU Boost Clock Override from 200MHz to 175MHz.
I did 200/125/160.

I could pass30 minutes Realbench and CBR20 MT increased to 9050-9100.
But CBR20 ST score is now 635-640pints, instead of 640-643.

The problem is temperature during Realbench. Too high.

I will try 180/120/160 with 175MHz Boost Clock Override.


----------



## blunden

Enferlain said:


> No, it was win 10 from a year ago. The L3 cache issue I have been thinking about, but some people are saying it's only an aida readout issue so I wasn't sure.


 Well, it supposedly shows up in other benchmarks as well, e.g. Sisoft Sandra, so it's not just limited to Aida64.


----------



## noxious89123

Enferlain said:


> Alright there is definitely some win 11 ****ery with these cb scores. I tried 120 90 120 as pbo limits, got 8973 for score, changed to 120 90 125 got 8703 for score, changed back to 120 90 120 and still got 8705. Just makes no sense to throw out different results for same values unless something does not work properly.
> 
> Edit: Went back to 740 480 650 in asus tweaker and got the best result so far on this board, 9122 with 67c max and 35c on idle. Gonna leave pbo at that since I couldn't figure out a better setup in the amd oc tab. Now I only need to mess around with - offset and ram stability and wait for windows to patch that L3 bug.


Are you checking what background tasks and services Windows is running before starting your tests? This can make a significant difference to scores.


----------



## Enferlain

noxious89123 said:


> Are you checking what background tasks and services Windows is running before starting your tests? This can make a significant difference to scores.


I checked a few times. I feel like cores go to sleep more now that I uninstalled icue but the scores didn't change from what I've seen. I've also tried ending every process that was open and it didn't do anything. I also get the same scores if I have chrome open with like 150 tabs and closed, doesn't seem like programs being open affect it much. Other thing I tried is closing all the high number thread services from resource monitor, but again no luck. It has to be a win 11 problem maybe related to the l3 cache thing or just unlucky motherboard cpu combination. (but tbh it could always be some services stuff like you say, dunno why random services that don't do anything starting when they feel like without permission is a thing)

I just set an arbitrary .05 - offset for the cpu and I didn't really notice any changes, got like a 8966 score and it idles at 35 with usage temps going around 40-55. I might try a .1 offset for fun and see if the cpu works properly with it, but I think for now I'm done tinkering with PBO limits.

Any idea if the +mhz or scalar options are worth trying or do they only add + temps if they do anything?


----------



## noxious89123

Enferlain said:


> I checked a few times. I feel like cores go to sleep more now that I uninstalled icue but the scores didn't change from what I've seen. I've also tried ending every process that was open and it didn't do anything. I also get the same scores if I have chrome open with like 150 tabs and closed, doesn't seem like programs being open affect it much. Other thing I tried is closing all the high number thread services from resource monitor, but again no luck. It has to be a win 11 problem maybe related to the l3 cache thing or just unlucky motherboard cpu combination. (but tbh it could always be some services stuff like you say, dunno why random services that don't do anything starting when they feel like without permission is a thing)
> 
> I just set an arbitrary .05 - offset for the cpu and I didn't really notice any changes, got like a 8966 score and it idles at 35 with usage temps going around 40-55. I might try a .1 offset for fun and see if the cpu works properly with it, but I think for now I'm done tinkering with PBO limits.
> 
> Any idea if the +mhz or scalar options are worth trying or do they only add + temps if they do anything?


Regarding iCue, once you have closed it from the system tray, you need to hit Win+R, type in services.msc and stop all of the Corsair related services ("Corsair LLA Service" and "Corsair Service"). Closing the program from the system tray only gives you about 40% of the benefit of closing the program _and_ the associated services. 

I find that with Windows 10, usually there are not many running processes that I can kill (and some just come right back anyway) but there are a lot of superfluous services. Some that you may only rarely use can be set to manual start, but certain ones don't like that. For the most benefit you'll need to look up each one online and see if you can disable it entirely.

It's extra work for sure, but I've found it can knock off a whole 2ns from AIDA64 latency tests and is good for _hundreds_ of points in things like CB R20.

Everything seems to want to set itself up as a service these days, probably because they realise many users have learnt to kill unwanted processes.

Playing with the + MHz override does make a difference, and so should the scalar, although I've only played with the former, and not the latter. From my understanding changing the scalar will affect how the FIT algorithm performs; I'm a bit uncomfortable with changing that, as it could (should?) affect the lifespan of the CPU. Not that that has ever stopped me just cranking up vCore in the past, but these CPUs are still relatively new and we have no data on longevity.


----------



## Luggage

Enferlain said:


> I checked a few times. I feel like cores go to sleep more now that I uninstalled icue but the scores didn't change from what I've seen. I've also tried ending every process that was open and it didn't do anything. I also get the same scores if I have chrome open with like 150 tabs and closed, doesn't seem like programs being open affect it much. Other thing I tried is closing all the high number thread services from resource monitor, but again no luck. It has to be a win 11 problem maybe related to the l3 cache thing or just unlucky motherboard cpu combination. (but tbh it could always be some services stuff like you say, dunno why random services that don't do anything starting when they feel like without permission is a thing)
> 
> I just set an arbitrary .05 - offset for the cpu and I didn't really notice any changes, got like a 8966 score and it idles at 35 with usage temps going around 40-55. I might try a .1 offset for fun and see if the cpu works properly with it, but I think for now I'm done tinkering with PBO limits.
> 
> Any idea if the +mhz or scalar options are worth trying or do they only add + temps if they do anything?


150point swing I can get just from run to run even with Benchmate and realtime. If you want to tune in PBO you really have to look at averages. For top scores you need some luck or a static OC.

CBr23 shenegians:









[Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread


Just to confirm as I can't remember, have you got an MSI motherboard as well or is your 28/26 just from forcing it with low VDDP? Updated signature There were some comments that suggest maybe AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.3 Patch B is better than 1.2.0.3 Patch C? I vote for 1.2.0.3C. Had no difference...




www.overclock.net













[Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread


This is what I see on my system. Simple question; why can't I get it to boost to 4.85 as set? First AMD system so no idea really. I'm not hitting 1.45v which seems to be a limiter, so is it ProcHot which is set to 65 degrees and there's no way to change that? I do hit it on single core but do...




www.overclock.net





and now latest with y-cruncher



http://imgur.com/vdFUBKf


----------



## sonixmon

Nizzen said:


> So Hydra doesn't help for better performance over CTR?
> Looks like Hydra is messing up read and write numbers on Aida64. Numbers are WAY higher than theoretical possible. What does Hydra actual do?


For me running Hydra diag and just tweaking limits provided best benches I have had so far. Also lowest temps (one game in particular wend from high 50s to low 40s). A few points over CTR and few degrees lower.


----------



## Sleepycat

Enferlain said:


> Any idea if the +mhz or scalar options are worth trying or do they only add + temps if they do anything?


+mhz determines the clock speed your CPU would reach under PBO, and hence would directly affect performance. If you change Vcore offset or CO offset, it does not increase your clock speeds. All it does is increase or decrease the voltage for a given clock speed. They are both methods to apply a voltage offset. If you want to increase your clock speed by 200 MHz, then set it to +200 MHz. I would leave CO as 0 across all cores at the start if you have never used +200 MHz before. This will give you 4.65 GHz on all core loads and at least 4.95GHz on single core loads.


----------



## Theo164

pantsoftime said:


> I found some value in using Hydra to identify usable CO settings. I have one of those CPUs that doesn't really run well with a negative offset on hardly any cores at all, and it was quite useful for dialing things in. If anyone decides to try this you have to take the numbers that Hydra gives you for CO and divide by 6 for BIOS values.





SpeedyIV said:


> I don't recall the Hydra PDF manual saying to divide Hydra CO numbers by 6 to calculate what to type into the BIOS. Is that "official" or something that you discovered?


There is no need to guess or calculate bios CO using Hydra CO
Hydra 1.0 can calculate bios CO values, just check the log files it looks like this









Its accurate enough, at least for my cpu
For more than 5 months my co are core1 -14 core5 -20 all other cores @ -30 calculated with 5-6 month older bios.
Atm I'm testing core1 @ -17 -20= reboot after 2 days


----------



## Enferlain

noxious89123 said:


> Everything seems to want to set itself up as a service these days, probably because they realise many users have learnt to kill unwanted processes.


Really annoying



Luggage said:


> 150point swing I can get just from run to run even with Benchmate and realtime. If you want to tune in PBO you really have to look at averages. For top scores you need some luck or a static OC.
> 
> CBr23 shenegians:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread
> 
> 
> Just to confirm as I can't remember, have you got an MSI motherboard as well or is your 28/26 just from forcing it with low VDDP? Updated signature There were some comments that suggest maybe AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.3 Patch B is better than 1.2.0.3 Patch C? I vote for 1.2.0.3C. Had no difference...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread
> 
> 
> This is what I see on my system. Simple question; why can't I get it to boost to 4.85 as set? First AMD system so no idea really. I'm not hitting 1.45v which seems to be a limiter, so is it ProcHot which is set to 65 degrees and there's no way to change that? I do hit it on single core but do...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and now latest with y-cruncher
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/vdFUBKf


That's a really nice way of saving results. Probably gonna do that too if I decide to do some more trial and error. I might try some of your values just for fun. Where did you get silicon quality from btw?



Sleepycat said:


> +mhz determines the clock speed your CPU would reach under PBO, and hence would directly affect performance. If you change Vcore offset or CO offset, it does not increase your clock speeds. All it does is increase or decrease the voltage for a given clock speed. They are both methods to apply a voltage offset. If you want to increase your clock speed by 200 MHz, then set it to +200 MHz. I would leave CO as 0 across all cores at the start if you have never used +200 MHz before. This will give you 4.65 GHz on all core loads and at least 4.95GHz on single core loads.


I don't have curve optimizer for zen 2 so can't mess around with that. I did set a .05 offset for the CPU which seemed fine yesterday. Today I got some display driver crashing, might be because of the undervolt not sure


----------



## Luggage

Enferlain said:


> Really annoying
> 
> 
> 
> That's a really nice way of saving results. Probably gonna do that too if I decide to do some more trial and error. I might try some of your values just for fun. Where did you get silicon quality from btw?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have curve optimizer for zen 2 so can't mess around with that. I did set a .05 offset for the CPU which seemed fine yesterday. Today I got some display driver crashing, might be because of the undervolt not sure











[Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread


Trying out 1.2.0.3 again, so far after several reboots its behaving at 4133/2067. No stability tests as of yet, audio is great, no USB issues yet, waiting for a WHEA 18 🤣😄 ** EDIT ** Back to BCLK I go...... :)




www.overclock.net


----------



## tolis626

Hey guys, might need some insight here. I'd previously posted about my CB R20 scores being a tad lower than what I think I should be getting based on the results I'm seeing here. So, testing various different sets of settings, I'm noticing that, whatever I do, there's a large discrepancy in clocks between CCD1 and CCD2 on my CPU. Take for example my current settings. 185W PPT/160A TDC/175A EDC, +200MHz offset, 2x scalar, -16/-24/-24/-16/-24/-24 CO offsets for CCD1 and -25 for all CCD2 cores (I've tried numerous combinations, even validated some with CoreCycler, ranging from flat -30 except for the 2 best cores, to having a max of -20, lower core offsets, more or less PPT, you name it. I can't seem to pass 8800 reliably in R20 and my CCD2 cores seem to not be able to pass 4.3GHz (effective clock) under CB, mostly hovering in the 4.2-4.3GHz range. CCD1 cores scale normally to about 4.6GHz or thereabouts. See the screenshot below taken during a CB R20 run (also, mind you I usually run CB set to Realtime or High priority, but I also tried with everything closed via task manager, no difference).








Any ideas? Is looking at effective clock dumb? Am I dumb to care so much? Am I doing something wrong? What is the meaning of it all? Of life? I hope you guys can help with any of these questions.


----------



## Luggage

tolis626 said:


> Hey guys, might need some insight here. I'd previously posted about my CB R20 scores being a tad lower than what I think I should be getting based on the results I'm seeing here. So, testing various different sets of settings, I'm noticing that, whatever I do, there's a large discrepancy in clocks between CCD1 and CCD2 on my CPU. Take for example my current settings. 185W PPT/160A TDC/175A EDC, +200MHz offset, 2x scalar, -16/-24/-24/-16/-24/-24 CO offsets for CCD1 and -25 for all CCD2 cores (I've tried numerous combinations, even validated some with CoreCycler, ranging from flat -30 except for the 2 best cores, to having a max of -20, lower core offsets, more or less PPT, you name it. I can't seem to pass 8800 reliably in R20 and my CCD2 cores seem to not be able to pass 4.3GHz (effective clock) under CB, mostly hovering in the 4.2-4.3GHz range. CCD1 cores scale normally to about 4.6GHz or thereabouts. See the screenshot below taken during a CB R20 run (also, mind you I usually run CB set to Realtime or High priority, but I also tried with everything closed via task manager, no difference).
> View attachment 2527530
> 
> Any ideas? Is looking at effective clock dumb? Am I dumb to care so much? Am I doing something wrong? What is the meaning of it all? Of life? I hope you guys can help with any of these questions.


You are maxed out on PPT, and probably temps as well. You can try higher ppt, lower tdc (usuall edc -40) but reaching 80C+ it might not do much.


----------



## Sleepycat

tolis626 said:


> Hey guys, might need some insight here. I'd previously posted about my CB R20 scores being a tad lower than what I think I should be getting based on the results I'm seeing here. So, testing various different sets of settings, I'm noticing that, whatever I do, there's a large discrepancy in clocks between CCD1 and CCD2 on my CPU. Take for example my current settings. 185W PPT/160A TDC/175A EDC, +200MHz offset, 2x scalar, -16/-24/-24/-16/-24/-24 CO offsets for CCD1 and -25 for all CCD2 cores (I've tried numerous combinations, even validated some with CoreCycler, ranging from flat -30 except for the 2 best cores, to having a max of -20, lower core offsets, more or less PPT, you name it. I can't seem to pass 8800 reliably in R20 and my CCD2 cores seem to not be able to pass 4.3GHz (effective clock) under CB, mostly hovering in the 4.2-4.3GHz range. CCD1 cores scale normally to about 4.6GHz or thereabouts. See the screenshot below taken during a CB R20 run (also, mind you I usually run CB set to Realtime or High priority, but I also tried with everything closed via task manager, no difference).
> View attachment 2527530
> 
> Any ideas? Is looking at effective clock dumb? Am I dumb to care so much? Am I doing something wrong? What is the meaning of it all? Of life? I hope you guys can help with any of these questions.


Your EDC is too high. It will take away the power headroom from the cores. Try PPT 200W, TDC 140A, EDC 150A.


----------



## tolis626

Luggage said:


> You are maxed out on PPT, and probably temps as well. You can try higher ppt, lower tdc (usuall edc -40) but reaching 80C+ it might not do much.





Sleepycat said:


> Your EDC is too high. It will take away the power headroom from the cores. Try PPT 200W, TDC 140A, EDC 150A.


Well, it's not like I hadn't tried settings similar to what you guys suggested, but I thought I'd give it a shot anyway. Results are the same. With 200/140/150 I get roughly the same score, losing about 15MHz on CCD2 cores while gaining 10-15MHz on CCD1 cores, but temps are out of control, rapidly reaching like 87C. I also tried 180/125/150 and again, roughly the same scores, although measured clocks are lower (temps still high 70s-low 80s). I don't know what the hell is going on, but I am really disappointed about how lackluster my cooling is. Ok, it's an AIO, I can't expect to get the same cooling as a fully custom loop. But Jesus, dude, it's a 360mm rad, it SHOULD be getting better results than that. Weirdly, it maintains about 80C up to 185W PPT, but as soon as I dare go to 190+, it's like "nah dude, I ain't doin' that".

EDIT : Here's some screenies btw.
(200/140/150)








(180/125/150)









EDIT 2 : I decided to go ahead and try something else. I usually set up my PBO settings from the Extreme Tweaker tab and have FMax Enhancer or whatever it's called enabled. I did test this at some point and found no difference in performance between Extreme Tweaker's settings and the ones in the AMD Overclocking menu. Well, same-ish settings (185/140/150), I left Fmax Enhancer on auto, and I got an 8820 score. Weirdly, in contrast to using Extreme Tweaker's PBO menu, all my cores are pegged at just shy of 4.5GHz effective clock. Also, another thing I hadn't noticed is that, using ET I don't get an EDC Limit readout in HWiNFO64, and the "measured" EDC is exactly the same as TDC. Not so with AMD OC PBO.









EDIT 3 : Leaving everything else the same, I just enabled Fmax Enhancer. Performance is roughly the same (8860 was the best I got with it off, 8820-8830), but curiously I get the same behavior as before, CCD1 cores boosting to over 4.6GHz and CCD2 to roughly 4.3GHz. Average effective clock is still roughly 4.45GHz, so the same. Also, EDC Limit disappeared from HWiNFO64 again, and measured EDC again is locked to TDC. Hmmm...









Last screenie is with FE on auto, 190/125/140. Seems like my CPU doesn't scale well beyond 180W, possibly due to temps. Also single core score seems rather low, but I've never managed to go over 630.


----------



## Luggage

tolis626 said:


> Well, it's not like I hadn't tried settings similar to what you guys suggested, but I thought I'd give it a shot anyway. Results are the same. With 200/140/150 I get roughly the same score, losing about 15MHz on CCD2 cores while gaining 10-15MHz on CCD1 cores, but temps are out of control, rapidly reaching like 87C. I also tried 180/125/150 and again, roughly the same scores, although measured clocks are lower (temps still high 70s-low 80s). I don't know what the hell is going on, but I am really disappointed about how lackluster my cooling is. Ok, it's an AIO, I can't expect to get the same cooling as a fully custom loop. But Jesus, dude, it's a 360mm rad, it SHOULD be getting better results than that. Weirdly, it maintains about 80C up to 185W PPT, but as soon as I dare go to 190+, it's like "nah dude, I ain't doin' that".
> 
> EDIT : Here's some screenies btw.
> (200/140/150)
> View attachment 2527545
> 
> (180/125/150)
> View attachment 2527546
> 
> 
> EDIT 2 : I decided to go ahead and try something else. I usually set up my PBO settings from the Extreme Tweaker tab and have FMax Enhancer or whatever it's called enabled. I did test this at some point and found no difference in performance between Extreme Tweaker's settings and the ones in the AMD Overclocking menu. Well, same-ish settings (185/140/150), I left Fmax Enhancer on auto, and I got an 8820 score. Weirdly, in contrast to using Extreme Tweaker's PBO menu, all my cores are pegged at just shy of 4.5GHz effective clock. Also, another thing I hadn't noticed is that, using ET I don't get an EDC Limit readout in HWiNFO64, and the "measured" EDC is exactly the same as TDC. Not so with AMD OC PBO.
> View attachment 2527549
> 
> 
> EDIT 3 : Leaving everything else the same, I just enabled Fmax Enhancer. Performance is roughly the same (8860 was the best I got with it off, 8820-8830), but curiously I get the same behavior as before, CCD1 cores boosting to over 4.6GHz and CCD2 to roughly 4.3GHz. Average effective clock is still roughly 4.45GHz, so the same. Also, EDC Limit disappeared from HWiNFO64 again, and measured EDC again is locked to TDC. Hmmm...
> 
> View attachment 2527554
> 
> Last screenie is with FE on auto, 190/125/140. Seems like my CPU doesn't scale well beyond 180W, possibly due to temps. Also single core score seems rather low, but I've never managed to go over 630.


Right, this is an ASUS thread, FE does wonky with edc, most seem to agree it worked on zen 2 but not so much on zen 3…
I’m on MSI so it’s all hearsay…


----------



## kx11

Switching to Windows11 using official mediatool 



Download Windows 11


----------



## noxious89123

tolis626 said:


> Also, another thing I hadn't noticed is that, using ET I don't get an EDC Limit readout in HWiNFO64


That's a "having Fmax enhancer enabled" thing, not a "using Extreme tweaker" thing.  I had noticed the same, where in Ryzen Master it would just report the EDC limit as 0A.


----------



## kx11

Pheww

finally got through, turns out one of the TPM options in the bios was making an error during the installation (i used the clean USB method) it was the 2nd one that i disabled to get through and finish the installation


----------



## Sleepycat

tolis626 said:


> Well, it's not like I hadn't tried settings similar to what you guys suggested, but I thought I'd give it a shot anyway. Results are the same. With 200/140/150 I get roughly the same score, losing about 15MHz on CCD2 cores while gaining 10-15MHz on CCD1 cores, but temps are out of control, rapidly reaching like 87C. I also tried 180/125/150 and again, roughly the same scores, although measured clocks are lower (temps still high 70s-low 80s). I don't know what the hell is going on, but I am really disappointed about how lackluster my cooling is. Ok, it's an AIO, I can't expect to get the same cooling as a fully custom loop. But Jesus, dude, it's a 360mm rad, it SHOULD be getting better results than that. Weirdly, it maintains about 80C up to 185W PPT, but as soon as I dare go to 190+, it's like "nah dude, I ain't doin' that".
> 
> EDIT : Here's some screenies btw.
> (200/140/150)
> View attachment 2527545
> 
> (180/125/150)
> View attachment 2527546
> 
> 
> EDIT 2 : I decided to go ahead and try something else. I usually set up my PBO settings from the Extreme Tweaker tab and have FMax Enhancer or whatever it's called enabled. I did test this at some point and found no difference in performance between Extreme Tweaker's settings and the ones in the AMD Overclocking menu. Well, same-ish settings (185/140/150), I left Fmax Enhancer on auto, and I got an 8820 score. Weirdly, in contrast to using Extreme Tweaker's PBO menu, all my cores are pegged at just shy of 4.5GHz effective clock. Also, another thing I hadn't noticed is that, using ET I don't get an EDC Limit readout in HWiNFO64, and the "measured" EDC is exactly the same as TDC. Not so with AMD OC PBO.
> View attachment 2527549
> 
> 
> EDIT 3 : Leaving everything else the same, I just enabled Fmax Enhancer. Performance is roughly the same (8860 was the best I got with it off, 8820-8830), but curiously I get the same behavior as before, CCD1 cores boosting to over 4.6GHz and CCD2 to roughly 4.3GHz. Average effective clock is still roughly 4.45GHz, so the same. Also, EDC Limit disappeared from HWiNFO64 again, and measured EDC again is locked to TDC. Hmmm...
> 
> View attachment 2527554
> 
> Last screenie is with FE on auto, 190/125/140. Seems like my CPU doesn't scale well beyond 180W, possibly due to temps. Also single core score seems rather low, but I've never managed to go over 630.


You are changing 2 variables at the same time and that won't let you identify a cause and solution for the lower CCD2 clocks.
You tried:
200/140/150
180/125/150
185/140/150 + Fmax Enhancer

I would turn Fmax Enhancer off as in the past it seemed to cause issues with Ryzen 5000.
Try 180/140/150 and 180/125/120, both with Fmax Enhancer disabled.


----------



## tolis626

noxious89123 said:


> That's a "having Fmax enhancer enabled" thing, not a "using Extreme tweaker" thing.  I had noticed the same, where in Ryzen Master it would just report the EDC limit as 0A.


Yup, figured out as much in the end. It's weird, like they're trying to controllably recreate the EDC 0 bug. I dunno, but it does lead to a small performance decrease in R20, all else being equal. So, as nice as it was to see these higher clocks, they mean nothing if they perform worse. Sorry for the mess. 


Sleepycat said:


> You are changing 2 variables at the same time and that won't let you identify a cause and solution for the lower CCD2 clocks.
> You tried:
> 200/140/150
> 180/125/150
> 185/140/150 + Fmax Enhancer
> 
> I would turn Fmax Enhancer off as in the past it seemed to cause issues with Ryzen 5000.
> Try 180/140/150 and 180/125/120, both with Fmax Enhancer disabled.


Well, I'm sorry but either you or I got lost in my convoluted mess of a post. I did end up testing with all else being equal and turns out that a) it performs marginally but consistently better with FMax Enhancer off/auto (in previous testing I had found the opposite, but it was messy so it was probably wrong) and b) it indeed performs better when everything is set through the AMD overclocking tab (about 100 points in CB R20). Writing that post, I was more writing my thoughts at the time rather than making a coherent post that makes sense, so I apologize. I just skipped writing about testing e.g. 180/140/150 in ET with FMax enhancer on vs with it off vs the same in AMD OC etc etc. I would just note down some results and post those. 

With all that said, my CPU is still kinda stuck at 4.5-ish GHz all core during CB R20, I still can't get past the 8800 points range, I still get rather low single core and I still get temps in the low 80s, even though the weather is much cooler these past few days. Seems like my cooling hits a wall at about 180W. Anything past that and it's just higher temps for the same performance. Pity, I thought a 360mm AIO would be enough. Maybe I'll try repasting the thing, but I doubt it'll make much of a difference on the CPU. And I'm already running Kryonaut, so I can't really do better unless I go LM, which I see no reason for.


----------



## PWn3R

kx11 said:


> Switching to Windows11 using official mediatool
> 
> 
> 
> Download Windows 11


You WILL get a performance hit. I am running it and it’s not pretty. Some games it might be 20%


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LtMatt

I'm currently using the 3003 BIOS for the Crosshair VIII Hero as this offers the highest CPU frequency when using PBO. 

Is it worth updating to the latest and greatest BIOS? Is there any important in Smart Access Memory performance vs BIOS 3003? 

How much has CPU frequency dropped in the latest BIOS vs 3003?

Appreciate any and all feedback if folks know.


----------



## Sleepycat

LtMatt said:


> I'm currently using the 3003 BIOS for the Crosshair VIII Hero as this offers the highest CPU frequency when using PBO.
> 
> Is it worth updating to the latest and greatest BIOS? Is there any important in Smart Access Memory performance vs BIOS 3003?
> 
> How much has CPU frequency dropped in the latest BIOS vs 3003?
> 
> Appreciate any and all feedback if folks know.


I think there are some differences with the newest bios. I would recommend staying with 3003 if you are happy with it. I am starting to see some differences between 3801 to 3901. So I'm sure you will lose something going from 3003 to 3801.


----------



## LtMatt

Sleepycat said:


> I think there are some differences with the newest bios. I would recommend staying with 3003 if you are happy with it. I am starting to see some differences between 3801 to 3901. So I'm sure you will lose something going from 3003 to 3801.


Thanks, that's what I thought.

I would like to know if Smart Access Memory performance has changed though. Only way I'll find out most likely is by testing it myself as I doubt anyone has checked it.


----------



## Kelutrel

kx11 said:


> Pheww
> 
> finally got through, turns out one of the TPM options in the bios was making an error during the installation (i used the clean USB method) it was the 2nd one that i disabled to get through and finish the installation


I would be interested in getting any update on performance changes, in benchmarks or real apps, observed after installing Windows 11 (final release version) on a X570 motherboard


----------



## neikosr0x

PWn3R said:


> You WILL get a performance hit. I am running it and it’s not pretty. Some games it might be 20%
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes I'm getting game performance issues as well, Windows 11 scheduler doesn't work on Ryzen "5900x" it picks the slowest core for any workload, #7th on mine... barely using the fastest CCX and boost clocks are kept at the level of the slowest core. I have tried everything without any luck, and this issue has been carried from the Dev/Beta channels.


----------



## des2k...

neikosr0x said:


> Yes I'm getting game performance issues as well, Windows 11 scheduler doesn't work on Ryzen "5900x" it picks the slowest core for any workload, #7th on mine... barely using the fastest CCX and boost clocks are kept at the level of the slowest core. I have tried everything without any luck, and this issue has been carried from the Dev/Beta channels.


Had to reinstall windows 10 recently and build 21H1(very similar to windows 11) is very so much trash for scheduling on my Zen2.

I lost ST boost for 1,4 cores. Any small work load all 12 cores get triggered (4.3 low boost).

There're options on the power plan for thread and short thread scheduling. Options are auto, performance, efficient, etc but that only shifts the load between ccd1,ccd2 with poor boost for ST.


----------



## GRABibus

Time to shift to Alder Lake ?
5900X was my second AMD since Athlon64 in 2004 😊.

Honestly, next build for me will be Intel.

I had the chance to get a 5900X with no issues, but seeing all problems at new AMD CPU launches, I won’t play lottery again.


----------



## PWn3R

Seeing the same as both of you. CSGO I think I lost about 250fps average. Some other games it was a lot less, but the new scheduler seems to be bantha poodoo on Ryzen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## th30d0r3

I have just dual booted Windows 11 and I'm running the very same OC settings on my 5950x CCX1-4750 / CCX2-4600 @1.325v LLC3 3800 14,14,14,28 @1.5v

The temperature on the CPU is around 8 degrees lower than on Windows 10 after a 30 min CBR23 run. I need to confirm if that means I can clock higher, I will do some more tests. In the mean time, has anyone else seen this?


----------



## GRABibus

th30d0r3 said:


> I have just dual booted Windows 11 and I'm running the very same OC settings on my 5950x CCX1-4750 / CCX2-4600 @1.325v LLC3 3800 14,14,14,28 @1.5v
> 
> The temperature on the CPU is around 8 degrees lower than on Windows 10 after a 30 min CBR23 run. I need to confirm if that means I can clock higher, I will do some more tests. In the mean time, has anyone else seen this?


And what about scores versus Windows 10 ?


----------



## th30d0r3

GRABibus said:


> And what about scores versus Windows 10 ?


Single run of CBR23 back to back:
Windows 10 - 31435 pts
Windows 11 - 31489 pts

All drivers are the same on both OSs.


----------



## ChillyRide

Finally nailed my RAM. Thats totall max, cant lower anything anymore  Time for same 2 sticks I have and test if they are any better )


----------



## noxious89123

GRABibus said:


> Time to shift to Alder Lake ?
> 5900X was my second AMD since Athlon64 in 2004 😊.
> 
> Honestly, next build for me will be Intel.
> 
> I had the chance to get a 5900X with no issues, but seeing all problems at new AMD CPU launches, I won’t play lottery again.


I'm surprised to read this, as I had presumed you were enjoying OC'ing your Ryzen CPU. I can't say for sure that I won't go back to Intel for my next upgrade (which won't be for a long time) but this is my first AMD system and I've been quite satisfied with it. Supply issues early on were a pain in the ass, but that's been pretty much the whole market for a while now.


----------



## GRABibus

noxious89123 said:


> I'm surprised to read this, as I had presumed you were enjoying OC'ing your Ryzen CPU. I can't say for sure that I won't go back to Intel for my next upgrade (which won't be for a long time) but this is my first AMD system and I've been quite satisfied with it. Supply issues early on were a pain in the ass, but that's been pretty much the whole market for a while now.


I enjoy OC on my 5900X, I enjoy 

But, knowing all issues people had at launch and even some months after, I prefer to come back to Intel for next Build.

But, currently, not any plan to change my build, except if our Zen3 have some issues in Windows 11 for months and if Windows 11 + Alder Lake show some gaming advantages.


----------



## GRABibus

I was running a full stable : -28Core0/Core7, -20Core4, -25Core8, -30 alll other cores // +200MHz Boost Clock override // 175-115-155

With bios 3801, as CBR20 scores have decreased, I want to see if I can lower my CO's and not loose stability.

I am testing : -22 Core4, -27 Core8, -30 all other cores // PPT~TDC~EDC = 170~115~155 // Max CPU Boost Clock Override = +175MHz.

+200MHz will crash Realbench and anything higher than 170~115~155 also, even with +175MHz.

I could pass 8 hours Realbench with -22 Core4, -27 Core8, -30 all other cores // PPT~TDC~EDC = 170~115~155 // Max CPU Boost Clock Override = +175MHz.

I will now test for some weeks idle/load loads behavior to see if any reboots and Whea errors.


----------



## GRABibus

ChillyRide said:


> Finally nailed my RAM. Thats totall max, cant lower anything anymore  Time for same 2 sticks I have and test if they are any better )
> View attachment 2527679


incredible results


----------



## tolis626

A small update regarding my tuning efforts I'd posted about a couple of days back. I tried messing around a bit more and also did some research online. First off, I backed off my scalar from the 3x I was testing to 2x, then 1x then auto. Honestly made no difference to either performance or temps, so I left it on auto for good measure. Then I decided to push my CO offsets to the highest I can get them (basically -30 all cores except for the best ones which get -16, -16, -21, -24), which seems stable as far as I've tested, but only with +175MHz clock offset. +200MHz will give me an occasional random reboot at idle or light load. That was good for about 50-60 points in R20, but it was consistent. Then I read somewhere that LLC should be left on auto with these chips so that PBO can function to its fullest potential. So I went in, threw LLC on auto and boom, I got my best scores yet under 200W PPT (I kept it at 185/140/150 for all of this).
This is with everything open in the background and CB on Realtime priority.








And this one is after I closed down every background app and service I could. Finally over 9000.








At this point, I'm mostly limited by my cooling. I'm confident the chip can do better, but it's already pushing 83C during R20. I might remount my cooler and do a repaste to see if that helps, but I doubt it will matter, I'm confident it's mounted properly (and temps increase gradually with power, it's not like I'm hitting thermal throttling temps at stock), but one can never be too sure. Other than that, I think only better cooling will lead to better performance, but that's easier said than done.


----------



## Luggage

tolis626 said:


> A small update regarding my tuning efforts I'd posted about a couple of days back. I tried messing around a bit more and also did some research online. First off, I backed off my scalar from the 3x I was testing to 2x, then 1x then auto. Honestly made no difference to either performance or temps, so I left it on auto for good measure. Then I decided to push my CO offsets to the highest I can get them (basically -30 all cores except for the best ones which get -16, -16, -21, -24), which seems stable as far as I've tested, but only with +175MHz clock offset. +200MHz will give me an occasional random reboot at idle or light load. That was good for about 50-60 points in R20, but it was consistent. Then I read somewhere that LLC should be left on auto with these chips so that PBO can function to its fullest potential. So I went in, threw LLC on auto and boom, I got my best scores yet under 200W PPT (I kept it at 185/140/150 for all of this).
> This is with everything open in the background and CB on Realtime priority.
> View attachment 2527696
> 
> And this one is after I closed down every background app and service I could. Finally over 9000.
> View attachment 2527697
> 
> At this point, I'm mostly limited by my cooling. I'm confident the chip can do better, but it's already pushing 83C during R20. I might remount my cooler and do a repaste to see if that helps, but I doubt it will matter, I'm confident it's mounted properly (and temps increase gradually with power, it's not like I'm hitting thermal throttling temps at stock), but one can never be too sure. Other than that, I think only better cooling will lead to better performance, but that's easier said than done.


Thermals start affecting my frequency limits at 61.5C. But other limits usually goes into effect ahead of that. At 80C thermals has really started affecting frequency.


----------



## tolis626

Luggage said:


> Thermals start affecting my frequency limits at 61.5C. But other limits usually goes into effect ahead of that. At 80C thermals has really started affecting frequency.


Yup, looks like it. I'm just undecided on what I should do. I could just YOLO it and get 3 more fans for my AIO to run it push pull, but I doubt it'll help with it being set up as exhaust over a 6900XT. I have started thinking about hard modding my Evolv X, getting the front and top panel to a CNC and cutting a nice design in them to a) make it custom and unique and b) improve the airflow, but I think that the CPU will barely benefit from this and it will mostly affect the GPU. Third option was to turn the AIO fans around so that they act as intake (along with my 3x140mm intake fans in the front) and get fresh outside air, but I tried that and my GPU was cooking, like easily 5-10C higher. Last option is to go the custom loop route, but I'm not at the best financial position I've been in and I'd rather not have the extra expense of a custom loop and the potential to kill something if I do it wrong. Basically, if I fry my 6900XT at this point, I won't be able to replace it for quite a while, so a custom loop will have to wait if that's the route I go down on. Any other suggestions are appreciated.


----------



## GRABibus

tolis626 said:


> A small update regarding my tuning efforts I'd posted about a couple of days back. I tried messing around a bit more and also did some research online. First off, I backed off my scalar from the 3x I was testing to 2x, then 1x then auto. Honestly made no difference to either performance or temps, so I left it on auto for good measure. Then I decided to push my CO offsets to the highest I can get them (basically -30 all cores except for the best ones which get -16, -16, -21, -24), which seems stable as far as I've tested, but only with +175MHz clock offset. +200MHz will give me an occasional random reboot at idle or light load. That was good for about 50-60 points in R20, but it was consistent. Then I read somewhere that LLC should be left on auto with these chips so that PBO can function to its fullest potential. So I went in, threw LLC on auto and boom, I got my best scores yet under 200W PPT (I kept it at 185/140/150 for all of this).
> This is with everything open in the background and CB on Realtime priority.
> View attachment 2527696
> 
> And this one is after I closed down every background app and service I could. Finally over 9000.
> View attachment 2527697
> 
> At this point, I'm mostly limited by my cooling. I'm confident the chip can do better, but it's already pushing 83C during R20. I might remount my cooler and do a repaste to see if that helps, but I doubt it will matter, I'm confident it's mounted properly (and temps increase gradually with power, it's not like I'm hitting thermal throttling temps at stock), but one can never be too sure. Other than that, I think only better cooling will lead to better performance, but that's easier said than done.


Concerning PBO and LLC, in my case, when I set LLC=3 instead of Auto, my CBR20 Multithread boost is much more lower than with LLC on auto.
With LLC on Auto, I see boost frequencies in CBR20 MT much more highers than with LLC=3.
So I fully agree with your statement here.

Currently testing from my side : -22 Core4, -27 Core8, -30 all other cores // PPT~TDC~EDC = 170~115~155 // Max CPU Boost Clock Override = +175MHz.


----------



## kx11

Back on windows10 

Windows11 gave me too many (critical process died) error for almost 24hrs


----------



## Sleepycat

kx11 said:


> Back on windows10
> 
> Windows11 gave me too many (critical process died) error for almost 24hrs


Thanks for the update! Your feedback helps us make the decision to wait a bit longer before trying out Windows 11.

I'm actually surprised how quickly Microsoft wants to move people to Windows 11, given how early they are in the process of making a smooth transition from 10 to 11. Sounds like a lot of bugs still exists.


----------



## Zogge

I have 0 problems on Win 11 since 5 weeks on two x570 systems. One with 3600 and one with 5950x.


----------



## Luggage

Zogge said:


> I have 0 problems on Win 11 since 5 weeks on two x570 systems. One with 3600 and one with 5950x.


How is L3 cache and CPPC preferred cores working for you?


----------



## blunden

des2k... said:


> Had to reinstall windows 10 recently and build 21H1(very similar to windows 11) is very so much trash for scheduling on my Zen2.
> 
> I lost ST boost for 1,4 cores. Any small work load all 12 cores get triggered (4.3 low boost).
> 
> There're options on the power plan for thread and short thread scheduling. Options are auto, performance, efficient, etc but that only shifts the load between ccd1,ccd2 with poor boost for ST.


 So they messed up the scheduler in the latest Windows 10 release too?  I'm guessing you mean 21H2?


----------



## Re-lar-Kvothe

Zogge said:


> I have 0 problems on Win 11 since 5 weeks on two x570 systems. One with 3600 and one with 5950x.


I have been very hesitant about going to 11 but what the hell. What's the worst that can happen? 😁


----------



## Re-lar-Kvothe

tolis626 said:


> Then I decided to push my CO offsets to the highest I can get them (basically -30 all cores except for the best ones which get -16, -16, -21, -24),


I have a very similar set up as you. My chip is considered "golden" by CTR. I run all cores at -30. When I try to increase the voltage to my best cores my CB scores go down, significantly. I average 9160 in CB20 at all core -30. If I increase the voltage on my "good" cores by 5, 10, 15, it dips below 9000.


----------



## des2k...

blunden said:


> So they messed up the scheduler in the latest Windows 10 release too?  I'm guessing you mean 21H2?


21H2 is Windows 11, Windows 11 is built from 21H1 Windows 10.

I'm still trying to figure out, why they switched the boost to start from the last ccd. ccd1 is very weak, tops out at 4.3 where ccd0 tops out at 4.5. But ccd0 is limited to 4.3 if ccd1 is loaded regardless of the workload.

21H1 is the most responsive and fastest at opening apps,games and multitasking vs older win10 builds. But I lost my ST boost for some games/emulation.

My 3900x, core ranking


----------



## GRABibus

Re-lar-Kvothe said:


> I have a very similar set up as you. My chip is considered "golden" by CTR. I run all cores at -30. When I try to increase the voltage to my best cores my CB scores go down, significantly. I average 9160 in CB20 at all core -30. If I increase the voltage on my "good" cores by 5, 10, 15, it dips below 9000.


I have exactly same behavior.
In fact, some cores are so good that they can’t boost higher, even with more Voltage.
Adding more volage just adds heat and then they boost lower


----------



## Zogge

I still have the cores at ccd0 as primary in windows 11 with same boost as in win 10. For instance my core 0 was preferred and fastest both before and after win 11 installation and is my main ST core.

Edit: ...and it boosts as high as before on same voltage. (PBO -20 top 4 -25 next 4 -30 the rest)


----------



## des2k...

Zogge said:


> I still have the cores at ccd0 as primary in windows 11 with same boost as in win 10. For instance my core 0 was preferred and fastest both before and after win 11 installation and is my main ST core.
> 
> Edit: ...and it boosts as high as before on same voltage. (PBO -20 top 4 -25 next 4 -30 the rest)


Do you have CPPC on and CPPC preferred cores on in the bios ?
What does your cores ranking look like ?


----------



## Re-lar-Kvothe

GRABibus said:


> I have exactly same behavior.
> In fact, some cores are so good that they can’t boost higher, even with more Voltage.
> Adding more volage just adds heat and then they boost lower


Yes. We seem to be under the spell of the algorithm controlling the heat of the CPU. Only way to break it is to go manual. I can set the Vcore to 1.42v and a 4.90/4.80GHz between CCD0 and CCD1 and run CB20/CB23 with temps in the 84C range. It is not stable but then again I didn't tweak for manual too much. Not like the old days, pour the V to them and let the chips fall where they may.


----------



## des2k...

bug with CPPC and Windows 11,


https://www.amd.com/en/support/kb/faq/pa-400



Just disabled CPPC preferred cores in bios and I got my correct boost back with Windows 10 21H1 build.

CCD0 is being used now and I got my 4.5 ST.


----------



## tolis626

Re-lar-Kvothe said:


> I have a very similar set up as you. My chip is considered "golden" by CTR. I run all cores at -30. When I try to increase the voltage to my best cores my CB scores go down, significantly. I average 9160 in CB20 at all core -30. If I increase the voltage on my "good" cores by 5, 10, 15, it dips below 9000.


Ok, first off, thanks for the info. I'll try setting an all core CO and see how it goes.

That said, I cannot for the life of me figure out how to get a rating for my CPU from CTR. Not that I generally know how to use it, I've never bothered, but whatever.

EDIT : Well, just went in and put in an all core CO of -30. No difference whatsoever. Not to temps, not to power, not to clocks, not to performance. If anything, I'm getting slightly lower R20 multi core (I got 8999 two times in a row and then a 8998 ffs, didn't get 9000) and maybe slightly higher single core at 637. Sadly, it wasn't what I was missing. Now, what else is there to try...


----------



## Re-lar-Kvothe

tolis626 said:


> Ok, first off, thanks for the info. I'll try setting an all core CO and see how it goes.
> That said, I cannot for the life of me figure out how to get a rating for my CPU from CTR. Not that I generally know how to use it, I've never bothered, but whatever.
> EDIT : Well, just went in and put in an all core CO of -30. No difference whatsoever. Not to temps, not to power, not to clocks, not to performance. If anything, I'm getting slightly lower R20 multi core (I got 8999 two times in a row and then a 8998 ffs, didn't get 9000) and maybe slightly higher single core at 637. Sadly, it wasn't what I was missing. Now, what else is there to try...


 I guess it is just a silicon lottery these days. Unless you want to risk the $1500 investment for some internet bragging rights.


----------



## xeizo

des2k... said:


> bug with CPPC and Windows 11,
> 
> 
> https://www.amd.com/en/support/kb/faq/pa-400
> 
> 
> 
> Just disabled CPPC preferred cores in bios and I got my correct boost back with Windows 10 21H1 build.
> 
> CCD0 is being used now and I got my 4.5 ST.


Thanks for the update, good they finally acknowledged the L3 problem, I reported it to MS many months back and nothing has changed. Regarding CPPC, as a fix is said to come, I don't have terrible regression because of the bug. 680 instead of 685 single core in CPU-Z. I think I can wait it out without messing with the bios, it's already October so the fix should be imminent.

Regarding Windows 11 itself, it's certainly a worse OS than Windows 10 but it will improve and it is the future and will be supported the most, so I run it. Installed now on four Ryzen boxes, not a single issue apart from the known bugs and the upgrade(s) was very fast.


----------



## usoldier

Hello , can someone point me out to Best Audio drivers for a Windows 11 clean install. Thanks


----------



## tolis626

Re-lar-Kvothe said:


> I guess it is just a silicon lottery these days. Unless you want to risk the $1500 investment for some internet bragging rights.


Well, it's always been silicon lottery, it's just harder to get the performance you want these days. Used to be that you'd set a clock, crank the voltage until it worked, test it and you're good to go. But now it's algorithms controlling algorithms. I'm not complaining, as we're extracting more performance and get better efficiency out of our chips that way, but I did prefer the way it used to be.

As for taking a risk... I mean, isn't that why we're all here? We take risks to improve performance.


----------



## PWn3R

What kinds of temps are people seeing under load? I redid my loop, dual d5, 560, and dual 480 rads and added liquid metal, and I’m sitting between 46 and 52c in games, 55-62 in CB runs. I saw something saying to try to stay under 80c. I haven’t messed with CO yet, but used to be hitting 70-78 with PBO on. I do not have PBO on at the moment. Thinking my next free weekend it’s time to try some CO and PBO.

Edit: this is a 5950x


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Luggage

PWn3R said:


> What kinds of temps are people seeing under load? I redid my loop, dual d5, 560, and dual 480 rads and added liquid metal, and I’m sitting between 46 and 52c in games, 55-62 in CB runs. I saw something saying to try to stay under 80c. I haven’t messed with CO yet, but used to be hitting 70-78 with PBO on. I do not have PBO on at the moment. Thinking my next free weekend it’s time to try some CO and PBO.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think y-cruncher BBP test is the hottest I’ve found with 5800x @ 195 130 170 reaching 81-82C even with water at 18C and LM (though I suspect my LM application is not the best)


----------



## blunden

des2k... said:


> 21H2 is Windows 11, Windows 11 is built from 21H1 Windows 10.
> 
> I'm still trying to figure out, why they switched the boost to start from the last ccd. ccd1 is very weak, tops out at 4.3 where ccd0 tops out at 4.5. But ccd0 is limited to 4.3 if ccd1 is loaded regardless of the workload.
> 
> 21H1 is the most responsive and fastest at opening apps,games and multitasking vs older win10 builds. But I lost my ST boost for some games/emulation.
> 
> My 3900x, core ranking
> View attachment 2527816


No, according to Microsoft the new Windows 10 release is also named 21H2 (ie. the second release/half of 2021).









Introducing the next feature update to Windows 10: 21H2


While we are excited for the next generation of Windows with Windows 11, we are also focused on supporting the more than 1.3 billion monthly active devices o




blogs.windows.com





21H1 is not in any way new. You are either talking about the new Windows 10 update (21H2) that was released at the same time as Windows 11, or you are talking about one that is many months old at this point. Which one is it? 

It seems AMD has posted an advisory about it btw. Fixes are to be expected this month.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-windows-11-slows-cpus-up-to-15-patch-coming

https://www.amd.com/en/support/kb/faq/pa-400


----------



## des2k...

blunden said:


> No, according to Microsoft the new Windows 10 release is also named 21H2 (ie. the second release/half of 2021).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Introducing the next feature update to Windows 10: 21H2
> 
> 
> While we are excited for the next generation of Windows with Windows 11, we are also focused on supporting the more than 1.3 billion monthly active devices o
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.windows.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 21H1 is not in any way new. You are either talking about the new Windows 10 update (21H2) that was released at the same time as Windows 11, or you are talking about one that is many months old at this point. Which one is it?
> 
> It seems AMD has posted an advisory about it btw. Fixes are to be expected this month.
> 
> https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-windows-11-slows-cpus-up-to-15-patch-coming
> 
> https://www.amd.com/en/support/kb/faq/pa-400


I'm talking about Windows 10 21H1. That's what I got from Microsoft 2days ago with their download tool.
On google it says Windows 10 21H2 is for Oct 12 or later release but at the same time Windows 11 also carries 21H2 build number.

If there's Windows 10 21H2 it's not available with the MS download tool or from Windows Updates.

So not sure what to make of it.....
On my Windows Update panel , it's already suggesting Windows 11 upgrade so not sure where this new build of Windows 10 will fit in


----------



## blunden

des2k... said:


> I'm talking about Windows 10 21H1. That's what I got from Microsoft 2days ago with their download tool.
> On google it says Windows 10 21H2 is for Oct 12 or later release but at the same time Windows 11 also carries 21H2 build number.
> 
> If there's Windows 10 21H2 it's not available with the MS download tool or from Windows Updates.
> 
> So not sure what to make of it.....
> On my Windows Update panel , it's already suggesting Windows 11 upgrade so not sure where this new build of Windows 10 will fit in


 Windows 10 21H2 might not have been released yet, that's true. The naming format is simply YEAR + first or second half of that year. 21H1 is from May or June of 2021 but might still be the latest release for a few more days. Now I know what version you were talking about though, so thanks for confirming. 

Once Windows 10 21H2 is released, you will either have the option of upgrading to Windows 11 or click the button to stay on Windows 10. If you pick the latter, you will get the Windows 10 21H2 upgrade. I've seen screenshots of that dialog, presumably from people on the insider track.


----------



## neikosr0x

Well guys we will have to wait a few weeks. Windows® 11 Performance Variation in Certain Applications on Compatible AMD Processors | AMD


----------



## blunden

neikosr0x said:


> Well guys we will have to wait a few weeks. Windows® 11 Performance Variation in Certain Applications on Compatible AMD Processors | AMD


 Yeah, but at least they have finally confirmed that they are working on both of those issues.  We have basically had radio silence about this for months.


----------



## Alberto_It

I have got the Asus Crosshair VIII Dark Hero paired with one Ryzen 9 5950x and bios version 3801.
With windows 10 how the tpm should be set? At the moment I have the QCode 9e at startup. 

No intention of switching to Windows 11 at the moment


----------



## Zogge

des2k... said:


> Do you have CPPC on and CPPC preferred cores on in the bios ?
> What does your cores ranking look like ?
> View attachment 2527817


CPPC OFF.
L3 still broken in AIDA measurements.

Core distribution same as always (all my good ones on CCD0)


----------



## blunden

Alberto_It said:


> I have got the Asus Crosshair VIII Dark Hero paired with one Ryzen 9 5950x and bios version 3801.
> With windows 10 how the tpm should be set? At the moment I have the QCode 9e at startup.
> 
> No intention of switching to Windows 11 at the moment


 You can have TPM set to Firmware TPM if you want, it doesn't hurt. QCode 9E is fine.


----------



## xeizo

FYI, I installed the current Dev Build of Windows 11(22471) on my Prime Pro, the L3 cache issue is fixed from what it looks. Now only waiting for it to trickle down to official builds:


----------



## PWn3R

xeizo said:


> FYI, I installed the current Dev Build of Windows 11(22471) on my Prime Pro, the L3 cache issue is fixed from what it looks. Now only waiting for it to trickle down to official builds:


Nice, queued that for installation last night when I walked away. It seemed like they had this fixed in one of the earlier builds, but then the next one broke it again. I think they are going to have to make some core changes to the scheduler because I suspect it doesn’t understand the CCXs on AMD. I am hoping that comes with the windows update referenced above by AMDs support page. I regularly see it shuffling load off faster cores to slower ones and sometimes games are just flipping threads back and forth between ccxs non stop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## xeizo

PWn3R said:


> Nice, queued that for installation last night when I walked away. It seemed like they had this fixed in one of the earlier builds, but then the next one broke it again. I think they are going to have to make some core changes to the scheduler because I suspect it doesn’t understand the CCXs on AMD. I am hoping that comes with the windows update referenced above by AMDs support page. I regularly see it shuffling load off faster cores to slower ones and sometimes games are just flipping threads back and forth between ccxs non stop.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Installed the Dev Build on my 5900X/C8E as well. L3 is indeed fixed:










But CPPC Preferred Cores is still somewhat broken, it's not totally broken as turning it off worsens performance a lot. Windows chooses the worst cores to run tasks on if I turn it off. But, while ON is better it's not good. It chooses my core 4 as "best" core and not core 2 which IS the best core, it's at least a 100MHz boost difference between them. So, a little borked but not fully. WIndows 10 worked flawless in this regard.

I have experimented with using a old AMD Ryzen Powerplan, but that didn't change anything noticeable. The rut goes deeper, probably why it's hard to fix.

Btw, I briefly noticed a new program flip by in Task Manager, a "Background Task Host". That must be for Alder Lake, and I guess it does some harm for Ryzens.


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> Installed the Dev Build on my 5900X/C8E as well. L3 is indeed fixed:
> 
> View attachment 2527980
> 
> 
> But CPPC Preferred Cores is still somewhat broken, it's not totally broken as turning it off worsens performance a lot. Windows chooses the worst cores to run tasks on if I turn it off. But, while ON is better it's not good. It chooses my core 4 as "best" core and not core 2 which IS the best core, it's at least a 100MHz boost difference between them. So, a little borked but not fully. WIndows 10 worked flawless in this regard.
> 
> I have experimented with using a old AMD Ryzen Powerplan, but that didn't change anything noticeable. The rut goes deeper, probably why it's hard to fix.


Let's wait for the fixes and a more mature OS....
Thanks for feedback.


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> Let's wait for the fixes and a more mature OS....
> Thanks for feedback.


I did report these issues many months back, through the official channels, it's sad it took this long to be acknowledged. Also, I didn't see how bad it was on my Insider box with 3700X as all cores clocks pretty much the same on the 3700X LoL


----------



## des2k...

xeizo said:


> Installed the Dev Build on my 5900X/C8E as well. L3 is indeed fixed:
> 
> View attachment 2527980
> 
> 
> But CPPC Preferred Cores is still somewhat broken, it's not totally broken as turning it off worsens performance a lot. Windows chooses the worst cores to run tasks on if I turn it off. But, while ON is better it's not good. It chooses my core 4 as "best" core and not core 2 which IS the best core, it's at least a 100MHz boost difference between them. So, a little borked but not fully. WIndows 10 worked flawless in this regard.
> 
> I have experimented with using a old AMD Ryzen Powerplan, but that didn't change anything noticeable. The rut goes deeper, probably why it's hard to fix.
> 
> Btw, I briefly noticed a new program flip by in Task Manager, a "Background Task Host". That must be for Alder Lake, and I guess it does some harm for Ryzens.


I found leaving CPPC & CPPC preferred both on in the bios better. And then change the boost mode. 3 to 6 are CPPC boost mode.

p-state boost only
Powercfg -setacvalueindex scheme_current sub_processor PERFBOOSTMODE 2
Powercfg -setactive scheme_current

The min core unpark on Windows 11 Balanced plan was set to 100% which triggered all core boost mode too often. After also changing this on my zen2 3900x I get 4.5 ccd0 boost to hold for gaming sessions. Unless it's a really heavy MT game.

Still waiting for the L3 fix, it's 30ns for L3 with very bad bandwidth numbers.


----------



## kx11

xeizo said:


> Installed the Dev Build on my 5900X/C8E as well. L3 is indeed fixed:
> 
> View attachment 2527980



I like my Win10 just fine, the last time i tried that Win11 man it was a horror scene, i think TPM options are messing up everything even with Win10 they were making me go thorugh hell everytime i restart after an update so i turned them off completely

anyway here's my timing (those ram stick are hot though)


----------



## neikosr0x

des2k... said:


> I found leaving CPPC & CPPC preferred both on in the bios better. And then change the boost mode. 3 to 6 are CPPC boost mode.
> 
> p-state boost only
> Powercfg -setacvalueindex scheme_current sub_processor PERFBOOSTMODE 2
> Powercfg -setactive scheme_current
> 
> The min core unpark on Windows 11 Balanced plan was set to 100% which triggered all core boost mode too often. After also changing this on my zen2 3900x I get 4.5 ccd0 boost to hold for gaming sessions. Unless it's a really heavy MT game.
> 
> Still waiting for the L3 fix, it's 30ns for L3 with very bad bandwidth numbers.
> 
> View attachment 2527984


Could you share the tool, please? can't find it anymore.


----------



## des2k...

neikosr0x said:


> Could you share the tool, please? can't find it anymore.


I'm using this script:








Enable all advanced power settings in Windows.


Enable all advanced power settings in Windows. GitHub Gist: instantly share code, notes, and snippets.




gist.github.com





With powershell these are the commands to unlock the power plan settings. You can view / change them in control panel / Power Options.

Set-ExecutionPolicy unrestricted
./enable-all-advanced-power-settings.ps1 > run1.ps1
./run1.ps1
Set-ExecutionPolicy restricted

If you're talking Powercfg, it's built in, use the command prompt(admin)
Powercfg -setacvalueindex scheme_current sub_processor PERFBOOSTMODE 2
Powercfg -setactive scheme_current


----------



## neikosr0x

des2k... said:


> I'm using this script:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enable all advanced power settings in Windows.
> 
> 
> Enable all advanced power settings in Windows. GitHub Gist: instantly share code, notes, and snippets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gist.github.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With powershell these are the commands to unlock the power plan settings. You can view / change them in control panel / Power Options.
> 
> Set-ExecutionPolicy unrestricted
> ./enable-all-advanced-power-settings.ps1 > run1.ps1
> ./run1.ps1
> Set-ExecutionPolicy restricted











thank you.


----------



## lmfodor

I just installed Windows 11 and I find that the OS is not taking the BIOS CPU boosting values, nor the fan values that I had defined. I installed Windows 11, then ran Sophia's script to remove many things, then I installed the new AMD Chipset Drivers for Windows 11 for the Dark Hero, and finally ran a command to enable High Performance. After restarting I ran the tests and I see the CPU stuck at 3700 all the cores, and then the fan curve still does not work. What could it be?









Thanks!!


----------



## ChillyRide

lmfodor said:


> I just installed Windows 11 and I find that the OS is not taking the BIOS CPU boosting values, nor the fan values that I had defined. I installed Windows 11, then ran Sophia's script to remove many things, then I installed the new AMD Chipset Drivers for Windows 11 for the Dark Hero, and finally ran a command to enable High Performance. After restarting I ran the tests and I see the CPU stuck at 3700 all the cores, and then the fan curve still does not work. What could it be?
> 
> View attachment 2528224
> 
> Thanks!!


Stop being beta tester, respect urself and revert to W10.


----------



## lmfodor

I really don’t understand. I know that they’re a lot of people testing the beta version with AMD processor and games for a long time . I never though that Windows 11 could have some blocking layer between the BIOS and the OS. As you can see in the screenshot the cores are all capped to 3700MHz and the fans don’t follow its curves. I though the chipset driver could be the issue. Then the powerplan.. but I don’t think I’m the only one experience this thing. Googling it I saw there is a bug with the preferred core, but in my case all processors are fixed to 3700.. so not boosting at all

Any of you here have the same issue?

Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Luggage

lmfodor said:


> I really don’t understand. I know that they’re a lot of people testing the beta version with AMD processor and games for a long time . I never though that Windows 11 could have some blocking layer between the BIOS and the OS. As you can see in the screenshot the cores are all capped to 3700MHz and the fans don’t follow its curves. I though the chipset driver could be the issue. Then the powerplan.. but I don’t think I’m the only one experience this thing. Googling it I saw there is a bug with the preferred core, but in my case all processors are fixed to 3700.. so not boosting at all
> 
> Any of you here have the same issue?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


All similar boosting stories lately has been solved with a normal power plan.
No ideas about the fans though.


----------



## des2k...

lmfodor said:


> I really don’t understand. I know that they’re a lot of people testing the beta version with AMD processor and games for a long time . I never though that Windows 11 could have some blocking layer between the BIOS and the OS. As you can see in the screenshot the cores are all capped to 3700MHz and the fans don’t follow its curves. I though the chipset driver could be the issue. Then the powerplan.. but I don’t think I’m the only one experience this thing. Googling it I saw there is a bug with the preferred core, but in my case all processors are fixed to 3700.. so not boosting at all
> 
> Any of you here have the same issue?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


If cpu max is not 100% there's no boost.
99% is max base clock



https://geekflare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/processor-power-management.jpg



If you're already 100% on power plan, you want to make sure cpu manual oc in the bios is set to auto/pstate0

You can also disable cppc boost / force p-state boost(on my earlier post)


----------



## lmfodor

des2k... said:


> If cpu max is not 100% there's no boost.
> 99% is max base clock
> 
> 
> 
> https://geekflare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/processor-power-management.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> If you're already 100% on power plan, you want to make sure cpu manual oc in the bios is set to auto/pstate0
> 
> You can also disable cppc boost / force p-state boost(on my earlier post)


Things got worse. Now I am lost. I checked the BIOS but I haven't touched it for a long time, since I updated to version 3801. Before I used the old 3003 that had no boosting errors and a more real L3 cache. I must confess that I am a little tired of AMD and all the problems that this last generation has, power plans or broken hibernation modes, in short, later I will change everything to Intel. I spent too much time configuring mems, weeks testing Cores stability, other weeks for the memory, trying to get to 4000 MT/s without WHEA 19. I think I spent/degrade more processor on Core Cycler, Y-Crunter and OOCT than playing games or other thing, without doubts.

I return to the problem, I decided to roll back to Windows 10. Unfortunately the Rollback is not so neat, some things were broken, so tired, instead of using a restore point, I did a *Reset PC* reinstalling Windows 10. And although you did not believe it, continue without boost in Windows, all at 37x. I have 3000 RPM Industrial Noctua Fans on my radiator, and I have the turbo mode in the BIOS, so with any temperature variation it is incredible how the noise is noticeable, it is a turbo engine. Whenever Windows started, they took the BIOS values, I never used the Asus APP to tweak the Fan curve and much less for overclocking. After installing Windows I just installed the AMD drivers, the February ones. It was still fixed at 3700. Then I tried updating to the end of September, also locked at 3700. I downloaded the Ryzen Master to see what it showed, and I'm still weathered. I don't know what else to do, the only thing I can think of is that it's something from the BIOS, and I think maybe I should go back to 3003. I don't know what else to do, what I do know, that before installing Windows 11, the fans worked According to the CPU load, and the memory latency were not approx 54ns, not 60 .. I attach the BIOS info, I have my PBO curve per core more stable, all in Extreme Overclocking. Then the memory OC from 6 months ago, and the AMD power plan has Min CPU and Max CPU 100% .. so it's not the Power Plan .. this is very strange. Can you help me?

















Thanks!


----------



## Kelutrel

lmfodor said:


> Things got worse. Now I am lost. I checked the BIOS but I haven't touched it for a long time, since I updated to version 3801. Before I used the old 3003 that had no boosting errors and a more real L3 cache. I must confess that I am a little tired of AMD and all the problems that this last generation has, power plans or broken hibernation modes, in short, later I will change everything to Intel. I spent too much time configuring mems, weeks testing Cores stability, other weeks for the memory, trying to get to 4000 MT/s without WHEA 19. I think I spent/degrade more processor on Core Cycler, Y-Crunter and OOCT than playing games or other thing, without doubts.
> 
> I return to the problem, I decided to roll back to Windows 10. Unfortunately the Rollback is not so neat, some things were broken, so tired, instead of using a restore point, I did a *Reset PC* reinstalling Windows 10. And although you did not believe it, continue without boost in Windows, all at 37x. I have 3000 RPM Industrial Noctua Fans on my radiator, and I have the turbo mode in the BIOS, so with any temperature variation it is incredible how the noise is noticeable, it is a turbo engine. Whenever Windows started, they took the BIOS values, I never used the Asus APP to tweak the Fan curve and much less for overclocking. After installing Windows I just installed the AMD drivers, the February ones. It was still fixed at 3700. Then I tried updating to the end of September, also locked at 3700. I downloaded the Ryzen Master to see what it showed, and I'm still weathered. I don't know what else to do, the only thing I can think of is that it's something from the BIOS, and I think maybe I should go back to 3003. I don't know what else to do, what I do know, that before installing Windows 11, the fans worked According to the CPU load, and the memory latency were not approx 54ns, not 60 .. I attach the BIOS info, I have my PBO curve per core more stable, all in Extreme Overclocking. Then the memory OC from 6 months ago, and the AMD power plan has Min CPU and Max CPU 100% .. so it's not the Power Plan .. this is very strange. Can you help me?
> 
> View attachment 2528246
> 
> View attachment 2528249
> 
> Thanks!


You have the "Core Performance Boost" disabled in your BIOS, in the AMD bios pages, and that explains the low CBR20 performance and the fact that all your cores are locked at 37x.
The "Core Performance Boost" menu item is just above the "Global C-state Control" item, so should be in the "AMD CBS/CPU Common Options" page, you may want to set it back to Enabled or Auto.

I also tried the Noctua industrial 3000rpm but they were absolutely too noisy for an AIO, even at 1800rpm. I suggest you to buy a set of the normal Arctic P14 PWM (or Arctic P12 PWM if your fans are 120mm). I tried the Arctic P14 Silent too, but found those to be too weak to cool a 5900X and as noisy as the normal P14.


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> Things got worse. Now I am lost. I checked the BIOS but I haven't touched it for a long time, since I updated to version 3801. Before I used the old 3003 that had no boosting errors and a more real L3 cache. I must confess that I am a little tired of AMD and all the problems that this last generation has, power plans or broken hibernation modes, in short, later I will change everything to Intel. I spent too much time configuring mems, weeks testing Cores stability, other weeks for the memory, trying to get to 4000 MT/s without WHEA 19. I think I spent/degrade more processor on Core Cycler, Y-Crunter and OOCT than playing games or other thing, without doubts.
> 
> I return to the problem, I decided to roll back to Windows 10. Unfortunately the Rollback is not so neat, some things were broken, so tired, instead of using a restore point, I did a *Reset PC* reinstalling Windows 10. And although you did not believe it, continue without boost in Windows, all at 37x. I have 3000 RPM Industrial Noctua Fans on my radiator, and I have the turbo mode in the BIOS, so with any temperature variation it is incredible how the noise is noticeable, it is a turbo engine. Whenever Windows started, they took the BIOS values, I never used the Asus APP to tweak the Fan curve and much less for overclocking. After installing Windows I just installed the AMD drivers, the February ones. It was still fixed at 3700. Then I tried updating to the end of September, also locked at 3700. I downloaded the Ryzen Master to see what it showed, and I'm still weathered. I don't know what else to do, the only thing I can think of is that it's something from the BIOS, and I think maybe I should go back to 3003. I don't know what else to do, what I do know, that before installing Windows 11, the fans worked According to the CPU load, and the memory latency were not approx 54ns, not 60 .. I attach the BIOS info, I have my PBO curve per core more stable, all in Extreme Overclocking. Then the memory OC from 6 months ago, and the AMD power plan has Min CPU and Max CPU 100% .. so it's not the Power Plan .. this is very strange. Can you help me?
> 
> View attachment 2528246
> 
> View attachment 2528249
> 
> Thanks!


There isn't meant to be an AMD power plan for Ryzen 5000. So something is wrong if you are able to select an AMD plan. I would choose a standard Windows 10 power plan such as Balanced Performance. The Minimum Processor State is 10% and Maximum Processor State is 100%.


----------



## lmfodor

Kelutrel said:


> You have the "Core Performance Boost" disabled in your BIOS, in the AMD bios pages, and that explains the low CBR20 performance and the fact that all your cores are locked at 37x.
> The "Core Performance Boost" menu item is just above the "Global C-state Control" item, so should be in the "AMD CBS/CPU Common Options" page, you may want to set it back to Enabled or Auto.
> 
> I also tried the Noctua industrial 3000rpm but they were absolutely too noisy for an AIO, even at 1800rpm. I suggest you to buy a set of the normal Arctic P14 PWM (or Arctic P12 PWM if your fans are 120mm). I tried the Arctic P14 Silent too, but found those to be too weak to cool a 5900X and as noisy as the normal P14.


You did it! For some reason, when I re enabled Global C-states (and disabled DF-C States), by mistake I disabled core performance boost.. wow! Thanks a lot!  I guess I will stay in Windows 10 for now...

Regarding the Noctua, yes, they are pretty loud. I tried several options, for a radiator it's not the best option. I found that for cooling memories or RTX 3090 backplates are very good, perhaps for his static pressure, but at 1600/2000 they're very strong. Overkill, yes..

Thanks again!


----------



## the bag

Hello everyone,

I switched from MAG X570 MSI Tomahawk WIFI to the ROG Crosshair 8 Dark Hero because i get it from a amazone warehouse deal about 300$ instead of the regular price (the tomahawk was about 220$).
I just put these settings on:

Updated the Bios to 3801
Resizable BAR Auto
And run my RAM from 2133 to his advertise 3600 nothing more

Than i started to the PBO sections and put my CO which i've tested with my tomahawk before into the bios of the dark hero i noticed that CoreCycler fails in almost every single core which I figured out with the tomahawk. 
So now im starting from 0 again. I use the tomahawk CO as an orientation.
The system boots normal without wheas (HWinfo). No Aura, Armory Create, Nzxt Software on board because they improved my CPU on the Tomahawk about 200 - 400 MHz in MultiCore. So I decided to live without that crapy bloodware stuff. Running only OpenRGB if it's necessary.
So I question myself if theirs any default setting from the Bios that's in conflict with the PBO and CurveOptimizer in the advanced AMD section or is the dark hero just another term of quality compared to the MSI Tomahawk midrange motherboard so i have to figure out the new CO for the dark hero again?
*after Bios update to 3801 post code 9E every time read on reddit that's nothing to worry about anyone else here with that post code after 3801 Bios?

Grettings


----------



## pantsoftime

the bag said:


> Than i started to the PBO sections and put my CO which i've tested with my tomahawk before into the bios of the dark hero i noticed that CoreCycler fails in almost every single core which I figured out with the tomahawk.


Have you confirmed that you're using equivalent LLC settings? It's possible your VCore is running at different levels than MSI had.


----------



## the bag

pantsoftime said:


> Have you confirmed that you're using equivalent LLC settings? It's possible your VCore is running at different levels than MSI had.


Hello,

I didn't change LLC on both boards but there are 8 different types on the tomahawk and 5 on the dark hero but i dont think "auto" will be the same on both boards. I'll start testing it now.
Thanks for the advise.


----------



## greg_p

Hello guys, didn't came on this topic since a while. I'm still running the 3501, is there a benefit on the 3801? And I've seen 1usmus started Hydra project, could we get it? Do we have to subscribe his channel for that? And is it better than CTR2.1? I was pretty dissapointed by this last one, because of long term stability. My use is 1-process centric program (xplane11 E.G.) and I came back to stable 46.5/45.5 OC as CO keep on giving BSOD on these on 1h+ use.


----------



## Sleepycat

greg_p said:


> Hello guys, didn't came on this topic since a while. I'm still running the 3501, is there a benefit on the 3801?


If you are happy with 3501, I don't see the need to upgrade to 3801. If you are experiencing USB issues, then try 3801.



> And I've seen 1usmus started Hydra project, could we get it? Do we have to subscribe his channel for that? And is it better than CTR2.1? I was pretty dissapointed by this last one, because of long term stability.


Hydra should be available for free to the public soon. So just wait a little longer. Personally, CTR 2.1 gave me better performance. But when there was instabilities, it was difficult to determine while profile to slow down. In the end, I gave every profile except Px High a -100MHz, and my PC became stable. It was most likely due to the AVX code I was running. If you had similar issues with CTR 2.1, just decrease the clocks by 100MHz.

Hydra adds functionality to detect AVX and AVX2 loads, and it will automatically decrease clocks by using a less aggressive profile. I guess the difference between the two is that CTR 2.1 gives better control, whereas Hydra does it automagically for you. If you can't wait for the public release, then you can subscribe to his channel to download a copy of it. You just need to subscribe for 1 month anyway to get what you need.



> My use is 1-process centric program (xplane11 E.G.) and I came back to stable 46.5/45.5 OC as CO keep on giving BSOD on these on 1h+ use.


You need to use a program like Corecycler in SSE and AVX2 modes to determine what CO to use. After corecycler, I found that one of my cores in CCD1 needed a +10 offset and my best core in the CPU needed 0 offset.


----------



## greg_p

Sleepycat said:


> You need to use a program like Corecycler in SSE and AVX2 modes to determine what CO to use. After corecycler, I found that one of my cores in CCD1 needed a +10 offset and my best core in the CPU needed 0 offset.


Thanks for the tip. I was about these values for 2 cores of mine when I left this activity some months ago. Although my problem may not be related to AVX (not that I know actually). I'll give it another try .


----------



## Sleepycat

greg_p said:


> Thanks for the tip. I was about these values for 2 cores of mine when I left this activity some months ago. Although my problem may not be related to AVX (not that I know actually). I'll give it another try .


My issue was the Nvidia display driver crashing. I didn't think it was AVX, but corecycler found an unstable core, and the issue did not happen again.


----------



## Baio73

Any update on the stable version of BIOS 3901 for C8F?
Beta has been released a long ago...

Baio


----------



## Sleepycat

Baio73 said:


> Any update on the stable version of BIOS 3901 for C8F?
> Beta has been released a long ago...
> 
> Baio


If a stable version of 3901 is released, it would most likely be bit-for-bit identical to the beta version.


----------



## Chili195

I don't think any manufacturer has released a final BIOS based on AGESA 1.2.0.4 which seemed to have issues so I'm guessing the hold up is on AMD to distribute an updated AGESA.


----------



## xeizo

Chili195 said:


> I don't think any manufacturer has released a final BIOS based on AGESA 1.2.0.4 which seemed to have issues so I'm guessing the hold up is on AMD to distribute an updated AGESA.


More so now that Windows 11 has borked L3 and CPPC, that may possibly affect the AGESA


----------



## Baio73

Sleepycat said:


> If a stable version of 3901 is released, it would most likely be bit-for-bit identical to the beta version.


I'm absolutely sure about this... but still updating a BETA BIOS is a risky operation...

Baio


----------



## dgrdsv

I'm running 3901 on DH since it was posted here. No issues to report really. But I don't OC.


----------



## Sleepycat

Baio73 said:


> I'm absolutely sure about this... but still updating a BETA BIOS is a risky operation...
> 
> Baio


That's why you have bios flashback. You back up your current settings/profile, and put a copy of your current bios (renamed) in a FAT32 USB drive. Then even if you flash a beta bios and something goes wrong, you can just use bios flashback and restore your old settings.


----------



## GRABibus

Do some of you play Cold War in multiplayer in 2560x1440 with 5900x and RTX 3090 ?

I ask you this because I run into strange behavior since 2 months.
In fact, when enabling DLSS on « quality » my GPU usage (RTX 3090, see in signature) decreases to 60%~90% depending on maps and scenes.

2 months ago, I had 80%~95%.

So, it seems that I run into CPU limited with DLSS on this game !!

As it was not the case 2 months ago, something has changed…but where ?

I would appreciate feedback on this from your side :
5900x
RTX 3090
2560x1440
Ultra settings
DLSS on quality

thank you.


----------



## Sleepycat

GRABibus said:


> Do some of you play Cold War in multiplayer in 2560x1440 with 5900x and RTX 3090 ?
> 
> I ask you this because I run into strange behavior since 2 months.
> In fact, when enabling DLSS on « quality » my GPU usage (RTX 3090, see in signature) decreases to 60%~90% depending on maps and scenes.
> 
> 2 months ago, I had 80%~95%.
> 
> So, it seems that I run into CPU limited with DLSS on this game !!
> 
> As it was not the case 2 months ago, something has changed…but where ?
> 
> I would appreciate feedback on this from your side :
> 5900x
> RTX 3090
> 2560x1440
> Ultra settings
> DLSS on quality
> 
> thank you.


Sounds right, since DLSS renders internally at a lower resolution and then upscaled, it makes sense that the bottleneck would transfer from the GPU to CPU.


----------



## GRABibus

Sleepycat said:


> Sounds right, since DLSS renders internally at a lower resolution and then upscaled, it makes sense that the bottleneck would transfer from the GPU to CPU.


Yes but this doesn't seem to occur on last high end Intel CPU's.
And I didn't have this 2 months ago. I was at 95% GPU usage even with DLSS at 2560x1440 with my 5900X.

This is why I wanted to have feedback and share with 5900X owners here who shopuld test in same conditions.

In Modern Warfare, this doesn't occur at all.
Even with DLSS quality and 2560x1440=> 90% to 95% GPU usage.


----------



## Sleepycat

GRABibus said:


> Yes but this doesn't seem to occur on last high end Intel CPU's.
> And I didn't have this 2 months ago. I was at 95% GPU usage even with DLSS at 2560x1440 with my 5900X.
> 
> This is why I wanted to have feedback and share with 5900X owners here who shopuld test in same conditions.
> 
> In Modern Warfare, this doesn't occur at all.
> Even with DLSS quality and 2560x1440=> 90% to 95% GPU usage.


What was the CPU usage for Modern Warfare vs Warzone. I didn't actually play Modern Warfare, so I'm not sure if there were changes in the game engine between the two which ended up being more CPU dependent with Warzone.

I would look at CPU usage % on a per core basis. Look for the single core that is pegged at 100%. If it exists, then you are CPU limited. When a single core in a 12 core CPU is at 100%, Windows reports it as 8.3% total CPU utilization, so you will need a different software other than Task Manager to monitor core usage. Probably something like Process Lasso will let you identify any cores at 100%.


----------



## GRABibus

Sleepycat said:


> What was the CPU usage for Modern Warfare vs Warzone. I didn't actually play Modern Warfare, so I'm not sure if there were changes in the game engine between the two which ended up being more CPU dependent with Warzone.
> 
> I would look at CPU usage % on a per core basis. Look for the single core that is pegged at 100%. If it exists, then you are CPU limited. When a single core in a 12 core CPU is at 100%, Windows reports it as 8.3% total CPU utilization, so you will need a different software other than Task Manager to monitor core usage. Probably something like Process Lasso will let you identify any cores at 100%.


That is a clever statement.

Look at this gameplay 2 months ago :





CPU usage is well spreaded all over cores and I have GPU usage 95% with DLSS quality and Ray Tracing enabled.

Now, when I make the same gameplay with DLSS quality and RTX enabled, only 2 or 3 cores are "working" (Mainly in CCD1) and they often go to 90%-100%.

So, something has changed in the game cold war, at least for my configuration which makes me CPU limited with DLSS and RTX at 2560x1440.
By disabling RTX, it can help a bit in some maps.

I have enabled "THreaded optimisation" in cold war process in Nvidia drivers, but it doesn't help really....

In Modern Warfare, I have a well spreaded CPU usage all over the cores, and then no CPU limit.


----------



## th30d0r3

GRABibus said:


> Do some of you play Cold War in multiplayer in 2560x1440 with 5900x and RTX 3090 ?
> 
> I ask you this because I run into strange behavior since 2 months.
> In fact, when enabling DLSS on « quality » my GPU usage (RTX 3090, see in signature) decreases to 60%~90% depending on maps and scenes.
> 
> 2 months ago, I had 80%~95%.
> 
> So, it seems that I run into CPU limited with DLSS on this game !!
> 
> As it was not the case 2 months ago, something has changed…but where ?
> 
> I would appreciate feedback on this from your side :
> 5900x
> RTX 3090
> 2560x1440
> Ultra settings
> DLSS on quality
> 
> thank you.


Out of curiosity, why would you need DLSS on a 3090 at 1440p Ultra? what FPS are you aiming for? Also DLSS adds latency so it's something to consider for multiplayer; and looks far worse (IMHO).

My setup is very close to yours:
5950x @ 4740/4600
RTX 3090
3400x1440p
Ultra + RTX no DLSS

I get 160+ FPS

P.s. you sniper swine, love it and hate it at the same time


----------



## GRABibus

th30d0r3 said:


> Out of curiosity, why would you need DLSS on a 3090 at 1440p Ultra? what FPS are you aiming for? Also DLSS adds latency so it's something to consider for multiplayer; and looks far worse (IMHO).
> 
> My setup is very close to yours:
> 5950x @ 4740/4600
> RTX 3090
> 3400x1440p
> Ultra + RTX no DLSS
> 
> I get 160+ FPS
> 
> P.s. you sniper swine, love it and hate it at the same time


I want to understand why I lost so
Much GPU usage with DLSS since 2 months in 2560x1440.
It seems that my CPU usage is not as 2 months ago and the current only explanation I have is game coding which has changed….

Should it be possible that you make a test at 2560x1440 with DLSS quality and RTX on ultra on Rush map for example (by setting a local match) and check global GPU usage ?

thank you.

PS : we don’t really have same rig. You have a 5950X.


----------



## GRABibus

th30d0r3 said:


> Out of curiosity, why would you need DLSS on a 3090 at 1440p Ultra? what FPS are you aiming for? Also DLSS adds latency so it's something to consider for multiplayer; and looks far worse (IMHO).
> 
> My setup is very close to yours:
> 5950x @ 4740/4600
> RTX 3090
> 3400x1440p
> Ultra + RTX no DLSS
> 
> I get 160+ FPS
> 
> P.s. you sniper swine, love it and hate it at the same time


160 fps 1440p with all ultra, rtx ultra and non DLSS ??

look at my video. Dlss quality and RTX ultra 2560x1440 and I have not 160+….
Are you sure you have RTX ultra ?


----------



## th30d0r3

GRABibus said:


> I want to understand why I lost so
> Much GPU usage with DLSS since 2 months in 2560x1440.
> It seems that my CPU usage is not as 2 months ago and the current only explanation I have is game coding which has changed….
> 
> Should it be possible that you make a test at 2560x1440 with DLSS quality and RTX on ultra on Rush map for example (by setting a local match) and check global GPU usage ?
> 
> thank you.
> 
> PS : we don’t really have same rig. You have a 5950X.


After work I will simulate what you are doing and see what the impact is.
I've never used that OSD down the left hand side to view the system, would you mind telling me what program is used for that then I can try see the same view.


----------



## GRABibus

th30d0r3 said:


> After work I will simulate what you are doing and see what the impact is.
> I've never used that OSD down the left hand side to view the system, would you mind telling me what program is used for that then I can try see the same view.


thank you very much.

this is RTSS which comes with MSI afterburner.


----------



## musician

Baio73 said:


> Any update on the stable version of BIOS 3901 for C8F?
> Beta has been released a long ago...
> 
> Baio


Considering the 3901 is bugged, there will be certainly a new version. And btw the beta BIOS does not mean it´s not stable. All ASUS beta BIOS´s are full stable.


----------



## stimpy88

musician said:


> Considering the 3901 is bugged, there will be certainly a new version. And btw the beta BIOS does not mean it´s not stable. All ASUS beta BIOS´s are full stable.


Erm...


----------



## Prophet4NO1

musician said:


> Considering the 3901 is bugged, there will be certainly a new version. And btw the beta BIOS does not mean it´s not stable. All ASUS beta BIOS´s are full stable.



Beta software by definition is not stable. YOU may not have issues with it, but that does not mean it is stable. Or at least not proven stable.


----------



## Nizzen

Prophet4NO1 said:


> Beta software by definition is not stable. YOU may not have issues with it, but that does not mean it is stable. Or at least not proven stable.


Non beta doesn't mean stable either.
Beta tend to be better, because it's newer. 99% of the time 
Amd tend to be more unstable with bioses and agesa. That's a fact 😎


----------



## GRABibus

Prophet4NO1 said:


> Beta software by definition is not stable. YOU may not have issues with it, but that does not mean it is stable. Or at least not proven stable.


Beta Bios from ASUS are still more stable than our overclocks, for sure


----------



## musician

Prophet4NO1 said:


> Beta software by definition is not stable. YOU may not have issues with it, but that does not mean it is stable. Or at least not proven stable.


Do you know Safedisk? I will quote a part of his post about beta bios here for YOU:
"_*beta doesn't mean it's unstable*_"
YOU may find the original post here: ROG MAXIMUS XIII Series 1102 BETA BIOS > Overclocking | Kool-en-Joy (coolenjoy.net)
YOU are welcome.

However, considering AMD AGESA is unstable since ZEN1 (kinda), it may not apply for AMD boards.


----------



## Sleepycat

GRABibus said:


> That is a clever statement.
> 
> Look at this gameplay 2 months ago :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CPU usage is well spreaded all over cores and I have GPU usage 95% with DLSS quality and Ray Tracing enabled.
> 
> Now, when I make the same gameplay with DLSS quality and RTX enabled, only 2 or 3 cores are "working" (Mainly in CCD1) and they often go to 90%-100%.
> 
> So, something has changed in the game cold war, at least for my configuration which makes me CPU limited with DLSS and RTX at 2560x1440.
> By disabling RTX, it can help a bit in some maps.
> 
> I have enabled "THreaded optimisation" in cold war process in Nvidia drivers, but it doesn't help really....
> 
> In Modern Warfare, I have a well spreaded CPU usage all over the cores, and then no CPU limit.


Are you still on the same bios version as 2 months ago? If you updated to 3901, then maybe test the previous version that you had 2 months ago again to see if the problem is there.

Also, you're not using CTR or Hydra, right?


----------



## GRABibus

Sleepycat said:


> Are you still on the same bios version as 2 months ago? If you updated to 3901, then maybe test the previous version that you had 2 months ago again to see if the problem is there.
> 
> Also, you're not using CTR or Hydra, right?


No, I was on 3302.
Currently I am on 3801.

I tried rapidly 3302 again yesterday and didn’t see any benefits.
But I will try more longer tests with 3302 again.

I don’t use CTR or Hydra.
I use PBO2 (settings in signature)

I will also come back to 4 RAM sticks 8GB I had during this video (I have now 2x16GB).

and if no improvements,the only statement is that Cold War Season 5 introduced this, at least for Ryzen.
I also noticed that when RTX is enabled , it is much more laggy in some maps. It was not the case at this video period.

definitely, they introduced some peformance losses in an update.


----------



## Baio73

musician said:


> Considering the 3901 is bugged, there will be certainly a new version. And btw the beta BIOS does not mean it´s not stable. All ASUS beta BIOS´s are full stable.


To me "bugged" means "not stable" 

Baio


----------



## metalshark

Baio73 said:


> To me "bugged" means "not stable"
> 
> Baio


To software/firmware developers beta means close to final release, but there may be unfinished work and may well drop the beta title if it turns out no additional work needs to be done after all. It has no bearing on stability/bugs (it may literally just be missing features, etc). Here AGESA 1.2.0.4 was marked as beta. Chances are one of the features missing was correct voltage control of some elements (I am speculating and there may have been a bug preventing them working correctly, etc, etc). It doesn't mean the next beta will have issues being the point. Non-beta versions can have bugs and be unstable too. Wouldn't mix correlation of this one release being less than ideal whilst being beta with the causation of adding the word beta to a release.


----------



## Nizzen

metalshark said:


> To software/firmware developers beta means close to final release, but there may be unfinished work and may well drop the beta title if it turns out no additional work needs to be done after all. It has no bearing on stability/bugs (it may literally just be missing features, etc). Here AGESA 1.2.0.4 was marked as beta. Chances are one of the features missing was correct voltage control of some elements (I am speculating and there may have been a bug preventing them working correctly, etc, etc). It doesn't mean the next beta will have issues being the point. Non-beta versions can have bugs and be unstable too. Wouldn't mix correlation of this one release being less than ideal whilst being beta with the causation of adding the word beta to a release.


AGESA will be beta forever....
I tested 25 ! different bioses on my old Asrock Taichi x370 board 😅
On my Asus Black Hero, maybe 20 already


----------



## Baio73

metalshark said:


> To software/firmware developers beta means close to final release, but there may be unfinished work and may well drop the beta title if it turns out no additional work needs to be done after all. It has no bearing on stability/bugs (it may literally just be missing features, etc). Here AGESA 1.2.0.4 was marked as beta. Chances are one of the features missing was correct voltage control of some elements (I am speculating and there may have been a bug preventing them working correctly, etc, etc). It doesn't mean the next beta will have issues being the point. Non-beta versions can have bugs and be unstable too. Wouldn't mix correlation of this one release being less than ideal whilst being beta with the causation of adding the word beta to a release.


I can understando you POV but... I keep replaying To me "bugged" means "not stable ". And this counts for beta AND for non beta BIOS.
3901 is bugged? Skip&wait for next release.

Baio


----------



## asavah

Have been running 3901 with PBO/CO since the day the link was dropped here.
No issues to report, the system has been rock solid so far.


----------



## Kelutrel

asavah said:


> Have been running 3901 with PBO/CO since the day the link was dropped here.
> No issues to report, the system has been rock solid so far.


It is bugged only if you use it with a Zen 3 and [email protected]+


----------



## musician

Baio73 said:


> To me "bugged" means "not stable"
> 
> Baio


Yeah, just because you don´t have the knowledge about the bug  If you know the BIOS, it´s actually stable.
It´s surprisingly AGESA problem, as always.... This time it´s about CCD/IOD voltage, it wont let you get more than 1V each. It may be problem if you run fclk 1900 or more. But if you run something around 1800, your voltage should be under the 1V anyway and you would not notice the bug at all.
So all in all, the bios IS stable, only the AGESA bug prevent you to use higher fclk.


----------



## kx11

Windows 11 benchmark









I scored 10 386 in Time Spy Extreme


AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 11}




www.3dmark.com





good enough?


----------



## Syldon

musician said:


> All ASUS beta BIOS´s are full stable.


Asus has deleted bios revisions in the past due the possibility they had for damaging your system. This is a pretty stupid thing to say.
Beta is literally the process of releasing a product for more testing to make sure it is ok to use.









ROG Crosshair VI overclocking thread


Major issues and solutions Random BIOS updating message killing boards (fixed in BIOS 0902/1001/0038 and newer) Please update ASAP to 0902 or newer. Using this BIOS do not go above 1.20V on the CPU SOC Voltage. Before updating, restore CMOS default settings and make sure CPU SOC Voltage is...




www.overclock.net






elmor said:


> *Random BIOS updating message killing boards* (fixed in BIOS 0902/1001/0038 and newer)
> 
> Please update ASAP to 0902


----------



## musician

Syldon said:


> Asus has deleted bios revisions in the past due the possibility they had for damaging your system. This is a pretty stupid thing to say.
> Beta is literally the process of releasing a product for more testing to make sure it is ok to use.


Nice five years old story bro. Now read following posts as well, and all, not only mine. I am not gonna repeat the same things over...


----------



## GRABibus

Sleepycat said:


> Are you still on the same bios version as 2 months ago? If you updated to 3901, then maybe test the previous version that you had 2 months ago again to see if the problem is there.
> 
> Also, you're not using CTR or Hydra, right?


I finally found the fix after one month !!

In windows, Going in following folder : "Document => Call Of Duty Black Opsd Cold War => Player"

Then open file config.ini

Find following command :
*//Thread count for handling the job queue
worker_threads = "2" // 2 to 10*

I replaced value "2" by "12" (5900X) :
*//Thread count for handling the job queue
worker_threads = "12" // 2 to 10*

That's it !

Now , CPU usage is well spread all over the 24 threads and i have recovered GPU usage between 90% to 96% with DLSS "Quality" enabled.

So I will check in the future this config.ini and the above command in order to set it to "12" in case of.


----------



## Sleepycat

GRABibus said:


> I finally found the fix after one month !!
> 
> In windows, Going in following folder : "Document => Call Of Duty Black Opsd Cold War => Player"
> 
> Then open file config.ini
> 
> Find following command :
> *//Thread count for handling the job queue
> worker_threads = "2" // 2 to 10*
> 
> I replaced value "2" by "12" (5900X) :
> *//Thread count for handling the job queue
> worker_threads = "12" // 2 to 10*
> 
> That's it !
> 
> Now , CPU usage is well spread all over the 24 threads and i have recovered GPU usage between 90% to 96% with DLSS "Quality" enabled.
> 
> So I will check in the future this config.ini and the above command in order to set it to "12" in case of.


Wow, nice find! Looks like this is the config file that saves all the settings in COD. Is there an in-game setting which corresponds to thread count setting?


----------



## GRABibus

Sleepycat said:


> You can try sti
> 
> Wow, nice find! Looks like this is the config file that saves all the settings in COD. Is there an in-game setting which corresponds to thread count setting?


in fact I am between 80% and 96%, which much more better than better finding this fix.

you mean thread counting inside game menu ?


----------



## Sleepycat

GRABibus said:


> in fact I am between 80% and 96%, which much more better than better finding this fix.
> 
> you mean thread counting inside game menu ?


Yes, the items in that config file corresponds with a lot of the graphics settings in the game menu. Wonder if thread count is also something you can set in game.


----------



## GRABibus

Sleepycat said:


> Yes, the items in that config file corresponds with a lot of the graphics settings in the game menu. Wonder if thread count is also something you can set in game.


no there is not in game menu.
Otherwise this would have been the first thing I would have tried 😊


----------



## GRABibus

This shows that this game (as modern warfare) is really Cpu intensive.
Because with a 5900x boosting only on 3 or 4 cores, It was bottlenecking the GPU with DLSS on quality in 2560x1440.
Now my 5900x is boosting on all cores at 4,85GHz in game 😊


----------



## dyanikoglu

Syldon said:


> Asus has deleted bios revisions in the past due the possibility they had for damaging your system. This is a pretty stupid thing to say.
> Beta is literally the process of releasing a product for more testing to make sure it is ok to use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG Crosshair VI overclocking thread
> 
> 
> Major issues and solutions Random BIOS updating message killing boards (fixed in BIOS 0902/1001/0038 and newer) Please update ASAP to 0902 or newer. Using this BIOS do not go above 1.20V on the CPU SOC Voltage. Before updating, restore CMOS default settings and make sure CPU SOC Voltage is...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


aSuS hAs dELEteD BiOs rEVisiOnS iN tHe pAsT


----------



## Syldon

musician said:


> Nice five years old story bro. Now read following posts as well, and all, not only mine. I am not gonna repeat the same things over...


This was just the first one that came to mind. You said *ALL *no time span, no provisos*. *Don't make stupid statements, simply as.


----------



## kx11

Trying to get that L3 cache latency down on windows11 is not possible


----------



## dyanikoglu

The l3 cache fix is just released for beta insiders channel


----------



## GRABibus

kx11 said:


> Trying to get that L3 cache latency down on windows11 is not possible
> 
> 
> View attachment 2528883


Back to Windows 10 !! 😊


----------



## dyanikoglu

GRABibus said:


> Back to Windows 10 !! 😊


It's fixed already with .282 build


----------



## rexbinary

The L3 cache fix was pushed to the Beta and Release Preview Windows Insider channels today.









Releasing Windows 11 Build 22000.282 to Beta and Release Preview Channels


Hello Windows Insiders, today we’re releasing Windows 11 Build 22000.282 to Windows Insiders in the Beta and Release Preview Channels. This update includes the following improvements: We fixed an L3 caching issue that might affect perfo




blogs.windows.com


----------



## des2k...

*edit


----------



## J7SC

.Somewhat interesting re. new Aus X570 mobos


----------



## SubiXT

After the recent L3 cache patch fix .282 build


----------



## Kelutrel

SubiXT said:


> After the recent L3 cache patch fix .282 build
> 
> View attachment 2529063


Thanks for this.
The L3 cache copy benchmark is still quite low compared to what it is on Win10 though, weird.


----------



## des2k...

Kelutrel said:


> Thanks for this.
> The L3 cache copy benchmark is still quite low compared to what it is on Win10 though, weird.


I don't think this is even close to being fixed, repeated test or use windows for a few hours and come back to Aida64 I get the same broken values for bandwidth / latency as before the patch.

one reboot, I got 1000Gb/s for read,write,copy 9.4ns latency so I forgot about it, thinking it was fixed

browsed the web, quick game, come back to Aida64 a few hours later, repeated tests I had broken bandwith and latency at 35ns :-(


----------



## Sleepycat

Syldon said:


> Asus has deleted bios revisions in the past due the possibility they had for damaging your system. This is a pretty stupid thing to say.
> Beta is literally the process of releasing a product for more testing to make sure it is ok to use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG Crosshair VI overclocking thread
> 
> 
> Major issues and solutions Random BIOS updating message killing boards (fixed in BIOS 0902/1001/0038 and newer) Please update ASAP to 0902 or newer. Using this BIOS do not go above 1.20V on the CPU SOC Voltage. Before updating, restore CMOS default settings and make sure CPU SOC Voltage is...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


Wasn't that a stable bios which provided on the boards from the factory?


----------



## AStaUK

des2k... said:


> I don't think this is even close to being fixed, repeated test or use windows for a few hours and come back to Aida64 I get the same broken values for bandwidth / latency as before the patch.
> 
> one reboot, I got 1000Gb/s for read,write,copy 9.4ns latency so I forgot about it, thinking it was fixed
> 
> browsed the web, quick game, come back to Aida64 a few hours later, repeated tests I had broken bandwith and latency at 35ns :-(


Outside of benchmarking are you seeing any difference in games or other applications you might run?


----------



## Syldon

Sleepycat said:


> Wasn't that a stable bios which provided on the boards from the factory?


It was a string of bios revisions. From 0170 right through till 0902. It was all the first revisions of the CH6 of about 4-5 months. Revisions that came at about once a month, sometimes twice at some points back then.

This all became even more confusing when they decided to reset the numbering process again on the first Agesa update. So you ended up with the same version name releases on different Agesa patches. Early Ryzen was pretty shambolic to say the least. The guy who made that post was very active on this forum. He left Asus just after the CH7 release (I think). The openness that @elmor gave this community was huge. We were lucky to have people like him with that sort of knowledge help develop Ryzen into what you see now. @1usmus built up a business from the stuff people pulled together in the CH6. The guy only did it to help out originally, much like everyone else. He created an open spreadsheet where people here added their own values of what worked with results. He took that collaboration and created the first edition of the programme you see today. 

My point was that there has been many revisions released on beta on this server that were pulled and never released into the public domain. Not just from Asus, but all manufacturers. The manufacturers gain a lot from having people who know where the signs of failure are, and then reporting them back to them. Much like you see with the Windows 11 level 3 cache error we are seeing now. That sort of error would have taken months to be noticed in the past. The tools that people use on a daily basis were very niche in the recent past.

So take every revision released as a beta with a grain of salt. If it is released as a public release then you could arguable go to the manufacturer for recompense if the worst happens. On beta you don't have a leg to stand on.


----------



## xeizo

I've changed to Dev-builds on two of my PC:s as Windows 11 is so bugged I can as well run the Dev-version LoL. But on two boxes I use the normal version, sadly .282 isn't out yet but one can install it anyway:

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Windows11/comments/q8st7s/_/hgs0d8e

I installed it on my B550-F using "normal" Windows 11 and the L3 fix looks good(it was already good on the Dev-builds)


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

xeizo said:


> I've changed to Dev-builds on two of my PC:s as Windows 11 is so bugged I can as well run the Dev-version LoL. But on two boxes I use the normal version, sadly .282 isn't out yet but one can install it anyway:
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Windows11/comments/q8st7s/_/hgs0d8e
> 
> I installed it on my B550-F using "normal" Windows 11 and the L3 fix looks good(it was already good on the Dev-builds)


in "real life" use how does it feel/fare?? we're all just seeing benchmarks..but nobody testifies real world use-case..

_are we gonna be all looking at this bench the whole day??_


----------



## des2k...

AStaUK said:


> Outside of benchmarking are you seeing any difference in games or other applications you might run?


I don't think I see any avg FPS differences, the 99% do show lower vs Win10. Some apps/game launchers open slower vs Win10.

I re-installed the beta kb + removed the oct12 update(makes L3 worst) going to re-test after using windows for 4h+.

Right now latency is fixed ~9.6ns, bandwith is still up/down.


----------



## xeizo

kairi_zeroblade said:


> in "real life" use how does it feel/fare?? we're all just seeing benchmarks..but nobody testifies real world use-case..
> 
> _are we gonna be all looking at this bench the whole day??_


It feels snappy and good, all apps works well, I did a Geekbench baseline against Windows 10 and the difference is no more than what is to be expected from variance in ambient temps etc










.282 looks to be a good patch, now it's only the broken CPPC that is missing, which mostly affects 5900X and 5950X as they have the largest variance between good/bad cores. In example my 3700X has about 8 good cores out of eight so CPPC does nothing on that one.

edit. Most irritating bug is that after each update/patch on Windows 11 I have to reboot twice for the Nvidia control panel to start working correct. It's essential to have it working for HDR to work as it should. I have reported it to MS.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

xeizo said:


> It feels snappy and good, all apps works well, I did a Geekbench baseline against WIndows 10 and the difference is no more than what is to be expected from variance in ambient temps etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .282 looks to be a good patch, now it's only the broken CPPC that is missing, which mostly affects 5900X and 5950X as they have the largest variance between good/bad cores. In example my 3700X has about 8 good cores out of eight so CPPC does nothing on that one.


ohh you reminded me the soon to be released drivers...might as well wait for that, that might be the combo fix for this update to fully work and be consistent..


----------



## Syldon

For those on Windows 11 with the L3 cache problem still. Try AMD chipset driver 2.15.7.2229. There is a guy on reddit saying he does not get any reoccurrence of the problem once he installed 22000.282. Link here

I wouldn't use this. there was patch for a vulnerability issue on the 2.0+ drivers.


----------



## neikosr0x

SubiXT said:


> After the recent L3 cache patch fix .282 build
> 
> View attachment 2529063


still a bit high


----------



## dyanikoglu

Syldon said:


> For those on Windows 11 with the L3 cache problem still. Try AMD chipset driver 2.15.7.2229. There is a guy on reddit saying he does not get any reoccurrence of the problem once he installed 22000.282. Link here
> 
> I wouldn't use this. there was patch for a vulnerability issue on the 2.0+ drivers.


what is your source? I hope it's not "Trust me bro".


----------



## Syldon

dyanikoglu said:


> what is your source? I hope it's not "Trust me bro".


The link was in the reply you just quoted me on. But as I said it is an old driver with issues attached to it. 
That was why it was lined through to show it is no longer valid.


----------



## Reikoji

Just say no to windows 11


----------



## PWn3R

Reikoji said:


> Just say no to windows 11


Just say no to Windows 10, then they have to fix 11


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## learner-gr

HI there.
I have this ram :
BL2K8G36C16U4W 3600 c16
and i would like to ask if i will see any difference if i put the :
f4-4133c19d-16gtzr 4133 c19
memory kit.
I have the 3700X and in some days i will have an 3950X in my hands.
I'm not overclocking just the DOCP and all the others to AUTO.
Thanks.


----------



## blunden

learner-gr said:


> HI there.
> I have this ram :
> BL2K8G36C16U4W 3600 c16
> and i would like to ask if i will see any difference if i put the :
> f4-4133c19d-16gtzr 4133 c19
> memory kit.
> I have the 3700X and in some days i will have an 3950X in my hands.
> I'm not overclocking just the DOCP and all the others to AUTO.
> Thanks.


 You won't be able to run that new stick at its DOCP/XMP profile if you care about performance. For optimal performance, you want you FCLK (Infinity Fabric Clock) to be 1:1 with your memory clock. Running them out of sync is possible but it increases the memory latency by a lot, negating any performance advantage. In most cases, the best you can hope for on Ryzen 3000 (Zen 2) is 3800 MHz (i.e. 1900 MHz true speed).


----------



## Reikoji

PWn3R said:


> Just say no to Windows 10, then they have to fix 11
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thats amazingly backwards. Blindly adopting the broken will give them the impression nothing is wrong with it. Ryzen users need stay off of it until its fixed.


----------



## PWn3R

Reikoji said:


> Thats amazingly backwards. Blindly adopting the broken will give them the impression nothing is wrong with it. Ryzen users need stay off of it until its fixed.


If we don’t try it and report it, they’ll never fix it. Just use XP kekw


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Reikoji

PWn3R said:


> If we don’t try it and report it, they’ll never fix it. Just use XP kekw
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Its been reported. Just reking your performance meaninglessly at this point.


----------



## rbys

learner-gr said:


> HI there.
> I have this ram :
> BL2K8G36C16U4W
> and i would like to ask if i will see any difference if i put the :
> f4-4133c19d-16gtzr
> memory kit.
> I have the 3700X and in some days i will have an 3950X in my hands.
> I'm not overclocking just the DOCP and all the others to AUTO.
> Thanks.


Save your money. You're _extremely_ unlikely to be able to run at 1:1:1 FCLK:MCLK:UCLK on Zen 2. 3600 CL16 is good.


----------



## xeizo

The new chipset driver from AMD is here, it won't fool CPUZ which still hammers core 0 for single while core 2 is much better, but Geekbench saw a nifty upplift. Running DevBuild 22483.


----------



## Kelutrel

xeizo said:


> The new chipset driver from AMD is here, it won't fool CPUZ which still hammers core 0 for single while core 2 is much better, but Geekbench saw a nifty upplift. Running DevBuild 22483.
> View attachment 2529495


Thanks for your feedback. By any chance, do you remember your geekbench score with the same hardware on Windows 10 ?


----------



## Syldon

xeizo said:


> The new chipset driver from AMD is here, it won't fool CPUZ which still hammers core 0 for single while core 2 is much better, but Geekbench saw a nifty upplift. Running DevBuild 22483.


Waiting to see if this fixes the L3 cache over time.


----------



## xeizo

Kelutrel said:


> Thanks for your feedback. By any chance, do you remember your geekbench score with the same hardware on Windows 10 ?


It was not better


----------



## PWn3R

Reikoji said:


> Its been reported. Just reking your performance meaninglessly at this point.


The fewer reports/instances MS sees the less they care. That is how they approach all bugs and feature requests. With people hiding on 10 this is probably very low on MS list to address.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Reikoji

PWn3R said:


> The fewer reports/instances MS sees the less they care. That is how they approach all bugs and feature requests. With people hiding on 10 this is probably very low on MS list to address.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


They, however, already know. They entire tech media knows. Anyone that remotely reads, on occasion, tech news knows. For a long tkne now. Before windows 11 even entered launch preview. They dont need more guinea pigs. 

In fact windows 11 adoption rate is only going to be lower without a fix, because enough zen users know not to touch it yet. History has already proven its not a safe bet to jump on a new windows right away. Its not even a safe bet to be part of windows insider and get early updates to the current windows, and everyone that visitsthe window is told of the risks. Jumping on a brand new windows is the same. Theres no reason for a sane ryzen user who isn't a guinea pig for microsoft to install windows 11 before they fix it. Majority of PC users dont have time to have their experiences ruined.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

how's the latency on new AMD driver and Windows 11 update?? Sorry for the redundant question..but never saw anybody showing Aida64 stuff..


----------



## xeizo

kairi_zeroblade said:


> how's the latency on new AMD driver and Windows 11 update?? Sorry for the redundant question..but never saw anybody showing Aida64 stuff..


I've installed it on four Ryzen boxes, two with release version .282 and two with Dev 22483, no regression on any of them. L3 looks much like on Windows 10 on all. And Geekbench performs above average on all. I would say Windows 11 performs pretty good now.


----------



## kx11

They fixed Win11 ryzen L3 problem

before and after


----------



## Reikoji

kx11 said:


> They fixed Win11 ryzen L3 problem
> 
> before and after
> View attachment 2529529
> View attachment 2529530


184 gb/s on write doesnt look fixed to me


----------



## PWn3R

Reikoji said:


> They, however, already know. They entire tech media knows. Anyone that remotely reads, on occasion, tech news knows. For a long tkne now. Before windows 11 even entered launch preview. They dont need more guinea pigs.
> 
> In fact windows 11 adoption rate is only going to be lower without a fix, because enough zen users know not to touch it yet. History has already proven its not a safe bet to jump on a new windows right away. Its not even a safe bet to be part of windows insider and get early updates to the current windows, and everyone that visitsthe window is told of the risks. Jumping on a brand new windows is the same. Theres no reason for a sane ryzen user who isn't a guinea pig for microsoft to install windows 11 before they fix it. Majority of PC users dont have time to have their experiences ruined.


The way MS looks at that will be they don’t adopt so this problem doesn’t matter. It’s not ruining the experience, but it does impact performance. Staying on 10 means you are contributing to the problem, less Ryzen on 11, less reason to fix it. I guarantee that is how they approach this and that’s based on conversations with their insider team members directly and I’ve been an insider since 10 became available to enterprises


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## xeizo

PWn3R said:


> The way MS looks at that will be they don’t adopt so this problem doesn’t matter. It’s not ruining the experience, but it does impact performance. Staying on 10 means you are contributing to the problem, less Ryzen on 11, less reason to fix it. I guarantee that is how they approach this and that’s based on conversations with their insider team members directly and I’ve been an insider since 10 became available to enterprises
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I've been an insider since 2014, they do fix things if you nag about it. Maybe not always fast, but things tends to get fixed. If no one is running that buggy config no one will nag, and it will not be fixed. I started nagging back when pci soundcards was a fairly new thing, got M-Audio to happily send me a string of unofficial inhouse betas until almost zero latency using ASIO did work without glitches on the Windows of that time. Made me appreciate the effort of bug reporting.


----------



## PWn3R

xeizo said:


> I've been an insider since 2014, they do fix things if you nag about it. Maybe not always fast, but things tends to get fixed. If no one is running that buggy config no one will nag, and it will not be fixed. I started nagging back when pci soundcards was a fairly new thing, got M-Audio to happily send me a string of unofficial inhouse betas until almost zero latency using ASIO did work without glitches on the Windows of that time. Made me appreciate the effort of bug reporting.


Yeah, they refused to fix the text rendering issue I reported on 10 that had 600 upvotes, because not enough. They have so many reports they look at most count of devices or upvotes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## xeizo

PWn3R said:


> Yeah, they refused to fix the text rendering issue I reported on 10 that had 600 upvotes, because not enough. They have so many reports they look at most count of devices or upvotes.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I suppose they rank the severity of a issue rather hard, Windows has a silly amount of code and will of course never be fully fixed. But if no one is reporting, things are guaranteed to not be fixed.


----------



## neikosr0x

kx11 said:


> They fixed Win11 ryzen L3 problem
> 
> before and after
> View attachment 2529529
> View attachment 2529530


Mine are worse, way worse... from 56ns memory latency to 64~ns and L4 from 10.2 to 12.7~ after applying the fix manually that is.


----------



## kot0005

Installed the windows 11 amd fix update. L3 latency went from 34ms to 11 ms. Before i was getting 10.2..

Installed new chipset driver amd l3 increased to 12.3 and memory latency went up from 57ns to 62ns .. wtffd


----------



## Nizzen

kot0005 said:


> Installed the windows 11 amd fix update. L3 latency went from 34ms to 11 ms. Before i was getting 10.2..
> 
> Installed new chipset driver amd l3 increased to 12.3 and memory latency went up from 57ns to 62ns .. wtffd


AMD 😅


----------



## GRABibus

New X570 AMD drivers 3.10.08.506 : my scores seem more consistent and higher than before

23°C ambient
Windows 10
5900X
[email protected] 14-13-13-27-40-1T
"PBO2" settings : // Curve Optimizer : -20 Core4, -25 Core8, -28 Core0/Core7, -30 all other cores // PPT~TDC~EDC = 170~115~155 // Max CPU Boost Clock Override = +200MHz.
C8H Bios 3801
CPU cooler CORSAIR H115i RGB PLATINUM


----------



## Syldon

des2k... said:


> just learned this now,
> 
> you can actually double click the boxes just for L3, they seem to register better numbers this way
> you don't get the 200Gb/s-400Gb/s lows
> 
> If you have youtube playing, they always register close to 1000Gb/s
> 
> Also SiSoft Sandra, shows 800Gb/s average for L3 vs 400Gb/s before the patches.
> 
> View attachment 2529540


Thought you might like this tip. It is a new one to me.


----------



## kot0005

http://imgur.com/a/UKOBJQr


Thx amd for adding 5ms ram latency
.


----------



## Alberto_It

I would like to know the truth about Amd L3 cache issue on Windows 11, after the last cumulative update that seems fix the latency to normal values, but some users says that the bandwidth is decreased.

Some one can tell me if it is true?

I have got one Ryzen 9 5950x and bios version 3801, so please don't show me your results if you have got one 8 Cores Cpu that is not affected by the problem

Thank you in advance


----------



## xeizo

Alberto_It said:


> I would like to know the truth about Amd L3 cache issue on Windows 11, after the last cumulative update that seems fix the latency to normal values, but some users says that the bandwidth is decreased.
> 
> Some one can tell me if it is true?
> 
> I have got one Ryzen 9 5950x and bios version 3801, so please don't show me your results if you have got one 8 Cores Cpu that is not affected by the problem
> 
> Thank you in advance


The truth looks to be complicated, it is likely it has to do with security mitigations in Windows 11 which where absent in Windows 10.


----------



## Alberto_It

xeizo said:


> The truth looks to be complicated, it is likely it has to do with security mitigations in Windows 11 which where absent in Windows 10.


You have not answered to my specific question


----------



## kot0005

Alberto_It said:


> I would like to know the truth about Amd L3 cache issue on Windows 11, after the last cumulative update that seems fix the latency to normal values, but some users says that the bandwidth is decreased.
> 
> Some one can tell me if it is true?
> 
> I have got one Ryzen 9 5950x and bios version 3801, so please don't show me your results if you have got one 8 Cores Cpu that is not affected by the problem
> 
> Thank you in advance


Check my post. I have a 5900x. These issues dont seem to effect 1ccd 5800x.

Win 11 l3 cache update did fix the problem, the cache latency down to 11.3ns. However windows 10 gives 10.2ns, and it lowered l3 bandwidth.

Amd chipset driver fixed the cppc issue, however it throws the l3 bandwidth all over the place and also adds a whopping 5ns to memory latency.

This amd chipset driver problem mainly seems to effect 5900x amd 5950x.

So nothing is completely fixed and tje amd chipset driver is just dumb.


----------



## kot0005

This is my windows 10 bench.


----------



## Alberto_It

kot0005 said:


> Check my post. I have a 5900x. These issues dont seem to effect 1ccd 5800x.
> 
> Win 11 l3 cache update did fix the problem, the cache latency down to 11.3ns. However windows 10 gives 10.2ns, and it lowered l3 bandwidth.
> 
> Amd chipset driver fixed the cppc issue, however it throws the l3 bandwidth all over the place and also adds a whopping 5ns to memory latency.
> 
> This amd chipset driver problem mainly seems to effect 5900x amd 5950x.
> 
> So nothing is completely fixed and tje amd chipset driver is just dumb.


I'm a owner of Ryzen 9 5950x with a good oc (PB02 +Switch OC) and I'm wondering if make sense to have less performance on L3 Cache because the issue is not fully patched


----------



## metalshark

Alberto_It said:


> I'm a owner of Ryzen 9 5950x with a good oc (PB02 +Switch OC) and I'm wondering if make sense to have less performance on L3 Cache because the issue is not fully patched


Memory latency and L3 cache are both higher for me compared to Windows 10 with the latest chipset drivers and (non-dev/insider) Windows Update. User interface feels snappier, HDR gaming works much better and am getting higher minimum frame rates in games. Ran with VBS enabled on both Windows 10 and Windows 11 in addition to ASLR set to on by default. Benchmarks are worse in 11 compared to 10 across the board for me, however am loving auto-HDR and the faster/smoother feel.

Have 3800/1900 CL14 with GDM off and 1T. Using Hydra (higher performance for me than 2-3 months tuned PBO2+CO). 5950X and 3090 both on water with 4x8GB SR RAM and a Formula board running 3801.

GUESS: as the new AMD v-cache CPUs get their 15% speed boost solely from L3, can’t imagine AMD would continue to have L3 cache issues into Q2 next year on Windows 11. So if you don’t play games in HDR you’re likely fine to sit on Windows 10 and let things settle. Microsoft are known to prioritise based on the telemetry figures they receive (e.g. prioritise the hardware platforms with the largest amount of users) but I doubt the overclocking community combined has enough AMD users to sway those figures significantly.


----------



## Alberto_It

metalshark said:


> Memory latency and L3 cache are both higher for me compared to Windows 10 with the latest chipset drivers and (non-dev/insider) Windows Update. User interface feels snappier, HDR gaming works much better and am getting higher minimum frame rates in games. Ran with VBS enabled on both Windows 10 and Windows 11 in addition to ASLR set to on by default. Benchmarks are worse in 11 compared to 10 across the board for me, however am loving auto-HDR and the faster/smoother feel.
> 
> Have 3800/1900 CL14 with GDM off and 1T. Using Hydra (higher performance for me than 2-3 months tuned PBO2+CO). 5950X and 3090 both on water with 4x8GB SR RAM and a Formula board running 3801.


I'm talking about the l3 bandwidth on Windows 11, not the latency


----------



## xeizo

Alberto_It said:


> I'm talking about the l3 bandwidth on Windows 11, not the latency


Why don't you try some yourself instead of demand answers from others, Windows 11 has issues live with it or don't use it until it is required for something.


----------



## Alberto_It

xeizo said:


> Why don't you try some yourself instead of demand answers from others, Windows 11 has issues live with it or don't use it until it is required for something.


Because I have got a stable system with Windows 10 and maybe someone of the forum have tested Windows 11 without and with the Windows L3 Fix and so can give me an idea if it's worth to upgrade.

I'm a newbie and I ask to users who have more experience than me. 

I have done several questions because for the media with the Microsoft L3 Fix all was working fine, but yesterday on Twitter I have seen that tweet 

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1451539836637261829


----------



## Kelutrel

I have a 5900X. I installed Windows 11 and made a couple screenshots of benchmarks before and after the upgrade.
I have set PPT/TDC/EDC to cpu stock before starting the benchmarks, so no uber performances here, just a fair comparison between Win 10 and Win 11 at stock.
I posted my results on reddit HERE if anyone wants to give a look.
Anyway, as a summary, the AIDA64 L3 cache performance is still subpar. The other benchmarks results are equal up to the margin of error (less than 1% difference) anyway, so that may be an issue with AIDA64 only.


----------



## Syldon

People giving results for Windows 11 are you switching off the VBS. I wasn't aware of this until I saw it on hardware unboxed. He is showing just how much it effects games. It makes sense it will kill Aida result.
To switch it off:

Search for device security
Look for option core isolation > toggle off/on


----------



## xeizo

Syldon said:


> People giving results for Windows 11 are you switching off the VBS. I wasn't aware of this until I saw it on hardware unboxed. He is showing just how much it effects games. It makes sense it will kill Aida result.
> To switch it off:
> 
> Search for device security
> Look for option core isolation > toggle off/on


I've installed 11 on four Ryzen boxes and one Intel, default has been off for all five. From what I've heard it will only be on by default on prebuilt boxes. No harm in checking though.


----------



## Kelutrel

Syldon said:


> People giving results for Windows 11 are you switching off the VBS. I wasn't aware of this until I saw it on hardware unboxed. He is showing just how much it effects games. It makes sense it will kill Aida result.
> To switch it off:
> 
> Search for device security
> Look for option core isolation > toggle off/on


VBS is not completely useless though, and the fps difference is often irrelevant.


----------



## rexbinary

Core isolation IS VBS, and it's enabled by default in Windows 10 and 11 if you have virtualization enabled in the bios for your CPU. If you see Core isolation listed at all in the Security Center, that means it's enabled. Also there is Memory integrity which is an additional security feature of Core isolation that is usually disabled by default.

Core isolation by itself has a very small impact on gaming, but also enabling Memory integrity can cause substantial performance hits depending on the game/application.


----------



## Kelutrel

rexbinary said:


> Core isolation by itself has a very small impact on gaming, but also enabling Memory integrity can cause substantial performance hits depending on the game/application.


Sir, I don't want to defend VBS too much but I run VBS enabled by default, including memory integrity and dma protection, and the difference in fps or benchmarks is negligible compared to having it off. Just to give an idea, we are talking of a 1% difference. Even memory intensive applications, like photo manipulation or video encoding, show a difference of 5-7% at most.


----------



## metalshark

Kelutrel said:


> Sir, I don't want to defend VBS too much but I run VBS enabled by default, including memory integrity, and the difference in fps or benchmarks is negligible compared to having it off. Just to give an idea, we are talking of a 1% difference. Even memory intensive applications, like photo manipulation or video encoding, show a difference of 5-7% at most.


Ditto on both Windows 10 and 11. Older hardware has more of a dip, newer hardware accelerates it making it negligible. About the same performance-wise (less than 1% and just under 3% max for AI workloads, what I do for work).


----------



## blunden

rexbinary said:


> Core isolation IS VBS, and it's enabled by default in Windows 10 and 11 if you have virtualization enabled in the bios for your CPU. If you see Core isolation listed at all in the Security Center, that means it's enabled. Also there is Memory integrity which is an additional security feature of Core isolation that is usually disabled by default.
> 
> Core isolation by itself has a very small impact on gaming, but also enabling Memory integrity can cause substantial performance hits depending on the game/application.


 No, VBS is not enabled by default on Windows 10 with Virtualization enabled. Not sure where you got that from, but it has never been the case as far as I'm aware. The required components are not even installed by default. I say that as someone working with Enterprise security, and it always required enabling manually via a GPO on client computers.


----------



## Syldon

rexbinary said:


> Core isolation IS VBS, and it's enabled by default in Windows 10 and 11 if you have virtualization enabled in the bios for your CPU. If you see Core isolation listed at all in the Security Center, that means it's enabled. Also there is Memory integrity which is an additional security feature of Core isolation that is usually disabled by default.
> 
> Core isolation by itself has a very small impact on gaming, but also enabling Memory integrity can cause substantial performance hits depending on the game/application.


VBS is *not *enabled as default on windows 10. Something that is stated on the video. It is not enabled on my system (new format Windows 10 pro). To check if it is enabled search for MSinfo32 on the taskbar. It is listed at the bottom of that list under "virtualisation-based-security".

If you watch the video Hardware Unboxed does an Aida 64 run from here. He reports 7-10% write throughput performance hit with VBS enabled, as well as 4-5ns increment on memory. L1, 2 and 3 remained the same. This would skew the results from Aida 64 outputs pasted here in quite a big way. It would also make a lot difference for the results posted here about the W11 22000.282 fix with the AMD driver update (3.10.08.506)

It is great that people are posting their results here for W11. It is one of the main places I am watching for verification that is ok to go back to W11. I think you can understand that we need apples to apples to make a good decision.


----------



## Syldon

Looking into this VBS thing a bit more. Core isolation comes with the SMV option in the bios (advanced tab > CPU options). I have never installed a revision with SMV enabled by default. So unless you have enabled it, then it should not be enabled under W11.


----------



## Kelutrel

Syldon said:


> If you watch the video Hardware Unboxed does an Aida 64 run from here. He reports 7-10% write throughput performance hit with VBS enabled, as well as 4-5ns increment on memory. L1, 2 and 3 remained the same. This would skew the results from Aida 64 outputs pasted here in quite a big way. It would also make a lot difference for the results posted here about the W11 22000.282 fix with the AMD driver update (3.10.08.506)
> 
> It is great that people are posting their results here for W11. It is one of the main places I am watching for verification that is ok to go back to W11. I think you can understand that we need apples to apples to make a good decision.


Sir, what you say may have been true on older platforms or "other" cpus, but nowadays there is nearly no impact using VBS, at least on ZEN3+X570.
Look...

VBS OFF:











VBS ON:









The difference is minimal on latencies and bandwidth.
(let's leave it alone the L3 cache bandwidth that is still a bit "jumpy" on Windows11 and Aida64, independently from VBS and not affecting other benchmarks results anyway).


----------



## Syldon

Kelutrel said:


> Sir, what you say may have been true on older platforms or "other" cpus, but nowadays there is nearly no impact using VBS, at least on ZEN3+X570.
> Look...
> 
> VBS OFF:
> View attachment 2529898
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VBS ON:
> View attachment 2529900
> 
> 
> The difference is minimal on latencies and bandwidth.
> (let's leave it alone the L3 cache bandwidth that is still a bit "jumpy" on Windows11 and Aida64, independently from VBS and not affecting other benchmarks results anyway).


Thank you for that it was the answer I wanted. I was looking to install W11 tonight just to check. It seems I don't need to now.

It was not unreasonable to ask the question. There is a guy on an intel system stating there is an issue, and yet it has never been mentioned on any AMD board forum that I can see. The whole point of this forum is to find the best way to manage the hardware we are using. We won't achieve that if we don't ask questions.


----------



## xeizo

I have to clarify as there seems to misunderstandings here, as I said I have FOUR Ryzen/Windows 11 boxes with Virtualization ON and performance impact from VBS is minimal. All boxes has full security enabled, as stated at the bottom of the VBS page. However, under "Core Isolation" there is a "Memory Integrity" feature that can be toggled on/off. It is that one that can make a large performance impact, and it was OFF by default on all my boxes. And I run it OFF.


----------



## Kelutrel

xeizo said:


> I have to clarify as there seems to misunderstandings here, as I said I have FOUR Ryzen/Windows 11 boxes with Virtualization ON and performance impact from VBS is minimal. All boxes has full security enabled, as stated at the bottom of the VBS page. However, under "Core Isolation" there is a "Memory Integrity" feature that can be toggled on/off. It is that one that can make a large performance impact, and it was OFF by default on all my boxes. And I run it OFF.


For reference, the above AIDA64 benchmark for the case of VBS ON, has Core Isolation, Memory Integrity, and DMA protection all enabled.
It may be interesting if someone validates those results with all three settings enabled, as it doesn't look like a big performance impact on my specific desktop configuration.


----------



## neikosr0x

Anyone else getting so weird random slowdown for like 1 or 2 seconds that might come back after a few hours under normal use? usually if music on or game running...


----------



## des2k...

About the L3 thing(Amd), how bandwidth being random and not at 100% and worst mem latency (hardware unboxed).

I don't think it's going to get fixed. Some are saying Windows 11 uses some sort of new security protection on memory or working threads. Not releated to VBS and that's why it's like that.


----------



## PWn3R

neikosr0x said:


> Anyone else getting so weird random slowdown for like 1 or 2 seconds that might come back after a few hours under normal use? usually if music on or game running...


Yes, I can’t seem to catch it with latency monitor to see what might be causing it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## polyh3dron

Since I heard about the L3 cache fix for Ryzen, I finally made the jump to Windows 11 on my Dark Hero / 5950X system.

AIDA64 tells me my L3 cache latency is at around 26 ns.

Whyyyyyy


----------



## polyh3dron

PWn3R said:


> Yes, I can’t seem to catch it with latency monitor to see what might be causing it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Wild guess: ACPI or storport


----------



## xeizo

polyh3dron said:


> Since I heard about the L3 cache fix for Ryzen, I finally made the jump to Windows 11 on my Dark Hero / 5950X system.
> 
> AIDA64 tells me my L3 cache latency is at around 26 ns.
> 
> Whyyyyyy


Have you upgraded to the latest build 22000.282 and installed the latest chipset drivers from AMD? Both are required to get back to normal numbers.


----------



## xeizo

Btw, I ran 3DMark TimeSpy and CPU scores are now back to Windows 10-level, I initially lost 4-500p using Windows 11.


----------



## Baio73

des2k... said:


> About the L3 thing(Amd), how bandwidth being random and not at 100% and worst mem latency (hardware unboxed).
> 
> I don't think it's going to get fixed. Some are saying Windows 11 uses some sort of new security protection on memory or working threads. Not releated to VBS and that's why it's like that.


So AIDA should report higher values also in Intel platforms, shouldn't it?
Just asking, I don't have any news on Intel side...

Baio


----------



## des2k...

Baio73 said:


> So AIDA should report higher values also in Intel platforms, shouldn't it?
> Just asking, I don't have any news on Intel side...
> 
> Baio


----------



## Kelutrel

That video is hugely important to have for Intel cpus. The same guy should make one for AMD cpus.


----------



## Baio73

des2k... said:


> View attachment 2529970


So both brand were not affected in the same way at the release... now it should be a similar situation, a little less performance for both under 11.

Baio


----------



## Syldon

Kelutrel said:


> That video is hugely important to have for Intel cpus. The same guy should make one for AMD cpus.


HE said that he was avoiding it until the AMD issue is fixed properly. His main aim was grabbing data in advance for comparison with Alder lake. I think he will revisit it later on.


----------



## polyh3dron

xeizo said:


> Have you upgraded to the latest build 22000.282 and installed the latest chipset drivers from AMD? Both are required to get back to normal numbers.


Yes. That was the whole reason I waited until now. Seems like after a couple restarts it got a little quicker and isn't over 20 anymore, but still isn't great:


----------



## blunden

polyh3dron said:


> Yes. That was the whole reason I waited until now. Seems like after a couple restarts it got a little quicker and isn't over 20 anymore, but still isn't great:


 I consistently hit 9.8 - 10 ns on Windows 11 now, the same as in Windows 10, so it should be possible for you to hit your old numbers.  This is with a 3900X though, and BIOS version 3501, but still.

Btw. have you checked that the new power profile from the latest chipset drivers successfully installed? Mine failed until I removed the old one, at first it showed as "Failed" in the installation log, but even when the overall status showed up as "Successful", it still had not properly installed. Might be worth double checking.


----------



## polyh3dron

blunden said:


> I consistently hit 9.8 - 10 ns on Windows 11 now, the same as in Windows 10, so it should be possible for you to hit your old numbers.  This is with a 3900X though, and BIOS version 3501, but still.
> 
> Btw. have you checked that the new power profile from the latest chipset drivers successfully installed? Mine failed until I removed the old one, at first it showed as "Failed" in the installation log, but even when the overall status showed up as "Successful", it still had not properly installed. Might be worth double checking.


I didn't see any new profile in my installation, but I'm also on Zen 3, so the profiles are a bit different there. Whenever I get around to updating my 3950X machine I probably will see it.


----------



## dyanikoglu

neikosr0x said:


> Anyone else getting so weird random slowdown for like 1 or 2 seconds that might come back after a few hours under normal use? usually if music on or game running...


Definitely the same issue! I was thinking it was an issue with my rig, but good to hear other people are also experiencing that. Which bios you're on?

Randomly, system gets super slow for a few seconds, then fixes itself. I'm on default bios settings with 3901 beta.


----------



## finas

@safedisk


safedisk said:


> View attachment 2524174
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 3901 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Improve system performance
> 2. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1204
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0501



Hi @safedisk, 
Any new beta bios around for us to try?


----------



## Daylight_Invader

finas said:


> @safedisk
> 
> 
> 
> Hi @safedisk,
> Any new beta bios around for us to try?


I know I've been working on a few issues with Asus tech support myself in the last few weeks with respect to issues with RAM posting when DOCP is enabled with some of these new BIOS versions 3601 and upwards. I imagine some of the work I have personally been involved in will end up being pushed into the newest beta.

FWIW, I had to create a slight positive offset on the SOC voltages to make things post, suggesting that they pushed things in the wrong direction for some configurations. I also had to work with both Asus and Crucial to get my RAM QVL'ed (which is now done!).


----------



## blunden

polyh3dron said:


> I didn't see any new profile in my installation, but I'm also on Zen 3, so the profiles are a bit different there. Whenever I get around to updating my 3950X machine I probably will see it.


 Yeah, I suppose it might not show up the same way on Zen 3. Because the only change of note in the "fixed" chipset drivers is "AMD Ryzen Power Plan / AMD Processor Power Management Support ", I expect a similar entry of some kind to show up for Zen 3 as well (even if it doesn't include a power plan). It's something to look out for at least, as I wouldn't expect people to check the detailed log if the main installer reports success.


----------



## bt1

To see if power package for zen3 is updated, run powershell comand:


Spoiler



Get-ProvisioningPackage


IsInstalled : False
PackageID : 33aec352-aa8d-4916-b5ae-00005d9f9bfe
PackageName : AMD.Power.Processor.Settings
PackagePath : C:\ProgramData\microsoft\provisioning\AMD.Power.Processor.ppkg
Description :
Rank : 0
Altitude : 1000
Version : 7.0.3.5
OwnerType : SiliconVendor
Notes :
LastInstallTime :
Result :


7.0.3.5 is the latest _processor power settings package_, included with *3.10.08.506* chipset driver


----------



## Kelutrel

bt1 said:


> To see if power package for zen3 is updated, run powershell comand:


You can also view the same from Settings -> Accounts -> Access Work or School -> Add or Remove Provisioning Package -> AMD.Power.Processor.Settings -> Details


----------



## Gondar

dyanikoglu said:


> Definitely the same issue! I was thinking it was an issue with my rig, but good to hear other people are also experiencing that. Which bios you're on?
> 
> Randomly, system gets super slow for a few seconds, then fixes itself. I'm on default bios settings with 3901 beta.


I noticed that to, usually when playing youtube, computer slowdown, almost like freeze for 1-2 seconds, and sound from youtube is distorted during that short time, BIOS is 3801. I hope it isn't some hardware problem, im out of the waranty .


----------



## dyanikoglu

Gondar said:


> I noticed that to, usually when playing youtube, computer slowdown, almost like freeze for 1-2 seconds, and sound from youtube is distorted during that short time, BIOS is 3801. I hope it isn't some hardware problem, im out of the waranty .


I hope a dev from Asus is reading here, so they can know about that issue too :/


----------



## quarx2k

Gondar said:


> I noticed that to, usually when playing youtube, computer slowdown, almost like freeze for 1-2 seconds, and sound from youtube is distorted during that short time, BIOS is 3801. I hope it isn't some hardware problem, im out of the waranty .


I have the same problem sometimes. But not constant, just random. 3901 bios.


----------



## Metaldemon95

Hi All, I’m having a bit of an issue with memory on my hero wifi. Mainly just stopping in for a sanity check. 

I’m running a 5900x, with 4 sticks of gskill 8gb 3800 14,16,16,16,36. When I was testing the system on top of the motherboard box I could get it to post and boot at docp speed no problem; it took a few reboots to train the first time but it did it. After putting the system together it will run docp fine on slots b2 and a2, but anything in b1 or a1 won‘t hardly run anything but JDEC speed. 

I’ve tried 2 sticks in a1/b1, 1 stick in either, neither will run anything reasonable. They will do 3600 but its at like cl28. I have tried bumping up the soc voltage to various levels up to 1.2v, ddr voltage is 1.5v by docp. CMOS has been cleared, BIOS updated. I’m not really sure what else to try, save for ripping the pc and loop apart, removing the monoblock, and reseating the cpu. Any other ideas?

Thanks in advance for the advise.


----------



## Kelutrel

Metaldemon95 said:


> Hi All, I’m having a bit of an issue with memory on my hero wifi. Mainly just stopping in for a sanity check.
> 
> I’m running a 5900x, with 4 sticks of gskill 8gb 3800 14,16,16,16,36. When I was testing the system on top of the motherboard box I could get it to post and boot at docp speed no problem; it took a few reboots to train the first time but it did it. After putting the system together it will run docp fine on slots b2 and a2, but anything in b1 or a1 won‘t hardly run anything but JDEC speed.
> 
> I’ve tried 2 sticks in a1/b1, 1 stick in either, neither will run anything reasonable. They will do 3600 but its at like cl28. I have tried bumping up the soc voltage to various levels up to 1.2v, ddr voltage is 1.5v by docp. CMOS has been cleared, BIOS updated. I’m not really sure what else to try, save for ripping the pc and loop apart, removing the monoblock, and reseating the cpu. Any other ideas?
> 
> Thanks in advance for the advise.


If you have a Liquid Freezer AIO mounted in offset position you may want to try to loosen its cpu block screws quite a bit. I witnessed something similar, and bios was stopping boot with error code 0D, but only if using certain memory slots or all 4, and in the end it was fixed just by loosening those screws.


----------



## Metaldemon95

Kelutrel said:


> If you have a Liquid Freezer AIO mounted in offset position you may want to try to loosen its cpu block screws quite a bit. I witnessed something similar, and bios was stopping boot with error code 0D, but only if using certain memory slots or all 4, and in the end it was fixed just by loosening those screws.


I have the EK cpu/vrm monoblock, once I get home from work I’ll give it a shot loosening it up a bit. When I had all 4 slots running docp speed it was on a cheap single tower air cooler.


----------



## Metaldemon95

Idk if loosening and tightening the monoblock actually did anything, but after tweaking with timings for a while I got all 4 sticks to run 3733cl16. It’s not the 3800cl14 to kit is rated for, but it’s close enough to not rip the entire computer apart.


----------



## Syldon

Metaldemon95 said:


> Hi All, I’m having a bit of an issue with memory on my hero wifi. Mainly just stopping in for a sanity check.
> 
> I’m running a 5900x, with 4 sticks of gskill 8gb 3800 14,16,16,16,36. When I was testing the system on top of the motherboard box I could get it to post and boot at docp speed no problem; it took a few reboots to train the first time but it did it. After putting the system together it will run docp fine on slots b2 and a2, but anything in b1 or a1 won‘t hardly run anything but JDEC speed.
> 
> I’ve tried 2 sticks in a1/b1, 1 stick in either, neither will run anything reasonable. They will do 3600 but its at like cl28. I have tried bumping up the soc voltage to various levels up to 1.2v, ddr voltage is 1.5v by docp. CMOS has been cleared, BIOS updated. I’m not really sure what else to try, save for ripping the pc and loop apart, removing the monoblock, and reseating the cpu. Any other ideas?
> 
> Thanks in advance for the advise.


If you are using two sticks use A2,B2. 










It tells you that on page 1-5 of the manual.


----------



## learner-gr

Hi to the forum.
Yesterday i got one 3950x to replace my 3700x.
I open the bios and set default settings and also no DOCP.
When I turn on the computer at random it reboots. Is there anything else I need to do, maybe some selection in the bios?

I also tried OCCT5.5.1 for 6-7 minutes without problems.


----------



## Metaldemon95

Syldon said:


> If you are using two sticks use A2,B2.
> 
> View attachment 2530164
> 
> 
> It tells you that on page 1-5 of the manual.


All 4 slots populated my dude


----------



## AStaUK

Syldon said:


> If you are using two sticks use A2,B2.
> 
> View attachment 2530164
> 
> 
> It tells you that on page 1-5 of the manual.


Does anyone know why it’s A2 & B2, it’s the ones you’re told to use and it is the ones I’m using, but the naming would suggest that A1 & B1 come first and appear closer to the CPU?


----------



## AndreDVJ

finas said:


> @safedisk
> 
> 
> 
> Hi @safedisk,
> Any new beta bios around for us to try?


3901 on my CHVIII Hero has issues with USB dropouts affecting my Razer Kraken V2 7.1 headset. Either the headset would be recognized but emit no sound (and LEDs remain turned off), or simply missing altogether from the audio devices. I had to roll back to 3801.

3801 has no issues whatsoever for me.

In fact 3901 is the first firmware that I ever experienced USB dropouts.

Hopefully 3901 never leaves beta.


----------



## xeizo

AndreDVJ said:


> 3901 on my CHVIII Hero has issues with USB dropouts affecting my Razer Kraken V2 7.1 headset. Either the headset would be recognized but emit no sound (and LEDs remain turned off), or simply missing altogether from the audio devices. I had to roll back to 3801.
> 
> 3801 has no issues whatsoever for me.
> 
> In fact 3901 is the first firmware that I ever experienced USB dropouts.
> 
> Hopefully 3901 never leaves beta.


That 1.2.0.4 AGESA looks to be borked, not available for many boards even after this long, but Gigabyte has 1.2.0.4A for almost all their boards so that's probably in the next bios from Asus. Or maybe they wait for the 3D cache cpu:s before releasing any new bios, since those most likely will need yet another new AGESA.


----------



## metalshark

AStaUK said:


> Does anyone know why it’s A2 & B2, it’s the ones you’re told to use and it is the ones I’m using, but the naming would suggest that A1 & B1 come first and appear closer to the CPU?


GUESS:
Would assume it’s due to daisy chaining topology and wanting end of line termination. So A1 wiring goes through to A2 where it ends and B1 wiring goes through to B2 where it ends. If you don’t put the RAM at the end of the line then you get weird effects (reflection, delays in managing voltages, ghost signals) from the far end of the traces coming back. So you always want to have sticks end of line.


----------



## Syldon

AStaUK said:


> Does anyone know why it’s A2 & B2, it’s the ones you’re told to use and it is the ones I’m using, but the naming would suggest that A1 & B1 come first and appear closer to the CPU?


It is the shortest routing. That is the explanation that has been thrown around by a fair few. There is a good explanation here. The CH8 uses the t-topology daisy chain similar to the CH6.

Edited I got the topology wrong.


----------



## GRABibus

Last chipset AMD Drivers 3.10.08.506 give a boost of performance on Windows 10, at least on my system (Settings in sig).

*Old drivers 3.08.06.148 :*
@22°C Best run :











*New drivers 3.10.08.506 :*
@22°C


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> since those most likely will need yet another new AGESA.


Months of stability testing and stability issues again....


----------



## Sleepycat

Syldon said:


> It is the shortest routing. That is the explanation that has been thrown around by a fair few. There is a good explanation here. The CH8 uses the t-topology similar to the CH6.


As far as I've seen, C8H uses daisy chain topology.


----------



## Syldon

Sleepycat said:


> As far as I've seen, C8H uses daisy chain topology.


Yep you are right. I was going from memory and was fairly sure it was mentioned as t-topology. I did search but could find nothing. Today I found the dark hero being stated as daisy chain. They use the same layout AFAIK.


----------



## Sleepycat

AndreDVJ said:


> 3901 on my CHVIII Hero has issues with USB dropouts affecting my Razer Kraken V2 7.1 headset. Either the headset would be recognized but emit no sound (and LEDs remain turned off), or simply missing altogether from the audio devices. I had to roll back to 3801.
> 
> 3801 has no issues whatsoever for me.
> 
> In fact 3901 is the first firmware that I ever experienced USB dropouts.
> 
> Hopefully 3901 never leaves beta.


3901 locked the voltages for CLDO VDDP, VDDG CCD and VDDG IOD. So if you compare the difference in readings for both bios in your settings, you can see which voltage is required to prevent USB dropouts. I suspect it is VDDG CCD or IOD.


----------



## bt1

Couple thoughts about C8 Extreme, mostly annoyances after migrating from C8H:

Thunderbolt controller makes bios startup *very *slow, disabling it takes it back to C8H level, will keep it disabled until I actually get some TB4 devices))
ASmedia SATA controller can't be disabled in bios, it appears in device manager as "Standard Dual Channel PCI IDE Controller", no matter what.
I prefer disabling everything i don't actually use, like SATA and onboard audio.
sometimes dual BIOS function kick in when clearing CMOS with rear panel button. It is really annoying when overclocking ram.
It took even more time to boot because BIOS versions were different, and embedded controller takes a separate reboot to sync its firmware to active BIOS version, had to update second BIOS too
0501 beta BIOS fixes none of that, and similar to 3901 on C8H limits voltages.
overall performance is on par with C8H, however i didn't finish tuning RAM yet, than will tune PBO & CO.
Also found very little info about ASUS Voltage Suspension feature (not mentioned in specs), however it may come usefull


https://skatterbencher.com/2021/09/19/skatterbencher-29-amd-ryzen-9-5900-b2-overclocked-to-5152-mhz/#OC_Strategy_5_PBO_Shaminocharged


----------



## xeizo

bt1 said:


> Couple thoughts about C8 Extreme, mostly annoyances after migrating from C8H:
> 
> Thunderbolt controller makes bios startup *very *slow, disabling it takes it back to C8H level, will keep it disabled until I actually get some TB4 devices))
> ASmedia SATA controller can't be disabled in bios, it appears in device manager as "Standard Dual Channel PCI IDE Controller", no matter what.
> I prefer disabling everything i don't actually use, like SATA and onboard audio.
> sometimes dual BIOS function kick in when clearing CMOS with rear panel button. It is really annoying when overclocking ram.
> It took even more time to boot because BIOS versions were different, and embedded controller takes a separate reboot to sync its firmware to active BIOS version, had to update second BIOS too
> 0501 beta BIOS fixes none of that, and similar to 3901 on C8H limits voltages.
> overall performance is on par with C8H, however i didn't finish tuning RAM yet, than will tune PBO & CO.
> Also found very little info about ASUS Voltage Suspension feature (not mentioned in specs), however it may come usefull
> 
> 
> https://skatterbencher.com/2021/09/19/skatterbencher-29-amd-ryzen-9-5900-b2-overclocked-to-5152-mhz/#OC_Strategy_5_PBO_Shaminocharged


All I can say is, there is more features coming in upcoming bios/es, the VRM is very advanced on the C8E

I'm very excited for the new 5950X with 3D cache when it arrives, it will be fun tweaking


----------



## Nizzen

xeizo said:


> All I can say is, there is more features coming in upcoming bios/es, the VRM is very advanced on the C8E
> 
> I'm very excited for the new 5950X with 3D cache when it arrives, it will be fun tweaking


Wonder what drawback it wil have? 
There is always a drawback with AMD 😅
Maybe worse memoryoverclocking?
Can't wait to benchmark it anyway


----------



## GRABibus

Nizzen said:


> Wonder what drawback it wil have?
> There is always a drawback with AMD 😅
> Maybe worse memoryoverclocking?
> Can't wait to benchmark it anyway


This 3D vcache will be compatible with current x570 Motherboards ?


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> This 3D vcache will be compatible with current x570 Motherboards ?


That is what has been said, Zen 4 is a new socket this one is only Zen 3+


----------



## GRABibus

And alder lake is coming in the next days….
It seems that 12900k performances are crazy.


----------



## WINTENDOX

something to improve?


----------



## Nizzen

WINTENDOX said:


> something to improve?
> 
> View attachment 2530289


Improvement: Buy high end Dualrank 2x16 and run them 3800 cl14 or lower


----------



## GRABibus

WINTENDOX said:


> something to improve?
> 
> View attachment 2530289


primary timings at 16-16-16-16 can't be lowered ?


----------



## Pastrami King

xeizo said:


> All I can say is, there is more features coming in upcoming bios/es, the VRM is very advanced on the C8E
> 
> I'm very excited for the new 5950X with 3D cache when it arrives, it will be fun tweaking


Do you know whether the voltage suspension/CO mitigator feature actually works (or is turned on) in BIOS 0402? I am not sure if it is currently doing anything when turned on.


----------



## xeizo

Pastrami King said:


> Do you know whether the voltage suspension/CO mitigator feature actually works (or is turned on) in BIOS 0402? I am not sure if it is currently doing anything when turned on.


It mitigates getting sudden idle black screen when using Curve Optimizer, so you have a chance of better luck with the Curve Optimizer, it doesn't change any performance by itself. That part is what the Curve Optimizer is for. Also, a too high Boost Override can mitigate the mitigation, so thread carefully, you need finger top precision and a lot of patience. If you don't, you can just run stock because it isn't THAT much you can extract from a Ryzen. They are pretty max boosted out of the box, biggest help for better boost is lower temps. Ryzen loves low temps.


----------



## Pastrami King

xeizo said:


> It mitigates getting sudden idle black screen when using Curve Optimizer, so you have a chance of better luck with the Curve Optimizer, it doesn't change any performance by itself. That part is what the Curve Optimizer is for. Also, a too high Boost Override can mitigate the mitigation, so thread carefully, you need finger top precision and a lot of patience. If you don't, you can just run stock because it isn't THAT much you can extract from a Ryzen. They are pretty max boosted out of the box, biggest help for better boost is lower temps. Ryzen loves low temps.


I understand what the features _should_ or _ought to_ do when they are enabled; however, I am wondering whether the features actually turn on when they are enabled in BIOS 0402. Like how the first iteration of curve optimizer in Extreme Tweaker did nothing.

I run 0 MHz booster override with CO numbers determined on a core-by-core basis (using CoreCycler and to a lesser extent OCCT) and more randomized testing to determine whether there is any core dependencies (one unstable making another other stable core unstable, etc.). I am wondering if I should undertake a second process with CO mitigator, which I generally have disabled, enabled.


----------



## xeizo

Pastrami King said:


> I understand what the features _should_ or _ought to_ do when they are enabled; however, I am wondering whether the features actually turn on when they are enabled in BIOS 0402. Like how the first iteration of curve optimizer in Extreme Tweaker did nothing.
> 
> I run 0 MHz booster override with CO numbers determined on a core-by-core basis (using CoreCycler and to a lesser extent OCCT) and more randomized testing to determine whether there is any core dependencies (one unstable making another other stable core unstable, etc.). I am wondering if I should undertake a second process with CO mitigator, which I generally have disabled, enabled.


Yes, that's the purpose, if it is working you should be able to push CO just a little bit further


----------



## neikosr0x

dyanikoglu said:


> Definitely the same issue! I was thinking it was an issue with my rig, but good to hear other people are also experiencing that. Which bios you're on?
> 
> Randomly, system gets super slow for a few seconds, then fixes itself. I'm on default bios settings with 3901 beta.


I am on the 3801


----------



## sonixmon

Hey everyone,

I have been busy with work lately and haven't had much time on forums or PC. After a few days out of town when I got home and did a little gaming I started getting USB drop outs! I have not changed any settings or software and this is not something I have had an issue with. I checked restore points and there was a windows update a week or so ago, not sure if it is related. I have been using the same settings for at least 40 days without this issue.

Really been wanting to continue fine tuning ram/voltages and post my current settings in the memory OC thread to get some expert advice from others  just have not had time.

Wondering if I have a borderline voltage issue?

Also what is with the lack of new FW, we were spoiled for a while with updates! I don't believe this firmware has matured fully and latest AGESA was buggy.

Current settings (since 9/20):


----------



## xeizo

sonixmon said:


> Hey everyone,
> 
> I have been busy with work lately and haven't had much time on forums or PC. After a few days out of town when I got home and did a little gaming I started getting USB drop outs! I have not changed any settings or software and this is not something I have had an issue with. I checked restore points and there was a windows update a week or so ago, not sure if it is related. I have been using the same settings for at least 40 days without this issue.
> 
> Really been wanting to continue fine tuning ram/voltages and post my current settings in the memory OC thread to get some expert advice from others  just have not had time.
> 
> Wondering if I have a borderline voltage issue?
> 
> Also what is with the lack of new FW, we were spoiled for a while with updates! I don't believe this firmware has matured fully and latest AGESA was buggy.
> 
> Current settings (since 9/20):
> 
> View attachment 2530535


My B550-F had a similar blackout when tried and true settings didn't boot anymore, I started from scratch and are back at the exact same performance but without using PBO and slightly different settings overall, but the B550-F always had wonky bioses. No USB-issues though.

My other boards are rock solid, C8E/CH7/X470-Prime Pro, same settings as for many months. My CH8 WiFi is in a paper box at the moment, we'll see when I'm rocking it again, probably after buying a 3D-cache CPU so it can inherit the 5900X.

I'm running Windows 11 on all Ryzen boxes, two with fully updated RTM and two using Dev channel builds.

Regarding new bioses, I suppose Asus bios staff is scratching their heads over tuning for Alder Lake right now.


----------



## sonixmon

So both times I experienced this issue I (last night and first thing this morning) it was colder than it has been this since summer and were cold boots. Only used for 30 mins or so and it USB randomly dropped out. This afternoon I booted up and used it for 3 hours with no issues...Only thing I can guess is borderline voltage issue? Will see how it goes tomorrow afternoon when I have some more time to game!


----------



## GRABibus

sonixmon said:


> Hey everyone,
> 
> I have been busy with work lately and haven't had much time on forums or PC. After a few days out of town when I got home and did a little gaming I started getting USB drop outs! I have not changed any settings or software and this is not something I have had an issue with. I checked restore points and there was a windows update a week or so ago, not sure if it is related. I have been using the same settings for at least 40 days without this issue.
> 
> Really been wanting to continue fine tuning ram/voltages and post my current settings in the memory OC thread to get some expert advice from others  just have not had time.
> 
> Wondering if I have a borderline voltage issue?
> 
> Also what is with the lack of new FW, we were spoiled for a while with updates! I don't believe this firmware has matured fully and latest AGESA was buggy.
> 
> Current settings (since 9/20):
> 
> View attachment 2530535


are you « stable » with these nice RAM settings ?
Which stability test did you perform ?


----------



## Sleepycat

sonixmon said:


> Hey everyone,
> 
> I have been busy with work lately and haven't had much time on forums or PC. After a few days out of town when I got home and did a little gaming I started getting USB drop outs! I have not changed any settings or software and this is not something I have had an issue with. I checked restore points and there was a windows update a week or so ago, not sure if it is related. I have been using the same settings for at least 40 days without this issue.
> 
> Really been wanting to continue fine tuning ram/voltages and post my current settings in the memory OC thread to get some expert advice from others  just have not had time.
> 
> Wondering if I have a borderline voltage issue?
> 
> Also what is with the lack of new FW, we were spoiled for a while with updates! I don't believe this firmware has matured fully and latest AGESA was buggy.
> 
> Current settings (since 9/20):
> 
> View attachment 2530535


Just to test, can you increase your VDDG IOD to 1.0 V and test for USB dropouts?


----------



## WINTENDOX

GRABibus said:


> primary timings at 16-16-16-16 can't be lowered ?


I'll try again

Enviado desde mi Redmi Note 8 Pro mediante Tapatalk


----------



## metalshark

Sleepycat said:


> Just to test, can you increase your VDDG IOD to 1.0 V and test for USB dropouts?


If you get no benefit to IOD over 1.05 then FWIW on mine it was vSoC and CCD I needed for graphics hitches (stuttering) and USB dropouts. Could run vSoC as low as 1.0625 passing stability tests but needed 1.1875 to prevent any hitches. USB issues stopped lower at ~1.12 (but still had occasional frame drops). CCD needed 0.95 for the same. PLL 1.87 too for other occasional system weirdness and to get full RAM bandwidth. YMMV this is a 5950X running at 3800/1900 for RAM with an Ampere card. SB is at 1.00, many reported going to 1.05 helps, but I’ve not experienced that personally and for my system made no difference.


----------



## LocoDiceGR

Any new info on the 1.2.0.4 bios for B550i ?


----------



## xeizo

LocoDiceGR said:


> Any new info on the 1.2.0.4 bios for B550i ?


I don't think there will be any, Asus is waiting for a new AGESA


----------



## Kelutrel

xeizo said:


> I don't think there will be any, Asus is waiting for a new AGESA


Any source, or reason why you think so ?


----------



## xeizo

Kelutrel said:


> Any source, or reason why you think so ?


Because 1.2.0.4 has bugged voltage settings and for instance Gigabyte has already moved on to 1.2.0.4A, those few 1.2.0.4 bioses made are all marked as Beta

edit. wrong, not even Beta, they are marked as "Test"


----------



## Nizzen

X570 soon 2.5 years, and still beta 😅


----------



## sonixmon

After posting this I was able to game multiple times 2+ hours, all weekend with no issues so it seems it doesn't like to be turned off for days!?!?



GRABibus said:


> are you « stable » with these nice RAM settings ?
> Which stability test did you perform ?


AFAIK it is stable, I used AIDA64 full stress test for 1 hour, I know this is frowned upon but no issues gaming. I do want to get into more advanced mem testing (taking notes from what others are doing here) I just haven't had the spare time lately. I am hoping to fine tune my voltages using advanced testing methods soon.




Sleepycat said:


> Just to test, can you increase your VDDG IOD to 1.0 V and test for USB dropouts?


If it does this again after being off a few days this week I will definately try this, issue was gone after system on for more than 1 hour it appears.



metalshark said:


> If you get no benefit to IOD over 1.05 then FWIW on mine it was vSoC and CCD I needed for graphics hitches (stuttering) and USB dropouts. Could run vSoC as low as 1.0625 passing stability tests but needed 1.1875 to prevent any hitches. USB issues stopped lower at ~1.12 (but still had occasional frame drops). CCD needed 0.95 for the same. PLL 1.87 too for other occasional system weirdness and to get full RAM bandwidth. YMMV this is a 5950X running at 3800/1900 for RAM with an Ampere card. SB is at 1.00, many reported going to 1.05 helps, but I’ve not experienced that personally and for my system made no difference.


This is interesting, I do get occasional hitches (fairly rare) but I will play with VSOC to see if that makes a difference.

Thanks!


----------



## shaolin95

Hey guys!
So I was checking Chipset drivers for Windows 10 and saw AMD with this: amd_chipset_software_3.10.08.506 but Asus has this one DRV_Chipset_AMD_TP_TSD_W10_64_V31022706_20211101R which per their description seems to be a newer one???

2021/11/01 52.32 MBytes
AMD Chipset driver V3.10.22.706 for Windows 10 64-bit, Windows 11 64-bit.(WHQL)
NOTICE:
Due to the different structure for drivers, suggest you remove the old driver first before install this version driver.

Any thoughts?


----------



## metalshark

shaolin95 said:


> Hey guys!
> So I was checking Chipset drivers for Windows 10 and saw AMD with this: amd_chipset_software_3.10.08.506 but Asus has this one DRV_Chipset_AMD_TP_TSD_W10_64_V31022706_20211101R which per their description seems to be a newer one???
> 
> 2021/11/01 52.32 MBytes
> AMD Chipset driver V3.10.22.706 for Windows 10 64-bit, Windows 11 64-bit.(WHQL)
> NOTICE:
> Due to the different structure for drivers, suggest you remove the old driver first before install this version driver.
> 
> Any thoughts?


Only thought is thanks for sharing the info, very interesting.

*UPDATE: *MSI has apparently also released it with a changelog.

AMD I2C Controller Driver 1.2.0.118 01/11/2021

Hide the Power management option of the driver properties in device manager.
AMDMICROPEP v1.0.30.0

Major changes to this driver package include:
Workaround inaccurate HW DRIPS (lower than actual value) due to OS limitation when VBS/Hyper-V is enabled
Notify AMD PMF driver about S0i3 entry/exit
AMD Processor Power Management Support / AMD Ryzen Power plan 7.0.4.4 10/15/2021

Update processor power management settings for performance and power improvement


----------



## GRABibus

metalshark said:


> Only thought is thanks for sharing the info, very interesting.


And there is performances differences between both in CBR20.

with the one from AMD site, I get 80 pts to 100pts more in CBR20 MT and 5 points more in CBR20 ST than with the one from motherboard site.


----------



## metalshark

GRABibus said:


> And there is performances differences between both in CBR20.
> 
> with the one from AMD site, I get 80 pts to 100pts more in CBR20 MT and 5 points more in CBR20 ST than with the one from motherboard site.


So you're getting 80-100 more CB20 MT points and 5 more CB20 ST points running the older 3.10.08.506 version compared to the newer 3.10.22.706 version?


----------



## GRABibus

metalshark said:


> So you're getting 80-100 more CB20 MT points and 5 more CB20 ST points running the older 3.10.08.506 version compared to the newer 3.10.22.706 version?


Yes.
I am talking about 3.10.08.506 from AMD site
And 3.10.22.706 from Asus site.


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> Yes.
> I am talking about 3.10.08.506 from AMD site
> And 3.10.22.706 from Asus site.


Are you using a custom power plan by any chance ?

I did not take the time to test this thoroughly, but in my case (5900X) my custom power plan seems to have slowed down a bit by roughly 80pts in CB20 MT with the 3.10.22.706 chipset drivers, while the default Balanced power plan performs as usual.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Are you using a custom power plan by any chance ?
> 
> I did not take the time to test this thoroughly, but in my case (5900X) my custom power plan seems to have slowed down a bit by roughly 80pts in CB20 MT with the 3.10.22.706 chipset drivers, while the default Balanced power plan performs as usual.


No, I use the default balanced plan.


----------



## SpeedyIV

I am wondering about the X570 chipset drivers too. I compared the release notes contained in the Asus zip file for their latest release (v3.10.22.706) to the AMD release notes for their latest release (3.10.08.506). They are identical except for the following:

AMD Processor Power Management Support - AMD Ryzen Power Plan - AMD ver 7.0.3.5, Asus ver 7.0.4.4
AMD MicroPEP Driver - AMD ver 1.0.29.0, Asus ver 1.0.30.0 

So Asus seems to have updated versions of these 2 items. The Asus zip file contains ReleaseNotes_3.10.22.706.rtf which looks like an AMD document. So if AMD has updated the AMD Ryzen Power Plan and the MicroPEP driver, why are these new versions not included in the latest chipset driver package on AMD's own support site?

I also compared the version number progression on the AMD support site and the Asus Dark Hero support site. The version numbers do not match up, at all. I guess this means that Asus is using a different numbering system than AMD. Also of note is that AMD has released 5 versions in 2021 while Asus has released 3. So Asus does not release an updated chipset driver package every time AMD does, the numbering systems are different, the release dates are different, and at least in this case, the driver versions are different. Not confusing AT ALL.

AMD Support - Windows 10
3.10.08.506 released 10-21-21
3.09.01.140 released 09-13-21
3.08.17.735 released 08-23-21
2.17.25.506 released 06-02-21
2.13.27.501 released 02-04-21
2.10.13.408 released 10-19-2020

Asus Dark Hero Support - Windows 10
3.10.22.706 released 11-01-21
3.08.06.148 released 10-07-21
2.11.26.106 released 02-02-2021
2.09.28.509 released 11-03-2020


----------



## metalshark

SpeedyIV said:


> I am wondering about the X570 chipset drivers too. I compared the release notes contained in the Asus zip file for their latest release (v3.10.22.706) to the AMD release notes for their latest release (3.10.08.506). They are identical except for the following:
> 
> AMD Processor Power Management Support - AMD Ryzen Power Plan - AMD ver 7.0.3.5, Asus ver 7.0.4.4
> AMD MicroPEP Driver - AMD ver 1.0.29.0, Asus ver 1.0.30.0
> 
> So Asus seems to have updated versions of these 2 items. The Asus zip file contains ReleaseNotes_3.10.22.706.rtf which looks like an AMD document. So if AMD has updated the AMD Ryzen Power Plan and the MicroPEP driver, why are these new versions not included in the latest chipset driver package on AMD's own support site?
> 
> I also compared the version number progression on the AMD support site and the Asus Dark Hero support site. The version numbers do not match up, at all. I guess this means that Asus is using a different numbering system than AMD. Also of note is that AMD has released 5 versions in 2021 while Asus has released 3. So Asus does not release an updated chipset driver package every time AMD does, the numbering systems are different, the release dates are different, and at least in this case, the driver versions are different. Not confusing AT ALL.
> 
> AMD Support - Windows 10
> 3.10.08.506 released 10-21-21
> 3.09.01.140 released 09-13-21
> 3.08.17.735 released 08-23-21
> 2.17.25.506 released 06-02-21
> 2.13.27.501 released 02-04-21
> 2.10.13.408 released 10-19-2020
> 
> Asus Dark Hero Support - Windows 10
> 3.10.22.706 released 11-01-21
> 3.08.06.148 released 10-07-21
> 2.11.26.106 released 02-02-2021
> 2.09.28.509 released 11-03-2020


MSI also have released the same driver as ASUS - https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/support/MEG-X570S-ACE-MAX#down-driver&Win11 64 for instance:








So would expect AMD to have it on their website in the next couple of days.

FWIW ASRock and Gigabyte both seem to be only offering 3.08.06.148 but I've not done an exhaustive search of every motherboard for every language so take it with a pinch of salt.


----------



## sonixmon

Curious about who plans to stick with AMD as is, get 3D cache chip when they come out, switch to Intel Alder Lake or wait for next gen Intel/AMD?

Personally I might get 3D cache depending on pricing/availability and if they manage to improve fclk issues?!


----------



## rexbinary

sonixmon said:


> Curious about who plans to stick with AMD as is, get 3D cache chip when they come out, switch to Intel Alder Lake or wait for next gen Intel/AMD?
> 
> Personally I might get 3D cache depending on pricing/availability and if they manage to improve fclk issues?!


I'm sticking with mine until it seems like it is a determent to gaming then I'll buy whatever is better at that time. I average building a new rig every 3-5 years.


----------



## Alberto_It

SpeedyIV said:


> I am wondering about the X570 chipset drivers too. I compared the release notes contained in the Asus zip file for their latest release (v3.10.22.706) to the AMD release notes for their latest release (3.10.08.506). They are identical except for the following:
> 
> AMD Processor Power Management Support - AMD Ryzen Power Plan - AMD ver 7.0.3.5, Asus ver 7.0.4.4
> AMD MicroPEP Driver - AMD ver 1.0.29.0, Asus ver 1.0.30.0
> 
> So Asus seems to have updated versions of these 2 items. The Asus zip file contains ReleaseNotes_3.10.22.706.rtf which looks like an AMD document. So if AMD has updated the AMD Ryzen Power Plan and the MicroPEP driver, why are these new versions not included in the latest chipset driver package on AMD's own support site?
> 
> I also compared the version number progression on the AMD support site and the Asus Dark Hero support site. The version numbers do not match up, at all. I guess this means that Asus is using a different numbering system than AMD. Also of note is that AMD has released 5 versions in 2021 while Asus has released 3. So Asus does not release an updated chipset driver package every time AMD does, the numbering systems are different, the release dates are different, and at least in this case, the driver versions are different. Not confusing AT ALL.
> 
> AMD Support - Windows 10
> 3.10.08.506 released 10-21-21
> 3.09.01.140 released 09-13-21
> 3.08.17.735 released 08-23-21
> 2.17.25.506 released 06-02-21
> 2.13.27.501 released 02-04-21
> 2.10.13.408 released 10-19-2020
> 
> Asus Dark Hero Support - Windows 10
> 3.10.22.706 released 11-01-21
> 3.08.06.148 released 10-07-21
> 2.11.26.106 released 02-02-2021
> 2.09.28.509 released 11-03-2020


In my opinion the Asus version is the most up-to-date.


----------



## stimpy88

sonixmon said:


> Curious about who plans to stick with AMD as is, get 3D cache chip when they come out, switch to Intel Alder Lake or wait for next gen Intel/AMD?
> 
> Personally I might get 3D cache depending on pricing/availability and if they manage to improve fclk issues?!


Yep, I see absolutely no reason to "upgrade" to Intel. Just a bunch of highly suspect "leaked" benchmarks out there so far, run on a deliberately bugged Windows 11 version.

DDR5 is not worth the investment at this time, and I would guess running Alder Lake on DDR4 is just stupid, and will be slower than Zen. I expect Intel to match Zen3, but not beat Zen3D. Time will tell, but for now I'm going to drop in a Zen3D chip, and enjoy. I'm sure I wont regret doing that.


----------



## GRABibus

sonixmon said:


> Curious about who plans to stick with AMD as is, get 3D cache chip when they come out, switch to Intel Alder Lake or wait for next gen Intel/AMD?
> 
> Personally I might get 3D cache depending on pricing/availability and if they manage to improve fclk issues?!


I hesitate to upgrade to Zen3+ or Zen4 in one year….
Maybe I will do both 😂


----------



## Sleepycat

sonixmon said:


> Curious about who plans to stick with AMD as is, get 3D cache chip when they come out, switch to Intel Alder Lake or wait for next gen Intel/AMD?
> 
> Personally I might get 3D cache depending on pricing/availability and if they manage to improve fclk issues?!


My 5900X is performing to my requirements. Instead, I do wish I had more tensor cores in my GPU for the AI workload that I run. Personally, I'll keep running the 5900X, and then swap over to the 3D V-cache version when it becomes end of life with Zen4 being released. Hoping that the price drops so that I can pick one up without the price premium.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> My 5900X is performing to my requirements. Instead, I do wish I had more tensor cores in my GPU for the AI workload that I run. Personally, I'll keep running the 5900X, and then swap over to the 3D V-cache version when it becomes end of life with Zen4 being released. Hoping that the price drops so that I can pick one up without the price premium.


So that won't be a new platform?
I was getting excited about the 12900k but now that it seems to be all fishy benchmark manipulation, not so much. 
It would have to be a huge jump over my 5950x for the stuff I use to make me jump. 
BTW, you running the latest bios? 
I always use your settings as the base for my own lol


----------



## GRABibus

Some infos about Zen 4 (Maybe you already know) :









AMD's Zen 4 architecture makes its debut on the Ryzen 7000 Series


The first Zen 4 CPUs are now available to buy, but lots more are expected - including those designed to be integrated into laptops




www.techadvisor.com


----------



## anticommon

Hi everyone,

I have a couple questions.


I have a Crosshair VIII Hero (not the dark), 5950x, and 4x8gb 14-14-14-34 b-die.

My best CB20 score is 10700 range, and the only settings I have changed is PBO->Enabled (for motherboard limits), slight change to tFAW on ram (to 24). The reason these are the only settings I have changed is not for a lack of trying. I have adulterated nearly every setting in the bios (3701… will try 3801 this evening) and they all result in my scores decreasing. I know R20 isn’t the holy grail of performance but it is a good relative performance indicator for what the system is intended to be used for.


With these settings I see ~185-190 watts power consumption, and up to 90c (!) temps using 2x360 rads. Most lightly threaded work puts CPU at ~60-65c. In r20 the cores are at ~4100mhz, and with normal use it bounces around 4700mhz (peak core I assume). I tried to do a static OC (4.6ghz) but changing much of anything just resulted in boot-loops before the bios would error and reset. I'm also more inclined to do PBO for the gaming performance (I don't mind a slight hit in rendering/encoding performance, although I'm curious if an all-core is better if I intend to do both encoding and gaming at the same time eventually).



Anyways, what I would like to know more about is how can I set a CO (I’m assuming this means core offset, for voltage right?). I just don’t see this option in the bios… since that seems to be the one way I can get temps down without sacrificing performance.



I’d also like to know why it seems that literally any settings apart from what I mentioned above results in worse performance. Perhaps there some better, more methodical way that I can go through and check what settings will actually benefit me, but it’s quite discouraging when I spend 4 hours popping in and out of the bios just to see worse performance every time.



Finally, I’m having a couple non-OC related issues with the motherboard. First, I notice that my second monitor is flickering. Sometimes every minute, sometimes every 5 minutes, but in any case it tends to flash to black briefly on the upper half of the display. Never happened in my x299 build using the same GPU. Second issue I’m seeing is that the bios will not display to my main monitor (27GN950-B). This is an issue because the bios is defaulting to this monitor whenever I have both plugged in (and regardless of which DP slot I use) meaning I have to do the ol’ reach-around every time I need to enter bios. Once again, this was a non-issue on my X299 dark, same GPU.



Overall this platform is leaving me kind of -meh about it. I was hoping to see something more like 4.6-4.8ghz all core and 5+ghz single core sustained for gaming, especially since this is on water. I’m also seeing far more dips below 160fps in apex then I did on the x299 platform, which is kind of the exact opposite from what I was expecting given the IPC improvements of 5950x over 7980xe. I tried looking up some guides and reviews to get started with tweaking this board, and I still feel like it has potential to be really great, but since most all the articles I see online are from 2019 and the bios… has changed quite a bit since then, it’s pretty difficult to understand what’s what without having spent the last two years learning the nuances of ryzen/asus. I thought EVGA’s bios was a bit ‘whelmin, but Asus has put their own spin on making this thing as confusing as possible.



Anyways, thank you all for you time and I appreciate if you actually used your valuable time to read my ramblings, even more if you can share a nugget of help with me.


----------



## Luggage

anticommon said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> I have a couple questions.
> 
> 
> I have a Crosshair VIII Hero (not the dark), 5950x, and 4x8gb 14-14-14-34 b-die.
> 
> My best CB20 score is 10700 range, and the only settings I have changed is PBO->Enabled (for motherboard limits), slight change to tFAW on ram (to 24). The reason these are the only settings I have changed is not for a lack of trying. I have adulterated nearly every setting in the bios (3701… will try 3801 this evening) and they all result in my scores decreasing. I know R20 isn’t the holy grail of performance but it is a good relative performance indicator for what the system is intended to be used for.
> 
> 
> With these settings I see ~185-190 watts power consumption, and up to 90c (!) temps using 2x360 rads. Most lightly threaded work puts CPU at ~60-65c. In r20 the cores are at ~4100mhz, and with normal use it bounces around 4700mhz (peak core I assume). I tried to do a static OC (4.6ghz) but changing much of anything just resulted in boot-loops before the bios would error and reset. I'm also more inclined to do PBO for the gaming performance (I don't mind a slight hit in rendering/encoding performance, although I'm curious if an all-core is better if I intend to do both encoding and gaming at the same time eventually).
> 
> 
> 
> Anyways, what I would like to know more about is how can I set a CO (I’m assuming this means core offset, for voltage right?). I just don’t see this option in the bios… since that seems to be the one way I can get temps down without sacrificing performance.
> 
> 
> 
> I’d also like to know why it seems that literally any settings apart from what I mentioned above results in worse performance. Perhaps there some better, more methodical way that I can go through and check what settings will actually benefit me, but it’s quite discouraging when I spend 4 hours popping in and out of the bios just to see worse performance every time.
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, I’m having a couple non-OC related issues with the motherboard. First, I notice that my second monitor is flickering. Sometimes every minute, sometimes every 5 minutes, but in any case it tends to flash to black briefly on the upper half of the display. Never happened in my x299 build using the same GPU. Second issue I’m seeing is that the bios will not display to my main monitor (27GN950-B). This is an issue because the bios is defaulting to this monitor whenever I have both plugged in (and regardless of which DP slot I use) meaning I have to do the ol’ reach-around every time I need to enter bios. Once again, this was a non-issue on my X299 dark, same GPU.
> 
> 
> 
> Overall this platform is leaving me kind of -meh about it. I was hoping to see something more like 4.6-4.8ghz all core and 5+ghz single core sustained for gaming, especially since this is on water. I’m also seeing far more dips below 160fps in apex then I did on the x299 platform, which is kind of the exact opposite from what I was expecting given the IPC improvements of 5950x over 7980xe. I tried looking up some guides and reviews to get started with tweaking this board, and I still feel like it has potential to be really great, but since most all the articles I see online are from 2019 and the bios… has changed quite a bit since then, it’s pretty difficult to understand what’s what without having spent the last two years learning the nuances of ryzen/asus. I thought EVGA’s bios was a bit ‘whelmin, but Asus has put their own spin on making this thing as confusing as possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyways, thank you all for you time and I appreciate if you actually used your valuable time to read my ramblings, even more if you can share a nugget of help with me.


Motherboard limits are very sub-optimal. Read any zen-3 PBO guide. Your temps are rather high even so with so much rad. Airflow, Pump speed and mounting/paste ok?


----------



## PWn3R

Luggage said:


> Motherboard limits are very sub-optimal. Read any zen-3 PBO guide. Your temps are rather high even so with so much rad. Airflow, Pump speed and mounting/paste ok?


I have the same board and with the questionably bad temps I had in the past, I’ve been wondering if somehow the socket vertical sizing on this board isn’t quite right. I switched to liquid metal and saw more than 10c difference, closer to 15c which is more than I’ve seen in any other swap in the past. I have NOT lapped the cpu die as I wanted the nickel coating in place with the LM. I also have a 5950x and I have a 560 and 2x 480 rads with 2x pumps. I think my Corsair xg9 is probably a weak point and will probably get a different block at some point in the near future. Mine is 47-50 in games and around 55-62 under cinebench and other synthetic load. I do not have PBO on right now because the voltages still make my skin crawl.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## anticommon

Luggage said:


> Motherboard limits are very sub-optimal. Read any zen-3 PBO guide. Your temps are rather high even so with so much rad. Airflow, Pump speed and mounting/paste ok?


I have tried all different kinds of PBO values. They all reduce performance (by up to 10-15%), with most tanking power consumption to 150w (vs ~185w). 

Also is it typical to see CPU charts (in game, only 10-15% load...) that will swing 200mhz very frequently? Sure it might peak at 4850 mhz or something, but then immediately goes to 4650 etc. I would assume when you are running programs that prefer high single core frequency that it would stay at that 4800+mhz speed pretty consistantly, otherwise I don't really see the benefit of PBO if you an all-core 4.6ghz is possible anyways.


----------



## xeizo

The new chipset driver is actually worse performance than the older one from AMD, I've tried both MSI version and Asus version, CPPC2 can't find the best core if it's life depended on it. That's on Windows 11.

edit. it's seems more energy efficient though, the PC is more quiet

edit. no wonder it's slower and more efficient, core voltage is on average 0.05V lower, I wonder why?


----------



## Luggage

anticommon said:


> I have tried all different kinds of PBO values. They all reduce performance (by up to 10-15%), with most tanking power consumption to 150w (vs ~185w).
> 
> Also is it typical to see CPU charts (in game, only 10-15% load...) that will swing 200mhz very frequently? Sure it might peak at 4850 mhz or something, but then immediately goes to 4650 etc. I would assume when you are running programs that prefer high single core frequency that it would stay at that 4800+mhz speed pretty consistantly, otherwise I don't really see the benefit of PBO if you an all-core 4.6ghz is possible anyways.


Well I have a 5800x and x570 unify and if I use mb limits my performance tanks even with over kill cooling.
some… of my cb r23 PBO tuning


http://imgur.com/a/BT0dCct


----------



## xeizo

So, went back to the AMD driver once again, pretty much confirmed. AMD driver has better performance. Geekbench single is in 1780-range, while both MSI and Asus-driver is in 1750-range. That's why AMD hasn't updated it.


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> So, went back to the AMD driver once again, pretty much confirmed. AMD driver has better performance. Geekbench single is in 1780-range, while both MSI and Asus-driver is in 1750-range. That's why AMD hasn't updated it.


Yes, for sure.
This is what I confirmed some days ago.

I came back also to AMD Drivers.


----------



## blunden

sonixmon said:


> Curious about who plans to stick with AMD as is, get 3D cache chip when they come out, switch to Intel Alder Lake or wait for next gen Intel/AMD?
> 
> Personally I might get 3D cache depending on pricing/availability and if they manage to improve fclk issues?!


 I plan on upgrading to the 3D V-Cache version of the 5900X at some point, whatever that will be called. When that happens depends on pricing.



stimpy88 said:


> Yep, I see absolutely no reason to "upgrade" to Intel. Just a bunch of highly suspect "leaked" benchmarks out there so far, run on a deliberately bugged Windows 11 version.
> 
> DDR5 is not worth the investment at this time, and I would guess running Alder Lake on DDR4 is just stupid, and will be slower than Zen. I expect Intel to match Zen3, but not beat Zen3D. Time will tell, but for now I'm going to drop in a Zen3D chip, and enjoy. I'm sure I wont regret doing that.


 I'm interested to see what the real benchmarks will be like. I'm sure it will be very competitive, but we won't know until we see proper reviews. I wouldn't count out Alder Lake on DDR4 though. Based on the timings we see for the DDR5 sticks available now, and depending on whether the IMC will even handle DDR5 in Gear 1 mode, good DDR4 may end up being very similar in terms of performance. If you already have some good sticks now, it might also make sense to keep them for now and possibly upgrade the motherboard in a year or two when DDR5 is both cheaper and better, although that depends on motherboard pricing (which I admittedly expect to be unusually high).


----------



## Kelutrel

shaolin95 said:


> So that won't be a new platform?
> I was getting excited about the 12900k but now that it seems to be all fishy benchmark manipulation, not so much.


Same here.
I love my 5900X but I admit that was also considering the 12900K as a possible future upgrade, probably after checking the performances of the AMD 3dcache model.
The original 12900K was initially scoring 11600 pts in CBR20 MT (source here and here ) and be publicized for that, but from the last benchmarks at one week from launch it is now scoring not even 10200 pts (source here ) .
So, where did those 1500pts go ? A 5950X with PBO today can score higher than that, and it would even be more power efficient.
So yeah, sadly it looks like benchmarks manipulation.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Same here.
> I love my 5900X but I admit that was also considering the 12900K as a possible future upgrade, after checking the performances of the AMD 3dcache model.
> The original 12900K was initially scoring 11600 pts in CBR20 MT (source here and here ) and be publicized for that, but from the last benchmarks at one week from launch it is now scoring not even 10200 pts (source here ) .
> So, where did those 1500pts go ? A 5950X with PBO today can score higher than that, and it would even be more power efficient.
> So yeah, sadly it looks like benchmarks manipulation.


what must be checked is power required for a 12900K to reach same performances than a 5950X.

I am sure there will be bad surprises 

I am afraid that to get full performances from 12900K, this will require LN2


----------



## rexbinary

With Alder Lake you are getting less regular cores. I'm not sure how that's appealing over say my 5950x? I'm not building anytime soon regardless, but I'm curious to see if Alder Lake lives up to all the "leaks" and hype from Intel.


----------



## rbys

anticommon said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> I have a couple questions.
> 
> 
> I have a Crosshair VIII Hero (not the dark), 5950x, and 4x8gb 14-14-14-34 b-die.
> 
> My best CB20 score is 10700 range, and the only settings I have changed is PBO->Enabled (for motherboard limits), slight change to tFAW on ram (to 24). The reason these are the only settings I have changed is not for a lack of trying. I have adulterated nearly every setting in the bios (3701… will try 3801 this evening) and they all result in my scores decreasing. I know R20 isn’t the holy grail of performance but it is a good relative performance indicator for what the system is intended to be used for.
> 
> 
> With these settings I see ~185-190 watts power consumption, and up to 90c (!) temps using 2x360 rads. Most lightly threaded work puts CPU at ~60-65c. In r20 the cores are at ~4100mhz, and with normal use it bounces around 4700mhz (peak core I assume). I tried to do a static OC (4.6ghz) but changing much of anything just resulted in boot-loops before the bios would error and reset. I'm also more inclined to do PBO for the gaming performance (I don't mind a slight hit in rendering/encoding performance, although I'm curious if an all-core is better if I intend to do both encoding and gaming at the same time eventually).
> 
> 
> 
> Anyways, what I would like to know more about is how can I set a CO (I’m assuming this means core offset, for voltage right?). I just don’t see this option in the bios… since that seems to be the one way I can get temps down without sacrificing performance.
> 
> 
> 
> I’d also like to know why it seems that literally any settings apart from what I mentioned above results in worse performance. Perhaps there some better, more methodical way that I can go through and check what settings will actually benefit me, but it’s quite discouraging when I spend 4 hours popping in and out of the bios just to see worse performance every time.
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, I’m having a couple non-OC related issues with the motherboard. First, I notice that my second monitor is flickering. Sometimes every minute, sometimes every 5 minutes, but in any case it tends to flash to black briefly on the upper half of the display. Never happened in my x299 build using the same GPU. Second issue I’m seeing is that the bios will not display to my main monitor (27GN950-B). This is an issue because the bios is defaulting to this monitor whenever I have both plugged in (and regardless of which DP slot I use) meaning I have to do the ol’ reach-around every time I need to enter bios. Once again, this was a non-issue on my X299 dark, same GPU.
> 
> 
> 
> Overall this platform is leaving me kind of -meh about it. I was hoping to see something more like 4.6-4.8ghz all core and 5+ghz single core sustained for gaming, especially since this is on water. I’m also seeing far more dips below 160fps in apex then I did on the x299 platform, which is kind of the exact opposite from what I was expecting given the IPC improvements of 5950x over 7980xe. I tried looking up some guides and reviews to get started with tweaking this board, and I still feel like it has potential to be really great, but since most all the articles I see online are from 2019 and the bios… has changed quite a bit since then, it’s pretty difficult to understand what’s what without having spent the last two years learning the nuances of ryzen/asus. I thought EVGA’s bios was a bit ‘whelmin, but Asus has put their own spin on making this thing as confusing as possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyways, thank you all for you time and I appreciate if you actually used your valuable time to read my ramblings, even more if you can share a nugget of help with me.


tl;dr?

your temp seems really high for the cooling that you have, even with PBO set to motherboard limits.

For CO, watch this video: 




Honestly, I didn't bother to read the rest, good luck.


----------



## anticommon

rbys said:


> tl;dr?
> 
> your temp seems really high for the cooling that you have, even with PBO set to motherboard limits.
> 
> For CO, watch this video:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I didn't bother to read the rest, good luck.



TL;DR

Kinda bad PBO results. High temps.

Seen a lot of things telling me WHAT to set CO to but not HOW to set it.

Some issues with flickering/display out that I didn't have on X299/same GPU.


----------



## 3900xHeroWifi2080Thuper

Hi, this is my first post. Been following this thread here and there for a while now. I've been on Bios 1302 since I did my build in Mar 20'. I've held off on updating it because of all the reports of issues since that version and from what I gathered most people considered it the last 'stable' version. Would it be a good move to update to 3801 or 3901 from here? Been a min since I've flashed mine so any refreshers or advice on how to proceed from here would be much welcome. I'm a roast. Baste me.

Side note: All drivers are updated/Windows/GeForce/Newest Chipset. The one thing I'm way behind on is the bios.

Ryzen 3900X --- Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi --- 2080 Super Aorus --- 
64GB (4X16gb) DDR4-360016-19-19-39 Hyjinx 
Samsung 980 Pro 2TB GEN4 --- Second Slot 970 Evo Plus 2TB GEN3
Corsair RM850x White --- Corsair 760T Case White --- H150i 360mm Cooler


----------



## Reikoji

3900xHeroWifi2080Thuper said:


> Hi, this is my first post. Been following this thread here and there for a while now. I've been on Bios 1302 since I did my build in Mar 20'. I've held off on updating it because of all the reports of issues since that version and from what I gathered most people considered it the last 'stable' version. Would it be a good move to update to 3801 or 3901 from here? Been a min since I've flashed mine so any refreshers or advice on how to proceed from here would be much welcome. I'm a roast. Baste me.
> 
> Side note: All drivers are updated/Windows/GeForce/Newest Chipset. The one thing I'm way behind on is the bios.
> 
> Ryzen 3900X --- Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi --- 2080 Super Aorus ---
> 64GB (4X16gb) DDR4-360016-19-19-39 Hyjinx
> Samsung 980 Pro 2TB GEN4 --- Second Slot 970 Evo Plus 2TB GEN3
> Corsair RM850x White --- Corsair 760T Case White --- H150i 360mm Cooler


3801 is safe. Agesa 1.2.0.4 in 3901 is bugged with a CCD/IOD voltage lock so don't flash that one.


----------



## anticommon

Last night I managed to install the 3801 bios... it was a bit frustrating because the bios wouldn't recognize it, and bios flashback didn't work.... 

So then I downloaded the right bios (CH8W.CAP vs CH8.CAP) and it worked great.

Already I can see there is a slight uptick in all core boost/power consumption under full load. Scores didn't change much (within margin of error) but I'm thinking that now the bios is working a bit better maybe it will allow me to actually adjust the PBO values and then work towards a CO offset. 

The video that rbys linked me is quite informative especially in making a plan for how to set the offset, and how to check for WHEA errors/determine what core has crashed. Will have a little project for this weekend I can tell already


----------



## bastian

Will the Dark Hero provide full speed for the wd_black 4tb an1500 (WD_BLACK™ AN1500 NVMe™ PCIe SSD Add-in-Card | Western Digital | Store ) if I use the bottom PCIE slot?


----------



## bt1

bastian said:


> Will the Dark Hero provide full speed for the wd_black 4tb an1500 (WD_BLACK™ AN1500 NVMe™ PCIe SSD Add-in-Card | Western Digital | Store ) if I use the bottom PCIE slot?


Yepp, however _this SSD is unable to use all the bandwidth of that slot._

Also this installation limits graphics card slot bandwidth.


----------



## shaolin95

Hey guys, a while back I was getting issues with slow 4k results from the WD850 nvme.
I forgot what was considered normal.
This is what I am getting right now:









Looks like I am getting half of the expected results :/


----------



## Baio73

shaolin95 said:


> Hey guys, a while back I was getting issues with slow 4k results from the WD850 nvme.
> I forgot what was considered normal.
> This is what I am getting right now:
> View attachment 2531054
> 
> 
> Looks like I am getting half of the expected results :/


I'm gonna check mine ASAP, but I know WD released a new firmware that was supposed to fix the problem... did you try it?
Are you running Windows 10 or 11?

Baio


----------



## shaolin95

Baio73 said:


> I'm gonna check mine ASAP, but I know WD releases a new firmware that was supposed to fix the problem... did you try it?
> Are you running Windows 10 or 11?
> 
> Baio


Window 10 and I did get the firmware but somehow didn't get me what I was expecting.
I am doing a fresh os install


----------



## PWn3R

Can anyone share what 2x16GB kit they are using with their CPU (looking for someone preferably with 5950x and 1900/3800). Right now I have 4x8 and I need 32GB of RAM, but I really want 1900/3800 and I can't get it with 4 sticks. I was able to boot with 2 sticks at 1900 after some other weirdness. I'm debating trying this:

*GSKILL F4-4000C18D-32GTZR*


----------



## metalshark

PWn3R said:


> Can anyone share what 2x16GB kit they are using with their CPU (looking for someone preferably with 5950x and 1900/3800). Right now I have 4x8 and I need 32GB of RAM, but I really want 1900/3800 and I can't get it with 4 sticks. I was able to boot with 2 sticks at 1900 after some other weirdness. I'm debating trying this:
> 
> *GSKILL F4-4000C18D-32GTZR*


Personally on 4x8GB with 1900/3800 and a 5950X (1.87v PLL) but was eyeing up these before F4-4000C14D-32GTZN to try and get 2000/4000 (they seem real tasty) but decided not to and kept to my F4-4000C15Q-32GTZR.


----------



## PWn3R

metalshark said:


> Personally on 4x8GB with 1900/3800 and a 5950X (1.87v PLL) but was eyeing up these before F4-4000C14D-32GTZN to try and get 2000/4000 (they seem real tasty) but decided not to and kept to my F4-4000C15Q-32GTZR.


Nothing I have tried works to get 1900 to boot with 4 sticks. I can boot 1933 but it’s whea central.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## metalshark

PWn3R said:


> Nothing I have tried works to get 1900 to boot with 4 sticks. I can boot 1933 but it’s whea central.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That's a shame, the F4-4000C14D-32GTZN pair of 2x16GB still look tasty though.


----------



## shaolin95

Baio73 said:


> I'm gonna check mine ASAP, but I know WD released a new firmware that was supposed to fix the problem... did you try it?
> Are you running Windows 10 or 11?
> 
> Baio


I did an OS reinstall (without losing apps or data) and looks much better now


----------



## GRABibus

PWn3R said:


> Can anyone share what 2x16GB kit they are using with their CPU (looking for someone preferably with 5950x and 1900/3800). Right now I have 4x8 and I need 32GB of RAM, but I really want 1900/3800 and I can't get it with 4 sticks. I was able to boot with 2 sticks at 1900 after some other weirdness. I'm debating trying this:
> 
> *GSKILL F4-4000C18D-32GTZR*


I use this one :

*G.SKILL Trident Z Neo DDR4-3800MHz 16GBx2 CL14 => Part number : F4-3800C14D-32GTZN.*

here are my 24/7 stable settings :


----------



## PWn3R

GRABibus said:


> I use this one :
> 
> *G.SKILL Trident Z Neo DDR4-3800MHz 16GBx2 CL14 => Part number : F4-3800C14D-32GTZN.*
> 
> here are my 24/7 stable settings :
> 
> View attachment 2531197


Holy crap, has that kit been that pricey since you got it or is it one of the artificially inflated ones? Newegg says $405.79USD


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Metaldemon95

GRABibus said:


> I use this one :
> 
> *G.SKILL Trident Z Neo DDR4-3800MHz 16GBx2 CL14 => Part number : F4-3800C14D-32GTZN.*
> 
> here are my 24/7 stable settings :
> 
> View attachment 2531197


I just got that same kit in for my system, since it refused to run 2 of the 2x8gb kits of the same speed. Haven’t gotten a chance to get into playing with it yet but hopefully my 5900x can push timings like your running.


----------



## ChillyRide

PWn3R said:


> Can anyone share what 2x16GB kit they are using with their CPU (looking for someone preferably with 5950x and 1900/3800). Right now I have 4x8 and I need 32GB of RAM, but I really want 1900/3800 and I can't get it with 4 sticks. I was able to boot with 2 sticks at 1900 after some other weirdness. I'm debating trying this:
> 
> *GSKILL F4-4000C18D-32GTZR*


----------



## sonixmon

blunden said:


> I plan on upgrading to the 3D V-Cache version of the 5900X at some point, whatever that will be called. When that happens depends on pricing.
> 
> I'm interested to see what the real benchmarks will be like. I'm sure it will be very competitive, but we won't know until we see proper reviews. I wouldn't count out Alder Lake on DDR4 though. Based on the timings we see for the DDR5 sticks available now, and depending on whether the IMC will even handle DDR5 in Gear 1 mode, good DDR4 may end up being very similar in terms of performance. If you already have some good sticks now, it might also make sense to keep them for now and possibly upgrade the motherboard in a year or two when DDR5 is both cheaper and better, although that depends on motherboard pricing (which I admittedly expect to be unusually high).


Thanks everyone I appreciate the feedback and agree. My system does what I need it to and next upgrade will likely be GPU in a year or two if they settle. Maybe 3D Cache if not outrageous and I can still sell my 5900x.

Side note I have been watching some of the reviews of the Alder Lake CPUs and yes they beet AMD but not by a lot and not nearly as effecient. Also just watched one that said there are games that are not compatible at all and some that have to turn off the small cores while gaming. So there is likely to be some growing pains with the Big Little. I like AMD's approach all big but efficient. Will see what things look like in a few years I guess!


----------



## shaolin95

sonixmon said:


> Thanks everyone I appreciate the feedback and agree. My system does what I need it to and next upgrade will likely be GPU in a year or two if they settle. Maybe 3D Cache if not outrageous and I can still sell my 5900x.
> 
> Side note I have been watching some of the reviews of the Alder Lake CPUs and yes they beet AMD but not by a lot and not nearly as effecient. Also just watched one that said there are games that are not compatible at all and some that have to turn off the small cores while gaming. So there is likely to be some growing pains with the Big Little. I like AMD's approach all big but efficient. Will see what things look like in a few years I guess!


I actually bought the 12900k but I think I am selling it. After watching all reviews over and over I notice that when more apples to apples, things are not that different in real world.
For instance, even when they show the 12900k beating the 5950x like with Blender B&W test by 8 seconds..that was against a very stock 5950x. Mine with simple PBO and tweaked limits to keep power and temps under control scores 7 seconds faster than the 12900k. And it also scores almost 30k in CB23 vs the 12900 27k.


----------



## GRABibus

sonixmon said:


> Thanks everyone I appreciate the feedback and agree. My system does what I need it to and next upgrade will likely be GPU in a year or two if they settle. Maybe 3D Cache if not outrageous and I can still sell my 5900x.
> 
> Side note I have been watching some of the reviews of the Alder Lake CPUs and yes they beet AMD but not by a lot and not nearly as effecient. Also just watched one that said there are games that are not compatible at all and some that have to turn off the small cores while gaming. So there is likely to be some growing pains with the Big Little. I like AMD's approach all big but efficient. Will see what things look like in a few years I guess!


12900K beats 5950X...But needs 150W more than 5950X to do it !


----------



## stimpy88

I don't understand the logic some in here are using at the moment... I'm not pro-AMD, but when you look at this with logic it really is funny to see some of the people here and how they are reacting... Well it's their money to burn, and it will unclutter this thread.


----------



## stimpy88

GRABibus said:


> 12900K beats 5950X...But needs 150W more than 5950X to do it !


And about $1200 for your +-6% perf gain against a stock 5950x...


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> My 5900X is performing to my requirements. Instead, I do wish I had more tensor cores in my GPU for the AI workload that I run. Personally, I'll keep running the 5900X, and then swap over to the 3D V-cache version when it becomes end of life with Zen4 being released. Hoping that the price drops so that I can pick one up without the price premium.


What settings are you running these days on your RAM? You are the only one I know that has the same config I do. 
Thanks!!!


----------



## DvL Ax3l

So after 5 years without a PC (MacBook Pro and consoles) I've built a new gaming rig, and I'm trying to squeeze all the performance from the parts.

*System Specs
- CPU :* AMD Ryzen 9 5900X - PBO2 // Curve Optimizer : negative 18, 30, 28, 30, 28, 30, 30, 22, 18, 30, 30, 30 // PPT~TDC~EDC = 220~140~170 // Boost = +200MHz
*- Mobo :* ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero // Bios 3801
*- GPU :* AMD Radeon RX 6900XT - core 2400/2500Mhz @ 1135mV memory 2112Mhz fast timings
*- RAM :* Corsair Dominator CMT32GX4M4C3600C18 @ 3800Mhz C14-15-15-29-43-1T // FCLK = UCLK = 1900MHz
*- SSD :* Samsung 980 PRO 1Tb NVMe M.2 PCIe 4.0 x4
*- CPU cooler :* Corsair H150i elite cappellix (360mm)
*- PSU : *Corsair HX850i (multi rail)

Everything tested with CoreCycler, Prime95, OCCT and games like CP2077, FarCry6, Warzone

What do you think, can I go further? if yes, how? PPT/TDC/EDC are taken on reddit, if I set board limit they become 395/255/200


----------



## PWn3R

I’ve seen a few things suggesting the sweet spot is usually about 200/200/150 give or take about 20 on each. I have not played with them in much detail, but I’m sure someone else can share input. I’m still terrified a year on of the crazy stupid voltages AMD is pushing.

Edit: maybe I shouldn’t be, and I could just buy another chip if I needed to, but 1.5 with PBO, is scary.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TimeDrapery

PWn3R said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve seen a few things suggesting the sweet spot is usually about 200/200/150 give or take about 20 on each. I have not played with them in much detail, but I’m sure someone else can share input. I’m still terrified a year on of the crazy stupid voltages AMD is pushing.
> 
> Edit: maybe I shouldn’t be, and I could just buy another chip if I needed to, but 1.5 with PBO, is scary.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



@PWn3R 

Why is 1.5V with PBO scary to you? I remember pushing 1.5V at the FX I had, but that was a fun CPU... I remember it spooking me out but I really wanted it to do what I told it to 😂😂😂😂😂

I OCd it on this Gigabyte mobo that I don't even remember the name of and I remember melting the CPU connector on the board and wondering why it smelled like burning plastic 😂😂😂😂😂


----------



## metalshark

TimeDrapery said:


> @PWn3R
> 
> Why is 1.5V with PBO scary to you? I remember pushing 1.5V at the FX I had, but that was a fun CPU... I remember it spooking me out but I really wanted it to do what I told it to 😂😂😂😂😂
> 
> I OCd it on this Gigabyte mobo that I don't even remember the name of and I remember melting the CPU connector on the board and wondering why it smelled like burning plastic 😂😂😂😂😂


When you're pulling over 300W sustained with TDC in the 220-240A area (actually recorded, not just setting a limit) for 30+ minutes with a voltage over 1.35v on water that's a lot to be asking from 7nm (1.25v here or less is ideal). So hitting 1.5v + PBO would be "scary" due to the risk of rapid degredation. As the die size shrinks so too must the voltage decrease, so you may have had much higher voltages for use with dies with larger nanometer designs.


----------



## GRABibus

I have peaks on all cores at 1.51V when I play Vanguard : see my PBO settings in signature.

How voltage can go beyond 1.5V with my settings ??

I thought PBO andf CO algotythm was managing in order to have 1.5V max....


----------



## metalshark

GRABibus said:


> I have peaks on all cores at 1.51V when I play Vanguard : see my PBO settings in signature.
> 
> How voltage can go beyond 1.5V with my settings ??
> 
> I thought PBO andf CO algotythm was managing in order to have 1.5V max....


LLC and positive CO can cause the voltage to be higher.


----------



## PWn3R

metalshark said:


> When you're pulling over 300W sustained with TDC in the 220-240A area (actually recorded, not just setting a limit) for 30+ minutes with a voltage over 1.35v on water that's a lot to be asking from 7nm (1.25v here or less is ideal). So hitting 1.5v + PBO would be "scary" due to the risk of rapid degredation. As the die size shrinks so too must the voltage decrease, so you may have had much higher voltages for use with dies with larger nanometer designs.


This. I know Intel and AMD are different, but 1.4 being limit on 14+++++++++ from Intel and then seeing 1.45 without PBO and 1.5 with PBO is scary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GRABibus

metalshark said:


> LLC and positive CO can cause the voltage to be higher.


I have LLC on auto and as you can see in signature, all CO offsets are negative.


----------



## GRABibus

I will try again the Asus site chipset drivers.
I currently use the amd site one's (from 21th of Oct release).


----------



## xeizo

Why people haven't learned yet, 1.5V is for instantaneous single core boost, it is how Ryzen is designed. As soon as there is constant load the voltage drops dramatically.


----------



## GRABibus

I get 1,51V max on some cores during vanguard sessions despite all my negative core offsets and no LLC


----------



## metalshark

GRABibus said:


> I get 1,51V max on some cores during vanguard sessions despite all my negative core offsets and no LLC


LLC auto isn't no LLC. Although if we take core 4 on -20. That's going to be 20 x 3mv (3mv at high end, 5mv at low end) = 60mv + the 10mv (1.51v - 1.5v) so 70mv higher than expected which is a fair amount of difference, far higher sustained than I can attribute to LLC although not unreasonable if in a game (low thread count, high voltage, high clocks).


----------



## GRABibus

I came back to ASUS site chipset drivers (Instead of AMD site one's) and played 15 mns Vanguard.
Now my max voltage was 1.494V.

It would explain also why I got +100pts in CBR20 MT with teh AMD site chipset drivers versus ASUS one's...

I will play more this evening to see if this was the reason.


----------



## metalshark

GRABibus said:


> I came back to ASUS site chipset drivers (Instead of AMD site one's) and played 15 mns Vanguard.
> Now my max voltage was 1.494V.
> 
> It would explain also why I got +100pts in CBR20 MT with teh AMD site chipset drivers versus ASUS one's...
> 
> I will play more this evening to see if this was the reason.


To confirm you're looking at SVI2 TFN or reading off a pro belt with a multimeter instead of VID right? Appreciate this doesn't change a thing about your findings regarding drivers.


----------



## GRABibus

No, it is hwinfo max core vid value for each core.


----------



## metalshark

GRABibus said:


> No, it is hwinfo max core vid value for each core.


SVI2 TFN is the real voltage (well as close as you'll get to it via software). Would ignore VID.


----------



## GRABibus

metalshark said:


> SVI2 TFN is the real voltage (well as close as you'll get to it via software). Would ignore VID.


I played again 15 mns :

HWInfo :
max vid vcore whatever the core => 1.481V
Max SVI2 TFN => 1.494V

Formerly, with AMD site drivers, I had max vid vcore whatever the core => 1.513V, so SVI2 RTFN was probably > 1.51 V !!

I keep ASUS one's currently, even if I have lower CBR scores...

I prefer not seeing > 1.5V.


----------



## xeizo

VID is what the cpu is requesting, SVI2 TFN is what it gets

I have no problem with 1.5V to boost single core, as it is within spec from AMD


----------



## m4fox90

Recently upgraded to 5800X and Dark Hero. However, the board, and as a result no software, not HWinfo, not Argus Monitor, not Asus AI Suite nothing, is not recognizing my pump, Optimus Absolute, as anything; the pump is still running, but I believe it's around ~50% because I can't hear anything coming from it and the Optimus has a distinct whine. This is the case no matter which header I plug into, I've tried all of them. 

I keep my fans, 12x Vardar Evos, slaved to the CPU_FAN header.

I'm relatively certain the pump is fine because it worked perfectly and operated through full range of motion, completely controlled and monitored by software, on my former X370 Asrock Taichi.

What fixes should I look for? All software and BIOS are up to date. I'm on Windows 10. I did not do a fresh install of Windows when I switched to this mobo and CPU but I don't think that should matter, and would like to avoid going that route.


----------



## rbys

after reinstalling Windows 10, I noticed that my Cinebench score dropped by ~500 pnts...

Same BIOS settings ofc., I have less background programs running as well (no Razer Synapse etc.)

Not sure what is going on.


----------



## metalshark

GRABibus said:


> I played again 15 mns :
> 
> HWInfo :
> max vid vcore whatever the core => 1.481V
> Max SVI2 TFN => 1.494V
> 
> Formerly, with AMD site drivers, I had max vid vcore whatever the core => 1.513V, so SVI2 RTFN was probably > 1.51 V !!
> 
> I keep ASUS one's currently, even if I have lower CBR scores...
> 
> I prefer not seeing > 1.5V.


Regrettably, you cannot speculate like that for the correlation between VID and SVI2 without testing. Appreciate the logic you're using here, but the results can be counterintuitive. That doesn't mean you're wrong with your assumption, it's just that it might also be better/worse than predicted. For instance, you may see a VID much higher (150mv higher as one example) than SVI2 even on these ASUS boards.


----------



## metalshark

m4fox90 said:


> Recently upgraded to 5800X and Dark Hero. However, the board, and as a result no software, not HWinfo, not Argus Monitor, not Asus AI Suite nothing, is not recognizing my pump, Optimus Absolute, as anything; the pump is still running, but I believe it's around ~50% because I can't hear anything coming from it and the Optimus has a distinct whine. This is the case no matter which header I plug into, I've tried all of them.
> 
> I keep my fans, 12x Vardar Evos, slaved to the CPU_FAN header.
> 
> I'm relatively certain the pump is fine because it worked perfectly and operated through full range of motion, completely controlled and monitored by software, on my former X370 Asrock Taichi.
> 
> What fixes should I look for? All software and BIOS are up to date. I'm on Windows 10. I did not do a fresh install of Windows when I switched to this mobo and CPU but I don't think that should matter, and would like to avoid going that route.


So presumably you've got a Xylem D5 pump with SATA power and a 4 pin PWM fan connector with only the PWM and Tachometer pins connected:








As per page 24/84 of the ASUS manual would look to see if you can make the W_PUMP+ connector Q-Fan Controlled and if not use an unpopulated header that has Q-Fan Control. In the UEFI menu under monitor would check the tachometer is picking up an RPM for the pump (if it's on "Ignore" then set it to be monitored), then have another look in HWinfo. If you want the pump to run at 100% you do not need a Q-Fan Controlled header.


----------



## xeizo

I have the best single core performance when VID and SVI2 TFN are as close as possible, and single core matters the most, multicore obviously benefits from when SVI2 TFN is lower than VID because temps are lower


----------



## th30d0r3

xeizo said:


> I have the best single core performance when VID and SVI2 TFN are as close as possible, and single core matters the most, multicore obviously benefits from when SVI2 TFN is lower than VID because temps are lower


Can you please explain this


----------



## GRABibus

metalshark said:


> Regrettably, you cannot speculate like that for the correlation between VID and SVI2 without testing. Appreciate the logic you're using here, but the results can be counterintuitive. That doesn't mean you're wrong with your assumption, it's just that it might also be better/worse than predicted. For instance, you may see a VID much higher (150mv higher as one example) than SVI2 even on these ASUS boards.





metalshark said:


> Regrettably, you cannot speculate like that for the correlation between VID and SVI2 without testing. Appreciate the logic you're using here, but the results can be counterintuitive. That doesn't mean you're wrong with your assumption, it's just that it might also be better/worse than predicted. For instance, you may see a VID much higher (150mv higher as one example) than SVI2 even on these ASUS boards.


Thanks.
I will not worry about the voltages I see in hwinfo.
I’ll let LLC on auto and my CO offsets as mentionned in my sig.
This works perfectly like this since January.


----------



## xeizo

th30d0r3 said:


> Can you please explain this


It´s just thermals, when a single core boosts it doesn't get that hot and it is cooled by the surrounding silicon, but it needs a lot of voltage to boost high.
If several/all cores boosts at the same time it gets very hot, so the voltage needs to go down a lot to keep thermals in check and the boost will of course be much lower.

If you restrain max voltage the first example, with the single core, wont boost as high. The second example with several cores may possibly boost higher than before because temps are lower as temps are the bottleneck in multi but voltage is the bottleneck in single.


----------



## Sleepycat

GRABibus said:


> I get 1,51V max on some cores during vanguard sessions despite all my negative core offsets and no LLC


The voltage used is based on the clockspeed to voltage tables set for Zen3. If you are getting high voltages with your negative offsets and you are worried about them, then you can reduce from +200 to +150, which will drop the voltages slightly matching the clockspeed/voltage table.

I don't bother with peak single core clocks, since the difference of 50-100MHz at the top end brings only a small benefit to real life applications, especially given the amount of voltage needed to reach those clocks. I prefer to push my all core clocks higher, while managing temperatures. The voltages would be much lower at that point, at about 1.3V for 4.65 to 4.7 GHz, which is good performance for my multithreaded applications.


----------



## GRABibus

Sleepycat said:


> The voltage used is based on the clockspeed to voltage tables set for Zen3. If you are getting high voltages with your negative offsets, then you can reduce from +200 to +150, which will drop the voltages slightly matching the clockspeed/voltage table.


Ok thanks.
Currently I will remain with +200MHz


----------



## rbys

Not too far from a 700 ST score in CPU-Z =/


----------



## xeizo

rbys said:


> View attachment 2531715
> 
> 
> Not too far from a 700 ST score in CPU-Z =/


Nice score, super trimmed Windows though, maybe even safe mode? Still nice score


----------



## rbys

xeizo said:


> Nice score, super trimmed Windows though, maybe even safe mode? Still nice score


I don't use safe mode for benchmarking, maybe I should though? I only have a few things running in the background (corsair icue, msi afterburner, cyberpower ups utility, hwinfo, ).


----------



## sonixmon

shaolin95 said:


> I actually bought the 12900k but I think I am selling it. After watching all reviews over and over I notice that when more apples to apples, things are not that different in real world.
> For instance, even when they show the 12900k beating the 5950x like with Blender B&W test by 8 seconds..that was against a very stock 5950x. Mine with simple PBO and tweaked limits to keep power and temps under control scores 7 seconds faster than the 12900k. And it also scores almost 30k in CB23 vs the 12900 27k.


I don't blame you, I have been hearing a lot more compatibility issues the last few days, reviewers saying 50+ games not compatible and even some apps plus some lose performance over current gen.



GRABibus said:


> 12900K beats 5950X...But needs 150W more than 5950X to do it !


Yes some speculate they pushed it to the max so they could get the gaming crown back. This doesn't leave much room for OCing either.

Been hearing Zen4 is going to be another leapfrog moment for AMD too, Raptor lake looking good too so I will definitely be waiting for those (unless I get a 3D Cache Zen3).


----------



## tommy7600

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2524174
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 3901 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Improve system performance
> 2. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1204
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 3901
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0501


I have noticed that my 5950X is hotter with that revision.


----------



## GRABibus

tommy7600 said:


> I have noticed that my 5950X is hotter with that revision.


This release is buggy (Some locked voltages).
Here we all stay at 3801.


----------



## kx11

A new cumulative update fr Windows 11 dropped


----------



## Kelutrel

kx11 said:


> A new cumulative update fr Windows 11 dropped
> 
> View attachment 2531773


Uhmmm... you got any difference compared to before the patch ?

In my case, the patch did not change anything related to ram performance. The L3 cache bug is also still there.


----------



## des2k...

Kelutrel said:


> Uhmmm... you got any difference compared to before the patch ?
> 
> In my case, the patch did not change anything related to ram performance. The L3 cache bug is also still there.


Just double click those L3 boxes, eventually the cores/cache will wake up and register 100% bandwidth.

After patch the memory read,write went up a bit for me and latency dropped. But could be margin of error. 3900x 3800cl14 with MSI chipset drivers / Ryzen high performance plan.

Windows 10 for example, will have 62.2ns - 62.7ns for latency.

No idea why Windows11 has worst memory latency.


----------



## tommy7600

GRABibus said:


> This release is buggy (Some locked voltages).
> Here we all stay at 3801.


Thanks. I have downgraded to 3801 and everything is OK again


----------



## metalshark

Kelutrel said:


> Uhmmm... you got any difference compared to before the patch ?
> 
> In my case, the patch did not change anything related to ram performance. The L3 cache bug is also still there.


Apparently, the 9th November update KB5007215 OS Build 22000.318 fixes the L3 caching bug November 9, 2021—KB5007215 (OS Build 22000.318) as mentioned 27 seconds into the painful-to-watch video. AIDA64 sees no difference for me before/after on Zen 3 with this update though. I somehow think they're rolling 22000.280 into 22000.318 for those who haven't installed it yet and just mentioning the L3 cache issue all over again hence no difference.


----------



## cluster_edge

PWn3R said:


> Can anyone share what 2x16GB kit they are using with their CPU (looking for someone preferably with 5950x and 1900/3800). Right now I have 4x8 and I need 32GB of RAM, but I really want 1900/3800 and I can't get it with 4 sticks. I was able to boot with 2 sticks at 1900 after some other weirdness. I'm debating trying this:
> 
> *GSKILL F4-4000C18D-32GTZR*


----------



## Kelutrel

cluster_edge said:


> View attachment 2532159


I have a 5900X and run @1900/3800 with 4 sticks of TeamGroup Xtreem 4000C18 that I use at 16-16-16-32 @ 1.35v.


----------



## metalshark

Kelutrel said:


> I have a 5900X and run @1900/3800 with 4 sticks of TeamGroup Xtreem 4000C18 that I use at 16-16-16-32 @ 1.35v.
> 
> View attachment 2532173


Think the OP is looking for 2x16GB DR kits instead of 4x16GB or 4x8GB.

However that's a nice tPHYRDL value, might have to crank up my CLDO VDDP to see if I can get to that.


----------



## Kelutrel

metalshark said:


> Think the OP is looking for 2x16GB DR kits instead of 4x16GB or 4x8GB.
> 
> However that's a nice tPHYRDL value, might have to crank up my CLDO VDDP to see if I can get to that.
> View attachment 2532174


Nice, I would appreciate if you see any obvious high value in my zen timings screenshot that should be worth tweaking/lowering, please let me know


----------



## metalshark

Kelutrel said:


> Nice, I would appreciate if you see any obvious high value in my zen timings screenshot that should be worth tweaking/lowering, please let me know


Despite some of my numbers being lower for timings, the flat timings you’re achieving are a better prospect, as-is the lower tPHYRDL (lack that luxury due to being stuck with a high tRCDRD on this kit).

GDM off would be a major one to aim for whilst keeping a 1T command rate otherwise it’s looking good TBH.

The other 3 lesser ones you might want to tighten (for very minor improvements) would be (but not if tPHYRDL increases):
tRC
tRDRDSD/tRDRDDD
tWRWRSC/tWRWRDD

Once all that’s done if you have time then tRFC but due to needing to run fade tests (is it still holding the same value in RAM minutes later) the time spent vs benefit ratio plummets rapidly.


----------



## shaolin95

Hi all, 
Anyone else running 4x16GB (3200CAS14) can help me tweak this a bit more?


----------



## tolis626

Ok, so, after taking a much needed long vacation, I'm back and I've been watching all the Alder Lake reviews etc. Am I the only one bothered by nigh all reviewers? Especially when talking about the 12900k, the thing consumes like 250W under full load. What Intel has basically done is enable "Multi-core enhancement" by default, so the CPU is like "Hell yeah bro, I'll use all the power!", but no one is commenting on it, just mentioning it like a footnote, like "oh, it consumes a lot of watts, but what can you do?". And not only that, the worst part for me is that no one from the big ones bothered to test AMD with anything other than stock. I don't expect them to tweak for days like we do here for a review, but for crying out loud, just throw some PBO results in there. Worst offender is by far JayzTwoCents. He made a follow-up video to his review about power consumption. So he's comparing a 5900x to a 12900k and sees about 150W more under load on the Intel one. Then he leaves the system to idle and sees higher consumption on the AMD one, and draws the conclusion that oh, Intel may consume more power under load, but AMD consumes more power at idle, so it all balances out. All this time, the Intel rig is a barebones testbench with no extras, while the 5900X is inside a kitted out rig with like 12 fans and enough RGB to light up a small town like it's Christmas. Can he be any more of an idiot? And to top it all off, he runs a TimeSpy CPU bench side by side (which usually favors Intel quite a bit) where the 12900k scores an admittedly amazing 19000+ and the 5900X scores like 11000, and then proceeds to say "well, it may use twice the power but it's almost twice the performance". Meanwhile, my 5900X scores in the 15000-16000 range in the same benchmark.

Ok, rant over. I really wanted these Alder Lake CPUs to be good (and I do consider the i5 and i7 to be good buys) for competition's sake, but stuff like that just grinds my gears. Intel can't seem to help themselves, they have to act shady even when they're faster. After seeing all that, I really hope Zen 3D gets back on top. And I really hope AMD take a page from the Intel rulebook and push these CPUs a bit harder, like maybe 150W stock.

Now, quick question. I sold my old 3800X to a friend, so I was by his place helping him set his rig up. I decided to do a quick PBO tune on the CPU so that he gets the most out of it, but it seems like PBO is bugged or something. He has an Asus B550-E Gaming or some such (and yet I'm asking here, sorry) with the latest BIOS (but I also tried with an older one). When I manually set the PBO limits (both in Extreme Tweaker and AMD Overclocking), it doesn't follow what I set and will instead just use about 110W for PPT. Performance didn't change no matter how high I tried to push it. I also tried disabling FMax Enhancer, but it didn't change the behavior and resulted in slightly lower performance. Any ideas? Anyone had the same issues? 

Thanks and sorry for the wall of text, but I needed to get this out of my system.


----------



## Hilldog

tolis626 said:


> Ok, so, after taking a much needed long vacation, I'm back and I've been watching all the Alder Lake reviews etc. Am I the only one bothered by nigh all reviewers? Especially when talking about the 12900k, the thing consumes like 250W under full load. What Intel has basically done is enable "Multi-core enhancement" by default, so the CPU is like "Hell yeah bro, I'll use all the power!", but no one is commenting on it, just mentioning it like a footnote, like "oh, it consumes a lot of watts, but what can you do?". And not only that, the worst part for me is that no one from the big ones bothered to test AMD with anything other than stock. I don't expect them to tweak for days like we do here for a review, but for crying out loud, just throw some PBO results in there. Worst offender is by far JayzTwoCents. He made a follow-up video to his review about power consumption. So he's comparing a 5900x to a 12900k and sees about 150W more under load on the Intel one. Then he leaves the system to idle and sees higher consumption on the AMD one, and draws the conclusion that oh, Intel may consume more power under load, but AMD consumes more power at idle, so it all balances out. All this time, the Intel rig is a barebones testbench with no extras, while the 5900X is inside a kitted out rig with like 12 fans and enough RGB to light up a small town like it's Christmas. Can he be any more of an idiot? And to top it all off, he runs a TimeSpy CPU bench side by side (which usually favors Intel quite a bit) where the 12900k scores an admittedly amazing 19000+ and the 5900X scores like 11000, and then proceeds to say "well, it may use twice the power but it's almost twice the performance". Meanwhile, my 5900X scores in the 15000-16000 range in the same benchmark.
> 
> Ok, rant over. I really wanted these Alder Lake CPUs to be good (and I do consider the i5 and i7 to be good buys) for competition's sake, but stuff like that just grinds my gears. Intel can't seem to help themselves, they have to act shady even when they're faster. After seeing all that, I really hope Zen 3D gets back on top. And I really hope AMD take a page from the Intel rulebook and push these CPUs a bit harder, like maybe 150W stock.
> 
> Now, quick question. I sold my old 3800X to a friend, so I was by his place helping him set his rig up. I decided to do a quick PBO tune on the CPU so that he gets the most out of it, but it seems like PBO is bugged or something. He has an Asus B550-E Gaming or some such (and yet I'm asking here, sorry) with the latest BIOS (but I also tried with an older one). When I manually set the PBO limits (both in Extreme Tweaker and AMD Overclocking), it doesn't follow what I set and will instead just use about 110W for PPT. Performance didn't change no matter how high I tried to push it. I also tried disabling FMax Enhancer, but it didn't change the behavior and resulted in slightly lower performance. Any ideas? Anyone had the same issues?
> 
> Thanks and sorry for the wall of text, but I needed to get this out of my system.


You said everything I've been thinking, with better wording. So, thankyou for the wall of text. 
They (Jay and others) really did their best to hold back the reins on the 5900. I can get way better numbers without breaking a sweat. 
Disappointed in their seemingly biased results.


----------



## shaolin95

tolis626 said:


> Ok, so, after taking a much needed long vacation, I'm back and I've been watching all the Alder Lake reviews etc. Am I the only one bothered by nigh all reviewers? Especially when talking about the 12900k, the thing consumes like 250W under full load. What Intel has basically done is enable "Multi-core enhancement" by default, so the CPU is like "Hell yeah bro, I'll use all the power!", but no one is commenting on it, just mentioning it like a footnote, like "oh, it consumes a lot of watts, but what can you do?". And not only that, the worst part for me is that no one from the big ones bothered to test AMD with anything other than stock. I don't expect them to tweak for days like we do here for a review, but for crying out loud, just throw some PBO results in there. Worst offender is by far JayzTwoCents. He made a follow-up video to his review about power consumption. So he's comparing a 5900x to a 12900k and sees about 150W more under load on the Intel one. Then he leaves the system to idle and sees higher consumption on the AMD one, and draws the conclusion that oh, Intel may consume more power under load, but AMD consumes more power at idle, so it all balances out. All this time, the Intel rig is a barebones testbench with no extras, while the 5900X is inside a kitted out rig with like 12 fans and enough RGB to light up a small town like it's Christmas. Can he be any more of an idiot? And to top it all off, he runs a TimeSpy CPU bench side by side (which usually favors Intel quite a bit) where the 12900k scores an admittedly amazing 19000+ and the 5900X scores like 11000, and then proceeds to say "well, it may use twice the power but it's almost twice the performance". Meanwhile, my 5900X scores in the 15000-16000 range in the same benchmark.
> 
> Ok, rant over. I really wanted these Alder Lake CPUs to be good (and I do consider the i5 and i7 to be good buys) for competition's sake, but stuff like that just grinds my gears. Intel can't seem to help themselves, they have to act shady even when they're faster. After seeing all that, I really hope Zen 3D gets back on top. And I really hope AMD take a page from the Intel rulebook and push these CPUs a bit harder, like maybe 150W stock.
> 
> Now, quick question. I sold my old 3800X to a friend, so I was by his place helping him set his rig up. I decided to do a quick PBO tune on the CPU so that he gets the most out of it, but it seems like PBO is bugged or something. He has an Asus B550-E Gaming or some such (and yet I'm asking here, sorry) with the latest BIOS (but I also tried with an older one). When I manually set the PBO limits (both in Extreme Tweaker and AMD Overclocking), it doesn't follow what I set and will instead just use about 110W for PPT. Performance didn't change no matter how high I tried to push it. I also tried disabling FMax Enhancer, but it didn't change the behavior and resulted in slightly lower performance. Any ideas? Anyone had the same issues?
> 
> Thanks and sorry for the wall of text, but I needed to get this out of my system.


I actually made a thread about that at hardocp forum and commented that in most videos.
It's just BS. Seeing the 5950 scoring super low in cb23 for example while being handicapped just pissed me off.
Heck I even bought a 12900k during the hype and have it for sale. Never even opened it lol


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

tolis626 said:


> He has an Asus B550-E Gaming or some such


You sure its a Strix B550-E gaming?? My Strix B550F can do 220w on PPT..

Its not just Tech Influencers doing it wrong..some people hyping it over here on OCN as well..lol..massive Asus mother board promotion/teasing, hateful comparisons with the USB issues, all the memory tweaking galore and buy DDR5 and dump your DDR4 and more..

I mean they gotta do business right?? That is how they get sponsored..you get free stuff but you gotta earn it by promoting it..else they're kicking you out of the list over the next release..


----------



## stimpy88

tolis626 said:


> Ok, so, after taking a much needed long vacation, I'm back and I've been watching all the Alder Lake reviews etc. Am I the only one bothered by nigh all reviewers? Especially when talking about the 12900k, the thing consumes like 250W under full load. What Intel has basically done is enable "Multi-core enhancement" by default, so the CPU is like "Hell yeah bro, I'll use all the power!", but no one is commenting on it, just mentioning it like a footnote, like "oh, it consumes a lot of watts, but what can you do?". And not only that, the worst part for me is that no one from the big ones bothered to test AMD with anything other than stock. I don't expect them to tweak for days like we do here for a review, but for crying out loud, just throw some PBO results in there. Worst offender is by far JayzTwoCents. He made a follow-up video to his review about power consumption. So he's comparing a 5900x to a 12900k and sees about 150W more under load on the Intel one. Then he leaves the system to idle and sees higher consumption on the AMD one, and draws the conclusion that oh, Intel may consume more power under load, but AMD consumes more power at idle, so it all balances out. All this time, the Intel rig is a barebones testbench with no extras, while the 5900X is inside a kitted out rig with like 12 fans and enough RGB to light up a small town like it's Christmas. Can he be any more of an idiot? And to top it all off, he runs a TimeSpy CPU bench side by side (which usually favors Intel quite a bit) where the 12900k scores an admittedly amazing 19000+ and the 5900X scores like 11000, and then proceeds to say "well, it may use twice the power but it's almost twice the performance". Meanwhile, my 5900X scores in the 15000-16000 range in the same benchmark.
> 
> Ok, rant over. I really wanted these Alder Lake CPUs to be good (and I do consider the i5 and i7 to be good buys) for competition's sake, but stuff like that just grinds my gears. Intel can't seem to help themselves, they have to act shady even when they're faster. After seeing all that, I really hope Zen 3D gets back on top. And I really hope AMD take a page from the Intel rulebook and push these CPUs a bit harder, like maybe 150W stock.
> 
> Now, quick question. I sold my old 3800X to a friend, so I was by his place helping him set his rig up. I decided to do a quick PBO tune on the CPU so that he gets the most out of it, but it seems like PBO is bugged or something. He has an Asus B550-E Gaming or some such (and yet I'm asking here, sorry) with the latest BIOS (but I also tried with an older one). When I manually set the PBO limits (both in Extreme Tweaker and AMD Overclocking), it doesn't follow what I set and will instead just use about 110W for PPT. Performance didn't change no matter how high I tried to push it. I also tried disabling FMax Enhancer, but it didn't change the behavior and resulted in slightly lower performance. Any ideas? Anyone had the same issues?
> 
> Thanks and sorry for the wall of text, but I needed to get this out of my system.


I think it's safe to assume we feel the same way. There have been some hysterics here from people that own highly optimized 5950x & 5900x systems, with crazy tweaked DDR4 memory, all saying they are jumping ship, because AMD is over, or some other such nonsense. It's been really funny to read these posts.

I have also noticed the TechTuber reactions, as well as the J2C video you mention, I too laughed when he was creaming his pants over how much his Ryzen system used at idle, despite the fact that he had already stated that the AMD system was chock full of stuff, and was a fully built system with water cooling and all the rest, and the Intel system was simple a bare-bones test rig, with nothing attached to it. Some really funny thinking going on in that video, and many fell for it.

I also have noticed the amount of these "reviewers" which had at least 3 different brands/types of DDR5 memory that has been gifted to them from Intel, MSI and others. Many of these "reviewers" owned up to the fact that all this hardware, costing many thousands of Dollars was a gift to keep, and that they were indeed keeping them, and giving them to their editors, camera guys etc. I really struggle to listen to anything these people say after owning up to that fact.

Then we have the whole DDR5 testing debacle, with these YouTubers being given 2 or 3 different kits from various different manufacturers, and cherry picking the best. I'm sorry, but if I was doing this, I would have only used the Motherboard and RAM which was part of the Intel press kit, NOT some cherry picked unobtainuim (but free gifted to them) DDR5 6000 kit. I also would have posted the timings I used, all of them. But hardly any of these TechTubers did. Some of them said something about XMP, but never mentioned if settings were further tweaked from there.

Then we have the whole mess which is Windows 11, and it's bugged by design CPU scheduler. It's still not properly fixed on Ryzen systems, and actually has some minor issues with Intel too, but was unseen due to nobody have the right equipment to test on.. We all could see this coming a mile away, yet here we are, looking at paid Intel reviews on a platform deliberately gimped on AMD, and I qualify the word "deliberate" by the fact that MS knew about this for 3 months before the final shipping version of Windows 11 was released, and they waited until the last second (Intel shipping out the press packs to reviewers) to release the patch, which was nearly 5 months later! 5 months is a long time to have a patch, then release it, and then it's still bugged, yet 5 months was not enough time to fix it...

I'm not saying that the Ryzen is a better CPU, I think the Intel one is, just not enough to spend nearly $1500 on for a single digit performance uptick, some here have already done this and found out the hard way just how powerful Intel's marketing shills are. But a fool and their money etc...

I personally think that the 3D cache version of Ryzen will trade blows, win some, loose some, but for anyone with a Ryzen system already, its going to cost half of what a totally new Intel platform will, and it's available as a drop in replacement, early next year!


----------



## tolis626

Hilldog said:


> You said everything I've been thinking, with better wording. So, thankyou for the wall of text.
> They (Jay and others) really did their best to hold back the reins on the 5900. I can get way better numbers without breaking a sweat.
> Disappointed in their seemingly biased results.


That's what grinds my gears. I mean, just enable PBO for Christ's sake. Do something. I dunno man, I completely lost faith in reviewers. Back when Zen 3 released, they gave Intel every excuse, every benefit of the doubt, even when there was no excuse for them. But they were all more than happy to declare Intel the king, even though they are barely faster and consume twice the power to be so.


shaolin95 said:


> I actually made a thread about that at hardocp forum and commented that in most videos.
> It's just BS. Seeing the 5950 scoring super low in cb23 for example while being handicapped just pissed me off.
> Heck I even bought a 12900k during the hype and have it for sale. Never even opened it lol


Yup, complete and utter BS. They handicap Zen 3 to show single digit improvements over it on AL and then hail it as a win. It's disheartening to see some of the reviewers I actually liked watching shill so hard. I get it, the Intel money is sweet, but at least keep SOME integrity. Just a tiny bit for appearances.


kairi_zeroblade said:


> You sure its a Strix B550-E gaming?? My Strix B550F can do 220w on PPT..
> 
> Its not just Tech Influencers doing it wrong..some people hyping it over here on OCN as well..lol..massive Asus mother board promotion/teasing, hateful comparisons with the USB issues, all the memory tweaking galore and buy DDR5 and dump your DDR4 and more..
> 
> I mean they gotta do business right?? That is how they get sponsored..you get free stuff but you gotta earn it by promoting it..else they're kicking you out of the list over the next release..


It is a Strix B550-E Gaming indeed. It's not that I cannot set it to higher wattages, it's that it won't do it. I know for a fact that that particular 3800x does benefit from a bit more power, but the motherboard just refuses to give it what it needs. No matter what I do, it will consume about 110W. I was curious if anyone has had a similar issue.

As for the Intel issue, I get why motherboard manufacturers jump on the bandwagon. Their profits are in line. They hyped up AMD too, so I can't fault them too much. Anyone else though is pathetic. There wasn't that much hype even when Zen 3 was b!tchslapping Intel's finest.


stimpy88 said:


> I think it's safe to assume we feel the same way. There have been some hysterics here from people that own highly optimized 5950x & 5900x systems, with crazy tweaked DDR4 memory, all saying they are jumping ship, because AMD is over, or some other such nonsense. It's been really funny to read these posts.
> 
> I have also noticed the TechTuber reactions, as well as the J2C video you mention, I too laughed when he was creaming his pants over how much his Ryzen system used at idle, despite the fact that he had already stated that the AMD system was chock full of stuff, and was a fully built system with water cooling and all the rest, and the Intel system was simple a bare-bones test rig, with nothing attached to it. Some really funny thinking going on in that video, and many fell for it.
> 
> I also have noticed the amount of these "reviewers" which had at least 3 different brands/types of DDR5 memory that has been gifted to them from Intel, MSI and others. Many of these "reviewers" owned up to the fact that all this hardware, costing many thousands of Dollars was a gift to keep, and that they were indeed keeping them, and giving them to their editors, camera guys etc. I really struggle to listen to anything these people say after owning up to that fact.
> 
> Then we have the whole DDR5 testing debacle, with these YouTubers being given 2 or 3 different kits from various different manufacturers, and cherry picking the best. I'm sorry, but if I was doing this, I would have only used the Motherboard and RAM which was part of the Intel press kit, NOT some cherry picked unobtainuim (but free gifted to them) DDR5 6000 kit. I also would have posted the timings I used, all of them. But hardly any of these TechTubers did. Some of them said something about XMP, but never mentioned if settings were further tweaked from there.
> 
> Then we have the whole mess which is Windows 11, and it's bugged by design CPU scheduler. It's still not properly fixed on Ryzen systems, and actually has some minor issues with Intel too, but was unseen due to nobody have the right equipment to test on.. We all could see this coming a mile away, yet here we are, looking at paid Intel reviews on a platform deliberately gimped on AMD, and I qualify the word "deliberate" by the fact that MS knew about this for 3 months before the final shipping version of Windows 11 was released, and they waited until the last second (Intel shipping out the press packs to reviewers) to release the patch, which was nearly 5 months later! 5 months is a long time to have a patch, then release it, and then it's still bugged, yet 5 months was not enough time to fix it...
> 
> I'm not saying that the Ryzen is a better CPU, I think the Intel one is, just not enough to spend nearly $1500 on for a single digit performance uptick, some here have already done this and found out the hard way just how powerful Intel's marketing shills are. But a fool and their money etc...
> 
> I personally think that the 3D cache version of Ryzen will trade blows, win some, loose some, but for anyone with a Ryzen system already, its going to cost half of what a totally new Intel platform will, and it's available as a drop in replacement, early next year!


Well, exactly my thoughts, although you're being more civilized about it. 

I've touched on most of your points above, so I'm going to focus on those last few sentences. No, I don't think Alder Lake CPUs are better than Zen 3. Maybe faster, but not better. Are they a step in the right direction? Yes. Are they actually good products? Again, yes. But having a hybrid, supposedly efficient architecture and then having it consume as much power (or sometimes more) as a 32 core Threadripper is absolutely nuts and shouldn't be taken lightly. Zen 3 on the other hand is efficient as hell, even though core counts are insane. I for one wouldn't even consider "upgrading" to an AL CPU. It's not an upgrade at all in my eyes if you have a 5900x or 5950x. I mean, beef up your cooling if you need more performance and then let the AMD CPUs loose, see how that goes. 

I need to stop ranting now. I'm getting angry over stupid things. On another note, either the reading in HWiNFO is wrong, or my CPU just burned itself. The fact that it's working (without me noticing anything weird) points me to the former.


----------



## rbys

What is the performance uplift of PBO + CO? single digit improvement on average?









Cinebench R23: CPU-Ergebnisse mit AMD und Intel


Maxon hat Cinebench R23 veröffentlicht. Wie schnell welcher Prozessor im CPU-Benchmark ist, kann die Community im Schwarm ermitteln.




www.computerbase.de


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

tolis626 said:


> It is a Strix B550-E Gaming indeed. It's not that I cannot set it to higher wattages, it's that it won't do it. I know for a fact that that particular 3800x does benefit from a bit more power, but the motherboard just refuses to give it what it needs. No matter what I do, it will consume about 110W. I was curious if anyone has had a similar issue.


hmm weird, are using PBO for tweaking with advanced settings?


----------



## metalshark

rbys said:


> What is the performance uplift of PBO + CU? single digit improvement on average?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cinebench R23: CPU-Ergebnisse mit AMD und Intel
> 
> 
> Maxon hat Cinebench R23 veröffentlicht. Wie schnell welcher Prozessor im CPU-Benchmark ist, kann die Community im Schwarm ermitteln.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.computerbase.de


PBO+CO? Looking at CB23 it goes from ~21,500 (PBO Off) to ~28,500 (PBO On) to ~30,000 (PBO + CO) to ~32,000 (Hydra). So ~40% faster comparing PBO Off vs PBO + CO. However if you mean the difference between PBO On and PBO + CO that's ~5% difference for me so yes, single-digit. However, the power consumption (especially at idle) is lower and the temperature recovery is much faster in bursty workloads as a result.


----------



## Zogge

Single core will not increase 40% though. More like 10-15% max. Getting over 700 in CPU-Z is not easy if you want multicore to be over 13300 at the same time.
Edit: 5950x watercooled


----------



## tolis626

kairi_zeroblade said:


> hmm weird, are using PBO for tweaking with advanced settings?


Yup, just as I do on my C8H. I won't obey my settings. I even tried just setting PBO to "Enabled" and leaving it at that but nothing, same behavior, 110W. It's really weird. The only thing that seemed to be working/affecting performance was Fmax Enhancer, but that's about it, everything else is ignoring my inputs and just using 110W like it ****.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

tolis626 said:


> Yup, just as I do on my C8H. I won't obey my settings. I even tried just setting PBO to "Enabled" and leaving it at that but nothing, same behavior, 110W. It's really weird. The only thing that seemed to be working/affecting performance was Fmax Enhancer, but that's about it, everything else is ignoring my inputs and just using 110W like it ****.


The behavior seems weird..I came from that exact board before hopping in to the Dark Hero..though like in your case I wasn't able to use it on a Ryzen 3000 processor..


----------



## tolis626

kairi_zeroblade said:


> The behavior seems weird..I came from that exact board before hopping in to the Dark Hero..though like in your case I wasn't able to use it on a Ryzen 3000 processor..


Yeah, super weird. I'm probably missing something obvious, so I'll check it out again when I go to his house. For the time being, I don't care, he gets too much performance for what he's used to already. He used to have a rig with a 6600k and a 1060 in it. He used it for gaming (at 1440p because reasons) and some video editing, so you can imagine that it was painful. Moving to a 3800X + 5700XT was mind blowing for him. Made me realize how spoiled some of us have become. I ***** and whine because my 6900XT can't overclock too much and see his rig's (and by extension, my old rig's, he has the same specs and literally my old CPU) performance and think those are peasant numbers. I'm completely oblivious to the fact that for most people, that is considered high end and is out of reach. But still, I like my 12 cores and my stupidly overpowered GPU.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

tolis626 said:


> But still, I like my 12 cores and my stupidly overpowered GPU.


I feel you..hahahaha..seems we're even blessed to have such compute/gaming power at these dark times..


----------



## rbys

metalshark said:


> PBO+CO? Looking at CB23 it goes from ~21,500 (PBO Off) to ~28,500 (PBO On) to ~30,000 (PBO + CO) to ~32,000 (Hydra). So ~40% faster comparing PBO Off vs PBO + CO. However if you mean the difference between PBO On and PBO + CO that's ~5% difference for me so yes, single-digit. However, the power consumption (especially at idle) is lower and the temperature recovery is much faster in bursty workloads as a result.


more like ~7-10% with PBO on vs off (5900X, 5800X)


----------



## metalshark

rbys said:


> more like ~7-10% with PBO on vs off (5900X, 5800X)


That's really low, are you leaving the limits at default or hitting thermal constraints? The 40% difference here is on a 5950X using CB23 as the benchmark.


----------



## Kelutrel

metalshark said:


> That's really low, are you leaving the limits at default or hitting thermal constraints? The 40% difference here is on a 5950X using CB23 as the benchmark.


7-10% is what I am also seeing between PBO ON+CO vs OFF on my 5900X. In CB20 my cpu goes from roughly 8400+ to 9100+.
Looking at various threads, it looks like a stock 5950X should get 26000+ in CB23 with PBO OFF and probably raise to 30000+ with PBO ON, but I don't have one to verify this. That is just by changing the PBO to Enabled with tuned CO, and no other settings changed.
This also depends from adequate cooling and AGESA version. It should also be considered that zeroing the boost clock will increase the MT score and lower the ST score, while setting it to 200MHz will increase the ST score and lower the MT score.
Imho it would be hard to increase the performances of a 5950X by 40% just by enabling PBO+CO, something else may have happened in your case, and I would be curious to understand.


----------



## metalshark

Kelutrel said:


> 7-10% is what I am also seeing between PBO ON+CO vs OFF on my 5900X. In CB20 my cpu goes from roughly 8400+ to 9100+.
> Looking at various threads, it looks like a stock 5950X should get 26000+ in CB23 with PBO OFF and probably raise to 30000+ with PBO ON, but I don't have one to verify this. That is just by changing the PBO to Enabled with tuned CO, and no other settings changed.
> This also depends from adequate cooling and AGESA version. It should also be considered that zeroing the boost clock will increase the MT score and lower the ST score, while setting it to 200MHz will increase the ST score and lower the MT score.
> Imho it would be hard to increase the performances of a 5950X by 40% just by enabling PBO+CO, something else may have happened in your case, and I would be curious to understand.


Out the box, default settings, back around this time last year was getting only 21,500. Haven't gone back to those settings since. If you took ~26,000 in comparison to ~30,000 you're already in the 15% range (double-digits).


----------



## Kelutrel

metalshark said:


> Out the box, default settings, back around this time last year was getting only 21,500. Haven't gone back to those settings since. If you took ~26,000 in comparison to ~30,000 you're already in the 15% range (double-digits).


I don't have one, but true stock 5950X should be CB23 26000 MT out of the box with BIOS defaults. Maybe anyone can confirm this ?


----------



## metalshark

Kelutrel said:


> I don't have one, but true stock 5950X should be CB23 26000 MT out of the box with BIOS defaults. Maybe anyone can confirm this ?


With it all being stock settings in the UEFI for my base set of benchmarks I may be unfairly conflating stock RAM speeds/timings, etc contributing to that low score.


----------



## GRABibus

Deleted


----------



## shaolin95

Maybe I just have too much crap on the background but I struggle to drop my latency under 61-62 most of the time.
Of course 4x16GB limits how tight I can run timings but any suggestions on what I can tweak ( and YES I need 64GB).


----------



## Kelutrel

shaolin95 said:


> Maybe I just have too much crap on the background but I struggle to drop my latency under 61-62 most of the time.
> Of course 4x16GB limits how tight I can run timings but any suggestions on what I can tweak ( and YES I need 64GB).
> 
> View attachment 2532614



Enable GDM in the BIOS and set CMD2T to 1 (with GDM enabled is probably useless though)
GDM enabled is like having CMD2T set to 1.5T . If you can't have 1T, then GDM is still better than 2T.
Having GDM disabled is worth only if you can get to CMD2T set to 1T.


----------



## shaolin95

Kelutrel said:


> Enable GDM in the BIOS and set CMD2T to 1 (with GDM enabled is probably useless though)
> GDM enabled is like having CMD2T set to 1.5T . If you can't have 1T, then GDM is still better than 2T.
> Having GDM disabled is worth only if you can get to CMD2T set to 1T.


I have tried that before but never noticed much difference.
I did again just in case and same thing:









Maybe a bit higher actually as I cannot even get it to drop under 63 right now


----------



## Kelutrel

shaolin95 said:


> I have tried that before but never noticed much difference.
> I did again just in case and same thing:
> View attachment 2532652
> 
> 
> Maybe a bit higher actually as I cannot even get it to drop under 63 right now


Weird, I lowered my FSB to 1800MHz, and have worse timings than yours, and I am on Win11, but still getting under 60ns...


----------



## shaolin95

Kelutrel said:


> Weird, I lowered my FSB to 1800MHz, and have worse timings than yours, but still getting under 60ns...
> 
> View attachment 2532676


Must be the whole 64GB affecting performance vs 32GB


----------



## sonixmon

tolis626 said:


> Ok, so, after taking a much needed long vacation, I'm back and I've been watching all the Alder Lake reviews etc. Am I the only one bothered by nigh all reviewers? Especially when talking about the 12900k, the thing consumes like 250W under full load. What Intel has basically done is enable "Multi-core enhancement" by default, so the CPU is like "Hell yeah bro, I'll use all the power!", but no one is commenting on it, just mentioning it like a footnote, like "oh, it consumes a lot of watts, but what can you do?". And not only that, the worst part for me is that no one from the big ones bothered to test AMD with anything other than stock. I don't expect them to tweak for days like we do here for a review, but for crying out loud, just throw some PBO results in there. Worst offender is by far JayzTwoCents. He made a follow-up video to his review about power consumption. So he's comparing a 5900x to a 12900k and sees about 150W more under load on the Intel one. Then he leaves the system to idle and sees higher consumption on the AMD one, and draws the conclusion that oh, Intel may consume more power under load, but AMD consumes more power at idle, so it all balances out. All this time, the Intel rig is a barebones testbench with no extras, while the 5900X is inside a kitted out rig with like 12 fans and enough RGB to light up a small town like it's Christmas. Can he be any more of an idiot? And to top it all off, he runs a TimeSpy CPU bench side by side (which usually favors Intel quite a bit) where the 12900k scores an admittedly amazing 19000+ and the 5900X scores like 11000, and then proceeds to say "well, it may use twice the power but it's almost twice the performance". Meanwhile, my 5900X scores in the 15000-16000 range in the same benchmark.
> 
> Ok, rant over. I really wanted these Alder Lake CPUs to be good (and I do consider the i5 and i7 to be good buys) for competition's sake, but stuff like that just grinds my gears. Intel can't seem to help themselves, they have to act shady even when they're faster. After seeing all that, I really hope Zen 3D gets back on top. And I really hope AMD take a page from the Intel rulebook and push these CPUs a bit harder, like maybe 150W stock.
> 
> Now, quick question. I sold my old 3800X to a friend, so I was by his place helping him set his rig up. I decided to do a quick PBO tune on the CPU so that he gets the most out of it, but it seems like PBO is bugged or something. He has an Asus B550-E Gaming or some such (and yet I'm asking here, sorry) with the latest BIOS (but I also tried with an older one). When I manually set the PBO limits (both in Extreme Tweaker and AMD Overclocking), it doesn't follow what I set and will instead just use about 110W for PPT. Performance didn't change no matter how high I tried to push it. I also tried disabling FMax Enhancer, but it didn't change the behavior and resulted in slightly lower performance. Any ideas? Anyone had the same issues?
> 
> Thanks and sorry for the wall of text, but I needed to get this out of my system.


I am with you 100% and have lost respect for a few of the reviewers. Everyone knows that Intel pushed the 12 series as far as they could to get the gamming crown back. Did not care about wattage and allowed temps to run up to max (similar to AMD). I get that these companies are back and forth but when reviewing these things should be considered.

I have also seen a few of the same reviewers work on OC and say basically Intel maxed them out to 90% already so you likely wont gain more than 5-10% so don't bother overclocking! They are basically factory overclocked and that could affect longevity of the chips down the road. Zen3 is pushed pretty hard too but clearly there is headroom to OC and undervolt.

Just glad I upgraded when I did, hoping to grab a 3D Cache CPU maybe but I am prepared to wait 2-3 years for Zen4 or next Gen Intel which is speculated to be even better.

The good thing for us is at least there is competition again!


----------



## shaolin95

sonixmon said:


> I am with you 100% and have lost respect for a few of the reviewers. Everyone knows that Intel pushed the 12 series as far as they could to get the gamming crown back. Did not care about wattage and allowed temps to run up to max (similar to AMD). I get that these companies are back and forth but when reviewing these things should be considered.
> 
> I have also seen a few of the same reviewers work on OC and say basically Intel maxed them out to 90% already so you likely wont gain more than 5-10% so don't bother overclocking! They are basically factory overclocked and that could affect longevity of the chips down the road. Zen3 is pushed pretty hard too but clearly there is headroom to OC and undervolt.
> 
> Just glad I upgraded when I did, hoping to grab a 3D Cache CPU maybe but I am prepared to wait 2-3 years for Zen4 or next Gen Intel which is speculated to be even better.
> 
> The good thing for us is at least there is competition again!


If 3D cache makes a good difference I plan to switch to Dark Hero when I upgrade and maybe change my cooler to the Artic 420mm


----------



## GRABibus

sonixmon said:


> I am with you 100% and have lost respect for a few of the reviewers. Everyone knows that Intel pushed the 12 series as far as they could to get the gamming crown back. Did not care about wattage and allowed temps to run up to max (similar to AMD). I get that these companies are back and forth but when reviewing these things should be considered.
> 
> I have also seen a few of the same reviewers work on OC and say basically Intel maxed them out to 90% already so you likely wont gain more than 5-10% so don't bother overclocking! They are basically factory overclocked and that could affect longevity of the chips down the road. Zen3 is pushed pretty hard too but clearly there is headroom to OC and undervolt.
> 
> Just glad I upgraded when I did, hoping to grab a 3D Cache CPU maybe but I am prepared to wait 2-3 years for Zen4 or next Gen Intel which is speculated to be even better.
> 
> The good thing for us is at least there is competition again!


 I think Zen4 will be the best way to go, at least to see a big performance bump versus Zen3.
It will support DDR5 which will have been improved in one year (better timings, etc….), PCIe 5,…

I will probably wait for Zen4 and won’t grab a Zen 3d Vcache.


----------



## sonixmon

metalshark said:


> If you get no benefit to IOD over 1.05 then FWIW on mine it was vSoC and CCD I needed for graphics hitches (stuttering) and USB dropouts. Could run vSoC as low as 1.0625 passing stability tests but needed 1.1875 to prevent any hitches. USB issues stopped lower at ~1.12 (but still had occasional frame drops). CCD needed 0.95 for the same. PLL 1.87 too for other occasional system weirdness and to get full RAM bandwidth. YMMV this is a 5950X running at 3800/1900 for RAM with an Ampere card. SB is at 1.00, many reported going to 1.05 helps, but I’ve not experienced that personally and for my system made no difference.


I went up slightly to 1.11525 and stuttering almost completely gone. Now trying 1.11875 as you recommended to see if it clears up all together.
No USB issues either but I have been home so daily using PC (no 2 days off for PC LOL).


----------



## tolis626

sonixmon said:


> I am with you 100% and have lost respect for a few of the reviewers. Everyone knows that Intel pushed the 12 series as far as they could to get the gamming crown back. Did not care about wattage and allowed temps to run up to max (similar to AMD). I get that these companies are back and forth but when reviewing these things should be considered.
> 
> I have also seen a few of the same reviewers work on OC and say basically Intel maxed them out to 90% already so you likely wont gain more than 5-10% so don't bother overclocking! They are basically factory overclocked and that could affect longevity of the chips down the road. Zen3 is pushed pretty hard too but clearly there is headroom to OC and undervolt.
> 
> Just glad I upgraded when I did, hoping to grab a 3D Cache CPU maybe but I am prepared to wait 2-3 years for Zen4 or next Gen Intel which is speculated to be even better.
> 
> The good thing for us is at least there is competition again!


Well, AMD has at least been smart about "pushing" their CPUs. Don't forget, as much as we consider these CPUs pushed, there's 12 and 16 cores running at 125W stock, and that 125W is respected by the hardware, unlike Intel which is like "yeah, it's a 125W TDP CPU... Totally... Mostly...Just trust me dude". Thing is, what Intel has done is the same as AMD having PBO enabled with much higher limits by default. And no one's calling them out for it. Hell, no one even mentions it, like they're totally ok with it, it seems. Lots of respect earned after years gone in one one day. It was sad to see.

As for V-cache CPUs... I dunno. If the only difference is v-cache, I will PROBABLY skip them. The 5900x is not only good enough for what I do, it's massively, stupidly overkill. But I suspect that these CPUs will be better clockers too, if the stacked cache doesn't interfere with thermals. They've had an extra year to refine their manufacturing process, so we could also be seeing a newer stepping and more efficient/higher clocking chips. And, as I've said before, AMD would be smart to push these things harder out of the box. Not obscenely so, so that they retain their efficiency crown (which is honestly impossible to lose right now, even TR consumes less power than the 12900k), just a tad. Maybe raise TDP to like 150-175W for the top end chips. Maybe do 105W 5600X 3D, 125W 5800X 3D, 150W 5900X 3D and 175W 5950X 3D. That would be great IMO.

Lastly, competition is great, yes, but AMD need to take a page from Intel's and NVidia's books and learn to play dirty. One great example is the Intel sponsorships for LTT. They sponsor massive projects with very expensive prizes for all their staff etc. Whereas the only few AMD sponsored videos were some mediocre, forced feeling build guides. They should further their reach in the YouTuber space, make more friends among these clowns. Why I say clowns? As much as I hate what they did with 12th gen, if you read between the lines and watch the details of their videos, most of them have shifted their personal rigs and mission critical equipment such as servers to Ryzen/Threadripper/EPYC. They know what's better all around. But saying so won't make them any extra money, now, will it?


----------



## tcclaviger

metalshark said:


> Out the box, default settings, back around this time last year was getting only 21,500. Haven't gone back to those settings since. If you took ~26,000 in comparison to ~30,000 you're already in the 15% range (double-digits).


21,000 stock 5950x is abnormally low, so getting 30k would indeed be a 40% increase over where it was, but where it was happened to not be correct. No fault on the owner, sometimes bios defaults are not great (basically always) and it may have set something really weird, or been highly thermally constrained. 

Normal 5950x is as mentioned 26k-27k, between there. Hitting 32000+ is quite possible using DoS and PBO+CO, still a very respectable 19% increase for owners that can achieve it, though I'd guess most will stop at 29,500-30,000 due to thermals, achievable as mentioned with CO only, no DoS necessary.


----------



## J7SC

metalshark said:


> With it all being stock settings in the UEFI for my base set of benchmarks I may be unfairly conflating stock RAM speeds/timings, etc contributing to that low score.


...my w-cooled 5950X on CH8 Dark (w/IF 1900 / DDR4 3800 CL14) typically comes in at low to mid 28k in CB23...max on water w/ dynamic oc without going too crazy is around 32.4k, per spoiler...

Incidentally, re. 2nd pic: Why have one CH8 in your case when you can have two (work-play build) ?


Spoiler


----------



## blunden

tolis626 said:


> Well, AMD has at least been smart about "pushing" their CPUs. Don't forget, as much as we consider these CPUs pushed, there's 12 and 16 cores running at 125W stock, and that 125W is respected by the hardware, unlike Intel which is like "yeah, it's a 125W TDP CPU... Totally... Mostly...Just trust me dude". Thing is, what Intel has done is the same as AMD having PBO enabled with much higher limits by default. And no one's calling them out for it. Hell, no one even mentions it, like they're totally ok with it, it seems. Lots of respect earned after years gone in one one day. It was sad to see.
> 
> As for V-cache CPUs... I dunno. If the only difference is v-cache, I will PROBABLY skip them. The 5900x is not only good enough for what I do, it's massively, stupidly overkill. But I suspect that these CPUs will be better clockers too, if the stacked cache doesn't interfere with thermals. They've had an extra year to refine their manufacturing process, so we could also be seeing a newer stepping and more efficient/higher clocking chips. And, as I've said before, AMD would be smart to push these things harder out of the box. Not obscenely so, so that they retain their efficiency crown (which is honestly impossible to lose right now, even TR consumes less power than the 12900k), just a tad. Maybe raise TDP to like 150-175W for the top end chips. Maybe do 105W 5600X 3D, 125W 5800X 3D, 150W 5900X 3D and 175W 5950X 3D. That would be great IMO.
> 
> Lastly, competition is great, yes, but AMD need to take a page from Intel's and NVidia's books and learn to play dirty. One great example is the Intel sponsorships for LTT. They sponsor massive projects with very expensive prizes for all their staff etc. Whereas the only few AMD sponsored videos were some mediocre, forced feeling build guides. They should further their reach in the YouTuber space, make more friends among these clowns. Why I say clowns? As much as I hate what they did with 12th gen, if you read between the lines and watch the details of their videos, most of them have shifted their personal rigs and mission critical equipment such as servers to Ryzen/Threadripper/EPYC. They know what's better all around. But saying so won't make them any extra money, now, will it?


 Yes, AMD has been smarter in the way they push their CPUs. For the rest of you post, I'm not sure what you are talking about. Most reviewers pointed out the massive difference in power draw of the 12900K under a sustained all-core load (often multiple times) but also accurately noted that it only affects the 12900K (clearly it was pushed too high by Intel, hence the terrible efficiency and why the 12700K and below don't have that issue), and isn't an issue in practice during gaming (which is what matters to a huge chunk of their audience). What Intel has done is make running at PL2 all the time as a default configuration more explicitly OK, but that was a very common default setting already as motherboard manufacturers were allowed to deviate from Intel's recommended specs.

Most Youtubers, or "clowns" as you call them, have been touting the benefits of Ryzen/Threadripper/EPYC time and time again. To be honest, I'm not sure how you were able to miss that. Although, keep in mind that they switched to Ryzen for their personal rigs months before Alder Lake was released. TR and EPYC are still unmatched by anything Intel has to offer though. They have also called Intel out on several occations for different reasons.

Also, testing shows that Alder Lake is objectively better in terms of raw performance at default settings (PL2 all the time is part of the official Intel spec now) in the benchmarks used, so of course the reviewers will say so and be excited about it. Ignoring the 12900K, Alder Lake legitimately offers reasonably similar efficiency but higher performance at a lower price (the higher motherboard prices tend to eat up those cost saving though, at least until B660 early next year).

To be honest, your last few posts seem very biased towards AMD. Do we all love what AMD has done with Ryzen, yes. I'm personally going for either a cheap 5900X (if I can find one before my 3900X drops too much in value), or the 3D V-cache equivalent. That doesn't mean that Alder Lake isn't (finally!) a very compatitive platform that currently holds the performance crown at several price points in many, but not all, applications. If you try to be objective, and ignore the 12900K, you will see that. 

The huge number of people on previous gen Ryzen processors who can simply make a CPU upgrade without doing a platform swap means that Ryzen 5000 and/or 6000 (or whatever the 3d V-cache models end up being called) will be a better purchase for lots of people, even if AMD doesn't adjust the price of the 5000 series until early next year.


----------



## metalshark

J7SC said:


> ...my w-cooled 5950X on CH8 Dark (w/IF 1900 / DDR4 3800 CL14) typically comes in at low to mid 28k in CB23...max on water w/ dynamic oc without going too crazy is around 32.4k, per spoiler...
> 
> Incidentally, re. 2nd pic: Why have one CH8 in your case when you can have two (work-play build) ?
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2532733
> 
> 
> View attachment 2532734


I believe the OP is looking for difference with/without PBO+CO not dynamic OC.


----------



## J7SC

metalshark said:


> I believe the OP is looking for difference with/without PBO+CO not dynamic OC.


...oh, ok. The first set of numbers I gave (low to mid 28k) was with PBO and fmax, but no curve optimizer...the 32k+ was with dynamic OC (no curve optimizer).


----------



## tcclaviger

With PBO+CO but no DOS 30400 should be the upper area, more typical is 29300 or so, mostly temperature dependant.


----------



## tolis626

blunden said:


> Yes, AMD has been smarter in the way they push their CPUs. For the rest of you post, I'm not sure what you are talking about. Most reviewers pointed out the massive difference in power draw of the 12900K under a sustained all-core load (often multiple times) but also accurately noted that it only affects the 12900K (clearly it was pushed too high by Intel, hence the terrible efficiency and why the 12700K and below don't have that issue), and isn't an issue in practice during gaming (which is what matters to a huge chunk of their audience). What Intel has done is make running at PL2 all the time as a default configuration more explicitly OK, but that was a very common default setting already as motherboard manufacturers were allowed to deviate from Intel's recommended specs.
> 
> Most Youtubers, or "clowns" as you call them, have been touting the benefits of Ryzen/Threadripper/EPYC time and time again. To be honest, I'm not sure how you were able to miss that. Although, keep in mind that they switched to Ryzen for their personal rigs months before Alder Lake was released. TR and EPYC are still unmatched by anything Intel has to offer though. They have also called Intel out on several occations for different reasons.
> 
> Also, testing shows that Alder Lake is objectively better in terms of raw performance at default settings (PL2 all the time is part of the official Intel spec now) in the benchmarks used, so of course the reviewers will say so and be excited about it. Ignoring the 12900K, Alder Lake legitimately offers reasonably similar efficiency but higher performance at a lower price (the higher motherboard prices tend to eat up those cost saving though, at least until B660 early next year).
> 
> To be honest, your last few posts seem very biased towards AMD. Do we all love what AMD has done with Ryzen, yes. I'm personally going for either a cheap 5900X (if I can find one before my 3900X drops too much in value), or the 3D V-cache equivalent. That doesn't mean that Alder Lake isn't (finally!) a very compatitive platform that currently holds the performance crown at several price points in many, but not all, applications. If you try to be objective, and ignore the 12900K, you will see that.
> 
> The huge number of people on previous gen Ryzen processors who can simply make a CPU upgrade without doing a platform swap means that Ryzen 5000 and/or 6000 (or whatever the 3d V-cache models end up being called) will be a better purchase for lots of people, even if AMD doesn't adjust the price of the 5000 series until early next year.


I tend to get angrier than I should about stuff like this, but it really ground my gears a lot. It's not that they don't mention the power consumption of Alder Lake, it's that they downplay its significance (A cheaper board will NOT be able to offer 250W sustained, nor will a non-overkill cooling solution be able to dissipate that much heat) and that they resorted to many BS reasons as to why the results are the way they are, without ever letting AMD CPUs stretch their legs. I never claimed Alder Lake isn't a good arch, and like you I consider the 12600k and 12700k (the i5 more so) actually good products (although dumb choices right now if you go with an expensive mb and DDR5, but that's not the CPU's fault and will change soon), it's just that the differences in performance aren't massive like some of the reviews claim they are (again, worst offender was JayzTwoCents).

What I'm calling some of them clowns for, is that it's obvious, to me at least, that there's some profit to be made for them from all of this. They never cheered for AMD. Should they have? No. They tended to be more critical and objective, like they should be. But declaring that Intel is back on top and being the king and all that when really, all this is is a return to competitiveness rubs me wrong. And when I was referring to their personal rigs and work machines, I wasn't talking about Zen 3 vs Alder Lake, I should've been more clear. This whole year, we've seen countless videos with 10th and 11th gen Intel builds, giveaways, custom rigs, always praising Intel's products in some aspect (at least 11th gen reviews were what they should be, worst product line after Bulldozer) and pushing them hard to consumers, while they themselves use Ryzen. That, to me, shows biases at best and at worst monetary incentives being involved. Having a user like you or me be biased is one thing, but as reviewers, they have the obligation to not be obviously biased towards anything.

I dunno man, maybe I'm reading too much into this and caring more than I should. I'm not biased, as much as it may seem so sometimes (Although I will admit I'm heavily biased against NVidia, but that's another story altogether). My previous system was Intel based and I loved it. But after years of them serving us a reheated 4-core plate and calling a 5% improvement at best a breakthrough, I got fed up and wanted to see them fail for a while, just so that they get their act together. And it seems they're on track, what with Pat Gelsinger being the CEO now instead of the corporate suits of yesteryear. I honestly believe we'll see great things from both Intel and AMD in the coming years and I'm very excited as an enthusiast. In fact, I haven't been so excited since the first dual core CPUs came to market. But I want to see that battle fought with products, having the superior one come out on top because of its technical aspects, not because of silly shady marketing. Sadly, money talks and Intel still has a lot more of it than AMD does. Something tells me AMD will have to stay ahead for quite a while until we can really see a level playing field. They need to make a lot more money to be able to pull the stunts Intel does (Like the "Intel Extreme Rig upgrade" series).

With all that said, I'll go a little off topic and show my true bias here. I hope Intel succeeds in their GPU efforts big time, because they have the financial means to backhand slap NVidia right in the face. Radeon wouldn't be able to do it even with a superior product because of NVidia's vastly bigger cash coffers, shady at best tactics and relentless marketing machine. Intel on the other hand has the financial firepower to go head to head with them where it hurts most, and isn't a stranger to swaying people's opinions away from what should matter. Intel sometimes just doesn't play 100% fair, I don't like it but I get it. AMD wouldn't either if they had the means, let's not fool ourselves. NVidia, however, is straight up evil in my eyes. And if they have their way, we'll soon be paying 1000$ for a XX60 class of card because they will have bought in so deep into gaming development that these games won't even run on hardware other than theirs. They tried to do it with G-Sync, they tried with RT, they tried with that graphics effects pack of theirs whose name I don't remember, and they're gonna try again.


----------



## blunden

tolis626 said:


> I tend to get angrier than I should about stuff like this, but it really ground my gears a lot. It's not that they don't mention the power consumption of Alder Lake, it's that they downplay its significance (A cheaper board will NOT be able to offer 250W sustained, nor will a non-overkill cooling solution be able to dissipate that much heat) and that they resorted to many BS reasons as to why the results are the way they are, without ever letting AMD CPUs stretch their legs. I never claimed Alder Lake isn't a good arch, and like you I consider the 12600k and 12700k (the i5 more so) actually good products (although dumb choices right now if you go with an expensive mb and DDR5, but that's not the CPU's fault and will change soon), it's just that the differences in performance aren't massive like some of the reviews claim they are (again, worst offender was JayzTwoCents).


 Most Z690 boards available have really overkill VRMs though so it's not a problem for most boards available right now, although that might change early next year. I wouldn't be surprised if we see people starting to have VRM throttling issues on some cheaper B660 boards when paired with the 12900K. Most people buying those are likely to be using 12700K or lower though, where that won't be a problem. Also, when gaming it doesn't really matter since power consumption is much more reasonable on the 12900K when not running a max load. Could some of them have made a bigger deal out of it than they did? Sure. Did several of them point it out as a downside and at least some of them explicitly mention that it ran blazing hot on even an NH-D15? Also yes. 

If you want them to compare the 12900K to an overclocked (any non-stock configuration) 5000 series, that would be a separate test. You can't compare one overclocked vs. another running stock. Additionally, all these launch day reviews are produced under intense time pressure, and Intel or a motherboard manufacturer might drop a new driver or BIOS update at the last minute, invalidating all that work days before the embargo lift. That's why you always see more in-depth content coming out as separate videos days after the embargo lift. In this case, I seem to recall one of the youtubers mentioning that they were unable to even get the 6000 MT/s DDR5 sticks stable in time for benchmarking. For all that testing to be possible before embargo lift, the manufacturers would have to provide finished samples to reviewers much earlier than they do now, which they really have very little incentive to do as there is always a risk that some issues are discovered that end up hurting sales.



tolis626 said:


> What I'm calling some of them clowns for, is that it's obvious, to me at least, that there's some profit to be made for them from all of this. They never cheered for AMD. Should they have? No. They tended to be more critical and objective, like they should be. But declaring that Intel is back on top and being the king and all that when really, all this is is a return to competitiveness rubs me wrong. And when I was referring to their personal rigs and work machines, I wasn't talking about Zen 3 vs Alder Lake, I should've been more clear. This whole year, we've seen countless videos with 10th and 11th gen Intel builds, giveaways, custom rigs, always praising Intel's products in some aspect (at least 11th gen reviews were what they should be, worst product line after Bulldozer) and pushing them hard to consumers, while they themselves use Ryzen. That, to me, shows biases at best and at worst monetary incentives being involved. Having a user like you or me be biased is one thing, but as reviewers, they have the obligation to not be obviously biased towards anything.


 All that "cheering" comes in the form of some kind of sponsorship or similar where Intel provides the hardware or pays for a showcase or something like that. It is usually clearly mentioned and very obvious. The only time they make recommendations are in the reviews, and there they almost always recommended either Ryzen 5000 series for performance or certain Intel 10th gen SKUs if strictly focusing on performance/dollar. Don't forget that Gamers Nexus called Intel's 11th gen "a waste of sand". Others like Hardware Unboxed have repeated that Intel 11th gen are a bad purchase every chance they get, wondering why Intel even bothered releasing it. Hardly glowing praise. 



tolis626 said:


> I dunno man, maybe I'm reading too much into this and caring more than I should. I'm not biased, as much as it may seem so sometimes (Although I will admit I'm heavily biased against NVidia, but that's another story altogether). My previous system was Intel based and I loved it. But after years of them serving us a reheated 4-core plate and calling a 5% improvement at best a breakthrough, I got fed up and wanted to see them fail for a while, just so that they get their act together. And it seems they're on track, what with Pat Gelsinger being the CEO now instead of the corporate suits of yesteryear. I honestly believe we'll see great things from both Intel and AMD in the coming years and I'm very excited as an enthusiast. In fact, I haven't been so excited since the first dual core CPUs came to market. But I want to see that battle fought with products, having the superior one come out on top because of its technical aspects, not because of silly shady marketing. Sadly, money talks and Intel still has a lot more of it than AMD does. Something tells me AMD will have to stay ahead for quite a while until we can really see a level playing field. They need to make a lot more money to be able to pull the stunts Intel does (Like the "Intel Extreme Rig upgrade" series).


 Yes, I also bought my old Ryzen 1000 series platform despite it not performing as well in all workloads as Intel's current platform did at least partially because I wanted to support an effort to actually move the consumer segment forward. Before that I had a Sandy Bridge system.

Yeah, Intel has all the financial muscle unfortunately so it's no wonder that they sponsor as much stuff as they can. I also agree that they don't always play fair.



tolis626 said:


> With all that said, I'll go a little off topic and show my true bias here. I hope Intel succeeds in their GPU efforts big time, because they have the financial means to backhand slap NVidia right in the face. Radeon wouldn't be able to do it even with a superior product because of NVidia's vastly bigger cash coffers, shady at best tactics and relentless marketing machine. Intel on the other hand has the financial firepower to go head to head with them where it hurts most, and isn't a stranger to swaying people's opinions away from what should matter. Intel sometimes just doesn't play 100% fair, I don't like it but I get it. AMD wouldn't either if they had the means, let's not fool ourselves. NVidia, however, is straight up evil in my eyes. And if they have their way, we'll soon be paying 1000$ for a XX60 class of card because they will have bought in so deep into gaming development that these games won't even run on hardware other than theirs. They tried to do it with G-Sync, they tried with RT, they tried with that graphics effects pack of theirs whose name I don't remember, and they're gonna try again.


 Yes, we need more competition in the GPU space for sure, and that requires a company with really deep pockets.


----------



## xeizo

blunden said:


> Yes, we need more competition in the GPU space for sure, and that requires a company with really deep pockets.


They don't really have to compete on price, as long as miners buys all the cards being produced regardless of price, both Bitcoin and Ethereum has set new records last week and both curves are pointing straight up ....
Only thing being able to slow things down is when Proof of Stake is being implemented, in the middle of next year at the earliest. But they said the same a year ago.

People will soon loose interest in cpus and motherboards, since they can't buy any graphics anyways


----------



## rbys

metalshark said:


> That's really low, are you leaving the limits at default or hitting thermal constraints? The 40% difference here is on a 5950X using CB23 as the benchmark.


23300 / 21400 = 1.09

Normal result from everything that I've seen online and my own experience.

It makes sense that the 5950X can be clocked higher (better quality bin) but for most of us 7-10% seems about right for Ryzen w/ PBO2 + CU.

If you're getting a 40% increase with a 5950X your base score is way too low. ~21000 points in Cinebench R23 is what you get with a stock 5900X.


----------



## tolis626

blunden said:


> Most Z690 boards available have really overkill VRMs though so it's not a problem for most boards available right now, although that might change early next year. I wouldn't be surprised if we see people starting to have VRM throttling issues on some cheaper B660 boards when paired with the 12900K. Most people buying those are likely to be using 12700K or lower though, where that won't be a problem. Also, when gaming it doesn't really matter since power consumption is much more reasonable on the 12900K when not running a max load. Could some of them have made a bigger deal out of it than they did? Sure. Did several of them point it out as a downside and at least some of them explicitly mention that it ran blazing hot on even an NH-D15? Also yes.
> 
> If you want them to compare the 12900K to an overclocked (any non-stock configuration) 5000 series, that would be a separate test. You can't compare one overclocked vs. another running stock. Additionally, all these launch day reviews are produced under intense time pressure, and Intel or a motherboard manufacturer might drop a new driver or BIOS update at the last minute, invalidating all that work days before the embargo lift. That's why you always see more in-depth content coming out as separate videos days after the embargo lift. In this case, I seem to recall one of the youtubers mentioning that they were unable to even get the 6000 MT/s DDR5 sticks stable in time for benchmarking. For all that testing to be possible before embargo lift, the manufacturers would have to provide finished samples to reviewers much earlier than they do now, which they really have very little incentive to do as there is always a risk that some issues are discovered that end up hurting sales.
> 
> All that "cheering" comes in the form of some kind of sponsorship or similar where Intel provides the hardware or pays for a showcase or something like that. It is usually clearly mentioned and very obvious. The only time they make recommendations are in the reviews, and there they almost always recommended either Ryzen 5000 series for performance or certain Intel 10th gen SKUs if strictly focusing on performance/dollar. Don't forget that Gamers Nexus called Intel's 11th gen "a waste of sand". Others like Hardware Unboxed have repeated that Intel 11th gen are a bad purchase every chance they get, wondering why Intel even bothered releasing it. Hardly glowing praise.
> 
> Yes, I also bought my old Ryzen 1000 series platform despite it not performing as well in all workloads as Intel's current platform did at least partially because I wanted to support an effort to actually move the consumer segment forward. Before that I had a Sandy Bridge system.
> 
> Yeah, Intel has all the financial muscle unfortunately so it's no wonder that they sponsor as much stuff as they can. I also agree that they don't always play fair.
> 
> Yes, we need more competition in the GPU space for sure, and that requires a company with really deep pockets.


Well, I see your points. Maybe I went too hard on them in my rants, maybe I expected too much of them or maybe it's even worse than I said and they're all practically Intel employees. I can't know that. But as much sense as all you said makes, I can't help but get the feeling that they at least approached it wrong. For some, like LTT, I can think of a lot of excuses for. They were open about what they got and when, and Linus was more excited about a return to competition rather than the product itself. Reminded me of Ryzen 3000's launch. Others, though, not so much, with the worst example for me being JayzTwoCents, as I've said before. His approach to all of this shows that he either is clearly biased (either personally or because there's money involved) or that he's got no idea what he's talking about. I want to believe it's the latter. In fact, I'm sure the latter is true, the dude still clearly has no idea about many things he poses as an expert for, just watch when he talks about IPC.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those types that will scream and whine in comments about everything and call them out for no reason. This is actually the first time I'm so frustrated. I understand that there's time constraints etc for a review. I don't think it's fine that they did it how they did it, because most non-enthusiasts will only check the launch day reviews and form a decision, so if the review says one thing, that's all they'll know. Least I think they should've done is just go in the BIOS, remove most limits, retest and just post these results. That's gonna take them very little time and will add valuable information to the review. I'm not saying that they should compare a bone stock 12900k to a heavily overclocked 5900X. But having a no holds barred test where both chips are allowed to give their best performance was necessary IMO. They didn't do it for the review, like I think they absolutely should, but they didn't do it for a seperate video either. And I guarantee you there's gonna be Alder Lake build videos galore in the near future. Which I'm not against, they gotta milk a launch for all the content it can provide them, but I'm quite sure none of these videos will be what I said above, a comparison where they compare the best each family has to offer. They should go nuts, overclock the core, the memory, increase power limits etc. They've done it before, I'm sure they can do it again.

Now that I think of it, I haven't watched Gamers Nexus' review. I love their work and I trust Steve to be brutally objective and honest. But I'm quite sure I'll end up disappointed there too if they only include stock numbers, even though they've done, like, all the testing for every CPU they have. I hope I'm wrong. I haven't watched their video because, let's be honest, it's not a pleasure watch, but rather a "I wanna know every boring detail" one. 

Regarding 11th gen, I really laughed with GN's review. "A waste of sand", such a brutal comment, I loved it. 

As for GPUs, what we need is either a successful Intel GPU program so that Intel can serve NVidia their own medicine, or that AMD's success continues so that they become able to do it themselves. Whatever the case, I'd love to see a third player enter the arena, regardless of who it is. NVidia has been left unchecked for too long, it's time someone slaps some dignity into them.


----------



## blunden

xeizo said:


> They don't really have to compete on price, as long as miners buys all the cards being produced regardless of price, both Bitcoin and Ethereum has set new records last week and both curves are pointing straight up ....
> Only thing being able to slow things down is when Proof of Stake is being implemented, in the middle of next year at the earliest. But they said the same a year ago.
> 
> People will soon loose interest in cpus and motherboards, since they can't buy any graphics anyways


 Yeah, that's unfortunately the case.

Not to worry though. Miners will soon buy up all the Ryzen CPUs too. 









Crypto Miners Driving High Demand for AMD CPUs with Big L3 Caches - ExtremeTech


Now that crypto miners and their scalping ilk have succeeded in taking all of our precious GPU stock, it appears they’re now setting their sights on one more thing gamers cherish: the AMD CPU supply. According to a report in the UK’s Bitcoin Press, part of the reason it’s so hard to find a...




www.extremetech.com









tolis626 said:


> Well, I see your points. Maybe I went too hard on them in my rants, maybe I expected too much of them or maybe it's even worse than I said and they're all practically Intel employees. I can't know that. But as much sense as all you said makes, I can't help but get the feeling that they at least approached it wrong. For some, like LTT, I can think of a lot of excuses for. They were open about what they got and when, and Linus was more excited about a return to competition rather than the product itself. Reminded me of Ryzen 3000's launch. Others, though, not so much, with the worst example for me being JayzTwoCents, as I've said before. His approach to all of this shows that he either is clearly biased (either personally or because there's money involved) or that he's got no idea what he's talking about. I want to believe it's the latter. In fact, I'm sure the latter is true, the dude still clearly has no idea about many things he poses as an expert for, just watch when he talks about IPC.


 I find that it's fairly obvious when something is a review and when something is sponsored in some way. Usually it's explicitly mentioned. You need to make a distinction between reviews and other content.

I didn't watch Jay's video since I don't find his reviews as good as some of the other creators, and I agree that his technical knowledge tends to be more limited. He is better at making show builds, case mods, etc. rather than the more technical details. Overall, I'd say he's more of an entertainer than a reviewer.



tolis626 said:


> Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those types that will scream and whine in comments about everything and call them out for no reason. This is actually the first time I'm so frustrated. I understand that there's time constraints etc for a review. I don't think it's fine that they did it how they did it, because most non-enthusiasts will only check the launch day reviews and form a decision, so if the review says one thing, that's all they'll know. Least I think they should've done is just go in the BIOS, remove most limits, retest and just post these results. That's gonna take them very little time and will add valuable information to the review. I'm not saying that they should compare a bone stock 12900k to a heavily overclocked 5900X. But having a no holds barred test where both chips are allowed to give their best performance was necessary IMO. They didn't do it for the review, like I think they absolutely should, but they didn't do it for a seperate video either. And I guarantee you there's gonna be Alder Lake build videos galore in the near future. Which I'm not against, they gotta milk a launch for all the content it can provide them, but I'm quite sure none of these videos will be what I said above, a comparison where they compare the best each family has to offer. They should go nuts, overclock the core, the memory, increase power limits etc. They've done it before, I'm sure they can do it again.


 To me, showing the stock configuration for both is the most reasonable comparison. Anything else would be unfairly favoring one or the other. If they want to show non-stock numbers they would have to do so for both products. That might show that the 12900K might already be close to its limits, but it seems to also respond well to undervolting for at least some people. Mostly though, I think it all comes down to the limited time they had before launch. You have to remember that adding even one more configuration increases the number of test passes by a lot, adding several hours of testing at minimum. You clearly underestimate how much work goes into producing all the data they base their review on.



tolis626 said:


> Now that I think of it, I haven't watched Gamers Nexus' review. I love their work and I trust Steve to be brutally objective and honest. But I'm quite sure I'll end up disappointed there too if they only include stock numbers, even though they've done, like, all the testing for every CPU they have. I hope I'm wrong. I haven't watched their video because, let's be honest, it's not a pleasure watch, but rather a "I wanna know every boring detail" one.
> 
> Regarding 11th gen, I really laughed with GN's review. "A waste of sand", such a brutal comment, I loved it.


 I generally find Gamers Nexus videos to be an interesting and not all that boring most of the time. They can often require you to pay more attention though. 



tolis626 said:


> As for GPUs, what we need is either a successful Intel GPU program so that Intel can serve NVidia their own medicine, or that AMD's success continues so that they become able to do it themselves. Whatever the case, I'd love to see a third player enter the arena, regardless of who it is. NVidia has been left unchecked for too long, it's time someone slaps some dignity into them.


 Agreed.  In AMD's case, they seem to be held back by fab capacity unfortunately.


----------



## Biggu

Sorry if this has already asked but I cant figure out how to search these threads anymore. I just picked up a Crosshair VIII Extreme for a really good deal and while looking over the power options I see it has 2 8 pins up top and a 6 pin next to the 24 pin. The 6 pin is listed as PD power which provides additional power to PCI and usb 3 front headers. Is this 6 pin optional? I dont plan to use more than the x16 for a GPU and 2x m.2 drive.


----------



## xeizo

Biggu said:


> Sorry if this has already asked but I cant figure out how to search these threads anymore. I just picked up a Crosshair VIII Extreme for a really good deal and while looking over the power options I see it has 2 8 pins up top and a 6 pin next to the 24 pin. The 6 pin is listed as PD power which provides additional power to PCI and usb 3 front headers. Is this 6 pin optional? I dont plan to use more than the x16 for a GPU and 2x m.2 drive.


Yes, it's not necessary, I use only one 8 pin up top and that's it. Works great.


----------



## Biggu

xeizo said:


> Yes, it's not necessary, I use only one 8 pin up top and that's it. Works great.


Perfect thanks! im moving from the Dark hero to the Crosshair Extreme so I need to build another 8 pin cable since on the old motherboard I used the 8 pin +4 pin.


----------



## shaolin95

Biggu said:


> Perfect thanks! im moving from the Dark hero to the Crosshair Extreme so I need to build another 8 pin cable since on the old motherboard I used the 8 pin +4 pin.


Curious you are doing that move. I am, moving from the Hero Wifi to the Dark Hero because of the dynamic OC mainly.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Biggu said:


> Sorry if this has already asked but I cant figure out how to search these threads anymore. I just picked up a Crosshair VIII Extreme for a really good deal and while looking over the power options I see it has 2 8 pins up top and a 6 pin next to the 24 pin. The 6 pin is listed as PD power which provides additional power to PCI and usb 3 front headers. Is this 6 pin optional? I dont plan to use more than the x16 for a GPU and 2x m.2 drive.


To search, you type your search in the top bar where it says "search community." Do not hit enter. Wait a second and a few options will pop-up at the bottom of the bar. 

They are self explanatory. E.g. Search in this discussion will search in this very thread only.


----------



## Biggu

shaolin95 said:


> Curious you are doing that move. I am, moving from the Hero Wifi to the Dark Hero because of the dynamic OC mainly.


I basicly moved to the Crosshair Extreme for a few reasons, the main reason is Thunderbolt 4 as I would like to eventually remote mount my PC in my network rack and off my desk. I also wanted the oled for now and the bigger motherboard. 

Kinda annoyed though and I may move back to the dark hero. Ive got my 1tb 980 pro in the top m.2 and my 1tb 980 in m2_2 but its not finding that drive. Im wondering if it doesent like the PCIe gen4 mixed with the gen3. I manually changed m2_2 to gen 3 but nothing.


----------



## bt1

Biggu said:


> Kinda annoyed though and I may move back to the dark hero. Ive got my 1tb 980 pro in the top m.2 and my 1tb 980 in m2_2 but its not finding that drive. Im wondering if it doesent like the PCIe gen4 mixed with the gen3. I manually changed m2_2 to gen 3 but nothing.


If you want to connect second drive directly to CPU pci-e lines (thus limiting GPU slot bandwidth in half), you need to enable it in BIOS explicitly:


Spoiler















A question about Extreme: if you disable Asmedia ASM1061 SATA controller in BIOS, is it actually disabled?
On mine it is not =(


----------



## Biggu

So I ended up finding that last night and got it all working but man after doing that everything was so slow. I suppose its because I never reinstalled windows but im just moving back to my dark hero and being done with it. Its not worth the hassle and cost.


----------



## Requiem4u

Kelutrel said:


> Enable GDM in the BIOS and set CMD2T to 1 (with GDM enabled is probably useless though)
> GDM enabled is like having CMD2T set to 1.5T . If you can't have 1T, then GDM is still better than 2T.
> Having GDM disabled is worth only if you can get to CMD2T set to 1T.


I think everyone should test what is best for themself. I ran some test. Time Spy CPU, Dram Calculator Membench, Aida latency and wPrime. GDM disable 2T was slightly better every time.


----------



## Kelutrel

Requiem4u said:


> I think everyone should test what is best for themself. I ran some test. Time Spy CPU, Dram Calculator Membench, Aida latency and wPrime. GDM disable 2T was slightly better every time.


Uhmmm... weird. Maybe you have an odd CL like 15/17/19 ?
With an even CL, and a correct implementation, having gdm enabled should always perform better that 2T.


----------



## Luggage

Kelutrel said:


> Uhmmm... weird. Maybe you have an odd CL like 15/17/19 ?
> With an even CL, and a correct implementation, having gdm enabled should always perform better that 2T.


In the Ryzen ddr4 thread they don’t always agree about that. Reddit seems to love gdm though because it’s so easy to get stable and don’t care that it’s correcting like mad in the bg.


----------



## Kelutrel

Luggage said:


> In the Ryzen ddr4 thread they don’t always agree about that. Reddit seems to love gdm though because it’s so easy to get stable and don’t care that it’s correcting like mad in the bg.


Source ?
If you have even cl/twr/tcwl/trtp then it can be proven by math that gdm enabled is better than 2t.
In terms of performance: GDM disabled CR 1T > GDM enabled CR 1T > GDM disabled CR 2T.


----------



## des2k...

Kelutrel said:


> Uhmmm... weird. Maybe you have an odd CL like 15/17/19 ?
> With an even CL, and a correct implementation, having gdm enabled should always perform better that 2T.


2T is never better vs GDM for latency or bandwidth

Under GDM on you can drop timings more vs GDM off.

Also GDM for example requires even values for 4 memory timmings, so you need to adjust those when switching from 2T.


----------



## Requiem4u

Kelutrel said:


> Source ?
> If you have even cl/twr/tcwl/trtp then it can be proven by math that gdm enabled is better than 2t.
> In terms of performance: GDM disabled CR 1T > GDM enabled CR 1T > GDM disabled CR 2T.


These timings are even. 2T









And 1T GDM


----------



## Requiem4u

des2k... said:


> Under GDM on you can drop timings more vs GDM off.


But if I am CL14 and want to try CL13? So it depends. GDM easily just forgives unstable settings, better at least try 2T to see stability.


----------



## Kelutrel

Requiem4u said:


> These timings are even. 2T
> View attachment 2533734
> 
> 
> And 1T GDM
> View attachment 2533735


You can get the same variance for the inverse case just by repeatedly clicking the AIDA64 fields.

Also, it is true that if geardown mode is not implemented correctly the DRAM will misinterpret bus transactions and memory corruption or other signalling errors may occur that would slow down the resulting rate, but on a correct implementation gdm should always be better than 2T because, in layman terms, it is like comparing something that always takes X+2T ns to execute, vs something that takes X+(1T or 2T) ns (assuming cl/twr/tcwl/trtp are even).


----------



## Luggage

[Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread


I have done some testing on a Norwegian forum in regards to T1 GDM vs T2, and Veii bus timings vs standard bus timings. Guess i can share them here also, make of them what you want. https://www.diskusjon.no/topic/1887693-amd-zen-3-ryzen-5xxx/page/89/#comments (Since iam lazy i have just used a...




www.overclock.net





But the biggest aversion to gdm here is that it is often not implemented correctly and it’s much harder to find the errors because of all the autocorrecting.


----------



## Requiem4u

Kelutrel said:


> You can get the same variance for the inverse case just by repeatedly clicking the AIDA64 fields.


No, I can not. I have tryed. And if you can, it means you have lot of programs in the background.


Kelutrel said:


> Also, it is true that if geardown mode is not implemented correctly the DRAM will misinterpret bus transactions and memory corruption or other signalling errors may occur that would slow down the resulting rate, but on a correct implementation gdm should always be better than 2T because, in layman terms, it is like comparing something that always takes X+2T ns to execute, vs something that takes X+(1T or 2T) ns (assuming cl/twr/tcwl/trtp are even).


That is not all, it is also slower sometimes. I know some programs benefit from GDM, not all.
_"Gear-Down Mode: This is reliability, availability, and serviceability (RAS) function for high speed RAM, only for RAM speeds in excess of 2,666MHz. During normal operation (1/2rate), DRAM Address, Command, and Control use every rising edge of the clock signal, but with Gear-Down these are pushed to every other rising edge to ensure maximum compatibility and stable operation (1/4 rate). • This setting isn’t necessary if you can achieve stable overclocking on your system memory. • Use this mode if your overclock settings are causing instability. "_
https://www.corsair.com/corsairmedia/sys_master/productcontent/Ryzen3000_MemoryOverclockingGuide.pdf


----------



## Kelutrel

Requiem4u said:


> No, I can not. I have tryed. And if you can, it means you have lot of programs in the background.


Ha.



Requiem4u said:


> That is not all, it is also slower sometimes. I know some programs benefit from GDM, not all.
> _"Gear-Down Mode: This is reliability, availability, and serviceability (RAS) function for high speed RAM, only for RAM speeds in excess of 2,666MHz. During normal operation (1/2rate), DRAM Address, Command, and Control use every rising edge of the clock signal, but with Gear-Down these are pushed to every other rising edge to ensure maximum compatibility and stable operation (1/4 rate). • This setting isn’t necessary if you can achieve stable overclocking on your system memory. • Use this mode if your overclock settings are causing instability. "_
> https://www.corsair.com/corsairmedia/sys_master/productcontent/Ryzen3000_MemoryOverclockingGuide.pdf


Haha.


----------



## Requiem4u

Kelutrel said:


> Haha.


You didn't know that GDM uses half frequency?


----------



## kx11

It seems that 5900X revision/refresh along with 5950x are coming very soon like in two weeks


----------



## Gondar

kx11 said:


> It seems that 5900X revision/refresh along with 5950x are coming very soon like in two weeks


link?


----------



## kx11

Gondar said:


> link?











Scything B2 AMD Ryzen 9 5900X penetrates previously ironclad Intel-dominated UserBenchmark top 10 chart


Apparent revisions of some of AMD’s Zen 3 Vermeer chips have appeared on the controversial UserBenchmark site, with the potential for a serious upset in the works. The B2 stepping SKU of the Ryzen 9 5900X raced through the core tests to produce an average bench that would break into the...




www.notebookcheck.net


----------



## des2k...

kx11 said:


> Scything B2 AMD Ryzen 9 5900X penetrates previously ironclad Intel-dominated UserBenchmark top 10 chart
> 
> 
> Apparent revisions of some of AMD’s Zen 3 Vermeer chips have appeared on the controversial UserBenchmark site, with the potential for a serious upset in the works. The B2 stepping SKU of the Ryzen 9 5900X raced through the core tests to produce an average bench that would break into the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.notebookcheck.net


userbench... lol

I'm sure the ranking will drop in a few weeks, zen2 used to have good ranking too vs Intel, after a few weeks the score got adjusted and bottom of the chart😂

5950x didn't show gains, well duh🙄 because extra cores, userbench ignores it


----------



## amaire

cluster_edge said:


> View attachment 2532159


hey man, any chance you could share your bios settings / anything you did to get 4x16 quad rank to boot at 3800mhz? I have almost an identical setup to you, same ram/mb/cpu but the highest I can post is 3733 - at that frequency its super unstable even with loose timings for me, and seems to randomly fail to post at all with an f9 error even after making zero bios changes, requiring multiple restarts. I can overclock with only 2 dimms all the way to 4kmhz, so I know for sure its my memory controller.

My current, stable 3600mhz timings/benchmarks
















My unstable 3733 setting. Sometimes it can run testmeme5 for 30+ minutes with zero errors, but sometimes after rebooting it fails instantly.











If anyone else here has been able to run stable at 3800mhz 4x16 dual rank on the 5950x or has any advice please help me out!


----------



## shaolin95

amaire said:


> hey man, any chance you could share your bios settings / anything you did to get 4x16 quad rank to boot at 3800mhz? I have almost an identical setup to you, same ram/mb/cpu but the highest I can post is 3733 - at that frequency its super unstable even with loose timings for me, and seems to randomly fail to post at all with an f9 error even after making zero bios changes, requiring multiple restarts. I can overclock with only 2 dimms all the way to 4kmhz, so I know for sure its my memory controller.
> 
> My current, stable 3600mhz timings/benchmarks
> View attachment 2534155
> View attachment 2534157
> 
> 
> My unstable 3733 setting. Sometimes it can run testmeme5 for 30+ minutes with zero errors, but sometimes after rebooting it fails instantly.
> 
> View attachment 2534158
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone else here has been able to run stable at 3800mhz 4x16 dual rank on the 5950x or has any advice please help me out!


I would love to know the settings too as I have never been able to get anywhere near that.
My best results have been at 3666 but at CAS14 of course.


----------



## tolis626

Most people who are running dual rank at 3800C14 are using 32GB. I think asking the IMC for that with 64GB of RAM is asking for too much.


----------



## GRABibus

amaire said:


> hey man, any chance you could share your bios settings / anything you did to get 4x16 quad rank to boot at 3800mhz? I have almost an identical setup to you, same ram/mb/cpu but the highest I can post is 3733 - at that frequency its super unstable even with loose timings for me, and seems to randomly fail to post at all with an f9 error even after making zero bios changes, requiring multiple restarts. I can overclock with only 2 dimms all the way to 4kmhz, so I know for sure its my memory controller.
> 
> My current, stable 3600mhz timings/benchmarks
> View attachment 2534155
> View attachment 2534157
> 
> 
> My unstable 3733 setting. Sometimes it can run testmeme5 for 30+ minutes with zero errors, but sometimes after rebooting it fails instantly.
> 
> View attachment 2534158
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone else here has been able to run stable at 3800mhz 4x16 dual rank on the 5950x or has any advice please help me out!





tolis626 said:


> Most people who are running dual rank at 3800C14 are using 32GB. I think asking the IMC for that with 64GB of RAM is asking for too much.


From my side , I run 3800MHz/CL14 dual rank 32GB with 2 sticks 16GB.

32GB with 4 sticks 8GB dual rank 3800MHz/CL14 is no way for my IMC.


----------



## tolis626

GRABibus said:


> From my side , I run 3800MHz/CL14 dual rank 32GB with 2 sticks 16GB.
> 
> 32GB with 4 sticks 8GB dual rank 3800MHz/CL14 is no way for my IMC.


I'm not sure, but over in the memory overclocking thread I think I've seen people run that with 4x8GB configs. Still, I'm also pretty sure I've seen no one manage better than 3600C14/3800C16 with 4x16GB. That said, we're kind of splitting hairs here. 3600C14 is already more than good enough. I get the appeal of better latency/bandwidth, but if you need all that memory capacity, there's some tradeoffs.


----------



## amaire

tolis626 said:


> I'm not sure, but over in the memory overclocking thread I think I've seen people run that with 4x8GB configs. Still, I'm also pretty sure I've seen no one manage better than 3600C14/3800C16 with 4x16GB. That said, we're kind of splitting hairs here. 3600C14 is already more than good enough. I get the appeal of better latency/bandwidth, but if you need all that memory capacity, there's some tradeoffs.



Yeah, 3600mhz c14 is def great, and my benchmarks are still pretty high. When I bought this ram though I did get it with the hope of being able to overclock the frequency, not being aware of the hard limitations of the AMD imc with 4x16 dual rank, but if thats the case then it is what it is. I would just run 32gb of ram but I need 64gb for the work I do (cinematic music production). I just wanted to see if cluster_edge had done anything in particular to get 3800mhz 4x16 to work for him, since I think theres a few settings that may help with it. For example the uncore OC option (which locks the frequency of the IMC) that I randomly found helped me boot to 3733 for the first time, which made me think maybe there was more tweaking I could do to get a bit more out of the IMC. Hopefully we'll hear from cluster.


----------



## kx11

A huge driver for Realtek audio dropped (570mb)



https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/03CHIPSET/DRV_Chipset_AMD_TP_TSD_W10_64_V31022706_20211101R.zip


----------



## tolis626

kx11 said:


> A huge driver for Realtek audio dropped (570mb)
> 
> 
> 
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/03CHIPSET/DRV_Chipset_AMD_TP_TSD_W10_64_V31022706_20211101R.zip


Real men use external audio interfaces, such as a USB DAC. Get that crap outta my face!

On a more serious note, I've learned the hard way to not mess around with Realtek stuff too much. If it works, it works and that's it for me. With my previous rig, before I got into audiophilia (that sounds like a perversion) and started using a USB DAC and headphone amp, I had a lot of issues with the Realtek stuff on the Maximus VII Formula. And worst thing is, no matter what fancy componentry they used, the sound remained a resounding "meh". It's not bad, per se, but nothing to write home about. It's mostly the same story with newer boards for me, but I've probably been spoiled by nicer stuff.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

tolis626 said:


> Real men use external audio interfaces, such as a USB DAC.




I highly agree..


----------



## kx11

tolis626 said:


> Real men use external audio interfaces, such as a USB DAC. Get that crap outta my face!
> 
> On a more serious note, I've learned the hard way to not mess around with Realtek stuff too much. If it works, it works and that's it for me. With my previous rig, before I got into audiophilia (that sounds like a perversion) and started using a USB DAC and headphone amp, I had a lot of issues with the Realtek stuff on the Maximus VII Formula. And worst thing is, no matter what fancy componentry they used, the sound remained a resounding "meh". It's not bad, per se, but nothing to write home about. It's mostly the same story with newer boards for me, but I've probably been spoiled by nicer stuff.


I have Creative AE-9 which is mind blowing when i use the direct no signal processing mode but you know how Asus don't like it when you use a PCIe audio device so pretty much the Mobo will shut off the AE-9 for good as if it's not connected, i agree a DAC is better and my AE-9 comes with a big one


----------



## tolis626

kairi_zeroblade said:


> I highly agree..


Well, I expected a backlash for that, not agreement. 


kx11 said:


> I have Creative AE-9 which is mind blowing when i use the direct no signal processing mode but you know how Asus don't like it when you use a PCIe audio device so pretty much the Mobo will shut off the AE-9 for good as if it's not connected, i agree a DAC is better and my AE-9 comes with a big one


I am not familiar with your particular sound card, but I avoid internal (PCIe) ones like the plague. They cost as much as the real deal, but are prone to all the same problems onboard audio is. Electrical noise from inside the system, interference, etc etc. I'm not saying they can't produce good, or even great results, I just don't like the idea. I had some pretty basic setups up until a couple years ago, but then I got a Fiio Q5s and used with the optical input on my PC and it was glorious. But alas, it's still a portable battery-powered device and I didn't like charging it all the time (not to mention degrading the battery), so I decided to upgrade. I got a Topping D70s DAC and a Drop+THX AAA 789 amp. I'm telling you man, it is bliss. The DAC is a bit too expensive for what it offers (but it is balanced, so there's that), but the amp is oh so worth it. 6W of power on tap, any cans I've thrown at it were giving me their best, without ever running into noise floor issues, even with IEMs. At this point, I'm using onboard audio only for my mic input.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

tolis626 said:


> Well, I expected a backlash for that, not agreement.


I use an external DAC as well..but for these High-end boards the audio and what comes packed with it (DTS), isn't too shabby at all for basic audio needs, specially Gaming..to each of our own..but I prefer my audio experience to be crisp and enticing..(not that I am deaf or anything)

I also tried the internal audio for a bit before plugging in my Astro..


----------



## rexbinary

New chipset drivers dropped on ASUS forums.





__





We'll be back.






rog.asus.com


----------



## bt1

rexbinary said:


> New chipset drivers dropped on ASUS forums.


Nothing new about them. The package lacks a lot of stuff, quick comparison:


Spoiler: 3.10.22.706



*AMD Processor Power Management Support – AMD Ryzen Power Plan 7.0.4.4*
AMD PCI Device Driver 1.0.0.83
AMD I2C Driver 1.2.0.118
*AMD UART Driver 1.2.0.113*
AMD GPIO2 Driver 2.2.0.130
*PT GPIO Driver 2.0.1.0*
AMD PSP Driver 5.17.0.0
*AMD IOV Driver 1.2.0.52*
AMD SMBUS Driver 5.12.0.38
*AMD SFH Driver 1.0.0.320
AMD MicroPEP Driver 1.0.30.0
AMD PMF Driver 21.0.1.5*





Spoiler:  3.11.17.521



AMD PCI Device Driver 1.0.0.83
AMD I2C Driver 1.2.0.118
AMD GPIO2 Driver 2.2.0.130
AMD PSP Driver 5.17.0.0
AMD SMBUS Driver 5.12.0.38
*AMD SFH I2C Driver 1.0.0.86*


----------



## Nizzen

sonixmon said:


> I am with you 100% and have lost respect for a few of the reviewers. Everyone knows that Intel pushed the 12 series as far as they could to get the gamming crown back. Did not care about wattage and allowed temps to run up to max (similar to AMD). I get that these companies are back and forth but when reviewing these things should be considered.
> 
> I have also seen a few of the same reviewers work on OC and say basically Intel maxed them out to 90% already so you likely wont gain more than 5-10% so don't bother overclocking! They are basically factory overclocked and that could affect longevity of the chips down the road. Zen3 is pushed pretty hard too but clearly there is headroom to OC and undervolt.
> 
> Just glad I upgraded when I did, hoping to grab a 3D Cache CPU maybe but I am prepared to wait 2-3 years for Zen4 or next Gen Intel which is speculated to be even better.
> 
> The good thing for us is at least there is competition again!


Overclocking in 2021 is all about memory tweaking. Leave cpu stock and tweak memory "to the max" = GG for games 

Ps: I'm getting higher fps and lower power consume with 12900k vs my 5950x (smt off) in games. Same gpu.


----------



## Baio73

bt1 said:


> Nothing new about them. The package lacks a lot of stuff, quick comparison:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 3.10.22.706
> 
> 
> 
> *AMD Processor Power Management Support – AMD Ryzen Power Plan 7.0.4.4*
> AMD PCI Device Driver 1.0.0.83
> AMD I2C Driver 1.2.0.118
> *AMD UART Driver 1.2.0.113*
> AMD GPIO2 Driver 2.2.0.130
> *PT GPIO Driver 2.0.1.0*
> AMD PSP Driver 5.17.0.0
> *AMD IOV Driver 1.2.0.52*
> AMD SMBUS Driver 5.12.0.38
> *AMD SFH Driver 1.0.0.320
> AMD MicroPEP Driver 1.0.30.0
> AMD PMF Driver 21.0.1.5*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler:  3.11.17.521
> 
> 
> 
> AMD PCI Device Driver 1.0.0.83
> AMD I2C Driver 1.2.0.118
> AMD GPIO2 Driver 2.2.0.130
> AMD PSP Driver 5.17.0.0
> AMD SMBUS Driver 5.12.0.38
> *AMD SFH I2C Driver 1.0.0.86*


And still no trace of both them in AMD web site... strange.

Baio


----------



## xeizo

Baio73 said:


> And still no trace of both them in AMD web site... strange.
> 
> Baio


AMD driver performs better, maybe that's why


----------



## des2k...

amaire said:


> hey man, any chance you could share your bios settings / anything you did to get 4x16 quad rank to boot at 3800mhz? I have almost an identical setup to you, same ram/mb/cpu but the highest I can post is 3733 - at that frequency its super unstable even with loose timings for me, and seems to randomly fail to post at all with an f9 error even after making zero bios changes, requiring multiple restarts. I can overclock with only 2 dimms all the way to 4kmhz, so I know for sure its my memory controller.
> 
> My current, stable 3600mhz timings/benchmarks
> View attachment 2534155
> View attachment 2534157
> 
> 
> My unstable 3733 setting. Sometimes it can run testmeme5 for 30+ minutes with zero errors, but sometimes after rebooting it fails instantly.
> 
> View attachment 2534158
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone else here has been able to run stable at 3800mhz 4x16 dual rank on the 5950x or has any advice please help me out!


try 1.2v-1.225vsoc which gives you around 1.19v-1.2v

if you pass memtest and fail post on reboots DF cstates off helps with post/memory training

but I would still run Prime95 large after MT passes


----------



## GRABibus

Nizzen said:


> Overclocking in 2021 is all about memory tweaking. Leave cpu stock and tweak memory "to the max" = GG for games
> 
> Ps: I'm getting higher fps and lower power consume with 12900k vs my 5950x (smt off) in games. Same gpu.


Yes, but for full multithreaded apps, you will spend much more power.


----------



## Nizzen

GRABibus said:


> Yes, but for full multithreaded apps, you will spend much more power.


For multithreadded apps I use 2x 3090 (rendering) or Threadripper


----------



## GRABibus

Nizzen said:


> For multithreadded apps I use 2x 3090 (rendering) or Threadripper


You have one PC for one software ? 😂


----------



## Nizzen

GRABibus said:


> You have one PC for one software ? 😂


Almost 😅
12900k is 100% Battlefield games 
10900k is now Fortnite cpu for my son LOL


----------



## GRABibus

Nizzen said:


> Almost 😅
> 12900k is 100% Battlefield games
> 10900k is now Fortnite cpu for my son LOL


----------



## kx11

Finally connected the power from PSU t AE-9 sound card and then t the amp unit which needs the power to start, my headphones are Sony MDR-Z7 M2 which is enough for me


----------



## GRABibus

rexbinary said:


> New chipset drivers dropped on ASUS forums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We'll be back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rog.asus.com


Someone tried these new drivers ?


----------



## GRABibus

GRABibus said:


> Someone tried these new drivers ?


I did in CBR20.
No changes versus the ASUS one's 3.10.22.706.


----------



## tolis626

kx11 said:


> Finally connected the power from PSU t AE-9 sound card and then t the amp unit which needs the power to start, my headphones are Sony MDR-Z7 M2 which is enough for me


Sweet! As I said, I'm not a fan of internal sound cards, but if it works for you, hey, my wants don't matter. Also, that's a damn nice pair of cans you got there. I've heard them once in a show and oh my god, that bass, so smooth, so warm... Great, just great. Wouldn't be ideal for me (I'm a metalhead and these are too laid back for me), but I'd love to own a pair. Right now I have a pair of Sennheiser HD 58x (Just brilliant headphones) and a pair of Audio Technica MSR7b. The ATs are modified internally and I've also changed pads and the results are glorious. I've used a lot of expensive and honestly pretty damn great cans, but there's something about these ATs that I just can't get enough of. Unless I go to something like an Audeze LCD-X or similar, I haven't found anything that's wowed me to the point of wanting to replace my dears.


----------



## safedisk

*ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 3902 BETA BIOS*

1. Improve system performance
2. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1205

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 3902

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 3902

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 3902

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 3902

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 3902

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0502


----------



## rexbinary

Looks like you can set a negative auto oc offset now. I'm pretty sure that's new in 3902? I didn't flash 3901 so I'm not sure.


----------



## Kokin

I'm still on BIOS 3601 for my 3900X, any benefits going to the newest 3902? I saw some people get better memory stability on 3801, but I never bothered to update.


----------



## kx11

tolis626 said:


> Sweet! As I said, I'm not a fan of internal sound cards, but if it works for you, hey, my wants don't matter. Also, that's a damn nice pair of cans you got there. I've heard them once in a show and oh my god, that bass, so smooth, so warm... Great, just great. Wouldn't be ideal for me (I'm a metalhead and these are too laid back for me), but I'd love to own a pair. Right now I have a pair of Sennheiser HD 58x (Just brilliant headphones) and a pair of Audio Technica MSR7b. The ATs are modified internally and I've also changed pads and the results are glorious. I've used a lot of expensive and honestly pretty damn great cans, but there's something about these ATs that I just can't get enough of. Unless I go to something like an Audeze LCD-X or similar, I haven't found anything that's wowed me to the point of wanting to replace my dears.


Well those headphones are amazing because they fit my kinda big head so they don't put pressure on me ears after long hours of music/games, the sound of them is nothing short of amazing and i put more of a Bass punch to my music through an EQ tool in the music player i use (music bee) so that makes the sound even warmer especially for Heavy Metal music which is my main genre of interest among others, weirdly enough it's kinda common you'll find 32bit WV pack Metal albums, not much for others genres like movies/games OST they all come out in 24bit/48khz FLACs tops


----------



## kx11

On bios 3902 now, seems normal so far but the sound card died on me after installing the bios and rebooting but i got it back on after a full shutdown with ticking the PSU power switch in the back off


----------



## Nizzen

GRABibus said:


> I did in CBR20.
> No changes versus the ASUS one's 3.10.22.706.


Stock win 11 chipset drivers from "day 1" release is faster than any new chipsetdriver for me on dark hero +5950x (*in games). So I guess there is no need to bother downloading any new drivers from Amd


----------



## xeizo

0502 wasn't good for me, tried to flash from inside bios and it was not recognized as a valid bios, tried Flashback and the PC never booted. Flashing back my old bios now.

edit. old bios works fine as usual, something is wrong with 0502!


----------



## Kelutrel

So, I tried the BIOS 3902, and it works as expected on the memory now, and respects the configured VDDG IOD & CCD voltages and didn't got any WHEA at 3800/1900 and memory bandwidth is as in BIOS 3801. However, it looks like I lost roughly 120 points in CBR20 MT, that are not much but still a couple percent points on my 5900X.

Would anyone be able to confirm this tiny difference in performances when using 3902 compared to 3801 ?


----------



## kuutale

Kelutrel said:


> So, I tried the BIOS 3902, and it works as expected on the memory now, and respects the configured VDDG IOD & CCD voltages and didn't got any WHEA at 3800/1900 and memory bandwidth is as in BIOS 3801. However, it looks like I lost roughly 120 points in CBR20 MT, that are not much but still a couple percent points on my 5900X.
> 
> Would anyone be able to confirm this tiny difference in performances when using 3902 compared to 3801 ?


what smu version 3902 can u see it?


----------



## xeizo

kuutale said:


> what smu version 3902 can u see it?


Yes he can, if he checks in ZenTimings:
ZenTimings (protonrom.com)


----------



## rexbinary

Here is my ZenTimings so you can see the SMU version.










I run DOCP, SVM Enabled, and PBO enabled only. Pretty stock. I noticed I lost a few points in CB. My multicore clocks dropped by about 100-200mhz, but my temps are much improved. I was hitting 81 in CB, now it's 75 tops.


----------



## Reous

kuutale said:


> what smu version 3902 can u see it?


New SMU for many CPU/APU


----------



## Kelutrel

kuutale said:


> what smu version 3902 can u see it?


I confirm what @rexbinary already showed, I am also on SMU 56.65.0 .

Weirdly, after a few reboots, that performance difference I was observing seems to have disappeared.


----------



## Afferin

I registered just to comment about 3902 -- I'm loving the customizability of PBO! I still can't boot with FCLK at 1900 on my Dark Hero (yay 07!) but it seems rock solid so far. All of my previous settings are stable and no significant variation in performance. I've got a lot to test tonight with the new PBO settings!


----------



## Warsteiner

Hello,
I have a 3800x with the Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi. I am not able to go past BIOS 1302. Every time I update to a BIOS newer than that, the computer will start randomly rebooting like the power was hard reset. It just powers off and back on. I have loaded setup defaults and still the same. This not only happens in Windows but will also happen just sitting in the BIOS. Has anyone else had this issue? I really want to be able to use the new options and be Windows 11 ready, but need to get a newer BIOS to do so.


----------



## SeverTheseStrings

I finally have stable FCLK 1900 with 5900X and Crosshair VIII Hero Wi-Fi. The default "Auto" voltages @ FCLK1900 are VDDP 1.1V VDDG IOD 1.05V and VDDG CCD 0.95V. I was still able to achieve stable after dropping VDDP down to a more reasonable 1.05V.

The AMD PBO settings under "Advaned\AMD Overclocking" now allows boost clock override with negative modifier. (i don't know why...) New valid range for negative, -25 ~ -1000. Positive range is unchanged +25 ~ +200. The "ASUS" duplicate PBO settings under "Extreme Tweeker" don't allow the new negative values yet.

A small thing I noticed (maybe bug?) , when a MCLK of over 1200 is set (so DDR4-2666 and higher) setting odd number Cas Latency is rejected. i.e if you set CL17 it will use CL18 instead.
Screenshot for the curious. (I havn't fully tuned the RAM timings yet though)


----------



## metalshark

SeverTheseStrings said:


> I finally have stable FCLK 1900 with 5900X and Crosshair VIII Hero Wi-Fi. The default "Auto" voltages @ FCLK1900 are VDDP 1.1V VDDG IOD 1.05V and VDDG CCD 0.95V. I was still able to achieve stable after dropping VDDP down to a more reasonable 1.05V.
> 
> The AMD PBO settings under "Advaned\AMD Overclocking" now allows boost clock override with negative modifier. (i don't know why...) New valid range for negative, -25 ~ -1000. Positive range is unchanged +25 ~ +200. The "ASUS" duplicate PBO settings under "Extreme Tweeker" don't allow the new negative values yet.
> 
> A small thing I noticed (maybe bug?) , when a MCLK of over 1200 is set (so DDR4-2666 and higher) setting odd number Cas Latency is rejected. i.e if you set CL17 it will use CL18 instead.
> Screenshot for the curious. (I havn't fully tuned the RAM timings yet though)
> 
> View attachment 2534452


Even CAS latency is a GDM Enabled thing.


----------



## SeverTheseStrings

metalshark said:


> Even CAS latency is a GDM Enabled thing.


Oh, right, I forgot about that.
I guess the real issue is the "Auto" setting of GDM and CmdRate have been changed to prefer GDM Enabled + 1T with "OC" DDR frequencies.
If I set GDM Disabled and CmdRate Auto, it then Auto sets it to 2T. I have to now force GDM=Disabled and Cmd Rate=1T. "Auto" setting used to choose this normally.


----------



## GRABibus

Trying 3902 with my 24/7 OC settings from 3801 (See in sig)

CBR20 :
=> Same MT score than with with 3801
=> Lower ST score (635-640 versus 640-645 with 3801).

What is strange is that Core vid max per core is 1,41V during CBR20 ST wiuth 3902.
It was 1.5V with 3801.
Seems that the cores don't boost at max in CBR20 ST....

Did you observe this ?


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> So, I tried the BIOS 3902, and it works as expected on the memory now, and respects the configured VDDG IOD & CCD voltages and didn't got any WHEA at 3800/1900 and memory bandwidth is as in BIOS 3801. However, it looks like I lost roughly 120 points in CBR20 MT, that are not much but still a couple percent points on my 5900X.
> 
> Would anyone be able to confirm this tiny difference in performances when using 3902 compared to 3801 ?


What I can see is that cores are boosting lower in CBR20 ST than with 3801 and core vid max voltages durin,g CBR20 ST are 0.1V lower than with 3801 => 1.41V instead of 1.5V !!


----------



## GRABibus

Here are overall results with 3902 versus 3801 :

*CBR20 :*
3902 => Single thread => 635-640
3801 => Single thread => 640-645

3902 => Multi thread => 8880-9015
3801 => Multi thread => Same results

3902 => Max boost single core => 5050MHz
3801 => Max boost single core => 5150MHz

3902 => Max core vid => 1.41V
3801 => Max core vid => 1.5V


*Aida64 latency :*
3801 => 55ns-56ns
3902 => 56ns-58ns

So, something wrong with this new 3902 for my rig.

Maybe I'll roll back to 3801.


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> Here are overall results with 3902 versus 3801 :
> 
> *CBR20 :*
> 3902 => Single thread => 635-640
> 3801 => Single thread => 640-645
> 
> 3902 => Multi thread => 8880-9015
> 3801 => Multi thread => Same results
> 
> 3902 => Max boost single core => 5050MHz
> 3801 => Max boost single core => 5150MHz
> 
> 3902 => Max core vid => 1.41V
> 3801 => Max core vid => 1.5V
> 
> 
> *Aida64 latency :*
> 3801 => 55ns-56ns
> 3902 => 56ns-58ns
> 
> So, something wrong with this new 3902 for my rig.
> 
> Maybe I'll roll back to 3801.


Weird... It seems I can't reach 9k CBR20 MT anymore with this BIOS, whatever power limits I configure. I can't rule out it is due to some other concurrent Win11 update or missed BIOS setting though, so I don't want to blame 3902 for this, however I would appreciate if you can confirm to me if you used Win10 or Win11 for these results.


----------



## rossi594

GRABibus said:


> Here are overall results with 3902 versus 3801 :
> 
> *CBR20 :*
> 3902 => Single thread => 635-640
> 3801 => Single thread => 640-645
> 
> 3902 => Multi thread => 8880-9015
> 3801 => Multi thread => Same results
> 
> 3902 => Max boost single core => 5050MHz
> 3801 => Max boost single core => 5150MHz
> 
> 3902 => Max core vid => 1.41V
> 3801 => Max core vid => 1.5V
> 
> 
> *Aida64 latency :*
> 3801 => 55ns-56ns
> 3902 => 56ns-58ns
> 
> So, something wrong with this new 3902 for my rig.
> 
> Maybe I'll roll back to 3801.


Are you running the PBO scaler setting on auto? That could have changed in the update and made the difference. Maybe up it manually until you get the voltage that you want.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Weird... It seems I can't reach 9k CBR20 MT anymore with this BIOS, whatever power limits I configure. I can't rule out it is due to some other concurrent Win11 update or missed BIOS setting though, so I don't want to blame 3902 for this, but I would appreciate if you can confirm to me if you used Win10 or Win11 for these results.


And what about your voltages during CBR 20 single thread ? Do you reach out 1,5v?


----------



## GRABibus

rossi594 said:


> Are you running the PBO scaler setting on auto? That could have changed in the update and made the difference. Maybe up it manually until you get the voltage that you want.


No effect with scalar.

I discovered also that what even the Curve optimiser offset, the Core Vid voltages max is still 1.41V....

-30 all cores => Max core vid voltages in CBR20 ST => 1.41V
No offset (0 all cores) => Max core vid voltages in CBR20 ST => 1.41V

Definitely, there is something weird.

The only advantage iin fact, is that despite this voltage lock, I have the same CBR20 MT scores than with 3801.
Only CBR20 ST is alittle bit lower.
But temps are much lower with 3902 due to these low voltages per core.

I played 1 hour Vanguard, and i have 6°C roughly less on max temps than with 3801.


Back to 3801.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Weird... It seems I can't reach 9k CBR20 MT anymore with this BIOS, whatever power limits I configure. I can't rule out it is due to some other concurrent Win11 update or missed BIOS setting though, so I don't want to blame 3902 for this, however I would appreciate if you can confirm to me if you used Win10 or Win11 for these results.


Windows 10


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> And what about your voltages during CBR 20 single thread ? Do you reach out 1,5v?


On CBR20 ST:

CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN) maxes at 1.488
CPU Core VID (Effective) maxes at 1.481
The highest single core VID was 1.384 , and I am also pretty sure it was showing 1.5v and something previously.
The same core still went up to 5GHz, and I am at stock power limits now with 50MHz boost, so it seems that the max frequency didn't change.
Temperatures also look roughly the same, so maybe it is just about the voltage reading and not the actual voltage provided ?


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> On CBR20 ST:
> 
> CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN) maxes at 1.488
> CPU Core VID (Effective) maxes at 1.481
> The highest single core VID was 1.384 , and I am also pretty sure it was showing 1.5v and something previously.
> The same core still went up to 5GHz, and I am at stock power limits now with 50MHz boost, so it seems that the max frequency didn't change.
> Temperatures also look roughly the same, so maybe it is just about the voltage reading and not the actual voltage provided ?


*"and I am also pretty sure it was showing 1.5v and something previously". *
=> You mean with 3801 you had 1.5V and now 1.384V max ?

I didn't check neither CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN) nor CPU Core VID (Effective)....

I currently stay at 3801 and let's see other feedbacks.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Temperatures also look roughly the same, so maybe it is just about the voltage reading and not the actual voltage provided ?


in Vanguard, I monitor CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN) with RTSS via HWInfo.
It never went beyond 1.36V.
With 3801 it goes up to 1.40V.

I had also 6°C less on max CPU temp than with 3801.

So, in my opinion, voltage is really lower with this bios and it is not only a reading problem.


----------



## rossi594

GRABibus said:


> No effect with scalar.
> 
> I discovered also that what even the Curve optimiser offset, the Core Vid voltages max is still 1.41V....
> 
> -30 all cores => Max core vid voltages in CBR20 ST => 1.41V
> No offset (0 all cores) => Max core vid voltages in CBR20 ST => 1.41V
> 
> Definitely, there is something weird.
> 
> The only advantage iin fact, is that despite this voltage lock, I have the same CBR20 MT scores than with 3801.
> Only CBR20 ST is alittle bit lower.
> But temps are much lower with 3902 due to these low voltages per core.
> 
> I played 1 hour Vanguard, and i have 6°C roughly less on max temps than with 3801.
> 
> 
> Back to 3801.


Fmax_Offset does increase the frequency, not the voltage. Similar to core optimizer. Powerlimits will allow you to draw more power (run the ~1.45vid for longer) and skaler pumps up the voltage. Without skalar my cpu will almost never use 1.5v.


----------



## xV Slayer

New bios is trash just like 3901. No one asked for lower performance especially since Alder Lake just launched. What a joke.


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> *"and I am also pretty sure it was showing 1.5v and something previously". *
> => You mean with 3801 you had 1.5V and now 1.384V max ?
> 
> I didn't check neither CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN) nor CPU Core VID (Effective)....
> 
> I currently stay at 3801 and let's see other feedbacks.


The CPU Core VID (Effective) now maxes at 1.481, while I am pretty sure it was maxing at 1.5v with 3801.
The highest single core VID unfortunately I don't remember how it was in 3801, probably it never went to 1.5v though.


----------



## Afferin

xV Slayer said:


> New bios is trash just like 3901. No one asked for lower performance especially since Alder Lake just launched. What a joke.


Funnily enough I really welcome this change. Personally, my benchmarks haven't changed significantly (considering the normal variation between tests) and my gaming performance is identical to 3801. The main difference? My CPU no longer lingers at 88c when playing Horizon: Zero Dawn, but rather 78c. For virtually no performance loss (again, with the amount of variation between each test I think there has been minimal loss, i.e. my MC R23 score has dropped an average of like 30 points, and my SC is identical to previous iterations) my temps are now much lower.

I do wish they would patch the FCLK hole at 1900MHz on my Dark Hero, but beggars can't be choosers. I'll be the first to leave a positive note on this beta BIOS: I think they've done a good job.


----------



## rossi594

xV Slayer said:


> New bios is trash just like 3901. No one asked for lower performance especially since Alder Lake just launched. What a joke.


There is more to a new bios than cb score. Yes it would be nice if it was up. But if it adresses issues, or reduces temps / voltage helps with oc etc... all can be worth it. I am just happy that after 3 months of the broken 1.2.0.4 we finally get a new Agesa.


----------



## Kelutrel

rossi594 said:


> There is more to a new bios than cb score. Yes it would be nice if it was up. But if it adresses issues, or reduces temps / voltage helps with oc etc... all can be worth it. I am just happy that after 3 months of the broken 1.2.0.4 we finally get a new Agesa.


I second this. I am pretty sure that I've lost 1-2% score in CPU-related benchmarks, but it is a new beta BIOS so it is possible that if I tune PBO curves and boost again I'll find out that I can lower a bit more the offsets or raise the boost and keep it stable and get back that loss, but I don't want to go through that process again at this time. It looks like it is stable and has AGESA 1.2.0.5 and temperatures are maybe a bit lower so it's ok to me.


----------



## xV Slayer

Afferin said:


> Funnily enough I really welcome this change. Personally, my benchmarks haven't changed significantly (considering the normal variation between tests) and my gaming performance is identical to 3801. The main difference? My CPU no longer lingers at 88c when playing Horizon: Zero Dawn, but rather 78c. For virtually no performance loss (again, with the amount of variation between each test I think there has been minimal loss, i.e. my MC R23 score has dropped an average of like 30 points, and my SC is identical to previous iterations) my temps are now much lower.
> 
> I do wish they would patch the FCLK hole at 1900MHz on my Dark Hero, but beggars can't be choosers. I'll be the first to leave a positive note on this beta BIOS: I think they've done a good job.


I have never gone above 65 degrees Celsius playing any games on my 5950x.


----------



## Afferin

xV Slayer said:


> I have never gone above 65 degrees Celsius playing any games on my 5950x.


Same here! Until I played Horizon: Zero Dawn. Something about that game drives my 5950x to its absolute limits. I basically use it as a test to determine whether my PBO limits are acceptable temp-wise.


----------



## Afferin

As an update in regards to BIOS 3902: I could never run -30 CO on all cores on my 5950x, but am now able to. Unsure about stability, but previously it would BSOD immediately and now it lets me boot into Windows. That alone is progress enough for me!


----------



## rossi594

Afferin said:


> Same here! Until I played Horizon: Zero Dawn. Something about that game drives my 5950x to its absolute limits. I basically use it as a test to determine whether my PBO limits are acceptable temp-wise.


Usually Single CCDs run hotter, because the contact patch to the ihs is smaller and the hot spot is further off center.


----------



## rbys

You guys do more BIOS testing than the AMD engineers. lol.

I'll stay on 3801. No reason to upgrade and retesting your OC for stability is a huge PITA.


----------



## xeizo

From your results it looks like l can sit idle in the boat on 1.2.0.3 patch C, best results ever for my particular CPU and temps rarely or never exceed 75C.
Waiting for the 3D cache CPU:s, a 5950XD is on the wish list, will make me very eager to upgrade LoL


----------



## GRABibus

Be careful, when rolling back to 3801 with EZ ASUS Flash 3, it erases all saved OC profiles.


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> Be careful, when rolling back to 3801 with EZ ASUS Flash 3, it erases all saved OC profiles.


That's why I have a dedicated USB-stick for profiles on all my PC:s, has the benefit of generating readable bios text files for the desktop too, and normally I use Flashback which erases everything anyway.


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> That's why I have a dedicated USB-stick for profiles on all my PC:s, has the benefit of generating readable bios text files for the desktop too, and normally I use Flashback which erases everything anyway.


That's the first time I see ASUS EZ flash 3 erasing profiles....


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> That's the first time I see ASUS EZ flash 3 erasing profiles....


Possibly, but I have seen it in the past on other mobos, better safe than sorry


----------



## rbys

shaolin95 said:


> kids...blocked
> 
> Good for you...we were all eager to know if you were going to update or not....blocked.


Imagine replying just to say that you blocked 2 people. what a clown.

Anyway, PBO gives you a lower power consumption @ idle? 🤔


----------



## Sleepycat

Just tested 3902. I am surprised by my results. I'm one of those who rolled back from 3901 to 3801 due to the voltage control issue, so I was not having any high hopes for 3902. However, I can say that I am surprised!

I run Hydra, so my voltage and clocks are fixed. Even so, I got the following results. I retested a few times to make sure it wasn't an anomaly , and tried a range of voltages and associated clock speeds too. I'm not sure what is causing the difference as I had load optimized defaults in bios, then reloaded my bios profile and went through each line to ensure that there was no error in the bios settings.

Whatever it is, it seems that my system likes 3902, so I'll be running it for the next 2 weeks on my loads to see if there are any issues, otherwise I will stick to it.

PPT, TDC, EDC = 200W, 140A, 150A.

CB R20 MT - 3801 (DDR 3600 CL14)
(4.6 / 4.45 @ 1.2V) - 8474
(4.65 / 4.5 @ 1.25V) - 8621
(4.675 / 4.525 @ 1.3V) - 8745 (184W CPU Package Power, 84.4 C)

CB R20 MT - 3902 (DDR 2133 CL14)
(4.6 / 4.45 @ 1.2V) - 8664 (149W CPU Package Power, 69.6 C)
(4.65 / 4.5 @ 1.25V) - 8724 (166W CPU Package Power, 75.3 C)
(4.675 / 4.525 @ 1.3V) - 8851 (184W CPU Package Power, 81.3 C)

Edit: My results above with 3902 had a mistake, it was with DOCP not working for some reason, so my memory was clocked at 2133 MHz. I fixed it by setting it once more in bios and the results are even higher. The higher power consumption is from the SOC driving my 64GB of B-die. Interestingly, the increase in results from 1.25V to 1.3V is very small for the additional power consumption. So I'm going to stick with 3902 on 4.6/4.45GHz @ 1.2V, which gives almost the same performance as 3802 on 4.675/4.525 @ 1.3V, while consuming 29W less power and running 10 ºC cooler

CB R20 MT – 3902 (DDR 3600 CL14)
(4.6 / 4.45 @ 1.2V) – 8723 (155W CPU Package Power, 71.1 C)
(4.65 / 4.5 @ 1.25V) – 8855 (173W CPU Package Power, 76.5 C)
(4.675 / 4.525 @ 1.3V) – 8887 (191W CPU Package Power, 82.6 C)


----------



## GRABibus

Same for me.

Due to the low temperatures and low voltages that the 3902 exhibit, I decided to reintall it and get benefit of the headroom offered by low temps and low voltages.

Here are my best runs :
180-130-160
-30 all cores
+200MHz Boos Clock Override
23°C ambiant




















I could pass 3 hours Realbench with 180-130-160 which was impossible (Crash) with Bios 3801 and those settings.

I also have much more low temps (In Realbench, in gamings, etc...)

The only point is the latency in Aida : I am 1.5ns to 2ns higher than with 3801.

I will run it also until release, especialy to see if I don't get low load reboots with my -30 all cores, and to see gaming behavior.
In Vanguard, I get 6°C less on CCD1 max temp.

This Bios seems finally to have a huge potential


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> Just tested 3902. I am surprised by my results. I'm one of those who rolled back from 3901 to 3801 due to the voltage control issue, so I was not having any high hopes for 3902. However, I can say that I am surprised!
> 
> I run Hydra, so my voltage and clocks are fixed. Even so, I got the following results. I retested a few times to make sure it wasn't an anomaly , and tried a range of voltages and associated clock speeds too. I'm not sure what is causing the difference as I had load optimized defaults in bios, then reloaded my bios profile and went through each line to ensure that there was no error in the bios settings.
> 
> Whatever it is, it seems that my system likes 3902, so I'll be running it for the next 2 weeks on my loads to see if there are any issues, otherwise I will stick to it.
> 
> CB R20 MT - 3801
> (4.6 / 4.45 @ 1.2V) - 8474
> (4.65 / 4.5 @ 1.25V) - 8621
> (4.675 / 4.525 @ 1.3V) - 8745 (184W CPU Package Power, 84.4 C)
> 
> CB R20 MT - 3902
> (4.6 / 4.45 @ 1.2V) - 8664 (149W CPU Package Power, 69.6 C)
> (4.65 / 4.5 @ 1.25V) - 8724 (166W CPU Package Power, 75.3 C)
> (4.675 / 4.525 @ 1.3V) - 8851 (184W CPU Package Power, 81.3 C)


Nice!
I am running what I had on 3801 and so far so good. Gonna wait a bit longer then try pushing more.


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> Nice!
> I am running what I had on 3801 and so far so good. Gonna wait a bit longer then try pushing more.


Oh dang, I made a mistake with my 3902 results, it was with memory at 2133 MHz, eventhough I had DOCP and manual timings on. Not sure why, but I fixed that up and the results went even higher:

CB R20 MT – 3902 (DDR 3600 CL14)
(4.6 / 4.45 @ 1.2V) – 8723 (155.135W CPU Package Power, 71.1 C)
(4.65 / 4.5 @ 1.25V) – 8855 (172.506W CPU Package Power, 76.5 C)
(4.675 / 4.525 @ 1.3V) – 8887 (190.719W CPU Package Power, 82.6 C)

Interesting to see very small gains going from 4.65/4.5 to 4.675/4.525, but this was repeatable. The additional power usage is due to the SOC, driving the 64GB of B-die. So I'm even happier with the results of 3902 now.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> Oh dang, I made a mistake with my 3902 results, it was with memory at 2133 MHz, eventhough I had DOCP and manual timings on. Not sure why, but I fixed that up and the results went even higher:
> 
> CB R20 MT – 3902 (DDR 3600 CL14)
> (4.6 / 4.45 @ 1.2V) – 8723 (155.135W CPU Package Power, 71.1 C)
> (4.65 / 4.5 @ 1.25V) – 8855 (172.506W CPU Package Power, 76.5 C)
> (4.675 / 4.525 @ 1.3V) – 8887 (190.719W CPU Package Power, 82.6 C)
> 
> Interesting to see very small gains going from 4.65/4.5 to 4.675/4.525, but this was repeatable. The additional power usage is due to the SOC, driving the 64GB of B-die. So I'm even happier with the results of 3902 now.


oh nice. Mind sharing your settings?
BTW, did you see someone posting hitting 3800 with 64GB ? I am yet to try his settings although probably wont be much different doing 3666 C14 vs 3800C16 in real life.


----------



## Sleepycat

It's just friggin ridiculous. It just runs faster, with same clock, same voltage and temperatures.


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> oh nice. Mind sharing your settings?
> BTW, did you see someone posting hitting 3800 with 64GB ? I am yet to try his settings although probably wont be much different doing 3666 C14 vs 3800C16 in real life.


Sure, here it is below. Since I last gave you my settings, I have set TRCDWR back up from 8 to 14 and also changed RttNom, RttWr and RttPark from 7/3/1 to 6/3/3.

I saw someone else with 3800 and 64GB. I did try their settings but I could not get it to boot at all. I think his memory (and/or memory controller) bin is better than mine as he also shared his 3600 CL14 settings with me, which I could not boot with because of his more aggressive sub timings.



Code:


[2021/11/28 09:24:14]
Ai Overclock Tuner [D.O.C.P. Standard]
D.O.C.P. [D.O.C.P DDR4-3200 14-14-14-34-1.35V]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3600MHz]
FCLK Frequency [1800MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Core VID [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
Performance Bias [Auto]
PBO Fmax Enhancer [Disabled]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Curve Optimizer [Auto]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [Auto]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
Trcdrd [15]
Trcdwr [14]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
Trc [42]
TrrdS [6]
TrrdL [8]
Tfaw [16]
TwtrS [6]
TwtrL [12]
Twr [14]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [4]
TwrwrScl [4]
Trfc [294]
Trfc2 [218]
Trfc4 [134]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [8]
Trdwr [10]
Twrrd [4]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [7]
TwrwrDd [7]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [5]
TrdrdDd [5]
Tcke [1]
ProcODT [43.6 ohm]
Cmd2T [2T]
Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
RttNom [RZQ/6]
RttWr [RZQ/3]
RttPark [RZQ/3]
MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
MemCkeSetup [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [30.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [30.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
CPU Current Capability [120%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed CPU VRM Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Current Capability [100%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.10000]
DRAM Voltage [1.46000]
VDDG CCD Voltage Control [0.980]
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [1.050]
CLDO VDDP Voltage [0.950]
1.00V SB Voltage [1.01250]
1.8V PLL Voltage [1.81000]
Security Device Support [Enable]
SHA-1 PCR Bank [Disabled]
SHA256 PCR Bank [Enabled]
Pending operation [None]
Platform Hierarchy [Enabled]
Storage Hierarchy [Enabled]
Endorsement Hierarchy [Enabled]
TPM 2.0 UEFI Spec Version [TCG_2]
Physical Presence Spec Version [1.3]
Disable Block Sid [Disabled]
Selects TPM device [Enable Discrete TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Disabled]
PSS Support [Enabled]
PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
NX Mode [Enabled]
SVM Mode [Disabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
CCD Control [Auto]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
SMART Self Test [Auto]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [PCIe RAID Mode]
When system is in working state [All On]
Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [All On]
Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Setup]
Intel LAN Controller [Auto]
ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Enabled]
Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Mode [GEN 4]
PCIEX16_2 Mode [GEN 4]
PCIEX1 Mode [GEN 3]
PCIEX16_3 Mode [GEN 3]
M.2_1 Link Mode [GEN 3]
M.2_2 Link Mode [GEN 3]
SB Link Mode [GEN 4]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Above 4G Decoding [Enabled]
Resize BAR Support [Auto]
SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
USB Flash Disk 1100 [Auto]
SanDisk uSD SDDR-289 1.00 [Auto]
SanDisk MS SDDR-289 1.00 [Auto]
SanDisk SD SDDR-289 1.00 [Auto]
SanDisk CF SDDR-289 1.00 [Auto]
USB Device Enable [Enabled]
U32G2_2 [Enabled]
U32G2_3 [Enabled]
U32G2_4 [Enabled]
U32G1_10 [Enabled]
U32G1_11 [Enabled]
USB12 [Enabled]
USB13 [Enabled]
U32G2_7 [Enabled]
U32G2_8 [Enabled]
U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Device [SATA6G_7: Samsung SSD 860 EVO 4TB]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
PCH Fan Speed [Monitor]
Flow Rate [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
CPU Fan Step Up [0 sec]
CPU Fan Step Down [0 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
High Amp Fan Profile [Manual]
High Amp Fan Upper Temperature [70]
High Amp Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
High Amp Fan Middle Temperature [50]
High Amp Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [42]
High Amp Fan Lower Temperature [30]
High Amp Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [20]
Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Above 4GB MMIO Limit [39bit (512GB)]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
Boot Logo Display [Auto]
Bootup NumLock State [On]
POST Delay Time [1 sec]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Disabled]
OS Type [Other OS]
AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
Flexkey [Reset]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [1]
Profile Name [3600C14 stable]
Save to Profile [2]
DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Enabled]
CPU Frequency [0]
CPU Voltage [0]
CCD Control [Auto]
Core control [Auto]
SMT Control [Auto]
Overclock [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
ECO Mode [Disable]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
PBO Limits [Manual]
PPT Limit [W] [200]
TDC Limit [A] [140]
EDC Limit [A] [150]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Curve Optimizer [Auto]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [200MHz]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Manual]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [85]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
LCLK DPM [Auto]
LCLK DPM Enhanced PCIe Detection [Auto]
Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
Global C-state Control [Auto]
Power Supply Idle Control [Auto]
SEV ASID Count [Auto]
SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
Local APIC Mode [Auto]
ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
DRAM scrub time [Auto]
Poison scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Memory interleaving [Auto]
Memory interleaving size [Auto]
1TB remap [Auto]
DRAM map inversion [Auto]
ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
GMI encryption control [Auto]
xGMI encryption control [Auto]
CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
PcsCG control [Auto]
Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
Memory Clear [Auto]
Overclock [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Data Poisoning [Auto]
DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
RCD Parity [Auto]
DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
Write CRC Enable [Auto]
DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
TSME [Auto]
Data Scramble [Auto]
DFE Read Training [Auto]
FFE Write Training [Auto]
PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
BankGroupSwap [Auto]
BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
Address Hash Bank [Auto]
Address Hash CS [Auto]
Address Hash Rm [Auto]
SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
MBIST Enable [Disabled]
Pattern Select [PRBS]
Pattern Length(VMR) [6]
Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
IOMMU [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
FCLK Frequency [Auto]
SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
ACS Enable [Auto]
PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
cTDP Control [Auto]
EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
APBDIS [Auto]
DF Cstates [Auto]
CPPC [Auto]
CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
Early Link Speed [Auto]
Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
Preferred IO [Auto]
CV test [Auto]
Loopback Mode [Auto]
SRIS [Auto]
Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> Sure, here it is below. Since I last gave you my settings, I have set TRCDWR back up from 8 to 14 and also changed RttNom, RttWr and RttPark from 7/3/1 to 6/3/3.
> 
> I saw someone else with 3800 and 64GB. I did try their settings but I could not get it to boot at all. I think his memory (and/or memory controller) bin is better than mine as he also shared his 3600 CL14 settings with me, which I could not boot with because of his more aggressive sub timings.
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> [2021/11/28 09:24:14]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [D.O.C.P. Standard]
> D.O.C.P. [D.O.C.P DDR4-3200 14-14-14-34-1.35V]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3600MHz]
> FCLK Frequency [1800MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> Core VID [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> Performance Bias [Auto]
> PBO Fmax Enhancer [Disabled]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> Curve Optimizer [Auto]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [Auto]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> Trcdrd [15]
> Trcdwr [14]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
> Trc [42]
> TrrdS [6]
> TrrdL [8]
> Tfaw [16]
> TwtrS [6]
> TwtrL [12]
> Twr [14]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [4]
> TwrwrScl [4]
> Trfc [294]
> Trfc2 [218]
> Trfc4 [134]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [8]
> Trdwr [10]
> Twrrd [4]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [7]
> TwrwrDd [7]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [5]
> TrdrdDd [5]
> Tcke [1]
> ProcODT [43.6 ohm]
> Cmd2T [2T]
> Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> RttNom [RZQ/6]
> RttWr [RZQ/3]
> RttPark [RZQ/3]
> MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren [30.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [30.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
> Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> CPU Current Capability [120%]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed CPU VRM Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Current Capability [100%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
> CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
> Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.10000]
> DRAM Voltage [1.46000]
> VDDG CCD Voltage Control [0.980]
> VDDG IOD Voltage Control [1.050]
> CLDO VDDP Voltage [0.950]
> 1.00V SB Voltage [1.01250]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [1.81000]
> Security Device Support [Enable]
> SHA-1 PCR Bank [Disabled]
> SHA256 PCR Bank [Enabled]
> Pending operation [None]
> Platform Hierarchy [Enabled]
> Storage Hierarchy [Enabled]
> Endorsement Hierarchy [Enabled]
> TPM 2.0 UEFI Spec Version [TCG_2]
> Physical Presence Spec Version [1.3]
> Disable Block Sid [Disabled]
> Selects TPM device [Enable Discrete TPM]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Disabled]
> PSS Support [Enabled]
> PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
> NX Mode [Enabled]
> SVM Mode [Disabled]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
> SMART Self Test [Auto]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
> PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [PCIe RAID Mode]
> When system is in working state [All On]
> Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
> When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [All On]
> Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Setup]
> Intel LAN Controller [Auto]
> ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
> Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Enabled]
> Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
> USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Mode [GEN 4]
> PCIEX16_2 Mode [GEN 4]
> PCIEX1 Mode [GEN 3]
> PCIEX16_3 Mode [GEN 3]
> M.2_1 Link Mode [GEN 3]
> M.2_2 Link Mode [GEN 3]
> SB Link Mode [GEN 4]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> Above 4G Decoding [Enabled]
> Resize BAR Support [Auto]
> SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
> Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> USB Flash Disk 1100 [Auto]
> SanDisk uSD SDDR-289 1.00 [Auto]
> SanDisk MS SDDR-289 1.00 [Auto]
> SanDisk SD SDDR-289 1.00 [Auto]
> SanDisk CF SDDR-289 1.00 [Auto]
> USB Device Enable [Enabled]
> U32G2_2 [Enabled]
> U32G2_3 [Enabled]
> U32G2_4 [Enabled]
> U32G1_10 [Enabled]
> U32G1_11 [Enabled]
> USB12 [Enabled]
> USB13 [Enabled]
> U32G2_7 [Enabled]
> U32G2_8 [Enabled]
> U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Device [SATA6G_7: Samsung SSD 860 EVO 4TB]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> VRM Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> PCH Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Flow Rate [Monitor]
> CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
> CPU Fan Step Up [0 sec]
> CPU Fan Step Down [0 sec]
> CPU Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
> High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
> High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
> High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
> High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> High Amp Fan Profile [Manual]
> High Amp Fan Upper Temperature [70]
> High Amp Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> High Amp Fan Middle Temperature [50]
> High Amp Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [42]
> High Amp Fan Lower Temperature [30]
> High Amp Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [20]
> Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> Above 4GB MMIO Limit [39bit (512GB)]
> Fast Boot [Enabled]
> Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
> Boot Logo Display [Auto]
> Bootup NumLock State [On]
> POST Delay Time [1 sec]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
> Launch CSM [Disabled]
> OS Type [Other OS]
> AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
> Flexkey [Reset]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> Load from Profile [1]
> Profile Name [3600C14 stable]
> Save to Profile [2]
> DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
> Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Enabled]
> CPU Frequency [0]
> CPU Voltage [0]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> Core control [Auto]
> SMT Control [Auto]
> Overclock [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
> ECO Mode [Disable]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
> PBO Limits [Manual]
> PPT Limit [W] [200]
> TDC Limit [A] [140]
> EDC Limit [A] [150]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> Curve Optimizer [Auto]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [200MHz]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Manual]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [85]
> LN2 Mode [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> LCLK DPM [Auto]
> LCLK DPM Enhanced PCIe Detection [Auto]
> Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
> L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> Global C-state Control [Auto]
> Power Supply Idle Control [Auto]
> SEV ASID Count [Auto]
> SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
> Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
> Local APIC Mode [Auto]
> ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
> MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
> PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
> Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
> Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
> IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
> DRAM scrub time [Auto]
> Poison scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> Memory interleaving [Auto]
> Memory interleaving size [Auto]
> 1TB remap [Auto]
> DRAM map inversion [Auto]
> ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
> GMI encryption control [Auto]
> xGMI encryption control [Auto]
> CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
> 4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> 3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
> PcsCG control [Auto]
> Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
> Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
> CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
> Memory Clear [Auto]
> Overclock [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
> DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Data Poisoning [Auto]
> DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
> RCD Parity [Auto]
> DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
> Write CRC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
> Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
> DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
> DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
> TSME [Auto]
> Data Scramble [Auto]
> DFE Read Training [Auto]
> FFE Write Training [Auto]
> PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
> MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
> CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
> Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
> BankGroupSwap [Auto]
> BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
> Address Hash Bank [Auto]
> Address Hash CS [Auto]
> Address Hash Rm [Auto]
> SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
> MBIST Enable [Disabled]
> Pattern Select [PRBS]
> Pattern Length(VMR) [6]
> Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
> Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
> Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> IOMMU [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> FCLK Frequency [Auto]
> SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
> UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
> LN2 Mode [Auto]
> ACS Enable [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
> PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
> cTDP Control [Auto]
> EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
> Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
> APBDIS [Auto]
> DF Cstates [Auto]
> CPPC [Auto]
> CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
> NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
> Early Link Speed [Auto]
> Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
> Preferred IO [Auto]
> CV test [Auto]
> Loopback Mode [Auto]
> SRIS [Auto]
> Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]


Sweet. Thanks!
BTW, do you have those tight settings to share? Curious if mine is any better at it. 
Thanks again


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> Sweet. Thanks!
> BTW, do you have those tight settings to share? Curious if mine is any better at it.
> Thanks again


Unfortunately, I did not save them as it didn't work for me. I think it was from the AMD memory stability thread.


----------



## Theo164

My results testing 3801 vs 3902 same daily bios settings
5900x pbo 220W 140A 170A

CB20 st 639 pts vs 636 pts
CB20 mt 9151 pts vs 9053 pts
max st freq 5030 mhz vs 4970 mhhz
max mt freq 4653 mhz vs 4631mhz
max VID 1.488 vs 1.413
max temp 76c vs 72c
max [email protected] 100% limit 203w vs 194w
max TDC & EDC limit 92% vs 88%


----------



## LocoDiceGR

is there any news about a new Agesa from AMD?!


----------



## GRABibus

LocoDiceGR said:


> is there any news about a new Agesa from AMD?!


We are testing it in Bios 3902


----------



## GRABibus

GRABibus said:


> Same for me.
> 
> Due to the low temperatures and low voltages that the 3902 exhibit, I decided to reintall it and get benefit of the headroom offered by low temps and low voltages.
> 
> Here are my best runs :
> 180-130-160
> -30 all cores
> +200MHz Boos Clock Override
> 23°C ambiant
> 
> View attachment 2534718
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2534719
> 
> 
> I could pass 3 hours Realbench with 180-130-160 which was impossible (Crash) with Bios 3801 and those settings.
> 
> I also have much more low temps (In Realbench, in gamings, etc...)
> 
> The only point is the latency in Aida : I am 1.5ns to 2ns higher than with 3801.
> 
> I will run it also until release, especialy to see if I don't get low load reboots with my -30 all cores, and to see gaming behavior.
> In Vanguard, I get 6°C less on CCD1 max temp.
> 
> This Bios seems finally to have a huge potential


180-130-160, -30 all cores, +200MHz is not stable.
I rechecked with Realbench and crash.

So I come back to my stable 170-115-155.
I make -30 all cores
+200MHz.
I also put an offset of -0.025V on Vcore.

=> Stable 8 hours Realbench.












Here are my best CBR20 results at 22°C ambient :

Frequencies :










Temperatures:









This Bios is very interesting as producing lower voltages, lower temperatures and, from my side, not a real loss of performances, at least in CBR20.
Interesting also is that I came back to -30 all Cores with 170-115-155 and +200MHz, which is not stable (Low loads reboots) with 3801.
No low loads reboots since yesterday with these setttin,gs with 3902. Crossing fingers 

Let's see in the next hours/days if I get some low loads reboots.


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> 180-130-160, -30 all cores, +200MHz is not stable.
> I rechecked with Realbench and crash.
> 
> So I come back to my stable 170-115-155.
> I make -30 all cores
> +200MHz.
> I also put an offset of -0.025V on Vcore.
> 
> => Stable 8 hours Realbench.
> 
> View attachment 2534769
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are my best CBR20 results at 22°C ambient :
> 
> Frequencies :
> View attachment 2534767
> 
> 
> 
> Temperatures:
> View attachment 2534768
> 
> 
> This Bios is very interesting as producing lower voltages, lower temperatures and, from my side, not a real loss of performances, at least in CBR20.
> Interesting also is that I came back to -30 all Cores with 170-115-155 and +200MHz, which is not stable (Low loads reboots) with 3801.
> No low loads reboots since yesterday with these setttin,gs with 3902. Crossing fingers
> 
> Let's see in the next hours/days if I get some low loads reboots.


Sorry, what are your CBR20 scores if you keep the exact same configuration and just set the boost to 50Mhz instead of 200 ?


----------



## Theo164

I type in bios settings one by one and didn't use the old 3801 profile like before
3902 can boot and run cb 20 @ -30 all cores, 3801 core 0 was stable @ -18 and core 4 @ -20 all other - 30
5900x 220W 140A 170A all core @ -30 +200

I'll wait for low load reboots fingers crossed


----------



## rossi594

GRABibus said:


> Same for me.
> 
> Due to the low temperatures and low voltages that the 3902 exhibit, I decided to reintall it and get benefit of the headroom offered by low temps and low voltages.
> 
> Here are my best runs :
> 180-130-160
> -30 all cores
> +200MHz Boos Clock Override
> 23°C ambiant
> 
> View attachment 2534718
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2534719
> 
> 
> I could pass 3 hours Realbench with 180-130-160 which was impossible (Crash) with Bios 3801 and those settings.
> 
> I also have much more low temps (In Realbench, in gamings, etc...)
> 
> The only point is the latency in Aida : I am 1.5ns to 2ns higher than with 3801.
> 
> I will run it also until release, especialy to see if I don't get low load reboots with my -30 all cores, and to see gaming behavior.
> In Vanguard, I get 6°C less on CCD1 max temp.
> 
> This Bios seems finally to have a huge potential





Sleepycat said:


> It's just friggin ridiculous. It just runs faster, with same clock, same voltage and temperatures.
> 
> View attachment 2534725


If it lowered you max vid maybe you guys can even up the skalar to clock higher, with the safe voltages.


----------



## GRABibus

Theo164 said:


> I type in bios settings one by one and didn't use the old 3801 profile like before
> 3902 can boot and run cb 20 @ -30 all cores, 3801 core 0 was stable @ -18 and core 4 @ -20 all other - 30
> 5900x 220W 140A 170A all core @ -30 +200
> 
> I'll wait for low load reboots fingers crossed


Are you with AMD drivers or ASUS drivers for the chipset ?
Last AMD drivers from 21/10 give Better CBR20 MT score than last from ASUS site.


----------



## GRABibus

Theo164 said:


> I type in bios settings one by one and didn't use the old 3801 profile like before
> 3902 can boot and run cb 20 @ -30 all cores, 3801 core 0 was stable @ -18 and core 4 @ -20 all other - 30
> 5900x 220W 140A 170A all core @ -30 +200
> 
> I'll wait for low load reboots fingers crossed


Which stability test do you perform to check stability ?


----------



## rossi594

Did anybody see any improvements from 3902 to pcie 4.0 / usb stability / whea 19s / memory oc?


----------



## LocoDiceGR

GRABibus said:


> We are testing it in Bios 3902


soon for B550?


----------



## Theo164

GRABibus said:


> Are you with AMD drivers or ASUS drivers for the chipset ?
> Last AMD drivers from 21/10 give Better CBR20 MT score than last from ASUS site.





GRABibus said:


> Which stability test do you perform to check stability ?




Latest ASUS V3.10.22.706

For the first quick check i use SOTR benchmark it hits the cpu with spikes if co its way off it will reboot, also it's the fastest way to check imc for whea
Linpack extreme 20-25 loops @ 14GB and ASUS real bench for all core load, blender too

For light load and high frequency, CPU Max Boost Tester usually overnight


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> Unfortunately, I did not save them as it didn't work for me. I think it was from the AMD memory stability thread.


mmm just realized my single scores dropped. Trying to figure out why.



UPDATE:
Ok I am back to something a bit more normal now. I like when I am closer to 650s than 640 but I will take it


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Sorry, what are your CBR20 scores if you keep the exact same configuration and just set the boost to 50Mhz instead of 200 ?



Better with +50MHz than +200MHz !


----------



## GRABibus

rossi594 said:


> If it lowered you max vid maybe you guys can even up the skalar to clock higher, with the safe voltages.


No effect at all on my scores, even worst....


----------



## GRABibus

Theo164 said:


> I type in bios settings one by one and didn't use the old 3801 profile like before
> 3902 can boot and run cb 20 @ -30 all cores, 3801 core 0 was stable @ -18 and core 4 @ -20 all other - 30
> 5900x 220W 140A 170A all core @ -30 +200
> 
> I'll wait for low load reboots fingers crossed


Those results are impressive.
Any idea why from my side anything higher than PPT 170W, I crash in Realbench.

Silicone ?

What’s your cooling ? Maybe , it was is my cooling who doesn’t give enough headroom to voltage ?
Mine is only H115i RGB Platinum.


----------



## GRABibus

LocoDiceGR said:


> soon for B550?


Don’t know.


----------



## Sleepycat

GRABibus said:


> Better with +50MHz than +200MHz !
> View attachment 2534791


You reckon it is because 3902 is more conservative at high temperatures, as in it cuts out quicker than 3801? It's like mine where 4.675 GHz @ 1.3V gives the same score as 4.65 GHz @ 1.25V. Temperature is the only difference, possibly dipping in and out of the upper thermal limits.


----------



## rossi594

Sleepycat said:


> You reckon it is because 3902 is more conservative at high temperatures, as in it cuts out quicker than 3801? It's like mine where 4.675 GHz @ 1.3V gives the same score as 4.65 GHz @ 1.25V. Temperature is the only difference, possibly dipping in and out of the upper thermal limits.


You think it throttles at <75°C? That would be weird. Most of the screens show fairly low operating temperatures.


----------



## Theo164

GRABibus said:


> Those results are impressive.
> Any idea why from my side anything higher than PPT 170W, I crash in Realbench.
> 
> Silicone ?
> 
> What’s your cooling ? Maybe , it was is my cooling who doesn’t give enough headroom to voltage ?
> Mine is only H115i RGB Platinum.


Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360 with v3 AMD offset mounting kit and 3 x Arctic BioniX P120 A-RGB 30mm thick fans (9 case fans in total)


Spoiler


----------



## GRABibus

Theo164 said:


> Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360 with v3 AMD offset mounting kit and 3 x Arctic BioniX P120 A-RGB 30mm thick fans (9 case fans in total)
> 
> 
> Spoiler


Very nice rig.
So this is my Silicon….Bronze CPU 😊


----------



## ChillyRide

shaolin95 said:


> Guys I am curious about this storage results:
> 
> View attachment 2534954
> 
> 
> To my knowledge all my Drives are set the same way in BIOS and Windows. Is this an x570 platform thing that makes this test show resutls like that (for instance 2 drivers showing RRAM cached drive detected)?
> That is Home - UserBenchmark just in case.


its almost 2022 ppl stil use UserBenchmark -_-


----------



## Luggage

rossi594 said:


> You think it throttles at <75°C? That would be weird. Most of the screens show fairly low operating temperatures.


Throttles all the way from sub zero… GN tested PBO1 behavior with zen 2 on LN.
(Or rather boosts better with lower thermals)

also:
Clav's method for Zen 3 OC

Clav's method for Zen 3 OC


----------



## shaolin95

Luggage said:


> Throttles all the way from sub zero… GN tested PBO1 behavior with zen 2 on LN.
> (Or rather boosts better with lower thermals)
> 
> also:
> Clav's method for Zen 3 OC
> 
> Clav's method for Zen 3 OC


Interesting. I have mine manually set to 90C. Always like to do that but not sure if it helps much


----------



## Luggage

shaolin95 said:


> Interesting. I have mine manually set to 90C. Always like to do that but not sure if it helps much


Found the article:









Coolers & Cases Really Matter for Ryzen 3000 CPUs | Thermal Scaling & Frequency


In some ways, AMD has become NVIDIA, and it’s not necessarily a bad thing. The way new Ryzen CPUs scale is behaviorally similar to the way GPU Boost 4.0 scales on GPUs, where simply lowering the silicon operating temperature will directly affect performance and clock speeds.




www.gamersnexus.net


----------



## Sleepycat

rossi594 said:


> You think it throttles at <75°C? That would be weird. Most of the screens show fairly low operating temperatures.


I believe that if you see a CPU temperature of say 75ºC, the reality is that the value is probably an average over a range of time. We don't know the min and max temperature when the average is 75 ºC at the point of reading. We also don't know if 3901 is more conservative than previous revisions with regards to temperature. 

When I tested, I set my thermal throttle temperature where if it goes above that point that it falls out of PBO and reverts back to the standard AMD clock profile. So it is possible that it is going in and out of that standard profile when we go too high. My results show a measured 76.5 ºC having a very similar performance to 82.6 ºC, so the higher value might be self-throttling. resulting in the same performance.


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> Guys I am curious about this storage results:
> 
> View attachment 2534954
> 
> 
> To my knowledge all my Drives are set the same way in BIOS and Windows. Is this an x570 platform thing that makes this test show resutls like that (for instance 2 drivers showing RRAM cached drive detected)?
> That is Home - UserBenchmark just in case.


I don't recommend using Userbenchmark. It also tells me that my computer is stuffed and my SSDs are all underperforming, when it is not the case in Crystaldiskmark and real life file transfers.


----------



## ChillyRide

Strange results with 3902. I got 205-170-150, -30 9 cores and 3 with -29, scalar x2, +50mhz. In order to achieve same results in CB20 with 3801 I pushed to +75, but now with all -30, debuging cores. Single core remain same results but MT rised a bit.


----------



## Theo164

GRABibus said:


> Very nice rig.
> So this is my Silicon….Bronze CPU 😊


Thanks
I don't know if It's accurate or not, mine according to CRT is Energy Efficient 4.21 GOLDEN 
and HYDRA 
Energy Efficiency CCD#1 4.17 | GOLDEN sample 
Energy Efficiency CCD#2 4.08 | SILVER sample
but weak imc... It boots up to 1900/3800 but it's a whea party with reboots, 2 or 4 b-die sticks doesn't matter. Maximum stable without whea and reboots is 1866/3733


----------



## PWn3R

GRABibus said:


> Very nice rig.
> So this is my Silicon….Bronze CPU


Mine got platinum but the memory controller is dog water.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tolis626

Theo164 said:


> Thanks
> I don't know if It's accurate or not, mine according to CRT is Energy Efficient 4.21 GOLDEN
> and HYDRA
> Energy Efficiency CCD#1 4.17 | GOLDEN sample
> Energy Efficiency CCD#2 4.08 | SILVER sample
> but weak imc... It boots up to 1900/3800 but it's a whea party with reboots, 2 or 4 b-die sticks doesn't matter. Maximum stable without whea and reboots is 1866/3733


Since you mentioned it, I've wanted for a while to check what CTR thinks of my CPU, but I can't for the life of me figure out how to do it. Any pointers?


----------



## rossi594

Sleepycat said:


> I believe that if you see a CPU temperature of say 75ºC, the reality is that the value is probably an average over a range of time. We don't know the min and max temperature when the average is 75 ºC at the point of reading. We also don't know if 3901 is more conservative than previous revisions with regards to temperature.
> 
> When I tested, I set my thermal throttle temperature where if it goes above that point that it falls out of PBO and reverts back to the standard AMD clock profile. So it is possible that it is going in and out of that standard profile when we go too high. My results show a measured 76.5 ºC having a very similar performance to 82.6 ºC, so the higher value might be self-throttling. resulting in the same performance.


It's the max not the average value ... hwinfo shows both ...


----------



## Kyrex

Hey guys,

I have a C8H and a 5900x and was wondering if running ram 4x16GB DR at 3800mhz is something unthinkable on this board.

I can run 4x16GB on Gigabyte boards, like the Aorus Pro and the Aorus Elite, at speeds even above 3800/1900, but this Asus one just refuses to do it.

Thanks


----------



## Kelutrel

For people who cant keep stability at -30 CO on all but the two fastest cores, or are getting random reboots at idle, I noticed that by setting "CPU Power Duty Control", "CPU Power Phase Control", "VDDSOC Phase Control" all to "Extreme", and disabling "VRM Spread Spectrum", seems to stabilize current variations and may allow lower curve offsets without reboots.

After changing those settings, I have not noticed any particular cpu or vrm temperatures increase under normal gaming load or using corecycler.


----------



## sonixmon

Kyrex said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I have a C8H and a 5900x and was wondering if running ram 4x16GB DR at 3800mhz is something unthinkable on this board.
> 
> I can run 4x16GB on Gigabyte boards, like the Aorus Pro and the Aorus Elite, at speeds even above 3800/1900, but this Asus one just refuses to do it.
> 
> Thanks


Hmm interesting, I would understand the B550 board (heard they are better for ram OC) but the Elite is x570 right?


----------



## shaolin95

Kelutrel said:


> For people who cant keep stability at -30 CO on all but the two fastest cores, or are getting random reboots at idle, I noticed that by setting "CPU Power Duty Control", "CPU Power Phase Control", "VDDSOC Phase Control" all to "Extreme", and disabling "VRM Spread Spectrum", seems to stabilize current variations and may allow lower curve offsets without reboots.
> 
> After changing those settings, I have not noticed any particular cpu or vrm temperatures increase under normal gaming load or using corecycler.


With the latest Bios I have not had issues at -30 as I had before with my best 2 cores but I will keep this info in mind in case I do.
Thanks!!


----------



## shaolin95

I reinstalled my Windows recently and forgot to backup my custom HWINFO64 setup.
Can someone remind me which is the most "accurate" reading for the temps for my 5950x please?
Thanks


----------



## ChillyRide

Kyrex said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I have a C8H and a 5900x and was wondering if running ram 4x16GB DR at 3800mhz is something unthinkable on this board.
> 
> I can run 4x16GB on Gigabyte boards, like the Aorus Pro and the Aorus Elite, at speeds even above 3800/1900, but this Asus one just refuses to do it.
> 
> Thanks


I got 4x16 gb and can confirm that its super try hard to run 3800:1900. Max I get was 3733. I beliave we need to play with AddrCMDEsetup, CsOdtSetup, CkeSetup in order to run properly. Gigabyte mobos seems to be auto adjust this values to run as u wish. I managed to 2x16 with CR 1T and cl13. Also after 3801 I cant get 4x16 to run even at 3733, only 3600.


----------



## ChillyRide

3902 bios messed with my ST, it dont reach thats clocks as was on 3801. 3902 Max voltage on VID from HWinfo is 1.4v while on 3801 it can reach 1.5v. MT seems to be ok. Played whole night and got my new highscore. Its seems to be max with my current cooling solution.


----------



## ChillyRide

ChillyRide said:


> 3902 bios messed with my ST, it dont reach thats clocks as was on 3801. 3902 Max voltage on VID from HWinfo is 1.4v while on 3801 it can reach 1.5v. MT seems to be ok. Played whole night and got my new highscore. Its seems to be max with my current cooling solution. This is one is on 3801. Flashed back.
> View attachment 2535074


----------



## GRABibus

ChillyRide said:


> 3902 bios messed with my ST, it dont reach thats clocks as was on 3801. 3902 Max voltage on VID from HWinfo is 1.4v while on 3801 it can reach 1.5v. MT seems to be ok. Played whole night and got my new highscore. Its seems to be max with my current cooling solution.
> View attachment 2535074


this was my first reaction also to flash back to. 3801.
but, with 3902, as it boost a little bit lower than 3801 with same settings, I decided to go to -30 all cores, still with +200MHz boost clock override.
I still didn’t get any low/light reboots since 2 days.

my MT score is the same as wilth 3801 and my ST score is maybe 2pts below than With 3801.

BUT, voltages are ,as you mention , 100mV lower and temps 6 to 8 degrees lower (especially in games).
That’s a lot to consider for energy consumption and CPU lifetime.

This should give you also more headroom for overclock.

thank To this, I found a new OC With 230/125/160. -30all cores +200MHZ, instead of my 170/115/155 on 3801 on which I was temperature bound.


----------



## GRABibus

By decreasing EDC value from 155 to 140, I have recovered max core vids to 1,49V with this bios.

And here are scores :










240-130-140
-30 all Cores
+200MHz
LLC 2

I am pretty sure this is unstable and too hot in Realbench.
Will run Realbench this night


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> By decreasing EDC value from 155 to 140, I have recovered max core vids to 1,49V with this bios.
> 
> And here are scores :
> 
> View attachment 2535138
> 
> 
> 240-130-140
> -30 all Cores
> +200MHz
> LLC 2
> 
> I am pretty sure this is unstable and too hot in Realbench.
> Will run Realbench this night


I confirm this. My motherboard (C8F) has motherboard PPT/TDC/EDC limits at 395-255-200 with BIOS 3902.
If I set them manually to 395-255-140 , I get back my previous ST higher frequencies, voltages, and score, as in BIOS 3801.
I don't know if it is related but 140 EDC is the default EDC for the 5900X. Now I have to see if I can still keep the lower curve offsets... nice finding anyway!

UPDATE:
Also temperatures and stable curve offsets are back to the ones I had with 3801. It seems that manually setting EDC to 140 reverts this BIOS to 3801 in relation to PBO and voltages.


----------



## shaolin95

Kelutrel said:


> I confirm this. My motherboard (C8F) has motherboard PPT/TDC/EDC limits at 395-255-200 with BIOS 3902.
> If I set them manually to 395-255-140 , I get back my previous ST higher frequencies, voltages, and score. I don't know if it is related but 140 EDC is the default EDC for the 5900X. Now I have to see if I can still keep the lower curve offsets... nice finding anyway!


That is nice! Time to fiddle with that now and see what I get 


Update: it seems I need better cooling before I put more juice into it as I keep getting lower performance even though my Temps are not even bitting 80c all cores load


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> I confirm this. My motherboard (C8F) has motherboard PPT/TDC/EDC limits at 395-255-200 with BIOS 3902.
> If I set them manually to 395-255-140 , I get back my previous ST higher frequencies, voltages, and score, as in BIOS 3801.
> I don't know if it is related but 140 EDC is the default EDC for the 5900X. Now I have to see if I can still keep the lower curve offsets... nice finding anyway!
> 
> UPDATE:
> Also temperatures and stable curve offsets are back to the ones I had with 3801. It seems that manually setting EDC to 140 reverts this BIOS to 3801 in relation to PBO and voltages.


I need to change my cooling.
Realbench test gets too hot on cores with EDC 140.
It is a pity, I am temperature bound and loose OC potential 😩


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> nice finding anyway !


thanks 😊


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> I need to change my cooling.
> Realbench test gets too hot on cores with EDC 140.
> It is a pity, I am temperature bound and loose OC potential 😩


You may want to try to lower your CPU Load-Level Calibration in the BIOS to lower your temperatures, like setting it to 2. You will likely loose 5 points of ST score and gain 30 points of MT score in CBR20, and your temperatures will be a bit lower (probably like 3-4 degrees). But this just means that it will take more time for RealBench to reach the 85 degrees temperature limit anyway.
Imho, if your scores are ok, and they look ok, you are not hindering the OC potential of your cpu sample just because RealBench makes it reach the temperature limit. Even with a custom loop you will not see scores going higher than 1% in synthetic benchmarks, and still RealBench will reach the temperature limit before or later.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> You may want to try to lower your CPU Load-Level Calibration in the BIOS to lower your temperatures, like setting it to 2. You will likely loose 5 points of ST score and gain 30 points of MT score in CBR20, and your temperatures will be a bit lower (probably like 3-4 degrees). But this just means that it will take more time for RealBench to reach the 85 degrees temperature limit anyway.
> Imho, if your scores are ok, and they look ok, you are not hindering the OC potential of your cpu sample just because RealBench makes it reach the temperature limit. Even with a custom loop you will not see scores going higher than 1% in synthetic benchmarks, and still RealBench will reach the temperature limit before or later.


Even with LLC 2, too high temps in Realbench.
I have a rule that whatever the stress test, I don’t want to reach 90degrees on CCD1 tdie at 22degrees ambient.


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> Even with LLC 2, too high temps in Realbench.
> I have a rule that whatever the stress test, I don’t want to reach 90degrees on CCD1 tdie at 22degrees ambient.


The rule is Ok. AMD said that temperatures up to 90c are to be considered as typical and by design for full load conditions anyway ( source ) . Anyway a cooler cpu never hurts.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> The rule is Ok. AMD said that temperatures up to 90c are to be considered as typical and by design for full load conditions anyway ( source ) . Anyway a cooler cpu never hurts.


CPU cooler never hurts but could be improved from my side in order to not reach those 90degrees and then Validate the OC Beyond where I score 9163 MT / 647 ST


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Weird..both my MT and ST performance kinda dropped with 3902 (Dark Hero) tried the "nice find" by Grabibus but still figures are down..can't say much about gaming feels exactly the same..


----------



## Theo164

rossi594 said:


> Did anybody see any improvements from 3902 to pcie 4.0 / usb stability / whea 19s / memory oc?


Finally, after 13 months of testing from time to time every single test beta and official release bios 3902 is the first one since factory flashed v2502 that my system can run 4 x 8gb b-die @1900 / 3800 without whea errors and reboots
More testing is required, although it looks promising... Before 3902 50% karhu test progress (cache and FPU cpu stress enabled) = 1-2 whea and reboot after 20-25 minutes


----------



## blunden

Kyrex said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I have a C8H and a 5900x and was wondering if running ram 4x16GB DR at 3800mhz is something unthinkable on this board.
> 
> I can run 4x16GB on Gigabyte boards, like the Aorus Pro and the Aorus Elite, at speeds even above 3800/1900, but this Asus one just refuses to do it.
> 
> Thanks


 If you are talking about later revision Gigabyte boards, those have a better memory trace layout that allows for much higher memory overclocks, at least if Buildzoid is to be believed. ASUS never bothered to update their trace layout. That might be why you are having issues if you have already verified that your IMC can run that configuration on other boards.


----------



## Kelutrel

kairi_zeroblade said:


> Weird..both my MT and ST performance kinda dropped with 3902 (Dark Hero) tried the "nice find" by Grabibus but still figures are down..can't say much about gaming feels exactly the same..


Do you have a 5900X ?


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Kelutrel said:


> Do you have a 5900X ?


Yes..

And 1 more thing..i do monitor my water temps while gaming and on 3902 its 1 degree hotter on the 140 EDC trick..while using my usual 150 EDC gives the same water temps..


----------



## Kelutrel

AIDA64 6.50.5817 Beta fixes the L3 Cache Bandwidth Benchmark for AMD CPUs on Windows 11.

Available here


----------



## Kelutrel

kairi_zeroblade said:


> Yes..
> 
> And 1 more thing..i do monitor my water temps while gaming and on 3902 its 1 degree hotter on the 140 EDC trick..while using my usual 150 EDC gives the same water temps..


Weird, in my case bios 3902 with PBO power limits set to "Motherboard" produced lower clock speeds (like 200MHz lower) on multi-cores and single-core benchmarks (and 1-2% lower scores), compared to bios 3801, I checked with HwInfo.
But when setting EDC to 140 I got back the usual 4.65GHz in multi-core and 5GHz in single core CBR20 benchmarks as on 3801, and the usual scores. Same for the temperature, it was 3-4 degrees lower with 3902 at PBO power limits set to "Motherboard", possibly because of the lower cores frequencies, and went back to the usual temperature when setting EDC to 140.
Maybe it also depends from other BIOS settings that I have enabled then.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Kelutrel said:


> Weird, in my case bios 3902 with PBO power limits set to "Motherboard" produced lower clock speeds (like 200MHz lower) on multi-cores and single-core benchmarks (and 1-2% lower scores), compared to bios 3801, I checked with HwInfo.


Although CB R23 isn't really much of a consistent run-to-run test..though I usually take the average of 3 tests and based on my settings from 3801 with the only change of EDC to 140 it scored 70 points lower..I was getting near 23.8k for MT and my ST scores were down by 30 points, which I my normal score around 1662 on the Dark Hero..


Kelutrel said:


> Same for the temperature, it was 3-4 degrees lower with 3902 at PBO power limits set to "Motherboard", possibly because of the lower cores frequencies, and went back to the usual temperature when setting EDC to 140.


Same observation, running on EDC 150 gave me cooler temps but a tad lower high frequencies and lower max voltages around 1.41v based off the readings..dialing in 140 EDC ramps it up normally like in previous BIOS/AGESA versions and my water temps are 1 degree higher than usual while playing games, I usually see my water temps around 28-29 depending on the game but last night when I flashed 3902 under the same controlled room temp I was getting 30.8c to 31c water temp..


----------



## Kelutrel

kairi_zeroblade said:


> Although CB R23 isn't really much of a consistent run-to-run test..though I usually take the average of 3 tests and based on my settings from 3801 with the only change of EDC to 140 it scored 70 points lower..I was getting near 28k for MT and my ST scores were down by 30 points, which I my normal score around 1662 on the Dark Hero..


Uhmmm... you said you have a 5900X but you also said that you usually get 28k in CBR23, that looks more like a 5950X to me. Maybe setting the EDC to 140 raises the core frequencies to 3801 levels only on the 5900X and compared to the motherboard power limits, but not on a 5950X using custom power limits.

When you set your usual EDC to 150 on 3902, do you see lower core frequencies (like 200Mhz lower) in MT and ST loads compared to the same settings on 3801 ?


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Kelutrel said:


> you said you have a 5900X but you also said that you usually get 28k in CBR23, that looks more like a 5950X to me. Maybe setting the EDC to 140 raises the core frequencies to 3801 levels only on the 5900X and compared to the motherboard power limits, but not on a 5950X using custom power limits.


sorry it was a typo, 27.3->23.7k..

sorry just saw it now..must have been drunk..lol..my bad..


----------



## DvL Ax3l

On Asus ROG forum one of the mods posted new chipset drivers for AMD.

- *AMD Chipset Drivers* :
Package : 3.11.17.521 WHQL [17/11/2021]

I just don't understand why ASUS posted this drivers, it's the second time after Windows 11 fix, anyway I see always the same version numbers that I already had on previously releases.
AMD PCI Device Driver v1.0.0.83 - since June 2021
AMD GPIO Driver v2.2.0.130 - since May 2021
AMD PSP Driver v5.17.0.0 - since August 2021
AMD SMBUS Driver v5.12.0.38 - since May 2021


Asus ROG forum link


----------



## Kokin

Somewhat interesting results with BIOS 3902 coming from 3601 with a 3900X. I'm starting to get better MT scores again, but ST tanked in CPU-Z. BIOS 3003 was still the best scoring one for my 3900X.

My auto settings are PPT = 395 TDC =255 EDC = 0. The 3900X has a default EDC of 140, would manually setting EDC make a difference?



3902 BIOS3601 BIOS3501 BIOS3402 BIOS3003 BIOS2702 BIOSCPU-Z
Single: 535.2
Multi: 8555.8CPU-Z
Single: 557.3
Multi: 8506.1CPU-Z
Single: 556.6
Multi: 8507.3CPU-Z
Single:553.8
Multi: 8430.6CPU-Z
Single: 559.0
Multi: 8561.8CPU-Z
Single: 556.4
Multi: 8619.5AIDA latency: 63.8nsAIDA latency: 64.5nsAIDA latency: 64.3ns
AIDA latency: 64.5ns
AIDA latency: 64.0nsAIDA latency: 63.9nsCB20
Single: 527
Multi: 7535
CB20
Single: 524
Multi: 7448CB20
Single: 527
Multi: 7451CB20
Single: 526
Multi: 7448CB20
Single: 532
Multi: 7556CB20
Single: 526
Multi: 7529

Using the same memory settings to keep it consistent.












Spoiler: Benchmarks


----------



## xeizo

DvL Ax3l said:


> On Asus ROG forum one of the mods posted new chipset drivers for AMD.
> 
> - *AMD Chipset Drivers* :
> Package : 3.11.17.521 WHQL [17/11/2021]
> 
> I just don't understand why ASUS posted this drivers, it's the second time after Windows 11 fix, anyway I see always the same version numbers that I already had on previously releases.
> AMD PCI Device Driver v1.0.0.83 - since June 2021
> AMD GPIO Driver v2.2.0.130 - since May 2021
> AMD PSP Driver v5.17.0.0 - since August 2021
> AMD SMBUS Driver v5.12.0.38 - since May 2021
> 
> 
> Asus ROG forum link


Yes, in particular as the AMD driver 3.10.08 works very well, only problem I've noticed is Windows 11 still can't find the best core in CPU-Z but does so in Geekbench and most other programs. 

If this really is a newer driver there should be some sort of changelog, on what is fixed, if anything


----------



## xeizo

Kokin said:


> Somewhat interesting results with BIOS 3902 coming from 3601 with a 3900X. I'm starting to get better MT scores again, but ST tanked in CPU-Z. BIOS 3003 was still the best scoring one for my 3900X.
> 
> My auto settings are PPT = 395 TDC =255 EDC = 0. The 3900X has a default EDC of 140, would manually setting EDC make a difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 3902 BIOS3601 BIOS3501 BIOS3402 BIOS3003 BIOS2702 BIOSCPU-Z
> Single: 535.2
> Multi: 8555.8CPU-Z
> Single: 557.3
> Multi: 8506.1CPU-Z
> Single: 556.6
> Multi: 8507.3CPU-Z
> Single:553.8
> Multi: 8430.6CPU-Z
> Single: 559.0
> Multi: 8561.8CPU-Z
> Single: 556.4
> Multi: 8619.5AIDA latency: 63.8nsAIDA latency: 64.5nsAIDA latency: 64.3ns
> AIDA latency: 64.5ns
> AIDA latency: 64.0nsAIDA latency: 63.9nsCB20
> Single: 527
> Multi: 7535CB20
> Single: 524
> Multi: 7448CB20
> Single: 527
> Multi: 7451CB20
> Single: 526
> Multi: 7448CB20
> Single: 532
> Multi: 7556CB20
> Single: 526
> Multi: 7529
> 
> Using the same memory settings to keep it consistent.
> 
> View attachment 2535293
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Benchmarks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2535295
> 
> View attachment 2535296
> 
> View attachment 2535294


CPU-Z have had problems finding the best core in the single core test on later Windows builds, it hammers one of the lesser ones so largely CPU-Z can be ignored on the 12-16 core CPU:s. On 6-8 core CPU:s difference is much smaller as all cores clocks virtually the same.


----------



## Luggage

xeizo said:


> Yes, in particular as the AMD driver 3.10.08 works very well, only problem I've noticed is Windows 11 still can't find the best core in CPU-Z but does so in Geekbench and most other programs.
> 
> If this really is a newer driver there should be some sort of changelog, on what is fixed, if anything


Cpu-z single thread is hard coded to core 0


----------



## shaolin95

Luggage said:


> Cpu-z single thread is hard coded to core 0


So unless 0 happens to be your best core, we will be handicapped?


----------



## xeizo

Luggage said:


> Cpu-z single thread is hard coded to core 0


Maybe, maybe not, on Windows 10 it used my best core(core 2) and I had 685-690 in single core. In Windows 11 it's 665-675, but multi is exactly the same. So, something has changed, possibly unclear what.


----------



## Kyrex

sonixmon said:


> Hmm interesting, I would understand the B550 board (heard they are better for ram OC) but the Elite is x570 right?


Yes it is


ChillyRide said:


> I got 4x16 gb and can confirm that its super try hard to run 3800:1900. Max I get was 3733. I beliave we need to play with AddrCMDEsetup, CsOdtSetup, CkeSetup in order to run properly. Gigabyte mobos seems to be auto adjust this values to run as u wish. I managed to 2x16 with CR 1T and cl13. Also after 3801 I cant get 4x16 to run even at 3733, only 3600.
> View attachment 2535072
> View attachment 2535073


Yea, I can run 64GB at 3600:1800 just fine.
Currently I'm running 48GB (2x16 + 2x8) at 3800:1900 cl14, but now I have a 32GB 3800c14 kit in the drawer collecting dust...

It's a shame for such an expensive board to be outdone by others that cost half as much. But even so I don't plan on replacing it anytime soon 😅


----------



## Pastrami King

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2534384
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 3902 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Improve system performance
> 2. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1205
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 3902
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 3902
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 3902
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 3902
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 3902
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0502


For the 5950x:

If EDC is more than 140a, then FIT VID is 1.425v.

If EDC is equal to 140a, then FIT VID is 1.5v.

Edit: And my motherboard is an Asus Crosshair VIII Extreme.


----------



## GRABibus

3902....a good Bios 










240/130/140
-30 all Cores
+200MHz Boost Clock Override
LLC 2
22°C ambient
=> Too hot during Realbench (Max CPÜ CCD1 Tdie > 90°C), so no valid OC for me.


Here is now my valid OC with best compromise temperature/performance/stability :
230/125/160
-30 all cores
+200MHz
LLC 2









*Stable 8 hours Realbench :*










Really satisfied with these CBR20 scores, as until 3801, I had difficulties to go beyond 9000 MT sscore
And ST score, I get ~ 640 points, which was roughly what I got with my 3801 stable OC

When 3902 is realeased as final version, I will confirm this Realbench stability and also will make Karhu's (20000%) and Aida64 Cache stress test (4 Hours).


----------



## GRABibus

New [email protected]°C with my stable OC with 3902 Beta.

I could pass 9200 pts MT score !!
642 ST score, pretty good also !








230/125/160
-30 all Cores
+200MHz Boost Clock Override
LLC 2


So Happy with 3902


----------



## Pastrami King

GRABibus said:


> New [email protected]°C with my stable OC with 3902 Beta.
> 
> I could pass 9200 pts MT score !!
> 642 ST score, pretty good also !
> View attachment 2535384
> 
> 230/125/160
> -30 all Cores
> +200MHz Boost Clock Override
> LLC 2
> 
> 
> So Happy with 3902


Your maximum VID is above 1.425v with EDC=160? Not sure what is going on with my combination of 5950x and CH8X.


----------



## GRABibus

Pastrami King said:


> Your maximum VID is above 1.425v with EDC=160? Not sure what is going on with my combination of 5950x and CH8X.


No, my Vid max is 1.413V.

I discovered some posts ago the behavior of this Bios that you reminded today :









ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...


Strange results with 3902. I got 205-170-150, -30 9 cores and 3 with -29, scalar x2, +50mhz. In order to achieve same results in CB20 with 3801 I pushed to +75, but now with all -30, debuging cores. Single core remain same results but MT rised a bit.




www.overclock.net





Setting EDC > 140 helps a lot for CBR20 MT score, if you have a mid end cooler as mine (H115i RGB Platinum).
I never had MT score > 9200 since I have my build ! (Jan 2021).
But, this gives a little penalty at ST score. 642 score is still pretty fine for me.


----------



## safedisk

*ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 3903 BETA BIOS*

1. Some bug fixes
2. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1205 (same 3902)

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 3903

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 3903

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 3903

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 3903

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 3903

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0503


----------



## xeizo

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2535430
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 3903 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Some bug fixes
> 2. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1205 (same 3902)
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 3903
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 3903
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 3903
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 3903
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 3903
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0503


Thanks, let's hope 0503 is recognized as a valid bios. Will test tonight!


----------



## CyrIng

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2535430
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 3903 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Some bug fixes
> 2. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1205 (same 3902)
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 3903
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 3903
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 3903
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 3903
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 3903
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0503


Which bugs are fixed ?


----------



## safedisk

CyrIng said:


> Which bugs are fixed ?












Some user said about CPU Cache L1 Errors and the new bios 0503 doesn't seem to have any problems
I first saw this error message haha


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> New [email protected]°C with my stable OC with 3902 Beta.
> 
> I could pass 9200 pts MT score !!
> 642 ST score, pretty good also !
> View attachment 2535384
> 
> 230/125/160
> -30 all Cores
> +200MHz Boost Clock Override
> LLC 2
> 
> 
> So Happy with 3902


9200 ? Lol... let me have a look at those settings 😁


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> 9200 ? Lol... let me have a look at those settings 😁


I did these run with Hwinfo not running (better results).
I also ran CBR20 MT 3 times and got this score.
The first 2 runs were at 9100.
Cache effect ?


----------



## GRABibus

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2535430
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 3903 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Some bug fixes
> 2. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1205 (same 3902)
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 3903
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 3903
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 3903
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 3903
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 3903
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0503


If we have some saved OC profiles in 3902 bios, can we load them with 3903 without any issues ?
It will avoid to reenter all settings manually…


----------



## Sleepycat

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2535432
> 
> 
> Some user said about CPU Cache L1 Errors and the new bios 0503 doesn't seem to have any problems
> I first saw this error message haha


If I didn't have this cache error and WHEA error issue with 3902, is it worth updating to 3903?


----------



## safedisk

GRABibus said:


> If we have some saved OC profiles in 3902 bios, can we load them with 3903 without any issues ?
> It will avoid to reenter all settings manually…


Yes! You can use the 3902 profile as it is


----------



## safedisk

Sleepycat said:


> If I didn't have this cache error and WHEA error issue with 3902, is it worth updating to 3903?


This issue has been reported by C8E users
As long as the 3902 doesn't have any major issues, I don't think you need to change
but this is your choice Thanks!


----------



## GRABibus

safedisk said:


> Yes! You can use the 3902 profile as it is


Thanks !


----------



## Afferin

3903 doesn't seem to change the max VID when EDC is above 140, but my clocks seem better than 3902 in this scenario. On 3902, my max SC on my 5950x clock was around 4950 with my PBO settings (220/160/190). On 3903, I'm hitting 5050. On 3801 I was getting around 5075. All of these with the best CO I could stabilize (better values on 3902/3903 than 3801) and +50 boost clock.

On 3802, my personal best was 29905MC, 1660SC. On 3903 I can achieve 29778MC, 1656SC. But my temps are much lower on the SC test (presumably due to the limited voltage?). I'll take it!


----------



## shaolin95

Afferin said:


> 3903 doesn't seem to change the max VID when EDC is above 140, but my clocks seem better than 3902 in this scenario. On 3902, my max SC on my 5950x clock was around 4950 with my PBO settings (220/160/190). On 3903, I'm hitting 5050. On 3801 I was getting around 5075. All of these with the best CO I could stabilize (better values on 3902/3903 than 3801) and +50 boost clock.
> 
> On 3802, my personal best was 29905MC, 1660SC. On 3903 I can achieve 29778MC, 1656SC. But my temps are much lower on the SC test (presumably due to the limited voltage?). I'll take it!


Nice!
Mind sharing your BIOS for reference?
BTW, I just killed my windows fooling with RAM OCing...gotta love daily backups


----------



## Afferin

shaolin95 said:


> Nice!
> Mind sharing your BIOS for reference?
> BTW, I just killed my windows fooling with RAM OCing...gotta love daily backups


Oof, that happened to me the first time I followed the DRAM calculator and I was so scared I bricked my system. T_T

Here's my settings from *3801:*


Code:


[2021/12/03 09:52:21]
Ai Overclock Tuner [D.O.C.P. Standard]
D.O.C.P. [D.O.C.P DDR4-3603 14-14-14-34-1.45V]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3733MHz]
FCLK Frequency [1866MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Core VID [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
Dynamic OC Switcher [Auto]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
Performance Bias [Auto]
PBO Fmax Enhancer [Disabled]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Curve Optimizer [Auto]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [Auto]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
Trcdrd [15]
Trcdwr [15]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [21]
Trc [35]
TrrdS [4]
TrrdL [4]
Tfaw [16]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [8]
Twr [10]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [2]
TwrwrScl [2]
Trfc [243]
Trfc2 [Auto]
Trfc4 [Auto]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [8]
Trdwr [8]
Twrrd [3]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
ProcODT [40 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [Auto]
RttWr [Auto]
RttPark [Auto]
MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
MemCkeSetup [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [Auto]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
CPU Current Capability [Auto]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Auto]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Auto]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Auto]
DRAM Current Capability [100%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.07500]
DRAM Voltage [1.45000]
VDDG CCD Voltage Control [0.925]
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [0.975]
CLDO VDDP Voltage [0.880]
1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
Security Device Support [Enable]
SHA-1 PCR Bank [Disabled]
SHA256 PCR Bank [Enabled]
Pending operation [None]
Platform Hierarchy [Enabled]
Storage Hierarchy [Enabled]
Endorsement Hierarchy [Enabled]
TPM 2.0 UEFI Spec Version [TCG_2]
Physical Presence Spec Version [1.3]
Disable Block Sid [Disabled]
Selects TPM device [Enable Firmware TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Enabled]
PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
NX Mode [Enabled]
SVM Mode [Disabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
CCD Control [Auto]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
SMART Self Test [Auto]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
When system is in working state [All On]
Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [All On]
Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Auto]
Intel LAN Controller [Auto]
ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Enabled]
Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_2 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
SB Link Mode [Auto]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Above 4G Decoding [Enabled]
Resize BAR Support [Auto]
SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
HGST HTS721075A9E630 0 [Auto]
USB Device Enable [Enabled]
U32G2_2 [Enabled]
U32G2_3 [Enabled]
U32G2_4 [Enabled]
U32G1_10 [Enabled]
U32G1_11 [Enabled]
USB12 [Enabled]
USB13 [Enabled]
U32G2_7 [Enabled]
U32G2_8 [Enabled]
U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Device [SATA6G_1: CT2000MX500SSD1]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
Flow Rate [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
CPU Fan Step Up [0 sec]
CPU Fan Step Down [0 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
CPU Fan Profile [Manual]
CPU Fan Upper Temperature [60]
CPU Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
CPU Fan Middle Temperature [50]
CPU Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [75]
CPU Fan Lower Temperature [35]
CPU Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Manual]
Chassis Fan 1 Upper Temperature [65]
Chassis Fan 1 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 1 Middle Temperature [55]
Chassis Fan 1 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [80]
Chassis Fan 1 Lower Temperature [30]
Chassis Fan 1 Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Manual]
Chassis Fan 2 Upper Temperature [65]
Chassis Fan 2 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 2 Middle Temperature [55]
Chassis Fan 2 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Chassis Fan 2 Lower Temperature [35]
Chassis Fan 2 Min Duty Cycle (%) [40]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Manual]
Chassis Fan 3 Upper Temperature [65]
Chassis Fan 3 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 3 Middle Temperature [55]
Chassis Fan 3 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Chassis Fan 3 Lower Temperature [35]
Chassis Fan 3 Min Duty Cycle (%) [40]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
High Amp Fan Profile [Standard]
Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Above 4GB MMIO Limit [39bit (512GB)]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
Boot Logo Display [Auto]
Bootup NumLock State [On]
POST Delay Time [1 sec]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Disabled]
OS Type [Windows UEFI mode]
AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
Flexkey [Reset]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [1]
Profile Name [3733]
Save to Profile [1]
DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Enabled]
CPU Frequency [0]
CPU Voltage [0]
CCD Control [Auto]
Core control [Auto]
SMT Control [Auto]
Overclock [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
ECO Mode [Disable]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
PBO Limits [Manual]
PPT Limit [W] [210]
TDC Limit [A] [155]
EDC Limit [A] [190]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Curve Optimizer [Per Core]
Core 0 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [25]
Core 1 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [25]
Core 2 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [25]
Core 3 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [25]
Core 4 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [25]
Core 5 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [23]
Core 6 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [20]
Core 7 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [27]
Core 8 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [27]
Core 9 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [27]
Core 10 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [27]
Core 11 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [27]
Core 12 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 12 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [27]
Core 13 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 13 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [27]
Core 14 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 14 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [27]
Core 15 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 15 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [27]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [50MHz]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
LCLK DPM [Auto]
LCLK DPM Enhanced PCIe Detection [Auto]
Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
Global C-state Control [Disabled]
Power Supply Idle Control [Auto]
SEV ASID Count [Auto]
SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
Local APIC Mode [Auto]
ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
DRAM scrub time [Auto]
Poison scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Memory interleaving [Auto]
Memory interleaving size [Auto]
1TB remap [Auto]
DRAM map inversion [Auto]
ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
GMI encryption control [Auto]
xGMI encryption control [Auto]
CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
PcsCG control [Auto]
Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
Memory Clear [Auto]
Overclock [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Data Poisoning [Auto]
DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
RCD Parity [Auto]
DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
Write CRC Enable [Auto]
DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
TSME [Auto]
Data Scramble [Auto]
DFE Read Training [Auto]
FFE Write Training [Auto]
PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
BankGroupSwap [Auto]
BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
Address Hash Bank [Auto]
Address Hash CS [Auto]
Address Hash Rm [Auto]
SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
MBIST Enable [Disabled]
Pattern Select [PRBS]
Pattern Length(VMR) [6]
Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
IOMMU [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
FCLK Frequency [Auto]
SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
ACS Enable [Auto]
PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
cTDP Control [Auto]
EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
APBDIS [Auto]
DF Cstates [Disabled]
CPPC [Auto]
CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
Early Link Speed [Auto]
Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
Preferred IO [Auto]
CV test [Auto]
Loopback Mode [Auto]
SRIS [Auto]
Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]

And here are my settings from *3903:*


Code:


[2021/12/03 11:05:51]
Ai Overclock Tuner [D.O.C.P. Standard]
D.O.C.P. [D.O.C.P DDR4-3603 14-14-14-34-1.45V]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3733MHz]
FCLK Frequency [1866MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Core VID [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
Dynamic OC Switcher [Auto]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
Performance Bias [Auto]
PBO Fmax Enhancer [Disabled]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Curve Optimizer [Auto]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [Auto]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
Trcdrd [15]
Trcdwr [15]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [21]
Trc [35]
TrrdS [4]
TrrdL [4]
Tfaw [16]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [8]
Twr [10]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [2]
TwrwrScl [2]
Trfc [243]
Trfc2 [Auto]
Trfc4 [Auto]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [8]
Trdwr [8]
Twrrd [3]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
ProcODT [40 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [Auto]
RttWr [Auto]
RttPark [Auto]
MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
MemCkeSetup [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [Auto]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
CPU Current Capability [Auto]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Auto]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Auto]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Auto]
DRAM Current Capability [100%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.07500]
DRAM Voltage [1.45000]
VDDG CCD Voltage Control [0.925]
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [0.975]
CLDO VDDP Voltage [0.880]
1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
Security Device Support [Enable]
SHA-1 PCR Bank [Disabled]
SHA256 PCR Bank [Enabled]
Pending operation [None]
Platform Hierarchy [Enabled]
Storage Hierarchy [Enabled]
Endorsement Hierarchy [Enabled]
TPM 2.0 UEFI Spec Version [TCG_2]
Physical Presence Spec Version [1.3]
Disable Block Sid [Disabled]
Selects TPM device [Enable Firmware TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Enabled]
PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
NX Mode [Enabled]
SVM Mode [Disabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
CCD Control [Auto]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
SMART Self Test [Auto]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
When system is in working state [All On]
Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [All On]
Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Auto]
Intel LAN Controller [Auto]
ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Enabled]
Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_2 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
SB Link Mode [Auto]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Above 4G Decoding [Enabled]
Resize BAR Support [Auto]
SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
HGST HTS721075A9E630 0 [Auto]
USB Device Enable [Enabled]
U32G2_2 [Enabled]
U32G2_3 [Enabled]
U32G2_4 [Enabled]
U32G1_10 [Enabled]
U32G1_11 [Enabled]
USB12 [Enabled]
USB13 [Enabled]
U32G2_7 [Enabled]
U32G2_8 [Enabled]
U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Device [SATA6G_1: CT2000MX500SSD1]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
Flow Rate [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
CPU Fan Step Up [0 sec]
CPU Fan Step Down [0 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
CPU Fan Profile [Manual]
CPU Fan Upper Temperature [60]
CPU Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
CPU Fan Middle Temperature [50]
CPU Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [75]
CPU Fan Lower Temperature [35]
CPU Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Manual]
Chassis Fan 1 Upper Temperature [65]
Chassis Fan 1 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 1 Middle Temperature [55]
Chassis Fan 1 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [80]
Chassis Fan 1 Lower Temperature [30]
Chassis Fan 1 Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Manual]
Chassis Fan 2 Upper Temperature [65]
Chassis Fan 2 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 2 Middle Temperature [55]
Chassis Fan 2 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Chassis Fan 2 Lower Temperature [35]
Chassis Fan 2 Min Duty Cycle (%) [40]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Manual]
Chassis Fan 3 Upper Temperature [65]
Chassis Fan 3 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 3 Middle Temperature [55]
Chassis Fan 3 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Chassis Fan 3 Lower Temperature [35]
Chassis Fan 3 Min Duty Cycle (%) [40]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
High Amp Fan Profile [Standard]
Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Above 4GB MMIO Limit [39bit (512GB)]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
Boot Logo Display [Auto]
Bootup NumLock State [On]
POST Delay Time [1 sec]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Disabled]
OS Type [Windows UEFI mode]
AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
Flexkey [Reset]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [1]
Profile Name [3733]
Save to Profile [1]
DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Enabled]
CPU Frequency [0]
CPU Voltage [0]
CCD Control [Auto]
Core control [Auto]
SMT Control [Auto]
Overclock [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
ECO Mode [Disable]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
PBO Limits [Manual]
PPT Limit [W] [210]
TDC Limit [A] [160]
EDC Limit [A] [190]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Curve Optimizer [Per Core]
Core 0 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 1 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 2 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 3 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 4 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 5 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [28]
Core 6 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [25]
Core 7 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 8 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 9 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 10 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 11 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 12 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 12 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 13 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 13 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 14 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 14 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 15 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 15 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
CPU Boost Clock Override [Enabled (Positive)]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override (+) [50]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
LCLK DPM [Auto]
LCLK DPM Enhanced PCIe Detection [Auto]
Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
Global C-state Control [Disabled]
Power Supply Idle Control [Auto]
SEV ASID Count [Auto]
SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
Local APIC Mode [Auto]
ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
DRAM scrub time [Auto]
Poison scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Memory interleaving [Auto]
Memory interleaving size [Auto]
1TB remap [Auto]
DRAM map inversion [Auto]
ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
GMI encryption control [Auto]
xGMI encryption control [Auto]
CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
PcsCG control [Auto]
Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
Memory Clear [Auto]
Overclock [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Data Poisoning [Auto]
DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
RCD Parity [Auto]
DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
Write CRC Enable [Auto]
DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
TSME [Auto]
Data Scramble [Auto]
DFE Read Training [Auto]
FFE Write Training [Auto]
PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
BankGroupSwap [Auto]
BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
Address Hash Bank [Auto]
Address Hash CS [Auto]
Address Hash Rm [Auto]
SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
MBIST Enable [Disabled]
Pattern Select [PRBS]
Pattern Length(VMR) [6]
Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
IOMMU [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
FCLK Frequency [Auto]
SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
ACS Enable [Auto]
PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
cTDP Control [Auto]
EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
APBDIS [Auto]
DF Cstates [Disabled]
CPPC [Auto]
CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
Early Link Speed [Auto]
Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
Preferred IO [Auto]
CV test [Auto]
Loopback Mode [Auto]
SRIS [Auto]
Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]

As you can see, everything is identical except that I'm able to run a much more aggressive CO on 3903! It's a bummer my chip seems to be bronze tier because I can't really break 5075 SC but I'll take the low temps straight to the bank!


----------



## GRABibus

safedisk said:


> Yes! You can use the 3902 profile as it is


When flashing 3903 over 3902 (ez fiash 3 method), it has erased my OC save profiles.


----------



## shaolin95

Afferin said:


> Oof, that happened to me the first time I followed the DRAM calculator and I was so scared I bricked my system. T_T
> 
> Here's my settings from *3801:*
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> [2021/12/03 09:52:21]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [D.O.C.P. Standard]
> D.O.C.P. [D.O.C.P DDR4-3603 14-14-14-34-1.45V]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3733MHz]
> FCLK Frequency [1866MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> Core VID [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> Dynamic OC Switcher [Auto]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> Performance Bias [Auto]
> PBO Fmax Enhancer [Disabled]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> Curve Optimizer [Auto]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [Auto]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> Trcdrd [15]
> Trcdwr [15]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [21]
> Trc [35]
> TrrdS [4]
> TrrdL [4]
> Tfaw [16]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [8]
> Twr [10]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [2]
> TwrwrScl [2]
> Trfc [243]
> Trfc2 [Auto]
> Trfc4 [Auto]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [8]
> Trdwr [8]
> Twrrd [3]
> TwrwrSc [Auto]
> TwrwrSd [Auto]
> TwrwrDd [Auto]
> TrdrdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSd [Auto]
> TrdrdDd [Auto]
> Tcke [Auto]
> ProcODT [40 ohm]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [Auto]
> RttWr [Auto]
> RttPark [Auto]
> MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren [Auto]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [Auto]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [Auto]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [Auto]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
> Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
> CPU Current Capability [Auto]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VRM Spread Spectrum [Auto]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Auto]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Auto]
> DRAM Current Capability [100%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
> CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
> Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.07500]
> DRAM Voltage [1.45000]
> VDDG CCD Voltage Control [0.925]
> VDDG IOD Voltage Control [0.975]
> CLDO VDDP Voltage [0.880]
> 1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> Security Device Support [Enable]
> SHA-1 PCR Bank [Disabled]
> SHA256 PCR Bank [Enabled]
> Pending operation [None]
> Platform Hierarchy [Enabled]
> Storage Hierarchy [Enabled]
> Endorsement Hierarchy [Enabled]
> TPM 2.0 UEFI Spec Version [TCG_2]
> Physical Presence Spec Version [1.3]
> Disable Block Sid [Disabled]
> Selects TPM device [Enable Firmware TPM]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
> PSS Support [Enabled]
> PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
> NX Mode [Enabled]
> SVM Mode [Disabled]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
> SMART Self Test [Auto]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
> PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
> When system is in working state [All On]
> Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
> When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [All On]
> Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Auto]
> Intel LAN Controller [Auto]
> ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
> Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Enabled]
> Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
> USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX16_2 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX16_3 Mode [Auto]
> M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
> M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
> SB Link Mode [Auto]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> Above 4G Decoding [Enabled]
> Resize BAR Support [Auto]
> SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
> Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> HGST HTS721075A9E630 0 [Auto]
> USB Device Enable [Enabled]
> U32G2_2 [Enabled]
> U32G2_3 [Enabled]
> U32G2_4 [Enabled]
> U32G1_10 [Enabled]
> U32G1_11 [Enabled]
> USB12 [Enabled]
> USB13 [Enabled]
> U32G2_7 [Enabled]
> U32G2_8 [Enabled]
> U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Device [SATA6G_1: CT2000MX500SSD1]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> VRM Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> Flow Rate [Monitor]
> CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
> CPU Fan Step Up [0 sec]
> CPU Fan Step Down [0 sec]
> CPU Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> CPU Fan Profile [Manual]
> CPU Fan Upper Temperature [60]
> CPU Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> CPU Fan Middle Temperature [50]
> CPU Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [75]
> CPU Fan Lower Temperature [35]
> CPU Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Manual]
> Chassis Fan 1 Upper Temperature [65]
> Chassis Fan 1 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 1 Middle Temperature [55]
> Chassis Fan 1 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [80]
> Chassis Fan 1 Lower Temperature [30]
> Chassis Fan 1 Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Manual]
> Chassis Fan 2 Upper Temperature [65]
> Chassis Fan 2 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 2 Middle Temperature [55]
> Chassis Fan 2 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Chassis Fan 2 Lower Temperature [35]
> Chassis Fan 2 Min Duty Cycle (%) [40]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Manual]
> Chassis Fan 3 Upper Temperature [65]
> Chassis Fan 3 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 3 Middle Temperature [55]
> Chassis Fan 3 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Chassis Fan 3 Lower Temperature [35]
> Chassis Fan 3 Min Duty Cycle (%) [40]
> High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
> High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
> High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> High Amp Fan Profile [Standard]
> Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> Above 4GB MMIO Limit [39bit (512GB)]
> Fast Boot [Enabled]
> Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
> Boot Logo Display [Auto]
> Bootup NumLock State [On]
> POST Delay Time [1 sec]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
> Launch CSM [Disabled]
> OS Type [Windows UEFI mode]
> AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
> Flexkey [Reset]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> Load from Profile [1]
> Profile Name [3733]
> Save to Profile [1]
> DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
> Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Enabled]
> CPU Frequency [0]
> CPU Voltage [0]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> Core control [Auto]
> SMT Control [Auto]
> Overclock [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
> ECO Mode [Disable]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
> PBO Limits [Manual]
> PPT Limit [W] [210]
> TDC Limit [A] [155]
> EDC Limit [A] [190]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> Curve Optimizer [Per Core]
> Core 0 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [25]
> Core 1 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [25]
> Core 2 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [25]
> Core 3 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [25]
> Core 4 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [25]
> Core 5 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [23]
> Core 6 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [20]
> Core 7 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [27]
> Core 8 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [27]
> Core 9 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [27]
> Core 10 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [27]
> Core 11 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [27]
> Core 12 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 12 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [27]
> Core 13 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 13 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [27]
> Core 14 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 14 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [27]
> Core 15 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 15 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [27]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [50MHz]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
> LN2 Mode [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> LCLK DPM [Auto]
> LCLK DPM Enhanced PCIe Detection [Auto]
> Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
> L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> Global C-state Control [Disabled]
> Power Supply Idle Control [Auto]
> SEV ASID Count [Auto]
> SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
> Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
> Local APIC Mode [Auto]
> ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
> MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
> PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
> Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
> Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
> IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
> DRAM scrub time [Auto]
> Poison scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> Memory interleaving [Auto]
> Memory interleaving size [Auto]
> 1TB remap [Auto]
> DRAM map inversion [Auto]
> ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
> GMI encryption control [Auto]
> xGMI encryption control [Auto]
> CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
> 4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> 3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
> PcsCG control [Auto]
> Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
> Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
> CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
> Memory Clear [Auto]
> Overclock [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
> DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Data Poisoning [Auto]
> DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
> RCD Parity [Auto]
> DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
> Write CRC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
> Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
> DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
> DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
> TSME [Auto]
> Data Scramble [Auto]
> DFE Read Training [Auto]
> FFE Write Training [Auto]
> PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
> MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
> CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
> Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
> BankGroupSwap [Auto]
> BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
> Address Hash Bank [Auto]
> Address Hash CS [Auto]
> Address Hash Rm [Auto]
> SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
> MBIST Enable [Disabled]
> Pattern Select [PRBS]
> Pattern Length(VMR) [6]
> Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
> Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
> Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> IOMMU [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> FCLK Frequency [Auto]
> SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
> UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
> LN2 Mode [Auto]
> ACS Enable [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
> PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
> cTDP Control [Auto]
> EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
> Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
> APBDIS [Auto]
> DF Cstates [Disabled]
> CPPC [Auto]
> CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
> NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
> Early Link Speed [Auto]
> Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
> Preferred IO [Auto]
> CV test [Auto]
> Loopback Mode [Auto]
> SRIS [Auto]
> Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]
> 
> And here are my settings from *3903:*
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> [2021/12/03 11:05:51]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [D.O.C.P. Standard]
> D.O.C.P. [D.O.C.P DDR4-3603 14-14-14-34-1.45V]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3733MHz]
> FCLK Frequency [1866MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> Core VID [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> Dynamic OC Switcher [Auto]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> Performance Bias [Auto]
> PBO Fmax Enhancer [Disabled]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> Curve Optimizer [Auto]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [Auto]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> Trcdrd [15]
> Trcdwr [15]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [21]
> Trc [35]
> TrrdS [4]
> TrrdL [4]
> Tfaw [16]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [8]
> Twr [10]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [2]
> TwrwrScl [2]
> Trfc [243]
> Trfc2 [Auto]
> Trfc4 [Auto]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [8]
> Trdwr [8]
> Twrrd [3]
> TwrwrSc [Auto]
> TwrwrSd [Auto]
> TwrwrDd [Auto]
> TrdrdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSd [Auto]
> TrdrdDd [Auto]
> Tcke [Auto]
> ProcODT [40 ohm]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [Auto]
> RttWr [Auto]
> RttPark [Auto]
> MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren [Auto]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [Auto]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [Auto]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [Auto]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
> Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
> CPU Current Capability [Auto]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VRM Spread Spectrum [Auto]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Auto]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Auto]
> DRAM Current Capability [100%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
> CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
> Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.07500]
> DRAM Voltage [1.45000]
> VDDG CCD Voltage Control [0.925]
> VDDG IOD Voltage Control [0.975]
> CLDO VDDP Voltage [0.880]
> 1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> Security Device Support [Enable]
> SHA-1 PCR Bank [Disabled]
> SHA256 PCR Bank [Enabled]
> Pending operation [None]
> Platform Hierarchy [Enabled]
> Storage Hierarchy [Enabled]
> Endorsement Hierarchy [Enabled]
> TPM 2.0 UEFI Spec Version [TCG_2]
> Physical Presence Spec Version [1.3]
> Disable Block Sid [Disabled]
> Selects TPM device [Enable Firmware TPM]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
> PSS Support [Enabled]
> PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
> NX Mode [Enabled]
> SVM Mode [Disabled]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
> SMART Self Test [Auto]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
> PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
> When system is in working state [All On]
> Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
> When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [All On]
> Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Auto]
> Intel LAN Controller [Auto]
> ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
> Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Enabled]
> Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
> USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX16_2 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX16_3 Mode [Auto]
> M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
> M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
> SB Link Mode [Auto]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> Above 4G Decoding [Enabled]
> Resize BAR Support [Auto]
> SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
> Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> HGST HTS721075A9E630 0 [Auto]
> USB Device Enable [Enabled]
> U32G2_2 [Enabled]
> U32G2_3 [Enabled]
> U32G2_4 [Enabled]
> U32G1_10 [Enabled]
> U32G1_11 [Enabled]
> USB12 [Enabled]
> USB13 [Enabled]
> U32G2_7 [Enabled]
> U32G2_8 [Enabled]
> U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Device [SATA6G_1: CT2000MX500SSD1]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> VRM Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> Flow Rate [Monitor]
> CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
> CPU Fan Step Up [0 sec]
> CPU Fan Step Down [0 sec]
> CPU Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> CPU Fan Profile [Manual]
> CPU Fan Upper Temperature [60]
> CPU Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> CPU Fan Middle Temperature [50]
> CPU Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [75]
> CPU Fan Lower Temperature [35]
> CPU Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Manual]
> Chassis Fan 1 Upper Temperature [65]
> Chassis Fan 1 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 1 Middle Temperature [55]
> Chassis Fan 1 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [80]
> Chassis Fan 1 Lower Temperature [30]
> Chassis Fan 1 Min Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Manual]
> Chassis Fan 2 Upper Temperature [65]
> Chassis Fan 2 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 2 Middle Temperature [55]
> Chassis Fan 2 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Chassis Fan 2 Lower Temperature [35]
> Chassis Fan 2 Min Duty Cycle (%) [40]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Manual]
> Chassis Fan 3 Upper Temperature [65]
> Chassis Fan 3 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 3 Middle Temperature [55]
> Chassis Fan 3 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Chassis Fan 3 Lower Temperature [35]
> Chassis Fan 3 Min Duty Cycle (%) [40]
> High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
> High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
> High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> High Amp Fan Profile [Standard]
> Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> Above 4GB MMIO Limit [39bit (512GB)]
> Fast Boot [Enabled]
> Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
> Boot Logo Display [Auto]
> Bootup NumLock State [On]
> POST Delay Time [1 sec]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
> Launch CSM [Disabled]
> OS Type [Windows UEFI mode]
> AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
> Flexkey [Reset]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> Load from Profile [1]
> Profile Name [3733]
> Save to Profile [1]
> DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
> Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Enabled]
> CPU Frequency [0]
> CPU Voltage [0]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> Core control [Auto]
> SMT Control [Auto]
> Overclock [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
> ECO Mode [Disable]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
> PBO Limits [Manual]
> PPT Limit [W] [210]
> TDC Limit [A] [160]
> EDC Limit [A] [190]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> Curve Optimizer [Per Core]
> Core 0 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 1 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 2 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 3 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 4 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 5 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [28]
> Core 6 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [25]
> Core 7 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 8 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 9 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 10 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 11 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 12 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 12 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 13 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 13 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 14 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 14 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 15 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 15 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> CPU Boost Clock Override [Enabled (Positive)]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override (+) [50]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
> LN2 Mode [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> LCLK DPM [Auto]
> LCLK DPM Enhanced PCIe Detection [Auto]
> Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
> L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> Global C-state Control [Disabled]
> Power Supply Idle Control [Auto]
> SEV ASID Count [Auto]
> SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
> Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
> Local APIC Mode [Auto]
> ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
> MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
> PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
> Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
> Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
> IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
> DRAM scrub time [Auto]
> Poison scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> Memory interleaving [Auto]
> Memory interleaving size [Auto]
> 1TB remap [Auto]
> DRAM map inversion [Auto]
> ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
> GMI encryption control [Auto]
> xGMI encryption control [Auto]
> CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
> 4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> 3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
> PcsCG control [Auto]
> Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
> Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
> CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
> Memory Clear [Auto]
> Overclock [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
> DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Data Poisoning [Auto]
> DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
> RCD Parity [Auto]
> DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
> Write CRC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
> Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
> DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
> DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
> TSME [Auto]
> Data Scramble [Auto]
> DFE Read Training [Auto]
> FFE Write Training [Auto]
> PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
> MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
> CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
> Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
> BankGroupSwap [Auto]
> BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
> Address Hash Bank [Auto]
> Address Hash CS [Auto]
> Address Hash Rm [Auto]
> SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
> MBIST Enable [Disabled]
> Pattern Select [PRBS]
> Pattern Length(VMR) [6]
> Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
> Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
> Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> IOMMU [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> FCLK Frequency [Auto]
> SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
> UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
> LN2 Mode [Auto]
> ACS Enable [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
> PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
> cTDP Control [Auto]
> EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
> Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
> APBDIS [Auto]
> DF Cstates [Disabled]
> CPPC [Auto]
> CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
> NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
> Early Link Speed [Auto]
> Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
> Preferred IO [Auto]
> CV test [Auto]
> Loopback Mode [Auto]
> SRIS [Auto]
> Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]
> 
> As you can see, everything is identical except that I'm able to run a much more aggressive CO on 3903! It's a bummer my chip seems to be bronze tier because I can't really break 5075 SC but I'll take the low temps straight to the bank!


Yep I was using the calculator latest version which I noticed was a LOT more aggessive in timings than I had seen the last time I tried it a LONG time ago. Macrium saved the day LOL

Thanks for sharing those!!


----------



## safedisk

GRABibus said:


> When flashing 3903 over 3902 (ez fiash 3 method), it has erased my OC save profiles.


must first save the profile used in 3902 to USB and load it in 3903


----------



## GRABibus

safedisk said:


> must first save the profile used in 3902 to USB and load it in 3903


Yes this is what I did, but with former Bioses until 3801, when flashing, it didn’t erase the saved profiles.


----------



## Luggage

GRABibus said:


> Yes this is what I did, but with former Bioses until 3801, when flashing, it didn’t erase the saved profiles.


You like lucky bastards - with msi Iose settings every time and not even usb save works


----------



## GRABibus

3903 Beta :
230/125/160
-30 All Cores
+200MHz
LLC2
22°C ambient

















Same scores for CBR20 MT than 3902
Better score for CBR ST than 3902 (2 points)
Better Aida64 Memory latency than with 3902 (1 to 1.5 ns better)

So far so good.

Will launch Karhu's RAM Tester over night and Realbench on Sunday evening.


----------



## xeizo

0503 for C8E at least installed alright, I haven't fine tweaked settings as of yet. I have just tested that it works, so performance is subpar right now. 3800MHz mem was no problem though, not a hitch. I'm sure it will do good as soon as I set my favorite settings, a few of which is missing from the quick profile I used(yes, profiles doesn't store ALL settings that has effect)


----------



## sapphire112

GRABibus said:


> 3903 Beta :
> 230/125/160
> -30 All Cores
> +200MHz
> LLC2
> 22°C ambient
> View attachment 2535470
> 
> View attachment 2535471
> 
> 
> Same scores for CBR20 MT than 3902
> Better score for CBR ST than 3902 (2 points)
> Better Aida64 Memory latency than with 3902 (1 to 1.5 ns better)
> 
> So far so good.
> 
> Will launch Karhu's RAM Tester over night and Realbench on Sunday evening.


do you have a custom watercooling to get this score?


----------



## GRABibus

sapphire112 said:


> do you have a custom watercooling to get this score?


No, look at my signature => H115i RGB Platinum 😜


----------



## GRABibus

sapphire112 said:


> do you have a custom watercooling to get this score?


Last 2 Beta Bios 3902 and 3903 help a lot to get better boost and scores with mid end cooling.
Just try to set EDC > 140.


----------



## sapphire112

GRABibus said:


> Last 2 Beta Bios 3902 and 3903 help a lot to get better boost and scores with mid end cooling.
> Just try to set EDC > 140.


what temperature do you have


----------



## Sleepycat

On 3903 overnight now, no problems with it. I had no problems with 3902 as well, no WHEA or cache errors.

Glad to have backed up my profile onto USB. Haven't seen one wipe for a long while.


----------



## sapphire112

GRABibus said:


> Last 2 Beta Bios 3902 and 3903 help a lot to get better boost and scores with mid end cooling.
> Just try to set EDC > 140.


EDC 140 rebooting!!


----------



## GRABibus

sapphire112 said:


> what temperature do you have


23° ambient :










This is after 3 runs of CBR20.
After first 2 ones, I was at 9050 score and 78°C max.


----------



## GRABibus

sapphire112 said:


> EDC 140 rebooting!!


Try 160


----------



## sapphire112

20° ambient
bios 3903
69°Cmax cpu
PPT,TDC,EDC=230 125 150 max CPU boost Override=+200 // Curve Optimizer =-30 all cores// LLC:Level 2
Windows 11 PRO


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> On 3903 overnight now, no problems with it. I had no problems with 3902 as well, no WHEA or cache errors.
> 
> Glad to have backed up my profile onto USB. Haven't seen one wipe for a long while.


Do you still use the DRAM calculator (I think you used to before?). Just wondering as I was fooling around with version 1.7.3 and while it got me to windows with the best latency ever for 3200 in my PC (66 while my 3600 normally is around 61), it ended up destroying my OS so I had to restore yesterday's backup.
I dont remember the calculator been so aggressive with the timings or maybe I picked wrong settings lol


----------



## GRABibus

sapphire112 said:


> 20° ambient
> bios 3903
> 69°Cmax cpu
> PPT,TDC,EDC=230 125 150 max CPU boost Override=+200 // Curve Optimizer =-30 all cores// LLC:Level 2
> Windows 11 PRO


Try with Hwinfo closed, and after one run, launch again 2 or 3 times to see if you get better score.

Try also single thread score.

I am on windows 10


----------



## sapphire112

ok


----------



## exiiXcherry

Dark Hero/5950x here. The last bios(3903) reduced my r23 mt score by 600 from ~29100 to 28500. Single core is at ~1600, on 3801 it was at ~1650. Ram/Cache latency stayed the same too. Running currently 3800ram/1900if with stable timings, PBO 220 220 170 with custom curve (tested with core cycler). With edc at 140 im getting random reboots. I think I will reroll to 3801. The 3903 gave me overall lower temperatures but worse stability.


----------



## Kelutrel

exiiXcherry said:


> Dark Hero/5950x here. The last bios(3903) reduced my r23 mt score by 600 from ~29100 to 28500. Single core is the same as on 3801. Ram/Cache latency stayed the same too. Running currently 3800ram/1900if with stable timings, PBO 220 220 170 with custom curve (tested with core cycler). With edc at 140 im getting random reboots. I think I will reroll to 3801. The 3903 gave me overall lower temperatures but worse stability.


If you haven't already done it, you can try to set all cores to -30 in CO. Looks like the pbo curves changed in 3902/3903 and they seem to be stable/faster at lower offsets.


----------



## exiiXcherry

Will start doing that as soon there is a release version. Thanks for the info!


----------



## Afferin

Holy moly. I've booted 3866MHz on my 5900x before, but never was able to get it on my 5950x with my Dark Hero. On 3903 I can boot 3866! Will test stability and further clocks.

EDIT: So far so good, running it at 1.47v (as opposed to the 1.52v I had to run it on previously) with minimal WHEAs. I think I may be able to get this stable!


----------



## shaolin95

Well I am pretty happy with the performance and temps without going too crazy so I think I am good here now


----------



## xeizo

I didn't have time to change any settings in 0503 last night, but I noticed vcore is A LOT lower so I will need quite different settings compared with older bioses to get to the same scores.


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> I didn't have time to change any settings in 0503 last night, but I noticed vcore is A LOT lower so I will need quite different settings compared with older bioses to get to the same scores.


If you set EDC <= 140, you will recover full Vcore range.

If you set EDC > 140, you will have like 100mV less Vids, but, probably much more temperatures and boost headroom.
This is my case on C8H, with a *mid end cooler (H115i RGB Platinum)*

With high end WC and Custom loops, not sure it can so much improve the scores....


----------



## GRABibus

GRABibus said:


> 3903 Beta :
> 230/125/160
> -30 All Cores
> +200MHz
> LLC2
> 22°C ambient
> View attachment 2535470
> 
> View attachment 2535471
> 
> 
> Same scores for CBR20 MT than 3902
> Better score for CBR ST than 3902 (2 points)
> Better Aida64 Memory latency than with 3902 (1 to 1.5 ns better)
> 
> So far so good.
> 
> Will launch Karhu's RAM Tester over night and Realbench on Sunday evening.



Realbench ok !


----------



## GRABibus

sapphire112 said:


> ok


Which RAM do you have ?
Mine is 16GBx2 3800MHz CL14 Dual rank (Part number : F4-3800C14D-32GTZN) with following settings :









You ST score seems low (631pts)

Except if you have bad poor Silicon and/or bad Bios settings, you should be in the range 640-650 pts.


Try my Bios settings but of course, adapted to your RAM :


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Hmm..running 3903, not so bad after tuning but could improve more for single thread..


----------



## LorDClockaN

Want to comment about 3903
Went from 3902 and flashed it normally within the bios as always. Everything went smoothly and after booting I saw that one of my NVMe disks aren't recognized..

Tried flashback etc etc everything I know and now the disk doesn't show at all and I'm gonna RMA it I hope..
Don't know what happened but my 2nd slot NVMe disk died and data was lost.

Just giving up a heads up to the others. Never seen this happen before
You can see in the link I posted how one NVME is normally recognized and the other one got some funky name:








New item by Davor Bertovic







photos.app.goo.gl





While booting it would sometimes stuck at A0 post code that has something to do with IDE controller and now the NVMe doesn't show up in bios at all.. Removed it from the mbo and no more A0 code
Also while it had that funky name, the bios didn't offer any options for it like for the normal NVMe disk. No trim, no health, no info at all.. all blank

Take care

Edit:
Don't know if it's beta bios fault or something happened on my end but as I said, I flashed as normal from EZFlash utility in bios and everything went smoothly


----------



## xeizo

Managed to get a Geekbench score within spitting distance from 1.2.0.3 patch C, but the older bios had vcore offset minus 0.04375 and I had to offset this new bios to plus 0.075 to get there. I think I will have to rise vcore higher than that to get to the same single core as before, maybe plus 0.085? But this is at least reasonable performance. All other settings the same, only difference is I'm now on Windows 11 preview 22509, while I was using a earlier build before.


----------



## Afferin

Man, 3903 has been great to me. Got a new personal best on a stable RAM overclock! Had to drop my CO to -10 all-core for stability issues, but I'll take 3933CL14 for that trade.


----------



## PWn3R

Afferin said:


> Man, 3903 has been great to me. Got a new personal best on a stable RAM overclock! Had to drop my CO to -10 all-core for stability issues, but I'll take 3933CL14 for that trade.
> View attachment 2535665


1900 still code 07, 1933 boots but nothing gets it to stop whea city.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GRABibus

Afferin said:


> Man, 3903 has been great to me. Got a new personal best on a stable RAM overclock! Had to drop my CO to -10 all-core for stability issues, but I'll take 3933CL14 for that trade.
> View attachment 2535665


Did you perform stability tests ? (Karhu’s, HCI memtest or whatever).


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> Which RAM do you have ?
> Mine is 16GBx2 3800MHz CL14 Dual rank (Part number : F4-3800C14D-32GTZN) with following settings :
> View attachment 2535583
> 
> 
> You ST score seems low (631pts)
> 
> Except if you have bad poor Silicon and/or bad Bios settings, you should be in the range 640-650 pts.
> 
> 
> Try my Bios settings but of course, adapted to your RAM :


By looking at your settings I noticed that you keep your PLL voltage at fixed 1.85v. That may also cause higher temperatures than expected ( source ) and I have found mentions around the internet that you can get a more stable overclock and cooler temperatures using 1.7v or even lower values. It looks like it really depends on each system and hardware so I don't know if it will have any impact, and it may also be that you voluntarily set it that high for other reasons, but you can fiddle on that a bit to see if it changes anything for you.

Also, I tried the whole night but no joy for me, 9200+ is unachievable on my cpu sample, best I could get on Windows 11 (with VBS enabled) was around 9100 MT and 640 ST. I suspect that part of the results you were able to achieve is also due to your exceptional ram timings (I run 16-16-16-32-48 @3800) and can't be repeated by just working on PBO limits and offsets, although I confirm that on my system too setting EDC to 160 provides the best results even if my motherboard limit is actually 200 (also tried 150-170-180 and obviously 200, but 160 was better).


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> By looking at your settings I noticed that you keep your PLL voltage at fixed 1.85v. That may also cause higher temperatures than expected ( source ) and I have found mentions around the internet that you can get a more stable overclock and cooler temperatures using 1.7v or even lower values. It looks like it really depends on each system and hardware so I don't know if it will have any impact, and it may also be that you voluntarily set it that high for other reasons, but you can fiddle on that a bit to see if it changes anything for you.
> 
> Also, I tried the whole night but no joy for me, 9200+ is unachievable on my cpu sample, best I could get on Windows 11 (with VBS enabled) was around 9100 MT and 640 ST. I suspect that part of the results you were able to achieve is also due to your exceptional ram timings (I run 16-16-16-32-48 @3800) and can't be repeated by just working on PBO limits and offsets, although I confirm that on my system too setting EDC to 160 provides the best results even if my motherboard limit is actually 200 (also tried 150-170-180 and obviously 200, but 160 was better).


With 230/125/160 :
PLL 1,8V => crash in Realbench
PLL 1,85V => no crash.

I tried several times and I could confirm this.

With 170/115/155 => 1,8V is ok


----------



## Luggage

Kelutrel said:


> By looking at your settings I noticed that you keep your PLL voltage at fixed 1.85v. That may also cause higher temperatures than expected ( source ) and I have found mentions around the internet that you can get a more stable overclock and cooler temperatures using 1.7v or even lower values. It looks like it really depends on each system and hardware so I don't know if it will have any impact, and it may also be that you voluntarily set it that high for other reasons, but you can fiddle on that a bit to see if it changes anything for you.
> 
> Also, I tried the whole night but no joy for me, 9200+ is unachievable on my cpu sample, best I could get on Windows 11 (with VBS enabled) was around 9100 MT and 640 ST. I suspect that part of the results you were able to achieve is also due to your exceptional ram timings (I run 16-16-16-32-48 @3800) and can't be repeated by just working on PBO limits and offsets, although I confirm that on my system too setting EDC to 160 provides the best results even if my motherboard limit is actually 200 (also tried 150-170-180 and obviously 200, but 160 was better).


CB don’t care about ram on Ryzen, care a little about flck. Probably cares more about VBS.
Ryzen boost cares about vsoc though so if you need high vsoc for ram you lose power budget for boost.


----------



## Kelutrel

Luggage said:


> CB don’t care about ram on Ryzen, care a little about flck. Probably cares more about VBS.
> Ryzen boost cares about vsoc though so if you need high vsoc for ram you lose power budget for boost.


Also true. I couldn't lower my VSOC voltage or I would loose stability @3800/1900 , so I lowered VSOC LLC to 1 and got some 9115/642 . Will need a CoreCycler session to prove stability though...


----------



## shaolin95

Luggage said:


> CB don’t care about ram on Ryzen, care a little about flck. Probably cares more about VBS.
> Ryzen boost cares about vsoc though so if you need high vsoc for ram you lose power budget for boost.


So to maximize boost specially single boost, which voltages you feel I should work on to either lower or increase?
Thanks


PS I just lowered my VSOC a lot based on the comments and got the closest to 650s I have gotten in a while.


----------



## tolis626

When you guys say "lower vSOC", what do you mean? How low? How high was it before?

It seems I've been lucky a second time with my Ryzens and my 5900X is the same as my 3800X, in that it doesn't really care that much about vSOC. I'm running it at 1.125V for peace of mind, but I know for a fact that with RAM at 3800 and FCLK at 1900, the thing can actually run 1.075V no problems. It's just that when I was testing my RAM I wanted to eliminate it as a source of instability, put it at 1.125V and left it there. But if I can benefit from going lower, then boy do I have the headroom. My 3800X could do 3800/1900 at 1.05V. Was it 100% stable? I dunno, but I tested it and forgot to change it back to my normal 1.0875V and had no problems, I noticed it only when I went into the BIOS for something else.


----------



## GRABibus

by reducing Vddsoc from Auto to LLC1, i could improve my ST score by 2 points.
MT thread score remains the same.











Guys,
when you enable Rebar in Bios, don't you see your CBR20 MT score better and CBR ST score lower ?


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Also true. I couldn't lower my VSOC voltage or I would loose stability @3800/1900 , so I lowered VSOC LLC to 1 and got some 9115/642 . Will need a CoreCycler session to prove stability though...


What is the difference between Vddsoc LLC "Auto" and "Level 1" ?

In Hwnfo, both settings report same values of Vsoc under load


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> What is the difference between Vddsoc LLC "Auto" and "Level 1" ?
> 
> In Hwnfo, both settings report same values of Vsoc under load


VSoc or CPU LLC are not visible in the voltage reported in HwINFO. LLC represents how much more current is provided in advance to a line to stabilize on the target voltage and avoid vdroop or avoid overshoot ( explanation ) . Lowering it will keep your temperature and voltage lower but just because it doesn't add too much pre-emptively. As far as I know it is set to 3 by the Auto setting on both cpu or vsoc.


----------



## Luggage

tolis626 said:


> When you guys say "lower vSOC", what do you mean? How low? How high was it before?
> 
> It seems I've been lucky a second time with my Ryzens and my 5900X is the same as my 3800X, in that it doesn't really care that much about vSOC. I'm running it at 1.125V for peace of mind, but I know for a fact that with RAM at 3800 and FCLK at 1900, the thing can actually run 1.075V no problems. It's just that when I was testing my RAM I wanted to eliminate it as a source of instability, put it at 1.125V and left it there. But if I can benefit from going lower, then boy do I have the headroom. My 3800X could do 3800/1900 at 1.05V. Was it 100% stable? I dunno, but I tested it and forgot to change it back to my normal 1.0875V and had no problems, I noticed it only when I went into the BIOS for something else.


Try it 
Everything that adds heat or takes from the power budget will impact boost.


----------



## shaolin95

Luggage said:


> Try it
> Everything that adds heat or takes from the power budget will impact boost.


I am just not very clear of which things take away from the power budget for the CPU boost part specially single.
I


----------



## bt1

Kelutrel said:


> VSoc or CPU LLC are not visible in the voltage reported in HwINFO. LLC represents how much more current is provided in advance to a line to stabilize on the target voltage and avoid vdroop or avoid overshoot ( explanation ) . Lowering it will keep your temperature and voltage lower but just because it doesn't add too much pre-emptively. As far as I know it is set to 3 by the Auto setting on both cpu or vsoc.


NO, Vdroop IS visible in hwinfo either for vsoc and for vcore.
It's really clear when you compare the min/max values with different LLC settings.








For vcore you can clearly see the difference between the voltage requested by cores at the moment and the voltage provided by VRM (vdroop in this case is about 3.14%).
For vsoc you can see that LLC (LLC4 in this case) is too high, because vsoc voltage is set to 1.1V in BIOS (up to -0.91%, VRM gives higher than needed voltage).
I set vsoc LLC4 on purpose, because the LLC3 gives Vdroop about 2% (VRM gives lower than needed voltage).

Too high voltage for vsoc does take TDC/EDC/PPT budjet from CPU cores, so the lowest stable vsoc voltage with the least Vdroop is the best.

upd: a post from hwinfo forum about "SVI2 TFN" and "CPU Core VID (Effective)":





CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN) or Core x VID or what?


System . . . AMD Ryzen 3700X MSi Unify x570 Mobo Cosair 3600 32GB Ram (2x16GB) 650 SeaSonic Titanium rated PS other odds and ends :-) I've read through at least the last 8 recent pages in the forum and couldn't find anything on this so hoping someone can assist. I am in the process of OC'n my...




www.hwinfo.com


----------



## shaolin95

bt1 said:


> NO, Vdroop IS visible in hwinfo either for vsoc and for vcore.
> It's really clear when you compare the min/max values with different LLC settings.
> View attachment 2535768
> 
> For vcore you can clearly see the difference between the voltage requested by cores at the moment and the voltage provided by VRM (vdroop in this case is about 3.14%).
> For vsoc you can see that LLC (LLC4 in this case) is too high, because vsoc voltage is set to 1.1V in BIOS (up to -0.91%, VRM gives higher than needed voltage).
> I set vsoc LLC4 on purpose, because the LLC3 gives Vdroop about 2% (VRM gives lower than needed voltage).
> 
> Too high voltage for vsoc does take TDC/EDC/PPT budjet from CPU cores, so the lowest stable vsoc voltage with the least Vdroop is the best.
> 
> upd: a post from hwinfo forum about "SVI2 TFN" and "CPU Core VID (Effective)":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN) or Core x VID or what?
> 
> 
> System . . . AMD Ryzen 3700X MSi Unify x570 Mobo Cosair 3600 32GB Ram (2x16GB) 650 SeaSonic Titanium rated PS other odds and ends :-) I've read through at least the last 8 recent pages in the forum and couldn't find anything on this so hoping someone can assist. I am in the process of OC'n my...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hwinfo.com


So mine is showing this:








My vsco is set to 1.10 So looks to be a good setting as is, right?


----------



## GRABibus




----------



## Kelutrel

Best for today, on Windows 11 with VBS... but still long way to 9200


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Best for today, on Windows 11 with VBS... but still long way to 9200
> View attachment 2535785


I need 5 runs to get one at 9200 😊


----------



## GRABibus

I am more motivated to get 650 ST than 9250 MT…


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Best for today, on Windows 11 with VBS... but still long way to 9200
> View attachment 2535785


also I am on windows 10


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> I need 5 runs to get one at 9200 😊


I would probably need 50x to get that score again but oh well, it was fun


----------



## PWn3R

Just got the 500MHz bug in Windows. It happened midgame on Battlefiled 2042, a reset of the computer didn't fix it either. Saw something online saying that you have to CMOS reset after a hard powercycle. Has this happened to anyone else?


----------



## des2k...

PWn3R said:


> Just got the 500MHz bug in Windows. It happened midgame on Battlefiled 2042, a reset of the computer didn't fix it either. Saw something online saying that you have to CMOS reset after a hard powercycle. Has this happened to anyone else?
> 
> View attachment 2535807


500mhz clock will be there on VRM failure or CPU package going over 105c

This happens also on aggressive EDC bug, where it overboost and the SMU fail safe kicks in

But I never seen a reset /power off still on 500mhz freq.

If there's no hardware issue, looks like you corrupted the bios!

Are you running stock,pbo or edc bug ?


----------



## Xipe

I put llc 4, for oc dynamic switch. I put 4700mhz 1.31vcore in dynamic and -22 all cores on pbo.
I put llc4 for the vdrop only go to 1.29v to dynamic all cores and can play games with 1.307 with dynamic.
is bad llc4? if yes i need to put 1.34 in dynamic and vdrop goes to 1.297.


----------



## PWn3R

des2k... said:


> 500mhz clock will be there on VRM failure or CPU package going over 105c
> 
> This happens also on aggressive EDC bug, where it overboost and the SMU fail safe kicks in
> 
> But I never seen a reset /power off still on 500mhz freq.
> 
> If there's no hardware issue, looks like you corrupted the bios!
> 
> Are you running stock,pbo or edc bug ?


No PBO, mine seems to push to 1.5v no matter what I tune eve with negative 30 offset. I also get code 00 hangs with PBO on even with no offset and +50 increase. My cpu is platinum in RCT. I’ve been wondering if this 1900 FCLK not booting thing that a bunch of us have but 1933 works is some kind of hardware issue with the motherboards. All the tunable power levels EDC and stuff were showing 130-170 and were stuck there but the cpu was at 30c, there’s no way the cpu hit 105. It’s never hit 85, and under full synthetic load the hottest core is ~58c package is about 67. 

I was able to fix this by hard power cycle. Restarts and resets didn’t work. Turn off and then power on worked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## xeizo

Can't really fault performance of 0503 by now, this is my best Geekbench-score ever 1785/16015, but I have to use positive offset for vcore +0.081V


----------



## jfrob75

xeizo said:


> Can't really fault performance of 0503 by now, this is my best Geekbench-score ever 1785/16015, but I have to use positive offset for vcore +0.081V


Noticed your are using the Extreme. I recently purchased one but it appears to have died, after verifying it worked on the bench, but not so after installing in my case. I would get a memory issue immediately upon pressing the start button on board with code 00. Unlucky I guess, returning for a replacement today. So, how do you like this MB so far?


----------



## xeizo

jfrob75 said:


> Noticed your are using the Extreme. I recently purchased one but it appears to have died, after verifying it worked on the bench, but not so after installing in my case. I would get a memory issue immediately upon pressing the start button on board with code 00. Unlucky I guess, returning for a replacement today. So, how do you like this MB so far?


Sorry to hear you are having trouble, mine has been pretty much free of trouble. I like it a lot, it is sort of "futureproof" for me with plenty of I/O and I haven't seen a WHEA in months. Performance wise, Ryzen is a SOC so there is not much extra to extract over a C8 Hero but there is OC-switcher and Dynamic Clamp which are nice features. As are 10GB LAN and Thunderbolt. And the many NVME slots may become useful as time goes by. The massive overkill VRM may be handy with Ryzen 3D, which I hope will be supported. I saw in the latest bios 0503 there is now the possibility to set some settings different for each chiplet, interesting.

I run Windows 11 with full security(Virtualization enabled) except Core Isolation(memory integrity) and all my useful programs installed, so there is some performance penalty from a clean Windows 10, but perfomance is good as can be seen in Geekbench above.

My sample of 5900X is from the first batch reaching e-tailers as I was a early adopter, I see no degradation which may be good to know but also I expect newer samples to have better silicon than mine. In example I have one really bad core. But that is what it is, I look forward to the 3D cache CPU:s and will go for the 16-core.


----------



## Luggage

xeizo said:


> Can't really fault performance of 0503 by now, this is my best Geekbench-score ever 1785/16015, but I have to use positive offset for vcore +0.081V


Yea +0.081 seems about right - as soon as I enable PBO2 vid-limit drops from 1.5 to 1.425… I’ll stay with 1203c for now.


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> Sorry to hear you are having trouble, mine has been pretty much free of trouble. I like it a lot, it is sort of "futureproof" for me with plenty of I/O and I haven't seen a WHEA in months. Performance wise, Ryzen is a SOC so there is not much extra to extract over a C8 Hero but there is OC-switcher and Dynamic Clamp which are nice features. As are 10GB LAN and Thunderbolt. And the many NVME slots may become useful as time goes by. The massive overkill VRM may be handy with Ryzen 3D, which I hope will be supported. I saw in the latest bios 0503 there is now the possibility to set some settings different for each chiplet, interesting.
> 
> I run Windows 11 with full security(Virtualization enabled) except Core Isolation and all my useful programs installed, so there is some performance penalty from a clean Windows 10, but perfomance is good as can be seen in Geekbench above.
> 
> My sample of 5900X is from the first batch reaching e-tailers as I was a early adopter, I see no degradation which may be good to know but also I expect newer samples to have better silicon than mine. In example I have one really bad core. But that is what it is, I look forward to the 3D cache CPU:s and will go for the 16-core.


You won’t wait for Zen4 ?


----------



## CyrIng

PWn3R said:


> Just got the 500MHz bug in Windows. It happened midgame on Battlefiled 2042, a reset of the computer didn't fix it either. Saw something online saying that you have to CMOS reset after a hard powercycle. Has this happened to anyone else?
> 
> View attachment 2535807


I may have found the answer to this issue by mistakenly sending a Power Limit write rather than a read to the SMU.

The next command arguments were all zero and SMU did react with the lowest COF of 500 MHz

Only re-programming SMU with a corrected PL1 could restore the nominal frequency.

This was achieve on Linux. Windows Users had solved issue by removing buggy monitoring tools.


----------



## PWn3R

CyrIng said:


> I may have found the answer to this issue by mistakenly sending a Power Limit write rather than a read to the SMU.
> 
> The next command arguments were all zero and SMU did react with the lowest COF of 500 MHz
> 
> Only re-programming SMU with a corrected PL1 could restore the nominal frequency.
> 
> This was achieve on Linux. Windows Users had solved issue by removing buggy monitoring tools.


Interesting and seems logical. Right now, I have Corsair iCue which has monitoring and the Asus AI suite only. Both are "required" at the moment, because they are controlling fan settings.


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> You won’t wait for Zen4 ?


No, the 3D-cache Zen 3+ will have to do for a while. No need to buy DDR5, no need to buy new cooler, no need to buy new mobo. And graphics cards looks like unobtanium for the foreseeable future, so I can do with my PCIE 4.0 RTX3070. No need for PCIE 5.0.


----------



## jfrob75

xeizo said:


> Sorry to hear you are having trouble, mine has been pretty much free of trouble. I like it a lot, it is sort of "futureproof" for me with plenty of I/O and I haven't seen a WHEA in months. Performance wise, Ryzen is a SOC so there is not much extra to extract over a C8 Hero but there is OC-switcher and Dynamic Clamp which are nice features. As are 10GB LAN and Thunderbolt. And the many NVME slots may become useful as time goes by. The massive overkill VRM may be handy with Ryzen 3D, which I hope will be supported. I saw in the latest bios 0503 there is now the possibility to set some settings different for each chiplet, interesting.
> 
> I run Windows 11 with full security(Virtualization enabled) except Core Isolation(memory integrity) and all my useful programs installed, so there is some performance penalty from a clean Windows 10, but perfomance is good as can be seen in Geekbench above.
> 
> My sample of 5900X is from the first batch reaching e-tailers as I was a early adopter, I see no degradation which may be good to know but also I expect newer samples to have better silicon than mine. In example I have one really bad core. But that is what it is, I look forward to the 3D cache CPU:s and will go for the 16-core.


Thanks for the feedback. I bought it for the same reasons you mentioned. As far as the board failing, to me it is no big deal, **** happens. Having a MB fail after testing showed is was working correctly is a rare event.


----------



## stimpy88

xeizo said:


> No, the 3D-cache Zen 3+ will have to do for a while. No need to buy DDR5, no need to buy new cooler, no need to buy new mobo. And graphics cards looks like unobtanium for the foreseeable future, so I can do with my PCIE 4.0 RTX3070. No need for PCIE 5.0.


Amen!


----------



## sonixmon

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2535430
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 3903 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Some bug fixes
> 2. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1205 (same 3902)
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 3903
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 3903
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 3903
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 3903
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 3903
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0503


Santa came early!


----------



## GRABibus

sonixmon said:


> Santa came early!


Best bios for me.

I am now > 9200 at CBR20 MT 😊


----------



## Requiem4u

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2535430
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 3903 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Some bug fixes
> 2. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1205 (same 3902)
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 3903
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 3903
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 3903
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 3903
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 3903
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0503


Thanks. But same problems as 3902. Memory settings reset after every shutdown. Jedec settings. Restart is fine as is benchmarks, but after shutdown it is jedec. Or must use very slow timings.


----------



## xeizo

Requiem4u said:


> Thanks. But same problems as 3902. Memory settings reset after every shutdown. Jedec settings. Restart is fine as is benchmarks, but after shutdown it is jedec. Or must use very slow timings.


Shutdown is fine with 0503, no problems, but I don't use super tight timings I use 16-16-16-30 for 3800MHz


----------



## rbys

Sometimes I wonder if my system is fully stable.

I never got a WHEA on Windows and I tested for 24/7 stability using corecycler (few days) to test my CU undervolt, y-cruncher & TM5 anta777 config to test memory stability, OCCT SSE & AVX2, Prime95 etc...

but on Linux I see stuff like this from time to time:

$PROGRAM killed by SIGSEGV
Likely crash reason: Jump to an invalid address
Exploitable rating (0-9 scale): X

I've seen a few
SIGILL: The SIGILL signal is sent to a process when it attempts to execute an *illegal*, malformed, unknown, or privileged instruction.
as well but only with the spotify flatpak app and that was a few months ago (I didn't touch my settings since then).

I ran Prime95 and y-cruncher on Linux without getting any error but...


----------



## GRABibus

rbys said:


> Sometimes I wonder if my system is fully stable.
> 
> I never got a WHEA on Windows and I tested for 24/7 stability using corecycler (few days) to test my CU undervolt, y-cruncher & TM5 anta777 config to test memory stability, OCCT SSE & AVX2, Prime95 etc...
> 
> but on Linux I see stuff like this from time to time:
> 
> $PROGRAM killed by SIGSEGV
> Likely crash reason: Jump to an invalid address
> Exploitable rating (0-9 scale): X
> 
> I've seen a few
> SIGILL: The SIGILL signal is sent to a process when it attempts to execute an *illegal*, malformed, unknown, or privileged instruction.
> as well but only with the spotify flatpak app and that was a few months ago (I didn't touch my settings since then).
> 
> I ran Prime95 and y-cruncher on Linux without getting any error but...


did you try Karhu's Ram test ?
You can test memory, cache or both.
At least 10000%.


----------



## Sleepycat

Requiem4u said:


> Thanks. But same problems as 3902. Memory settings reset after every shutdown. Jedec settings. Restart is fine as is benchmarks, but after shutdown it is jedec. Or must use very slow timings.


Does it go back to JEDEC, but settings in bios still show DOCP as being turned on? If this is the case, then it is failing memory training and falling back, potentially due to some memory settings. Feel free to post your bios settings if you want us to have a look at it.


----------



## des2k...

Requiem4u said:


> Thanks. But same problems as 3902. Memory settings reset after every shutdown. Jedec settings. Restart is fine as is benchmarks, but after shutdown it is jedec. Or must use very slow timings.


you can try df cstate off

it helped my aorus master / zen2 with 4x8 3800cl14 232trfc not loosing xmp on power off/on


----------



## kx11

Using 3903 beta now on Formula mobo, my OC settings run fine however the Creative PCI sound card isn't working at all, tried some tricks to get working but i'll keep working on a solution or i'll revert to 3902 which was good with my setup


----------



## kx11

Reverted to 3902 and everything is normal, 3903 is the 1st crap bios i ever used with this mobo


----------



## PWn3R

Getting Code 00 fairly often recently on 3801 and 3900s. Anyone else seen this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## metalshark

Requiem4u said:


> Thanks. But same problems as 3902. Memory settings reset after every shutdown. Jedec settings. Restart is fine as is benchmarks, but after shutdown it is jedec. Or must use very slow timings.


Not getting that problem on a Crosshair VIII Formula. Which board do you have?
Just brainstorming ideas (none of these may be the issue):

have you done fresh settings (e.g. is it just something odd from an old profile causing issues)?
is it restarting more than once (like memory training failing and retrying)?
when you say it's going back to JEDEC or slow timings which is it? can you confirm with ZenTimings or similar what is being changed?


----------



## metalshark

PWn3R said:


> Getting Code 00 fairly often recently on 3801 and 3900s. Anyone else seen this?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Not getting that, no.


----------



## GRABibus

PWn3R said:


> Getting Code 00 fairly often recently on 3801 and 3900s. Anyone else seen this?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


even at stock settings ?
If yes, that could be a CPU issue….


----------



## GRABibus

kx11 said:


> Reverted to 3902 and everything is normal, 3903 is the 1st crap bios i ever used with this mobo


let’s say concerning your Creative issue.
As you said it runs fine with your settings, « 1st crap bios » is maybe too much 😊


----------



## Requiem4u

Sleepycat said:


> Does it go back to JEDEC, but settings in bios still show DOCP as being turned on? If this is the case, then it is failing memory training and falling back, potentially due to some memory settings. Feel free to post your bios settings if you want us to have a look at it.


I have custom settings, not DOCP. But think you are right, memory training. Have no time to troubleshooting so revert to 3801.



des2k... said:


> you can try df cstate off
> 
> it helped my aorus master / zen2 with 4x8 3800cl14 232trfc not loosing xmp on power off/on


I will check that later on.



metalshark said:


> Not getting that problem on a Crosshair VIII Formula. Which board do you have?
> Just brainstorming ideas (none of these may be the issue):
> 
> have you done fresh settings (e.g. is it just something odd from an old profile causing issues)?
> is it restarting more than once (like memory training failing and retrying)?
> when you say it's going back to JEDEC or slow timings which is it? can you confirm with ZenTimings or similar what is being changed?


I tried both fresh and saved settings, no help.
No, but I think it is memory training, becouse restarts was fine. Think I have to try different RTT:s and cad bus settings etc.
It was JEDEC timings. But slow timings like 3600 and 16-16-16 + subtimings auto seems to work too. Now 3801, I try again next week.
Thanks for help everyone.


----------



## trespot

PWn3R said:


> Just got the 500MHz bug in Windows. It happened midgame on Battlefiled 2042, a reset of the computer didn't fix it either. Saw something online saying that you have to CMOS reset after a hard powercycle. Has this happened to anyone else?
> 
> View attachment 2535807


Switching power plan back and forth used to help me with this.


----------



## PWn3R

GRABibus said:


> even at stock settings ?
> If yes, that could be a CPU issue….


Yes, stock settings except for memory, which is 3733/1866.



trespot said:


> Switching power plan back and forth used to help me with this.


Switching power plan did not help. Computer reset did not help, rebooting did not help. I had to hard power cycle using the switch on the power supply.


----------



## des2k...

Requiem4u said:


> I have custom settings, not DOCP. But think you are right, memory training. Have no time to troubleshooting so revert to 3801.
> 
> 
> I will check that later on.
> 
> 
> I tried both fresh and saved settings, no help.
> No, but I think it is memory training, becouse restarts was fine. Think I have to try different RTT:s and cad bus settings etc.
> It was JEDEC timings. But slow timings like 3600 and 16-16-16 + subtimings auto seems to work too. Now 3801, I try again next week.
> Thanks for help everyone.
> 
> View attachment 2536238


This might be due to low trfc on bdie. I know on my x570 232trfc sometimes requires voltage precharge(power off before mem training fails, turn on 2nd time and it post fine) after being off overnight 

This doesn't happen on restarts / off for 30mins or so, bdie caps are already charged.

of course x570 doesn't have voltage pre-charge like some high end Intel boards and I'm not loosing 2ns on latency running high trfc🙄


----------



## sonixmon

3903 is running good for me. I might run Hydra Diag. again with it, depends how long before the next version is released.

I did have one weird issue immediately after updating when running first game test. It was kind of a Max Headroom moment for those old enough to remember him. A major kind of stutter, audio and video for about 1-2 seconds then it cleared up and haven't seen it since. Might just be coincidental and not related to FW? Stutters have been almost non-existent since adjusting my SOC voltage as suggested here while I was still on 3902.



des2k... said:


> This might be due to low trfc on bdie. I know on my x570 232trfc sometimes requires voltage precharge(power off before mem training fails, turn on 2nd time and it post fine) after being off overnight
> 
> This doesn't happen on restarts / off for 30mins or so, bdie caps are already charged.
> 
> of course x570 doesn't have voltage pre-charge like some high end Intel boards and I'm not loosing 2ns on latency running high trfc🙄


I have this issue sometimes after long power offs and wondered why it would happen. It didn't seem like memory training but I wasn't sure.


----------



## metalshark

sonixmon said:


> 3903 is running good for me. I might run Hydra Diag. again with it, depends how long before the next version is released.
> 
> I did have one weird issue immediately after updating when running first game test. It was kind of a Max Headroom moment for those old enough to remember him. A major kind of stutter, audio and video for about 1-2 seconds then it cleared up and haven't seen it since. Might just be coincidental and not related to FW? Stutters have been almost non-existent since adjusting my SOC voltage as suggested here while I was still on 3902.
> 
> 
> I have this issue sometimes after long power offs and wondered why it would happen. It didn't seem like memory training but I wasn't sure.


15/16 cores could hit another 25-50MHz in diag going from 3801 to 3903 (didn't try 3902). One dropped 25MHz. Personal preference would be to look to tweak CO values with core-cycler running instead of running diag if you've got your profiles setup nicely and know the voltages you want to use in Hydra, but your mileage may vary (having re-run diag that's what I'd have preferred to do on reflection).

PLL and SoC are the two for myself with stutter audio/video/USB. Currently running 3800/1900 with 1.1875v SoC and 1.87v PLL. SB Voltage has apparently helped others, however not in my case, I run Auto/1.00v, others run 1.05v with it apparently helping them (am on a 5950X).

Other voltages if interested: 1.535v DRAM, VDDG CCD 0.95v, VDDG IOD 1.05v, CLDO VDDP 0.88v and CPU 3.3v AUX (Tweaker's Paradise) set to 3.3v (defaults to 3.6v).


----------



## Afferin

Can someone explain to me why using the PBO under AI Tweaker produces lower clock speeds than using PBO in the Advanced menu? I needed to set EDC above my motherboard limits to stabilize -30 all core, but I noticed my single core clock speeds dropped significantly. This holds for whether my EDC is above, at, or below the motherboard limits.


----------



## Kelutrel

Afferin said:


> Can someone explain to me why using the PBO under AI Tweaker produces lower clock speeds than using PBO in the Advanced menu? I needed to set EDC above my motherboard limits to stabilize -30 all core, but I noticed my single core clock speeds dropped significantly. This holds for whether my EDC is above, at, or below the motherboard limits.


From my experience, enabling PBO under AI Tweaker on my C8F does not set the pbo curve offsets, it acts like if those are set to zero independently from what number you configure. As a result the top frequency of all cores is lower. If you set the pbo curve offsets from the AMD Advanced Overclocking page then it works as expected.


----------



## Afferin

Kelutrel said:


> From my experience, enabling PBO under AI Tweaker on my C8F does not set the pbo curve offsets, it acts like if those are set to zero independently from what number you configure. As a result the top frequency of all cores is lower. If you set the pbo curve offsets from the AMD Advanced Overclocking page then it works as expected.


I've tried setting everything in the Advanced menu, then setting the power limits specifically in AI Tweaker. From this I noticed that my scores were a little higher and my voltages were aligning with what I had set in my CO, but my single core still gets restricted. Is there any way to bypass the 200A EDC limit on my board from the Advanced menu? Or should I just give up on -30 all core and settle for -30 on my best cores with something lower on my others?


----------



## Kelutrel

Afferin said:


> I've tried setting everything in the Advanced menu, then setting the power limits specifically in AI Tweaker. From this I noticed that my scores were a little higher and my voltages were aligning with what I had set in my CO, but my single core still gets restricted. Is there any way to bypass the 200A EDC limit on my board from the Advanced menu? Or should I just give up on -30 all core and settle for -30 on my best cores with something lower on my others?


My suggestion would be to ignore the AI Tweaker menu', set it all to Auto and leave it alone. Configure whatever you need from the Advanced Overclocking menu page, it has all the same settings and more if you have a Zen 3.
If you have a Zen 2 then the Advanced Overclocking menu' does not provide the FMax Enhancer tweak, and for that alone you can use the AI Tweaker menu page.

If there is any EDC limit in the Advanced Overclocking page then the same limit would apply in the AI Tweaker page too.
If you find that you have some power limit though, you may also want to try to change the power limits values from the XFR Enhancement page, that is a sub section of the AMD CBS menu', but I don't think it has any less limit on the allowed maximum PPT/TDC/EDC than the other two pages.


----------



## exiiXcherry

Hey, im still trying to get the 3903 to work. Dark Hero 5950x 1900if/3800ram.
On 3801 I was at cb23 mt ~29100 and at single core ~1650. Bios 3903: 28500 / 1590
At 3902/3903 im getting random reboots at 140 edc, anything above 140 is reducing my overall scores to like 28500 / 1590. 
One thing to mention is that on 3903 I needed to set Cstate to auto since disable gave me (why ever) a much lower boost clock.
Currently im running mostly my old stable 3801 settings: 
220 220 170(140 before, higher then 140 was stable but 170 gave me the highest mt/st)
curve: 10 15 14 18 10 15 10 10 / 22 15 15 23 20 14 21 12 (tested with core cycler on 3801 for almost a month over night with y cruncher)
scalar 3x
+50 boost

The scalar and +50 boost does not seem to work at all.
Offset voltage did not help (since edc above 140 reduced the VID to ~1.425v).
Ram is stable (tested with TM5 anta777)
One more thing that I noticed is that the 3903 is giving me more Event19 corrected WHEAs like 5/hr. 
The 3801 once a week.
Any recommendations?


----------



## metalshark

exiiXcherry said:


> Hey, im still trying to get the 3903 to work. Dark Hero 5950x 1900if/3800ram.
> On 3801 I was at cb23 mt ~29100 and at single core ~1650. Bios 3903: 28500 / 1590
> At 3902/3903 im getting random reboots at 140 edc, anything above 140 is reducing my overall scores to like 28500 / 1590.
> One thing to mention is that on 3903 I needed to set Cstate to auto since disable gave me (why ever) a much lower boost clock.
> Currently im running mostly my old stable 3801 settings:
> 220 220 170(140 before, higher then 140 was stable but 170 gave me the highest mt/st)
> curve: 10 15 14 18 10 15 10 10 / 22 15 15 23 20 14 21 12 (tested with core cycler on 3801 for almost a month over night with y cruncher)
> scalar 3x
> +50 boost
> 
> The scalar and +50 boost does not seem to work at all.
> Offset voltage did not help (since edc above 140 reduced the VID to ~1.425v).
> Ram is stable (tested with TM5 anta777)
> One more thing that I noticed is that the 3903 is giving me more Event19 corrected WHEAs like 5/hr.
> The 3801 once a week.
> Any recommendations?
> 
> View attachment 2536273


Any WHEA 19's I'd be concerned about and want to narrow down. Look at the APIC ID and moderate the curve for that core.


----------



## Kelutrel

exiiXcherry said:


> Hey, im still trying to get the 3903 to work. Dark Hero 5950x 1900if/3800ram.
> On 3801 I was at cb23 mt ~29100 and at single core ~1650. Bios 3903: 28500 / 1590
> At 3902/3903 im getting random reboots at 140 edc, anything above 140 is reducing my overall scores to like 28500 / 1590.
> One thing to mention is that on 3903 I needed to set Cstate to auto since disable gave me (why ever) a much lower boost clock.
> Currently im running mostly my old stable 3801 settings:
> 220 220 170(140 before, higher then 140 was stable but 170 gave me the highest mt/st)
> curve: 10 15 14 18 10 15 10 10 / 22 15 15 23 20 14 21 12 (tested with core cycler on 3801 for almost a month over night with y cruncher)
> scalar 3x
> +50 boost
> 
> The scalar and +50 boost does not seem to work at all.
> Offset voltage did not help (since edc above 140 reduced the VID to ~1.425v).
> Ram is stable (tested with TM5 anta777)
> One more thing that I noticed is that the 3903 is giving me more Event19 corrected WHEAs like 5/hr.
> The 3801 once a week.
> Any recommendations?
> 
> View attachment 2536273


With BIOS 3903 and EDC >140, you should be able to lower your pbo curve offsets a tad more and keep stability, and in the end reach even higher scores than with 3801, even if the peak frequencies and voltages are lower (thermals will benefit too), this was my case at least. My understanding is that the higher scores are due to a higher average frequency even if the peak frequency is lower. I changed a few other settings on the 3903 BIOS though, so I am not sure I have an apple to apple comparison.

With EDC set to 140 it _should_ perform and behave the same as 3801 in relation to pbo, but I would not follow that path on 3903, so if your stability issues are on EDC set to 140, just set it to 170 (or whatever your best is) and rework your pbo curve offsets and you should end up getting higher scores.


----------



## exiiXcherry

metalshark said:


> Any WHEA 19's I'd be concerned about and want to narrow down. Look at the APIC ID and moderate the curve for that core.












besides curve testing always APIC ID0
Tested already setting the curve on core 0 to 0 but still getting them. Even on stock settings since 3903.


----------



## metalshark

exiiXcherry said:


> Hey, im still trying to get the 3903 to work. Dark Hero 5950x 1900if/3800ram.
> On 3801 I was at cb23 mt ~29100 and at single core ~1650. Bios 3903: 28500 / 1590
> At 3902/3903 im getting random reboots at 140 edc, anything above 140 is reducing my overall scores to like 28500 / 1590.
> One thing to mention is that on 3903 I needed to set Cstate to auto since disable gave me (why ever) a much lower boost clock.
> Currently im running mostly my old stable 3801 settings:
> 220 220 170(140 before, higher then 140 was stable but 170 gave me the highest mt/st)
> curve: 10 15 14 18 10 15 10 10 / 22 15 15 23 20 14 21 12 (tested with core cycler on 3801 for almost a month over night with y cruncher)
> scalar 3x
> +50 boost
> 
> The scalar and +50 boost does not seem to work at all.
> Offset voltage did not help (since edc above 140 reduced the VID to ~1.425v).
> Ram is stable (tested with TM5 anta777)
> One more thing that I noticed is that the 3903 is giving me more Event19 corrected WHEAs like 5/hr.
> The 3801 once a week.
> Any recommendations?
> 
> View attachment 2536273


Also same memory kit, worse board (the Formula, not like your Dark Hero) here are some things you may wish to try (1.535v)


----------



## metalshark

exiiXcherry said:


> View attachment 2536280
> 
> 
> besides curve testing always APIC ID0
> Tested already setting the curve on core 0 to 0 but still getting them. Even on stock settings since 3903.


APIC ID 0 and APIC ID 1 are the first core.


----------



## exiiXcherry

metalshark said:


> Also same memory kit, worse board (the Formula, not like your Dark Hero) here are some things you may wish to try (1.535v)
> View attachment 2536281


Thanks will try that!


----------



## GRABibus

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2535430
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 3903 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Some bug fixes
> 2. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1205 (same 3902)
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 3903
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 3903
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 3903
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 3903
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 3903
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0503


Hi Safedisk,
Do you know when it is planned to get an official release on ASUS Site ?


----------



## bastian

GRABibus said:


> Hi Safedisk,
> Do you know when it is planned to get an official release on ASUS Site ?


Most of the time the beta ends up being the official release. 3903 is stable. Don't worry.


----------



## Luggage

bastian said:


> Most of the time the beta ends up being the official release. 3903 is stable. Don't worry.


So we will lose vcore >1.425 with EDC >140 going forward?


----------



## GRABibus

Yes, and with better performances !


----------



## Luggage

GRABibus said:


> Yes, and with better performances !


So I’ll have another go at testing this weekend then I get home. My 1203/1204 settings lost a lot of performance. Not looking forward to starting a CO from scratch again.


----------



## GRABibus

Luggage said:


> So I’ll have another go at testing this weekend then I get home. My 1203/1204 settings lost a lot of performance. Not looking forward to starting a CO from scratch again.


what were your stable settings with 3801 ?


----------



## Luggage

GRABibus said:


> what were your stable settings with 3801 ?


Well I’m on MSI but agesa 1203c from memory
+200, neg 15 27 27 15 30 15 27 30, +0.0125v offset.
Keep changing between 200 115 700 and 200 130 170.

edit: with 5800x,overkill water cooling


----------



## GRABibus

Luggage said:


> Well I’m on MSI but agesa 1203c from memory
> +200, neg 15 27 27 15 30 15 27 30, +0.0125v offset.
> Keep changing between 200 115 700 and 200 130 170.
> 
> edit: with 5800x,overkill water cooling


3903 provides less Vid at EDC>140, and lower boost.
Then, try decrease your CO offsets for each core by 5 for example (I mean you apply -5 to each)
Put Vcore on auto (No positive offset).
Try EDC=160

You should get lower temps, then higher boot...If your cooler is not already cooling at his best possibility.

you are on a well optimised custom loop (?), then Maybe it won't help to increase scores in CBR20, because your coooling is probably doing its best.

My cooling being a mid-end one (H115i RGB Platinum), then doing from my side what I propose you to test, helped my cooling to cool better my cores (Because there was a headroom for that due to the fact it was not giving its best with 3801 settings at Vids=1.5V).


----------



## Luggage

GRABibus said:


> 3903 provides less Vid at EDC>140, and lower boost.
> Then, try decrease your CO offsets for each core by 5 for example (I mean you apply -5 to each)
> Put Vcore on auto (No positive offset).
> Try EDC=160
> 
> You should get lower temps, then higher boot...If your cooler is not already cooling at his best possibility.
> 
> you are on a well optimised custom loop (?), then Maybe it won't help to increase scores in CBR20, because your coooling is probably doing its best.
> 
> My cooling being a mid-end one (H115i RGB Platinum), then doing from my side what I propose you to test, helped my cooling to cool better my cores (Because there was a headroom for that due to the fact it was not giving its best with 3801 settings at Vids=1.5V).


Yea CB R23 @ 53C now with cold weather and water temp around 10C








Luggage`s Cinebench - R23 Multi Core with BenchMate score: 16759 cb with a Ryzen 7 5800X


The Ryzen 7 5800X @ 5050.5MHzscores getScoreFormatted in the Cinebench - R23 Multi Core with BenchMate benchmark. Luggageranks #null worldwide and #null in the hardware class. Find out more at HWBOT.




hwbot.org





Offset was just to push sc a little since svi2tfn was droopy from vid. Is stable without offset.


----------



## safedisk

GRABibus said:


> Hi Safedisk,
> Do you know when it is planned to get an official release on ASUS Site ?


Hey It will probably take some time
There is no problem with the beta version If the bios number is the same, only the name is changed from beta to official


----------



## rossi594

Afferin said:


> Man, 3903 has been great to me. Got a new personal best on a stable RAM overclock! Had to drop my CO to -10 all-core for stability issues, but I'll take 3933CL14 for that trade.
> View attachment 2535665


what vdimm are you using for this? Do you have whea 19 warnings?


----------



## sonixmon

metalshark said:


> 15/16 cores could hit another 25-50MHz in diag going from 3801 to 3903 (didn't try 3902). One dropped 25MHz. Personal preference would be to look to tweak CO values with core-cycler running instead of running diag if you've got your profiles setup nicely and know the voltages you want to use in Hydra, but your mileage may vary (having re-run diag that's what I'd have preferred to do on reflection).
> 
> PLL and SoC are the two for myself with stutter audio/video/USB. Currently running 3800/1900 with 1.1875v SoC and 1.87v PLL. SB Voltage has apparently helped others, however not in my case, I run Auto/1.00v, others run 1.05v with it apparently helping them (am on a 5950X).
> 
> Other voltages if interested: 1.535v DRAM, VDDG CCD 0.95v, VDDG IOD 1.05v, CLDO VDDP 0.88v and CPU 3.3v AUX (Tweaker's Paradise) set to 3.3v (defaults to 3.6v).


Thanks for the info.

Tweaking my voltages to match yours, I was close already but worth trying. Made a new profile just in case. I have things to do after work today so I think I will run Diag again. I havent even gotten to using the CO offset option in Hydra yet so I know there is performance on the table. I watched Yuri video a few times and hope to work on that this weekend!

Still a little unclear for the power settings I should use in Hydra (EDC etc.). Currently @ PPT 200, EDC 170, TDC 150.


----------



## metalshark

sonixmon said:


> ven gotten to using the CO offset option in Hydra yet so I know there is performance on the table. I watched Yuri video a few times and hope to work on that this weekend!
> 
> Still a little unclear for the power settings I should u


There are some real smart cookies who've spent a lot longer than I have on the 1usmus Discord and in this forum, you'll likely be best getting advice from them. That said you may want to consider the route I take for tuning the left hand CO table (<75%). 

Here the diag often causes stability issues for a couple of cores (where CO needs decreased) or leaves it too low for others (sometimes by almost 50) and you can use the previous CO results to use this method. I run CoreCycler and if it reboots on a core drop the CO by 10, if Prime95 throws an error drop it by 5 until all are stable making a note of the value a core failed at, then up each core by 10 (or 1 for cores which have previously failed) and go through a loop of CoreCycler. Keep repeating until all the COs are as high as possible without any Prime95 issues or reboots. Then leave CoreCycler running overnight where you might need to drop a little on cores which fail Prime95.

If you mostly play games a lot then the 1T-2T, 3T-4T and 5T-8T as well as the ALL (GAME) profiles may want some tweaking where you can fiddle with the VID and CCD1/CCD2 speeds. For instance adding some more VID if you're after that top boosting speed and have the thermal headroom.


----------



## exiiXcherry

metalshark said:


> Also same memory kit, worse board (the Formula, not like your Dark Hero) here are some things you may wish to try (1.535v)
> View attachment 2536281


Still some tuning to do since in TM5 your settings are not yet stable. I tried raising the voltage to 1.55 and highering the trfc to 285 212 130. Currently running TM5 extreme 1 anta777. 
With exactly your settings I got some errors on that test. Do you have some llc recommendations? For some cb23 runs it was stable enough (mt 29893 and st 1640). I start to belive that my 3801 ram timings were faulty on 3903 and lowered my score.


----------



## Afferin

rossi594 said:


> what vdimm are you using for this? Do you have whea 19 warnings?


I was at 1.52v but I think I could've gotten away with less. I started out with some WHEAs, but after toying with voltages a bit they went away. I went back to 3733 @ 1.45v though because 1.52v was getting a little toasty.


----------



## metalshark

exiiXcherry said:


> Still some tuning to do since in TM5 your settings are not yet stable. I tried raising the voltage to 1.55 and highering the trfc to 285 212 130. Currently running TM5 extreme 1 anta777.
> With exactly your settings I got some errors on that test. Do you have some llc recommendations? For some cb23 runs it was stable enough (mt 29893 and st 1640). I start to belive that my 3801 ram timings were faulty on 3903 and lowered my score.
> View attachment 2536466


Have full tested stability, with the water cooled Formula have RAM/CPU set to 500khz power switching and SoC set to 600khz all on Ultra Fast. LLC 3 for all apart from CPU which is on LLC 4.

Make sure you include the setup timings in the bottom right when disabling GDM and am using 1.535v.


----------



## kx11

GRABibus said:


> let’s say concerning your Creative issue.
> As you said it runs fine with your settings, « 1st crap bios » is maybe too much 😊


You might be right after all 

3902 took a **** on Creative AE-9 and never powered it on so i removed it and got 3903 instead

anyway these are my current settings and i kinda like them on a 4x8gb setup



















Should i got for 3200mhz CL16 like the model says in Zentiming?


----------



## PWn3R

FYI the code 00 issue is accelerating in frequency on my 5950x. AMD says they won’t warranty the chip because I used Liquid Metal thermal compound. This is an FYI for anyone else out there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## des2k...

PWn3R said:


> FYI the code 00 issue is accelerating in frequency on my 5950x. AMD says they won’t warranty the chip because I used Liquid Metal thermal compound. This is an FYI for anyone else out there.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


How exactly would AMD find out ?


----------



## PWn3R

des2k... said:


> How exactly would AMD find out ?


They require a picture of the top of the IHS and already rejected my request because of the discoloration and inability to read the serial number and see AMD logo clearly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## skalinator

PWn3R said:


> Getting Code 00 fairly often recently on 3801 and 3900s. Anyone else seen this?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Oddly i am too.. but its looking like something killed my 5950x, the mobo boots fine on a 5900x


----------



## skalinator

PWn3R said:


> FYI the code 00 issue is accelerating in frequency on my 5950x. AMD says they won’t warranty the chip because I used Liquid Metal thermal compound. This is an FYI for anyone else out there.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Literally exact same thing with me, what board do you have? I have the extreme. Used liquid metal So i f*ed. There was A deal a microcenter going on for motherboard and processor, so i snagged a new 5950 for 600 with a new extreme motherboard as i didn’t know which was bad and wanted to grab the deal. I thought for sure it was the motherboard. so is this nuking chips? Interesting…


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Does the new 3903 update require the latest AMD chipset drivers or wut??

Can't really say if 3903 is good nor bad, single core scores I lost a lot..but the numbers don't translate into real/normal usage being slow, for multi core, pretty much the same, every figure went down but real usage doesn't feel it was slow, temperature wise, pretty much same for me (alot of headroom down that department)


----------



## pfinch

Upgraded from 3801 to 3903
I have massive drops in performance when I leave the EDC 140 on my 5950x (27000MT CB23). EDC 180 has a maximum VID of 1,425 (EDC140 = max VID1.475) but I get a score of 30100.
So...for my system it seems no option for me to leave EDC on 140...
Do you notice the same ?


----------



## shaolin95

pfinch said:


> Upgraded from 3801 to 3903
> I have massive drops in performance when I leave the EDC 140 on my 5950x (27000MT CB23). EDC 180 has a maximum VID of 1,425 (EDC140 = max VID1.475) but I get a score of 30100.
> So...for my system it seems no option for me to leave EDC on 140...
> Do you notice the same ?


What are you other 2 at?
Gonna test mine


----------



## pfinch

250/200/180


----------



## GRABibus

pfinch said:


> Upgraded from 3801 to 3903
> I have massive drops in performance when I leave the EDC 140 on my 5950x (27000MT CB23). EDC 180 has a maximum VID of 1,425 (EDC140 = max VID1.475) but I get a score of 30100.
> So...for my system it seems no option for me to leave EDC on 140...
> Do you notice the same ?


3903 boosts lower with same settings than 3801.
Did you try to reduce your CO offsets then ?
I could go stable to -30 all cores with 3903 and then, at then end, it improves CBR20 MT score.
Try EDC 160.


----------



## shaolin95

pfinch said:


> 250/200/180


So with those settings I gain about 600pts in CB23 multi (29800s) but I lose points of CB20 single performance. Plus I was hitting 10C more in the multi test over my normal settings which are 200/140/140 where I get CB23 around 29200.


----------



## exiiXcherry

Im running 220 220 170 atm. @pfinch when using your settings I archived similar mt scores (higher temps and more power draw) but same as shaolin95 lower st scores. Im still adjusting my curve since with 3903 it seems to be different(still working on it but it seems that I was able to lower almost all curves by 2-6). On 3903 im getting now 29982 mt and 1651 st. @metalshark gmd off is unstable on me but it seems that gdm on gave me only a slight penalty in cb23 mt (~50points, st no difference). With these ram settings 1.5v (screenshot) and Curve: 15 20 20 22 15 20 15 15 / 24 17 17 25 22 16 24 15


----------



## metalshark

exiiXcherry said:


> Im running 220 220 170 atm. @pfinch when using your settings I archived similar mt scores (higher temps and more power draw) but same as shaolin95 lower st scores. Im still adjusting my curve since with 3903 it seems to be different(still working on it but it seems that I was able to lower almost all curves by 2-6). On 3903 im getting now 29982 mt and 1651 st. @metalshark gmd off is unstable on me but it seems that gdm on gave me only a slight penalty in cb23 mt (~50points, st no difference). With these ram settings 1.5v (screenshot) and Curve: 15 20 20 22 15 20 15 15 / 24 17 17 25 22 16 24 15
> View attachment 2536713


That’s a shame, you may get some luck swapping round RAM sticks (weaker DIMMs in primary slots, etc).

Currently using Hydra so use the low/high profile COs and being able to set voltages per profile (so no clue about the voltage limits others are having).


----------



## PWn3R

Code 00 problem just happened twice in the last hour. I'm going to try a BIOS reflash. I found other posts saying that fixed it for some, one person posted on the ASUS forums that they had to get a new motherboard to stop it, but I can't have this machine hanging like this all the time.


----------



## GRABibus

PWn3R said:


> Code 00 problem just happened twice in the last hour. I'm going to try a BIOS reflash. I found other posts saying that fixed it for some, one person posted on the ASUS forums that they had to get a new motherboard to stop it, but I can't have this machine hanging like this all the time.


Next step after reflash would be to test a new CPU, before changing motherboard


----------



## Pastrami King

Has anyone been testing Fmax Enhancer with higher than normal (generally positive) CO on 3903? Here is a run without optimized CO values (but high enough to boot and complete the run) and with Fmax Enhancer = Enabled, PPT = 395, and TDC = 255.


----------



## PWn3R

Still sleuthing on this Code 00 error while using the computer. I don't know what else to try. Interwebs seem to suggest it's either bad mobo, bad cpu (AMD not cooperating on that front). Do these look normal other 5950x owners?


----------



## DvL Ax3l

Pastrami King said:


> Has anyone been testing Fmax Enhancer with higher than normal (generally positive) CO on 3903? Here is a run without optimized CO values (but high enough to boot and complete the run) and with Fmax Enhancer = Enabled, PPT = 395, and TDC = 255.


Fmax Enhancer is only for Ryzen 3000 series, on 5000 series it stretch the frequency up but not the effective frequency, I suggest to use only PBO + CO.


----------



## kuutale

PWn3R said:


> Still sleuthing on this Code 00 error while using the computer. I don't know what else to try. Interwebs seem to suggest it's either bad mobo, bad cpu (AMD not cooperating on that front). Do these look normal other 5950x owners?
> 
> View attachment 2536855


do u check cpu pins? is there maybe spills?


----------



## PWn3R

kuutale said:


> do u check cpu pins? is there maybe spills?


No, but I’m positive there isn’t, I’ve used liquid metal like 10 times, and I checked it to make sure it didn’t even get on the sides of the IHS after mounting the block by removing the block there were no spills and no leakage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Pastrami King

DvL Ax3l said:


> Fmax Enhancer is only for Ryzen 3000 series, on 5000 series it stretch the frequency up but not the effective frequency, I suggest to use only PBO + CO.


Designed for Ryzen 3000, perhaps; however, there was no clock stretching during that Cinebench run. There would have been clock stretching (or general instability) if I had not used positive CO counts to adjust my VF curve to account for the higher voltages pushed by FMax Enhancer. You can even see that my maximum nominal clock was just 0.2 MHz more than my maximum effective clock (5025.06 MHz vs. 5024.86 MHz). From what I can tell, there are at least some advantages to using FMax Enhancer, especially in BIOS version 3902/0503 with AGESA 1.2.0.5 (that is, you avoid the tradeoff between low EDC/1.5v maximum voltage/better single-core performance/worse multi-core performance/worse L3 cache bandwidth performance and high EDC/1.425v maximum voltage/worse single-core performance/better multi-core performance/better L3 cache bandwidth performance).

Just wondering if anyone else is trying to use positive CO counts to adjust for how FMax Enhancer operates (or appears to operate).


----------



## Luggage

Pastrami King said:


> Designed for Ryzen 3000, perhaps; however, there was no clock stretching during that Cinebench run. There would have been clock stretching (or general instability) if I had not used positive CO counts to adjust my VF curve to account for the higher voltages pushed by FMax Enhancer. You can even see that my maximum nominal clock was just 0.2 MHz more than my maximum effective clock (5025.06 MHz vs. 5024.86 MHz). From what I can tell, there are at least some advantages to using FMax Enhancer, especially in BIOS version 3902/0503 with AGESA 1.2.0.5 (that is, you avoid the tradeoff between low EDC/1.5v maximum voltage/better single-core performance/worse multi-core performance/worse L3 cache bandwidth performance and high EDC/1.425v maximum voltage/worse single-core performance/better multi-core performance/better L3 cache bandwidth performance).
> 
> Just wondering if anyone else is trying to use positive CO counts to adjust for how FMax Enhancer operates (or appears to operate).











[Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread


Was wondering where my RAM buddy was, nothing separating us! (other than a few timings lol). I always thought tRDWR going higher would impact performance more than tCWL dropping down but it's something we can test! 10/10 doesn't post for me btw, so it seems we're sticking close to the formula...




www.overclock.net





you can get 1.5 vid with edc>140 if you use rm to change edc.


----------



## shaolin95

rm? Ryzen Master?


----------



## Pastrami King

Luggage said:


> [Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread
> 
> 
> Was wondering where my RAM buddy was, nothing separating us! (other than a few timings lol). I always thought tRDWR going higher would impact performance more than tCWL dropping down but it's something we can test! 10/10 doesn't post for me btw, so it seems we're sticking close to the formula...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you can get 1.5 vid with edc>140 if you use rm to change edc.


One or the other is a bug, I assume. @safedisk?


----------



## GRABibus

Luggage said:


> [Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread
> 
> 
> Was wondering where my RAM buddy was, nothing separating us! (other than a few timings lol). I always thought tRDWR going higher would impact performance more than tCWL dropping down but it's something we can test! 10/10 doesn't post for me btw, so it seems we're sticking close to the formula...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you can get 1.5 vid with edc>140 if you use rm to change edc.


Deleted


----------



## GRABibus

With 3903 and Vid 1,42V , I get better performances than with 3801 and Vid=1.5V.

please, don’t change the 3903 bios ! 😂


----------



## Luggage

GRABibus said:


> With 3903 and Vid 1,42V , I get better performances than with 3801 and Vid=1.5V.
> 
> please, don’t change the 3903 bios ! 😂


Perhaps there is a difference between MSI and ASUS but my PBO performance tanks if I'm not getting my high VIDs. But then my cooling is over kill.


----------



## GRABibus

Luggage said:


> Perhaps there is a difference between MSI and ASUS but my PBO performance tanks if I'm not getting my high VIDs. But then my cooling is over kill.


I think this is because my cooling is not overkill that I get better performances.
When I decrease Vid , then, I get less heat and then better performances.

‘with an overkill cooling, decreasing voltage doesn’t help too much in temperatures, then you get lower performances because decreasing voltages is not helped by a decrease in temperatures.
This is my hypothesis….


----------



## blunden

Anyone else getting hard shutdowns at idle (or light browsing) with KB5007262 on Windows 11? I installed it yesterday and had it happen at least 3 times within a few minutes of each other. Uninstalling that update seems to have brought back stability again. That's not exactly a long term solution though.


----------



## shaolin95

blunden said:


> Anyone else getting hard shutdowns at idle (or light browsing) with KB5007262 on Windows 11? I installed it yesterday and had it happen at least 3 times within a few minutes of each other. Uninstalling that update seems to have brought back stability again. That's not exactly a long term solution though.


I have it since 11/22 according to my update history and zero issues.


----------



## TMavica

hi. I am new comer. I am using 5950, C8E with G.Skill F4000C14-GTES 16x2. With BIIOS 0402, I can run the ram at FCLK 1900 without whea and done the stress test, but after I tried to use 0503, it came with whea error, and even during aida64 test, PC reboot itself


----------



## Reikoji

Havent had any errors or reboots with 3903. Havent gotten around to testing scores yet tho, too busy playing video games.


----------



## bastian

Just arrived


----------



## xV Slayer

bastian said:


> Just arrived
> 
> View attachment 2537341


Why spend that much on a dead socket?


----------



## bastian

xV Slayer said:


> Why spend that much on a dead socket?


A refresh of CPUs is coming early next year.... hardly call that dead. I bought it for the 5x M.2 storage.


----------



## shaolin95

bastian said:


> A refresh of CPUs is coming early next year.... hardly call that dead. I bought it for the 5x M.2 storage.


Still only Dark Hero has the dynamic OC option, right? I am planning to swap the Mobo when the new CPUs dropped if the gains are decent enough.


----------



## bastian

shaolin95 said:


> Still only Dark Hero has the dynamic OC option, right? I am planning to swap the Mobo when the new CPUs dropped if the gains are decent enough.


Extreme has Dynamic OC.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

bastian said:


> Extreme has Dynamic OC.


I think this has the V-Latch as well.. I am planning to upgrade as well if this ever drops locally..


----------



## metalshark

shaolin95 said:


> Still only Dark Hero has the dynamic OC option, right? I am planning to swap the Mobo when the new CPUs dropped if the gains are decent enough.


You can also use Hydra to have Dynamic OC on all prior boards. Untick Dynamic for the ALL (AVX2) profile, set the VID, CCD1 speed and CCD2 speed then it's the same behaviour. For slightly better performance you'll want to keep dynamic enabled though and not set fixed CCD1/CCD2 speeds due to there being a secondary set of CO values for multi-core where you can raise the bar.


----------



## stimpy88

xV Slayer said:


> Why spend that much on a dead socket?


Erm, ok.... LOL


----------



## Illuminado

Got a query for people here and wondering whether you can help diagnose an issue I've been having/anyone can shed some light on it.

Recently rebuilt my PC and did a full custom hardline water loop (yay). Temps are great and all that stuff, works fine. I'm running into a very odd problem however. Part of this upgrade was I wanted to start fresh so did a full reinstall of Windows and thought I'd leverage UEFI on a new M.2 drive (as I've been on a legacy formatted drive forever) so this was a good an excuse as any to move to UEFI so I could use resizable bar with the 5900x and 6900XT I have. Weird thing is is that I get errors booting and posting with the bar enabled. Sometimes I'll have black screens (and motherboard will report 9E code so it got in all fine but won't display anything). Sometimes I get an error saying the VGA is incompatible with UEFI boot (which ofc it isn't). Rarely (the other day) I got in fine on first boot (and it was so fast, I wish it did this every time!). Usually I need to keep turning the PC on and off until it decides to automatically enable CSM (which will allow me to get to the BIOS) where I can turn off the bar, get into Windows, leave it on for 10-15 mins before restarting, going back into BIOS and renenabling the bar. From there its clean sailing. It'll boot fine, then give me a prompt that the hardware has changed, at which point I will restart again (and it will boot fine) and I will be in Windows with Bar enabled and CSM off.

Has anyone encountered anything similar? Its so weirdly inconsistent but also consistent in its inconsistency! Have tried a lot of searching online with no fruit. Speaking to Asus support was unsurprisingly useless. They pretty much outlined CMOS reset etc. "Have you tried turning it off and on again".

Sorry for the essay and appreciate any input that anyone could give! Is really weird and pretty annoying. Would be nice to be able to turn the PC on without fighting with it for 10-15 mins every day D:.


----------



## metalshark

Illuminado said:


> Got a query for people here and wondering whether you can help diagnose an issue I've been having/anyone can shed some light on it.
> 
> Recently rebuilt my PC and did a full custom hardline water loop (yay). Temps are great and all that stuff, works fine. I'm running into a very odd problem however. Part of this upgrade was I wanted to start fresh so did a full reinstall of Windows and thought I'd leverage UEFI on a new M.2 drive (as I've been on a legacy formatted drive forever) so this was a good an excuse as any to move to UEFI so I could use resizable bar with the 5900x and 6900XT I have. Weird thing is is that I get errors booting and posting with the bar enabled. Sometimes I'll have black screens (and motherboard will report 9E code so it got in all fine but won't display anything). Sometimes I get an error saying the VGA is incompatible with UEFI boot (which ofc it isn't). Rarely (the other day) I got in fine on first boot (and it was so fast, I wish it did this every time!). Usually I need to keep turning the PC on and off until it decides to automatically enable CSM (which will allow me to get to the BIOS) where I can turn off the bar, get into Windows, leave it on for 10-15 mins before restarting, going back into BIOS and renenabling the bar. From there its clean sailing. It'll boot fine, then give me a prompt that the hardware has changed, at which point I will restart again (and it will boot fine) and I will be in Windows with Bar enabled and CSM off.
> 
> Has anyone encountered anything similar? Its so weirdly inconsistent but also consistent in its inconsistency! Have tried a lot of searching online with no fruit. Speaking to Asus support was unsurprisingly useless. They pretty much outlined CMOS reset etc. "Have you tried turning it off and on again".
> 
> Sorry for the essay and appreciate any input that anyone could give! Is really weird and pretty annoying. Would be nice to be able to turn the PC on without fighting with it for 10-15 mins every day D:.


Had similar and the test saying VGA BIOS, 9E, etc at times. Had to up vSoC quite a bit and PLL to resolve. On 3800/1900 I use 1.1875v SoC and 1.87v PLL. Can boot/pass stress tests with as little as 1.0625v SoC, but had graphics/USB hitches and occasional booting issues. For my issues, it had no correlation with ReBAR though so YMMV.


----------



## Illuminado

metalshark said:


> Had similar and the test saying VGA BIOS, 9E, etc at times. Had to up vSoC quite a bit and PLL to resolve. On 3800/1900 I use 1.1875v SoC and 1.87v PLL. Can boot/pass stress tests with as little as 1.0625v SoC, but had graphics/USB hitches and occasional booting issues. For my issues, it had no correlation with ReBAR though so YMMV.


That's interesting, thanks for the reply. I've not overclocked the CPU at all and left stuff on default settings (looking to do overclocking on CPU and Ram soon now that I have the water loop in place and temps are low) but my SoC is at 1.080v and PLL is 1.808. It'd be interesting if it was coming from this then? I wanted to get a new set of RAM but haven't been able to find a decent recommendation to go with the 5900x and this Motherboard. I could try upping the SoC then as part of this when I come to do PBO and CO. That or I'll give 1usmus' program a try when it drops in some days (I think?).

Oh as a quick aside too @metalshark, dunno if you have any recommendations for good ram kits with Zen 3?


----------



## metalshark

Illuminado said:


> That's interesting, thanks for the reply. I've not overclocked the CPU at all and left stuff on default settings (looking to do overclocking on CPU and Ram soon now that I have the water loop in place and temps are low) but my SoC is at 1.080v and PLL is 1.808. It'd be interesting if it was coming from this then? I wanted to get a new set of RAM but haven't been able to find a decent recommendation to go with the 5900x and this Motherboard. I could try upping the SoC then as part of this when I come to do PBO and CO. That or I'll give 1usmus' program a try when it drops in some days (I think?).
> 
> Oh as a quick aside too @metalshark, dunno if you have any recommendations for good ram kits with Zen 3?


100%, not my one :-D

So for 2000MHz and below the ones to beat are
2x8GB F4-4000C14D-16GTZN-G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.
2x16GB F4-4000C14D-32GTZN-G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.
there are some savings to be had if you can only run 3800/1900.

But with a 5900X you might be able to get up to 4266/2133 speeds and be able to run a better kit.

Keep to 2 sticks DR for best results (unless you really need 64GB) and grab a fan for the RAM as with B-die <50'C seems to clock nicely and <45'C clocks even nicer.

Would run some high MHz with loose timings and see what your CPU can do before grabbing an appropriate kit.

Also would get comfortable with overclocking using PBO + CO and some manual OCing to see what numbers to expect (and it's actually really fun with proper cooling like your open-loop). Then move on to Hydra later for the extra profiles and ability to have different CO's and voltages or manual overclocks for different workloads automatically switching. What you learn about how your individual cores handle high/low workloads and multi-core for different workloads is transferable knowledge.

Finally when clocking your RAM + timings would suggest Memtest86 first, that way you can get it stable before booting into Windows and verifying with TM5/Karhu. The last thing you want is to boot into Windows with unstable memory.


----------



## shaolin95

metalshark said:


> You can also use Hydra to have Dynamic OC on all prior boards. Untick Dynamic for the ALL (AVX2) profile, set the VID, CCD1 speed and CCD2 speed then it's the same behaviour. For slightly better performance you'll want to keep dynamic enabled though and not set fixed CCD1/CCD2 speeds due to there being a secondary set of CO values for multi-core where you can raise the bar.


 I have used Hydra and MANY of the previous versions (clocktuner) before it became Hydra as well. Not for me. I even had Yuri supporting me one on one but it never gave me the real world performance I wanted compared to my PBO+CO settings so after a few versions of Hydra I just stopped trying, that is why I rather just get a board with DOC if the new CPUs are worth the upgrade that is. Not gonna swap my mobo if I keep my current CPU.
Regards


----------



## metalshark

shaolin95 said:


> I have used Hydra and MANY of the previous versions (clocktuner) before it became Hydra as well. Not for me. I even had Yuri supporting me one on one but it never gave me the real world performance I wanted compared to my PBO+CO settings so after a few versions of Hydra I just stopped trying, that is why I rather just get a board with DOC if the new CPUs are worth the upgrade that is. Not gonna swap my mobo if I keep my current CPU.
> Regards


Yeah CTR doesn't do what Hydra does. Would be astounded if you see a real-world performance difference comparing (for instance) manual OCing vs a non-dynamic profile (saw no difference) and PBO+CO (only saw a positive difference in Hydra's favour). If you've only tried CTR thoroughly would give Hydra another spin, but ignore the diagnostics and go it alone (the automatic diagnostics leave a lot to be desired). With the multi-core CO settings delivering more speed than the manual OC settings when using DOC, you've got Dark Hero users disabling DOC when using Hydra for the speed boost now.


----------



## shaolin95

metalshark said:


> Yeah CTR doesn't do what Hydra does. Would be astounded if you see a real-world performance difference comparing (for instance) manual OCing vs a non-dynamic profile (saw no difference) and PBO+CO (only saw a positive difference in Hydra's favour). If you've only tried CTR thoroughly would give Hydra another spin, but ignore the diagnostics and go it alone (the automatic diagnostics leave a lot to be desired). With the multi-core CO settings delivering more speed than the manual OC settings when using DOC, you've got Dark Hero users disabling DOC when using Hydra for the speed boost now.


As I said I *HAVE *tried *HYDRA*, that is how I started the statement you quoted. And no, I didnt bother with the automatic stuff as it was crap. I will always do a slow process of testing for different amount of cores as per Yuri's guidance and other tester users that were working with him. If it works for you, that is great but for me and the apps I use, it was never good at all. 
Regards


----------



## metalshark

shaolin95 said:


> As I said I *HAVE *tried *HYDRA*, that is how I started the statement you quoted. And no, I didnt bother with the automatic stuff as it was crap. I will always do a slow process of testing for different amount of cores as per Yuri's guidance and other tester users that were working with him. If it works for you, that is great but for me and the apps I use, it was never good at all.
> Regards


Haven't seen your name on the 1usmus Discord and was not aware of anyone getting worse performance after tuning. So it's highly surprising. You are aware you can plug the voltages and relative CO's (or CCD1/CCD2 clocks) directly in matching like-for-like, MHz boosted-for-MHz-boosted, mv-for-mv what you configure in the UEFI?


----------



## shaolin95

metalshark said:


> Haven't seen your name on the 1usmus Discord and was not aware of anyone getting worse performance after tuning. So it's highly surprising. You are aware you can plug the voltages and relative CO's (or CCD1/CCD2 clocks) directly in matching like-for-like, MHz boosted-for-MHz-boosted, mv-for-mv what you configure in the UEFI?


I dont go by shaolin95 there and I have seen others with similar issues so it is highly surprising you have not seen others reporting this.
And yes I was entering everything manually as I said, I did not use the Automatic stuff as it will never give me results that were worth anything.
It is never as stable as my current settings for the stuff I need it to be. I was more than eager to get "Dynamic OC" like performance without having to swap mobos so I tried all possible ways to make it work but in the end, it just does not do it for the apps I run.


----------



## metalshark

shaolin95 said:


> I dont go by shaolin95 there and I have seen others with similar issues so it is highly surprising you have not seen others reporting this.
> And yes I was entering everything manually as I said, I did not use the Automatic stuff as it will never give me results that were worth anything.
> It is never as stable as my current settings for the stuff I need it to be. I was more than eager to get "Dynamic OC" like performance without having to swap mobos so I tried all possible ways to make it work but in the end, it just does not do it for the apps I run.


Yeah just checked back through, only B2 revisions (the new ones) and 5600X seem to have issues at present or lower performance. Feel free to send a link to a discord message though.


----------



## tolis626

@shaolin95 
Regarding your UEFI boot issues, do you by any chance still have your prior legacy drive connected? And by connected, I mean with everything intact, Windows install and all. If so, you might wanna try disconnecting it. It's a long shot, but I had similar issues in the past with a machine I used to experiment on (Which at some point had in it, wait for it... Windows XP, Windows Vista, Ubuntu/Kubuntu, Fedora, Gentoo and a Hackintosh install, all at the same time).

Also, you might wanna go completely clean with your BIOS. Just do a CMOS reset as a sanity check, you never know what could've gone wrong. Lastly, you might wanna dig around and see if there's an option in the BIOS for the GPU, listing it as a UEFI or legacy device. I am quite sure I've seen something like this somewhere, but don't quote me on it, I might be completely wrong.

Good luck!


----------



## skalinator

PWn3R said:


> Still sleuthing on this Code 00 error while using the computer. I don't know what else to try. Interwebs seem to suggest it's either bad mobo, bad cpu (AMD not cooperating on that front). Do these look normal other 5950x owners?
> 
> View attachment 2536855


So i have been the one replying saying i have the same issue. My code 00 eventually stayed that way, the NEW c8 extreme i got 2 weeks ago after i thought my first one was bad, died taking code 00 to the grave. It would not do ANYTHING. clear cmos would not function at all. Bios flashback tried, but it could not flash. All retry, safe boot, dual bios buttons did not work, just code 00. Tried different CPU, different memory, unplugged and removed everything attached to the mobo including video card, CMOS battery, ram, cpu. Same problem. Thank god i got it at Microcenter, simple return about to be back up in action in a few hours. Not sure what is going on here, i'm not saying it is the beta bios, but it also is very coincidental


----------



## exiiXcherry

Yey. Now im getting the 00 error too. Even on stock. Dark Hero 5950x. Ram swap didn't help/bios flashback to 3801 didn't help too. Contacting AMD now.


----------



## bastian

X570 Extreme owners with nVidia cards.... do you see that your Resizeable bar says it is not enabled despite being enabled in the BIOS?


----------



## exiiXcherry

bastian said:


> X570 Extreme owners with nVidia cards.... do you see that your Resizeable bar says it is not enabled despite being enabled in the BIOS?


Did you update the vbios of the gpu?


----------



## bastian

exiiXcherry said:


> Did you update the vbios of the gpu?


I did to V3 when I was using the Dark Hero...


----------



## blunden

shaolin95 said:


> I have it since 11/22 according to my update history and zero issues.


 Hmm, then it's something in that update that makes it hit whatever that unstable state is that results in shutdowns much more often. Since downgrading, it hasn't happened even once. I'll have to dig into it more at some point.


----------



## Raudoncio

exiiXcherry said:


> Yey. Now im getting the 00 error too. Even on stock. Dark Hero 5950x. Ram swap didn't help/bios flashback to 3801 didn't help too. Contacting AMD now.


I've got this problem suddenly with 3801. Mainly, when IDLE on Windows. Just the PC freezes, AA Qcode with fans running at 100% and the power button doesnt work, I have to switch off the power supply 

I've updated to 3903, reinstalled W10, and started the same problem again. AFAIK, i would say that I've this problem with latest AMD chipset.

My specs are R9 3900X + CH VIII Hero Wifi + 32GB G.Skill in 2 modules (QVL). Corsair HX1200i and Sapphire RX 5700 XT.


----------



## 331BK

Raudoncio said:


> I've got this problem suddenly with 3801. Mainly, when IDLE on Windows. Just the PC freezes, AA Qcode with fans running at 100% and the power button doesnt work, I have to switch off the power supply
> 
> I've updated to 3903, reinstalled W10, and started the same problem again. AFAIK, i would say that I've this problem with latest AMD chipset.
> 
> My specs are R9 3900X + CH VIII Hero Wifi + 32GB G.Skill in 2 modules (QVL). Corsair HX1200i and Sapphire RX 5700 XT.


Exactly same issue here. PC Hangs Up, Fan`s spinning full, only power shutdown via power supply helps. 

Windows 11, 5950X + CH VIII Dark Hero, Corsair HX1200i , 6900 XT Red Devil Ultimate. Worked flawlessly till some weeks ago. Now i have it very often. Also, think it`s since the new chipset driver has been installed.


----------



## bastian

bastian said:


> I did to V3 when I was using the Dark Hero...


Silly me I switched the VGA bios. Disregard.


----------



## metalshark

331BK said:


> Exactly same issue here. PC Hangs Up, Fan`s spinning full, only power shutdown via power supply helps.
> 
> Windows 11, 5950X + CH VIII Dark Hero, Corsair HX1200i , 6900 XT Red Devil Ultimate. Worked flawlessly till some weeks ago. Now i have it very often. Also, think it`s since the new chipset driver has been installed.


Only had that happen when hitting the power limit. Are you set to 140% on the CPU and/or getting near it?

Locks up, blackscreen, full fan spin, power button doesn’t work, have to turn on/off on the mains/PSU.

Please note that Shamino (ASUS) doesn't think it's the power limit being hit:








ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...


Any word on the ComboPI 1.2.0.0 bios yet? MSI dropped them today. https://www.dropbox.com/s/p0lkv6qa5c1joak/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-3201.rar?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/bdqemsraeaynwe1/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3201.rar?dl=0...




www.overclock.net




however, moving into LN2 mode (where you can increase it beyond 140%) or reducing the current capability % for the CPU would move where this happened with regards to TDC draw.


----------



## PWn3R

metalshark said:


> Had similar and the test saying VGA BIOS, 9E, etc at times. Had to up vSoC quite a bit and PLL to resolve. On 3800/1900 I use 1.1875v SoC and 1.87v PLL. Can boot/pass stress tests with as little as 1.0625v SoC, but had graphics/USB hitches and occasional booting issues. For my issues, it had no correlation with ReBAR though so YMMV.


I thought 1.15 was MAX vsoc for 5000 series???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PWn3R

exiiXcherry said:


> Yey. Now im getting the 00 error too. Even on stock. Dark Hero 5950x. Ram swap didn't help/bios flashback to 3801 didn't help too. Contacting AMD now.


Ok, maybe @safedisk has an idea. This can’t just be all of us having hardware failure. I think everyone who reported it is on 5950x too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## metalshark

PWn3R said:


> I thought 1.15 was MAX vsoc for 5000 series???
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


1.2v


----------



## GRABibus

PWn3R said:


> Ok, maybe @safedisk has an idea. This can’t just be all of us having hardware failure. I think everyone who reported it is on 5950x too.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


What about Power supply ?
Both @Raudoncio and @331BK have Corsair HX1200i

You too ?

I have also HX1200i, but no issue yet as described here. I am on 3903 bios.


----------



## Raudoncio

Hi @GRABibus 

Yes, i have that Corsair PS, but so far, didn't have any problems. Even when gaming, I don't have problems. Its just when the PC sits IDLE for a while... then i heard the fans spinning at 100%.

Wanted to say that i don't do any OC. I just enable XMP profile and the rest its on AUTO.


----------



## PWn3R

GRABibus said:


> What about Power supply ?
> Both @Raudoncio and @331BK have Corsair HX1200i
> 
> You too ?
> 
> I have also HX1200i, but no issue yet as described here. I am on 3903 bios.


Seasonic Prime Platinum 1200 here. My cooling is as others have pointed out, borderline ludicrous. 2x480 + 1x560 + and 2 d5 pumps evenly apart in the loop.

No PBO, just manual memory OC to 1866. I am also in the 1900 doesn’t boot ever group, 1933 and 1966 boot but whea city.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## exiiXcherry

HX1200i here.


----------



## bastian

No issues here with my 5950x on a Dark Hero previously and now Extreme. Wasn't there a recall of HX1200 PSUs?


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

bastian said:


> Wasn't there a recall of HX1200 PSUs?


yes for a certain batch..glad mine wasn't on the list..

no issues here as well C8DH and 5900X on 3903 BIOS..


----------



## PWn3R

I’m on the C8H non wifi. The dark hero was out of stock everywhere when I got my 5950x ordered a year ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## exiiXcherry

My hx1200i wasn't on the list too.


----------



## 331BK

metalshark said:


> Only had that happen when hitting the power limit. Are you set to 140% on the CPU and/or getting near it?
> 
> Locks up, blackscreen, full fan spin, power button doesn’t work, have to turn on/off on the mains/PSU.
> 
> Please note that Shamino (ASUS) doesn't think it's the power limit being hit:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...
> 
> 
> Any word on the ComboPI 1.2.0.0 bios yet? MSI dropped them today. https://www.dropbox.com/s/p0lkv6qa5c1joak/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-3201.rar?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/bdqemsraeaynwe1/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3201.rar?dl=0...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> however, moving into LN2 mode (where you can increase it beyond 140%) or reducing the current capability % for the CPU would move where this happened with regards to TDC draw.


I set mine to 130% usually

I tried it with stock settings, pbo on / off , only dynamic OC on/off. I set mine to 130% usually

Sorry I have a AX1600i  So i hope power supply is not the issiue. 
I even monitored it on the second monitor nothing more than about 650 W so far away from an issue for this beast.


----------



## metalshark

331BK said:


> I set mine to 130% usually
> 
> I tried it with stock settings, pbo on / off , only dynamic OC on/off. I set mine to 130% usually


What kind of TDC are you hitting? I get it over 230A TDC when set to 140% on a 5950X. Am also on the AX1600i but am nowhere near 40A on any rail.


----------



## 331BK

I never monitored it because I primarily use the Computer for Flight simulation (Prepar3D) but this usually uses all cores very well. 
I loaded it up and currently i only see a TDC of 81.5 so nothing.

I have to do a full flight when the system has to load terrain .... then I think it will be higher. I report back with that figures.


----------



## learner-gr

New bios :
Version 3904





ROG Crosshair VIII Hero (WI-FI) | ROG Crosshair | Gaming Motherboards｜ROG - Republic of Gamers｜ROG Global


ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO(WI-FI)



rog.asus.com


----------



## 331BK

downloaded and installed at this moment.


----------



## GRABibus

learner-gr said:


> New bios :
> Version 3904
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG Crosshair VIII Hero (WI-FI) | ROG Crosshair | Gaming Motherboards｜ROG - Republic of Gamers｜ROG Global
> 
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO(WI-FI)
> 
> 
> 
> rog.asus.com


I see 3801 on your link


----------



## rbys

GRABibus said:


> I see 3801 on your link


weird, I saw 3904 but now it's back to 3801.

anyway, here is the direct download link for the C8H wifi https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3904.ZIP


----------



## GRABibus

rbys said:


> weird, I saw 3904 but now it's back to 3801.
> 
> anyway, here is the direct download link for the C8H wifi https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3904.ZIP


It's official or Beta ?


----------



## rbys

GRABibus said:


> It's official or Beta ?


official BIOS, no beta tag. I'm guessing that it's just a caching issue


----------



## metalshark

GRABibus said:


> I see 3801 on your link





https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-3904.ZIP


----------



## GRABibus

I am with the non Wifi version 😁


----------



## metalshark

GRABibus said:


> I am with the non Wifi version 😁





https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-3904.ZIP


----------



## learner-gr




----------



## bastian

Extreme no new official bios yet @safedisk


----------



## bt1

bastian said:


> Extreme no new official bios yet @safedisk





https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-EXTREME-ASUS-0504.ZIP


0504 official for EXTREME


----------



## Raudoncio

I just updated to 3904, resseted bios and configured some options. Yesterday also upgraded chipset drivers with the ones published in Asus web, that not only have a newer version, but reading the release notes the are changes in the power plan or other files for example.

Ill cross fingers XD


----------



## SpeedUpp

when can we expect something for b550 boards?


----------



## xV Slayer

Does 3904 still destroy single core performance?


----------



## Luggage

xV Slayer said:


> Does 3904 still destroy single core performance?


If vid is locked to max 1.425 with edc > 140 you can get around it by setting limits to manual/auto/auto/auto and raising them with Ryzen master. (At least with the beta)


----------



## GRABibus

Where did you get those 3904 ?

Still 3801 on French ASUS site....


----------



## ChillyRide

GRABibus said:


> Where did you get those 3904 ?
> 
> Still 3801 on French ASUS site....








ROG Crosshair VIII Hero | ROG Crosshair | Gaming Motherboards｜ROG - Republic of Gamers｜ROG USA


AMD Ryzen 3000 series ATX motherboard with Aura Sync, SupremeFX, ROG Audio, Dual M.2, Realtek LAN, Dual Lan , M.2 heatsink and USB 3.2 Gen 2



rog.asus.com





Im always use US  (That for Hero NON wi-fi)


----------



## GRABibus

ChillyRide said:


> ROG Crosshair VIII Hero | ROG Crosshair | Gaming Motherboards｜ROG - Republic of Gamers｜ROG USA
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 3000 series ATX motherboard with Aura Sync, SupremeFX, ROG Audio, Dual M.2, Realtek LAN, Dual Lan , M.2 heatsink and USB 3.2 Gen 2
> 
> 
> 
> rog.asus.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im always use US  (That for Hero NON wi-fi)


Ok, but this is 3801 on your link 😅


----------



## metalshark

GRABibus said:


> Ok, but this is 3801 on your link 😅


Go to the ASUS site of your choice, get the URL of a prior UEFI version, change the version to 3904 (or 0504 for Extreme) and done. They’re coming from ASUS it’s just site is glitchy for when you can see them at launch each time.


----------



## GRABibus

CBR20 3903 beta versus 3904 :

"3903 beta" best run at 22°C :










"3904" best run at 21°C :








A little loss at MT score.

Full settings in .txt enclosed











Now will test idle/low loads potential reboots with daily use during 1 week.
If OK, I will test multicore stability and RAM stability with "Realbench stress test 8 hours" + "Karhu's 20000%" + "Aida cache stress test 4 hours", as usual.


----------



## polyh3dron

Still seeing 3801 for the Dark Hero.


----------



## rbys

polyh3dron said:


> Still seeing 3801 for the Dark Hero.












Anyway, here is your download link: https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-3904.ZIP


----------



## bastian

Its your browsers cache. Refresh or try another browser if you aren't seeing it.


----------



## tonynca

I've been waiting for the official non-beta release to see if it could push 1900 IF on my 5950X. Still no go on 3904. =(


----------



## skalinator

GRABibus said:


> What about Power supply ?
> Both @Raudoncio and @331BK have Corsair HX1200i
> 
> You too ?
> 
> I have also HX1200i, but no issue yet as described here. I am on 3903 bios.


This is getting interesting…. I have ax1600i and i have had two c8 extreme fail on me with 00….. @safedisk, what do you think the issues are with the ps?


----------



## Luggage

GRABibus said:


> CBR20 3903 beta versus 3904 :
> 
> "3903 beta" best run at 22°C :
> View attachment 2537720
> 
> 
> 
> "3904" best run at 21°C :
> View attachment 2537721
> 
> A little loss at MT score.
> 
> Full settings in .txt enclosed
> 
> 
> View attachment 2537722
> 
> 
> Now will test idle/low loads potential reboots with daily use during 1 week.
> If OK, I will test multicore stability and RAM stability with "Realbench stress test 8 hours" + "Karhu's 20000%" + "Aida cache stress test 4 hours", as usual.


I get >50 points runtime variaton on cb mt anyway (running realtime). Or was this highest of 5?


http://imgur.com/a/BT0dCct


----------



## GRABibus

Luggage said:


> I get >50 points runtime variaton on cb mt anyway (running realtime). Or was this highest of 5?
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/BT0dCct


What do you mean ?


----------



## Luggage

GRABibus said:


> What do you mean ?


You said you got a little loss in MT score. 9218 - 9162 = 56 is not significant, unless it's an average or max over lots of runs


----------



## GRABibus

Luggage said:


> You said you got a little loss in MT score. 9218 - 9162 = 56 is not significant, unless it's an average or max over lots of runs


yes, I made 2 or 3 runs to get 9218.
But a lot to get 9162, and not possible to go higher currently


----------



## Luggage

GRABibus said:


> yes, I made 2 or 3 runs to get 9218.
> But a lot to get 9162, and not possible to go higher currently


Might need to adjust PBO and/or curve - but yea I'm having a hard time getting that last bit of performance with 1205 vs 1203c. and now weather is warmer so cant really compare.


----------



## safedisk

skalinator said:


> This is getting interesting…. I have ax1600i and i have had two c8 extreme fail on me with 00….. @safedisk, what do you think the issues are with the ps?


Sorry bro 
Does the same code 00 issue occur in bios 2?


----------



## jfrob75

I received my replacement Extreme MB and have been testing it for several days. No real issues even with the latest BIOS, version 504. I am using the same CPU and memory and GPU I was using on my Formula MB. I have a clean install of Win 11 PRO running and so far no issues except my 18 year old printer is no longer supported. 
I will the say that the contents of the Extreme's manual is severely lacking in explaining proper BIOS setting for various hardware configurations.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

I just finished tuning to the 3903 beta bios last night...sheeeshh..hahahaha..


----------



## Mebbis

Hi Guys;

i think i need some help.

CPU: 5950 X, MB: Viii Extreme.
At the Moment i am really happy with my pbo setting.

But i am not able to overclock my RAM and i think (excuse my bad english) i am doing sth wrong in Bios.
I am using GSkill CL 14 3600 docp 4! Sticks.
I was able to get it stable with 2! Sticks at 4.000.

But everytime i try to use 4 Sticks i am not able to overclock a single Mhz. Not even 3633... No matter what Vsoc or Vdimm i use.
Just getting POST. Tried Stock Setting CPU; 2 Dimms everything fine, Memtest stable at 4000 MHZ... but when i put in 4 Sticks of Ram DOCP works fine, but if i try to overclock only 33 MHZ.. i am getting an POST.

Do i have to change andy Divider or sth else while using 4 Ram sticks?
And yes i know its harder to overclock 4 then2 Stick... but even 0 MHZ? Nothing? And also with stock Timings... nothing hard... absolutly 0 MHZ Overclock with 4 Sticks?
There must be a config mistake at my side :-/

I think i must do sth wrong in bios settings... uclk=memclk=fclk= 1833 for exampe... 2 Sticks fine... 4 Sticks POST...Any Idea?

Kind Regards..

btw latest Bios, no temp problems..


----------



## metalshark

Mebbis said:


> Hi Guys;
> 
> i think i need some help.
> 
> CPU: 5950 X, MB: Viii Extreme.
> At the Moment i am really happy with my pbo setting.
> 
> But i am not able to overclock my RAM and i think (excuse my bad english) i am doing sth wrong in Bios.
> I am using GSkill CL 14 3600 docp 4! Sticks.
> I was able to get it stable with 2! Sticks at 4.000.
> 
> But everytime i try to use 4 Sticks i am not able to overclock a single Mhz. Not even 3633... No matter what Vsoc or Vdimm i use.
> Just getting POST. Tried Stock Setting CPU; 2 Dimms everything fine, Memtest stable at 4000 MHZ... but when i put in 4 Sticks of Ram DOCP works fine, but if i try to overclock only 33 MHZ.. i am getting an POST.
> 
> Do i have to change andy Divider or sth else while using 4 Ram sticks?
> And yes i know its harder to overclock 4 then2 Stick... but even 0 MHZ? Nothing? And also with stock Timings... nothing hard... absolutly 0 MHZ Overclock with 4 Sticks?
> There must be a config mistake at my side :-/
> 
> I think i must do sth wrong in bios settings... uclk=memclk=fclk= 1833 for exampe... 2 Sticks fine... 4 Sticks POST...Any Idea?
> 
> Kind Regards..
> 
> btw latest Bios, no temp problems..


Look into the CDDG IOD, SOC and PLL voltages. You also may need to adjust ProcODT/RttNom/RttWr/RttPark and ClkDrvStr/AddrCmdDrvStr/CsOdtDrvstr/CkeDrvStr. Knowing the memory kit or at least the memory chips used would narrow down some known good options.


----------



## Raudoncio

safedisk said:


> Sorry bro
> Does the same code 00 issue occur in bios 2?


Again 00 code after 1 hour with new bios


----------



## Mebbis

metalshark said:


> Look into the CDDG IOD, SOC and PLL voltages. You also may need to adjust ProcODT/RttNom/RttWr/RttPark and ClkDrvStr/AddrCmdDrvStr/CsOdtDrvstr/CkeDrvStr. Knowing the memory kit or at least the memory chips used would narrow down some known good options.





















These are just the DOCP Timings.
They work with 4 Sticks.
Overclocking of 2 Sticks is working also with harder Timings and 2000 MHZ.

Overclocking of 4 Sticks with stock Timings,stock CPU, more Voltage, only rising 1833 MHZ ends in a POST


----------



## metalshark

Mebbis said:


> View attachment 2537807
> 
> View attachment 2537808
> 
> 
> 
> These are just the DOCP Timings.
> They work with 4 Sticks.
> Overclocking of 2 Sticks is working also with harder Timings and 2000 MHZ.
> 
> Overclocking of 4 Sticks with stock Timings,stock CPU, more Voltage, only rising 1833 MHZ ends in a POST


OK for that kit in 4 stick mode you want to look into using 6/3/3 for the Rtt timings. Also that vDIMM seems awful low (only 1.2v?), would consider increasing for 4 sticks. Once those two are done you can probably drop ProcODT to a more reasonable 36.7 or less as a result. Trying to get 4 sticks working at speed generally involves changing settings rather than DOCP mode working as often as it does with 2 sticks (especially considering it is a 4x16GB kit and it looks like the default is over 600 tRFC!) Also would shift tCKE to 1 from 0.

Finally would suggest booting into Memtest86 instead of Windows to check stability to prevent breaking your Windows install by only booting into it when Memtest86 passes (and then also running Tm5/Karhu).


----------



## Mebbis

metalshark said:


> OK for that kit in 4 stick mode you want to look into using 6/3/3 for the Rtt timings. Also that vDIMM seems awful low, would consider increasing for 4 sticks. Once those two are done you can probably drop ProcODT to a more reasonable 36.7 or less as a result. Trying to get 4 sticks working at speed generally involves changing settings rather than DOCP mode working as often as it does with 2 sticks. Also would shift tCKE to 1 from 0.


Rtt Timings?
Please help.. which Timing u mean exactly?

Vdimm is it the same as DRAM? and if not how much voltage?


----------



## metalshark

Mebbis said:


> Rtt Timings?
> Please help.. which Timing u mean exactly?
> 
> Vdimm is it the same as DRAM? and if not how much voltage?
> View attachment 2537809


Middle right of ZenTimings: RttNom, RttWr and RttPark. They are in the UEFI options. Samsung B-die is rated up to 1.74v, but you don’t want to set that under normal conditions as you’ll need head room for LLC, so something like 1.45v will get you started. Wouldn’t pay too much attention to the settings/voltages printed on the sticks or shown with the memory kit, they might be a good starting place but you’ll be unlikely to finish there.


----------



## Mebbis

metalshark said:


> Middle right of ZenTimings: RttNom, RttWr and RttPark. They are in the UEFI options. Samsung B-die is rated up to 1.74v, but you don’t want to set that under normal conditions as you’ll need head room for LLC, so something like 1.45v will get you started. Wouldn’t pay too much attention to the settings/voltages printed on the sticks or shown with the memory kit, they might be a good starting place but you’ll be unlikely to finish there.


Nah, my Question was is DRAM Voltage as i see in hwifno the same as Vdimm? no or?
Because Dram is at 1.45.
But where can i change the Vdimm at a viii extreme? (sorry for that).

Changed rtt; DRAM 1.5, 1833 = POST -.-


----------



## metalshark

Mebbis said:


> Nah, my Question was is DRAM Voltage as i see in hwifno the same as Vdimm? no or?
> Because Dram is at 1.45.
> But where can i change the Vdimm at a viii extreme? (sorry for that).
> 
> Changed rtt; DRAM 1.5, 1833 = POST -.-


Ah the screenshot of ZenTimings showed 1.2v - my bad didn't realise you were on 1.45v. Personally wouldn't go above 1.51v without a fan on the RAM (YMMV and am sure there are people on 1.56v+ without a fan). Lets hope that 1833MHz post is stable, fingers crossed.

As you approach 1900MHz you might need PLL to be upped to 1.86-1.9v.


----------



## TMavica

I am using C8E, 5950X and Gskill F4000C14 GTES 16x2, i can run my ram at fclk 1900 with no whea and pass the mem test. However when I use the 0504 bios, my PC still can boot into windows, but cant pass the memtest and even during aida64 memory test, the PC self rebooting….


----------



## metalshark

TMavica said:


> I am using C8E, 5950X and Gskill F4000C14 GTES 16x2, i can run my ram at fclk 1900 with no whea and pass the mem test. However when I use the 0504 bios, my PC still can boot into windows, but cant pass the memtest and even during aida64 memory test, the PC self rebooting….


In Event Viewer (eventvrw.msc) if you create a Custom View for Kernel-WHEA sources are you seeing any events?








If not look under:
Application and Services Logs
-> Microsoft
-> Windows
-> Kernel-WHEA
-> Errors


----------



## safedisk

TMavica said:


> I am using C8E, 5950X and Gskill F4000C14 GTES 16x2, i can run my ram at fclk 1900 with no whea and pass the mem test. However when I use the 0504 bios, my PC still can boot into windows, but cant pass the memtest and even during aida64 memory test, the PC self rebooting….


Are you using the Fmax Enhancer option in bios?
Depending on the CPU, using a high value may reset the PC (aida64, other benchmark)
Change it to auto and try using it first


----------



## safedisk

Raudoncio said:


> Again 00 code after 1 hour with new bios


sorry I need specific information under which environment this issue is occurring


----------



## TMavica

safedisk said:


> Are you using the Fmax Enhancer option in bios?
> Depending on the CPU, using a high value may reset the PC (aida64, other benchmark)
> Change it to auto and try using it first



no. I havent use that. I just use dynamic oc, just enabled PBO there. Also I set LL4, 130% current for CPU.


----------



## TMavica

metalshark said:


> In Event Viewer (eventvrw.msc) if you create a Custom View for Kernel-WHEA sources are you seeing any events?
> View attachment 2537819
> 
> If not look under:
> Application and Services Logs
> -> Microsoft
> -> Windows
> -> Kernel-WHEA
> -> Errors



ok. chk it out later


----------



## Mebbis

metalshark said:


> Ah the screenshot of ZenTimings showed 1.2v - my bad didn't realise you were on 1.45v. Personally wouldn't go above 1.51v without a fan on the RAM (YMMV and am sure there are people on 1.56v+ without a fan). Lets hope that 1833MHz post is stable, fingers crossed.
> 
> As you approach 1900MHz you might need PLL to be upped to 1.86-1.9v.


When i am talking abnout POST; i mean... Doesnt Boot.

Changed all settings.... 
With 4 Sticks i am not able to add a single MHZ; no matter what i change...

Does the uclk divider has any impact while using 4 Modules?


----------



## metalshark

Mebbis said:


> When i am talking abnout POST; i mean... Doesnt Boot.
> 
> Changed all settings....
> With 4 Sticks i am not able to add a single MHZ; no matter what i change...
> 
> Does the uclk divider has any impact while using 4 Modules?


You generally want to avoid dividers and keep everything in sync. If you've looked into CDDG IOD, SOC and PLL voltages, as well as ProcODT/RttNom/RttWr/RttPark and ClkDrvStr/AddrCmdDrvStr/CsOdtDrvstr/CkeDrvStr and you, cannot go over 3600MHz then you're plumb outta luck. But that does seem real unlucky. You've tried CL16 instead of CL14 on that kit with 3666MHz right? Running on auto timings (not DOCP) and upping the MHz generally works then going in and tweaking thereafter.

PS appreciate it's technically MT/s not MHz for the RAM.


----------



## Mebbis

metalshark said:


> You generally want to avoid dividers and keep everything in sync. If you've looked into CDDG IOD, SOC and PLL voltages, as well as ProcODT/RttNom/RttWr/RttPark and ClkDrvStr/AddrCmdDrvStr/CsOdtDrvstr/CkeDrvStr and you, cannot go over 3600MHz then you're plumb outta luck. But that does seem real unlucky. You've tried CL16 instead of CL14 on that kit with 3666MHz right? Running on auto timings (not DOCP) and upping the MHz generally works then going in and tweaking thereafter.


Yes i tried.
as mentioned. Everyting on stock even doesnt work. 
Therefore i thought that there must be any missconfig on my side.


----------



## pfinch

So 3904 got the same VID <1.425 on EDC >140 ?


----------



## xeizo

So this new 0504 bios looks to work well for me, much better single thread than 0503 but multi is low thanks to the -0.05V lower actual vcore than "recommended". However, multi isn't that important as 5900X already has massive multicore performance. It can be mitigated with positive vcore offset(and higher EDC, which tanks single core) but flip side is temps are lower and everything is more quiet, while single core scores still are good. Single core is the most important for a great Windows experience.

I like it, a quiet PC is good.


----------



## GRABibus

pfinch said:


> So 3904 got the same VID <1.425 on EDC >140 ?


Yes of course.
this is not a bug.


----------



## Luggage

GRABibus said:


> Yes of course.
> this is not a bug.


Are you sure? It’s easy to get around - at least with MSI beta bios. Just set edc to auto in bios and change it to >140 with Ryzen master.



http://imgur.com/a/y1851is


----------



## GRABibus

Luggage said:


> Are you sure? It’s easy to get around - at least with MSI beta bios. Just set edc to auto in bios and change it to >140 with Ryzen master.
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/y1851is


I don't know..

I tested with 3904 the same setiinsg I had with 3903 beta in Relabench./

I was stable with 3903 beta 8 hours realbench and I crashed in 39 minute of test with same settings with 3904...
Weird.

Overclock to restart from scratch...or back to 3903 beta....


----------



## GRABibus

Bios 3904 :

170-115-140
-30 all cores
+200MHz










230-125-160
-30 all cores
+200MHz









With 170-115-140, nice jump on ST score (Boost are much higher), as with EDC=140, we come back to 3801 conditions.
I am afraid here I will face idle/low loads reboots.

MT score is lower, but not far awar from 9100, so still nice.

and temps are 7°C lower with 70-115-140 than with 230-125-160

I prefer to have a lower MT score and much better ST performances.

Let's see if 170-115-140, -30 all cores, +200MHz is stable


----------



## Anulu

Flashed to 3904 from 3903 on the Impact but forgot to save the Profile 
Good i had a Pic on the Phone with all the Ram Timings.Dont see a difference in Performance with 5950x using PBO Disabled and CurveOptimizer two best Cores -25 the Rest -30.
CpuZ Bench i get ~700pt single Core and Aida Latency [email protected] 16-17-16-1t GDM enabled.
Updated to Win11 a few Days ago,but too much Crap running in the Background from that stupid Armory Crate 

Is there a Way to change RGB Colors without Armory Crate?There are only Options to turn Aura off/on or Stealth Mode in UEFI but no basic RGB Control...


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> Bios 3904 :
> 
> 170-115-140
> -30 all cores
> +200MHz
> View attachment 2537885
> 
> 
> 
> 230-125-160
> -30 all cores
> +200MHz
> View attachment 2537884
> 
> 
> With 170-115-140, nice jump on ST score (Boost are much higher), as with EDC=140, we come back to 3801 conditions.
> I am afraid here I will face idle/low loads reboots.
> 
> MT score is lower, but not far awar from 9100, so still nice.
> 
> and temps are 7°C lower with 70-115-140 than with 230-125-160
> 
> I prefer to have a lower MT score and much better ST performances.
> 
> Let's see if 170-115-140, -30 all cores, +200MHz is stable


The reboots is because you are using +200MHz Boost Override, lower it and you will see more stability. -30 all cores is also a tad adventurous, for me -30 is reboots, -20 is "stable" but WHEA, -16 and I'm WHEA free. Possibly you have a better sample than mine, but that doesn't mean it will be stable with those settings at their respective max.

Benchmarks are nice, but in the end one wants stability.


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> The reboots is because you are using +200MHz Boost Override, lower it and you will see more stability. -30 all cores is also a tad adventurous, for me -30 is reboots, -20 is "stable" but WHEA, -16 and I'm WHEA free. Possibly you have a better sample than mine, but that doesn't mean it will be stable with those settings at their respective max.
> 
> Benchmarks are nice, but in the end one wants stability.


I was stable (8 hours Realbench), with 3903 bêta, 230-125-160, -30 all cores, 200MHz.

no Whea, no idle/low load reboots.

but with 3904, it seems something change so that I have to restart my OC from scratch.
I had a handbrake error in Realbench (not a reboot), only after 40 minutes test.

I am a serial tweaker, so no problem to redefine my OC, let’s go !
Would be too easy to come back to 3903 beta 😉


----------



## J7SC

I finally finished setting up both the 3950X and 5950X in the work-play dual mobo build. I swapped in another slightly faster 4x8 GSkill 3866 GTZR kit today that allows me to run CL 14 / IF 1900 / 3800 on the 3950X work machine at 1.48v for the RAM. 

The 4x8 GSkill 4000 CL15 kit in the 5950X runs slightly tighter timings, also at 1.48v. While that can do IF 2000 / 4000 as posted before, I prefer the tighter timings at IF 1900 / 3800.

As you see per Zen timings, I'm still running older bios on both Asus Crosshair VIII boards, along the lines of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it', not least as I intend to stay on Windows 10 for a while. *Still, are the newer bios versions significantly faster in your experience ?* I never had any issues with r_BAR, USB etc on either mobo / respective bios.


----------



## Illuminado

Hey. Here as a chump again that really isn't knowledgeable about enough but wanting to learn. Are there any good resources for getting started as a beginner and understanding how to properly use this board for overclocking and fixing stability issues? I posted about it in here before recently but since building a custom loop and moving to uefi and rebar I'm getting issues from cold boot with settings left on auto. Variety of error codes that it seems to chuck out which is weird, but once I get into Windows after multiple power downs it's fine. I want to learn what I can try to rectify it with a mind to getting the most out of the board. I'm on 3801 stable and was wondering whether any of the beta bios would be worth a shot, but also yeah, where to start in terms of learning more about all the settings rather than just blindly following numbers like 90% of the Internet. 
Sorry for the essay, but would really appreciate it if any of you could help out/point me in the right direction. Really want to get the most out of my setup that I can (and also fix the really annoying intermittent boot errors)


----------



## TMavica

I got a strange problem when aida64 cache and memory benchmark after updated to 0504. My PC display no signal during the test, the PC is not reboot itself, the RGB is still on, i need push the reboot button in my case to restart. I have tried to lower the memory frequency to 3600, fclk 1800, even auto fclk, same happened. I never have these problem in previous 0402 bios, so whats the problem. I am using C8E, 5950X and Gskill F4000C14.


----------



## tolis626

Hey guys, I've been reading up on this thread (and a bit of the mem OC thread) and I have a rather dumb question that's been bugging me to no end. I'll start off by saying that I've been running my CPU with my current settings with no crashes, weird behavior or anything for months now, and I've overclocked my RAM to 3800C14 with rather tight timings, tested extensively with Karhu RAM test and some OCCT (and of course games). I haven't had any issues whatsoever, and I've been monitoring for WHEA errors with HWiNFO64, which shows 0 and has always shown 0 apart from a time when I tried 4000/2000 mem/IF. But I keep seeing people posting about WHEAs and how some settings, especially 1900MHz FCLK throw too many WHEAs etc. So I decided to check the event logger and I have this.








There's A LOT of entries. But as far as I scrolled down, no errors whatsoever. They're just like that, events, but not a single error, no yellow triangle or red square with an X like in other sections where I've seen errors. I have no idea how to interpret this. Is this ok? Am I getting those WHEAs people keep talking about? I hope I don't have to start tweaking memory again. Not looking forward to that.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

tolis626 said:


> Hey guys, I've been reading up on this thread (and a bit of the mem OC thread) and I have a rather dumb question that's been bugging me to no end. I'll start off by saying that I've been running my CPU with my current settings with no crashes, weird behavior or anything for months now, and I've overclocked my RAM to 3800C14 with rather tight timings, tested extensively with Karhu RAM test and some OCCT (and of course games). I haven't had any issues whatsoever, and I've been monitoring for WHEA errors with HWiNFO64, which shows 0 and has always shown 0 apart from a time when I tried 4000/2000 mem/IF. But I keep seeing people posting about WHEAs and how some settings, especially 1900MHz FCLK throw too many WHEAs etc. So I decided to check the event logger and I have this.
> View attachment 2537957
> 
> There's A LOT of entries. But as far as I scrolled down, no errors whatsoever. They're just like that, events, but not a single error, no yellow triangle or red square with an X like in other sections where I've seen errors. I have no idea how to interpret this. Is this ok? Am I getting those WHEAs people keep talking about? I hope I don't have to start tweaking memory again. Not looking forward to that.


that is just information that the WHEA service is active and is listing the sources that it is probing for anomalies..nothing to get scared off..as you said, the only thing you should be scared are warnings and error messages..


----------



## tolis626

kairi_zeroblade said:


> that is just information that the WHEA service is active and is listing the sources that it is probing for anomalies..nothing to get scared off..as you said, the only thing you should be scared are warnings and error messages..


Nice. I thought as much, but I keep seeing people talking about "WHEA events". I got scared I might have got it all wrong or that I was going crazy, lol.

Thanks for clarifying mate. It should've been pretty clear, but better safe than sorry. 

Now that I'm thinking of it, this is with vSOC at 1.1V (set in BIOS, actual after droop is like 1.08-1.09V). I've been running it like that for what? A couple of weeks? No problems, no errors. Maybe I can go lower. Hmmm... There's no point, and yet I'm getting itchy.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

tolis626 said:


> Thanks for clarifying mate. It should've been pretty clear, but better safe than sorry.


yeah you might have panicked and thought those were the actual WHEA Errors..



tolis626 said:


> Now that I'm thinking of it, this is with vSOC at 1.1V (set in BIOS, actual after droop is like 1.08-1.09V). I've been running it like that for what? A couple of weeks? No problems, no errors. Maybe I can go lower. Hmmm... There's no point, and yet I'm getting itchy.


Unfortunately, yes the IMC quality for Ryzen is still subpar, but if you are stable already at 3800mhz/1900IFClock then that is already good (given the the voltages you used are still low or on auto), some batches are already struggling getting past 3600mhz with just a tad to change, not to mention some who are running on 4 sticks, its already a Pain in the arse to get 3600mhz stable with good timings..

there's just this 0.1% out there who are lucky to go 4000mhz and beyond without too much pain..and some would go that mile feeding their chip suicidal voltages..


----------



## skalinator

metalshark said:


> OK for that kit in 4 stick mode you want to look into using 6/3/3 for the Rtt timings. Also that vDIMM seems awful low (only 1.2v?), would consider increasing for 4 sticks. Once those two are done you can probably drop ProcODT to a more reasonable 36.7 or less as a result. Trying to get 4 sticks working at speed generally involves changing settings rather than DOCP mode working as often as it does with 2 sticks (especially considering it is a 4x16GB kit and it looks like the default is over 600 tRFC!) Also would shift tCKE to 1 from 0.
> 
> Finally would suggest booting into Memtest86 instead of Windows to check stability to prevent breaking your Windows install by only booting into it when Memtest86 passes (and then also running Tm5/Karhu).


fyi seems to be a bug in zen timings for extreme board, it always reads that for VDIMM, not the correct value, you can verify in hwinfo.


----------



## skalinator

metalshark said:


> You generally want to avoid dividers and keep everything in sync. If you've looked into CDDG IOD, SOC and PLL voltages, as well as ProcODT/RttNom/RttWr/RttPark and ClkDrvStr/AddrCmdDrvStr/CsOdtDrvstr/CkeDrvStr and you, cannot go over 3600MHz then you're plumb outta luck. But that does seem real unlucky. You've tried CL16 instead of CL14 on that kit with 3666MHz right? Running on auto timings (not DOCP) and upping the MHz generally works then going in and tweaking thereafter.
> 
> PS appreciate it's technically MT/s not MHz for the RAM.


I’m having the exact same problem with cl14 single rank 3600 gskill kit. it’s literally impossible to get a post at even 3733 even at 16 cl. I was hoping this board had better luck at least getting me to where i have been at before, 1900/3800. One thing i noticed that changed was the memory switching frequency at min is 700, that’s a big jump from the 400khz on all other c8’s. @safedisk curious about that change, any info?


----------



## safedisk

skalinator said:


> I’m having the exact same problem with cl14 single rank 3600 gskill kit. it’s literally impossible to get a post at even 3733 even at 16 cl. I was hoping this board had better luck at least getting me to where i have been at before, 1900/3800. One thing i noticed that changed was the memory switching frequency at min is 700, that’s a big jump from the 400khz on all other c8’s. @safedisk curious about that change, any info?


sorry. I don't have the 3600cl14 kit right now
So I tested it with the 4000CL15 kit, and the 3600 3733 3800 CL16 was all boot OK
I share ZenTimings information for you

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME 0504 BIOS

DRAM VOLTAGE 1.5
SOC 1.05
VDDG CCD 1.050
VDDG IOD 1.050
CLDO VDDP 0.950


----------



## safedisk

TMavica said:


> I got a strange problem when aida64 cache and memory benchmark after updated to 0504. My PC display no signal during the test, the PC is not reboot itself, the RGB is still on, i need push the reboot button in my case to restart. I have tried to lower the memory frequency to 3600, fclk 1800, even auto fclk, same happened. I never have these problem in previous 0402 bios, so whats the problem. I am using C8E, 5950X and Gskill F4000C14.


Can you tell me in detail about your PC specs and settings?


----------



## TMavica

safedisk said:


> Can you tell me in detail about your PC specs and settings?



5950X, C8E, ROG 3090, Antec 1000w titanium, G.skill F4000C14 GTES 16x2, ROG XG27UQ monitor etc..


The problem happened after updated to 0504/0503. Just use dynamic oc , pbo enabled, CO is in auto, set VID 1.2v and ratio 45 for dynamic oc. I have tried to set highest and auto value in LL / current capibility still nil help. I also tried to use docp fclk auto, same case happened. Flash back to 0402, problem solved.


----------



## safedisk

TMavica said:


> 5950X, C8E, ROG 3090, Antec 1000w titanium, G.skill F4000C14 GTES 16x2, ROG XG27UQ monitor etc..
> 
> 
> The problem happened after updated to 0504/0503. Just use dynamic oc , pbo enabled, CO is in auto, set VID 1.2v and ratio 45 for dynamic oc. I have tried to set highest and auto value in LL / current capibility still nil help. I also tried to use docp fclk auto, same case happened. Flash back to 0402, problem solved.


LLC use AUTO?
Can you try after change LLC level to 3 or 4?
Thanks


----------



## TMavica

safedisk said:


> LLC use AUTO?
> Can you try after change LLC level to 3?
> Thanks



no. i mean i ever tried to set highest and auto, still nil help, dram set from 1.45 to 1.55 too


----------



## 050

So after "upgrading" from 3801 to 3904 on my formula, it seems that the core VIDs dropped to 1.425 as a base for the offset instead of 1.5v. I previously had a negative .05v offset to cap VID at 1.45v but now I am running a positive .025 to try to allow the same voltage, which does seem to work hitting a reported max of 1.45v in hwinfo64. The boosting behavior seems different however for PBO2, maintaining 4850~4900 in games on the top active cores pretty well but not boosting higher; previously I would see boosts as high as 5125 but now it seems "capped" at 5050 with a pbo2 allowance of 200. My single core performance in r23 is around 1580 and multi around 27800 now so that's not _the worst_ but it's not great. Running ppt/tdc/edc of 220/160/160. It is a bit annoying knowing that my 5950x can boost higher and just... isn't.

Any idea why the "base" voltage and the boost behavior changed in this bios? thanks!


----------



## GRABibus

After several tests, 3904 is "instablity city » for me....

3903 Beta :
stable and no low loads/idel reboots with
230-125-160
+200MHz
-30 all cores

3904 :
unstable with 3903 settings and idle reboots + Errors in Realbench and higher temps than with 3904.
I decreased BCO from 200MHz to 100MHz andc ame back to 170-11-140.

This brings me stability in Realbench but hardware failure errors in aida64 cache stress test, which I din't have with 3903 beta....

Whaouuuh...

I come back to 3903 beta and retest its stability to confirm


----------



## safedisk

TMavica said:


> no. i mean i ever tried to set highest and auto, still nil help, dram set from 1.45 to 1.55 too













I used the same settings as you
no whea error on fclk 1900 mem 3800
Maybe your CPU doesn't like the new AGESA version when using high FCLK
Not sure

VDDSOC 1.05
DRAM VOLTAGE 1.5
VDDG CCD 1.065
VDDG IOD 1.065
CLDO VDDP 1.000


----------



## GRABibus

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2538014
> 
> 
> 
> I used the same settings as you
> no whea error on fclk 1900 mem 3800
> Maybe your CPU doesn't like the new AGESA version when using high FCLK
> Not sure
> 
> VDDSOC 1.05
> DRAM VOLTAGE 1.5
> VDDG CCD 1.065
> VDDG IOD 1.065
> CLDO VDDP 1.000


What did you change from 3903 to 3904
So that I get so much instability with 3904 ?
See my post beyond 😌


----------



## Luggage

GRABibus said:


> What did you change from 3903 to 3904
> So that I get so much instability with 3904 ?
> See my post beyond 😌


If you dont work around vid limitation at edc >140 you will get too low vcore for your old settings. 
also +200 and -30 all core should not be stable for almost anyone, last of all a dual ccx, regardless of bios version.


----------



## GRABibus

Luggage said:


> If you dont work around vid limitation at edc >140 you will get too low vcore for your old settings.
> also +200 and -30 all core should not be stable for almost anyone, last of all a dual ccx, regardless of bios version.


For me it is stable (-30 all cores, 200MHz) both 3902 and 3903.
Sorry for that…


----------



## TMavica

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2538014
> 
> 
> 
> I used the same settings as you
> no whea error on fclk 1900 mem 3800
> Maybe your CPU doesn't like the new AGESA version when using high FCLK
> Not sure
> 
> VDDSOC 1.05
> DRAM VOLTAGE 1.5
> VDDG CCD 1.065
> VDDG IOD 1.065
> CLDO VDDP 1.000


I have figured out whats the problem. For 0402, I can run all per 4500 with 1.2v, now in 0504, I need to lower the clock speed to 4400, because I cant run 4500 in 1.2v anymore, R23 crashed


----------



## Luggage

GRABibus said:


> For me it is stable (-30 all cores, 200MHz) both 3902 and 3903.
> Sorry for that…


Blender Benchmark scene koro, y-cruncher 1,7,0 over night? really impressed in that case.
But they changed things around with agesa 1205, might need to redo curve.


----------



## GRABibus

Luggage said:


> Blender Benchmark scene koro, y-cruncher 1,7,0 over night? really impressed in that case.
> But they changed things around with agesa 1205, might need to redo curve.


I redo all tests with 3903 to check.


----------



## GRABibus

Luggage said:


> Blender Benchmark scene koro, y-cruncher 1,7,0 over night? really impressed in that case.
> But they changed things around with agesa 1205, might need to redo curve.


3903 and 3904 have same agesa.
So I don’t understand why so much differences in stability between both bioses.


----------



## Luggage

GRABibus said:


> I redo all tests with 3903 to check.


Redoing my curve with x1 instead of x10 with msi 1205.
got bored after 22h cs and ran y-cruncher for 1h...


http://imgur.com/a/ZMnaGHQ


----------



## tolis626

kairi_zeroblade said:


> yeah you might have panicked and thought those were the actual WHEA Errors..
> 
> Unfortunately, yes the IMC quality for Ryzen is still subpar, but if you are stable already at 3800mhz/1900IFClock then that is already good (given the the voltages you used are still low or on auto), some batches are already struggling getting past 3600mhz with just a tad to change, not to mention some who are running on 4 sticks, its already a Pain in the arse to get 3600mhz stable with good timings..
> 
> there's just this 0.1% out there who are lucky to go 4000mhz and beyond without too much pain..and some would go that mile feeding their chip suicidal voltages..


Nah, I know how WHEA errors are. I was just more concerned that these events actually pointed to something being wrong, because I've had so many failed attempts at memory overclocking that I should be bound to have at least some WHEA errors in there, at least old ones. But nope, none.

As for Ryzen's IMC... I mean, it's a'ight. Would it be cooler to be able to run upwards of 4000MHz on RAM with properly scaled flck? Yes, it would be. But it's still able to leverage good RAM, it's just more of a pain than Intel's mostly plug'n'play IMC. Zen 1? Now that had a terrible IMC.

My chip seems to be among the better ones. No fclk holes, no problems at higher fclks (tested up to 3866/1933, no WHEAs but memory threw errors). As I said before, I did try 4000/2000MHz once and it had WHEAs, but it wasn't as bad as the mess some other people here get. And mind you, that was with memory at default timings at 1.45V and SoC at 1.1 or 1.125V, CCD, VDDP etc were all mostly sub 1V etc. If I wanted to push the thing, I have the headroom to do it. I haven't needed to push any voltages high to get 3800/1900 stable, apart from VDIMM at 1.5V but that's expected with tight timings.


----------



## defcoms

Anyone know if bclk overclocking works with PBO or have any experience with it.


----------



## skalinator

defcoms said:


> Anyone know if bclk overclocking works with PBO or have any experience with it.


Yeah, check out this video


----------



## skalinator

Luggage said:


> If you dont work around vid limitation at edc >140 you will get too low vcore for your old settings.
> also +200 and -30 all core should not be stable for almost anyone, last of all a dual ccx, regardless of bios version.


What would recommend to get boost clocks back? Maybe a mini guide of your process. I’ve lost up to 200 mhz on boost. I know we have to redo the curves, I’m a little Lost why we Have a limitation now.

I also think it’s important for people to point out WHERE they are doing their curve, AMD overclocking menu or in Extreme tweaker (i can only confirm this on asus boards). But in extreme tweaker the values don’t have the same effect. You can go -30 and stay stable, you don’t get nearly the return on performance as you do in the AMD menu. But the AMD menu is far harder to get stability as it seems more aggressive. I’ll have to log the values in hwinfo but i know i get about half the perf uplift between the two


----------



## jfrob75

skalinator said:


> fyi seems to be a bug in zen timings for extreme board, it always reads that for VDIMM, not the correct value, you can verify in hwinfo.


I concur with the zen timings bug for the Extreme. It is also present in Ryzen Master.


----------



## Luggage

skalinator said:


> What would recommend to get boost clocks back? Maybe a mini guide of your process. I’ve lost up to 200 mhz on boost. I know we have to redo the curves, I’m a little Lost why we Have a limitation now.
> 
> I also think it’s important for people to point out WHERE they are doing their curve, AMD overclocking menu or in Extreme tweaker (i can only confirm this on asus boards). But in extreme tweaker the values don’t have the same effect. You can go -30 and stay stable, you don’t get nearly the return on performance as you do in the AMD menu. But the AMD menu is far harder to get stability as it seems more aggressive. I’ll have to log the values in hwinfo but i know i get about half the perf uplift between the two


For curve - point 1. can you run windows with all cores at x?
per core - all at x. run cs.
any core that fails + 5, record changes
iterate
stable all night/12h
run y-cruncher
if stable, last changes -2
cs over night (or first fail)
etc
cs stable for 20+h
run y-cruncher over night, if it fails it was probably the last core you changed with cs
run occt, all core and with core cycling
run blender benchmark (specially scene koro is sensitive and only takes like 5 min for me) 
run your favorite games. (any test that don't record failed core - try zeroing it in with halving(?))

as for PBO try to get either CB r23 or your favorite heavy workload as close to 99% utilisation as possible. higher limits for mc, lower limits for sc. find a balance.
With enough cooling you can top out limits but too high limits allways suck because ryzen loves the cold...

My last piece of spice was to use a small offset to adjust stri2tfn values to match VID . this really helped stabilizing sc boost.

I'm trying to make 1205 pbo2 behave like my last settings for pbo2 1203c...


http://imgur.com/sqTCsYG

not sure i'll get there.


----------



## Blackfyre

metalshark said:


> You generally want to avoid dividers and keep everything in sync. If you've looked into CDDG IOD, SOC and PLL voltages, as well as ProcODT/RttNom/RttWr/RttPark and ClkDrvStr/AddrCmdDrvStr/CsOdtDrvstr/CkeDrvStr and you, cannot go over 3600MHz then you're plumb outta luck. But that does seem real unlucky. You've tried CL16 instead of CL14 on that kit with 3666MHz right? Running on auto timings (not DOCP) and upping the MHz generally works then going in and tweaking thereafter.
> 
> PS appreciate it's technically MT/s not MHz for the RAM.





skalinator said:


> I’m having the exact same problem with cl14 single rank 3600 gskill kit. it’s literally impossible to get a post at even 3733 even at 16 cl. I was hoping this board had better luck at least getting me to where i have been at before, 1900/3800. One thing i noticed that changed was the memory switching frequency at min is 700, that’s a big jump from the 400khz on all other c8’s. @safedisk curious about that change, any info?


RAM overclocking, FCLK overclocking, etc are pretty much 90% luck related.

*My system:*

5800X
ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Hero
Crucial Ballistix Gaming 4x8GB (32GB) @ 3600 Mhz @ 16-18-19-18-38

*My RAM is overclocked to: *

3800Mhz @ 14-14-18-14-36 @ 1.4850v (_all other voltages are at auto_)
FCLK: 1900Mhz

Also same results for me with BIOS Version 3801 (AGESA 1.2.0.3) and the new Version 3904 (AGESA 1.2.0.5).

No matter what I can't go past 3800Mhz and 1900Mhz FCLK, I start getting WHEA errors, and then at 4000Mhz and 2000Mhz FCLK I cannot boot, even if I loosen the timings.

That's my luck, some people are just super unlucky and stuck at 3600Mhz basically.


----------



## J7SC

@safedisk ...thanks for all the good feedback and support in this thread ! Quick somewhat general question about updating bios. Per my > post here, I'm running a 3950X / CH8 Hero wifi / IF 1900- DDR4 3800 / 6900XT and also a 5950X / CH8 Dark Hero IF 1900 / DDR4-3800 / 3090 Strix. I use both systems for work-and-play.

RAM timings are fairly tight even at reasonable voltages. The 3950X system is on bios* 3302*, the 5950X system on *3501 *(both with r_BAR). I've had zero problems with WHEA, USB drops etc and I wonder if there's any good reason why I _would have to update_ the bios, ie. re. security updates. Otherwise, I prefer to leave 'well enough alone', even with newer AGESA available. What's your advice on bios updates when one is perfectly happy with the current ones ?


----------



## jfrob75

How do my Geek Bench 5.0 and CB results compare to others with a 5950X?
GB 5.0 Single Core = 1679
GB 5.0 Multi Core = 18240

My CB R20 single thread best result is 649 and Multi-thread is 12140.
My CB R23 single thread best result is 1661 and Multi-thread is 31140.

I have been doing a lot tweaking with my Extreme in an attempt to achieve optimal/stable setup.


----------



## J7SC

jfrob75 said:


> How do my Geek Bench 5.0 and CB results compare to others with a 5950X?
> GB 5.0 Single Core = 1679
> GB 5.0 Multi Core = 18240
> 
> My CB R20 single thread best result is 649 and Multi-thread is 12140.
> My CB R23 single thread best result is 1661 and Multi-thread is 31140.
> 
> I have been doing a lot tweaking with my Extreme in an attempt to achieve optimal/stable setup.


I dug up this set from July this year....5950X on CH8 Dark Hero. I've updated the RAM since then to CL14 from CL16, but the rest is the same. FYI, the system has a lot of w-cooling (1320x63 rads, 3x D5s)


----------



## PWn3R

Updated to 3904, getting code 00 about every 45-60 minutes now. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## metalshark

Blackfyre said:


> RAM overclocking, FCLK overclocking, etc are pretty much 90% luck related.
> 
> *My system:*
> 
> 5800X
> ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Hero
> Crucial Ballistix Gaming 4x8GB (32GB) @ 3600 Mhz @ 16-18-19-18-38
> 
> *My RAM is overclocked to: *
> 
> 3800Mhz @ 14-14-18-14-36 @ 1.4850v (_all other voltages are at auto_)
> FCLK: 1900Mhz
> 
> Also same results for me with BIOS Version 3801 (AGESA 1.2.0.3) and the new Version 3904 (AGESA 1.2.0.5).
> 
> No matter what I can't go past 3800Mhz and 1900Mhz FCLK, I start getting WHEA errors, and then at 4000Mhz and 2000Mhz FCLK I cannot boot, even if I loosen the timings.
> 
> That's my luck, some people are just super unlucky and stuck at 3600Mhz basically.


Haven't personally come across a Zen 3 chip that can't go beyond 3600MHz with appropriate memory (Zen 2 though definitely seen those stuck there). Normally when someone reports they can't go beyond 3600MHz on Zen 3 there's a follow-up post a few weeks later where they reveal not all advice was taken (and now they've tried it's working) or a weird setting/important piece of info (such as a memory kit not capable of it, the CPU wasn't mounted correctly or they'd changed this one weird setting) was omitted. That doesn't mean it can't happen, just seems vanishingly rare and have seen many follow-up posts. FYI am also stuck on 3800MHz without WHEAs or other issues.


----------



## skalinator

oh i concur, it's something in the rtt's or prododt, and @safedisk huge help that gives me a solid base going to try it now. past 3800 A) takes a lot of work B) that is where luck comes in with the IMC, but i think with top end gear 3800 should be achievable for most


----------



## skalinator

Luggage said:


> For curve - point 1. can you run windows with all cores at x?
> per core - all at x. run cs.
> any core that fails + 5, record changes
> iterate
> stable all night/12h
> run y-cruncher
> if stable, last changes -2
> cs over night (or first fail)
> etc
> cs stable for 20+h
> run y-cruncher over night, if it fails it was probably the last core you changed with cs
> run occt, all core and with core cycling
> run blender benchmark (specially scene koro is sensitive and only takes like 5 min for me)
> run your favorite games. (any test that don't record failed core - try zeroing it in with halving(?))
> 
> as for PBO try to get either CB r23 or your favorite heavy workload as close to 99% utilisation as possible. higher limits for mc, lower limits for sc. find a balance.
> With enough cooling you can top out limits but too high limits allways suck because ryzen loves the cold...
> 
> My last piece of spice was to use a small offset to adjust stri2tfn values to match VID . this really helped stabilizing sc boost.
> 
> I'm trying to make 1205 pbo2 behave like my last settings for pbo2 1203c...
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/sqTCsYG
> 
> not sure i'll get there.


yeah i am mainly trying to find limits for single threaded, as i have the extreme MB, all core i brute force with Dynamic oc switcher. I'm on two d5.next 2, 2 60 m rads + 1 thin 360, ek velocity2 wb


----------



## metalshark

skalinator said:


> yeah i am mainly trying to find limits for single threaded, as i have the extreme MB, all core i brute force with Dynamic oc switcher. I'm on two d5.next 2, 2 60 m rads + 1 thin 360, ek velocity2 wb


If you have access to Hydra, being able to set the base voltage (up to 1.475v even with actual EDC usage at 300+, thermals permitting) for 1-2T and 3-4T as well as the curve for single-threaded whilst in Windows before (or whilst) running CoreCycler may help you get things narrowed down.


----------



## AStaUK

@J7SC Just my two pennies worth, if both your systems are stable and your happy with the performance then I would leave well enough alone, don't fix what's not broken. Whilst I know that there is malware out there for UEFI/BIOS it's rare and hard to implement, there are far simpler ways of infecting a system and provided you have a decent AV and use some common sense you should be safe.


----------



## Kelutrel

Finally got over 9200 on Win11 with VBS on and BIOS 3904, very happy about this result!!









PPT/TDC/EDC set to 395/255/140. All cores -30 but core 5 set to -26. Boost 50Mhz. VSOC LLC 1. CPU LLC Auto. All power phases to Extreme. CPU current capability Auto. DF C-states disabled. Best performance power plan. Also, waited 5 minutes after boot for windows background processes to calm down.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Finally got over 9200 on Win11 with VBS on and BIOS 3904, very happy about this result!!
> View attachment 2538153
> 
> 
> PPT/TDC/EDC set to 395/255/140. All cores -30 but core 5 set to -26. Boost 50Mhz. VSOC LLC 1. CPU LLC Auto. All power phases to Extreme. CPU current capability Auto. DF C-states disabled. Best performance power plan. Also, waited 5 minutes after boot for windows background processes to calm down.


Did you perform long term stability tests ?
Nice score !


----------



## tien113

any one have bios reset problem (3904)? every time I reboot the computer, the memory reset it to default. I am using samsung b-die.


----------



## Justala

tien113 said:


> any one have bios reset problem (3904)? every time I reboot the computer, the memory reset it to default. I am using samsung b-die.


Installed 3904 yesterday morning on my dark hero with a 5950x. No memory problems, but i am using crucial 2x32 gb @ 3800 cl 16, not b-die. New bios is tanking my st performance, still tweaking (CO, boosts, ppt/tdc/edc) and testing. I will post my results and observations in the next few days.


----------



## sapphire112




----------



## GRABibus

tien113 said:


> any one have bios reset problem (3904)? every time I reboot the computer, the memory reset it to default. I am using samsung b-die.





sapphire112 said:


> View attachment 2538223


nice MT score, but you sacrified your ST score 😊


----------



## SpeedyIV

skalinator said:


> What would recommend to get boost clocks back? Maybe a mini guide of your process. I’ve lost up to 200 mhz on boost. I know we have to redo the curves, I’m a little Lost why we Have a limitation now.
> 
> I also think it’s important for people to point out WHERE they are doing their curve, AMD overclocking menu or in Extreme tweaker (i can only confirm this on asus boards). But in extreme tweaker the values don’t have the same effect. You can go -30 and stay stable, you don’t get nearly the return on performance as you do in the AMD menu. But the AMD menu is far harder to get stability as it seems more aggressive. I’ll have to log the values in hwinfo but i know i get about half the perf uplift between the two


I wish someone (preferably from Asus) would answer once and for all, which place we are supposed to use - Extreme Tweaker or AMD Overclocking section. Just about everything shows up in both of these locations, including every RAM timing. Is one better than the other? Does one take precedence over the other? Do they both function, but differently? What happens if they conflict? 

There are already enough settings in the BIOS to keep track of, and now there are many settings that appear in these 2 locations. I have read posts saying to definitely use the settings in Extreme Tweaker (including from some Asus people). But I have also seen posts from people who seem to know what they are talking about saying to definitely use the settings in the AMD overclocking section. Is there a definitive right answer?


----------



## rbys

SpeedyIV said:


> I wish someone (preferably from Asus) would answer once and for all, which place we are supposed to use - Extreme Tweaker or AMD Overclocking section. Just about everything shows up in both of these locations, including every RAM timing. Is one better than the other? Does one take precedence over the other? Do they both function, but differently? What happens if they conflict?
> 
> There are already enough settings in the BIOS to keep track of, and now there are many settings that appear in these 2 locations. I have read posts saying to definitely use the settings in Extreme Tweaker (including from some Asus people). But I have also seen posts from people who seem to know what they are talking about saying to definitely use the settings in the AMD overclocking section. Is there a definitive right answer?



I use the settings in AMD Overclocking, PBO2 + CO are AMD technologies anyway. Probably part of the AGESA binary blob that AMD ship to OEMs.

Maybe you can ask AMD_Robert (u/AMD_Robert) - Reddit on reddit.


----------



## Raudoncio

Hey guys. Just wanted to report that after 3 days 24h powered on, the PC doesn't freeze again. I guess I found the problem. It happens when i do the "auto tuning > undervolt GPU". After last reset, I didn't changed that, and I didn't got any more freezes.


----------



## CyrIng

SpeedyIV said:


> I wish someone (preferably from Asus) would answer once and for all, which place we are supposed to use - Extreme Tweaker or AMD Overclocking section. Just about everything shows up in both of these locations, including every RAM timing. Is one better than the other? Does one take precedence over the other? Do they both function, but differently? What happens if they conflict?
> 
> There are already enough settings in the BIOS to keep track of, and now there are many settings that appear in these 2 locations. I have read posts saying to definitely use the settings in Extreme Tweaker (including from some Asus people). But I have also seen posts from people who seem to know what they are talking about saying to definitely use the settings in the AMD overclocking section. Is there a definitive right answer?


Definitely the AMD overclock and CBS give more stable settings. AI tweaker most of time results with WHEA on my 3950X.
Tradeoff with the former is to supply DRAM in hexadecimal.


----------



## Piers

xeizo said:


> So this new 0504 bios looks to work well for me, much better single thread than 0503 but multi is low thanks to the -0.05V lower actual vcore than "recommended". However, multi isn't that important as 5900X already has massive multicore performance. It can be mitigated with positive vcore offset(and higher EDC, which tanks single core) but flip side is temps are lower and everything is more quiet, while single core scores still are good. Single core is the most important for a great Windows experience.
> 
> I like it, a quiet PC is good.


Would you mind elaborating on the "-0.05V lower actual vcore"? What were your VID and Vcore (VDDCR CPU) showing in the old BIOS compared to the new one? I'm intrigued to see if the new SMU has changed VID and Vcore behaviour.



SpeedyIV said:


> I wish someone (preferably from Asus) would answer once and for all, which place we are supposed to use - Extreme Tweaker or AMD Overclocking section. Just about everything shows up in both of these locations, including every RAM timing. Is one better than the other? Does one take precedence over the other? Do they both function, but differently? What happens if they conflict?
> 
> There are already enough settings in the BIOS to keep track of, and now there are many settings that appear in these 2 locations. I have read posts saying to definitely use the settings in Extreme Tweaker (including from some Asus people). But I have also seen posts from people who seem to know what they are talking about saying to definitely use the settings in the AMD overclocking section. Is there a definitive right answer?


There are four locations for PBO in the current BIOS from August on the B550-E. It's a mess.

From what I understand, Asus ports some options from AMD in order to provide stability and fixes to AMD's one-size-fits-all approach. At least, that's the way it was explained in a thread (I can't find) on the ROG forum and it may be totally incorrect. The overwhelming majority of people here recommend using the AMD Overclocking area. The majority on HardForum recommend the same, with more than expected going with the Asus options, and reddit... well I ignore that as asking a question results in abuse.


----------



## GRABibus

I am back to 3801.
3904 requires more voltage to get same stability than with 3801.
I get also more heat.

I observe degradation on my CPU.
My stable settings from several weeks ago for 3801 must be readjusted in terms of voltages

I have now to change CPU LLC from « Auto » to « Level 2 » and VDDG CCD from 0,95V to 1V.
Otherwise, I get errors in Realbench and in aida64 cache stress test.

by adding a little offset of 12,5mV on Vcore, I increased my CBR20 ST score

will post final scores when stability tests are finished.

Hope next bios release will be better for me 😊


----------



## exiiXcherry

My 00errors are gone with the 3904 update. Performance seems to be similar to the 3903 bios. But needed remove all my curves since even curve -10 was unstable. I hope that the next bios update will fix that.


----------



## xeizo

Piers said:


> Would you mind elaborating on the "-0.05V lower actual vcore"? What were your VID and Vcore ( in abuse.


It's very simple, if the CPU demand 1.5V(VID) it is normal it gets 1.5V. With the latest bios it gets 1.45V instead. You can see this in HWINFO64. The result is single core is tanking, but multicore gets better. It can be fully mitigated with a positive vcore offset.

There are others reasons to run AGESA 1.2.0.5 as it features important security patches. It has been communicated by Gigabyte.


----------



## Piers

xeizo said:


> It's very simple, if the CPU demand 1.5V(VID) it is normal it gets 1.5V. With the latest bios it gets 1.45V instead. You can see this in HWINFO64. The result is single core is tanking, but multicore gets better. It can be fully mitigated with a positive vcore offset.
> 
> There are others reasons to run AGESA 1.2.0.5 as it features important security patches. It has been communicated by Gigabyte.


Thank you for the reply. That's awesome and what I was hoping. On mine (at stock), if the CPU requests 1.50000V (Vmax), the motherboard forces that to 1.55000V and up to 1.55000V is delivered. It was mooted that it could be SMU-related caused by the current AGESA. Looking forward to trying out the new version, when it's released for the B550-E.

Do you have any more information on the security patches? This will be my first Ryzen BIOS upgrade (my motherboard came with 2423 - AGESA 1.2.0.3(maybe 4)). AMD's naming convention leaves a lot to be desired and from a development point of view is most bizarre. 

Is everyone noticing this - 0.05 VID behaviour with the new BIOS?


----------



## pfinch

Hey,
i'm getting micro stuttering ingame for some time. it is very intense on farcry and ac valhalla (while autosave). So it probably has something to do with disk activity at the same time. do you have an idea to fix that? c8h hero 3904, 5950x, 980 pro (pcie4.0x4 cpu lane), win10, rtx3090 (pcie4.0x16, rebar).
TM5 6hrs stable. I don't get it


----------



## DvL Ax3l

Piers said:


> Is everyone noticing this - 0.05 VID behaviour with the new BIOS?


Yes, it's 0.05 lower but it happens only if EDC > 140A


----------



## Piers

DvL Ax3l said:


> Yes, it's 0.05 lower but it happens only if EDC > 140A


So simply enabling PBO with 'motherboard limits' would, in most instances, force that behaviour, unless I misunderstand?


----------



## Piers

pfinch said:


> Hey,
> i'm getting micro stuttering ingame for some time. it is very intense on farcry and ac valhalla (while autosave). So it probably has something to do with disk activity at the same time. do you have an idea to fix that? c8h hero 3904, 5950x, 980 pro (pcie4.0x4 cpu lane), win10, rtx3090 (pcie4.0x16, rebar).
> TM5 6hrs stable. I don't get it


I experience that now on Windows 11 with the older BIOS (1.2.0.3). For me, the fix was to disable Malwarebytes' Ransomware Protection. Sorry if that is of no use to you.


----------



## metalshark

pfinch said:


> Hey,
> i'm getting micro stuttering ingame for some time. it is very intense on farcry and ac valhalla (while autosave). So it probably has something to do with disk activity at the same time. do you have an idea to fix that? c8h hero 3904, 5950x, 980 pro (pcie4.0x4 cpu lane), win10, rtx3090 (pcie4.0x16, rebar).
> TM5 6hrs stable. I don't get it


Crosshair VII Formula 5950X, 980 Pro 1TB and a Strix 3090. Haven't played Valhalla, but for Far Cry 6 had to reduce mouse hz to 1,000 as 2,000+ caused stutter. Other than that make sure you've got enough vSoC and PLL (often well beyond the minimum required for stability checks) to clear up any USB/graphics stutter. Am on 3800/1900 and have to use 1.1875 vSoC and 1.87v PLL for no graphics/USB issues. Can be a LOT lower to pass stability checks. Also use Samsung Magician to get the firmware updates available on the 980 Pro.


----------



## Luggage

Piers said:


> So simply enabling PBO with 'motherboard limits' would, in most instances, force that behaviour, unless I misunderstand?


Yes, you can get around it by setting edc auto in bios and change it in rm though.


----------



## EviLBoy

Luggage said:


> Yes, you can get around it by setting edc auto in bios and change it in rm though.


Is it wanted from AMD this change in voltage vcore on bios 3904?


----------



## xeizo

EviLBoy said:


> Is it wanted from AMD this change in voltage vcore on bios 3904?


Hard to tell as AMD shares exactly zero information about the AGESA to the public


----------



## Luggage

xeizo said:


> Hard to tell as AMD shares exactly zero information about the AGESA to the public


If we can’t in the next rm update we’ll know


----------



## EviLBoy

For me it's back to BIOS 3801


----------



## CyrIng

3904 is since official on ASUS global site.
Does anyone has a Linux kernel log to share ?


----------



## ChillyRide

Managed to run Quad Rank at 3733 wihout issues by setting manually VPP voltage 1/2 of DIMM voltage, which should be an auto rule. Nice job ASUS, u cant do it from 3204 in Auto. I wonder how much bios set VPP voltage when in auto, cause they dont OC at all in Auto.


----------



## skalinator

metalshark said:


> If you have access to Hydra, being able to set the base voltage (up to 1.475v even with actual EDC usage at 300+, thermals permitting) for 1-2T and 3-4T as well as the curve for single-threaded whilst in Windows before (or whilst) running CoreCycler may help you get things narrowed down.


I do In fact, I haven’t spent much time with it, I didn’t know it unlocked edc etc. his values are different on co, so are you saying set co in bios and use hydra to test values?


----------



## skalinator

tien113 said:


> any one have bios reset problem (3904)? every time I reboot the computer, the memory reset it to default. I am using samsung b-die.


there is a bios setting “memory clear” you can disable


----------



## skalinator

ChillyRide said:


> Managed to run Quad Rank at 3733 wihout issues by setting manually VPP voltage 1/2 of DIMM voltage, which should be an auto rule. Nice job ASUS, u cant do it from 3204 in Auto. I wonder how much bios set VPP voltage when in auto, cause they dont OC at all in Auto.


So you have two dual rank Dimas right? My issue I think is I’m trying to get this with quad channel when I looked back at @safedisks timings it looks like he is using 2 sticks. Ok I’ll admit it I’m a sucker for 
Aesthetics and love the look of 4x8. I guess the t topology is not great for that but still I achived this on I think cross hair viii a while ago. However I don’t think I was using b die at the time, they are harder on the IMC. So anyone on b-die with 4 by x any tips?


----------



## ChillyRide

skalinator said:


> So you have two dual rank Dimas right? My issue I think is I’m trying to get this with quad channel when I looked back at @safedisks timings it looks like he is using 2 sticks. Ok I’ll admit it I’m a sucker for
> Aesthetics and love the look of 4x8. I guess the t topology is not great for that but still I achived this on I think cross hair viii a while ago. However I don’t think I was using b die at the time, they are harder on the IMC. So anyone on b-die with 4 by x any tips?


4x16GB DR sticks - 64Gb Total. Timings are bad and not tested. I am trying to push max I can from my B-Dies. Found very usefull TM5 preset from 1usmus. There is a google dock which show what errors means. For now I need to adjust CAD-BUS. Also I hate Asus mobos cause my Ram at 1.5v is stable with certain timings and on 1.51+v this mobo got tons of errors. Nice code from Asus =\
So I am OC quad rank at 1.6v from the start. Managed to push to 3750 by adjusting BCLK but no PBO. Will see if I can get 3800:1900


----------



## GRABibus

Back to 3801

[email protected]°C









Very happy with the ST performances and also with MT 

Full stable settings in enclosed .txt
Main settings in sig


----------



## ChillyRide

Quad Rank 3800:1900 demystified. Need increase voltage in some places  Now will try GDM off 1T  So basically if ur IF can do 3800 on DR or SR without WHEAs u can run quad rank also on 3800. It took some time to figure out what is restricting to do so.


----------



## J7SC

skalinator said:


> So you have two dual rank Dimas right? My issue I think is I’m trying to get this with quad channel when I looked back at @safedisks timings it looks like he is using 2 sticks. Ok I’ll admit it I’m a sucker for
> Aesthetics and love the look of 4x8. I guess the t topology is not great for that but still I achived this on I think cross hair viii a while ago. However I don’t think I was using b die at the time, they are harder on the IMC. So anyone on b-die with 4 by x any tips?


I'm no entirely sure whether this is what you are referring to, but here on the left is Samsung B-die / 4x8 GB at 3800 CL14, undervolted to 1.475v (from 1.5v stock), and no changes to soc-v etc. The 4000 CL16 on the right was just a quick test run re. IF capability. For now I'll keep it at 3800 CL14 until I have more time to optimize


----------



## PWn3R

ChillyRide said:


> Quad Rank 3800:1900 demystified. Need increase voltage in some places  Now will try GDM off 1T  So basically if ur IF can do 3800 on DR or SR without WHEAs u can run quad rank also on 3800. It took some time to figure out what is restricting to do so.


I have seen a ton of people saying 1.15v vsoc max, yet people keep posting 1.175, 1.2, 1.225. What is actually safe? Anyone got any documentation from AMD or Asus?


----------



## ChillyRide

PWn3R said:


> I have seen a ton of people saying 1.15v vsoc max, yet people keep posting 1.175, 1.2, 1.225. What is actually safe? Anyone got any documentation from AMD or Asus?
> [


For SOC its depends on ur cpu. Some RAM scale with vSOC some refuse and give u erros above 1.10v. If u have no overheat issues than, for me, its safe.


----------



## skalinator

I can’t mine to even post it I think the best q code I can see is 7, memory training but loose timing whatever doesn’t matter won’t post. Just the immediate shutdown, boot, immediate shutdown. It MAY be cpu related. I noticed it running hot, some pins were ever so slightly crooked, it slotted fine so it was not bent, but my ocd had to adjust it anyways, a few pins were literally butter, and I noticed the tips the gold were gone, then one pin just fell off. So I bought another 5950x, 650 with discount at Microcenter . I wouldn’t have normally and waited for the refreshed 3d cache, but I know I’ll end up getting that anyway and I have wanted a 5950x for my ln2 adventures

is 36 ohm and rzq 0/0/5, recommended


ChillyRide said:


> 4x16GB DR sticks - 64Gb Total. Timings are bad and not tested. I am trying to push max I can from my B-Dies. Found very usefull TM5 preset from 1usmus. There is a google dock which show what errors means. For now I need to adjust CAD-BUS. Also I hate Asus mobos cause my Ram at 1.5v is stable with certain timings and on 1.51+v this mobo got tons of errors. Nice code from Asus =\
> So I am OC quad rank at 1.6v from the start. Managed to push to 3750 by adjusting BCLK but no PBO. Will see if I can get 3800:1900


wowza yeah i haven’t gone up that high on all the clo’s yet, i typically try between .900 - .975 on the vddp, 950-1050, ccd, 1.050-1.060 iod. but this helps thank you!!


----------



## skalinator

PWn3R said:


> I have seen a ton of people saying 1.15v vsoc max, yet people keep posting 1.175, 1.2, 1.225. What is actually safe? Anyone got any documentation from AMD or Asus?


There is AMD perf tuning under the developer docs that has some nuggets, i believe they confirm the 1.2, but they say the more you up your SOC the more you sacrifice boost


----------



## skalinator

J7SC said:


> I'm no entirely sure whether this is what you are referring to, but here on the left is Samsung B-die / 4x8 GB at 3800 CL14, undervolted to 1.475v (from 1.5v stock), and no changes to soc-v etc. The 4000 CL16 on the right was just a quick test run re. IF capability. For now I'll keep it at 3800 CL14 until I have more time to optimize
> View attachment 2538631


This is perfect, thank you. We have similar sticks, i have the 3600cl14 not sure if yours are dual rank or single rank as that changes things a bit, but my timings on the left were similar, interesting your vddp is higher, i have read it’s better to generally keep it lower, but nice timings all around this is a big help thanks!


----------



## ChillyRide

Killed 1 more hour to reproduce 3800:1900. In order to run quad rank at 3800:1900 I need to increse VPP and VTT (0.82v and 2.7) booted several times, no wheas. Proceeding to tune some voltages, than ProcODT, RTT, Cad_BUS and only than timings. Would take a month probably for full stable system =\


----------



## metalshark

skalinator said:


> I do In fact, I haven’t spent much time with it, I didn’t know it unlocked edc etc. his values are different on co, so are you saying set co in bios and use hydra to test values?


Almost, you set the EDC in the UEFI, then set CO in Hydra and can configure the VID at each profile (and the VID isn't limited by EDC). You get two sets of CO (one for low threaded and one for multi-core). The CO has a different scale in Hydra (larger number range as it’s more granular). As long as you can keep the VRMs and CPU cool you can go big with the EDC and just use the VID/CO to regulate. Max VID on a profile is 1.475 and you can see the EDC usage in real-time using Hydra (as HWinfo will cause issues). For reference am getting the biggest boosts with an aggressive CO and 1.41v VID in 1-2T and then 1.395v for 3-4T (where T is the number of threads). If someone wants 1.45v with 400+ EDC that’s available.


----------



## metalshark

PWn3R said:


> I have seen a ton of people saying 1.15v vsoc max, yet people keep posting 1.175, 1.2, 1.225. What is actually safe? Anyone got any documentation from AMD or Asus?


I don’t have documentation from AMD or ASUS, but more than one pro overclocker says don’t exceed 1.3v on Zen 3 without exotic cooling/expecting to limit it's lifespan. By that they mean exceed it at all - so allowing for LLC, etc. hence the advice is normally don’t go above 1.2v to give you some headroom. Faster digital VRM switching rates, quality PSUs/VRMs, etc will let you go a bit above 1.2v safely without hitting 1.3v (so hitting 1.225v using active VRM cooling, 400khz+ switching and LLC of 3 or less should be fine), but if you’re playing it safe 1.2v is the limit. You’ll see 1.1v/1.15v listed as the limit for Zen 3 on boards that supply more voltage than you configure (a hidden constant positive offset like with MSI), with ASUS on this specific voltage, that’s not an issue. You can set vSoC to use 600khz VRM switching to better regulate the voltage, whereas The CPU/RAM only goes up to 500khz.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

ChillyRide said:


> Managed to run Quad Rank at 3733 wihout issues by setting manually VPP voltage 1/2 of DIMM voltage, which should be an auto rule. Nice job ASUS, u cant do it from 3204 in Auto. I wonder how much bios set VPP voltage when in auto, cause they dont OC at all in Auto.


Wait but VPP it's not 2.5 V on auto? I should set it half of dimm voltage you mean for example 0.75v (1.5v dram)


----------



## metalshark

DvL Ax3l said:


> Wait but VPP it's not 2.5 V on auto? I should set it half of dimm voltage you mean for example 0.75v (1.5v dram)


VPP_MEM in Tweakers Paradise. Lowest I can set it to is 2.46v. Think you mean VDDP Voltage (where I can set it to 0.72v regardless of vDIMM). Don't bother configuring either anymore as saw no difference in power drawn/heat/performance.


----------



## stimpy88

metalshark said:


> VPP_MEM in Tweakers Paradise. Lowest I can set it to is 2.46v. Think you mean VDDP Voltage (where I can set it to 0.72v regardless of vDIMM). Don't bother configuring either anymore as saw no difference in power drawn/heat/performance.


Yep, he means VTT


----------



## ChillyRide

I was playing to run QR with GDM off  And found a bios bug. After triple F9 I clear CMOS, load profile and boom, cant run system. Bios hard locks VPP voltage so I need to +0.1 or -0.1 in order to start system. Even when put my voltage manually as was before still F9, cant boot. So its not profile bug, its VPP voltage bug. Also I consider a second bug. When I put QR (4x16) cant OC them at all cause VTT is not 1/2 of DIMM voltage, which SHOULD be an autorule, need put manually this values. Damn ASUS.


----------



## PWn3R

metalshark said:


> I don’t have documentation from AMD or ASUS, but more than one pro overclocker says don’t exceed 1.3v on Zen 3 without exotic cooling/expecting to limit it's lifespan. By that they mean exceed it at all - so allowing for LLC, etc. hence the advice is normally don’t go above 1.2v to give you some headroom. Faster digital VRM switching rates, quality PSUs/VRMs, etc will let you go a bit above 1.2v safely without hitting 1.3v (so hitting 1.225v using active VRM cooling, 400khz+ switching and LLC of 3 or less should be fine), but if you’re playing it safe 1.2v is the limit. You’ll see 1.1v/1.15v listed as the limit for Zen 3 on boards that supply more voltage than you configure (a hidden constant positive offset like with MSI), with ASUS on this specific voltage, that’s not an issue. You can set vSoC to use 600khz VRM switching to better regulate the voltage, whereas The CPU/RAM only goes up to 500khz.


I might try 1.175 or 1.2 then on mine to see if I can get 1900 to even post. 1933 does post so does 1966, but both are non-stop wheas. 1900 won't post same blackhole 1900 that others have reported.


----------



## GRABibus

In 2022, Zen3d vcache or Zen 4 ?









AMD Zen 3D V-Cache Based Ryzen CPUs Expected to Land in Feb-March (Announcement in Jan) | Hardware Times


AMD’s Ryzen 6000 (or 5000 XT) processors will represent the final lineup from the chipmaker to support the AM4 socket (and DDR4 memory). Production of the said chips already began earlier this month, and the gaming-centric processors are expected to be announced at CES 2022 in January next year...




www.hardwaretimes.com


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> In 2022, Zen3d vcache or Zen 4 ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD Zen 3D V-Cache Based Ryzen CPUs Expected to Land in Feb-March (Announcement in Jan) | Hardware Times
> 
> 
> AMD’s Ryzen 6000 (or 5000 XT) processors will represent the final lineup from the chipmaker to support the AM4 socket (and DDR4 memory). Production of the said chips already began earlier this month, and the gaming-centric processors are expected to be announced at CES 2022 in January next year...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hardwaretimes.com


...Zen3D vcache CPUs would be an easy update for my X570 mobos, and I suspect that is why Intel is apparently set to launch the 12900K_S, _presumably to combat the Zen3D vcache. 

All that said, the leaks (take w/ salt) I've seen about Zen4 and its IPC gains would mean that that is the more sensible upgrade path for me.


----------



## tchabada

CyrIng said:


> 3904 is since official on ASUS global site.
> Does anyone has a Linux kernel log to share ?


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> In 2022, Zen3d vcache or Zen 4 ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD Zen 3D V-Cache Based Ryzen CPUs Expected to Land in Feb-March (Announcement in Jan) | Hardware Times
> 
> 
> AMD’s Ryzen 6000 (or 5000 XT) processors will represent the final lineup from the chipmaker to support the AM4 socket (and DDR4 memory). Production of the said chips already began earlier this month, and the gaming-centric processors are expected to be announced at CES 2022 in January next year...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hardwaretimes.com


I'll go for Zen3D and skip the following generation.


----------



## xV Slayer

Kelutrel said:


> I'll go for Zen3D and skip the following generation.


Big mistake.


----------



## Kelutrel

xV Slayer said:


> Big mistake.


Do you really feel entitled to judge my choice without even knowing my own subjective motivations and reasoning ?
I mean, then I can say that you are making a big mistake instead, and we can go on like that for a while, if you feel it may help your mood.


----------



## trespot

PWn3R said:


> Yes, stock settings except for memory, which is 3733/1866.
> 
> 
> Switching power plan did not help. Computer reset did not help, rebooting did not help. I had to hard power cycle using the switch on the power supply.


Just so you know I RMAd my old 3950x because of that kind of underclocking issue you are experiencing. If I were you I would reach out to AMD if the issue is consistent and getting more frequent.


----------



## des2k...

PWn3R said:


> I have seen a ton of people saying 1.15v vsoc max, yet people keep posting 1.175, 1.2, 1.225. What is actually safe? Anyone got any documentation from AMD or Asus?


Always used 1.2 soc with my day1 3900x. No degradation so far, 2+ years.

Used 1.2set max llc, which was 1.2v for p95 large load with low end 3800cl17 micron revE kit, early bios.

New bios,
I have 1.225v set auto llc, about 1.18v under load, 1.19 idle and that's with 3800cl14 4x8 bdie kit + small bclk; I think around 1904IF


----------



## amaire

ChillyRide said:


> Quad Rank 3800:1900 demystified. Need increase voltage in some places  Now will try GDM off 1T  So basically if ur IF can do 3800 on DR or SR without WHEAs u can run quad rank also on 3800. It took some time to figure out what is restricting to do so.



I've been in pretty much the same boat as you. 4x16 quad rank, currently on 3801, can't ever boot at 3800, 3733 boots but is super unstable, 3666 is what i'm currently at fully stable. Did updating to 3904 help you finally be able to boot quad rank at 3800? I've been considering updating but have been hesitant considering the ST performance issues people have talked about here. 

I tried running your voltages but I'm having an issue where if I set vddg CCD above 1.12v I can't boot with the motherboard showing an code 92 error and I have to clear cmos. Very strange. It seems 1.12 is the limit for my vddg CCD voltage, even going +.01 higher causes the error. Wondering if anyone has any insight as to why this is happening.

I'm currently getting some pretty solid benchs at 3666 with tight timings and relatively low voltages (for high mhz quad rank) so i'm not sure if its even worth trying to get 3800 for all the extra voltage required plus having to redo timings. But might be worth giving a shot.


----------



## ChillyRide

amaire said:


> I've been in pretty much the same boat as you. 4x16 quad rank, currently on 3801, can't ever boot at 3800, 3733 boots but is super unstable, 3666 is what i'm currently at fully stable. Did updating to 3904 help you finally be able to boot quad rank at 3800? I've been considering updating but have been hesitant considering the ST performance issues people have talked about here.
> 
> I tried running your voltages but I'm having an issue where if I set vddg CCD above 1.12v I can't boot with the motherboard showing an code 92 error and I have to clear cmos. Very strange. It seems 1.12 is the limit for my vddg CCD voltage, even going +.01 higher causes the error. Wondering if anyone has any insight as to why this is happening.
> 
> I'm currently getting some pretty solid benchs at 3666 with tight timings and relatively low voltages (for high mhz quad rank) so i'm not sure if its even worth trying to get 3800 for all the extra voltage required plus having to redo timings. But might be worth giving a shot.
> 
> View attachment 2538803
> View attachment 2538804


The biggest problem of Asus mobos, may be all mobo struggles this, is that IC, IMC, IF behaves completely different before 1.5v on ram and above 1.51v or even at this range. More voltage on RAM means more almost everywhere and need adjust PROC, CAD_BUS, RTT. Im at 1.6v and found my baseline with voltages, ProcODT, RTT, CAD_BUS. You will see in ZENTimings what I changed. Those values in Tweaker Paradise (VTT=0.825v, VPP=2.72v). I will lower voltages after tightening timings fore sure, I think voltages are overkill but my pc stable more or less. I got previously problems with 3666+ OC when all was on auto and older bioses, so this one is no different for me. I am redoing everything from scracth, previous timings dont play nice with QR, I think too much load on memory controller. Will see. Im run tests only at night, 64Gigs need twice the time vs 32GB.


----------



## stimpy88

xV Slayer said:


> Big mistake.


Please quantify your statement?


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> ...Zen3D vcache CPUs would be an easy update for my X570 mobos, and I suspect that is why Intel is apparently set to launch the 12900K_S, _presumably to combat the Zen3D vcache.
> 
> All that said, the leaks (take w/ salt) I've seen about Zen4 and its IPC gains would mean that that is the more sensible upgrade path for me.





stimpy88 said:


> Please quantify your statement?


It is big…..


----------



## stimpy88

GRABibus said:


> It is big…..


Some people love dropping $2000 for a 5% gain. I'll pay $650 and be happy.


----------



## polyh3dron

Whoever it was that said raising SOC and PLL voltage fixed their USB issues, THANK YOU. My Dark Hero system on 3801 had been getting very pronounced, sporadic hardware interrupt type behavior where the CPU spiked, fans started blaring, and the whole OS seemed to pause for a second, before coming back and having my Stream Deck lose its connection until I quit and reopen the Stream Deck app, and this happened usually once per hour on average. Now it's solid, except it still does lose connection overnight usually and I have to do the dance with the app, but stability during use has improved a whole lot. I wish I didn't have to do such tinkering with such high-end hardware, but I suppose this is just some flaw with X570 and using lots of USB devices, actually taking advantage of the PCIe bandwidth. If anyone has any ideas on how to improve this even further, I'm basically on DOCP with vanilla settings aside from PBO, CMD 1T, Gear Down Mode, 1.856v PLL, and 1.152v SOC.










Kelutrel said:


> Do you really feel entitled to judge my choice without even knowing my own subjective motivations and reasoning ?
> I mean, then I can say that you are making a big mistake instead, and we can go on like that for a while, if you feel it may help your mood.


I'm in the same boat as you. After investing fully in X570, there's no way I'm going through all of that again with a next gen "X670" platform with DDR5 in its infancy. I'll ride it out and potentially upgrade the 5950X to the 3D cache variant if it's a decent enough improvement and for another play at the silicon lottery. Might explore the possibilities of a HEDT build whenever Chagall drops though.


----------



## metalshark

polyh3dron said:


> Whoever it was that said raising SOC and PLL voltage fixed their USB issues, THANK YOU. My Dark Hero system on 3801 had been getting very pronounced, sporadic hardware interrupt type behavior where the CPU spiked, fans started blaring, and the whole OS seemed to pause for a second, before coming back and having my Stream Deck lose its connection until I quit and reopen the Stream Deck app, and this happened usually once per hour on average. Now it's solid, except it still does lose connection overnight usually and I have to do the dance with the app, but stability during use has improved a whole lot. I wish I didn't have to do such tinkering with such high-end hardware, but I suppose this is just some flaw with X570 and using lots of USB devices, actually taking advantage of the PCIe bandwidth. If anyone has any ideas on how to improve this even further, I'm basically on DOCP with vanilla settings aside from PBO, CMD 1T, Gear Down Mode, 1.856v PLL, and 1.152v SOC.
> View attachment 2538905
> 
> 
> I'm in the same boat as you. After investing fully in X570, there's no way I'm going through all of that again with a next gen "X670" platform with DDR5 in its infancy. I'll ride it out and potentially upgrade the 5950X to the 3D cache variant if it's a decent enough improvement and for another play at the silicon lottery. Might explore the possibilities of a HEDT build whenever Chagall drops though.


NP with the vSoC and PLL.
If you're running PCIe Gen 4 two options you might want to look into:

AMD PBS/Data Link Feature Exchange
AMD CBS/NBIO Options/PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support


----------



## polyh3dron

metalshark said:


> NP with the vSoC and PLL.
> If you're running PCIe Gen 4 two options you might want to look into:
> 
> AMD PBS/Data Link Feature Exchange
> AMD CBS/NBIO Options/PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support


I vaguely remember having to do something to the Ten Bit Tag support in an earlier X570 BIOS in order to even be using multiple PCIe cards without completely destabilizing my machine.. In addition to my GPU, I have 2 Gen 3 audio cards and a Blackmagic video output card in PCIe slots basically filling up all my slots.

If I was to disable those two settings, would it have much of a negative impact on my Gen 4 NVME storage and RTX 3090 GPU?


----------



## metalshark

polyh3dron said:


> I vaguely remember having to do something to the Ten Bit Tag support in an earlier X570 BIOS in order to even be using multiple PCIe cards without completely destabilizing my machine.. In addition to my GPU, I have 2 Gen 3 audio cards and a Blackmagic video output card in PCIe slots basically filling up all my slots.
> 
> If I was to disable those two settings, would it have much of a negative impact on my Gen 4 NVME storage and RTX 3090 GPU?


Not aware of the destabilising factor. But AFAIK both those options should be off for now unless you're 100% PCIe Gen 4. Both are meant to be optional/auto-detect when enabling, but have heard mixed feedback, so only worth it if no lower gens in use.


----------



## polyh3dron

metalshark said:


> Not aware of the destabilising factor. But AFAIK both those options should be off for now unless you're 100% PCIe Gen 4. Both are meant to be optional/auto-detect when enabling, but have heard mixed feedback, so only worth it if no lower gens in use.


Yeah there was a ROG forum thread about it back in 2019 in which I participated: Beware of agesa 1.0.0.4B bios not good! (asus.com)

X570 has come a long way since those dark days!

These settings had been off before but I tried turning them on after you posted what you did and my system appears to be stable, but I am definitely not 100% Gen 4 so I will probably revert to be safe. Seems they both default to the Auto position which the BIOS specifies as actually meaning disabled.


----------



## learner-gr

Hi there!
I also posted this question to the VIII DARK HERO section. Because this board is like the VIII HERO thats why i also posted this question here.


I have an amateur question.
I have the Asus Crosshair VIII DARK Hero paired with an 3700X.
Probably in the upcoming days i will get an 5900X or an 5800X.

I was working the system with Crucial Ballistix 16GB (2x8gb) 3600c16 BL2K8G36C16U4WL.
I also bought one kit : TIMETEC DDR4-3600 32GB KIT(2X16GB) 3600c18 and this is the kit i use right now.








*TIMETEC DDR4-3600 32GB Kit(2x16GB) UDIMM - Timetecinc.com - Memory of Lifetime and Easy Upgrades*
•DDR4 PC4-28800 •3600MHz •CL18 •Dual Ranked • x8 based • Unbuffered • NON-ECC •1.35V







www.timetecinc.com
I also bought one kit Crucial Ballistix 16GB (2x8gb) 3600c16 BL2K8G36C16U4R for good price.

I would like to have a system with 32gb memory but can't choose what to keep.
The 32gb (2x16gb) 3600c18 timetec or 4x8gb Crucial Ballistic 3600c16 ?
I don't overclock. Only XMP [DOCP for my motherboard].

Any thoughts will help.
Thanks


----------



## polyh3dron

learner-gr said:


> Hi there!
> I also posted this question to the VIII DARK HERO section. Because this board is like the VIII HERO thats why i also posted this question here.
> 
> 
> I have an amateur question.
> I have the Asus Crosshair VIII DARK Hero paired with an 3700X.
> Probably in the upcoming days i will get an 5900X or an 5800X.
> 
> I was working the system with Crucial Ballistix 16GB (2x8gb) 3600c16 BL2K8G36C16U4WL.
> I also bought one kit : TIMETEC DDR4-3600 32GB KIT(2X16GB) 3600c18 and this is the kit i use right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *TIMETEC DDR4-3600 32GB Kit(2x16GB) UDIMM - Timetecinc.com - Memory of Lifetime and Easy Upgrades*
> •DDR4 PC4-28800 •3600MHz •CL18 •Dual Ranked • x8 based • Unbuffered • NON-ECC •1.35V
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.timetecinc.com
> I also bought one kit Crucial Ballistix 16GB (2x8gb) 3600c16 BL2K8G36C16U4R for good price.
> 
> I would like to have a system with 32gb memory but can't choose what to keep.
> The 32gb (2x16gb) 3600c18 timetec or 4x8gb Crucial Ballistic 3600c16 ?
> I don't overclock. Only XMP [DOCP for my motherboard].
> 
> Any thoughts will help.
> Thanks


The Ballistix kit will probably be a higher quality kit, but 16GB RAM in a Dark Hero seems a bit too modest. If you can get by with 16GB RAM for your use case, Crucial Ballistix is one of the better brands out there though. I've never heard of Timetec, so I'm not sure what kind of RAM it actually is. CL18 seems to be a pretty high rated CAS latency for a 32GB kit too.

EDIT: I did miss that your Ballistix kit is single rank though. Maybe it's not so good.


----------



## metalshark

learner-gr said:


> Hi there!
> I also posted this question to the VIII DARK HERO section. Because this board is like the VIII HERO thats why i also posted this question here.
> 
> 
> I have an amateur question.
> I have the Asus Crosshair VIII DARK Hero paired with an 3700X.
> Probably in the upcoming days i will get an 5900X or an 5800X.
> 
> I was working the system with Crucial Ballistix 16GB (2x8gb) 3600c16 BL2K8G36C16U4WL.
> I also bought one kit : TIMETEC DDR4-3600 32GB KIT(2X16GB) 3600c18 and this is the kit i use right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *TIMETEC DDR4-3600 32GB Kit(2x16GB) UDIMM - Timetecinc.com - Memory of Lifetime and Easy Upgrades*
> •DDR4 PC4-28800 •3600MHz •CL18 •Dual Ranked • x8 based • Unbuffered • NON-ECC •1.35V
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.timetecinc.com
> I also bought one kit Crucial Ballistix 16GB (2x8gb) 3600c16 BL2K8G36C16U4R for good price.
> 
> I would like to have a system with 32gb memory but can't choose what to keep.
> The 32gb (2x16gb) 3600c18 timetec or 4x8gb Crucial Ballistic 3600c16 ?
> I don't overclock. Only XMP [DOCP for my motherboard].
> 
> Any thoughts will help.
> Thanks


XMP/DOCP is overclocking. Following the link the 2x16GB kit is dual rank, so would grab those over 4x8GB single rank.


----------



## learner-gr

RIght now i have 


polyh3dron said:


> The Ballistix kit will probably be a higher quality kit, but 16GB RAM in a Dark Hero seems a bit too modest. If you can get by with 16GB RAM for your use case, Crucial Ballistix is one of the better brands out there though. I've never heard of Timetec, so I'm not sure what kind of RAM it actually is. CL18 seems to be a pretty high rated CAS latency for a 32GB kit too.


Right now i have 4 sticks of 8gb CRUCIAL BALLISTIX 3600c16.


----------



## learner-gr

metalshark said:


> XMP/DOCP is overclocking. Following the link the 2x16GB kit is dual rank, so would grab those over 4x8GB single rank.


Sorry for being amateur but can i use the 4x8gb as dual channel?


----------



## polyh3dron

learner-gr said:


> RIght now i have
> 
> 
> Right now i have 4 sticks of 8gb CRUCIAL BALLISTIX 3600c16.


My mistake, I focused on the part that said you bought a 2x8GB kit of Ballistix. Buying two kits to make up a larger kit is annoying, you can't just activate DOCP to make it work. That was a rookie mistake I made too. Between the two choices here I'd go with the actual 32GB kit so I could activate DOCP and just be done with it.


----------



## learner-gr

polyh3dron said:


> My mistake, I focused on the part that said you bought a 2x8GB kit of Ballistix. *Buying two kits to make up a larger kit is annoying, you can't just activate DOCP to make it work. *That was a rookie mistake I made too. Between the two choices here I'd go with the actual 32GB kit so I could activate DOCP and just be done with it.


I didn't know that 
So i have to keep the 2x16gb 3600c18 to work with the DOCP.


----------



## metalshark

learner-gr said:


> Sorry for being amateur but can i use the 4x8gb as dual channel?


You can use it as dual channel, but it's still single rank.


----------



## GRABibus

learner-gr said:


> Probably in the upcoming days i will get an 5900X or an 5800X.


You should wait for Zen 3D vcache release instead.


----------



## polyh3dron

GRABibus said:


> You should wait for Zen 3D vcache release instead.


The 3D cache ones will be full price though, while the 5900X and 5800X have decent discounts at the moment.


----------



## GRABibus

polyh3dron said:


> The 3D cache ones will be full price though, while the 5900X and 5800X have decent discounts at the moment.


If his target is to get last released products with best performances, then he should go to 3d vcache.
Of course, if budget is first priority, your advise is fair.


----------



## TMavica

My PC spec 5950x, Asus C8E mobo , G.skill F4-4000C14 GTES 16x2. I found my memory latency is too high compared to those member in forum. I have lowered my memory frequency to 3800 and FCLK 1900, there is no any crash / WHEA during the stress test, but the latency just stuck at 64 ns, maybe this is the problem of Windows 11? If not, any suggestion I can tune it lower?? Thanks!
By the way, I cant go 1T with GDM disabled, no POST and the DRAM voltage is set to 1.45v, but the zentimings Vdimm show 1.2v


----------



## ChillyRide

TMavica said:


> My PC spec 5950x, Asus C8E mobo , G.skill F4-4000C14 GTES 16x2. I found my memory latency is too high compared to those member in forum. I have lowered my memory frequency to 3800 and FCLK 1900, there is no any crash / WHEA during the stress test, but the latency just stuck at 64 ns, maybe this is the problem of Windows 11? If not, any suggestion I can tune it lower?? Thanks!
> By the way, I cant go 1T with GDM disabled, no POST and the DRAM voltage is set to 1.45v, but the zentimings Vdimm show 1.2v
> View attachment 2538956
> 
> 
> View attachment 2538955


SCL 2 or 3. CWL -2 from CL, RTP can go 6, try WRRD 2, after each change bench and test. U can get already penalty in ns cause smth is not stable. Cant say anything good for W11. 90% here use W10. In order to run GDM disable u need adjust AddrCMDSetup on crosshair mobos, may be not all.


----------



## TMavica

ChillyRide said:


> SCL 2 or 3. CWL -2 from CL, RTP can go 6, try WRRD 2, after each change bench and test. U can get already penalty in ns cause smth is not stable. Cant say anything good for W11. 90% here use W10. In order to run GDM disable u need adjust AddrCMDSetup on crosshair mobos, may be not all.


no different, I guess the problem is from Windows 11..
Try adjust AddrCMDSetup something like 63 63 63, it able to boot in windows, but BSOD afterwards


----------



## GRABibus

TMavica said:


> My PC spec 5950x, Asus C8E mobo , G.skill F4-4000C14 GTES 16x2. I found my memory latency is too high compared to those member in forum. I have lowered my memory frequency to 3800 and FCLK 1900, there is no any crash / WHEA during the stress test, but the latency just stuck at 64 ns, maybe this is the problem of Windows 11? If not, any suggestion I can tune it lower?? Thanks!
> By the way, I cant go 1T with GDM disabled, no POST and the DRAM voltage is set to 1.45v, but the zentimings Vdimm show 1.2v
> View attachment 2538956
> 
> 
> View attachment 2538955


I am surprised by the high Memory read value ! (> 60 GB/s)
Any particular optimisation before the test ?


----------



## learner-gr

metalshark said:


> You can use it as dual channel, but it's still single rank.


As i was searching in web if found this :
"there is also a code after that (in bold here) BL16G36C16U4R*_.M16FE1*_
If it has an E, it's rev E and dual rank. B is rev B and single rank."

Mine memories have the E letter so both kits 2x8gb ballistix 3600c16 are dual ranks.

Here are some aida64 tests :
The 1st is 2x8gb 3600c16 ballistix with no DOCP.
The 2nd is 2x16 3600c18 timetec with no DOCP.
The 3nd is 2x8gb 3600c16 ballistix with DOCP on.
The 4th is 2x16 3600c18 timetec with DOCP on


----------



## finas

GRABibus said:


> I am surprised by the high Memory read value ! (> 60 GB/s)
> Any particular optimisation before the test ?


That is because the memory is dual rank.


----------



## Cllaymenn

Gadfly said:


> Here are My PBO settings that both @greg_p and I are using (5950X):
> 
> *In Extreme Tweaker:*
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2468768




*Hi Gadfly *
could you please upload your 5950X results from AIDA 64 GPGPU Bench ?


----------



## GRABibus

finas said:


> That is because the memory is dual rank.


I have also dual rank 3800Mhz 14-13-13-27-1T and I get 59400MB/s as most of the people here.
61GB/s is not common at 3800MHz


----------



## Syldon

learner-gr said:


> Sorry for being amateur but can i use the 4x8gb as dual channel?


Since the board is daisy chain, it would not be the same thing. Daisychain puts the second Dimm at a greater distance than the first Dimm. To make use of 4 X 8GB you would be better off with a T topology board, so that the first and second Dimm are equal. There is a good explanation of different topologies here.

This is not to say that 4 X 8 won't work. It is just that 4 X 8 can be a pain in the backside for compatibility.


----------



## sonixmon

Kelutrel said:


> Do you really feel entitled to judge my choice without even knowing my own subjective motivations and reasoning ?
> I mean, then I can say that you are making a big mistake instead, and we can go on like that for a while, if you feel it may help your mood.


I agree with you, I skipped several Intel versions because my OC'd 4790K was keeping up with my needs and the cost to upgrade for a small gain was not worth it. Also, the new lines with 20% plus gains are expensive the first go around. Usually, prices will drop in a year when a slightly newer model comes out. If I can sell my 5900x and get a 3D cache 5800-5900 for only a few bills more than that will hold me 1-2 generations when DDR5 is cheaper and better as well.


----------



## xV Slayer

Kelutrel said:


> Do you really feel entitled to judge my choice without even knowing my own subjective motivations and reasoning ?
> I mean, then I can say that you are making a big mistake instead, and we can go on like that for a while, if you feel it may help your mood.


Sorry my opinion upset you. You should grow thicker skin.


----------



## TMavica

anyone can share the Addrcmdsetup, csodtsetup, ckesetup etc in order to run GDM disabled 1T with C8 motherboard?


----------



## Kelutrel

xV Slayer said:


> Sorry my opinion upset you. You should grow thicker skin.


"No. No, I don't think I will." (Steve Rogers)


----------



## metalshark

TMavica said:


> anyone can share the Addrcmdsetup, csodtsetup, ckesetup etc in order to run GDM disabled 1T with C8 motherboard?


For me it was 52/36/0. Others have needed up to 56/56/56.


----------



## TMavica

metalshark said:


> For me it was 52/36/0. Others have needed up to 56/56/56.


56/56/56 is?


----------



## metalshark

TMavica said:


> 56/56/56 is?


AddrCmdSetup, CsOdtSetup and CkeSetup, the 3 values you asked for.


----------



## Gondar

Updated to 3904, so far everything stable, have yet to see if USB issues are gone, do you have problems with usb?


----------



## metalshark

Gondar said:


> Updated to 3904, so far everything stable, have yet to see if USB issues are gone, do you have problems with usb?


Not for a long long time now.


----------



## SpeedyIV

TMavica said:


> My PC spec 5950x, Asus C8E mobo , G.skill F4-4000C14 GTES 16x2. I found my memory latency is too high compared to those member in forum. I have lowered my memory frequency to 3800 and FCLK 1900, there is no any crash / WHEA during the stress test, but the latency just stuck at 64 ns, maybe this is the problem of Windows 11? If not, any suggestion I can tune it lower?? Thanks!
> By the way, I cant go 1T with GDM disabled, no POST and the DRAM voltage is set to 1.45v, but the zentimings Vdimm show 1.2v
> View attachment 2538956
> 
> 
> View attachment 2538955


 I have a 5950X in a Dark Hero mobo. Overclocked G.Skill F4-3200C14D-32GTZR to 3600MHz CL14-14-14-28 and could not get my latency under 65 - 68 ns. I am running Windows 10 and eventually tracked it down to mainly having Aquasuite running. The program adds about 10ns of latency. If you have Aquasuite or other stuff running in the background, try shutting these things down. You can also boot into Safe Mode and run the benchmark. When I did that my latency dropped into the low 50's. As for Aquasuite, I need it to be running, so there is really nothing I can do about the latency it adds. At least now I know why its so high. Good luck!


----------



## Gondar

metalshark said:


> Not for a long long time now.


What problems did you have?


----------



## Luggage

SpeedyIV said:


> I have a 5950X in a Dark Hero mobo. Overclocked G.Skill F4-3200C14D-32GTZR to 3600MHz CL14-14-14-28 and could not get my latency under 65 - 68 ns. I am running Windows 10 and eventually tracked it down to mainly having Aquasuite running. The program adds about 10ns of latency. If you have Aquasuite or other stuff running in the background, try shutting these things down. You can also boot into Safe Mode and run the benchmark. When I did that my latency dropped into the low 50's. As for Aquasuite, I need it to be running, so there is really nothing I can do about the latency it adds. At least now I know why its so high. Good luck!


Do you really need aquasuite running? With an quadro or octo it loads the profiles in hardware. I only need the service to change profile or if I want to view the meters.


----------



## domdtxdissar

PWn3R said:


> Updated to 3904, getting code 00 about every 45-60 minutes now.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Set CPU VRM switching speed to auto and i'm pretty sure you will have no more issues


----------



## SpeedyIV

Luggage said:


> Do you really need aquasuite running? With an quadro or octo it loads the profiles in hardware. I only need the service to change profile or if I want to view the meters.


I have an Octo and 2 Farbwerk360's. I use virtual sensors for fan control and think for these to work, Aquasuite (AQS) has to be running. I could be wrong about that. Maybe just the service needs to be running. Plus I use it to drive an internal display with a custom overview page. AQS definitely has to be running for that to work. I also use another overview page displayed in AQS, so while I may not HAVE to have it running, I prefer to have it running. If I was doing competitive benchmarks, I would disable it, but for now I just accept that it adds about 10ns if latency. I finally got the RAM stable at 3600MHz and am working on 3800MHz. I had to loosen timings more than I wanted to get 3600MHz stable so I may not be able to do 3800MHz with these DIMMs unless I really loosen the timings to the point that it may not be worth it. To be honest, I expected that these DIMMs would easily do 3600CL14 with tight seconds and thirds, but it was more of a fight than I expected.


----------



## Gryzor

Hello, could you recommend to me the BIOS wich have the most performance regarding CPU scores and gaming? I´m using 3003 --> in general I have good experience and performance, but SSD are a bit slow specially in writing (sabrent M2 crystalmark some times shows 4,2 GB/s,other 2,2 GB/s... not stable reading). TRIM enabled on SSD, and secure eased, more the 50% free, of course... Any advices or suggestion?


----------



## metalshark

Gondar said:


> What problems did you have?


Sound cards disconnecting/losing their sample rates, keyboard not registering each boot up depending on the port used, USB hubs not registering each boot up depending on the port used and stuttering in games either frame rate drops or input not registering from keyboard/mouse sometimes either/or sometimes both at once.

After AGESA 1.2.0.0 and increasing vSoC/vPLL haven’t had an issue.


----------



## metalshark

Gryzor said:


> Hello, could you recommend to me the BIOS wich have the most performance regarding CPU scores and gaming? I´m using 3003 --> in general I have good experience and performance, but SSD are a bit slow specially in writing (sabrent M2 crystalmark some times shows 4,2 GB/s,other 2,2 GB/s... not stable reading). TRIM enabled on SSD, and secure eased, more the 50% free, of course... Any advices or suggestion?


Am not aware of any UEFI update affecting NVMe performance past 3003. There was a recent Windows 11 glitch requiring an update to address NVMe write speed though, so if you’re running Windows 11 that may be it (sounds like it). Also if on all PCIe Gen 4 can try setting "AMD PBS/Data Link Feature Exchange" and "AMD CBS/NBIO Options/PCIe Ten Bit Tag support" to Enabled.


----------



## TMavica

metalshark said:


> AddrCmdSetup, CsOdtSetup and CkeSetup, the 3 values you asked for.


Thx! Those value works! i now going to adjust the timing


----------



## TMavica

SpeedyIV said:


> I have a 5950X in a Dark Hero mobo. Overclocked G.Skill F4-3200C14D-32GTZR to 3600MHz CL14-14-14-28 and could not get my latency under 65 - 68 ns. I am running Windows 10 and eventually tracked it down to mainly having Aquasuite running. The program adds about 10ns of latency. If you have Aquasuite or other stuff running in the background, try shutting these things down. You can also boot into Safe Mode and run the benchmark. When I did that my latency dropped into the low 50's. As for Aquasuite, I need it to be running, so there is really nothing I can do about the latency it adds. At least now I know why its so high. Good luck!


Thx. I dont have Aquasuite, but I will try to do in safe mode to see any difference


----------



## metalshark

TMavica said:


> Thx! Those value works! i now going to adjust the timing


As you start tuning pay attention to tPHYRDL in ZenTimings. You cannot configure this directly, but the options you select affect this value during training (especially with 1T GDM off). Rule of thumb is if you hit 28+ you need to tweak your settings to get 26 or below on Samsung B-Die at least. Just aggressively tuning timings will often result in getting 28+ and catching what causes it early (if you hit it at all) pays off in the end (I didn’t and it took forever to fix). In terms of memory latency it’s roughly 2 tPHYRDL to 1 CAS. So the difference between CAS of 13 and CAS of 14 is about the same as tPHYRDL 24 vs tPHYRDL 26.

tWTRL and tWRRD might also need loosened when running 1T with GDM off, but here the difference is negligible.


----------



## pfinch

I'm using dual ranked B-Dies. 
With GDM on 1T I can't get 26 on tPHYDRL on both channels (A2 26, B2 28).
I've already tried the following:
ProcODT (36.9-60), vSOC (1.05-1.2), VDDP 0.9-1.05

GDM off, 2T both sticks with 26.

Sadly I get bluescreens with GDM off, 1T 

Do you have some advices for me to get GDM on [email protected] 26 ..... or GDM off 1t ?


----------



## CyrIng

@tchabada Thank you very much.

"duplicate WMI" are still here but that linux-xanmod kernel flavor is something I'll try; because I can see in your log that Collaborative PPC is showing up.
Need to check if _CoreFreq_ is building and running with those patches, especially those concerning the High Resolution timers


----------



## TMavica

metalshark said:


> As you start tuning pay attention to tPHYRDL in ZenTimings. You cannot configure this directly, but the options you select affect this value during training (especially with 1T GDM off). Rule of thumb is if you hit 28+ you need to tweak your settings to get 26 or below on Samsung B-Die at least. Just aggressively tuning timings will often result in getting 28+ and catching what causes it early (if you hit it at all) pays off in the end (I didn’t and it took forever to fix). In terms of memory latency it’s roughly 2 tPHYRDL to 1 CAS. So the difference between CAS of 13 and CAS of 14 is about the same as tPHYRDL 24 vs tPHYRDL 26.
> 
> tWTRL and tWRRD might also need loosened when running 1T with GDM off, but here the difference is negligible.


I think i need to adjust the trfc first, because it affect the overrall latency so much, just trying to see it as low as possible now


----------



## Kelutrel

pfinch said:


> I'm using dual ranked B-Dies.
> With GDM on 1T I can't get 26 on tPHYDRL on both channels (A2 26, B2 28).
> I've already tried the following:
> ProcODT (36.9-60), vSOC (1.05-1.2), VDDP 0.9-1.05
> 
> GDM off, 2T both sticks with 26.
> 
> Sadly I get bluescreens with GDM off, 1T
> 
> Do you have some advices for me to get GDM on [email protected] 26 ..... or GDM off 1t ?
> View attachment 2539276
> View attachment 2539277


Probably you already know everything I will say here, but just in case...
To decrease tPHYRDL and have it 26 on all channels, first you want to enable phy training from AMD CBS->DDR4 Common Options->Phy Configuration->PMU Training , set both the read and write trainings to enabled and set "pmu pattern bits control" to manual and the value to A.
After that, it should just be a matter of changing VDDP and DRAM voltage to reach 26 on all channels. You may want to use 1v for VDDP and try to slowly increase the dram voltage a bit until you reach 26 everywhere.


----------



## CyrIng

CyrIng said:


> @tchabada Thank you very much.
> 
> "duplicate WMI" are still here but that linux-xanmod kernel flavor is something I'll try; because I can see in your log that Collaborative PPC is showing up.
> Need to check if _CoreFreq_ is building and running with those patches, especially those concerning the High Resolution timers


@tchabada and other Linux lovers: _CoreFreq_ builds and runs fine with xanmod patches. 

I have to add amd_pstate.shared_mem=1 on the kernel command line to register the amd-pstate as the CPU-Freq driver.









I'm still struggling with kworker/u64' SysTime overhead, about 70 MHz. This task is bouncing from one CPU to another one.

This was made with BIOS 3801 and Matisse/3950X: xanmod + amd-pstate appear more sensitive to Core voltage scaling: 0.96V ... 1.02V ... 1.49V


----------



## metalshark

pfinch said:


> I'm using dual ranked B-Dies.
> With GDM on 1T I can't get 26 on tPHYDRL on both channels (A2 26, B2 28).
> I've already tried the following:
> ProcODT (36.9-60), vSOC (1.05-1.2), VDDP 0.9-1.05
> 
> GDM off, 2T both sticks with 26.
> 
> Sadly I get bluescreens with GDM off, 1T
> 
> Do you have some advices for me to get GDM on [email protected] 26 ..... or GDM off 1t ?
> View attachment 2539276
> View attachment 2539277


I don’t have experience with Dual Rank (silly here got single rank early on). Veii (a RAM overclocking god in this forum) would be your best bet.


----------



## Gryzor

metalshark said:


> Am not aware of any UEFI update affecting NVMe performance past 3003. There was a recent Windows 11 glitch requiring an update to address NVMe write speed though, so if you’re running Windows 11 that may be it (sounds like it). Also if on all PCIe Gen 4 can try setting "AMD PBS/Data Link Feature Exchange" and "AMD CBS/NBIO Options/PCIe Ten Bit Tag support" to Enabled.


Many thanks, those parameters improves performance? I tested with "AMD PBS/Data Link Feature Exchange" enabled (in my BIOS was disabled by default), and I don´t noticed any improvement. And what about BIOS recommendation? what version do you suggest me just for best fps in games? I remember read something about SATA driver or cache improvement with some AGESA version many months ago, in this forum. Thanks.


----------



## Blackfyre

Kelutrel said:


> Probably you already know everything I will say here, but just in case...
> To decrease tPHYRDL and have it 26 on all channels, first you want to enable phy training from AMD CBS->DDR4 Common Options->Phy Configuration->PMU Training , set both the read and write trainings to enabled and set "pmu pattern bits control" to manual and the value to A.
> After that, it should just be a matter of changing VDDP and DRAM voltage to reach 26 on all channels. You may want to use 1v for VDDP and try to slowly increase the dram voltage a bit until you reach 26 everywhere.


I was just browsing and was not aware of this, I have 4 sticks of RAM. Both A's have tPHYRDL at 26 and both B's have tPHYRDL at 28.

I done what you recommended regarding read/write training & pmu pattern bits control to manual on A.

However tPHYRDL is still on 28 on both B's and *in memory tweak timings I cannot find something called "tPHYRDL". Where do I manually set it to 26? And can it be lowered usually below that?*

My RAM is Micron E-die, rated at default 3600Mhz @ CL16









Crucial Ballistix Gaming Memory, 2x8GB (16GB Kit) DDR4 3600MT/s CL16 Unbuffered DIMM 288pin Black, (PC4-19200), DDR4, BL2K8G36C16U4B : Amazon.com.au: Toys & Games


Crucial Ballistix Gaming Memory, 2x8GB (16GB Kit) DDR4 3600MT/s CL16 Unbuffered DIMM 288pin Black, (PC4-19200), DDR4, BL2K8G36C16U4B : Amazon.com.au: Toys & Games



www.amazon.com.au





*Overclocked to the below - @ 1.50v*


----------



## Kelutrel

Blackfyre said:


> I was just browsing and was not aware of this, I have 4 sticks of RAM. Both A's have tPHYRDL at 26 and both B's have tPHYRDL at 28.
> 
> I done what you recommended regarding read/write training & pmu pattern bits control to manual on A.
> 
> However tPHYRDL is still on 28 on both B's and *in memory tweak timings I cannot find something called "tPHYRDL". Where do I manually set it to 26? And can it be lowered usually below that?*
> 
> My RAM is Micron E-die, rated at default 3600Mhz @ CL16
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crucial Ballistix Gaming Memory, 2x8GB (16GB Kit) DDR4 3600MT/s CL16 Unbuffered DIMM 288pin Black, (PC4-19200), DDR4, BL2K8G36C16U4B : Amazon.com.au: Toys & Games
> 
> 
> Crucial Ballistix Gaming Memory, 2x8GB (16GB Kit) DDR4 3600MT/s CL16 Unbuffered DIMM 288pin Black, (PC4-19200), DDR4, BL2K8G36C16U4B : Amazon.com.au: Toys & Games
> 
> 
> 
> www.amazon.com.au
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Overclocked to the below - @ 1.50v*
> 
> View attachment 2539309
> View attachment 2539310



There isn't a setting named tPHYRDL in the dram settings page. The tPHYRDL is configured automatically by your motherboard after training at boot, and represents the electronic latency due to the digital-to-analog microcontroller of the dimms. It is considered good to have it at 26, and it may allow lower dram latency and higher frequencies. Reaching good values depends on the layout of the motherboard circuits and dimms, and the signal noise. Some hardware configurations can reach 24 but I've never heard of lower than that.

If, after enabling the PHY training in the BIOS and setting VDDP to 1v and raising a bit your DRAM voltage (like 0.02 - 0.05v), your motherboard is still not able to reach 26 on all dram channels then that's it. You may want to google around looking for additional advices but there isn't much as it is not a configuration value that you can tinker with.


----------



## Blackfyre

Kelutrel said:


> If, after enabling the PHY training in the BIOS and setting VDDP to 1v and raising a bit your DRAM voltage (like 0.02 - 0.05v), your motherboard is still not able to reach 26 on all dram channels then that's it. You may want to google around looking for additional advices but there isn't much as it is not a configuration value that you can tinker with.


Yep, I changed:

*VDDP voltage* to 1.0v
*CLDO VDDP voltage* to 1.0v

Still same results. They were both set to AUTO


----------



## TMavica

Look like somethings impact my memory latency, I tried to do the memory test in safe mode win11, the latency went down from 64ns to 54ns
FCLK 1900, C14-15-15-35


----------



## Luggage

TMavica said:


> Look like somethings impact my memory latency, I tried to do the memory test in safe mode win11, the latency went down from 64ns to 54ns
> FCLK 1900, C14-15-15-35
> View attachment 2539340


Any rgb-software, monitoring-software, mouse&kb-software etc is prime suspects.


----------



## metalshark

Gryzor said:


> Many thanks, those parameters improves performance? I tested with "AMD PBS/Data Link Feature Exchange" enabled (in my BIOS was disabled by default), and I don´t noticed any improvement. And what about BIOS recommendation? what version do you suggest me just for best fps in games? I remember read something about SATA driver or cache improvement with some AGESA version many months ago, in this forum. Thanks.


I can’t think of a version over 3003 which can guarantee an increase in performance. It’s been a bit of a maxed bag for all. Can only say the newer versions a) make it easier to reach max speed b) remove edge cases where people who can configure their systems in a certain way can get out a bit more performance


----------



## TMavica

Luggage said:


> Any rgb-software, monitoring-software, mouse&kb-software etc is prime suspects.


Closed all software, samee case..


----------



## TMavica

Just tuned my G.Skill F4000CL14 16x2 GTES (default: 14-15-15-35). The result dont have much different. I cant tune the tcl trcdwr trcdrd trp tras to like 14-14-14-14-34 or just tras , once I changed, it came out error when do TM5 test, tried 1.55 Dram voltage still nil help. Any suggestions?









Safe mode








Normal mode


----------



## metalshark

TMavica said:


> Just tuned my G.Skill F4000CL14 16x2 GTES (default: 14-15-15-35). The result dont have much different. I cant tune the tcl trcdwr trcdrd trp tras to like 14-14-14-14-34 or just tras , once I changed, it came out error when do TM5 test, tried 1.55 Dram voltage still nil help. Any suggestions?
> 
> View attachment 2539400
> 
> Safe mode
> View attachment 2539401
> 
> Normal mode
> View attachment 2539402


tRDRDDD and tRFC seem real low (e.g. well done getting the that low). In addition to TM5 (which would pick up if tRDRDDD was causing a problem) would suggest running a fade test such as test 10 of memtest86 just to double check (you shouldn’t need to run the others in your scenario). If tRDRDDD was reduced early on in the tuning, increasing it to the same as tRDRDSD might let you drop some other values or get both down to 3 when matched.

Otherwise tRAS and tRC look a tad high and you may be able to gain some ground here. 

You might also be able to drop some ProcODT by upping the RTT values (apart from RttWr) and if that’s possible you may get a second wind to push the other timings further. This also might let you the drop the Clock Drive Strength values to 20 apiece for better signal integrity.

For CadBus 56/56/56 is only an initial guideline, I run 52/36/0 personally, but YMMV.


----------



## TMavica

metalshark said:


> tRDRDDD and tRFC seem real low (e.g. well done getting the that low). In addition to TM5 (which would pick up if tRDRDDD was causing a problem) would suggest running a fade test such as test 10 of memtest86 just to double check (you shouldn’t need to run the others in your scenario). If tRDRDDD was reduced early on in the tuning, increasing it to the same as tRDRDSD might let you drop some other values or get both down to 3 when matched.
> 
> Otherwise tRAS and tRC look a tad high and you may be able to gain some ground here.
> 
> You might also be able to drop some ProcODT by upping the RTT values (apart from RttWr) and if that’s possible you may get a second wind to push the other timings further. This also might let you the drop the Clock Drive Strength values to 20 apiece for better signal integrity.
> 
> For CadBus 56/56/56 is only an initial guideline, I run 52/36/0 personally, but YMMV.


I just use all default value and just adjust the trcdwr trcdrd trp tras to 14-14-14-34, still come out with error


----------



## metalshark

TMavica said:


> I just use all default value and just adjust the trcdwr trcdrd trp tras to 14-14-14-34, still come out with error


Apologies I misread you were getting errors. Increase tRDRDDD to 4 and tRFC to 270 for now (you can likely reduce both once stable). If that still fails drop CLDO VDDP to 0.95. If that fails trying increasing RttNom and RttPark to compensate for the higher vDIMM.

Also would get things stable in memtest86 first before booting into Windows and running TM5. You don’t want to be in Windows with unstable RAM.


----------



## GRABibus

As I came back to 3801 (too much heat and some instabilities with 3904, higher memory latency with 3904), here is my new full stable OC with 3801 :

180/120/150
+200MHz
-20 Core4, -25Core8, -28Core0/Core7, -30 all other cores

[email protected]°C:









Aida Cache an Memory bench :










Stability tests :


----------



## tchabada

CyrIng said:


> @tchabada and other Linux lovers: _CoreFreq_ builds and runs fine with xanmod patches.
> 
> I have to add amd_pstate.shared_mem=1 on the kernel command line to register the amd-pstate as the CPU-Freq driver.
> View attachment 2539289
> 
> 
> I'm still struggling with kworker/u64' SysTime overhead, about 70 MHz. This task is bouncing from one CPU to another one.
> 
> This was made with BIOS 3801 and Matisse/3950X: xanmod + amd-pstate appear more sensitive to Core voltage scaling: 0.96V ... 1.02V ... 1.49V


I haven't tried new amd-pstate governor yet(I am using performance), but I am using your CoreFreq already. Thanks for that.


----------



## TMavica

metalshark said:


> Apologies I misread you were getting errors. Increase tRDRDDD to 4 and tRFC to 270 for now (you can likely reduce both once stable). If that still fails drop CLDO VDDP to 0.95. If that fails trying increasing RttNom and RttPark to compensate for the higher vDIMM.
> 
> Also would get things stable in memtest86 first before booting into Windows and running TM5. You don’t want to be in Windows with unstable RAM.


That doesnt help. I tried to lower the ProcODT, RTT, VDDP, the error still came out, maybe I need to stuck in default timing...by the way there is no problem to adjust the timing in 1T GDM on


----------



## metalshark

TMavica said:


> That doesnt help. I tried to lower the ProcODT, RTT, VDDP, the error still came out, maybe I need to stuck in default timing...by the way there is no problem to adjust the timing in 1T GDM on


Reducing the ProcODT and increasing the RTT was when I thought you had it stable, it’ll make things worse if unstable.


----------



## ChillyRide

TMavica said:


> That doesnt help. I tried to lower the ProcODT, RTT, VDDP, the error still came out, maybe I need to stuck in default timing...by the way there is no problem to adjust the timing in 1T GDM on


Every mobo, cpu and ram will behave differently. Changing just 1 thing (cpu, mobo or ram) will result in retuning everything from scratch. The one thing I hate about AMD is that we cant debug where problem is. It can be ProcODT. It can be CAD_BUS. Also IC, IMC or whatever else. I recommend this but with my 2 cents. 10+ hours testing with TM5 anta preset, karhu or HCI. Step by step.









MemTestHelper/DDR4 OC Guide.md at oc-guide · integralfx/MemTestHelper


C# WPF to automate HCI MemTest. Contribute to integralfx/MemTestHelper development by creating an account on GitHub.




github.com


----------



## GRABibus

ChillyRide said:


> Every mobo, cpu and ram will behave differently. Changing just 1 thing (cpu, mobo or ram) will result in retuning everything from scratch. The one thing I hate about AMD is that we cant debug where problem is. It can be ProcODT. It can be CAD_BUS. Also IC, IMC or whatever else. I recommend this but with my 2 cents. 10+ hours testing with TM5 anta preset, karhu or HCI. Step by step.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MemTestHelper/DDR4 OC Guide.md at oc-guide · integralfx/MemTestHelper
> 
> 
> C# WPF to automate HCI MemTest. Contribute to integralfx/MemTestHelper development by creating an account on GitHub.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> github.com


In your link, HCI Memtest is not mentionned neither in « recommended » nor in « Alternatives »….It’s a mistake on my opinion.


----------



## ChillyRide

GRABibus said:


> In your link, HCI Memtest is not mentionned neither in « recommended » nor in « Alternatives »….It’s a mistake on my opinion.


As there is no mention that karhu 6000%+ and tm5 3 runs not enough for stability test. Hci is my personal choice cause its find errors sometimes quicker than others.


----------



## GRABibus

ChillyRide said:


> As there is no mention that karhu 6000%+ and tm5 3 runs not enough for stability test. Hci is my personal choice cause its find errors sometimes quicker than others.


I use Karhu 20000% to check my RAM stability 😊


----------



## GRABibus

It is Christmas, so let's stop benching and tweaking for some days...

Let's play !


----------



## ChillyRide

GRABibus said:


> It is Christmas, so let's stop benching and tweaking for some days...
> 
> Let's play !


Few days ago I was so pissed, karhu find error with tWR 12 at 26000% =), tWR13 stable at 30000%, that was fun) Nice shooting


----------



## GRABibus

ChillyRide said:


> Few days ago I was so pissed, karhu find error with tWR 12 at 26000% =), tWR13 stable at 30000%, that was fun) Nice shooting


let HCI running 100 hours, I am sure you will get errors 😂

No overclock is stable 😝


----------



## GRABibus

Got my first WHEA logger 19 today since 2 months


----------



## sonixmon

Kelutrel said:


> Probably you already know everything I will say here, but just in case...
> To decrease tPHYRDL and have it 26 on all channels, first you want to enable phy training from AMD CBS->DDR4 Common Options->Phy Configuration->PMU Training , set both the read and write trainings to enabled and set "pmu pattern bits control" to manual and the value to A.
> After that, it should just be a matter of changing VDDP and DRAM voltage to reach 26 on all channels. You may want to use 1v for VDDP and try to slowly increase the dram voltage a bit until you reach 26 everywhere.


This is interesting, so if I can't get 26/26 (currently 28/28) do I need to loosen some timings somewhere? Is it worth it?

Thanks!

Latest settings here:









Edit: Forgot to mention I did try the suggestion (other than adding more DRAM due to heat). Still 28/28


----------



## Luggage

Kelutrel said:


> Probably you already know everything I will say here, but just in case...
> To decrease tPHYRDL and have it 26 on all channels, first you want to enable phy training from AMD CBS->DDR4 Common Options->Phy Configuration->PMU Training , set both the read and write trainings to enabled and set "pmu pattern bits control" to manual and the value to A.
> After that, it should just be a matter of changing VDDP and DRAM voltage to reach 26 on all channels. You may want to use 1v for VDDP and try to slowly increase the dram voltage a bit until you reach 26 everywhere.


@Audioboxer @mongoled you in on this?


----------



## Kelutrel

sonixmon said:


> This is interesting, so if I can't get 26/26 (currently 28/28) do I need to loosen some timings somewhere? Is it worth it?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Latest settings here:
> View attachment 2539581


Having tPHYRDL at 26/26 is preferable. Some people noticed up to a 0.5ns DRAM latency penalty when higher than 26/26 . tPHYRDL is set after the DRAM training at boot, depending on the quality of the signal reaching the DIMMs. It can't be configured directly from the BIOS, but is impacted by the DRAM voltages and mainly by the CLDO VDDP that directly feeds the PHY circuitry.


----------



## CyrIng

tchabada said:


> I haven't tried new amd-pstate governor yet(I am using performance), but I am using your CoreFreq already. Thanks for that.


About the CPPC MSR registers (part of Xanmod patches) I have try to make use of them with my 3950X without success.
I wonder if they're exclusive to Vermeer ?


----------



## pfinch

sonixmon said:


> This is interesting, so if I can't get 26/26 (currently 28/28) do I need to loosen some timings somewhere? Is it worth it?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Latest settings here:
> 
> 
> Edit: Forgot to mention I did try the suggestion (other than adding more DRAM due to heat). Still 28/28


My B-die dual-ranks can't be on 26/26 @1900/3800 1t too. 

btw. Is it normal to see no differences between GDM on 1T compared to GDM off 2T? (latency and reads/writes)


----------



## Kelutrel

pfinch said:


> My B-die dual-ranks can't be on 26/26 @1900/3800 1t too.
> 
> btw. Is it normal to see no differences between GDM on 1T compared to GDM off 2T? (latency and reads/writes)


When GDM is enabled, the CMD2T configuration in the bios is ignored as the command rate is provided by the GDM logic, so 1T or 2T makes no difference when GDM is enabled.
Also, in terms of performances, enabling GDM is a bit like having a command rate of 1.5T, that is worse than 1T and faster than 2T. So yes, you should see a bit of difference in latency values at least.


----------



## GRABibus

sonixmon said:


> This is interesting, so if I can't get 26/26 (currently 28/28) do I need to loosen some timings somewhere? Is it worth it?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Latest settings here:
> View attachment 2539581
> 
> 
> Edit: Forgot to mention I did try the suggestion (other than adding more DRAM due to heat). Still 28/28


curious to see stability test like karhu 15000%-20000% with those timings 😊


----------



## neikosr0x

GRABibus said:


> It is Christmas, so let's stop benching and tweaking for some days...
> 
> Let's play !


You have some nice 2nd CCX. Mine is a ****.


----------



## sonixmon

GRABibus said:


> curious to see stability test like karhu 15000%-20000% with those timings 😊


That would probably be funny, I don't think it is truly stable. I can run AIDA stress test 1hr (as long as temps below 45) and game hours on end with no issues. I am sure I would need to tweak it up a bit to really pass karhu or other stability tests. My dilemma is I don't want to water cool but I definitely notice a difference gaming between flat 14 and stock timings (14,15,15 etc). Maybe it is a placebo effect but every time I switch I do notice the difference. 😂 

I have some time this week so maybe I will do some more stress testing.


----------



## sonixmon

When you all run karhu do you normally run in windows or boot from usb?


----------



## GRABibus

sonixmon said:


> When you all run karhu do you normally run in windows or boot from usb?


Windows, 20000% from my side , which corresponds to 10,5 hours test.

but the tougher test I do is aida64 cache stress test.
It detects rapidly errors.


----------



## Gondar

With BIOS 3904 i still get random slowdown for like 1-2 seconds when playing youtube, and sound is distorded during that time, strange.


----------



## xV Slayer

Gondar said:


> With BIOS 3904 i still get random slowdown for like 1-2 seconds when playing youtube, and sound is distorded during that time, strange.


That is a bug with the firmware TPM. I had to buy a discrete one to stop having that issue.


----------



## Audioboxer

Luggage said:


> @Audioboxer @mongoled you in on this?


My adventures with tPHYRDL have ended in me simply saying on my MSI board at 3800 all even tCL with 1T/56 = 28/28 and all uneven tCL with 1T/56 = 26/26.

This is why I run tCL13 at 3800 lol. Nothing I tried would get 26/26 at 3800 with tCL14. Thankfully my DDR4 can run tCL13 at 1.55v.


----------



## HoloWS

xV Slayer said:


> That is a bug with the firmware TPM. I had to buy a discrete one to stop having that issue.


How do you know this? I've been having the same issue the last couple months on Windows 11 and various bios versions leading up to the current 3904 with my PC randomly stuttering with horrible lag for 1-2 seconds after some prolonged period of uptime and then causing audio to permanently pop every so many seconds during any sound playback until the driver is reset or pc is restarted. This issue has been driving me nuts and I've been trying to find out what is the cause.

3950x for reference.


----------



## Blackfyre

HoloWS said:


> How do you know this? I've been having the same issue the last couple months on Windows 11 and various bios versions leading up to the current 3904 with my PC randomly stuttering with horrible lag for 1-2 seconds after some prolonged period of uptime and then causing audio to permanently pop every so many seconds during any sound playback until the driver is reset or pc is restarted. This issue has been driving me nuts and I've been trying to find out what is the cause.
> 
> 3950x for reference.





xV Slayer said:


> That is a bug with the firmware TPM. I had to buy a discrete one to stop having that issue.


I have been having this same issue with Windows 11 and never knew why? It happens randomly, but not often. Is it confirmed to be TPM related? And isn't there a setting in the BIOS that can change TPM from firmware to discrete? Would that solve the issue? What do you mean you had to buy a discrete one?

*EDIT:*

So I can buy this from a local store close by and install it on the motherboard? It would solve this issue?

I am guessing after buying this, is when I change the TPM in the BIOS to discrete? Otherwise it's available by default with our motherboard here?

Is this confirmed to be the issue?









Buy Now | ASUS TPM-M R2.0 Module with SPI Interface


The TPM-M R2.0 card securely store keys, digital certificates, passwords, and data. It helps enhance the network security, protects digital identities, and ensures platform integrity. Designed with 14-1 pin and LPC interface. Chip is a Infineon SLB 9665, compliant with TCG specification Family...




www.ple.com.au


----------



## xV Slayer

Blackfyre said:


> I have been having this same issue with Windows 11 and never knew why? It happens randomly, but not often. Is it confirmed to be TPM related? And isn't there a setting in the BIOS that can change TPM from firmware to discrete? Would that solve the issue? What do you mean you had to buy a discrete one?
> 
> *EDIT:*
> 
> So I can buy this from a local store close by and install it on the motherboard? It would solve this issue?
> 
> I am guessing after buying this, is when I change the TPM in the BIOS to discrete? Otherwise it's available by default with our motherboard here?
> 
> Is this confirmed to be the issue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buy Now | ASUS TPM-M R2.0 Module with SPI Interface
> 
> 
> The TPM-M R2.0 card securely store keys, digital certificates, passwords, and data. It helps enhance the network security, protects digital identities, and ensures platform integrity. Designed with 14-1 pin and LPC interface. Chip is a Infineon SLB 9665, compliant with TCG specification Family...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ple.com.au





bastian said:


> I have the ASUS TPM module installed now and running with the TPM Discrete setting and have not encountered the random stutter anymore with BIOS 3702. This is the only thing I have changed on my system. So for whatever reason the TPM firmware option is causing issues with random stutter.
> 
> @shamino1978 @safedisk


@bastian and I figured it out.


----------



## Blackfyre

xV Slayer said:


> @bastian and I figured it out.


So buy the discrete module, install it and change the TPM in the BIOS to discrete instead of firmware? That's it?


----------



## pfinch

medium offtopic:
do you use the realtek or intel LAN controller? 
Just asking because latencymon shows the intel controller often hits high counts. the realtek one looks good.


----------



## GRABibus

Blackfyre said:


> So buy the discrete module, install it and change the TPM in the BIOS to discrete instead of firmware? That's it?


Buying an alder lake CPU will solve 😂.

so much problems with Ryzen and windows11….
This is why I currently keep windows 10.


----------



## tommy7600

Updated to 3904 and with PBO Fmax Enhancer enabled I have random crashes. I can reproduce it using OCCT with linpack 2021 test. Anyone noticed the same. On older versions I had no issue. 

AMD Ryzen 5950X.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

tommy7600 said:


> Updated to 3904 and with PBO Fmax Enhancer enabled I have random crashes. I can reproduce it using OCCT with linpack 2021 test. Anyone noticed the same. On older versions I had no issue.
> 
> AMD Ryzen 5950X.


Look for whea error in the events logger to check wich core cause the crash, use corecyler to check and edit the curve, disable Fmax Enhancer because it's for Ryzen 3000 series.


----------



## GRABibus

tommy7600 said:


> Updated to 3904 and with PBO Fmax Enhancer enabled I have random crashes. I can reproduce it using OCCT with linpack 2021 test. Anyone noticed the same. On older versions I had no issue.
> 
> AMD Ryzen 5950X.


Fmax Enhencer doesn’t work with Ryzen 5000


----------



## tommy7600

GRABibus said:


> Fmax Enhencer doesn’t work with Ryzen 5000


OK. So at least on previous bioses there were no issue with Fmax enabled on 5000.


----------



## GRABibus

tommy7600 said:


> OK. So at least on previous bioses there were no issue with Fmax enabled on 5000.


Yes maybe.
But now you have a good reason to not enable it with 5950X 😉


----------



## tommy7600

GRABibus said:


> Yes maybe.
> But now you have a good reason to not enable it with 5950X 😉


True


----------



## SeverTheseStrings

Fmax enhancer works just fine on 5000 series. Check your PBO curve and boost clock override, you may be taking away too much voltage to sustain the higher boost clocks FMax Enhance allows. Start with 0 Boost clock override and 0 voltage curve override and go from there.


----------



## Luggage

SeverTheseStrings said:


> Fmax enhancer works just fine on 5000 series. Check your PBO curve and boost clock override, you may be taking away too much voltage to sustain the higher boost clocks FMax Enhance allows. Start with 0 Boost clock override and 0 voltage curve override and go from there.


You’re the 1st one I’ve heard not having fmax enhancer ****ing up more things than it helps on zen 3…


----------



## Blackfyre

tommy7600 said:


> Updated to 3904 and with PBO Fmax Enhancer enabled I have random crashes. I can reproduce it using OCCT with linpack 2021 test. Anyone noticed the same. On older versions I had no issue.
> 
> AMD Ryzen 5950X.


5800X, using 3904 BIOS. I enabled it and done some testing for ~30 minutes, no crashes or any issues during small stress tests or browsing.



SeverTheseStrings said:


> Fmax enhancer works just fine on 5000 series.


Fmax enhancer destroys my benchmark results, for example Cinebench R20 I get ~6200 with it disabled, and ~5500 with it enabled.

But with gaming, the difference barely noticeable in the few tests I done, slightly slower with fmax enhancer enabled.

I see no reason to have it enabled personally.



pfinch said:


> medium offtopic:
> do you use the realtek or intel LAN controller?
> Just asking because latencymon shows the intel controller often hits high counts. the realtek one looks good.


Realtek


----------



## James Cole

xV Slayer said:


> That is a bug with the firmware TPM. I had to buy a discrete one to stop having that issue.


I have the Crosshair Hero VIII (Wifi) and a discrete TPM. I just picked up the Crosshair Hero VIII Extreme - but I do not see anywhere on the board with the TPM header. Did they remove the ability for a discrete TPM on the Formula and Extreme versions?! Does this lag also happen on those boards?


----------



## Kelutrel

James Cole said:


> I have the Crosshair Hero VIII (Wifi) and a discrete TPM. I just picked up the Crosshair Hero VIII Extreme - but I do not see anywhere on the board with the TPM header. Did they remove the ability for a discrete TPM on the Formula and Extreme versions?! Does this lag also happen on those boards?


I have a crosshair viii formula, I could not identify on the motherboard any SPI connector of the kind that is usually used for the discrete TPM so I believe that the connector is not there.
I never had any problem with the default TPM on my 5900X, and I have never encountered any lag issue, similar to the one described, on this board and CPU, on Win10 or Win11, with or without VBS, on any BIOS version up to now, so it may be that there is some additional kind of software or hardware trigger that is required for the issue to appear.


----------



## Blackfyre

James Cole said:


> I have the Crosshair Hero VIII (Wifi) and a discrete TPM. I just picked up the Crosshair Hero VIII Extreme - but I do not see anywhere on the board with the TPM header. Did they remove the ability for a discrete TPM on the Formula and Extreme versions?! Does this lag also happen on those boards?


The lag issue is not board related, it can happen on all AM4 boards, previous generations and new. It's Ryzen CPU + Windows related (_Microsoft and AMD need to acknowledge, reproduce and fix it_).

Anyway the more I researched this, the more I am leaning towards not buying the discrete TPM, as Windows 11 recognises it like having TPM 2.0 turned off, so major feature updates and security updates will have issues coming through. So it's useless. I thought it solves the lag issue and can run flawlessly with Windows 11, but apparently it's not the same as firmware TPM.

Here's hoping Microsoft or AMD fix the issue.


----------



## metalshark

Kelutrel said:


> I have a crosshair viii formula, I could not identify on the motherboard any SPI connector of the kind that is usually used for the discrete TPM so I believe that the connector is not there.
> I never had any problem with the default TPM on my 5900X, and I have never encountered any lag issue, similar to the one described, on this board and CPU, on Win10 or Win11, with or without VBS, on any BIOS version up to now, so it may be that there is some additional kind of software or hardware trigger that is required for the issue to appear.


Same as Kelutrel - no lag, TPM 2 enabled fully VBS, Windows 11. Used to have lag/stutter before increasing vSoC and vPLL, never heard of anyone having lag due to TPM on AM4.


----------



## Kelutrel

Blackfyre said:


> The lag issue is not board related, it can happen on all AM4 boards, previous generations and new. It's Ryzen CPU + Windows related (_Microsoft and AMD need to acknowledge, reproduce and fix it_).
> 
> Anyway the more I researched this, the more I am leaning towards not buying the discrete TPM, as Windows 11 recognises it like having TPM 2.0 turned off, so major feature updates and security updates will have issues coming through. So it's useless. I thought it solves the lag issue and can run flawlessly with Windows 11, but apparently it's not the same as firmware TPM.
> 
> Here's hoping Microsoft or AMD fix the issue.


Just for reference, I copy here the details of the default TPM in my 5900X, retrieved using the tpmtool on Win11 from command line:



Code:


PS C:\> tpmtool getdeviceinformation
-TPM Present: True
-TPM Version: 2.0
-TPM Manufacturer ID: AMD
-TPM Manufacturer Full Name: AMD
-TPM Manufacturer Version: 3.76.0.5
-PPI Version: 1.3
-Is Initialized: True
-Ready For Storage: True
-Ready For Attestation: True
-Is Capable For Attestation: True
-Clear Needed To Recover: False
-Clear Possible: True
-TPM Has Vulnerable Firmware: False
-PCR7 Binding State: 2
-Maintenance Task Complete: True
-TPM Spec Version: 1.38
-TPM Errata Date: Friday, March 02, 2018
-PC Client Version: 1.01
-Lockout Information:
        -Is Locked Out: False
        -Lockout Counter: 0
        -Max Auth Fail: 32
        -Lockout Interval: 7200s
        -Lockout Recovery: 86400s

There is also a reddit thread on this issue here


----------



## xV Slayer

Blackfyre said:


> So buy the discrete module, install it and change the TPM in the BIOS to discrete instead of firmware? That's it?


Yeah after doing that I have been weird stutter free for months.


----------



## xV Slayer

Blackfyre said:


> The lag issue is not board related, it can happen on all AM4 boards, previous generations and new. It's Ryzen CPU + Windows related (_Microsoft and AMD need to acknowledge, reproduce and fix it_).
> 
> Anyway the more I researched this, the more I am leaning towards not buying the discrete TPM, as Windows 11 recognises it like having TPM 2.0 turned off, so major feature updates and security updates will have issues coming through. So it's useless. I thought it solves the lag issue and can run flawlessly with Windows 11, but apparently it's not the same as firmware TPM.
> 
> Here's hoping Microsoft or AMD fix the issue.


This is incorrect. With an updated firmware on the Asus TPM it works just like the fTPM.


----------



## flyinion

Blackfyre said:


> The lag issue is not board related, it can happen on all AM4 boards, previous generations and new. It's Ryzen CPU + Windows related (_Microsoft and AMD need to acknowledge, reproduce and fix it_).
> 
> Anyway the more I researched this, the more I am leaning towards not buying the discrete TPM, as Windows 11 recognises it like having TPM 2.0 turned off, so major feature updates and security updates will have issues coming through. So it's useless. I thought it solves the lag issue and can run flawlessly with Windows 11, but apparently it's not the same as firmware TPM.
> 
> Here's hoping Microsoft or AMD fix the issue.


Oh wow thanks for this info. I started noticing this a few months ago in things like YouTube and games. Though I had some hardware going bad. 


Edit: That was probably around the time I updated to one of the beta bios versions that forces software TPM on if you don’t have a physical one. Can I change the setting to hardware TPM even though I don’t have one in order to disable the on cpu one since I’m not on Win11? At least until the problem is fixed by MS etc?j


----------



## xV Slayer

flyinion said:


> Oh wow thanks for this info. I started noticing this a few months ago in things like YouTube and games. Though I had some hardware going bad.
> 
> 
> Edit: That was probably around the time I updated to one of the beta bios versions that forces software TPM on if you don’t have a physical one. Can I change the setting to hardware TPM even though I don’t have one in order to disable the on cpu one since I’m not on Win11? At least until the problem is fixed by MS etc?j


I tried that and it always resets to fTPM as long as you have no physical TPM. The only way to stop the bug is to disable TPM under trusted computing in the bios.


----------



## Blackfyre

xV Slayer said:


> This is incorrect. With an updated firmware on the Asus TPM it works just like the fTPM.


The latest firmware available is from 2018?





__





TPM-M R2.0｜Motherboards｜ASUS Global


ASUS offers different kinds of motherboard accessories including Thunderbolt™ expansion cards, M.2 add-on cards, and fan extension cards give DIY PC users better choices when it comes to building their perfect workstation or gaming rig.




www.asus.com





I am reading the original thread where this issue was solved with discrete TPM, and they were having issues with updates, that was in October. Certainly the firmware on their module was updated.

*So did Microsoft start recognising dTPM the same way it does fTPM?*


----------



## flyinion

xV Slayer said:


> I tried that and it always resets to fTPM as long as you have no physical TPM. The only way to stop the bug is to disable TPM under trusted computing in the bios.


Ah ok didn’t know that existed. I might try that until I get around to moving to 11 which isn’t likely to happen for a while since it apparently has issues with color management right now.


----------



## des2k...

Blackfyre said:


> The lag issue is not board related, it can happen on all AM4 boards, previous generations and new. It's Ryzen CPU + Windows related (_Microsoft and AMD need to acknowledge, reproduce and fix it_).
> 
> Anyway the more I researched this, the more I am leaning towards not buying the discrete TPM, as Windows 11 recognises it like having TPM 2.0 turned off, so major feature updates and security updates will have issues coming through. So it's useless. I thought it solves the lag issue and can run flawlessly with Windows 11, but apparently it's not the same as firmware TPM.
> 
> Here's hoping Microsoft or AMD fix the issue.


There's no TPM active outside secure boot, window hello login (camera thing) or if you start storage encryption.

There will not be feature updates or security updates requiring TPM, that's the most ridiculous MS statement ever 😄


----------



## Blackfyre

des2k... said:


> There's no TPM active outside secure boot, window hello login (camera thing) or if you start storage encryption.
> 
> There will not be feature updates or security updates requiring TPM, that's the most ridiculous MS statement ever 😄


Fair enough, I am just asking questions with this regard.

So it's safe to say that buying the dTPM and installing it will solve the random stutter / lag issue that happens once or twice a day with fTPM, and there are no downsides to it with regards to updates or being a Windows Insider?

If that's the case I will go buy it tomorrow. Just want a confirmation.


----------



## AStaUK

des2k... said:


> There's no TPM active outside secure boot, window hello login (camera thing) or if you start storage encryption.
> 
> There will not be feature updates or security updates requiring TPM, that's the most ridiculous MS statement ever 😄


That's not strictly true, a TPM can also be used for software attestation as well which companies can use to make sure their software hasn't been tampered with, one game Valorant already requires TPM2.0 to run, it's possible other software developers will follow suit as Win11 gains market share (**pure speculation).


----------



## des2k...

AStaUK said:


> That's not strictly true, a TPM can also be used for software attestation as well which companies can use to make sure their software hasn't been tampered with, one game Valorant already requires TPM2.0 to run, it's possible other software developers will follow suit as Win11 gains market share (**pure speculation).


That's one garbage game, I doubt very much they use TPM to secure anything. They just check TPM / Secure boot on windows 11 and not windows 10.

So I doubt very much, this secures anything, since most can play / launch from Windows 10.


----------



## xeizo

Strange with this reported stutter, I run Windows 11 on four Ryzen boxes, none of them stutters. All very smooth. All the time. Since this is a OC forum maybe the reported stutter is from a too enthusiastic OC, in that case the hardware TPM can be seen as more of a OC tool.


----------



## J7SC

@xeizo may be on to s.th...I noticed that even when long-duration memtests pass and no WHEAs to be found anywhere, tFAW at 16 can sometimes cause issues with low 1 and 10% frame times in some (though not all) games and sims, while this seems to resolve at tFAW 20 to 24. Overly tight tRAS can apparently have a similar effect on some GPU benches.


----------



## Pastrami King

Luggage said:


> You’re the 1st one I’ve heard not having fmax enhancer ****ing up more things than it helps on zen 3…


Second person. I asked whether people actually tried to combine higher counts with FMax enhancer a week or two ago. You need to raise your CO values so the higher voltages that FMax enhancer pushes do not render your cores/threads unstable. Try raising your counts by 15-20 and then tune them lower from there.

Edited because I might be misremembering some things. I tried using FMax Enhancer after noticing that SafeDisk posted a multicore Cinebench 23 run with aa 5950x where the TDC was equal to EDC at high values (214.xxx). I assume the only two ways to accomplish that are to remove all thermal limitations or to use FMax Enhancer.


----------



## Kelutrel

Pastrami King said:


> Second person. I asked whether people actually tried to combine higher counts with FMax enhancer a week or two ago, and SafeDisk actually posted a screenshot of his 5950x's performance when using FMax Enhancer (you can tell because HWInfo did not report EDC). You need to raise your CO values so the higher voltages that FMax enhancer pushes do not render your cores/threads unstable. Try raising your counts by 15-20 and then tune them lower from there.


FMax Enhancer is a feature exclusive to Zen 2. My guess on what you are doing by raising the CO values and enabling it on Zen 3 is that you are just forcing clock stretching.


----------



## Pastrami King

Kelutrel said:


> FMax Enhancer is a feature exclusive to Zen 2. My guess on what you are doing by raising the CO values and enabling it on Zen 3 is that you are just forcing clock stretching.


100% not clock stretching. I ran benchmarks to compare performance vs. my typical setup. Do we even know what exactly FMax enhancer actually does?

Edit: Beyond the initial explanation by The Stilt and some tidbits here and there.


----------



## Kelutrel

Pastrami King said:


> 100% not clock stretching. I ran benchmarks to compare performance vs. my typical setup. Do we even know what exactly FMax enhancer actually does?


Yes, here

"In technical terms, what is effectively happening inside the CPU, is that the default V/F (voltage-frequency) curve is being optimized to allow slightly higher frequency headroom, at the expense of the potentially available margins."

Edit: I've now seen your edit. Sorry, but if you want to prove that the FMax Enhancer actually does something on Zen 3, it's easy: Save your current BIOS configuration, Load the optimized defaults for your board, change the minimum amount of settings that allows you to observe a positive difference in a CBR score when the FMax Enhancer is enabled compared to disabled, save those BIOS settings to a text file directly from your BIOS, and post here the resulting settings file for anyone to check and verify.

Also, imho, MT is king on perceived performances, ST may provide some single digit advantage on older single threaded videogames but, besides personal limit-breaking achievements, its advantages are shown only on a very limited set of use-cases.


----------



## Pastrami King

Kelutrel said:


> Yes, here
> 
> "In technical terms, what is effectively happening inside the CPU, is that the default V/F (voltage-frequency) curve is being optimized to allow slightly higher frequency headroom, at the expense of the potentially available margins."


And what do you think that means? Here is what I think, given my experience tinkering:

It's (a) shifting the VF curve like a negative CO count does, giving the CPU additional headroom where, without the shift, the CPU's performance would have been limited by the cap on voltage rather than the cap on frequency and (b) pegging EDC to TDC and thereby feeding the CPU amperage in an amount equal to the CPU's maximum TDC in the current operating conditions.

Any instability results from FMax Enhancer (a) shifting the VF curve enough that, at higher voltages, the CPU cannot maintain the frequency assigned by the shifted VF curve and (b) pushing the highest voltage possible at every moment because EDC = TDC means the CPU is going to get the maximum amount of voltage and/or amperage that the thermal conditions allow for.

You can mitigate against or eliminate these potential sources of instability by (a) increasing your CO count and thereby reducing FMax enhancer's VF curve shift and (b) using voltage suspension on the C8E to cap the voltage, so the CPU cannot operate at points on the VF curve where the assigned voltage is insufficient to maintain the assigned frequency.

Also, keep in mind, the Stilt referred to FMax Enhancer as a 3000/Zen 2 exclusive before, albeit right before, the release of Zen 3.

Edit: Let me add this. Absent FMax Enhancer, each of us uses PBO+CO to improve a CPU's performance from stock performance closer to the particular CPU's maximum performance. In contrast, when you use FMax Enhancer, at every moment, the CPU is trying to operate as if it is a great or even perfect specimen, and you must use PBO+CO to make the CPU operate as if it is worse than that Chad specimen. That is, you're optimizing from the opposite direction.


----------



## Kelutrel

Pastrami King said:


> And what do you think that means? Here is what I think, given my experience tinkering:
> 
> It's (a) shifting the VF curve like a negative CO count does, giving the CPU additional headroom where, without the shift, the CPU's performance would have been limited by the cap on voltage rather than the cap on frequency and (b) pegging EDC to TDC and thereby feeding the CPU amperage in an amount equal to the CPU's maximum TDC in the current operating conditions.
> 
> Any instability results from FMax Enhancer (a) shifting the VF curve enough that, at higher voltages, the CPU cannot maintain the frequency assigned by the shifted VF curve and (b) pushing the highest voltage possible at every moment because EDC = TDC means the CPU is going to get the maximum amount of voltage and/or amperage that the thermal conditions allow for.
> 
> You can mitigate against or eliminate these potential sources of instability by (a) increasing your CO count and thereby reducing FMax enhancer's VF curve shift and (b) using voltage suspension on the C8E to cap the voltage, so the CPU cannot operate at points on the VF curve where the assigned voltage is insufficient to maintain the assigned frequency.
> 
> Also, keep in mind, the Stilt referred to FMax Enhancer as a 3000/Zen 2 exclusive before, albeit right before, the release of Zen 3.
> 
> Edit: Let me add this. Absent FMax Enhancer, each of us uses PBO+CO to improve a CPU's performance from stock performance closer to the particular CPU's maximum performance. In contrast, when you use FMax Enhancer, at every moment, the CPU is trying to operate as if it is a great or even perfect specimen, and you must use PBO+CO to make the CPU operate as if it is worse than that Chad specimen. That is, you're optimizing from the opposite direction.


Mate, like everyone here I also tried to test the FMax Enhancer option, and on Zen 3 I found no way with which I could get a reasonable performance increase out of it that I couldn't get by changing other PBO settings. Now you said that you did in fact observed a performance increase and some advantages out of it, but if you don't provide your settings and a clear case so that anyone interested can look into it and reproduce your results then you are just wasting time.


----------



## Pastrami King

Pastrami King said:


> Has anyone been testing Fmax Enhancer with higher than normal (generally positive) CO on 3903? Here is a run without optimized CO values (but high enough to boot and complete the run) and with Fmax Enhancer = Enabled, PPT = 395, and TDC = 255.
> View attachment 2536782
> View attachment 2536783


I did. I provided the results of an unoptimized, but stable configuration (I had not finished adjusting CO).


----------



## Kelutrel

Pastrami King said:


> I did. I provided the results of an unoptimized, but stable configuration (I had not finished adjusting CO).


You only provided a screenshot of a stock CBR23 ST score. Add the MT score and attach another screenshot with the same configuration and the MT/ST score you get when you have FMax Enhancer disabled, to show that you get a different result, and your whole bios settings so that anyone can check if there isn't something else impacting the results.

I tried just now on my C8F and 5900X, with my current configuration by just enabling FMax Enhancer I loose more than 300 points of CBR20 MT and more than 20 points of CBR20 ST compared to having it disabled. Your results can't be verified if you don't provide the bios settings and a clear before/after picture.


----------



## Sleepycat

xV Slayer said:


> That is a bug with the firmware TPM. I had to buy a discrete one to stop having that issue.


Did you try increasing the SOC/VDDG/CLDO voltages to see if it helped with the stutters and audio?


----------



## Luggage

Pastrami King said:


> Second person. I asked whether people actually tried to combine higher counts with FMax enhancer a week or two ago. You need to raise your CO values so the higher voltages that FMax enhancer pushes do not render your cores/threads unstable. Try raising your counts by 15-20 and then tune them lower from there.
> 
> Edited because I might be misremembering some things. I tried using FMax Enhancer after noticing that SafeDisk posted a multicore Cinebench 23 run with aa 5950x where the TDC was equal to EDC at high values (214.xxx). I assume the only two ways to accomplish that are to remove all thermal limitations or to use FMax Enhancer.


I can’t I’m on MSI mb



http://imgur.com/P0eUtAx


( that’s a joke, of course it’s not stable at -30 ac. Score is real though)


----------



## Blackfyre

xeizo said:


> Strange with this reported stutter, I run Windows 11 on four Ryzen boxes, none of them stutters. All very smooth. All the time. Since this is a OC forum maybe the reported stutter is from a too enthusiastic OC, in that case the hardware TPM can be seen as more of a OC tool.


I noticed the issue before I done any overclocking. But the chances of coming across it are extremely low in some use cases. It could happen while the mouse is idle and you not noticing it, it could happen in any scenario where you're just reading something on an idle screen and not notice it for example, even if you're using the PC for 10+ hours a day you could not come across it at all, simply because of chance.

However, it is much easier to notice for example if you're working and have a stream running in the background. When it happens, it becomes very noticable, since even if the screen is idle or mouse is idle, you will notice it from the distorted sound and audio entering a small "bullet-time" slow motion like phase and exiting back to normal, during this phase the mouse enters this slow motion phase too, and everything else on the PC (_it happens randomly, at random times, lasts 1 to 3 seconds, and won't happen again for hours_). I notice it once or twice a day at most, never really without a stream open.


----------



## xeizo

Blackfyre said:


> I noticed the issue before I done any overclocking. But the chances of coming across it are extremely low in some use cases. It could happen while the mouse is idle and you not noticing it, it could happen in any scenario where you're just reading something on an idle screen and not notice it for example, even if you're using the PC for 10+ hours a day you could not come across it at all, simply because of chance.
> 
> However, it is much easier to notice for example if you're working and have a stream running in the background. When it happens, it becomes very noticable, since even if the screen is idle or mouse is idle, you will notice it from the distorted sound and audio entering a small "bullet-time" slow motion like phase and exiting back to normal, during this phase the mouse enters this slow motion phase too, and everything else on the PC (_it happens randomly, at random times, lasts 1 to 3 seconds, and won't happen again for hours_). I notice it once or twice a day at most, never really without a stream open.


I may be lucky, but I use my PC:s for audio workstation use and should notice if audio get's bad, when not doing that I consume a lot of Youtube videos and they just run, and gaming of course. It's smooth.


----------



## Danny.ns

I thought I didnt have it as well, since I use the PC a lot and watch lots of youtube and never encountered it. But I recently did. It is a very small stutter where the sound of the video sounds distorted for about 1 second.


----------



## Outcasst

I have the same issue fairly often. I listen to music a lot at night with the PC idling, just running Foobar2000. I get the audio stutter for about 3 seconds and random intervals, mostly only once a day. I've tried reverting the BIOS to stock settings that didn't help. I was running Windows 11 but now I'm back on Windows 10 and haven't had it... yet.

Edit: Scratch that, just had it on Windows 10, fresh install.


----------



## neikosr0x

Outcasst said:


> I have the same issue fairly often. I listen to music a lot at night with the PC idling, just running Foobar2000. I get the audio stutter for about 3 seconds and random intervals, mostly only once a day. I've tried reverting the BIOS to stock settings that didn't help. I was running Windows 11 but now I'm back on Windows 10 and haven't had it... yet.
> 
> Edit: Scratch that, just had it on Windows 10, fresh install.


I started having the same issues on my headset, but it seems to work just fine through the audio jack, but USB connection to the headset gets me stutter really bad audio stutter, this wasn't happening ~5 days ago, I thought it was BIOS related so I went back to 3801 but the same issue, No clue what it is atm.


----------



## xeizo

There is something flakey about Zen 3, as we are all still experimenting with it, Zen 2 have pretty much had zero issues for me in comparison. Maybe that's why Zen 3 has been so late for the more pro oriented cpus. Granted, my Zen 3 works almost flawless now but I can still have the occasional idle black screen every three to four weeks. My Zen 2:s are rock stable.


----------



## neikosr0x

xeizo said:


> There is something flakey about Zen 3, as we are all still experimenting with it, Zen 2 have pretty much had zero issues for me in comparison. Maybe that's why Zen 3 has been so late for the more pro oriented cpus. Granted, my Zen 3 works almost flawless now but I can still have the occasional idle black screen every three to four weeks. My Zen 2:s are rock stable.


never experience idle black screens but this new issue with the audio stutter is sht


----------



## Outcasst

I forgot to add that my DAC is USB, so could it be a form of the USB bug?


----------



## neikosr0x

Outcasst said:


> I forgot to add that my DAC is USB, so could it be a form of the USB bug?


Maybe, I wasn't getting issue till 5 days ago or so, I have reverted back bios and windows 11 version, will have try.


----------



## Sleepycat

Luggage said:


> I can’t I’m on MSI mb
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/P0eUtAx
> 
> 
> ( that’s a joke, of course it’s not stable at -30 ac. Score is real though)


Is that score typical for a 5800X? I thought you would get higher on your 5800X for that 4.9 GHz clock speed.
I disabled 4 of my cores in my 5900X and ran a 16 thread CB R23 test and got 18370 points with my cores running at 4.65 GHz for 6 cores on CCD1 and 4.575 GHz on the 2 cores on CCD2. I think you may have some instability running -30 CO, and resulting in a lower score eventhough you are running a higher effective clock, probably due to some errors or WHEAs occurring.


----------



## bastian

xeizo said:


> Strange with this reported stutter, I run Windows 11 on four Ryzen boxes, none of them stutters. All very smooth. All the time. Since this is a OC forum maybe the reported stutter is from a too enthusiastic OC, in that case the hardware TPM can be seen as more of a OC tool.


No, the stutter is not from OC. I had it random stutter at stock. It is totally random stutter. You can go a long time not seeing it happen or if you are away from your machine, it may do it. The problem is there is no event that shows up in Windows log to see when it happens or why. The only way to stop it is disabling fTPM or using a discreet TPM chip.

I think it must be something AMD or Microsoft will need to fix. Perhaps @safedisk and @shamino1978 can comment and report it directly to AMD/Microsoft?

I would suggest everyone report it as well to AMD here: https://www.amd.com/en/support/contact-email-form


----------



## xV Slayer

bastian said:


> No, the stutter is not from OC. I had it random stutter at stock. It is totally random stutter. You can go a long time not seeing it happen or if you are away from your machine, it may do it. The problem is there is no event that shows up in Windows log to see when it happens or why. The only way to stop it is disabling fTPM or using a discreet TPM chip.
> 
> I think it must be something AMD or Microsoft will need to fix. Perhaps @safedisk and @shamino1978 can comment and report it directly to AMD/Microsoft?
> 
> I would suggest everyone report it as well to AMD here: https://www.amd.com/en/support/contact-email-form


^This.


----------



## Kelutrel

bastian said:


> No, the stutter is not from OC. I had it random stutter at stock. It is totally random stutter. You can go a long time not seeing it happen or if you are away from your machine, it may do it. The problem is there is no event that shows up in Windows log to see when it happens or why. The only way to stop it is disabling fTPM or using a discreet TPM chip.
> 
> I think it must be something AMD or Microsoft will need to fix. Perhaps @safedisk and @shamino1978 can comment and report it directly to AMD/Microsoft?
> 
> I would suggest everyone report it as well to AMD here: https://www.amd.com/en/support/contact-email-form


Nothing relevant gets logged in the event viewer when that happens ?

Asking because of this similar issue here . To solve that, you can just disable a periodic scheduled task ( T_ask Scheduler_ -> expand _Microsoft_ -> expand _Windows_ -> click _CertificateServicesClient_ -> disable the top one named _AikCertEnrollTask_ ... waiting for Microsoft to release the correct fix) so maybe it is related if something similar gets logged in the event viewer at the time the stutter appears.


----------



## TMavica

Sorry. i have a stupid question, i am using c8e and using m.2 expansion card. Will the m.2 expansion card aaffect the memory performance?


----------



## bastian

Kelutrel said:


> Nothing relevant gets logged in the event viewer when that happens ?
> 
> Asking because of this similar issue here . To solve that, you can just disable a periodic scheduled task ( T_ask Scheduler_ -> expand _Microsoft_ -> expand _Windows_ -> click _CertificateServicesClient_ -> disable the top one named _AikCertEnrollTask_ ... waiting for Microsoft to release the correct fix) so maybe it is related if something similar gets logged in the event viewer at the time the stutter appears.


This seems to be related to another issue if you change your CPU though. I mean, it may be connected as they seem to have the same solution as moving to discreet..... I suppose people could try this as it wont hurt anything.

I imagine since up till this point fTPM on AMD boards was disabled by default and never really much need to turn it on till now this bug has been present for a while and is only now getting attention due to the TPM requirement of Windows 11. Hopefully a proper fix will come out from AMD/Microsoft. People definitely need to let them know, the more the better!


----------



## Luggage

Sleepycat said:


> Is that score typical for a 5800X? I thought you would get higher on your 5800X for that 4.9 GHz clock speed.
> I disabled 4 of my cores in my 5900X and ran a 16 thread CB R23 test and got 18370 points with my cores running at 4.65 GHz for 6 cores on CCD1 and 4.575 GHz on the 2 cores on CCD2. I think you may have some instability running -30 CO, and resulting in a lower score eventhough you are running a higher effective clock, probably due to some errors or WHEAs occurring.
> 
> View attachment 2540288


Actually no - 17005 is very high for a 5800x, typical is middle of 16k with custom loop.
I did a manual all core suicide runs at 



http://imgur.com/AO2J3Kg




http://imgur.com/jQ50SzQ




http://imgur.com/PXIA4VU







Cinebench - R23 Multi Core with BenchMate overclocking records @ HWBOT


Overclocking records




hwbot.org





Your score is 5.3 Dry ice territory for 8 cores, run again with hwinfo? Do you get over 25K with 12 cores? 12*(17000/8)...


----------



## learner-gr

Yesterday i got an 5800X and tried it on my ASUS ROG CH8 DARK.
No O/C just DOCP the 32gb 3600c18 timetec memory
*15345 *MULTI *1597 *SINGLE
So 17K and above is a great score


----------



## TMavica

deleted


----------



## learner-gr

Have a happy and blessed new year!!!
I hope you have the best benchmarks on computers and especially in your lives!


----------



## GRABibus

Happy new year from Paris !
Health, more MHz and more fps !


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> Happy new year from Paris !
> Health, more MHz and more fps !


 









...here, it is cold enough to run a 3090 Strix on air w/ XOC 1000


----------



## xeizo

J7SC said:


> View attachment 2540413
> 
> 
> ...here, it is cold enough to run a 3090 Strix on air w/ XOC 1000


Looks like you've got the cold this year(too), here on the other side of the northpole it's plus Celsius degrees. Happy new year!


----------



## stimpy88

xeizo said:


> There is something flakey about Zen 3, as we are all still experimenting with it, Zen 2 have pretty much had zero issues for me in comparison. Maybe that's why Zen 3 has been so late for the more pro oriented cpus. Granted, my Zen 3 works almost flawless now but I can still have the occasional idle black screen every three to four weeks. My Zen 2:s are rock stable.


There has to be something wrong with your system or Windows install if your getting black screens.


----------



## Sleepycat

Luggage said:


> Actually no - 17005 is very high for a 5800x, typical is middle of 16k with custom loop.
> I did a manual all core suicide runs at
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/AO2J3Kg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/jQ50SzQ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/PXIA4VU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cinebench - R23 Multi Core with BenchMate overclocking records @ HWBOT
> 
> 
> Overclocking records
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hwbot.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your score is 5.3 Dry ice territory for 8 cores, run again with hwinfo? Do you get over 25K with 12 cores? 12*(17000/8)...


Mine is a 5900X, so the way I did it was to set CB R23 to bench with 16 threads and used Process Lasso to set affinity to 8 cores.

I tried disabling CCD2 in bios, which turns it into a 5600X (32MB L3 cache), and got 11651 at 4.65GHz @ 1.250V, which if extrapolated to 8 cores, would be 15534.

Edit: Turns out Process Lasso had a bug (or maybe because it was the free version). The affinity was not taking hold properly if I set it before starting the benchmark. This is likely the cause of the higher score. Once I started the test, I could then change the affinity and the score came back down to a more reasonable 16459, the difference probably due to the double sized L3 cache.


----------



## J7SC

xeizo said:


> Looks like you've got the cold this year(too), here on the other side of the northpole it's plus Celsius degrees. Happy new year!


Tx  ...yeah, 'la nina' year + arctic outflow = winter fun ....beats the heck out of the 'heat domes' we had in the summer though


----------



## xeizo

stimpy88 said:


> There has to be something wrong with your system or Windows install if your getting black screens.


No, it's Zen 3, it's well documented by now. You are still running on Zen 2 I see, those problems have never existed on Zen 2.


----------



## metalshark

xeizo said:


> No, it's Zen 3, it's well documented by now. You are still running om Zen 2 I see, those problems have never existed on Zen 2.


People are getting black screens on their Zen 3?!? Haven’t yet experienced that.


----------



## Thullu

Can I leave it like that, right? 5900X - ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII
















Thank you for your tips helped me a lot
Can I leave it like that, right? 5900X - ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII


----------



## Blackfyre

metalshark said:


> People are getting black screens on their Zen 3?!? Haven’t yet experienced that.


Here to add that I've never had a single black screen with my 5800X. I don't think this is an issue that's CPU related, screen flashing or artifacts are usually GPU related.


----------



## Kelutrel

metalshark said:


> People are getting black screens on their Zen 3?!? Haven’t yet experienced that.


I also never had any black screen issue. I had reboots at idle and whea errors when tuning my cpu and memory oc, but besides those everything else has been flawless.
Maybe @xeizo says "black screen" but actually means reboots at idle ?
If so, most of the time reboots at idle are caused by too low curve offsets or too high boost clock or too low cpu voltage at idle (the "Power Supply Idle Control" bios setting) for the specific cpu bin he may have.


----------



## Kelutrel

Thullu said:


> Can I leave it like that, right? 5900X - ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII
> View attachment 2540526
> View attachment 2540527
> 
> 
> Thank you for your tips helped me a lot
> Can I leave it like that, right? 5900X - ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII


I don't know if this is the answer you are looking for, anyway imho there are two possible reasons to not keep that configuration, one is if it is unstable and the other is if you are compromising your cpu due to degradation by electromigration.

The symptoms of an unstable configuration usually are reboots at idle and whea errors in the event viewer. You can run corecycler for 12 hours during the night to verify stability. If it doesn't show any error then you are most probably stable. If it shows errors, then in this thread there is a plethora of countermeasures and bios settings that may allow you to reach stability.

The symptoms of cpu degradation due to electromigration are that with time, depending on your usage and the number of hours that you run corecycler, your cpu may start to not be stable anymore at the usual settings and require more voltage and reduced clock speeds to keep stability. Or it may just shut down and never come back again. This last case would be quite unfortunate so I don't feel like anyone should take this risk but you.

Without knowing your bios settings, I am not able to suggest more than this.


----------



## xeizo

Kelutrel said:


> I also never had any black screen issue. I had reboots at idle and whea errors when tuning my cpu and memory oc, but besides those everything has been flawless.
> Maybe @xeizo says "black screen" but actually means reboots at idle ?
> If so, most of the time reboots at idle are caused by too low curve offsets or too high boost clock or too low cpu voltage at idle (the "Power Supply Idle Control" bios setting) for the specific cpu bin he may have.


Yes, indeed reboot at idle, the screen turns very black from that. If people here never experienced reboot at idle they are very lucky as usually it's not a question of if but when. It can take several weeks but eventually it will happen. Silicon quality may play a large part, dual chiplet cpus may have a larger risk since they feature one good and one bad chiplet.


----------



## metalshark

xeizo said:


> Yes, indeed reboot at idle, the screen turns very black from that. If people here never experienced reboot at idle they are very lucky as usually it's not a question of if but when. It can take several weeks but eventually it will happen. Silicon quality may play a large part, dual chiplet cpus may have a larger risk since they feature one good and one bad chiplet.


Yup have had reboots at idle when overaggressive on CO values. Thankfully Hydra 1.1A added an option to control idle mV, C6 states and a separate CO table for MT vs ST mitigating most of it. Unfortunately, you can't override the best cores at the same time as Hybrid OC yet, which is a shame, so sticking with Hybrid OC.


----------



## vvoid

Thullu said:


> Can I leave it like that, right? 5900X - ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII





Kelutrel said:


> The symptoms of an unstable configuration usually are reboots at idle and whea errors in the event viewer. You can run corecycler for 12 hours during the night to verify stability. If it doesn't show any error then you are most probably stable. If it shows errors, then in this thread there is a plethora of countermeasures and bios settings that may allow you to reach stability.
> 
> The symptoms of cpu degradation due to electromigration are that with time, depending on your usage and the number of hours that you run corecycler, your cpu may start to not be stable anymore at the usual settings and require more voltage and reduced clock speeds to keep stability. Or it may just shut down and never come back again. This last case would be quite unfortunate so I don't feel like anyone should take this risk but you.
> 
> Without knowing your bios settings, I am not able to suggest more than this.


What a great answer, perfectly valid, absolutely correct.
My answer would have been quite different I think...


----------



## GRABibus

vvoid said:


> What a great answer, perfectly valid, absolutely correct.
> My answer would have been quite different I think...


then make your answer as a help !


----------



## Sleepycat

xeizo said:


> Yes, indeed reboot at idle, the screen turns very black from that. If people here never experienced reboot at idle they are very lucky as usually it's not a question of if but when. It can take several weeks but eventually it will happen. Silicon quality may play a large part, dual chiplet cpus may have a larger risk since they feature one good and one bad chiplet.


Idle reboots on Zen3 are due to too low a voltage at an idle state. That's why it only happens at idle but never shows when you have a load such as gaming, testing, benchmarking etc. So tests such as corecycler will not be able to tell you if your PC will suffer idle reboots.

You're right, it is silicon quality, the marginal ones need a bit more voltage when it is in its low voltage C-state mode. You can disable DF C-states to test, if idle reboot stops, then it is a low idle voltage issue. If you are using PBO and CO, you can identify the core that windows uses when idle to do its background tasks and give it a +10 higher CO offset so that it has a higher voltage.


----------



## James Cole

So, just picked up an Asus Crosshair VIII Extreme and cant get it to boot with 3600Mhz ram!
My setup is identical to what I had before (except I had a Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi) and it booted fine. (5950X CPU)

I'm using the G.Skill Trident Z Royal Elite Series 64GB (16x4).
XMP is 14-14-14-34 @ 1.45V
Ram kit is QVL'd for the Dark Hero, Formula board, Hero, etc. (but not specifically the Extreme).

I tried the XMP profile, after saving BIOS settings, PC turns off, then I see the RGB on ram do a quick flicker, then PC turn offs and tries again, so on and so forth until it fails and puts back to stock to boot - receive an F9 error.

I tried manually setting ram to 3600, leave timings to Auto and 1.45V - tried upping the Voltage to 1.49V.
Tried SOC at 1.1. Just doesnt want to boot at 3600. Highest I can boot at is 3466Mhz. 

All power connections are plugged in, have a 1000W Seasonic Prime Titanium.

What settings should I try to get it to post? Any reason why it would work on lesser board? I have latest BIOS installed.


----------



## Kelutrel

James Cole said:


> So, just picked up an Asus Crosshair VIII Extreme and cant get it to boot with 3600Mhz ram!
> My setup is identical to what I had before (except I had a Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi) and it booted fine. (5950X CPU)
> 
> I'm using the G.Skill Trident Z Royal Elite Series 64GB (16x4).
> XMP is 14-14-14-34 @ 1.45V
> Ram kit is QVL'd for the Dark Hero, Formula board, Hero, etc. (but not specifically the Extreme).
> 
> I tried the XMP profile, after saving BIOS settings, PC turns off, then I see the RGB on ram do a quick flicker, then PC turn offs and tries again, so on and so forth until it fails and puts back to stock to boot - receive an F9 error.
> 
> I tried manually setting ram to 3600, leave timings to Auto and 1.45V - tried upping the Voltage to 1.49V.
> Tried SOC at 1.1. Just doesnt want to boot at 3600. Highest I can boot at is 3466Mhz.
> 
> All power connections are plugged in, have a 1000W Seasonic Prime Titanium.
> 
> What settings should I try to get it to post? Any reason why it would work on lesser board? I have latest BIOS installed.


Did you try to set both VDDG voltages to 1.00v, and the VDDP voltage to 0.95v ?


----------



## bastian

James Cole said:


> So, just picked up an Asus Crosshair VIII Extreme and cant get it to boot with 3600Mhz ram!
> My setup is identical to what I had before (except I had a Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi) and it booted fine. (5950X CPU)
> 
> I'm using the G.Skill Trident Z Royal Elite Series 64GB (16x4).
> XMP is 14-14-14-34 @ 1.45V
> Ram kit is QVL'd for the Dark Hero, Formula board, Hero, etc. (but not specifically the Extreme).
> 
> I tried the XMP profile, after saving BIOS settings, PC turns off, then I see the RGB on ram do a quick flicker, then PC turn offs and tries again, so on and so forth until it fails and puts back to stock to boot - receive an F9 error.
> 
> I tried manually setting ram to 3600, leave timings to Auto and 1.45V - tried upping the Voltage to 1.49V.
> Tried SOC at 1.1. Just doesnt want to boot at 3600. Highest I can boot at is 3466Mhz.
> 
> All power connections are plugged in, have a 1000W Seasonic Prime Titanium.
> 
> What settings should I try to get it to post? Any reason why it would work on lesser board? I have latest BIOS installed.


Make sure on latest 0504 bios and that Gear Down is Enabled and 2t. Can also try 14-15-15-35.


----------



## J7SC

What are considered the daily 'safe' max values for SOC, VDDP and VDDG ?  ...looking ahead at four days of snow and I want to revisit IF2000 / DDR4 4000 on my 5950X / Dark Hero / 4x8 32GB Samsung-B. Pic below is from a while back...since then, lowered SOC to 1.03x for IF1900/DDR4 3800.

The earlier runs w/ IF 2000 DDR 4 4000 were rudimentary only with no optimization re. timings...I prefer 3800/14-14-14 over 4000/16-16-16 but may be with some voltage adjustments, I can get the latter a bit tighter. Thanks.


----------



## James Cole

Kelutrel said:


> Did you try to set both VDDG voltages to 1.00v, and the VDDP voltage to 0.95v ?


Just tried that, no luck.



bastian said:


> Make sure on latest 0504 bios and that Gear Down is Enabled and 2t. Can also try 14-15-15-35.


I'm on the latest BIOS - tried Gear down mode enabled at 2T. Set much looser timings, kept bumping ram voltage all the way up to 1.55 just to see if I could get to post. Nothing working.
On the Hero board, I'd just set DOCP and worked on every BIOS I updated to on that board without issue. Same Video card, CPU, Ram, etc.

I tried reseating the heatsink to make sure there wasnt too much tension, I pulled the CPU, checked to see if pins and socket looked clean, hit it with some canned air. Reseated everything. Cleared CMOS. Still no dice.


----------



## metalshark

J7SC said:


> What are considered the daily 'safe' max values for SOC, VDDP and VDDG ?  ...looking ahead at four days of snow and I want to revisit IF2000 / DDR4 4000 on my 5950X / Dark Hero / 4x8 32GB Samsung-B. Pic below is from a while back...since then, lowered SOC to 1.03x for IF1900/DDR4 3800.
> 
> The earlier runs w/ IF 2000 DDR 4 4000 were rudimentary only with no optimization re. timings...I prefer 3800/14-14-14 over 4000/16-16-16 but may be with some voltage adjustments, I can get the latter a bit tighter. Thanks.
> View attachment 2540826


Nothing over 1.3v for the SoC for daily, but allowing for LLC, etc you’ll want to be below that so it doesn’t punch over it. 1.2v being conservative or higher if you have good VRM cooling, lower LLC settings, higher PWM switching frequencies or a combo of the above. The other two I don’t know beyond anecdotes. You’ll likely need to go high on the vPLL too.


----------



## noxious89123

James Cole said:


> Just tried that, no luck.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm on the latest BIOS - tried Gear down mode enabled at 2T. Set much looser timings, kept bumping ram voltage all the way up to 1.55 just to see if I could get to post. Nothing working.
> On the Hero board, I'd just set DOCP and worked on every BIOS I updated to on that board without issue. Same Video card, CPU, Ram, etc.
> 
> I tried reseating the heatsink to make sure there wasnt too much tension, I pulled the CPU, checked to see if pins and socket looked clean, hit it with some canned air. Reseated everything. Cleared CMOS. Still no dice.


For what it's worth, setting 1T or 2T with Gear Down Mode Enabled, makes no difference. GDM overrides 1T or 2T, and is sort of inbetween the two.

When I first set up my Dark Hero, I had a lot of trouble getting it to boot with just a minor RAM overclock. Turns out the 'boards AUTO settings for some of the secondary and tertiary settings were waaaaaay off where they should have been. My RAM is _not_ on the QVL list for my 'board.

Seeing as your RAM was QVL'd for your old 'board but not the new one, I would expect you are having a similar issue.

Are you able to find out what all of your secondary and tertiary settings were when you used that RAM in your old board? If you can find out I'd recommend making a note of all of them. On the CH8 boards you can save your BIOS/UEFI settings to a .txt file which can be handy, although if they were on AUTO then that is all you'd see. You can also use F12 in BIOS/UEFI to take screenshots in BIOS/UEFI and save them to a FAT formatted USB drive.

I think you should be able to see what the board is using for each setting in BIOS; even if its set to auto, it displays the currently used value next to it for some timings iirc.Otherwise, ZenTimings or similar is good for viewing what timings the board is running, even when set to AUTO.

TL;DR Find what exact timings the old 'board was actually running (not just "AUTO", but what it was actually doing) and then try manually setting those on your new 'board.


----------



## J7SC

metalshark said:


> Nothing over 1.3v for the SoC for daily, but allowing for LLC, etc you’ll want to be below that so it doesn’t punch over it. 1.2v being conservative or higher if you have good VRM cooling, lower LLC settings, higher PWM switching frequencies or a combo of the above. The other two I don’t know beyond anecdotes. You’ll likely need to go high on the vPLL too.


Thanks ! I had some cold benching RAM profile numbers from my 3950X , but for 24/7 on the 5950X system in that same case that also does some productivity-related tasks in addition to gaming and the odd benching, I want to go 'fast-but-safe-and-100%-stable'. VRM cooling is excellent, btw...2x 120mm fans blowing down on VRM and RAM. With current mostly stock settings, VRM rarely exceeds high 40s C.



James Cole said:


> Just tried that, no luck.
> 
> I'm on the latest BIOS - tried Gear down mode enabled at 2T. Set much looser timings, kept bumping ram voltage all the way up to 1.55 just to see if I could get to post. Nothing working.
> On the Hero board, I'd just set DOCP and worked on every BIOS I updated to on that board without issue. Same Video card, CPU, Ram, etc.
> 
> I tried reseating the heatsink to make sure there wasnt too much tension, I pulled the CPU, checked to see if pins and socket looked clean, hit it with some canned air. Reseated everything. Cleared CMOS. Still no dice.


I take it you have tried 'safe' presets as per > Ryzen Dram Calculator for 64 GB DDR4 3600 ? I usually set my RAM on stock/auto CPU values first until I reach error-free and stable settings, then check what that calculator suggests could be improved upon in 'fast preset' for the specific RAM type and stick combo. Then I try to tighten more until there are errors. Said calculator's 'safe preset' is conservative, though, and might help.

Also, on the Hero Extreme, are you using / have you plugged in and populated that M.2 card to the right of the RAM slots ?

Finally, did you save any bios / DRAM 64GB screen shots from the Hero Wifi you could use for the Extreme ?


----------



## Blackfyre

bastian said:


> No, the stutter is not from OC. I had it random stutter at stock. It is totally random stutter. You can go a long time not seeing it happen or if you are away from your machine, it may do it. The problem is there is no event that shows up in Windows log to see when it happens or why. The only way to stop it is disabling fTPM or using a discreet TPM chip.
> 
> I think it must be something AMD or Microsoft will need to fix. Perhaps @safedisk and @shamino1978 can comment and report it directly to AMD/Microsoft?
> 
> I would suggest everyone report it as well to AMD here: https://www.amd.com/en/support/contact-email-form


No event log or error or anything shows up when it happens. But I did just notice this on Process Lasso when it happened (watching stream, sound distorted, video entered slow motion, mouse moves in slow motion, etc) lasted 2 seconds, first time I notice it in a couple of days:


----------



## Gondar

for couple of months i have problem with nvidia display driver crash, with some version it is less, with some more, but it happens sometimes when VLC media plyer is playing and i do something (multi tasking). Screen goes black for 1-2 seconds and i hear usb connect sound. I dind't notice that when playing games or in asus realbench software, only when doing light work but VLC media player is playing. GPU is at stock setting, same as BIOS.


----------



## James Cole

J7SC said:


> Thanks ! I had some cold benching RAM profile numbers from my 3950X , but for 24/7 on the 5950X system in that same case that also does some productivity-related tasks in addition to gaming and the odd benching, I want to go 'fast-but-safe-and-100%-stable'. VRM cooling is excellent, btw...2x 120mm fans blowing down on VRM and RAM. With current mostly stock settings, VRM rarely exceeds high 40s C.
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you have tried 'safe' presets as per > Ryzen Dram Calculator for 64 GB DDR4 3600 ? I usually set my RAM on stock/auto CPU values first until I reach error-free and stable settings, then check what that calculator suggests could be improved upon in 'fast preset' for the specific RAM type and stick combo. Then I try to tighten more until there are errors. Said calculator's 'safe preset' is conservative, though, and might help.
> 
> Also, on the Hero Extreme, are you using / have you plugged in and populated that M.2 card to the right of the RAM slots ?
> 
> Finally, did you save any bios / DRAM 64GB screen shots from the Hero Wifi you could use for the Extreme ?


I have not plugged in the M2 card to the right on the ram slots. I thought it was optional.


----------



## J7SC

James Cole said:


> I have not plugged in the M2 card to the right on the ram slots. I thought it was optional.


It is optional...was just wondering what the differences were compared to your prior Hero Wifi setup


----------



## Sleepycat

Gondar said:


> for couple of months i have problem with nvidia display driver crash, with some version it is less, with some more, but it happens sometimes when VLC media plyer is playing and i do something (multi tasking). Screen goes black for 1-2 seconds and i hear usb connect sound. I dind't notice that when playing games or in asus realbench software, only when doing light work but VLC media player is playing. GPU is at stock setting, same as BIOS.


If you are using Curve Optimizer, then the negative offset is too aggressive. If you are not using Curve Optimizer, turn it on and give your cores on CCD1 a +10 offset.


----------



## metalshark

Gondar said:


> for couple of months i have problem with nvidia display driver crash, with some version it is less, with some more, but it happens sometimes when VLC media plyer is playing and i do something (multi tasking). Screen goes black for 1-2 seconds and i hear usb connect sound. I dind't notice that when playing games or in asus realbench software, only when doing light work but VLC media player is playing. GPU is at stock setting, same as BIOS.


Had to increase vSoC to 1.1875v and vPLL 1.87v to resolve this. Some going through the same only had to increase vSoC.


----------



## Sleepycat

metalshark said:


> Had to increase vSoC to 1.1875v and vPLL 1.87v to resolve this. Some going through the same only had to increase vSoC.


In my case, I fixed it by increasing CPU vcore. It crashed only during gaming when I had a low core load and high CPU clocks. In my case, it was Destiny 2 that caused the nvidia display driver to crash. It wouldn't crash in FS2020. I left my VSoC and at PLL at 1.09V and 1.80V respectively.


----------



## Luggage

Sleepycat said:


> In my case, I fixed it by increasing CPU vcore. It crashed only during gaming when I had a low core load and high CPU clocks. In my case, it was Destiny 2 that caused the nvidia display driver to crash. It wouldn't crash in FS2020. I left my VSoC and at PLL at 1.09V and 1.80V respectively.


Increasing vcore is the same as decreasing co, except for the very highest part to 1.5.


----------



## 1ah1

What's your opinions about _5800X3D_ ?
And no _5900X3D_ .


----------



## J7SC

1ah1 said:


> What's your opinions about X58003D ?
> And no X59003D.


...not sure what you're asking - 3D Vcache models ? It would make sense that AMD will focus the 3D Cache 'mods' just on the higher-binned 8 core chiplets, reasonably close to Zen4 release....also a question of production-run allotments at TSMC.


----------



## metalshark

1ah1 said:


> What's your opinions about X58003D ?
> And no X59003D.


Those getting one will be great to hear from if there's any differences in approaches required for overclocking v-cache ahead of Zen 4 which uses the tech. The same can be said of Zen 3+ laptops and the use of USB4/DDR5 on Zen. Looking forward to sitting back and taking notes.


----------



## shaolin95

Are we expecting 5950x 3D?


----------



## 1ah1

J7SC said:


> ...not sure what you're asking - 3D Vcache models ? It would make sense that AMD will focus the 3D Cache 'mods' just on the higher-binned 8 core chiplets, reasonably close to Zen4 release....also a question of production-run allotments at TSMC.


the 3D Vcache models they called it _5800X3D_ in AMD CES 2022


----------



## GRABibus

Waiting for Zen4 😉


----------



## hwanzi

is it bad that for one of my cores I need to change it to positive in order for it be stable?


----------



## Kelutrel

hwanzi said:


> is it bad that for one of my cores I need to change it to positive in order for it be stable?


It's unusual, as it would mean that at stock settings it would also be unstable. It depends on the specific bios settings you have configured though. The wrong settings can make any cpu unstable tbh.


----------



## GRABibus

hwanzi said:


> is it bad that for one of my cores I need to change it to positive in order for it be stable?


If you need to have a positive offset on one core to be stable at stock settings, then yes, you have a bad chip.

a chip should be stable at stock, with default settings on Curve optimiser (offset = 0 for all cores).


----------



## hwanzi

GRABibus said:


> er (offset = 0 for all cores).





Kelutrel said:


> It's unusual, as it would mean that at stock settings it would also be unstable. It depends on the specific bios settings you have configured though. The wrong settings can make any cpu unstable tbh.


docp is enable, edc 165, tdc: 160, ppt: 220. everything else is default


----------



## GRABibus

hwanzi said:


> docp is enable, edc 165, tdc: 160, ppt: 220. everything else is default


Set everything to default and check stability.
No docp.


----------



## Kelutrel

hwanzi said:


> docp is enable, edc 165, tdc: 160, ppt: 220. everything else is default


Changing PPT/TDC/EDC should not cause a stable core to become unstable. Are you definitely sure that those are the only changed settings ?
It may help if you post your settings file here, after saving it in txt format from the bios.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Changing PPT/TDC/EDC should not cause a stable core to become unstable.


not sure about this as PPT/TDC/EDC can influence single core boost


----------



## PWn3R

GRABibus said:


> Waiting for Zen4


I have debated giving a friend the 5950x with all this code 00 hoopla and the no warranty because LM from AMD. I probably won’t buy another AMD after this experience which is the exact opposite of the only other time I had a problem with AMD (doa Athlon 3800 they upgraded to a 4000 for free).

Between the awful IMC, near hourly code 00s at this point and the general lack of stability on the 3rd gen at launch (usb issues) I’m far beyond an unhappy customer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GRABibus

PWn3R said:


> I have debated giving a friend the 5950x with all this code 00 hoopla and the no warranty because LM from AMD. I probably won’t buy another AMD after this experience which is the exact opposite of the only other time I had a problem with AMD (doa Athlon 3800 they upgraded to a 4000 for free).
> 
> Between the awful IMC, near hourly code 00s at this point and the general lack of stability on the 3rd gen at launch (usb issues) I’m far beyond an unhappy customer.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I also hesitate to switch back to Intel….not easy to make a choice.
I hope AMD will consider all issues with Zen3 to improve quality at Zen4 launch…


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> I also hesitate to switch back to Intel….not easy to make a choice.
> I hope AMD will consider all issues with Zen3 to improve quality at Zen4 launch…


Sometimes it is better to wait a bit re. purchase after a launch of a completely new gen (as opposed to an improvement of an otherwise proven design), not least as early mobo bios usually also leave a few things to be desired. Over a decade or so, I had two 'flaky' Intel CPUs even with updated bios, but most of the time, waiting a bit for updated chipset drivers and bios worked.


----------



## hwanzi

GRABibus said:


> Set everything to default and check stability.
> No docp.


okay I did what you said and I tested the core. Its stable at default settings


----------



## GRABibus

hwanzi said:


> okay I did what you said and I tested the core. Its stable at default settings


How do you test stability so rapidly ?


----------



## hwanzi

GRABibus said:


> How do you test stability so rapidly ?


i used occt: small, sse isnt that what im supposed to use?


----------



## Xipe

Its normal in 5900x?
Energy Efficiency CCD#1 4.04 | GOLDEN sample
Energy Efficiency CCD#2 3.87 | BRONZE sample


----------



## GRABibus

hwanzi said:


> i used occt: small, sse isnt that what im supposed to use?


I don’t use OCCT. Maybe other people can advise.

try to use your computer several days (browsing, watching videos, gaming, etc…) and let it idle when you don’t use it.

if you don’t get idle reboots or low load reboots, then you can start PBO/CO overclocking.


----------



## metalshark

hwanzi said:


> i used occt: small, sse isnt that what im supposed to use?


To echo Grabibus when checking an individual core you’d do some long idle/low effort testing and some CoreCycler with different options (like y-Cruncher for max frequency. then Prime95 with and without AVX). OCCT is more for multicore (all cores at once) testing of low power usage (more than Cinebench but about half or less of the draw you can pull with Prime95).


----------



## Kelutrel

hwanzi said:


> i used occt: small, sse isnt that what im supposed to use?


I used OCCT a lot for tuning my pbo curves. You can create a custom test with it that boosts to max speed a single core for 20 seconds and then automatically repeats the process on all the cores one at a time. In like 10-20 minutes or so you can quickly get which core needs more or less offset starting from zero. But that test only provides a quick initial approximation of the stable pbo curves (that would take days in corecycle), and once you get stability with OCCT it is still needed to further refine the offsets running a night or two of corecycler. Also, I repeat, it is not the standard OCCT test, it has to be created manually through the configuration options.

The configuration I used was:

CPU test
Data set: Large
Mode: Extreme
Load type: Variable
Instructions set: SSE or Auto
Threads: Advanced
Then click on the Advanced Thread Settings button and in that page:

Unselect all Physical Cores but Core #0
Virtual Cores: Physical Only,
Core Cycle: Cycle Active Core every 20s,
Swap Active/Inactive Cores: Disabled


----------



## sakete

Alright guys, just swapped my 3900X for a 5950X on this X570 Formula board, running the latest bios 3904. First experience so far is a bunch of random reboots, so that's fun  I did enable Fmax from the outset, and disabled it just now to see if that helps. PBO is enabled, but all other settings on Auto. So far so good.

I ran ClockTuner Ryzen and I have a silver sample.

What are good settings to use as a starting point that will both be stable and offer good performance for a 5950X? I'm not looking for a static overclock, but some form of PBO or dynamic OC. My system is fully watercooled, so cooling isn't a problem.


----------



## metalshark

sakete said:


> Alright guys, just swapped my 3900X for a 5950X on this X570 Formula board, running the latest bios 3904. First experience so far is a bunch of random reboots, so that's fun  I did enable Fmax from the outset, and disabled it just now to see if that helps. PBO is enabled, but all other settings on Auto. So far so good.
> 
> I ran ClockTuner Ryzen and I have a silver sample.
> 
> What are good settings to use as a starting point that will both be stable and offer good performance for a 5950X? I'm not looking for a static overclock, but some form of PBO or dynamic OC. My system is fully watercooled, so cooling isn't a problem.


Now you're on Zen 3 would go straight for Hydra instead as CTR is a lot more limited. You'll be disabling Fmax Enhancer as result and it takes through a lot of what to configure. Would set the Digital VRMs to max frequency (500Khz CPU/RAM and 600Khz SoC) with ultra-fast response. Will let you do PBO, CO and Dynamic on a Formula and really let you stretch it. Am running the Formula with a 5950X too. PPT 400W, EDC 500A and TDC 250A is giving me best results (you'll reach 490A+ EDC with Hydra when pushing it in Prime95) please note without Hydra you'll likely want a lot less and to artificially limit EDC, then it's a case of what CO results you get for single threaded and multithreaded and what VID you want for each profile. I use the single-threaded CO table for games, 1410mv for 1-2T, 1400mv for 3-4T, 1385mv for 5-8T, 1375mv for 9-12T, 1325mv for 13-16T, 1250mv for all core AVX2 and 1150mv for all core FMA3 but your mileage will vary with your CPU. Disable dynamic for the all core AVX2 profile if you want Dark Hero/Extreme style functionality however you'll likely get better results now you can specify a different set of CO values for multithreaded. Also am using 750mv for idle.


----------



## sakete

metalshark said:


> Now you're on Zen 3 would go straight for Hydra instead as CTR is a lot more limited. You'll be disabling Fmax Enhancer as result and it takes through a lot of what to configure. Would set the Digital VRMs to max frequency (500Khz CPU/RAM and 600Khz SoC) with ultra-fast response. Will let you do PBO, CO and Dynamic on a Formula and really let you stretch it. Am running the Formula with a 5950X too. PPT 400W, EDC 500A and TDC 250A is giving me best results (you'll reach 490A+ EDC with Hydra when pushing it in Prime95) please note without Hydra you'll likely want a lot less and to artificially limit EDC, then it's a case of what CO results you get for single threaded and multithreaded and what VID you want for each profile. I use the single-threaded CO table for games, 1410mv for 1-2T, 1400mv for 3-4T, 1385mv for 5-8T, 1375mv for 9-12T, 1325mv for 13-16T, 1250mv for all core AVX2 and 1150mv for all core FMA3 but your mileage will vary with your CPU. Disable dynamic for the all core AVX2 profile if you want Dark Hero/Extreme style functionality however you'll likely get better results now you can specify a different set of CO values for multithreaded. Also am using 750mv for idle.


Thanks. What is Hydra and CO? When I got my 3900X, I tweaked it a couple times and then never looked at it again as I was satisfied. So I haven't been following the latest and greatest 

I intend to do the same with 5950X. Dial it in nicely and then never look at it again.


----------



## metalshark

sakete said:


> Thanks. What is Hydra and CO? When I got my 3900X, I tweaked it a couple times and then never looked at it again as I was satisfied. So I haven't been following the latest and greatest
> 
> I intend to do the same with 5950X. Dial it in nicely and then never look at it again.


Hydra is a tool from 1usmus, it’s the advancement of CTR but only for Zen 3. CO is curve optimiser. Normally it’s a setting per core between -30 and +30. At lower speeds it’s 5mV per number and at high speeds it’s 3mV per number. So you could have -10 on a core which would be -50mV at low speed and -30mV at high speed. In Hydra it’s a larger scale, you can also configure those CO value for low thread workloads separate from multi threaded workloads, the base voltage per workload type as well as changing the scale for AVX workloads on a per CCX basis in Hydra 1.1.


----------



## Luggage

sakete said:


> Alright guys, just swapped my 3900X for a 5950X on this X570 Formula board, running the latest bios 3904. First experience so far is a bunch of random reboots, so that's fun  I did enable Fmax from the outset, and disabled it just now to see if that helps. PBO is enabled, but all other settings on Auto. So far so good.
> 
> I ran ClockTuner Ryzen and I have a silver sample.
> 
> What are good settings to use as a starting point that will both be stable and offer good performance for a 5950X? I'm not looking for a static overclock, but some form of PBO or dynamic OC. My system is fully watercooled, so cooling isn't a problem.


hydra is released on igorslab.de, run the diagnostics. It will at least give you a head start on co values. From there on it’s just stability testing for co and benching for PBO/aoc limits.


----------



## sakete

metalshark said:


> Hydra is a tool from 1usmus, it’s the advancement of CTR but only for Zen 3. CO is curve optimiser. Normally it’s a setting per core between -30 and +30. At lower speeds it’s 5mV per number and at high speeds it’s 3mV per number. So you could have -10 on a core which would be -50mV at low speed and -30mV at high speed. In Hydra it’s a larger scale, you can also configure those CO value for low thread workloads separate from multi threaded workloads, the base voltage per workload type as well as changing the scale for AVX workloads on a per CCX basis in Hydra 1.1.


I'm running the diagnostic now, I'll see what results it spits out and will start tweaking from there. The latest version of Hydra I found was 1.0.0.7.

Thanks for the help, appreciate it!


----------



## zzztopzzz

I have a question for you ASUS X570 ROG Crosshair VIII Hero bunch. I'm wondering if any of you are using 64GB in a 4 x 16 configuration? If so, have you had any problems with 3600 RAM OC'ing around 4000 (give or take)? This may be my next board, as my ASRock Tiachi x570 may not be up to the task and I'm having some issues getting my set of GSkill F4-3600C13Q-64GTZR RAM up and running as I would like it. I am working on it though, with a little help from ASRock tech support. It's not that it doesn't run, but am having some OC problems from within the BIOS. Thanks in advance.


----------



## ChillyRide

zzztopzzz said:


> I have a question for you ASUS X570 ROG Crosshair VIII Hero bunch. I'm wondering if any of you are using 64GB in a 4 x 16 configuration? If so, have you had any problems with 3600 RAM OC'ing around 4000 (give or take)? This may be my next board, as my ASRock Tiachi x570 may not be up to the task and I'm having some issues getting my set of GSkill F4-3600C13Q-64GTZR RAM up and running as I would like it. I am working on it though, with a little help from ASRock tech support. It's not that it doesn't run, but am having some OC problems from within the BIOS. Thanks in advance.


Depends on many factors. First and main question can ur CPU can handle 4000 IF without wheas? For example my cpu can do 3800:1900 with 2x16GB dual ranks without wheas. 3800+ give wheas and there is nothing I can do. When I use 4x16GB Quad Rank in 3800:1900 it is super tricky to boot and tight timings. Lots of F9 postcodes and I cant find how to fix this. I am stay at 3733 for now and tightening timings. Also with Quad Rank u will have less read write speeds and slightly more latency vs dual rank with the same timings and speeds. WIth 64gb 3600 XMP no problems to boot, anything higher need to set manually VTT voltage.


----------



## sakete

metalshark said:


> Now you're on Zen 3 would go straight for Hydra instead as CTR is a lot more limited. You'll be disabling Fmax Enhancer as result and it takes through a lot of what to configure. Would set the Digital VRMs to max frequency (500Khz CPU/RAM and 600Khz SoC) with ultra-fast response. Will let you do PBO, CO and Dynamic on a Formula and really let you stretch it. Am running the Formula with a 5950X too. PPT 400W, EDC 500A and TDC 250A is giving me best results (you'll reach 490A+ EDC with Hydra when pushing it in Prime95) please note without Hydra you'll likely want a lot less and to artificially limit EDC, then it's a case of what CO results you get for single threaded and multithreaded and what VID you want for each profile. I use the single-threaded CO table for games, 1410mv for 1-2T, 1400mv for 3-4T, 1385mv for 5-8T, 1375mv for 9-12T, 1325mv for 13-16T, 1250mv for all core AVX2 and 1150mv for all core FMA3 but your mileage will vary with your CPU. Disable dynamic for the all core AVX2 profile if you want Dark Hero/Extreme style functionality however you'll likely get better results now you can specify a different set of CO values for multithreaded. Also am using 750mv for idle.


Ok, so Hydra gave me the following results when running the diagnostic with default settings:

Final ranking of cores:
by AMD (CPPC) | by real frequency
C04 212 4850MHz | C04 4850MHz
C03 212 4850MHz | C03 4850MHz
C02 208 4825MHz | C01 4850MHz
C07 203 4825MHz | C08 4825MHz
C01 199 4850MHz | C07 4825MHz
C05 194 4825MHz | C06 4825MHz
C08 190 4825MHz | C05 4825MHz
C06 185 4825MHz | C02 4825MHz
C10 181 4700MHz | C10 4700MHz
C12 176 4675MHz | C12 4675MHz
C15 172 4650MHz | C11 4675MHz
C09 167 4650MHz | C15 4650MHz
C16 163 4625MHz | C14 4650MHz
C11 158 4675MHz | C09 4650MHz
C14 154 4650MHz | C16 4625MHz
C13 149 4625MHz | C13 4625MHz

CURVE OPTIMIZER values for BIOS
(If you do not plan to use HYDRA)
C01 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
C02 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
C03 SAFE CO: -19 MID CO: -23 FAST CO: -29
C04 SAFE CO: -12 MID CO: -15 FAST CO: -18
C05 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
C06 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
C07 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
C08 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
C09 SAFE CO: -29 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
C10 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
C11 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
C12 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
C13 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
C14 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
C15 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
C16 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30


Min CPU Boost Clock Override: 50MHz

So do I just dial-in the SAFE values (I value stability over utmost performance) and call it a day? And then turn on PBO, set scalar to 2x, Boost Clock override to 50 Mhz and then I'm set?

I don't plan on always running Hydra in the background, so want to set it in BIOS and forget about it.


----------



## metalshark

sakete said:


> Ok, so Hydra gave me the following results when running the diagnostic with default settings:
> 
> Final ranking of cores:
> by AMD (CPPC) | by real frequency
> C04 212 4850MHz | C04 4850MHz
> C03 212 4850MHz | C03 4850MHz
> C02 208 4825MHz | C01 4850MHz
> C07 203 4825MHz | C08 4825MHz
> C01 199 4850MHz | C07 4825MHz
> C05 194 4825MHz | C06 4825MHz
> C08 190 4825MHz | C05 4825MHz
> C06 185 4825MHz | C02 4825MHz
> C10 181 4700MHz | C10 4700MHz
> C12 176 4675MHz | C12 4675MHz
> C15 172 4650MHz | C11 4675MHz
> C09 167 4650MHz | C15 4650MHz
> C16 163 4625MHz | C14 4650MHz
> C11 158 4675MHz | C09 4650MHz
> C14 154 4650MHz | C16 4625MHz
> C13 149 4625MHz | C13 4625MHz
> 
> CURVE OPTIMIZER values for BIOS
> (If you do not plan to use HYDRA)
> C01 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C02 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C03 SAFE CO: -19 MID CO: -23 FAST CO: -29
> C04 SAFE CO: -12 MID CO: -15 FAST CO: -18
> C05 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C06 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C07 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C08 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C09 SAFE CO: -29 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C10 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C11 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C12 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C13 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C14 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C15 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C16 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> 
> 
> Min CPU Boost Clock Override: 50MHz
> 
> So do I just dial-in the SAFE values (I value stability over utmost performance) and call it a day? And then turn on PBO, set scalar to 2x, Boost Clock override to 50 Mhz and then I'm set?
> 
> I don't plan on always running Hydra in the background, so want to set it in BIOS and forget about it.


If you don’t want Hydra running then ignore it and it’s results completely. It lets you go far beyond what you can do in the UEFI, therefore it needs to run. Tend to have to tweak a lot from the point of diagnostics.


----------



## Luggage

metalshark said:


> If you don’t want Hydra running then ignore it and it’s results completely. It lets you go far beyond what you can do in the UEFI, therefore it needs to run. Tend to have to tweak a lot from the point of diagnostics.


I had to adjust 3 co values from diagnostics, that’s better than going from scratch.


----------



## Luggage

sakete said:


> Ok, so Hydra gave me the following results when running the diagnostic with default settings:
> 
> Final ranking of cores:
> by AMD (CPPC) | by real frequency
> C04 212 4850MHz | C04 4850MHz
> C03 212 4850MHz | C03 4850MHz
> C02 208 4825MHz | C01 4850MHz
> C07 203 4825MHz | C08 4825MHz
> C01 199 4850MHz | C07 4825MHz
> C05 194 4825MHz | C06 4825MHz
> C08 190 4825MHz | C05 4825MHz
> C06 185 4825MHz | C02 4825MHz
> C10 181 4700MHz | C10 4700MHz
> C12 176 4675MHz | C12 4675MHz
> C15 172 4650MHz | C11 4675MHz
> C09 167 4650MHz | C15 4650MHz
> C16 163 4625MHz | C14 4650MHz
> C11 158 4675MHz | C09 4650MHz
> C14 154 4650MHz | C16 4625MHz
> C13 149 4625MHz | C13 4625MHz
> 
> CURVE OPTIMIZER values for BIOS
> (If you do not plan to use HYDRA)
> C01 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C02 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C03 SAFE CO: -19 MID CO: -23 FAST CO: -29
> C04 SAFE CO: -12 MID CO: -15 FAST CO: -18
> C05 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C06 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C07 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C08 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C09 SAFE CO: -29 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C10 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C11 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C12 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C13 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C14 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C15 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C16 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> 
> 
> Min CPU Boost Clock Override: 50MHz
> 
> So do I just dial-in the SAFE values (I value stability over utmost performance) and call it a day? And then turn on PBO, set scalar to 2x, Boost Clock override to 50 Mhz and then I'm set?
> 
> I don't plan on always running Hydra in the background, so want to set it in BIOS and forget about it.


Go with safe yes but… that’s a lot of -30, not quite sure I’d believe that.
And low clocks.

Edit: scalar x2??? No - auto or x1.
If anything else might as well go x10 because you know why.

as comparison



http://imgur.com/c2IsE4l


----------



## metalshark

Luggage said:


> I had to adjust 3 co values from diagnostics, that’s better than going from scratch.


Cool and that may be the case here, but the disparity between that first and second CCX (especially how bad that secondary CCX is looking from the results) would assume they're gonna need to be playing a lot with voltage offsets to get it working nicely using the UEFI alone.


----------



## Luggage

metalshark said:


> Cool and that may be the case here, but the disparity between that first and second CCX (especially how bad that secondary CCX is looking from the results) would assume they're gonna need to be playing a lot with voltage offsets to get it working nicely using the UEFI alone.


What - why would he run offset to get a nice “ stable over performance “ curve?
Set curve, check stability be happy.
It’s not gonna be
Worse than no curve.


----------



## metalshark

Luggage said:


> What - why would he run offset to get a nice “ stable over performance “ curve?
> Set curve, check stability be happy.
> It’s not gonna be
> Worse than no curve.


They'll likely be stable sure. But there's a 200MHz disparity between CCXs. That normally requires setting a voltage offset on the entire CPU (for both CCXs) to overcome at which point the CO values require changing. By overcome I mean to get max performance, settling for less is an option.


----------



## polyh3dron

zzztopzzz said:


> I have a question for you ASUS X570 ROG Crosshair VIII Hero bunch. I'm wondering if any of you are using 64GB in a 4 x 16 configuration? If so, have you had any problems with 3600 RAM OC'ing around 4000 (give or take)? This may be my next board, as my ASRock Tiachi x570 may not be up to the task and I'm having some issues getting my set of GSkill F4-3600C13Q-64GTZR RAM up and running as I would like it. I am working on it though, with a little help from ASRock tech support. It's not that it doesn't run, but am having some OC problems from within the BIOS. Thanks in advance.


I'm running a Dark Hero with a 5950X and a 4x16GB RAM kit. Specifically, this kit: G.Skill Trident Z Neo F4-3600C14Q-64GTZN 14-15-15-35

It runs just fine at DOCP but I've not been able to do any kind of overclock with it so far, whether it be tightening timings, or bumping it up to 3800MHz with 1900MHz FCLK. My 5950X probably just has a relatively weak IMC.


----------



## Luggage

metalshark said:


> They'll likely be stable sure. But there's a 200MHz disparity between CCXs. That normally requires setting a voltage offset on the entire CPU (for both CCXs) to overcome at which point the CO values require changing. By overcome I mean to get max performance, settling for less is an option.


Just a q since i only have single ccx chip - do you by this mean trying to get boost "equaly high on booth" or actually maxing each ccx alone?


----------



## metalshark

Luggage said:


> Just a q since i only have single ccx chip - do you by this mean trying to get boost "equaly high on booth" or actually maxing each ccx alone?


You'll not get equal boosting on both with that disparity, but in this example you'll likely need to make the boosting of CCX1 worse to boost CCX2 better if using the UEFI only configuration and wanting 3-4T workloads and above to be good (with a 5950X I'd assume that'd be a goal). With Hydra (1.1A Pro and above at least) you can make the 4 boosting cores all be on CCX1 for instance to get best of both worlds and setup a different scale between the CCXs for AVX workloads.

Here though you'll likely need to up the voltage offset to get CCX2 behaving better for all core and 3-4T workloads, which will penalise the max performance you can get out of CCX1.


----------



## Luggage

metalshark said:


> You'll not get equal boosting on both with that disparity, but in this example you'll likely need to make the boosting of CCX1 worse to boost CCX2 better if using the UEFI only configuration and wanting 3-4T workloads and above to be good (with a 5950X I'd assume that'd be a goal). With Hydra (1.1A Pro and above at least) you can make the 4 boosting cores all be on CCX1 for instance to get best of both worlds and setup a different scale between the CCXs for AVX workloads.
> 
> Here though you'll likely need to up the voltage offset to get CCX2 behaving better for all core and 3-4T workloads, which will penalise the max performance you can get out of CCX1.


Ok because i never cared about 3-4T, far and enough trouble getting 1-2T and maxT optimal at the same time.


----------



## metalshark

Luggage said:


> Ok because i never cared about 3-4T, far and enough trouble getting 1-2T and maxT optimal at the same time.


That's fair enough. On a 5950X by default (e.g. without Hydra) at best it'll pick the fastest two cores from each CCX for 3-4T. So in this example it'll be 2x 4850MHz (it'll be higher but just for reference as it's relative) 1x 4700MHz and 1x 4675MHz even though they have 3 cores capable of 4850MHz and a further capable of 4825MHz.

With an offset (e.g. using only the UEFI and not Hydra) you'll likely be able to add 50-100MHz to CCX2 at the cost of 25-50MHz on CCX1 plus some additional heat.

In your defence on a single CCX processor, you've only got 2 cores prioritised for boosting (it's 2 per CCX so 4 on 5900X/5950X) making your methodology sound for your processor.


----------



## ChillyRide

polyh3dron said:


> I'm running a Dark Hero with a 5950X and a 4x16GB RAM kit. Specifically, this kit: G.Skill Trident Z Neo F4-3600C14Q-64GTZN 14-15-15-35
> 
> It runs just fine at DOCP but I've not been able to do any kind of overclock with it so far, whether it be tightening timings, or bumping it up to 3800MHz with 1900MHz FCLK. My 5950X probably just has a relatively weak IMC.


Set manually VTT voltage in Tweaker paradise. Its 1/2 of vDIMM. U will able 3733 for sure. Our all Crosshair range have some bugs with VTT voltage when 4 sticks of DR are in system.


----------



## sakete

metalshark said:


> That's fair enough. On a 5950X by default (e.g. without Hydra) at best it'll pick the fastest two cores from each CCX for 3-4T. So in this example it'll be 2x 4850MHz (it'll be higher but just for reference as it's relative) 1x 4700MHz and 1x 4675MHz even though they have 3 cores capable of 4850MHz and a further capable of 4825MHz.
> 
> With an offset (e.g. using only the UEFI and not Hydra) you'll likely be able to add 50-100MHz to CCX2 at the cost of 25-50MHz on CCX1 plus some additional heat.
> 
> In your defence on a single CCX processor, you've only got 2 cores prioritised for boosting (it's 2 per CCX so 4 on 5900X/5950X) making your methodology sound for your processor.


OK cool. So there's no way to do a per ccx voltage offset? And how high should I be thinking for this voltage offset, as a starting point? 

It did say in the diagnostic that ccx1 is gold and ccx2 is bronze. Wonder if I should swap It, at the risk of getting an even worse sample.

Otherwise I don't care too much about the absolute max performance, just want better than default and stability. And I do play games quite a bit, so perhaps the current setup with 1T workloads getting better boost in CCX 1 is best anyway. 

What do you recommend for tweaking the power limits in uefi?


----------



## Luggage

sakete said:


> OK cool. So there's no way to do a per ccx voltage offset? And how high should I be thinking for this voltage offset, as a starting point?
> 
> It did say in the diagnostic that ccx1 is gold and ccx2 is bronze. Wonder if I should swap It, at the risk of getting an even worse sample.
> 
> Otherwise I don't care too much about the absolute max performance, just want better than default and stability. And I do play games quite a bit, so perhaps the current setup with 1T workloads getting better boost in CCX 1 is best anyway.
> 
> What do you recommend for tweaking the power limits in uefi?


Bench with your actual workload/game.

Cpu-z and ST loves low limits.
CB want a bit of ppt.
Y-cruncher/blender wants more of everything.


----------



## metalshark

sakete said:


> OK cool. So there's no way to do a per ccx voltage offset? And how high should I be thinking for this voltage offset, as a starting point?
> 
> It did say in the diagnostic that ccx1 is gold and ccx2 is bronze. Wonder if I should swap It, at the risk of getting an even worse sample.
> 
> Otherwise I don't care too much about the absolute max performance, just want better than default and stability.
> 
> What do you recommend for tweaking the power limits in uefi?


Cool, no per-CCX offset and for max stability would leave the offset alone and only touch the CO values. I've not seen a secondary CCX that low before on a 5950X so if you're in a position to swap then would do it personally. For an easy life with some nice performance something like 200A EDC, 170A TDC and 250W PPT on water should be nice and gentle.

If pushing a bit more 250A EDC, 210A TDC and 270W PPT, however depending on your CO values and cooling you may start getting negative returns due to the EDC increasing.

If you've got great cooling then 305A EDC, 235A TDC and 310W PPT. Beyond that, you'll need a Dark Hero/Extreme board or Hydra to get the benefit. Above 230A TDC you might get the thing where it craps out and fans go on max where you have to turn off/on at the PSU (most times you're ok up to 240A TDC but some have had it kick in below that), flicking the LN2 switch on the motherboard gives you access to 200% CPU Current Capability (instead of just 140% max).

However, for an easy life and nice performance 200A EDC, 170A TDC and 250W PPT is a great start for a 5950X and relatively easy to hit max stability.


----------



## sakete

metalshark said:


> Cool, no per-CCX offset and for max stability would leave the offset alone and only touch the CO values. I've not seen a secondary CCX that low before on a 5950X so if you're in a position to swap then would do it personally. For an easy life with some nice performance something like 200A EDC, 170A TDC and 250W PPT on water should be nice and gentle.
> 
> If pushing a bit more 250A EDC, 210A TDC and 270W PPT, however depending on your CO values and cooling you may start getting negative returns due to the EDC increasing.
> 
> If you've got great cooling then 305A EDC, 235A TDC and 310W PPT. Beyond that, you'll need a Dark Hero/Extreme board or Hydra to get the benefit. Above 230A TDC you might get the thing where it craps out and fans go on max where you have to turn off/on at the PSU (most times you're ok up to 240A TDC but some have had it kick in below that), flicking the LN2 switch on the motherboard gives you access to 200% CPU Current Capability (instead of just 140% max).
> 
> However, for an easy life and nice performance 200A EDC, 170A TDC and 250W PPT is a great start for a 5950X and relatively easy to hit max stability.


Alright, thanks. I'll try to swap it out today or tomorrow if such a discrepancy isn't common. My local micro center has a bunch in stock, so I'll go reserve one now. (I LOVE micro center) 

And I do have great cooling, custom water loop with an Optimus block and a 360 and 480 rad, so I can probably push it a bit more, though I probably won't as I don't like it when my office turns into a sauna  these water loops are ridiculously good at extracting heat and dumping it outside the case.


----------



## GRABibus

At CES in Las Vegas, it has been announced that only the 5800X will have its 3d Vcache version => 5800X3D.

so, no 5900X3D and no 5950X3D….


----------



## GRABibus

And AMD 7000 Raphaël Zen4, end 2022. - beginning 2023.


----------



## GRABibus

It seems that 5800x3D has already better performances than 5900X and would also be better than 12900k in some games.

if they would release 5900X3D and 5950X3D, they would have then so much higher performances than 12900K, that this would not give a so big chance to Zen4.

I am pretty sure Zen4 will overkill and rock 🤘


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

GRABibus said:


> if they would release 5900X3D and 5950X3D, they would have then so much higher performances than 12900K, that this would not give a so big chance to Zen4.


I don't think they would release since, the time they promised to release Zen 4 is a few months away, also the yields (successful) for a 3DVcache chip is low that is why they opted to use a single chiplet processor SKU such as the 5800X (8 core 16 thread) and probably they don't/won't have time to tune the "5900X3D and 5950X3D" parts since if they want to compete at a lower or same TDP , this is judging on how they come up with the 5800X3D, they lowered the boost clocks on it to maintain the same TDP (well, otherwise people with extreme cooling solutions would be bypassing this)


----------



## zzztopzzz

polyh3dron said:


> I'm running a Dark Hero with a 5950X and a 4x16GB RAM kit. Specifically, this kit: G.Skill Trident Z Neo F4-3600C14Q-64GTZN 14-15-15-35
> 
> It runs just fine at DOCP but I've not been able to do any kind of overclock with it so far, whether it be tightening timings, or bumping it up to 3800MHz with 1900MHz FCLK. My 5950X probably just has a relatively weak IMC.t the BIOS


That's the memory kit that I have. My Tiachi X570 only sees it as 2133. Tech support says to reset the BIOS and install one stick at a time; i.e. A2-B2, etc. If I can get it stable at 3600 I won't push it. If not, I'm going with the VIII Hero. Also, Asus tech said that the Dark version won't handle my memory kit F4-3600C14Q-64GTZN, as it's not on the their QVL I'm wondering why. Thanks for the reply.


----------



## polyh3dron

zzztopzzz said:


> That's the memory kit that I have. My Tiachi X570 only sees it as 2133. Tech support says to reset the BIOS and install one stick at a time; i.e. A2-B2, etc. If I can get it stable at 3600 I won't push it. If not, I'm going with the VIII Hero. Also, Asus tech said that the Dark version won't handle my memory kit F4-3600C14Q-64GTZN, as it's not on the their QVL I'm wondering why. Thanks for the reply.


The kit is not on the Dark Hero QVL but it definitely works, and was made specifically for Ryzen even. If you look at the QVL for this kit on the G.Skill end you'll see as much. This kit should work with any X570 mobo that isn't bottom-of-the-barrel, they just don't seem to list Asrock mobos for some reason. Asus really sucks at updating their QVLs and their driver lists. The reason it shows up on your machine at 2133 MHz is because you haven't activated XMP/DOCP. You'll need to do that in your BIOS, this process is the same for any RAM kit out there and is basically the first thing you should learn while configuring a PC you've built. I'm sorry to say, the techs you've spoken to from Asus and Asrock really have no clue and that frustrates me.


----------



## zzztopzzz

polyh3dron said:


> The kit is not on the Dark Hero QVL but it definitely works, and was made specifically for Ryzen even. If you look at the QVL for this kit on the G.Skill end you'll see as much. This kit should work with any X570 mobo that isn't bottom-of-the-barrel, they just don't seem to list Asrock mobos for some reason. Asus really sucks at updating their QVLs and their driver lists. The reason it shows up on your machine at 2133 MHz is because you haven't activated XMP/DOCP. You'll need to do that in your BIOS, this process is the same for any RAM kit out there and is basically the first thing you should learn while configuring a PC you've built. I'm sorry to say, the techs you've spoken to from Asus and Asrock really have no clue and that frustrates me.


Hi Poly,

XMP is enabled but it appears that you have to jump through some hoops when installing the RAM; i.e. I'll use their recommended procedure. If that fails, I already have the paperwork for an RMA. Their techies are saying that anything above 3200 they consider OC'ing, which is bs because of the way they advertise the Tiachi X570 and their own QVL. Well, this isn't my first rodeo with this type of thing and sooner or later I'll get to the bottom of it. Thanks again the reply.


----------



## hwanzi

metalshark said:


> To echo Grabibus when checking an individual core you’d do some long idle/low effort testing and some CoreCycler with different options (like y-Cruncher for max frequency. then Prime95 with and without AVX). OCCT is more for multicore (all cores at once) testing of low power usage (more than Cinebench but about half or less of the draw you can pull with Prime95).





Kelutrel said:


> I used OCCT a lot for tuning my pbo curves. You can create a custom test with it that boosts to max speed a single core for 20 seconds and then automatically repeats the process on all the cores one at a time. In like 10-20 minutes or so you can quickly get which core needs more or less offset starting from zero. But that test only provides a quick initial approximation of the stable pbo curves (that would take days in corecycle), and once you get stability with OCCT it is still needed to further refine the offsets running a night or two of corecycler. Also, I repeat, it is not the standard OCCT test, it has to be created manually through the configuration options.
> 
> The configuration I used was:
> 
> CPU test
> Data set: Large
> Mode: Extreme
> Load type: Variable
> Instructions set: SSE or Auto
> Threads: Advanced
> Then click on the Advanced Thread Settings button and in that page:
> 
> Unselect all Physical Cores but Core #0
> Virtual Cores: Physical Only,
> Core Cycle: Cycle Active Core every 20s,
> Swap Active/Inactive Cores: Disabled


after further testing im RMA my processor...thanks guys


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> At CES in Las Vegas, it has been announced that only the 5800X will have its 3d Vcache version => 5800X3D.
> 
> so, no 5900X3D and no 5950X3D….


...depending on the news source, there may be some room for interpretation. The only one they announced is the 5800X3D, but when asked 'didn't have to add anything'. If a 5800X3D is possible, then the same holds for 2x5800X3D = 5950X3D. 

...their primary target though is 12900K for sure re. gaming 'crown', so 5800X3D which also allows for a price competitive position makes plenty of sense to send in first...


----------



## Sleepycat

sakete said:


> OK cool. So there's no way to do a per ccx voltage offset? And how high should I be thinking for this voltage offset, as a starting point?


Zen3 doesn't really work this way. The voltage for both cores have to be the same, but the current draw per CCX can be different. So the power draw can be different for both. To do this, you essentially clock CCX2 lower and it will also naturally draw less power at those lower clocks compared to CCX1 at that same lower clock. CCX2's weakness is that they actually need more voltage and draw more power to hit higher clocks.



> It did say in the diagnostic that ccx1 is gold and ccx2 is bronze. Wonder if I should swap It, at the risk of getting an even worse sample.


No, no point swapping it as the gold, silver and bronze ratings are subjective and set by 1usmus. Having a bronze sample does not mean your CPU can't clock high. The actual clock results matter more than the gold/silver/bronze rating, which is just with regards to energy efficiency.



> Otherwise I don't care too much about the absolute max performance, just want better than default and stability. And I do play games quite a bit, so perhaps the current setup with 1T workloads getting better boost in CCX 1 is best anyway.


Hydra is good for lower power consumption and the ability to dynamically switch to different profiles to maintain stability, while still keeping 1T CCX1 clocks high.



> What do you recommend for tweaking the power limits in uefi?


Not much point doing this as Hydra overrides the UEFI power limits anyway when you set it in the program.


----------



## metalshark

Sleepycat said:


> Zen3 doesn't really work this way. The voltage for both cores have to be the same, but the current draw per CCX can be different. So the power draw can be different for both. To do this, you essentially clock CCX2 lower and it will also naturally draw less power at those lower clocks compared to CCX1 at that same lower clock. CCX2's weakness is that they actually need more voltage and draw more power to hit higher clocks.
> 
> 
> No, no point swapping it as the gold, silver and bronze ratings are subjective and set by 1usmus. Having a bronze sample does not mean your CPU can't clock high. The actual clock results matter more than the gold/silver/bronze rating, which is just with regards to energy efficiency.
> 
> 
> Hydra is good for lower power consumption and the ability to dynamically switch to different profiles to maintain stability, while still keeping 1T CCX1 clocks high.
> 
> 
> Not much point doing this as Hydra overrides the UEFI power limits anyway when you set it in the program.


FYI Hydra doesn’t override the power limits. It can back off when hitting lesser limits through the program, but it can’t go beyond the limits your set in the UEFI (this is observable behaviour).

The bronze, silver, gold does refer to the power efficiency. This isn’t reason enough to look at a swap at all (in fact setting different VRM options, which can lead to worse performance, can turn your bronze into platinum as it's only looking at vdroop for a given test). A 200Mhz discrepancy between CCXs with how poor that second CCX performs would, if possible and easy, cause me to want a swap. Otherwise it would be a “challenge”.


----------



## Nizzen

GRABibus said:


> It seems that 5800x3D has already better performances than 5900X and would also be better than 12900k in some games.
> 
> if they would release 5900X3D and 5950X3D, they would have then so much higher performances than 12900K, that this would not give a so big chance to Zen4.
> 
> I am pretty sure Zen4 will overkill and rock 🤘


I don't think there is one game, that 5800x3d will beat 12900k with tweaked fast memory on both plattforms. 
I hoped for 5950x3d, so no upgrade on my x570 plattform


----------



## Kelutrel

Nizzen said:


> I don't think there is one game, that 5800x3d will beat 12900k with tweaked fast memory on both plattforms.
> I hoped for 5950x3d, so no upgrade on my x570 plattform


I guess mmos with multiplayer raids or multiplayer fps games with lots of players in the same spot will get a very nice boost from the increased cache, better than what you can get from DDR5 alone. But this is just a guess and I am curious to see the final benchmarks.
I will also forget upgrading until they make a 5950X3D anyway.


----------



## metalshark

Kelutrel said:


> I guess mmos with multiplayer raids or multiplayer fps games with lots of players in the same spot will get a very nice boost from the increased cache, better than what you can get from DDR5 alone. But this is just a guess and I am curious to see the final benchmarks.
> I will also forget upgrading until they make a 5950X3D anyway.


Also going to be interesting (saddening?) to see the effects of Raptoreum mining where it's all about the CPU cache size and its effect on prices/supply/demand.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Nizzen said:


> I don't think there is one game, that 5800x3d will beat 12900k with tweaked fast memory on both plattforms.
> I hoped for 5950x3d, so no upgrade on my x570 plattform


Will you pay for my 5800x3d if i decide to buy one and prove you wrong ? 😇 🤣


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> until they make a 5950X3D anyway.


They won’t


----------



## GRABibus

Zen 4 !!!! 😛


----------



## Nizzen

GRABibus said:


> Zen 4 !!!! 😛


If you can't buy it, there is no need to use calories to think about it 
Waiting is boring...


----------



## GRABibus

Nizzen said:


> If you can't buy it, there is no need to use calories to think about it
> Waiting is boring...


Zen4 !! 
Sometimes waiting is so exciting, not only with women, also with CPU’s 😉


----------



## sakete

GRABibus said:


> Zen4 !!
> Sometimes waiting is so exciting, not only with women, also with CPU’s


Ha, at least with CPUs you know something will happen eventually. Women are a huge mystery that still haven't been deciphered to this day.


----------



## Outcasst

Hi all.

I'm just on the edge of stability at 1900 fclk with core cycler failing after about 12 hours consistently. When I go back to 1800 it does not fail, even after 20+ hours.

I get no WHEA errors, just the mentioned core instability.

Currently testing with PBO and Curve Optimiser OFF for now. I'll start messing with that as soon as I get the 1900 stable.

Are there any voltages I can tweak to try and get that last little bit of stability? I'm currently on all stock values everything auto apart from DRAM at 1.45v.


----------



## sakete

metalshark said:


> FYI Hydra doesn’t override the power limits. It can back off when hitting lesser limits through the program, but it can’t go beyond the limits your set in the UEFI (this is observable behaviour).
> 
> The bronze, silver, gold does refer to the power efficiency. This isn’t reason enough to look at a swap at all (in fact setting different VRM options, which can lead to worse performance, can turn your bronze into platinum as it's only looking at vdroop for a given test). A 200Mhz discrepancy between CCXs with how poor that second CCX performs would, if possible and easy, cause me to want a swap. Otherwise it would be a “challenge”.


Question for you. So I swapped out the 5950X for another one and have been trying to run Hydra twice now, but each time at Core 7 it aborts because temperature limit was reached (95.1) degrees and then says Phoenix deactivated.

08:37:50: Step: 37
CORE#7 BASE FREQ: 4725MHz REAL FREQ: 4825MHz
08:37:50: BACKUP#1: saving intermediate values...
08:37:59: Test#1
CORE#7 CO: 151 DELTA: 51 TEMPERATURE: 93°C
08:38:34: Stress test stopped.
Temperature limit reached! 95.1°
Phoenix deactivated!

Is there a way to continue the diagnostic without having to redo all the cores again where I'd still get an all-in recommendation at the end for CO values? And is there a setting I can tweak so it doesn't abort on Core 7?


----------



## metalshark

Outcasst said:


> Hi all.
> 
> I'm just on the edge of stability at 1900 fclk with core cycler failing after about 12 hours consistently. When I go back to 1800 it does not fail, even after 20+ hours.
> 
> I get no WHEA errors, just the mentioned core instability.
> 
> Currently testing with PBO and Curve Optimiser OFF for now. I'll start messing with that as soon as I get the 1900 stable.
> 
> Are there any voltages I can tweak to try and get that last little bit of stability? I'm currently on all stock values everything auto apart from DRAM at 1.45v.


Would suggest the minimums for the following would be (for 1900/3800 on a dual CCX processor):
vSoC 1.0625v
VDDG CCD 0.95v
VDDG IOD 1.05v
CLDO VDDP 0.88v
PLL 1.87v

With more luck at (but could be more than necessary):
vSoC 1.2v
CLDO VDDP 0.89v

With PBO + CO off though if you're not getting WHEAs would guess you'll break that stability record though.

Have you made sure it's not RAM issues with memtest86 for 4 passes (for thorough tRFC checking through fade tests) then following it up in Windows with Karhu, TM5 or similar (whichever Windows-based RAM checker you prefer)?

Not suggesting there's anything wrong with your RAM or that your RAM cannot hit 3800, but the timings may need tweaked for your processor, board or the positions of each stick (re-arranging sticks can produce different requirements for timings even if they're all from the same kit).


----------



## metalshark

sakete said:


> Question for you. So I swapped out the 5950X for another one and have been trying to run Hydra twice now, but each time at Core 7 it aborts because temperature limit was reached (95.1) degrees and then says Phoenix deactivated.
> 
> 08:37:50: Step: 37
> CORE#7 BASE FREQ: 4725MHz REAL FREQ: 4825MHz
> 08:37:50: BACKUP#1: saving intermediate values...
> 08:37:59: Test#1
> CORE#7 CO: 151 DELTA: 51 TEMPERATURE: 93°C
> 08:38:34: Stress test stopped.
> Temperature limit reached! 95.1°
> Phoenix deactivated!
> 
> Is there a way to continue the diagnostic without having to redo all the cores again where I'd still get an all-in recommendation at the end for CO values? And is there a setting I can tweak so it doesn't abort on Core 7?


You can (at least in 1.1A Pro) untick the cores in the diagnostics part you do not want to test leaving only the ones you want remaining. You'll want to adjust the UEFI PBO limits to avoid hitting excessive temps.


----------



## Luggage

metalshark said:


> You can (at least in 1.1A Pro) untick the cores in the diagnostics part you do not want to test leaving only the ones you want remaining. You'll want to adjust the UEFI PBO limits to avoid hitting excessive temps.


You run the diagnostics with auto limits I hope and not something higher or stupid like motherboard limits…


----------



## sakete

metalshark said:


> You can (at least in 1.1A Pro) untick the cores in the diagnostics part you do not want to test leaving only the ones you want remaining. You'll want to adjust the UEFI PBO limits to avoid hitting excessive temps.


Will adjusting the PPT/EDC/TDC limits in Hydra affect the limits for diagnostic testing?


----------



## metalshark

sakete said:


> Will adjusting the PPT/EDC/TDC limits in Hydra affect the limits for diagnostic testing?


If you hit a limit in Hydra it'll normally stop the diagnostics, like that temp limit.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

@metalshark would you suggest to use Hydra 1.1 PRO for better tweaking than the classic PBO+CO?


----------



## metalshark

DvL Ax3l said:


> @metalshark would you suggest to use Hydra 1.1 PRO for better tweaking than the classic PBO+CO?


With the exception of a 5600 or revision 2 processors (the new B revision ones) then most definitely. You’ve got so many more options, flexibility and therefore results. There is a bit of a learning curve and you end up having to tune a lot more following the diagnostics so be prepared for that (seems more automatic than it really is IMO for configuration).


----------



## Xipe

sakete said:


> Ok, so Hydra gave me the following results when running the diagnostic with default settings:
> 
> Final ranking of cores:
> by AMD (CPPC) | by real frequency
> C04 212 4850MHz | C04 4850MHz
> C03 212 4850MHz | C03 4850MHz
> C02 208 4825MHz | C01 4850MHz
> C07 203 4825MHz | C08 4825MHz
> C01 199 4850MHz | C07 4825MHz
> C05 194  4825MHz | C06 4825MHz
> C08 190 4825MHz | C05 4825MHz
> C06 185 4825MHz | C02 4825MHz
> C10 181 4700MHz | C10 4700MHz
> C12 176 4675MHz | C12 4675MHz
> C15 172 4650MHz | C11 4675MHz
> C09 167 4650MHz | C15 4650MHz
> C16 163 4625MHz | C14 4650MHz
> C11 158 4675MHz | C09 4650MHz
> C14 154 4650MHz | C16 4625MHz
> C13 149 4625MHz | C13 4625MHz
> 
> CURVE OPTIMIZER values for BIOS
> (If you do not plan to use HYDRA)
> C01 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C02 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C03 SAFE CO: -19 MID CO: -23 FAST CO: -29
> C04 SAFE CO: -12 MID CO: -15 FAST CO: -18
> C05 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C06 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C07 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C08 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C09 SAFE CO: -29 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C10 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C11 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C12 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C13 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C14 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C15 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C16 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> 
> 
> Min CPU Boost Clock Override: 50MHz
> 
> So do I just dial-in the SAFE values (I value stability over utmost performance) and call it a day? And then turn on PBO, set scalar to 2x, Boost Clock override to 50 Mhz and then I'm set?
> 
> I don't plan on always running Hydra in the background, so want to set it in BIOS and forget about it.


How get the CO values with hydra?


----------



## Luggage

Xipe said:


> How get the CO values with hydra?











Project Hydra - Short tutorial for newcomers | igor'sLAB


Disclaimer: The following article is machine translated from the original German, and has not been edited or checked for errors. Thank you for understanding!




www.igorslab.de


----------



## sakete

Xipe said:


> How get the CO values with hydra?


Just run the diagnostic tool at Normal voltages (selected in Hybrid OC tab). It will take a few hours. On the first 5950X I had it took about 6 hours to complete.

On this new 5950X I have (I swapped it out), it keeps failing at Core 7 due to overheating (goes above 95 C). Not sure yet how to deal with that, might need to reduce power limits in UEFI, or lower voltage or something.

I'll probably end up tweaking it the manual way, by lowering CO values by increments of 5, running stress tests, and see where I get instability.

Not sure if Core 7 always overheating during Hydra diagnostic is a bad sign though, and if I should swap it out again...


----------



## Luggage

sakete said:


> Just run the diagnostic tool at Normal voltages (selected in Hybrid OC tab). It will take a few hours. On the first 5950X I had it took about 6 hours to complete.
> 
> On this new 5950X I have (I swapped it out), it keeps failing at Core 7 due to overheating (goes above 95 C). Not sure yet how to deal with that, might need to reduce power limits in UEFI, or lower voltage or something.
> 
> I'll probably end up tweaking it the manual way, by lowering CO values by increments of 5, running stress tests, and see where I get instability.
> 
> Not sure if Core 7 always overheating during Hydra diagnostic is a bad sign though, and if I should swap it out again...


Overheating on a single core test at 1.3xxV , yea that sounds like a problem.


----------



## sakete

Luggage said:


> Overheating on a single core test at 1.3xxV , yea that sounds like a problem.


Yeah, it runs at 1.375V. I might have to give that core a positive offset in CO to keep it stable and to prevent it from overheating.


----------



## Xipe

sakete said:


> Just run the diagnostic tool at Normal voltages (selected in Hybrid OC tab). It will take a few hours. On the first 5950X I had it took about 6 hours to complete.
> 
> On this new 5950X I have (I swapped it out), it keeps failing at Core 7 due to overheating (goes above 95 C). Not sure yet how to deal with that, might need to reduce power limits in UEFI, or lower voltage or something.
> 
> I'll probably end up tweaking it the manual way, by lowering CO values by increments of 5, running stress tests, and see where I get instability.
> 
> Not sure if Core 7 always overheating during Hydra diagnostic is a bad sign though, and if I should swap it out again...


I do the hydra normal:
16:22:29: CO (CCD) test started!
Diagnostic VID: 1175mV
Diagnostic FFT: 1344


16:22:35: Step: 3
CCD#1 FREQ 4700MHz
CCD#2 FREQ 4500MHz
16:22:35: BACKUP#1: saving intermediate values...
16:22:38: Test#1
CORE#1 CO: -49 CORE#7 CO: -57
CORE#2 CO: -37 CORE#8 CO: -46
CORE#3 CO: -27 CORE#9 CO: -38
CORE#4 CO: -5 CORE#10 CO: 9
CORE#5 CO: -20 CORE#11 CO: -39
CORE#6 CO: -17 CORE#12 CO: -11
SVI2: 1163mV
16:23:42: BACKUP#2: saving intermediate values...
16:23:45: Test#2
16:24:49: BACKUP#1: saving intermediate values...
16:24:49: BACKUP#2: saving intermediate values...
CCD quality evaluation has been successfully completed!




Results CCD testing
CORE#1 CO: -49 CORE#7 CO: -57
CORE#2 CO: -37 CORE#8 CO: -46
CORE#3 CO: -27 CORE#9 CO: -38
CORE#4 CO: -5 CORE#10 CO: 9
CORE#5 CO: -20 CORE#11 CO: -39
CORE#6 CO: -17 CORE#12 CO: -11
Energy Efficiency CCD#1 4.04 | GOLDEN sample
Energy Efficiency CCD#2 3.87 | BRONZE sample


But CO are very rare... -49? -37?


----------



## Xipe

I dont understand this... How i configure the hydra? i see the manual but i am confused


----------



## sakete

Xipe said:


> I do the hydra normal:
> 16:22:29: CO (CCD) test started!
> Diagnostic VID: 1175mV
> Diagnostic FFT: 1344
> 
> 
> 16:22:35: Step: 3
> CCD#1 FREQ 4700MHz
> CCD#2 FREQ 4500MHz
> 16:22:35: BACKUP#1: saving intermediate values...
> 16:22:38: Test#1
> CORE#1 CO: -49 CORE#7 CO: -57
> CORE#2 CO: -37 CORE#8 CO: -46
> CORE#3 CO: -27 CORE#9 CO: -38
> CORE#4 CO: -5 CORE#10 CO: 9
> CORE#5 CO: -20 CORE#11 CO: -39
> CORE#6 CO: -17 CORE#12 CO: -11
> SVI2: 1163mV
> 16:23:42: BACKUP#2: saving intermediate values...
> 16:23:45: Test#2
> 16:24:49: BACKUP#1: saving intermediate values...
> 16:24:49: BACKUP#2: saving intermediate values...
> CCD quality evaluation has been successfully completed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Results CCD testing
> CORE#1 CO: -49 CORE#7 CO: -57
> CORE#2 CO: -37 CORE#8 CO: -46
> CORE#3 CO: -27 CORE#9 CO: -38
> CORE#4 CO: -5 CORE#10 CO: 9
> CORE#5 CO: -20 CORE#11 CO: -39
> CORE#6 CO: -17 CORE#12 CO: -11
> Energy Efficiency CCD#1 4.04 | GOLDEN sample
> Energy Efficiency CCD#2 3.87 | BRONZE sample
> 
> 
> But CO are very rare... -49? -37?


Ignore those values for now. When it's done running diagnostic on all cores (and it might reboot several times during this process, just make sure to start the program each time with admin privileges), it'll return the CO values you can actually use in UEFI. And then go for the safe values.


----------



## Syldon

Is there a better test for memory stability over Karhu ?

I keep getting blue screens with games that run online. I think I have it nailed down to memory. I have ran a ton of single test runs.
Heaven 4.0 for an hour
Karhu @ 4000%
Cinebench R23 10 loops
Aida 64 everything running 20 minutes
Running benches singularly I get no issues. I have no hot spots or strange voltage drop offs.

I finally found a way to replicate it by running heaven 4.0 in two windows (2 versions of 2560x1440). I ran for 10 minutes no issues. I added in Karhu and blue screened before I hit 30%. I think this proves that the memory is playing up when used with other devices. The memory is 5 years old now, so not surprising. I bought this with an 1800X.

I have swore by karhu, and yet it looks like I have a major memory problem that Karhu cannot detect.


----------



## escoltajuverf

Syldon said:


> Is there a better test for memory stability over Karhu ?
> 
> I keep getting blue screens with games that run online. I think I have it nailed down to memory. I have ran a ton of single test runs.
> Heaven 4.0 for an hour
> Karhu @ 4000%
> Cinebench R23 10 loops
> Aida 64 everything running 20 minutes
> Running benches singularly I get no issues. I have no hot spots or strange voltage drop offs.
> 
> I finally found a way to replicate it by running heaven 4.0 in two windows (2 versions of 2560x1440). I ran for 10 minutes no issues. I added in Karhu and blue screened before I hit 30%. I think this proves that the memory is playing up when used with other devices. The memory is 5 years old now, so not surprising. I bought this with an 1800X.
> 
> I have swore by karhu, and yet it looks like I have a major memory problem that Karhu cannot detect.


increase case airflow, memory tend to throw errors when getting hot, and memory testers cannot reliably replicate a condition where both cpu and gpu is pumping heat inside the case


----------



## metalshark

Syldon said:


> Is there a better test for memory stability over Karhu ?
> 
> I keep getting blue screens with games that run online. I think I have it nailed down to memory. I have ran a ton of single test runs.
> Heaven 4.0 for an hour
> Karhu @ 4000%
> Cinebench R23 10 loops
> Aida 64 everything running 20 minutes
> Running benches singularly I get no issues. I have no hot spots or strange voltage drop offs.
> 
> I finally found a way to replicate it by running heaven 4.0 in two windows (2 versions of 2560x1440). I ran for 10 minutes no issues. I added in Karhu and blue screened before I hit 30%. I think this proves that the memory is playing up when used with other devices. The memory is 5 years old now, so not surprising. I bought this with an 1800X.
> 
> I have swore by karhu, and yet it looks like I have a major memory problem that Karhu cannot detect.


memtest86 the bootable memory tester is great for certain tests and prevents having to boot into Windows. The fade tests for instance (for getting to the bottom of tRFC issues). Thereafter TM5 with a custom profile, Karhu, etc are pretty much of a muchness (not had it where one is better than another, but have had it where why outright miss what memtest86 finds). Please note while memtest86 will heat up the RAM modules a lot, the Windows tests seem to really push the IMC on the processor more, so you need both types for full coverage.


----------



## metalshark

Xipe said:


> I dont understand this... How i configure the hydra? i see the manual but i am confused


That’s a huge topic. Would personally (e.g. ask around the 1usmus Discord and others will have their favourite way of tuning the settings) go to profiles and click the one most relevant for your available cooling to load the default voltages in. Then run CoreCycler on y-Cruncher using the 00-x86 profile (default) and short test time (like 10 seconds) increasing the LT CO values by 10 for the whole processor making a note each time, then start backing off each core as it hits the limit (you’re looking out for reboots, WHEAs or y-Cruncher dying). Once it’s as high as you can go without any cores dying increase the length of the test, leave overnight, then follow up the next day with Prime95 per core in CoreCycler.

Next up do the same for the MT CO values running Prime95 all core on large FFTs, once dialled in follow up with CineBench (looping) and Prime95 small, smallest and custom 128k both in AVX and non-AVX.

Now you’ve got the CO values go back to the CoreCycler 00-x86 and start messing with the voltage for 1-2T. Increase it by 5mV until none of the cores are boosting any higher, you really want to kill all background tasks to make sure you’re seeing the ultimate high values. Then drop back to make it as low as you can can with every core still boosting to its highest value. Next up do Prime95 all core but use processor lasso to start targeting random groups of 2 cores, where that mV for 1-2T may need increased a slight bit to get them both boosting as high as possible. Then move onto 3-4T and hone in the voltage the same way (but using random groups of 4 cores), repeat for each profile above that.

Then when you get to AVX2 all core workloads would tune using CineBench and verify with Prime95 large. For FMA3 would tune with Prime95 small, smallest and 128k, then verify with y-Cruncher (s few real torture ones here).

Personally set the game profile to use 1-2T voltage and turn off the use MT CO table for games but YMMV.

Finally do long idle testing for reboots (leave it on doing nothing, casual web browsing, but of YouTube, etc) and tweak the idle voltage and if you need C6 states disabled (if you need a lot of idle voltage is if enabling/disabling C6 lets you to use less power keeping it stable at idle instead, etc).

An alternative to all of the above is to tune the diagnostic settings for your system and get it to do it automatically, by YMMV and I tend to get non-optimal results that way.

You want your UEFI really honed prior to either method. You’ll also not want to artificially limit your PBO like your would with traditional PBO+CO overclocking, this is a different beast and for a lot of workloads you’ll be seeing a lot more performance out of your CPU. Just keep to the actual limits your cooling and VRMs can achieve instead. Think of the limits you set in Hydra as when it stops overclocking, so safety limits. What you set in UEFI are the real limitations, Hydra just stops doing what it’s doing if you hit a Hydra limit. By default the limits in Hydra are conservative in some places.


----------



## Syldon

metalshark said:


> memtest86 the bootable memory tester is great for certain tests and prevents having to boot into Windows. The fade tests for instance (for getting to the bottom of tRFC issues). Thereafter TM5 with a custom profile, Karhu, etc are pretty much of a muchness (not had it where one is better than another, but have had it where why outright miss what memtest86 finds). Please note while memtest86 will heat up the RAM modules a lot, the Windows tests seem to really push the IMC on the processor more, so you need both types for full coverage.


Memtest86 in early Ryzen days was considered really bad. I know I had some gawd awful timings that passed memtest86. As I started to learn a lot more, HCImemtest became the defacto standard on this forum. 

Since I have an unusual problem, it makes sense to hunt down better software that will show it up. I will try memtest as well as hcimemtest. I will post back if I get a failure pointed out with them. I also should be getting a meter out, and checking if the probelt points are showing a drop off. The memory is only showing an issue when power is being used up. specifically by the GPU.

Cheers for the response.


----------



## metalshark

Syldon said:


> Memtest86 in early Ryzen days was considered really bad. I know I had some gawd awful timings that passed memtest86. As I started to learn a lot more, HCImemtest became the defacto standard on this forum.
> 
> Since I have an unusual problem, it makes sense to hunt down better software that will show it up. I will try memtest as well as hcimemtest. I will post back if I get a failure pointed out with them. I also should be getting a meter out, and checking if the probelt points are showing a drop off. The memory is only showing an issue when power is being used up. specifically by the GPU.
> 
> Cheers for the response.


Would use both memtest86 to test the sticks themselves, get them up to max temps and be able to do proper fade tests. Then you also need a Windows based one for the IMC testing (memtest86 doesn't really max out the IMC, it focuses on punishing the sticks themselves).

It's not really an either/or it's a case of both - also always safest using memtest86 first before going into Windows. YMMV but the Windows ones (at least TM5/Karhu) seem to both pass or both fail, but people have preferences which is cool for the Windows ones (just not personally seen one do better than another) but have seen all Windows ones miss unstable tRFC due to lesser fade tests or not cook the modules as much as memtest86, in the same way memtest86 seems to completely miss an overstressed IMC.


----------



## sakete

Anyone else think it's potentially problematic that one of the cores on CCD1 keeps overheating during Hydra diagnostic test (the test always fails because that core hits 95 C).

Debating if I should swap the 5950X again if it could be a bad one. Hope Micro Center doesn't ban me


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

sakete said:


> Anyone else think it's potentially problematic that one of the cores on CCD1 keeps overheating during Hydra diagnostic test (the test always fails because that core hits 95 C).
> 
> Debating if I should swap the 5950X again if it could be a bad one. Hope Micro Center doesn't ban me


95c seems kinda hot for a watercooled system..I'm water cooled (5900X as well) but I am only maxing around 73-75c on OCCT (SSE or AVX stress test)


----------



## sakete

kairi_zeroblade said:


> 95c seems kinda hot for a watercooled system..I'm water cooled (5900X as well) but I am only maxing around 73-75c on OCCT (SSE or AVX stress test)


Yeah, it's only Core 7 that hits 95. All the other cores on CCD1 hit mid to upper 80s when running single core stress tests. Though Core 8 hits about 90.

I think core 7 and 8 are the ones they'd disable and put on a 5900X if they weren't good. I wonder if this die barely passed their tests


----------



## Luggage

kairi_zeroblade said:


> 95c seems kinda hot for a watercooled system..I'm water cooled (5900X as well) but I am only maxing around 73-75c on OCCT (SSE or AVX stress test)
> [/QUOTE
> 
> 
> sakete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else think it's potentially problematic that one of the cores on CCD1 keeps overheating during Hydra diagnostic test (the test always fails because that core hits 95 C).
> 
> Debating if I should swap the 5950X again if it could be a bad one. Hope Micro Center doesn't ban me
Click to expand...

What part of the diagnostics?
Because if it's during the testing of each core individually I'd say it's a very big problem with the chip or the cooling.
If it's during the all core tests in the end that's another matter...


----------



## sakete

Luggage said:


> What part of the diagnostics?
> Because if it's during the testing of each core individually I'd say it's a very big problem with the chip or the cooling.
> If it's during the all core tests in the end that's another matter...


It's during single core stress tests when running the diagnostic. And I'm pretty sure it's not my cooling, the waterblock has a tight fit on the CPU. And it's really only Core 7 that hits 95, all the other cores don't get quite that high.


----------



## Luggage

sakete said:


> Yeah, it's only Core 7 that hits 95. All the other cores on CCD1 hit mid to upper 80s when running single core stress tests. Though Core 8 hits about 90.
> 
> I think core 7 and 8 are the ones they'd disable and put on a 5900X if they weren't good. I wonder if this die barely passed their tests


They disable any 2 cores that fail, the numbers get re-arranged...


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

sakete said:


> Yeah, it's only Core 7 that hits 95. All the other cores on CCD1 hit mid to upper 80s when running single core stress tests. Though Core 8 hits about 90.


did you check for mounting pressure issues?? that is really strange territory for temps..


----------



## metalshark

sakete said:


> Anyone else think it's potentially problematic that one of the cores on CCD1 keeps overheating during Hydra diagnostic test (the test always fails because that core hits 95 C).
> 
> Debating if I should swap the 5950X again if it could be a bad one. Hope Micro Center doesn't ban me


What are the PBO limits configured? You might need to drop EDC in the UEFI. You are using liquid metal with your Optimus PC block?


----------



## sakete

kairi_zeroblade said:


> did you check for mounting pressure issues?? that is really strange territory for temps..


I somehow doubt that with just one core overheating it's due to mounting pressure inconsistency, but I'll double-check to be sure.


----------



## sakete

metalshark said:


> What are the PBO limits configured? You might need to drop EDC in the UEFI. You are using liquid metal with your Optimus PC block?


Using the Motherboard setting in the UEFI. And just using Kingpin KPx.


----------



## Luggage

sakete said:


> Using the Motherboard setting in the UEFI. And just using Kingpin KPx.


Don’t use motherboard limits, set manual/auto/auto/auto.



> First the BIOS settings (BIOS should be up to date):
> 
> Ram overclocking is no problem as long as it runs stable
> CPU Core Voltage – AUTO
> LoadLine Callibration – AUTO (The manual says LLC3 for Asus boards – but most boards will give better results with LLC set to Auto)
> CPU Multiplier – AUTO
> (The manual says disable, but this is the latest trend, has given many another performance boost)
> PBO – Advanced
> PBO Limits – AUTO
> Precidion Boost Overdrive Scalar – AUTO
> Curve Optimizer – Set to 0 (Partly the values are used even with deactivated PBO – BIOS Bug … well )
> Boost Clock Override – 0


----------



## metalshark

sakete said:


> Using the Motherboard setting in the UEFI. And just using Kingpin KPx.


From memory I think that’s 205A EDC (don’t quote me on that) which should really be fine. 13.8w/mk should be more than fine for thermal transfer too (although normally with a high end block like that you’d tend to pair it with 70w/mk+ thermal transfer). You can set manual limits and drop it down from 205A EDC (double check what it’s actually on as my memory isn’t infallible here for ASUS’s “motherboard limits” which are often far exceeded). Wouldn’t consider trading in due to heat produced as with tuning it might be better than one with lower heat producing cores.


----------



## sakete

metalshark said:


> From memory I think that’s 205A EDC (don’t quote me on that) which should really be fine. 13.8w/mk should be more than fine for thermal transfer too (although normally with a high end block like that you’d tend to pair it with 70w/mk+ thermal transfer). You can set manual limits and drop it down from 205A EDC (double check what it’s actually on as my memory isn’t infallible here for ASUS’s “motherboard limits” which are often far exceeded). Wouldn’t consider trading in due to heat produced as with tuning it might be better than one with lower heat producing cores.


When I disable power limits in UEFI, and run Ryzen Master (I read somewhere that's a good way to find default values for your CPU), I get 395/200/255 for PPT/EDC/TDC, so I'll enter those values in manual power limit settings, and will retest. I also slightly reseated the block. Will see how Core 7 does now.

If it still overheats (it always does when it starts testing at 4825MHz clock), I think I'll swap it out for a new one. Hopefully third time is the charm.


----------



## sakete

So yeah, it overheated again. This time it actually crashed, rebooted, and in POST it had a message that CPU overheated and to enter setup to change settings. I think it's a dud, and it's going back.

This is the log:

*HYDRA 1.0F by 1usmus*
01/08/2022 09:21:17
Microsoft Windows NT 6.2.9200.0
AMD Ryzen 9 5950X 16-Core Processor
ASUS ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA
BIOS ver. 3904 SMU ver. 56.65.00
TABLE ver. 3672069
DRAM speed 3600 MHz


Phoenix ready!


09:21:52: CO (CORE) test started!
Diagnostic VID: 1375mV
Diagnostic FFT: 84


09:21:56: Step: 1
CORE#7 BASE FREQ: 4725MHz REAL FREQ: 4725MHz
09:21:56: BACKUP#1: saving intermediate values...
09:22:05: Test#1
CORE#7 CO: -16 DELTA: 3 TEMPERATURE: 88°C
09:22:46: BACKUP#2: saving intermediate values...
09:22:57: Test#2
09:23:38: BACKUP#3: saving intermediate values...
09:23:49: Test#3
09:24:30: BACKUP#1: saving intermediate values...
09:24:30: BACKUP#2: saving intermediate values...
09:24:30: BACKUP#3: saving intermediate values...


09:24:35: Step: 2
CORE#7 BASE FREQ: 4725MHz REAL FREQ: 4750MHz
09:24:35: BACKUP#1: saving intermediate values...
09:24:44: Test#1
CORE#7 CO: 17 DELTA: 33 TEMPERATURE: 89°C
09:25:25: BACKUP#2: saving intermediate values...
09:25:36: Test#2
09:26:17: BACKUP#3: saving intermediate values...
09:26:28: Test#3
09:27:09: BACKUP#1: saving intermediate values...
09:27:09: BACKUP#2: saving intermediate values...
09:27:09: BACKUP#3: saving intermediate values...


09:27:14: Step: 3
CORE#7 BASE FREQ: 4725MHz REAL FREQ: 4775MHz
09:27:14: BACKUP#1: saving intermediate values...
09:27:23: Test#1
CORE#7 CO: 55 DELTA: 38 TEMPERATURE: 91°C
09:28:04: BACKUP#2: saving intermediate values...
09:28:15: Test#2
09:28:56: BACKUP#3: saving intermediate values...
09:29:07: Test#3
09:29:48: BACKUP#1: saving intermediate values...
09:29:48: BACKUP#2: saving intermediate values...
09:29:48: BACKUP#3: saving intermediate values...


09:29:53: Step: 4
CORE#7 BASE FREQ: 4725MHz REAL FREQ: 4800MHz
09:29:53: BACKUP#1: saving intermediate values...
09:30:02: Test#1
CORE#7 CO: 109 DELTA: 54 TEMPERATURE: 92°C
09:30:43: BACKUP#2: saving intermediate values...
09:30:54: Test#2
09:31:35: BACKUP#3: saving intermediate values...
09:31:46: Test#3
09:32:27: BACKUP#1: saving intermediate values...
09:32:27: BACKUP#2: saving intermediate values...
09:32:27: BACKUP#3: saving intermediate values...


09:32:32: Step: 5
CORE#7 BASE FREQ: 4725MHz REAL FREQ: 4825MHz
09:32:32: BACKUP#1: saving intermediate values...
09:32:41: Test#1
CORE#7 CO: 135 DELTA: 26 TEMPERATURE: 91°C
09:33:22: BACKUP#2: saving intermediate values...
09:33:33: Test#2
09:34:14: BACKUP#3: saving intermediate values...
09:34:25: Test#3
09:35:06: BACKUP#1: saving intermediate values...
09:35:06: BACKUP#2: saving intermediate values...
09:35:06: BACKUP#3: saving intermediate values...


09:35:11: Step: 6
CORE#7 BASE FREQ: 4725MHz REAL FREQ: 4850MHz
09:35:11: BACKUP#1: saving intermediate values...

.... here is where it crashed.


----------



## metalshark

sakete said:


> When I disable power limits in UEFI, and run Ryzen Master (I read somewhere that's a good way to find default values for your CPU), I get 395/200/255 for PPT/EDC/TDC, so I'll enter those values in manual power limit settings, and will retest. I also slightly reseated the block. Will see how Core 7 does now.
> 
> If it still overheats (it always does when it starts testing at 4825MHz clock), I think I'll swap it out for a new one. Hopefully third time is the charm.


OK - 95’C at 4825MHz. You’ve got a point 😂


----------



## Luggage

sakete said:


> When I disable power limits in UEFI, and run Ryzen Master (I read somewhere that's a good way to find default values for your CPU), I get 395/200/255 for PPT/EDC/TDC, so I'll enter those values in manual power limit settings, and will retest. I also slightly reseated the block. Will see how Core 7 does now.
> 
> If it still overheats (it always does when it starts testing at 4825MHz clock), I think I'll swap it out for a new one. Hopefully third time is the charm.


Nooo - don’t use those high settings while running diagnostics!!! Set it to auto.
That should start it at 142-95-140 if you check with ryzen master… look at my quote from my link.


----------



## Outcasst

Using these settings kills my all-core clocks


----------



## sakete

Well I swapped out the CPU and am running diagnostic now. Looking promising as core 1 temps is in the 70s, whereas prior chip it was in the 80s. I think I just had a bad sample.

All UEFI settings on auto now with PBO enabled.


----------



## Luggage

Outcasst said:


> I've successfully ran the Hydra diagnostic, are these values really correct? Positive offsets?
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> CURVE OPTIMIZER values for BIOS
> (If you do not plan to use HYDRA)
> C01    SAFE CO: -10    MID CO: -12    FAST CO: -15
> C02    SAFE CO: -13    MID CO: -16    FAST CO: -20
> C03    SAFE CO: 7    MID CO: 9    FAST CO: 11
> C04    SAFE CO: 6    MID CO: 7    FAST CO: 9
> C05    SAFE CO: -10    MID CO: -12    FAST CO: -16
> C06    SAFE CO: -30    MID CO: -30    FAST CO: -30
> C07    SAFE CO: -28    MID CO: -30    FAST CO: -30
> C08    SAFE CO: -12    MID CO: -15    FAST CO: -19
> C09    SAFE CO: -23    MID CO: -28    FAST CO: -30
> C10    SAFE CO: -28    MID CO: -30    FAST CO: -30
> C11    SAFE CO: -22    MID CO: -26    FAST CO: -30
> C12    SAFE CO: -3    MID CO: -4    FAST CO: -5
> 
> Using these settings kills my all-core clocks


How’s the rankings?


http://imgur.com/c2IsE4l


----------



## Outcasst

Interesting.


----------



## metalshark

Outcasst said:


> I've successfully ran the Hydra diagnostic, are these values really correct? Positive offsets?
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> CURVE OPTIMIZER values for BIOS
> (If you do not plan to use HYDRA)
> C01    SAFE CO: -10    MID CO: -12    FAST CO: -15
> C02    SAFE CO: -13    MID CO: -16    FAST CO: -20
> C03    SAFE CO: 7    MID CO: 9    FAST CO: 11
> C04    SAFE CO: 6    MID CO: 7    FAST CO: 9
> C05    SAFE CO: -10    MID CO: -12    FAST CO: -16
> C06    SAFE CO: -30    MID CO: -30    FAST CO: -30
> C07    SAFE CO: -28    MID CO: -30    FAST CO: -30
> C08    SAFE CO: -12    MID CO: -15    FAST CO: -19
> C09    SAFE CO: -23    MID CO: -28    FAST CO: -30
> C10    SAFE CO: -28    MID CO: -30    FAST CO: -30
> C11    SAFE CO: -22    MID CO: -26    FAST CO: -30
> C12    SAFE CO: -3    MID CO: -4    FAST CO: -5
> 
> Using these settings kills my all-core clocks


Really wouldn't use Hydra to generate values to put into the UEFI, but YMMV.


----------



## Luggage

Outcasst said:


> This is in my log:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Final ranking of cores:
> by AMD (CPPC)       | by real frequency
> C04   174   4725MHz   |   C10   4800MHz
> C03   174   4750MHz   |   C09   4800MHz
> C05   170   4750MHz   |   C07   4800MHz
> C02   166   4775MHz   |   C06   4800MHz
> C01   162   4725MHz   |   C11   4775MHz
> C06   158   4800MHz   |   C08   4775MHz
> C12   154   4700MHz   |   C02   4775MHz
> C08   150   4775MHz   |   C05   4750MHz
> C09   145   4800MHz   |   C03   4750MHz
> C11   141   4775MHz   |   C04   4725MHz
> C07   137   4800MHz   |   C01   4725MHz
> C10   133   4800MHz   |   C12   4700MHz
> 
> 
> Unreceived frequency due to incorrect CPPC tags
> 1T   75MHz
> 2T   75MHz
> 3T   75MHz
> 4T   75MHz
> 5T   50MHz
> 6T   50MHz
> 7T   75MHz
> 8T   50MHz
> 9T   50MHz
> 10T   25MHz
> 11T   25MHz
> 12T   0MHz
> 
> 
> CURVE OPTIMIZER values for BIOS
> (If you do not plan to use HYDRA)
> C01    SAFE CO: -10    MID CO: -12    FAST CO: -15
> C02    SAFE CO: -13    MID CO: -16    FAST CO: -20
> C03    SAFE CO: 7    MID CO: 9    FAST CO: 11
> C04    SAFE CO: 6    MID CO: 7    FAST CO: 9
> C05    SAFE CO: -10    MID CO: -12    FAST CO: -16
> C06    SAFE CO: -30    MID CO: -30    FAST CO: -30
> C07    SAFE CO: -28    MID CO: -30    FAST CO: -30
> C08    SAFE CO: -12    MID CO: -15    FAST CO: -19
> C09    SAFE CO: -23    MID CO: -28    FAST CO: -30
> C10    SAFE CO: -28    MID CO: -30    FAST CO: -30
> C11    SAFE CO: -22    MID CO: -26    FAST CO: -30
> C12    SAFE CO: -3    MID CO: -4    FAST CO: -5
> 
> Min CPU Boost Clock Override: -25MHz


 Looking at how the numbers change from safe to fast I feel like the minus sign is missing. If it was really positive values safe would be higher than fast?


----------



## Outcasst

Luggage said:


> Looking at how the numbers change from safe to fast I feel like the minus sign is missing. If it was really positive values safe would be higher than fast?


Nevermind. They were right, must have been a bug. It was missing negative sign.


----------



## Luggage

metalshark said:


> Really wouldn't use Hydra to generate values to put into the UEFI, but YMMV.


I rather use the diagnostic values in bios (as a start) than run the rest of the program _shrug_


----------



## Luggage

Outcasst said:


> I thought so too, but swapping those to negative causes those cores to fail stability tests within minutes.
> 
> I was under the impression that needing a positive offset on a core wasn't good news.


And what curve have you managed without hydra?


----------



## Outcasst

I've just been running with CO disabled until now. Only things I tuned in the PBO menu are PPT 250, TDC 250 and EDC 135. EDC at 135 gave me the best clocks and score in Cinebench. Those settings were all changed to auto during the diagnostic run though.


----------



## Syldon

metalshark said:


> Would use both memtest86 to test the sticks themselves, get them up to max temps and be able to do proper fade tests. Then you also need a Windows based one for the IMC testing (memtest86 doesn't really max out the IMC, it focuses on punishing the sticks themselves).
> 
> It's not really an either/or it's a case of both - also always safest using memtest86 first before going into Windows. YMMV but the Windows ones (at least TM5/Karhu) seem to both pass or both fail, but people have preferences which is cool for the Windows ones (just not personally seen one do better than another) but have seen all Windows ones miss unstable tRFC due to lesser fade tests or not cook the modules as much as memtest86, in the same way memtest86 seems to completely miss an overstressed IMC.


Passed memtest86 on 4 passes no errors. Came back into windows to see the same blue screens when I run heaven + ram test in windows. Tried a ton of different settings. Including the voltages settings in one of your posts.



> vSoC 1.0625v
> VDDG CCD 0.95v
> VDDG IOD 1.05v
> CLDO VDDP 0.88v
> PLL 1.87v
> 
> With more luck at (but could be more than necessary):
> vSoC 1.2v
> CLDO VDDP 0.89v


I found the answer with VDDP set to 0.885v. Been an extremely strange one this one for me. I have never seen the need to run two stress tests side by side before. But got there in the end.


----------



## sakete

And now it keeps crashing at core 14, rebooting every time at 4825mhz test. This software should have a button to skip the core to move on to the next one, so all-in results can still be generated.

Now I have to stop the process, and I get no results at all. So annoying when it's been running for 4 hours already. Will test CCD1 now separately.


----------



## Luggage

sakete said:


> And now it keeps crashing at core 14, rebooting every time at 4825mhz test. This software should have a button to skip the core to move on to the next one, so all-in results can still be generated.
> 
> Now I have to stop the process, and I get no results at all. So annoying when it's been running for 4 hours already. Will test CCD1 now separately.


It's not resuming after crash? running as admin?


----------



## sakete

Luggage said:


> It's not resuming after crash? running as admin?


It does, but it crashed ten times in a row and keeps retesting the same thing that causes the crash


----------



## GRABibus

These last 4 weeks, I had 2 times failed boot.
I mean, when I loaded my OC profile from Bios and restart, it failed to boot and then I have the message : "Failed boot because of possible unstable overclock settings, etc...press F1 to enter Bios".
I didn't check the Q code unfortunately.

I have enclosed my .txt with my settings.

This OC passes without any errors several sessions of Karhu's 20000%, several sessions of Realbench "stress test" 8hours and several sessions of Aida64 "cache stress test" 4 hours.
I have no WHEA, no reboots, etc...
Everything is fine.

Which voltage would you first increase to see if it helps for this kind of erratic failed boots ?
Vdram ?
PLL ?
Others ?


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> These last 4 weeks, I had 2 times failed boot.
> I mean, when I loaded my OC profile from Bios and restart, it failed to boot and then I have the message : "Failed boot because of possible unstable overclock settings, etc...press F1 to enter Bios".
> I didn't check the Q code unfortunately.
> 
> I have enclosed my .txt with my settings.
> 
> This OC passes without any errors several sessions of Karhu's 20000%, several sessions of Realbench "stress test" 8hours and several sessions of Aida64 "cache stress test" 4 hours.
> I have no WHEA, no reboots, etc...
> Everything is fine.
> 
> Which voltage would you first increase to see if it helps for this kind of erratic failed boots ?
> Vdram ?
> PLL ?
> Others ?


You know better than me, but I bet that it is the ram training that sometimes fails because of your exceptional timings. You may want to try to lower by 100MHz the FCLK (and adjust the DRAM frequency) just for a bit to check if it is the ram, and then proceed from there. I would also disable the fast boot option as that disables some POST test/diagnostics that may be relevant here.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> You know better than me, but I bet that it is the ram training that sometimes fails because of your exceptional timings. You may want to try to lower by 100MHz the FCLK (and adjust the DRAM frequency) just for a bit to check if it is the ram, and then proceed from there. I would also disable the fast boot option as that disables some POST test/diagnostics that may be relevant here.


This failed boot is rare and erratic…
So I will have to wait some weeks to see if it happens again or not and if a tried solution can help…
What do you mean ? Fclk=1800MHz instead of 1900Mhz and [email protected] instead of 3800Mhz ?


----------



## GRABibus

Il will disable first fast boot option and tried several weeks.


----------



## sakete

Alright, CCD1 finished testing. I'll test CCD2 tomorrow. Either way it looks like I have a decent sample though, CCD1 and 2 are pretty close in terms of clocks when running the profile test.

The core that kept giving me issues on CCD2, core 14, has a CPPC of 4825 MHz. But anytime it would test that core at 4825 MHz it would just crash and reboot, and did so multiple times. Not sure how to get around that. Raise EDC in BIOS a little?



Spoiler: Results



Final ranking of cores:
by AMD (CPPC) | by real frequency
C04 212 4825MHz | C05 4875MHz
C02 212 4800MHz | C03 4875MHz
C01 208 4825MHz | C07 4850MHz
C03 203 4875MHz | C14 4825MHz
C06 199 4825MHz | C08 4825MHz
C05 194 4875MHz | C06 4825MHz
C07 190 4850MHz | C04 4825MHz
C08 185 4825MHz | C01 4825MHz
C09 181 4700MHz | C02 4800MHz
C10 176 4750MHz | C10 4750MHz
C16 172 0MHz | C13 4725MHz
C13 167 4725MHz | C12 4700MHz
C12 163 4700MHz | C11 4700MHz
C15 158 0MHz | C09 4700MHz
C14 154 4825MHz | C16 0MHz
C11 149 4700MHz | C15 0MHz


Unreceived frequency due to incorrect CPPC tags
1T 75MHz
2T 75MHz
3T 50MHz
4T 25MHz
5T 25MHz
6T 25MHz
7T 25MHz
8T 25MHz
9T 100MHz
10T 50MHz
11T 4725MHz
12T 4700MHz
13T 4700MHz
14T 4700MHz
15T 0MHz
16T 0MHz


CURVE OPTIMIZER values for BIOS
(If you do not plan to use HYDRA)
C01 SAFE CO: -6 MID CO: -7 FAST CO: -9
C02 SAFE CO: 4 MID CO: 5 FAST CO: 6
C03 SAFE CO: -22 MID CO: -27 FAST CO: -30
C04 SAFE CO: -1 MID CO: -1 FAST CO: -2
C05 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
C06 SAFE CO: -17 MID CO: -20 FAST CO: -26
C07 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
C08 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30


Min CPU Boost Clock Override: 0MHz


Phoenix deactivated!


18:06:19: Test 1 started!
-= PROFILE: 1T-2T =-
VID: 1375mV
CCD1 FREQUENCY AVX1: 4800MHz FMA3: 4675MHz
CCD2 FREQUENCY AVX1: 4750MHz FMA3: 4625MHz
-= PROFILE: 3T-4T =-
VID: 1375mV
CCD1 FREQUENCY AVX1: 4775MHz FMA3: 4650MHz
CCD2 FREQUENCY AVX1: 4725MHz FMA3: 4600MHz
-= PROFILE: 5T-8T =-
VID: 1300mV
CCD1 FREQUENCY AVX1: 4675MHz FMA3: 4550MHz
CCD2 FREQUENCY AVX1: 4625MHz FMA3: 4500MHz
18:06:50: Test 1 finished!


18:06:50: Test 2 started!
18:06:50: 9T-16T
DEBUG INFO:
Start VID: 1250mV
Start CCD#1 FREQ: 4200MHz
Start CCD#2 FREQ: 4200MHz
Vdroop: 5.12%
CO reserve: -15 / -2
18:07:00: Cinebench stopped!
-= PROFILE: 9T-12T =-
VID: 1300mV
CCD#1 FREQUENCY AVX1: 4650MHz FMA3: 4525MHz
CCD#2 FREQUENCY AVX1: 4550MHz FMA3: 4425MHz
-= PROFILE: 13T-16T =-
VID: 1250mV
CCD#1 FREQUENCY AVX1: 4575MHz FMA3: 4450MHz
CCD#2 FREQUENCY AVX1: 4475MHz FMA3: 4350MHz
18:07:00: Test 2 finished!


18:07:00: Test 3 started!
18:07:00: ALL THREADS (AVX2)
18:07:07: Cinebench stopped!
PPT limit reached! 222.3W
18:07:09: Test 3 finished!


----------



## metalshark

GRABibus said:


> These last 4 weeks, I had 2 times failed boot.
> I mean, when I loaded my OC profile from Bios and restart, it failed to boot and then I have the message : "Failed boot because of possible unstable overclock settings, etc...press F1 to enter Bios".
> I didn't check the Q code unfortunately.
> 
> I have enclosed my .txt with my settings.
> 
> This OC passes without any errors several sessions of Karhu's 20000%, several sessions of Realbench "stress test" 8hours and several sessions of Aida64 "cache stress test" 4 hours.
> I have no WHEA, no reboots, etc...
> Everything is fine.
> 
> Which voltage would you first increase to see if it helps for this kind of erratic failed boots ?
> Vdram ?
> PLL ?
> Others ?


With things like GDM, PDM and your RTT values all on auto, would specify those to get rid of boot-to-boot variance which may be causing these occasional boot options as it tries different values.


----------



## metalshark

sakete said:


> Alright, CCD1 finished testing. I'll test CCD2 tomorrow. Either way it looks like I have a decent sample though, CCD1 and 2 are pretty close in terms of clocks when running the profile test.
> 
> The core that kept giving me issues on CCD2, core 14, has a CPPC of 4825 MHz. But anytime it would test that core at 4825 MHz it would just crash and reboot, and did so multiple times. Not sure how to get around that. Raise EDC in BIOS a little?
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Results
> 
> 
> 
> Final ranking of cores:
> by AMD (CPPC) | by real frequency
> C04 212 4825MHz | C05 4875MHz
> C02 212 4800MHz | C03 4875MHz
> C01 208 4825MHz | C07 4850MHz
> C03 203 4875MHz | C14 4825MHz
> C06 199 4825MHz | C08 4825MHz
> C05 194 4875MHz | C06 4825MHz
> C07 190 4850MHz | C04 4825MHz
> C08 185 4825MHz | C01 4825MHz
> C09 181 4700MHz | C02 4800MHz
> C10 176 4750MHz | C10 4750MHz
> C16 172 0MHz | C13 4725MHz
> C13 167 4725MHz | C12 4700MHz
> C12 163 4700MHz | C11 4700MHz
> C15 158 0MHz | C09 4700MHz
> C14 154 4825MHz | C16 0MHz
> C11 149 4700MHz | C15 0MHz
> 
> 
> Unreceived frequency due to incorrect CPPC tags
> 1T 75MHz
> 2T 75MHz
> 3T 50MHz
> 4T 25MHz
> 5T 25MHz
> 6T 25MHz
> 7T 25MHz
> 8T 25MHz
> 9T 100MHz
> 10T 50MHz
> 11T 4725MHz
> 12T 4700MHz
> 13T 4700MHz
> 14T 4700MHz
> 15T 0MHz
> 16T 0MHz
> 
> 
> CURVE OPTIMIZER values for BIOS
> (If you do not plan to use HYDRA)
> C01 SAFE CO: -6 MID CO: -7 FAST CO: -9
> C02 SAFE CO: 4 MID CO: 5 FAST CO: 6
> C03 SAFE CO: -22 MID CO: -27 FAST CO: -30
> C04 SAFE CO: -1 MID CO: -1 FAST CO: -2
> C05 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C06 SAFE CO: -17 MID CO: -20 FAST CO: -26
> C07 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C08 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> 
> 
> Min CPU Boost Clock Override: 0MHz
> 
> 
> Phoenix deactivated!
> 
> 
> 18:06:19: Test 1 started!
> -= PROFILE: 1T-2T =-
> VID: 1375mV
> CCD1 FREQUENCY AVX1: 4800MHz FMA3: 4675MHz
> CCD2 FREQUENCY AVX1: 4750MHz FMA3: 4625MHz
> -= PROFILE: 3T-4T =-
> VID: 1375mV
> CCD1 FREQUENCY AVX1: 4775MHz FMA3: 4650MHz
> CCD2 FREQUENCY AVX1: 4725MHz FMA3: 4600MHz
> -= PROFILE: 5T-8T =-
> VID: 1300mV
> CCD1 FREQUENCY AVX1: 4675MHz FMA3: 4550MHz
> CCD2 FREQUENCY AVX1: 4625MHz FMA3: 4500MHz
> 18:06:50: Test 1 finished!
> 
> 
> 18:06:50: Test 2 started!
> 18:06:50: 9T-16T
> DEBUG INFO:
> Start VID: 1250mV
> Start CCD#1 FREQ: 4200MHz
> Start CCD#2 FREQ: 4200MHz
> Vdroop: 5.12%
> CO reserve: -15 / -2
> 18:07:00: Cinebench stopped!
> -= PROFILE: 9T-12T =-
> VID: 1300mV
> CCD#1 FREQUENCY AVX1: 4650MHz FMA3: 4525MHz
> CCD#2 FREQUENCY AVX1: 4550MHz FMA3: 4425MHz
> -= PROFILE: 13T-16T =-
> VID: 1250mV
> CCD#1 FREQUENCY AVX1: 4575MHz FMA3: 4450MHz
> CCD#2 FREQUENCY AVX1: 4475MHz FMA3: 4350MHz
> 18:07:00: Test 2 finished!
> 
> 
> 18:07:00: Test 3 started!
> 18:07:00: ALL THREADS (AVX2)
> 18:07:07: Cinebench stopped!
> PPT limit reached! 222.3W
> 18:07:09: Test 3 finished!


Those results look a LOT better than that last processor. Also is that a B2 revision processor? CPU-z will tell you. If so IMO you’ll want to avoid Hydra entirely for now.


----------



## learner-gr

metalshark said:


> Those results look a LOT better than that last processor. Also is that a *B2 revision processor*? CPU-z will tell you. If so IMO you’ll want to avoid Hydra entirely for now.


I have an 5800x B0 revision. Should i also avoid HYDRA software?


----------



## polyh3dron

On the topic of Hydra, I have lots of background apps running on my PC.. Steam Discord, Voicemeeter, Nvidia Broadcast, MSI Afterburner, Logitech G Hub, Eucontrol...

Is there an easy way to run Hydra properly on my PC without messing up my whole setup with all my background apps?


----------



## metalshark

learner-gr said:


> I have an 5800x B0 revision. Should i also avoid HYDRA software?


Would check in with Yuri (1usmus) for the official answer on this, but people seem to be having issues with the B revision processors at present.

EDIT: Should read B2 revisions, with B0 being unaffected.


----------



## metalshark

polyh3dron said:


> On the topic of Hydra, I have lots of background apps running on my PC.. Steam Discord, Voicemeeter, Nvidia Broadcast, MSI Afterburner, Logitech G Hub, Eucontrol...
> 
> Is there an easy way to run Hydra properly on my PC without messing up my whole setup with all my background apps?


I don’t know quite what you mean. Hydra’s not a background app that causes negative resource drain over the performance benefit it provides many when well configured. Other apps draining resources in the background is an issue with or without Hydra.


----------



## polyh3dron

metalshark said:


> I don’t know quite what you mean. Hydra’s not a background app that causes resource drain. Other apps draining resources in the background is an issue with or without Hydra.


When I select run the diagnostic, it says "please do not run third-party processes", but my PC runs a lot of them, and I don't want to completely reconfigure it to run Hydra in terms of services that are set to start when the computer starts such as Asus Armoury Crate and I'm wondering if there is an easy way to create an environment for Hydra to do its diagnostic properly and then go back to the way I have had my PC configured before running the diagnostic.


----------



## metalshark

polyh3dron said:


> When I select run the diagnostic, it says "please do not run third-party processes", but my PC runs a lot of them, and I don't want to completely reconfigure it to run Hydra in terms of services that are set to start when the computer starts such as Asus Armoury Crate and I'm wondering if there is an easy way to create an environment for Hydra to do its diagnostic properly and then go back to the way I have had my PC configured before running the diagnostic.


That's just the diagnostic. Personally not too impressed with the diagnostic anyway (luggage seems to have a lot of luck with it so YMMV, but for me it takes forever, testing things I know will cause a reboot to give me settings that are both unoptimised and unstable). As an alternative for using the diagnostic, I wrote up a guide on tuning the settings manually a few posts back. You can close apps and stop services just for the purposes of running the diagnostic, then have them run thereafter.


----------



## sakete

metalshark said:


> Those results look a LOT better than that last processor. Also is that a B2 revision processor? CPU-z will tell you. If so IMO you’ll want to avoid Hydra entirely for now.


It's a B0:










With regards to Core 14 constantly crashing at the 4825 MHz stress test, would raising EDC in BIOS resolve that you think?


----------



## metalshark

sakete said:


> It's a B0:
> 
> View attachment 2541933
> 
> 
> With regards to Core 14 constantly crashing at the 4825 MHz stress test, would raising EDC in BIOS resolve that you think?


Unlikely, but not impossible. More likely is that's either the limit for that core, the kind of tests being run in Hydra aren't friendly to B revisions yet or your VRM settings are on or near to default.

EDIT: Should read B2 revisions.


----------



## Sleepycat

metalshark said:


> Unlikely, but not impossible. More likely is that's either the limit for that core, the kind of tests being run in Hydra aren't friendly to B revisions yet or your VRM settings are on or near to default.


His being a B0 is a launch CPU. My 5900X is also a B0, purchased on launch night, so Hydra should have been tested on B0. I know of someone else who has issues with Hydra giving really weird diagnostics for 1 or 2 cores. I would manually adjust those 2 cores rated at 0 MHz to similar clocks of other CCD2 cores.


----------



## metalshark

Sleepycat said:


> His being a B0 is a launch CPU. My 5900X is also a B0, purchased on launch night, so Hydra should have been tested on B0. I know of someone else who has issues with Hydra giving really weird diagnostics for 1 or 2 cores. I would manually adjust those 2 cores rated at 0 MHz to similar clocks of other CCD2 cores.


My bad - it's the B2's which are the issue.


----------



## frozensun14081979

Running 3900X on stock BIOS with 4x8GB of Corsair Vengeance RGB PRO 3200kits (CL 16 and CL 18).
I underclocked to 1.2x V with multiplier x42 on all cores.
All seem stable.
Temps I suppose normal in idle and load(idle around 40 C ,load Cinebench R23 max 76 C with H100i)
I haven't updated BIOS at all,due to that I don't have any issues luckly.
I think BIOS version is 0804 but could check up that.
So do I need to update to most recent BIOS?
What would I get?


----------



## sakete

metalshark said:


> Unlikely, but not impossible. More likely is that's either the limit for that core, the kind of tests being run in Hydra aren't friendly to B revisions yet or your VRM settings are on or near to default.
> 
> EDIT: Should read B2 revisions.


Which VRM settings should I be tweaking?


----------



## usoldier

Hey guys ive been out of the loop for a while and iam looking for a 32gb Memory Kit for my CH8, i currently have a 3800X but looking at that new 5800X3D upgrade. 
Would love to get some recomendations. 

Thanks


----------



## Kelutrel

sakete said:


> Which VRM settings should I be tweaking?


From my experience, if you want to stabilize a couple cores for higher frequencies, all the values in the "Extreme Tweaker/External Digi+ Power Control" settings page may be relevant to the VRM behaviour and are worth to be tweaked to check for any difference in stability. But results are not granted if you are over your cpu sample limits.

As an example, in my case, and on my cpu bin and mb, I had a core that was not corecycle stable at 4915MHz, and made it corecycle stable up to 4930MHz by setting both "CPU Power Duty Control" and "CPU Power Phase Control" to "Extreme" (and also "VDDSOC Phase Control" if I remember correctly).

There is this old Buildzoid video that provides a "visual" explanation of the changes that those settings cause to the voltage and signal quality reaching the CPU: YouTube


----------



## metalshark

sakete said:


> Which VRM settings should I be tweaking?


The 3 LLC settings mentioned will vary from system to system, the other settings are assuming the VRMs are part of your water loop. Dark Hero/Extreme boards can far exceed these, etc

Voltage Monitor: Die Sense
CPU LLC: Auto (diagnostics will likely give best results with 4/5, but use auto for often the best performance with Hydra)
CPU Current Capability: 140% (200% if enabling LN2 mode to get past the 230A TDC issue where fans go max speed and you have to toggle the PSU on/off)
CPU VRM Switching Frequency: 500khz
CPU Power Duty Control: Extreme
CPU Power Phase Control: Power Phase Response - Ultra Fast

VDDSOC LLC: 3 (you may prefer Auto)
VDDSOC Switching Frequency: 600khz
VDDSOC Phase Control: Power Phase Response - Ultra Fast

DRAM Current Capability: 120% (for 1T GDM off and 4 sticks, but most of the time 100% is going to be fine)
DRAM Power Phase Control: Extreme
DRAM Switching Frequency: 500khz


----------



## metalshark

usoldier said:


> Hey guys ive been out of the loop for a while and iam looking for a 32gb Memory Kit for my CH8, i currently have a 3800X but looking at that new 5800X3D upgrade.
> Would love to get some recomendations.
> 
> Thanks


You'll want to check what FCLK/MCLK/UCLK you can hit before choosing as it'll either be 3800MT/s or higher. 2 sticks of DR 16GB seems to be the way to go. Some have got it running a lot faster than 3800MT/s so will really depend on the luck of the draw with your IMC.

A couple of fast kits you may consider:
G.Skill F4-3800C14D-32GTZN
G.Skill F4-4000C14D-32GTZN


----------



## sakete

metalshark said:


> The 3 LLC settings mentioned will vary from system to system, the other settings are assuming the VRMs are part of your water loop. Dark Hero/Extreme boards can far exceed these, etc
> 
> Voltage Monitor: Die Sense
> CPU LLC: Auto (diagnostics will likely give best results with 4/5, but use auto for often the best performance with Hydra)
> CPU Current Capability: 140% (200% if enabling LN2 mode to get past the 230A TDC issue where fans go max speed and you have to toggle the PSU on/off)
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency: 500khz
> CPU Power Duty Control: Extreme
> CPU Power Phase Control: Power Phase Response - Ultra Fast
> 
> VDDSOC LLC: 3 (you may prefer Auto)
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency: 600khz
> VDDSOC Phase Control: Power Phase Response - Ultra Fast
> 
> DRAM Current Capability: 120% (for 1T GDM off and 4 sticks, but most of the time 100% is going to be fine)
> DRAM Power Phase Control: Extreme
> DRAM Switching Frequency: 500khz


Thanks, you're super helpful here. OCN MVP!


----------



## GRABibus

metalshark said:


> G.Skill F4-4000C14D-32GTZN


I can’t find this kit….


----------



## metalshark

GRABibus said:


> I can’t find this kit….











F4-4000C14D-32GTZN - G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.


Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 CL14-15-15-35 1.55V 32GB (2x16GB) Engineered and optimized for full compatibility on the latest AMD Ryzen platforms, Trident Z Neo brings unparalleled DRAM memory performance and vibrant RGB lighting to any gaming PC or workstation with latest AMD Ryzen CPUs and AMD DDR4...




www.gskill.com


----------



## Luggage

GRABibus said:


> I can’t find this kit….











[Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread


I think the target is near 4800+ i set 5000 as target as 4800 wasn't directly faster 4600 2:1 wasn't compared to 4200 2:1 , even with identical harsh timings at identical voltage 4800 likely, but it didn't want to run or even post on anything other than 30ohm procODT Dom has got near 4800 on...




www.overclock.net


----------



## GRABibus

I can’t find it on the market, nowhere


----------



## usoldier

metalshark said:


> You'll want to check what FCLK/MCLK/UCLK you can hit before choosing as it'll either be 3800MT/s or higher. 2 sticks of DR 16GB seems to be the way to go. Some have got it running a lot faster than 3800MT/s so will really depend on the luck of the draw with your IMC.
> 
> A couple of fast kits you may consider:
> G.Skill F4-3800C14D-32GTZN
> G.Skill F4-4000C14D-32GTZN


Thanks metalshark found the 3800C for sale


----------



## Kelutrel

metalshark said:


> The 3 LLC settings mentioned will vary from system to system, the other settings are assuming the VRMs are part of your water loop. Dark Hero/Extreme boards can far exceed these, etc
> 
> Voltage Monitor: Die Sense
> CPU LLC: Auto (diagnostics will likely give best results with 4/5, but use auto for often the best performance with Hydra)
> CPU Current Capability: 140% (200% if enabling LN2 mode to get past the 230A TDC issue where fans go max speed and you have to toggle the PSU on/off)
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency: 500khz
> CPU Power Duty Control: Extreme
> CPU Power Phase Control: Power Phase Response - Ultra Fast
> 
> VDDSOC LLC: 3 (you may prefer Auto)
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency: 600khz
> VDDSOC Phase Control: Power Phase Response - Ultra Fast
> 
> DRAM Current Capability: 120% (for 1T GDM off and 4 sticks, but most of the time 100% is going to be fine)
> DRAM Power Phase Control: Extreme
> DRAM Switching Frequency: 500khz


What is your CBR20 MT/ST score with those settings ?


----------



## metalshark

Kelutrel said:


> What is your CBR20 MT/ST score with those settings ?


Get ~12k with CB20 MT and don’t use it to bench ST so no idea


----------



## Kelutrel

metalshark said:


> Get ~12k with CB20 MT and don’t use it to bench ST so no idea


On my 5900X they look promising... was able to go over 9300 in a run but didnt screenshot...


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> On my 5900X they look promising... was able to go over 9300 in a run but didnt screenshot...
> 
> View attachment 2541975


-30 all cores...What a cheater !


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> -30 all cores...What a cheater !


Usually I have core 5 at 28 for stability, but with those VRM settings it looks like it is stable at 30 too, just try it... I mean "user" stable... "corecycler" stable is something that requires investing the whole night.

I checked on HWBOT and the current world record for a 5900X on AIO in CBR20 MT is 9528 . The 9310 I've seen in a run would have been a well deserved 8th place.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Usually I have core 5 at 28 for stability, but with those VRM settings it looks like it is stable at 30 too, just try it... I mean "user" stable... "corecycler" stable is something that requires investing the whole night.
> 
> I checked on HWBOT and the current world record for a 5900X on AIO in CBR20 MT is 9528 . The 9310 I've seen in a run would have been a well deserved 8th place.


Which V


Kelutrel said:


> Usually I have core 5 at 28 for stability, but with those VRM settings it looks like it is stable at 30 too, just try it... I mean "user" stable... "corecycler" stable is something that requires investing the whole night.
> 
> I checked on HWBOT and the current world record for a 5900X on AIO in CBR20 MT is 9528 . The 9310 I've seen in a run would have been a well deserved 8th place.


 I will try your Vrm settings to see if I can be stable at -30 all cores (no idle/low load reboots).


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> Which V
> 
> 
> I will try your Vrm settings to see if I can be stable at -30 all cores (no idle/low load reboots).


I don't understand "Which V", what do you you mean ?

The VRM settings I used in the BIOS settings file attached above are the ones provided by metalshark a few comments before, he should get the kudos. Also please note that I used BIOS 3904, and EDC was at 160, so I was using 1.425v as the max cpu voltage.


----------



## metalshark

GRABibus said:


> Which V
> 
> 
> I will try your Vrm settings to see if I can be stable at -30 all cores (no idle/low load reboots).


That’s on max really designed for the Formula with the VRM waterblock. It’s inefficient and a real heat generator, so expect worse results if not using the monoblock options on a non-Formula. If running something like the Hero/Hero Wifi then 400khz is a good max to aim for, with lesser switching frequency (250-300) often able to produce better results. Also would drop Ultra Fast down to just Fast too without that extra VRM cooling.


----------



## GRABibus

metalshark said:


> That’s on max really designed for the Formula with the VRM waterblock. It’s inefficient and a real heat generator, so expect worse results if not using the monoblock options on a non-Formula. If running something like the Hero/Hero Wifi then 400khz is a good max to aim for, with lesser switching frequency (250-300) often able to produce better results. Also would drop Ultra Fast down to just Fast too without that extra VRM cooling.


Will try 400Khz and extreme phases (soc, cpu and ram).
-30 all cores
+200MHz.
Bios 3801

first test => real life test
=> Check if no idle/low load reboots during next hours/days.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> I don't understand "Which V", what do you you mean ?


It was a mistake


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> I don't understand "Which V", what do you you mean ?
> 
> The VRM settings I used in the BIOS settings file attached above are the ones provided by metalshark a few comments before, he should get the kudos. Also please note that I used BIOS 3904, and EDC was at 160, so I was using 1.425v as the max cpu voltage.


Which Mobo do you have ?


----------



## Blackfyre

metalshark said:


> The 3 LLC settings mentioned will vary from system to system, the other settings are assuming the VRMs are part of your water loop. Dark Hero/Extreme boards can far exceed these, etc
> 
> Voltage Monitor: Die Sense
> CPU LLC: Auto (diagnostics will likely give best results with 4/5, but use auto for often the best performance with Hydra)
> CPU Current Capability: 140% (200% if enabling LN2 mode to get past the 230A TDC issue where fans go max speed and you have to toggle the PSU on/off)
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency: 500khz
> CPU Power Duty Control: Extreme
> CPU Power Phase Control: Power Phase Response - Ultra Fast
> 
> VDDSOC LLC: 3 (you may prefer Auto)
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency: 600khz
> VDDSOC Phase Control: Power Phase Response - Ultra Fast
> 
> DRAM Current Capability: 120% (for 1T GDM off and 4 sticks, but most of the time 100% is going to be fine)
> DRAM Power Phase Control: Extreme
> DRAM Switching Frequency: 500khz


*Are these settings safe to use for 24/7 usage? Same settings above apply for 5800X too right?*


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> Which Mobo do you have ?


I have a C8 Formula, and am using 3904. I tried it again and it doesn't seem to me that the VRM temperatures were much impacted by those settings, but maybe under hours of load it changes. What I find incredible is the ST score, I got a 656 just now and the max cpu voltage is 1.425 because my EDC is 160, so temperatures stay low. Also I don't get how the VRM settings can impact the cpu scores tbh.


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> Which Mobo do you have ?


I haven't seen VRM temps on either of my Asus CH8 boards much above 30 C during stress testing...both with 16C/32T Ryzen and 4x8 GB of 3800 tight RAM, PBO etc enabled. Then again, there's very good airflow, and each of the mobos (in the same case as you may recall) has dual 120mm fans downdrafting from above via the top of the case.


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> Will try 400Khz and extreme phases (soc, cpu and ram).
> -30 all cores
> +200MHz.
> Bios 3801
> 
> first test => real life test
> => Check if no idle/low load reboots during next hours/days.


Please I would like to reiterate that I am on 3904, and if you remember on 3904 everyone and his mom was able to reach -30 all cores because of the lower CPU voltage with EDC > 140. On 3801 it was much harder. Because of the lower voltage, on 3904, the ST performances were also lower, but it seems that with the VRM settings suggested by metalshark that is no more the case.


----------



## Luggage

Kelutrel said:


> Please I would like to reiterate that I am on 3904, and if you remember on 3904 everyone and his mom was able to reach -30 all cores because of the lower CPU voltage with EDC > 140. On 3801 it was much harder. Because of the lower voltage, on 3904, the ST performances were also lower, but it seems that with the VRM settings suggested by metalshark that is no more the case.


Set edc auto in bios, raise with rm, get your vid back.


http://imgur.com/a/d5cReXo


It’s a pita but it works - for now.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Blackfyre said:


> *Are these settings safe to use for 24/7 usage? Same settings above apply for 5800X too right?*


with proper cooling you shouldn't worry stressing your motherboards' components..else those are pretty aggressive settings..


----------



## polyh3dron

metalshark said:


> That's just the diagnostic. Personally not too impressed with the diagnostic anyway (luggage seems to have a lot of luck with it so YMMV, but for me it takes forever, testing things I know will cause a reboot to give me settings that are both unoptimised and unstable). As an alternative for using the diagnostic, I wrote up a guide on tuning the settings manually a few posts back. You can close apps and stop services just for the purposes of running the diagnostic, then have them run thereafter.


but it's saying it wants to reboot multiple times.


----------



## metalshark

Blackfyre said:


> *Are these settings safe to use for 24/7 usage? Same settings above apply for 5800X too right?*


It will increase the heat, therefore VRM components won’t last as long without more than adequate cooling. Also without more than adequate cooling it’ll give you worse performance. But for a good waterloop using a mono block or Formula it’s fine for 24/7. An LLC on the CPU of 4/5 for a long time may degrade it though, whereas 3, Auto or below should be fine.


----------



## metalshark

polyh3dron said:


> but it's saying it wants to reboot multiple times.


It doesn’t want it, it just will if it hits instability and will require closing those programs/stopping those services each time. All for a diagnostic that IMO isn’t worth it.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> I have a C8 Formula, and am using 3904. I tried it again and it doesn't seem to me that the VRM temperatures were much impacted by those settings, but maybe under hours of load it changes. What I find incredible is the ST score, I got a 656 just now and the max cpu voltage is 1.425 because my EDC is 160, so temperatures stay low. Also I don't get how the VRM settings can impact the cpu scores tbh.
> 
> View attachment 2542008


656 👍👍


----------



## metalshark

J7SC said:


> I haven't seen VRM temps on either of my Asus CH8 boards much above 30 C during stress testing...both with 16C/32T Ryzen and 4x8 GB of 3800 tight RAM, PBO etc enabled. Then again, there's very good airflow, and each of the mobos (in the same case as you may recall) has dual 120mm fans downdrafting from above via the top of the case.
> 
> View attachment 2542011


Ah, you've got the Dark Hero, that and the Extreme are a tad different when it comes to VRMs (in all the good ways). Would ignore my settings as you can far exceed those with ease.


----------



## Kelutrel

Luggage said:


> Set edc auto in bios, raise with rm, get your vid back.
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/d5cReXo
> 
> 
> It’s a pita but it works - for now.


I don't have rm installed. Any specific reason to prefer using 1.5v vid instead of 1.425v on 3904 ?


----------



## Luggage

Kelutrel said:


> I don't have rm installed. Any specific reason to prefer using 1.5v vid instead of 1.425v on 3904 ?


It’s the stock behavior on all agesa, and until 3904 it was the vid behavior even with edc over 140. I feel that the 1.425 limit over 140 edc is a bug…


----------



## GRABibus

I applied @metalshark recommendations for VRM on my C8H (see enclosed settings).

Best run [email protected]°C ambient :









Open PC case
All [email protected]%
Bios 3801
CPU cooler : only a H115i RGB Platinum...Which really does a great job 

Beside performances, I want to see if those VRM settings help to be stable at idle/low loads with -30 all cores and +200MHz.
I didn't get any reboots since yesterday with those settings. I played one hour Vanguard, browsed, made a lot of ST CBR20 and let the PC idling all night.

Let's see ! I cross the fingers.


----------



## Kelutrel

Luggage said:


> It’s the stock behavior on all agesa, and until 3904 it was the vid behavior even with edc over 140. I feel that the 1.425 limit over 140 edc is a bug…


I see, tbh I think the same, that 1.425v when EDC>140 is a bug. Once there was a "Max Voltage Offset" option in the SMU page of the AMD BIOS pages of some X570 motherboards that allowed you to offset the max cpu VID by negative 0.25/0.50/0.75 but they removed that, and it may be that this bug is related somehow.

I may be able to get a similar voltage from the next "fixed" bios by using the cpu telemetry offset, or maybe I will just go back to 1.5v max vid and tune again the pbo curve offsets. I like the thermals of running at 1.425v max vid very much.


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> I applied @metalshark recommendations for VRM on my C8H (see enclosed settings).
> 
> Best run [email protected]°C ambient :
> View attachment 2542088
> 
> 
> Open PC case
> All [email protected]%
> Bios 3801
> CPU cooler : only a H115i RGB Platinum...Which really does a great job
> 
> Beside performances, I want to see if those VRM settings help to be stable at idle/low loads with -30 all cores and +200MHz.
> I didn't get any reboots since yesterday with those settings. I played one hour Vanguard, browsed, made a lot of ST CBR20 and let the PC idling all night.
> 
> Let's see ! I cross the fingers.


Awesome!

For my score I left the window behind the pc slightly open, with the cold night breeze flowing directly into the intake fan of my case 😁


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Awesome!
> 
> For my score I left the window behind the pc slightly open, with the cold night breeze flowing directly into the intake fan of my case 😁


If do the same, I will break 660 ST score 😎


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> If do the same, I will break 660 ST score 😎


Tbh I would like to get that 9300+ MT score again so I can add my name to hwbot or something, I tried yesterday to get there again but no joy. Probably all of them are using a fixed voltage and multiplier, so being there with PBO alone would be nice.

Also, to avoid cpu degradation, I have to say that my 24/7 settings are all about undervolting and power saving on a meager 8250 CBR20 MT. Don't know if I would feel safe keeping those high vrm settings 24/7.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Tbh I would like to get that 9300+ MT score again so I can add my name to hwbot or something, I tried yesterday to get there again but no joy. Probably all of them are using a fixed voltage and multiplier, so being there with PBO alone would be nice.
> 
> Also, to avoid cpu degradation, I have to say that my 24/7 settings are all about undervolting and power saving on a meager 8250 CBR20 MT. Don't know if I would feel safe keeping those high vrm settings 24/7.


I don’t think you take big risk.
Depends on daily stress you put on CPU.
My machine is for gaming 90% of the time, so no risk of VRM fast degradation.
And also, in 2022, I will probably change to Zen4 or 13900k.


----------



## Luggage

Kelutrel said:


> Tbh I would like to get that 9300+ MT score again so I can add my name to hwbot or something, I tried yesterday to get there again but no joy. Probably all of them are using a fixed voltage and multiplier, so being there with PBO alone would be nice.
> 
> Also, to avoid cpu degradation, I have to say that my 24/7 settings are all about undervolting and power saving on a meager 8250 CBR20 MT. Don't know if I would feel safe keeping those high vrm settings 24/7.


If you go for cold pbo, experiment with lower pbo limits and boost over ride for r23.
This was with very cold water after experimenting two nights, agesa 1203c, unstable all core -30, +150 boost. The PBO limits tank heavier benchmarks but for r23 this was sweet spot for my 5800x 



http://imgur.com/xG593sl


But since it was nice and cold I had to go beat it with an all core just after…


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

GRABibus said:


> My machine is for gaming 90% of the time, so no risk of VRM fast degradation.


how sure are you that the load you are doing won't stress the components out..even me who is custom watercooler allover the place and maintaining 23c room temps is even scared dialing in 500khz as response time..probably for a suicide run I'll do that..but for 24/7 daily use I think I'm gonna dial it down..


----------



## GRABibus

kairi_zeroblade said:


> how sure are you that the load you are doing won't stress the components out..even me who is custom watercooler allover the place and maintaining 23c room temps is even scared dialing in 500khz as response time..probably for a suicide run I'll do that..but for 24/7 daily use I think I'm gonna dial it down..


I do respectively 300Khz (cpu), 400Khz (soc), 300Khz (ram).


----------



## Kelutrel

Luggage said:


> If you go for cold pbo, experiment with lower pbo limits and boost over ride for r23.
> This was with very cold water after experimenting two nights, agesa 1203c, unstable all core -30, +150 boost. The PBO limits tank heavier benchmarks but for r23 this was sweet spot for my 5800x
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/xG593sl
> 
> 
> But since it was nice and cold I had to go beat it with an all core just after…


Mate, I am already -30 all cores and 200MHz boost, can't go further than that with PBO. I am now experimenting with other bios settings that increase MT performances and don't touch too much the ST score. Or maybe you mean reducing the boost mhz to increase the MT score ?


----------



## metalshark

Kelutrel said:


> Mate, I am already -30 all cores and 200MHz boost, can't go further than that with PBO. I am now experimenting with other bios settings that increase MT performances and don't touch too much the ST score. Or maybe you mean reducing the boost mhz to increase the MT score ?


You've more than likely tried this or know about this and YMMV. Both/either setting the scalar to 1X (instead of auto) and dropping the CPU Voltage Offset by about 15mV without touching your existing CO may nudge your results in a positive direction.

The scalar is still a bit nebulous for me, know what it's meant to do in theory, had different behaviour on different AGESA versions. With 3904 it seems to like lower fixed values again but haven't collaborated extensively to see if this is just my system or a rule of thumb.

Currently getting best boost results with 1410mV instead of 1425mV using Hydra, so shifting that 1425mV with a CPU offset may give you an edge (obvs feel free to swing it either way).

Both options may be complete trash for you, but if you've not had a play it may be worth a go.


----------



## Kelutrel

metalshark said:


> You've more than likely tried this or know about this and YMMV. Both/either setting the scalar to 1X (instead of auto) and dropping the CPU Voltage Offset by about 15mV without touching your existing CO may nudge your results in a positive direction.
> 
> The scalar is still a bit nebulous for me, know what it's meant to do in theory, had different behaviour on different AGESA versions. With 3904 it seems to like lower fixed values again but haven't collaborated extensively to see if this is just my system or a rule of thumb.
> 
> Currently getting best boost results with 1410mV instead of 1425mV using Hydra, so shifting that 1425mV with a CPU offset may give you an edge (obvs feel free to swing it either way).
> 
> Both options may be complete trash for you, but if you've not had a play it may be worth a go.


I also noticed that manually setting the scalar to 1X provides some better performances compared to Auto, I have it at manual 1X now.
I have not yet tried 2X or 3X and so. Will try those and the negative 15mv offset this evening.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

GRABibus said:


> These last 4 weeks, I had 2 times failed boot.
> I mean, when I loaded my OC profile from Bios and restart, it failed to boot and then I have the message : "Failed boot because of possible unstable overclock settings, etc...press F1 to enter Bios".
> I didn't check the Q code unfortunately.
> 
> I have enclosed my .txt with my settings.
> 
> This OC passes without any errors several sessions of Karhu's 20000%, several sessions of Realbench "stress test" 8hours and several sessions of Aida64 "cache stress test" 4 hours.
> I have no WHEA, no reboots, etc...
> Everything is fine.
> 
> Which voltage would you first increase to see if it helps for this kind of erratic failed boots ?
> Vdram ?
> PLL ?
> Others ?


Increase your procODT to 43.6 it worked for me. Kept getting f9.


----------



## artemuss1990

What is the best stable BIOS for Crosshair VIII Extreme and Ryzen 5950x? In the latest version 0504, the voltage is somehow limited to 1.4V when the PBO is turned on and the maximum boost frequency, respectively, is 4900 lower than without the PBO 5050. Installed 0402 now with pbo enabled the computer sometimes freezes for a second. Ram settings on screen.


----------



## Audioboxer

artemuss1990 said:


> What is the best stable BIOS for Crosshair VIII Extreme and Ryzen 5950x? In the latest version 0504, the voltage is somehow limited to 1.4V when the PBO is turned on and the maximum boost frequency, respectively, is 4900 lower than without the PBO 5050. Installed 0402 now with pbo enabled the computer sometimes freezes for a second. Ram settings on screen.
> 
> View attachment 2542107


AMD have introduced a new bug, or feature, who knows, they don't do patch notes and barely anyone knows how to get a comment from them, that when EDC is over 140 they limit CPU voltage to 1.425 max. AGESA 1.2.0.5.

As I said, a bug, or a new fantastic feature to stop pesky OCers, anyone's guess.

The only way around it is to set PBO to advanced in the BIOS, then the values as manual, but leave each set to auto, boot into Windows and load Ryzen Master and then you can set the values there with no voltage cap.

But be prepared to do that every time your PC boots because of course Ryzen Master can't have an autostart option for those that know how to boot safemode and uninstall if they ever need to.

Just AMD things. Unlikely anyone in the tech or enthusiast industry asks them about it, pls wait for AGESA 1.2.0.6+.


----------



## metalshark

Audioboxer said:


> The only way around it is to set PBO to advanced in the BIOS, then the values as manual, but leave each set to auto, boot into Windows and load Ryzen Master and then you can set the values there with no voltage cap.


FYI Hydra lets you specify voltages per profile too as a way around.


----------



## Kelutrel

Audioboxer said:


> AMD have introduced a new bug, or feature, who knows, they don't do patch notes and barely anyone knows how to get a comment from them, that when EDC is over 140 they limit CPU voltage to 1.425 max. AGESA 1.2.0.5.
> 
> As I said, a bug, or a new fantastic feature to stop pesky OCers, anyone's guess.
> 
> The only way around it is to set PBO to advanced in the BIOS, then the values as manual, but leave each set to auto, boot into Windows and load Ryzen Master and then you can set the values there with no voltage cap.
> 
> But be prepared to do that every time your PC boots because of course Ryzen Master can't have an autostart option for those that know how to boot safemode and uninstall if they ever need to.
> 
> Just AMD things. Unlikely anyone in the tech or enthusiast industry asks them about it, pls wait for AGESA 1.2.0.6+.


I would like to add to this mysterious feature that if you set EDC < 140 then the voltage gets limited to 1.475v (?!?!?)


----------



## metalshark

artemuss1990 said:


> What is the best stable BIOS for Crosshair VIII Extreme and Ryzen 5950x? In the latest version 0504, the voltage is somehow limited to 1.4V when the PBO is turned on and the maximum boost frequency, respectively, is 4900 lower than without the PBO 5050. Installed 0402 now with pbo enabled the computer sometimes freezes for a second. Ram settings on screen.
> 
> View attachment 2542107


YMMV but many have had to increase vSoC to fix freezing. Others have mentioned fTPM issues with discrete fixing (haven't seen this first-hand though). ~1.06v vSoC was stable for me but needed 1.1875v vSoC to remove stutters/freezing. vSoC seems highly unlikely to be the case as I had that across the versions of UEFI which match the ones you have on the Extreme but for the Formula whereas you're getting it only on one version.


----------



## sakete

metalshark said:


> The 3 LLC settings mentioned will vary from system to system, the other settings are assuming the VRMs are part of your water loop. Dark Hero/Extreme boards can far exceed these, etc
> 
> Voltage Monitor: Die Sense
> CPU LLC: Auto (diagnostics will likely give best results with 4/5, but use auto for often the best performance with Hydra)
> CPU Current Capability: 140% (200% if enabling LN2 mode to get past the 230A TDC issue where fans go max speed and you have to toggle the PSU on/off)
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency: 500khz
> CPU Power Duty Control: Extreme
> CPU Power Phase Control: Power Phase Response - Ultra Fast
> 
> VDDSOC LLC: 3 (you may prefer Auto)
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency: 600khz
> VDDSOC Phase Control: Power Phase Response - Ultra Fast
> 
> DRAM Current Capability: 120% (for 1T GDM off and 4 sticks, but most of the time 100% is going to be fine)
> DRAM Power Phase Control: Extreme
> DRAM Switching Frequency: 500khz


Alright, I applied these settings, except for CPU VRM frequency I set 400khz, VDDSOC 500 and DRAM 400, as I didn't want to push that aspect too hard (eventhough the VRMs are watercooled).

Now I was able to complete core 14 diagnostic, so that solved it.

I'll re-run the diagnostic for all cores, as well as CCD level diagnostic and will see what it spits out with these settings.


----------



## metalshark

sakete said:


> Alright, I applied these settings, except for CPU VRM frequency I set 400khz, VDDSOC 500 and DRAM 400, as I didn't want to push that aspect too hard (eventhough the VRMs are watercooled).
> 
> Now I was able to complete core 14 diagnostic, so that solved it.
> 
> I'll re-run the diagnostic for all cores, as well as CCD level diagnostic and will see what it spits out with these settings.


You'll likely be the same with the SOC also on 400khz and may not see a difference down to 300khz for all 3 only using the PBO+CO in UEFI, but would keep the response on ultra-fast with the Formula.

The switching frequency affects the efficiency more than it "burning out". It burning out is more how much heat it's subjected to for how long. If you can have a more efficient VRM without downsides then go for that, the lower the khz without any loss of performance the better.


----------



## tonynca

For me personally, CTR and Hydra has been a waste of time for my 5950X. I get unstable results that or either poorer than PBO2 with CO or just down right unstable.

We're relying on one guy to write software that is bullet proof. While AMD has an entire pool of engineers working on PBO2. 

Just my experience so far...


----------



## metalshark

tonynca said:


> For me personally, CTR and Hydra has been a waste of time for my 5950X. I get unstable results that or either poorer than PBO2 with CO or just down right unstable.
> 
> We're relying on one guy to write software that is bullet proof. While AMD has an entire pool of engineers working on PBO2.
> 
> Just my experience so far...


If using the settings diagnostics give you then absolutely same experience with Hydra on a 5950X. If manually configuring though you take what you’ve learnt about your processor from PBO+CO overclocking and can push so much further. If Yuri stops making the software or moves on then PBO+CO doesn’t go away and is a fall back.


----------



## Outcasst

metalshark said:


> Would suggest the minimums for the following would be (for 1900/3800 on a dual CCX processor):
> vSoC 1.0625v
> VDDG CCD 0.95v
> VDDG IOD 1.05v
> CLDO VDDP 0.88v
> PLL 1.87v
> 
> With more luck at (but could be more than necessary):
> vSoC 1.2v
> CLDO VDDP 0.89v
> 
> With PBO + CO off though if you're not getting WHEAs would guess you'll break that stability record though.
> 
> Have you made sure it's not RAM issues with memtest86 for 4 passes (for thorough tRFC checking through fade tests) then following it up in Windows with Karhu, TM5 or similar (whichever Windows-based RAM checker you prefer)?
> 
> Not suggesting there's anything wrong with your RAM or that your RAM cannot hit 3800, but the timings may need tweaked for your processor, board or the positions of each stick (re-arranging sticks can produce different requirements for timings even if they're all from the same kit).


Unfortunately stability still eludes me.

These FFT errors go away when I drop back down to 1800.


----------



## sakete

Ok, final diagnostic results are in. CCD1 is a Gold sample, CCD2 a silver sample. Third time was the charm with this 5950X.

I'll use these values as a starting point and will start testing stability with longer tests and will tweak from there.



Spoiler: Results



Results CO testing
CORE| CPPC | BASE | RES | TEMP | CO | UNSAFE
C01 | 208 | 4800 | 4825 | 79 | 42 | False
C02 | 212 | 4825 | 4825 | 81 | -6 | False
C03 | 203 | 4775 | 4875 | 78 | 143 | False
C04 | 212 | 4825 | 4800 | 80 | -23 | False
C05 | 194 | 4725 | 4875 | 73 | 156 | False
C06 | 199 | 4750 | 4775 | 79 | 36 | False
C07 | 190 | 4700 | 4850 | 83 | 222 | False
C08 | 185 | 4675 | 4800 | 82 | 166 | False
C09 | 181 | 4625 | 4700 | 79 | 139 | False
C10 | 176 | 4625 | 4775 | 76 | 210 | False
C11 | 149 | 4575 | 4725 | 75 | 193 | False
C12 | 163 | 4600 | 4725 | 74 | 161 | False
C13 | 167 | 4600 | 4725 | 78 | 171 | False
C14 | 154 | 4600 | 4800 | 75 | 276 | False
C15 | 158 | 4575 | 4625 | 79 | 72 | False
C16 | 172 | 4600 | 4700 | 79 | 147 | False

The quality evaluation of cores has been successfully completed!

Final ranking of cores:
by AMD (CPPC) | by real frequency
C04 212 4800MHz | C05 4875MHz
C02 212 4825MHz | C03 4875MHz
C01 208 4825MHz | C07 4850MHz
C03 203 4875MHz | C02 4825MHz
C06 199 4775MHz | C01 4825MHz
C05 194 4875MHz | C14 4800MHz
C07 190 4850MHz | C08 4800MHz
C08 185 4800MHz | C04 4800MHz
C09 181 4700MHz | C10 4775MHz
C10 176 4775MHz | C06 4775MHz
C16 172 4700MHz | C13 4725MHz
C13 167 4725MHz | C12 4725MHz
C12 163 4725MHz | C11 4725MHz
C15 158 4625MHz | C16 4700MHz
C14 154 4800MHz | C09 4700MHz
C11 149 4725MHz | C15 4625MHz

Unreceived frequency due to incorrect CPPC tags
1T 75MHz
2T 75MHz
3T 50MHz
4T 25MHz
5T 50MHz
6T 25MHz
7T 25MHz
8T 25MHz
9T 75MHz
10T 75MHz
11T 25MHz
12T 25MHz
13T 25MHz
14T 75MHz
15T 75MHz
16T 0MHz

CURVE OPTIMIZER values for BIOS
(If you do not plan to use HYDRA)
C01 SAFE CO: -7 MID CO: -8 FAST CO: -10
C02 SAFE CO: 1 MID CO: 1 FAST CO: 1
C03 SAFE CO: -23 MID CO: -28 FAST CO: -30
C04 SAFE CO: 3 MID CO: 4 FAST CO: 5
C05 SAFE CO: -26 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
C06 SAFE CO: -6 MID CO: -7 FAST CO: -9
C07 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
C08 SAFE CO: -27 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
C09 SAFE CO: -23 MID CO: -27 FAST CO: -30
C10 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
C11 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
C12 SAFE CO: -26 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
C13 SAFE CO: -28 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
C14 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
C15 SAFE CO: -12 MID CO: -14 FAST CO: -18
C16 SAFE CO: -24 MID CO: -29 FAST CO: -30

Min CPU Boost Clock Override: 0MHz


Results CCD testing
CORE#1 CO: 22 CORE#9 CO: 17
CORE#2 CO: 9 CORE#10 CO: 15
CORE#3 CO: 33 CORE#11 CO: 43
CORE#4 CO: 21 CORE#12 CO: 31
CORE#5 CO: 53 CORE#13 CO: 29
CORE#6 CO: 49 CORE#14 CO: 39
CORE#7 CO: 61 CORE#15 CO: 37
CORE#8 CO: 72 CORE#16 CO: 19
Energy Efficiency CCD#1 4.09 | GOLDEN sample
Energy Efficiency CCD#2 3.93 | SILVER sample


----------



## PWn3R

sakete said:


> Ok, final diagnostic results are in. CCD1 is a Gold sample, CCD2 a silver sample. Third time was the charm with this 5950X.
> 
> I'll use these values as a starting point and will start testing stability with longer tests and will tweak from there.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Results
> 
> 
> 
> Results CO testing
> CORE| CPPC | BASE | RES | TEMP | CO | UNSAFE
> C01 | 208 | 4800 | 4825 | 79 | 42 | False
> C02 | 212 | 4825 | 4825 | 81 | -6 | False
> C03 | 203 | 4775 | 4875 | 78 | 143 | False
> C04 | 212 | 4825 | 4800 | 80 | -23 | False
> C05 | 194 | 4725 | 4875 | 73 | 156 | False
> C06 | 199 | 4750 | 4775 | 79 | 36 | False
> C07 | 190 | 4700 | 4850 | 83 | 222 | False
> C08 | 185 | 4675 | 4800 | 82 | 166 | False
> C09 | 181 | 4625 | 4700 | 79 | 139 | False
> C10 | 176 | 4625 | 4775 | 76 | 210 | False
> C11 | 149 | 4575 | 4725 | 75 | 193 | False
> C12 | 163 | 4600 | 4725 | 74 | 161 | False
> C13 | 167 | 4600 | 4725 | 78 | 171 | False
> C14 | 154 | 4600 | 4800 | 75 | 276 | False
> C15 | 158 | 4575 | 4625 | 79 | 72 | False
> C16 | 172 | 4600 | 4700 | 79 | 147 | False
> 
> The quality evaluation of cores has been successfully completed!
> 
> Final ranking of cores:
> by AMD (CPPC) | by real frequency
> C04 212 4800MHz | C05 4875MHz
> C02 212 4825MHz | C03 4875MHz
> C01 208 4825MHz | C07 4850MHz
> C03 203 4875MHz | C02 4825MHz
> C06 199 4775MHz | C01 4825MHz
> C05 194 4875MHz | C14 4800MHz
> C07 190 4850MHz | C08 4800MHz
> C08 185 4800MHz | C04 4800MHz
> C09 181 4700MHz | C10 4775MHz
> C10 176 4775MHz | C06 4775MHz
> C16 172 4700MHz | C13 4725MHz
> C13 167 4725MHz | C12 4725MHz
> C12 163 4725MHz | C11 4725MHz
> C15 158 4625MHz | C16 4700MHz
> C14 154 4800MHz | C09 4700MHz
> C11 149 4725MHz | C15 4625MHz
> 
> Unreceived frequency due to incorrect CPPC tags
> 1T 75MHz
> 2T 75MHz
> 3T 50MHz
> 4T 25MHz
> 5T 50MHz
> 6T 25MHz
> 7T 25MHz
> 8T 25MHz
> 9T 75MHz
> 10T 75MHz
> 11T 25MHz
> 12T 25MHz
> 13T 25MHz
> 14T 75MHz
> 15T 75MHz
> 16T 0MHz
> 
> CURVE OPTIMIZER values for BIOS
> (If you do not plan to use HYDRA)
> C01 SAFE CO: -7 MID CO: -8 FAST CO: -10
> C02 SAFE CO: 1 MID CO: 1 FAST CO: 1
> C03 SAFE CO: -23 MID CO: -28 FAST CO: -30
> C04 SAFE CO: 3 MID CO: 4 FAST CO: 5
> C05 SAFE CO: -26 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C06 SAFE CO: -6 MID CO: -7 FAST CO: -9
> C07 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C08 SAFE CO: -27 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C09 SAFE CO: -23 MID CO: -27 FAST CO: -30
> C10 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C11 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C12 SAFE CO: -26 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C13 SAFE CO: -28 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C14 SAFE CO: -30 MID CO: -30 FAST CO: -30
> C15 SAFE CO: -12 MID CO: -14 FAST CO: -18
> C16 SAFE CO: -24 MID CO: -29 FAST CO: -30
> 
> Min CPU Boost Clock Override: 0MHz
> 
> 
> Results CCD testing
> CORE#1 CO: 22 CORE#9 CO: 17
> CORE#2 CO: 9 CORE#10 CO: 15
> CORE#3 CO: 33 CORE#11 CO: 43
> CORE#4 CO: 21 CORE#12 CO: 31
> CORE#5 CO: 53 CORE#13 CO: 29
> CORE#6 CO: 49 CORE#14 CO: 39
> CORE#7 CO: 61 CORE#15 CO: 37
> CORE#8 CO: 72 CORE#16 CO: 19
> Energy Efficiency CCD#1 4.09 | GOLDEN sample
> Energy Efficiency CCD#2 3.93 | SILVER sample


I got plat on both on my 5950x and a dumpster fire IMC that can’t boot 1900. If you can run 1900 FCLK or higher you got a great one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## J7SC

I heard some good things re. performance of the latest AMD Chipset Drivers, and it is time to update my Asus CH8 mobos. Has anyone had issues when updating to the latest AMD Chipset driver from AMD's site ? Tx


----------



## sakete

PWn3R said:


> I got plat on both on my 5950x and a dumpster fire IMC that can’t boot 1900. If you can run 1900 FCLK or higher you got a great one.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


1900 FCLK would boost my RAM too right? I don't have very special RAM, so not sure it'll work. And I don't think it's worth upgrading my RAM to get a little bit more performance, as used ram is harder to sell. Whereas I can still my 3900X for around $300 and it should go pretty quickly.


----------



## tonynca

J7SC said:


> I heard some good things re. performance of the latest AMD Chipset Drivers, and it is time to update my Asus CH8 mobos. Has anyone had issues when updating to the latest AMD Chipset driver from AMD's site ? Tx


I had USB issues using the drivers from AMD's website. For some reason, Asus' website has a newer version. I'm going to always use what Asus has on their sites. My red USB ports were not working properly and I would get crackling and popping with my DAC and major stuttering with a USB wireless mouse. After installing the chipset drivers from Asus, it fixed it. Almost RMA'd my board because of it....


----------



## J7SC

tonynca said:


> I had USB issues using the drivers from AMD's website. For some reason, Asus' website has a newer version. I'm going to always use what Asus has on their sites. My red USB ports were not working properly and I would get crackling and popping with my DAC and major stuttering with a USB wireless mouse. After installing the chipset drivers from Asus, it fixed it. Almost RMA'd my board because of it....


Thanks ! Sounds like the Asus version is a safer bet...


----------



## tonynca

J7SC said:


> Thanks ! Sounds like the Asus version is a safer bet...


Make sure you uninstall the previous version, restart, then install new. They mentioned something in the notes on that.


_AMD Chipset driver V3.10.22.706 for Windows 10 64-bit, Windows 11 64-bit.(WHQL)
NOTICE:
Due to the different structure for drivers, suggest you remove the old driver first before install this version driver. _


----------



## J7SC

tonynca said:


> Make sure you uninstall the previous version, restart, then install new. They mentioned something in the notes on that.
> 
> 
> _AMD Chipset driver V3.10.22.706 for Windows 10 64-bit, Windows 11 64-bit.(WHQL)
> NOTICE:
> Due to the different structure for drivers, suggest you remove the old driver first before install this version driver. _


Thanks again. It also may be time to update the bios - the CH8 Hero Wifi is on 3302, the CH8 Dark Hero on 3501...then again, both are working w/o issue at IF1900/3800 CL14, and I really don't like updating bios at all


----------



## Blackfyre

Wait a second, why on earth is the Chipset driver on AMD's website (_which I have been visiting this whole time_), not up to date?! What...

Version 3.10.22.706 is not on AMD's website here, the latest is 3.10.08.506:



https://www.amd.com/en/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570



While version 3.10.22.706, which has been out since mid-December is available here:









AMD Ryzen Chipset Drivers (4.11.15.342) Download
 

This driver package contains the chipset drivers for AMD Ryzen processors for best performance and energy-efficient operation on Microsoft Windows.




www.techpowerup.com


----------



## stimpy88

Blackfyre said:


> Wait a second, why on earth is the Chipset driver on AMD's website (_which I have been visiting this whole time_), not up to date?! What...
> 
> Version 3.10.22.706 is not on AMD's website here, the latest is 3.10.08.506:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.amd.com/en/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570
> 
> 
> 
> While version 3.10.22.706, which has been out since mid-December is available here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen Chipset Drivers (4.11.15.342) Download
> 
> 
> This driver package contains the chipset drivers for AMD Ryzen processors for best performance and energy-efficient operation on Microsoft Windows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.techpowerup.com


AMD have always been awful with drivers, in one way or another.

I simply do not understand why they don't keep their own site up to date.


----------



## J7SC

Blackfyre said:


> Wait a second, why on earth is the Chipset driver on AMD's website (_which I have been visiting this whole time_), not up to date?! What...
> 
> Version 3.10.22.706 is not on AMD's website here, the latest is 3.10.08.506:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.amd.com/en/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570
> 
> 
> 
> While version 3.10.22.706, which has been out since mid-December is available here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen Chipset Drivers (4.11.15.342) Download
> 
> 
> This driver package contains the chipset drivers for AMD Ryzen processors for best performance and energy-efficient operation on Microsoft Windows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.techpowerup.com


...tx - just loaded the TechPowerUp version and it works great, including improved single and multi-core CPUZ. No issues with USB etc and it feels 'crisper'


----------



## Blackfyre

stimpy88 said:


> AMD have always been awful with drivers, in one way or another.
> 
> I simply do not understand why they don't keep their own site up to date.


It's so pathetic they don't keep their website updated. I would understand if it's a day or two, but it seems they're months behind sometimes.

nVidia isn't any better either, I get the latest nVidia DLSS from here, as sometimes they are not included in their drivers, or games use old versions in their directories and there are massive improvements sometimes with DLSS between big jumps:









NVIDIA DLSS DLL (2.5.0) Download


This download provides various versions of NVIDIA's DLSS DLL for download. In this one file, which is bundled with all games that support NVIDIA's




www.techpowerup.com







J7SC said:


> ...tx - just loaded the TechPowerUp version and it works great, including improved single and multi-core CPUZ. No issues with USB etc and it feels 'crisper'


I haven't had the firmware TDM hiccup yet using these, so they might have improved that, or could be that luckily I haven't come across it yet.

Also _power reporting deviating accuracy_ seems more stable now with these too (_not perfect, but better_), via HwINFO64

Haven't checked benchmarks yet for ST & MT performance. Never had USB issues myself (_and I have 8 usb devices connected_).


----------



## DavyDee

Kelutrel said:


> I used OCCT a lot for tuning my pbo curves. You can create a custom test with it that boosts to max speed a single core for 20 seconds and then automatically repeats the process on all the cores one at a time. In like 10-20 minutes or so you can quickly get which core needs more or less offset starting from zero. But that test only provides a quick initial approximation of the stable pbo curves (that would take days in corecycle), and once you get stability with OCCT it is still needed to further refine the offsets running a night or two of corecycler. Also, I repeat, it is not the standard OCCT test, it has to be created manually through the configuration options.
> 
> The configuration I used was:
> 
> CPU test
> Data set: Large
> Mode: Extreme
> Load type: Variable
> Instructions set: SSE or Auto
> Threads: Advanced
> Then click on the Advanced Thread Settings button and in that page:
> 
> Unselect all Physical Cores but Core #0
> Virtual Cores: Physical Only,
> Core Cycle: Cycle Active Core every 20s,
> Swap Active/Inactive Cores: Disabled


That is great, and reminds me of automating a procedure Millosh posted elsewhere.
Some questions:
1. which tool are you using to verify the max boost clock of each core? 
2. does increasing the max boost clock of each core automatically mean overall better benchmark scores?
3. specific to BIOS 3904 on C8 - redoing my OC I noticed that CO values of before don't fit anymore. Saw some people claim that in that version you actually need to set positive CO values - versus almost all recommendations and guidances received before v3904. What is your view on that?

Thanks!


----------



## DavyDee

Audioboxer said:


> AMD have introduced a new bug, or feature, who knows, they don't do patch notes and barely anyone knows how to get a comment from them, that when EDC is over 140 they limit CPU voltage to 1.425 max. AGESA 1.2.0.5.
> 
> As I said, a bug, or a new fantastic feature to stop pesky OCers, anyone's guess.
> 
> The only way around it is to set PBO to advanced in the BIOS, then the values as manual, but leave each set to auto, boot into Windows and load Ryzen Master and then you can set the values there with no voltage cap.
> 
> But be prepared to do that every time your PC boots because of course Ryzen Master can't have an autostart option for those that know how to boot safemode and uninstall if they ever need to.
> 
> Just AMD things. Unlikely anyone in the tech or enthusiast industry asks them about it, pls wait for AGESA 1.2.0.6+.


Thanks, you just erased some question marks from my brain, but new ones are developing as I'm writing this  (*** AMD?).


----------



## Audioboxer

Blackfyre said:


> Wait a second, why on earth is the Chipset driver on AMD's website (_which I have been visiting this whole time_), not up to date?! What...
> 
> Version 3.10.22.706 is not on AMD's website here, the latest is 3.10.08.506:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.amd.com/en/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570
> 
> 
> 
> While version 3.10.22.706, which has been out since mid-December is available here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen Chipset Drivers (4.11.15.342) Download
> 
> 
> This driver package contains the chipset drivers for AMD Ryzen processors for best performance and energy-efficient operation on Microsoft Windows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.techpowerup.com


3.10.22.706 was released by MSI. 3.11.17.521 has been released by ASUS - [DRIVERS] AMD Chipset/SATA (3xx/4xx/5xx/6xx/TRX40)

Just be careful on both, over in the AMD memory stability topic it seems we've found out there _might_ be some boosting issues with anything other than the AMD released when it comes to TM5 timeouts. Meaning, some of you might think your memory is unstable when it could be the chipset drivers. But this is in combination with Windows 11 build 22000.376 which also might be a culprit. Seems there is some sort of scheduler issue and/or over-boosting occuring which can cause TM5 to timeout.

AMD things I guess, since the launch of Windows 11 we've had issues all over the place. First, chipset drivers trying to fix poor Windows 11 performance, then AGESA 1.2.0.4 VDDG voltage bug and now AGESA 1.2.0.5 CPU voltage bug.

For as good as AMD hardware can be, software leaves a lot to desire. This is all coming off the back of the months of USB issues and botched BIOS attempts to fix those... I quite frankly think AMD have no clue what they're doing right now and have stuck plasters over multiple issues ranging from the USB problems to scheduler/boosting issues and their software is currently a huge mess. Would explain 3 different chipset drivers within the space of like 2 months, 2 of which seem to be for manufacturers to test and they've released them of their own choosing to end users.


----------



## Kelutrel

DavyDee said:


> That is great, and reminds me of automating a procedure Millosh posted elsewhere.
> Some questions:
> 1. which tool are you using to verify the max boost clock of each core?
> 2. does increasing the max boost clock of each core automatically mean overall better benchmark scores?
> 3. specific to BIOS 3904 on C8 - redoing my OC I noticed that CO values of before don't fit anymore. Saw some people claim that in that version you actually need to set positive CO values - versus almost all recommendations and guidances received before v3904. What is your view on that?
> 
> Thanks!


1. I verify my whole configuration with 20 mins of that OCCT test first, and tune my offsets depending on the results. Eventually, when no error occurs, I proceed with one night of CoreCycler. For my usage, if 8-9 hours of CoreCycler pass without errors, I consider it stable and up to now had no problem following that.
2. It depends on many other factors.
3. On my hardware I got better results with curve offsets at, or near, -30. Ymmv.


----------



## Luggage

22h corecycler -> 1h y-cruncher:



http://imgur.com/a/ZMnaGHQ


Now I start with y-cruncher…


----------



## Kelutrel

Luggage said:


> 22h corecycler -> 1h y-cruncher:
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/ZMnaGHQ
> 
> 
> Now I start with y-cruncher…


1h instead of one night ? Deal!


----------



## J7SC

FYI re. new chipset drivers, I got mine from the Techpowerup link provided here earlier, and it works great on all three Ryzen products (two of which are 16c/32t AM4s, the other a TR). Tight 3800 CL14 on both the AM4s survived the update 'unscathed' and without a single hiccup. Ditto for USB etc.

However, there was also a major Microsoft patch update over the last 36 hrs related to security including on Win 10, various Win Sever, Windows 7 (!) et al. On my AMD and Intel machines, it consistently cost a few cycles - about 8 -12 in single core performance, depending on the CPU model. That wiped out much of the new chipset driver gains in my case, at least


----------



## Luggage

Kelutrel said:


> 1h instead of one night ? Deal!


No it’s just that I ran corecycler 22h stable and after that crashed within an hour with y-cruncher…

For stability I run far longer - but now I start with y-cruncher.


----------



## pfinch

is there a best practice for power PBO values for a 5950x? (EK AIO 360 Push/Pull)
Currently I'm using 250/230/170.


----------



## Audioboxer

pfinch said:


> is there a best practice for power PBO values for a 5950x? (EK AIO 360 Push/Pull)
> Currently I'm using 250/230/170.


That's far too high for TDC. I run 270/168/220 and this works well for me. I'm wondering if you have TDC/EDC mixed up above from how most people usually type it out? 250/170/230 could be a bit more reasonable.

My reasoning for values is CB23 can hit 250w on a 5950x, so I want to have PPT a bit above max value in use. TDC for me scales well up to around 165, so a few points more. EDC surprisingly shows good scaling for me in CB23 right up to 220. I used to run it at 190, but I've got the cooling to push it further (custom loop).

270/160/190 was what I used to run until I spent a good week or so dialling in my curve to the last points and rigorously testing CB23 to see what gave me the highest scores.

My 5950x is a bit power hungry compared to others, it's a B0, and so the story goes with PBO it will be unique to you and your chip. Outside of some general figures that are maybe a good starting point (like 270/160/190).


----------



## Luggage

pfinch said:


> is there a best practice for power PBO values for a 5950x? (EK AIO 360 Push/Pull)
> Currently I'm using 250/230/170.


If really depends on usage/workload.
As for benchmarks…
Cpu-z like really low limits, really thermaly constrained.
R23 like some PPT but modest TDC and EDC.
Y-cruncher, LinX, p95 want more of everything.
With “just” a 360 you may have high limits.

TDC should usually be less than EDC.

If you are on latest agesa 1205 know that EDC over 140A will limit VID to 1.425 and might reduce single core boost.
Some people have gained performance with the limited VID in multi core, especially if they ran hot with earlier agesa.


----------



## Kelutrel

Luggage said:


> No it’s just that I ran corecycler 22h stable and after that crashed within an hour with y-cruncher…
> 
> For stability I run far longer - but now I start with y-cruncher.


I tried y-cruncher.
On my 24/7 configuration, all good, no errors for an hour and max temp 77°, it was high for that config but ok.
On my OC configuration, no errors but it went to 85° in 4 minutes and then I stopped the test.
In both cases I was at 1.425v max vid. Don't think that my AIO can withstand that test, I'll have to keep using corecycler.


----------



## Luggage

Kelutrel said:


> I tried y-cruncher.
> On my 24/7 configuration, all good, no errors for an hour and max temp 77°, it was high for that config but ok.
> On my OC configuration, no errors but it went to 85° in 4 minutes and then I stopped the test.
> In both cases I was at 1.425v max vid. Don't think that my AIO can withstand that test, I'll have to keep using corecycler.


Ryzen will drop boost to keep you under 95 as long as you don’t run manual ac.
But yea if it gets too hot boost will be low and not really stress the co values.

Another test that found instability for me was blender benchmark scene Koro (only takes 4-5 minutes on my 5800x), it would not finish but throw an error, unfortunately no information on what core etc, had to find it via elemination


----------



## GRABibus

GRABibus said:


> I applied @metalshark recommendations for VRM on my C8H (see enclosed settings).
> 
> Best run [email protected]°C ambient :
> View attachment 2542088
> 
> 
> Open PC case
> All [email protected]%
> Bios 3801
> CPU cooler : only a H115i RGB Platinum...Which really does a great job
> 
> Beside performances, I want to see if those VRM settings help to be stable at idle/low loads with -30 all cores and +200MHz.
> I didn't get any reboots since yesterday with those settings. I played one hour Vanguard, browsed, made a lot of ST CBR20 and let the PC idling all night.
> 
> Let's see ! I cross the fingers.





J7SC said:


> FYI re. new chipset drivers, I got mine from the Techpowerup link provided here earlier, and it works great on all three Ryzen products (two of which are 16c/32t AM4s, the other a TR). Tight 3800 CL14 on both the AM4s survived the update 'unscathed' and without a single hiccup. Ditto for USB etc.
> 
> However, there was also a major Microsoft patch update over the last 36 hrs related to security including on Win 10, various Win Sever, Windows 7 (!) et al. On my AMD and Intel machines, it consistently cost a few cycles - about 8 -12 in single core performance, depending on the CPU model. That wiped out much of the new chipset driver gains in my case, at least


Yes, I lost 100 to 150points in CBR20 MT score since last windows 10 patch !
And roughly 4 to 9’points in CBR20 ST…


----------



## exiiXcherry

After installing the above mentioned driver I gained about 100p in cb23 Mt (win11), st unchanged. 

Post 10000?!


----------



## GRABibus

exiiXcherry said:


> After installing the above mentioned driver I gained about 100p in cb23 Mt (win11), st unchanged.
> 
> Post 10000?!


Which driver ?


----------



## Blackfyre

exiiXcherry said:


> After installing the above mentioned driver I gained about 100p in cb23 Mt (win11), st unchanged.
> 
> Post 10000?!


Which one did you install? Which version?


----------



## exiiXcherry

Blackfyre said:


> Wait a second, why on earth is the Chipset driver on AMD's website (_which I have been visiting this whole time_), not up to date?! What...
> 
> Version 3.10.22.706 is not on AMD's website here, the latest is 3.10.08.506:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.amd.com/en/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570
> 
> 
> 
> While version 3.10.22.706, which has been out since mid-December is available here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen Chipset Drivers (4.11.15.342) Download
> 
> 
> This driver package contains the chipset drivers for AMD Ryzen processors for best performance and energy-efficient operation on Microsoft Windows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.techpowerup.com



This one. Before that I used the offical amd one.
*AMD Ryzen Chipset Drivers 3.10.22.706*


----------



## sakete

Kelutrel said:


> I used OCCT a lot for tuning my pbo curves. You can create a custom test with it that boosts to max speed a single core for 20 seconds and then automatically repeats the process on all the cores one at a time. In like 10-20 minutes or so you can quickly get which core needs more or less offset starting from zero. But that test only provides a quick initial approximation of the stable pbo curves (that would take days in corecycle), and once you get stability with OCCT it is still needed to further refine the offsets running a night or two of corecycler. Also, I repeat, it is not the standard OCCT test, it has to be created manually through the configuration options.
> 
> The configuration I used was:
> 
> CPU test
> Data set: Large
> Mode: Extreme
> Load type: Variable
> Instructions set: SSE or Auto
> Threads: Advanced
> Then click on the Advanced Thread Settings button and in that page:
> 
> Unselect all Physical Cores but Core #0
> Virtual Cores: Physical Only,
> Core Cycle: Cycle Active Core every 20s,
> Swap Active/Inactive Cores: Disabled


I ran this test with the CO settings Hydra provided, and no crashes. I think it's good enough for me


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Can anyone help me. My gpu 3090 is showing as running x8 native. I have a crosshair hero viii a 5950x and 2 x WD 4.0 1Tb nvme in the 2 motherboard slots. Nothing else populating in pcie slots. Have the nvme’s taken my cpu lanes and restricted me to x8? Or is my gen 4.0 riser cable faulty.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Delete post


----------



## HoloWS

Blackfyre said:


> The lag issue is not board related, it can happen on all AM4 boards, previous generations and new. It's Ryzen CPU + Windows related (_Microsoft and AMD need to acknowledge, reproduce and fix it_).
> 
> Anyway the more I researched this, the more I am leaning towards not buying the discrete TPM, as Windows 11 recognises it like having TPM 2.0 turned off, so major feature updates and security updates will have issues coming through. So it's useless. I thought it solves the lag issue and can run flawlessly with Windows 11, but apparently it's not the same as firmware TPM.
> 
> Here's hoping Microsoft or AMD fix the issue.


I hope to god someone from ASUS or AMD knows about this. I tried forcing TPM down from 2.0 to 1.2 in case it was a version firmware issue but that didn't fix it. Only fully turning off TPM fixes the random stutter and permanent audio pop after long uptimes. Problem is TPM now has to be re-enabled every time there's a new weekly windows update if you are on insider builds or when the yearly big updates roll around for stable.

I appreciate everyone who discovered this issue and the fix of just turning it off though.


----------



## Blackfyre

HoloWS said:


> I hope to god someone from ASUS or AMD knows about this. I tried forcing TPM down from 2.0 to 1.2 in case it was a version firmware issue but that didn't fix it. Only fully turning off TPM fixes the random stutter and permanent audio pop after long uptimes. Problem is TPM now has to be re-enabled every time there's a new weekly windows update if you are on insider builds or when the yearly big updates roll around for stable.
> 
> I appreciate everyone who discovered this issue and the fix of just turning it off though.


I just learnt to live with it, but managed to decrease its frequency massively (_notice it once every few days now, instead of two or three times a day_) by:

1. Disabling C-States, 
2. Increasing PLL Voltage from default 1.80v to 1.87v
3. Updating chipset driver to 3.10.22.706 from Asus.


----------



## safedisk

*ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 4001 BETA BIOS*

1. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1206

New AGESA version has been applied, but there may be bugs.
So please rollback to the previous version if you have any problems
Thanks

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 4001

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 4001

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 4001

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 4001

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 4001

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0601


----------



## J7SC

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2542674
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 4001 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1206
> 
> New AGESA version has been applied, but there may be bugs.
> So please rollback to the previous version if you have any problems
> Thanks
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0601


Thanks...with two of everything, I'll let @GRABibus test it out first and post


----------



## Blackfyre

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2542674
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 4001 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1206
> 
> New AGESA version has been applied, but there may be bugs.
> So please rollback to the previous version if you have any problems
> Thanks
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0601


Thank you for sharing, would appreciate a changelog. Any specific improvements other than the AGESA update?


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> Thanks...with two of everything, I'll let @GRABibus test it out first and post
> View attachment 2542679


I have just stabilized my OC with Bios 3801 

will wait for feedback from other members 

Because also I receive today a 3090 Kingpin I want to test


----------



## kx11

safedisk said:


> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 4001 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1206
> 
> New AGESA version has been applied, but there may be bugs.
> So please rollback to the previous version if you have any problems
> Thanks
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0601



Testing the Formula bios with my mild OC settings, so far so good


----------



## Luggage

kx11 said:


> Testing the Formula bios with my mild OC settings, so far so good


If you set edc over 140 in bios, what’s you max vid?


----------



## kx11

Luggage said:


> If you set edc over 140 in bios, what’s you max vid?


Never touched those, i like a stable system rather than a super high OC values


----------



## metalshark

Luggage said:


> If you set edc over 140 in bios, what’s you max vid?


Still, no limits are imposed in Hydra using the new UEFI.


----------



## Luggage

metalshark said:


> Still, no limits are imposed in Hydra using the new UEFI.


That’s rather beside the point, no?
1204 have bugged vddg (?) voltage.
1205 have “strange” edc/vid behavior.
I like to know if this was a bug or if it’s a new intended behavior going forward.

I rather not run Hydra unless I have to.


----------



## Kelutrel

I flashed 4001 just now.
There is still the max vid 1.425v at EDC > 140, max vid is 1.5v only at 140 EDC, at least on my 5900X.
To me that is Ok as it doesn't prevent good peak performance and just keeps the cpu cooler.
Performances MT/ST look on par with 3901.
Stability at low curve offsets looks the same, but it's hard to say without more testing.


----------



## Audioboxer

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2542674
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 4001 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1206
> 
> New AGESA version has been applied, but there may be bugs.
> So please rollback to the previous version if you have any problems
> Thanks
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0601


Someone who upgrades, please check if CPU voltage is limited to 1.425v (HWINFO can tell you) if you put EDC above 140 in the BIOS. Thanks.


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> I have just stabilized my OC with Bios 3801
> 
> will wait for feedback from other members
> 
> Because also I receive today a *3090 Kingpin* I want to test


What, no Ti ?


Spoiler










PS - I'm still on 3501...nice, fast and stable


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> What, no Ti ?
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS - I'm still on 3501...nice, fast and stable


Maybe 😊


----------



## stimpy88

J7SC said:


> What, no Ti ?
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS - I'm still on 3501...nice, fast and stable


I thought it was Tie these days


----------



## neikosr0x

stimpy88 said:


> I thought it was Tie these days


It is, outdated people, keep saying Ti for some reason.


----------



## finas

I love the smell of new bios in the morning. It smells like victory...


----------



## Kelutrel

I think that someone should make a benchmark, or a script, that automatically tests a progressively increasing number of threads.
CBR20 natively tests only 1 core or all the 12 cores of a 5900X. But a benchmark that tests 1,2,3....11,12 cores would produce a chart with a 12 points line, instead of 2, that may better represent any change in performances following new AGESA versions and PBO algorithms variations, because imho the change in performances when using multiple cores is not linear when using PBO.
I know that I can manually produce the same chart running CBR20 12 times and manually change the configuration each time, but it would be annoyingly tedious to repeat.


----------



## MickJones

I look forward to seeing if this new bios is worth anything.

I've stuck with 3801 on my Dark Hero/5950x. Every bios since that one has been garbage.


----------



## Kelutrel

MickJones said:


> I look forward to seeing if this new bios is worth anything.
> 
> I've stuck with 3801 on my Dark Hero/5950x. Every bios since that one has been garbage.


Looks like 4001 behaves exactly like 3904 to me. Ymmv.


----------



## Luggage

Kelutrel said:


> I think that someone should make a benchmark, or a script, that automatically tests a progressively increasing number of threads.
> CBR20 natively tests only 1 core or all the 12 cores of a 5900X. But a benchmark that tests 1,2,3....11,12 cores would produce a chart with a 12 points line, instead of 2, that may better represent any change in performances following new AGESA versions and PBO algorithms variations, because imho the change in performances when using multiple cores is not linear when using PBO.
> I know that I can manually produce the same chart running CBR20 12 times and manually change the configuration each time, but it would be annoyingly tedious to repeat.


3Dmark CPU test?


----------



## sakete

HoloWS said:


> I hope to god someone from ASUS or AMD knows about this. I tried forcing TPM down from 2.0 to 1.2 in case it was a version firmware issue but that didn't fix it. Only fully turning off TPM fixes the random stutter and permanent audio pop after long uptimes. Problem is TPM now has to be re-enabled every time there's a new weekly windows update if you are on insider builds or when the yearly big updates roll around for stable.
> 
> I appreciate everyone who discovered this issue and the fix of just turning it off though.


Honestly, best practice is to not be an early adopter of Microsoft software. Especially their operating systems, usually a bug ridden mess that breaks all sorts of things. I will not be adopting Win11 for at least another year.


----------



## metalshark

sakete said:


> Honestly, best practice is to not be an early adopter of Microsoft software. Especially their operating systems, usually a bug ridden mess that breaks all sorts of things. I will not be adopting Win11 for at least another year.


I thought the people having this issue were having it on Windows 10 as well (with TPM enabled)? Am still not sure if it's related to having a low vSoC (stock) or not though.


----------



## MickJones

Kelutrel said:


> Looks like 4001 behaves exactly like 3904 to me. Ymmv.


That's a shame.... That bios was not good at all for me.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

Kelutrel said:


> I flashed 4001 just now.
> There is still the max vid 1.425v at EDC > 140, max vid is 1.5v only at 140 EDC, at least on my 5900X.
> Stability at low curve offsets looks the same, but it's hard to say without more testing.


So the capped vcore it's a feature! Good to know...


----------



## James Cole

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2542674
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 4001 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1206
> 
> New AGESA version has been applied, but there may be bugs.
> So please rollback to the previous version if you have any problems
> Thanks
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0601


I just updated my Crosshair VIII Extreme. I could not get my 64GB Gskill kit to boot at XMP profile no matter what settings I tweaked (even though same EXACT setup with Crosshair VIII Hero worked with XMP). This BIOS now makes this memory kit compatible with the Extreme board as well. This BIOS also updated the LED firmware.


----------



## kx11

I'm having a bit of a problem with this Mobo for a year already, pretty sure it's not the GPU or my monitor because i changed it recently

So when i play a game and it puts a bit of a pressure on the system the monitor blacks out for 2 seconds alt+tab out and in the game which is not so problematic until i play with Xbox controller, when that happens the game's controls will flicker so much between KB keys and Xbox icons then when i keep using the controller the game won't respond correctly as if it disconnects for a millisecond and connects again, that is until i alt+tab out and in again the game will work fine for an hour or so then the problem comes back

Never had it with Intel mobos, my CPU is 3900xt and it might be the problem too


----------



## J7SC

MickJones said:


> I look forward to seeing if this new bios is worth anything.
> 
> I've stuck with 3801 on my Dark Hero/5950x. Every bios since that one has been garbage.


I haven't even gone that far with my Dark Hero/5950X, and still happily compute on 3501...even with a lot of USB et al and 3800/CL14 RAM, it's been flawless.


----------



## Kelutrel

MickJones said:


> That's a shame.... That bios was not good at all for me.


It has been good for me, but I lost my will to benchmark when MS released patch KB5009566 that brought me back sub-9200 again, so now I just play videogames at stock...


----------



## rossi594

kx11 said:


> I'm having a bit of a problem with this Mobo for a year already, pretty sure it's not the GPU or my monitor because i changed it recently
> 
> So when i play a game and it puts a bit of a pressure on the system the monitor blacks out for 2 seconds alt+tab out and in the game which is not so problematic until i play with Xbox controller, when that happens the game's controls will flicker so much between KB keys and Xbox icons then when i keep using the controller the game won't respond correctly as if it disconnects for a millisecond and connects again, that is until i alt+tab out and in again the game will work fine for an hour or so then the problem comes back
> 
> Never had it with Intel mobos, my CPU is 3900xt and it might be the problem too


Are you using PCIe 4.0 / Rebar? Try using PCIe 3.0 and see if it is still happening.



J7SC said:


> I haven't even gone that far with my Dark Hero/5950X, and still happily compute on 3501...even with a lot of USB et al and 3800/CL14 RAM, it's been flawless.


If you are not using PCIe 4.0 / rebar / high fclk you will only have USB issues on a very poorly optimized bios.


----------



## xeizo

My 0504 settings didn't work and triggered Windows Boot repair, laxing settings off a bit and yes it's still a steady decline in performance from early bioses. Granted, it's more energy friendly, so a silent rig is easier to achieve. About stability, we don't know yet. It's not slower in everything though, it took the lead in a few of the benches in Geekbench but overall 1.5% slower. Positive offset for vcore is needed even with EDC=140 to get near normal single core.

But yes, this rig is now very very silent, if it's also stable it's sort of a win for 1.5% less performance.


----------



## Luggage

xeizo said:


> My 0504 settings didn't work and triggered Windows Boot repair, laxing settings off a bit and yes it's still a steady decline in performance from early bioses. Granted, it's more energy friendly, so a silent rig is easier to achieve. About stability, we don't know yet. It's not slower in everything though, it took the lead in a few of the benches in Geekbench but overall 1.5% slower. Positive offset for vcore is needed even with EDC=140 to get near normal single core.
> 
> But yes, this rig is now very very silent, if it's also stable it's sort of a win for 1.5% less performance.


Since I already have silent overkill cooling - I don't like it >_<


----------



## AStaUK

What AGESA does 4001 add, does it contain anything interesting?


----------



## kx11

rossi594 said:


> Are you using PCIe 4.0 / Rebar? Try using PCIe 3.0 and see if it is still happening.



I amusing both, hmm i'll try that


----------



## Kelutrel

If anyone wants the new BIOSs 3904 or 4001 with 1.5v max vid at EDC > 140, you can just configure your power limits from the ASUS page and enable the FMax Enhancer bios option, and then use the AMD page for the curve offsets and boost only. You will not be able to configure the EDC anymore, as it will be fixed at max, but you will get the 1.5v max vid independently from any configured EDC.
I don't think it's worth it, but if anyone still wants 1.5v vid above 140 EDC he can try that.


----------



## Blackfyre

Lost all BIOS settings and profiles after the update (expected), keep in mind and have your settings backed up on a USB drive for example like I did:

All Settings the same, temperature in the room equal in both.

*3904 CB R20 MT Scores:*

Run 1: _6089 _(outlier)
Run 2: 6105
Run 3: 6105
Run 4: 6105

*4001 CB R20 MT Score:*

Run 1: 6137
Run 2: 6137
Run 3: 6137
Run 4: 6137

*3DMark CPU Test Comparison

Left: 3904 ----- Right: 4001









Result







www.3dmark.com




*


----------



## TechLauren

Audioboxer said:


> Someone who upgrades, please check if CPU voltage is limited to 1.425v (HWINFO can tell you) if you put EDC above 140 in the BIOS. Thanks.


I am fiddling with 4001 now with EDC 200 in the AMD BIOS page I have 1.425 V CPU Core Voltage in HWiNF64. 
5950x on a Dark Hero.

The option to set the little Q-Code AURA thingy is missing? I only shows 9E now. It showed my T_Sensor (Coolant temp) on 3601. Anyway to get that back? I am used to that for monitoring. I miss is and the static 9E is not useful info.


----------



## James Cole

James Cole said:


> I just updated my Crosshair VIII Extreme. I could not get my 64GB Gskill kit to boot at XMP profile no matter what settings I tweaked (even though same EXACT setup with Crosshair VIII Hero worked with XMP). This BIOS now makes this memory kit compatible with the Extreme board as well. This BIOS also updated the LED firmware.


I spoke too soon. I installed windows 11, got through the install, connected to WiFi, then computer crashed with F9 memory error then wouldnt boot with memory settings. I tried XMP profile again, tried tweaking many settings and it just wont boot at 3600Mhz. I purchased another Extreme board thinking it was faulty, same exact issue, 3466Mhz max memory. Have no idea how/why it suddenly worked briefly and now no longer works.


----------



## Daylight_Invader

James Cole said:


> I spoke too soon. I installed windows 11, got through the install, connected to WiFi, then computer crashed with F9 memory error then wouldnt boot with memory settings. I tried XMP profile again, tried tweaking many settings and it just wont boot at 3600Mhz. I purchased another Extreme board thinking it was faulty, same exact issue, 3466Mhz max memory. Have no idea how/why it suddenly worked briefly and now no longer works.


I run my CH8 Impact with Crucial Ballistix 3600 CL16 (64GB). To cut a long story short, I was the person who worked with both Micron (who own Crucial) and Asus to finally get this RAM added to the QVL, however all BIOS versions from 3601 onwards have required me (under Asus guidance) to set SOC offset of +0.00625 when enabling XMP. I don't know who makes the modules for your RAM, but it might be worth investigating whether this additional change allows the more recent BIOS versions to work.

Asus have confirmed that they do not believe my RAM to be faulty, and Micron have gotten me to run various stress tests which seem to indicate this is NOT a RAM issue. I am of the understanding that something was changed to the AGESA code after BIOS version 3501 which caused some of us running certain memory configurations to fail to boot.

-- update --

I have just tested the new beta bios from Safe Disk (4001), and sadly can confirm I still need to use the positive offset mentioned above in order to boot when enabling XMP with this new BIOS version.


----------



## kx11

The latest Win11 cumulative update reset the TPM security crap in the bios for some reason which could deny your PC from reading some of the drives connected to it so enter that TPM menu again in the bios and disable the second option


Happened to me with 1 ssd (Samsung 980 pro 500gb)


----------



## sonixmon

exiiXcherry said:


> This one. Before that I used the offical amd one.
> *AMD Ryzen Chipset Drivers 3.10.22.706*


Thanks for sharing this, just updated. Wonder why it is still not on update page?


----------



## sonixmon

sonixmon said:


> That would probably be funny, I don't think it is truly stable. I can run AIDA stress test 1hr (as long as temps below 45) and game hours on end with no issues. I am sure I would need to tweak it up a bit to really pass karhu or other stability tests. My dilemma is I don't want to water cool but I definitely notice a difference gaming between flat 14 and stock timings (14,15,15 etc). Maybe it is a placebo effect but every time I switch I do notice the difference. 😂
> 
> I have some time this week so maybe I will do some more stress testing.


Finally got to do some testing with and as suspected not stable. Didn't get to 100% Haha which kind of surprised me. Made some tweaks and ran again, just over 500% but heat became factor. Set fans to 100% and temps stayed below 40 and 1000% stable before I stopped. I will do an overnight run tonight and see what happens, but it is definitely better.

Latest timings:

tPHYRDL was 28/28
DRAM @1.5v


----------



## PWn3R

Good morning all. Just updated to 4001. Exciting news for me. I can boot 1900/3800 for the first time. Bad news, it requires setting to auto timings so far from about 2 hours of testing

I was running 16/16/16/32 on 3866, but it wont boot even with 17/17/17/37 which is what the kit I have is rated for at 1.35 @ 4000. Right now I have voltages set like this:

1.8v -> 1.9v
Vsoc 1.175 - this booted with auto timings at 1.15 probably going to drop it
Vmem 1.45
Vddp 1.09
CCD .95
Iod 1.05

Do I have anything else I should adjust or do I just need to relax the timings to like 20/20/20/40 or something and see what happens?

Probably another dumb question, but does anyone have strong suspicions that 16/16/16/32 @ 3866 is going to be better than say 20/20/20/40 @ 3800 (assuming that works).

Edit: 24/24/24/48 doesn’t work. I don’t think this cpu is ever going to cooperate with 1900.


----------



## Blackfyre

Blackfyre said:


> Lost all BIOS settings and profiles after the update (expected), keep in mind and have your settings backed up on a USB drive for example like I did:
> 
> All Settings the same, temperature in the room equal in both.
> 
> *3904 CB R20 MT Scores:*
> 
> Run 1: _6089 _(outlier)
> Run 2: 6105
> Run 3: 6105
> Run 4: 6105
> 
> *4001 CB R20 MT Score:*
> 
> Run 1: 6137
> Run 2: 6137
> Run 3: 6137
> Run 4: 6137
> 
> *3DMark CPU Test Comparison
> 
> Left: 3904 ----- Right: 4001
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Result
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


*To add, this the first time I have ever been able to run 2000 FCLK and 4000Mhz RAM:*

Unstable with WHEA errors of course, but nonetheless, I can probably fix that with higher voltage. However I am uncomfortable with using higher voltage than 1.48v for daily use, like pushing 1.52v for example for daily is a bit too high.

I would rather stick with my current tight timings and 3800Mhz @ 1.48v


----------



## J7SC

Blackfyre said:


> *To add, this the first time I have ever been able to run 2000 FCLK and 4000Mhz RAM:*
> 
> Unstable with WHEA errors of course, but nonetheless, I can probably fix that with higher voltage. However I am uncomfortable with using higher voltage than 1.48v for daily use, like pushing 1.52v for example for daily is a bit too high.
> 
> I would rather stick with my current tight timings and 3800Mhz @ 1.48v
> View attachment 2542998


...been there, done that  ...compare your L3 cache speeds at 3800 vs 4000 ...still, it's nice to know that one potentially _could run_ IF2000 / DDR4 4000 with enough juice and optimizations


----------



## Danny.ns

PWn3R said:


> Good morning all. Just updated to 4001. Exciting news for me. I can boot 1900/3800 for the first time.


Wait you had the 1900 FCLK hole and now it boots at 1900 "every time" (at auto timings)?


----------



## Sam64

TechLauren said:


> I only shows 9E now.


Happened to me as well ([email protected]). I deactivated TPM in Bios and 9E is gone.


----------



## pantsoftime

My Zen2 launch day CH8 Formula died yesterday  It started randomly rebooting and then eventually just got to a point where it was POST Code 00. At first I thought my CPU was having an issue but I replaced it and had the same problem. I tried a couple of flashbacks but no dice.
I picked up a Dark Hero to tide me over during RMA, but I'm having a heck of a time getting my memory timings to be anywhere as good as I had on the formula. Not sure what's going on. I can't load my old CMO file so I lost my settings, but I'm trying to go through the process I used on the formula.


----------



## exiiXcherry

The formula seems to be better at ram oc. Had some conversations about that on reddit and someone here who had the same ram but can run better ram oc on the formula.


----------



## PWn3R

Danny.ns said:


> Wait you had the 1900 FCLK hole and now it boots at 1900 "every time" (at auto timings)?


Yes. I was able to boot 1900 with auto timings on RAM, but with manual voltages. However, the timings are so bad (and loosening them I had gotten to 22/22/22/48 and it still wouldn't boot at 1.5v on RAM) it's not worth not using 1866.


----------



## pantsoftime

exiiXcherry said:


> The formula seems to be better at ram oc. Had some conversations about that on reddit and someone here who had the same ram can run better ram oc on the formula.


Thanks for mentioning this. I'll try to dial things back a bit. I'm using 4x16GB B-die DIMMs which can be pretty difficult to get working sometimes.


----------



## TechLauren

Sam64 said:


> Happened to me as well ([email protected]). I deactivated TPM in Bios and 9E is gone.


People say you can't update windows with it disabled. I guess I will see!

How the hell did I ever get it to display T_Sensor in the first place? Was it in some software I have long since deleted? It's not in any BIOS version even 3601 where I had it working or the AURA standalone rgb software I use for the other led things. I wet back to BIOS 3601 and it displayed AA and everyother newer version displays the 9E.


----------



## GRABibus

I had some stability and temps issues with 3904.
By reading all your feedbacks here doesn't convince me to upgrade to 4001.

I keep my 3801 

Thank you all for your helpful inputs.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

can someone explain how to turn off TPM in the bios. I’ve started getting bsod with the event viewer stating *SCEP Certificate enrollment initialization Failed Event ID 86 Errors *I was on windows 11 but then have now gone back to 10. From searches it seems to be related to tpm. Also on beta bios 4001


----------



## MickJones

J7SC said:


> I haven't even gone that far with my Dark Hero/5950X, and still happily compute on 3501...even with a lot of USB et al and 3800/CL14 RAM, it's been flawless.


You may give 3801 a go. That bios resolved all USB dropouts for me, and also is by far the most stable with the highest RAM OC stability as well as IF stability. Whether I run PBO or Hydra on this bios its great. May be worth exploring!


----------



## bt1

Badgerslayer7 said:


> can someone explain how to turn off TPM in the bios


You can disable TPM device in windows device manager if you want. No app or service will be able to detect or use it.


----------



## xeizo

I kinda like 4001/6001, boost is clearly lower but also: I haven't seen a single WHEA as of yet. It's really stable. And yes, 3800MHz mem/ 1900 fclk.

Not even during heavy gaming, last bios had WHEA only during gameplay never in Windows, with 6001 even gaming is WHEA free so far.

Conclusion is, yes, Zen 3 have had a "happy boost" from start, most cpu:s like mine won't boost that happy without consequences. Interesting enough so has N-Body physics in Geekbench a massive improvement with this bios, like 20%, maybe there's some different caching going on or something compared to earlier AGESA.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

bt1 said:


> You can disable TPM device in windows device manager if you want. No app or service will be able to detect or use it.


I don’t seem to have the option to disable in windows 10. Only the option to clear


----------



## bt1

Badgerslayer7 said:


> I don’t seem to have the option to disable in windows 10. Only the option to clear


Sorry, guess i was wrong


----------



## Sleepycat

Badgerslayer7 said:


> can someone explain how to turn off TPM in the bios. I’ve started getting bsod with the event viewer stating *SCEP Certificate enrollment initialization Failed Event ID 86 Errors *I was on windows 11 but then have now gone back to 10. From searches it seems to be related to tpm. Also on beta bios 4001


It's under Advanced, fTPM, one of the first items on the top in the Advanced tab menu.


----------



## AndreDVJ

xeizo said:


> I kinda like 4001/6001, boost is clearly lower but also: I haven't seen a single WHEA as of yet. It's really stable. And yes, 3800MHz mem/ 1900 fclk.
> 
> Not even during heavy gaming, last bios had WHEA only during gameplay never in Windows, with 6001 even gaming is WHEA free so far.
> 
> Conclusion is, yes, Zen 3 have had a "happy boost" from start, most cpu:s like mine won't boost that happy without consequences. Interesting enough so has N-Body physics in Geekbench a massive improvement with this bios, like 20%, maybe there's some different caching going on or something compared to earlier AGESA.


The only time I ever had a WHEA event with Cache Hierachy error, was when I played with PBO+CO.


My 5900X boosted to 5.05GHz and a sudden reboot happened when in Idle.
IF at 1800MHz. Never ever exceeded that. I run Crucial (Micron E-Die) 4x8GB 3200MHz.
That WHEA event was on 27/04/2021, and had UEFI 3501 at that time.

I found that PBO was culprit. I explicitly disable PBO, leaving with the standard Precision Boost (i.e. Core Performance Boost), and running error-free ever since. Boosts to 4.9GHz, which is still over the advertised clocks, but no issues have occurred. I would RMA the CPU if WHEA event happens while I'm running within AMD specifications.

Neither PB nor PBO should ever boost CPU frequency past its advertised clock speeds. Since cache is linked to CPU frequency, I believe it's pretty obvious that WHEA with cache errors will come up.

I don't have a very good cooler (H100i Pro) so PBO only yielded an all-core 100MHz improvement (up to 4.5GHz), with way more voltage then doing OC manually (multiplier 45x). I recall EDC going up to 170A or something.

PBO setting on Auto on CHVIII Hero actually enables PBO (up to 3801 to my knowledge). As PBO violates all PPT/TDC/EDC limits, should be explicitly enabled in my opinion. Not sure if that's Asus' or AMD's fault, but that's the default behavior.

Anyway, I tried PBO on the last two versions (3904 and 4001):


EDC stays on the standard 140A, essentially doing nothing more than standard Precision Boost.
Increasing EDC will restrict max VID to 1.42v or so, leading to a decrease of peak system performance, both single and all-core.
I did not increase PPT and TDC limits.
Essentially, PBO does not work properly at the moment from my perspective.
While I dislike PBO, AMD shouldn't break the feature like this.

I may be completely wrong in everything I said, I'm no expect overclocker, and won't take offense from being corrected. Just sharing my experience running this motherboard, and that's the 3rd CPU I'm using on this board (2700X then 3900X, and my current 5900X).

I'm satisfied my my current system as it is. I can use Windows power plans if I want to limit CPU clock speed for any reason while retaining Precision Boost. Save power without penalty from standard power plans, and boost whenever I need, just a script away (actually 1 key away, as I programmed my macro keys for this).


----------



## metalshark

AndreDVJ said:


> Neither PB nor PBO should ever boost CPU frequency past its advertised clock speeds


PBO lets you go beyond the speeds in adverts. The 5950X for instance can go up to 5150MHz (4950+200MHz) before touching the BCLK. There was talk of 5225MHz being coded into PBO as a max (but I don't have a hope in hell of verifying that). You'll often (but not always) get 50MHz over (so 4950+50MHz) or 150-175MHz over with clock stretching (cheating for screenshots with no actual increase in performance) until going sub-zero (or having one of those amazing samples).



AndreDVJ said:


> EDC stays on the standard 140A, essentially doing nothing more than standard Precision Boost.


EDC can hit almost 500A peak, even on the latest UEFIs with 340A-490A being a hard to get to area (need good water cooling). Don't know what you hit sub-zero. You'll generally only limit this if you are having problems keeping the system cool (e.g. below 75'C for max boosting). So many have it at 200A or less with AIOs or poor contact/designed waterblocks. 230-270A is common for good waterblocks. Then 270A+ for liquid metal with good waterblocks and great cooling (or dry ice/LN2/liquid helium).

Personally use Hydra so no voltage limiting is applicable and believe others are using Ryzen Master each boot to bypass this as an alternative.


----------



## pfinch

metalshark said:


> Personally use Hydra so no voltage limiting is applicable and believe others are using Ryzen Master each boot to bypass this as an alternative.


could you share your hydra bios settings please 
too much misinformation about power limits on discord regarding edc, llc etc


----------



## metalshark

pfinch said:


> could you share your hydra bios settings please
> too much misinformation about power limits on discord regarding edc, llc etc


500A EDC
400W PPT
250A TDC

TDC you may need to drop to 230A if you hit the issue where it dies, fans go max speed and you need to turn on/off at the PSU/wall even with 140% Current Capability. You can use the LN2 slider on the motherboard to unlock 200% as an option on the UEFI or keep to 230A but be warned this also loosens the VRM settings so is not ideal.

Please note this is with great cooling and the Formula board (waterblocks on VRM).

PPT spikes high but doesn’t settle there so is set that high for the algorithm and sub-second bursts, sustained is only like ~305W. Same with TDC where sustained is ~235A. EDC however has hit 493A (~340A sustained).

Without Hydra have hit 232A TDC, 296A EDC and 305W PPT (looking at screenshots as can’t remember but think have hit a bit higher). So you’ll often find higher EDC (with performance to match) when targeting a few workload’s profiles using Hydra.

Post 9919 covers the VRM settings








ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...


Il will disable first fast boot option and tried several weeks.




www.overclock.net





But would encourage looking through the next 3-5 pages as we discuss as a group and it gives a much more well rounded view.


----------



## pfinch

llc 3, power phases extreme?


----------



## metalshark

pfinch said:


> llc 3, power phases extreme?


As per ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp... but would encourage looking through the next 3-5 pages as we discuss as a group and it gives a much more well-rounded view.

LLC Auto for CPU, 3 for RAM/SoC and extreme/ultra fast.


----------



## sonixmon

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2542674
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 4001 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1206
> 
> New AGESA version has been applied, but there may be bugs.
> So please rollback to the previous version if you have any problems
> Thanks
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0601


I got bored so I update my CH8 board to 4001. No really negative issues, but between this bios and the Chipset update (3.10.22.706 as discussed in this thread) my micro stutter issue is gone. The Chipset driver made the most difference, then the bios seemed to eradicate it (so far).

Temps might be up a few degrees on CPU (just noticed in gaming) and I haven't benched anything. Planning to run Hydra again on this week's release (if it comes out).


----------



## Blackfyre

sonixmon said:


> I got bored so I update my CH8 board to 4001. No really negative issues, but between this bios and the Chipset update (3.10.22.706 as discussed in this thread) my micro stutter issue is gone. The Chipset driver made the most difference, then the bios seemed to eradicate it (so far).
> 
> Temps might be up a few degrees on CPU (just noticed in gaming) and I haven't benched anything. Planning to run Hydra again on this week's release (if it comes out).


*BIOS + Chipset + Disabling C-States + Increasing PLL Voltage to 1.9v* helped for me a lot, but I still noticed it yesterday and it annoyed me. So I bought a discrete TPM yesterday and installed it on the motherboard and switched from Firmware TPM to Discrete TPM in the BIOS. This is the only way to fix it 100% as mentioned before, ridiculous that we have to pay extra to fix it, but in Australia the Asus TPM is cheap, I bought it for $19 AUD locally, on Amazon it was over $100 for some reason.


----------



## Elrick

Blackfyre said:


> So I bought a discrete TPM yesterday and installed it on the motherboard and switched from Firmware TPM to Discrete TPM in the BIOS. This is the only way to fix it 100% as mentioned before, ridiculous that we have to pay extra to fix it, but in Australia the Asus TPM is cheap, I bought it for $19 AUD locally, on Amazon it was over $100 for some reason.


CORRECT.

Not so much for my ancient 10900Ks which have all worked 24/7 perfectly (100% reliable). Only AMD seems to have these ongoing problems, hence requiring an external TPM hardware chip.

Maybe this is due to having this style of setup upon the AMD realm here because Intel, has been so looked after by Windows and have never suffered with the initiation of Windows 11 TPM fixation.

Even though I despise Intel but when it comes to making a reliable platform thus far for 2022, they have delivered. Not talking about the freaks wanting 6Ghz overclock with cpu and memory, they will always have issues.


----------



## metalshark

Blackfyre said:


> *BIOS + Chipset + Disabling C-States + Increasing PLL Voltage to 1.9v* helped for me a lot, but I still noticed it yesterday and it annoyed me. So I bought a discrete TPM yesterday and installed it on the motherboard and switched from Firmware TPM to Discrete TPM in the BIOS. This is the only way to fix it 100% as mentioned before, ridiculous that we have to pay extra to fix it, but in Australia the Asus TPM is cheap, I bought it for $19 AUD locally, on Amazon it was over $100 for some reason.


Just to confirm though (in case I’m missing something) this is only happening to a minority of people’s systems right? To be fair any systems is too many and would be annoyed if my own was affected. Wonder if we can look into common elements which apply to those experiencing it. For instance is it only happening on boards that have a slot for a discrete TPM (mine does not).


----------



## LocoDiceGR

I see asus only updates Bios of *Crosshair VIII *, these days..


----------



## metalshark

LocoDiceGR said:


> I see asus only updates Bios of *Crosshair VIII *, these days..


To be fair they update the UEFI for other models and this is the Crosshair VIII thread where version 4001 is in BETA at present. Commenting on a Crosshair VIII bias in a Crosshair VIII thread seems at odds. For other models, there have been BETA versions available before listed on the site (or may never be released on the site, e.g. skipped entirely).


----------



## Kelutrel

metalshark said:


> Just to confirm though (in case I’m missing something) this is only happening to a minority of people’s systems right? To be fair any systems is too many and would be annoyed if my own was affected. Wonder if we can look into common elements which apply to those experiencing it. For instance is it only happening on boards that have a slot for a discrete TPM (mine does not).


I have a C8F, that has no discrete TPM slot, and I was not affected by this issue. I have the feeling that it may be related to a specific card or onboard device, that may be possible to disable from the BIOS, instead of a motherboard or OS issue.


----------



## Blackfyre

Kelutrel said:


> I have a C8F, that has no discrete TPM slot, and I was not affected by this issue. I have the feeling that it may be related to a specific card or onboard device, that may be possible to disable from the BIOS, instead of a motherboard or OS issue.





metalshark said:


> Just to confirm though (in case I’m missing something) this is only happening to a minority of people’s systems right? To be fair any systems is too many and would be annoyed if my own was affected. Wonder if we can look into common elements which apply to those experiencing it. For instance is it only happening on boards that have a slot for a discrete TPM (mine does not).


There's an entire thread dedicated to this issue happening to many people. I think it is extremely unlikely to come across it if you're not one of those people that always has media running in the background while working on the PC. But if you are the type that always has media playing in the background (_for example a stream, or spotify, or tv show_) you will notice it happen.

Maybe like you guys said, it does not affect all systems, but I am under the impression that it does *but it is more easily noticeable* to those who use their PC's for long periods + have media playing in the background.

Here's the 16 page thread on LTT forums (_linked below_) discussion it since July 2021 when people started enabling and using TPM 2.0

And yes, *using the discrete module completely eliminates the problem*.





__





AMD fTPM causing random stuttering.


Recently I turned on the fTPM on my asus B550 wifi motherboard because of the new Windows 11 TPM 2.0 requirements, after I did that I started getting random stuttering on everything, heavy cpu or gpu load don’t seem to trigger it, I tried running the heaven benchmark and doing some heavy renders ...




linustechtips.com


----------



## metalshark

Blackfyre said:


> There's an entire thread dedicated to this issue happening to many people. I think it is extremely unlikely to come across it if you're not one of those people that always has media running in the background while working on the PC. But if you are the type that always has media playing in the background (_for example a stream, or spotify, or tv show_) you will notice it happen.
> 
> Maybe like you guys said, it does not affect all systems, but I am under the impression that it does *but it is more easily noticeable* to those who use their PC's for long periods + have media playing in the background.
> 
> Here's the 16 page thread on LTT forums (_linked below_) discussion it since July 2021 when people started enabling and using TPM 2.0
> 
> And yes, *using the discrete module completely eliminates the problem*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD fTPM causing random stuttering.
> 
> 
> Recently I turned on the fTPM on my asus B550 wifi motherboard because of the new Windows 11 TPM 2.0 requirements, after I did that I started getting random stuttering on everything, heavy cpu or gpu load don’t seem to trigger it, I tried running the heaven benchmark and doing some heavy renders ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> linustechtips.com


Very aware of latency spikes and have media playing nearly always - so count me in the hyper-aware camp. To be clear I did use to have these stutters exactly as described and needed to crank my vSoC up to 1.1875 to eliminate them, but never tried disabling the fTPM instead, but think others have tried this to no avail so the fTPM issue seems to be separate even though it exhibits the same behaviour (fine some days, stutters regardless of workload a few times a day otherwise).


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Is this the module everyone is using? https://www.scan.co.uk/products/asus-tpm-m-r20-trusted-platform-module-141-pin-model-see-info


----------



## LorDClockaN

Where do everyone feel those micro stutters??
I haven't experienced any on w11, dark hero, 5950x


----------



## metalshark

LorDClockaN said:


> Where do everyone feel those micro stutters??
> I haven't experienced any on w11, dark hero, 5950x


In 3D games it’s random chundering where the frame rate drops suddenly, the sound goes odd and the mouse/controller input stops for a split second (input takes up to a second to recover). If measuring scientifically use LatencyMon and you’ll notice a ridiculously high spike.

You can get it browsing where scrolling suddenly jams up, where YouTube stutters or audio stutters in your playback app of choice.

Some days never, some days 5 times, maybe even twice inside 5 minutes.

Most people seem to never experience it. Some people need to increase vSoC/vPLL and a third class of people seem to have fTPM issues.

For me on a Formula with 3090 and 980 Pro only it’s only been low vSoC/vPLL (and since fixed by increasing both). A lot of others it’s been mostly on boards that allow for discrete TPMs (people without those slots say they have the issues but don’t know if it’s the low vSoC/vPLL issue with them). The LTT thread seem to allude it’s been a long term issue not restricted to ASUS boards.


----------



## stimpy88

Badgerslayer7 said:


> Is this the module everyone is using? https://www.scan.co.uk/products/asus-tpm-m-r20-trusted-platform-module-141-pin-model-see-info


Yep, that's the one, and it works flawlessly.

Remember to select Discreet TPM in the BIOS.


----------



## Zogge

metalshark said:


> In 3D games it’s random chundering where the frame rate drops suddenly, the sound goes odd and the mouse/controller input stops for a split second (input takes up to a second to recover). If measuring scientifically use LatencyMon and you’ll notice a ridiculously high spike.
> 
> You can get it browsing where scrolling suddenly jams up, where YouTube stutters or audio stutters in your playback app of choice.
> 
> Some days never, some days 5 times, maybe even twice inside 5 minutes.
> 
> Most people seem to never experience it. Some people need to increase vSoC/vPLL and a third class of people seem to have fTPM issues.
> 
> For me on a Formula with 3090 and 980 Pro only it’s only been low vSoC/vPLL (and since fixed by increasing both). A lot of others it’s been mostly on boards that allow for discrete TPMs( people without those slots say they have the issues but don’t know if it’s the low vSoC/vPLL issue with them). The LTT thread seem to allude it’s been a long term issue not restricted to ASUS boards.


What value on soc and pll did you use to fix it ? I have the same setup.


----------



## metalshark

Zogge said:


> What value on soc and pll did you use to fix it ? I have the same setup.


1.87v PLL and 1.1875v SoC running 3800MT/s RAM and 1900IF. You might need more if going faster on RAM/IF and less if they are lower also there'll be some variance based on silicon lottery even at the same speed (1.15-1.2v vSoC and 1.86-1.9v PLL for instance). Could run much lower vSoC and pass all benchmarks/stability tests, but needed to crank it that high to remove stutters.

LatencyMon doesn't eat too many resources for doing a week-long soak test (it'll kill a benchmark and you don't want it running after testing) and using a tool helps in case it stutters when you leave your desk, have it running overnight, etc. It's also pretty obvious being in the 50,000-200,000 range (50-200ms) whereas normally you'll struggle to go over 1,000 (1ms) even with NVIDIA drivers (nvlddmkm.sys) and ACPI power management (ACPI.sys).

This doesn’t mean that a separate fTPM stuttering issue will exhibit latency spikes in the same range, but would definitely have a look at anything over 10,000 (10ms) even for general purpose day to day use/gaming (subjectively you may want to look at things over a much lower threshold, 10,000 though would be of concern to most IMO regardless of what they use their PC for).


----------



## LorDClockaN

metalshark said:


> In 3D games it’s random chundering where the frame rate drops suddenly, the sound goes odd and the mouse/controller input stops for a split second (input takes up to a second to recover). If measuring scientifically use LatencyMon and you’ll notice a ridiculously high spike.
> 
> You can get it browsing where scrolling suddenly jams up, where YouTube stutters or audio stutters in your playback app of choice.
> 
> Some days never, some days 5 times, maybe even twice inside 5 minutes.
> 
> Most people seem to never experience it. Some people need to increase vSoC/vPLL and a third class of people seem to have fTPM issues.
> 
> For me on a Formula with 3090 and 980 Pro only it’s only been low vSoC/vPLL (and since fixed by increasing both). A lot of others it’s been mostly on boards that allow for discrete TPMs (people without those slots say they have the issues but don’t know if it’s the low vSoC/vPLL issue with them). The LTT thread seem to allude it’s been a long term issue not restricted to ASUS boards.


Thanks for the clarification and no, I never experienced anything like it


----------



## Blackfyre

Badgerslayer7 said:


> Is this the module everyone is using? https://www.scan.co.uk/products/asus-tpm-m-r20-trusted-platform-module-141-pin-model-see-info


Yes, that's the one.


----------



## xV Slayer

Blackfyre said:


> Yes, that's the one.


I can confirm since switching from the fTPM to the dTPM using that module I am stutter free for 3 months.


----------



## Gondar

What's the best way to control case fans? all of them are connected to 4 pins.


----------



## Luggage

Gondar said:


> What's the best way to control case fans? all of them are connected to 4 pins.


I liked Argus monitor until I got an aqua computer octo.


----------



## metalshark

Gondar said:


> What's the best way to control case fans? all of them are connected to 4 pins.


It depends, you can daisy chain/split the PWM signal from your board if sensors on the board for temps and flow speed are sufficient both in quantity and sensitivity. Otherwise use something like the aqua computer eco system luggage mentioned, their flow rate monitor is the best by far for the price IMO on the market (you need to go it alone with industrial equipment to beat it which is effort for little result) and their eco system for standalone again is superb.

Personally prefer getting monitoring of hardware temps/flow rate and controlling of fans into a solution not dependant on software (aqua computer whilst having software it can be just for initial configuration so this is directed at Argus). Software lets you use existing temperature sensors of items the motherboard isn’t aware of (same goes for any 3rd party hardware system you buy) without using the temperature probes you get with with your motherboard (they are also often sited in a better internal location for the temps to measure) so it’s not to say the software method isn’t without merit.

There are also a lot of Arduino projects for different solutions if you only need a few things to bolster your setup and don’t mind some soldering/programming. For instance I have a project for controlling 4 fans and reporting back the lowest RPM from any (when you split you normally can only monitor the tachometer and therefore the speed of one fan) this then outputs a tachometer signal of it too, meaning you can run four fans off one motherboard fan connector whilst monitoring the lowest speed of any of the four (it now also gets the fans in sync as each fan varies their speeds slightly due to manufacturing so it modifies the PWM signal going to each fan a little so they harmonise slightly reducing the noise and vibration)


----------



## AStaUK

Gondar said:


> What's the best way to control case fans? all of them are connected to 4 pins.


I use a small Arctic fan controller, connect one port to the PWM on your motherboard, port one to a fan which will control the speed for the others and then set your fan/curve within the BIOS and leave it to do it's thing. Arctic 10 Port Fan Controller


----------



## Elrick

LocoDiceGR said:


> I see asus only updates Bios of *Crosshair VIII *, these days..


A super-fine product that has many years of usage. 

You will sometimes get a tiny handful of motherboards that get constant updates simply because they deserve to extend the FUN a little longer, before the next generation of CPUs and LGA sockets arrive, for everyone.


----------



## dlbsyst

xV Slayer said:


> I can confirm since switching from the fTPM to the dTPM using that module I am stutter free for 3 months.


I'd like to get one but can't seem to find one at a good price. Any suggestions?


----------



## shaolin95

Has anyone had issues with the last windows 11 update going to BSOD booting up?
My settings have been rock solid for months doing benchmarks, gaming, 3d rendering, video encoding, you name it..I have done it and without a single issue yet with this new Windows update, I cannot boot. If I load DEFAULTS in Bios then it boots.
I have not tried with the very latest chipset drivers that were posted recently and I am on Bios 3902


----------



## Daylight_Invader

shaolin95 said:


> Has anyone had issues with the last windows 11 update going to BSOD booting up?
> My settings have been rock solid for months doing benchmarks, gaming, 3d rendering, video encoding, you name it..I have done it and without a single issue yet with this new Windows update, I cannot boot. If I load DEFAULTS in Bios then it boots.
> I have not tried with the very latest chipset drivers that were posted recently and I am on Bios 3902


What BIOS fault code are you getting? Which light on your motherboard is showing up?


----------



## metalshark

shaolin95 said:


> Has anyone had issues with the last windows 11 update going to BSOD booting up?
> My settings have been rock solid for months doing benchmarks, gaming, 3d rendering, video encoding, you name it..I have done it and without a single issue yet with this new Windows update, I cannot boot. If I load DEFAULTS in Bios then it boots.
> I have not tried with the very latest chipset drivers that were posted recently and I am on Bios 3902


No BSODs at all - what're you getting?


----------



## J7SC

shaolin95 said:


> Has anyone had issues with the last windows 11 update going to BSOD booting up?
> My settings have been rock solid for months doing benchmarks, gaming, 3d rendering, video encoding, you name it..I have done it and without a single issue yet with this new Windows update, I cannot boot. If I load DEFAULTS in Bios then it boots.
> I have not tried with the very latest chipset drivers that were posted recently and I am on Bios 3902


...double-check re. latest Microsoft Hotfixes...there were multiple stories in the media that the latest Windows bulk update caused a lot of issues for some users, and Microsoft released a series of Hotfixes that are 'optional' and need manual downloading.


----------



## GRABibus

How many Corecycler iterations do you perform for a 5900X using Prime 95 ?


----------



## Sleepycat

GRABibus said:


> How many Corecycler iterations do you perform for a 5900X using Prime 95 ?


I'm using the default 10000 iterations, Prime95 AVX2, small FFT.


----------



## shaolin95

Well weirdly enough I manually entered the exact same BIOS settings and saved it then it booted to windows just fine. 
Whatever...one of those odd things in the computer world


----------



## Sleepycat

Gondar said:


> What's the best way to control case fans? all of them are connected to 4 pins.


I've used 2 different methods with my C8H. First was using 2x 4-pin fan splitters. It allowed me to connect 3 case fans to 1 motherboard header. You do have to make sure the peak fan current does not exceed what the motherboard header is rated to. Our C8H's standard fan headers are rated to 1A, and the high amp header (great feature!) at the bottom front, is good for 3A.

I have also used one of those fan connector boards which help split 1 connector to 4. Its advantage over the above splitter method is a much neater cable arrangement. The downside is that some low quality ones can potentially short if they board is made in a sub-standard way.


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> Well weirdly enough I manually entered the exact same BIOS settings and saved it then it booted to windows just fine.
> Whatever...one of those odd things in the computer world


Nice  , that would have given me a heart attack if a Windows update locked me out of my system!


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> Nice  , that would have given me a heart attack if a Windows update locked me out of my system!



I used to go through that but I run daily backups now so I am never afraid of issues


----------



## nada324

Hello, im having lot of whea #19 with fclk 2000 with ryzen 5600x, do you have bios settings that could help?

Currently running 1.15v Vsoc, ccd 1.040 and iod 1.100

Or i will RMA this cpu and try other one


Im using bios 3801, not tried 4001 because agesa 1.2.0.6 is worse

Thank you


----------



## Kelutrel

nada324 said:


> Hello, im having lot of whea #19 with fclk 2000 with ryzen 5600x, do you have bios settings that could help?
> 
> Currently running 1.15v Vsoc, ccd 1.040 and iod 1.100
> 
> Or i will RMA this cpu and try other one
> 
> 
> Im using bios 3801, not tried 4001 because agesa 1.2.0.6 is worse
> 
> Thank you


It may help if you also provide all your current settings, a screenshot from ZenTimings may suffice.

Please note that 2000 fclk is hard to get, most people reach 1900 and stop there. Even if you RMA your current cpu, the chances that your next cpu sample is able to reach 2000 fclk are tiny.


----------



## nada324

Kelutrel said:


> It may help if you also provide all your current settings, a screenshot from ZenTimings may suffice.
> 
> Please note that 2000 fclk is hard to get, most people reach 1900 and stop there. Even if you RMA your current cpu, the chances that your next cpu sample is able to reach 2000 fclk are tiny.


Okey, here you have it, note PBO is disabled completly, as before i had it with CO and would give me many more wheas

Vdimm= 1.48v, 1.496v with asus idk llc


----------



## Outcasst

Performed further testing over the past week, and it looks like my 5900x requires positive CO on cores 3 and 4 to be fully stable.

Those two cores are failing Core Cycler at stock settings consistently on two different BIOS versions. I've tried changing LLC to 3 but that didn't do much.

I have a Prime X570 Pro in my server running a 3900x that I could put the 5900x in and run the same tests, but how likely is it to be a problem with the VIII Hero?

My issue is that this 5900x came in a motherboard bundle from a retailer (not my current board), so AMD won't accept it through their RMA process as it's classed as OEM. The retailer will accept it, but are likely to be more picky about testing. It can sometimes take 14+ hours for the CPU to error.


----------



## GRABibus

nada324 said:


> Hello, im having lot of whea #19 with fclk 2000 with ryzen 5600x, do you have bios settings that could help?
> 
> Currently running 1.15v Vsoc, ccd 1.040 and iod 1.100
> 
> Or i will RMA this cpu and try other one
> 
> 
> Im using bios 3801, not tried 4001 because agesa 1.2.0.6 is worse
> 
> Thank you


From my side, I can’t boot at 2000MHz.
I will RMA also 😂

no , seriously, as mentionned by @Kelutrel booting at 2000MHz with GDM disabled is already a nice thing.
Most of the people get Whea 19 as of 1900MHz/1933MHz.
RMA your CPU and you will get probably a worst one.


----------



## Kelutrel

nada324 said:


> Okey, here you have it, note PBO is disabled completly, as before i had it with CO and would give me many more wheas
> 
> Vdimm= 1.48v, 1.496v with asus idk llc
> 
> 
> View attachment 2544163


That is a golden bin indeed, quite rare. You may want to try to enable GDM and increase tRFC/2/4 to like 290 or so, just as a temporary test. Then, if the whea errors stop, you are probably getting them because of some wait state on the edge of stability and you may still be able to reach stability by finding it and tweaking it.
I agree with Grabibus that you will most probably end up with a worse bin if you RMA this one.


----------



## Prophet4NO1

I got 2000 fclk after tons of tweaking. Lots of it in voltage tweaks. That was on a 5800x. One thing I can say is that the ranges for voltages working or not working is very small. Sometimes only one step to either side of the sweet spot. So, giving my settings is not going to help much. What I basically did was bump voltage till things got more stabile then adjusted another settings and voltages. Like any other OC. One step/setting at a time. After a couple weeks of messing after work I messaged things to work but it was a real pain in the butt.


----------



## Luggage

Prophet4NO1 said:


> I got 2000 fclk after tons of tweaking. Lots of it in voltage tweaks. That was on a 5800x. One thing I can say is that the ranges for voltages working or not working is very small. Sometimes only one step to either side of the sweet spot. So, giving my settings is not going to help much. What I basically did was bump voltage till things got more stabile then adjusted another settings and voltages. Like any other OC. One step/setting at a time. After a couple weeks of messing after work I messaged things to work but it was a real pain in the butt.


Well from someone who can’t boot 1900+ at all, any hint is useful so don’t be shy about posting your zen-timings


----------



## nada324

Kelutrel said:


> That is a golden bin indeed, quite rare. You may want to try to enable GDM and increase tRFC/2/4 to like 290 or so, just as a temporary test. Then, if the whea errors stop, you are probably getting them because of some wait state on the edge of stability and you may still be able to reach stability by finding it and tweaking it.
> I agree with Grabibus that you will most probably end up with a worse bin if you RMA this one.


Okay thanks for the tip, with flck 1900 i dont get any whea at all, even with CO


----------



## nada324

Prophet4NO1 said:


> I got 2000 fclk after tons of tweaking. Lots of it in voltage tweaks. That was on a 5800x. One thing I can say is that the ranges for voltages working or not working is very small. Sometimes only one step to either side of the sweet spot. So, giving my settings is not going to help much. What I basically did was bump voltage till things got more stabile then adjusted another settings and voltages. Like any other OC. One step/setting at a time. After a couple weeks of messing after work I messaged things to work but it was a real pain in the butt.



Can you share a photo of zen timings? Would be really helpfull, i dont know what to bump of vddg voltage, its on the limit edge

Sorry for double post, still dont know how to use multi quote 🥲


----------



## Prophet4NO1

Here you go.


----------



## nada324

Does newer Agesa versions can fix whea?

@Kelutrel 

I tried what you told me and seems to correct it a little but still getting whea 19 every 1sec


----------



## J7SC

re. discussion on IF1900/DDR4 3800 and IF2000/DDR4 4000, I am also looking for pointers. In my dual mobo work+play system (3950X, 5950X), I've got DDR4 3800 nice and stable w/o WHEA, per below pic, for both mobos. DDR4 4000 is 'almost' WHEA free on the 5950X- almost, but not quite...

I've relaxed timings and started to increase SoC a bit, but any other suggestions ? FYI, DDR4 4000 would be nice but in a tie, wherever possible I prefer tight timings. 

FYI, I find that leaving GDM enabled with cmd1 works better for this particular setup than GDM disabled at cmd2, though GDM on and cmd1 is more like a real cmd1.5, afaik. Also, there seem to be memory holes (or less developed bios profiles?) for IF1933 and 1966 as for some reason, IF2000/DDR4 4000 is easier than the intermediate steps ?


----------



## Kelutrel

nada324 said:


> Does newer Agesa versions can fix whea?
> 
> @Kelutrel
> 
> I tried what you told me and seems to correct it a little but still getting whea 19 every 1sec


Newer AGESA versions, besides microcode and power management, usually change the PBO and boost logics of the cpu.
Your whea errors seems more related to your RAM. Newer BIOS versions sometimes improve RAM compatibility and stability, independently from the AGESA version.
One whea error each second is too much to hope in a single setting change to stabilize it. You may want to either tweak your voltages and raise your wait states until you find a stable configuration, but you will probably end up with reduced performances, or settle for a lower fclk like 1966 or 1933 depending on which is stable and without whea errors.
Consider that between 2000fclk and 1966fclk there is just a 1.5% performance difference in bandwidth, and that ram performance is not reflected 1:1 on system performance, so you will hardly notice any difference in benchmark scores even with fclk at 1900.


----------



## Prophet4NO1

nada324 said:


> Does newer Agesa versions can fix whea?
> 
> @Kelutrel
> 
> I tried what you told me and seems to correct it a little but still getting whea 19 every 1sec



Not sure. I am on an older BIOS since this works for my needs. 

A side note on my timings in the image. Those are all stock. for this RAM. Not crazy good or anything. I might play with trying to tighten them up, but have not gotten around to it yet.


----------



## nada324

Kelutrel said:


> Newer AGESA versions, besides microcode and power management, usually change the PBO and boost logics of the cpu.
> Your whea errors seems more related to your RAM. Newer BIOS versions sometimes improve RAM compatibility and stability, independently from the AGESA version.
> One whea error each second is too much to hope in a single setting change to stabilize it. You may want to either tweak your voltages and raise your wait states until you find a stable configuration, but you will probably end up with reduced performances, or settle for a lower fclk like 1966 or 1933 depending on which is stable and without whea errors.
> Consider that between 2000fclk and 1966fclk there is just a 1.5% performance difference in bandwidth, and that ram performance is not reflected 1:1 on system performance, so you will hardly notice any difference in benchmark scores even with fclk at 1900.


I only have these whea when testing ycruncher SFT test so i dont think its RAM issue, as TM5 and karchu pass just fine


----------



## Kelutrel

nada324 said:


> I only have these whea when testing ycruncher SFT test so i dont think its RAM issue, as TM5 and karchu pass just fine


Sorry, please state this clearly.

Are you passing TM5 and Karhu ram tests at 2000fclk with GDM disabled and Cmd2T set at 1T ?


----------



## nada324

Kelutrel said:


> Sorry, please state this clearly.
> 
> Are you passing TM5 and Karhu ram tests at 2000fclk with GDM disabled and 1T ?


Didnt tested much Karhu but 500% passed, TM5 passed 20 cycles of Default 1usmus_v3 profile.

1T and No GDM

So i think ram is not my fault, its the cpu that cant handle good 2000 FCLK


----------



## Kelutrel

nada324 said:


> Didnt tested much Karhu but 500% passed, TM5 passed 20 cycles of Default 1usmus_v3 profile.
> 
> 1T and No GDM
> 
> So i think ram is not my fault, its the cpu that cant handle good 2000 FCLK


What brand and model are those ram dimms ?

If the problem is on the cpu interface you may want to try to raise VSOC to 1.18v or 1.20v and see if it gets better. Also, you can up VDDP to 0.95v .


----------



## nada324

Kelutrel said:


> What brand and model are those ram dimms ?
> 
> If the problem is on the cpu interface you may want to try to raise VSOC to 1.18v or 1.2s and see if it gets better. Also, you can up VDDP to 0.95v .


Famous Patriot Viper Single Rank 2x8 4133 Cl19, B-DIE

Patriot Memory Viper Steel DDR4 4133 16GB (2x8GB) CL19

EDIT: I tried 1.2vSOC and 1.080 VDDG CCD way too much, neither 1.110V IOD and still same thing, but im happy with fclk 1900, just not getting the best perfomance i could get


OCCT Extreme AVX2, And whea every Second, but if you dont stress, no whea at all:


----------



## Sleepycat

Outcasst said:


> Performed further testing over the past week, and it looks like my 5900x requires positive CO on cores 3 and 4 to be fully stable.
> 
> Those two cores are failing Core Cycler at stock settings consistently on two different BIOS versions. I've tried changing LLC to 3 but that didn't do much.
> 
> I have a Prime X570 Pro in my server running a 3900x that I could put the 5900x in and run the same tests, but how likely is it to be a problem with the VIII Hero?
> 
> My issue is that this 5900x came in a motherboard bundle from a retailer (not my current board), so AMD won't accept it through their RMA process as it's classed as OEM. The retailer will accept it, but are likely to be more picky about testing. It can sometimes take 14+ hours for the CPU to error.


What is your overclocking offset in PBO Advanced?

It is usually determined by the CPU, but having said that my 5900X's (with +200MHz) 2nd best core needs 0 offset, and the 3rd best core needs +10 when using AVX2 Prime95 Small FFT. So what you experienced is not surprising. How much positive offset did you need with your 2 cores?


----------



## Outcasst

Sleepycat said:


> What is your overclocking offset in PBO Advanced?
> 
> It is usually determined by the CPU, but having said that my 5900X's (with +200MHz) 2nd best core needs 0 offset, and the 3rd best core needs +10 when using AVX2 Prime95 Small FFT. So what you experienced is not surprising. How much positive offset did you need with your 2 cores?


No offsets have been set. Completely stock.

I've just finished testing on a second PC that I have dropped the 5900x in to, and again I got an error on core 02. I think this pretty much warrants an RMA.


----------



## Kelutrel

Outcasst said:


> No offsets have been set. Completely stock.
> 
> I've just finished testing on a second PC that I have dropped the 5900x in to, and again I got an error on core 02. I think this pretty much warrants an RMA.


If at stock (no pbo) power limits, and with normal temperatures, and with 0MHz boost, your cpu requires a positive curve offset to be stable on some cores, then you should get the same instability even with the cpu running at stock speed after just the "load optimized settings" and pbo left as is (set on auto), in which case yes you may want to rma your cpu and you will definitely get a better one.

But if your cpu requires a positive curve offset to be stable outside of stock power limits, or with a boost higher than 0MHz, and is otherwise stable when pbo is not enabled, then there is nothing wrong in that cpu.


----------



## Sleepycat

Outcasst said:


> No offsets have been set. Completely stock.
> 
> I've just finished testing on a second PC that I have dropped the 5900x in to, and again I got an error on core 02. I think this pretty much warrants an RMA.


Yeah, based on your description and testing, I'd RMA that CPU too if it was mine.


----------



## Prophet4NO1

Well, started playing with an old memory OC profile on my mobo that I had not touched for a while. Managed to massage the timings down a tad and this is the results so far.


----------



## DodgyTech

Prophet4NO1 said:


> Well, started playing with an old memory OC profile on my mobo that I had not touched for a while. Managed to massage the timings down a tad and this is the results so far.


Those scores seem way off for that bandwidth.
TRFC 1100? Write 31176MB/s? That can't be right. 
You have two sticks single rank, certainly there is room for improvement.

Cheers.


----------



## Prophet4NO1

DodgyTech said:


> Those scores seem way off for that bandwidth.
> TRFC 1100? Write 31176MB/s? That can't be right.
> You have two sticks single rank, certainly there is room for improvement.
> 
> Cheers.



I have only manually set primary timings. I have not even started to play with timings any deeper than that. All those timing are on auto right now.


----------



## J7SC

DodgyTech said:


> Those scores seem way off for that bandwidth.
> TRFC 1100? Write 31176MB/s? That can't be right.
> You have two sticks single rank, certainly there is room for improvement.
> 
> Cheers.


A quick way to tell if my latest endeavors re.. stabilizing IF2000 / DDR3 4000 is the Aida L3 cache read speed which drops from the mid-to-high 1300 GB/s to under 1000 GB/s / page misses


----------



## Prophet4NO1

J7SC said:


> A quick way to tell if my latest endeavors re.. stabilizing IF2000 / DDR3 4000 is the Aida L3 cache read speed which drops from the mid-to-high 1300 MB/s to under 1000 MB/s / page misses



I think you mean GB/s, not MB/s. And from I have seen most 5800X chips sit in the about 600-700GB/s range on L3. I have only seen dual die CPU's higher. Like the 5900 and 5950. But, maybe I am missing something.


----------



## J7SC

Prophet4NO1 said:


> I think you mean GB/s, not MB/s. And from I have seen most 5800X chips sit in the about 600-700GB/s range on L3. I have only seen dual die CPU's higher. Like the 5900 and 5950. But, maybe I am missing something.


Thanks - fixed it (had just looked at the top of the Aida column  ). That said, my post was about my 5950X which will drop L3 cache speed by big margins, as described above. Screenies to follow

EDIT - @Prophet4NO1 - here's what I'm talking about...3800 CL14 is perfectly fine re. memtests, no WHEA errors etc, but 4000 CL16 is throwing a few errors, noting also the huge drop in L3 cache (both sets are under Windows 10 Pro).

With 'native' 4000 CL15, I might finally try some asynchronous settings by leaving the IF at 1900 or may be 1933 but push the RAM up to 4400 or so. All that said, I always seem to come back to the IF 1900/DDR4 3800 'tight' setting for my daily setup.


----------



## metalshark

J7SC said:


> Thanks - fixed it (had just looked at the top of the Aida column  ). That said, my post was about my 5950X which will drop L3 cache speed by big margins, as described above. Screenies to follow
> 
> EDIT - @Prophet4NO1 - here's what I'm talking about...3800 CL14 is perfectly fine re. memtests, no WHEA errors etc, but 4000 CL16 is throwing a few errors, noting also the huge drop in L3 cache (both sets are under Windows 10 Pro).
> 
> With 'native' 4000 CL15, I might finally try some asynchronous settings by leaving the IF at 1900 or may be 1933 but push the RAM up to 4400 or so. All that said, I always seem to come back to the IF 1900/DDR4 3800 'tight' setting for my daily setup.
> 
> View attachment 2544469


Out of curiosity have you increased your PLL when moving to 2000/4000? If not would suggest increasing by 10-200mV and retrying results in AIDA.


----------



## J7SC

metalshark said:


> Out of curiosity have you increased your PLL when moving to 2000/4000? If not would suggest increasing by 10mV and retrying results in AIDA.


Tx  ...No, for now I just changed the RAM speed and primaries; some more serious efforts to come during the next 'snow-day' period


----------



## stimpy88

Prophet4NO1 said:


> Well, started playing with an old memory OC profile on my mobo that I had not touched for a while. Managed to massage the timings down a tad and this is the results so far.
> 
> View attachment 2544447
> 
> 
> View attachment 2544448


Those bandwidth and latency numbers are pretty terrible, especially when you take the clockspeeds in to account. Don't aim exclusively for crazy high clockspeeds, lower your timings, as reducing latency and increasing bandwidth will make your system much more performant and smoother than just aiming to tick a clockspeed box. Whats the point of 4000MT/s when your throwing 20% of it away? For reference, your bandwidth numbers are lower than what people get with 3400MT/s memory. You have the hardware, just change your goal, and you will get a much better system for it.

Use J7Sc's timings as a guide, his 3800 numbers are pretty much perfect.


----------



## Requiem4u

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2542674
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 4001 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1206
> 
> New AGESA version has been applied, but there may be bugs.
> So please rollback to the previous version if you have any problems
> Thanks
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 4001
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0601


Lot better than 39xx for me but still must use slightly lower clocks for memory than with 3801 (or maybe hole at 1900MHz is bigger). Hydra gives now silver to my 5800X, with 3801 it was golden. So better but not as good as 3801.


----------



## Blackfyre

Any advice on getting *tPHYRDL to 26* on all 4 sticks? I have A1 and A2 on *26* and B1 and B2 on *28*.

What voltages are mostly responsible for stabilising PHY? I have training for read/write on. The more information the better, thank you.


----------



## Prophet4NO1

I have tried lower clocks with tighter timing but the I get tons of crashes or failures to boot at timings any tighter than I have at 2000mhz. I am guessing at this point that maybe this RAM kit is not playing nice with my CPU. I will play with the timings in J7Sc's images. Maybe I can get something to work better. If all else fails, I will sell my RAM and get some new stuff.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Prophet4NO1 said:


> I have tried lower clocks with tighter timing but the I get tons of crashes or failures to boot at timings any tighter than I have at 2000mhz. I am guessing at this point that maybe this RAM kit is not playing nice with my CPU. I will play with the timings in J7Sc's images. Maybe I can get something to work better. If all else fails, I will sell my RAM and get some new stuff.


your kit is a DJR Hynix kit..they use odd timings..if you're stepping down, don't use B-Die timings on it..16-19-19-36 should work, I already worked on that kit before for a client build..TRFC should be best around 280ns (go use the DRAM calculator for specific values), those kits don't scale with voltages you just have to find the sweet spot..


----------



## Prophet4NO1

kairi_zeroblade said:


> your kit is a DJR Hynix kit..they use odd timings..if you're stepping down, don't use B-Die timings on it..16-19-19-36 should work, I already worked on that kit before for a client build..TRFC should be best around 280ns (go use the DRAM calculator for specific values), those kits don't scale with voltages you just have to find the sweet spot..


So, 3800 with those timings? Last time I tried anything close to that it just crapped out. I think 17-20-20-40 was as low as I could get. Anything else failed to boot. Maybe I can just play with voltages a bit more.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Prophet4NO1 said:


> So, 3800 with those timings? Last time I tried anything close to that it just crapped out. I think 17-20-20-40 was as low as I could get. Anything else failed to boot. Maybe I can just play with voltages a bit more.


on my client build it was set to 16-19-19-36 with 1.465v on BIOS (to keep around 1.455v) 3800mhz 1900IF clock..TRFC (ns) should be around 280..my personal kit which is a CJR does it easly with the same timings and 1.43v and TRFC (ns) at 250 (limit)

VSOC also comes into play (depends on your silicon quality) but it shouldn't even be at 1.1v..(with GDM on)


----------



## Kelutrel

Blackfyre said:


> Any advice on getting *tPHYRDL to 26* on all 4 sticks? I have A1 and A2 on *26* and B1 and B2 on *28*.
> 
> What voltages are mostly responsible for stabilising PHY? I have training for read/write on. The more information the better, thank you.


CLDO VDDP is the PHY voltage. From my experience it looks like the PHY circuit is an electronic part that is very sensible to noise. So if the VDDP voltage is too high or too low, including the other dimm voltages, it would show as tPHYRDL 28 or more. When you get 26 on one dimm set and 28 on the other dimm set it may be because the trace path between the cpu and the dimm set A or B has a different length or causes a different noise on that signal so that it is ok for a dimm set and slightly less ok for the other. So it may be that tuning the VDDP voltage will just get you with 26 on the other dimm set, and 28 on the first one, so the easier way to have it at 26 is to use only two dimms instead of 4.

Also, from here :
CLDO VDDP voltage - voltage for the DDR4 PHY on the SoC. The DDR4 PHY or physical-layer interface converts information from the memory controllers to a format the DDR4 memory modules can understand. Somewhat counterintuitively, lowering VDDP can often be more beneficial for stability than raising CLDO_VDDP. Advanced overclockers should also know that altering CLDO VDDP can move or resolve memory holes. Small changes to VDDP can have a big effect, and VDDP cannot not be set to a value greater than VDIMM - 0.1 V (not to exceed 1.05 V). A cold reboot is required if you alter this voltage.
Limit: up to 1.0 V.

Also be aware that CLDO VDDP and the other "VDDP Voltage" found in Tweaker's Paradise are not the same setting and should not be confused as they have different tolerances. I believe that the "VDDP Voltage" in Tweaker's Paradise is for some other kind of I/O subsystem, maybe the PCI lanes, and is useful to stabilise a higher BCLK, not the ram.


----------



## Blackfyre

Kelutrel said:


> CLDO VDDP is the PHY voltage. From my experience it looks like the PHY circuit is an electronic part that is very sensible to noise. So if the VDDP voltage is too high or too low, including the other dimm voltages, it would show as tPHYRDL 28 or more. When you get 26 on one dimm set and 28 on the other dimm set it may be because the trace path between the cpu and the dimm set A or B has a different length or causes a different noise on that signal so that it is ok for a dimm set and slightly less ok for the other. So it may be that tuning the VDDP voltage will just get you with 26 on the other dimm set, and 28 on the first one, so the easier way to have it at 26 is to use only two dimms instead of 4.
> 
> Also, from here :
> CLDO VDDP voltage - voltage for the DDR4 PHY on the SoC. The DDR4 PHY or physical-layer interface converts information from the memory controllers to a format the DDR4 memory modules can understand. Somewhat counterintuitively, lowering VDDP can often be more beneficial for stability than raising CLDO_VDDP. Advanced overclockers should also know that altering CLDO VDDP can move or resolve memory holes. Small changes to VDDP can have a big effect, and VDDP cannot not be set to a value greater than VDIMM - 0.1 V (not to exceed 1.05 V). A cold reboot is required if you alter this voltage.
> Limit: up to 1.0 V.
> 
> Also be aware that CLDO VDDP and the other "VDDP Voltage" found in Tweaker's Paradise are not the same setting and should not be confused as they have different tolerances. I believe that the "VDDP Voltage" in Tweaker's Paradise is for some other kind of I/O subsystem, maybe the PCI lanes, and is useful to stabilise a higher BCLK, not the ram.


Thank you, I spent the past couple of hours testing. Starting with CLDO VDDP, and then all other voltages too.

VDDSOC = 1.05625v (Started) and Tested all the way to 1.190v (Useless increase, same results as Start)

DRAM Voltage = 1.50v (Started) and Tested all the way to 1.57v (Useless increase, same results as Start)

VDDG CCD = 0.95 (Started) and Tested all the way to 1.05v (Useless increase, same results as Start)

VDDG IOD = 0.95v (Started) and Tested all the way to 1.05v (Useless increase, same results as Start)

CLDO VDDP = 0.95v (Started) and Tested all the way to 1.05v (Useless increase, same results as Start)

PLL Voltage = 1.82v (Started) and Tested all the way to 1.90v (Useless increase, same results as Start)

---

26/28 PHY is the best I can achieve with the timings below. Maybe one of the timings I have is causing it to not configure properly? I am unsure.

A1 = 26
A2 = 26

B1 = 28
B2 = 28

*These are:*

Crucial Ballistix Gaming (2 x 8GB) x (2 Kits of 2) = 32Gb total 4 dimms. Micron E-Die
Full Model Number: BL2K8G36C16U4B

They are default at 3600Mhz --> 16-18-18-38 1.35v

Overclocked to Daily 3800Mhz CL14 @ 1.5v and much tighter secondary timings:

















*EDIT: Another Note-*

PMU Training for both Read and Write is set to Enable
PMU Pattern Bits Control is set to Manual and to A


----------



## metalshark

Blackfyre said:


> Thank you, I spent the past couple of hours testing. Starting with CLDO VDDP, and then all other voltages too.
> 
> VDDSOC = 1.05625v (Started) and Tested all the way to 1.190v
> DRAM Voltage = 1.50v (Started) and Tested all the way to 1.57v
> VDDG CCD = 0.95 (Started) and Tested all the way to 1.05v
> VDDG IOD = 0.95v (Started) and Tested all the way to 1.05v
> CLDO VDDP = 0.95v (Started) and Tested all the way to 1.05v
> PLL Voltage = 1.82v (Started) and Tested all the way to 1.90v
> 
> 26/28 PHY is the best I can achieve with the timings below. Maybe one of the timings I have is causing it to not configure properly? I am unsure.
> 
> A1 = 26
> A2 = 26
> 
> B1 = 28
> B2 = 28
> 
> *These are:*
> 
> Crucial Ballistix Gaming (2 x 8GB) x (2 Kits of 2) = 32Gb total 4 dimms. Micron E-Die
> Full Model Number: BL2K8G36C16U4B
> 
> They are default at 3600Mhz --> 16-18-18-38 1.35v
> 
> Overclocked to Daily 3800Mhz CL14 @ 1.5v and much tighter secondary timings:
> 
> View attachment 2544697
> View attachment 2544700


Nice and thorough. Only thing you might want to do is one stick at a time in the first slot, see if it's a stick or a slot limit and if so if re-arranging them can net you 26.


----------



## pfinch

Blackfyre said:


> *EDIT: Another Note-*
> 
> PMU Training for both Read and Write is set to Enable
> PMU Pattern Bits Control is set to Manual and to A


you have just reached the limit


----------



## Luggage

Blackfyre said:


> Thank you, I spent the past couple of hours testing. Starting with CLDO VDDP, and then all other voltages too.
> 
> VDDSOC = 1.05625v (Started) and Tested all the way to 1.190v (Useless increase, same results as Start)
> 
> DRAM Voltage = 1.50v (Started) and Tested all the way to 1.57v (Useless increase, same results as Start)
> 
> VDDG CCD = 0.95 (Started) and Tested all the way to 1.05v (Useless increase, same results as Start)
> 
> VDDG IOD = 0.95v (Started) and Tested all the way to 1.05v (Useless increase, same results as Start)
> 
> CLDO VDDP = 0.95v (Started) and Tested all the way to 1.05v (Useless increase, same results as Start)
> 
> PLL Voltage = 1.82v (Started) and Tested all the way to 1.90v (Useless increase, same results as Start)
> 
> ---
> 
> 26/28 PHY is the best I can achieve with the timings below. Maybe one of the timings I have is causing it to not configure properly? I am unsure.
> 
> A1 = 26
> A2 = 26
> 
> B1 = 28
> B2 = 28
> 
> *These are:*
> 
> Crucial Ballistix Gaming (2 x 8GB) x (2 Kits of 2) = 32Gb total 4 dimms. Micron E-Die
> Full Model Number: BL2K8G36C16U4B
> 
> They are default at 3600Mhz --> 16-18-18-38 1.35v
> 
> Overclocked to Daily 3800Mhz CL14 @ 1.5v and much tighter secondary timings:
> 
> View attachment 2544697
> View attachment 2544700
> 
> 
> *EDIT: Another Note-*
> 
> PMU Training for both Read and Write is set to Enable
> PMU Pattern Bits Control is set to Manual and to A


@Audioboxer has done a lot phyrdl testing… 
Look at his older posts in the memory thread.









[Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread


Change tRTP = 6 and tWR = 12 Any advice to improve my b die g.skill 3600 cl16?




www.overclock.net


----------



## Audioboxer

Luggage said:


> @Audioboxer has done a lot phyrdl testing…
> Look at his older posts in the memory thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread
> 
> 
> Change tRTP = 6 and tWR = 12 Any advice to improve my b die g.skill 3600 cl16?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


I understand absolutely nothing about what is going on though lol. Especially up at these frequencies.

Soo many things seem to impact tPHYRDL, from tCL, to setup times, to tRFC, to Rtts/DrvDtrs and even VDIMM and VDDP.


----------



## Blackfyre

FYI *Windows 11 update KB5008353 (Optional)* --> Microsoft is saying it fixes audio and bluetooth issues that some of you have been having for a while, I personally haven't had such issues.


----------



## tonynca

PWn3R said:


> Good morning all. Just updated to 4001. Exciting news for me. I can boot 1900/3800 for the first time. Bad news, it requires setting to auto timings so far from about 2 hours of testing
> 
> I was running 16/16/16/32 on 3866, but it wont boot even with 17/17/17/37 which is what the kit I have is rated for at 1.35 @ 4000. Right now I have voltages set like this:
> 
> 1.8v -> 1.9v
> Vsoc 1.175 - this booted with auto timings at 1.15 probably going to drop it
> Vmem 1.45
> Vddp 1.09
> CCD .95
> Iod 1.05
> 
> Do I have anything else I should adjust or do I just need to relax the timings to like 20/20/20/40 or something and see what happens?
> 
> Probably another dumb question, but does anyone have strong suspicions that 16/16/16/32 @ 3866 is going to be better than say 20/20/20/40 @ 3800 (assuming that works).
> 
> Edit: 24/24/24/48 doesn’t work. I don’t think this cpu is ever going to cooperate with 1900.


are you getting WHEA errors though? Might try again. No success so far but pushing 1900 on 4 sticks is difficult…. I got it close to not throwing errors but I didn’t think it was worth pumping 100mv more for 100mhz extra with some WHEA errors


----------



## Kelutrel

Pretty sure the 1.425v max vid we are seeing in the latest bios versions is somehow related to this


----------



## Daylight_Invader

Kelutrel said:


> Pretty sure the 1.425v max vid we are seeing in the latest bios versions is somehow related to this


I would be careful attributing one overclocker's report with the B2 stepping somehow able to achieve 'everything we all want and more'. A sample of one is still a sample of one, especially when this processor is still not on shelves, and therefore has not been tested by a whole group of people. It is also conceivable that B2 was primarily built around the possibility of integrating the 3D cache for dies destined either for Epyc, or those going to the updated 5800 with 3D cache. IMHO, this probably has more legs to it, although that alone could be a good reason to try and reduce power draw.


----------



## stimpy88

Kelutrel said:


> Pretty sure the 1.425v max vid we are seeing in the latest bios versions is somehow related to this


I find the talk of the improved memory controller more interesting... Anyone here have a B2 stepping yet?


----------



## Daylight_Invader

stimpy88 said:


> I find the talk of the improved memory controller more interesting... Anyone here have a B2 stepping yet?


As I mentioned above, apparently it’s not on retail shelves yet. It will however be out soon.


----------



## GRABibus

Don’t mess with these news guys….
Wait for Zen4.


----------



## metalshark

stimpy88 said:


> I find the talk of the improved memory controller more interesting... Anyone here have a B2 stepping yet?


Hang on did they do something with the memory controller, thought it was more the new substrate that allows the old (same as we use now) memory controller to stretch its legs?


----------



## Kelutrel

A guy on the guru3d forums said: "my friend have one 5900x b2 using in mobo asus tuf x570 plus, and i have one 5900x b0 using in asus tuf b550 plus, both with same agesa 1.2.0.3c bios, and have similar temperatures, similar performance, but my model b0 can manage 1900mhz on IF stable, and even 1933mhz with voltage increased" ... so let's take the statements from Shamino with a bit of salt as he *may* have just been deceived by the 1.425v max vid on AGESA 1.2.0.6 , that seems to be currently available on any stepping.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Kelutrel said:


> A guy on the guru3d forums said: "my friend have one 5900x b2 using in mobo asus tuf x570 plus, and i have one 5900x b0 using in asus tuf b550 plus, both with same agesa 1.2.0.3c bios, and have similar temperatures, similar performance, but my model b0 can manage 1900mhz on IF stable, and even 1933mhz with voltage increased" ... so let's take the statements from Shamino with a bit of salt as he *may* have just been deceived by the 1.425v max vid on AGESA 1.2.0.6 , that seems to be currently available on any stepping.





https://skatterbencher.com/2021/09/19/skatterbencher-29-amd-ryzen-9-5900-b2-overclocked-to-5152-mhz/



he says its not so different at all with the B0 stepping, regarding memory OC there wasn't really much details in there as well..


----------



## Kelutrel

kairi_zeroblade said:


> https://skatterbencher.com/2021/09/19/skatterbencher-29-amd-ryzen-9-5900-b2-overclocked-to-5152-mhz/
> 
> 
> 
> he says its not so different at all with the B0 stepping, regarding memory OC there wasn't really much details in there as well..


I think that he is talking of the OEM 5900 non-X B2 in that video, already released in Jan 2021, not of the 5900*X *B2 that may be the target of that Guru3D news. But I may be confused here.

The 5900 non-X B2 is a 3.0-4.7GHz CPU with 65W TDP and available to OEMs only.
The 5900X is a 3.7-4.8GHz CPU with 105W TDP available to any retailer.
I would not swap a 5900X B0 for a 5900 non-X B2.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Kelutrel said:


> I think that he is talking of the OEM 5900 non-X B2 in that video, already released in Jan 2021, not of the 5900*X *B2 that may be the target of that Guru3D news. But I may be confused here.
> 
> The 5900 non-X B2 is a 3.0-4.7GHz CPU with 65W TDP and available to OEMs only.
> The 5900X is a 3.7-4.8GHz CPU with 105W TDP available to any retailer.
> I would not swap a 5900X B0 for a 5900 non-X B2.


there was no mention on the article that the B2 was an X variant..it was just said that its a ryzen 5000 series with B2 (stepping 2) stepping..


----------



## Luggage

Kelutrel said:


> I think that he is talking of the OEM 5900 non-X B2 in that video, already released in Jan 2021, not of the 5900*X *B2 that may be the target of that Guru3D news. But I may be confused here.
> 
> The 5900 non-X B2 is a 3.0-4.7GHz CPU with 65W TDP and available to OEMs only.
> The 5900X is a 3.7-4.8GHz CPU with 105W TDP available to any retailer.
> I would not swap a 5900X B0 for a 5900 non-X B2.


----------



## Kelutrel

kairi_zeroblade said:


> there was no mention on the article that the B2 was an X variant..it was just said that its a ryzen 5000 series with B2 (stepping 2) stepping..


These are, supposedly, the userbenchmark entries for the 5900*X* B2 and 5950*X* B2:



CPU UserBenchmarks - 1369 Processors Compared




CPU UserBenchmarks - 1369 Processors Compared



You can recognise them by the release date set at Q4 2021 and the slightly higher benchmark scores.

I thought that the Guru3D news was talking about those, but I may have been confused by the threads messages mentioning the X variant. I have no idea of their TDP or if Shamino ever tested those or only the OEM version, but the difference in TDP between a 5900 non-X B2 and a 5900X B0 is 40watts and not the 30watts mentioned in the Guru3D article.


----------



## J7SC

Daylight_Invader said:


> I would be careful attributing one overclocker's report with the B2 stepping somehow able to achieve 'everything we all want and more'. A sample of one is still a sample of one, especially when this processor is still not on shelves, and therefore has not been tested by a whole group of people. It is also conceivable that B2 was primarily built around the possibility of integrating the 3D cache for dies destined either for Epyc, or those going to the updated 5800 with 3D cache. IMHO, this probably has more legs to it, although that alone could be a good reason to try and reduce power draw.


I disagree with that statement, given that we're talking about Shamino here (> Asus) and plural re. samples according to the article.



GRABibus said:


> Don’t mess with these news guys….
> Wait for Zen4.


Good advice, IMO. That said, I could 'update' the 3950X in the dual mobo build to a 5950X B2, but since it is the daily workhorse and I already have a 5950X w/ a good IMC and two 'energy efficient - gold' CCXs in the neighboring mobo, I rather not fool around with it and wait for Zen4, never mind trying to figure out whether an unopened box actually identifies the B2 stepping in the external model / serial number tag.

unless I change my mind


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> unless I change my mind


Me too, for 13900k


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> Me too, for 13900k


AMD Zen4 vs. > Intel Meteor Lake ? 

By 2023, I might give upgrading a more serious look, and by then, DDR5 will be much more mature. Still, I'm really happy w/ my 5950X, IMC and all and plan to run it for many years. 
unless I change my mind


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Kelutrel said:


> UserBenchmark: AMD Ryzen 9 5900X 12-Core
> UserBenchmark: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X 16-Core


That "benchmark" and website is as stupid as its user base..that's on my personal firewall blacklist..


----------



## PWn3R

J7SC said:


> I disagree with that statement, given that we're talking about Shamino here (> Asus) and plural re. samples according to the article.
> 
> 
> 
> Good advice, IMO. That said, I could 'update' the 3950X in the dual mobo build to a 5950X B2, but since it is the daily workhorse and I already have a 5950X w/ a good IMC and two 'energy efficient - gold' CCXs in the neighboring mobo, I rather not fool around with it and wait for Zen4, never mind trying to figure out whether an unopened box actually identifies the B2 stepping in the external model / serial number tag.
> 
> unless I change my mind


Me over here with a Bobo IMC thinking hard about B2 and sell my launch batch chip or picking up a 12900k :/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sleepycat

Blackfyre said:


> *These are:*
> 
> Crucial Ballistix Gaming (2 x 8GB) x (2 Kits of 2) = 32Gb total 4 dimms. Micron E-Die
> Full Model Number: BL2K8G36C16U4B
> 
> They are default at 3600Mhz --> 16-18-18-38 1.35v
> 
> Overclocked to Daily 3800Mhz CL14 @ 1.5v and much tighter secondary timings:
> 
> View attachment 2544697
> View attachment 2544700
> 
> 
> *EDIT: Another Note-*
> 
> PMU Training for both Read and Write is set to Enable
> PMU Pattern Bits Control is set to Manual and to A


Mine is a different kit, but have you tried finding a way to run RttNom, RttWr and RttPark at 6. 3 and 3 instead of your current 7, 3, 1?


----------



## Blackfyre

Sleepycat said:


> Mine is a different kit, but have you tried finding a way to run RttNom, RttWr and RttPark at 6. 3 and 3 instead of your current 7, 3, 1?


I have not touched those at all, or ProcODT. 

Those 4 are on AUTO I believe.


----------



## Luggage

PWn3R said:


> Me over here with a Bobo IMC thinking hard about B2 and sell my launch batch chip or picking up a 12900k :/
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


At least do some reading in the 12900k and ddr5 threads first. Quite some bios head aches still.


----------



## stimpy88

GRABibus said:


> Don’t mess with these news guys….
> Wait for Zen4.


Nope, I don't want DDR5.


----------



## Anulu

I found those Gskill Royal at my local Shop for 190 SwissFrancs (~200$) they sold it as used&tested with one Year BringIn Warranty.
Had it tested 3800c14 no Errors [email protected] [email protected] in Bios but HwInfo shows 1.47-1.48v

If i want to run them async to test 4266mhz,what do i have to change in Bios?
I was never able to do that with my CH8 Impact it does not boot if i set async Fclk and i dont see any Option for Uclk


----------



## Luggage

Anulu said:


> View attachment 2545076
> 
> 
> I found those Gskill Royal at my local Shop for 190 SwissFrancs (~200$) they sold it as used&tested with one Year BringIn Warranty.
> Had it tested 3800c14 no Errors [email protected] [email protected] in Bios but HwInfo shows 1.47-1.48v
> 
> If i want to run them async to test 4266mhz,what do i have to change in Bios?
> I was never able to do that with my CH8 Impact it does not boot if i set async Fclk and i dont see any Option for Uclk
> View attachment 2545084


Read the last couple of pages of the Ryzen daily ram thread there @Audioboxer and @Veii discuss 4200+ speeds









[Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread


Soo i should fill out and apply the bios curves , soo it generates and remembers them ? Yeah. Forgot to add, at first launch, better to clear all CO values set from bios at boot time, by clicking "Reset" to start from the scratch, or you can fill in your bios values and then click "Apply" to...




www.overclock.net


----------



## Sleepycat

Blackfyre said:


> I have not touched those at all, or ProcODT.
> 
> Those 4 are on AUTO I believe.


I see. I found with running 4 sticks, that I had to set every setting manually, even if it is the same value as what the motherboard chooses with Auto. That helps with getting the values consistent from stick to stick as I find that the motherboard or CPU does take liberties in setting whatever it feels like for each stick.


----------



## Baio73

kairi_zeroblade said:


> That "benchmark" and website is as stupid as its user base..that's on my personal firewall blacklist..


I can't really believe someone still trusts that site..

Baio


----------



## Veii

Kelutrel said:


> A guy on the guru3d forums said: "my friend have one 5900x b2 using in mobo asus tuf x570 plus, and i have one 5900x b0 using in asus tuf b550 plus, both with same agesa 1.2.0.3c bios, and have similar temperatures, similar performance, but my model b0 can manage 1900mhz on IF stable, and even 1933mhz with voltage increased" ... so let's take the statements from Shamino with a bit of salt as he *may* have just been deceived by the 1.425v max vid on AGESA 1.2.0.6 , that seems to be currently available on any stepping.


Coincidence 








Average luck can be slightly higher, but so unlucky guys will be even more unlucky
Bad samples already suffer by the changes on 1205 & 1206
Good samples wouldn't care, and hence substrate color has changed for X3D and further
Potentially substrate is better.
For consumers, zero change. For XOC guys who bin sample ~ luck has shifted

Sample by itself, Revision has zero DPM, Zero WHEA changes, Zero boosting table changes, zero memory OC changes and zero IOD/IMC changes
It's nothing that needs attention, potentially it's faster by having integrated security patches ~ but zero change on average

Also samples marked as B0 after 2141/42 are on the new FW
(you will notice their behavior by Hydra)
It's unfortunate to see AMD not being able to hold consistency
Soo parts arriving is delayed and some B2's are only late timestamped, like 2150 onwards

EDIT:
Soo in short,
while potentially they hang on slightly modified microcode
with some more hardware patches and slightly different internal FW changes
The things/issues people are sad about , have not been touched at all.
AMD missed the opportunity here and will likely remain to ignore them.

In comparison to a bugged/fixed sample of mine, these have zero changes
In comparison to normal retail samples, these have also marginal to zero changes
People can brand them as silicon lottery, and at this point i would too
It's nothing interesting and AMD held their promise of it
"having no performance improvements to the old Revision"

All these reports are coincidence, but didn't bother to talk with me about the little changes or non changes
Anywho, it can be ignored. Our goal and so far known flaws, have not been touched at all and remain to be ignored
Soo the revision is uninteresting, in terms of an Overclockers perspective.
Maybe interesting in terms of a datacenter/security perspective


----------



## metalshark

Veii said:


> Coincidence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Average luck can be slightly higher, but so unlucky guys will be even more unlucky
> Bad samples already suffer by the changes on 1205 & 1206
> Good samples wouldn't care, and hence substrate color has changed for X3D and further
> Potentially substrate is better.
> For consumers, zero change. For XOC guys who bin sample ~ luck has shifted
> 
> Sample by itself, Revision has zero DPM, Zero WHEA changes, Zero boosting table changes, zero memory OC changes and zero IOD/IMC changes
> It's nothing that needs attention, potentially it's faster by having integrated security patches ~ but zero change on average
> 
> Also samples marked as B0 after 2141/42 are on the new FW
> (you will notice their behavior by Hydra)
> It's unfortunate to see AMD not being able to hold consistency
> Soo parts arriving is delayed and some B2's are only late timestamped, like 2150 onwards
> 
> EDIT:
> Soo in short,
> while potentially they hang on slightly modified microcode
> with some more hardware patches and slightly different internal FW changes
> The things/issues people are sad about , have not been touched at all.
> AMD missed the opportunity here and will likely remain to ignore them.
> 
> In comparison to a bugged/fixed sample of mine, these have zero changes
> In comparison to normal retail samples, these have also marginal to zero changes
> People can brand them as silicon lottery, and at this point i would too
> It's nothing interesting and AMD held their promise of it
> "having no performance improvements to the old Revision"
> 
> All these reports are coincidence, but didn't bother to talk with me about the little changes or non changes
> Anywho, it can be ignored. Our goal and so far known flaws, have not been touched at all and remain to be ignored
> Soo the revision is uninteresting, in terms of an Overclockers perspective.
> Maybe interesting in terms of a datacenter/security perspective


Thanks for that. In your view the substrate change, would that have any potential change in max memory overclocks, especially on dual CCD units, even though the IMC/IOD hasn't? Not looking to go out and get one, just curious and appreciate you note no MemoryOC, FCLK/MCLK changes - is that just due to no IMC/IOD or was any of it held back by the substrate on dual CCD?


----------



## Veii

metalshark said:


> Thanks for that. In your view the substrate change, would that have any potential change in max memory overclocks, especially on dual CCD units, even though the IMC/IOD hasn't? Not looking to go out and get one, just curious.


I don't think it would have any
Substrate being more mature, as it was done with Matisse (a color change) after time
Will only make it more efficient

But in our current state it wouldn't matter
Because samples remain overvolted, and distance between bronze/wood sample and "gold+" is quite high
AMD currently did redo the V/F curve with 1204A/1205 - and 1206 won't be much different in terms of optimisations
Just such changes everyone will get (including the security patches and other PSP-FW patches ~ that where taken away from the ROM microcode, and permanently integrated)

The new revision while potentially being easier to get a "better" sample, still falls under the same AGESA limitations we have set now
Soo in all practicality. It doesn't matter 

As for hardware changes by itself, i don't think the IO-Die got any change, and i don't think MCLK peaks will be different
1:1 mode for sure has zero change, as it's equally bad, as it was December 2020.
It's equally bugged, with the same issues 2nd batch release samples of Vermeer had (till today still have)
Soo hence B2 doesn't change anything on this parts, it can not change how high 1:1 can work, or how high they can OC in PBO

It potentially, might, be easier to get a better sample now ~ as substrate matured
But you'd need to use something like project Hydra.
Sadly even for Hydra, FIT does limit back and will force shutdown on higher voltage or too high freq.
Meaning even XOC guys will unlikely see any change
Soo at the very end, it doesn't matter for us
The substrate is not the problem, it's the limiters and AMD themself, that are a problem. Vermeer as a substrate is great enough. We are just not allowed to run anything higher


----------



## J7SC

I loaded Hydra on my 5950X /CH8 DH a couple of days ago just for the fun as I normally just use 'DynamicOC'. Hydra is interesting, though. 

Anyway, re. below, I obviously know what 'gold' means (not as good as platinum, better than silver 🥴), but what does the 'Energy Efficiency' and the 4.x mean in the ranking context ?


----------



## metalshark

J7SC said:


> I loaded Hydra on my 5950X /CH8 DH a couple of days ago just for the fun as I normally just use 'DynamicOC'. Hydra is interesting, though.
> 
> Anyway, re. below, I obviously know what 'gold' means (not as good as platinum, better than silver 🥴), but what does the 'Energy Efficiency' and the 4.x mean in the ranking context ?
> View attachment 2545322


Think it's based on vdroop. Messing about with VRM settings you can get wildly different numbers and precious metal results so don't have much faith in the automatic diagnostics. There's a lot of fun to be had moving from DynamicOC to Hydra Pro  enjoy!


----------



## J7SC

metalshark said:


> Think it's based on vdroop. Messing about with VRM settings you can get wildly different numbers and precious metal results so don't have much faith in the automatic diagnostics. There's a lot of fun to be had moving from DynamicOC to Hydra Pro  enjoy!


I've got VRM on 'auto' in bios... Hydra seems like s.th. to play around with when I have more time...still wondering though what the 4.x ? means, ie. for comparison when I do future runs.

Hydra did take a very long time to run through, though - but at least it seems very thorough as a result. I never ran CR or CO, so a lot of it is new to me. I managed to get CinebenchR23 into the mid 31500s with Hydra which is still just a bit shy of my results below w/ DynamicOC, but then, ambient was also several degrees higher with the Hydra run.


----------



## shaolin95

J7SC said:


> I've got VRM on 'auto' in bios... Hydra seems like s.th. to play around with when I have more time...still wondering though what the 4.x ? means, ie. for comparison when I do future runs.
> 
> Hydra did take a very long time to run through, though - but at least it seems very thorough as a result. I never ran CR or CO, so a lot of it is new to me. I managed to get CinebenchR23 into the mid 31500s with Hydra which is still just a bit shy of my results below w/ DynamicOC, but then, ambient was also several degrees higher with the Hydra run.
> View attachment 2545327


Great scores. I have never been fortunate with Hydra or the previous versions which i have tried a LOT. I also get less REAL world performance and my single core was never as stable or fast with those I am still on PBO+CO and waiting to see if a 3D cache version of the 5950x comes out then I will get a Dark hero to get the dynamic OC option


----------



## metalshark

J7SC said:


> I've got VRM on 'auto' in bios... Hydra seems like s.th. to play around with when I have more time...still wondering though what the 4.x ? means, ie. for comparison when I do future runs.
> 
> Hydra did take a very long time to run through, though - but at least it seems very thorough as a result. I never ran CR or CO, so a lot of it is new to me. I managed to get CinebenchR23 into the mid 31500s with Hydra which is still just a bit shy of my results below w/ DynamicOC, but then, ambient was also several degrees higher with the Hydra run.
> View attachment 2545327


Yeah, not a fan of the results you get from the automatic diagnostics (takes forever for subpar and often unstable results), so always dial it in manually. You'll find manually tuning it you'll be able to push further than PBO+CO (assuming you've got thermal headroom, etc). Have got a range of 3.89-4.23 depending on VRM settings but alas do not know the exact maths the numbers are meant to represent.


----------



## bt1

J7SC said:


> but what does the 'Energy Efficiency' and the 4.x mean in the ranking context ?


I believe it's maximum (stable MHz/mV TEL (so it's VID minus Vdroop))

1.1B seems to loose METAL rating for CCDs, with 1.1A a got:
Energy Efficiency CCD#1 4.1 | PLATINUM sample
Energy Efficiency CCD#2 3.96 | SILVER sample

with 1.1B i get (BIOS version changed though):

SVI2: 1326mV
CCD#1 FREQ 4925MHz EE 3.71
CCD#2 FREQ 4700MHz EE 3.54


----------



## J7SC

I actually like Hydra and I would buy the pro version as kudos to the author if Hydra would also do 3950X and 2950X. As it stands, with two fairly evenly matched and decent CCDs and the DynamicOC option in bios, the 5950X setup is probably the least in need of it.


----------



## Radulus

Hi Guys. I am desperate and need your help. I have reboot issue. What I have found out:

When I turning on my PC, time to time it randomly reboots when waiting to Log in. Or I log in to windows, writing this thread and then suddenly reboots. Not always, but very often. Win Event viewer says Kernel Power critical event. NO OVERCLOCKING. The oly thing I set is DOCP profile in BIOS and let RAM running on Default Values. 3600MHz, 1.35V. Time to time also display won't turn on and I have to press Reset Button on top of the case.


I've tried to disable Windows fast startup > No Luck
I've tried to change Power profiles in Windows
Same issue on Windows 10 as well as Win 11. Currently it is running on Win 11.
I've tried change to NEW Power Supply to GX 850W > No Luck
I tested all RAM for more than 12h in memtest. > No Error found.
Temperatures are in limit, not so good but in fully load it is about 72°C on CPU > Measured with Ryzen Master
I Powered CPU with 8 PIN and 4 PIN also. > No Luck
I Powered CPU with 8 PIN only > No Luck
I found out, that RAM tRC value in bios is different then it is certified for. I had timing setting 16 19 19 39 85 so I changed it to 16 19 19 39 58. So I changed it to original value, certified by GSkill brand.. > No luck
BIOS is latest 3904
Load of PC doesn't matter. I tested CPU Load, RAM load, Power Supply load, NO issue at all. I played game whole afternoon.. No reboot.. Abdolutely Nothing. So nothing related to PC/CPU/RAM Load
All settings except DOCP profile are default in BIOS. I set only Stealh mode for LED lights on board.
I can see by default board set DRAM voltage to some value..1.35V... Well.. I set it to AUTO.. This is actual status, when writing the tread.
.
Would you be so kind and help me, what might be wrong..? I really need somebody who has the same board and RAM. RAM should be working fine with Such settings. If it fail again, I will try to decrease DRAM frequency to 3566 MHz or so.. and we will se, but as board support such RAM.. It must be working on Maximum !!
Sure, you can suggest to downgrade BiOS, but to be honest, this should not be the case, because Asus should handle such issues.

Currenly I am not sure, if problem is either with RAM (I have another HyperX Predator 4x8 DDR4 3200MHz for test) or Main board (I have another one MSI B450 Gaming Pro Carbon AC for test, but I would like to avoid MLB change becuase of Win installation and all things.)

Here is my complete setup:


ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Dark Hero
Amd Ryzen 9 3900xt
RAM F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC > 2 kits > both are in list of officially supported RAM list
Power supply Seasonic GX 650W
MSI RTX 2070 Armor

Thank you very much for all your help

Radek


----------



## Blackfyre

Radulus said:


> Hi Guys. I am desperate and need your help. I have reboot issue. What I have found out:
> 
> When I turning on my PC, time to time it randomly reboots when waiting to Log in. Or I log in to windows, writing this thread and then suddenly reboots. Not always, but very often. Win Event viewer says Kernel Power critical event. NO OVERCLOCKING. The oly thing I set is DOCP profile in BIOS and let RAM running on Default Values. 3600MHz, 1.35V. Time to time also display won't turn on and I have to press Reset Button on top of the case.
> 
> 
> I've tried to disable Windows fast startup > No Luck
> I've tried to change Power profiles in Windows
> Same issue on Windows 10 as well as Win 11. Currently it is running on Win 11.
> I've tried change to NEW Power Supply to GX 850W > No Luck
> I tested all RAM for more than 12h in memtest. > No Error found.
> Temperatures are in limit, not so good but in fully load it is about 72°C on CPU > Measured with Ryzen Master
> I Powered CPU with 8 PIN and 4 PIN also. > No Luck
> I Powered CPU with 8 PIN only > No Luck
> I found out, that RAM tRC value in bios is different then it is certified for. I had timing setting 16 19 19 39 85 so I changed it to 16 19 19 39 58. So I changed it to original value, certified by GSkill brand.. > No luck
> BIOS is latest 3904
> Load of PC doesn't matter. I tested CPU Load, RAM load, Power Supply load, NO issue at all. I played game whole afternoon.. No reboot.. Abdolutely Nothing. So nothing related to PC/CPU/RAM Load
> All settings except DOCP profile are default in BIOS. I set only Stealh mode for LED lights on board.
> I can see by default board set DRAM voltage to some value..1.35V... Well.. I set it to AUTO.. This is actual status, when writing the tread.
> .
> Would you be so kind and help me, what might be wrong..? I really need somebody who has the same board and RAM. RAM should be working fine with Such settings. If it fail again, I will try to decrease DRAM frequency to 3566 MHz or so.. and we will se, but as board support such RAM.. It must be working on Maximum !!
> Sure, you can suggest to downgrade BiOS, but to be honest, this should not be the case, because Asus should handle such issues.
> 
> Currenly I am not sure, if problem is either with RAM (I have another HyperX Predator 4x8 DDR4 3200MHz for test) or Main board (I have another one MSI B450 Gaming Pro Carbon AC for test, but I would like to avoid MLB change becuase of Win installation and all things.)
> 
> Here is my complete setup:
> 
> 
> ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Dark Hero
> Amd Ryzen 9 3900xt
> RAM F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC > 2 kits > both are in list of officially supported RAM list
> Power supply Seasonic GX 650W
> MSI RTX 2070 Armor
> 
> Thank you very much for all your help
> 
> Radek


Reset BIOS to optimized defaults. See if the issue happens without DOCP. If the issue is fixed, then choose DOCP and then change the voltage from 1.35v to 1.40v 

Don't worry, 1.4v is perfectly safe for pretty much any DDR4 RAM, but it could resolve an issue if there is one with regards to memory instability.


----------



## Radulus

Blackfyre said:


> Reset BIOS to optimized defaults. See if the issue happens without DOCP. If the issue is fixed, then choose DOCP and then change the voltage from 1.35v to 1.40v
> 
> Don't worry, 1.4v is perfectly safe for pretty much any DDR4 RAM, but it could resolve an issue if there is one with regards to memory instability.


I did BIOS deafult. Now RAM without DOCP running on 2133MHz. Before, I tried to increase DRAM voltage to 1.4V. Not sure of results, but if not mistaken, it failed also. But I will verify again. But I tried increase voltage, decrease voltage. Really lot of things.

Strange thing also is, that when I set some values in BIOS, during reboot PC is shut down completely and then it runs automatically. it is strange. Also when I press Power Button to power up PC, it run all fun, then shut down PC completely and then Run normally. :/ Weird

Next step I plan to decrease Frequency lower than 3600MHz.


----------



## metalshark

Radulus said:


> Hi Guys. I am desperate and need your help. I have reboot issue. What I have found out:
> 
> When I turning on my PC, time to time it randomly reboots when waiting to Log in. Or I log in to windows, writing this thread and then suddenly reboots. Not always, but very often. Win Event viewer says Kernel Power critical event. NO OVERCLOCKING. The oly thing I set is DOCP profile in BIOS and let RAM running on Default Values. 3600MHz, 1.35V. Time to time also display won't turn on and I have to press Reset Button on top of the case.
> 
> 
> I've tried to disable Windows fast startup > No Luck
> I've tried to change Power profiles in Windows
> Same issue on Windows 10 as well as Win 11. Currently it is running on Win 11.
> I've tried change to NEW Power Supply to GX 850W > No Luck
> I tested all RAM for more than 12h in memtest. > No Error found.
> Temperatures are in limit, not so good but in fully load it is about 72°C on CPU > Measured with Ryzen Master
> I Powered CPU with 8 PIN and 4 PIN also. > No Luck
> I Powered CPU with 8 PIN only > No Luck
> I found out, that RAM tRC value in bios is different then it is certified for. I had timing setting 16 19 19 39 85 so I changed it to 16 19 19 39 58. So I changed it to original value, certified by GSkill brand.. > No luck
> BIOS is latest 3904
> Load of PC doesn't matter. I tested CPU Load, RAM load, Power Supply load, NO issue at all. I played game whole afternoon.. No reboot.. Abdolutely Nothing. So nothing related to PC/CPU/RAM Load
> All settings except DOCP profile are default in BIOS. I set only Stealh mode for LED lights on board.
> I can see by default board set DRAM voltage to some value..1.35V... Well.. I set it to AUTO.. This is actual status, when writing the tread.
> .
> Would you be so kind and help me, what might be wrong..? I really need somebody who has the same board and RAM. RAM should be working fine with Such settings. If it fail again, I will try to decrease DRAM frequency to 3566 MHz or so.. and we will se, but as board support such RAM.. It must be working on Maximum !!
> Sure, you can suggest to downgrade BiOS, but to be honest, this should not be the case, because Asus should handle such issues.
> 
> Currenly I am not sure, if problem is either with RAM (I have another HyperX Predator 4x8 DDR4 3200MHz for test) or Main board (I have another one MSI B450 Gaming Pro Carbon AC for test, but I would like to avoid MLB change becuase of Win installation and all things.)
> 
> Here is my complete setup:
> 
> 
> ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Dark Hero
> Amd Ryzen 9 3900xt
> RAM F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC > 2 kits > both are in list of officially supported RAM list
> Power supply Seasonic GX 650W
> MSI RTX 2070 Armor
> 
> Thank you very much for all your help
> 
> Radek


Just an FYI - it's still "overclocking" running DOCP you may need to add some juice to the system to get it to work. Appreciate you may be hesitant to mess with voltages but it may be required to run at DOCP. There's also a 4001 UEFI version available here, but it's extremely unlikely to help you. If you'd like to go through some voltages then:

CLDO VDDP 0.9v
VDDG CCD 0.95v
VDDG IOD 1.05v
are likely to be pretty uncontroversial. You can likely run all 3 lower, but this would be a simple low setting. A tad more juice to the vSOC like running it at ~1.06v or higher if it's lower may be required, but auto should have you covered.


----------



## Radulus

metalshark said:


> Just an FYI - it's still "overclocking" running DOCP you may need to add some juice to the system to get it to work. Appreciate you may be hesitant to mess with voltages but it may be required to run at DOCP. There's also a 4001 UEFI version available here, but it's extremely unlikely to help you. If you'd like to go through some voltages then:
> 
> CLDO VDDP 0.9v
> VDDG CCD 0.95v
> VDDG IOD 1.05v
> are likely to be pretty uncontroversial. You can likely run all 3 lower, but this would be a simple low setting. A tad more juice to the vSOC like running it at ~1.06v or higher if it's lower may be required, but auto should have you covered.


Well, I can test, but.. this DOCP should be automatically optimized no..? With all necessary voltages, values, etc. I cannot imagine I would try some overclock.

On top of that.. I tested also set forcely 3600MHz RAM, without DOCP. Still same issue.


----------



## metalshark

Radulus said:


> Well, I can test, but.. this DOCP should be automatically optimized no..? With all necessary voltages, values, etc. I cannot imagine I would try some overclock.
> 
> On top of that.. I tested also set forcly 3600MHz RAM, without DOCP. Still same issue.


DOCP puts in all the settings for the RAM stick - it doesn't however put in all the settings for your processor's IMC (integrated memory controller). It's like only half the puzzle.


----------



## Radulus

metalshark said:


> DOCP puts in all the settings for the RAM stick - it doesn't however put in all the settings for your processor's IMC (integrated memory controller). It's like only half the puzzle.


Crap.. Hmm.. I would expect this to be optimized with such expencive board.. :/


----------



## metalshark

Radulus said:


> Crap.. Hmm.. I would expect this to be optimized with such expencive board.. :/


Oh the board is optimised. However ASUS doesn’t know the quality of your CPU or even which one you’re putting in when they designed the motherboard. Different qualities of CPU binning require different voltages, some if you’re really unlucky can’t run as fast RAM as others (you’re going to need to be outrageously unlucky not to be able to run 3600, so am not fearful there). They designed the board to have the options you need to maximise performance and tune to your needs, this is where the price/quality premium comes in.


----------



## Radulus

metalshark said:


> Oh the board is optimised. However ASUS doesn’t know the quality of your CPU or even which one you’re putting in. Different qualities of CPU binning require different voltages, some if you’re really unlucky can’t run as fast RAM as others (you’re going to need to be outrageously unlucky not to be able to run 3600, so am not fearful there).


hm.. the thing I am quite scared of is, if the board is OK. Or if it damaged. I bought it as second hand and from info I have, it has already been in service due to Audio chip. So I afraid of HW issue with either board or memory. I was also thinking to sell 3900XT and buy 5900X. If I am sure board is OK, I would buy 5900X,then behavior might be also different. Currently I do not want to sell it, because 3900XT is compatible also with my old board MSI. And if Asus board is damaged I can always revert back to MSI.


----------



## metalshark

Radulus said:


> hm.. the thing I am quite scared of is, if the board is OK. Or if it damaged. I bought it as second hand and from info I have, it has already been in service due to Audio chip. So I afraid of HW issue with either board or memory. I was also thinking to sell 3900XT and buy 5900X. If I am sure board is OK, I would buy 5900X,then behavior might be also different. Currently I do not want to sell it, because 3900XT is compatible also with my old board MSI. And if Asus board is damaged I can always rewer back to MSI.


I cannot help you ascertain if the board is damaged, also you may have exactly the same fun with the MSI, less likely though as by default they tend to overcook the voltage. It’s good to be hesitant, entering the wrong voltages can degrade your chip, etc and I don’t think anyone will chastise you for not wanting to go into such things with an expensive piece of kit. However it’s easiest to remember DOCP is overclocking and while sometimes you might get lucky at other times you may need to tune voltages/speeds/timings/resistances/limits to make your own luck. If I’m not here later the regulars on this thread know what they’re doing to get RAM at that speed working, so don’t worry if you get given slight differences in voltages - was giving you middle of the road ones. The ASUS AiTuner thingie for XMP/XMP+ (same as DOCP) stuff might give you some mileage as well but never played with them as dive into the settings manually.


----------



## Radulus

metalshark said:


> I cannot help you ascertain if the board is damaged, also you may have exactly the same fun with the MSI, less likely though as by default they tend to overcook the voltage. It’s good to be hesitant, entering the wrong voltages can degrade your chip, etc and I don’t think anyone will chastise you for not wanting to go into such things with an expensive piece of kit. However it’s easiest to remember DOCP is overclocking and while sometimes you might get lucky at other times you may need to tune voltages/speeds/timings/resistances/limits to make your own luck. If I’m not here later the regulars on this thread know what they’re doing to get RAM at that speed working, so don’t worry if you get given slight differences in voltages - was giving you middle of the road ones. The ASUS AiTuner thingie for XMP/XMP+ (same as DOCP) stuff might give you some mileage as well but never played with them as dive into the settings manually.


Currently, running on BIOS default. RAM 2133MHz. I believe that if this is stable, then board itself is OKay and then I just need some tuning.


----------



## Radulus

Radulus said:


> Currently, running on BIOS default. RAM 2133MHz. I believe that if this is stable, then board itself is OKay and then I just need some tuning.


I tried couple reboots on purpose and I also turned it off completely.. and so far so good on default. Will try also later.. then will set DOCP and some voltage on DRAM. Step by step..


----------



## Radulus

Hm.. this time, when I turn on PC, Display didn't turn On. I had to press reset button..  then it is up and running. Seems something else is wrong, because this display issue happens also time to time. And ideas?

Stability issue> Seems it is stable now with default values. 2133MHz.

Now I enabled forcely frequency to 3600MHz > Set DRAM Voltage to 1.4V. On top of that I set tRC to 58 (following specs) and Disabled Timing Enhancer. Not sure why, but Timing values were always different then manufacturer recommended.

*EDIT:
*

*
Set DRAM voltage to 1,4V > No luck
Set CCD, VDDP, IOD to suggested values > No luck
I set also DRAM to lower frequency 3566MHz > No luck > Even with lower freqency it FAILS!!
I always set manualy Timing to recommended values. 16 19 19 39 58 > No Luck
Set forcely 3600MHz without DOCP > No Luck
Seems system didn't manage my tuning and start screaming BIOS is in Recovery mode.. Reboot > Fan Max> reboot > Fan max..> This happened couple times and then BIOS message > I made reset with Reset button and it is running.
*


I am out of ideas. I will try to remove RAMs and try another four stick RAM. HyperX Predator 4x8GB 3200MHz. Any suggestions guys..? Else will most probably through the board away.


----------



## stimpy88

Radulus said:


> Hm.. this time, when I turn on PC, Display didn't turn On. I had to press reset button..  then it is up and running. Seems something else is wrong, because this display issue happens also time to time. And ideas?
> 
> Stability issue> Seems it is stable now with default values. 2133MHz.
> 
> Now I enabled forcely frequency to 3600MHz > Set DRAM Voltage to 1.4V. On top of that I set tRC to 58 (following specs) and Disabled Timing Enhancer. Not sure why, but Timing values were always different then manufacturer recommended.
> 
> *EDIT:*
> 
> 
> *
> Set DRAM voltage to 1,4V > No luck
> Set CCD, VDDP, IOD to suggested values > No luck
> I set also DRAM to lower frequency 3566MHz > No luck > Even with lower freqency it FAILS!!
> I always set manualy Timing to recommended values. 16 19 19 39 58 > No Luck
> Set forcely 3600MHz without DOCP > No Luck
> Seems system didn't manage my tuning and start screaming BIOS is in Recovery mode.. Reboot > Fan Max> reboot > Fan max..> This happened couple times and then BIOS message > I made reset with Reset button and it is running.
> *
> 
> 
> I am out of ideas. I will try to remove RAMs and try another four stick RAM. HyperX Predator 4x8GB 3200MHz. Any suggestions guys..? Else will most probably through the board away.


Take a screenshot of ZenTimings. We need to know exactly what this ram of yours is, and what subtimings and voltages it's set to. It's well known that using 4 sticks of memory is a challenge, and will need some careful setting up in some cases. I would personally never buy 4 sticks of ram, due to it often being a royal pain in the butt, especially if overclocking.


----------



## bookingyo

Radulus said:


> Hm.. this time, when I turn on PC, Display didn't turn On. I had to press reset button..  then it is up and running. Seems something else is wrong, because this display issue happens also time to time. And ideas?
> 
> Stability issue> Seems it is stable now with default values. 2133MHz.
> 
> Now I enabled forcely frequency to 3600MHz > Set DRAM Voltage to 1.4V. On top of that I set tRC to 58 (following specs) and Disabled Timing Enhancer. Not sure why, but Timing values were always different then manufacturer recommended.
> 
> *EDIT:*
> 
> 
> *
> Set DRAM voltage to 1,4V > No luck
> Set CCD, VDDP, IOD to suggested values > No luck
> I set also DRAM to lower frequency 3566MHz > No luck > Even with lower freqency it FAILS!!
> I always set manualy Timing to recommended values. 16 19 19 39 58 > No Luck
> Set forcely 3600MHz without DOCP > No Luck
> Seems system didn't manage my tuning and start screaming BIOS is in Recovery mode.. Reboot > Fan Max> reboot > Fan max..> This happened couple times and then BIOS message > I made reset with Reset button and it is running.
> *
> 
> 
> I am out of ideas. I will try to remove RAMs and try another four stick RAM. HyperX Predator 4x8GB 3200MHz. Any suggestions guys..? Else will most probably through the board away.


I'm running a Crosshair Hero viii (Wifi) with a 3950x and memory using the XMP [email protected] 

With the most recent bios releases all I need to do to get it stable is adjust the SOC voltage to 1.05 (2x16 dimm kit 32gb)

-VDDSOC Voltage Override and type in the voltage. 1.05 (2xdimms) or 1.1 (4xdimms) or 1.15 (4xdimms, not quite stable @ 1.1v)


----------



## J7SC

@Radulus ...as context, I run both the CH8 Hero Wifi (3950X, 4x8 GB 3800 Cl14) and the CH8 Dark Hero (5950X, 4x8 GB 3800 CL14). The behavior you described on the Wifi only happened to me when I pushed the RAM too far - which doesn't seem to be the case here. It may very well be that the 2nd-hand mobo is damaged in some way, may have dirt in the socket ('dirt' may also mean tiny bits of thermal paste) or the cooler mount isn't ideal.

You probably already tried a few of these things, but to begin with, I would loosen the CPU locking arm on the socket w/o taking the CPU out, then re-fasten. Memory channels are tricky beasts with some of these CPUs

Next, with your bios 'F5' /2133 default, what bios version does it show ? I would try 3501 or 3801.

Next, I would try with just two sticks from the same RAM kit (you mentioned that you have two kits)...if that does work, try the second kit w/ the same bios RAM settings (so still only two sticks in total). As others also already pointed out, also try SoCv at up to 1.08x, then post results...


----------



## Radulus

stimpy88 said:


> Take a screenshot of ZenTimings. We need to know exactly what this ram of yours is, and what subtimings and voltages it's set to. It's well known that using 4 sticks of memory is a challenge, and will need some careful setting up in some cases. I would personally never buy 4 sticks of ram, due to it often being a royal pain in theSave butt, especially if overclocking.


Screenshot bellow, all four modules. Set in BiOS to DOCP. All Auto. As said, firstly I didn't plan any overclocking, I just wanted RAM run on proper frequency. If all stable, I would try some basic overclocking, but firstly need default 3600MHz fully stable.

I am not sure if I found proper SOCv. Can you check screen bellow? Anyway..* Settings 1.1 doesn't work either. Same issue *


----------



## GRABibus

Radulus said:


> Screenshot bellow, all four modules. Set in BiOS to DOCP. All Auto. As said, firstly I didn't plan any overclocking, I just wanted RAM run on proper frequency. If all stable, I would try some basic overclocking, but firstly need default 3600MHz fully stable.
> 
> I am not sure if I found proper SOCv. Can you check screen bellow? Anyway..* Settings 1.1 doesn't work either. Same issue *
> View attachment 2545612
> 
> 
> View attachment 2545608
> 
> View attachment 2545606
> 
> View attachment 2545607
> 
> View attachment 2545605


Command Rate 2T, same issue also ?


----------



## GRABibus

Radulus said:


> Screenshot bellow, all four modules. Set in BiOS to DOCP. All Auto. As said, firstly I didn't plan any overclocking, I just wanted RAM run on proper frequency. If all stable, I would try some basic overclocking, but firstly need default 3600MHz fully stable.
> 
> I am not sure if I found proper SOCv. Can you check screen bellow? Anyway..* Settings 1.1 doesn't work either. Same issue *
> View attachment 2545612
> 
> 
> View attachment 2545608
> 
> View attachment 2545606
> 
> View attachment 2545607
> 
> View attachment 2545605


tcke = 0 ?

Try it at "1"


----------



## DodgyTech

@Radulus
Can you test something? I've also got 4x16GB modules and I found an important setting to stabilize my memory.
It's called VDDSOC Load Line Calibration, set it to level 5. If I remember correctly there is also the switching frequency, set it to extreme.
You can find those settings in Extreme Tweaker-Digi+ power control.
Also set memory current capability to it max value.
I believe your modules are dual rank, Hynic C-die.


----------



## Sleepycat

Radulus said:


> Screenshot bellow, all four modules. Set in BiOS to DOCP. All Auto. As said, firstly I didn't plan any overclocking, I just wanted RAM run on proper frequency. If all stable, I would try some basic overclocking, but firstly need default 3600MHz fully stable.
> 
> I am not sure if I found proper SOCv. Can you check screen bellow? Anyway..* Settings 1.1 doesn't work either. Same issue *
> View attachment 2545612
> 
> 
> View attachment 2545608
> 
> View attachment 2545606
> 
> View attachment 2545607
> 
> View attachment 2545605


I run 4x dual rank sticks but mine are B-die. I use CLDO VDDP of 0.95V. Have you tried this?


----------



## J7SC

As @GRABibus mentioned, command rate 2T is definitely worth a try, what with 4x16GB dual-rank sticks


----------



## metalshark

My bad didn’t realise you were running 4x16GB ok there’s a fair bit of tweaking likely required here. That’s a tough challenge. For now you’ll likely get them working sensibly at 3200 speed. 3600 is (very likely) possible on a 5900, but would need to look up the settings for a Zen 2 processor and see how high you can take it.


----------



## Radulus

GRABibus said:


> tcke = 0 ?
> 
> Try it at "1"


*TKCE* > Currently it is set to 1 > *No luck. Failed during writing this message
2T/1T* > Currently Under test with 2T. BUT.. I set ti in BIOS to 2T, but when I check CPU-Z, it is still screaming 1T.. :/ 
What it does? I read some articles that 2T is slower than 1T.

I tested 4 modules RAM HyperX Predator.. > And it was quite tough to make it working. BIOS recovery messages and I almost had to Recover Windows also. At the end, it was working. Strange thing is, when 4 HyperX were running, during reboot, no shut down. Same when I start up PC, no second boot. When I put these Gskill RAMs, during boot it boots twice (FAN on maximum, then shut down and then Boot automatically) and Reboot from windows does shutdown and wake up automatically. If you understand what I mean.










*CLDO VDDP* > Following recommendation, for 4modules I set it to 1.1>* No luck*

Actual settings:


----------



## Radulus

metalshark said:


> My bad didn’t realise you were running 4x16GB ok there’s a fair bit of tweaking likely required here. That’s a tough challenge. For now you’ll likely get them working sensibly at 3200 speed. 3600 is (very likely) possible on a 5900, but would need to look up the settings for a Zen 2 processor and see how high you can take it.


You saying, that if I change CPU to 5900, situation would be better..? Is there a difference between RAM handling for 3900XT vs 5900 ? I am thinking to try..I can buy it and return if needed.


----------



## metalshark

Radulus said:


> You saying, that if I change CPU to 5900, situation would be better..? Is there a difference between RAM handling for 3900XT vs 5900 ? I am thinking to try..I can buy it and return if needed.


There is between the two, however, I've not tried running 4x16GB yet personally so will defer to those on the forum with experience of them (have seen their posts and looks to be a challenge). Doing a search through the thread for it should yield you results and what they used. Don't think I've seen anyone use a CLDO VDDP of 1.1 even for extreme overclocking before. 0.85-1 sure, but never 1.1. Also with LLC5 not working on vSOC would drop that back down to 3 or less or Auto unless you need it. DRAM Current Capability of 100% should be fine for timings, but don't be worried if someone says 110-120% but would let the people who've run 4x16GB chime in with that.
It should be pretty straightforward from what I’ve read to get 4x16GB working at 3200MHz on Zen2 and that’ll be a big step up from 2133MHz while you research what you need for higher.


----------



## Radulus

I set CMD 2T > 2T but I am not sure, how it is actually set. When I open CPUz it says 1T :/











*EDIT: I cleared CMOS.. and SET ONLY 2T. Results in system same as above.. In BiOS it is set to 2T, in Win I can see 1T. So far so good.*


----------



## nada324

Radulus said:


> I set CMD 2T > 2T but I am not sure, how it is actually set. When I open CPUz it says 1T :/
> 
> View attachment 2545703


You need to go too, in amd overclocking settings in the advanced tab, dram configuration > dram controller and put 2T there too, also disable power down mode from memory settings and from there too


----------



## Radulus

nada324 said:


> You need to go too, in amd overclocking settings in the advanced tab, dram configuration > dram controller and put 2T there too, also disable power down mode from memory settings and from there too



I set this as you described. POWER Down Disabled.. And in both places set CMD to 2T. > *No Luck Again. Failed in windows.*
DRAM Voltage set to 1.8V +Power Down + 2T SET + DOCP on 3600Mhz > It is under test now.
Problem I see here is, that maybe it is combination of few factors, but I afraid it is almost impossible for me to optimize it  if there are more things, which need to be tuned.

I have also MSI B450 Gaming Pro Carbon AC. CPU should be compatible. RAM should be compatible also. It will not run on 3600MHz, but on 3466MHz. I think it worth a try. What do you think?


----------



## nada324

Radulus said:


> I set this as you described. POWER Down Disabled.. And in both places set CMD to 2T. > *No Luck Again. Failed in windows.*
> DRAM Voltage set to 1.8V +Power Down + 2T SET + DOCP on 3600Mhz > It is under test now.
> Problem I see here is, that maybe it is combination of few factors, but I afraid it is almost impossible for me to optimize it  if there are more things, which need to be tuned.
> 
> I have also MSI B450 Gaming Pro Carbon AC. CPU should be compatible. RAM should be compatible also. It will not run on 3600MHz, but on 3466MHz. I think it worth a try. What do you think?


Wait, dram voltage 1.8v??? No way, turn it off and put up to 1.5v for non b die sticks


----------



## Radulus

nada324 said:


> Wait, dram voltage 1.8v??? No way, turn it off and put up to 1.5v for non b die sticks


1.38V. Sorry  Now I set it to 1.5V. Waiting for results.


----------



## stimpy88

Radulus said:


> I set this as you described. POWER Down Disabled.. And in both places set CMD to 2T. > *No Luck Again. Failed in windows.*
> DRAM Voltage set to 1.8V +Power Down + 2T SET + DOCP on 3600Mhz > It is under test now.
> Problem I see here is, that maybe it is combination of few factors, but I afraid it is almost impossible for me to optimize it  if there are more things, which need to be tuned.
> 
> I have also MSI B450 Gaming Pro Carbon AC. CPU should be compatible. RAM should be compatible also. It will not run on 3600MHz, but on 3466MHz. I think it worth a try. What do you think?


I think you are playing with far to many settings that are not necessary yet. Reset your BIOS, do not use DOCP, and only input the first 5 memory timings in to the normal dram settings page in the bios. Don't start running around AMD submenus and messing with stuff. Do it in the place where it is supposed to be done. Then go into windows and take a ZenTimings screenshot and share it here. Do not use CPU-z, just ZenTimings.

Leave all settings on Auto at this time. Only change BIOS settings which will get you in to windows. No messing with any voltages or timings or power supply stuff, just the defaults.

Now run a ram tester like TM5, and see if you get errors. Post the results here.


----------



## Radulus

stimpy88 said:


> I think you are playing with far to many settings that are not necessary yet. Reset your BIOS, do not use DOCP, and only input the first 5 memory timings in to the normal dram settings page in the bios. Don't start running around AMD submenus and messing with stuff. Do it in the place where it is supposed to be done. Then go into windows and take a ZenTimings screenshot and share it here. Do not use CPU-z, just ZenTimings.
> 
> Leave all settings on Auto at this time. Only change BIOS settings which will get you in to windows. No messing with any voltages or timings or power supply stuff, just the defaults.
> 
> Now run a ram tester like TM5, and see if you get errors. Post the results here.


This I've tried. Default.. DOCP, no DOCP. Default DRAM voltage, increased Voltage. Still same issue.
It seems that default 2133MHz is working fine. Only this. I decreased also Mem speed to 3566MHz, same issue.









This is how it looks like with DOCP 3600MHz ONLY.


----------



## stimpy88

Radulus said:


> This I've tried. Default.. DOCP, no DOCP. Default DRAM voltage, increased Voltage. Still same issue.
> It seems that default 2133MHz is working fine. Only this. I decreased also Mem speed to 3566MHz, same issue.
> View attachment 2545720
> 
> 
> This is how it looks like with DOCP 3600MHz ONLY.


No DOCP. Everything default, and post the ZenTimings screenshot. We need to see what your altering. I think your VSOC, VDDP and VDDG IOD are pretty good, you can change those from default, but only them.

The idea here is to get you to apply settings one or two at a time. DOCP is crap, and is rarely fully stable, and is often a complete dumpster fire, especially when you plug 4 dimms into a system, and expect it to work.


----------



## Radulus

stimpy88 said:


> No DOCP. Everything default, and post the ZenTimings screenshot. We need to see what your altering. I think your VSOC, VDDP and VDDG IOD are pretty good, you can change those from default, but only them.
> 
> The idea here is to get you to apply settings one or two at a time. DOCP is crap, and is rarely fully stable, and is often a complete dumpster fire, especially when you plug 4 dimms into a system, and expect it to work.


Okay. Currently it is running with only Increased DRAM Voltage to 1.5V. And DOCP to 3600MHz Enabled. So far so good.* If it fails again, will do what you've offered and share ZenTimings screenshot.. *


----------



## stimpy88

Radulus said:


> Okay. Currently it is running with only Increased DRAM Voltage to 1.5V. And DOCP to 3600MHz Enabled. So far so good.* If it fails again, will do what you've offered and share ZenTimings screenshot.. *


You need to run TM5 and take note of which tests it fails, then make use of Veii's guide on how to fix it. Just because it boots Windows, does not mean that it's working.


----------



## Radulus

stimpy88 said:


> You need to run TM5 and take note of which tests it fails, then make use of Veii's guide on how to fix it. Just because it boots Windows, does not mean that it's working.


Would you be so kind and share with me TM5 tool. I have never heard of it and I cannot find it. Currently I am testing it with MemTest pro. So far no physical errors. Still on 1.5V


----------



## stimpy88

Radulus said:


> Would you be so kind and share with me TM5 tool. I have never heard of it and I cannot find it. Currently I am testing it with MemTest pro. So far no physical errors. Still on 1.5V


No problem - HERE you are. It points to a guide and a download link.


----------



## finas

Radulus said:


> This I've tried. Default.. DOCP, no DOCP. Default DRAM voltage, increased Voltage. Still same issue.
> It seems that default 2133MHz is working fine. Only this. I decreased also Mem speed to 3566MHz, same issue.
> View attachment 2545720
> 
> 
> This is how it looks like with DOCP 3600MHz ONLY.


I am running hynix cjr like you but in 2x32gb. These are my timmings. I would suggest the following just for testing:

procODT to 53.3
rttnom disabled
tcke to 1
trp from 19 to 21
set voltage to 1.46v


----------



## stimpy88

finas said:


> I am running hynix cjr like you but in 2x32gb. These are my timmings. I would suggest the following just for testing:
> 
> procODT to 53.3
> rttnom disabled
> tcke to 1
> trp from 19 to 21
> set voltage to 1.46v


I don't think you can compare a 2 dimm setup to a 4 dimm setup. If he copies your settings, his system won't boot. (if you intended him to copy your ZenTimings settings that is)


----------



## finas

stimpy88 said:


> I don't think you can compare a 2 dimm setup to a 4 dimm setup. If he copies your settings, his system won't boot. (if you intended him to copy your ZenTimings settings that is)



where in my post did you find that I am suggesting for him to copy my settings?


----------



## stimpy88

finas said:


> where in my post did you find that I am suggesting for him to copy my settings?


Forget it. I thought you had included the screenshot as some kind of guide as to what he could achieve.


----------



## Radulus

stimpy88 said:


> No problem - HERE you are. It points to a guide and a download link.


Okay. TM5 is in test now.

DRAM was running on 1.5V. I decreased it to 1,46V and it Failed after few seconds in Windows.:/











As discussed before. I Defaulted BIOS and here is Default ZenTimings. RAM is currently Running on 2133MHz:


----------



## stimpy88

Radulus said:


> Okay. TM5 is in test now. I can see theer is no settings..? I just run it as Admin (had to confirm maybe 11 times) and then it is testing RAM. DRAM is still Running on 1.5V. Test passed no errors. But I am not sure, how to set it to make a test of ALL memory. :/
> 
> View attachment 2545731


Your testing hardly anything by only running the standard tests. You need to read some of what I linked to. To start, you need to use the 1usmus_v3.cfg as the test, and set it to at least 20 to 25 passes. It's what pretty much all of us use. It will take some time, you can't use the computer while it's testing, but is worth it as if your memory is not stable, you will get weird crashes and reboots from time to time, as well as corrupted files.

Once you have established that your stable, then it's time to tweak and get more performance.

EDIT: So you have reset your bios since your last post when you said it was stable at 3600? And it now crashes at 2100 @1.46v?

OK, you need to be patient, and stop changing things before you know if your system is stable.

1.) Reset BIOS to factory defaults - Change no timings or voltages, just basic settings to make sure you boot from the right drive and have a network connection.
2.) Get into Windows and take a ZenTimings screenshot to establish a baseline of your settings.
3.) Run TM5 with 1usmus_v3.cfg for 20 to 25 cycles. Do not use your system while it is running. Make a note of any errors that come up, and post them here.
4.) You may need to take out all your memory sticks, and perform the TM5 test on each one, as you might have a faulty memory stick.


----------



## Kelutrel

stimpy88 said:


> Your testing hardly anything by only running the standard tests. You need to read some of what I linked to. To start, you need to use the 1usmus_v3.cfg as the test, and set it to at least 20 to 25 passes. It's what pretty much all of us use. It will take some time, you can't use the computer while it's testing, but is worth it as if your memory is not stable, you will get weird crashes and reboots from time to time, as well as corrupted files.
> 
> Once you have established that your stable, then it's time to tweak and get more performance.
> 
> EDIT: So you have reset your bios since your last post when you said it was stable at 3600? And it now crashes at 2100 @1.46v?



I usually use ABSOLUTE(01102021) from anta777 ( here ) in TM5 . Is 1usmus_v3 any better/faster ?


----------



## stimpy88

Kelutrel said:


> I usually use ABSOLUTE(01102021) from anta777 ( here ) in TM5 . Is 1usmus_v3 any better/faster ?


I don't know, maybe @Veii could tell us which is the best .cfg to use with TM5, as I am under the impression that 1usmus_v3 was pretty much the standard for most of us. But things change!

I would say that Veii created a fantastic guide, which he still updates, based on 1usmus_v3 that could be rendered useless if you did not use that .cfg... Also, is that anta777 .cfg somehow optimized for Intel? I don't know, just asking.

Personally, I would only use 1usmus_v3.cfg. It's the only one truly supported, at least on AMD.


----------



## Blackfyre

Radulus said:


> DRAM Voltage set to 1.8V


Almost gave me a heart attack and it isn't even my RAM 🤣


----------



## Nullbyte_

Audioboxer said:


> Someone who upgrades, please check if CPU voltage is limited to 1.425v (HWINFO can tell you) if you put EDC above 140 in the BIOS. Thanks.


Just tested it. It’s still stuck at 1.425v. Was hoping this would be fixed but it’s still messed up (or done intentionally, not sure there).


----------



## Radulus

Exa


stimpy88 said:


> Your testing hardly anything by only running the standard tests. You need to read some of what I linked to. To start, you need to use the 1usmus_v3.cfg as the test, and set it to at least 20 to 25 passes. It's what pretty much all of us use. It will take some time, you can't use the computer while it's testing, but is worth it as if your memory is not stable, you will get weird crashes and reboots from time to time, as well as corrupted files.
> 
> Once you have established that your stable, then it's time to tweak and get more performance.
> 
> EDIT: So you have reset your bios since your last post when you said it was stable at 3600? And it now crashes at 2100 @1.46v?
> 
> OK, you need to be patient, and stop changing things before you know if your system is stable.
> 
> 1.) Reset BIOS to factory defaults - Change no timings or voltages, just basic settings to make sure you boot from the right drive and have a network connection.
> 2.) Get into Windows and take a ZenTimings screenshot to establish a baseline of your settings.
> 3.) Run TM5 with 1usmus_v3.cfg for 20 to 25 cycles. Do not use your system while it is running. Make a note of any errors that come up, and post them here.
> 4.) You may need to take out all your memory sticks, and perform the TM5 test on each one, as you might have a faulty memory stick.


1.) Done. Cleared CMOS again
2.) Here









3.) First three Cycles no issue. I will run it for 25 cycles. Now.









4.) If any issue I will have to test sticks one by one.

Currently it is running on Default Frequency/voltage.. Now, I will make a25 cycles test and then I will post results if any error found. In case there is no error does it mean RAM is physically okay and problem is either board damage or wrong config?


----------



## Veii

stimpy88 said:


> I don't know, maybe @Veii could tell us which is the best .cfg to use with TM5, as I am under the impression that 1usmus_v3 was pretty much the standard for most of us. But things change!
> 
> I would say that Veii created a fantastic guide, which he still updates, based on 1usmus_v3 that could be rendered useless if you did not use that .cfg... Also, is that anta777 .cfg somehow optimized for Intel? I don't know, just asking.
> 
> Personally, I would only use 1usmus_v3.cfg. It's the only one truly supported, at least on AMD.


Anta's config was a collective work between 3-4 engineers
The config by itself is quite good, but operation is different

By the nature of it, you can not get any meaningful information out of it
Its mostly discharge testing, but sadly the 24/7 memOC thread concluded, that it isn't useable or helpful to us
Neither the current nor the anta extreme one

Both suffer from an odd issue, crashing beyond 1.55-1.6v
Without really a found reason, but one of the makers did warn about it too.
To me this makes also no sense, but fact is ~ that we can not use it for anything beyond "casual" results
1.5vDIMM by any means is not "casual", but the config shows odd behaviour and so is not supported by the community

Stick to 1usmus_v3, but with 25cycles
20 are not enough to find tRFC issues
Generally signal-noise issues

For any test you should at least run it for 1h minimum, to have any meaning to it, hence thermal equilibrium takes around 40-45min to be reached


----------



## shaolin95

Hey guys, what are Event ID:42 about?
also if someone can remind me the right steps to check the whea errors just to make sure I am doing it right 
Thanks!


----------



## Veii

WHEA 18, cpu core crash, cpu voltage issue
WHEA 19, interconnect DPM issue, reached zero endpoint, returned void
WHEA 20, interconnect error got fixed, is bellow threshold of CAKE ~ information only
WHEA 6/8, ACPI ID sensor alive signal ~ information only
WHEA 42, sensor ID readout check ~ on-boot information only


----------



## Radulus

Radulus said:


> Exa
> 
> 
> 1.) Done. Cleared CMOS again
> 2.) Here
> View attachment 2545781
> 
> 
> 3.) First three Cycles no issue. I will run it for 25 cycles. Now.
> View attachment 2545777
> 
> 
> 4.) If any issue I will have to test sticks one by one.
> 
> Currently it is running on Default Frequency/voltage.. Now, I will make a25 cycles test and then I will post results if any error found. In case there is no error does it mean RAM is physically okay and problem is either board damage or wrong config?


So..no errors detected. I think RAM is Okay. Any ideas?


----------



## metalshark

Radulus said:


> So..no errors detected. I think RAM is Okay. Any ideas?
> 
> View attachment 2545914


See if you can get it running at 3200MT/s first with a clean TM5, then progress to 3400MT/s. Once those two are achieved work in 66MT/s increments learning the sticks and your IMC as you go and what the voltages/terminations/timings required are. Save a profile at each speed so you can revert your settings and have a known good system for when you need to. In the unlikely event you have issues at 3200MT/s use 3000MT/s. Feel free to share your ZenTimings at each step too so we can keep track if things are looking off.


----------



## Radulus

metalshark said:


> See if you can get it running at 3200MT/s first with a clean TM5, then progress to 3400MT/s. Once those two are achieved work in 66MT/s increments learning the sticks and your IMC as you go and what the voltages/terminations/timings required are. Save a profile at each speed so you can revert your settings and have a known good system for when you need to. In the unlikely event you have issues at 3200MT/s use 3000MT/s. Feel free to share your ZenTimings at each step too so we can keep track if things are looking off.


Shell I use DOCP profile and just decrease Memory speed to 3200 or set 3200MHz direclty without DOCP? Deafult DOCP is 3600MHz.


----------



## metalshark

Radulus said:


> Shell I use DOCP profile and just decrease Memory speed to 3200 or set 3200MHz direclty without DOCP? Deafult DOCP is 3600MHz.


Forget DOCP for now if there isn't a profile already at 3200MHz, just use auto timings (they'll be non-optimised but hey better than the same non-optimised timings at 2133MT/s) and give it a tad more voltage for the RAM, the amount asked for on the sticks it's something like 1.35-1.45v should be fine, to begin with.


----------



## Radulus

metalshark said:


> Forget DOCP for now if there isn't a profile already at 3200MHz, just use auto timings (they'll be non-optimised but hey better than the same non-optimised timings at 2133MT/s) and give it a tad more voltage for the RAM, the amount asked for on the sticks it's something like 1.35-1.45v should be fine, to begin with.


Okay, will set it as you suggested and will run again 20-25 cycles TM5 test.


----------



## stimpy88

Radulus said:


> Okay, will set it as you suggested and will run again 20-25 cycles TM5 test.


Your doing great, and do exactly as what @metalshark says. One step at a time, take it easy, don't rush, even if it's boring and takes ages. You will get there in the end, and have a fast, stable system to show for it.

One thing I will say, is forget about DOCP. It's whats causing your problems! You can achieve better than DOCP manually.

I suspect that your system is unable to run with a 1T command rate, and that is likely the main thing what's killing it, but there are many other settings these profiles force which are not good for a system with 4 DIMMS, and even some 2 DIMM systems too! Thats' why we do it ourselves.


----------



## stimpy88

Veii said:


> Anta's config was a collective work between 3-4 engineers
> The config by itself is quite good, but operation is different
> 
> By the nature of it, you can not get any meaningful information out of it
> Its mostly discharge testing, but sadly the 24/7 memOC thread concluded, that it isn't useable or helpful to us
> Neither the current nor the anta extreme one
> 
> Both suffer from an odd issue, crashing beyond 1.55-1.6v
> Without really a found reason, but one of the makers did warn about it too.
> To me this makes also no sense, but fact is ~ that we can not use it for anything beyond "casual" results
> 1.5vDIMM by any means is not "casual", but the config shows odd behaviour and so is not supported by the community
> 
> Stick to 1usmus_v3, but with 25cycles
> 20 are not enough to find tRFC issues
> Generally signal-noise issues
> 
> For any test you should at least run it for 1h minimum, to have any meaning to it, hence thermal equilibrium takes around 40-45min to be reached


Thanks for taking the time to come in here and clarify things Veii. I'll also take this opportunity to say thanks for the knowledge you have freely given us in this community, and to me personally.


----------



## slice313

I need help tightening my timings. 

I recently switched to a 32GB DDR4 kit since I needed more than 16GB. The chip seems to be Micron Rev. J (I checked the Patriot barcode: *19JJB*) and also exported a Full Thaiphoon report.

Until now I managed to drive the DIMMS to CL16 and sightly tightened everything, but I don't know if something looks out of place since I don't have any experience with this Micron "weird" Rev. This have been tested with Karhu until 6500% and with TM5 using 1usmus profile for 3 cycles. *All pass*.

Thank you in advance. 


View attachment 2487688 View attachment 2487690 View attachment 2487684


----------



## stimpy88

slice313 said:


> I need help tightening my timings.
> 
> I recently switched to a 32GB DDR4 kit since I needed more than 16GB. The chip seems to be Micron Rev. J (I checked the Patriot barcode: *19JJB*) and also exported a Full Thaiphoon report.
> 
> Until now I managed to drive the DIMMS to CL16 and sightly tightened everything, but I don't know if something looks out of place since I don't have any experience with this Micron "weird" Rev. This have been tested with Karhu until 6500% and with TM5 using 1usmus profile for 3 cycles. *All pass*.
> 
> Thank you in advance.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2487688 View attachment 2487690 View attachment 2487684


I can see that you are using odd timings and GDM together, which is not optimal... But I'm really not familiar with these IC's. Do you have some Sandra bandwidth results you can share, maybe we can see exactly what performance your getting, and if it's about right for the frequency your running it at? Also, what is your VDIMM?


----------



## metalshark

slice313 said:


> I need help tightening my timings.
> 
> I recently switched to a 32GB DDR4 kit since I needed more than 16GB. The chip seems to be Micron Rev. J (I checked the Patriot barcode: *19JJB*) and also exported a Full Thaiphoon report.
> 
> Until now I managed to drive the DIMMS to CL16 and sightly tightened everything, but I don't know if something looks out of place since I don't have any experience with this Micron "weird" Rev. This have been tested with Karhu until 6500% and with TM5 using 1usmus profile for 3 cycles. *All pass*.
> 
> Thank you in advance.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2487688 View attachment 2487690 View attachment 2487684


You can likely drop:
tFAW to 16
and
tWR to 14

although you might need to adjust RTT values such as:
RttWr to 3
RttPark to 1

If that works then:
tRCDWR to 16
tRP to 16
tRDCRD as low as it'll go but don't be dishearted if it only goes down to 19 instead of reaching 16 like the other two.

Then if that's all going swimmingly:
tRAS to 36
and
tRC to 56

You can then go through the rest trying to drop them (plus pushing those above even more), unfortunately, you're very likely going to need to keep GDM firmly on. Leave tRFC until very last and regrettably you might need a high value, likely 100-200 less than you have now, but leave it till last.

Remember you can use memtest86 to test before booting into Windows (it'll catch a fair few errors and can be more thorough for tRFC testing), then follow up if it passes in Windows with TM5/Karhu (this will be a thorough test and really pushes the IMC in a way memtest86 just doesn't), this will minimise the chances of messing up your Windows install (if you don't care then just jump straight into the Windows tests, but do a test 10 of memtest86 for final tRFC validation).


----------



## J7SC

Radulus said:


> Okay, will set it as you suggested and will run again 20-25 cycles TM5 test.


 A couple of quick observations - not sure if these have been mentioned yet. First, have you looked at C-states in your bios (power saving feature) ? With some hardware combos, random reboots not related to PSU / load spikes can sometimes be a result of C-states. Second, GPUs can also lead to random reboots, but rather than complicate your painstaking RAM process as described above, just put the GPU item on the backburner for now. Third, has anyone suggested > the Ryzen DRAM calculator yet for getting to stable, workable timings ? I have used it to confirm my timings on three different Ryzen CPUs, even with RAM not on the OVL as I do not use DOCP.


----------



## metalshark

J7SC said:


> A couple of quick observations - not sure if these have been mentioned yet. First, have you looked at C-states in your bios (power saving feature) ? With some hardware combos, random reboots not related to PSU / load spikes can sometimes be a result of C-states. Second, GPUs can also lead to random reboots, but rather than complicate your painstaking RAM process as described above, just put the GPU item on the backburner for now. Third, has anyone suggested > the Ryzen DRAM calculator yet for getting to stable, workable timings ? I have used it to confirm my timings on three different Ryzen CPUs, even with RAM not on the OVL as I do not use DOCP.


DRAM calculator doesn't cover Micron J unfortunately, so hasn't been suggested. But good call with the above, am hoping we're not going to have to mess with C-States for 3200MT/s, but might be needed as the CPU starts having its IF pushed beyond that. Also thought it was reported stable at 2133MT/s so hopefully, the graphics card is fine and it's not something weird like motherboard power dropping as it's being pushed further causing an issue with PCIe power delivery.

EDIT: apologies am being senile, it's slice313 with the Micron J and Radulus with Hynix memory which is covered in Ryzen DRAM Calculator. They even sent a screenshot from Thaiphoon:


https://www.overclock.net/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,onerror=redirect,width=1920,height=1920,fit=scale-down/https://www.overclock.net/attachments/screenshot-2022-01-30-093902-jpg.2545699/


----------



## Sleepycat

Radulus said:


> View attachment 2545781


It's interesting that your MCLK, FCLK and UCLK are different to each other. They are meant to be the same value, half of your DRAM clock. So 1067 is correct for DRAM 2133. If you set DRAM to 3600, then all three should be at 1800.


----------



## Radulus

Sleepycat said:


> It's interesting that your MCLK, FCLK and UCLK are different to each other. They are meant to be the same value, half of your DRAM clock. So 1067 is correct for DRAM 2133. If you set DRAM to 3600, then all three should be at 1800.


For now the plan is to set manually 3200Mhz/ 3400MHz respectively (no DOCP).. And make a TM5 test again. As you can see my earlier comment, when 3600 is set all three values are correct (1800). 

Unfortunately it will be much slower progress now, becuase I cannot test it when I am at work  So will set it after my work shift.


----------



## P1ngou1N

Hi guys, little issue here. My computer is randomly restarting while I am ingame (mainly when playing Aoe4, haven't had the issue while playing 20+h of god of war).

I have 5900x, crosshair impact bios 3904 and docp on.

I tried with pbo and without. The computer reboot after 30min to 3h of prime95 blend as well.

Is there some voltage I need to up in bios or something ? It's pretty annoying. Every other settings is by default in bios.


----------



## shaolin95

Veii said:


> WHEA 18, cpu core crash, cpu voltage issue
> WHEA 19, interconnect DPM issue, reached zero endpoint, returned void
> WHEA 20, interconnect error got fixed, is bellow threshold of CAKE ~ information only
> WHEA 6/8, ACPI ID sensor alive signal ~ information only
> WHEA 42, sensor ID readout check ~ on-boot information only


So when I got the BSOD and came with that error code the changed I have made was drop my VDDSOC Voltage Override from like 1.1800 to 1.12500 and EDC from 160 to 140.
Before those changes it was all stable so I am trying to find out now which cause this by tweaking one at a time.


----------



## Radulus

Radulus said:


> For now the plan is to set manually 3200Mhz/ 3400MHz respectively (no DOCP).. And make a TM5 test again. As you can see my earlier comment, when 3600 is set all three values are correct (1800).
> 
> Unfortunately it will be much slower progress now, becuase I cannot test it when I am at work  So will set it after my work shift.


So.. I am back.. 
1. When I set PC from previous state (2133MHz Default) to new values directly.. It started to scream following:









When F1 pressed > then exit BIOS > No Changes applied. Default values (2133MHz RAM) despite changs in BIOS

2. So I cleared *CMOS *and setup the system as following: *DRAM Frequency 3200MHz, DRAM Voltage = 1.35V*
I set OnBoard LED to Stealth Mode (do disable LED, because it is really pain in the a*s to have board LEDs Enabled during the night)

















All values are set to DEFAULT. Only Freqency and Dram voltage is different.

3. ZenTimings is here with current settings. How it is possible that with DRAM Frequency change and DRAM voltage change also *Cmd was changed to 1T Automatically* ?? As you can see above, *Default is 2T.*
Now I will run 25 cycles of TM5 test as before to check if any Error appear.


----------



## metalshark

Radulus said:


> So.. I am back..
> 1. When I set PC from previous state (2133MHz Default) to new values directly.. It started to scream following:
> View attachment 2545985
> 
> 
> When F1 pressed > then exit BIOS > No Changes applied. Default values (2133MHz RAM) despite changs in BIOS
> 
> 2. So I cleared *CMOS *and setup the system as following: *DRAM Frequency 3200MHz, DRAM Voltage = 1.35V*
> I set OnBoard LED to Stealth Mode (do disable LED, because it is really pain in the a*s to have board LEDs Enabled during the night)
> View attachment 2545986
> 
> View attachment 2545987
> 
> 
> All values are set to DEFAULT. Only Freqency and Dram voltage is different.
> 
> 3. ZenTimings is here with current settings. How it is possible that with DRAM Frequency change and DRAM voltage change also *Cmd was changed to 1T Automatically* ?? As you can see above, *Default is 2T.*
> Now I will run 25 cycles of TM5 test as before to check if any Error appear.
> View attachment 2545988


I can't answer that question about the command rate changing like that, however with GDM enabled it's a moot point (as GDM will override that). Thanks for the info, this'll make it nice and easy for everyone to follow. Have fingers crossed for you.


----------



## Veii

Radulus said:


> 3. ZenTimings is here with current settings. How it is possible that with DRAM Frequency change and DRAM voltage change also *Cmd was changed to 1T Automatically* ?? As you can see above, *Default is 2T.*


GearDownMode runs internal DIMM I/O at half speed (elementary explained)
Soo it is either 1T , 2T or GDM
GDM mode changes Command rate in realtime. On boot it's 1T , mid initialization it's 2T and normal load it's 2T too
It's dynamic, but hides powering issues, because dimms are running on half speed and half strain (internally)

For such big capacity, it's fine to run GDM 
But also fine to run 2T ~ just harder


----------



## Radulus

Veii said:


> GearDownMode runs internal DIMM I/O at half speed (elementary explained)
> Soo it is either 1T , 2T or GDM
> GDM mode changes Command rate in realtime. On boot it's 1T , mid initialization it's 2T and normal load it's 2T too
> It's dynamic, but hides powering issues, because dimms are running on half speed and half strain (internally)
> 
> For such big capacity, it's fine to run GDM
> But also fine to run 2T ~ just harder


All settings is Auto. No idea if GDM is enabled or no. If not mistaken I cannot choose the value. Either 1T or 2T only.


----------



## metalshark

Radulus said:


> All settings is Auto. No idea if GDM is enabled or no. If not mistaken I cannot choose the value. Either 1T or 2T only.


You can change GDM. It’s quite a long way down the DRAM options, you won’t want to for now though. Having it on is going to be easier. If you get to the point of wanting every last drop of performance later on you may look into disabling it. Even though GDM on is meant to be like 1.5T depending on your config 2T can yield better results, etc


----------



## Baio73

metalshark said:


> You can change GDM. It’s quite a long way down the DRAM options, you won’t want to for now though. Having it on is going to be easier. If you get to the point of wanting every last drop of performance later on you may look into disabling it. Even though GDM on is meant to be like 1.5T depending on your config 2T can yield better results, etc


Are there specific values to set when trying to disable GDM?

Baio


----------



## Sleepycat

Baio73 said:


> Are there specific values to set when trying to disable GDM?
> 
> Baio


The specific values needed when disabling GDM is to set your Command rate as 1T or 2T. 

If you go 1T, it's more aggressive and your subtimings (looser) and voltages (higher) need to match, depending on your memory kit.

2T is looser and more conservative, so you might be able to run slightly more aggressive settings or lower voltages with 2T.


----------



## OblivionXT

Radulus said:


> All settings is Auto. No idea if GDM is enabled or no. If not mistaken I cannot choose the value. Either 1T or 2T only.


I run cheapo server RAM overclocked at 1.46V VDIMM. It's 4x16GB Hynix CJR, other than my TRAS and TRC, my settings are pretty aggressive for what these sticks are. They might work OK on Zen 2, who knows?


----------



## metalshark

Baio73 said:


> Are there specific values to set when trying to disable GDM?
> 
> Baio


The 3 Setup timings (bottom right of ZenTimings) often come into play. A lot of people seemingly need 56/56/56. I’m running 52/36/0. Then you may need to slacken some timings, for me it was just adding 1 to tWTRL and tWRRD. That was for moving from GDM on to 1T with GDM off at 3800MT/s.


----------



## Radulus

Radulus said:


> So.. I am back..
> 1. When I set PC from previous state (2133MHz Default) to new values directly.. It started to scream following:
> 
> When F1 pressed > then exit BIOS > No Changes applied. Default values (2133MHz RAM) despite changs in BIOS
> 
> 2. So I cleared *CMOS *and setup the system as following: *DRAM Frequency 3200MHz, DRAM Voltage = 1.35V*
> I set OnBoard LED to Stealth Mode (do disable LED, because it is really pain in the a*s to have board LEDs Enabled during the night)
> 
> All values are set to DEFAULT. Only Freqency and Dram voltage is different.
> 
> 3. ZenTimings is here with current settings. How it is possible that with DRAM Frequency change and DRAM voltage change also *Cmd was changed to 1T Automatically* ?? As you can see above, *Default is 2T.*
> Now I will run 25 cycles of TM5 test as before to check if any Error appear.


Hi Guys. So.. new but not really positive update.

1. TM5 25 Cycle test on 3200MHz/1.35V Passed. No error found. This is Fine.
2. I cleared CMOS and set directly *3400MHz/1.38V*. And Voila.. (same happened yesterday when I set 3400MHz without cleaning CMOS)










It seems that without further tuning, I cannot set 3400Mhz directly. After above status, PC is running again on 2133MHz.. So no way to set 3400Mhz/1.38V with rest of settings on Auto.


----------



## metalshark

Radulus said:


> Hi Guys. So.. new but not really positive update.
> 
> 1. TM5 25 Cycle test on 3200MHz/1.35V Passed. No error found. This is Fine.
> 2. I cleared CMOS and set directly *3400MHz/1.38V*. And Voila.. (same happened yesterday when I set 3400MHz without cleaning CMOS)
> 
> View attachment 2546191
> 
> 
> It seems that without further tuning, I cannot set 3400Mhz directly. After above status, PC is running again on 2133MHz.. So no way to set 3400Mhz/1.38V with rest of settings on Auto.


Ok but at least you have 3200 instead of 2133 for now as a fall back. Next up then would be 3266 still on ~1.4v


----------



## Radulus

metalshark said:


> Ok but at least you have 3200 instead of 2133 for now as a fall back. Next up then would be 3266 still on ~1.4v


Okay, but don't you think that such expensive board should be wokring better..? 3266MHz is not really positive..
I think I miss some important settings. With DOCP I am able to run it. But not fully stable. Seems DOCP enables some function or feature, which at least Run those RAMs to Win.


----------



## metalshark

Radulus said:


> Okay, but don't you think that such expensive board should be wokring better..? 3266MHz is not really positive..
> I think I miss some important settings. With DOCP I am able to run it. But not fully stable. Seems DOCP enables some function or feature, which at least Run those RAMs to Win.


I think we can likely get it working at 3600. But it’s a journey to see how you processor handles each step of the way. That expensive motherboard has handled speeds way in excess of 3600. 4x16GB is a tough challenge for your processor, this is likely the issue and we’ll need to understand it’s tipping point to see where it fails. For instance which part of TM5 fails as we approach 3400.

Please remember beyond 3200MT/s system memory you are overclocking and that’ll require effort and testing.


----------



## Radulus

metalshark said:


> I think we can likely get it working at 3600. But it’s a journey to see how you processor handles each step of the way. That expensive motherboard has handled speeds way in excess of 3600. 4x16GB is a tough challenge for your processor, this is likely the issue and we’ll need to understand it’s tipping point to see where it fails. For instance which part of TM5 fails as we approach 3400.
> 
> Please remember beyond 3200MT/s system memory you are overclocking and that’ll require effort and testing.


I was also thinking about CPU.. maybe I could try 5900. Maybe it will handle this RAMs much better.. Huh?


----------



## DodgyTech

This board definitely has issues running 4 modules 16GB dual rank. 
Except Samsung B-die and the odd server ram explained above. 
Mines are G-Skill Ripjaws 3200Mhz (F4-3200C16Q-64GVK) and will only run at 3000, even when they are listed on the G-Skill site as "compatible" with this board. 
These are Samsung C-die. 
Have been tweaking for two years now and it's barely stable. 
Running them at 3000Mhz CL14, 1.33 vdimm.

Any change to the timings, even one digit, immediately yields post code F9 and bios safe mode. 
When running with only two modules there are no issues.


----------



## metalshark

Radulus said:


> I was also thinking about CPU.. maybe I could try 5900. Maybe it will handle this RAMs much better.. Huh?


5900 will handle RAM better, so roughly being at 3200MT/s for your 3900X is like being at 3400MT/s for a 5900 (very roughly, there are exceptions, this being more a rule of thumb). You’ll likely need to still tweak voltages to get from 3400-> 3600 but you’ll start closer to your target.

Your Rtt values and CadBus are looking good for Hynix. Taking Power Down Mode off at some point as we reach the biting point/point of instability will be a good move. Then it looks like slowly increasing vSoC will be the way to go (but will use testing/science/data to determine for your system). Those timings are all loosey-goosey which will be easier but might mean we need to drop CLDO VDDP a tad to keep it in check.


----------



## Radulus

metalshark said:


> 5900 will handle RAM better, so roughly being at 3200MT/s for your 3900X is like being at 3400MT/s for a 5900 (very roughly, there are exceptions, this being more a rule of thumb). You’ll likely need to still tweak voltages to get from 3400-> 3600 but you’ll start closer to your target.
> 
> Your Rtt values and CadBus are looking good for Hynix. Taking Power Down Mode off at some point as we reach the biting point/point of instability will be a good move. Then it looks like slowly increasing vSoC will be the way to go (but will use testing/science/data to determine for your system). Those timings are all loosey-goosey which will be easier but might mean we need to drop CLDO VDDP a tad to keep it in check.


Okay, so what do you want me to try exactly..? DRAM 3266Mhz/~1.4V, anything else..?


----------



## metalshark

Radulus said:


> Okay, so what do you want me to try exactly..? DRAM 3266Mhz/~1.4V, anything else..?


That's it for now. Hopefully, that goes fine and the real challenge begins at 3333MT/s.


----------



## Radulus

metalshark said:


> That's it for now. Hopefully, that goes fine and the real challenge begins at 3333MT/s.


I've ordered CPU 5900x. Will try it later afternoon. So maybe.. Situation will be better then. Will keep you informed for sure.


----------



## metalshark

Radulus said:


> I've ordered CPU 5900x. Will try it later afternoon. So maybe.. Situation will be better then. Will keep you informed for sure.


You might get lucky and DOCP works straight out the box with it - otherwise don't be disappointed if we have to start at 3400MHz and start cranking it up manually from there. Fingers crossed for the former for your ease.

DOCP isn't ideal, however, OblivionXT's post above ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp... should be of extreme interest as this is likely what you'll be aiming for. Would drop them a Rep+ as this is like a golden ticket they've provided. Probably easiest to start with loose timings, but this'll give you end game figures.


----------



## slice313

stimpy88 said:


> I can see that you are using odd timings and GDM together, which is not optimal... But I'm really not familiar with these IC's. Do you have some Sandra bandwidth results you can share, maybe we can see exactly what performance your getting, and if it's about right for the frequency your running it at? Also, what is your VDIMM?


Thank you for your help, I really appreciate your time. I pasted here the results.

PD: I use 1.45 v. I tried lowering it but I get instability.



Spoiler: Sisoftware Sandra Memory Bandwidth Results



SiSoftware Sandra

Benchmark Results
Aggregate Memory Performance : 40GB/s (38.73GB/s - 40.57GB/s)
Integer Memory Bandwidth B/F AVX2/256 : 40.08GB/s (39.6GB/s - 40.61GB/s)
Float Memory Bandwidth B/F FMA/256 : 40GB/s (37.87GB/s - 40.53GB/s)
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Benchmark Timings
Time to Copy Capacity : 399.69ms
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.

Performance per Thread
Integer Memory Bandwidth B/F AVX2/256 : 3.34GB/s (3.3GB/s - 3.38GB/s)
Float Memory Bandwidth B/F FMA/256 : 3.33GB/s (3.16GB/s - 3.38GB/s)
No. Threads : 12
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Performance vs. Power
Chipset(s)/Memory Power : 37.78W
Aggregate Memory Performance : 1085.02MB/s/W
Integer Memory Bandwidth B/F AVX2/256 : 1086.45MB/s/W
Float Memory Bandwidth B/F FMA/256 : 1083.62MB/s/W
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.

Capacity vs. Power
Memory Capacity : 434MB/W
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.

Performance vs. Speed
Aggregate Memory Performance : 11.39MB/s/MHz
Integer Memory Bandwidth B/F AVX2/256 : 11.40MB/s/MHz
Float Memory Bandwidth B/F FMA/256 : 11.37MB/s/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.

Integer Memory Bandwidth
Assignment : 41.14GB/s
Scaling : 41.08GB/s
Addition : 39.29GB/s
Triad (Multiplication/Addition) : 38.83GB/s
Data Item Size : 256-bit
Buffer Memory Accesses : Yes
Block Size : 12kB
Offset Memory Accesses : Yes
Bandwidth Efficiency : 71.26%

Float Memory Bandwidth
Assignment : 41GB/s
Scaling : 40.85GB/s
Addition : 39.22GB/s
Triad (Multiplication/Addition) : 38.9GB/s
Data Item Size : 256-bit
Buffer Memory Accesses : Yes
Block Size : 12kB
Offset Memory Accesses : Yes
Bandwidth Efficiency : 71.07%

Benchmark Status
Result ID : AMD F19 (Ryzen3/TR3 Matisse) Host Bridge; 2x 8GB Patriot Memory/SpecTek 3600 C18 Series DDR4 (3.6GHz 128-bit) PC4-28800 (16-21-21-42 9-66-26-14)
Revision : 3904 D:1.0 D:1.0
Computer : ASUS System Product Name (ASUS ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO)
Platform Compliance : x64
Total Memory : 32GB
Memory Used by Test : 10.67GB
No. Threads : 12
Processor Affinity : U0-M0C0T0 U2-M0C1T0 U4-M0C2T0 U6-M1C0T0 U8-M1C1T0 U10-M1C2T0 U12-M2C0T0 U14-M2C1T0 U16-M2C2T0 U18-M3C0T0 U20-M3C1T0 U22-M3C2T0
System Timer : 10MHz
Page Size : 4kB

Features
HTT - Hyper-Threading Technology : Yes
SSE2 - Streaming SIMD Extensions v2 : Yes
SSE3 - Streaming SIMD Extensions v3 : Yes
SSE4.1 - Streaming SIMD Extensions v4.1 : Yes
SSE4.2 - Streaming SIMD Extensions v4.2 : Yes
AES - Accelerated Cryptography Support : Yes
SHA - Accelerated Hashing Support : Yes
AVX - Advanced Vector eXtensions : Yes
FMA3 - Fused Multiply/Add eXtensions : Yes
AVX2 - Advanced Vector eXtensions v2 : Yes

Computer
Name : ASUS System Product Name (ASUS ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO)
Computer BIOS : 3904

Chipset
Model : AMD F19 (Ryzen3/TR3 Matisse) Host Bridge
URL : http://www.amd.com
Revision : A1
Front-Side Bus Speed : 18x 100MHz (1.8GHz)
Width : 256-bit
Maximum Bus Bandwidth : 56.25GB/s

Logical/Chipset Memory Banks
Bank : 8GB DDR4 16-21-21-42 9-66-26-14 1T
Bank : 8GB DDR4 16-21-21-42 9-66-26-14 1T
Channels : 2
Width : 128-bit
Memory Bus Speed : 2x 1.8GHz (3.6GHz)
Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 2x 900MHz (1.8GHz) - 2x 1.8GHz (3.6GHz)
Multiplier : 18x
Min/Max/Turbo Multiplier : 9x - 18x
Integrated in Processor : Yes
Maximum Memory Bus Bandwidth : 56.25GB/s

Memory Module(s)
Memory Module : Patriot Memory/SpecTek 3600 C18 Series 16GB DIMM DDR4 1Rx8 PC4-28800U DDR4-3604 (19-19-19-44 4-63-21-7)
Memory Module : Patriot Memory/SpecTek 3600 C18 Series 16GB DIMM DDR4 1Rx8 PC4-28800U DDR4-3604 (19-19-19-44 4-63-21-7)

Performance Enhancing Tips
Warning 5010 : Cannot use Large Memory Pages due to lack of privileges.
Tip 3 : Double-click tip or press Enter while a tip is selected for more information about the tip.


----------



## slice313

metalshark said:


> You can likely drop:
> tFAW to 16
> and
> tWR to 14
> 
> although you might need to adjust RTT values such as:
> RttWr to 3
> RttPark to 1
> 
> If that works then:
> tRCDWR to 16
> tRP to 16
> tRDCRD as low as it'll go but don't be dishearted if it only goes down to 19 instead of reaching 16 like the other two.
> 
> Then if that's all going swimmingly:
> tRAS to 36
> and
> tRC to 56
> 
> You can then go through the rest trying to drop them (plus pushing those above even more), unfortunately, you're very likely going to need to keep GDM firmly on. Leave tRFC until very last and regrettably you might need a high value, likely 100-200 less than you have now, but leave it till last.
> 
> Remember you can use memtest86 to test before booting into Windows (it'll catch a fair few errors and can be more thorough for tRFC testing), then follow up if it passes in Windows with TM5/Karhu (this will be a thorough test and really pushes the IMC in a way memtest86 just doesn't), this will minimise the chances of messing up your Windows install (if you don't care then just jump straight into the Windows tests, but do a test 10 of memtest86 for final tRFC validation).


Thank you so much for this. I am still in the process of making my Dram timings right 

I tried tFAW 16 tWR 14, boots fine but I have to run stability test now.

When I tried tRCDWR 16, tRDCRD 19 and tRP 16 I couldn't boot.

Maybe this memory is really not CL16 material? Should I move to CL18?


----------



## metalshark

slice313 said:


> Thank you so much for this. I am still in the process of making my Dram timings right
> 
> I tried tFAW 16 tWR 14, boots fine but I have to run stability test now.
> 
> When I tried tRCDWR 16, tRDCRD 19 and tRP 16 I couldn't boot.
> 
> Maybe this memory is really not CL16 material? Should I move to CL18?


That's a shame with tRCDWR 16, tRDCRD 19 and tRP 16. Micron J doesn't like tRDCRD being dropped so you might have a better time only pushing the other two. Good luck!


----------



## slice313

Ty both for the help. This is what I got for now, I did a quick stability test, seems fine. I will check with the karhu test tonight. @metalshark @stimpy88 

_I tried lowering tRAS and tRC to 36 - 56, but no boot. _


----------



## P1ngou1N

P1ngou1N said:


> Hi guys, little issue here. My computer is randomly restarting while I am ingame (mainly when playing Aoe4, haven't had the issue while playing 20+h of god of war).
> 
> I have 5900x, crosshair impact bios 3904 and docp on.
> 
> I tried with pbo and without. The computer reboot after 30min to 3h of prime95 blend as well.
> 
> Is there some voltage I need to up in bios or something ? It's pretty annoying. Every other settings is by default in bios.


It's driving me crazy. I updated to beta bios 4001 to check if it was a bios issue but it's still doing the same thing. I can't pass 1h of Prime95 before the computer reboots (sometimes not even 2 minutes).

Event viewer always shows the same thing : Kernel-Power, Event 41, Task Category 63.

Everything is by default right now in bios. Only DOCP with correct voltage to memory applied. All temps are good in HwInfo while doing Prime95.

Do you have any idea what can cause this ? Can it be the ram (in this case, wouldn't it shows whea errors sometimes) ? Is my CPU dying ?

EDIT :
I have this ram : G.Skill Trident Z Neo F4-3600C14D-32GTZN
and this PSU : Corsair SF750 Platinum


----------



## metalshark

P1ngou1N said:


> It's driving me crazy. I updated to beta bios 4001 to check if it was a bios issue but it's still doing the same thing. I can't pass 1h of Prime95 before the computer reboots.
> 
> Event viewer always shows the same thing : Kernel-Power, Event 41, Task Category 63.
> 
> Everything is by default right now in bios. Only DOCP with correct voltage to memory applied. All temps are good in HwInfo while doing Prime95.
> 
> Do you have any idea what can cause this ? Can it be the ram (in this case, wouldn't it shows whea errors sometimes) ?
> 
> EDIT :
> I have this ram : G.Skill Trident Z Neo F4-3600C14D-32GTZN
> and this PSU : Corsair SF750 Platinum


That error is just telling you it powered off unexpectedly.

Is there anything under: "Application and Services Logs" > "Microsoft" > "Windows" > "Kernel-WHEA" > "Errors"?


----------



## P1ngou1N

metalshark said:


> That error is just telling you it rebooted.
> 
> Is there anything under: "Application and Services Logs" > "Microsoft" > "Windows" > "Kernel-WHEA" > "Errors"?


I have some (23 since 2020), but not from my past week of reboots :/


----------



## metalshark

P1ngou1N said:


> I have some (23 since 2020), but not from my past week of reboots :/


Then it's back to adjusting the overclock. It's probably easiest to share a copy of your settings in text format (SHIFT + F2 when saving profiles in the UEFI) and a screenshot of ZenTimings so people have something to work off.


----------



## P1ngou1N

metalshark said:


> Then it's back to adjusting the overclock. It's probably easiest to share a copy of your settings in text format (SHIFT + F2 when saving profiles in the UEFI) and a screenshot of ZenTimings so people have something to work off.


Well, that's kind of the issue, everything is on default right now in bios. Not even PBO on.

Here is a screen of zentimings :









Thanks for the help !

EDIT : "SHIFT + F2 when saving profiles in the UEFI" Didn't seem to work. Where should I find the .txt ?


----------



## metalshark

P1ngou1N said:


> Well, that's kind of the issue, everything is on default right now in bios. Not even PBO on.
> 
> Here is a screen of zentimings :
> View attachment 2546266
> 
> 
> Thanks for the help !


No worries - with DOCP it's technically overclocking. Would up the VDDG CCD to 0.95v-1v.

That's also a real high ProcODT, would drop that to an absolute max of 43.6 (preferably 36.7 or below), as you change the ProcODT you may have to change RttNom to 7. However Veii would be your best bet on why the defaults/DOCP would have a ProcODT that high.


----------



## P1ngou1N

Here is the bios settings.

Do you think a too much OC Ram could cause hard reboots like that ?

I will try your values, thanks a lot.


----------



## metalshark

P1ngou1N said:


> Well, that's kind of the issue, everything is on default right now in bios. Not even PBO on.
> 
> Here is a screen of zentimings :
> View attachment 2546266
> 
> 
> Thanks for the help !
> 
> EDIT : "SHIFT + F2 when saving profiles in the UEFI" Didn't seem to work. Where should I find the .txt ?





P1ngou1N said:


> Here is the bios settings.
> 
> Do you think a too much OC Ram could cause hard reboots like that ?
> 
> I will try your values, thanks a lot.


Depends. Your IMC could need more juice or just be hard crashing due to that ProcODT. Would do a TM5 check before going down the Prime95 route if you're not convinced the RAM OC is stable.


----------



## P1ngou1N

metalshark said:


> Depends. Your IMC could need more juice or just be hard crashing due to that ProcODT. Would do a TM5 check before going down the Prime95 route if you're not convinced the RAM OC is stable.


All right, downloaded this one : Memory Testing with TestMem5 TM5 with custom configs (Is it the right one ?). Doing the test right now.


----------



## metalshark

P1ngou1N said:


> All right, downloaded this one : Memory Testing with TestMem5 TM5 with custom configs (Is it the right one ?). Doing the test right now.


That's the one and you'll want the 1usmus config. Thankfully stimpy98, along with other members have kindly typed up instructions 28.3 KB file on MEGA for a download link to the config files.


----------



## Radulus

Radulus said:


> I've ordered CPU 5900x. Will try it later afternoon. So maybe.. Situation will be better then. Will keep you informed for sure.


5900x took place..  Now.. I tried DOCP... All Auto. Let's see. Will keep you informed.
Left > Default : First I noticed is, that MCLK/FCLK/UCLK are exactly same on Default. With 3900x it was different on Deafult
Right > DOCP Default profile without any other tuning. Just 3600MHz/1,35V









To see Difference between both CPUs and Default and DOCP RAM:


----------



## P1ngou1N

metalshark said:


> That's the one and you'll want the 1usmus config. Thankfully stimpy98, along with other members have kindly typed up instructions 28.3 KB file on MEGA for a download link to the config files.


Ok, restarted the test with 1usmus_V3.

EDIT : Test completed (in 18 minutes, Prime usually crash before that). No errors. I think I can rule out memory ?


----------



## Radulus

Radulus said:


> 5900x took place..  Now.. I tried DOCP... All Auto. Let's see. Will keep you informed.
> Left > Default : First I noticed is, that MCLK/FCLK/UCLK are exactly same on Default. With 3900x it was different on Deafult
> Right > DOCP Default profile without any other tuning. Just 3600MHz/1,35V
> 
> To see Difference between both CPUs and Default and DOCP RAM:


I am quite surprised. Behavior of the CPU si completely different.

when Turn ON the PC > No Double boot.
when reboot PC > No Power OFF (with previous 3900XT it was powered down first and waken up automatically)
FANs are much louder. It is optimized automatically, but time to time it is getting louder and then all slow down.

Weird. So far.. No unexpected reboot with DOCP 3600MHz RAM Enabled. Keep Fingers crossed.


----------



## P1ngou1N

Well, I reverted back to bios 3801, checked all my connections on the motherboard, switched EPS connector on PSU.

No luck. I now believe it must be the CPU or PSU.

Could it be the PSU knowing that while gaming on demanding games it doesn't reboot (God of War & The ascent for the last ones).

It only reboot sometimes in AoE4 which must be CPU demanding, and on CPU stress tests like Prime95 or OCCT.

What do you guys think ?


----------



## metalshark

P1ngou1N said:


> Well, I reverted back to bios 3801, checked all my connections on the motherboard, switched EPS connector on PSU.
> 
> No luck. I now believe it must be the CPU or PSU.
> 
> Could it be the PSU knowing that while gaming on demanding games it doesn't reboot (God of War & The ascent for the last ones).
> 
> It only reboot sometimes in AoE4 which must be CPU demanding, and on CPU stress tests like Prime95 or OCCT.
> 
> What do you guys think ?


Normally we do 25 cycles of 1usmus on TM5 before declaring a victory if it gets past 25 cycles then rule out the memory and next step is voltages (haven't looked at your settings yet, will tomorrow though).


----------



## Radulus

Radulus said:


> I am quite surprised. Behavior of the CPU si completely different.
> 
> when Turn ON the PC > No Double boot.
> when reboot PC > No Power OFF (with previous 3900XT it was powered down first and waken up automatically)
> FANs are much louder. It is optimized automatically, but time to time it is getting louder and then all slow down.
> 
> Weird. So far.. No unexpected reboot with DOCP 3600MHz RAM Enabled. Keep Fingers crossed.


TM5 is under test. So far so good


----------



## AndreDVJ

DodgyTech said:


> This board definitely has issues running 4 modules 16GB dual rank.
> Except Samsung B-die and the odd server ram explained above.
> Mines are G-Skill Ripjaws 3200Mhz (F4-3200C16Q-64GVK) and will only run at 3000, even when they are listed on the G-Skill site as "compatible" with this board.
> These are Samsung C-die.
> Have been tweaking for two years now and it's barely stable.
> Running them at 3000Mhz CL14, 1.33 vdimm.
> 
> Any change to the timings, even one digit, immediately yields post code F9 and bios safe mode.
> When running with only two modules there are no issues.


Just to add, I had an old G.Skill Trident Z kit - 4x8GB 3200MHz - Samsung D-Die dual-rank.

With all the 4 sticks populated on a CHVIII Hero, I could not get this kit running at 3200MHz on neither 2700X nor 3900X.

Maximum stable was at 3066MHz. Anything more would not even post.

From my perspective, this motherboard cannot handle the total of 8 memory ranks installed without compromises.

I replaced my kit with 4x8GB Crucial Ballistix 3200Mhz (Micron Rev. E single-rank). Not only it works perfectly, but I can OC to 3600MHz with very minor adjustments on my 3900X, and no adjustments on my 5900X.


----------



## Nullbyte_

stimpy88 said:


> I find the talk of the improved memory controller more interesting... Anyone here have a B2 stepping yet?


Yeah I have a B2 stepping 5950X. What do you want to know?


----------



## Radulus

Radulus said:


> TM5 is under test. So far so good


TM5 25cycles passed without issues. It is unbelievable, but so far so good. Will do more testing later evening, but with this CPU everything is working.Strange is FAN behavior, but it is fully working for now. Seems that Zen 3 CPU has way different RAM management, compare to Zen 2. With 3900x I could not keep stable anything higher than 3200. Now it seems to be working fine on 3600MHz./ 1.35V > Default DOCP profile


----------



## Radulus

Nullbyte_ said:


> Yeah I have a B2 stepping 5950X. What do you want to know?


What this B2 stepping is..? Where to find out which version I have..? What it means..? Thank you


----------



## metalshark

Radulus said:


> TM5 25cycles passed without issues. It is unbelievable, but so far so good. Will do more testing later evening, but with this CPU everything is working.Strange is FAN behavior, but it is fully working for now. Seems that Zen 3 CPU has way different RAM management, compare to Zen 2. With 3900x I could not keep stable anything higher than 3200. Now it seems to be working fine on 3600MHz./ 1.35V > Default DOCP profile


Now it's nice and stable you can go and enjoy. If you get the itch to deeper dive and start to push things further then there are tons to plough through in this thread, but for you sounds like you've earned your victory.


----------



## J7SC

Nullbyte_ said:


> Yeah I have a B2 stepping 5950X. What do you want to know?


Top IF/RAM speed w/ 'stock' voltages ?



Radulus said:


> TM5 25cycles passed without issues. It is unbelievable, but so far so good. Will do more testing later evening, but with this CPU everything is working.Strange is FAN behavior, but it is fully working for now. Seems that Zen 3 CPU has way different RAM management, compare to Zen 2. With 3900x I could not keep stable anything higher than 3200. Now it seems to be working fine on 3600MHz./ 1.35V > Default DOCP profile


Really happy to read this after the trials and tribulations you had !


----------



## metalshark

Radulus said:


> What this B2 stepping is..? Where to find out which version I have..? What it means..? Thank you


AFAIK it's the same as B0 but different substrate and slight difference in microcode. Same results it appears. although some early analysis conflated an AGESA update with processor revision.

CPU-z will tell you the "Stepping".


----------



## Radulus

metalshark said:


> Now it's nice and stable you can go and enjoy. If you get the itch to deeper dive and start to push things further then there are tons to plough through in this thread, but for you sounds like you've earned your victory.


I would like to learn, how to overclock AMD CPU, but not definitely to it's limits. Just some beasic. But yeah, for me, this is a small victory (so far). Almost 2 months of tuning 
What I need to tune in BIOS to overclock it a bit? Just for fun.
But i will have to buy some water cooler. Because currently I have SilentumPC Fera 3 and I afraid I reached limits.


----------



## metalshark

Radulus said:


> I would like to learn, how to overclock AMD CPU, but not definitely to it's limits. Just some beasic. But yeah, for me, this is a small victory (so far). Almost 2 months of tuning
> What I need to tune in BIOS to overclock it a bit? Just for fun.
> But i will have to buy some water cooler. Because currently I have SilentumPC Fera 3 and I afraid I reached limits.


Now is the perfect time to introduce some 1usmus tools like the DRAM Calculator. Nicehash has an easy to follow guide:


https://www.nicehashcom/blog/post/ram-timings-overclocking-guide-with-dram-ryzen-calculator



It's not been updated for Zen 3, but using Zen 2 settings can get you pretty close. The voltages are likely to be a little out (VDDG CCD/IOD is going to need to be 50mv higher normally than stated for 4x16GB). Also, the CLDO VDDP will likely never go below 900mV and may need as much as 1V. Try to change one setting at a time and test. Please note for anyone else reading this is a 4x16GB Hynix kit.

OblivionXT handed out what is likely to be very close (or exactly) the settings you'll want:








ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...


GearDownMode runs internal DIMM I/O at half speed (elementary explained) Soo it is either 1T , 2T or GDM GDM mode changes Command rate in realtime. On boot it's 1T , mid initialization it's 2T and normal load it's 2T too It's dynamic, but hides powering issues, because dimms are running on half...




www.overclock.net





Doing a search through the thread (type terms into the search bar at the top and select thread) the user @ChillyRide has found quite a bit regarding 4x16 including a gotcha where you need to alter VTTDDR when increasing VDIMM, so would take their findings into account and have a read through their posts. For example ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...


----------



## J7SC

Radulus said:


> I would like to learn, how to overclock AMD CPU, but not definitely to it's limits. Just some beasic. But yeah, for me, this is a small victory (so far). Almost 2 months of tuning
> What I need to tune in BIOS to overclock it a bit? Just for fun.
> But i will have to buy some water cooler. Because currently I have SilentumPC Fera 3 and I afraid I reached limits.


With this Ryzen gen and its aggressive boost algorithm that has temps as one of the biggies, improving cooling _is already_ oc'ing  ...Of course, there's also PBO/2, Curve Optimizer and/or programs such as Hydra, but without good cooling, you'll leave some of the potential gains on the table.


----------



## metalshark

J7SC said:


> With this Ryzen gen and its aggressive boost algorithm that has temps as one of the biggies, improving cooling _is already_ oc'ing  ...Of course, there's also PBO/2, Curve Optimizer and/or programs such as Hydra, but without good cooling, you'll leave some of the potential gains on the table.


Once the RAM is stable as J7SC says there's PBO+CO. A beginner friendly guide would be:




be aware you'll unlearn or go beyond what they show later on in your journey (e.g. you'll have very limited results and it's not how people tend to do it once they've advanced), however, it gets you started nice and gently.
Then SkatterBencher explains things correctly (no unlearning) once you've tried the above and are comfortable:




Hydra is hugely complex and not recommended (IMO) until you've mastered the above and are sure your system has more to give. I use it but you'll need to tune your system thoroughly for best results and it's a challenge. For instance, it's all too easy to lose a day or two running the Hydra diagnostic, dealing with hitting limits, relaunching after it reboots your machine, closing down background apps/services time and time again only to end up with worse results which are unstable. Whereas with the knowledge of how it performs with PBO+CO on your chip you can manually tune it to provide the best performance no matter the workload.


----------



## stimpy88

Nullbyte_ said:


> Yeah I have a B2 stepping 5950X. What do you want to know?


Nice! Basically we want to know about how it compares to the B0 stepping for memclock frequencies, the 1900 hole, can it run more aggressive timings, lower voltages etc..


----------



## Kelutrel

Nullbyte_ said:


> Yeah I have a B2 stepping 5950X. What do you want to know?


So they do exist! Looks like the whole thread was waiting for one 

If it is not bothering you, I would like to see the screenshots of the HwINFO sensor pages after a CBR23 run, please... I am interested in the cpu voltages and the cores frequencies min/max. Thank you


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Ram/IF overclock please.

also a HWINFO screenie while doing CB23.


----------



## trespot

Did anyone experience issue with high SoC current draw? My 3950x SoC is trying to nuke itself by drawing 90 amps at 1.1 volts. 
Normally it was drawing 15 amps at average 19 at max, but suddenly it started to pull constant 90amps causing hard locks in the system.


----------



## slice313

stimpy88 said:


> I can see that you are using odd timings and GDM together, which is not optimal... But I'm really not familiar with these IC's. Do you have some Sandra bandwidth results you can share, maybe we can see exactly what performance your getting, and if it's about right for the frequency your running it at? Also, what is your VDIMM?


After the changes I have made, here are the new results. I dont know if everything looks correct or normal... If you could take a look I would apreciate. Thank you again 












Spoiler: Sandra bandwidth results



SiSoftware Sandra

Benchmark Results
Aggregate Memory Performance : 41.15GB/s (38.76GB/s - 41.85GB/s)
Integer Memory Bandwidth B/F AVX2/256 : 41.4GB/s (40.92GB/s - 41.85GB/s)
Float Memory Bandwidth B/F FMA/256 : 40.9GB/s (36.71GB/s - 41.85GB/s)
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Benchmark Timings
Time to Copy Capacity : 388.82ms
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.

Performance per Thread
Integer Memory Bandwidth B/F AVX2/256 : 3.45GB/s (3.41GB/s - 3.49GB/s)
Float Memory Bandwidth B/F FMA/256 : 3.41GB/s (3GB/s - 3.49GB/s)
No. Threads : 12
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Performance vs. Power
Chipset(s)/Memory Power : 37.78W
Aggregate Memory Performance : 1115.35MB/s/W
Integer Memory Bandwidth B/F AVX2/256 : 1122.21MB/s/W
Float Memory Bandwidth B/F FMA/256 : 1108.55MB/s/W
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.

Capacity vs. Power
Memory Capacity : 434MB/W
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.

Performance vs. Speed
Aggregate Memory Performance : 11.71MB/s/MHz
Integer Memory Bandwidth B/F AVX2/256 : 11.78MB/s/MHz
Float Memory Bandwidth B/F FMA/256 : 11.63MB/s/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.

Integer Memory Bandwidth
Assignment : 42.62GB/s
Scaling : 42.58GB/s
Addition : 40.4GB/s
Triad (Multiplication/Addition) : 40GB/s
Data Item Size : 256-bit
Buffer Memory Accesses : Yes
Block Size : 12kB
Offset Memory Accesses : Yes
Bandwidth Efficiency : 73.61%

Float Memory Bandwidth
Assignment : 42GB/s
Scaling : 42GB/s
Addition : 39.92GB/s
Triad (Multiplication/Addition) : 39.7GB/s
Data Item Size : 256-bit
Buffer Memory Accesses : Yes
Block Size : 12kB
Offset Memory Accesses : Yes
Bandwidth Efficiency : 72.71%

Benchmark Status
Result ID : AMD F19 (Ryzen3/TR3 Matisse) Host Bridge; 2x 8GB Patriot Memory/SpecTek 3600 C18 Series DDR4 (3.6GHz 128-bit) PC4-28800 (16-21-19-42 9-66-14-14)
Revision : 3904 D:1.0 D:1.0
Computer : ASUS System Product Name (ASUS ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO)
Platform Compliance : x64
Total Memory : 32GB
Memory Used by Test : 10.67GB
No. Threads : 12
Processor Affinity : U0-M0C0T0 U2-M0C1T0 U4-M0C2T0 U6-M1C0T0 U8-M1C1T0 U10-M1C2T0 U12-M2C0T0 U14-M2C1T0 U16-M2C2T0 U18-M3C0T0 U20-M3C1T0 U22-M3C2T0
System Timer : 10MHz
Page Size : 4kB

Features
HTT - Hyper-Threading Technology : Yes
SSE2 - Streaming SIMD Extensions v2 : Yes
SSE3 - Streaming SIMD Extensions v3 : Yes
SSE4.1 - Streaming SIMD Extensions v4.1 : Yes
SSE4.2 - Streaming SIMD Extensions v4.2 : Yes
AES - Accelerated Cryptography Support : Yes
SHA - Accelerated Hashing Support : Yes
AVX - Advanced Vector eXtensions : Yes
FMA3 - Fused Multiply/Add eXtensions : Yes
AVX2 - Advanced Vector eXtensions v2 : Yes

Computer
Name : ASUS System Product Name (ASUS ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO)
Computer BIOS : 3904

Chipset
Model : AMD F19 (Ryzen3/TR3 Matisse) Host Bridge
URL : http://www.amd.com
Revision : A1
Front-Side Bus Speed : 18x 100MHz (1.8GHz)
Width : 256-bit
Maximum Bus Bandwidth : 56.25GB/s

Logical/Chipset Memory Banks
Bank : 8GB DDR4 16-21-19-42 9-66-14-14 1T
Bank : 8GB DDR4 16-21-19-42 9-66-14-14 1T
Channels : 2
Width : 128-bit
Memory Bus Speed : 2x 1.8GHz (3.6GHz)
Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 2x 900MHz (1.8GHz) - 2x 1.8GHz (3.6GHz)
Multiplier : 18x
Min/Max/Turbo Multiplier : 9x - 18x
Integrated in Processor : Yes
Maximum Memory Bus Bandwidth : 56.25GB/s

Memory Module(s)
Memory Module : Patriot Memory/SpecTek 3600 C18 Series 16GB DIMM DDR4 1Rx8 PC4-28800U DDR4-3604 (19-19-19-44 4-63-21-7)
Memory Module : Patriot Memory/SpecTek 3600 C18 Series 16GB DIMM DDR4 1Rx8 PC4-28800U DDR4-3604 (19-19-19-44 4-63-21-7)

Performance Enhancing Tips
Warning 5010 : Cannot use Large Memory Pages due to lack of privileges.
Tip 3 : Double-click tip or press Enter while a tip is selected for more information about the tip.


----------



## metalshark

slice313 said:


> After the changes I have made, here are the new results. I dont know if everything looks correct or normal... If you could take a look I would apreciate. Thank you again
> 
> View attachment 2546374
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Sandra bandwidth results
> 
> 
> 
> SiSoftware Sandra
> 
> Benchmark Results
> Aggregate Memory Performance : 41.15GB/s (38.76GB/s - 41.85GB/s)
> Integer Memory Bandwidth B/F AVX2/256 : 41.4GB/s (40.92GB/s - 41.85GB/s)
> Float Memory Bandwidth B/F FMA/256 : 40.9GB/s (36.71GB/s - 41.85GB/s)
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.
> 
> Benchmark Timings
> Time to Copy Capacity : 388.82ms
> Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
> 
> Performance per Thread
> Integer Memory Bandwidth B/F AVX2/256 : 3.45GB/s (3.41GB/s - 3.49GB/s)
> Float Memory Bandwidth B/F FMA/256 : 3.41GB/s (3GB/s - 3.49GB/s)
> No. Threads : 12
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.
> 
> Performance vs. Power
> Chipset(s)/Memory Power : 37.78W
> Aggregate Memory Performance : 1115.35MB/s/W
> Integer Memory Bandwidth B/F AVX2/256 : 1122.21MB/s/W
> Float Memory Bandwidth B/F FMA/256 : 1108.55MB/s/W
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> 
> Capacity vs. Power
> Memory Capacity : 434MB/W
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> 
> Performance vs. Speed
> Aggregate Memory Performance : 11.71MB/s/MHz
> Integer Memory Bandwidth B/F AVX2/256 : 11.78MB/s/MHz
> Float Memory Bandwidth B/F FMA/256 : 11.63MB/s/MHz
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> 
> Integer Memory Bandwidth
> Assignment : 42.62GB/s
> Scaling : 42.58GB/s
> Addition : 40.4GB/s
> Triad (Multiplication/Addition) : 40GB/s
> Data Item Size : 256-bit
> Buffer Memory Accesses : Yes
> Block Size : 12kB
> Offset Memory Accesses : Yes
> Bandwidth Efficiency : 73.61%
> 
> Float Memory Bandwidth
> Assignment : 42GB/s
> Scaling : 42GB/s
> Addition : 39.92GB/s
> Triad (Multiplication/Addition) : 39.7GB/s
> Data Item Size : 256-bit
> Buffer Memory Accesses : Yes
> Block Size : 12kB
> Offset Memory Accesses : Yes
> Bandwidth Efficiency : 72.71%
> 
> Benchmark Status
> Result ID : AMD F19 (Ryzen3/TR3 Matisse) Host Bridge; 2x 8GB Patriot Memory/SpecTek 3600 C18 Series DDR4 (3.6GHz 128-bit) PC4-28800 (16-21-19-42 9-66-14-14)
> Revision : 3904 D:1.0 D:1.0
> Computer : ASUS System Product Name (ASUS ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO)
> Platform Compliance : x64
> Total Memory : 32GB
> Memory Used by Test : 10.67GB
> No. Threads : 12
> Processor Affinity : U0-M0C0T0 U2-M0C1T0 U4-M0C2T0 U6-M1C0T0 U8-M1C1T0 U10-M1C2T0 U12-M2C0T0 U14-M2C1T0 U16-M2C2T0 U18-M3C0T0 U20-M3C1T0 U22-M3C2T0
> System Timer : 10MHz
> Page Size : 4kB
> 
> Features
> HTT - Hyper-Threading Technology : Yes
> SSE2 - Streaming SIMD Extensions v2 : Yes
> SSE3 - Streaming SIMD Extensions v3 : Yes
> SSE4.1 - Streaming SIMD Extensions v4.1 : Yes
> SSE4.2 - Streaming SIMD Extensions v4.2 : Yes
> AES - Accelerated Cryptography Support : Yes
> SHA - Accelerated Hashing Support : Yes
> AVX - Advanced Vector eXtensions : Yes
> FMA3 - Fused Multiply/Add eXtensions : Yes
> AVX2 - Advanced Vector eXtensions v2 : Yes
> 
> Computer
> Name : ASUS System Product Name (ASUS ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO)
> Computer BIOS : 3904
> 
> Chipset
> Model : AMD F19 (Ryzen3/TR3 Matisse) Host Bridge
> URL : http://www.amd.com
> Revision : A1
> Front-Side Bus Speed : 18x 100MHz (1.8GHz)
> Width : 256-bit
> Maximum Bus Bandwidth : 56.25GB/s
> 
> Logical/Chipset Memory Banks
> Bank : 8GB DDR4 16-21-19-42 9-66-14-14 1T
> Bank : 8GB DDR4 16-21-19-42 9-66-14-14 1T
> Channels : 2
> Width : 128-bit
> Memory Bus Speed : 2x 1.8GHz (3.6GHz)
> Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 2x 900MHz (1.8GHz) - 2x 1.8GHz (3.6GHz)
> Multiplier : 18x
> Min/Max/Turbo Multiplier : 9x - 18x
> Integrated in Processor : Yes
> Maximum Memory Bus Bandwidth : 56.25GB/s
> 
> Memory Module(s)
> Memory Module : Patriot Memory/SpecTek 3600 C18 Series 16GB DIMM DDR4 1Rx8 PC4-28800U DDR4-3604 (19-19-19-44 4-63-21-7)
> Memory Module : Patriot Memory/SpecTek 3600 C18 Series 16GB DIMM DDR4 1Rx8 PC4-28800U DDR4-3604 (19-19-19-44 4-63-21-7)
> 
> Performance Enhancing Tips
> Warning 5010 : Cannot use Large Memory Pages due to lack of privileges.
> Tip 3 : Double-click tip or press Enter while a tip is selected for more information about the tip.


Looking much better - now you'll really feel the benefit of the tRFC drops if you start dropping it, something like 525 should work, but one for testing pre-booting into Windows (then again in Windows) as overly aggressive tRFC beyond the limits is a great way to corrupt your install. Also, did you need the increase in ProcODT from 32 to 36.7?


----------



## P1ngou1N

So, my pc restarts during TM5 20 cycles as well.
It doesn't show any errors before restarting (none that I could see anyway). Does this mean it can be a bad memory overclock ? It seems TM5 is pretty CPU intensive as well.

For now, I am trying upping my Vsoc step by step not knowing if it can help or not.

Are the readings on zentiming reliables ? Sometimes Vsoc jump from 1.1063v to 1.55v on it, but it stays constant on hwinfo (between 1.106 to 1.112v).


----------



## metalshark

P1ngou1N said:


> So, my pc restarts during TM5 20 cycles as well.
> It doesn't show any errors before restarting (none that I could see anyway). Does this mean it can be a bad memory overclock ? It seems TM5 is pretty CPU intensive as well.
> 
> For now, I am trying upping my Vsoc step by step not knowing if it can help or not.
> 
> Are the readings on zentiming reliables ? Sometimes Vsoc jump from 1.1063v to 1.55v on it, but it stays constant on hwinfo (between 1.106 to 1.112v).


ZenTimings voltage readouts can be ignored as it's often wrong. HWiNFO can also be misleading, but it's by far the more accurate of the two. Depending on the config you use for TM5 there's varying levels of CPU usage - the main reason for using it is you're giving the IMC a full workout instead of the memory sticks alone. Normally a reboot is either the RAM sticks crashing (not enough resistance for the amount of voltage, e.g. too much power for the sticks to handle) or the CPU cores flaking.

Will be going through your settings properly, later on, to see if there's anything obvious. You can adjust your Digital VRM settings, increase the VDDG's and boost the vSoC. Adding a bit to PLL if at 3800MT/s or above.

If you've got Rtt disabled or the setting just before disabled or a high ProcODT with high voltages it'll be more likely it's a RAM stick crash, otherwise the CPU (and the voltages it requires) is the more likely cause.


----------



## slice313

metalshark said:


> Looking much better - now you'll really feel the benefit of the tRFC drops if you start dropping it, something like 525 should work, but one for testing pre-booting into Windows (then again in Windows) as overly aggressive tRFC beyond the limits is a great way to corrupt your install. Also, did you need the increase in ProcODT from 32 to 36.7?


I increased the ProcODT from 32 to 36.7 time ago as the 1st screenshot was already a bit old already and I didnt notice I had it changed...

Should I go back to ProcODT 32?


----------



## metalshark

slice313 said:


> I increased the ProcODT from 32 to 36.7 time ago as the 1st screenshot was already a bit old already and I didnt notice I had it changed...
> 
> Should I go back to ProcODT 32?


The lower you can run it stably the better, was just curious. Make sure to check tPHYRDL doesn't jump up to 28 in ZenTimings when you do (use the drop down bottom left to check each channel).


----------



## P1ngou1N

I am right now trying TM5 with RAM on auto in bios. I believe if the computer doesnt' reboot I could be certain it's the memory oc (or the fabric)?
Memory is running at 2133Mhz right now with 1067 FCLK.

Edit : God damn... Rebooted again. I am at loss.


----------



## metalshark

P1ngou1N said:


> I am right now trying TM5 with RAM on auto in bios. I believe if the computer doesnt' reboot I could be certain it's the memory oc (or the fabric)?
> Memory is running at 2133Mhz right now with 1067 FCLK.
> 
> Edit : God damn... Rebooted again. I am at loss.


So it's rebooting at 2133MT/s with a wiped UEFI config?

Also still nothing in Kernel WHEAs?


----------



## P1ngou1N

metalshark said:


> So it's rebooting at 2133MT/s with a wiped UEFI config?
> 
> Also still nothing in Kernel WHEAs?


Yep this time everything is at stock in bios even RAM.
It rebooted even faster than usual (not even one cycle of TM5).

Edit : No WHEAs :/


----------



## metalshark

P1ngou1N said:


> Yep this time everything is at stock in bios even RAM.
> It rebooted even faster than usual (not even one cycle of TM5).
> 
> Edit : No WHEAs :/


OK this means we don't have to worry about settings to tweak. Time to diagnose your parts one by one. If you've got modular PSU cables start there and reseat both sides, re-seat the CPU, re-seat the RAM, re-seat any cards or storage and pray nothing's given out the blue smoke. If everything re-seated is still doing the same time to replace a part at a time until it does. Good luck!


----------



## PWn3R

metalshark said:


> OK this means we don't have to worry about settings to tweak. Time to diagnose your parts one by one. If you've got modular PSU cables start there and reseat both sides, re-seat the CPU, re-seat the RAM, re-seat any cards or storage and pray nothing's given out the blue smoke. If everything re-seated is still doing the same time to replace a part at a time until it does. Good luck!


Reseat the ram first.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## P1ngou1N

Yeah I am gonna open it up and reseat everything but I don't believe it too much.

I am trying to understand what it can be...

I thought of PSU but why would the pc run games like God of War 4k ,everything maxed (and more demanding games like that) without any restarts knowing that 3080ti has huge voltage spikes ? So PSU seems out of the equation for me.

RAM and CPU ? I don't have any whea errors whatsoever and the system seems perfectly stable in all conditions (stock or pbo) but it reboots when benching with prime & TM5 and in some games which must be more ram and cpu bound (age of empires 4).

Motherboard ? Issue delivering correct voltages to ram or cpu ?

I don't know...

Edit : checked all cables, reseated memories, trying TM5 again.


----------



## metalshark

P1ngou1N said:


> Yeah I am gonna open it up and reseat everything but I don't believe it too much.
> 
> I am trying to understand what it can be...
> 
> I thought of PSU but why would the pc run games like God of War 4k ,everything maxed (and more demanding games like that) without any restarts knowing that 3080ti has huge voltage spikes ? So PSU seems out of the equation for me.
> 
> RAM and CPU ? I don't have any whea errors whatsoever and the system seems perfectly stable in all conditions (stock or pbo) but it reboots when benching with prime & TM5 and in some games which must be more ram and cpu bound (age of empires 4).
> 
> Motherboard ? Issue delivering correct voltages to ram or cpu ?
> 
> I don't know...
> 
> Edit : checked all cables, reseated memories, trying TM5 again.


Wouldn't rule out the PSU yet. The graphics card rails are separate from the rest and high CPU usage for one workload isn't the same power draw as the next. Let's say in GoW you're on average 80% of all cores (hyperthetical) but in AoE4 you're on average at 60% of all cores. You can be drawing more power in AoE4 due to the workload. You could also be exercising the SoC more with RAM I/O. That (in the case of multi-rail PSUs) may be drawing from a different 12v rail.

You'll have full control over Digital VRM settings on the mobo, but shouldn't need to for a clear CMOS and default UEFI settings, it could be faulty, but so could other components.


----------



## P1ngou1N

Ah I See. Indeed. First thing I am gonna do is to find another psu to to rule out the psu then.

PS : 20min TM5 no reboot yet. Fingers crossed but I don't believe it too much. Ram seemed correctly seated.

EDIT : Computer rebooted. Am out of luck. Going to order a psu now...


----------



## P1ngou1N

Mmmh, Occt 1h "power" test don't crash. I have a hard time believing it's the PSU. Is this test reliable for psu or is it not straining the Soc enough ?

I have a spare ryzen 3600, I might try CPU first because I am really suspecting the cpu. Would be a first for me. Never a cpu failed me. I seriously hope it's not the mobo because it would be such a pain in the ass (sffpc so rebuild is very time consumming).

We agree that if it was the ram I would have blue screens and whea errors and not just hard reboots ? Because I never have any of that. And TM5, Prime and OCCT don't show any errors, just hard reboots.


----------



## metalshark

P1ngou1N said:


> Mmmh, Occt 1h "power" test don't crash. I have a hard time believing it's the PSU. Is this test reliable for psu or is it not straining the Soc enough ?
> 
> I have a spare ryzen 3600, I might try CPU first because I am really suspecting the cpu. Would be a first for me. Never a cpu failed me. I seriously hope it's not the mobo because it would be such a pain in the ass (sffpc so rebuild is very time consumming).
> 
> We agree that if it was the ram I would have blue screens and whea errors and not just hard reboots ? Because I never have any of that. And TM5 doesn't show any errors, just hard reboots.


At 2133MHz from that behaviour wouldn't expect the RAM, at least once reseated. If the RAM was being pushed then yeah but at stock hmm really not likely (although not impossible). Not sure of the characteristics of the OCCT "power" test but going from nothing to full whack on a certain part can produce different results from a PSU again, you're reducing the odds but not completely eliminating it.


----------



## Radulus

Guys..  Still okay. No reboots..
*Question*: Which Water cooler would you recommend? I plan water block for CPU only. I was looking for *Asus ryujin 240* (I have no space for bigger radiator, basically I have, but only from front side and this I want to avoid and I would rather put it on top). Do you have some experience? Quiet and effective? What do you think about Asus..? It is not necessary to have Asus (quite expensive) but looking for some which I can easily set.. (I was planning to use Asus SW) and will be effective. Do you have some recommendation? I count with some overclocking later, so there must be space for overclocking also


----------



## metalshark

Radulus said:


> Guys..  Still okay. No reboots..
> *Question*: Which Water cooler would you recommend? I plan water block for CPU only. I was looking for *Asus ryujin 240* (I have no space for bigger radiator, basically I have, but only from front side and this I want to avoid and I would rather put it on top). Do you have some experience? Quiet and effective? What do you think about Asus..? It is not necessary to have Asus (quite expensive) but looking for some which I can easily set.. (I was planning to use Asus SW) and will be effective. Do you have some recommendation? I count with some overclocking later, so there must be space for overclocking also


Think that's the same Asetek AIO as the others (so much of a muchness). If going open loop then the Optimus PC block comes highly recommended.


----------



## Radulus

metalshark said:


> Think that's the same Asetek AIO as the others (so much of a muchness). If going open loop then the Optimus PC block comes highly recommended.


No no. Not open one. It is really expensive. Maybe if I have some better graphic card, then yeah, I would go this way but not now.


----------



## Luggage

P1ngou1N said:


> Mmmh, Occt 1h "power" test don't crash. I have a hard time believing it's the PSU. Is this test reliable for psu or is it not straining the Soc enough ?
> 
> I have a spare ryzen 3600, I might try CPU first because I am really suspecting the cpu. Would be a first for me. Never a cpu failed me. I seriously hope it's not the mobo because it would be such a pain in the ass (sffpc so rebuild is very time consumming).
> 
> We agree that if it was the ram I would have blue screens and whea errors and not just hard reboots ? Because I never have any of that. And TM5, Prime and OCCT don't show any errors, just hard reboots.


In bios is PSU setting “low current idle” or “common current draw” (or what they are called in your bios)


----------



## Kelutrel

Radulus said:


> Guys..  Still okay. No reboots..
> *Question*: Which Water cooler would you recommend? I plan water block for CPU only. I was looking for *Asus ryujin 240* (I have no space for bigger radiator, basically I have, but only from front side and this I want to avoid and I would rather put it on top). Do you have some experience? Quiet and effective? What do you think about Asus..? It is not necessary to have Asus (quite expensive) but looking for some which I can easily set.. (I was planning to use Asus SW) and will be effective. Do you have some recommendation? I count with some overclocking later, so there must be space for overclocking also


Not the Ryujin mate, I had one, and had to change it because of the noise from both the pump and the vrm fan... best AIOs are corsair (like H110i or H115i or whatever suits your case), or otherwise the Arctic Liquid Freezer II are also quite good. I suggest you to use the Noctua NT-H2 thermal paste or the new Arctic MX-5 , imho you may want to stay away from the thermal grizzly paste as it often dries up in less than a month.


----------



## Radulus

Kelutrel said:


> Not the Ryujin mate, I had one, and had to change it because of the noise from both the pump and the vrm fan... best AIOs are corsair (like H110i or H115i or whatever suits your case), or otherwise the Arctic Liquid Freezer II are also quite good. I suggest you to use the Noctua NT-H2 thermal paste or the new Arctic MX-5 , imho you may want to stay away from the thermal grizzly paste as it often dries up in less than a month.


I've read few reviews that Arctic Liquid Freezer II is really laud. :/ so hard to guess. And radiator must have 240mm maximum.


----------



## Kelutrel

Radulus said:


> I've read few reviews that Arctic Liquid Freezer II is really laud. :/ so hard to guess. And radiator must have 240mm maximum.


I have an Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280 and it is as silent as my old Corsair, but maybe it depends from luck. Its radiator is a bit thicker than the usual AIO though, that improves performances but may also require a bit more space so check if your case supports it. Corsair H100i or H105 may be the safe bet here.


----------



## Radulus

Kelutrel said:


> I have an Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280 and it is as silent as my old Corsair, but maybe it depends from luck. Its radiator is a bit thicker than the usual AIO though, that improves performances but may also require a bit more space so check if your case supports it. Corsair H100i or H105 may be the safe bet here.


My case is: Silentiumpc regnum rg4t. So there is space only for 240mm on top and 360mm max to front. But.. I am not sure of air flow and efficiency when I put Radiator to front.


----------



## PWn3R

I have a potentially dumb question. This is my ZenTimings for 1866 on auto (except memory voltage). I have 4x8 modules (17/17/17/[email protected] at 1.35v)










Is there any way that changing the DrvStr ¿resistances? to a higher or lower value or ProcODT could help get 1900 or higher to boot correctly without WHEAs?


----------



## J7SC

Radulus said:


> My case is: Silentiumpc regnum rg4t. So there is space only for 240mm on top and 360mm max to front. But.. I am not sure of air flow and efficiency when I put Radiator to front.


I would go for the Arctic Liquid Freezer 360 if you can, and may be even add 3 more Arctic P12 PST fans (via cheap 5-pack) for push-pull. The more cooling, the better the performance. Per below, the ONLY difference in CPUz bench single thread is the ambient temp (19C vs 23C), all settings are identical.

While I normally do custom loops, I did try the BeQuiet PureLoop 360 on a testbench a while back and it performed very well (for an AIO). It is also refillable and even comes w/ a bottle of the required liquids for years down the line. On top of that, it was cheap...


----------



## slice313

metalshark said:


> Looking much better - now you'll really feel the benefit of the tRFC drops if you start dropping it, something like 525 should work, but one for testing pre-booting into Windows (then again in Windows) as overly aggressive tRFC beyond the limits is a great way to corrupt your install. Also, did you need the increase in ProcODT from 32 to 36.7?


Followed you advice and I am getting better performance already. 

Although I couldn't do tRAS to 36 and tRC to 56. Should I aim for different values? I dont know exactly how I should lower those values, step by step or following a rule...










This is the picture now. 

tRFC of 530 no boot.
540 no boot
550 boot but, I got worse memory performance by a large margin
560 boot and best performance results to date.


----------



## P1ngou1N

Luggage said:


> In bios is PSU setting “low current idle” or “common current draw” (or what they are called in your bios)


It's set to "auto" so I don't know...


----------



## metalshark

slice313 said:


> Followed you advice and I am getting better performance already.
> 
> Although I couldn't do tRAS to 36 and tRC to 56. Should I aim for different values? I dont know exactly how I should lower those values, step by step or following a rule...
> 
> View attachment 2546443
> 
> 
> This is the picture now.
> 
> tRFC of 530 no boot.
> 540 no boot
> 550 boot but, I got worse memory performance by a large margin
> 560 boot and best performance results to date.


You’re probably getting close to max to be fair for that kit. For reference tRFC is always the last setting to tweak for that type of memory so if you end up want to tweak some more slacken it off again. But glad you’re now getting better results, it’s like the icing on the cake after a long journey.


----------



## metalshark

PWn3R said:


> I have a potentially dumb question. This is my ZenTimings for 1866 on auto (except memory voltage). I have 4x8 modules (17/17/17/[email protected] at 1.35v)
> 
> View attachment 2546438
> 
> 
> Is there any way that changing the DrvStr ¿resistances? to a higher or lower value or ProcODT could help get 1900 or higher to boot correctly without WHEAs?


No idea, really hope it’s not the 5950X limiting. If you can share a Thaiphoon that’d help. Am running 4x8GB SR of Samsung B-Die so if the same then setting Rtt to 6/3/3, VDIMM to 1.51-1.535, PLL to 1.86-1.9 (1.87?) and vSoC to 1.15-1.2 may get you there. If not Samsung B-Die ignore all of that.


----------



## CfYz

Radulus said:


> ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Dark Hero
> Amd Ryzen 9 3900xt


Have exactly same config except of memory - 3200C14, B-die, DR, 2x, G.Skill. And have same reboots, first I was suspecting TPM/HVCI, revert BIOS to 3601 and disable them because starting from 3601 fTMP disable not working, and I didn't notice Trusted Computing in Advanced tab, when you can actually disable TPM. Windows 10 btw, so with disabled TPM there were no reboots at all 3601/3904.

But some day I decided to boot with TPM to upgrade to Win11 and boom have the same reboots after loading windows profile. I remembered all the settings I made and Fmax Enhancer was the cause. Disabling it (not Auto) - fixes all problems. TPM/HVCI/DOCP - all working fine on 3904, no random reboots. Btw PBO disabled too.

Your solution to buy 5900X a bit more complicated than finding root cause I think Fmax Enhancer with all other settings/voltages at stock - just not working like it should...


----------



## PWn3R

metalshark said:


> No idea, really hope it’s not the 5950X limiting. If you can share a Thaiphoon that’d help. Am running 4x8GB SR of Samsung B-Die so if the same then setting Rtt to 6/3/3, VDIMM to 1.51-1.535, PLL to 1.86-1.9 (1.87?) and vSoC to 1.15-1.2 may get you there. If not Samsung B-Die ignore all of that.


I will run it and post it. Memory is B die, I have a 5950x, I can now boot at 1900 but only with the default timings which I think were 27/27/27/54 or something like that. I haven't tried more than 1.475 on the ram, but did try as high as 1.95 PLL with 1.2 vSOC.


----------



## P1ngou1N

Well I think my guess was right and my 5900X was dying. 

I switched to my spare 3600 and TM5 don't reboot my pc. I am at 9 cycles (1h40) when I couldn't pass 4 cycles at max (and not even 1 most of the time) with the 5900x. I will let it finish the 20 cycles overnight and launch prime95 tomorrow. 

I am gonna try to get a swap from the seller. Blessed be the gods I bought it from Amazon so I shouldn't have any issues. 

Hope I will have some luck and get a B2. 

First time ever I have a CPU failure.


----------



## metalshark

P1ngou1N said:


> Well I think my guess was right and my 5900X was dying.
> 
> I switched to my spare 3600 and TM5 don't reboot my pc. I am at 9 cycles (1h40) when I couldn't pass 4 cycles at max (and not even 1 most of the time) with the 5900x. I will let it finish the 20 cycles overnight and launch prime95 tomorrow.
> 
> I am gonna try to get a swap from the seller. Blessed be the gods I bought it from Amazon so I shouldn't have any issues.
> 
> Hope I will have some luck and get a B2.
> 
> First time ever I have a CPU failure.


That’s a shame, glad you’ve figure it out. From all accounts I’m hearing now there’s no advantage to the B2 so until that changes wouldn’t worry too much about getting one.


----------



## metalshark

PWn3R said:


> I will run it and post it. Memory is B die, I have a 5950x, I can now boot at 1900 but only with the default timings which I think were 27/27/27/54 or something like that. I haven't tried more than 1.475 on the ram, but did try as high as 1.95 PLL with 1.2 vSOC.
> 
> View attachment 2546462


Will have look now at those figures. With yours being the C17 variety of the same kit, on Zen 3 am not convinced we’ll be any different between the two outside of XoC. Same with the Formula and Hero sharing pretty much the same board layout (except enviously think you have probelt points for multimeter readings without soldering).

For reference here are my settings (note this is a GDM off config hence the setup timings in the bottom right):









EDIT: going through the settings where you may see a difference are:

tRAS
tRC
tRCDRD
tRDRD SCL
tRDWR
tWR
tWRWR SCL
tRFC
so, if you want to, change the others, if lower (keeping an eye on tPHYRDL), before trying the above one by one. You'll also want to do a memory speed/latency test to sanity check the tighter timings aren't giving you worse results (I don't fully understand why but hey this sometimes happens).

I Use the following voltages:
SoC: 1.1875
DRAM: 1.535
VDDG CCD: 0.95
VDDG IOD: 1.05
CLDO VDDP: 0.88
PLL: 1.87

In Tweaker's Paradise it's:
VPP_MEM Voltage: 2.46
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA: 0.395
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB: 0.395
Clock Amplitude: Normal

When trying to hit 3800 first time would strongly recommend keeping GDM firmly on, if you run out of time and want to push your GDM on mode configurations then the changes to the above ZenTimings are.

AddrCmdSetup: 0 (down from 52)
CsOdtSetup: 0 (down from 36)
GDM: Enabled (instead of Disabled)
tWRRD: 2 (down from 3)
tWTRL: 7 (down from 8)
But to get it working in the first place you'll likely just want the voltages and resistances (Rtts/ProcODT).


----------



## Radulus

CfYz said:


> Have exactly same config except of memory - 3200C14, B-die, DR, 2x, G.Skill. And have same reboots, first I was suspecting TPM/HVCI, revert BIOS to 3601 and disable them because starting from 3601 fTMP disable not working, and I didn't notice Trusted Computing in Advanced tab, when you can actually disable TPM. Windows 10 btw, so with disabled TPM there were no reboots at all 3601/3904.
> 
> But some day I decided to boot with TPM to upgrade to Win11 and boom have the same reboots after loading windows profile. I remembered all the settings I made and Fmax Enhancer was the cause. Disabling it (not Auto) - fixes all problems. TPM/HVCI/DOCP - all working fine on 3904, no random reboots. Btw PBO disabled too.
> 
> Your solution to buy 5900X a bit more complicated than finding root cause I think Fmax Enhancer with all other settings/voltages at stock - just not working like it should...


Thx for your comment.. Well.. I disabled Enhancer..  Trust me, I've tried many different things but I am absolutely sure that I disabled Enhancer also and same issue. I was playing with this almost 2months. 2 months of tuning and stress. I almost wanted to through Asus board to bin and use my older MSI B450 with that CPU. Specially if I know that Asus board is second hand, so I was quite scared that board has some damage. So I tried to buy 5900x and Voila 
But I will definitely keep this forum and discussion, because lot of experienced people are here. I tried also local forums here in Czech, but no luck. Not even proper response.


----------



## Radulus

Radulus said:


> Guys..  Still okay. No reboots..
> *Question*: Which Water cooler would you recommend? I plan water block for CPU only. I was looking for *Asus ryujin 240* (I have no space for bigger radiator, basically I have, but only from front side and this I want to avoid and I would rather put it on top). Do you have some experience? Quiet and effective? What do you think about Asus..? It is not necessary to have Asus (quite expensive) but looking for some which I can easily set.. (I was planning to use Asus SW) and will be effective. Do you have some recommendation? I count with some overclocking later, so there must be space for overclocking also


Guys, I found this devil.. Alphacool Eisbaer Extreme . Do you have some experience..? I can see that cooling performance is really high. I believe there will be plenty of space also for OC. What do you think.?


----------



## J7SC

Radulus said:


> Guys, I found this devil.. Alphacool Eisbaer Extreme . Do you have some experience..? I can see that cooling performance is really high. I believe there will be plenty of space also for OC. What do you think.?


...the Alphacool Eisbaer Extreme seems to have some strong reviews. I also like the fact that it has quick-disconnects which means that you could expand the loop later on


----------



## metalshark

Radulus said:


> Guys, I found this devil.. Alphacool Eisbaer Extreme . Do you have some experience..? I can see that cooling performance is really high. I believe there will be plenty of space also for OC. What do you think.?


One thing I'll say about Alphacool products is you'll notice the weight. It's reassuring. That Alphacool Eisbaer Extreme, for instance, is 3,869 grams, compared to say the EKWB 360 AIO which is only 2,355 grams. If I had to fend off an intruder, would definitely grab the Alphacool.


----------



## Radulus

J7SC said:


> ...the Alphacool Eisbaer Extreme seems to have some strong reviews. I also like the fact that it has quick-disconnects which means that you could expand the loop later on


Exactly. Great feature for future extension.  That's what I was planning..


----------



## GRABibus

guys,
with Bios 4001 and when setting EDC =140 and then with Vcore around 1.42V boost, how do you compensate loss for ST performances ?
Adding an offset on Vcore ?

I already have one at +12.5mV with Bios 3801 and it helps a bit for ST perf.

but with Bios 4001 and EDC=140, I should add more offset or any other settings would help ?


----------



## J7SC

metalshark said:


> That’s a shame, glad you’ve figure it out. From all accounts I’m hearing now there’s no advantage to the B2 so until that changes wouldn’t worry too much about getting one.


I was chatting with an acquaintance who works for a large national chain here, and the number of RMAs seems to be jumping in line with inquires on whether they have B2 on the retail shelves yet...  

I might yet get a 5950X B2 but not via RMA, instead I have a 3950X in CH8 Hero Wifi right next to the 5950X CH8 Dark Hero. Then again, the 3950X is more of a work machine anyhow, apart from being a great performer in its own right.


----------



## PWn3R

metalshark said:


> Will have look now at those figures. With yours being the C17 variety of the same kit, on Zen 3 am not convinced we’ll be any different between the two outside of XoC. Same with the Formula and Hero sharing pretty much the same board layout (except enviously think you have probelt points for multimeter readings without soldering).
> 
> For reference here are my settings (note this is a GDM off config hence the setup timings in the bottom right):
> View attachment 2546504
> 
> 
> EDIT: going through the settings where you may see a difference are:
> 
> tRAS
> tRC
> tRCDRD
> tRDRD SCL
> tRDWR
> tWR
> tWRWR SCL
> tRFC
> so, if you want to, change the others, if lower (keeping an eye on tPHYRDL), before trying the above one by one. You'll also want to do a memory speed/latency test to sanity check the tighter timings aren't giving you worse results (I don't fully understand why but hey this sometimes happens).
> 
> I Use the following voltages:
> SoC: 1.1875
> DRAM: 1.535
> VDDG CCD: 0.95
> VDDG IOD: 1.05
> CLDO VDDP: 0.88
> PLL: 1.87
> 
> In Tweaker's Paradise it's:
> VPP_MEM Voltage: 2.46
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA: 0.395
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB: 0.395
> Clock Amplitude: Normal
> 
> When trying to hit 3800 first time would strongly recommend keeping GDM firmly on, if you run out of time and want to push your GDM on mode configurations then the changes to the above ZenTimings are.
> 
> AddrCmdSetup: 0 (down from 52)
> CsOdtSetup: 0 (down from 36)
> GDM: Enabled (instead of Disabled)
> tWRRD: 2 (down from 3)
> tWTRL: 7 (down from 8)
> But to get it working in the first place you'll likely just want the voltages and resistances (Rtts/ProcODT).


Is using 1.535v on RAM a significant risk? I'll mess with this some more this weekend. I also need to swap my waterblock this weekend.


----------



## metalshark

PWn3R said:


> Is using 1.535v on RAM a significant risk? I'll mess with this some more this weekend. I also need to swap my waterblock this weekend.


Samsung B-Die is up to 1.74v. As long as your LLC doesn't bounce up that high then no. A lot of DRAM boards (using Samsung B-Die) using it flake out at ~1.6v so you'll get bad results about there. Just keep DRAM temps under 50'C (under 45'C for best headroom).


----------



## PWn3R

metalshark said:


> Samsung B-Die is up to 1.74v. As long as your LLC doesn't bounce up that high then no. A lot of DRAM boards (using Samsung B-Die) using it flake out at ~1.6v so you'll get bad results about there. Just keep DRAM temps under 50'C (under 45'C for best headroom).


I've never seen them hit 40 yet, so I will give it a shot.


----------



## J7SC

PWn3R said:


> I've never seen them hit 40 yet, so I will give it a shot.


Yeah, RAM cooling is key...even under load and cozy ambient, my RAM usually stays in the 30s C. Low 40s C is where one should start thinking about RAM / VRM + RAM fans. 

FYI, as to DDR4 voltages, there's some GSkill B-die that is 'stock' rated at 1.55 V.


----------



## PWn3R

J7SC said:


> Yeah, RAM cooling is key...even under load and cozy ambient, my RAM usually stays int he 30s C. Low 40s C is where one should start thinking about RAM / VRM + RAM fans.
> 
> FYI, as to DDR4 voltages, there's some GSkill B-die that is 'stock' rated at 1.55 V.


I have a massive case (LDPC V8) and I "upgraded" the top radiator to a 560mm from a 480mm by cutting out the larger size and drilling new holes, the case has insane airflow and right now the sides are even off.


----------



## Hallrider

GRABibus said:


> guys,
> with Bios 4001 and when setting EDC =140 and then with Vcore around 1.42V boost, how do you compensate loss for ST performances ?
> Adding an offset on Vcore ?
> 
> I already have one at +12.5mV with Bios 3801 and it helps a bit for ST perf.
> 
> but with Bios 4001 and EDC=140, I should add more offset or any other settings would help ?


I've also been running bios 4001 for a couple days now and can't get higher than 1.45v ish on any cores, but my PBO is set to 200/130/135, so definitely under 140
And i'm struggling to get past 4.9ghz ST, but i feel like it may be a bug.
In bios the menu for PBO changed under the Advanced settings, where you can now set either a positive or negative boost clock override.
I've tried +50 and +100 but my ST never goes above 4.9, it actually stays locked at 4.900,0
I also noticed that Ryzen Master mentions i'm using "Precision Boost Overdrive" instead of "Auto Overclocking" and my max CCX frequency is locked at 4.9:


----------



## GRABibus

Hallrider said:


> I've also been running bios 4001 for a couple days now and can't get higher than 1.45v ish on any cores, but my PBO is set to 200/130/135, so definitely under 140
> And i'm struggling to get past 4.9ghz ST, but i feel like it may be a bug.
> In bios the menu for PBO changed under the Advanced settings, where you can now set either a positive or negative boost clock override.
> I've tried +50 and +100 but my ST never goes above 4.9, it actually stays locked at 4.900,0
> I also noticed that Ryzen Master mentions i'm using "Precision Boost Overdrive" instead of "Auto Overclocking" and my max CCX frequency is locked at 4.9:
> 
> View attachment 2546574


Did you try positive offset on Vcore ? Like +12.5mV or +25mV ?


----------



## J7SC

Hallrider said:


> I've also been running bios 4001 for a couple days now and can't get higher than 1.45v ish on any cores, but my PBO is set to 200/130/135, so definitely under 140
> And i'm struggling to get past 4.9ghz ST, but i feel like it may be a bug.
> In bios the menu for PBO changed under the Advanced settings, where you can now set either a positive or negative boost clock override.
> I've tried +50 and +100 but my ST never goes above 4.9, it actually stays locked at 4.900,0
> I also noticed that Ryzen Master mentions i'm using "Precision Boost Overdrive" instead of "Auto Overclocking" and my max CCX frequency is locked at 4.9:
> 
> View attachment 2546574


That may not be the new bios (I'm still on 3501...) but instead be the result of the updated chipset drivers


----------



## Hallrider

J7SC said:


> That may not be the new bios (I'm still on 3501...) but instead be the result of the updated chipset drivers


I havent updated my chipset drivers, im on 3.10.08.506 since about 3-4 months



GRABibus said:


> Did you try positive offset on Vcore ? Like +12.5mV or +25mV ?


I have not, I can try it soon
Just wondering if you (and others) were seeing similar weirdness with it as well.


----------



## J7SC

...latest chipset drivers (same bios as before) did have an impact on my machine, but that doesn't mean that the newer bios won't also add to the 'weirdness'


----------



## GRABibus

Hallrider said:


> I havent updated my chipset drivers, im on 3.10.08.506 since about 3-4 months
> 
> 
> 
> I have not, I can try it soon
> Just wondering if you (and others) were seeing similar weirdness with it as well.


No, I didn’t have this issue when testing 4001.
I am on 3801.


----------



## flyinion

Hi guys, started using some general guides I found on how to use CO and PBO2 finally for my 5950X I picked up last summer. Seems pretty straightforward overall of dialing down the offset, check for crashes, etc. then start testing boost clock overrides etc. 

What I'm not sure on is the best way to quickly roughly dial in the offsets for each core. One video I was following talked about running CB R32, P95, etc but was basically using all core loads and I saw a mention about core cycler being better since it puts a higher strain on each core. Downloaded and got that set up and sure enough a -10 offset on all 16 cores ran fine in CB R23 multicore, but core cycler set to the default settings popped an error on my "best" core within about 1-2 minutes, the rest passed. 

So I'm wondering if I should just use core cycler to find the offsets instead and then use the other tools for extended stability testing?


----------



## metalshark

flyinion said:


> Hi guys, started using some general guides I found on how to use CO and PBO2 finally for my 5950X I picked up last summer. Seems pretty straightforward overall of dialing down the offset, check for crashes, etc. then start testing boost clock overrides etc.
> 
> What I'm not sure on is the best way to quickly roughly dial in the offsets for each core. One video I was following talked about running CB R32, P95, etc but was basically using all core loads and I saw a mention about core cycler being better since it puts a higher strain on each core. Downloaded and got that set up and sure enough a -10 offset on all 16 cores ran fine in CB R23 multicore, but core cycler set to the default settings popped an error on my "best" core within about 1-2 minutes, the rest passed.
> 
> So I'm wondering if I should just use core cycler to find the offsets instead and then use the other tools for extended stability testing?


You need at minimum 3 kinds of testing for offsets.

1) Extreme idle, where no cores do anything, because each step of CO is -5mV at idle for the core and -3mV at full load (e.g. it takes away more voltage at idle) when a lot of cores (preferably all) are doing nothing is when you’ll get the PC reboot. Normally there will be a WHEA error in event viewer with the offending core.

2) Next up we have core cycler which applies a load to each core. Here I tend to start by configuring it to use y-cruncher with the default test as this boosts cores to a high frequency (e.g. makes them fail faster) if it reboots (last core in log file) or a test fails note the core and drop the offset. Follow up y-Cruncher with a heavy dose of Prime95 in the config for good measure.

3) All core testing, start with a light workload like CineBench or OCCT and work your way up to a max load using Prime95 or y-Cruncher. By this point you’ll not normally get a reboot, but it can happen so is worth testing.

There are layers of additional testing like 2 core, 3 core, 4 core, etc then many different profiles of multi-core, double checking what happens with low, mid, high loads on your GPU at once (essentially PSU testing). You generally don’t need to bother with this unless using Hydra.

Also you’ll want to keep an eye on temps and cap your EDC to where your thermals hit the limits. 75’C on the CCX is where the top single thread boosting stops, 90’C is the hard cut off (so think of this more like a multi thread temp limit), so if you’re having troubles keeping your individual CCX temps under 75’C and are chasing single thread performance you’ll need to cap your power limits. If you’re nowhere near let them fly for higher boost.

There’s also a balancing act between temps, voltages and boost speeds. Temps control what voltages are available, voltages control what frequencies are available (roughly, there’s more to it). So make sure by increasing a negative CO you’re not getting a lower boost frequency when CoreCycler tests that core. Also if every core is rock solid on -30 then add a negative voltage offset until you can explore the full range of CO so only your best core(s) are on -30. Likewise if you need a positive CO offset on a core (remember to check the boost speeds in CoreCycler because whilst it may be stable for a core, it might need positive CO to reach its boosting potential) shift the voltage offset in the positive direction. There’s normally a fair amount of variance between cores so think of voltage offset like the brightness on a TV and CO like the contrast (you want a wide range of contrast and the brightness near the middle). If you get a good sample all the COs can be negative whilst spread apart.

Back when I used to use PBO+CO, I would log all results in Excel, if you work out the VID - offset (or cheat and look at SVI2) and add/remove the CO based on 3mV per step for peak you’ll be able to get a hard number for mV. Then track mV against max boost per core and you’ll find even though you’re changing many options what each core can do (max freq for mV on an individual core) is normally around the same regardless of the options used to get there (assuming temps on that CCX don’t hit 75’C) also remember this is for a light workload (y-Cruncher on 00-x86 for max freq), heavier workloads even on one core = less max freq.


----------



## flyinion

Wow thanks for the info. That definitely adds a lot of detail that wasn’t in the main video I’ve been referencing (and it was like 30 minutes long). I do have an event viewer filter set up to make WHEA errors easy to see if they happen. Hopefully temps will behave as well as I’m on a full custom loop. CB R23 all core with just -5 CO on all cores didn’t go past about 75.5 after 30 minutes


----------



## metalshark

flyinion said:


> Wow thanks for the info. That definitely adds a lot of detail that wasn’t in the main video I’ve been referencing (and it was like 30 minutes long). I do have an event viewer filter set up to make WHEA errors easy to see if they happen. Hopefully temps will behave as well as I’m on a full custom loop. CB R23 all core with just -5 CO on all cores didn’t go past about 75.5 after 30 minutes


Am on open loop too, but depending on power limits can hit 75’C+ on the CCX (there’s multiple temp reading for a CPU for single core boost you care about the ones per CCX). Out of interest was the video the first one in this post?

ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...

If so follow it up with the SkatterBencher 5900X/5950X video when ready to begin seeing what’s missing/skipped over/needs unlearned. It’s a great starting video but you’ll be capped for results and quickly outgrow it (the first one, not the SkatterBencher one).

The temp results with CB23 it sounds like the power limits are kind of low (e.g. increase your EDC/TDC/PPT) and you’ll have more headroom for it boosting all core higher (you'll see your scores go up as a result) just balance it out to not lose single core (so don't exceed 75'C in single CCX due to the power limits increasing in ST workloads) if that's important for you. General rule of thumb there’s theoretical headroom for single core under 75’C and there’s theoretical headroom for multi core under 90’C. Your CPU on default/low PBO limits will hover just over 75’C when left to its own most often in multi (so need to get it to shift ass beyond that because each time it exceeds 75'C it drops back by default). You’ll lack granularity for different types of multi core using PBO+CO on its own so there’s some wriggle room here (e.g. lighter multi core might be lower in temp because otherwise heavier multi core causes a crash).


----------



## J7SC

FYI, I reverted back to the previous (~September '21) AMD Chipset drivers w/o any issues. Core speed max increased 'on paper' but stress testing showed little difference. 

On CPU speeds and performance, I typically overbuild cooling systems which comes into its own with boost-algorithm heavy CPUs and GPUs. In CineR23, max temps are typically around 67C.


----------



## flyinion

metalshark said:


> Out of interest was the video the first one in this post?
> 
> ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...
> 
> If so follow it up with the SkatterBencher 5900X/5950X video when ready to begin seeing what’s missing/skipped over/needs unlearned. It’s a great starting video but you’ll be capped for results and quickly outgrow it.


Yep that’s the one.


----------



## GRABibus

metalshark said:


> You need at minimum 3 kinds of testing for offsets.
> 
> 1) Extreme idle, where no cores do anything, because each step of CO is -5mV at idle for the core and -3mV at full load (e.g. it takes away more voltage at idle) when a lot of cores (preferably all) are doing nothing is when you’ll get the PC reboot. Normally there will be a WHEA error in event viewer with the offending core.
> 
> 2) Next up we have core cycler which applies a load to each core. Here I tend to start by configuring it to use y-cruncher with the default test as this boosts cores to a high frequency (e.g. makes them fail faster) if it reboots or a test fails note the core and drop the offset. Follow up y-Cruncher with a heavy dose of Prime95 in the config for good measure.
> 
> 3) All core testing, start with a light workload like CineBench or OCCT and work your way up to a max load using Prime95 or y-Cruncher. By this point you’ll not normally get a reboot, but it can happen so is worth testing.
> 
> There are layers of additional testing like 2 core, 3 core, 4 core, etc then many different profiles of multi-core, double checking what happens with low, mid, high loads on your GPU at once (essentially PSU testing). You generally don’t need to bother with this unless using Hydra.
> 
> Also you’ll want to keep an eye on temps and cap your EDC to where your thermals hit, 75’C on the CCX is where the top single thread boosting stops, 90’C is the hard cut off (so think of this more like a multi thread temp limit), so if you’re having troubles keeping your individual CCX temps under 75’C and are chasing single thread performance you’ll need to cap your power limits. If you’re nowhere near let them fly for higher boost.
> 
> There’s also a balancing act between temps, voltages and boost speeds. Temps control what voltages are available, voltages control what frequencies are available (roughly, there’s more to it). So make sure by increasing a negative CO you’re not getting a lower boost frequency when CoreCycler tests that core. Also if every core is rock solid on -30 then add a negative voltage offset until you can explore the full range of CO so only your best core(s) are on -30. Likewise if you need a positive CO offset on a core (remember to check the boost speeds in CoreCycler) shift the voltage offset in the positive direction. There’s normally a fair amount of variance between cores so think of voltage offset like the brightness on a TV and CO like the contrast (you want a wide range of contrast and the brightness near the middle). If you get a good sample all the COs can be negative whilst spread apart.
> 
> Back when so used to use PBO+CO logged all results in Excel, if you work out the VID - offset (or cheat and look at SVI2) and add/remove the CO based on 3mV per step for peak you’ll be able to get a hard number for mV. Then track mV against max boost per core and you’ll find even though you’re changing many options what each core can do (max freq for mV) is normally around the same (assuming temps on that CCX don’t hit 75’C) also remember this is for a light workload, heavier workloads even on one core = less max freq.


I have


metalshark said:


> You need at minimum 3 kinds of testing for offsets.
> 
> 1) Extreme idle, where no cores do anything, because each step of CO is -5mV at idle for the core and -3mV at full load (e.g. it takes away more voltage at idle) when a lot of cores (preferably all) are doing nothing is when you’ll get the PC reboot. Normally there will be a WHEA error in event viewer with the offending core.
> 
> 2) Next up we have core cycler which applies a load to each core. Here I tend to start by configuring it to use y-cruncher with the default test as this boosts cores to a high frequency (e.g. makes them fail faster) if it reboots or a test fails note the core and drop the offset. Follow up y-Cruncher with a heavy dose of Prime95 in the config for good measure.
> 
> 3) All core testing, start with a light workload like CineBench or OCCT and work your way up to a max load using Prime95 or y-Cruncher. By this point you’ll not normally get a reboot, but it can happen so is worth testing.
> 
> There are layers of additional testing like 2 core, 3 core, 4 core, etc then many different profiles of multi-core, double checking what happens with low, mid, high loads on your GPU at once (essentially PSU testing). You generally don’t need to bother with this unless using Hydra.
> 
> Also you’ll want to keep an eye on temps and cap your EDC to where your thermals hit, 75’C on the CCX is where the top single thread boosting stops, 90’C is the hard cut off (so think of this more like a multi thread temp limit), so if you’re having troubles keeping your individual CCX temps under 75’C and are chasing single thread performance you’ll need to cap your power limits. If you’re nowhere near let them fly for higher boost.
> 
> There’s also a balancing act between temps, voltages and boost speeds. Temps control what voltages are available, voltages control what frequencies are available (roughly, there’s more to it). So make sure by increasing a negative CO you’re not getting a lower boost frequency when CoreCycler tests that core. Also if every core is rock solid on -30 then add a negative voltage offset until you can explore the full range of CO so only your best core(s) are on -30. Likewise if you need a positive CO offset on a core (remember to check the boost speeds in CoreCycler) shift the voltage offset in the positive direction. There’s normally a fair amount of variance between cores so think of voltage offset like the brightness on a TV and CO like the contrast (you want a wide range of contrast and the brightness near the middle). If you get a good sample all the COs can be negative whilst spread apart.
> 
> Back when so used to use PBO+CO logged all results in Excel, if you work out the VID - offset (or cheat and look at SVI2) and add/remove the CO based on 3mV per step for peak you’ll be able to get a hard number for mV. Then track mV against max boost per core and you’ll find even though you’re changing many options what each core can do (max freq for mV) is normally around the same (assuming temps on that CCX don’t hit 75’C) also remember this is for a light workload, heavier workloads even on one core = less max freq.


great.

from my side, the only idle/low load core stability tests is daily use.
I didn’t get any Whea with my signature CO settings since months.
‘But when I test CoreCycler P95, it is clear that my settings are unstable and I need to readjust each offset for each core.

but as I for daily usage with those settings I have no issu, I didn’t consider Corecycler


----------



## P1ngou1N

Well Amazon was FAST. I already received my new 5900x. Seems to be B2 from manufacturing date but will check when installing it (probably not before next week). Fingers crossed to not having issues anymore.


----------



## Luggage

metalshark said:


> Am on open loop too, but depending on power limits can hit 75’C+ on the CCX (there’s multiple temp reading for a CPU for single core boost you care about the ones per CCX). Out of interest was the video the first one in this post?
> 
> ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...
> 
> If so follow it up with the SkatterBencher 5900X/5950X video when ready to begin seeing what’s missing/skipped over/needs unlearned. It’s a great starting video but you’ll be capped for results and quickly outgrow it (the first one, not the SkatterBencher one).
> 
> The temp results with CB23 it sounds like the power limits are kind of low (e.g. increase your EDC/TDC/PPT) and you’ll have more headroom for it boosting all core higher (you'll see your scores go up as a result) just balance it out to not lose single core (so don't exceed 75'C in single CCX due to the power limits increasing in ST workloads) if that's important for you. General rule of thumb there’s theoretical headroom for single core under 75’C and there’s theoretical headroom for multi core under 90’C. Your CPU on default/low PBO limits will hover just over 75’C when left to its own most often in multi (so need to get it to shift ass beyond that because each time it exceeds 75'C it drops back by default). You’ll lack granularity for different types of multi core using PBO+CO on its own so there’s some wriggle room here (e.g. lighter multi core might be lower in temp because otherwise heavier multi core causes a crash).


It keeps scaling with temps - if you can keep mc under 60C (62C in my case from watching tool.exe or Zenptmonitor) you will boost higher. I don’t know the temps for single thread but I feel there is a one hidden for this as well)

Edit: this is my 5800x a rather cold day at stock (no PBO, no xmp) with just cooling hitting boost limit on all cores.



http://imgur.com/mmdm5f6


----------



## metalshark

Luggage said:


> It keeps scaling with temps - if you can keep mc under 60C (62C in my case from watching tool.exe or Zenptmonitor) you will boost higher. I don’t know the temps for single thread but I feel there is a one hidden for this as well)
> 
> Edit: this is my 5800x a rather cold day at stock (no PBO, no xmp) with just cooling hitting boost limit on all cores.
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/mmdm5f6


75'C seems to be the ceiling for max single thread boosting but nice if it keeps scaling below that. If not reaching the thermal limits (except when XoCing) there's normally more that can be given in terms of PBO power limits until reaching the plateau for that core (where no amount of power will help it budge).

Would be interesting to see what those effective clocks could reach without the EDC PBO limit being hit for instance (5050MHz cap without BCLK clocking on the 5800X right?) if cores 1 and 3 could pull some more weight with an increase of EDC for instance.

Out of interest what's the deal with core 5, is it slightly undervolted/negative CO'ed more than it should be? Or just HWiNFO randomness?


----------



## Luggage

metalshark said:


> 75'C seems to be the ceiling for max single thread boosting but nice if it keeps scaling below that. If not reaching the thermal limits (except when XoCing) there's normally more that can be given in terms of PBO power limits until reaching the plateau for that core (where no amount of power will help it budge).
> 
> Would be interesting to see what those effective clocks could reach without the EDC PBO limit being hit for instance (5050MHz cap without BCLK clocking on the 5800X right?) if cores 1 and 3 could pull some more weight with an increase of EDC for instance.
> 
> Out of interest what's the deal with core 5, is it slightly undervolted/negative CO'ed more than it should be? Or just HWiNFO randomness?


HWinfo64 wasn’t running while benching. Perhaps during cpu-z, can’t remember? 
core 5 is one of two best cores though, has less co value.


----------



## J7SC

metalshark said:


> 75'C seems to be the ceiling for max single thread boosting but nice if it keeps scaling below that. If not reaching the thermal limits (except when XoCing) there's normally more that can be given in terms of PBO power limits until reaching the plateau for that core (where no amount of power will help it budge).
> 
> Would be interesting to see what those effective clocks could reach without the EDC PBO limit being hit for instance (5050MHz cap without BCLK clocking on the 5800X right?) if cores 1 and 3 could pull some more weight with an increase of EDC for instance.
> 
> Out of interest what's the deal with core 5, is it slightly undervolted/negative CO'ed more than it should be? Or just HWiNFO randomness?


I really like the detailed explanations and posts you have made re. CO etc. So far, I still end up returning to CH8 VIII / Dark Hero and 5950X with PBO, fMax and 'DynamicOC' as the best overall option for my well-cooled setup, instead of using CO etc - for now that is. I will check the CO in more detail...CoreCycler is what you would recommend to get to the ideal CO values?

I approach performance on Ryzen 5K as an equation with multiple constraints per boost algorithm that will 'increase until' re. volts, temps, current and such constraints are reached. These are all related, dynamic rather than static, and affect each other...and the easiest one to control for me is temps. IMO, Asus bios and 5950X are fairly well optimized out of the box to extract additional potential performance via PBO etc, over and above the base-line every chip that leaves the factory has to pass.

I updated my '5950X' collage below w/ some newer results as well as previously posted items though I think I have a thumb drive somewhere with a higher CineR23 single score. I'm also still playing with IF2000 / DDR4 4000 and managed to get it fairly stable, though it is not perfect yet. Besides, the trade-off between latency and bandwidth isn't quite where I would need it...Aida below is my daily IF1900 / DDR4 3800 CL14 14 14...


----------



## metalshark

J7SC said:


> I really like the detailed explanations and posts you have made re. CO etc. So far, I still end up returning to CH8 VIII / Dark Hero and 5950X with PBO, fMax and 'DynamicOC' as the best overall option for my well-cooled setup, instead of using CO etc - for now that is. I will check the CO in more detail...CoreCycler is what you would recommend to get to the ideal CO values?
> 
> I approach performance on Ryzen 5K as an equation with multiple constraints per boost algorithm that will 'increase until' re. volts, temps, current and such constraints are reached. These are all related, dynamic rather than static, and affect each other...and the easiest one to control for me is temps. IMO, Asus bios and 5950X are fairly well optimized out of the box to extract additional potential performance via PBO etc, over and above the base-line every chip that leaves the factory has to pass.
> 
> I updated my '5950X' collage below w/ some newer results as well as previously posted items though I think I have a thumb drive somewhere with a higher CineR23 single score. I'm also still playing with IF2000 / DDR4 4000 and managed to get it fairly stable, though it is not perfect yet. Besides, the trade-off between latency and bandwidth isn't quite where I would need it...Aida below is my daily IF1900 / DDR4 3800 CL14 14 14...
> View attachment 2546779


NP - the dynamic OC on the Dark Hero/Extreme is brilliant, only Hydra Pro will supplant that but requires a LOT of effort and is Patreon paywalled. Having read the documentation for fMax a few times I still don't understand it though. There's rhetoric about it being Zen 2 only but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Would use CoreCycler personally - by default it uses a middle of the road Prime95 configuration and YMMV but personally putting it on y-Cruncher and 00-x86 (the default) will be easier to see what's going on - it seems to boost the cores the highest and crash the fastest if boosting too high. Quit all other programs/background services then have something monitoring the cores (HWiNFO for instance) and look at the effective speed the core is boosting to. You'll want the lowest CO value (going into negative numbers) for each core where performance doesn't drop. The voltage offset for the processor will need to shift +/- to compensate for cores needing + CO values or multiple cores being on -30. It's a bit of a wrestle to begin with as you also want to play with power limits in PBO, keeping it under 75'C so the individual cores boost as high as possible. You can also change the config of CoreCycler to omit cores when you're getting closer. Record everything in Excel (or Google Sheets, etc) as unless you've got a Photographic memory it's a nightmare keeping track.

It's really important not to look at CO overclocking as "get it as low as possible whilst stable" and instead pay attention closely to the boost speeds it can hit and stay at. The boost speeds drop down before the instability begins in many cases.


----------



## flyinion

metalshark said:


> You'll want the lowest CO value (going into negative numbers) for each core where performance doesn't drop.


How do you properly check for this? I was testing with CoreCycler both ycruncher and P95 for that one "best" core that I found was crashing at -10 or lower and at a 0 offset neither test pings it to a constant speed like CB does. Even with PBO off just stock default settings it didn't stay at a constant speed during the test. Am I just looking to see if a specific offset does not boost as high at some point during the test as the previous offset did?

edit: to be clear, I see that CoreCycler has an option by default to randomly pause during the testing, which is enabled, but I don't think it's that as the bouncing is between around 4.7 to 4.825Ghz while actively testing while mostly sitting at 4.75 for example on offset -5.


----------



## J7SC

metalshark said:


> NP - the dynamic OC on the Dark Hero/Extreme is brilliant, only Hydra Pro will supplant that but requires a LOT of effort and is Patreon paywalled. Having read the documentation for fMax a few times I still don't understand it though. There's rhetoric about it being Zen 2 only but that doesn't seem to be the case.
> 
> Would use CoreCycler personally - by default it uses a middle of the road Prime95 configuration and YMMV but personally putting it on y-Cruncher and 00-x86 (the default) will be easier to see what's going on - it seems to boost the cores the highest and crash the fastest if boosting too high. Quit all other programs/background services then have something monitoring the cores (HWiNFO for instance) and look at the effective speed the core is boosting to. You'll want the lowest CO value (going into negative numbers) for each core where performance doesn't drop. The voltage offset for the processor will need to shift +/- to compensate for cores needing + CO values or multiple cores being on -30. It's a bit of a wrestle to begin with as you also want to play with power limits in PBO, keeping it under 75'C so the individual cores boost as high as possible. You can also change the config of CoreCycler to omit cores when you're getting closer. Record everything in Excel (or Google Sheets, etc) as unless you've got a Photographic memory it's a nightmare keeping track.
> 
> It's really important not to look at CO overclocking as "get it as low as possible whilst stable" and instead pay attention closely to the boost speeds it can hit and stay at. The boost speeds drop down before the instability begins in many cases.


Thanks 
Re. fMax Enhancer, if everything else in bios is stock PBO (with or without DynamicOC in case of the Dark Hero), it seems to 'marginally help' both my 3950X and 5950X. Once other changes are made (ie. extra boost frequency override in PBO), its benefit seems to disappear but I haven't seen fMax actually hurt anything in that scenario, either.

Since I completed the 5950X / Dark Hero build, I've been using mostly the DynamicOC switcher, not least as both the CCX are fairly close together in terms of performance rating (the CineR23 multi-core above had both CCX at 4.8Ghz). I'm currently experimenting a bit with the cross-over point for current threshold (Amps) in DynamicOC switcher with the baseline of 45 A. I have gone as low as 35 A and as high as 60 A (my self-imposed limit for now).

All that said, I never used CTR and only did some rudimentary things with CO (which is why I appreciate your detailed posts on this). I did try the CO values suggested by Hydra, but it was the freeware version and presumably an early beta as the CO values made no sense and also would not boot. That said, I still like Hydra and haven't checked if there's an updated version. I will definitely check out CoreCycler as well, probably with yCruncher in addition to Prime95. I also ran OCCT last night with decent results.


----------



## metalshark

flyinion said:


> How do you properly check for this? I was testing with CoreCycler both ycruncher and P95 for that one "best" core that I found was crashing at -10 or lower and at a 0 offset neither test pings it to a constant speed like CB does. Even with PBO off just stock default settings it didn't stay at a constant speed during the test. Am I just looking to see if a specific offset does not boost as high at some point during the test as the previous offset did?
> 
> edit: to be clear, I see that CoreCycler has an option by default to randomly pause during the testing, which is enabled, but I don't think it's that as the bouncing is between around 4.7 to 4.825Ghz while actively testing while mostly sitting at 4.75 for example on offset -5.


Just to check (apologies if you've done all of these, this is a sanity check):

close all background tasks and stop unnecessary services - speeds on cores will bounce around with things running in the background
using y-Cruncher with '00-x86' mode (Prime95 ramps up/down and is great for stability checking your values aren't too low afterwards but a pain for figuring out you're not hindering boost)
not hitting 75'C on the CCX which the core is on (if you are then either lower power limits or up fan speed curves)
fixed (non-auto) PBO limits (hitting a PBO limit shouldn't cause frequencies to bounce round much)
Getting 125MHz of bounce (4.825 - 4.7) seems excessive, my gut would suggest there are some background processes happening (not fact, just a hunch) maybe disconnect the network cable/turn off wifi in case it's driver interrupts from multicast/broadcast packets?

Sure you'll get it dipping 50MHz at times (like for a split second at the beginning/end of a run before it hugs a frequency and stays there) but 125MHz bounce throughout the test, especially with it settling in the middle isn't testable at all, and you're right to wave the "something is wrong" flag. Is anyone else getting that level of bounce?

If you get it flicking up high MHz on a core momentarily that's normally a sign more voltage will let you hit that speed steady, sometimes though you'll get unlucky or the voltage is unreasonable (out of 16 cores, 2 neighbouring cores which were both on the same CCX gave me false hope and were pretty much my worse cores in reality).


----------



## flyinion

Guess I failed step 1 there. There were still some things running like the FanXpert (fan curves are set in there), and some other minor things that start on startup. I just assumed if something was set to one core with a big load windows would put anything else on a different one. If I run single core CB for example the core in use will peg while in use. Temps were definitely good. Nothing over low 60's maybe less if I remember correctly. Like I said that particular core (identified by Ryzen master as "the best") was doing that at even stock PBO no offset. Watching the rest of the cores though they were bouncing a bit as well. I'm going to go watch that other video you recommended as well before I go any further.


----------



## metalshark

flyinion said:


> Guess I failed step 1 there. There were still some things running like the FanXpert (fan curves are set in there), and some other minor things that start on startup. I just assumed if something was set to one core with a big load windows would put anything else on a different one. If I run single core CB for example the core in use will peg while in use. Temps were definitely good. Nothing over low 60's maybe less if I remember correctly. Like I said that particular core (identified by Ryzen master as "the best") was doing that at even stock PBO no offset. Watching the rest of the cores though they were bouncing a bit as well. I'm going to go watch that other video you recommended as well before I go any further.


Cinebench single core is a completely different workload to y-Cruncher 00-x86. The heavier the workload the easier for Windows to shift stuff elsewhere. Using the y-Cruncher workload in CoreCycler we’re getting each core’s frequency as high as possible one by one. Even small amounts of background processing can cause it to fluctuate. You don’t have to worry about that when using the system later on - but to be scientific and get clean usable measurements when testing you need it that way.

Should’ve also mentioned that if you’ve got AutoOC locked on 200MHz unless your sample is god tier this kind of testing (highest effective speed, without stretching) might be the first time you get reboots due to it being too high. 50MHz is a more realistic number, but congrats if your sample is stable above that without stretching or throttling the voltage/power on all cores to compensate.


----------



## P1ngou1N

God damn. My issue with my computer rebooting was not the CPU. I installed my new 5900X and I still have the reboots.

I had no reboot with the 3600.

Well... It has to be PSU or motherboard then.
Gonna order a new PSU and prey that it's that.


EDIT : This chip seems to be a lot better than my previous one. Don't know if B2 is better or not but in any cases I got a better 5900X.

Didn't tweak it fully yet but right now my pbo is like that :
TDC: 125
EDC: 160
PPT: 195
+50Mhz boost override.
-30 on all cores but three (at -22 for 2° best core , -26 for best core, -28 for another one)

CB20 multi : 9039
CB20 single : 641
I wasn't able to get such scores with the previous CPU. 
All that while being significantly cooler.

Well, I still have to fix this reboot issue. New PSU is supposed to be here monday.


----------



## flyinion

metalshark said:


> Cinebench single core is a completely different workload to y-Cruncher 00-x86. The heavier the workload the easier for Windows to shift stuff elsewhere. Using the y-Cruncher workload in CoreCycler we’re getting each core’s frequency as high as possible one by one. Even small amounts of background processing can cause it to fluctuate. You don’t have to worry about that when using the system later on - but to be scientific and get clean usable measurements when testing you need it that way.
> 
> Should’ve also mentioned that if you’ve got AutoOC locked on 200MHz unless your sample is god tier this kind of testing (highest effective speed, without stretching) might be the first time you get reboots due to it being too high. 50MHz is a more realistic number, but congrats if your sample is stable above that without stretching or throttling the voltage/power on all cores to compensate.


Thanks, sounds like I just need to shut as much down as possible then for CoreCycler to be effective. I don't have autoOC on and the boost override is on 0 for now. I figured I'd change the override once I found the offsets that were stable. If it matters at all, I'm on a non-wifi CH8 not the Dark model, and using the 3904 BIOS


----------



## Sleepycat

P1ngou1N said:


> God damn. My issue with my computer rebooting was not the CPU. I installed my new 5900X and I still have the reboots.
> 
> I had no reboot with the 3600.
> 
> Well... It has to be PSU or motherboard then.
> Gonna order a new PSU and prey that it's that.


It is not your PSU. It is not your CPU. It's your bios settings that you are using. You'll likely find that you'll still have idle reboots with your new PSU too.



> Didn't tweak it fully yet but right now my pbo is like that :
> TDC: 125
> EDC: 160
> PPT: 195
> +50Mhz boost override.
> -30 on all cores but three (at -22 for 2° best core , -26 for best core, -28 for another one)


-30 offset on the cores can trigger the idle reboot. The core offsets work by reducing the voltage by the set amount for any particular clock speed. Not all CPUs are the exact same bin/quality. So for some CPUs, -30 will cause idle reboots, but at the same time, can be clocked extremely high. So it is not really about best/worst silicon quality, but rather the offsets allowing you to go below the CPU's minimum voltage threshold, which is more by design.

To try to resolve idle reboots, pick one core, maybe your best or second best core, and set the offset to -10 instead. You should see your idle reboots stop.

Have you also used Corecycler to test if your -30 on all cores except 3 pass single core AVX load testing? I used to run -20 with +200MHz, sometimes getting idle reboots. More complex software would start crashing to desktop. When I ran Corecycler, my second best core actually needed a +10 offset to pass AVX Prime95 testing. After corecycler, the crash to desktop stopped, and as a side benefit of the more conservative offsets, avoided the idle reboot.


----------



## MickJones

P1ngou1N said:


> God damn. My issue with my computer rebooting was not the CPU. I installed my new 5900X and I still have the reboots.
> 
> I had no reboot with the 3600.
> 
> Well... It has to be PSU or motherboard then.
> Gonna order a new PSU and prey that it's that.
> 
> 
> EDIT : This chip seems to be a lot better than my previous one. Don't know if B2 is better or not but in any cases I got a better 5900X.
> 
> Didn't tweak it fully yet but right now my pbo is like that :
> TDC: 125
> EDC: 160
> PPT: 195
> +50Mhz boost override.
> -30 on all cores but three (at -22 for 2° best core , -26 for best core, -28 for another one)
> 
> CB20 multi : 9039
> CB20 single : 641
> I wasn't able to get such scores with the previous CPU.
> All that while being significantly cooler.
> 
> Well, I still have to fix this reboot issue. New PSU is supposed to be here monday.


Hey man - I was just browsing through and noticed your troubles with the Kernal 41 error and hard freezes. When this happens do fans go to max and "00" Qcode on the board, and black screen? Have to flip the power switch to reset?

Go into extreme tweaker > External Digi+ Power Control:
Set current capability to 140%
Set VRM Spread Spectrum to Disabled
Set everything else to stock in Bios
Reboot and run some benches
If you make it through the benches - try setting your PBO settings back and see if it crashes - if not add back your ram OC settings.

I had this same issue come out of the blue with my 5950x and C8DH board... at first I thought it was the power supply, then the chip, then my ram timings/SOC voltages - it was none of that. I stumbled on someone else on a forum and tried these 2 settings - not a single problem since. I've used Hydra, PBO+CO and haven't had any further crashes or Kernal 41 errors.

Let me know how it goes and GL!


----------



## flyinion

metalshark said:


> Just to check (apologies if you've done all of these, this is a sanity check):
> 
> close all background tasks and stop unnecessary services - speeds on cores will bounce around with things running in the background


So I tried this and got a much more appropriate result. Toggled between 4.8 and 4.825. However, by default the script is set to idle randomly, should that be left like that or should it be set to just run constantly for the test cycle? I'm guessing the random idle period is better for testing since it would test if something crashed when the core ramps up?


----------



## P1ngou1N

Sleepycat said:


> It is not your PSU. It is not your CPU. It's your bios settings that you are using. You'll likely find that you'll still have idle reboots with your new PSU too.


Thanks dude but I have no issues with idle reboots. The pc only reboots sometimes ingame, and when using prime95 or TM5 (so only during heavy loads). 
I don't use corecycler but Occt with small extreme AvX2 which has been incredibly helpful for finding undervolts on my previous CPU. 



MickJones said:


> Hey man - I was just browsing through and noticed your troubles with the Kernal 41 error and hard freezes. When this happens do fans go to max and "00" Qcode on the board, and black screen? Have to flip the power switch to reset?
> 
> Let me know how it goes and GL!


I have not the same issue, my computer just reboots on it's own. Do you think I can still try your settings ?
Thanks a lot.
EDIT : No more luck with your settings :/ Thanks anyway !


----------



## metalshark

flyinion said:


> So I tried this and got a much more appropriate result. Toggled between 4.8 and 4.825. However, by default the script is set to idle randomly, should that be left like that or should it be set to just run constantly for the test cycle? I'm guessing the random idle period is better for testing since it would test if something crashed when the core ramps up?


Sweet! That sounds like enough to be able to read the results consistently so would keep on the random idle for testing. If it becomes a pain then turn it off for boost testing and put it back on afterwards for final stability testing, but should be fine as-is.

If you get CPU cores hitting max speed for your CPU (4950 on a 5950X, would need to look up the rest, think it’s 4850 on a 5800X but don’t quote me, etc) then it’s the time to see if you can give it a little AutoOC and get away with it.

Neat steps of 25MHz is a really good sign. It being down 2-17MHz from those near steps is a sign of too little voltage (1MHz is margin of error so don’t worry about 4799MHz). It staying at 4.8GHz is a really good sign though and am hoping a tad more juice either from the power limit or the voltage for that core will get it to hold at 4.825GHz.


----------



## flyinion

metalshark said:


> Sweet! That sounds like enough to be able to read the results consistently so would keep on the random idle for testing. If it becomes a pain then turn it off for boost testing and put it back on afterwards for final stability testing, but should be fine as-is.
> 
> If you get CPU cores hitting max speed for your CPU (4950 on a 5950X, would need to look up the rest, think it’s 4850 on a 5800X but don’t quote me, etc) then it’s the time to see if you can give it a little AutoOC and get away with it.
> 
> Neat steps of 25MHz is a really good sign. It being down 2-17MHz from those near steps is a sign of too little voltage (1MHz is margin of error so don’t worry about 4799MHz). It staying at 4.8GHz is a really good sign though and am hoping a tad more juice either from the power limit or the voltage for that core will get it to hold at 4.825GHz.


Thanks, I'll have to look into AutoOC. I thought the regular crosshair didn't support that but maybe I'm thinking of the wrong thing. I'm still checking offsets but so far it's stable at 15-5-15-10-15-15-15-10-15-15-15-15-15-15-15-15. The first two that are lower (5 & 10) were flagged as best/second best in the first chiplet, and apparently the final core in that one doesn't like 15 either. So far the 2nd one hasn't had any fails. Core 7 (#8) actually passed Y cruncher on the default 6 minutes at -15, but reproducibly crashes about 45 seconds in on P95 with CoreCycler.


----------



## metalshark

flyinion said:


> Thanks, I'll have to look into AutoOC. I thought the regular crosshair didn't support that but maybe I'm thinking of the wrong thing. I'm still checking offsets but so far it's stable at 15-5-15-10-15-15-15-10-15-15-15-15-15-15-15-15. The first two that are lower (5 & 10) were flagged as best/second best in the first chiplet, and apparently the final core in that one doesn't like 15 either. So far the 2nd one hasn't had any fails. Core 7 (#8) actually passed Y cruncher on the default 6 minutes at -15, but reproducibly crashes about 45 seconds in on P95 with CoreCycler.


Think of the y-Cruncher CoreCycler test like testing a car at a flat out drag race. Here we want it to reach it's top speed unimpeded and make sure we're giving it everything it can. Only enough fuel for it to reach top speed and really trying to push it up as high as it goes.

Then when doing CoreCycler with Prime95 this is more like taking a family of 4 in that same car up a mountain with potholes in the road during a blizzard. It's tough and you'll need to back off a bit from your drag racing days. This will mostly be back off from making the car lean (too little voltage) so when the family gets dropped off at the top of the mountain you can still boost at full drag racing speed back down.

Those CO's are looking suspiciously closely packed (10 difference between them) are you riding close to the PBO power limits or within 2% of them (e.g. hitting them for milliseconds, and it bouncing back down)? Don't worry about it spiking and hitting them or the highest value recorded, etc more it consistently being at them or within 2% of them during CoreCycler?

Your CPU may genuinely have 16 cores spread across 2 CCXs that only have a range of -5 to -15, my gut feeling would be that's unlikely to be the case and they're too closely packed. For instance here is mine in Hydra:









If I convert the worst value from the Low/Multi thread into traditional PBO+CO values, then cap them to be inside the -30 to +30 range (max you can set via the UEFI without Hydra) then they'd look like the last column here:









If interested 1 and 13 are by default the two preferred cores, but I've switched them over to prefer different cores in Hydra due to core 1 actually being terribly hard to get to top boost speeds with. Also please note that with Hydra you'll see a lot more of a gap between cores than you will with PBO+CO, this is more to emphasise that there normally is a wide margin between them - not for lowest value whilst stable, but for the lowest value without capping boost. Also looking at it with core 4 able to run at -42 and core 1 only being at 14 would add 36mV (think it would need to be 37.5mV due to granularity of motherboard) and shift everything up by 12 on the CO, so core 1 would be +26 and only core 4 would be -30.

It might just be mine has a large variance between cores. As long as you record the SVI2 + CO * 3mV per core along with it's top speed or if it wiped out, along with what test and what power limits, that'll help you in the long run figure out each core as you'll see patterns and notice despite changing many settings the mV to freq for a given core and workload ends up being the same.

Let's assume -5 to -15 is the given range for all cores on your CPU. Deep idle testing will now tell you if you can add a positive +45mV offset (3mV x 15) to the CPU and set the range to be -20 to -30 instead. This would still be the same voltage at peak, but use less voltage at idle letting it cool down faster (therefore boost more often and higher) and use less power. Thankfully deep idle testing normally generates WHEAs letting you know which core died when it reboots.

APIC 0: Core 1
APIC 1: Core 1
APIC 2: Core 2
APIC 3: Core 2
APIC 4: Core 3
APIC 5: Core 3
etc

It might be, for example, you can only do a +30mV offset and a range of -15 to -25 instead, etc after deep idle testing.


----------



## flyinion

Thanks for the info, gonna take me a bit to look over it. Hope I didn't confuse you though on my numbers above. I'm still working on testing downwards on the offsets, it's just where I ended up so far.


----------



## metalshark

flyinion said:


> Thanks for the info, gonna take me a bit to look over it. Hope I didn't confuse you though on my numbers above. I'm still working on testing downwards on the offsets, it's just where I ended up so far.


Think we're all good - just glad you're getting sane test numbers now. Am giving too much info in case someone sees this, later on, so not all of it is directed at you. The thrill of the chase is IMO the best bit of overclocking so hope you're enjoying it.


----------



## Baio73

metalshark said:


> The 3 Setup timings (bottom right of ZenTimings) often come into play. A lot of people seemingly need 56/56/56. I’m running 52/36/0. Then you may need to slacken some timings, for me it was just adding 1 to tWTRL and tWRRD. That was for moving from GDM on to 1T with GDM off at 3800MT/s.


Thanks for your answer... finally got some time to try, but had no luck...
Raised tWTRL an tWRRD +1 and set the last 3 values of ZenTimings to 56, but Karhu RAM Test crashes in a few seconds.
Do you have any other advice to try before going through the endless process of GITHub RAM OC?
This is my actual situation:



Baio


----------



## metalshark

Baio73 said:


> Thanks for your answer... finally got some time to try, but had no luck...
> Raised tWTRL an tWRRD +1 and set the last 3 values of ZenTimings to 56, but Karhu RAM Test crashes in a few seconds.
> Do you have any other advice to try before going through the endless process of GITHub RAM OC?
> This is my actual situation:
> 
> 
> 
> Baio


You’ve got some unusual looking resistances what memory chips are you using?


----------



## Baio73

metalshark said:


> You’ve got some unusual looking resistances what memory chips are you using?


The one in sign: 2x8 Corsair 4000C19D, they are 100% stable with 1.49v from BIOS (1.48 read under Windows). 

This is Thaiphoon Burner report:





Tried to set everything to AUTO except VDIMM 1.49v, GDM off and 1T but no Windows boot..

Baio


----------



## metalshark

Baio73 said:


> The one in sign: 2x8 Corsair 4000C19D, they are 100% stable with 1.49v from BIOS (1.48 read under Windows).
> 
> This is Thaiphoon Burner report:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tried to set everything to AUTO except VDIMM 1.49v, GDM off and 1T but no Windows boot..
> 
> Baio


Samsung DRAM. I've no clues for settings with Samsung RAM on Ryzen.


----------



## Baio73

metalshark said:


> Samsung DRAM. I've no clues for settings with Samsung RAM on Ryzen.


Thanks anyway!

Baio


----------



## Theo164

Hallrider said:


> I've also been running bios 4001 for a couple days now and can't get higher than 1.45v ish on any cores, but my PBO is set to 200/130/135, so definitely under 140
> And i'm struggling to get past 4.9ghz ST, but i feel like it may be a bug.
> In bios the menu for PBO changed under the Advanced settings, where you can now set either a positive or negative boost clock override.
> I've tried +50 and +100 but my ST never goes above 4.9, it actually stays locked at 4.900,0
> I also noticed that Ryzen Master mentions i'm using "Precision Boost Overdrive" instead of "Auto Overclocking" and my max CCX frequency is locked at 4.9:
> 
> View attachment 2546574


flashed 4001 today no change at all, frequency and voltage behavior is the same as 3904
PBO 220/120/140 /+200 
CO all cores -30 / core0 -20 / Core4 -21


----------



## P1ngou1N

I finally found out what was wrong with my computer. After more than a week of searching and tweaking everything in the bios. 

Metalshark was right to insist on the ram because it was the culprit. 
Well, my ram can't go over 55° without rebooting. Never a single error, just reboots. 
I placed a fan right in front of my modules and passed 20 cycles of TM5 finally. 

I knew RAM were sensitive to heat but didn't think they couldn't go at least to 60° (at least give me errors before restarting !). 

So, now I have to find a way to cool them in my case which is going to be complicated. 

I have a new PSU coming tomorrow which is going to be quite useless for now haha. 

Thanks again metalshark for trying to point me in the right direction.


----------



## CyrIng

Can s/o tell what's new for Matisse using BIOS 3904 or latest version, from a 3801 ? 
I'm especially interested about firmware|microcode fixes and features. For example CPPC, HSMP, P-States; also boot kernel log will be appreciated.


----------



## J7SC

Before attempting CO curves in the upcoming week(s), I thought I set a baseline with OCCT's 4 default tests. Note stock voltages. Also, this did not involve DynamicOC which I will try later w/ OCCT, so just stock PBO etc. Hopefully, I can improve upon this with CO / methods described above by @metalshark , and others.


----------



## Buttergemuese

it was hard with Ryzen but this Forum helped me... now i get this stable with viper 4400...RAM voltage 1.54


----------



## stimpy88

Buttergemuese said:


> it was hard with Ryzen but this Forum helped me... now i get this stable with viper 4400...RAM voltage 1.54
> View attachment 2547299


Well done, and welcome to the 1T club! How are your bandwidth numbers?


----------



## Buttergemuese

stimpy88 said:


> Well done, and welcome to the 1T club! How are your bandwidth numbers?


This are my numbers @ Win11


----------



## stimpy88

Buttergemuese said:


> This are my numbers @ Win11


I think it's safe to say that you can't get much more out of it than that! Really nice job!


----------



## Buttergemuese

stimpy88 said:


> I think it's safe to say that you can't get much more out of it than that! Really nice job!


it tooks me weeks to test it... now its done. People with viper 4400 4x8 can test it too now. They can get the same or near the same settings 
For me its gg now and thx for that nice Forum


----------



## J7SC

@Buttergemuese --- congrats !  I've played around with GDM off / 1T on 2950X, 3950X and 5950X and know it is not easy by any stretch of the imagination, at least not with four sticks.

With even CL values, it may not make as much of a difference though I will have to revisit GDM off for CL15 at DDDR4 4000. I did notice your L1, L2 and L3 cache speeds though - is that Win 11 (I run Win 10 Pro re. below) ? I thought they fixed that with patches.


----------



## Buttergemuese

J7SC said:


> @Buttergemuese --- congrats !  I've played around with GDM off / 1T on 2950X, 3950X and 5950X and know it is not easy by any stretch of the imagination, at least not with four sticks.
> 
> With even CL values, it may not make as much of a difference though I will have to revisit GDM off for CL15 at DDDR4 4000. I did notice your L1, L2 and L3 cache speeds though - is that Win 11 (I run Win 10 Pro re. below) ? I thought they fixed that with patches.
> 
> View attachment 2547544


Hi, GDM off gives me only more write and copy and a litle latency benefit. But under Win11 its more worse. Under Win10 I get 54.2 ns too 
L1/L2/L3 its the BIOS/AGESA Version that makes it slower but its ok...


----------



## J7SC

Buttergemuese said:


> Hi, GDM off gives me only more write and copy and a litle latency benefit. But under Win11 its more worse. Under Win10 I get 54.2 ns too
> L1/L2/L3 its the BIOS/AGESA Version that makes it slower but its ok...


...yeah, for now I'm sticking with Win 10 Pro (in spite off Microsoft's best / offensive efforts - heck I even have one system here that is still on Win 7 Pro, and it does get updated even now with major security patches by Microsoft).

For the 5950X Win 10 Pro, I'm still happily on bios 3501 btw though newer chipset drivers. 3501 does everything I want it to w/o USB issues etc.


----------



## Buttergemuese

J7SC said:


> ...yeah, for now I'm sticking with Win 10 Pro (in spite off Microsoft's best / offensive efforts - heck I even have one system here that is still on Win 7 Pro, and it does get updated even now with major security patches by Microsoft).
> 
> For the 5950X Win 10 Pro, I'm still happily on bios 3501 btw though newer chipset drivers. 3501 does everything I want it to w/o USB issues etc.


jep, i also never had USB issues... form BIOS 3501-3901 but 3801 was the way to go for me  
With chipset drivers (ASUS 3.10.22.706 ) i noticed better boost at my cores.


----------



## J7SC

Buttergemuese said:


> jep, i also never had USB issues... form BIOS 3501-3901 but 3801 was the way to go for me
> With chipset drivers (ASUS 3.10.22.706 ) i noticed better boost at my cores.


I think I'm on *.706 though I reverted on of my Ryzen5k machines back recently to a previous version (have to check which one). Anyway, even with a fairly 'full house' of all kinds of USB (2.0, 3.0, 3.x, type C) I haven't had a single problem, ever, on either Ryzen5K. Why fix it if it ain't broken.


----------



## Buttergemuese

J7SC said:


> I think I'm on *.706 though I reverted on of my Ryzen5k machines back recently to a previous version (have to check which one). Anyway, even with a fairly 'full house' of all kinds of USB (2.0, 3.0, 3.x, type C) I haven't had a single problem, ever, on either Ryzen5K. Why fix it if it ain't broken.


 what score you get in time spy (CPU) its a good compare for RAM settings. @stock my score ist @ 16000 +/- 200. All people should score with 5950x between 14500-16000 @stock. If not something is wrong


----------



## J7SC

Buttergemuese said:


> what score you get in time spy (CPU) its a good compare for RAM settings. @stock my score ist @ 16000 +/- 200. All people should score with 5950x between 14500-16000 @stock. If not something is wrong


Per TS CPU below, it depends on what you mean by stock with a Dark Hero board (ie. DynamicOC which I run most of the time)...but yeah, can't complain. I have higher TS CPU than 17006 but not on daily settings.

I find 5950X, fast 32GB of Sammy-B and Dark Hero is a powerful combo right out of the box...every once in a while I try to further the IF 2000 / DDR 4000 but by the time it is error-free, the latency advantage of CL14-14-14 of DDR4 3800 wins out, at least in graphics which is really my major forte. I used to do a lot of HWBot and still have my CPU + GPU LN2 pots, but haven't really touched them in several years. Still, every once in a while I'm wondering just how far I could push the 5950X on subzero


----------



## Buttergemuese

J7SC said:


> Per TS CPU below, it depends on what you mean by stock with a Dark Hero board (ie. DynamicOC which I run most of the time)...but yeah, can't complain. I have higher TS CPU than 17006 but not on daily settings.
> 
> I find 5950X, fast 32GB of Sammy-B and Dark Hero is a powerful combo right out of the box...every once in a while I try to further the IF 2000 / DDR 4000 but by the time it is error-free, the latency advantage of CL14-14-14 of DDR4 3800 wins out, at least in graphics which is really my major forte. I used to do a lot of HWBot and still have my CPU + GPU LN2 pots, but haven't really touched them in several years. Still, every once in a while I'm wondering just how far I could push the 5950X on subzero
> View attachment 2547565


Nahhhhh... Stock means no OC... like PBO or DynamicOC. Only RAM settings and undervoltage are ok. I mean 142/95/140-> settings. lets see what you get @ stock^^


----------



## J7SC

Buttergemuese said:


> Nahhhhh... Stock means no OC... like PBO or DynamicOC. Only RAM settings and undervoltage are ok. I mean 142/95/140-> settings. lets see what you get @ stock^^


Sorry, but it's not so important to me to change my boot settings, given the above posted daily results...I've never run this system in anything but PBO, with or w/o DynamicOC...

Do you ever run CinebenchR23 ?


----------



## Buttergemuese

J7SC said:


> Sorry, but it's not so important to me to change my boot settings, given the above posted daily results...I've never run this system in anything but PBO, with or w/o DynamicOC...
> 
> Do you ever run CinebenchR23 ?


yes, i run R23 with normal settings i scored 26500. With DynamicOC i can do 4.7 all core 1.24v and 31xxx score but over 200W (with AIO). In timespy i scored 17500... @ 4.7
but with 142W i get 16000+ scores.. that is my goal... and i noticed that the RAM settings are importend fore good scores in timespy. You can test the RAM settings with this scores. Better then AIDA


----------



## safedisk

*ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 4002 BETA BIOS*

1. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1206b

New AGESA version has been applied, but there may be bugs.
So please rollback to the previous version if you have any problems
Thanks

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 4002

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 4002

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 4002

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 4002

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 4002

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0602


----------



## xV Slayer

Is the voltage bug fixed?


----------



## xV Slayer

Same voltage restriction trash @safedisk. Back to 3801 once again.


----------



## safedisk

xV Slayer said:


> Is the voltage bug fixed?


Can you tell me what voltage is limited?


----------



## blunden

safedisk said:


> Can you tell me what voltage is limited?


 I'm pretty sure he means that the CPU voltage is limited to 1.425v when you set EDC above 140. It has been a problem in every release after 3801 as far as I know, certainly every 4xxx release.


----------



## Luggage

safedisk said:


> Can you tell me what voltage is limited?


Vid locks at 1.425v If you put EDC over 140A (for 5800x and up, even lower for 5600x)
If you put Edc to auto in bios you can have higher edc with Ryzen master and get the old 1.5v vid limit.


From agesa 1205.
Same with MSI and ASUS.



http://imgur.com/a/d5cReXo


----------



## xV Slayer

Luggage said:


> Vid locks at 1.425v If you put EDC over 140A (for 5800x and up, even lower for 5600x)
> If you put Edc to auto in bios you can have higher edc with Ryzen master and get the old 1.5v vid limit.
> 
> 
> From agesa 1205.
> Same with MSI and ASUS.
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/d5cReXo


What this fine gentleman posted.


----------



## xV Slayer

xV Slayer said:


> What this fine gentleman posted.


If you could talk to AMD and get them to fix it like they eventually did with the IOD/CCD voltages being locked that would be greatly appreciated @safedisk.


----------



## P1ngou1N

I wanted to give a try at overclocking my ram from 3600 to 3800 by reading this thread but am wondering if it's the right choice for me.

Trying to do that, I have to Increase Vsoc and other voltages. It seems that by increasing Vsoc, CPU heats more ? It seems my cpu clocks lower and am losing a bunch of points on cinebench from 3600 to 3800 (fclk 1900, same timings as 3600, Aida reports a lot better scores on Ram).
Is it possible that increasing Vsoc by 0.08v make me lose 500 points on CB20 multi or did I do something wrong ?

I wonder if I should not just try to lower my timings at 3600Mhz if it let me keep my Vsoc @1.05.

Thanks !


----------



## Anulu

Just did a quick Test if Bios 4002 async is working now with D.O.C.P Profile.With 4001 it didnt even boot when i put the 1/2 Divider for mclk/uclk even without DOCP and all manual Settings.
Need to optimize the Subtimings since trc,tfaw and twr are way to high on Auto but its something i can start and i finally know the Ram works as advertised.
But first i have to do my 3800c14 Settings again because i didnt save the Profiles to the USB Stick but the txt with ctrl+F2 🤣


----------



## metalshark

P1ngou1N said:


> I wanted to give a try at overclocking my ram from 3600 to 3800 by reading this thread but am wondering if it's the right choice for me.
> 
> Trying to do that, I have to Increase Vsoc and other voltages. It seems that by increasing Vsoc, CPU heats more ? It seems my cpu clocks lower and am losing a bunch of points on cinebench from 3600 to 3800 (fclk 1900, same timings as 3600, Aida reports a lot better scores on Ram).
> Is it possible that increasing Vsoc by 0.08v make me lose 500 points on CB20 multi or did I do something wrong ?
> 
> I wonder if I should not just try to lower my timings at 3600Mhz if it let me keep my Vsoc @1.05.
> 
> Thanks !


If going from 3600 to 3800 and losing points at the same timings it sounds to me more like either the PLL needs to be increased or the extra heat being generated is costing you more than the speed increase.


----------



## P1ngou1N

metalshark said:


> If going from 3600 to 3800 and losing points at the same timings it sounds to me more like either the PLL needs to be increased or the extra heat being generated is costing you more than the speed increase.


Thanks, I am going to check my PLL and monitor my temps with and without RAM Oc tonight.


----------



## metalshark

P1ngou1N said:


> Thanks, I am going to check my PLL and monitor my temps with and without RAM Oc tonight.


If it's PLL, even going from 1.8 to 1.83 you'll notice the speed start to pick up.


----------



## Gondar

Approximately how much could I safe overclock gskill flarex 3200cl14?


----------



## metalshark

Gondar said:


> Approximately how much could I safe overclock gskill flarex 3200cl14?


Every stick will perform differently due to variance. Also don't think anyone can say "safe" with overclocking, e.g. it'll always be at your own risk, even when not exceeding the datasheet for the memory chips there's the IMC in the processor, the PCB of the RAM sticks, etc. Although here's at least someone posting claiming stability using your kit at 3600MT/s:

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/cqq8bg

Going through this thread you'll find plenty of advice on what to do to test stability and overclock your sticks so would encourage having a look and seeing what you can get.


----------



## Kelutrel

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2547617
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 4002 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1206b
> 
> New AGESA version has been applied, but there may be bugs.
> So please rollback to the previous version if you have any problems
> Thanks
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 4002
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 4002
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 4002
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 4002
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 4002
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0602


Personally I got better results than ever with the new 1.425v CPU voltage above 140 EDC. I am really really happy with the new BIOSs thermals and performances. I have a C8 Formula. Please don't flame me.


----------



## Luggage

Kelutrel said:


> Personally I got better results than ever with the new 1.425v CPU voltage above 140 EDC. I am really really happy with the new BIOSs thermals and performances. I have a C8 Formula. Please don't flame me.


If it lowers your temp more than it hinders boost voltage you will see a net boost increase.

for me with an overkill cooling I lose performance because I can keep it cool enough to benefit from the last bit of voltage.


----------



## Kelutrel

Luggage said:


> If it lowers your temp more than it hinders boost voltage you will see a net boost increase.
> 
> for me with an overkill cooling I lose performance because I can keep it cool enough to benefit from the last bit of voltage.


That is my guess too. I have a good 280 AIO, but it is still a mainstream AIO.


----------



## Anulu

Same Settings for Curve Optimizer and Powerlimit 200/160Tdc/140Edc i used with Bios 4001.
Have to check Performance/Latency with Win10 because Armoury Crate and other Crap on Win11. 
Noticed PowerReportingDeviation doesnt drop anymore in HWinfo.So far im happy with this new Bios maybe i can finally get GDM disabled Error free in the next few Days
Edit:
CB20 SingleCore dropped from 649 to 638 and Aida Latency is a little bit higher too..need to try different settings in PBO/CO this Agesa Version SC boost doesnt work the same as with Bios 3904/4001


----------



## Blackfyre

Anulu said:


> because Armoury Crate and other Crap on Win11.


You can disable it in the BIOS and then uninstall and disable it from boot services. You'll never see it again.

I have been using Windows 11 for months.


----------



## Nitethorn

J7SC said:


> @Buttergemuese --- congrats !  I've played around with GDM off / 1T on 2950X, 3950X and 5950X and know it is not easy by any stretch of the imagination, at least not with four sticks.
> 
> With even CL values, it may not make as much of a difference though I will have to revisit GDM off for CL15 at DDDR4 4000. I did notice your L1, L2 and L3 cache speeds though - is that Win 11 (I run Win 10 Pro re. below) ? I thought they fixed that with patches.
> 
> View attachment 2547544


Just wanted to interject real quickly that just for ****s and giggles I copied these exact settings for my kit (same exact kit as yours) and it worked flawlessly. I'm getting even better latency now than you have in that screenshot. I'm using c8h hero non-wifi w/ 5800x. Thanks so much for sharing


----------



## Radulus

Hello Guys. So I bought Arctic Freezer 2 360mm radiator. I am testing it, but I found something interesting in manual. For Ryzen 3000/5000 it is recommended to use an offset. Do you have it set..? Have you tested..? Do you have some results..? Is if better to cover whole CPU or just partialy with offset..? Any compare results..?

And also, which CPU temps I should check..? CPU Package, or CPU..? I usually look at Asus AI Suite 3 and temps are completely different. Thank you

PS.: Result from CPU-Z bench.. It seems to be really low. Isn't it..?


----------



## J7SC

Nitethorn said:


> Just wanted to interject real quickly that just for ****s and giggles I copied these exact settings for my kit (same exact kit as yours) and it worked flawlessly. I'm getting even better latency now than you have in that screenshot. I'm using c8h hero non-wifi w/ 5800x. Thanks so much for sharing


You (and Gertrude) are welcome !


----------



## Blackfyre

*Power Reporting Deviation (Accuracy)* issues that were seen in HWiNFO64 with all previous BIOS versions seem to have been fixed with the 4002 beta BIOS (_as I saw mentioned somewhere else_). It is no longer dipping below 90%, *have only tested for 35 minutes so far*, but by now I would have usually dipped below 90% already and into the 70% to 80% region.

I will report back and strikethrough this comment if it does end up dipping as usual.

*EDIT:* I am confident it is 100% resolved. It has been 10+ hours pretty much.


----------



## WINTENDOX

Kelutrel said:


> Personally I got better results than ever with the new 1.425v CPU voltage above 140 EDC. I am really really happy with the new BIOSs thermals and performances. I have a C8 Formula. Please don't flame me.


can you share with me your profile of I think we have the same hardware so I can use it as a guide.


----------



## Anulu

Blackfyre said:


> You can disable it in the BIOS and then uninstall and disable it from boot services. You'll never see it again.
> 
> I have been using Windows 11 for months.


I know but i need it to sync the Lightning of the Board,the Asus 3070EKWB and Ram.
I wish there still was a Standalone Aura Software or some Option in Bios to change some simple Colors...
Every Mainboard i had in the past few Years had this even the cheap Asrock x370 and with the Gigabyte Master z390 we had at least a modded Bios for RGB.
Or they could implement Aura in AI Suite which works great for Fan and Pump control without using much Ressources
20Minutes and two Restarts!
that was needed to uninstall Armoury Crate the last Time with the Uninstall Tool lol


----------



## FrankieBoy

Anulu said:


> I know but i need it to sync the Lightning of the Board,the Asus 3070EKWB and Ram.
> I wish there still was a Standalone Aura Software or some Option in Bios to change some simple Colors...
> Every Mainboard i had in the past few Years had this even the cheap Asrock x370 and with the Gigabyte Master z390 we had at least a modded Bios for RGB.
> Or they could implement Aura in AI Suite which works great for Fan and Pump control without using much Ressources
> 20Minutes and two Restarts!
> that was needed to uninstall Armoury Crate the last Time with the Uninstall Tool lol


Why not use aura sync standalone? ASUS Aura: Campaigns


----------



## Kelutrel

Radulus said:


> Hello Guys. So I bought Arctic Freezer 2 360mm radiator. I am testing it, but I found something interesting in manual. For Ryzen 3000/5000 it is recommended to use an offset. Do you have it set..? Have you tested..? Do you have some results..? Is if better to cover whole CPU or just partialy with offset..? Any compare results..?
> 
> And also, which CPU temps I should check..? CPU Package, or CPU..? I usually look at Asus AI Suite 3 and temps are completely different. Thank you
> 
> PS.: Result from CPU-Z bench.. It seems to be really low. Isn't it..?
> 
> View attachment 2547801


I use offset mounting on my Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280 and the temperature, compared to normal mounting, is 5-6 degrees lower under load. Very worth it imho.
Also, the Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360 is a beast.


----------



## blunden

Anulu said:


> I know but i need it to sync the Lightning of the Board,the Asus 3070EKWB and Ram.
> I wish there still was a Standalone Aura Software or some Option in Bios to change some simple Colors...
> Every Mainboard i had in the past few Years had this even the cheap Asrock x370 and with the Gigabyte Master z390 we had at least a modded Bios for RGB.
> Or they could implement Aura in AI Suite which works great for Fan and Pump control without using much Ressources
> 20Minutes and two Restarts!
> that was needed to uninstall Armoury Crate the last Time with the Uninstall Tool lol


 There are also solutions such as OpenRGB and SignalRGB if you haven't already checked those out. 

I agree that some simple RGB settings in the BIOS would be great though.


----------



## PWn3R

blunden said:


> There are also solutions such as OpenRGB and SignalRGB if you haven't already checked those out.
> 
> I agree that some simple RGB settings in the BIOS would be great though.


I moved to signal rgb because I got tired of the problems with GSKILL ram, icue and the asus board stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kelutrel

WINTENDOX said:


> can you share with me your profile of I think we have the same hardware so I can use it as a guide.


I am still using this BIOS configuration as per post #9929 . Obviously you will have to change ram timings/pbo curve/peripherals depending on your hardware and usage. Also, I am on Win11.


----------



## Radulus

Kelutrel said:


> I use offset mounting on my Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280 and the temperature, compared to normal mounting, is 5-6 degrees lower under load. Very worth it imho.
> Also, the Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360 is a beast.


I control RPM with AI Suite 3. CPU FAN (three Arctic cooling fans) speed is low I would say.. I tested OCCT Linpack and CPU Package is about 65°.. Isn't it too much..?I am not sure on which temp I should focus..? CPU or CPU package..?

Yesterday I saw blue death for first time when I was using the AI Suite3, I will try to reinstall AI Suite completely and will create new FAN profiles.

Any suggestions to air flow? I have Radiator in front and three fans blowing air TO the case through radiator and there is one Noctua in back side, blowing how air from case out of the case. As well as 2 Silentium FANs on top, blowing air out of the case. back and top, there are another three. Any suggestion to improve CPU temps..?


----------



## Anulu

blunden said:


> There are also solutions such as OpenRGB and SignalRGB if you haven't already checked those out.
> 
> I agree that some simple RGB settings in the BIOS would be great though.


Thanks for that Information,both Programms are intersting.I couldnt change Brightness with Asus Aura but with SignalRGB its possible 
For System Performance OpenRGB seems to be better and it doesnt need to run in the Background.




FrankieBoy said:


> Why not use aura sync standalone? ASUS Aura: Campaigns


This old standalone Version does not work with my Mainboard,tested with Win11&Win10


----------



## xeizo

This new 0602(for Extreme) is arguably the worst boosting bios so far, however it is faster in certain tasks like HTML and text compression which is important for the desktop experience. The "bad" boost is most likely intended to enhance stability, as self rebooting PC:s has plagued the 5-series and the high boost behavior is probably why. I take stability over a slight higher score any day, so I'm fine.

It used to boost to 5025MHz with the same settings, now it's 4900MHz, so 125MHz lower. But probably more stable.

Quick run with PBO and 1900 1:1
























Latency is worse, once used to be repeatedly 55ns, but that would be because the lower peak frequency.

edit. YES, it IS more stable. Before I never got WHEA except during heavy gaming, just the occasional no reboot, but now I gamed for a couple of hours and not a single WHEA. It is not conclusive, but looks promising.


----------



## FrankieBoy

FrankieBoy said:


> not use aura sync standalone





Anulu said:


> Thanks for that Information,both Programms are intersting.I couldnt change Brightness with Asus Aura but with SignalRGB its possible
> For System Performance OpenRGB seems to be better and it doesnt need to run in the Background.
> 
> 
> 
> This old standalone Version does not work with my Mainboard,tested with Win11&Win10


My bad, sorry, I thought its 1.07.84 version I`m using, with that v2.2 I couldn`t sync my gskill ram... I`m using 1.07.84 right now with the dark hero (before that I had a B550 F) and it works ok, if you want to give it another try I can give you a link for it.


----------



## Anulu

FrankieBoy said:


> My bad, sorry, I thought its 1.07.84 version I`m using, with that v2.2 I couldn`t sync my gskill ram... I`m using 1.07.84 right now with the dark hero (before that I had a B550 F) and it works ok, if you want to give it another try I can give you a link for it.


No Problem,where did yu get that 1.07.84 Version? I can try it on my Dual Boot Win10 Partition
With Armoury Crate Aura i had to install the Gskill Tool and then deactivate from Autostart to get Control in Aura.
With Open RGB i can change the colors of all Devices including the NVME Extension Card form the CH8 Impact and the 3070EKWB Cable connected to the Header.








The Lightning is useful to distract from what i have done to that poor H200i Case


----------



## Radulus

Am I the only one who doesn't prefer RGB.  I disabled also small LEDs on board, because it disturbed me a lot.


----------



## FrankieBoy

Anulu said:


> No Problem,where did yu get that 1.07.84 Version? I can try it on my Dual Boot Win10 Partition
> With Armoury Crate Aura i had to install the Gskill Tool and then deactivate from Autostart to get Control in Aura.
> With Open RGB i can change the colors of all Devices including the NVME Extension Card form the CH8 Impact and the 3070EKWB Cable connected to the Header.
> 
> View attachment 2547954
> 
> The Lightning is useful to distract from what i have done to that poor H200i Case


hey if it works  ...here is a link for the 1.07.84 : 185.1 MB file on MEGA
I got it from the Asus site, from where I initially pointed you but didn`t really pay attention to which version it was, I just assumed it was the same I had, but apparently they pulled it down for some reason 



Radulus said:


> Am I the only one who doesn't prefer RGB.  I disabled also small LEDs on board, because it disturbed me a lot.


Nope, you are not, I was the same but it slowly started to grow on me  ...plus it is nice to have it on rainbow puke sometimes


----------



## J7SC

FrankieBoy said:


> hey if it works  ...here is a link for the 1.07.84 : 185.1 MB file on MEGA
> I got it from the Asus site, from where I initially pointed you but didn`t really pay attention to which version it was, I just assumed it was the same I had, but apparently they pulled it down for some reason
> 
> Nope, you are not, I was the same but it slowly started to grow on me  ...plus it is nice to have it on rainbow puke sometimes


I'm not a great friend of RGB, but it is becoming more and more difficult to find peripherals that haven't succumbed to that trend...so I just set everything to my favourite blue  .

...system on the left runs it all via Asus Armory Crate, system on the right uses the older free-standing Aura, plus GSkill's little app which I unload after boot-up (RAM colour stays locked)


----------



## Anulu

FrankieBoy said:


> here is a link for the 1.07.84 : 185.1 MB file on MEGA


Thx this Version actually works fine!


----------



## FrankieBoy

Anulu said:


> Thx this Version actually works fine!


...glad I could help


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> I'm not a great friend of RGB, but it is becoming more and more difficult to find peripherals that haven't succumbed to that trend...so I just set everything to my favourite blue  .
> 
> ...system on the left runs it all via Asus Armory Crate, system on the right uses the older free-standing Aura, plus GSkill's little app which I unload after boot-up (RAM colour stays locked)


when do you test 4002 beta for us ? 😜


----------



## WINTENDOX

The best I could do


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> when do you test 4002 beta for us ? 😜


About four years after I finally upgraded from 3501 to 3801 !


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> About four years after I finally upgraded from 3501 to 3801 !


Keep it, this is the best one 👍


----------



## Radulus

Guys.. I tried to tune it .. just a bit for fun

1. I set negative curve to 25 in PBO > All cores. > Max boost increased to 4950MHz (decreased voltage) Following this (



) I have slightly different values in bios.. but I didn't touch max frequency boost.
2. Just for fun I tried to Set RAM frequency manually > Default 3600MHz > 3733MHz > All other data are set to Auto. DOCP profile.. just freqency manually set to 3733MHz

It works..  I cannot believe it, but it works. Currently I am testing it.. for stability.. but it works. I could not run 3900x with higher RAM then 3200MHz.. and now.. with 5900x I can run in on even higher values..  Crazy stuff.


----------



## metalshark

Radulus said:


> Guys.. I tried to tune it .. just a bit for fun
> 
> 1. I set negative curve to 25 in PBO > All cores. > Max boost increased to 4950MHz (decreased voltage) Following this (
> 
> 
> 
> ) I have slightly different values in bios.. but I didn't touch max frequency boost.
> 2. Just for fun I tried to Set RAM frequency manually > Default 3600MHz > 3733MHz > All other data are set to Auto. DOCP profile.. just freqency manually set to 3733MHz
> 
> It works..  I cannot believe it, but it works. Currently I am testing it.. for stability.. but it works. I could not run 3900x with higher RAM then 3200MHz.. and now.. with 5900x I can run in on even higher values..  Crazy stuff.


You may even hit 3800MHz on the RAM.

Remember to look at effective clock speed not the one in Ryzen master or recorded clock speed as that'll not account for clock stretching (which you'll get with many voltage drops). So it might show 5150MHz, but effective shows it's really 4450MHz.

SVI2 + (3mv x CO) per core for its required mv to hit a boost freq at a given power limit under 75'C, so as you change offsets, CO, AGESAs just keep in mind it might be 1445mv to hit 4950MHz on core 1 for instance and 1460mv to hit the same on core 2, etc. Would take good notes to avoid needing to repeat tests and let you dial in the CO values required for max boosting on all cores.


----------



## blunden

metalshark said:


> You may even hit 3800MHz on the RAM.


 He has a 4 stick quad rank setup though if I recall correctly, so I think 3800 MHz might be asking too much of the IMC.


----------



## metalshark

blunden said:


> He has a 4 stick quad rank setup though if I recall correctly, so I think 3800 MHz might be asking too much of the IMC.


Running 4 sticks merrily at 3800MHz here.


----------



## arcanexvi

metalshark said:


> Running 4 sticks merrily at 3800MHz here.


I can't coax more than 3600 out of my sticks that are rated for 4ghz. I get unstable instantly when I go higher.


----------



## metalshark

arcanexvi said:


> I can't coax more than 3600 out of my sticks that are rated for 4ghz. I get unstable instantly when I go higher.


If running dual rank sticks then that’s pretty normal. ChillyRide did some posts on how to get it over 3600. For a 5900/5950 4x8GB SR at 3800MHz seems typically achievable


----------



## J7SC

metalshark said:


> Running 4 sticks merrily at 3800MHz here.


Same here, 4x 8 at 3800CL14, SR though


----------



## AndreDVJ

With the latest beta 4002 (AGESA ComboV2PI 1206b) on my CHVIII Hero + 5900X

Explicitly enabling PBO, EDC is behaving as intended, going up to 200A (the board limit)
VID is still down to 1.42v
Disabling PBO (leaving standard Precision Boost) restores VID to 1.50v, leading to a small performance increase in lightly threaded workloads (between 2% and 3%)


----------



## metalshark

AndreDVJ said:


> With the latest beta 4002 (AGESA ComboV2PI 1206b) on my CHVIII Hero + 5900X
> 
> Explicitly enabling PBO, EDC is behaving as intended, going up to 200A (the board limit)
> VID is still down to 1.42v
> Disabling PBO (leaving standard Precision Boost) restores VID to 1.50v, leading to a small performance increase in lightly threaded workloads (between 2% and 3%)


FYI EDC can go a lot higher than 200A on these boards, you just need the cooling for it to be worthwhile and to configure the limit manually.


----------



## Audioboxer

If only someone in the whole of the tech industry/media with slightly better contacts than "average user on OC.net" could ask AMD directly if this voltage bug is a bug or not. It's been in action for months now given AGESA 1.2.0.5 beta -> final and still we don't know.

But given AMD's hostility to the community and refusal to release proper changelogs, I guess we will need to wait for AGESA 1.2.0.9 to see if it magically goes away one release.


----------



## J7SC

@GRABibus , @metalshark 

...further to 5950X 3DVcache certainly being possible (but will AMD do it ?)...how about > a 64c/128t one w/ 3DVcache...


----------



## kuutale

J7SC said:


> @GRABibus , @metalshark
> 
> ...further to 5950X 3DVcache certainly being possible (but will AMD do it ?)...how about > a 64c/128t one w/ 3DVcache...


 its too expensive and timeline not last long because zen4. 5800x3d lifetime is too short. and cooling dual chiplets can be problem too.


----------



## metalshark

J7SC said:


> @GRABibus , @metalshark
> 
> ...further to 5950X 3DVcache certainly being possible (but will AMD do it ?)...how about > a 64c/128t one w/ 3DVcache...


Will be interesting to see if the 96 core Epycs end up using more or less power. ROFL at this bit:


----------



## J7SC

metalshark said:


> Will be interesting to see if the 96 core Epycs end up using more or less power. ROFL at this bit:
> View attachment 2548303


I like to see a 96 Core 3DVcache Threadripper Pro  I already run other Threadrippers re. work, and cooling is not a problem. Of course next-gen Zen based HEDT would have all that plus 8 (12?) channel of DDR5


----------



## blunden

metalshark said:


> Running 4 sticks merrily at 3800MHz here.


 He has a 4 dual rank sticks though, which you don't. That is a lot harder for the IMC to handle.


----------



## metalshark

blunden said:


> He has a 4 dual rank sticks though, which you don't. That is a lot harder for the IMC to handle.


Hence recommending looking at ChillyRide's posts who posted their findings to get them running over 3600, including getting them running all the way to 3800 (there are some settings you'll only normally need to alter on dual rank).


----------



## blunden

metalshark said:


> Hence recommending looking at ChillyRide's posts who posted their findings to get them running over 3600, including getting them running all the way to 3800 (there are some settings you'll only normally need to alter on dual rank).


 Ah, fair enough. I must've missed that.


----------



## flyinion

Hi guys got a question about curve optimizer. I’ve been using corecycler to find which offsets are stable using the default ycruncher and p95 settings for now on my 5950. I was wondering if there is a reason not to use the -30 offset? My entire 2nd chiplet except one core has been passing down to -25 so far and I never see people listing -30 in their settings.


----------



## Blackfyre

flyinion said:


> Hi guys got a question about curve optimizer. I’ve been using corecycler to find which offsets are stable using the default ycruncher and p95 settings for now on my 5950. I was wondering if there is a reason not to use the -30 offset? My entire 2nd chiplet except one core has been passing down to -25 so far and I never see people listing -30 in their settings.


I have a couple of cores at -30, another couple at -29, and another two at -27 and -25. It depends on your sample and if it's stable. Generally your weakest cores can take the most negative offset, and your strongest cores should run with less of a negative offset. For example on my 5800X, core 4 and 8 run at -17 for best stability.


----------



## flyinion

Blackfyre said:


> I have a couple of cores at -30, another couple at -29, and another two at -27 and -25. It depends on your sample and if it's stable. Generally your weakest cores can take the most negative offset, and your strongest cores should run with less of a negative offset. For example on my 5800X, core 4 and 8 run at -17 for best stability.


Thanks. I’ll give it a try and see then. I still need to do single step testing to fine tune but yeah I have a couple in the first 8 that will only hit 5 or 10 right now.


----------



## metalshark

flyinion said:


> Thanks. I’ll give it a try and see then. I still need to do single step testing to fine tune but yeah I have a couple in the first 8 that will only hit 5 or 10 right now.


If many of your cores are -30 and let's say the lowest offset was -15, then you can apply a negative voltage offset on the processor, so only the very best are at -30. You always want the best to be at -30 but getting more than 2-3 cores hitting -30 is a sign you'll want to be using a negative offset instead to better tune all cores.

Also be careful, testing for stability with CO is one thing, but make sure you're testing for the minimum required for full boost speed instead. You don't want to reduce the mV per core SVI2 + (3mV x CO) below the amount required for max boost speed, even if it's stable. You can use a positive voltage offset too, so if you need 1.48v for your cores to hit max speed (in reality it's more spread out) and are stuck on 1.425v VID max just apply a positive 55mv offset. VID will remain at 1.425v but SVI2 will go up to 1.48v.

When you start adjusting offsets, CO and then going through AGESA versions, the benefits of recording mV per core for max boost comes in real handy as this doesn't change and you can use maths to balance it all out. Just remember to keep the CCX of the core you're testing under 75'C and that you're recording power limits if changing those as hitting them will vary results.


----------



## CyrIng

CyrIng said:


> Can s/o tell what's new for Matisse using BIOS 3904 or latest version, from a 3801 ?
> I'm especially interested about firmware|microcode fixes and features. For example CPPC, HSMP, P-States; also boot kernel log will be appreciated.


Any Matisse owner has experimented Beta 4002 ?


----------



## Kelutrel

metalshark said:


> If many of your cores are -30 and let's say the lowest offset was -15, then you can apply a negative voltage offset on the processor, so only the very best are at -30. You always want the best to be at -30 but getting more than 2-3 cores hitting -30 is a sign you'll want to be using a negative offset instead to better tune all cores.
> 
> Also be careful, testing for stability with CO is one thing, but make sure you're testing for the minimum required for full boost speed instead. You don't want to reduce the mV per core SVI2 + (3mV x CO) below the amount required for max boost speed, even if it's stable. You can use a positive voltage offset too, so if you need 1.48v for your cores to hit max speed (in reality it's more spread out) and are stuck on 1.425v VID max just apply a positive 55mv offset. VID will remain at 1.425v but SVI2 will go up to 1.48v.
> 
> When you start adjusting offsets, CO and then going through AGESA versions, the benefits of recording mV per core for max boost comes in real handy as this doesn't change and you can use maths to balance it all out. Just remember to keep the CCX of the core you're testing under 75'C and that you're recording power limits if changing those as hitting them will vary results.


It should be noted that when you apply a negative voltage offset to the cpu voltage it is applied to sleep states too, and that can quickly cause instabilities as the cpu cores are not able to resuscitate from deep sleep. I have nearly all cores at -30 offsets usually, and tried to have 1.425v at EDC 140 by setting a negative 0.075v offset on the cpu voltage, and did reset all the pbo offsets to 0 as a baseline, but wasn't able to keep stability during sleep states. So now I just use EDC at 141 and let the bug/feature of the latest AGESA do his thing.


----------



## metalshark

Kelutrel said:


> It should be noted that when you apply a negative voltage offset to the cpu voltage it is applied to sleep states too, and that can quickly cause instabilities as the cpu cores are not able to resuscitate from deep sleep. I have nearly all cores at -30 offsets usually, and tried to have 1.425v at EDC 140 by setting a negative 0.075v offset on the cpu voltage, and did reset all the pbo offsets to 0 as a baseline, but wasn't able to keep stability during sleep states. So now I just use EDC at 141 and let the bug/feature of the latest AGESA do his thing.


Not seen it as an issue yet when measuring for the minimum required for maximum (effective) boost speed rather than targeting the minimum needed for stability. Within the realms of possibility that there's an exception, however, yet to see any reports other than yours unless targeting minimum for stability, not minimum for maximum (effective) boost.

Getting the best to -30, leaving the rest on 0 and dropping down the offset step by step should get you to the lowest point before (effective) boost starts dropping boost speed, can then figure out the most appropriate CO values for the others. Remember to look at SVI2 to make sure that LLC, offsets, etc are taken into account instead of VID.


----------



## Kelutrel

metalshark said:


> Not seen it as an issue yet when measuring for the minimum required for maximum boost speed rather than targeting the minimum needed for stability. Within the realms of possibility that there's an exception, however, have only seen it be an issue when targeting minimum for stability, not minimum for maximum boost.
> 
> Getting the best to -30, leaving the rest on 0 and dropping down the offset step by step should get you to the lowest point before boost starts dropping, can then figure out the most appropriate CO values for the others. Remember to look at SVI2 to make sure that LLC, offsets, etc are taken into account instead of VID.


I don't look too much at boost mhz and look mostly at the CBR20 scores, as frequency peaks are misleading. Anyway what I wanted to add to your post was just to keep an eye on the deep sleep voltages, as those can be a source of sudden reboots if you go too low with the negative voltage offset on the cpu. This is to avoid people thinking that 1.425v max vid and -0.075v voltage offset applied to 1.5v would behave the same.


----------



## metalshark

Kelutrel said:


> I don't look too much at boost mhz and look mostly at the CBR20 scores, as frequency peaks are misleading. Anyway what I wanted to add to your post was just to keep an eye on the deep sleep voltages, as those can be a source of sudden reboots if you go too low with the negative voltage offset on the cpu. This is to avoid people thinking that 1.425v max vid and -0.075v voltage offset applied to 1.5v would behave the same.


For single-threaded, sustained max boost (effective) speeds have a direct effect on results. For multi-threaded it depends how thermally constrained you are where getting any thermal headroom can count, no matter the boost speed cost depending on the setup. Would concentrate on SVI2 + (CO x 3mV) rather than VID as VID can be misleading for what's actually being received by any particular core.


----------



## Kelutrel

metalshark said:


> For single-threaded, sustained max boost (effective) speeds have a direct effect on results. For multi-threaded it depends how thermally constrained you are where getting any thermal headroom can count, no matter the boost speed cost depending on the setup. Would concentrate on SVI2 + (CO x 3mV) rather than VID as VID can be misleading for what's actually being received by any particular core.


Yes, I meant that I look at CBR20 scores, single and multithreaded, instead that frequency peaks, because frequency peaks are misleading. Most of the times a boost of 100MHz at lower CO offsets can (and will) provide higher single/multi threaded scores compared to a boost of 200MHz at higher CO offsets, even if the peak frequency is higher in this second case. Because of both the thermal and power impact on the pbo limits and the clock stretching, when you don't have an oversized custom watercooling loop.


----------



## metalshark

Kelutrel said:


> Yes, I meant that I look at CBR20 scores, single and multithreaded, instead that frequency peaks, because frequency peaks are misleading. Most of the times a boost of 100MHz at lower CO offsets can (and will) provide higher single/multi threaded scores compared to a boost of 200MHz at higher CO offsets, even if the peak frequency is higher in this second case. Because of both the thermal and power impact on the pbo limits and the clock stretching, when you don't have an oversized custom watercooling loop.


For effective frequencies? Seen crazy numbers meaning nothing for "Core x Clock", but max boost of "Core x Effective Clock" tracks with ST performance and (thermals permitting) MT performance.


----------



## Kelutrel

metalshark said:


> For effective frequencies? Seen crazy numbers meaning nothing for "Core x Clock", but max boost of "Core x Effective Clock" tracks with ST performance and (thermals permitting) MT performance.


Same thing I am saying, but you said "the minimum required for maximum boost speed" above there so I thought you didn't mean "effective".


----------



## flyinion

Thanks guys, well I'll definitely have some work cut out for me now that I'm down this far on the offset. I got about 1/3rd into the corecycler run and ended up with a reboot, not just a failed core and a WHEA error to go along with it. First time that's happened. At least I know there's at least one core that really didn't like going from 25 to 30.


----------



## Blackfyre

Does the new beta BIOS have higher tolerances for voltages? Assuming the auto values are safe.

I had them manually set straight away to my tested voltages of the past. But I just noticed the following

*Manual:*

VDDG CCD: 0.95v
VDDG IOD: 0.95v
CLDO VDDP: 0.90v

*Auto on 4002 BIOS:*

VDDG CCD: 0.95v
VDDG IOD: 1.05v
CLDO VDDP: 1.10v

I've never set VDDP higher than 1.05 even in testing. I wonder if 1.10v is a safe auto voltage for 24/7 use.


----------



## the901

Blackfyre said:


> Does the new beta BIOS has higher tolerances for voltages? Assuming the auto values are safe.
> 
> I had them manually set straight away to my tested voltages of the past. But I just noticed the following
> 
> *Manual:*
> 
> VDDG CCD: 0.95v
> VDDG IOD: 0.95v
> CLDO VDDP: 0.90v
> 
> *Auto on 4002 BIOS:*
> 
> VDDG CCD: 0.95v
> VDDG IOD: 1.05v
> *CLDO VDDP: 1.10v*
> 
> I've never set VDDP higher than 1.05 even in testing. I wonder if 1.10v is a safe auto voltage for 24/7 use.


Good catch. After some reading, it should be ok. Looks like that's the upper limit, though.


----------



## lmfodor

Hi guys, I have a question. I started experiencing some problem with my old 5900x and maybe it's the processor starting to degrade or maybe my memory configuration is at the limit of the OC. I also have the same @GRABibus configuration, CPU 5900x, MOBO Asus Dark Hero BIOS 3801, GPU Asus Rog Strix 3090 without overclocking, RAM: GSkill TridentZ Neo 3800CL14 x 23GB (F4-3800C14D-32GTZN) running at 3800IF, AIO 360 EKW.
I used this configuration for almost a year without problems in any game or any test. I'm not going to lie to you, I spends about 4 months on Ryzen to understand how some settings work, of course copy several values. and now I am in BIOS version 3801 and I don't dare to change to 4002 or the previous one since I see that the voltage has to be increased. What happens to me with Ryzen is that you have to know Voltages for everything, CCD, IOD, VID? I'm already lost. Many times I thought I was wrong buying Ryzien to play, with Intel everything would have been easier, but the investment is already made.
Now for the first time in months playing Vanguard I find myself with some errors, app hangs. I decide to see if it is a network problem, an operating system problem (removed Windows 11 and installed 10), reinstall all the Nvidia drivers, reinstall the monitor drivers, touch all the Nvidia control panel values to the recommended ones, in short, all kinds troubleshooting, and today for the first time in months I find a WHEA 18 in APIC 9 when I playing Vanguard. This is the error

Reported by component: Processor Core
Error Source: Machine Check Exception
Error Type: Cache Hierarchy Error
Processor APIC ID: 9

This is my overall BIOS configuration:

CPU Core Voltage 1.433V (no offset, just default)
SOC 1.125V
DRAM 1.5V Standard Voltage for this memory kit
CCD 0.98V
IOD 1.050V
VDDP 0.9V 
PLL 1.809
BCLK 100M
Memory Freq 3800 MHz
FCLK 1900
Core Performance Boost AUTO
Core Ratio and CCX Auto
Global C-States Enabled
DF-States Disabled
Power Supply Idle control" Typical Current Idle
SOC/Uncore OC Mode Enabled
PPT 220
TDC 175
EDC 300
Scalar: off
Max CPU Override: +100MHz
Thermal Throttle limit: 90C
Curve Optimizer
Per core (all negatives)
Core 0 -24
Core 1 -24
Core 2 -24
Core 3 - 26
Core 4 -22
Core 5 --22 (24 before)
Core 6 -27
Core 7 -24
Core 8 -23
Core 9 -27
Core 10 and 11: -29

Given this, the first thing I want to do is:
1: Identify the Core, I think it's 4 right?
2) Lower the -24 to -22 of curve optimizer (which I already did)
3) Use GRABibus Memory values?
4) Upgrade and touch the Voltage values?

Can someone give me a recommended voltage recommendation for a 3900x that I bought in Nov-2020? I'm already lost with all the values, I'm not an expert and I know they helped me a lot here and Veii with the memories, I want a stable gaming PC. Here I share the configuration 










Asus BIOS Settings Attached.
I would appreciate any help!!!


----------



## GRABibus

lmfodor said:


> Hi guys, I have a question. I started experiencing some problem with my old 5900x and maybe it's the processor starting to degrade or maybe my memory configuration is at the limit of the OC. I also have the same @GRABibus configuration, CPU 5900x, MOBO Asus Dark Hero BIOS 3801, GPU Asus Rog Strix 3090 without overclocking, RAM: GSkill TridentZ Neo 3800CL14 x 23GB (F4-3800C14D-32GTZN) running at 3800IF, AIO 360 EKW.
> I used this configuration for almost a year without problems in any game or any test. I'm not going to lie to you, I spends about 4 months on Ryzen to understand how some settings work, of course copy several values. and now I am in BIOS version 3801 and I don't dare to change to 4002 or the previous one since I see that the voltage has to be increased. What happens to me with Ryzen is that you have to know Voltages for everything, CCD, IOD, VID? I'm already lost. Many times I thought I was wrong buying Ryzien to play, with Intel everything would have been easier, but the investment is already made.
> Now for the first time in months playing Vanguard I find myself with some errors, app hangs. I decide to see if it is a network problem, an operating system problem (removed Windows 11 and installed 10), reinstall all the Nvidia drivers, reinstall the monitor drivers, touch all the Nvidia control panel values to the recommended ones, in short, all kinds troubleshooting, and today for the first time in months I find a WHEA 18 in APIC 9 when I playing Vanguard. This is the error
> 
> Reported by component: Processor Core
> Error Source: Machine Check Exception
> Error Type: Cache Hierarchy Error
> Processor APIC ID: 9
> 
> This is my overall BIOS configuration:
> 
> CPU Core Voltage 1.433V (no offset, just default)
> SOC 1.125V
> DRAM 1.5V Standard Voltage for this memory kit
> CCD 0.98V
> IOD 1.050V
> VDDP 0.9V
> PLL 1.809
> BCLK 100M
> Memory Freq 3800 MHz
> FCLK 1900
> Core Performance Boost AUTO
> Core Ratio and CCX Auto
> Global C-States Enabled
> DF-States Disabled
> Power Supply Idle control" Typical Current Idle
> SOC/Uncore OC Mode Enabled
> PPT 220
> TDC 175
> EDC 300
> Scalar: off
> Max CPU Override: +100MHz
> Thermal Throttle limit: 90C
> Curve Optimizer
> Per core (all negatives)
> Core 0 -24
> Core 1 -24
> Core 2 -24
> Core 3 - 26
> Core 4 -22
> Core 5 --22 (24 before)
> Core 6 -27
> Core 7 -24
> Core 8 -23
> Core 9 -27
> Core 10 and 11: -29
> 
> Given this, the first thing I want to do is:
> 1: Identify the Core, I think it's 4 right?
> 2) Lower the -24 to -22 of curve optimizer (which I already did)
> 3) Use GRABibus Memory values?
> 4) Upgrade and touch the Voltage values?
> 
> Can someone give me a recommended voltage recommendation for a 3900x that I bought in Nov-2020? I'm already lost with all the values, I'm not an expert and I know they helped me a lot here and Veii with the memories, I want a stable gaming PC. Here I share the configuration
> 
> View attachment 2548539
> 
> 
> Asus BIOS Settings Attached.
> I would appreciate any help!!!


which Nvidia drivers were you running when getting hangs during the game ?
The last drivers set 511.79 solve some issues with hanging in Vanguard.

if you have former version, install the last set 511.79 and see during some days if you get same issues.


----------



## metalshark

lmfodor said:


> Hi guys, I have a question. I started experiencing some problem with my old 5900x and maybe it's the processor starting to degrade or maybe my memory configuration is at the limit of the OC. I also have the same @GRABibus configuration, CPU 5900x, MOBO Asus Dark Hero BIOS 3801, GPU Asus Rog Strix 3090 without overclocking, RAM: GSkill TridentZ Neo 3800CL14 x 23GB (F4-3800C14D-32GTZN) running at 3800IF, AIO 360 EKW.
> I used this configuration for almost a year without problems in any game or any test. I'm not going to lie to you, I spends about 4 months on Ryzen to understand how some settings work, of course copy several values. and now I am in BIOS version 3801 and I don't dare to change to 4002 or the previous one since I see that the voltage has to be increased. What happens to me with Ryzen is that you have to know Voltages for everything, CCD, IOD, VID? I'm already lost. Many times I thought I was wrong buying Ryzien to play, with Intel everything would have been easier, but the investment is already made.
> Now for the first time in months playing Vanguard I find myself with some errors, app hangs. I decide to see if it is a network problem, an operating system problem (removed Windows 11 and installed 10), reinstall all the Nvidia drivers, reinstall the monitor drivers, touch all the Nvidia control panel values to the recommended ones, in short, all kinds troubleshooting, and today for the first time in months I find a WHEA 18 in APIC 9 when I playing Vanguard. This is the error
> 
> Reported by component: Processor Core
> Error Source: Machine Check Exception
> Error Type: Cache Hierarchy Error
> Processor APIC ID: 9
> 
> This is my overall BIOS configuration:
> 
> CPU Core Voltage 1.433V (no offset, just default)
> SOC 1.125V
> DRAM 1.5V Standard Voltage for this memory kit
> CCD 0.98V
> IOD 1.050V
> VDDP 0.9V
> PLL 1.809
> BCLK 100M
> Memory Freq 3800 MHz
> FCLK 1900
> Core Performance Boost AUTO
> Core Ratio and CCX Auto
> Global C-States Enabled
> DF-States Disabled
> Power Supply Idle control" Typical Current Idle
> SOC/Uncore OC Mode Enabled
> PPT 220
> TDC 175
> EDC 300
> Scalar: off
> Max CPU Override: +100MHz
> Thermal Throttle limit: 90C
> Curve Optimizer
> Per core (all negatives)
> Core 0 -24
> Core 1 -24
> Core 2 -24
> Core 3 - 26
> Core 4 -22
> Core 5 --22 (24 before)
> Core 6 -27
> Core 7 -24
> Core 8 -23
> Core 9 -27
> Core 10 and 11: -29
> 
> Given this, the first thing I want to do is:
> 1: Identify the Core, I think it's 4 right?
> 2) Lower the -24 to -22 of curve optimizer (which I already did)
> 3) Use GRABibus Memory values?
> 4) Upgrade and touch the Voltage values?
> 
> Can someone give me a recommended voltage recommendation for a 3900x that I bought in Nov-2020? I'm already lost with all the values, I'm not an expert and I know they helped me a lot here and Veii with the memories, I want a stable gaming PC. Here I share the configuration
> 
> View attachment 2548539
> 
> 
> Asus BIOS Settings Attached.
> I would appreciate any help!!!


Machine Cache Hierachy is normally a core undervolted to the point of instability. CoreCycler GitHub - sp00n/corecycler: Stability test script for PBO & Curve Optimizer stability testing on AMD Ryzen processors on both its default setting and with y-cruncher (on its default) run overnight should result in either a restart (where the WHEA or log will tell you the affected core) or it failing in which case the same (don’t undervolt that core as much). Keep repeating and reducing on cores until stable (there’ll normally be a lot of headroom thermally to get faster boosting too but a topic for another time).

From that WHEA there’s no indication of a RAM issue so would only change one group of settings at a time. Once your CO is stable with individual core boosting using CoreCycler run some all core low effort stuff like CB23/OCCT for an hour or two followed by an hour or two of some higher effort y-Cruncher or 128/128 no AVX Prime95 just to make sure it’s holding it together. After a couple of weeks of it not falling down then looking at memory settings and getting them faster sounds good, but try not to change everything at once.


----------



## GRABibus

metalshark said:


> Machine Cache Hierachy is normally a core undervolted to the point of instability. CoreCycler GitHub - sp00n/corecycler: Stability test script for PBO & Curve Optimizer stability testing on AMD Ryzen processors on both its default setting and with y-cruncher (on its default) run overnight should result in either a restart (where the WHEA or log will tell you the affected core) or it failing in which case the same (don’t undervolt that core as much). Keep repeating and reducing on cores until stable (there’ll normally be a lot of headroom thermally to get faster boosting too but a topic for another time).
> 
> From that WHEA there’s no indication of a RAM issue so would only change one group of settings at a time. Once your CO is stable with individual core boosting using CoreCycler run some all core low effort stuff like CB23/OCCT for an hour or two followed by an hour or two of some higher effort y-Cruncher or 128/128 no AVX Prime95 just to make sure it’s holding it together. After a couple of weeks of it not falling down then looking at memory settings and getting them faster sounds good, but try not to change everything at once.


You are probably right but I should try first last nvidia driver release.


----------



## lmfodor

GRABibus said:


> which Nvidia drivers were you running when getting hangs during the game ?
> The last drivers set 511.79 solve some issues with hanging in Vanguard.
> 
> if you have former version, install the last set 511.79 and see during some days if you get same issues.


Hi @GRABibus, let me tell you that I've been playing in Vanguard for almost 9 days (in game) and just as of this past Friday I started with an APP Hang error (1001 as is reported in the event viewer,) when I select the "Multiplayer" mode it hangs. If I select another mode, campaing or zombies continues. I thought it was a Vanguard bug, but couldn't find anything. Of course I always use the latest Nvidia driver, but I tried an older one, then DDUed without network, reinstalled the latest one. I deactivated my router and tried connecting by phone, I uninstalled Windows 11 because I thought that some new Windows update fix broke it, I installed all windows 10 from scratch. A clean installation, with what is necessary to play. And I find the same thing. And today, for the first time in months, I'm getting a WHEA 18. So, there's some hardware issue, I guess. I have this configuration working since March of last year. I think I spent the processor of both Y-Cruncher, Core Cycler, OCCT, the same with the memories... months to achieve lower latency and just with a new (and expensive at the time) memory optimized for Ryzen 5000, which is More marketing than anything else. Months running test... at one point I reached this configuration and it stayed that way, without errors, without BSOD, without anything. Running Windows 11 with latency issues, but never a BSOD. I went back to 10 because the latency and the L3 cache is better. But only for that. So I don't know what else to do... for now I lower Core 4 (which is the best core) 2 levels to -22 instead of -24... which I understand is the APIC indicated by the Event Viewer. Actually I am tempted to go to the newer BIOS, but I don't know what Voltage values to put, if I have to put a positive offset, if I have to change IOD, CDD, etc, and even if it affects the manual curve that occurs after weeks of running Core Cycler. 

I really don't know how to move on.. any ideas?


----------



## GRABibus

lmfodor said:


> Hi @GRABibus, let me tell you that I've been playing in Vanguard for almost 9 days (in game) and just as of this past Friday I started with an APP Hang error (1001 as is reported in the event viewer,) when I select the "Multiplayer" mode it hangs. If I select another mode, campaing or zombies continues. I thought it was a Vanguard bug, but couldn't find anything. Of course I always use the latest Nvidia driver, but I tried an older one, then DDUed without network, reinstalled the latest one. I deactivated my router and tried connecting by phone, I uninstalled Windows 11 because I thought that some new Windows update fix broke it, I installed all windows 10 from scratch. A clean installation, with what is necessary to play. And I find the same thing. And today, for the first time in months, I'm getting a WHEA 18. So, there's some hardware issue, I guess. I have this configuration working since March of last year. I think I spent the processor of both Y-Cruncher, Core Cycler, OCCT, the same with the memories... months to achieve lower latency and just with a new (and expensive at the time) memory optimized for Ryzen 5000, which is More marketing than anything else. Months running test... at one point I reached this configuration and it stayed that way, without errors, without BSOD, without anything. Running Windows 11 with latency issues, but never a BSOD. I went back to 10 because the latency and the L3 cache is better. But only for that. So I don't know what else to do... for now I lower Core 4 (which is the best core) 2 levels to -22 instead of -24... which I understand is the APIC indicated by the Event Viewer. Actually I am tempted to go to the newer BIOS, but I don't know what Voltage values to put, if I have to put a positive offset, if I have to change IOD, CDD, etc, and even if it affects the manual curve that occurs after weeks of running Core Cycler.
> 
> I really don't know how to move on.. any ideas?


Th last drivers have been released today.
I doubt you used them 9 days ago.


----------



## lmfodor

metalshark said:


> Machine Cache Hierachy is normally a core undervolted to the point of instability. CoreCycler GitHub - sp00n/corecycler: Stability test script for PBO & Curve Optimizer stability testing on AMD Ryzen processors on both its default setting and with y-cruncher (on its default) run overnight should result in either a restart (where the WHEA or log will tell you the affected core) or it failing in which case the same (don’t undervolt that core as much). Keep repeating and reducing on cores until stable (there’ll normally be a lot of headroom thermally to get faster boosting too but a topic for another time).
> 
> From that WHEA there’s no indication of a RAM issue so would only change one group of settings at a time. Once your CO is stable with individual core boosting using CoreCycler run some all core low effort stuff like CB23/OCCT for an hour or two followed by an hour or two of some higher effort y-Cruncher or 128/128 no AVX Prime95 just to make sure it’s holding it together. After a couple of weeks of it not falling down then looking at memory settings and getting them faster sounds good, but try not to change everything at once.


Hi @metalshark, I'm gonna do it again. I don't run core cycler for a long time.. that's why I'm thinking perhaps my processor degraded a bit, because a lot of days of running Y/Cruncher all test (that's hard to pass), Core Cycler for weeks.. I will run it again.. but, the game issue.. I'm lost.

I wonder if the new BIOS with new voltage requirements would work better. I don't have temperature problems with the AIO 360. What I would like to know is if the new AGESA BIOS 4002 is better, that is, the IF, the powerstates, the cache and even PBO work better. What I really don't like is playing with voltages, because it should be easy, and playing with so many voltages where I don't know the concepts well, with trial and error, really tires me.

Thanks for your help!


----------



## lmfodor

GRABibus said:


> Th last drivers have been released today.
> I doubt you used them 9 days ago.


Oh, I updated last night (early morning today), perhaps for the time zone I didn't get the last version. I'm gonna update right now!

Regarding the WHEA, do you think it could be related to the NVIDIA Drivers? Also the App Hang? 

Since I don't have overclocked my ROG Strix 3090, I never experience any issues in games for a long time. Always the issues was related to the GPU OC.. but with Windows, never. 

Thanks for your help, and as you have the same memories like me, I would like to try your timing/values in my system. Not now, after fixing this issue..

Best, Martin


----------



## GRABibus

lmfodor said:


> Oh, I updated last night (early morning today), perhaps for the time zone I didn't get the last version. I'm gonna update right now!
> 
> Regarding the WHEA, do you think it could be related to the NVIDIA Drivers? Also the App Hang?
> 
> Since I don't have overclocked my ROG Strix 3090, I never experience any issues in games for a long time. Always the issues was related to the GPU OC.. but with Windows, never.
> 
> Thanks for your help, and as you have the same memories like me, I would like to try your timing/values in my system. Not now, after fixing this issue..
> 
> Best, Martin


@metalshark is probably right.

But look :









Try them and if it doesn't help, go to @metalshark proposal.


----------



## Sleepycat

lmfodor said:


> I really don't know how to move on.. any ideas?


Changing Core 4 offset from -24 to -22 is not much. I would change it to -18 and retest Vanguard. If it works fine, then start stepping back to -20 and repeat until it hangs again. 

If -18 still hangs, then go to -12 and retest.


----------



## metalshark

lmfodor said:


> Oh, I updated last night (early morning today), perhaps for the time zone I didn't get the last version. I'm gonna update right now!
> 
> Regarding the WHEA, do you think it could be related to the NVIDIA Drivers? Also the App Hang?
> 
> Since I don't have overclocked my ROG Strix 3090, I never experience any issues in games for a long time. Always the issues was related to the GPU OC.. but with Windows, never.
> 
> Thanks for your help, and as you have the same memories like me, I would like to try your timing/values in my system. Not now, after fixing this issue..
> 
> Best, Martin


Hey Martin,
Looking at your settings you likely already know the following two points, just putting them out there in case.
1) Updates in games and drivers can shift around the load of the system onto other cores, so assuming that core 4 wasn’t one of the cores with a star against it, there may have been a latent issue with too aggressive a CO all this time rather than degradation. If it’s one of the preferred (starred) cores then yeah would go down the degradation train of thought.
2) The PHYRDL on that ZenTimings screenshot is 28. When moving on to the RAM stuff you might want to head into Tweaker’s Paradise and have a play with VTTDDR, VPP_MEM and DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA/CHB to see if you can get it to 26.
On a final note the 3090 Strix is an absolute blast to OC.


----------



## metalshark

Blackfyre said:


> Does the new beta BIOS have higher tolerances for voltages? Assuming the auto values are safe.
> 
> I had them manually set straight away to my tested voltages of the past. But I just noticed the following
> 
> *Manual:*
> 
> VDDG CCD: 0.95v
> VDDG IOD: 0.95v
> CLDO VDDP: 0.90v
> 
> *Auto on 4002 BIOS:*
> 
> VDDG CCD: 0.95v
> VDDG IOD: 1.05v
> CLDO VDDP: 1.10v
> 
> I've never set VDDP higher than 1.05 even in testing. I wonder if 1.10v is a safe auto voltage for 24/7 use.


Used to have issues with a CLDO VDDP over 0.925 (VDDP is solid on 0.72) and could run it as low as 0.88 so left it there back in UEFI 2701 (think that was the version number) and forever more. Now able to run it much higher, 0.975 for instance without stability being an issue and it’s letting me tweak some timings. Early days but this is giving my memory overclocking a new lease of life, well done with the spot.


----------



## LtMatt

Does anyone know which is the most recent BIOS that does not have the voltage capped to 1.425v once EDC goes past 140A?


----------



## J7SC

metalshark said:


> Hey Martin,
> Looking at your settings you likely already know the following two points, just putting them out there in case.
> 1) Updates in games and drivers can shift around the load of the system onto other cores, so assuming that core 4 wasn’t one of the cores with a star against it, there may have been a latent issue with too aggressive a CO all this time rather than degradation. If it’s one of the preferred (starred) cores then yeah would go down the degradation train of thought.
> 2) The PHYRDL on that ZenTimings screenshot is 28. When moving on to the RAM stuff you might want to head into Tweaker’s Paradise and have a play with VTTDDR, VPP_MEM and DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA/CHB to see if you can get it to 26.
> On a final note the 3090 Strix is an absolute blast to OC.


Re. 2.) does this apply to 3050X as well, or just 5950X (I use both, at DDR4 3800 ) ? Re. 3090 Strix OC, it is indeed > a blast to OC, but so is the 6900XT OC


----------



## metalshark

J7SC said:


> Re. 2.) does this apply to 3050X as well, or just 5950X (I use both, at DDR4 3800 ) ? Re. 3090 Strix OC, it is indeed > a blast to OC, but so is the 6900XT OC


Can't take away from anyone's 6900XT OC'ing experience :-D The Digital VRMs with easily accessible points, easy placement for adding 220 caps, room to add adjustable shunt mods and availability of both double sided waterblocks and 1000W vBIOSes (still needs shunt mods) earns a special place in my heart (this doesn't mean it can beat a 6900XT in a particular benchmark though).

I don't have much experience at all on Zen 2. A quick Google shows the 3050X being a Roku 2 TV device or a rear drag fishing wheel?!? But am assuming it was a typo and a Zen 2 device where I haven't a clue.


----------



## GRABibus

LtMatt said:


> Does anyone know which is the most recent BIOS that does not have the voltage capped to 1.425v once EDC goes past 140A?


3801


----------



## J7SC

metalshark said:


> Can't take away from anyone's 6900XT OC'ing experience :-D The Digital VRMs with easily accessible points, easy placement for adding 220 caps, room to add adjustable shunt mods and availability of both double sided waterblocks and 1000W vBIOSes (still needs shunt mods) earns a special place in my heart (this doesn't mean it can beat a 6900XT in a particular benchmark though).
> 
> I don't have much experience at all on Zen 2. A quick Google shows the 3050X being a Roku 2 TV device or a rear drag fishing wheel?!? But am assuming it was a typo and a Zen 2 device where I haven't a clue.


...yes, the super top secret 3050X I meant 3950X.  
FYI, per earlier link, I run both 3090 Strix OC and 6900XT OC in the same 'case' in a work-play. build. My Strix is mostly on 520W vbios but I have 3 different 1kw vbios for it for when I feel adventurous...not sure why one would want to shunt mod w/those XOC vbios and the Strix's strong VRM. Anyhow, 5950X w/3090 Strix OC is a great combo


----------



## metalshark

J7SC said:


> ...yes, the super top secret 3050X I meant 3950X.
> FYI, per earlier link, I run both 3090 Strix OC and 6900XT OC in the same 'case' in a work-play. build. My Strix is mostly on 520W vbios but I have 3 different 1kw vbios for it for when I feel adventurous...not sure why one would want to shunt mod w/those XOC vbios and the Strix's strong VRM. Anyhow, 5950X w/3090 Strix OC is a great combo


On the 1000W VBIOS it taps out at 577W without shunt mods where you can pull just under 800W on water (with shunt mods). Anything over 600W heats the room too much for me for 24/7 and requires running a humidifier otherwise my room becomes a hot dry desert. Adjustable shunt mods being the order of duty here as you can also balance the 3 power rails more nicely and run it at full pelt in winter with a window open.
A 3090, 6900XT and a top secret 3050X. Damn


----------



## LorDClockaN

J7SC said:


> ...yes, the super top secret 3050X I meant 3950X.
> FYI, per earlier link, I run both 3090 Strix OC and 6900XT OC in the same 'case' in a work-play. build. My Strix is mostly on 520W vbios but I have 3 different 1kw vbios for it for when I feel adventurous...not sure why one would want to shunt mod w/those XOC vbios and the Strix's strong VRM. Anyhow, 5950X w/3090 Strix OC is a great combo


Any chance to share where you got increased TDP bios for strix? I have Asus Strix OC 3090 model and can't find it on TechPowerUp site

Thank you


----------



## GRABibus

LorDClockaN said:


> Any chance to share where you got increased TDP bios for strix? I have Asus Strix OC 3090 model and can't find it on TechPowerUp site
> 
> Thank you


----------



## J7SC

LorDClockaN said:


> Any chance to share where you got increased TDP bios for strix? I have Asus Strix OC 3090 model and can't find it on TechPowerUp site
> 
> Thank you


...caution re. cooling requirements, but this thread has some of them linked > here (KPE) ...apart from @GRABibus post, Techpowerup also has them if you choose 'unverified' filter


----------



## PWn3R

Blackfyre said:


> Does the new beta BIOS have higher tolerances for voltages? Assuming the auto values are safe.
> 
> I had them manually set straight away to my tested voltages of the past. But I just noticed the following
> 
> *Manual:*
> 
> VDDG CCD: 0.95v
> VDDG IOD: 0.95v
> CLDO VDDP: 0.90v
> 
> *Auto on 4002 BIOS:*
> 
> VDDG CCD: 0.95v
> VDDG IOD: 1.05v
> CLDO VDDP: 1.10v
> 
> I've never set VDDP higher than 1.05 even in testing. I wonder if 1.10v is a safe auto voltage for 24/7 use.


Mine was auto to 1.09 before this. Can’t easily check no because anticheat is blocking the driver.


----------



## LorDClockaN

J7SC said:


> ...caution re. cooling requirements, but this thread has some of them linked > here (KPE) ...apart from @GRABibus post, Techpowerup also has them if you choose 'unverified' filter


Thanks, already have water EKWB on it from day 1


----------



## lmfodor

metalshark said:


> Hey Martin,
> Looking at your settings you likely already know the following two points, just putting them out there in case.
> 1) Updates in games and drivers can shift around the load of the system onto other cores, so assuming that core 4 wasn’t one of the cores with a star against it, there may have been a latent issue with too aggressive a CO all this time rather than degradation. If it’s one of the preferred (starred) cores then yeah would go down the degradation train of thought.
> 2) The PHYRDL on that ZenTimings screenshot is 28. When moving on to the RAM stuff you might want to head into Tweaker’s Paradise and have a play with VTTDDR, VPP_MEM and DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA/CHB to see if you can get it to 26.
> On a final note the 3090 Strix is an absolute blast to OC.


Hey @metalshark, yes, I guess what you said is what happened here. I just open HWInfo and I notice more CPU above 5000, so, Windows is not handling well the best core. Indeed, the core that show up the APIC error is my BEST Core, the 4th, which I understand is the APIC 9 right? 

Regarding PHYRDL, I don't know what is it, but in Tweaker paradise I only set VPP_MEM if I recall well, that should be Mem Voltage /2 right? What values should I set in VTTDRR and what about DRAM CTRL REF on CHA/CHB? I never heard or see it before. Can you guide me? Should I set 26 in all this settings? 

Thanks!


----------



## metalshark

lmfodor said:


> Hey @metalshark, yes, I guess what you said is what happened here. I just open HWInfo and I notice more CPU above 5000, so, Windows is not handling well the best core. Indeed, the core that show up the APIC error is my BEST Core, the 4th, which I understand is the APIC 9 right?
> 
> Regarding PHYRDL, I don't know what is it, but in Tweaker paradise I only set VPP_MEM if I recall well, that should be Mem Voltage /2 right? What values should I set in VTTDRR and what about DRAM CTRL REF on CHA/CHB? I never heard or see it before. Can you guide me? Should I set 26 in all this settings?
> 
> Thanks!


That sucks with core 4. Sounds like you’re right about degradation with it being your best core (happy for both of us if wrong though).

tPHYRDL you can’t set manually. You’ll see it at the bottom of ZenTimings. Also use the little drop down to check all sticks as different ones can have different tPHYRDL.

Let’s say you up CLDO VDDP to 0.915 and at that point A1/A2 move to tPHYRDL of 26, but B1/B2 are still on 28. Then you can use DRAM CTRL REF on CHB to increase the reference voltage by changing the default of 0.5 to 0.51, etc and seeing if you can nudge it enough to get them in balance. Remember if it’s going a bit crazy you can increase the base for both channels and apply a negative reference to CHA like 0.49, etc. this is only the reference voltage though so only has a limited effect and is for fine tuning, like nudging a channel into correct tPHYRDL. If the reference change makes things worse, go the other way (e.g. the rule isn't more = better for every system).

VTTDDR on auto is meant to be 1/2 vDIMM but over 1.5v vDIMM it doesn’t always automatically adjust correctly, so you might need to configure (effectively increase) it manually to stop tPHYRDL dropping.

VPP_MEM is meant to be on 2.5 but some kits prefer a bit more and some a bit less. 2.48-2.52 is a common range with 2.46-2.54 in extreme examples. A little goes a long way.

For reference (and just as you said)

APIC 0: Core 0
APIC 1: Core 0
APIC 2: Core 1
APIC 3: Core 1
APIC 4: Core 2
APIC 5: Core 2
APIC 6: Core 3
APIC 7: Core 3
APIC 8: Core 4
APIC 9: Core 4 <- this one


----------



## xeizo

At last I managed to tweak "normal" results out of the 0602 bios using PBO, it was total underwhelming using the same settings as before but now it looks ok for only -15 CO and one core at 0. If -30 is stable(I don't think it is) I will be back at or close to the top results from the best of your rigs. So, the bios is not bad, only slight different.


----------



## metalshark

Yuri (1usmus) just posted about AMD reducing their advertised max boost clocks for Zen 3 on their website in line with AGESA 1.2.0.5+. Seems to go hand in hand with stock voltages being 1.425 max when turning up EDC before offsetting to compensate, auto then switching EDC in Ryzen Master or using Hydra. The way it was written would suggest this isn't going to change, but that was *not specifically said* and I could be reading into it wrong.


----------



## Luggage

metalshark said:


> Yuri (1usmus) just posted about AMD reducing their advertised max boost clocks for Zen 3 on their website in line with AGESA 1.2.0.5+. Seems to go hand in hand with stock voltages being 1.425 max when turning up EDC before offsetting to compensate, auto then switching EDC in Ryzen Master or using Hydra. The way it was written would suggest this isn't going to change, but that was *not specifically said* and I could be reading into it wrong.


Well perhaps Yuri has a bad memory?








[Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread


@Luggage tRDWR 8, tWR 12 and tWTRL 8/9 not stable? How unlucky is that kit :oops:




www.overclock.net


----------



## metalshark

Luggage said:


> Well perhaps Yuri has a bad memory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread
> 
> 
> @Luggage tRDWR 8, tWR 12 and tWTRL 8/9 not stable? How unlucky is that kit :oops:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


Whether it's before/after seeing 4.9GHz as max boost for the 5950X doesn't make sense even with AGESA 1.2.0.6. Hits 4.95GHz, then you can add +200MHz for 5.15GHz (clock stretch only). Am guessing it's max boost of 4.9GHz without PBO? Think it's 5225 if doing BCLK, but I've got no hope in hell of hitting that.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

Seems AGESA 1.2.0.5 & 1.2.0.6 behavior it's not volunteer and manufacturer are already working to solve the bugs with new BIOS with AGESA 1.2.0.6b

Known Issues:

"Drops" up to 100 MHz with the single core clock
"Drops" up to 150 MHz with the multi-core clock
Missing overclocking functions e.g. with PBO
A significantly cropped CBS/PBO menu
Performance issues with the second CCX (Ryzen 9)
Low fabric clock (FCLK) possible
More WHEA-19 errors after OC
Sources:
Tom's Hardware news ENG
Computer Base news DE
Deskmodder news DE


----------



## xeizo

DvL Ax3l said:


> Seems AGESA 1.2.0.5 & 1.2.0.6 behavior it's not volunteer and manufacturer are already working to solve the bugs with new BIOS with AGESA 1.2.0.6b
> 
> Known Issues:
> 
> "Drops" up to 100 MHz with the single core clock
> "Drops" up to 150 MHz with the multi-core clock
> Missing overclocking functions e.g. with PBO
> A significantly cropped CBS/PBO menu
> Performance issues with the second CCX (Ryzen 9)
> Low fabric clock (FCLK) possible
> More WHEA-19 errors after OC
> Sources:
> Tom's Hardware news ENG
> Computer Base news DE
> Deskmodder news DE


Yeah, it's different, had to have a rather large positive offset to get any boost back with PBO, L3 is also shaky, B-Die clocks well as usual but DJR clocks way worse. No particular problems with WHEA, the PC has been on for 2 and a half day and not a single WHEA during various usage but it's only PBO and not a "real" OC.


----------



## flyinion

So I finished my preliminary stability testing on CO offsets. Not really sure where I should go from here. Should I start doing 1-2 increment steps to push the curve a little more towards max stable offset, or try some sort of undervolting (not sure at all how to go about that one though) or just move on to adding in some boost clock override.

5950X on 3904 with the non wifi C8H at "motherboard limits" for PBO limits. All core CB23 hits around 75-76C after my loop is warmed up.

Offsets are CCD1: 25-5-25-5-20-10-20-10 and CCD2: is all 25's.

After rechecking the APIC ID of on WHEA error I got that also caused a reboot when trying to test -30 I just realized it was core 6 which means I reduced it from -15 to -10 though so maybe I need to go back and test -30 on CCD2 only? On a scale of 0-15 Ryzen Master says cores 1, 2, 13, 14 are the best cores from their respective CCD's. Or maybe I need to retest a 15 offset on core 6 as maybe one of the -25 cores didn't like -30 and was responsible for the reboot etc?


----------



## metalshark

flyinion said:


> So I finished my preliminary stability testing on CO offsets. Not really sure where I should go from here. Should I start doing 1-2 increment steps to push the curve a little more towards max stable offset, or try some sort of undervolting (not sure at all how to go about that one though) or just move on to adding in some boost clock override.
> 
> 5950X on 3904 with the non wifi C8H at "motherboard limits" for PBO limits. All core CB23 hits around 75-76C after my loop is warmed up.
> 
> Offsets are CCD1: 25-5-25-5-20-10-20-10 and CCD2: is all 25's.
> 
> After rechecking the APIC ID of on WHEA error I got that also caused a reboot when trying to test -30 I just realized it was core 6 which means I reduced it from -15 to -10 though so maybe I need to go back and test -30 on CCD2 only? On a scale of 0-15 Ryzen Master says cores 1, 2, 13, 14 are the best cores from their respective CCD's. Or maybe I need to retest a 15 offset on core 6 as maybe one of the -25 cores didn't like -30 and was responsible for the reboot etc?


Personally would focus on lowest CO whilst still being able to boost (and hold) max effective clock per core, you'll get more of a spread and higher sustained speeds leading to higher benchmarks (with higher heat to control) but let's run with it assuming that's the case.

So would set CO like this 25-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0 for now, then increase the voltage offset of the CPU by 0.01875 and see if you can run 30-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0. If you can then try an offset of 0.0125 instead, if not try running 0-0-30-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0 and repeating with 0.01875. If again no luck then it's 0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-30-0-0-0-0-0-0-0, 0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-30-0-0-0-0-0-0, 0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-30-0-0-0-0-0, 0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-30-0-0-0-0, 0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-30-0-0-0, 0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-30-0-0, 0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-30-0 and 0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-30. If none will run at 30 on 0.1875, try 27/28 on 0.0125. If again none then you'll be stuck on 25 and if you have the time tuning them down to their individual 1 offsets can provide mild score boosts (but it's really diminishing returns). However, if you can put in the offset then shift the others down by 5 (or 2-3 if running at 27/28) and finish off with a deep idle test as this will lower the voltage at idle.

Judging by how close those CO numbers are though you're testing for the lowest voltage required for stability rather than the lowest voltage required for max sustained effective clock speeds which will nerf your results by providing too little voltage for the internal voltage/frequency tables. Storing these settings as a profile, then doing it for max sustained boost freq to compare before/after you'll see the difference and it's more noticeable in games where single/two/three/four-core perf can bottleneck at times.


----------



## flyinion

metalshark said:


> Personally would focus on lowest CO whilst still being able to boost (and hold) max effective clock per core, you'll get more of a spread and higher sustained speeds leading to higher benchmarks (with higher heat to control) but let's run with it assuming that's the case.
> 
> So would set CO like this 25-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0 for now, then increase the voltage offset of the CPU by 0.01875 and see if you can run 30-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0. If you can then try an offset of 0.0125 instead, if not try running 0-0-30-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0 and repeating with 0.01875. If again no luck then it's 0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-30-0-0-0-0-0-0-0, 0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-30-0-0-0-0-0-0, 0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-30-0-0-0-0-0, 0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-30-0-0-0-0, 0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-30-0-0-0, 0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-30-0-0, 0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-30-0 and 0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-30. If none will run at 30 on 0.1875, try 27/28 on 0.0125. If again none then you'll be stuck on 25 and if you have the time tuning them down to their individual 1 offsets can provide mild score boosts (but it's really diminishing returns). However, if you can put in the offset then shift the others down by 5 (or 2-3 if running at 27/28) and finish off with a deep idle test as this will lower the voltage at idle.
> 
> Judging by how close those CO numbers are though you're testing for the lowest voltage required for stability rather than the lowest voltage required for max sustained effective clock speeds which will nerf your results by providing too little voltage for the internal voltage/frequency tables. Storing these settings as a profile, then doing it for max sustained boost freq to compare before/after you'll see the difference and it's more noticeable in games where single/two/three/four-core perf can bottleneck at times.


Thanks for the info. I'm a little confused on how setting for example core 0 to 30 and all the rest left at 0 will improve performance though. This is still pretty new to me though so I know there's something I'm missing. I thought the idea with CO was using it to lower voltage per core to be able to boost as high as possible per core, so I'm trying to understand how -30 on one core, and then reducing the voltage to the whole CPU can result in more performance? Definitely willing to try it though since I have a few things like MSFS 2020 that would benefit from higher speeds on those workloads you mention where just a couple of cores are really loaded up.


----------



## metalshark

flyinion said:


> Thanks for the info. I'm a little confused on how setting for example core 0 to 30 and all the rest left at 0 will improve performance though.


It won't - this is for finding if you can use an offset to get to -30. Getting to -30 from -25 will remove 10mv at idle whilst keeping the voltage the same at full load.

Once you've got the best core as low as it can go without compromising on effective max sustained boost speed you adjust the others from 0 to their respective values. So let's say you can take -25 and reach -30 on the best with an offset. Then a core at -20 would move to -25, etc. It's just easiest to test the best core in isolation and also to identify the best core.

Considering that looks like a 5950X my gut feeling is you've done minimum CO for stability but not minimum CO for maximum sustained effective max speed so will be nerfing your results.


----------



## flyinion

metalshark said:


> So let's say you can take -25 and reach -30 on the best with an offset. Then a core at -20 would move to -25, etc. It's just easiest to test the best core in isolation and also to identify the best core.


Ok, so not sure if I'm understanding correctly, but it sounds like I still need to have offsets on the cores, but first try to find the core that will be stable at the lowest offset with a voltage offset added in, then add offsets back in to the rest? So for example if right now I had a 4 core CPU that I'd set to 25-5-20-15 and I found core 0 could run at 30 with one of those voltage offsets applied at 30-0-0-0 then I would go back and set it to 30-5-20-15 after? Oh and yes it's a 5950X. Sorry if these are dumb questions but this is way different than any OC's I've done before and I never got very deep with it before so I don't know how some of the different voltage settings interact or even do.


----------



## LocoDiceGR

DvL Ax3l said:


> Seems AGESA 1.2.0.5 & 1.2.0.6 behavior it's not volunteer and manufacturer are already working to solve the bugs with new BIOS with AGESA 1.2.0.6b
> 
> Known Issues:
> 
> "Drops" up to 100 MHz with the single core clock
> "Drops" up to 150 MHz with the multi-core clock
> Missing overclocking functions e.g. with PBO
> A significantly cropped CBS/PBO menu
> Performance issues with the second CCX (Ryzen 9)
> Low fabric clock (FCLK) possible
> More WHEA-19 errors after OC
> Sources:
> Tom's Hardware news ENG
> Computer Base news DE
> Deskmodder news DE


Nice, Asus Dropped 1.2.0.6b to many mobos thankfully.


----------



## metalshark

flyinion said:


> Ok, so not sure if I'm understanding correctly, but it sounds like I still need to have offsets on the cores, but first try to find the core that will be stable at the lowest offset with a voltage offset added in, then add offsets back in to the rest? So for example if right now I had a 4 core CPU that I'd set to 25-5-20-15 and I found core 0 could run at 30 with one of those voltage offsets applied at 30-0-0-0 then I would go back and set it to 30-5-20-15 after? Oh and yes it's a 5950X. Sorry if these are dumb questions but this is way different than any OC's I've done before and I never got very deep with it before so I don't know how some of the different voltage settings interact or even do.


That's almost it but when you add the other COs back at the offset it'll be more like 30-10-25-20.

Each CO is 3mv at full load and 5mv at idle. So by using an offset to get lower CO you're trying to keep to the COx3mv range but for voltage to be lower at COx5mv range.


----------



## Luggage

LocoDiceGR said:


> Nice, Asus Dropped 1.2.0.6b to many mobos thankfully.


If you try it see if VID is still limited to 1.425V if you change EDC over 140.


http://imgur.com/a/d5cReXo


----------



## GRABibus

Someone tested 1.2.0.6b with bios 4002 beta ?
Still EDC=140 bug ?


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> Someone tested 1.2.0.6b with bios 4002 beta ?
> Still EDC=140 bug ?


Yes.


----------



## flyinion

metalshark said:


> That's almost it but when you add the other COs back at the offset it'll be more like 30-10-25-20.
> 
> Each CO is 3mv at full load and 5mv at idle. So by using an offset to get lower CO you're trying to keep to the COx3mv range but for voltage to be lower at COx5mv range.


Ah maybe I misunderstood. So I should be adding a positive offset to core voltage? I was thinking it was supposed to be negative and was trying to figure out how if I have a core right now that only was stable at -5 CO how it would be stable at -10 with a lower vcore as well


----------



## metalshark

flyinion said:


> Ah maybe I misunderstood. So I should be adding a positive offset to core voltage? I was thinking it was supposed to be negative and was trying to figure out how if I have a core right now that only was stable at -5 CO how it would be stable at -10 with a lower vcore as well


Yes a positive offset so you can then get the CO lower. Deep idle testing might show you it’s not possible.

Bigger message though is it looks like those are playing limbo limbo, how low can you go whilst stable. Instead you should see how low can you go without compromising on max sustained effective boost speed.


----------



## 1ah1

Here is the link for AMD 5800X3D
The product site has been available for weeks
https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-7-5800x3d


----------



## GRABibus

1ah1 said:


> Here is the link for AMD 5800X3D
> The product site has been available for weeks
> https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-7-5800x3d


useless CPU 😩


----------



## jamie1073

With 1.2.0.6b with bios 4002 Beta BIOS I am finally able to get 30,000 on R23 MC test, never hit that with any other BIOS on my 5950X. Next day or so off I am going to try and tweak CO more to see if I can bet a better single core score. Best I get SC is 1579. On another run I got 30113 but only 1540 SC. Not sure why that SC was low since most of my others were around the 1570 mark. Before the update I was getting 29600 ish.


----------



## GRABibus

jamie1073 said:


> With 1.2.0.6b with bios 4002 Beta BIOS I am finally able to get 30,000 on R23 MC test, never hit that with any other BIOS on my 5950X. Next day or so off I am going to try and tweak CO more to see if I can bet a better single core score. Best I get SC is 1579. On another run I got 30113 but only 1540 SC. Not sure why that SC was low since most of my others were around the 1570 mark. Before the update I was getting 29600 ish.


which EDC value did you set ?
If it is beyond 140A, then your Vid is limited to 1,42V, which destroys SC performance.


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> which EDC value did you set ?
> If it is beyond 140A, then your Vid is limited to 1,42V, which destroys SC performance.


I'm still being a Luddite with my 3501 bios for the 5950X... 



Spoiler


----------



## jamie1073

GRABibus said:


> which EDC value did you set ?
> If it is beyond 140A, then your Vid is limited to 1,42V, which destroys SC performance.


it is at 180. I will try it lower next time I have time to play, I did not think it mattered to be honest. Thanks for the tip.


----------



## xV Slayer

J7SC said:


> I'm still being a Luddite with my 3501 bios for the 5950X...
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2549628


3501 or 3801 are by far the best for this motherboard.


----------



## J7SC

@GRABibus ...here is an OCT run with EDC > 140 on trusty ol' Bios 3501, ambient 24 C (coz freezing outside), 5950X, Dark Hero (w/o DynamicOC setting)


----------



## DodgyTech

Seems that uefi 4004 is live on Asus site, non-beta.
This can be my ticket out of the 4 dimm dual rank hell.


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> @GRABibus ...here is an OCT run with EDC > 140 on trusty ol' Bios 3501, ambient 24 C (coz freezing outside), 5950X, Dark Hero (w/o DynamicOC setting)
> View attachment 2549639


With 3501,EDC=140 step is not showing Vid limitation


----------



## Illuminado

Anyone braver than me starting to try the 4004 version and the new Agesa Beta? Wondering if it improves things over 3904 and the EDC issues mentioned above.


----------



## Ezalor

Luggage said:


> If you try it see if VID is still limited to 1.425V if you change EDC over 140.
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/d5cReXo


I had a hunch that this would be the case. 

It's not a bug, it is a permanent change that AMD has put in deliberately, taking away performance. Nonreversable as the change sticks even when going back to earlier bios:es.


----------



## metalshark

Ezalor said:


> I had a hunch that this would be the case.
> 
> It's not a bug, it is a permanent change that AMD has put in deliberately, taking away performance. Nonreversable as the change sticks even when going back to earlier bios:es.


The thing that still confuses me is why this is an issue?

Cores don't seem to scale much over 1.455v until you go to chilled water/dry ice. This is sustained max effective clock speed, without being power limited or if you prefer the max number in benchmarks (same result).

Back when VID (with over 140A EDC) was 1.5v you'd have people add 35mv positive offset then run their top cores on -25 CO and their other cores on -30 CO. This resulted in an SVI2 of 1535mv. So their cores were getting SVI2 + (CO x 3mv) at peak which is:

1535mv + (-25 x 3mv) = 1460mv
and their other cores were getting
1535mv + (-30 x 3mv) = 1445mv

Funnily enough around the 1.455v area.

Now with a VID of 1425mv and SVI2 capped at 1475mv we can shift around CPU voltage offsets and COs to deliver what's required to reach the same speeds and benchmark scores. For instance, adding a 50mv offset will bring you to the max of 1475mv, where you can still hit -8 CO to bring it back down to 1456mv which is about the peak (again without chilled water/dry ice). Meanwhile, the cores which can't boost as high can have more extreme negative offsets to their CO.

The max sustained speed for a given mv, assuming the same power limits and temps under 75'C for single-core or temps under 90'C for multicore have remained the same.

With BCLK overclocking appreciate there's been a permanent SMU change so you can't boost as high, but in reality how many people have been going over 105MHz BCLK to be affected?


----------



## Illuminado

metalshark said:


> The thing that still confuses me is why this is an issue?
> 
> Cores don't seem to scale much over 1.455v until you go to chilled water/dry ice. This is sustained max effective clock speed, without being power limited or if you prefer the max number in benchmarks (same result).
> 
> Back when VID (with over 140A EDC) was 1.5v you'd have people add 35mv positive offset then run their top cores on -25 CO and their other cores on -30 CO. This resulted in an SVI2 of 1535mv. So their cores were getting SVI2 + (CO x 3mv) at peak which is:
> 
> 1535mv + (-25 x 3mv) = 1460mv
> and their other cores were getting
> 1535mv + (-30 x 3mv) = 1445mv
> 
> Funnily enough around the 1.455v area.
> 
> Now with a VID of 1425mv and SVI2 capped at 1475mv we can shift around CPU voltage offsets and COs to deliver what's required to reach the same speeds and benchmark scores. For instance, adding a 50mv offset will bring you to the max of 1475mv, where you can still hit -8 CO to bring it back down to 1456mv which is about the peak (again without chilled water/dry ice). Meanwhile, the cores which can't boost as high can have more extreme negative offsets to their CO.
> 
> The max sustained speed for a given mv, assuming the same power limits and temps under 75'C for single-core or temps under 90'C for multicore have remained the same.
> 
> With BCLK overclocking appreciate there's been a permanent SMU change so you can't boost as high, but in reality how many people have been going over 105MHz BCLK to be affected?


I do wonder if I'm negatively affecting performance with my PBO tweaking then with your above reply. In regards to stability I'm able to get all cores to -25 (setting them individually) and I upped PPT to 200w, TDC to 125 and EDC to 170. This did overall result in higher multithreaded Cinebench scores the further I took the negative offset as it correlated with a higher sustained clock for the duration of the benchmark. I haven't actually touched voltages outside of PBO and left general settings on auto (other than a manually tightening timings on ram and getting it to 3800 instead of 3600 xmp) but I am interested with what people say about EDC > 140 being bad? As far as scaling goes increases to EDC tend to increase performance and thermals with diminishing returns, no? I also actually haven't touched the max boost override so this may also be leaving performance on the table.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding your post, you definitely know a lot more about this than I do in regards to getting perf out of these Ryzen chips and I mostly feel like I'm stumbling about in the dark, ha.

As mentioned above I'm on 3904 atm, which seems to be almost universally considered as a sub par bios iteration, lol.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Post a link. It’s not live on the uk site


----------



## Illuminado

Badgerslayer7 said:


> Post a link. It’s not live on the uk site


4004? It's live on UK. Maybe you have the webpage cached. Chuck a query string on there/visit on incog?


----------



## AndreDVJ

Just having a go with 4004. HWInfo reports VID going up to 1.44v~ish, but not sure if I can trust that metric. 

I do not use CO nor change/tweak anything. Everything on *Auto *(EDC goes up to 200A as expected).

With PBO disabled (Auto or Disabled in BIOS - just standard Precision Boost), same behavior as every AGESA. VID up to 1.50v, EDC up to standard 142A.

Again lightly-threaded workloads boosts higher with PBO disabled.
Heavily-threaded workload boosts slightly better with PBO enabled.
So again there's a trade-off in my use case. I use my computer with all CPU settings on *Auto*.

AGESA 1.2.0.6b as far as I can see, let users tweak PBO to their hearts' content.


----------



## djase45

Badgerslayer7 said:


> Post a link. It’s not live on the uk site





https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-4004.ZIP


----------



## GRABibus

Still 4002 beta on French website for C8H ( non wifi)


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Illuminado said:


> 4004? It's live on UK. Maybe you have the webpage cached. Chuck a query string on there/visit on incog?


Asus crosshair hero viii wifi here. Still not live uk


----------



## metalshark

Illuminado said:


> I do wonder if I'm negatively affecting performance with my PBO tweaking then with your above reply. In regards to stability I'm able to get all cores to -25 (setting them individually) and I upped PPT to 200w, TDC to 125 and EDC to 170. This did overall result in higher multithreaded Cinebench scores the further I took the negative offset as it correlated with a higher sustained clock for the duration of the benchmark. I haven't actually touched voltages outside of PBO and left general settings on auto (other than a manually tightening timings on ram and getting it to 3800 instead of 3600 xmp) but I am interested with what people say about EDC > 140 being bad? As far as scaling goes increases to EDC tend to increase performance and thermals with diminishing returns, no? I also actually haven't touched the max boost override so this may also be leaving performance on the table.
> 
> Sorry if I'm misunderstanding your post, you definitely know a lot more about this than I do in regards to getting perf out of these Ryzen chips and I mostly feel like I'm stumbling about in the dark, ha.
> 
> As mentioned above I'm on 3904 atm, which seems to be almost universally considered as a sub par bios iteration, lol.


All good - EDC over 140A on newer AGESA's moves VID from 1.5v to 1.425v. The VID isn't the voltage the CPU gets, that's SVI2 which can be moved with an offset. SVI2 is capped to 1.475v on newer AGESA's, however don't know anyone brave enough to determine the limit prior (well over 1.5v).

Minimum CO for stability is normally way lower than the minimum voltage required for max sustained effective speed in single core. Trimming the voltage as low as it'll go will help with heat in multi-core which is why it's a tad misleading. Where cooling is an issue there will be a trade off.


----------



## metalshark

Badgerslayer7 said:


> Asus crosshair hero viii wifi here. Still not live uk





https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-4004.ZIP





GRABibus said:


> Still 4002 beta on French website for C8H ( non wifi)





https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-4004.ZIP


----------



## Badgerslayer7

metalshark said:


> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-4004.ZIP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-4004.ZIP


Thanks mate


----------



## DvL Ax3l

So I've just updated my CH8 Dark Hero with the new 4004 BIOS and the VCore is still capped at 1.425V if EDC > 140A...

So we need a answer from AMD


----------



## Illuminado

metalshark said:


> All good - EDC over 140A on newer AGESA's moves VID from 1.5v to 1.425v. The VID isn't the voltage the CPU gets, that's SVI2 which can be moved with an offset. SVI2 is capped to 1.475v on newer AGESA's, however don't know anyone brave enough to determine the limit prior (well over 1.5v).
> 
> Minimum CO for stability is normally way lower than the minimum voltage required for max sustained effective speed in single core. Trimming the voltage as low as it'll go will help with heat in multi-core which is why it's a tad misleading. Where cooling is an issue there will be a trade off.


So in regards to optimising for gaming, you'd actually take the negative offset higher? Instead of -25, like -15, -10 or so depending on cores? And also utilise the boost offset? Additionally in that context, would you also say that generally speaking an EDC left on auto (so 140A) is actually optimal for single core perf and therefore most games?


----------



## metalshark

Illuminado said:


> So in regards to optimising for gaming, you'd actually take the negative offset higher? Instead of -25, like -15, -10 or so depending on cores? And also utilise the boost offset? Additionally in that context, would you also say that generally speaking an EDC left on auto (so 140A) is actually optimal for single core perf and therefore most games?


It depends. Think of it more like mv per core. Your best cores might be able to reach top speeds at 1455mv, your poor cores at 1365mv (will be using these in the following example, your CPU may/will vary). Balance the offset and CO so you're not starving the top speeds. If your SVI2 is at 1500mv then your top core would need a CO of -15:

1500mv + (3mv x -15 CO) = 1455mv

However, then you can only go to -30 CO (without Hydra or other tools with that level of control) so that worse core which maxes out at 1365mv and doesn't add anything above it would be getting:

1500mv + (3mv x -30 CO) = 1410mv

If instead you applied an offset of -45mv to the CPU, even with VID at 1500mv, SVI2 would now drop to 1455mv, so your best core can be at a CO of 0 (it's getting 1500mv - 45mv = 1455mv) and your worst core is getting

1455mv + (3mv x -30 CO) = 1365mv

Even if an AGESA update moves your voltages around, by knowing the mv needed per core for max sustained (effective) boost speeds, because this stays the same, you can use maths to balance your system for optimum performance.

With CO it's 3mv at full load and 5mv at idle, so be careful when taking away too much voltage. Let's say that worst core restarts the PC at 1330mv lets see what happens with that offset at idle:

1455mv + (5mv x -30 CO) = 1305mv

That's 25mv too low and poof the system restarts. So we reduce that offset by 25mv (45mv - 25 = 20mv) and rework the numbers.

1500mv - 20mv = 1480mv
1480mv + (3mv x -8 CO) = 1456mv for best cores
1480mv + (3mv x -30 CO) = 1390mv for worst cores
1480mv + (5mv x -30 CO) = 1330mv for worst cores at idle

With VID moving to 1425mv and SVI2 capping at 1475mv in recent AGESAs it's just a case of algebra to figure out the settings you need and shows why it's worth logging results as they come in handy when it's time to rejig things.

Your PBO power limits are more a case of avoiding hitting thermal issues (as high as you can go). 75'C is the cap for single-core performance boosting and 90'C is the cap for multi-core. For instance trial and erroring your PBO limits to get the best Cinebench score (lowering PBO limits), then turning around and only gaming in titles preferring a handful of fast cores is a great way to nerf performance.


----------



## GRABibus

DvL Ax3l said:


> So I've just updated my CH8 Dark Hero with the new 4004 BIOS and the VCore is still capped at 1.425V if EDC > 140A...
> 
> So we need a answer from AMD


We won’t get


metalshark said:


> It depends. Think of it more like mv per core. Your best cores might be able to reach top speeds at 1455mv, your poor cores at 1365mv (will be using these in the following example, your CPU may/will vary). Balance the offset and CO so you're not starving the top speeds. If your SVI2 is at 1500mv then your top core would need a CO of -15:
> 
> 1500mv + (3mv x -15 CO) = 1455mv
> 
> However, then you can only go to -30 CO (without Hydra or other tools with that level of control) so that worse core which maxes out at 1365mv and doesn't add anything above it would be getting:
> 
> 1500mv + (3mv x -30 CO) = 1410mv
> 
> If instead you applied an offset of -45mv to the CPU, even with VID at 1500mv, SVI2 would now drop to 1455mv, so your best core can be at a CO of 0 (it's getting 1500mv - 45mv = 1455mv) and your worst core is getting
> 
> 1455mv + (3mv x -30 CO) = 1365mv
> 
> Even if an AGESA update moves your voltages around, by knowing the mv needed per core for max sustained (effective) boost speeds, because this stays the same, you can use maths to balance your system for optimum performance.
> 
> With CO it's 3mv at full load and 5mv at idle, so be careful when taking away too much voltage. Let's say that worst core restarts the PC at 1330mv lets see what happens with that offset at idle:
> 
> 1455mv + (5mv x -30 CO) = 1305mv
> 
> That's 25mv too low and poof the system restarts. So we reduce that offset by 25mv (45mv - 25 = 20mv) and rework the numbers.
> 
> 1500mv - 20mv = 1480mv
> 1480mv + (3mv x -8 CO) = 1456mv for best cores
> 1480mv + (3mv x -30 CO) = 1390mv for worst cores
> 1480mv + (5mv x -30 CO) = 1330mv for worst cores at idle
> 
> With VID moving to 1425mv and SVI2 capping at 1475mv in recent AGESAs it's just a case of algebra to figure out the settings you need and shows why it's worth logging results as they come in handy when it's time to rejig things.
> 
> Your PBO power limits are more a case of avoiding hitting thermal issues (as high as you can go). 75'C is the cap for single-core performance boosting and 90'C is the cap for multi-core. For instance trial and erroring your PBO limits to get the best Cinebench score (lowering PBO limits), then turning around and only gaming in titles preferring a handful of fasts core is a great way to nerf performance.


are you working at AMD to know so much things ? ☺


----------



## metalshark

GRABibus said:


> We won’t get
> 
> are you working at AMD to know so much things ? ☺


No, but thankfully it's all public knowledge.


----------



## J7SC

metalshark said:


> No, but thankfully it's all public knowledge.


May be AMD should recruit you  (if you're looking...) !


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Can anyone point me towards the latest chipset drivers. I’m sure I read on here it’s not on amds site. Getting a random usb reconnects disconnects on an aquario octo.


----------



## rossi594

Illuminado said:


> So in regards to optimising for gaming, you'd actually take the negative offset higher? Instead of -25, like -15, -10 or so depending on cores? And also utilise the boost offset? Additionally in that context, would you also say that generally speaking an EDC left on auto (so 140A) is actually optimal for single core perf and therefore most games?


you can offset negative curve optimizer with voltage offset or more agressive skaler.


----------



## Blackfyre

Any word on if *4004 Stable* has any differences at all to *4002 Beta*? I am already on the beta and can't be bothered entering all the settings again if it's the exact same BIOS just coming out of beta. Same AGESA version between the two.


----------



## Luggage

metalshark said:


> It depends. Think of it more like mv per core. Your best cores might be able to reach top speeds at 1455mv, your poor cores at 1365mv (will be using these in the following example, your CPU may/will vary). Balance the offset and CO so you're not starving the top speeds. If your SVI2 is at 1500mv then your top core would need a CO of -15:
> 
> 1500mv + (3mv x -15 CO) = 1455mv
> 
> However, then you can only go to -30 CO (without Hydra or other tools with that level of control) so that worse core which maxes out at 1365mv and doesn't add anything above it would be getting:
> 
> 1500mv + (3mv x -30 CO) = 1410mv
> 
> If instead you applied an offset of -45mv to the CPU, even with VID at 1500mv, SVI2 would now drop to 1455mv, so your best core can be at a CO of 0 (it's getting 1500mv - 45mv = 1455mv) and your worst core is getting
> 
> 1455mv + (3mv x -30 CO) = 1365mv
> 
> Even if an AGESA update moves your voltages around, by knowing the mv needed per core for max sustained (effective) boost speeds, because this stays the same, you can use maths to balance your system for optimum performance.
> 
> With CO it's 3mv at full load and 5mv at idle, so be careful when taking away too much voltage. Let's say that worst core restarts the PC at 1330mv lets see what happens with that offset at idle:
> 
> 1455mv + (5mv x -30 CO) = 1305mv
> 
> That's 25mv too low and poof the system restarts. So we reduce that offset by 25mv (45mv - 25 = 20mv) and rework the numbers.
> 
> 1500mv - 20mv = 1480mv
> 1480mv + (3mv x -8 CO) = 1456mv for best cores
> 1480mv + (3mv x -30 CO) = 1390mv for worst cores
> 1480mv + (5mv x -30 CO) = 1330mv for worst cores at idle
> 
> With VID moving to 1425mv and SVI2 capping at 1475mv in recent AGESAs it's just a case of algebra to figure out the settings you need and shows why it's worth logging results as they come in handy when it's time to rejig things.
> 
> Your PBO power limits are more a case of avoiding hitting thermal issues (as high as you can go). 75'C is the cap for single-core performance boosting and 90'C is the cap for multi-core. For instance trial and erroring your PBO limits to get the best Cinebench score (lowering PBO limits), then turning around and only gaming in titles preferring a handful of fast cores is a great way to nerf performance.


Well I have the cooling and don’t want to loose my VIDs 
Also don’t want too much offset because I don’t think FIT likes vcore too much higher than VID but need to do more testing.
I only run a small + offset to make vcore match VID for single core since LLC messes with boost if not auto on my MSI.



http://imgur.com/kp93OL5


----------



## GRABibus

4004 with exact same settings PBO/CO and Vcore offset than with 3801 (except EDC=160 with 4004 versus 150 with 3801) :
300 points less CBR20 MC
6 points less CBR20 SC

but, less voltage, less consumption, lower temps.

as I don’t bench anymore and as I am quite temperature bottlenecked with my H115i RGB Platinum, this 4004 is perfect for gaming despite performances lost.


----------



## tonynca

I wonder why people are so built up about 1.425v safety net of the latest BIOS. This is just speculation, but they probably found that 1.5v is too much and capped it for safety at lower voltage. I enjoy the lower temp and better stability with -30 offset. I could never get 3801 stable with -30 offset.

I'm running 4004 right now and testing stability. Appears to be a bit quicker than 3904 in Cinebench.


----------



## neikosr0x

GRABibus said:


> 4004 with exact same settings PBO/CO and Vcore offset than with 3801 (except EDC=160 with 4004 versus 150 with 3801) :
> 300 points less CBR20 MC
> 6 points less CBR20 SC
> 
> but, less voltage, less consumption, lower temps.
> 
> as I don’t bench anymore and as I am quite temperature bottlenecked with my H115i RGB Platinum, this 4004 is perfect for gaming despite performances lost.


is there any performance loss while gaming? any tangible difference?


----------



## flyinion

metalshark said:


> Yes a positive offset so you can then get the CO lower. Deep idle testing might show you it’s not possible.
> 
> Bigger message though is it looks like those are playing limbo limbo, how low can you go whilst stable. Instead you should see how low can you go without compromising on max sustained effective boost speed.


Hey sorry for a couple more probably noob questions here on CO/etc. So I'm trying to understand the reason for going to a lower CO (more negative i.e. -30 instead of -25) but adding a positive voltage offset. Is this to keep the voltage at load similar to -25 but increase voltage at idle as well to keep things stable at idle? Or similar but in reverse to give a bit more voltage headroom at a higher clock speed due to the offset CO "table"? Like would this be the equivalent in the "old days" of adding vcore over stock to get a higher multiplier to be stable?


----------



## GRABibus

neikosr0x said:


> is there any performance loss while gaming? any tangible difference?


i didn’t check and I am pretty sure there is no difference as I play 4K


----------



## xV Slayer

Ezalor said:


> I had a hunch that this would be the case.
> 
> It's not a bug, it is a permanent change that AMD has put in deliberately, taking away performance. Nonreversable as the change sticks even when going back to earlier bios:es.


Please do not spread lies. It does not carry over if you roll back to a previous version.


----------



## Pastrami King

Anyone with a Crosshair VIII Extreme (C8E) have an issue with voltage suspension or CO mitigator (enabled with dynamic floor and ceiling but otherwise set to auto) degrading or otherwise harming a chip's integrated memory controller or the cores themselves?


----------



## metalshark

flyinion said:


> Hey sorry for a couple more probably noob questions here on CO/etc. So I'm trying to understand the reason for going to a lower CO (more negative i.e. -30 instead of -25) but adding a positive voltage offset. Is this to keep the voltage at load similar to -25 but increase voltage at idle as well to keep things stable at idle? Or similar but in reverse to give a bit more voltage headroom at a higher clock speed due to the offset CO "table"? Like would this be the equivalent in the "old days" of adding vcore over stock to get a higher multiplier to be stable?


Hey no worries.

With CO each one step is worth 5mv at idle and 3mv at full load. So if getting the same amount of voltage at full load, a larger negative CO (whilst offsetting) will give you less voltage at idle (as it’s multiplied by 5mv, not 3mv). As long as that’s not too little voltage to cause a restart (or any other instability) then that means your CPU uses less power when it doesn’t need it, so it can cool faster. Load is juggled between cores rapidly, so being able to cool faster and deeper where possible will result in better performance in a variety of workloads with no downsides.

It’s worth also touching on sleep states. Here the CO doesn’t come in effect (so no 5mv x CO anymore) and you’ll be receiving a lower SVI2, but the CPU voltage offset still does apply. So with a positive voltage offset you are using more power when the processor enters a sleep state, with a negative voltage you are using less and risk it being too low (there's normally a fair amount of fat here so tends not to be a concern).


----------



## Lobstar

I'm on a 5950x/C8DH. Anyone have any resources pertaining to SCEP Cert Auth errors? Upgraded to Win11 and 4004 and now the pc won't stay uncrashed/bsod'd for more than about 3 mins. Event viewer is showing those errors. I did have a single 00 code after a self reboot but it fired back up. I've tried disabling various TPM/fTPM settings and other secure boot stuff but no changes. It seemed to clear up last night after playing with fTPM but it soon reverted. I'm wondering if everything is a coincidence and I have dead mobo or CPU.


----------



## Zogge

Is there a 4004 for Formula released ?


----------



## tonynca

DvL Ax3l said:


> Seems AGESA 1.2.0.5 & 1.2.0.6 behavior it's not volunteer and manufacturer are already working to solve the bugs with new BIOS with AGESA 1.2.0.6b
> 
> Known Issues:
> 
> "Drops" up to 100 MHz with the single core clock
> "Drops" up to 150 MHz with the multi-core clock
> Missing overclocking functions e.g. with PBO
> A significantly cropped CBS/PBO menu
> Performance issues with the second CCX (Ryzen 9)
> Low fabric clock (FCLK) possible
> More WHEA-19 errors after OC
> Sources:
> Tom's Hardware news ENG
> Computer Base news DE
> Deskmodder news DE


The known issues are with 1.2.0.5 right?


----------



## Danny.ns

Zogge said:


> Is there a 4004 for Formula released ?


Yes? It is literally there; ROG Crosshair VIII Formula | ROG Crosshair | Gaming Motherboards｜ROG - Republic of Gamers｜ROG Global


----------



## xeizo

Pastrami King said:


> Anyone with a Crosshair VIII Extreme (C8E) have an issue with voltage suspension or CO mitigator (enabled with dynamic floor and ceiling but otherwise set to auto) degrading or otherwise harming a chip's integrated memory controller or the cores themselves?


I've had the C8E for several months and use the mitigator stuff, no degradation at all detected, chip performs as new. It's a launch chip from back when 5900X launched.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

tonynca said:


> The known issues are with 1.2.0.5 right?


Also 1.2.0.6 from what I read here and on reddit


----------



## Bostonjunk

Anyone else suddenly having weird issues with the ARGB headers since updating to 4004? (C8F)
They only both work if I untick _Addressable LED Strip _in the Aura Sync section of Armoury Crate or if I select a static colour.
If I tick to sync it and then select one of the basic effects, only the second header works (except if it's static, then they both work).
If I try to use a custom effect from Aura Creator, they both go dark.
Never had anything like this before.


----------



## Pastrami King

xeizo said:


> I've had the C8E for several months and use the mitigator stuff, no degradation at all detected, chip performs as new. It's a launch chip from back when 5900X launched.


Maybe it's just the 1.2.0.5/1.2.0.6 bugs because my system has been stabled for months before this started to happen and the change _might_ have started on or about December 9, 2021 (BIOS version 0503 (beta) with AGESA 1.2.0.5 was available then, but I am not sure whether I installed it before then). I did upgrade to BIOS version 0604 with AGESA 1.2.0.6b (have the bugs been confirmed to exist in 1.2.0.6b in addition to 1.2.0.5 and 1.2.0.6?). Even with this new version installed, however, the following WHEA errors continue to occur, albeit at a slower rate since I changed by VSOC from auto (basically 1.081 after LLC auto) to 1.125v (basically 1.106v after LLC auto): correctable WHEA Event ID 19 Cache Hierarchy Errors and uncorrectable WHEA Event ID 18 Bus/Interconnect Errors (the latter are generally accompanied by a crash and subsequent restart). In addition: (1) memory training appears to fail every, or nearly every, time during a cold start, though memory training appears to succeed every, or nearly every, time during a restart or a retry after a failed cold start; and (2) random restarts without an accompanying WHEA error.

Are these products of the BIOS bugs or degradation?

Edit: One of the following two Q Codes displays when failing to post during a cold start: 0d or 92.


----------



## xeizo

These are my settings, I haven't had a single WHEA with the 0602 bios and it boots(or restarts) normal every time. However, ZenTimings seems to show some wrong values.


----------



## SpeedyIV

Bostonjunk said:


> Anyone else suddenly having weird issues with the ARGB headers since updating to 4004? (C8F)
> They only both work if I untick _Addressable LED Strip _in the Aura Sync section of Armoury Crate or if I select a static colour.
> If I tick to sync it and then select one of the basic effects, only the second header works (except if it's static, then they both work).
> If I try to use a custom effect from Aura Creator, they both go dark.
> Never had anything like this before.


Not my post but found this on the ROG forum. I updated my Dark Hero to bios 4004 and was surprised when a screen popped up saying it was going to update the Aura controller firmware. It sure would be nice is Asus would mention this is the bios release notes, which basically say nothing other than "Update AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.6b" and the ever present "Improve system performance and stability". You would think that something as critical as the bios would have copious details of what has changed. Instead we get "Improve system performance and stability" which is meaningless.



We'll be back.


----------



## flyinion

I updated to 4004 yesterday and have ARGB problems as well. I wasn't sure if it was the BIOS or the fact that AC had a couple updates as well (hadn't opened it in a week or so). I posted on the ROG forum about it as well (not the one linked above) and someone told me they were having issues with it and 4004 as well. Also RAM doesn't show in Aura Creator either (but does work in AC)


----------



## tonynca

Badgerslayer7 said:


> Can anyone point me towards the latest chipset drivers. I’m sure I read on here it’s not on amds site. Getting a random usb reconnects disconnects on an aquario octo.


They just released a new firmware and software to fix USB connectivity issues


----------



## Sam64

Looks like Dark Hero DOS seems to be broken with 4004, the temp-limit (took the recommended 75°) is not recognized. After one AIDA FPU-Julia run, i got this:










Can anybody confirm that? Seems to be a killer feature with that bios


----------



## escoltajuver

Sam64 said:


> Looks like Dark Hero DOS seems to be broken with 4004, the temp-limit (took the recommended 75°) is not recognized. After one AIDA FPU-Julia run, i got this:
> 
> View attachment 2549915
> 
> 
> Can anybody confirm that? Seems to be a killer feature with that bios


had this issue just this morning, cpu and vrm temperatures are about 15 to 20 deg higher than normal, clear bios settings and start config from scratch fixed the issue for me, bios is broken had some scary code 00 and code 01 randomly


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Sam64 said:


> Looks like Dark Hero DOS seems to be broken with 4004, the temp-limit (took the recommended 75°) is not recognized. After one AIDA FPU-Julia run, i got this:
> 
> View attachment 2549915
> 
> 
> Can anybody confirm that? Seems to be a killer feature with that bios


on all the latest beta bioses I get these, unless I reconfigure everything again from scratch (starting over again) I'd say, there's something between the save profiles that breaks something..(my saved profile is from my previous stable configuration from BIOS version 3801 and 3501)


----------



## tonynca

It may be too soon to tell, but 4004 on a CH8 Dark Hero has been working awesome for me. I was able to further reduce core 1,2's CO a bit more.

Running a 5950X with negative offset of 10,20,20,15,30,30,30,30,30,30,30,30,30,30,30,30 right now. Running OCCT and Corecycler for a night or two to confirm.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

tonynca said:


> They just released a new firmware and software to fix USB connectivity issues


 I can’t find a new one anywhere the newest I can find is from November last year.


----------



## GRABibus

Running 4004 since 2 days with :
180/120/160
-30 all cores
+200MHz
Vcore Offset = +25mV.

No idle/low loads reboots yet. Let's see !

Best CBR20 [email protected]°C :


----------



## tonynca

Badgerslayer7 said:


> I can’t find a new one anywhere the newest I can find is from November last year.





GRABibus said:


> Running 4004 since 2 days with :
> 180/120/160
> -30 all cores
> +200MHz
> Vcore Offset = +25mV.
> 
> No idle/low loads reboots yet. Let's see !
> 
> Best CBR20 [email protected]°C :
> View attachment 2550031


why are you running a positive offset for vcore?


----------



## GRABibus

tonynca said:


> why are you running a positive offset for vcore?


Increase CBR20 SC score a little bit and maybe, help stability at low loads (Whea 18 with reboots)


----------



## 050

Can anyone clarify for me what settings may be involved in "high" single core temps? I see temps around 80-85c running core cycler but sometimes they get up to around 90c and I'd like to cool that off a bit If I can. The system is liquid cooled (6x 120mm) and the coolant temp is around 35c so that should be fine. I am running a 5950x, ppt 220, tdc 140 and edc 140 to avoid the voltage drop imposed above that edc. Running r23 for a multicore test I see the system hit 140A (201w) under an all-core load, and it has each core at around 4250-4275mhz. This only pushes the cpu to around 77-80c, so I am perfectly happy with those all-core thermals. I suspect the higher peak temps are happening in short flashes of single (or a few cores) load, such as during core cycling.

I am running a cpu core voltage offset of -.01875v. Originally I had it further offset but I reduced the offset to improve my CO settings. I mostly have the offset in place to try to cap the core voltage down a bit from the VID peak of 1.55v. With a Max CPU Boost Clock Override of +100 and COs of (-) 20, 17, 25,10, 25, 12, 25, 30, 30, 30, 30, 25, 30, 30, 25, 30 I am getting single core boosts up to 5150mhz (typically not above ~5050 in games and hwinfo64 is reporting effective clocks as high as 4950mhz.

Any advice on settings to look for to reduce the single core thermal excursions? I know 90c isn't a "problem" per se but it would be nice to keep it a little cooler if I can do so without compromising single core performance much. I am getting ~28k multicore on r23 and 1600 single core, which is decent but not incredible. I suspect there may be some clock stretching at the upper end of clock speeds for some cores (I doubt it is hitting a full 5150mhz) but that may be fine as long as it's not unstable.

Edit: Here's some screenshots of hwinfo64 mid-core cycler and I suspect it's just a few of the cores getting particularly warm plus the high liquid temps - 35c isn't as low as I'd like but I'm thermally loading the loop with the gpu as well to stress test. It's about 22c ambient so that's a delta of 11-13c.


Spoiler: hwinfo64


----------



## AndreDVJ

Blackfyre said:


> Any word on if *4004 Stable* has any differences at all to *4002 Beta*? I am already on the beta and can't be bothered entering all the settings again if it's the exact same BIOS just coming out of beta. Same AGESA version between the two.


I suspect the difference is the firmware update for AURA LED Controller.

I wouldn't call it *stable* until it's really "battle-tested" - 4004 broke firmware for LED controller, which didn't happen on 4002 (and people on ROG forums are reporting ARGB strips no longer work).


----------



## LocoDiceGR

There are 2 version of bios on my ROG STRIX B550-I with the same date 25.2.2022 - whats the difference? Any ASUS rep here to help understand? Im confused.



ROG STRIX B550-I GAMING | ROG STRIX B550-I GAMING | Gaming Motherboards｜ROG - Republic of Gamers｜ROG Global



Appreciate any help.


----------



## AndreDVJ

LocoDiceGR said:


> There are 2 version of bios on my ROG STRIX B550-I with the same date 25.2.2022 - whats the difference? Any ASUS rep here to help understand? Im confused.
> 
> 
> 
> ROG STRIX B550-I GAMING | ROG STRIX B550-I GAMING | Gaming Motherboards｜ROG - Republic of Gamers｜ROG Global
> 
> 
> 
> Appreciate any help.



Version 2425 is from 29/10/2021
Version 2603 is from 09/02/2022
2425 is older across the board. You can examine further details by downloading Ryzen SMU Checker. Drag'n drop the files in the executable.


----------



## tonynca

Has anyone experience USB drop outs with 4004 BIOS? When I'm running OCCT, my USB external would constantly disconnect and reconnect. SoC voltage is 1.15. The system is stable otherwise. Just dealing with more USB issues now.


----------



## stimpy88

tonynca said:


> Has anyone experience USB drop outs with 4004 BIOS? When I'm running OCCT, my USB external would constantly disconnect and reconnect. SoC voltage is 1.15. The system is stable otherwise. Just dealing with more USB issues now.


What's your VDDG IOD voltage?


----------



## tonynca

stimpy88 said:


> What's your VDDG IOD voltage?


1.05v


----------



## stimpy88

tonynca said:


> 1.05v


Give 1.07v or 1.08v a try. 1.08v seems to be a good setting for difficult systems


----------



## tonynca

stimpy88 said:


> Give 1.07v or 1.08v a try. 1.08v seems to be a good setting for difficult systems


I just tried 

SoC - 1.15v
CCD - 1v
IOD 1.1v

Still disconnecting my harddrives when I run OCCT. I give up. I'm just going to use the blue ports which has a third party controller. I've never had stable USB with this board. Even if I were to RMA this, I don't think it's a board issue. I think it's because I'm running 4 DIMMS and the chipset is bugged from the start with all these USB issues.


----------



## GRABibus

tonynca said:


> I just tried
> 
> SoC - 1.15v
> CCD - 1v
> IOD 1.1v
> 
> Still disconnecting my harddrives when I run OCCT. I give up. I'm just going to use the blue ports which has a third party controller. I've never had stable USB with this board. Even if I were to RMA this, I don't think it's a board issue. I think it's because I'm running 4 DIMMS and the chipset is bugged from the start with all these USB issues.


And if you decrease RAM frequency and BCLK frequency accordingly ?


----------



## tonynca

GRABibus said:


> And if you decrease RAM frequency and BCLK frequency accordingly ?


i could run stock and this thing will still drop USB


----------



## Arterion

4004 adds one new setting I've found compared to 4002.
"RTM Margining Support" -> possible choices [ Auto | On ]
Under \Advanced\AMD CBS\NBIO Common Options\ just below IOMMU.
Not sure what it does.


----------



## GRABibus

Current 24/7 settings with 4004 (See attachment .txt file).

Benches with 24/7 settings @21°C :


















I got a nice improvment of Aida64 latencies with 4004 versus 3801.


----------



## metalshark

tonynca said:


> i could run stock and this thing will still drop USB


Since 3501 USB has been rock steady for me on stock but with overclocked memory (e.g. above 3200MT/s on Zen 3) have needed 1.15-1.2v vSoC (1.1875v is the sweet spot for mine) and depending on how high you're going above 3200MT/s maybe some PLL (1.87v at 3800MT/s for instance) and then also CDDG IOD/CCD up (to the levels you're already using, more with DR memory and even more with 4xDR memory).

Just checking do you mean stock, or do you mean defaults, but with overclocked memory/DOCP?

Assuming you mean stock, if it's dropping out at stock and the USB devices+cables are working fine on another rig then IMO something is awful wrong.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

tonynca said:


> Has anyone experience USB drop outs with 4004 BIOS? When I'm running OCCT, my USB external would constantly disconnect and reconnect. SoC voltage is 1.15. The system is stable otherwise. Just dealing with more USB issues now.


Do you have anything plugged into your motherboard internal usb headers? What devices are the issue?


----------



## Blackfyre

Arterion said:


> 4004 adds one new setting I've found compared to 4002.
> "RTM Margining Support" -> possible choices [ Auto | On ]
> Under \Advanced\AMD CBS\NBIO Common Options\ just below IOMMU.
> Not sure what it does.


That's interesting, has anyone found any details about this? Nothing searching on Google, 0 results.


----------



## metalshark

Blackfyre said:


> That's interesting, has anyone found any details about this? Nothing searching on Google, 0 results.


RTM is normally rear transition module - so you plug a card in and it's got slots for more cards. Essentially populating a PCIe slot with something that has a backplane for other cards to go into.

Then PCIe margining is described here:





PCI Express 4.0 Lane Margining | DesignWare IP | Synopsys


Technical Bulletin: PCI Express 4.0 Lane Margining and its Advantages. How Lane Margining enables designers to deliver a more robust system on time.




www.synopsys.com





Assuming RTM refers to rear transmission module then the part starting here throws some light:


> Three common board level interconnect cases are chip-to-chip (with no connectors), an expansion card interface with a board and a connector and a backplane with multiple boards and connectors. In a complex backplane, there are many reasons that the signal integrity may degrade, including cross-talk, reflection, discontinuities, and channel loss.


Why this option would appear on consumer-level motherboards and if this is what the option is actually referring to (i.e. am I jumping to the wrong conclusion) remain mysteries.

If this is what the option means, maybe we can increase the margins when doing BCLK overclocking for cards that aren't even RTM?


----------



## tonynca

metalshark said:


> Since 3501 USB has been rock steady for me on stock but with overclocked memory (e.g. above 3200MT/s on Zen 3) have needed 1.15-1.2v vSoC (1.1875v is the sweet spot for mine) and depending on how high you're going above 3200MT/s maybe some PLL (1.87v at 3800MT/s for instance) and then also CDDG IOD/CCD up (to the levels you're already using, more with DR memory and even more with 4xDR memory).
> 
> Just checking do you mean stock, or do you mean defaults, but with overclocked memory/DOCP?
> 
> Assuming you mean stock, if it's dropping out at stock and the USB devices+cables are working fine on another rig then IMO something is awful wrong.


I only tried running 3600mhz with stock CPU settings and voltages. I don't want to run the system at 2666mhz. That's unreasonable. I rather deal with the USB issues. I haven't pushed PLL to 1.87v, I think the max I've gone was 1.85v which is close enough with SoC at 1.15v.



Badgerslayer7 said:


> Do you have anything plugged into your motherboard internal usb headers? What devices are the issue?


I have an Octo and the case front USB plugged into the internal USB headers.


----------



## metalshark

tonynca said:


> I only tried running 3600mhz with stock CPU settings and voltages. I don't want to run the system at 2666mhz. That's unreasonable. I rather deal with the USB issues. I haven't pushed PLL to 1.87v, I think the max I've gone was 1.85v which is close enough with SoC at 1.15v.
> 
> 
> 
> I have an Octo and the case front USB plugged into the internal USB headers.


What CPU?

Zen 3 officially supports 3200MT/s, even the 5600X https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-5-5600x

There's no need to drop to 2666MT/s, was just checking you actually meant stock, because 3600MT/s is technically overclocking, therefore calling it stock is really misleading. If reduced to 3200MT/s does it exhibit the same issue?

Regarding PLL tolerance I get stutters and USB dropouts when overclocking memory at 1.86v, but it stops at 1.87v, same with the next step lower of vSoC from 1.1875v (and not running it a step higher than required for stability). Your system will likely vary.


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> Current 24/7 settings with 4004 (See attachment .txt file).
> 
> Benches with 24/7 settings @21°C :
> View attachment 2550443
> 
> 
> View attachment 2550444
> 
> 
> I got a nice improvment of Aida64 latencies with 4004 versus 3801.


Adding a slight cpu voltage offset, while keeping the max vid at the lower 1.425v with EDC > 140, is a very good idea for performances and stability.


----------



## tonynca

metalshark said:


> What CPU?
> 
> Zen 3 officially supports 3200MT/s, even the 5600X https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-5-5600x
> 
> There's no need to drop to 2666MT/s, was just checking you actually meant stock, because 3600MT/s is technically overclocking, therefore calling it stock is really misleading. If reduced to 3200MT/s does it exhibit the same issue?
> 
> Regarding PLL tolerance I get stutters and USB dropouts when overclocking memory at 1.86v, but it stops at 1.87v, same with the next step lower of vSoC from 1.1875v (and not running it a step higher than required for stability). Your system will likely vary.


5950x is the CPU. When you say stutters, what stutters for you?


----------



## Badgerslayer7

tonynca said:


> I only tried running 3600mhz with stock CPU settings and voltages. I don't want to run the system at 2666mhz. That's unreasonable. I rather deal with the USB issues. I haven't pushed PLL to 1.87v, I think the max I've gone was 1.85v which is close enough with SoC at 1.15v.
> 
> 
> 
> I have an Octo and the case front USB plugged into the internal USB headers.


You haven’t by any chance updated to the latest version of insiders of aquasuite have you and updated the octo firmware?


----------



## SpeedyIV

Badgerslayer7 said:


> You haven’t by any chance updated to the latest version of insiders of aquasuite have you and updated the octo firmware?


Hi. Not tonynca but curious about the relevance of having an Octo connected and running AQS X.50 (because I am running AQS X.50 and have an Octo with updated firmware connected). Is this an issue? Thanks.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

SpeedyIV said:


> Hi. Not tonynca but curious about the relevance of having an Octo connected and running AQS X.50 (because I am running AQS X.50 and have an Octo with updated firmware connected). Is this an issue? Thanks.


I updated my firmware on my octo with insiders x49. Since then my octo disconnects/reconnects from my system. Do you have any usb disconnects/ reconnects sounds? I used usbdeview to find out it was the octo. I’m on a crosshair hero viii wifi


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Delete post


----------



## metalshark

tonynca said:


> 5950x is the CPU. When you say stutters, what stutters for you?


In games it stuttering every so often, juddering frame rate for a split second, etc. Not related to the judders people have been getting with TPM. All cured with PLL/vSOC increase for me on a 5950X since 3501. Am currently on 4002, don’t know enough about what’s going on in 4004 to justify changing.


----------



## SpeedyIV

Badgerslayer7 said:


> I updated my firmware on my octo with insiders x49. Since then my octo disconnects/reconnects from my system. Do you have any usb disconnects/ reconnects sounds? I used usbdeview to find out it was the octo. I’m on a crosshair hero viii wifi


No I have not had any problems with the Octo USB connection though there are posts about USB disconnects on the Aquacomputer forum. X.50 was supposed to address this and I think the firmware update was part of the effort to solve the USB disconnects that people were reporting. I have a Dark Hero with 2 internal USB2.0 hubs - an Aquacomputer Hubby7 and an NZXT Gen-3. These hubs are connecting an Octo, 2 Farkwerk360 RGB controllers, 2 Corsair Lighting Node Cores, and 2 Pluggable USB-DVI video adapters that drive 2 different internal status monitor displays. One USB hub feeds into the other so all of this is running into USB2.0 header USB123. I am not using the other mobo USB2.0 header (USB_E56). I read somewhere that USB2.0 header USB_E56 has half of the power capacity of USB2.0 header USB123. I don't know if that is true and may move one of the internal USB hubs over to USB_E56 and see how it does.

So I have a lot of stuff plugged into USB2.0 header USB123 via the 2 internal USB hubs but all of it is USB2.0 stuff. I don't have anything attached to the USB 3.2 Gen2 front panel port or the USB 3.2 Gen 2 ports, USB type C port or the USB 3.2 Gen1 ports on the back. Most of the USB problems I hear about involve high bandwidth devices that need the newer USB3.2 Gen-1 or Gen-2 ports to operate so maybe that is why I am not having problems. I have never had a USB disconnect issue with the Dark Hero on any Bios I have run which includes almost every Bios release since 3302 beta. I am currently running Bios 4004.

Did you update AQS to X.50 and do the firmware update? If yes, are you still having disconnect issues with the Octo? I guess I have been lucky with my Aquacomputer stuff. I have been through a bunch of insider versions and several firmware updates. I get nervous every time I update Octo firmware because I have read a lot of posts from people who had the firmware update fail and ended up with bricked or malfunctioning Octos. I don't disconnect everything from the Octo, which they used to require and still recommend. I just run the firmware update and it has always worked. I hope I am not jinxing myself by typing this!


----------



## Badgerslayer7

SpeedyIV said:


> No I have not had any problems with the Octo USB connection though there are posts about USB disconnects on the Aquacomputer forum. X.50 was supposed to address this and I think the firmware update was part of the effort to solve the USB disconnects that people were reporting. I have a Dark Hero with 2 internal USB2.0 hubs - an Aquacomputer Hubby7 and an NZXT Gen-3. These hubs are connecting an Octo, 2 Farkwerk360 RGB controllers, 2 Corsair Lighting Node Cores, and 2 Pluggable USB-DVI video adapters that drive 2 different internal status monitor displays. One USB hub feeds into the other so all of this is running into USB2.0 header USB123. I am not using the other mobo USB2.0 header (USB_E56). I read somewhere that USB2.0 header USB_E56 has half of the power capacity of USB2.0 header USB123. I don't know if that is true and may move one of the internal USB hubs over to USB_E56 and see how it does.
> 
> So I have a lot of stuff plugged into USB2.0 header USB123 via the 2 internal USB hubs but all of it is USB2.0 stuff. I don't have anything attached to the USB 3.2 Gen2 front panel port or the USB 3.2 Gen 2 ports, USB type C port or the USB 3.2 Gen1 ports on the back. Most of the USB problems I hear about involve high bandwidth devices that need the newer USB3.2 Gen-1 or Gen-2 ports to operate so maybe that is why I am not having problems. I have never had a USB disconnect issue with the Dark Hero on any Bios I have run which includes almost every Bios release since 3302 beta. I am currently running Bios 4004.
> 
> Did you update AQS to X.50 and do the firmware update? If yes, are you still having disconnect issues with the Octo? I guess I have been lucky with my Aquacomputer stuff. I have been through a bunch of insider versions and several firmware updates. I get nervous every time I update Octo firmware because I have read a lot of posts from people who had the firmware update fail and ended up with bricked or malfunctioning Octos. I don't disconnect everything from the Octo, which they used to require and still recommend. I just run the firmware update and it has always worked. I hope I am not jinxing myself by typing this!


Ive not updated to x50. I bought a new octo to try and that’s working fine now. I’m just gonna stay on the old firmware now. Have you tried usbdeview to see which devices are disconnecting?


----------



## tonynca

Badgerslayer7 said:


> You haven’t by any chance updated to the latest version of insiders of aquasuite have you and updated the octo firmware?


Yes, the Octo is not disconnecting using the latest X.50 software and 1019 firmware. Even though I'm having USB issues with external HDD right now.



metalshark said:


> In games it stuttering every so often, juddering frame rate for a split second, etc. Not related to the judders people have been getting with TPM. All cured with PLL/vSOC increase for me on a 5950X since 3501. Am currently on 4002, don’t know enough about what’s going on in 4004 to justify changing.


So I think I found the issue. The chipset for whatever reason doesn't like external HDD via a USB 3.0 hub. It will not disconnect or drop out if I plug in the external USB HDD to the red ports directly. I tried higher 1.88v PLL and 1.18v SoC voltages but that didn't do anything for me. I don't have any game stuttering issues unless I have background programs using the GPU or CPU.

Also, raising the PLL also raises the CPU temps. I read that here: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/overclocking-amd-ryzen,5011-4.html

I know that's Ryzen 1000 series but it may still be relevant now. I went back to using 1.10v SoC and 1.76v PLL. Seems stable still so I'm probably just gonna keep it that way and plug in my external HDD directly.


----------



## tonynca

SpeedyIV said:


> No I have not had any problems with the Octo USB connection though there are posts about USB disconnects on the Aquacomputer forum. X.50 was supposed to address this and I think the firmware update was part of the effort to solve the USB disconnects that people were reporting. I have a Dark Hero with 2 internal USB2.0 hubs - an Aquacomputer Hubby7 and an NZXT Gen-3. These hubs are connecting an Octo, 2 Farkwerk360 RGB controllers, 2 Corsair Lighting Node Cores, and 2 Pluggable USB-DVI video adapters that drive 2 different internal status monitor displays. One USB hub feeds into the other so all of this is running into USB2.0 header USB123. I am not using the other mobo USB2.0 header (USB_E56). I read somewhere that USB2.0 header USB_E56 has half of the power capacity of USB2.0 header USB123. I don't know if that is true and may move one of the internal USB hubs over to USB_E56 and see how it does.
> 
> So I have a lot of stuff plugged into USB2.0 header USB123 via the 2 internal USB hubs but all of it is USB2.0 stuff. I don't have anything attached to the USB 3.2 Gen2 front panel port or the USB 3.2 Gen 2 ports, USB type C port or the USB 3.2 Gen1 ports on the back. Most of the USB problems I hear about involve high bandwidth devices that need the newer USB3.2 Gen-1 or Gen-2 ports to operate so maybe that is why I am not having problems. I have never had a USB disconnect issue with the Dark Hero on any Bios I have run which includes almost every Bios release since 3302 beta. I am currently running Bios 4004.
> 
> Did you update AQS to X.50 and do the firmware update? If yes, are you still having disconnect issues with the Octo? I guess I have been lucky with my Aquacomputer stuff. I have been through a bunch of insider versions and several firmware updates. I get nervous every time I update Octo firmware because I have read a lot of posts from people who had the firmware update fail and ended up with bricked or malfunctioning Octos. I don't disconnect everything from the Octo, which they used to require and still recommend. I just run the firmware update and it has always worked. I hope I am not jinxing myself by typing this!


Wait, you're connecting an internal USB hub to those USB headers on the motherboard itself? I think that is the problem. The chipset doesn't work well with hubs... I just found this out today. I have a Sabrent + Amazon powered hub and my external HDD connected to the hubs would disconnect when I do full load benching.

I don't have any issues with the Octo because it is connected directly to the motherboard USB header pinout.


----------



## metalshark

tonynca said:


> Yes, the Octo is not disconnecting using the latest X.50 software and 1019 firmware. Even though I'm having USB issues with external HDD right now.
> 
> 
> 
> So I think I found the issue. The chipset for whatever reason doesn't like external HDD via a USB 3.0 hub. It will not disconnect or drop out if I plug in the external USB HDD to the red ports directly. I tried higher 1.88v PLL and 1.875v SoC voltages but that didn't do anything for me. I don't have any game stuttering issues unless I have background programs using the GPU or CPU.
> 
> Also, raising the PLL also raises the CPU temps. I read that here: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/overclocking-amd-ryzen,5011-4.html
> 
> I know that's Ryzen 1000 series but it may still be relevant now. I went back to using 1.10v SoC and 1.76v PLL. Seems stable still so I'm probably just gonna keep it that way and plug in my external HDD directly.


Increasing the PLL will increase CPU temps, you’ll find less than 1’C going from 1.8 to 1.95 but it’s still an increase. It’s the voltage supplied to the part to drive clock speeds, hence the need to increase it as clocks increase. You only want to increase it by the amount required and can in certain setups also decrease it from stock. However it would appear you have a different issue and using a different USB controller resolved it.


----------



## Daylight_Invader

metalshark said:


> RTM is normally rear transition module - so you plug a card in and it's got slots for more cards. Essentially populating a PCIe slot with something that has a backplane for other cards to go into.
> 
> Then PCIe margining is described here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PCI Express 4.0 Lane Margining | DesignWare IP | Synopsys
> 
> 
> Technical Bulletin: PCI Express 4.0 Lane Margining and its Advantages. How Lane Margining enables designers to deliver a more robust system on time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.synopsys.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming RTM refers to rear transmission module then the part starting here throws some light:
> 
> 
> Why this option would appear on consumer-level motherboards and if this is what the option is actually referring to (i.e. am I jumping to the wrong conclusion) remain mysteries.
> 
> If this is what the option means, maybe we can increase the margins when doing BCLK overclocking for cards that aren't even RTM?


My guess would probably be for miners. Add in an additional PCIe backplane, and 'Bob's your uncle'! Easy way to add additional GPUs.


----------



## metalshark

Daylight_Invader said:


> My guess would probably be for miners. Add in an additional PCIe backplane, and 'Bob's your uncle'! Easy way to add additional GPUs.


Sounds like a good guess. Still unsure if it is that (Rear Transition Module) or if it stands for something else.


----------



## Gondar

I think i have defective USB port, i connect couple of external HDD to that port and when moving data i got errors: The IO operation at logical block address 0x6e0bb9f0 for Disk 4 (PDO name: \Device\0000004e) was retried.

Edit: And not just one USB port, more of them, sometimes it won't detect new HDD, either 4004 BIOS is problematic or hardware fault.

EDIT 2: I had to restart Windows to be able to recognize hdd, strange.


----------



## Baio73

Gondar said:


> I think i have defective USB port, i connect couple of external HDD to that port and when moving data i got errors: The IO operation at logical block address 0x6e0bb9f0 for Disk 4 (PDO name: \Device\0000004e) was retried.
> 
> Edit: And not just one USB port, more of them, sometimes it won't detect new HDD, either 4004 BIOS is problematic or hardware fault.
> 
> EDIT 2: I had to restart Windows to be able to recognize hdd, strange.


Weeks ago I read about problems with X570 chipset and USB external units using a specific protocol (maybe it was something like "USB Attached SCSI (UAS)").
If my memory does not fool me, it was related to external SSD boxes, and carried disconnection events in Event Viewer. It affects also HDD boxes but due to the difference in performances, it's not evident and does not compromise data. 
I got errors using a cheap NVMe external box, then tryed an ASUS ROG Strix Arion and disconnections disappeared.
Funny thing to observe, I tried swapping the USB cables of the 2 cases and errors popped up again with Asus box.

Hope it helps!

Baio


----------



## Gondar

Should i use my warranty? I got 6 month left.


----------



## Gondar

New update: I noticed that when i go from idle mode to active, i get I/O errors in qbittorrent, and that means hdd error, and dozens of errors in event viewer about that hdd. It is normal idle mode, not hybrid sleep or hibernation.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

I’m staring to get freezes in games which then crashes to desktop then a brrrr sound then bsod. I’m getting volmgr 161 followed by kernal power 41 in event viewer. Only seems to happen after a couple of hours of gaming, then when it does happen it only takes 10 mins of gaming for it to happen again. Seems like something is overheating at a guess. Any ideas?


----------



## metalshark

Badgerslayer7 said:


> I’m staring to get freezes in games which then crashes to desktop then a brrrr sound then bsod. I’m getting volmgr 161 followed by kernal power 41 in event viewer. Only seems to happen after a couple of hours of gaming, then when it does happen it only takes 10 mins of gaming for it to happen again. Seems like something is overheating at a guess. Any ideas?


Is that your m.2 drive needing a firmware update? Can you monitor its temps to make sure it's not cooking?


----------



## Badgerslayer7

metalshark said:


> Is that your m.2 drive needing a firmware update? Can you monitor its temps to make sure it's not cooking?


It’s a Corsair 2tb mp600 pro xt. It has a massive heat sink on it. It’s only a month old. Surely it wouldn’t be overheating? It seems to be around 55c when gaming.


----------



## metalshark

Badgerslayer7 said:


> It’s a Corsair 2tb mp600 pro xt. It has a massive heat sink on it. It’s only a month old. Surely it wouldn’t be overheating? It seems to be around 55c when gaming.


The BSOD was the volume manager, e.g. storage though right? If it's not overheating have you installed the management software to check if there's a firmware update?


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Yes it’s installed and all upto date. I search on the subject seems to be psu related. I’ve sent that off to be tested but there saying it seems fine. So I’m scratching my head to honest.


----------



## metalshark

Badgerslayer7 said:


> Yes it’s installed and all upto date. I search on the subject seems to be psu related. I’ve sent that off to be tested but there saying it seems fine. So I’m scratching my head to honest.


Could always torture test it, Furmark, Prime95 non-AVX 128/128 then start Crystal DiskMarking and see if it triggers it. When they tested the PSU was it with a load or just one of these simple voltages-at-near-idle testers?


----------



## Badgerslayer7

It sounds like they’ve just put it in their pc and are running stress tests. This what they said

Hi,

It's in our power supply test rig which is built in a Phanteks case. The system is a i9 10980XE overclocked which is on a custom watercooling setup and a 3090 (Air cooled), under full load this pulls around 950w.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Badgerslayer7 said:


> It sounds like they’ve just put it in their pc and are running stress tests. This what they said
> 
> Hi,
> 
> It's in our power supply test rig which is built in a Phanteks case. The system is a i9 10980XE overclocked which is on a custom watercooling setup and a 3090 (Air cooled), under full load this pulls around 950w.


It’s overclockers uk that are testing it. So you hope that they know what there doing.


----------



## metalshark

Badgerslayer7 said:


> It’s overclockers uk that are testing it. So you hope that they know what there doing.


LOL - ok had good feelings until that last bit. I lost faith in that lot, especially when 8pack started pushing his inferior RAM when X299 launched. Their parent company CaseKing has good people though. Still it's a toss up between them and SCAN now in the UK (with a touch of Watercooling UK and QuietPC) since Alternate stopped selling here (alas the only place selling top of the line G.Skill kits).

At least a 950w load is a decent test.

Makes it sound more likely that an error pointing squarely at the volume manager isn't related to the power supply.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Well I’m sure it’s a decent test but it doesn’t allow for case differences and ambient temperature. My room get quite toasty and when it gets toasty that’s when I get the freeze and bsod. Most of the posts where people get the error say they changed the power supply and the issue went away.


----------



## SpeedyIV

tonynca said:


> Wait, you're connecting an internal USB hub to those USB headers on the motherboard itself? I think that is the problem. The chipset doesn't work well with hubs... I just found this out today. I have a Sabrent + Amazon powered hub and my external HDD connected to the hubs would disconnect when I do full load benching.
> 
> I don't have any issues with the Octo because it is connected directly to the motherboard USB header pinout.


Yes I am connecting an internal USB 2.0 hub to the mobo USB123 header, but maybe I was not clear in my post. I have all of these USB2.0 devices plugged into 2 internal USB2.0 hubs, with one hub slaved off the other, all connected to mobo USB header USB123 and I have never had any USB problems at all, with any Bios, and any chipset driver I have installed. I have never had a single USB issue.

Did you read that X570 chipset does not work well with USB hubs or is this statement the result of your experience with the Amazon powered hub you tried to use? I know that X570 has been plagued with USB problems but have never heard that adding a USB hub (internal or external) was an issue.


----------



## SpeedyIV

Badgerslayer7 said:


> Ive not updated to x50. I bought a new octo to try and that’s working fine now. I’m just gonna stay on the old firmware now. Have you tried usbdeview to see which devices are disconnecting?


You may want to try updating in X.50 because this release made changes that are supposed to address USB connection issues. I can understand being shy about insider builds, and I am always get nervous when I have to update firmware because I have read many reports of that not ending well. But with my Dark Hero rig I have never had any USB connection problems at all. I have used usbdeview and USBLyzer in the past to troubleshoot the flakey USB ports on the Corsair Commander Pro, but not with this rig because I have not had any USB problems to troubleshoot. I sincerely hope it stays this way.


----------



## Gondar

With latest bios i have more USB problems, most stable version was 1.2.0.3c.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

SpeedyIV said:


> You may want to try updating in X.50 because this release made changes that are supposed to address USB connection issues. I can understand being shy about insider builds, and I am always get nervous when I have to update firmware because I have read many reports of that not ending well. But with my Dark Hero rig I have never had any USB connection problems at all. I have used usbdeview and USBLyzer in the past to troubleshoot the flakey USB ports on their Commander Pro, but not with this rig because I have not had any USB problems to troubleshoot. I sincerely hope it stays this way.


Can you point in the direction of where x.50 fixes usb issues as I’ve looked on their English forum and can’t find no mention of it. Thanks


----------



## Elrick

Gondar said:


> With latest bios i have more USB problems, most stable version was 1.2.0.3c.


Have kept some USB 2.0 and USB 3.0 PCIe cards around, just so I don't have to rely upon their onboard USB hardware.

It's not a cure to their ongoing difficulties with USB, but it's the most reliable way to get functioning USB that doesn't rely upon any onboard chipsets in any way.


----------



## Gondar

the question arises in the end, is it a software or hardware problem?


----------



## metalshark

Gondar said:


> the question arises in the end, is it a software or hardware problem?


USBCap is easy to use to determine if you're genuinely having USB issues.


----------



## Gondar

metalshark said:


> USBCap


Link plz, dind't even know you can test usb ports.


----------



## metalshark

Gondar said:


> Link plz, dind't even know you can test usb ports.


It's not for testing USB ports, more for inspecting USB communications:





USBPcap


USBPcap open source USB sniffer for Windows.



desowin.org





For testing actual ports I use a load and voltage tester, then a bandwidth tester.

The other thing you might want to do is use USBTreeView and check that you don't have any entries where the USB Version is marked as "wrong" (port is using a standard higher than the device supports, etc).


----------



## Lobstar

Gondar said:


> With latest bios i have more USB problems, most stable version was 1.2.0.3c.


Every time a new bios drops I try the on-board usb again and 4004 has been the worst so far. Since I switched to AMD I've had to use this on every build to avoid USB issues. It's four full USB controllers so I just stick this under my desk and a couple of these for the back of the PC itself. It really is sad that such an expensive board requires over $100 of accessories just so when I use my webcam the PC doesn't reboot.


----------



## SpeedyIV

Badgerslayer7 said:


> Can you point in the direction of where x.50 fixes usb issues as I’ve looked on their English forum and can’t find no mention of it. Thanks


The info about AQS X.50 including changes relating to USB connectivity is on the Aquacomputer English forum in the thread "New Aquasuite X", in the release notes for X.50.

New: aquasuite X - English forum - Aqua Computer Forum

It says:
*Changelog

aquasuite X.50 (Insider)* (24-FEB-2022)

Bugfix: Service and aquasuite performance (RAM, CPU load)
*Bugfix: USB connection to devices****
NEW: CSV chart data export
NEW: automatic data export to CSV log file
Update: Hardware monitoring
Update: aquasuite userinterface
*QUADRO Firmware 1032:
OCTO Firmware 1019:
farbwerk nano Firmware 1022:
farbwerk 360 Firmware 1022:
Vision RGBpx Firmware 1009:
D5 NEXT Firmware 1021:
high flow NEXT Firmware 1014:
LEAKSHIELD Firmware 1015:*

*Bugfix: USB connection issues**


----------



## Badgerslayer7

SpeedyIV said:


> The info about AQS X.50 including changes relating to USB connectivity is on the Aquacomputer English forum in the thread "New Aquasuite X", in the release notes for X.50.
> 
> New: aquasuite X - English forum - Aqua Computer Forum
> 
> It says:
> *Changelog
> 
> aquasuite X.50 (Insider)* (24-FEB-2022)
> 
> Bugfix: Service and aquasuite performance (RAM, CPU load)
> *Bugfix: USB connection to devices****
> NEW: CSV chart data export
> NEW: automatic data export to CSV log file
> Update: Hardware monitoring
> Update: aquasuite userinterface
> *QUADRO Firmware 1032:
> OCTO Firmware 1019:
> farbwerk nano Firmware 1022:
> farbwerk 360 Firmware 1022:
> Vision RGBpx Firmware 1009:
> D5 NEXT Firmware 1021:
> high flow NEXT Firmware 1014:
> LEAKSHIELD Firmware 1015:*
> 
> *Bugfix: USB connection issues**


Ok thanks. I had an email from Sven today saying that this will not stop the usb connectivity we will need to wait till x51 which will be a couple of weeks away and even then it’s just a work round and not a fix.


----------



## J7SC

@metalshark & Co... I finally got around to playing with Curve Optimizer w/ my 5950X. Below's underlying settings are not final yet as I do it step-by-step with a lot of intermittent testing for both single- and multi-core, but I am already quite happy with these results for 'daily'. Single core _effective_ at ~ 5065 MHz and with multi-core, I'm now at over 250 W CPU Package Power. Settings in bios are all on default (ie. PBO limits, voltages / no offset, phases). FYI, big w-cooling on the system. Ambient was 24 C for this (as an aside, we're not wasting energy > central steam plant is).

Below is w/o DynamicOC on the Dark Hero board...once I finish locking in CO, I might try to give that a shot as well in conjunction with CO to see if I can break my own CineR23 highmark of 32311, achieved with DynamicOC on its own a while back.


----------



## flyinion

J7SC said:


> I finally got around to playing with Curve Optimizer w/ my 5950X. Below's underlying settings are not final yet as I do it step-by-step with a lot of intermittent testing for both single- and multi-core, but I am already quite happy with these results for 'daily'. Single core _effective_ at ~ 5065 MHz and with multi-core, I'm now at over 250 W CPU Package Power. Settings in bios are all on default (ie. PBO limits, voltages / no offset, phases).


Can you post your curve offsets? I'm just curious as I've been working on mine and need to get back to it now that I updated to the 4004 BIOS for my C8H non-wifi. Just curious what other 5950X users are getting. Also if I read your post right, you're not using any +/- vcore offsets? I.e. you just changed curve values for each core until it was as low as possible and/or stable?


----------



## safedisk

*ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 4005 BETA BIOS*

1. Aura Sync bug Fix

New AGESA version has been applied, but there may be bugs.
So please rollback to the previous version if you have any problems
Thanks

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 4005

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 4005

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 4005

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 4005

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 4005

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0605


----------



## bmkzero

Did you get this issue since the 3904 bios update ?


----------



## Luggage

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2550845
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 4005 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Aura Sync bug Fix
> 
> New AGESA version has been applied, but there may be bugs.
> So please rollback to the previous version if you have any problems
> Thanks
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 4005
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 4005
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 4005
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 4005
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 4005
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0605


Still cant talk about VID vs EDC?


----------



## Kelutrel

Installed bios 4005, used the same settings I had in 4004, did some benchmarks, performs like 4004, everything looks fine.


----------



## stimpy88

Kelutrel said:


> Installed bios 4005, used the same settings I had in 4004, did some benchmarks, performs like 4004, everything looks fine.


And the issue that has been claimed to be fixed?


----------



## Kelutrel

stimpy88 said:


> And the issue that has been claimed to be fixed?


I don't know, I don't use leds or Aura or Armoury Crate. The darker my case is and the better it is for me, as I sleep a couple metres from it.
My statement above was more related to any obvious issue on cpu/ram/pci after updating to this new bios version.


----------



## xeizo

Which AGESA is it? Well, I will test it soon anyway, thanks for the upload!


----------



## GRABibus

I will wait for final release as I don’t have Aura Synch and no issues with 4004.


----------



## J7SC

flyinion said:


> Can you post your curve offsets? I'm just curious as I've been working on mine and need to get back to it now that I updated to the 4004 BIOS for my C8H non-wifi. Just curious what other 5950X users are getting. Also if I read your post right, you're not using any +/- vcore offsets? I.e. you just changed curve values for each core until it was as low as possible and/or stable?


...I've been following Elmor Labs' 5950X CO writeup along with comments from Metalshark, so I started CO with -5, then -10 and am now at -15, apart from one core at +4 and another at -2. I'll try for -20 for those cores that are at -15 now (earlier Hydra testing suggested more dramatic numbers are possible) but at the same time, this is supposed to be my daily-use setting...for hard benching, I use DynamicOC 4.8 GHz all-core.

...with the majority at CO -15, TDC at 172+A and EDC at 200A seem already fairly close to 'maxing' bios #3501 default values re. 'auto' for TDC and EDC, no manual v-offsets, and LLCs etc on auto as well. The only change I made was to add 50 MHz boost (haven't tried 75 MHz yet). As suggested before, I never had any USB or related issues with #3501.


----------



## Theo164

I've rolled back to 3801 its best performance bios. The best all around performance without extreme settings except per core CO which is as low as it can get without stability issues (tested for about 6+ months)










*EDIT*

Maximum core boost freq testing under ideal conditions 18c ambient 100% fan & pump speed light load


----------



## xeizo

Well the new 0605 bios updated Aura as expected, and booted at first try with OC settings, if it's stable? We'll have to wait, anyway it looks to be boosting happily. Still on positive offset so the very low vcore behavior is still there.

edit. performance is very good in Geekbench, in CPU-Z multi is very good but single is tanking but never mind as Geekbench is good. AIDA64 has good latency numbers, no problem there. If it's stable, I think it's a good bios.


----------



## noxious89123

kairi_zeroblade said:


> on all the latest beta bioses I get these, unless I reconfigure everything again from scratch (starting over again) *I'd say, there's something between the save profiles that breaks something..(my saved profile is from my previous stable configuration from BIOS version 3801 and 3501)*


Don't *ever *use profiles from one BIOS version with a different BIOS version. Many settings will be completely FUBAR'd if you do.

Use the inbuilt feature in the BIOS to save a list of your settings to a .txt file on a FAT formatted USB drive, then upload that file to something like Google Drive. Open the .txt file on your phone or something, and then read the settings off of there as you reinput them into the new BIOS after flashing.

Then just overwrite your old saved profiles so you don't accidentally load them and end up with totally borked settings.


----------



## Blackfyre

noxious89123 said:


> Don't *ever *use profiles from one BIOS version with a different BIOS version. Many settings will be completely FUBAR'd if you do.


Why? It's there as an option for a reason. I use it every time and have not had an issue.

I save both (_to a USB_). The .txt I send to myself on whatsapp, and then save BIOS settings. And upgrade and then bring back my settings.

It does not bring back everything. You still need to go in and do things manually yourself for some settings, which is where the .txt comes in handy.


----------



## metalshark

Blackfyre said:


> Why? It's there as an option for a reason. I use it every time and have not had an issue.
> 
> I save both (_to a USB_). The .txt I send to myself on whatsapp, and then save BIOS settings. And upgrade and then bring back my settings.
> 
> It does not bring back everything. You still need to go in and do things manually yourself for some settings, which is where the .txt comes in handy.


Think you'll only get an official answer from ASUS. Let's say you create a profile for 3801 and save its .CMO(S) file to a USB. Then you create a profile from fresh for 4005 and save its .CMO(S) file to that USB as a different file name. Now you compare the two using a binary diff. You'll notice differences. Hopefully, all those differences map perfectly to control the same options in both, this isn't guaranteed, especially not for versions that aren't publicly released (on their official website). Some parts might not even map to a user-configurable option.

Re-using profiles is something most do until they hit a problem, weird behaviour or odd performance when they'll never re-use a profile again.

Without an official answer from ASUS it might be they've now corrected the issues of old and now it works perfectly every time, but once bitten, twice shy and having a quick list of options to change written down helps re-program it all in 2-5 minutes and means you can more easily share the options you've changed with others.

I'd hope, at least on this thread, if someone is reporting issues on a new UEFI, they're doing so with a fresh profile to confirm it's actually an issue. Although reporting no issues using an old profile is equally valid.


----------



## th30d0r3

J7SC said:


> ...I've been following Elmor Labs' 5950X CO writeup along with comments from Metalshark, so I started CO with -5, then -10 and am now at -15, apart from one core at +4 and another at -2. I'll try for -20 for those cores that are at -15 now (earlier Hydra testing suggested more dramatic numbers are possible) but at the same time, this is supposed to be my daily-use setting...for hard benching, I use DynamicOC 4.8 GHz all-core.
> 
> ...with the majority at CO -15, TDC at 172+A and EDC at 200A seem already fairly close to 'maxing' bios #3501 default values re. 'auto' for TDC and EDC, no manual v-offsets, and LLCs etc on auto as well. The only change I made was to add 50 MHz boost (haven't tried 75 MHz yet). As suggested before, I never had any USB or related issues with #3501.


I'm curious dude, how are you getting 4.8ghz on both cores, what are your settings and set up please? I have a C8DH with 2x16gb (same mem timings as you).

My system is quite well cooled (2x EKWB 480 XE) and I struggle with getting my second core over 4.6ghz, my first core can hit 4.75ghz on my older 5950x but my B2 Stepping has the same limitations, I was wondering if it's something else that's limiting the performance; since it's strange that both chips hit the exact same wall, just at different voltages (B2 requires a lot less).


----------



## noxious89123

Blackfyre said:


> Why? It's there as an option for a reason. I use it every time and have not had an issue.


I don't mean to sound rude, but my own experience with my Crosshair VIII goes contrary to what you're claiming here, so I remain highly skeptical. Yes it's there for a reason, but that doesn't mean it's the be all end all of solutions. I'd argue that part of the reason the ability to save to .txt exists is precisely because you can't _shouldn't_ carry profiles over between different BIOS versions.



metalshark said:


> Let's say you create a profile for 3801 and save its .CMO(S) file to a USB. Then you create a profile from fresh for 4005 and save its .CMO(S) file to that USB as a different file name. Now you compare the two using a binary diff. You'll notice differences. Hopefully, all those differences map perfectly to control the same options in both, this isn't guaranteed, especially not for versions that aren't publicly released (on their official website). Some parts might not even map to a user-configurable option.


I've tried using profiles between different BIOS on the Crosshair VIII and can confirm that the differences do not "map" anywhere close to correctly. Lot's of options get broken when loading an old profile, options dissappear from the BIOS entirely, some will have wildly incorrect values set etc.

Perhaps it depends on which versions you're changing between. Obviously some will have bigger changes than others, with some updates gaining options

I still had an old profile from an earlier BIOS which I only overwrote yesterday (was having some issues, which is why I was back on the forum). When I loaded that profile there were entire options that just disappeared from the BIOS. I had similar issues when doing an upgrade from (IIRC) the BIOS my board shipped with to 2601, or it may have been 2601 to 3204. I forgot that I couldn't simply re-use the old profiles and loaded an old one. Loads of settings were messed up.

Even if an update appears to not change much, I wouldn't risk loading a profile from an old version simply because it could cause hard to diagnose issues.

Flash new BIOS, clear CMOS and reinput all your settings. Safest way.


----------



## OblivionXT

th30d0r3 said:


> I'm curious dude, how are you getting 4.8ghz on both cores, what are your settings and set up please? I have a C8DH with 2x16gb (same mem timings as you).
> 
> My system is quite well cooled (2x EKWB 480 XE) and I struggle with getting my second core over 4.6ghz, my first core can hit 4.75ghz on my older 5950x but my B2 Stepping has the same limitations, I was wondering if it's something else that's limiting the performance; since it's strange that both chips hit the exact same wall, just at different voltages (B2 requires a lot less).


AMD tries to Bin the 5950X to have one Golden Sample die and one lesser binned (but still within spec) die. Epyc gets all Golden Samples. The yields are so good on TSMC 7nm that sometimes they don't have any lower binned dies, so some people get lucky lol.

Something similar happened with RDNA 2, where the yields were so good that they sometimes had to cut down GPU dies that could have been 6900XTs to meet supply requirements for the 6800 and 6800XT.


----------



## iggy097

Wrong thread - remove


----------



## J7SC

th30d0r3 said:


> I'm curious dude, how are you getting 4.8ghz on both cores, what are your settings and set up please? I have a C8DH with 2x16gb (same mem timings as you).
> 
> My system is quite well cooled (2x EKWB 480 XE) and I struggle with getting my second core over 4.6ghz, my first core can hit 4.75ghz on my older 5950x but my B2 Stepping has the same limitations, I was wondering if it's something else that's limiting the performance; since it's strange that both chips hit the exact same wall, just at different voltages (B2 requires a lot less).





OblivionXT said:


> AMD tries to Bin the 5950X to have one Golden Sample die and one lesser binned (but still within spec) die. Epyc gets all Golden Samples. The yields are so good on TSMC 7nm that sometimes they don't have any lower binned dies, so some people get lucky lol.
> 
> Something similar happened with RDNA 2, where the yields were so good that they sometimes had to cut down GPU dies that could have been 6900XTs to meet supply requirements for the 6800 and 6800XT.


The 4.8 GHz run (spoiler) is from a while back, but I simply followed the DynamicOC steps DerBauer had laid out in a YT vid with the exception of offset...no curve optimizer, no changes to LLC, no offset voltages, no PBO limit changes. For what it is worth, both CCX have a 'gold' rating. 

I now started to use CO last week, but still with stock PBO limits, auto LLC and no offset - I'm now hitting almost 260W CPU PackagePower and am maxing TDC and almost maxing EDC board default values, so I'll have to set a weekend aside for some more benching with PBO limits updated.

@OblivionXT ...good point about the Epyc...interestingly, some Epyc models now come with updated V3Cache, including 8x8 chiplets...that means that 5950XV3C are of course technically possible as well, but probably too close to AM5/Zen4 re. marketing. Also, the Enterprise market (Epyc, perhaps Threadripper Pro) are the real money makers for AMD, so they tend to get the really good stuff first.



Spoiler


----------



## sonixmon

noxious89123 said:


> I don't mean to sound rude, but my own experience with my Crosshair VIII goes contrary to what you're claiming here, so I remain highly skeptical. Yes it's there for a reason, but that doesn't mean it's the be all end all of solutions. I'd argue that part of the reason the ability to save to .txt exists is precisely because you can't _shouldn't_ carry profiles over between different BIOS versions.
> 
> 
> 
> I've tried using profiles between different BIOS on the Crosshair VIII and can confirm that the differences do not "map" anywhere close to correctly. Lot's of options get broken when loading an old profile, options dissappear from the BIOS entirely, some will have wildly incorrect values set etc.
> 
> Perhaps it depends on which versions you're changing between. Obviously some will have bigger changes than others, with some updates gaining options
> 
> I still had an old profile from an earlier BIOS which I only overwrote yesterday (was having some issues, which is why I was back on the forum). When I loaded that profile there were entire options that just disappeared from the BIOS. I had similar issues when doing an upgrade from (IIRC) the BIOS my board shipped with to 2601, or it may have been 2601 to 3204. I forgot that I couldn't simply re-use the old profiles and loaded an old one. Loads of settings were messed up.
> 
> Even if an update appears to not change much, I wouldn't risk loading a profile from an old version simply because it could cause hard to diagnose issues.
> 
> Flash new BIOS, clear CMOS and reinput all your settings. Safest way.


I have seen this issue before going from 2xxx to 3xxx but I don't think it is a big deal going from 3xxx to 4xxx but I have found going from 3x01 to 3x04 is not usually a problem. I tend to spot check my settings and make sure it all looks right.

Just my experience YMMV.


----------



## metalshark

For those experiencing fTPM stuttering issues, looks like there will be an update in May.


https://www.amd.com/en/support/kb/faq/pa-410


----------



## J7SC

metalshark said:


> For those experiencing fTPM stuttering issues, looks like there will be an update in May.
> 
> 
> https://www.amd.com/en/support/kb/faq/pa-410


...or  :


----------



## stimpy88

So, AGESA 1207 is going to be (hopefully) the big tidy-up release. I think it's about time AMD got the USB problems properly sorted out as well. I won't hold my breath.


----------



## kuutale

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2550845
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 4005 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Aura Sync bug Fix
> 
> New AGESA version has been applied, but there may be bugs.
> So please rollback to the previous version if you have any problems
> Thanks
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 4005
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 4005
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 4005
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 4005
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 4005
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0605



is this agesa 1207 ?


----------



## th30d0r3

J7SC said:


> The 4.8 GHz run (spoiler) is from a while back, but I simply followed the DynamicOC steps DerBauer had laid out in a YT vid with the exception of offset...no curve optimizer, no changes to LLC, no offset voltages, no PBO limit changes. For what it is worth, both CCX have a 'gold' rating.
> 
> I now started to use CO last week, but still with stock PBO limits, auto LLC and no offset - I'm now hitting almost 260W CPU PackagePower and am maxing TDC and almost maxing EDC board default values, so I'll have to set a weekend aside for some more benching with PBO limits updated.
> 
> @OblivionXT ...good point about the Epyc...interestingly, some Epyc models now come with updated V3Cache, including 8x8 chiplets...that means that 5950XV3C are of course technically possible as well, but probably too close to AM5/Zen4 re. marketing. Also, the Enterprise market (Epyc, perhaps Threadripper Pro) are the real money makers for AMD, so they tend to get the really good stuff first.


Thanks dude, are you able to share your SEttings.txt with me please? I watched that video and found your post about it, so I'm currently testing the with all settings left alone to see what happens. but I definitely have a lesser CCD2 and a very good CCD1. I wonder if there's a batch to look out for; do you happen to know your batch number?


----------



## finas

kuutale said:


> is this agesa 1207 ?



No. It's still 1206b.


----------



## Blackfyre

noxious89123 said:


> I don't mean to sound rude, but my own experience with my Crosshair VIII goes contrary to what you're claiming here, so I remain highly skeptical. Yes it's there for a reason, but that doesn't mean it's the be all end all of solutions. I'd argue that part of the reason the ability to save to .txt exists is precisely because you can't _shouldn't_ carry profiles over between different BIOS versions.


Not rude at all. I think your experiences stem from before those issues were ironed out. I have upgraded from official BIOSes to BETA bioses here, and back to official ones and so on and every time I imported my profile from the USB without issue.

When I say without issue, of course I look things over and make sure I complete the things it misses myself. For example all PBO2 settings and negative offsets do not carry over when loading the BIOS. But all my custom voltages and RAM timings copy over perfectly.

It does not mean just IMPORT save and exit. I still go over everything. But for example RAM timings and all the custom voltages are always correct, it saves a lot of time inputting those again.



metalshark said:


> For those experiencing fTPM stuttering issues, looks like there will be an update in May.
> 
> 
> https://www.amd.com/en/support/kb/faq/pa-410


I purchased a dTPM months ago and haven't had any issues anymore. 

Glad they're fixing the issue. It would be funny and infuriating if somehow they fix fTPM and those who purchased dTPM start having issues 



kuutale said:


> is this agesa 1207 ?


No the most recent BETA bios is agesa 1206b

I would guess we get 1207 BETA here some time in April before it is officially released in May.


----------



## Baio73

stimpy88 said:


> So, AGESA 1207 is going to be (hopefully) the big tidy-up release. I think it's about time AMD got the USB problems properly sorted out as well. I won't hold my breath.


What kind of problems are you experiencing with USB?

Baio


----------



## GRABibus

I think there will be also very soon Bios updates to support 5800X3D.


----------



## stimpy88

GRABibus said:


> I think there will be also very soon Bios updates to support 5800X3D.


That's AGESA 1.2.0.7

I've just heard that AMD is launching X3D with AGESA 1.2.0.6b, but that there will be no overclocking supported (by the 5800X3D) on that version. Maybe due to a bug, or a physical HW issue. Hopefully AGESA 1.2.0.7 will be what addresses that issue... And is due in a month or so, hopefully at the same time the chip launches.


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> I think there will be also very soon Bios updates to support 5800X3D.





stimpy88 said:


> That's AGESA 1.2.0.7
> 
> I've just heard that AMD is launching X3D with AGESA 1.2.0.6b, but that there will be no overclocking supported (by the 5800X3D) on that version. Maybe due to a bug, or a physical HW issue. Hopefully AGESA 1.2.0.7 will be what addresses that issue... And is due in a month or so, hopefully at the same time the chip launches.


...or one could also get the new Threadripper Pro 5995WX - 4x5950X, 256 MB L3 (Edt.) , and 8 channel RAM 








@Anandtech


----------



## GRABibus

stimpy88 said:


> That's AGESA 1.2.0.7
> 
> I've just heard that AMD is launching X3D with AGESA 1.2.0.6b, but that there will be no overclocking supported (by the 5800X3D) on that version. Maybe due to a bug, or a physical HW issue. Hopefully AGESA 1.2.0.7 will be what addresses that issue... And is due in a month or so, hopefully at the same time the chip launches.





J7SC said:


> ...or one could also get the new Threadripper Pro 5995WX - 4x5950X, 256 GB L3, and 8 channel RAM
> View attachment 2551465
> 
> @Anandtech


And a column with prices ?


----------



## ArchStanton

GRABibus said:


> And a column with prices ?


Easy peasy, $ = your soul


----------



## bt1

ArchStanton said:


> Easy peasy, $ = your soul


Duron 700 it is


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> And a column with prices ?


Prices ? Priceless !
Every morning, you could run a quick CinebenchR23, a may be a quick AIDA cache and memory benchmark before bedtime...dopamine


----------



## Nizzen

J7SC said:


> ...or one could also get the new Threadripper Pro 5995WX - 4x5950X, 256 GB L3, and 8 channel RAM
> View attachment 2551465
> 
> @Anandtech


256 GigaByte L3


----------



## J7SC

Nizzen said:


> 256 GigaByte L3


oopsie 🙃 - once again, I'm ahead of my time...


----------



## CfYz

4006 on the site, but strange somewhere 4004 latest after 3904 (en), somewhere 4006 after 3904 (de)... Checked only Dark Hero sites.

Contains AGESA 1.2.0.6b


----------



## metalshark

CfYz said:


> 4006 on the site, but strange somewhere 4004 latest after 3904 (en), somewhere 4006 after 3904 (de)... Checked only Dark Hero sites.
> 
> Contains AGESA 1.2.0.6b


4002, 4004 and 4006 are all currently hosted by ASUS, but looks like only 4004 is linked to.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

metalshark said:


> 4002, 4004 and 4006 are all currently hosted by ASUS, but looks like only 4004 is linked to.


Didn't notice new bios on Asus site, is it official the 4006 or is it still in beta?


----------



## metalshark

DvL Ax3l said:


> Didn't notice new bios on Asus site, is it official the 4006 or is it still in beta?


Am not an ASUS employee so wouldn't know.

Would assume all 3 use AGESA 1.2.0.6b and as that doesn't have a BETA assignment I doubt any of the UEFI's would be marked as BETA.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

metalshark said:


> Am not an ASUS employee so wouldn't know.
> 
> Would assume all 3 use AGESA 1.2.0.6b and as that doesn't have a BETA assignment I doubt any of the UEFI's would be marked as BETA.


I'm sorry I was just asking, it was not my intention to bother you 🙏🏻


----------



## metalshark

DvL Ax3l said:


> I'm sorry I was just asking, it was not my intention to bother you 🙏🏻


All good, sorry if terse/passive aggressive - just trying to be clear. 💗


----------



## GRABibus

DvL Ax3l said:


> Didn't notice new bios on Asus site, is it official the 4006 or is it still in beta?


There is always a delay on foreign Asus sites.
On French site, still 4004.


----------



## PWn3R

metalshark said:


> For those experiencing fTPM stuttering issues, looks like there will be an update in May.
> 
> 
> https://www.amd.com/en/support/kb/faq/pa-410


I thought that **** started with the fTPM enabling. I thought I was the only person. I’ve been killed several times in clutch situations in FaceIt matches because of that stutter. Sometimes it happens multiple times in an hour sometimes only like once in 10 hours.

:cussing ensues:


----------



## GRABibus

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D to cost $449, launches April 20 - VideoCardz.com


AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D for 449 USD One of our best sources has provided a list of upcoming AMD AM4 processors that will be released in the coming weeks. AMD’s first Ryzen processor equipped with 3D V-Cache memory, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, now has a release date: April 20. According to Disclosuzen, who...




videocardz.com


----------



## metalshark

PWn3R said:


> I thought that **** started with the fTPM enabling. I thought I was the only person. I’ve been killed several times in clutch situations in FaceIt matches because of that stutter. Sometimes it happens multiple times in an hour sometimes only like once in 10 hours.
> 
> :cussing ensues:


Am really happy I haven't been affected (am on the Formula with a 5950X) but know someone also on a Formula who apparently has the issue. Do not know the exact rhyme/reason people are affected, but it's detectable in LatencyMon.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

So the new BIOS for C8DH it's up on the official ASUS site and include 5800X3D support

2022/03/10
20.65 MBytes

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BIOS 4006

Update AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.6b
Improve system performance for AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D
Improve system compatibility and stability
Before running the USB BIOS Flashback tool, please rename the BIOS file (C8DH.CAP) using BIOSRenamer


----------



## GRABibus

4006 Installed also on my C8H.
I won’t perform any stability tests (Fed up with Realbench, Karhu’s and Aida64).

my CBR20 scores are identical than with 4004.


----------



## 1ah1

we need AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.7 to fix fTPM stuttering issues.


----------



## benbenkr

Haven't popped in here for awhile, gotta ask how's the latest AGESA and BIOS updates been with in regards to USB 3.x and 2.0 intermittent disconnects?

Is 3801 still the best for USB stability?


----------



## DvL Ax3l

I've just finished to test the 4006, seems good so far, I need to OC the ram but not now I'm too lazy, just used XMP + little tweak + 3800mt/s


----------



## GRABibus

DvL Ax3l said:


> I've just finished to test the 4006, seems good so far, I need to OC the ram but not now I'm too lazy, just used XMP + little tweak + 3800mt/s
> View attachment 2551663


All memory latencies beyond 60ns are not accepted here on OCN


----------



## Gondar

benbenkr said:


> Haven't popped in here for awhile, gotta ask how's the latest AGESA and BIOS updates been with in regards to USB 3.x and 2.0 intermittent disconnects?
> 
> Is 3801 still the best for USB stability?


With 4004 BIOS my external HDD-s are unstable and i can't use them for backup anymore, too many errors.


----------



## stimpy88

benbenkr said:


> Haven't popped in here for awhile, gotta ask how's the latest AGESA and BIOS updates been with in regards to USB 3.x and 2.0 intermittent disconnects?
> 
> Is 3801 still the best for USB stability?


Still the same issues.


----------



## Blackfyre

DvL Ax3l said:


> I've just finished to test the 4006, seems good so far, I need to OC the ram but not now I'm too lazy, just used XMP + little tweak + 3800mt/s
> View attachment 2551663


Nice, make sure you update your chipset driver from Asus motherboard page rather than AMD website, they have a newer chipset driver than the one on the official AMD site. Helps with L3 Cache latency more, I get 10.5ns to 10.8ns












Gondar said:


> With 4004 BIOS my external HDD-s are unstable and i can't use them for backup anymore, too many errors.





stimpy88 said:


> Still the same issues.


I have multiple external drives always plugged in, haven't had such issues. But I have never had USB issues myself with any BIOS and I always update to the latest. So I am not one of the unlucky ones with USB issues.


----------



## benbenkr

Gondar said:


> With 4004 BIOS my external HDD-s are unstable and i can't use them for backup anymore, too many errors.





stimpy88 said:


> Still the same issues.





Blackfyre said:


> I have multiple external drives always plugged in, haven't had such issues. But I have never had USB issues myself with any BIOS and I always update to the latest. So I am not one of the unlucky ones with USB issues.


Damn that's sad to hear. I was on 1302 which never had any USB issues until recently when I just got a new DAC+amp combo to play with (iFi Zen Dac v2).

Just updated to 3801 a few hours ago but alas USB disconnectivity still happens. Absolutely frustrating when AMD claims that all USB disconnection has been resolved, bunch of liars.


----------



## Rapid7

If your not using your rear usb-c port buy a usb-c to usb adaptor, that sorted my Bifrost dac issues out.


----------



## Gondar

Can these usb problems be of a hardware nature or only firmware/software? And is it from CPU or chipset on motherboard?


----------



## benbenkr

Rapid7 said:


> If your not using your rear usb-c port buy a usb-c to usb adaptor, that sorted my Bifrost dac issues out.


I may give that a try. Are you using a powered one?



Gondar said:


> Can these usb problems be of a hardware nature or only firmware/software? And is it from CPU or chipset on motherboard?


I believe it's a combination of everything you mentioned. It's no surprise that 5 years since AM4, AGESA continues to be an absolute mess. On Intel's side, you could run the most barebones BIOS and everything will work without a single hiccup - EVEN if there's an issue, it would be documented unlike AMD keeping everything under a rug about AGESA.


----------



## Kelutrel

benbenkr said:


> I may give that a try. Are you using a powered one?
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it's a combination of everything you mentioned. It's no surprise that 5 years since AM4, AGESA continues to be an absolute mess. On Intel's side, you could run the most barebones BIOS and everything will work without a single hiccup - EVEN if there's an issue, it would be documented unlike AMD keeping everything under a rug about AGESA.


Pretty sure you should go and buy an Intel then.


----------



## GRABibus

@22°C
Open PC
all fans @ 100%


----------



## Gondar

Another usb hdd gives me this error: UASPStor, Reset to device, \Device\RaidPort4, was issued. i get couple of those errors in a day. Some usb ports are more stable/less errors, some gives me immediately error and hdd dissapear from windows so i need to restart it, i think i had best time with 1.2.0.3 bios.


----------



## benbenkr

Gondar said:


> Another usb hdd gives me this error: UASPStor, Reset to device, \Device\RaidPort4, was issued. i get couple of those errors in a day. Some usb ports are more stable/less errors, some gives me immediately error and hdd dissapear from windows so i need to restart it, i think i had best time with 1.2.0.3 bios.


I noticed this too. One of the USB 3.x port (red) used to flat out not work with the Xbox one controller wireless dongle, I had to move it to the USB 3.0 (blue) port for it to function properly.


----------



## J7SC

metalshark said:


> If we can keep it civil please. I don’t think we have an AMD fanboy on here, nor a blind supporter. Pretty sure all would swap platform to whichever delivers the highest performance on next upgrade, etc. At present an AMD system requires a lot more work to get it performing optimally and without issue beyond stock (and yes DOCP beyond 3200MT/s is not stock) however it’s really rewarding and why we share info on this thread.
> 
> You’ll end up with a much deeper understanding of what’s going on under the hood and what all these options do running a Ryzen system for a year or so. So if 14th gen Intel (7nm/Intel 4) doesn’t work out you’ll have an alternative with the knowledge to hit the ground running. However if 14th gen turns out great then hopefully you’ve had a blast overcoming the challenges.
> 
> Running USBTreeView to check what’s going on under the hood, especially if you’re having issues to see if any devices are syncing at the wrong speed, are being under powered, have dropped out, etc helps target what needs fixed.


^This !

I have far more Intel CPUs (desktop and HEDT) than AMD, and most of the Intel are fine, but a handful are piggies re. stability, USB etc. Over the last three years, I got my first-ever AMD CPUs (2950X, 3950X and 5950X) and they all have performed flawlessly, including on 'full-house' USB of various gens. But then, I rarely update the bios if I have no problems with a given setup 🧐.

When AMD AM5 and Intel Meteor Lake (if not Raptor Lake) are out for a bit and fully reviewed and bios-mature, I'll decide then whether it will be AMD or Intel, but for now, I couldn't be happier with AMD's Ryzen products.


----------



## TMavica

After some investigation, asus armoury crate add many memory latency penalties ...I cant get rid of it, because i need to use it to control my asus product, like ryujin 2 AIO


----------



## metalshark

TMavica said:


> After some investigation, asus armoury crate add many memory latency penalties ...I cant get rid of it, because i need to use it to control my asus product, like ryujin 2 AIO


OpenRGB (with Artemis RGB ontop if needing advanced effects) combined with Argus Monitor might prove a great combination as an alternative with a lot less overhead. However, I do not know of alternative software to control the OLED screen on that AIO.


----------



## stimpy88

benbenkr said:


> Damn that's sad to hear. I was on 1302 which never had any USB issues until recently when I just got a new DAC+amp combo to play with (iFi Zen Dac v2).
> 
> Just updated to 3801 a few hours ago but alas USB disconnectivity still happens. Absolutely frustrating when AMD claims that all USB disconnection has been resolved, bunch of liars.


If you want a BIOS with no USB issues, then try out 3302, that's the version I settled on, as newer ones make my USB go crazy.


----------



## benbenkr

stimpy88 said:


> If you want a BIOS with no USB issues, then try out 3302, that's the version I settled on, as newer ones make my USB go crazy.


Interesting, because the supposed "USB fix" was introduced in AGESA 1.2.0.1 A which is BIOS 3401.

I may check it out, thanks.


----------



## J7SC

stimpy88 said:


> If you want a BIOS with no USB issues, then try out 3302, that's the version I settled on, as newer ones make my USB go crazy.


I also run still bios 3302 on the 3950X (the 5950X is on bios 3501) - no problems whatsoever w/ either

5950X posted before, here is the 3950X:


----------



## DvL Ax3l

GRABibus said:


> All memory latencies beyond 60ns are not accepted here on OCN





Blackfyre said:


> Nice, make sure you update your chipset driver from Asus motherboard page rather than AMD website, they have a newer chipset driver than the one on the official AMD site. Helps with L3 Cache latency more, I get 10.5ns to 10.8ns


Ok so I've tweaked the timings, my Corsair CMT32GX4M4C3600C18 are not so good, they are B-Die, but 4 sticks it's heavy on IMC, anyway here are the result from 3600C18 to 3800C16 @ 1.355V, about the L3 Cache latency it's Windows 11 fault, on Windows 10 it was around 10.5ns


----------



## ArchStanton

DvL Ax3l said:


> here are the result from 3600C18 to 3800C16 @ 1.355V


Are you temperature limited at that voltage? I ask because the B-die kit that I use specified a XMP/DOCP voltage of 1.456 (or very close to that), and I'm wondering if you have more room to maneuver and still keep the DIMMs at or below 45⁰C. Anyway, congratulations on your progress .


----------



## DvL Ax3l

ArchStanton said:


> Are you temperature limited at that voltage? I ask because the B-die kit that I use specified a XMP/DOCP voltage of 1.456 (or very close to that), and I'm wondering if you have more room to maneuver and still keep the DIMMs at or below 45⁰C. Anyway, congratulations on your progress .


No, I'm using them at their XMP/DOCP voltage, in IDLE they are around 36/38⁰C during heavy game sessions around 44/45⁰C (Cyberpunk 2077 @ ultra rt settings, the GPU blow super hot air inside the case)


----------



## Rapid7

No just a normal cable https://www.amazon.co.uk/StarTech-c...&sprefix=usb-c+to+usb+startech+,aps,56&sr=8-3


----------



## macvirii

For some reason, the 4006 bios made the 3900x on my C8 hero stay locked on ~500mhz and it didn't speed up for nothing. Never happened on the 3801. It was after waking up, but it was behaving normally, I was researching some digital oscilloscopes, and suddenly it started crawling. 
For some reason I was on the balanced power config, changed and nothing. 
For now I forced some OC (I hadn't time to test the bios extensively yet, just some all core OC) , enabled everything for performance, disabled fTPM, let's see if it will happen again.


----------



## Buttergemuese

Hi there, 
I tested BIOS 4006. BIOS 3801 was best for me before. 
With 4006, my points in cpuz or R20/23 have decreased (minimal), but I have noticed improvements. 
The system is more usable under load (memtest or prime95). It doesn't feel so sluggish anymore. I can run memtest with 16 threads and hardly notice anything when I run other things... 
with BIOS 3801 this was not possible! The system was much slower under load! 
Memory management and cache usage has improved significantly. Currently no problems with BIOS 4006 
My settings 
5950x stock
-50mv UV CO-7 All Core ---->16200 CPU TimeSpy
CPUZ 12300 multi 
CPUZ 693 single 
cooled 360 AIO


----------



## Kokin

Is there a difference between BIOS 4004 and 4006 since they use the same AGESA version? 

I have a 3900X and CH8 Impact but got the chance to buy 2x 5900X for me and my wife. I want to test out both chips and see which one is the better clocker to keep for myself, but I am completely lost to the newer method of PBO2 and curve optimizer for the 5000 series. Both 5900X chips will be cooled with a custom wcing loop if that changes anything. What threads should I read up on to get started?

Thanks!


----------



## hwanzi

metalshark said:


> OpenRGB (with Artemis RGB ontop if needing advanced effects) combined with Argus Monitor might prove a great combination as an alternative with a lot less overhead. However, I do not know of alternative software to control the OLED screen on that AIO.


THIS!! this is the setup I use...I can't recommend this enough! asus armory crate is cancer


----------



## J7SC

metalshark said:


> OpenRGB (with Artemis RGB ontop if needing advanced effects) combined with Argus Monitor might prove a great combination as an alternative with a lot less overhead. However, I do not know of alternative software to control the OLED screen on that AIO.





hwanzi said:


> THIS!! this is the setup I use...I can't recommend this enough! asus armory crate is cancer


Does OpenRGB support TridentZ RGB ? The remaining RGB spots are usually not an issue, but TridentZ RGB seems to either need its own GSkill RGB applet or Armory Crate


----------



## hwanzi

J7SC said:


> Does OpenRGB support TridentZ RGB ? The remaining RGB spots are usually not an issue, but TridentZ RGB seems to either need its own GSkill RGB applet or Armory Crate


kinda...for me you have to open the program like 3-4 times for it to pick up all the ram


----------



## hwanzi

J7SC said:


> Does OpenRGB support TridentZ RGB ? The remaining RGB spots are usually not an issue, but TridentZ RGB seems to either need its own GSkill RGB applet or Armory Crate


oh yea another program you can try and use is SignalRGB


----------



## shaolin95

hwanzi said:


> oh yea another program you can try and use is SignalRGB


I am using SignalRGB and works perfect with my GSkill Royal ram as well as all the rest of my gear. No more dealing with crappy apps


----------



## DvL Ax3l

All test redone with a more fine tweaked system, what do you guys think about it?


----------



## PWn3R

shaolin95 said:


> I am using SignalRGB and works perfect with my GSkill Royal ram as well as all the rest of my gear. No more dealing with crappy apps


Also using that, for the same reason


----------



## djase45

J7SC said:


> Does OpenRGB support TridentZ RGB ? The remaining RGB spots are usually not an issue, but TridentZ RGB seems to either need its own GSkill RGB applet or Armory Crate


This works well with my G.Skill.
AURORA Sync (galax.com)


----------



## metalshark

You’ll tend to find OpenRGB has the lowest resource usage and is fastest to add support. For advanced effects and per game support (so games that support Corsair or Razer lighting but you want to apply to other vendors) you add Artemis on top. SignalRGB is closed source, it tends to lag behind (at present) and will charge you a subscription fee for what’s in Artemis, however it’s a lot less hassle to get setup and started, has a prettier interface and many just compare OpenRGB vs SignalRGB instead of OpenRGB+Artemis vs SignalRGB so there tends to be an online bias towards SignalRGB.

Essentially either provide the same solution. OpenRGB requires two packages if wanting advanced effects, compared to one install package (plus monthly subscription fee) with SignalRGB. Today OpenRGB has got the edge, but they’ve flipped places before and will likely do again, so would settle on the solution you prefer out of the two. Either are better than what the manufacturers provide.


----------



## J7SC

...irony is, I only ever use _one_ colour - electric blue - on everything 🧐


----------



## ArchStanton

J7SC said:


> ..irony is, I only ever use _one_ colour - electric blue - on everything


As the Lord intended...


----------



## shaolin95

metalshark said:


> You’ll tend to find OpenRGB has the lowest resource usage and is fastest to add support. For advanced effects and per game support (so games that support Corsair or Razer lighting but you want to apply to other vendors) you add Artemis on top. SignalRGB is closed source, it tends to lag behind (at present) and will charge you a subscription fee for what’s in Artemis, however it’s a lot less hassle to get setup and started, has a prettier interface and many just compare OpenRGB vs SignalRGB instead of OpenRGB+Artemis vs SignalRGB so there tends to be an online bias towards SignalRGB.
> 
> Essentially either provide the same solution. OpenRGB requires two packages if wanting advanced effects, compared to one install package (plus monthly subscription fee) with SignalRGB. Today OpenRGB has got the edge, but they’ve flipped places before and will likely do again, so would settle on the solution you prefer out of the two. Either are better than what the manufacturers provide.


The subscription for SignalRGB is for specific presets and fan control IIRC. Sure you can get OpenRGB working as well but I prefer the simplicity of getting SignalRGB running and done with it. 
To each its own..its surely good to have options.


----------



## metalshark

shaolin95 said:


> The subscription for SignalRGB is for specific presets and fan control IIRC. Sure you can get OpenRGB working as well but I prefer the simplicity of getting SignalRGB running and done with it.
> To each its own..its surely good to have options.


The subscription gives you what Artemis adds to OpenRGB. But as you say each to their own, both solutions are valid and a better choice than single manufacturer software.


----------



## Blackfyre

Kokin said:


> Is there a difference between BIOS 4004 and 4006 since they use the same AGESA version?
> 
> I have a 3900X and CH8 Impact but got the chance to buy 2x 5900X for me and my wife. I want to test out both chips and see which one is the better clocker to keep for myself, but I am completely lost to the newer method of PBO2 and curve optimizer for the 5000 series. Both 5900X chips will be cooled with a custom wcing loop if that changes anything. What threads should I read up on to get started?
> 
> Thanks!


Use latest BIOS for both, since you're going to reset your BIOS settings anyway. The official ASUS pages have been updated with the latest BIOS, non-Beta.

As for PBO2 there's many guides, just one thing to remember which isn't usually mentioned. *DO NOT* enable *"PBO Fmax Enhancer"*, it's for Zen 2 and with Zen 3 all it does is degrade performance and give worse results.

The rest is fairly simple once you've read a few guides, +200 overclock, scaler on 1x or 3x (_check which gives better results for you_), the offsets all negative and see how low you can go (_this process takes time, but generally start with an ALL negative offset of -10 for example, then stress test, then test -15 if that works, then -20, etc, until it crashes, and then start dialing in per core from there_).

If you want max performance and care less about power usage (electricity), you can juice out a stronger negative offset if you disable Global C-States Controls, under Advanced, and at the bottom, AMD CBS page.

For the negative offsets, another fast way of figuring out which cores are your strongest and require the least negative offset, is to look at HWiINFO64, and next to each core you will have (perf #1/1 that's your strongest core, perf 1/2, that's your second strongest core, etc), easier than that is _AMD_ Ryzen _Master_ Utility will just tell you this core is 1, 2, 3, 4, etc from strongest to weakest.

The weakest cores you give the strongest negative offset to, the strongest core usually need less negative offset.

For example my strongest cores on my 5800X are cores 3 and 7, they are on -17 offset. My weakest cores are 2 and 5, they are on -29 and -28 offset.


----------



## stimpy88

benbenkr said:


> Interesting, because the supposed "USB fix" was introduced in AGESA 1.2.0.1 A which is BIOS 3401.
> 
> I may check it out, thanks.


3401 is the start of the USB issues on my system. I'd never had them before this BIOS.


Kokin said:


> Is there a difference between BIOS 4004 and 4006 since they use the same AGESA version?
> 
> I have a 3900X and CH8 Impact but got the chance to buy 2x 5900X for me and my wife. I want to test out both chips and see which one is the better clocker to keep for myself, but I am completely lost to the newer method of PBO2 and curve optimizer for the 5000 series. Both 5900X chips will be cooled with a custom wcing loop if that changes anything. What threads should I read up on to get started?
> 
> Thanks!


Most likely the removal of 5800X3D Overclocking options. Also they fixed the RGB issues with 4006.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

How do you get openrgb to save settings to the motherboard, So you don’t have to keep opening the openrgb program and apply each time you turn on? Thanks


----------



## TMavica

more Asus RGB product, more latency penalty. I have 8 Asus product with armoury crate installed, I got 7-8 ns more memory latency


----------



## Luggage

TMavica said:


> more Asus RGB product, more latency penalty. I have 8 Asus product with armoury crate installed, I got 7-8 ns more memory latency


That's a lot of "faster-memory-money" down the RGB-drain.


----------



## metalshark

Badgerslayer7 said:


> How do you get openrgb to save settings to the motherboard, So you don’t have to keep opening the openrgb program and apply each time you turn on? Thanks


Alas both OpenRGB and SignalRGB are more for controlling it via software in realtime, not saving permanent settings.


----------



## Nizzen

Luggage said:


> That's a lot of "faster-memory-money" down the RGB-drain.


Aquasuite program is making about 3ns. Too hard hit to have it online. Install once, then set up the fans and pumps. Then uninstall


----------



## Luggage

Nizzen said:


> Aquasuite program is making about 3ns. Too hard hit to have it online. Install once, then set up the fans and pumps. Then uninstall


I just kill the service after I decide what to do - ie set silent, game or bench settings


----------



## J7SC

Nizzen said:


> Aquasuite program is making about 3ns. Too hard hit to have it online. Install once, then set up the fans and pumps. Then uninstall


I used that install/uninstall method with Gigabyte's RGB app...


----------



## ArchStanton

J7SC said:


> I used that install/uninstall method with Gigabyte's RGB app...


I did the same, and had hopes that I could use the same method on my ROG C8DH, but alas the changes would not stick, so after every BIOS update/rollback "Aura Off" is one of my first settings changes.


----------



## Blackfyre

ArchStanton said:


> I did the same, and had hopes that I could use the same method on my ROG C8DH, but alas the changes would not stick, so after every BIOS update/rollback "Aura Off" is one of my first settings changes.





[Motherboard] How to disable automatic download of Armoury Crate via BIOS Setting? | Official Support | ASUS Global



^ After that, uninstall and check and disable all armoury services.


----------



## GRABibus

By reading all these posts, I am happy that I never installed this **** of Armoury crate


----------



## ArchStanton

Blackfyre said:


> After that, uninstall and check and disable all armoury services


Oh, I went straight to the nuclear option and did a total reinstall of Windows after making what RGB changes I could stick.


----------



## Baio73

GRABibus said:


> By reading all these posts, I am happy that I never installed this **** of Armoury crate


Well, I'm not a fan of AC as it installs too much crap services for what it offers... but I must say that our CPUs nowadays have enough spare power to support it.
And the latest versions (let's say starting from last summer) work fine, especially in combination with Corsair iCue.

Baio


----------



## metalshark

Baio73 said:


> Well, I'm not a fan of AC as it installs too much crap services for what it offers... but I must say that our CPUs nowadays have enough spare power to support it.
> And the latest versions (let's say starting from last summer) work fine, especially in combination with Corsair iCue.
> 
> Baio


In terms of CPU, you might only see 1-2% on one core of 16 and a handful of RAM. So sure there's enough power if viewed that way.

The real issue is due to the inefficient way it hits certain buses, sets interrupts with inefficient handlers (the DPC latency where all cores get locked) and, in the case of Armoury Crate, the way it needs a separate uninstall program which still leaves residue.

This is why you see such drastic memory latency increases. Especially when you get to the point of two different RGB solutions on the same machine, using a more efficient all-in-one solution is well worth investigating.


----------



## Blackfyre

Baio73 said:


> Well, I'm not a fan of AC as it installs too much crap services for what it offers... but I must say that our CPUs nowadays have enough spare power to support it.
> And the latest versions (let's say starting from last summer) work fine, especially in combination with Corsair iCue.
> 
> Baio


You're right, most of the time it's fine. But I have a Razer mouse, Asus motherboard, Corsair keyboard, Fiio DAC/AMP for headphones, SPDIF Realtek via motherboard to speakers, and I am pretty sure I am forgetting another one or two things. If I leave everything enabled which is the default, each one of these manufacturers runs MULTIPLE services and boot up tasks in the background, it is absolutely ridiculous, that's why I disable 90% of non-microsoft services.

This is not counting all the game services you'd have running in the background if you don't disable them. EA origin, Steam, uplay, epic store, GOG, who knows what else! It's just crazy these days lol


----------



## Kokin

Blackfyre said:


> Use latest BIOS for both, since you're going to reset your BIOS settings anyway. The official ASUS pages have been updated with the latest BIOS, non-Beta.
> 
> As for PBO2 there's many guides, just one thing to remember which isn't usually mentioned. *DO NOT* enable *"PBO Fmax Enhancer"*, it's for Zen 2 and with Zen 3 all it does is degrade performance and give worse results.
> 
> The rest is fairly simple once you've read a few guides, +200 overclock, scaler on 1x or 3x (_check which gives better results for you_), the offsets all negative and see how low you can go (_this process takes time, but generally start with an ALL negative offset of -10 for example, then stress test, then test -15 if that works, then -20, etc, until it crashes, and then start dialing in per core from there_).
> 
> If you want max performance and care less about power usage (electricity), you can juice out a stronger negative offset if you disable Global C-States Controls, under Advanced, and at the bottom, AMD CBS page.
> 
> For the negative offsets, another fast way of figuring out which cores are your strongest and require the least negative offset, is to look at HWiINFO64, and next to each core you will have (perf #1/1 that's your strongest core, perf 1/2, that's your second strongest core, etc), easier than that is _AMD_ Ryzen _Master_ Utility will just tell you this core is 1, 2, 3, 4, etc from strongest to weakest.
> 
> The weakest cores you give the strongest negative offset to, the strongest core usually need less negative offset.
> 
> For example my strongest cores on my 5800X are cores 3 and 7, they are on -17 offset. My weakest cores are 2 and 5, they are on -29 and -28 offset.


Wow I appreciate the write up! I have read/watched several guides and videos but they don't mention everything you have laid out here.


----------



## J7SC

metalshark said:


> In terms of CPU, you might only see 1-2% on one core of 16 and a handful of RAM. So sure there's enough power if viewed that way.
> 
> The real issue is due to the inefficient way it hits certain buses, sets interrupts with inefficient handlers (the DPC latency where all cores get locked) and, in the case of Armoury Crate, the way it needs a separate uninstall program which still leaves residue.
> 
> This is why you see such drastic memory latency increases. Especially when you get to the point of two different RGB solutions on the same machine, using a more efficient all-in-one solution is well worth investigating.





Blackfyre said:


> You're right, most of the time it's fine. But I have a Razer mouse, Asus motherboard, Corsair keyboard, Fiio DAC/AMP for headphones, SPDIF Realtek via motherboard to speakers, and I am pretty sure I am forgetting another one or two things. If I leave everything enabled which is the default, each one of these manufacturers runs MULTIPLE services and boot up tasks in the background, it is absolutely ridiculous, that's why I disable 90% of non-microsoft services.
> 
> This is not counting all the game services you'd have running in the background if you don't disable them. EA origin, Steam, uplay, epic store, GOG, who knows what else! It's just crazy these days lol


Apart from resource costs, both RGB and other apps that like to autoload with boot-up an park themselves in your taskbar have another (proven) problem, and that is security. With some having low-level hardware access and 'calling home', there have already been major problems reported a few years back (incl. Asus, Gigabyte software). With all that is going on in the world and increased threats of cyber attacks, that is concerning...


----------



## Blackfyre

Kokin said:


> Wow I appreciate the write up! I have read/watched several guides and videos but they don't mention everything you have laid out here.


Yeah I tried to include all the things that took time to learn without seeing them often mentioned in guides. And no problem, glad I could help.


----------



## g_d_g_l__

AMD Chipset Drivers

Revision Number

4.03.03.431

https://www.amd.com/de/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570

*Release Highlights*


Fixed PSP driver downgrade issues 
Fixed some text on Russian OS language pack
*Known Issues*


Sometimes custom install fails to upgrade to latest drivers. 
Text alignment issues may be seen on Russian language. 
Manual system restart required on Non-English OS after the installation is complete. 
Windows® Installer pop-up message may appear during the installation. 
Uninstall summary log may incorrectly show uninstall status as fail on non-English OS. 
May observe a pop-up message "AMD Chipset Software is not responding" when the installer is launched and UI screen is clicked.


----------



## Daylight_Invader

Blackfyre said:


> [Motherboard] How to disable automatic download of Armoury Crate via BIOS Setting? | Official Support | ASUS Global
> 
> 
> 
> ^ After that, uninstall and check and disable all armoury services.


The other issue is getting hold of the correct Realtek drivers as these seem impossible to find on the Realtek site, and I am never keen on downloading these off a 3rd party site. If anyone has a method of getting the correct type/version of these directly, that would make me happier to totally dump Armoury Crate as I agree that it is a pile of...


----------



## Blackfyre

Daylight_Invader said:


> The other issue is getting hold of the correct Realtek drivers as these seem impossible to find on the Realtek site, and I am never keen on downloading these off a 3rd party site. If anyone has a method of getting the correct type/version of these directly, that would make me happier to totally dump Armoury Crate as I agree that it is a pile of...


I only use SPDIF out of the board, so haven't used the software and I find uninstalling all realtek drivers and letting Microsoft Windows Update use their drivers provides me with the most stable results.

However, if you want the latest *Realtek audio drivers* I assume? Get them from here (_Kodi crashed for me using these with SPDIF, but they are the latest_):





[DRIVERS] Realtek Audio (Intel 2xx/3xx/4xx/5xx/6xx/7xx & AMD 3xx/4xx/5xx/6xx)


Realtek Audio (Intel 2xx/3xx/4xx/5xx/6xx/7xx & AMD 3xx/4xx/5xx/6xx)



rog.asus.com





If you are talking about the *Realtek Ethernet*, I get mine from here:





Realtek PCIe FE / GBE / 2.5G / Gaming Ethernet Family Controller Software - REALTEK







www.realtek.com


----------



## LorDClockaN

g_d_g_l__ said:


> AMD Chipset Drivers
> 
> Revision Number
> 
> 4.03.03.431
> 
> https://www.amd.com/de/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570
> 
> *Release Highlights*
> 
> 
> Fixed PSP driver downgrade issues
> Fixed some text on Russian OS language pack
> *Known Issues*
> 
> 
> Sometimes custom install fails to upgrade to latest drivers.
> Text alignment issues may be seen on Russian language.
> Manual system restart required on Non-English OS after the installation is complete.
> Windows® Installer pop-up message may appear during the installation.
> Uninstall summary log may incorrectly show uninstall status as fail on non-English OS.
> May observe a pop-up message "AMD Chipset Software is not responding" when the installer is launched and UI screen is clicked.


I got this error while installing









This is install Summary


----------



## Kelutrel

LorDClockaN said:


> I got this error while installing
> View attachment 2552082
> 
> 
> This is install Summary
> View attachment 2552083


I am also getting a strange behavior while trying to install/uninstall the new chipset drivers, like freezes and errors. I am on Win11.
At a certain point the installer said that I am not on an AMD system and those drivers are only for AMD systems


----------



## Baio73

LorDClockaN said:


> I got this error while installing
> View attachment 2552082
> 
> 
> This is install Summary
> View attachment 2552083


It's the same error I got while installing the previous non official release... but at the end the new drivers where installed.
Can't say for the latest officiale release, I'm at work ATM.

Baio


----------



## Aysberg

Just installed 4.03.03.431 without errors on Windows 11 22572.201, the previous release showed errors on my system too. But the log for 3.10.22.706 showed a successful install.


----------



## xeizo

Installed it on four PC:s two Win 11 retail and two Win11 develop, all works as they should, those "errors" are just messages telling you didn't have proper Win 11 drivers previously.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

LorDClockaN said:


> I got this error while installing
> View attachment 2552082
> 
> 
> This is install Summary
> View attachment 2552083





Kelutrel said:


> I am also getting a strange behavior while trying to install/uninstall the new chipset drivers, like freezes and errors. I am on Win11.
> At a certain point the installer said that I am not on an AMD system and those drivers are only for AMD systems





Baio73 said:


> It's the same error I got while installing the previous non official release... but at the end the new drivers where installed.
> Can't say for the latest officiale release, I'm at work ATM.
> 
> Baio


Uninstall the chipset driver in the control panel, reboot and install the new one.
If u can't uninstall them, use this Microsoft tool, reboot and install.


----------



## benbenkr

Does the latest drivers do anything to help alleviate USB disconnecting?


----------



## LorDClockaN

DvL Ax3l said:


> Uninstall the chipset driver in the control panel, reboot and install the new one.
> If u can't uninstall them, use this Microsoft tool, reboot and install.


Thanks, it won't uninstall normaly from control panel and the tool you linked offers to many amd drivers that I really don't have time to experiment and play with.
thanks for your time


----------



## Noxion

Working well so far for me along with bios 4006 I just uninstalled first with the silentuninstall script that came with the last driver from the asus site.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

LorDClockaN said:


> Thanks, it won't uninstall normaly from control panel and the tool you linked offers to many amd drivers that I really don't have time to experiment and play with.
> thanks for your time


You need to uninstall:

AMD GPIO2 drivers
AMD PCI drivers
AMD PSP drivers
AMD Ryzen Balanced
AMD SBxxx drivers
AMD Chipset drivers


----------



## Ice009

I see there is a new BIOS 4006 that was released for the MB the other day, but I recall installed 4004 about a couple of weeks ago. It's not listed on the official download page anymore. Was 4004 a beta BIOS? If not, why was it pulled/what have I installed?


----------



## DodgyTech

Ice009 said:


> I see there is a new BIOS 4006 that was released for the MB the other day, but I recall installed 4004 about a couple of weeks ago. It's not listed on the official download page anymore. Was 4004 a beta BIOS? If not, why was it pulled/what have I installed?


It seems 4004 was pulled indeed. Don't know why though, Asus has always been so verbal when it comes to changelogs. "Improve system performance".


----------



## DvL Ax3l

DodgyTech said:


> It seems 4004 was pulled indeed. Don't know why though, Asus has always been so verbal when it comes to changelogs. "Improve system performance".


It breaks the argb led


----------



## stimpy88

LorDClockaN said:


> I got this error while installing
> View attachment 2552082
> 
> 
> This is install Summary
> View attachment 2552083


Yep, same here. Typical amateur stuff from AMD driver devs.


----------



## LorDClockaN

DvL Ax3l said:


> You need to uninstall:
> 
> AMD GPIO2 drivers
> AMD PCI drivers
> AMD PSP drivers
> AMD Ryzen Balanced
> AMD SBxxx drivers
> AMD Chipset drivers


Took the time to do it and it worked great

Thank you


----------



## zorn

LorDClockaN said:


> I got this error while installing
> View attachment 2552082


Also getting a million of these nutjob errors on install.


----------



## LorDClockaN

zorn said:


> Also getting a million of these nutjob errors on install.


DvL Ax3l posted a solution for me


----------



## GRABibus

Brand new 5950x at 660$ at one reseller in France ?
Should I take it ? 🤔


----------



## DvL Ax3l

GRABibus said:


> Brand new 5950x at 660$ at one reseller in France ?
> Should I take it ? 🤔


Wait a little more, when ZEN4 is out we can buy a 5950X B2 at 550€


----------



## GRABibus

DvL Ax3l said:


> Wait a little more, when ZEN4 is out we can buy a 5950X B2 at 550€


This one is already at 599€


----------



## xV Slayer

GRABibus said:


> This one is already at 599€


I would say probably not worth since you have a 5900x already. Do you really need those extra four cores for something?


----------



## DvL Ax3l

xV Slayer said:


> I would say probably not worth since you have a 5900x already. Do you really need those extra four cores for something?


Just passion like me, that's why I'm waiting... I really want that B2 stepping 😂


----------



## greg_p

Hello Guys, does anyone of you uses the reatek 2.5gbe nic, and has it work to full speed?
I bought a nice router 2 weeks ago and decide to connect 2.5bge port of the MB to the LAN 2.5bge, and got locked at 1gbe (although it is declared as 2500/2500 on both side). I finally got something by getting the very last 8125 driver from realtek website, but still can't achieve more than 1.3gbe on iperf (working on the router and computer). I have a cat7 cable.


----------



## PWn3R

greg_p said:


> Hello Guys, does anyone of you uses the reatek 2.5gbe nic, and has it work to full speed?
> I bought a nice router 2 weeks ago and decide to connect 2.5bge port of the MB to the LAN 2.5bge, and got locked at 1gbe (although it is declared as 2500/2500 on both side). I finally got something by getting the very last 8125 driver from realtek website, but still can't achieve more than 1.3gbe on iperf (working on the router and computer). I have a cat7 cable.


Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but most routers use ARM CPUs these days. Unless you got something enterprise that might actually be the traffic cap. You should _theoretically_ be able to get 2315.175Mbps throughput on a 2.5Gbps link (assuming 92.607% due to overhead). However, the fastest throughput I've been able to get in reality with enterprise grade 10Gbps switch and two 2.5Gbps devices was about 2.2Gbps.

One thing we've found in tuning 40Gbps networking at work is that tweaks to the windows networking stack are required to get anywhere that level of throughput. I'm not sure if that would help on 2.5Gbps but increasing TCP Window size helped us a lot. This might be interesting to you. IPERF and TCP window size (wisc.edu)


----------



## Corey Carroz

greg_p said:


> Hello Guys, does anyone of you uses the reatek 2.5gbe nic, and has it work to full speed?
> I bought a nice router 2 weeks ago and decide to connect 2.5bge port of the MB to the LAN 2.5bge, and got locked at 1gbe (although it is declared as 2500/2500 on both side). I finally got something by getting the very last 8125 driver from realtek website, but still can't achieve more than 1.3gbe on iperf (working on the router and computer). I have a cat7 cable.


Well thanks for nothing. It was working fine in win 10... but not win 11.... now, I got to fix that....


----------



## GRABibus

xV Slayer said:


> I would say probably not worth since you have a 5900x already. Do you really need those extra four cores for something?


As I was wondering to update to Zen4 or Intel 13th Gen, upgrading to 5950x would be also an option.
And yes, passion, and to restart from scratch all overclocks with a new CPU 😊


----------



## Corey Carroz

greg_p said:


> Hello Guys, does anyone of you uses the reatek 2.5gbe nic, and has it work to full speed?
> I bought a nice router 2 weeks ago and decide to connect 2.5bge port of the MB to the LAN 2.5bge, and got locked at 1gbe (although it is declared as 2500/2500 on both side). I finally got something by getting the very last 8125 driver from realtek website, but still can't achieve more than 1.3gbe on iperf (working on the router and computer). I have a cat7 cable.


In the adapter settings there are two settings to move up to 2.5, moving to win 11 and the latest driver, set those back to 1bge. When I reset those, it blips to 2.5 and then goes back to 2.5. The synology see the 2.5 connection though -_-


----------



## greg_p

Yes as I said, you can tweak the setting to have it back up to 2500, but I would expect 2.2~2.3bgps on an iperf. I have seen several showing these speeds on 2.5gbe adapter. I wanted to know if this realtek 8125 can really do it. For sure router can do it.


----------



## greg_p

Well actually this video answers some of my point:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFR7wFEkUWc
at 1m, we can see that a 8125 nic connected to my router can do 2.3…


----------



## greg_p

Ok that one gives some hints :
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo6sYQazApo
pci gen connexion of the realtek… as he ´ s using a pcie card, on not an on board nic, we may not have a solution.
is there a possibility to see which pcie gen we are using on the adapter? I know it can do until gen4, but we need gen2 on the realtek (2.1 as per realtek documentation)


----------



## Corey Carroz

greg_p said:


> Hello Guys, does anyone of you uses the reatek 2.5gbe nic, and has it work to full speed?
> I bought a nice router 2 weeks ago and decide to connect 2.5bge port of the MB to the LAN 2.5bge, and got locked at 1gbe (although it is declared as 2500/2500 on both side). I finally got something by getting the very last 8125 driver from realtek website, but still can't achieve more than 1.3gbe on iperf (working on the router and computer). I have a cat7 cable.


I had the cables switched when moving things. I am getting mgig speeds now.


----------



## greg_p

thanks!
could you give some information on the installation, cable type and length? Is this with w10 or 11?


----------



## GRABibus

*Drivers AMD ASUS Version 3.10.22.706 :*
21.5°C
Open PC
[email protected]%












*Drivers AMD Version 4.03.03.431 :*
21°C
Open PC
[email protected]%










It seems like improvment with those last drivers.


----------



## xeizo

Some update on Windows 11 22572 destroyed L3 again, 5-10 times slower than before according to AIDA64 and Geekbench loses 2k+ points in multi, there where several updates so I don't know which

Also, multi boost went down 100-200MHz, don't know if it's the new CO2 mitigating function MS is testing on select boxes

And, we know there will be new Spectre V2 mitigations, could be that as well. Frustrating.


----------



## xeizo

Edit on the above, it must have been some coincidence but it looks like the FPU and L3 is fried on my CPU, never had something like that before like ever, but in AIDA64 integer benchmarks and fixed function benchmarks runs just fine but Photo editing performs like a old Celeron. And in Time Spy, 3D is just fine but CPU is again like a old Celeron.

In CPU-Z you can see the L3 virtually coming and going on the screen

I did a fresh install of Windows, and I reverted to a bios with AGESA 1.2.0.3c, no difference. Memory is fine. I was afraid it was the 970 Plus NVMe but I can find zero errors on it.

And USB is jumping in and out like crazy, never did that before.

For now, I think I am done with Zen 3, just ordered a 12900KF, a MSI Z690 Tomahawk DDR4 and a EKWB LGA1700 backplate


----------



## PWn3R

xeizo said:


> Edit on the above, it must have been some coincidence but it looks like the FPU and L3 is fried on my CPU, never had something like that before like ever, but in AIDA64 integer benchmarks and fixed function benchmarks runs just fine but Photo editing performs like a old Celeron. And in Time Spy, 3D is just fine but CPU is again like a old Celeron.
> 
> In CPU-Z you can see the L3 virtually coming and going on the screen
> 
> I did a fresh install of Windows, and I reverted to a bios with AGESA 1.2.0.3c, no difference. Memory is fine. I was afraid it was the 970 Plus NVMe but I can find zero errors on it.
> 
> And USB is jumping in and out like crazy, never did that before.
> 
> For now, I think I am done with Zen 3, just ordered a 12900KF, a MSI Z690 Tomahawk DDR4 and a EKWB LGA1700 backplate


You’ll have to let us know how the dark side is. I have thought about that since my IMC on my 5950x is so terrible.


----------



## xeizo

PWn3R said:


> You’ll have to let us know how the dark side is. I have thought about that since my IMC on my 5950x is so terrible.


Yes, I'll report back! Will be exciting to enter the Dark Side again, have been away since 6700K. I expect some nice single core scores, since the KF-variety seems to top the current single core charts. About memory, I don't know. I will be happy if I get to the same 3800Mz as now with my B-die, or even 3600MHz will do, but 4000MHz would be a unexpected bonus. The Tomahawk looks well equipped with 16+1+1 VRM and 70A chokes, and NO RGB, also six SATA was a must for me and it is covered.

In the meantime I still have my old 3900X up and running with a B550-F, it performs mint both with new bios and new chipset drivers and is fully usable even as a primary rig.


----------



## Lobstar

Just a reminder to upgrade your bios every once in a while. The only difference was about twenty minutes it took to go from 3204 to 4006. Not much but free performance is free performance. Just PBO on the 3950x and a 1900 @ .950v undervolt on the 1080ti.


----------



## lmfodor

Hi! I finished updating the BIOS version from 3801 that I have stable since its release to the latest 4006. I 'd to ask your advice about the voltages since I know that the previous version required adjusting the values a bit.

I have a Dark Hero with a 5900x with more than 1 year of use and where at the beginning I spent it with exhaustive tests of Core Cycler, Y-cruncher all test. Today, my curve is much less aggressive, I don't know if maybe touching some voltage value can achieve better results. Before in CB20 I had an easy score of 9100 and now only 8800, this is due to the curve per core. That's why I wanted to ask you if you recommend updating any of these values for better performance (I must test stability with my current values). For now I only use the PC to playing games. The latency is high because I have GHUB and Battle.net... otherwise it would be at 55 and I have managed to get down to 54.4 with these timings: (I noticed a much better results in bandwith in comparison with th 3801, and also the L3 values consistency)








And these are the values I'd like to adjust:

CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.12500]
DRAM Voltage [1.50000]
VDDG CCD Voltage Control [0.980]
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [1.050]
CLDO VDDP Voltage [0.900]
I keep this values:

DF Cstates [Disabled]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
Global C-state Control [Enabled]
Power Supply Idle Control [Typical Current Idle]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
VTTDDR Voltage [0.75000]
And also keep the LLC and PBO Settings. A Any suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated. 


Spoiler: LLC Settings



CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
CPU Current Capability [120%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed CPU VRM Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]
CPU Power Duty Control [Extreme]
CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Fast]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 4]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed VDDSOC Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Optimized]
DRAM Current Capability [120%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]


Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Manual]


Spoiler: PBO Settings



ECO Mode [Disable]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
PBO Limits [Manual]
PPT Limit [W] [220]
TDC Limit [A] [175]
EDC Limit [A] [300]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Curve Optimizer [Per Core] (All Negatives)
Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [24]
Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [24]
Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [24]
Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [26]
Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [22]
Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [22]
Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [27]
Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [24]
Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [23]
Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [27]
Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [29]
Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [29]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [100MHz]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [90]


----------



## ArchStanton

@Lobstar 4006 does or does not still cap CPU VID @ 1.425 if EDC is > 140? If it does cap the voltage at 1.425, I presume there is still a small hit to things like CPU-Z ST and/or CBR23 ST? Thank you to everyone that gives these new BIOS's and AGESA's a whirl. My testing/tweaking time is more limited now than it was a few months ago.


----------



## stimpy88

xeizo said:


> For now, I think I am done with Zen 3, just ordered a 12900KF, a MSI Z690 Tomahawk DDR4 and a EKWB LGA1700 backplate


I think the smart money is on a 12700K, paired with an Asus ROG Strix Z690-A DDR4 Gaming motherboard, efficiency cores disabled and overclocked. I can get that combo for $60 more than the cost of an upgrade from my 3900x to the 5950x... I'm seriously tempted now that AMD is not offering an upgrade to the 5950x, and I simply will not buy into DDR5, so that rules out Zen4.

I'm also sick of the USB stability issues and various voltage at reset issues which are probably caused by the old BIOS I'm forced to use because of the USB problems in newer BIOS's on my motherboard.


----------



## xeizo

stimpy88 said:


> I think the smart money is on a i7 12700K, paired with an Asus ROG Strix Z690-A DDR4 Gaming motherboard, and overclocked. I can get that combo for $60 more than the cost of an upgrade from my 3900x to the 5950x...
> 
> I'm seriously tempted now that AMD is not offering an upgrade to the 5950x, and I simply will not buy into DDR5, so that rules out Zen4.
> 
> I'm also sick of the USB stability issues and various voltage at reset issues which are probably caused by the old BIOS I'm forced to use because of the USB problems in newer BIOS's on my motherboard.


My Zen 2 boards have been fairly trouble free and still is, and Zen 3 worked fine until it didn't, I even have my Zen+ running fine with latest bios/chipset drivers on Windows 11. But time for something new, I considered the 12700K but I fancy the extra cores for my primary DAW and I have no use for the IGP as I don't stream or do photo/video editing much. The choice of the Tomahawk was mostly because in stock/right price/VRM enough, Asus boards looks good too but more expensive here and I put the extra money on moar cores


----------



## stimpy88

xeizo said:


> My Zen 2 boards have been fairly trouble free and still is, and Zen 3 worked fine until it didn't, I even have my Zen+ running fine with latest bios/chipset drivers on Windows 11. But time for something new, I considered the 12700K but I fancy the extra cores for my primary DAW and I have no use for the IGP as I don't stream or do photo/video editing much. The choice of the Tomahawk was mostly because in stock/right price/VRM enough, Asus boards looks good too but more expensive here and I put the extra money on moar cores


But they are only efficiency cores, and they are disabled anyway by enthusiasts because they take cache away from the performance cores. The 12700k has the same amount of performance cores as the 12900k, and both have an iGPU. Only the KF version of those CPUs come without integrated graphics.

So to sum up, we are talking about 4 efficiency cores as the only difference. The 12700k can reach the same frequencies as the 12900k, maybe 100MHz less on average... For a third less money!

12700k VS 12900k GAMING BENCHMARKS + WARZONE FPS ✔🖱🎮 - YouTube


----------



## xeizo

stimpy88 said:


> But they are only efficiency cores, and they are disabled anyway by enthusiasts because they take cache away from the performance cores. The 12700k has the same amount of performance cores as the 12900k, and both have an iGPU. Only the KF version of those CPUs come without integrated graphics.
> 
> So to sum up, we are talking about 4 efficiency cores as the only difference. The 12700k can reach the same frequencies as the 12900k, maybe 100MHz less on average... For a third less money!
> 
> 12700k VS 12900k GAMING BENCHMARKS + WARZONE FPS ✔🖱🎮 - YouTube


4 extra Kaby Lake-like cores in performance isn't half bad for a DAW where multithreading really counts, worthless for gaming though I agree


----------



## stimpy88

xeizo said:


> 4 extra Kaby Lake-like cores in performance isn't half bad for a DAW where multithreading really counts, worthless for gaming though I agree


If you need all the power, then it's the only way forward. You have to tell us how you get on with it!


----------



## J7SC

xeizo said:


> Edit on the above, it must have been some coincidence but it looks like the FPU and L3 is fried on my CPU, never had something like that before like ever, but in AIDA64 integer benchmarks and fixed function benchmarks runs just fine but Photo editing performs like a old Celeron. And in Time Spy, 3D is just fine but CPU is again like a old Celeron.
> 
> In CPU-Z you can see the L3 virtually coming and going on the screen
> 
> I did a fresh install of Windows, and I reverted to a bios with AGESA 1.2.0.3c, no difference. Memory is fine. I was afraid it was the 970 Plus NVMe but I can find zero errors on it.
> 
> And USB is jumping in and out like crazy, never did that before.
> 
> For now, I think I am done with Zen 3, just ordered a 12900KF, a MSI Z690 Tomahawk DDR4 and a EKWB LGA1700 backplate


I am sorry to hear this happened to your chip. Also, I don't really believe in coincidences, and a fried L3 is unlikely letting the CPU operate at all. Just speculating, but I would not only revert back to an earlier bios (ie. 3801) and new windows install but also completely uninstall all bits of any and all the AMD chipset drivers, if need be multiple time/rounds (some parts can be sticky).

All that said, Z690 could be fun (I'm looking forward to an upcoming Z690 build project).


----------



## Lobstar

ArchStanton said:


> @Lobstar 4006 does or does not still cap CPU VID @ 1.425 if EDC is > 140? If it does cap the voltage at 1.425, I presume there is still a small hit to things like CPU-Z ST and/or CBR23 ST? Thank you to everyone that gives these new BIOS's and AGESA's a whirl. My testing/tweaking time is more limited now than it was a few months ago.


This is on my 3950x/C8H with PBO > Advanced > Motherboard limits. Sensors from CPU-Z bench.








Sensors from a CBr23 run immediately after. EDIT: Derp. Realized you meant single threaded. Multi is on the left, single is on the right (mid run) with some expanded info.
















I wasn't aware of the issue you spoke of so hopefully this data helps you identify that.


----------



## xeizo

J7SC said:


> I am sorry to hear this happened to your chip. Also, I don't really believe in coincidences, and a fried L3 is unlikely letting the CPU operate at all. Just speculating, but I would not only revert back to an earlier bios (ie. 3801) and new windows install but also completely uninstall all bits of any and all the AMD chipset drivers, if need be multiple time/rounds (some parts can be sticky).
> 
> All that said, Z690 could be fun (I'm looking forward to an upcoming Z690 build project).


I did all that, reverted bios(flashback), new Windows install(formatted disk), older chipset drivers, used both default and OC etc etc memory is fine OC as usual no errors, disks are fine no errors detected, but the CPU is getting worse before I could at least run above benchmarks but now USB is checking out so often it is really not possible to do anything. Oh, and it is as laggy inside the bios too.

As I said, in CPU-Z you could see L3 coming and going, never seen that before. And in Geekbench only benchmarks with lots of floating point got really low scores.

I have three other boxes, all with the same AGESA latest bios and the latest chipset drivers, they all works fine(Zen 2/Zen+). I guess I will RMA the CPU once the 12900KF is installed, but for now it is just shut off.

The 12900KF build will be easy, that's why I ordered the EKWB bracket, I do not need to change anything else but motherboard and CPU in the box


----------



## hwanzi

greg_p said:


> Hello Guys, does anyone of you uses the reatek 2.5gbe nic, and has it work to full speed?
> I bought a nice router 2 weeks ago and decide to connect 2.5bge port of the MB to the LAN 2.5bge, and got locked at 1gbe (although it is declared as 2500/2500 on both side). I finally got something by getting the very last 8125 driver from realtek website, but still can't achieve more than 1.3gbe on iperf (working on the router and computer). I have a cat7 cable.


works great for me


----------



## ArchStanton

@Lobstar thank you kindly .


----------



## th30d0r3

DvL Ax3l said:


> Just passion like me, that's why I'm waiting... I really want that B2 stepping 😂


I swapped out my OG 5950x for a B2 5950x 2 weeks ago. I wanted to see if it would clock higher, but it simply doesn't! if anything it doesn't clock as high, but does require less power to do the same thing. Admittedly I did a rush job on the thermal paste (tried conductornaught on the IHS, which is a mistake) so will re-paste and add the external rads back into the loop to see if that changes.

I still hit the same wall of CCD1 @ 47.25 & CCD2 @ 46, and nothing I do will let me go higher than that without crashing on either chips. Perhaps the issue is elsewhere.


----------



## stimpy88

th30d0r3 said:


> I swapped out my OG 5950x for a B2 5950x 2 weeks ago. I wanted to see if it would clock higher, but it simply doesn't! if anything it doesn't clock as high, but does require less power to do the same thing. Admittedly I did a rush job on the thermal paste (tried conductornaught on the IHS, which is a mistake) so will re-paste and add the external rads back into the loop to see if that changes.
> 
> I still hit the same wall of CCD1 @ 47.25 & CCD2 @ 46, and nothing I do will let me go higher than that without crashing on either chips. Perhaps the issue is elsewhere.


Your report, and others seem to suggest that the B2 is a bust, or marketing hype.

How is your memory overclocking compared to your old CPU?


----------



## th30d0r3

stimpy88 said:


> Your report, and others seem to suggest that the B2 is a bust, or marketing hype.
> 
> How is your memory overclocking compared to your old CPU?


Exactly the same, couldn't tighten anything more than I have already.

The only thing that has improved was where I would have random SSD dropouts if my PC was on for long periods of time; the PC would be up and then the drive would disappear when in a game. It would come back after a reboot, but then the moment you do any load on the system it would drop out again. The only way to resolve the issue would be to unplug all the power cables from the board for a minute then plug everything back in again; that would resolve it for a few days. That problems seems to have gone away after the swap.

I do believe there is a slight difference overclocking in Windows 11 vs Windows 10. The former appears to allow for slightly higher clocks, I think there may be a disparity between the drivers I'm using between operating systems.


----------



## ArchStanton

stimpy88 said:


> Your report, and others seem to suggest that the B2 is a bust, or marketing hype.


B2 is the slag left over after the best Zen3 chiplets have been pulled for Milan-X maybe?


----------



## J7SC

stimpy88 said:


> Your report, and others seem to suggest that the B2 is a bust, or marketing hype.
> 
> How is your memory overclocking compared to your old CPU?


In fairness, 'marketing hype' isn't really accurate as AMD has maintained that there are no real performance gains. However, a few early independent testers suggested better RAM oc'ing. In any event, reading all this, I'm sure glad about my work-and-play R9s.


----------



## J7SC

@GRABibus ...fyi only, some specialty nerdy stuff about Eypic Milan X w/ V3 cache (including references to a 16 core Epyc with V3?).


----------



## tonynca

hwanzi said:


> works great for me
> View attachment 2552545


Damn. AT&T Fiber is the way.


----------



## xeizo

So a little update on my degraded 5900X, I tried to disable one CCD in the bios and now it works fully normal but as a "5600X" sixcore instead LoL. So, obviously one CCD is blown. Even memory OC:s is as normal, 3800MHz. Performance is like a 5800X but with slightly lower multi. From the looks of single core scores, it's my "good" CCD that has survived.

Good to know motherboard/graphics/disks/memory/power supply is fine.

I already have the Z690 board and the LGA1700 bracket, but the 12900KF hasn't arrived yet, I hope it comes before the end of the week.


----------



## Kelutrel

xeizo said:


> So a little update on my degraded 5900X, I tried to disable one CCD in the bios and now it works fully normal but as a "5600X" sixcore instead LoL. So, obviously one CCD is blown. Even memory OC:s is as normal, 3800MHz. Performance is like a 5800X but with slightly lower multi. From the looks of single core scores, it's my "good" CCD that has survived.
> 
> Good to know motherboard/graphics/disks/memory/power supply is fine.
> 
> I already have the Z690 board and the LGA1700 bracket, but the 12900KF hasn't arrived yet, I hope it comes before the end of the week.


Did you already try to remove it from the socket, blow compressed air on the socket, and put it back in the socket ?


----------



## xeizo

Kelutrel said:


> Did you already try to remove it from the socket, blow compressed air on the socket, and put it back in the socket ?


Not yet, as you say it may be possible to revive, I will do that when I install the 12900KF in this box with the EKWB AIO and move the 5900X/C8E to another box with different cooling(NH-D15S or DRP4)


----------



## hwanzi

tonynca said:


> Damn. AT&T Fiber is the way.


oh yea....i love it! its been great


----------



## xeizo

LoL, not a big performance hit in 3D with only one CCD, still above average total score for a 3070 and over 15k in graphics which is what a 3070Ti scores. You can notice how CPU clock is pretty straight at 4870MHz, it's obviously a bit cooler with only one CCD under the hood


----------



## DvL Ax3l

Guys, a little question about RAM OC, I've manage to achieve stability with same timings @ 3933MT/s @ 1.375V with just 0.020V more, IF @1966MHz, why nobody talk about that speed? I alway read about speed of 3600/3800/4000+ I'm curious of what do you think, in AIDA64 now latecy is around 59.4ns but like someone say before latest Win11 update broke again L3 cache speed, now I have some incostancies in the tests


----------



## GRABibus

DvL Ax3l said:


> Guys, a little question about RAM OC, I've manage to achieve stability with same timings @ 3933MT/s @ 1.375V with just 0.020V more, IF @1966MHz, why nobody talk about that speed? I alway read about speed of 3600/3800/4000+ I'm curious of what do you think, in AIDA64 now latecy is around 59.4ns but like someone say before latest Win11 update broke again L3 cache speed, now I have some incostancies in the tests
> 
> View attachment 2553063
> View attachment 2553062


Don’t you have Whea 19 in event viewer ?


----------



## xeizo

I'm back at 54.7-55.1ns latency during different runs with my "one CCD" 5900X at 3800MHz mem, that's with the latest Windows 11 22579, latest AMD drivers and latest Asus bios. Looks good.


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> I'm back at 54.7-55.1ns latency during different runs with my "one CCD" 5900X at 3800MHz mem, that's with the latest Windows 11 22579, latest AMD drivers and latest Asus bios. Looks good.
> 
> View attachment 2553064


Do you have a screenshot of Aida64 ?


----------



## DvL Ax3l

GRABibus said:


> Don’t you have Whea 19 in event viewer ?


Oh crap, I forgot to check 😅, yes it's full of error... Reverted to 3800C16, tomorrow I'll try to lower the timings more, anyway nothing can resolve that issue right? It's useless to increment SOC voltages etc.


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> Do you have a screenshot of Aida64 ?


Yes, ran it right now just for you 
(see the CPU Type is HexaCore LoL)


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> Yes, ran it right now just for you
> (see the CPU Type is HexaCore LoL)
> 
> View attachment 2553066


Yes now you « write » values are low.
Cache L2 and L3 are both affected.


----------



## J7SC

xeizo said:


> Yes, ran it right now just for you
> (see the CPU Type is HexaCore LoL)
> 
> View attachment 2553066


...ultra-rare collector's model !


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> Yes now you « write » values are low.
> Cache L2 and L3 are both affected.


It is always like that with the regular single CCD models too


----------



## xeizo

Performance is good for a six core, holds 4.7GHz in CPU-Z


----------



## DvL Ax3l

MSI released new bios with AGESA 1.2.0.6c with support of new CPU and improved performace, EDC>140 stil cap the voltage, like us with ASUS people revert back to AGESA 1.2.0.3c, we really need a statement from AMD, because if there are issue with voltages or anything else people should know.


----------



## Kelutrel

DvL Ax3l said:


> MSI released new bios with AGESA 1.2.0.6c with support of new CPU and improved performace, EDC>140 stil cap the voltage, like us with ASUS people revert back to AGESA 1.2.0.3c, we really need a statement from AMD, because if there are issue with voltages or anything else people should know.


I'd be so excited to hear an official AMD statement on the EDC>140 thing  ...


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> Performance is good for a six core, holds 4.7GHz in CPU-Z
> 
> View attachment 2553112


I am sure you can sale it for a good price 😂


----------



## hsntgm

DvL Ax3l said:


> MSI released new bios with AGESA 1.2.0.6c with support of new CPU and improved performace, EDC>140 stil cap the voltage, like us with ASUS people revert back to AGESA 1.2.0.3c, we really need a statement from AMD, because if there are issue with voltages or anything else people should know.


5900X B2 Stepping+X570 Tomahawk
---------
1.2.0.3c --> C20 all core --> boosting 4.5 effective all core --> PPT:180 TDC:120 EDC:155 --> CO:All Negative 20 --> 80°C
1.2.0.6c --> C20 all core --> boosting 4.2 effective all core --> boost freqs are not responding any EDC value over 140

They cut the voltage and performance. I agree that they have to explain what is happening here..


----------



## GRABibus

hsntgm said:


> 5900X B2 Stepping+X570 Tomahawk
> ---------
> 1.2.0.3c --> C20 all core --> boosting 4.5 effective all core --> PPT:180 TDC:120 EDC:155 --> CO:All Negative 20 --> 80°C
> 1.2.0.6c --> C20 all core --> boosting 4.2 effective all core --> boost freqs are not responding any EDC value over 140
> 
> They cut the voltage and performance. I agree that they have to explain what is happening here..


They won’t explain anything.
It is since months now that we have Bios with edc=140 said as a bug, and no news from AMD.


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> They won’t explain anything.
> It is since months now that we have Bios with edc=140 said as a bug, and no news from AMD.


The EDC bug (I hear about, coz moi = bios luddite w/ EDC 180) might be related to early vendor bios 'prep' for the 5800XV3 cache. As I posted elsewhere, the extra cache sitting on top the die and below the IHS is a bit like a heater. Hopefully, AMD finds a way to truly single out the 5800V3 cache chips in AGESA because for now, they seem to control the issue via blanket 'Vermeer' limits (one size fits all).

FYI, there are new AMD Epyc Milan X server chips with between (8?) 16 - 64 cores w/ V3 cache, but they use the much bigger Threadripper-style IHS, apart from clocking lower.


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> The EDC bug (I hear about, coz moi = bios luddite w/ EDC 180) might be related to early vendor bios 'prep' for the 5800XV3 cache. As I posted elsewhere, the extra cache sitting on top the die and below the IHS is a bit like a heater. Hopefully, AMD finds a way to truly single out the 5800V3 cache chips in AGESA because for now, they seem to control the issue via blanket 'Vermeer' limits (one size fits all).
> 
> FYI, there are new AMD Epyc Milan X server chips with between (8?) 16 - 64 cores w/ V3 cache, but they use the much bigger Threadripper-style IHS, apart from clocking lower.


By the way I am satisfied with 4006.
Higher than 9100 CBR20 MC
Higher Than 645 CBR20 SC.

Less heat, less voltage and stable -30 all cores and +200MHz 24/7 usage (Not with Corecycler).


----------



## PWn3R

J7SC said:


> The EDC bug (I hear about, coz moi = bios luddite w/ EDC 180) might be related to early vendor bios 'prep' for the 5800XV3 cache. As I posted elsewhere, the extra cache sitting on top the die and below the IHS is a bit like a heater. Hopefully, AMD finds a way to truly single out the 5800V3 cache chips in AGESA because for now, they seem to control the issue via blanket 'Vermeer' limits (one size fits all).
> 
> FYI, there are new AMD Epyc Milan X server chips with between (8?) 16 - 64 cores w/ V3 cache, but they use the much bigger Threadripper-style IHS, apart from clocking lower.


Did safe disk from Asus not post something saying the behavior is expected? I have been sus since going to AMD that the voltages on AUTO were WAY too high. Maybe they did this to prevent degradation which some people have reported in this thread?


----------



## xeizo

PWn3R said:


> Did safe disk from Asus not post something saying the behavior is expected? I have been sus since going to AMD that the voltages on AUTO were WAY too high. Maybe they did this to prevent degradation which some people have reported in this thread?


Or one CCD dying ...


----------



## DvL Ax3l

xeizo said:


> Or one CCD dying ...


I hope the dumb one 🤪


----------



## Kelutrel

PWn3R said:


> Did safe disk from Asus not post something saying the behavior is expected? I have been sus since going to AMD that the voltages on AUTO were WAY too high. Maybe they did this to prevent degradation which some people have reported in this thread?


I have the same feeling tbh, that the VID was lowered when above EDC 140 to prevent degradation. Nonetheless, as I prefer the lower VID due to better thermals, it would be nice if they add some bios configuration, like being able to manually set 1.425v - 1.450v - 1.475v or 1.5v on max VID, with an Auto setting that keeps it at 1.425v when above 140.


----------



## ArchStanton

Kelutrel said:


> I have the same feeling tbh


I have had the same thought, but after Veii's comments in [Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread | Page 904 | Overclock.net (#18,071) I'm hoping they have just been "lazy" and have yet to implement a way to for the system to distinguish between regular Vermeer and Vcache Vermeer.


----------



## xeizo

DvL Ax3l said:


> I hope the dumb one 🤪


Yes, it's CCD2 that is ****ed, it can be seen in HWINFO64 as it stays cool under load. At least temp sensors are working ...


----------



## tonynca

I like using EDC @ 140 for the 1.5v vcore limit. I find that I'm boosting way more often than with EDC > 140. Worth the trade off if you don't use all-core all day.

All freqs below are missing 100mhz due to hypervisor bug displaying less bclk (98.5mhz)


















Damn, effective vcore is 1.55v max!


----------



## J7SC

I hope AMD can sort the bios questions (incl. tighter limits) for existing Vermeer CPUs soon, or at least tell its communication department to be more forthcoming. FYI, I have had no problems on two Asus CH8 (wifi & Dark) boards since I got them about a year ago, so I just keep those bios in place. Also, not the slightest hint of degradation whatsoever on either the 3950X or the 5950X (both w/ 4 sticks 3800 CL14). I do run a lot of cooling though (ie. CBR 23 ~ 70 C @ 270W peak for the 5950X) and let vdroop do its thing, with PBO limits and LLC on auto. 

Things seem to go weird a bit for AMD bios once the USB drop-out issue affected select systems. Then you had Microsoft rush Windows 11 out the door (for Intel A L?) with the L3 issue affecting Ryzen thought that wasn't necessarily an AMD bios issue, not to mention the TPM stutter (I'm still on Win 10 Pro for both aforementioned systems). The latest 5800X V3 seems to be a home-made problem though which for now only has a blanket restriction 'solution' until appropriate Vermeer markers can be introduced for the V3. It should surprise no one though that when you have two 5800X - one regular, one V3 - running at the same voltages and speed, the V3 with its extra cache on top will be a heater, not least as they are designed to use the same AM4 cooling. Heat and degradation are related, so to get it back into the approved parameter ranges, less juice...


----------



## metalshark

Am still completely baffled everytime I see 1.425v limit. The limit imposed is 1.475v on PBO. Where cores seem to stop scaling over 1.455v each. If going for dry ice or better cooling you'll be doing manual OCing instead of PBO anyway where this is not limited. So looks like there's 20mv of headroom for those on water cooling or worse. You occasionally see the misconception that what VID is being set to, is an input to any part determining speed, instead of an output from the CPU to say what it's asking for. SVI2 + CO is what your cores actually get instead. This hang up on VID just completely confuses me.

As to the 5800X3D I've only seen unsubstantiated rumours thus far, with most circling around voltages being the issue with IF/memory speed OC'ing not being a problem. However nothing AFAIK verifiable yet.


----------



## Kelutrel

ArchStanton said:


> I have had the same thought, but after Veii's comments in [Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread | Page 904 | Overclock.net (#18,071) I'm hoping they have just been "lazy" and have yet to implement a way to for the system to distinguish between regular Vermeer and Vcache Vermeer.


Thank you, I missed that post but it explains everything. Let's wait for 1.2.0.7 then.


----------



## Daylight_Invader

Kelutrel said:


> Thank you, I missed that post but it explains everything. Let's wait for 1.2.0.7 then.


To add to that, I have a memory issue which was introduced back when 3601 bios was released as I have 64GB of Crucial 3600 CL16. To cut a long story, Asus and Crucial asked me to change the offset by +0.00625 for the SOC in order to boot. My understanding is that the bug which was introduced will be fixed when 1.2.0.7 gets released (at least that is what I have been told). I'm not sure if this impacts other manufactures, but I did manage to get Asus to QVL the product, especially as Micron/Crucial had already done so.


----------



## GRABibus

tonynca said:


> Damn, effective vcore is 1.55v max!


This is why they have maybe reduce Vid by this EDC=140Amps limit.
I had also these 1.55V effective Voltage with 3801.

With which software did you get more than 90°c on Cores ? You have a high ambient ?
What's your cooler ?


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> This is why they have maybe reduce Vid by this EDC=140Amps limit.
> I had also these 1.55V effective Voltage with 3801.
> 
> With *which software did you get more than 90°c on Cores ? You have a high ambient ?
> What's your cooler ?*


^This


----------



## tonynca

GRABibus said:


> This is why they have maybe reduce Vid by this EDC=140Amps limit.
> I had also these 1.55V effective Voltage with 3801.
> 
> With which software did you get more than 90°c on Cores ? You have a high ambient ?
> What's your cooler ?


I accidentally had CoreCycler running while playing Fortnite... LOL

Ambient was like 22-23C. I have an EK custom loop with a thick 240mm + one regular 360mm inside a O11D mini. I think my water temp was 43C?


----------



## ArchStanton

tonynca said:


> I accidentally had CoreCycler running while playing Fortnite... LOL


2 months from now..."You claim its stable, but have you tested with 5hrs of 'tonynca'?"


----------



## Luggage

GRABibus said:


> This is why they have maybe reduce Vid by this EDC=140Amps limit.
> I had also these 1.55V effective Voltage with 3801.
> 
> With which software did you get more than 90°c on Cores ? You have a high ambient ?
> What's your cooler ?


It’s very “heavy handed” compared to all the other FIT regulations though.

141A cuts 0.75V directly all the way up to MB limit - compared to thermal regulation that works with 25MHz steps (?) for a couple of degrees.

And the FIT still reduces VID for heavier workloads as seen with P95 etc.

It really makes little sense, if it was a power or thermal issue they could have solved it much more elegantly.


----------



## ArchStanton

Luggage said:


> It really makes little sense, if it was a power or thermal issue they *could* have solved it much more elegantly.


I hope you are correct. Just like I hope AMD *WILL* solve it in the elegant manner I am expecting and am inclined to feel entitled to receive after purchasing their product . Though wishes are not fishes. If they don't "solve it" or even bother to explain it...yeah. So, "take the veil off and let me see my bride (AKA 1207)". I forget, what is a realistic %decrease in performance for something like CBR23 MT/ST comparing 1203C to 1206 (assume high-end properly configured open loop)? Maybe my mountain _is_ just a molehill 🤷‍♂️.


----------



## tonynca

ArchStanton said:


> 2 months from now..."You claim its stable, but have you tested with 5hrs of 'tonynca'?"


No joke, I had a few lock up in the game while CoreCycler was cycling through the cores and I was like *** is wrong with my PC. Exited and saw 90C and freaked out. Checked my pump to see if it's running, then I checked Task Manager and saw Prime95 running. Well at least I know the system is pretty solid. lol


----------



## ArchStanton

tonynca said:


> No joke, I had a few lock up in the game while CoreCycler was cycling through the cores


Being serious for a moment, and I am out of my depth here, but does this imply a rather serious deficiency regarding the scheduler in Windows? Or is an "insta-freeze/thaw" largely unavoidable under the circumstances?


----------



## tonynca

ArchStanton said:


> Being serious for a moment, and I am out of my depth here, but does this imply a rather serious deficiency regarding the scheduler in Windows? Or is an "insta-freeze/thaw" largely unavoidable under the circumstances?


You know I've always wanted to know this as well.

I don't game with all my programs and windows closed. I need a lot of apps open for work during the day, but I sometimes take a 30 mins break and play a quick game. I get lag spikes here and there while in game that goes away when I close all the apps and only run Fortnite alone. I tried setting Priority to High and it doesn't seem to help much. I can imagine if someone is running a lot bloatware, they would get a lot of lag spikes. I don't think there's a fix to this unless Microsoft fundamentally overhaul the way Windows scheduler works.


----------



## Luggage

ArchStanton said:


> I hope you are correct. Just like I hope AMD *WILL* solve it in the elegant manner I am expecting and am inclined to feel entitled to receive after purchasing their product . Though wishes are not fishes. If they don't "solve it" or even bother to explain it...yeah. So, "take the veil off and let me see my bride (AKA 1207)". I forget, what is a realistic %decrease in performance for something like CBR23 MT/ST comparing 1203C to 1206 (assume high-end properly configured open loop)? Maybe my mountain _is_ just a molehill 🤷‍♂️.


@Audioboxer @ManniX-ITA @Veii
At least ASUS has some sense of how the oc community reacts to these new agesa…











__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/tntsuw


----------



## lmfodor

lmfodor said:


> Hi! I finished updating the BIOS version from 3801 that I have stable since its release to the latest 4006. I 'd to ask your advice about the voltages since I know that the previous version required adjusting the values a bit.
> 
> I have a Dark Hero with a 5900x with more than 1 year of use and where at the beginning I spent it with exhaustive tests of Core Cycler, Y-cruncher all test. Today, my curve is much less aggressive, I don't know if maybe touching some voltage value can achieve better results. Before in CB20 I had an easy score of 9100 and now only 8800, this is due to the curve per core. That's why I wanted to ask you if you recommend updating any of these values for better performance (I must test stability with my current values). For now I only use the PC to playing games. The latency is high because I have GHUB and Battle.net... otherwise it would be at 55 and I have managed to get down to 54.4 with these timings: (I noticed a much better results in bandwith in comparison with th 3801, and also the L3 values consistency)
> View attachment 2552492
> 
> And these are the values I'd like to adjust:
> 
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.12500]
> DRAM Voltage [1.50000]
> VDDG CCD Voltage Control [0.980]
> VDDG IOD Voltage Control [1.050]
> CLDO VDDP Voltage [0.900]
> I keep this values:
> 
> DF Cstates [Disabled]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> Global C-state Control [Enabled]
> Power Supply Idle Control [Typical Current Idle]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
> VTTDDR Voltage [0.75000]
> And also keep the LLC and PBO Settings. A Any suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: LLC Settings
> 
> 
> 
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
> CPU Current Capability [120%]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed CPU VRM Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]
> CPU Power Duty Control [Extreme]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Fast]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 4]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed VDDSOC Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Optimized]
> DRAM Current Capability [120%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]
> 
> 
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Manual]
> 
> 
> Spoiler: PBO Settings
> 
> 
> 
> ECO Mode [Disable]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
> PBO Limits [Manual]
> PPT Limit [W] [220]
> TDC Limit [A] [175]
> EDC Limit [A] [300]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> Curve Optimizer [Per Core] (All Negatives)
> Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [24]
> Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [24]
> Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [24]
> Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [26]
> Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [22]
> Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [22]
> Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [27]
> Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [24]
> Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [23]
> Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [27]
> Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [29]
> Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [29]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [100MHz]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [90]


Hi! I haven't received any recommendation yet, maybe someone can give me some point to optimize my BIOS with my old 5900x that must be a bit degraded. What I am surprised about is the improvement in memory bandwidth with the new BIOS 4006. I had never achieved such a high result. Latency is high because of the programs I have, but without these I'm on 54.x.

I'd like to know if, for example, a positive offset in the CPU Core Voltage could help me to have a better performance with some core. The curve ended up being the one I put in my previous post, less and less aggressive, that is, further from -30. The other thing I have doubts about is the VDDP. I have always used 0.9v and have seen some setups at 1V. vSOC is at 1.12, CCD almost 1V and IOD 1.05v. @GRABibus we share several of the same components, board, CPU and memory kits! I have checked your bios settings and feel my processor will not support -30 all cores. How did you come to know which positive voltages work for you? I see you set it to +0.025. I've read that if you add an offset, either positive or negative, it breaks the PBO algorithm, is that right? Would this help to better compensate for the curve I have, for example? Should I try like you, set this "lower" positive offset and increase the whole curve, for instance to -25? And then check with Core Cycler if it's stable? Thanks!

PS: I used to have a better score in CB20, around 9100. And the effective core above 4600 in the multicore test. I was adjusting the curve when I get some BSOD.. so for now I'm stable but wondering. If I could increase a little.


----------



## stimpy88

lmfodor said:


> Hi! I haven't received any recommendation yet, maybe someone can give me some point to optimize my BIOS with my old 5900x that must be a bit degraded. What I am surprised about is the improvement in memory bandwidth with the new BIOS 4006. I had never achieved such a high result. Latency is high because of the programs I have, but without these I'm on 54.x.
> 
> I'd like to know if, for example, a positive offset in the CPU Core Voltage could help me to have a better performance with some core. The curve ended up being the one I put in my previous post, less and less aggressive, that is, further from -30. The other thing I have doubts about is the VDDP. I have always used 0.9v and have seen some setups at 1V. vSOC is at 1.12, CCD almost 1V and IOD 1.05v. @GRABibus we share several of the same components, board, CPU and memory kits! I have checked your bios settings and feel my processor will not support -30 all cores. How did you come to know which positive voltages work for you? I see you set it to +0.025. I've read that if you add an offset, either positive or negative, it breaks the PBO algorithm, is that right? Would this help to better compensate for the curve I have, for example? Should I try like you, set this "lower" positive offset and increase the whole curve, for instance to -25? And then check with Core Cycler if it's stable? Thanks!
> 
> PS: I used to have a better score in CB20, around 9100. And the effective core above 4600 in the multicore test. I was adjusting the curve when I get some BSOD.. so for now I'm stable but wondering. If I could increase a little.
> 
> View attachment 2553419


I think your AIDA is out of date, and is the version that bumps the results.


----------



## Baio73

Sorry guys if this post is a little OT, but I don't know where else to ask...

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Extreme (BIOS 0606)
SAPPHIRE RX 5700 XT
3 NVMe drives (all PCIe 4.0 4x)

VGA in PCIEX16_1 slot
NVMe in M.2_1 slot
NVMe 2 & 3 in DIMM.2 slots

Whatever I choose in this BIOS voice:



I can't get the VGA to work at x16 4.0...

"PCIEX16_1 + PCIEX16_2" => x16 1.1
"PCIEX16_1 + PCIEX16_2 + M.2_3" => x8 3.0
"PCIEX16_1 + M.2_2 + M.2_3" => x8 4.0

NVMe drives always work at x4 4.0 in all situation.

Am I relying on the wrong software (GPU-Z v2.45.0) to check this?

Thanks!

Baio


----------



## bt1

Baio73 said:


> I can't get the VGA to work at x16 4.0...


Do you use some kind of raiser cable?


----------



## GRABibus

lmfodor said:


> Hi! I haven't received any recommendation yet, maybe someone can give me some point to optimize my BIOS with my old 5900x that must be a bit degraded. What I am surprised about is the improvement in memory bandwidth with the new BIOS 4006. I had never achieved such a high result. Latency is high because of the programs I have, but without these I'm on 54.x.
> 
> I'd like to know if, for example, a positive offset in the CPU Core Voltage could help me to have a better performance with some core. The curve ended up being the one I put in my previous post, less and less aggressive, that is, further from -30. The other thing I have doubts about is the VDDP. I have always used 0.9v and have seen some setups at 1V. vSOC is at 1.12, CCD almost 1V and IOD 1.05v. @GRABibus we share several of the same components, board, CPU and memory kits! I have checked your bios settings and feel my processor will not support -30 all cores. How did you come to know which positive voltages work for you? I see you set it to +0.025. I've read that if you add an offset, either positive or negative, it breaks the PBO algorithm, is that right? Would this help to better compensate for the curve I have, for example? Should I try like you, set this "lower" positive offset and increase the whole curve, for instance to -25? And then check with Core Cycler if it's stable? Thanks!
> 
> PS: I used to have a better score in CB20, around 9100. And the effective core above 4600 in the multicore test. I was adjusting the curve when I get some BSOD.. so for now I'm stable but wondering. If I could increase a little.
> 
> View attachment 2553419


@lmfodor
My "-30 all cores and +200Mhz" OC is stable for my 24/7 usage, mainly gaming, and browsing, benches, etc…
I didn’t test with Corecycler but I am quite sure it is not stable. I will give a try when I have more time.
I don’t want to jeopardize my OC by testing with Corecycler, which is useless in my case.
I don’t get any idle or low load reboots with my 24/7 usage and with -30 all cores and +200MHz.

my offset helps me a little for CBR20 SC score. If I push it higher, my CBR20 MC is worst
And it doesn’t really improve SC score.

with my settings and 4006, I get more than 9100pts CBR20 MC and more than 645pts CBR20 SC, which is great for me, only with a Corsair H115i RGB Platinum as CPU cooler !


----------



## Baio73

bt1 said:


> Do you use some kind of raiser cable?


No, no raiser cable.

Baio


----------



## metalshark

Baio73 said:


> Sorry guys if this post is a little OT, but I don't know where else to ask...
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Extreme (BIOS 0606)
> SAPPHIRE RX 5700 XT
> 3 NVMe drives (all PCIe 4.0 4x)
> 
> VGA in PCIEX16_1 slot
> NVMe in M.2_1 slot
> NVMe 2 & 3 in DIMM.2 slots
> 
> Whatever I choose in this BIOS voice:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't get the VGA to work at x16 4.0...
> 
> "PCIEX16_1 + PCIEX16_2" => x16 1.1
> "PCIEX16_1 + PCIEX16_2 + M.2_3" => x8 3.0
> "PCIEX16_1 + M.2_2 + M.2_3" => x8 4.0
> 
> NVMe drives always work at x4 4.0 in all situation.
> 
> Am I relying on the wrong software (GPU-Z v2.45.0) to check this?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Baio


I thought X570 had 24 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. 3x4 = 12. 24 - 12 = 12. So it can't run at 16x on the GPU because only 12x remain.


----------



## Baio73

metalshark said:


> I thought X570 had 24 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. 3x4 = 12. 24 - 12 = 12. So it can't run at 16x on the GPU because only 12x remain.


But if I choose the first option from BIOS, the VGA runs x16, but not 4.0 only 1.1.

So if I downgrade 1 NVMe drive to 3.0, it should work?

When you say X570 has 24 PCIe Gen 4 lines, you mean for the chipset only or both chipset and CPU?

Baio


----------



## crash_ice

Baio73 said:


> Sorry guys if this post is a little OT, but I don't know where else to ask...
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Extreme (BIOS 0606)
> SAPPHIRE RX 5700 XT
> 3 NVMe drives (all PCIe 4.0 4x)
> 
> VGA in PCIEX16_1 slot
> NVMe in M.2_1 slot
> NVMe 2 & 3 in DIMM.2 slots
> 
> Whatever I choose in this BIOS voice:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't get the VGA to work at x16 4.0...
> 
> "PCIEX16_1 + PCIEX16_2" => x16 1.1
> "PCIEX16_1 + PCIEX16_2 + M.2_3" => x8 3.0
> "PCIEX16_1 + M.2_2 + M.2_3" => x8 4.0
> 
> NVMe drives always work at x4 4.0 in all situation.
> 
> Am I relying on the wrong software (GPU-Z v2.45.0) to check this?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Baio


On my previous build 3950X i Got the same problem
i try to remove all the part and test on my son build and the result was my CPU had problem.
AMD Change it and the PCI-E Line was back


----------



## JuniorOC

lmfodor said:


> Hi! I haven't received any recommendation yet, maybe someone can give me some point to optimize my BIOS with my old 5900x that must be a bit degraded. What I am surprised about is the improvement in memory bandwidth with the new BIOS 4006. I had never achieved such a high result. Latency is high because of the programs I have, but without these I'm on 54.x.
> 
> I'd like to know if, for example, a positive offset in the CPU Core Voltage could help me to have a better performance with some core. The curve ended up being the one I put in my previous post, less and less aggressive, that is, further from -30. The other thing I have doubts about is the VDDP. I have always used 0.9v and have seen some setups at 1V. vSOC is at 1.12, CCD almost 1V and IOD 1.05v. @GRABibus we share several of the same components, board, CPU and memory kits! I have checked your bios settings and feel my processor will not support -30 all cores. How did you come to know which positive voltages work for you? I see you set it to +0.025. I've read that if you add an offset, either positive or negative, it breaks the PBO algorithm, is that right? Would this help to better compensate for the curve I have, for example? Should I try like you, set this "lower" positive offset and increase the whole curve, for instance to -25? And then check with Core Cycler if it's stable? Thanks!
> 
> PS: I used to have a better score in CB20, around 9100. And the effective core above 4600 in the multicore test. I was adjusting the curve when I get some BSOD.. so for now I'm stable but wondering. If I could increase a little.
> 
> View attachment 2553419


Most dramatic improvements I had with 4006 bios were set these:
PBO Limits [Manual]
PPT Limit [W] [180]
TDC Limit [A] [130]
EDC Limit [A] [140]
Results speak for themselves, I can't go above 1866 FCLK with this CPU but I am happy with it after I got this overclock right and stable









Hope it helps


----------



## metalshark

Baio73 said:


> But if I choose the first option from BIOS, the VGA runs x16, but not 4.0 only 1.1.
> 
> So if I downgrade 1 NVMe drive to 3.0, it should work?
> 
> When you say X570 has 24 PCIe Gen 4 lines, you mean for the chipset only or both chipset and CPU?
> 
> Baio


Thought it was 24 lanes of PCIe Gen 4 which could be downgraded to PCIe Gen 3. It's B550 which is 20x Gen 4, 4x Gen 3. You might be able to have two drives run on 2x lanes each, or PLX switch to share 4x.


----------



## GRABibus

Baio73 said:


> Sorry guys if this post is a little OT, but I don't know where else to ask...
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Extreme (BIOS 0606)
> SAPPHIRE RX 5700 XT
> 3 NVMe drives (all PCIe 4.0 4x)
> 
> VGA in PCIEX16_1 slot
> NVMe in M.2_1 slot
> NVMe 2 & 3 in DIMM.2 slots
> 
> Whatever I choose in this BIOS voice:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't get the VGA to work at x16 4.0...
> 
> "PCIEX16_1 + PCIEX16_2" => x16 1.1
> "PCIEX16_1 + PCIEX16_2 + M.2_3" => x8 3.0
> "PCIEX16_1 + M.2_2 + M.2_3" => x8 4.0
> 
> NVMe drives always work at x4 4.0 in all situation.
> 
> Am I relying on the wrong software (GPU-Z v2.45.0) to check this?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Baio


Probably stupid question : everything on « Auto » doesn’t work ?


----------



## Baio73

crash_ice said:


> On my previous build 3950X i Got the same problem
> i try to remove all the part and test on my son build and the result was my CPU had problem.
> AMD Change it and the PCI-E Line was back


I have a second pc, but don’t know how to test my 5900x… do you have any advice for me?
Thanks!

Baio


----------



## Baio73

metalshark said:


> Thought it was 24 lanes of PCIe Gen 4 which could be downgraded to PCIe Gen 3. It's B550 which is 20x Gen 4, 4x Gen 3. You might be able to have two drives run on 2x lanes each, or PLX switch to share 4x.


24 lanes should be by the CPU (16 VGA, 4 NVMe primary slot and 4 to the chipset). But AFAIK the chipset itself should provide another 16 lanes, that should be enough for the other 2 4.0 NVMe drives.

Baio


----------



## Baio73

GRABibus said:


> Probably stupid question : everything on « Auto » doesn’t work ?


That’s exactly what I set, everything on Auto.

Baio


----------



## crash_ice

Baio73 said:


> I have a second pc, but don’t know how to test my 5900x… do you have any advice for me?
> Thanks!
> 
> Baio


You can try to switch the CPU and check PCI E Line.


----------



## fauqto

Baio73 said:


> "PCIEX16_1 + PCIEX16_2" => x16 1.1.....
> Am I relying on the wrong software (GPU-Z v2.45.0) to check this?
> Thanks!
> Baio


Maybe you already know this, but did you click on the question mark in GPU-Z next to where you see the PCIE info, read what that has to say, and then press the "start render test" button?
Apologies if you have already done that, but I've seen many people get confused by the GPU-Z PCIE info box, not knowing about PCIE power saving lowering the link speed and width when idle.


----------



## Blackfyre

My 5800X is set and has been for months boosting single core frequency to 5050Mhz on all core, except one (weakest) which usually boosts to 5000Mhz.

Woke up today and none of the cores are boosting higher than 4970Mhz (strongest). Restarted and checked BIOS, all settings are stick intact. Booted to windows again and same thing. Shut down, unplugged from power, and booted. Same thing. Ran corecycler, none of the cores would touch 5000Mhz single core boost.

This is weird, first time it happens.


----------



## ArchStanton

Blackfyre said:


> This is weird, first time it happens.


Did Windows update the chipset drivers in the background?


----------



## Blackfyre

ArchStanton said:


> Did Windows update the chipset drivers in the background?


Nope, and just in case, I installed the latest ones again to test and same thing... This is the weirdest thing I've experienced. Multi-core performance is identical with Cinebench R20 quick testing multiple runs.

Wrong! Multi-core scores are not the same. R20 scores are 6005, 5990, 6010. When I usually get 6150 to 6180 scores.

The only thing I recall that changed since yesterday was enabling these two, but I disabled them and restarted and same thing. That's the only change really that I can recall.










*EDIT: Just done a full a BIOS flash, went to the latest BIOS 4006 and input all my settings manually again and same results.*

Even pinned my CPU fan to 100% and same thing, multi-core performance is the same too 6005.


----------



## Blackfyre

3DMark scores are within margin of error here: 









Result







www.3dmark.com





However, all these dips I have highlighted here, despite the score being identical above on single core performance. Usually there is only 1 dip that happens in this test, not 10 of them!

Is it possible that the latest Windows 11 Beta update is resulting in wrong readings? But I don't think this is it, as the PC has been updated for 3 days now and only today did these changes in occur. I monitor frequencies and temperatures daily.


----------



## Blackfyre

Another anomaly in the results, even though end result scores are within 1% of each other.










*EDIT: Cyberpunk 2077 results*

Core boosting and averaging 4825Mhz while gaming. Usually 4875Mhz. Maximum I saw was 4850Mhz, usually 4950Mhz and 5000Mhz sometimes.


----------



## GRABibus

Blackfyre said:


> Another anomaly in the results, even though end result scores are within 1% of each other.
> 
> View attachment 2553491
> 
> 
> *EDIT: Cyberpunk 2077 results*
> 
> Core boosting and averaging 4825Mhz while gaming. Usually 4875Mhz. Maximum I saw was 4850Mhz, usually 4950Mhz and 5000Mhz sometimes.


no temperature cooling issue which could explain a lower boost ?


----------



## 050

This is likely unrelated to the mobo (crosshair viii formula) in particular but last night after months of stable gaming and stability testing, I switched from keeping my system on all the time (running core cycler and such) to letting it sleep and wake up - and upon waking up, the system seems to work briefly, then would crash with all the screens going black. I suspect(ed) that it was an issue with the gpu getting too cold, waking up nice and cooled off, and trying to boost too high. When this happens, I have to just reboot to escape the lockup, and the event viewer shows errors with "event ID 14" related to Nvidia. After a few reboots and making sure that the curve in afterburner didn't seem set too high, the system ran fine the rest of the night. This morning I woke it up - It woke up fine, unlocked and immediately black screened, same as before. Now I am getting an Asus boot code 97 - seems like there's a vga issue. cmos reset hasn't cleared it up so I will have to keep debugging. The system is hard line water cooled, so pulling parts and testing alternatives is a bit more of a pain. I have re-seated the pcie gen4 riser cable, no change in results.

Gonna have to keep debugging!


----------



## Blackfyre

GRABibus said:


> no temperature cooling issue which could explain a lower boost ?


No cooling issue. Noctua NH-D15. Can't think of anything that would result in such a change just overnight with regards to cooling.

Ambient temperatures if anything are lower today than most days in the last 3 months.


----------



## GRABibus

Blackfyre said:


> No cooling issue. Noctua NH-D15. Can't think of anything that would result in such a change just overnight with regards to cooling.
> 
> Ambient temperatures if anything are lower today than most days in the last 3 months.


I was wondering if it could be a problem with an AIO cooling degradation for example.
But with noctua nh-d15 it can’t be….


----------



## Blackfyre

GRABibus said:


> I was wondering if it could be a problem with an AIO cooling degradation for example.
> But with noctua nh-d15 it can’t be….


Yep, here's something I just noticed after running Aida 64 Mem test a few times. Look at BCLK (*below the edit*), I restarted and made sure to type 100 in the BIOS and same thing is happening.

It could very well be that BCLK not hitting 100Mhz,but what would cause this issue?

*EDIT: *So apparently, disabling Spread Spectrum fixes this issue, however the option to disable it is not available. Only in a modded BIOS.



http://imgur.com/wJeq2JL


----------



## GRABibus

Blackfyre said:


> Yep, here's something I just noticed after running Aida 64 Mem test a few times. Look at BCLK (*below the edit*), I restarted and made sure to type 100 in the BIOS and same thing is happening.
> 
> It could very well be that BCLK not hitting 100Mhz,but what would cause this issue?
> 
> *EDIT: *So apparently, disabling Spread Spectrum fixes this issue, however the option to disable it is not available. Only in a modded BIOS.
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/wJeq2JL
> 
> 
> View attachment 2553515


The Option of SB spectrum should be available in « Tweaker’s paradise » menu in non modded Bios


----------



## Blackfyre

GRABibus said:


> The Option of SB spectrum should be available in « Tweaker’s paradise » menu in non modded Bios


Apparently that's not it from the post I read, but will disable it now and edit this post within minutes.

*EDIT:*

Same thing, in Windows it's stuck on 98.4.

In the BIOS it shows 100Mhz

*EDIT 2:*

Setting it to 99.9 in the BIOS results in this:








It's like 100% = 98.4 all of a sudden.

*EDIT 3:*

Even worse, limiting PPT, TDC, and EDC to 120, 75, 110 used to give me R20 score of ~6020 to ~6050... Now ~5800:


----------



## jfrob75

Baio73 said:


> Sorry guys if this post is a little OT, but I don't know where else to ask...
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Extreme (BIOS 0606)
> SAPPHIRE RX 5700 XT
> 3 NVMe drives (all PCIe 4.0 4x)
> 
> VGA in PCIEX16_1 slot
> NVMe in M.2_1 slot
> NVMe 2 & 3 in DIMM.2 slots
> 
> Whatever I choose in this BIOS voice:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't get the VGA to work at x16 4.0...
> 
> "PCIEX16_1 + PCIEX16_2" => x16 1.1
> "PCIEX16_1 + PCIEX16_2 + M.2_3" => x8 3.0
> "PCIEX16_1 + M.2_2 + M.2_3" => x8 4.0
> 
> NVMe drives always work at x4 4.0 in all situation.
> 
> Am I relying on the wrong software (GPU-Z v2.45.0) to check this?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Baio


I have a similar setup to yours and I am getting X16 4.0 with my 6900XT vga according to GPUz ver 2.45.0.
I manually set the CPU PCIE Configuration Mode to the top selection in your BIOS image.
My suggestion is try setting the PCIE config manually as I have done. I have not tried AUTO but will if you want me to.


----------



## Blackfyre

Issue resolved. I set BCLK to Auto instead of 100. The system entered into 5 minutes of bootloops. I reset the BIOS from the back. Loaded my saved profile, and everything back to normal now.

(F logic)


----------



## Blackfyre

It was virtualization in combination with assuming the Windows Features I enabled yesterday which I mentioned earlier.

So finally pinpointed the issue.

Disabling this = 100Mhz FCLK -------> Enabling it = 98.6 FCLK.

PS: I always had it on enabled in the BIOS before, but I guess after adding on the windows features for virtualization, that's when it took effect in Windows. Disabling them in windows does not fix the issue now, only disabling it in the BIOS does:









*EDIT: This is how that 3DMark graph from last page should have looked like:







*


----------



## DvL Ax3l

Blackfyre said:


> It was virtualization in combination with assuming the Windows Features I enabled yesterday which I mentioned earlier.
> 
> So finally pinpointed the issue.
> 
> Disabling this = 100Mhz FCLK -------> Enabling it = 98.6 FCLK.
> 
> PS: I always had it on enabled in the BIOS before, but I guess after adding on the windows features for virtualization, that's when it took effect in Windows. Disabling them in windows does not fix the issue now, only disabling it in the BIOS does:
> View attachment 2553540
> 
> 
> *EDIT: This is how that 3DMark graph from last page should have looked like:
> View attachment 2553547
> *


have you check if in windows you have core isolation disabled? with spread spreactum off + svm on + fclk manual 100 I have no issue


----------



## ArchStanton

Not trying to nit pick, just trying to make sure I understand. Aren't we talking about bclk not fclk?


----------



## Blackfyre

DvL Ax3l said:


> have you check if in windows you have core isolation disabled? with spread spreactum off + svm on + fclk manual 100 I have no issue


Core isolation is disabled. So already have tested the above earlier. As well as Smart Screen (_because thanks to the latest update on the dev/beta build, 50Gb media files now take 30 minutes to load with it enabled_). Anyone else can try enabling SVM in the BIOS, and then enabling these two under "Turn Windows Features on or off" and restarting. But to fix it, you have to disable SVM from the BIOS Mode, under Advanced --> CPU.










ArchStanton said:


> Not trying to nit pick, just trying to make sure I understand. Aren't we talking about bclk not fclk?


*Yeah, correct nitpicking lol my bad on that grammatical error.*


----------



## tonynca

You're not losing that much performance running virtualization. It doesn't bother me much seeing BCLK at 98.5mhz. I use HyperV to run Homebridge for my Nest products. You're supposed to be using your multicore CPU as much as possible =).


----------



## GRABibus

Blackfyre said:


> Core isolation is disabled. So already have tested the above earlier. As well as Smart Screen (_because thanks to the latest update on the dev/beta build, 50Gb media files now take 30 minutes to load with it enabled_). Anyone else can try enabling SVM in the BIOS, and then enabling these two under "Turn Windows Features on or off" and restarting. But to fix it, you have to disable SVM from the BIOS Mode, under Advanced --> CPU.
> View attachment 2553556
> 
> 
> *Yeah, correct nitpicking lol my bad on that grammatical error.*


What's your CBR20 SC score ? (You have nice boosting)


----------



## Blackfyre

GRABibus said:


> What's your CBR20 SC score ? (You have nice boosting)


Have to test it. Will edit post and add it soon. Here's clocks and temps after 45 minutes of Cyberpunk:


----------



## trespot

Blackfyre said:


> Apparently that's not it from the post I read, but will disable it now and edit this post within minutes.
> 
> *EDIT:*
> 
> Same thing, in Windows it's stuck on 98.4.
> 
> In the BIOS it shows 100Mhz
> 
> *EDIT 2:*
> 
> Setting it to 99.9 in the BIOS results in this:
> View attachment 2553516
> 
> It's like 100% = 98.4 all of a sudden.
> 
> *EDIT 3:*
> 
> Even worse, limiting PPT, TDC, and EDC to 120, 75, 110 used to give me R20 score of ~6020 to ~6050... Now ~5800:
> View attachment 2553518


Try disabling Hyper-V when you are not using virtual machines, 

To do that you can run the following command in command line:


Code:


bcdedit /set hypervisorlaunchtype off

You will need to restart your computer in order for changes to be in effect.

You can enable it back by running:


Code:


bcdedit /set hypervisorlaunchtype on


----------



## Blackfyre

trespot said:


> Try disabling Hyper-V when you are not using virtual machines,
> 
> To do that you can run the following command in command line:
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> bcdedit /set hypervisorlaunchtype off
> 
> You will need to restart your computer in order for changes to be in effect.
> 
> You can enable it back by running:
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> bcdedit /set hypervisorlaunchtype on



Thanks will test it out.

Also for @GRABibus this is with my daily BIOS settings but fan speeds at 100%, since ambient temperature is 27°C right now. 

I can push for my benchmark Curve Optimizer negative offsets, which would give better results.









The one below is from months ago, on 3801 BIOS (_which gives better results generally_), but I find newer BIOS more stable overall and use less voltage and I can run quieter systems for not much loss in performance: Right click and open image in new tab to see full quality, pretty sure with what I've learnt past few months I can push even higher with 3801 if I go back to it.


----------



## GRABibus

Blackfyre said:


> Thanks will test it out.
> 
> Also for @GRABibus this is with my daily BIOS settings but fan speeds at 100%, since ambient temperature is 27°C right now.
> 
> I can push for my benchmark Curve Optimizer negative offsets, which would give better results.
> View attachment 2553571
> 
> 
> The one below is from months ago, on 3801 BIOS (_which gives better results generally_), but I find newer BIOS more stable overall and use less voltage and I can run quieter systems for not much loss in performance: Right click and open image in new tab to see full quality, pretty sure with what I've learnt past few months I can push even higher with 3801 if I go back to it.
> 
> View attachment 2553572


try a little offset on Vcore to see if it helps for SC score.


----------



## Blackfyre

GRABibus said:


> try a little offset on Vcore to see if it helps for SC score.


Already do - 0.00625


----------



## GRABibus

Blackfyre said:


> Already do:
> View attachment 2553577


I use 25mV.
6,25mV is too low to see an improvement.


----------



## Blackfyre

GRABibus said:


> I use 25mV.
> 6,25mV is too low to see an improvement.


Yeah when I do my benchmark testing I do that, allows me to push for stronger negative offsets on my Curve Optimizer too, prevents idle crashing. But it's not 100% stable for daily, my above settings & more moderate offsets have been stable for a while.


----------



## Luggage

GRABibus said:


> I use 25mV.
> 6,25mV is too low to see an improvement.


I just do +0.0125V (0.00125? the smallest I can set) - just enough to counteract droop/wrong vcore to get vid and vcore to match for sc (instead of messing with LLC)


----------



## Blackfyre

tonynca said:


> You're not losing that much performance running virtualization. It doesn't bother me much seeing BCLK at 98.5mhz. I use HyperV to run Homebridge for my Nest products. You're supposed to be using your multicore CPU as much as possible =).


Why does this happen though? Why BCLK and not just normal CPU usage.

Is AMD aware of this? Are they working on a BIOS or Chipset fix for this issue? I imagine a lot of people will want to utilise Android Apps on Windows once they are officially out worldwide, literally in a few months. So hopefully someone sees the posts and lets staff know at ASUS if this is an Asus issue only or at AMD if this is an AMD chipset driver issue.

It would make sense if while using virtualisation apps I would lose performance, but I shouldn't be losing this much performance and having big fluctuating single core boosts/drops and multi-core boosts dropping by 200Mhz without doing anything.


----------



## xeizo

The latest bios has the worst single core so far, I get 627 with my one CCD 5900X, I used to get 640-650 way back. BUT, way back there was the occasional WHEAs and sudden reboots. There hasn't been a single rough event or any WHEA with the new bios, which is good.

I run Windows 11 22581(latest chipset drivers) with virtualization on and all normal programs installed, and a silent fan curve, which do kill some single core.

Tomorrow I will build the 12900KF-rig, all parts are here


----------



## Blackfyre

xeizo said:


> The latest bios has the worst single core so far, I get 627 with my one CCD 5900X, I used to get 640-650 way back. BUT, way back there was the occasional WHEAs and sudden reboots. There hasn't been a single rough event or any WHEA with the new bios, which is good.
> 
> I run Windows 11 22581(latest chipset drivers) with virtualization on and all normal programs installed, and a silent fan curve, which do kill some single core.
> 
> Tomorrow I will build the 12900KF-rig, all parts are here


Hyper-V enabled in Windows too? It's likely your BCLK is not running at 100Mhz, check it. That's probably why your single core results are down.

Test R20 SC & Multi, then go BIOS and disable "SVM Mode" under Advanced, under CPU config. And Test R20 results again.


----------



## Baio73

crash_ice said:


> You can try to switch the CPU and check PCI E Line.


My new 6900XT should come in a couple of days... I think I'm gonna wait till then and see if I can test the CPU.

Baio


----------



## Baio73

fauqto said:


> Maybe you already know this, but did you click on the question mark in GPU-Z next to where you see the PCIE info, read what that has to say, and then press the "start render test" button?
> Apologies if you have already done that, but I've seen many people get confused by the GPU-Z PCIE info box, not knowing about PCIE power saving lowering the link speed and width when idle.


Yes, I tried to run the Render Test to see if the 1.1 would rise to 4.0 but didn't happen.
Now I'm running a 460X waiting for the 6900XT, it supports x8 3.0 and infact it stays at x8 1.1 in idle and raise to 3.0 under load... I'm gonna see if anything changes with the new VGA.

Baio


----------



## Baio73

jfrob75 said:


> I have a similar setup to yours and I am getting X16 4.0 with my 6900XT vga according to GPUz ver 2.45.0.
> I manually set the CPU PCIE Configuration Mode to the top selection in your BIOS image.
> My suggestion is try setting the PCIE config manually as I have done. I have not tried AUTO but will if you want me to.


Ok, so there are enough PCIE lanes, as supposed, so the issue is somewhere else.
Could be a defective CPU or a VGA releted issue... I'm gonna test ASAP as the 6900XT arrives.
Already tried to set GEN4 in the BIOS but didn't change the situation.

Baio


----------



## th30d0r3

Baio73 said:


> Ok, so there are enough PCIE lanes, as supposed, so the issue is somewhere else.
> Could be a defective CPU or a VGA releted issue... I'm gonna test ASAP as the 6900XT arrives.
> Already tried to set GEN4 in the BIOS but didn't change the situation.
> 
> Baio


This is the Crosshair VIII Extreme so you need to be careful where you install your drives. What is not made immediately clear is that if you install your drives on the board in the normal place you will rob bandwidth from the PCIE_1 slot. So your primary drive should be at the top closest to the CPU under the heatshield, but your other drives need to be installed in the DIMM riser slot at the top next to the memory for them to be attached to the Chipset.
The other 2 NVME slots where the PCIE slots are share bandwidth with PCIE_1; I suspect that is the cause of the problem.
They couldn't do it the other way around due to the traces to the PCIE would be too long or something like that causing latency issues (PCIE is very latency sensitive hence why all traces must be identical in length etc.)


----------



## Baio73

th30d0r3 said:


> This is the Crosshair VIII Extreme so you need to be careful where you install your drives. What is not made immediately clear is that if you install your drives on the board in the normal place you will rob bandwidth from the PCIE_1 slot. So your primary drive should be at the top closest to the CPU under the heatshield, but your other drives need to be installed in the DIMM riser slot at the top next to the memory for them to be attached to the Chipset.
> The other 2 NVME slots where the PCIE slots are share bandwidth with PCIE_1; I suspect that is the cause of the problem.
> They couldn't do it the other way around due to the traces to the PCIE would be too long or something like that causing latency issues (PCIE is very latency sensitive hence why all traces must be identical in length etc.)


Thanks for your replay, very interesting... I was wondering why they placed the DIMM.2 slot near the RAM ones, now I understand why.

Anyway, this is not the solution for my issue, as I installed NVMe 2 &3 in the DIMM.2 slot and still the VGA showed either x16 1.1 or x8 4.0.
My new VGA is on its way home, so I'm gonna try again ASAP (I'm actually running a 460x which is x8 3.0, so not enough PCIE lanes to test)... hope it's not a CPU problem...
I really don't understand why ASUS does not provide a clearer BIOS setting to manage this kind of configurations.

Baio


----------



## th30d0r3

Baio73 said:


> Thanks for your replay, very interesting... I was wondering why they placed the DIMM.2 slot near the RAM ones, now I understand why.
> 
> Anyway, this is not the solution for my issue, as I installed NVMe 2 &3 in the DIMM.2 slot and still the VGA showed either x16 1.1 or x8 4.0.
> My new VGA is on its way home, so I'm gonna try again ASAP (I'm actually running a 460x which is x8 3.0, so not enough PCIE lanes to test)... hope it's not a CPU problem...
> I really don't understand why ASUS does not provide a clearer BIOS setting to manage this kind of configurations.
> 
> Baio


That's odd since x16 1.1 is still x16 so it is still registering the lanes. I wonder why its bandwidth limited though. Silly question, are the pins in the slot clean? perhaps try reseating the CPU. Apologies if you have checked all that already.


----------



## xeizo

I promised to get back about the 12900KF replacing the 5900X in my main box, so it started at first try, updated to the latest bios 131 with 12900KS support. Not changed a single setting in the bios yet, not even memory it's still 2133MHz, this is 100% default. Installed Windows 22581 and all drivers on the SN850 PCIE4-drive. 

First try with CPU-Z, temps are good 66C running CPU-Z and 4888MHz all core, there's A LOT of configuring ahead but it ticks along nicely:


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> I promised to get back about the 12900KF replacing the 5900X in my main box, so it started at first try, updated to the latest bios 131 with 12900KS support. Not changed a single setting in the bios yet, not even memory it's still 2133MHz, this is 100% default. Installed Windows 22581 and all drivers on the SN850 PCIE4-drive.
> 
> First try with CPU-Z, temps are good 66C running CPU-Z and 4888MHz all core, there's A LOT of configuring ahead but it ticks along nicely:
> 
> View attachment 2553657
> 
> View attachment 2553658
> 
> View attachment 2553659


Cooling is ek block 360 D RGB ?

which temp would you get for example in CBR23 MC test ?


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> Cooling is ek block 360 D RGB ?
> 
> which temp would you get for example in CBR23 MC test ?


81.5C for 27575p

Yes, it's 360-D RGB in push/pull using Arctic MX5, package power was 247W(!) so a bit more than 5900X to cool.

But, looks good, people where threatening about 100C+ with 12900 ...
2 cores have boosted to 5.2GHz so it's up to spec running default

Another thing of note, SN850 is said to be hot but it has maxed at 41C so far, and VRM MOS-FET has maxed at 36C which is ridiculous cool. Makes you believe the reports the Z690 platform was designed for AVX512, but it was removed so late that VRM designs where already to late to change back from overkill.


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> 81.5C for 27575p
> 
> Yes, it's 360-D RGB in push/pull using Arctic MX5, package power was 247W(!) so a bit more than 5900X to cool.
> 
> But, looks good, people where threatening about 100C+ with 12900 ...
> 2 cores have boosted to 5.2GHz so it's up to spec running default
> 
> Another thing of note, SN850 is said to be hot but it has maxed at 41C so far, and VRM MOS-FET has maxed at 36C which is ridiculous cool. Makes you believe the reports the Z690 platform was designed for AVX512, but it was removed so late that VRM designs where already to late to change back from overkill.
> 
> View attachment 2553662


Thanks, as I plan to use this cooler for my 5900X on replacement of the H115i RGB Platinum.


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> Thanks, as I plan to use this cooler for my 5900X on replacement of the H115i RGB Platinum.


Yes, I think it's a good cooler, my 5900X where not often past 70C. Easy to mount too, and LGA1700 bracket was free, only paid shipping.

So, now I did my first OC on my new platform. Only clocking memory so far, as I have absolutely no idea of what I am doing - I have only used AMD the last couple of years- I just typed in some values and it booted at first try LoL

3600c16










Geekbench looks good, finally Apple M1 scores in single core










Sure, this is pretty much a side grade and one I wasn't planning for. I would never have done it if not my 5900X had failed with one damaged CCD. But as things are, it IS generally faster, and it will allow one more generation upgrade(Raptor Lake), while X570 is at it's end with 5800X3D.

Happy so far!

edit. 3D works to expectations:










edit2. And PCIE4 SSD also performs as it should:


----------



## Baio73

th30d0r3 said:


> That's odd since x16 1.1 is still x16 so it is still registering the lanes. I wonder why its bandwidth limited though. Silly question, are the pins in the slot clean? perhaps try reseating the CPU. Apologies if you have checked all that already.


I’m gonna try also to reseat the CPU after installing the new VGA.
The oddest thing is that x16 1.1 is correct until the VGA is idling, but it stayed 1.1 also under load… maybe also a motherboard’s BIOS reflash may help.

Baio


----------



## tonynca

Blackfyre said:


> Why does this happen though? Why BCLK and not just normal CPU usage.
> 
> Is AMD aware of this? Are they working on a BIOS or Chipset fix for this issue? I imagine a lot of people will want to utilise Android Apps on Windows once they are officially out worldwide, literally in a few months. So hopefully someone sees the posts and lets staff know at ASUS if this is an Asus issue only or at AMD if this is an AMD chipset driver issue.
> 
> It would make sense if while using virtualisation apps I would lose performance, but I shouldn't be losing this much performance and having big fluctuating single core boosts/drops and multi-core boosts dropping by 200Mhz without doing anything.


It's not AMD, it's Microsoft. If you Google the issue, it's pretty well known.


----------



## Blackfyre

tonynca said:


> It's not AMD, it's Microsoft. If you Google the issue, it's pretty well known.


Yep, affects both Intel & AMD systems and has been an issue for years.

Crazy that it can go for this long without a change. Even if it's intended, surely there is a way to implement virtualisation without a BCLK drop.


----------



## WINTENDOX

Not Bad - Armory crate on Windows boot normal


----------



## Kelutrel

Blackfyre said:


> Yep, affects both Intel & AMD systems and has been an issue for years.
> 
> Crazy that it can go for this long without a change. Even if it's intended, surely there is a way to implement virtualisation without a BCLK drop.


The BCLK displayed in those applications usually is not read from a register or memory location, but is calculated in real time using low level cpu loops and functions.
In a virtualized environment any function runs under the control of an hypervisor, and even those low level cpu functions are emulated or executed in an emulated environment.
So the difference you see between the actual BCLK and the BCLK calculated inside the virtualized environment is the added virtualization overhead of those cpu functions.
It's not easy to trick those low level loops to compensate the ticks that were missed due to hypervisor interrupts and hardware traps so that they return the original real BCLK.


----------



## CyrIng

Intel, since SKL, has updated the CPUID instruction with leaf 0x16 to read (in a few lines of assembly) the FSB aka BCLK.


Code:


unsigned int eax = 0x0, ebx = 0x0, edx = 0x0, fsb = 0;

        __asm__ volatile        (

            "movq    $0x16, %%rax    \n\t"

            "xorq    %%rbx, %%rbx    \n\t"

            "xorq    %%rcx, %%rcx    \n\t"

            "xorq    %%rdx, %%rdx    \n\t"

            "cpuid            \n\t"

            "mov    %%eax, %0    \n\t"

            "mov    %%ebx, %1    \n\t"

            "mov    %%ecx, %2    \n\t"

            "mov    %%edx, %3"

            : "=r" (eax),

              "=r" (ebx),

              "=r" (fsb),

              "=r" (edx)

            :

            : "%rax", "%rbx", "%rcx", "%rdx"

        );

Although I much prefer the TSC estimation to have an idea of the under/over-clocked frequency but also the spread-spectrum incidence effect.

AMD, starting Zen3, some MTS also, through the HSMP protocol can supply BCLK & other clocks.


----------



## Kelutrel

CyrIng said:


> Intel, since SKL, has updated the CPUID instruction with leaf 0x16 to read (in a few lines of assembly) the FSB aka BCLK.
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> unsigned int eax = 0x0, ebx = 0x0, edx = 0x0, fsb = 0;
> 
> __asm__ volatile        (
> 
> "movq    $0x16, %%rax    \n\t"
> 
> "xorq    %%rbx, %%rbx    \n\t"
> 
> "xorq    %%rcx, %%rcx    \n\t"
> 
> "xorq    %%rdx, %%rdx    \n\t"
> 
> "cpuid            \n\t"
> 
> "mov    %%eax, %0    \n\t"
> 
> "mov    %%ebx, %1    \n\t"
> 
> "mov    %%ecx, %2    \n\t"
> 
> "mov    %%edx, %3"
> 
> : "=r" (eax),
> 
> "=r" (ebx),
> 
> "=r" (fsb),
> 
> "=r" (edx)
> 
> :
> 
> : "%rax", "%rbx", "%rcx", "%rdx"
> 
> );
> 
> Although I much prefer the TSC estimation to have an idea of the under/over-clocked frequency but also the spread-spectrum incidence effect.
> 
> AMD, starting Zen3, some MTS also, through the HSMP protocol can supply BCLK & other clocks.


I was waiting for this. No monitoring application should use CPUID(0x16) to get the BCLK, as that just returns a constant value. If you overclock your BCLK to 99 or 101 or 102, CPUID 0x16 will still return 100. If you have spread spectrum on or off, CPUID 0x16 will still return always 100. If you have an issue on a cpu pin that causes your cpu to only get half the BCLK impulses, CPUID 0x16 will still return guess what ? 100. It's literally a constant value with 100 written into it, unsuitable to calculate the actual CPU speed, even the documentation states:
"Data is returned from this interface in accordance with the processor's specification and does not reflect actual values. Suitable use of this data includes the display of processor information in like manner to the processor brand string and for determining the appropriate range to use when displaying processor information e.g. frequency history graphs. The returned information should not be used for any other purpose as the returned information does not accurately correlate to information / counters returned by other processor interfaces."

The HSMP protocol on a Zen only returns the expected target FCLK afaik.


----------



## Baio73

Baio73 said:


> Sorry guys if this post is a little OT, but I don't know where else to ask...
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Extreme (BIOS 0606)
> SAPPHIRE RX 5700 XT
> 3 NVMe drives (all PCIe 4.0 4x)
> 
> VGA in PCIEX16_1 slot
> NVMe in M.2_1 slot
> NVMe 2 & 3 in DIMM.2 slots
> 
> Whatever I choose in this BIOS voice:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't get the VGA to work at x16 4.0...
> 
> "PCIEX16_1 + PCIEX16_2" => x16 1.1
> "PCIEX16_1 + PCIEX16_2 + M.2_3" => x8 3.0
> "PCIEX16_1 + M.2_2 + M.2_3" => x8 4.0
> 
> NVMe drives always work at x4 4.0 in all situation.
> 
> Am I relying on the wrong software (GPU-Z v2.45.0) to check this?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Baio


Quoting my own message just to say that the new GPU arrived and it goes x16 4.0 as intended... not a smooth installation and still some USB problems but the issue above was solved!
Thanks to @bt1 @metalshark @crash_ice @GRABibus @fauqto @jfrob75 @th30d0r3 for their replies and support... hope I didn't forget anyone!

Baio


----------



## Badgerslayer7

does anyone know of how to reset the aura firmware in bios. My argb header is turned off And will not work since the 4004 bios. Updating to 4006 did fix but used aura Sync and now it’s gone off again and will not come back on.


----------



## WINTENDOX

I think I reached the limit of my hardware, then I would go for a ryzen 5950x Intel still not convinced me.


----------



## ChillyRide

WINTENDOX said:


> I think I reached the limit of my hardware, then I would go for a ryzen 5950x Intel still not convinced me.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2554302
> View attachment 2554301
> 
> View attachment 2554303


But You didnt reached Your limit


----------



## izzymariano

Has anyone oc the f4-3600c14q-64gtzn quad rank pair with 5900x and dark hero mobo?
I have these but wanted to see a good tuning or oc . Much appreciated . Screenshot timings?


----------



## Baio73

Is this a good starting point for stabilize 2000 FCLK?



Obviously I'm getting WHEA errors... what voltage should I raise first?
Thanks!

Baio


----------



## Blackfyre

Baio73 said:


> Is this a good starting point for stabilize 2000 FCLK?
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously I'm getting WHEA errors... what voltage should I raise first?
> Thanks!
> 
> Baio


How are you even running 4000Mhz with 1.20v  That is crazy that it even boots with it that low.

Would raise vDIMM to 1.35v at the very least and vSOC to 1.1250 and CLDO VDDP to 1.000


----------



## Baio73

Blackfyre said:


> How are you even running 4000Mhz with 1.20v  That is crazy that it even boots with it that low.
> 
> Would raise vDIMM to 1.35v at the very least and vSOC to 1.1250 and CLDO VDDP to 1.000


Thanks for your replay! 
ZenTimings reading of VDIMM is always messy... I'm on 1.40v form BIOS, raised form default (1.35) just to exclude VDIMM as possibile WHEA erros source.
I'm gonna try the voltages you suggested...

Baio


----------



## Blackfyre

Baio73 said:


> Thanks for your replay!
> ZenTimings reading of VDIMM is always messy... I'm on 1.40v form BIOS, raised form default (1.35) just to exclude VDIMM as possibile WHEA erros source.
> I'm gonna try the voltages you suggested...
> 
> Baio


That makes more sense. Increase vDIMM to 1.45v

Your VDDG IOD is already on 1.0, you can test 1.05 (_do not go above that, and watch out not to put 1.5 by accident_).

VDDG CCD I always have it on 0.95v and don't increase or decrease it.

vSOC, you should test 1.125v and 1.15v and then 1.18v. Stay below 1.20v

I personally could never run 4000Mhz with my 4 sticks of 8Gb micron-E die memory. 

3800Mhz is the highest I could go without getting WHEA errors.

You can wait for others who have more experience running 4000Mhz to get guidance from, and also there is a RAM dedicated thread with a lot more RAM discussions in it you can post there.









[Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread


AM4 Ryzen Memory Stability Thread Please try to remember the following Clarify what platform and CPU you are speaking about when asking a particular question or speaking about your experience. Quote the user you are replying to when replying. When posting stability results, be sure to...




www.overclock.net


----------



## ChillyRide

izzymariano said:


> Has anyone oc the f4-3600c14q-64gtzn quad rank pair with 5900x and dark hero mobo?
> I have these but wanted to see a good tuning or oc . Much appreciated . Screenshot timings?


WIth 2x16 max fclk is 3800 without WHEAS. 3733 is stable. In order to OC need manually put VTT 1/2 Dimm voltage.


----------



## J7SC

Playing around some more with DDR4 / 5950X is an ongoing 'rainy-weekend' project for me, per below... DDR4 4000 is possible with my kit (nominal 4000 CL 15 / 1.5v Sammy B-die 4x8) but to get rid off all WHEAs, I have to relax sub-timings far more than in the Zen screenie shown below. For 3800 daily, I do undervolt the RAM slightly to 1.475v and run very tight sub timings. Also, RAM temps are in the mid-30s C range where I like them due to extra fans above the sticks, and reasonable voltages.

As you can tell from the Zen screenie, I'm a bit paranoid about high voltages. I keep SoCv below 1.1v - while it is considered 'safe' by many if it stays below 1.2v, increasing the polling rate on HWI etc does show the odd spike going well above set ranges. VDDG IOD is normally below 1.0v, unless fooling around with 4000. But to each his own...

At the end of the day, I prefer tight 3800 CL14 over slower-timed 4000; it's really a trade-off between latency and bandwidth. Still, another rainy weekend coming up soon


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> Playing around some more with DDR4 / 5950X is an ongoing 'rainy-weekend' project for me, per below... DDR4 4000 is possible with my kit (nominal 4000 CL 15 / 1.5v Sammy B-die 4x8) but to get rid off all WHEAs, I have to relax sub-timings far more than in the Zen screenie shown below. For 3800 daily, I do undervolt the RAM slightly to 1.475v and run very tight sub timings. Also, RAM temps are in the mid-30s C range where I like them due to extra fans above the sticks, and reasonable voltages.
> 
> As you can tell from the Zen screenie, I'm a bit paranoid about high voltages. I keep SoCv below 1.1v - while it is considered 'safe' by many if it stays below 1.2v, increasing the polling rate on HWI etc does show the odd spike going well above set ranges. VDDG IOD is normally below 1.0v, unless fooling around with 4000. But to each his own...
> 
> At the end of the day, I prefer tight 3800 CL14 over slower-timed 4000; it's really a trade-off between latency and bandwidth. Still, another rainy weekend coming up soon
> View attachment 2554478



your IMC is incredible.
Do you perform some hours of stability test with such RAM OC ?


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> your IMC is incredible.
> Do you perform some hours of stability test with such RAM OC ?


...that's a bit of an embarrassing question to ask, IMO, especially as 'some hours' of some test doesn't really say very much. As stated, I got it WHEA-free at the expense of sub-timings and slightly higher voltages apart from SoCv, and I use my standard RAM testing regime I run for all machines (work + play). The IMC on this 5950X is 'decent', but we're also talking about a nominal DDR4000 CL15 kit to begin with...


----------



## PWn3R

J7SC said:


> ...that's a bit of an embarrassing question to ask, IMO, especially as 'some hours' of some test doesn't really say very much. As stated, I got it WHEA-free at the expense of sub-timings and slightly higher voltages apart from SoCv, and I use my standard RAM testing regime I run for all machines (work + play). The IMC on this 5950X is 'decent', but we're also talking about a nominal DDR4000 CL15 kit to begin with...


I would agree with him. Mine won’t do 1900 on my 5950.


----------



## Baio73

Blackfyre said:


> That makes more sense. Increase vDIMM to 1.45v
> 
> Your VDDG IOD is already on 1.0, you can test 1.05 (_do not go above that, and watch out not to put 1.5 by accident_).
> 
> VDDG CCD I always have it on 0.95v and don't increase or decrease it.
> 
> vSOC, you should test 1.125v and 1.15v and then 1.18v. Stay below 1.20v
> 
> I personally could never run 4000Mhz with my 4 sticks of 8Gb micron-E die memory.
> 
> 3800Mhz is the highest I could go without getting WHEA errors.
> 
> You can wait for others who have more experience running 4000Mhz to get guidance from, and also there is a RAM dedicated thread with a lot more RAM discussions in it you can post there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread
> 
> 
> AM4 Ryzen Memory Stability Thread Please try to remember the following Clarify what platform and CPU you are speaking about when asking a particular question or speaking about your experience. Quote the user you are replying to when replying. When posting stability results, be sure to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


Tried everything, the best result I got was this:



Plus PLL set to 2.1 instead of 1.8 (found aroung the web). VDIMM 1.50v, used to have 1.53v for 3800 CAS 14 GDM off.
With lower voltages I got BSOD and reboots while testing with Karhu Ram Test.
I still get tons of WHEA errors while testing RAM, just a few in normal use.

Baio


----------



## GRABibus

Baio73 said:


> Tried everything, the best result I got was this:
> 
> 
> 
> Plus PLL set to 2.1 instead of 1.8 (found aroung the web). VDIMM 1.50v, used to have 1.53v for 3800 CAS 14 GDM off.
> With lower voltages I got BSOD and reboots while testing with Karhu Ram Test.
> I still get tons of WHEA errors while testing RAM, just a few in normal use.
> 
> Baio


The whea’s you get don’t affect your CPU performances ? Cinebench for example.


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> The whea’s you get don’t affect your CPU performances ? Cinebench for example.


There's also the aforementioned trade-off between latency and bandwidth. Here's a quick result for my 3950X / CH8 Hero wifi in OCCT /memory (blue bar)...check the memory speed vs latency of the listed 5950X in their db...


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> There's also the aforementioned trade-off between latency and bandwidth. Here's a quick result for my 3950X / CH8 Hero wifi in OCCT /memory (blue bar)...check the memory speed vs latency of the listed 5950X in their db...
> View attachment 2554559


Where is latency on this OCCT screenshot ?


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> Where is latency on this OCCT screenshot ?


...via primary timings - ie. 1966.8 CL18 20 20


----------



## CyrIng

Kelutrel said:


> I was waiting for this. No monitoring application should use CPUID(0x16) to get the BCLK, as that just returns a constant value. If you overclock your BCLK to 99 or 101 or 102, CPUID 0x16 will still return 100. If you have spread spectrum on or off, CPUID 0x16 will still return always 100. If you have an issue on a cpu pin that causes your cpu to only get half the BCLK impulses, CPUID 0x16 will still return guess what ? 100. It's literally a constant value with 100 written into it, unsuitable to calculate the actual CPU speed, even the documentation states:
> "Data is returned from this interface in accordance with the processor's specification and does not reflect actual values. Suitable use of this data includes the display of processor information in like manner to the processor brand string and for determining the appropriate range to use when displaying processor information e.g. frequency history graphs. The returned information should not be used for any other purpose as the returned information does not accurately correlate to information / counters returned by other processor interfaces."
> 
> The HSMP protocol on a Zen only returns the expected target FCLK afaik.


OP was asking for 100 MHz
Indeed same POV and as said:
Although I much prefer the TSC estimation to have an idea of the under/over-clocked frequency but also the spread-spectrum incidence effect.


----------



## Baio73

GRABibus said:


> The whea’s you get don’t affect your CPU performances ? Cinebench for example.


That's just a quick check (4000 non optimized vs. 3800 super optimized), but I think it's enough to answer "yes, it affects... negatively":



Baio


----------



## GRABibus

Baio73 said:


> That's just a quick check (4000 non optimized vs. 3800 super optimized), but I think it's enough to answer "yes, it affects... negatively":
> 
> 
> 
> Baio


Yes of course


----------



## PWn3R

Anyone else getting page fault in unpaged area blue screens with the latest chipset drivers? It's been happening to me on CSGO about every 30 minutes or so.


----------



## xV Slayer

PWn3R said:


> Anyone else getting page fault in unpaged area blue screens with the latest chipset drivers? It's been happening to me on CSGO about every 30 minutes or so.


Sounds like something in your system is not stable. Chipset drivers working fine here.


----------



## GRABibus

PWn3R said:


> Anyone else getting page fault in unpaged area blue screens with the latest chipset drivers? It's been happening to me on CSGO about every 30 minutes or so.


Working fine for me.
It only happens in CSGO ?


----------



## PWn3R

GRABibus said:


> Working fine for me.
> It only happens in CSGO ?


Yes, no changes except insider preview build update and chipset drivers and I’m BSOD’ing every 30 minutes or so on FaceIT. Got banned once already for missing last two rounds of a game.

Memtest86 is on pass 3 at 94% no errors.


----------



## Sleepycat

PWn3R said:


> Yes, no changes except insider preview build update and chipset drivers and I’m BSOD’ing every 30 minutes or so on FaceIT. Got banned once already for missing last two rounds of a game.
> 
> Memtest86 is on pass 3 at 94% no errors.


Test your CPU stability using Corecycler and OCCT


----------



## PWn3R

Sleepycat said:


> Test your CPU stability using Corecycler and OCCT


I will try that tomorrow. Memtest finished all 4 passes and had no issues. The cpu is not overclocked. I don’t use PBO either. I’m starting to think it’s the latest insider dev preview build.


----------



## GRABibus

PWn3R said:


> I will try that tomorrow. Memtest finished all 4 passes and had no issues. The cpu is not overclocked. I don’t use PBO either. I’m starting to think it’s the latest insider dev preview build.


If you try a different GPU driver version ?


----------



## DvL Ax3l

On Asus ROG forum there are new chipset drivers with thunderbolt 4 support and 3D VCache optimization, anyone have already tried it?


----------



## GRABibus

DvL Ax3l said:


> On Asus ROG forum there are new chipset drivers with thunderbolt 4 support and 3D VCache optimization, anyone have already tried it?


Do you have the link ?
On French Asus site, this is still drivers 3.10.xxxx


----------



## DvL Ax3l

GRABibus said:


> Do you have the link ?
> On French Asus site, this is still drivers 3.10.xxxx


ROG forum AMD chipset drivers


----------



## Baio73

DvL Ax3l said:


> On Asus ROG forum there are new chipset drivers with thunderbolt 4 support and 3D VCache optimization, anyone have already tried it?


Unofficial again (one day AMD will explain us), tried the installation but gave me errors and didn't finalize.
Cleaned all with AMD utility and went back to last official release.

Baio


----------



## Daylight_Invader

Version 4.03.03.431 is available direct from AMD:

X570 Drivers & Support | AMD


----------



## g_d_g_l__

AMD has meanwhile published the latest version of the chipset driver, version 4.03.03.624. Although this has not yet been listed on the in-house website, it has long been available from Gigabyte. The new version should not only help the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, but also implement new features for Ryzen 6000 mobile chips. The "3D V-Cache Performance Optimizer Driver", which is part of the chipset driver package, should enable further improvements in addition to the performance increases of up to 15% planned by AMD compared to the chips without 3D cache. Another very interesting part of the chipset driver is the USB-4 support, which is hidden behind USB-4-CM. With USB 4, data transfer rates of up to 40 Gbps should be possible, which would be sufficient for connecting an external GPU and would then also enable this feature for Ryzen chips. The feature should initially be used with the new Ryzen 6000 Rembrandt APUs, which could benefit from an eGPU despite the faster integrated graphics units. Since the driver is still available unchanged from Gigabyte, an official release from AMD can also be assumed soon, although it is conceivable that the manufacturer would like to make further optimizations to the chipset driver before the Ryzen 7 5800X3D is released.


----------



## Kelutrel

g_d_g_l__ said:


> AMD has meanwhile published the latest version of the chipset driver, version 4.03.03.624. Although this has not yet been listed on the in-house website, it has long been available from Gigabyte. The new version should not only help the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, but also implement new features for Ryzen 6000 mobile chips. The "3D V-Cache Performance Optimizer Driver", which is part of the chipset driver package, should enable further improvements in addition to the performance increases of up to 15% planned by AMD compared to the chips without 3D cache. Another very interesting part of the chipset driver is the USB-4 support, which is hidden behind USB-4-CM. With USB 4, data transfer rates of up to 40 Gbps should be possible, which would be sufficient for connecting an external GPU and would then also enable this feature for Ryzen chips. The feature should initially be used with the new Ryzen 6000 Rembrandt APUs, which could benefit from an eGPU despite the faster integrated graphics units. Since the driver is still available unchanged from Gigabyte, an official release from AMD can also be assumed soon, although it is conceivable that the manufacturer would like to make further optimizations to the chipset driver before the Ryzen 7 5800X3D is released.


Source: here
It also lists each module version in the new chipset driver.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

Baio73 said:


> Unofficial again (one day AMD will explain us), tried the installation but gave me errors and didn't finalize.
> Cleaned all with AMD utility and went back to last official release.
> 
> Baio


Downloaded from Gigabyte site so I think are official, I'll triyng it and let you guys know, anyway installed without issues, seems you have a corrupted installation.


----------



## Baio73

DvL Ax3l said:


> Downloaded from Gigabyte site so I think are official, I'll triyng it and let you guys know, anyway installed without issues, seems you have a corrupted installation.
> View attachment 2554933


The "official" are only those you find on AMD website...
Don't trust any other.

Baio


----------



## ArchStanton

For easier comparison if anyone else was curious:

(Suggest right click "open in new tab" for better resolution)


----------



## noxious89123

Baio73 said:


> Tried everything, the best result I got was this:
> 
> 
> 
> Plus PLL set to 2.1 instead of 1.8 (found aroung the web). VDIMM 1.50v, used to have 1.53v for 3800 CAS 14 GDM off.
> With lower voltages I got BSOD and reboots while testing with Karhu Ram Test.
> *I still get tons of WHEA errors* while testing RAM, just a few in normal use.
> 
> Baio


Given that your RAM kit is spec'd to do 4000MT/s, I'd say that this instability and WHEA errors are likely caused by the Fclk being set higher than it can handle, and not the RAM itself.

You can test this theory by manually setting the Fclk to a lower speed. You'll lose a bunch of performance by running Fclk and Mclk desynchronised, but it's useful to test and see if you're being limited by infinity fabric or RAM.

Many people can't do over 1900 Fclk, so I expect it is that causing your WHEAs.


DvL Ax3l said:


> On Asus ROG forum there are new chipset drivers with thunderbolt 4 support and 3D VCache optimization, anyone have already tried it?


I don't see any mention of Thunderbolt 4 in the OP, although there is mention of USB4. Do we know if this will enable USB4 speeds with Ryzen 5000 CPUs, or is that just for the Ryzen 6000 APUs?


----------



## DvL Ax3l

Baio73 said:


> The "official" are only those you find on AMD website...
> Don't trust any other.
> 
> Baio


Can't agree, if a well know manufacturer postes a driver on his official site without any BETA label it's official, don't forget that ASUS and MSI released a newer version than AMD (3.10.22.706) marked as WHQL on their apps and sites


noxious89123 said:


> I don't see any mention of Thunderbolt 4 in the OP, although there is mention of USB4. Do we know if this will enable USB4 speeds with Ryzen 5000 CPUs, or is that just for the Ryzen 6000 APUs?


My bad, type error I was thinking of USB 4 that is based on Thunderbolt 3 protocol and I fuse both, anyways is for Ryzen 6000 APU


----------



## Blackfyre

Baio73 said:


> The "official" are only those you find on AMD website...
> Don't trust any other.
> 
> Baio


The ones posted on the Asus forums are literally from an Asus employee who posts driver updates for everything. That's as official as it gets.

The ones on the AMD site sometimes come out months later (_same drivers_) because it's better to release it this way, so enthusiasts like us test it first to see if any issues come up that they need to patch.


----------



## J7SC

Blackfyre said:


> The ones posted on the Asus forums are literally from an Asus employee who posts driver updates for everything. That's as official as it gets.
> 
> The ones on the AMD site sometimes come out months later (_same drivers_) because it's better to release it this way, so enthusiasts like us test it first to see if any issues come up that they need to patch.


...you mean...?:


----------



## ArchStanton

J7SC said:


> ...you mean...?:


nah, probably more:


----------



## xV Slayer

Baio73 said:


> The "official" are only those you find on AMD website...
> Don't trust any other.
> 
> Baio


I always trust a guy who runs unstable memory for my official driver recommendations. Good looking out man.


----------



## metalshark

xV Slayer said:


> I always trust a guy who runs unstable memory for my official driver recommendations. Good looking out man.


Hey, play nice, attack the point, not the person.

Thankfully driver signing exists to validate the official source of the drivers making it a non-debate.


----------



## the901

metalshark said:


> Hey, play nice, attack the point, not the person.
> 
> Thankfully driver signing exists to validate the official source of the drivers making it a non-debate.


Unless you're talking about Nvidia drivers after they got hacked.


----------



## Nullbyte_

stimpy88 said:


> Nice! Basically we want to know about how it compares to the B0 stepping for memclock frequencies, the 1900 hole, can it run more aggressive timings, lower voltages etc..


Sorry this is so late. So compared to my B0 stepping 5950x the only real differences are in FCLK and temperature. It runs slightly cooler than the B0 stepping. Approximately 10°C cooler when looking at CCD0 max temperatures on the same custom loop setup (3x 360mm rads, 200mm kinetic TBE D5 pump/Res, heatkiller IV pro block, with a FTW3 3080ti in the loop with a Heatkiller V block as well). FCLK stability can be found at a max of 1933mhz. I’ve had a total of 4 5950x with the majority being able to find FCLK stability at 1900mhz and only one having a 1900 FCLK hole which found stability at 1866mhz instead. The B2 stepping hasn’t been able to get stable past the 1933 strap. Still a slight improvement though. I also only have one example of the B2 stepping though. So that’s not a great sample size. Could just be the chip. The temperature reduction seems to be common with the B2 step chips though. I didn’t see any power reduction compared to the B0 stepping like some others have reported however. I’m not currently at my computer and won’t be for a couple of days but I can provide screen shots and stuff if that’s wanted when I return home in a couple of days. I haven’t noticed being able to run any more aggressive RAM timings or anything like that beyond the increased FCLK ability. I’m also keeping it on an older BIOS though because I want to avoid the EDC bug that occurs above 140A on the newer BIOS since it crushes my performance since I run at 200 EDC. So that could have a small contribution there.

Like I mentioned above, the only real verifiable difference I’ve noticed is the lowered temps. Because of that, I also see some higher boost clocks, and on more cores than the B0 steppings. I have a number of cores that do over 5.1ghz effective. I believe I have over 4 cores that’ll do over 5.1 and maybe two or three that do over 5.15 ghz effective. I have screenshots of that I can provide as well. I have a total of 7 cores that’ll do over 5ghz effective. That could just be this chip though and not indicative of B2 stepping. I did notice that this particular chip does seem to more easily reach higher clocks and across more cores than any of the B0 stepping chips I’ve had previously. Again though, it’s hard to attribute this to stepping alone. I think that about covers it all. When I get back to the computer I’ll try and update with my saved screen shots I have and again, sorry for this being so late!


----------



## metalshark

the901 said:


> Unless you're talking about Nvidia drivers after they got hacked.


Thankfully that's what CRLs are for.


----------



## PWn3R

metalshark said:


> Thankfully that's what CRLs are for.


Inb4 “what’s a crl?” :kekw:


----------



## ArchStanton

I confess, I had to look it up. Learned something new, assuming I can retain the information .

For the convenience of any others who happen to be as ignorant as myself: "A compromised certificate can only be revoked by its CA. CAs maintain Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs) which—as the name implies—list certificates that have been revoked. But certificates only get revoked if they are compromised before their expiration date".


----------



## DvL Ax3l

5800X3D first gaming benchmark is out plus a little info about new AGESA

SOTR 720p
5800X3D ~228 FPS
12900KS ~200 FPS
12900K ~190 FPS.

The performance of the Ryzen is just amazing because the tested scene is very demanding/ memory-heavy.

Source


----------



## GRABibus

DvL Ax3l said:


> 5800X3D first gaming benchmark is out plus a little info about new AGESA
> Source


Nobody on OCN is allowed to buy this CPU, because it will not be overclockable unfortunately 😆


----------



## Baio73

Blackfyre said:


> The ones posted on the Asus forums are literally from an Asus employee who posts driver updates for everything. That's as official as it gets.
> 
> The ones on the AMD site sometimes come out months later (_same drivers_) because it's better to release it this way, so enthusiasts like us test it first to see if any issues come up that they need to patch.


You mean MoKiChU?
Don't know if he's an ASUS employee (he is not signaled as official in Asus ROG Forum)...
I knew that AMD releases only WHQL drivers for its chipsets and that's the reason why often other versions are not released.

Baio


----------



## metalshark

GRABibus said:


> Nobody on OCN is allowed to buy this CPU, because it will not be overclockable unfortunately 😆


A tad tongue in cheek. You can not tweak voltages without using the software being the limitation. With the official instruction from AMD being to remove most OC options (so you need to UEFI mod to add them back in).


----------



## metalshark

Baio73 said:


> You mean MoKiChU?
> Don't know if he's an ASUS employee (he is not signaled as official in Asus ROG Forum)...
> I knew that AMD releases only WHQL drivers for its chipsets and that's the reason why often other versions are not released.
> 
> Baio


FYI if you download the version they linked off the Gigabyte site, extract it (I grab the MSI from inside the .exe and use lessmsi, but feel free to use alternatives) then inspect the .sys files you'll find they've all been signed. This is WHQL signing:









If you value Microsoft's 1-2 week testing and signing, and insist on having WHQL, then it's easy to verify with any given link. You'll be hard-pressed to find ones on manufacturer websites that aren't WHQL but am sure it can happen from time to time.

It's going to be subjective if you still see value in WHQL. My personal opinion is it had value when it was introduced, with actual testing. Then in 2014/2015 the QA layoffs happened and for me it lost meaningful value. A good overview of this can be found here


----------



## GRABibus

metalshark said:


> A tad tongue in cheek. You can not tweak voltages without using the software being the limitation. With the official instruction from AMD being to remove most OC options (so you need to UEFI mod to add them back in).


What do you mean ?
Is it overclockable or not ?


----------



## metalshark

GRABibus said:


> What do you mean ?
> Is it overclockable or not ?


The motherboard manufacturers were asked to remove the OC options. You still have access to memory and BCLK speeds though. Furthermore, you can get a lot of other options back from modding the UEFI, with the exception of voltage control. You also have software control, with Yuri Bubbly (1usmus) confirming as much and looking into enabling support with things like Hydra which should restore the ability to alter voltages too.

So TL;DR out the box you only get memory/IF/BCLK for oc'ing, 5 minutes in AMIBCP or downloading someone else's mod gets you back most of the missing options and voltage control is being worked on.

Be warned the voltage stuff is still a bit of an unknown (at least to me) and a worry regarding killing the v-cache. I do not know enough to be able to say it's a legitimate concern and surely under-volting wouldn't be, but it still seems early days and inconclusive.


----------



## GRABibus

metalshark said:


> The motherboard manufacturers were asked to remove the OC options. You still have access to memory and BCLK speeds though. Furthermore, you can get a lot of other options back from modding the UEFI, with the exception of voltage control. You also have software control, with Yuri Bubbly (1usmus) confirming as much and looking into enabling support with things like Hydra which should restore the ability to alter voltages too.
> 
> So TL;DR out the box you only get memory/IF/BCLK for oc'ing, 5 minutes in AMIBCP or downloading someone else's mod gets you back most of the missing options and voltage control is being worked on.
> 
> Be warned the voltage stuff is still a bit of an unknown (at least to me) and a worry regarding killing the v-cache. I do not know enough to be able to say it's a legitimate concern and surely under-volting wouldn't be, but it still seems early days and inconclusive.


So no PBO ? No CO tweaking ?


----------



## metalshark

GRABibus said:


> So no PBO ? No CO tweaking ?


Out of the box no PBO/CO.

Am not aware of anyone being able to mod back in PBO/CO in the UEFI either (AGESA 1.2.0.7 may change this).

However, you're meant to be able to force enable it though through software such as HYDRA 1.1E PRO (there are other PBO/CO in Windows software options but am unsure of their results with the 5800X3D).

PBO/CO alters voltages hence the "voltage changes in software" remarks.

Also remember just because it becomes possible, doesn't mean it'll be worthwhile. Looks like "being able to" and "it not dying/crashing" are going to be separate issues. They had to drop the cores down speed wise and looks like over 1350mv doesn't scale, whereas current Zen 3 (without phase-change/sub-zero) stops scaling around 1455mv so that cache seems to be a big impediment. Would assume under-volting is what people would be looking to achieve through OC voltage controls.


----------



## GRABibus

metalshark said:


> Out of the box no PBO/CO.
> 
> Am not aware of anyone being able to mod back in PBO/CO in the UEFI either (AGESA 1.2.0.7 may change this).
> 
> However, you're meant to be able to force enable it though through software such as HYDRA 1.1E PRO (there are other PBO/CO in Windows software options but am unsure of their results with the 5800X3D).
> 
> PBO/CO alters voltages hence the "voltage changes in software" remarks.
> 
> Also remember just because it becomes possible, doesn't mean it'll be worthwhile. Looks like "being able to" and "it not dying/crashing" are going to be separate issues. They had to drop the cores down speed wise and looks like over 1350mv doesn't scale, whereas current Zen 3 (without phase-change/sub-zero) stops scaling around 1455mv so that cache seems to be a big impediment. Would assume under-volting is what people would be looking to achieve through OC voltage controls.


Ok.
I think next upgrade for me will be Zen4 or 13900k then….


----------



## metalshark

GRABibus said:


> Ok.
> I think next upgrade for me will be Zen4 or 13900k then….


It's hard to know what Zen 4 will be like. Seems that Raptor Lake (13900K) will be a safe continuation of 10nm with slight improvement. Might hold on to Zen 3 until Meteor Lake and just upgrade the graphics unless we hear some impressive solid rumours about Zen 4. Shame Jim from AdoredTV isn't around as much, as lack the patience to even consider watching any more Moore's Law Is Dead.


----------



## CyrIng

metalshark said:


> Out of the box no PBO/CO.
> 
> Am not aware of anyone being able to mod back in PBO/CO in the UEFI either (AGESA 1.2.0.7 may change this).
> 
> However, you're meant to be able to force enable it though through software such as HYDRA 1.1E PRO (there are other PBO/CO in Windows software options but am unsure of their results with the 5800X3D).
> 
> PBO/CO alters voltages hence the "voltage changes in software" remarks.
> 
> Also remember just because it becomes possible, doesn't mean it'll be worthwhile. Looks like "being able to" and "it not dying/crashing" are going to be separate issues. They had to drop the cores down speed wise and looks like over 1350mv doesn't scale, whereas current Zen 3 (without phase-change/sub-zero) stops scaling around 1455mv so that cache seems to be a big impediment. Would assume under-volting is what people would be looking to achieve through OC voltage controls.


Will P-state MSR registers be locked from COF alteration (with a CPB bit being disabled in HWCR) ?


----------



## metalshark

CyrIng said:


> Will P-state MSR registers be locked from COF alteration (with a CPB bit being disabled in HWCR) ?


I do not have a clue.


----------



## J7SC

metalshark said:


> It's hard to know what Zen 4 will be like. Seems that Raptor Lake (13900K) will be a safe continuation of 10nm with slight improvement. Might hold on to Zen 3 until Meteor Lake and just upgrade the graphics unless we hear some impressive solid rumours about Zen 4. Shame Jim from AdoredTV isn't around as much, as lack the patience to even consider watching any more Moore's Law Is Dead.


...not sure what's been happening with AdoredTV which I used to watch regularly - after 'hiatus', some new vids now, but the look is / presenter sounds very different - and Moore's Law is Dead is too annoying for me to watch for more than 2 min.

...no doubt that the 5800X3D will do well even in non-oc state, given the sheer size of the cache, but with a well-running 3950X and 5950X already, I also rather wait for at least Raptor Lake (better yet Meteor Lake) and/or Zen4. The 'real world' differences between the 3950X and 5950X (both at 32GB/3800CL14) for example are so minor that I can hardly tell, and upgrading to 'latest gen' is not as much an obsession as it used to be.


----------



## CyrIng

metalshark said:


> I do not have a clue.


Those P-states should remain but also some PL1 limiters and a few BCLK. So we might tweak them a little bit.


----------



## PWn3R

ArchStanton said:


> I confess, I had to look it up. Learned something new, assuming I can retain the information .
> 
> For the convenience of any others who happen to be as ignorant as myself: "A compromised certificate can only be revoked by its CA. CAs maintain Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs) which—as the name implies—list certificates that have been revoked. But certificates only get revoked if they are compromised before their expiration date".


That’s okay  learning things is good


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> ...not sure what's been happening with AdoredTV which I used to watch regularly - after 'hiatus', some new vids now, but the look is / presenter sounds very different - and Moore's Law is Dead is too annoying for me to watch for more than 2 min.
> 
> ...no doubt that the 5800X3D will do well even in non-oc state, given the sheer size of the cache, but with a well-running 3950X and 5950X already, I also rather wait for at least Raptor Lake (better yet Meteor Lake) and/or Zen4. The 'real world' differences between the 3950X and 5950X (both at 32GB/3800CL14) for example are so minor that I can hardly tell, and upgrading to 'latest gen' is not as much an obsession as it used to be.


I will check the 5950x prices in next weeks.
If I can get one brand new for less than 550€, then, maybe I will upgrade to 5950x.
Then, I’ll wait for Meteor Lake for next upgrade.

Otherwise, if I keep my 5900X this year, upgrading to Raptor Lake or Zen4 will then be a good jump.


----------



## Blackfyre

What's the consensus here on using the Intel 2008 HPET driver (_#2 in image below_) instead of the Microsoft 2006 HPET driver (_#1 in image below_) that comes installed through Windows Update for our AMD systems?

Has anyone tried?


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> I will check the 5950x prices in next weeks.
> If I can get one brand new for less than 550€, then, maybe I will upgrade to 5950x.
> Then, I’ll wait for Meteor Lake for next upgrade.
> 
> Otherwise, if I keep my 5900X this year, upgrading to Raptor Lake or Zen4 will then be a good jump.


LG1800 (Intel Meteor Lake) and/or AM5 (Zen4)...good times ahead, especially if by then we'll see DDR5 8000 CL30 !


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> LG1800 (Intel Meteor Lake) and/or AM5 (Zen4)...good times ahead, especially if by then we'll see DDR5 8000 CL30 !


Yes, I Hope DDR5 will have improved timing at that time….


----------



## bt1

Blackfyre said:


> What's the consensus here on using the Intel 2008 HPET driver (_#2 in image below_) instead of the Microsoft 2006 HPET driver (_#1 in image below_) that comes installed through Windows Update for our AMD systems?
> 
> Has anyone tried?
> View attachment 2555349


the 2006 date means nothing, intel signs some of their generic drivers in 1968.


----------



## PWn3R

bt1 said:


> the 2006 date means nothing, intel signs some of their generic drivers in 1968.


You may know this but others probably don’t know why they intentionally backdate them. It’s so base driver installs are dated before upgrade packages so it doesn’t tell you something newer is already installed.


----------



## Blackfyre

So in the image above, it's more relevant to look at the *version* rather than the date on the driver. Given the Microsoft one is a higher version for the same driver ID, then it is the newer one. Just dated that way.


----------



## metalshark

Blackfyre said:


> So in the image above, it's more relevant to look at the *version* rather than the date on the driver. Given the Microsoft one is a higher version for the same driver ID, then it is the newer one. Just dated that way.


Pure guesswork without research and without verifying facts:
The Microsoft one saying NO_DRV_HPET as the section name in its .inf file (basically a .ini file) would suggest to me those timers would be part of the kernel instead of needing a separate driver file. Am wondering if the Intel ones are for an OS lacking native support, whereas the Microsoft ones are for an OS that provides it already.

EDIT:
Did a tiny amount of research and looks like HPET was added to Vista/Server 2008 Acquiring high-resolution time stamps - Win32 apps


----------



## Nizzen

GRABibus said:


> Yes, I Hope DDR5 will have improved timing at that time….


People are already running 6000+++ c26, so it's already improved


----------



## GRABibus

Nizzen said:


> People are already running 6000+++ c26, so it's already improved


It will be improved again in terms of speed and latencies for sure 😛


----------



## stimpy88

Blackfyre said:


> What's the consensus here on using the Intel 2008 HPET driver (_#2 in image below_) instead of the Microsoft 2006 HPET driver (_#1 in image below_) that comes installed through Windows Update for our AMD systems?
> 
> Has anyone tried?
> View attachment 2555349


It's not a driver. It's just an INF file which can help Windows show what the hardware is called. It does nothing, but provide a name. NO_DRV_HPET is further proof.


----------



## noxious89123

Nizzen said:


> People are already running 6000+++ c26, so it's already improved





GRABibus said:


> It will be improved again in terms of speed and latencies for sure 😛


At a rough estimate, to have similar CAS latency in terms of ns between DDR5-6000 and DDR4-3800CL14, the DDR5 would need to be hitting CAS 22 ~ 23

A new generation of memory is always interesting, so it'll be fun to see how quickly things progress


----------



## Nizzen

noxious89123 said:


> At a rough estimate, to have similar CAS latency in terms of ns between DDR5-6000 and DDR4-3800CL14, the DDR5 would need to be hitting CAS 22 ~ 23
> 
> A new generation of memory is always interesting, so it'll be fun to see how quickly things progress


You can't compare it like this because of 2. And 3. Timings.


----------



## noxious89123

Nizzen said:


> You can't compare it like this because of 2. And 3. Timings.


Sorry, I'm not sure I understand you? (Or if you understood me?)

To clarify what I was trying to say;
When we see new generations of RAM, the CAS latency always gets higher/slower. Both as the timing number that we set in BIOS, see on the sticker etc, and also in absolute terms in nanoseconds. Once it matures, we usually see the timings come down, and the absolute latency in nanoseconds usually ends up quite similar.

The key thing to remember is that the CAS latency number on the sticker is not a value measure in time, but in cycles. So 3000MT/s at CL15 would be the exact same latency in ns as 6000MT/s at CL30.

As an example.
*DDR3*
An early kit of *DDR3-1333* would do around *CAS 8*. This works out to be *12.003ns.*
I had a pretty fast kit of* DDR3-2133* memory that would do *CAS 9*. The CAS latency works out to be *8.438ns. *This was a kit from later in the lifecycle of DDR3.

*DDR4*
An early kit of *DDR4-2400* could do around *CAS 15*. This works out to be *12.500ns.*
I have a kit of DDR4 which at *DDR4-3800* can easily do *CAS 16*. The CAS latency works out to be *8.421ns*. This was a kit from later in the lifecycle of DDR4.

So you can see that for both DDR3 and DDR4, through out the course of it's lifecycle kits got faster not just in terms of MHz or MT/s, but also in absolute latency in ns, with both having early kits around 12ns and faster kits later on being closer to 8ns.

*So what about DDR5 and the future?*
With DDR5 there are kits that are pretty slow, but already some that are doing *DDR5-5600* at around *CAS 36*. This works out to be around _drum roll_ *12.857ns.* This lines up pretty nicely with memory from early on when both DDR3 and DDR4 launched.

Based on this, _my personal opinion / prediction_ is that in a few years we'll see kits on the market doing *DDR5-6000* at around *CAS 25*, which would be around *8.333ns. *(In hindsight, this is likely a poor example, as things are likely to get much faster than that. Perhaps *DDR5-8000* at *CAS 34 *would be a better prediction / guesstimate? This would put it at around *8.500ns*)

Obviously when we start overclocking, things get even faster. For the sake of easy comparisons, I'm just looking at the specified speeds/timings that would be on the sticker from the manufacturer. I also acknowledge that there is a really wide range of speeds and latencies for kits of DDR3 and DDR4, so my figures aren't representative of all kits. Some will be a lot slower, and some will be faster. But as a "ballpark" figure, you can see what I'm getting at


----------



## metalshark

noxious89123 said:


> Sorry, I'm not sure I understand you? (Or if you understood me?)
> 
> To clarify what I was trying to say;
> When we see new generations of RAM, the CAS latency always gets higher/slower. Both as the timing number that we set in BIOS, see on the sticker etc, and also in absolute terms in nanoseconds. Once it matures, we usually see the timings come down, and the absolute latency in nanoseconds usually ends up quite similar.
> 
> The key thing to remember is that the CAS latency number on the sticker is not a value measure in time, but in cycles. So 3000MT/s at CL15 would be the exact same latency in ns as 6000MT/s at CL30.
> 
> As an example.
> *DDR3*
> An early kit of *DDR3-1333* would do around *CAS 8*. This works out to be *12.003ns.*
> I had a pretty fast kit of* DDR3-2133* memory that would do *CAS 9*. The CAS latency works out to be *8.438ns. *This was a kit from later in the lifecycle of DDR3.
> 
> *DDR4*
> An early kit of *DDR4-2400* could do around *CAS 15*. This works out to be *12.500ns.*
> I have a kit of DDR4 which at *DDR4-3800* can easily do *CAS 16*. The CAS latency works out to be *8.421ns*. This was a kit from later in the lifecycle of DDR4.
> 
> So you can see that for both DDR3 and DDR4, through out the course of it's lifecycle kits got faster not just in terms of MHz or MT/s, but also in absolute latency in ns, with both having early kits around 12ns and faster kits later on being closer to 8ns.
> 
> *So what about DDR5 and the future?*
> With DDR5 there are kits that are pretty slow, but already some that are doing *DDR5-5600* at around *CAS 36*. This works out to be around _drum roll_ *12.857ns.* This lines up pretty nicely with memory from early on when both DDR3 and DDR4 launched.
> 
> Based on this, _my personal opinion / prediction_ is that in a few years we'll see kits on the market doing *DDR5-6000* at around *CAS 25*, which would be around *8.333ns. *(In hindsight, this is likely a poor example, as things are likely to get much faster than that. Perhaps *DDR5-8000* at *CAS 34 *would be a better prediction / guesstimate? This would put it at around *8.500ns*)
> 
> Obviously when we start overclocking, things get even faster. For the sake of easy comparisons, I'm just looking at the specified speeds/timings that would be on the sticker from the manufacturer. I also acknowledge that there is a really wide range of speeds and latencies for kits of DDR3 and DDR4, so my figures aren't representative of all kits. Some will be a lot slower, and some will be faster. But as a "ballpark" figure, you can see what I'm getting at


I think what was being said is the memory latency (calculator for the lazy like me here Ram Latency Calculator) cannot be directly compared because we’re not considering secondary and tertiary timings.

DDR5 allows you to transfer less than full data length and is “double barrelled” (two 32 byte burst transfers instead of one 64 byte), which means even if you had identical latency and timings between DDR4 and DDR5 you’ll get different results if not doing a straight sequential bandwidth test. Then you have the increased prefetch timing for DDR5, same bank refresh, on-die ECC, etc just taking memory prefetch, we’re moving from 8ns at stock for DDR4 to 16ns for DDR5, something which affects memory latency, but isn’t reflected in the MHz/CL memory latency calculators which worked for comparing DDR/DDR2/DDR3/DDR4 across generations.

This huge shift of control to being on stick whereas before the chipset/motherboard/CPU would handle a lot of those responsibilities has had a profound change in the way we need to compare latency. Don’t get me wrong, will still be using the simple calculator linked at the beginning, but it needs taken with a pinch of salt (like you say), and will only be using it to compare DDR4vsDDR4 or DDR5vDDR5 but not DDR4vsDDR5.

That does not mean you’re wrong and even using the simple calculator we likely see DDR5 overtake DDR4 in a year or two, but what I'm referring to is (and this is a crude example) if I wanted 1 byte out of memory, even though DDR5 has a larger prefetch, it’s not going to be transferring 63 unused bytes thereafter, which means it might still beat DDR4 in latency, with what seems like worse timings.


----------



## th30d0r3

I'm doing an experiment to cool the 5950x B2 below 80c max temps to see if it overclocks better. I think I have figured out what the issue is with the limits I was hitting. I suspect once the temps reach 90+ the cores get increasingly more unstable which means I hit an artificial limit which was identical on both CPUs.

Both the B0 and the B2 would hit CCD0 4725 / CCD1 4600 @1.325v LLC3 130%. Temps would peak at around 90-93c after a 3o min CBR23 run. Water temps would hit 35-37c.

I have added a EK Coolstream 560 x 45 radiator external to the case with 4 x 140mm fans (sits under the little table, so completely out of sight) that was added to the 2 x EK Coolstram 480 x 65 radiators sitting in an InWin 909EK both with 4 x 120mm fans. 2 x D5 Vario pumps running in parallel for redundancy.

Now the water temp peaks at 26c after 2 hours of CBR23, but the CPU temps peak at 77c; and that's with an increased overclock of CCD0 4725 / CCD1 4675 @1.325v LLC3 130%. Wasn't able to get beyond 4600 on CCD1 before that.
I will continue my testing to see how high I can go without adding more voltage; my target is CCD0 4800 / CCD1 4700. Let me know if you wanna see any pictures of the setup.


----------



## ArchStanton

th30d0r3 said:


> 2 x D5 Vario pumps running in parallel for redundancy.


Just curious, you have check valves on the outlet of each pump, or no?


----------



## th30d0r3

ArchStanton said:


> Just curious, you have check valves on the outlet of each pump, or no?


No, I use a EK Revo Dual Pump
EK-XTOP Revo Dual D5 PWM Serial - (incl. 2x pump) - EK-D5 Series - Standalone Pumps - Pumps – EK Webshop (ekwb.com) 

They feed the same outlet, one can fail and the system will still work; but each pump RPM is being monitored


----------



## Spawn3232

Hi guys,
Any chance one of you could link me the correct newest amd chipset drivers ?
I get so confused over the discussion in her about them,lol
I am using the 4006 bios


----------



## ArchStanton

th30d0r3 said:


> I use a EK Revo Dual Pump


I use the XTOP as well, I believe it configures the pumps in serial as opposed to parallel. You are correct that one can completely crap out without total loss of flow though (as expected for serial operation .


----------



## ArchStanton

Spawn3232 said:


> Any chance one of you could link me the correct newest amd drivers ?


I can link you what I am using. "Correct" might be open for debate though.

X570 Drivers & Support | AMD 

You will need to select your operating system.


----------



## Blackfyre

Spawn3232 said:


> Hi guys,
> Any chance one of you could link me the correct newest amd chipset drivers ?
> I get so confused over the discussion in her about them,lol
> I am using the 4006 bios


No such thing as correct drivers. But latest drivers are what I would recommend, the latest ones have the latest fixes and performance improvements. Sometimes they come directly from AMD, sometimes they are released by motherboard manufacturers before AMD officially releases them.

I am currently using 4.03.03.624 WHQL those are the latest ones available:

From AMD Forums


----------



## ArchStanton

@Blackfyre Out of curiosity, are you running the AMD or ASUS flavored ones at the moment?


----------



## Spawn3232

Blackfyre said:


> No such thing as correct drivers. All drivers are correct. But latest drivers are what I would recommend, the latest ones have the latest fixes and performance improvements. Sometimes they come directly from AMD, sometimes they are released by motherboard manufacturers before AMD officially releases them.


Thats why i am confused, the drives with the highest numbers are those from Gigabyte, but i see theres been a lot of discussion around whats what


----------



## GRABibus

th30d0r3 said:


> I'm doing an experiment to cool the 5950x B2 below 80c max temps to see if it overclocks better. I think I have figured out what the issue is with the limits I was hitting. I suspect once the temps reach 90+ the cores get increasingly more unstable which means I hit an artificial limit which was identical on both CPUs.
> 
> Both the B0 and the B2 would hit CCD0 4725 / CCD1 4600 @1.325v LLC3 130%. Temps would peak at around 90-93c after a 3o min CBR23 run. Water temps would hit 35-37c.
> 
> I have added a EK Coolstream 560 x 45 radiator external to the case with 4 x 140mm fans (sits under the little table, so completely out of sight) that was added to the 2 x EK Coolstram 480 x 65 radiators sitting in an InWin 909EK both with 4 x 120mm fans. 2 x D5 Vario pumps running in parallel for redundancy.
> 
> Now the water temp peaks at 26c after 2 hours of CBR23, but the CPU temps peak at 77c; and that's with an increased overclock of CCD0 4725 / CCD1 4675 @1.325v LLC3 130%. Wasn't able to get beyond 4600 on CCD1 before that.
> I will continue my testing to see how high I can go without adding more voltage; my target is CCD0 4800 / CCD1 4700. Let me know if you wanna see any pictures of the setup.


Did you try a PBO/CO tweaking instead of CCD OC ?
This is globally more beneficial , especially for gaming and under windows, and temps are more manageable


----------



## ArchStanton

GRABibus said:


> Did you try a PBO/CO tweaking instead of CCD OC ?


Alternatively, if you are a masochist, you can invest in a board with the "Dynamic Overclocking" feature and spend months tuning for both 🤣.


----------



## th30d0r3

GRABibus said:


> Did you try a PBO/CO tweaking instead of CCD OC ?
> This is globally more beneficial , especially for gaming and under windows, and temps are more manageable


I have the Crosshair Dark Hero so I make use of DOC for the all core. I can never get PBO to work properly for me with all core, I'm seeing people (including you) get these wild numbers, but when I try it, the all core just caps out at 4.5 and the single core hits 5.1 if the wind is blowing in the right direction. 
Since I've had the B2 I haven't even bothered with it or with the C/O. I just let the single core boost as high as it wants and focus on DOC with the all core. If someone wanted to help me on PBO/CO I would be most grateful.

Also right now I'm testing CCD0 4800 / CCD 4675, CPU/Water temps have now peaked at 80c/26c


----------



## Blackfyre

ArchStanton said:


> @Blackfyre Out of curiosity, are you running the AMD or ASUS flavored ones at the moment?


Asus, the ones I linked above. They are the latest one I believe. For me it doesn't matter which manufacturer they come from, so if Gigabyte releases newer versions tomorrow. I would use those.

Waiting for 1.2.0.7 AGESA Beta drivers here. Hoping they come out soon, since officially they have to be released in May. Probably on or after the 20th of April we'll get the beta here.


----------



## ArchStanton

@Blackfyre Sorry, stupid me failed to notice the hyperlink in your previous post 🤦‍♂️. <note to self> "Finish coffee before catching up on forums".


----------



## noxious89123

metalshark said:


> I think what was being said is the memory latency (calculator for the lazy like me here Ram Latency Calculator) cannot be directly compared because we’re not considering secondary and tertiary timings.
> 
> DDR5 allows you to transfer less than full data length and is “double barrelled” (two 32 byte burst transfers instead of one 64 byte), which means even if you had identical latency and timings between DDR4 and DDR5 you’ll get different results if not doing a straight sequential bandwidth test. Then you have the increased prefetch timing for DDR5, same bank refresh, on-die ECC, etc just taking memory prefetch, we’re moving from 8ns at stock for DDR4 to 16ns for DDR5, something which affects memory latency, but isn’t reflected in the MHz/CL memory latency calculators which worked for comparing DDR/DDR2/DDR3/DDR4 across generations.
> 
> This huge shift of control to being on stick whereas before the chipset/motherboard/CPU would handle a lot of those responsibilities has had a profound change in the way we need to compare latency. Don’t get me wrong, will still be using the simple calculator linked at the beginning, but it needs taken with a pinch of salt (like you say), and will only be using it to compare DDR4vsDDR4 or DDR5vDDR5 but not DDR4vsDDR5.
> 
> That does not mean you’re wrong and even using the simple calculator we likely see DDR5 overtake DDR4 in a year or two, but what I'm referring to is (and this is a crude example) if I wanted 1 byte out of memory, even though DDR5 has a larger prefetch, it’s not going to be transferring 63 unused bytes thereafter, which means it might still beat DDR4 in latency, with what seems like worse timings.


Excellent post, and some interesting stuff there I wasn't aware of!



th30d0r3 said:


> No, I use a EK Revo Dual Pump
> EK-XTOP Revo Dual D5 PWM *Serial* - (incl. 2x pump) - EK-D5 Series - Standalone Pumps - Pumps – EK Webshop (ekwb.com)
> 
> They feed the same outlet, one can fail and the system will still work; but each pump RPM is being monitored


I think @ArchStanton was asking, because you stated dual D5s in *parallel*, however the pump top you've linked runs the pumps in *series*, and says as much in the product name 

I think it was Xtremerigs that did the pump test with single vs dual serial vs dual parallel, and it showed that series has better flow and head pressure in all circumstances, with the benefit of not requiring check valves and clever plumbing to provide redundancy, whereas parallel pumps *needs* check valves to provide redundancy. Without them you just recircuate fluid from the pump outlet to the pump inlet, through the other (dead) pump.


----------



## GRABibus

th30d0r3 said:


> If someone wanted to help me on PBO/CO I would be most grateful.


Very good video on PBO + CO :


----------



## th30d0r3

noxious89123 said:


> Excellent post, and some interesting stuff there I wasn't aware of!
> 
> 
> I think @ArchStanton was asking, because you stated dual D5s in *parallel*, however the pump top you've linked runs the pumps in *series*, and says as much in the product name
> 
> I think it was Xtremerigs that did the pump test with single vs dual serial vs dual parallel, and it showed that series has better flow and head pressure in all circumstances, with the benefit of not requiring check valves and clever plumbing to provide redundancy, whereas parallel pumps *needs* check valves to provide redundancy. Without them you just recircuate fluid from the pump outlet to the pump inlet, through the other (dead) pump.


Dude!! Well spotted, I didn't even realise that at all. Thanks for the correction


----------



## renecapo

Bios 4006 works fine 5950x PBO 29600 ,








31200 4750allcore Cinebench R23


----------



## Nizzen

th30d0r3 said:


> I'm doing an experiment to cool the 5950x B2 below 80c max temps to see if it overclocks better. I think I have figured out what the issue is with the limits I was hitting. I suspect once the temps reach 90+ the cores get increasingly more unstable which means I hit an artificial limit which was identical on both CPUs.
> 
> Both the B0 and the B2 would hit CCD0 4725 / CCD1 4600 @1.325v LLC3 130%. Temps would peak at around 90-93c after a 3o min CBR23 run. Water temps would hit 35-37c.
> 
> I have added a EK Coolstream 560 x 45 radiator external to the case with 4 x 140mm fans (sits under the little table, so completely out of sight) that was added to the 2 x EK Coolstram 480 x 65 radiators sitting in an InWin 909EK both with 4 x 120mm fans. 2 x D5 Vario pumps running in parallel for redundancy.
> 
> Now the water temp peaks at 26c after 2 hours of CBR23, but the CPU temps peak at 77c; and that's with an increased overclock of CCD0 4725 / CCD1 4675 @1.325v LLC3 130%. Wasn't able to get beyond 4600 on CCD1 before that.
> I will continue my testing to see how high I can go without adding more voltage; my target is CCD0 4800 / CCD1 4700. Let me know if you wanna see any pictures of the setup.


Delid it 

Then use supercool computer direct die block 

The bottleneck is the heatspreader, not the cooling itself. Heat is being trapped under the "hood"


----------



## th30d0r3

Nizzen said:


> Delid it
> 
> Then use supercool computer direct die block
> 
> The bottleneck is the heatspreader, not the cooling itself. Heat is being trapped under the "hood"


Didn't know you can delid a 5950x, can you send a link to the block you mentioned


----------



## Nizzen

th30d0r3 said:


> Didn't know you can delid a 5950x, can you send a link to the block you mentioned


Complete with delid tool 









AMD Water Block


Direct Die




www.supercoolcomputer.com


----------



## metalshark

th30d0r3 said:


> Didn't know you can delid a 5950x, can you send a link to the block you mentioned


Have you bought from this Thai website? Super sketchy, not even HTTPS for personal info.


----------



## Baio73

Finally have some time in the next few days to start testing the CO for my 5900x and C8 Extreme... saw some guides but I'd like to know if this starting base is ok: PPT 250, TDC170 and EDC 140 (Asus BIOS seems not to have the "motherboard" setting, or maybe it's the "auto" one?).
Never used CoreCycler... can I run it with default settings or have to tune some .cfg file first? One pass for all physic cores is enough?
Thanks!

Baio


----------



## Nizzen

metalshark said:


> Have you bought from this Thai website? Super sketchy, not even HTTPS for personal info.


I bought from them maybe 10 times. Delid tools, liquid metal, dimm blocks and direct die cpu blocks 

Even Igors Lab bough from them. They are very small, so more like buying from HIM


----------



## DvL Ax3l

th30d0r3 said:


> Didn't know you can delid a 5950x, can you send a link to the block you mentioned


yeah but for delidding u have to heat the ihs, amd doesn't use glue, it's soldered!


----------



## finas

th30d0r3 said:


> Didn't know you can delid a 5950x, can you send a link to the block you mentioned


I have delided my 3950x, the 5950x should be exactly the same.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

Baio73 said:


> Finally have some time in the next few days to start testing the CO for my 5900x and C8 Extreme... saw some guides but I'd like to know if this starting base is ok: PPT 250, TDC170 and EDC 140 (Asus BIOS seems not to have the "motherboard" setting, or maybe it's the "auto" one?).
> Never used CoreCycler... can I run it with default settings or have to tune some .cfg file first? One pass for all physic cores is enough?
> Thanks!
> 
> Baio


use the settings in advance, amd overclocking for PBO, set the CO negative 15 for the best cores of CCD1 e CCD2 the other negative 30, run corecycle.


----------



## Baio73

DvL Ax3l said:


> use the settings in advance, amd overclocking for PBO, set the CO negative 15 for the best cores of CCD1 e CCD2 the other negative 30, run corecycle.


Thanks for your replay (as usual)!
Setting "motherboard" in AMD Overclocking for PBO sets PPT 335, TDC 255 and EDC 200... I knew EDC over 140 carried to worse performances with latest AGESA.

I suppose best cores in Ryzen Master match the BIOS' ones -1... so if RM tells me my best are 2 and 9, I have to set -15 for cores 1 and 8, right?

1 iteration of CoreCycler is ok?

Baio


----------



## DvL Ax3l

Baio73 said:


> Thanks for your replay (as usual)!
> Setting "motherboard" in AMD Overclocking for PBO sets PPT 335, TDC 255 and EDC 200... I knew EDC over 140 carried to worse performances with latest AGESA.
> 
> I suppose best cores in Ryzen Master match the BIOS' ones -1... so if RM tells me my best are 2 and 9, I have to set -15 for cores 1 and 8, right?
> 
> 1 iteration of CoreCycler is ok?
> 
> Baio


look in DM, I wrote in italian what u need


----------



## GRABibus

DvL Ax3l said:


> look in DM, I wrote in italian what u need


Ma che cazzo 😂


----------



## Baio73

GRABibus said:


> Ma che cazzo 😂


Sorry man for being old and having not so much time as I used to spend on pc stuff... 

Baio


----------



## GRABibus

Baio73 said:


> Sorry man for being old and having not so much time as I used to spend on pc stuff...
> 
> Baio


It was a joke !!!
I am 55 years old for information 😊


----------



## Baio73

GRABibus said:


> It was a joke !!!
> I am 55 years old for information 😊


No problema! 
50 here... but as times passes, less and less time for pc...
I see in your sign you have EDC set to 150 with latest AGESA... do you recommend this?

Baio


----------



## GRABibus

Baio73 said:


> No problema!
> 50 here... but as times passes, less and less time for pc...
> I see in your sign you have EDC set to 150 with latest AGESA... do you recommend this?
> 
> Baio





Baio73 said:


> No problema!
> 50 here... but as times passes, less and less time for pc...
> I see in your sign you have EDC set to 150 with latest AGESA... do you recommend this?
> 
> Baio


For me it is a good value to have good performances, lower vids than 1,5V and not overheat.
You can try 160


----------



## 1ah1

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D Review - The Magic of 3D V-Cache


The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D is the company's new flagship gaming processor. It introduces 3D V-Cache, a dedicated piece of silicon with additional L3 capacity. In our review, we're testing how much the larger cache can help intensive gaming workloads and applications and compare it to the Intel Core...




www.techpowerup.com


----------



## GRABibus

1ah1 said:


> AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D Review - The Magic of 3D V-Cache
> 
> 
> The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D is the company's new flagship gaming processor. It introduces 3D V-Cache, a dedicated piece of silicon with additional L3 capacity. In our review, we're testing how much the larger cache can help intensive gaming workloads and applications and compare it to the Intel Core...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.techpowerup.com


Except if you play in 720p, I don’t see the benefits of this CPU 😊


----------



## trespot

It took some time to stress test to ensure stability but finally I can say I'm satisfied with timings and the frequency.

Voltages not visible in ZenTimings:
VDIMM 1.55 I could probably lower it a bit but I can't be bothered anymore 
VDDG CCD: 1.025,
SoC voltage visible but it's actually set to 1.125 with LLC set to level 3


----------



## DvL Ax3l

I'm a little jelous of all your timings guys... After AGESA 1.2.0.5 can't set CL14 no matters what I do! Hoping for a newer better release


----------



## Corey Carroz

Nizzen said:


> Complete with delid tool
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD Water Block
> 
> 
> Direct Die
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.supercoolcomputer.com


That is bold!


----------



## PWn3R

It’s all fun and games until you crack the die trying to delid

Edit, I say this as the guy who ran his 4790k with no lid with a ray storm v1 with extra washers and LM for like 3 years :kekw:


----------



## GRABibus

DvL Ax3l said:


> I'm a little jelous of all your timings guys... After AGESA 1.2.0.5 can't set CL14 no matters what I do! Hoping for a newer better release


Try 2x16GB instead of 4x8GB.
If you can find the kit part number in my signature, maybe you will succeed.


----------



## noxious89123

DvL Ax3l said:


> I'm a little jelous of all your timings guys... After AGESA 1.2.0.5 can't set CL14 no matters what I do! Hoping for a newer better release


Your RAM kit in your signature says 3600C18, which just isn't a very good bin for B-Die unfortunately, so you're unlikely to get the same results as everyone else. Not all B-Die is equal! A modest bin should be able to do 3600C16 out of the box, and there are even kits that will do 3600C14 right out of the box just with XMP.

Running four sticks is also going to limit what you can achieve.

I'm able to do 3800 CL14 (on a kit rated for 3200 CL14), however I'm using 2x16GB and have my dimms watercooled.

B-Die scales well with voltage, but it's also very temperature sensitive too.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

An old screen with previous BIOS, bigger score, tighter CAS and latency under 60ns... maybe i'll downgrade tomorrow 🤔







Edit: testing CL14 on BIOS 3801 with memtest86 so far everything working I had to increase vdimm to 1.495V from 1.355V to lower CL, anyway on BIOS 4006 nothing work, I've tested also with 1.55V

Edit 2: rock stable 3800C14 so it's like I said before, AGESA 1.2.0.3c it's better also for RAM OC

Edit 3: 3801 settings vs 4006 settings

Edit 4: gained 2000 points on superposition benchmark, NO JOKING, before I was around 14500







Edit 5: final timings + aida64


----------



## tcclaviger

Anyone have any good reading on maximizing the benefit of voltage suspension paired with bclk OCing?

Skater Bencher has a good video, just looking for more info on it.

C8E and x3D arrive soon, so looking to get the info ahead of time.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

Gigabyte has released a new chipset driver for AMD version 4.04.11.742 WHQL dated 2022/04/13

Package list: 
AMD Processor Power Management Support - AMD Ryzen Power Plan : 7.0.4.9 New
AMD PT GPIO Driver: 3.0.0.0
AMD GPIO2 Driver: 2.2.0.130
AMD I2C Driver: 1.2.0.118
AMD IOV Driver: 1.2.0.52
AMD MicroPEP Driver: 1.0.33.0
AMD PCI Device Driver: 1.0.0.87
AMD PSP Driver: 5.18.0.0 
AMD SFH Driver: 1.0.0.326
AMD SMBUS Driver: 5.12.0.38
AMD UART Driver: 1.2.0.114 New
AMD PMF Driver: 21.0.1.6
AMD PPM Provisioning File Driver: 1.0.0.10 New
AMD USB4 CM Driver: 1.0.0.19 New

Download


----------



## bt1

Anyone noticed that chipset drivers package version is just it's digital signature date, except for last 3 digits.


----------



## GRABibus

Who wants it ?


----------



## noxious89123

GRABibus said:


> Who wants it ?
> 
> View attachment 2556158


It's probably not something I could easily justify spending on, but out of curiosity, how much would you want for it? I assume you'd be posting from France?



DvL Ax3l said:


> An old screen with previous BIOS, bigger score, tighter CAS and latency under 60ns... maybe i'll downgrade tomorrow 🤔
> View attachment 2555895
> 
> Edit: testing CL14 on BIOS 3801 with memtest86 so far everything working I had to increase vdimm to 1.495V from 1.355V to lower CL, anyway on BIOS 4006 nothing work, I've tested also with 1.55V
> 
> Edit 2: rock stable 3800C14 so it's like I said before, AGESA 1.2.0.3c it's better also for RAM OC
> 
> Edit 3: 3801 settings vs 4006 settings
> 
> Edit 4: gained 2000 points on superposition benchmark, NO JOKING, before I was around 14500
> View attachment 2555971
> 
> Edit 5: final timings + aida64
> View attachment 2556102
> View attachment 2556077


Have you tried running the AIDA64 memory benchmark in safe mode? Doing that or even just closing down a lot of the background services can easily knock off a couple of ns of latency.

My latency results can vary by two or three ns when testing in normal windows, but in safe mode that testing variance comes down to around 0.3ns between runs, as well as being outright faster.


----------



## finas

GRABibus said:


> Who wants it ?


If it does 2000mhz fclk with no wheas, me.


----------



## GRABibus

noxious89123 said:


> It's probably not something I could easily justify spending on, but out of curiosity, how much would you want for it? I assume you'd be posting from France?


PM sent


----------



## J7SC

DvL Ax3l said:


> An old screen with previous BIOS, bigger score, tighter CAS and latency under 60ns... maybe i'll downgrade tomorrow 🤔
> View attachment 2555895
> 
> Edit: testing CL14 on BIOS 3801 with memtest86 so far everything working I had to increase vdimm to 1.495V from 1.355V to lower CL, anyway on BIOS 4006 nothing work, I've tested also with 1.55V
> 
> Edit 2: rock stable 3800C14 so it's like I said before, AGESA 1.2.0.3c it's better also for RAM OC
> 
> Edit 3: 3801 settings vs 4006 settings
> 
> Edit 4: gained 2000 points on superposition benchmark, NO JOKING, before I was around 14500
> View attachment 2555971
> 
> Edit 5: final timings + aida64
> View attachment 2556102
> View attachment 2556077


I like old bios 🥴 ...my trusty Bios 3501 w/ 4 sticks is doing just fine; only the Win 10 updates are annoying me ever so much more. As you observed, Unigine Superposition (and btw also 3DM Port Royal) really react nicely to well-tuned system RAM.


----------



## GRABibus




----------



## KedarWolf

Yeah, I know, I'm MSI, but I follow other threads for AM4 as well.

If you want really great memory for your 5000 series CPUs, buy CL14 3600 Royal Elite from Newegg. If it's a dud, send it back for another same kit, say it won't run at XMP or something.

My second kit is an incredible bin, I won the silicon lottery for sure. 🐺

Getting this on my MSI X570S Unify-X Max. It's a two DIMM slot board though.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

I've found stability with GDM off CR 2T, now I need to find it with GMD off CR 1T...


----------



## Baio73

DvL Ax3l said:


> I've found stability with GDM off CR 2T, now I need to find it with GMD off CR 1T...
> View attachment 2556309
> View attachment 2556308


Very difficult... impossible for my kit even at the highest VDIMM...
Good luck! 🤞

Baio


----------



## DvL Ax3l

I did it!!! 4*8GB 3800C14 GDM OFF CR 1T @ 1.505V


----------



## J7SC

DvL Ax3l said:


> I did it!!! 4*8GB 3800C14 GDM OFF CR 1T @ 1.505V
> View attachment 2556516
> View attachment 2556318
> View attachment 2556319
> View attachment 2556320


Nice ! BTW, is your 6900XT w-cooled ? I ask because with MPT (MorePowerTool), you might get close to 19K w/ 6900XT in 'full benching mode' (rather than daily). If you have the cooling, you have a lot of headroom with your setup.

Here are the 5950X (same as above) and 3950X '24/7 / daily' RAM settings. I do like to undervolt InFin related parameters for 'daily' where possible. Also, shortly after I took those screenies, I finally decided to upgrade the 3950X bios yesterday from 3302 to 3801 - seems to work even better...


----------



## DvL Ax3l

J7SC said:


> Nice ! BTW, is your 6900XT w-cooled ? I ask because with MPT (MorePowerTool), you might get close to 19K w/ 6900XT in 'full benching mode' (rather than daily). If you have the cooling, you have a lot of headroom with your setup.


I would like to built a custom loop, but I don't have money/time at the moment, I should go out of the country for work in 15 days or so for 4 months, probably in september when I come back I'll try to get it, I think I'll buy a Corsair Hydro X custom loop with hard tubing.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

So after another night of testing & tweaking I decided to put back GDM ON, I've noticed that every 4/5 boot the system cannot post and the ram temperature goes up to 55C, to post again I've to set the cad bus at 24-20-24-24 and re enter the bios to set again 60-30-30-30 to achieve stability. Better stay under 48C with a lower vdimm so I can play games without issues, maybe when I'll be back I'll buy a new kit


----------



## GRABibus




----------



## 1ah1

GRABibus said:


>


I hope i can buy 5800X3D in the first day.
We are still waiting for AGESA 1.2.7.0 i think they said the release will be in April right?


----------



## Blackfyre

1ah1 said:


> We are still waiting for AGESA 1.2.7.0 i think they said the release will be in April right?


May, but we are assuming that we get the beta here in April or early May.

We usually do, a week or two before it drops on the official page.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

AMD released a new Ryzen Master version with Curve Optimizer overclock.
With my 5900X with per core optimization the software gives me -23 for all cores after 1h 40m of tests

Download


----------



## g_d_g_l__

DvL Ax3l said:


> AMD released a new Ryzen Master version with Curve Optimizer overclock.
> With my 5900X with per core optimization the software gives me -23 for all cores after 1h 40m of tests
> 
> Download


According to the first reports from Computerbase, the values determined by the Auto Curve Optimizer are apparently not always stable in all operating situations. If you use the automatic mode, you should therefore test the determined values for stability with the usual tools in order not to risk sudden system crashes.


----------



## g_d_g_l__

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/curve-optimizer-heads-to-ryzen-master-for-zen-3-cpus



The Curve Optimizer is like a marriage. If you want to do it right, you should lend a hand yourself!


----------



## coelacanth

DvL Ax3l said:


> AMD released a new Ryzen Master version with Curve Optimizer overclock.
> With my 5900X with per core optimization the software gives me -23 for all cores after 1h 40m of tests
> 
> Download


I just tried it out with my 5950X. It gave my -29 on all cores except -21 on the two best cores on CCX1 and -27 on one of the cores on CCX2.

I didn't realize it also changes your BIOS settings. I went into BIOS and my own Curve Optimizer settings had been overwritten.


----------



## GRABibus

GRABibus said:


> Who wants it ?
> 
> View attachment 2556158


Tested it today.

As a first shot :
-27 Core0, -20Core1, -30 all other cores
300-145-150
+200MHz
Core Voltage Offset = 0.025V
Bios 4006
23.5°C Ambient
Cooled with my Corsair Icue H115i RGB Platinum.


----------



## GRABibus




----------



## Theo164

Ryzen Master Curve Optimizer is not accurate. I know from testing that C1 and C5 (or core 0,4) maximum stable curve offset is -20. It can boot and run up to -30, but it will reboot at some point...
EDIT
Both cores have the same cppc ranking value
@ -20 never had a reboot since it's the standard co value that i use in bios
Testing both cores individually @ -21 system rebooted at least once or twice into a 2 months period


----------



## coelacanth

Ryzen Master Curve Optimizer introduced instability to my system as well.


----------



## GRABibus

coelacanth said:


> Ryzen Master Curve Optimizer introduced instability to my system as well.


Overclock with Bios only, old school 😛


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> Overclock with Bios only, old school 😛


...^this. While it doesn't hurt to get some 'way points' for CO via Ryzen Master or Hydra, the final settings should be done via bios. This also helps to have similar conditions for subsequent testing after a fresh boot. I run a fairly mild CO for daily, and still get past 30k in CB_R23 every time I try. Full-blown 'aggressive' CO gets well past 32.3k, but for daily, makes no difference whatsoever, not least as my games are all at 4K.


----------



## coelacanth

GRABibus said:


> Overclock with Bios only, old school 😛


I agree. I didn't realize that the newest Ryzen Master actually changes your BIOS settings.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

Is that statement legit?








And those screenshots are his kits


----------



## metalshark

DvL Ax3l said:


> Is that statement legit?
> View attachment 2557253
> 
> And those screenshots are his kits
> View attachment 2557254
> View attachment 2557255


Either my reading comprehension is low or they contradict themselves. Single CCD processors hitting 2000MHz IF and beyond isn't unheard of. But then they say



> I would still use 4000 mhz anyways, you still see performance gains with higher memory with wheas


after just saying they aren't getting WHEAs. Would assume active cooling to achieve these results, also have not heard of increasing SCL to 4 for higher bandwidth before. Am wondering if they are nerfing their PBO so much for thermal/VRM voltage regulation reasons rather than it actually being a benefit to nerf so much (e.g. cranking the VRM timings or applying better cooling wouldn't require those nerfs).

Have a look at what people are getting on Gigabyte boards for some truly awesome memory speed results.


----------



## ArchStanton

metalshark said:


> also have not heard of increasing SCL to 4 for higher bandwidth before


This was recently suggested to me by @Audioboxer in the thread: [Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread. Implementing the change did result in several hundred points more "Read" bandwidth per Aida64. However, for me at least, it cost me an equal or greater amount of "Write" bandwidth 🤷‍♂️. I created a follow up post inquiring if there were reasons to favor one metric over the other short of a specific "load": [Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread.


----------



## metalshark

ArchStanton said:


> This was recently suggested to me by @Audioboxer in the thread: [Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread. Implementing the change did result in several hundred points more "Read" bandwidth per Aida64. However, for me at least, it cost me an equal or greater amount of "Write" bandwidth 🤷‍♂️. I created a follow up post inquiring if there were reasons to favor one metric over the other short of a specific "load": [Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread.


Nice thanks. Audioboxer is someone I trust to know their stuff, interesting.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

Guys, I know, I'm writing too much, but I like to study/understand everything about my PC so I wanna ask you a question (another one! )
I finally found the voltages I need to have tPHYRLD 26 on all 4 dimm but I'm not sure if they are correct because I always read discordant tips, anyway they are:
VSOC 1.1V (too hight? if I lower B dimms got tPHYRLD 28)
CLDO VDDP 1.055V (too high? if I lower B dimms got tPHYRLD 28) on auto it goes up to 1.10V
VDDG CCD 0.9V (to low?) on auto 0.95V
VDDG IOD 0.9V (to low?) on auto 1.05V
VDIMM 1.49V
VTTDDR 0.74375V
VPP_MEM 2.5V


----------



## noxious89123

DvL Ax3l said:


> Is that statement legit?
> View attachment 2557253
> 
> And those screenshots are his kits
> View attachment 2557254
> View attachment 2557255


Done a little digging on Reddit, trying to get an idea of if that user is credible.

They claim to be hitting 4200 memory speed stable in another post, soooo I'm kinda leaning towards doubt. Their voltages seem too low for 2000 Fclk ?

EDIT:
Holy ****, just found this from one of their posts too. I think we can put this down to either "that isn't actually stable" OR "you won the silicon lottery big time".
2100Fclk, 48.2ns latency. Also claiming to hit 5050MHz effective clock on 14 out of 16 CPU threads. clicky



https://i.redd.it/o7wm53qfydq81.jpg



Their results place them #2 on the community sheet too; Zen RAM OC Leaderboards

Maybe their results are legit, but even so I'd say this is mostly down to _*really ****in' good silicon.*_

EDIT2: They also claimed to be hitting 5.6GHz in 3DMark, so this also makes me feel inclining to think that u/ibescrubby might be a potato. clicky

EDIT3: This is apparently their first build?! So they won the silicon lottery and/or are an overclocking pro? I am highly skeptical at this point.


----------



## Blackfyre

DvL Ax3l said:


> Guys, I know, I'm writing too much, but I like to study/understand everything about my PC so I wanna ask you a question (another one! )
> I finally found the voltages I need to have tPHYRLD 26 on all 4 dimm but I'm not sure if they are correct because I always read discordant tips, anyway they are:
> VSOC 1.1V (too hight? if I lower B dimms got tPHYRLD 28)
> CLDO VDDP 1.055V (too high? if I lower B dimms got tPHYRLD 28) on auto it goes up to 1.10V
> VDDG CCD 0.9V (to low?) on auto 0.95V
> VDDG IOD 0.9V (to low?) on auto 1.05V
> VDIMM 1.49V
> VTTDDR 0.74375V
> VPP_MEM 2.5V
> View attachment 2557293
> View attachment 2557294


You can get 26 Phy on all 4 dimms? I gave up trying. It's always *26, 26, 28, 28* for me.


----------



## metalshark

Blackfyre said:


> You can get 26 Phy on all 4 dimms? I gave up trying. It's always *26, 26, 28, 28* for me.


You can, but it's time-consuming and frustrating. Am on a Formula.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

Blackfyre said:


> You can get 26 Phy on all 4 dimms? I gave up trying. It's always *26, 26, 28, 28* for me.


I've found the right voltages after I set up CLDO VDDP - VDDG CCD - VDDG IOD on auto, after the boot I looked for the voltages and I've noticed the tPHYRLD was 26/26 on both channel so I started to tweaking the voltages and ask here about them


----------



## 1ah1

Finally i found and bought 5800x3d with MSRP price


----------



## neikosr0x

Sorry guys, is the 4006 working fine for CO EDC? or the EDC is restricted?


----------



## Luggage

noxious89123 said:


> Done a little digging on Reddit, trying to get an idea of if that user is credible.
> 
> They claim to be hitting 4200 memory speed stable in another post, soooo I'm kinda leaning towards doubt. Their voltages seem too low for 2000 Fclk ?
> 
> EDIT:
> Holy ****, just found this from one of their posts too. I think we can put this down to either "that isn't actually stable" OR "you won the silicon lottery big time".
> 2100Fclk, 48.2ns latency. Also claiming to hit 5050MHz effective clock on 14 out of 16 CPU threads. clicky
> 
> 
> 
> https://i.redd.it/o7wm53qfydq81.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> Their results place them #2 on the community sheet too; Zen RAM OC Leaderboards
> 
> Maybe their results are legit, but even so I'd say this is mostly down to _*really ****in' good silicon.*_
> 
> EDIT2: They also claimed to be hitting 5.6GHz in 3DMark, so this also makes me feel inclining to think that u/ibescrubby might be a potato. clicky
> 
> EDIT3: This is apparently their first build?! So they won the silicon lottery and/or are an overclocking pro? I am highly skeptical at this point.


Potato with good silicon. Some skill tuning but lacks exp and understanding.
Also seems to do stability tests like in the Intel threads 

perhaps i made him understand “GPU bound” with 10 sottr benches after he spent 2 days insulting people who knows better


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/u04bsr


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/u04bsr/_/i47yjw6


----------



## GRABibus

neikosr0x said:


> Sorry guys, is the 4006 working fine for CO EDC? or the EDC is restricted?


still vid = 1,45V if EDC > 140A.

but honestly, I am currently testing my 5950X with both EDC=140 and EDC=160 and I get roughly same scores CBR20 in both cases (Multi core = 11630 and single core = 651), but in stability tests as Realbench for example (Or even CBR20), I get lower temps with EDC=140 than with EDC=160, even if voltages are higher.


----------



## Theo164

Finaly after 1,5 years i manage to run 3800/1900 with 4 bdie sticks without whea!
my cpu - mobo - ram combo is screwy or something...

VSOC more than 1.100v = whea.
IOD CCD VDDP voltages doesn't effect whea only stability and performance
24/20/24/24 default = whea party and if vsoc higher than 1.1 reboot after some minutes of testing
40/20/24/40 = one single whea every time after 1 minute of testing, I test it many times for about 1 hour, just 1 whea at start every single time
40/24/24/40 = not a single whea 3 hours of cpu fpu cache and memory aida 64 stress test, 3 hours of karhu mem / fpu / cache stress test +2 hours of SOTR 1080p low gaming and benchmarking


----------



## noxious89123

Luggage said:


> Potato with good silicon. Some skill tuning but lacks exp and understanding.
> Also seems to do stability tests like in the Intel threads
> 
> perhaps i made him understand “GPU bound” with 10 sottr benches after he spent 2 days insulting people who knows better
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/u04bsr
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/u04bsr/_/i47yjw6


Oh bless his heart, he's not got a clue what he's doing 🤣

PS. I see what you did with your username there, very good 



Theo164 said:


> Finaly after 1,5 years i manage to run 3800/1900 with 4 bdie sticks without whea!
> my cpu - mobo - ram combo is screwy or something...
> 
> VSOC more than 1.100v = whea.
> IOD CCD VDDP voltages doesn't effect whea only stability and performance
> 24/20/24/24 default = whea party and if vsoc higher than 1.1 reboot after some minutes of testing
> 40/20/24/40 = one single whea every time after 1 minute of testing, I test it many times for about 1 hour, just 1 whea at start every single time
> 40/24/24/40 = not a single whea 3 hours of cpu fpu cache and memory aida 64 stress test, 3 hours of karhu mem / fpu / cache stress test +2 hours of SOTR 1080p low gaming and benchmarking
> 
> 
> View attachment 2557319
> 
> 
> View attachment 2557320


From my understanding, when you increase voltages you can also increase "jitter", which is what causes the problem. Adjusting the CAD Bus Drive Strength values can offset this. Honestly, I think it makes it a headache X) Old school Intel was so easy; Unstable? More voltage. Too hot? Less voltage. With Ryzen its like, unstable? more voltage. Haha, now you're still unstable. _tweak the magic_ _number. chef kiss. _Perfection.

I've had an issue for a little while now with a single very rare WHEA popping up like once every week or two when I'm running 3800/1900. I'm doing some testing right now to see if its affected at all if I remove my CO overclock, but perhaps I should go back to messing with my CAD Bus instead. I'm currently at 24/24/24/24.


----------



## Robostyle

Is it OK that safe boot button doesnt work?


----------



## GRABibus

GRABibus said:


> Tested it today.
> 
> As a first shot :
> -27 Core0, -20Core1, -30 all other cores
> 300-145-150
> +200MHz
> Core Voltage Offset = 0.025V
> Bios 4006
> 23.5°C Ambient
> Cooled with my Corsair Icue H115i RGB Platinum.
> 
> View attachment 2557004
> 
> 
> View attachment 2557005


I work on 24/7 stability with my new 5950X.

I think I am on the right way with global settings in sig

*[email protected]°C ambient :*








*
Frequencies and temperatures after 30 minutes of Call Of Duty Vanguard in 4K with max settings and DLSS = quality and ReBar forced in game :*
















I am really satisfied with it, especially my temps with my H115i RGB Platinum :
=> max 70°C on CCD1 Tdie in CBR20 at 23°C !
=> max 66.8°C on CCD1 Tdie after 30 minutes Vanguard !

Here is a Youtube video from a tech influencer where they have tested several AIO on AMD and Intel with ranking for each of them.
Very interesting and professionnal. This guy is a famous overclocker in France.

=> The conclusion is that best AIO cooler for a Ryzen are H1xxi RGB Platinum and MSI CoreLiquid 240/280/360 R

Results are much more different on Intel processors. Sorry the video is in French :


----------



## pfinch

DvL Ax3l said:


> tPHYRLD


is tPHYRLD board or cpu+RAM based? Could I achieve better tPHYRLD with a Dark Hero compared to Hero Wifi?


----------



## Blameless

pfinch said:


> is tPHYRLD board or cpu+RAM based?


Both board and RAM based, possibly slightly CPU based as well.

Adjusting CLDO VDDP and CPU VDDP can occasionally help.



pfinch said:


> Could I achieve better tPHYRLD with a Dark Hero compared to Hero Wifi?


I highly doubt it, as they have nearly identical PCBs and probably extremely similar firmware. Board to board variance is a thing, but chances are that you're no more likely to get a better or worse tPHYRDL with a Dark Hero than a different Hero.

Good trace layout and more PCB layers are most likely to help and the two-DIMM only boards tend to have an edge here.


----------



## noxious89123

pfinch said:


> is tPHYRLD board or cpu+RAM based? Could I achieve better tPHYRLD with a Dark Hero compared to Hero Wifi?


To build on what @Blameless mentioned;
The Dark Hero is just a Hero WiFi, but with 90A powerstages (instead of 60A), a fanless chipset heatsink, different aesthetic parts and the Dynamic OC Switcher feature. The circuit board itself appears to be identical, with identical placement of the parts on the board. I'd be very surprised if they developed a whole new PCB for such minor upgrades over the Hero WiFi, especially so late in the lifecycle of the X570 platform.


----------



## xeizo

Interesting find about the elusive WHEA errors, as said earlier my CCX2 died so I have been running my 5900X on only one CCX. It's past two weeks and not a single WHEA recorded, even though I have experimented a lot with RAM OC as I have lesser RAM on this extra rig the 5900X went into(I've tested really unstable settings, which where... unstable, still no WHEA). I have 5 out of 6 cores boosting to 5025MHz with current settings. Looks to me like the CCX2 was responsible for all the WHEA all the time until it finally went belly up. My 5900X is a early sample from when the reports of WHEA was most common. Seems to me like AMD put out some really bad silicon, at least in the beginning, and that's probably almost all there is to this common problem.

Makes me reluctant to buy another 2 CCX AMD CPU as they pair a good core with a bad core instead of keeping a consistent quality.


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> Interesting find about the elusive WHEA errors, as said earlier my CCX2 died so I have been running my 5900X on only one CCX. It's past two weeks and not a single WHEA recorded, even though I have experimented a lot with RAM OC as I have lesser RAM on this extra rig the 5900X went into(I've tested really unstable settings, which where... unstable, still no WHEA). I have 5 out of 6 cores boosting to 5025MHz with current settings. Looks to me like the CCX2 was responsible for all the WHEA all the time until it finally went belly up. My 5900X is a early sample from when the reports of WHEA was most common. Seems to me like AMD put out some really bad silicon, at least in the beginning, and that's probably almost all there is to this common problem.
> 
> Makes me reluctant to buy another 2 CCX AMD CPU as they pair a good core with a bad core instead of keeping a consistent quality.


What are the news with your 12900K ?


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> What are the news with your 12900K ?


Oh, it's chugging along nicely, draws a super lot of power in CB23 but during normal loads it's efficient and fast


----------



## Kelutrel

pfinch said:


> is tPHYRLD board or cpu+RAM based? Could I achieve better tPHYRLD with a Dark Hero compared to Hero Wifi?


To get lower tPHYRLD it may help to enable phy training from AMD CBS->DDR4 Common Options->Phy Configuration->PMU Training , set both the read and write trainings to enabled and set "pmu pattern bits control" to manual and the value to A.


----------



## djase45

Hello,

then this bios 4006 for the dark hero is good, or should we stay in 3801 ?.


----------



## metalshark

djase45 said:


> Hello,
> 
> then this bios 4006 for the dark hero is good, or should we stay in 3801 ?.





djase45 said:


> Hello,
> 
> then this bios 4006 for the dark hero is good, or should we stay in 3801 ?.


It's good if you're fine with 1.475v SVI2 max (most are). You have the 1.425v VID over 140A EDC, but can use offsets for SVI2 (what your CPU receives).


----------



## g_d_g_l__

The somewhat different test 

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D - the only (and last) fighter of its kind as a perfect and very efficient upgrade | igor'sLAB


----------



## DvL Ax3l

After another night of test I finally succeded to achieve CL14 on BIOS 4006 apparently tRDRDSD and tRDRDDD were the issue, with this bios I can't set both to 5.













Sorry for the picture quality I had to take it with the phone for playing in the BIOS 😂


----------



## noxious89123

Kelutrel said:


> To get lower tPHYRLD it may help to enable phy training from AMD CBS->DDR4 Common Options->Phy Configuration->PMU Training , set both the read and write trainings to enabled and set "pmu pattern bits control" to manual and the value to A.


What does this do? What is tPHYRLD in general? It doesn't turn up anything when I Google it!


----------



## Kelutrel

noxious89123 said:


> What does this do? What is tPHYRLD in general? It doesn't turn up anything when I Google it!


Afaik, it's an additional latency added to any DRAM command due to the conversion from the physical signal to the digital DRAM circuitry when reading or writing to the DRAM. Its performance depends mostly from the quality of the electronics and traces between the CPU and the DRAM on the motherboard, as the memory controller (that includes the PHY module) is already in the CPU and is the same for all Ryzen CPUs. The PMU training options in the BIOS allows you to train that module for stability with your motherboard and DIMMs. You can google DDR4 PHY and you should find more informations.


----------



## J7SC

Well, the saga continues...

After updating my 3950X / CH8 WiFi primary work system to Bios 3801, I did the same for the 5950C / CH8 DHero last night. The latter will switch to Win 11 Pro first as it is primarily a gamer (+ work file back-up), while the 3950X is the primary work system with some legacy software from eons ago (got to carefully test that out first with Win 11 Pro on the 5950X to avoid any potential work disruptions).

Per recent posts in this thread, both systems ran very tight 3800 CL14s in bios 3501 / GDM enabled, and that is still the case with the 3950X. I had also shown some DDR4 3866 and 4000 Aida in bios 3501 with the 5950X - though to get those WHEA free, I had to raise IMC related voltages to more than I'm comfy with for daily ops. On voltages, I run both CPUs with a slight undervolt (negative offset) and a mild CO for the 5950X.

As the 4-stick (4x8) Sammy B-die is nominal DDR4 4000, I was not surprised that the 5950X could reach the same speeds, but I was surprised that I got GDM-disabled to work, and works well to 3933(+) with the safe voltages (below) and without errors. The 'price' I'm paying is that with 4 sticks, CMD T1 and GDM-disabled only works up to 3800 'tight'. Beyond that (ie. 3933 and 4000), I have to switch to CMD T2 (or enable GMD but increase CL).

For now, I'm very pleased about the bios 3801 / DDR4 3933 per below. I still have some room to go on sub-timings, but after running some deeper memory tests with what you see below, I'll leave the final tightening until after I loaded Win 11 Pro.


----------



## ArchStanton

@J7SC for the 3 combinations of bandwidth vs latency in your picture, which do you feel would likely provide the greatest benefit to a "general purpose" gaming PC? Or are games variable enough in their load that it would just have to be validated on a case by case basis?


----------



## J7SC

ArchStanton said:


> @J7SC for the 3 combinations of bandwidth vs latency in your picture, which do you feel would likely provide the greatest benefit to a "general purpose" gaming PC? Or are games variable enough in their load that it would just have to be validated on a case by case basis?


For gaming, I don't really know yet (installing Win 11 Pro on the weekend) but I reckon it's going to be a wash between 3800 CL14 T1 and 3933 CL15 T2, not least as I game exclusively at 4K which emphasizes the GPUs more.


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> Well, the saga continues...
> 
> After updating my 3950X / CH8 WiFi primary work system to Bios 3801, I did the same for the 5950C / CH8 DHero last night. The latter will switch to Win 11 Pro first as it is primarily a gamer (+ work file back-up), while the 3950X is the primary work system with some legacy software from eons ago (got to carefully test that out first with Win 11 Pro on the 5950X to avoid any potential work disruptions).
> 
> Per recent posts in this thread, both systems ran very tight 3800 CL14s in bios 3501 / GDM enabled, and that is still the case with the 3950X. I had also shown some DDR4 3866 and 4000 Aida in bios 3501 with the 5950X - though to get those WHEA free, I had to raise IMC related voltages to more than I'm comfy with for daily ops. On voltages, I run both CPUs with a slight undervolt (negative offset) and a mild CO for the 5950X.
> 
> As the 4-stick (4x8) Sammy B-die is nominal DDR4 4000, I was not surprised that the 5950X could reach the same speeds, but I was surprised that I got GDM-disabled to work, and works well to 3933(+) with the safe voltages (below) and without errors. The 'price' I'm paying is that with 4 sticks, CMD T1 and GDM-disabled only works up to 3800 'tight'. Beyond that (ie. 3933 and 4000), I have to switch to CMD T2 (or enable GMD but increase CL).
> 
> For now, I'm very pleased about the bios 3801 / DDR4 3933 per below. I still have some room to go on sub-timings, but after running some deeper memory tests with what you see below, I'll leave the final tightening until after I loaded Win 11 Pro.
> View attachment 2557684


no Wheas ?????? 🤔


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> no Wheas ?????? 🤔


nope, no WHEAs (see also test above)


----------



## Prophet4NO1

is 3801 the current best BIOS? Or is one of the newer ones looking better? Currently on 3703 and deciding if I want to go through the trouble of an upgrade or not.


----------



## CyrIng

BIOS 3801 rock stable


----------



## crastopher

Is there a way to control the chipset and/or VRM fan? Currently on 4006 on my Crosshair VIII Impact


----------



## metalshark

crastopher said:


> Is there a way to control the chipset and/or VRM fan? Currently on 4006 on my Crosshair VIII Impact


There’s a series of modded UEFIs with PCH fan support









[MOD BIOS ASUS X570] ROG Crosshair VIII Hero (WI-FI) & Formula - PCH Fan control


Hallo zusammen, ich biete Euch ein von mir gemoddetes BIOS an. Damit könnt ihr den nervigen Chipsatz-Lüfter steuern. Nur Kompatibel mit o.g. Mainboards in Verbindung mit Ryzen 3000/5000. From HERO to ZERO :o Die Modifikation selbst erfolgt nach bestem Gewissen. Per HEX Editor wird ein Teil...




www.hardwareluxx.de





, or you can mod yourself


----------



## rexbinary

CyrIng said:


> BIOS 3801 rock stable


Nice work. To note though, rock stable on Linux doesn't necessarily mean it's rock stable on Windows and vice versa.


----------



## GRABibus

metalshark said:


> There’s a series of modded UEFIs with PCH fan support
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [MOD BIOS ASUS X570] ROG Crosshair VIII Hero (WI-FI) & Formula - PCH Fan control
> 
> 
> Hallo zusammen, ich biete Euch ein von mir gemoddetes BIOS an. Damit könnt ihr den nervigen Chipsatz-Lüfter steuern. Nur Kompatibel mit o.g. Mainboards in Verbindung mit Ryzen 3000/5000. From HERO to ZERO :o Die Modifikation selbst erfolgt nach bestem Gewissen. Per HEX Editor wird ein Teil...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hardwareluxx.de
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , or you can mod yourself


I downloaded the CH8 MOD Bios 4006.
When I try to flash it it says "No proper Bios"

*EDIT : I will try with Bios flashback and not EZ Flash3...*


----------



## J7SC

rexbinary said:


> Nice work. To note though, rock stable on Linux doesn't necessarily mean it's rock stable on Windows and vice versa.


I spent a year or so w/ 3950X on bios 3302 and only recently switched to 3801, mostly to prep for Win 11. Both bios have been rock steady even when throwing the proverbial kitchen sink at them, though with 3801, I obviously don't have as much experience yet. Performance differences between 3302 and 3801 seem minor, IMO.


----------



## CyrIng

rexbinary said:


> Nice work. To note though, rock stable on Linux doesn't necessarily mean it's rock stable on Windows and vice versa.


Low C-states is one of the place where Linux shines. Triggering MCE errors (aka WHEA) is easier than under Windows; especially at 2 MHz usage. Bare-metal.


----------



## noxious89123

GRABibus said:


> I downloaded the CH8 MOD Bios 4006.
> When I try to flash it it says "No proper Bios"
> 
> *EDIT : I will try with Bios flashback and not EZ Flash3...*


Did you remember to rename the file before trying to flash?

I see that the download files are named, for example for a CH8 Hero BIOS 3204, "C8H(3204 PCHMOD).CAP"

For the board to accept this file, you would at the least need to rename it C8H.CAP {or C8HW.CAP for the Hero WiFi} (the same as when flashing non-modded BIOS). I am unaware if there are any other protections built in to prevent modded BIOS.


----------



## GRABibus

noxious89123 said:


> Did you remember to rename the file before trying to flash?
> 
> I see that the download files are named, for example for a CH8 Hero BIOS 3204, "C8H(3204 PCHMOD).CAP"
> 
> For the board to accept this file, you would at the least need to rename it C8H.CAP (the same as when flashing non-modded BIOS). I am unaware if there are any other protections built in to prevent modded BIOS.


Yes I renamed it CH8.CAP


----------



## noxious89123

GRABibus said:


> Yes I renamed it CH8.CAP


CH8.CAP or C8H.CAP? 

The guide does mention using BIOS flashback, so maybe it specifically has to be done that way and not by EZ Flash, like you said before


----------



## GRABibus

noxious89123 said:


> CH8.CAP or C8H.CAP?


C8H 😂


----------



## noxious89123

GRABibus said:


> C8H 😂


Haha, okay just wanted to be sure you weren't chasing your tail over something simple


----------



## gameinn

When are the 1.2.0.7 coming for ASUS? MSI already seems to have theirs finalised for deployment this week.


----------



## Kelutrel

gameinn said:


> When are the 1.2.0.7 coming for ASUS? MSI already seems to have theirs finalised for deployment this week.


AMD suggested that they will be rolling out 1.2.0.7 around May 2022. Usually Asus is quick with BIOS updates, so we shouldn't be much far from the release...


----------



## pfinch

I'm still trying to get tPYHRDL 1900/3800 2x16GB DR 14-14-14-26 1T GDM on both channels (A2, B2) to 26 ... still no chance..
On 1T GDM off = 28/28
2T = 26/26
1t GDM on = 28/28

1600/3600Mhz = all settings = > 26/26


----------



## neikosr0x

GRABibus said:


> still vid = 1,45V if EDC > 140A.
> 
> but honestly, I am currently testing my 5950X with both EDC=140 and EDC=160 and I get roughly same scores CBR20 in both cases (Multi core = 11630 and single core = 651), but in stability tests as Realbench for example (Or even CBR20), I get lower temps with EDC=140 than with EDC=160, even if voltages are higher.


Thanks for your reply, I'll try it next week at some point let's see what the differences are.


----------



## Anulu

crastopher said:


> Is there a way to control the chipset and/or VRM fan? Currently on 4006 on my Crosshair VIII Impact











I use AI Suite with my Impact CH8 Bios 4006 for Chipset/VRM Fan

Edit: also changed the Speed in Bios to prevent them to spin 3000+ rpm at boot.they now are at ~ 1600rpm idle and when gaming little bit over 2000rpm with Chipset undervolted

There are two Ways to change Fan Speed in Bios:
















Btw those Fans are higher Quality than normal Chipset Fans and very silent.The Reason the Chipset Temp can get a little bit high is because there is like a 3mm Thermal Pad between the Chipset and the Cooling Block


----------



## des2k...

Baio73 said:


> Is this a good starting point for stabilize 2000 FCLK?
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously I'm getting WHEA errors... what voltage should I raise first?
> Thanks!
> 
> Baio


I only tested 2000IF for 1h-2h under prime95 & games for 4h

Mine works under auto, Soc auto ~1.18v vddg auto 1v. Prob 1050mv vddg is good start to get it stable.

Past 1900IF there's the whea 19 warning bug, I get around 100-300 that shows evey 5mins or so.
Performance and system latency is not affected so I just have whea supressor installed.

This is with 5900x b2 4x8 4000cl16 with viper bdie kits on x570 aorus master. I only get +3GB/s more and drops latency to 52.x from 54.x from 3800cl14.

Nothing special, I actually started undervolting soc/vddg. Saves 10w for power, about +250 points in cinebench r23. Also testing CO.

What I noticed is that undervolting soc,vddg or -CO to get higher freq at 3800 comes much better than 2000IF.

2000IF drops clocks by 75mhz in games. I don't get 5.1 anymore. So you need aggressive CO to get those 75mhz back

If the max boost is not around 5.1, I get +2ns latency under Aida.


----------



## Robostyle

Anyone can tell smth regarding safe boot button? Is it widespread/OK thing that it doesn't boot?


----------



## PWn3R

des2k... said:


> I only tested 2000IF for 1h-2h under prime95 & games for 4h
> 
> Mine works under auto, Soc auto ~1.18v vddg auto 1v. Prob 1050mv vddg is good start to get it stable.
> 
> Past 1900IF there's the whea 19 warning bug, I get around 100-300 that shows evey 5mins or so.
> Performance and system latency is not affected so I just have whea supressor installed.
> 
> This is with 5900x b2 4x8 4000cl16 with viper bdie kits on x570 aorus master. I only get +3GB/s more and drops latency to 52.x from 54.x from 3800cl14.
> 
> Nothing special, I actually started undervolting soc/vddg. Saves 10w for power, about +250 points in cinebench r23. Also testing CO.
> 
> What I noticed is that undervolting soc,vddg or -CO to get higher freq at 3800 comes much better than 2000IF.
> 
> 2000IF drops clocks by 75mhz in games. I don't get 5.1 anymore. So you need aggressive CO to get those 75mhz back
> 
> If the max boost is not around 5.1, I get +2ns latency under Aida.


You have 4 sticks AND 2k IF?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## des2k...

PWn3R said:


> You have 4 sticks AND 2k IF?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


yep works at 4000cl16 2000IF with the 5900x

My 3900x same mobo,same bios refused to post past 3800 with them, even async


----------



## GRABibus

des2k... said:


> yep works at 4000cl16 2000IF with the 5900x
> 
> My 3900x same mobo,same bios refused to post past 3800 with them, even async


Could you please share Zentiming screenshot ?
Thanks.


----------



## des2k...

GRABibus said:


> Could you please share Zentiming screenshot ?
> Thanks.












*edit , passed p95 large overnight
will try hci-memtest next


----------



## GRABibus

Deleted


----------



## GRABibus

Some gaming with my new 5950X and my RTX 3090 Kingpin Hybrid 😛


----------



## noxious89123

PWn3R said:


> You have 4 sticks AND 2k IF?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


They did say 100 ~ 300 WHEA errors every 5 minutes though


----------



## PWn3R

noxious89123 said:


> They did say 100 ~ 300 WHEA errors every 5 minutes though


Yeah, that is true, but some of us peasants can't even boot 1900 with 2 sticks 😭


----------



## des2k...

noxious89123 said:


> They did say 100 ~ 300 WHEA errors every 5 minutes though


I get the whea 19 warning not the same thing as whea errors. I didn't see any DPC increase or performance loss.

With that said, I run IF/Mem controller error reporting off/ignore in the bios since my 3900x, not sure if it makes a difference since the error count is frozen on the IF.

If that counter goes up on bugs(whea 19 warnings) it might degrade performance.

When I finish my CO curve, vddg,soc for undervolting 1900IF I will run a good 11h Prime95 blend,large + hci memtest on that 2000IF config and report back.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

I would like to ask if anybody has noticed the usb transfer speeds to be horrible?? Around 40MB/s even though my laptop and macbook does saturate the 10Gbps speeds of the external drive (connected via USB type C)..

I happen to just notice it yesterday as I copied a huge file from the PC with the Crosshair 8 Dark Hero board, I have tried all ports at the back, even the advertised/labeled 10Gbps ports but still end up with only 40MB/s transfer rate, but when I plug it on the Laptop (USB-C) it transfers normally around 1000GB/s (1TB 960 EVO on nvme enclosure rated at 10Gbps).

I am on latest stable BIOS (4006).


----------



## tcclaviger

g_d_g_l__ said:


> The somewhat different test
> 
> AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D - the only (and last) fighter of its kind as a perfect and very efficient upgrade | igor'sLAB


Some hilarious lines in the summary. Love Igor's sense of humor + translated German into English.

Completely agree, 39.4% of the power for 102.8% of the performance is, indeed, not even a comparison.

PS: Anyone sighted any 1207 betas out yet?


----------



## g_d_g_l__

tcclaviger said:


> Some hilarious lines in the summary. Love Igor's sense of humor + translated German into English.


Now the test with applications or if you use the animal for work. 









AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D versus all the others - workstation test with some shadows and a bit less light | igor'sLAB


In the gaming tests I even got carried away with a certain euphoria, especially in terms of efficiency. Now the Ryzen 7 5800X3D has to prove what it is really capable of in normal applications of my…




www.igorslab.de


----------



## tcclaviger

I'll read it for the 😆 I know Igor will deliver.


----------



## xeizo

tcclaviger said:


> I'll read it for the 😆 I know Igor will deliver.


For Gaming, that is what AMD said, for workstation the 5900X is faster and now it is a lot cheaper too. The fastest for workstation is 12900K/KF.


----------



## tcclaviger

Lolwut


----------



## xeizo

tcclaviger said:


> Lolwut


According to Igors test, that is

5800X3D = great for gaming, efficient at all times
12900K = great for workstation, somewhat power hungry


----------



## Kelutrel

I am a bit sceptic about any advantage that the 12900K may have in games even against a 5900X or a normal 5800X tbh. It may provide 1-2% more fps at 1440p (who plays on a desktop at 720p or 1080p ?) but it uses nearly double the power (probably 20-25% more power at the whole system level). None would notice the difference on that 1% fps, but many may feel the difference in the power bill and thermal requirements. I completely agree with the workstation benchmarks though, but I think that in games AMD always had the upper hand over Intel even without the 5800X3D.


----------



## xeizo

Kelutrel said:


> I am a bit sceptic about any advantage that the 12900K may have in games even against a 5900X or a normal 5800X tbh. It may provide 1-2% more fps at 1440p (who plays on a desktop at 720p or 1080p ?) but it uses nearly double the power (probably 20-25% more power at the whole system level). None would notice the difference on that 1% fps, but many may feel the difference in the power bill and thermal requirements. I completely agree with the workstation benchmarks though, but I think that in games AMD always had the upper hand over Intel even without the 5800X3D.


I agree, Intel shines in workstation use rendering/compile etc but it is neither inferior in games. If buying, buy what's priced the best. Intel has one upper hand though, in being able to upgrade to Raptor Lake, Zen 4 requires new motherboard.


----------



## J7SC

...I saw both of Igor's 5800X3 reviews. IMO, in pure gaming only, the 5800X3 seems to be the way to go, but for productivity, gaming and per watt performance, I think the 5950X is the one to go with . I've seen a ton of different workstation app reviews by various testers, and it often comes down to which just productivity apps are included in the 'test-suite'.

The real message though is that with DDR5, faster PCIe4 (and soon PCIe5) storage and GPUs, and faster CPU IPCs, the cache needs to get bigger, a la 5800X3...either Intel Raptor Lake or the subsequent Meteor Lake will add much more cache, and I would assume AMD's Zen4 and up will do the same.

QUICK QUESTION: I finally updated to Bios 3801 (from 3501) and loaded Win 11 Pro last night. Everything works well, but the L3 cache readings are just a touch slower than with Win 10 Pro. I am aware of the early issues of Win 11 and Ryzen, but thought they were fixed by Microsoft via patches (all loaded / up-to-date). Is there anything else by Asus or AMD which is needed as well for Win 11 Pro ? Thanks.


----------



## noxious89123

des2k... said:


> I get the whea 19 warning not the same thing as whea errors. I didn't see any DPC increase or performance loss.
> 
> With that said, I run IF/Mem controller error reporting off/ignore in the bios since my 3900x, not sure if it makes a difference since the error count is frozen on the IF.
> 
> If that counter goes up on bugs(whea 19 warnings) it might degrade performance.
> 
> When I finish my CO curve, vddg,soc for undervolting 1900IF I will run a good 11h Prime95 blend,large + hci memtest on that 2000IF config and report back.


Hmm, interesting. So should I not be concerned about the WHEA 19 warnings? I would argue that it is still an error, although it is a _correctable_ error, which is probably why Windows only labels it as a warning.

When I'm at Fclk 1900 and memory at 3800 (Uclk 1900MHz), I get roughly 1 WHEA error ever week or two. It's frustrating, because I considered that to be unstable but I've had little luck in finding the precise cause, plus testing any changes takes a long time. I think it might be the memory controller, as when I run 1800/3800 I get no WHEAs (this sets the Uclk 2:1 to 950MHz) and using 1866/3733 (Uclk 1:1 at 1866MHz) is fine. I've also tried 1900/3733 (which has the Uclk at 1866MHz) and this seems to be stable. So I think I've ruled out the instability coming from the Fclk being too high, and instead narrowed it down to the Uclk being too high.

I might just go back to 1900/3800 and start from scratch with my memory OC. Would you all agree that the timings being aggressive could be too much for the IMC, even if the RAM itself is fine?



PWn3R said:


> Yeah, that is true, but some of us peasants can't even boot 1900 with 2 sticks 😭


Have you tried booting 1933? Could be you have the 1900 Fclk "hole". Some people can't boot 1900, but _can_ boot 1933 / 1966 / 2000. Although getting stable above 1900 without WHEAs seems to be rare.

I coan boot Fclk 2000 with very minimal tweaking, but it's also WHEAs out the wazoo...


----------



## Kelutrel

J7SC said:


> QUICK QUESTION: I finally updated to Bios 3801 (from 3501) and loaded Win 11 Pro last night. Everything works well, but the L3 cache readings are just a touch slower than with Win 10 Pro. I am aware of the early issues of Win 11 and Ryzen, but thought they were fixed by Microsoft via patches (all loaded / up-to-date). Is there anything else by Asus or AMD which is needed as well for Win 11 Pro ? Thanks.


I noticed that VBS has an impact on cache and memory latency, and Win11 enables VBS by default I believe, so that may be why you see a tiny bit slower cache and memory values. Tbh I prefer the added security provided by VBS to those few megabytes per second, but your mileage may vary. Fastest way to disable VBS is to disable "SVM Mode" in the cpu options in the BIOS.


----------



## tcclaviger

noxious89123 said:


> Hmm, interesting. So should I not be concerned about the WHEA 19 warnings? I would argue that it is still an error, although it is a _correctable_ error, which is probably why Windows only labels it as a warning.
> 
> When I'm at Fclk 1900 and memory at 3800 (Uclk 1900MHz), I get roughly 1 WHEA error ever week or two. It's frustrating, because I considered that to be unstable but I've had little luck in finding the precise cause, plus testing any changes takes a long time. I think it might be the memory controller, as when I run 1800/3800 I get no WHEAs (this sets the Uclk 2:1 to 950MHz) and using 1866/3733 (Uclk 1:1 at 1866MHz) is fine. I've also tried 1900/3733 (which has the Uclk at 1866MHz) and this seems to be stable. So I think I've ruled out the instability coming from the Fclk being too high, and instead narrowed it down to the Uclk being too high.
> 
> I might just go back to 1900/3800 and start from scratch with my memory OC. Would you all agree that the timings being aggressive could be too much for the IMC, even if the RAM itself is fine?
> 
> 
> Have you tried booting 1933? Could be you have the 1900 Fclk "hole". Some people can't boot 1900, but _can_ boot 1933 / 1966 / 2000. Although getting stable above 1900 without WHEAs seems to be rare.
> 
> I coan boot Fclk 2000 with very minimal tweaking, but it's also WHEAs out the wazoo...


On all my Zen 2 and 3s, 1900 bclk strap is most temperamental and easiest to cause instability. Settings that work perfectly at 1866 and 1933 sometimes have problems at 1900. 

1 or 2 warning 19, the corrected error warning, I wouldn't even pay attention to.

It's not even the speed, it's the strap. I can go 1866 with raised bclk to 1915 FCLK, totally fine by CPU. Go to 1900 strap with same setting won't post. Go to1933 strap totally fine. For me the refusal to fix or even acknowledge it, is the worst fumble by AMD on AM4 platform.


----------



## PWn3R

noxious89123 said:


> Hmm, interesting. So should I not be concerned about the WHEA 19 warnings? I would argue that it is still an error, although it is a _correctable_ error, which is probably why Windows only labels it as a warning.
> 
> When I'm at Fclk 1900 and memory at 3800 (Uclk 1900MHz), I get roughly 1 WHEA error ever week or two. It's frustrating, because I considered that to be unstable but I've had little luck in finding the precise cause, plus testing any changes takes a long time. I think it might be the memory controller, as when I run 1800/3800 I get no WHEAs (this sets the Uclk 2:1 to 950MHz) and using 1866/3733 (Uclk 1:1 at 1866MHz) is fine. I've also tried 1900/3733 (which has the Uclk at 1866MHz) and this seems to be stable. So I think I've ruled out the instability coming from the Fclk being too high, and instead narrowed it down to the Uclk being too high.
> 
> I might just go back to 1900/3800 and start from scratch with my memory OC. Would you all agree that the timings being aggressive could be too much for the IMC, even if the RAM itself is fine?
> 
> 
> Have you tried booting 1933? Could be you have the 1900 Fclk "hole". Some people can't boot 1900, but _can_ boot 1933 / 1966 / 2000. Although getting stable above 1900 without WHEAs seems to be rare.
> 
> I coan boot Fclk 2000 with very minimal tweaking, but it's also WHEAs out the wazoo...


Yes I have the hole. Sometimes I can get it to boot 1900 after a 1933. Nothing I tried would get 1933 to not have hundreds of wheas per minute.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tcclaviger

Anyone have a workaround for C8E 1900/3800 C14 bug on 1206b where it refuses to use it? C13 works. C15 works. C14 or C13 with GDM enabled - no post.

This is under test because it's weird and I don't trust it.


----------



## tcclaviger

deleted


----------



## TMavica

tcclaviger said:


> Anyone have a workaround for C8E 1900/3800 C14 bug on 1206b where it refuses to use it? C13 works. C15 works. C14 or C13 with GDM enabled - no post.
> 
> This is under test because it's weird and I don't trust it.
> View attachment 2558309


I am using C8E and 0606 bios, you should able to boot, by adding 56 to AddCmdSetup, and those Clkdrvstr to 40 20 24 24, you should try 1T too


----------



## tcclaviger

So it's working now but the 57:3 strap is a bit of an ass. tRDWR/tWRRD was the culprit. These timings work all the way up to 3941 at 1t.


----------



## safedisk

*ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 4201 BETA BIOS

1. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1207*

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 4201
ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-4201.7z

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 4201
ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-4201.7z

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 4201
ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-4201.7z

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 4201
ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-4201.7z

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 4201
ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-4201.7z

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0801
ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-EXTREME-ASUS-0801.7z


----------



## GRABibus

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2558416
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 4201 BETA BIOS
> 
> 1. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1207*
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 4201
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-4201.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 4201
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-4201.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 4201
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-4201.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 4201
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-4201.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 4201
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-4201.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0801
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-EXTREME-ASUS-0801.7z


thanks man 👍


----------



## Daylight_Invader

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2558416
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 4201 BETA BIOS
> 
> 1. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1207*
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 4201
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-4201.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 4201
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-4201.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 4201
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-4201.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 4201
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-4201.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 4201
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-4201.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0801
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-EXTREME-ASUS-0801.7z


Sadly this new Beta does not work at all for me if I boot into DOCP and also use the SOC offset of +0.00625 which I have needed ever since the 3601 BIOS.


----------



## enzu4l

safedisk said:


> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 4201 BETA BIOS
> 
> 1. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1207*
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 4201
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-4201.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 4201
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-4201.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 4201
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-4201.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 4201
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-4201.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 4201
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-4201.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0801
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-EXTREME-ASUS-0801.7z


Will it fix the TPM Lag?


----------



## GRABibus

enzu4l said:


> Will it fix the TPM Lag?


Try it 😊


----------



## Blackfyre

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2558416
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 4201 BETA BIOS
> 
> 1. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1207*
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 4201
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-4201.7z


Thank you. Updated and all is working well here so far. Same RAM/CPU overclock from before applied too.

Have not had TPM issue since January when I upgraded to a dTPM instead of continuing with fTPM. But I am sure those who have been waiting will report if this BIOS will finally resolve that issue for them.


----------



## paih85

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2558416
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 4201 BETA BIOS
> 
> 1. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1207*
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 4201
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-4201.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 4201
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-4201.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 4201
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-4201.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 4201
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-4201.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 4201
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-4201.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0801
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-EXTREME-ASUS-0801.7z


hi, do u have latest beta bios for rog b550-i ? thanks


----------



## bmagnien

paih85 said:


> hi, do u have latest beta bios for rog b550-i ? thanks


Or x570-I?


----------



## Kelutrel

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2558416
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series 4201 BETA BIOS
> 
> 1. Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1207*
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 4201
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-4201.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 4201
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-4201.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 4201
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-4201.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 4201
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-4201.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 4201
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-4201.7z
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0801
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-EXTREME-ASUS-0801.7z


Omg!! Thank you! Thank you! I was so much waiting for this 😁


----------



## Anulu

Did some Ram testing with new [email protected] CH8
Thats my Ram Settings for 24/7 @ 1.33vdimm in Bios.
No Curve Optimizer PBO disabled Win11 with Armoury Crate and Ai Suite installed AIDA Latency looks good for first try.
Gonna Test Curve Optimzer Settings and c14 for Ram later this Week but shouldnt be much Work to find stable Settings


----------



## J7SC

Anulu said:


> Did some Ram testing with new [email protected] CH8
> Thats my Ram Settings for 24/7 @ 1.33vdimm in Bios.
> No Curve Optimizer PBO disabled Win11 with Armoury Crate and Ai Suite installed AIDA Latency looks good for first try.
> Gonna Test Curve Optimzer Settings and c14 for Ram later this Week but shouldnt be much Work to find stable Settings
> View attachment 2558431


Nice ! What AMD chipset driver version are you on (ie. latest per Asus site ?)


----------



## Blackfyre

Anulu said:


> Did some Ram testing with new [email protected] CH8
> Thats my Ram Settings for 24/7 @ 1.33vdimm in Bios.
> No Curve Optimizer PBO disabled Win11 with Armoury Crate and Ai Suite installed AIDA Latency looks good for first try.
> Gonna Test Curve Optimzer Settings and c14 for Ram later this Week but shouldnt be much Work to find stable Settings
> View attachment 2558431


How do I make HWiNFO look like that? Now I have to dig through the settings.

*EDIT: I am a dumbass (confirmed). It was right there all along.*


----------



## Anulu

J7SC said:


> Nice ! What AMD chipset driver version are you on (ie. latest per Asus site ?)


Version 4.03.03.431 from AMD Site


----------



## dk_mic

How does VCore behave beyond 140 EDC on 1207?


----------



## Kelutrel

dk_mic said:


> How does VCore behave beyond 140 EDC on 1207?


 Same. EDC > 140 = 1.425v Max VID.


----------



## finas

Kelutrel said:


> Same. EDC > 140 = 1.425v Max VID.



damm.


----------



## Baio73

Hi guys, my 5900X is able to run 1900 FCLK @ stock voltages, would I gain something in T tryng to lower VSOC/IOD?
Just passed 1h of OCCT with VSOC 1.0063v and no WHEA errors It can also run 2000 FCLK but wasn't able to get rid of WHEAs.
Would lower voltages bring to a worse CO?
Is OCCT good to trigger WHEA errors or must I run some other stress test?
Thanks!

Baio


----------



## rexbinary

4201 dropped my R20 multi score by 1000. I run docp 3600 and pbo enabled only. Generally my performance really never changes between any of the bios update, but it did this time. I'll have to double check my settings, and test a bit more after work. I did rebuild my profile from hand after resetting it.


----------



## GRABibus

rexbinary said:


> 4201 dropped my R20 multi score by 1000. I run docp 3600 and pbo enabled only. Generally my performance really never changes between any of the bios update, but it did this time. I'll have to double check my settings, and test a bit more after work. I did rebuild my profile from hand after resetting it.


1000pts ?


----------



## pfinch

i'm now stable @1T 3800/1900 CL14 with AddrCmdSetup 56. Best scores so far.
Sooo... what's the point of AddrCmdSetup 56? Should I try to lower it? Does it like special steps? 
...tried 56 because nearly all guys recommend it to try.
Will next step for me try focus on lowering AddrCmdSetup? Should I increase timings to reach a lower value?
Or is the next step lowering subtimings?

thanks


----------



## GRABibus

I flashed from 4006 to 4201.

i wanted to load my .CMO file with my 4006 settings in Bios 4201 and it says "Impossible, this file is not for this CPU family".

?


----------



## des2k...

Baio73 said:


> Hi guys, my 5900X is able to run 1900 FCLK @ stock voltages, would I gain something in T tryng to lower VSOC/IOD?
> Just passed 1h of OCCT with VSOC 1.0063v and no WHEA errors It can also run 2000 FCLK but wasn't able to get rid of WHEAs.
> Would lower voltages bring to a worse CO?
> Is OCCT good to trigger WHEA errors or must I run some other stress test?
> Thanks!
> 
> Baio


Not much to gain, with my 5900x for 1900IF from 1.2soc to 1.1v and vddg from 1v to 900mv is at best 10w total power saving on SOC/IF.

About +250points in R23. Maybe it's +25mhz on some cores.

And 1.1soc 900mv vddg are not stable,prime95 large fail in about 5mins


----------



## GRABibus

*Bios 4006 @ 23°C :*










*Bios 4201 @ 23°C:







*


I roll back to 4006 (Strange message as I wrote in my former post, and no synthetic performance gain).
Waiting for other feedbacks and final release.


----------



## noxious89123

des2k... said:


> Not much to gain, with my 5900x for 1900IF from 1.2soc to 1.1v and vddg from 1v to 900mv is at best 10w total power saving on SOC/IF.


10W?!

My SOC is "only" drawing like 20W ~ 25W. Knocking off 10W would be huge!


----------



## zorn

Need help pretty urgently here - my system will not boot after installing this junk BIOS. Just sits at the Republic of Gamers logo with a ‘F3’ post code on the motherboard. Tried disabling DOCP and no dice, I’m still dead in the water.


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> *Bios 4006 @ 23°C :*
> View attachment 2558500
> 
> 
> 
> *Bios 4201 @ 23°C:
> View attachment 2558501
> *
> 
> 
> I roll back to 4006 (Strange message as I wrote in my former post, and no synthetic performance gain).
> Waiting for other feedbacks and final release.


...somewhat ironically, I _finally_ updated bios on both systems _to 3801_ just a few days ago, and switched from Win 10 Pro to Win 11 Pro. 

No rapid bios updating for me


----------



## djase45

zorn said:


> Need help pretty urgently here - my system will not boot after installing this junk BIOS. Just sits at the Republic of Gamers logo with a ‘F3’ post code on the motherboard. Tried disabling DOCP and no dice, I’m still dead in the water.


BIOS FlashBack is your only solution.


----------



## zorn

djase45 said:


> BIOS FlashBack is your only solution.


never had to do that - is there a tutorial?


----------



## GRABibus

zorn said:


> never had to do that - is there a tutorial?





[Motherboard] How to use USB BIOS FlashBack™? | Official Support | ASUS USA


----------



## Kelutrel

zorn said:


> Need help pretty urgently here - my system will not boot after installing this junk BIOS. Just sits at the Republic of Gamers logo with a ‘F3’ post code on the motherboard. Tried disabling DOCP and no dice, I’m still dead in the water.


If you have the BIOS flashback feature, you can try flashing it again or flashing an older bios, directly from a usb drive, and then doing a "Load Optimized Settings" just to be safe. It may have been just a bad flash, or some issue with the settings you applied.


----------



## zorn

Kelutrel said:


> If you have the BIOS flashback feature, you can try flashing it again or flashing an older bios, directly from a usb drive, and then doing a "Load Optimized Settings" just to be safe. It may have been just a bad flash, or some issue with the settings you applied.


Ok starting to panic here - I flashed back to 4006 and STILL jammed at the republic logo with F3 error. What the hell? Did this piece of **** bios destroy my mobo?


----------



## Kelutrel

zorn said:


> Ok starting to panic here - I flashed back to 4006 and STILL jammed at the republic logo with F3 error. What the hell? Did this piece of **** bios destroy my mobo?


Stay calm, no worries. What BIOS settings did you apply ? I mean, did you re-enter them manually, or did you load a previous profile ?


----------



## zorn

Kelutrel said:


> Stay calm, no worries. What BIOS settings did you apply ? I mean, did you re-enter them manually, or did you load a previous profile ?


All I ever enable is DOCP, fTPM and resize BAR or whatever that is


----------



## Kelutrel

zorn said:


> All I ever enable is DOCP, fTPM and resize BAR or whatever that is


Yes, and did you enter them manually, or did you reload a previous BIOS profile ?

Try to just go in the BIOS, do a Load Optimized Settings, and then apply your settings manually from scratch.


----------



## zorn

Kelutrel said:


> Yes, and did you enter them manually, or did you reload a previous BIOS profile ?


Manually


----------



## zorn

Kelutrel said:


> Yes, and did you enter them manually, or did you reload a previous BIOS profile ?
> 
> Try to just go in the BIOS, do a Load Optimized Settings, and then apply your settings manually from scratch.


I just did load optimized settings, still completely stuck at the same place.


----------



## Kelutrel

zorn said:


> Manually


If you don't apply any setting, and just do a Load Optimized Settings, does it still stop with qcode F3 ?


----------



## zorn

Kelutrel said:


> If you don't apply any setting, and just do a Load Optimized Settings, does it still stop with qcode F3 ?


Yes


----------



## Kelutrel

zorn said:


> I just did load optimized settings, still completely stuck at the same place.


F3 means that the BIOS image was bad, and he tried to recover by loading the recovery firmware image, but failed to do so ( source here , this is for the Formula but for all the Crosshair VIII should be the same).
This usually means that the issue is with the RAM or just a bad image.
Let's rule out the bad image because you already flashed it a couple times and it still fails.
If you set your DRAM to 2400MHz in the BIOS, does it work or still qcode F3 ?


----------



## zorn

Kelutrel said:


> F3 means that the BIOS image was bad, and he tried to recover by loading the recovery firmware image, but failed to do so ( source here , this is for the Formula but for all the Crosshair VIII should be the same).
> This usually means that the issue is with the RAM or just a bad image.
> Let's rule out the bad image because you already flashed it a couple times and it still fails.
> If you set your DRAM to 2400MHz in the BIOS, does it work or still qcode F3 ?


Just set it to 2400 and same problem exactly


----------



## Kelutrel

zorn said:


> Just set it to 2400 and same problem exactly


When you go into the BIOS, at top left of the screen you should see the date and time, is that the correct date and time ?

(also, just to be sure, are you sure that you used the correct bios file for your motherboard model and not used, by mistake, some other motherboard model bios file ? For example the bios file is different between the hero, the hero wifi, and the dark hero, and you may have been confused...)


----------



## J7SC

...I only partially followed the conversation between @zorn and @Kelutrel and don't want to complicate things...but may be try to push 'clear bios' button at the back of the IO and once back right after that in bios, disable fTPM just to see if it cycles further after saving only those changes ?


----------



## CyrIng

Let me know whoever has a Linux kernel log to share about this latest beta BIOS.
I would like to check its compliancy and firmware strings upgrade.


----------



## zorn

Kelutrel said:


> When you go into the BIOS, at top left of the screen you should see the date and time, is that the correct date and time ?
> 
> (also, just to be sure, are you sure that you used the correct bios file for your motherboard model and not used, by mistake, some other motherboard model bios file ? For example the bios file is different between the hero, the hero wifi, and the dark hero, and you may have been confused...)


Date and time is completely correct. And yes, I know I downloaded the right file, I have the VIII Dark Hero.


----------



## zorn

J7SC said:


> ...I only partially followed the conversation between @zorn and @Kelutrel and don't want to complicate things...but may be try to push 'clear bios' button at the back of the IO and once back right after that in bios, disable fTPM just to see if it cycles further after saving only those changes ?


Also pressed the clear BIOS button, did nothing whatsoever. Still the F3 error. I'm guessing my PC is just a paperweight now until I can convince ASUS to send me a warranty replacement in 4-6 months?

WARNING to anyone reading this - 4201 is basically a landmine, stay far, far, far away from it. Will destroy your board.


----------



## PWn3R

Just flashed 4201, no issues here. Also this:










I am a 1900 hole person who CANNOT boot 1900, except for in a few freak cases. This is 1933. I am getting WHEAs but in Windows and can run games and Cinebench without a reboot. I don't think I can fix the WHEA's with safe voltages though back to 1866 on auto.

I tried vSOC 1.15, upped the 1.8v to 1.9 and set memory to 1.5 which is supposed to be 1.35 (samsung b die).


----------



## Veii

zorn said:


> Need help pretty urgently here - my system will not boot after installing this junk BIOS. Just sits at the Republic of Gamers logo with a ‘F3’ post code on the motherboard. Tried disabling DOCP and no dice, I’m still dead in the water.











Freeze on firmware image loaded
Or abrupt update , usually restarts 2-3 times
First it flashes RGB EC firmware, then it's EC1 ~ after flashback is done
And it clears and rebuilds NVRAM on the first post

Reflash the same bios,
Clearing NVRAM by hand mid-flash can result in corrupt unfinished flash process
(never clear NVRAM in a working system state)
As it can clean unflashed sections of the bios which would flash in step2-3
Reflash with flashback or sadly , yes it's something on your side exclusive.

Maybe didn't wait, maybe rushed
maybe flashprocess bugged by unstable pre-flash settings
Can't say, but can say that it froze on initialization, soo likely wasn't even flashed fully


zorn said:


> never had to do that - is there a tutorial?


Rename bios file with renamer tool attached to it , else if crosshair 8 hero = C8H.CAP
if formula it's C8F, if extreme it's C8E.CAP

Put that on a FAT32 formated usb. USB has to be MBR partition (soo usually smaller than 8gb usb's) ~ or use RUFUS "non bootable MBR" to format it
and hold the flashback button , after putting the USB in the white-box marked USB port called BIOS or FLASHBACK
It will blink, flash and finish after ~10min
Afterwards DO NOT CLEAR CMOS.
Flashback and generally every flash is 3 steps on ASUS. Not always but mostly is
First post will reboot couple of times, do not interrupt it 
Also, never clear CMOS in a working system state from now on ~ as it can result in corrupted NVAR partition & refuse to post (independent if by memOC or something else)


----------



## SubiXT

Kelutrel said:


> F3 means that the BIOS image was bad, and he tried to recover by loading the recovery firmware image, but failed to do so ( source here , this is for the Formula but for all the Crosshair VIII should be the same).
> This usually means that the issue is with the RAM or just a bad image.
> Let's rule out the bad image because you already flashed it a couple times and it still fails.
> If you set your DRAM to 2400MHz in the BIOS, does it work or still qcode F3 ?


 I had the same issue and Running Windows 11. I was able to recover by reinstalling windows. for some reason, it corrupted the installation. very bizarre. it is running correctly now.


----------



## zorn

Veii said:


> Freeze on firmware image loaded
> Or abrupt update , usually restarts 2-3 times
> First it flashes RGB EC firmware, then it's EC1 ~ after flashback is done
> And it clears and rebuilds NVRAM on the first post
> 
> Reflash the same bios,
> Clearing NVRAM by hand mid-flash can result in corrupt unfinished flash process
> (never clear NVRAM in a working system state)
> As it can clean unflashed sections of the bios which would flash in step2-3
> Reflash with flashback or sadly , yes it's something on your side exclusive.
> 
> Maybe didn't wait, maybe rushed
> maybe flashprocess bugged by unstable pre-flash settings
> Can't say, but can say that it froze on initialization, soo likely wasn't even flashed fully
> 
> Rename bios file with renamer tool attached to it , else if crosshair 8 hero = C8H.CAP
> if formula it's C8F, if extreme it's C8E.CAP
> 
> Put that on a FAT32 formated usb. USB has to be MBR partition (soo usually smaller than 8gb usb's) ~ or use RUFUS "non bootable MBR" to format it
> and hold the flashback button , after putting the USB in the white-box marked USB port called BIOS or FLASHBACK
> It will blink, flash and finish after ~10min
> Afterwards DO NOT CLEAR CMOS.
> Flashback and generally every flash is 3 steps on ASUS. Not always but mostly is
> First post will reboot couple of times, do not interrupt it
> Also, never clear CMOS in a working system state from now on ~ as it can result in corrupted NVAR partition & refuse to post (independent if by memOC or something else)


Appreciate the info. Is there any way for me to recover? I’ve flashed probably 4-5 times now, no matter what BIOS version still F3 lockup before booting windows. I can always get into the BIOS


----------



## PWn3R

PWn3R said:


> Just flashed 4201, no issues here. Also this:
> 
> View attachment 2558583
> 
> 
> I am a 1900 hole person who CANNOT boot 1900, except for in a few freak cases. This is 1933. I am getting WHEAs but in Windows and can run games and Cinebench without a reboot. I don't think I can fix the WHEA's with safe voltages though back to 1866 on auto.





zorn said:


> Appreciate the info. Is there any way for me to recover? I’ve flashed probably 4-5 times now, no matter what BIOS version still F3 lockup before booting windows. I can always get into the BIOS


You probably have a bad download then. Download a fresh copy.


----------



## Blackfyre

zorn said:


> Need help pretty urgently here - my system will not boot after installing this junk BIOS. Just sits at the Republic of Gamers logo with a ‘F3’ post code on the motherboard. Tried disabling DOCP and no dice, I’m still dead in the water.


Great thing about this motherboard is that it has *BIOS Flashback*. Check the manual, Chapter 2 Page 15, in case you don't have it, here:


----------



## Veii

zorn said:


> no matter what BIOS version still F3 lockup before booting windows


I am not sure on the "no matter what bios version" part
Which board, first ?

You can downgrade strongly (which CPU) and it will force reflash EC parts too
Whatever happened, something corrupted and triggered flash recovery
Recovery then keeps getting interrupted and/or freezes

Only way is to force a reflash on everything, and not load your bios profile that might have caused the instability 
(if it blinks for 20sec ~ it refuses to flash. Takes usually 5+ min, often 10) 
~ you can record your flash attempt
It's unclear, as event described was not clear
Can be even freezing by a GPU SVID check on latest nvidia cards. Can be many many things
Can freeze or refuse post because SMART did fail . Really can be a dozzen of things

Please give more information and then downgrade strongly (jump 3-4 AGESA's)
That forces a reflash of everything. Else if bug persists maybe CPU Patch caused an issue which is non downgradable
Then you indeed have to RMA, but we will see. Chance is too low for such to happen and would match more user


----------



## Blackfyre

Veii said:


> Also, never clear CMOS in a working system state from now on ~ as it can result in corrupted NVAR partition & refuse to post (independent if by memOC or something else)


First time I hear of this, so when I enter bad RAM timings that won't boot and PC is on. I should hold shutdown to power off *and then* use the clear CMOS button at the back?

If system is on, showing error code and does not boot, I usually just use the clear CMOS button while PC is on, it auto shuts down anyway, then enter BIOS and load last working profile and tighten more from there.


----------



## tcclaviger

lol yes. Hitting the clear button while running as you do, usually is fine, right up until it's not.


----------



## Lockian

Does this bios fix the TPM stutter issue as promised for AGESA 1.2.0.7?


----------



## Veii

Blackfyre said:


> First time I hear of this, so when I enter bad RAM timings that won't boot and PC is on. I should hold shutdown to power off *and then* use the clear CMOS button at the back?
> 
> If system is on, showing error code and does not boot, I usually just use the clear CMOS button while PC is on, it auto shuts down anyway, then enter BIOS and load last working profile and tighten more from there.


Very bad practice, but popular sadly









More detailed simplified explanation
I censored the persons name, as rude people do not deserve spotlight

In general, NVAR partition in FLASH/ROM has two NVRAM partitions
Current and restored
Current gets filled and filled and filled with new updates, but is rarely wiped
Somewhere between a reboot sometimes a backup of it is restored ~ yet the very first boot, a backup is created of all options
Hence the first boot takes a very long time. Also microcodes if newer, are injected into the firmware of the CPU (coretex chip) and microcode from bios is not loaded anymore

Soo sometimes (actually quite often) NVRAM corrupts.
But unstable memory settings sometimes can loop and corrupt the bootloader bootup stage, and then wiping your last and only copy is a very bad idea
Mid-flash such can lead to broken bioses, and mid-operation just lead to corrupted sectors which are restored
Yet as it is on the core foundation, wrong to do it that way ~ please try to not CMOS reset in operational state


----------



## Blackfyre

Veii said:


> Very bad practice, but popular sadly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More detailed simplified explanation
> I censored the persons name, as rude people do not deserve spotlight
> 
> In general, NVAR partition in FLASH/ROM has two NVRAM partitions
> Current and restored
> Current gets filled and filled and filled with new updates, but is rarely wiped
> Somewhere between a reboot sometimes a backup of it is restored ~ yet the very first boot, a backup is created of all options
> Hence the first boot takes a very long time. Also microcodes if newer, are injected into the firmware of the CPU (coretex chip) and microcode from bios is not loaded anymore
> 
> Soo sometimes (actually quite often) NVRAM corrupts.
> But unstable memory settings sometimes can loop and corrupt the bootloader bootup stage, and then wiping your last and only copy is a very bad idea
> Mid-flash such can lead to broken bioses, and mid-operation just lead to corrupted sectors which are restored
> Yet as it is on the core foundation, wrong to do it that way ~ please try to not CMOS reset in operational state


Appreciate the detailed response. I hope I remember to shut down from now on before resetting. I am sure I'm going to end up forgetting. Maybe I should tape over the buttons to remember.


----------



## Veii

Blackfyre said:


> Appreciate the detailed response. I hope I remember to shut down from now on before resetting. I am sure I'm going to end up forgetting. Maybe I should tape over the buttons to remember.


Secondary NVRAM storage is made exactly for and other events like this (NVRAM is really bad handled on APTIO-V)
And i've seen ASUS boards shut down instantly when you press it ~ soo it might be fine "here" , yet still is bad practice

I usually never thought about it, as old boards had to short contacts.
And when you go in with a key/usb/screwdriver - you really don't want to short something that has a lot of current flowing through it

CMOS battery loses charge by time (5-10min outside or in cold), or is cleared by a short
But that is also one of the reasons, why people doublecheck and discharge power after the PSU is off
You can not "clean" flash a bios that is loaded, so also can't you discharge a battery that has charge
Or wipe a volatile partition while providing current to it. Same practice 

I'm happy (C8F) that it shuts down first and buttons on IO are actual buttons with travel distance.
Soo it really is a comfort thing for crosshair users.
But in reality it's wrong, and people should poweroff something they want to clear power from * derp *


----------



## gameinn

I'm still getting event id 86 errors with 4201.


----------



## tommyd2k

zorn said:


> Need help pretty urgently here - my system will not boot after installing this junk BIOS. Just sits at the Republic of Gamers logo with a ‘F3’ post code on the motherboard. Tried disabling DOCP and no dice, I’m still dead in the water.


Did you back up your bitlocker key and disable it in windows?
Could be windows isn't loading because you updated the bios and now the key is different.
I don't know anything about TPM, bitlocker etc, just guessing here.


----------



## Kelutrel

gameinn said:


> I'm still getting event id 86 errors with 4201.


Weird. I confirm that the 4201 BIOS flash stopped those on my motherboard.


----------



## Kelutrel

zorn said:


> Appreciate the info. Is there any way for me to recover? I’ve flashed probably 4-5 times now, no matter what BIOS version still F3 lockup before booting windows. I can always get into the BIOS


If you have not yet done this you may want to try to shutdown the pc, unplug the power cord, wait 5 minutes, all the 5 minutes, reattach the power cord and retry to switch it on.

As stated above, qcode F3 is an error that occurs when, while initializing the BIOS modules for your hardware, a failure occurs that causes the BIOS to go into recovery, and the bios recovery image also fails to load. The first boot after a new bios flash is always bringing the bios to this recovery process (it shows to press F1 on your keyboard to proceed with the default bios settings). The bios recovery image uses minimal hardware so if it fails to load it means that the basic hardware initialization had some issues, or it may just be a bad bios image for your hardware.

Given that you are able to see things on the screen, and going into the BIOS works, I may think that your vga and cpu are initialised correctly and are working. So maybe try to disable all the remaining additional hardware using the BIOS settings, like the fTPM and the soundcard/bluetooth/wifi, and disconnect any network cable and usb peripheral you may have attached, to verify if any problem is with one of those and pinpoint it, and also reduce the PCI speed to GEN1 or so on all the relevant settings. It is a beta bios so something may have gone wrong with the hardware modules initialization code for your specific configuration, but it would be very rare for a bios to be able to break a motherboard.

It would also be helpful if you can tell us which motherboard and CPU and RAM configuration you have, and any additional specific hardware, so other people with the same configuration can provide their feedback or just avoid flashing this beta version altogether. Also, if you can post a photo of what is on your screen when the F3 error stops your boot then it may be possible to rule out other causes.


----------



## Danny.ns

PWn3R said:


> Just flashed 4201, no issues here. Also this:
> 
> View attachment 2558583
> 
> 
> I am a 1900 hole person who CANNOT boot 1900, except for in a few freak cases. This is 1933. I am getting WHEAs but in Windows and can run games and Cinebench without a reboot. I don't think I can fix the WHEA's with safe voltages though back to 1866 on auto.
> 
> I tried vSOC 1.15, upped the 1.8v to 1.9 and set memory to 1.5 which is supposed to be 1.35 (samsung b die).


I am also a 1900 hole person. Does your CPU also behave same as mine in that if you first select FCLK 1933 MHz, save and reboot, then enter BIOS and set BCLK to ~99.7, save and reboot. Now enter BIOS again and set FCLK 1900. POST no problem with FCLK actual at ~1895MHz and stable forever, no WHEA?

This black hole, on my CPU, is like between 1897-1900MHz.


----------



## Daylight_Invader

zorn said:


> Need help pretty urgently here - my system will not boot after installing this junk BIOS. Just sits at the Republic of Gamers logo with a ‘F3’ post code on the motherboard. Tried disabling DOCP and no dice, I’m still dead in the water.


Roll back to 3501 using flashback (which was the previous series), then see if that will boot normally before trying one of the newer BIOS versions again.


----------



## zorn

Kelutrel said:


> It would also be helpful if you can tell us which motherboard and CPU and RAM configuration you have, and any additional specific hardware, so other people with the same configuration can provide their feedback or just avoid flashing this beta version altogether. Also, if you can post a photo of what is on your screen when the F3 error stops your boot then it may be possible to rule out other causes.


I am using the Crosshair VIII Dark Hero board. My RAM is 32GB of the PC3600 Trident Z Neo series, and a 5600X CPU.



Daylight_Invader said:


> Roll back to 3501 using flashback (which was the previous series), then see if that will boot normally before trying one of the newer BIOS versions again.


I have flashbacked multiple times now, first to 4006, back to 4201 in case it was a bad image. Nothing works, always F3 error.


----------



## zorn

Looks like I am back up and running. I had to reset Windows, but luckily was able to keep my files. Still very annoying that 4201 completely screwed my Windows install.


----------



## Corey Carroz

zorn said:


> Looks like I am back up and running. I had to reset Windows, but luckily was able to keep my files. Still very annoying that 4201 completely screwed my Windows install.


Sounds like the TPM keys got deleted or reset along the way and that is what was causing Windows to fail. Since you didn't have the correct keys, you couldn't get into Windows.


----------



## zorn

Corey Carroz said:


> Sounds like the TPM keys got deleted or reset along the way and that is what was causing Windows to fail. Since you didn't have the correct keys, you couldn't get into Windows.


Any way to prevent this junk in the future? I don't use BitLocker - I only have the fTPM on for Windows 11. I have that option disabled right underneath fTPM to reset the keys if you change CPU or whatever.


----------



## Corey Carroz

zorn said:


> Any way to prevent this junk in the future? I don't use BitLocker - I only have the fTPM on for Windows 11. I have that option disabled right underneath fTPM to reset the keys if you change CPU or whatever.


Honestly this whole TPM thing is new to me(probably most). I only ran into a issue once when I was playing with stuff. It was on then I turned TMP or trusted compute off and windows loading would loop. Turned it back on, everything worked. If things were not working and then worked after a windows install, sounds a lot like a missing key to me. It would be nice if windows would give you a error that would call out a key miss match so you know where to look when troubleshooting. If I wasn't playing with these settings to see what does what, I would of had no clue where to look.


----------



## AlphaTay

Ryzen SMU Checker 1.2.2.0N

U E F I I N F O
File: ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-4201.CAP
Size: 32,772 KB

X570 Chipset SMU: 47.27.0 ( 61 KB)
X570 Chipset SMU: 47.27.0 ( 61 KB)
X570 Chipset SMU: 47.27.0 ( 61 KB)
X570 Chipset SMU: 47.27.0 ( 61 KB)

S Y S T E M M A N A G E M E N T U N I T [ S M U ]
Version Size CPU/APU Family Offset
25.86.0 (118 KB) Summit Ridge 1x00 CPU [0019DD00-001BB560]
25.86.0 (118 KB) Summit Ridge 1x00 CPU [0048BF00-004A9760]
25.86.0 ( 11 KB) Summit Ridge 1x00 CPU [004C5E00-004C8B20]
43.25.0 (101 KB) Pinnacle Ridge 2x00 CPU [001BB600-001D4A60]
43.25.0 (101 KB) Pinnacle Ridge 2x00 CPU [004A9800-004C2C60]
43.25.0 ( 9 KB) Pinnacle Ridge 2x00 CPU [004C2D00-004C51C0]
30.98.0 (130 KB) Raven Ridge 2x00 APU [00270B00-00291150]
30.98.0 ( 17 KB) Raven Ridge 2x00 APU [00291200-00295670]
30.98.0 (130 KB) Raven Ridge 2x00 APU [00587F00-005A8550]
30.98.0 ( 17 KB) Raven Ridge 2x00 APU [005BD500-005C1970]
37.67.0 (139 KB) Raven Ridge 2 30x0 APU [00295700-002B8310]
37.67.0 ( 27 KB) Raven Ridge 2 30x0 APU [002B8400-002BF000]
37.67.0 (139 KB) Raven Ridge 2 30x0 APU [00645D00-00668910]
37.67.0 ( 27 KB) Raven Ridge 2 30x0 APU [00668A00-0066F600]
4.30.86.0 (141 KB) Picasso 3x00 APU [002BF000-002E2220]
4.30.86.0 ( 27 KB) Picasso 3x00 APU [002E2300-002E90F0]
4.30.86.0 (141 KB) Picasso 3x00 APU [0066F600-00692820]
4.30.86.0 ( 27 KB) Picasso 3x00 APU [00692900-006996F0]
46.72.0 (110 KB) Matisse (MTS) 3x00 CPU [01258600-01273F20]
46.72.0 ( 1 KB) Matisse (MTS) 3x00 CPU [01274000-01274420]
46.72.0 ( 52 KB) Matisse (MTS) 3x00 CPU [01274500-01281580]
46.72.0 (110 KB) Matisse (MTS) 3x00 CPU [016C8F00-016E4820]
46.72.0 ( 1 KB) Matisse (MTS) 3x00 CPU [016E4900-016E4D20]
46.72.0 ( 52 KB) Matisse (MTS) 3x00 CPU [016E4E00-016F1E80]
55.91.0 (132 KB) Renoir (RN) 4xx0 APU [01351F00-01372EB0]
55.91.0 ( 64 KB) Renoir (RN) 4xx0 APU [01372F00-01382F70]
55.91.0 (132 KB) Renoir (RN) 4xx0 APU [017E2600-018035B0]
55.91.0 ( 64 KB) Renoir (RN) 4xx0 APU [01823C00-01833C70]
56.70.0 (130 KB) Vermeer (VMR) 5xx0 CPU [011A4600-011C4E50]
56.70.0 ( 1 KB) Vermeer (VMR) 5xx0 CPU [011C5600-011C5A20]
56.70.0 ( 58 KB) Vermeer (VMR) 5xx0 CPU [011C9A00-011D8020]
56.70.0 (130 KB) Vermeer (VMR) 5xx0 CPU [015D3700-015F3F50]
56.70.0 ( 1 KB) Vermeer (VMR) 5xx0 CPU [01614F00-01615320]
56.70.0 ( 58 KB) Vermeer (VMR) 5xx0 CPU [01635E00-01644420]
64.61.0 (132 KB) Cezanne (CZN) 5xx0 APU [01441F00-01462FE0]
64.61.0 ( 70 KB) Cezanne (CZN) 5xx0 APU [01463000-01474870]
64.61.0 (132 KB) Cezanne (CZN) 5xx0 APU [01932600-019536E0]
64.61.0 ( 70 KB) Cezanne (CZN) 5xx0 APU [01973D00-01985570]

Credits to RaINi, Reous and PatrickSchur

-

U E F I I N F O
File: ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-4006.CAP
Size: 32,772 KB

X570 Chipset SMU: 47.27.0 ( 61 KB)
X570 Chipset SMU: 47.27.0 ( 61 KB)
X570 Chipset SMU: 47.27.0 ( 61 KB)
X570 Chipset SMU: 47.27.0 ( 61 KB)

S Y S T E M M A N A G E M E N T U N I T [ S M U ]
Version Size CPU/APU Family Offset
25.86.0 (118 KB) Summit Ridge 1x00 CPU [0019DD00-001BB560]
25.86.0 (118 KB) Summit Ridge 1x00 CPU [0048BF00-004A9760]
25.86.0 ( 11 KB) Summit Ridge 1x00 CPU [004C5E00-004C8B20]
43.25.0 (101 KB) Pinnacle Ridge 2x00 CPU [001BB600-001D4A60]
43.25.0 (101 KB) Pinnacle Ridge 2x00 CPU [004A9800-004C2C60]
43.25.0 ( 9 KB) Pinnacle Ridge 2x00 CPU [004C2D00-004C51C0]
30.98.0 (130 KB) Raven Ridge 2x00 APU [00270B00-00291150]
30.98.0 ( 17 KB) Raven Ridge 2x00 APU [00291200-00295670]
30.98.0 (130 KB) Raven Ridge 2x00 APU [00587F00-005A8550]
30.98.0 ( 17 KB) Raven Ridge 2x00 APU [005BBF00-005C0370]
37.67.0 (139 KB) Raven Ridge 2 30x0 APU [00295700-002B8310]
37.67.0 ( 27 KB) Raven Ridge 2 30x0 APU [002B8400-002BF000]
37.67.0 (139 KB) Raven Ridge 2 30x0 APU [00643D00-00666910]
37.67.0 ( 27 KB) Raven Ridge 2 30x0 APU [00666A00-0066D600]
4.30.85.0 (140 KB) Picasso 3x00 APU [002BF000-002E2180]
4.30.85.0 ( 27 KB) Picasso 3x00 APU [002E2200-002E8FF0]
4.30.85.0 (140 KB) Picasso 3x00 APU [0066D600-00690780]
4.30.85.0 ( 27 KB) Picasso 3x00 APU [00690800-006975F0]
46.72.0 (110 KB) Matisse (MTS) 3x00 CPU [01258500-01273E20]
46.72.0 ( 1 KB) Matisse (MTS) 3x00 CPU [01273F00-01274320]
46.72.0 ( 52 KB) Matisse (MTS) 3x00 CPU [01274400-01281480]
46.72.0 (110 KB) Matisse (MTS) 3x00 CPU [016C7E00-016E3720]
46.72.0 ( 1 KB) Matisse (MTS) 3x00 CPU [016E3800-016E3C20]
46.72.0 ( 52 KB) Matisse (MTS) 3x00 CPU [016E3D00-016F0D80]
55.91.0 (132 KB) Renoir (RN) 4xx0 APU [01351F00-01372EB0]
55.91.0 ( 64 KB) Renoir (RN) 4xx0 APU [01372F00-01382F70]
55.91.0 (132 KB) Renoir (RN) 4xx0 APU [017E1600-018025B0]
55.91.0 ( 64 KB) Renoir (RN) 4xx0 APU [01821C00-01831C70]
56.69.0 (130 KB) Vermeer (VMR) 5xx0 CPU [011A4600-011C4E10]
56.69.0 ( 1 KB) Vermeer (VMR) 5xx0 CPU [011C5600-011C5A20]
56.69.0 ( 58 KB) Vermeer (VMR) 5xx0 CPU [011C9A00-011D8020]
56.69.0 (130 KB) Vermeer (VMR) 5xx0 CPU [015D3700-015F3F10]
56.69.0 ( 1 KB) Vermeer (VMR) 5xx0 CPU [01613F00-01614320]
56.69.0 ( 58 KB) Vermeer (VMR) 5xx0 CPU [01634E00-01643420]
64.60.0 (132 KB) Cezanne (CZN) 5xx0 APU [01441F00-01462F60]
64.60.0 ( 70 KB) Cezanne (CZN) 5xx0 APU [01463000-01474790]
64.60.0 (132 KB) Cezanne (CZN) 5xx0 APU [01931600-01952660]
64.60.0 ( 70 KB) Cezanne (CZN) 5xx0 APU [01971D00-01983490]

Credits to RaINi, Reous and PatrickSchur


----------



## SpeedyIV

zorn said:


> Looks like I am back up and running. I had to reset Windows, but luckily was able to keep my files. Still very annoying that 4201 completely screwed my Windows install.


Glad to hear you got it working. Are you 100% sure that you had Erase fTPM NV for factory reset Disabled because I think it defaults to Enabled. I read through your posts and it sounds like after the initial failure, you did a Flash Back to 4006 and then more Flash Backs. Is it possible that fTPM NV for factory reset was Enabled at some point in your Bios flashing? This fTPM stuff is new to me and I worry about screwing something up or losing a key every time I update the Bios.

I think I am going to hold off for a day or 2 before I update my Dark Hero from Bios 4006 to 4201. I also don't use Bitlocker and have Erase fTPM NV for factory reset Disabled. I do NOT want to have to reinstall Windows due to this Bios update. Reinstalling Windows is no big deal but reinstalling all of my programs is a PITA that I would like to avoid.


----------



## KedarWolf

SpeedyIV said:


> Glad to hear you got it working. Are you 100% sure that you had Erase fTPM NV for factory reset Disabled because I think it defaults to Enabled. I read through your posts and it sounds like after the initial failure, you did a Flash Back to 4006 and then more Flash Backs. Is it possible that fTPM NV for factory reset was Enabled at some point in your Bios flashing? This fTPM stuff is new to me and I worry about screwing something up or losing a key every time I update the Bios.
> 
> I think I am going to hold off for a day or 2 before I update my Dark Hero from Bios 4006 to 4201. I also don't use Bitlocker and have Erase fTPM NV for factory reset Disabled. I do NOT want to have to reinstall Windows due to this Bios update. Reinstalling Windows is no big deal but reinstalling all of my programs is a PITA that I would like to avoid.


Check our Macrium Reflect Free. You make a boot USB in the program, boot from USB, back up your entire windows drive, boot partitions and everything to a spare M.2 or SSD, it's fairly quick.

Then you can restore our entire Windows drive, boot partitions and all whenever you want. Also, it only saves the used portion of the Windows drive so if your Windows install takes like 200GB in total, it'll only save that, a bit less with compression.

You don't even need to keep the program installed after making the boot USB.


----------



## Corey Carroz

SpeedyIV said:


> Glad to hear you got it working. Are you 100% sure that you had Erase fTPM NV for factory reset Disabled because I think it defaults to Enabled. I read through your posts and it sounds like after the initial failure, you did a Flash Back to 4006 and then more Flash Backs. Is it possible that fTPM NV for factory reset was Enabled at some point in your Bios flashing? This fTPM stuff is new to me and I worry about screwing something up or losing a key every time I update the Bios.
> 
> I think I am going to hold off for a day or 2 before I update my Dark Hero from Bios 4006 to 4201. I also don't use Bitlocker and have Erase fTPM NV for factory reset Disabled. I do NOT want to have to reinstall Windows due to this Bios update. Reinstalling Windows is no big deal but reinstalling all of my programs is a PITA that I would like to avoid.


I think the default is disabled. I upgrade worked for me without issue on a Dark Hero and I don't remember ever changing this.


----------



## J7SC

As posted recently, I was on Bios 3302 (3950X/CH8 WF) and Bios 3501 (5950X/CH8 DH) and upgraded both to 3801 over the last seven days...before, both systems would be labelled 'not ready' for Win 11 in the Win Update section. But afterwards - _without *me* changing anything _in the bios - fTPM was enabled and now Windows Update proclaimed that everything was Win 11 'ready' in both systems, which is incidentally also why I posted about fTPM yesterday re. the problems @zorn experienced (and which are now fixed > congrats !). With the 3950X system in particular, it took a couple of boots, and at times it seemed to pause at F3, but then carried on. Now it is all prefect, fast boot processes for both systems.


----------



## noxious89123

zorn said:


> I have flashbacked multiple times now, first to 4006, back to 4201 in case it was a bad image. Nothing works, always F3 error.


Do as Veii said, and try flashing back to a much earlier version, like 3401 etc.

Also, are you renaming the BIOS file to C8DH.CAP before you flash it? ( .CAP being the file extension, not part of the file _name_ )



Corey Carroz said:


> I think the default is disabled. I upgrade worked for me without issue on a Dark Hero and I don't remember ever changing this.





J7SC said:


> As posted recently, I was on Bios 3302 (3950X/CH8 WF) and Bios 3501 (5950X/CH8 DH) and upgraded both to 3801 over the last seven days...before, both systems would be labelled 'not ready' for Win 11 in the Win Update section. But afterwards - _without *me* changing anything _in the bios - fTPM was enabled and now Windows Update proclaimed that everything was Win 11 'ready' in both systems


All BIOS before 3701 had fTPM disabled by default.

From 3702 onwards, fTPM is enabled by default. As per the change notes for 3702; (and 3701 Beta, iirc)


Code:


ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BIOS 3702
"1. Support Windows 11 by default, no settings changes required in the UEFI BIOS.


----------



## SpeedyIV

KedarWolf said:


> Check our Macrium Reflect Free. You make a boot USB in the program, boot from USB, back up your entire windows drive, boot partitions and everything to a spare M.2 or SSD, it's fairly quick.
> 
> Then you can restore our entire Windows drive, boot partitions and all whenever you want. Also, it only saves the used portion of the Windows drive so if your Windows install takes like 200GB in total, it'll only save that, a bit less with compression.
> 
> You don't even need to keep the program installed after making the boot USB.


Hi Kedar. Good advice. I use Macrium on my daily driver rig but have not set it up yet on my Ryzen rig. I will definitely do this and image the drive before I try installing beta Bios 4201. Better safe than sorry!


----------



## Veii

Corey Carroz said:


> Sounds like the TPM keys got deleted or reset along the way and that is what was causing Windows to fail. Since you didn't have the correct keys, you couldn't get into Windows.
> 
> 
> zorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any way to prevent this junk in the future? I don't use BitLocker - I only have the fTPM on for Windows 11. I have that option disabled right underneath fTPM to reset the keys if you change CPU or whatever.
Click to expand...

It's rather the opposite
TPM Keys have to be wiped on big system changes, else it wiill refuse to boot
It will only refuse to boot with no keys ~ if the OS runs bitlocker by default or depends too much on secure boot being enabled

TPM keys should be wiped and the first boot will ask you if you want to do so
You have to accept, else it wont load windows, but that's all
Soo default for them to erase is correct.
You only don't want them erased if you run bitlocker, as then your files are encrypted and can not be loaded with the new key
Yet clearing that storage is needed on system parts swap and should not affect if a non encrypted OS loads, or not


----------



## J7SC

noxious89123 said:


> (...) All BIOS before 3701 had fTPM disabled by default.
> 
> From 3702 onwards, fTPM is enabled by default. As per the change notes for 3702; (and 3701 Beta, iirc)
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BIOS 3702
> "1. Support Windows 11 by default, no settings changes required in the UEFI BIOS.


I know, that's why I updated bios on both boards; but during one of the two updates, there was some temporary F3 and a couple of (automatic) reboots which may relate to what the other fellow had trouble with...on my system, it appeared to be connected to the automatic fTPM activation. Anyway, all is well that ends well...


----------



## Lockian

GRABibus said:


> i wanted to load my .CMO file with my 4006 settings in Bios 4201 and it says "Impossible, this file is not for this CPU family".


I also got this error which was annoying as the text settings export does not include the PBO offset values. I decided to preserve and redo my offsets using the new Ryzen Master feature as a base line and then tweak manually as I get WHEA errors.


----------



## ArchStanton

Lockian said:


> text settings export does not include the PBO offset values


To date, I have never updated my BIOS after achieving a fully optimized and tested CO per core config, so I was unaware that the text export did not include those settings. That seems like a ridiculous oversight... Thank you for pointing this out. It will save me the hassle of digging through my "log book" and screenshots if I ever decide to update from 3801 on the C8DH.


----------



## Hilderman

Question...Has anyone had any great success with the GSkill TridentZ Royal 4000c14D-16GTRS?
Cause I'm struggling with them. Maybe I'm being lazy and not spending enough time with them, but xmp is not even stable.
I guess I thought I'd plug them in and they'd take me to the moon.

My trusty GSkill TridentZ 3000 c14 from 2016 does better. (screenshot below 3000c14)
No screenshot of the Royal 4000c14 as they're back in the fancy box.
Dark Hero Bios 3801, 5900x

Appreciate any opinions. (Flaming acceptable at the moment).


----------



## xProlific

ArchStanton said:


> To date, I have never updated my BIOS after achieving a fully optimized and tested CO per core config, so I was unaware that the text export did not include those settings. That seems like a ridiculous oversight... Thank you for pointing this out. It will save me the hassle of digging through my "log book" and screenshots if I ever decide to update from 3801 on the C8DH.


Text export includes those settings on my Dark Hero...


----------



## Blackfyre

Lockian said:


> annoying as the text settings export does not include the PBO offset values.


Wrong. False information.

You were probably using a Curve Optimizer [All Core] instead of [Per Core] and didn't notice it in the wall of text.

Not completely wrong information as @Lockian mentioned below. 

PBO Settings I always use are the ones in the ADVANCED section of the BIOS. Not in the first BIOS screen one. The advanced section has more settings, and it has the 200Mhz lock on maximum positive boost override.


ArchStanton said:


> To date, I have never updated my BIOS after achieving a fully optimized and tested CO per core config, so I was unaware that the text export did not include those settings. That seems like a ridiculous oversight... Thank you for pointing this out. It will save me the hassle of digging through my "log book" and screenshots if I ever decide to update from 3801 on the C8DH.


It's there in the text export. All changes you make in the BIOS are saved. I do wish there were titles for each sub-section though to make it easier reading for noobs and finding which settings are in which location.











xProlific said:


> Text export includes those settings on my Dark Hero...


Same for the HERO WiFi, probably same for other boards too.


----------



## Baio73

Hilderman said:


> Question...Has anyone had any great success with the GSkill TridentZ Royal 4000c14D-16GTRS?
> Cause I'm struggling with them. Maybe I'm being lazy and not spending enough time with them, but xmp is not even stable.
> I guess I thought I'd plug them in and they'd take me to the moon.
> 
> My trusty GSkill TridentZ 3000 c14 from 2016 does better. (screenshot below 3000c14)
> No screenshot of the Royal 4000c14 as they're back in the fancy box.
> Dark Hero Bios 3801, 5900x
> 
> Appreciate any opinions. (Flaming acceptable at the moment).
> 
> View attachment 2558779


Nice result, I'm struggling very much with FCLK @2000 and my 5900X, but can't get rid of WHEA errors.. are you 100% free and stable?
Any other particular BIOS setting apart from the voltages I see above?
Baio


----------



## Lockian

xProlific said:


>


Are you using curve optimizer from the ASUS settings or from the AMD settings? I use the AMD settings in the advanced section because there are a few extra options. I'm guessing that's the difference here.



Blackfyre said:


> Wrong. False information.


Not wrong. See above. I'm happy to test and prove it if you'd like?


----------



## Baio73

EDIT


----------



## Theo164

Does someone else experience this behavior at IF1900? Any advice?

1900/3800 BCLK 100.0000 can boot no problem but nothing is standard and - or stable for a long time
Sometimes it works fine sometimes with lots of whea and reboots. It's a madness! Today settings may not work at all a day after and the opposite ...
BCLK 100.0625 1900(1901) / 3800(3802)no boot or mem training at all. USB keyboard does not even light up, only option clrcmos

BCLK 99.9375 1900(1898) / 3800(3797) run fine even with unusual settings for 1900/3800
Lowest possible resistances 28.2 - 20/20/20/20, VDDP and CCD can go as low as 0.85v, IOD tested as low as 0.90 and Vsoc 1.075 probably they can go lower. Mem at 1.44v
No performance degradation whea or memory errors whatever i trow on it... BCLK 100 is like a complete different system


----------



## g_d_g_l__

Bios 4201b now available for download from ASUS ...


----------



## Hilderman

Baio73 said:


> Nice result, I'm struggling very much with FCLK @2000 and my 5900X, but can't get rid of WHEA errors.. are you 100% free and stable?
> Any other particular BIOS setting apart from the voltages I see above?
> Baio


At 4000, I do get Whea warnings, yes, but stable otherwise. I use settings in and around that for benchmarking only. 
Daily, I'll run those sticks at 3800 to clean that up.


----------



## Blackfyre

Lockian said:


> Are you using curve optimizer from the ASUS settings or from the AMD settings? I use the AMD settings in the advanced section because there are a few extra options. I'm guessing that's the difference here.
> 
> 
> 
> Not wrong. See above. I'm happy to test and prove it if you'd like?


Edited my post to reflect what you mentioned.


----------



## GRABibus

g_d_g_l__ said:


> Bios 4201b now available for download from ASUS ...
> 
> View attachment 2558836


« improve system stability »…..
Does it mean « decrease system performance » ?

Asus, we need now a Bios to help for Whea 19 warnings and 1900 IF bottleneck.


----------



## ArchStanton

@xProlific @Blackfyre @Lockian Thank you all for digging deeper on that issue .

Edit: The fact that a particular setting can be changed in 3 or more different locations in a single BIOS _*IS *_a ridiculous oversight IMO.


----------



## noxious89123

Lockian said:


> Are you using curve optimizer from the ASUS settings or from the AMD settings? I use the AMD settings in the advanced section because there are a few extra options. I'm guessing that's the difference here.


I've used Curve Optimiser in both the Asus settings page and the AMD settings page (not at the same time!), and both have always been saved correctly to the .txt file.

FWIW, I've found that setting them in the AMD settings _appears _to be more performant for the same settings, although this could simply be run to run variance.


----------



## Kelutrel

noxious89123 said:


> I've used Curve Optimiser in both the Asus settings page and the AMD settings page (not at the same time!), and both have always been saved correctly to the .txt file.
> 
> FWIW, I've found that setting them in the AMD settings _appears _to be more performant for the same settings, although this could simply be run to run variance.


Doesn't look like variance to me. At least on my c8 formula, the Asus settings for the curve optimizer offsets per core are ignored. In the AMD settings they work as intended.


----------



## CyrIng

AlphaTay said:


> Ryzen SMU Checker 1.2.2.0N
> 
> U E F I I N F O
> File: ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-4201.CAP
> Size: 32,772 KB
> 
> X570 Chipset SMU: 47.27.0 ( 61 KB)
> X570 Chipset SMU: 47.27.0 ( 61 KB)
> X570 Chipset SMU: 47.27.0 ( 61 KB)
> X570 Chipset SMU: 47.27.0 ( 61 KB)
> 
> S Y S T E M M A N A G E M E N T U N I T [ S M U ]
> Version Size CPU/APU Family Offset
> 25.86.0 (118 KB) Summit Ridge 1x00 CPU [0019DD00-001BB560]
> 25.86.0 (118 KB) Summit Ridge 1x00 CPU [0048BF00-004A9760]
> 25.86.0 ( 11 KB) Summit Ridge 1x00 CPU [004C5E00-004C8B20]
> 43.25.0 (101 KB) Pinnacle Ridge 2x00 CPU [001BB600-001D4A60]
> 43.25.0 (101 KB) Pinnacle Ridge 2x00 CPU [004A9800-004C2C60]
> 43.25.0 ( 9 KB) Pinnacle Ridge 2x00 CPU [004C2D00-004C51C0]
> 30.98.0 (130 KB) Raven Ridge 2x00 APU [00270B00-00291150]
> 30.98.0 ( 17 KB) Raven Ridge 2x00 APU [00291200-00295670]
> 30.98.0 (130 KB) Raven Ridge 2x00 APU [00587F00-005A8550]
> 30.98.0 ( 17 KB) Raven Ridge 2x00 APU [005BD500-005C1970]
> 37.67.0 (139 KB) Raven Ridge 2 30x0 APU [00295700-002B8310]
> 37.67.0 ( 27 KB) Raven Ridge 2 30x0 APU [002B8400-002BF000]
> 37.67.0 (139 KB) Raven Ridge 2 30x0 APU [00645D00-00668910]
> 37.67.0 ( 27 KB) Raven Ridge 2 30x0 APU [00668A00-0066F600]
> 4.30.86.0 (141 KB) Picasso 3x00 APU [002BF000-002E2220]
> 4.30.86.0 ( 27 KB) Picasso 3x00 APU [002E2300-002E90F0]
> 4.30.86.0 (141 KB) Picasso 3x00 APU [0066F600-00692820]
> 4.30.86.0 ( 27 KB) Picasso 3x00 APU [00692900-006996F0]
> 46.72.0 (110 KB) Matisse (MTS) 3x00 CPU [01258600-01273F20]
> 46.72.0 ( 1 KB) Matisse (MTS) 3x00 CPU [01274000-01274420]
> 46.72.0 ( 52 KB) Matisse (MTS) 3x00 CPU [01274500-01281580]
> 46.72.0 (110 KB) Matisse (MTS) 3x00 CPU [016C8F00-016E4820]
> 46.72.0 ( 1 KB) Matisse (MTS) 3x00 CPU [016E4900-016E4D20]
> 46.72.0 ( 52 KB) Matisse (MTS) 3x00 CPU [016E4E00-016F1E80]
> 55.91.0 (132 KB) Renoir (RN) 4xx0 APU [01351F00-01372EB0]
> 55.91.0 ( 64 KB) Renoir (RN) 4xx0 APU [01372F00-01382F70]
> 55.91.0 (132 KB) Renoir (RN) 4xx0 APU [017E2600-018035B0]
> 55.91.0 ( 64 KB) Renoir (RN) 4xx0 APU [01823C00-01833C70]
> 56.70.0 (130 KB) Vermeer (VMR) 5xx0 CPU [011A4600-011C4E50]
> 56.70.0 ( 1 KB) Vermeer (VMR) 5xx0 CPU [011C5600-011C5A20]
> 56.70.0 ( 58 KB) Vermeer (VMR) 5xx0 CPU [011C9A00-011D8020]
> 56.70.0 (130 KB) Vermeer (VMR) 5xx0 CPU [015D3700-015F3F50]
> 56.70.0 ( 1 KB) Vermeer (VMR) 5xx0 CPU [01614F00-01615320]
> 56.70.0 ( 58 KB) Vermeer (VMR) 5xx0 CPU [01635E00-01644420]
> 64.61.0 (132 KB) Cezanne (CZN) 5xx0 APU [01441F00-01462FE0]
> 64.61.0 ( 70 KB) Cezanne (CZN) 5xx0 APU [01463000-01474870]
> 64.61.0 (132 KB) Cezanne (CZN) 5xx0 APU [01932600-019536E0]
> 64.61.0 ( 70 KB) Cezanne (CZN) 5xx0 APU [01973D00-01985570]
> 
> Credits to RaINi, Reous and PatrickSchur
> 
> -
> 
> U E F I I N F O
> File: ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-4006.CAP
> Size: 32,772 KB
> 
> X570 Chipset SMU: 47.27.0 ( 61 KB)
> X570 Chipset SMU: 47.27.0 ( 61 KB)
> X570 Chipset SMU: 47.27.0 ( 61 KB)
> X570 Chipset SMU: 47.27.0 ( 61 KB)
> 
> S Y S T E M M A N A G E M E N T U N I T [ S M U ]
> Version Size CPU/APU Family Offset
> 25.86.0 (118 KB) Summit Ridge 1x00 CPU [0019DD00-001BB560]
> 25.86.0 (118 KB) Summit Ridge 1x00 CPU [0048BF00-004A9760]
> 25.86.0 ( 11 KB) Summit Ridge 1x00 CPU [004C5E00-004C8B20]
> 43.25.0 (101 KB) Pinnacle Ridge 2x00 CPU [001BB600-001D4A60]
> 43.25.0 (101 KB) Pinnacle Ridge 2x00 CPU [004A9800-004C2C60]
> 43.25.0 ( 9 KB) Pinnacle Ridge 2x00 CPU [004C2D00-004C51C0]
> 30.98.0 (130 KB) Raven Ridge 2x00 APU [00270B00-00291150]
> 30.98.0 ( 17 KB) Raven Ridge 2x00 APU [00291200-00295670]
> 30.98.0 (130 KB) Raven Ridge 2x00 APU [00587F00-005A8550]
> 30.98.0 ( 17 KB) Raven Ridge 2x00 APU [005BBF00-005C0370]
> 37.67.0 (139 KB) Raven Ridge 2 30x0 APU [00295700-002B8310]
> 37.67.0 ( 27 KB) Raven Ridge 2 30x0 APU [002B8400-002BF000]
> 37.67.0 (139 KB) Raven Ridge 2 30x0 APU [00643D00-00666910]
> 37.67.0 ( 27 KB) Raven Ridge 2 30x0 APU [00666A00-0066D600]
> 4.30.85.0 (140 KB) Picasso 3x00 APU [002BF000-002E2180]
> 4.30.85.0 ( 27 KB) Picasso 3x00 APU [002E2200-002E8FF0]
> 4.30.85.0 (140 KB) Picasso 3x00 APU [0066D600-00690780]
> 4.30.85.0 ( 27 KB) Picasso 3x00 APU [00690800-006975F0]
> 46.72.0 (110 KB) Matisse (MTS) 3x00 CPU [01258500-01273E20]
> 46.72.0 ( 1 KB) Matisse (MTS) 3x00 CPU [01273F00-01274320]
> 46.72.0 ( 52 KB) Matisse (MTS) 3x00 CPU [01274400-01281480]
> 46.72.0 (110 KB) Matisse (MTS) 3x00 CPU [016C7E00-016E3720]
> 46.72.0 ( 1 KB) Matisse (MTS) 3x00 CPU [016E3800-016E3C20]
> 46.72.0 ( 52 KB) Matisse (MTS) 3x00 CPU [016E3D00-016F0D80]
> 55.91.0 (132 KB) Renoir (RN) 4xx0 APU [01351F00-01372EB0]
> 55.91.0 ( 64 KB) Renoir (RN) 4xx0 APU [01372F00-01382F70]
> 55.91.0 (132 KB) Renoir (RN) 4xx0 APU [017E1600-018025B0]
> 55.91.0 ( 64 KB) Renoir (RN) 4xx0 APU [01821C00-01831C70]
> 56.69.0 (130 KB) Vermeer (VMR) 5xx0 CPU [011A4600-011C4E10]
> 56.69.0 ( 1 KB) Vermeer (VMR) 5xx0 CPU [011C5600-011C5A20]
> 56.69.0 ( 58 KB) Vermeer (VMR) 5xx0 CPU [011C9A00-011D8020]
> 56.69.0 (130 KB) Vermeer (VMR) 5xx0 CPU [015D3700-015F3F10]
> 56.69.0 ( 1 KB) Vermeer (VMR) 5xx0 CPU [01613F00-01614320]
> 56.69.0 ( 58 KB) Vermeer (VMR) 5xx0 CPU [01634E00-01643420]
> 64.60.0 (132 KB) Cezanne (CZN) 5xx0 APU [01441F00-01462F60]
> 64.60.0 ( 70 KB) Cezanne (CZN) 5xx0 APU [01463000-01474790]
> 64.60.0 (132 KB) Cezanne (CZN) 5xx0 APU [01931600-01952660]
> 64.60.0 ( 70 KB) Cezanne (CZN) 5xx0 APU [01971D00-01983490]
> 
> Credits to RaINi, Reous and PatrickSchur


Are you saying these 2 BIOSes are bringing the same SMU version ?


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> « improve system stability »…..
> Does it mean « decrease system performance » ?
> 
> Asus, we need now a Bios to help for Whea 19 warnings and 1900 IF bottleneck.


...try 3801


----------



## SpeedyIV

g_d_g_l__ said:


> Bios 4201b now available for download from ASUS ...
> 
> View attachment 2558836


Which Asus site is this from? The US Dark Hero support site still lists Bios 4006.

ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero | ROG Crosshair | Gaming Motherboards｜ROG - Republic of Gamers｜ROG USA


----------



## J7SC

Kelutrel said:


> Doesn't look like variance to me. At least on my c8 formula, the Asus settings for the curve optimizer offsets per core are ignored. In the AMD settings they work as intended.


...same on my setup (CH8DH)


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> ...try 3801


I know it very well 😊.


----------



## fantasma_sd

You can find the new bios on this page:





ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero - Support







www.asus.com


----------



## SpeedyIV

fantasma_sd said:


> You can find the new bios on this page:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero - Support
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.asus.com


Thanks!


----------



## Hilderman

Baio73 said:


> Nice result, I'm struggling very much with FCLK @2000 and my 5900X, but can't get rid of WHEA errors.. are you 100% free and stable?
> Any other particular BIOS setting apart from the voltages I see above?
> Baio


vdimm 1.5
vddsoc llc level 4
no other changes away from auto, aside from timings


----------



## FriendlySeacow

My 5800x and crosshair 8 impact don't have functioning PBO, regardless of whether I enable it through ASUS or AMD Overclocking in bios.

The max boost is locked to 3800mhz. Absurdly frustrating. Same behavior on 4006 and new beta bios. 

I even downloaded Ryzen Master, which recognized PBO as being enabled but still no boost beyond 3800mhz. I ended up just setting a manual all-core multiplier and vcore to get 4700mhz at reasonable temperatures and voltage. This is my last ASUS board.


----------



## Lockian

ArchStanton said:


> Edit: The fact that a particular setting can be changed in 3 or more different locations in a single BIOS _*IS *_a ridiculous oversight IMO.


I agree I deeply disliked it long before it caused me issues with my settings export as it's messy and not well documented (ie. which takes precedence over which). My understanding is the same as Blackfyre mentioned that the AMD settings has more options than the ASUS setting. I also believe the behavior is that if you populate both the ASUS and AMD pages, the AMD settings will take precedence.


----------



## xeizo

Kelutrel said:


> Doesn't look like variance to me. At least on my c8 formula, the Asus settings for the curve optimizer offsets per core are ignored. In the AMD settings they work as intended.


Agree, I only recently discovered this, I didn't before because I just set both but then I got lazy and noticed nothing happens with the Asus setting. It's the same on B550-F. Can easily be confirmed by toggling CO inside Windows with the CO Tool.


----------



## Reous

If someone with *5800X3D* want to set the CO in the bios you can use this bios. It enables PBO in the AMD Overclocking menu. Note that only PBO Limits and CO will work.

Hero 4201:








Crosshair VIII Hero 4201V


MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.



www.mediafire.com





Hero Wifi 4201:








Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi 4201V


MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.



www.mediafire.com


----------



## finas

Reous said:


> If someone with *5800X3D* want to set the CO in the bios you can use this bios. It enables PBO in the AMD Overclocking menu. Note that only PBO Limits and CO will work.
> 
> Hero 4201:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crosshair VIII Hero 4201V
> 
> 
> MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediafire.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hero Wifi 4201:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi 4201V
> 
> 
> MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediafire.com



how was this done?


----------



## tcclaviger

Hehehe.


----------



## skalinator

tcclaviger said:


> Hehehe.


can we get an extreme version?


----------



## tcclaviger

PS: PBO in CBS/XFR does nothing good stay away.


----------



## Alemancio

Reous said:


> It enables PBO in the AMD Overclocking menu. Note that only PBO Limits and CO will work.


Has anybody tested this?


----------



## FriendlySeacow

Can anybody help me with something? I've figured out a way to get PBO running along with BCLK overclock on my 5800x/Crosshair VIII Impact but there's something weird going on. If I leave my Core Voltage to Auto, my VID for all of my cores as well as my VCORE never go above 1.2V. What could be causing this behavior? It doesn't seem to be thermal. I can manually set my Core Voltage to say, 1.3V, and my effective clocks in HwInfo will increase proportionately, but obviously I'd rather just let it go Auto and take full advantage of a dialed-in Per Core Curve Optimizer Offset. Thanks in advance.


----------



## GRABibus

FriendlySeacow said:


> Can anybody help me with something? I've figured out a way to get PBO running along with BCLK overclock on my 5800x/Crosshair VIII Impact but there's something weird going on. If I leave my Core Voltage to Auto, my VID for all of my cores as well as my VCORE never go above 1.2V. What could be causing this behavior? It doesn't seem to be thermal. I can manually set my Core Voltage to say, 1.3V, and my effective clocks in HwInfo will increase proportionately, but obviously I'd rather just let it go Auto and take full advantage of a dialed-in Per Core Curve Optimizer Offset. Thanks in advance.


What is your bios and what is your EDC value ?


----------



## FriendlySeacow

GRABibus said:


> What is your bios and what is your EDC value ?


Hi thanks for your help. My BIOS are the new beta bios and my EDC value is 135, PPT is 140 and TDC is 90.


----------



## Alemancio

Reous said:


> If someone with *5800X3D* want to set the CO in the bios you can use this bios. It enables PBO in the AMD Overclocking menu. Note that only PBO Limits and CO will work.
> 
> Hero 4201:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crosshair VIII Hero 4201V
> 
> 
> MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediafire.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hero Wifi 4201:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi 4201V
> 
> 
> MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediafire.com


Could you link us to the thread where people test this? Dankeschön!!!


----------



## Reous

Alemancio said:


> Has anybody tested this?





Alemancio said:


> Could you link us to the thread where people test this? Dankeschön!!!


I have testest it on the X570 Strix and someone other on the Hero Wifi from HWLuxx. But he prefer the 1206b Agesa with CO.









Ryzen 7 5800X3D: Der erste Gaming-Benchmark ist vielversprechend


99% :ROFLMAO: ja dann isses doch klar dass nix geht. wer spielt denn anno in ultra settings. keine sau :D




www.hardwareluxx.de


----------



## LocoDiceGR

g_d_g_l__ said:


> Bios 4201b now available for download from ASUS ...
> 
> View attachment 2558836


Nice! Waiting for my B550i to rollout, i had some Memory error blue screens, maybe they will be finally Fixed.


----------



## metalshark

FriendlySeacow said:


> Can anybody help me with something? I've figured out a way to get PBO running along with BCLK overclock on my 5800x/Crosshair VIII Impact but there's something weird going on. If I leave my Core Voltage to Auto, my VID for all of my cores as well as my VCORE never go above 1.2V. What could be causing this behavior? It doesn't seem to be thermal. I can manually set my Core Voltage to say, 1.3V, and my effective clocks in HwInfo will increase proportionately, but obviously I'd rather just let it go Auto and take full advantage of a dialed-in Per Core Curve Optimizer Offset. Thanks in advance.


The VID is what your CPU is asking for, the SVI2 is the voltage it’s receiving. You could override the CPU to receive 1.5v and it could be asking for 1.1v, at which point you’ll see a VID of 1.1v and an SVI2 of 1.5v.

Think of it as an output from your CPU to the motherboard, which is then configured to react to it or outright ignore it and deliver whatever it wants instead.






Glossary Definition for Voltage Identification Digital


Glossary of electrical engineering terms



www.maximintegrated.com


----------



## xeizo

No drama with the new bios running old 3700X in the C8H WiFi(since my 5900X is partially dead), everything works as usual as far as I can tell(except I have the dreaded Realtek sound having vanished from the mobo, but it has been like that for a while)


----------



## xeizo

Being at it, anyone has any idea how to bring back the Realtek sound? Resetting bios, flashback, new Windows, nothing works. Windows can't find it, even though it's activated in the bios.
Sonic Studio error message is "the audio driver has not been properly installed. NOPKEY", that is with a fresh Windows and fresh driver from Asus product page.


----------



## FriendlySeacow

metalshark said:


> The VID is what your CPU is asking for, the SVI2 is the voltage it’s receiving. You could override the CPU to receive 1.5v and it could be asking for 1.1v, at which point you’ll see a VID of 1.1v and an SVI2 of 1.5v.
> 
> Think of it as an output from your CPU to the motherboard, which is then configured to react to it or outright ignore it and deliver whatever it wants instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glossary Definition for Voltage Identification Digital
> 
> 
> Glossary of electrical engineering terms
> 
> 
> 
> www.maximintegrated.com


Hi thanks! I'm familiar with SVI2 vs VID but my crosshair viii impact seems to label SVI2 as VCore in HWInfo. Both VID and VCore were locked to 1.2V on motherboard auto settings.

I fixed it by going into Easy/Basic view in BIOS and toggling the ASUS auto OC / power saving setting. Once I booted into Windows, this fixed the locked VID and VCore, which now run according to my custom PBO settings. It's somewhat absurd that the Easy settings were overriding the Advanced settings, but ASUS bios are pretty wild.


----------



## MSIMAX

running the new hero wifi bios 4201 and latency is high


----------



## coelacanth

xeizo said:


> Being at it, anyone has any idea how to bring back the Realtek sound? Resetting bios, flashback, new Windows, nothing works. Windows can't find it, even though it's activated in the bios.
> Sonic Studio error message is "the audio driver has not been properly installed. NOPKEY", that is with a fresh Windows and fresh driver from Asus product page.


Maybe try the driver from the Realtek website. I used that instead of anything from the Asus site.


----------



## skalinator

coelacanth said:


> Maybe try the driver from the Realtek website. I used that instead of anything from the Asus site.


This happened to me. There’s a form post where a guy describes pulling his hair out trying to figure it out. He eventually did it’s something to do with reassigning the audio ports in a specific way. I thought I book marked it but I can’t find it at the moment I’ll look tonight, but I’d browse the rog forums I’m sure you will find it


----------



## xeizo

skalinator said:


> This happened to me. There’s a form post where a guy describes pulling his hair out trying to figure it out. He eventually did it’s something to do with reassigning the audio ports in a specific way. I thought I book marked it but I can’t find it at the moment I’ll look tonight, but I’d browse the rog forums I’m sure you will find it


I hope you find the link, I'll try ROG


----------



## xeizo

coelacanth said:


> Maybe try the driver from the Realtek website. I used that instead of anything from the Asus site.


I haven't done that yet, problem is it's nothing in device manager


----------



## rexbinary

xeizo said:


> I hope you find the link, I'll try ROG


 I'd recommend following the CLEANUP and then INSTALL steps very closely on this post for your mobo.






[DRIVERS] Realtek Audio (Intel 2xx/3xx/4xx/5xx/6xx/7xx & AMD 3xx/4xx/5xx/6xx)


Hi everyone, - Realtek Audio Drivers (UAD - ASUS ROG SS3) : Drivers : 6.0.9452.1 WHQL Download : Link ASUS ROG SS3 motherboards :



rog.asus.com





When you INSTALL using the Install.cmd sometimes there is a good 5 minute plus pause, just wait it out.


----------



## stimpy88

xeizo said:


> Being at it, anyone has any idea how to bring back the Realtek sound? Resetting bios, flashback, new Windows, nothing works. Windows can't find it, even though it's activated in the bios.
> Sonic Studio error message is "the audio driver has not been properly installed. NOPKEY", that is with a fresh Windows and fresh driver from Asus product page.


Don't make the mistake of installing Realtek drivers. Go with the Microsoft default driver.

But if your saying that there is no sound chip in the device manager, then your sound chip is dead. Are you sure the BIOS has it enabled?


----------



## learner-gr

Hi there.
I have an CH8 dark motherboard and i would like to ask if it a good idea to install the Wireless drivers Version 22.100.0.3 2022/01/12 or not if it is better to use the old drivers.
Thanks


----------



## neikosr0x

xeizo said:


> Being at it, anyone has any idea how to bring back the Realtek sound? Resetting bios, flashback, new Windows, nothing works. Windows can't find it, even though it's activated in the bios.
> Sonic Studio error message is "the audio driver has not been properly installed. NOPKEY", that is with a fresh Windows and fresh driver from Asus product page.


Get rid of all sound drivers and use the drivers at Asus website, sometimes you wont find the control panel installed (win11), so go ahead and search for the Realtek panel on the windows store.


----------



## pfinch

is someone using CH8 with a 5800x3d?


----------



## noxious89123

learner-gr said:


> Hi there.
> I have an CH8 dark motherboard and i would like to ask if it a good idea to install the Wireless drivers Version 22.100.0.3 2022/01/12 or not if it is better to use the old drivers.
> Thanks


I see no reason not to use it. As far as I'm aware, it's the newest driver. I've been using 22.100.0.3 since around when it became available, and have had zero issues. I'm happy with the WiFi on the C8DH, it's reliable.


----------



## GRABibus

MSIMAX said:


> running the new hero wifi bios 4201 and latency is high
> 
> View attachment 2559107


Something is holding you back here.
This memory latency is pretty high.

Do you have monitoring softwares as ASUS Armoury, MSI dragon, etc …. ?
Other opened application which could explain this high value ?


----------



## noxious89123

GRABibus said:


> Something is holding you back here.
> This memory latency is pretty high.
> 
> Do you have monitoring softwares as ASUS Armoury, MSI dragon, etc …. ?
> Other opened application which could explain this high value ?


To add to this, I'd recommend always running AIDA64 latency tests in safe mode, as it makes for massively more reliable / less variable results, as well as being faster.


----------



## GRABibus

noxious89123 said:


> To add to this, I'd recommend always running AIDA64 latency tests in safe mode


Cheater 😂


----------



## noxious89123

GRABibus said:


> Cheater 😂


🤣 Yeah but hear me out; my cooling is controlled by iCue. I also have Armoury Crate controlling my RGB. My scores would _suck_ if I tested with these services / software running in the background 😭

I wanna test my hardware and my tweaks, not Windows X)


----------



## skalinator

xeizo said:


> I hope you find the link, I'll try ROG


No Matter What I Try; no audio - Whatsoever, days/hours of troubleshooting found it


----------



## MSIMAX

GRABibus said:


> Something is holding you back here.
> This memory latency is pretty high.
> 
> Do you have monitoring softwares as ASUS Armoury, MSI dragon, etc …. ?
> Other opened application which could explain this high value ?





noxious89123 said:


> To add to this, I'd recommend always running AIDA64 latency tests in safe mode, as it makes for massively more reliable / less variable results, as well as being faster.


nothing running in the background its weird


----------



## GRABibus

MSIMAX said:


> nothing running in the background its weird
> View attachment 2559153


your SMT is disabled (16C/16T).
Enable it and retest.


----------



## des2k...

noxious89123 said:


> To add to this, I'd recommend always running AIDA64 latency tests in safe mode, as it makes for massively more reliable / less variable results, as well as being faster.


What would be the purpose of that exactly ? Let's say you get 50ns in safe mode but 70ns in normal mode; that would imply that you would never see any of those gains in normal mode and need to look at fixing normal mode crap performance.

With a few apps open, normal boot would be at worst 2ns, not more. With all apps closed there's 0% diff on my side safe vs normal.


----------



## noxious89123

des2k... said:


> What would be the purpose of that exactly ? Let's say you get 50ns in safe mode but 70ns in normal mode; that would imply that you would never see any of those gains in normal mode and need to look at fixing normal mode crap performance.
> 
> With a few apps open, normal boot would be at worst 2ns, not more. With all apps closed there's 0% diff on my side safe vs normal.


Because when overclocking, benchmarking and testing, I'm trying to get good scores and just generally get a measure of my hardwares performance and if any tweaks I've made are gaining or losing performance. It's fun.

But at the end of the day, I still _actually use_ this computer _as a computer_, and that means having stuff running that I use. Running tests with lots of background stuff running doesn't test the hardware, it tests how much crap you've got running keeping the CPU busy.

I can run tests in windows with regular everyday stuff in the background, and my latency tests will have a variance of 2ns or so. So when changing any settings in the BIOS you can't tell if those changes are positive, because they are easily masked by Windows and other stuff running.

Run the same test in Safe Mode with a bare minimum of stuff running and that variance between runs comes down to around 0.2ns. Much easier to see if any changes are positive.

Do _you_ run tests in the optimal scenario, or with your browser open in the background for example? It's really no different.


----------



## 1ah1

Before buying 5800X3D i have two different 5800X for me and my brother and i cant boot with 1900 fclk no mater what i do even with different motherboard but today i installed my 5800X3D and boom the 1900 fclk hole is gone and my 4*8 3800c14 is working like ez

my question is do i need to install drivers for Vcache
i download the last version from amd website for chipset and ryzen master drivers


----------



## SpeedyIV

noxious89123 said:


> Because when overclocking, benchmarking and testing, I'm trying to get good scores and just generally get a measure of my hardwares performance and if any tweaks I've made are gaining or losing performance. It's fun.
> 
> But at the end of the day, I still _actually use_ this computer _as a computer_, and that means having stuff running that I use. Running tests with lots of background stuff running doesn't test the hardware, it tests how much crap you've got running keeping the CPU busy.
> 
> I can run tests in windows with regular everyday stuff in the background, and my latency tests will have a variance of 2ns or so. So when changing any settings in the BIOS you can't tell if those changes are positive, because they are easily masked by Windows and other stuff running.
> 
> Run the same test in Safe Mode with a bare minimum of stuff running at that variance between runs comes down to around 0.2ns. Much easier to see if any changes are positive.
> 
> Do _you_ run tests in the optimal scenario, or with your browser open in the background for example? It's really no different.


I determined that Aquacomputer's Aquasuite adds over 10ns of latency in my system. My memory latency goes from low 50's to low 70's when Aquasuite is running. This has also been observed by others. I refuse to install Asus Aura, Armoury Crate, or Corsair iCue, but I have to have my Aquasuite, even if it costs me 10_ns of latency. I wish they would try to improve this.


----------



## MSIMAX

GRABibus said:


> your SMT is disabled (16C/16T).
> Enable it and retest.


ok i reran with smt on same latency


----------



## Kelutrel

MSIMAX said:


> ok i reran with smt on same latency
> View attachment 2559194


Can you disable DF C-states in the "AMD CBS\NBIO Common Options\SMU Common Options" page in BIOS and retry ?

Weird though... you should definitely have a lower latency. Can you save your bios configuration to a txt file and share it in a message for us to check ?


----------



## J7SC

MSIMAX said:


> ok i reran with smt on same latency
> View attachment 2559194


...one weird thing I noticed is re. the CPUz Memory tab in your screenie...it reads '2x 64 bit' instead of 'dual'; ZenTimings suggests that you have 8 GB sticks. Also, tRFC2 is usually lower than tRFC...try '288, 214, 132' in your bios / RAM settings for the tRFC section


----------



## stimpy88

J7SC said:


> ...one weird thing I noticed is re. the CPUz Memory tab in your screenie...it reads '2x 64 bit' instead of 'dual'; ZenTimings suggests that you have 8 GB sticks. Also, tRFC2 is usually lower than tRFC...try '288, 214, 132' in your bios / RAM settings for the tRFC section


I get the same 2x64Bit on my system too. My system is setup and running properly. It's a CPU-Z bug or reporting decision by the author.


----------



## GRABibus

Some benches with my new 5950X :

*CBR20 @ 23°C :*










*CBR23 @ 22.5°C :







*

I will try to improve my CBR23 MT score, still with PBO + CO overclock


----------



## GRABibus

stimpy88 said:


> I get the same 2x64Bit on my system too. My system is setup and running properly. It's a CPU-Z bug or reporting decision by the author.


decision by the author.
I asked to him (M.Delattre).


----------



## ArchStanton

GRABibus said:


> I will try to improve my CBR23 MT score, still with PBO + CO overclock


At what ambient temperature did you make these runs?


----------



## GRABibus

ArchStanton said:


> At what ambient temperature did you make these runs?


23 degrees


----------



## GRABibus

GRABibus said:


> Some benches with my new 5950X :
> 
> *CBR20 @ 23°C :*
> View attachment 2559220
> 
> 
> 
> *CBR23 @ 22.5°C :
> View attachment 2559221
> *
> 
> I will try to improve my CBR23 MT score, still with PBO + CO overclock


Got a reboot WHEA18 during CBR23 due to Core15 (APIC ID 30)
I increased CO on this core.

*New run [email protected]°C : 







*


New Bios settings 24/7 :


----------



## TMavica

After updated to Bios agesa 1.2.0.7, the 1.8V PLL is lower, now is 1.776v, anyone same too?


----------



## Luggage

SpeedyIV said:


> I determined that Aquacomputer's Aquasuite adds over 10ns of latency in my system. My memory latency goes from low 50's to low 70's when Aquasuite is running. This has also been observed by others. I refuse to install Asus Aura, Armoury Crate, or Corsair iCue, but I have to have my Aquasuite, even if it costs me 10_ns of latency. I wish they would try to improve this.


I only start the service to change fan profile on my octo.
What are you using that you need to have it running?


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> decision by the author.
> I asked to him (M.Delattre).


...that's good to know - perhaps the change is related to the increased usage of DDR5, and/or upcoming HEDT DDR5. However, the tRFC issue I highlighted is s.th. @MSIMAX may want to explore further, IMO...

Re. Cinebench, Here are my best runs for the 5950X. This is with the Dark Hero's DynamicOC enabled, but no CO (never tried that combo yet, not even sure it would work). Ambient temp was 19, 21 C.











...and here is the best the 3950X did (ambient 19 C) on the 'regular' CH8 WiFi...in daily use, I couldn't tell the difference (GPUs at 4K) unless it is a bigger productivity task...


----------



## noxious89123

TMavica said:


> After updated to Bios agesa 1.2.0.7, the 1.8V PLL is lower, now is 1.776v, anyone same too?


Mine is set to either 1.8V or AUTO in BIOS, I don't recall which, but it reads as 1.776V ~ 1.808V in HWiNFO64. It's been like that for as long as I can remember. Also, I'm on 3801.



Luggage said:


> I only start the service to change fan profile on my octo.
> What are you using that you need to have it running?


This is a good point. The Octo (and the Corsair Commander Pro for that matter) have "hardware playback", so settings once loaded on the device do not require the software to operate.


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> ...that's good to know - perhaps the change is related to the increased usage of DDR5, and/or upcoming HEDT DDR5. However, the tRFC issue I highlighted is s.th. @MSIMAX may want to explore further, IMO...
> 
> Re. Cinebench, Here are my best runs for the 5950X. This is with the Dark Hero's DynamicOC enabled, but no CO (never tried that combo yet, not even sure it would work). Ambient temp was 19, 21 C.
> 
> View attachment 2559254
> 
> 
> 
> ...and here is the best the 3950X did (ambient 29 C) on the 'regular' CH8 WiFi...in daily use, I couldn't tell the difference (GPUs at 4K) unless it is a bigger productivity task...
> 
> View attachment 2559256


Nice.
And SC scores on Cinebench for 5950X ?
With new Bios with Vid=1.425V if EDC > 140Amps, not sure you get such scores, but maybe !


----------



## SpeedyIV

noxious89123 said:


> I see no reason not to use it. As far as I'm aware, it's the newest driver. I've been using 22.100.0.3 since around when it became available, and have had zero issues. I'm happy with the WiFi on the C8DH, it's reliable.


I thought the latest driver for Intel Intel Wifi-6 AX200 is 22.110.1.1 but I see that MoKiChU has posted v22.140.0.2 WHQL released on April 18, 2022 on the ROG forum. MoKiChU is a regular over there and often posts the latest drivers before they show up on the Asus site or pretty much anywhere else. I have never had a problem installing drivers posted by him and just installed v22.140.0.2. So far no problems.


----------



## SpeedyIV

noxious89123 said:


> Mine is set to either 1.8V or AUTO in BIOS, I don't recall which, but it reads as 1.776V ~ 1.808V in HWiNFO64. It's been like that for as long as I can remember. Also, I'm on 3801.
> 
> 
> This is a good point. The Octo (and the Corsair Commander Pro for that matter) have "hardware playback", so settings once loaded on the device do not require the software to operate.


That is true for the Octo but I do not think it is true for the Commander Pro. Corsair abandoned hardware RGB playback when the LL series of fans were released. The anemic controller in the Commander Pro could not handle the more complex RGB presets and the 16 LEDs in the LL series fans. This was right around when they transitioned from Corsair Link to iCue.


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> Nice.
> And SC scores on Cinebench for 5950X ?
> With new Bios with Vid=1.425V if EDC > 140Amps, not sure you get such scores, but maybe !


...I know I cracked 1700+ for single-core CineR23 (1703 sticks in my mind) but I have to look for it on the other machine. Below is a regular '1677', also via DynamicOC on the Dark Hero. For full-bore multi-core Cinebench runs, HWInfo indicates around 250W-260W PPower. For daily ops, I run a slight undervolt. BTW, Win11 doesn't seem to be such a great benching os (where's my Win XP Pro 64 🥴 ?), though I just switched to Win 11 Pro last week and haven't read up on optimizations for it.


----------



## SpeedyIV

Luggage said:


> I only start the service to change fan profile on my octo.
> What are you using that you need to have it running?


I am using Aquasuite to drive 2 internal stat displays. I also have some virtual sensors and some sensor data processing going on in the Playground. I have to have Aquasuite running so I deal with the higher latency.


----------



## KedarWolf

GRABibus said:


> Some benches with my new 5950X :
> 
> *CBR20 @ 23°C :*
> View attachment 2559220
> 
> 
> 
> *CBR23 @ 22.5°C :
> View attachment 2559221
> *
> 
> I will try to improve my CBR23 MT score, still with PBO + CO overclock


I'll share my PBO settings when I get home. With warm ambient temps in R23 I score over 30300 and at one point I shared a bench at over 31000, this with one 360 RAD and an Optimus Foundation block on the CPU. The 31000 wasn't Cycler Stable but the 30300 is. 

Edit: If you do a custom search with my username KedarWolf, you'll see screenshots of my BIOS settings.


----------



## KedarWolf

OFFICIAL 5900X and 5950X two chiplet Zen 3 CPUs... BIOS settings for multicore R23 over 30300 with warm ambient temps on one 360 RAD with an Optimus Foundation waterblock.


----------



## Luggage

SpeedyIV said:


> I am using Aquasuite to drive 2 internal stat displays. I also have some virtual sensors and some sensor data processing going on in the Playground. I have to have Aquasuite running so I deal with the higher latency.


Another thing, aquasuite visualisation also uses GPU acceleration and will not allow GPU to go idle.


----------



## GRABibus

KedarWolf said:


> I'll share my PBO settings when I get home. With warm ambient temps in R23 I score over 30300 and at one point I shared a bench at over 31000, this with one 360 RAD and an Optimus Foundation block on the CPU. The 31000 wasn't Cycler Stable but the 30300 is.
> 
> Edit: If you do a custom search with my username KedarWolf, you'll see screenshots of my BIOS settings.


Thanks.
I just scored 30118 with my 280mm AIO H115i RGB Platinum @ 23 degrees.
Let’s say it is not too bad 😊


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> Thanks.
> I just scored 30118 with my 280mm AIO H115i RGB Platinum @ 23 degrees.
> Let’s say it is not too bad 😊


...very good, actually ! FYI, my 5950X sits in a 1350mm x 63 mm / triple-pump custom loop, so temps stay nice and low, and the system is - importantly - very quiet.


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> ...very good, actually ! FYI, my 5950X sits in a 1350mm x 63 mm / triple-pump custom loop, so temps stay nice and low, and the system is - importantly - very quiet.


And I have 220-140-140 as PPT TDC EDC.
If I increase those values for example 250-150-160, I have no more than 50 to 100 points in CBR20 MC.
My clocks don’t go beyond 4,55GHz-4,575GHz whatever 220-140-140 or 250-150-160 on MC CBR

is it due to a bad chip or is it normal because of my cooling ?


----------



## GRABibus

GRABibus said:


> And I have 220-140-140 as PPT TDC EDC.
> If I increase those values for example 250-150-160, I have no more than 50 to 100 points in CBR20 MC.
> My clocks don’t go beyond 4,55GHz-4,575GHz whatever 220-140-140 or 250-150-160.
> 
> is it due to a bad chip or is it normal because of my cooling ?


Please note also than with EDC > 140, vid decreases.
This is maybe the reason why ?


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> And I have 220-140-140 as PPT TDC EDC.
> If I increase those values for example 250-150-160, I have no more than 50 to 100 points in CBR20 MC.
> My clocks don’t go beyond 4,55GHz-4,575GHz whatever 220-140-140 or 250-150-160.
> 
> is it due to a bad chip or is it normal because of my cooling ?


...with modern boost algorithms on CPUs (and GPUs !), temps et al go hand in hand with max allowable current etc. I keep my PBO PPT/EDC/TDC settings in bios on auto/default...screenie below is for a run in normal daily trim. No matter what your chip 'quality', cooling will definitely help simply because the way the boost algorithm works, until you hit one or more mobo max default value(s). Below is w/ 0.00625V negative offset and mild CO


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> ...with modern boost algorithms on CPUs (and GPUs !), temps et al go hand in hand with max allowable current etc. I keep my PBO PPT/EDC/TDC settings in bios on auto/default...screenie below is for a run in normal daily trim. No matter what your chip 'quality', cooling will definitely help simply because the way the boost algorithm works, until you hit one or more mobo max default value(s).
> View attachment 2559296


In CBR 20, I get PPT max 205W, even with PPT=220 in bios.
I should try 300-170-180 ,but I will be limited by my cooler and probably I will get lower MC score than with 220-140-140 …?


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> In CBR 20, I get PPT max 205W, even with PPT=220 in bios.
> I should try 300-170-180 ,but I will be limited by my cooler and probably I will get lower MC score than with 220-140-140 …?


...personally, I think bigger cooling will help, no matter what the chip quality, at least up to a point. As stated, I tried a few PPT/EDC/TDC custom values early on when I added this setup last spring, but they didn't seem to make much of a difference with the cooling I run, so PBO values have stayed on default /auto since then.


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> ...personally, I think bigger cooling will help, no matter what the chip quality, at least up to a point. As stated, I tried a few PPT/EDC/TDC custom values early on when I added this setup last spring, but they didn't seem to make much of a difference with the cooling I run, so PBO values have stayed on default /auto since then.


here is a CBR20 run with PBO enabled (So with PPT-TDC-EDC from motherboard).
All other settings are the same than with my 220-140-140 (Settings in sig)

I get this :










PPT max is 242W
TDC max is 161A
EDC max 200A
Max CPU temp = 80°C

I get same score in the range 11700-11800 than with 220-140-140. But with 220-140-140 I get max 70°c on CPU with same test.

No matter what I do, I get 11700-11800


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> here is a CBR20 run with PBO enabled (So with PPT-TDC-EDC from motherboard).
> All other settings are the same than with my 220-140-140 (Settings in sig)
> 
> I get this :
> 
> View attachment 2559299
> 
> 
> PPT max is 242W
> TDC max is 161A
> EDC max 200A
> Max CPU temp = 80°C
> 
> I get same score in the range 11700-11800 than with 220-140-140. But with 220-140-140 I get max 70°c on CPU with same test.
> 
> No matter what I do, I get 11700-11800


Dark Hero has a slightly different VRM which may come into play, not sure...another older run (Cinebench, followed by OCCT)


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> Dark Hero has a slightly different VRM which may come into play, not sure...another older run (Cinebench, followed by OCCT)
> View attachment 2559308


For sure, with a cooler which would give 10°C less than my already very good performing Corsair H115i, I would probably touch 11900 in CBR20 MC, or maybe 12000


----------



## ChillyRide

GRABibus said:


> And I have 220-140-140 as PPT TDC EDC.
> If I increase those values for example 250-150-160, I have no more than 50 to 100 points in CBR20 MC.
> My clocks don’t go beyond 4,55GHz-4,575GHz whatever 220-140-140 or 250-150-160 on MC CBR
> 
> is it due to a bad chip or is it normal because of my cooling ?


it is because u touch EDC. 140 caped.


----------



## GRABibus

For a core which is creating Whea 18 instant reboot at idle, beside increasing its voltage in CO, is there any other way to avoid it by tweaking some parameters In Bios ?
I have set « typical current idle » already.

any other tips ?

thanks.


----------



## Justala

GRABibus said:


> And I have 220-140-140 as PPT TDC EDC.
> If I increase those values for example 250-150-160, I have no more than 50 to 100 points in CBR20 MC.
> My clocks don’t go beyond 4,55GHz-4,575GHz whatever 220-140-140 or 250-150-160 on MC CBR
> 
> is it due to a bad chip or is it normal because of my cooling ?


Mmmm. I have 2 systems with 5950x and a dark hero. 2nd system (b2 revision) is new with an aoi (artic 360) which I havent had time to play with due to work. The 1st system (b0 revision) is cooled with a noctua dh15s. The optimal values i found for that system:

PPT 210-215
TDC 140
EDC 165

If i set the TDC higher it just generates more heat, no scores improvements. If EDC is set to 160, less performance. I use a vcore offset of + 0.025 with bios 4006 here also. Not tested yet on 4002. On bios 3801 i didnt need the offset, same ppt/edc/tdc values though.


----------



## GRABibus

Justala said:


> Mmmm. I have 2 systems with 5950x and a dark hero. 2nd system (b2 revision) is new with an aoi (artic 360) which I havent had time to play with due to work. The 1st system (b0 revision) is cooled with a noctua dh15s. The optimal values i found for that system:
> 
> PPT 210-215
> TDC 140
> EDC 165
> 
> If i set the TDC higher it just generates more heat, no scores improvements. If EDC is set to 160, less performance. I use a vcore offset of + 0.025 with bios 4006 here also. Not tested yet on 4002. On bios 3801 i didnt need the offset, same ppt/edc/tdc values though.


Do you have scores CBR23 and CBR20 and screenshots with frequencies and temperatures ?

what does mean your « Mmmm » ? 😊


----------



## ChillyRide

GRABibus said:


> For a core which is creating Whea 18 instant reboot at idle, beside increasing its voltage in CO, is there any other way to avoid it by tweaking some parameters In Bios ?
> I have set « typical current idle » already.
> 
> any other tips ?
> 
> thanks.


C-States off; DF C states off, Spread Spectrum for cpu off. Might help if bios/ agesa ****coded


----------



## ChillyRide

Finally "nailed" this mobo, imc and ic. CL13 GDM Off. Right side log of pain  100+ entries/variables


----------



## GRABibus

ChillyRide said:


> C-States off; DF C states off, Spread Spectrum for cpu off. Might help if bios/ agesa ****coded


I have all these things off already, except C states.
If I disable C states, it has a negative impact on single core scores.


----------



## ChillyRide

GRABibus said:


> I have all these thin off already, except C states.
> If I disable C states, it has a negative impact on single core scores.


It should not. Probably u installed chipset drivers which have power managment stuff. Delete it an u will get ur SC perf back and with disabled C-States.


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> I have all these things off already, except C states.
> If I disable C states, it has a negative impact on single core scores.



If you want to increase your single core score you can try this:

Go to the "Extreme Tweaker/Precision Boost Overdrive" page in the BIOS (Yes, the Asus one)
Set PBO Fmax Enhancer to Enabled
Set Precision Boost Overdrive to Manual
Set your PPT/TDC/EDC limits the same as you have them in the AMD PBO bios page
Leave everything else to Auto (this is important otherwise you risk overwriting your AMD pbo settings)

This will force-push your cores MHz higher for sure, but depending on your thermal profile you may get lower multicore scores (but you have an awesome AIO so you can go for it... just check the temperature). Also, I think that if you do that your EDC will be fixed at 140 whatever you set anywhere else.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> If you want to increase your single core score you can try this:
> 
> Go to the "Extreme Tweaker/Precision Boost Overdrive" page in the BIOS (Yes, the Asus one)
> Set PBO Fmax Enhancer to Enabled
> Set Precision Boost Overdrive to Manual
> Set your PPT/TDC/EDC limits the same as you have them in the AMD PBO bios page
> Leave everything else to Auto (this is important otherwise you risk overwriting your AMD pbo settings)
> 
> This will force-push your cores MHz higher for sure, but depending on your thermal profile you may get lower multicore scores (but you have an awesome AIO so you can go for it... just check the temperature). Also, I think that if you do that your EDC will be fixed at 140 whatever you set anywhere else.


Thanks.
I will try this when back from work.
My aim is really to increase SC score, without idle reboot.
With my current CO curve I am on the razor edge : I have -14 on core 1 => no reboots.
If I set at -15, reboots ! 😊


----------



## ChillyRide

GRABibus said:


> Thanks.
> I will try this when back from work.
> My aim is really to increase SC score, without idle reboot.
> With my current CO curve I am on the razor edge : I have -14 on core 1 => no reboots.
> If I set at -15, reboots ! 😊


smth not correct, less heat = more performance, at least in MC. So u should get max perf if all cores are -30 and liquid temps as low as possible.


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> Thanks.
> I will try this when back from work.
> My aim is really to increase SC score, without idle reboot.
> With my current CO curve I am on the razor edge : I have -14 on core 1 => no reboots.
> If I set at -15, reboots ! 😊


I have no idea if those settings can improve stability, tbh I dont think so, but they should raise you single core peak frequencies if that is what you are looking for. You may want to consider it as an additional tool. Also, congrats for the new 5950X, I wish I could have one


----------



## GRABibus

ChillyRide said:


> smth not correct, less heat = more performance, at least in MC. So u should get max perf if all cores are -30 and liquid temps as low as possible.


Of course


ChillyRide said:


> smth not correct, less heat = more performance, at least in MC. So u should get max perf if all cores are -30 and liquid temps as low as possible.


i have a H115i RGB platinum and my PPT~TDC~EDC is 220~140~140.
So it is already good I could break 30k in CBR23 MC with EDC cap at 140, PPT at only 220W


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> I have no idea if those settings can improve stability, tbh I dont think so, but they should raise you single core peak frequencies if that is what you are looking for. You may want to consider it as an additional tool. Also, congrats for the new 5950X, I wish I could have one


Thanks !
Prices are decreasing currently.
What I would like is a B2 stepping…
Don’t know how to get one.


----------



## Justala

GRABibus said:


> Do you have scores CBR23 and CBR20 and screenshots with frequencies and temperatures ?
> 
> what does mean your « Mmmm » ? 😊


Ow my "Mmmm" means my brain thinking in text style 🥴, nothing to worry there.

What i do think though is that your Corsair cooler is better for this chip then the Noctua DH-15S I use(d) though. I can't get more then cinebench R20 scores of 11250 Multi, 638 Single.

That system is currently not up though. Spend 3 months tracking the problem i had with it. Problem was massive delays en stutter. Last friday i finally found some time (after replacing almost all other componands from 3 different Ryzen builds in the house) to swap CPU's around the systems. 5800x/5600x run perfectly on the system and vice versa, the 5950x runned like a potato on the other systems.....so the 5950 degraded or is slowly failing over time and goes for an RMA soonish. Particular chip is 5950x 2044SUS so its a pretty early sample. When searching over forums it seems that week 44 of 2020, production date, was a pretty bad week since alot of degrading samples, especially 5950x and 5900x, were made in that week and that factory.

So i ordered a new 5950x friday evening since i badly need this system for my work and cant have a day without it. That 5950x is 2150SUS, so week 50 2021. When i look in hwinfo it says its a b2 revision what i didnt expect:










Also changed the Noctua for an Artic 360 ARGB AOI. Currently its running really good, but not tinkering much with it since i really need a stable system until the RMA of the 1st 5950x is done and completed. I also upgraded the bios to 4201 when i put in the new chip (forgot i did that).

On the new chip i didnt touch CO's. I only putted in the same values for PPT/TDC/EDC as the 1st chip so 210/140/165.

Idle Temperature is around 30-32 degrees (CPU package) / 35-36 degrees (Tdie) @Ambient 23) which is 6-8 degrees cooler then the 1st 5950x with the Noctua DH15s

Load temp under Cinebech R20 is around 53 degrees (CPU package) / 64 degrees (Tdie) @Ambient 23) which is 14-15 degrees cooler then the 1st 5950x with the Noctua DH15s

I build and tinker with PC's since the intel x286 was a thing so pretty long. Like others said, the 5950x especially (and 5900x also but to a slighter degree) really like good cooling due to how the boosting mechanism of Ryzen 5000 works. My current lower temps without C0 tweaking are a combination of the B2 revision (people say it makes up for 5-8 degrees alone) and the 360 AOI.

My hands burn to tinker with the C0 values.....but thats for later since i need stability really bad now


----------



## GRABibus

Justala said:


> Ow my "Mmmm" means my brain thinking in text style 🥴, nothing to worry there.
> 
> What i do think though is that your Corsair cooler is better for this chip then the Noctua DH-15S I use(d) though. I can't get more then cinebench R20 scores of 11250 Multi, 638 Single.
> 
> That system is currently not up though. Spend 3 months tracking the problem i had with it. Problem was massive delays en stutter. Last friday i finally found some time (after replacing almost all other componands from 3 different Ryzen builds in the house) to swap CPU's around the systems. 5800x/5600x run perfectly on the system and vice versa, the 5950x runned like a potato on the other systems.....so the 5950 degraded or is slowly failing over time and goes for an RMA soonish. Particular chip is 5950x 2044SUS so its a pretty early sample. When searching over forums it seems that week 44 of 2020, production date, was a pretty bad week since alot of degrading samples, especially 5950x and 5900x, were made in that week and that factory.
> 
> So i ordered a new 5950x friday evening since i badly need this system for my work and cant have a day without it. That 5950x is 2150SUS, so week 50 2021. When i look in hwinfo it says its a b2 revision what i didnt expect:
> 
> View attachment 2559383
> 
> 
> Also changed the Noctua for an Artic 360 ARGB AOI. Currently its running really good, but not tinkering much with it since i really need a stable system until the RMA of the 1st 5950x is done and completed. I also upgraded the bios to 4201 when i put in the new chip (forgot i did that).
> 
> On the new chip i didnt touch CO's. I only putted in the same values for PPT/TDC/EDC as the 1st chip so 210/140/165.
> 
> Idle Temperature is around 30-32 degrees (CPU package) / 35-36 degrees (Tdie) @Ambient 23) which is 6-8 degrees cooler then the 1st 5950x with the Noctua DH15s
> 
> Load temp under Cinebech R20 is around 53 degrees (CPU package) / 64 degrees (Tdie) @Ambient 23) which is 14-15 degrees cooler then the 1st 5950x with the Noctua DH15s


Yes, H115i RGB Platinum Is maybe the best AIO for Ryzen.
In France, A tech influencer has made deep and professional tests on a lot of AIO on 3950X and the best AIO was H115i RGB Platinum and MSI Coreliquid 360R.
Results of H115i RGB Platinum (280mm AIO) is far better than Arctic freezer 360 or even H150i capellix.
If you understand French, I can send you this link.
‘I get 11700-11800 MC CBR20 and 648-651 SC CBR20 at 24 ambient.

how did you get this B2 ?


----------



## Justala

GRABibus said:


> Yes, H115i RGB Platinum Is maybe the best AIO for Ryzen.
> In France, A tech influencer has made deep and professional tests on a lot of AIO on 3950X and the best AIO was H115i RGB Platinum and MSI Coreliquid 360R.
> Results of H115i RGB Platinum (280mm AIO) is far better than Arctic freezer 360 or even H150i capellix.
> If you understand French, I can send you this link.
> ‘I get 11700-11800 MC CBR20 and 648-651 SC CBR20 at 24 ambient.
> 
> how did you get this B2 ?


Yes i watched the link you posted a few pages back from a French well known overclocker if i am correct? (My french is not what it supposed to be but i managed through it ). I added some info at the bottem of my previous post also.

The B2 revision....just plain luck i guess (ordered it from Alternate). When i looked up the chip code when i received the new 5950x I was pretty sure it was a B0.....got really surprised when i fired up hwinfo and see that it is a B2.


----------



## GRABibus

Justala said:


> Yes i watched the link you posted a few pages back from a French well known overclocker if i am correct? (My french is not what it supposed to be but i managed through it ). I added some info at the bottem of my previous post also.
> 
> The B2 revision....just plain luck i guess (ordered it from Alternate). When i looked up the chip code when i received the new 5950x I was pretty sure it was a B0.....got really surprised when i fired up hwinfo and see that it is a B2.


I will check al


Justala said:


> Yes i watched the link you posted a few pages back from a French well known overclocker if i am correct? (My french is not what it supposed to be but i managed through it ). I added some info at the bottem of my previous post also.
> 
> The B2 revision....just plain luck i guess (ordered it from Alternate). When i looked up the chip code when i received the new 5950x I was pretty sure it was a B0.....got really surprised when i fired up hwinfo and see that it is a B2.


is CPU-Z showing stepping B2 also ?


----------



## Justala

> is CPU-Z showing stepping B2 also ?


Didn't have it installed....so just for you i did. It shows B2 rev also in CPU-Z yes










did a quick bench just with 210/140/165, no further tweaks for what its worth:


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> I have no idea if those settings can improve stability, tbh I dont think so, but they should raise you single core peak frequencies if that is what you are looking for. You may want to consider it as an additional tool. Also, congrats for the new 5950X, I wish I could have one


PBO fmax enhancer for Zen 3?


----------



## DvL Ax3l

GRABibus said:


> PBO fmax enhancer for Zen 3?


Yep, for me it doesn't work, anyway Shamino said this about it


----------



## Justala

GRABibus said:


> PBO fmax enhancer for Zen 3?


I thought that was a thing till zen 2. Its not recommanded for ryzen 5000 series. I disabled it.


----------



## noxious89123

SpeedyIV said:


> That is true for the Octo but I do not think it is true for the Commander Pro. Corsair abandoned hardware RGB playback when the LL series of fans were released. The anemic controller in the Commander Pro could not handle the more complex RGB presets and the 16 LEDs in the LL series fans. This was right around when they transitioned from Corsair Link to iCue.


I'm using a Commander Pro with iCue 3.25.60 (and old version) and firmware version 0.9.212. It does have hardware playback for my fan profiles at the very least, although I've never connected any RGB devices to it. I stopped updating it simply because I have it working exactly how I want it, and every time Corsair "fix" or update one thing, they screw up something else.

I was unaware that they had removed hardware playback. Was that in a change to iCue, or to the firmware? I'm pretty sure there is newer firmware than what I am using, although again, I refuse to update it simply because it works and I have nothing to gain from an update.


----------



## learner-gr

GRABibus said:


> Yes, *H115i RGB Platinum Is maybe the best AIO for Ryzen.*
> In France, A tech influencer has made deep and professional tests on a lot of AIO on 3950X and the best AIO was H115i RGB Platinum and MSI Coreliquid 360R.
> Results of H115i RGB Platinum (280mm AIO) is far better than Arctic freezer 360 or even H150i capellix.
> If you understand French, I can send you this link.
> ‘I get 11700-11800 MC CBR20 and 648-651 SC CBR20 at 24 ambient.
> 
> how did you get this B2 ?


It is very interesting that the 280 AIO was better than 360. 😳

Is H115i RGB Platinum also better than the H115i Pro RGB?


----------



## GRABibus

learner-gr said:


> It is very interesting that the 280 AIO was better than 360. 😳
> 
> Is H115i RGB Platinum also better than the H115i Pro RGB?


It is not the 280mm which is better, but the H115i RGB Platinum, which is a particular great performer with Ryzen (With Intel also as described in the video).
Look at Ryzen ranking at 18:18 in the video.

the tested Ryzen was a 3950x with all core OC in P95.

in fact, the best one was H110i RGB Platinum.
So the H115i RGB Platinum is better then.


----------



## GRABibus

Justala said:


> I thought that was a thing till zen 2. Its not recommanded for ryzen 5000 series. I disabled it.





Kelutrel said:


> If you want to increase your single core score you can try this:
> 
> Go to the "Extreme Tweaker/Precision Boost Overdrive" page in the BIOS (Yes, the Asus one)
> Set PBO Fmax Enhancer to Enabled
> Set Precision Boost Overdrive to Manual
> Set your PPT/TDC/EDC limits the same as you have them in the AMD PBO bios page
> Leave everything else to Auto (this is important otherwise you risk overwriting your AMD pbo settings)
> 
> This will force-push your cores MHz higher for sure, but depending on your thermal profile you may get lower multicore scores (but you have an awesome AIO so you can go for it... just check the temperature). Also, I think that if you do that your EDC will be fixed at 140 whatever you set anywhere else.


unfortunately, this is a performance killer (Both MC and SC scores)


----------



## GRABibus

DvL Ax3l said:


> Yep, for me it doesn't work, anyway Shamino said this about it


Offset helps in MC score.
Efficiency clocks are 4,7GHz with the offset in MC test, but score is a little bit lower than without Enhancer, with which efficiency core clocks are 4,50GHz-4,55GHz and score is higher 😂.
For SC, this is a performance killer solution.


----------



## Justala

GRABibus said:


> Yes, H115i RGB Platinum Is maybe the best AIO for Ryzen.
> In France, A tech influencer has made deep and professional tests on a lot of AIO on 3950X and the best AIO was H115i RGB Platinum and MSI Coreliquid 360R.
> Results of H115i RGB Platinum (280mm AIO) is far better than Arctic freezer 360 or even H150i capellix.
> If you understand French, I can send you this link.
> ‘I get 11700-11800 MC CBR20 and 648-651 SC CBR20 at 24 ambient.
> 
> how did you get this B2 ?


I looked again at that movie. They tested the artic freezer II 240 , not the 360 from what i see . Looking at the date, 10 months ago, the freezer wasnt tested with the revision 4 offset brackets which improve the temp with around 3 degrees.


----------



## GRABibus

Justala said:


> I looked again at that movie. They tested the artic freezer II 240 , not the 360 from what i see . Looking at the date, 10 months ago, the freezer wasnt tested with the revision 4 offset brackets which improve the temp with around 3 degrees.


Yes you are right.
‘Look at this video :





artic freezer 280mm (one year ago) was bad compared to H110i (240mm) in 3950x test (as of 12:00 in the video).

So I would be curious to see results of Arctic freezer II 360 versus H115i RGB Platinum (280mm) on 5900X or 5950X, even with new brackets 😊

you know the EK AIO 360mm ? Very good, right ?

I tested it on my 5900X any got 5 to 10 degrees more than with H115i RGB Platinum 😊


----------



## SpeedyIV

noxious89123 said:


> I'm using a Commander Pro with iCue 3.25.60 (and old version) and firmware version 0.9.212. It does have hardware playback for my fan profiles at the very least, although I've never connected any RGB devices to it. I stopped updating it simply because I have it working exactly how I want it, and every time Corsair "fix" or update one thing, they screw up something else.
> 
> I was unaware that they had removed hardware playback. Was that in a change to iCue, or to the firmware? I'm pretty sure there is newer firmware than what I am using, although again, I refuse to update it simply because it works and I have nothing to gain from an update.


I have a Commander Pro and 2 Lighting Node Pros in my Intel Z370 rig. My Co-Pro is also running firmware version 0.9.212. The LNP's are running v0.10.04 The only time I install and run iCue is for updating firmware. I have not updated them since 2018 so there may have been a more recent update for the Co-Pro. Like yours, mine are stable and I would be hesitant to install a firmware update unless there was a distinct, known advantage to it.

I gave up on Corsair Link and iCue years ago. There is a system monitoring utility called SIV (not Gigabyte's SIV) that is sort of like HWINFO but goes really, really deep. The author of SIV got so fed up with Corsair Link that he reverse engineered their control protocols and added support for Link enabled products to SIV. He has not bothered to add some of their newer devices but I did get him to add the Lighting Node Core because I have 2 of those in my Ryzen X570 rig. I have been using SIV to control my Corsair stuff for years. It works great, is very stable, and very efficient in terms of CPU load. SIV is a monitoring tool, not and RGB control program, so it is not as "polished" as iCue tries to be but once you learn your way around, its easy to set up.

The author of SIV told me that Corsair transitioned to software control due to the LL series fans, which he strongly disagreed with, mainly because it causes the program to use even more system resources. That and Corsair decided to stop using the proper global mutex to poll system sensors (which he showed them how to do). Ever since they did this, iCue does not properly queue sensor polling requests which is why it can't run concurrently with HWINFO, AIDA64, SIV, CUP-Z etc. This is one of the reasons I refuse to use it.

IIRC, there were certain new RGB effects presets that were added for the LL series fans and the micro-controller in the Co-Pro could not handle them, so they decided to stream the data to the Co-Pro over the USB connection. Corsair USB comms have always been flakey and they are currently having major problems with bandwidth for their new AIO video display (LINK 1) (LINK 2). The 2 USB ports on the Commander Pro are unusable in my opinion. Every time I have tried to use them I have problems. Corsair likes to blame them all on AMD but my I have Co-Pro's in 2 different Intel rigs and they both had Co-Pro USB problems which I resolved by adding NZXT internal USB2.0 hubs and not using the ports on the Co-Pro at all.

I think Corsair is in over their heads with iCue and their forum has many very long threads full of posts reporting all sorts of problems with their top end AIO coolers and the never ending list of iCue bugs. I moved up to Aquasuite for my last build. It is FAR superior to iCue for cooling component control. Their RGBpx platform is pretty good. There are some things I could do in iCue that I can't replicate in Aquasuite but those things are not worth the headache that is iCue.


----------



## Arterion

Anyone experiencing SoC voltage (SVI2 TFN) reporting a few steps lower than what you set it? Had this problem with 4006 and 4201. 
I need 1.2V to eliminate WHEA errors at 1900 FCLK. But getting ~1.17V when I expect 1.2V. 
Normally I use offset with one step (+0.0625V), but I have to add 4 steps (+0.25V) to eliminate WHEA now. 
SVI2 TFN reports 4 steps as actual 1.2V. Setting manual 1.2V also reports SVI2 TFN as ~1.17V. (Didn't try 1.225V manual, I assume it would also report 1.2V.)


----------



## metalshark

Arterion said:


> Anyone experiencing SoC voltage (SVI2 TFN) reporting a few steps lower than what you set it? Had this problem with 4006 and 4201.
> I need 1.2V to eliminate WHEA errors at 1900 FCLK. But getting ~1.17V when I expect 1.2V.
> Normally I use offset with one step (+0.0625V), but I have to add 4 steps (+0.25V) to eliminate WHEA now.
> SVI2 TFN reports 4 steps as actual 1.2V. Setting manual 1.2V also reports SVI2 TFN as ~1.17V. (Didn't try 1.225V manual, I assume it would also report 1.2V.)


I’m personally not, but have LLC for the vSoC set to level 3 and 600khz VRM refreshing set for vSoC which may influence things. Am also using manual voltage rather than an offset. On 1.1875v.


----------



## GRABibus

Some fresh air this morning : test at 19°C


----------



## ChillyRide

Arterion said:


> Anyone experiencing SoC voltage (SVI2 TFN) reporting a few steps lower than what you set it? Had this problem with 4006 and 4201.
> I need 1.2V to eliminate WHEA errors at 1900 FCLK. But getting ~1.17V when I expect 1.2V.
> Normally I use offset with one step (+0.0625V), but I have to add 4 steps (+0.25V) to eliminate WHEA now.
> SVI2 TFN reports 4 steps as actual 1.2V. Setting manual 1.2V also reports SVI2 TFN as ~1.17V. (Didn't try 1.225V manual, I assume it would also report 1.2V.)


We all have this. No matter what bios soc is lower than actual setting in bios. Increase it more or add LLC3-4 for soc.


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> Some fresh air this morning : test at 19°C
> 
> View attachment 2559508
> View attachment 2559509


You may want to try to set these two to Disabled, instead of Auto, for a slight improvement in CBR scores:
AMD CBS > CPU Common Options > Prefetcher Settings:
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Disabled]
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Disabled]


----------



## stimpy88

Kelutrel said:


> You may want to try to set these two to Disabled, instead of Auto, for a slight improvement in CBR scores:
> AMD CBS > CPU Common Options > Prefetcher Settings:
> L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Disabled]
> L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Disabled]


Does this impact performance in other areas, or is it an idea to permanently disable them?


----------



## Blameless

stimpy88 said:


> Does this impact performance in other areas, or is it an idea to permanently disable them?


Disabling cache prefetchers will slightly hurt performance in most apps.


----------



## Kelutrel

stimpy88 said:


> Does this impact performance in other areas, or is it an idea to permanently disable them?


So, it may be said that having them disabled provides a slight security advantage against side-channel attacks, but for sure in certain specific workloads, and depending on your ram performance, having them disabled will also provide a tiny bit less performance. Also, your memory latency may be a couple ns lower when having them disabled.
In any case we are not talking of a performance impact that can be noticed in real-life or gaming workloads, it's more about those few more points in CBR scores or benchmarks versus 0.1% lower performance in very specific workloads.
As the performance difference mostly depends from your ram speed (where faster ram causes less performance penalty when keeping them disabled in those particular workloads), I would suggest you to test any difference for your particular daily use.


----------



## xeizo

So finally my 5900X died fully,_ now_ I will try to RMA it.

It happened when I updated bios to AGESA 1.2.0.7 on my B550-F, no more VGA at boot. Did flashback, full reset, downgraded and upgraded again. No luck. Tried two different videocards, both works in other PC:s. So finally, I mounted a 2700X to be sure nothing was wrong with the rest of the hardware. Worked perfect at first try, with the latest bios. So now not only CCX2 but the entire CPU looks to be dead, let's hope I will get a replacement.

As a sidenote, running FCLK 1600 1:1:1 works perfect with this bios, which is about max what a 2700X can do. The PC will be usable until if/when I get a replacement. Pity on the memory which does 3800MHz without a hitch, but at least it works 

No problems so far with the Z690-rig.

And to be in this very thread, the C8H WiFi works fine with the latest bios, apart from the sound chip appears to be dead, only I run it with a 3700X now which is not too exciting LoL


----------



## ChillyRide

xeizo said:


> So finally my 5900X died fully,_ now_ I will try to RMA it.
> 
> It happened when I updated bios to AGESA 1.2.0.7 on my B550-F, no more VGA at boot. Did flashback, full reset, downgraded and upgraded again. No luck. Tried two different videocards, both works in other PC:s. So finally, I mounted a 2700X to be sure nothing was wrong with the rest of the hardware. Worked perfect at first try, with the latest bios. So now not only CCX2 but the entire CPU looks to be dead, let's hope I will get a replacement.
> 
> As a sidenote, running FCLK 1600 1:1:1 works perfect with this bios, which is about max what a 2700X can do. The PC will be usable until if/when I get a replacement. Pity on the memory which does 3800MHz without a hitch, but at least it works
> 
> No problems so far with the Z690-rig.
> 
> And to be in this very thread, the C8H WiFi works fine with the latest bios, apart from the sound chip appears to be dead, only I run it with a 3700X now which is not too exciting LoL


cpu dead, sound dead.. if smth will die next its definitely problems with hw/electricity


----------



## xeizo

ChillyRide said:


> cpu dead, sound dead.. if smth will die next its definitely problems with hw/electricity


Yes, I don't know what it is, I haven't had dead PC components for years. Maybe it's solar flares or something ....


----------



## stimpy88

Kelutrel said:


> So, it may be said that having them disabled provides a slight security advantage against side-channel attacks, but for sure in certain specific workloads, and depending on your ram performance, having them disabled will also provide a tiny bit less performance. Also, your memory latency may be a couple ns lower when having them disabled.
> In any case we are not talking of a performance impact that can be noticed in real-life or gaming workloads, it's more about those few more points in CBR scores or benchmarks versus 0.1% lower performance in very specific workloads.
> As the performance difference mostly depends from your ram speed (where faster ram causes less performance penalty when keeping them disabled in those particular workloads), I would suggest you to test any difference for your particular daily use.


I have tested your theory, and can conclude that the performance increase is worth about 450-ish points in multicore Cinebench R23 (30860+- versus 30380+-), depending on temperature.

That performance increase comes from Disabling the L1 Hardware Prefetcher - leaving the L2 Hardware prefetcher Enabled does not reduce performance, nor does it increase further when Disabled. So for clarity, the L2 HW Prefetcher makes no difference on my system, enabled or disabled, so I leave it enabled.

I also ran a quick test using CPU-Z, and ran its default benchmark, and noticed a single percent reduction in scores, but it could also be due to temperature variation.


----------



## Kelutrel

stimpy88 said:


> I have tested your theory, and can conclude that the performance increase is worth about 450-ish points in multicore Cinebench R23 (30860+- versus 30380+-), depending on temperature.
> 
> That performance increase comes from Disabling the L1 Hardware Prefetcher - leaving the L2 Hardware prefetcher Enabled does not reduce performance, nor does it increase further when Disabled. So for clarity, the L2 HW Prefetcher makes no difference on my system, enabled or disabled, so I leave it enabled.
> 
> I also ran a quick test using CPU-Z, and ran its default benchmark, and noticed a single percent reduction in scores, but it could also be due to temperature variation.


That is in line with my observations. You can also check your AIDA64 ram latency that should also present a nice decrease.

Note that this is a Stream prefetcher, so it only impacts the RAM access predictions, not the instructions or branch predictions, so if there is an instruction loop or algorithm that is well predicted it will still be well predicted even with those settings set to disabled. This is also probably why it has a greater impact in multithreaded loads, as the RAM access predictors are not very effective when constantly changing the core that executes each thread and each thread does not access a large chunk of ram.

To be super clear, the impact of having 1-2ns lower ram latency (in any general usage) and 1% lower ram read bandwidth (only in very tight ram loops) can't be noticed in any common daily or gaming usage, but the CBR benchmarks are very latency-sensible (and probably use an unpredictable ram access pattern) so it works for them.


----------



## GRABibus

stimpy88 said:


> I have tested your theory, and can conclude that the performance increase is worth about 450-ish points in multicore Cinebench R23 (30860+- versus 30380+-), depending on temperature.
> 
> That performance increase comes from Disabling the L1 Hardware Prefetcher - leaving the L2 Hardware prefetcher Enabled does not reduce performance, nor does it increase further when Disabled. So for clarity, the L2 HW Prefetcher makes no difference on my system, enabled or disabled, so I leave it enabled.
> 
> I also ran a quick test using CPU-Z, and ran its default benchmark, and noticed a single percent reduction in scores, but it could also be due to temperature variation.


I will test this asap 👍


----------



## GRABibus

stimpy88 said:


> I have tested your theory, and can conclude that the performance increase is worth about 450-ish points in multicore Cinebench R23 (30860+- versus 30380+-), depending on temperature.
> 
> That performance increase comes from Disabling the L1 Hardware Prefetcher - leaving the L2 Hardware prefetcher Enabled does not reduce performance, nor does it increase further when Disabled. So for clarity, the L2 HW Prefetcher makes no difference on my system, enabled or disabled, so I leave it enabled.
> 
> I also ran a quick test using CPU-Z, and ran its default benchmark, and noticed a single percent reduction in scores, but it could also be due to temperature variation.


Is SC score CBR23 also increased ?


----------



## J7SC

xeizo said:


> Yes, I don't know what it is, I haven't had dead PC components for years. Maybe it's solar flares or something ....


...could it be the PSU rails / spikes ? May be run various, diversified tests with HWInfo open and check peaks and variances .


----------



## th30d0r3

I'm a little confused about the 140 EDC limit that is being mentioned here. When I increase the EDC from 140 to 150 I get an increase in MC frequency and score in CBR23. I'm doing some testing in 4201 with my 5950x on the Dark Hero.
I haven't set anything fancy just PPT-TDC-EDC 220-140-140/150 everything else is on auto, no cure optimiser. Would someone please tell me what I should observe in HWINFO? since currently I can see the EDC usage hitting 150 with no perceivable issues.


----------



## Kelutrel

th30d0r3 said:


> I'm a little confused about the 140 EDC limit that is being mentioned here. When I increase the EDC from 140 to 150 I get an increase in MC frequency and score in CBR23. I'm doing some testing in 4201 with my 5950x on the Dark Hero.
> I haven't set anything fancy just PPT-TDC-EDC 220-140-140/150 everything else is on auto, no cure optimiser. Would someone please tell me what I should observe in HWINFO? since currently I can see the EDC usage hitting 150 with no perceivable issues.


When you raise your EDC > 140 (provided that you didn't enable the Asus setting PBO Fmax Enhancer) your cpu max vid gets lowered from 1.5v to 1.425v . This means lower temperatures and, depending on your cooling solution and PBO boost mhz, may increase your scores and/or lower your peak single core frequencies .
You can verify if this is the case with HwINFO as you will see the max CPU SVID under load to be 1.425v when EDC > 140, and 1.5v when EDC = 140 (it is named "CPU Core VID (Effective)" in HwINFO)
On average, from what I've read and from my experience, if your cooling solution can keep your CPU under 65-68 degrees when under load at 1.5v, then you will get a performance decrease by having EDC > 140 because of the lower CPU vid. If your cooling solution is less performant instead, you will get a progressively higher advantage by having EDC > 140.


----------



## noxious89123

SpeedyIV said:


> I have a Commander Pro and 2 Lighting Node Pros in my Intel Z370 rig. My Co-Pro is also running firmware version 0.9.212. The LNP's are running v0.10.04 The only time I install and run iCue is for updating firmware. I have not updated them since 2018 so there may have been a more recent update for the Co-Pro. Like yours, mine are stable and I would be hesitant to install a firmware update unless there was a distinct, known advantage to it.
> 
> I gave up on Corsair Link and iCue years ago. There is a system monitoring utility called SIV (not Gigabyte's SIV) that is sort of like HWINFO but goes really, really deep. The author of SIV got so fed up with Corsair Link that he reverse engineered their control protocols and added support for Link enabled products to SIV. He has not bothered to add some of their newer devices but I did get him to add the Lighting Node Core because I have 2 of those in my Ryzen X570 rig. I have been using SIV to control my Corsair stuff for years. It works great, is very stable, and very efficient in terms of CPU load. SIV is a monitoring tool, not and RGB control program, so it is not as "polished" as iCue tries to be but once you learn your way around, its easy to set up.
> 
> The author of SIV told me that Corsair transitioned to software control due to the LL series fans, which he strongly disagreed with, mainly because it causes the program to use even more system resources. That and Corsair decided to stop using the proper global mutex to poll system sensors (which he showed them how to do). Ever since they did this, iCue does not properly queue sensor polling requests which is why it can't run concurrently with HWINFO, AIDA64, SIV, CUP-Z etc. This is one of the reasons I refuse to use it.
> 
> IIRC, there were certain new RGB effects presets that were added for the LL series fans and the micro-controller in the Co-Pro could not handle them, so they decided to stream the data to the Co-Pro over the USB connection. Corsair USB comms have always been flakey and they are currently having major problems with bandwidth for their new AIO video display (LINK 1) (LINK 2). The 2 USB ports on the Commander Pro are unusable in my opinion. Every time I have tried to use them I have problems. Corsair likes to blame them all on AMD but my I have Co-Pro's in 2 different Intel rigs and they both had Co-Pro USB problems which I resolved by adding NZXT internal USB2.0 hubs and not using the ports on the Co-Pro at all.
> 
> I think Corsair is in over their heads with iCue and their forum has many very long threads full of posts reporting all sorts of problems with their top end AIO coolers and the never ending list of iCue bugs. I moved up to Aquasuite for my last build. It is FAR superior to iCue for cooling component control. Their RGBpx platform is pretty good. There are some things I could do in iCue that I can't replicate in Aquasuite but those things are not worth the headache that is iCue.


Excellent post, thank you for sharing! I'll have to take a look at SIV at some point then, and see if I want to switch!

Ideally I would like to replace the CoPro with an Octo, but there's always other stuff I'd rather spend on first, and the CoPro is "good enough" for right now. I refuse to use Corsair RGB products, simply because they lock you in to their "eco-system" by using a stupid connector instead of the same ones that everyone else uses for compatibility with motherboards.

What specifically can't you do in AquaSuite that iCue could?


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> When you raise your EDC > 140 (provided that you didn't enable the Asus setting PBO Fmax Enhancer) your cpu max vid gets lowered from 1.5v to 1.425v . This means lower temperatures and, depending on your cooling solution and PBO boost mhz, may increase your scores and/or lower your peak single core frequencies .
> You can verify if this is the case with HwINFO as you will see the max CPU SVID under load to be 1.425v when EDC > 140, and 1.5v when EDC = 140 (it is named "CPU Core VID (Effective)" in HwINFO)
> On average, from what I've read and from my experience, if your cooling solution can keep your CPU under 65-68 degrees when under load at 1.5v, then you will get a performance decrease by having EDC > 140 because of the lower CPU vid. If your cooling solution is less performant instead, you will get a progressively higher advantage by having EDC > 140.


Yep.
I have chosen edc=tdc=140.
This is my best compromise in order to keep good single core performances.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> You may want to try to set these two to Disabled, instead of Auto, for a slight improvement in CBR scores:
> AMD CBS > CPU Common Options > Prefetcher Settings:
> L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Disabled]
> L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Disabled]


I have to test this asap.
Next week in France we will have between 25 degrees and 30 degrees 😂


----------



## th30d0r3

Kelutrel said:


> When you raise your EDC > 140 (provided that you didn't enable the Asus setting PBO Fmax Enhancer) your cpu max vid gets lowered from 1.5v to 1.425v . This means lower temperatures and, depending on your cooling solution and PBO boost mhz, may increase your scores and/or lower your peak single core frequencies .
> You can verify if this is the case with HwINFO as you will see the max CPU SVID under load to be 1.425v when EDC > 140, and 1.5v when EDC = 140 (it is named "CPU Core VID (Effective)" in HwINFO)
> On average, from what I've read and from my experience, if your cooling solution can keep your CPU under 65-68 degrees when under load at 1.5v, then you will get a performance decrease by having EDC > 140 because of the lower CPU vid. If your cooling solution is less performant instead, you will get a progressively higher advantage by having EDC > 140.


Interesting, Since I use DOC, I set the PBO to Motherboard and not worry about MC OC levels as I'm running 4825 / 4700, SC boosts up to 5050 but I have to enable FMAX to get that SC to boost that high. I have seen some of you guys get much higher than that. Are there more tweaks I can make for this?

CBR23 MT 31837 / ST 1650


----------



## GRABibus

th30d0r3 said:


> Interesting, Since I use DOC, I set the PBO to Motherboard and not worry about MC OC levels as I'm running 4825 / 4700, SC boosts up to 5050 but I have to enable FMAX to get that SC to boost that high. I have seen some of you guys get much higher than that. Are there more tweaks I can make for this?
> 
> CBR23 MT 31837 / ST 1650


Work again, this SC score is too low 😆


----------



## Luggage

th30d0r3 said:


> Interesting, Since I use DOC, I set the PBO to Motherboard and not worry about MC OC levels as I'm running 4825 / 4700, SC boosts up to 5050 but I have to enable FMAX to get that SC to boost that high. I have seen some of you guys get much higher than that. Are there more tweaks I can make for this?
> 
> CBR23 MT 31837 / ST 1650


Don’t use mb limits - they are too high for mc and FAR too high for sc.
Sc likes low PBO limits, often lower than default even.
Especially if you use DOC play with low PBO limits, careful that you might lose performance around your “break point”(sic - the switch to all core, ie 6-10 threads?)


----------



## th30d0r3

Luggage said:


> Don’t use mb limits - they are too high for mc and FAR too high for sc.
> Sc likes low PBO limits, often lower than default even.
> Especially if you use DOC play with low PBO limits, careful that you might lose performance around your “break point”(sic - the switch to all core, ie 6-10 threads?)


Yes I'm gonna have a bit more of a play around, perhaps if I run ST benches to see what it draws and set the limits to 20 above the draw to see what happens. Does CO affect ST speeds or is that mainly the PBO limits?


----------



## flyinion

Hi guys been away for a bit. Just saw there is a new 4201 "beta" BIOS out for the Hero boards. Is there a consensus on if this BIOS is good? I always like to check when it's tagged as beta, but I was interested in the AGESA update because I think this is the one that fixes that stupid TPM related stuttering that happens randomly?


----------



## GRABibus

GRABibus said:


> I have to test this asap.
> Next week in France we will have between 25 degrees and 30 degrees 😂


So, I tested with L2 Stream HW Prefetcher disabled.

*[email protected]°C :*









=> +5pts to + 8pts on SC score
=> + 100pts on MC Score


*[email protected]°C :







*

=> + 6pts on SC Score
=> + 300pts on MC Score

*Aida64 memory and cache @23°C :







*

=> -300MB/s to -400MB/s on Read/write/copy memory values
No impact on latency, good point.

I go now for some vanguard to see in games.

Definitely, nice tip to increase Cinebench scores ! Thank you Kelutrel


----------



## des2k...

GRABibus said:


> So, I tested with L2 Stream HW Prefetcher disabled.
> 
> *[email protected]°C :*
> View attachment 2559594
> 
> 
> => +5pts to + 8pts on SC score
> => + 100pts on MC Score
> 
> 
> *[email protected]°C :
> View attachment 2559595
> *
> 
> => + 6pts on SC Score
> => + 300pts on MC Score
> 
> *Aida64 memory and cache @23°C :
> View attachment 2559596
> *
> 
> => -300MB/s to -400MB/s on Read/write/copy memory values
> No impact on latency, good point.
> 
> I go now for some vanguard to see in games.
> 
> Definitely, nice tip to increase Cinebench scores ! Thank you Kelutrel


Yeah, L2 HW pre off always boost R23 scores (100pt+). Maybe due to L2 having more space for other stuff or less power used by the cpu. Also worked on my Zen2 3900x.

You do loose 400MB/s but at 2000IF it doesn't really matter.
I'm still testing CO values. Once I'm done I will test again with L2 HW pre off.

playing with L1,L2 HW pre values (auto,on.off) can affect cpu stability, may introduce some weird bugs.

For latency with the 5900x,
3800cl14 is mostly 54.5
4000cl16 is mostly 53.5
4000cl16 + L2 HW pre off does drop latency to 52.5

strange enough, 3800cl14 with L2 HW pre off doesn't change latency.


----------



## GRABibus

des2k... said:


> Yeah, L2 HW pre off always boost R23 scores (100pt+). Maybe due to L2 having more space for other stuff or less power used by the cpu. Also worked on my Zen2 3900x.
> 
> You do loose 400MB/s but at 2000IF it doesn't really matter.
> I'm still testing CO values. Once I'm done I will test again with L2 HW pre off.
> 
> playing with L1,L2 HW pre values (auto,on.off) can affect cpu stability, may introduce some weird bugs.
> 
> For latency with the 5900x,
> 3800cl14 is mostly 54.5
> 4000cl16 is mostly 53.5
> 4000cl16 + L2 HW pre off does drop latency to 52.5
> 
> strange enough, 3800cl14 with L2 HW pre off doesn't change latency.


Yes, I loose 400MB/s and I am at 1900 IF.
I will test again latency, but yeah, no change for me.


----------



## SpeedyIV

noxious89123 said:


> Excellent post, thank you for sharing! I'll have to take a look at SIV at some point then, and see if I want to switch!
> 
> Ideally I would like to replace the CoPro with an Octo, but there's always other stuff I'd rather spend on first, and the CoPro is "good enough" for right now. I refuse to use Corsair RGB products, simply because they lock you in to their "eco-system" by using a stupid connector instead of the same ones that everyone else uses for compatibility with motherboards.
> 
> What specifically can't you do in AquaSuite that iCue could?


I like the Marquee RGB effect. iCue has always had a Marquee effect. Open RGB also does. I don't remember if Aura or Armoury Crate does but I think they do. I consider this a pretty basic effect. In iCue I could set 3 different Marquee layers with 3 different colors. The end result was quite "frenetic" but I thought it looked pretty cool on my QL fans (which are lousy fans in terms of performance). There is no Marquee effect in Aquasuite (AQS) and I have not been able to take one of their presets and turn it into a Marquee effect. The closest thing they have is "Color Noise" which sort of looks like a random "sample & hold" effect. I posted in their forum asking them to consider adding a Marquee effect but they did not respond.

Also, some of the user adjustable parameters for some of the presets are named ambiguously, like the "bouncing ball" preset in which you cad adjust "Gravity", "Damping", "Restart Delay", and "Tail". It is not always clear what adjusting these items actually does so its a lot of try it and see. AQS currently has 32 presets. Some of them are pretty basic, some are affected by sound or video, some can be controlled by sensor data. I don't know if they had these 32 effects when they first introduced their RGBpx platform but in the year or so that I have been running it I have not seen them add anything new. The Octo has 2 RGBpx ports on it, each of which can drive 90 ARGB LEDs. The Farbwerk360 has 4 RGBpx ports and adds the ability to set Transparency so you can stack effects and have the effects lower in the stack bleed through the effects higher in the stack. AFAIK this is only available on the Farbwerk360 and Farbwerk Nano.

Octo vs Co-Pro - AQS is FAR FAR superior to iCue for fan curve control. There is just no comparison. Once you get into AQS you will never go back. A lot of people (including me) use the difference between ambient temp and coolant temp as the control source for fan curves. This eliminates changes in ambient temp affecting the fan curve. Its a simple thing but you can't do that in iCue. AQS is really only limited by your imagination. They have a "playground" wherein you can perform mathematical , statistical, and logic functions on sensor data. Say you want your fans to respond to CPU temps and GPU temps, or the average of the 2. AQS can do it. If the sensor data is erratic you can apply filters to smooth things out. If you have temp sensors at the input and output of a radiator, and you know the flow rate, you can calculate heat transfer efficiency. If your pump RPM goes below a threshold value, the Octo "Signal" output can send a momentary logic low to your case power switch motherboard header (with an optional cable) which will immediately shut down the computer. iCue has nothing like this at all.

The other nice thing about Aquacomputer is that they do not lock you into their ecosystem. Their Splitty4 is designed to connect Corsair and NZXT fans. It does the fan to fan ARGB data looping that Corsair's RGB hub does. They use RGBpx connectors which are Molex pico-blade. These are "proprietary" but they sell adapters to go to and from the horrible "standard" ARGB connectors that are used on motherboards and many other products. ((LINK1) (LINK2). They are a lot cheaper than the Corsair adapter cables offered by Pirate Dog Tech. The RGBpx connection cables are available from Aquacomputer but you can buy Molex pico-blade contacts, premade jumpers, or whole cables from places like Digikey. Note that the RGBpx pinout is different than the standard pico-blade pinout but its easy to re-pin them.

SIV - SIV is thee most powerful system monitoring program I have ever encountered. It's a labyrinth of menus and sub panels. I have been using it for years and I still find new things. The author updates it constantly. The program has a learning curve for sure and the documentation is not that great. SIV can stress your CPU, pull your GPU bios out of the card, and tell you more about your hardware and software than any other program I know of. Setting it up to control Corsair stuff is not too complicated but it may be a struggle the first time. He has an AIO control guide on the SIV site. If you follow it EXACTLY you will be OK. There is also a SIV forum if you need help.


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> Yes, I loose 400MB/s and I am at 1900 IF.
> I will test again latency, but yeah, no change for me.


The latency should go down, although I tested only with both L1/L2 prefetch disabled.
It should go down because the AIDA64 latency test, to calculate the RAM latency and not the cache latency, uses an unpredictable pattern to access memory during the latency benchmark and dodge caching, and this causes a few missed prefetches that add that tiny bit of latency. When the L1/L2 prefetchers are off, there are no missed prefetches in that particular benchmark, so it should calculate a lower latency.
It is possible though that, as your RAM timings are so so tight, you actually get no perceivable latency impact from a missed memory prefetch, and that may explain why you don't see a difference.


----------



## Kelutrel

des2k... said:


> playing with L1,L2 HW pre values (auto,on.off) can affect cpu stability, may introduce some weird bugs.


No.


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> Definitely, nice tip to increase Cinebench scores ! Thank you Kelutrel


Happy to contribute, and wait that I tell you about the custom power profiles 

Tbh I think that someone should keep track of all the little tips and tweaks that you can find in this thread and improve this or that benchmark score. I was frustrated when I joined and could not duplicate the benchmark results of ppl with the same hardware due to not knowing those tips, now I know a bit more about how to optimise and obtain decent scores (mostly CBR and AIDA64) and so I think that a pinned list would be useful for new joiners and a source of pride for the thread.


----------



## finas

Kelutrel said:


> Happy to contribute, and wait that I tell you about the custom power profiles
> 
> Tbh I think that someone should keep track of all the little tips and tweaks that you can find in this thread and improve this or that benchmark score. I was frustrated when I joined and could not duplicate the benchmark results of ppl with the same hardware due to not knowing those tips, now I know a bit more about how to optimise and obtain decent scores (mostly CBR and AIDA64) and so I think that a pinned list would be useful for new joiners and a source of pride for the thread.


It would be very cool if you could compile it.
I'm currently trying with fmax enhancer. it seems promising for single core performance at least once I can get it stable. Once I try to increase the cpu offset to try to bring the effective clock near the reported clock, it starts to crash. the interesting thing is that I see the cpu pulling 180A on EDC and the voltage still goes to 1.5, and this is with agesa 1207!!
this is on my 5950x


----------



## Kelutrel

finas said:


> It would be very cool if you could compile it.
> I'm currently trying with fmax enhancer. it seems promising for single core performance at least once I can get it stable. Once I try to increase the cpu offset to try to bring the effective clock near the reported clock, it starts to crash. the interesting thing is that I see the cpu pulling 180A on EDC and the voltage still goes to 1.5, and this is with agesa 1207!!


On zen3 the fmax enhancer sets EDC to 0, that is causing the cpu cores to instantly peak at top mhz under load, independently from thermal and power constraints, and then slowly go down depending on temperature and power consumption up to a sustainable frequency (sustainable in terms of thermal and power budget). This compared to the usual behaviour that is to "slowly" (talking ns here...) raise the core frequency up to its max freq allowed by thermal and power stability.

That is why, with fmax enhancer enabled, you see in HwINFO a peak core freq that is higher than with fmax enhancer disabled, but may not correspond to an actual performance increase in terms of score. Unfortunately this causes clock stretching, if you don't have more than adequate cooling, that is when the suddenly reached peak frequency causes the core to become so hot that the following bounce back stabilises it at a lower clock freq than what you would have obtained if gradually rising the frequency, so that in the end the average effective core frequency is lower for the workload you are testing with. So in that case HwINFO would show a higher max frequency (because it recorded the peak) but your benchmark scores would be lower (because your average freq across the whole workload would be lower).

This may explain the peaks you see in max EDC, but for what is related to the AGESA algorithms it is still an EDC=140 configuration and so runs with max vid 1.5v.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> No.


Yes, I got one idle reboot due to Core0 with CO -14 which I didn’t have since I have my 5950X.
I came back to preftecher to auto to see if this is the root cause.


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> Yes, I got one idle reboot due to Core0 with CO -14 which I didn’t have since I have my 5950X.
> I came back to preftecher to auto to see if this is the root cause.


No. Unless there is a different bug in the BIOS code, there is no way that enabling or disabling the stream prefetchers in any combination causes bugs or instabilities that were not already present before. Not even remotely.
You may want to use corecycler to test your cores stability with prefetchers on and off and you'll see that the resulting stable offsets are the same.


----------



## finas

Kelutrel said:


> On zen3 the fmax enhancer sets EDC to 0, that is causing the cpu cores to instantly peak at top mhz under load, independently from thermal and power constraints, and then slowly go down depending on temperature and power consumption up to a sustainable frequency (sustainable in terms of thermal and power budget). This compared to the usual behaviour that is to "slowly" (talking ns here...) raise the core frequency up to its max freq allowed by thermal and power stability.
> 
> That is why, with fmax enhancer enabled, you see in HwINFO a peak core freq that is higher than with fmax enhancer disabled, but may not correspond to an actual performance increase in terms of score. Unfortunately this causes clock stretching, if you don't have more than adequate cooling, that is when the suddenly reached peak frequency causes the core to become so hot that the following bounce back stabilises it at a lower clock freq than what you would have obtained if gradually rising the frequency, so that in the end the average effective core frequency is lower for the workload you are testing with. So in that case HwINFO would show a higher max frequency (because it recorded the peak) but your benchmark scores would be lower (because your average freq across the whole workload would be lower).
> 
> This may explain the peaks you see in max EDC, but for what is related to the AGESA algorithms it is still an EDC=140 configuration and so runs with max vid 1.5v.


Thanks for the explanation. So what is your advice regarding fmax. Try to make it work by working on the voltage offset or co tuning?

Currently what I did ( am doing is ) ( after dialing up IF and memory timings ):

I found out the max negative offset for each core with fmax disabled and max frequency override to 0. I did this using the pbo tunning thing from hydra. I simply ran hydra for 5 times and picked the worst values for each core
I then started rising the max frequency override in the allowed 25mhz steps and patiently lowering each co until it was stable again ( it losses stability when at idle ). I did this until max frequency override was at 200mhz.
I then enabled fmax. instant crash. I worsened all the co's by 5 and I am now trying to rise then one by one without losing stability. The thing is that as soon as I try to increase the cpu voltage ofset to give it a bit more juice as suggested by shamino, it crashes.

Maybe I should get back to max frequency overide of 0, enable fmax and get it stable and then start to increase frequency override.

Regarding EDC consumption as reported by hwinfo, it must be indeed higher than 140 because at 140 wihtout fmax my cpu doen't go above 65 degrees in any benchmark I test like prime or so. with fmax enabled it goes to 90 degrees so it is indeed consuming more power. This is why I am hopefull that fmax may be better.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> No. There is no way that enabling or disabling the stream prefetchers in any combination causes bugs or instabilities that were not already present before. Not even remotely.


What a big coincidence then 😊.
I will then increase Core0 CO to -13 and see…


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> No. There is no way that enabling or disabling the stream prefetchers in any combination causes bugs or instabilities that were not already present before. Not even remotely.
> You may want to use corecycler to test your cores stability with prefetchers on and off and you'll see that the resulting stable offsets are the same.


Probably you are right as I am not Corecycler stable, but 24/7 stable for my usual usage.
This is the reason why it rebooted probably.


----------



## Kelutrel

finas said:


> Thanks for the explanation. So what is your advice regarding fmax. Try to make it work by working on the voltage offset or co tuning?


Regarding fmax enhancer my advice is:
When you want to brag about your peak frequency on all your cores, set fmax enhancer to enabled and the Precision Boost Overdrive to Manual in the Asus PBO settings, and set your boost clock to 200Mhz and all your core offsets to +30 (or high enough to keep stability at +200MHz) in the AMD PBO settings. Then take a screenshot of the HwINFO max cores freq under single core load, post it here, brag, and then disable fmax enhancer.
In all other cases, keep it disabled. I suspect that it is detrimental for the cpu but that may be just a guess.


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> Probably you are right as I am not Corecycler stable, but 24/7 stable for my usual usage.
> This is the reason why it rebooted probably.


So, it varies for everyone, but my own best configuration in terms of corecycler stability up to now has been:
Extreme Tweaker\External Digi+ Power Control:

CPU Power Duty control: Extreme
CPU Power Phase Control: Standard
VDDSOC Phase Control: Standard
Everything else to Auto/Default.

Advanced\AMD Overclocking\AMD Overclocking\Precision Boost Overdrive:

Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar: Manual
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar:1x
Everything else to your taste.

I could not find any other setting that would make a difference to allow stability at lower curve offsets. This is also what I use 24/7 . Having reboots due to low curve offsets is an issue because you never know if you have really finally found stability, I share your pain.


----------



## des2k...

Kelutrel said:


> No. Unless there is a different bug in the BIOS code, there is no way that enabling or disabling the stream prefetchers in any combination causes bugs or instabilities that were not already present before. Not even remotely.
> You may want to use corecycler to test your cores stability with prefetchers on and off and you'll see that the resulting stable offsets are the same.


I don't think you have a good understating how this prefetcher option works. If we're not talking about bugs, having it off does reduce package power so that extra power could cause issue if you run at the limits with PBO,CO.

The other way, from AUTO to ON is weird. I've seen it fail on my 2700x,3900x accross multiple boards , agesa.

So like I said with my comment, it may introduce stability or bugs. Not having issues with your cpu/bios doesn't mean anything.

I only tried L2 HW pre off for few minutes on the 5900x; it already showed diff boost for games. Freq holding longer and some +25mhz more for peaks.


----------



## GRABibus

des2k... said:


> I don't think you have a good understating how this prefetcher option works. If we're not talking about bugs, having it off does reduce package power so that extra power could cause issue if you run at the limits with PBO,CO.
> 
> The other way, from AUTO to ON is weird. I've seen it fail on my 2700x,3900x accross multiple boards , agesa.
> 
> So like I said with my comment, it may introduce stability or bugs. Not having issues with your cpu/bios doesn't mean anything.
> 
> I only tried L2 HW pre off for few minutes on the 5900x; it already showed diff boost for games. Freq holding longer and some +25mhz more for peaks.


You mean better boost for games ?


----------



## GRABibus

GRABibus said:


> So, I tested with L2 Stream HW Prefetcher disabled.
> 
> *[email protected]°C :*
> View attachment 2559594
> 
> 
> => +5pts to + 8pts on SC score
> => + 100pts on MC Score
> 
> 
> *[email protected]°C :
> View attachment 2559595
> *
> 
> => + 6pts on SC Score
> => + 300pts on MC Score
> 
> *Aida64 memory and cache @23°C :
> View attachment 2559596
> *
> 
> => -300MB/s to -400MB/s on Read/write/copy memory values
> No impact on latency, good point.
> 
> I go now for some vanguard to see in games.
> 
> Definitely, nice tip to increase Cinebench scores ! Thank you Kelutrel



Test now with both L1 and L2 Stream HW Prefetcher disabled :





























Big improvments scores in CBR20 and CBR23.

In Aida, memory read/write/copy are again lower than with L2 Stream HW Prefetcher disabled only (Not L1).

Memory latency is 1.5ns better.
Cache L3 latency is 0.3ns worst.

My new test now is idle....


----------



## des2k...

GRABibus said:


> You mean better boost for games ?


I don't know if it's "better" because I was looking at hwinfo window when playing Destiny2 to validate the higher freq from auto oc.

It could of been lower ambient temps or different load on cpu(same map but co-op, 2 other random players)

I think setting hwinfo to 500ms and chart the freq with a single player game, same stage could show or not show the difference.


----------



## Kelutrel

des2k... said:


> I don't think you have a good understating how this prefetcher option works. If we're not talking about bugs, having it off does reduce package power so that extra power could cause issue if you run at the limits with PBO,CO.
> 
> The other way, from AUTO to ON is weird. I've seen it fail on my 2700x,3900x accross multiple boards , agesa.
> 
> So like I said with my comment, it may introduce stability or bugs. Not having issues with your cpu/bios doesn't mean anything.
> 
> I only tried L2 HW pre off for few minutes on the 5900x; it already showed diff boost for games. Freq holding longer and some +25mhz more for peaks.


Mate, what you are saying is wrong. The streaming prefetcher exists in every modern processor, and it does not change package power or frequencies or anything like that by having it on or off. It is common to set it off on servers and systems that host many virtual machines because of the higher chances of missed prefetches.
To reiterate, unless there is a bug in the bios, having the l1/l2 hw stream prefetcher on or off does not cause any bug or instability that was not already present.
I am available to discuss about this if you want, but you can check google about what a streaming prefetcher is and quickly understand why I am so confident in what I am saying.


----------



## J7SC

...^ certainly an interesting discussion. So far, I left the bios settings mostly on default in the sub menus for both my 3950X and 5950X boards. The former has fMax enabled, the latter not - instead it uses either two sets of CO profiles (mild and max) or a profile for DynOC. PBO enabled, limits on Auto, power phases on 'optimized'. Both CPUs are slightly undervolted (by 0.00625V), including with CO curves enabled. I also constrain SoCv to below 1.1 v on both CPUs.

I am going to check out the L1/L2 prefetcher setting alternatives just to satisfy my curiosity...most of my systems' oc probably comes from very extensive cooling, though the 5950X has two 'gold' rated chiplets, whatever that really means. 

The L1/L2 prefetcher discussion is interesting also because running 'super tight' timings on memory, even w/ 4000 CL15 nominal sticks, certainly can lead to increased latencies in Aida, as well as reduced L3 bandwidth - that is even the case with RAM timings that pass longer stress tests. There's more of a range or 'bell-curve' where the CPU L1, L2 and L3 caches interact best with the RAM rather than a single on/off switch, which makes sense when factoring in prediction / prefetching of CPUs with long pipelines.


----------



## GRABibus

GRABibus said:


> Test now with both L1 and L2 Stream HW Prefetcher disabled :
> View attachment 2559679
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2559681
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2559683
> 
> 
> Big improvments scores in CBR20 and CBR23.
> 
> In Aida, memory read/write/copy are again lower than with L2 Stream HW Prefetcher disabled only (Not L1).
> 
> Memory latency is 1.5ns better.
> Cache L3 latency is 0.3ns worst.
> 
> My new test now is idle....


In game Vanguard, 6 to 8 degrees less with those 2 parameters disabled


----------



## J7SC

...I ran a couple of quick tests (CPU only for now) w/ L1/L2 prefetch disabled, as well as each disabled individually (normally both are on 'auto' in my 5950X). Both L1 and L2 prefetch disabled got the best results overall (ie. CBR 23, Aida) though the memory read speed in Aida took a small hit. Next, I will compare how this might affect some of the GPU benches & games...(FS2020, I'm looking at you w/ your questionable thread optimization  )


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> ...I ran a couple of quick tests (CPU only for now) w/ L1/L2 prefetch disabled, as well as each disabled individually (normally both are on 'auto' in my 5950X). Both L1 and L2 prefetch disabled got the best results overall (ie. CBR 23, Aida) though the memory read speed in Aida took a small hit. Next, I will compare how this might affect some of the GPU benches & games...(FS2020, I'm looking at you w/ your questionable thread optimization  )


From my side, results in Aida are lower for read/write/copy for memory (-500MB/s)
Latency is best, -1.5ns.


----------



## Neoki

Curious if anybody else on a full AMD platform is experiencing Win10 BSOD's with Windows Update KB5012599 installed? They are super random, but after weeks of going through 1 by 1. This update seems to trigger a "PAGE_FAULT_IN_NONPAGED_AREA (50)" BSOD. Debugging the dump file comes back with "Error: Exception of type 'System.OutOfMemoryException' was thrown." and links back to the crash coming from "amdppm". Whenever I uninstall that windows update, the BSOD's stop. So now I'm pausing updates to keep it stable.

Wondering if I'm alone here on this one?

Running 5950x/X570 Dark Hero/6900XT


----------



## Kelutrel

J7SC said:


> ...I ran a couple of quick tests (CPU only for now) w/ L1/L2 prefetch disabled, as well as each disabled individually (normally both are on 'auto' in my 5950X). Both L1 and L2 prefetch disabled got the best results overall (ie. CBR 23, Aida) though the memory read speed in Aida took a small hit. Next, I will compare how this might affect some of the GPU benches & games...(FS2020, I'm looking at you w/ your questionable thread optimization  )


I don't think that there will be a speed up in games. This was just a tip to increase the CBR scores. Similarly to when using safe mode to raise the AIDA64 memory benchmarks.
I mean, my own target with this tweaks is to enter the HwBOT ladder, or confront my scores with other people here having the same hardware, and not finding a faster configuration for daily use.
There's a guy on HwBOT that, on AIO with a 5900X, scored 9528 in CBR20 ... to reach that score I am pretty sure he tried every single combination of bios and windows options, and that's what I am looking for.


----------



## PWn3R

Neoki said:


> Curious if anybody else on a full AMD platform is experiencing Win10 BSOD's with Windows Update KB5012599 installed? They are super random, but after weeks of going through 1 by 1. This update seems to trigger a "PAGE_FAULT_IN_NONPAGED_AREA (50)" BSOD. Debugging the dump file comes back with "Error: Exception of type 'System.OutOfMemoryException' was thrown." and links back to the crash coming from "amdppm". Whenever I uninstall that windows update, the BSOD's stop. So now I'm pausing updates to keep it stable.
> 
> Wondering if I'm alone here on this one?
> 
> Running 5950x/X570 Dark Hero/6900XT


I had the same BSOD error on Windows 11 Insider Dev Preview but mine was related to a different AMD .sys driver when I opened the memory dump. I couldn’t fix it, and then one of the build updates fixed it. I have a 3090 though.


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> ...^ certainly an interesting discussion. So far, I left the bios settings mostly on default in the sub menus for both my 3950X and 5950X boards. The former has fMax enabled, the latter not - instead it uses either two sets of CO profiles (mild and max) or a profile for DynOC. PBO enabled, limits on Auto, power phases on 'optimized'. Both CPUs are slightly undervolted (by 0.00625V), including with CO curves enabled. I also constrain SoCv to below 1.1 v on both CPUs.
> 
> I am going to check out the L1/L2 prefetcher setting alternatives just to satisfy my curiosity...most of my systems' oc probably comes from very extensive cooling, though the 5950X has two 'gold' rated chiplets, whatever that really means.
> 
> The L1/L2 prefetcher discussion is interesting also because running 'super tight' timings on memory, even w/ 4000 CL15 nominal sticks, certainly can lead to increased latencies in Aida, as well as reduced L3 bandwidth - that is even the case with RAM timings that pass longer stress tests. There's more of a range or 'bell-curve' where the CPU L1, L2 and L3 caches interact best with the RAM rather than a single on/off switch, which makes sense when factoring in prediction / prefetching of CPUs with long pipelines.


*
Time Spy CPU test @ 23.8°C :

L1 + L2 HW "Auto" :*










*L1 + L2 HW "Disable" :







*


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> *Time Spy CPU test @ 23.8°C :
> 
> L1 + L2 HW "Auto" :*
> View attachment 2559722
> 
> 
> 
> *L1 + L2 HW "Disable" :
> View attachment 2559723
> *


...great - saves me some time before lunch; I got caught up '''testing''' in F1 2021, but ended up testing my own skills at Suzuka instead


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> ...great - saves me some time before lunch; I got caught up '''testing''' in F1 2021, but ended up testing my own skills at Suzuka instead


Please, test Port Royal 👍
Thanks !


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> Please, test Port Royal 👍
> Thanks !


After 'some delay'  , just ran Port Royal with and without L1, L2 prefetch disabled under identical conditions (ie. reboot, 3090 w/o oc etc) once each... net difference was only 7 points, or well within normal run-to-run variance...will test some more on the weekend.


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> After 'some delay'  , just ran Port Royal with and without L1, L2 prefetch disabled under identical conditions (ie. reboot, 3090 w/o oc etc) once each... net difference was only 7 points, or well within normal run-to-run variance...will test some more on the weekend.


At least we can improve our TS scores 😊


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> At least we can improve our TS scores 😊


...or just run my _3950X w/ 6900XT_ and a good helping of MPT for the GPU  though I feel guilty doing it since that is my daily work setup


Spoiler


----------



## GRABibus

Got 2 crashes today in Vanguard.
I highly suspect the L1 +L2 HW disabled.


----------



## Hilderman

L1 HW Prefetch on auto
L2 HW Prefetch disabled
CB23 increases, Aida copy increases.
Seems to lower Geekbench 3 a fair amount for me. Would that be expected? I'm quite the rookie in comparison to you all.


L1+L2 Auto










L1 Auto
L2 disabled


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> Got 2 crashes today in Vanguard.
> I highly suspect the L1 +L2 HW disabled.


I cant stress this enough, the only thing that happens with L1/L2 stream prefetcher enabled is that two cache lines are fetched from memory when the CPU asks for one. With it disabled, only a single cache line is fetched. Having it disabled is quite common on servers, that is why there is the setting in the BIOS. There is really no chance that any instability comes out of this change.
But ok...


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> I cant stress this enough, the only thing that happens with L1/L2 stream prefetcher enabled is that two cache lines are fetched from memory when the CPU asks for one. With it disabled, only a single cache line is fetched. Having it disabled is quite common on servers, that is why there is the setting in the BIOS. There is really no chance that any instability comes out of this change.
> But ok...


You are right.
But as I am not Corecycler stable, then L1 + L2 disabled make the things worst.

Here are my power settings :

Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 2]
CPU Current Capability [130%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed CPU VRM Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
CPU Power Duty Control [Extreme]
CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 2]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed VDDSOC Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
DRAM Current Capability [130%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]

What should I change here to have more stability at idle, without loosing performances ?


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> You are right.
> But as I am not Corecycler stable, then L1 + L2 disabled make the things worst.
> 
> Here are my power settings :
> 
> Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 2]
> CPU Current Capability [130%]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed CPU VRM Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
> CPU Power Duty Control [Extreme]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 2]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed VDDSOC Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
> DRAM Current Capability [130%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
> CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
> CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
> 
> What should I change here to have more stability at idle, without loosing performances ?


That is already perfect imho. You can't get better than that on stability. The next thing would be reducing boost mhz or increasing curve offsets, but you would loose performances with that.
But really, L1/L2 prefetcher enabled or disabled cant make your system unstable, it just doesnt work in that way, it is just a cache strategy, the system will be exactly as stable as before. This said, it was just a small tip to get an increase in CBR scores, so when you are not benchmarking keep it in the way that makes you feel safer.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> That is already perfect imho. You can't get better than that on stability. The next thing would be reducing boost mhz or increasing curve offsets, but you would loose performances with that.
> But really, L1/L2 prefetcher enabled or disabled cant make your system unstable, it just doesnt work in that way, it is just a cache strategy, the system will be exactly as stable as before.


Thank you for your answser.

L1 and L2 disabled make me crashing in Vanguard my friend, because my system is not Corecycler stable and is on the razor's edge.

I boost so high that I crash in this game.

I reversed to L1 and L2 to "auto" and no more problem.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> That is already perfect imho. You can't get better than that on stability. The next thing would be reducing boost mhz or increasing curve offsets, but you would loose performances with that.
> But really, L1/L2 prefetcher enabled or disabled cant make your system unstable, it just doesnt work in that way, it is just a cache strategy, the system will be exactly as stable as before. This said, it was just a small tip to get an increase in CBR scores, so when you are not benchmarking keep it in the way that makes you feel safer.


What are your scores with your 5900X with all these tips ?


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> What are your scores with your 5900X with all these tips ?


Just a bit shy of 9300 at this time. Maybe I can go a little bit over 9300 if the room temperature is low.


----------



## J7SC

No problems so far w/ L1 +L2 prefetch disabled on the CH8DH / 5950X...time for some more game stressing on the weekend.


----------



## GRABibus

GRABibus said:


> Thank you for your answser.
> 
> L1 and L2 disabled make me crashing in Vanguard my friend, because my system is not Corecycler stable and is on the razor's edge.
> 
> I boost so high that I crash in this game.
> 
> I reversed to L1 and L2 to "auto" and no more problem.


I have added some voltages on my 2 best cores on CCD1 (Core0 and Core1).

-14 To -9 on Core 0
-12 to -10 on Core 1

I still have better score Cinebench than with L1 + L2 « auto » and -14 and -12.
I am still on Vanguard since 30 minutes without crash.

this game trigs instability on my CPU.
I will use it to stabilize my OC with L1+L2 disabled.


----------



## KedarWolf

Hilderman said:


> L1 HW Prefetch on auto
> L2 HW Prefetch disabled
> CB23 increases, Aida copy increases.
> Seems to lower Geekbench 3 a fair amount for me. Would that be expected? I'm quite the rookie in comparison to you all.
> 
> 
> L1+L2 Auto
> View attachment 2559736
> 
> 
> 
> L1 Auto
> L2 disabled
> View attachment 2559735
> View attachment 2559736
> View attachment 2559735


Prefetch disabled raises my R23 from 30300 or so to 30974.


----------



## Hilderman

KedarWolf said:


> Prefetch disabled raises my R23 from 30300 or so to 30974.
> 
> View attachment 2559747


Nice bump


----------



## KedarWolf

Hilderman said:


> Nice bump


I disabled both Prefetch options though.


----------



## Hilderman

KedarWolf said:


> I disabled both Prefetch options though.


Interesting. I'll have to give that a try.


----------



## J7SC

...no crashes since this morning when I disabled L1 and L2 prefetcher...including some really long gaming sessions...threw everything at it but the kitchen sink  ...L3 cache speed max at 5007 MHz in gaming, decent!


----------



## PWn3R

Just tried the Ryzen Master curve optimizer. It set things so aggressive that it whea uncorrectables on boot. I haven’t messed with it at all manually. I spent like 60 hours on the per core settings on my 7980xe lol. Turned it off and will try lowering the offsets when I have a few hours to mess with it.

Edit: I expected it to at least boot with the settings from Ryzen master. When I ran RCT it said CPU was platinum sample.


----------



## MSIMAX

Kelutrel said:


> Can you disable DF C-states in the "AMD CBS\NBIO Common Options\SMU Common Options" page in BIOS and retry ?
> 
> Weird though... you should definitely have a lower latency. Can you save your bios configuration to a txt file and share it in a message for us to check ?


what would be the best way to save to txt?


----------



## KedarWolf

y-cruncher with both Prefetchers disabled went from 65.387 to 64.736, the best I've ever gotten with my CO Curve.


----------



## Luggage

MSIMAX said:


> what would be the best way to save to txt?





The Sandman said:


> Format flash drive FAT32
> Under OC Profiles at bottom, save text file to flash drive hit Ctrl + F2
> 
> 
> 
> Looks good to me. here's a comparison
> View attachment 2559763


----------



## KedarWolf




----------



## J7SC

...well, I'll be a monkey's uncle !  

After yesterday's 'regular' Bios settings w/ L1 L2 prefetch off and very good results, I tried this with the DynamicOC option now, but using a mild DynOC setting and keeping the same small negative CPUv offset. Results below...As always, these score posts are comparing my own system(s) 'before and after' following a change in settings, rather than trying to compare it to other folks' results and their perhaps very different setups and testing conditions.

Now, it isn't so much the CineR23 score at 31480 which blows me away (I have scored higher w/ 32311, per insert), but the efficiency, per HWI on the right. FYI, ambient was 25.5 C for the run today, while the insert run was at 18 C and also used more aggressive settings clocks and power settings. L1 L2 prefetch off definitely helped, but not to the same extent the regular settings improved (~ 500 to 500 CBR23 pts regular + L1/L2, ~ 100 pts w/ DynOC + L1/L2 ). Still, with PBO values on mobo default, CPUv is normally higher than 1.188v under load, as is EDC (up to 180) and PL (up to 260 W) as a result. Yet CineR23 multi-core scores are higher than regular daily, while consuming about 20 % less and running cooler....more for less ! 

The best part is that single-score are unaffected by DynamicOC. I don't know what portion of the improved score / reduced power consumption is due to DynaOC _and with_ the L1 L2 prefetch off, but it is encouraging. I won't try to improve on my 32.3k max score yet since ambient has to stay high now due to a sinus infection, but I definitely think more is possible later. Also note that this was done with very tight 3800 CL14, and I will also see how all this works with 3966 CL15 later on.

For now though, I think I've got a new fav daily gaming setting


----------



## ChillyRide

L1 + L2 Disabled; Room temps about 20C;


----------



## pfinch

does this apply to all am4 boards or only to the CH8/Asus series?


----------



## 97pedro

It applies to all!

Anyone can confirm the effect of disabled L1 and L2 on games?


----------



## 97pedro

Hello all!

Since I couldn't find any info on the Web about this I decided to do the tests myself 

My setup doesn't have a Crosshair VIII, but a Crosshair VII, since the VII's thread is basically dead and since I don't think it matters anything for these tests I'll just post it here.

Setup is an R9 5950x @4.7ghz 1.275v BIOS with LLC4, doind around 1.23v under AVX Load.

Also, it had 4x8gb G.Skill Flare X 3200mhz CL14 B die running at 3800mhz CL14 with tuned sub timings, you can check it below.










The tests were all done with an Asus Strix RTX 3080 10gb undervolted to 0.950v @2010mhz and memory at +1000mhz.

2 Tests per game and per configuration, I uploaded the best out of the 2.

The first ones have L1 and L2 Prefetechers enabled and the second ones don't.

AC Valhalla Ultra High:

















AC Valhalla Low:
















Cyberpunk 2077 Ultra:


















Cyberpunk 2077 Low:


















Metro Exodus Gold Edition (non RTX) Extreme:


















Metro Exodus Gold Edition (non RTX) Low:


















SOTTR Highest SMAA4X:

















SOTTR NO AA Lowest:


















Watch Dogs Legion Ultra:

















Watch Dogs Legion Low:


















It seemed to be consistantly better with Prefetchers turned off (both).

On the render side, 4.7ghz gets almost the same score as 4.8ghz.










That is all!


----------



## g_d_g_l__

New CoreCycler v.0.9.0.0 added support for Prime95 versions 30.7 and above.
Also updated the included Prime95 version to 30.8b15.
For more recent Prime95 versions the FFT size where an error happened is provided in the log file (it wasn't before), so this information is now used if available. No more guesstimating.

GitHub - sp00n/corecycler: Stability test script for PBO & Curve Optimizer stability testing on AMD Ryzen processors


----------



## J7SC

I had already mentioned L1 & L2 prefetcher off doing well not only in CPU benches but in various games in a post a page or so back, but one thing that has consistently bugged me no matter the L1 and L2 setting is the loss of L3 speed after I upgraded to Windows 11 Pro from Windows 10 Pro recently. VM options are not enabled in the bios w/ either OS version. However, I decided to revert the 5950X machine back to Windows 10 Pro yesterday for other reasons (it's much less annoying) though I'll keep the 3950X on Windows 11 Pro for now. In any case, below are two Aida runs comparing Windows 10 Pro and 11 Pro with identical settings and ambient...and my lost L3 is back . I still have to run DDR4 3933 and 4000 with L1 and L2 prefetcher off which I will do later, but I did include an earlier DDR4 3933 Windows 11 Pro Aida sheet below.

Overall, I am amazed at the improvements with L1, L2 prefetcher off w/ either OS, even at the cost of just a bit of read speed. Beyond that, the other performance gains might also relate to slightly cooler CPU temps under load which will of course benefit via boost algorithm temp and current inputs. I consistently see a 20%+ reduction in peak CPU Package Power while getting either the same or more performance - not bad. It does make me wonder, though, under which conditions / which apps L1 and L2 with prefetcher 'on / default' would benefit. RAM-heavy tasks ?


----------



## stimpy88

@Kelutrel - I just wanted to say, thanks for injecting a bit of fun back into this hobby. Just when you think you have tweaked your system as good as it can get, you come along and show us another trick to gain a bit more performance!

Many thanks for sharing!


----------



## J7SC

stimpy88 said:


> @Kelutrel - I just wanted to say, thanks for injecting a bit of fun back into this hobby. Just when you think you have tweaked your system as good as it can get, you come along and show us another trick to gain a bit more performance!
> 
> Many thanks for sharing!


...yes, big thanks to @Kelutrel again !


----------



## ChillyRide

97pedro said:


> Hello all!
> 
> Since I couldn't find any info on the Web about this I decided to do the tests myself
> 
> My setup doesn't have a Crosshair VIII, but a Crosshair VII, since the VII's thread is basically dead and since I don't think it matters anything for these tests I'll just post it here.
> 
> Setup is an R9 5950x @4.7ghz 1.275v BIOS with LLC4, doind around 1.23v under AVX Load.
> 
> Also, it had 4x8gb G.Skill Flare X 3200mhz CL14 B die running at 3800mhz CL14 with tuned sub timings, you can check it below.
> 
> View attachment 2560057
> 
> 
> The tests were all done with an Asus Strix RTX 3080 10gb undervolted to 0.950v @2010mhz and memory at +1000mhz.
> 
> 2 Tests per game and per configuration, I uploaded the best out of the 2.
> 
> The first ones have L1 and L2 Prefetechers enabled and the second ones don't.
> 
> AC Valhalla Ultra High:
> View attachment 2560059
> 
> View attachment 2560060
> 
> 
> AC Valhalla Low:
> View attachment 2560061
> View attachment 2560062
> 
> 
> Cyberpunk 2077 Ultra:
> 
> View attachment 2560066
> 
> View attachment 2560067
> 
> 
> Cyberpunk 2077 Low:
> 
> View attachment 2560068
> 
> View attachment 2560070
> 
> 
> Metro Exodus Gold Edition (non RTX) Extreme:
> 
> View attachment 2560072
> 
> View attachment 2560073
> 
> 
> Metro Exodus Gold Edition (non RTX) Low:
> View attachment 2560074
> 
> View attachment 2560085
> 
> 
> 
> SOTTR Highest SMAA4X:
> View attachment 2560076
> 
> View attachment 2560077
> 
> 
> SOTTR NO AA Lowest:
> 
> View attachment 2560078
> 
> View attachment 2560079
> 
> 
> Watch Dogs Legion Ultra:
> View attachment 2560080
> 
> View attachment 2560081
> 
> 
> Watch Dogs Legion Low:
> 
> View attachment 2560082
> 
> View attachment 2560083
> 
> 
> It seemed to be consistantly better with Prefetchers turned off (both).
> 
> On the render side, 4.7ghz gets almost the same score as 4.8ghz.
> 
> View attachment 2560084
> 
> 
> That is all!


Games perform in margin of an error.


----------



## xeizo

I got my dead 5900X replaced today, I received a B2-stepping which will be interesting. Currently running it in my B550-F with the latest AGESA as it was the easiest to remove it's water block. C8H has a Dark Rock Pro 4 currently, didn't want to fiddle with that one.


----------



## ronindj68

97pedro said:


> Hello all!
> 
> Since I couldn't find any info on the Web about this I decided to do the tests myself
> 
> My setup doesn't have a Crosshair VIII, but a Crosshair VII, since the VII's thread is basically dead and since I don't think it matters anything for these tests I'll just post it here.
> 
> Setup is an R9 5950x @4.7ghz 1.275v BIOS with LLC4, doind around 1.23v under AVX Load.
> 
> Also, it had 4x8gb G.Skill Flare X 3200mhz CL14 B die running at 3800mhz CL14 with tuned sub timings, you can check it below.
> 
> View attachment 2560057
> 
> 
> The tests were all done with an Asus Strix RTX 3080 10gb undervolted to 0.950v @2010mhz and memory at +1000mhz.
> 
> 2 Tests per game and per configuration, I uploaded the best out of the 2.
> 
> The first ones have L1 and L2 Prefetechers enabled and the second ones don't.
> 
> AC Valhalla Ultra High:
> View attachment 2560059
> 
> View attachment 2560060
> 
> 
> AC Valhalla Low:
> View attachment 2560061
> View attachment 2560062
> 
> 
> Cyberpunk 2077 Ultra:
> 
> View attachment 2560066
> 
> View attachment 2560067
> 
> 
> Cyberpunk 2077 Low:
> 
> View attachment 2560068
> 
> View attachment 2560070
> 
> 
> Metro Exodus Gold Edition (non RTX) Extreme:
> 
> View attachment 2560072
> 
> View attachment 2560073
> 
> 
> Metro Exodus Gold Edition (non RTX) Low:
> View attachment 2560074
> 
> View attachment 2560085
> 
> 
> 
> SOTTR Highest SMAA4X:
> View attachment 2560076
> 
> View attachment 2560077
> 
> 
> SOTTR NO AA Lowest:
> 
> View attachment 2560078
> 
> View attachment 2560079
> 
> 
> Watch Dogs Legion Ultra:
> View attachment 2560080
> 
> View attachment 2560081
> 
> 
> Watch Dogs Legion Low:
> 
> View attachment 2560082
> 
> View attachment 2560083
> 
> 
> It seemed to be consistantly better with Prefetchers turned off (both).
> 
> On the render side, 4.7ghz gets almost the same score as 4.8ghz.
> 
> View attachment 2560084
> 
> 
> That is all!





97pedro said:


> Hello all!
> 
> Since I couldn't find any info on the Web about this I decided to do the tests myself
> 
> My setup doesn't have a Crosshair VIII, but a Crosshair VII, since the VII's thread is basically dead and since I don't think it matters anything for these tests I'll just post it here.
> 
> Setup is an R9 5950x @4.7ghz 1.275v BIOS with LLC4, doind around 1.23v under AVX Load.
> 
> Also, it had 4x8gb G.Skill Flare X 3200mhz CL14 B die running at 3800mhz CL14 with tuned sub timings, you can check it below.
> 
> View attachment 2560057
> 
> 
> The tests were all done with an Asus Strix RTX 3080 10gb undervolted to 0.950v @2010mhz and memory at +1000mhz.
> 
> 2 Tests per game and per configuration, I uploaded the best out of the 2.
> 
> The first ones have L1 and L2 Prefetechers enabled and the second ones don't.
> 
> AC Valhalla Ultra High:
> View attachment 2560059
> 
> View attachment 2560060
> 
> 
> AC Valhalla Low:
> View attachment 2560061
> View attachment 2560062
> 
> 
> Cyberpunk 2077 Ultra:
> 
> View attachment 2560066
> 
> View attachment 2560067
> 
> 
> Cyberpunk 2077 Low:
> 
> View attachment 2560068
> 
> View attachment 2560070
> 
> 
> Metro Exodus Gold Edition (non RTX) Extreme:
> 
> View attachment 2560072
> 
> View attachment 2560073
> 
> 
> Metro Exodus Gold Edition (non RTX) Low:
> View attachment 2560074
> 
> View attachment 2560085
> 
> 
> 
> SOTTR Highest SMAA4X:
> View attachment 2560076
> 
> View attachment 2560077
> 
> 
> SOTTR NO AA Lowest:
> 
> View attachment 2560078
> 
> View attachment 2560079
> 
> 
> Watch Dogs Legion Ultra:
> View attachment 2560080
> 
> View attachment 2560081
> 
> 
> Watch Dogs Legion Low:
> 
> View attachment 2560082
> 
> View attachment 2560083
> 
> 
> It seemed to be consistantly better with Prefetchers turned off (both).
> 
> On the render side, 4.7ghz gets almost the same score as 4.8ghz.
> 
> View attachment 2560084
> 
> 
> That is all!


Fantastic result. But please can you post your bios PBO CO and BOOST OVERRIDE setup ? I also have a 5950x but i can't reach your result.
Thanks in advance 

Gabriele


----------



## xeizo

New B2-stepping 5900X after a very quick setup, had to relax memory timings _a lot_ to not get 1800MHz FCLK throwing errors in Windows. Fine tuning of memory looks to be a time intensive task ahead with this rig, but at least it is seemingly stable now. Anyway, not much tinkering just 220-130-140, +100MHz and a slack CO of -5-5-10-10-10-10-20-20-20-20-20-20. Performs as expected, which is nice 688p single core in CPU-Z is nothing to sneeze at for a 5900X, and much better than the broken one of course


----------



## CyrIng

97pedro said:


> Hello all!
> 
> Since I couldn't find any info on the Web about this I decided to do the tests myself
> 
> My setup doesn't have a Crosshair VIII, but a Crosshair VII, since the VII's thread is basically dead and since I don't think it matters anything for these tests I'll just post it here.
> 
> Setup is an R9 5950x @4.7ghz 1.275v BIOS with LLC4, doind around 1.23v under AVX Load.
> 
> Also, it had 4x8gb G.Skill Flare X 3200mhz CL14 B die running at 3800mhz CL14 with tuned sub timings, you can check it below.
> 
> View attachment 2560057
> 
> 
> The tests were all done with an Asus Strix RTX 3080 10gb undervolted to 0.950v @2010mhz and memory at +1000mhz.
> 
> 2 Tests per game and per configuration, I uploaded the best out of the 2.
> 
> The first ones have L1 and L2 Prefetechers enabled and the second ones don't.
> 
> AC Valhalla Ultra High:
> View attachment 2560059
> 
> View attachment 2560060
> 
> 
> AC Valhalla Low:
> View attachment 2560061
> View attachment 2560062
> 
> 
> Cyberpunk 2077 Ultra:
> 
> View attachment 2560066
> 
> View attachment 2560067
> 
> 
> Cyberpunk 2077 Low:
> 
> View attachment 2560068
> 
> View attachment 2560070
> 
> 
> Metro Exodus Gold Edition (non RTX) Extreme:
> 
> View attachment 2560072
> 
> View attachment 2560073
> 
> 
> Metro Exodus Gold Edition (non RTX) Low:
> View attachment 2560074
> 
> View attachment 2560085
> 
> 
> 
> SOTTR Highest SMAA4X:
> View attachment 2560076
> 
> View attachment 2560077
> 
> 
> SOTTR NO AA Lowest:
> 
> View attachment 2560078
> 
> View attachment 2560079
> 
> 
> Watch Dogs Legion Ultra:
> View attachment 2560080
> 
> View attachment 2560081
> 
> 
> Watch Dogs Legion Low:
> 
> View attachment 2560082
> 
> View attachment 2560083
> 
> 
> It seemed to be consistantly better with Prefetchers turned off (both).
> 
> On the render side, 4.7ghz gets almost the same score as 4.8ghz.
> 
> View attachment 2560084
> 
> 
> That is all!


Very interesting because I came to the same observation
But using Linux and the 7-zip integrated benchmark


Code:


## L1 and L2 Prefetchers enabled
$ 7z b

7-Zip [64] 17.04 : Copyright (c) 1999-2021 Igor Pavlov : 2017-08-28
p7zip Version 17.04 (locale=en_US.UTF-8,Utf16=on,HugeFiles=on,64 bits,32 CPUs x64)

x64
CPU Freq: 64000000 64000000 32000000 32000000 64000000 128000000 256000000 512000000 2048000000

RAM size:   32074 MB,  # CPU hardware threads:  32
RAM usage:   7060 MB,  # Benchmark threads:     32

                       Compressing  |                  Decompressing
Dict     Speed Usage    R/U Rating  |      Speed Usage    R/U Rating
         KiB/s     %   MIPS   MIPS  |      KiB/s     %   MIPS   MIPS

22:     110389  2953   3636 107387  |    1379733  3060   3845 117662
23:      99557  2840   3571 101437  |    1351177  3041   3845 116919
24:      96132  2863   3611 103362  |    1336346  3057   3837 117295
25:      91578  2859   3658 104561  |    1309283  3060   3808 116518
----------------------------------  | ------------------------------
Avr:            2879   3619 104187  |             3055   3834 117098
Tot:            2967   3726 110643

## L1 and L2 Prefetchers disabled
$ 7z b

7-Zip [64] 17.04 : Copyright (c) 1999-2021 Igor Pavlov : 2017-08-28
p7zip Version 17.04 (locale=en_US.UTF-8,Utf16=on,HugeFiles=on,64 bits,32 CPUs x64)

x64
CPU Freq: 64000000 64000000 64000000 32000000 128000000 128000000 512000000 512000000 1024000000

RAM size:   32074 MB,  # CPU hardware threads:  32
RAM usage:   7060 MB,  # Benchmark threads:     32

                       Compressing  |                  Decompressing
Dict     Speed Usage    R/U Rating  |      Speed Usage    R/U Rating
         KiB/s     %   MIPS   MIPS  |      KiB/s     %   MIPS   MIPS

22:     111523  2941   3689 108490  |    1378785  3058   3845 117581
23:     101798  2849   3641 103720  |    1363791  3074   3839 118011
24:      97577  2851   3680 104915  |    1332912  3061   3822 116994
25:      93165  2849   3734 106373  |    1307075  3059   3803 116321
----------------------------------  | ------------------------------
Avr:            2873   3686 105874  |             3063   3827 117227
Tot:            2968   3756 111551

Without Prefetchers: 111551 MIPS ; with Prefetchers: 110643 MIPS

I can change their state as will in _CoreFreq_


----------



## xeizo

CyrIng said:


> Very interesting because I came to the same observation
> But using Linux and the 7-zip integrated benchmark
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> ## L1 and L2 Prefetchers enabled
> $ 7z b
> 
> 7-Zip [64] 17.04 : Copyright (c) 1999-2021 Igor Pavlov : 2017-08-28
> p7zip Version 17.04 (locale=en_US.UTF-8,Utf16=on,HugeFiles=on,64 bits,32 CPUs x64)
> 
> x64
> CPU Freq: 64000000 64000000 32000000 32000000 64000000 128000000 256000000 512000000 2048000000
> 
> RAM size:   32074 MB,  # CPU hardware threads:  32
> RAM usage:   7060 MB,  # Benchmark threads:     32
> 
> Compressing  |                  Decompressing
> Dict     Speed Usage    R/U Rating  |      Speed Usage    R/U Rating
> KiB/s     %   MIPS   MIPS  |      KiB/s     %   MIPS   MIPS
> 
> 22:     110389  2953   3636 107387  |    1379733  3060   3845 117662
> 23:      99557  2840   3571 101437  |    1351177  3041   3845 116919
> 24:      96132  2863   3611 103362  |    1336346  3057   3837 117295
> 25:      91578  2859   3658 104561  |    1309283  3060   3808 116518
> ----------------------------------  | ------------------------------
> Avr:            2879   3619 104187  |             3055   3834 117098
> Tot:            2967   3726 110643
> 
> ## L1 and L2 Prefetchers disabled
> $ 7z b
> 
> 7-Zip [64] 17.04 : Copyright (c) 1999-2021 Igor Pavlov : 2017-08-28
> p7zip Version 17.04 (locale=en_US.UTF-8,Utf16=on,HugeFiles=on,64 bits,32 CPUs x64)
> 
> x64
> CPU Freq: 64000000 64000000 64000000 32000000 128000000 128000000 512000000 512000000 1024000000
> 
> RAM size:   32074 MB,  # CPU hardware threads:  32
> RAM usage:   7060 MB,  # Benchmark threads:     32
> 
> Compressing  |                  Decompressing
> Dict     Speed Usage    R/U Rating  |      Speed Usage    R/U Rating
> KiB/s     %   MIPS   MIPS  |      KiB/s     %   MIPS   MIPS
> 
> 22:     111523  2941   3689 108490  |    1378785  3058   3845 117581
> 23:     101798  2849   3641 103720  |    1363791  3074   3839 118011
> 24:      97577  2851   3680 104915  |    1332912  3061   3822 116994
> 25:      93165  2849   3734 106373  |    1307075  3059   3803 116321
> ----------------------------------  | ------------------------------
> Avr:            2873   3686 105874  |             3063   3827 117227
> Tot:            2968   3756 111551
> 
> Without Prefetchers: 111551 MIPS ; with Prefetchers: 110643 MIPS
> 
> I can change their state as will in _CoreFreq_
> 
> View attachment 2560163


Much talk about this prefetcher thingy, so it do produce better scores by being off, but what is the benefit of it being on by default? There must be _some_ benefit, scores isn't everything.


----------



## J7SC

xeizo said:


> Much talk about this prefetcher thingy, so it do produce better scores by being off, but what is the benefit of it being on by default? There must be _some_ benefit, scores isn't everything.


Yeah - that's what I've been wondering about above, guessing heavy RAM dependent larger-scale DB ?
---
Anyway...did a few more CinebenchR23 runs on the quick. The lower power consumption (and thus temps) with L1 / L2 off keeps on amazing me (per posts above, 20%+ less power, for higher scores). 32439 score is with CH8 DH and DynOC, mild CO (basically half of the top-tested per core CO values) and still around 150 MHz below the fastest CCX settings I used before to get 32311 w/ L1 and L2 on, and no CO. PBO power values are at stock for all runs. While I have extensive cooling on this puppy, it is also ~ 25 C ambient right now, so more CinebenchR23 L1/L2 off runs to look forward to when I'm off these darn antibiotics.


----------



## GRABibus

stimpy88 said:


> @Kelutrel - I just wanted to say, thanks for injecting a bit of fun back into this hobby. Just when you think you have tweaked your system as good as it can get, you come along and show us another trick to gain a bit more performance!
> 
> Many thanks for sharing!


@Kelutrel the best !


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> Much talk about this prefetcher thingy, so it do produce better scores by being off, but what is the benefit of it being on by default? There must be _some_ benefit, scores isn't everything.





J7SC said:


> I had already mentioned L1 & L2 prefetcher off doing well not only in CPU benches but in various games in a post a page or so back, but one thing that has consistently bugged me no matter the L1 and L2 setting is the loss of L3 speed after I upgraded to Windows 11 Pro from Windows 10 Pro recently. VM options are not enabled in the bios w/ either OS version. However, I decided to revert the 5950X machine back to Windows 10 Pro yesterday for other reasons (it's much less annoying) though I'll keep the 3950X on Windows 11 Pro for now. In any case, below are two Aida runs comparing Windows 10 Pro and 11 Pro with identical settings and ambient...and my lost L3 is back . I still have to run DDR4 3933 and 4000 with L1 and L2 prefetcher off which I will do later, but I did include an earlier DDR4 3933 Windows 11 Pro Aida sheet below.
> 
> Overall, I am amazed at the improvements with L1, L2 prefetcher off w/ either OS, even at the cost of just a bit of read speed. Beyond that, the other performance gains might also relate to slightly cooler CPU temps under load which will of course benefit via boost algorithm temp and current inputs. I consistently see a 20%+ reduction in peak CPU Package Power while getting either the same or more performance - not bad. It does make me wonder, though, under which conditions / which apps L1 and L2 with prefetcher 'on / default' would benefit. RAM-heavy tasks ?
> View attachment 2560098


This confirms to me the big hit I have also on Write/Read/copy for the memory with L1 and L2 disabled.
Hopefully, memory latency is better with L1 and L2 off.


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> I got my dead 5900X replaced today, I received a B2-stepping which will be interesting. Currently running it in my B550-F with the latest AGESA as it was the easiest to remove it's water block. C8H has a Dark Rock Pro 4 currently, didn't want to fiddle with that one.


My question is how can we ask for a B2 ?
Purely random I assume…


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> My question is how can we ask for a B2 ?
> Purely random I assume…


Ryzen 7000 around the corner, albeit w/ new socket requiring a new mobo...


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> Ryzen 7000 around the corner, albeit w/ new socket requiring a new mobo...


I read that all AIO compatible with AM4 socket will be also compatible with AM5.
I will then keep my lovely H115i RGB Platinum.
New Mobo + New CPU + DDR5 will be the things to buy.


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> My question is how can we ask for a B2 ?
> Purely random I assume…


Yes, I got lucky, anyway CCX0 looks good all cores boosts equal with current settings(5050MHz). CCX1 is a little worse, as usual. Not a single WHEA as of yet after a few hours playing.


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> I read that all AIO compatible with AM4 socket will be also compatible with AM5.
> I will then keep my lovely H115i RGB Platinum.
> New Mobo + New CPU + DDR5 will be the things to buy.


I kept my AIO for my Z690 rig. A new bracket was free of charge from EKWB.


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> I read that all AIO compatible with AM4 socket will be also compatible with AM5.
> I will then keep my lovely H115i RGB Platinum.
> New Mobo + New CPU + DDR5 will be the things to buy.


...nice, that would also indicate that custom AM4 blocks would also fit AM5...that said, I'm quite content w/ the 5050X setup for now...

In the fall, I '''might '' move the 5950X over to where the 3950X is now for either an AM5 or Intel equivalent, but no hurry. The 3950X (current work) setup would displace an older Intel 4960X X79 dev server...a bit of a domino effect, we'll see as I really like the 3950X setup. Later in the year, it's also time to see if RDNA3 / RTX4K AdaL are worth it on the GPU purchase front, or whether to just to wait for RDNA4 and NV Hopper...


----------



## xProlific

ChillyRide said:


> Games perform in margin of an error.


To me it actually looks like the framerate is tighter/more stable with prefetchers enabled. The spread is not as tights and there are more spike/dips in those graphs with the prefetchers disabled.


----------



## J7SC

...re. L1 L2 prefetcher on/off in gaming, it might depend on the particular game, smart access memory / r_BAR etc... Below is a back-to-back run of the Shadow of the Tombraider benchmark with identical settings, with the only difference re. L1 L2 prefetch on/off. I used 1440 rather than my usual 4K and a mild GPU oc in order to hit results free of other factors...


----------



## ChillyRide

J7SC said:


> ...re. L1 L2 prefetcher on/off in gaming, it might depend on the particular game, smart access memory / r_BAR etc... Below is a back-to-back run of the Shadow of the Tombraider benchmark with identical settings, with the only difference re. L1 L2 prefetch on/off. I used 1440 rather than my usual 4K and a mild GPU oc in order to hit results free of other factors...
> View attachment 2560182


Test it properly! U Gpu limited. L1 + L2 CPU features, so test cpu not ur gpu. Here is for reference L1 + L2 disabled:


----------



## PJVol

xeizo said:


> Much talk about this prefetcher thingy, so it do produce better scores by being off, but what is the benefit of it being on by default? There must be _some_ benefit, scores isn't everything.


Mostly placebo, I think, combined with an ambient temp dependency affected score variance.
I've made several tests for my self, trying to figure out if the results variance fits the expected margin of error.
All tests were done with L1 PF untouched, due to it mostly had negative impact on performance.
TLDR;
games : scores vary witin a margin of error
benches: results from L2PF "Auto" vs. "Disabled" varied from "mostly identical" to "noticeable regression".
No power decrease, or any other changes in metrics were noticed.
Below are some screens from game benches and CB R23 and R20.
The most noticeable regression was seen in GeekBench5, OCCT membench, Sandra latency bench (posted it in DDR4 thread)


----------



## CyrIng

97pedro said:


> It applies to all!
> 
> Anyone can confirm the effect of disabled L1 and L2 on games?





Code:


Data Cache stream hardware prefetcher
L2 stream prefetcher accepted by L2 pipeline
L2 prefetches accepted by the L2 pipeline which miss the L2 and the L3 caches


L1_HW_Prefetch
L2_HW_Prefetch


----------



## J7SC

ChillyRide said:


> Test it properly! U Gpu limited. L1 + L2 CPU features, so test cpu not ur gpu. Here is for reference L1 + L2 disabled:


...I'm trying to reproduce 'real world gaming' differences for my own use case, if any, beyond variance...1440 is the lowest I use, so no 800x600 around here. Besides, the Shadow of the Tomb Raider includes separate entries (bottom right in the respective tables) for CPU game, CPU render and GPU anyway.

Since I already know from CinebenchR23 that L1, L2 off deliver gains of about 400 - 500 points while reducing CPU peak Package Power by ~ 20% (related to that are also lower temps) which are far beyond any normal variance, what I really wanted to know if there are _*any drawbacks*_ with L1/L2 off in gaming with my usual settings...my normal Shadow of the Tomb Raider settings are 4096x2160 'highest' w/ HDR and the DLSS/RTX combo, so below is that comp as well (top is L1, L2 off) and using the same mild oc and the GPU as before w/1440.

For now, I cannot see any drawbacks for L1/L2 off in the gaming I do, but I want to revisit FS2020 at 4096x2160 as that app is a bit of a CPU 'piggy' via hammering just a few cores hard, and one almost continuously near 100%.


----------



## KedarWolf

I need to keep L1 PF on Auto or half the time PC will not boot or I get a weird BSOD on boot sometimes.

L2 Off I got this which is my best ever. And if you want to knock 1-2 seconds off y-cruncher, use GPEDIT to enable locked pages in memory. Then make sure y-cruncher runs as admin.


----------



## stimpy88

J7SC said:


> Ryzen 7000 around the corner, albeit w/ new socket requiring a new mobo...


Nah, I'm skipping the 7000 series. DDR5 is a bad waste of money right now. Your looking at paying top prices for a good DDR5 kit, as anything other than the recently announced top of the range kits are no faster than what our DDR4 tuned can get. At the moment, then only thing that seems to show a difference is the AIDA64 bandwidth test, real word results just don't back it up, as the latency is so damned high on DDR5.

Second Gen AM5 will be where I hop onboard.

@J7SC Would you be so kind as to share your latest BIOS settings, your CB23 results are amazing!


----------



## PJVol

KedarWolf said:


> L2 Off I got this which is my best ever.


Might sound odd, but I've got exactly the opposite )) Could be two CCDs behave differently in this regard.
Though have to admit, CB R23 sees some benefit from it, most likely due to some part of Cac budget was thus freed.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

GRABibus said:


> I read that all AIO compatible with AM4 socket will be also compatible with AM5.
> I will then keep my lovely H115i RGB Platinum.
> New Mobo + New CPU + DDR5 will be the things to buy.


I think I'll wait Zen 5, at the moment DDR5 prices and specs are a no go for me, also I'm expecting a 3D cache on a chiplet design with OC features


----------



## ronindj68

Hi, i have a 5950x CPU on dark hero Crossair VIII, and this RAM configuration.
This is my current (stable) RAM configuration.
Can you tell me if it's okay or something needs to be improved?
Many thanks


----------



## GRABibus

DvL Ax3l said:


> I think I'll wait Zen 5, at the moment DDR5 prices and specs are a no go for me, also I'm expecting a 3D cache on a chiplet design with OC features


From
My side, Zen 10 will be a good update 😂


----------



## GRABibus

ronindj68 said:


> View attachment 2560248
> 
> Hi, i have a 5950x CPU on dark hero Crossair VIII, and this RAM configuration.
> This is my current (stable) RAM configuration.
> Can you tell me if it's okay or something needs to be improved?
> Many thanks


Try lowering trfc in the range of 250 - 300.
You will see what ´ improvment in RAM speed.
Stability to be tested


----------



## GRABibus

ronindj68 said:


> View attachment 2560248
> 
> Hi, i have a 5950x CPU on dark hero Crossair VIII, and this RAM configuration.
> This is my current (stable) RAM configuration.
> Can you tell me if it's okay or something needs to be improved?
> Many thanks


You don’t have any Whea 19 warnings ?
Usually, it si difficult to get stable and Whea free RAM settings beyond 3800MHz/1900MHz.
Check if you don’t get Whea 19 warnings in windows event viewer at « system » folder.
If yes, you will have to go back to [email protected] and Fclk=1900MHz.


----------



## J7SC

stimpy88 said:


> Nah, I'm skipping the 7000 series. DDR5 is a bad waste of money right now. Your looking at paying top prices for a good DDR5 kit, as anything other than the recently announced top of the range kits are no faster than what our DDR4 tuned can get. At the moment, then only thing that seems to show a difference is the AIDA64 bandwidth test, real word results just don't back it up, as the latency is so damned high on DDR5.
> 
> Second Gen AM5 will be where I hop onboard.
> 
> @J7SC Would you be so kind as to share your latest BIOS settings, your CB23 results are amazing!


I'll get into some settings below, but like to preface this by pointing out a few related items that affect scores: 

1.) The 5950X/3090 system has very extensive cooling, w/ 1350mm x62mm rad space.
2.) The 5950X has two gold-rated cores
3.) I restrict voltages as much as I can to keep heat out, given the boost algorithms. This includes IMC-related settings:










As to system Bios, I recently switched to '3801' on my CH8 DarkHero. I leave LLCs for both CPU and SoC on auto, and phases set to 'optimized', not 'extreme'. On PBO, I leave fMax on auto, ditto for PPT,EDC,TDC, additional frequency boost etc. IMC voltages per above. The bios values here are for both L1, L2 prefetcher on and off.

I use the DynaOC feature in the CH8 Dark Hero (in CCX section of the extreme tweaker bios). There, for my 'daily', I set voltages to 1.295v (droops to about 1.188v - 1.2v under full all-c load), both CCXs at 46.5 multi, and in the main extreme tweaker menu run a negative offset of 0.0625v. 

I have two working CurveOptimizer profiles in the AMD OC bios segment: mild and wild. For the runs I posted here over the last week(s), I'm using the mild one exclusively...basically, there are four cores that either have a positive value or are at zero, then there are a few in the low - 20s and finally, - 30s for the rest in the 'wild' setting. With my mild CO setting, I leave the first 4 alone and just set the rest at - 10. For the last posted CineBenchR23 run, I raised CCX-voltages slightly in the CCX menu and went to 47.25 multi, other than that, everything else the same. 

The L1/L2 prefetcher off lowers CPU package power significantly (and thus raises headroom per algorithms). Before using that and Curve Optimizer etc, I had done CBR23 runs with over 4.8 for both CCX and never truly hit the wall at CBR all-C at 32311, though I did get near the max mobo values on EDC, TDC etc. Still, now with the extra PL and temp headroom the L1/L2 prefetch-off setting has yielded, I will give 4.8+ / both CCX another try in a bit after I caught up at work after being sick.

...hope this helps !


----------



## KedarWolf

DvL Ax3l said:


> I think I'll wait Zen 5, at the moment DDR5 prices and specs are a no go for me, also I'm expecting a 3D cache on a chiplet design with OC features


!!!DEAL OF THE DAY ALERT!!!
The Award Winning XPG LANCER 32GB(2x16GB) 6000MHz RGB DDR5 Memory kit is on sale for $299.99! Today only at B&H Photo.
Shop Now: https://bhpho.to/3ypLsSg


----------



## GRABibus

KedarWolf said:


> !!!DEAL OF THE DAY ALERT!!!
> The Award Winning XPG LANCER 32GB(2x16GB) 6000MHz RGB DDR5 Memory kit is on sale for $299.99! Today only at B&H Photo.
> Shop Now: https://bhpho.to/3ypLsSg


nice !
But better post it on Z690 threads 😅😉


----------



## KedarWolf

GRABibus said:


> nice !
> But better post it on Z690 threads 😅😉


Someone here said DDR5 too expensive. I thought I quoted them.


----------



## HoloWS

With all this talk about L1 & L2 prefetcher off netting higher performance, how do you guys feel about CPPC off? There's a lot of information floating around /r/amd & various threads on overclock.net that turning off CPPC can result in ~7-9% better multi-core performance and frame stability (0.1% & 1% lows) at the cost of ~2% single core due to Windows 11's scheduler causing core/thread contention by throwing everything into the best cores.

I'd be curious to know if L1 + L2 prefetcher off & CPPC off results in overall better performance than both prefetchers & CPPC set to on / default.


----------



## GRABibus

HoloWS said:


> With all this talk about L1 & L2 prefetcher off netting higher performance, how do you guys feel about CPPC off? There's a lot of information floating around /r/amd & various threads on overclock.net that turning off CPPC can result in ~7-9% better multi-core performance and frame stability (0.1% & 1% lows) at the cost of ~2% single core due to Windows 11's scheduler causing core/thread contention by throwing everything into the best cores.
> 
> I'd be curious to know if L1 + L2 prefetcher off & CPPC off results in overall better performance than both prefetchers & CPPC set to on / default.


I am afraid that Single core performance is horrible with this tip.....
And Single core performance, this is what i am looking for, prior to Multi Core performance.


----------



## GRABibus

My best scores ever until now with my 24/7 settings (in sig), my little "220 PPT" and my lovely H115i RGB Platinum. L1 + L2 HW Prefetcher disabled

test @ 21°C - 22°C :
















I like a lot the SC score


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> My best scores ever until now with my 24/7 settings (in sig), my little "220 PPT" and my lovely H115i RGB Platinum. L1 + L2 HW Prefetcher disabled
> 
> test @ 21°C - 22°C :
> 
> 
> View attachment 2560279
> View attachment 2560280
> 
> 
> I like a lot the SC score


Nice ! Also, did you try the CPPC off setting ?


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> Nice ! Also, did you try the CPPC off setting ?


I started and saw that my SC score would be very low....Only after some seconds test.

Can you confirm this low SC score with CPPC off ?


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> I started and saw that my SC score would be very low....Only after some seconds test.
> 
> Can you confirm this low SC score with CPPC off ?


Keeping in mind that I reverted back to Win 10 Pro from 11 Pro...yes, CPPC off results in single-core worse, multi-core perhaps a bit better, but with margin of error per run.


----------



## CyrIng

Setting x2APIC with 3950X BIOS 3801 is fully deactivating CPPC (firmware implementation) including the CPPC Energy Preference hint.


----------



## Kelutrel

There are two settings in the BIOS. One is "CPPC" and the other is "CPPC Preferred Cores".
The first one informs the OS about the NUMA layout of the CPU, so that the OS can group the threads of a process on the cores that have faster access to the common cache.
The second one additionally informs the OS about the "performance potential and efficiency" of each core, and causes the OS to prioritize certain cores for most workloads.
If you disable the first one, the second one will be disabled too.
If you disable the first one, you will usually get lower framerates in videogames, and lower scores in any multicore benchmark that uses less cores than one CCX.
If you disable the second one, you will usually get mostly the same framerates in videogames, but a smoother gaming experience, because the "Preferred cores" feature is known to cause core workload contention in videogames, where the OS allocates too many tasks on one or two cores only while the other cores are left free.
By disabling the second setting, the OS doesn't know anymore which of your cores is the fastest, and so any single core benchmark will most probably be lower because the OS will place the benchmark loop on a random core instead of using the fastest one.
So, if you want to get smoother framerates in videogames you may want to disable "CPPC Preferred cores" only, but you will loose peak single core performances and score.
I can't think of any advantage in having both "CPPC" and "CPPC Preferred cores" disabled.


----------



## CyrIng

Kelutrel said:


> There are two settings in the BIOS. One is "CPPC" and the other is "CPPC Preferred Cores".
> The first one informs the OS about the NUMA layout of the CPU, so that the OS can group the threads of a process on the cores that have faster access to the common cache.
> The second one additionally informs the OS about the "performance potential and efficiency" of each core, and causes the OS to prioritize certain cores for most workloads.
> If you disable the first one, the second one will be disabled too.
> If you disable the first one, you will usually get lower framerates in videogames, and lower scores in any multicore benchmark that uses less cores than one CCX.
> If you disable the second one, you will usually get mostly the same framerates in videogames, but a smoother gaming experience, because the "Preferred cores" feature is known to cause core workload contention in videogames, where the OS allocates too many tasks on one or two cores only while the other cores are left free.
> By disabling the second setting, the OS doesn't know anymore which of your cores is the fastest, and so any single core benchmark will most probably be lower because the OS will place the benchmark loop on a random core instead of using the fastest one.
> So, if you want to get smoother framerates in videogames you may want to disable "CPPC Preferred cores" only, but you will loose peak single core performances and score.
> I can't think of any advantage in having both "CPPC" and "CPPC Preferred cores" disabled.


Indeed we can see CPPC as the Intel HWP
CPPC also has a 0 to 255 byte value Energy hint in MSR register


----------



## Luggage

Kelutrel said:


> There are two settings in the BIOS. One is "CPPC" and the other is "CPPC Preferred Cores".
> The first one informs the OS about the NUMA layout of the CPU, so that the OS can group the threads of a process on the cores that have faster access to the common cache.
> The second one additionally informs the OS about the "performance potential and efficiency" of each core, and causes the OS to prioritize certain cores for most workloads.
> If you disable the first one, the second one will be disabled too.
> If you disable the first one, you will usually get lower framerates in videogames, and lower scores in any multicore benchmark that uses less cores than one CCX.
> If you disable the second one, you will usually get mostly the same framerates in videogames, but a smoother gaming experience, because the "Preferred cores" feature is known to cause core workload contention in videogames, where the OS allocates too many tasks on one or two cores only while the other cores are left free.
> By disabling the second setting, the OS doesn't know anymore which of your cores is the fastest, and so any single core benchmark will most probably be lower because the OS will place the benchmark loop on a random core instead of using the fastest one.
> So, if you want to get smoother framerates in videogames you may want to disable "CPPC Preferred cores" only, but you will loose peak single core performances and score.
> I can't think of any advantage in having both "CPPC" and "CPPC Preferred cores" disabled.


Also the difference in cores plays a part, If you have a big spread - ex a two ccx cpu, R9 x900X or x950X with gold and bronze bin - you will potentially lose more SC performance.
But if you have a nice 5600X, 5800X/3D and all cores hit max boost, then preferred cores makes little sense.


----------



## Pr3t3nd3r

Hello guys! Sorry for bothering you with those kind of questions...but can someone tell me if it is worth it to upgrade from a BIOS 3302? Are there any performance gains for 5950X?

Thank you and have a nice day!


----------



## GRABibus

Pr3t3nd3r said:


> Hello guys! Sorry for bothering you with those kind of questions...but can someone tell me if it is worth it to upgrade from a BIOS 3302? Are there any performance gains for 5950X?
> 
> Thank you and have a nice day!


If you are satisfied with 3302, keep it.
If you need a Bios ready for windows 11 with same kind of performances than 3302, then go to 3801.

all bioses after 3801 have a particular behavior which makes the max Vid=1,425V (instead of 1,5V) when EDC > 140Amps.
Depending on your silicon, cooling, temps, voltages, CO curves, etc, you will loose performances either single core or multi core versus 3302 or 3801 with same settings.


----------



## J7SC

Kelutrel said:


> There are two settings in the BIOS. One is "CPPC" and the other is "CPPC Preferred Cores".
> The first one informs the OS about the NUMA layout of the CPU, so that the OS can group the threads of a process on the cores that have faster access to the common cache.
> The second one additionally informs the OS about the "performance potential and efficiency" of each core, and causes the OS to prioritize certain cores for most workloads.
> If you disable the first one, the second one will be disabled too.
> If you disable the first one, you will usually get lower framerates in videogames, and lower scores in any multicore benchmark that uses less cores than one CCX.
> If you disable the second one, you will usually get mostly the same framerates in videogames, but a smoother gaming experience, because the "Preferred cores" feature is known to cause core workload contention in videogames, where the OS allocates too many tasks on one or two cores only while the other cores are left free.
> By disabling the second setting, the OS doesn't know anymore which of your cores is the fastest, and so any single core benchmark will most probably be lower because the OS will place the benchmark loop on a random core instead of using the fastest one.
> So, if you want to get smoother framerates in videogames you may want to disable "CPPC Preferred cores" only, but you will loose peak single core performances and score.
> I can't think of any advantage in having both "CPPC" and "CPPC Preferred cores" disabled.


As usual, good stuff !...reminds me a bit of 'Process Lasso' which I use on my older TR 2950X in conjunction with specific uma/numa settings possible on that specific TR. I haven't seen the need for it on the two CH8 setups yet, but a real-world good test for the general 'single core' stressing is FS2020 4K Ultra and its somewhat atrocious optimizations.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> There are two settings in the BIOS. One is "CPPC" and the other is "CPPC Preferred Cores".
> The first one informs the OS about the NUMA layout of the CPU, so that the OS can group the threads of a process on the cores that have faster access to the common cache.
> The second one additionally informs the OS about the "performance potential and efficiency" of each core, and causes the OS to prioritize certain cores for most workloads.
> If you disable the first one, the second one will be disabled too.
> If you disable the first one, you will usually get lower framerates in videogames, and lower scores in any multicore benchmark that uses less cores than one CCX.
> If you disable the second one, you will usually get mostly the same framerates in videogames, but a smoother gaming experience, because the "Preferred cores" feature is known to cause core workload contention in videogames, where the OS allocates too many tasks on one or two cores only while the other cores are left free.
> By disabling the second setting, the OS doesn't know anymore which of your cores is the fastest, and so any single core benchmark will most probably be lower because the OS will place the benchmark loop on a random core instead of using the fastest one.
> So, if you want to get smoother framerates in videogames you may want to disable "CPPC Preferred cores" only, but you will loose peak single core performances and score.
> I can't think of any advantage in having both "CPPC" and "CPPC Preferred cores" disabled.


So, any other option in bios we should disable in order to win some Cinebench points ? 😂😆


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> So, any other option in bios we should disable in order to win some Cinebench points ? 😂😆


Here's a good Cinebench tip !


Spoiler: secret tip


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> Here's a good Cinebench tip !
> 
> 
> Spoiler: secret tip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2560345


or this :


----------



## GRABibus

Could do this this evening @20°C :


----------



## stimpy88

Pr3t3nd3r said:


> Hello guys! Sorry for bothering you with those kind of questions...but can someone tell me if it is worth it to upgrade from a BIOS 3302? Are there any performance gains for 5950X?
> 
> Thank you and have a nice day!


No, don't worry about the newer BIOSs, they have no tangible positive effect on anything. I also use 3302, and a 5950x, and I post scores as good as the second best in this thread, as 32xxx in cinebench r23 is one hell of an achievement, but I score between 30500 and 30930 depending on temperature.


----------



## Pr3t3nd3r

Thank you for your replies guys and a huge respect! A very nice community here! Wish you all the best!


----------



## xeizo

stimpy88 said:


> No, don't worry about the newer BIOSs, they have no tangible positive effect on anything. I also use 3302, and a 5950x, and I post scores as good as the second best in this thread, as 32xxx in cinebench r23 is one hell of an achievement, but I score between 30500 and 30930 depending on temperature.


AGESA 1.2.0.7 are said to resolve the USB audio glitches once and for all though


----------



## Baio73

I think I've done with my 5900x curve optimization... this was the starting point:

PBO OFF:


PBO ON:


Curve optimization:


Curve settings:
EDC 220
TDC 140
EDC 160
MAX CPU BOOST CLOCK OVERDRIVE +200
CPU CORE VOLTAGE OFFSET +0.025
14-22-28-2-30-30-30-26-26-26-30-28

I think my core n. 3 is one of the worse I've ever seen.... 
Any advice or comment from everyone would be very much appreciated... thanks!

Baio


----------



## Pr3t3nd3r

xeizo said:


> AGESA 1.2.0.7 are said to resolve the USB audio glitches once and for all though


I am having problems with fTPM...lots of stuttering when enabled but I can't play games such as Valorant if I disable fTPM because they need to have fTPM enabled...


----------



## metalshark

And this was meant to be Friday 13th, ha!


----------



## g_d_g_l__

BIOS 4201 no longer in beta status!?!
ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero | ROG Crosshair | Gaming Motherboards｜ROG - Republic of Gamers｜ROG Global


----------



## ChillyRide

Baio73 said:


> I think I've done with my 5900x curve optimization... this was the starting point:
> 
> PBO OFF:
> 
> 
> PBO ON:
> 
> 
> Curve optimization:
> 
> 
> Curve settings:
> EDC 220
> TDC 140
> EDC 160
> MAX CPU BOOST CLOCK OVERDRIVE +200
> CPU CORE VOLTAGE OFFSET +0.025
> 14-22-28-2-30-30-30-26-26-26-30-28
> 
> I think my core n. 3 is one of the worse I've ever seen....
> Any advice or comment from everyone would be very much appreciated... thanks!
> 
> Baio


I assume u temp limited? Cause pretty bad results even with not tuned ram.


----------



## SpeedyIV

g_d_g_l__ said:


> BIOS 4201 no longer in beta status!?!
> ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero | ROG Crosshair | Gaming Motherboards｜ROG - Republic of Gamers｜ROG Global
> 
> View attachment 2560390


I wonder if this is exactly the same as the beta version which I just installed a few days ago. Anyone know?


----------



## Luggage

ChillyRide said:


> I assume u temp limited? Cause pretty bad results even with not tuned ram.


R23 don’t really care about ram.


----------



## Luggage

Baio73 said:


> I think I've done with my 5900x curve optimization... this was the starting point:
> 
> PBO OFF:
> 
> 
> PBO ON:
> 
> 
> Curve optimization:
> 
> 
> Curve settings:
> EDC 220
> TDC 140
> EDC 160
> MAX CPU BOOST CLOCK OVERDRIVE +200
> CPU CORE VOLTAGE OFFSET +0.025
> 14-22-28-2-30-30-30-26-26-26-30-28
> 
> I think my core n. 3 is one of the worse I've ever seen....
> Any advice or comment from everyone would be very much appreciated... thanks!
> 
> Baio


Try +100 instead of +200.
With your cooling might benefit from even lower tdc and edc. R23 isn’t really heavy on amps.


----------



## J7SC

metalshark said:


> And this was meant to be Friday 13th, ha!


...24/32-core Ryzens in the future ?



Luggage said:


> Try +100 instead of +200.
> With your cooling might benefit from even lower tdc and edc. *R23 isn’t really heavy on amps*.


...are you referring to CineR23 single core ? On CineR23, multi-core I've seen 180 A at full song...


----------



## Luggage

J7SC said:


> ...24/32-core Ryzens in the future ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...are you referring to CineR23 single core ? On CineR23, multi-core I've seen 180 A at full song...


I'm comparing with y-c, linx and p95 - also my best PBO r23 result was EDC limited with 5C water.



http://imgur.com/xG593sl


edit: compared with fuse limit edc and max boost



http://imgur.com/u8xQdJr


----------



## J7SC

Luggage said:


> I'm comparing with y-c, linx and p95 - also my best PBO r23 result was EDC limited with 5C water.
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/xG593sl
> 
> 
> edit: compared with fuse limit edc and max boost
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/u8xQdJr


...ahh, I was referring to 5950X


----------



## Luggage

J7SC said:


> ...ahh, I was referring to 5950X


Yea - but we have good cooling - @Baio73 is getting low results with his settings and it's probably from thermals, so lower limits may help.


----------



## GRABibus

With my 5950X, I finally can boot at RAM 4000MHz/2000MHz.
This was impossible with my former 5900X.

I also set my best optimized primary and secondary timings in order to boot.

*Aida64 (L1 + L2 HW Prefetcher disabled, which provided better latency but lower Memory Read/Write/copy values) *:









I could pass 1 hour KArhu's (1800%), as a first shot for stability.
Of course this is not enough and I will test it overnight to confirm stability.

BUT...This is Whea 19 fest....

I installed Whea suppressor service from @ManniX-ITA.

Let's see how things go in the next days.


----------



## des2k...

Kelutrel said:


> There are two settings in the BIOS. One is "CPPC" and the other is "CPPC Preferred Cores".
> The first one informs the OS about the NUMA layout of the CPU, so that the OS can group the threads of a process on the cores that have faster access to the common cache.
> The second one additionally informs the OS about the "performance potential and efficiency" of each core, and causes the OS to prioritize certain cores for most workloads.
> If you disable the first one, the second one will be disabled too.
> If you disable the first one, you will usually get lower framerates in videogames, and lower scores in any multicore benchmark that uses less cores than one CCX.
> If you disable the second one, you will usually get mostly the same framerates in videogames, but a smoother gaming experience, because the "Preferred cores" feature is known to cause core workload contention in videogames, where the OS allocates too many tasks on one or two cores only while the other cores are left free.
> By disabling the second setting, the OS doesn't know anymore which of your cores is the fastest, and so any single core benchmark will most probably be lower because the OS will place the benchmark loop on a random core instead of using the fastest one.
> So, if you want to get smoother framerates in videogames you may want to disable "CPPC Preferred cores" only, but you will loose peak single core performances and score.
> I can't think of any advantage in having both "CPPC" and "CPPC Preferred cores" disabled.


There's no fps difference and MT will be within run to run variance !
You need to change your boost mode.

Green is for CPPC off, Red is for CPPC on

And your CPPC preferred cores option, ON will enforce ranking reported by agesa/apic on boot. OFF windows will uses its own ranking, whatever that is.

But for testing, for sure the boost mode need to match to come to any real conclusion about MT scores & FPS.










There's also scheduling target to play with... since we're on this subject


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> With my 5950X, I finally can boot at RAM 4000MHz/2000MHz.
> This was impossible with my former 5900X.
> 
> I also set my best optimized primary and secondary timings in order to boot.
> 
> *Aida64 (L1 + L2 HW Prefetcher disabled, which provided better latency but lower Memory Read/Write/copy values) *:
> View attachment 2560435
> 
> 
> I could pass 1 hour KArhu's (1800%), as a first shot for stability.
> Of course this is not enough and I will test it overnight to confirm stability.
> 
> BUT...This is Whea 19 fest....
> 
> I installed Whea suppressor service from @ManniX-ITA.
> 
> Let's see how things go in the next days.


Have you tried DDR4 4000 - GDM off, CL15, T2 ?


----------



## Kelutrel

des2k... said:


> There's no fps difference and MT will be within run to run variance !
> You need to change your boost mode.
> 
> Green is for CPPC off, Red is for CPPC on
> 
> View attachment 2560461


I don't understand exactly which point you are referring to.

If you disable all the CPPC settings, you will get less performances because the OS doesn't know anymore which core relates to which CCX cache, so it can't group threads that work on the same set of data to the cores that use the same cache, and this will inherently slow down cpu heavy algorithms as accessing the cache of a different CCX has a big performance penalty.

The processor performance boost mode is a setting that defines the speed with which a core will increase its frequency up to the maximum turbo boost mhz when a thread with a heavy workload requires it.
When CPPC is OFF, the CPU will use the P-states to manage each core frequency, and the P-states allow only two possible frequency states: Turbo boost ON, and Turbo boost OFF. So the "Aggressive" setting will be mapped to "Turbo boost ON immediately" and the "Efficient" setting will be mapped to "Turbo boost ON only if the thread specifically ask for the turbo frequency".
When CPPC is ON, the CPU has more granularity to choose the target core frequency, so the "aggressive" setting will be mapped to "Turbo boost ON immediately" and the "Efficient" setting will be mapped to "Start at an OS-calculated frequency and progressively increase up to theTurbo boost frequency".

All the options in that list are always mapped to one of the available choices following this table:










There isn't one of those listed choices that is not "functional" if CPPC is ON or OFF. In Windows 11 the default for both the "balanced" and "high performance" profiles is to use "Aggressive" as boost mode and I didn't get any performance increase by using a different value (I got performance increases by changing other power profile settings unrelated to CPPC).

But the performance penalty that you get if you disable CPPC is not related to the frequency of the cores. It's related to the ability of the cores on the same CCX to access the same cache instead of having to do an extra roundtrip to access the cache on the other CCX. Without knowing which cores are in which CCX , the OS can't optimize this cache access strategy.


----------



## rexbinary

SpeedyIV said:


> I wonder if this is exactly the same as the beta version which I just installed a few days ago. Anyone know?


I did a file compare using fc at the Windows command prompt and they are indeed identical files.


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> Have you tried DDR4 4000 - GDM off, CL15, T2 ?


[email protected]
=> I pass 2 hours Karu's, ,I boot without any problem.
But each game => Crash, even by increasing latencies, voltages, etc....

I go back to 3800MHz


----------



## Baio73

ChillyRide said:


> I assume u temp limited? Cause pretty bad results even with not tuned ram.


Do you refer to CB23 scores?
I have a lot of tasks running in background, so I don't care much about that... I addec the tests just to see how much the CO mode improves performance.
I'm using a 360 AIO but with a very conservative fan curve, as I have the case on my desk.

Baio


----------



## Baio73

Luggage said:


> R23 don’t really care about ram.


And RAM OC is the next step ahead!  
I've started over with a new kit but I'm struggling a little:

A guide to ram overclocking on Zen 3 | Page 4 | Overclock.net 

Baio


----------



## Baio73

Luggage said:


> Try +100 instead of +200.
> With your cooling might benefit from even lower tdc and edc. R23 isn’t really heavy on amps.


Thanks, I'm gonna try +100.
Any tip for lower TDC and EDC?

Baio


----------



## Luggage

Baio73 said:


> Thanks, I'm gonna try +100.
> Any tip for lower TDC and EDC?
> 
> Baio


You just said you ran with lots of processes in the background - so no then I don't have any tips because there is nothing to compare against. You can't optimize any limit or value if you have a billion random parameters dirtying up the results.

This is a tip going forward if you wan't to OC RAM - clean up bg apps and processes or you will be in for a world of hurt trying to figure out latency and bandwidth

edit: looking at your system you really want to disable icue and g-suite(?) while messing with yourr ram.


----------



## flyinion

Did you guys lose ability to load saved setting from USB after updating to 4201? Sooo not happy right now. All settings from scratch cause they won’t load. “Not for this cpu family”


----------



## xeizo

flyinion said:


> Did you guys lose ability to load saved setting from USB after updating to 4201? Sooo not happy right now. All settings from scratch cause they won’t load. “Not for this cpu family”


I noticed it on some of the AGESA 1.2.0.7 upgrades I did, for me it's not a biggie though as by now I know most if not all bios settings from memory.

Different thing with my Z690 rig, _a lot of _memory settings I'm not familiar with have to thread carefully LoL


----------



## flyinion

xeizo said:


> I noticed it on some of the AGESA 1.2.0.7 upgrades I did, for me it's not a biggie though as by now I know most if not all bios settings from memory.
> 
> Different thing with my Z690 rig, _a lot of _memory settings I'm not familiar with have to thread carefully LoL


Yeah the problem is I had to redo my fan profiles in BIOS. Luckily fan xpert didn't eat them this time (though I have backups). I've had it reset its base profiles before. Well, it did this time as well but still saw my saved ones. I just had to set the temp source back to the water temp sensors again. I really didn't want to have to redo profiles for the fans on my loop.


----------



## des2k...

Kelutrel said:


> I don't understand exactly which point you are referring to.
> 
> If you disable all the CPPC settings, you will get less performances because the OS doesn't know anymore which core relates to which CCX cache, so it can't group threads that work on the same set of data to the cores that use the same cache, and this will inherently slow down cpu heavy algorithms as accessing the cache of a different CCX has a big performance penalty.
> 
> The processor performance boost mode is a setting that defines the speed with which a core will increase its frequency up to the maximum turbo boost mhz when a thread with a heavy workload requires it.
> When CPPC is OFF, the CPU will use the P-states to manage each core frequency, and the P-states allow only two possible frequency states: Turbo boost ON, and Turbo boost OFF. So the "Aggressive" setting will be mapped to "Turbo boost ON immediately" and the "Efficient" setting will be mapped to "Turbo boost ON only if the thread specifically ask for the turbo frequency".
> When CPPC is ON, the CPU has more granularity to choose the target core frequency, so the "aggressive" setting will be mapped to "Turbo boost ON immediately" and the "Efficient" setting will be mapped to "Start at an OS-calculated frequency and progressively increase up to theTurbo boost frequency".
> 
> All the options in that list are always mapped to one of the available choices following this table:
> 
> View attachment 2560466
> 
> 
> There isn't one of those listed choices that is not "functional" if CPPC is ON or OFF. In Windows 11 the default for both the "balanced" and "high performance" profiles is to use "Aggressive" as boost mode and I didn't get any performance increase by using a different value (I got performance increases by changing other power profile settings unrelated to CPPC).
> 
> But the performance penalty that you get if you disable CPPC is not related to the frequency of the cores. It's related to the ability of the cores on the same CCX to access the same cache instead of having to do an extra roundtrip to access the cache on the other CCX. Without knowing which cores are in which CCX , the OS can't optimize this cache access strategy.


Glad it works for you. On my side after we got cppc support in bios. The default aggressive only worked with cppc off. Eff aggressive with cppc on boosted based on ranking and scheduled threads properly with my 3900x and 5900x.

Always have hwinfo open on my 2nd screen, aggressive (default) doesn't boost very well on dual ccds. It's only 1 to 4 cores randomly (ccd0 or ccd1) being loaded vs having ccd0 boosted on ranks then moves to 1-2 cores from ccd1.

This is with normal light games, heavy threaded games will trigger all cores to boost.

Here's good scaling for core boost / thread scheduling(~86w with Destiny2 at 4k) which I don't get with aggressive default.


----------



## des2k...

GRABibus said:


> With my 5950X, I finally can boot at RAM 4000MHz/2000MHz.
> This was impossible with my former 5900X.
> 
> I also set my best optimized primary and secondary timings in order to boot.
> 
> *Aida64 (L1 + L2 HW Prefetcher disabled, which provided better latency but lower Memory Read/Write/copy values) *:
> View attachment 2560435
> 
> 
> I could pass 1 hour KArhu's (1800%), as a first shot for stability.
> Of course this is not enough and I will test it overnight to confirm stability.
> 
> BUT...This is Whea 19 fest....
> 
> I installed Whea suppressor service from @ManniX-ITA.
> 
> Let's see how things go in the next days.


L1,L2 prefetch off reporting better latency in Aida64 is not accurate or representative of real usage.

here's what it came out with when I tested aida64 yesterday.
l1,l2 on 
4000cl16 with no apps open 53.2ns, open a few apps and latency climbs to 53.4ns on repeated runs


l1,l2 off 
4000cl16 with no apps open 53.0ns, open a few apps and latency climbs to 54ns on repeated runs
and -700MB/s bandwith loss

this makes sense because once you have more than one program/process active dealing with memory you need prefetch active to get good bandwhith / latency response from the memory side

this also shows as less smooth fps in heavy games


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> Have you tried DDR4 4000 - GDM off, CL15, T2 ?





des2k... said:


> L1,L2 prefetch off reporting better latency in Aida64 is not accurate or representative of real usage.
> 
> here's what it came out with when I tested aida64 yesterday.
> l1,l2 on
> 4000cl16 with no apps open 53.2ns, open a few apps and latency climbs to 53.4ns on repeated runs
> 
> 
> l1,l2 off
> 4000cl16 with no apps open 53.0ns, open a few apps and latency climbs to 54ns on repeated runs
> and -700MB/s bandwith loss
> 
> this makes sense because once you have more than one program/process active dealing with memory you need prefetch active to get good bandwhith / latency response from the memory side
> 
> this also shows as less smooth fps in heavy games


@J7SC
CL15, 2T => no boot, even with [email protected]
I don't want ot tweak again all timings and voltages 



With L1 + L2 auto :









But with this memory OC, I had to tweak again all my CO curve as it crashes or WHEA 18 like hell in gaming.

conclusion : if I use this nice memory OC in gaming with L1 + L2 HW auto, as I had to add voltages through CO to all my cores, I have now poor single core performance, but very nice memory and cache Bandwith and latencies.


----------



## neikosr0x

DELETED


----------



## GRABibus

neikosr0x said:


> Have they fixed (4201 the EDC limit yet? Just tried 145EDC and Ryzen master is showing that limit.


No, still Vid=1.425V if EDC>140Amps.


----------



## GRABibus

GRABibus said:


> @J7SC
> CL15, 2T => no boot, even with [email protected]
> I don't want ot tweak again all timings and voltages
> 
> 
> 
> With L1 + L2 auto :
> View attachment 2560532
> 
> 
> But with this memory OC, I had to tweak again all my CO curve as it crashes or WHEA 18 like hell in gaming.
> 
> conclusion : if I use this nice memory OC in gaming with L1 + L2 HW auto, as I had to add voltages through CO to all my cores, I have now poor single core performance, but very nice memory and cache Bandwith and latencies.


I fixed those crashes in games by raising PLL from 1.9V to 1.95V.
I could come back to much lower CO voltages, as I had with [email protected] (see in sig for details).

Of course, 1.95V PLL is an absolute max voltage for me to not go beyond.
My SOC is at 1.2V.


----------



## J7SC

des2k... said:


> Glad it works for you. On my side after we got cppc support in bios. The default aggressive only worked with cppc off. Eff aggressive with cppc on boosted based on ranking and scheduled threads properly with my 3900x and 5900x.
> 
> Always have hwinfo open on my 2nd screen, aggressive (default) doesn't boost very well on dual ccds. It's only 1 to 4 cores randomly (ccd0 or ccd1) being loaded vs having ccd0 boosted on ranks then moves to 1-2 cores from ccd1.
> 
> This is with normal light games, heavy threaded games will trigger all cores to boost.
> 
> Here's good scaling for core boost / thread scheduling(~86w with Destiny2 at 4k) which I don't get with aggressive default.
> 
> View attachment 2560521


Probably makes more sense to look at effective core speeds...below is an oldie on nominal ones which at the end of the day don't mean that much...










As mentioned before, FS2020 is a really good test as it continuously stresses one core more than any other, and _effective_ speeds are typically around 5025 - 5040 max, with L3 effective speed also just over 5000...because of that, I actually introduced a small negative offset for the CPU - don't like to see 1.5v or higher ever, even for just a brief moment on one core - old school I guess...


----------



## Kelutrel

des2k... said:


> this makes sense because once you have more than one program/process active dealing with memory you need prefetch active to get good bandwhith / latency response from the memory side


This statement makes no sense. Explain, if you think you know what you are talking about.


----------



## KedarWolf

des2k... said:


> L1,L2 prefetch off reporting better latency in Aida64 is not accurate or representative of real usage.
> 
> here's what it came out with when I tested aida64 yesterday.
> l1,l2 on
> 4000cl16 with no apps open 53.2ns, open a few apps and latency climbs to 53.4ns on repeated runs
> 
> 
> l1,l2 off
> 4000cl16 with no apps open 53.0ns, open a few apps and latency climbs to 54ns on repeated runs
> and -700MB/s bandwith loss
> 
> this makes sense because once you have more than one program/process active dealing with memory you need prefetch active to get good bandwhith / latency response from the memory side
> 
> this also shows as less smooth fps in heavy games


Whenever you have any apps running, benchmarks are gonna get worse. Try R23, y-cruncher, anything, open apps slow things,


----------



## escoltajuverf

bios with agesa starting from version 1.2.0.5 including the latest 1.2.0.7 have reboot (warm boot) hang qcode 01, 1f or 0d when using 4x16 gb micron sticks, going back 1.2.0.3 Patch C for now


----------



## tommyd2k

Anyone using liquid metal with an EK monoblock? I know it isn't recommended and I know the risks. I'm not asking because I expect miracles from thermal compound either. The HDMI output on my Powercolor 6900xt is broken and to fix it I need to use my reflow setup and replace the port. While I have it apart I am gonna try out liquid metal. It's got a Byski waterblock I installed a year ago, and I think I'll see a noticable difference going to LM. So while I am at it, I wanna give it a try on the CPU. 

It's also because I just got a replacement 5950X from AMD. I gotta say it was the best decision I have made in a while in regards to computer parts. One look at the before and after results you can see why.

The 5950X I returned

Results CO testing
CORE| CPPC | START | RES | TEMP | CO | UNSAFE 
C01 | 215 | 4950 | 4950 | 75 | 258 | False 
C02 | 220 | 4825 | 4850 | 74 | 20 | False 
C03 | 206 | 4875 | 4875 | 68 | 158 | False 
C04 | 211 | 4750 | 4900 | 74 | 200 | False 
C05 | 220 | 4900 | 4900 | 68 | 56 | False 
C06 | 201 | 4900 | 4875 | 70 | 181 | False 
C07 | 197 | 4800 | 4800 | 74 | 155 | False
C08 | 192 | 4800 | 4800 | 74 | 154 | False 
C09 | 178 | 4675 | 4775 | 69 | 153 | False 
C10 | 187 | 4900 | 4900 | 63 | 178 | False 
C11 | 173 | 4775 | 4775 | 68 | 191 | False 
C12 | 183 | 4650 | 4725 | 69 | 96 | False 
C13 | 155 | 4825 | 4825 | 66 | 228 | False 
C14 | 169 | 4650 | 4825 | 70 | 225 | False 
C15 | 164 | 4575 | 4750 | 72 | 210 | False 
C16 | 159 | 4625 | 4750 | 74 | 195 | False

The one I just got back from AMD

Results CO testing
CORE| CPPC | START | RES | TEMP | CO | UNSAFE
C01 | 215 | 5050 | 5025 | 63 | 235 | True
C02 | 220 | 4900 | 4925 | 63 | 6 | False
C03 | 206 | 4975 | 4975 | 60 | 216 | False
C04 | 211 | 4825 | 4950 | 61 | 162 | False
C05 | 220 | 4875 | 5000 | 62 | 96 | False
C06 | 201 | 4775 | 4950 | 61 | 196 | False
C07 | 197 | 4725 | 4900 | 65 | 205 | False
C08 | 192 | 4875 | 4875 | 66 | 179 | False
C09 | 178 | 4725 | 4850 | 57 | 146 | False
C10 | 187 | 4975 | 4975 | 60 | 216 | False
C11 | 173 | 4850 | 4850 | 58 | 178 | False
C12 | 183 | 4700 | 4800 | 57 | 92 | False
C13 | 155 | 4900 | 4900 | 58 | 236 | False
C14 | 169 | 4700 | 4875 | 59 | 193 | False
C15 | 164 | 4625  | 4800 | 61 | 191 | False
C16 | 159 | 4675 | 4825 | 60 | 187 | False

And efficiency rating??

Results CCD testing
CORE#1 CO: 24 CORE#9 CO: 33
CORE#2 CO: 9 CORE#10 CO: 15
CORE#3 CO: 47 CORE#11 CO: 86
CORE#4 CO: 35 CORE#12 CO: 58
CORE#5 CO: 25 CORE#13 CO: 62
CORE#6 CO: 49 CORE#14 CO: 47
CORE#7 CO: 78 CORE#15 CO: 96
CORE#8 CO: 65 CORE#16 CO: 67
Energy Efficiency CCD#1 4.1 | PLATINUM sample
Energy Efficiency CCD#2 4.05 | GOLDEN sample

Old one was a double Bronze. So I was pretty psyched when I got those diagnostic results. 

So I am probably not going to be removing the processor again anytime soon. I just ordered a 5g tube of liquid metal to try out on my GPU and CPU. I have the EK CH8 monoblock. So anyone who is or has used liquid metal on this cooler, want to let me know how it worked out? I will remove the mobo from the case to do the application and take any steps I can to prevent shorts. That being said, any tips would be great. I have never used liquid metal b4. I don't normally concern myself with trying different TIM products, an 8G tube of MX-4 is a good as any to me . But since I don't expect to have to remove the cooler again, if it can shave off a few degress, I'll give Conductonaut a try. 

Of course if there is some reason why it will not work correctly at all I would like to know. What steps I should take to protect the chip and the socket to avoid a catastrophe would be helpful. 
At the end of the day if it makes a noticeable drop in temps then great. If not, as long as it doesn't perform worse then at least I tried right?


----------



## Theo164

Same efficiency ratings here 5900X bought November 2020









I've used Conductonaut LM many times with delided intel cpus on the die under heat spreader after insulating other nearby components like capacitors e.c.t. and the result's was excellent

LM is a risk to use on non isolated surfaces, an accident can kill whole pcb. This thing can get under electronic components like inductors / mosfets and any kind of surface mounted components and create permanent short circuits...

Check this video as an example before make any decision


----------



## stimpy88

Pr3t3nd3r said:


> I am having problems with fTPM...lots of stuttering when enabled but I can't play games such as Valorant if I disable fTPM because they need to have fTPM enabled...


Well, the latest BIOS is supposed to fix fTPM issues... You should take screenshots of your 3302 BIOS settings, and update to the latest BIOS, reset everything to optimized defaults, and see how you get on.

You can always use BIOS Flashback to go back to 3302 if the later BIOS causes other issues.


----------



## stimpy88

Baio73 said:


> Thanks, I'm gonna try +100.
> Any tip for lower TDC and EDC?
> 
> Baio


220
145
145

This is the way.


----------



## LorDClockaN

Theo164 said:


> Same efficiency ratings here 5900X bought November 2020
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've used Conductonaut LM many times with delided intel cpus on the die under heat spreader after insulating other nearby components like capacitors e.c.t. and the result's was excellent
> 
> LM is a risk to use on non isolated surfaces, an accident can kill whole pcb. This thing can get under electronic components like inductors / mosfets and any kind of surface mounted components and create permanent short circuits...
> 
> Check this video as an example before make any decision


Had to fix my son't GTX 1080 from liquid metal shunt mod.. shuints fell off after about 2 years of use.. I just soldered them back


----------



## tommyd2k

stimpy88 said:


> 220
> 145
> 145
> 
> This is the way.


Yep, that's the way.


----------



## finas

tommyd2k said:


> Yep, that's the way.


why?


----------



## Alemancio

Anybody with pro tips on Crosshair VIII + 5000x3d?


----------



## tommyd2k

finas said:


> why?


For starters, any higher than that for EDC the bios limits VID to 1.42V
As for the PPT limit. 220 maybe 240 is all you need to give any 5900 or 5950. Unless you are pushing it to make a few benchmark points. Running a Ryzen CPU wide open is a beginners mistake.


----------



## metalshark

tommyd2k said:


> For starters, any higher than that for EDC the bios limits VID to 1.42V
> As for the PPT limit. 220 maybe 240 is all you need to give any 5900 or 5950. Unless you are pushing it to make a few benchmark points. Running a Ryzen CPU wide open is a beginners mistake.


FYI real world performance (as well as benchmarks), with enough cooling, keeps going on the 5950X beyond 240W PPT. Depends on workload.


----------



## J7SC

metalshark said:


> FYI real world performance (as well as benchmarks), with enough cooling, keeps going on the 5950X beyond 240W PPT. Depends on workload.


...yup


----------



## finas

metalshark said:


> FYI real world performance (as well as benchmarks), with enough cooling, keeps going on the 5950X beyond 240W PPT. Depends on workload.


145? I thought 1.42v limit kicked in at 140 EDC


----------



## tommyd2k

metalshark said:


> FYI real world performance (as well as benchmarks), with enough cooling, keeps going on the 5950X beyond 240W PPT. Depends on workload.


I'm talking about what limits are gonna work best for most users. With those limits you're gonna get max Low threaded performance and for Multi threaded workloads that's gonna get you pretty close to the point of diminishing returns. There is a lotta ways to skin this cat. If you gotta ask, that's probably the best answer. 
Of course, you can run a 5950X higher than that. It isn't a good idea for a daily setting, no matter what you got for cooling. 
My loop would keep it cool even if I went with something crazy like a 1.4V all core 4800 4800 OC then ran an hour of stress testing. But if I jumped off a cliff so what?? That's miles past efficient. Unless you got a serious need for the extra power, why waste the energy and risk causing premature entropy? And besides PPT, why run EDC any higher? It's a mistake everyone makes with Zen 3. They set the EDC above140 and the VID limit comes into play. It a bad tradeoff. That and crazy LLC settings are two big reasons for low benchmark results that I see people make all the time. They read posts like what you just said and they want a race car too. But these chips aren't Top-fuel Dragsters they're Formula One Ferraris.


----------



## J7SC

I find that leaving the mobo on default settings for PPT, EDC and TDC works best for my setup, though it also depends which bios is used...

While it can reach past 250W / 180A with PBO _defaults _via strong cooling and also a small negative offset, the L1/L2 prefetch 'off' setting has done wonders for both scores and reduced power consumption...as posted before, now it comes in at 1.188v for CineR23 at 32.4k + _all-core_, and just over 200 W. This is perfect w/ DynOC on the DarkHero- and single core performance remains unaffected, and also benefits from the small negative offset.


----------



## tommyd2k

I have been using Hydra and CTR for so long I literally forgot about the dynamic OC switcher. The l1/l2 prefetch settings, they are set to auto (on) in bios by default I assume? They are buried in the bios settings I leave on auto pilot. If you are getting 32000 pt CB23 scores at 1.188v, and that is one of the main changes that's really interesting. 

I hate the way they design the bios now on the x570 motherboards. Not 1 but 3 different menus to control PBO+, RAM, voltages ETC. I try to leave as much of it alone as I can to get the job done. Software can make a lot of changes on the fly these days.


----------



## metalshark

finas said:


> 145? I thought 1.42v limit kicked in at 140 EDC


VID is 1.425v max over 140A but no-one cares about VID as it’s just the signal from the CPU to the motherboard to request voltage. It can be ignored or overridden with an offset. SVI2 (what your CPU receives) is limited to 1.475v over 140A unless enabling LN2 mode or hardware modding. Zen 3 tends to stop scaling at 1.455v (remember CO values change the voltage received per core by 3-5mV per step) for the best cores until using sub-ambient cooling.


----------



## metalshark

tommyd2k said:


> I'm talking about what limits are gonna work best for most users. With those limits you're gonna get max Low threaded performance and for Multi threaded workloads that's gonna get you pretty close to the point of diminishing returns. There is a lotta ways to skin this cat. If you gotta ask, that's probably the best answer.
> Of course, you can run a 5950X higher than that. It isn't a good idea for a daily setting, no matter what you got for cooling.
> My loop would keep it cool even if I went with something crazy like a 1.4V all core 4800 4800 OC then ran an hour of stress testing. But if I jumped off a cliff so what?? That's miles past efficient. Unless you got a serious need for the extra power, why waste the energy and risk causing premature entropy? And besides PPT, why run EDC any higher? It's a mistake everyone makes with Zen 3. They set the EDC above140 and the VID limit comes into play. It a bad tradeoff. That and crazy LLC settings are two big reasons for low benchmark results that I see people make all the time. They read posts like what you just said and they want a race car too. But these chips aren't Top-fuel Dragsters they're Formula One Ferraris.


FYI you can max out single thread speed as well as multi thread speed on the same high power limits. Hydra let’s you take this further (separate CO tables for each, plus each vertices for certain instruction sets). The Wattage really does depend on workloads, cooling, clean power, etc for instance there are some of us regularly over 300W for long periods of time since launch and no degradation. Single core speed tend to not keep boosting when you reach 75’C on the CCD (note the per CCD temp measurement) whereas multi throttles at 90’C. So you’ll find those not keeping a CCD under 75’C getting better/more consistent results by limiting power to ensure this. It is a valid choice as speed doesn’t scale linearly with power for workloads like gaming, web browsing, Cinebench and other low power workloads.


----------



## Baio73

stimpy88 said:


> 220
> 145
> 145
> 
> This is the way.


Thanks, I'm gonna try them along with + max boost and report back ASAP... I'm still testing RAM OC.

Baio


----------



## stimpy88

finas said:


> 145? I thought 1.42v limit kicked in at 140 EDC


Only if your using recent BIOS's.


----------



## stimpy88

Baio73 said:


> Thanks, I'm gonna try them along with + max boost and report back ASAP... I'm still testing RAM OC.
> 
> Baio


I would leave the 220W setting alone, but you can alter the other two DOWN in increments of 5. That's what I do, then you will find the peak performance and heat output. If you have good cooling, you should be fine.

I use the PBO2 tool to adjust the settings from Windows, then run CB23, record the score, let the system cool, then adjust EDC down by 5 and re-bench, etc etc. When I find the best values, I go into the BIOS, and use the PBO2 tool numbers. I do the same for CO testing too.

If you find the values under the Limits tab in the PBO2 tool is blank, simply close the tool and open it again, it will populate.


----------



## finas

metalshark said:


> VID is 1.425v max over 140A but no-one cares about VID as it’s just the signal from the CPU to the motherboard to request voltage. It can be ignored or overridden with an offset. SVI2 (what your CPU receives) is limited to 1.475v over 140A unless enabling LN2 mode or hardware modding. Zen 3 tends to stop scaling at 1.455v (remember CO values change the voltage received per core by 3-5mV per step) for the best cores until using sub-ambient cooling.


If EDC>140A limits the voltage that the cpu receives to 1.475v please tell me how EDC = 145A is the way to go.


----------



## metalshark

finas said:


> If EDC>140A limits the voltage that the cpu receives to 1.475v please tell me how EDC = 145A is the way to go.


Because scaling for max frequency stops at 1455mv (20mv short of 1475mv) without going sub-ambient (sure there might be some variance going to 1460mv on some chips) and the more power, assuming you can keep it below 75'C for single-core (CCD temp) or 90'C for multi-core, the higher you can clock it under load until you hit the max of your processor.


----------



## finas

metalshark said:


> Because scaling for max frequency stops at 1455mv (20mv short of 1475mv) without going sub-ambient (sure there might be some variance going to 1460mv on some chips) and the more power, assuming you can keep it below 75'C for single-core (CCD temp) or 90'C for multi-core, the higher you can clock it under load until you hit the max of your processor.


What do you mean by scalling to max frequency? My 5950x on 1207 goes to 5250 on most cores with EDC at 140A.


----------



## metalshark

finas said:


> What do you mean by scalling to max frequency? My 5950x on 1207 goes to 5250 on most cores with EDC at 140A.


Running something light you'll be able to hit the highest clock speeds at 140A EDC yes. Same with 2 core max, 3 core max and 4 core max. As soon as you start going above this or you run a heavier workload (even single-core) remembering heavier refers to the instructions being executed (not just it showing 100% utilisation) you'll need more power to hit max. Where the drop off happens for you will depend on what you run.


----------



## finas

metalshark said:


> Running something light you'll be able to hit the highest clock speeds at 140A EDC yes. Same with 2 core max, 3 core max and 4 core max. As soon as you start going above this or you run a heavier workload (even single-core) remembering heavier refers to the instructions being executed (not just it showing 100% utilisation) you'll need more power to hit max. Where the drop off happens for you will depend on what you run.


you are then implying that the drop off happens because of temp and not voltage, correct?


----------



## metalshark

finas said:


> you are then implying that the drop off happens because of temp and not voltage, correct?


The drop off I'm referring to here is not being able to sustain top speeds due to power being artificially limited. You're not going to hit this unless the workload draws more than the limit. The point you hit that limit being the drop-off. A quick Google shows how many different meaning drop off has (apologies should've used clearer phrasing) am intending for the meaning "a marked dwindling or decline".


----------



## finas

metalshark said:


> The drop off I'm referring to here is not being able to sustain top speeds due to power being artificially limited. You're not going to hit this unless the workload draws more than the limit. The point you hit that limit being the drop-off. A quick Google shows how many different meaning drop off has (apologies should've used clearer phrasing) am intending for the meaning "a marked dwindling or decline".


I still don't understand how limiting EDC to something higher than 140 will bring you single core performance benefits, considering that there is less voltage that the CPU can use to boost up.


----------



## metalshark

finas said:


> I still don't understand how limiting EDC to something higher than 140 will bring you single core performance benefits, considering that there is less voltage that the CPU can use to boost up.


For an individual core I can't imagine a workload demanding more than 140A regardless of the instructions. Happy for someone to provide information on one, but that just seems beyond the bounds of possibility.

However, you will generally run a variety of workloads.

Why not have the best performance in all of them? Why not scale to the highest speed at 1 core, 2 core, 3 core, 4 core, 5 core, etc? Either that or get a single CCD CPU if you literally only want 1 core in your entire system.


----------



## finas

metalshark said:


> For an individual core I can't imagine a workload demanding more than 140A regardless of the instructions. Happy for someone to provide information on one, but that just seems beyond the bounds of possibility.
> 
> However, you will generally run a variety of workloads.
> 
> Why not have the best performance in all of them? Why not scale to the highest speed at 1 core, 2 core, 3 core, 4 core, 5 core, etc? Either that or get a single CCD CPU if you literally only want 1 core in your entire system.


the only meaning of EDC=140 in this discussion is that this is the value that cuts voltage to the cores to 1.42 or whatever. A single core will not indeed surpass 140 or 130 or 100A. But when you set a value of 145A on EDC instead of something bellow or equal to 140A you are limiting the voltage that a core can receive and what I am trying to understand is the statment "this is the way to go" that was made before. How does limiting the voltage that a CPU can freely draw improve single core performance when we know that the more voltage a core can get ( up to a point ) the more speed it can reach?


----------



## metalshark

finas said:


> the only meaning of EDC=140 in this discussion is that this is the value that cuts voltage to the cores to 1.42 or whatever. A single core will not indeed surpass 140 or 130 or 100A. But when you set a value of 145A on EDC instead of something bellow or equal to 140A you are limiting the voltage that a core can receive and what I am trying to understand is the statment "this is the way to go" that was made before. How does limiting the voltage that a CPU can freely draw improve single core performance when we know that the more voltage a core can get ( up to a point ) the more speed it can reach?


Zen 3 you're targeting 1.455v for max single core. If VID gets limited to 1.425v then add an offset to the CPU voltage of +0.3v and you're back at 1.455v SVI2.


----------



## finas

metalshark said:


> Zen 3 you're targeting 1.455v for max single core. If VID gets limited to 1.425v then add an offset to the CPU voltage of +0.3v and you're back at 1.455v SVI2.


and why should I be targeting 1.455 and not 1.5 or more?
and you are really not answering the question: how and why is "145A the way to go", if voltage is what a cpu needs to boost and limiting its voltage to max 1.42 will handicap its ability to boost?


----------



## metalshark

finas said:


> and why should I be targeting 1.455 and not 1.5 or more?
> and you are really not answering the question: how and why is "145A the way to go", if voltage is what a cpu needs to boost and limiting its voltage to max 1.42 will handicap its ability to boost?


If going sub-ambient then aiming for 1.5v (basically anything over 1455mv) makes sense sure. You'll tend to find those going for 1.5v without sub ambient cooling will then use negative CO offsets reducing it from 1.5v for what the core receives. You're not boosting any higher over around 1.455v unless using sub-ambient temps. For instance you'll have people add a 35mv positive offset to their CPU at 1.5v VID (1535mv SVI2) then run all cores at -30 CO (-30 x 3mv = -90mv) making it (1535mv - 90mv = 1445mv).

A VID of 1.425 doesn't cap anything, it's a signal which can outright be ignored. The cap you're thinking of is 1.475v which is the SVI2 cap over 140A EDC.


----------



## Theo164

Because 1.5v works for all good and bad samples, not all samples are equal and probably most of them are at least ok if not good

This is an example for one core only @ 5000 it's stable at 1.380v, it can go as low as 1.369 Hydra VID (unstable)









3801 bios pbo+co / 220PPT / 120TDC / 140EDC max auto voltage 1.544v for 5140
1.5+ works for all samples? Bad freq / voltage scaling? i don't know but something is not ok


----------



## metalshark

Theo164 said:


> Because 1.5v works for all good and bad samples, not all samples are equal and probably most of them are at least ok if not good
> 
> This is an example for one core only @ 5000 it's stable at 1.380v, it can go as low as 1.369 Hydra VID (unstable)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3801 bios pbo+co / 220PPT / 120TDC / 140EDC max auto voltage 1.544v for 5140
> 1.5+ works for all samples? Bad freq / voltage scaling? i don't know but something is not ok


To be clear when I say 1455mv I am referring to voltage after CO is applied.


----------



## finas

metalshark said:


> If going sub-ambient then aiming for 1.5v (basically anything over 1455mv) makes sense sure. You'll tend to find those going for 1.5v without sub ambient cooling will then use negative CO offsets reducing it from 1.5v for what the core receives. You're not boosting any higher over around 1.455v unless using sub-ambient temps. For instance you'll have people add a 35mv positive offset to their CPU at 1.5v VID (1535mv SVI2) then run all cores at -30 CO (-30 x 3mv = -90mv) making it (1535mv - 90mv = 1445mv).
> 
> A VID of 1.425 doesn't cap anything, it's a signal which can outright be ignored. The cap you're thinking of is 1.475v which is the SVI2 cap over 140A EDC.


So How to you explain that you get better single core performance on, for instance cb23 with edc at 140 than at 145?


----------



## metalshark

finas said:


> So How to you explain that you get better single core performance on, for instance cb23 with edc at 140 than at 145?


Either hitting 75'C on the CCD throttling or not compensating to provide the same voltage to the core to hit the same speed. One of those two, or both.

So say you were doing 1.5v VID with +45mv offset and -30 CO. That's 1500mv + 45mv = 1545, then -30 x 3mv = -90mv so 1545mv - 90mv = 1455mv. Now if you're using 1.425v VID you can straight up use a +30mv offset. You can get more advanced when you know the mv per core required for each one to hit max boost and know the minimum voltage to prevent them from causing a reboot (remembering it's a 5mv multiplier for CO at low utilisation).


----------



## finas

metalshark said:


> Either hitting 75'C on the CCD throttling or not compensating to provide the same voltage to the core to hit the same speed. One of those two, or both.
> 
> So say you were doing 1.5v VID with +45mv offset and -30 CO. That's 1500mv + 45mv = 1545, then -30 x 3mv = -90mv so 1545mv - 90mv = 1455mv. Now if you're using 1.425v VID you can straight up use a +30mv offset. You can get more advanced when you know the mv per core required for each one to hit max boost and know the minimum voltage to prevent them from causing a reboot (remembering it's a 5mv multiplier for CO at low utilisation).


I still fail to understand how a 145 EDC will help you, and how you can justify a "it's the way to go". It appears to me that you are simply using 145 EDC for no reason and then adding a positive offset to compensate for the bad choice.

Put it on another way, why not 140 EDC and no offset, or 160EDC and offset? because with 160EDC you get excelent multicore performance too.


----------



## metalshark

finas said:


> I still fail to understand how a 145 EDC will help you, and how you can justify a "it's the way to go". It appears to me that you are simply using 145 EDC for no reason and then adding a positive offset to compensate for the bad choice.
> 
> Put it on another way, why not 140 EDC and no offset, or 160EDC and offset? because with 160EDC you get excelent multicore performance too.


Exactly, why not use 160A EDC? There's nothing magical about 145A EDC. The mv per core for max boost per core on your particular processor stays the same from the earliest AGESA to the present (assuming you're not thermal/power capping between tests), so being able to adjust to compensate for it lets you figure out the best CO/Offset combo required. It just becomes maths once you determine what's required for max boost and the minimum for stability.


----------



## Luggage

Almost subambiet I guess, 10-15c water temp. Not using hydra, just the boost tester…)



http://imgur.com/kp93OL5


Games and R23 light on edc but som workloads are really throttling by low edc.
But we are talking heavy avx… p95, y-cruncher etc.



http://imgur.com/a/CUxYn94


Other workloads are more thermal than current constrained. Ex cpu-z gives me better results if I lower edc below stock…
In ss ignore score value, it bugges out running it prolonged, but look at effective clocks.



http://imgur.com/a/5QD8amF


(all on agesa 1203c, because of vids… guess I’ll try 1207 after MSI release for the unify but I’m sceptical I’ll see any improvements)


----------



## finas

metalshark said:


> Exactly, why not use 160A EDC? There's nothing magical about 145A EDC. The mv per core for max boost per core on your particular processor stays the same from the earliest AGESA to the present (assuming you're not thermal/power capping between tests), so being able to adjust to compensate for it lets you figure out the best CO/Offset combo required. It just becomes maths once you determine what's required for max boost and the minimum for stability.


Again, This all started ( with me I confess ) being triggered by the "this is the way to go", when in fact, it isn't. If you want the best single core performance you choose something below or at 140A EDC, if you want a balanced multicore/single core you choose something that is significantly above 140 and that value is around 160 for most normal cooling setups. If you want the absolute maximum compute power you choose the highest EDC possible, because this is where the CPU is not constrained and can consume as much power as it can, and, as I am sure everyone here knows, for the same CPU, the more power it is consuming, the more work it is doing. 145 is just a stupid value to choose for EDC because it's almost 140, meaning you are giving away the single core performance for almost no extra multicore performance.

Finally, adding an offset is not the same as having the CPU regulate it's own voltage and this can clearly be seen by the fact that removing for instance 15mv with CO from a CO curve that is already the best possible and adding about the same in mv to compensate will give you an unstable system. I will try to find a source that explains this in detail and post here.


----------



## metalshark

Luggage said:


> Almost subambiet I guess, 10-15c water temp. Not using hydra, just the boost tester…)
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/kp93OL5
> 
> 
> Games and R23 light on edc but som workloads are really throttling by low edc.
> But we are talking heavy avx… p95, y-cruncher etc.
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/CUxYn94
> 
> 
> Other workloads are more thermal than current constrained. Ex cpu-z gives me better results if I lower edc below stock…
> In ss ignore score value, it bugges out running it prolonged, but look at effective clocks.
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/5QD8amF
> 
> 
> (all on agesa 1203c, because of vids… guess I’ll try 1207 after MSI release for the unify but I’m sceptical I’ll see any improvements)


Scaling up until 1481mv SVI2 (assuming no CO curve for apple-to-apples comparison) is nice. You'd need +50mv Offset and +2 CO for the best cores to get back up to it with latest AGESA (1425mv + 50mv + 2x3mv). Impressive cooling or binning to get scaling up to that (again assuming no CO values were applied). Here's where holding back the AGESA or enabling LN2 mode makes sense (e.g. needing a positive CO).


----------



## metalshark

finas said:


> Again, This all started ( with me I confess ) being triggered by the "this is the way to go", when in fact, it isn't. If you want the best single core performance you choose something below or at 140A EDC, if you want a balanced multicore/single core you choose something that is significantly above 140 and that value is around 160 for most normal cooling setups. If you want the absolute maximum compute power you choose the highest EDC possible, because this is where the CPU is not constrained and can consume as much power as it can, and, as I am sure everyone here knows, for the same CPU, the more power it is consuming, the more work it is doing. 145 is just a stupid value to choose for EDC because it's almost 140, meaning you are giving away the single core performance for almost no extra multicore performance.
> 
> Finally, adding an offset is not the same as having the CPU regulate it's own voltage and this can clearly be seen by the fact that removing for instance 15mv with CO from a CO curve that is already the best possible and adding about the same in mv to compensate will give you an unstable system. I will try to find a source that explains this in detail and post here.


Unless you're running one and only one core (or a handful) why would you not have the best of both worlds? Best single-core and multi-core? You can use offsets and CO, with CO scaling from 3mv to 5rmv per step. It's demonstratable that the minimum mv per core for stability and the max mv per core for max boost can be achieved via either means. If someone dropped their voltage real low and the faster responding altering voltage on the CPU produced the error less frequently than sending VID to the VRM and getting voltage back (more laggy) it doesn't alter that core has the same minimum mv for stability.


----------



## Luggage

finas said:


> Again, This all started ( with me I confess ) being triggered by the "this is the way to go", when in fact, it isn't. If you want the best single core performance you choose something below or at 140A EDC, if you want a balanced multicore/single core you choose something that is significantly above 140 and that value is around 160 for most normal cooling setups. If you want the absolute maximum compute power you choose the highest EDC possible, because this is where the CPU is not constrained and can consume as much power as it can, and, as I am sure everyone here knows, for the same CPU, the more power it is consuming, the more work it is doing. 145 is just a stupid value to choose for EDC because it's almost 140, meaning you are giving away the single core performance for almost no extra multicore performance.
> 
> Finally, adding an offset is not the same as having the CPU regulate it's own voltage and this can clearly be seen by the fact that removing for instance 15mv with CO from a CO curve that is already the best possible and adding about the same in mv to compensate will give you an unstable system. I will try to find a source that explains this in detail and post here.


Don’t set the highest possible - performance is **** with 4096-4096-4096  (MSI limits…)


----------



## Luggage

metalshark said:


> Scaling up until 1481mv SVI2 (assuming no CO curve for apple-to-apples comparison) is nice. You'd need +50mv Offset and +2 CO for the best cores to get back up to it with latest AGESA (1425mv + 50mv + 2x3mv). Impressive cooling or binning to get scaling up to that (again assuming no CO values were applied). Here's where holding back the AGESA or enabling LN2 mode makes sense (e.g. needing a positive CO).


With curve and offset for sure - I think -7 for core 0 and +0.0125v offset ( I only set offset against st droop, MSI hates llc with PBO)
Can’t do the math in my head what that works out to regarding vid.
What I know is that I use 1.5v sv12tfn regularly.


http://imgur.com/ZILSJte


----------



## finas

metalshark said:


> Unless you're running one and only one core (or a handful) why would you not have the best of both worlds? Best single-core and multi-core? You can use offsets and CO, with CO scaling from 3mv to 5rmv per step. It's demonstratable that the minimum mv per core for stability and the max mv per core for max boost can be achieved via either means. If someone dropped their voltage real low and the faster responding altering voltage on the CPU produced the error less frequently than sending VID to the VRM and getting voltage back (more laggy) it doesn't alter that core has the same minimum mv for stability.


Again, you appear to contradict yourself. You can't have the best of both words as adding offset is not the same and does not help the cpu in a fast switching context. Even if you could add the offset to compensate for the lack of voltage, again, it's not the same thing as the CPU switches much faster than the VRM can supply, 145 would still be a stupid value when you can pick 160. You can either have best single core performance ( 140 EDC ) good all around performance ( ~160 EDC ) or maximum multicore performance ( ~260 EDC, as I can remember, on my CPU is is as high as it goes before it reaches 90 degrees C, but I may be wrong here, maybe it was 220 or so. have to test again. ).


----------



## metalshark

Luggage said:


> With curve and offset for sure - I think -7 for core 0 and +0.0125v offset ( I only set offset against st droop, MSI hates llc with PBO)
> Can’t do the math in my head what that works out to regarding vid.
> What I know is that I use 1.5v sv12tfn regularly.
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/ZILSJte


That makes sense 1481mv - 7x3mv = 1460mv.


----------



## metalshark

finas said:


> Again, you appear to contradict yourself. You can't have the best of both words as adding offset is not the same and does not help the cpu in a fast switching context. Even if you could add the offset to compensate for the lack of voltage, again, it's not the same thing as the CPU switches much faster than the VRM can supply, 145 would still be a stupid value when you can pick 160. You can either have best single core performance ( 140 EDC ) good all around performance ( ~160 EDC ) or maximum multicore performance ( ~260 EDC, as I can remember, on my CPU is is as high as it goes before it reaches 90 degrees C, but I may be wrong here, maybe it was 220 or so. have to test again. ).


I don't think you're following. A core has a mv below which it's unstable. You can trip this less frequently by leaning more on CO over Offset, it's just masking a problem you're gonna run into eventually.

145 would still be a stupid value when you can pick 160 agreed.

You can have 260A if your cooling keeps it under 75'C per CCD and have best of all worlds.


----------



## dansi

Interesting discussion on EDC.
For Gigabyte X570 bios 1207 brings about a capped TDC of 145A and a capped VID of 1.425V if EDC of >140A.

The way i see it, it reduces both single and multi-core potential. 
EDC supplies the boost current, while TDC supplies the next leg of maintaining current to keep the boost up withing FIT thermal limits. 
Both have been reduced with the latest bios. Thanks AMD!

You can pick 140 EDC but your single core is going to be capped below 1.425V. I seen single core taking up to 1.475V on a normal 240MM loop, so there is a loss in performance.


----------



## finas

metalshark said:


> I don't think you're following. A core has a mv below which it's unstable. You can trip this less frequently by leaning more on CO over Offset, it's just masking a problem you're gonna run into eventually.
> 
> 145 would still be a stupid value when you can pick 160 agreed.
> 
> You can have 260A if your cooling keeps it under 75'C per CCD and have best of all worlds.


Your first and second statement just prove my point. "145 is not the way to go".

The last one is false. Power is a measurement of work. if your cpu is pulling out 260A then it's doing more work than if it's pulling 240A, even if at 260A you are at 4400mhz on all cores and at 240A you are at 4500mhz on all cores. Sure some of that is heat, and the hotter you get, the less efficient the cpu is at converting power into work, but if it's pulling more amps it's not for the sake of making heat.
You can have the same core ( modern core, this is false with cpu's whose performance ( work that is made per unit of time ) scales purelly on mhz like last decade cpu's ) producing more work at 4400mhz than it is at 4500mhz.


----------



## finas

dansi said:


> Interesting discussion on EDC.
> For Gigabyte X570 bios 1207 brings about a capped TDC of 145A and a capped VID of 1.425V if EDC of >140A.
> 
> The way i see it, it reduces both single and multi-core potential.
> EDC supplies the boost current, while TDC supplies the next leg of maintaining current to keep the boost up withing FIT thermal limits.
> Both have been reduced with the latest bios. Thanks AMD!
> 
> You can pick 140 EDC but your single core is going to be capped below 1.425V. I seen single core taking up to 1.475V on a normal 240MM loop, so there is a loss in performance.


you mean > or >= ? because in my case 140A EDC is the last value that is not capped.


----------



## ChillyRide

Will someone of u run CBR23 and show some tests with ur EDC 140, 140+ and hydra? Cause ur boosting freq and voltage is irrelevant to real world cpu usage.


----------



## Luggage

ChillyRide said:


> Will someone of u run CBR23 and show some tests with ur EDC 140, 140+ and hydra? Cause ur boosting freq and voltage is irrelevant to real world cpu usage.


R23 I linear with boost frequency.

The problem I see is that you have to do different co curves to optimize depending on if you run with 1.5 or 1.425 vid limit - this is why I gave up on agesa 1205 beta and reverted to 1203.
Or use software (rm/pbo2tuner) to change PBO limits.


http://imgur.com/a/d5cReXo


I’ll try again with agesa 1207 I guess…


----------



## finas

Luggage said:


> R23 I linear with boost frequency.
> 
> The problem I see is that you have to do different co curves to optimize depending on if you run with 1.5 or 1.425 vid limit - this is why I gave up on agesa 1205 beta and reverted to 1203.
> Or use software (rm/pbo2tuner) to change PBO limits.
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/d5cReXo
> 
> 
> I’ll try again with agesa 1207 I guess…


The reason why you need a different CO curve with 1.5 or 1.425v limit is that with 1.5v the cpu will boost higher and so the CO that worked for 1.425v may be too aggressive, even with the added voltage.


----------



## Luggage

finas said:


> The reason why you need a different CO curve with 1.5 or 1.425v limit is that with 1.5v the cpu will boost higher and so the CO that worked for 1.425v may be too aggressive, even with the added voltage.


In my mind it’s the other way around* - but yes 

* I have to redo the curve for 1.425…


----------



## finas

Luggage said:


> In my mind it’s the other way around* - but yes
> 
> * I have to redo the curve for 1.425…


So, I really don't know if this is universal or not, but in my particular case, after figuring out the CO values for all the 16 cores with vid limit of 1.425v ( I think I was using edc=160 ) using hydra and then testing them one by one with corecycler ( hydra tends to be too optimistic ) for maximum stability and also testing them under absolutely no load, I found out that after setting edc=140 and thus lifting the vcore limit to 1.5v, I had to "worsten" the CO of most of the cores, so for instance a core that had a negative CO of 29 would now need 28 or 27 to be stable. I attribute this to the fact that tipicaly, on the very top of the mhz curve, mhz doesn't scale linearly with voltage, and you need even more voltage for the next mhz step. But I only have one sample for testing so I don't know if this also happens to others.


----------



## stimpy88

ChillyRide said:


> Will someone of u run CBR23 and show some tests with ur EDC 140, 140+ and hydra? Cause ur boosting freq and voltage is irrelevant to real world cpu usage.


Exactly, I have tested to the moon and back, and settled on 220-145-145 for the optimum performance with MY 5950 and MY 420mm cooling system.

If I choose anything higher than 145 I lose performance, if I choose lower than 145 I lose performance. I have heard many others settling on 145 as well. It seems to be a good all-round number for a lot of people, and is also a good place for people to start off on their own journey.

Obviously if you have a specific workload, your numbers will probably be different, but for general use 220-145-145 seems to offer the best all round performance for my setup.


----------



## finas

stimpy88 said:


> Exactly, I have tested to the moon and back, and settled on 220-145-145 for the optimum performance with MY 5950 and MY 420mm cooling system.
> 
> If I choose anything higher than 145 I lose performance, if I choose lower than 145 I lose performance. I have heard many others settling on 145 as well. It seems to be a good all-round number for a lot of people, and is also a good place for people to start off on their own journey.
> 
> Obviously if you have a specific workload, your numbers will probably be different, but for general use 220-145-145 seems to offer the best all round performance for my setup.


maybe you are using an agesa that doesn't limit your cpu voltage with edc>= to 140A and also that on multi thread loads your cooling setup is so bad that 145A is the max you can go before the CPU starts to throtle because of heat. that is the only explanation I find for your case.


----------



## stimpy88

finas said:


> maybe you are using an agesa that doesn't limit your cpu voltage with edc>= to 140A and also that on multi thread loads your cooling setup is so bad that 145A is the max you can go before the CPU starts to throtle because of heat. that is the only explanation I find for your case.


I already stated in this thread that I don't use the later BIOS's as they offer nothing. It is also in my signature.

My cooling is perfectly fine thanks. I just don't like sitting in a 30C room while I'm playing a game.


----------



## GRABibus

From 4006 to 4201, I noticed that they have probably changed CO curve....

For idle stability on the 2 best cores of my CCD1, I need :

*4006 :*
Core0 => -9
Core1 => -12

*4201 :*
Core0 => -15
Core1 => -16

Check it guys.

I tested Single performance via CBR23 to see if it improves, not really.

CBR23 @ 26°C with 4201 With L1 + L2 HW Off with my 24/7 settings :


----------



## finas

stimpy88 said:


> I already stated in this thread that I don't use the later BIOS's as they offer nothing. It is also in my signature.
> 
> My cooling is perfectly fine thanks. I just don't like sitting in a 30C room while I'm playing a game.



aaahhhh... we are getting to something here. So, 145A is the way to go if you are using a bios that doesn't limit vcore at EDC 140 and you also want to be in a room where temperature is more important that performance.

I have no issues with that.


----------



## GRABibus

dansi said:


> Interesting discussion on EDC.
> For Gigabyte X570 bios 1207 brings about a capped TDC of 145A and a capped VID of 1.425V if EDC of >140A.
> 
> The way i see it, it reduces both single and multi-core potential.
> EDC supplies the boost current, while TDC supplies the next leg of maintaining current to keep the boost up withing FIT thermal limits.
> Both have been reduced with the latest bios. Thanks AMD!
> 
> You can pick 140 EDC but your single core is going to be capped below 1.425V. I seen single core taking up to 1.475V on a normal 240MM loop, so there is a loss in performance.


This is why I prefer EDC = 140.
Then I can get full Single Core potential.
This is so much useful in Windows and gaming.

Those chips have already Huge Multi Core performances, even not overclocked.


----------



## KedarWolf

Theo164 said:


> Because 1.5v works for all good and bad samples, not all samples are equal and probably most of them are at least ok if not good
> 
> This is an example for one core only @ 5000 it's stable at 1.380v, it can go as low as 1.369 Hydra VID (unstable)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3801 bios pbo+co / 220PPT / 120TDC / 140EDC max auto voltage 1.544v for 5140
> 1.5+ works for all samples? Bad freq / voltage scaling? i don't know but something is not ok


Hydra 1.1F bugs out on me running the Diagnostic, like in the second phase when the individual cores are done, it'll run on CCD 1 and CCD 2 fine an hour in, then it'll raise the CO of the cores on CCD 1 to something crazy like -143 and it'll fail core 1 every time, and each time it tests CCD 1, it'll raise the CO more like -147, fail,, then next run higher and fail CCD 1 again, it got down to like 3750 on CCD 1 but because it was bugging out and I just closed it and never let it finish.


----------



## bt1

KedarWolf said:


> Hydra 1.1F bugs out on me running the Diagnostic, like in the second phase when the individual cores are done, it'll run on CCD 1 and CCD 2 fine an hour in, then it'll raise the CO of the cores on CCD 1 to something crazy like -143 and it'll fail core 1 every time, and each time it tests CCD 1, it'll raise the CO more like -147, fail,, then next run higher and fail CCD 1 again, it got down to like 3750 on CCD 1 but because it was bugging out and I just closed it and never let it finish.


have you tried safe mode switch?


----------



## theufan06

Hello!

Anyone who uses Dynamic OC switcher? Seems my clocks sometimes switch to Manual OC but it did not yet reached the cpu current threshold that I set and never gets back to pbo defaults. As a workaround, I run Cinebench to force the cpu current to reach threshold of the dynamic OC switcher and after that it returns back to the pbo defaults. Im on BIOS 4002 btw.

Another inquiry. I am on Bios 4002 which is not listed on the Dark hero Bios page anymore. I want to update to 4201(agesa 1.2.0.7). Can I load my settings on a thumb drive? or should I do my settings 1 by 1 again?


----------



## PWn3R

Hi All,

I bought another ram kit, 2x16gb this time, GSKILL Samsung b die. I can get it to post at 1933 but nothing I have tried is working even base clk changes will make it work at 1900. I get crazy wheas with 1933, even with 1.55 vdimm, 1.95pll, vsoc up to 1.2, vddg up to 1.075, vldo up to 1.05. 

1900 even with base clock offspec gets code 07. I also tried the trick to unplug 4 pin plug that’s been tossed around a few times and tried both pairs of ram spots to no avail. 

Anyone else got any ideas on how to stop the wheas or what else to try with 1900?


----------



## metalshark

PWn3R said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I bought another ram kit, 2x16gb this time, GSKILL Samsung b die. I can get it to post at 1933 but nothing I have tried is working even base clk changes will make it work at 1900. I get crazy wheas with 1866, even with 1.55 vdimm, 1.95pll, vsoc up to 1.2, vddg up to 1.075, vldo up to 1.05.
> 
> 1900 even with base clock offspec gets code 07. I also tried the trick to unplug 4 pin plug that’s been tossed around a few times and tried both pairs of ram spots to no avail.
> 
> Anyone else got any ideas on how to stop the wheas or what else to try with 1900?


Can give VTT a boost under Tweakers Paradise for some dual rank. Meant to be half of VDIMM, but occasionally need to crank it up a bit beyond that on some DR kits.

Wouldn’t hold out too much hope though, sounds like a memory speed hole and don’t know anyone who has solved theirs.


----------



## tonynca

I was using 250/140/140 on my 5950X B0 Stepping and it took a crap one day. Not sure if anyone out there is experiencing the same. Just received a B2 stepping and I noticed using the same 250/140/140. The VID will never hit 1.5v, it tops out at 1.475v. My temps did drop by 8-10C with the B2 stepping so that’s nice. Maybe AMD did something to B2 stepping. This was on the 4006 BIOS on a Dark Hero board.


----------



## stimpy88

metalshark said:


> Can give VTT a boost under Tweakers Paradise for some dual rank. Meant to be half of VDIMM, but occasionally need to crank it up a bit beyond that on some DR kits.
> 
> Wouldn’t hold out too much hope though, sounds like a memory speed hole and don’t thinks anyone has solved theirs.


Thanks for this info! How much extra would you give over the standard half VDIMM voltage?


----------



## metalshark

stimpy88 said:


> Thanks for this info! How much extra would you give over the standard half VDIMM voltage?


For two sticks it'll likely not enjoy 0.8v or over so would go up to 0.78v starting at half your vDIMM (e.g. starting low and working up from there). Good luck!


----------



## J7SC

PWn3R said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I bought another ram kit, 2x16gb this time, GSKILL Samsung b die. I can get it to post at 1933 but nothing I have tried is working even base clk changes will make it work at 1900. I get crazy wheas with 1933, even with 1.55 vdimm, 1.95pll, vsoc up to 1.2, vddg up to 1.075, vldo up to 1.05.
> 
> 1900 even with base clock offspec gets code 07. I also tried the trick to unplug 4 pin plug that’s been tossed around a few times and tried both pairs of ram spots to no avail.
> 
> Anyone else got any ideas on how to stop the wheas or what else to try with 1900?


What kind of Samsung B Die, ie. nominal speed and timings ?



tonynca said:


> I was using 250/140/140 on my 5950X B0 Stepping and it took a crap one day. Not sure if anyone out there is experiencing the same. Just received a B2 stepping and I noticed using the same 250/140/140. The VID will never hit 1.5v, it tops out at 1.475v. My temps did drop by 8-10C with the B2 stepping so that’s nice. Maybe AMD did something to B2 stepping. This was on the 4006 BIOS on a Dark Hero board.


I tried a few custom PPT/EDC/TDC values early on my B0 but soon just left the Dark Hero default values in place for best results. I also limit voltage (via DynamicOC) for multi-core and on top of that run a small negative offset as I was never comfortable seeing 1.5V, even just briefly. How's the IF/IMC on the B2 stepping ?


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

PWn3R said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I bought another ram kit, 2x16gb this time, GSKILL Samsung b die. I can get it to post at 1933 but nothing I have tried is working even base clk changes will make it work at 1900. I get crazy wheas with 1933, even with 1.55 vdimm, 1.95pll, vsoc up to 1.2, vddg up to 1.075, vldo up to 1.05.
> 
> 1900 even with base clock offspec gets code 07. I also tried the trick to unplug 4 pin plug that’s been tossed around a few times and tried both pairs of ram spots to no avail.
> 
> Anyone else got any ideas on how to stop the wheas or what else to try with 1900?


maby try CLDO_VDDP at 947 up to 1050 (search in this region for mem. hole).
My bet? First try 950 

Then try to add more : DRAM CTRL REF CH A & B to 0.552 or a little more if needed.


----------



## tonynca

J7SC said:


> What kind of Samsung B Die, ie. nominal speed and timings ?
> 
> 
> 
> I tried a few custom PPT/EDC/TDC values early on my B0 but soon just left the Dark Hero default values in place for best results. I also limit voltage (via DynamicOC) for multi-core and on top of that run a small negative offset as I was never comfortable seeing 1.5V, even just briefly. How's the IF/IMC on the B2 stepping ?


The IF is better with the B2. I'm running 4 sticks @ 3800mhz. I could NEVER get that with the B0. Trust me, I tried every thing with that B0 chip.


----------



## PWn3R

J7SC said:


> What kind of Samsung B Die, ie. nominal speed and timings ?


F4-4000C18D-32GTZR 18,22,22,22,42 @ 1.4

I can boot at 1933/3866 but about 100 WHEA errors per minute at desktop. I tried bumping up VTT to as high as .78 using 1 step at a time (plus key in bios). I also tried bumping up the channel voltage someone suggested all the way up to .56X (whatever that bump went up to).










The only timings set are the first 4 the rest are on auto. I was able to do something to get 1900 to boot yesterday with a slight BCLK change, but it wasn't reliably booting. I tried several other steps between 100.05 and 101 BCLK this morning to no avail. Almost always stuck on 07 post code, a few times on dF and few times on 66.


----------



## metalshark

PWn3R said:


> F4-4000C18D-32GTZR 18,22,22,22,42 @ 1.4
> 
> I can boot at 1933/3866 but about 100 WHEA errors per minute at desktop. I tried bumping up VTT to as high as .78 using 1 step at a time (plus key in bios). I also tried bumping up the channel voltage someone suggested all the way up to .56X (whatever that bump went up to).
> 
> View attachment 2560886
> 
> 
> The only timings set are the first 4 the rest are on auto. I was able to do something to get 1900 to boot yesterday with a slight BCLK change, but it wasn't reliably booting. I tried several other steps between 100.05 and 101 BCLK this morning to no avail. Almost always stuck on 07 post code, a few times on dF and few times on 66.


Don't (personally) know about 1933 on a 5950X WHEA free without using a Gigabyte board, but any joy at being able to boot at 1900?


----------



## PWn3R

Made some more changes, just got post code 22 on 1900.

Edit: Stick a fork in this POS IMC. It's super frustrating that for a platform as sensitive to memory performance as Ryzen, AMD's IMCs are actual garbage. I'm not going to buy another CPU, and I'm going to flip this RAM kit. I went back to the 4 sticks of tighter timing RAM I have (the 2 sticks won't even post at 3733 at close to the same timings). 











I was able to tune the timings down a bit more, but I think the next thing to do is turn on PBO/CO and waste some stupid amount of time trying to tune that. I tried the Ryzen Master tuning, but it was so unstable it wouldn't post with those settings. I haven't tried CO at all by hand, and it took like 60 hours for me to get my 7980xe tuned in per core, so expecting the same for this.

Does anyone think it would be better for me to try to use Hydra to get started on CO settings? The last time I ran the Hydra tests it said both CCUs were Platinum samples, but I didn't try to run the CO stuff.


----------



## neikosr0x

Any ideas on how to make the system stable with CO on? I still get restarts when idle... bit random but still.


----------



## finas

neikosr0x said:


> Any ideas on how to make the system stable with CO on? I still get restarts when idle... bit random but still.


So what I did, after making sure that the CO values were perfect when in load, was to actually let it idle several nights, ( like two full weeks or more ). No windows open, nothing. Every morning I would come to a login screen ( it had rebooted ). Windows event viewer will in most cases tell you what the the ID of the core threads that failed, and from that you can get the core ( or cores ) and then adjust them down.

I haven't found a faster way than simply waiting the night, checking event viewer and adjust, until it doesn't crash anymore.


----------



## neikosr0x

finas said:


> So what I did, after making sure that the CO values were perfect when in load, was to actually let it idle several nights, ( like two full weeks or more ). No windows open, nothing. Every morning I would come to a login screen ( it had rebooted ). Windows event viewer will in most cases tell you what the the ID of the core threads that failed, and from that you can get the core ( or cores ) and then adjust them down.
> 
> I haven't found a faster way than simply waiting the night, checking event viewer and adjust, until it doesn't crash anymore.


ok, will try like that, I was just very curious because I haven't been able to run this 5900x stable when CO "not the best sample", not that i have had enough time to try anyways. But thanks mate.


----------



## finas

neikosr0x said:


> ok, will try like that, I was just very curious because I haven't been able to run this 5900x stable when CO "not the best sample", not that i have had enough time to try anyways. But thanks mate.


It will help if you create a custom view that filters out the whea errors and displays them on a single tab. look here for how to do it:






WHEA event logger?


I tried a few web searches for a WHEA event logger but came up with answers more complicated than I could follow. I take it that seeing WHEA's can tell us when our OC is not stable even when our software testing does not fail. I would like to follow my WHEA events. Is there an easy or...




forums.anandtech.com





you can use CPU-Z to give you a list of the threads that belong to each core ( save report to .txt button )

check what cores caused the reboot on the morning, adjust their CO lower by one, clear event log, wait for the next morning, repeat until it doesn't crash again.


----------



## des2k...

PWn3R said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I bought another ram kit, 2x16gb this time, GSKILL Samsung b die. I can get it to post at 1933 but nothing I have tried is working even base clk changes will make it work at 1900. I get crazy wheas with 1933, even with 1.55 vdimm, 1.95pll, vsoc up to 1.2, vddg up to 1.075, vldo up to 1.05.
> 
> 1900 even with base clock offspec gets code 07. I also tried the trick to unplug 4 pin plug that’s been tossed around a few times and tried both pairs of ram spots to no avail.
> 
> Anyone else got any ideas on how to stop the wheas or what else to try with 1900?


for my 5900x , x570 aorus master board whea spam starts past 1900 if I have a ethernet cable plugged into Intel lan. Using realtek lan no whea with 2000IF, can boot 2100 but 4x8 is limited on speed

Intel i211 lan uses pcie bus 9; if I disable that in the bios, the rtx 3090 moves from pcie bus id 10 to pcie bus id 9 and it's whea spam again.

So I left the onboard intel nic on in the bios(not using it) so it keeps that bus id 9 bug for 2000IF😁

Not sure if it helps you, you guys might be interested in my weird mobo / 5900x whea story

5900x is b2 , got it 2,3 weeks ago, board is rev1 2years old


----------



## GRABibus

neikosr0x said:


> Any ideas on how to make the system stable with CO on? I still get restarts when idle... bit random but still.


When you have reboot, check Whea 18 error in « system » folder in eventviewer.
You have a APIC ID number for the error.

APIC ID 0 means reboot due to Core0 thread0
APIC ID 1 means reboot due to Core0 thread1
APIC ID 2 means reboot due to Core1 thread0
APIC ID 3 means reboot due to Core1 thread1
Etc…..
Etc…

When you have identified the unstable core, then add some voltage in CO for this core and see if you still get reboot…
If no, then keep the final CO value for this core.
If yes, add « 1 » to CO (Exemple from -12 to -11) and test again idle….
Etc….

And this, for all unstable cores at idle.
‘Requires a lot of patience.

It took me 3 weeks to find my final 24/7 CO curve for my 5950X (in signature).


----------



## des2k...

GRABibus said:


> When you have reboot, check Whea 18 error in « system » folder in eventviewer.
> You have a APIC ID number for the error.
> 
> APIC ID 0 means reboot due to Core0 thread0
> APIC ID 1 means reboot due to Core0 thread1
> APIC ID 2 means reboot due to Core1 thread0
> APIC ID 3 means reboot due to Core1 thread1
> Etc…..
> Etc…
> 
> When you have identified the unstable core, then add some voltage in CO for this core and see if you still get reboot…
> If no, then keep the final CO value for this core.
> If yes, add « 1 » to CO (Exemple from -12 to -11) and test again idle….
> Etc….
> 
> And this, for all unstable cores at idle.
> ‘Requires a lot of patience.
> 
> It took me 3 weeks to find my final 24/7 CO curve for my 5950X (in signature).


glad I didn't have to deal with Idle stability for CO,
DF / cpu c-state off, high performance plan , my SOC is stuck uncore on prob because 2000IF


DF / CPU c-state on & balanced only saves 6w :-(

here's my idle ! if we can call it that lol
yeah.... I'm glad it's water cooled


----------



## PWn3R

Are you guys using PBO and CO at the same time?


----------



## GRABibus

PWn3R said:


> Are you guys using PBO and CO at the same time?


Of course 😊


----------



## J7SC

PWn3R said:


> Are you guys using PBO and CO at the same time?


...yes, and @GRABibus also adds the whole kitchen sink as well


----------



## dansi

des2k... said:


> for my 5900x , x570 aorus master board whea spam starts past 1900 if I have a ethernet cable plugged into Intel lan. Using realtek lan no whea with 2000IF, can boot 2100 but 4x8 is limited on speed
> 
> Intel i211 lan uses pcie bus 9; if I disable that in the bios, the rtx 3090 moves from pcie bus id 10 to pcie bus id 9 and it's whea spam again.
> 
> So I left the onboard intel nic on in the bios(not using it) so it keeps that bus id 9 bug for 2000IF😁
> 
> Not sure if it helps you, you guys might be interested in my weird mobo / 5900x whea story
> 
> 5900x is b2 , got it 2,3 weeks ago, board is rev1 2years old


I doubt this workaround works.
If you hit your IF wall, whea is never really gone, like no one really gone in Starwars.
Try run and pass an hour of aida cache stress test.


----------



## des2k...

dansi said:


> I doubt this workaround works.
> If you hit your IF wall, whea is never really gone, like no one really gone in Starwars.
> Try run and pass an hour of aida cache stress test.


aida cache is that a thing ? k I'm running it now since I started a movie.










prime95 blend & large 8h pass, y-cruncher (option 7, cycle all) 4h pass 0 whea for 2000IF

Without playing too much with soc,vddg,vddp performance drop starts around 2066-2100IF for mem,cache in Aida64


----------



## dansi

des2k... said:


> aida cache is that a thing ? k I'm running it now since I started a movie.
> View attachment 2560969
> 
> 
> 
> prime95 blend & large 8h pass, y-cruncher (option 7, cycle all) 4h pass 0 whea for 2000IF
> 
> Without playing too much with soc,vddg,vddp performance drop starts around 2066-2100IF for mem,cache in Aida64


yes aida cache stress and memory cache benchmark are fast to throw a whea error for IF that's running past its wall.

by wall i meant the max IF clocks where you can run on bios defaults, the clocks before the infamous IF hole. most zen3 dual ccd have the hole at 1900, so 1933 and above are likely whea zones


----------



## des2k...

dansi said:


> yes aida cache stress and memory cache benchmark are fast to throw a whea error for IF that's running past its wall.
> 
> by wall i meant the max IF clocks where you can run on bios defaults, the clocks before the infamous IF hole. most zen3 dual ccd have the hole at 1900, so 1933 and above are likely whea zones


looks ok so far, no issues with this stress tool

co-19 for the cores, with -6 -14 -14 - 15 & -18 for the weak ones


----------



## dansi

des2k... said:


> looks ok so far, no issues with this stress tool
> 
> co-19 for the cores, with -6 -14 -14 - 15 & -18 for the weak ones
> View attachment 2560973


what about whea popping up? System may not crash but whea never really goes away if you are running past the wall, the comfort zone. I do not believe 2000 IF is possible on zen3 dual ccd, the wall can't go that far unless you have a unicorn bin
You can also further stress it by randomly ending the test and run the cache and memory benchmark and restart the stress, so forth
The pain of whea corrected errors is that they are random and never die like Starwars characters


----------



## J7SC

PWn3R said:


> F4-4000C18D-32GTZR 18,22,22,22,42 @ 1.4
> 
> I can boot at 1933/3866 but about 100 WHEA errors per minute at desktop. I tried bumping up VTT to as high as .78 using 1 step at a time (plus key in bios). I also tried bumping up the channel voltage someone suggested all the way up to .56X (whatever that bump went up to).
> 
> View attachment 2560886
> 
> 
> The only timings set are the first 4 the rest are on auto. I was able to do something to get 1900 to boot yesterday with a slight BCLK change, but it wasn't reliably booting. I tried several other steps between 100.05 and 101 BCLK this morning to no avail. Almost always stuck on 07 post code, a few times on dF and few times on 66.


...not sure this helps as this is a different type of B-Die (single rank, 4000 CL15) on a DarkHero, 5950X B0, Bios 3501/3801), but you can try these settings...


----------



## neikosr0x

GRABibus said:


> When you have reboot, check Whea 18 error in « system » folder in eventviewer.
> You have a APIC ID number for the error.
> 
> APIC ID 0 means reboot due to Core0 thread0
> APIC ID 1 means reboot due to Core0 thread1
> APIC ID 2 means reboot due to Core1 thread0
> APIC ID 3 means reboot due to Core1 thread1
> Etc…..
> Etc…
> 
> When you have identified the unstable core, then add some voltage in CO for this core and see if you still get reboot…
> If no, then keep the final CO value for this core.
> If yes, add « 1 » to CO (Exemple from -12 to -11) and test again idle….
> Etc….
> 
> And this, for all unstable cores at idle.
> ‘Requires a lot of patience.
> 
> It took me 3 weeks to find my final 24/7 CO curve for my 5950X (in signature).


That is a great piece of info, Thanks again bro. My 5900x Sample is one of those from launch day and it is sh*tty, especially the 2nd CCD a fng pain to get any juice from it lol.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

GRABibus said:


> When you have reboot, check Whea 18 error in « system » folder in eventviewer.
> You have a APIC ID number for the error.
> 
> APIC ID 0 means reboot due to Core0 thread0
> APIC ID 1 means reboot due to Core0 thread1
> APIC ID 2 means reboot due to Core1 thread0
> APIC ID 3 means reboot due to Core1 thread1
> Etc…..
> Etc…
> 
> When you have identified the unstable core, then add some voltage in CO for this core and see if you still get reboot…
> If no, then keep the final CO value for this core.
> If yes, add « 1 » to CO (Exemple from -12 to -11) and test again idle….
> Etc….
> 
> And this, for all unstable cores at idle.
> ‘Requires a lot of patience.
> 
> It took me 3 weeks to find my final 24/7 CO curve for my 5950X (in signature).


To be more precise about the APIC ID you can save an HTML report with CPU-Z that specify every ID


----------



## GRABibus

DvL Ax3l said:


> To be more precise about the APIC ID you can save an HTML report with CPU-Z that specify every ID
> View attachment 2561008


Yes, this is what I did of course 😊


----------



## GRABibus

deleted


----------



## xeizo

I ordered a 5800X3D just for lulz  Last stand for the AM4-platform and if it mitigates stutter in certain games, which can be a pain regardless of how high end the rig, it may be a worthwhile effort. It will be paired with a RTX3070 which is sufficient for most games. Will be interesting anyway.

Now I just have to decide if I shall use the CH8 WiFi, which is already in a rig, or tear the rig down to put in the CH8E which at the moment sits in a box. A lot more work to do so, as I have to reroute cables and take up new holes in the case because of the sheer size of that mobo(I have Z690 in my largest case). Hmm, we will see. Sound being broken on the CH8 WiFi nags me, even if I use USB sound but that may not always be so.


----------



## J7SC

xeizo said:


> I ordered a 5800X3D just for lulz  Last stand for the AM4-platform and if it mitigates stutter in certain games, which can be a pain regardless of how high end the rig, it may be a worthwhile effort. It will be paired with a RTX3070 which is sufficient for most games. Will be interesting anyway.
> 
> *Now I just have to decide *if I shall use the CH8 WiFi (...)


no, you don't have to decide...


Spoiler



work + play, or play + work ?


----------



## tonynca

Isn’t it kind of ridiculous that we have all these cores but we can’t use them smoothly or efficiently? I disabled CPPC-PC and it seems to help. Wish I knew how to test it to make sure Fortnite 1% lows are better.


----------



## xeizo

J7SC said:


> no, you don't have to decide...
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> work + play, or play + work ?


Well, teardown it is then ....


----------



## DvL Ax3l

Sorry for the off topic post but...
What the hell is doing GeIL?!! DDR5 with active cooling?!! Are you serious?!! 😂

The best part is how they named this cooling solution:

The EVO V has established a new standard in heat shield design as we have created an active dual-fan “FANtastic” cooling system to keep EVO V within an ideal thermal range

GeIL EVO V site


----------



## heptilion

Why is it that my 2 best cores (1 & 2) running like this in modern warfare? the rest of the cores utlisation is even and smooth but best cores do not.


----------



## ChillyRide

heptilion said:


> Why is it that my 2 best cores (1 & 2) running like this in modern warfare? the rest of the cores utlisation is even and smooth but best cores do not.
> 
> View attachment 2561196


Why u even bother about it? Do you have lags/stutters? If no and want to know how and why contact amd/windows engineers.


----------



## Kelutrel

heptilion said:


> Why is it that my 2 best cores (1 & 2) running like this in modern warfare? the rest of the cores utlisation is even and smooth but best cores do not.
> 
> View attachment 2561196


I suspect that is resource contention between the two fastest cores.
Would you be able to post the same screenshot again under the same conditions after disabling only "CPPC Preferred Cores" from the "Advanced\AMD CBS\NBIO Common Options\SMU Common Options" BIOS page, and keeping everything else the same ?


----------



## heptilion

Kelutrel said:


> I suspect that is resource contention between the two fastest cores.
> Would you be able to post the same screenshot again under the same conditions after disabling only "CPPC Preferred Cores" from the "Advanced\AMD CBS\NBIO Common Options\SMU Common Options" BIOS page, and keeping everything else the same ?


You are right sir. Its much better with CPPC disabled. although last core seems to be maxing out.


----------



## Kelutrel

heptilion said:


> You are right sir. Its much better with CPPC disabled. although last core seems to be maxing out.
> View attachment 2561203
> 
> 
> View attachment 2561204


Yes. So, the screenshot you posted before was caused by the OS placing most of the videogame threads on your two fastest cores only, and so "overloading" them as most threads were placed on them while the other cores were free.
With "CPPC Preferred Cores" disabled (but keep "CPPC" enabled for performances) the OS doesn't know anymore which cores are faster or slower, as the BIOS doesn't send that information anymore, and so each game thread is placed on the less busy core and this results in more evenly distributed loads and generally smoother gameplay as shown by your second screenshot.
I also keep "CPPC Preferred Cores" disabled as I mostly play videogames.
But your single core benchmark scores will suffer in this way. Not because your machine becomes actually slower with "CPPC Preferred Cores" disabled, but because single core benchmarks are usually placed automatically on your faster core (highest MHz) and now the OS doesn't know anymore which core is the fastest and so will place the benchmark on a random core that probably does not reach the peak core frequency of your fastest core.
So, when you run single core benchmarks you may want to set "CPPC Preferred Cores" back to enabled, but in general I also observed lower latency and smoother gameplay with CPPC Preferred Cores disabled.
Just to reiterate, keep the other option, named just "CPPC", enabled (or Auto) otherwise you will loose most of the L3 cache performance benefit and that means lower average framerate.


----------



## SpeedyIV

DvL Ax3l said:


> Sorry for the off topic post but...
> What the hell is doing GeIL?!! DDR5 with active cooling?!! Are you serious?!! 😂
> 
> The best part is how they named this cooling solution:
> 
> The EVO V has established a new standard in heat shield design as we have created an active dual-fan “FANtastic” cooling system to keep EVO V within an ideal thermal range
> 
> GeIL EVO V site


Wow. I wonder what they sound like. I also wonder how long before they crap out.


----------



## J7SC

Kelutrel said:


> Yes. So, the screenshot you posted before was caused by the OS placing most of the videogame threads on your two fastest cores only, and so "overloading" them as most threads were placed on them while the other cores were free.
> With "CPPC Preferred Cores" disabled (but keep "CPPC" enabled for performances) the OS doesn't know anymore which cores are faster or slower, as the BIOS doesn't send that information anymore, and so each game thread is placed on the less busy core and this results in more evenly distributed loads and smoother gameplay as shown by your second screenshot.
> I also keep "CPPC Preferred Cores" disabled as I mostly play videogames.
> But your single core benchmark scores will suffer in this way. Not because your machine becomes actually slower with "CPPC Preferred Cores" disabled, but because single core benchmarks are usually placed automatically on your faster core (highest MHz) and now the OS doesn't know anymore which core is the fastest and so will place the benchmark on a random core that probably does not reach the peak core frequency of your fastest core.
> So, when you run single core benchmarks you may want to set "CPPC Preferred Cores" back to enabled, but in general I also observed lower latency and smoother gameplay with CPPC Preferred Cores disabled.
> Just to reiterate, keep the other option, named just "CPPC", enabled otherwise you will loose most of the L3 cache performance advantage.


Quick question, w/context: 
I don't have any particular issues with gaming on the 5950X/ CH8 DH/ 3090, on the contrary, and it all runs very cool due to 1350x63 cooling. BUT I consistently notice that in FS2020 (notorious for hammering just a few cores, one in particular) fastest single core effective speed is between 5020 and 5040 MHz, with L3 Cache at s.th. like 5017 MHz. That is one reason why I already introduced a small negative offset, and peak CPUv core is reasonable for single core (and under 1.2v core for CineR23 multi-core). In CO, these are among the cores that are either at a small positive value, or zero. Still, would it be healthier to do the 'partial' / preferred CPPC core disable ? Temps are not an issue at all, I just want to take care of this setup while enjoying it to the 'safe max'.


----------



## Kelutrel

J7SC said:


> Quick question, w/context:
> I don't have any particular issues with gaming on the 5950X/ CH8 DH/ 3090, on the contrary, and it all runs very cool due to 1350x63 cooling. BUT I consistently notice that in FS2020 (notorious for hammering just a few cores, one in particular) fastest single core effective speed is between 5020 and 5040 MHz, with L3 Cache at s.th. like 5017 MHz. That is one reason why I already introduced a small negative offset, and peak CPUv core is reasonable for single core (and under 1.2v core for CineR23 multi-core). In CO, these are among the cores that are either at a small positive value, or zero. Still, would it be healthier to do the 'partial' / preferred CPPC core disable ? Temps are not an issue at all, I just want to take care of this setup while enjoying it to the 'safe max'.


In general, besides very very old games (if you are still playing Galaga this is not for you), any game will be smoother with CPPC Preferred Cores disabled. Where "smoother" means better framerate consistency (especially when pre-loading textures I've noticed) and higher "1% lower framerate".
This is because your faster core probably reaches 5050MHz, your slowest core would probably be around 4850MHz and your other "average" cores would be 4950MHz.
So with CPPC Preferred Cores disabled we are talking of removing any core contention or "overload" at the price of having only 2-3% slower CPU peak MHz, and because most videogames are mostly GPU limited you will not notice any difference due to such a tiny peak-MHz decrease even when the game still runs on a single core because it's single threaded.
As I said, my 24/7 BIOS configuration has CPPC Preferred Cores disabled and DF-C States also disabled, and I mostly play videogames on my PC. I have no FS2020 direct experience though.


----------



## J7SC

Kelutrel said:


> In general, besides very very old games (if you are still playing Galaga this is not for you), any game will be smoother with CPPC Preferred Cores disabled. Where "smoother" means better framerate consistency (especially when pre-loading textures I've noticed) and higher "1% lower framerate".
> This is because your faster core probably reaches 5050MHz, your slowest core would probably be around 4850MHz and your other "average" cores would be 4950MHz.
> So with CPPC Preferred Cores disabled we are talking of removing any core contention or "overload" at the price of having only 2-3% slower CPU peak MHz, and because most videogames are mostly GPU limited you will not notice any difference due to such a tiny peak-MHz decrease even when the game still runs on a single core because it's single threaded.
> As I said, my 24/7 BIOS configuration has CPPC Preferred Cores disabled and DF-C States also disabled, and I mostly play videogames on my PC.


Thanks, I'll try that then. FS2020 is one of the few 'games' I can play for hours on end. The 2-3% reduction, if that, won't make much difference in FS2020 as it is already badly optimized.


----------



## GRABibus

heptilion said:


> You are right sir. Its much better with CPPC disabled. although last core seems to be maxing out.
> View attachment 2561203
> 
> 
> View attachment 2561204


Did you compare Effective core clocks with and without "CPPC Preferred Cores" ?


----------



## GRABibus

I sale my former 5900X.
If someone is interested => PM.
I only deliver in Europe.


----------



## djase45

Hello,

A small question by the way, is the latest bios 4201 is good for the dark hero + 5900x or should I stay in 3801?

Thank you in advance.


----------



## xeizo

djase45 said:


> Hello,
> 
> A small question by the way, is the latest bios 4201 is good for the dark hero + 5900x or should I stay in 3801?
> 
> Thank you in advance.


My B2 5900X works very well with the B550-F and the latest bios, same AGESA as 4201, CCX0 boosts to 5050MHz single on all cores and not a single WHEA into the second week. I run with EDC140 and vcore boosts to 1.5V as expected.


----------



## GRABibus

djase45 said:


> Hello,
> 
> A small question by the way, is the latest bios 4201 is good for the dark hero + 5900x or should I stay in 3801?
> 
> Thank you in advance.


With 3801, with a very good cooler, you can have overall Better performances single core and multi core because Vid is not stuck at 1,425V if EDC>140A.
I also use 4201 with EDC=140A to have full Vid range to 1,5V in order to have very good single core performances.
for multi thread perf, you need PPT and EDC > 140 and a very good cooler (Top performance AIO 280mm at least or a custom Loop).


----------



## ronindj68

GRABibus said:


> With 3801, with a very good cooler, you can have overall Better performances single core and multi core because Vid is not stuck at 1,425V if EDC>140A.
> I also use 4201 with EDC=140A to have full Vid range to 1,5V in order to have very good single core performances.
> for multi thread perf, you need PPT and EDC > 140 and a very good cooler (Top performance AIO 280mm at least or a custom Loop).


How to you set max cpu boost clock ovverride ?
I can set it to a maximum value of 125mhz. Beyond this threshold the pc crashes
thanks
Gabriele


----------



## ChillyRide

Kelutrel said:


> Yes. So, the screenshot you posted before was caused by the OS placing most of the videogame threads on your two fastest cores only, and so "overloading" them as most threads were placed on them while the other cores were free.
> With "CPPC Preferred Cores" disabled (but keep "CPPC" enabled for performances) the OS doesn't know anymore which cores are faster or slower, as the BIOS doesn't send that information anymore, and so each game thread is placed on the less busy core and this results in more evenly distributed loads and generally smoother gameplay as shown by your second screenshot.
> I also keep "CPPC Preferred Cores" disabled as I mostly play videogames.
> But your single core benchmark scores will suffer in this way. Not because your machine becomes actually slower with "CPPC Preferred Cores" disabled, but because single core benchmarks are usually placed automatically on your faster core (highest MHz) and now the OS doesn't know anymore which core is the fastest and so will place the benchmark on a random core that probably does not reach the peak core frequency of your fastest core.
> So, when you run single core benchmarks you may want to set "CPPC Preferred Cores" back to enabled, but in general I also observed lower latency and smoother gameplay with CPPC Preferred Cores disabled.
> Just to reiterate, keep the other option, named just "CPPC", enabled (or Auto) otherwise you will loose most of the L3 cache performance benefit and that means lower average framerate.


" I also observed lower latency " and how did u measure ur claim?


----------



## Kelutrel

ChillyRide said:


> " I also observed lower latency " and how did u measure ur claim?


I did not measure it, I observed it, while playing Planetside2 or BF2042 or Elite Dangerous, it felt pretty obvious. I am not talking of network latency obviously, but of framerate latency. Anyway you may want to make your own measurements, it is just a BIOS option so shouldn't be too hard for you to test it with your hardware configuration.


----------



## ChillyRide

Kelutrel said:


> I did not measure it, I observed it, while playing Planetside2 or BF2042 or Elite Dangerous, it felt pretty obvious. I am not talking of network latency obviously, but of framerate latency. Anyway you may want to make your own measurements, it is just a BIOS option so shouldn't be too hard for you to test it with your hardware configuration.


Ur "framarate latency" is called frametime, now I get it. Already did some capframex with enabled and disabled. They exactly the same (in margin of error). The key to stable 0.1% and 1% is 0 bloat in background. Probably if u or somebody else got bloated system with bunch of running software and services in background than disabling CPPC Preferred Cores might help. Otherwise no changes in frametimes, avg fps and 0.1%, 1%. Tested on my machine and couple other users with AMD systems.


----------



## Kelutrel

ChillyRide said:


> Ur "framarate latency" is called frametime, now I get it. Already did some capframex with enabled and disabled. They exactly the same (in margin of error). The key to stable 0.1% and 1% is 0 bloat in background. Probably if u or somebody else got bloated system with bunch of running software and services in background than disabling CPPC Preferred Cores might help. Otherwise no changes in frametimes, avg fps and 0.1%, 1%. Tested on my machine and couple other users with AMD systems.


Well, it may just be that you are not very good at testing, anyway keep it on Auto if it makes you feel good that way, I'm not forcing you.


----------



## GRABibus

ronindj68 said:


> How to you set max cpu boost clock ovverride ?
> I can set it to a maximum value of 125mhz. Beyond this threshold the pc crashes
> thanks
> Gabriele


You mean crashes at idle ?


----------



## ChillyRide

Kelutrel said:


> Well, it may just be that you are not very good at testing, anyway keep it on Auto if it makes you feel good that way, I'm not forcing you.


we talk about scince, am I correct? U blame me not doing the same thing in few tests with no variance or may be u complain about capframex devs? If u feel that u feel its better than ok, I am not forcing u either. Very scientific


----------



## Kelutrel

ChillyRide said:


> we talk about scince, am I correct? U blame me not doing the same thing in few tests with no variance in test or may be u complain about capframex devs? If u feel that u feel its better than ok, I am not forcing u either. Very scientific


I think Godzilla had a stroke trying to read what you wrote there.


----------



## GRABibus

Peace and love 🤗


----------



## ChillyRide

Kelutrel said:


> I think Godzilla had a stroke trying to read what you wrote there.


My apologies. English is not my native language. Im trying. No hate. Well here is sottr, look like a bit of improvement: low settings with 800x600 resolution (cpu test);


----------



## ChillyRide

When HT off no difference. Room temps 21.5C. Both runs was made with 22C water temps. Looks like it depends on game and how many cores/threads it can utilise properly.


----------



## Luggage

ChillyRide said:


> My apologies. English is not my native language. Im trying. No hate. Well here is sottr, look like a bit of improvement: low settings with 800x600 resolution (cpu test);


It also depends on how even your cores are- if they all reach the same boost turning off CPPC pc might improve things - if they are very un-even you want to use the best ones…


----------



## J7SC

Kelutrel said:


> I think _Godzilla_ had a stroke trying to read what you wrote there.


...Do coldblooded reptiles get strokes ? 

Be that as it may, as you stated before, it is easy enough for everyone to test the CPU bios specialty tips (> grateful for those) out themselves. I only wish that the Asus CH8 bios would have more slots for 'save profile options' - and allow for longer name tags with more characters...I run both DDR4 3800 and 3966, with L1/L2 prefetch options and now also CPPC options, and those tag descriptions all add up, especially w/ different timing scenarios for each...


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> ...Do coldblooded reptiles get strokes ?


Are there hotblooded reptiles ? Not sure 🤓


----------



## ronindj68

GRABibus said:


> You mean crashes at idle ?


The system crashes during a normal workload or benchmark.
Currently I have set the VDD SOC voltage at 1.1V. Do you think it is necessary to change this? Or also i have to set a positive offset to the CPU core voltage?
My PPT CCT EDC: 235 200 180
thanks in advance 
regards
Gabriele


----------



## PWn3R

Do you guys set the frequency boost to 0 or 200 or what in the PBO settings before turning on CO? Also, do I need to adjust power limits really or just leave on Auto?


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> Are there hotblooded reptiles ? Not sure 🤓


...'not sure' is a good answer, since some reptiles were/are straddling the fence excluding T-Rex as he just ate the fence !


Spoiler



lukewarm


----------



## tonynca

Look, for all the people with different use cases where they dont run any bloatware or apps while gaming, it wouldnt matter. But for post covid computing, where you work and game. Turning off CPPC Preferred Core (CPPC-PC) was a life saver. What is the point of having 16 cores when you play games and work and it stutters? I was a bit turned off by the fact that I got 16 cores (not used for rendering) and I couldn't use it effeciently. Turning off CPCC-PC helped stabilized things a lot. It's not AMD's fault that Windows is so ****ty at scheduling.


----------



## LocoDiceGR

You guys testing 1.2.0.7 and im here with my Strix B550i still waiting for the bios.


----------



## Kelutrel

ChillyRide said:


> When HT off no difference. Room temps 21.5C. Both runs was made with 22C water temps. Looks like it depends on game and how many cores/threads it can utilise properly.


I think that your source of truth is probably biased. Check the Task Manager cpu performance chart while running that benchmark with CPPC PC enabled and disabled. Notice them being different than the peaks observed in the real case of Heptilion screenshots ...


----------



## GRABibus

ronindj68 said:


> The system crashes during a normal workload or benchmark.
> Currently I have set the VDD SOC voltage at 1.1V. Do you think it is necessary to change this? Or also i have to set a positive offset to the CPU core voltage?
> My PPT CCT EDC: 235 200 180
> thanks in advance
> regards
> Gabriele





ronindj68 said:


> The system crashes during a normal workload or benchmark.
> Currently I have set the VDD SOC voltage at 1.1V. Do you think it is necessary to change this? Or also i have to set a positive offset to the CPU core voltage?
> My PPT CCT EDC: 235 200 180
> thanks in advance
> regards
> Gabriele


if your crashes are reboots, you should first check in windows’ event viewer the WHEA error (with red cross).
There is a APIC ID number associated.

report all the APIC ID numbers you get.


----------



## des2k...

PWn3R said:


> Do you guys set the frequency boost to 0 or 200 or what in the PBO settings before turning on CO? Also, do I need to adjust power limits really or just leave on Auto?


For my 5900x I use 210 140 140. 210w being max allowed for r23. Auto OC +50 since going past 5.05 is not stable with CO for games.

Used y-cruncher all core, some are -19, weak cores are -6 -14 -15. 

For testing max freq your only choice is actually playing games. If you use CPPC it's mostly the best & 2nd best that will cause isssue. You can reduce CO on those or drop down auto oc.


----------



## heptilion

des2k... said:


> For my 5900x I use 210 140 140. 210w being max allowed for r23. Auto OC +50 since going past 5.05 is not stable with CO for games.
> 
> Used y-cruncher all core, some are -19, weak cores are -6 -14 -15.
> 
> For testing max freq your only choice is actually playing games. If you use CPPC it's mostly the best & 2nd best that will cause isssue. You can reduce CO on those or drop down auto oc.


there is 3 pbo overclocking locations. we use the one in amd overclocking and just keep extreme tweaker pbo and nbio pbo to auto?


----------



## GRABibus

heptilion said:


> there is 3 pbo overclocking locations. we use the one in amd overclocking and just keep extreme tweaker pbo and nbio pbo to auto?


Yes


----------



## heptilion

GRABibus said:


> Yes


Overdrivr scalar should be auto or 1x?


----------



## GRABibus

heptilion said:


> Overdrivr scalar should be auto or 1x?


I have it at Auto.


----------



## ChillyRide

Kelutrel said:


> I think that your source of truth is probably biased. Check the Task Manager cpu performance chart while running that benchmark with CPPC PC enabled and disabled. Notice them being different than the peaks observed in the real case of Heptilion screenshots ...


Look at HT off, it should tell u smth. If its not, ok. End of conversation.


----------



## ronindj68

ChillyRide said:


> Look at HT off, it should tell u smth. If its not, ok. End of conversation.


Sorry, what is "HT off" ? 


GRABibus said:


> if your crashes are reboots, you should first check in windows’ event viewer the WHEA error (with red cross).
> There is a APIC ID number associated.
> 
> report all the APIC ID numbers you get.


Hi my friend, thanks for your answers. Yes my crash happen whit bluescreen reboot but i don't see nothing on WHEA error  
it happen when i try to set Max CPU Boost Clock Override over = +125 MHz
Of course i am using corecycler and i do not have any error
This is my Curve Opt settting: -13 -30 -15 -30 -30 -27 -27 -27 -30 -24 -30 -28 -27 -30 -29 -30


----------



## des2k...

ronindj68 said:


> Sorry, what is "HT off" ?
> 
> Hi my friend, thanks for your answers. Yes my crash happen whit bluescreen reboot but i don't see nothing on WHEA error
> it happen when i try to set Max CPU Boost Clock Override over = +125 MHz
> Of course i am using corecycler and i do not have any error
> This is my Curve Opt settting: -13 -30 -15 -30 -30 -27 -27 -27 -30 -24 -30 -28 -27 -30 -29 -30


Way too aggressive for CO with +125. Anything after 5ghz boost for idle or games is very unstable and difficult to test with CO.

Corecycler is worthless, use ycruncher(option 7) cycle all test. Start with one core then add the next CO.

Your looking at passing 2h , adding the next CO and repeat.

After passing this, for idle,games you'll have to drop down Auto OC to see where it's stable. Most likely around 5+ it will be unstable. Destiny,Halo multiplier seem ok to validate top freq on my side.


----------



## GRABibus

ronindj68 said:


> Sorry, what is "HT off" ?
> 
> Hi my friend, thanks for your answers. Yes my crash happen whit bluescreen reboot but i don't see nothing on WHEA error
> it happen when i try to set Max CPU Boost Clock Override over = +125 MHz
> Of course i am using corecycler and i do not have any error
> This is my Curve Opt settting: -13 -30 -15 -30 -30 -27 -27 -27 -30 -24 -30 -28 -27 -30 -29 -30


What about your RAM ?
Did you test it ?


----------



## Sleepycat

ronindj68 said:


> Hi my friend, thanks for your answers. Yes my crash happen whit bluescreen reboot but i don't see nothing on WHEA error
> it happen when i try to set Max CPU Boost Clock Override over = +125 MHz
> Of course i am using corecycler and i do not have any error
> This is my Curve Opt settting: -13 -30 -15 -30 -30 -27 -27 -27 -30 -24 -30 -28 -27 -30 -29 -30


The cause is likely your curve opt being too aggressive, which leads to too low a CPU voltage for +125 MHz, and causing it to crash. Even my 5900X with +0 MHz, can't run with such an aggressive Curve Optimizer like yours.


----------



## ChillyRide

ronindj68 said:


> Sorry, what is "HT off" ?
> 
> Hi my friend, thanks for your answers. Yes my crash happen whit bluescreen reboot but i don't see nothing on WHEA error
> it happen when i try to set Max CPU Boost Clock Override over = +125 MHz
> Of course i am using corecycler and i do not have any error
> This is my Curve Opt settting: -13 -30 -15 -30 -30 -27 -27 -27 -30 -24 -30 -28 -27 -30 -29 -30


HyperThreading - Intel name, SMT simultaneous multithreading - AMD name.

My 5900X have crashes and far worse CO with C-States enabled. Disabling C-States improve my CO and no idle crashes. 220-130-140 +50Mhz x1. Core Cycler stable 12+ hours. And thats on 4006 bios with cl13.


----------



## PWn3R

des2k... said:


> For my 5900x I use 210 140 140. 210w being max allowed for r23. Auto OC +50 since going past 5.05 is not stable with CO for games.
> 
> Used y-cruncher all core, some are -19, weak cores are -6 -14 -15.
> 
> For testing max freq your only choice is actually playing games. If you use CPPC it's mostly the best & 2nd best that will cause isssue. You can reduce CO on those or drop down auto oc.


The Ryzen master app just wants to -30 every core, which doesn't even boot. Is there a "recommended" starting point for the negative offset?


----------



## xeizo

PWn3R said:


> The Ryzen master app just wants to -30 every core, which doesn't even boot. Is there a "recommended" starting point for the negative offset?


Yes, "0"


----------



## PWn3R

xeizo said:


> Yes, "0"


Fair enough. Uggh. If I hadn't spent like 250 hours trying to get 1900+ FCLK working I wouldn't be so salty.


----------



## J7SC

Kelutrel said:


> Yes. So, the screenshot you posted before was caused by the OS placing most of the videogame threads on your two fastest cores only, and so "overloading" them as most threads were placed on them while the other cores were free.
> With "CPPC Preferred Cores" disabled (but keep "CPPC" enabled for performances) the OS doesn't know anymore which cores are faster or slower, as the BIOS doesn't send that information anymore, and so each game thread is placed on the less busy core and this results in more evenly distributed loads and generally smoother gameplay as shown by your second screenshot.
> I also keep "CPPC Preferred Cores" disabled as I mostly play videogames.
> But your single core benchmark scores will suffer in this way. Not because your machine becomes actually slower with "CPPC Preferred Cores" disabled, but because single core benchmarks are usually placed automatically on your faster core (highest MHz) and now the OS doesn't know anymore which core is the fastest and so will place the benchmark on a random core that probably does not reach the peak core frequency of your fastest core.
> So, when you run single core benchmarks you may want to set "CPPC Preferred Cores" back to enabled, but in general I also observed lower latency and smoother gameplay with CPPC Preferred Cores disabled.
> Just to reiterate, keep the other option, named just "CPPC", enabled (or Auto) otherwise you will loose most of the L3 cache performance benefit and that means lower average framerate.


...long weekend here, so a nice late-morning coffee+benchie time ☕ . Per below, FS 2020 and Shadow of the Tomb Raider (SOTR) with CPPC 'preferred' on auto, and then again 'disabled'. No surprises there, really. FS2020 was on 4096x 2160, SOTR on 1920x1200 (lowest I could go on C1) and it didn't look so hot compared to my normal 4096x2160 SOTR use, but I wanted to stress CPU relatively more. 3090 Strix was on 'mild oc' and driver-capped at 500 fps.

...5950X DarkH PBO values on default, w/ small negative offset on CPUv, DynOC, mild CO. SOTR points to CPPC preferred 'disabled' for gaming, for lower resolutions at least.


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> ...long weekend here, so a nice late-morning coffee+benchie time ☕ . Per below, FS 2020 and Shadow of the Tomb Raider (SOTR) with CPPC 'preferred' on auto, and then again 'disabled'. No surprises there, really. FS2020 was on 4096x 2160, SOTR on 1920x1200 (lowest I could go on C1) and it didn't look so hot compared to my normal 4096x2160 SOTR use, but I wanted to stress CPU relatively more. 3090 Strix was on 'mild oc' and driver-capped at 500 fps.
> 
> ...5950X DarkH PBO values on default, w/ small negative offset on CPUv, DynOC, mild CO. SOTR points to CPPC preferred 'disabled' for gaming, for lower resolutions at least.
> View attachment 2561568


And with 2560x1440 ?


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> And with 2560x1440 ?


?? ...trying to stress the CPU w/ different CPPC settings, not the GPU...


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> ?? ...trying to stress the CPU w/ different CPPC settings, not the GPU...


Ok, but 1440p stresses GPU of course and CPU is also.
As 2560x1440 is a common resolution with which people play, it is to have an idea of CPPC tip efficiency at 2560x1440.


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> Ok, but 1440p stresses GPU of course and CPU is also.
> As 2560x1440 is a common resolution with which people play, it is to have an idea of CPPC tip efficiency at 2560x1440.


...Next time...fyi, I always play at 4190x2160


----------



## Luggage

GRABibus said:


> Ok, but 1440p stresses GPU of course and CPU is also.
> As 2560x1440 is a common resolution with which people play, it is to have an idea of CPPC tip efficiency at 2560x1440.


If you are GPU bound you can play on a potatoe


http://imgur.com/a/g1JwhlP

with green sticks


http://imgur.com/a/arJoOL6


----------



## J7SC

@GRABibus ...some 1440s from a week ago or so when doing another comp thread ...CPPC on 'auto' for both, though, comparing 5950X / 3090 /Win10 and 3950X/6900Xt/Win11; mild GPU oc / PL on both, stock CPU...pls note that 6900Xt doesn't have the DLSS/RTX option


----------



## Sleepycat

PWn3R said:


> The Ryzen master app just wants to -30 every core, which doesn't even boot. Is there a "recommended" starting point for the negative offset?


Start at -15, then use corecycler single core to test each core individually. Those that fail should have the offset set less aggressive, those that pass should be set with a more aggressive offset. Deciding to test using SSE, AVX or AVX2 will change the result. I use AVX, and some AVX2, so I end up with the following offset for my 5900X:
CCX1: -25, +10, -20, 0, -30, -25, 
CCX2: -30, -25, -15, -25, -30, -15


----------



## heptilion

Sleepycat said:


> Start at -15, then use corecycler single core to test each core individually. Those that fail should have the offset set less aggressive, those that pass should be set with a more aggressive offset. Deciding to test using SSE, AVX or AVX2 will change the result. I use AVX, and some AVX2, so I end up with the following offset for my 5900X:
> CCX1: -25, +10, -20, 0, -30, -25,
> CCX2: -30, -25, -15, -25, -30, -15


Man I can't get any of my cores to boost over 4900 on my 5950x so override doesn't to anything. 

These are my co's. what avx/avx2 test did you run to test for stability. I have just done a core cycler 720-720 and fft heavy short sse. Both pass successfully

The screenshot is from the 720 run. Boost is pretty bad.


----------



## Sleepycat

heptilion said:


> Man I can't get any of my cores to boost over 4900 on my 5950x so override doesn't to anything.


Was it the same with the older versions of Hydra where you can set the single thread speeds independently instead of using PBO2?

It should still do it on a single thread with override to +200 MHz. 4.965 GHz was the highest my 5900X would go for a single thread when running PBO2. My everyday use now is (set using Hydra):
Single thread: 4.90 GHz @ 1.375V
Multicore: 4.6 / 4.5 GHz @ 1.212V

For multicore, I can run 4.775 / 4.725 @ 1.350V, but it is just silly hot and not sustainable with regards to temperature. I only do it when I want to benchmark (CB R23 of 24064)



> These are my co's. what avx/avx2 test did you run to test for stability. I have just done a core cycler 720-720 and fft heavy short sse. Both pass successfully


I used corecycler by editing the config file so that it ran Prime95 AVX2 Small FFT.



> The screenshot is from the 720 run. Boost is pretty bad.


What software were you using for single thread boost? I used CB R23 single. Pic below of HWInfo when I am running CB R23.


----------



## heptilion

Sleepycat said:


> It should still do it on a single thread with override to +200 MHz. 4.95 GHz is the highest my 5900X will go for a single thread.
> 
> 
> I used corecycler by editing the config file so that it ran Prime95 AVX2 Small FFT.
> 
> 
> What software were you using for single thread boost? I used CB R23 single.


R23 ST boost is like 4.8Ghz so pretty bad


----------



## Sleepycat

heptilion said:


> R23 ST boost is like 4.8Ghz so pretty bad
> 
> View attachment 2561613


I'm running the older Hydra 1.1A Pro, as that was when I last subscribed to the Patreon. But my boost testing results show a lower and fixed single thread voltage compared to yours.

It is likely that your Hydra settings that is limiting your boost clock, but I'm not sure if it is because of PBO controlled through Hydra. I am using the older vcore-clockspeed relationship that was in 1.1A, so maybe you can try this method of controlling your CPU clocks instead.
1.375V









1.425V


----------



## heptilion

Sleepycat said:


> I'm running the older Hydra 1.1A Pro, as that was when I last subscribed to the Patreon. But my boost testing results show a lower and fixed single thread voltage compared to yours.
> 
> It is likely that your Hydra settings that is limiting your boost clock, but I'm not sure if it is because of PBO controlled through Hydra. I am using the older vcore-clockspeed relationship that was in 1.1A, so maybe you can try this method of controlling your CPU clocks instead.
> 1.375V
> View attachment 2561620
> 
> 
> 1.425V
> View attachment 2561621


I have entered all my settings in bios just ran hydra to get the boost values.

I am passing every test I run. Corecycler 720, heavy short sse, y cruncher all 4 runs. But when I restarted PC I got this whea uncontrollable error. Not sure what's causing this. I believe my ram is stable cus I have run testmem 30 pass and y cruncher 4 so I'm not sure what's causing this,
*WHEA UNCONTROLLABLE ERROR*


----------



## J7SC

heptilion said:


> I have entered all my settings in bios just ran hydra to get the boost values.
> 
> I am passing every test I run. Corecycler 720, heavy short sse, y cruncher all 4 runs. But when I restarted PC I got this whea uncontrollable error. Not sure what's causing this. I believe my ram is stable cus I have run testmem 30 pass and y cruncher 4 so I'm not sure what's causing this,
> *WHEA UNCONTROLLABLE ERROR*


...I've seen before that even w/long memtest passing, RAM can potentially still be an issue re. WHEA, or at least its relationship to other factors such as PCIe. Just for the sake of testing/tracking re. WHEA, I would drop RAM speed and take that out of the equation for a run or two.

...not sure if the item below helps, but these are the vCore values for 32T and 1T benches during each run on my system. I run a small negative offset (-0.00625v) and 32T swings between 1.188v and 1.206v around 4.65+ GHz effective, and 1T swings between 1.425v+- around 5+ GHz effective. This means LLC droop etc. is fully engaged. It is all WHEA free.


----------



## Sleepycat

heptilion said:


> I am passing every test I run. Corecycler 720, heavy short sse, y cruncher all 4 runs. But when I restarted PC I got this whea uncontrollable error. Not sure what's causing this. I believe my ram is stable cus I have run testmem 30 pass and y cruncher 4 so I'm not sure what's causing this,
> *WHEA UNCONTROLLABLE ERROR*


Have you tried Corecycler with AVX or AVX2 as well? Others will likely say that AVX and AVX2 won't boost the clocks as high as SSE, but in my case, I passed SSE, but failed AVX2 in Corecycler.

Could be due to your infinity fabric. If you clock it down 1 step from 1900 (while maintaining your RAM at 3800), does it still give you the WHEA error? For my system, I am limited to 1800 for my IF as I am running 4x16GB RAM. So someone else will have to comment as to why you are getting that error.


----------



## dansi

heptilion said:


> I have entered all my settings in bios just ran hydra to get the boost values.
> 
> I am passing every test I run. Corecycler 720, heavy short sse, y cruncher all 4 runs. But when I restarted PC I got this whea uncontrollable error. Not sure what's causing this. I believe my ram is stable cus I have run testmem 30 pass and y cruncher 4 so I'm not sure what's causing this,
> *WHEA UNCONTROLLABLE ERROR*


Your CO is too aggressive. Give aida64 latency tests a couple of runs like 10 minutes, it is likely you get a bsod error .

The core cycler tests you mentioned are more about sustain heavy load to a core. There's also transient boost like loading the OS and aida latency tests that peak and dip rapidly


----------



## heptilion

dansi said:


> Your CO is too aggressive. Give aida64 latency tests a couple of runs like 10 minutes, it is likely you get a bsod error .
> 
> The core cycler tests you mentioned are more about sustain heavy load to a core. There's also transient boost like loading the OS and aida latency tests that peak and dip rapidly


Do I just spam L1/L2/L3 latencies?


----------



## heptilion

Sleepycat said:


> Have you tried Corecycler with AVX or AVX2 as well? Others will likely say that AVX and AVX2 won't boost the clocks as high as SSE, but in my case, I passed SSE, but failed AVX2 in Corecycler.
> 
> Could be due to your infinity fabric. If you clock it down 1 step from 1900 (while maintaining your RAM at 3800), does it still give you the WHEA error? For my system, I am limited to 1800 for my IF as I am running 4x16GB RAM. So someone else will have to comment as to why you are getting that error.


Thi thing happens random like only twice has happened so far. I just completed Corecycler 1 iteration of y cruncher, two threads 10 min per core.


----------



## dansi

heptilion said:


> Do I just spam L1/L2/L3 latencies?


I will spam the memory latency to stress test CO
I will spam L2/L3 read/write/copy to stress test WHEA stability for pushing the IF past its safety wall.


----------



## heptilion

J7SC said:


> ...I've seen before that even w/long memtest passing, RAM can potentially still be an issue re. WHEA, or at least its relationship to other factors such as PCIe. Just for the sake of testing/tracking re. WHEA, I would drop RAM speed and take that out of the equation for a run or two.
> 
> ...not sure if the item below helps, but these are the vCore values for 32T and 1T benches during each run on my system. I run a small negative offset (-0.00625v) and 32T swings between 1.188v and 1.206v around 4.65+ GHz effective, and 1T swings between 1.425v+- around 5+ GHz effective. This means LLC droop etc. is fully engaged. It is all WHEA free.
> View attachment 2561622


This doesn't happen during testing. ok I will drop my if to 1800 and memory speed to 3600 to see if this will happen or not. hmm


----------



## heptilion

dansi said:


> I will spam the memory latency to stress test CO
> I will spam L2/L3 read/write/copy to stress test WHEA stability for pushing the IF past its safety wall.


just been clicking this for last 20 minutes and no errors. ***.


----------



## dansi

heptilion said:


> just been clicking this for last 20 minutes and no errors. ***.


Aida latency follows cppc, so at default it is stress testing you best core only. Which mean your best core has fine CO settings

You may have to do some manual work to assign different cores using task manager core affinity, while spamming the test.
Or you can momentarily disable cppc in bios and let aida randomized, although not as ideal as cycling through all cores

I have asked if core cycler can work with aida64 latency test only, that will take out the manual legwork


----------



## heptilion

dansi said:


> Aida latency follows cppc, so at default it is stress testing you best core only. Which mean your best core has fine CO settings
> 
> You may have to do some manual work to assign different cores using task manager core affinity, while spamming the test.
> Or you can momentarily disable cppc in bios and let aida randomized, although not as ideal as cycling through all cores
> 
> I have asked if core cycler can work with aida64 latency test only, that will take out the manual legwork


i turned off cppc preferred cores to check and voila constant whea uncontrollable error wont let me boot. but how in the world am i suppose to find which core is causing this because every test keep passing. sigh.


----------



## xeizo

Time to mount the 5800X3D

I forced the CH8 Extreme inside a Phanteks P400, it worked well enough, the 5800X3D is running nice and quiet. Highest temp under stress is 72C, highest vcore observed is 1.272V but it still boosts to 4550MHz on four cores. Looks to be very high quality silicon, but it is locked down a bit as we know. Waiting for some better memory which I ordered for that rig, it's in the mail. For now it's running very old 4x8GB 3000MHz DDR4. I dread to replace the memory, as I hate mounting/unmounting the Dark Rock Pro 4, I had hoped the memory would have arrived sooner. Still a very good cooler, but a water block is so much easier to handle.










AS a sidenote, don't use MX5 cooling paste, it's the most sticky paste I have ever encountered. It's like made for bending AMD pins. I used Noctua NX-1(must have been NT-H1, I used the last of it and trashed the container before I had read on it LoL) this time.


----------



## Sleepycat

heptilion said:


> i turned off cppc preferred cores to check and voila constant whea uncontrollable error wont let me boot. but how in the world am i suppose to find which core is causing this because every test keep passing. sigh.


Have you tried Corecycler in AVX2 small FFT mode?


----------



## PWn3R

Just saw the AMD AM5/Ryzen 7000 announcements. I’m still on the fence about team Red or Team blue for a refresh, but may have to pick up a 7950x and x670E board. It seems like Intels bios is also janky, not just AMD now.


----------



## dansi

heptilion said:


> i turned off cppc preferred cores to check and voila constant whea uncontrollable error wont let me boot. but how in the world am i suppose to find which core is causing this because every test keep passing. sigh.


We have to ping corecycler creator to see if they can incorp Aida latency tests and also Aida L2/L3 cache test. These additions will give a bigger picture of our PBO CO.


----------



## GRABibus

AMD demonstrates Ryzen 7000 Zen4 CPU reaching 5.5 GHz while gaming - VideoCardz.com


AMD Ryzen 7000 at 5.5 GHz AMD demos its upcoming desktop Ryzen 7000 CPU. The picture shows AMD Ryzen 7000 CPU running at 5520.3 MHz speed during a gameplay of Ghostwire: Toyko. Unfortunately we do not know if this is a single core frequency or if the CPU was overclocked (we will update this...




videocardz.com


----------



## rexbinary

xeizo said:


> AS a sidenote, don't use MX5 cooling paste, it's the most sticky paste I have ever encountered. It's like made for bending AMD pins. I used Noctua NX-1 this time.


Good call. MX-5 was discontinued due to manufacting issues. I still use MX-4 though myself.


----------



## heptilion

Sleepycat said:


> Have you tried Corecycler in AVX2 small FFT mode?


I am running at the moment. Will let you know.
I am running with 1 thread. Is that okay?


----------



## djase45

rexbinary said:


> Good call. MX-5 was discontinued due to manufacting issues. I still use MX-4 though myself.


*ARCTIC PRESS INFORMATION ON MX-5 THERMAL COMPOUND*
_For ARCTIC, it has always been a top priority to supply customers only with products of the best quality and durability. Should there ever be any doubts about products we’ve delivered, we stand by our responsibility to our customers.
Current findings from our permanent quality assurance tests show that certain batches of our MX-5 thermal compound contain anomalies in consistency and shelf life. The affected products show an increased separation of oil within the paste, resulting in premature hardening. This can lead to adverse effects and application difficulties.
Affected batches have already been identified and recalled from circulation so that no further affected product can enter the market. We regret that this quality defect could not be detected before delivery to distributors and customers, despite constant quality controls and diligent care during production.
Affected MX-5 thermal compoun_


----------



## GRABibus

djase45 said:


> *ARCTIC PRESS INFORMATION ON MX-5 THERMAL COMPOUND*
> _For ARCTIC, it has always been a top priority to supply customers only with products of the best quality and durability. Should there ever be any doubts about products we’ve delivered, we stand by our responsibility to our customers.
> Current findings from our permanent quality assurance tests show that certain batches of our MX-5 thermal compound contain anomalies in consistency and shelf life. The affected products show an increased separation of oil within the paste, resulting in premature hardening. This can lead to adverse effects and application difficulties.
> Affected batches have already been identified and recalled from circulation so that no further affected product can enter the market. We regret that this quality defect could not be detected before delivery to distributors and customers, despite constant quality controls and diligent care during production.
> Affected MX-5 thermal compoun_


I use Noctua NT-H2.
So gooodddd 👍


----------



## xeizo

*Off topic*, but in parallel to tearing down/rebuilding the 5800X3D rig I tinkered with my Z690 rig. I read about locking vcore, read and done. I locked it at 1.25V LLC3, as stable as ever BUT max temp in CB23 went down from 86C to 76C and package power went down from 278W to 203W! A decrease of 75W! Score also went down from 28k+ to 27k+, but totally worth it. Geekbench didn't loose anything though, as fast as ever.

76C with 5.0GHz allcore under load is totally ok imho, and now efficiency doesn't look that much off from AMD. Boost is 5.1GHz with 5.3GHz on the three best cores, 4.0GHz on the E-cores.

Now we can go back to AMD LoL


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> I use Noctua NT-H2.
> So gooodddd 👍


Yes, I will buy me some more Noctua, MX4 has worked well in the past though.


----------



## rexbinary

djase45 said:


> *ARCTIC PRESS INFORMATION ON MX-5 THERMAL COMPOUND*
> _For ARCTIC, it has always been a top priority to supply customers only with products of the best quality and durability. Should there ever be any doubts about products we’ve delivered, we stand by our responsibility to our customers.
> Current findings from our permanent quality assurance tests show that certain batches of our MX-5 thermal compound contain anomalies in consistency and shelf life. The affected products show an increased separation of oil within the paste, resulting in premature hardening. This can lead to adverse effects and application difficulties.
> Affected batches have already been identified and recalled from circulation so that no further affected product can enter the market. We regret that this quality defect could not be detected before delivery to distributors and customers, despite constant quality controls and diligent care during production.
> Affected MX-5 thermal compoun_


True, but it's still discontinued now.


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> AMD demonstrates Ryzen 7000 Zen4 CPU reaching 5.5 GHz while gaming - VideoCardz.com
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 7000 at 5.5 GHz AMD demos its upcoming desktop Ryzen 7000 CPU. The picture shows AMD Ryzen 7000 CPU running at 5520.3 MHz speed during a gameplay of Ghostwire: Toyko. Unfortunately we do not know if this is a single core frequency or if the CPU was overclocked (we will update this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> videocardz.com


...I typically don't immediately go for a new gen upon release, with upgrades depending on intended use...but this looks like s.th. to consider (along with Raptor Lake, depending) in early 2023. Along with GPUs, 2023 could shape up to be an expensive 'PC Systems' year . At least DDR5 will have better speed / timings and a good body of specific DDR5 setup-and-tuning knowledge (PMC...)



rexbinary said:


> True, but it's still discontinued now.
> 
> View attachment 2561667


...in spite of 'end of life' moniker, it MX5 actually still being produced and sold as the issue was some specific batches. What bugs me is that they don't publish the affected batch numbers as I have plenty of it as well as other stuff on hand (below). Instead, you have to contact them and thus share all your info (I'm a big-data vacuum hater). FYI, for CPU/GPU dies, I prefer the 'sticky' Gelid OC Extreme I've bene using for years...old faithful MX4 in a pinch.


----------



## rexbinary

J7SC said:


> ...in spite of 'end of life' moniker, it MX5 actually still being produced and sold as the issue was some specific batches.


Source that it's still being produced? Of course there is still some in the retail channels.


----------



## heptilion

AVX2 small FFT passed on corecycler

cinebench single core is 1590. pretty bad for a 5950x.


----------



## J7SC

rexbinary said:


> Source that it's still being produced? Of course there is still some in the retail channels.


...spoke to my wholesaler re. new orders, but will get confirmation later in writing from them (so they say, at least...).


----------



## Sleepycat

dansi said:


> We have to ping corecycler creator to see if they can incorp Aida latency tests and also Aida L2/L3 cache test. These additions will give a bigger picture of our PBO CO.


Aida latency and cache tests are benchmarks, not stability tests. So if you are BSODing during them, your system is highly unstable as you have both core instability (L2) and uncore instability (L3 and mem controller). Personally, I expect my system to pass Aida latency and cache tests. If they don't pass, the failure is not the PC, but myself as I have set the bios with very incorrect settings.


----------



## Sleepycat

xeizo said:


> Yes, I will buy me some more Noctua, MX4 has worked well in the past though.


Arctic MX4 is similar to Noctua's NT-H1. Very easy to apply, spread and has good performance. 

NT-H2 improves the temperature by a tiny amount (1ºC on my 5900X), is more difficult to spread (like sticky peanut butter) but seems to last a lot longer without experiencing an increase in temperature as the months go by. I find NT-H2 more difficult to apply compared to NT-H1 that I have gone back to the blob method and avoid spreading the paste.


----------



## Sleepycat

heptilion said:


> AVX2 small FFT passed on corecycler
> 
> cinebench single core is 1590. pretty bad for a 5950x.
> 
> View attachment 2561689


Can you do an export of your bios settings txt file and post it here?


----------



## Kelutrel

heptilion said:


> AVX2 small FFT passed on corecycler
> 
> cinebench single core is 1590. pretty bad for a 5950x.
> 
> View attachment 2561689


If you still have CPPC Preferred Core disabled in the BIOS, that is why you are getting lower single core scores.
As I said in a previous message, your single core benchmark scores will suffer in this way. Not because your machine becomes actually slower with "CPPC Preferred Cores" disabled, but because single core benchmarks are usually placed automatically on your faster core (highest MHz) and now the OS doesn't know anymore which core is the fastest and so will place the benchmark on a random core that probably does not reach the peak core frequency of your fastest core.


----------



## heptilion

Kelutrel said:


> If you still have CPPC Preferred Core disabled in the BIOS, that is why you are getting lower single core scores.
> As I said in a previous message, your single core benchmark scores will suffer in this way. Not because your machine becomes actually slower with "CPPC Preferred Cores" disabled, but because single core benchmarks are usually placed automatically on your faster core (highest MHz) and now the OS doesn't know anymore which core is the fastest and so will place the benchmark on a random core that probably does not reach the peak core frequency of your fastest core.


This is with CPPC enabled as well as disabled where i used task manager to select my best core. So very similar result


----------



## heptilion

Sleepycat said:


> Can you do an export of your bios settings txt file and post it here?





Sleepycat said:


> Can you do an export of your bios settings txt file and post it here?


as requested.

having hardware prefetcher disabled easier or harder on the cpu? like if i enable will it give me errors?


----------



## Sleepycat

heptilion said:


> as requested.


What memory kit are you using?

For troubleshooting purposes, try setting the following *one line at a time* to see if it improves.

PBO Fmax Enhancer - Disable
CPU Load-line Calibration - Level 3
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration - Level 3
VDDP Voltage - Auto
CLDO VDDP Voltage - 0.950
Global C-state Control - Auto
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher - Auto
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher - Auto
Memory interleaving size - Auto
PMU Pattern Bits Control - Auto

You have some customization and manual settings that I noticed, so set those back to Auto for troubleshooting purposes. Your CB R23 single score is low compared to my 5900X @ 4.9 GHz, so while these settings may give you a better Aida64 latency result, it might also be reducing your actual performance in CB R23 and other software.



> having hardware prefetcher disabled easier or harder on the cpu? like if i enable will it give me errors?


It is set to Auto in Bios defaults. So you should leave it in Auto. People disable it to get lower latency scores in Aida64, but I don't see that translating into actual CPU load benchmarks.


----------



## heptilion

Sleepycat said:


> What memory kit are you using?
> 
> For troubleshooting purposes, try setting the following *one line at a time* to see if it improves.
> 
> PBO Fmax Enhancer - Disable
> CPU Load-line Calibration - Level 3
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration - Level 3
> VDDP Voltage - Auto
> CLDO VDDP Voltage - 0.950
> Global C-state Control - Auto
> L1 Stream HW Prefetcher - Auto
> L2 Stream HW Prefetcher - Auto
> Memory interleaving size - Auto
> PMU Pattern Bits Control - Auto
> 
> You have some customization and manual settings that I noticed, so set those back to Auto for troubleshooting purposes. Your CB R23 single score is low compared to my 5900X @ 4.9 GHz, so while these settings may give you a better Aida64 latency result, it might also be reducing your actual performance in CB R23 and other software.
> 
> 
> It is set to Auto in Bios defaults. So you should leave it in Auto. People disable it to get lower latency scores in Aida64, but I don't see that translating into actual CPU load benchmarks.


using 3600-cl16 neos.


----------



## xeizo

heptilion said:


> using 3600-cl16 neos.
> 
> View attachment 2561716
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2561721


tRAS, tRC, tRRDS, tFAW and tRFC are all very aggressive and you are running cl15 at 1T without GDM at 3800MHz. I would expect it to be very unstable, unless you have some super duper extra memory running at 1.7V with fans blowing straight at the memory.

You probably wouldn't pass a sfc /scannow and certainly not a full run of Geekbench. Frankly, I'm surprised it even booted. But what do I know?


----------



## metalshark

xeizo said:


> tRAS, tRC, tRRDS, tFAW and tRFC are all very aggressive and you are running cl15 at 1T without GDM at 3800MHz. I would expect it to be very unstable, unless you have some super duper extra memory running at 1.7V with fans blowing straight at the memory.
> 
> You probably wouldn't pass a sfc /scannow and certainly not a full run of Geekbench. Frankly, I'm surprised it even booted. But what do I know?


4xSR 3800CL14 1T GDM Off 1.535v nice and stable for months. 2xDR, especially Neo's should be super capable of this.


----------



## xeizo

metalshark said:


> 4xSR 3800CL14 1T GDM Off 1.535v nice and stable for months. 2xDR, especially Neo's should be super capable of this.


Possibly, but you need extra cooling don't you? And instability here and there is exactly what is to be expected.


----------



## metalshark

xeizo said:


> Possibly, but you need extra cooling don't you? And instability here and there is exactly what is to be expected.


You are right with needing additional cooling. Have a fan over the RAM. If it goes over ~52'C it's a wipe out stability wise (start getting errors). Full 30 cycle Tm5 1usmus, 10 cycle memtest86 pro and Karhu testing stable though, zero instability.


----------



## heptilion

xeizo said:


> tRAS, tRC, tRRDS, tFAW and tRFC are all very aggressive and you are running cl15 at 1T without GDM at 3800MHz. I would expect it to be very unstable, unless you have some super duper extra memory running at 1.7V with fans blowing straight at the memory.
> 
> You probably wouldn't pass a sfc /scannow and certainly not a full run of Geekbench. Frankly, I'm surprised it even booted. But what do I know?


i am passing sfc/scannow. ram is super stable. its because im using 56 0 0.


----------



## ChillyRide

xeizo said:


> Possibly, but you need extra cooling don't you? And instability here and there is exactly what is to be expected.


Everyone have their own stability standarts  Someone ok with 3 runs Anta777 Extreme/Absolute, Karhu 7k% or even less. Pretty screens without stress tests worth nothing.


----------



## Bruizer

J7SC said:


> FYI, for CPU/GPU dies, I prefer the 'sticky' Gelid OC Extreme I've been using for years..."


Gelid OC Extreme all day, every day.


----------



## neikosr0x

Is anyone getting cold boots bluescreens on the latest official bios? Never had any with 3801 or 3901.


----------



## xeizo

neikosr0x said:


> Is anyone getting cold boots bluescreens on the latest official bios? Never had any with 3801 or 3901.


No, running latest AGESA 1.2.0.7 bios on 5800X3D/CH8 Extreme, 5900X(B2)/B550-F and R5 5500/X470-Prime Pro. I have also been running it on 3700X/CH8 Hero WiFi, but it's put away in a box now. None have had any problems. Running 3600MHz memory on CH8 Extreme(Micron) and B550-F(Hynix DJR) and 3200MHz on Prime Pro(Hynix AFR).

I have my B-Die on my Z690.

And my CH7 haven't got any new bios as of yet.


----------



## neikosr0x

xeizo said:


> No, running latest AGESA 1.2.0.7 bios on 5800X3D/CH8 Extreme, 5900X(B2)/B550-F and R5 5500/X470-Prime Pro. I have also been running it on 3700X/CH8 Hero WiFi, but it's put away in a box now. None have had any problems. Running 3600MHz memory on CH8 Extreme(Micron) and B550-F(Hynix DJR) and 3200MHz on Prime Pro(Hynix AFR).
> 
> I have my B-Die on my Z690.
> 
> And my CH7 haven't got any new bios as of yet.


I getting this weird behaviour... But only seems to happen if I play around with the CO, but even after changing the settings back to off/auto the behaviour keeps repeating sometimes requiring to restart the pc 2 or 3 times.


----------



## xeizo

neikosr0x said:


> I getting this weird behaviour... But only seems to happen if I play around with the CO, but even after changing the settings back to off/auto the behaviour keeps repeating sometimes requiring to restart the pc 2 or 3 times.


Mine are stable AF, but granted I haven't been pushing memory on any of them. Only one running CO is the 5900X, it does so happily so far.


----------



## xeizo

Looks like the 5800X3D is rightly configured, only 183p from the world record for 5800X3D/RTX3070. Could easily be bested with some driver tweaking and a open case with full fans. Now it's default driver, untweaked Windows 11 and a silent fan profile 

Nothing much more to see, now it's only gaming to do ...


----------



## J7SC

J7SC said:


> ...spoke to my wholesaler re. new orders, but will get confirmation later in writing from them (so they say, at least...).


@rexbinary ...further to the above, just got this:









-------

...elsewhere, old dog (3950X) stretching its legs a bit after a caffeine rush 


Spoiler


----------



## xeizo

J7SC said:


> @rexbinary ...further to the above, just got this:
> 
> 
> ...elsewhere, old dog (3950X) stretching its legs a bit after a caffeine rush
> View attachment 2561782


Great result, good thing the 5800X3D is only my second rig, I have the 12900KF/RTX3080 too which scores a little higher ...

Anyway, synthetic benchmarks isn't the point with 5800X3D, it's only eight cores and low clocked. It's consistent frame times in real games, and to that end I believe it delivers - butter smooth so far. I only tested Time Spy to see if the rig was setup in a correct way, almost WR at first try means it can't be that bad.

I see you are only 149p from the WR, so in that regard I'm beaten LoL


----------



## PWn3R

xeizo said:


> Great result, good thing the 5800X3D is only my second rig, I have the 12900KF/RTX3080 too which scores a little higher ...
> 
> Anyway, synthetic benchmarks isn't the point with 5800X3D, it's only eight cores and low clocked. It's consistent frame times in real games, and to that end I believe it delivers - butter smooth so far. I only tested Time Spy to see if the rig was setup in a correct way, almost WR at first try means it can't be that bad.
> 
> I see you are only 149p from the WR, so in that regard I'm beaten LoL


Just need some liquid nitrogen, 1/100 or even 1/1000 cherry-picked CPUs that you don’t care if you pop and you can get the WR too


----------



## xeizo

PWn3R said:


> Just need some liquid nitrogen, 1/100 or even 1/1000 cherry-picked CPUs that you don’t care if you pop and you can get the WR too


Yes, takes some effort, I've only had the WR once. For the GeForce 6800LE, it had a lot of fans blowing straight at it and a modded bios 

Nowadays my goal is always to find the best performance that can be kept within a silent fan profile, I want my computers to be mostly quiet.


----------



## J7SC

xeizo said:


> Great result, good thing the 5800X3D is only my second rig, I have the 12900KF/RTX3080 too which scores a little higher ...
> 
> Anyway, synthetic benchmarks isn't the point with 5800X3D, it's only eight cores and low clocked. It's consistent frame times in real games, and to that end I believe it delivers - butter smooth so far. I only tested Time Spy to see if the rig was setup in a correct way, almost WR at first try means it can't be that bad.
> 
> I see you are only 149p from the WR, so in that regard I'm beaten LoL


...nah, that record just for the CPU GPU combo...but between the 3950X/6900XT and 5950X/3090 (everything w-cooled) build project I did last year, I'm having a ton of fun. Early next year, I might do another dual-mobo build (AM5 and next-gen Intel), but for now, I am really not longing for anything new....


----------



## xeizo

J7SC said:


> ...nah, that record just for the CPU GPU combo...but between the 3950X/6900XT and 5950X/3090 (everything w-cooled) build project I did last year, I'm having a ton of fun. Early next year, I might do another dual-mobo build (AM5 and next-gen Intel), but for now, I am really not longing for anything new....


Dual mobo build is kinda hold my beer LoL


----------



## J7SC

xeizo said:


> Dual mobo build is kinda hold my beer LoL


...dual mobo build is a space-saver  w/ multiple big screens (up to 48)


----------



## Marty Z

Can someone point me to the bios setting on this MB, if one exists, that will shut down the PC if water pump dies? based off either the pump speed or the flow sensor?


----------



## heptilion

@Veii 
Do you know whats the point in having a negative boost override? In what situation is this useful?


----------



## Krisztias

Marty Z said:


> Can someone point me to the bios setting on this MB, if one exists, that will shut down the PC if water pump dies? based off either the pump speed or the flow sensor?


Connect the pump PWM-connector to the CPU FAN header of your Motherboard. You can control your pump via PWM from BIOS (of course plug in the sata/molex from the pump too.)


----------



## WINTENDOX

chipsent version drivers?


----------



## Marty Z

Krisztias said:


> Connect the pump PWM-connector to the CPU FAN header of your Motherboard. You can control your pump via PWM from BIOS (of course plug in the sata/molex from the pump too.)


so there is no way to do it off the pump header, only the cpu fan header?


----------



## Luggage

heptilion said:


> @Veii
> Do you know whats the point in having a negative boost override? In what situation is this useful?


If you have weak cooling you can set max boost that you will easily reach and more stable - like how the 5800x3d boosts compared to 5800x.


----------



## Krisztias

Marty Z said:


> so there is no way to do it off the pump header, only the cpu fan header?


If there is no RPM signal from the CPU fan, it triggers the shutdown 100%. I'm not sure about the WPUMP header.


----------



## Marty Z

Krisztias said:


> If there is no RPM signal from the CPU fan, it triggers the shutdown 100%. I'm not sure about the WPUMP header.


I don't have a cpu fan connected now, it's not shutting down, just giving me a warning


----------



## Sleepycat

heptilion said:


> @Veii
> Do you know whats the point in having a negative boost override? In what situation is this useful?


When you want a super low power system with low temperatures. Maybe even passive cooling without fans.


----------



## GRABibus

Do you consider Corecycler with Y cruncher as a good stability test ?
Or do you all go to Corecycler Prime95 only ?

My Pc is mainly for gaming and not for single core heavy loads.


----------



## benbenkr

Sleepycat said:


> Arctic MX4 is similar to Noctua's NT-H1. Very easy to apply, spread and has good performance.
> 
> NT-H2 improves the temperature by a tiny amount (1ºC on my 5900X), is more difficult to spread (like sticky peanut butter) but seems to last a lot longer without experiencing an increase in temperature as the months go by. I find NT-H2 more difficult to apply compared to NT-H1 that I have gone back to the blob method and avoid spreading the paste.


Eh I still use Kryonaut. Yes yes I know all the stories about pump out and degradation over a certain temp (80c).

But really, I just removed my 3900x yesterday which was last pasted with Kryonaut 16 months ago. I also live in a tropical country which is hot and humid AF, so it's about the worst conditions to be in other than the dessert.

To my surprise, the Kryonaut was just fine. No pump out, no signs of degradation. Lifted off the NHD15 with no troubles too, no dreaded horror stories of cooler ripping the entire CPU out and bending all the pins with it.

Slotted in my new B2 stepping 5900x and used Kryonaut again, temps are... damn good.


----------



## metalshark

GRABibus said:


> Do you consider Corecycler with Y cruncher as a good stability test ?
> Or do you all go to Corecycler Prime95 only ?
> 
> My Pc is mainly for gaming and not for single core heavy loads.


Depends also on the y-Cruncher test, but for one core at a time (configurable in CoreCycler) I don't rate any of its tests for stability. Multi-core however it's a different story.

Where y-Cruncher's 00-x86 test in CoreCycler comes in handy though is getting the highest boost speeds for each core (with all background apps shut) and determining the minimum voltage required for each core to max boost.

Please note: this refers to sustained effective speeds attained when boosting, not "just bordering on sometimes boosting but am providing too little voltage" or non-effective speeds.


----------



## Luggage

GRABibus said:


> Do you consider Corecycler with Y cruncher as a good stability test ?
> Or do you all go to Corecycler Prime95 only ?
> 
> My Pc is mainly for gaming and not for single core heavy loads.


Y-cruncher kagari(?) is good - and found some cores that p95 didn’t find for me.


----------



## GRABibus

Luggage said:


> Y-cruncher kagari(?) is good - and found some cores that p95 didn’t find for me.


I based today my CO curve with some stable iterations on 00-x86.

I should use Kagari ?.


----------



## GRABibus

I will test Kagari


----------



## Luggage

GRABibus said:


> I based today my CO curve with some stable iterations on 00-x86.
> 
> I should use Kagari ?.


Start reading about here: 








[Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread


This is the limit you can raise to in rm if you leave them on auto What's the point in raising it then, if it will never apply? I mean (if I get it right from your post) your BIOS allowed EDC limit to be manually set to max 220 amps, and that it's way below the actual mb limit? This is the...




www.overclock.net





Me, mannix and audioboxer and some other members bicker about corecycler co testing a few pages…


----------



## GRABibus

Sleepycat said:


> Arctic MX4 is similar to Noctua's NT-H1. Very easy to apply, spread and has good performance.
> 
> NT-H2 improves the temperature by a tiny amount (1ºC on my 5900X), is more difficult to spread (like sticky peanut butter) but seems to last a lot longer without experiencing an increase in temperature as the months go by. I find NT-H2 more difficult to apply compared to NT-H1 that I have gone back to the blob method and avoid spreading the paste.


For Ryzen , 1 peanut in the center and 1 small peanut at each corner of the CPU.


----------



## usoldier

Hey guys what are you using to control RGB on this board ? I dont realy want to install Asus Armory bloat thing gives me nightmares tbh.


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> For Ryzen , 1 peanut in the center and 1 small peanut at each corner of the CPU.


...I slather the whole IHS from end to end for every CPU, using those little spatulas...may be that's why my temps are so good


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> ...I slather the whole IHS from end to end for every CPU, using those little spatulas...may be that's why my temps are so good


They are so good for me too 🤔


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> They are so good for me too 🤔


...easy to follow how-to-apply guide for you !


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> ...easy to follow how-to-apply guide for you !
> View attachment 2562046


I hope you don’t paste your stomach and intestine with this sh….🥵


----------



## PWn3R

usoldier said:


> Hey guys what are you using to control RGB on this board ? I dont realy want to install Asus Armory bloat thing gives me nightmares tbh.


Signalrgb free


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> I hope you don’t paste your stomach and intestine with this sh….🥵


...no, goes straight into the arteries


----------



## Boofeyblitz

PWn3R said:


> Signalrgb free


I want to use Signal as well, but not sure how to control my corsair fans without using Icue. I think someone mentioned letting Icue start up and then close it before running signal. Any suggestions?


----------



## Spit051261

Argus monitor is about the best I have used .
Icue is like a virus , don't use it .


----------



## Sleepycat

GRABibus said:


> For Ryzen , 1 peanut in the center and 1 small peanut at each corner of the CPU.


Yup, that's what I do now with NT-H2 (as per Noctua's guide below) since it is a pain to spread.


----------



## Sleepycat

J7SC said:


> ...I slather the whole IHS from end to end for every CPU, using those little spatulas...may be that's why my temps are so good


You using NT-H2? That's what I used to do with NT-H1. Worked well for me too. But NT-H2 is a pain to spread, it is so sticky that it drags along the spatula that I gave up.


----------



## Sleepycat

J7SC said:


> ...easy to follow how-to-apply guide for you !
> View attachment 2562046


I can't believe that is cheese! Looks more like manufactured yellow paste.


----------



## GRABibus

Sleepycat said:


> Yup, that's what I do now with NT-H2 (as per Noctua's guide below) since it is a pain to spread.
> View attachment 2562066


I also use NT-H2 since a long time.
Always got better results with it than even with Kryonaut.

In case of shortages....


----------



## Boofeyblitz

Spit051261 said:


> Argus monitor is about the best I have used .
> Icue is like a virus , don't use it .


Thanks for the advice. I will check it out.


----------



## J7SC

Sleepycat said:


> You using NT-H2? That's what I used to do with NT-H1. Worked well for me too. But NT-H2 is a pain to spread, it is so sticky that it drags along the spatula that I gave up.


...I use this method on everything - MX4, 5; TG Kryonaut; Gelid GC Extreme, NT-H1,2... I've done a few Threadrippers, now there's an IHS to practice on !


----------



## WINTENDOX




----------



## xeizo

I'm staying at 1867MHz CLK 1:1:1 on my 5800X3D, I don't even want the risk of generating errors(>/=1900MHz potential WHEA on Zen3) as the whole point of 5800X3D is being _smooth _

Anyway, I bought very cheap 2x16GB Micron B-die 17nm SR to replace the old Hynix AFR I started testing with. Some 9GB/s more bandwidth and 10ns lower latency in AIDA64 works as expected. Didn't want to buy expensive high performance memory for this rig, as the 3D cache mitigates a whole lot of the advantages of fast memory. I only wanted memory that could run the faster FCLK to not limit the CPU itself. 

So far, so good, all gaming I have tested IS smooth.

BTW, I used MX4 when I swapped memory(yes, large tower cooler means changing paste when swapping memory, I really prefer WC as I have on two of my other rigs - so much easier to do stuff on the mobo)


----------



## Theo164

Flashed 4201 from 3801 I've notice that i have to bump up vsoc to 1.1v from 1.075 also replaced Kryonaut with CoolerMaster Mastergel Maker 11w/k for testing and repaste 2 times. Not as good as Kryonaut
30c ambient after running stress tests for some hours, first time cpu reach the 90c limit with lower EDC than usual 150A (3801) / 140A (4201)





















WINTENDOX said:


> View attachment 2562079


I forgot the existence of this benchmark...
PPT220 TDC115 EDC140


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> I'm staying at 1867MHz CLK 1:1:1 on my 5800X3D, I don't even want the risk of generating errors(>/=1900MHz potential WHEA on Zen3) as the whole point of 5800X3D is being _smooth _
> 
> Anyway, I bought very cheap 2x16GB Micron B-die 17nm SR to replace the old Hynix AFR I started testing with. Some 9GB/s more bandwidth and 10ns lower latency in AIDA64 works as expected. Didn't want to buy expensive high performance memory for this rig, as the 3D cache mitigates a whole lot of the advantages of fast memory. I only wanted memory that could run the faster FCLK to not limit the CPU itself.
> 
> So far, so good, all gaming I have tested IS smooth.
> 
> BTW, I used MX4 when I swapped memory(yes, large tower cooler means changing paste when swapping memory, I really prefer WC as I have on two of my other rigs - so much easier to do stuff on the mobo)


Curious to see if 7800X will perform better in games than the 5800X3D 🤔


----------



## dboom

Great weather on moon 
Please share bios settings too.


----------



## hwanzi

GRABibus said:


> I also use NT-H2 since a long time.
> Always got better results with it than even with Kryonaut.
> 
> In case of shortages....
> 
> View attachment 2562067


why not just buy the 10g tubes? also have you tried the x method? if you have is the dot method still better?


----------



## GRABibus

hwanzi said:


> why not just buy the 10g tubes? also have you tried the x method? if you have is the dot method still better?


All the methods are within to 2 degrees max difference.
For Ryzen, one peanut only in the center is not the best method as Ryzen’s tend to heat also on the edges of the IHS and not only on the center.


----------



## GRABibus

Luggage said:


> Start reading about here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread
> 
> 
> This is the limit you can raise to in rm if you leave them on auto What's the point in raising it then, if it will never apply? I mean (if I get it right from your post) your BIOS allowed EDC limit to be manually set to max 220 amps, and that it's way below the actual mb limit? This is the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me, mannix and audioboxer and some other members bicker about corecycler co testing a few pages…


Do you usese 1 thread or 2 threads in your j


Luggage said:


> Start reading about here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread
> 
> 
> This is the limit you can raise to in rm if you leave them on auto What's the point in raising it then, if it will never apply? I mean (if I get it right from your post) your BIOS allowed EDC limit to be manually set to max 220 amps, and that it's way below the actual mb limit? This is the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me, mannix and audioboxer and some other members bicker about corecycler co testing a few pages…


thank you.
I am currently testing y-cruncher kagari and I confirm this is a pain in the ass to tune CO curve with it 🥵. This is a real CO killer !

one question when I read the link you posted : All people seem to test with 1 thread per core.
Is it usual ?
Why nobody seems to test with 2 threads per core ?

*EDIT* :
I just read the thread from @sp00n82 and the answer to my question is inside the first post :








CoreCycler - tool for testing Curve Optimizer settings


Over the last couple of days resp. weeks I've been working with the Curve Optimizer for Ryzen processors a bit more, but I hadn't found a good way to test the settings for stability. CineBench single threaded almost always worked fine, and getting Prime95 stable with load on all cores was also...




www.overclock.net





*« By the way, it is intended that only one thread is stressed for each core if Hyperthreading / SMT is enabled, as the boost clock is higher this way, compared to if both (virtual) threads would be stressed. »*


----------



## GRABibus

Sleepycat said:


> It is set to Auto in Bios defaults. So you should leave it in Auto. People disable it to get lower latency scores in Aida64, but I don't see that translating into actual CPU load benchmarks.


You will improve Cinebench scores with those settings disabled.
In games, this must be checked game by game with measurements of effective clocks with and without L1 + L2.


----------



## Sleepycat

hwanzi said:


> why not just buy the 10g tubes? also have you tried the x method? if you have is the dot method still better?


All these methods would work, it comes down to personal preferences. Noctua themselves recommend the 5 dot method for a Ryzen-sized CPU. I've used the 5 dot method for my last repaste and works well.


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> You will improve Cinebench scores with those settings disabled.
> In games, this must be checked game by game with measurements of effective clocks with and without L1 + L2.


L1L2 prefetch works great for multi-thread and on mine only cost me ~25 MHz single thread. Best of all, it saves mucho power (and thus temp and related boost).

A couple of CPUz (separate multi and single core runs) from over two months ago prepped then for another thread. Not my top numbers for the 5950X (didn't post those as they're subambient), and doesn't use the L1L2 prefetch option.


----------



## xeizo

My B2 5900X performs reasonably well, this is how it runs untweaked and with virtualization + a quantizillion background tasks in Windows 11 on the B550-F. Close enough to top results to not worry about tweaking.










Conservative settings on the Hynix DJR


----------



## J7SC

....Had a few days of benching and gaming, and especially the CH8 Dark Hero / 5950X / 3090 combo is a pure joy, now that everything is set up perfectly. Best setup I've ever had maxing both performance and reliability/compatibility. Even if will I build new stuff, this one is a long-term keeper !

Thanks again to all those who have shared so many useful tips in this thread. especially re. the deeper-reaching CPU bios options😀


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> ....Had a few days of benching and gaming, and especially the CH8 Dark Hero / 5950X / 3090 combo is a pure joy, now that everything is set up perfectly. Best setup I've ever had maxing both performance and reliability/compatibility. Even if will I build new stuff, this one is a long-term keeper !
> 
> Thanks again to all those who have shared so many useful tips in this thread. especially re. the deeper-reaching CPU bios options😀


It is strange that we didn’t get new tips from @Kelutrel last week 😂


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> It is strange that we didn’t get new tips from @Kelutrel last week 😂


I am testing a way to give max vid 1.5v to EDC > 140 ... obviously it's not something you may want to have 24/7 unless you know what you are doing, because I am pretty sure that AMD had its reasons to limit max vid, but just for a top CBR20 run or two I believe nothing bad should happen.
I'll let you know if I disintegrate my precious 5900X.


----------



## metalshark

Kelutrel said:


> I am testing a way to give max vid 1.5v to EDC > 140 ... obviously it's not something you may want to have 24/7 unless you know what you are doing, because I am pretty sure that AMD had its reasons to limit max vid, but just for a top CBR20 run or two I believe nothing bad should happen.
> I'll let you know if I disintegrate my precious 5900X.


Why you'd need more than 1.46v until going sub-ambient still makes little sense. But the easiest way is to toggle LN2 mode. Also lets you increase the current capability from 140% to 200% if you get the TDC wipe-out over 230A.


----------



## Kelutrel

metalshark said:


> Why you'd need more than 1.46v until going sub-ambient still makes little sense. But the easiest way is to toggle LN2 mode. Also lets you increase the current capability from 140% to 200% if you get the TDC wipe-out over 230A.


Are you saying that enabling LN2 mode removes the max vid limit at EDC > 140 ? Did you try ? If I enable LN2 mode on my C8F I can't even boot, but maybe that's just me.


----------



## metalshark

Kelutrel said:


> Are you saying that enabling LN2 mode removes the max vid limit at EDC > 140 ? Did you try ? If I enable LN2 mode on my C8F I can't even boot, but maybe that's just me.


Yeah, it removes the 1.475v limit. But again why you'd need over 1.46v unless sub-ambient baffles me.


----------



## Kelutrel

metalshark said:


> Yeah, it removes the 1.475v limit. But again why you'd need over 1.46v unless sub-ambient baffles me.


I am not able to set LN2 mode enabled on my mobo, it just refuses to boot  any hint ?
Still if I use the 1.5v vid limit with EDC > 140, even at ambient temperatures, it seems to me that I am getting better benchmarks results and somewhat higher frequencies, although I am still testing so I am not really sure of what is going on.


----------



## metalshark

Kelutrel said:


> I am not able to set LN2 mode enabled on my mobo, it just refuses to boot  any hint ?
> Still if I remove the vid limit with EDC > 140, even at ambient temperatures, it seems to me that I am getting better benchmarks results and somewhat higher frequencies, although I am still testing so I am not really sure of what is going on.


Would clear CMOS when toggling, otherwise boots up fine, then re-enter UEFI settings. You can use the whole "boot with lower EDC" then increase when booted trick if LN2 mode causes you woes.

Still, top advice is to determine the voltage per core for max boost, only limit power if hitting 75'C on the CCD for single-core, or 90'C for multi-core (remembering we're dealing with DC electrical components without a short circuit, so it'll only draw the amperage it can use). Once you know the voltage per core for max sustained actual boost it just becomes maths to figure out the (demonstrably) best settings.

When all calculations are said and done 1455mv seems to be what the best cores for most people need, with some rare examples going up to 1460mv. Sub-ambient there's a lot more scaling.


----------



## Kelutrel

metalshark said:


> Would clear CMOS when toggling, otherwise boots up fine, then re-enter UEFI settings. You can use the whole "boot with lower EDC" then increase when booted trick if LN2 mode causes you woes.
> 
> Still, top advice is to determine the voltage per core for max boost, only limit power if hitting 75'C on the CCD for single-core, or 90'C for multi-core (remembering we're dealing with DC electrical components without a short circuit, so it'll only draw the amperage it can use). Once you know the voltage per core for max sustained actual boost it just becomes maths to figure out the (demonstrably) best settings.
> 
> When all calculations are said and done 1455mv seems to be what the best cores for most people need, with some rare examples going up to 1460mv. Sub-ambient there's a lot more scaling.


On my C8F, when testing with OCCT, and without LN2 mode:

With EDC = 140 : my cpu core vid peaks at 1.5v, and each single core vid peaks at 1.310-1.330v when under load
With EDC > 140 : my cpu core vid peaks at 1.425v, and each single core vid peaks at 1.260-1.280v when under load

Where do you read 1455-1460mv in your case ? And why do you think that the limit, when EDC > 140, is 1.475v ?


----------



## metalshark

Kelutrel said:


> On my C8F, when testing with OCCT, and without LN2 mode:
> 
> With EDC = 140 : my cpu core vid peaks at 1.5v, and each single core vid peaks at 1.310-1.330v when under load
> With EDC > 140 : my cpu core vid peaks at 1.425v, and each single core vid peaks at 1.260-1.280v when under load
> 
> Where do you read 1455-1460mv in your case ? And why do you think that the limit, when EDC > 140, is 1.475v ?


SVI2 + (3mv x CO) = mv on the core, where I am seeing 1455mv as what is required for peak speed. For instance with Luggage's example a few posts back it was 1481mv with -7 CO = 1460mv.

SVI2, even when overridden is capped at 1.475v over 140A EDC on the newer AGESAs. VID doesn't really matter as it's an output from the CPU (what it's asking the board for) rather than input and can be overridden/manipulated/outright ignored.


----------



## Kelutrel

metalshark said:


> SVI2 + (3mv x CO) = mv on the core, where I am seeing 1455mv as what is required for peak speed. For instance with Luggage's example a few posts back it was 1481mv with -7 CO = 1460mv.
> 
> SVI2, even when overridden is capped at 1.475v over 140A EDC on the newer AGESAs. VID doesn't really matter as it's an output from the CPU (what it's asking the board for) rather than input and can be overridden/manipulated/outright ignored.


Atm all my curve offsets are set at negative 30 . With LN2 enabled my cpu core vid still peaks at 1.425v max when EDC > 140 , but the single core vid goes up to 1.400-1.420v. At least looking at OCCT monitoring. Setting EDC at 140 and LN2 enabled, my cpu core vid peaks at 1.5v and each single core vid goes up to 1.460v.

Are you aware of any way to get the cpu core max vid (not svi2) reach 1.5v when EDC > 140 ?

Interesting though, maybe I can reach higher stable boost mhz with LN2 enabled due to the cores getting a higher voltage...


----------



## metalshark

Kelutrel said:


> Atm all my curve offsets are set at negative 30 . With LN2 enabled my cpu core vid still peaks at 1.425v max when EDC > 140 , but the single core vid goes up to 1.400-1.420v. At least looking at OCCT monitoring. Setting EDC at 140 and LN2 enabled, my cpu core vid peaks at 1.5v and each single core vid goes up to 1.460v.
> 
> Are you aware of any way to get the cpu core max vid (not svi2) reach 1.5v when EDC > 140 ?
> 
> Interesting though, maybe I can reach higher stable boost mhz with LN2 enabled due to the cores getting a higher voltage...


I've not personally attempted to reach 1.5v over 140A EDC, however, others have said that keeping to 140A EDC or less in the UEFI, then increasing the EDC limit using software (Ryzen Master, PBO Tool, etc) once in Windows works. I cannot confirm this firsthand.


----------



## Kelutrel

metalshark said:


> I've not personally attempted to reach 1.5v over 140A EDC, however, others have said that keeping to 140A EDC or less in the UEFI, then increasing the EDC limit using software (Ryzen Master, PBO Tool, etc) once in Windows works. I cannot confirm this firsthand.


Thank you, I will give a better look at the LN2 mode, I can see the temperatures going up quickly though.

So, for what I can see, the problem here is that, as metalshark said, the top speed that a cpu sample can reach is obtained (and can be proven) by giving to each core the max voltage it needs to reach its max stable frequency + boost. But, besides the thermals, the sum of the voltages is also limited by the EDC.
So if I have a core that can reach its top speed comfortably at 1.28v and another core that needs 1.46v instead, I can't just set the CO of that second core to positive 30 because that voltage eats from the EDC budget (let's ignore the thermal budget for now) and causes the other cores to not get enough voltage anymore. And raising the EDC to increase that budget automatically limits all the single core voltages to 1.4v .
It is probably possible to raise the EDC once in Windows using a software tool, but I would like to find a way that doesn't require such external tool, so I am going through the "sneaky" settings in the Tweaker's Paradise section to see if there is anything there that can deceive the SenseMI logics and allow a wider fine-tuning of the voltage on each core even with EDC at 140.


----------



## GRABibus

metalshark said:


> 4xSR 3800CL14 1T GDM Off 1.535v nice and stable for months. 2xDR, especially Neo's should be super capable of this.
> View attachment 2561746


Hi,
I finally could boot with GDM disabled :










Problem => Error in Karhu just at 7% coverage......
Even with max acceptable voltages as :
PLL = 1.95V
SOC=1.2V
Vram=1.6V (With VTT=0.8V)

=> I have same errors at coverage = 7%

So, what should you advise on timings ?

If I increase primaries to 16-16-16-32 for example, same problem....
If I increase trc to 400 => Same problem.

Thank you.


----------



## Theo164

Try to increase AddrCmdSetup value, it may help. e.g. 56 is the lower limit for mine


----------



## GRABibus

Theo164 said:


> Try to increase AddrCmdSetup value, it may help. e.g. 56 is the lower limit for mine


AddrCmdSetup helps for booting only ?


----------



## neikosr0x

So it appears that my random blue screens were something to do with installing Ryzen Master to checkout the CO function. For some reason after I started using it my system just went nuts, even after refreshing the CMOS I kept getting those Blue Screens. Now after a clean install and reflashing of the Latest Bios, I no longer get the blue screens lolz. Now, I am not sure if I want to try out CO on bios again hahahaha.


----------



## ChillyRide

GRABibus said:


> Hi,
> I finally could boot with GDM disabled :
> 
> View attachment 2562409
> 
> 
> Problem => Error in Karhu just at 7% coverage......
> Even with max acceptable voltages as :
> PLL = 1.95V
> SOC=1.2V
> Vram=1.6V (With VTT=0.8V)
> 
> => I have same errors at coverage = 7%
> 
> So, what should you advise on timings ?
> 
> If I increase primaries to 16-16-16-32 for example, same problem....
> If I increase trc to 400 => Same problem.
> 
> Thank you.


Might help. Enjoy OC  You dont need so much soc voltage. Its all about resistance (ProcODT, RTT and drvstr)



GRABibus said:


> AddrCmdSetup helps for booting only ?


All 3 setup values help with stability during testing.

My voltages are: Ram 1.62; Soc Auto; VDDP 0.975; CCD 1.0; IOD Auto; VTT 0.8625; However another pair of the same sticks dont like high VTT.


----------



## metalshark

GRABibus said:


> AddrCmdSetup helps for booting only ?


AFAIK those 3 settings are only at time of boot. You have a far superior time with Dual Rank compared to my Single Rank. Would have a dig through Veii and ChillyRide’s posts. VTT seems to be king with DR compared to SR (and often needs cranked up or set manually). Also see others using a flat 56/56/56 for setup timings and a tCKE as high as 16. However would encourage looking at those on 2xDR to get it stable, as my settings pertain to 4xSR.


----------



## J7SC

metalshark said:


> Yeah, it removes the 1.475v limit. But again why you'd need over 1.46v unless sub-ambient baffles me.





Kelutrel said:


> I am not able to set LN2 mode enabled on my mobo, it just refuses to boot  any hint ?
> Still if I use the 1.5v vid limit with EDC > 140, even at ambient temperatures, it seems to me that I am getting better benchmarks results and somewhat higher frequencies, although I am still testing so I am not really sure of what is going on.


IMO, I would be somewhat careful with LN2 mode, whereby _I'm not talking about you two_ gents, but other folk with less experience...I used to do XOC, including LN2, at HWBot way back and typically, LN2 mode removes some other safeties, beyond just raising limits.

On my CH8 DH / 5950X combo w/ bios 3801, I have already posted ~260W peak package power and 180A+ w/ default PBO mobo settings, yet with the latest L1L2 prefetch settings and all the other bios settings unchanged, it is more like 214W and 145A max, even at CineR23 ~ 32K, with all-core CPUv somewhere between 1.188v and 1.204v. With a small negative offset of -0.00625V, I also rarely see more 1.475V max at idle on a core.


----------



## KedarWolf

5950x $548 USD.









AMD Ryzen 9 5950X 16-core, 32-Thread Unlocked Desktop Processor : Electronics


Buy AMD Ryzen 9 5950X 16-core, 32-Thread Unlocked Desktop Processor: CPU Processors - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases



www.amazon.com


----------



## Luggage

Kelutrel said:


> I am testing a way to give max vid 1.5v to EDC > 140 ... obviously it's not something you may want to have 24/7 unless you know what you are doing, because I am pretty sure that AMD had its reasons to limit max vid, but just for a top CBR20 run or two I believe nothing bad should happen.
> I'll let you know if I disintegrate my precious 5900X.


Set 140 in bios, change up to mb limit with software - RM or PBO2Tuner. This bypasses the limit, at least it did on 1205. You can’t go over mb limits though.


----------



## GRABibus

KedarWolf said:


> 5950x $548 USD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 9 5950X 16-core, 32-Thread Unlocked Desktop Processor : Electronics
> 
> 
> Buy AMD Ryzen 9 5950X 16-core, 32-Thread Unlocked Desktop Processor: CPU Processors - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases
> 
> 
> 
> www.amazon.com


Very good price.
I got mine brand new sealed on eBay at 535€ including shipping costs.


----------



## Gegu

Hi guys

Can you guys help me with a diagnosis?
I don't know if the PBO and core issues of the 2 CPUs are the board's fault, or if I was extremely unlucky and ended up with 2 faulty 5950X samples in a row.

My hardware specs are in my profile signature.

I have a Crosshair VIII Extreme board with AGESA 1.2.0.3 patch c (bios 0402). Windows 10 + drivers up to date.
And what happens?

CPU 1 (5950X B0) - unstable PBO in any form. With PBO enabled (even with Curve Optimizer disabled) during Cinebench R23 and Y-Cruncher 2.5b benchmarks the computer sometimes shuts down without warning. No BSOD's or WHEA's.

CPU 2 (5950X B0) - Core 0 faulty when testing Core Cycler (720-720 or Moderate preset) core 0 throws errors. This happens with PBO enabled, but even with CPU and BIOS stock settings. Also with every possible ram configuration.

I had a 5900X on this motherboard before and it ran fine, no problem.

But if it's motherboard fault - how can I diagnose it?
I don't have a second PC to put these CPUs in and see if the errors happen again.


----------



## benbenkr

So I finally have time to tune my 5900x (B2). Planning to find out at what FCLK my chip can handle (testing 1900mhz now with Linpack xtreme) and reasonable RAM speed + timings. Trying to do all this before moving on to PBO2 + CO tuning (might not even do it if not worth the time).

Question for those that has already done it - what programs are you guys generally using to check for FCLK and memory stability?
I've read OCCT Large AVX2 is ok for testing FCLK? Is that right?
I've also downloaded TM5 with anta777 extreme config, I assume that's the best (aside from Karhu? I don't wanna spend money) at this moment?

How long do you guys run the stability checks for?

Thanks!


----------



## des2k...

benbenkr said:


> So I finally have time to tune my 5900x (B2). Planning to find out at what FCLK my chip can handle (testing 1900mhz now with Linpack xtreme) and reasonable RAM speed + timings. Trying to do all this before moving on to PBO2 + CO tuning (might not even do it if not worth the time).
> 
> Question for those that has already done it - what programs are you guys generally using to check for FCLK and memory stability?
> I've read OCCT Large AVX2 is ok for testing FCLK? Is that right?
> I've also downloaded TM5 with anta777 extreme config, I assume that's the best (aside from Karhu? I don't wanna spend money) at this moment?
> 
> How long do you guys run the stability checks for?
> 
> Thanks!


y-cruncher all core, option 7 cycle all test, 2h-4h is enough


----------



## GRABibus

benbenkr said:


> So I finally have time to tune my 5900x (B2). Planning to find out at what FCLK my chip can handle (testing 1900mhz now with Linpack xtreme) and reasonable RAM speed + timings. Trying to do all this before moving on to PBO2 + CO tuning (might not even do it if not worth the time).
> 
> Question for those that has already done it - what programs are you guys generally using to check for FCLK and memory stability?
> I've read OCCT Large AVX2 is ok for testing FCLK? Is that right?
> I've also downloaded TM5 with anta777 extreme config, I assume that's the best (aside from Karhu? I don't wanna spend money) at this moment?
> 
> How long do you guys run the stability checks for?
> 
> Thanks!


=> Realbench 8 hours stress test (perfect test for a gaming machine with not a crazy useless high load as with P95).
=> Karhu’s 20000% coverage
=> aida64 cache stress test 4 hours.
=> for single core stability => I just use my PC, let it idling, etc…I don’t use Corecycler.


----------



## benbenkr

des2k... said:


> y-cruncher all core, option 7 cycle all test, 2h-4h is enough





GRABibus said:


> => Realbench 8 hours stress test (perfect test for a gaming machine with not a crazy useless high load as with P95).
> => Karhu’s 20000% coverage
> => aida64 cache stress test 4 hours.
> => for single core stability => I just use my PC, let it idling, etc…I don’t use Corecycler.


Thanks guys! Will use all these tests for sure.


----------



## KedarWolf

No way I can pass TM5 with L2 prefetcher off.


----------



## heptilion

KedarWolf said:


> No way I can pass TM5 with L2 prefetcher off.


Why is that?


----------



## rostock27

Hello, I have a Crosshair VIII Formula since the BIOS update 4210, when I disconnect my PC from the power supply, it automatically resets the BIOS to the factory settings, which could be the reason, I would be happy to answer.


----------



## neikosr0x

rostock27 said:


> Hello, I have a Crosshair VIII Formula since the BIOS update 4210, when I disconnect my PC from the power supply, it automatically resets the BIOS to the factory settings, which could be the reason, I would be happy to answer.
> View attachment 2562686


It might be a bad mobo battery. Make sure it is well connected, also try different bios version to see if the issue persists.


----------



## Kelutrel

rostock27 said:


> Hello, I have a Crosshair VIII Formula since the BIOS update 4210, when I disconnect my PC from the power supply, it automatically resets the BIOS to the factory settings, which could be the reason, I would be happy to answer.
> View attachment 2562686


I have the same motherboard and cpu and also using the same BIOS version. I have not noticed anything like what you described, but have noticed some similar issue when upgrading from an older bios version to a newer one using the EZFlash tool in the BIOS and/or loading the previous saved BIOS profile with the newer bios.
In my case that problem was solved by re-flashing the newer BIOS version using the BIOS flashback button with a USB drive containing the newer BIOS version.
So, how did you flash the 4201 version ?


----------



## J7SC

rostock27 said:


> Hello, I have a Crosshair VIII Formula since the BIOS update 4210, when I disconnect my PC from the power supply, it automatically resets the BIOS to the factory settings, which could be the reason, I would be happy to answer.
> View attachment 2562686


...does the time / date reset as well when you disconnect ? If so, it likely is the onboard battery on the mobo.


----------



## rostock27

Kelutrel said:


> Ich habe das gleiche Motherboard und die gleiche CPU und verwende auch die gleiche BIOS-Version. Ich habe nichts wie das, was Sie beschrieben haben, bemerkt, aber ich habe ein ähnliches Problem beim Upgrade von einer älteren BIOS-Version auf eine neuere mit dem EZFlash-Tool im BIOS und/oder der Verwendung des vorherigen BIOS-Einstellungsprofils mit dem neueren BIOS festgestellt.
> In meinem Fall wurde dieses Problem gelöst, indem die neuere BIOS-Version mit der BIOS-Flashback-Taste mit einem USB-Laufwerk mit der neueren BIOS-Version erneut geflasht wurde.
> Also, wie hast du die 4201-Version geflasht?
> [/ZITIEREN]





Kelutrel said:


> I have the same motherboard and cpu and also using the same BIOS version. I have not noticed anything like what you described, but have noticed some similar issue when upgrading from an older bios version to a newer one using the EZFlash tool in the BIOS and/or loading the previous saved BIOS profile with the newer bios.
> In my case that problem was solved by re-flashing the newer BIOS version using the BIOS flashback button with a USB drive containing the newer BIOS version.
> So, how did you flash the 4201 version ?


 The first time via the BIOS button on the mainboard and a second time directly via the BIOS.


----------



## rostock27

J7SC said:


> ...wird die Uhrzeit / das Datum auch zurückgesetzt, wenn Sie die Verbindung trennen? Wenn ja, liegt es wahrscheinlich an der Bordbatterie des Mobo.
> [/ZITIEREN]
> Ja Datum und Uhrzeit stimmt


----------



## Kelutrel

rostock27 said:


> The first time via the BIOS button on the mainboard and a second time directly via the BIOS.


When you flashed it using the BIOS flashback button on the back of the motherboard, was it the BIOS 4201 version ? How was the file named on the usb drive ?
Also, be sure to disable the "Erase fTPM NV for factory reset" option in the BIOS after each flash.


----------



## rostock27

Kelutrel said:


> Löschen Sie fTPM NV für das Zurücksetzen auf die Werkseinstellungen
> [/ZITIEREN]
> Sorry, darf ich fragen, wo ich es einstellen muss?


----------



## Kelutrel

Sorry, I don't speak german. If all else fails, you can try to change the CMOS battery like neikosr0x and J7SC suggested, it is on the bottom right of the motherboard. If it was the CMOS battery it would reset the BIOS settings and date/time at each reboot, and not just when you remove the power, though.


----------



## rostock27

Kelutrel said:


> When you flashed it using the BIOS flashback button on the back of the motherboard, was it the BIOS 4201 version ? How was the file named on the usb drive ?
> Also, be sure to disable the "Erase fTPM NV for factory reset" option in the BIOS after each flash.


Where do I put it? Erase fTPM NV for factory reset


----------



## Kelutrel

rostock27 said:


> Where do I put it? Erase fTPM NV for factory reset


It is in the BIOS in the "Advanced/AMD fTPM configuration" page. It is very important to set it to DISABLED after every BIOS flash, before attempting the first boot in Windows.


----------



## rostock27

Kelutrel said:


> Es befindet sich im BIOS auf der Seite „Advanced/AMD fTPM configuration“. Es ist sehr wichtig, es nach jedem BIOS-Flash auf DISABLED zu setzen, bevor Sie den ersten Start in Windows versuchen.
> [/ZITIEREN]


I just saw that the date in the bios is January 1st, 2021, so it will probably be the battery, as J7CS wrote


----------



## rostock27

Hello, wanted to thank you again neikosr0x , kelutrel , J7SC it was the battery.


----------



## shaolin95

Hi all!
I have been out of the loop for a while..I am still running 3902. 
Anything worth upgrading to...more stability for USB improvements, performance etc?


----------



## Blackfyre

shaolin95 said:


> Hi all!
> I have been out of the loop for a while..I am still running 3902.
> Anything worth upgrading to...more stability for USB improvements, performance etc?


From what I remember, for some people yes, for others no.

Best to check your case yourself, update the BIOS (_latest on official site, don't forget to rename_). Make sure you backup your settings and know what they are too.

Also update the chipset drivers after that to the latest version. *From Asus Forums below:*





[DRIVERS] AMD Chipset/RAID (3xx/4xx/5xx/6xx/TRX40)


Hi everyone, - AMD Chipset Drivers : Package : 4.11.15.342 WHQL Download : Link - AMD RAID Drivers (Drivers Only) : Drivers - NVMe - 6xx/TRX40 : 9.3.2.158 WHQL



rog.asus.com





If you don't find any improvements, or the opposite happens and things are worse for you, then you can always roll back anyway.


----------



## neikosr0x

shaolin95 said:


> Hi all!
> I have been out of the loop for a while..I am still running 3902.
> Anything worth upgrading to...more stability for USB improvements, performance etc?


Well atm, the latest bios is running well on my Dark hero, EDC limit is still 140 but in my case, I have no need to enable it, the performance is ok and the weird stutter due to the PTM being enabled is gone.


----------



## shaolin95

neikosr0x said:


> Well atm, the latest bios is running well on my Dark hero, EDC limit is still 140 but in my case, I have no need to enable it, the performance is ok and the weird stutter due to the PTM being enabled is gone.


4201? or some newer beta posted here?
Thanks


----------



## shaolin95

Blackfyre said:


> From what I remember, for some people yes, for others no.
> 
> Best to check your case yourself, update the BIOS (_latest on official site, don't forget to rename_). Make sure you backup your settings and know what they are too.
> 
> Also update the chipset drivers after that to the latest version. *From Asus Forums below:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [DRIVERS] AMD Chipset/RAID (3xx/4xx/5xx/6xx/TRX40)
> 
> 
> Hi everyone, - AMD Chipset Drivers : Package : 4.11.15.342 WHQL Download : Link - AMD RAID Drivers (Drivers Only) : Drivers - NVMe - 6xx/TRX40 : 9.3.2.158 WHQL
> 
> 
> 
> rog.asus.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't find any improvements, or the opposite happens and things are worse for you, then you can always roll back anyway.


Gonna give it a shot. Searching for newer betas around here as I normally was going with those unless I found bad feedback lol
Thanks


----------



## neikosr0x

shaolin95 said:


> 4201? or some newer beta posted here?
> Thanks


4201 currently.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> All these methods would work, it comes down to personal preferences. Noctua themselves recommend the 5 dot method for a Ryzen-sized CPU. I've used the 5 dot method for my last repaste and works well.


Hello amigo.
Mind sharing your latest Bios (if you are on 4201)? Your settings are always a great base for my system. 
Thanks


----------



## shaolin95

deleted


----------



## Blackfyre

shaolin95 said:


> Gonna give it a shot. Searching for newer betas around here as I normally was going with those unless I found bad feedback lol
> Thanks


*The latest official is newer than the latest beta here.*





ROG Crosshair VIII Hero (WI-FI) | ROG Crosshair VIII Hero (WI-FI) | Gaming Motherboards｜ROG - Republic of Gamers｜ROG Australia


ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO(WI-FI)



rog.asus.com


----------



## J7SC

Christmas in July June ?


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> Hello amigo.
> Mind sharing your latest Bios (if you are on 4201)? Your settings are always a great base for my system.
> Thanks


Hey, I've actually been just using the same settings that I shared previously and just updating the bios. I don't have any issues with the new bioses, but also keep in mind that I am running very conservative settings due to my 64GB RAM at 3600 CL14, and also using Hydra to control the CPU speed instead of PBO.


----------



## Sleepycat

Blackfyre said:


> Also update the chipset drivers after that to the latest version. *From Asus Forums below:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [DRIVERS] AMD Chipset/RAID (3xx/4xx/5xx/6xx/TRX40)
> 
> 
> Hi everyone, - AMD Chipset Drivers : Package : 4.11.15.342 WHQL Download : Link - AMD RAID Drivers (Drivers Only) : Drivers - NVMe - 6xx/TRX40 : 9.3.2.158 WHQL
> 
> 
> 
> rog.asus.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't find any improvements, or the opposite happens and things are worse for you, then you can always roll back anyway.


Given the feedback from that thread, it doesn't sound promising if it is screwing up with your boot drive selection, and they can't even provide a changelog.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> Hey, I've actually been just using the same settings that I shared previously and just updating the bios. I don't have any issues with the new bioses, but also keep in mind that I am running very conservative settings due to my 64GB RAM at 3600 CL14, and also using Hydra to control the CPU speed instead of PBO.


Yep seems to be very stable with my old settings. 
How is Hydra these days? I was never lucky with it no matter how I tested stability.


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> Yep seems to be very stable with my old settings.
> How is Hydra these days? I was never lucky with it no matter how I tested stability.


Been excellent, I use Hydra to undervolt, while still getting moderately high multi and single core speeds for long term use at 100% load across all 12 cores. And I'm also using an older version as I have not resubscribed to the Patreon since 1.1A Pro.
Multi: 4.6 / 4.5 GHz @ 1.225V (56 ºC with case internal temperature of 29 ºC)
Single: 4.925 GHz @ 1.375V


----------



## benbenkr

GRABibus said:


> => Realbench 8 hours stress test (perfect test for a gaming machine with not a crazy useless high load as with P95).
> => Karhu’s 20000% coverage
> => aida64 cache stress test 4 hours.
> => for single core stability => I just use my PC, let it idling, etc…I don’t use Corecycler.


So I tested RealBench twice, 8 hours and 16GB mem. Both times I get WHEA errors.

The weird thing is that I get zero errors in all other tests like P95, OCCT v11, ycruncher, ans linpack extreme. 

It's leading me to believe there's something wrong with RealBench instead?


----------



## GRABibus

benbenkr said:


> So I tested RealBench twice, 8 hours and 16GB mem. Both times I get WHEA errors.
> 
> The weird thing is that I get zero errors in all other tests like P95, OCCT v11, ycruncher, ans linpack extreme.
> 
> It's leading me to believe there's something wrong with RealBench instead?


You are unstable.
Realbench has no issue 😊

You should post your settings to get advices.


----------



## Luggage

benbenkr said:


> So I tested RealBench twice, 8 hours and 16GB mem. Both times I get WHEA errors.
> 
> The weird thing is that I get zero errors in all other tests like P95, OCCT v11, ycruncher, ans linpack extreme.
> 
> It's leading me to believe there's something wrong with RealBench instead?


What other 1T, light loads stress tests have you done? Corecycler, occt core switcher?


----------



## benbenkr

GRABibus said:


> You are unstable.
> Realbench has no issue 😊
> 
> You should post your settings to get advices.


I have WHEA issues with RealBench too if I set everything to stock and JEDEC 2133 for RAM. No other stress test is unstable, that's why it is weird to me.

These are my current settings:









VDIMM is 1.45v.
As you can see the timings aren't even that tight.

If it's an FCLK issue, then how would RealBench still cause WHEA errors when I set the CPU to stock FCLK?




Luggage said:


> What other 1T, light loads stress tests have you done? Corecycler, occt core switcher?


I've played some games - Destiny 2 and Tekken 7 for about 3 hours each, both are fairly light in CPU loads. No WHEA errors there, both games were smooth as butter.

I haven't tried corecycler. But yes I've tried OCCT core switcher, no issues there either.


----------



## GRABibus

benbenkr said:


> I have WHEA issues with RealBench too if I set everything to stock and JEDEC 2133 for RAM. No other stress test is unstable, that's why it is weird to me.
> 
> These are my current settings:
> View attachment 2562928
> 
> 
> VDIMM is 1.45v.
> As you can see the timings aren't even that tight.
> 
> If it's an FCLK issue, then how would RealBench still cause WHEA errors when I set the CPU to stock FCLK?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've played some games - Destiny 2 and Tekken 7 for about 3 hours each, both are fairly light in CPU loads. No WHEA errors there, both games were smooth as butter.
> 
> I haven't tried corecycler. But yes I've tried OCCT core switcher, no issues there either.


Try to increase :
CLO voltage to 1V
CCD voltage to 1V
IOD voltage to 1,05V


----------



## benbenkr

GRABibus said:


> Try to increase :
> CLO voltage to 1V
> CCD voltage to 1V
> IOD voltage to 1,05V


I increased CLDO VDDP to 0.95, VDDG CCD to 1v and VDDG IOD to 1v:










1 WHEA error after a 4 hour test with RealBench.
Zero WHEA errors with all other tests I have mentioned.

Again, I repeat - I also have 1 WHEA error with RealBench using *stock BIOS settings*. I am confused as to why even stock settings has WHEA error?


----------



## J7SC

benbenkr said:


> I increased CLDO VDDP to 0.95, VDDG CCD to 1v and VDDG IOD to 1v:
> 
> View attachment 2562930
> 
> 
> 1 WHEA error after a 4 hour test with RealBench.
> Zero WHEA errors with all other tests I have mentioned.
> 
> Again, I repeat - I also have 1 WHEA error with RealBench using *stock BIOS settings*._ I am confused as to why even stock settings has WHEA error?_


...While your 3200C14 RAM kit should not have too much trouble oc'ing, you are nevertheless running that kit at 3800 (at least per above Zen sheet). As a next step, I would try 3733 which also reduces the IF 1900 as a potential source of the WHEA error.


----------



## des2k...

I haven't run realbench for a while but it does stress the cpu,mem & gpu. So you might have fclk issue from gpu pcie 4.0 traffic since that also goes on the fclk.

Or could be the vrm/vcore as it cycles cpu load and it's not fixed 100% heavy load like other test.


----------



## metalshark

shaolin95 said:


> Yep seems to be very stable with my old settings.
> How is Hydra these days? I was never lucky with it no matter how I tested stability.


Hydra’s been going from strength to strength. Still recommend manually dialling it in instead of using the automated diagnostic.


----------



## J7SC

metalshark said:


> Hydra’s been going from strength to strength. Still recommend manually dialling it in instead of using the automated diagnostic.


I used the (original) hydra to generate manual CO curves, then dialed them back to 'mild' for daily operations per manual bios tuning. Also, hydra, at least the early version(s) doesn't seem to like DynOC on the CH8 Dark Hero.


----------



## benbenkr

J7SC said:


> ...While your 3200C14 RAM kit should not have too much trouble oc'ing, you are nevertheless running that kit at 3800 (at least per above Zen sheet). As a next step, I would try 3733 which also reduces the IF 1900 as a potential source of the WHEA error.


I will try 3733 eventually.

What I'm trying to understand is why all the other tests that has been recommended (OCCT, P95, ycruncher, linpack) by people here has no issues, but RealBench is the one bringing up a single WHEA error. 

Considering that all other tests pummels the CPU, memory and GPU (I ran P95 small FFT + TM5 + looping port royal) even harder than what RealBench does but showed zero errors. That's what is confusing me.


----------



## GRABibus

benbenkr said:


> I will try 3733 eventually.
> 
> What I'm trying to understand is why all the other tests that has been recommended (OCCT, P95, ycruncher, linpack) by people here has no issues, but RealBench is the one bringing up a single WHEA error.
> 
> Considering that all other tests pummels the CPU, memory and GPU (I ran P95 small FFT + TM5 + looping port royal) even harder than what RealBench does but showed zero errors. That's what is confusing me.



Try aida64 cache stress test and see if you also get Whea or hardware failure


----------



## benbenkr

GRABibus said:


> Try aida64 cache stress test and see if you also get Whea or hardware failure


Will do that, thanks for the tip.

EDIT -
Upped IOD to 1.05v, Realbench finally stopped throwing out that 1 odd WHEA error after an 8 hour 16gb mem test.

Current settings:


----------



## GRABibus

benbenkr said:


> Will do that, thanks for the tip.
> 
> EDIT -
> Upped IOD to 1.05v, Realbench finally stopped throwing out that 1 odd WHEA error after an 8 hour 16gb mem test.
> 
> Current settings:
> 
> View attachment 2563009


1,05V IOD was the value I advised you to test 😊









ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...


Hi all! I have been out of the loop for a while..I am still running 3902. Anything worth upgrading to...more stability for USB improvements, performance etc? :) Well atm, the latest bios is running well on my Dark hero, EDC limit is still 140 but in my case, I have no need to enable it, the...




www.overclock.net


----------



## benbenkr

GRABibus said:


> 1,05V IOD was the value I advised you to test 😊
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...
> 
> 
> Hi all! I have been out of the loop for a while..I am still running 3902. Anything worth upgrading to...more stability for USB improvements, performance etc? :) Well atm, the latest bios is running well on my Dark hero, EDC limit is still 140 but in my case, I have no need to enable it, the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


Yes thank you very much.

Though personally I do think IOD at 1.05v is a tad high. Many other people advise to stay at or below 1v?


----------



## GRABibus

I am at 1,05V since one year and half.
I think there is no problem for it.
Either you get wheas (which can potentially creates data loss) or you set it at 1,05V.

You also can try 3733MHz as @J7SC suggested. You will maybe not be constrained to raise IOD to 1,05V.

But this doesn’t explain why you get Whea’s at stock ….🤔


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> But this doesn’t explain why you get Whea’s at stock ….🤔


Maybe only memory at stock, but voltages custom?

For the protocol, I have three Zen 3 builds running, all at said 1.05V and zero problems


----------



## benbenkr

GRABibus said:


> I am at 1,05V since one year and half.
> I think there is no problem for it.
> Either you get wheas (which can potentially creates data loss) or you set it at 1,05V.
> 
> You also can try 3733MHz as @J7SC suggested. You will maybe not be constrained to raise IOD to 1,05V.
> 
> But this doesn’t explain why you get Whea’s at stock ….🤔


Or I could just do 3600CL14 with super tight sub and tertiary timings too.... the differences aren't very big between 3600 to 3800 I find.

Yeah I still haven't found out the reason for WHEA at stock settings, again it only happens when running Realbench and is always only that 1 weird WHEA error. Is not like I'm getting hundreds of WHEA spams in event viewer.

Btw a question on vSOC voltage, I had to put it at 1.125v to counter the vdroop. HWinfo would read it at 1.104v under load. But when I put 1.1v in BIOS, it only reads 1.075v. Should I reduce the vSOC back to 1.1v?




xeizo said:


> Maybe only memory at stock, but voltages custom?
> 
> For the protocol, I have three Zen 3 builds running, all at said 1.05V and zero problems


Voltages are left to "Auto" at stock. These are the settings at stock:










Doesn't look like anything is out of the ordinary here?


----------



## Sleepycat

benbenkr said:


> Or I could just do 3600CL14 with super tight sub and tertiary timings too.... the differences aren't very big between 3600 to 3800 I find.


Might as well since you have a good B-die kit.



> Yeah I still haven't found out the reason for WHEA at stock settings, again it only happens when running Realbench and is always only that 1 weird WHEA error. Is not like I'm getting hundreds of WHEA spams in event viewer.


Maybe something is marginal. I found that stock settings was not really the best for my launch day 5900X.



> Btw a question on vSOC voltage, I had to put it at 1.125v to counter the vdroop. HWinfo would read it at 1.104v under load. But when I put 1.1v in BIOS, it only reads 1.075v. Should I reduce the vSOC back to 1.1v?


I use VSOC LLC level 3 to counter vdroop.



> Voltages are left to "Auto" at stock. These are the settings at stock:
> 
> View attachment 2563091
> 
> 
> Doesn't look like anything is out of the ordinary here?


I don't leave anything in auto. All my voltages, and subtimings are manually entered. VDIMM is 1.46V.


----------



## Sleepycat

J7SC said:


> I used the (original) hydra to generate manual CO curves, then dialed them back to 'mild' for daily operations per manual bios tuning. Also, hydra, at least the early version(s) doesn't seem to like DynOC on the CH8 Dark Hero.


Just resubscribed to try out Hydra 1.1G. I found the Hydra-generated CO for PBO too aggressive, causing my software to crash under AVX2 loads. Also, Hybrid OC also gives me better performance for the additional power consumption compared to PBO2. It was double the power consumption when using PBO2 for a similar performance increase in all-core CB R23.


----------



## Sleepycat

benbenkr said:


> Yes thank you very much.
> 
> Though personally I do think IOD at 1.05v is a tad high. Many other people advise to stay at or below 1v?


VDDG IOD is fine for 1.05V. The one that people advise to stay below 1V is CLDO VDDP.

I've been running VDDG IOD at 1.05V since Zen3 launched at end 2020.


----------



## metalshark

benbenkr said:


> Yes thank you very much.
> 
> Though personally I do think IOD at 1.05v is a tad high. Many other people advise to stay at or below 1v?











Source: https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/reviews/overclocking-amd-ryzen,5011-2.html

Then IOD and CCD are to be at least 50mv lower than vSoC. Please remember these voltages are end results, so account for LLC and the lag from the VRM when lifting a high load suddenly.

Personally have been running IOD at 1.05v since launch, and some have been running 1.1v (for 4xDR) for over a year.


----------



## metalshark

J7SC said:


> I used the (original) hydra to generate manual CO curves, then dialed them back to 'mild' for daily operations per manual bios tuning. Also, hydra, at least the early version(s) doesn't seem to like DynOC on the CH8 Dark Hero.


Yeah, you'll want to turn off the (non)Dynamic OC (the one where you're doing effectively a manual static overclock over a certain usage) and use Hydra only. V Latch on an Extreme is fine, but don't know anyone on a Dark Hero who hasn't now disabled (non)Dynamic OC in their UEFI when using Hydra, as Hydra alone is giving better results.


----------



## Kelutrel

metalshark said:


> View attachment 2563130
> 
> Source: https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/reviews/overclocking-amd-ryzen,5011-2.html
> 
> Then IOD and CCD are to be at least 50mv lower than vSoC. Please remember these voltages are end results, so account for LLC and the lag from the VRM when lifting a high load suddenly.
> 
> Personally have been running IOD at 1.05v since launch, and some have been running 1.1v (for 4xDR) for over a year.


This is amazing (and also a bit laughable... that cpu core max at 1.45v). Thank you.


----------



## Theo164

Sleepycat said:


> Just resubscribed to try out Hydra 1.1G. I found the Hydra-generated CO for PBO too aggressive, causing my software to crash under AVX2 loads. Also, Hybrid OC also gives me better performance for the additional power consumption compared to PBO2. It was double the power consumption when using PBO2 for a similar performance increase in all-core CB R23.
> 
> View attachment 2563124
> 
> View attachment 2563125



Identical results here (1.1F) Hybrid OC is stable, MT scores are much more efficient than PBO
Unfortunately ST performance can't match PBO no matter what, and I've spent many hours from time to time almost test every version even with unstable OC, this is the reason i don't use it daily

Hydra auto diagnostic (L) VS Hydra max stable (R)









Hydra diagnostic CO values









Identical Hybrid OC MT results much more efficient than pbo ones


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> This is amazing (and also a bit laughable... that cpu core max at 1.45v). Thank you.


I think those voltages are intended as permanent voltages.
Otherwise, this would be contradictory with Vcore @ 1,5V which AMD says that there is no issue with it.


----------



## metalshark

GRABibus said:


> I think those voltages are intended a permanent voltages.
> Otherwise, this would be contradictory with Vcore @ 1,5V which AMD says that there is no issue with it.


Yup, you're bang on, it's static rather than PBO.


----------



## metalshark

Theo164 said:


> Identical results here (1.1F) Hybrid OC is stable, MT scores are much more efficient than PBO
> Unfortunately ST performance can't match PBO no matter what, and I've spent many hours from time to time almost test every version even with unstable OC, this is the reason i don't use it daily
> 
> Hydra auto diagnostic (L) VS Hydra max stable (R)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hydra diagnostic CO values
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Identical Hybrid OC MT results much more efficient than pbo ones


The results from the automatic diagnostic leave a lot to be desired, would recommend determining manually. It's time-consuming, but the same settings work from version to version. 1usmus normally gives you a few more settings for each version to tune-up. Think profile 1 is at a default of 1375mv which can be cranked up immediately to restore single-threaded speeds. Ended up tuning each profile's mv, then doing the CO for ST/MT, and have since gone into offsets for CO.


----------



## GRABibus

Theo164 said:


> Unfortunately ST performance can't match PBO no matter what, and I've spent many hours from time to time almost test every version even with unstable OC, this is the reason i don't use it daily


This is why I tune manually the PBO/CO


----------



## J7SC

metalshark said:


> Yeah, you'll want to turn off the (non)Dynamic OC (the one where you're doing effectively a manual static overclock over a certain usage) and use Hydra only. V Latch on an Extreme is fine, but don't know anyone on a Dark Hero who hasn't now disabled (non)Dynamic OC in their UEFI when using Hydra, as Hydra alone is giving better results.


...I had DynamicOC off for the Hydra test just to generate its suggested CO values. Then I turned DynamicOC back on and did two 'mild' manual CO profiles (with and w/o Dynamic OC). My daily setup runs DynamicOC and one of the mild CO profiles (mild = '15' instead of '30' etc). I also now use the L1L2 prefetch off 24/7, mostly to save power (> a lot). Below is one hour++ of FS2020 w/ a RTX 3090 in the same custom loop. Compared to L1L2 on, I only lost around 25-30 Mhz effective single-core CPU top speed in this test....unnoticeable in apps, IMO. 

Re. RAM / IF / IMC and related voltages, I restrict SoCv, IOD etc a bit, along with a small global undervolt for the 5950X (incl. for DynOC)...re. RAM, same voltage settings whether 3800 or 3966.


----------



## Xipe

Tomorrow i get the 
Team Group T-Force Xtreem ARGB White 32GB (2x16GB) 3600MHz (PC4-28800) CL14 - Memoria DDR4
Can i get 3800 cl14? i have dark hero and 5900x b2


----------



## Nizzen

Xipe said:


> Tomorrow i get the
> Team Group T-Force Xtreem ARGB White 32GB (2x16GB) 3600MHz (PC4-28800) CL14 - Memoria DDR4
> Can i get 3800 cl14? i have dark hero and 5900x b2


Cool it enough, and push 1.46-1.55v into it  3800c14 easy


----------



## Xipe

Nizzen said:


> Cool it enough, and push 1.46-1.55v into it  3800c14 easy


and subtimmings? or put in xmp and auto?


----------



## GRABibus

ChillyRide said:


> Might help. Enjoy OC  You dont need so much soc voltage. Its all about resistance (ProcODT, RTT and drvstr)
> 
> 
> All 3 setup values help with stability during testing.
> 
> My voltages are: Ram 1.62; Soc Auto; VDDP 0.975; CCD 1.0; IOD Auto; VTT 0.8625; However another pair of the same sticks dont like high VTT.





metalshark said:


> AFAIK those 3 settings are only at time of boot. You have a far superior time with Dual Rank compared to my Single Rank. Would have a dig through Veii and ChillyRide’s posts. VTT seems to be king with DR compared to SR (and often needs cranked up or set manually). Also see others using a flat 56/56/56 for setup timings and a tCKE as high as 16. However would encourage looking at those on 2xDR to get it stable, as my settings pertain to 4xSR.


Thank you @metalshark and @ChillyRide for advises.
I tried hours and hour to stabilize GDM disabled.
I give up.

always getting errors in Karhu's despite high voltages, miscellaneous combinations of resisitors, timings, etc...

I keep my "stable" GDM "enabled» OC, which provides very nice latencies :


----------



## des2k...

GRABibus said:


> Thank you @metalshark and @ChillyRide for advises.
> I tried hours and hour to stabilize GDM disabled.
> I give up.
> 
> always getting errors in Karhu's despite high voltages, miscellaneous combinations of resisitors, timings, etc...
> 
> I keep my "stable" GMD "On" OC, which provides very nice latencies :
> 
> View attachment 2563176


GDM off 1T is not worth anything at high speed IF on Amd. That .5ns less latency won't even register in aida64. 

The limit is really the mclk 1900mhz in that dual ccd if you already run cl14.

The next latency drop needs 2000 for mclk even at cl16. But that's asking alot with IF running through that crap cpu pcb from Amd😂


----------



## shaolin95

Theo164 said:


> Identical results here (1.1F) Hybrid OC is stable, MT scores are much more efficient than PBO
> Unfortunately ST performance can't match PBO no matter what, and I've spent many hours from time to time almost test every version even with unstable OC, this is the reason i don't use it daily
> 
> Hydra auto diagnostic (L) VS Hydra max stable (R)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hydra diagnostic CO values
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Identical Hybrid OC MT results much more efficient than pbo ones


That is exactly my experience. ST performance (which a lot of stuff in Photoshop still benefits from, for example) has always been an issue using Hydra for me. It always ends up under performing or crashing when I try to boost it to match my PBO performance. And this was using not just their auto tune but the long and tedious manual process recommended. PBO somehow always gets me a faster and completely stable ST and a comparable MT.
I was hoping this new version would be better but it seems our CPUs just dont like the app


----------



## metalshark

shaolin95 said:


> That is exactly my experience. ST performance (which a lot of stuff in Photoshop still benefits from, for example) has always been an issue using Hydra for me. It always ends up under performing or crashing when I try to boost it to match my PBO performance. And this was using not just their auto tune but the long and tedious manual process recommended. PBO somehow always gets me a faster and completely stable ST and a comparable MT.
> I was hoping this new version would be better but it seems our CPUs just dont like the app


That’s a wild variance from others who match or exceed using Hydra. What mv for what max boost on a core were you trying to hit and what were the pertinent Hydra settings vs PBO? You’ll find you’ve not got the settings between the two aligned, as you can hit the same whilst fine tuning more and (if at the +30/-30 limit) go further.

If you join the Discord you’ll find helpful posts such as item 3 of:





Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities


Discord is the easiest way to communicate over voice, video, and text. Chat, hang out, and stay close with your friends and communities.




discord.com


----------



## shaolin95

metalshark said:


> That’s a wild variance from others who match or exceed using Hydra. What mv for what max boost on a core were you trying to hit and what were the pertinent Hydra settings vs PBO? You’ll find you’ve not got the settings between the two aligned, as you can hit the same whilst fine tuning more and (if at the +30/-30 limit) go further.
> 
> If you join the Discord you’ll find helpful posts such as item 3 of:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities
> 
> 
> Discord is the easiest way to communicate over voice, video, and text. Chat, hang out, and stay close with your friends and communities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> discord.com


I tried everything under the Sun, I have been using it way before it became hydra. Results were always the same. Plus I am not alone on this either, so is not the typical pebcak. I exchanged PMs with Yuri and worked with others on discord as well but results were always the same, inferior ST performance or instability if trying to match my PBO.


----------



## GRABibus

ChillyRide said:


> Might help. Enjoy OC  You dont need so much soc voltage. Its all about resistance (ProcODT, RTT and drvstr)
> 
> 
> All 3 setup values help with stability during testing.
> 
> My voltages are: Ram 1.62; Soc Auto; VDDP 0.975; CCD 1.0; IOD Auto; VTT 0.8625; However another pair of the same sticks dont like high VTT.


Why did you test only 21 threads in Karhu ?


----------



## xeizo

LoL I've struggled for a week to get "The Outer Worlds"(from Gamepass) to run nicely on my 5800X3D(all other games does). Tried every setting, always laggy in Windows 11, the solution was real simple: just turn off Geforce Experience overlay. Now, buttery smooth in every way, running a 144Hz monitor with G-sync, fps is 90-144Hz(I've capped at 144Hz) - no lag and no tearing. That is at 3440x1440 with a RTX3070.

A lot of questions on that one on the interwebs, most people seem to have given up on that game because they couldn't fix the stutter. Strange thing is, I've seen people with AMD RX68** cards having the same problem. Do the Adrenaline drivers use overlay as well? Anyway, it was a hard nut to crack as the suggestions on the webs where numerous but didn't cure any stutter. Only removing overlay did.

It's nice to actually use my X570 rig, contrary to just benching it 

Oh, and the 5800X3D is a hot little devil, 86.4C max for CPU die during a couple of hours gaming session.


----------



## LorDClockaN

xeizo said:


> LoL I've struggled for a week to get "The Outer Worlds"(from Gamepass) to run nicely on my 5800X3D(all other games does). Tried every setting, always laggy in Windows 11, the solution was real simple: just turn off Geforce Experience overlay. Now, buttery smooth in every way, running a 144Hz monitor with G-sync, fps is 90-144Hz(I've capped at 144Hz) - no lag and no tearing. That is at 3440x1440 with a RTX3070.
> 
> A lot of questions on that one on the interwebs, most people seem to have given up on that game because they couldn't fix the stutter. Strange thing is, I've seen people with AMD RX68** cards having the same problem. Do the Adrenaline drivers use overlay as well? Anyway, it was a hard nut to crack as the suggestions on the webs where numerous but didn't cure any stutter. Only removing overlay did.
> 
> It's nice to actually use my X570 rig, contrary to just benching it
> 
> Oh, and the 5800X3D is a hot little devil, 86.4C max for CPU die during a couple of hours gaming session.


Why would anyone even install GeForce Experience?

I'm glad you found the culprit


----------



## J7SC

xeizo said:


> LoL I've struggled for a week to get "The Outer Worlds"(from Gamepass) to run nicely on my 5800X3D(all other games does). Tried every setting, always laggy in Windows 11, the solution was real simple: just turn off Geforce Experience overlay. Now, buttery smooth in every way, running a 144Hz monitor with G-sync, fps is 90-144Hz(I've capped at 144Hz) - no lag and no tearing. That is at 3440x1440 with a RTX3070.
> 
> A lot of questions on that one on the interwebs, most people seem to have given up on that game because they couldn't fix the stutter. Strange thing is, I've seen people with AMD RX68** cards having the same problem. Do the Adrenaline drivers use overlay as well? Anyway, it was a hard nut to crack as the suggestions on the webs where numerous but didn't cure any stutter. Only removing overlay did.
> 
> It's nice to actually use my X570 rig, contrary to just benching it


...yup - I turned AMD overlay off in my 6900XT work system (and GeForce Experience / 3090 in the gaming system) and any related stuttering went away...when running Superposition 4K w/ the 6900XT and overlay on, you could actually see the fps drop...


----------



## xeizo

LorDClockaN said:


> Why would anyone even install GeForce Experience?
> 
> I'm glad you found the culprit


It has some nice features for when doing video work, and frankly The Outer Worlds is the only game I've encountered that stutters from it. But there may be more out there, of course.


----------



## xeizo

J7SC said:


> ...yup - I turned AMD overlay off in my 6900XT work system (and GeForce Experience / 3090 in the gaming system) and any related stuttering went away...when running Superposition 4K w/ the 6900XT and overlay on, you could actually see the fps drop...


A quick and clear confirmation, yes, overlay looks to be a fierce enemy to gaming ...


----------



## TimeDrapery

benbenkr said:


> Or I could just do 3600CL14 with super tight sub and tertiary timings too.... the differences aren't very big between 3600 to 3800 I find.
> 
> Yeah I still haven't found out the reason for WHEA at stock settings, again it only happens when running Realbench and is always only that 1 weird WHEA error. Is not like I'm getting hundreds of WHEA spams in event viewer.
> 
> Btw a question on vSOC voltage, I had to put it at 1.125v to counter the vdroop. HWinfo would read it at 1.104v under load. But when I put 1.1v in BIOS, it only reads 1.075v. Should I reduce the vSOC back to 1.1v?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voltages are left to "Auto" at stock. These are the settings at stock:
> 
> View attachment 2563091
> 
> 
> Doesn't look like anything is out of the ordinary here?


That's not "stock" that's XMP


----------



## ronindj68

Hi All,
after updating my dark hero with last 4201 bios, I am trying to recalculate the PPT TDC EDC parameters becouse i have lost significantly oveclock performance. So i am try to find best value of PBP with Ryzen master but I think I'm doing something wrong. Does have this bios version any problem ? Is better roll back to previus version ? Can you tell me the correct steps to follow with this mobo? Then as usual I will proceed to calculate the Curve Optimizer with Corecycler. Thank you all.


----------



## Sleepycat

ronindj68 said:


> Hi All,
> after updating the acer 4201 bios I am trying to recalculate the PPT TDC EDC parameters with Ryzen master but I think I'm doing something wrong Can you tell me the correct steps to follow with this mobo? Then as usual I will proceed to calculate the Curve Optimizer with Corecycler. Thank you all.


Nothing to recalculate for PPT, TDC and EDC. Just use the same values that you were using previously.


----------



## Blackfyre

ronindj68 said:


> Hi All,
> after updating my dark hero with last 4201 bios, I am trying to recalculate the PPT TDC EDC parameters becouse i have lost significantly oveclock performance. So i am try to find best value of PBP with Ryzen master but I think I'm doing something wrong. Does have this bios version any problem ? Is better roll back to previus version ? Can you tell me the correct steps to follow with this mobo? Then as usual I will proceed to calculate the Curve Optimizer with Corecycler. Thank you all.


Keep them the same as they were, as suggested above, perceived overclock performance drop in benchmarks does not translate to gaming or using programs. Play or use the programs you usually use and you'll find that the latest BIOS (_if you're switching from a really old one_) is actually more stable while performing identically. In programs or games where you might have had some stuttering, that could also be resolved now.


----------



## ronindj68

Sleepycat said:


> Nothing to recalculate for PPT, TDC and EDC. Just use the same values that you were using previously.



Thanks for your answers, but i would like to retry all parameter configuration also because not everything was in order
Do you mind if i ask any procedure to follow ?
Actually i found PPT(220) TDC(151) EDC(141) like best valure for MultiCore configuration. I try to recalculate Curve Optimizer with Corecycler. 
Next post i will send my bios configuration.txt to compare.
Many thanks in advance
Gabriele


----------



## KedarWolf

ronindj68 said:


> Thanks for your answers, but i would like to retry all parameter configuration also because not everything was in order
> Do you mind if i ask any procedure to follow ?
> Actually i found PPT(220) TDC(151) EDC(141) like best valure for MultiCore configuration. I try to recalculate Curve Optimizer with Corecycler.
> Next post i will send my bios configuration.txt to compare.
> Many thanks in advance
> Gabriele


For multicore Try 270 PPT, TDC 168 EDC 220 Scaler 0 Boost 0, and the below.

I get around 11800 in R20 and around 30300 in R23 with my Curve. Single-Core suffers though.


----------



## shaolin95

KedarWolf said:


> For multicore Try 270 PPT, TDC 168 EDC 220 Scaler 0 Boost 0, and the below.
> 
> I get around 11800 in R20 and around 30300 in R23 with my Curve. Single-Core suffers though.


What would be the opposite? Preferred settings for single core?
Regards


----------



## KedarWolf

shaolin95 said:


> What would be the opposite? Preferred settings for single core?
> Regards


In CPU-Z I get around 680 in single-core which isn't too bad with those settings, but you're going to have to ask someone else, I only optimise for multi-core.

You can use the PBO 2 Tuner and test varying settings, but I think it's mostly EDC being much lower. 

Someone else will have to give you a baseline.


----------



## Sleepycat

KedarWolf said:


> For multicore Try 270 PPT, TDC 168 EDC 220 Scaler 0 Boost 0, and the below.


This is if ronindj68 has water cooling. If on air cooling, it might be a challenge to cool.


----------



## Sleepycat

ronindj68 said:


> Thanks for your answers, but i would like to retry all parameter configuration also because not everything was in order
> Do you mind if i ask any procedure to follow ?
> Actually i found PPT(220) TDC(151) EDC(141) like best valure for MultiCore configuration. I try to recalculate Curve Optimizer with Corecycler.
> Next post i will send my bios configuration.txt to compare.
> Many thanks in advance
> Gabriele


Those values are fine. Mine are PPT 200, TDC 140 and EDC 140, quite similar to yours and mine is a 5900X on air cooling (NH-U12A). What is your CPU and what cooling are you using?


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> What would be the opposite? Preferred settings for single core?
> Regards


Those are power limits, so single core would not reach those levels. The only factor I'd consider for single core is EDC, so that it doesn't limit my CPU core voltage. Having said so, I'm happy with 1.375V for single core loads as it doesn't really make a difference to me to chase the last 100 MHz in Single core.


----------



## ronindj68

Sleepycat said:


> Those values are fine. Mine are PPT 200, TDC 140 and EDC 140, quite similar to yours and mine is a 5900X on air cooling (NH-U12A). What is your CPU and what cooling are you using?


Hi Sleepycat, all my hardware is in my signature, cpu ryzen 5950x cooled with liquid cooler deepcastle 360.
I still tuning my Curve Optimizer and I find it strange to have such a high value on core 0 (-8) compared to the other cores.
Corecycler finds core 0 needs more voltage than the others apparently. Here is my setup:
PBO 220 TDC 151 EDC 150
Curve Optimizer:
(-8!!!) -28 -15 -28 -30 -26 -30 -28 -30 -23 -30 -27 -30 -29 -28 -30
Actually my R23 bench result: Multi Core 30331 Single Core 1638


----------



## learner-gr

Hi there.
I have the VIII DARK HERO and i would like to ask if there any major differences between 3600c18 and 3600c16 ddr4 memory kits.
Does anyone see differences mainly in games (gaming)? or more generally everywhere and whether this is perceived.
Thanks in advance.


----------



## pilotter

which intel I211 gigabit drivers are you guys using, can't find them between the asus dark hero drivers?


----------



## SpeedyIV

pilotter said:


> which intel I211 gigabit drivers are you guys using, can't find them between the asus dark hero drivers?


 I am using v12.18.13.0. I don't use drivers from Asus for 2 reasons.

1 - They are usually several versions of date.
2 - They often have a lot of extra crap added by Asus.

You can install the Intel Driver & Support Assistant LINK or go to MoKiChU's driver index site LINK. MoKiChU has been posting the latest drivers for many Asus motherboards on the ROG forum for years. He is a trusted source. He somehow gets the latest driver versions before they show up anywhere else.


----------



## pilotter

thanks, updated!!


----------



## shm0

Hi!
I'm trying to get FCLK 1900 stable on my 3900xt.
It is almost stable but sometimes I get a random WHEA 20 error.
Current voltages are:
SOC: 1.15
CCD: 1.025
IOD: 1.075
VDDP: 1v (Auto)

Everything below 1v CCD or 1.05V IOD results in USB glitching (drop outs).
Currently testing all voltages upped by 0.025v.

In the current Ryzen Master Reference guide:


https://www.amd.com/system/files/documents/ryzen-master-quick-reference-guide.pdf


On page 41, it states for overclocking memory VDDG and SOC voltage usually start at 1.1v.
Also looking at the pictures, they are using a 3900x(t) with ~1.3v soc?

Do the TDC/EDC limits include the soc ? Like the PPT Limit?


----------



## flyinion

Never mind figured it out


----------



## ronindj68

KedarWolf said:


> For multicore Try 270 PPT, TDC 168 EDC 220 Scaler 0 Boost 0, and the below.
> I get around 11800 in R20 and around 30300 in R23 with my Curve. Single-Core suffers though.
> 
> Thanks for your suggestion.
> Im trying these PBO 270 PPT, TDC 168 EDC 220. Scaler 0 Boost 0
> But i see in HWiNFO64 that in multicore benchmarc R23 maximum used by cpu is just 227 as you can see below
> So why set a value of 270?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you tell me what is better to do with these parameters ?
> LLC 3 or auto ?
> CPU current capability 130% or auto ?
> CPU VRM switch freq 500 or auto ?
> CPU phase control power phase response ultra fast or auto ?
> 
> And more, what about VDDSOC parameter ?
> Is difficult for me understand which is the best approach to follow with these
> 
> best regards
> Gabriele


----------



## Luggage

R23 doesn’t pull very much - you need y-chruncher, lin-x or p95 small fft to really push power to the limits of the chip


----------



## GRABibus

KedarWolf said:


> For multicore Try 270 PPT, TDC 168 EDC 220 Scaler 0 Boost 0, and the below.
> 
> I get around 11800 in R20 and around 30300 in R23 with my Curve. Single-Core suffers though.
> 
> View attachment 2563404


I get 30500 with 220/140/140 and prefecter Hw L1 and L 2 disabled at 25degrees with my Corsair H115i RGB Platinum.
I get 1680 single core score.

Which cooling do you have ?


----------



## ronindj68

GRABibus said:


> Ottengo 30500 con 220/140/140 e prefecter Hw L1 e L 2 disabilitato a 25 gradi con il mio Corsair H115i RGB Platinum.
> Ottengo un punteggio di 1680 single core.
> 
> che raffreddamento hai?
> [/CITAZIONE]
> Ciao, che mi dici di LLC? e la calibrazione del carico della cpu?


----------



## ronindj68

[CITAZIONE="Bagaglio, articolo: 28999360, membro: 648483"]
R23 non tira molto: hai bisogno di y-chruncher, lin-x o p95 small fft per spingere davvero la potenza ai limiti del chip
[/CITAZIONE]
Hi, yes i know, i user R23 just for benching test, of course corecycler is a good cpu stress tool for stability test


----------



## GRABibus

ronindj68 said:


> [CITAZIONE="Bagaglio, articolo: 28999360, membro: 648483"]
> R23 non tira molto: hai bisogno di y-chruncher, lin-x o p95 small fft per spingere davvero la potenza ai limiti del chip
> [/CITAZIONE]
> Hi, yes i know, i user R23 just for benching test, of course corecycler is a good cpu stress tool for stability test


I don’t use Corecycler


----------



## xeizo

So I turned up the cheap Micron B-die memory a notch on my 5800X3D rig. 3733MHz has been silly stable the last week, so now 3800MHz it is. Only one hour in so far, but all benchmarks runs, no strange behavior and no WHEA. I would say this looks to be quite ok for cheap memory


----------



## Sleepycat

ronindj68 said:


> Hi Sleepycat, all my hardware is in my signature, cpu ryzen 5950x cooled with liquid cooler deepcastle 360.
> I still tuning my Curve Optimizer and I find it strange to have such a high value on core 0 (-8) compared to the other cores.
> Corecycler finds core 0 needs more voltage than the others apparently. Here is my setup:
> PBO 220 TDC 151 EDC 150
> Curve Optimizer:
> (-8!!!) -28 -15 -28 -30 -26 -30 -28 -30 -23 -30 -27 -30 -29 -28 -30
> Actually my R23 bench result: Multi Core 30331 Single Core 1638


It happens. My 5900X was a launch CPU, so it doesn't have the improvements that the current batch have. My curve optimizer is worse than yours, my best cores are #3 and #4, but you can see how much CO I need to get it stable with AVX.

CCX1: -25, +10, -20, 0, -30, -25, 
CCX2: -30, -25, -15, -25, -30, -15


----------



## stimpy88

xeizo said:


> So I turned up the cheap Micron B-die memory a notch on my 5800X3D rig. 3733MHz has been silly stable the last week, so now 3800MHz it is. Only one hour in so far, but all benchmarks runs, no strange behavior and no WHEA. I would say this looks to be quite ok for cheap memory
> 
> View attachment 2563606


You need to next work on those timings. You have the performance of 3200 memory with those. Frequency is not the be all and end all of overclocking. Tighter timings can be more beneficial than just flat out clockspeed. But your on the right path!


----------



## xeizo

stimpy88 said:


> You need to next work on those timings. You have the performance of 3200 memory with those. Frequency is not the be all and end all of overclocking. Tighter timings can be more beneficial than just flat out clockspeed. But your on the right path!


I'm not sure it's possible to achieve much better, it's Micron B-die not Samsung. I have Samsung in my Z690 rig and 53ns latency without even tweaking much.
Micron is more about high frequency than low latencies, these may even do 4000MHz but I'm doubtful about tight timings.
No WHEA after more than 24 hours and lot's of gaming, IO die looks to be ok on the 5800X3D.

And about frequency, at least on Ryzen it do matter as higher IF speeds up internal performance in the CPU as it's a interconnect.


----------



## J7SC

xeizo said:


> I'm not sure it's possible to achieve much better, it's Micron B-die not Samsung. I have Samsung in my Z690 rig and 53ns latency without even tweaking much.
> Micron is more about high frequency than low latencies, these may even do 4000MHz but I'm doubtful about tight timings.
> No WHEA after more than 24 hours and lot's of gaming, IO die looks to be ok on the 5800X3D.
> 
> And about frequency, at least on Ryzen it do matter as higher IF speeds up internal performance in the CPU as it's a interconnect.


I get the point about Micron B-die...still, if you can get the tRFC sets down (at least low 300s for tFRC) along with tFAW (at least mid 20s) error-free, you get a cake and can eat it, too... ☕


----------



## xeizo

J7SC said:


> I get the point about Micron B-die...still, if you can get the tRFC sets down (at least low 300s for tFRC) along with tFAW (at least mid 20s) error-free, you get a cake and can eat it, too... ☕


I will try some more, of course, one timing I can't touch is tRRDL as Windows gets corrupt below 11. Similar ting with primary timings, but it's possible I can shave some off tFAW and tRFC

edit. Nah, I couldn't lower any of those, it wouldn't boot. I'm right at the edge for these memory modules, at least with current VDIMM of 1.4V. I don't think I want to raise that as it will require some extra cooling. Relaxed 3800MHz memory will have to do


----------



## stimpy88

xeizo said:


> I will try some more, of course, one timing I can't touch is tRRDL as Windows gets corrupt below 11. Similar ting with primary timings, but it's possible I can shave some off tFAW and tRFC
> 
> edit. Nah, I couldn't lower any of those, it wouldn't boot. I'm right at the edge for these memory modules, at least with current VDIMM of 1.4V. I don't think I want to raise that as it will require some extra cooling. Relaxed 3800MHz memory will have to do


Experimenting is all part of the fun of building your own system. GDM can cause all sorts of issues, as can a command rate of 1t before you have dialled in your settings.


----------



## ronindj68

Sleepycat said:


> It happens. My 5900X was a launch CPU, so it doesn't have the improvements that the current batch have. My curve optimizer is worse than yours, my best cores are #3 and #4, but you can see how much CO I need to get it stable with AVX.
> 
> CCX1: -25, +10, -20, 0, -30, -25,
> CCX2: -30, -25, -15, -25, -30, -15


yes i see, but month after month I see core 0 which always needs higher voltage so I am forced to lower the curve for core 0. And it is very strange actually it need a value of -8 but some months ago it need -13 on curve optimizer.


----------



## metalshark

Appreciate this is a completely different board, but you might find this interesting:




Scoping dual rank memory and the IMC.


----------



## Sleepycat

ronindj68 said:


> yes i see, but month after month I see core 0 which always needs higher voltage so I am forced to lower the curve for core 0. And it is very strange actually it need a value of -8 but some months ago it need -13 on curve optimizer.


If you did do a bios update which used a newer AGESA version, then you can also see a change in stability. That's why there are a few here who stick to the older bios versions because it gives the highest performance and stability, and they don't need the bugfixes of the newer versions for fTPM and Windows 11.


----------



## ronindj68

Sleepycat said:


> If you did do a bios update which used a newer AGESA version, then you can also see a change in stability. That's why there are a few here who stick to the older bios versions because it gives the highest performance and stability, and they don't need the bugfixes of the newer versions for fTPM and Windows 11.


Hi.i see. can you tell me if is possible rollback to previously bios version from 4201 downto 4006 ?


----------



## ChillyRide

ronindj68 said:


> Hi.i see. can you tell me if is possible rollback to previously bios version from 4201 downto 4006 ?


Why not? U can roll back to anything u want.


----------



## ronindj68

GRABibus said:


> I don’t use Corecycler


Grabius what kind of stress test do you use ?


----------



## GRABibus

ronindj68 said:


> Grabius what kind of stress test do you use ?


Realbench, aida64 cache stress test and Karhu for memory.


----------



## Sleepycat

ronindj68 said:


> Hi.i see. can you tell me if is possible rollback to previously bios version from 4201 downto 4006 ?


I don't see why not. In the worst case, you can use bios flashback to do so (which also wipes all your stored settings) and then manually enter all your settings in again. The only thing I wouldn't do is to load saved settings from a newer bios after rollback to an older one.


----------



## metalshark

ronindj68 said:


> Hi.i see. can you tell me if is possible rollback to previously bios version from 4201 downto 4006 ?


Some UEFI updates will be marked with the text:


> You will not be able to downgrade your BIOS after updating to this BIOS version


AFAIK the last version to do this was 2010 for the Crosshair VIII's, prior to that 1105 featured a similar warning. Other than that it should be fine, but as sleepycat points out you may need to use flashback if it grumbles.


----------



## Blackfyre

I wish ASUS can just add PCH Fan Control like other manufacturers. Using the PC at night, after going full Noctua case fans + cooler in silent mode, the only audible thing when using the PC in idle mode now is the PCH fan. Wish I can lower its RPM.

If anyone from ASUS is seeing this, consider this request for future BIOS updates for X570 boards that aren't X570S. Allow us to tune down the chipset fan, or at least add yourselves a SILENT mode that halves the RPM at least, even if temperatures go up slightly. I have never seen my chipset ever go over 58°C, there's no need for it to be running at 2400+ RPM being at around 38db to 40db


----------



## GRABibus

Blackfyre said:


> I wish ASUS can just add PCH Fan Control like other manufacturers. Using the PC at night, after going full Noctua case fans + cooler in silent mode, the only audible thing when using the PC in idle mode now is the PCH fan. Wish I can lower its RPM.
> 
> If anyone from ASUS is seeing this, consider this request for future BIOS updates for X570 boards that aren't X570S. Allow us to tune down the chipset fan, or at least add yourselves a SILENT mode that halves the RPM at least, even if temperatures go up slightly. I have never seen my chipset ever go over 58°C, there's no need for it to be running at 2400+ RPM being at around 38db to 40db


Did you try these ?









[MOD BIOS ASUS X570] ROG Crosshair VIII Hero (WI-FI) & Formula - PCH Fan control


Hallo zusammen, ich biete Euch ein von mir gemoddetes BIOS an. Damit könnt ihr den nervigen Chipsatz-Lüfter steuern. Nur Kompatibel mit o.g. Mainboards in Verbindung mit Ryzen 3000/5000. From HERO to ZERO :o Die Modifikation selbst erfolgt nach bestem Gewissen. Per HEX Editor wird ein Teil...




www.hardwareluxx.de


----------



## Blackfyre

GRABibus said:


> Did you try these ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [MOD BIOS ASUS X570] ROG Crosshair VIII Hero (WI-FI) & Formula - PCH Fan control
> 
> 
> Hallo zusammen, ich biete Euch ein von mir gemoddetes BIOS an. Damit könnt ihr den nervigen Chipsatz-Lüfter steuern. Nur Kompatibel mit o.g. Mainboards in Verbindung mit Ryzen 3000/5000. From HERO to ZERO :o Die Modifikation selbst erfolgt nach bestem Gewissen. Per HEX Editor wird ein Teil...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hardwareluxx.de


No, I didn't know this was a thing. Are these modded BIOS safe to use? And will they be in English or German? Website is German, I think.


----------



## GRABibus

Blackfyre said:


> No, I didn't know this was a thing. Are these modded BIOS safe to use? And will they be in English or German? Website is German, I think.


I got this site from @metalshark.
I tried to flash through EZflash in Bios, no way.
Maybe it works with Bios FLash Back, but I din't try.


----------



## xeizo

Good I currently don't use any motherboard with a chipset fan, my CH8 Extreme is thankfully passive.

Anyway, time to look a little closer at the 5900X B2 I got as a replacement for my faulty 5900X B0, it looks to do 3800MHz memory as happy as the 5800X3D. Still with cheap memory, this time Hynix DJR. But these are dual rank so they have much better bandwidth than my Micron kit, of course a lot worse than the Samsung B-die I use on my Z690-rig but I don't feel like owning _three_ expensive memory kits. One will do, memory doesn't do that much for performance it's just the icing on the cake.

In particular right now, when in waiting for some extreme DDR5-kit one just has to have for the next rig LoL

Still relaxed timings, as Hynix DJR is more geared towards high frequencies rather than tight timings exactly like Micron B/E-die. Using a B550-F for this rig, great value for the money motherboard.

Oh, and before asking, I _have _run these memory modules with tighter timings on my old 5900X and my 3900X. However, Windows corruption starts creeping in when going too tight even if it seemingly works fine. These are rather safe settings.


----------



## metalshark

Blackfyre said:


> No, I didn't know this was a thing. Are these modded BIOS safe to use? And will they be in English or German? Website is German, I think.


Works in English. There’s a guide to mod yourself if there isn’t a version for your motherboard.


----------



## GRABibus

xeizo said:


> Good I currently don't use any motherboard with a chipset fan, my CH8 Extreme is thankfully passive.
> 
> Anyway, time to look a little closer at the 5900X B2 I got as a replacement for my faulty 5900X B0, it looks to do 3800MHz memory as happy as the 5800X3D. Still with cheap memory, this time Hynix DJR. But these are dual rank so they have much better bandwidth than my Micron kit, of course a lot worse than the Samsung B-die I use on my Z690-rig but I don't feel like owning _three_ expensive memory kits. One will do, memory doesn't do that much for performance it's just the icing on the cake.
> 
> In particular right now, when in waiting for some extreme DDR5-kit one just has to have for the next rig LoL
> 
> Still relaxed timings, as Hynix DJR is more geared towards high frequencies rather than tight timings exactly like Micron B/E-die. Using a B550-F for this rig, great value for the money motherboard.
> 
> Oh, and before asking, I _have _run these memory modules with tighter timings on my old 5900X and my 3900X. However, Windows corruption starts creeping in when going too tight even if it seemingly works fine. These are rather safe settings.
> 
> View attachment 2563762
> 
> View attachment 2563763


Please, reduce these trrds, tfaw and trfc


----------



## ronindj68

SpeedyIV said:


> I am using v12.18.13.0. I don't use drivers from Asus for 2 reasons.
> 
> 1 - They are usually several versions of date.
> 2 - They often have a lot of extra crap added by Asus.
> 
> You can install the Intel Driver & Support Assistant LINK or go to MoKiChU's driver index site LINK. MoKiChU has been posting the latest drivers for many Asus motherboards on the ROG forum for years. He is a trusted source. He somehow gets the latest driver versions before they show up anywhere else.



Isn't it better to use the AMD drivers from the official site?  Driver X570 e | di supporto AMD


----------



## metalshark

ronindj68 said:


> Isn't it better to use the AMD drivers from the official site?  Driver X570 e | di supporto AMD


Am unaware of any "extra from ASUS" sure they bloat/wrap the installer but the same contents. Regardless of the source, there's different behaviour with different versions. Rather than look to which source you prefer I'd look into the version in question and whether it benefits you more or not. Am currently using the latest from the AMD site, but prior to that was using ASUS-sourced ones, am just using the version which works best for me. If tomorrow Gigabyte has a version which works better, I'll strip the installer clean of any bloat checking I've got the right board (most likely 7-Zip extract to get the .MSI file) and install that instead.


----------



## P97

Hey Guys,

any tips to change or improve? are the volatage ok? 

PBO2 at -20 on all cores and -10 on the -4 best cores.

PPT 280
TDC 180
EDC 200

attached are the timings on my ram.

TIA!


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> Please, reduce these trrds, tfaw and trfc


Well, at least the DJR-set takes some minor beating, seemingly stable from what I have run so far. Of course way worse than Samsung memory, but pretty good for what it is imho


















edit. Oh, and those pesky Micron dies, well I can't stand resetting the bios countless times there's a limit to my patience LoL But I netted a minor improvement after a few of those resets, this looks to stick


















As seen, dual rank provides 4-5GB/s extra bandwidth just by being dual rank. It's a pity these newer 32GB kits are now almost always single rank. On the flip side, this Micron kit was the cheapest 3600MHz-kit possible to buy where I live, and I got a discount too. And it do run at 3800MHz which is better than rated, all good.


----------



## MSIMAX

sorry a bit late but here it is

edit flashed 4201 seems to be working strange


----------



## benbenkr

TimeDrapery said:


> That's not "stock" that's XMP


Late reply sorry.

If you see the voltages, they are stock. XMP is only for the RAM. If I use "load optimized default", the same voltage applies but with RAM at 2133mhz.

In any case, I've resolved all issues regarding my FCLK and mem overclock. 3800mhz didn't work but *2000mhz somehow does*. I guess this is the so called 'memory hole' people were talking about in the past? That said I can't run my RAM at 1.5v with tighten timings due to where I'm living (Malaysia) and it's hot, humid (40+c everyday with no wind lul) AF these days. AC in the room or not, RAM shoots up to 55c during load even with active cooling.

Settled back down at 3600mhz @ 1.42v with ultra tight timings instead. Happy enough with this configuration for now.


----------



## metalshark

benbenkr said:


> Late reply sorry.
> 
> If you see the voltages, they are stock. XMP is only for the RAM. If I use "load optimized default", the same voltage applies but with RAM at 2133mhz.
> 
> In any case, I've resolved all issues regarding my FCLK and mem overclock. 3800mhz didn't work but *2000mhz somehow does*. I guess this is the so called 'memory hole' people were talking about in the past? That said I can't run my RAM at 1.5v with tighten timings due to where I'm living (Malaysia) and it's hot, humid (40+c everyday with no wind lul) AF these days. AC in the room or not, RAM shoots up to 55c during load even with active cooling.
> 
> Settled back down at 3600mhz @ 1.42v with ultra tight timings instead. Happy enough with this configuration for now.


XMP/DOCP can also alter voltages and is very much not stock, it's an overclock (by definition).

Don't know about other types but have trouble with fast speeds over 50'C (have to keep it below that threshold) on Samsung B-Die (occasional errors in prolonged tests, etc) let alone 55'C, so good luck there!


----------



## Baio73

metalshark said:


> XMP/DOCP can also alter voltages and is very much not stock, it's an overclock (by definition).
> 
> Don't know about other types but have trouble with fast speeds over 50'C (have to keep it below that threshold) on Samsung B-Die (occasional errors in prolonged tests, etc) let alone 55'C, so good luck there!


That's interesting... so are you suggesting NOT TO enable DOCP before OCing the RAM?
AFAIK it's the first step to do before lowering the timings... but probably I have very old infos about that.

Baio


----------



## metalshark

Baio73 said:


> That's interesting... so are you suggesting NOT TO enable DOCP before OCing the RAM?
> AFAIK it's the first step to do before lowering the timings... but probably I have very old infos about that.
> 
> Baio


Generally advise you to not go for DOCP/XMP at all. Appreciate many like the convenience. It's hard to predict what's going on if settings are on auto, more so with XMP/DOCP.

In the defense of XMP/DOCP lets say you change every option available manually, that doesn't mean there's not some QVL override in the UEFI for that specific kit which tunes things you don't have access to when enabling XMP/DOCP.

Hence it becomes a more personal choice, and my personal choice comes with an admission there may be edge cases (around QVL'ed and custom-tuned profiles for certain kits) where it's the wrong choice.

If someone gets better results or prefers to enable XMP/DOCP and then tune from there, more power to them.

However, the big takeaway is enabling XMP/DOCP most certainly is not "stock" and this is a common misnomer which would be great to have corrected Internet-wide.


----------



## benbenkr

metalshark said:


> XMP/DOCP can also alter voltages and is very much not stock, it's an overclock (by definition).
> 
> Don't know about other types but have trouble with fast speeds over 50'C (have to keep it below that threshold) on Samsung B-Die (occasional errors in prolonged tests, etc) let alone 55'C, so good luck there!


What I'm saying is *WITHOUT* DOCP/XMP, the voltages as shown in that screenshot is exactly the same when I enable DOCP. 

Stock (optimized defaults) = 1v VSOC, 0.9v everything else.
DOCP = 1v VSOC, 0.9v everything else.

I'm not arguing about your definition of DOCP = overclock. I very much agree and understood that.
But my initial issue with WHEA was that both on stock and DOCP, they were not passing realbench which was very weird to me. It kept spitting out that 1 odd WHEA error in an 8 hour test. It was also quite predictable that the 1 WHEA error will occur 1 hour after the test starts or 1 hour before the tests finish. Every other stress test (OCCT, P95 and ycruncher) passed with zero issues.

I'm on Samsung B-die, so yes I'll keep to the 3600mhz @ 1.42v and temps don't go over 45c. Not gonna bother losing hair reaching 3800mhz or 4000mhz.


----------



## metalshark

benbenkr said:


> What I'm saying is *WITHOUT* DOCP/XMP, the voltages as shown in that screenshot is exactly the same when I enable DOCP.
> 
> Stock (optimized defaults) = 1v VSOC, 0.9v everything else.
> DOCP = 1v VSOC, 0.9v everything else.
> 
> I'm not arguing about your definition of DOCP = overclock. I very much agree and understood that.
> But my initial issue with WHEA was that both on stock and DOCP, they were not passing realbench which was very weird to me. It kept spitting out that 1 odd WHEA error in an 8 hour test. It was also quite predictable that the 1 WHEA error will occur 1 hour after the test starts or 1 hour before the tests finish. Every other stress test (OCCT, P95 and ycruncher) passed with zero issues.
> 
> I'm on Samsung B-die, so yes I'll keep to the 3600mhz @ 1.42v and temps don't go over 45c. Not gonna bother losing hair reaching 3800mhz or 4000mhz.


White flag, no arguing, I surrender, truce :-D

WHEAs on completely stock, v.odd indeed. Wonder if there are power fluctuations on the mains (using an extension/splitter from the wall instead of a direct wall socket?)


----------



## Syldon

benbenkr said:


> What I'm saying is *WITHOUT* DOCP/XMP, the voltages as shown in that screenshot is exactly the same when I enable DOCP.
> 
> Stock (optimized defaults) = 1v VSOC, 0.9v everything else.
> DOCP = 1v VSOC, 0.9v everything else.
> 
> I'm not arguing about your definition of DOCP = overclock. I very much agree and understood that.
> But my initial issue with WHEA was that both on stock and DOCP, they were not passing realbench which was very weird to me. It kept spitting out that 1 odd WHEA error in an 8 hour test. It was also quite predictable that the 1 WHEA error will occur 1 hour after the test starts or 1 hour before the tests finish. Every other stress test (OCCT, P95 and ycruncher) passed with zero issues.
> 
> I'm on Samsung B-die, so yes I'll keep to the 3600mhz @ 1.42v and temps don't go over 45c. Not gonna bother losing hair reaching 3800mhz or 4000mhz.


For context, I am not pushing OCs anymore. I am also not trying the latest revisions.

I have found that 42c+ causes errors for me. I try to keep my memory down below the 42c mark now. In my current set up, I had to move the GPU into the second slot, and then add a 4 inch fan pointed at the memory (which in turn has a fan over it). The drop off in GPU performance is very minimal. I use an open case, but the glass front make it very narrow, so an extended PCIe cable did not work very well.

This heat is purely down to the 3090 ofc. What is worse is that it actually runs quite sweetly at 91c max on the hot spot under heavy loads.


----------



## benbenkr

metalshark said:


> White flag, no arguing, I surrender, truce :-D
> 
> WHEAs on completely stock, v.odd indeed. Wonder if there are power fluctuations on the mains (using an extension/splitter from the wall instead of a direct wall socket?)


While I wouldn't discount a possibility that it could be power fluctuations on the main sockets, I would say that it's a very unlikely scenario. Reason is because this PC is in my dedicated home theater room, the cables that I pulled were all up to grade (10awg) and the sockets are all 20amps. My HT components has their own sockets, the PC has its own. They're not shared and they're all connected to individual breakers of their own.

Pretty confident that my room, as far as power goes, is about as good as it gets for a residential place. The only thing better would be a hospital.




Syldon said:


> For context, I am not pushing OCs anymore. I am also not trying the latest revisions.
> 
> I have found that 42c+ causes errors for me. I try to keep my memory down below the 42c mark now. In my current set up, I had to move the GPU into the second slot, and then add a 4 inch fan pointed at the memory (which in turn has a fan over it). The drop off in GPU performance is very minimal. I use an open case, but the glass front make it very narrow, so an extended PCIe cable did not work very well.
> 
> This heat is purely down to the 3090 ofc. What is worse is that it actually runs quite sweetly at 91c max on the hot spot under heavy loads.


Honestly for me no errors were reported from TM5, Karhu and OCCT after days of stress testing it and the RAM was running usually at around the 50c mark. But of course I try and keep it below 42c too, just like you said.


----------



## metalshark

benbenkr said:


> While I wouldn't discount a possibility that it could be power fluctuations on the main sockets, I would say that it's a very unlikely scenario. Reason is because this PC is in my dedicated home theater room, the cables that I pulled were all up to grade (10awg) and the sockets are all 20amps. My HT components has their own sockets, the PC has its own. They're not shared and they're all connected to individual breakers of their own.
> 
> Pretty confident that my room, as far as power goes, is about as good as it gets for a residential place. The only thing better would be a hospital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly for me no errors were reported from TM5, Karhu and OCCT after days of stress testing it and the RAM was running usually at around the 50c mark. But of course I try and keep it below 42c too, just like you said.


Couldn't ask for sweeter power TBH practically. Gonna chalk it up to the world of mysteries, am just glad it's a you problem rather than a me problem for that level of noggin scratcher.


----------



## 1ah1

beta bios (msi forum)
MSI beta bios which has additional vcore offset, PBO and curve optimizer for 5800X3D


----------



## GRABibus

metalshark said:


> Generally advise you to not go for DOCP/XMP at all. Appreciate many like the convenience. It's hard to predict what's going on if settings are on auto, more so with XMP/DOCP.
> 
> In the defense of XMP/DOCP lets say you change every option available manually, that doesn't mean there's not some QVL override in the UEFI for that specific kit which tunes things you don't have access to when enabling XMP/DOCP.
> 
> Hence it becomes a more personal choice, and my personal choice comes with an admission there may be edge cases (around QVL'ed and custom-tuned profiles for certain kits) where it's the wrong choice.
> 
> If someone gets better results or prefers to enable XMP/DOCP and then tune from there, more power to them.
> 
> However, the big takeaway is enabling XMP/DOCP most certainly is not "stock" and this is a common misnomer which would be great to have corrected Internet-wide.


Since I am on AM4, I always applied DOCP¨and then tweaked all Bios accessible voltages, timings and resistors.
No I learn I am probably wrong


----------



## walkman_w902

Hey, guys! I've noticed interesting behavior playing with some setting on my C8DH, that's worth sharing IMO. With PBO Fmax Enhancer enabled (other PBO limits off) my 5600x is boosting to rock steady 4650 MHz in CPU intensive games like BF2042 with 128 players using only 1.18V according to data from SVI2 TFN sensor. Running Fmax Enhancer disabled instead requires 1.28V to maintain the exact same clocks. Performance-wise it is within the margin of error and is like 4% to median fps, what easily could be related to the variance in online match.
Previously I haven't found any info about whether Fmax Enhancer is helpful for Zen 3 CPUs and don't know if there are any drawbacks to this, but I feel like it's worth playing around.


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> Since I am on AM4, I always applied DOCP¨and then tweaked all Bios accessible voltages, timings and resistors.
> No I learn I am probably wrong


I've tried both ways, didn't notice any difference in the outcome, DOCP just helps you set some obscure timings as placeholders for further exploration. Easier than starting from a blank sheet.


----------



## xeizo

walkman_w902 said:


> Hey, guys! I've noticed interesting behavior playing with some setting on my C8DH, that's worth sharing IMO. With PBO Fmax Enhancer enabled (other PBO limits off) my 5600x is boosting to rock steady 4650 MHz in CPU intensive games like BF2042 with 128 players using only 1.18V according to data from SVI2 TFN sensor. Running Fmax Enhancer disabled instead requires 1.28V to maintain the exact same clocks. Performance-wise it is within the margin of error and is like 4% to median fps, what easily could be related to the variance in online match.
> Previously I haven't found any info about whether Fmax Enhancer is helpful for Zen 3 CPUs and don't know if there are any drawbacks to this, but I feel like it's worth playing around.


It was initially meant for Zen 2 and when Zen 3 came I only heard recommendations to turn it off, higher frequencies per se are not conclusive as it can be clock stretching going on. Only real fps is.


----------



## GRABibus

walkman_w902 said:


> Hey, guys! I've noticed interesting behavior playing with some setting on my C8DH, that's worth sharing IMO. With PBO Fmax Enhancer enabled (other PBO limits off) my 5600x is boosting to rock steady 4650 MHz in CPU intensive games like BF2042 with 128 players using only 1.18V according to data from SVI2 TFN sensor. Running Fmax Enhancer disabled instead requires 1.28V to maintain the exact same clocks. Performance-wise it is within the margin of error and is like 4% to median fps, what easily could be related to the variance in online match.
> Previously I haven't found any info about whether Fmax Enhancer is helpful for Zen 3 CPUs and don't know if there are any drawbacks to this, but I feel like it's worth playing around.





walkman_w902 said:


> Hey, guys! I've noticed interesting behavior playing with some setting on my C8DH, that's worth sharing IMO. With PBO Fmax Enhancer enabled (other PBO limits off) my 5600x is boosting to rock steady 4650 MHz in CPU intensive games like BF2042 with 128 players using only 1.18V according to data from SVI2 TFN sensor. Running Fmax Enhancer disabled instead requires 1.28V to maintain the exact same clocks. Performance-wise it is within the margin of error and is like 4% to median fps, what easily could be related to the variance in online match.
> Previously I haven't found any info about whether Fmax Enhancer is helpful for Zen 3 CPUs and don't know if there are any drawbacks to this, but I feel like it's worth playing around.


if you run Cinebench with PBO max enhancer enabled, you will probably see poor scores.
Clock stretching.


----------



## walkman_w902

xeizo said:


> It was initially meant for Zen 2 and when Zen 3 came I only heard recommendations to turn it off, higher frequencies per se are not conclusive as it can be clock stretching going on. Only real fps is.





GRABibus said:


> if you run Cinebench with PBO max enhancer enabled, you will probably see poor scores.


Yeah, you are absolutely right, I forgot that CapframeX reports nominal and not effective clocks. Quick testing in Cinebech shows ~10% drop.


Spoiler: Fmax Enhancer Disabled

















Spoiler: Fmax Enhancer Enabled














In gaming it shows 6-8% decline for different metrics:


Spoiler: BF2042 1080p max settings (RT=On)














Too bad I haven't figured it out myself


----------



## metalshark

GRABibus said:


> Since I am on AM4, I always applied DOCP¨and then tweaked all Bios accessible voltages, timings and resistors.
> No I learn I am probably wrong


Both ways of doing it are valid. Depending on the kit and UEFI enabling DOCP/XMP may set some options (including toggling them based on other things you set) which you cannot see (or didn’t notice). As long as you are aware and happy about it then go for it.

Subjectively/personally I go for all manual and have run up against some issues with QVL’ed kits changing things behind the scenes when tuning, so now avoid it. That doesn’t mean others will encounter that, or that even if they do they won’t prefer it.

Wouldn’t say either way of doing it is right/wrong, but on certain kits for certain UEFIs that may be demonstrably the case for top performance/stability.


----------



## J7SC

xeizo said:


> I've tried both ways, didn't notice any difference in the outcome, DOCP just helps you set some obscure timings as placeholders for further exploration. Easier than starting from a blank sheet.


...I've set up two separate AM4 CH8, one with DOCP/XMP with subsequent manual tuning, the other with manual tuning right up front...no appreciable difference in those two instances, though that doesn't man that it always has to come out to the same thing. I find it to be a lot quicker to start with a DOCP 'base scenario' related to the specific RAM sticks, though.


----------



## candasulas

I am an Asus Crosshair VIII Hero user.

My system has 5900X processor, Asus ROG CH8 motherboard, 4X16GB Gskill TridentZ 3600Mhz GTZNC ram, EVGA RTX3070TI FTW3 and BeQuiet Straightpower 11 850Watt Gold 80+ power supply.

I was using bios 4006 before. I updated to the latest 4201.

But after updating I am having an interesting problem. Sometimes when I try to start the computer, it won't turn on. This happens very rarely. For example, I turn off the computer in the evening. When I come home from work the next day, I press the power button to turn it on, but there is no response.

When I press the power off button on the PSU, cut the power and turn it back on, I can start the computer. I was not facing such a problem when the previous BIOS version (4006) was installed.

Has anyone had such a problem with the new BIOS version? (4201)


----------



## GRABibus

candasulas said:


> I am an Asus Crosshair VIII Hero user.
> 
> My system has 5900X processor, Asus ROG CH8 motherboard, 4X16GB Gskill TridentZ 3600Mhz GTZNC ram, EVGA RTX3070TI FTW3 and BeQuiet Straightpower 11 850Watt Gold 80+ power supply.
> 
> I was using bios 4006 before. I updated to the latest 4201.
> 
> But after updating I am having an interesting problem. Sometimes when I try to start the computer, it won't turn on. This happens very rarely. For example, I turn off the computer in the evening. When I come home from work the next day, I press the power button to turn it on, but there is no response.
> 
> When I press the power off button on the PSU, cut the power and turn it back on, I can start the computer. I was not facing such a problem when the previous BIOS version (4006) was installed.
> 
> Has anyone had such a problem with the new BIOS version? (4201)


And if you roll back to 4006, does it solve your problem ?


----------



## candasulas

GRABibus said:


> And if you roll back to 4006, does it solve your problem ?


Yes I was not having a problem with that BIOS. With the new BIOS this problem appeared.


----------



## GRABibus

candasulas said:


> Yes I was not having a problem with that BIOS. With the new BIOS this problem appeared.


Yes, but if you roll back again to 4006 ?


----------



## candasulas

GRABibus said:


> Yes, but if you roll back again to 4006 ?


I went back and tried it. I did not encounter the same problem. But there is a stuttering problem in bios 4006.


----------



## ChillyRide

candasulas said:


> I am an Asus Crosshair VIII Hero user.
> 
> My system has 5900X processor, Asus ROG CH8 motherboard, 4X16GB Gskill TridentZ 3600Mhz GTZNC ram, EVGA RTX3070TI FTW3 and BeQuiet Straightpower 11 850Watt Gold 80+ power supply.
> 
> I was using bios 4006 before. I updated to the latest 4201.
> 
> But after updating I am having an interesting problem. Sometimes when I try to start the computer, it won't turn on. This happens very rarely. For example, I turn off the computer in the evening. When I come home from work the next day, I press the power button to turn it on, but there is no response.
> 
> When I press the power off button on the PSU, cut the power and turn it back on, I can start the computer. I was not facing such a problem when the previous BIOS version (4006) was installed.
> 
> Has anyone had such a problem with the new BIOS version? (4201)


Try Bios Flashback option with 4201. Had 0 issues with 4006 and 4201 so far.


----------



## ronindj68

Hi, has anyone ever tried to overclock these banks? What settings did he use? I wanted to try to get them to 4000Mhz but I don't think it's possible. 
These are two banks 16x2 Gb
Thank you 
Greetings
Gabriele


----------



## dboom

ChillyRide said:


> Try Bios Flashback option with 4201. Had 0 issues with 4006 and 4201 so far.


Same here.



ronindj68 said:


> Hi, has anyone ever tried to overclock these banks? What settings did he use? I wanted to try to get them to 4000Mhz but I don't think it's possible.
> These are two banks 16x2 Gb
> Thank you
> Greetings
> Gabriele


Mine are CL14 but i have no post with anything above 3600 no matter what timings i set.


----------



## stimpy88

ronindj68 said:


> Hi, has anyone ever tried to overclock these banks? What settings did he use? I wanted to try to get them to 4000Mhz but I don't think it's possible.
> These are two banks 16x2 Gb
> Thank you
> Greetings
> Gabriele
> 
> View attachment 2564637


Those timings look awful. But I have no experience with Hynix D die. Maybe others can help you get it performing at least on par with an average 3200 kit.

Any chance of a AIDA64 bandwidth and latency test screenshot?


----------



## ronindj68

stimpy88 said:


> Those timings look awful. But I have no experience with Hynix D die. Maybe others can help you get it performing at least on par with an average 3200 kit.
> 
> Any chance of a AIDA64 bandwidth and latency test screenshot?


Hi Stimp yes here you can see aida64 bench report








Actually i run in XMP standard configuration as you can see:










Best regards
Gabriele


----------



## GRABibus

ronindj68 said:


> Hi Stimp yes here you can see aida64 bench report
> View attachment 2564712
> 
> Actually i run in XMP standard configuration as you can see:
> 
> View attachment 2564713
> 
> 
> Best regards
> Gabriele


Reduce this at first step :
Trfc from 630 to 300 for example.
Tras from 39 to 35
Trc fr 85 to 54
Trrds from 7 to 4
Tfaw from 38 to 16.

try this and see if it improves aida64 memory bench and also if you are stable


----------



## caicccccccc

fclk 1900 code 07.1900+ whea19.
Is there any way to improve it?
i want to have fclk 2000


----------



## candasulas

ChillyRide said:


> Try Bios Flashback option with 4201. Had 0 issues with 4006 and 4201 so far.


I did it with the BIOS Flashback method, but the result did not change.
It's the same again.
Sometimes I get the same result when opening. I turn it off and on from the PSU. I have no problems with the power supply or any component. Ramler, Graphics Card, Processor are all solid. No problem under load either.

Strange boot issue. It usually does not boot open after long hours of power off.


----------



## xatornet

candasulas said:


> I am an Asus Crosshair VIII Hero user.
> 
> My system has 5900X processor, Asus ROG CH8 motherboard, 4X16GB Gskill TridentZ 3600Mhz GTZNC ram, EVGA RTX3070TI FTW3 and BeQuiet Straightpower 11 850Watt Gold 80+ power supply.
> 
> I was using bios 4006 before. I updated to the latest 4201.
> 
> But after updating I am having an interesting problem. Sometimes when I try to start the computer, it won't turn on. This happens very rarely. For example, I turn off the computer in the evening. When I come home from work the next day, I press the power button to turn it on, but there is no response.
> 
> When I press the power off button on the PSU, cut the power and turn it back on, I can start the computer. I was not facing such a problem when the previous BIOS version (4006) was installed.
> 
> Has anyone had such a problem with the new BIOS version? (4201)


Hi there. Glad to see there's more people with this same issue. It happened exactly like you described for my system too. I'm using a Crosshair VIII Dark Hero though. It only has happened to me just once, like a couple days ago. I'll be observing the system to report if it happens again. Also, I always flash via Flashback method.


----------



## candasulas

xatornet said:


> Hi there. Glad to see there's more people with this same issue. It happened exactly like you described for my system too. I'm using a Crosshair VIII Dark Hero though. It only has happened to me just once, like a couple days ago. I'll be observing the system to report if it happens again. Also, I always flash via Flashback method.


Interestingly, many people have experienced this problem. I just read it on the Asus forums.

Does updating the BIOS with the Flashback method directly from the USB memory solve the problem instead of updating from within the BIOS?

I always do the BIOS Update with EZFlash.
This evening I will Flashback the previous BIOS version and then flashback the latest BIOS 4201.
I hope I don't have the same problem again. It's very frustrating.


----------



## CYoung234

New old topic. I have not been in this forum for a while now, and things have really moved on since the 3900X days. I am still running BIOS 1301 with my Crosshair VIII Wi-Fi, and it is completely stable with my 4-stick 3600MHz DDR kit. Is there any value at all in trying the newer BIOSes with 4-sticks of memory on these rigs? In the past, every time I tried a newer BIOS, I would begin to see random reboots once or twice a month. I am attaching an AIDA-64 Hardware Report, if that helps. Any suggestions or advice would be appreciated. Thanks.


----------



## FrankieBoy

candasulas said:


> Interestingly, many people have experienced this problem. I just read it on the Asus forums.
> 
> Does updating the BIOS with the Flashback method directly from the USB memory solve the problem instead of updating from within the BIOS?
> 
> I always do the BIOS Update with EZFlash.
> This evening I will Flashback the previous BIOS version and then flashback the latest BIOS 4201.
> I hope I don't have the same problem again. It's very frustrating.


Hi,
The problem is not the sofware/BIOS, it`s the hardware, the motherboard, something fails after a period of time; I also thought it was the BIOS so I reverted to 4006, and after a few days it happened again so I just RMA`d mine. Same issue is described here if you want to take a look: Asus dark hero startup issue ?
It could be something in the 4201 version that triggers the fault but after reverting to an older bios it was still doing it sooo...your mileage may vary.
My advice, if it does it again, RMA it if you can, don`t waste your time.

Best of luck.


----------



## candasulas

FrankieBoy said:


> Hi,
> The problem is not the sofware/BIOS, it`s the hardware, the motherboard, something fails after a period of time; I also thought it was the BIOS so I reverted to 4006, and after a few days it happened again so I just RMA`d mine. Same issue is described here if you want to take a look: Asus dark hero startup issue ?
> It could be something in the 4201 version that triggers the fault but after reverting to an older bios it was still doing it sooo...your mileage may vary.
> My advice, if it does it again, RMA it if you can, don`t waste your time.
> 
> Best of luck.


I have flashed back to BIOS 3801. There doesn't seem to be a problem for now. But if I experience the same situation, I will start the RMA process. It's really frustrating. I checked the Asus forums. Many users have experienced this problem.


----------



## Kelutrel

candasulas said:


> I have flashed back to BIOS 3801. There doesn't seem to be a problem for now. But if I experience the same situation, I will start the RMA process. It's really frustrating. I checked the Asus forums. Many users have experienced this problem.


Does it start the fans in your case when you switch it on ?

I have a similar, rarely occurring, problem, so that sometimes (like once a week or month) if I switch off and switch back on my Crosshair VIII Formula, it just starts the fans but nothing else happens. I keep forcing it to shut down and switch it on again 4-5 times and then the BIOS message appears saying that my settings were reverted to default and to press F1 to go into the BIOS.
Up to now I thought it was the CMOS battery getting old and not keeping the BIOS configuration, because it was not doing that some months ago, but now I think that it may be related to what you are also observing.
Anyway, I will replace the CMOS battery and if that solves my problem I will post it here.


----------



## candasulas

Kelutrel said:


> Does it start the fans in your case when you switch it on ?
> 
> I have a similar, rarely occurring, problem, so that sometimes (like once a week or month) if I switch off and switch back on my Crosshair VIII Formula, it just starts the fans but nothing else happens. I keep forcing it to shut down and switch it on again 4-5 times and then the BIOS message appears saying that my settings were reverted to default and to press F1 to go into the BIOS.
> Up to now I thought it was the CMOS battery getting old and not keeping the BIOS configuration, because it was not doing that some months ago, but now I think that it may be related to what you are also observing.
> Anyway, I will replace the CMOS battery and if that solves my problem I will post it here.


I went back to 3801 BIOS with flashback. There doesn't seem to be a problem now.

When I installed the 4201 BIOS, the computer would not boot at all. More precisely, when I tried to restart the computer after turning it off, it did not respond even though the motherboard had electricity. It wasn't starting. After pressing the PSU power button and turning the power off and on again, the motherboard was working. Like yours, the fans were not spinning.

I think this is causing such a problem because of the newly arrived BIOSes. Have you tried different bios? Or maybe your problem is because of the CMOS battery as you said.


----------



## ronindj68

I really hope that ASUS replied with a new bios version becouse i think 4201 version is a bad release


----------



## candasulas

ronindj68 said:


> I really hope that ASUS replied with a new bios version becouse i think 4201 version is a bad release


Old bios was better. There are always problems with the last few BIOSes.
I think the root of this problem is that the BIOS is damaging or affecting the hardware.


----------



## ronindj68

i have rollback to previus 3801 version. Performance CPU are become better. I have just to trim some curve opt but CPU seems stable at the moment


----------



## candasulas

ronindj68 said:


> i have rollback to previus 3801 version. Performance CPU are become better. I have just to trim some curve opt but CPU seems stable at the moment


I also reverted to version 3801. Interestingly, there are no problems at the moment. It works stably. 4XXX versions don't seem stable. I think those bios caused my problem.


----------



## PWn3R

3801 is “better” because it slams more voltage into the cpu so more performance. Given that it’s bee “broken” for many releases, I would say it’s all but officially confirmed they reduced voltages to stop degradation they were seeing. 4201 stops me from seeing the fTPM stutter so I don’t care. A few percentage in a benchmark doesn’t make a difference to me. 

It is irritating to hear about the people with the boot issue. I have wondered if those of us with the 1900FCLK hole have a hardware issue because I’ve not seen other board manufacturers threads where people report that issue.


----------



## candasulas

PWn3R said:


> 3801 is “better” because it slams more voltage into the cpu so more performance. Given that it’s bee “broken” for many releases, I would say it’s all but officially confirmed they reduced voltages to stop degradation they were seeing. 4201 stops me from seeing the fTPM stutter so I don’t care. A few percentage in a benchmark doesn’t make a difference to me.
> 
> It is irritating to hear about the people with the boot issue. I have wondered if those of us with the 1900FCLK hole have a hardware issue because I’ve not seen other board manufacturers threads where people report that issue.


I've never had a stuttering problem with version 3801. On the 4201 Version, on the other hand, I had startup problems. So I went back to 3801. Obviously 3801 works more stable. Voltages are not high. I use it with PBO turned off.


----------



## dansi

Is it me or Win11 maintains a higher idle VID and cores are regularly boosting higher than Win10?
Ryzen 5000 users with 1.2.0.7 anyone?

On balanced power plan.


----------



## GRABibus

Some benches from last days with my 24/7 settings :

@25°C :











@ 24.5°C











@ 26°C :


----------



## noxious89123

candasulas said:


> I've never had a stuttering problem with version 3801.


But do you have fTPM on?

That's what causes the stuttering.


----------



## neikosr0x

candasulas said:


> I also reverted to version 3801. Interestingly, there are no problems at the moment. It works stably. 4XXX versions don't seem stable. I think those bios caused my problem.


I will tell you that, I had to format my PC after flashing 4201 and messing around CO and Ryzen master, my PC started throwing random blue screens quite constant just getting it to boot was a painnnnn. Also tried reverting back to 3801 but the issue persisted, did absolutely everything cleared CMOS, reseated ram, GPU, clean the PC and all that crap and didn't work lol. So I finally decided to flash 4201 back, entered all settings manually and did a clean windows 11 install. And for some reason problem solved, lol. Only one weird reboot in more than a month but I think it was some driver issue because I was messing around with some Logitech driver.


----------



## xeizo

I haven't had a single problem with 1.2.0.7 bioses, CH8 Extreme, B550-F and X470-Prime Pro


----------



## GRABibus

4201 Pandemia ?


----------



## SpeedyIV

candasulas said:


> I am an Asus Crosshair VIII Hero user.
> 
> My system has 5900X processor, Asus ROG CH8 motherboard, 4X16GB Gskill TridentZ 3600Mhz GTZNC ram, EVGA RTX3070TI FTW3 and BeQuiet Straightpower 11 850Watt Gold 80+ power supply.
> 
> I was using bios 4006 before. I updated to the latest 4201.
> 
> But after updating I am having an interesting problem. Sometimes when I try to start the computer, it won't turn on. This happens very rarely. For example, I turn off the computer in the evening. When I come home from work the next day, I press the power button to turn it on, but there is no response.
> 
> When I press the power off button on the PSU, cut the power and turn it back on, I can start the computer. I was not facing such a problem when the previous BIOS version (4006) was installed.
> 
> Has anyone had such a problem with the new BIOS version? (4201)


There is a THREAD on the ROG forum that is now 57 pages long about this exact problem. Some say its seems to be related to BIOS 4006 and 4201. Others say it has nothing to do with Bios version. The thread started in July 2021 so its been happening for almost a year. Asus has acknowledged that its a hardware problem that requires sending the mobo back to be fixed or replaced with a refurbed mobo. The thread is about the Dark Hero but other models, including the Hero have been reported.

FWIW - I have a 5950X on a Dark Hero and have run every BIOS from 2002 to 4201 and have never had this problem. I don't know how widespread it is, but at least enough for there to be a 57 page long thread about it. I am praying that my mobo does not start doing this.


----------



## Alemancio

Any idea when we'll get PBO and CO for 5800x3d in BIOS? MSI has already been releasing it for their boads


----------



## stimpy88

Alemancio said:


> Any idea when we'll get PBO and CO for 5800x3d in BIOS? MSI has already been releasing it for their boads


It's been ages since ASUS released the last BIOS, so hopefully a new one will be released in the next couple of weeks. I just hope they spend time fixing some bugs.


----------



## Reous

Alemancio said:


> Any idea when we'll get PBO and CO for 5800x3d in BIOS? MSI has already been releasing it for their boads


Any reason why you don't use the existings bios mods for X3D?


----------



## Kelutrel

Reous said:


> Any reason why you don't use the existings bios mods for X3D?


Bios ... mods ? That's new, any link ?


----------



## Reous

Kelutrel said:


> Bios ... mods ? That's new, any link ?


If you have a 5800X3D my mods unlocking PBO Limits, Curve Optimizer and PCH Fan control 








ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...


If someone with 5800X3D want to set the CO in the bios you can use this bios. It enables PBO in the AMD Overclocking menu. Note that only PBO Limits and CO will work. Hero 4201: https://www.mediafire.com/file/bkwsqghhgb569pq/Crosshair_VIII_Hero_4201V.rar/file Hero Wifi 4201...




www.overclock.net





If you just want PCH Fan control you can use the mods from Racus








[MOD BIOS ASUS X570] ROG Crosshair VIII Hero (WI-FI) & Formula - PCH Fan control


Hallo zusammen, ich biete Euch ein von mir gemoddetes BIOS an. Damit könnt ihr den nervigen Chipsatz-Lüfter steuern. Nur Kompatibel mit o.g. Mainboards in Verbindung mit Ryzen 3000/5000. From HERO to ZERO :o Die Modifikation selbst erfolgt nach bestem Gewissen. Per HEX Editor wird ein Teil...




www.hardwareluxx.de


----------



## Kelutrel

Reous said:


> If you have a 5800X3D my mods unlocking PBO Limits, Curve Optimizer and PCH Fan control
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...
> 
> 
> If someone with 5800X3D want to set the CO in the bios you can use this bios. It enables PBO in the AMD Overclocking menu. Note that only PBO Limits and CO will work. Hero 4201: https://www.mediafire.com/file/bkwsqghhgb569pq/Crosshair_VIII_Hero_4201V.rar/file Hero Wifi 4201...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you just want PCH Fan control you can use the mods from Racus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [MOD BIOS ASUS X570] ROG Crosshair VIII Hero (WI-FI) & Formula - PCH Fan control
> 
> 
> Hallo zusammen, ich biete Euch ein von mir gemoddetes BIOS an. Damit könnt ihr den nervigen Chipsatz-Lüfter steuern. Nur Kompatibel mit o.g. Mainboards in Verbindung mit Ryzen 3000/5000. From HERO to ZERO :o Die Modifikation selbst erfolgt nach bestem Gewissen. Per HEX Editor wird ein Teil...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hardwareluxx.de


How were those mods created ? It is my understanding that in a UEFI bios all modules are digitally signed from the mb builder and verified at boot, so to prevent tampering and grant a secure boot. Did someone leak an old private key or did anyone discover a way to safely disable this check ?


----------



## g_d_g_l__

*AMD Ryzen™ Chipset Driver **Release Notes 4.06.10.651*

*Release Highlights*

New program support added.
Six new drivers added.
Fixed pop-up message "AMD Chipset Software is not responding" when the installer is launched and UI screen is clicked.
*Known Issues*

Sometimes custom install fails to upgrade to latest drivers.
Text alignment issues may be seen on Russian language.
Manual system restart required on Non-English OS after the installation is complete.
Windows® Installer pop-up message may appear during the installation.
Uninstall summary log may incorrectly show uninstall status as fail on non-English OS.

https://www.amd.com/en/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570


----------



## blunden

Kelutrel said:


> How were those mods created ? It is my understanding that in a UEFI bios all modules are digitally signed from the mb builder and verified at boot, so to prevent tampering and grant a secure boot. Did someone leak an old private key or did anyone discover a way to safely disable this check ?


 I think the only time the BIOS signature is checked is when flashing it. I haven't looked into it though. Flashing it with AMI's tools (and possibly BIOS Flashback) instead of the built-in feature allows you to flash it anyway. As far as I know, none of the UEFI drivers included are modified, so the signature of those are by themselves intact. Concerning the code that is actually modifed, I don't think that was necessarily signature checked as part of the boot process anyway (it's basically just the UEFI UI code) so it probably doesn't affect Secure Boot.


----------



## Alemancio

Reous said:


> Any reason why you don't use the existings bios mods for X3D?


Thank you but unfortunately these BIOS are unsigned and I cant use Asus Flash, I have to do it via FlashBack and dont like that.


----------



## KedarWolf

Yes, I'm on MSI, but I think our BIOS's are similar. I'm pretty sure you have the CBS and PBS menus by default.

See this post for my BIOS settings.









MSI MEG X570S Unify-X MAX [OC & Discussion]


Hello nighthog I need some help in my build please I saw your work with the unify x max and i want to learn from your experience Am not an overclocker I just have a build in my mind and i want to know if its gonna work as my daily stable build I will use 5800x3d with kingston ddr4 5333mhz...




www.overclock.net





I get really great results with them.


----------



## xeizo

Alemancio said:


> Thank you but unfortunately these BIOS are unsigned and I cant use Asus Flash, I have to do it via FlashBack and dont like that.


Why not Flashback? I have done it numerous times as I have several boards with Flashback, it just works


----------



## candasulas

SpeedyIV said:


> There is a THREAD on the ROG forum that is now 57 pages long about this exact problem. Some say its seems to be related to BIOS 4006 and 4201. Others say it has nothing to do with Bios version. The thread started in July 2021 so its been happening for almost a year. Asus has acknowledged that its a hardware problem that requires sending the mobo back to be fixed or replaced with a refurbed mobo. The thread is about the Dark Hero but other models, including the Hero have been reported.
> 
> FWIW - I have a 5950X on a Dark Hero and have run every BIOS from 2002 to 4201 and have never had this problem. I don't know how widespread it is, but at least enough for there to be a 57 page long thread about it. I am praying that my mobo does not start doing this.


Yes, I wrote the title on the Asus Forums too. Asus official in Taiwan contacted me and I will send my Motherboard to RMA. This problem occurred after 4201 BIOS installation. And it keeps repeating. It persists even if I revert to the old BIOS. It's not improving.

I applied for the RMA and plan to ship the motherboard this week.
I hope your motherboard doesn't have this problem. Because it's all up to chance.


----------



## candasulas

neikosr0x said:


> I will tell you that, I had to format my PC after flashing 4201 and messing around CO and Ryzen master, my PC started throwing random blue screens quite constant just getting it to boot was a painnnnn. Also tried reverting back to 3801 but the issue persisted, did absolutely everything cleared CMOS, reseated ram, GPU, clean the PC and all that crap and didn't work lol. So I finally decided to flash 4201 back, entered all settings manually and did a clean windows 11 install. And for some reason problem solved, lol. Only one weird reboot in more than a month but I think it was some driver issue because I was messing around with some Logitech driver.


Frankly, I don't trust the 4201 BIOS and the previous 4006 BIOS. Because there are people who have a lot of problems with those BIOSes. After I installed the BIOS 4201, the startup problem that I mentioned arose. The problem persists even if I revert to the old BIOS. But most importantly ASUS said it's a hardware issue and recalled the motherboards to RMA. That's why I'm sending the motherboard to RMA.


----------



## xeizo

candasulas said:


> Frankly, I don't trust the 4201 BIOS and the previous 4006 BIOS. Because there are people who have a lot of problems with those BIOSes. After I installed the BIOS 4201, the startup problem that I mentioned arose. The problem persists even if I revert to the old BIOS. But most importantly ASUS said it's a hardware issue and recalled the motherboards to RMA. That's why I'm sending the motherboard to RMA.


Sounds likely it's hardware, as I have no problems with this generation of bios on three different motherboards. All three works just fine, with 5800X3D, 5900X and 5500.


----------



## GRABibus

KedarWolf said:


> Yes, I'm on MSI, but I think our BIOS's are similar. I'm pretty sure you have the CBS and PBS menus by default.
> 
> See this post for my BIOS settings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MSI MEG X570S Unify-X MAX [OC & Discussion]
> 
> 
> Hello nighthog I need some help in my build please I saw your work with the unify x max and i want to learn from your experience Am not an overclocker I just have a build in my mind and i want to know if its gonna work as my daily stable build I will use 5800x3d with kingston ddr4 5333mhz...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get really great results with them.
> 
> View attachment 2565342
> 
> View attachment 2565341
> 
> 
> View attachment 2565346
> 
> View attachment 2565345
> 
> View attachment 2565347
> 
> View attachment 2565343
> 
> View attachment 2565344


L1 Stream HW Prefetcher and L2 Stream HW Prefetcher Disabled ?


----------



## GRABibus

I never did CPU-Z bench since I have ZEN3 

Here is mine @ 27°C :










24/7 settings :


----------



## KedarWolf

GRABibus said:


> L1 Stream HW Prefetcher and L2 Stream HW Prefetcher Disabled ?


I get better L1 enabled, L2 disabled.


----------



## candasulas

xeizo said:


> Sounds likely it's hardware, as I have no problems with this generation of bios on three different motherboards. All three works just fine, with 5800X3D, 5900X and 5500.


The authorized person I spoke to on the Asus forum said it's hardware problem and I should send it to RMA. I will send my motherboard to RMA. I guess they will change.


----------



## learner-gr

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1541710124535885824


----------



## GRABibus

GRABibus said:


> I never did CPU-Z bench since I have ZEN3
> 
> Here is mine @ 27°C :
> 
> View attachment 2565444
> 
> 
> 24/7 settings :



Update @ 22°C


----------



## DvL Ax3l

GRABibus said:


> Update @ 22°C


22°C?!! France is so cold! XD in italy here in my room there are 27/28°C with ac on, out my apartment 34°C, I'm melting!!!


----------



## GRABibus

DvL Ax3l said:


> 22°C?!! France is so cold! XD in italy here in my room there are 27/28°C with ac on, out my apartment 34°C, I'm melting!!!


Yes, this night was fresh with rain.
I opened all windows for the test.

Now windows are closed and I am back to 25°C in house.


----------



## GRABibus

learner-gr said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1541710124535885824


If 7900X3D and 7950X3D will be released with possibility to overclock them, then, this is an upgrade option for me.


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> If 7900X3D and 7950X3D will be released with possibility to overclock them, then, this is an upgrade option for me.


I'm not sure I would be so eager to use a 7950X3D as a OC platform, if the L3 cache is prone to be fried as hinted by AMD, if it handily beats 13900K anyway I would be happy to just OC the memory. And regarding memory AMD has said there will be _insane speeds, _will be fun trying to find the best DDR5 for those speeds


----------



## Nizzen

xeizo said:


> I'm not sure I would be so eager to use a 7950X3D as a OC platform, if the L3 cache is prone to be fried as hinted by AMD, if it handily beats 13900K anyway I would be happy to just OC the memory. And regarding memory AMD has said there will be _insane speeds, _will be fun trying to find the best DDR5 for those speeds


Hope AMD figures out memory, because it's very boring on x570 

Imagine if AMD figures ddr5 out perfect the first round, and we can run 7200+ c30 max tweaked easy  

I love memory tuning, so AMD better step up the game this time


----------



## neikosr0x

GRABibus said:


> Yes, this night was fresh with rain.
> I opened all windows for the test.
> 
> Now windows are closed and I am back to 25°C in house.


25c 😷


----------



## g_d_g_l__

neikosr0x said:


> 25c 😷



27 degrees and 72 percent humidity, it's fine indoors


----------



## GRABibus

This night was fresh again and I could decrease room temperature to 21°C and got this


----------



## xeizo

LoL actually wrong season doing benchmarks, the room _do not_ need any extra heat of any kind


----------



## J7SC

xeizo said:


> LoL actually wrong season doing benchmarks, the room _do not_ need any extra heat of any kind


...yup, too hot right now. Mind you, in the fall / winter, we already could be benching s.th. else, such as the new AMD and Intel CPUs


----------



## ChillyRide

Nizzen said:


> Hope AMD figures out memory, because it's very boring on x570
> 
> Imagine if AMD figures ddr5 out perfect the first round, and we can run 7200+ c30 max tweaked easy
> 
> I love memory tuning, so AMD better step up the game this time


What you mean boring? Its only u make it boring  Waiting cl13 with tuned timings and nice stress test from you


----------



## ChillyRide

GRABibus said:


> This night was fresh again and I could decrease room temperature to 21°C and got this
> 
> View attachment 2565703


we already seen this screen so many times


----------



## Nizzen

ChillyRide said:


> What you mean boring? Its only u make it boring  Waiting cl13 with tuned timings and nice stress test from you


Slow memoryspeed is boring... yes most 5950x does 3800-3866mhz max without whea error.

Running 3800c14 stright now. C13 is no chance with my sticks. ~60GB/s LOL. So boring!
Running 4700c17 1t on 10900k and 7000c30 on 12900k, so x570 is boring if you compare them. This is my oppinion 



Like you said a while ago: "But I am back to my stable 3800:1900. Nothing helps to stabilise ram. I spend countless hours on reading, testing and stabilising my rig with cl13. I am done spending more time."

🤣 🤟


----------



## GRABibus

ChillyRide said:


> we already seen this screen so many times


No no, I won some points 😊


----------



## learner-gr

AMD to Reveal Ryzen 5 5600X3D and Ryzen 9 5900X3D with up to 200MB of Cache (128MB 3D Stacked) Next Month? | Hardware Times


A while back, it was reported that AMD might launch additional Zen 3 SKUs leveraging the 3D V-Cache technology. It would seem that that rumor is indeed true. Well-reputed tipster @Greymon55 has stated that there will be “several new products” headed to the Zen 3D family next month. There’s no...




www.hardwaretimes.com


----------



## Blackfyre

learner-gr said:


> AMD to Reveal Ryzen 5 5600X3D and Ryzen 9 5900X3D with up to 200MB of Cache (128MB 3D Stacked) Next Month? | Hardware Times
> 
> 
> A while back, it was reported that AMD might launch additional Zen 3 SKUs leveraging the 3D V-Cache technology. It would seem that that rumor is indeed true. Well-reputed tipster @Greymon55 has stated that there will be “several new products” headed to the Zen 3D family next month. There’s no...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hardwaretimes.com


5900X3D with 200MB of 3D Cache will be a great upgrade in a few years' time for those of us with a 5600X or 5800X. Not really needed right now unless people are upgrading from previous generations or really need every framerate out of their system.


----------



## Kelutrel

Blackfyre said:


> 5900X3D with 200MB of 3D Cache will be a great upgrade in a few years' time for those of us with a 5600X or 5800X. Not really needed right now unless people are upgrading from previous generations or really need every framerate out of their system.


Tbh, it's the last AM4 cpu and the 5900 process yield improved over time so the 3d cache would be on better cpus than the 5900 I bought at launch, and having double the cache imho avoids the need to switch to DDR5 for a good while, so if AMD actually releases a 5900X3D I will take a chance with it and hopefully grant a few more years to my system chipset.
This is all a guess though, benchmarks will have the final words here as the added cache may increase the thermals so much that the corresponsing reduction in peak frequency may offset any advantage. Benchmarks on the 5800X3D showed a 30-40% improvement in videogames when not gpu limited ( here ) , so for future games it may be worthwhile, but we'll see.


----------



## ChillyRide

Nizzen said:


> Slow memoryspeed is boring... yes most 5950x does 3800-3866mhz max without whea error.
> 
> Running 3800c14 stright now. C13 is no chance with my sticks. ~60GB/s LOL. So boring!
> Running 4700c17 1t on 10900k and 7000c30 on 12900k, so x570 is boring if you compare them. This is my oppinion
> 
> 
> 
> Like you said a while ago: "But I am back to my stable 3800:1900. Nothing helps to stabilise ram. I spend countless hours on reading, testing and stabilising my rig with cl13. I am done spending more time."
> 
> 🤣 🤟


problem was with agesa, 3801 bios had absolute stupid imc voltage requirements. And it was half a year ago oO U can find screen where I succeeded with cl 13


----------



## J7SC

Kelutrel said:


> Tbh, it's the last AM4 cpu and the 5900 process yield improved over time so the 3d cache would be on better cpus than the 5900 I bought at launch, and having double the cache imho avoids the need to switch to DDR5 for a good while, so if AMD actually releases a 5900X3D I will take a chance with it and hopefully grant a few more years to my system chipset.
> This is all a guess though, benchmarks will have the final words here as the added cache may increase the thermals so much that the corresponsing reduction in peak frequency may offset any advantage. Benchmarks on the 5800X3D showed a 30-40% improvement in videogames when not gpu limited ( here ) , so for future games it may be worthwhile, but we'll see.


...'over at AMD Epyc land', you can buy rather expen$ive 3D vCache CPUs with up to 768 MB of cache and 64c/128t...using the table below from > Anandtech, the frequency 'penalty' for the extra stacked cache seems to be between 100 MHz and 200 MHz for comparable models.












ChillyRide said:


> problem was with agesa, 3801 bios had absolute stupid imc voltage requirements. And it was half a year ago oO U can find screen where I succeeded with cl 13


...I had no problems w/ 3801 on imc voltages after upgrading from 3501...even at DDR4 3933 and up


----------



## DvL Ax3l

Just FYI I've noticed on my 5900X that if I set VDDG CCD/IOD 0.800/0.900 USB still drop connection, the lower voltages seems 0.900/1.000 for avoid the issue, for CLDO VDDP I need 1.075 for tPHYRDL 26 on both channels, if I leave everything on auto it will set CCD 1.000 / IOD 1.050 / CLDO 1.100

EDIT: forgot to say, I need also procODT 34.3 for tPHYRDL 26, but to make it boot with it I need to boot with 1.45V on VDIMM, after the boot I go again in the BIOS and set 1.35V VDIMM and it boot without issue and don't need to do again this trick with VDIMM, anyway I can pass every ram test in windows...


----------



## ChillyRide

J7SC said:


> ...'over at AMD Epyc land', you can buy rather expen$ive 3D vCache CPUs with up to 768 MB of cache and 64c/128t...using the table below from > Anandtech, the frequency 'penalty' for the extra stacked cache seems to be between 100 MHz and 200 MHz for comparable models.
> View attachment 2565874
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...I had no problems w/ 3801 on imc voltages after upgrading from 3501...even at DDR4 3933 and up
> View attachment 2565875


Mine with 2x16GB and 1T cl13 want VDDP/CCD/IOD 0.975v on 3801 in order to be stable. With 4006+ bios values bacome more reasonable and make sense.


----------



## g_d_g_l__

ChillyRide said:


> Mine with 2x16GB and 1T cl13 want VDDP/CCD/IOD 0.975v on 3801 in order to be stable. With 4006+ bios values bacome more reasonable and make sense.
> View attachment 2565907


What happened to the screenshot? Processor overlay? A rogue who now thinks of manipulation


----------



## ChillyRide

g_d_g_l__ said:


> What happened to the screenshot? Processor overlay? A rogue who now thinks of manipulation


dont know what happend  here with test results


----------



## GRABibus

ChillyRide said:


> dont know what happend  here with test results


Why 21 threads at Karhu’s RAM test ?


----------



## Anulu

Got my Hands on new 5600g für 99 SwissFrancs (~100$)







Did only a quick Test had some single Errors in Testmem but i think it should be possible to get it stable IF2000/DDR4000
There were no WHEA Errors and i played BFV which can Trigger them pretty fast.
Had to put back the 5950x because i bent a Pin on the Corner while cleaning the IHS  








Bent the Pin back and reinstalled the 5950x boot stopped with error 07 and i was shocked for a Moment until i remembered that my 3070 cant boot with the PCIe 3.0 Riser Cable lol
Everything works again but Boost seems to be higher after reinstalling the latest Chipset Driver.
Im gonna buy a cheap Board for the 5600G since i want to see how the iGPU works and there is no HDMI/DP on the Backpanel of the 
CH VIII Impact...


----------



## ChillyRide

GRABibus said:


> Why 21 threads at Karhu’s RAM test ?


damn, have no idea O_O. Probably I missclicked.


----------



## J7SC

I fooled around with tRCD a bit (14>13), did the stress testing and managed to get some decent rewards re. latency, all at the same voltages as before. I usually run tRFC a bit tighter but for now, I see how my fav games and apps respond to this new setting...FS2020, here I come... 










...in other news, rumour mill is going wild (bring the salt shaker) re. a 5950X 3DVcache, and also a Zen4 version for the current socket (ie. DDR4)...


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> I fooled around with tRCD a bit (14>13), did the stress testing and managed to get some decent rewards re. latency, all at the same voltages as before. I usually run tRFC a bit tighter but for now, I see how my fav games and apps respond to this new setting...FS2020, here I come...
> View attachment 2566023
> 
> 
> 
> ...in other news, rumour mill is going wild (bring the salt shaker) re. a 5950X 3DVcache, and also a Zen4 version for the current socket (ie. DDR4)...


Did you try trcdwr=8, tras=27 and trc=40 ?


----------



## GRABibus

ChillyRide said:


> damn, have no idea O_O. Probably I missclicked.


You have to restart your stability test 😂


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> Did you try trcdwr=8, tras=27 and trc=40 ?


...not yet; this 'native' Samsung-B GSkill 4000 CL15 GTZR has never been fully maxed, but already puts out great performance numbers. I also undervolt it a bit, just like I do with the 5950X. As to dropping tRAS, it can potentially have some negative effect on GPU 1%, 10% 'low' fps in my experience. Still, when I have time to fool around some more with this kit, I see about tightening up some parameters more (as long as I can keep the voltages, and pass stress test).


----------



## Anulu

Should i OC the 5600G AllCore with Multi and fixed Voltage or PBO with Curve Optimizer?
Ram looks good so far,should be able to go a little bit higher but 4400 with relaxed Timings didnt boot.
Board Sets 1.8PLL to 1.9v on AUTO.Not sure if thats even necessary


----------



## Kelutrel

Anulu said:


> Should i OC the 5600G AllCore with Multi and fixed Voltage or PBO with Curve Optimizer?
> Ram looks good so far,should be able to go a little bit higher but 4400 with relaxed Timings didnt boot.
> Board Sets 1.8PLL to 1.9v on AUTO.Not sure if thats even necessary
> View attachment 2566101


What ram voltage did you use for 2100MHz ?
1.8PLL to 1.92v is weird but will just raise your cpu temperature a bit ( source ). You may want to check if you are stable with just 1.82-1.85v to relax your thermals.


----------



## Anulu

Kelutrel said:


> What ram voltage did you use for 2100MHz ?
> 1.8PLL to 1.92v is weird but will just raise your cpu temperature a bit ( source ). You may want to check if you are stable with just 1.82-1.85v to relax your thermals.


Ram is 1.45V in Bios but HWinfo Shows 1.48v,same Voltage they are [email protected] 14-15-14.XMP Profile is [email protected]
With my 5950x PLL was always [email protected] 1900IF no WHEAs.Im gonna test how this Voltage affects IF oc.

Edit: short Testmem run @ 4266 same Ram Voltage/Timings but with 1.8vPLL
Its too hot in my Room,Ram is going over 45c after a while with a 120mm Fan blowing on them,
Downside of two Ramslots on ITX Boards


----------



## J7SC

Anulu said:


> Ram is 1.45V in Bios but HWinfo Shows 1.48v,same Voltage they are [email protected] 14-15-14.XMP Profile is [email protected]
> With my 5950x PLL was always [email protected] 1900IF no WHEAs.Im gonna test how this Voltage affects IF oc.
> 
> Edit: short Testmem run @ 4266 same Ram Voltage/Timings but with 1.8vPLL
> Its too hot in my Room,Ram is going over 45c after a while with a 120mm Fan blowing on them,
> Downside of two Ramslots on ITX Boards
> View attachment 2566139


Nice results either way ! The 5600G is single chiplet and those can have an easier time re. RAM clocks. As at @Kelutrel suggested, excessive PLL adds extra heat into the CPU. My 5950X is set to 1.82v PLL and typically 'shows' 1.79v to 1.8v.

Personally, I would try to run the IF2000 / DDR4 4000 you showed earlier, but with tighter timings (if possible)... 16-18-18-18 / tRC 48 leaves some extra performance on the table, IMO.


----------



## Anulu

J7SC said:


> Nice results either way !


Thx
There is still Headroom with higher Ram Voltage and i didnt really try tighter Timings since i had rare Errors in Testmem with 
[email protected] but according to "Veli`s List" they have to do with RTT Nom,CadBus and ProcODT

For now i try to find out the highest possible IF because i want to see how far i can push the iGPU 1:1 later
I wonder if that USB-C can be used for Display? 

What i really like about the 5600g vs the 5950x is the low Temperature.
max 52c in PUBG while the Big One runs 65c with Spikes to low 70s!
As a Result GPU Temp was 2-3c lower too with two Triple Rads,D5 Pump,3070 EKWB undervolted


----------



## J7SC

@GRABibus ...did some more tightening at the same IMC voltages, per Zen screen below. 4x8 sticks @ 1.485 V (stock = 1.5v)...Not a single WHEA with RAM stress testing, Superposition and a long FS2020 session (ambient was 25 C) - all buttery smooth, but perhaps it is 'all in my head' ? . I could tighten tRAS some more, but I'm old school and like to keep it at 14+13+2. Next step is to try my standard tRFC, or even lower. There's also the 3966 MHz which wants to play...

When the time comes to upgrade (no hurry), I hope Samsung has a DDR5 'B-die' out that continues the tradition. For now though, this setup leaves nothing to be desired and is great fun all around.


----------



## stimpy88

J7SC said:


> @GRABibus ...did some more tightening at the same IMC voltages, per Zen screen below. 4x8 sticks @ 1.485 V (stock = 1.5v)...Not a single WHEA with RAM stress testing, Superposition and a long FS2020 session (ambient was 25 C) - all buttery smooth, but perhaps it is 'all in my head' ? . I could tighten tRAS some more, but I'm old school and like to keep it at 14+13+2. Next step is to try my standard tRFC, or even lower. There's also the 3966 MHz which wants to play...
> 
> When the time comes to upgrade (no hurry), I hope Samsung has a DDR5 'B-die' out that continues the tradition. For now though, this setup leaves nothing to be desired and is great fun all around.
> View attachment 2566199


Nice, but your using GDM mode, and your also using odd numbered timings, which GDM rounds up. You really should try without GDM.


----------



## Nico67

just a quick question, is 1.8V PLL on Asus what others call VDD18?


----------



## stimpy88

Nico67 said:


> just a quick question, is 1.8V PLL on Asus what others call VDD18?


Yes - FYI, The reported voltage seems to always be lower than the voltage set in the BIOS.


----------



## J7SC

stimpy88 said:


> Nice, but your using GDM mode, and your also using odd numbered timings, which GDM rounds up. You really should try without GDM.


...err, I've already posted various GDM off before (like below) 

In my post above, it is primarily about running tRC at 40 (and also tRCDWR at 8) WHEA-free with 4 sticks and below-stock voltages. For all I care, it can round up 'the 13s'. What I really want to do is get 3933 down to the 14s w/ tRC at 40 WHEA-free at the same voltages as I undervolt both the RAM and CPU a bit.


----------



## stimpy88

J7SC said:


> ...err, I've already posted various GDM off before (like below)
> 
> In my post above, it is primarily about running tRC at 40 (and also tRCDWR at 8) WHEA-free with 4 sticks and below-stock voltages. For all I care, it can round up 'the 13s'. What I really want to do is get 3933 down to the 14s w/ tRC at 40 WHEA-free at the same voltages as I undervolt both the RAM and CPU a bit.
> View attachment 2566211


I see, have you thought about just running 3800 with tight timings, or are you seeing significantly more bandwidth with your 3933 tests, compared to 3800 with tight timings? I also suffer with WHEA errors if I go above 3800, and for me it seems to be the CPU causing them, rather than anything I can do with my memory timings.

FWIW my bandwidth numbers are almost the same as [email protected] when I'm at 3800, at least within half a gig per second read.

And what is the benefit of tRCDWR at 8? I've seen a few do this, but it does not seem translate in to any meaningful benefit that I can see. I have also been told that the Ryzen memory controller makes it look like you have selected that timing, but it does not actually use it, which would explain the lack of increased bandwidth or lower latency that I've noticed.


----------



## J7SC

I guess you didn't see @GRABibus ' post above ?...I just had some fun trying those out and decided to keep tRC 40. 











In any case, there are a lot of options w/ native DDR4 4000 CL15 and per this earlier post below, I have run pretty much everything under the sun - I only wish the CH8 DarkH would have more bios profile slots to save tested profiles! It's always a trade-off between bandwidth and latency...


----------



## GRABibus

Incredible low price for 5600X :



Amazon.com


----------



## polyh3dron

Is it normal for a 5950X with PBO and a 3090 FE at stock on a Dark Hero in a custom loop with 2x EK Coolstream PE 360 radiators, Lian Li UNIFAN SL120 fans, and a DDC 3.2 pump on the old style EK O11D side distro plate to get a loop temp of about 45 degrees under gaming load with fans at the max speed?


----------



## Syldon

polyh3dron said:


> Is it normal for a 5950X with PBO and a 3090 FE at stock on a Dark Hero in a custom loop with 2x EK Coolstream PE 360 radiators, Lian Li UNIFAN SL120 fans, and a DDC 3.2 pump on the old style EK O11D side distro plate to get a loop temp of about 45 degrees under gaming load with fans at the max speed?


You set your fans to what you wish them to be at. You can do that through the bios options, but I have seen problems with crosshair boards in the past where it ignores those limits set.
There is also the option of software controls. Jaytwocents gave an option in one of their videos, and then others stated there were other options out there also. They were discussed here.


----------



## metalshark

polyh3dron said:


> Is it normal for a 5950X with PBO and a 3090 FE at stock on a Dark Hero in a custom loop with 2x EK Coolstream PE 360 radiators, Lian Li UNIFAN SL120 fans, and a DDC 3.2 pump on the old style EK O11D side distro plate to get a loop temp of about 45 degrees under gaming load with fans at the max speed?


Depends, can get the 5950X sat at over 300W steady with ~600W on the 3090 and that gets toasty especially now in the heatwave. Normally start limiting the 3090. Don’t like the loop going over 40’C but that’s gonna be tested this week, especially if we get over 40’C ambient this Sunday.

But yeah sounds like your pump/fans are running slow. Have triple 360mm rads with Noctua’s for reference.


----------



## Azazil1190

Guy's one quick question.
Which bios is more stable for 5950 and hero x570.(wifi)
3801 or 4201?
Im on 3801 now and im thinking update to 4201


----------



## Blackfyre

Azazil1190 said:


> Guy's one quick question.
> Which bios is more stable for 5950 and hero x570.(wifi)
> 3801 or 4201?
> Im on 3801 now and im thinking update to 4201


STABLE = Always Latest
Best performance for benchmarks = 3801

IMO just go for the latest unless you want to start benchmarking. 

Gaming and 95% of apps there's no performance difference. Stability is better with the latest BIOS, and for the few apps that performance drops, it's not by much.

BIOS versions after 3801 started regulating voltages better and healthier for longevity of chips, but there was a slight performance drop in apps that use ALL CORES at 100% all the time, since the voltage drop results in slightly lower all core clocks.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

I think some of you guys will find it very usefull:


----------



## Azazil1190

Blackfyre said:


> STABLE = Always Latest
> Best performance for benchmarks = 3801
> 
> IMO just go for the latest unless you want to start benchmarking.
> 
> Gaming and 95% of apps there's no performance difference. Stability is better with the latest BIOS, and for the few apps that performance drops, it's not by much.
> 
> BIOS versions after 3801 started regulating voltages better and healthier for longevity of chips, but there was a slight performance drop in apps that use ALL CORES at 100% all the time, since the voltage drop results in slightly lower all core clocks.


Thnx for the analytical answer!
Im done with benchmarks at this platform.
So im gonna update tonight


----------



## polyh3dron

metalshark said:


> Depends, can get the 5950X sat at over 300W steady with ~600W on the 3090 and that gets toasty especially now in the heatwave. Normally start limiting the 3090. Don’t like the loop going over 40’C but that’s gonna be tested this week, especially if we get over 40’C ambient this Sunday.
> 
> But yeah sounds like your pump/fans are running slow. Have triple 360mm rads with Noctua’s for reference.


My Lian Li UNIFAN SL120 fans are pulling heat up from my bottom 360 rad and pushing heat through my top 360 rad. They're at full blast which L-Connect says is 1890 RPM. My DDC 3.2 pump is running at 4500 RPM per HWINFO64.

My ambient temp is about 24 C.


----------



## Azazil1190

Ι update to 4201.
Much better behaviour at voltages and temps but like the friend above said the all core boost are lower a bit.
Another thing is i cant found the boost co.(+50+75 etc)
The only options are i don't remember exactly something like "boost positive and boost negative" 🤔

I didnt test anything only the Valhalla bench to check the lows vs the 3801 and they are very close.
Cppc i have it enable im gonna try disabling.

3801









4201


----------



## DvL Ax3l

Azazil1190 said:


> Ι update to 4201.
> Much better behaviour at voltages and temps but like the friend above said the all core boost are lower a bit.
> Another thing is i cant found the boost co.(+50+75 etc)
> The only options are i don't remember exactly something like "boost positive and boost negative" 🤔


After setting positive boost should appear a blank box where u can put how much boost you want from 0 to 200


----------



## Azazil1190

DvL Ax3l said:


> After setting positive boost should appear a blank box where u can put how much boost you want from 0 to 200


Thnx a lot!


----------



## Blackfyre

DvL Ax3l said:


> After setting positive boost should appear a blank box where u can put how much boost you want from 0 to 200


Yep, this ^ @Azazil1190 

In increments of 25, so you can put:

25, 50, 75, 100, 125, 150, 175, or 200

Make sure you also *disable* @PBO Fmax Enhancer if you have it enabled. This makes you lose performance too.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

Blackfyre said:


> Yep, this ^ @Azazil1190
> 
> In increments of 25, so you can put:
> 
> 25, 50, 75, 100, 125, 150, 175, or 200
> 
> Make sure you also *disable* @PBO Fmax Enhancer if you have it enabled. This makes you lose performance too.
> View attachment 2566550


And don't use the AI tweaker PBO, use the one under advanced settings AMD overclocking, it's more reliable!


----------



## Azazil1190

DvL Ax3l said:


> And don't use the AI tweaker PBO, use the one under advanced settings AMD overclocking, it's more reliable!


Only this way i use from the beginning of 5xxx
And of course i play only manual pbo and percore optimise

Here some quick summer tests bios 3801 (really hot here 27c room temp)
*I have average sample.But stable at 3800/1900 c15 rams.

Cpu z










CB r15










Cb r23










Gb5










*Gb5 pbo off only curve opt.









When ill find free time i will run again those test to see differences vs 4201


----------



## GRABibus

Azazil1190 said:


> Only this way i use from the beginning of 5xxx
> And of course i play only manual pbo and percore optimise
> 
> Here some quick summer tests bios 3801 (really hot here 27c room temp)
> *I have average sample.But stable at 3800/1900 c15 rams.
> 
> Cpu z
> 
> View attachment 2566552
> 
> 
> CB r15
> 
> View attachment 2566553
> 
> 
> Cb r23
> 
> View attachment 2566554
> 
> 
> Gb5
> 
> View attachment 2566555
> 
> 
> *Gb5 pbo off only curve opt.
> View attachment 2566556
> 
> 
> When ill find free time i will run again those test to see differences


Did you disable prefetcher L1 and L2 HW ?


----------



## Azazil1190

GRABibus said:


> Did you disable prefetcher L1 and L2 HW ?


No what is this? 😅


----------



## GRABibus

Azazil1190 said:


> No what is this? 😅


I am not a t home but if someone can provide you where those options are located in bios.

You will raise your CBR23 single core score by 20 points, CBR23 multi core score by 400-500 points.
Your memory latency in aida64 should decrease all by 0,5ns at least.

Your scores are already nice, despite you didn’t disable those 2 options 😊


----------



## Azazil1190

GRABibus said:


> I am not a t home but if someone can provide you where those options are located in bios.
> 
> You will raise your CBR23 single core score by 20 points, CBR23 multi core score by 400-500 points.
> Your memory latency in aida64 should decrease all by 0,5ns at least.
> 
> Your scores are already nice, despite you didn’t disable those 2 options 😊


Perfect!
Thnx mate appreciate!


----------



## Blackfyre

GRABibus said:


> Did you disable prefetcher L1 and L2 HW ?


These are not recommended for everyday use I believe.

Only if you want to get better scores in benchmarks. After that, put them back on enabled.


----------



## GRABibus

Blackfyre said:


> These are not recommended for everyday use I believe.
> 
> Only if you want to get better scores in benchmarks. After that, put them back on enabled.


Both are disabled 24/7 for me


----------



## Azazil1190

Where are these settings?


----------



## GRABibus

Azazil1190 said:


> Where are these settings?


Under AMD overclocking options :
AMD CBS > CPU Common Options > Prefetcher Settings:


----------



## Azazil1190

GRABibus said:


> Under AMD overclocking options :
> AMD CBS > CPU Common Options > Prefetcher Settings:


You are the best!
I will try them too.


----------



## J7SC

Blackfyre said:


> These are not recommended for everyday use I believe.
> 
> Only if you want to get better scores in benchmarks. After that, put them back on enabled.





GRABibus said:


> Both are disabled 24/7 for me


I also run both disabled...it isn't so much about extra multi-core performance (which is nice), but at least on my setup, it translates into a big power and temp savings at higher multi-scores. There's a small penalty on single-core performance, but it is minor as long as the individual cores in a CCX have reasonably similar performance (running 5950X, CH* DarkH bios 3801, small undervolt and CPU and RAM).


----------



## Azazil1190

I made a run cb r23 multi
Bios 3801 score 30125
Vs
Bios 4201 score 30007


Also at gb5 
3801 
Single 1808 multi 19219
Vs
4201
Single 1793 multi 19279

So yes the new bios at cpu benchmarks are a little bit worst


----------



## PWn3R

I rebuilt my rig from an LDPC v8 case that I had modified to fit a 560mm at the top into this Tower 900. 3xD5 pump, 2x480mm and 1x560mm. Fans have to run higher RPM because the radiators are double stacked and offset so that I can get at the fittings. The GPU temps at 8c higher with the water flow reversed going from CPU to GPU instead of the other way. Hardware is a 5950x and 3090.

Edit: in hindsight, I probably could’ve/should have split the loops and had one for CPU and one for GPU. I am not impressed with the thermals on my 5950x it gets hotter than my 7980xe. Tdie in high 30s best case and 50s under load, and into the 70s when the room hears up by 20 degrees after like 8 hours even with all this rad.


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> I also run both disabled...it isn't so much about extra multi-core performance (which is nice), but at least on my setup, it translates into a big power and temp savings at higher multi-scores. There's a small penalty on single-core performance, but it is minor as long as the individual cores in a CCX have reasonably similar performance (running 5950X, CH* DarkH bios 3801, small undervolt and CPU and RAM).


I get better single core score CBR23 with both disabled.


----------



## Azazil1190

GRABibus said:


> I get better single core score CBR23 with both disabled.


Much better like you said


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> I get better single core score CBR23 with both disabled.


It depends on the app...CBR23 is one thing but with FS2020, there's a small loss of about 25 MHz or so re. effective...doesn't matter much, though in the real world . As posted, I really just like the lower CPU heat (25 C ambient for below, L1L2 on 'normal') in the loop as a result of L1L2 mod.


----------



## Nizzen

GRABibus said:


> Incredible low price for 5600X :
> 
> 
> 
> Amazon.com


Intel 12400f is faster in games and was 150$... 5600x is still too expensive


----------



## GRABibus

Nizzen said:


> Intel 12400f is faster in games and was 150$... 5600x is still too expensive


There is not only gaming.
This is relative, this is the lower price I saw on 5600X and for whom who wants to build a low budget rig on AM4, that’s a very good deal 🤓


----------



## KedarWolf

Azazil1190 said:


> Much better like you said
> 
> View attachment 2566567


If you're benching y-cruncher you'll get better results L1 enabled, L2 disabled. But yes, Cinebench, both disabled are better.


----------



## KedarWolf

KedarWolf said:


> If you're benching y-cruncher you'll get better results L1 enabled, L2 disabled. But yes, Cinebench, both disabled are better.


L1 enabled, L2 disabled get the same single-core in R20 as both enabled, the best y-cruncher, better R23 than both enabled. Both disabled gets the worse R20 single-core but the best multicore.


----------



## Azazil1190

KedarWolf said:


> If you're benching y-cruncher you'll get better results L1 enabled, L2 disabled. But yes, Cinebench, both disabled are better.


And if you benching gaming scenarios?
The same?


----------



## KedarWolf

Azazil1190 said:


> And if you benching gaming scenarios?
> The same?


I don't have the answer to that.


----------



## GRABibus

KedarWolf said:


> L1 enabled, L2 disabled get the same single-core in R20 as both enabled, the best y-cruncher, better R23 than both enabled. Both disabled gets the worse R20 single-core but the best multicore.


I got my best R20 single score with both disabled (657points).


----------



## Kelutrel

The L1 and L2 cache prefetch features are built to overcome some specific missed optimizations in the code, and are ineffective or even counterproductive when the code is well optimized or the memory access pattern is somehow skewing the predictors. So, if you find any modern-enough mainstream game that actually performs substantially (aka >2%) worse by having both L1/L2 disabled, please let me know it as I am curious about this.


----------



## g_d_g_l__

Kelutrel said:


> The L1 and L2 cache prefetch features are built to overcome some specific missed optimizations in the code, and are ineffective or even counterproductive when the code is well optimized or the memory access pattern is somehow skewing the predictors. So, if you find any modern-enough mainstream game that actually performs substantially (aka >2%) worse by having both L1/L2 disabled, please let me know it as I am curious about this.


I couldn't have explained it better. That's my level of knowledge too.


----------



## xProlific

Kelutrel said:


> The L1 and L2 cache prefetch features are built to overcome some specific missed optimizations in the code, and are ineffective or even counterproductive when the code is well optimized or the memory access pattern is somehow skewing the predictors. So, if you find any modern-enough mainstream game that actually performs substantially (aka >2%) worse by having both L1/L2 disabled, please let me know it as I am curious about this.


Disabling the L1 and L2 prefetchers makes Halo Infinite perform differently and can't definitively call it worse but it is most certainty different. In my experience playing on a controller aiming become more sharp/rigid and less smooth with them disabled. Timing/ syncing also appears to change potentially causing issues with shot registration, or this may be a result in the increased rigitity mentioned previously.


----------



## J7SC

Kelutrel said:


> The L1 and L2 cache prefetch features are built to overcome some specific missed optimizations in the code, and are ineffective or even counterproductive when the code is well optimized or the memory access pattern is somehow skewing the predictors. So, if you find any modern-enough mainstream game that actually performs substantially (aka >2%) worse by having both L1/L2 disabled, please let me know it as I am curious about this.


...In addition, I noticed major & consistent CPU Package Power power-saving with L1L2 prefetch off


----------



## Kelutrel

Thank you. Some tiny difference in package power with L1/L2 disabled may make some sense, depending on the workload, but I have no clue about the controller aiming thing.
Actually, I may have specified better, I was referring to a consistent variation in frames per second.


----------



## xProlific

Kelutrel said:


> Thank you. Some tiny difference in package power with L1/L2 disabled may make some sense, depending on the workload, but I have no clue about the controller aiming thing.
> Actually, I may have specified better, I was referring to a consistent variation in frames per second.


You asked for a game where there is a difference and I gave you one. Can you name and non-modern game where there would be a significant difference in FPS? Are you certain that L1 and L2 will reflect in FPS if that is your basis of measurement in any application, cause I honestly don't know.

Anyhow I do notice that on my system disabling both prefetchers does have a negative impact on memory stability, it is the diffence between getting errors and not getting errors in Karhu, though again I am not sure why that would be.


----------



## Kelutrel

Well, if anyone is curious about what L1/L2 prefetchers do, and in which cases and why they make a difference, I can provide this info or you can just google for it. Actually Karhu should be more stable having both disabled as in that case the ram dimms are stressed a tiny tiny bit less.
Anyways, I am interested in that videogame fps difference if anyone notices it.


----------



## xProlific

Kelutrel said:


> Actually Karhu should be more stable having both disabled as in that case the ram dimms are stressed a tiny tiny bit less.


Well one would think so but this has not been the case in my experience having tested multiple times. 

I am no authority on the subject but what actually I think what is being actually being changed is the *timing *of the stress caused by writing to RAM. 
Prefethers ON- Wrtiting to RAM occurs before the code is needed to be used. 
Prefethers OFF- Writing to Ram occurs as code is called for.

In the first scenario you are separating Read from Write stress. In the second you are Stacking Read and Write stress on top of on another at a moment when code is needed thus this is actually the more stressful scenario.


----------



## Kelutrel

xProlific said:


> Well one would think so but this has not been the case in my experience having tested multiple times.
> 
> I am no authority on the subject but what actually I think what is being actually being changed is the *timing *of the stress caused by writing to RAM.
> Prefethers ON- Wrtiting to RAM occurs before the code is needed to be used.
> Prefethers OFF- Writing to Ram occurs as code is called for.
> 
> In the first scenario you are separating Read from Write stress. In the second you are Stacking Read and Write stress on top of on another at a moment when code is needed thus this is actually the more stressful scenario.


I dont want to discuss this any further but prefetchers work only when reading memory and not writing, cache reads and writes are inherently atomic operations and can't be stacked, and I didnt get what you said about the need of the code but usually the cpu accesses the RAM for writing when it needs to and not before.


----------



## xProlific

Kelutrel said:


> I dont want to discuss this any further but prefetchers work only when reading memory and not writing, cache reads and writes are inherently atomic operations and can't be stacked, and I didnt get what you said about the need of the code but usually the cpu accesses the RAM for writing when it needs to and not before.


I mixed up writing to ram with writing to cache but the logic is the same. Essentially what I am getting at is moving code physically closer to the position where it will be used (the CPU) is faster than accessing that code from further away. I will admit that in this scenario I have a harder time explaining memory instability caused by disabling prefethers that I have observed. Maybe the increased stress is on the memory controller instead of the RAM.

Also your statement about RAM not accessing data prior to needing it is incorrect Windows prefethers built into the OS that do just this.


----------



## J7SC

Kelutrel said:


> Well, if anyone is curious about what L1/L2 prefetchers do, and in which cases and why they make a difference, I can provide this info or you can just google for it. Actually Karhu should be more stable having both disabled as in that case the ram dimms are stressed a tiny tiny bit less.
> Anyways, I am interested in that videogame fps difference if anyone notices it.


Just out of curiosity, I ran CP2077 & SOTR on my 5950X/3090 CH8 DarkH combo with L1L2 prefetch on auto, then again with L1L2 prefetch disabled. The 3090 Strix was bone stock (no PL, no OC, regular vBios instead of the 520 KPE) to take the GPU out of the equation.

...result is no appreciable difference in SOTR (identical fps), and in CP2077, 'a whopping' 0.5 fps advantage for L1L2 prefetch off setting which is well within the run-to-run variance...


----------



## Kelutrel

So, the point that I am trying to make is that nowadays the cpu cache prefetchers are probably unneeded in most cases, as both the OS and the videogames code are heavily optimised enough to not have to rely on the automatic prefetchers behavior. The quality of the hand-optimised machine code that can be written by manually driving the prefetch hints will always be equally fast, if not faster, than relying on the automatic optimisations of the cpu prefetchers.
Other things, like javascript benchmarks, will always be slower with prefetchers off, because javascript is not really optimised at the cpu level, but the times when actual real websites javascript code is bottlenecked by the ram access is very rare with the cpus and ram speed we have these days.
And Geekbench is a notable outlier that will always be slower with the cpu cache prefetchers disabled, as they were probably extra smart and didn't heavily optimise their code so that the cpu internal logics have to recognise and optimise the code paths and so they get a better benchmark of the cpu quality.
So that is why I am interested in knowing if there is any modern mainstream videogame that is actually consistently slower with the prefetchers disabled... I am just curious.


----------



## Blackfyre

Kelutrel said:


> So, the point that I am trying to make is that nowadays the cpu cache prefetchers are probably unneeded in most cases, as both the OS and the videogames code are heavily optimised enough to not have to rely on the automatic prefetchers behavior. The quality of the hand-optimised machine code that can be written by manually driving the prefetch hints will always be equally fast, if not faster, than relying on the automatic optimisations of the cpu prefetchers.
> Other things, like javascript benchmarks, will always be slower with prefetchers off, because javascript is not really optimised at the cpu level, but the times when actual real websites javascript code is bottlenecked by the ram access is very rare with the cpus and ram speed we have these days.
> And Geekbench is a notable outlier that will always be slower with the cpu cache prefetchers disabled, as they were probably extra smart and didn't heavily optimise their code so that the cpu internal logics have to recognise and optimise the code paths and so they get a better benchmark of the cpu quality.
> So that is why I am interested in knowing if there is any modern mainstream videogame that is actually consistently slower with the prefetchers disabled... I am just curious.


Thank you for this detailed response.


----------



## LocoDiceGR

Whats happening witht the Support download pages from ASUS motherboards?

Missing in all motherboards.


----------



## Naeem

LocoDiceGR said:


> Whats happening witht the Support download pages from ASUS motherboards?
> 
> Missing in all motherboards.



same issue here as well


----------



## Syldon

Naeem said:


> same issue here as well


I hope this is just an update on the webpage. I sincerely hope they are not going to push the armoury crate as the only source for driver updates.


----------



## Blackfyre

Syldon said:


> I hope this is just an update on the webpage. I sincerely hope they are not going to push the armoury crate as the only source for driver updates.


I doubt it, and they better not, otherwise this is my last Asus motherboard. In fact, I will return it and switch to another manufacturer if they do that for future BIOS updates. But like I said, I doubt they'll push something so drastic.



LocoDiceGR said:


> Whats happening witht the Support download pages from ASUS motherboards?
> 
> Missing in all motherboards.


Same on the Australia ASUS page. 

They're probably updating the website.


----------



## blodflekk

I have been working through various guides and methods to find the best outcome for my 5950x. I ended up settled on Clav's method and using these limits 300PPT, 221EDC, 165TDC. I've used Core cycler to set up my curve running one iteration on each core using all FFT's for SSE,AVX and AVX2. Vcore offset is 0.0125. Boost override of +100 yields a negligible benefit.
The best scores on CB23 I've achieved are 29972 multi and 1637 single. CPU-Z scores are 13226.8 multi and 684.5 single.
Memory is running 1900/3800 14-15-14-28-2T GDM off Aida latency 55.8ns.

I am using the dark hero and so multicore performance is not important to me as I will be using DOS to have an all core OC.

I am clock stretched with highest effective clock reading 4900MHz while highest core clock 5050MHz.

My questions: Is there a more effective strategy for setting up PBO for single core performance?, What can I do to fix the clock stretching? If I was to adjust PPT, EDC, TDC limits, would I need to redo my curve ?


----------



## metalshark

blodflekk said:


> I have been working through various guides and methods to find the best outcome for my 5950x. I ended up settled on Clav's method and using these limits 300PPT, 221EDC, 165TDC. I've used Core cycler to set up my curve running one iteration on each core using all FFT's for SSE,AVX and AVX2. Vcore offset is 0.0125. Boost override of +100 yields a negligible benefit.
> The best scores on CB23 I've achieved are 29972 multi and 1637 single. CPU-Z scores are 13226.8 multi and 684.5 single.
> Memory is running 1900/3800 14-15-14-28-2T GDM off Aida latency 55.8ns.
> 
> I am using the dark hero and so multicore performance is not important to me as I will be using DOS to have an all core OC.
> 
> I am clock stretched with highest effective clock reading 4900MHz while highest core clock 5050MHz.
> 
> My questions: Is there a more effective strategy for setting up PBO for single core performance?, What can I do to fix the clock stretching? If I was to adjust PPT, EDC, TDC limits, would I need to redo my curve ?


Most effective way to get max boost at all workloads is to use Hydra Pro (paid subscription on Patreon).

Just natively using PBO + CO would kill all running tasks/services you can, flatten CO (temporarily), run on motherboard PBO limits (temporarily) and run CoreCycler on 1 minute per core using y-Cruncher and the default test (in the options). Then modify the offset in Windows (there are now multiple tools, pick your favourite). Using HWiNFO to look at SVI2 and effective clock speed of the core under load. You want to get the core boosting as high as possible and staying there. Note the SVI2 required for each core. Then for only one core at a time apply a -30 CO which will be -30x3mv under load (-30x5mv at idle) so -90mv from SVI2 and see how low you can get with the offset before there’s errors/reboot (please note you may need a positive offset). Finally repeat the last exercise but do some light web browsing, some cores will need a little more juice to stop it rebooting.

Now for each core you know the voltages required for max boost and minimum to avoid a reboot it’s simple maths to figure out the optimum CO/offset combination. Don’t be afraid of positive CO numbers where it’s required to balance for faster speeds. Also makes sure your VRM settings are delivering consistent power nicely, if you have good cooling you might want to run them faster to get more stability/faster response to transients.

With PBO limits for PPT look at your cooling and max you can deal with. Many (self included) exceed 300W (e.g. registers over 300W PPT used) but 300W is about 480mm of rad to cool well (less with higher FPI, lower ambients, etc) so not bad at all. For something like a 360mm rad you generally don’t want to exceed 250W, but YMMV.

Then EDC you’ll want to go as high as you can go without hitting 75’C on the CCD’s hotspot for any given core under load. Hydra has a handy readout of individual CCD temps but am sure there’s other software to show it. You’ll generally want to repeat this for 2 cores and 4 cores, never exceeding 75’C on the CCD, but otherwise getting EDC as high as possible. When traversing 140A EDC (real low) the max actual voltage for the CPU is limited to 1475mv, but you’ll find 1456mv (rarely 1460mv) is the max voltage for top boost speed on the best cores anyway, remember to look at SVI2 + (COx3) to figure out the actual voltage the core is receiving under load. Don’t worry about a high EDC, because we’re dealing with DC electricity only what is required will be drawn (there’s some wild people out there with ridiculous claims).

For TDC you want to just touch/be underneath 90’C on the highest all core workload you actually run. Cinebench is real light in terms of workloads out there, but is fine if you’re predominantly gaming for instance. Again go as high as you can.

Bottom line is single core is normally voltage/temp limited, so pay attention to the 75’C CCD hotspot temp. You’ll see people run real low PBO limits for single core due to not measuring the hotspot and exceeding this, or hitting 140A EDC on newer AGESA’s and not looking at SVI2+(COx3) to make sure they’re providing what that core requires for max boost speed.

Hydra let’s you go much, much further, even using PBO for workload profiles, or going far beyond that.


----------



## candasulas

I mentioned that I sometimes have trouble booting on my ASUS Rog Crosshair Hero motherboard. The motherboard sometimes wouldn't restart after I shut down my computer. It fixed itself by unplugging the power from the PSU and turning it back on. And it was mentioned that other users had this problem. They opened threads about this issue in ASUS forums.



We'll be back.



I sent the motherboard for RMA. And necessary actions have been taken. A component named "ECN" has been changed. And they installed the latest BIOS version. They say this in the technical service report. Motherboard arrived. I will try this week. I hope this problem is completely resolved and does not recur.

If there are others who have the same problem, let them know that the problem is with a component called ECN. And hardware problem.

It doesn't get fixed with a BIOS update. and it is absolutely necessary to send the motherboard to RMA.


----------



## heptilion

This is a question for peeps running over 1.5vdim. If you turn off the power from psu, turn on and boot does it take 2 boots to clean boot? This only happens for me with vdimm over 1.5v.


----------



## ChillyRide

heptilion said:


> This is a question for peeps running over 1.5vdim. If you turn off the power from psu, turn on and boot does it take 2 boots to clean boot? This only happens for me with vdimm over 1.5v.


1.62v here. I cant boot at all  need to clear cmos and load oc profile. Annoying as hell.


----------



## learner-gr

candasulas said:


> I mentioned that I sometimes have trouble booting on my ASUS Rog Crosshair Hero motherboard. The motherboard sometimes wouldn't restart after I shut down my computer. It fixed itself by unplugging the power from the PSU and turning it back on. And it was mentioned that other users had this problem. They opened threads about this issue in ASUS forums.
> ..........it is absolutely necessary to send the motherboard to RMA.


Does your motherboard made in Taiwan or China?


----------



## candasulas

learner-gr said:


> Does your motherboard made in Taiwan or China?


Made in Taiwan.


----------



## learner-gr

candasulas said:


> Made in Taiwan.


Somewhere i read that the motherboards made in taiwan had hardware problems.
The rma motherboard is also made in taiwan?


----------



## candasulas

learner-gr said:


> Somewhere i read that the motherboards made in taiwan had hardware problems.
> The rma motherboard is also made in taiwan?


My motherboard arrived yesterday. The sticker on the motherboard says Made in Taiwan. The barcode label on the box says made in china. The serial number and batch codes on the box and the motherboard match.

I don't think this question is related to being made in Taiwan or China. In the Asus Turkey RMA Technical Service report, it was written that the problem was caused by the ECN component. It is stated in the repair report that the ECN has been replaced.


----------



## Kyrex

Hello, does any of these most recent BIOS include the fTPM stutter fix? Or any Beta available? I noticed the board I use on my work desktop (Prime X570-PRO) already got the fix, but this issue is being really annoying on my home PC.

Thank you.


----------



## ChillyRide

Kyrex said:


> Hello, does any of these most recent BIOS include the fTPM stutter fix? Or any Beta available? I noticed the board I use on my work desktop (Prime X570-PRO) already got the fix, but this issue is being really annoying on my home PC.
> 
> Thank you.


Latest bios with Agesa 1.2.0.7 should fix TPM issues. If not, do not use TPM option. U can bypass TPM option when installing windows 11 or disable it in bios if already installed.. Also FPS in some titles worse on W11.


----------



## chaosweapon

Hi, I have a Crosshair Hero VIII Wifi motherboard with a 3900X CPU. With DOCP turned off everything works perfectly fine but when I turn it on, the PC sometimes randomly reboots itself when idle. Any ideas what could be causing this problem and how to solve it? My RAM part number is F4-3600C16-16GTZNC and the MB BIOS version is 4201.


----------



## GRABibus

chaosweapon said:


> Hi, I have a Crosshair Hero VIII Wifi motherboard with a 3900X CPU. With DOCP turned off everything works perfectly fine but when I turn it on, the PC sometimes randomly reboots itself when idle. Any ideas what could be causing this problem and how to solve it? My RAM part number is F4-3600C16-16GTZNC and the MB BIOS version is 4201.


First : Do you have these reboots with CPU and RAM @ stock ?

Second : Can you check in Event viewer at "System" folder if are reported "WHEA's 18" (With a warning red cross) and which are APIC ID numbers ?


----------



## chaosweapon

GRABibus said:


> First : Do you have these reboots with CPU and RAM @ stock ?
> 
> Second : Can you check in Event viewer at "System" folder if are reported "WHEA's 18" (With a warning red cross) and which are APIC ID numbers ?


The CPU is at stock and the RAM is at its DOCP setting i.e. 3600MHz.

The reboots are reported as Kernel-Power, Event ID 41, Task Category: (63).


----------



## GRABibus

That’s sounds like a RAM stability issue.
Do you have possibility to test another kit ?


----------



## chaosweapon

GRABibus said:


> That’s sounds like a RAM stability issue.
> Do you have possibility to test another kit ?


Nope.

I didn't have this problem with older firmwares.


----------



## GRABibus

chaosweapon said:


> Nope.
> 
> I didn't have this problem with older firmwares.


Maybe your kit @ DOCP is unstable with the new bios.
This is why you should test another kit


----------



## Syldon

chaosweapon said:


> Nope.
> 
> I didn't have this problem with older firmwares.


Have you updated Nvidia drivers recently. I had this exact same issue by implementing v516.59 over the top of v516.40. All I was getting was a complete reboot out of no where. I eventually cured it with a DDU clear first, then installing v516.59 alone.

I had installed both drivers on their release dates, and only just started getting issues this week. Hence why it took me a while to recognise what it was.


----------



## xeizo

There is a 516.79 hotfix driver out, mitigating some issues


----------



## 97pedro

Hello all,

Anyone has had an issue with the VIII Hero where if shutdown from the wall, it refuses to power on for a while, I have to flip the PSU switch and wait a few minutes so I can power on the PC, power button doesnt do anything, its on a test bench, I have tested the onboard power button and jumping the power switch in the bottom.

When it startups I can turn it off and turn it on right away if I dont cut the power, If I switch of the psu switch then again, have to wait a while so it reacts to the power button.

Anyone has any clue?


----------



## 1ah1

97pedro said:


> Hello all,
> 
> Anyone has had an issue with the VIII Hero where if shutdown from the wall, it refuses to power on for a while, I have to flip the PSU switch and wait a few minutes so I can power on the PC, power button doesnt do anything, its on a test bench, I have tested the onboard power button and jumping the power switch in the bottom.
> 
> When it startups I can turn it off and turn it on right away if I dont cut the power, If I switch of the psu switch then again, have to wait a while so it reacts to the power button.
> 
> Anyone has any clue?


If i remember someone in this forum has the same issue and he did everything but at the end he RMA his bored, check your PSU first if it didnt fix the issue you need to RMA your motherboard to ASUS.


----------



## DodgyTech

97pedro said:


> Hello all,
> 
> Anyone has had an issue with the VIII Hero where if shutdown from the wall, it refuses to power on for a while, I have to flip the PSU switch and wait a few minutes so I can power on the PC, power button doesnt do anything, its on a test bench, I have tested the onboard power button and jumping the power switch in the bottom.
> 
> When it startups I can turn it off and turn it on right away if I dont cut the power, If I switch of the psu switch then again, have to wait a while so it reacts to the power button.
> 
> Anyone has any clue?


The power on circuit on the board depends on the psu +5v standby voltage.
The Crosshair Hero VIII is one of the worst boards ever made by Asus, mainly due to the use of cheap caps that blow up.
You may have that same issue, I can help you find the faulty components but you will have to have electronic repair skills to replace them.
Basically it's one 10uf/50 volt ceramic cap that shorts out and a 4 amp mosfet. 
If your board is still in warranty, it may be better to just ship it back to Asus.


----------



## pilotter

I have bios 4201 on a dark hero. In the bios it shows T_Sensor temperature +127C in red. I suspect a broken sensor. VRM temp is +39C and at the moment ambient room temp is 25C. CPU is 44C. 
What is this T_Sensor Temperature? and is my CPU idle 44C normal?


----------



## SeverTheseStrings

pilotter said:


> I have bios 4201 on a dark hero. In the bios it shows T_Sensor temperature +127C in red. I suspect a broken sensor. VRM temp is +39C and at the moment ambient room temp is 25C. CPU is 44C.
> What is this T_Sensor Temperature? and is my CPU idle 44C normal?


T_Sensor is a 2 pin header connector for extra thermal sensor. If none is connected it should say N/A. Power off your system completely, (unplug or switch off power supply) and see if it returns to N/A. also check your mobo to see if you plugged something to T_Sensor header by mistake.


----------



## pilotter

SeverTheseStrings said:


> T_Sensor is a 2 pin header connector for extra thermal sensor. If none is connected it should say N/A. Power off your system completely, (unplug or switch off power supply) and see if it returns to N/A. also check your mobo to see if you plugged something to T_Sensor header by mistake.


I am on water but had no temp sensor there....strange.


----------



## pilotter

SeverTheseStrings said:


> T_Sensor is a 2 pin header connector for extra thermal sensor. If none is connected it should say N/A. Power off your system completely, (unplug or switch off power supply) and see if it returns to N/A. also check your mobo to see if you plugged something to T_Sensor header by mistake.


took the power off, bit this did not help.


----------



## GRABibus

I benched my SSD and I had followng results with CrystalDiskMark :









My SSD is SEAGATE Firecuda 520 M.2 NVMe PCIe Gen4 x4 2TB and then SEQ1 write value should be 4300MB/s.

When I benched my SSD some months ago, I had 4300MB/s write value.

I have tried this :
Coming back to Bios 3801 => Same issue
Coming back to former chipset drivers => Same issue
Testing in safe mode => Same issue
Upgrading SSD firmware => Same issue.

Anyone would have a suggestion or idea here ?

Thank you.


----------



## pilotter

in bios on auto or gen4?


----------



## GRABibus

pilotter said:


> in bios on auto or gen4?


Auto and Gen4 give same results.


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> I benched my SSD and I had followng results with CrystalDiskMark :
> View attachment 2567555
> 
> 
> My SSD is SEAGATE Firecuda 520 M.2 NVMe PCIe Gen4 x4 2TB and then SEQ1 write value should be 4300MB/s.
> 
> When I benched my SSD some months ago, I had 4300MB/s write value.
> 
> I have tried this :
> Coming back to Bios 3801 => Same issue
> Coming back to former chipset drivers => Same issue
> Testing in safe mode => Same issue
> Upgrading SSD firmware => Same issue.
> 
> Anyone would have a suggestion or idea here ?
> 
> Thank you.


I saw a few others have similar issues - personally, I think it is related to a windows update, not your drive...try ATTO disk benchmark to see what the results are with that one.


----------



## th30d0r3

Still have my issue where my SSDs just remove themselves from the OS and I have to switch off the PSU and unplug the 24Pin and EPS cables for 30 seconds to get it to work again. When you're in the middle of a Destiny 2 raid, that's enough to wanna smack someone. Spilt coffee banging my desk twice now.

So I for one cannot wait to get off this system when the next gen launches. PITA overclocking & inconsistent performance plug buggy platform. Still not enough to go to team blue though.


----------



## KedarWolf

th30d0r3 said:


> Still have my issue where my SSDs just remove themselves from the OS and I have to switch off the PSU and unplug the 24Pin and EPS cables for 30 seconds to get it to work again. When you're in the middle of a Destiny 2 raid, that's enough to wanna smack someone. Spilt coffee banging my desk twice now.
> 
> So I for one cannot wait to get off this system when the next gen launches. PITA overclocking & inconsistent performance plug buggy platform. Still not enough to go to team blue though.


I'm still Nvidia with my GPU but I'm really glad I went Team Red with my 5950x this time around. Overclocking it has been fun and not too difficult, though the testing it takes to get your CPU cores stable is long and arduous. :/

So happy I'll definitely be going to Ryzen 7000 series, though I'll likely wait for the 3D cache versions.


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> I saw a few others have similar issues - personally, I think it is related to a windows update, not your drive...try ATTO disk benchmark to see what the results are with that one.


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> I saw a few others have similar issues - personally, I think it is related to a windows update, not your drive...try ATTO disk benchmark to see what the results are with that one.


Here, by bypassing write cache :


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> View attachment 2567558


That's typical and happened to me too, although I am not sure if it is the exact same thing. Anyways, try to just leave your PC doing nothing, without going in sleep mode, for a night and see if it fixes itself.

What happened in my case is that most SSD drives have two areas, one with SLC cells (that are very fast at writing things but take a lot of space) and one area with TLC (or QLC) cells (that are slower to write but can keep a lot of data in a small space).
Usually the drive will use all the SLC cells first (that are usually like 20-25% of the whole HD size) and then start to use the TLC cells. When it is left at idle, it will silently move the data from the SLC cells to the TLC cells, so that the next writes will use the SLC cells again and will be fast again.
It may happen that if you write a LOT of data in a short amount of time (typically, by defragmenting the SSD with one of those defragmenting tools made for mechanical HDDs, or copying large amounts of large files), or if there is a bug in the firmware (some older Samsung 980 PRO with an old firmware are known to have that problem), the SLC area will be filled up pretty quickly and the benchmarks may start to show a very low write speed, even lower than what you displayed here.
But usually, and I tested this myself with my Kingston SSD, if you keep the PC at idle for a full night then the SSD will quietly move all the data from the SLC to the TLC cells and the day after it will have fast writes again.


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> Here, by bypassing write cache :
> 
> View attachment 2567559


...looks like a write-cache problem ?

Here are my similar runs (3950X, Samsung 980 Pro)....btw, also try to run it again w/o tRCD at 8 (but much more relaxed).


----------



## Kelutrel

Here my kingston for bragging rights...


----------



## GRABibus

If One night idle doesn’t solve, I will probably change my SSD


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> That's typical and happened to me too, although I am not sure if it is the exact same thing. Anyways, try to just leave your PC doing nothing, without going in sleep mode, for a night and see if it fixes itself.
> 
> What happened in my case is that most SSD drives have two areas, one with SLC cells (that are very fast at writing things but take a lot of space) and one area with TLC (or QLC) cells (that are slower to write but can keep a lot of data in a small space).
> Usually the drive will use all the SLC cells first (that are usually like 20-25% of the whole HD size) and then start to use the TLC cells. When it is left at idle, it will silently move the data from the SLC cells to the TLC cells, so that the next writes will use the SLC cells again and will be fast again.
> It may happen that if you write a LOT of data in a short amount of time (typically, by defragmenting the SSD with one of those defragmenting tools made for mechanical HDDs, or copying large amounts of large files), or if there is a bug in the firmware (some older Samsung 980 PRO with an old firmware are known to have that problem), the SLC area will be filled up pretty quickly and the benchmarks may start to show a very low write speed, even lower than what you displayed here.
> But usually, and I tested this myself with my Kingston SSD, if you keep the PC at idle for a full night then the SSD will quietly move all the data from the SLC to the TLC cells and the day after it will have fast writes again.


After 45mns idle :










Then, 3 minutes after this run :


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> After 45mns idle :
> 
> View attachment 2567565
> 
> 
> Then, 3 minutes after this run :
> 
> View attachment 2567566


Yes, it may have freed a bit of SLC area during that idle time and then the test filled it up again.
Here there are some informations about the process that I mentioned above: here
Give it that full night of time, _*if*_ it's the same thing as mine it will come back in top shape, my SSD was doing like 100-200MB/s writes before it fixed itself.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Yes, it may have freed a bit of SLC area during that idle time and then the test filled it up again.
> Here there are some informations about the process that I mentioned above: here
> Give it that full night of time, _*if*_ it's the same thing as mine it will come back in top shape, my SSD was doing like 100-200MB/s writes before it fixed itself.


If you make one or 2 tests after the one made after one night idle, do you still get max performances in writing ?


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> If you make one or 2 tests after the one made after one night idle, do you still get max performances in writing ?


Yes in my case. I didnt run Crystal Diskmark the whole day, but I am pretty sure that I ran it at least 4-5 times the day after just to be sure, and probably with a couple more benchmarks like Atto and Anvil, and I did not observe any further slow down ever again.
However, the maximum amount of Crystal Diskmark runs that can be run on a 2TB hard drive before starting to observe the slow down is unknown to me, it may be 20 or it may be 200, so be aware of this.
Did you write a large chunk of files and data on that drive recently ?
Also, check if any new firmware came out for your specific model and flash it. I found someone saying that the Firecuda 520 had a low write speed bug in firmware STNSC011 that was fixed in firmware STNSC014.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Did you write a large chunk of files and data on that drive recently ?


No….
Except maybe gaming updates through Battle.net.


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> No….
> Except maybe gaming updates through Battle.net.


I am talking more about 400Gb in half an hour or so, dont think a game update would do that.
I see that you have firmware version STNSC016, maybe check if any new firmware is out for your model.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> I am talking more about 400Gb in half an hour or so, dont think a game update would do that.
> I see that you have firmware version STNSC016, maybe check if any new firmware is out for your model.


I had this issue yesterday with STNSC014.
I flashed with STNSC016 which is the last one. Same issue.

What I am sure is that my SSD is not faulty or defected.


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> I had this issue yesterday with STNSC014.
> I flashed with STNSC016 which is the last one. Same issue.
> 
> What I am sure is that my SSD is not faulty or defected.


I dont think that your hard disk is faulty. In the details of your power plan you may want to set the "Turn off hard disk after" to 0 minutes (0 minutes means never), as there is some rumour that if the hard disk is periodically turned off when at idle due to that option then it may be prevented from performing its performance maintenance tasks in background.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> I dont think that your hard disk is faulty. In the details of your power plan you may want to set the "Turn off hard disk after" to 0 minutes (0 minutes means never), as there is some rumour that if the hard disk is periodically turned off when at idle due to that option then it may be prevented from performing its performance maintenance tasks in background.


Thanks.
In fact, there is no « 0 minute » option.
The option is « never » 😊


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> Thanks.
> In fact, there is no « 0 minute » option.
> The option is « never » 😊


FYI, some of the NVMEs can slow down due to temp, especially when writing (hottest day of the year here at 31 C). That said, per pic below re. extra pads and a bit of MX5, NVME temps seem under control w/ both systems.


----------



## Kelutrel

J7SC said:


> FYI, some of the NVMEs can slow down due to temp, especially when writing (hottest day of the year here at 31 C). That said, per pic below re. extra pads and a bit of MX5, NVME temps seem under control w/ both systems.
> View attachment 2567580


His drive temperature was recorded at 47 degrees in Diskinfo though, so it may be ok already


----------



## dansi

GRABibus said:


> I benched my SSD and I had followng results with CrystalDiskMark :
> View attachment 2567555
> 
> 
> My SSD is SEAGATE Firecuda 520 M.2 NVMe PCIe Gen4 x4 2TB and then SEQ1 write value should be 4300MB/s.
> 
> When I benched my SSD some months ago, I had 4300MB/s write value.
> 
> I have tried this :
> Coming back to Bios 3801 => Same issue
> Coming back to former chipset drivers => Same issue
> Testing in safe mode => Same issue
> Upgrading SSD firmware => Same issue.
> 
> Anyone would have a suggestion or idea here ?
> 
> Thank you.


do you use malware bytes? turn off ransom ware protection


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Kelutrel said:


> Here my kingston for bragging rights...
> 
> View attachment 2567563


damn!!

that 4k random 32QD numbers are insane..

are these Kingston's really optimized for that?? (the itch)


----------



## GRABibus

dansi said:


> do you use malware bytes? turn off ransom ware protection


no I don't


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> I dont think that your hard disk is faulty. In the details of your power plan you may want to set the "Turn off hard disk after" to 0 minutes (0 minutes means never), as there is some rumour that if the hard disk is periodically turned off when at idle due to that option then it may be prevented from performing its performance maintenance tasks in background.


After one night idle, same problem :


----------



## KedarWolf

Kelutrel said:


> Here my kingston for bragging rights...
> 
> View attachment 2567563


XPG Gammix S70 I went with this because they are pretty cheap on Amazon.

brb, will get Atto too.

@Kelutrel Curious to see your ATTO IO/s as well.


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> After one night idle, same problem :
> 
> View attachment 2567616


So, I was doing a few optimizations and benchmarks to see if I could score higher than KedarWolf (btw nice drive), and I did like 5 Diskmarks and ATTO and actually my drive started to show the same problem as Grabibus this morning:












It was fast as usual just a few minutes ago, before trespassing the Diskmarks limit:









This deserves some study imho, at least to understand how to "force" the drive to free the SLC area without having to wait for a whole night.


----------



## metalshark

Kelutrel said:


> That's typical and happened to me too, although I am not sure if it is the exact same thing. Anyways, try to just leave your PC doing nothing, without going in sleep mode, for a night and see if it fixes itself.
> 
> What happened in my case is that most SSD drives have two areas, one with SLC cells (that are very fast at writing things but take a lot of space) and one area with TLC (or QLC) cells (that are slower to write but can keep a lot of data in a small space).
> Usually the drive will use all the SLC cells first (that are usually like 20-25% of the whole HD size) and then start to use the TLC cells. When it is left at idle, it will silently move the data from the SLC cells to the TLC cells, so that the next writes will use the SLC cells again and will be fast again.
> It may happen that if you write a LOT of data in a short amount of time (typically, by defragmenting the SSD with one of those defragmenting tools made for mechanical HDDs, or copying large amounts of large files), or if there is a bug in the firmware (some older Samsung 980 PRO with an old firmware are known to have that problem), the SLC area will be filled up pretty quickly and the benchmarks may start to show a very low write speed, even lower than what you displayed here.
> But usually, and I tested this myself with my Kingston SSD, if you keep the PC at idle for a full night then the SSD will quietly move all the data from the SLC to the TLC cells and the day after it will have fast writes again.


Think it's even worse on their drive where TLC is marked (and used as) SLC but without full wear levelling, so when it burns out wave goodbye to the TLC area running as SLC entirely. Don't think it has a true SLC chip anywhere on it. The photos on Tom's Hardware just show TLC, DRAM and the controller chip-wise.


----------



## KedarWolf

Kelutrel said:


> So, I was doing a few optimizations and benchmarks to see if I could score higher than KedarWolf (btw nice drive), and I did like 5 Diskmarks and ATTO and actually my drive started to show the same problem as Grabibus this morning:
> View attachment 2567626
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was fast as usual just a few minutes ago, before trespassing the Diskmarks limit:
> View attachment 2567627
> 
> 
> This deserves some study imho, at least to understand how to "force" the drive to free the SLC area without having to wait for a whole night.


Can you do an ATTO IO/s bench?


----------



## Kelutrel

KedarWolf said:


> Can you do an ATTO IO/s bench?


Sure, let me bring the drive back to speed and then I will do the IO/s bench.


----------



## Kelutrel

metalshark said:


> Think it's even worse on their drive where TLC is marked (and used as) SLC but without full wear levelling, so when it burns out wave goodbye to the TLC area running as SLC entirely. Don't think it has a true SLC chip anywhere on it. The photos on Tom's Hardware just show TLC, DRAM and the controller chip-wise.


This is interesting as most drives these days have pseudo-SLCs that probably is the mechanism you suggested, instead of "real" SLCs. Maybe that is why the recovery process is so unreliable.
What sounds like an unexpected behaviour to me is the fact that, without writing additional data to the drive, the SLC area seems to get filled or worn out by repeated Diskmark runs only, as Diskmark deletes its files after each run so it should not "fill" anything, and I already run a re-trim on the drive. I literally observed the drive changing from fast to slow writes during 4-5 diskmark runs, and I kept an eye on the drive temperature and wasn't that.


----------



## Kelutrel

So, the write speed on my drive now recovered, so I can post the ATTO IO/s for @KedarWolf .
The only thing I did that may have recovered the write performance was a:
CHKDSK /B D:
That took an ungodly amount of time (like 45 minutes for that 1.2Tb partition) and didn't found any error. Anyways after that the write speeds are now consistently fast again so I suggest to @GRABibus to try doing the same (but on his C: drive obviously).

Here my benchmarks now, with ATTO IO/s at the end:


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> So, the write speed on my drive now recovered, so I can post the ATTO IO/s for @KedarWolf .
> The only thing I did that may have recovered the write performance was a:
> CHKDSK /B D:
> That took an ungodly amount of time (like 45 minutes for that 1.2Tb partition) and didn't found any error. Anyways after that the write speeds are now consistently fast again so I suggest to @GRABibus to try doing the same (but on his C: drive obviously).
> 
> Here my benchmarks now, with ATTO IO/s at the end:
> View attachment 2567635
> 
> View attachment 2567633
> View attachment 2567634


For me the "chkdsk /B C:" took 15 seconds and i still hav e 980MB/s write speed.


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> For me the "chkdsk /B C:" took 15 seconds and i still hav e 980MB/s write speed.


You mistyped it, or maybe it has to be lowercase.
Try:
chkdsk /b C:

It can't take 15 seconds because it has to lock the drive. So, in your case, that would require a restart of your PC. It can't do that test on C: while Windows is up because it's the system drive. It should ask you to do it at the next reboot, then you have to reboot to do that check. The mistyped command probably didn't do anything.


----------



## GRABibus

Sorry, yes I did CHKDSK /B C:....

Strange


----------



## GRABibus

I found some tutorials where it says to do : CHKDSK /F /R






What does "chkdsk c: /b" exactly do? - Windows 10 Help Forums


I did a Google search and the explanations were esoteric to me. Are repairs to the hard drive done and are the repairs permanent?




www.tenforums.com


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> I found some tutorials where it says to do : CHKDSK /F /R


The /b option already includes /f and /r and adds a full drive scan for bad sectors (source: here )


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> Sorry, yes I did CHKDSK /B C:....
> 
> Strange


Should show you something like this:


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Should show you something like this:
> View attachment 2567636


Yes sorry I am stupid...

I performed it, it took 25 mns.

Same issue :


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> Yes sorry I am stupid...
> 
> I performed it, it took 25 mns.
> 
> Same issue :
> 
> View attachment 2567639


25 minutes ? ... You did /F /R only did you ?


----------



## GRABibus

I did *CHKDSK /B *


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> I did *CHKDSK /B *


Sorry, then it may be that the extra time it took in my case, for a partition roughly half the size of yours, was spent on doing some maintenance somehow, but I have no idea why it didn't do the same on your drive or how to force it.

Anyway, what I got from all of this, is that the next NVME drive I'll get will have real SLCs or a demonstrable write recovery time in the reviews ( Guru3D seems to specifically check for write recovery times in its reviews)


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Then it may be that the extra time it took in my case, for a partition roughly half the size of yours, was spent on doing some maintenance somehow, but I have no idea why it didn't do the same on your drive or how to force it.


Thank you for your tips...

The chkdsk didn't find any errors. So the disk is "ok".

I will let my PC idle night and day for some days and see if I can recover.
*
If not, it is time maybe to change SSD.


----------



## Kelutrel

kairi_zeroblade said:


> damn!!
> 
> that 4k random 32QD numbers are insane..
> 
> are these Kingston's really optimized for that?? (the itch)


Disabling DF C-states in the BIOS, and enabling the Data Link Feature Exchange in the AMD PBS section, and switching the power plan to Best Performance in windows, made the biggest difference for the 4k tests.
Also, I am running Windows with VBS On so that may be actually cutting a bit of the real performances of this drive in the 4k set of tests.
The Kingston brand adds a price margin on the drive reliability in the long term, so that is why I choose it, but there are faster drives around. Imho the latest Sabrent Rocket 4 PLUS or the Silicon XS70 are faster drives, if the rest of the hardware and configuration is the same.

I did the same test with VBS Off, just for reference:


----------



## DvL Ax3l

I know that samsung 980pro had some issues with the cache that are solved with a fw upgrade, anyway u scared me 😆 I did some bench to test it!

ambiet @ 29C with a/c on 😭
ssd idle @ 50C


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> 25 minutes ? ... You did /F /R only did you ?


I am really wondering why it didn’t recover write performances after one night idle.
Do you close specific programs during your night idle ? Antivirus ?


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> I am really wondering why it didn’t recover write performances after one night idle.
> Do you close specific programs during your night idle ? Antivirus ?


I literally restarted the PC and then kept it switched on the whole night, so no application was running in background.

I did some more research. The wrong behaviour is clearly shown in the "AIDA64 Disk Benchmark" linear write, but *don't run this test yourself as it will ERASE all data on your drive*. But at least we may know what to look at in the reviews.

This is the best behaviour in my opinion (from an SK Hinix Platinum P41):








This drive slows down the writes while it recovers, immediately and "on the run", and then it goes back to the normal write speeds quite quickly.


This is my Kingston KC3000 in a Guru3D review:








It tries to aggressively clean up the SLC cache on the run, but it doesn't go back to the normal write speeds until some idle time is provided after the test.


This is a Firecuda 530 (sorry Grabibus, I can't find this test on the 520 model):








That just seems to flatline when the SLC area is full, and doesn't seem to even try to come back up.


----------



## GRABibus

SK hynix Platinum P41 2 TB Review - Faster than Samsung and WD


The SK Hynix P41 offers amazing performance thanks to a new PCI-Express 4.0 compatible controller. In our Hynix Platinum P41 review we find that this drive is faster than Samsung 980 Pro and WD Black SN850. Thanks to an energy efficient design, there is no thermal throttling, even without heatsink.




www.techpowerup.com


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> SK hynix Platinum P41 2 TB Review - Faster than Samsung and WD
> 
> 
> The SK Hynix P41 offers amazing performance thanks to a new PCI-Express 4.0 compatible controller. In our Hynix Platinum P41 review we find that this drive is faster than Samsung 980 Pro and WD Black SN850. Thanks to an energy efficient design, there is no thermal throttling, even without heatsink.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.techpowerup.com


"When write activity stops and the SLC cache has had time to free up some capacity, full write rates are restored within seconds."
Looks good to me if true.


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> SK hynix Platinum P41 2 TB Review - Faster than Samsung and WD
> 
> 
> The SK Hynix P41 offers amazing performance thanks to a new PCI-Express 4.0 compatible controller. In our Hynix Platinum P41 review we find that this drive is faster than Samsung 980 Pro and WD Black SN850. Thanks to an energy efficient design, there is no thermal throttling, even without heatsink.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.techpowerup.com


...with PCIe 5.0 drives right around your corner - and your usual upgrade paths re. new mobos and CPUs - wouldn't it make more sense waiting until the fall when new-spec drives release ?


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> "When write activity stops and the SLC cache has had time to free up some capacity, full write rates are restored within seconds."
> Looks good to me if true.


As there is a new version of Corsair Icue, I uninstalled my previous one and installed the new one.

Then, I performed again CrystalDiskmark just after :











Then 2 minutes after, I performed it again :









Don't ask my why I recovered Sequential good write performances...As probably, if I test again in one hour after idle, it will be bad again


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> ...with PCIe 5.0 drives right around your corner - and your usual upgrade paths re. new mobos and CPUs - wouldn't it make more sense waiting until the fall when new-spec drives release ?


Not sure I will upgrade everything


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> As there is a new version of Corsair Icue, I uninstalled my previous one and installed the new one.
> 
> Then, I performed again CrystalDiskmark just after :
> 
> View attachment 2567669
> 
> 
> 
> Then 2 minutes after, I performed it again :
> View attachment 2567670
> 
> 
> Don't ask my why I recovered Sequential good write performances...As probably, if I test again in one hour after idle, it will be bad again


Maybe you have some background app or service that periodically writes a lot of data ? (I doubt, you would have noticed it in every benchmark)
Anyways, for sure your drive is not faulty, and if you ever find out what is the root cause of this then please share it here as it may be useful.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Maybe you have some background app or service that periodically writes a lot of data ? (I doubt, you would have noticed it in every benchmark)
> Anyways, for sure your drive is not faulty, and if you ever find out what is the root cause of this then please share it here as it may be useful.


Even in safe mode I have the issue....

Again, after unsiatlling Icue and reinstalling ut, I recover => Strange, as it seems that we have to wiat for idle to recover, which seems to not work for me.
But even with Icue uninstalled, I can have the issue. So Icue is not the culprit.

I think it is more related to SLC cache behavior on this SSD.


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> Not sure I will upgrade everything


...looks like you got the NVME issue sorted after reinstalling iCue (  )

...as to upgrade temptations, buy more + bigger PSUs




Spoiler


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> ...looks like you got the NVME issue sorted after reinstalling iCue (  )


Yes, but not for a long time 😏.
Issue is back again 😂.


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> Yes, but not for a long time 😏.
> Issue is back again 😂.


...disable iCue ?!


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> ...disable iCue ?!


No. It doesn’t help.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

@GRABibus I own a Firecuda 510 2TB and never had similar issues to begin with, even with my Rocket 4+ and Crucial P5+ I never ran into the "SLC is stuck clearing cache" thing..do you have updated NVME firmwares?? (sorry if I missed reading on this if you already posted a few pages back) I feel its something in your controller that is acting up weird..


----------



## KedarWolf

Bit better bench. I'm still running a bloated Windows install though, not the services optimised one I use for benching.


----------



## Kelutrel

KedarWolf said:


> Bit better bench. I'm still running a bloated Windows install though, not the services optimised one I use for benching.
> 
> View attachment 2567703


I noticed that the drive that you are using for your benchmarks is empty. I was wondering if you maybe can find a way to fill the drive up to 40% with random files, and then repeat the Diskmark test and share the results. It may be interesting to see how the write performance would change.


----------



## GRABibus

kairi_zeroblade said:


> @GRABibus I own a Firecuda 510 2TB and never had similar issues to begin with, even with my Rocket 4+ and Crucial P5+ I never ran into the "SLC is stuck clearing cache" thing..do you have updated NVME firmwares?? (sorry if I missed reading on this if you already posted a few pages back) I feel its something in your controller that is acting up weird..


Yes, my firmware is updated


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> Yes, my firmware is updated


@GRABibus I have a guesswork theory that I would like to verify. If your write speed is still in the 900-1000MB/s on Crystal diskmark, would you please run the "RND4K-Q1T1" test only in Diskmark (just press its button), and when that completes, independently from the results, retry to do the SEQ1M-Q8T1 and see if it brings that back to speed ?

If my theory is right, doing the RND4K-Q1T1 once should always bring back your 4Gb/s in the following SEQ1M-Q8T1.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> @GRABibus I have a guesswork theory that I would like to verify. If your write speed is still in the 900-1000MB/s on Crystal diskmark, would you please run the "RND4K-Q1T1" test only in Diskmark (just press its button), and when that completes, independently from the results, retry to do the SEQ1M-Q8T1 and see if it brings that back to speed ?
> 
> If my theory is right, doing the RND4K-Q1T1 once should always bring back your 4Gb/s in the following SEQ1M-Q8T1.


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> View attachment 2567716


Ach... thank you for trying anyway


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

@GRABibus 





Question - Low nvme m.2 speed (Seagate Firecuda 520)


Hello. My seagate firecuda 520 (500gb) has advertised speeds of 5000mb seq read and 2500mb seq write, I was achieving this until recently and now I get 2500mb read and 500mb write. Updated to windows 2004 and then got 2500mb on both but back down to 500mb write again. I have 300gb free on...




forums.tomshardware.com









Seagate Firecuda 520 low write speeds


Hey guys, recently got a new rig and decided to go with a PCIe gen 4 Firecuda 520 500GB as a windows drive cause it was on sale. I am using it on an ASUS x570 TUF on the second slot because that slot comes with a heatsink. So i started benchmarking the thing with CrystalDiskMark and the Samsung b...




linustechtips.com





have you installed the AMD NVME drivers?? some say (upon digging as you got me worried) its a driver issue somewhere within AMD's package, some claimed that reinstalling windows and NOT installing the driver package for NVME worked out..


----------



## GRABibus

kairi_zeroblade said:


> @GRABibus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question - Low nvme m.2 speed (Seagate Firecuda 520)
> 
> 
> Hello. My seagate firecuda 520 (500gb) has advertised speeds of 5000mb seq read and 2500mb seq write, I was achieving this until recently and now I get 2500mb read and 500mb write. Updated to windows 2004 and then got 2500mb on both but back down to 500mb write again. I have 300gb free on...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forums.tomshardware.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seagate Firecuda 520 low write speeds
> 
> 
> Hey guys, recently got a new rig and decided to go with a PCIe gen 4 Firecuda 520 500GB as a windows drive cause it was on sale. I am using it on an ASUS x570 TUF on the second slot because that slot comes with a heatsink. So i started benchmarking the thing with CrystalDiskMark and the Samsung b...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> linustechtips.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> have you installed the AMD NVME drivers?? some say (upon digging as you got me worried) its a driver issue somewhere within AMD's package, some claimed that reinstalling windows and NOT installing the driver package for NVME worked out..


Where are those drivers ?


----------



## Kelutrel

kairi_zeroblade said:


> @GRABibus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question - Low nvme m.2 speed (Seagate Firecuda 520)
> 
> 
> Hello. My seagate firecuda 520 (500gb) has advertised speeds of 5000mb seq read and 2500mb seq write, I was achieving this until recently and now I get 2500mb read and 500mb write. Updated to windows 2004 and then got 2500mb on both but back down to 500mb write again. I have 300gb free on...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forums.tomshardware.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seagate Firecuda 520 low write speeds
> 
> 
> Hey guys, recently got a new rig and decided to go with a PCIe gen 4 Firecuda 520 500GB as a windows drive cause it was on sale. I am using it on an ASUS x570 TUF on the second slot because that slot comes with a heatsink. So i started benchmarking the thing with CrystalDiskMark and the Samsung b...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> linustechtips.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> have you installed the AMD NVME drivers?? some say (upon digging as you got me worried) its a driver issue somewhere within AMD's package, some claimed that reinstalling windows and NOT installing the driver package for NVME worked out..


Those are the "RAID NVMe Drivers" and the driver is included in the "AMD RAID Software" and would be installed only if he had a raid .
They refuse to work unless you have a raid configuration (I tried to force-install them but nope).

For reference, you can check which NVME driver you are using by going into the Device Manager in the Storage Controllers section:









And there is some thread where they periodically check all the NVME generic drivers for performances on Intel/AMD: here


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

GRABibus said:


> Where are those drivers ?












in my case I installed Samsung's (I am on a laptop now), as far as I remembered I also installed one from Sabrent if I remember it correctly in my Desktop but I never had the regressions like you are having now..for the Firecuda on my Son's rig I didn't install any drivers as I can't find one for the 510..so technically I am using windows Generic drivers for NVME


----------



## GRABibus

kairi_zeroblade said:


> View attachment 2567719
> 
> 
> in my case I installed Samsung's (I am on a laptop now), as far as I remembered I also installed one from Sabrent if I remember it correctly in my Desktop but I never had the regressions like you are having now..for the Firecuda on my Son's rig I didn't install any drivers as I can't find one for the 510..so technically I am using windows Generic drivers for NVME


Yes, there is no specific drivers for Firecuda.
The temptation is high for me to change my nvme.


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> Yes, there is no specific drivers for Firecuda.
> The temptation is high for me to change my nvme.


The Firecuda 520 also uses a Phison E16, so you are (most probably) safe to try to use the Phison generic NVME driver from that thread.
That is the same that I am using, on my system they have this weird behavior to show your drive as an USB drive that you can eject from the taskbar, but they perform good and never had a problem with them (my Kingston is based on the Phison E18).


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> The Firecuda 520 also uses a Phison E16, so you are (most probably) safe to try to use the Phison generic NVME driver from that thread.
> That is the same that I am using, on my system they have this weird behavior to show your drive as an USB drive that you can eject from the taskbar, but they perform good and never had a problem with them (my Kingston is based on the Phison E18).


I can't find them


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> I can't find them


Here

They may perform better than the Microsoft drivers, but I don't think that they can help with the slow write speeds and pSLC area restore.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Here
> 
> They may perform better than the Microsoft drivers, but I don't think that they can help with the slow write speeds and pSLC area restore.


Thanks.

No help at all.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

GRABibus said:


> Thanks.
> 
> No help at all.


tried downgrading firmware?? read somewhere that there is an issue on the firmware


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> Thanks.
> 
> No help at all.


Ach. I also believe your case being an issue with the pSLC area restore.

From what I've read around the internet, the process is called "garbage collection" and should be automatically performed by the drive in background when certain conditions are met and certain events trigger it.
For example, with some Phison ICs on certain drives, when the pSLC area is full the drive will just wait for any following write on a low-load condition (like without any other write request in the drive queue), and when that write is requested the drive will write the new data in the TLC cells area (as the pSLC area is full) and will also read two random blocks from the pSLC cells area and copy those too in the same TLC cell, so that the pSLC area is progressively freed until a certain threshold.
Other drives instead may just wait when the drive is on idle, or on low load, for a certain amount of time and then perform a full garbage collection task in background that will restore a bigger portion of the pSLC area at once.
These logics may also consider the time when the data was last written or read, and how full the entire drive is.
My guess is that on your drive the conditions and events that should trigger this pSLC garbage collection operation are never met, but I don't know if that is due to an issue in the drive firmware, or a change in the windows drivers or recent updates, or anything else.


----------



## GRABibus

kairi_zeroblade said:


> tried downgrading firmware?? read somewhere that there is an issue on the firmware


I only know how to upgrade.
But downgrading means to get former firmwares


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

GRABibus said:


> I only know how to upgrade.
> But downgrading means to get former firmwares


yes technically you have to enter your product number on Seagate's website..on one of my links there was a mention of the specific firmware which was bad..


----------



## KedarWolf

Kelutrel said:


> I noticed that the drive that you are using for your benchmarks is empty. I was wondering if you maybe can find a way to fill the drive up to 40% with random files, and then repeat the Diskmark test and share the results. It may be interesting to see how the write performance would change.


That's my Windows drive.


----------



## CyrIng

Recently I have added a new Radeon RX 6700/10GB and BIOS 3801 is now offering an entry named "AMD Graphic Driver Health" 










This entry is remaining empty: any idea of its purpose ?


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Ach. I also believe your case being an issue with the pSLC area restore.
> 
> From what I've read around the internet, the process is called "garbage collection" and should be automatically performed by the drive in background when certain conditions are met and certain events trigger it.
> For example, with some Phison ICs on certain drives, when the pSLC area is full the drive will just wait for any following write on a low-load condition (like without any other write request in the drive queue), and when that write is requested the drive will write the new data in the TLC cells area (as the pSLC area is full) and will also read two random blocks from the pSLC cells area and copy those too in the same TLC cell, so that the pSLC area is progressively freed until a certain threshold.
> Other drives instead may just wait when the drive is on idle, or on low load, for a certain amount of time and then perform a full garbage collection task in background that will restore a bigger portion of the pSLC area at once.
> These logics may also consider the time when the data was last written or read, and how full the entire drive is.
> My guess is that on your drive the conditions and events that should trigger this pSLC garbage collection operation are never met, but I don't know if that is due to an issue in the drive firmware, or a change in the windows drivers or recent updates, or anything else.


To come back to games, I have several games and some of them (Cold war, warzone and vanguard) get a lot of GB updates each week.

Also, in Vanguard, µI had activated dynamic textures dowxload until 64GB per day...

I don't know if this could be a way to investigate....


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> To come back to games, I have several games and some of them (Cold war, warzone and vanguard) get a lot of GB updates each week.
> 
> Also, in Vanguard, µI had activated dynamic textures dowxload until 64GB per day...
> 
> I don't know if this could be a way to investigate....


The issue you are confronted with, if it's due to the pSLC area, seems to be pretty common on a lot of different drives, if you just google "ssd low write speed" you can see how many share the same problem.
From those complaints I've read in the forums, it seems to me that drives manufacturers launched themselves over the pSLC+TLC technology so to sell drives that are somehow cheap to build in the terabytes sizes and still look very fast in the reviews, that usually test the drive when it's empty, and choose to ignore the relative slow down in write speed that may occur when the drive is more than one third full, or tried to patch this issue in somewhat unreliable ways.
It may be a waste of time to try to further analyse the problem by ourselves, as there really is no clear documentation on the web about the events that the Phison E16 requires to trigger the pSLC restoration.
The 1GB/sec speed that you are getting is probably not crippling enough the normal usage of your drive to be entitled to a refund, but you may want to try to contact directly the Seagate customer support asking if there is a way (besides the secure erase of the drive) to resolve this issue and bring your drive to the expected speed, if this is due to their firmware, or if this is just how the drive is expected to perform.
It may also be that a future windows update, or firmware update for your drive, will cure the problem and restore that set of conditions that allowed the pSLC cache to be automatically restored as usual.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> The issue you are confronted with, if it's due to the pSLC area, seems to be pretty common on a lot of different drives, if you just google "ssd low write speed" you can see how many share the same problem.
> From those complaints I've read in the forums, it seems to me that drives manufacturers launched themselves over the pSLC+TLC technology so to sell drives that are somehow cheap to build in the terabytes sizes and still look very fast in the reviews, that usually test the drive when it's empty, and choose to ignore the relative slow down in write speed that may occur when the drive is more than one third full, or tried to patch this issue in somewhat unreliable ways.
> It may be a waste of time to try to further analyse the problem by ourselves, as there really is no clear documentation on the web about the events that the Phison E16 requires to trigger the pSLC restoration.
> The 1GB/sec speed that you are getting is probably not crippling enough the normal usage of your drive to be entitled to a refund, but you may want to try to contact directly the Seagate customer support asking if there is a way (besides the secure erase of the drive) to resolve this issue and bring your drive to the expected speed, if this is due to their firmware, or if this is just how the drive is expected to perform.
> It may also be that a future windows update, or firmware update for your drive, will cure the problem and restore that set of conditions that allowed the pSLC cache to be automatically restored as usual.


I sent a mail to French Seagate support with one CristalDiskmark screenshot.

Let’s see….


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> I sent a mail to French Seagate support with one CristalDiskmark screenshot.
> 
> Let’s see….


Ok. I also find out in a technical document explaining the process, that the conversion of a cell from pSLC (fast) to TLC (slow) is permanent. That is, if you fill your hard disk to 100%, so converting all the pSLC cells to TLC, that change is permanent and even with a secure erase you may not get back the faster pSLC cells area.

The actual text says: "Dynamically changing the configuration of flash blocks as pSLC or TLC memory is discouraged by NAND flash manufacturers for reliability reasons, especially in the industrial temperature range. A maximum of one change from pSLC to MLC (ndr: or TLC) is allowed; but this must be done within 1 % of the specified pSLC cycles. .... After a short period of use, the medium slows down permanently." (from page 5 here )

The document looks pertinent enough for me to suggest to not fill your SSD to near 100% , if it's based on pSLC+TLC (most consumer nvme ssd are), as the decrease in the write speed may then become permanent.


----------



## KedarWolf

Kelutrel said:


> Ok. I also find out in a technical document explaining the process, that the conversion of a cell from pSLC (fast) to TLC (slow) is permanent. That is, if you fill your hard disk to 100%, so converting all the pSLC cells to TLC, that change is permanent, and even with a secure erase you may not get back the faster pSLC cells area.
> 
> The actual text says: "Dynamically changing the configuration of flash blocks as pSLC or TLC memory is discouraged by NAND flash manufacturers for reliability reasons, especially in the industrial temperature range. A maximum of one change from pSLC to MLC (nda: or TLC) is allowed; but this must be done within 1 % of the specified pSLC cycles. .... After a short period of use, the medium slows down permanently." (from page 5 here )
> 
> The document looks pertinent enough for me to suggest to not fill your SSD to near 100% , if it's based on pSLC+TLC (most consumer nvme ssd are), as the decrease in the write speed may then become permanent.


So better I don't fill 40% of my drive to run tests then.


----------



## KedarWolf

Kelutrel said:


> Ok. I also find out in a technical document explaining the process, that the conversion of a cell from pSLC (fast) to TLC (slow) is permanent. That is, if you fill your hard disk to 100%, so converting all the pSLC cells to TLC, that change is permanent, and even with a secure erase you may not get back the faster pSLC cells area.
> 
> The actual text says: "Dynamically changing the configuration of flash blocks as pSLC or TLC memory is discouraged by NAND flash manufacturers for reliability reasons, especially in the industrial temperature range. A maximum of one change from pSLC to MLC (nda: or TLC) is allowed; but this must be done within 1 % of the specified pSLC cycles. .... After a short period of use, the medium slows down permanently." (from page 5 here )
> 
> The document looks pertinent enough for me to suggest to not fill your SSD to near 100% , if it's based on pSLC+TLC (most consumer nvme ssd are), as the decrease in the write speed may then become permanent.


So better I don't fill 40% of my drive to run tests then.


----------



## KedarWolf

Kelutrel said:


> Ok. I also find out in a technical document explaining the process, that the conversion of a cell from pSLC (fast) to TLC (slow) is permanent. That is, if you fill your hard disk to 100%, so converting all the pSLC cells to TLC, that change is permanent, and even with a secure erase you may not get back the faster pSLC cells area.
> 
> The actual text says: "Dynamically changing the configuration of flash blocks as pSLC or TLC memory is discouraged by NAND flash manufacturers for reliability reasons, especially in the industrial temperature range. A maximum of one change from pSLC to MLC (nda: or TLC) is allowed; but this must be done within 1 % of the specified pSLC cycles. .... After a short period of use, the medium slows down permanently." (from page 5 here )
> 
> The document looks pertinent enough for me to suggest to not fill your SSD to near 100% , if it's based on pSLC+TLC (most consumer nvme ssd are), as the decrease in the write speed may then become permanent.


So better I don't fill 40% of my drive to run tests then.


----------



## Kelutrel

KedarWolf said:


> So better I don't fill 40% of my drive to run tests then.


If you fill 40% of your drive you may loose like a fixed 2% of your pSLC area. The pSLC area size is usually 33% of the full drive, so on a 2TB ssd drive like yours you may loose fast writes on a piece of 12Gb of your whole drive, if you fill it up to 40%.
My suggestion above is referring to not fill the hard disk to near 100% as, in that case, you may loose most if not all your pSLC area.
Obviously, I don't take responsibility on any operation or test that anyone performs on his drive or hardware or BIOS, as it is the owner responsibility to be informed of his actions. But I think this is already understood and accepted in an overclocking forum.
Anyways, I may think that if you buy a 2TB nvme ssd, it would be reasonable imho to fill it up to 1.7TB at most, so you would still keep 100Gb of pSLC area as a fast cache for burst writes, if needed, but ymmv.


----------



## metalshark

Kelutrel said:


> If you fill 40% of your drive you may loose like a fixed 2% of your pSLC area. The pSLC area size is usually 33% of the full drive, so on a 2TB ssd drive like yours you may loose fast writes on a piece of 12Gb of your whole drive, if you fill it up to 40%.
> My suggestion above is referring to not fill the hard disk to near 100% as, in that case, you may loose most if not all your pSLC area.
> Obviously, I don't take responsibility on any operation or test that anyone performs on his drive or hardware or BIOS, as it is the owner responsibility to be informed of his actions. But I think this is already understood and accepted in an overclocking forum.
> Anyways, I may think that if you buy a 2TB nvme ssd, it would be reasonable imho to fill it up to 1.7TB at most, so you would still keep 100Gb of pSLC area as a fast cache for burst writes, if needed, but ymmv.


Only thing to add to this is when a cell in the T/QLC operating as SLC area dies it’s not replaced. Wasn’t aware of the reclaiming of T/QLC marked as SLC as drive space is consumed though, so this’ll be eating at at from both ends. Am guessing making sure TRIM is working (and the firmware is actually performing a TRIM) will be real important to stop it invisibly filling too (say it looks like you’re using 400GB on a 1TB but at the NVMe level it thinks you’re at 99% due to freed space not being TRIMmed).


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Kelutrel said:


> Ok. I also find out in a technical document explaining the process, that the conversion of a cell from pSLC (fast) to TLC (slow) is permanent. That is, if you fill your hard disk to 100%, so converting all the pSLC cells to TLC, that change is permanent and even with a secure erase you may not get back the faster pSLC cells area.


Can I ask if using tiered cache helps?? on my NAS my SSD drives are usually set to 85% thresholds due to this fact but at the same time I use tiered level2 cache for all my NAS drives, so going back to my question will the tiered caches help??


----------



## KedarWolf

I Secure Erased my Windows drive from within the BIOS, restored my Macrium Windows 11 image, and ran Trim from the ADATA Toolbox and the Full Advanced Optimisations from the Toolbox as well, then rebooted.


----------



## Nizzen

KedarWolf said:


> I Secure Erased my Windows drive from within the BIOS, restored my Macrium Windows 11 image, and ran Trim from the ADATA Toolbox and the Full Advanced Optimisations from the Toolbox as well, then rebooted.
> 
> View attachment 2567756


Now we need 2TB+ "cheap" Intel Optane. Constant performance and very good 4k rr @QD=1 
My Optane 900p is soon 5 years old! And still one of the fastest. 345MB/s 4k rr qd=1. 

Too bad it's 480GB.


----------



## Nizzen

KedarWolf said:


> I Secure Erased my Windows drive from within the BIOS, restored my Macrium Windows 11 image, and ran Trim from the ADATA Toolbox and the Full Advanced Optimisations from the Toolbox as well, then rebooted.
> 
> View attachment 2567756


Now we need 2TB+ "cheap" Intel Optane. Constant performance and very good 4k rr @QD=1 
My Optane 900p is soon 5 years old! And still one of the fastest. 345MB/s 4k rr qd=1. 

Too bad it's 480GB.


----------



## Nizzen

Error 404


----------



## Nizzen

Error 404


----------



## Kelutrel

metalshark said:


> Only thing to add to this is when a cell in the T/QLC operating as SLC area dies it’s not replaced. Wasn’t aware of the reclaiming of T/QLC marked as SLC as drive space is consumed though, so this’ll be eating at at from both ends. Am guessing making sure TRIM is working (and the firmware is actually performing a TRIM) will be real important to stop it invisibly filling too (say it looks like you’re using 400GB on a 1TB but at the NVMe level it thinks you’re at 99% due to freed space not being TRIMmed).


Correct. On my Win11 I have set the automatic task that trims the drives to do it each day, but by default that option is set to one week, and in a week I believe it would be possible for a normal user to actually write 2TB of data on the drive, that may possibly cause a permanent regression on write speed.
Unless there is some logic that tells the drive that it is preferable to incur in the slow down caused by writing on a cell that has not been trimmed than to incur in the possibly more permanent slow down caused by switching a pSLC cell to a TLC cell, but I can't find this info anywhere.
It's probably better to ensure that the drive is trimmed before any disk benchmark anyway, just to avoid the chance.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Correct. On my Win11 I have set the automatic task that trims the drives to do it each day, but by default that option is set to one week, and in a week I believe it would be possible for a normal user to actually write 2TB of data on the drive, that may possibly cause a permanent regression on write speed.
> Unless there is some logic that tells the drive that it is preferable to incur in the slow down caused by writing on a cell that has not been trimmed than to incur in the possibly more permanent slow down caused by switching a pSLC cell to a TLC cell, but I can't find this info anywhere.


How do you set the task to dayly trim ?

would’it be helpful for me ?


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Correct. On my Win11 I have set the automatic task that trims the drives to do it each day, but by default that option is set to one week, and in a week I believe it would be possible for a normal user to actually write 2TB of data on the drive, that may possibly cause a permanent regression on write speed.
> Unless there is some logic that tells the drive that it is preferable to incur in the slow down caused by writing on a cell that has not been trimmed than to incur in the possibly more permanent slow down caused by switching a pSLC cell to a TLC cell, but I can't find this info anywhere.


How do you set this dayly trim ?


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> How do you set this dayly trim ?


Here ... change the scheduling to Daily

The untrimmed cell writes are roughly half the speed of normal writes, so on your ssd it would write on untrimmed cells at 2GB/sec, while your Diskmark shows that you are writing at 1GB/sec that is the exact speed of writing on the TLC cells area. Because of this, I don't think that your problem is related to trimming the ssd, but you may want to give it a try. Just manually perform a Trim on the ssd using that same Windows panel, and retry the Diskmark.

It may be nice if a brave SSD reviewer could like completely fill one of the more modern pSLC+TLC NVME SSDs to 100% of its capacity, then secure erase it, and then diskmark it again to see if the change to the cells write speed is really permanent.


----------



## GRABibus

I will receive a Samsung 980 Pro 2TB next week.
Will see if the problem will be solved.


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> I will receive a Samsung 980 Pro 2TB next week.
> Will see if the problem will be solved.


...when you receive your Samsung 980 Pro, download 'Samsung Magician'. It is actually a fairly nice tool (though I don't have it running all the time) and will also tell you whether your specific 980 Pro needs a firmware update...there was a recent firmware update for the 980 Pro family.


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> I will receive a Samsung 980 Pro 2TB next week.
> Will see if the problem will be solved.


404 / double post weirdness


----------



## Blackfyre

J7SC said:


> ...when you receive your Samsung 980 Pro, download 'Samsung Magician'. It is actually a fairly nice tool (though I don't have it running all the time) and will also tell you whether your specific 980 Pro needs a firmware update...there was a recent firmware update for the 980 Pro family.


Use it to update firmware and then uninstall it. You can also set it to maximum performance to test for benchmarks, but I do not recommend keeping it on always. Once I restarted my PC and just lost half my files with their RAPID Mode. It does warn you that there's a small chance that happens, and the time it happened to me it decided to erase important files. Didn't happen for years of me using it, but that 1 time made me regret using RAPID mode 😂


----------



## Neoony

Blackfyre said:


> Use it to update firmware and then uninstall it. You can also set it to maximum performance to test for benchmarks, but I do not recommend keeping it on always. Once I restarted my PC and just lost half my files with their RAPID Mode. It does warn you that there's a small chance that happens, and the time it happened to me it decided to erase important files. Didn't happen for years of me using it, but that 1 time made me regret using RAPID mode 😂


You can also just not use any of those features and disable startup and set service SamsungMagicianSVC to manual.
Service will only start if you start the app. Then you can stop the running service when you are done.


----------



## GRABibus

I will « clone » my current seagate on the Samsung.


----------



## stimpy88

GRABibus said:


> I will « clone » my current seagate on the Samsung.


Wow, really? What if your problem is caused by a Windows bug or driver problem, or some kind of software conflict? I'd never clone onto new hardware when you are having weird problems...


----------



## GRABibus

stimpy88 said:


> Wow, really? What if your problem is caused by a Windows bug or driver problem, or some kind of software conflict? I'd never clone onto new hardware when you are having weird problems...


I will first clone.
Then I will see if the issue remains with the Samsung.


----------



## CyrIng

Hey, 
Does the option "AMD Graphic Driver Health" talks to someone ?



CyrIng said:


> Recently I have added a new Radeon RX 6700/10GB and BIOS 3801 is now offering an entry named "AMD Graphic Driver Health"
> 
> View attachment 2567729
> 
> 
> This entry is remaining empty: any idea of its purpose ?
> 
> View attachment 2567730


----------



## DvL Ax3l

CyrIng said:


> Hey,
> Does the option "AMD Graphic Driver Health" talks to someone ?


There are no info on the web, I've noticed this section too on my rig, but there is nothing


----------



## GRABibus

Seagate is going to send me a new SSD 😊


----------



## GRABibus

GRABibus said:


> Seagate is going to send me a new SSD 😊


It is a RMA process


----------



## GRABibus

Sounds good with Samsung 980 PRO 2TB :

On slot M2-2 before "Cloning" :












On slot M2_1 after "Cloning" :


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> Sounds good with Samsung 980 PRO 2TB :
> 
> On slot M2-2 before "Cloning" :
> 
> View attachment 2568236
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On slot M2_1 after "Cloning" :
> 
> View attachment 2568238


Nice ! My 2x Samsung 980 Pro have been trouble-free so far. FYI, CrystalDisk can sometimes act up in Win11 (when compared to Win10) so I added ATTO bench as mentioned before which seems more consistent. Also, Samsung Magician has a nice built-in benchmark.


----------



## Kelutrel

J7SC said:


> Nice ! My 2x Samsung 980 Pro have been trouble-free so far. FYI, CrystalDisk can sometimes act up in Win11 (when compared to Win10) so I added ATTO bench as mentioned before which seems more consistent. Also, Samsung Magician has a nice built-in benchmark.


2x ? Are they in raid 0 ?


----------



## J7SC

Kelutrel said:


> 2x ? Are they in raid 0 ?


...nope. Each is dedicated to different active work-play functions.


----------



## Kelutrel

J7SC said:


> ...nope. Each is dedicated to different active work-play functions.


For an instant there I hoped I could see the father of all the diskmark/atto benchs


----------



## J7SC

Kelutrel said:


> For an instant there I hoped I could see the father of all the diskmark/atto benchs


...I got some ancient RAM drive numbers from an older system for your amusement


----------



## KedarWolf

J7SC said:


> ...I got some ancient RAM drive numbers from an older system for your amusement
> 
> View attachment 2568264


Old M.2 Raid 0 I had a few years ago.


----------



## GRABibus

There is no Samsung drivers for the 980 PRO.
It seems that using the Samsung driver (even from another SSD than 980 pro) improves read and write sequential performances.

So, I am looking for the .inf file from Samsung NVME driver to test it.

Who can provide it ?

Thanks !!


----------



## GRABibus

explained here :






Samsung 980 Pro 2TB M.2 SSD Review


Samsung's mega-powerful 980 Pro M.2 SSD series gets a capacity upgrade to 2TB. Join us as we examine what it has to offer.




www.tweaktown.com





But the used Samsung nvme driver in this thread is secret…


----------



## Kelutrel

J7SC said:


> ...I got some ancient RAM drive numbers from an older system for your amusement
> 
> View attachment 2568264


Oh well ... if RAM is legit then look here, full cache (with PrimoCache) :









although I have no explanation for the low Q32T16...


----------



## J7SC

Kelutrel said:


> Oh well ... then look here, full cache (with PrimoCache) :
> View attachment 2568291
> 
> 
> although I have no explanation for the low Q32T16...


Oh ya ? When I grow up, I'll overtake you all  !


Spoiler


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> explained here :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung 980 Pro 2TB M.2 SSD Review
> 
> 
> Samsung's mega-powerful 980 Pro M.2 SSD series gets a capacity upgrade to 2TB. Join us as we examine what it has to offer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.tweaktown.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the used Samsung nvme driver in this thread is secret…


The Samsung NVME driver can be downloaded from here (use the "pure" 64bit Samsung NVMe Driver v3.3.0.2003 WHQL for Win10 x64)
And then you can _*probably*_ force the driver install in the same way that you can force the phison driver or any other driver, the instructions are in that thread here .
Be sure to create a restore point before the forced diver install, so if your windows doesnt work you can do a system restore to the previous drivers.
DISCLAIMER: I take no responsibility on what may happen because if Samsung didnt suggest its own NVME driver but went with the Microsoft one, there may be a reason.
Also, all the NVME custom drivers around will disappear when DirectStorage will start to be used in videogames, as it works with the MS drivers only.


----------



## Neoony

I think 980 pro has completely different controller chip?
Its also not listed as supported with that driver

My other m2 is using samsung driver, but 980 pro does not and cant select it.

980 pro
Controller: Samsung Elpis

970 
Phoenix controller


----------



## GRABibus

I tried Phison drivers.

standard NVME microsoft controller driver version 10.0.19041.1566 :










Phison driver 1.5.0.0 :









We see an improvment of SEQ1M Q8T1 both read and write.

BUT, my drive is seen as an USB device with Phison drivers.

So I uninstalled it and came back to standard NVME microsoft controller


----------



## GRABibus

standard NVME microsoft controller driver version 10.0.19041.1566 : 










Micron drivers NVMe v2.1.18.0 WHQL :









Nice improvment alos here.

BUT, my Samsung drive is not recognized anymore by Samsung magician.


----------



## Alemancio

GRABibus said:


> Nice improvment alos here.
> BUT, my Samsung drive is not recognized anymore by Samsung magician.


Not like you'd notice any difference...


----------



## KedarWolf

GRABibus said:


> standard NVME microsoft controller driver version 10.0.19041.1566 :
> View attachment 2568318
> 
> 
> 
> Micron drivers NVMe v2.1.18.0 WHQL :
> View attachment 2568319
> 
> 
> Nice improvment alos here.
> 
> BUT, my Samsung drive is not recognized anymore by Samsung magician.


Any driver other than the stock Windows one lowers my Q32T16 from 5500 to about 4500 or lower, but the Samsung driver raises my by Q1T1 from 94-295 to 98-342. Haven't tried the Micron yet though, will try in a few.


----------



## KedarWolf

KedarWolf said:


> Any driver other than the stock Windows one lowers my Q32T16 from 5500 to about 4500 or lower, but the Samsung driver raises my by Q1T1 from 94-295 to 98-342. Haven't tried the Micron yet though, will try in a few.


Micron really good for me.


----------



## Blackfyre

Surprised there has been no news on *AGESA 1.2.0.8*, it has been since early April that we started getting beta 1.2.0.7 BIOS updates for some X570 boards. From memory this is the longest it has been since any news or updates for future BIOS versions.

I guess the main focus for board manufacturers is basically future boards right now lol


----------



## rexbinary

Blackfyre said:


> Surprised there has been no news on *AGESA 1.2.0.8*, it has been since early April that we started getting beta 1.2.0.7 BIOS updates for some X570 boards. From memory this is the longest it has been since any news or updates for future BIOS versions.
> 
> I guess the main focus for board manufacturers is basically future boards right now lol


I don't expect anything beyond 4201 unless there is a security issue that need to be patched. It's pretty late in the X570 life cycle now with new hardware pending. But who knows, maybe we'll get a surprise?


----------



## metalshark

rexbinary said:


> I don't expect anything beyond 4201 unless there is a security issue that need to be patched. It's pretty late in the X570 life cycle now with new hardware pending. But who knows, maybe we'll get a surprise?


Aren’t they doing some more 3D stacked AM4’s in parallel with AM5. In which case we might get an AGESA for any compatibility issues, otherwise agreed, what more would they do?


----------



## rexbinary

metalshark said:


> Aren’t they doing some more 3D stacked AM4’s in parallel with AM5. In which case we might get an AGESA for any compatibility issues, otherwise agreed, what more would they do?


That's a possibility. Good point.


----------



## Alemancio

metalshark said:


> what more would they do?


PBO for x3D


----------



## GRABibus

MSI confirms Ryzen 7000 CPUs and X670 motherboards are set to launch on September 15th - VideoCardz.com


MSI X670 motherboards to launch mid-September Yesterday MSI revealed the design of its new X670 motherboards, today the company confirms when they launch. MSI confirms X670/Ryzen 7000 launch date, Source: MSI MSI has now confirmed exactly when the Ryzen 7000 and X670 motherboards launch and...




videocardz.com


----------



## Kelutrel

metalshark said:


> Aren’t they doing some more 3D stacked AM4’s in parallel with AM5. In which case we might get an AGESA for any compatibility issues, otherwise agreed, what more would they do?


I asked to an AMD moderator for an official statement on the 5900X3D and he said "Highly unlikely". This doesnt mean that we will not see something else, like a 5600X3D or something, but I don't have many hopes for a 5900X3D or 5950X3D.


----------



## xeizo

Alemancio said:


> PBO for x3D


I'm pretty sure such a bios will come, but it may take a while as focus is on Zen 4 at the moment

Regarding the discussion on NVMe drivers above, I've always had some kind of problem with Samsung drivers and that is since way back. The Windows drivers are ultra stable and I greatly prefer them.


----------



## xeizo

GRABibus said:


> MSI confirms Ryzen 7000 CPUs and X670 motherboards are set to launch on September 15th - VideoCardz.com
> 
> 
> MSI X670 motherboards to launch mid-September Yesterday MSI revealed the design of its new X670 motherboards, today the company confirms when they launch. MSI confirms X670/Ryzen 7000 launch date, Source: MSI MSI has now confirmed exactly when the Ryzen 7000 and X670 motherboards launch and...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> videocardz.com


I've already started a new thread for *Asus* Crosshair X670E, not much to see for now but interesting times ahead 

ASUS ROG Crosshair X670E Overclocking & Discussion Thread | Overclock.net


----------



## KedarWolf

xeizo said:


> I've already started a new thread for *Asus* Crosshair X670E, not much to see for now but interesting times ahead
> 
> ASUS ROG Crosshair X670E Overclocking & Discussion Thread | Overclock.net











X670E Asus Apex Overclocking & Discussion Thread


First AMD Apex motherboard. 26-phase VRM https://www.tomshardware.com/news/pcb-diagram-asus-rog-apex-amd-board?_ga=2.221458264.1127200355.1654387128-2139277714.1642526100 "We could see this new Apex board featuring support well into the 7000MT/s range, if not 8000MT/s."...




www.overclock.net


----------



## rexbinary

AMD Chipset Drivers 4.07.13.2243 dropped on ASUS forums and station-drivers. The only difference I can see from the 4.06.13.651 drivers on AMD's website is the AMD Processor Power Management Support. It goes from version 7.0.4.10 to 8.0.0.13. Everything else is the same version.









I'm still trying to decide if I want to try them or not. Everything is good at the moment.


----------



## xeizo

rexbinary said:


> AMD Chipset Drivers 4.07.13.2243 dropped on ASUS forums and station-drivers. The only difference I can see from the 4.06.13.651 drivers on AMD's website is the AMD Processor Power Management Support. It goes from version 7.0.4.10 to 8.0.0.13. Everything else is the same version.
> 
> View attachment 2568702
> 
> I'm still trying to decide if I want to try them or not. Everything is good at the moment.


Thanks, I will try them!


----------



## AndreDVJ

Question for CHVIII Hero - has anyone tried to use a 3rd NVMe drive by having an adapter on the bottom PCI-E slot?

While Windows recognizes the drive is there, I can't do anything. Device Manager hangs, Disk Management doesn't load, and shutdown/reboot hangs also.

Booted Gparted off an USB stick to create a partition on that drive. Windows 10 installer also booted off USB gives an error.

Is there a compatibility issue? I bought an adapter from Ugreen, though I don't believe the brand matters, since all these adapters should just passthrough signal from the slot to the m.2 drive.


----------



## Buttergemuese

AndreDVJ said:


> Question for CHVIII Hero - has anyone tried to use a 3rd NVMe drive by having an adapter on the bottom PCI-E slot?
> 
> While Windows recognizes the drive is there, I can't do anything. Device Manager hangs, Disk Management doesn't load, and shutdown/reboot hangs also.
> 
> Booted Gparted off an USB stick to create a partition on that drive. Windows 10 installer also booted off USB gives an error.
> 
> Is there a compatibility issue? I bought an adapter from Ugreen, though I don't believe the brand matters, since all these adapters should just passthrough signal from the slot to the m.2 drive.


Hi,
yes, it works for me with max speeds . 1x Samsung evo 970 plus 2TB -> 1x M2 980 pro 2TB -> and 1x M2 970 evo with this
SABRENT M.2 SSD NVMe PCIe Adapter mit Aluminium Kühlkörper und Wärmeleitpad, für SSD 1TB, SSD 2TB, SSD 4TB, HDD 8TB bis zu 16TB, M.2 NVMe auf PCIE 3.0 X16/X8/X4 Karte: Amazon.de: Computer & Zubehör


----------



## Sleepycat

AndreDVJ said:


> Question for CHVIII Hero - has anyone tried to use a 3rd NVMe drive by having an adapter on the bottom PCI-E slot?
> 
> While Windows recognizes the drive is there, I can't do anything. Device Manager hangs, Disk Management doesn't load, and shutdown/reboot hangs also.
> 
> Booted Gparted off an USB stick to create a partition on that drive. Windows 10 installer also booted off USB gives an error.
> 
> Is there a compatibility issue? I bought an adapter from Ugreen, though I don't believe the brand matters, since all these adapters should just passthrough signal from the slot to the m.2 drive.


I'm using a dirt cheap one off eBay, I think I paid $6 for it. Works fine. I would check if the drive works on an onboard M.2 slot as a first step. If it does, then it is either the adapter or the slot causing the issue. You can test using a GPU in the bottom PCIe slot if there is enough space. 

To clean the slot, use a camera lens blower to blow into the slot. Finally, if it still doesn't work, get another adapter.


----------



## coelacanth

AndreDVJ said:


> Question for CHVIII Hero - has anyone tried to use a 3rd NVMe drive by having an adapter on the bottom PCI-E slot?
> 
> While Windows recognizes the drive is there, I can't do anything. Device Manager hangs, Disk Management doesn't load, and shutdown/reboot hangs also.
> 
> Booted Gparted off an USB stick to create a partition on that drive. Windows 10 installer also booted off USB gives an error.
> 
> Is there a compatibility issue? I bought an adapter from Ugreen, though I don't believe the brand matters, since all these adapters should just passthrough signal from the slot to the m.2 drive.


I am using a 3rd NVME SSD with an adapter in my C8DH. No problems. I am using a cheap adapter, the brand is Lycom.


----------



## $SOLID$Necro

coelacanth said:


> I am using a 3rd NVME SSD with an adapter in my C8DH. No problems. I am using a cheap adapter, the brand is Lycom.


Off topic....are you the same Coelecanth that used to be on Pimp Rig back in the day?


----------



## coelacanth

$SOLID$Necro said:


> Off topic....are you the same Coelecanth that used to be on Pimp Rig back in the day?


No must have been a different person. How was their rig?


----------



## hwanzi

Question for people that have a fan on their memory. Where and how are you placing the fan? If its on the GPU does your memory temps not just go up when your playing games because that's what happens to mine...


----------



## GRABibus

hwanzi said:


> Question for people that have a fan on their memory. Where and how are you placing the fan? If its on the GPU does your memory temps not just go up when your playing games because that's what happens to mine...


if you put the fan in pull mode in front of the RAM instead of push, does it help ?


----------



## hwanzi

GRABibus said:


> if you put the fan in pull mode in front of the RAM instead of push, does it help ?


LOL you know i didnt even think to try that...im dumb LOL thanks


----------



## hwanzi

GRABibus said:


> if you put the fan in pull mode in front of the RAM instead of push, does it help ?


worked so much better...thanks man


----------



## metalshark

hwanzi said:


> Question for people that have a fan on their memory. Where and how are you placing the fan? If its on the GPU does your memory temps not just go up when your playing games because that's what happens to mine...


It’s on top of the GPU. But the GPU is watercooled. 10/10 cooling strat though GRABibus, hat off.


----------



## pfinch

is someone using 5800x3d on an ch8?
Do you get constantly lower power deviation (hwinfo) too? eg. CB23 max 93%


----------



## Geno_

pfinch said:


> is someone using 5800x3d on an ch8?
> Do you get constantly lower power deviation (hwinfo) too? eg. CB23 max 93%


On the CH8 Dark Hero with a 5800X3D myself, I get PD drops of 50~% on occasion, average over 4 hours of PC uptime is 96% though.


----------



## Kelutrel

Can anyone with a Zen3 cpu please check and confirm if setting the "ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain" option to Enabled (in the "AMD CBS\DF Common Options\ACPI" bios page) reduces his memory latency in AIDA64 by a small bit (like 0.3-0.4ns) and increases the CBR20 MT score by like 20 points or so, or if the placebo effect is just playing with me ?

That setting should be enabled by default when set to Auto, if I understood it correctly, but apparently something is different between Auto and Enabled. Also please if you notice any difference let me know how many DIMMs you have.


----------



## Alemancio

Kelutrel said:


> Can anyone with a Zen3 cpu please check and confirm if setting the "ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain" option to Enabled (in the "AMD CBS\DF Common Options\ACPI" bios page) reduces his memory latency in AIDA64 by a small bit (like 0.3-0.4ns) and increases the CBR20 MT score by like 20 points or so, or if the placebo effect is just playing with me ?
> 
> That setting should be enabled by default when set to Auto, if I understood it correctly, but apparently something is different between Auto and Enabled. Also please if you notice any difference let me know how many DIMMs you have.


Just do 30 tests, calculate p-value and if its <0.05 then its stat-sig.


----------



## J7SC

Kelutrel said:


> Can anyone with a Zen3 cpu please check and confirm if setting the "ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain" option to Enabled (in the "AMD CBS\DF Common Options\ACPI" bios page) reduces his memory latency in AIDA64 by a small bit (like 0.3-0.4ns) and increases the CBR20 MT score by like 20 points or so, or if the placebo effect is just playing with me ?
> 
> That setting should be enabled by default when set to Auto, if I understood it correctly, but apparently something is different between Auto and Enabled. Also please if you notice any difference let me know how many DIMMs you have.


I'll give it a try, but both the suggested latency and CBR20 MT score gains are well within my typical run-to-run variance, especially with the hotter weather...


----------



## quarx2k

Kelutrel said:


> Can anyone with a Zen3 cpu please check and confirm if setting the "ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain" option to Enabled (in the "AMD CBS\DF Common Options\ACPI" bios page) reduces his memory latency in AIDA64 by a small bit (like 0.3-0.4ns) and increases the CBR20 MT score by like 20 points or so, or if the placebo effect is just playing with me ?
> 
> That setting should be enabled by default when set to Auto, if I understood it correctly, but apparently something is different between Auto and Enabled. Also please if you notice any difference let me know how many DIMMs you have.


Tested on zen2(3950), Auto/Enabled no changes. Disabled - can't even post.


----------



## Kelutrel

quarx2k said:


> Tested on zen2(3950), Auto/Enabled no changes. Disabled - can't even post.


Thank you, that may be expected as Zen2 is more UMA than NUMA. That is why I specifically asked for a Zen3 test.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Kelutrel said:


> Can anyone with a Zen3 cpu please check and confirm if setting the "ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain" option to Enabled (in the "AMD CBS\DF Common Options\ACPI" bios page) reduces his memory latency in AIDA64 by a small bit (like 0.3-0.4ns) and increases the CBR20 MT score by like 20 points or so, or if the placebo effect is just playing with me ?
> 
> That setting should be enabled by default when set to Auto, if I understood it correctly, but apparently something is different between Auto and Enabled. Also please if you notice any difference let me know how many DIMMs you have.


This setting with CPU as NUMA 0 (all Cores as one pool) it's best for gaming on 5950X -> 16 Cores with 72MB cache (it's better for gaming than 2x36MB for sure).
Yes it see this as One Big CPU with large cache.

NUMA 0 is in AMD OC NB settings (3rd page).


----------



## Kelutrel

Ne01 OnnA said:


> This setting with CPU as NUMA 0 (all Cores as one pool) it's best for gaming on 5950X -> 16 Cores with 72MB cache (it's better for gaming than 2x36MB for sure).
> Yes it see this as One Big CPU with large cache.
> 
> NUMA 0 is in AMD OC NB settings (3rd page).


Uhmmmm ... the OS and game engine should take care of that optimisation, allocating cores on the same CCX to work on data in the same L3 cache partition, unless bugs.
Can you confirm that you have CPPC and CPPC Preferred cores enabled in your BIOS configuration ?
Maybe something is going on anyway with those options, it doesn't seem to behave as expected imho.

The only way for a game to be faster with the L3 cache as a single block would be if the NUMA optimisations in the OS were bugged or disabled and the CPPC configuration kept the game engine threads working mostly on a single CCX. That would not be optimal though, as a working NUMA layout and correct CPPC scheduling would be able to better use parallelism on the CCXs and have lower latency and better cache utilisation for any task.
That may explain the slightly higher result in CBR20 MT anyway, as all the cores are at work in that benchmark. So maybe the Auto option on Zen3 actually disables the L3 cache NUMA topology, because they observed that somehow it was better for videogames (or some videogames) on Windows as games don't use every core for the game engine. Or maybe they optimised something for the 5800X3D in the latest BIOS, as it has a huge L3 cache so it is less sensitive to the NUMA layout, and somehow it got in the way on the other Zen3 models.

Idk, but it may be worth trying to change both that "ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain" setting and the amount of visible NUMA nodes in the bios page mentioned by @Ne01 OnnA to see what's best for your hardware configuration.

*The actual path for the amount of NUMA nodes setting is also in "AMD CBS\DF Common Options\Memory Addressing" and then in the "NUMA nodes per socket" item there is NPS0/1/2/Auto that corresponds to the amount of nodes per socket.

*Yes, "L3 Cache As NUMA Domain" set to Enabled with NPS0, scores consistently better on my hardware too. It is counterintuitive but it is what it is.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Uhmmmm ... the OS and game engine should take care of that optimisation, allocating cores on the same CCX to work on data in the same L3 cache partition, unless bugs.
> Can you confirm that you have CPPC and CPPC Preferred cores enabled in your BIOS configuration ?
> Maybe something is going on anyway with those options, it doesn't seem to behave as expected imho.
> 
> The only way for a game to be faster with the L3 cache as a single block would be if the NUMA optimisations in the OS were bugged or disabled and the CPPC configuration kept the game engine threads working mostly on a single CCX. That would not be optimal though, as a working NUMA layout and correct CPPC scheduling would be able to better use parallelism on the CCXs and have lower latency and better cache utilisation for any task.
> That may explain the slightly higher result in CBR20 MT anyway, as all the cores are at work in that benchmark. So maybe the Auto option on Zen3 actually disables the L3 cache NUMA topology, because they observed that somehow it was better for videogames (or some videogames) on Windows as games don't use every core for the game engine. Or maybe they optimised something for the 5800X3D in the latest BIOS, as it has a huge L3 cache so it is less sensitive to the NUMA layout, and somehow it got in the way on the other Zen3 models.
> 
> Idk, but it may be worth trying to change both that "ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain" setting and the amount of visible NUMA nodes in the bios page mentioned by @Ne01 OnnA to see what's best for your hardware configuration.
> 
> *The actual path for the amount of NUMA nodes setting is also in "AMD CBS\DF Common Options\Memory Addressing" and then in the "NUMA nodes per socket" item there is NPS0/1/2/Auto that corresponds to the amount of nodes per socket.
> 
> *Yes, "L3 Cache As NUMA Domain" set to Enabled with NPS0, scores consistently better on my hardware too. It is counterintuitive but it is what it is.


What a headache I have 😂


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> What a headache I have 😂


Lol  scheduling threads efficiently between different cache partitions and different core frequencies is not a simple matter.
CPPC, as you may know, drives the optimisations of the OS on which core to choose for a workload based on peak frequency (and efficiency).
NUMA, drives the optimisations of the OS on which core to choose based on which core has quicker access to the L3 cache bank containing the data (Zen3 has two CCXs and two L3 Cache banks, one bank for each ccx). Accessing an L3 cache bank from the wrong CCX has a performance penalty.
It looks like in the latest BIOS these NUMA optimisations are disabled (why ? Idk)
Once NUMA is enabled again (by setting "ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain" to Enabled):
NPS0 (zero nodes per socket) interleaves any access to the two L3 cache banks of the Zen3, independently from the chosen core, and seems to be the fastest atm.
NPS1 (one L3 cache bank per each CCX) should be the default layout, but apparently is not the fastest, probably due to the complex choices of the OS being driven mostly by CPPC, or because the OS is specifically ignoring the NUMA optimisations.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Lol  scheduling threads efficiently between different cache partitions and different core frequencies is not a simple matter.
> CPPC, as you may know, drives the optimisations of the OS on which core to choose for a workload based on peak frequency (and efficiency).
> NUMA, drives the optimisations of the OS on which core to choose based on which core has quicker access to the L3 cache bank containing the data (Zen3 has two CCXs and two L3 Cache banks, one bank for each ccx). Accessing an L3 cache bank from the wrong CCX has a performance penalty.
> It looks like in the latest BIOS these NUMA optimisations are disabled (why ? Idk)
> Once NUMA is enabled again (by setting "ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain" to Enabled):
> NPS0 (zero nodes per socket) interleaves any access to the two L3 cache banks of the Zen3, independently from the chosen core, and seems to be the fastest atm.
> NPS1 (one L3 cache bank per each CCX) should be the default layout, but apparently is not the fastest, probably due to the complex choices of the OS being driven mostly by CPPC, or because the OS is specifically ignoring the NUMA optimisations.


So what should I set ?


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> So what should I set ?


Your AIDA64 latency will be a bit lower, and your MT benchmarks will be a bit higher, and your videogames a bit faster, if you set:
"AMD CBS\DF Common Options\ACPI\ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain" to *Enabled*
"AMD CBS\DF Common Options\Memory Addressing\NUMA nodes per socket" to *NPS0*

We are talking of 1-2% performance difference here, but imho you should notice the tiny bit of lower latency in AIDA64.
Kudos should go to @Ne01 OnnA that suggested the NPS0.
Disclaimer: If this doesn't work for you, I have no idea why.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Your AIDA64 latency will be a bit lower, and your MT benchmarks will be a bit higher, and your videogames a bit faster, if you set:
> "AMD CBS\DF Common Options\ACPI\ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain" to *Enabled*
> "AMD CBS\DF Common Options\Memory Addressing\NUMA nodes per socket" to *NPS0*
> 
> We are talking of 1-2% performance difference here, but imho you should notice the tiny bit of lower latency in AIDA64.
> Kudos should go to @Ne01 OnnA that suggested the NPS0.
> Disclaimer: If this doesn't work for you, I have no idea why.


Did you try CBR20 or 23 ST with this ?


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> Did you try CBR20 or 23 ST with this ?


Nope. I am a simple man. I see a higher CBR20 MT, I'm happy.


----------



## J7SC

Kelutrel said:


> Nope. I am a simple man. I see a higher CBR20 MT, I'm happy.


...sorry for the delay - as I was trying to run these mods, Win 10 decided to do some updates, one of which caused a more or less permanent 7% CPU activity even after hours of idle (it got thrown out ).

Using your latest suggested mods (on top of the L1L2 disabled mode), I picked up 27 points w/ CB20, which is within run-to-run variance, but also consistently a touch higher per repeated run. Aida memory latency stayed exactly the same on my 5950X / CH8 DarkH / 4 sticks of Samsung-B SR and with DynamicOC enabled. Aida L3 read, write & copy all above low-to-mid 1500 GB/s 'before & after', ditto for L3 latency at 10.8ns. Please note that DynamicOC greatly helps L3 in Aida, w/all settings, anyway.


----------



## Kelutrel

J7SC said:


> ...sorry for the delay - as I was trying to run these mods, Win 10 decided to do some updates, one of which caused a more or less permanent 7% CPU activity even after hours of idle (it got thrown out ).
> 
> Using your latest suggested mods (on top of the L1L2 disabled mode), I picked up 27 points w/ CB20, which is within run-to-run variance, but also consistently a touch higher per repeated run. Aida memory latency stayed exactly the same on my 5950X / CH8 DarkH / 4 sticks of Samsung-B SR and with DynamicOC enabled. Aida L3 read, write & copy all above low-to-mid 1500 GB/s 'before & after', ditto for L3 latency at 10.8ns. Please note that DynamicOC greatly helps L3 in Aida, w/all settings, anyway.


Thank you for testing. I confirm that I would expect a lower memory latency in AIDA64, and not any further L3 latency decrease.
I don't know why it didn't show any memory latency decrease on your hardware, especially considering that in your case too the CBR20 MT scores moved slightly, but at this point it can be anything, from Win10 to DRAM timings to other BIOS settings or just normal benchmarking chances.
On Linux there are a few tools that can unequivocally reveal the behaviors and performances of these details in scheduling and memory performances, but I was not able to find anything working on Windows.

*I tried just now to run AIDA64 in Windows 11 Safe Mode (for repeatability), and waiting a couple minutes after boot, and testing only the memory latency box 5 times, with both settings, and I got:

Enabled/NPS0 : 54.6 54.6 54.9 54.6 54.6
Auto/Auto : 54.8 54.7 54.7 54.8 54.7

Can they be considered different ? I don't know, after BIOS 3801 everything stopped making sense anyway


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Thank you for testing. I confirm that I would expect a lower memory latency in AIDA64, and not any further L3 latency decrease.
> I don't know why it didn't show any memory latency decrease on your hardware, especially considering that in your case too the CBR20 MT scores moved slightly, but at this point it can be anything, from Win10 to DRAM timings to other BIOS settings or just normal benchmarking chances.
> On Linux there are a few tools that can unequivocally reveal the behaviors and performances of these details in scheduling and memory performances, but I was not able to find anything working on Windows.
> 
> *I tried just now to run AIDA64 in Windows 11 Safe Mode (for repeatability), and waiting a couple minutes after boot, and testing only the memory latency box 5 times, with both settings, and I got:
> 
> Enabled/NPS0 : 54.6 54.6 54.9 54.6 54.6
> Auto/Auto : 54.8 54.7 54.7 54.8 54.7
> 
> Can they be considered different ? I don't know, after BIOS 3801 everything stopped making sense anyway


Just for info, can you run please CBR20 ST ?
Thanks


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> Just for info, can you run please CBR20 ST ?
> Thanks


Ok, I will do it, but man, that ST benchmark is sloooooow, I mean you can even run it by yourself ...


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Ok, I will do it, but man, that ST benchmark is sloooooow, I mean you can even run it by yourself ...


I did and had a poor score.
Just want to confirm That those settings are the root cause. Otherwise, I wouldn’t ask man.


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> I did and had a poor score.
> Just want to confirm That those settings are the root cause. Otherwise, I wouldn’t ask man.


Ah Ok, wait ...


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> I did and had a poor score.
> Just want to confirm That those settings are the root cause. Otherwise, I wouldn’t ask man.


Uhmmmm ... I tried CBR20 ST a couple times, on Windows 11 SafeMode, waiting a couple of minutes after boot, and in my case I got:

Auto/Auto : baseline
Enabled/NPS0 : baseline+4 and baseline+16 (?!?!!)

So, unless other quirks due to the SafeMode, it looks like it performs on par if not better.

The only other two settings that may be relevant in my BIOS configuration are the Memory interleave size (in the same BIOS page of the NUMA nodes per socket) that I have set to 256 bytes (because I don't know if it is the default but for sure if you have L1/L2 stream prefetch disabled like me the interleave size is better to be 256bytes because it is the same size as a cache row) , and the Performance Bias in the "Extreme Tweaker" page that I have set to None (as I don't want the BIOS to mess with my settings).

How much poorly did it perform in your ST tests ?

Also, I remember that in a previous BIOS version, but I don't remember which version, and I think I was still on Win 10, I already tested the NUMA configuration and the best config was Auto/Auto as expected, I don't know what/when this changed.

I have not tested any videogame with this Enabled/NPS0 settings, and I had faith in what Ne01 said (also, tbh for my use-case I care only of CBR20 MT), but if anyone wants to confirm if he noticed any difference in the FPS of any game it may be useful.


----------



## J7SC

Kelutrel said:


> Thank you for testing. I confirm that I would expect a lower memory latency in AIDA64, and not any further L3 latency decrease.
> I don't know why it didn't show any memory latency decrease on your hardware, especially considering that in your case too the CBR20 MT scores moved slightly, but at this point it can be anything, from Win10 to DRAM timings to other BIOS settings or just normal benchmarking chances.
> On Linux there are a few tools that can unequivocally reveal the behaviors and performances of these details in scheduling and memory performances, but I was not able to find anything working on Windows.
> 
> *I tried just now to run AIDA64 in Windows 11 Safe Mode (for repeatability), and waiting a couple minutes after boot, and testing only the memory latency box 5 times, with both settings, and I got:
> 
> Enabled/NPS0 : 54.6 54.6 54.9 54.6 54.6
> Auto/Auto : 54.8 54.7 54.7 54.8 54.7
> 
> Can they be considered different ? I don't know, after BIOS 3801 everything stopped making sense anyway


Both my CH8s are on BIOS 3801, because...😀


----------



## Kelutrel

J7SC said:


> Both my CH8s are on BIOS 3801, because...😀


Ach ... I should have specified better


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> Uhmmmm ... I tried CBR20 ST a couple times, on Windows 11 SafeMode, waiting a couple of minutes after boot, and in my case I got:
> 
> Auto/Auto : baseline
> Enabled/NPS0 : baseline+4 and baseline+16 (?!?!!)
> 
> So, unless other quirks due to the SafeMode, it looks like it performs on par if not better.
> 
> The only other two settings that may be relevant in my BIOS configuration are the Memory interleave size (in the same BIOS page of the NUMA nodes per socket) that I have set to 256 bytes (because I don't know if it is the default but for sure if you have L1/L2 stream prefetch disabled like me the interleave size is better to be 256bytes because it is the same size as a cache row) , and the Performance Bias in the "Extreme Tweaker" page that I have set to None (as I don't want the BIOS to mess with my settings).
> 
> How much poorly did it perform in your ST tests ?
> 
> Also, I remember that in a previous BIOS version, but I don't remember which version, and I think I was still on Win 10, I already tested the NUMA configuration and the best config was Auto/Auto as expected, I don't know what/when this changed.
> 
> I have not tested any videogame with this Enabled/NPS0 settings, and I had faith in what Ne01 said (also, tbh for my use-case I care only of CBR20 MT), but if anyone wants to confirm if he noticed any difference in the FPS of any game it may be useful.


Bios 4201
27°C ambient

*1/ With my 24/7 settings (See enclosed .txt file) :*









*2/ changing to *:
"AMD CBS\DF Common Options\ACPI\ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain" to *Enabled*
"AMD CBS\DF Common Options\Memory Addressing\NUMA nodes per socket" to *NPS0*


----------



## Kelutrel

GRABibus said:


> Bios 4201
> 27°C ambient
> 
> *1/ With my 24/7 settings (See enclosed .txt file) :*
> View attachment 2569405
> 
> 
> *2/ changing to *:
> "AMD CBS\DF Common Options\ACPI\ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain" to *Enabled*
> "AMD CBS\DF Common Options\Memory Addressing\NUMA nodes per socket" to *NPS0*
> 
> View attachment 2569406


Unless it's temperature I have no explanation, I would have to test it with your exact settings as mine are very different (I have everything undervolted and tuned for MT scores). I don't boost as high as you and still had a higher ST score (running in SafeMode) than your second run.

Weirdly, your fastest (most efficient) core, that is core 0, should have been used in both runs of the ST benchmark. While it was used in your first run (you can see the effective core speed is 5031) , it was not used in your second run (that seems to have randomly used core 10 instead). But unless you disabled CPPC/CPPC Preferred cores before doing the second run, it should have not done that.

I did one more try in Windows normal, and I got 625 with Auto/Auto and 639 with Enabled/NPS0 (don't compare, my CPU is undervolted both with voltage offset and with PPT/TDC/EDC and my boost is set to 0MHz atm) , so in my case it is better.
Nonetheless I noticed with TaskManager that in both tests, with and without those settings, instead of using only the fastest core for the ST workload and switching on its two virtual cores, it kept changing core migrating the load on any core, and this is not optimal and I have no idea if this behavior is due to the latest AMD chipset or some other BIOS or Windows setting I have, but it doesn't look the way it should be, so maybe that behavior is impacting the results too.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Kelutrel said:


> Uhmmmm ... the OS and game engine should take care of that optimisation, allocating cores on the same CCX to work on data in the same L3 cache partition, unless bugs.
> Can you confirm that you have CPPC and CPPC Preferred cores enabled in your BIOS configuration ?
> Maybe something is going on anyway with those options, it doesn't seem to behave as expected imho.
> 
> The only way for a game to be faster with the L3 cache as a single block would be if the NUMA optimisations in the OS were bugged or disabled and the CPPC configuration kept the game engine threads working mostly on a single CCX. That would not be optimal though, as a working NUMA layout and correct CPPC scheduling would be able to better use parallelism on the CCXs and have lower latency and better cache utilisation for any task.
> That may explain the slightly higher result in CBR20 MT anyway, as all the cores are at work in that benchmark. So maybe the Auto option on Zen3 actually disables the L3 cache NUMA topology, because they observed that somehow it was better for videogames (or some videogames) on Windows as games don't use every core for the game engine. Or maybe they optimised something for the 5800X3D in the latest BIOS, as it has a huge L3 cache so it is less sensitive to the NUMA layout, and somehow it got in the way on the other Zen3 models.
> 
> Idk, but it may be worth trying to change both that "ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain" setting and the amount of visible NUMA nodes in the bios page mentioned by @Ne01 OnnA to see what's best for your hardware configuration.
> 
> *The actual path for the amount of NUMA nodes setting is also in "AMD CBS\DF Common Options\Memory Addressing" and then in the "NUMA nodes per socket" item there is NPS0/1/2/Auto that corresponds to the amount of nodes per socket.
> 
> *Yes, "L3 Cache As NUMA Domain" set to Enabled with NPS0, scores consistently better on my hardware too. It is counterintuitive but it is what it is.


I told You, for gaming is best.
CPPC and CPPC Preferred cores enabled on my RIG.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Kelutrel said:


> Your AIDA64 latency will be a bit lower, and your MT benchmarks will be a bit higher, and your videogames a bit faster, if you set:
> "AMD CBS\DF Common Options\ACPI\ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain" to *Enabled*
> "AMD CBS\DF Common Options\Memory Addressing\NUMA nodes per socket" to *NPS0*
> 
> We are talking of 1-2% performance difference here, but imho you should notice the tiny bit of lower latency in AIDA64.
> Kudos should go to @Ne01 OnnA that suggested the NPS0.
> Disclaimer: If this doesn't work for you, I have no idea why.


Happy to help -> Gaming at it's finest


----------



## Kelutrel

Ne01 OnnA said:


> I told You, for gaming is best.
> CPPC and CPPC Preferred cores enabled on my RIG.


It's definitely different and a bit faster in most benchmarks, and due to the changes in the scheduling it looks like it slightly improved my temperatures. I'm having fun in testing a bit more out of it as there may be space for some additional tuning. The mechanism behind certain improvements is unexpected and I am pretty curious to understand the hows and whys. All considered it looks like an interesting alternative to me, so thanks for sharing it


----------



## Theo164

4x8gb b--die tested for multiple runs


----------



## GRABibus

Theo164 said:


> 4x8gb b--die tested for multiple runs


same for me : CBR23 Single Core has big decrease with SRAT L3 enable and NUM node Nps0.


----------



## CyrIng

I don't get any benefits from SAM !
(BIOS: Above 4G decoding)

Score 19121 when disabled









Score 19076 when enabled









Is a Zen2 3950X excluded from SAM optimization ?


----------



## heptilion

Ne01 OnnA said:


> This setting with CPU as NUMA 0 (all Cores as one pool) it's best for gaming on 5950X -> 16 Cores with 72MB cache (it's better for gaming than 2x36MB for sure).
> Yes it see this as One Big CPU with large cache.
> 
> NUMA 0 is in AMD OC NB settings (3rd page).


Even though it seems as one big cache, my understanding was CCD1 cores can only access 36MB of cache. Are you saying it can now access full 72 with this option?


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

heptilion said:


> Even though it seems as one big cache, my understanding was CCD1 cores can only access 36MB of cache. Are you saying it can now access full 72 with this option?


Dunno, we need to ask some AMD Tech guys 
IMhO Yes it's alocating as 72MB.

Note:
Guys im using Manual OC not PBO BTW, so i have no problems with 1C speed.
First 2C are always utilised properly.


----------



## Kelutrel

heptilion said:


> Even though it seems as one big cache, my understanding was CCD1 cores can only access 36MB of cache. Are you saying it can now access full 72 with this option?


I would also like to know what NPS0 does, it looks like it is an AMD only feature, and the BIOS description seems to imply that the two L3 cache banks may somehow be interleaved and used as a single one, but what does this mean and why it's faster (or just different) I really have no explanation. It should actually do something only on motherboards that accept multiple processors looking at this document, and should not be supported on any other hardware.

The lower ST scores are undoubtedly due to the workload not being allocated on the fastest (most efficient) core at all times, and that seems to imply that with those settings the scheduling follows the NUMA topology (switching between all the cores of a single CCX that share the same L3 cache bank) instead of the CPPC scheduling (that would allocate the same workload statically on the fastest core and switch between the two virtual cores only). This may be an advantage for temperatures and certain workloads and tbh, besides benchmarks, I doubt that there is any time when a PC is really on an ST workload, so there may be some advantage. It looks like it performs progressively better than CPPC the more cores are used.

Nonetheless I don't get how or why this NPS0 is better or faster, even in the slightest, than having each CCX accessing its own local L3 bank as NPS1 (or NPS2) would do. This is the most interesting side to me as it may point to some additional and unrelated tuning in windows or the BIOS that currently is just "triggered" by these settings.


----------



## Kelutrel

CyrIng said:


> I don't get any benefits from SAM !
> (BIOS: Above 4G decoding)
> 
> Score 19121 when disabled
> View attachment 2569431
> 
> 
> Score 19076 when enabled
> View attachment 2569432
> 
> 
> Is a Zen2 3950X excluded from SAM optimization ?


SAM works on Zen2 . My guess is that either your test workload is not enough to trigger any advantage in using SAM (try to increase the resolution or the textures level in your test) or for any reason (drivers, bios, whatever...) it is not being correctly enabled and used by your system.


----------



## heptilion

Ne01 OnnA said:


> Dunno, we need to ask some AMD Tech guys
> IMhO Yes it's alocating as 72MB.
> 
> Note:
> Guys im using Manual OC not PBO BTW, so i have no problems with 1C speed.
> First 2C are always utilised properly.


With Auto it seems to be using 1 NUMA Node while having enabled and NPS0 divides to 2. 

I would hink having auto would be better then?

Auto









Enabled


----------



## Kelutrel

heptilion said:


> With Auto it seems to be using 1 NUMA Node while having enabled and NPS0 divides to 2.
> 
> I would hink having auto would be better then?
> 
> Auto
> View attachment 2569438
> 
> 
> Enabled
> View attachment 2569440


Auto _should_ be better but actually I have CBR20 MT and a few other MT benchmarks that say that is not the case. And why both NPS1 and NPS2 are still consistently less performant than this NPS0 ? What does it do or cause ? 

Also Auto should have 2 NUMA nodes on Zen3, not one, because there are 2 L3 cache banks and cache locality is important (and probably is the source of the tiny performance difference), but maybe that is just a BIOS bug/optimisation.


----------



## ChillyRide

CyrIng said:


> I don't get any benefits from SAM !
> (BIOS: Above 4G decoding)
> 
> Score 19121 when disabled
> View attachment 2569431
> 
> 
> Score 19076 when enabled
> View attachment 2569432
> 
> 
> Is a Zen2 3950X excluded from SAM optimization ?


Test with DirectX API. I doubt SAM works with such and old API like OpenGL.


----------



## Kelutrel

On my specific hardware and configuration I seem to have been gifted by an additional performance increase, mostly in ST workloads, by additionally setting:
"AMD CBS\DF Common Options\ACPI\ACPI SLIT remote relative distance" to *Far*
This also doesn't make much sense, like the rest of the NPS0, but you can give it a try.


----------



## J7SC

Kelutrel said:


> On my specific hardware and configuration I seem to have been gifted by an additional performance increase, mostly in ST workloads, by additionally setting:
> "AMD CBS\DF Common Options\ACPI\ACPI SLIT remote relative distance" to *Far*
> This also doesn't make much sense, like the rest of the NPS0, but you can give it a try.


I always like your tips, especially since the L1L2 prefetch mode settings. What we are facing though is the 'last' 5%" problem where at least on my setup, bench results for changes made usually fall within the run-to-run variance. Add in very hot days and Win 10 updates since the last benching sessions, and it becomes trickier to determine what is placebo and what is a real gain. I do see marginal increases in CineR20/23 multicore via the NPS0, but they are minor compared to the total score.

Here is a collage of my better runs, excluding the 'deep winter - open window - safe-mode' kind of sessions. As an example, with 4x Samsung-B DDR4 4000 SR sticks, run-to-run Aida memory latency variance can be as little as 0.2ns or as much as 1 ns, depending on conditions...very hard to dissect minute changes, IMO. Still, we all want to max our setups and extract top performance...


----------



## CyrIng

Kelutrel said:


> SAM works on Zen2 . My guess is that either your test workload is not enough to trigger any advantage in using SAM (try to increase the resolution or the textures level in your test) or for any reason (drivers, bios, whatever...) it is not being correctly enabled and used by your system.


Without and with SAM does not also make a huge difference at this 2K exterme benchmark



















ChillyRide said:


> Test with DirectX API. I doubt SAM works with such and old API like OpenGL.


Which means Linux is not a SAM target


----------



## Kelutrel

CyrIng said:


> Without and with SAM does not also make a huge difference at this 2K exterme benchmark
> View attachment 2569456
> 
> View attachment 2569457
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which means Linux is not a SAM target


Actually Linux supports SAM since years before Windows.
On Linux SAM is currently for Zen3 only unfortunately

*From the comments on that link, it looks like you can still try to enable it on Zen2 : "Via DriConf is now a 'enable_sam' option for anyone regardless of Radeon GPU / CPU combination" but I don't have Linux so can't advise on that.


----------



## Kelutrel

J7SC said:


> I always like your tips, especially since the L1L2 prefetch mode settings. What we are facing though is the 'last' 5%" problem where at least on my setup, bench results for changes made usually fall within the run-to-run variance. Add in very hot days and Win 10 updates since the last benching sessions, and it becomes trickier to determine what is placebo and what is a real gain. I do see marginal increases in CineR20/23 multicore via the NPS0, but they are minor compared to the total score.
> 
> Here is a collage of my better runs, excluding the 'deep winter - open window - safe-mode' kind of sessions. As an example, with 4x Samsung-B DDR4 4000 SR sticks, run-to-run Aida memory latency variance can be as little as 0.2ns or as much as 1 ns, depending on conditions...very hard to dissect minute changes, IMO. Still, we all want to max our setups and extract top performance...
> 
> View attachment 2569452


Thank you Sir, much appreciated


----------



## Blackfyre

Kelutrel said:


> On my specific hardware and configuration I seem to have been gifted by an additional performance increase, mostly in ST workloads, by additionally setting:
> "AMD CBS\DF Common Options\ACPI\ACPI SLIT remote relative distance" to *Far*
> This also doesn't make much sense, like the rest of the NPS0, but you can give it a try.


Tried all the 3 latest changes you recommended under AMD CBS settings in the last few pages here.

I'm going to keep them as you recommended but there are no benefits on a *single CCD 5800X* I believe, all tests are within margin of error, maybe AIDA 64 Latency is slightly improved, but still within margin of error.


----------



## Kelutrel

Blackfyre said:


> Tried all the 3 latest changes you recommended under AMD CBS settings in the last few pages here.
> 
> I'm going to keep them as you recommended but there are no benefits on a *single CCD 5800X* I believe, all tests are within margin of error, maybe AIDA 64 Latency is slightly improved, but still within margin of error.
> View attachment 2569465


Tbh at this time I am not particularly recommending these settings, unless you are happy with the results or would just like to experiment and understand how/why they work.
I am interested in any new finding though, and I am also using them to grow my opinion.


----------



## Blackfyre

Kelutrel said:


> Tbh at this time I am not particularly recommending these settings, unless you are happy with the results or would just like to experiment and understand how/why they work.
> I am interested in any new finding though, and I am also using them to grow my opinion.


Thanks, yes, no problem. Just let us know if you do end up finding out that they decrease performance in certain scenarios. Or if anyone notices a negative/positive difference. For now, I haven't noticed any benefits or negatives with the changes on a 5800X


----------



## GRABibus

Blackfyre said:


> Thanks, yes, no problem. Just let us know if you do end up finding out that they decrease performance in certain scenarios. Or if anyone notices a negative/positive difference. For now, I haven't noticed any benefits or negatives with the changes on a 5800X


Which Bios do you have ?


----------



## Kelutrel

Blackfyre said:


> Thanks, yes, no problem. Just let us know if you do end up finding out that they decrease performance in certain scenarios. Or if anyone notices a negative/positive difference. For now, I haven't noticed any benefits or negatives with the changes on a 5800X


Yes, as soon as I understand why it performs like it seems to be doing on my 5900X I'll update here.
In the meantime, I guess that the fact that the 5800X has a single CCX and a single L3 cache bank makes it probably less sensitive (if at all) to a switch from CPPC to NUMA in the scheduling of the available cores.


----------



## Blackfyre

GRABibus said:


> Which Bios do you have ?


I'm always on the latest. Best for stability.

I know Version 3801 is the best for benchmarking, but outside of benchmarks performance seems the same with better stability on newer BIOS versions.


----------



## J7SC

Kelutrel said:


> Yes, as soon as I understand why it performs like it seems to be doing on my 5900X I'll update here.
> In the meantime, I guess that the fact that the 5800X has a single CCX and a single L3 cache bank makes it probably less sensitive (if at all) to a switch from CPPC to NUMA in the scheduling of the available cores.


...FYI, I have an older 2950X Threadripper (quad channel DDR4) where UMA - NUMA switching makes a big difference. When I have more time, I will also try the latest AMD CBS suggestions above on the 3950X (earlier post above was 5950X which has a different cache layout). 

...still rocking 3801 bios w/ a small undervolt in 24/7, with zero issues...


----------



## Moutsatsos

I've set L3 as Numa and set nodes per socket to NPS0 from auto that it was and didnt see much of a difference.
R20 single went up from 636 to 639 but multi went down from 8823 to 8746.
Superposition 1080 extreme went up from 5930 to 5966.
As for memory prety much same numbers and exactly the same latencies.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Guys, just quick knowledge, as a e.g. is my CPU:

NUMA 0 is All Cores as one CCX
NUMA 1 is default for 5950X/5900X 2xCCX 2x8C etc.
NUMA 2 is 4xCCX so 4x4C and so on...

So it's only viable for biger CPUs 5900X and up to TR.


----------



## Kelutrel

Ne01 OnnA said:


> Guys, just quick knowledge, as a e.g. is my CPU:
> 
> NUMA 0 is All Cores as one CCX
> NUMA 1 is default for 5950X/5900X 2xCCX 2x8C etc.
> NUMA 2 is 4xCCX so 4x4C and so on...
> 
> So it's only viable for biger CPUs 5900X and up to TR.


I have some questions, if anyone has theories or understanding of what is going on with the NPS0 setting, as this puzzles me and feels like some kind of anomaly or bug in the OS or BIOS, although it still may be considered a tool to add to our Zen3 toolbox. The following text is relevant only for Zen3 5900X and above.

I've read the above message where @Ne01 OnnA lists the meaning of the NPS values and I think that some more details should be provided.

From what I've verified on my system:

NPS0 currently sets 2 NUMA nodes per CPU somehow (1 for each CCX), you can easily verify this using the Process Lasso utility or similar tools that show the available NUMA nodes.
NPS1 is the default when left to Auto and sets 1 single unified NUMA node for both CCX together, as Ne01 wrote.
NPS2 sets (again) 2 NUMA nodes visible to the operating system.

The official AMD explanation for the NPS modes and behavior is provided here
Also, the definition of a NUMA node is a set of CPU cores (a CCX) linked to its local bank of L3 cache.

What I don't get, and for which I would ask for informations or theories by anyone, is:

- NPS0 is an AMD-only mode and should work only on motherboards which have 2 or more CPU sockets. On those motherboards the L3 cache available on CPU in different sockets is considered "remote", and a cpu core that has to access the content of a remote L3 cache bank incurs in an even bigger latency penalty, so the NUMA topology helps the OS scheduler to weight this latency penalty appropriately when distributing the threads to the cores.
_Does anyone have any explanation about why this mode has any effect on our motherboards that are single socket ? And why is it different than NPS1 that also sets a single NUMA node per each socket ?_

- NPS2 sets 2 nodes per CPU and, from the operating system pov, should look identical to NPS0 (both show 2 NUMA nodes).
_Does anyone have any explanation about why the actual performances of NPS0 and NPS2 are different ? (where NPS2 has noticeable lower performances). Or what does NPS0 do that NPS2 doesnt ?_

- NPS0 should be, by its description in that document, 1 NUMA node for the whole system (with any amount of cpu sockets).
_Does anyone have any explanation about why setting NPS0 actually creates 2 NUMA nodes visible by the operating system ?_

I am just curious guys, I see a new toy and I want to understand how/why it works.


----------



## stimpy88

@Kelutrel & @Ne01 OnnA - Thanks to both of you for keeping the fun alive for this platform. Your ideas and insight make the world go round! Keep the tricks coming!


----------



## heptilion

Kelutrel said:


> I have some questions, if anyone has theories or understanding of what is going on with the NPS0 setting, as this puzzles me and feels like some kind of anomaly or bug in the OS or BIOS, although it still may be considered a tool to add to our Zen3 toolbox. The following text is relevant only for Zen3 5900X and above.
> 
> I've read the above message where @Ne01 OnnA lists the meaning of the NPS values and I think that some more details should be provided.
> 
> From what I've verified on my system:
> 
> NPS0 currently sets 2 NUMA nodes per CPU somehow (1 for each CCX), you can easily verify this using the Process Lasso utility or similar tools that show the available NUMA nodes.
> NPS1 is the default when left to Auto and sets 1 single unified NUMA node for both CCX together, as Ne01 wrote.
> NPS2 sets (again) 2 NUMA nodes visible to the operating system.
> 
> The official AMD explanation for the NPS modes and behavior is provided here
> Also, the definition of a NUMA node is a set of CPU cores (a CCX) linked to its local bank of L3 cache.
> 
> What I don't get, and for which I would ask for informations or theories by anyone, is:
> 
> - NPS0 is an AMD-only mode and should work only on motherboards which have 2 or more CPU sockets. On those motherboards the L3 cache available on CPU in different sockets is considered "remote", and a cpu core that has to access the content of a remote L3 cache bank incurs in an even bigger latency penalty, so the NUMA topology helps the OS scheduler to weight this latency penalty appropriately when distributing the threads to the cores.
> _Does anyone have any explanation about why this mode has any effect on our motherboards that are single socket ? And why is it different than NPS1 that also sets a single NUMA node per each socket ?_
> 
> - NPS2 sets 2 nodes per CPU and, from the operating system pov, should look identical to NPS0 (both show 2 NUMA nodes).
> _Does anyone have any explanation about why the actual performances of NPS0 and NPS2 are different ? (where NPS2 has noticeable lower performances). Or what does NPS0 do that NPS2 doesnt ?_
> 
> - NPS0 should be, by its description in that document, 1 NUMA node for the whole system (with any amount of cpu sockets).
> _Does anyone have any explanation about why setting NPS0 actually creates 2 NUMA nodes visible by the operating system ?_
> 
> I am just curious guys, I see a new toy and I want to understand how/why it works.


Do you use bankgroup swap alt enabled?


----------



## stimpy88

Kelutrel said:


> I have some questions, if anyone has theories or understanding of what is going on with the NPS0 setting, as this puzzles me and feels like some kind of anomaly or bug in the OS or BIOS, although it still may be considered a tool to add to our Zen3 toolbox. The following text is relevant only for Zen3 5900X and above.
> 
> I've read the above message where @Ne01 OnnA lists the meaning of the NPS values and I think that some more details should be provided.
> 
> From what I've verified on my system:
> 
> NPS0 currently sets 2 NUMA nodes per CPU somehow (1 for each CCX), you can easily verify this using the Process Lasso utility or similar tools that show the available NUMA nodes.
> NPS1 is the default when left to Auto and sets 1 single unified NUMA node for both CCX together, as Ne01 wrote.
> NPS2 sets (again) 2 NUMA nodes visible to the operating system.
> 
> The official AMD explanation for the NPS modes and behavior is provided here
> Also, the definition of a NUMA node is a set of CPU cores (a CCX) linked to its local bank of L3 cache.
> 
> What I don't get, and for which I would ask for informations or theories by anyone, is:
> 
> - NPS0 is an AMD-only mode and should work only on motherboards which have 2 or more CPU sockets. On those motherboards the L3 cache available on CPU in different sockets is considered "remote", and a cpu core that has to access the content of a remote L3 cache bank incurs in an even bigger latency penalty, so the NUMA topology helps the OS scheduler to weight this latency penalty appropriately when distributing the threads to the cores.
> _Does anyone have any explanation about why this mode has any effect on our motherboards that are single socket ? And why is it different than NPS1 that also sets a single NUMA node per each socket ?_
> 
> - NPS2 sets 2 nodes per CPU and, from the operating system pov, should look identical to NPS0 (both show 2 NUMA nodes).
> _Does anyone have any explanation about why the actual performances of NPS0 and NPS2 are different ? (where NPS2 has noticeable lower performances). Or what does NPS0 do that NPS2 doesnt ?_
> 
> - NPS0 should be, by its description in that document, 1 NUMA node for the whole system (with any amount of cpu sockets).
> _Does anyone have any explanation about why setting NPS0 actually creates 2 NUMA nodes visible by the operating system ?_
> 
> I am just curious guys, I see a new toy and I want to understand how/why it works.


I'm no expert, but I know Microsoft well enough to state that it is very likely an OS bug. CPU scheduling has been a huge issue in Windows on AMD Ryzen systems for years, and across multiple OS versions, simply because AMD did it first, and did it differently to Intel. If the day comes that Intel adopts a similar architecture to AMD, that will be the day MS fix these performance issues with the scheduler. I also believe MS lacks the technical expertise, and/or managerial interest to fix difficult bugs or design issues like this. It also a reflection that Windows is also hated internally, and is mostly regarded as a cash cow.

But saying all that, AMD also have issues with being able to program their AGESA, and it's been widely stated that it is a mess, so who knows really!


----------



## Kelutrel

heptilion said:


> Do you use bankgroup swap alt enabled?


Yes. I let it on Auto, and on Auto, on my system, ZenTimings shows BankGroupSwap Alt enabled.


----------



## Kelutrel

stimpy88 said:


> @Kelutrel & @Ne01 OnnA - Thanks to both of you for keeping the fun alive for this platform. Your ideas and insight make the world go round! Keep the tricks coming!


Don't get me wrong, I am happy to have new stuff to test and understand, expecially when it is not behaving as expected, and I thank Ne01 for this. I mostly come on this thread when I am bored, to find new stuff to try and learn about, and any consolidated tweak always has a phase of study before being adopted anyway.

For NPS0, as of now, I feel that it can be suggested for sure as a tweak when not using PBO and using a fixed manual overclock on Zen3 5900X or above, as then all the cores have the same top speed, and the frequency-related choices of CPPC PC are sub-optimal compared to the cache-locality choices offered by setting the correct NUMA topology. But when on PBO ymmv.

I use PBO, and still have some MT performance increase after applying these settings, because I guess that when all the cores are going together (like in an MT benchmark) their peak frequency is PPT-limited and is set to the same value for all, so in that case NUMA provides better results than CPPC PC in distributing the workload to the cores, this is also true when not all cores are running at the same time if you have undervolted your CPU like I have.

But why NPS0 actually does that, and better than NPS1 or NPS2, and why it actually does anything on our single-socket MB, it really puzzles me


----------



## Kelutrel

stimpy88 said:


> I'm no expert, but I know Microsoft well enough to state that it is very likely an OS bug. CPU scheduling has been a huge issue in Windows on AMD Ryzen systems for years, and across multiple OS versions, simply because AMD did it first, and did it differently to Intel. If the day comes that Intel adopts a similar architecture to AMD, that will be the day MS fix these performance issues with the scheduler. I also believe MS lacks the technical expertise, and/or managerial interest to fix difficult bugs or design issues like this. It also a reflection that Windows is also hated internally, and is mostly regarded as a cash cow.
> 
> But saying all that, AMD also have issues with being able to program their AGESA, and it's been widely stated that it is a mess, so who knows really!


Atm I think exactly the same.


----------



## heptilion

Kelutrel said:


> Atm I think exactly the same.


From the description in BIOS
AMD CBS\DF Common Options\ACPI\ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain" to *Enabled*
will overide the second option to select NPS. I dont think putting NPS0,1,2,3 is going to change anything if make this enabled


----------



## Kelutrel

heptilion said:


> From the description in BIOS
> AMD CBS\DF Common Options\ACPI\ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain" to *Enabled*
> will overide the second option to select NPS. I dont think putting NPS0,1,2,3 is going to change anything if make this enabled


Nice finding. I agree with you in principle, however I am using pretty exact benchmarks (using this one atm, besides CBR20) and taking the needed precautions, and the performances difference looks consistent to me. It may be placebo effect anyway so I invite anyone with a Zen3 5900X or above to try by himself and share their results (like NPS0 vs NPS2).

I tried it again just now, 5 runs of that benchmark, waiting 2 minutes after boot, there was nothing running in background, and I got:
NPS0: 15235.5 15229.2 15220.2 15279.3 15275.6
NPS2: 15186.0 15177.7 15162.3 15108.9 15181.4

Note that I take a lot of precautions to ensure stability of testing, I use a configuration with an undervolted cpu and with a 0 boost, so temperature never exceeds 60-65 degrees when testing and no heat spike throttles the cores, I use a disk caching tool to minimize the impact of any tiny Windows write that may still happen in background, and I disabled any common background service and accurately monitor the performance counters before testing.


----------



## des2k...

hwanzi said:


> Question for people that have a fan on their memory. Where and how are you placing the fan? If its on the GPU does your memory temps not just go up when your playing games because that's what happens to mine...


Here's my 60mm Noctua on 1.58v bdie 4000cl16 122ns trfc on my x570 board.
Don't need much, 60%-50% pwm.


----------



## Corey Carroz

Kelutrel said:


> I have some questions, if anyone has theories or understanding of what is going on with the NPS0 setting, as this puzzles me and feels like some kind of anomaly or bug in the OS or BIOS, although it still may be considered a tool to add to our Zen3 toolbox. The following text is relevant only for Zen3 5900X and above.
> 
> I've read the above message where @Ne01 OnnA lists the meaning of the NPS values and I think that some more details should be provided.
> 
> From what I've verified on my system:
> 
> NPS0 currently sets 2 NUMA nodes per CPU somehow (1 for each CCX), you can easily verify this using the Process Lasso utility or similar tools that show the available NUMA nodes.
> NPS1 is the default when left to Auto and sets 1 single unified NUMA node for both CCX together, as Ne01 wrote.
> NPS2 sets (again) 2 NUMA nodes visible to the operating system.
> 
> The official AMD explanation for the NPS modes and behavior is provided here
> Also, the definition of a NUMA node is a set of CPU cores (a CCX) linked to its local bank of L3 cache.
> 
> What I don't get, and for which I would ask for informations or theories by anyone, is:
> 
> - NPS0 is an AMD-only mode and should work only on motherboards which have 2 or more CPU sockets. On those motherboards the L3 cache available on CPU in different sockets is considered "remote", and a cpu core that has to access the content of a remote L3 cache bank incurs in an even bigger latency penalty, so the NUMA topology helps the OS scheduler to weight this latency penalty appropriately when distributing the threads to the cores.
> _Does anyone have any explanation about why this mode has any effect on our motherboards that are single socket ? And why is it different than NPS1 that also sets a single NUMA node per each socket ?_
> 
> - NPS2 sets 2 nodes per CPU and, from the operating system pov, should look identical to NPS0 (both show 2 NUMA nodes).
> _Does anyone have any explanation about why the actual performances of NPS0 and NPS2 are different ? (where NPS2 has noticeable lower performances). Or what does NPS0 do that NPS2 doesnt ?_
> 
> - NPS0 should be, by its description in that document, 1 NUMA node for the whole system (with any amount of cpu sockets).
> _Does anyone have any explanation about why setting NPS0 actually creates 2 NUMA nodes visible by the operating system ?_
> 
> I am just curious guys, I see a new toy and I want to understand how/why it works.


Pneumonodes and a home PC environment? Never heard this come up before. Correct me if I'm wrong. Going off memory but let's say a 5950 or 5,900 they use shared cash in the CPU, correct? Normally when we talk numa nodes it's in the server virtualization market where we have servers that have multiple sockets and eat socket has its own memory bank. NUMA nodes are a way to make sure if VM1 is running on socket one that the memory footprint for that VM stays locally to the memory that that CPU directly manages and controls versus using memory that socket two CPU manages and controls. So I'm not quite sure how that translates into the home PC market, but interesting.


----------



## Theo164

hwanzi said:


> Question for people that have a fan on their memory. Where and how are you placing the fan? If its on the GPU does your memory temps not just go up when your playing games because that's what happens to mine...



I have an old never used before g.skill ram cooler that came years ago with a tridentX ddr3 kit. Molex connector replaced with a fan 3pin one, soldered a resistor for speed reduction and disconnect the annoying blue fan LEDs.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

des2k... said:


> Here's my 60mm Noctua on 1.58v bdie 4000cl16 122ns trfc on my x570 board.
> Don't need much, 60%-50% pwm.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2569671


I was thinking when I've time to 3d print something to achieve this cooling system , I don't want to hide the LEDs, u know, more RGB = more FPS


----------



## Baio73

Theo164 said:


> I have an old never used before g.skill ram cooler that came years ago with a tridentX ddr3 kit. Molex connector replaced with a fan 3pin one, soldered a resistor for speed reduction and disconnect the annoying blue fan LEDs.


Did you gain something in OC?

RAM cooling seems something that no brand cares for... 

Baio


----------



## Theo164

It did. I have 4 ram sticks packed and memory temp was climbing easily more than 60c while running ram test causing random errors after a few hours.
(65-67c once during testing a hot day away from home no a/c, 52-53c @ winter. Case airflow with 9x120mm fans didn't help much.
Now it's +16-18c ambient while testing for 12 hours with carhu and TestMem5 more than 5 hours each, no errors at all.



Spoiler


----------



## DvL Ax3l

Looking on reddit I found this post about some issues with latest AGESA post 1.2.0.5c, if you read the latest update it's seem that ASUS and CORSAIR have worked together and release a confidential BIOS that fix something... or at least he says that! Waiting for an upcoming BIOS release!!! XD


----------



## Baio73

Theo164 said:


> It did. I have 4 ram sticks packed and memory temp was climbing easily more than 60c while running ram test causing random errors after a few hours.
> (65-67c once during testing a hot day away from home no a/c, 52-53c @ winter. Case airflow with 9x120mm fans didn't help much.
> Now it's +16-18c ambient while testing for 12 hours with carhu and TestMem5 more than 5 hours each, no errors at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


Very good T improvements... I should think about doing the same, but I can't find an aftermarket solution that 100% convince me...

Baio


----------



## des2k...

Kelutrel said:


> Your AIDA64 latency will be a bit lower, and your MT benchmarks will be a bit higher, and your videogames a bit faster, if you set:
> "AMD CBS\DF Common Options\ACPI\ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain" to *Enabled*
> "AMD CBS\DF Common Options\Memory Addressing\NUMA nodes per socket" to *NPS0*


This does absolutely nothing on my 5900x. Identical scores before / after.

The only thing that drops Aida to 52.7ns vs 53.1ns is L2 HW Prefetch -off with 2000IF. With 1900IF doesn't do anything to latency.

I didn't bother keeping the prefetcher off since it fails y-cruncher with the stable CO curve I have.
I would need to re-do the CO curve again with y-cruncher & that's over 24h :-( not worth much.


----------



## g_d_g_l__

AMD Ryzen™ Chipset Driver Release Notes 4.08.09.2337

Release Highlights

Window 11 22H2 OS support added
Package Includes

AMD Chipset Drivers
AMD Ryzen™ Power Plans (required for UEFI CPPC2 in Windows® 11)
AMD Ryzen™ Power Provisioning Package (required for UEFI CPPC2 support with "Zen 3" and later in Windows® 11)

Known Issues

Sometimes custom install fails to upgrade to latest drivers.
Text alignment issues may be seen on Russian language.
Manual system restart required on Non-English OS after the installation is complete.
Windows® Installer pop-up message may appear during the installation.
Uninstall summary log may incorrectly show uninstall status as fail on non-English OS.
https://www.amd.com/de/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570


----------



## KkRoTT87!

g_d_g_l__ said:


> AMD Ryzen™ Chipset Driver Release Notes 4.08.09.2337
> 
> Release Highlights
> 
> Window 11 22H2 OS support added
> Package Includes
> 
> AMD Chipset Drivers
> AMD Ryzen™ Power Plans (required for UEFI CPPC2 in Windows® 11)
> AMD Ryzen™ Power Provisioning Package (required for UEFI CPPC2 support with "Zen 3" and later in Windows® 11)
> 
> Known Issues
> 
> Sometimes custom install fails to upgrade to latest drivers.
> Text alignment issues may be seen on Russian language.
> Manual system restart required on Non-English OS after the installation is complete.
> Windows® Installer pop-up message may appear during the installation.
> Uninstall summary log may incorrectly show uninstall status as fail on non-English OS.
> https://www.amd.com/de/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570


Is this one safe to update?
last time I tried, got BSoD and was a short nightmare to fix without loosing anything...


----------



## Blackfyre

KkRoTT87! said:


> Is this one safe to update?
> last time I tried, got BSoD and was a short nightmare to fix without loosing anything...


Maybe you have instability somewhere? I've never had BSODs caused by chipset driver updates.


----------



## xeizo

Blackfyre said:


> Maybe you have instability somewhere? I've never had BSODs caused by chipset driver updates.


Ditto. Never happened.


----------



## okenamay

Hello! I just recently upgraded my system running Windows 7, now I've got the following:
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
ASUS Crosshair VIII Formula X570 (4201)
2x Samsung 980 1 ТБ M.2 MZ-V8V1T0BW (running RAID1)
MSI GeForce RTX 3080 Ti SUPRIM X 12G
CoolerMaster V1200 Platinum

I've purchased 2 2x16 GB RAM kits for the system – both are Patriot Memory PSP432G2666KH1. As I was updating my system gradually over a week before vacation and a week after vacation, the RAM configuration was updated as follows:
Phase I: 
2x8 GB Corsair CMK16GX4M2A2666C16 in slots A2 and B2
Phase II: 
2x8 GB Corsair CMK16GX4M2A2666C16 in slots A2 and B2
2x16 GB Patriot Memory PSP432G2666KH1 in slots A1 and B1
Phase III:
4x16 GB Patriot Memory PSP432G2666KH1 in slots A2, B2, A1 and B1

At this point, all sticks were running 2133 MT/s 21-21-21-55 or somesuch relaxed timings. After Phase III I started getting regular BSoDs (DRIVER_IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL), to the point where I would get a BSoD right at Windows 10 startup which would corrupt the Windows files a couple times (recovered from a backup).

I even tried getting a fresh Win10 install, but would get a BSoD anytime between starting the installer, running the installation process and anywhere between 10 and 30 minutes after Win10 would boot up after an install. Naturally, in all circumstances all the most recent drivers were installed.

After several Win10 reinstall attempts and persistent BSoDs I tried shuffling the RAM sticks between the slots – to no avail. Then I tried removing RAM sticks and adding them up while shuffling the sticks between the two kits to see if anything changes, _et voila_, regardless of sticks used:

4 sticks – guaranteed BSoD after 10-30 minutes after bootup, sometines during bootup;
2 sticks – normal bootup, but gradual performance degradation, with random tasks freezing at 'Not Reponding' without the possibility to end them – to a point some 30-60 minutes after bootup when the system becomes unusable;
1 stick – no issues, stable Win10 session for over 80+ hours.

At this point I figured my RAM sticks might be faulty, so I ran bootable PassMark Memtest86, full suite of tests, several runs. Zero errors at [email protected], [email protected], and even [email protected]

Now I am totally lost: what the hell is wrong with my system? My RAM sticks are perferctly fine, except they apparently aren't. I even tried adding some juice (VSoC @1.05 V, VRAM @1.425 V), but still getting guaranteed BSoDs at 2133MT/s CL21, which as Memtest implies, is more than relaxed timings for my sticks.

For now, I am running my old 2x8 GB Corsair kit at [email protected], but with my current tasks it's not enough. But what's the deal with all those BSoDs? How should I fix this?


----------



## DvL Ax3l

g_d_g_l__ said:


> AMD Ryzen™ Chipset Driver Release Notes 4.08.09.2337
> 
> Release Highlights
> 
> Window 11 22H2 OS support added
> Package Includes
> 
> AMD Chipset Drivers
> AMD Ryzen™ Power Plans (required for UEFI CPPC2 in Windows® 11)
> AMD Ryzen™ Power Provisioning Package (required for UEFI CPPC2 support with "Zen 3" and later in Windows® 11)
> 
> Known Issues
> 
> Sometimes custom install fails to upgrade to latest drivers.
> Text alignment issues may be seen on Russian language.
> Manual system restart required on Non-English OS after the installation is complete.
> Windows® Installer pop-up message may appear during the installation.
> Uninstall summary log may incorrectly show uninstall status as fail on non-English OS.
> https://www.amd.com/de/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570


After updated the chipset drivers I've tried corecyle to check if the CO values works and I need to redo everything again 😂, seems everything is changed, I don't know if it's the latest windows 11 build or the drivers, anyway I suggest to check your CO guys!

Here is all the stable CO per BIOS I've used, on the right the one I'm testing now


----------



## ChillyRide

DvL Ax3l said:


> After updated the chipset drivers I've tried corecyle to check if the CO values works and I need to redo everything again 😂, seems everything is changed, I don't know if it's the latest windows 11 build or the drivers, anyway I suggest to check your CO guys!
> 
> Here is all the stable CO per BIOS I've used, on the right the one I'm testing now
> View attachment 2570283


I am fine with my CO. Corecycler is not enough to say there is no stability issues. I usually start with CC and than proceed with OCCT SSE and than AVX.


----------



## Blackfyre

DvL Ax3l said:


> After updated the chipset drivers I've tried corecyle to check if the CO values works and I need to redo everything again 😂, seems everything is changed, I don't know if it's the latest windows 11 build or the drivers, anyway I suggest to check your CO guys!
> 
> Here is all the stable CO per BIOS I've used, on the right the one I'm testing now
> View attachment 2570283


IMO that just means your CO was never 100% stable and the older chipset drivers if anything were masking your instability. I thought my CO was stable for over a month once, and it turned out it was never really stable. Just the tests I done never picked up on it.

If I was you, I'd update chipset drivers to latest and try to find your new stable CO configuration. You'll end up with a smoother system overall.


----------



## des2k...

DvL Ax3l said:


> After updated the chipset drivers I've tried corecyle to check if the CO values works and I need to redo everything again 😂, seems everything is changed, I don't know if it's the latest windows 11 build or the drivers, anyway I suggest to check your CO guys!
> 
> Here is all the stable CO per BIOS I've used, on the right the one I'm testing now
> View attachment 2570283


get y-cruncher, cycle all test option 1,7,0
add one core CO, about 2h30mins is all you need
if it passes, add the next core

That's pretty much the only tool to have 24/7 stable CO & hit max PPT
You'll also need to run y-cruncher first with no CO to validate your IMC/MEM OC is passing.

If you add auto oc, the only way to test top boost is gaming. It will show you problems very early, around 30mins and that's only for your first 2-4 best cores when they go past 5025-5050.


----------



## Pastrami King

I am having an issue where power delivery to my USB ports turns off while my computer is sleeping. I have disabled USB selective suspend setting and turned off PCI Express/Link State Power Management, but I cannot get my USB ports to remain on while the computer is sleeping. Is this the result of the AMD Ryzen Power Provisioning Package included in the Chipset Drivers for Windows 11?


----------



## dboom

Long story: blablabla.
Short story: Win 11 with memory integrity off vs on.
4201 BIOS.
Chipset drivers up to date. Win11 updates up to date.


----------



## AStaUK

Interesting, not sure I would expect the Memory Integrity setting to affect CPU clock speeds if that’s what you are showing. Win11 has been prompting me to enable this for a couple of days and the setting will be enabled by default in fresh installs with the next release of Win11 released on 20th Sept.


----------



## dboom

It is about the voltage cap at 1.42 1.45v.
People are complaining that with the latest Ages a/Bios the core voltage is being capped. I'm running the latest bios and have the same issue but only when memory integrity is on. When disabled the voltage goes up to 1.5v without a problem.


----------



## GRABibus

Where is this « Memory integrity » setting ?


----------



## DvL Ax3l

GRABibus said:


> Where is this « Memory integrity » setting ?


Core Isolation in windows security, require SMT, don't use it, it will tank the cpu


----------



## GRABibus

DvL Ax3l said:


> Core Isolation in windows security, require SMT, don't use it, it will tank the cpu
> View attachment 2570799


I am not in front of my PC.

this is only in W11 ? Not W10?


----------



## AStaUK

GRABibus said:


> I am not in front of my PC.
> 
> this is only in W11 ? Not W10?


It’s available in both, from memory in the same location.

@DvL Ax3l I haven’t done any benchmarks recently but from memory there was barely any difference with Memory Integrity on vs off, it’s only on older CPU’s that don’t support MBEC that there was a massive performance hit, somewhere in the region of 30%.


----------



## Luggage

dboom said:


> It is about the voltage cap at 1.42 1.45v.
> People are complaining that with the latest Ages a/Bios the core voltage is being capped. I'm running the latest bios and have the same issue but only when memory integrity is on. When disabled the voltage goes up to 1.5v without a problem.


VID is capped if you raise EDC above stock.


----------



## GRABibus

DvL Ax3l said:


> Core Isolation in windows security, require SMT, don't use it, it will tank the cpu
> View attachment 2570799


I am in W10.
Mine is already disabled and when try to enable it, it says it is not possbile on my PC.


----------



## GRABibus

GRABibus said:


> I am in W10.
> Mine is already disabled and when try to enable it, it says it is not possbile on my PC.


This si because of some incompatibilties with some logitech drivers.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

AStaUK said:


> It’s available in both, from memory in the same location.
> 
> @DvL Ax3l I haven’t done any benchmarks recently but from memory there was barely any difference with Memory Integrity on vs off, it’s only on older CPU’s that don’t support MBEC that there was a massive performance hit, somewhere in the region of 30%.


a very quick cinebench, core isolation off vs on


----------



## GRABibus

DvL Ax3l said:


> a very quick cinebench, core isolation off vs on
> View attachment 2570806
> View attachment 2570807


Which one is "off" ?


----------



## heptilion

GRABibus said:


> Which one is "off" ?


Hi GRABibus, in your games if your disable smt do you get less or more fps?


----------



## dboom

Luggage said:


> VID is capped if you raise EDC above stock.


I know that. I have 185 PPT 120 TDC 150EDC.

In MT the results are almost the same, just SC workloads are affected.


----------



## GRABibus

heptilion said:


> Hi GRABibus, in your games if your disable smt do you get less or more fps?


Hi,
good question. I never tried.
I assume it depends on the games.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

GRABibus said:


> Which one is "off" ?


first one is off, higher score


----------



## KedarWolf

I use the official Microsoft Disable Guard Readiness Tool. Reboot after running it.









Windows Defender Device Guard and Windows Defender Credential Guard hardware readiness tool


Windows Defender Device Guard and Windows Defender Credential Guard hardware readiness tool script



docs.microsoft.com





DisableGuard.ps1 -disable


----------



## stimpy88

KedarWolf said:


> I use the official Microsoft Disable Guard Readiness Tool. Reboot after running it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windows Defender Device Guard and Windows Defender Credential Guard hardware readiness tool
> 
> 
> Windows Defender Device Guard and Windows Defender Credential Guard hardware readiness tool script
> 
> 
> 
> docs.microsoft.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DisableGuard.ps1 -disable


Thanks for this, but how do you use it, and is it reversible? I'm not fully up to speed with PS.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

Hi guys, have you tried static OC with Asus DOS? I never tried, mostly because I am a gamer so don't need it, anyway some tips?


----------



## J7SC

DvL Ax3l said:


> Hi guys, have you tried static OC with Asus DOS? I never tried, mostly because I am a gamer so don't need it, anyway some tips?


...your Dark Hero board is ideal for that via DynamicOC...I've been running a fixed all-core 4.65 on my Dark Hero / 5950X for almost a year while keeping the higher frequencies for fewer cores (gaming) untouched...single core at up to actual 5046 MHz per HWInfo. Below is a good guide for you, though I actually run a small undervolt given my chip and don't use Fmax instead of what is shown in the vid...


----------



## DvL Ax3l

J7SC said:


> ...your Dark Hero board is ideal for that via DynamicOC...I've been running a fixed all-core 4.65 on my Dark Hero / 5950X for almost a year while keeping the higher frequencies for fewer cores (gaming) untouched...single core at up to actual 5046 MHz per HWInfo. Below is a good guide for you, though I actually run a small undervolt given my chip and don't use Fmax instead of what is shown in the vid...


I'll look at it, anyway 4.65 on all core with what voltage set in the bios? Derbauer use 1.320, is it safe?


----------



## J7SC

DvL Ax3l said:


> I'll look at it, anyway 4.65 on all core with what voltage set in the bios? Derbauer use 1.320, is it safe?


...the usual qualifiers apply (do oc'ing at your own risk), but I can tell you that with the small undervolt I mentioned, CineR23 shows 1.18v under load on my 5950X, and it stays in the high 60ies C for that with scores somewhere around 31.5K to 31.7k for daily setting (max 32.4k)....I do have an extensive w-cooling system though. The 'current' changeover number of 45 you see in the vid is considered safe by most folks, but see qualifier...


----------



## KedarWolf

stimpy88 said:


> Thanks for this, but how do you use it, and is it reversible? I'm not fully up to speed with PS.


You run CMD as Admin use:



Code:


powershell.exe -executionpolicy bypass -file D:\DisableGuard.ps1 -disable

I believe the below reverses it.



Code:


powershell.exe -executionpolicy bypass -file D:\DisableGuard.ps1 -enable

Point it where you have the script. Mine is in my D:\ folder.

You might have to open an Admin PowerShell and run this first but I don't think so.



Code:


Set-ExecutionPolicy -Scope Process -ExecutionPolicy Bypass


----------



## DvL Ax3l

J7SC said:


> ...the usual qualifiers apply (do oc'ing at your own risk), but I can tell you that with the small undervolt I mentioned, CineR23 shows 1.18v under load on my 5950X, and it stays in the high 60ies C for that with scores somewhere around 31.5K to 31.7k for daily setting (max 32.4k)....I do have an extensive w-cooling system though. The 'current' changeover number of 45 you see in the vid is considered safe by most folks, but see qualifier...


CB23 23100+ with all core @ 4.60Ghz @ 1.30V current treshold @ 55A, not bad that DOS 🤩

Edit: nevermind, I'm not prime95 stable, let's try to achieve it! 😂
Edit: 4.5Ghz on all core @ 1.30V still not prime95 stable and I noticed that the PPT surpass 300W 😯


----------



## dboom

Of course not.
4.6 on one die, 4.5 on one die, 1.2V will be max anyway. OCCT will crush cores even at 4.1 and 280W ppt but prime and linpack will be stable.


----------



## des2k...

interesting find on my 5900x.
The performance increase is not just due to the undervolt of the curve; the higher the CO value the higher the multiplier are allowed.

Auto OC +0
*vcore offset +0*
-CO *19 19 19 6 19 18 14 14 15 18 19 19*

ST 4900 freq
MT score 23700-23800

Auto OC +0
*vcore offset +56mv* ( 30 - 19) x 5mv
add -11 steps to all
-CO *30 30 30 17 30 29 25 25 26 29 30 30*

ST 4950 freq
MT score 24026

Got +50mhz ST & +50,75mhz MT
300 score increase, same wattage / temps 

This should work if you don't have CO-30 on any cores.

If you guys have time to try, post your results.
Board is x570 aorus master, posted here because it's more active for OC/tweaks


----------



## J7SC

DvL Ax3l said:


> CB23 23100+ with all core @ 4.60Ghz @ 1.30V current treshold @ 55A, not bad that DOS 🤩
> 
> Edit: nevermind, I'm not prime95 stable, let's try to achieve it! 😂
> Edit: 4.5Ghz on all core @ 1.30V still not prime95 stable and I noticed that the PPT surpass 300W 😯


...that's a lot of wattskies...then again, I leave PPT/EDC/TDC on default on the DarkHero, and undervolt the CPU a bit. Even on full tilt OCCT, my 5950X usually stays under 240W per HWInfo. The highest I have ever seen was 260W (and I felt a tad guilty about that ). The OCCT run below was 240W max CPU Package Power in HWI.


----------



## Baio73

des2k... said:


> interesting find on my 5900x.
> The performance increase is not just due to the undervolt of the curve; the higher the CO value the higher the multiplier are allowed.
> 
> Auto OC +0
> *vcore offset +0*
> -CO *19 19 19 6 19 18 14 14 15 18 19 19*
> 
> ST 4900 freq
> MT score 23700-23800
> 
> Auto OC +0
> *vcore offset +56mv* ( 30 - 19) x 5mv
> add -11 steps to all
> -CO *30 30 30 17 30 29 25 25 26 29 30 30*
> 
> ST 4950 freq
> MT score 24026
> 
> Got +50mhz ST & +50,75mhz MT
> 300 score increase, same wattage / temps
> 
> This should work if you don't have CO-30 on any cores.
> 
> If you guys have time to try, post your results.
> Board is x570 aorus master, posted here because it's more active for OC/tweaks
> 
> View attachment 2571073


What cooling do you use?

Baio


----------



## ChillyRide

des2k... said:


> interesting find on my 5900x.
> The performance increase is not just due to the undervolt of the curve; the higher the CO value the higher the multiplier are allowed.
> 
> Auto OC +0
> *vcore offset +0*
> -CO *19 19 19 6 19 18 14 14 15 18 19 19*
> 
> ST 4900 freq
> MT score 23700-23800
> 
> Auto OC +0
> *vcore offset +56mv* ( 30 - 19) x 5mv
> add -11 steps to all
> -CO *30 30 30 17 30 29 25 25 26 29 30 30*
> 
> ST 4950 freq
> MT score 24026
> 
> Got +50mhz ST & +50,75mhz MT
> 300 score increase, same wattage / temps
> 
> This should work if you don't have CO-30 on any cores.
> 
> If you guys have time to try, post your results.
> Board is x570 aorus master, posted here because it's more active for OC/tweaks
> 
> View attachment 2571073


Agesa 1.2.0.7. 5900X; W11 22H2;
PBO: +50; x2; 220-130-140;
CO: 23 22 29 30 30 22 18 28 29 23 30 30;
Offset +37mv (0.03750v) CO: all -30
No performance gains, benchmark scores in margin of variance. Limited factor is temps. At 65-67C MT clock about 4700-4750. Temps dont go higher nor the core clocks. Kraken x73, Thermal Grizzly Liquid Metal compound. 100% Pump. 3x120fans in Push position. Room temps 25C.
My best score with the same settings was 24400 MT during winter and with push pull fans.


----------



## des2k...

Baio73 said:


> What cooling do you use?
> 
> Baio


old EK Supremacy EVO block


----------



## heptilion

des2k... said:


> interesting find on my 5900x.
> The performance increase is not just due to the undervolt of the curve; the higher the CO value the higher the multiplier are allowed.
> 
> Auto OC +0
> *vcore offset +0*
> -CO *19 19 19 6 19 18 14 14 15 18 19 19*
> 
> ST 4900 freq
> MT score 23700-23800
> 
> Auto OC +0
> *vcore offset +56mv* ( 30 - 19) x 5mv
> add -11 steps to all
> -CO *30 30 30 17 30 29 25 25 26 29 30 30*
> 
> ST 4950 freq
> MT score 24026
> 
> Got +50mhz ST & +50,75mhz MT
> 300 score increase, same wattage / temps
> 
> This should work if you don't have CO-30 on any cores.
> 
> If you guys have time to try, post your results.
> Board is x570 aorus master, posted here because it's more active for OC/tweaks
> 
> View attachment 2571073


Not stable running like this on mine


----------



## des2k...

heptilion said:


> Not stable running like this on mine


Yeah, doing more testing now but +offset with bigger -CO is very aggressive curve.

My worst core for example,I had to change CO not to crash y-cruncher under this config.
Auto OC values too , can't be too high.


----------



## Baio73

des2k... said:


> old EK Supremacy EVO block
> View attachment 2571157


I suspected you'd have a custom loop...

Baio


----------



## J7SC

FYI, since early last year, I use Phanteks Glacier blocks for both my oc'ed X570 16c/32t systems (as well as different Phanteks blocks for a Threadripper and 3090 Strix). I couldn't be happier re. both their quality and performance. Prior, I had never used Phanteks w-cooling products and relied solely on Watercool / Heatkiller and EKWB.


----------



## KedarWolf

J7SC said:


> FYI, since early last year, I use Phanteks Glacier blocks for both my oc'ed X570 16c/32t systems (as well as different Phanteks blocks for a Threadripper and 3090 Strix). I couldn't be happier re. both their quality and performance. Prior, I had never used Phanteks w-cooling products and relied solely on Watercool / Heatkiller and EKWB.


A really great AM4 water block is the Optimus Water Cooling Foundation AM4 block. 

I swear by it!


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

I hope someone can answer this question of mine, even if it is a yes or no. I upgraded my bios from 4004 to 4201. Since then, I've been littered with all kinds of issues with my computer freezing, shutting off, etc. It seems my memory OCs, which worked great with 4004 and prior, do not work at all with 4201. 

Is it possible for me to go back using a USB flash? Or was there a point of no return at some point with the 4100s or 4200s? 

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Syldon

KingEngineRevUp said:


> I hope someone can answer this question of mine, even if it is a yes or no. I upgraded my bios from 4004 to 4201. Since then, I've been littered with all kinds of issues with my computer freezing, shutting off, etc. It seems my memory OCs, which worked great with 4004 and prior, do not work at all with 4201.
> 
> Is it possible for me to go back using a USB flash? Or was there a point of no return at some point with the 4100s or 4200s?
> 
> Thanks in advance.


You can use the flashback option to go back to an old bios. The recommendation from Asus was to flashback twice, if there are any issues, with a bios reset and complete powering down before each flashback.


----------



## Baio73

KingEngineRevUp said:


> I hope someone can answer this question of mine, even if it is a yes or no. I upgraded my bios from 4004 to 4201. Since then, I've been littered with all kinds of issues with my computer freezing, shutting off, etc. It seems my memory OCs, which worked great with 4004 and prior, do not work at all with 4201.
> 
> Is it possible for me to go back using a USB flash? Or was there a point of no return at some point with the 4100s or 4200s?
> 
> Thanks in advance.


As @Syldon suggested, you can go with flashback option.
Probably the new BIOS has made little changes to voltages (both CPU and RAM), maybe you can try to adjust them.
I've heard many times people who had to go through the process of OC testing at every BIOS update. 

Baio


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Syldon said:


> You can use the flashback option to go back to an old bios. The recommendation from Asus was to flashback twice, if there are any issues, with a bios reset and complete powering down before each flashback.





Baio73 said:


> As @Syldon suggested, you can go with flashback option.
> Probably the new BIOS has made little changes to voltages (both CPU and RAM), maybe you can try to adjust them.
> I've heard many times people who had to go through the process of OC testing at every BIOS update.
> 
> Baio


Thanks guys. It's really annoying to have to deal with this issue. But on one hand, I moved to a 4K display, so memory OC probably isn't as important anymore.


----------



## g_d_g_l__

Maybe someone used the CoreCycler in the past, there is a new version, have fun.

Release v0.9.1.0 · sp00n/corecycler


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

I believe I figured out the source of my issue. I don't think it was the BIOs, it was actually me memory modules overheating. I turned down my radiator fans for them to be more quiet, and in return my memory modules were hitting 50-55C which is when they were throwing errors. 

I have since reinstalled my memory module fan and temperatures are at 40-45C. Ran karu memtest and testmem5 last night and memory seems to be okay now.


----------



## Theo164

I've had identical memory issues (random mem errors only while testing) since some months ago... After a lot of testing, bios, timings and voltages I figured out that settings in general were not the source of the problem.
After installing a memory fan cooler problem solved.
4x8gb modules


----------



## larvabom

KingEngineRevUp said:


> I believe I figured out the source of my issue. I don't think it was the BIOs, it was actually me memory modules overheating. I turned down my radiator fans for them to be more quiet, and in return my memory modules were hitting 50-55C which is when they were throwing errors.
> 
> I have since reinstalled my memory module fan and temperatures are at 40-45C. Ran karu memtest and testmem5 last night and memory seems to be okay now.


I will pitch my experience and theory. I am very new to AMD and when I got my first Crosshair VIII Hero Dark and 5950X I right away updated Bios from 3801 to 4201 as I always did with my Intel. After a day I started getting BSOD's and reboots. I went to Canada Computers and exchanged everything and of course I updated to the latest Bios 4201 and to my surprise the same thing started happening. My discouragement made me gave up on AMD and I started reconsidering on going back to 12900K that I sold prior to this move to AMD btw. and I have been Intel fanboy all life and its been long😄

Well...after day of rationalizing I decided to make another attempt and try Crosshair VIII hero Dark and 5950X again, but this time I got it from Amazon and also after reading some posts about the Bios 4201 and potential issues I thought I would leave it at whatever the board will have or at least I would update to knowing to be better and more stable Bios which Ive also heard was 4006.

One other thing I did different was I downloaded Chipset directly from AMD opposed to Asus and its much newer. So far system is stable with no signs of issues I was experiencing with previous setups. I really thing the bios 4201 is very unstable and I've heard that from few ones of 5000X and 5950X.

One other thing in which I don't know if does make any difference, maybe not and if it does it would be related to 5950X not the board, but I thought I will through that into mix as well, but unfortunately I don't know if the previous 5950X's where effected by it or not I didn't thought of checking, but apparently few retailers e.g. Canada Computers and New Egg still have the old batches of 5950X which have B0 Passing opposed to new batches have B2 Passing which makes a difference in some of the production quality and chaplets potential issues in B0 Passing CPUs.

I just checked mine and is B2 Passing, so I also I don't know if that makes some of the difference. I thought I share that small info, it might help.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Some 1,2 errors random is due to overheating for sure.
3800MHz and up needs add. cooling and the errors are gone.


----------



## g_d_g_l__

g_d_g_l__ said:


> Maybe someone used the CoreCycler in the past, there is a new version, have fun.
> 
> Release v0.9.1.0 · sp00n/corecycler



Updated to Prime95 30.8 build 16. in release v0.9.1.2
There were still some issues with 2 threads, fixed these. 

Release v0.9.1.2 · sp00n/corecycler


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Theo164 said:


> I've had identical memory issues (random mem errors only while testing) since some months ago... After a lot of testing, bios, timings and voltages I figured out that settings in general were not the source of the problem.
> After installing a memory fan cooler problem solved.
> 4x8gb modules


Yep, cooling for b-die is definitely an issue if you push 50C and above. 

A short story, I have changed a build a few times. I was aware of my memory timings being sensitive to temperature. I had a RAM fan on and off throughout my changes depending on airflow. Just recently I decided to turn my fans down because I was tired of the noise but in return I forgot the top fans were actually cooling my memory modules!

I blamed the BIOs update, because it was a coincidence this issue started around the same time. But of course, doing memory testing and watching the temperature rise and the errors occurring at the same temperature range reminded me of this whole ordeal. 

To anyone else, don't be me and waste hours of time retesting memory. Don't forget to monitor temperatures while you're doing memory testing.


----------



## J7SC

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Yep, cooling for b-die is definitely an issue if you push 50C and above.
> 
> A short story, I have changed a build a few times. I was aware of my memory timings being sensitive to temperature. I had a RAM fan on and off throughout my changes depending on airflow. Just recently I decided to turn my fans down because I was tired of the noise but in return I forgot the top fans were actually cooling my memory modules!
> 
> I blamed the BIOs update, because it was a coincidence this issue started around the same time. But of course, doing memory testing and watching the temperature rise and the errors occurring at the same temperature range reminded me of this whole ordeal.
> 
> To anyone else, don't be me and waste hours of time retesting memory. Don't forget to monitor temperatures while you're doing memory testing.


...Running 4 sticks of Sammy B-die each on two systems in one setup, RAM cooling is indeed important. The fan config below works best for my setup (downdraft instead of the usual updraft / top exhaust) due to the unique layout. Typically, RAM temps stay in the mid- to high 30s C even with the hot weather. Running RAM-intensive benches - and games (ie. FS2020) - maxes out at the low 40s C even w/ 27 C ambient.


----------



## xeizo

J7SC said:


> ...Running 4 sticks of Sammy B-die each on two systems in one setup, RAM cooling is indeed important. The fan config below works best for my setup (downdraft instead of the usual updraft / top exhaust) due to the unique layout. Typically, RAM temps stay in the mid- to high 30s C even with the hot weather. Running RAM-intensive benches - and games (ie. FS2020) - maxes out at the low 40s C even w/ 27 C ambient.
> View attachment 2571925


I do the same on all my rigs with overclocked memory, case temps get slightly worse but memory temps a lot better


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

J7SC said:


> The fan config below works best for my setup (downdraft instead of the usual updraft / top exhaust) due to the unique layout.


Same here, the top fans as intake direct and force air over the memory modules. The top fans as an exhaust is a much wider stream so, like you said, your memory won't get a forced draft of air. 

I did testing with different ram configurations and that was the biggest benefit I saw with top as intake. I know it's not ideal in all situations as heat is known to rise, but I have side fans as my exhaust.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

Hi guys, what the hell is going on on my mobo/cpu?!!







Why the CPU request 1.544V?!! system was idle, just HWINFO for checking how it behave with the lower ambient temperature, today south Italy wake up @ 24C almost 10C minus XD.
I'm on latest bios 4201 oc with PBO +200mhz 200W-120A-140A,vcore auto with LLC 3.


----------



## J7SC

...decided to bump DynamicOC to 47 / 47 on the DarkHero from 46.5 / 46.5 but leave voltages alone (vcore is set at1.3v for DynOC, droops to 1.18v+- with all core load, also using a small negative 'global' offset')...using medium curves and L1 L2 prefetch off which costs a bit on single core performance but saves big on PackagePower max. My personal CineR23 record w/ winter temps and bench settings was 32.4K, but this new daily is nice...


----------



## des2k...

DvL Ax3l said:


> Hi guys, what the hell is going on on my mobo/cpu?!!
> View attachment 2572577
> 
> Why the CPU request 1.544V?!! system was idle, just HWINFO for checking how it behave with the lower ambient temperature, today south Italy wake up @ 24C almost 10C minus XD.
> I'm on latest bios 4201 oc with PBO +200mhz 200W-120A-140A,vcore auto with LLC 3.


The only team that knows what voltage reaches what cores on Zen is Amd. Hwinfo, RyzenMaster, etc will not show you these values.

The most likely scenario is that 1.544v was requested by the SMU and this voltage was steped down to the cores and not reported to the monitoring software.

Under this 1.544v you can have 1sec boost at max freq for core 0 and that used maybe 1.48v and idle cores used maybe 0.9v.


----------



## Syldon

I have had a ton of grief with memory temps of late. This week it came to a head where I could not run anything. I redid thermal paste on GPU and CPU along with new pads. Memory was still going nuts. That only left the mobo as being the cause, as the memory is fairly new. I stripped everything off to see what I could do. The fan was sound with no blockages. The thermal padding looked fine but decided to redo it while I was there. It looks like the thermal pads were the issue. The temps dropped by 10c on the chipset and PCH readings. Memory dropped dramtically to 32c. CPU was back down to 30c at idle.









*This HWinfo dump was while running "The Ascent" at max settings (5120X1440).* A game that has been causing PC reboots on me. I really wish I had a screen dump of when it was causing issues. Take my word that the changes are what I said, nothing I can do about that now.
The board was bought in Dec 2020 at launch so not surprising the pads are failing. The new pads I used were gelid 2.5mm. You could probably use 2mm. If you want new pads for M2 drives, then I would aim for 1.5mm. I put 2mm on mine and they seem tight.
These are the screws for the VRM cooler removal:
















Hopefully this may help someone. Or at the very least give you a heads up if you want to play.


----------



## stimpy88

ZenTimings has received an update to version 1.2.6. This was released a month or so ago and is the first update in well over a year.

I have not seen anyone here mention it, so I thought I would! Apologies if it has been posted before!

*v1.2.6 Changes*
Add experimental DDR5 support
Add basic Rembrandt APU support
Update libraries
Fix corrupted config file handling
Add option to save window position
Add minimize to tray option
Enable system info window
Integrate WinRing driver
Initial plugins system
Update icons
Improve debug report formatting
Add donation links


----------



## des2k...

Syldon said:


> I have had a ton of grief with memory temps of late. This week it came to a head where I could not run anything. I redid thermal paste on GPU and CPU along with new pads. Memory was still going nuts. That only left the mobo as being the cause, as the memory is fairly new. I stripped everything off to see what I could do. The fan was sound with no blockages. The thermal padding looked fine but decided to redo it while I was there. It looks like the thermal pads were the issue. The temps dropped by 10c on the chipset and PCH readings. Memory dropped dramtically to 32c. CPU was back down to 30c at idle.
> 
> View attachment 2572603
> 
> *This HWinfo dump was while running "The Ascent" at max settings (5120X1440).* A game that has been causing PC reboots on me. I really wish I had a screen dump of when it was causing issues. Take my word that the changes are what I said, nothing I can do about that now.
> The board was bought in Dec 2020 at launch so not surprising the pads are failing. The new pads I used were gelid 2.5mm. You could probably use 2mm. If you want new pads for M2 drives, then I would aim for 1.5mm. I put 2mm on mine and they seem tight.
> These are the screws for the VRM cooler removal:
> View attachment 2572604
> View attachment 2572605
> 
> 
> Hopefully this may help someone. Or at the very least give you a heads up if you want to play.


On my x570 aorus master the thermal pad for the chipset was cheap junk. Replaced with noctua paste, never goes past 55c with fan never turning on. This board has spring loaded screws for chipset, so easy to use quality paste.

Had to take my loop apart to work on this, was worth it. Hated that crap chipset fan noise.


----------



## Syldon

des2k... said:


> On my x570 aorus master the thermal pad for the chipset was cheap junk. Replaced with noctua paste, never goes past 55c with fan never turning on. This board has spring loaded screws for chipset, so easy to use quality paste.
> 
> Had to take my loop apart to work on this, was worth it. Hated that crap chipset fan noise.


I never lifted the fan. It was covered with a plastic shroud. You can see it in the picture I posted. I would not think a pad there would achieve anything. The pads I changed were on the VRMs, which is under the large heat sink. I am guessing the heat was transferring across the board.
I originally thought it was heat from the 3090. I moved that into the second slot, which I have to say is a better slot to use on heavy duty cards. It allows the system to breathe at next to no cost.


----------



## blunden

AndreDVJ said:


> Question for CHVIII Hero - has anyone tried to use a 3rd NVMe drive by having an adapter on the bottom PCI-E slot?
> 
> While Windows recognizes the drive is there, I can't do anything. Device Manager hangs, Disk Management doesn't load, and shutdown/reboot hangs also.
> 
> Booted Gparted off an USB stick to create a partition on that drive. Windows 10 installer also booted off USB gives an error.
> 
> Is there a compatibility issue? I bought an adapter from Ugreen, though I don't believe the brand matters, since all these adapters should just passthrough signal from the slot to the m.2 drive.


 I seem to remember having a similar problem with a PCI-E to U.2 adapter a while back. It turned out that the component placement on the adapter PCB was wrong. Replacing it with a different adapter made the problem go away. It was with an older X370 Strix motherboard, but the problem would likely have been the same on this board too. I just having gotten around to installing that drive in this machine yet.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

Syldon said:


> I have had a ton of grief with memory temps of late. This week it came to a head where I could not run anything. I redid thermal paste on GPU and CPU along with new pads. Memory was still going nuts. That only left the mobo as being the cause, as the memory is fairly new. I stripped everything off to see what I could do. The fan was sound with no blockages. The thermal padding looked fine but decided to redo it while I was there. It looks like the thermal pads were the issue. The temps dropped by 10c on the chipset and PCH readings. Memory dropped dramtically to 32c. CPU was back down to 30c at idle.
> 
> View attachment 2572603
> 
> *This HWinfo dump was while running "The Ascent" at max settings (5120X1440).* A game that has been causing PC reboots on me. I really wish I had a screen dump of when it was causing issues. Take my word that the changes are what I said, nothing I can do about that now.
> The board was bought in Dec 2020 at launch so not surprising the pads are failing. The new pads I used were gelid 2.5mm. You could probably use 2mm. If you want new pads for M2 drives, then I would aim for 1.5mm. I put 2mm on mine and they seem tight.
> These are the screws for the VRM cooler removal:
> View attachment 2572604
> View attachment 2572605
> 
> 
> Hopefully this may help someone. Or at the very least give you a heads up if you want to play.





des2k... said:


> On my x570 aorus master the thermal pad for the chipset was cheap junk. Replaced with noctua paste, never goes past 55c with fan never turning on. This board has spring loaded screws for chipset, so easy to use quality paste.
> 
> Had to take my loop apart to work on this, was worth it. Hated that crap chipset fan noise.


On the C8 Dark Hero the chipset is fanless and idle around 55C, during heavy gaming session is around 59/60C, never disassemble the heatsink so I think the pads are not bad at all. I don't understand why they wait so long to make the x570 fanless, it should have been like this from the beginning!


----------



## Syldon

DvL Ax3l said:


> On the C8 Dark Hero the chipset is fanless and idle around 55C, during heavy gaming session is around 59/60C, never disassemble the heatsink so I think the pads are not bad at all. I don't understand why the wait so long to make the x570 fanless, it should be like this from the beginning!


The dark hero came along later after the X570 launch from my memory. I remember there was a lot of discontent regarding the fan on the CH8. Many saw it as a cheapskate solution to the problem of the chipset heat. I would imagine there are comments in this post. GL finding them though, the forum was broken when they updated it last year. A lot of the history does not pick up anymore. Mine are sitting at 50c on cold and 63c at max. The 63c was with a long session of MSFS2020, which is about as heavy as it gets.

I really have no idea where the thermal cut out was being triggered. The VRMs look to be where the heat was at. I did see sensors "aux 2" and "aux 3" hitting 110c. I just assumed they were the VRMs. I never checked with a laser thermometer to show me where that was. Hwinfo does not pick up those sensors. I spotted them with some fan software I was trying out. 

The pads I removed looked like soggy crap, even the ones on the M2 drives. The Gelild ones I used were surplus from repadding the GPU. I was conned into buying 2.5mm for the GPU when it took 2mm pads. It was nice to find a use for them. For the size they come in, its expensive stuff.


----------



## blodflekk

J7SC said:


> ...decided to bump DynamicOC to 47 / 47 on the DarkHero from 46.5 / 46.5 but leave voltages alone (vcore is set at1.3v for DynOC, droops to 1.18v+- with all core load, also using a small negative 'global' offset')...using medium curves and L1 L2 prefetch off which costs a bit on single core performance but saves big on PackagePower max. My personal CineR23 record w/ winter temps and bench settings was 32.4K, but this new daily is nice...
> View attachment 2572582


 What kind of clocks and vid are you able to run p95/linpack stable for dynamic OC ? I'm struggling to even stabilize 4.2 on my 5950x


----------



## Neoony

DvL Ax3l said:


> On the C8 Dark Hero the chipset is fanless and idle around 55C, during heavy gaming session is around 59/60C, never disassemble the heatsink so I think the pads are not bad at all. I don't understand why they wait so long to make the x570 fanless, it should have been like this from the beginning!


Interesting
I also have 55C idle
But when stressed, it might go up to 70-75C (takes some 15 minutes to get there from idle)

I assume because its right next to 80-90C GPU (Hotspot 100-110C) [plus radeon VII exhausts to sides]
From bottom there is SSD (980 PRO, it gets quite hot), also from top left (960 EVO not so hot)
From top there are Rams
It really does not have much breathing space

Even got fans quite close, but from a 50-60C CPU radiator

















but yeah, not like its causing any issues for me


----------



## learner-gr

Neoony said:


> Interesting
> I also have 55C idle
> But when stressed, it might go up to 70-75C (takes some 15 minutes to get there from idle)
> 
> I assume because its right next to 80-90C GPU (Hotspot 100-110C) [plus radeon VII exhausts to sides]
> From bottom there is SSD (980 PRO, it gets quite hot), also from top left (960 EVO not so hot)
> From top there are Rams
> It really does not have much breathing space
> 
> Even got fans quite close, but from a 50-60C CPU radiator
> 
> ..........
> 
> but yeah, not like its causing any issues for me


You may try and put the AIO on top of case and put 2 X 140mm front fans (like BeQuiet Silent Wings 4 or 4 PRO pwm high speed). 
Maybe this way your system will breath more.
And also remove the pcie brackets you don't need on the back of case.


----------



## 10thDmenxn

KedarWolf said:


> XPG Gammix S70 I went with this because they are pretty cheap on Amazon.
> 
> brb, will get Atto too.
> 
> @Kelutrel Curious to see your ATTO IO/s as well.
> 
> View attachment 2567624
> 
> View attachment 2567623
> 
> View attachment 2567622


I am constantly approx. 900mb/s behind you on the reads, and 700mb/s behind you on the writes in CDM, and I have the exact same drive!!! Lol. 
Also in ATTO, you are averaging 6.4gb/s writes mostly, while I'm running 5.75's, and you seemed to average 6.95gb/s reads while I averaged 6.1's.

Do you have any idea how I can improve this drive's performance, or is it just a bad lottery pick?


----------



## 10thDmenxn

Neoony said:


> Interesting
> I also have 55C idle
> But when stressed, it might go up to 70-75C (takes some 15 minutes to get there from idle)
> 
> I assume because its right next to 80-90C GPU (Hotspot 100-110C) [plus radeon VII exhausts to sides]
> From bottom there is SSD (980 PRO, it gets quite hot), also from top left (960 EVO not so hot)
> From top there are Rams
> It really does not have much breathing space
> 
> Even got fans quite close, but from a 50-60C CPU radiator
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but yeah, not like its causing any issues for me


My chipset idles at 53C degrees, and rarely goes above 60C. but I have a great case, and ten total fans keeping things cool. I'm currently running an Aorus Master X570 with 3900x. BUT, I happened to be in the right place at the right time, and hooked up a deal to get the Asus CH VIII EXTREME for $400, and thus I have it and also a 5900X on the way. They are scheduled to be delivered on Monday. Can't wait. I'm not interested in the X670 anytime soon, as I've gone through the crazy "first in" on new tech, and it's always a headache for a few years. So I'd rather max out the X570 platform for a few more years, while they get the bugs out of the next step. Cheers!


----------



## 10thDmenxn

learner-gr said:


> You may try and put the AIO on top of case and put 2 X 140mm front fans (like BeQuiet Silent Wings 4 or 4 PRO pwm high speed).
> Maybe this way your system will breath more.
> And also remove the pcie brackets you don't need on the back of case.


I've never really understood why some people put the AIO on the top of the case, running all of the hot air in the case through the rad????? Although running it in a push fresh air in config seems interesting. I've not tried that. I have tested extensively, and found I get much cooler temps all around, running the AIO from the front of the case, with a double push/pull fan setup, and a flipped fan config on the top. The top fan closest to the front of the case pushes cool air down into the case right over the memory, while the one behind it pulls hotter rearward air out of the rear top of the case. And besides the push/pull fans on the rad pushing a lot of cool air into the case from the front, I have two more, two tiered fans inside facing the GPU (lower) and the RAM (higher) aimed slightly rearward. Finally another larger fan pulling air out of the rear of the case. I rarely have problems with heat, and this setup tends to give me a lot of airflow inside the case as well. Hope this helps someone.


----------



## Alemancio

10thDmenxn said:


> hy some people put the AIO on the top of the case, running all of the hot air in the case through the rad?????


Because, especially for CPUs, the air temp isn't that important since the AIO cooler blocks aren't that good at taking heat away from the IHS.


----------



## Baio73

10thDmenxn said:


> I've never really understood why some people put the AIO on the top of the case, running all of the hot air in the case through the rad????? Although running it in a push fresh air in config seems interesting. I've not tried that. I have tested extensively, and found I get much cooler temps all around, running the AIO from the front of the case, with a double push/pull fan setup, and a flipped fan config on the top. The top fan closest to the front of the case pushes cool air down into the case right over the memory, while the one behind it pulls hotter rearward air out of the rear top of the case. And besides the push/pull fans on the rad pushing a lot of cool air into the case from the front, I have two more, two tiered fans inside facing the GPU (lower) and the RAM (higher) aimed slightly rearward. Finally another larger fan pulling air out of the rear of the case. I rarely have problems with heat, and this setup tends to give me a lot of airflow inside the case as well. Hope this helps someone.


I think it all depends on how the case is designed.
For my case (LianLi O11 Dynamic XL) Debauer made a long video comparing all possible AIO locations, and the results showed not so great differences... with the AIO in the upper slot, you get higher CPU and lower GPU temps; in the side slot it's the other way round.
I personally prefer the AIO on top but more for aesthetic reasons... and I don't care too much for CPU T (my 5900x idles near 60C).

But I admit your solution is interesting... I' gonna search the video again to see if he tested it.

Baio


----------



## larvabom

Deleted


----------



## gabrielrdrguez

So, I gotta replace my 2x16 32gb 3200 C14 memory bc it seems to be putting out errors on memtest86 and crashing some games randomly
I've got a 5900x, so I was wondering how hard it is to get 4x8GB 4000C18 to run on it with fclk on 2000mhz to get a 1:1 ratio
Since it seems to be almost impossible to know if a DIMM is single or dual rank nowadays, I think going with 4 sticks would be the safest option
That said, I don't wanna tinker around too much, honestly I'm kinda tired of tinkering after that trouble with my 3200C14 kit
So, is it hard to get 4x8gb 4000C18 running on a 5900X or should I get an 4x8gb 3600C16 ?


----------



## GWG007

gabrielrdrguez said:


> So, I gotta replace my 2x16 32gb 3200 C14 memory bc it seems to be putting out errors on memtest86 and crashing some games randomly
> I've got a 5900x, so I was wondering how hard it is to get 4x8GB 4000C18 to run on it with fclk on 2000mhz to get a 1:1 ratio
> Since it seems to be almost impossible to know if a DIMM is single or dual rank nowadays, I think going with 4 sticks would be the safest option
> That said, I don't wanna tinker around too much, honestly I'm kinda tired of tinkering after that trouble with my 3200C14 kit
> So, is it hard to get 4x8gb 4000C18 running on a 5900X or should I get an 4x8gb 3600C16 ?


AMD states that you get the *best* performance on its 3000 & 5000 series chips with *UP TO* DDR4-3600 with fclk set to 1/2 (i.e. 1800) for a 2:1 ratio. If you go for higher speed ratings, you'll get into lesser performance due to the ratio being at 1:1. This 2:1 or 1:1 ratio is controlled by the CPU, and you can do nothing about it.

Personally, I would go for 2x16GB DDR4-3600 C16, or C14 if you can find it and afford it.

Make sure you are getting the Samsung "B" die, and having 2x16GB instead of 4x8GB gives a lighter load to the CPU's memory controller with fewer sticks in the ram's Dual Channel Memory Architecture. Having a single chip in each channel instead of two chips in each channel is what causes the CPU's lighter load.

Translation: It will perform much better.


----------



## Syldon

gabrielrdrguez said:


> So, I gotta replace my 2x16 32gb 3200 C14 memory bc it seems to be putting out errors on memtest86 and crashing some games randomly
> I've got a 5900x, so I was wondering how hard it is to get 4x8GB 4000C18 to run on it with fclk on 2000mhz to get a 1:1 ratio
> Since it seems to be almost impossible to know if a DIMM is single or dual rank nowadays, I think going with 4 sticks would be the safest option
> That said, I don't wanna tinker around too much, honestly I'm kinda tired of tinkering after that trouble with my 3200C14 kit
> So, is it hard to get 4x8gb 4000C18 running on a 5900X or should I get an 4x8gb 3600C16 ?


Go for 2 x 16. The CH8 is daisy chain topography. It is easier to get compatibility with 2 sticks over 4. I have just installed 2 sticks of CMN32GX4M2Z4600C18. They installed with more or less no issues @ 3800/1900. They are double sided so you will get latency around the 62ns mark, but honestly you won’t see any difference.

Memory compatibility is very much a lottery, which is based on the quality of the DIMM, CPU controller and the board. I tried a couple b-die sticks at the start of this year, and could not even get them to run at 3200. They were rated at 3600. You really won’t know till you take the plunge. But hedge your bet by sticking to two sticks.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

gabrielrdrguez said:


> So, I gotta replace my 2x16 32gb 3200 C14 memory bc it seems to be putting out errors on memtest86 and crashing some games randomly
> I've got a 5900x, so I was wondering how hard it is to get 4x8GB 4000C18 to run on it with fclk on 2000mhz to get a 1:1 ratio
> Since it seems to be almost impossible to know if a DIMM is single or dual rank nowadays, I think going with 4 sticks would be the safest option
> That said, I don't wanna tinker around too much, honestly I'm kinda tired of tinkering after that trouble with my 3200C14 kit
> So, is it hard to get 4x8gb 4000C18 running on a 5900X or should I get an 4x8gb 3600C16 ?


It depends by the IMC of the CPU, passing 1900 FCLK give you tons of WHEA errors, so I suggest like @GWG007 says, go for a B-Die kit, easy way to achieve good a OC, sweetspot 3800C14


----------



## GWG007

I concur with both DvL Ax3l and Syldon, staying with a "B" die chip, using 2 instead of 4 sticks, and definitely check the QVL list of your motherboard maker ASUS. I think many people who have been having problems with their memory sticks have either not checked the QVL for their board, or they have ignored the QVL.

Personally, I went for G.Skill's Trident Z Neo (For AMD), *F4-3800C14D-32GTZN, *DDR4-3800 CL14-16-16-36 1.50V, 32GB (2x16GB), and then down-clocked them to 3600. I don't OC my memory, but that's just me. Here, you find many, many people who do OC memory.


----------



## gabrielrdrguez

Thanks for the input guys, I'll try to stick with 2 sticks, but I might have to go with 64gb then bc it's almost impossible to know for sure that the 2x16gb will come in a dual rank configuration
Unless b-dies always comes in 2 ranks, but that I do not know, can anyone confirm?
I guess my best bet to get a b-die would be to look for tighter timings, I've been taking a look at this too B-Die Finder



GWG007 said:


> AMD states that you get the *best* performance on its 3000 & 5000...
> 
> Translation: It will perform much better.





Syldon said:


> Go for 2 x 16. The CH8 is daisy chain topography....





DvL Ax3l said:


> It depends by the IMC of the CPU, passing 1900 FCLK give you tons of WHEA errors, so I suggest like @GWG007 says, go for a B-Die kit, easy way to achieve good a OC, sweetspot 3800C14





GWG007 said:


> I concur with both DvL Ax3l and Syldon, staying with a "B" die chip, using 2 instead of 4 sticks, and definitely check the QVL list of your motherboard maker ASUS...


----------



## Syldon

gabrielrdrguez said:


> Thanks for the input guys, I'll try to stick with 2 sticks, but I might have to go with 64gb then bc it's almost impossible to know for sure that the 2x16gb will come in a dual rank configuration
> Unless b-dies always comes in 2 ranks, but that I do not know, can anyone confirm?
> I guess my best bet to get a b-die would be to look for tighter timings, I've been taking a look at this too B-Die Finder


B die is single rank and is considered best for Ryzen. Dual rank is considered the most difficult to make compatible with Ryzen. My point was that even with B die, it is still a lottery. I tried B die, one that was advertised as Ryzen compatible. It just would not run. This was on default settings, dram calculator and from settings that I have known to work with B die on Ryzen in the past. I tried different speeds, then gave up when it would not run even at 3200mhz. I received a refund for them.

The DIMMs I linked are dual rank but rated at 4600mhz, and possibly of "Z". Dual rank "Z" DIMMS are built for compatibility with Ryzen 3.
*edit*: Something I have only read from sources that are not really considered high creditability (reddit etc).

Timings here:










If you go for 64gb then you will be making it very difficult to run without higher latency and most likely lower frequency. Unless 64gb is needed, then I would say don't go above 32gb. Before this year the advice was not to go above 16gb, as this was the easiest to return the lowest latency. Programmes are using more and more memory now though. Something that will become more prevalent with DDR5 coming in larger sizes again.


----------



## gabrielrdrguez

32GB is a must for me, I'm also a programmer hahahaha, so virtual machines are a common use case here.
That said, 64gb is not mandatory for what I do, even though I'm always on the edge of 32gb
My point is, it seems that dual rank yields better performance up to 10% in some scenarios and games.
I've got a RTX 3080 but I'm seriously thinking of upgrading to a 4090, So yeah, I do run high fps enough that the difference between single rank and dual rank might become measurable.
Imma search more about those "Z" DIMMS 




Syldon said:


> B die is single rank and is considered best for Ryzen. Dual rank is considered the most difficult to make compatible with Ryzen. My point was that even with B die, it is still a lottery. I tried B die, one that was advertised as Ryzen compatible. It just would not run. This was on default settings, dram calculator and from settings that I have known to work with B die on Ryzen in the past. I tried different speeds, then gave up when it would not run even at 3200mhz. I received a refund for them.
> 
> The DIMMs I linked are dual rank but rated at 4600mhz, and possibly of "Z". Dual rank "Z" DIMMS are built for compatibility with Ryzen 3.
> *edit*: Something I have only read from sources that are not really considered high creditability (reddit etc).
> 
> Timings here:
> 
> View attachment 2573344
> 
> 
> If you go for 64gb then you will be making it very difficult to run without higher latency and most likely lower frequency. Unless 64gb is needed, then I would say don't go above 32gb. Before this year the advice was not to go above 16gb, as this was the easiest to return the lowest latency. Programmes are using more and more memory now though. Something that will become more prevalent with DDR5 coming in larger sizes again.


----------



## GRABibus

GWG007 said:


> I concur with both DvL Ax3l and Syldon, staying with a "B" die chip, using 2 instead of 4 sticks, and definitely check the QVL list of your motherboard maker ASUS. I think many people who have been having problems with their memory sticks have either not checked the QVL for their board, or they have ignored the QVL.
> 
> Personally, I went for G.Skill's Trident Z Neo (For AMD), *F4-3800C14D-32GTZN, *DDR4-3800 CL14-16-16-36 1.50V, 32GB (2x16GB), and then down-clocked them to 3600. I don't OC my memory, but that's just me. Here, you find many, many people who do OC memory.


I use these 2x16GB kit.

Here are my 24/7 settings :


----------



## KedarWolf

gabrielrdrguez said:


> Thanks for the input guys, I'll try to stick with 2 sticks, but I might have to go with 64gb then bc it's almost impossible to know for sure that the 2x16gb will come in a dual rank configuration
> Unless b-dies always comes in 2 ranks, but that I do not know, can anyone confirm?
> I guess my best bet to get a b-die would be to look for tighter timings, I've been taking a look at this too B-Die Finder


3600 CL14 G.Skill a really good bin and easy to get. However, I had to send my first kit back for a second same kit from Newegg before mine worked properly.


----------



## gabrielrdrguez

Well, it seems my F4-3200C14D-32GTZR kit was upset about not being active cooled. Hahahahaha

Long story short. While running an OCCT mem test I found out that while stressing, DIMMs were reporting up to 69c temperatures D:
Recently I read that b-dies doesnt like heat. So I've put an noctua 80mm blowing at 1000rpm (gently breeze) on them (from a 10cm distance). and now on stress they don't go above 50c (40c on idle).

Result: OCCT AVX2 mem stress with 95% mem stable for 1h (free version limit) and memtest86 4 passes stable too

I've thought that temperature would be an issue, as I'm running rated speeds and voltage and my case is a thermaltake P5, almost an open bench. Perhaps without the airflow of closed cases they were overheating.

I still have to try a gaming session to be sure, but before OCCT was failing after 5m and memtest86 was almos always guaranteed to fail on 2nd or 3rd pass.

Maybe the thermal pads degraded? (I bought this kit in 2017) I'd rather not have this fan blowing on them, and now I'm cautious about getting another kit and not being able to run them passively

Might aswell try to OC them a little bit, maybe 3600CL16, just to see if I notice any gains before I commit to a validated kit


----------



## stimpy88

GRABibus said:


> I use these 2x16GB kit.
> 
> Here are my 24/7 settings :
> 
> View attachment 2573430


Uneven timings and GDM mode together???


----------



## GRABibus

stimpy88 said:


> Uneven timings and GDM mode together???


What do you mean ? 😊


----------



## GRABibus

Zen4 are now at french ressellers.

1000€ for a 7950X + 400€-500€ for a Motherboard + 500€ for DDR5 + ....+....

No upgrade for me currently.

I am more willing to update my GPU only.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

GRABibus said:


> Zen4 are now at french ressellers.
> 
> 1000€ for a 7950X + 400€-500€ for a Motherboard + 500€ for DDR5 + ....+....
> 
> No upgrade for me currently.
> 
> I am more willing to update my GPU only.


In Italy on Amazon the 7950X for 869€, the X670E Hero 769€ and for the memory Corsair 32Gb (2*16GB) 6000C36 EXPO for 374€ not so bad, anyway I'll wait for zen 5, when the DDR5 and the 3D cache are mature


----------



## J7SC

...no doubt the 7950X is a superb chip, but it (and the 12900K) make the 5800X3D Vcache look great if the primary use is for gaming rather than productivity and assuming you already have a decent X570 setup. After upcoming 4090 Ti and 7900XTX releases, I will see if there's any news about a refresh / 7950X3D Vcache but until then, I'll probably sit tight for a while...


----------



## GRABibus

DvL Ax3l said:


> In Italy on Amazon the 7950X for 869€, the X670E Hero 769€ and for the memory Corsair 32Gb (2*16GB) 6000C36 EXPO for 374€ not so bad, anyway I'll wait for zen 5, when the DDR5 and the 3D cache are mature


Amazon France at 793€.
Yesterday it was at 699€ 😂


----------



## stimpy88

GRABibus said:


> What do you mean ? 😊


Have you had any luck with GDM off?


----------



## GRABibus

stimpy88 said:


> Have you had any luck with GDM off?


Values in software and bios are exactly the same.
Your comment is valid for CL.

With GDM enabled, I can’t have CL like 13, 15, 17, etc.
If I set 13, then I get 14
If I set 15 then I get 16.

but if I set 14, I get 14.


----------



## GRABibus

stimpy88 said:


> Have you had any luck with GDM off?


GDM off is a « no go » for me, unfortunately.

I am happy with GDM enabled , I get latency 54-55ns.


----------



## stimpy88

GRABibus said:


> GDM off is a « no go » for me, unfortunately.
> 
> I am happy with GDM enabled , I get latency 54-55ns.


Yeah, the search for the perfect RAM settings seems to last a lifetime, and just when you get near to perfection, it's time to upgrade! 

I ended up with these timings...









They are not perfect, (passes 3 hours of TM5) but today I'm actually going to work on getting tPHYRDL down to 26. It's not hard, just a minor tweak, but it's the 3 hours worth of memory testing afterwards that takes the fun out of it!


----------



## GRABibus

It is really urgent to wait for Ryzen 7000 X3D launch :









AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D, Ryzen 9 7900X3D, and Ryzen 7 7800X3D gaming performance could eclipse the vanilla Zen 4 parts by up to 30%


Ryzen 7000 CPUs with 3D cache are on their way. Rumors have it the processors will launch early next year with gaming performance that eclipses the Ryzen 7000 non-3D chips. So how much difference will the Ryzen 7000X3D SKUs make? Per RedGamingTech, the Zen 4 X3D SKUs can be up to 30% quicker...




www.notebookcheck.net


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> It is really urgent to wait for Ryzen 7000 X3D launch :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D, Ryzen 9 7900X3D, and Ryzen 7 7800X3D gaming performance could eclipse the vanilla Zen 4 parts by up to 30%
> 
> 
> Ryzen 7000 CPUs with 3D cache are on their way. Rumors have it the processors will launch early next year with gaming performance that eclipses the Ryzen 7000 non-3D chips. So how much difference will the Ryzen 7000X3D SKUs make? Per RedGamingTech, the Zen 4 X3D SKUs can be up to 30% quicker...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.notebookcheck.net


...looking forward to Ryzen 7kX3D. In the meantime, no matter what alternate VRAM speed or timings I play with, I usually return to these settings (run yesterday). This seems to give me the best gaming experience, with resizable_BAR forced always on w/ 3090 Strix.


----------



## stimpy88

J7SC said:


> ...looking forward to Ryzen 7kX3D. In the meantime, no matter what alternate VRAM speed or timings I play with, I usually return to these settings (run yesterday). This seems to give me the best gaming experience, with resizable_BAR forced always on w/ 3090 Strix.
> View attachment 2573797


Would love to see a ZenTimings shot!


----------



## rjatlsj

Hello, thank you for information


----------



## J7SC

stimpy88 said:


> Would love to see a ZenTimings shot!


...here you go - fav daily top left, second-fav bottom right


----------



## DvL Ax3l

OMG guys I'm trying to explain the performance gain with CO to Buildzoid & Hardware Unboxing on Twitter, they both think it's always unstable and useless


----------



## Luggage

DvL Ax3l said:


> OMG guys I'm trying to explain the performance gain with CO to Buildzoid & Hardware Unboxing on Twitter, they both think it's always unstable and useless


They don't have time nor patience for long stability testing.


----------



## GRABibus

DvL Ax3l said:


> OMG guys I'm trying to explain the performance gain with CO to Buildzoid & Hardware Unboxing on Twitter, they both think it's always unstable and useless


All they do is also always unstable.
They should know that all overclocks are unstable.
All these f…. Youtubers..


----------



## DvL Ax3l

Luggage said:


> They don't have time nor patience for long stability testing.


Hahahaha I've read your answer there 😂
I've send them a very quick timespy result to them, waiting for a reply
Fist pic no CO, second one with CO


----------



## Hilldog

DvL Ax3l said:


> OMG guys I'm trying to explain the performance gain with CO to Buildzoid & Hardware Unboxing on Twitter, they both think it's always unstable and useless


lol, I saw that. Great suggestion, and they ignored it.


----------



## dboom

From here I scored 19 215 in Time Spy to here I scored 20 635 in Time Spy only by changing RAMs. PBO on, no custom curve.

With custom curve i wasn't able to run it stable. When it was ok in prime it failed in linpack, when is was ok in linpack it failed in OCCT and so on. Best scores are obtained by lowering temps.


----------



## Originalus

Hello,

can you help me guys and point to the right direction? I have slow writing speeds.


----------



## J7SC

...apart from write-speed, I am also wondering about the L3 Cache speeds - try backing off your primary timings a bit, and/or use DDR4 3733 settings to see if you have any improvements. Your RAM is capable of much higher speeds, but I am not sure about timings. Below is my 3950X w/settings you could also give a shot.


----------



## Originalus

Did try 3733, still things look bad and L3 even worse. Comparing memory and caches to yours, mine are totally abysmal. Interesting it is MB dying or CPU on last legs.


----------



## J7SC

Originalus said:


> Did try 3733, still things look bad and L3 even worse. Comparing memory and caches to yours, mine are totally abysmal. Interesting it is MB dying or CPU on last legs.
> 
> View attachment 2574338


...while there are differences between single-chiplet and dual chiplet Ryzen 3K, there clearly is s.th. else going on as cache your speeds throughout (L1 - L3) seem to be affected. Quick question: PBO etc engaged ? Also, as an aside, fMax in bios PBO menu helps proc speed on Ryzen 3k (though not 5k).

...next thing to try is moving the two RAM sticks over one slot (as in reverse of what you have now) as I haven't seen a pic. Mobo should have given you a warning, though, when using the wrong RAM 2 out of 4 slots. Final try...after saving your profile, reset bios completely to default and oc one step at a time.


----------



## Originalus

ok, looks like it is Windows issue after all. Updated from win 10 to win 11 and now numbers look decent (only L3 acts strange):


----------



## hwanzi

does anyone have any recommendations on trying to improve timings?


----------



## J7SC

Originalus said:


> ok, looks like it is Windows issue after all. Updated from win 10 to win 11 and now numbers look decent (only L3 acts strange):
> 
> View attachment 2574348


...glad you got it sorted ! I went from Windows 11 back to Windows 10 for my other machine, and L3 behavior improved.

- - -

Elsewhere, I updated performance collage of my 5950X / CH8 Dark Hero with two new HWInfo effective clock runs from today. On the left, L1L2 prefetch off, on the right L1L2 prefetch default.


----------



## Theo164

hwanzi said:


> does anyone have any recommendations on trying to improve timings?
> View attachment 2574356


You can try
tWR 10

tRFC 256
tRFC2 190
tRFC4 117

tRDRDSD 4
tWRWRDD 6


----------



## hwanzi

Theo164 said:


> You can try
> tWR 10
> 
> tRFC 256
> tRFC2 190
> tRFC4 117
> 
> tRDRDSD 4
> tWRWRDD 6


one question though why would I be increasing tWRWRDD from 4 to 6? Edit: mistake on wording


----------



## J7SC

@GRABibus ...just some minute adjustments in CO on two cores...


Spoiler


----------



## blodflekk

hwanzi said:


> does anyone have any recommendations on trying to improve timings?
> View attachment 2574356


 Try running the SCL's on 2


----------



## blodflekk

Does anyone here have a dark hero and a successful DOS OC? I can't seem to stabilize the DOS, even increasing VID up to 1.3 and dropping all core to 4.1GHz. Running a 5950x. I can get stable in AIDA64 and CB23 but prime95 large FFTs won't pass anything I give it.


----------



## hwanzi

Theo164 said:


> You can try
> tWR 10
> 
> tRFC 256
> tRFC2 190
> tRFC4 117
> 
> tRDRDSD 4
> tWRWRDD 6












alright i got it!


----------



## DvL Ax3l

hwanzi said:


> View attachment 2574824
> 
> 
> alright i got it!


I'll try also tRCDWR 8, a very nice imc trick, almost every Ryzen can do it


----------



## long2905

i copied you guys' timings on my corsair b die kit (which run 3000c16 at stock) and it works wonder. any tips or tricks to tweak it further? potentially pushing fclk 2000 and 4000 speed?









As for PBO and CCX, im only following OptimumTech guide to undervolt for now. any quick resource I can refer to to try pushing the chip? my cpu can only do negative 3 stable in R23.


----------



## J7SC

DvL Ax3l said:


> I'll try also tRCDWR 8, a very nice imc trick, almost every Ryzen can do it
> View attachment 2574918


I tried that a while back on my setup ...some synthetic benchmarks improved, but on some games here seemed to be a (small) price to pay re. 1% low framerate count.


----------



## hwanzi

DvL Ax3l said:


> I'll try also tRCDWR 8, a very nice imc trick, almost every Ryzen can do it
> View attachment 2574918


should i go down slowly like 12-10-8? or just try 8 from the start?


----------



## hwanzi

long2905 said:


> i copied you guys' timings on my corsair b die kit (which run 3000c16 at stock) and it works wonder. any tips or tricks to tweak it further? potentially pushing fclk 2000 and 4000 speed?
> View attachment 2574915
> 
> 
> As for PBO and CCX, im only following OptimumTech guide to undervolt for now. any quick resource I can refer to to try pushing the chip? my cpu can only do negative 3 stable in R23.


PBO2 Vid I used this video to learn alot and then used corecylcer to test for stability, EDIT: but edc/tdc: 140 limit ATM if you are on the latest bios to get the best CO b/c amd nerfed CO voltage on higher edc/tdc


----------



## GRABibus

hwanzi said:


> should i go down slowly like 12-10-8? or just try 8 from the start?


8 from the start


----------



## J7SC

@GRABibus ...I know you appreciate this sort of thing - via a low-core-count bench w/HWI open. Same CPU settings and w-cooling as before, but 21 C instead of 25 C ambient


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> @GRABibus ...I know you appreciate this sort of thing - via a low-core-count bench w/HWI open. Same CPU settings and w-cooling as before, but 21 C instead of 25 C ambient
> 
> View attachment 2575003


What does it show here ?


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> What does it show here ?


core _effective_ clock (5074) vs 'limit' set per bios above (5075)... +25 MHz in the AMD oc menu


----------



## GRABibus

long2905 said:


> i copied you guys' timings on my corsair b die kit (which run 3000c16 at stock) and it works wonder. any tips or tricks to tweak it further? potentially pushing fclk 2000 and 4000 speed?
> View attachment 2574915
> 
> 
> As for PBO and CCX, im only following OptimumTech guide to undervolt for now. any quick resource I can refer to to try pushing the chip? my cpu can only do negative 3 stable in R23.


First,
Your VDDP and CCD voltages are a little bit high.
Reduce them to 1V and test your stability with Karhu's ram test for example.
Aida64 "Cache" stress test is perfect alos to detect WHEA 19 errors (I run it 4 hours when I test stability).

Targeting 4000/2000 is an other story. Usually, you willl have a ton of Whea 19 errors, which is not a good news for stability.
You will have to increase PLLvoltage to at least 1.9V, VSoc voltage to 1.2V at least, which is alrerady a high value for 24/7 use.
Vram voltage must also be increased to at least 1.55V-1.6V depending on kits.

Execpet if you have a golden "IMC" and a golden kits of RAM; 4000/2000 is quite impossible to achieve with safe voltages and 24/7 stability.


----------



## Theo164

What ram voltage do u run for 3800 cl14? Is there any performance gain vs 3800 cl16?
My system does not benefit running flat 14 primaries vs flat 16, at least when testing with Aida and how it measures performance...
Both settings are karhu (11000% 5h+) and TestMem5 1usmus v3 (50 cycles 5.30h+) stable.Max temp @45-47c

16 @ 1.45v










[email protected] 1.53v


----------



## GRABibus

Theo164 said:


> What ram voltage do u run for 3800 cl14? Is there any performance gain vs 3800 cl16?
> My system does not benefit running flat 14 primaries vs flat 16, at least when testing with Aida and how it measures performance...
> Both settings are karhu (11000% 5h+) and TestMem5 1usmus v3 (50 cycles 5.30h+) stable.Max temp @45-47c
> 
> 16 @ 1.45v
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [email protected] 1.53v


Personnaly I use 1.5V as DRAM voltage for 3800MHz CL14.

I gain better latency of course versus CL16.

I am in the range 54ns-55ns. My best was 53.7ns.


----------



## J7SC

Theo164 said:


> What ram voltage do u run for 3800 cl14? Is there any performance gain vs 3800 cl16?
> My system does not benefit running flat 14 primaries vs flat 16, at least when testing with Aida and how it measures performance...
> Both settings are karhu (11000% 5h+) and TestMem5 1usmus v3 (50 cycles 5.30h+) stable.Max temp @45-47c
> 
> 16 @ 1.45v
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [email protected] 1.53v


@GRABibus has already given you some good tips ! I like to add though that apart from slithering down multiple RAM rabbit holes re. sets of timings, increased voltages and stability testing, you will always face a trade-off between latency and bandwidth...the trick is to find the right balance for your fav apps, games and benches.

I have a decent 5950X and 'native' DDR4 4000 (4 sticks Samsung-B SR) running in my CH8 DarkHero so that makes testing a bit easier. Still, I keep the RAM at below 1.5V (its rated voltage) and SoC etc below 1.1v. While I can run and stabilize IF 2000 / DDR4 4000, I do have to increase memory controller voltages beyond what I am comfortable with, apart from higher latencies.

I use HWInfo (bottom entry) as a coarse tool to weed out WHEAs - even a quick bench run of CPUz and Aida will help sort things out quickly via HWInfo WHEA even before longer testing for 'the finalists' options. The other thing I found is some 'non-linearity' - DDR4 3866 for example is harder to get error-free than DDR4 3933. At the end of the day, I have two 'daily' sets that are error free at or below the voltage limits I use...though as stated last week, I tend to run 'tight' 3800 most of the time.


----------



## th30d0r3

We're currently testing poor CPU scores on 3DMark for the 7950x on another thread. Can someone who still has their 5950x and 3090 run a customer 3DMark Timespy CPU benchmark and measure the core utilisation and provide a score please?
The issue we have is that only one core is partially utilised during this test compared to our previous 5950x score and we need an up-to-date sample. I'd do it myself but my system is watercooled and that would mean I have to tear it down to stick the 5950x back in.









ASUS ROG Crosshair X670E Overclocking & Discussion...


This stuff is 2x 8GB - it's slower than 2x 16GB due to how DDR5 works, bandwidth wise. They are 2x16. 2gb x 8 ICs per stick. https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0564/4976/1447/files/111-XPRISM7200.jpg?v=1665022365 v-Color DDR5 XPrism Hynix A-DIE 32GB(16GBx2) 7200MHz 2Gx8




www.overclock.net


----------



## GRABibus

th30d0r3 said:


> We're currently testing poor CPU scores on 3DMark for the 7950x on another thread. Can someone who still has their 5950x and 3090 run a customer 3DMark Timespy CPU benchmark and measure the core utilisation and provide a score please?
> The issue we have is that only one core is partially utilised during this test compared to our previous 5950x score and we need an up-to-date sample. I'd do it myself but my system is watercooled and that would mean I have to tear it down to stick the 5950x back in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ASUS ROG Crosshair X670E Overclocking & Discussion...
> 
> 
> This stuff is 2x 8GB - it's slower than 2x 16GB due to how DDR5 works, bandwidth wise. They are 2x16. 2gb x 8 ICs per stick. https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0564/4976/1447/files/111-XPRISM7200.jpg?v=1665022365 v-Color DDR5 XPrism Hynix A-DIE 32GB(16GBx2) 7200MHz 2Gx8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net











ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...


Probably you are right as I am not Corecycler stable, but 24/7 stable for my usual usage. This is the reason why it rebooted probably. So, it varies for everyone, but my own best configuration in terms of corecycler stability up to now has been: Extreme Tweaker\External Digi+ Power Control...




www.overclock.net





Did you disable SMT on the 7950x ?


----------



## th30d0r3

GRABibus said:


> ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...
> 
> 
> Probably you are right as I am not Corecycler stable, but 24/7 stable for my usual usage. This is the reason why it rebooted probably. So, it varies for everyone, but my own best configuration in terms of corecycler stability up to now has been: Extreme Tweaker\External Digi+ Power Control...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you disable SMT on the 7950x ?


No, this is enabled.


----------



## GRABibus

th30d0r3 said:


> No, this is enabled.


Try disabling it. This is what we all do with 5950X.
My test was with PBO/CO overclock, not manual OC.


----------



## 2080tiowner

Hi, do they know if there is the option eCLK on the X570 ROG CROSSHAIR DARK HERO WIFI ? Thanks


----------



## th30d0r3

Disabling SMT removes the second thread from the CPU. Did you mean SVM?

Also there is no eCLK on the X570 platform since there is no external clock generator on Ryzen 5000


----------



## GRABibus

th30d0r3 said:


> Disabling SMT removes the second thread from the CPU. Did you mean SVM?
> 
> Also there is no eCLK on the X570 platform since there is no external clock generator on Ryzen 5000


Yep, SMT disabled. Look at my screenshots : 16 cores / 16 threads.

It helps a lot for 5950X score in TS.


----------



## 2080tiowner

th30d0r3 said:


> Disabling SMT removes the second thread from the CPU. Did you mean SVM?
> 
> Also there is no eCLK on the X570 platform since there is no external clock generator on Ryzen 5000


No external clock generator on X570 ? why ? how i can do to OC my 58003XD ???


----------



## GRABibus

2080tiowner said:


> No external clock generator on X570 ? why ? how i can do to OC my 58003XD ???


----------



## Luggage

th30d0r3 said:


> Disabling SMT removes the second thread from the CPU. Did you mean SVM?
> 
> Also there is no eCLK on the X570 platform since there is no external clock generator on Ryzen 5000


Normal TimeSpy can’t utilize 20+ threads properly, either disable ht/smt or run TimeSpy Extreme.

if you check 3Dmark rankings all high r9 TimeSpy cpu scores are with disabled smt/ht.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

I don't know if someone already posted this, but I find a safedisk post with some OC tools for C8 series mobo  and a guide to OC with LN2 

Here


----------



## hwanzi

brought rcdwr to 8 and the scl to 2 :]


----------



## GRABibus

hwanzi said:


> View attachment 2575374
> 
> brought rcdwr to 8 and the scl to 2 :]


Make some Aida64 benches now.


----------



## hwanzi

GRABibus said:


> Make some Aida64 benches now.


i dont have paid version lol thats why i didnt even bother to do it hahaha


----------



## GRABibus

hwanzi said:


> i dont have paid version lol thats why i didnt even bother to do it hahaha











AIDA64 Extreme/Engineer 6.80.6200 + Serial Key - 4HowCrack


AIDA64 Extreme Serial Key the utility is a powerful tool for identification and testing of virtually all components of personal computers..




4howcrack.com





😂

This link is available on internet, so I can’t be blamed for having posted it.


----------



## hwanzi

here u go :]


----------



## long2905

nice man. i made the same changes as your and it works quite well so far. too lazy to bother with benchmarking though. now to tackle PBO and CO...


----------



## KedarWolf

hwanzi said:


> View attachment 2575533
> 
> here u go :]


I get better read, copy and L3 cache latency with Prefetchers enabled but better memory latency with them disabled and a much better y-cruncher with them disabled as well.


----------



## KedarWolf

Prefetchers enabled.


----------



## KedarWolf

This is my y-cruncher on my 24/7 settings, but my EVGA board gets a really great CO Curve, y-cruncher, Core Cycler and OCCT CPU Gold Certificate stable.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

So at the end I've understand why can't go tRCDRD 14, one of my dimm is dumb , I've asked for an RMA and they send me an E-die kit instead of a B-die one so I send it back keeping the old one and they refund me 85€ for the faulty dimm , it's a win no?


----------



## lucky13hc

Reous said:


> If someone with *5800X3D* want to set the CO in the bios you can use this bios. It enables PBO in the AMD Overclocking menu. Note that only PBO Limits and CO will work.
> 
> Hero 4201:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crosshair VIII Hero 4201V
> 
> 
> MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediafire.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hero Wifi 4201:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi 4201V
> 
> 
> MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediafire.com


is this compatible with dark hero?


----------



## hwanzi

KedarWolf said:


> I get better read, copy and L3 cache latency with Prefetchers enabled but better memory latency with them disabled and a much better y-cruncher with them disabled as well.
> 
> View attachment 2575547


I mean it seems like you have a much better tuned memory than me so it makes sense


----------



## rexbinary

New AMD chipset drivers:4.09.23.507 

Release Highlights

SHA256 certified driver support added
AM5 program support added

Known Issues

Sometimes custom install fails to upgrade to latest drivers.
Text alignment issues may be seen on Russian language.
Manual system restart required on Non-English OS after the installation is complete.
Uninstall summary log may incorrectly show uninstall status as fail on non-English OS.


Release notes:


https://www.amd.com/en/support/kb/release-notes/rn-ryzen-chipset-4-09-23-507



Download:


https://www.amd.com/en/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570


----------



## long2905

for beginners like me, just follow this quick and dirty guide to PBO and CO here

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/tnqcbo/_/i23jrvw

my r23 score jumps from 20xxx to 225xx, not too bad.


----------



## sakete

So I'm still on BIOS 3904. Been working reliably and very stable. Is it worth upgrading to one of the latest BIOSes? On a 5950X and just got a 4090. Anything I'm missing?


----------



## Reous

lucky13hc said:


> is this compatible with dark hero?


I could do one for the Dark Hero if needed?


----------



## GRABibus

Deleted


----------



## hwanzi

DvL Ax3l said:


> So at the end I've understand why can't go tRCDRD 14, one of my dimm is dumb , I've asked for an RMA and they send me an E-die kit instead of a B-die one so I send it back keeping the old one and they refund me 85€ for the faulty dimm , it's a win no?
> View attachment 2575577


wait u cant get a B-Die? no matter what...that doesnt sound right lol


----------



## DvL Ax3l

hwanzi said:


> wait u cant get a B-Die? no matter what...that doesnt sound right lol


Yep, they send me the same kit with the same model number but with different IC 😢... Anyway who cares! The old one work good with those timings and I've got 85€ back, so I have the cheapest b-die ever from Corsair hahahahaha 😂


----------



## lucky13hc

Reous said:


> I could do one for the Dark Hero if needed?


yes please i would like to try it


----------



## Reous

@lucky13hc 
Install with USB Flashback.








Crosshair VIII Dark Hero 4201


MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.



www.mediafire.com


----------



## lucky13hc

Reous said:


> @lucky13hc
> Install with USB Flashback.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crosshair VIII Dark Hero 4201
> 
> 
> MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediafire.com


if something goes very wrong is there a way to roll back in previous bios?


----------



## DvL Ax3l

So an 5800X3D overclocked to 5.5Ghz with C8DH appeared online on CPU-Z here... Very interesting 🤔

Rumors says that AMD will unlock the oc on that sku...


----------



## lucky13hc

Reous said:


> @lucky13hc
> Install with USB Flashback.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crosshair VIII Dark Hero 4201
> 
> 
> MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediafire.com


it cant be flash with ezflash? only with flash back method?


----------



## Reous

lucky13hc said:


> if something goes very wrong is there a way to roll back in previous bios?


Prepare a second USB Stick with official Bios just in case to recover with flashback.
Because the bios is modded only flashback works.


----------



## stimpy88

DvL Ax3l said:


> Rumors says that AMD will unlock the oc on that sku...


Those rumours have been running round since before it got launched.


----------



## lucky13hc

Reous said:


> Prepare a second USB Stick with official Bios just in case to recover with a flashback.
> Because the bios are modded only flashback works.


Thank you very much I'll inform you of the results.


----------



## Luggage

DvL Ax3l said:


> So an 5800X3D overclocked to 5.5Ghz with C8DH appeared online on CPU-Z here... Very interesting 🤔
> 
> Rumors says that AMD will unlock the oc on that sku...


A 5.2 bunch of results was posted to hwbot, got reclassified as ES within a day. Poster made a Reddit thread but disappeared after a day.


----------



## lucky13hc

Reous said:


> Prepare a second USB Stick with official Bios just in case to recover with flashback.
> Because the bios is modded only flashback works.


I prepared two flash USB sticks formatted fat32, it matters on the storage of the USB or the bitrate in the format procedure. Because I follow the instructions, pressing the flashback button until it blinks 4 times then I release and it doesn't start to blink quickly instead of that it stays solid blue and doesn't flash either official bios or yours. The PC works and it opens.


----------



## Reous

Load and save default settings before using flashback.
If the light still stay solid blue try different USB Sticks. Maybe a older USB 2.0 4GB or 8GB.


----------



## AStaUK

I’m having a problem with my fans (Noctua’s, PWM) continually ramping up and then almost immediately dropping back down again. I’ve set a custom fan curve for both the chassis and the CPU that increases the speeds in increments after 5secs and should then hold the speed for 12secs but it seems to be being ignored.

Anyone have any tips how I might resolve this?


----------



## Geno_

Reous said:


> Load and save default settings before using flashback.
> If the light still stay solid blue try different USB Sticks. Maybe a older USB 2.0 4GB or 8GB.


Would it be possible to do one for the Crosshair VIII extreme please? Would love to be able to dump PBO2tuner.


----------



## Reous

*Crosshair Extreme:*
Added PBO for 5800X3D








Crosshair VIII Extreme 0801


MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.



www.mediafire.com





*Crosshair Formula:*
Added PBO for 5800X3D
Added PCH Fan Control








Crosshair VIII Formula 4201


MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.



www.mediafire.com





*Hero* and *Hero Wifi* can also be found in the folder:








MediaFire


MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.




www.mediafire.com


----------



## hwanzi

Reous said:


> *Crosshair Extreme:*
> Added PBO for 5800X3D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crosshair VIII Extreme 0801
> 
> 
> MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediafire.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Crosshair Formula:*
> Added PBO for 5800X3D
> Added PCH Fan Control
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crosshair VIII Formula 4201
> 
> 
> MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediafire.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hero* and *Hero Wifi* can also be found in the folder:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MediaFire
> 
> 
> MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediafire.com


what do these modded bios have if you dont mind me asking? just the pbo for the 5800x3d?


----------



## lucky13hc

Reous said:


> Load and save default settings before using flashback.
> If the light still stay solid blue try different USB Sticks. Maybe a older USB 2.0 4GB or 8GB.


ok, the bios worked but I have a question. When I enable the PBO as I did before with the 5600 for example the boost is dropping to 3600 not in 4541 as it is with PBO disabled, is there something I should enable to make it boost.?


----------



## Reous

hwanzi said:


> what do these modded bios have if you dont mind me asking? just the pbo for the 5800x3d?


Yes, just for X3D



lucky13hc said:


> ok, the bios worked but I have a question. When I enable the PBO as I did before with the 5600 for example the boost is dropping to 3600


As it is noted in the readme only PBO Limits and Curve Optimizer will work. Nothing else.


----------



## lucky13hc

Reous said:


> Yes, just for X3D
> 
> 
> As it is noted in the readme only PBO Limits and Curve Optimizer will work. Nothing else.


Ahh sorry, then I'll try again, will the PBO 2 tuner will work with that bios? Also for your information, you were right only with USB 2 work the flashback


----------



## sakete

Is the latest BIOS worth installing vs 3904?


----------



## GRABibus

sakete said:


> Is the latest BIOS worth installing vs 3904?


If you are completely satisfied with 3904 then keep it.
No improvement with 4201. Still max Vid=1,425V with EDC > 140A.


----------



## sakete

GRABibus said:


> If you are completely satisfied with 3904 then keep it.
> No improvement with 4201. Still max Vid=1,425V with EDC > 140A.


Yeah it works. I set it up almost a year ago and haven't touched the bios since. I mainly want things to just work.


----------



## CyrIng

Is this a good reason to upgrade from *stable* BIOS *3801* to version *4201* because of AMD recommends updating “Matisse”, “Vermeer”, “Cezanne” to the AGESA ComboAM4 V2 PI *1.2.0.6c* facing various CVE vulnerabilities ?


----------



## J7SC

CyrIng said:


> Is this a good reason to upgrade from *stable* BIOS *3801* to version *4201* because of AMD recommends updating “Matisse”, “Vermeer”, “Cezanne” to the AGESA ComboAM4 V2 PI *1.2.0.6c* facing various CVE vulnerabilities ?


...wondering about the same thing - got my bios 3801 all dialed in nicely.


----------



## AStaUK

CyrIng said:


> Is this a good reason to upgrade from *stable* BIOS *3801* to version *4201* because of AMD recommends updating “Matisse”, “Vermeer”, “Cezanne” to the AGESA ComboAM4 V2 PI *1.2.0.6c* facing various CVE vulnerabilities ?


Like any code execution vulnerability in order for someone to exploit these vulnerabilities they will either need access to your computer or for you to execute code that you might not otherwise do. So provided you keep your OS and other software up to date along with running a decent antivirus and use common sense when using/downloading stuff from the internet you should be safe.

But if you want your environment to be the most secure it can be then there isn’t any reason for you not to upgrade, if you do find it adversely impacts an overclock or causes another issue with your system stability there isn’t anything stopping you rolling it back to the previous BIOS.


----------



## 2080tiowner

Reous said:


> *Crosshair Extreme:*
> Added PBO for 5800X3D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crosshair VIII Extreme 0801
> 
> 
> MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediafire.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Crosshair Formula:*
> Added PBO for 5800X3D
> Added PCH Fan Control
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crosshair VIII Formula 4201
> 
> 
> MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediafire.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hero* and *Hero Wifi* can also be found in the folder:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MediaFire
> 
> 
> MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediafire.com



Thanks for the Bios ! works very well on Crosshair VIII Dark Hero... Hope we can unlock the multiplier soon... 🍬🍬🍬


----------



## J7SC

2080tiowner said:


> Thanks for the Bios ! works very well on Crosshair VIII Dark Hero... Hope we can unlock the multiplier soon... 🍬🍬🍬


...I checked, may be I'm slow today, but which (link) one is the modded bios for Crosshair VIII Dark Hero ?


----------



## 2080tiowner

J7SC said:


> ...I checked, may be I'm slow today, but which (link) one is the modded bios for Crosshair VIII Dark Hero ?











MediaFire


MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.




www.mediafire.com


----------



## J7SC

2080tiowner said:


> MediaFire
> 
> 
> MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediafire.com


Thanks  - next time I check_ inside_ the folder🥴


----------



## evilhf

Reous said:


> *Mira Extrema:*
> Adicionado PBO para 5800X3D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crosshair VIII Extreme 0801
> 
> 
> MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediafire.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fórmula da mira:*
> Adicionado PBO para 5800X3D
> Adicionado controle de ventilador PCH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crosshair VIII Formula 4201
> 
> 
> MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediafire.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hero* e *Hero Wifi* também podem ser encontrados na pasta:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MediaFire
> 
> 
> MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediafire.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/CITAR]
> 
> 
> Reous said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Mira Extrema:*
> Adicionado PBO para 5800X3D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crosshair VIII Extreme 0801
> 
> 
> MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediafire.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fórmula da mira:*
> Adicionado PBO para 5800X3D
> Adicionado controle de ventilador PCH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crosshair VIII Formula 4201
> 
> 
> MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediafire.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hero* e *Hero Wifi* também podem ser encontrados na pasta:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MediaFire
> 
> 
> MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediafire.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/CITAR]
> 
> Obrigado! Consegui melhorar meu multicore e single core com essa bios for crosshair formula
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 😎
Click to expand...


----------



## Noxion

Reous said:


> @lucky13hc
> Install with USB Flashback.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crosshair VIII Dark Hero 4201
> 
> 
> MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediafire.com


Thanks so much for this! Just had to enable some usb in s5 state setting and it worked using usb flashback.


----------



## larvabom

I thought I mention..bios 4201 has some issues....people experiencing freezes and reboots.


----------



## Zogge

Anyone with 4090 and this board experiencing problems ? I have a formula and palit game rock oc 4090. With 3090 strix it was flawless but with 4090 it starts windows always with basic display adapter then after a few seconds it finds the 4090 and switch to 4k. A bit annoying as I tried to reseat it, ddu safe mode and so on. Bios 4201 newest win 11 h2. Rebar on.


----------



## J7SC

Zogge said:


> Anyone with 4090 and this board experiencing problems ? I have a formula and palit game rock oc 4090. With 3090 strix it was flawless but with 4090 it starts windows always with basic display adapter then after a few seconds it finds the 4090 and switch to 4k. A bit annoying as I tried to reseat it, ddu safe mode and so on. Bios 4201 newest win 11 h2. Rebar on.


...once I got it going (updated a 3090 Strix to 4090 Giga-G-OC), no issues with the CH8 Dark Hero. However, Armory Crate uninstalled itself first, and resizable_BAR was also disabled after the switch (not by me), and a few reboots by itself. I reenabled resizable_BAR, and everything works like a charm since then.


----------



## Zogge

Ok I will try it in my other x570 system today and see what the result is.


----------



## evilhf

is it possible to include PBO in bios older than 4201 , which is age 1.2.0.6b ? @Reous


----------



## metalshark

Zogge said:


> Anyone with 4090 and this board experiencing problems ? I have a formula and palit game rock oc 4090. With 3090 strix it was flawless but with 4090 it starts windows always with basic display adapter then after a few seconds it finds the 4090 and switch to 4k. A bit annoying as I tried to reseat it, ddu safe mode and so on. Bios 4201 newest win 11 h2. Rebar on.


No probs, have the Formula. Staying away from 22H2 for now though until the kinks are ironed out for 2xCCD AMD and the 4xxx series.


----------



## larvabom

deleted


----------



## GRABibus

metalshark said:


> No probs, have the Formula. Staying away from 22H2 for now though until the kinks are ironed out for 2xCCD AMD and the 4xxx series.


What do you mean ?


----------



## Reous

evilhf said:


> is it possible to include PBO in bios older than 4201 , which is age 1.2.0.6b ? @Reous


Sure, would be possible. If you need one just message me at the weekend again.


----------



## evilhf

Reous said:


> Sure, would be possible. If you need one just message me at the weekend again.


Okayyy....
Thanks for listening 
Bios quoted to embed PBO and Curve optimizer and version 4006
Thanks again


----------



## stimpy88

metalshark said:


> No probs, have the Formula. Staying away from 22H2 for now though until the kinks are ironed out for 2xCCD AMD and the 4xxx series.


I don't that that has yet been proven to be an MS issue, has it?


----------



## 2080tiowner

Reous said:


> Sure, would be possible. If you need one just message me at the weekend again.


Hi, is it possible to add inside the Dark Hero bios, same functions of the Extreme edition like "core voltage suspension", "co mitigator", "floor xxx", "ceiling xxx" ? I would like to oc the BCLK but without theses options i think that it's not possible...

Thanks !


----------



## DvL Ax3l

stimpy88 said:


> I don't that that has yet been proven to be an MS issue, has it?


Windows scheduler issue with AMD CPU with dual CCD

Source TechPowerUP , CapFrameX


----------



## GRABibus

DvL Ax3l said:


> Windows scheduler issue with AMD CPU with dual CCD


I don’t have with my 5950X


----------



## GRABibus

DvL Ax3l said:


> Windows scheduler issue with AMD CPU with dual CCD
> 
> Source TechPowerUP , CapFrameX


You speak about W11 only ?


----------



## DvL Ax3l

GRABibus said:


> You speak about W11 only ?


Yes, or at least people say so, win11 22h2, I didn't try myself, but reddit is full of people says they disable ccd2 when gaming


----------



## GRABibus

OK. I am on W10 22H2, no issue there.


----------



## AStaUK

DvL Ax3l said:


> Windows scheduler issue with AMD CPU with dual CCD
> 
> Source TechPowerUP , CapFrameX


No issues for me on W11 22H2, 3DMark is down a couple of 100 points over my Win10 results.


----------



## Reous

2080tiowner said:


> Hi, is it possible to add inside the Dark Hero bios, same functions of the Extreme edition like "core voltage suspension" ...


Sadly it is not possible. Sorry.



evilhf said:


> is it possible to include PBO in bios older than 4201 , which is age 1.2.0.6b?[/USER]











Crosshair VIII Formula 4006


MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.



www.mediafire.com


----------



## 2080tiowner

Reous said:


> Sadly it is not possible. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crosshair VIII Formula 4006
> 
> 
> MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediafire.com


Thanks for the answer, do you think that is possible to unlock multiplier in the bios or the lock is inside the cpu ?

Is it possible to put highter than 100.25 mhz bclk with the Dark Hero ? when i put 100.5 mhz, the motherboard boot but not windows... i don't understand...

Thanks for tour help !


----------



## evilhf

Reous said:


> Infelizmente não é possível. Desculpe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crosshair VIII Formula 4006
> 
> 
> MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediafire.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/CITAR]
> oh senhor eu nem sei como te agradecer por isso.
> Muito obrigado por ajudar a comunidade
> ✌


----------



## 2080tiowner

2080tiowner said:


> Thanks for the answer, do you think that is possible to unlock multiplier in the bios or the lock is inside the cpu ?
> 
> Is it possible to put highter than 100.25 mhz bclk with the Dark Hero ? when i put 100.5 mhz, the motherboard boot but not windows... i don't understand...
> 
> Thanks for tour help !


???


----------



## pilotter

interesting about the ccd2. I am away from my main pc, would this also imply to a 7900? and how to disable this?


----------



## DvL Ax3l

pilotter said:


> interesting about the ccd2. I am away from my main pc, would this also imply to a 7900? and how to disable this?


Yes seems it's an issue with all Ryzen with dual CCD, so all series, anyway you can disable the second CCD in the bios or with Ryzen Master through OS.

From what I know the windows scheduler is very old and was written by Intel, there are issues also with the E-Cores, on Reddit people are hoping for AMD/Intel & Microsoft to release and update to the scheduler/chipset drivers to unleash the real power of those architectures. 🤞🏻


----------



## J7SC

I am thinking of giving my 5950X bit more of a workout since it now gets to join up with a 4090. The 5950X is already hitting an effective clock of 5070 MHz or so w/ 5075 MHz nominal limit per bios settings, but faster is better...soooo, have any of you folks tried:

a.) BCH bus (reference clock, usually 100 MHz) overclocking ? Specifically, I'm wondering about PCIe issues and potential switches in the CH8 Dark Hero, like for example some MSI boards have re. M.2 NVME issues. I am thinking about a mild reference clock oc, such as 102 or less...

b.) asynchronous memory ? For example, leaving the IF at 1900 but setting the RAM to s.th. like 4266 or 4400 (it is Samsung-B die rated nominally at 4000). FYI, I know that it will impact latency negatively, but it still might be useful for some select apps.

Tx in advance for any tips for the CH8 and/ or links


----------



## flyinion

DvL Ax3l said:


> Yes seems it's an issue with all Ryzen with dual CCD, so all series, anyway you can disable the second CCD in the bios or with Ryzen Master through OS.
> 
> From what I know the windows scheduler is very old and was written by Intel, there are issues also with the E-Cores, on Reddit people are hoping for AMD/Intel & Microsoft to release and update to the scheduler/chipset drivers to unleash the real power of those architectures. 🤞🏻


Maybe I misread the articles but I thought this was only an issue with the new 7000 series? I know 5000 had it originally at Win11 launch and it was eventually fixed. I interpreted the articles I read as saying the new issue was specific to dual CCD 7000 series CPU's.


----------



## KARIOKAS

Reous said:


> Sure, would be possible. If you need one just message me at the weekend again.


 I want it too for my dark hero, I ll confirm that 1207 isn't as good and stable as 1206b


----------



## lucky13hc

we are waiting for a newer version from ASUS


----------



## GRABibus

Reous said:


> Sadly it is not possible. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crosshair VIII Formula 4006
> 
> 
> MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediafire.com


Hello,

Is it possible to get the 3801 bios and 4201 bios for the Asus Crosshair VIII Hero ?


----------



## Moutsatsos

I am still on 3801 and was wondering if with the new cpu gen release there's any bios update worth upgrading to?


----------



## tabascosauz

@Reous did you ever make a mod X3D bios for C8 Impact? Verangry tried but I couldn't get it to flash on my Impact (tried another one of his modded BIOS on my Unify-X and it works fine).

I would really like to go back to the Impact (Unify-X as a board has a plethora of other issues) but lack of modded BIOS is one thing keeping me. Couldn't get a clear answer but is it possible to expose PBO and CO on a AGESA 1206 BIOS (4006)?


----------



## Reous

2080tiowner said:


> Thanks for the answer, do you think that is possible to unlock multiplier in the bios or the lock is inside the cpu ?


Changing multiplier would disable the boost. So it's not possible sadly.



KARIOKAS said:


> I want it too for my dark hero, I ll confirm that 1207 isn't as good and stable as 1206b





GRABibus said:


> Is it possible to get the 3801 bios and 4201 bios for the Asus Crosshair VIII Hero ?





tabascosauz said:


> did you ever make a mod X3D bios for C8 Impact?



*Added PBO for 5800X3D (AMD Overclocking/Only PBO Limits and CO will work)*
Flashing on your own risk. You might brick your board.
I’m not responsible for any damage that can occur while flashing your board with custom bios

Flash with USB Flashback

*Crosshair VIII Hero* (3801, 4006, 4201)
*Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi* (3801, 4006, 4201)
*Crosshair VIII Dark Hero* (3801, 4006, 4201)
*Crosshair VIII Formula* (3801, 4006, 4201)
*Crosshair VIII Impact* (3801, 4006, 4201)
*Crosshair VIII Extreme* (0606, 0801)









MediaFire


MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.




www.mediafire.com


----------



## tabascosauz

Reous said:


> Changing multiplier would disable the boost. So it's not possible sadly.
> 
> *Added PBO for 5800X3D (AMD Overclocking/Only PBO Limits and CO will work)*
> Flashing on your own risk. You might brick your board.
> I’m not responsible for any damage that can occur while flashing your board with custom bios
> 
> Flash with USB Flashback
> 
> *Crosshair VIII Hero* (3801, 4006, 4201)
> *Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi* (3801, 4006, 4201)
> *Crosshair VIII Dark Hero* (3801, 4006, 4201)
> *Crosshair VIII Formula* (3801, 4006, 4201)
> *Crosshair VIII Impact* (3801, 4006, 4201)
> *Crosshair VIII Extreme* (0606, 0801)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MediaFire
> 
> 
> MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediafire.com


You are amazing. Many thanks, will report back

Flashed fine, working great. Actually working better than 4006 somehow, your modded bios removed lower rpm limits on chipset and VRM fans (stock 4006 doesn't allow <50% PWM)


----------



## 2080tiowner

Reous said:


> Changing multiplier would disable the boost. So it's not possible sadly.


It's possible to disable the boost to change multiplier beyond 45.5 ?

Thanks


----------



## metalshark

GRABibus said:


> What do you mean ?


Am now using 22H2, had heard reports of NVIDIA 4xxx issues and 2xCCD AMD issues. Seems both pertain to Zen 4.


----------



## usoldier

Just got my hands on a 5800x3D do i need to do a full system install just to make shure all is reset ? Also what bios version do you recomend ? Thanks


----------



## evilhf

Reous said:


> Changing multiplier would disable the boost. So it's not possible sadly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Added PBO for 5800X3D (AMD Overclocking/Only PBO Limits and CO will work)*
> Flashing on your own risk. You might brick your board.
> I’m not responsible for any damage that can occur while flashing your board with custom bios
> 
> Flash with USB Flashback
> 
> *Crosshair VIII Hero* (3801, 4006, 4201)
> *Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi* (3801, 4006, 4201)
> *Crosshair VIII Dark Hero* (3801, 4006, 4201)
> *Crosshair VIII Formula* (3801, 4006, 4201)
> *Crosshair VIII Impact* (3801, 4006, 4201)
> *Crosshair VIII Extreme* (0606, 0801)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MediaFire
> 
> 
> MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediafire.com


Bios 3801 support 5800X3D?


----------



## tabascosauz

evilhf said:


> Bios 3801 support 5800X3D?


3801 is a 1203b BIOS. You can boot but CPU will be locked to 3.4GHz base clock. Just use 4006.


----------



## slayer6288

Reous said:


> Changing multiplier would disable the boost. So it's not possible sadly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Added PBO for 5800X3D (AMD Overclocking/Only PBO Limits and CO will work)*
> Flashing on your own risk. You might brick your board.
> I’m not responsible for any damage that can occur while flashing your board with custom bios
> 
> Flash with USB Flashback
> 
> *Crosshair VIII Hero* (3801, 4006, 4201)
> *Crosshair VIII Hero Wifi* (3801, 4006, 4201)
> *Crosshair VIII Dark Hero* (3801, 4006, 4201)
> *Crosshair VIII Formula* (3801, 4006, 4201)
> *Crosshair VIII Impact* (3801, 4006, 4201)
> *Crosshair VIII Extreme* (0606, 0801)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MediaFire
> 
> 
> MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediafire.com


This has to be flashed with bios flashback right? Also the pbo allows negative offsets like the pbo2 app does?


----------



## Reous

2080tiowner said:


> It's possible to disable the boost to change multiplier beyond 45.5 ?


If i remember right the clock will still stay at 38 even if you set 40 or higher. 
And sadly no i don't have the time to make a special test bios.



slayer6288 said:


> This has to be flashed with bios flashback right? Also the pbo allows negative offsets like the pbo2 app does?


Yes only with flashback
If you mean negative CO voltage, then yes. Up to +/- 30


----------



## 2080tiowner

Reous said:


> If i remember right the clock will still stay at 38 even if you set 40 or higher.
> And sadly no i don't have the time to make a special test bios.
> 
> 
> Yes only with flashback
> If you mean negative CO voltage, then yes. Up to +/- 30


Hi, thanks, possible to re-activate eCLK mode in the bios with 5800X3D (on x570 crosshair motherboards), i can't put more than 100.25 mhz without this option... ?

Thanks !


----------



## J7SC

Squeezing a bit more performance out of the 4 sticks of B-die...


----------



## Kelutrel

So, a couple days ago I noticed that AMD released a BIOS update for the new X670 boards, with an Agesa update, in which they fixed some c-states issues on the Zen 4.
Following that BIOS update a guy named SkatterBencher released an article showing the actual effect of that change.
In that article he used a proprietary benchmark named NopBench that I was not able to find on the internet but looked quite interesting.
As I was pretty interested to see the behavior of that benchmark on my 5950X (lately I bought a 5950X) when varying EDC, due to the undervolt at EDC>140 of Agesa 1.2.0.7, I decided to create the same benchmark myself as I couldn't find anything similar on the web.

For anyone curious, instead of directly accessing the smu hardware registers to get the current frequency of each core, that would have required creating a signed driver or acquiring a pre-built one, I just used the HwINFO feedback produced by adding each core clock to the gadget reporting feature and then recording each core peak frequency, from the reporting hwinfo registry keys in the windows registry, while running a floating-point intensive load on an increasing amount of threads locked on each core in CPPC order. This reduced the code complexity tenfolds, and anyone that can program on a language that has access to setting the thread affinity and reading the windows registry should be able to reproduce the same results.
The NopBench used by SkatterBencher used the NOP instruction, that is probably slightly better to top up the peak frequency of each core, due to having minimal power budget and thermal impact, but I couldn't simulate it in golang without it being optimised and removed, so I used some simple floating-point operations instead.

So, in the end, I tried this tool on my 5950X, using the latest BIOS 4201 with Agesa 1.2.0.7, and recorded the peak core speed when 1-16 cores were under load while varying EDC (I kept [email protected] and [email protected] and [email protected] as my usual values), and this is a chart that I then created in Excel using the returned values:










Well, interestingly you can see that using [email protected] produced the higher peak clock speeds (ignoring fmax) when more than 2 cores are under load, and actually I tried CBR20 and on my 5950X it looks like [email protected] is marginally faster in MT while leaving ST untouched.
So I thought about posting this here and maybe if anyone has a boring weekend he can try to set his 5950X (but maybe other Zen3 models too) with [email protected] and see if it gets him any higher benchmark scores.

I also attach here below my current BIOS configuration for reference.

P.S
To avoid people being misled by the fact that this cpu reaches 5100MHz, you have to consider that I used a minimal dummy load to force each core to reach its absolute peak frequency. When actually running real calculations, like for example in the CBR20 MT benchmark that uses AVX2, my cpu locks all the cores at 4330MHz with [email protected] (and 4375MHz with [email protected]) like every other 5950X using the same power limits configuration.

UPDATE:
I performed some additional testing and it appears that what lowering EDC does is to increase the time (we are talking of a couple of milliseconds here) that the cores take to reach their peak frequency, so that instead of 16 cores reaching frequency 4785MHz in 1.5ms and stopping there, they take 2ms and reach 4825MHz before stopping there instead. So the slightly higher peak frequency is due to the thermal and power budget demand for the frequency increase being spread on a slightly longer period.


----------



## GRABibus

Don’t tweak your RAM timings when gaming with 5800X3D. Apparently, this is useless and can degrade some performances :


----------



## Alemancio

GRABibus said:


> Don’t tweak your RAM timings when gaming with 5800X3D. Apparently, this is useless and can degrade some performances :


non standardized test, I'll pass from this 1.2K subscriber's Youtube Channel.


----------



## 1ah1

GRABibus said:


> Don’t tweak your RAM timings when gaming with 5800X3D. Apparently, this is useless and can degrade some performances :


Interesting


----------



## stimpy88

Kelutrel said:


> So, a couple days ago I noticed that AMD released a BIOS update for the new X670 boards, with an Agesa update, in which they fixed some c-states issues on the Zen 4.
> Following that BIOS update a guy named SkatterBencher released an article showing the actual effect of that change.
> In that article he used a proprietary benchmark named NopBench that I was not able to find on the internet but looked quite interesting.
> As I was pretty interested to see the behavior of that benchmark on my 5950X (lately I bought a 5950X) when varying EDC, due to the undervolt at EDC>140 of Agesa 1.2.0.7, I decided to create the same benchmark myself as I couldn't find anything similar on the web.
> 
> For anyone curious, instead of directly accessing the smu hardware registers to get the current frequency of each core, that would have required creating a signed driver or acquiring a pre-built one, I just used the HwINFO feedback produced by adding each core clock to the gadget reporting feature and then recording each core peak frequency, from the reporting hwinfo registry keys in the windows registry, while running a floating-point intensive load on an increasing amount of threads locked on each core in CPPC order. This reduced the code complexity tenfolds, and anyone that can program on a language that has access to setting the thread affinity and reading the windows registry should be able to reproduce the same results.
> The NopBench used by SkatterBencher used the NOP instruction, that is probably slightly better to top up the peak frequency of each core, due to having minimal power budget and thermal impact, but I couldn't simulate it in golang without it being optimised and removed, so I used some simple floating-point operations instead.
> 
> So, in the end, I tried this tool on my 5950X, using the latest BIOS 4201 with Agesa 1.2.0.7, and recorded the peak core speed when 1-16 cores were under load while varying EDC (I kept [email protected] and [email protected] and [email protected] as my usual values), and this is a chart that I then created in Excel using the returned values:
> 
> View attachment 2579563
> 
> 
> Well, interestingly you can see that using [email protected] produced the higher peak clock speeds (ignoring fmax) when more than 2 cores are under load, and actually I tried CBR20 and on my 5950X it looks like [email protected] is marginally faster in MT while leaving ST untouched.
> So I thought about posting this here and maybe if anyone has a boring weekend he can try to set his 5950X (but maybe other Zen3 models too) with [email protected] and see if it gets him any higher benchmark scores.
> 
> I also attach here below my current BIOS configuration for reference.
> 
> P.S
> To avoid people being misled by the fact that this cpu reaches 5100MHz, you have to consider that I used a minimal dummy load to force each core to reach its absolute peak frequency. When actually running real calculations, like for example in the CBR20 MT benchmark that uses AVX2, my cpu locks all the cores at 4330MHz with [email protected] (and 4375MHz with [email protected]) like every other 5950X using the same power limits configuration.
> 
> UPDATE:
> I performed some additional testing and it appears that what lowering EDC does is to increase the time (we are talking of a couple of milliseconds here) that the cores take to reach their peak frequency, so that instead of 16 cores reaching frequency 4785MHz in 1.5ms and stopping there, they take 2ms and reach 4825MHz before stopping there instead. So the slightly higher peak frequency is due to the thermal and power budget demand for the frequency increase being spread on a slightly longer period.


Great findings, but how exactly can we test this for ourselves? I can't find a link to that software anywhere...

*EDIT*
I performed a different test, one that involved a workload, and simply changed the EDC value in steps from 40A to 165A. This is not about peak clockspeeds ,or clockspeeds at all, this is about work done at a particular EDC limit, no other settings changed, 20 seconds between each run...
Here are the results...

Cinebench r20 EDC Test Results:-
40A = 8037pts
50A = 9115pts
60A = 9733pts
70A = 10184pts
80A = 10486pts
90A = 10860pts
100A = 11125pts
105A = 11226pts
110A = 11404pts
115A = 11458pts
120A = 11536pts
125A = 11652pts
130A = 11769pts
135A = 11883pts
140A = 12005pts
*145A = 12042pts (Our winner! At least for performance)*
150A = 12020pts
155A = 11928pts
160A = 11983pts
165A = 11912pts


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Seems AMD/Asus has forgotten to update us beta testers, the X670 seems to be getting beefy bios updates and Asus seems to be beefing up their BIOS with more features..after paying premium for the Dark Hero, seems this will be a hard taught lesson to never give in to the hype specially if its AMD.


----------



## Kelutrel

stimpy88 said:


> Great findings, but how exactly can we test this for ourselves? I can't find a link to that software anywhere...
> 
> *EDIT*
> I performed a different test, one that involved a workload, and simply changed the EDC value in steps from 40A to 165A. This is not about peak clockspeeds ,or clockspeeds at all, this is about work done at a particular EDC limit, no other settings changed, 20 seconds between each run...
> Here are the results...
> 
> Cinebench r20 EDC Test Results:-
> 40A = 8037pts
> 50A = 9115pts
> 60A = 9733pts
> 70A = 10184pts
> 80A = 10486pts
> 90A = 10860pts
> 100A = 11125pts
> 105A = 11226pts
> 110A = 11404pts
> 115A = 11458pts
> 120A = 11536pts
> 125A = 11652pts
> 130A = 11769pts
> 135A = 11883pts
> 140A = 12005pts
> *145A = 12042pts (Our winner! At least for performance)*
> 150A = 12020pts
> 155A = 11928pts
> 160A = 11983pts
> 165A = 11912pts


Well, assuming that there isn't any similar tool freely available on the internet, then if there is any interest I can push the executable (or the source code) that I created to perform that test. It requires the english version of HwINFO running in background and configured in a particular way, but I can provide the instructions for that if needed. Obviously, you'd be still running an unprivileged executable downloaded from an unknown guy in a forum, so it's your choice. Otherwise, anyone that can program in any language that has access to setting the thread affinity and reading the windows registry should be able to reproduce the same results.

It may also be interesting to see how the other 3 PBO limit values (PPT/TDC/Boost), and maybe even the curves, impact the same progression of frequency, on older and newer Agesa versions. So I am planning to do the same test varying those values and then publish the resulting charts if anything interesting shows up. It is not a benchmark, it is just to understand how the PBO logics work behind the scenes and what may be the best configuration for specific workloads, also considering that the latest Agesa does not allow EDC>140 without undervolting the cpu.

Aside from being curious, the reason why I did that test is because there are BIOS settings that may increase or reduce or leave unchanged the benchmark scores in ST or MT benchmarks, but that may not be the whole story because those same settings may be impacting the behaviour or performance of the cores in non linear ways when less than all-cores and more than a single core are used. For example in that chart you can see that [email protected] and [email protected] provide very similar ST and MT peak frequency, but from the rest of the values it is clear that there is a relatively bigger penalty when using [email protected] on BIOS 4201.


----------



## long2905

kairi_zeroblade said:


> Seems AMD/Asus has forgotten to update us beta testers, the X670 seems to be getting beefy bios updates and Asus seems to be beefing up their BIOS with more features..after paying premium for the Dark Hero, seems this will be a hard taught lesson to never give in to the hype specially if its AMD.


its their flagship mainboard right now. what do you think the priority would be? when was the dark hero board released?


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

long2905 said:


> its their flagship mainboard right now. what do you think the priority would be? when was the dark hero board released?


is that even a valid reason to just stop updating their premium product? as far as my tattered brain remembers, they aren't like this before, ASUS values the "ROG" monicker than any other products they have may it be old or new, specially with Intel.


----------



## GRABibus

Kelutrel said:


> So, a couple days ago I noticed that AMD released a BIOS update for the new X670 boards, with an Agesa update, in which they fixed some c-states issues on the Zen 4.
> Following that BIOS update a guy named SkatterBencher released an article showing the actual effect of that change.
> In that article he used a proprietary benchmark named NopBench that I was not able to find on the internet but looked quite interesting.
> As I was pretty interested to see the behavior of that benchmark on my 5950X (lately I bought a 5950X) when varying EDC, due to the undervolt at EDC>140 of Agesa 1.2.0.7, I decided to create the same benchmark myself as I couldn't find anything similar on the web.
> 
> For anyone curious, instead of directly accessing the smu hardware registers to get the current frequency of each core, that would have required creating a signed driver or acquiring a pre-built one, I just used the HwINFO feedback produced by adding each core clock to the gadget reporting feature and then recording each core peak frequency, from the reporting hwinfo registry keys in the windows registry, while running a floating-point intensive load on an increasing amount of threads locked on each core in CPPC order. This reduced the code complexity tenfolds, and anyone that can program on a language that has access to setting the thread affinity and reading the windows registry should be able to reproduce the same results.
> The NopBench used by SkatterBencher used the NOP instruction, that is probably slightly better to top up the peak frequency of each core, due to having minimal power budget and thermal impact, but I couldn't simulate it in golang without it being optimised and removed, so I used some simple floating-point operations instead.
> 
> So, in the end, I tried this tool on my 5950X, using the latest BIOS 4201 with Agesa 1.2.0.7, and recorded the peak core speed when 1-16 cores were under load while varying EDC (I kept [email protected] and [email protected] and [email protected] as my usual values), and this is a chart that I then created in Excel using the returned values:
> 
> View attachment 2579563
> 
> 
> Well, interestingly you can see that using [email protected] produced the higher peak clock speeds (ignoring fmax) when more than 2 cores are under load, and actually I tried CBR20 and on my 5950X it looks like [email protected] is marginally faster in MT while leaving ST untouched.
> So I thought about posting this here and maybe if anyone has a boring weekend he can try to set his 5950X (but maybe other Zen3 models too) with [email protected] and see if it gets him any higher benchmark scores.
> 
> I also attach here below my current BIOS configuration for reference.
> 
> P.S
> To avoid people being misled by the fact that this cpu reaches 5100MHz, you have to consider that I used a minimal dummy load to force each core to reach its absolute peak frequency. When actually running real calculations, like for example in the CBR20 MT benchmark that uses AVX2, my cpu locks all the cores at 4330MHz with [email protected] (and 4375MHz with [email protected]) like every other 5950X using the same power limits configuration.
> 
> UPDATE:
> I performed some additional testing and it appears that what lowering EDC does is to increase the time (we are talking of a couple of milliseconds here) that the cores take to reach their peak frequency, so that instead of 16 cores reaching frequency 4785MHz in 1.5ms and stopping there, they take 2ms and reach 4825MHz before stopping there instead. So the slightly higher peak frequency is due to the thermal and power budget demand for the frequency increase being spread on a slightly longer period.


Congrats for your 5950X and welcome back


----------



## long2905

kairi_zeroblade said:


> is that even a valid reason to just stop updating their premium product? as far as my tattered brain remembers, they aren't like this before, ASUS values the "ROG" monicker than any other products they have may it be old or new, specially with Intel.


who said anything about stopping? did you get confirmation from someone? put yourself in theirr position, consider what you just released, what would your priority be?


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

long2905 said:


> who said anything about stopping? did you get confirmation from someone? put yourself in theirr position, consider what you just released, what would your priority be?


As far as I know they have a team who works on with am4 and am5. Unless they laid off people.


----------



## stimpy88

Kelutrel said:


> Well, assuming that there isn't any similar tool freely available on the internet, then if there is any interest I can push the executable (or the source code) that I created to perform that test. It requires the english version of HwINFO running in background and configured in a particular way, but I can provide the instructions for that if needed. Obviously, you'd be still running an unprivileged executable downloaded from an unknown guy in a forum, so it's your choice. Otherwise, anyone that can program in any language that has access to setting the thread affinity and reading the windows registry should be able to reproduce the same results.


A release of the tool you made would be beneficial to the community, as ScatterBencher seems to want to keep his to himself...


----------



## stimpy88

long2905 said:


> who said anything about stopping? did you get confirmation from someone? put yourself in theirr position, consider what you just released, what would your priority be?


We don't know if they officially stopped, but they certainly aren't releasing anything, are they! Tell us how long it's been since the last non-beta? Don't defend multi-million-dollar corporations, unless you work for them.


----------



## larvabom

How does the 4201 Bios works with your 5950X. I hear some people have all sort of issues with their Crosshair VIII Dark and 5950X with that Bios. I'm on 4006 Bios and Its seem OK at stock, I'm tempted to update to 4201 but I'm so hesitant.
Thanks


----------



## GRABibus

larvabom said:


> How does the 4201 Bios works with your 5950X. I hear some people have all sort of issues with their Crosshair VIII Dark and 5950X with that Bios. I'm on 4006 Bios and Its seem OK at stock, I'm tempted to update to 4201 but I'm so hesitant.
> Thanks


3801 remains the best performances + stability and windows 11 ready.
Vid is not stuck at 1,425V with EDC > 140Amps, like all Bioses released after 3801.


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> 3801 remains the best performances + stability and windows 11 ready.
> Vid is not stuck at 1,425V with EDC > 140Amps, like all Bioses released after 3801.


...which is why I have 3801 for both my X570s (CH8 Hero, CH8 DarkH)


----------



## Kelutrel

stimpy88 said:


> A release of the tool you made would be beneficial to the community, as ScatterBencher seems to want to keep his to himself...


Ok, hopefully this weekend I will have the time to clean it up a bit and add some instructions and release it


----------



## CyrIng

I switched to BIOS 4201, no regression encountered so far.

Good *low* Vcore during idle states










And features of _CoreFreq_ with a max 70C temperature


----------



## J7SC

Kelutrel said:


> Ok, hopefully this weekend I will have the time to clean it up a bit and add some instructions and release it


Quick question for you re. the deep bowls of Asus X570 bios - would the X570 (Dark Hero) have an asynchronous clock option somewhere (ie. use 105 MHz for CPU, RAM but keep PCIe at 100) ? I know the 670E has it, but I haven't found anything similar in X570. Tx


----------



## Kelutrel

J7SC said:


> Quick question for you re. the deep bowls of Asus X570 bios - would the X570 (Dark Hero) have an asynchronous clock option somewhere (ie. use 105 MHz for CPU, RAM but keep PCIe at 100) ? I know the 670E has it, but I haven't found anything similar in X570. Tx


Not that I know of. In the past I thought that the "Extreme Tweaker\Tweaker's Paradise\Force OC Mode Disable" setting was somehow related to unlinking the BCLK from the other clocks, because of its description, but I have never been able to make it work and I am not sure if it has any meaning in that regard.


----------



## J7SC

Kelutrel said:


> Not that I know of. In the past I thought that the "Extreme Tweaker\Tweaker's Paradise\Force OC Mode Disable" setting was somehow related to unlinking the BCLK from the other clocks, because of its description, but I have never been able to make it work and I am not sure if it has any meaning in that regard.


Thanks ! I checked 'Force OC Mode Disable' before a while back; couldn't make it work then but might give it another shot when I have more time.


----------



## Kelutrel

stimpy88 said:


> A release of the tool you made would be beneficial to the community, as ScatterBencher seems to want to keep his to himself...


Here I release the windows executable for the tool to show the peak frequency of the cores when progressively loaded: ropbench_v1.51.zip
I named it RopBench, please read the README for instructions.
It should provide very similar data to the NopBench that SkatterBencher used.
I grant that the archive and the files are virus free, but feel free to take any additional precaution you may see fit.
The SHA-256 of the original archive is: 80c0bb285b8d0a342e9c32c0cd574de736c6c764579b041db483cfe9e5a3d577


----------



## DvL Ax3l

Kelutrel said:


> Here I release the windows executable for the tool to show the peak frequency of the cores when progressively loaded: ropbench.zip
> I named it RopBench, please read the README for instructions and required tools.
> It should provide very similar data to the NopBench that SkatterBencher used.
> I grant that the archive and the files are virus free, but feel free to take any additional precaution you may see fit.
> The SHA-256 of the original archive is: 381ff1ebfc7164b356ebd34a69092330e68b55960e51ccc7d070bc0977eb1a8d


Now it will be very intersting to check bios 3801 vs 4201 behavior


----------



## CyrIng

*BIOS 4201*
*EDC Tweak*

EDC @ 10A


















Limit of 3950X is found @ 4775 MHz with absolute frequency peak @ 4800 MHz










Vcore offset is being tuned for the same frequency results but keeping low voltage and temperature while idle


----------



## Kelutrel

CyrIng said:


> *BIOS 4201*
> *EDC Tweak*
> 
> EDC @ 10A
> 
> View attachment 2580459
> 
> View attachment 2580460
> 
> 
> Limit of 3950X is found @ 4775 MHz with absolute frequency peak @ 4800 MHz
> 
> View attachment 2580461
> 
> 
> Vcore offset is being tuned for the same frequency results but keeping low voltage and temperature while idle


Uhmmmm... I nearly halved my usual performance with this, I have a 5950X and I just changed EDC to 10 and undervolted the cpu by 0.03125v .

I got this in BenchMaestro with EDC 10:










While my usual configuration with EDC 140 and no undervolt gets this:









Is your experience any different ?


----------



## CyrIng

Kelutrel said:


> Is your experience any different ?


Our Processors and OS differ but my experience using the integrated benchmark of 7-zip is giving the following:

EDC Tweak is apparently still possible with BIOS version 4201
Tweak is resulting with ~ 2000 total MIPS
A complete Linux Kernel build and also CoreFreq' Conic Compute are stable with EDC Tweak; measured temperature (71 C) and consumed Package / Cores Power (145 W / 139 W) remain slightly above of the Processor specs.
Various idle cases remain stable so far also.

_Keeping a BIOS change log __here_



Code:


***
BIOS 3801 - PBO[Auto]
***

7-Zip [64] 17.04 : Copyright (c) 1999-2021 Igor Pavlov : 2017-08-28
p7zip Version 17.04 (locale=en_US.UTF-8,Utf16=on,HugeFiles=on,64 bits,32 CPUs x64)

x64
CPU Freq: - 64000000 - - - - - - -

RAM size:   32008 MB,  # CPU hardware threads:  32
RAM usage:   7060 MB,  # Benchmark threads:     32

                       Compressing  |                  Decompressing
Dict     Speed Usage    R/U Rating  |      Speed Usage    R/U Rating
         KiB/s     %   MIPS   MIPS  |      KiB/s     %   MIPS   MIPS

22:     118924  2981   3881 115690  |    1435181  3166   3867 122391
23:     110640  2959   3810 112729  |    1417588  3170   3870 122666
24:     107608  2962   3906 115701  |    1398690  3178   3863 122767
25:     105546  2999   4019 120508  |    1378238  3184   3852 122654
----------------------------------  | ------------------------------
Avr:            2975   3904 116157  |             3174   3863 122619
Tot:            3075   3883 119388

***
BIOS 4201 - PBO[Manual] - EDC Tweak 10A
***

7-Zip [64] 17.04 : Copyright (c) 1999-2021 Igor Pavlov : 2017-08-28
p7zip Version 17.04 (locale=en_US.UTF-8,Utf16=on,HugeFiles=on,64 bits,32 CPUs x64)

x64
CPU Freq: - - - - - - - - -

RAM size:   32012 MB,  # CPU hardware threads:  32
RAM usage:   7060 MB,  # Benchmark threads:     32

                       Compressing  |                  Decompressing
Dict     Speed Usage    R/U Rating  |      Speed Usage    R/U Rating
         KiB/s     %   MIPS   MIPS  |      KiB/s     %   MIPS   MIPS

22:     120504  3005   3901 117227  |    1467766  3160   3961 125170
23:     111952  2933   3889 114066  |    1438227  3139   3965 124452
24:     108923  2962   3954 117114  |    1428968  3174   3952 125425
25:     106890  2986   4088 122043  |    1412278  3186   3945 125683
----------------------------------  | ------------------------------
Avr:            2972   3958 117613  |             3165   3956 125182
Tot:            3068   3957 121397


----------



## Kelutrel

CyrIng said:


> Our Processors and OS differ but my experience using the integrated benchmark of 7-zip is giving the following:
> 
> EDC Tweak is apparently still possible with BIOS version 4201
> Tweak is resulting with ~ 2000 total MIPS
> A complete Linux Kernel build and also CoreFreq' Conic Compute are stable with EDC Tweak; measured temperature (71 C) and consumed Package / Cores Power (145 W / 139 W) remain slightly above of the Processor specs.
> Various idle cases remain stable so far also.
> 
> _Keeping a BIOS change log __here_
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> ***
> BIOS 3801 - PBO[Auto]
> ***
> 
> 7-Zip [64] 17.04 : Copyright (c) 1999-2021 Igor Pavlov : 2017-08-28
> p7zip Version 17.04 (locale=en_US.UTF-8,Utf16=on,HugeFiles=on,64 bits,32 CPUs x64)
> 
> x64
> CPU Freq: - 64000000 - - - - - - -
> 
> RAM size:   32008 MB,  # CPU hardware threads:  32
> RAM usage:   7060 MB,  # Benchmark threads:     32
> 
> Compressing  |                  Decompressing
> Dict     Speed Usage    R/U Rating  |      Speed Usage    R/U Rating
> KiB/s     %   MIPS   MIPS  |      KiB/s     %   MIPS   MIPS
> 
> 22:     118924  2981   3881 115690  |    1435181  3166   3867 122391
> 23:     110640  2959   3810 112729  |    1417588  3170   3870 122666
> 24:     107608  2962   3906 115701  |    1398690  3178   3863 122767
> 25:     105546  2999   4019 120508  |    1378238  3184   3852 122654
> ----------------------------------  | ------------------------------
> Avr:            2975   3904 116157  |             3174   3863 122619
> Tot:            3075   3883 119388
> 
> ***
> BIOS 4201 - PBO[Manual] - EDC Tweak 10A
> ***
> 
> 7-Zip [64] 17.04 : Copyright (c) 1999-2021 Igor Pavlov : 2017-08-28
> p7zip Version 17.04 (locale=en_US.UTF-8,Utf16=on,HugeFiles=on,64 bits,32 CPUs x64)
> 
> x64
> CPU Freq: - - - - - - - - -
> 
> RAM size:   32012 MB,  # CPU hardware threads:  32
> RAM usage:   7060 MB,  # Benchmark threads:     32
> 
> Compressing  |                  Decompressing
> Dict     Speed Usage    R/U Rating  |      Speed Usage    R/U Rating
> KiB/s     %   MIPS   MIPS  |      KiB/s     %   MIPS   MIPS
> 
> 22:     120504  3005   3901 117227  |    1467766  3160   3961 125170
> 23:     111952  2933   3889 114066  |    1438227  3139   3965 124452
> 24:     108923  2962   3954 117114  |    1428968  3174   3952 125425
> 25:     106890  2986   4088 122043  |    1412278  3186   3945 125683
> ----------------------------------  | ------------------------------
> Avr:            2972   3958 117613  |             3165   3956 125182
> Tot:            3068   3957 121397


I am also on BIOS 4201. On my 5950X under Windows 11 the performances nearly halved when using [email protected] and undervolting the CPU by 0.03125v.
The peak single-core frequency of the single thread benchmark peaked slightly higher, but the average effective frequency was much lower and so the final performance was quite low.

On your specific hardware and OS and configuration, the result of a multithreaded benchmark which uses all the cores is higher or lower when you set [email protected]+Undervolt compared to the normal default settings without undervolt ?

What I am saying is that on a 5950X, if you set EDC to 10 and undervolt the cpu, you will get lower temperatures, less used watts, and only half the performances. And I am curious to understand if on a 3950X this is different instead.


----------



## CyrIng

Kelutrel said:


> And I am curious to understand if on a 3950X this is different instead.


It seems doing the reverse

PBO/EDC [Auto]










PBO [Manual] EDC [10A] w/ Undervolt








Case EDC of 10A:

About same temperature of 70 C
+7 W total cores power
-0.02 V peak core voltage
+150 MHz instant absolute frequency
I still have to relax other limits such as thermal but throttling may happen for very short periods that I have not monitor yet.


----------



## Kelutrel

Just because I was curious, I sampled the first 30ms of frequency change of a 5950X core when placed under sudden load, with a sampling rate of a 20th of a millisecond.
I post the picture here because it may be informative. It doesn't clearly appear in the chart, but after the first 30ms you get 5080MHz when at EDC140, 5090MHz when at EDC120, and 5100MHz when at EDC0+FMAX (this last one is slightly better for burst single-core loads but looses in the long run on every MT benchmark).











Zoom on the interesting bit:


----------



## Kelutrel

CyrIng said:


> It seems doing the reverse
> 
> PBO/EDC [Auto]
> View attachment 2580518
> 
> 
> 
> PBO [Manual] EDC [10A] w/ Undervolt
> View attachment 2580519
> 
> Case EDC of 10A:
> 
> About same temperature of 70 C
> +7 W total cores power
> -0.02 V peak core voltage
> +150 MHz instant absolute frequency
> I still have to relax other limits such as thermal but throttling may happen for very short periods that I have not monitor yet.


I'm ok with the slightly higher peak frequency of a single core after a bunch of ms, although on the 5950X I have not observed such a large variation as you.

But on a 5950X, using a single core, when at EDC10+Undervolt, the final average frequency is much lower. It's like if it peaks for a very short burst to a higher frequency, like 5070MHz, and then drops to 4000MHz and stays there so the performances in the end suffer compared to the normal EDC. And when placing the load on all the cores it is even worse, it literally burst to 3700MHz only for a very short duration and then drops to around 2000MHz. You can see this from the pictures of the BenchMaestro benchmark I posted above.

This is why I asked you, if you run a benchmark that uses all the cores and runs for at least 10 seconds, first using the EDC10+Undervolt, and then using the same BIOS version and configuration but without undervolt and with EDC set at default, everything else staying the same, what scores you would get on the 3950X.


----------



## CyrIng

Kelutrel said:


> This is why I asked you, if you run a benchmark that uses all the cores and runs for at least 10 seconds, first using the EDC10+Undervolt, and then using the same BIOS version and configuration but without undervolt and with EDC set at default, everything else staying the same, what scores you would get on the 3950X.


Somehow I'm close to your testing protocol but without duration of 10 secs.
Conic (home made) is stressing forever. What I check after-while are the Min, Max
I think I have set all BIOS settings combinations you mentioned.
I will add what I have observed is that without Undervolt the Max absolute frequency is 4800 MHz whereas frequency peak does not go above 4775 MHz when a negative offset is applied to Vcore.

I remember reading in this thread that choosing BIOS 4201 is making you loose the ability of the EDC Tweak.
With my 3950X, versions 3801 and 4201 are both providing the EDC tweak.
Is this only true for a Zen2 processor


----------



## Kelutrel

CyrIng said:


> Somehow I'm close to your testing protocol but without duration of 10 secs.
> Conic (home made) is stressing forever. What I check after-while are the Min, Max
> I think I have set all BIOS settings combinations you mentioned.
> I will add what I have observed is that without Undervolt the Max absolute frequency is 4800 MHz whereas frequency peak does not go above 4775 MHz when a negative offset is applied to Vcore.
> 
> I remember reading in this thread that choosing BIOS 4201 is making you loose the ability of the EDC Tweak.
> With my 3950X, versions 3801 and 4201 are both providing the EDC tweak.
> Is this only true for a Zen2 processor


The EDC Tweak was originally discovered by a guy named TheStilt and consisted to set EDC to 1, and then it would have been ignored by the PBO limits logic, thus making the cores peak faster to the max freq of the silicon without being limited by the EDC budget. This tweak was later changed to be a proper feature on Asus motherboards, and was called FMax Enhancer. This tweak on Zen 3 still makes the cores peak faster to their max frequency but due to the other PBO limits and, probably, somewhat more complex logics related to those limits, the actual effective clock rate is slower in my tests when it is enabled, and the benchmark scores are also lower. Additionally, it requires to review the PBO curves because the frequency change is more sudden and introduce some additional instability to a previously stable configuration. Afaik all the Asus BIOSs, including 4201, support the FMax enhancer.

Setting the EDC to 10 is not the original EDC tweak as it does not disable the PBO logics for the EDC. Additionally, on Asus motherboards, when you set EDC to 1 it simply resets it to the default 140 on Zen3, and to actually enable the EDC Tweak you have to directly use the FMax Enhancer option.

On BIOS 4201 (and on any BIOS using Agesa 1.2.0.6 or later, if I remember correctly) the EDC Tweak still works (using the FMax Enhancer option), but they also introduced a new behavior on the Zen3 and unrelated to the EDC Tweak. This new behavior is that if you raise your EDC above the default 140 then the max voltage provided to the CPU is not 1.5v anymore but 1.475v (maybe this 1.475v new limit is on BIOS 4201, and may have been lower on the previous Agesa versions). And this has been called EDC Bug, so you may have been confused by the name.

This change was added (afaik) to prevent electromigration at higher EDC and to prevent the CPU going over its max voltage of 1.5v at times. This unexpected overvoltage at higher EDC, that then imho caused the max voltage reduction at EDC>140 in the later Agesa versions, was discovered by Pier in this same forum ( the original thread ) and discussed with TheStilt, but it is not related to the EDC Tweak.

Or at least this is what I know.

Going back to your suggestion, what OS are you using ? Maybe GeekBench runs on it, and you can use that benchmark to show any difference that you get on the 3950X when setting EDC10+Undervolt compared to the normal EDC and no undervolt. Because the min/max frequency is not really telling the whole story, and a benchmark score would be better instead.


----------



## pilotter

flyinion said:


> Maybe I misread the articles but I thought this was only an issue with the new 7000 series? I know 5000 had it originally at Win11 launch and it was eventually fixed. I interpreted the articles I read as saying the new issue was specific to dual CCD 7000 series CPU's.


CapFrameX op Twitter: "Windows 11 22H2 can cause performance issues on PCs with Ryzen CPUs. This is a comparison of feature update 22H2 vs reinstallation OS (including 22H2). ▶ R9 5900 on MSI B550 + RX 6800 XT @PaulyAlcorn @TechPowerUp @hms1193 @areejs12 #Win11 #Gaming #Ryzen https://t.co/nYzzh7fXlT" / Twitter 

not yet tested myself ( I am at sea away of pc) but I will reinstall, and see what happens..


----------



## CyrIng

Kelutrel said:


> Setting the EDC to 10 is not the original EDC tweak as it does not disable the PBO logics for the EDC


Thanks for those explanations.
EDC @ 0A is same as Auto with my Zen2
EDC from 1A to 9A is permanently throttling: about the P2 P-state frequency.
EDC > specs is same as 140 A

Meanwhile, I have decrease the monitoring interval to 100 ms (rather than default 1 sec) and getting peak of 4800 MHz. Thus not linked to Vcore or offset.


----------



## Kelutrel

CyrIng said:


> Thanks for those explanations.
> EDC @ 0A is same as Auto with my Zen2
> EDC from 1A to 9A is permanently throttling: about the P2 P-state frequency.
> EDC > specs is same as 140 A
> 
> Meanwhile, I have decrease the monitoring interval to 100 ms (rather than default 1 sec) and getting peak of 4800 MHz. Thus not linked to Vcore or offset.


Yes, sorry, EDC set to 1 is the EDC Tweak, not zero. I updated the post above. Anyway the behavior you described seems to not really be the same on Zen3, so it may be specific for the Zen2 only.


----------



## CyrIng

Kelutrel said:


> Yes, sorry, EDC set to 1 is the EDC Tweak, not zero. I updated the post above. Anyway the behavior you described seems to not really be the same on Zen3, so it may be specific for the Zen2 only.


Fmax enabled, without Undervolt, is providing less peak and all Cores frequencies.
EDC 10A provides best MIPS
Log is updated with Fmax screenshots.

At first, I have followed " EDC = 1, PBO TURBO BOOST " thread; reason I set 10A


----------



## Kelutrel

CyrIng said:


> EDC 10A provides best MIPS


Not on a Zen 3, unless there is some other BIOS option or setting that enables this improvement.
I have looked at the thread you linked, and it looks like on Zen 2 they talk of EDC from 10A to 20A as optimal. This doesn't correspond to my testing on Zen 3, and at least on my hardware it looks like there is no way that that little energy can sustain my cpu.
I may be interested in understanding what changed in the role of EDC between Zen 2 and Zen 3, but I reiterate that I am not seeing the same behavior occurring on Zen 3.


----------



## CyrIng

Kelutrel said:


> Not on a Zen 3, unless there is some other BIOS option or setting that enables this improvement.
> I have looked at the thread you linked, and it looks like on Zen 2 they talk of EDC from 10A to 20A as optimal. This doesn't correspond to my testing on Zen 3, and at least on my hardware it looks like there is no way that that little energy can sustain my cpu.
> I may be interested in understanding what changed in the role of EDC between Zen 2 and Zen 3, but I reiterate that I am not seeing the same behavior occurring on Zen 3.


Not stable at all using the OCCT AVX multi-thread benchmark.

Benchmark is crashing with an EDC 10A and I have had an instant reboot.

Wherever PBO/EDC is set in BIOS, AI tweaker or AMD-Overclocking, does not make a difference. Vcore might be the clue but it's already hitting 1.5V


----------



## stimpy88

Wonderful stuff @Kelutrel ! Many thanks for making this great little utility available.

C:\RopBench>ropbench.exe -monitor_time=10
Checking HwINFO...
Sampling...
Started monitoring...
01 core peak frequency is 5162mhz
02 cores peak frequency is 5162mhz
03 cores peak frequency is 5087mhz
04 cores peak frequency is 5087mhz
05 cores peak frequency is 5087mhz
06 cores peak frequency is 5066mhz
07 cores peak frequency is 5055mhz (13% sampling noise)
08 cores peak frequency is 5037mhz
09 cores peak frequency is 5029mhz
10 cores peak frequency is 5012mhz
11 cores peak frequency is 4989mhz
12 cores peak frequency is 4966mhz
13 cores peak frequency is 4946mhz
14 cores peak frequency is 4937mhz
15 cores peak frequency is 4925mhz
16 cores peak frequency is 4912mhz (18% sampling noise)

Execution completed.
Press 'Enter' to exit...


----------



## Kelutrel

stimpy88 said:


> Wonderful stuff @Kelutrel ! Many thanks for making this great little utility available.
> 
> C:\RopBench>ropbench.exe -monitor_time=10
> Checking HwINFO...
> Sampling...
> Started monitoring...
> 01 core peak frequency is 5162mhz
> 02 cores peak frequency is 5162mhz
> 03 cores peak frequency is 5096mhz
> 04 cores peak frequency is 5056mhz
> 05 cores peak frequency is 5037mhz (11% sampling noise)
> 06 cores peak frequency is 5033mhz
> 07 cores peak frequency is 5012mhz (12% sampling noise)
> 08 cores peak frequency is 5012mhz
> 09 cores peak frequency is 4990mhz
> 10 cores peak frequency is 4972mhz
> 11 cores peak frequency is 4941mhz
> 12 cores peak frequency is 4920mhz
> 13 cores peak frequency is 4910mhz
> 14 cores peak frequency is 4887mhz
> 15 cores peak frequency is 4883mhz
> 16 cores peak frequency is 4858mhz (28% sampling noise)
> 
> Execution completed.
> Press 'Enter' to exit...


Nice. I am happy that it works. Note that when it appends "(XX% sampling noise)" it means that during the benchmark of that set of cores your OS decided that the same cores would have to be used to also perform some other background activities in parallel. The tool observes that variation of the frequency of those cores (some cores having substantially higher or lower frequency than the other cores in the set for a small amount of time), and recognises that something is not right on those samples, and considers them as noise and ignores them in its evaluations.
If the percentage of noise samples goes over 10% then the tool prints that message, just as an alert that some other OS activity was going on in background on those same cores at that same time, but for the sake of the peak frequency that message can be ignored unless it reaches like 60-80%.
To reduce the sampling noise, you can increase the monitor time up to its maximum of 30 seconds, so that the percentage of weird samples stays under 10% and is not displayed.

Just for reference, I also check the math at the end of the floating point load loop, so that if a core is unstable at its peak frequency and throws random numbers instead of exact math then the tool would print that a math error has occurred. Unfortunately the load placed on the cores is light, so that the highest peak frequency can be easily achieved without being limited by the thermal or power budgets, so this can't really be used as fully reliable stability testing.


----------



## stimpy88

Kelutrel said:


> Nice. I am happy that it works. Note that when it appends "(XX% sampling noise)" it means that during the benchmark of that set of cores your OS decided that the same cores would have to be used to also perform some other background activities in parallel. The tool observes that variation of the frequency of those cores (some cores having substantially higher or lower frequency than the other cores in that set), and recognises that something is not right on those samples, and considers them as noise and ignores them in its calculations.
> If the percentage of noise samples goes over 10% then the tool prints that message, just as an alert that some other OS activity was going on in background for those same cores, but for the sake of the peak frequency that message can be ignored unless it reaches like 60-80%.


I figured that is what the sampling message was about, but it's great to have it from the horse's mouth, as they say! It's also good to know what the limits of it are, and to simply re-run the test if it goes over 60%.

I re-upped the numbers after my first run, as I realized I had Edge open, and thought it would skew the outcome, as I was just so happy your utility worked perfectly and wanted to tell you!

I think this will be a *very* useful tool to help setup PBO and other OC activities! It will make seeing what effect those settings are having as load increases over the cores.

Once again, thank you.


----------



## Kelutrel

stimpy88 said:


> I figured that is what the sampling message was about, but it's great to have it from the horse's mouth, as they say! It's also good to know what the limits of it are, and to simply re-run the test if it goes over 60%.
> 
> I re-upped the numbers after my first run, as I realized I had Edge open, and thought it would skew the outcome, as I was just so happy your utility worked perfectly and wanted to tell you!
> 
> I think this will be a *very* useful tool to help setup PBO and other OC activities! It will make seeing what effect those settings are having as load increases over the cores.
> 
> Once again, thank you.


Thank you. One is glad to be of service. All kudos should also go to the author of HwINFO, that does the heavy lifting, and spared me from a lot of work.


----------



## Theo164

Kelutrel said:


> Here I release the windows executable for the tool to show the peak frequency of the cores when progressively loaded: ropbench.zip
> I named it RopBench, please read the README for instructions and required tools.
> It should provide very similar data to the NopBench that SkatterBencher used.
> I grant that the archive and the files are virus free, but feel free to take any additional precaution you may see fit.
> The SHA-256 of the original archive is: 381ff1ebfc7164b356ebd34a69092330e68b55960e51ccc7d070bc0977eb1a8d


Checking HwINFO...
Sampling...
Started monitoring...
01 core peak frequency is 5143mhz
02 cores peak frequency is 5131mhz
03 cores peak frequency is 4968mhz
04 cores peak frequency is 4968mhz
05 cores peak frequency is 4918mhz
06 cores peak frequency is 4918mhz
07 cores peak frequency is 4901mhz
08 cores peak frequency is 4872mhz
09 cores peak frequency is 4857mhz
10 cores peak frequency is 4828mhz
11 cores peak frequency is 4800mhz
12 cores peak frequency is 4785mhz

Execution completed.
Press 'Enter' to exit...


----------



## Margatroid

Edit: Wrong thread, was looking for Hero VII.


----------



## J7SC

@Kelutrel 

...did a few quick runs (all of them with EDC, TDC, PPT at default, L1L2 prefetch enabled) and only varying 'extra clock room' in the bios. Unfortunately, if it wasn't Windows trying to update, it was s.th. else 'calling home' so a few runs below got badly affected (see sampling noise). Still, a nifty utility


----------



## Kelutrel

J7SC said:


> @Kelutrel
> 
> ...did a few quick runs (all of them with EDC, TDC, PPT at default, L1L2 prefetch enabled) and only varying 'extra clock room' in the bios. Unfortunately, if it wasn't Windows trying to update, it was s.th. else 'calling home' so a few runs below got badly affected (see sampling noise). Still, a nifty utility
> View attachment 2581146


I see... the tool is supposed to be run while there aren't other heavy activities in background, hence the weird readings. Eventually, you may want to wait until Windows completed its tasks, to receive more consistent and useful readings.

But I am curious, what is "extra clock room" in the bios ? Maybe you mean "Max CPU Boost Clock Override" ?


----------



## J7SC

Kelutrel said:


> I see... the tool is supposed to be run while there aren't other heavy activities in background, hence the weird readings. Eventually, you may want to wait until Windows completed its tasks, to receive more consistent readings.
> 
> But I am curious, what is "extra clock room" in the bios ? Maybe you mean "Max CPU Boost Clock Override" ?


... easier said than done (re. no other heavy activities in the background). I have a temp install of a RTX 4090 that is currently still on air (using fan software) and that will get water-cooled within a week or so... and yes - extra clock room is MAX CPU Boost Clock Override

Two more w/ my _daily_ settings (and more sampling noise), but I am pleased with this CPU...in 3DM TSExtr CPU tests, it shows up to 5131 MHz as actual CPU speed, though I have no idea how accurate that is.


----------



## Kelutrel

J7SC said:


> ... easier said than done (re. no other heavy activities in the background). I have a temp install of a RTX 4090 that is currently still on air (using fan software) and that will get water-cooled within a week or so... and yes - extra clock room is MAX CPU Boost Clock Override
> 
> Two more w/ may _daily_ settings (and more sampling noise), but I am pleased with this CPU...in 3DM TSExtr CPU tests, it shows up to 5131 MHz as actual CPU speed, though I have no idea how accurate that is.
> View attachment 2581163



Afaik the reading is as accurate as HwINFO is, and HwINFO is very accurate. You can doublecheck this by showing its main window, the peak frequency shown by the tool and the current frequency displayed in HwINFO will match during the test.

So yes, that is the actual peak core frequency of your cpu during "normal" tasks. Obviously, with particularly intensive tasks the cpu may clock lower, as for example intense activities using the SSE2 and AVX instruction sets would automatically downclock the cores to enforce the limits of the power budgets.

I am now working on a slightly different version of this tool, this will also increase the resistence to the sampling noise (by raising the thread priority, and running the monitoring thread on the last core) and the speed with which it finds the peak frequency.

I found a way to display the behavior of the cpu when it reacts to sudden loads, by sampling it at a very high sample rate, like I have shown in post #12654 in this same thread, and what I am trying to do in this new version is to have a chart like the one displayed in that post but displayed and refreshed in real time, so that using a tool like "PBO2 Tuner" one can change PPT/TDC/EDC/Curves directly in Windows and see how the behavior of the selected core changes, and then find the best settings for his cpu sample and thermal solution, or just understand what changed in the newer agesa versions.


----------



## stimpy88

Kelutrel said:


> I found a way to display the behavior of the cpu when it reacts to sudden loads, by sampling it at a very high sample rate, like I have shown in post #12654 in this same thread, and what I am trying to do in this new version is to have a chart like the one displayed in that post but displayed and refreshed in real time, so that using a tool like "PBO2 Tuner" one can change PPT/TDC/EDC/Curves directly in Windows and see how the behavior of the selected core changes, and then find the best settings for his cpu sample and thermal solution, or just understand what changed in the newer agesa versions.


----------



## Kelutrel

stimpy88 said:


> View attachment 2581210


I released v1.1 of the RopBench tool. The file is here: ropbench_v1.1.zip
The SHA-256 of the original archive is: cae5e105c0510e357f2e3b25e51aaceba4865e8fb719dd37b6f163acbd356234

This version raises a bit the thread priority of the working cores, so it may be a bit more resilient to the lower priority background activities of the OS.
In this version I also added two new options to sample the frequency ramp up of a selected core, and write it to a .csv file that can then be opened with Excel to create a chart, or for other uses.
The resulting Excel chart (the user has to add it using the Excel tools, the RopBench tool will only provide the data in the .csv file) would look like the following:









and represents the core frequency ramp up when a load is submitted to that core only. This may (or may not) be useful for comparing pbo settings, bios versions, custom power plans, and so on.
Due to the particularly high sample rate of this latest feature, for best results it is suggested to keep the HwINFO polling period set to 100ms and have the smallest possible amount of background apps or activities during the test. I also updated the original post in this thread with the new archive link.

To add a proper GUI, and sample the chart in nearly-realtime, I may need a bit more time so I released this as an interim version.
I am also trying to remove the need of having HwINFO in background by directly reading the cpu hardware registers from the WinRing0 kernel driver, but the MSR registers specs for the Zen 3 are a bit of a hell so I don't see this happening anytime soon.


----------



## J7SC

Kelutrel said:


> I released v1.1 of the RopBench tool. The file is here: ropbench_v1.1.zip
> The SHA-256 of the original archive is: cae5e105c0510e357f2e3b25e51aaceba4865e8fb719dd37b6f163acbd356234
> 
> This version raises a bit the thread priority of the working cores, so it may be a bit more resilient to lower priority background activities of the OS.
> In this version I also added two new options to sample the frequency ramp up of a selcted core, and write it to a .csv file that can then be opened with Excel to create a chart, or for other uses.
> The resulting Excel chart (the user has to add it using the Excel tools, the RopBench tool will only provide the data) would look like the following:
> View attachment 2581269
> 
> 
> and represents the core frequency ramp up when a load is submitted to that core only. I also updated the original post in this thread with the new archive link.
> Due to the particularly high sample rate of this latest feature, for best results it is suggested to keep the HwINFO polling period set to 100ms and have the smallest possible amount of background apps or activities during the test.
> 
> To add a proper GUI, and sample the chart in nearly-realtime, I may need a bit more time so I released this as an interim version.


Thanks ! I will try this new version out tomorrow as I'm in and out this afternoon (first snow of the year here on the local mountains  )


----------



## J7SC

Kelutrel said:


> I released v1.1 of the RopBench tool. The file is here: ropbench_v1.1.zip
> The SHA-256 of the original archive is: cae5e105c0510e357f2e3b25e51aaceba4865e8fb719dd37b6f163acbd356234
> 
> This version raises a bit the thread priority of the working cores, so it may be a bit more resilient to the lower priority background activities of the OS.
> In this version I also added two new options to sample the frequency ramp up of a selected core, and write it to a .csv file that can then be opened with Excel to create a chart, or for other uses.
> The resulting Excel chart (the user has to add it using the Excel tools, the RopBench tool will only provide the data in the .csv file) would look like the following:
> View attachment 2581269
> 
> 
> and represents the core frequency ramp up when a load is submitted to that core only. This may (or may not) be useful for comparing pbo settings, bios versions, custom power plans, and so on.
> Due to the particularly high sample rate of this latest feature, for best results it is suggested to keep the HwINFO polling period set to 100ms and have the smallest possible amount of background apps or activities during the test. I also updated the original post in this thread with the new archive link.
> 
> To add a proper GUI, and sample the chart in nearly-realtime, I may need a bit more time so I released this as an interim version.
> I am also trying to remove the need of having HwINFO in background by directly reading the cpu hardware registers from the WinRing0 kernel driver, but the MSR registers specs for the Zen 3 are a bit of a hell so I don't see this happening anytime soon.


... @Kelutrel - Google blocked it because of a Virus. MS Defender virus software also identified the actual virus (dated Nov7). Per below, earlier version from the same source


----------



## Kelutrel

J7SC said:


> ... @Kelutrel - Google blocked it because of a Virus. MS Defender virus software also identified the actual virus (dated Nov7). Per below, earlier version from the same source
> View attachment 2581455


There is no virus in my original archive. And there is no virus in the current downloadable file. The tool reads the shared memory of HwINFO (Martin knows), and that behavior or the fact that the executable is packed is interpreted as some kind of unknown virus, but it is a false positive. I am looking into how to let Microsoft know that it is a valid executable. Thank you for alerting me.

UPDATE:
I just opened a ticket with Microsoft asking them to verify and confirm this as a Microsoft Defender false positive. I will update it here when the tool is whitelisted. In the meantime, be safe that if the zip archive has the SHA-256 that I wrote above in post 12675 then there is no virus in it.


----------



## dboom

Kelutrel said:


> On BIOS 4201 (and on any BIOS using Agesa 1.2.0.6 or later, if I remember correctly) the EDC Tweak still works (using the FMax Enhancer option), but they also introduced a new behavior on the Zen3 and unrelated to the EDC Tweak. This new behavior is that if you raise your EDC above the default 140 then the max voltage provided to the CPU is not 1.5v anymore but 1.475v (maybe this 1.475v new limit is on BIOS 4201, and may have been lower on the previous Agesa versions). And this has been called EDC Bug, so you may have been confused by the name.


With CoreIsolation disable that 1.475v "bug" is gonne. Also i have [email protected], tested with it at 160 too.


----------



## J7SC

Kelutrel said:


> There is no virus in my original archive. And there is no virus in the current downloadable file. The tool reads the shared memory of HwINFO, and that behavior or the fact that the executable is packed is interpreted as some kind of unknown virus, but it is a false positive. I am looking into how to let Microsoft know that it is a valid executable.


Thanks - and not making any accusations against you, btw. Perhaps the portal where it is loaded has a new issue. As you know, the first version downloaded and installed fine but this one got stopped first by Google. I then checked with MS Defender and it actually named the (ransomware?) - s.th. with 32 ! htm, with a Nov7 build-date. I did take a screenshot, but the system suddenly rebooted during virus check, though my system is normally rock-stable.


----------



## Kelutrel

J7SC said:


> Thanks - and not making any accusations against you, btw. Perhaps the portal where it is loaded has a new issue. As you know, the first version downloaded and installed fine but this one got stopped first by Google. I then checked with MS Defender and it actually named the (ransomware?) - s.th. with 32 ! htm, with a Nov7 build-date. I did take a screenshot, but the system suddenly rebooted during virus check, though my system is normally rock-stable.


No worries. Looks like one of the next MS Defender definition updates will already fix it. They recognised it as harmless just now. MS Defender tagged as malicious my original executable too, that was generated before uploading it to the website for public retrieval. Let's wait and see..


----------



## Kelutrel

dboom said:


> With CoreIsolation disable that 1.475v "bug" is gonne. Also i have [email protected], tested with it at 160 too.
> View attachment 2581462
> View attachment 2581463


Do you have a Zen 3 running with EDC>140 in that screenshot ? That would be weird ... CoreIsolation is a Windows VBS feature and I wouldn't disable that.
Also, a Zen 3 CPU should not receive more than 1.5v ever, TheStilt and Pier already discussed about that exhaustively.


----------



## J7SC

Kelutrel said:


> No worries. Looks like one of the next MS Defender definition updates will already fix it. They recognised it as harmless just now. MS Defender tagged as malicious my original executable too, that was generated before uploading it to the website for public retrieval. Let's wait and see..


Ok thanks ! I like your contributions here a lot  - sometimes, it is just the 'cloud hubs' where files files are stored which could be targeted by the bad guys as the hubs have a lot of traffic.


----------



## dboom

Kelutrel said:


> Do you have a Zen 3 running with EDC>140 in that screenshot ?


----------



## Kelutrel

dboom said:


> View attachment 2581469
> View attachment 2581473


Uhmmm... this is unexpected.
Are you sure that it is the CoreIsolation feature that, when enabled, reduces the voltage to 1.475v ? Isn't is possible that it is your BIOS with the enabled Dynamic OC Switcher enabled and a custom Core VID that raises it from 1.475c to 1.5v ?
I am asking just because I have a Crosshair VIII Formula so I don't have the Dynamic OC Switcher option to verify it.

Ah no... I see it now. You have FMax Enabled. If you enable FMax, the EDC that you set in the PBO settings is ignored. So you are running with EDC 140A and the EDC Tweak, and that allows the 1.5v imho.

Disable the "PBO Fmax Enhancer" in your BIOS settings and you will see that with or without Core Isolation, you will go back to 1.425v with EDC>140 like all of us.
If you keep it enabled, you can then set your EDC to whatever value you like in the PBO settings and it will not make an inch of difference as it would be overwritten.


----------



## dboom

With Fmax disabled i have lower scores in anything.
CoreIso On/Off and there is a huge diference in clocks.


----------



## Kelutrel

dboom said:


> View attachment 2581484
> 
> View attachment 2581485
> 
> 
> With Fmax disabled i have lower scores in anything.
> CoreIso On/Off and there is a huge diference in clocks.


It's not just a matter of scores. FMax on Zen 3 may cause instabilities, overvoltage, and in my experience also lower MT scores (at least in CBR20) because the EDC budget is ignored. Keeping it enabled means that the ramp up of your cores frequencies is limited only by the thermal budget, and the sudden voltage peak may also cause electromigration.

It may be that your cpu sample is particularly gold and can endure it, but it is a risk that only you can choose to take. What you would observe if it is ruining your cpu is that the PBO curve offsets that were previously stable will start to slowly (each 2-3 months or so) not be stable anymore, and require to be progressively increased to reach stability again, so pay attention to that.

Anyway, it was not the Core Isolation security feature in Windows VBS that allowed the 1.5v, but the FMax set to enabled that causes the EDC>140 to be ignored whatever you set it in the BIOS.


----------



## dboom

I can confirm that with FMax disabled my vid is capped at 1.425.
I can confirm that with CoreIsolation ON and Fmax Enabled my vid is capped at 1.425 too, with CoreIsolation OFF i have 1.5
My 5900x is running fine since 2020, it's stable at 280W too...for 10 12mins : )))
Except that i didn't had any issues, at 260W it can run for hours. Electromigration was present in P4 era too and didn't had any issues with that. Thermal is not an issue, i had 2x360PE and now i have 2x x360M EK with 2xD5, waiting for the EK GPU WB now.
Thx for the clarification, i never thought about Fmax, plenty were saying that the results are low with it enabled, not in my case.
No issues in CB20, those are all mine while playing with OC: smardu`s Cinebench - R20 score: 8871 cb with a Ryzen 9 5900X


----------



## usoldier

Hello, what is currently the best stable bios for a 5800X3D ? 
Thanks


----------



## Kelutrel

dboom said:


> I can confirm that with FMax disabled my vid is capped at 1.425.
> I can confirm that with CoreIsolation ON and Fmax Enabled my vid is capped at 1.425 too, with CoreIsolation OFF i have 1.5
> My 5900x is running fine since 2020, it's stable at 280W too...for 10 12mins : )))
> Except that i didn't had any issues, at 260W it can run for hours. Electromigration was present in P4 era too and didn't had any issues with that. Thermal is not an issue, i had 2x360PE and now i have 2x x360M EK with 2xD5, waiting for the EK GPU WB now.
> Thx for the clarification, i never thought about Fmax, plenty were saying that the results are low with it enabled, not in my case.
> No issues in CB20, those are all mine while playing with OC: smardu`s Cinebench - R20 score: 8871 cb with a Ryzen 9 5900X


Mate, I don't know what to tell you. On my motherboard and Windows 11, with Core Isolation enabled and FMax enabled, I still touch 1.5v whatever EDC I set, and the EDC setting makes no difference:










I explained to you what is happening, and I told you the truth, do with it whatever you like.
Imho people should not disable VBS or Core Isolation, but anyone is free to do what he wants with his hardware.


----------



## dboom

Kelutrel said:


> I explained to you what is happening, and I told you the truth, do with it whatever you like.


I belive you, i shared what is happening in my case.
I don't care about VBS anyway. 
Many thx for the Fmax tip, it never went through my mind.


----------



## Kelutrel

J7SC said:


> Ok thanks ! I like your contributions here a lot  - sometimes, it is just the 'cloud hubs' where files files are stored which could be targeted by the bad guys as the hubs have a lot of traffic.


In the end there was no way to make Microsoft Defender accept the executable packer that I used, as it was too similar to the way that other malicious software hides itself.
However, as they recognised that the tool is harmless, I am now releasing RopBench v1.2 without passing it through the executable packer.
This version is exactly like RopBench v1.1 but without the compressed data, so the resulting executable is slightly bigger, and hopefully will not trigger Microsoft Defender.
Here is the link: ropbench_v1.2.zip
The SHA-256 of the original archive is: 9172ff295fcd40519be43dd14663deab32dd3871203e531c9bcec29d45f3785f


----------



## J7SC

Kelutrel said:


> In the end there was no way to make Microsoft Defender accept the executable packer that I used, as it was too similar to the way that other malicious software hides itself.
> However, as they recognised that the tool is harmless, I am now releasing RopBench v1.2 without passing it through the executable packer.
> This version is exactly like RopBench v1.1 but without the compressed data, so the resulting executable is slightly bigger, and hopefully will not trigger Microsoft Defender.
> Here is the link: ropbench_v1.2.zip
> The SHA-256 of the original archive is: 9172ff295fcd40519be43dd14663deab32dd3871203e531c9bcec29d45f3785f


Thanks for the update !  I ran ropbench_1.2 a few times...only one incidence of 'sampling noise', probably a real event given the various things Win 10 Pro (downgraded from Win 11 Pro) is up to when I'm not looking. Below, run on the left is 'daily', run on the right is 'Max boost override'.

Overall settings are the same apart from max boost override; PBO PPT, EDC, TDC on default on the CH8 DarkHero, fMax on auto (a.k.a. not enabled), L1L2 prefetch auto, no offset voltages, ambient 20 C. FYI, the system has extensive water-cooling (1320x64 triple core rads, push-pull etc).


----------



## 050

Pretty cool tool! I’ve played around a little with v1.2 and it’s great! Would it be possible for you to add a mode where instead of loading a sequentially higher number of cores, it instead loads a single core at a time with that lightly threaded load, to try to provoke (and report) the highest clock speed of each core? Similar to core cycler behavior, but instead of testing for load stability it’d be to check the highest clocks. That would be super cool if possible as a launch parameter, but if not I understand.


----------



## Kelutrel

050 said:


> Pretty cool tool! I’ve played around a little with v1.2 and it’s great! Would it be possible for you to add a mode where instead of loading a sequentially higher number of cores, it instead loads a single core at a time with that lightly threaded load, to try to provoke (and report) the highest clock speed of each core? Similar to core cycler behavior, but instead of testing for load stability it’d be to check the highest clocks. That would be super cool if possible as a launch parameter, but if not I understand.


No problem, programming is my passion. I will add this option in the weekend.


----------



## evilhf

Reous said:


> Sadly it is not possible. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crosshair VIII Formula 4006
> 
> 
> MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediafire.com


share mine with the two bios for formula modified by @Reous , the 4006 version has a consistently better multicore than the 4201.


----------



## Kelutrel

Lol ... I can see where this is going ... kudos to 050 for thinking about it


----------



## Kelutrel

I released v1.3 of the RopBench tool. The file is here: ropbench_v1.3.zip
The SHA-256 of the original archive is: 96d3f721ec669afc9305bf72b3415c066a69477ac8d9ba8b00c9c11414d8f34c

In this version I added the -one_at_a_time option that will sample each core in isolation and display its peak frequency.
Please be aware that testing each core in isolation prevents the tool from recognising sampling noise, that is usually recognised by a few cores having a reduced frequency compared to the other cores, so if there are activities in background they will impact the results.
I may think about adding some logic in the future to delay the readings until the cpu stabilises on less than 5% load for 15 seconds or something like that, or you may want to use the task manager to monitor your cpu until there is no more background activity before running the tool.
I also slightly changed the configuration proposed for HwINFO so to set the two polling periods related to the disk and the embedded controllers to 9000 cycles so to reduce the chances of those readings being captured while the cores are sampled and causing more sampling noise.

A bit of technical details about the cpu frequencies reached by the cores when tested in isolation, for anyone interested:
Each Zen 3 core has 6 ALUs and 4 FPUs and a fairly long instruction pipeline. The convergent series function that I use to place a load on the core is probably using no more than 1 ALU and 1-2 FPUs and it is probably not using any pipelining or memory access at all (in the loop, each math operation requires the previous result). This also reduces the thermal and energy requirements of the sampled core and allows it to peak to nearly the silicon max frequency.
So this kind of load is more similar to the I/O activities that the cores are constantly performing for the OS to access the external devices or interrupts or buses, more than the load that is generated when testing for stability or for benchmark scores. You very rarely see the core reach these frequencies during the standard OS usage because a normal I/O operation takes 1-2ms at most (and more usually 100 microseconds) and if you look at the charts I published above you can see that in those first couple of milliseconds the core frequency has a smaller peak and then drops before peaking again much later. So usually an I/O operation doesn't literally have the time to reach the peak core frequency that this tool shows.


----------



## 050

Very cool! It works exactly as I had hoped and provokes each core to boost up. Thank you for making that addition, and well done on your tool. It is neat getting to check how high each of the cores boosts; it has me tempted to go back and test in various conditions - different PBO settings, CO of various values, etc. That would certainly be a long process.


----------



## Kelutrel

050 said:


> Very cool! It works exactly as I had hoped and provokes each core to boost up. Thank you for making that addition, and well done on your tool. It is neat getting to check how high each of the cores boosts; it has me tempted to go back and test in various conditions - different PBO settings, CO of various values, etc. That would certainly be a long process.


No worries, I had fun.
A useful effect of that option is that you may be able to more-ore-less compare cpu bins more precisely, because if you set both cpu samples with the same PBO limits (PPT/TDC/EDC) and curves and boost frequency, and take care to not have background activities in your OS, and you see that one of the cpus has half the cores that clock lower than the other cpu, then you can estimate that it is a slightly worse silicon in terms of max achievable peak frequency. That may prove useful to know also for past or future BIOS versions comparison, so it was definitely a cool feature to add.


----------



## J7SC

Kelutrel said:


> I released v1.3 of the RopBench tool. The file is here: ropbench_v1.3.zip
> The SHA-256 of the original archive is: 96d3f721ec669afc9305bf72b3415c066a69477ac8d9ba8b00c9c11414d8f34c
> 
> In this version I added the -one_at_a_time option that will sample each core in isolation and display its peak frequency.
> Please be aware that testing each core in isolation prevents the tool from recognising sampling noise, that is usually recognised by a few cores having a reduced frequency compared to the other cores, so if there are activities in background they will impact the results.
> I may think about adding some logic in the future to delay the readings until the cpu stabilises on less than 5% load for 15 seconds or something like that, or you may want to use the task manager to monitor your cpu until there is no more background activity before running the tool.
> I also slightly changed the configuration proposed for HwINFO so to set the two polling periods related to the disk and the embedded controllers to 9000 cycles so to reduce the chances of those readings being captured while the cores are sampled and causing more sampling noise.
> 
> A bit of technical details about the cpu frequencies reached by the cores when tested in isolation, for anyone interested:
> Each Zen 3 core has 6 ALUs and 4 FPUs and a fairly long instruction pipeline. The convergent series function that I use to place a load on the core is probably using no more than 1 ALU and 1-2 FPUs and it is probably not using any pipelining or memory access at all (in the loop, each math operation requires the previous result). This also reduces the thermal and energy requirements of the sampled core and allows it to peak to nearly the silicon max frequency.
> So this kind of load is more similar to the I/O activities that the cores are constantly performing for the OS to access the external devices or interrupts or buses, more than the load that is generated when testing for stability or for benchmark scores. You very rarely see the core reach these frequencies during the standard OS usage because a normal I/O operation takes 1-2ms at most (and more usually 100 microseconds) and if you look at the charts I published above you can see that in those first couple of milliseconds the core frequency has a smaller peak and then drops before peaking again much later. So usually an I/O operation doesn't literally have the time to reach the peak core frequency that this tool shows.


...looking forward to the new version early next week as my 5950X system is now getting a new GPU waterblock integrated. On the frequencies reached in versions 1.1 and 1.2, I actually managed a core/thread spike to ~ 5.7 GHz (screenshot once the system is back together...), all on default voltages and PBO values (apart from CO).

I typically run 3DM TimeSpyExtreme / Custom / _CPU only_ after ropbench to confirm peak core speeds with a heavier CPU load...a peak of ~ 5.131 GHz w/that is typical with the 'daily settings I showed above. That is ~ 31 MHz lower than the peak shown with the equivalent ropbench 1.2 run and same settings.


----------



## Kelutrel

J7SC said:


> ...looking forward to the new version early next week as my 5950X system is now getting a new GPU waterblock integrated. On the frequencies reached in versions 1.1 and 1.2, I actually managed a core/thread spike to ~ 5.7 GHz (screenshot once the system is back together...), all on default voltages and PBO values (apart from CO).


5.7GHz ? On a 5950X core ? No way.

The highest you can go is probably 5.25GHz . I doubt HwINFO would report anything above that.


----------



## J7SC

Kelutrel said:


> 5.7GHz ? On a 5950X core ? No way.


While it was briefly just one core/thread, I was more surprised than anyone...and as I said, default voltages and extensive cooling. I took a screenie and will show the HWInfo snippet when my system is back together after redoing the loop / adding a GPU block (hopefully finished this long weekend).


----------



## 050

for what it's worth, I've seem hwinfo64 bug out some times, especially in the effective clocks section - reporting effective clock rates above the core clock maximums my chip has reached (or could reasonably reach)- most typically a minor but up to ~5.6-5.8ghz, but sometimes it will but to something like a 9.2ghz effective clock. Not realistic in any way, obviously. I suspect that's due to some time stamping comparison bug happening but I do not know the specifics of how effective clock is calculated. I haven't seen that same issue in the core clocks section, but perhaps it's similar if you're seeing those spikes there.


----------



## 050

In a case of funny coincidence/timing, I just downloaded the latest version (0.9.2.0) of corecycler and noticed that a "boost tester" utility was added in the tools folder- so a similar sort of tool as the -one_at_a_time option! That one however doesn't link into hwinfo64 so it doesn't report any clock speeds in the command line printout. Nice to have more options for testing things via various tools, so thank you again.


----------



## J7SC

Kelutrel said:


> 5.7GHz ? On a 5950X core ? No way.
> 
> The highest you can go is probably 5.25GHz . I doubt HwINFO would report anything above that.


...well, here you go: as promised, 'supposedly' 5793 MHz per HWInfo during a ropbench...while HWInfo is usually fairly accurate on CPU matters, I don't really think that a core in my 5950X would run that fast on water...I think it may relate to the much shorter polling interval in ropbench catching some spikes, but I am not sure.

...with max settings at ~ 5130 in bios, it will hit 5111 according to 3DM. I haven't tried the higher settings I showed before > here as I was not benching the new 4090 (up to 600 W ) on air. I finished the water-block conversion earlier today and will start running it harder (including CPU related apps) once everything had a chance to go through a couple of heat cycles. Re. below, I still have to do some clean-up on tubes and wiring, but everything works great.


----------



## Kelutrel

J7SC said:


> ...well, here you go: as promised, 'supposedly' 5793 MHz per HWInfo during a ropbench...while HWInfo is usually fairly accurate on CPU matters, I don't really think that a core in my 5950X would run that fast on water...I think it may relate to the much shorter polling interval in ropbench catching some spikes, but I am not sure.
> 
> ...with max settings at ~ 5130 in bios, it will hit 5111 according to 3DM. I haven't tried the higher settings I showed before > here as I was not benching the new 4090 (up to 600 W ) on air. I finished the water-block conversion earlier today and will start running it harder (including CPU related apps) once everything had a chance to go through a couple of heat cycles. Re. below, I still have to do some clean-up on tubes and wiring, but everything works great.
> 
> View attachment 2582519


Yeah, I agree that it looks more like a reading error. Or your 5950X is a 7950X in disguise


----------



## minitt_1216

Not overclock related but is there anyone here having trouble controlling X570 DARK HERO motherboard's ARGB headers with 3rd party software like OpenRGB/SignalRGB ?


----------



## shaolin95

minitt_1216 said:


> Not overclock related but is there anyone here having trouble controlling X570 DARK HERO motherboard's ARGB headers with 3rd party software like OpenRGB/SignalRGB ?


Have you tried the SignalRGB discord? is the best place for support and dealing with compatibility issues etc


----------



## blodflekk

openRGB worked fine for me for controlling mobo lights on the dark hero


----------



## Kelutrel

I released v1.41 of the RopBench tool. The file is here: ropbench_v1.41.zip
The SHA-256 of the original archive is: a46bdf1edf41eb86e2003dead9bb5c71bcb315422c15cf497832ad69abefe226

In this version I finally got rid of the HwINFO integration and the tool now reads all the required data directly from the CPU MSRs ( AMD reference manuals ).
To read these values the tool uses the WinRing0 signed driver, already included in the archive, and needs to run as administrator.
This update made the tool a bit more precise, as I am now considering only the P0 state when monitoring the peak core frequency, but I have not changed much else.


----------



## Anthosm

Hi guys, so I've had a 5950x/dark hero since release, played around the first couple of months with curve/pbo and all that but at some point got tired with it all and just left it at with a simple pbo and carried on until pretty much today. When I was playing around a couple of years ago I realized that my chip wasn't really a "golden" sample, hell probs not even a bronze. Looking at my old benchmarks results I would get somewhat standard settings 660 and 12000 at cpu-z. My best was with a 280/190/150 that gave me 685 and 12975. I was on the 3801 bios and decided today to re-run some tests. I was getting 630 on cpu-z. Upgraded to 4201. Tried a bit back and forth in the bios and at some point got a bit bored (couldn't break more than 640 in cpu-z, max clock on any core would jump at best to 4700mhz) and just decided to put the pbo back on motherboard limits (what I always used to have it on) and just drop it for now. Then for whatever reason checked hwinfo and saw this. (pic attached). Is that value anywhere remotely true? It has to be an erroneous value right? (for whatever is worth earlier in the day it was reporting a more sensical value). All I did all day was just change back and forth between motherboard values, auto etc. Didn't mess around with anything else.

Additionally I just did a hard bios reset (button back of the mb). And at least for now aside from wattage being reported normal it seems that cpu-z value is kinda back to how it was (got 665~ish) and the cores seems to be boosting a lot more properly.

So what I wanna ask is:
1) that value has to have been reported wrong right??
2) still after 2 years these bioses do these things were even if you disable some settings or change some values they are still being retained as active unless you hard reset? (I used to also get this in the past where I would play around with the curve and instead of putting every value back to 0 I would just disable the curve and the pc would still behave as if it was active and giving me whea errors, took me a lot of pain and frustration until I realized I had to hard reset to be able to properly "re-stock" the settings).


----------



## Kelutrel

Anthosm said:


> Hi guys, so I've had a 5950x/dark hero since release, played around the first couple of months with curve/pbo and all that but at some point got tired with it all and just left it at with a simple pbo and carried on until pretty much today. When I was playing around a couple of years ago I realized that my chip wasn't really a "golden" sample, hell probs not even a bronze. Looking at my old benchmarks results I would get somewhat standard settings 660 and 12000 at cpu-z. My best was with a 280/190/150 that gave me 685 and 12975. I was on the 3801 bios and decided today to re-run some tests. I was getting 630 on cpu-z. Upgraded to 4201. Tried a bit back and forth in the bios and at some point got a bit bored (couldn't break more than 640 in cpu-z, max clock on any core would jump at best to 4700mhz) and just decided to put the pbo back on motherboard limits (what I always used to have it on) and just drop it for now. Then for whatever reason checked hwinfo and saw this. (pic attached). Is that value anywhere remotely true? It has to be an erroneous value right? (for whatever is worth earlier in the day it was reporting a more sensical value). All I did all day was just change back and forth between motherboard values, auto etc. Didn't mess around with anything else.
> 
> Additionally I just did a hard bios reset (button back of the mb). And at least for now aside from wattage being reported normal it seems that cpu-z value is kinda back to how it was (got 665~ish) and the cores seems to be boosting a lot more properly.
> 
> So what I wanna ask is:
> 1) that value has to have been reported wrong right??
> 2) still after 2 years these bioses do these things were even if you disable some settings or change some values they are still being retained as active unless you hard reset? (I used to also get this in the past where I would play around with the curve and instead of putting every value back to 0 I would just disable the curve and the pc would still behave as if it was active and giving me whea errors, took me a lot of pain and frustration until I realized I had to hard reset to be able to properly "re-stock" the settings).
> View attachment 2583790


It is most probably correct. When you set the pbo to motherboard limits, it will use whatever max power limits your motherboard is able to sustain, and for the dark hero it is very possible that the max PPT is 400W. I think that it is 400W or 500W on my motherboard too. I would suggest to not keep the PBO configured at motherboard limits unless you know what you are doing and you have a good thermal solution.

In any case, there is a pretty smart module in your 5950X called FIT, that will not allow your cpu to bite more that it can chew, so you are probably safe if not for the high temperature (obviously it may reduce the life expectancy of your silicon, but any overclock may cause that in some measure).

Also, 660/12000 for a stock 5950X in cpu-z is pretty much normal. You can definitely improve that anyway, by:

Lowering your thermals
Lowering your PBO curve offsets
Increasing the PBO power limits


----------



## Anthosm

Kelutrel said:


> It is most probably correct. When you set the pbo to motherboard limits, it will use whatever max power limits your motherboard is able to sustain, and for the dark hero it is very possible that the max PPT is 400W. I think that it is 400W or 500W on my motherboard too. I would suggest to not keep the PBO configured at motherboard limits unless you know what you are doing and you have a good thermal solution.
> 
> In any case, there is a pretty smart module in your 5950X called FIT, that will not allow your cpu to bite more that it can chew, so you are probably safe if not for the high temperature.
> 
> Also, 660/12000 for a stock 5950X in cpu-z is pretty much normal. You can definitely improve that anyway, by:
> 
> Lowering your thermals
> Lowering your PBO curve offsets
> Increasing the PBO power limits


Yeah, the "hard reset values" of 660/12000 are good for stock settings. I was just puzzled as having had "stock" settings prior I was getting 630s and lousy boost even though I had similar values as in the past. Had to hard reset, put the same values again, and then normal behaviour. At some point also just messing around with PBO (didn't use any manual values, just switching between auto and motherboard) for whatever reason it was booting into windows with a max freq of 0.5ghz (took ages to boot into). I had no idea what made it behave like that. That's when I had enough and decided to do a hard reset. It's just kinda annoying to always have to hard reset the settings to be sure things have trully went back to their default values. It had been that long to mess with the bios that I had forgotten this issue existed.


----------



## Kelutrel

Anthosm said:


> Yeah, the "hard reset values" of 660/12000 are good for stock settings. I was just puzzled as having had "stock" settings prior I was getting 630s and lousy boost even though I had similar values as in the past. Had to hard reset, put the same values again, and then normal behaviour. At some point also just messing around with PBO (didn't use any manual values, just switching between auto and motherboard) for whatever reason it was booting into windows with a max freq of 0.5ghz (took ages to boot into). I had no idea what made it behave like that. That's when I had enough and decided to do a hard reset. It's just kinda annoying to always have to hard reset the settings to be sure things have trully went back to their default values. It had been that long to mess with the bios that I had forgotten this issue existed.


In my experience, 99.9% of the times if you use Load Optimised Defaults, or just set back all the modified configurations to their original value, then the BIOS settings will be exactly back to factory defaults, without the need of a hard cmos reset.
But I also observed that sometimes it doesnt work perfectly. This occurs sometimes because a setting causes a different setting somewhere else to change too, and reverting the first back to its original value will not reset the second settings too.
This may or may not be intended from Asus, for example it happens when you set "ErP Ready" to Enabled that will also automatically change "USB power delivery in Soft Off state" to Disabled (if you had it enabled), and reverting the "ErP Ready" setting back to its default value will not revert the USB power delivery setting too. Anyway I never had real issues like the one you mentioned.
I heard of some cpus booting into windows with a max freq of 0.5GHz in the Asus ROG forums (and here), but that may represent a real cpu issue, possibly triggered by feeding 400W into it, that may have been solved only by shutting the PC off and back on when you decided to perform the cmos reset.


----------



## arcanexvi

Looks like new chipset drivers dropped today.


----------



## J7SC

arcanexvi said:


> Looks like new chipset drivers dropped today.


...have you noticed any performance impacts ? 

In general news, I noticed that the both the 5950X and 7950X are getting a decent discount, and the 5950X is only about ~ $50 cheaper than the 7950X in our market now. Then again, the CH8 Dark Hero X570 mobo is ~ $100 more than what I paid for it.


----------



## Kelutrel

J7SC said:


> ...have you noticed any performance impacts ?


For me, on a 5950X, going from the previous chipset drivers v4.09.23.507 to these v4.11.15.342, these were the only changes:

- The PSP Driver went from v5.19.0.0 to v5.22.0.0
_ Revision History:
-----------------
AMDPSP v5.22.0.0 -
Major changes to this driver package include:
- fix BSOD 7E while installing the PSP driver
- fix yellow bang issue

AMDPSP v5.21.0.0 - Canceled
Major changes to this driver package include:
- Add support for 0x14AC
- Provide callback support to clients
- Bug Fixes

AMDPSP v5.20.0.0 - Canceled
Major changes to this driver package include:
- Add support for 0x15C7_

- The PCI Device Driver went from 1.0.0.89 to 1.0.0.90
This looks like a dummy driver, as there isn't a revision history, and the release notes say:
_1 Overview
-----------
Windows thinks PCI as a device and require a driver for it. Therefore, we provide a null driver package, a .inf file without .sys file, to satisfy OS requirements._

No other changes.


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> ...have you noticed any performance impacts ?
> 
> In general news, I noticed that the both the 5950X and 7950X are getting a decent discount, and the 5950X is only about ~ $50 cheaper than the 7950X in our market now. Then again, the CH8 Dark Hero X570 mobo is ~ $100 more than what I paid for it.


I noticed Also that prices are much better in US or outside Europe.
I picked up a 7950X @ 700€ which was the best price in France since AM5 launch….
I also took a Asus Rog Z670e-e gaming wifi motherboard at 534€, considered in France as a very good price….


----------



## J7SC

GRABibus said:


> I noticed Also that prices are much better in US or outside Europe.
> I picked up a 7950X @ 700€ which was the best price in France since AM5 launch….
> I also took a Asus Rog Z670e-e gaming wifi motherboard at 534€, considered in France as a very good price….


I am still torn re. AM5 / 7950X (longevity of AM5 expected) and Z790 / 13900K (likely end of line for LG1700). Current AM5 though needs to do s.th. on IMC re. RAM speed, IMO.


----------



## GRABibus

J7SC said:


> I am still torn re. AM5 / 7950X (longevity of AM5 expected) and Z790 / 13900K (likely end of line for LG1700). Current AM5 though needs to do s.th. on IMC re. RAM speed, IMO.


Yes.
My choice was plateform longevity. I hesitated a long time.
And as I am gaming focused, probably I will switch my 7950X to 7800X3D next year.


----------



## pilotter

strix bios now 4408 22/11/24, lets see if the dark hero gets a new one.


----------



## J7SC

pilotter said:


> strix bios now 4408 22/11/24, lets see if the dark hero gets a new one.


...may be I finally have a reason to upgrade from bios 3801 for the Dark Hero or may be not


----------



## Blackfyre

pilotter said:


> strix bios now 4408 22/11/24, lets see if the dark hero gets a new one.


Where's the Strix thread? I am hoping to read some feedback from users. Did we get an AGESA upgrade too with this BIOS? Any changelog info? If anyone finds any interesting information or feedback, share it here please.

*Edit 1:* It's still using AGESA 1.2.0.7 as per comment here.


----------



## pilotter

Blackfyre said:


> Where's the Strix thread? I am hoping to read some feedback from users. Did we get an AGESA upgrade too with this BIOS? Any changelog info? If anyone finds any interesting information or feedback, share it here please.
> 
> *Edit 1:* It's still using AGESA 1.2.0.7 as per comment here.


ROG Strix X570-E Gaming | ROG Strix | Gaming Motherboards｜ROG - Republic of Gamers｜ROG Global (asus.com) 
yep nothing mentioned about 1.2.0.8


----------



## stimpy88

Asus is only a small company, and simply cannot employ more than one guy for making BIOS's...


----------



## Kelutrel

I released v1.51 of the RopBench tool. The file is here: ropbench_v1.51.zip
The SHA-256 of the original archive is: 80c0bb285b8d0a342e9c32c0cd574de736c6c764579b041db483cfe9e5a3d577

In this version I added a new option ( -gui ) that displays a user interface with the ability to change some hardware parameters and run the usual sampling tests, and displays some charts with the results. It should work on Zen 2/3/4, but I dont have a Zen 2 or 4 so who knows... XD
The user interface should be self-describing, and I bet on all of you being able to understand what those parameters are, but if in doubt feel free to ask.
It should look like this on a 5950X:









Consider this a beta version, I am sorry in advance for any bug or issue you may find.


----------



## stimpy88

Kelutrel said:


> I released v1.5 of the RopBench tool. The file is here: ropbench_v1.5.zip
> The SHA-256 of the original archive is: 49860d1cb1bebaaaf297172a25fa5f5fd778c3bf9fa41a6da0d60fa5bb559bb9
> 
> In this version I added a new option ( -gui ) that displays a user interface with the ability to change some hardware parameters and run the usual sampling tests, and displays some charts with the results. It should work on Zen 2/3/4, but I dont have a Zen 2 or 4 so who knows... XD
> The user interface should be self-describing, and I bet on all of you being able to understand what those parameters are, but if in doubt feel free to ask.
> It should look like this on a 5950X:
> View attachment 2584971
> 
> 
> Consider this a beta version, I am sorry in advance for any bug or issue you may find.


Thanks for the new version Kelutrel, it's amazing how far you have taken this tool in a very short time!

May I respectfully ask for the addition of an additional button, or layout change which separates the functionality of the "Set and Chart" button?

What I mean is that I would like to have a simple "Test my CPU" button, as the default option when the GUI opens, and then a separate "Set Custom Curve Offsets and Power Limits and Test" button?

Also, will changing these offsets and power limits make a permanent change in the BIOS, or just during the current Windows session?


----------



## Kelutrel

stimpy88 said:


> Thanks for the new version Kelutrel, it's amazing how far you have taken this tool in a very short time!
> 
> May I respectfully ask for the addition of an additional button, or layout change which separates the functionality of the "Set and Chart" button?
> 
> What I mean is that I would like to have a simple "Test my CPU" button, as the default option when the GUI opens, and then a separate "Set Custom Curve Offsets and Power Limits and Test" button?
> 
> Also, will changing these offsets and power limits make a permanent change in the BIOS, or just during the current Windows session?


1) Of course, I will release an updated version with two buttons shortly. Also note that the tool will set the updated values only. If a value doesn't change (aka: it has no red point near its textbox) then the tool will not send any change command to the cpu.
2) Only the current windows session. At the following reboot the BIOS will set its normal settings again.

I am now trying to create different cpu loads, heavier than the very light one already used for reaching the peak frequency, so maybe I can test more quickly for stability at various curve offsets... but this may take a bit, so in the meantime if anyone has additional requests that make sense I would be happy to add them.

UPDATE:
I posted version v1.51, displaying two separate buttons to set limits or test, above in the original post.


----------



## stimpy88

Kelutrel said:


> 1) Of course, I will release an updated version with two buttons shortly. Also note that the tool will set the updated values only. If a value doesn't change (aka: it has no red point near its textbox) then the tool will not send any change command to the cpu.
> 2) Only the current windows session. At the following reboot the BIOS will set its normal settings again.
> 
> I am now trying to create different cpu loads, heavier than the very light one already used for reaching the peak frequency, so maybe I can test more quickly for stability at various curve offsets... but this may take a bit, so in the meantime if anyone has additional requests that make sense I would be happy to add them.
> 
> UPDATE:
> I posted version v1.51, displaying two separate buttons to set limits or test, above in the original post.


Just fantastic! Thank you so much!

Now for the icky part!

I have noticed that I get very different readings when using all previous (pre 1.5) versions... Have a look, something seems to be wrong with the new version...








The 1.1 results were quick and dirty, as I had all sorts of crap running, as well as v1.51 at the same time.

One thing I did notice, and I have no idea if it's important, but the 1.51 GUI was showing an ever-increasing CPU usage as 1.1 was doing its thing. Utilisation increased with every additional core tested, and got as high as 50%, this is different than 1.51 which hovers around 1-2%.


----------



## Kelutrel

stimpy88 said:


> Just fantastic! Thank you so much!
> 
> Now for the icky part!
> 
> I have noticed that I get very different readings when using all previous (pre 1.5) versions... Have a look, something seems to be wrong with the new version...
> View attachment 2585389
> 
> The 1.1 results were quick and dirty, as I had all sorts of crap running, as well as v1.51 at the same time.
> 
> One thing I did notice, and I have no idea if it's important, but the 1.51 GUI was showing an ever-increasing CPU usage as 1.1 was doing its thing. Utilisation increased with every additional core tested, and got as high as 50%, this is different than 1.51 which hovers around 1-2%.


You are testing different things. You are using the "One at a time" test with v1.51, and the "In groups" test with v1.1, that is why you are getting different results.
Your boost limit seems to be 4990 somehow (you may have the additional boost mhz in the bios set to -50 or -60, as the default for the 5950X is 5050MHz usually, or maybe you used the "Boost" text field to lower it from the gui, or maybe you have one of those cpu-affinity utilities in background that automatically locked the ropbench process on a single core).

The "One at a time" test, uses each cpu core in isolation and retrieves its peak frequency, this in your case looks to be 4990MHz for all the cores.
The "In groups" test, uses progressively larger groups of cores (1,2,3,4,5... cores together) and retrieves their peak frequency when working together, so the displayed frequency is progressively lower.
You can see that the v1.51 tool is mentioning "Core 06 peak frequency.." while the v1.1 tool says "06 cores peak frequency", this is why I see that you are testing two different things.

In the gui window, you can select the "kind" of test using the "All cores" combobox above the "Multi Core" chart, it lists both tests.
From the command line you can select the "One at a time" test only using the option parameter with the same name, otherwise it will perform the "In groups" test.

The gui defaults the "All cores" combobox to the "One at a time" test at start, while the command line tool used the "In groups" test when launched from the command line without parameters, so it ended up running two different types of test.
Also, while its tests run, the tool v1.51 locks the cpu activity widget (you may see that it displays "Stopped" instead of a cpu busy percentage during the tests), so to prevent concurrent activities, so you will not see it display the actual cpu busy percentage while it is running its tests, and this is why you see it locked at the (last value) 1-2% while the tests are running.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

So definilly a new bios is coming!

Source here


----------



## GRABibus

DvL Ax3l said:


> So definilly a new bios is coming!
> 
> Source here


That’s promising for 7800X3D which surely will get the same option.


----------



## pilotter

yes that, will be my new cpu next year and new am5 platform, still not decided on mobo.


----------



## GRABibus

pilotter said:


> yes that, will be my new cpu next year and new am5 platform, still not decided on mobo.


I took the Asus rog strix X670E-E gaming wifi


----------



## pilotter

yes, think the hero will be overkill


----------



## finas

@safedisk can you give us info about the new agesa and Asus bios for the x570?


----------



## safedisk

finas said:


> @safedisk can you give us info about the new agesa and Asus bios for the x570?


*ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series Beta Bios 4303*

1) Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1208

*New AGESA version has been applied, but there may be bugs.
So please rollback to the previous version if you have any problems
Thanks 

ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 4303*





ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-4303.7z







drive.google.com





*ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO(WI-FI) BETA BIOS 4303*





ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-4303.7z







drive.google.com





*ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 4303*





ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-4303.7z







drive.google.com





*ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 4303*





ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-4303.7z







drive.google.com





*ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 4303*





ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-4303.7z







drive.google.com





*ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0903*





ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-EXTREME-ASUS-0903.7z







drive.google.com


----------



## AikenDrum

Kelutrel said:


> and that behavior or the fact that the executable is packed is interpreted as some kind of unknown virus


Why is the executable packed?

There's no need. A cached webpage takes more space than the average executable.

Or maybe we have different notions of what "packed" means?


----------



## Danny.ns

@safedisk Thank you!


----------



## DvL Ax3l

Bios updated to the new beta, so far everything is working, same voltage behavior with EDC > 140


----------



## Aaq

safedisk said:


> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series Beta Bios 4303*
> 
> 1) Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1208
> 
> *New AGESA version has been applied, but there may be bugs.
> So please rollback to the previous version if you have any problems
> Thanks
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 4303*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-4303.7z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO(WI-FI) BETA BIOS 4303*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-4303.7z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 4303*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-4303.7z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 4303*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-4303.7z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 4303*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-4303.7z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0903*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-EXTREME-ASUS-0903.7z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com


Can you tell us what has been improved?


----------



## GRABibus

Aaq said:


> Can you tell us what has been improved?


Never 😊


----------



## Aaq

Can't find anything on agesa 1208


----------



## Kelutrel

safedisk said:


> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series Beta Bios 4303*
> 
> 1) Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1208
> 
> *New AGESA version has been applied, but there may be bugs.
> So please rollback to the previous version if you have any problems
> Thanks
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 4303*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-4303.7z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO(WI-FI) BETA BIOS 4303*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-4303.7z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 4303*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-4303.7z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 4303*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-4303.7z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 4303*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-4303.7z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0903*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-EXTREME-ASUS-0903.7z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com


Thank you so much, Sir. I would upvote you more but this website allows me only once


----------



## CfYz

Aaq said:


> Can you tell us what has been improved?











[Übersicht] - Ultimative AM4 UEFI/BIOS/AGESA Übersicht


Weiß jemand ob die neuen ASRock Bios Versionen mit "Improve GPU compatibility for RTX 40xx" wie die Betas auf AGESA 1.2.0.7 basieren, oder auf einer älteren AGESA Version?




www.hardwareluxx.de







https://www.amd.com/en/corporate/product-security/bulletin/amd-sb-1029


----------



## Aaq

Anyone confirm or deny that they added 5800X3D PBO CO with new BIOS?


----------



## D_BRASCO

Help? After downloading CH8DH 4303 bios and using the renamer, EzFlash advises "selected file is not a proper BIOS" and won't flash bios. Trying to update from 4201 bios


----------



## Kelutrel

Just flashed 4303, all good here. One thing I noticed, on my C8F and 5950X, we lost the "PPC Adjustment" setting values.
That setting contained the values "PState 0", "PState 1","PState 2" before and up to BIOS version 4201.
It looks like now it shows the "PState 0" value only.
I did some tests with that option previously, but wasn't able to identify any difference between the three possible values, so maybe it never actually worked.


----------



## pilotter

safedisk said:


> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series Beta Bios 4303*
> 
> 1) Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1208
> 
> *New AGESA version has been applied, but there may be bugs.
> So please rollback to the previous version if you have any problems
> Thanks
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 4303*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-4303.7z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO(WI-FI) BETA BIOS 4303*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-4303.7z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 4303*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-4303.7z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 4303*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-4303.7z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 4303*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-4303.7z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0903*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-EXTREME-ASUS-0903.7z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com



Thanks sir!! updating the dark hero.


----------



## pilotter

Kelutrel said:


> Just flashed 4303, all good here. One thing I noticed, on my C8F and 5950X, we lost the "PPC Adjustment" setting values.
> That setting contained the values "PState 0", "PState 1","PState 2" before and up to BIOS version 4201.
> It looks like now it shows the "PState 0" value only.
> I did some tests with that option previously, but wasn't able to identify any difference between the three possible values, so maybe it never actually worked.


strange I do have all 3 Pstates in PPC adjustment ( advanced settings)


----------



## Kelutrel

pilotter said:


> strange I do have all 3 Pstates in PPC adjustment ( advanced settings)


Uhmmm... true, now they are there in my bios too, but they weren't there before when I retyped all of my settings, weird... thanks anyway


----------



## Buttergemuese

Huhu no problems with Bios 4303 and Dark Hero 5950x... Same performance like Bios 4201


----------



## finas

safedisk said:


> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series Beta Bios 4303*
> 
> 1) Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1208
> 
> *New AGESA version has been applied, but there may be bugs.
> So please rollback to the previous version if you have any problems
> Thanks
> 
> ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO BETA BIOS 4303*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-4303.7z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO(WI-FI) BETA BIOS 4303*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-4303.7z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII FORMULA BETA BIOS 4303*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-4303.7z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO BETA BIOS 4303*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-4303.7z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII IMPACT BETA BIOS 4303*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-4303.7z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII EXTREME BETA BIOS 0903*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-EXTREME-ASUS-0903.7z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com



Amazing as always! many thanks!


----------



## pilotter

yep looking good here, don't see any changes positive or bad.


----------



## gupsterg

Aaq said:


> Anyone confirm or deny that they added 5800X3D PBO CO with new BIOS?


Works, see my post here.


----------



## GRABibus

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D Coming in Jan 2023: 30% Faster than the Intel Core i9-13900K, Courtesy of ~200MB Cache [Rumor] | Hardware Times


The Ryzen 9 7900X3D will feature 16 cores with two 64MB cache dies or a single denser cache die with 128MB of SRAM.




www.hardwaretimes.com


----------



## hwanzi

so whats the consensus on the new beta bios?


----------



## REKLISS

I scored 9 956 in Time Spy Extreme


AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com





Really good so far, running the beta got me second place with my hardware. Not getting close to talon95 though, looks like they are on LN2.


----------



## nx1987

REKLISS said:


> View attachment 2586902
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 9 956 in Time Spy Extreme
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really good so far, running the beta got me second place with my hardware. Not getting close to talon95 though, looks like they are on LN2.


How about gaming Performance?


----------



## gupsterg

hwanzi said:


> so whats the consensus on the new beta bios?


So far UEFI 4303 on C8DH with 5800X3D has been decent for my setup.


----------



## REKLISS

nx1987 said:


> How about gaming Performance?


Gaming perf is around the same in sheer FPS-wise as the previous bios (already really good) though I did notice my 1% lows go up a few percentage points which is always a plus.


----------



## REKLISS

The XFR overclocking option for PBO was unlocked for me in this bios so I switched it to enabled. I wasnt expecting it to clock higher but CPU is at least boosting more often with it enabled for me.


----------



## Aaq

gupsterg said:


> So far UEFI 4303 on C8DH with 5800X3D has been decent for my setup.


I can also confirm I am having no issues.


----------



## 1ah1

gupsterg said:


> So far UEFI 4303 on C8DH with 5800X3D has been decent for my setup.


I installed the 22H2 version (w11) and i found that my CPU start to boost to 4550 which was not the case in 21H2.
I am using the new AGESA version ComboV2PI 1208 with 4303 on C8H


----------



## Kelutrel

1ah1 said:


> I installed the 22H2 version (w11) and i found that my CPU start to boost to 4550 which was not the case in 21H2.
> I am using the new AGESA version ComboV2PI 1208 with 4303 on C8H


Same. The Win11 22H2 update did the same to my pc even before the 4303 BIOS update so it is not related to the new bios.
I initially lost like 10% performance single core. I was able to restore the previous performances by using a couple of tools that tweak/optimize some registry keys, but I don't know which registry key did the trick.
I guess it is some registry key or power plan setting that has to do with the core parking feature, as I seem to remember that it was renewed in Win11 22H2 because of the Alder Lake cpus, so maybe something like the registry key described here and the related setting may help, but I am not completely sure (in my case I currently have the "Processor performance core parking min cores" set to 100% in my power plan, that means that no core is ever parked).


----------



## Neoony

QuickCPU might be useful here
You can make backups of power plans and even compare them easily

It can also show how much are your cores parking



StackPath



Best software I found yet for managing Power Plans

Maybe a bit too late if you dont have a backup, but still...maybe next time 

I guess someone who didnt update could export it for you (I am not on win 11)

Or you might just be able to find/figure out the setting, as this shows it all nicely including any hidden settings.


----------



## Kelutrel

Neoony said:


> QuickCPU might be useful here
> You can make backups of power plans and even compare them easily


I often use QuickCPU to change my power plans and I confirm that it is a pretty nice tool.
The same people that created QuickCPU also provide a free handy utility that automatically disables the core parking here , so there is no need to touch the windows registry.


----------



## hwanzi

Neoony said:


> QuickCPU might be useful here
> You can make backups of power plans and even compare them easily
> 
> It can also show how much are your cores parking
> 
> 
> 
> StackPath
> 
> 
> 
> Best software I found yet for managing Power Plans
> 
> Maybe a bit too late if you dont have a backup, but still...maybe next time
> 
> I guess someone who didnt update could export it for you (I am not on win 11)
> 
> Or you might just be able to find/figure out the setting, as this shows it all nicely including any hidden settings.


is that better than process lasso?


----------



## Neoony

hwanzi said:


> is that better than process lasso?


I would say its quite different

For example
Process Lasso for switching power plans (..and more, you cant really edit them I think)
QuickCPU to manage power plans and edit them and see better overview of all settings (...and more, I guess you cant switch power plans based on stuff)

QuickCPU is much more CPU / Performance focused
Process Lasso is much more about processes

I run Process Lasso and I only really use QuickCPU for the power plans features, whenever I need to.


----------



## Blackfyre

*5800X - Cinebench R20 Benchmarks:*

*BIOS 4201:*

5994, 5983, 5997, *6004*, 6001

*BIOS 4303:*

6002, 5965, 5986, 5979, *6012*

Same performance, within margin of error.

*Reverted Back to BIOS 3801 (*_since I haven't used it in a long time_*):*

*6266*, 6246, 6246, 6237, 6255

Still the best BIOS (_not compatible with 5800X3D in case anyone is wondering_), and in terms of performance it is unmatched, even for RAM Latency and L3 Cache Latency, it gives me the best results surprisingly. I have a discrete TPM module installed onto the motherboard, so I won't get the Firmware TPM hiccups that come with this old BIOS. 

I am just going to stick with it and keep using it from now on.


----------



## J7SC

Blackfyre said:


> *5800X - Cinebench R20 Benchmarks:*
> 
> *BIOS 4201:*
> 
> 5994, 5983, 5997, 6004, 6001
> 
> *BIOS 4303:*
> 
> 6002, 5965, 5986, 5979, 6012
> 
> Same performance, within margin of error.
> 
> *Reverted Back to BIOS 3801:*
> 
> 6266, 6246, 6246, 6237, 6255
> 
> Still the best BIOS in terms of performance it is unmatched. I have a discrete TPM module installed, so I won't get the hiccups anyway with this old BIOS, I might just stick with it and keep using it from now on.


Thanks for that info ...I might have mentioned before that I'm a bios-update-luddite. The two Asus X570 mobos below (CH8 H, CH8 DH) both still run 3801, and both graphics cards also have vbios updates available, but I ain't budging


----------



## stimpy88

I'm still on 3302, and see no need to update and loose performance for no good reason.


----------



## SBuck

Those 3801 scores using pbo tuner 2?



Blackfyre said:


> *5800X - Cinebench R20 Benchmarks:*
> 
> *BIOS 4201:*
> 
> 5994, 5983, 5997, *6004*, 6001
> 
> *BIOS 4303:*
> 
> 6002, 5965, 5986, 5979, *6012*
> 
> Same performance, within margin of error.
> 
> *Reverted Back to BIOS 3801 (*_since I haven't used it in a long time_*):*
> 
> *6266*, 6246, 6246, 6237, 6255
> 
> Still the best BIOS (_not compatible with 5800X3D in case anyone is wondering_), and in terms of performance it is unmatched, even for RAM Latency and L3 Cache Latency, it gives me the best results surprisingly. I have a discrete TPM module installed onto the motherboard, so I won't get the Firmware TPM hiccups that come with this old BIOS.
> 
> I am just going to stick with it and keep using it from now on.


----------



## Blackfyre

SBuck said:


> Those 3801 scores using pbo tuner 2?


Yes of course. Generally, though 3801 scores on Cinebench R20 are around ~200 points over the BIOS updates that came after. 

And the reason for this is because of maximum CPU voltage on this BIOS goes up to 1.525v I believe in single core tasks, while all the BIOS updates that come after this, it's limited to around 1.490v bursts

In real world performance from my testing before though, there isn't much difference. And of course the AGESA 1.2.0.7 and after fixed the Firmware TPM hiccup for everyone, which is why newer BIOS updates are important for those who do not have a discrete TPM installed.


----------



## J7SC

Blackfyre said:


> Yes of course. Generally, though 3801 scores on Cinebench R20 are around ~200 points over the BIOS updates that came after.
> 
> And the reason for this is because of maximum CPU voltage on this BIOS goes up to 1.525v I believe in single core tasks, while all the BIOS updates that come after this, it's limited to around 1.490v bursts
> 
> In real world performance from my testing before though, there isn't much difference. And of course the AGESA 1.2.0.7 and after fixed the Firmware TPM hiccup for everyone, which is why newer BIOS updates are important for those who do not have a discrete TPM installed.


...3801 w/ stock settings maxes at 1.494v on my setup (also TPM per board bios w/o issue).


----------



## Alemancio

BIOS 4303 did it for me.

5800x3D All Core -30 Curve and 3800MHz @ 14-14-14-40 stable as always.

Finally ASUS delivered, albeit little too late. 

Waiting for 7000x3D to switch.


----------



## 1ah1

Alemancio said:


> BIOS 4303 did it for me.
> 
> 5800x3D All Core -30 Curve and 3800MHz @ 14-14-14-40 stable as always.
> 
> Finally ASUS delivered, albeit little too late.
> 
> Waiting for 7000x3D to switch.


I cant believe it, you are right i tried 3800MHz which was a black hole for my 3800MHz cl14 4x8gb.
Now i can boot with 3800MHz c14 1900fclk


----------



## GRABibus

Alemancio said:


> BIOS 4303 did it for me.
> 
> 5800x3D All Core -30 Curve and 3800MHz @ 14-14-14-40 stable as always.
> 
> Finally ASUS delivered, albeit little too late.
> 
> Waiting for 7000x3D to switch.


Did you try to compare gaming fps with your tuned RAM and with stock RAM with 5800X3D ?

Does RAM Speed Even Matter With The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D? Escape From Tarkov RAM Benchmark Comparison - YouTube

In fact, it seems that 5800X3D doesn't care too much about RAM speed and low timings in gaming 
Of course, this surely depends on resolution and games.


----------



## Danny.ns

I've had a black hole at FCLK 1900 (tried everything) since release, november 2020. I'll report here if new BIOS fixes it for me as well.


----------



## 1ah1

Danny.ns said:


> I've had a black hole at FCLK 1900 (tried everything) since release, november 2020. I'll report here if new BIOS fixes it for me as well.


I hope it works for you like it did for me


----------



## Alemancio

GRABibus said:


> Did you try to compare gaming fps with your tuned RAM and with stock RAM with 5800X3D ?
> In fact, it seems that 5800X3D doesn't care too much about RAM speed and low timings in gaming
> Of course, this surely depends on resolution and games.


Im going to be 100% honest, I stopped caring about marginal gains ever since I was lucky enough to get a RTX 4090 heh. The CPU runs really cool now!


----------



## blodflekk

Can someone help me out with PBO? I'm running into an issue I've seen in the past but can't remember how to solve. I'm on the dark hero and am revisiting my PBO, I am trying to set PPT 220, EDC 140, TDC 140. TDC and EDC are being set and respected. PPT is showing no limit. I'm fairly confident there is some setting in BIOS preventing PPT from being respected I just can't remember what. Before you ask, fmax enhancer is off.


----------



## thejavigames

@safedisk 
Hello, I have seen that you post beta bios for the asus motherboards, I bought an asus tuf gaming b450 plus ii 1 week ago but the latest version of the bios that comes with the 3802 has a bug that prevents the pc from restarting sometimes, I am currently at 3604 without problems, do you have any information if the motherboard will update the agesa to 1.2.0.8 or will it have a new bios like the other asus? or even if you have any bios for my board in beta phase I would appreciate it, I've been trying to report the bug to asus for days so they can repair it since the 3604 doesn't have the ftpm fix and I'd like to update.
Greetings and sorry for the inconvenience


----------



## Kelutrel

blodflekk said:


> Can someone help me out with PBO? I'm running into an issue I've seen in the past but can't remember how to solve. I'm on the dark hero and am revisiting my PBO, I am trying to set PPT 220, EDC 140, TDC 140. TDC and EDC are being set and respected. PPT is showing no limit. I'm fairly confident there is some setting in BIOS preventing PPT from being respected I just can't remember what. Before you ask, fmax enhancer is off.


Save your BIOS configuration to a text file (when in the BIOS, go to "Tools", and then "User Profile" and then "Load/Save Profile from/to USB Drive", and then press Ctrl+F2 ) and then attach the resulting file to a message in this thread, and I'll be happy to check it and help.


----------



## WINTENDOX

discovering something by setting the EDC to 130 the performance improved.


----------



## blodflekk

Kelutrel said:


> Save your BIOS configuration to a text file (when in the BIOS, go to "Tools", and then "User Profile" and then "Load/Save Profile from/to USB Drive", and then press Ctrl+F2 ) and then attach the resulting file to a message in this thread, and I'll be happy to check it and help.


 Sorry for the late response. Didn't get a chance until now to get this ready for you. Here is my current settings. No PPT shown in PBO2 tuner or hwinfo


----------



## blodflekk

WINTENDOX said:


> discovering something by setting the EDC to 130 the performance improved.
> 
> View attachment 2588418


 Will likely be that by setting EDC below 140 allows the full 1.5volts whereas over 140 you'll be capped at 1.4 volts


----------



## WINTENDOX

tdelete


----------



## Kelutrel

blodflekk said:


> Sorry for the late response. Didn't get a chance until now to get this ready for you. Here is my current settings. No PPT shown in PBO2 tuner or hwinfo


Your question, in your original post, was: _I am trying to set PPT 220, EDC 140, TDC 140. TDC and EDC are being set and respected. PPT is showing no limit. I'm fairly confident there is some setting in BIOS preventing PPT from being respected I just can't remember what._

From your settings file, you have these limits configured in your BIOS:
PPT Limit [W] [300]
TDC Limit [A] [165]
EDC Limit [A] [140]
So, its expected that PPT goes over 220W, and up to 300W. Isn't this what you are observing ?

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean with "PPT is showing no limit" ?

UPDATE:
Oh, I got it now, you don't see the PPT limit displayed/reported in those utilities. That is because you have "LCLK DPM" set to Disabled in "Advanced\AMD Overclocking\AMD Overclocking\LCLK Frequency Control". It's a known bug that prevents PPT reporting.


----------



## N2Gaming

blodflekk said:


> Sorry for the late response. Didn't get a chance until now to get this ready for you. Here is my current settings. No PPT shown in PBO2 tuner or hwinfo


Can anyone confirm if saving all the bios settings to a text file is possible on any make of motherboard or is this just an ASUS specific option?


----------



## blodflekk

Kelutrel said:


> Your question, in your original post, was: I am trying to set PPT 220, EDC 140, TDC 140. TDC and EDC are being set and respected. PPT is showing no limit. I'm fairly confident there is some setting in BIOS preventing PPT from being respected I just can't remember what.
> 
> 
> 
> From your settings file, you have these limits configured in your BIOS:
> 
> PPT Limit [W] [300]
> 
> TDC Limit [A] [165]
> 
> EDC Limit [A] [140]
> 
> So, its expected that PPT goes over 220W, and up to 300W. Isn't this what you are observing ?
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean with "PPT is showing no limit" ?
> 
> 
> 
> UPDATE:
> 
> Oh, I got it now, you don't see the PPT limit displayed/reported in those utilities. That is because you have "LCLK DPM" set to Disabled in "Advanced\AMD Overclocking\AMD Overclocking\LCLK Frequency Control". It's a known bug that prevents PPT reporting.


Thank you this is what I was looking for. Yes I see why you'd be confused when you saw PPT set to 300, this was my current stable settings, not the new ones I wanted to test. But thank you again .


----------



## GRABibus

blodflekk said:


> whereas over 140 you'll be capped at 1.4 volts


1,425V 😊


----------



## N2Gaming

N2Gaming said:


> Can anyone confirm if saving all the bios settings to a text file is possible on any make of motherboard or is this just an ASUS specific option?


Bueller... .. . Bueller ... .. .


----------



## stimpy88

N2Gaming said:


> Bueller... .. . Bueller ... .. .


No it's not available on every motherboard. But it is available on a lot of them.

Check on the manufactures website.


----------



## safedisk

thejavigames said:


> @safedisk
> Hello, I have seen that you post beta bios for the asus motherboards, I bought an asus tuf gaming b450 plus ii 1 week ago but the latest version of the bios that comes with the 3802 has a bug that prevents the pc from restarting sometimes, I am currently at 3604 without problems, do you have any information if the motherboard will update the agesa to 1.2.0.8 or will it have a new bios like the other asus? or even if you have any bios for my board in beta phase I would appreciate it, I've been trying to report the bug to asus for days so they can repair it since the 3604 doesn't have the ftpm fix and I'd like to update.
> Greetings and sorry for the inconvenience








TUF-GAMING-B450-PLUS-II-ASUS-3810.7z







drive.google.com





You can try this version But still the AGESA version is 1207
Thanks


----------



## stimpy88

*ZenTimings v1.2.9 *has been released.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

safedisk said:


> *ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Series Beta Bios 4303*
> 
> 1) Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1208
> 
> *New AGESA version has been applied, but there may be bugs.
> So please rollback to the previous version if you have any problems
> Thanks *


During heavy gaming session I've notice some USB dropout that I never had before 🤔







EDIT: I've disconnected all the internal USB and reconnected, seems its solved, I don't know what's happened 😅


----------



## man from atlantis

Kelutrel said:


> I released v1.51 of the RopBench tool. The file is here: ropbench_v1.51.zip
> The SHA-256 of the original archive is: 80c0bb285b8d0a342e9c32c0cd574de736c6c764579b041db483cfe9e5a3d577
> 
> In this version I added a new option ( -gui ) that displays a user interface with the ability to change some hardware parameters and run the usual sampling tests, and displays some charts with the results. It should work on Zen 2/3/4, but I dont have a Zen 2 or 4 so who knows... XD
> The user interface should be self-describing, and I bet on all of you being able to understand what those parameters are, but if in doubt feel free to ask.
> It should look like this on a 5950X:
> View attachment 2585188
> 
> 
> Consider this a beta version, I am sorry in advance for any bug or issue you may find.


Link is expired I'm afraid


----------



## Kelutrel

man from atlantis said:


> Link is expired I'm afraid


New link for RopBench v1.51 : here


----------



## Dansane

Hi,

I'm going for a new build (my first one since ~20 years) which will have an RTX 4090 as main component. Does someone know if the X570 Crosshair VIII Extreme can keep it in its first PCIe slot, maybe even with a waterblock, maybe without?

I rarely can find experiences/information about the X570 Crosshair VIII Extreme at all, is it maybe not recommended at all?

My plan is to mainly use it for video editing with Davinci Resolve (and usual work tasks) but not really for gaming. HeHe..

Presumably I'll put a Ryzen 9 5900X in and I hope I can put 128GB RAM(?) (While I'm ok to live with lower clock rates.)

The thing is that I'm continuously having ~30°C room temperature here in Indonesia (without a PC heating on top) so I believe it would help to not go with AM5 (higher power consumption), not to take the R9 5950X, having high quality VRM/MOSFETs as in the Extreme and not to OC.. Not sure if watercooling also would help to keep room temperature "low"?

I'm happy about any thoughts, thx in advance!

Edit: Alternatively I would go with the Dark Hero, is it still/more recommendable for my case?


----------



## GRABibus

Dansane said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm going for a new build (my first one since ~20 years) which will have an RTX 4090 as main component. Does someone know if the X570 Crosshair VIII Extreme can keep it in its first PCIe slot, maybe even with a waterblock, maybe without?
> 
> I rarely can find experiences/information about the X570 Crosshair VIII Extreme at all, is it maybe not recommended at all?
> 
> My plan is to mainly use it for video editing with Davinci Resolve (and usual work tasks) but not really for gaming. HeHe..
> 
> Presumably I'll put a Ryzen 9 5900X in and I hope I can put 128GB RAM(?) (While I'm ok to live with lower clock rates.)
> 
> The thing is that I'm continuously having ~30°C room temperature here in Indonesia (without a PC heating on top) so I believe it would help to not go with AM5 (higher power consumption), not to take the R9 5950X, having high quality VRM/MOSFETs as in the Extreme and not to OC.. Not sure if watercooling also would help to keep room temperature "low"?
> 
> I'm happy about any thoughts, thx in advance!
> 
> Edit: Alternatively I would go with the Dark Hero, is it still/more recommendable for my case?


Why do you choose a « non future » for a new build ?
If you want AMD and if your rig will be dedicated mainly for gaming, I’d wait for Ryzen 7000 X3D, which should be released very soon.


----------



## Dansane

Thanks for your answer!

It will not really be for gaming but for video editing with Davinci Resolve (and usual work tasks+dev) but not really for gaming.

Actually I don't like to wait and current prices of AM5 CPU's + MB's are still high. So I think I prefer to buy kind of cheap but still good hardware which were top ~2 years ago.

Also I'm scared about the heat the Ryzen 7000 will produce compared with 5000: I'm already in a kind of sauna here 

As in a few years I'll presumably buy a complete new build I'm not gonna upgrade the build I'll go for now.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

Wish you guys an happy Christmas to all!!! Greetings from Italy!


----------



## Blackfyre

Dansane said:


> Also I'm scared about the heat the Ryzen 7000 will produce compared with 5000: I'm already in a kind of sauna here


*It doesn't matter if you go AMD or Intel these days, high end CPU's will heat up.* So don't worry about the heat from a "oh is this bad for my hardware?" type question. No it is completely normal for example for 5000 series to run at 90 degrees Celsius.

You will notice that if even if you go from $300 coolers to $1000 coolers, your temperatures will probably be similar. This is because new CPU's are designed to clock higher under stress when they are cooled better.

*If you want to control the HEAT in your room. Then you go to the BIOS and limit the power from there or set a temperature target so that CPU doesn't go past that target.*



Dansane said:


> Alternatively I would go with the Dark Hero, is it still/more recommendable for my case?


You don't need the Dark Hero or Extreme for your use case. The Hero (WiFi) itself is already more than good enough and an overkill. Unless you need a specific component that those two have that the hero lacks for example.



Dansane said:


> The thing is that I'm continuously having ~30°C room temperature here in Indonesia (without a PC heating on top) so I believe it would help to not go with AM5 (higher power consumption), not to take the R9 5950X, having high quality VRM/MOSFETs as in the Extreme and not to OC.. Not sure if watercooling also would help to keep room temperature "low"?


If you go water cooling, make sure it's good quality and researched.

If you go air cooling, make sure it's the Noctua NH-D15 (_that's the best option for air cooling_).

If you have air-conditioning, you don't need to worry about temperature anyway. Or is the room always 30 degrees Celsius and does not have a cooler?


----------



## GRABibus

DvL Ax3l said:


> Wish you guys an happy Christmas to all!!! Greetings from Italy!


Grazie !!!

Joyeux Noël de la France 😊


----------



## Syldon

DvL Ax3l said:


> Wish you guys an happy Christmas to all!!! Greetings from Italy!


buon Natale from the UK, have a great one.


----------



## Thronicus

Hello! i have a fast question that i might already know the answer too but i just want it confirmed. i updated my bios on my x570 formula board (5900x) and now suddenly niether my 3800mhz (casual OC) or my 4000mhz (e-peen booster) is even boot-able. made sure everything is the same, and on stock settings i can easily get into windows. 

XMP works aswell.
Roll back bios? or accept my defeat and do my 6 weeks of overclocking all over again? 

CPU
Ryzen 9 5900X Cooled by Watercool HEATKILLER® IV PRO
(fully lapped, both cpu and waterblock)
Motherboard
ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Formula
RAM
4x 8gb G-Skill Trident Z rgb 3200mhz C16D-16GTZR running at 4000mhz 17-22-22-22-40-64


----------



## Alemancio

Running 4 sticks of 8Gb beyond 3800MHz is tough on any IMC. Does it boot with only 2 sticks? Try to add little more volts on SoC maybe? Rollback is also a possibility.


Thronicus said:


> Hello! i have a fast question that i might already know the answer too but i just want it confirmed. i updated my bios on my x570 formula board (5900x) and now suddenly niether my 3800mhz (casual OC) or my 4000mhz (e-peen booster) is even boot-able. made sure everything is the same, and on stock settings i can easily get into windows.
> 
> XMP works aswell.
> Roll back bios? or accept my defeat and do my 6 weeks of overclocking all over again?
> 
> CPU
> Ryzen 9 5900X Cooled by Watercool HEATKILLER® IV PRO
> (fully lapped, both cpu and waterblock)
> Motherboard
> ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Formula
> RAM
> 4x 8gb G-Skill Trident Z rgb 3200mhz C16D-16GTZR running at 4000mhz 17-22-22-22-40-64


----------



## Iarwa1N

I updated my C8 Hero to 4301 to get PBO on bios and I thought there would also be an option for vcore offset adjustment but there is only the pbo option. Is it still not possible to offset vcore on 5800x3d?


----------



## lucky13hc

Iarwa1N said:


> I updated my C8 Hero to 4301 to get PBO on bios and I thought there would also be an option for vcore offset adjustment but there is only the pbo option. Is it still not possible to offset vcore on 5800x3d?


Where did you find the 4301?


----------



## SBuck

ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking &amp...


I am still torn re. AM5 / 7950X (longevity of AM5 expected) and Z790 / 13900K (likely end of line for LG1700). Current AM5 though needs to do s.th. on IMC re. RAM speed, IMO. Yes. My choice was plateform longevity. I hesitated a long time. And as I am gaming focused, probably I will switch my...




www.overclock.net


----------



## Reous

Final version:

Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1208.
Improve security
Improve system stability and performance
Update Raid UEFI Driver

Impact:


https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-4304.zip



Hero:


https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-4304.zip



Hero Wifi:


https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-4304.zip



Dark Hero:


https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-4304.zip



Formula:


https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-4304.zip



Extreme:


https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-EXTREME-ASUS-0904.zip


----------



## Thronicus

Alemancio said:


> Running 4 sticks of 8Gb beyond 3800MHz is tough on any IMC. Does it boot with only 2 sticks? Try to add little more volts on SoC maybe? Rollback is also a possibility.


got it working with the 3800mhz, but refuses to boot over 4000. yeah might have to if i dont figue out what causes it. for some reason the new bios is keeping the system on lower temps during load (4950 pbo and the 3800mhz) around 58c


----------



## Blackfyre

Reous said:


> Final version:
> 
> Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1208.
> Improve security
> Improve system stability and performance
> Update Raid UEFI Driver




Updated AGESA, great 
Improved Security, nice 
Improved system stability, alright 
Updated RAID UEFI Driver, well that's useful for the people that still RAID 

*Improved Performance?* Where can I find this improved performance? In what scenarios?

It's almost always mentioned and we never notice any performance changes in all application types.

Would be nice if Stability and Performance claims are more detailed so we know the specific scenarios that improved in both.


----------



## Iarwa1N

Reous said:


> Final version:
> 
> Update AGESA version to ComboV2PI 1208.
> Improve security
> Improve system stability and performance
> Update Raid UEFI Driver
> 
> Impact:
> 
> 
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-IMPACT-ASUS-4304.zip
> 
> 
> 
> Hero:
> 
> 
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-ASUS-4304.zip
> 
> 
> 
> Hero Wifi:
> 
> 
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-4304.zip
> 
> 
> 
> Dark Hero:
> 
> 
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-DARK-HERO-ASUS-4304.zip
> 
> 
> 
> Formula:
> 
> 
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-FORMULA-ASUS-4304.zip
> 
> 
> 
> Extreme:
> 
> 
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VIII-EXTREME-ASUS-0904.zip


Still no vcore offset for 5800x3d right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Geno_

Iarwa1N said:


> Still no vcore offset for 5800x3d right?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I've got vcore offset as well as CO available in my Dark Hero 4303 BIOS now - is it not there in 4304? Zentimings showing SMU 56.74.0, not sure if its different on yours?


----------



## Alemancio

Iarwa1N said:


> Still no vcore offset for 5800x3d right?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I see it on 4303 CH8 WiFi


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Finally. Native CO for the 5800X3D


----------



## Iarwa1N

Alemancio said:


> I see it on 4303 CH8 WiFi


Just to be sure I don't mean PBO when I say vcore offset, I see PBO but no vcore offset option on my C8 Hero wifi 4303.


----------



## arkantos91

Hi, I just updated to 4304.

Until now I used this tool and Windows Task Scheduler to run a task everytime I turn on my PC.

Now that I've read Asus added this option in the BIOS menu itself... where do I look for the following (-30 on all cores) 










Is this one below? Can I input -30 in that field and that's it? How to check if it has bee applied properly?


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

arkantos91 said:


> Hi, I just updated to 4304.
> 
> Until now I used this tool and Windows Task Scheduler to run a task everytime I turn on my PC.
> 
> Now that I've read Asus added this option in the BIOS menu itself... where do I look for the following (-30 on all cores)
> 
> 
> 
> Is this one below? Can I input -30 in that field and that's it? How to check if it has bee applied properly?


You go to Precision Boost Overdrive, the page where you also OC your memory.


----------



## zorn

Is there a "cheat sheet" for how to update the BIOS without killing Windows? I have the fTPM turned on due to Windows 11, and last time when I updated to 42xx it completely murdered my Windows install, had to start over from scratch. Really wanting to avoid that.


----------



## deadscreem

zorn said:


> Is there a "cheat sheet" for how to update the BIOS without killing Windows? I have the fTPM turned on due to Windows 11, and last time when I updated to 42xx it completely murdered my Windows install, had to start over from scratch. Really wanting to avoid that.


Type WindowKey+R to bring up the Run window, in Run type control and hit enter. This brings up the classic control panel. Click "View by" to Large icons if you havn't done so already, then click "Bitlocker Drive Encryption" next click "Suspend Protection". This will last until the next reboot of windows. You can now reboot and update firmware.

Do note however, that I use discrete TPM, I don't recall if fTPM has additional steps. Also not sure how it would "murder" your windows install? If anything all that would happen is you'd need to reenter your Bitlocker recovery key... If you don't have bitlocker turned on, it shouldn't ruin anything...?


----------



## denizg

DvL Ax3l said:


> During heavy gaming session I've notice some USB dropout that I never had before 🤔
> View attachment 2590334
> 
> EDIT: I've disconnected all the internal USB and reconnected, seems its solved, I don't know what's happened 😅


I've been having the exact same issue since for like a week. It started out of nowhere. Still exists. So maybe a Windows update did that? Are you still having those?


----------



## nx1987

denizg said:


> I've been having the exact same issue since for like a week. It started out of nowhere. Still exists. So maybe a Windows update did that? Are you still having those?


Wich BIOS Version?


----------



## denizg

nx1987 said:


> Wich BIOS Version?


4201 been using this version for months. i mean since its release


----------



## GRABibus

Mad Kat said:


> Ciao ragazzi, solo 2 info
> sto cercando da tempo una scheda grafica da abbinare a questa scheda asus, voi cosa avete abbinato ?
> 
> Non devo usare pc per giocare ma solo lavorarci, e non volevo spendere follie, ma che funzioni per monitor lg32 3840x2160
> 
> Ora ho montato una vecchia ati amd 5770 da 1 gb .. ma non vedo schermata avvio bios (forse sbaglio tasti per avviare)


Su vuoi, ho una EVGA RTX 3090 Kingpin Hybrid.

Dimmi in "Personal message" se vuoi comprarla


----------



## Alemancio

Mad Kat said:


> Ciao ragazzi, solo 2 info
> sto cercando da tempo una scheda grafica da abbinare a questa scheda asus, voi cosa avete abbinato ?
> 
> Non devo usare pc per giocare ma solo lavorarci, e non volevo spendere follie, ma che funzioni per monitor lg32 3840x2160
> 
> Ora ho montato una vecchia ati amd 5770 da 1 gb .. ma non vedo schermata avvio bios (forse sbaglio tasti per avviare)


Ciao, ti consiglio di passare all'inglese perché altrimenti non riceverai aiuto dalle persone, questo forum è solo in inglese. Saluti


----------



## GRABibus

Alemancio said:


> Ciao, ti consiglio di passare all'inglese perché altrimenti non riceverai aiuto dalle persone, questo forum è solo in inglese. Saluti


Grazie 😂


----------



## DvL Ax3l

denizg said:


> I've been having the exact same issue since for like a week. It started out of nowhere. Still exists. So maybe a Windows update did that? Are you still having those?


In that post I've already wrote the solution XD, anyway on the newer 4304 I don't have any issues.


DvL Ax3l said:


> EDIT: I've disconnected all the internal USB and reconnected, seems its solved, I don't know what's happened 😅


----------



## CyrIng

Are Matisse processors left over from new C8H BIOS versions ?


----------



## I love my SUPP

safedisk said:


> TUF-GAMING-B450-PLUS-II-ASUS-3810.7z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can try this version But still the AGESA version is 1207
> Thanks


Hi there, 

Do you know if the Crosshair VII Hero is getting a new BIOS soon? BIOS 4901 is not working for me, give me WHEA errors on default settings and I need the fix for the AMD fTPM random stuttering.

Thanks.


----------



## DvL Ax3l

CyrIng said:


> Are Matisse processors left over from new C8H BIOS versions ?


You can use SMU checker to check if the bios support it, anyway here it for you C8 Hero 4304.







*Use the information presented here at your OWN risk! You are responsible for your own actions and as such I can not be held responsible for any damage to your computer.*


----------



## Aaq

Is the EDC bug fixed with 4304?


----------



## GRABibus

Aaq said:


> Is the EDC bug fixed with 4304?


It is not a bug


----------



## noxious89123

N2Gaming said:


> Can anyone confirm if saving all the bios settings to a text file is possible on any make of motherboard or is this just an ASUS specific option?


As far as I'm aware, it's an Asus feature. But with that said, it's pretty rare that I touch a non-Asus motherboard.



Dansane said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm going for a new build (my first one since ~20 years) which will have an RTX 4090 as main component. Does someone know if the X570 Crosshair VIII Extreme can keep it in its first PCIe slot, maybe even with a waterblock, maybe without?
> 
> I rarely can find experiences/information about the X570 Crosshair VIII Extreme at all, is it maybe not recommended at all?
> 
> My plan is to mainly use it for video editing with Davinci Resolve (and usual work tasks) but not really for gaming. HeHe..
> 
> Presumably I'll put a Ryzen 9 5900X in and I hope I can put 128GB RAM(?) (While I'm ok to live with lower clock rates.)
> 
> The thing is that I'm continuously having ~30°C room temperature here in Indonesia (without a PC heating on top) so I believe it would help to not go with AM5 (higher power consumption), not to take the R9 5950X, having high quality VRM/MOSFETs as in the Extreme and not to OC.. Not sure if watercooling also would help to keep room temperature "low"?
> 
> I'm happy about any thoughts, thx in advance!
> 
> Edit: Alternatively I would go with the Dark Hero, is it still/more recommendable for my case?


The CH8 Extreme was launched quite late. There was the inital round of CH8 boards such as the Hero and Formula, and then the Dark Hero came a fair while after those, and then the Exteme much later again. I think most people that wanted a very high-end Ryzen 5000 build had already bought theirs when Ryzen 5000 was new, like a year before the Extreme came on the market.

Also, watercooling vs aircooling will make no difference to your room temperature. Heat is heat, and how you cool you PC just dictates how efficiently you move the heat from the CPU into the room.



Thronicus said:


> Hello! i have a fast question that i might already know the answer too but i just want it confirmed. i updated my bios on my x570 formula board (5900x) and now suddenly niether my 3800mhz (casual OC) or my 4000mhz (e-peen booster) is even boot-able. made sure everything is the same, and on stock settings i can easily get into windows.
> 
> XMP works aswell.
> Roll back bios? or accept my defeat and do my 6 weeks of overclocking all over again?
> 
> CPU
> Ryzen 9 5900X Cooled by Watercool HEATKILLER® IV PRO
> (fully lapped, both cpu and waterblock)
> Motherboard
> ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Formula
> RAM
> 4x 8gb G-Skill Trident Z rgb 3200mhz C16D-16GTZR running at 4000mhz 17-22-22-22-40-64


Are you loading your old saved BIOS profiles, or manually reinputting all of your settings? BIOS profiles are often not transferrable between different BIOS versions and can cause lots of problems. I'd recommend just saving your settings as a .txt file and then using that to help you reinput your settings manually.



GRABibus said:


> It is not a bug


Was there ever any officially comment from AMD regarding the EDC 140 "bug"?


----------



## GRABibus

noxious89123 said:


> Was there ever any officially comment from AMD regarding the EDC 140 "bug"?


I never saw any comments neither from AMD nor from ASUS on any bios except : « improve performances / Improve stability ».

If this was a bug, it would have been solved since months.

My bet is that the aim of this feature is to lock Vid at 1,425V for EDC higher or equal to 140A in order to prevent long term degradation.


----------



## Kelutrel

noxious89123 said:


> Was there ever any officially comment from AMD regarding the EDC 140 "bug"?


Robert Hallock (previously the Technical Marketing Director at AMD) mentioned on reddit, regarding the lower Vcore voltage when EDC higher than 140A, that "AMD made no changes to vcore. However, certain motherboards have recently implemented their own proprietary changes that can impact the expected/familiar vcore behavior." here

So I always assumed that originally it was a change that Asus, and other motherboard manufacturers, decided to implement (I thought that it may have been related to the Vcore overvoltage above 1.5v described here, but that is just a wild guess that exists only in my mind). But the situation became pretty obscure with time and further BIOS updates, so at this time I am not sure anymore of what is going on and who did it (and why).


----------



## noxious89123

Kelutrel said:


> Robert Hallock (previously the Technical Marketing Director at AMD) mentioned on reddit, regarding the lower Vcore voltage when EDC higher than 140A, that "AMD made no changes to vcore. However, certain motherboards have recently implemented their own proprietary changes that can impact the expected/familiar vcore behavior." here
> 
> So I always assumed that originally it was a change that Asus, and other motherboard manufacturers, decided to implement. But the situation became pretty obscure with time and further BIOS updates, so at this time I am not sure anymore of what is going on and who did it (and why).


Thank you for referencing the comment from Robert! It appears my memory is rubbish, as I've actually read, liked and commented on that post on Reddit myself in the past!


----------



## GRABibus

So maybe @shamino1978 could explain here, even briefly, this « EDC=140A » limit ?


----------



## Aaq

With BIOSv 3801 my clocks are boosting higher. R23 score goes from 28000 flat to 29000+. This is just with PBO enabled. 3801 gives me better single thread and multi thread performance compared to 4304. MW2 benchmark CPU score numbers are also decrease with 4304. Total FPS decreased by a few FPS points.

This is with a 5950X.


----------



## zorn

deadscreem said:


> Type WindowKey+R to bring up the Run window, in Run type control and hit enter. This brings up the classic control panel. Click "View by" to Large icons if you havn't done so already, then click "Bitlocker Drive Encryption" next click "Suspend Protection". This will last until the next reboot of windows. You can now reboot and update firmware.
> 
> Do note however, that I use discrete TPM, I don't recall if fTPM has additional steps. Also not sure how it would "murder" your windows install? If anything all that would happen is you'd need to reenter your Bitlocker recovery key... If you don't have bitlocker turned on, it shouldn't ruin anything...?


I have never had Bitlocker turned on. I have zero clue what happened, but with 4208 after updating, Windows would completely not load whatsoever and there was nothing I could do to recover, had to completely reinstall the OS from scratch, which really pissed me off because there was absolutely no reason for it to have happened.


----------



## GRABibus

Aaq said:


> With BIOSv 3801 my clocks are boosting higher. R23 score goes from 28000 flat to 29000+. This is just with PBO enabled. 3801 gives me better single thread and multi thread performance compared to 4304. MW2 benchmark CPU score numbers are also decrease with 4304. Total FPS decreased by a few FPS points.
> 
> This is with a 5950X.


When 3801 is installed, never change it 😊


----------



## Blackfyre

Aaq said:


> With BIOSv 3801 my clocks are boosting higher. R23 score goes from 28000 flat to 29000+. This is just with PBO enabled. 3801 gives me better single thread and multi thread performance compared to 4304. MW2 benchmark CPU score numbers are also decrease with 4304. Total FPS decreased by a few FPS points.
> 
> This is with a 5950X.


You can also under-volt (_Curve Optimizer_) much stronger with 3801 and maintain stability than with BIOS versions that followed. Which gives you even better performance.

I already had a discrete TPM that I had purchased before when the fTPM hiccups problem was annoying me, so I did not really need AGESA 1.2.0.7 which addressed the fTPM issue and fixed it.

So, I recommend you stick with that BIOS and buy a discrete TPM module. Make sure it's for the board, so for an Asus board, just search Amazon for a *discrete TPM 2.0 ASUS*


----------



## nx1987

Blackfyre said:


> You can also under-volt (_Curve Optimizer_) much stronger with 3801 and maintain stability than with BIOS versions that followed. Which gives you even better performance.
> 
> I already had a discrete TPM that I had purchased before when the fTPM hiccups problem was annoying me, so I did not really need AGESA 1.2.0.7 which addressed the fTPM issue and fixed it.
> 
> So, I recommend you stick with that BIOS and buy a discrete TPM module. Make sure it's for the board, so for an Asus board, just search Amazon for a *discrete TPM 2.0 ASUS*


sir wich CPU du you have?


----------



## safedisk

I love my SUPP said:


> Hi there,
> 
> Do you know if the Crosshair VII Hero is getting a new BIOS soon? BIOS 4901 is not working for me, give me WHEA errors on default settings and I need the fix for the AMD fTPM random stuttering.
> 
> Thanks.


Hey try this

ROG CROSSHAIR VII HERO BETA BIOS 5001





ROG-CROSSHAIR-VII-HERO-ASUS-5001.7z







drive.google.com





ROG CROSSHAIR VII HERO WIFI BETA BIOS 5001





ROG-CROSSHAIR-VII-HERO-WIFI-ASUS-5001.7z







drive.google.com


----------



## Blackfyre

nx1987 said:


> sir wich CPU du you have?


5800X


----------



## bookingyo

Updated to 4304 and I have random system stutters now.

Moving the mouse back and forth and you see 5 seconds, the same applies to gaming.

Anyone else experiencing this?

*Managed to fix this, issue was with CRU and AMD's latest drivers.


----------



## GRABibus

AMD reportedly planning Ryzen 7 7800X3D Zen4 processor with 3D V-Cache - VideoCardz.com


AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D is 21 to 30% faster than 5800X3D according to leaked slide Moore’s Law is Dead published a performance chart for the upcoming Ryzen 7 7800X3D CPU. Given the name of the processor, this should be the 8-core variant of Zen4 desktop CPU with 3D V-Cache. The slide does not...




videocardz.com


----------



## Yuke

What is the max boostclock override setting on Asus AM5 boards


----------



## GRABibus

Yuke said:


> What is the max boostclock override setting on Asus AM5 boards


200MHz


----------



## Mad Kat

why can't i access the bios?
waiting for a new gpu I put a very old ati 5770


----------



## WereCat

Using newest BIOS v. 4304 to which I upgraded after recently getting 5800X3D (I was using 3900X and some over a year old BIOS on which I haven't noticed this issue).

I've noticed that the CPU boosts only to 4450MHz at most and not to 4550MHz. I've then found the issue that the BCLK keeps fluctuating between 97.9x and 98.5x which makes the CPU, FCLK, DRAM clock lower by quite a significant margin I would say.
So the first thing I've disabled SB and VRM Spread Spectrum but to no avail, I've tried messing with C-states and power limits, etc...

After I restarted CMOS it was working fine and BCLK was at 99.8x to 100x so I went back to BIOS and started enabling everything one thing at a time to get my DRAM tune working again and I found that the moment I enable SVM Mode to get Virtualization the BCLK starts to do it's own thing for no reason. Disabling SVM always makes the BCLK behave as expected. Not sure if this is a bug and if anyone else can try to replicate it? I've already written to ASUS support but that will probably take a while to get an answer.


----------



## finas

the bclk fluctuates because you have windows hypervisor enabled in windows. Uninstall vm software like vmware or virtualbox or windows virtualization and disable the "memory integrity" option inside "core isolation " option of microsof security center, reboot and you will have a stable bclk again.



WereCat said:


> Using newest BIOS v. 4304 to which I upgraded after recently getting 5800X3D (I was using 3900X and some over a year old BIOS on which I haven't noticed this issue).
> 
> I've noticed that the CPU boosts only to 4450MHz at most and not to 4550MHz. I've then found the issue that the BCLK keeps fluctuating between 97.9x and 98.5x which makes the CPU, FCLK, DRAM clock lower by quite a significant margin I would say.
> So the first thing I've disabled SB and VRM Spread Spectrum but to no avail, I've tried messing with C-states and power limits, etc...
> 
> After I restarted CMOS it was working fine and BCLK was at 99.8x to 100x so I went back to BIOS and started enabling everything one thing at a time to get my DRAM tune working again and I found that the moment I enable SVM Mode to get Virtualization the BCLK starts to do it's own thing for no reason. Disabling SVM always makes the BCLK behave as expected. Not sure if this is a bug and if anyone else can try to replicate it? I've already written to ASUS support but that will probably take a while to get an answer.


----------



## WereCat

finas said:


> the bclk fluctuates because you have windows hypervisor enabled in windows. Uninstall vm software like vmware or virtualbox or windows virtualization and disable the "memory integrity" option inside "core isolation " option of microsof security center, reboot and you will have a stable bclk again.


Thanks, at least I know it's a Windows thing and not a BIOS thing.

I've disabled Windows Sandbox and Memory Integrity and it works, the BLCK is back to normal. But that defeats the purpose of wanting to use virtualization, it's easier to go to BIOS and disable SVM instead as Windows requires me to restart the PC anyways if I decide to re-enable Sandbox.


----------



## WereCat

Hi, once again. I've recently upgraded to 5800X3D and I'm getting higher latency in Aida64 than what I've got with my 3900X which was using slower memory config and looser timings. I've seen screenshots of people that had worse timings and sub 60ns latency yet I can't get under 65ns for some reason.
But I have to admit that I was using much older Aida64 version before so not sure if the way it measures latency changed (was getting around 64ns with 3900x at 3600Cl16 with looser subtimings).

My actual performance is great, actually above avg I would say (getting over 5900 points in CB R20, 341GFlops in Linpack Extreme Extended 8GB), it's just the latency measurement I'm not really sure about.
Also if anybody can look at my timings and push me in the right direction... not sure if I should stop at what I've got now or if I it's worth tightening even more. The timings on screenshot are stable at least with 420% coverage, I'll let that run over night for more coverage.

I'm using two kits of 2x16GB Micron E-die Dual Rank sticks.


















I'm especially confused with the 2nd column of timings in the ZenTimings, most of those I've set based on DRAM calc, most of the 1st column I've set myself. I can boot with tCL 14 but I need to go as high as 1.55V on DRAM and I haven't tested that for stability yet, right now I'm using 1.46V.
Also at this voltage at least I can't go lower with tRCDRD and tRC. tRFC is also not booting when I set it lower but it's just probably because it's E-die.
Can't boot with GDM disabled even at JEDEC.

Also I'm using 110% DRAM current capability otherwise I experience random PC shutdowns when set to default 100% even on JEDEC speeds (happened with 3900X as well since 2019 when I got this system). This does not happen if I only use 2 sticks instead of 4.


----------



## Kelutrel

WereCat said:


> Hi, once again. I've recently upgraded to 5800X3D and I'm getting higher latency in Aida64 than what I've got with my 3900X which was using slower memory config and looser timings. I've seen screenshots of people that had worse timings and sub 60ns latency yet I can't get under 65ns for some reason.
> But I have to admit that I was using much older Aida64 version before so not sure if the way it measures latency changed (was getting around 64ns with 3900x at 3600Cl16 with looser subtimings).
> 
> My actual performance is great, actually above avg I would say (getting over 5900 points in CB R20, 341GFlops in Linpack Extreme Extended 8GB), it's just the latency measurement I'm not really sure about.
> Also if anybody can look at my timings and push me in the right direction... not sure if I should stop at what I've got now or if I it's worth tightening even more. The timings on screenshot are stable at least with 420% coverage, I'll let that run over night for more coverage.
> 
> I'm using two kits of 2x16GB Micron E-die Dual Rank sticks.


Your tRFC is very high, and it is probably the single value that is adding the most to your latency, but even considering that it looks to me that your latency is higher than expected.
Any chance to get your BIOS configuration exported to a txt file and posted here ?


----------



## WereCat

Kelutrel said:


> Your tRFC is very high, and it is probably the single value that is adding the most to your latency, but even considering that it looks to me that your latency is higher than expected.
> Any chance to get your BIOS configuration exported to a txt file and posted here ?


From what I understand the tRFC being high is a limitation of Micron E-die. I've seen everybody with E-die to use above more than 500 tRFC at high clock speeds. And I tried to go lower but I wont even boot.

Here is the BIOS text file with settings.

All the AUTO values are the same as the values from DRAM calc so I did not change them.


----------



## Kelutrel

WereCat said:


> From what I understand the tRFC being high is a limitation of Micron E-die. I've seen everybody with E-die to use above more than 500 tRFC at high clock speeds. And I tried to go lower but I wont even boot.
> 
> Here is the BIOS text file with settings.
> 
> All the AUTO values are the same as the values from DRAM calc so I did not change them.


Uhmmm ... try to set all these ones to Disabled:

*Power Down Enable* [Auto]
*L1 Stream HW Prefetcher* [Auto]
*L2 Stream HW Prefetcher* [Auto]
*TSME* [Auto]

and check again the AIDA64 reported latency.
You can use the Search function in the BIOS to locate the actual configuration setting.


----------



## WereCat

Kelutrel said:


> Uhmmm ... try to set all these ones to Disabled:
> 
> *Power Down Enable* [Auto]
> *L1 Stream HW Prefetcher* [Auto]
> *L2 Stream HW Prefetcher* [Auto]
> *TSME* [Auto]
> 
> and check again the AIDA64 reported latency.
> You can use the Search function in the BIOS to locate the actual configuration setting.


Hey that actually worked quite well.

Power Down was already disabled by default but rest was apparently enabled. Even on my 3900X I had L1 and L2 stream enabled based on a guide but I never messed with TSME.

This lowered latency by around 4ns and immediately propelled my CB R20 score to 6000 in the first 2 runs. I also managed to score around 100 to 200 points more in CPU bench of Time Spy (12707 points) However Linpack Extreme now consistently sits at around 4GFlops lower than before (not that big deal).


















I've also tried to manually change Memory Interleaving Size to 512B after the fact but I see no change in performance.
Thanks for help, I'm about to hit the bed and let this run trough RAM Test over night.


----------



## noxious89123

Kelutrel said:


> Your tRFC is very high, and it is probably the single value that is adding the most to your latency, but even considering that it looks to me that your latency is higher than expected.
> Any chance to get your BIOS configuration exported to a txt file and posted here ?


tRFC looks correct to me, considering that WereCat is using Micron rev E.

There's a good reference image from Hardwareluxx that shows the ballpark figures for tRFC on different ICs.


----------



## Blackfyre

WereCat said:


> Hey that actually worked quite well.
> 
> Power Down was already disabled by default but rest was apparently enabled. Even on my 3900X I had L1 and L2 stream enabled based on a guide but I never messed with TSME.
> 
> This lowered latency by around 4ns and immediately propelled my CB R20 score to 6000 in the first 2 runs. I also managed to score around 100 to 200 points more in CPU bench of Time Spy (12707 points) However Linpack Extreme now consistently sits at around 4GFlops lower than before (not that big deal).


Nice. Alright now save your BIOS Profile.

And change tRFC from 560 to 556, then test 550, then test 544, then 540, etc

I can run 536 stable.

Once you've found your lowest tRFC stable, we'll move on to other numbers.


----------



## WereCat

Blackfyre said:


> Nice. Alright now save your BIOS Profile.
> 
> And change tRFC from 560 to 556, then test 550, then test 544, then 540, etc
> 
> I can run 536 stable.
> 
> Once you've found your lowest tRFC stable, we'll move on to other numbers.


Actually it seems like I will have to increase tRFC.

I've previously tested up to 600% coverage with tRFC 560 and got no errors but after I've let it over night up to 8000% coverage I've got 24 errors. Also right now I'm testing and above 700% coverage I keep getting errors, I've tried going from 1.46V to 1.475V on DRAM but I still get errors.

I can't boot at tRFC 540 but at tRFC 545 I can boot but I get multiple errors before even 10% coverage and for some reason tRFC 550 does not even boot as well.

So once I get what I have to stable state I will post again. Seems like tRFC 560 is at the very edge of stability so I will probably not have to increase it too much.

EDIT:

Maybe I can get tRFC 545 to work. I just passed 200% coverage with no errors. I found that I have quite a bit of Vdroop on SOC so I bumped it by 0.02V and now it seems to do a lot better, I'll let that run over night but it seems very promising considering the fact that before I could not even pass 10% coverage. At least that should get tRFC 560 to work stable.
Still can't boot at 540 though.


----------



## seb1k

Hi,
I've recently purchased 5800x3d, however I'm unable to post it on my Crosshair Hero VIII wifi with dual channel ram - getting 0d error.
I've tried the following to make it work:

Flashed to BIOS 4006, 4201, 4304 multiple times.
Used Crucial BL8G36C16U4B.M8FE1, Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3200C16, G.Skill F4-3600C16D-16GTZKW on each BIOS
Also, on each BIOS rev I reseated RAM sticks to various configs - (A2 & B2, A1 & B1, plus swapped dimms around) + cleared CMOS multple times
Run with and without DOCP and voltage 1.35 and 1.45
Set SOC Voltage Auto and 1.05
The system posts with RAM in either A1, A2 and both A1+A2.

I've managed to run the 5800x3d on my Crosshair VI Hero with DOCP enabled and RAM voltage set on 1.45 (both on 2 and 4 stick of Crucials) which I believe rules out a faulty memory controller on the CPU.
I can run 4 sticks of RAM with my 5600x and CH8W without issues which proves the mobo is not faulty?

Does anybody have any ideas?


----------



## noxious89123

Hmm, very odd. I would have suspected hardware failure, but given your thorough testing with multiple RAM kits as well as a second CPU and second motherboard, I'm a bit stumped.

Are you able to get in to BIOS at all with RAM in A2 + B2?

Have you tried using the RETRY_BUTTON and SAFE_BOOT buttons on the bottom edge of the motherboard? Perhaps they can help you at least get past POST.


----------



## Kelutrel

seb1k said:


> Hi,
> I've recently purchased 5800x3d, however I'm unable to post it on my Crosshair Hero VIII wifi with dual channel ram - getting 0d error.
> I've tried the following to make it work:
> 
> Flashed to BIOS 4006, 4201, 4304 multiple times.
> Used Crucial BL8G36C16U4B.M8FE1, Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3200C16, G.Skill F4-3600C16D-16GTZKW on each BIOS
> Also, on each BIOS rev I reseated RAM sticks to various configs - (A2 & B2, A1 & B1, plus swapped dimms around) + cleared CMOS multple times
> Run with and without DOCP and voltage 1.35 and 1.45
> Set SOC Voltage Auto and 1.05
> The system posts with RAM in either A1, A2 and both A1+A2.
> 
> I've managed to run the 5800x3d on my Crosshair VI Hero with DOCP enabled and RAM voltage set on 1.45 (both on 2 and 4 stick of Crucials) which I believe rules out a faulty memory controller on the CPU.
> I can run 4 sticks of RAM with my 5600x and CH8W without issues which proves the mobo is not faulty?
> 
> Does anybody have any ideas?


Bet it's VDDG CCD/IOD/VDDP ... so, just to try, you may want to set:
*VDDG CCD Voltage Control*: 1.05v
*VDDG IOD Voltage Control*: 1.05v
*CLDO VDDP Voltage*: 0.95v
These are in the same screen where you set the ram voltage, just under it. Eventually, you may also want to try 1.0v/1.0v/0.9v .
Use the F4-3600C16D-16GTZKW kit to try, and set them to [email protected]/1800 and 1.36v.
I had a 3200 G.SKILL kit that did the same, starting from some BIOS version onward, and I couldn't boot even with Optimised Defaults unless I tweaked those, it's just a guess though.


----------



## Kelutrel

WereCat said:


> Actually it seems like I will have to increase tRFC.
> 
> I've previously tested up to 600% coverage with tRFC 560 and got no errors but after I've let it over night up to 8000% coverage I've got 24 errors. Also right now I'm testing and above 700% coverage I keep getting errors, I've tried going from 1.46V to 1.475V on DRAM but I still get errors.
> 
> I can't boot at tRFC 540 but at tRFC 545 I can boot but I get multiple errors before even 10% coverage and for some reason tRFC 550 does not even boot as well.
> 
> So once I get what I have to stable state I will post again. Seems like tRFC 560 is at the very edge of stability so I will probably not have to increase it too much.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> Maybe I can get tRFC 545 to work. I just passed 200% coverage with no errors. I found that I have quite a bit of Vdroop on SOC so I bumped it by 0.02V and now it seems to do a lot better, I'll let that run over night but it seems very promising considering the fact that before I could not even pass 10% coverage. At least that should get tRFC 560 to work stable.
> Still can't boot at 540 though.


For stability and performances you may also want to set Memory Interleaving Size to 256B (512B is optimal when you have the Stream HW Prefetchers enabled, but I believe you have them disabled now and it is better if you leave them disabled).


----------



## seb1k

noxious89123 said:


> Hmm, very odd. I would have suspected hardware failure, but given your thorough testing with multiple RAM kits as well as a second CPU and second motherboard, I'm a bit stumped.
> 
> Are you able to get in to BIOS at all with RAM in A2 + B2?
> 
> Have you tried using the RETRY_BUTTON and SAFE_BOOT buttons on the bottom edge of the motherboard? Perhaps they can help you at least get past POST.


Cheers noxious89123.
No luck at all with neither A2 or B2 and buttons you mentioned.



Kelutrel said:


> Bet it's VDDG CCD/IOD/VDDP ... so, just to try, you may want to set:
> *VDDG CCD Voltage Control*: 1.05v
> *VDDG IOD Voltage Control*: 1.05v
> *CLDO VDDP Voltage*: 0.95v
> These are in the same screen where you set the ram voltage, just under it. Eventually, you may also want to try 1.0v/1.0v/0.9v .
> Use the F4-3600C16D-16GTZKW kit to try, and set them to [email protected]/1800 and 1.36v.
> I had a 3200 G.SKILL kit that did the same, starting from some BIOS version onward, and I couldn't boot even with Optimised Defaults unless I tweaked those, it's just a guess though.


Thanks Kelutrel. I've tried setting the voltages up as you suggested, but so far no joy with Crucials and Corsair kit. Will try G.SKILLS tomorrow...

I'm really puzzled.
Forgot to mention when I first plopped CPU in (had 4201 BIOS at the time), it posted out of the box and I was able to go to BIOS with 4 Crucial sticks, but before I started to play with settings the PC reset itself and I'm getting F9 0d ever since. It works on C6H though, so I recon there is some tuning required to make it work on the bloody daisy chain board...


----------



## WereCat

Kelutrel said:


> For stability and performances you may also want to set Memory Interleaving Size to 256B (512B is optimal when you have the Stream HW Prefetchers enabled, but I believe you have them disabled now and it is better if you leave them disabled).





Blackfyre said:


> Nice. Alright now save your BIOS Profile.
> 
> And change tRFC from 560 to 556, then test 550, then test 544, then 540, etc
> 
> I can run 536 stable.
> 
> Once you've found your lowest tRFC stable, we'll move on to other numbers.


Looks like SOC Vdroop was really all it took to get tRFC 545 stable. Now it's set to 1.08125V in BIOS and HWinfo reports 1.063V, before it dropped as low as 1.04V.










I've also tried CL14 at 1.55V DRAM and 1/2 VTTDDR but it's not stable, got error before I got 15% coverage. Didn't tried increasing SOC though.
But it got me under 60ns for Aida64 at least for a moment.










That said I don't feel like I want to go higher with SOC even if it allows me tighter timings, I'm already struggling to hit 6000 points in CB R20 as the SOC bump up by 0.02V uses enough power that my CPU is hitting power limit which is interesting. Not sure if there is anything timing wise to improve, the SCL don't go any lower, tRDWR does not want to go lower, haven't tried lowering tCWL / tRCDWR / tRP more yet. tRAS works at 36 too but I haven't noticed any change in latency or performance.


----------



## stimpy88

Kelutrel said:


> For stability and performances you may also want to set Memory Interleaving Size to 256B (512B is optimal when you have the Stream HW Prefetchers enabled, but I believe you have them disabled now and it is better if you leave them disabled).


@Kelutrel - If you have time and are willing, would you post your BIOS settings aimed at optimizing performance on this MB? You have so many nice tweaks and knowledge posted all over this thread, but it would be amazing to have them all in one place for reference!

FYI - HERE is a nice article about the performance impact of the TSME option which I had no idea about, until your post! Thanks!


----------



## finas

stimpy88 said:


> @Kelutrel - If you have time and are willing, would you post your BIOS settings aimed at optimizing performance on this MB? You have so many nice tweaks and knowledge posted all over this thread, but it would be amazing to have them all in one place for reference!
> 
> FYI - HERE is a nice article about the performance impact of the TSME option which I had no idea about, until your post! Thanks!


where is the nice article?


----------



## pfinch

Kelutrel said:


> For stability and performances you may also want to set Memory Interleaving Size to 256B (512B is optimal when you have the Stream HW Prefetchers enabled, but I believe you have them disabled now and it is better if you leave them disabled).


hearing this for the first time. thanks


----------



## Kelutrel

finas said:


> where is the nice article?


I got the TSME relation to RAM latency from this reddit thread (and there was another thread somewhere that was mentioning that TSME is automatically enabled from a certain AGESA version onward, but I did not write that down). It includes an AMD paper explaining the technology, and mentioning the impact on latency, together with an independent Linux benchmark on the performance impact. The performance impact in real world applications is negligible (but when benchmarking every little bit helps), and the change in the latency results in AIDA64 are in the margin of error, but the AMD paper states "the AES engine does incur a small amount of additional latency for DRAM memory accesses." so I keep it Disabled, also having it disabled probably relieves the memory controller from some additional work. The kind of security attacks that are avoided by the RAM encryption feature require the malicious individual to have physical access to the motherboard and some advanced technology, so I don't mind having it off, ymmv.

Note that TSME is the transparent automatic version of the RAM encryption feature, and is used on OSs that don't offer support for the actual managed feature (called SME or SEV). Windows is one of those OS that do not offer support for SME.


----------



## Kelutrel

stimpy88 said:


> @Kelutrel - If you have time and are willing, would you post your BIOS settings aimed at optimizing performance on this MB? You have so many nice tweaks and knowledge posted all over this thread, but it would be amazing to have them all in one place for reference!


Nah... too much stuff, my bios configuration is a mess.

P.s.
Go to "Advanced\AMD CBS\CPU Common Options" and set Local APIC Mode to X2APIC, its better for your IRQ latency and throughput.


----------



## noxious89123

Kelutrel said:


> P.s.
> Go to "Advanced\AMD CBS\CPU Common Options" and set Local APIC Mode to X2APIC, its better for your IRQ latency and throughput.


What does this do?


----------



## Kelutrel

noxious89123 said:


> What does this do?





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Programmable_Interrupt_Controller#X2APIC



The interesting bit is "The improved interface reduces the number of needed APIC register accesses for sending inter-processor interrupts". What he is saying is that the X2APIC interface uses MSR registers to send parameters for the interrupt, instead of aligned 64bits RAM addresses, and this avoids the CPU having to spend extra cycles to read and validate the address alignment and breaking it in two 32bits parts for writing through the MMIO. X2APIC is not enabled by default because ancient cards drivers may not be compatible with it, but they should be very very old. You can use LatencyMon to benchmark any difference.


----------



## pfinch

Kelutrel said:


> Uhmmm ... try to set all these ones to Disabled:
> 
> *Power Down Enable* [Auto]
> *L1 Stream HW Prefetcher* [Auto]
> *L2 Stream HW Prefetcher* [Auto]
> *TSME* [Auto]
> 
> and check again the AIDA64 reported latency.
> You can use the Search function in the BIOS to locate the actual configuration setting.


Where do I find Power Down Enable? This entry is listed 3 times (RAM and where are the other ones?) :-(


----------



## bt1

Kelutrel said:


> set Local APIC Mode to X2APIC


That will disable CPPC, so choose carefully


----------



## Kelutrel

bt1 said:


> That will disable CPPC, so choose carefully


This looks to be true, I didn't know this. Then the differences I get in latency and scores are probably also due to the absence of CPPC.


----------



## stimpy88

finas said:


> where is the nice article?


This site seems to remove the link to the Phoronix article - *AMD Secure Memory Encryption "SME" Performance With 4th Gen EPYC Genoa...*


----------



## stimpy88

Kelutrel said:


> This looks to be true, I didn't know this. Then the differences I get in latency and scores are probably also due to the absence of CPPC.


Is this actually a bad thing? I still hear about Windows 11 still not working properly with this feature, and assigning work to non-logical cores, as well as gamers sying their games run smoother without CPPC.

I just tried setting Local APIC Mode to X2APICing, and it stopped my CPU going faster than 3.41GHz


----------



## finas

stimpy88 said:


> Is this actually a bad thing? I still hear about Windows 11 still not working properly with this feature, and assigning work to non-logical cores, as well as gamers sying their games run smoother without CPPC.
> 
> I just tried setting Local APIC Mode to X2APICing, and it stopped my CPU going faster than 3.41GHz


that's interesting. For me, only windows task manager says that the speed is locked to 3.41 but hwinfo shows the cpu boosting normaly.


----------



## stimpy88

finas said:


> that's interesting. For me, only windows task manager says that the speed is locked to 3.41 but hwinfo shows the cpu boosting normaly.


Interesting, I never looked anywhere else, just task manager...


----------



## denizg

Is it better to update BIOS to 4304 or go back to 3801? I'm on 4201 and I've read people saying 3801 is the best version 🤔


----------



## Blackfyre

denizg said:


> Is it better to update BIOS to 4304 or go back to 3801? I'm on 4201 and I've read people saying 3801 is the best version 🤔


As someone who has went back to 3801. The only time I recommend you go back to 3801 is if these two conditions are met:

1. You *HAVE* a _discrete TPM module_ installed on your motherboard.

2. You *DO NOT* have a _5800X3D_, because old BIOS are not compatible with it and your PC will not boot if you switch to an old BIOS.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Guys, what TPM module to purchase LPC one or SPI?? kinda confused on which to get.


----------



## CyrIng

Kelutrel said:


> This looks to be true, I didn't know this. Then the differences I get in latency and scores are probably also due to the absence of CPPC.


This is what I tried to show in CoreFreq. CPPC frequency capabilities are missing when x2APIC is chosen. The ACPI objects needed by CPPC are not built, not exposed to the Linux kernel; and P-state remains fixed.

CoreFreq ISO at www.cyring.fr


----------



## Kelutrel

stimpy88 said:


> I just tried setting Local APIC Mode to X2APICing, and it stopped my CPU going faster than 3.41GHz


That's unexpected. On my Win11 and 5950X, when using X2APIC, I get somehow higher I/O intensive benchmark scores and lower LatencyMon latencies. Both HwINFO and Cpu-Z return the expected values for cores frequencies and sleep state residency. I have the IOMMU set to Enabled in my BIOS config, and my Win11 also has VBS enabled.
I was not aware about it disabling CPPC, but all my cores can go over 5GHz and my two best cores 0 and 1 still receive most of the heavy load (although probably not as much as when Preferred Cores is correctly set) so I may have not noticed.
Due to 3DMark being one of the benchmarks that gets slightly higher scores, and due to the better minimum FPS values that I get in games, I keep it set to X2APIC, but ymmv.
If you can find any benchmark that returns worse scores when using X2APIC (due to the absence of CPPC or not) please let me know.


----------



## finas

Kelutrel said:


> That's unexpected. On my Win11 and 5950X, when using X2APIC, I get somehow higher I/O intensive benchmark scores and lower LatencyMon latencies. Both HwINFO and Cpu-Z return the expected values for cores frequencies and sleep state residency. I have the IOMMU set to Enabled in my BIOS config, and my Win11 also has VBS enabled.
> I was not aware about it disabling CPPC, but all my cores can go over 5GHz and my two best cores 0 and 1 still receive most of the heavy load (although probably not as much as when Preferred Cores is correctly set) so I may have not noticed.
> Due to 3DMark being one of the benchmarks that gets slightly higher scores, and due to the better minimum FPS values that I get in games, I keep it set to X2APIC, but ymmv.
> If you can find any benchmark that returns worse scores when using X2APIC (due to the absence of CPPC or not) please let me know.


but do you also see the same behavior in task manager ( displayed frequency is 3.41 ) ?


----------



## deadscreem

kairi_zeroblade said:


> Guys, what TPM module to purchase LPC one or SPI?? kinda confused on which to get.


The compatible TPM for CH8W is ASUS TPM-M R2.0 which is I believe the LPC version.


----------

